REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COURT OF AUDITORS Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises, the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, the Research Executive Agency and the European Research Council Executive Agency
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, EU programme, executive agency, financial control, performance audit

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.4.2020  COM(2020) 184 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COURT OF AUDITORS    Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises, the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, the Research Executive Agency and the European Research Council Executive Agency {SWD(2020) 73 final} - {SWD(2020) 74 final} - {SWD(2020) 75 final} - {SWD(2020) 76 final} - {SWD(2020) 77 final} - {SWD(2020) 78 final}  
 
 
Introduction 

To achieve its goals the European Union supports a wide field of policy areas through a range 
of  funding  programmes.  The  programmes  provide  grants  and  other  forms  of  funding  for 
Member  States,  businesses,  researchers,  non-governmental  organisations  and  others.  In 
accordance with Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, the Commission is 
responsible  for  budget  implementation.  In  accordance  with  Article  62  of  the  Financial 
Regulation,  the Commission  shall implement  the budget  directly, under shared management 
with  Member States or indirectly  by  entrusting budget implementation  tasks  to  third parties 
(such  as  third  countries,  Member  State  organisations,  international  organisations,  public-
private partnership bodies).  

In the case of directly managed programmes, the Commission decided in 2003 that it would 
be  adequate  to  delegate  the  management  of  certain  tasks  in  the  implementation  of  some 
programmes to executive agencies, while allowing the Commission to concentrate on its core 
tasks. The agencies were created1 to be specialised entities for executing some specific tasks 
throughout  the  lifetime  of  a  given  project,  implementing  the  budget  and  providing  relevant 
information  to  the  policymakers.  The  executive  agencies  are  autonomous  entities  under  the 
supervision of the Commission.  

To  achieve  their  objectives,  the  agencies  execute  grant  and  public  procurement  procedures, 
manage  contracts,  and  implement  the  necessary  budgetary  procedures.  In  addition,  the 
agencies  provide  support  in  programme  implementation,  such  as  collecting,  processing  and 
making available information on the programme implementation. They monitor the progress 
and impact of the projects. They inform potential applicants about funding opportunities and 
support applicants and beneficiaries in applying the procedures. They inform the Commission 
on programme implementation, projects results and impact. Outsourcing of management tasks 
should  nevertheless  stay  within  the  limits  set  by  the  institutional  system  as  set  out  in  the 
Treaty.  This  means  that  tasks  assigned  to  the  institutions  by  the  Treaty,  which  require 
discretionary  powers  in  translating  political  choices  into  action  should  not  be  outsourced. 
Outsourcing should, moreover, be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. 

Currently  six  executive  agencies  manage  funding  programmes  for  research  and  innovation, 
education, 
energy, 
telecommunications,  agriculture,  food,  health,  consumers,  competitiveness  and  small  and 
medium-sized businesses. 

environment, 

citizenship, 

transport, 

culture, 

climate 

action, 

Executive Agency 

Number of staff (source: annual budgets) 

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food 
Executive Agency (CHAFEA) 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019  2020 

50 

51 

60 

65 

71 

76 

79 

for  Small 
Executive  Agency 
Medium-Size Enterprises (EASME) 

and 

308 

394 

437 

447 

462 

489 

506 

Innovation  and  Networks  Executive 
Agency (INEA) 

162 

197 

247 

267 

293 

302 

313 

1Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be 
entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ L11, 16 January 2003, page 1). 
1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture 
Executive Agency (EACEA) 

Research Executive Agency (REA) 

European  Research  Centre  Executive 
Agency (ERCEA) 

436 

441 

442 

442 

442 

438 

438 

580 

389 

630 

413 

649 

447 

670 

468 

730 

745 

785 

484 

508 

529 

TOTAL 

1 925 

2 126 

2 282 

2 359 

2 463  2558  2650 

Before outsourcing tasks to these executive agencies the Commission performed a prior cost-
benefit  analysis  (ex  ante).  In  this  analysis  it  considered  several  aspects:  (1)  the  costs  of 
coordination and checks; (2) the impact on human resources; (3) efficiency and flexibility in 
the  implementation  of  outsourced  tasks;  (4)  simplification  of  the  procedures  used;  (5) 
proximity of outsourced activities to final beneficiaries; (6) visibility of the EU as promoter of 
the EU programme concerned; and (7) the need to maintain an adequate level of know-how 
inside the Commission2. 

According  to  the  cost-benefit  analysis  carried  out  in  2013,  the  delegation  of  certain 
programme  management  tasks  to  the  agencies  was  estimated  to  be  more  cost-effective  than 
keeping the activities in-house. It anticipated that the alignment of more coherent programme 
portfolios  with  the  agencies’  core  competences  and  their  brand  identities  would  bring 
qualitative  benefits.  In  addition,  it  projected  that  bringing  together  the  management  of 
different EU programmes would bring synergies, simplification and economies of scale. 

To  assess  how  the  agencies  perform,  key  performance  indicators  have  been  set  and  are 
monitored continuously. Three years after the creation of each agency3 and every three years 
after  this,  the  Commission  has  to  assess  whether  each  agency  functions  well.  It  assesses 
whether  the  results  anticipated  by  the  ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis  have  been  achieved.  On 
this basis, it can identify possible areas for improvement and possibly review the scope of the 
tasks it delegates. 

The Commission has evaluated the performance of all six executive agencies individually4 in 
2018/2019.  All  evaluations  were  supported  by  external  studies5  following  the  same 

2Cost-benefit  analysis  for  the  delegation  of  certain  tasks  regarding  the  implementation  of  Union  Programmes 
2014-2020 to the executive agencies — Final report for the Commission of 19 August 2013. 
3Article 25 of Council Regulation 58/2003. 
4 Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA), SWD(2020) 75;  
Evaluation of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises (EASME), SWD(2020) 76;  
Evaluation of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), SWD(2020) 73;  
Evaluation of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), SWD(2020) 78;  
Evaluation of the Research Executive Agency (REA), SWD(2020) 77;  
Evaluation of the European Research Centre Executive Agency (ERCEA), SWD(2020) 74. 
5Study supporting the evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA) 
2014-2016, Public Policy and Management Institute (PPMI), Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES) 
and Maastricht University;  
Evaluation  of  the  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  (EASME)  2014-2016,  Valdani 
Vicari & Associati and Deloitte;  
Study supporting the Evaluation of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) 2014-2016, Centre 
for  Strategy  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES),  Public  Policy  and  Management  Institute  (PPMI)  and  Centre  for 
Industrial Studies (CSIL);  
Study supporting the evaluation of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) 2015-
2017, Public Policy and Management Institute (PPMI);  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
methodology  and  applying  the  Commission’s  better  regulation  principles6.  The  evaluations 
assessed  whether  the  agencies  had  fulfilled  their  tasks  in  an  effective  and  efficient  way, 
whether  there  were  overlaps,  gaps  or  inconsistencies  in  the  management  of  the  programme 
portfolio  by  the  agencies,  and  whether  there  was  a  clear  delineation  of  tasks  between  each 
agency  and  the  parent  DGs  or  other  executive  agencies7.  The  evaluations  include  a 
retrospective  cost-benefit  analysis  comparing  the  actual  performance  during  the  three-year 
evaluation period with the expected performance in the ex ante cost-benefit analysis. 

The  individual  evaluations  cover  2014  to  2016  for  CHAFEA,  INEA  and  EASME,  2015  to 
2017  for  EACEA  and  mid-2015  to  mid-2018  for  ERCEA  and  REA.  The  evaluation  period 
varies because the agencies were created at different times. 

Results 

In general the evaluations showed that the six executive agencies were effective and efficient 
over the period analysed. They reached their objectives and the vast majority of the targets in 
their  key  performance  indicators.  They  managed  to  cope  with  a  challenging  environment, 
including  new  mandates,  changes  of  portfolio,  changes  of  organisational  structure  and 
changes in their governance as well as peaks of very high workload coupled with constraints 
on  human  resources.  Stakeholders  were  interviewed  and  gave  a  generally  very  positive 
assessment  of  the  relationship  between  the  executive  agencies  and  the  Commission 
departments,  which  allow  the  Commission  to  concentrate  on  its  core  tasks  and  to  be  kept 
informed about the implementation and results of the programmes. Beneficiaries and experts 
working  with  the  agencies  rated  the  agencies  very  positively  and  staff  in  the  agencies  were 
generally positive about the agencies as employers. 

Alongside  this  positive  general  picture,  the  individual  evaluations  identified  a  number  of 
challenges and related shortcomings. These challenges include: (1) achieving their objectives; 
(2)  the  fact  that  some  agencies  manage  parts  of  the  same  programme;  (3)  the  diversity  of 
programme  portfolios;  (4)  the  relationship  with  parent  DGs;  (5)  the  relationship  with 
beneficiaries; (6) cost-effectiveness; (7) human resources management; and (8) the change of 
mandate.  These  eight  challenges  are  discussed  in  detail  in  the  following  chapters.  The 
Commission  will  take  the  lessons  learned  into  account  when  preparing  to  delegate  tasks  to 
executive agencies in programmes under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework. 

1.  Good results for (almost all) key performance indicators 

Overall,  the  six  executive  agencies  managed  the  delegated  programmes  efficiently  and 
achieved very good results for most key performance indicators8. The indicators for executive 

Study  supporting  the  Research  Executive  Agency  (REA)  2015-2018,  Public  Policy  and  Management  Institute 
(PPMI), Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES) and IDEA Consult;  
Study  supporting  the  evaluation  of  the  European  Research  Council  Executive  Agency  (ERCEA)  2015-2018, 
Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES) and Public Policy and Management Institute (PPMI). 
6  Guidelines SWD: https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines_en 
Toolbox: https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-toolbox_en 
7The  Commission’s  better  regulation  guidelines  were  applied  in  a  proportionate  way.  There  was  no  need  to 
assess the criteria of ‘EU value added’ and of ‘relevance’ as the agencies carry out tasks, which the EU legislator 
had entrusted upon the Commission. 
8 In parallel to the evaluations, the European Court of Auditors carried out an audit on the performance of INEA 
in implementing the Connecting Europe Facility programme (Special Report No 19/2019 of 7 November 2019 
“INEA:  benefits  delivered  but  CEF  shortcomings  to  be  addressed”).  As  regards  the  KPIs  of  INEA,  the  Court 
acknowledged that INEA met the targets but recommended to set more results-oriented goals and indicators as 
3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
agencies  relate  to  financial  management,  in  particular  to  timely  evaluation  and  grant 
finalisation  —  time-to-inform,  time-to-contract,  time-to-grant  and  timely  execution  of 
payments.  Some  agencies  consistently  achieved  all  or  most  of  their  targets  for  timely 
evaluation,  conclusion  of  grant  agreements  and  execution  of  payments  —  REA,  ERCEA, 
EACEA,  CHAFEA  —  or  even  surpassed  them  —  time-to-pay  in  INEA.  Very  few  did  not 
meet some of their targets — EASME at the start of the programming period and INEA for 
the  time-to-pay  for  one  programme  from  the  previous  programming  period  during  one  year 
(2015).  Several  agencies  also  achieved  yearly  full  execution  of  their  operational  budget  — 
REA, ERCEA. This  efficient  handling of financial management might  leave room for more 
ambitious targets for some indicators. 

With  regard  to  the  legality  and  regularity  of  transactions,  the  error  rates  of  the  2014-2020 
programmes  are  considered  better  than  those  from  the  previous  generation  of  programmes 
(2007-2013). Agencies are however still managing projects from the 2007-2013 programmes 
and  so,  during  the  evaluation  period,  three  agencies  —  REA,  EASME  and  EACEA  —  still 
had  reservations  in  their  Annual  Activity  Reports  for  error  rates  above  the  2%  materiality 
threshold for 2007-2013 programmes. This is a legacy issue that will progressively disappear 
when all the projects  of  those programmes will have been  closed9. Only  one programme of 
the current  programming period  — the programme for small and medium-sized enterprises, 
COSME  —  had  a  temporary  high  error  rate  that  required  a  reservation  in  2018  from  the 
Agency  —  EASME.  The  Agency  has  put  in  place  corrective  measures  that  improved  the 
situation and as of 2019 the reservation was lifted. 

The evaluations identified improvements in information technology tools and in procedures as 
key  factors  that  contributed  to  improving  the  agencies’  key  performance  indicators.  By 
bringing in new information technology tools, CHAFEA improved operational efficiency as 
well  as  providing  better  delivery  of  tasks  under  its  project  management  systems. 
Administrative  simplifications  —  a  shift  to  electronic  reporting  and  partially  automated 
workflows  —  implemented  by  ERCEA  and  REA  led  to  efficiency  gains.  EACEA  further 
simplified  and  streamlined  its  internal  and  programme  management  arrangements.  Payment 
procedures were improved and simplified in INEA10. 

The  evaluations  show  that  agencies  have  put  in  place  appropriate  processes  and  procedures 
and  that  they  have  internal  control  systems  that  contribute  to  their  efficiency  and 
effectiveness.  The  agencies  have  developed  strong  internal  control  standards  (with  an 
exception  for  EACEA  that  qualified  its  internal  control  system  as  partially  functioning  in 
2017 and 2018), including the management of financial and human resources. The agencies 
have  put  in  place  a  large  number  of  control  and  reporting  mechanisms  that  allow  progress 
against  objectives  to  be  closely  monitored  and  risks  to  their  operations  to  be  prevented  and 
mitigated in a timely and effective way. 

EACEA’s evaluation highlighted serious shortcomings identified in two audits of the Internal 
Audit  Service on  grant  management  —  from  call to  signature of contracts  and from  project 
monitoring  to  payment.  Those  shortcomings  concerned  among  others  the  design  and 

future KPIs. The Commission has argued in its reply to the report of the Court that INEA’s KPIs are adequate for 
the  measurement  of  the  performance  of  INEA  in  accordance  with  the  mandate  that  it  has  received  from  the 
Commission and should be distinguished from the KPIs measuring the results of the programmes themselves. 
9  Due  to  the  small  proportion  of  the  financial  impact  on  the  overall  financial  portfolio  of  the  agencies,  these 
reservations were lifted by the three executive agencies as of their 2019 Annual Activity Reports. 
10 The Special Report of the Court of Auditors on INEA’s performance confirmed the good management results 
of INEA thanks to the use of standardised procedures. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
implementation of the Agency’s selection procedures for Erasmus+ and Creative Europe. The 
audit recommendations  identified the need for  action on the control environment  for grants, 
the  evaluation  process,  evaluation  committees  and  the  role  of  experts,  as  well  as  the 
contracting  phase.  The  Agency  drew  up  and  implemented  an  action  plan  for  each  audit  to 
address the issues and changed its procedures for the evaluation of proposal. One of the main 
actions  taken  by  the  new  management  of  the  Agency  was  a  broad  organisational  change  to 
improve and better structure the internal control framework of the Agency. The situation has 
now  improved  —  the  related  recommendations  for  the  first  audit  (from  call  to  signature  of 
contracts) have been closed by the Internal Audit Service. As a consequence, the reservation 
entered by the Agency because of those internal control weaknesses has been lifted as of the 
2019 Annual Activity Report. For the second audit (from project monitoring to payment), the 
closure of all outstanding recommendations by the Internal Audit Service is expected by mid-
2020.  The  Commission  and  notably  the  parent  DGs  of  EACEA  closely  monitored  how  the 
actions to strengthen internal controls have been implemented through clarified and reinforced 
supervision mechanisms. 

2.  One EU programme managed by several agencies — how to ensure 

consistent implementation across the board 

In  the  post-2014  period,  the  Horizon  2020  research  programme  is  implemented  by  several 
executive  agencies.  Horizon  2020  is  the  biggest  programme  to  be  delegated  to  executive 
agencies  in  terms  of  financial  allocation.  In  2013,  the  Commission  decided  to  delegate 
different  strands  of  Horizon  2020  to  four  different  agencies  —  REA,  ERCEA,  INEA  and 
EASME. To ensure consistent implementation of Horizon 2020, the Common Support Centre 
(now  named  Common  Implementation  Centre)  was  created  in  2014  and  is  hosted  by  a 
Commission  department (DG Research and  Innovation).  It  aims to  provide the Commission 
DGs,  executive  agencies  and  joint  undertakings  dealing  with  the  programme  with  common 
support  for  business  processes  linked  to  grant  management,  information  technology,  audit, 
data management and legal services. 

While  the  need  for  a  more  standardised  approach  across  the  research  family  was  generally 
recognised by the four executive agencies concerned, it represented a challenge for ERCEA 
due  to  the  specificities  of  the  European  Research  Council.  The  Agency  demonstrated 
flexibility on how some of the more differentiated aspects of its work could be integrated into 
a  common  approach.  These  included:  single  beneficiary  grants  rather  than  institutions  only; 
differences in the selection and management of experts; the requirement to serve the Scientific 
Council  and  resulting  differences  in  terms  of  project  reporting  and  follow-up.  While 
constraints  were  encountered  in  how  quickly  the  Common  Support  Centre  was  able  to 
develop new information technology tools to support the introduction of new instruments, it 
has been assessed as responsive in addressing specific needs. 

REA  was  also  mandated  to  provide  administrative  and  logistical  support  services  to  all 
entities involved in Horizon 2020 management. The evaluation observed that the extension of 
REA’s  remit  to  include  the  provision  of  common  administrative  and  logistical  support 
services  for  the  research  and  innovation  family  has  strengthened  consistency,  particularly 
through  the  introduction  of  a  common  approach  across  Horizon  2020.  REA  was  also 
mandated to provide participant validation services, not only for Horizon 2020 but also to a 
wide  variety  of  programmes:  Erasmus+,  Creative  Europe,  Europe  for  Citizens,  EU  Aid 
Volunteers, Competitiveness  of Small  and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME), Health and 
Consumer Programmes,  Research  Fund for Coal  and Steel,  Competitiveness  and  Innovation 
Framework  Programme,  Internal  Security  Fund,  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund, 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Rights, Equality and Citizenship, Justice Programme and the fund for information provision 
and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market 
and in third countries. 

As  of  1 January  2018,  as  part  of  the  single  electronic  data  interchange  area  (SEDIA),  the 
Commission  centralised  in  REA  the  legal  validation  of  third  parties  and  the  preparation  of 
financial  capacity  assessments  for  all  Commission  departments  and  executive  agencies  that 
implement grants and procurements. REA delivered a high quality and effective service to its 
clients and other stakeholders for the management and provision of central support services. It 
achieved or exceeded the targets set in its key performance indicators. The Agency coped well 
with the increased workload following the expansion of its mandate to SEDIA. Overall, these 
developments  demonstrate  that  REA  is  increasingly  becoming  a  central  provider  of  support 
services to the Commission departments and the executive agencies. 

3.  One agency managing several EU programmes — how to deal with 

diversity 

The evaluations showed that working with a relatively high number of diverse thematic areas 
and  tasks  can  pose  a  challenge  to  agencies’  effectiveness.  For  example,  the  broadness  of 
activities delegated to EACEA (Erasmus +; Creative Europe, Europe for Citizens, European 
Solidarity Corps  and EU Aid Volunteers) means that the Agency was confronted with quite 
diverse actions in terms of scope and scale. CHAFEA manages programmes in the fields of 
consumers,  health,  agriculture,  and  food  safety.  Its  tasks  include  procurement,  grant 
management and organising political events. This diversity of programmes and tasks resulted 
in  the  different  units  in  CHAFEA  being  organised  in  rather  divergent  ways.  This  led  to  a 
complex working environment with limited possibilities for synergies.  

EASME  manages  a  wide  portfolio  of  programmes  covering  COSME,  Horizon  2020,  the 
programme  for  environment  and  climate  action  (LIFE)  and  the  European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF).  Although  the  Agency’s  performance  was  assessed  as  effective 
overall, a diverse portfolio resulted in a high workload and the need to coordinate with a large 
number  of  parent  DGs.  As  a  result,  the  management  of  new  calls  and  subsequent  activities 
was more complex. 

In INEA, the evaluation identified difficulties linked to the portfolio’s diversity: for example 
better  call  planning  between  the  three  sectors  —  transport,  energy  and  telecoms  —  of  the 
Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)  during  the  preparation  of  the  work  programmes  was 
mentioned as a potential gain in efficiency. 

Programme  portfolios  of  agencies  were  assessed  as  coherent  even  if  further  synergy  gains 
were expected. In 2016 under the CEF, the Commission and INEA launched a call looking for 
synergy  projects  in  the  fields  of  energy  and  transport.  This  joint  call  was  not  completely 
successful,  as  the  eligibility  conditions  under  the  CEF  Regulation  were  too  restrictive. 
Synergies  were  also  expected  between  the  CEF  and  the  transport  and  energy  strands  of 
Horizon  2020  but  due  mainly  to  differing  timescales  (research  takes  time  to  develop  into 
infrastructure projects) there were fewer synergies than expected11. 

11 The Special Report of the Court of Auditors on INEA’s performance confirmed that the potential for further 
synergies between CEF and Horizon 2020 and among the various CEF strands has not materialised fully yet. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
For EASME, the evaluation reported that there is a high potential for synergies between the 
various  programmes  managed  by  the  Agency  due  to  their  thematic  affinities.  Despite  the 
Agency’s organisational set-up of multi-programme departments facilitating cross-programme 
cooperation, the evaluation  identified a tendency to  work in  silos. This was due to  different 
objectives  and  procedures  that  made  it  hard  to  exploit  synergies.  The  Enterprise  Europe 
Network used both for the Horizon 2020 instrument for small and medium-sized enterprises 
and  for  the  COSME  programme,  on  the  other  hand,  was  identified  as  a  good  example  of 
synergy. Including LIFE and Horizon 2020 in the portfolio of a unique agency allowed also 
additional  synergies  across  projects  on  sustainability  and  transition  to  climate  neutral 
economy. 

In  some  cases,  synergies  through  the  use  of  similar  information  technology  tools  and 
processes should also be improved, for example in CHAFEA and INEA. The CEF telecoms 
strand has different types and numbers of beneficiaries to those of the two other CEF strands 
limiting  the  scope  for  synergies.  In  EASME,  there  have  been  attempts  to  harmonise 
procedures and templates between the different programmes. The application of the Horizon 
2020  common  approach  and  common  tools  to  other  programmes  has  started  with  some 
success in INEA with CEF and in EASME with EMFF and COSME and with limited gains in 
CHAFEA.  Their  application  to  LIFE  in  EASME  has  just  started  and  no  measurement  is 
available yet. 

The diversity of thematic areas goes together with a higher number of parent DGs. This has 
consequences  on  the  governance  of  the  individual  agencies  but  also  on  the  practical 
collaboration between the agencies and the DGs. 

4.  Relationship with parent DGs — the challenge of working together 

The Framework Regulation12  establishes general  provisions for all executive agencies. Each 
agency is established through an individual Commission  decision (act of establishment) and 
programmes  are  delegated  through  acts  of  delegation  that  identify  their  parent  DGs.  A 
memorandum  of  understanding  between  each  agency  and  its  parent  DG(s)  sets  out  flexible 
provisions to ensure overall policy coherence and communication between the agency and its 
parent  DGs,  with  the aim of avoiding duplication and micro-management.  The Commission 
also provided further guidance in guidelines on executive agencies13. 
Generally, no evidence of duplication, overlaps or inconsistencies were identified between the 
agencies and their parent DGs. The delimitation of responsibilities between the agencies and 
their  parent  DGs  were  found  to  be  generally  clear.  The  evaluations  found  the  formal  and 
informal communication mechanisms between the agencies and the Commission sufficiently 
frequent  and  effective  to  ensure  that  parent  DGs  are  kept  informed  about  the  agencies’ 
performance and the state of play of implementation of the EU programmes. The secondment 
of  Commission  officials  to  occupy  management  positions  in  the  agencies  as  well  as  a 
significant  proportion of staff having  a previous experience in  the Commission  departments 
were  also  mentioned  as  assets,  providing  the  agencies  with  a  high  degree  of  expertise  and 
knowledge of the parent DGs’ programmes and policies (in particular in the transition period). 
This also helped to promote a closer relationship between both sides. 

12Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to 
be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ L11, 16 January 2003, page 
1). 
13Guidelines  for  the  establishment  and  operation  of  executive  agencies  financed  from  the  Union  budget 
(C(2014)9109).  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In a limited number of cases, evidence of some duplication of work and micro-management 
were reported (CHAFEA). In other occasions, the supervision role of the parent DGs needed 
to  be  clarified  or  updated  (EACEA).  Similarly,  when  EASME  was  mandated  with  new 
programmes  previously  managed  by  the  Commission  and  when  for  example  Commission 
staff were recruited in EASME, in some cases the division of tasks between the Agency and 
its parent DGs was blurred. In some cases, the evaluations suggested that the memorandums 
of  understanding  and  the  guidelines  on  executive  agencies  could  be  improved  in  some 
instances by better defining the role of the parent DGs in the governance and the division of 
the  tasks  between  agency  and  parent  DG.  In  2019-2020,  the  Internal  Audit  Service  of  the 
Commission also analysed the current situation as regards governance and supervision of the 
executive agencies. Based on this analysis, it identified a certain number of best practices or 
advices (e.g. clearer definition of supervision, role of the lead parent DG, guidance on internal 
control  supervision  and  reporting,  etc.)  that  the  Commission  services  will  take  into  account 
when revising the framework of supervision of the executive agencies. 

Distance  was  also  considered  as  an  obstacle  for  the  good  relationship  between  the  agencies 
and  the  parent  DGs.  For  CHAFEA,  the  distance  between  the  Agency  in  Luxembourg  and 
some  of  its  parent  DGs  based  in  Brussels  was  presented  as  a  reason  for  some  difficulties 
between the Agency and the Commission departments. The EACEA evaluation showed that 
the relocation of the Agency within Brussels close to the buildings of the parent DGs helped 
dialogue and improved the collaboration between them. 

Communication  between  agencies  and  Commission  departments  is  key:  various  formal 
measures (meetings of Steering Committees) or informal measures (regular meetings between 
a Commission unit and its contact unit in the agency or direct access to databases) have been 
adopted to facilitate effective communication and direct contact between the agency and the 
parent DGs. Communication is particularly important in situations where the agencies have to 
report on the results of programme implementation. 

One  objective  of  setting  up  the  executive  agencies  was  to  allow  the  Commission  to  focus 
primarily  on  its  core  tasks.  The  evaluations  confirmed  that  the  existence  of  the  executive 
agencies  and  their  role  in  implementing  programmes  have  enabled  the  Commission  to 
concentrate  on  policymaking.  Moreover,  policymaking  relies  in  part  on  feedback  from  the 
programmes and project implementation. The executive agencies play a key role in gathering 
this  information  on  the  ground  and  transforming  it  into  policy  feedback  needed  by  the 
Commission  departments.  The  evaluations  showed  that  all  six  executive  agencies  provide 
policy feedback to the Commission, sometimes already very extensively on specific topics. 
Agencies provide policy feedback through different channels: meetings, reports, briefings or 
data sharing. The policy support can be provided on a regular basis or as response to specific 
requests by the parent DG. REA developed a comprehensive and structured policy feedback 
mechanism,  created  a  project  monitoring  and  policy  feedback  task  force  and  produced  a 
catalogue  of  options  to  assist  their  parent  DGs  in  better  formulating  their  policy  support 
needs.  Specific  initiatives  to  strengthen  the  relevance  of  policy  feedback,  such  as  events  to 
review lessons learned and research results across thematic clusters of projects and the setting 
up of a staff network were organised. REA progressed on this matter by  developing annual 
policy  feedback  plans  tailored  to  each  of  the  delegated  programme  parts  that  are  agreed 
between  the  Agency  and  its  parent  DG.  In  July  2016,  EACEA  adopted  a  strategy  for 
knowledge management. This was followed by mapping of the relevant practices that existed 
in different units in the Agency, examining the potential for improvement, and defining what 
is  needed  to  realise  this  potential.  Some  indicators  for  measuring  policy  support  were  also 
proposed. INEA regularly submitted country reports to its parent DGs with details of projects 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
that  are  supported  by  the  CEF  programme  as  well  as  reports  for  each  transport  project 
covering  several  countries  (Trans-European  Transport  Network  corridors).  CHAFEA  shared 
its  monitoring  database  with  its  parent  DGs.  ERCEA  provided  useful  feedback  to 
Commission  departments  through  briefings  and  data  analysis.  This  has  tended  to  be  in 
response  to  specific  requests  for  support  to  provide  information  and/or  analysis  about 
particular policy topics, such as climate change, artificial intelligence and gravitational waves. 
EASME policy feedback on energy efficiency was considered as good practice because of its 
content (the information provided by EASME was well targeted, of high quality, and always 
very useful) and its timeliness. 

The  evaluations  demonstrated  however  that  despite  these  good  practices,  policy  feedback 
from executive agencies tends to lack standardisation and is developed in an ad hoc manner. 
Wider recognition and better awareness among the Commission departments about the policy 
feedback offered by the agencies is needed. The definition of the content, nature, quantity and 
regularity  of  this  policy  feedback  needs  to  be  further  agreed  between  the  agencies  and  the 
Commission.  The  evaluation  highlighted  that  one  of  the  key  challenges  for  the  next 
programming  period  is  the  need  for  agencies  and  the  Commission  to  work  more  closely 
together and agree on information sharing.  

One example of such an approach comes from the Common Support Centre for Horizon 2020. 
The Common Support Centre has begun the process of defining policy feedback as a business 
process with the executive agencies dealing with Horizon 2020. This will require input from 
both the parent DGs — to better define and formulate their needs for the extraction of policy-
relevant information — and from the executive agencies — to determine what can usefully be 
provided. 

In  2019-2020,  the  Internal  Audit  Service  of  the  Commission  analysed  the  way  executive 
agencies and joint undertakings implementing Horizon 2020 provide policy feedback. Based 
on this analysis, it identified a number of best practices or advices that could be implemented 
in  the  future  design  of  the  policy  feedback  mechanisms:  e.g.  defining  policy  feedback, 
defining  the  policy  feedback  process,  defining  the  policy  feedback  needs  or  facilitating  the 
policy feedback from all types of programmes (not  only the policy driven ones but  also  the 
bottom up ones). This analysis specifically targeted Horizon 2020 but it should be extended to 
the management of the other EU programmes. 

5.  Proximity to beneficiaries — dedicated one-stop-shops in constant search 

for a better service provided 

All the agencies achieved their objectives for proximity to beneficiaries and visibility of EU 
programmes.  All  six  agencies  benefited  from  high  satisfaction  rates  among  beneficiaries  of 
programmes managed by the agencies: 76% for EASME, 80% for CHAFEA, 86% for REA, 
87%  for  INEA,  89%  for  EACEA  and  ERCEA.  Some  agencies  —  REA,  EACEA  and 
CHAFEA  —  also  make  use  of  independent,  external  experts  to  evaluate  proposals.  The 
satisfaction  of  those  experts  with  the  services  provided  by  the  agencies  is  also  very  high. 
Satisfaction  rates  among  unsuccessful  applicants  are  obviously  lower.  CHAFEA  also 
measures  a  satisfaction  rate  for  service  providers  due  to  its  procurement  activities.  The 
relatively low satisfaction (58%) among service providers is linked both to the nature of this 
financial instrument and certain aspects of the quality of the service delivered by CHAFEA, 
for instance the timeliness of the application process, feedback on the proposal, the contract 
negotiation procedure and other aspects of the Agency’s service. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  the  surveys  carried  out  in  the  various  evaluations,  beneficiaries  praised  a  number  of 
simplifications  (CHAFEA),  the  high  standard  for  professionalism  (INEA),  the  service-
oriented attitude (EASME), the strong competence of the staff (EACEA), efficient procedures 
(INEA), the improved and simplified procedures for payments (INEA). 

Beneficiaries  and  unsuccessful  applicants  also  identified  areas  for  improvement.  Among 
others  it  is  worth  mentioning:  better  communication  and  feedback  (INEA);  further 
consolidation  of  processes  related  to  selection  of  independent  experts,  validation  of  expert 
lists  and  participation  of  Commission  staff  in  project  monitoring  activities  (REA);  user-
friendliness  and  functionality  of  the  existing  IT  tools  (REA,  CHAFEA,  EACEA,  INEA); 
external communication activities (EACEA); time to reply to tenders (EASME); or the ethics 
review and monitoring process (ERCEA). 

The  agencies  implemented  several  actions  to  increase  programme  visibility.  These  included 
information  days,  project  management  workshops,  proactive  use  of  social  media  tools  and 
good  quality  graphic  and  communication  materials.  Agencies  improved  their  websites  by 
providing  relevant  materials  related  to  the  programmes  such  as  project  information, 
brochures,  maps  and  statistics.  The  many  channels  of  communication  used  by  the  agencies 
have resulted in better visibility for the programmes. 

6.  Significant savings and simplifications achieved — in constant search for 

more cost-effectiveness 

The evaluations revealed substantial  differences in the programme management costs of the 
executive  agencies.  The  executive  agencies  implementing  Horizon  2020  were  found  to  be 
more cost-effective than EACEA and CHAFEA. The programme management cost values in 
this  group  of  agencies  (the  ratio  between  their  administrative  and  operational  budgets  for 
payments)  were  below  the  4.72%  average  for  all  agencies,  ranging  in  2016  from  0.89% 
(INEA)  to  3.61%  (REA  including  the  provision  of  common  administrative  and  logistical 
support  services14).  By  contrast,  the  2016  programme  management  costs  of  CHAFEA  were 
10.11%,  while  those  of  EACEA  were  7.20%.  These  two  executive  agencies  also  have  the 
lowest values for budget ‘per head’, which in 2016 amounted to EUR 1.46 million in EACEA 
and  EUR 1.37  million  in  CHAFEA  (compared  to  the  average  for  all  agencies  of  EUR 3.65 
million).  For  EACEA  it  is  mainly  related  to  the  complexity  and  diversity  of  its  programme 
portfolio,  the  diverse  nature  of  its  applicants  and  beneficiaries,  the  high  volume  of 
applications  and  grants,  as  well  as  their  small  average  size.  In  CHAFEA  it  is  related  to  the 
diversity of its programme portfolio, the small size of the Agency and the higher average cost 
of staff linked to their high level of expertise and the location of the Agency. 

14By excluding the provision of common administrative and logistical support services, the REA ratio between 
administrative and operational budget becomes 2.58%.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
)

%

(

t
s
o
c

t
n
e
m
g
a
n
a
m
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Average cost across 
all EA 

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

B
u
d
g
e
t

p
e
r
h
e
a
d

(

m

i
l
l
i
o
n
E
U
R

)

CHAFEA

EACEA

REA

EASME

ERCEA

INEA

Programme management cost (ratio between the administrative and operational budget), payments 2016

Budget 'per head' (million, EUR), payments 2016

Chart: Cost of programme management and budget per head 
Source: Triennial evaluations of the executive agencies 

The retrospective cost-benefit analyses for the executive agencies revealed that in all cases the 
executive agency scenario was a cost-effective solution compared to an in-house scenario, in 
which the Commission would implement the programmes. In the table below, actual savings 
are compared to the two sets of estimations drawn up in 2013. The first set was provided by 
the  external  contractor  who  performed  the  ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis  before  the 
Commission  decision  to  delegate  the  2014-2020  programmes  to  executive  agencies15.  The 
second one was set out in the Specific Financial Statements16 by the Commission for each of 
the  executive  agencies  taking  into  account  further  synergies  to  be  achieved  (higher  savings 
expected). 

15Cost-benefit  analysis  for  the  delegation  of  certain  tasks  regarding  the  implementation  of  Union  Programmes 
2014-2020 to the executive agencies — Final report for the Commission of 19 August 2013. 
16Communication  of  the  Commission  SEC(2013) 493  and  the  last  amendments  of  the  Specific  Financial 
Statements accompanying the establishment acts of the executive agencies, as follows: C(2017)4900 of 14 July 
2017 for REA; C(2013)801 of 23 December 2013 for INEA;  C(2013)9048 of 17 December 2013 for ERCEA; 
C(2014)6944 of 2 October 2014 for EASME; C(2018)1716 of 13 November 2018 for EACEA and C(2014)927 
of 17 December 2014 for CHAFEA. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
120

100

80

60

40

20

0

CHAFEA 2014-
2016

INEA 2014-2016

EASME 2014-
2016

EACEA 2015-
2017

ERCEA 2015-
2018

 REA 2015-2018

CBA estimation

SFS estimation

Actual

Chart: Savings during the tri-annual evaluation period estimated vs actual, million EUR 
Source: Triennial evaluations of the executive agencies17 

The results of the six analyses show that the savings achieved differ from the 2013 estimates. 
Most executive agencies (with the exception of CHAFEA)  exceeded the initial  cost  savings 
estimations to a very large extent. EASME and REA achieved savings much higher than the 
initial  expectations,  followed  by  ERCEA,  EACEA  and  INEA18.  CHAFEA  achieved  much 
lower savings than initially estimated (EUR 0.4 million compared to EUR 4.4 million for the 
2013  cost-benefit  analysis  and  EUR 2.3  million  for  the  Specific  Financial  Statement 
estimates). 

The  reports  identify  a  number  of  reasons  for  savings  that  were  common  to  most  of  the 
executive  agencies.  The  savings  resulted  primarily  from  a  higher  share  of  lower-cost  staff 
(contract agents) employed within the executive agencies, which confirms the findings of the 
ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis.  There  were  also  significant  savings  on  expenditure  for 
infrastructure  and  operating  costs  (INEA,  EASME,  REA).  Another  reason  for  savings  was 
that fewer staff were actually employed in the agencies compared to the 2013 forecasts. These 
lower  staff  numbers  are  due  to  reductions  in  staff  numbers  in  the  Specific  Financial 
Statements compared to the ex ante cost-benefit analyses and high vacancy rates in the early 
years of implementation (2014-2015). 

Lastly,  a  common  feature  for  all  agencies  during  the  evaluation  period  is  that  they  are 
constantly  taking  operational  measures  to  further  improve  their  efficiency.  In  particular  the 
agencies,  in  cooperation  with  the  Commission,  continued  to  improve  their  procedures  and 
programme  management  functions  and  introduced  a  number  of  simplifications.  Procedures 
became  more  electronically-managed  (paperless  workflows,  e-submission  of  proposals, 

17REA’s mandate was substantially changed since the beginning of the evaluation period, hence any comparison 
of the initial CBA estimates with the SFS estimates and the actual figures must be considered carefully, given the 
change  in  the  tasks  and  workload  level.  This  graph  illustrates  the  savings  of  all  agencies  for  the  purpose  of 
comparability among them. 
18The Special Report of the Court of Auditors on INEA’s performance also confirmed the lower administrative 
costs (though slightly higher staff costs). 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
automatic check functions integrated into the electronic forms, automation of project reports 
for the beneficiaries, etc.) and new IT tools were made available to streamline procedures. In 
the  four  executive  agencies  managing  Horizon  2020,  the  improvements  and  simplifications 
included: wider use of remote evaluation of proposals; the introduction of a single set of rules; 
electronic  signature  of  grant  agreements;  the  Participant  Portal  as  a  one-stop-shop  for 
interactions with participants; a single reimbursement rate; and a flat rate for indirect costs. 

However,  the  reports  showed  that  in  all  cases  staff  expenditure  increased  more  than  initial 
estimates  in  2013  for  the  evaluation  period.  This  was  due  in  part  to  the  agencies’  need  to 
attract  and  recruit  more  specialised  (and  thus  more  costly)  staff  than  initially  envisaged. 
Another  reason  is  that  the  costs  of  staff  expenditure  estimated  in  the  Specific  Financial 
Statements  did  not  take  into  account  salary  indexation,  promotions  and  increasing  staff 
seniority. For CHAFEA, staff expenditure was also affected by the need to hire staff in higher 
function groups to sustain the attractiveness of the Agency’s location in Luxembourg. These 
are some of the lessons to be learned and taken into account in reflections in advance of future 
delegation to the agencies to implement 2021-2027 EU programmes. 

7.  Human Resources management — positive results but challenges ahead 

The level of staffing in executive agencies is set out in the EU budget and each programme 
delegated  to  an  agency  generates  a  corresponding  number  of  staff.  This  link  between 
programme  and  number  of  staff  creates  some  rigidity  that  has  prevented  the  agencies  from 
using  their  workforce  flexibly  to  cope  with  work  peaks19.  Nonetheless,  during  the  period 
evaluated some agencies experienced good practices of dynamic reassignment of staff within 
the same agency, within the limits of the applicable rules. 

The large majority of the agencies’ staff are allocated to programme implementation and only 
around 10% to support functions — a lower figure than in the Commission20. Given their task 
of  implementing  a  large  part  of  the  EU  budget,  some  25%  of  agencies’  staff  work  in  the 
financial domain, compared to  9% of Commission  staff. These  figures seem  to  demonstrate 
that the agencies’ focus on operational programme management and the related financial tasks 
is adequately mirrored in the organisational roles of their staff. 

The staff opinion survey carried out in 2016 demonstrated a level of staff engagement21 that 
was  above  the  Commission  average  for  five  out  of  the  six  executive  agencies.  EACEA 
EASME,  ERCEA, INEA and REA all had staff engagement values between 65% and 70%, 
compared  to  the  Commission  average  of  64%.  For  CHAFEA,  the  staff  opinion  survey 
reported lower staff  wellbeing compared to  other executive agencies  and a decrease in  staff 
engagement.  The  evaluation  gives  as  explanations  the  Agency’s  small  size  and  relative 
isolation from other agencies due to its location in Luxembourg. This did not allow CHAFEA 
staff to participate to the same extent in the job market of the six agencies. 

In  general,  the  survey  showed  that  staff  perceive  executive  agencies  as  stimulating  and 
dynamic  places  to  work  with  excellent  internal  communication  and  efficient  processes  and 

19 The Special Report of the Court of Auditors on INEA’s performance also identified a need for more flexibility 
in the allocation of staff among programmes within the same agency. 
20Taking  into  account  all  jobs  in  the  Commission,  27%  of  jobs  were  allocated  to  administrative  support  and 
coordination  roles  in  2018.  This  percentage  has  been  relatively  stable  since  2012  and  represents  well  the 
responsibilities and related institutional tasks. 
21Staff  engagement  is  an  aggregate  indicator.  The  full  list  of  sub-questions  is  provided  in  the  staff  working 
documents of the different evaluations. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
procedures  in  place.  Staff  are  also  of  the  opinion  that  agencies  encourage  collaborative 
working as well as new and better working methods. 

In  the  same  survey,  however,  staff  were  less  positive  about  their  career  development  and 
mobility  opportunities.  In  four  of  the  six  agencies,  this  indicator  is  below  the  Commission 
average: especially in the smaller agencies, staff find it difficult to move to another job that 
matches their skills and competencies. 

Based on mature participatory processes, the agencies  have put  in  place strategies that have 
helped  them  to  effectively  follow-up  on  the  key  human  resources  matters  identified  in  the 
staff  opinion  survey.  Among  the  positive  developments,  it  is  important  to  highlight  the 
increased  differentiation  of  the  recruitment  channels,  involving  the  European  Personnel 
Selection  Office  for  more  generalist  profiles  and  executive  agencies’  own  processes  for 
specialist needs. This differentiation helped to avoid bottlenecks in the recruitment processes 
in particular when wide scale and fast recruitments were needed. 

The results of the 2018 staff opinion survey show that in general, the efforts of the agencies 
have paid off as the results for the main indicators have further improved with the exception 
of EACEA linked partly to difficulties in the area of internal control in 2018. The evaluations 
identified the need to create more synergies and efficiency in the way some human resources 
matters are handled, building on current common rules and procedures. The evaluations have 
however  identified  challenges  that  still  need  to  be  addressed  such  as  developing  staff  skills 
further  in  the  area  of  policy  feedback,  as  well  as  investing  more  in  career  guidance  and 
development. 

8.  Change of mandate — a crucial moment 

The start of a new programming period (as in 2014 and in 2021) is a challenging time for the 
agencies.  Their  mandates  are  changed  to  entrust  them  with  the  management  of  a  new 
generation of programmes. They have to put in place the procedures for the start of the new 
programmes  while  still  following  and  executing  payments  for  projects  from  the  previous 
programmes.  In  2014,  management  of  the  new  programmes  meant  an  increased  financial 
allocation requiring the development of new management structures, information technology 
systems and support services to support the expansion, and coping with a phase of major staff 
recruitment.  This  transitional  period  is  characterised  by  managerial  complexities  associated 
with  implementing  two  different  sets  of  rules,  processes  and  procedures.  Despite  this 
challenging  environment,  the  agencies  were  considered  effective  for  the  start  of  the  new 
programming period (2014-2015), because they invested significant resources in streamlining 
and documenting their procedures for the new programmes. The agencies most impacted were 
EASME and INEA, whose staff increased by 175% and 147% respectively between 2013 and 
2016, and whose budget increased by approximately 220% and 350% over the same period. 
Due  to  this  intense  starting  phase,  EASME  and  INEA  failed  to  meet  several  of  their  key 
performance indicators22. 

With  their  new  mandates,  the  agencies  were  confronted  with  more  thematically  diverse 
portfolios (see section 3) and were supervised by more parent DGs (see section 4). This was 
particularly the case for CHAFEA and  INEA whose parent DGs increased from one to four 
and  for  EASME,  supervised  by  seven  parent  DGs  compared  to  four  in  the  previous 

22Time to pay for TEN-T programme in 2015 for INEA, execution of commitment appropriations for TEN-T and 
Marco Polo II for INEA in 2014, time to grant for Horizon 2020 (except Energy efficiency) in 2014-2015, LIFE 
(2015 only) and Fast Track Innovation (2014-2016) for EASME. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
programming  period.  The  evaluations  also  found  that  collaboration  between  agencies  and 
parent DGs delegating programme implementation tasks for the first time had to grow during 
the first  years after delegation in order to create a relationship of trust between the agencies 
and the parent DGs. This affected the governance (see section 4) and the established practices 
of  the  agency  with  its  parent  DGs.  For  CHAFEA,  INEA  and  EASME,  the  agencies  also 
changed  names  and  acronyms,  which  are  important  for  visibility  and  proximity  with 
beneficiaries, but the evaluations showed that such changes did not seem to have any major 
impact (see section 5). The changes also affected the organisational structures of the agencies. 
INEA and EASME introduced a new management layer. In general, the evaluations assessed 
the agencies’ internal organisation to be closely aligned with the tasks entrusted to them. The 
evaluations of EACEA and EASME mentioned that the structure of these agencies could be 
improved and the evaluation of CHAFEA identified its small size as an issue, in particular for 
business  continuity.  The  Agency’s  relatively  small  size  has  obvious  consequences  on  its 
ability to maintain knowledge and business continuity when key staff unexpectedly leave the 
Agency or change assignment internally. 

The mandates of REA, EASME, INEA and EACEA were changed during the programming 
period.  For  EACEA,  several  mandate  extensions  took  place  over  the  period  analysed.  The 
evaluations  showed  that  the  affected  agencies  were  flexible  and  effective  in  addressing  the 
extension of their mandates. All four agencies managed to cope with the increased workload 
and/or additional tasks. The evaluations showed however that the delegation procedure (cost-
benefit analysis, information to the Council committee for executive agencies, amendments to 
the  acts  of  delegation,  etc.)  proved  to  be  too  complex  for  limited  extensions  of  mandate. 
Indeed,  there  is  currently  no  simplified  delegation  procedure  for  limited  extensions  of 
mandate during a programming period. Those limited extensions  resulted in  an unnecessary 
burden for the Commission departments and the agencies. 

Conclusion 

The  evaluations  of  the  six  executive  agencies  confirmed  their  good  performance  and  their 
added value in managing EU programmes. At the same time, they revealed some challenges 
the  agencies  still  face.  Some  challenges  are  common  to  all  agencies.  One  of  them  is  the 
quality of the policy feedback the agencies deliver to the Commission, another is the need to 
update some aspects  of the legal framework (memoranda of understanding or  guidelines on 
executive agencies). Other challenges are more agency specific stemming from the agency’s 
size,  location,  the  diversity  of  portfolio  of  programmes  to  manage,  or  related  to  internal 
control issues. The Commission and the agencies are preparing and implementing action plans 
to remedy the shortcomings identified and to face the challenges ahead. 

Some of the replies to those challenges will also need to be addressed as part of the reflections 
on the future of the executive agencies. The Commission has presented its proposals for the 
next generation of EU programmes (2021-2027) and it is currently undertaking a cost-benefit 
analysis to determine the adequate role that executive agencies should play in implementing 
them.  To  this  end,  the  executive  agencies  need  to  be  able  to  continuously  improve  their 
performance, to continue operating in a cost-effective manner and to deepen cooperation with 
the  Commission.  The  lessons  learned  from  this  common  evaluation  process  will  feed  the 
reflections  on  the  delegation  of  the  next  generation  of  EU  programmes  to  the  executive 
agencies. 

15