Mid-term evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020. Appendix D, Report on the online targeted consultation results.
Date: 2021-08-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: EU Member State, EU initiative, administrative formalities, investment project, project of common interest, regional development, regional policy, report, technical cooperation

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE 

JASPERS INITIATIVE 

IN 2014-2020 

Appendix D: Report on the online targeted 
consultation results 

No 2017.CE.16.BAT.094 

Written by: Silvia Vignetti (CSIL), Matteo Pedralli (CSIL), Francesca Ardizzon (CSIL) 
Quality assurance: Malene Sand Jespersen (COWI), Bettina Rafaelsen (COWI) 

June 2020 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Disclaimer:  

The information and views set out in this evaluation are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not  guarantee  the 

accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the 
Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information 

contained therein. 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Directorate B - Policy 
Unit B2 - Evaluation and European Semester  

Contact: Irina CIOCIRLAN  

E-mail: REGIO-B2-HEAD-OF-UNIT@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE 

JASPERS INITIATIVE 

IN 2014-2020 

Appendix D: Report on the online targeted 
consultation results 

June 2021 

Directorate-General for Urban and Regional Policy  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

Manuscript completed in June 2020 
1st edition 
The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

ISBN 978-92-76-40713-3 
doi: 10.2776/433885 

© European Union, 2021 
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 
14.12.2011, p. 39). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.1  

Introduction to the online targeted consultation activity 

D.1.1   Identification of the target group  

D.1.2   Invitation strategy  

D.1.3  Final composition of the sample targeted by the online consultation 

June 2020 5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

APPENDIX D  REPORT ON THE ONLINE TARGETED CONSULTATION 
RESULTS 

D.1  

Introduction to the online targeted consultation activity 

In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, an online targeted consultation was carried out with 

the purpose  to collect views and information  from  the  stakeholders that would not be reached 

through the in-depth evaluation of a sample of JASPERS assignments.  

The online targeted consultation was launched on 3rd June 2019 and closed after 17 weeks, on 

30th September 2019. The closure was postponed with respect to the initial agreement (closure 

after 12 weeks) in order to widen, as much as possible, the group of respondents, also by taking 

advantage of the seminar held on 19th September 2019 during which the online consultation was 

further disseminated. 

D.1.1   Identification of the target group 

As part of the target group, stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in JASPERS activities within 

the different mandates and types of assignments were included. They could be either direct ben-

eficiaries of JASPERS support (i.e. project promoters in the case of advisory support for major 

project preparation or REGIO major project team in case of a post-submission appraisal report) 

or stakeholders indirectly involved in JASPERS activities (i.e. private consultants preparing feasi-

bility studies for project promoters and receiving comments by JASPERS or independent experts 

hired  by  JASPERS  to  develop  some  technical  content  for  the  delivery  of  guidelines  or  training 

sessions). In principle, the online consultation was designed for the following stakeholders: 

•  EU staff (e.g. REGIO major project team and geographical desks, NEAR, INEA); 

•  National coordination units (both Member States and IPA countries) for the use of EU 

funds; 

•  Managing Authorities; 

•  Project beneficiaries (e.g. local authorities, service providers); 

•  External consultants and stakeholders involved in project preparation and implementation. 

D.1.2  

Invitation strategy 

Given  the  wide  range  of  activities  of  JASPERS  and  the  way  stakeholders  get  involved  in  their 

activities, a centralized system of invitation to the survey, requiring a unique and comprehensive 

repository  of  contact  details,  was  not  feasible.  On  contrary,  a  snowball  sampling  system  and 

diffused  invitation  strategy  was  implemented  to  reach  out  also  those  whose  interactions  with 

JASPERS staff may be mediated by public counterpart within the Managing Authority or project 

beneficiaries.  

The invitation strategy relied on a two-steps approach: 

June 2020 6 

 
 
 
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

•  STEP ONE: invitations were sent to personal email addresses1  by REGIO to REGIO, INEA 
and NEAR staff involved in JASPERS activities as well as to a list of stakeholders suggested 

both by JASPERS staff on the basis of their counterparts in the countries and by the  Consor-

tium members  on the basis of a list of stakeholders they have been in contact with for the 

interview plan, both during the scoping phase and the assignment forms assessment (TASK 

3); 

•  STEP TWO: official and informal reminders were sent to all invitees contacted in STEP ONE 
by both DG REGIO and JASPERS staff and the Consortium members respectively. In addition, 

all  invitees  were  required to  send  the  survey  link  to  those  they  believed  are  familiar  with 

JASPERS. 

The snowball (or respondent-driven) sampling system was deemed appropriate for the JASPERS 

network connecting the hidden professional population which cannot be known since the outset. 

This strategy was expected to increase the response rate, keeping the circulation of the survey 

among a restricted group of relevant population. The identification  of the relevant target group 

was further ensured by a self-selection system based on the message in the welcome page of the 

survey  asking  to  pick  up  the  survey  if  familiar  with  JASPERS  otherwise  to  send  it  to  relevant 

colleagues. 

D.1.3 

Final composition of the sample targeted by the online consultation 

Amongst the total of 554 accesses registered to the link at which the online targeted consultation 
was  available,  the  online  targeted  consultation  collected  a  total  of  210  “completed”2  question-

naires, whereas the other 344 questionnaires were considered invalid either because they were 

empty (283) or completed only partially (61). 

As  concerns  the  distribution  of  the  valid  questionnaires  across  European  countries,  Figure  1-1 

shows  that  most  of  respondents  are  from  Poland  and,  although  to  a  lesser  extent,  also  from 

Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. North Macedonia, Czechia and Croatia are also represented by a 

significant  number  of  respondents.  Other  countries  such  as  Spain,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Hungary, 

Turkey and Greece are also covered, although by a less significant number of respondents. Con-

versely countries such as France, Italy, Germany are represented by a unique respondent and 

Northern European countries as well as Portugal, Ireland or Denmark are not even covered. 

1  CSIL  uploaded  the  questionnaires  on  the  online  platform  and  made  available  the  link  of  the  survey.  Ex-

changes of personal email addresses among the different institutions was avoided as far as possible in order 

to avoid possible issues in terms of data protection management. 

2 Questionnaires were considered “completed” when filled in until question D4 “For the mandates and activi-

ties you are familiar with, what do you think is the added value of the following JASPERS services as com-

pared to possible alternatives (e.g. private consultancy, in-house advisory, others)?”. 

June 2020 7 

 
 
                                                
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Figure 1-1. Total number of respondents by country3 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 200 (9 European Commission Officials and one multi-

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

country respondent were excluded) 

By  comparing  the  distribution  of  survey  respondents  with  the  distribution  of  the  517 
JASPERS assignments composing the complete JASPERS Portfolio4 over the period 2014-mid 

2018,  Figure  1-1  shows  a  homogeneous  distribution  across  countries,  with  the  most  frequent 

recipients of JASPERS support being overall well represented also within the online targeted con-

sultation. More in detail, the percentage of survey respondents is a bit higher than the percentage 

of JASPERS assignments in Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Czechia and North Macedonia, while the 

opposite is true for Poland, Croatia or Italy. Conversely, discrepancies between the two distribu-

tions should be detected as concerns Portugal, where JASPERS has operated but no representative 

of Managing Authorities, project beneficiaries or consultancies providing technical expertise have 

participated in the online targeted consultation.  

3 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: A1. Please select your country. 

4 Source: First Interim Report, JASPERS Mid-Term Evaluation Database, 2014-2020. 

June 2020 8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Figure 1-1. Compared distribution of survey respondents and JASPERS assignments 2014-2020 
across countries 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results and JASPERS Mid-Term Evaluation Data-

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 200 (9 European Commission Officials and one multi-

country respondent were excluded), while the total number of JASPERS assignments is 517 

base, 2014-2020 

As  a  result,  the  survey  mostly  covers  EU13  countries  (82%),  followed  by  IPA/candidate  countries 
(11%) and EU15 countries (7%) [see Figure 1-2]. 

Figure 1-2. Percentage of respondents by type of country 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 200 (9 European Commission Officials and one multi-

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

country respondent were excluded) 

National public authorities and service providers/private sector represent the main institutions 

covered  by  the  online  consultation,  followed  by  regional  and  local  public  authorities  and  other 

types of respondents who identified themselves as Corporate organization  with 50% public par-

ticipation, Regional operator companies, State Joint Stock Company of the public railway infra-

structure,  Municipal  company,  Port  Authority,  Institution  providing  services  -  ownership  of  the 

commune,  Water  and  sewage  company,  Railway  Infrastructure  of  the  Slovak  Republic,  100% 

public service provider, Public hospital, Gas Transmission Operator, Public transport carrier, Public 

transport service provider in the public interest (Entity 100% owned by the city). European Com-

mission Officials, conversely, represents only 4% of respondents (see Table 1.1). 

June 2020 9 

0,00%5,00%10,00%15,00%20,00%25,00%Share of respondents by countriesShare of assignments by countriesEU13 countries82%EU15 countries7%Candidate countries11% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Table 1-1 Type of institutions of respondents5 

Type of institution 

Number of respondents 

Share out of the total 

European Commission 

National public authority 

Regional public authority 

Local public authority 

Service provider/private sector 

Academic/independent expert 

Other6 

TOTAL 

9 

99 

22 

22 

31 

1 

26 

210 

4% 

47% 

10,5% 

10,5% 

15% 

0,5% 

12,5% 

100% 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

Most of respondents from the above-mentioned institutions identified themselves as project pro-

moters or beneficiaries (45,71%) or as Managing Authorities (29%), as shown in  Figure 1-3. A 

lower percentage, around 11,43% of the total number of respondents, is represented by Consul-

tancies providing technical expertise. Another 13% of respondents, instead, does not fall under 

these categories and identified themselves as European Commission Officials, Cooperating insti-

tutions, Intermediate Bodies. 

Figure 1-3. Roles of respondents in the project cycle (in percentage of the total number of 
respondents)7 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210 

As concerns the mandates under which JASPERS may operate, Figure 1-4 shows that the Euro-

pean  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  is  the  mandate  with  which  survey  respondents 

stated  familiarity  the  most,  thus  reflecting  the  higher  percentage  of  the  ESIF  mandate  across 

JASPERS assignments which stands at 87% of the total. Conversely, the distribution of CEF and 

5 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: A3. Type of institution. 

6 Others identified themselves as: Corporate organization  with 50% public participation, Regional operator 

companies, State Joint Stock Company of the public railway infrastructure, Municipal company, Port Authority, 

Institution providing services - ownership of the commune, Water and sewage company, Railway Infrastruc-

ture of the Slovak Republic, 100% public service provider, Public hospital, Gas Transmission Operator, Public 

transport carrier, Public transport service provider in the public interest (Entity 100% owned by the city). 

7 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: A5. Role in the project cycle. 

June 2020 10 

Project promoter/beneficiary45,71%Consultancy providing technical expertise11,43%Managing Authority29,52%Other, please specify13,33% 
 
 
                                                
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

IPA mandates across JASPERS assignments is not mirrored across survey respondents. In fact, 

evidence stemming from the online targeted consultation reveals a higher familiarity of respond-

ents with the CEF rather than with the IPA mandate. Nevertheless, a considerably lower percent-

age of respondents declared familiarity with these two mandates as compared with the ESIF, in 

line with the overall distribution of mandates across JASPERS assignments. 

Figure 1-4. Compared distribution of mandates across survey respondents and JASPERS 
assignments 2014-mid 20188 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results and JASPERS Mid-Term Evaluation Data-
base, 2014-2020 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210, while the total number of JASPERS assignments is 
517 

Moreover, it should be noted that these slightly different distributions of mandates may find an 

explanation in the fact that the same respondent could provide more than answer to the corre-

sponding question within the online targeted consultation. In fact, as Figure 1-5 shows, respond-

ents  generally  declared  to  be  familiar  with  only  one  type  of  fund,  but  one  third  of  the  sample 

stated to be familiar with two (29%) or with all types of funds (3%).  

Figure 1-5. Percentage of respondents stating familiarity with the one, two or all types of funds 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210 

By focusing on the different types of countries, it should be noted that, coherently with the time 
and geographical distribution  of  JASPERS support,  EU15 and  EU13 countries are more familiar 

with the Structural Funds and Cohesion mandate, while candidate countries show familiarity es-
pecially with the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA II) and, although to a lesser extent, 

also with the CEF mandate (see  Figure 1-6). 

8 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: A6. Type of funds you are familiar with. Please note, re-

spondents could provide more than one answer to this question. 

June 2020 11 

14%25%61%8%5%87%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA)Connecting Europe Facility –Transport (CEF)European Structural and Investment Funds(ESIF)Distribution across JASPERS assignmentsDistribution across survey respondentsFamiliar with only one type of funds68%Familiar with two types of funds29%Familiar with all three types of funds3% 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Figure 1-6. Familiarity with the three different types of funds by type of country9 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 200 (9 European Commission Officials and one multi-

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

country respondent were excluded) 

In  terms  of  sectors  of  activities,  survey  results  (Figure  1-7)  confirm  the  distribution  of  the 
different sectors across JASPERS assignments, with  the Rail, air and maritime transport sector 

having the largest number of assignments and being the sector with which respondents are gen-
erally  more  familiar.  However,  there  is  quite  strong  difference  between  the  distribution  of  the 

horizontal-multi sector and the smart development across JASPERS assignments and survey re-
spondents. More in detail, the former appears to be over-represented within the online consulta-

tion, while the opposite is true for the latter. Nevertheless, in more general terms, with the ex-
clusion  of  these  two  cases,  the  distribution  of  sectors  of  activity  within  the  online  consultation 

may be considered quite homogeneous with respect to their distribution across JASPERS assign-
ments.  

9 As respondents could provide more than one answer to this question, the percentage represents the number 

of responses  stating familiarity  with  each different fund  over  the  total  number of responses  given by each 

type of country. 

June 2020 12 

66%93%16%27%7%84%7%Candidate countriesEU13 countriesEU15 countriesEuropean Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)Connecting Europe Facility –Transport (CEF)Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Figure 1-7. Compared distribution of sectors of activity across survey respondents (in percentage 
of the total number of responses) and JASPERS assignments 2014-mid 201810 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results and JASPERS Mid-Term Evaluation Data-
base, 2014-2020 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210, while the total number of JASPERS assignments is 
517. Amongst these respondents, 37 of them also stated to be familiar, beyond the tradi-
tional sectors listed above, with other sectors such as: Cultural heritage, Tourism, 

Healthcare, Emergency Situations - Civil Protection, Land Administration, Inland waterways.   

As concerns the different JASPERS functions (JASPERS Strategic and Horizontal support, JASPERS 
Technical Advisory function, JASPERS Appraisal function and JASPERS Networking and capacity 

building activities), survey results appears to be generally in line with the distribution of these 
activities across JASPERS assignments (see Figure 1-8). Only in the case of JASPERS Networking 

and capacity building activities a slight overrepresentation can be  detected with respect to the 
number of respondents stating to be familiar with this specific service (more than 14% respond-

ents compared to a total of 5% of assignments). 

10 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: A7. Sectors of activity you are familiar with. Please note, 

respondents could provide more than one answer to this question. 

June 2020 13 

6%10%12%17%25%30%13%4%15%17%19%32%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Smart developmentHorizontal/multi-sectorEnergy and solid wasteWater and waste waterRoad transportRail, air and maritime transportDistribution of sectors across JASPERS assignmentsDistribution of sectors across survey respondents 
 
 
 
                                                
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Figure 1-8. Compared distribution of JASPERS activities across survey respondents (in percentage 
of the total number of responses) and JASPERS assignments 2014-mid 201811 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results and JASPERS Mid-Term Evaluation Data-
base, 2014-2020 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210, while the total number of JASPERS assignments is 
517 

In this respect, it should be noted that respondents generally declared to be familiar with one or 
two types of JASPERS function, while only a small percentage of them stated to be familiar with 

three (15%) or with all types of JASPERS functions (11%), as shown in Figure 1-9. 

Figure 1-9. Percentage of respondents stating to have experience with one or more of the main 
JASPERS activities 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210 

Most frequent combinations of JASPERS activities are summarized in the table below. 

11 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: B1. Type of activities you have experience with. Please 

note, respondents could provide more than one answer to this question. Also note that, as it was designed, 

this question does not reflect anymore the classification of JASPERS services currently used in the FIR and 

SIR. To overcome this limitation, answers were aggregated.  

June 2020 14 

14%14%23%49%19%5%23%53%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Strategic and Horizontal supportCapacity Building activitiesAppraisal servicesTechnical Advisory ServicesDistribution of JASPERS activities across JASPERS assignmentsDistribution of JASPERS activities across respondentsFamiliar with only one JASPERS function43%Familiar with two JASPERS functions31%Familiar with three JASPERS functions15%Familiar with four JASPERS functions11% 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Table 1-2. Combinations of JASPERS activities with which survey respondents stated to be familiar with 

Number of JASPERS 
activities respond-
ents were familiar 
with 
Familiarity with one 
JASPERS activity 

Familiarity with two 
JASPERS activities 

Total num-
ber of re-
spondents 

90 

66 

Familiarity with three 
JASPERS activities 

31 

Most frequent combinations 

Technical Advisory (89%) 
▪ 
▪  Appraisal services (7,5%) 
▪  Capacity Building activities (3,5%) 
▪ 

Technical Advisory and Appraisal services 
(65%) of which 

•  Technical Advisory and IQR services 

(55,9%) 

•  Technical Advisory and PSA services 

(34,8%) 

•  Technical Advisory and both Appraisal 

services (9,3%) 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

Technical Advisory, Strategic and Horizontal 
support and Appraisal services (42%) 
Technical Advisory, Strategic and Horizontal 
support and Capacity Building activities 
(35,4%) 
Technical Advisory, Capacity Building activities 
and Appraisal services (22,6%) 

Familiarity with all 
four JASPERS activi-
ties 
TOTAL 

23 

210 

/ 

/ 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

Less homogeneous distributions of  JASPERS  activities across survey  respondents and JASPERS 

assignments are identified when isolating the PSA and IQR services (see Figure 1-10). With re-
spect to IQR services, in fact, it should be noted that while 16% survey respondents appear to be 

familiar with this service, the concentration of IQR services across JASPERS assignments is very 
low, standing at only 6% of the total. Conversely, PSA services are “underrepresented” within the 

online targeted consultation with respect to their distribution across JASPERS assignments. This 
consideration finds an explanation in the fact that European Commission Officials are generally 

more familiar with PSA services than other types of respondents and, in the context of the online 
targeted consultation, they represent only 4% of the total. 

June 2020 15 

 
 
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Figure  1-10.  Compared  distribution  of  JASPERS  activities  across  survey  respondents  (in 
percentage  of  the  total  number  of  responses)  and  JASPERS  assignments  2014-mid  2018  by 
splitting Appraisal services12 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results and JASPERS Mid-Term Evaluation Data-
base, 2014-2020 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210, while the total number of JASPERS assignments is 
517 

In  terms  of  objects  of  JASPERS  activities,  survey  results  shows  that  most  of  respondents  are 
familiar with major projects and, although to a lesser extent, with non-project related aspects, in 

line with the distribution of objects of JASPERS support across assignments for the period 2014-
mid 2018 (see Figure 1-11). 

Figure 1-11. Compared distribution of objects of JASPERS activities across survey respondents 
(in percentage of the total number of responses) and JASPERS assignments 2014-mid13  

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results and JASPERS Mid-Term Evaluation Data-
base, 2014-2020 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210, while the total number of JASPERS assignments is 
517 

In terms of areas of JASPERS activities, Figure 1-12 shows that most of respondents have expe-
rience with cost-benefit analysis and environmental issues and, although to a lesser extent, also 

with risk and sensitivity analysis and the review of application for co-financing. Conversely, State 
aid and public procurement result to be the areas of which respondents have lower knowledge.  

12 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: B1. Type of activities you have experience with. Please 

note, respondents could provide more than one answer to this question. 

13 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: B2. Object of JASPERS activities you have experience 

with. Please note, respondents could provide more than one answer to this question. 

June 2020 16 

10%14%14%16%47%18%19%5%6%53%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%PSA servicesStrategic and Horizontal supportCapacity Building activitiesIQR servicesTechnical Advisory ServicesDistribution of JASPERS activities across JASPERS assignmentsDistribution of JASPERS activities across respondents22%29%48%12%24%64%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Non-major projectNon-project relatedMajor projectDistribution of objects of JASPERS activities across JASPERS assignmentsDistribution of objects of JASPERS activities across respondents 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Figure  1-12.  Percentage  of  respondents  stating  to  have  experience  with  the  different 
areas of JASPERS activities14 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210. Amongst these respondents, 23 of them also 
stated to be familiar, beyond the traditional areas listed above, with other areas such as: 
Evaluation of Strategic documents, Transport strategy, Consultation related to EU co-financ-

ing etc.   

In terms of frequency of interaction/involvement with JASPERS/JASPERS activities in the period 
2014-2020,  most  of  respondents  taking  part  in  the  survey  declared  to  have  interacted  with 

JASPERS on a frequent (63%) or occasional (25%) basis. Only 12% of them, instead, benefitted 

from JASPERS only once (see Figure 1-13). 

Figure 1-13. Percentage of respondents and frequency of interactions with JASPERS15 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210 

By focusing on the different types of roles within the project cycle,  Figure 1-14 shows that the 
majority of all types of respondents have had frequent exchanges with JASPERS. Only Consultancy 

providing technical expertise are an exception in this regard, declaring to have  interacted with 
JASPERS mostly on an occasional basis (54%) or only once (8%), as they generally may have 

experience only on individual projects.  

14 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: B3. Areas of JASPERS activities you have experience 

with. Please note, respondents could provide more than one answer to this question. 

15 Corresponding question within the questionnaire: B4. Frequency of interaction/involvement with 

JASPERS/JASPERS activities in the period 2014-2020. 

June 2020 17 

6%9%10%10%14%15%16%20%0%5%10%15%20%25%Public procurementState aidTechnical designCompliance checksReview of application for co-financingRisk and sensitivity analysisEnvironmental issuesCost-benefit analysisOnly once12%Occasional (up to five times)25%Frequent (more than five times)63% 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Mid-Term Evaluation of the Jaspers Initiative in 2014-2020 

Figure 1-14. Frequency of interactions with JASPERS by type of respondent (type of institution 
and role in the project cycle) 

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 210. Amongst these respondents, 28 identified as 
“Other respondents” [see Figure 1-3]. Amongst them, 74% have had frequent exchanges 
with JASPERS, while only 26% declared to have had exchanges only once. 

By  differentiating  by  type of  countries,  Figure  1-15  reveals  that  EU13  and  candidate  countries 

have generally had frequent or occasional interactions with JASPERS, while the majority of EU15 
countries mostly once or on an occasional basis. 

Figure 1-15. Frequency of interactions with JASPERS by type of country  

Note: The total number of respondents considered is 200 (9 European Commission Officials and one multi-

Source: CSIL processing of online targeted consultation’s results 

country respondent were excluded)  

June 2020 18 

38%58%67%71%54%26%33%21%8%16%8%Consultancy providing technical expertiseManaging AuthorityEuropean CommissionProject promoter/beneficiaryFrequent (more than five times)Occasional (up to five times)Only once29%43%70%29%50%18%43%7%12%EU15 countriesCandidate countriesEU13 countriesFrequent (more than five times)Occasional (up to five times)Only once 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address 
of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

Finding information about the EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You  can  download  or  order  free  and  priced  EU  publications  at:  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple  copies  of  free  publications  may  be  obtained  by  contacting  Europe  Direct  or  your  local  information 
centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For  access  to  legal  information  from  the  EU,  including  all  EU  law  since  1952  in  all  the  official  language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
N
-
0
2
-
2
1
-
9
8
9
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN: 978-92-76-40713-3