COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 establishing an action programme for customs in the European Union for the period 2014-2020 (Customs 2020) and repealing Decision No 624/2007/EC Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU customs procedure, EU programme, cross-border cooperation, customs cooperation, customs regulations, customs union

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.2.2019  SWD(2019) 14 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 establishing an action programme for customs in the European Union for the period 2014-2020 (Customs 2020) and repealing Decision No 624/2007/EC Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council  Mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme {COM(2019) 57 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1.  INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 3 

Context .................................................................................................................................... 3 

Purpose and scope of the mid-term evaluation ........................................................................ 3 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ........................................................................... 4 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ................................................................... 4 

Baseline and points of comparison .......................................................................................... 5 

3.  IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ................................................................................ 6 

Description of the current situation ......................................................................................... 6 

Awareness of the programme .................................................................................................. 8 

4.  METHOD .................................................................................................................................... 9 

Short description of methodology ........................................................................................... 9 

Limitations and robustness of findings .................................................................................... 9 

Changes to the original design ............................................................................................... 11 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................ 12 

EQ 1: Do the different objectives of the programme (in the Regulation and in its work 
programmes) correspond to the needs of the national customs administrations, economic 
operators and citizens?........................................................................................................... 12 

EQ 2: To what extent has the programme reinforced cooperation and improved information-
sharing between customs authorities of participating countries? .......................................... 16 

EQ 3: To what extent have economic operators used and benefited from the programme? . 22 

EQ 4: To what extent has the programme contributed to the achievement of its specific 
objectives? ............................................................................................................................. 23 

EQ 5: To what extent have the design and management of the programme been conducive to 
achieving the desired results? ................................................................................................ 27 

EQ 6. To what extent have the programme's resources produced best possible results at the 
lowest results at the lowest possible costs ? .......................................................................... 32 

EQ 7: To what extent does the programme demonstrate internal and external coherence? .. 35 

EQ 8: To what extent does the programme provide EU added value? .................................. 39 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 45 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 51 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................................ 55 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................................ 64 

ANNEX 4: KEY FEATURES OF THE JOINT ACTIONS .......................................................... 68 

1 

 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Authorised Economic Operator 
Anti-fraud Information Systems 
Activity Reporting Tool 
Anti-Fraud Transit Information System 
Annual Work Programme 
Common Communication Network/Common Systems Interface 
Customs Eastern and South-Eastern Land Border Expert Team 
Communication and Information Resource Centre 
Customs Information Systems 
Common Learning Events Programme  
anti-Counterfeit and anti-Piracy Information System  
Common Risk Management Framework 
Customs Risk Management System 
Customer Reference System 
Common Services / Reference Data 
Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union 
European Binding Tariff Information 
European Customs Inventory of Chemical Substances 
Export Control System 
European Information Systems  
Entry Summary Declaration 
Economic Operator Identification and Registration 

AEO 
AFIS 
ART 
ATIS 
AWP 
CCN/CSI 
CELBET 
CIRCABC 
CIS 
CLEP 
COPIS 
CRMF 
CRMS 
CRS 
CS/RD 
DG TAXUD 
EBTI 
ECICS 
ECS 
EIS 
ENS 
EORI 
EU Customs CFW  EU Competency Framework for customs 
ICS 
IPR 
MFF 
NCTS 
OLAF 
PCG 
PICS 
PMF 
RIF 
QUOTA 
REX 
SASP 
SMS 
STTA 
TARIC 
UCC 

Import Control System 
Intellectual Property Rights 
Multiannual Financial Framework  
New Computerised Transit System  
European Anti-Fraud Office  
Programme Coordination Group 
Programmes Information and Collaboration Space  
Performance Measurement Framework 
Risk Information Forms 
Electronic system for quota management / allocation 
Registered Exporters IT System 
Single Authorisation for Simplified Procedures 
Specimen Management System 
Standard Transit Test Application 
The integrated Tariff of the European Unions 
Union Customs Code 

2 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Context 

The  Customs  Union  is  a  foundation  of  the  European  Union  and  an  essential  element  in  the 
functioning  of  the  single  market.  Many  of  the  activities  in  the  customs  area  are  of  a  cross-
border nature, involving and affecting all Member States. The EU Customs Union territory is 
governed  by  common  rules  and  procedures  laid  down  in  the  Union  Customs  Code  (UCC)1. 
They  require  proper  and  uniform  implementation  and  application  across  the  EU.  Moreover, 
customs  policy  and  the  customs  administrations  constantly  need  to  adapt  to  modern  trade 
realities  and  modern  communication  tools.  The  UCC  is  a  milestone  in  modernising  EU 
customs,  and  the  EU’s  Customs  2020  action  programme  is  indispensable  in  supporting  its 
implementation.  

The  Customs  2020  programme  was  set  up  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  1294/2013  of  11th  of 
December  20132  as  a  multiannual  action  programme  for  customs  in  the  EU,  to  facilitate  and 
enhance cooperation between national administrations. In accordance with Article 18(1)(2) of 
the Regulation, the Commission carried out a mid-term evaluation of the programme.  

Purpose and scope of the mid-term evaluation 

The  purpose  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  is  to  assess  the  programme  since  its  start  on  1st  of 
January 2014 up to  the  half-way  of the programme’s implementation.  The temporal scope of 
the  evaluation  runs  from  the  programme’s  establishment  until  2017,  depending  on  the 
availability of relevant data. 

The  mid-term  evaluation  sought  to  shed  light  on  the  (1)  achievement  of  the  objectives  and 
programme’s  performance  so  far;  (2)  strengths,  weaknesses  and  value  for  money  of  the 
different activities supported; (3) continued relevance of the programme for the Customs Union 
and customs administrations; (4) coherence and synergies with other EU policies and priorities; 
and (5)  value  added thanks  to  acting at  the EU  level.  Moreover, the evaluation  examined  (6) 
any unintended and/or unexpected effects of the programme and its activities; (7) how well the 
Performance  Measurement  Framework,  which  was  put  in  place  to  monitor  the  programme  in 
2014  has  delivered  on  its  objectives,  and  finally  (8)  implementation  and  follow-up  of 
recommendations made for previous evaluations. For accountability and learning purposes, the 
evaluation provided recommendations for future improvement of the programme’s functioning.  

1   Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down 

the Union Customs Code; 

2   Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013 stablishing an action programme for customs in the European Union for the 

period 2014-2020; 

3 

 
 
                                                           
The  evaluation  took  into  account  the  programme’s  full  range  of  funded  and  management 
activities,  stakeholders  (national  administrations,  the  Commission  services  and  economic 
operators) and participating countries (including candidate and potential candidate countries).  

The  present  evaluation  staff  working  document  is  based  on  the  findings  and  conclusions 
presented  in  the  supporting  external  study  (see:  Annex  1  for  organisational  details).  The 
Commission appreciates the overall quality of the said study, acknowledges the methodological 
difficulties  and  efforts  undertaken  to  mitigate  them.  The  findings  are  deemed  robust  and  the 
conclusions accurately drawn.   

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Figure 1 presents the main features of the Customs 2020 programme in terms of its objectives, 
supported  activities,  beneficiaries  and  overall  financial  envelope.  The  intervention  logic 
underpinning the evaluation is presented in Annex 3.      

Figure 1. Key features of the Customs 2020 programme 

Source: DG TAXUD;  

4 

 
 
Altogether,  34  national  administrations  take  part  in  the  programme’s  activities.  The 
Commission  manages  the  Customs  2020  programme  centrally  through  direct  management, 
with  assistance  the  of  the  Customs  2020  Committee  ensuring  external  coordination.  The 
Customs  2020  Committee  is  a  comitology  committee3  composed  of  delegates  from  each 
Member  State.  The  internal  Commission  coordination  is  ensured  via  various  mechanisms, 
including a Programme Coordination Group. The internal coordination aims at, among others, 
identifying policy priorities for the Annual Work Programmes, reinforcing coherence between 
the programme activities and the customs policy, coherence between the programme activities 
the  overall 
themselves,  monitoring  of 
transparency and dissemination of information.  

the  programme’s  performance  and 

increasing 

Baseline and points of comparison  

The  Customs  2020  programme  builds  upon  previous  iterations  of  the  programme  and  the 
Customs programme as such has been in place for over 25 years. It allows for continuity of the 
efforts  towards a well-functioning Customs  Union, and thus  single market,  and EU’s broader 
policy goals. At the same time, despite the continuous character of all supported activities, the 
incremental  changes  introduced  throughout  the  years  to  the  supported  IT  systems,  as  well  as 
changing  priorities  and  objectives  pursued,  it  would  have  not  been  useful  to  establish  any 
performance  benchmarks  or  seek  trends  across  the  programme’s  iterations4.  The  IT  systems, 
constituting approximately 85% of the programme’s expenditure, have long become an integral 
part of the national and EU customs landscapes. In fact, the programme (and its iterations) has 
been  around  too  long  for  most  stakeholders  to  meaningfully  consider  the  situation  before  it 
started. The programme has evolved along the changes of the customs landscape including the 
opportunities of increasing digitalisation and automation. 

Still,  in  line  with  the  Commission’s  commitment  to  monitor  the  EU  budget  and  ensure  the 
accountability  for  value  for  money,  to  facilitate  this  task  DG  TAXUD  has  developed  a 
framework  for  monitoring  the  outputs  and  results  of  the  programme  –  the  Performance 
Monitoring Framework (PMF). It is a results-based monitoring system containing intervention 
logic, adjustable indicators, data collection schemes and reporting arrangements. The PMF has 
been  put  in  place  for  the  current  iteration  of  the  Customs  programme,  following 
recommendations of earlier evaluations to  provide more and better data to assess programme 
implementation and performance. Whereas it does already facilitate performance management, 
the  framework  is  still  too  fresh  to  provide  insightful  benchmarks  for  the  programme’s 
performance or establish and examine trends. Nevertheless, whatever comparisons could have 
been drawn across the years of the programme’s operations are included in the analysis.   

3   Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  February  2011  laying 
down  the  rules  and  general  principles  concerning  mechanisms  for  control  by  Member  States  of  the 
Commission’s exercise of implementing powers; 

4   With the exception of the programme poll, which is launched approximately every 18 months; 

5 

 
                                                           
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Description of the current situation  

The Commission reports on the implementation and performance of the programme annually, 
through the Annual Progress Reports. To date, reports for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are available. 
The overview of the programme’s implementation presented here is based mostly on the latest 
available report5 updated for most recent information where available.   

The  vast  majority  of  funding  goes  into  the  development  and  operation  of  the  IT  systems, 
followed  by  the  organisation  of  the  joint  actions,  studies  and  training  activities.  Table  1 
presents the committed expenses per year and by main categories of activities. 

2016 

2014 

€ 5 500 000 

€ 5 993 000 

Table 1. Committed expenses per year and by main action categories of activities  
2015 
Category of 
activity 
Joint actions 
(Grants) 
Joint actions 
(Reimbursements) 
Expert teams 
(Grants) 
Studies 
(Procurement) 
IT (Procurement) 

€ 56 300 000 

€ 71 800 000 

€ 58 146 000 

€ 58 001 000 

€ 2 300 000 

€ 2 830 000 

€ 5 350 000 

€ 2 000 000 

€ 3 445 000 

€ 1 500 000 

€ 1 960 000 

€ 5 400 000 

€ 170 000 

€ 200 000 

€ 200 000 

€ 120 000 

2017 

-  

- 

Total 2014-
2017 
€ 22 243 000 

€ 690 000  

€ 3 460 000  

€ 10 575 000  

% 

7.7 % 

0.2 % 

1.2 % 

3.7 % 

€ 244 247 000   84.6 % 

Training 
(Procurement) 
Total  

€ 1 500 000 

€ 1 600 000 

€ 2 662 000 

€ 1 745 000 

€ 7 507 000  

2.6 % 

€ 66 289 000 

€ 68 801 000 

€ 71 733 000 

€ 81 895 000 

€ 288 722 000   100 % 

Source: ‘Mid-term evaluation for the Customs 2020 programme’, Customs 2020 Work Programmes 2014-2017, 
figures rearranged into the main spending categories; 

There are a  few aspects  worth  mentioning. Firstly, in  2016 the Commission rolled out  a new 
type of joint action – expert teams. Since the nature of the expert teams is specific enough to 
distinguish  it  from  other  joint  actions,  this  category  appears  in  the  budget  breakdown  as  a 
separate category.  

Secondly,  there  is  a  noticeable  increase  in  IT  expenditure  recorded  in  2017.  This  increase  is 
indeed  built  into  the  deployment  of  the  Customs  2020  IT  components  relates  to  the  multiple 
new  IT  developments  and  research  needed  for  the  implementation  of  the  UCC.  The  most 
important  ones  included  the  preparation  and  deployment  of  Registered  Exporters  IT  system 
REX  and  some  of  the  UCC  Customs  Decisions  applications,  which  were  scheduled  for 
implementation  in  2017,  and  the  construction  of  CLASS  and  INF-SP  (pilot)  scheduled  to  be 
operational in 2018.  In 2017, there were 19 systems in the development  phase and 11 in the 
research phase. In total,  more than a half of the  IT projects  were progressing in line with the 
requirements, time and budget limitations, with a smaller number of projects were delayed due 
to additional legal or business clarifications needed. The number of existing IT applications by 
the end of 2017 was at 49.  

5   SWD(2018)107 "Customs 2020 programme – Progress Report 2016"; 

6 

 
                                                           
is 

the  CCN/CSI  network 

The  key  exchange  network 
(Common  Communication 
Network/Common Systems Interface), common to customs and taxation areas. It is composed 
of 112 gateways in 49 CCN/CSI sites located in  33 different countries. Over the  years of the 
Customs programme iterations, there has been a steady increase in the number and volume of 
data exchanged (see Figure 2). This soaring trend has somewhat flattened in 2017, where some 
4.8  billion  messages  of  5.5  terabytes  of  volume  were  exchanged.  The  availability  of  the 
network  and  key  customs  systems  remained  high  and  reliable,  reaching  99.98%  for  the 
CCN/CSI, 98.70% for centralised IT customs applications and 99.03% for New Computerised 
Transit System NCTS, Export Control System ECS and Import Control System ICS.   

Figure 2. Evolution of CCN messages by quantity and volume 2008-2016 

Source: DG TAXUD; 

Thirdly,  there  is  fairly  significant  increase  in  the  training  expenditure  in  2016,  which  was 
mainly  due  to  development  and  deployment  of  an  extensive  EU  eLearning  programme 
supporting the implementation of the UCC, which entered into force on 1st of May 2016. The 
module consists of 1 overview module and 14 customs domain specific modules. The uptake of 
the  UCC  eLearning  programme  was  high  from  the  start;  15  participating  countries  have 
immediately  integrated  the  UCC  overview  module  and  9-12  took  up  the  domain  specific 
courses. Overall reported number of e-trainees since the beginning of the programme was 68 
915 by the end of 2017, of which 53 276 were for the UCC programme. In addition, the UCC 
training material has  been downloaded 18 423 times in  total  via EUROPA site by the end of 
2017,  covering  around  726  000  reported  trainees.  All  the  eLearning  courses  are  incorporated 
into  national  training  programmes  by  the  participating  countries  according  to  their  needs.  In 
2017,  the  combined  number  of  various  eLearning  courses  used  by  the  participating  countries 
was  271  (up  from  174  in  2014  and  183  in  2015  although  down  from  307  in  2016,  which 
however seem to be a common pattern)6.  

6   This indicator is obtained by adding together the number of modules used in each country; 

7 

 
 
                                                           
The  number  of  actions,  events  and  participants  in  Customs  2020  programme  joint  actions 
remains  at  a  high  constant  level  (see  Figure  3).  The  small  dip  in  2014  is  due  to  the 
programming  aspects  as  Customs  2020  became  operational  only  in  May  2014  following  a 
transition from the previous iteration of the programme. 

Figure 3. Number of and participation in Customs 2020 joint actions 

Joint Actions operational in 2017 

Capacity building
Communication
Monitoring
Project group
Seminar
Working visit
Workshop

8 

2 

6 

6 

27 

117 

183 

Source: SWD(2018)107 "Customs 2020 programme – Progress Report 2016" + ART data for 2017; 

Awareness of the programme 

The  Commission  monitors  regularly  the  awareness  levels  of  the  programme  and  its  potential 
amongst  customs  officials.  Raising  this  awareness  is  considered  vital  in  fulfilling  the 
programme's objectives. Approximately every 18 months, the Commission runs the programme 
poll measuring the extent of familiarity with the programme and networking levels. The poll is 
distributed  in  all  customs  administrations  of  the  participating  countries,  inviting  both 
participants  and  non-participants  to  the  programme's  activities  to  take  part.  The  latest  poll 
relevant  for  this  mid-term  evaluation  took  place  in  January  2017.  Around  3 500  customs 
officials  from  32  participating  countries  returned  the  survey.  According  to  its  results,  the 
Customs 2020 programme is known to 55% of all customs officials, which represents a modest 
rise  of  4%  in  the  awareness  levels  indicated  in  the  2014  poll  but  sits  well  below  the  2011 
benchmark of 65.7%.    

In  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  a  new  communication  strategy  for  the  Customs  2020 
programme.  It  included  new  communication  tools  and  channels,  as  well  as  a  promotion  of 
common  effort  between  the  EU  and  national  programme  teams  in  the  distribution  of 
information on the programme. Some of the actions already started to be implemented in 2016, 
e.g. preparation of an animation video highlighting the benefits of expert teams as new type of 
joint  action,  update  of  the  guidance  of  the  programme’s  tools  or  launch  of  the  programme 

8 

 
        
 
 
newsletter informing national administrations of the highlights in the programme community. 
Other actions will be continuously implemented until the end of the programme while first taste 
of their effectiveness should be known with the programme poll 2018.  

4.  METHOD 

Short description of methodology 

The overall approach to the mid-term evaluation can be classified as theory-based evaluation. It 
implies  examination  of  the  causal  mechanisms  in  which  the  programme  was  expected  to 
generate the desired results and impacts, through collection of evidence to test the initial theory. 
Such approach allows to confirm (or not) the supposed causality and understand how and why 
these  mechanisms  led  to  expected  or  observed  results.  In  doing  so,  the  evaluation  seeks  to 
identify and assess the extent to  which external  factors might  have hindered or supported the 
process. In the context of a cooperation programme such as Customs 2020, which often plays a 
supportive  role  in  implementation  of  EU  policies  and  priorities,  this  approach  seemed 
particularly suited. Not0 least due to inherent difficulties of attributing measurable results to the 
functioning of the programme. 

The underlying intervention logic for the Customs 2020 programme was set up at the launch of 
the  Performance  Measurement  Framework  and  constituted  the  point  of  departure  for  the 
analysis.  

The evaluation work built on three distinct pillars: (1) overall programme assessment focusing 
on  the  programme  as  a  whole  in  terms  of  its  implementation  and  performance,  (2)  thematic 
case  studies  probing  into  specific  agreed  topics  for  in-depth  qualitative  research,  and  (3) 
engagement with the economic operators to gather views from the stakeholders who, although 
not  direct  beneficiaries  of  the  programme,  are  impacted  by  some  of  its  outputs,  notably  IT 
systems or eLearning modules.  

The intervention logic for Customs 2020 programme, the analytical diagram for the three-pillar 
approach  and  details  behind  the  data  collection  tools  and  techniques  behind  each  pillar,  are 
presented in Annex 3.  

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  evaluators  laid  down  the  challenges  and  limitations  at  the  start  of  the  assignment  and 
suggested mitigating measures where relevant. The proposed approach and methodology were 
chosen in such a way as to counterbalance some of the challenges.  

The evaluators classified the key challenges, which the evaluation had to cope with, as follows:  

  nature  of  the  programme  (or  long  causal  chains)  –  the  programme  support  a  range  of 
(policy, legislative, operational and IT) processes and systems. These in turn contribute to 
objectives at various levels, but often in indirect ways, alongside other factors such as the 
administrative capacity and priorities of national administrations, and prevailing economic 
and  trading  conditions.  Due  to  this,  it  was  difficult  at  outcome  level  and  close  to 
impossible at impact levels to attribute change to the programme in any quantifiable way. 

9 

 
In-depth qualitative research, especially from the case studies, allowed to mitigate this to a 
certain extent by examining the likely contribution of the programme’s activities across a 
wide range of areas; 

 

IT  systems  embedded  within  the  national  IT  infrastructure  and/or  required  by  law  –  this 
interplay  makes  it  difficult  to  attribute  perceived  faults  or  experiences  with  a  given  IT 
system to the performance of a specific component, the programme itself or the national IT 
capacity  and  architecture.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  the  evaluation  was  not  focusing  on 
assessing  the  technical  functionalities  of  the  IT  systems  but  their  use  and  support  to 
implementing the policies, the data collected paint a superficial picture of the IT systems. 
Publically available annual e-Customs reports7 contain more information on the technical 
functionalities of the IT system;  

  data  availability  and  timing  –  the  Performance  Monitoring  Framework  was  expected  to 
alleviate  some  of  the  monitoring  weaknesses  identified  during  previous  evaluations, 
providing  more  and  better  data  to  assess  programme  implementation  and  performance 
(especially at activity and outputs levels). However, that data was patchy in places and of 
limited  usefulness  at  the  impact  levels.  Moreover,  the  timing  of  the  evaluation  was  such 
that at the time of the exercise annual reports on the programme’s performance were only 
available  for  the  first  three  years  of  the  programmes’  implementation  (2014-2016).  This 
made  it  difficult  to  establish  and  examine  trends.  The  combined  effect  of  these  issues  is 
that  relevant  data  were  not  available  for  some  of  the  indicators  defined  in  the  original 
evaluation  questions  matrix.  The  evaluators  acknowledged  such  situations,  explained  the 
circumstances and made some changes to the affected indicators and sources to deal with 
it.  Wherever  possible  and  available,  latest  data  were  used  in  the  present  report  and 
integrated within the analysis; 

  reliance  on  samples  –  the  large  number  of  funded  activities,  the  timeframe  and  limited 
resources meant that the evaluation could not cover every aspect of the programme in the 
same  level  of  detail  and  proportionate  approach  was  necessary.  The  evaluation  therefore 
relied  on  a  relatively  high-level  assessment  of  the  programme’s  general  features  and 
achievements,  combined  with  more  in-depth  examination  of  samples  of  Annual  Work 
Programme projects, funded actions and stakeholders. By conducting fieldwork in a fairly 
large and diverse sample of countries and triangulating from several research methods, the 
evaluators  were  able  to  broaden  the  evidence  base  enough  to  make  some  generalisable 
inferences with acceptable degree of confidence; 

  stakeholder response rates – much of the methodology depended on stakeholder feedback, 
including  questionnaires,  surveys  and  interviews.  Overall  response  rates  for  the 
questionnaire for national authorities, survey to economic operators and interview requests 
in most fieldwork countries were very good, though the IT-focused questionnaire elicited 
less  responses.  The  evaluators  experienced  nevertheless  some  difficulties  in  setting  up 

7   Electronic customs Europa website; 

10 

 
                                                           
interviews  in  some  of  the  case  study  countries  to  discuss  cooperation  between  customs 
interviews  with  several 
administrations  and  customs  authorities  or 
stakeholders. This owes mostly to several studies with similar scope and timeframe, such 
as  the  simultaneously  ongoing  impact  assessment  for  the  next  funding  period,  and  all 
respective consultation activities organised.  

in  arranging 

To  mitigate  the  effects,  the  evaluators  took  care  to  promote  the  consultations  to  boost 
response rates or use the results of these other studies when available while focusing their 
data  collection  on  different  groups  and  individuals.  This  strategy  was  largely  successful, 
but  some  of  the  insight  that  would  have  come  from  better  response  rates  was  not  there 
while  the  entire  evaluation  suffered  from  some  delays.  These  are  both  syndromes  of  the 
consultation fatigues and the evaluators made some practical recommendations to alleviate 
similar issues in the future; 

  stakeholder  and  researcher  bias  –  similarly,  the  stakeholders  who  engaged  with  the 
evaluations  will  have  their  own  priorities,  leading  to  potential  biases  in  the  opinions  and 
views they express. In-depth stakeholder analyses early in the evaluation process, a diverse 
evaluation team and a robust process for triangulating all findings helped to identify such 
biases and mitigate the risks they pose.  

Changes to the original design 

Three  changes  to  the  original  design  of  the  evaluation  are  worth  mentioning.  Firstly,  the 
original  approach  to  the  organisation  of  cases  studies  meant  to  examine  programme  outputs 
(e.g.  recommendations,  guidelines  produced  through  joint  actions,  etc.).  However,  during  the 
structuring  phase  of  the  evaluation  that  initial  intention  proved  to  be  too  unwieldy  as  unit  of 
analysis, making it difficult to define specific themes for in-depth studying. In order to keep the 
agreed  focus  on  the  programme’s  outputs  and  users  while  defining  more  tangible  theme  the 
evaluators  examined  instead  a  selection  of  the  policy  projects  included  in  the  Annual  Work 
Programme.  This  change  had  the  benefit  of  including  multiple  types  of  programme  activities 
and outputs, chance to study the stated interactions between them.  

Secondly,  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the  evaluators 
were to assist the Commission service in conducting a public consultation on the programme’s 
functioning.  The  original  methodology  was  designed  in  such  way  as  to  use  the  public 
consultation  to  elicit  views  and  perceptions  of  these  stakeholders  who  would  have  not  been 
otherwise reached under the key evaluation tools, notably the economic operators, citizens and 
various  organisations.  During  the  preparations  for  the  launch  of  the  public  consultation,  the 
Commission  issued  central  instructions  to  group  all  public  consultations  relating  to  mid-term 
reviews and future proposals of all of the Commission’s spending programmes and funds into 
one public consultation, divided in cluster of themes. As the general objective of the Customs 
2020  programme  is  to  support  the  functioning  and  modernisation  of  the  Customs  Union  in 
order to strengthen the single market, the programme was included in the cluster on investment, 
research  and  innovation,  SMEs  and  single  market.  The  original  public  consultation 

11 

 
questionnaire  prepared  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Customs  2020  was  subsequently 
transformed into a targeted survey to economic operators and as such implemented. 

Thirdly, the evaluators encountered some problems in organising data collection and interviews 
in  some  of  the  case  study  countries.  Whereas  in  most  cases  the  problems  were  limited  to 
causing delays in field work – and subsequently of the entire project by several weeks – one of 
the  originally  proposed  case  study  countries  –  Germany  –  had  to  be  ultimately  withdrawn. 
Upon  agreement  of  the  Commission,  Germany  was  replaced  by  Austria.  This  change  is  not 
deemed to have had any negative impact on the scope of the foreseen analysis.         

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

EQ  1:  Do  the  different  objectives  of  the  programme  (in  the  Regulation  and  in  its  work 
programmes) correspond to the needs of the national customs administrations, economic 
operators and European citizens?  

Relevance refers to the need for an initiative and examines the match between the initiative’s 
objectives and activities, and the needs of stakeholders and broader goals.  For Customs 2020 
programme,  the  broader  goals  relate  to  the  good  functioning  of  the  Customs  Union.  The 
Customs Union is an area of exclusive Union competence, which defines the policy and legal 
context,  but  for  which  the  Union  shares  the  responsibility  for  its  implementation  with  the 
Member  States.  The  direct  needs  to  make  the  Customs  Union  work  seamlessly  are  therefore 
predominantly on the side of customs administrations, which operate in conditions of increased 
necessity to exchange information, cooperate and build their administrative capacity to do so.  

►  Customs 2020 programme addresses the needs of national customs administrations 

of the participating countries 

The  impact  assessment  supporting  the  proposal  for  the  current  programme  listed  several 
challenges and practical problems for customs administrations to deal with in the run towards 
fully  implemented  and  well  functioning  UCC.  The  challenges  included  growing  trade  and 
globalisation, pressure on safety and security, need for harmonisation and uneven distribution 
of  burden.  These  challenges  have  resulted  in  practical  problems  for  customs  administrations 
such  as  (a)  pressure  to  process  growing  volumes  of  trade  and  difficult  balance  between 
facilitation and control, (b) gaps in skills, competences, resources and experience to face new 
requirements,  (c)  incoherent  and  inefficient  application  or  rules  and  practices,  (d)  diverging 
interpretations  of  rules  and  practices,  (e)  difficulties  in  harmonised  implementation  of 
interconnected and interoperable  IT systems,  and (f) high administrative burdens for some of 
the  Member  States.  The  Customs  2020  programme  was  found  relevant  to  address  all  needs 
stemming  from  these  problems.  In  fact,  in  some  areas  the  programme  was  judged  so  deeply 
integrated with working practices that imagining a “world without Customs programme” was 
very difficult. 

Customs  authorities  within  the  Customs  Union  apply  the  same  basic  rules  and  all  Member 
States  are  dependent  on  the  others  to  play  their  part  in  collecting  the  revenue  and  regulatory 

12 

 
protection. This interdependence requires close cooperation8. The customs officials interviews 
confirmed that the various underlying problems and needs created a natural demand for better 
cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  information  as  well  as  harmonisation  of  approaches, 
administrative  procedures  and  rules.  The  Customs  programme  makes  it  easier  for  customs 
authorities  in  participating  countries  to  work  and  share  information  with  each  other.  The 
programme offers various types of eligible activities, which Member States find well suited to 
address the customs policy needs.  

If taking sheer participation in  the programme’s  activities as  an indication of its relevance to 
the needs of national administrations, the numbers speak for themselves.  

There have been 16 864 project groups, 1 897 workshops, 1 106 working visits, 947 seminars, 
203  join  communication  actions,  180  capacity  building  and  supporting  actions  and  72 
monitoring activities organised across all participating countries within the programme’s first 4 
years in operation9.  

Nearly 4.8 billion messages of around 5.5 TB total volume were exchanged over the CCN/CSI 
network  in  2017  alone.  Over  11.2  million  transit  movements  (7%  increase  on  2016)  were 
released  through  the  New  Computerised  Transit  System  NCTS,  with  the  average  number  of 
movements  released  per  business  day  reaching  over  44  000.  5.1  million  indirect  export 
movements  were  recorded  in  the  Export  Control  System  ECS  (5.9%  increase  on  2016)  and 
some  48  million  Entry  Summary  Declarations  ENS  were  lodged  in  EU  through  the  Import 
Control System ICS (9% increase on 2016).  

By  2017,  the  combined  number  of  the  various  eLearning  courses  used  by  the  participating 
countries  was  271,  thanks  largely  to  the  new  eLearning  programme  for  the  UCC 
implementation. Its uptake was high from the start: 15 participating countries have immediately 
integrated  the  UCC  overview  module  and  9-12  took  up  the  domain  specific  courses.  The 
overall  number  of  UCC  trainees  was  in  the  range  of  53  276  (out  of  the  68  915  total  for  all 
eLearning10) and another nearly 40 000 is forecasted for the year 201811. That is 1 in 4 customs 
officials from all participating countries trained thanks to the programme12. The UCC training 
material has been downloaded 18 423 times in total via EUROPA in 2018, reaching around 726 
000 reported trainees.  

Participating  countries  were  highly  supportive  of  the  extent  to  (and  ways  in)  which  the 
programme  fosters  cooperation  between  customs  administrations  in  various  dimensions.  The 
programme was not only instrumental in facilitating convergence at the strategic level, but also 
regarding  approaches,  interpretation  of  rules  and  administrative  procedures.  The  participating 
countries saw the Customs programme a relevant forum for exchanging best practices, hosting 
discussions and facilitating reflection on experiences.   

‘IT strategy for customs’, COM(2018)178; 

8  
9   ART data, excluding data on participation in the expert teams not yet available for the report; 
10   There were 32 214 overall trainees in 2017, up from 23 970 in 2016, 6 108 in 2015 and 4 632 in 2014;  
11   There were 31 669 UCC trainees in 2017, up from 21 607 in 2016; ; 
12   WCO Annual Report 2016-2017 on size of the customs administration; 

13 

 
                                                           
The programme has been especially important in relation to the implementation of European IT 
systems.  It  supported  the  participating  countries  through  funding  of  the  EU  components  and 
providing specifications and guidelines. While access to, exchange and processing of data and 
information  in  electronic  fashion  is  mandated  by  the  EU  legislation13,  the  burden  of 
implementation  of  the  supporting  IT  systems  is  shared  between  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States.  The  need  for  interoperability,  interconnectivity  and  reliance  of  the  electronic 
customs systems with a unified data system for a well functioning EU Customs Union justifies 
the design and scope of the programme.   

In  that  context,  the  Customs  2020  programme's  design  directly  addresses  the  needs  for  a 
paperless  environment  for  customs  and  trade.  The  increased  focus  on  the  implementation  of 
Union law and policy in the field of e-Customs for trade facilitation, customs governance and 
simplifications shows that the programme evolves together with the changing needs. By the end 
of 2016, 91 e-Customs-related meetings with a total of 892 participants were convened under 
the  auspices  of  the  Customs  2020  programme14.  It  shows  not  only  the  high  relevance  of  the 
programme but also proves the appropriateness of its design, conducive to synergies between 
eligible  actions  (here  between  the  IT  systems  and  the  joint  actions  that  support  their 
implementation) for better, faster and more sustainable results.  

The Customs  programme’s coverage is  very broad and its implementation needs scoping  and 
prioritising. Each year, through the Annual Work Programme (AWP), the Commission sets the 
key  priority  areas  for  the  given  year.  National  customs  administrations  are  involved  in  the 
setting  of  priorities  through  the  comitology  procedure.  It  guarantees  the  relevance  of  the 
programme’s activities and has created a powerful sense of ownership among the participating 
countries  over  the  successive  programme  iterations.  However,  agreeing  on  a  set  of  priorities 
that correspond to the needs of all national administrations can be sometimes challenging. The 
wide  coverage  is  generally  seen  as  an  advantage  and  most  of  the  AWP  priorities  were 
considered to be of high importance. However, some of the participating countries wished the 
programme were more focused for greater relevance.  

Going specifically into the types of joint actions funded by the Customs 2020 programme, each 
type  of  action  was  assessed  relevant  to  the  needs  of  customs  administrations  in  specific 
circumstances, i.e. depending mostly on the desired outcome. The evaluation gathered specific 
feedback and experience from individual participants across actions and drew a picture of key 
characteristics and benefits of all types of joint actions. Annex 4 presents them in detail.  

It  should  be  stressed  here  that  the  relatively  low  level  of  awareness  of  the  programme,  as 
reported  in  section  3  on  implementation  and  state  of  play,  does  not  demonstrate  the 
programme’s  irrelevance.  Thousands  of  officials  and  economic  operators  use  the  IT  systems 
supported by Customs 2020 but accessible through national-level front-end interfaces, as well 
as joint actions outputs, without necessarily being aware of the programme’s existence or role 

13   Decision 70/2008/EC on a paperless environment for customs and trade (e-Customs Decision) and the UCC 

Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 together with the implementing and delegated acts; 

14   ’2016 e-Customs progress report’, 10/07/2017; 

14 

 
                                                           
due  to  the  lack  of  a  strong  brand.  The  launch  of  a  new  communication  strategy  for  the 
programme in 2016 is expected to bring a positive change. 

Overall, the current mix of eligible actions available under the programme largely satisfies the 
needs of the participating countries. At the same time, some stakeholders indicated additional 
aspects, which are not currently supported by the programme, namely: (1) equipment for border 
customs  officers, (2) equipment  for European  customs laboratories in  the Member States, (3) 
implementing parts of the mandatory IT systems, (4) cooperation with third countries, and (5) 
localisation and translation of EU training modules developed (though it should be noted that 
the programme now provides support for these two important aspects). 

►  Customs  2020  programme  addresses  the  needs  of  some  economic  operators  and 

European citizens 

While  national  administrations  are  the  main  beneficiaries  of  the  Customs  2020  programme, 
thousands  of  economic  operators  interact  with  the  Customs-funded  IT  systems  on  a  regular 
basis. They do so either through a legal obligation (e.g. registration in the Economic Operator 
Registration and Identification (EORI) system) or to find required information (through for e.g. 
the  EU  Customs  Tariff  (TARIC)  database).  It  should  be  noted  that  the  explicit  focus  on 
economic operators in the assessment of the programme is a new concept and has yet to gain 
traction.  So  far,  404  external  participants,  mainly  economic  operators,  have  taken  part  in 
several joint actions. A prime example of a joint action with an economic operator focus is the 
EU Customs Single Window project. Its key objective is to enable economic operators to lodge 
electronically  and  only  once  all  the  information  required  by  customs  and  non-customs 
legislation  for  EU  cross-border  movement  of  goods.  In  general,  the  needs  of  economic 
operators  oscillate  around  customs  processes  being  dealt  with  efficiently  and  effectively  as 
speed  and  reliability  of  customs  clearance  impact  directly  on  business  productivity  and 
profitability.  Some  research  show  that  a  10%  reduction  in  transit  and  processing  time  at 
customs can generate between 2.5% and 5% growth in trade15. This is best done through, on the 
one hand, paperless environment for customs and trade and, on the other, through timely access 
to  all  information  that  an  economic  operator  needs  to  know  from  the  customs  side  of  its 
processes.   

Some  726  000  of  mostly  economic  operators  were  trained  from  the  UCC  eLearning  training 
material downloaded directly from the EUROPA site. It shows that the need to get guidance for 
the new set of rules is also pertinent to them16. How specifically the economic operators benefit 
and use the programme is described at length under the effectiveness question EQ 3. 

Economic operators who responded to the evaluation survey agreed on the relevance of all the 
operational  objectives  of  the  Customs  programme  for  national  customs  administrations.  The 
fight against fraud was the most important for them, followed closely by the safety and security 
of  goods  and  reduction  of  red-tape  in  customs  transactions.  For  these  reasons,  the  economic 

15   ‘IT Strategy for Customs’, COM(2018)178; 
16   The economic operators who took part in the targeted survey, mostly likely due to the limited sample of 108 

operators who responded, could not confirm that broad interest in the eLearning modules; 

15 

 
                                                           
 
operators  acknowledged  the  cross-border  nature  of  the  modern  customs  and  welcomed  the 
programme’s focus on enhancing cooperation and exchange of information within the EU. 

Finally, Customs 2020 programme addresses issues of general concern for European  citizens. 
They  are  not  direct  beneficiaries  of  the  programme  and  mostly  unaware  not  only  of  the 
programme17 but also of the key elements of the Customs Union in general18. Nevertheless, the 
programme  contributes  to  their  protection  as  far  as  customs  themselves  can  influence  it.  The 
specific objectives of the programme relating to safety and security of citizens have increased 
in  relevance  as  organised  crime,  terrorism  and  fraud  have  become  greater  public  concern. 
Against  a  backdrop  of  ever-increasing  volumes  of  world  trade,  the  customs  authorities  are 
tasked with protecting citizens against international trafficking and smuggling of illicit goods, 
as well as with  protecting consumers against  goods, which pose a risk to their safety or their 
health. Customs 2020 programme supports them in all of these areas. 

Even though the citizens themselves are not always capable of linking explicitly the works of 
customs  with  their  concerns,  this  link  is  actually  there.  This  conclusion  emerged  from  the 
analysis of the stakeholders’ responses to the public consultation, with regard to the question on 
the challenges before the Commission’s spending activities (see Figure 4 of Annex 3). Despite 
the  methodological  constraints  of  the  consultation  and  the  inability  to  ascertain  anything,  it 
came clear that the Customs 2020 programme’s design and role fully match the preoccupations 
of the stakeholders, justifying not only the programme’s sheer existence but also the direction 
of its evolution.  

EQ  2:  To  what  extent  has  the  programme  reinforced  cooperation  and  improved 
information-sharing between customs authorities of participating countries?  

►  joint actions are beneficial, appreciated and reinforce each other 

Participants  and organisers of the joint  actions are always asked to  provide their feedback on 
the extent of achieving the results. This is done through the event assessment forms and action 
follow-up forms. Regardless of the type of joint action, roughly 75% of the actions participants 
agreed  that  they  met  their  expectation,  achieved  the  intended  results  and  were  useful.  This 
satisfaction was notable for all the objectives.  

Across  all  types  of  actions,  the  participants  praised  the  programme  for  helping  the 
administrations  to  identify,  disseminate  and  take-up  best  practices,  which  led  to  practical 
uptake of working methods in customs administration and a more harmonised approach to the 
implementation of the EU customs law.   

The joint actions resulted in high degrees of networking. 95-97% of the participants have used 
the opportunity to build and expand networks and contacts, and have used these connections to 

17   Only 13 out of 4 052 respondents (0.3%) who took part in the public consultation on EU funds in the area of 
investment,  research  &  innovation,  SMEs  and  single  market  launched  in  the  context  of  the  preparations  of 
next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  for  the  EU  were  aware  of  the  Custom’s  programme  and  only  7  of 
them made any comments more or less related to customs in general;    

18   Special  Eurobarometer  439  Report,  Awareness  and  perceptions  of  Europeans  about  the  EU  Customs,  TNS 

Opinion & Social, March 2016; 

16 

 
                                                           
solve  day-to-day  problems.  The  2017  programme  poll19  results  show  that  majority  of  the 
customs officials have used their contacts frequently, either several times per month (14%) or 
several times per year (59%) against 19% who have used them once and 9% who have not used 
them at all.  

National administrations agreed almost in unison that the Customs 2020 programme helped to 
build  trust,  which  was  a  natural  by-product  of  face-to-face  interactions  and  personal  contact. 
The notion of trust spilled over to other areas, notably to the relationship between customs and 
business, illustrated anecdotally by one country, which noticed a change in the administrative 
culture thanks to the Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) programme, which Customs 2020 
supports. 

The  Performance  Measurement  Framework  data  suggest  as  well  that  the  outputs  of  the  joint 
actions  (e.g.  recommendations,  guidelines,  studies,  best  practice,  working  documents, 
administrative procedures, etc.) are shared extensively. 95% of participants declared diffusing 
the  outputs  within  their  administration  while  80%  use  them  actively  in  their  work.  Defining 
specific  outputs  can  sometimes  be  difficult  due  to  the  sheer  divergence  of  them.  Moreover, 
some of the outputs are not easily captured in any monitoring framework as they concern less 
tangible and more difficult to measure networking. It seems however that whatever knowledge 
was gained through the joint actions was broadly used and shared.      

Perceived usefulness of the joint actions is correlated with their participation levels (which in 
turn is due to the nature and scope of the joint actions). However, they are all appreciated in the 
right  circumstances,  as  it  was  already  established  under  the  analysis  of  relevance  (see  also 
Annex  4  for  detailed  features  of  all  joint  actions).  Seminars,  workshops,  working  visits  and 
project groups score the highest20 but the evaluation gathered anecdotal evidence on the utility 
of all types of actions.  

For example, a working visit on detection equipment provided opportunity to examine and test 
such  equipment  for  national  context  before  deciding  on  the  purchase.  The  project  group  of 
AEO  Network  has  enabled  an  exchange  of  information  and  discussion  on  practical  questions 
and problems regarding the consistent implementation of the AEO programme across the EU. It 
ensured  coherence  and  coordination  of  the  different  ad-hoc  actions  and  produced  a  concrete 
output in the form of AEO guidelines.  

The Customs Eastern and South-Eastern Land Border expert team (CELBET) was mentioned 
regularly  as  a  successful  example  of  the  new  type  of  joint  action  –  the  expert  team.  This 
specific action allowed experts share experience and good practice on coordinated management 
of  external  EU  borders,  map  non-commercial  border-crossing  points,  create  border  control 
standards  and  risk  profiles,  common  performance  indicators  and  recommendations  on 
improvement of control and detection equipment and working methods, and more.  

19   n=946; 
20   Project  groups  alone  comprise  the  largest  group  of  participants,  representing  about  75%  of  customs 

administrations’ participation in the programme’s joint actions; 

17 

 
                                                           
Common  Learning  Events  Programme  (CLEP)  workshops,  assisted  by  the  project  group  of 
Training Support Group, reinforced customs officials’ skills and competences on critical topics, 
allowed for best-practice sharing and contributed to the long-term, less quantifiable outcomes 
such as changes in attitudes and increased cohesion in the training domain. 

Project  groups  such  as  the  Electronic  Customs  Coordination  Group  or  the  Risk  Management 
Strategy  Implementation  Coordination  Group  were  praised  for  their  role  in  coordination  of 
implementation  of  multiannual  plans  and  strategies,  complex  work  streams  of  multiple  IT 
projects, allowing ultimately for collective understanding and common vision.  

The  working  visits  on  Single  Authorisation  for  Simplified  Procedures  (SASP)  between 
Germany and the Czech Republic facilitated a common business model, including control plans 
and  measures,  and  allowed  for  better  organisation  and  arrangements  for  the  exchange  of 
information. A regional workshop on a similar topic organised by the Finnish authorities sought 
in turn to prepare grounds for application of the simplified procedures in the Baltic region. Its 
regional character allowed for contextual and specific cooperation.     

The  high-level  seminar  on  cooperation  between  customs  and  other  authorities  on  Intellectual 
Property  Rights  (IPR)  was  a  unique  platform  uniting  customs  officials,  police,  judicial 
authorities and other stakeholders to discuss exchange of information and intelligence relating 
to IPR as well as challenges faced by each authority. Similar ‘bridging’ focus was behind the 
high-level  seminar  on  the  strengthening  of  cooperation  between  customs  and  tax  authorities, 
which  gathered over 100 participants  from  across the countries and authorities, although it is 
yet to be followed up by targeted actions. 

►  there exist generalizable factors determining success of joint actions  

The evaluation revealed several factors that seem general enough to consider them as essential 
in determining the success of the most used joint actions:  

  clear EU policy drive fosters senior level buy in, engagement and commitment to results; 

  participation  of  people  with  the  right  knowledge,  practical  experience  and  language 

capacity affects active participation and productivity of discussions; 

  good  choice  of  the  type,  scope,  format,  frequency  of  meetings  and  balanced  number  of 
participants  of  the  joint  actions  determines  active  participation,  constructive  discussion 
and outputs; 

  coordination between projects that have broad agendas and cover wide spectrum of topics 
is  necessary  to  avoid  duplication  of  efforts  and  create  synergies  between  projects  of 
comparable objectives; 

  sense of ownership and engagement depends sometimes on pragmatic issues such as style 

of chairing or level of interaction; 

 

‘bottlenecks’ or uncertainties around and beyond the domain of actions have detrimental 
effect on achieving the sought-for results; 

  perceived administrative burdens related to organisation of joint actions, such as working 

visits or expert teams, risk resulting in lower uptake of and engagement in joint actions.       

18 

 
►  European  IT  systems  help  Member  States  to  communicate  with  each  other 
securely and efficiently and increase collaboration especially in areas with a strong 
legal base 

The core objective of the UCC is to create seamless and efficient customs processes across the 
EU, based on digital tools. It is up to the EU Member States to make this ‘happen’. To do so, 
they  need  to  operate  effectively  within  the  single  market  and  cooperate  with  each  other.  49 
different  IT  systems,  applications  and  supporting  infrastructure  are  already  in  operation  and 
many  more  are  to  come.  About  85%  of  the  Customs  2020  programme  funding  goes  into  the 
operation,  maintenance  and  development  of  the  IT  systems21.  The  Customs  programme 
supports  the  production  of  common  system  specifications,  co-ordination  of  the  deployment, 
conformance testing, monitoring of service quality, etc. All the major centralised IT systems, as 
well as the supporting architecture (CCN/CSI, CCN2, SPEED2), were available for 99% of the 
time  and  they  play  a  central  role  for  the  smooth  functioning  of  customs  procedures  and  the 
single market as a whole. 

The best indicator for the utility of the IT systems for cooperation and exchange of information 
is the sheer number and volume of messages exchanged. Nearly 4.8 billion messages of over 
5.5 terabyte of volume were exchanged over the CCN/CSI network in 2017 alone (evolution of 
exchanges was presented in Figure 2). Various customs departments use the systems relevant 
to their work routinely in performance of their tasks and appreciate the swiftness and access to 
various data.    

In general, the supporting IT architecture and centrally operated systems, which score as most 
useful,  are  the  ones,  which  have  been  in  operation  for  a  long  time  and  underpin  the  more 
traditional role and needs of customs in goods classification, tariff management or movement 
control. These systems include the CCN/CSI network, the TARIC database for integrated Tariff 
in  the  European  Union,  the  EBTI-3  data  base  for  European  Binding  Tariff  Information,  the 
EORI  system  for  Economic  Operators  Registration  and  Identification  Number,  the  New 
Computerised  Transit  System  NCTS,  the  Customs  Risk  Management  System  CRMS  or  the 
COPIS  system  for  anti-Counterfeit  and  anti-Piracy  Information.  The  two  latter  have  been 
analysed in-depth through the case studies under the evaluation and can serve as illustration of 
the  potential  of  the  Customs  2020  programme  in  fostering  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information. Additionally, Annex 4 presents more detailed features of various IT systems.  

The  CRMS,  together  with  Risk  Information  Forms  (RIF),  allows  for  systematic  real-time 
exchange of risk information for all modes of transport (land, air, sea), for major ports, airports 
and border posts across the EU, as well as national risk analysis centres, with all 28 Member 
States.  The  customs  risk  managers  and  analysts  see  it  indispensable  in  their  day-to-day  work 
and  a  practical  and  effective  way  to  disseminate  risk-related  information  to  all  who  need  it. 
CRSM  directly  improves  risk  management,  in  particular  in  the  cross-border  context,  while 
disturbing as little as possible legitimate trade through better risk analysis. Access to CRMS is 

21   The  IT  systems  comprise  the  EU  and  non-EU  (national)  components.  Union  components  are  owned  or 
acquired by the Commission and funded by the Customs 2020 programme. National components are funded, 
developed, installed and operated by the Member States;   

19 

 
                                                           
also  granted  to  Commission  services  such  as  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF),  DG 
Health and Food Safety and DG Agriculture and Rural Development, which further increase its 
effectiveness in contributing to safety and security and preventing fraud.  

As  for  COPIS,  customs  authorities  use  it  to  register  the  application  for  action  from  rights-
holders and all infringements. It allows for instant notification of violations of rights across all 
Member  States.  From  2010  to  2015,  the  number  of  applications  from  rights-holders  have 
almost doubled, from 18 000 to 32 00022, showing that the problem is growing and coordinated 
action needed. In 2016 alone, more than 41 million fake and counterfeit products were detained 
at the EU's external border to an estimated EUR 670 million in domestic retail value23.  

Some IT systems are less used, customs officials are less familiar with them and may appear in 
the  evaluation  as  less  useful.  Examples  include  the  NCTS-TIR-RU24,  European  Customs 
Inventory of Chemical Substances ECICS or Suspensions or Customer Reference System CRS. 
However,  these  are  specific  ‘niche’  systems  used  mostly  by  specialised  customs  departments 
and  the  evaluation  ultimately  confirmed  that  also  these  are  indispensable  for  those  who  need 
them. In the case of NCTS-TIR-RU for example, it is not relevant for all EU Member States to 
use it due to their geographical location; many customs authorities are not aware of it for that 
reason25.  Similarly,  Suspensions  is  mainly  an  internal  tool  for  Commission  staff  allowing 
management  of  the  suspension  of  import  duties  for  certain  goods  published  in  the  official 
journal, which is not visible to anyone else. CRS is another sub-system that makes information 
available  by  acting  as  communication  layer  between  systems  generating  and  managing 
information  (e.g.  Customs  Decisions  Management  System  CDMS  Economic  Operators’ 
System EOS, Registered Exporter System REX) and systems consuming information (e.g. the 
New  Computerised  Transit  System  NCTS,  Export  Control  System  ECS  or  Import  Control 
System ICS). Finally, the ECICS evaluation showed that the database meets the specific needs 
of  stakeholders,  including  customs  authorities,  customs  laboratories  and  economic  operators, 
and that it contributes substantially to the work of its core users.  Audiences consulted praised it 
for several reasons, including the accuracy/reliability of the data, speed, content, coverage and 
user interface26. All these examples serve to demonstrate that the utility of the IT systems needs 
to be always assessed from the perspective of the users.  

The secured platform for information exchanging and sharing provided through the CCN/CSI 
helped  Member  States  and  economic  operators  to  overcome  their  reluctance  of  sharing 
sensitive data, which hindered effective cooperation.   

22   DG TAXUD, Annex 2 of the Multi-Annual Strategic Plan, Rev. 2017, 1.4; 
23   DG  TAXUD,  Report  on  EU  customs  enforcement  of  intellectual  property  rights,  results  at  the  EU  border 

2016; 

24   NCTS TIR Russia; 
25   There were some 0.31 million messages exchanged between 14 Member States and Russia in 2017; 
26   “Evaluation  of  the  European  customs  inventory  of  chemical  substances  (ECICS)”,  08/2017;  Coffey 
International  Development  Limited,  Oxford  Research  AB,  Economisti  Associati,  wedoIT  and  the  Reach 
Centre; 

20 

 
 
                                                           
►  training activities fill an important role 

Customs programme originated as a training programme in 1991. Although the relative weight 
in  the  Customs  2020  programme’s  funding  dedicated  to  training  is  small  (3-5%),  it  has  an 
important and unique role, supporting also the performance of joint actions and IT systems. At 
the same time, its benefits may indeed seem less palpable, not easily measurable and less wide-
reaching. 

The human competency building component of the programme includes the eLearning modules 
available  to  national  customs  administrations  and  economic  operators,  the  common  training 
materials  and  IT  training  for  European  customs  IT  systems.  The  numbers  behind  the 
eLearning27  paint  a  positive  picture  of  their  use  and  utility  even  though  majority  of  the 
participating  countries  seem  to  be  using  the  training  material  to  some  or  little  extent  only. 
Defining use in the context of training is however difficult as one-off use is as likely to bring 
benefits as recurring uses, depending on the nature of training, content and need. Overall, most 
participants  were  highly  satisfied  with  the  eLearning  modules,  with  an  average  score  of  78 
equivalent  to  “very  good”28.  However,  given  large  variations  over  appreciation  of  the  same 
training  material  across  the  years,  the  scores  appear  to  be  rather  subjective.  Annex  4  offers 
insight into the specific training modules, their uptake and satisfaction levels. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  participants,  having  common  training  base  was  conducive  to  shared 
understanding,  alignment  of  interpretations  of  the  customs  provisions,  standardisation  of 
terminology and ultimately more uniformity in  application of the EU law across the Member 
States.  The  timely  launch  of  the  UCC  modules  was  highly  appreciated  in  that  respect.  Same 
assets were mentioned in relation to the training courses supporting implementation and use of 
the IT systems, particularly the ones related to the UCC. The training offer more than doubled 
over the years of Customs 2020 operation and the number of trainees tripled29. Use and utility 
of the IT systems and more uniform approach to application of EU customs law were the two 
highest scored benefits brought in by the training under Customs 2020 programme.  

In fact, training is by nature user-oriented and brings rather individual benefits such as personal 
feeling  of  knowing  or  understanding.  It  is  the  likely  explanation  why  better  cooperation  and 
sharing  of  good  practice  through  eLearning  were  less  commonly  brought  up  by  participants 
amongst advantages, for which other forms of cooperation, including face-to-face interactions, 
traditional  teaching  methods  or  simple  exchanges  of  work-related  experiences  were  found  by 
some as more suitable. 

27   Please  see  analysis  under  the  section  on  implementation  and  state  of  play  and  in  response  to  evaluation 

question on relevance EQ1; 

28   This  measure  is  based  on  Kirkpatrick  methodology  where  75  stands  for  'very  good'  and  50  for  'fairly'.  The 
score  is  based  on  11  quality  dimensions  but  mainly  assess  the  following  parameters:  relevance  to  job, 
fulfilling learning objectives, learning retention and if the course was a positive experience; 

29   The number of IT training sessions and trainees were respectively 22; 124 in 2014, 45; 293 in 2015 and 58; 

374 in 2016; 

21 

 
 
 
                                                           
►  there exist generalizable factors determining success of training  

The  evaluation  revealed  several  factors  that  seem  essential  in  determining  the  success  of  the 
training component, and in particular the eLearning courses:  

  availability of training material in a national language significantly impacts participation 

and use while translation pose a challenge to the national administrations; 

  some eLearning modules duplicate efforts that have already been taken at national level, 

particularly for these countries who have more advanced training programmes; 

  some eLearning module use technology that is not compatible with some of the national 

systems. 

EQ 3: To what extent have economic operators used and benefited from the programme? 

►  economic operators benefit from the Customs 2020 outputs on a daily basis  

As the programme’s joint actions promote competition and trade by supporting more efficient 
and harmonised customs practices, economic operators benefit indirectly but significantly from 
this programme component. Economic operators have participated in seminars, workshops and 
project groups, and can benefit directly through learning, but their involvement is primarily to 
provide their insight and perspective that will eventually benefit all economic operators. 

Feedback  received  in  the  course  of  several  such  joint  actions,  such  as  the  EU  Authorised 
Economic Operator (AEO) programme workshop, the project group on the AEO guidelines or a 
series  of  joint  actions  supporting  the  Simplified  Procedures,  confirmed  that  involvement  and 
dialogue with economic operators allowed better understand their needs and take them on in the 
development  of  best  practice  amongst  customs  administrations.  As  a  result,  the  AEO 
guidelines,  for  example,  were  rewritten  to  be  more  understandable,  concise  and  precise, 
ensuring  thus  uniformity  in  implementation  of  the  AEO  programme.  Moreover,  working 
together  with  the  economic  operators  under  the  aegis  of  the  joint  actions  has  contributed  to, 
more  or  less  prominent,  changes  in  the  relationship  between  customs  administrations  and 
business  stakeholders,  stepping  away  from  the  more  traditional  'command  and  control' 
approach to customs to a more 'customs-to-business' partnership.  

As much of the programme’s support to IT systems works towards better communication and 
exchange  of  information  among  participating  countries,  economic  operators  currently  benefit 
only  from  IT  databases  that  provide  various  types  of  information.  The  most  used  and  highly 
ranked was the TARIC (80%), a multilingual database integrating all measures relating to EU 
customs tariff,  commercial  and  agricultural  legislation.  Together  with  the  equally  popular 
European  Binding  Tariff  Information  EBTI  database  (63%),  they  provide  legal  certainty  in 
regard  to  tariff  classification  no  matter  in  which  Member  States  they  operate.  With  this 
information,  economic  operators  get  a  clear  view  of  measures  to  be  taken,  such  as  upfront 
calculation of prospective charges or documentary requirements, when importing goods into or 
exporting  out  of  the  EU.  There  is  about  970  040  Binding  Tariff  Information  items  in  the 
database and tens of thousands are being created each year (51 415 created in 2017). It saves 
them time and allows keeping them up to date with legislative changes. 

22 

 
Other  most  appreciated  systems  include  EORI  system  for  Economic  Operator  Identification 
and Registration (64%), Customs Offices (63%) and AEO (59%) databases, all of which were 
praised  for  providing  information  that  was  not  available  elsewhere  in  a  time-saving  manner, 
helping the economic operators to reduce some of the administrative burdens and simplifying 
procedures. There is over 6 million valid EORI records as for end of 2017.   

The new Registered Exporters IT system REX has started bringing about its benefits (it became 
operational on the 1st of Jan 2017 but there were already over 13 000 active registrations added 
for  beneficiary  countries  and  over  23  000  for  Member  States  modules  before  the  end  of  the 
year).  REX  simplifies  the  certification  of  origin  of  goods  under  the  Generalised  System  of 
Preference  of  the  EU,  as  it  works  on  the  principle  of  self-certification  by  the  registered 
economic  operators  (exporters)  themselves,  rather  than  a  governmental  authority.  When 
importing  from  registered  exporters,  it  will  be  easier  to  manage  and  control  the  origin  of 
products.  Progressively,  the REX system will also  be applied in  the context  of bilateral  trade 
agreements  between  the  EU  and  the  partner  countries.  Although  promising,  it  is  too  early  to 
draw any firm conclusions on its functioning. 

As  it  was  already  stated,  the  economic  operators  are  also  users  of  the  eLearning  modules30 
supported by Customs 2020, mostly the UCC learning courses, which were downloaded from 
the  EUROPA  site  over  12 000  times.  Most  of  the  users  are  professional  associations  or 
multinationals,  who  then  make  the  eLearning  available  to  their  staff.  Other  most  popular 
courses concerned the AEO and EORI and were broadly found useful. In general however, the 
uptake of eLearning by economic operators seems to be low, looking purely from the vastness 
of this group of stakeholders. Lack of awareness, time to prioritise the modules or incentives as 
well as linguistic or technical barriers (in particular for smaller businesses) were amongst the 
factors impeding a broader use. 

EQ  4: To what extent  has the programme  contributed to the achievement of its specific 
objectives?  

►  Customs  2020’s  activities  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  programme’s 

specific objectives  

To recall, the specific objectives of Customs 2020 programme relate to protecting the financial 
and  economic  interests  of  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  (including  combating  fraud  and 
protecting Intellectual Property Rights), increasing safety and security, protecting citizens and 
environment, 
the  administrative  capacity  of  customs  administrations,  and 
strengthening competitiveness of businesses.  

improving 

With  regard  to  the  protection  of  the  financial  and  economic  interest  of  the  EU  and  its 
Member  States,  relevant  activities  were  successful  at  facilitating  and  simplifying  processes 

30   The highest downloads from 2014-2017 were for the AEO course (7 071), followed by the UCC Overview 

course (5 379), EORI ( 3 304), SP SASP (1 449), IPR (1 37944). The average number of downloads for the 15 
topic-specific UCC modules was 389. Since the UCC modules only became available in 2016, looking only at 
2016 numbers, the UCC Overview module was the most used that year, outranking AEO courses (2 030);  

23 

 
                                                           
and  procedures,  pooling  expertise,  supporting  the  correct  application  of  procedures,  and 
reinforcing  the  monitoring  and  control  of  credibility  checks.  For  example,  a  series  of  actions 
related to  TARIC system  for integrated tariff of the EU helped to identify problem areas and 
shortcomings in the implementation of the system and related legislation and measures, training 
needs  and  the  increased  awareness  on  the  importance  of  the  uniform  application  of  TARIC 
measures.  

Similar benefits were mentioned for the joint actions related to  correct implementation of the 
preferential rules of origin, which helped to identify problem areas and familiarised the origin 
experts with the renewed concepts, and the preparation of Union positions in the revision of the 
rules  of  origin  in  the  Pan-Euro-Mediterranean  Convention.  Support  under  the  Customs 
programme has proved instrumental for guaranteeing a level playing field throughout the EU, 
and for ensuring the respect of the rules by the EU’s partners on imported goods.  

Works  of  the  numerous  project  groups  on  the  customs  tariff  and  classification  sped  up 
resolving  technical  issues  around  the  system,  clearing  out  classification  divergences  and 
specific  cases  between  countries  or  coming  up  with  ideas  for  modernisation  of  the  Common 
Nomenclature.    

The  Customs  Information  System  (CIS)  established  under  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
515/97 assist the Member States to in the prevention, investigation and prosecution of customs 
infringements by making information available more rapidly. It also helps the customs officials 
to perform, according to their risk strategies, regular or occasional data exchanges on goods or 
traders. It thus increases the effectiveness of the cooperation and control procedures. In 2017, 
some 95 million messages exchanged over the New Computerised Transit System NCTS and 
Export  Control  System  ECS  between  Member  States  in  application  of  the  Regulation  515/97 
were duplicated into OLAF's CCN gateway (Anti-Fraud Transit Information System ATIS). 

In order to eliminate practical problems31 with the CIS and ultimately enhance its performance, 
the Member States organised a dedicated Customs 2020 project group on reporting on customs 
seizures  in  Customs  Risk  Management  System  CRMS  and  Anti-fraud  Information  System 
AFIS,  which  work  with  the  CIS.  That  example  illustrates  well  the  mutually  reinforcing 
character of the Customs programme various activities (and complementarity of the programme 
to other initiatives, discussed at length under evaluation question EQ 7 on coherence).  

Under the same amended regulation, the Commission collects data on the goods transported in 
maritime containers, responsible for 90% of the  world’s overall cargo.  It is  done through the 
ConTraffic  system  and  the  container  status  movement  messages.  The  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  were  looking  at  integration  of  the  data  collected  under  the  ConTraffic  with  the 
information available through the Entry Summary Declaration (ENS)32. To validate the data in 
time  to  support  the  ConTraffic-ENS  testing,  a  pilot  project  group  under  the  Customs  2020 

31   Such us double reporting, undervaluation, inadequate level of information;  
32   Entry Summary Declaration, a document required for all goods brought into the customs territory of the EU, 
regardless  of  their  final  destination,  which  should  be  lodged  at  the  customs  office  of  first  entry  before  the 
goods arrival;   

24 

 
                                                           
programme was set up to test the application of data analytics techniques33. It processed a large 
number  of  transactions  and  confirmed  the  business  value  of  matching  of  the  information. 
Further  works  are  ongoing  to  increase  the  effective  integration  of  the  ConTraffic  data  within 
the real-time risk analysis.  

The  implementation  of  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  the  Intellectual  Property  Rights  (IPR)  was  a 
long-standing project carried out between 2013 and 2017. While results are still materialising, 
the  programme  activities  equipped  the  participating  countries  with  tools,  guidance,  common 
approaches, best practice, shared understanding and interpretation of IPR customs enforcement 
legislation. They  also  helped to  map the needs and the development  of cooperation strategies 
with third and neighbouring countries, which demanded close coordination among the Member 
States.  

There  have  also  been  some  positive,  albeit  not  fully  reaped,  results  of  closer  cooperation 
between  tax  and  customs  authorities  facilitated  by  the  programme.  These  included 
identification  of  field  for  closer  cooperation,  best  practice  and  new  trends.  However,  there  is 
still  room  to  support  practical  ways  of  harmonising  and  developing  stronger  connections 
between customs and tax administrations in matters of common interest.  

With  regard  to  increasing  safety  and  security,  protecting  citizens  and  environment, 
Customs  2020  programme  support  the  customs  administrations  in  their  works  on  risk 
management, management of the external borders, customs detection technology and protection 
of  cultural  heritage  or  nature.  For  example,  customs  risk  management  is  governed  by  the 
Common  Risk  Management  Framework  (CRMF)  and  implemented  by  the  EU  Action  Plan, 
which the Customs 2020 programme support through joint  actions and dedicated  IT systems. 
Most  of  that  support  is  dedicated  to  works  on  common  data  for  risk  management  and  risk 
assessment, as well as working methods and technologies. Security threats is a daily operation 
that  relies  on  the  robust  exchange  of  information  between  authorities,  the  identification  of 
reliable  operators  and  the  possibility  for  them  to  have  access  to  simplified  procedures. 
Identification  of  common  needs  and  high-quality,  multi-layered  approaches  at  Member  State 
and Union level  for the management of supply chain risks led to more effective and efficient 
control of risks and enhanced cooperation with third countries and businesses.  

For  example, the Prohibition  and Restrictions (PARCS) project  group,  which is  composed of 
representatives  of  the  Commission  and  national  experts  on  prohibitions  and  restrictions,  has 
produced a list of prohibitions on import and export of goods, and factsheets for a selection of 
laws that set prohibitions and restrictions at the EU border. Each factsheet gives a description 
of the legislative framework, the role of customs and the documentary and physical checks that 
have to be carried out in close cooperation with other authorities34. The first joint workshop for 
customs  and  veterinary  authorities  regarding  import  controls  on  live  animals  and  products  of 
animal origin from third countries took place in 2016. 

33   Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Strategy and Action Plan for customs risk management’, 

COM(2016) 476 final; 
Idem; 

34  

25 

 
                                                           
In the drug precursors area, a project group under the Customs 2020 programme united national 
experts on drug precursors legislation and risk management from within the EU as well as third 
countries (Colombia and Peru) and international bodies (International Narcotics Control Board 
and  the  US  Drug  Enforcement  Administration).  Messages  concerning  drug  precursors  are 
regularly uploaded in the Customs Risk Management System while the EU experts contribute 
to the Precursor Incident Communications System of the International Narcotics Control Board. 

The  current  Import  Control  System  (ICS)  includes  provisions  on  the  handling  of  pre-loading 
and pre-arrival declarations and the linking of these documents with the risk analysis. The ICS 
2.0 project has been launched to manage the improved filing of supply chain data and ensure 
increased capacity to detect security and safety risks at the point of entry of goods.  

Another  topical  area  where  the  support  of  Customs  2020  was  extensively  used  was  in  the 
operational  working  methods  at  the  external  border  and  in-depth  controls,  where  29  actions 
were  initiated.  The  results  included  sharing  of  identified  problems  and  good  practices,  the 
analysis  of  potential  solutions,  and  the  enhancement  of  cooperation  between  external  border 
posts. These outputs have in turn contributed to reinforcing a common understanding of legal 
requirements  and  the  harmonised  application  of  working  methods  from  the  UCC  and  other 
legislative measures in the fight towards the protection of the EU external borders. 

With  the  increase  of  use  of  technology  and  equipment  in  customs  matters,  Customs  2020 
programme  was  also  able  to  support  the  deployment  of  detection  technology  through  the 
development of a network of customs detection technology experts who can share information 
and  best  practices  as  well  as  provide  training.  This  work  has  been  conducive  in  improving 
detection capability and performance standards of customs administrations.  

Customs 2020 programme has played a role in the protection of health and safety of citizens, 
the  environment  and  cultural  heritage.  Contribution  of  the  Customs  2020  programme  in  this 
respect  was  very  pragmatic  and  resulted  in  the  issuing  of  new  guidelines  or  adjustments  to 
existing  ones,  the  establishment  of  common  risk  criteria,  the  creation  of  a  toolbox  of  online 
services,  and  awareness  raising  activities  addressed  at  the  business  community  and  the  wider 
public. 

With  regard  to  increasing  administrative  capacity  of  customs  authorities,  Customs  2020 
programme's  support  in  multipronged,  ranging  from  technical  and  operational  issues  to  more 
strategic  legal  implementation  and  uniformity.  The  project  on  operational  and  organisational 
customs  processes  helped  participating  countries  to  improve  the  performance  of  their 
administrations in the supply chain of goods by identifying gaps and needs in terms of customs 
modernisation,  formulating  recommendations  to  increase  their  performance,  identifying 
training needs and setting-up of an action plan to implement the suggested improvements.  

The networking between European Customs Laboratories facilitated by the programme focused 
on  benchmarking  activities,  updating  of  databases,  cooperation  with  other  stakeholders  – 
including  from  the  third  countries'  customs  laboratories  -  and  information-sharing  initiatives. 
As  European  Customs  Laboratories  need  to  work  together,  Customs  2020  plays  a  strong 
coordinating role.  

26 

 
Customs  2020  was  also  crucial  in  supporting  customs  administrations  in  preparation  for  the 
formal  adoption  of  the  UCC.  The  programme's  actions  facilitated  the  implementation, 
disseminated relevant information to various target audiences and led to identification, design 
and launch of the highly popular UCC eLearning programme.  

Also, the implementation of the EU Competency Framework for customs (EU Customs CFW), 
which  kicked-off  in  2014,  aimed  to  support  more  uniformity  and  increased  efficiency  of 
customs.  The  EU  Customs  CFW  was  set  up  as  non-IT  means  of  harmonising  and  raising 
customs  performance  standards.  It  sets  out  a  consensus  view  of  knowledge,  skills  and 
behaviour  required  in  customs  service  in  the  EU.  As  all  behavioural  changes  need  time  to 
materialise, also this framework should be considered as a long-term assignment. Some of the 
initial results, such as implementation of the framework and awareness  building in the public 
sector,  were  already  achieved.  Other,  such  as  better  alignment  with  needs  and  adjustment  to 
national  contexts  of  the  Member  States  (e.g.  identification  of  competency  gaps  and  training 
needs,  reduction  of  risks  related  to  pending  retirement  waves  or  improved  operational  and 
human resources processes) will take longer.    

Finally, with regard to  strengthening of competitiveness of European businesses, the latter 
benefit from the Customs 2020 programme either directly while using mostly the programme's 
IT  databases  (see  evaluation  question  EQ  3)  or  indirectly  through  well  functioning  customs 
administrations  across  the  EU.  The  Customs  Union  Performance  Measurement  project  run 
under  the  programme  established  and  maintains  a  system  for  measuring  and  assessing  how 
customs activities and operations support the Customs Union. While still under development, 
the system is expected to represent an important management tool to enhance strategic decision 
making  for  the  further  development  and  for  raising  awareness  and  showing  the  results  of 
customs work to main stakeholder groups. 

The  lodgement  of  customs  declarations  using  simplified  procedures  is  a  major  instrument  of 
trade facilitation. There have been a series of actions organised under the programme aiming at 
common understanding and application of simplified procedures and facilitation of exchanges 
between administrations thanks to the creation of new connections and networks. The dialogue, 
which takes places between customs and business community in those joint actions, contributes 
to  aligning  the  programme  between  Member  States,  while  factoring  in  the  practical 
implications  for  businesses.  In  the  longer-term,  having  a  system  of  simplified  procedures  in 
place  is  expected  to  contribute  to  the  competitiveness  of  European  businesses  in  the  global 
marketplace, and to improve compliance and risk management, which are key objectives of the 
Union Customs Code. 

Finally, as described already earlier on, the programme also supports the smooth functioning of 
the AEO concept.  

EQ 5: To what extent have the design and management of the programme been conducive 
to achieving the desired results? 

►  Customs  2020  strikes  a  good  balance  between  a  centralised  management  and  a 

consultative and transparent annual programming process  

27 

 
As it was discussed under the relevance question EQ 1, each  year, through the Annual  Work 
Programmes  (AWP), the Commission  sets  the key  priority areas  for the  given  year, in  which 
process the national customs administrations are involved. This approach is well appreciated by 
the  Commission,  particularly  for  components  developed  at  the  EU  but  implemented  at  the 
national  level,  while  customs  administrations  see  it  as  an  opportunity  to  heave  their  specific 
needs addressed, which in turns creates a feeling of ownership.   

Applications for joint actions are done by the participating countries or the Commission. The 
median time for processing joint action applications is 13 days for working visits and 39 days 
for other types of joint actions. That is regarded as broadly efficient and allowing the funding 
decision and payments, based on pre-financing instalments, to be delivered on time.   

►  the  majority  of  recommendations  from  previous  evaluation35  have  been  acted  on 

and used to make notable improvements to the programme 

The  Commission  broadly  accepted  the  recommendations  done  by  previous  evaluation  by 
setting  up  an  Action  Plan  outlining  the  extent  to  and  ways  in  which  they  would  be 
implemented36. In 2016, the Commission reported on progress in implementing the Action Plan 
according  to  which  a  large  majority  of  recommendations  were  achieved  with  the  remaining 
actions − mainly IT related, which naturally demand more time − still under implementation.  

Appreciated changes were introduced to the management of the joint actions, structuring of the 
AWP projects and monitoring of the performance of the programme. In order to bring in more 
coherence  and  practical  connections  between  related  activities,  the  Commission  restructured 
the AWP by reducing the number of projects and providing expected actions and results in each 
case in  order to  create a more systematic mechanism to monitor and communicate outcomes. 
Additionally,  to  support  the  latter,  the  Commission  drafted  a  communication  strategy,  which 
included the use of new communication tools and channels, as well as a joint effort between the 
EU  and  national  programme  teams  to  raise  awareness.  Following  up  on  recommendations  to 
streamline 
the 
Commission  produced  strategy  plans  to  improve  Programme  Information  and  Collaboration 
Space (PICS) and Activity Reporting Tool (ART), implementation of which is ongoing.  

the  platforms  for  sharing  documents  and  facilitating  communication, 

There  have  also  been  recommendations  addressing  technical  issues  of  specific  IT  systems, 
enhancing  the  integration  of  EU  and  national  components,  and  promoting  efficiency  gains. 
While  most  of  the  recommendations  were  followed  up,  there  remain  a  few,  which  are  still 
underway  but  appear  to  be  more  resource  intensive  and  systemic  in  nature,  involving  large-
scale changes relating to integration, harmonisation and development of IT systems. 

►  the  development  and 

implementation  of 

the  Performance  Measurement 

Framework facilitated monitoring of the Customs 2020's performance 

To  address  long-standing  problems  of  a  lack  of  monitoring  data  raised  in  all  previous 
evaluations,  DG  TAXUD  developed  and  implemented  the  Performance  Measurement 

35   Final evaluation of the Customs 2013 Programme, Coffey International, 08-2015;    
36   Action Follow-up Plan: Final Evaluation of Customs 2013, 2016-10-20, DG TAXUD; 

28 

 
                                                           
Framework  (PMF).  It  was  arguably  the  biggest  single  improvement  to  the  programme, 
installing  a  more  evidence-based  mind-set  to  programme  management.  In  addition  to 
facilitating  performance  management  and  ongoing 
increases 
transparency by making the achievements of the programme more visible and accessible.  

improvement, 

the  PMF 

The PMF is ambitious. For the Customs programme, there are 67 output and results indicators 
and  18  impact  indicators.  Progress  is  reported  on  annually  through  the  Annual  Progress 
Reports.  Data  used  to  inform  the  framework  comes  from  proposal  forms,  action  follow-up 
forms,  event  assessment  forms,  programme  polls  and  other  evaluations.  The  progress  reports 
present data at activity level, for the indicators at output and result levels. They are vastly more 
comprehensive than any monitoring under the previous iterations of the programme. Raw data 
confirms that at activity level the data is available, factually correct and very useful. 

However,  at  output  and  result  levels  the  PMF  relies  mainly  on  self-reported  data  from 
stakeholders,  especially  regarding  the  joint  actions,  which  has  its  drawbacks.  Firstly,  the 
questionnaire forms put together to inform the PMF need to be universal, covering a myriad of 
joint  actions.  This  proved  difficult,  since  asking  standardised  questions  about  outputs  and 
results  of  actions  that  are  highly  diverse  in  terms  of  timeframe,  objectives,  scope  and  other 
issues,  necessarily  simplifies  reality  and  renders  the  data  less  meaningful.  Secondly,  the 
questionnaires  are  answered  by  action  managers  and  participants,  and  relate  mainly  to 
subjective  issues  on  the  level  of  agreement  with  certain  statements,  such  as  whether  given 
actions  helped  increase  understanding,  provided  good  networking  opportunities,  or  were 
considered useful. Finally, the frequency and length of the feedback and reporting exercises are 
turning stakeholders off, leading to  superficial completion. This ultimately diminishes returns 
for the time and resources needed to collect data, analyse it and report on it.  

The  impact  indicators  seem  to  be  equally  problematic.  As  explained  in  the  data  limitation 
section,  the  causal  chains  between  activities  and  high-level  objectives  of  the  Customs  2020 
programme  are  long.  The  longer  they  are,  the  more  influenced  they  get  by  other  factors. 
Combined  with  practical  difficulties  to  obtain  the  data,  a  majority  of  the  indicators  appear 
individually  unsuitable  for  the  following  main  reasons:  they  are  either  really  result-level 
indicators relating to perceptions rather than observable changes and already captured in other 
parts  of  the  PMF,  are  not  easily  obtainable,  or  are  only  remotely  relevant,  particularly  when 
coming from sources external to programme. Only for a handful of indicators the programme 
management can perform relevant analyses but these with uncertain timeframes and at irregular 
intervals. That results in a situation whereby little of the output or results data appears to feed 
into continuous improvement or decision-making. 

►  taking  part  in  joint  actions  is  proportionate  to  incurred  costs  but  some 

administrative burdens are present 

The national administrations are overwhelmingly of the opinion that taking part in an existing 
joint action is proportionate to the costs incurred in participating. However, as it was stated in 
the previous section, there are some concerns with the new process of applying to a joint action 
and  related  reporting  obligations  (particularly  for  the  working  visits),  which  seem  due  to  the 
perceived  administrative  paperwork,  short  deadlines  for  nomination  of  representatives  and 

29 

 
logistics behind their participation in joint actions and diminishing resources in general. Indeed, 
almost  for  a  third  of  the  national  administrations,  administrative  resources  could  impose  a 
barrier  to  participation  but  overall  they  do  not  contest  the  need  to  coordinate  and  justify 
relevance of actions, which warrants the Commission’s approach. 

Organisation of the expert teams can serve as an example of administrative burdens although 
due to the young age of that type of activity, it cannot represent all other types and it should not 
be considered as a permanent state (i.e. there at teething problems with the expert teams, which 
should  be  solved  overtime).  The  Activity  Reporting  Tool  (ART)  currently  does  not  support 
financial  reporting  of  expert  teams.  This  resulted  in  time-consuming  collection  and  manual 
calculation of financial data such daily allowances or travel costs in different currencies. 

Moreover,  programme  participants  and  coordinators  felt  that  the  entry  into  force  of  the  UCC 
has had an impact on the programme’s resources. Despite work to ensure a smooth transition, 
the  work  required  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  UCC  has  required  additional  human 
resources, in particular to support the development and implementation of the new European IT 
systems.    

►  communication,  information  flow  and  coordination  are  essential  for  smooth 

implementation of the programme   

Communication  around  the  Customs  2020  programme  falls  under  the  responsibility  of  the 
Commission Programme Management Team. This team creates the main communication tools 
and  runs  some  of  the  communication  channels  ensuring  and  coordinating  information  flow 
between all the coordinating bodies behind the programme. At national level, communication is 
tasked to national programme coordinators and delegates of the Customs 2020 Committee.  

Effective  communication,  dissemination  of  harmonised  messages  and  availability  of 
information-sharing  channels  are  important  as  their  recipients  –  DG  TAXUD  policy  units  or 
programme  coordinators  –  are  seen  as  multipliers  of  the  programme  at  various  levels.  An 
example  of  efforts  to  strengthen  it  are  the  programme’s  activity  schemes,  which  have  been 
developed to  support the transparency, management  and coordination of  the activities carried 
out.  They  provide  a  visual  overview  of  activities,  with  clear  steering  and  reporting  links  to 
other fora. They are meant to provide both a snapshot of the overall EU customs activity at a 
given point in time, and on a regular basis through bi-annual updates.  

In  terms  of  IT  platforms  and  databases  that  support  the  programme  in  terms  of  information 
sharing and communication, the views of the users were in general positive, with specific ideas 
for  improvements  mentioned.  Most  national  administrations  consulted  felt  very  strongly  that 
the  ART  is  a  user-friendly  platform  and  an  efficient  system  for  monitoring  participants’ 
expenses and providing general feedback on the joint actions.  

In  terms  of  sharing  information  easily  and  quickly,  the  Programme  Information  and 
Collaboration  Space  (PICS),  is  the  main  of  the  global  information  and  communication  tools, 
aiming  at  improving  the  collaboration  between  Member  States  and  DG  TAXUD  thanks  to 
features  that  complement  and  enhance  the  collaboration  organised  in  the  framework  of 
programme activities (which mainly takes place through meetings, calls or e-mails). However, 

30 

 
it is also useful to enhance internal collaboration and for sharing relevant expertise, experience 
and coordination between programme management team, national programme coordinators and 
other  stakeholders  involved  in  the  management  of  programme  activities.  Despite  general 
appreciation  of  the  PICS's  improvements  overtime,  there  still  seem  to  be  room  to  improve 
further the user-friendliness of that tool as well as its broader use.  

User-friendliness aspects as well as security of exchanges were also raised in the context of the 
Communication  and  Information  Resource  Centre  (CIRCABC)  platform37,  a  document 
management  system  to  exchange  information  between  the  Commission  and  national 
administrations,  even  though  there  too  continued  to  be  an  overall  positive  perception  of  the 
tool.  

►  synergies  between  Customs  2020  and  Fiscalis  2020  programmes  are  present  but 

can be better exploited  

Fiscalis  2020  is  the  ‘twin’  spending  programme  in  the  field  of  taxation.  It  is  important  to 
discuss  it  under  efficiency  question  due  to  its  alignment,  at  least  at  the  central  programme 
management  level,  with  the  Customs  2020  programme.  The  other  EU  programmes,  which 
coexist with Customs 2020 are analysed in-depth under the coherence question later on. While 
the  policy  areas  for  the  two  programmes  are  different,  they  have  a  similar  focus  on  enabling 
cooperation and exchange between administrations. These similarities offer many opportunities 
for synergies with  the Customs programme in  terms of both  administrative arrangements and 
joint  works,  including  cross-fertilisation  and  joint  funding  of  shared  components  such  as  IT 
systems and similar approaches for human capacity building and training.  

The  synergies  are  strongest  at  the  programme  management  level,  which  is  provided  by  the 
same  team  of  Commission  staff.  Both  programmes  are  fully  aligned,  based  on  identical 
procurement  rules  and  grant  models,  common  management  guides  and  supported  by 
Programme Coordination Group.   

In  terms  of  the  IT  systems,  the  two  programmes  share  the  backbone  for  trans-European  IT 
systems,  notably 
the  Common  Communication  Network/Common  Systems  Interface 
(CCN/CSI  network).  The  joint  platform  facilitates  coordination  of  approaches  and  processes, 
which  ensure  coherence  and  creates  economies  of  scale  by  reducing  duplication  of  efforts. 
Often  taken  for  granted,  that  synergy  is  important  from  the  point  of  view  of  technical 
arrangements at the programme management level as well as from the users’ perspective.  

When it comes to the more content-related, synergies are more difficult to be established. The 
notable  exception  related  to  excise  duties,  which  are  anyway  related  and  the  administrative 
responsibility  for  them  at  the  national  level  falls  either  on  customs  or  tax  administrations. 
Customs 2020 provides explicit support to this cooperation in terms of identification of fields 
that are of common interest and where it is particularly important to cooperate for the proper 
implementation of the legislation.  

37   CIRCABC is a corporate tool developed jointly by DG MARKT (now DG INFSO and DG GROW), Eurostat 

and DG DIGIT (with funding from the IDABC Programme) using an open-source software;  

31 

 
                                                           
As  an  example,  the  project  group  on  Coordination  of  Excise  and  Customs  Procedures  was  a 
cross-programme  action  that  brought  together  stakeholders  from  both  authorities.  It  was 
originally  set  up  (still  under  the  Customs  2013  programme)  because  of  the  lack  of 
interoperability  between  IT  systems  supporting  customs  (Export  Control  System  -  ECS)  and 
excise (Excise Movement and Control System – EMCS) procedures. Their synchronisation was 
necessary  to  avoid  legal  uncertainties,  inconsistencies  and  loopholes,  which  ultimately 
increased risk of fraud. It was perceived as a valuable way to build relationships and increase 
understanding  between  taxation  and  customs  colleagues  regarding  common  problems,  both 
within  and  between  national  administrations.  Still,  some  stakeholders  still  felt  that  more 
coordination  and  cross-fertilisation  was  needed  and  possible,  for  example  in  developing 
common IT systems or working closer on excise-related fraud. It was also felt that in the past 
there was more flexibility to use funds across programmes, allowing for more shared actions, 
which  will  no  longer  be  possible  in  the  future.  This  could  reinforce  working  in  silos  and 
undermine some of the synergies described above if a practical solution is not found. 

There  are  also  opportunities  for  shared  approaches  to  human  capacity  building  and  training. 
The  Training  Support  Group  for  the  Customs  and  Fiscalis  programmes  supports  the 
development  and  implementation  of  the  EU  Common  Training  Programmes,  using  strategies 
from both sides.  

EQ 6. To what extent have the programme's resources produced best possible results at 
the lowest results at the lowest possible costs ? 

Analysis of the programme’s resources set against what it achieved helps to determine whether 
the costs of the Customs 2020 programme are proportionate to the benefits it has brought to the 
customs  administrations  and  the  Customs  Union.  Conceptually,  this  would  mainly  involve 
holding up the benefits identified through the effectiveness questions in light of various costs 
and other possible ways of spending equivalent time and money. Not many of the benefits were 
quantifiable, let alone possible to monetised.   

►  the benefits of joint actions justify the costs  

The budgetary breakdown of the programme’s activities for the years 2014-2017 was presented 
under the section on implementation and state of play. To quickly recall the totals and rations, 
IT  systems  accounted  for  84.6%  of  the  budget  (EUR 224 247 00),  joint  actions  –  7.9% 
(EUR 22 933 000),  studies  –  3.7%  (EUR 10 575 000),  training  –  2.6%  (EUR 7 507 000)  and 
expert teams – 1.2% (EUR 3 460 000).  

Between  2014-2017  project  groups  as  a  type  of  joint  action  hosted  the  highest  number  of 
participants (17 290 in total for 140 project  groups keeping in mind that  some project groups 
include more than one action). Working visits in turn saw the largest number of events (413) 
but a substantially lower number of participants (1 142). There were also 68 workshops (1 962 
participants),  18  seminars  (947  participants),  9  capacity  building  actions  (206  participants),  8 
monitoring  actions  (72  participants)  and  5  communication  activities  (203  participants) 
supported by the programme.    

32 

 
Most  of  the  expenses  are  participation-driven  as  they  include  transport,  accommodation  and 
daily  allowance  costs.  Much  smaller  part  of  costs  covers  organisation  of  events,  with  small 
variations  depending  on  the  type  of  event.  Consequently,  the  absolute  costs  are  necessarily 
proportionate to participation levels and vary slightly between different types of actions.  

As  project  groups  attract  the  highest  participation,  their  share  in  the  total  budget  for  joint 
actions is high at nearly 75% of all spending (EUR 14 664 828 for years 2014-2017). However, 
thanks to economies of scale, it appears to be also one of the most cost-efficient methods with 
an average cost per participant in the range of EUR 868. Project groups are perceived as needed 
and  useful,  providing  opportunity  to  exchange  ideas,  new  technological  trends,  business 
solutions and IT approaches and align understanding of legislation and practices. It is arguably 
the  main  mechanism  for  achieving  broader  and  inclusive  continuous  collaboration.  Many 
project  groups  are  quasi-permanent  and  serve  standing  cooperation  platforms  creating 
professional bonds and acting as catalysts.  

Workshops come second in line when it comes to participation and budget share (around 10%; 
EUR 2 078 447 for years 2014-2017) and have a similar cost structure to seminars (nearly 6%; 
EUR 1 140 092 for years 2014-2017). Both of them, in particular the seminars, involve higher 
organisation costs covering such aspects as hiring of the venue, interpretations or refreshments. 
As  they  tend  to  group  participants  in  the  same  venue,  the  accommodation  costs  are  slightly 
higher.  Moreover,  as  many  as  167  participants  attend  some  of  the  biggest  seminars.  Average 
cost per participants comes at EUR 1 204 for seminars and EUR 1 084 per workshop. In many 
ways they bring similar benefits as the project groups. Customs officials appreciated them best 
for  providing  a  quick  and  efficient  platform  for  exploring  difficult  topics.  Although  the 
questionnaire with national authorities showed that seminars and workshops were perceived to 
lack  clear  conclusions,  qualitative  interviews  showed  that  seminars  can  have  unexpected 
positive outcomes going beyond the main objectives of sharing best practices and encouraging 
shifts in national policies. 

In terms of average cost per participants, working visits sit between workshops and seminars 
with  the cost  of EUR 1 116. The  relatively higher costs  are driven by higher accommodation 
and  daily  allowances,  with  travel  costs  in  line  with  other  actions,  which  are  most  likely 
explained by the fact  that  working visits  tend to last  longer. They are highly valuable for the 
customs officials as they provide practical experiences through on-the-ground observation that 
might  not  be  possible  otherwise.  They  constitute  6.6%  of  the  joint  actions  spending  (EUR  1 
286  931).  At  the  same  time,  due  to  their  intimate  nature,  they  encourage  further  bilateral 
cooperation. This  activity  type is  amongst  the most  highly  rated for its usefulness and  would 
have  been  even  more  appreciated  if  not  for  the  associated  administrative  burden  they  are 
assisted with (see evaluation question on efficiency EQ 5).  

The  least  popular  joint  actions  show  also  a  less  standard  cost  breakdown.  In  the  reference 
period, monitoring actions came as the most expensive, averaging EUR 1 436 per participant 
(although they only constituted 0.5% of the joint actions budget with EUR 103 368). That costs 
structure is not permanent or typical for monitoring visits as the ones reflected here were with 
and to third countries, including significantly higher travel costs. That however, is not the rule. 
On the other end of the spectrum are the communication activities, which came as most cost-

33 

 
effective at an average of EUR 816 per participant (0.8%; EUR 165 706). Capacity building 
actions stand at EUR 1 058 (1%; EUR 195 417). All three of them are less common, with fewer 
actions organised. They have a more cross-cutting nature rather than relating to specific topics, 
and,  with  the  exception  of  monitoring  actions,  have  been  introduced  only  in  the  current 
programming  period.  Still,  as  demonstrated  under  effectiveness  questions  EQ  2  and  EQ  4  as 
well  as  in  Annex  4,  also  these  are  appreciated  for  their  potential  within  the  remit  of  their 
specific role.    

The average cost per participant for all types of joint actions (except expert teams, which are 
budgeted separately) is around EUR 921, which is broadly at the same level of the equivalent 
cost  for Customs  2013.  There were no significant  fluctuations in  the per capita costs of joint 
actions either. Moreover, when compared with similar programmes, it turns out to be in line as 
well.  For  example,  joint  actions  funded  by  the  Hercule  III  programme  were  delivered  at  an 
average cost of EUR 799 per participant.         

►  benefits of the customs IT systems outweigh any costs  

The  lion  share  of  the  Customs  programme  budget  supports  the  development,  operation  and 
maintenance of the customs European IT systems. The annual committed expenses for Customs 
IT systems are presented in detail in Annex 5. 17.9% of the total budget has been allocated to 
maintaining  the  Common  Communication  Network/Common  Systems  Interface  (CCN/CSI), 
the essential network that provides the platform for all trans-European IT systems. 40.0% goes 
towards supporting operational costs of customs systems, 8.7% for quality control and 33.4% 
for upgrading and developing new customs systems. 

Setting  up  appropriate  IT  systems  directly  targets  most  of  the  programme’s  operational 
objectives (see: Figure 1). It is synonymous with the objective to implement, improve, operate 
and  support  Customs  IT  systems,  and  is  a  requirement  for  the  objective  of  effective 
implementation of the UCC, best practice sharing and improved co-operation between customs 
authorities and outside organisations. Concrete benefits brought by the IT systems are difficult 
to  quantify  due  to  their  broadness.  Nevertheless,  given  that  there  is  no  other  funding 
mechanism  for  trans-European  systems  and  the  importance  of  modernising  customs  through 
towards  a  paperless  environment  for  customs  and  trade,  it  is  clear  that  virtually  any  expense 
towards  this  goal  is  justified  and  necessary.  Against  the  perceived  high  utility  of  the  IT 
systems, their use in day-to-day customs operations and level of intertwinement with national 
customs systems (see evaluation questions EQ 2, EQ 3 for economic operators, and EQ 4), their 
support to the functioning of the Customs Union is invaluable.  

Moreover, the EU customs IT systems operate in a symbiotic fashion. They are interconnected 
and  interoperable,  linking  not  only  national  systems  with  central  systems  but  also  the  central 
systems  between  themselves.  The  most  prominent  and  almost  self-evident  example  is  the 
CCN/CSI  network  underpinning  several  heterogeneous  systems  with  multiple  types  of 
hardware,  software  and  communications  equipment  allowing  administrations  to  enjoy  a 
coherent,  robust  and  secure  method  to  work  together.  Another  one  would  be  the  Customer 
Reference System CRS, which functions as a communication layer between systems gathering 
and systems using information. Examples gathered through the evaluation included the EORI 

34 

 
database for Economic Operator Identification and Registration, which identifies and tracks all 
EU’s Authorised Economic Operators (AEO), and without which the AEO programme would 
not  function as there is  no other programme to  provide such trans-European network  for this 
purpose  (there  is  over  6  million  valid  EORI  records  as  for  end  of  2017).  The  Common 
Services/Reference Data (CS/RD2) system stores, maintains, validates and distribute common 
and unique reference data for all IT projects. 

For any IT systems, despite the high costs of their development and the upcoming substantial 
needs  to  fully  support  implementation  of  the  UCC,  the  evaluation  emphasised,  after  customs 
administrations,  the  long-term  benefits  outweighing  the  costs,  namely  the  harmonisation  of 
customs  procedures,  uniform  implementation  of  the  customs  law,  sharing  of  information  and 
generating economies of scale, particularly through the centralised systems. It also recognised 
that many IT-related joint actions have specific goals to support national administrations with 
lower  IT  capacity,  for  example  the  project  group  to  examine  the  impact  of  UCC-related  IT 
requirements on national systems. 

►  Customs 2020 training modules are the most cost-efficient activity 

Training  activities  under  Customs  2020  programme  totalled  2.6%  of  the  budget  with  nearly 
EUR  5  million  committed  over  the  programme’s  first  4  years.  It  may  seem  insignificant  but 
they  are  arguably relatively the most cost-efficient  of the activities and have a unique role to 
play. Because development costs of training modules is largely one-off, its efficiency and value 
for money increases with every additional participant as this broader reach takes places at little 
additional cost, if any. Indeed, the steady growth of national customs officials who participated 
in  the  trainings,  and  downloads  from  the  public  domain  show  that  the  need  is  there  and 
Customs 2020 training material fills that gap.  

The flagship product under this programme component is the UCC EU eLearning programme 
to  support  the  implementation  of  the  new  UCC.  As  it  was  already  described  under  previous 
evaluation  questions,  the  programme  is  forecasted  to  reach  40 000  trained  officials  and 
estimated  to  have  reached  already  around  726 000  non-customs  administrations  trainees, 
predominantly  economic operators. Other eLearning courses  that were strongly used between 
2-14-2017  include  AEO  II  (1  010  trainees),  Car  Search  (2 837),  Container  Examination 
(1 566),  DPC-C  (1 542),  EORI  -  Economic  Operator  Identification  and  Registration  (2 179), 
Intellectual Property Rights - IPR (1 992), SAMANCTA (2 424) and Single Authorisation for 
Simplified Procedures SP SASP (1 609).  

Customs 2020 training brings twofold benefits. By its nature, it targets individuals who benefit 
personally through increasing their understanding, knowledge and capacity. Further down the 
line, as the programme offers uniform training base for all, increased uniform understanding of 
the  rules  and  their  application  multiplies  the  benefits  for  customs  administrations,  economic 
operators and the Customs Union as a whole.  

EQ 7: To what extent does the programme demonstrate internal and external coherence? 

►  there is strong internal coherence between the different levels and components of 

the programme and its design 

35 

 
The evidence assessed confirms that the programme is internally coherent. There is a high level 
of  consistency  between  the  intervention  logic,  programme  objectives,  Annual  Work 
Programme (AWP) priorities and projects. The programme’s design is objective-driven, which 
means that all actions under the programme must refer to the objectives outlined in Regulation 
(EU)  No  1294/2013  and  the  resulting  priorities  and  projects  in  the  AWP.  Art.  (14)  of  the 
Regulation establishes the process through which each AWP shall implement the objectives of 
the programme. The programme actions are determined in accordance with the general, specific 
and operational objectives, and the most appropriate method of implementation.  

Occasionally, a given priority or a project will be allocated under different specific objectives 
from one year to another. For example, the EU Customs Action Plan on Intellectual Property 
Rights  was  expected  to  contribute  to  protecting  the  financial  and  economic  interests  of  the 
Union  and  its  Member  States  in  2014  and  2015,  and  in  2016  was  shifted  under  the  specific 
objectives of increasing safety and security, protecting citizens and the environment. While this 
feature points out to the flexibility of the AWP, it also shows the challenges of designing and 
aligning priorities and projects to one specific objective only or to an identified need for action 
according to the Union's policy priorities in the field of customs.  

The  cooperation  around  the  CRMS  is  a  perfect  illustration  of  how  the  IT  systems,  the  joint 
actions and the training activities fit in together to bring about the strongest possible results of 
the programme. A range of joint actions were carried out in 2015 and early 2016 to improve the 
use of the CRMS for the exchange of risk information. Specific guidelines were distributed to 
national  customs  authorities  to  draw  attention  to  recurrent  problems  relating  to  quality  of 
information.  A new version  of CRMS was released to  further improve the functioning of the 
database. Training sessions were held to educate users of the system and help ensure that the 
database is used correctly and consistently with business needs38. Such multipronged approach 
to many specific problems, addressed through the various programme's components, is typical 
for many IT systems, which implementation and improvements at business level are supported 
by joint actions and training.    

►  design, management and continuity of Customs 2020 are instrumental for creating 

synergies and avoiding duplications at different programme levels  

The  programme's  design  –  as  explained  above  -  and  its  implementation  through  agreed  joint 
actions  –  as  explained  under  efficiency  question  EQ  5  –  create  possibilities  to  enhance 
synergies  between  the  programme's  components  and  the  way  it  is  actually  used.  The 
coordinated  central  approach  to  programme's  implementation,  through  single  Commission 
Programme  Management  Team  supported  by  various  groups,  has  for  an  objective  to  ensure 
coherence, reap benefits of best practice and common approaches.  

At  the  practical  level,  the  programme  management  is  supported  by  the  national  programme 
coordinators  from  the  customs  administrations  in  participating  countries,  and  the  internal 
Programme  Coordination  Group  (PCG).  Participation  of  programme  coordinators  in  the 

38   Progress  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  for  customs  risk  management 

COM(2016) 476 final; 

36 

 
                                                           
management  of  the  programme  guarantees  the  smooth  exchange  of  information  and 
coordination at national level. The PCG in turn has an advisory and supporting role in relation 
to  programming,  implementation  and  performance  measurement.  Specifically,  the  group 
ensures there's coherence between objectives and policy priorities of the programme and those 
of  DG  TAXUD  as  stated  in  the  Management  Plan,  helps  to  identify  synergies  and  joint 
initiatives  with  the  view  to  preventing  overlaps  and  optimising  the  use  of  resources  (both 
human  and  financial),  and  seeks  to  optimise  the  use  of  the  programme  through  an  increased 
involvement of all policy units to ensure ownership and improve dissemination and sharing of 
information. 

This coordination, together with high-level steer ensured by DG TAXUD Board of Directors, 
Customs 2020 Committee, the Customs Policy Group and other comitology committees, expert 
groups or the programme's project group with a coordination function39, make it difficult to slip 
into  the  programme  any  action  that  does  not  fit  the  objectives.  Additionally,  as  many  of  the 
above mentioned bodies are common for the Customs 2020's ‘twin programme Fiscalis 2020, 
that involvement and oversight creates additional synergies between the two, which have been 
discussed at length under the efficiency question EQ 5.   

Finally,  the  synergies  and  best  practice  are  reinforced  by  the  continuous  nature  of  the 
programme, where one its iteration follows another. The successive editions of the programme, 
and  the  external  evaluations  that  have  been  regularly  conducted  to  assess  its  implementation 
and  results,  have  provided  solid  ground  to  consolidate  the  strong  features  and  to  adjust 
particular aspects where there was room for improvement. 

Synergies  and  complementarities,  to  keep  them  up  and  increasing,  require  in  practice  a 
successful  exploitation  of 
information  sharing  features  between  different  programme 
stakeholders,  as  well  as  effective  communication  and  dissemination  of  key  programme  tools 
and  messages.  The  evaluation  demonstrated  an  overall  contentment  with  the  communication 
and information-sharing tools and platforms, as described in detail under question on efficiency 
EQ 5. However, an ongoing emphasis on their better design and exploitation, adhering to the 
needs  of  their  users  and  audiences,  should  be  a  continuous  effort  behind  the  programme's 
management. 

►  Customs 2020 is complementary to that of other EU instruments and services 

The  Customs  2020  programme  fits  well  under  the  2020  Strategy,  where  it  contributes  to  the 
realisation  of  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  by 
strengthening  the  functioning  of  the  single  market40.  The  Customs  programme  is  a  sector-
specific  EU  operational  spending  programme,  which  is  funded  under  the  first  heading  of  the 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF)  -  Smart  and  inclusive  Growth,  and  which  supports 
the functioning and modernisation of the Customs Union. 

39   For  example,  Risk  Management  Strategy  Coordination  Group,  Electronic  Customs  Coordination  Group  or 

Training Support Group; 

40   Recital 2 of the Regulation EU No 1294/2013 establishing an action programme for customs in the European 
Union for the period 2014-2020 (Customs programme) as well as DG TAXUD Strategic Plan for the period 
2016-2020;  

37 

 
                                                           
The programme makes part of the EU's broader policies and the causal links as depicted in the 
intervention  logic  as  such  are  clear.  For  example,  by  supporting  the  implementation  of  the 
UCC, the programme contributes to the introduction of simplifications of existing procedures 
that have the potential to facilitate trade and reduce costs for businesses. Through support given 
to  the  implementation  of  the  Authorised  Economic  Operator  programme,  Customs  2020 
facilitates  the  movement  of  legitimate  trade  and  allows  compliant  and  trustworthy  traders  to 
benefit  from  maximum  simplifications  increasing  productivity  and  competitiveness.  By 
supporting  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  on  Intellectual  Property  Rights,  the 
programme  fights  against  the  increasing  volume  of  trade  in  goods  infringing  intellectual 
property rights that threatens jobs, growth, innovation and competitiveness. By supporting the 
implementation  of  measures  related  to  the  autonomous  tariff  suspensions  and  quotas  the 
programme improves the competitiveness of the EU’s business community.  

For  more  pragmatic  examples  of  the  complementarity  of  the  Customs  2020  programme  with 
other EU policies, it is worthwhile recalling the links between customs risk-based controls and 
customs investigations as manifested in the application of the ConTraffic project under Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  515/97  or  the  cross-use  of  the  information  collected  through  the  New 
Computerised  Transit  System  NCTS  and  Export  Control  System  ECS  by  OLAF's  CCN 
gateway.  Similarly,  under  the  PARCS  project  group  on  prohibitions  and  restrictions  on 
imported goods or the project group on drug precursors, Customs 2020 directly and concretely 
supported  consumer  and  health  protection.  All  examples  were  described  under  EQ  4. 
Moreover, access to Customs Risk Management System CRMS is also granted to Commission 
services such as the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), DG Health and Food Safety and DG 
Agriculture and Rural Development, where they are used in support of implementation of their 
respective policies in areas of protection of safety and security, and fraud prevention.  

The programme Regulation41 also states that the resources should be shared with other Union 
funding instruments if the envisaged activities under the programme pursue objectives, which 
are  common  to  various  funding  instruments,  excluding  however  double  financing,  and  that 
actions  under  the  programme  should  ensure  coherence  in  the  use  of  the  Union's  resources 
supporting  the  functioning  of  the  Customs  Union.  It  also  makes  reference  to  the  links  of  the 
Customs  programme  with  the  European  External  Action  Service,  to  facilitate  policy 
coordination and coherence in relation to the Union’s external strategies and actions, both on a 
bilateral and multilateral basis.  

Other  financial  instruments  do  indeed  exist  and  are  available  to  address  specific  needs  of 
national  customs  administrations  as  well.  In  the  eyes  of  the  national  authorities,  there  is 
however  not  enough  dialogue  with  other  Commission  services  and  EU  institutions  and 
underexploited possibilities for cooperation. There seem to be room for raising the visibility of 
the programme instruments and funding across services and for providing more information on 
the  complementary  funding  instruments  to  national  customs  authorities  and  economic 
operators.  In  particular,  IT  synergies  with  other  EU  programmes  that  operate  significant 

41   Recital 11 of the Regulation EU No 1294/2013 as above; 

38 

 
                                                           
electronic systems, especially those impacting business, could also be exploited by the Customs 
programme.  

In fact, DG TAXUD Management Plan outlines a series of initiatives that will be implemented 
to achieve increased IT synergies with other services, including DG DIGIT, DG HOME and the 
European  Agency  for  the  operational  management  of  large-scale  IT  systems  in  the  area  of 
freedom,  security  and  justice  (eu-LISA),  particularly  in  the  areas  of  IT  infrastructure  and 
network  connectivity,  internet  connectivity,  IT  security  operations  centre  (SOC)  services  and 
the reuse of software components. 

Also,  in  the  eyes  of  the  programme  users,  some  of  the  underlying  needs  of  the  customs 
administrations  are,  or  could  be,  covered  by  other  EU  instruments  (e.g.  Horizon  2020,  EU 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  EU  Internal  Security  Fund  and  Instrument  for  Border 
Management  and  Visa,  Single  Market  Programme,  Structural  Reform  Support  Programme, 
Connecting  Europe  Facility  Fund  or  Hercule  programme)  or  national  means.  Such  overlaps 
indicate  a  need  for  a  better  coordination  with  other  Commission  services  with  the  aim  of 
enhancing areas of common work and identifying alternative sources of funding while strongly 
manifesting  at  the  same  time  Customs  2020's  compatibility  and  coherence  with  other  EU 
policies and funding programmes. 

investigating  ways 

interviewees  also  suggested 

Commission 
the 
technological platform for the delivery of eLearning, in particular in terms of making it more 
accessible. In their view, there are too many participating countries, which report difficulties in 
accessing modules due to technical issues and lack of compatibility with national management 
systems. Suggestions included investigating synergies with other Commission services such as 
CEPOL  or  initiatives  such  as  the  World  Customs  Organisation  Learning  and  Knowledge 
Community to assess opportunities for integrating or replacing existing DG TAXUD tools. 

improve 

jointly 

to 

EQ 8: To what extent does the programme provide EU added value? 

Although  the  Customs  Union  is  an  exclusive  EU  competence,  which  means  that  subsidiarity 
principles do not apply and the right to EU action is assumed, the conditions of how this power 
is used are not. Proportionality needs to be applied to ensure that actions are not more extensive 
than it is necessary to achieve the objectives.  

►  EU  added  value  of  Customs  2020  programme  manifests  itself  in  efficiency  gains 

and economies of scale   

The  evaluation  found  that  strong  EU  added  value  perceptions  were  present  with  relation  to 
economies  of  scale  and  efficiency  gains.  Economies  of  scale  were  mostly  manifested  in  the 
joint  actions  through  their  broad  reach  in  exchange  of  information  and  experience, 
opportunities  for  networking  during  and  after  the  actions,  and  the  possibility  to  enhance  the 
understanding of common problems and options for solutions.  

Many of the joint actions were directly supporting implementation of a policy or plan, such as 
the  Authorised  Economic  Operator  programme,  the  Action  Plan  on  Intellectual  Property 
Rights,  Single  Authorisation  for  Simplified  Procedures  or  in  the  area  of  risk  management.  In 

39 

 
that way, Customs 2020 was instrumental in helping the national administrations to make sure 
they were ready for the modern, well functioning Customs Union. Naturally, the UCC would 
have got implemented by the Member States on its own curse. However, having the possibility 
to talk to each other in broader or more domain-focused fora, exchange views on interpretations 
of the complex requirements, experience with implementation and the same common and trans-
national challenges, adapting best practices that can work in specific national contexts or come 
up  with  joint  ideas  and  common  tools,  all  of  which  is  possible  thanks  to  the  Customs  2020 
programme,  makes  this  huge  task  so  much  more  effective  and  efficient,  saving  resources  to 
national administrations. Efficiency gains and economies of scales, which are only there to reap 
through  Customs  programme  funded  cooperation.  Ultimately,  Customs  2020  programme 
approximates national approaches, establishes trust and creates a single narrative and a shared 
vision.  

Efficiency  gains  and  costs  savings  are  amongst  the  key  elements  of  EU  added  value  when  it 
comes  to  the  IT  systems.  The  evaluation  found  them  as  helping  the  national  administrations 
save  time  and  resources,  particularly  for  participating  countries  with  smaller  customs 
administrations and fewer resources. To illustrate better the magnitude of that worth, we should 
keep in mind that across the EU customs deal with more than 9 customs declarations of EUR 
100 000 and more of value per second. 99% of them are lodged electronically and processed 
thanks to the customs electronic systems42. As mentioned already under the relevance question, 
speed and reliability of processing goods through customs have direct and measurable influence 
on  businesses.  Table  2 presents  examples  of  cost  savings  brought  by  the  various  IT  customs 
systems for customs administrations.  

Table 2. Examples of cost savings brought by the IT customs systems  

Systems classification 

Cost savings for customs admiinistrations 

Trader management  

CDS: contributes to a paper-less environment. Its central implementation and 
maintenance has resulted in reduced costs for national administrations 

REX: has saved participating countries from developing national registration systems 

Goods classification 
and tariff management  

TARIC and QUOTA: the display of EU legislation documents in TARIC and 
QUOTA has reduced costs and time for national administrations, as users do not have 
to enter the EUR-LEX database to search for them 

ECICS: has allowed for the classification of chemicals. In its absence, it would have 
been necessary to use online systems to retrieve the relevant information, resulting in 
additional costs and time 

EU movement control: 
import, export, transit  

SW-CVED: has accelerated customs clearance and supported paper-less business, 
reducing costs 

Other  

STTA: valuable testing tool for NCTS and ECS. In its absence, it would have been 
necessary to develop a national level testing tool, resulting in additional costs and 
time.  

Source: ‘Mid-term evaluation for the Customs 2020 programme’, Customs 2020 Work Programmes 2014-2017; 

42   First Biennial Report on Progress in Developing the EU Customs Union and its Governance, COM(2018) 524 

final); 

40 

 
                                                           
The  programme’s  common  training  activities  were  also  seen  as  helping  national  customs 
administrations to understand and implement EU customs legislation and its related procedures 
not only better but also, if not more importantly, in a more uniform fashion. As with the joint 
actions  described  above,  customs  officials  would  have,  in  all  likelihood,  got  the  necessary 
competences and knowledge, but without the common training base provided by the Customs 
2020 programme that process would be much longer and costlier. Efficiency gains were biggest 
especially  for  those  participating  countries  who  have  not  yet  had  well  developed  national 
training programmes and doing it on their own accord would have been difficult or would have 
not  happened  at  all.  For  all,  the  access  to  systematised  and  comprehensive  information 
contained  in  the  eLearning  modules  and  their  electronic  availability  to  a  wide  range  of  users 
created economies of scale not matched by any other effort.     

The  IT  systems,  joint  actions  and  training  have  also  a  tangible  value  for  the  economic 
operators.  As  it  was  already  evidenced  under  effectiveness  question  EQ  3  in  particular,  the 
programme outputs are also used, where relevant, by economic operators even though they may 
not always be fully aware that a certain database or IT application they use daily is funded by 
the programme. The EU added value in that sense is homogeneous to the utility the economic 
operators see in the various systems. For example, the TARIC and EBTI databases stood out as 
a source of information that is difficult to find elsewhere and provided at no extra cost, which is 
particularly  useful  when  a  Member  States  does  not  provide  much  information  or  for  non-EU 
operators to access customs information. For the Member States in turn, daily transmissions of 
TARIC  data  via  an  electronic  network  guarantee  immediate  and  correct  information    to  feed 
their national  systems  for customs clearance, with  the goal  of maximising automatic  customs 
clearance. It is difficult to imagine that such database could have been developed, maintained 
and  kept  up  to  date  by  any  individual  country  or  an  uncoordinated  bilateral  effort.  There  are 
many IT systems with similar functions that stand behind that example.  

As  it  was  also  discussed  under  efficiency  question  EQ  6,  everything  that  is  related  to  the 
interoperability and interconnectivity of the central IT systems is purely EU added value. The 
symbiotic features of the central pan-European IT architecture for customs are unmatched and 
unreproducible  at  national  level,  if  only  for  the  significant  costs  of  their  development, 
deployment and maintenance.  

The high number of downloaded and shared UCC eLearning modules by economic operators 
proves also their interest in that aspect, which were already discussed before. Most likely, these 
interests would have not been addressed if not through the Customs programme.  

On a more strategic level, any improvement brought by Customs 2020 to the performance of 
the  customs  administrations  across  the  EU  benefits  also,  albeit  indirectly,  the  economic 
operators who thus enjoy more efficient and harmonised customs practices while being treated 
by the customs more like partners, or customers, than customs duty subjects. 

►  Customs 2020 complements initiatives at national level by focusing on EU solutions 

for EU problems 

Many of the activities of modern customs are of cross-border nature, involving and affecting all 
Member  States  and  mandating  collective  action  at  union  level  to  achieve  high  level  of 

41 

 
cooperation with cost-to-benefit ratio higher than would result if each Member State were to set 
up individual cooperation frameworks on a bilateral or multilateral basis. There was consensus 
among stakeholders that the programme has been effective at  attempting  to  provide solutions 
for  problems  and  issues  for  which  there  is  a  clear  EU  dimension,  broadly  complementing 
(rather  than  duplicating)  initiatives  at  national  level.  In  fact,  the  instances  of  duplication  of 
efforts  reported  by  some  administrations  were  rather  seen  as  unavoidable  in  the  process  of 
working towards a harmonised EU Customs Union. In some cases, they were even perceived as 
necessary for cross-checking of information or combining data. None of them were mentioned 
to be rendering the EU IT customs system redundant.  

EU  IT  systems  developed  and  implemented  with  Customs  programme  support  are  an 
indispensable feature for the proper implementation of the UCC. Their main EU added value in 
that  respect  resides  in  their  contribution  to  enabling  harmonised  rules  in  the  Customs  Union, 
without  which  no  level  playing  field  for  European  trade  is  possible.  The  need  for  continued 
financing  of  the  IT  systems  with  the  view  to  ensure  financial  sustainability  of  the  European 
Information  Systems  came  also  clear  from  the  recommendations  of  the  special  Report  of  the 
European Court of Auditors43. Also the Draft Council Conclusions on the Progress Report on 
the  implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  for  customs  risk  management44 
highlighted  the  appropriate  IT  systems  and  their  timely  funding  as  crucial  to  ensure  the 
availability and sharing of supply chain data and risk-relevant information.  

The  IT  systems,  and  in  particular  the  CCN/CSI  network,  play  an  important  role  in 
interconnecting  customs  authorities  and  thus  facilitating  the  cooperation  between  national 
customs administrations. They allow information to be exchanged rapidly, in a secured fashion 
and in a common format that can be recognised by all national customs administrations.  

Customs administrations do not work in isolation from each other. Cooperation is likely to take 
place  through  official  channels,  under  aegis  of  different  bodies  or,  for  countries  sharing 
historical context or geographical location, through other long-standing mechanisms. However, 
it  is  safe  to  say  that  none  other  form  of  cooperation  has  the  pan-European  dimension  that  is 
offered  through  the  Customs  2020  joint  actions.  Each  of  them  exhibits  specific  values  to 
customs  administrations  and  economic  operators  (see  Annex  4)  ranging  from  broad  strategic 
coordination  to  shared  understanding  to  pragmatic  solutions  at  the  business-level.  Many  of 
them  support  directly  implementation  of  policies,  plans  and  actions,  by  which  they  are  by 
definition  adding  operational  value  to  the  policy  level  concepts.  They  also  add  value  to  the 
implementation of the IT systems underpinning many of the customs processes and procedures.  

Customs 2020 human competency building activities, with the flagship initiative of eLearning 
modules  on  the  UCC,  offer  the  customs  administrations  a  unique  common  training  base  and 
increased  cohesion  in  the  training  domain.  Participating  countries  integrate  the  training 
modules  provided  by  the  Customs  programme  if  they  wish  to  and  to  the  extent,  which  suits 

43   ‘Import  procedures:  shortcomings  in  the  legal  frameworks  and  an  ineffective  implementation  impact  the 

financial interests in the EU’, Special Report of the European Court of Auditors, 19/2017; 

44   JAI 1006 ENFOCUSTOM 203, 14894/16, 7/12/2016; 

42 

 
                                                           
them best. The complementarity of eLearning to national training programmes is present even 
for countries, which are not heavy users of the Customs 2020 material, using (extensively) only 
the modules, which they have themselves not developed or are most pertinent for them. Some 
in turn use it for inspiration in developing their national programmes. None of that diminishes 
the overall utility or the quality of the training - which are universally reviewed positively - and 
their uptake is determined by the specific national needs. Given that the uptake is  considered 
high,  as  discussed  earlier  on  under  a  few  of  the  evaluation  questions,  so  is  the  need  and  the 
unique value added by the programme. 

►  Customs 2020 helps administrative cultures to converge  

Customs authorities within the Customs Union apply the same rules and all Member States are 
dependent  on  each  other  and  are  in  need  of  information  as  complete  as  possible.  Economic 
operators in turn, expect equal level of service, speed and predictability of rules and procedures 
wherever  they  need  to  deal  with  customs.  This  interdependence  requires  cooperation  and 
approximation of practices. The Customs 2020 programme has been instrumental in leading to 
this convergence.  

For example, in the risk management field, the work of the Financial Risk Management Project 
Group  elaborated  a  common  compendium  of  risks.  In  the  area  of  intellectual  property  rights, 
the working visit of Estonian officials to Finland on intellectual property rights infringements 
brought about a common understanding in relation to combating infringements in this area and 
a successful transfer of Finnish experience and best practices to Estonia.  

►  Customs 2020 adds unique intangible value of human networks and trust  

What  came  repeatedly  from  the  field  work  conducted  for  this  evaluation,  beyond  the  direct 
financial  benefits,  is  the  value  of  human  networks  and  personal  contacts  created  through 
enhanced cooperation of the joint actions. Whereas the IT system support the Customs Union 
from the technical angle of interoperable and interconnected systems, they become an integral 
part of the daily works of the customs officials and economic operators, and are no longer seen 
as  outputs  of  the  Customs  2020  programme.  The  joint  actions  in  turn  dynamic,  giving  the 
administrations  unequalled  opportunities  for  cooperation,  communication  and  networking, 
ultimately building trust  and leading to  greater convergence of approaches and practices. The 
national  administrations  refer  to  that  as  ‘invaluable’  and  beneficial  for  moving  towards  a 
harmonised  application  of  common  customs  rules.  In  the  absence  of  the  programme, 
cooperation between participating countries would have to be based on unstructured relations, 
formal  time-consuming  channels  and  reciprocity  agreements,  which  would  be  significantly 
more difficult and costly to implement in practice and maintain. 

►  outputs  and  results  of  Customs  2020  would  remain  in  a  short-term  but  diminish 

rapidly in case the programme would discontinue  

National authorities believe that Customs 2020 led to concrete outputs and results that would be 
useful in the future even if the programme were to discontinue. The aspects most mentioned in 
that  context  is  improved  cooperation  and  networking  between  customs  administrations  and 
officials individually. What would not disappear either would be tangible outputs such as the 

43 

 
eLearning  training  material,  e-books,  guidelines,  studies,  information  on  best  practices, 
integration of new practices into national processes, expert networks, business processes or IT 
systems.  Also  the  skills  already  acquired  through  learning  and  sharing  experiences  would 
remain. However, none of these outputs would be like to endure beyond the short-term horizon 
if the programme were to discontinue. Given the scale of the Customs 2020 operations in terms 
of  the  sheer  number  of  joint  actions,  versatility  of  topics,  their  European  dimension  or  pan-
European  participation  in  actions  and  training,  it  is  difficult  to  assume  that  similar  activities 
would have been organised at any other level. Instead, it seems likely that existing differences 
in customs practice would persist, especially as networks built and reinforced through years of 
programme-fostered  collaboration  faded.  The  customs  environment  is  far  from  stagnant  and 
recent developments, in particular in relation to the implementation of the UCC, are arguably as 
quick  as  they  have  ever  been.  With  time,  these  intangible  outputs  and  results  would  fade  or 
become altogether obsolete.  

Similarly  for  the  IT  systems.  How  the  systems  function  and  to  what  extent  they  support  the 
national  administrations  and  economic  operators  has  been  established  in  questions  on 
effectiveness EQ 2 and EQ 4. However, support and modernisation of the IT systems will be 
required on a continuous basis to make sure they continue to respond to the changing needs and 
reality  or  are  in  line  with  technological  progress  related  to  digitalisation,  connectedness,  data 
analytics,  artificial  intelligence  or  blockchain  technology.  These  can  be  seen  as  both,  threats 
and opportunities. However, both boil down to the Customs Union having robust IT systems to 
fend off the former and reap the benefits of the latter.     

The EU’s IT ecosystem for customs, built steadily over the years, is already comprehensive and 
mature. At the same time, it relies on adequate EU level resourcing of the Union components 
while  its  underpinning  role  in  the  implementation  of  customs  policy,  notably  the  UCC, 
continues  to  increase  towards  paperless  customs  in  the  global  world.  In  that  light,  the 
importance  of  the  programme’s  support  and  the  central  role  of  the  Commission  in  running 
central  applications  and  coordinating  works  of  the  Member  States  on  the  development  of 
national components, increases.  

Current  IT statistics support that claim45. There are currently 49  IT applications in  operations 
and  38  further  projects  in  either  development  or  research  phase.  All  of  them  require  regular 
check-ups and updates. In fact, about 90% of the Customs 2020 budget related to IT systems is 
spent on the already existing systems, in terms of their operations, infrastructure, maintenance 
and  support).  Between  2014  and  2016  there  were  on  average  over  370  business  evolutive 
changes  (following  business  requests)  and  over  880  corrective  changes  introduced  to  the  IT 
infrastructure annually. Service desk answered more than 61 000 calls in 2017 alone, which is 
over  30%  increase  year  on46.  The  development  contractor  delivered  171  software  releases  in 
2017  and  the  operational  contractor  performed  231  and  679  testing  cycles  and  deployments 
respectively. On top of it come numerous security threats where the speedy reaction of the IT 
team defended the systems against various attacks and resolved various exploitations. 

45   SWD(2018)107 "Customs 2020 programme – Progress Report 2016"; 
46   Over 46 000 in 2016; 

44 

 
                                                           
Costs  of  supporting  and  checking  quality  of  IT  systems  amounts  jointly  to  nearly  half  of  the 
total  IT  spending,  reaching  respectively  EUR  97 624 000  and  EUR  21 346 000  for  the  years 
2014-2017. All of that is currently provided by Customs 2020 programme but who would take 
care  of  it  if  it  were  to  discontinue?  Especially  given  that  successful  implementation  and 
enforcement  of  the  UCC  demands  even  greater  level  of  integration  and  interoperability  of 
customs IT systems, increased standardisation of the data elements and processes47.  

The magnitude of resources on any one given system can be illustrated by the CS/RD2 system 
(Common Services/Reference Data) whose purpose is to store, maintain, validate and distribute 
common  and  unique  reference  data  for  all  IT  projects  across  the  EU.  This  reference  data 
support customs clearance in daily operations for systems and is used by customs officials and 
economic operators in their customs systems but also in the works with the Excise Movement 
and Control System or and the System for Exchange of Excise Data. At the moment, there are 
80 code lists to be maintained having more than 20 000 entries in the systems and the number 
of  code  lists  will  be  significantly  increased  for  the  implementation  of  the  UCC.  It  is  not 
surprising that Customs administrations raised concerns that without the programme’s support 
and  the  coordination  role  from  the  Commission,  it  would  be  difficult  to  maintain,  let  alone 
develop, similar far reaching interoperable and interconnected IT systems.  

Concluding after the First Biennial Report on Progress in Developing the EU Customs Union 
and its Governance48, the functioning of the Customs Union and the further integration of the 
national customs authorities that run it remain entirely dependent on the Customs programme. 
In view of the challenges facing the world, the European Union and the Customs Union, it is 
crucial that this programme continues after 2020.  

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The Customs programme has been in place for nearly 25 years now, evolving with the single 
market.  The  newest  iteration,  Customs  2020,  was  set  up  for  the  years  2014-2020  as  a 
multiannual  action  programme  to  facilitate  and  enhance  cooperation  between  customs 
administrations. The present evaluation assessed the programme in terms of its relevance to the 
stakeholders, effectiveness  in  and efficiency of  achieving its objectives,  coherence with  other 
initiatives and its EU added value. Here are the key messages stemming from this exercise:  

1.  Customs 2020 programme became an integral part of the national and European 
customs  landscape,  the  policies,  processes  and  procedures.  As  the  Customs  Union 
progresses towards a paperless environment for customs and trade, the programme was 
arguably never as needed as presently; 

2.  Customs  2020  programme  was  found  relevant  to  the  broad  needs  behind  a  well 
functioning Customs Union, expressed through the more specific needs of the national 

47   ‘IT Strategy for Customs’, COM(2018)178; 
48   COM(2018) 524 final; 

45 

 
                                                           
customs administrations and economic operators as well, albeit less explicitly, European 
citizens; 

3.  With  the  core  objective  of  the  UCC  being  to  create  seamless  and  efficient  customs 
processes across the EU, based on digital tools,  Customs 2020 programme has been 
especially  important  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  European  Information 
Systems and providing for their financial sustainability ensuring the availability and 
sharing of supply chain data and risk-relevant information. About 80% of the Customs 
2020 programme funding goes into the operation, maintenance and development of the 
IT  systems.  They  answer 
interconnectivity, 
standardisation  of  the  data  elements  and  processes,  and  reliance  of  the  electronic 
customs systems with a unified data system for a well functioning EU Customs Union 
with fully implemented UCC; 

interoperability, 

the  needs 

for 

4.  Customs  2020  programme  fosters  exchange  of  information.  There  were  nearly  4.8 
billion  messages  exchanged  over  the  Common  Communication  Network/  Common 
Systems  Interface  CCN/CSI.  Over  11.2  million  transit  movements  were  released 
through  the  New  Computerised  Transit  System  NCTS,  with  the  average  number  of 
movements released per business day reaching over 44 000. 5.1 million indirect export 
movements  were  recorded  in  the  Export  Control  System  ECS  and  some  48  million 
Entry  Summary  Declarations  ENS  were  lodged  in  EU  through  the  Import  Control 
System ICS. All that happened in only one year of the programme’s operation; 

5.  In  general,  the  most  appreciated  IT  systems  are  the  ones,  which  have  been  in 
operation for a long time and underpin the more traditional role and needs of customs in 
goods  classification,  tariff  management  or  movement  control.  These  include,  for 
example,  the  CCN/CSI  network,  the  TARIC  database  for  integrated  Tariff  in  the  EU, 
the  EBTI-3  database  for  European  Binding  Tariff  Information,  the  EORI  system  for 
Economic  Operators  Registration  and  Identification  Number,  the  New  Computerised 
Transit  System  NCTS,  the  Customs  Risk  Management  System  CRMS  or  the  COPIS 
system for anti-Counterfeit and anti-Piracy Information;  

6.  Customs  2020  programme  fosters  cooperation  and  build  trust  between  customs 
administrations  and  their  officials.  The  joint  actions  give  the  administrations 
unequalled opportunities, ranging from facilitating convergence at the strategic level to 
approximating  approaches,  interpretation,  administrative  procedures  and  rules  at  the 
operation level. The great majority of the participants use the opportunity to build and 
expand  networks,  share  the  direct  outputs  with  colleagues  and  regularly  their 
connections  to  solve  day-to-day  problems.  The  value  of  human  networks  and 
personal contacts were amongst the programme’s most appreciated benefits; 

7.  Training activities have an important and unique role and are conducive to shared 
understanding,  alignment  of  interpretations  of  the  customs  provisions,  standardisation 
of terminology and ultimately more uniformity into application of the EU law across the 
Member States. They also support the performance of joint actions and IT systems. The 

46 

 
newest  modules  on  the  implementation  of  the  UCC,  attracted  already  some  68  915 
customs officials and some 726 000 economic operators. That is 1 in 4 customs officials 
from all participating countries trained thanks to the programme; 

8.  Customs authorities are dependent on each other to play their part in revenue collection 
and  provision  of  safety  and  security  of  the  EU  and  its  citizens.  The  enhanced 
cooperation  between  customs  authorities  and  some  other  authorities  and  bodies, 
sharing  of  best  practice,  exchange  of  robust  information,  putting  to  work  tested 
solutions, the trust put in their counterparts and in the IT systems they all use to 
this extent, can all be credited to the Customs 2020 programme; 

9.  Customs  2020  was  crucial  in  building  up  the  administrative  capacity  of  the 
customs  administrations  and  supporting  them  in  preparation  for  the  formal 
adoption of the UCC processes. The programme's joint actions and training facilitated 
common  understanding  of  legal  requirements  and  the  harmonised  application  of 
working methods from the UCC and other legislative measures;  

10. Thousands of economic operators interact with the Customs-funded IT databases 
on a regular basis. They provide them with information that is not available elsewhere 
in  a  timely  way,  helping  them  to  reduce  some  of  the  administrative  burdens  and 
simplifying  procedures,  ultimately  increasing  legal  certainty  and  smoothing  out  trade. 
They  also  benefit  indirectly  from  improved  customs  processes  being  dealt  with 
efficiently and effectively. Speed and reliability of customs clearance impact directly on 
business productivity and profitability; 

11. Customs  2020  joint  actions  allow  for  the  dialogue  between  customs  and  business 
community  and  contribute  to  aligning  the  programme  between  Member  States,  while 
factoring  in  the  practical  implications  for  businesses.  Occasionally,  it  was  found  to 
change  the  relationship  between  customs  administrations  and  businesses  from 
'command and control' approach to a more 'customs-to-business' partnership; 

12. Customs  2020  strike  a  good  balance  between  a  centralised  management  and  a 
consultative  and  transparent  annual  programming  process,  which  makes  the 
customs  authorities  use  the  programme  to  their  best  interest.  It  is  implemented  in  a 
timely way allowing the funding decision and payments to be delivered on time; 

13. The  majority  of  recommendations  from  previous  evaluation  have  been  acted  on 
and  used  to  make  notable  improvements  to  the  programme.  Some  are  still 
underway. Appreciated changes were introduced to the management of the joint actions, 
structuring  of  the  AWP  projects,  monitoring  the  performance  of  the  programme  and 
streamlining the platforms for sharing documents and facilitating communication;  

14. Setting  up  of  the  Performance  Measurement  Framework  (PMF)  was  the  biggest 
single  improvement  to  the  programme’s  management.  It  installed  a  more  evidence-
based mind-set to programme management, facilitated monitoring of the programme’s 
performance and ongoing improvement, and increased transparency. The PMF is vastly 

47 

 
more  comprehensive  than  any  monitoring  conducted  of  previous  iterations  of  the 
programme. The high number of indicators, the self-reported, sometimes too superficial 
data at the result level, and the frequency and length of the feedback and reporting were 
found as weaknesses of the current framework;  

15. Costs  of  organising  joint  actions  are  participation  driven  (e.g. 

transport, 
accommodation,  daily  allowances)  and  vary  slightly  between  different  types  of  joint 
actions.  The  average  cost  per  participant  for  all  types  of  joint  actions  is  around  EUR 
921,  which  is  broadly  unchanged  from  the  last  programme  iteration  and  in  line  with 
similar  programmes,  such  as  Hercule.  All  types  of  joint  actions  were  found  to  be 
bringing  specific  types  of  benefits  and  considered  worth  the  money.  Moreover,  all 
Customs 2020 programme’s activities were found mutually reinforcing; 

16. Some administrative burdens were noted for the process of applying to joint actions 
and  related  reporting  obligations,  which  seem  due  to  the  perceived  administrative 
paperwork,  short  deadlines  for  nomination  of  representatives,  logistics  behind  their 
participation and diminishing resources in general; 

17. Customs IT programmes are resource-intensive but bring a vast array of benefits 
in  all  areas  of  customs  activities  including  harmonisation  of  customs  procedures, 
uniform  implementation  of  the  customs  law,  sharing  of  information  and  generating 
economies  of  scale,  particularly 
the  centralised  systems.  They  are 
interconnected and interoperable, linking not only national systems with central systems 
but  also  the  central  systems  between  themselves.  They  support  directly  all  of  the 
Customs 2020 objectives, are vastly used in the day-to-day customs operations and their 
importance  in  pursuing  modernisation  of  customs  towards  a  paperless  environment  is 
invaluable;  

through 

18. Communication,  reporting,  information  flow  and  coordination  tools  were  found 
effective in dissemination of  harmonised messages and considered essential for DG 
TAXUD  policy  units  and  programme  coordinators,  who  work  as  multipliers  of  the 
programme at various levels; 

19. Synergies  between  Customs  2020  and  Fiscalis  2020  programmes  are  strongest  at 
the  management  level,  manifested  through  administrative  arrangements  and  joint 
works, including cross-fertilisation and joint funding of shared components such as the 
the  Common  Communication 
systems 
backbone 
Network/Common Systems Interface (CCN/CSI network) - and similar approaches for 
human  capacity  building  and  training.  Content-related  synergies  exist  in  some  areas, 
such as excise duties, but could be better exploited; 

trans-European 

for 

IT 

- 

20. Training  activities  are  relatively  the  most  cost-efficient  of  the  activities  as  the 
development costs of training modules are largely one-off, increasing its efficiency and 
value for money with every additional participant. They benefit the individual trainees 
through increasing their understanding, knowledge and capacity. On a bigger scale they 
lead to increased uniform understanding of the rules and their application, spilling the 
benefits onto customs administrations, economic operators and the Customs Union as a 
whole; 

48 

 
21. The successive editions of the programme, and the external evaluations that have been 
regularly  conducted  to  assess  its  implementation  and  results,  have  provided  solid 
ground  to  consolidate  the  strong  features  and  to  adjust  particular  aspects  where 
there was room for improvement; 

22. Customs  2020  programme  fits  under  the  2020  Strategy  and  the  EU's  broader 
policies. It has been found effective in attempting to provide solutions for problems and 
issues for which there is a clear EU dimension. It is complementary to other initiatives 
and  directly  supports  implementation  of  policies  in  related  domains  such  as  fighting 
customs fraud, health and food safety or citizens’ security; 

23. There  is  room  for  improved  dialogue  between  the  Commission’s  services  and  with 
other  EU  institutions  to  exploit  better  possibilities  for  stronger  cooperation  and 
complementarity of the various funding instruments available to national authorities and 
economic operators. On the national level, the instances of duplication of efforts were 
seen  as  unavoidable  in  the  process  of  working  towards  a  harmonised  EU  Customs 
Union;  

24. Most  of  the  Customs  2020  programme’s  joint  actions,  training  and  IT  systems 
directly support implementation of a policy, helping customs administrations to  get 
ready for the modern, well functioning Customs Union. It provided for the possibility to 
discuss  various  aspects  in  broader  or  more  domain-focused  fora,  exchange  views  on 
interpretations  of  the  complex  requirements,  experience  with  implementation  and  the 
same  common  and  trans-national  challenges,  adapting  best  practices  that  can  work  in 
specific  national  contexts  or  come  up  with  joint  ideas  and  common  tools.  Ultimately, 
Customs  2020  programme  approximates  national  approaches,  establishes  trust  and 
creates a single narrative and a shared vision; 

25. Customs 2020 programme was instrumental particularly in supporting all the aspects of 
the  implementation  of  the  UCC.  It  provided  for  financial  sustainability  of  the 
European  IT  systems  and  their  timely  funding  was  found  crucial  to  ensure  the 
availability and sharing of supply chain data and risk-relevant information; 

26. The  Customs  2020  programme  brought  about  economies  of  scale  and  efficiency 
gains.  They  are  the  strongest  when  it  comes  to  the  IT  systems,  which  helped  the 
national administrations save time and resources, particularly for participating countries 
with smaller customs administrations and fewer resources. Everything that is related 
to the interoperability and interconnectivity of the central IT systems is purely EU 
added  value.  The  symbiotic  features  of  the  central  pan-European  IT  architecture  for 
customs are unmatched and unreproducible at national level; 

27. Customs  2020  programme  created  tangible  outputs  such  as  the  eLearning  training 
material, e-books, guidelines, studies, information on best practices, integration of new 
practices into national processes, expert networks, business processes or IT systems. It 
let  customs  officials  to  acquire  skills  and  exchange  experiences.  None  of  the 
programme’s outputs, however, were found likely to endure beyond the short-term 
horizon if the programme were to discontinue. Existing differences would persist and 
networks built and reinforced through years of programme-fostered collaboration fade; 

49 

 
28. In  the  absence  of  the  programme,  cooperation  between  participating  countries 
would  have  to  be  based  on  unstructured  relations,  formal  time-consuming 
channels and reciprocity agreements, which would be significantly more difficult and 
costly  to  implement  in  practice  and  maintain.  Given  the  scale  of  the  Customs  2020 
operations  in  terms  of  the  sheer  number  of  joint  actions,  versatility  of  topics,  their 
European dimension or pan-European participation in actions and training, it is difficult 
to assume that similar activities would have been organised at any other level; 

29. Support  and  modernisation  of  the  custom  IT  systems  rely  on  adequate  EU  level 
resourcing of the Union components and is required on a continuous basis to make sure 
they  continue  to  respond  to  the  changing  needs  and  reality  or  are  in  line  with 
technological progress. Without the Customs 2020 programme, costs of developing, 
supporting  and  checking  quality  of  the  IT  systems  would  have  been  seriously 
challenged if not altogether impossible. These costs amounts jointly to nearly half of 
the total IT spending, 

50 

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

The  mid-term  evaluation  is  a  non-major  initiative  (PLAN/2017/932)  organised  in  accordance 
with  article  18(1)(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1294/2013  of  11th  of  December  2013  setting  up 
Customs  2020  as  a  multiannual  action  programme  for  customs  in  the  EU,  to  facilitate  and 
enhance cooperation between national administrations.  

The  lead  Directorate  General  for  the  evaluation  was  the  Directorate  General  for  Taxation  and 
Customs Union (DG TAXUD).  

2.  Organisation and timing 

The Commission carried out the present evaluation with the help of an external consultant. The 
evaluation  study  was  commissioned  from  Oxford  Research,  Coffey,  Economisti  Associati  and 
wedoIT, through a framework contract with a consortium led by Economisti Associati Srl49. The 
specific contract was signed on the 14th of August 2017 for a period of 13 months.  

The  evaluation  was  supported  by  an  inter-service  steering  group  with  the  following 
Commission’s services who expressed their wish to participate in the group:  

DG Secretariat General (SG) 

DG European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations (NEAR) 

DG Justice and Consumers (JUST) 

DG Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI),  

DG Budget (BUDG) 

DG Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS) 

DG Migration and Home Affairs (HOME)  

The inter-service steering group met five times on 14th of September 2017, 16th of October 2017, 
9th  of  March  2018,  29th  of  May  2018  and  29th  of  June  2018.  The  last  meeting  was  a  joint 
validation workshop for Customs 2020 and Fiscalis 2020 programmes during which the external 
consultants  presented  their  findings,  conclusions  and  recommendations.  These  were  further  on 
discussed with the group, their validity and credibility confirmed.   

49   Framework Contract TAXUD/2015/CC/132; 

51 

 
 
 
                                                           
3.  Evidence, sources and quality 

The present evaluation SWD is based on the works carried out by the external consultant. The 
material  informing  this  evaluation  consisted  of  (1)  programming  documentation,  (2)  previous 
studies,  reports  and  evaluations,  and  (3)  the  Performance  Measurement  Framework  (PMF),  as 
detailed in Table 3, which presents as well the intended purpose of use.  

The  evaluation  gathered  also  primary  data  on  the  programme’s  implementation,  functioning, 
results  and  use  directly  from  the  best-placed  stakeholders:  the  customs  administrations  of  the 
participating  countries  and,  albeit  to  a  smaller  extent,  from  economic  operators.  That  evidence 
was collected through targeted questionnaires and a series of 7 thematic cases studies, which are 
described in a greater level of detail in Annex 3.  

Finally,  the  Commission  organised  a  public  consultation  on  the  Commission’s  spending 
programmes  and  funds.  This  public  consultation  was  launched  within  the  context  of  the 
Commission’s  proposals  for  the  next  generation  of  financial  programmes  for  the  post-2020 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF).  The  Customs  2020  programme  was  included  in  the 
public consultation on investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market. Details of 
the organisation and results of the public consultation are included in Annex 2.     

Table 3. Sources of information used for mid-term evaluation of Customs 2020 programme 

Source 

1. Programming documentation 

1.1 Programme Regulation 

Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013  

1.2 Annual Work Programmes (AWP) 

The Customs 2020 AWPs are annexed to each yearly financing 
decision 

1.3 Multi-Annual Strategic Plan (MASP) 

Purpose  

underlying rationale, history and context 
main features of the programme 
key stakeholders and beneficiaries  
specific and operational objectives 
headline budget figures 
overview of activities and priorities 

high level budget allocations  
structuring and selection of case studies 
priorities in terms of resource allocation 
continuing relevance and policy issues of 
interest for the programme 
expected results and annually updated goals 

strategic framework for the management of IT 
projects 
schedule and current status of IT roll-out 
national capacity to resource IT 
implementation 
forward planning in terms of IT roll-out 
project fiches 
governance and management of IT projects 
and corresponding spending 

52 

 
 
Source 

Purpose  

2. Studies, reports and evaluations 

2.1 Annual Progress Reports (APR) 

Published yearly, available for 2014, 2015 and 2016 

2.2 Evaluations, impact assessments and reports 

final evaluation of Customs 2013, IA for Customs 2020, study 
for impact assessment for Customs post-2020, Action follow-up 
plan - Final Evaluation of Customs 2013 (2016), European 
Court of Auditors Special report on import procedures (2017) 

3. Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) 

3.1 PMF management and design documentation 

Background documentation detailing the structuring of the PMF, 
considerations and reasoning which lead to its instigation, the 
purpose of each data-collection tool, indicators and their use, 
etc.  

3.2 Activity reporting tool (ART) 

Management tool that provides the framework for collecting and 
storing basic data about all activities, with input beginning from 
grant requests 

3.3 Action Follow-up Form (AFF) 

Form providing a self-reported rating of the degree of 
achievement of expected results, to be completed for all 
activities of the previous year 

3.4 Event Assessment Form (EAF) 

Form providing a rating by participants of the extent to which 
their expectations were met and expected result(s) achieved, 
completed three months after the end of an event or yearly in the 
case of project groups  

3.5 Programme poll 

A questionnaire that measures the awareness and wider 
perceptions of the programmes in terms of networking and 
dissemination 

53 

intervention logic 
programme performance/effectiveness in 
terms of outputs and results 
insight into how the PMF is used and reported 
structuring and topicality for the evaluation 
case studies 
perceived strengths and areas for further 
development – early warnings and learning 
within the programme 

previous findings, conclusions and 
recommendations 
background for recent developments in the 
programme 
ideas for other sources of data:  
ideas for issues to explore / build on 
past and envisaged policy context going 

impetus and rationale for the current design of 
PMF 
evaluation design, mapping PMF indicators to 
evaluation questions 
limits of PMF indicators 
purpose and design of different indicators 
practicalities of PMF data collection and their 
consequences 

in-depth activity descriptions 
context of activities in terms of motivation 
and needs 
context of activities in terms of relation to 
other activities and AWP projects 

participant satisfaction 
programme effectiveness in terms of 
perceived achievement of results 
programme reach in terms of spread of results 
in national administrations  

participant satisfaction 
programme effectiveness in terms of 
perceived achievement of results 
programme reach in terms of spread of results 
in national administrations 

conducted every 18 months (Jul-Sept 2015 + 
Jan 2017) 
effectiveness of programme in terms of reach 

 
Source 

3.6 Training activity monitoring 

Training activities have separate monitoring and data collection, 
which feeds into the PMF (eLearning statistics + eLearning 
survey) 

3.7 IT statistics 

Data on results within IT collaboration and implementation of 
common IT systems for officials and EOs 

3.8 Impact indicators 

Indicator data not gathered as part of the PMF reporting tools, 
but collected from various sources in connection with evaluation 
reports. 

Purpose  

demand for and reach of eLearning modules 
satisfaction and results of eLearning modules 
training and competency building for EOs 

budget allocation for European Information 
Systems EIS 
development and continued operation of EIS 
effectiveness and reach of EIS 
demand and use of programme outputs by 
EOs 

development within overarching policy goals 
addressed by Customs 2020 
programme impact and effectiveness in terms 
of degree of implementation and ratio/level of 
participants/participation 
programme impact in terms of perceived 
extent to which results have been achieved 

Source: ‘Mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme’  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Objectives of the consultation 

The objectives behind the overall consultation with the stakeholders were the following:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

to  collect  information  and  evidence  related  to  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  relevance  of 
the programme;  

to  identify  broader  consequences  or  effects  of  the  programme,  including  the  ones  that 
were not originally planned; 

to collect information on the implementation of the programme; 

to  collect  qualitative  and  quantitative  data  on  costs,  benefits  and  experience  with  the 
functioning of the programme; 

- 

to identify the EU added value of the programme. 

Stakeholder mapping and consultation method 

The following stakeholder groups have been identified: 

-  public authorities, notably customs administrations, who are the main beneficiaries of the 

programme; 

-  economic operators as they can participate in specific joint actions and are users of some 

IT systems and training modules; 

-  European and international bodies involved in international customs; 

-  Citizens, who are indirectly affected by the programme’s results; 

-  European Commission.  

Table 4. Stakeholder consultation methods  

Stakeholder type 

Method of consultation 

Content 

Public authorities of the 
participating countries 

targeted questionnaire to all 
participating administrations 

Economic operators 

in-depth interviews (face-to-
face or by telephone) of 
relevant personnel of customs 
administrations  

public consultation 

in-depth interviews (face-to-
face or by telephone) for case 
studies and programme 
management 

55 

implementation, functioning and results of the 
programme, practical application of the 
programme’s outputs to day-to-day work, national 
needs and priorities, 

use of relevant IT systems and eLearning modules  

 
 
 
Stakeholder type 

Method of consultation 

Content 

public consultation 

European Commission 

in-depth interviews (face-to-
face or by telephone) for case 
studies 

implementation and governance of the programme, 
needs and priorities, implementation of the PMF, 
programme performance overtime, implementation 
of recommendations and follow-up  

Citizens 

public consultation 

broader impacts of the programme 

European and 
International bodies 

Source: DG TAXUD;  

public consultation 

broader impacts of the programme 

Except the public consultation, all other stakeholder consultation activities were organised within 
the external supporting evaluation study and are described in detail in Annex 3.     

National authorities  

Questionnaires  for  national  authorities  (part  of  the  programme  assessment):  two  written 
questionnaires (one general questionnaire on joint actions, training and programme management, 
the  other  on  funded  customs  European  IT  Systems)  were  distributed  to  the  relevant  authorities 
from  participating  countries.  The  questionnaires  were  sent  to  national  coordinators,  who  were 
asked  to  elicit  feedback  from  their  administrations  and  provide  a  single  response  for  each 
questionnaire  and  country.  Response  rates  for  the  general  questionnaire  were  very  good,  with 
completed  questionnaires  returned  by  28  of  34  participating  countries.  Likely  owing  to 
consultation  fatigue,  only  21  of  a  possible  34  responses  were  provided  for  the  IT-focused 
questionnaire, despite mitigating measures such as extending the deadline and individual follow-
up messages. This was supplemented with feedback received through the other consultation tools 
as well as satisfaction figures on given IT systems from the monitoring data. 

Regarding  the  joint  actions,  which  can  be  classified  into  different  types,  most  of  them  are 
indicated to be very useful to the work of the national administrations. Exchange of information, 
best  practice  and  experience,  networking  and  cooperation,  as  well  as  implementation  of  EU 
legislation  were  some  of  the  main  strengths  that  were  reported  to  be  highly  appreciated  by 
respondents.  Concerning  the  objectives  of  the  programme,  most  respondents  believed  that  the 
joint actions contribute to the achievement of the operational objectives, either to a great extent or 
to some extent. However, respondents were less emphatic and aware of the contribution of joint 
actions to the specific (higher-level) objectives. In terms of areas of improvement, administrative 
burden was indicated as a cause of concern several administrations. The suggestions provided for 
improving the management  of joint  actions were mostly linked to  the need for a clearer design 
and closer monitoring of results and outcomes. There were also some suggestions of a practical 
and administrative nature.  

56 

 
 
Common training activities  were reported to  have been used by  all respondents.  Key training 
outcomes  included  a  more  uniform  approach  to  the  application  of  EU  customs  legislation  and 
increased knowledge and capacity of national customs administrations. Criticisms related mainly 
to language issues (such as translation costs) and the need to keep eLearning modules updated on 
a regular basis and tailored to the needs and demands of participating countries.  

Respondents  were  generally  positive  about  the  programme’s  management  structure  and 
processes and considered them broadly appropriate given the nature of the programme. However, 
in some cases it was felt that reducing administrative burdens would increase participation in the 
programme, or that IT tools for reporting and sharing information could be improved. 

Administrations showed very positive perceptions of the programme’s EU added value. It was 
considered  to  provide  a  unique  platform  to  tackle  common  problems  with  officials  from  other 
participating  countries  and  build  networks  and  trust,  leading  to  a  better  and  more  harmonised 
implementation  of  EU  legislation.  The  continuation  of  the  programme  is  central  for  most 
respondents and would be beneficial to further enhance the work of national customs authorities. 

The questionnaire responses indicated an overall satisfaction with  the  IT systems supported by 
the  Customs  programme,  their  usefulness  and  appropriateness  for  the  work  of  the  national 
customs  administrations.  Very  few  respondents  expressed  a  lack  of  satisfaction  with  the  IT 
systems, though there were some systems that several respondents were less familiar with or did 
not  have  an  opinion  about.  The  systems  were  judged  as  making  it  easier  to  share  information 
quickly  and  safely,  facilitating  cooperation  and  thereby  helping  to  implement  EU  legislation. 
National  administrations  were  particularly  satisfied  with  the  possibility  to  easily  access  and 
obtain data, as well as with the electronic lodgement of customs declarations and the automatic 
supervision  of  customs  operations  enabled  by  the  systems.  The  paperless  handling  of  the 
processes was also considered in a positive light. Regarding whether the systems duplicate other 
systems  developed  by  the  national  administrations  or  other  organisations,  there  was  an  overall 
agreement  among  the  respondents  that  this  is  not  the  case.  The  systems  were  rather  said  to 
complement each other, adding value and leading to improvements in existing systems. Despite 
some  costs  associated  with  the  implementation  of  new  systems,  respondents  also  felt  that  the 
supported  IT  systems  helped  reduce  costs  for  national  administrations  overall  by  simplifying 
processes and making it easier to share information. Ideas for potential improvements focused on 
interoperability, reusability, efficiency, simplification and enhanced communication between the 
Commission and EU Member States as part of the development of the IT systems.  

Thematic  case  studies  of  Annual  Work  Programme  projects:  these  consisted  of  in-depth 
qualitative  research  in  the  form  of  seven  case  studies,  each  focused  on  a  theme  linked  to  the 
Annual  Work  Programme  projects  that  were  defined  as  priorities  in  given  years.  For  each  of 
seven  particularly  salient  themes,  the  evaluation  examined  the  actions  involved  based  most 
importantly  on  fieldwork  in  seven  countries  (namely  Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  the 
Netherlands,  Portugal,  Serbia  and  Sweden)  that  focused  on  face-to-face  interviews  with  97 
relevant stakeholders within national administrations.  

57 

 
Factors considered included the amount of progress reported in monitoring reports, importance of 
a  given  aspect  of  customs  policy,  use  of  new  systems  or  types  of  joint  action,  and  budgetary 
allocation.  As  a  whole,  the  thematic  areas  (including  collaboration  for  a  for  different  customs 
policy areas, training activities and more practical cooperation between customs and tax officials) 
also  provided  a  framework  to  cover  Customs’  efforts  related  to  all  aspects  of  the  specific  and 
operational objectives and activity types.  

The case study findings are difficult to disentangle from those of the evaluation as a whole. These 
were  very  positive,  confirming  the  programme’s  relevance,  describing  its  effectiveness  both  in 
operational  terms  and  contributions  to  higher-level  objectives and demonstrating efficiency and 
coherence.  By  allowing  participating  countries  to  pool  resources,  offer  solutions  for  problems 
with an EU dimension and exchange information, the programme was also found to provide clear 
EU  added  value.  Within  this  overall  picture  of  success,  criticism  focused  mainly  on  gradual 
improvements that would ensure all activities are relevant and improve operational efficiency.  

Economic operators 

While economic operators are not the programme’s main beneficiaries, their views are important 
as taxpayers and users of certain IT systems and eLearning modules. A public consultation was 
initially  foreseen  to  gather  the  opinions  from  economic  operators  and  citizens  more  broadly. 
However, a decision was taken within the Commission to group together questions relating to a 
wide range of spending programmes into a single public consultation. Since this did not include 
any questions related to the programme, a short online survey of economic operators was carried 
out  instead.  The  survey  included  a  range  of  questions  on  the  relevance  of  the  programme’s 
objectives and activities and respondents’ experiences with several publicly available IT systems 
and eLearning modules. The survey was promoted through DG TAXUD’s newsletter and  direct 
mailings to trade organisations in all Member States. However, it was not possible to post links to 
the  survey  directly  on  the  websites  of  the  services  that  were  being  asked  about.  The  survey 
received 108 responses, providing some useful insight from an otherwise difficult-to-reach group. 

A  broad  majority  of  the  respondents  (87%)  were  from  the  private  sector,  including  businesses, 
trade/business/professional associations and professional service providers. More than half (61%) 
were  from  large  companies  of  over  250  employees.  A  large  majority  (80%)  were  from 
organisations  that  were  active  in  several  countries,  while  only  a  small  share  operated  in  one 
country only. The majority of responses came from Germany, Austria, Belgium, France and the 
UK.  The  responses  are  thus  not  in  any  way  representative  of  economic  operators  in  general  or 
participants / users in the programme, but rather give a snapshot of the views of some individual 
stakeholders.  

While  several  services  and  tools  provided  by  the  Customs  programme  were  perceived  to  be 
useful  and  to  complement  services  provided  at  the  national  level,  it  was  indicated  that  further 
work  is  required  to  make  the  collaboration  more  efficient  and  user-friendly,  and  to  achieve  a 
more consistent application of EU legislation across the Member States.  

58 

 
Much of the survey focused on the publicly available IT systems and eLearning modules. Though 
many respondents had not heard of specific systems or modules, when views were provided there 
were  generally  positive  and  indicated  that  the  programme  helps  economic  operators  save  time 
and  find  important  information  on  e.g.  EU  customs  legislation  and  procedures.  Indeed, 
suggestions for improvements centred on providing more detailed information on customs rules 
and procedures differences across Member States. 

European Commission 

Programme manager interviews (part of the programme assessment): a set of 24 interviews with 
managers and users from the Commission and national administrations allowed the evaluators to 
collect experiences, opinions, perceptions and suggestions regarding a range issues that would be 
difficult  to  obtain  using  other  means.  These  included  matters  such  as  responsiveness  of  the 
programme  to  emerging  needs  and  priorities,  organisational  and  governance  structures  and 
processes,  practical  implementation,  change  in  programme  performance  over  time  and  any 
barriers to the success of the programme. There was also a special focus on the IT systems used 
for  programme  and  financial  management,  and  to  exchange  information  related  to  funded 
activities.  

The interviews fed into the broader assessment of the efficiency of programme management. This 
found  that  the  design  and  management  of  the  programme  reflect  its  long-standing  success  and 
ability  to  get  better  over  time,  with  key  features  that  are  appropriate  and  being  gradually 
improved, leading to a high degree of efficiency. While there was some criticism, this was minor 
and related to such aspects as making the programme’s monitoring system less complicated and 
burdensome and making IT tools for reporting and information-sharing more user-friendly. 

Public consultation  

The public consultation supporting the mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme was 
launched within the context  of the Commission’s proposals  for the  next  generation of  financial 
programmes for the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is the EU’s long-
term  budget.  As  the  MFF  cuts  across  all  policy  fields,  the  public  consultation  documents  were 
divided in a number of thematic area. The Customs 2020 programme was included in the public 
consultation on investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market. This consultation 
covered  both  the  retrospective  and  prospective  elements  of  the  Commission’s  spending 
programmes.  

The consultation run for the period of 8 weeks and took place between 10th of January 2018 and 
9th  of  March  2018.  This  derogation  was  sanctioned  by  the  Secretariat  General  of  the  European 
Commission. The questionnaire was available in all EU languages.  

Overall,  the  Commission  has  received  4 052  replies  from  all  28  EU  Member  States,  Norway, 
Iceland, Switzerland and 12 other countries. Around 60% of replies came from just six countries: 
Spain, Italy, Belgium, Germany, France and UK. A third of replies came from citizens (409), a 
third  from  companies  (396),  16%  from  NGOs  and  academia  (180),  8%  from  public  authorities 

59 

 
(89).  There  were  257  replies  from  individual  companies  (93%  of  which  were  SMEs)  and  95 
replies  from  business  associations.  National  public  authorities  from  14  EU  Member  States50,  7 
non-EU Member States51 and regional or local authorities from 13 Member States52 participated in 
the consultations (see Figure 4).  

Respondents  to  this  public  consultation  could  choose  between  the  four  policy  fields  most 
important for them (investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market). The general 
objective of the Customs 2020 programme being to support the functioning and modernisation of 
the  Customs  Union  in  order  to  strengthen  the  single  market,  the  most  pertinent  area  of 
consultation  in  the  Customs  2020  context  would  be  the  single  market.  It  was  indicated  by 
approximately 7.5% of the respondents53.  

Figure 4. Distribution of answers to public consultation by country and stakeholder type 

Participation by country 

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

i

n
a
p
S

y
l
a
t
I

Participation by type of 
stakeholder 

NGOs, 
academia 

Other 
organisatio
ns 

Citizens 

Public  
authorities 

Companies 

K
U

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

n
e
d
e
w
S

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

e
c
e
e
r
G

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

d
n
a
o
P

l

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

r
e
h
t
O

a
t
l
a
M

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Source: DG TAXUD, after public consultation on investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market in 
the context of the EU’s future Multiannual Financial Framework;  

50   National  authorities  replies:  Austria  (5),  Hungary  (2),  the  Netherlands  (2),  Spain  (2),  Sweden  (2),  Czech 
Republic (1), Cyprus (1), France (1), Germany (1), Italy (1), Ireland (1), Latvia (1), Slovenia (1) and Romania 
(1);  

51   Non-EU  countries  replies:  Norway  (17),  Switzerland  (14),  Israel  (7),  Iceland  (3),  Turkey  (4),  Australia  (2), 
Brazil (2), Canada (2), Moldova (2), Peru (2), Albania and Kosovo (1), Belarus (1), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1), 
Ecuador (1), Paraguay (1), USA (1);   

52   Regional or local authorities from: Germany (13 replies), France (8), Spain 8), Italy (7), Sweden (6), Belgium 

(4), Finland (3), Denmark (3), Poland (2), Portugal (2), UK (2), the Netherlands (1) and Slovenia (1); 

53   The remaining fields were “EU support for research and innovation” (3 837 answers, 95% of all answers), “EU 
support  for  SMEs  and  entrepreneurship  ”  (1 034  answers  –  25%  of  all  answers,  “EU  support  for  Investment” 
(642 answers – 16% of all answers); 

60 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
This relatively modest figure should be analysed in conjunction with the reported importance of 
the  key  challenges  for  the  Commission  spending  programmes.  All  of  the  Customs  2020 
programme specific and operational objectives were reflected in the reported challenges, some of 
which were important  for a significant  number of respondents.  Figure 5  presents  the key links 
between  the  programme’s  objectives  and  the  reported  challenges  as  well  as  the  percentage  of 
respondents who found any given challenge important or very important54. Having said that, due 
to the overarching nature of the public consultation over the EU’s future Multiannual Financial 
Framework, its broad scope (retrospective and prospective) and reach (anyone), it is impossible 
to make any firm linkages between the Customs 2020 programme’s current results and the extent 
to which they help overcome the analysed challenges. It could nevertheless be concluded that the 
programme’s design and role fully match the preoccupations of the stakeholders, justifying not 
only the programme’s sheer existence but also the direction of its evolution.  

Figure 5. Customs 2020 programme objectives vis-à-vis key challenges for Commission’s 

spending programmes 

Source: DG TAXUD, after public consultation on investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market in 
the context of the EU’s future Multiannual Financial Framework;  

Subsequently respondents were asked to judge how successful current policies are in addressing 
the different challenges. As above, it is difficult to firmly conclude on anything were the Customs 
2020  programme  was  particularly  appreciated.  However,  the  fact  that  smooth  circulation  of 
goods  both  within  EU  and  at  EU  borders  was  judged  second  highest  achievement  by  the 

54   Multiple choices were possible. 

61 

 
 
                                                           
respondents  (46%  of  all  replies)55,  indicates  that  the  EU  in  general  and  the  Customs  2020 
programme specifically do well in that respect. In relation to the programme’s objectives and the 
challenges as depicted in Figure 1, similar conclusions for other key challenges are less obvious. 
Still, varying degrees  of the Customs  2020 contribution  could  also be found in  the EU policies 
addressing the following challenges: 

- 

- 

support to education, skills and training – 43%,  

facilitation of digital transformation of the economy, industry and services – 35%, 

-  promotion and protection of public health – 35%,  

-  promotion of security of citizens – 35%, 

- 

- 

fair conditions for competition in the EU – 35%, 

financial stability – 32%,  

-  ensuring that existing rules and applied and enforced consistently across the EU – 32%, 

- 

improvement of quality of public institutions – 24%. 

Despite the evident challenges ahead, nearly 80% stakeholders considered that EU programmes 
and funds add more value than could have been done at national, regional or local level. Only 1% 
of respondents were of the opinion that Member State would do a better job alone.   

Too complex procedures leading to high administrative burden and delays were considered as the 
most  important  obstacles  reducing  benefits  of  EU  programmes  (around  80%  of  answers).  To  a 
lesser  extent  (50%-60%),  no  flexibility  in  case  of  unforeseen  events  or  no  synergies  between 
programmes as well as insufficient administrative capacity or difficulties in combining EU with 
other  public  or  private  funds  were  cited.  Lack  of  communication  featured  in  around  half  of 
replies.  

On the other hand, lack of EU standards was seen as the least of a problem and quoted by only 
around 10% of respondents.  

Table  5  summarises  the  main  obstacles  preventing  the  current  Commission’s  spending 
programmes and funds from achieving their objectives ranked in the order of relative importance 
indicated  by  the  respondents56.  Whereas  not  all  of  these  are  relevant  to  the  Customs  2020 
programme  (e.g.  lack  of  flexibility  or  insufficient  involvement  of  citizens),  many  are  indeed 
congruent with the feedback gathered through the evaluation.   

55   This  figure,  as  well  as  figures  used  in  the  bulleted  list  following  this  paragraph,  refer  to  answers  ‘fully 

addressed’ and ‘fairly well addressed’); 

56   The figures reflect answers ‘to a large extent’ and ‘to a fairly large extent’; 

62 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 5: Stakeholders perception of the main obstacles preventing the current Commission’s 
spending programmes/funds from achieving their objectives   

Obstacle 

Level of agreement 

Too complex procedures leading to high administrative burden and delays 

Lack of flexibility to react to unforeseen circumstances 

Insufficient synergies between the EU programmes/funds 

Insufficient administrative capacity to manage the programmes 

73% 

52% 

48% 

47% 

Difficulty combining EU actions with other public interventions and private finance 

45% 

Insufficient involvement of citizens 

Lack of information/communication 

Inadequate facilities to support enhanced cooperation 

Insufficient scope 

Insufficient critical mass 

Insufficient use of financial instruments 

Out of date and inadequate IT capabilities 

Lack of EU standards and EU rules 

Other  

39% 

35% 

31% 

30% 

28% 

26% 

21% 

17% 

12% 

Source: DG TAXUD, after public consultation on investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market in 
the context of the EU’s future Multiannual Financial Framework;  

63 

 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

Approach and method 

The  overall  approach  to  the  mid-term  evaluation  can  be  classified  as  theory-based 
evaluation.  That  means  using  the  intervention  logic  defined  for  the  Customs  2020 
programme  in  the  Performance  Monitoring  Framework  (PMF)  documentation  (see 
Figure 6 below). Theory-based approach implies examination of the causal mechanisms 
in  which  the  programme  was  expected  to  generate  the  desired  results  and  impacts 
through collection of evidence to test the initial theory. Such approach allows to confirm 
(or  not)  the  supposed  causality  and  understand  how  and  why  these  mechanisms  led  to 
expected or observed results. In doing so, the evaluation seeks to identify and assess the 
extent  to  which  external  factors  might  have  hindered  or  supported  the  process.  In  the 
context  of  a  cooperation  programme  such  as  Customs  2020,  which  often  plays  a 
supportive  role  in  implementation  of  EU  policies  and  priorities,  this  approach  seemed 
particularly suited. Not least due to inherent difficulties of attributing measurable results 
to the functioning of the programme. 

Figure 6. Intervention logic for Customs 2020 programme 

Source: ‘Mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme’  

The evaluation followed a mixed-methods approach, featuring a range of tailored and 
targeted techniques and tools. They have been designed and deployed in a way that was 
deemed to bring the most value to the analysis. The target-and-tailor principle applied to 

64 

 
 
 
to  analyse 

the  resultant  data  robustly  as  well  as  how 

not only choosing which stakeholders to engage with, but how to reach them, what to ask 
to  make 
them,  how 
recommendations  that  fit  with  the  room  for  manoeuvre  of  DG  TAXUD  and  other  key 
stakeholders.  The  data  collection  tools  sought  to  probe  views  and  experiences  of 
stakeholders and key audiences, including tax administrations in general, participants in 
joint  actions,  economic  operators  and  the  European  Commission.  The  information  thus 
collected was cross-referenced with the rich – if not always complete - dataset from the 
PMF.  

Analytical pillars 

The  approach  built  on  three  distinct  pillars  allowing  to  examine  the  programme  from 
different  angles  and  levels  of  detail,  as  well  as  engaging  with  different  groups  of 
stakeholders.  The  diagram  below  depicts  the  pillars  and  conceptualises  how  they  fit 
together.  

Figure 7 : Analytical pillars of the mid-term evaluation of Customs 2020 programme 

Overall 
evaluation 
results 

Online survey sent 
to EOs 

3. Engagement with EOs 

1.AEO initiative 

2. EU CUST Plan on 
IPR 

3. Risk management 
and supply chain 

4. Human competency 
building 

5. SP for customs 
declarations  

6. CUST / FISC 
cooperation  

7. Customs Union 
legislation & PM 

2. Thematic case studies of 7 AWP projects 

In-depth review of 
PMF and other data 

National authorities’ 
questionnaires 

Programme 
manager interviews  

1. Programme assessment 

Source: ‘Mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme’;  

The  programme  assessment  served  to  collect  and  analyse  data  on  the  Customs  2020 
programme  as  a  whole.  It  focused  on  what  the  programme  was  doing  in  terms  of 
implementation  and  performance  towards  objectives.  It  also  helped  to  refine  the 
methodology for the case studies that took place later. This assessment was comprised of 
three main methods as shown:  

65 

 
 
 
 

in-depth review of PMF data which relieved some burden and fatigue from data 
collection  and  allowed  to  devote  more  resources  to  primary  data  collection 
exploring issues higher up the causal chain;  

  national authorities’ questionnaire composed of two written questionnaires (one 
general  on  joint  actions,  training  and  programme  management,  the  other  on  IT 
systems) distributed to the relevant authorities from participating countries. They 
intended  to  gather  quantitative  and  qualitative  information  that  was  available 
neither from the PMF and tools used to feed into it nor other evaluation methods. 
Examples  include  user  experiences  with  specific  IT  systems,  contribution  of 
programme to  the work of administrations, views on new types of joint actions, 
perceived  costs  and  benefits  of  participating  in  the  programme,  management 
practices, the PMF and its processes, management and knowledge-sharing of IT 
tools and implementation of recommendations from the previous evaluation. 

The  questionnaires  were  sent  to  national  coordinators,  who  were  asked  to  elicit 
feedback  from  their  administrations  and  provide  a  single  response  for  each 
questionnaire and country. Completed questionnaires were  returned by 28 of 34 
participating  countries  for  the  general  questionnaire,  and  21  of  34  for  the  IT-
focused one; 

  programme  manager  interviews  consistent  of  a  set  of  24  interviews  with 
managers from the Commission and national administrations, allowing to collect 
experiences,  opinions,  perceptions  and  suggestions  regarding  a  range  of  issues 
that would be difficult to obtain using other means. These included matters such 
as  responsiveness  of  the  programmes  to  emerging  needs  and  priorities, 
organisational  and  governance  structures  and  processes,  the  implementation  of 
the  PMF,  and  such  issues  as  change  in  programme  performance  over  time,  and 
barriers to the success of the programmes.  

Thematic  case  studies  are  in-depth  qualitative  research  around  agreed  topics  (AWP 
projects)  stemming  from  the  need  to  complement  quantifiable  data  with  method  better 
suited to capture benefits linked to support provided for administrations in carrying out 
functions required by EU and national legislation and boosting capacity. The purpose of 
the  case  studies  was  to  examine  in  detail  how  given  programme  outputs  were  used  in 
practice by administrations and, where applicable, economic operators. The themes (see 
Figure  3)  were  selected  upon  a  review  of  AWP  projects,  deemed  particularly  salient 
within the programme’s timeframe. Each theme included a series of two or three specific 
programme actions in seven case study countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, 
the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Serbia  and  Sweden).  The  joint  actions  selected  were  then 
complemented by information on the main relevant IT systems. The research drew on a 
review  of  relevant  documentation  and  face-to-face  interviews  with  10-12  relevant 
stakeholders within national administrations in the selected countries.  

66 

 
Engagement  with  economic  operators  took  form  of  short  targeted  survey.  The 
economic operators are  not  the programme’s main  beneficiaries but  it was deemed that 
their views were important  as taxpayers and users of certain  IT systems  and eLearning 
modules. The survey included a range of questions on the relevance of the programme’s 
objectives and activities and respondents’ experiences with several publicly available IT 
systems  and  eLearning  modules.  The  survey  was  promoted  through  DG  TAXUD’s 
newsletter  and  direct  mailings  to  trade  organisations  in  all  Member  States.  The  survey 
received  108  responses,  providing  some  useful  insight  from  an  otherwise  difficult-to-
reach group. 

67 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4: KEY FEATURES OF THE JOINT ACTIONS 

Table 6. Key features of the Customs 2020 joint actions  

Type of joint 
action 
seminars and 
workshops 

project groups 

working visits 

expert teams 

monitoring actions 

capacity building 
and supporting 
actions 
joint communication 
actions 

studies 

Key features 

create unique opportunities for exchange in a group setting and compare strategies 
and methodologies between countries 

provide space for networking, building contacts and reinforcing relationships with 
other national administrations 

gather more expertise (including from external stakeholders such as the World 
Customs Organisation) than would be possible in a national setting 
ensure common understanding and interpretation of EU legislation 
improve relevance and focus among participants that share both historical and 
geographical links, and face similar challenges 
allow for in-depth and recurrent group work on specific issues and policy areas 
develop concrete solutions to common problems across range of policies and 
practical areas 
strengthen networks and working relationships through continuous communication 
pool knowledge and experience between and within participating countries as well as 
with the Commission 
act as catalysts, creating the conditions for the generation of more concrete outputs in 
other fora (such as dedicated project groups) 
many of them are quasi-permanent and serve as standing platforms for coordination 
at various levels 
provide opportunity for focused in-depth exploration of (often defined at operational 
level) topics of mutual interest, often on a bilateral basis as this is the only type of 
action focused mainly on individual exchanges 
lead to exchange of information and experience by engaging in real working, 
business-level situations, allowing participating countries to reassess their own 
performance while considering practices of their counterparts 
gain inspiration on good administrative and organisational practices or approaches 
from host country to be adopted to national circumstances  
useful for candidate and potential candidate countries to learn about EU legislation, 
national implementation and Member States working practices, praised for the direct 
operational exchanges  
structured form of operational collaboration on topics of mutual interest driven by 
participating countries and enhancing close collaboration 
provide a strong mandate and financing to tackle a specific challenge  

identify gaps and lead to recommendations/solutions for improvement 
provide possibility for exchange of experiences and working methods between and 
within participating countries as well as with the Commission 
provide opportunities for joint monitoring visits, including with the Commission  
provide technical assistance which targets specific capacity needs  
exploit synergies with the Structural Reform Support Service, which provides 
technical support to administrations 
raise awareness about specific topics among customs administrations within and 
outside the Customs Union 
supports the development of a communication policy towards national stakeholders  
help with coordinating communication and serve as structured thinking around future 
communication needs 
useful to examine specific issues in depth (used for evaluations, impact assessments, 
economic analysis, etc.) 

Source: ‘Mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme’  

68 

 
 
 
Table 7. Key features of the Customs 2020 IT systems  

Type of IT 
systems 
trader management 
systems 

goods classification 
and tariff 
management system 

EU movement 
control (import, 
export, transit) 

risk management 

other 

Key features 

EORI, AEO and CRS offer consultation in real time for non-national EORI numbers 
CRS, CDS and REX are useful for identifying different data about traders  
REX complements national import customs declaration systems, resulting in 
avoiding duplication of efforts and cost savings  
is one of the most useful systems for the daily work of customs offices, enabling the 
real-time application of the Common Customs Tariff in a uniform manner across the 
EU Member States 
EBTI-3 is essential for issuing decisions related to Binding Tariff Information 
QUOTA online service enables a real-time overview of community tariff quotas and 
helps track the overall EU usage of import quotas by all Member States 
without ECICS, administrations would have to use expensive on-line systems to 
retrieve information on chemical classification.  
operational systems, like ECS, ICS, NCTS and NCTS-GMS allow for fully electronic 
lodgement of customs declarations and automatic supervision 
IT export systems allow for a paperless environment in customs operations 
with SW-CVED validation of documents can be automatically checked before 
accepting the import declaration. 
CRMS is used daily for risk management as a main tool for swift receiving and 
sharing risk relevant data with Member States and the Commission 
SMS helps customs authorities to verify documents, stamps and signatures during 
and after customs clearance 
CCN and CS/RD are central for IT operations and indispensable component of all 
customs systems, allowing the exchange of information for trans-European systems.  

Source: ‘Mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme’  

Table 8: Number of trainees and satisfaction by module (2014 – 2016)  

Implementation 

Number of trainees 

l
a
t
o
T

4
1
0
2

930 
13 
2 113 
1 332 
144 
1 414 
31 
2 139 
114 

404 
6 
566 
521 
38 
535 
16 
1 479 
38 

5
1
0
2

399 
6 
851 
637 
106 
760 
12 
634 
66 

6
1
0
2

127 
1 
696 
174 

119 
3 
26 
10 

Learning 
needs 

l
l
a

t
a

t
o
N

y
l
l
a
i
t
r
a
P

y
l
e
t
e
l
p
m
o
C

Satisfaction 

l
a
u
q

.
g
v
A

7
5
e
r
o
c
s

s
e
s
n
o
p
s
e
R

1 

1 

5 
1 
5 
3 
3 
3 
1 
3 
3 

1 

10 
10 
2 
8 
3 
7 
3 

71.0 
51.6 
75.2 
78.7 
83.1 
70.3 
n/a 
69.8 
73.4 

116 
6 
23 
12 
2 
2 
n/a 
88 
11 

AEO II 
BPM 
Car Search 
Container Examination 
CRMS 
DPC – C 
DPC – EO 
EORI 
EOS 

57   This measure is based on Kirkpatrick methodology where 75 stands for 'very good' and 50 for 'fairly'. 
For  more  information  see:  https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Our-Philosophy/The-Kirkpatrick-
Model.  The  score  is  based  on  11  quality  dimensions  but  mainly  assess  the  following  parameters: 
relevance  to  job,  fulfilling  learning  objectives,  learning  retention  and  if  the  course  was  a  positive 
experience;  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Implementation 

Number of trainees 

l
a
t
o
T

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

1 511 
1 469 
775 
1 453 
8 873 
1 002 

703 
199 
35 
83 
- 
- 

584 
734 
50 
1 208 
- 
- 

224 
536 
1 
162 
8 873 
1 002 

866 

853 

860 

860 
900 
862 

881 
865 
906 

850 
868 
1 223 

938 

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 

- 

866 

853 

860 

860 
900 
862 

881 
865 
906 

850 
868 
1 223 

938 

Learning 
needs 

Satisfaction 

l
l
a

t
a

t
o
N

1 

y
l
l
a
i
t
r
a
P

5 
5 
3 
3 

1 

1 

y
l
e
t
e
l
p
m
o
C

l
a
u
q

.
g
v
A

7
5
e
r
o
c
s

s
e
s
n
o
p
s
e
R

3 
3 
4 
3 
5 
4 

3 

3 

3 

3 
3 
3 

3 
3 
4 

3 
3 
3 

3 

71.6 
72.7 
n/a 
69.8 
73.6 
78.4 

80.4 

85.0 

81.1 

85.2 
76.6 
79.8 

79.9 
88.7 
84.9 

84.4 
87.6 
80.5 

74.4 

11 
40 
n/a 
280 
405 
78 

9 

11 

12 

11 
20 
10 

19 
6 
11 

9 
10 
21 

11 

- 
35 045 

- 
4 623 

- 
6 047 

- 
23 686 

3  45 

106 

n/a 

n/a 
78.0  1,23
4 

IPR 
SAMANCTA 
SASP 
SP SASP 
UCC (00) Overview 
UCC (01) Customs Procedures 
and Customs Declarations 
UCC (02) Entry of Goods and 
Temporary Storage 
UCC - 03- Release for Free 
Circulation 
UCC - 04- Binding Tariff 
Information 
UCC - 05- Origin of Goods 
UCC - 06- Customs Valuation 
UCC - 07- Customs Status of 
Goods 
UCC - 08- Customs Debt 
UCC - 09- Guarantee 
UCC - 10- Special Procedures 
other than Transit 
UCC - 11- Customs Transit 
UCC - 12- Export 
UCC - 13- Customs Decisions 

UCC - 14- Authorised Economic 
Operator 
UCC - 15 – REX 
Total 

Source: DG TAXUD eLearning statistics, 2014 – 2016; 
Note: several participating countries have incorporated eLearning modules in their own learning 
management systems and are not able to track the usage of modules 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9: Actual expenses for joint actions grants (not including procurements) by 
budgeted year and joint action type (2014 – 2017)  

2015 
€ 68 420 
€ 4 027 133 
€ 10 125 
€ 246 274 
€ 403 926 
€ 9 761 
€ 366 754 
€ 5 132 393 

2014 
€ 18 144 
€ 3 053 862 
€ 65 633 
€ 398 165 
€ 433 513 
€ 37 605 
€ 236 940 
€ 4 243 862 

 Joint action type 
Capacity building 
Project group 
Monitoring  
Seminar 
Workshop 
Communication 
Working visit 
Actual expenses 
Total 
Committed 
expenses Total 
(from AWP) 
Source: Customs 2020 programme management, AWP 2014-2017 

2016 
€ 43 985 
€ 3 770 623 
€ 6 001 
€ 308 472 
€ 694 960 
€ 61 470 
€ 372 598 
€ 5 258 109 

€ 5 993 000 

€ 5 500 000 

€ 5 400 000 

2017 
€ 64 868 
€ 3 813 210 
€ 21 609 
€ 187 181 
€ 546 048 
€ 56 870 
€ 310 639 
€ 5 258 109 

€ 5 350 000 

Total 2014-2017 
€ 195 417 (1.0%) 
€ 14 664 828 (74.7%) 
€ 103 368 (0.5%) 
€ 1 140 092 (5.8%) 
€ 2 078 447 (10.6%) 
€ 165 706 (0.8%) 
€ 1 286 931 (6.6%) 
€ 19 634 789 (100 %) 

€ 22 243 000 (7.7 % 
of 2014-2017 C2020 
budget) 

Figure 8: Total number of joint actions and total number of participants by action type 
(2014-2017) 

Total number of actions 

Total number of participants 

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100

 -

 -

 5.000

 10.000

 15.000

 20.000

 140  

Project groups

17 290 

 68  

Workshops

 18  

Seminars

1 962 

 947  

 9  

Capacity building

 8  

Monitoring

 5  

Commmunication

 206  

 72  

 203  

 413  

Working visits

1 142 

Source: Customs 2020 programme management (from ‘actual costs per action data excel file’); 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9: Average cost per participant by year and by expense 

 -

 200

 400

 600

 800

 1.000

 1.200

 1.400

 1.600

Project groups

 208  

 244  

 410  

 6  

Total: 868 

Workshops

 283  

Seminars

 261  

Capacity building

 279  

Monitoring

 252  

 339  

 374  

 346  

 386  

 386  

 76  

Total: 1 084 

 397  

 172  

Total: 1 204 

 373  

 59  

Total: 1 058 

 743  

Total: 1 436 

 56  

Commmunication

 197  

 204  

 401  

 13  

Total: 816 

Working visits

 353  

 453  

 361  

Total: 1 167 

DA cost

Hotel real

Travel Expenses

Organisational Costs

Source: Customs 2020 programme management (from ‘actual costs per action data excel file’) 

Table 10: Budget estimates per year and main IT action categories (2014-2017) 
Cumulative 
IT action 
category 
2014-2017 
CCN/CSI 
€ 43 810 000   17.9% 

€ 10 400 000 

€ 12 150 000 

€ 11 760 000 

€ 9 500 000 

2014 

2017 

2016 

2015 

% 

Development 
of Customs 
system 
Support for 
Customs 
systems 
Quality 
control for 
Customs 
system 
Total 

€ 19 517 000 

€ 21 000 000 

€ 17 500 000 

€ 23 450 000 

€ 81 467 000   33.4% 

€ 21 183 000 

€ 20 241 000 

€ 25 500 000 

€ 30 700 000 

€ 97 624 000   40.0% 

€ 5 200 000 

€ 5 000 000 

€ 5 646 000 

€ 5 500 000 

€ 21 346 000  

8.7% 

€ 56 300 000 

€ 58 001 000 

€ 58 146 000 

€ 76 375 000 

€ 244 247 000   100% 

Source: Customs Annual Work Programmes 2014-2017 

72