COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS European Structural and Investment Funds 2021 Summary report of the programme annual implementation reports covering implementation in 2014-2020
Date: 2021-12-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EAFRD, EU aid, EU investment, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, European Structural and Investment Funds, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.12.2021  SWD(2021) 384 final  SYNTHESIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATIONS OF EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS PROGRAMMES 2014-2020 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS European Structural and Investment Funds       2021 Summary report of the programme annual implementation reports        covering implementation in 2014-2020 {COM(2021) 797 final}  
 
 
STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  

ON THE 

SYNTHESIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATIONS OF 

EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS  

PROGRAMMES 2014-2020 

accompanying the 2021 Annual Summary Report  

Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

2.  COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES .................................................................... 3 

2.1.  Evaluations in the Member States ..................................................................... 3 
2.1.1.  General overview ................................................................................ 3 
2.1.2.  Main findings of evaluations ............................................................... 8 
2.1.3.  Support to the Member States ........................................................... 19 
2.2.  Evaluation work by the Commission .............................................................. 20 

3.  EUROPEAN  AGRICULTURAL  FUND  FOR  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT 

(EAFRD) ................................................................................................................... 21 

3.1.  Evaluations in the Member States ................................................................... 21 
3.1.1.  General overview .............................................................................. 21 
3.1.2.  Main findings of evaluations ............................................................. 26 
3.1.3.  Support to the Member States ........................................................... 29 
3.2.  Evaluation work by the Commission .............................................................. 29 

4.  EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND (EMFF) ................................ 31 

4.1.  Evaluations in the Member States ................................................................... 31 
4.2.  Evaluation work by the Commission .............................................................. 32 

5.  FINAL REMARKS ................................................................................................... 33 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

Under  the  rules  of  shared  management1,  Member  States  are  responsible  for  managing  and 
implementing the programmes supported by European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds. 
These  programmes  pursue  the  objectives  of  the  EU  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and 
inclusive growth.   
The  Common  Provisions  Regulation  for  2014-20202(CPR)  requires  that  evaluations  are 
carried out to improve the quality of the design and implementation of programmes, and 
to  assess  their  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  impact.  During  the  programming  period, 
Member States are required to carry out evaluations for each programme and ensure that each 
evaluation is duly followed up. At least once during the programming period, an evaluation 
should assess how the support from the ESI Funds has helped achieve the objectives for each 
priority  of  the  programme.  So  far,  more  than  2700  evaluatios  have  been  carried  out  by 
Member States on ESI Funds for the 14-20 programming period. 

In line with Article 53 of the CPR, this staff working document summarises the findings of 
the latest available evaluations of the programmes supported by the ESI Funds3. At this stage 
of  the  programming  period,  the  Member  States  carry  out  most  evaluations,  while  the 
Commission’s main responsibility is to carry out ex-post evaluations. This document outlines 
the current situation of ESI Funds evaluation in the Member States and of the Commission’s 
parallel  work.  It  accompanies  the  2021  summary  report  of  the  programme  annual 
implementation reports covering implementation in 2014-2020. 

Evaluation  is  key  to  ensuring  accountability  and  effective  performance.  It  supplies 
policymakers with robust analytical findings to ensure that action supported by the ESI Funds 
achieves the best possible results. This  continuous learning process  helps  improve relevant 
EU policies. In addition, the Commission provides specific support by fostering evaluation in 
all Member States. 

The  following  sections  present  the  main  findings  of  the  evaluations  of  the  ESI  Funds 
programmes  that  Member  States  and  the  Commission  have  carried  out,  mainly  in  the  past 
year. The structure follows the broad policy areas:  

  Section 2  covers  cohesion  policy  programmes,  supported  by  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion  Fund (CF) and the European  Social Fund 
(ESF) including the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI);  

  Section 3  is  devoted  to  the  rural  development  policy,  supported  by  the  European 

Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); 

  Section 4 focuses on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF); and  
  Section 5 contains some concluding remarks. 

1   https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/what/glossary/s/shared-management   

2  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (OJ L 

347, 20.12.2013, p. 320). 
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ 

3 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES 

Cohesion policy is one of the most evaluated policies in Europe, and  rightly so, considering 
that it represents around one third of the total EU budget. This section presents the Member 
States and the Commission’s work in evaluating the work and programmes supported by the 
three cohesion policy funds. 

2.1.  Evaluations in the Member States 

2.1.1.  General overview 

Since  January  2015,  the  Member  States  have  published  more  than  1 500  evaluations  of 
2014-2020  operational  programmes.  Programmes  and  Member  States  have  multiple 
approaches  to  evaluation.  Nevertheless,  the  growing  number  of  evaluations  shows  that  the 
Member  States  are  stepping  up  their  work  and  commitment  to  strive  for  evidence-based 
policymaking and to focus on results. 

Most  evaluations  deal  with  procedural  aspects  and  examine  progress  in  achieving  policy 
targets.  However,  a  significant  and  growing  number  of  evaluations  aims  to  assess  the 
impact  of  EU  support,  and  the  mechanisms  that influence  the  effectiveness  of  this  support. 
These  evaluations  are  typically  carried  out  later  on  in  the  programming  period,  once  the 
actions  haves  produced  enough  results  to  be  assessed.  The  number  of  these  evaluations  is 
expected to increase further. 

Summary of common evaluation findings 

Analysing  the  impacts  of  EU  support  is  very  challenging.  Firstly,  because  it  is  difficult  to 
establish  causality  between  the  financial  support  and  the  results  observed  on  the  ground  as 
many interconnected factors influence these results. Secondly, because evaluations are mostly 
designed to deal with the results of supported projects in a local context, so their findings are 
difficult to aggregate as they are mostly specific to this local context. 

Nevertheless, despite the local relevance of evaluations, some common findings are starting 
to  emerge  in  various  contexts.  These  can  provide  important  insights  for  the  ongoing 
negotiations on the 2021-2027 programmes. 

For  example,  funding  allocated  to  research  and  innovation  has  strengthened  cooperation 
between research centres and businesses in many cases. This helps overcome a fundamental 
obstacle  to  innovation,  namely  to  translate  research  results  into  innovative  products  or 
services.  Making  these  marketable  is  often  even  more  difficult.  In  addition,  in  most  cases 
where support has led to positive results, EU funding has brought real benefits to the projects. 
Without it, the projects would have been smaller or would not have been carried out at all. 

Support  to  investment  in  infrastructure  for  information  and  communication  technology 
has helped meet the needs of less developed regions at risk from digital divide. However, it 
takes  time  for  results  to  materialise.  On  the  other  hand,  support  to  the  digitalisation  of 
services  tends  to  produce  results  more  quickly  and  its  positive  effects  for  businesses  and 
public authorities are clearly visible.   

3 

 
 
 
 
The  whole  range  of  measures  to  support  SMEs  has  boosted  innovation  in  businesses, 
strengthening their competitiveness and enabling them to enter new markets and expand their 
exports. 

There  is  a  wide  range  of  measures  to  implement  support  to  the  shift  to  a  low-carbon 
economy. Preliminary evidence shows that the measures are effective, but it will take more 
time for the effects to materialise fully. 

Evaluations have shown that cross-border aspects are important in order for climate change 
adaptation and risk prevention support to be truly effective for the regions concerned. 

Installing  and  improving  infrastructure  for  wastewater  treatment  and  municipal  waste 
management does not always increase the number of connected users. This is caused by the 
potential  high  charges  to  be  borne  by  the  users,  which,  unless  infrastructure  is  realised 
through  a  major  project4,  sometimes  do  not  carry  enough  weight  in  the  initial  investment 
decision. 

Investments in the transportation sector led to increased capacity of railway network, even 
though their impact can only be assessed in the longer term. 

Employment-related  measures  and  training  have  proved  to  be  most  successful  when 
tailored  to  both  the  needs  of  those  receiving  support  and  the  skill  demands  of  the  labour 
market.  Apprenticeships  and  traineeships  have  shown  to  be  more  effective  than  other 
measures. Support is also important to improve the skills of teachers and trainers.   

Initiatives  aimed  to  foster  social  inclusion  have  helped  vulnerable  and  disadvantaged 
people find work.Evaluations have also found that projects have helped increase access to 
and the quality of healthcare. 

The  effectiveness  of  action  to  increase  institutional  capacity  depends  as  much  on  the 
motivation  and  cooperation  of  the  staff  involved  as  on  the  specific  design  of  the  measures 
themselves. Structural reforms require willingness at the political level. 

Evaluations  sometimes  find  contrasting  evidence  in  various  regions.  This  suggests  that 
analytical  work  must  increase  its  focus  on  the  contextual  factors  that  affect  implementation 
and consequently the results. Such an analysis will be part of the ex-post evaluation that the 
Commission  will  carry  out  in  the  coming  years  and  whose  preparatory  work  has  already 
started.  

Completed evaluations 

The number of evaluations of 2014-2020 cohesion policy operational programmes completed 
and published  since January 2015 has reached 1 506, including  a few  evaluations  related  to 
both the 2014-2020 and the 2007-2013 period5. The increase in the past year (to over 1 500, 

4 

In the case of major projects the initial Commission decision can only be issued if a cost-benefit analysis and 
a  risk  assessment  (covering  such  considerations)  are  performed  (Table  2  of  Annex  III  and  Appendix  3  of 
Annex II of Implementing Regulation 2015/207).  

5   This number does not include around 350 evaluations published since January 2015 that refer to the 2007-

2013 period only and are not included in the scope of this staff working document.  

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
up  from  over  1 000)  continued  in  line  with  the  trend  observed  the  year  before.  The 
distribution  of  evaluations  across  the  funds  has  not  changed  much  in  the  past  year,  with 
almost 20% of the evaluations covering both ERDF/CF and ESF/YEI.  

Table  1:  Evaluations  of  cohesion  policy  programmes  published  since  January  2015  – 
breakdown by fund  

Funds 
ERDF+CF 
Multi-fund 
ESF+YEI 
Total 
Source: Commission evaluation helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

 Number of evaluations 
609 
272 
625 
1 506 

of which in the past year 
194 
76 
191 
461 

The distribution of evaluations across the Member States is uneven. Six countries account for 
over  75%  of  the  evaluations  of  cohesion  policy  published  so  far.  Poland  has  produced  the 
largest  number,  followed  by  Italy,  Germany,  Czechia,  Spain  and  France.  However,  the 
number of evaluations alone is not necessarily representative of the evaluation effort made or 
evidence  collected,  since  the  scale  and  scope  of  evaluations  (e.g.  number  of  operational 
programmes covered, priorities, themes, etc.) vary widely6.  

6   For  example,  Malta  has  not  completed  any  evaluations  yet,  but  is  working  on  a  number  of  thematic 

evaluations in line with its evaluation plan. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  1: Evaluations  of  2014-2020 cohesion  policy  operational  programmes  published 
since January 2015 – breakdown by Member State 

Source: Commission evaluation helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

Types of evaluations 

There  are  still  fewer  evaluations  assessing 
than  evaluations  focusing  on 
implementation  and  progress,  which  look  mostly  into  procedural  aspects  or  progress  in 
achieving policy targets. This is mainly because impact evaluations are normally carried out 
late  in  the  programme  cycle,  when  the  impacts  start  to  materialise.  The  number  of  impact 
evaluations  completed  in  the  past  year  has  slightly  increased,  and  it  is  expected  to  grow 

impact 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
further  towards  the  end  of  the  programming  period,  when  more  projects  will  have  been 
completed and will have produced results.  

In relative terms, the share of impact evaluations has topped 30% in the past two years 
and  is  expected  to  grow  further  as  progress  in  implementation  produces  more  results. 
Although the total number of evaluations in Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal 
is  not  particularly  high  (between  9  and  28  in  the  2014-2020  period),  it  is  worth  noting  that 
more than 50% of them assess impact. 

Figure  2: Evaluations  of  2014-2020 cohesion  policy operational  programmes  published 
since January 2015 – by type and year 

Source: Commission evaluation helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

Most  evaluations  combine  relatively  simple  qualitative  methods  with  quantitative  ones. 
Around  half  of  all  impact  evaluations  use  more  advanced  research  methods,  such  as 
counterfactual evaluation techniques (mostly in ESF/YEI and multi-fund evaluations), theory-
based techniques (mostly in ERDF/CF evaluations) and cost-benefit analysis. 

Thematic distribution 

The distribution of evaluations across thematic objectives (TOs) is uneven as the nature of 
the action funded and its financial weight vary. In fact, more than half of the evaluations 
cover  multiple  TOs  and  many  of  them  are  not  focused  specifically  on  each  TO,  but  cover 
them in relation to measures supported under other TOs. This often happens for evaluations 
that span across an entire operational programme.  

Figure 3 shows the thematic coverage of evaluations for the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Evaluations covering multiple TOs are reported under each of them. However, the chart does 
not include evaluations that broadly address all TOs. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  3:  Thematic  coverage  of  evaluations  of  2014-2020  cohesion  policy  operational 
programmes published since January 2015 

Source: Commission evaluation helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

Most evaluations cover the TOs related to inclusive growth, i.e. employment (TO8), social 
inclusion  (TO9)  and  education  (TO10).  Typically,  actions  under  these  TOs,  receiving  ESF 
and YEI support, are implemented faster and generate results in a relatively short time.  

2.1.2.  Main findings of evaluations 

This  section  summarises  the  main  findings  of  those  evaluations  of  2014-2020  programmes 
assessing the impact of EU support. The findings appear to be reasonably robust based on the 
information  on  the  data  used  and  the  methods  applied.  They  are  often  specific  to  the 
individual  evaluations,  as  they  are  strongly  dependent  on  the  local  implementation  context 
and  may  not  be  valid  in  all  cases.  Recently,  the  Commission  has  launched  the  ex-post 
evaluation of the 2014-2020 period to examine cross-cutting impact and draw policy lessons 
(see Section 2.2). The findings of Member States reported below are organised by TO. This 
section also specifically focuses on integrated territorial investment, financial instruments and 
European  territorial  cooperation.  It  also  contains  a  review  of  the  cross-cutting  findings  of 
evaluations assessing procedural aspects. In line with the 2021 annual aummary report, a brief 
overview of the achievements and financial evolution by the end of 2020  accompanies each 
headline policy investment discussed below. 

Figure 4 shows the overall  planned  contribution of cohesion  policy  funds to  the  TOs by the 
end of 2020.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  4:  Total  amount  planned  (EU  and  national)  under  2014-2020  cohesion  policy 
operational programmes – breakdown by TO 

Source: European Commission. 

  Smart  growth:  research  &  innovation,  information  and  communication 

technology and SME competitiveness 

The  total  investment  in  smart  growth  supported  by  the  ERDF  in  the  2014-2020  period 
amounts to EUR 114.4 billion7, of which projects had actually spent EUR 60.8 billion (52%) 
at  the  end  of  2020.  The  total  eligible  cost  of  selected  projects  contributing  to  this  headline 
priority is even higher than the allocations, i.e. EUR 127.3 billion. Programme authorities use 
this selection strategy to ensure that by the end of the programming period, resources are fully 
spent, including those that would otherwise remain unallocated. 

  TO 1: research & innovation 

As the end of the programming period draws closer, the results of the funded operations move 
closer  to  their  targets.  By  the  end  of  2020,  the  cohesion  policy  programmes  had  planned 
EUR 56.5 billion of investment in this area, of which they had spent EUR 26.2 billion (46%) 
already.  Thanks  to  the  ERDF  investment  in  research  and  innovation,  more  than  49 000 
enterprises  cooperated  with  research  institutions  (76%  of  the  target)  and  about  24  000 
enterprises introduced new products to the market (79% of the target). 

Evaluations give insight into the performance of the projects that contributed to these targets. 
Evaluations  in  various  Member  States  show  successful  examples  of  cooperation  between 
SMEs,  universities  and  research  centres.  In  Czechia,  some  EU-funded  projects  have 
exceeded  their  targets  for  cooperation  between  enterprises  and  research  centres.  Moreover, 
most of the companies involved (70%) have continued to cooperate after the support drew to a 

7   All  the  amounts  of  thematic  allocations  mentioned  in  Section 2.1.2  include  the  contribution  from  the  EU 

budget and the national co-financing. Multi-thematic allocations are not included. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
close. Fruitful cooperation has also helped develop cross-border technology transfers between 
Germany and the Netherlands, and improve the innovation environment in Austria.  

Several evaluations have also found that the ability of businesses to develop new products 
and processes had increased. Thanks to EU support, companies in Germany have introduced 
new products and services, and improved the existing ones. SMEs in Poland have introduced 
innovative processes and increased their profitability, but these are largely based on the search 
for novelties and there is room to increase their added value.  

In  several  cases,  support  to  research  and  innovation  has  also  been  conducive  to  smart 
specialisation strategies. For example, in a region in Poland, the support has helped eliminate 
barriers to innovation. And in some regions of Portugal, Spain and Italy, supported companies 
have been able to increase their exports and participation in international markets.  

  TO 2: information and communication technology (ICT) 

Supporting the digital transition in the EU is one of the Commission’s headline priorities. The 
planned  total  ERDF  allocation  to  this  objective  for  the  2014-2020  programming  period 
amounts to EUR 14.4 billion. By the end of 2020, programmes had spent EUR 6.5 billion of it 
already.  As  a  result,  5.5  million  households  had  received  improved  broadband  access, 
representing  more  than  45%  of  the  target.  Nearly  12  million  households  are  expected  to 
benefit from improved broadband access by the end of 2023. 

Evaluations  show  that  in  the  long  term,  cohesion  policy  support  has  helped  increase 
broadband access  in  some EU  regions.  In France, for example, ERDF support has  made it 
possible  to  provide  high-speed  broadband  services.  In  many  other  EU  regions,  such  as 
Sweden,  Spain  and  Italy,  cohesion  policy  has  helped  deliver  major  infrastructural  projects. 
Also  in  Poland,  cohesion  policy  support  has  significantly  improved  ICT  infrastructure, 
notably in rural areas.  

Evaluations have also found that support to digitalisation has created opportunities to develop 
ICT  products  and  services  and  e-government.  In  Poland,  for  example,  the  wide  use  of 
e-services  receiving  EU  fund  support  has  increased  the  transparency  of  public  sector  action 
and  reduced  digital  exclusion.  In  Italy,  digital  platforms  set  up  to  enable  communication 
between local administrations and enterprises have reduced administrative costs. 

Investments  in  digitalisation  have  also  helped  improve  digital  skills  of  workers  in  Czechia 
and  of  young  people  and  households  in  difficult  socio-economic  conditions  in  Poland.  In 
other  cases,  evaluations  have  highlighted  a  lack  of  appropriate  skills  that  prevented 
beneficiaries from making the most of funding, such as in the education sector in Poland and 
Sweden. 

  TO 3: SME competitiveness 

Increasing  the  growth,  productivity  and  competitiveness  of  enterprises  is  one  of  the  best 
performing areas of ERDF support. This support proved to be vital, especially in the response 
to  the  global  health  crisis.  By  the  end  of  2020,  cohesion  policy  programmes  had  planned 

10 

 
 
 
 
EUR 43.5 billion of investment in this field, of which they had spent EUR 28.1 billion (64%) 
already. More than 1.4 million enterprises had received ERDF support in the form of grants, 
financial instruments or non-financial support. The supported enterprises had created 238 000 
new jobs, while an additional 213 000 jobs are expected to be created by the end of 2023. 

Evaluations of TO 3 have found that support in this sector has often achieved its objectives, 
such  as  increasing  competitiveness  and  employment  of  enterprises.  This  was  the  case 
across  regions  of  Poland  and  Germany,  where  companies  also  have  better  access  to 
international markets thanks to additional capital provided by the availability of additional 
capital through grants and financial instruments.  

Support  has  also  boosted  enterprises’  productivity  in  some  Polish  regions,  and  has 
improved  the  ability  of  German  firms  to  undertake  larger  projects.  Furthermore,  supported 
enterprises have often grown, or at least maintained their level of activity, and have been able 
to consolidate their market position, for example in Romania. 

In  Portugal,  Italy  and  Spain,  cohesion  policy  funding  has  strengthened  enterprise’ 
competitiveness  by  improving  their  ability  to  innovate.  In  the  Italian  case,  supported 
businesses have also improved their ability to attract private investment.  

Sustainability  is  an  important  aspect  of  improving  SME  competitiveness.  First  evidence 
suggests  that  the  sustainability  of  the  results  depends  in  particular  on  the  relationships 
developed  between  research  centres  and  businesses  and  the  ability  to  attract  other 
co-investors. Selection criteria that favour companies with an explicit, and seemingly viable, 
expansion strategy can improve sustainability. 

  Sustainable  growth:  low-carbon  economy,  climate  change,  environment, 

transport and energy networks 

The  European  Green  Deal  is  at  the  forefront  of  EU  investments  and  support  policies. 
Cohesion  policy  funds  play  their  part  by  supporting  climate-neutral,  clean  and  circular 
economy  investment  and  investment  in  the  areas  of  environment  and  climate  change 
adaptation.  The  ERDF and  the CF support this headline  priority with more than EUR 136.5 
billion in the 2014-2020 programming period, of which the Commission has paid EUR 66.6 
billion (48%) to the Member States already. 

  TO 4: low-carbon economy 

The  low-carbon  economy  objective  is  primarily  focused  on  investment  in  energy  efficiency 
and  renewable  energy  production.  By  the  end  of  2020,  cohesion  policy  programmes  had 
planned  EUR 37.9  billion  of  investment  in  this  field,  of  which  EUR 16.9  billion  (44%)  had 
already  been  spent.  By  the  end  of  2020,  the  ERDF  had  supported  more  than  358 000 
households to improve their energy consumption classification (up by 75 000 in the last year). 
It  has  also  helped  increase  the  renewable  energy  production  capacity  by  2 700 MW;  the 
end-2023 target being 8 000 MW. 

11 

 
 
 
Evaluations  have  found  that  measures  to  improve  energy  efficiency  have  been  effective 
across  the  EU.  A  study  in  Italy  has  found  that  the  support  has  helped  reduce  energy  use  in 
public buildings. Furthermore, energy efficiency  projects in SMEs in Germany have led not 
only  to  cost  savings  but  also  to  competitive  advantages,  including  an  improved  company 
image.  

Many  countries  invested  significant  sums  in  this  type  of  projects.  Despite  this,  evidence  on 
the impact of the measures is somewhat limited because results take time to materialise and 
many  projects  are  still  ongoing.  In  some  cases,  for  example  in  Germany,  investment  in 
renewable energy is associated with innovative projects and technologies. Tangible outcomes 
of these in terms of energy use and efficiency gains are not visible yet.  

Cohesion policy support under this TO also aimed to improve urban transport systems and 
make  them  more  environmentally  friendly,  for  example  helping  reduce  CO2  emissions  in  a 
German region. 

  TO 5: climate change adaptation and risk prevention 

Cohesion  policy  funds  also  support  investment  in  climate  change  adaptation  and  risk 
prevention. By the end of 2020, the Member States had already spent EUR 2.5 billion (41%) 
out of the total amount planned of EUR 6.0 billion. Thanks to these investments, 11.3 million 
people (more than 40% of the target) are now less exposed to flood risks. 

Evaluations  have  found  that  support  under  this  TO  has  helped  improve  the  systems  for 
monitoring  risks  and  severe  weather  events.  In  Romania,  supported  projects  to  monitor 
such events  have limited  floods, reduced their damage and provided appropriate emergency 
equipment. In Poland, support has helped develop a disaster recovery system.  

Italy  and  France  have  also  taken  joint  measures  to  manage  climate  change  under  the 
European Territorial Cooperation goal. Furthermore, authorities in Czechia and Poland have 
cooperated to improve their ability to tackle emergency situations.  

  TO 6: environment protection and resource efficiency 

EUR 29.6 billion are allocated through ERDF and CF to projects for environment protection 
and resource efficiency. Implementation is steadily progressing: by the end of 2020, projects 
had  already  spent  EUR 11.5  billion  (38%).  Thanks  to  these  investment,  3.5  million  people 
benefit from an improved water supply already, with a target of 19.5 million benefiting people 
at the end of the period.  

Evaluations of some environmental protection and resource efficiency projects have found the 
supported  measures  to  be  effective  in  improving  wastewater  management  and  the 
preservation  of  natural  habitats.  In  France  and  Latvia,  measures  to  improve  wastewater 
management  and  preserve  water  basins  have  strengthened  the  conservation  of  habitats  and 
biodiversity  Territorial  cooperation  programmes  have  also  supported  the  protection  of 
ecosystems, such as the one between Italy and France, which aims to protect ecosystems by 
developing  green  infrastructure.  In  Romania,  support  helped  expand  the  sewer  network, 

12 

 
 
 
increase the extent of recycling and close non-compliant landfills. However, the connection of 
households to main drainage is still limited.  

Support under this heading has also helped preserve natural and cultural heritage by:  

  contributing to the development of a network of tourism sites in Poland;  
  safeguarding  the  archaeological  site  in  Pompeii  (Italy)  and  improving  its 

accessibility; and  
fostering cooperation between Germany and Czechia. 

 

Evaluation findings have found evidence that Cohesion policy investments have also  helped 
rehabilitate  urban  areas  in  Austria,  Czechia,  Poland  and  Portugal.  It  has  also  helped  to 
improve waste management systems in Czechia, Poland and Portugal and has boosted the 
circular economy in France and Belgium. 

  TO 7: transport and energy network infrastructure 

Energy  and  transport  network  infrastructure  receives  EUR 63.0  billion  of  support  by  ERDF 
and  CF    in  the  2014-2020  programming  period.  By  the  end  of  2020,  projects  had  spent 
EUR 35.7 billion, thus  reaching an implementation rate of 56%.  Investments  in  clean urban 
transport supported by the ERDF and CF had delivered 137 km of new or improved tram and 
metro lines by the end of 2020 (29% of the target). An additional 405 km of track is expected 
to be put into use in the coming years.   

Support  under  this  heading  mainly  aimed  to  develop  road  and  rail  networks.  In  Poland, 
Seeuch  investments  have  improved  road  safety  and  reduced  the  number  of  accidents  in 
several  instances.  It  has  also  reduced  travel  times,  noise  and  air  pollution  in  cities. 
Furthermore, rail investments have helped increase the capacity of railway networks, reducing 
journey times and improving connections between cities. This has increased railway use.  

Transport  projects  often  take  a  long  time  to  deliver  and  it  is  rarely  possible  to  assess  their 
impact  within  the  same  programming  period.  It  is  long-term  data  that  gives  relevant 
information  on  the  impact  of  this  type  of  investment.  Moreover,  to  attract  more  passengers 
and  reduce  car  use,  investment  in  public  transport  infrastructure,  notably  rail,  needs  to  be 
matched  with  high-quality  transport  services  and  commitment.  For  example,  investment  in 
tramway lines in Italy has helped make the regions concerned more attractive, and reduce 
car use in favour of public transport. Also in Estonia and Spain, support to rail infrastructure 
has made train travel more attractive and competitive, increasing passenger numbers.  

  Inclusive growth: employment, social inclusion and education 

The European Pillar of Social Rights, which is the basis of the EU’s social agenda, is one of 
the main driving forces of cohesion policy investment in sustainable and quality employment 
(EUR 45.5  billion),  social  inclusion  (EUR 40.1  billion)  and  educational  and  vocational 
training (EUR 37.6 billion). By the end of 2020, the average spending rate for the three topics 
was 54% (EUR 66.8 billion of declared expenditure), a significant increase compared to 2019 
(41%). Support to this policy area mainly comes from the ESF and the YEI. 

13 

 
 
 
  TO 8: sustainable and quality employment 

By the end of 2020, cohesion policy programmes had planned EUR 45.5 billion of investment 
in this area, of which they had spent EUR 25.5 billion (56%) already. The ESF and YEI had 
supported  45.3  million  participants,  including  nearly  17.3  million  unemployed  and  17.2 
million inactive participants. Moreover, 5.4 million people had found a job thanks to ESF and 
YEI support.  

Evaluations  of  measures  to  support  employability  have  found  that  these  programmes,  often 
combined  in  a  tailor-made  package  of  training,  traineeships  and  work  experience,  have 
increased  the  chances  of  the  beneficiaries  of  finding  a  job.  In  Italy,  for  example, 
traineeships  and  voucher  schemes  have  increased  participants’  chances  of  finding  a  job 
compared to non-participants. In Germany, more participants were employed 15 months after 
the end of the projects compared to non-participants. In Poland, such projects have proved to 
be successful also among long-term unemployed, young and low-skilled individuals.  

Support under this heading also aimed to improve the skills of those already in employment 
and  to  develop  entrepreneurial  skills.  In  Poland  and  Italy,  such  projects  have  aided  the 
creation  of  new  enterprises  and  the  survival  of  enterprises  in  the  market  after  the  support 
ended. In Germany, people who had attended training were able to adapt better to changes 
in market conditions and to improve their labour market situation.  

  TO 9: social inclusion 

By the end of 2020, cohesion policy programmes had planned EUR 40.1 billion of investment 
in  this  area,  of  which  they  had  already  spent  EUR 20.5  billion  (51%).  Cohesion  policy 
investments  have  improved  skills  for  the  job  market  and  employment  opportunities  for  3.1 
million  participants  with  disabilities,  6.8  million  migrants,  participants  with  a  foreign  or 
minority  background  and  8.5  million  other  disadvantaged  people.  In  addition,  18.5  million 
people have access to expanded childcare and education infrastructure and 90 million people 
benefit from improved healthcare services across the EU. 

Much  of  the  ESF  support  under  this  heading  aimed  to  foster  social  inclusion  by  supporting 
people into jobs. Evaluations of such initiatives have found instances where the support has 
helped vulnerable and disadvantaged people find work. In Spain, projects have increased 
the  chances  of  vulnerable  people  of  finding  employment  while  also  reducing  their  risk  of 
suffering from mental  illnesses.  In  Italy,  20% of  the  participants in  a project  supporting the 
employability of people with disabilities or other disadvantages had a job one year after the 
project ended.  

A  significant  part  of  the  ESF  investment  also  supported  healthcare  services,  sometimes 
accompanied by ERDF investment in healthcare infrastructure (particularly in less developed 
Member  States).  Evaluations  of  this  investment  area  have  found  that  projects  have  helped 
increase  access  to  and  the  quality  of  healthcare.  In  Lithuania,  such  projects  have  helped 
reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular disease and reduce the suicide rate.  

14 

 
 
 
  TO 10: education and vocational training 

By  the  end  of  2020,  selected  projects  in  educational  and  vocational  training  amounted  to 
EUR 37.6 billion, of which EUR 20.8 billion (55%) were already spent. Thanks to ESF and 
YEI support, 21.8 million low-skilled people had participated in specific activities, 7.4 million 
had gained a qualification and 2.2 million had participated in education and training. 

Evaluations  have  found  that  education  and  vocational  training  has  reduced  early  school 
leaving  and  improved  attitudes  to  schools,  notably  in  Germany,  where  this  training  also 
improved  the  integration  of  migrants.  In  Germany,  training  was  also  open  to  teachers,  who 
have gained communication and conflict resolution skills.  

Support  to  higher  education  has  made  universities  in  Lithuania  more  international, 
increasing the share of foreign students and the number of Lithuanian students spending part 
of their studies abroad.  

Projects  have  also  improved  the  links  between  education  and  the  labour  market.  In 
Poland,  increased  cooperation  between  vocational  training  schools  and  employers  has 
improved  teachers’  skills  and  helped  students  choose  suitable  courses.  In  Germany, 
cooperation with local entrepreneurs has enabled students to make informed career decisions, 
and in Italy, technical courses have improved the participants’ chances of finding a job.  

  Strengthening institutional capacity and efficient public administration 

  TO 11: efficient public administration 

By  the  end  of  2020,  the  cohesion  policy  programmes  had  selected  institutional  capacity 
projects  worth  EUR 5.5  billion,  corresponding  to  96%  of  the  planned  allocation  (EUR 5.7 
billion). The implementation  rate  had  reached  41%, with  the Member States having  already 
received  EUR 2.3 billion  of payments. Thanks  to the  investments  under this  TO, more than 
720 000 people had participated in targeted activities of more than 2 600 supported projects. 

Evaluations  in  institutional  capacity  have  found  that  in  many  EU  regions,  investment  under 
this  TO  has  strengthened  collaboration  and  networks  among  cohesion  policy’s 
stakeholders.  In  Poland,  an  improved  understanding  of  good  governance  practices  has  led 
public  authorities  to  increase  citizens’  involvement  in  spatial  planning  procedures.  In 
Slovenia, supported projects have helped strengthen non-governmental organisation networks 
and  connect  them  with  public  authorities.  In  Czechia,  such  investment  has  enabled 
collaboration between social partners.  

In many instances, this investment has also made public administration more transparent, 
for example by improving the exchange of information on government decisions in Estonia. 
However, it has been found that public administrations also suffer from insufficient resources, 
hampering the implementation of communication strategies and evaluations.  

Improved governance thanks to  projects  in  this field  has also  improved the skills of staff in 
the  managing  authorities.  In  Czechia,  staff  have  improved  their  know-how  and  capabilities, 
which  has  helped  make  the  organisation  more  efficient.  In  Latvia,  supported  projects  have 

15 

 
 
 
given  public  authorities  a  better  understanding  of  ways  to  promote  entrepreneurship.  In 
Lithuania, the projects have increased the efficiency of investment thanks to a stronger link 
with  reforms.  In  Romania,  investment  has  boosted  staff’s  hard  and  soft  skills,  improving 
decision-making and simplifying institutional procedures.  

  Cross-cutting instruments 

  Territorial  instruments:  integrated  territorial  instruments,  community-led 

local development and sustainable urban development 

The results of this investment are likely to become visible in the long term only. Nonetheless, 
a number of evaluations have shown instances across the EU where territorial instruments had 
been implemented successfully. 

Some  of  these  findings  suggest  that  the  instruments  have  encouraged  close  involvement  of 
the  local  population  and  organisations,  which  has  helped  public  authorities  meet  local 
needs in a more targeted way. For example, in the two Polish regions that used community-
led  local  development,  many  people  have  become  involved  in  the  elaboration  of  local 
development  strategies.  Furthermore,  many  projects  were  submitted  for  funding  from 
beneficiaries  who  did  not  previously  receive  EU  support.  Again  in  Poland,  some  integrated 
territorial  instruments  have  supported  the  development  of  natural  and  cultural  assets,  which 
has  made  the  concerned  areas  more  attractive,  increased  their  tourism  potential,  and 
protected biodiversity. 

Clearly defined and appropriate procedures for creating local partnerships also seem to be 
important  to  manage  and  coordinate  activities  efficiently.  In  the  Netherlands,  for  example, 
integrated territorial instruments have enabled policymakers to integrate better the social and 
economic aspects  of local  policies. They  have  also increased cooperation among public and 
private  stakeholders.  In  France,  they  have  improved  the  collaboration  between  public 
authorities and local community organisations.  

  Financial instruments 

Many  evaluations  have  studied  the  use  of  financial  instruments  and  have  found  several 
instances where these had been successful. Financial instruments can support different policy 
areas,  such  as  research  and  innovation,  SME  competitiveness,  energy  efficiency,  etc. 
Nevertheless, the reported findings mostly relate to their use for business support.  

In  Poland,  financial  instruments  have  supported  businesses:  loans  have  enabled  firms  to 
grow and develop new products and services or to maintain their operations. In some cases, 
financial instruments have been considered a significant incentive to innovate.  

increased  business 
In  Germany  and  Northern  Ireland,  financial 
competitiveness, profits and turnover. In Italy, these instruments have enabled SMEs to carry 
out or extend research, technological development and innovation projects.  

instruments  have 

In  some  cases,  however,  financial  instruments  are  considered  difficult  to  navigate.  In 
Czechia,  the  number  of  instruments  creates  fragmentation  and  overlaps.  Polish  authorities 

16 

 
 
 
face  difficulties  arising  from  the  dense  national  regulatory  framework,  complicated 
implementation model, lack of coordination and harmonisation of products.  

Considering the potential competition from the financial markets or from national or regional 
support  measures  offering  more  favourable  terms,  including  non-repayable  grants,  when 
choosing  the  use  of  financial  instruments,  the  Member  States  and  the  managing  authorities 
should assess various support schemes to ensure synergies and complementarities of support. 
Given the importance of this approach for the use of EU funds, this assessment has become a 
mandatory element in the 2021-2027 programmes.   

  European territorial cooperation  

Evaluations of cooperation programmes have found that some of the supported measures have 
increased cooperation between local authorities across borders. They have also helped to 
involve more locals in the decision-making processes, leading to more inclusive and effective 
policies.  For  example,  networking  and  increased  institutional  cooperation  has  taken  place 
between  Germany  and  Czechia,  and  Polish  and  Czech  local  authorities  have  embarked  on 
long-term cooperation.  

Member  States  have  also  benefited  from  successful  cooperation  on  thematic  issues, 
including: 

  creating  cross-border  networks  for  technology  transfer  and  promoting  energy 

efficiency between Germany and the Netherlands;  

  producing  joint  measures  to  protect  biodiversity  and  manage  climate  change 

between France and Italy; and  

  promoting cultural heritage in Estonia and Latvia.  

In  some  instances,  however,  differences  in  regulatory  frameworks  and  the  limited 
involvement  of  policymakers  restricted  the  extent  of  cooperation,  highlighting  that  there  is 
still  some  room  to  improve  cooperation  between  the  bodies  that  manage  cooperation 
programmes. 

  Horizontal findings on implementation 

Although impact evaluations are very important, process and monitoring evaluations carried 
out  during  implementation  provide  operational  findings  that  can  directly  inform  the 
management of the programme. They can also inform supported projects to make them more 
efficient and effective. 

In fact, around two thirds of the evaluations carried out in the Member States aimed to assess 
potential weaknesses and success factors of implementation processes, rather than or besides 
investigating the impact  of supported investment.  These evaluations  provide mixed findings 
on  horizontal  aspects,  at  different  stages  of  implementation,  which  is  important  information 
for the managing authorities.  

Many Member States have encountered difficulties in starting the programmes due to:  

17 

 
 
 
  delays caused by the overlap with the 2007-2013 period;  
 

lack of  clarity  on  the applicable legislation caused by an overlap of national  and 
EU policies and complex rules; and  

  difficulties in selecting managing authorities and setting up complex projects. 

During  the  implementation  phase,  burdensome  or  changing  management  procedures  have 
caused issues. This has limited the involvement of stakeholders and hindered the achievement 
of  outcomes.  For  example,  some  regions  of  Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  Italy  and  Greece, 
have  encountered  such  difficulties.  In  the  same  countries,  however,  other  regions  have 
improved  their  management  procedures  over  time  to  smoothen  operations  and  reduce 
complexity.  This  shows  that  managing  authorities  aim  to  reduce  the  burdens  linked  to 
programme implementation where possible.  

In  some  cases,  complex  administrative  procedures  have  had  the  negative  effect  of  deterring 
applications  for  funding  in  Lithuania,  Romania,  Bulgaria  and  Italy.  Other  managing 
authorities, however, have adopted approaches that encouraged applications, for example in a 
German region and in Interreg programmes involving Poland, France and Switzerland. 

Weak  governance  structures,  fragmentation  of  the  managing  authority  and  insufficient 
cooperation between involved bodies have caused difficulties in regions of Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Denmark,  Poland  and  Estonia  (the  latter  for  ESF  interventions).  However,  in  many  cases, 
there was effective cooperation and positive governance. Italy, has strengthened governance 
procedures over the years, uses common structures for service provision across municipalities, 
and  has  benefited  from  successful  public-private  cooperation.  In  Sweden,  Poland  and  Spain 
too, there were cases of fruitful cooperation among institutions and good management. 

In some regions  of  central  and  eastern Europe  and  of  Italy  and Spain, managing authorities 
and  intermediate  bodies  sometimes  encountered  difficulties  because  the  available  personnel 
lacked thematic or technical skills. Difficulties  appeared in particular when using simplified 
cost options, notably in Spain and Poland. However, there has also been effective use of these 
options, for example in Italy and France. 

In  some  regions  of  north,  central  and  eastern  Europe  and  in  Spain,  France  and  Italy, 
evaluations  have  sometimes  highlighted  inaccurate  use  of  indicators  and  deficiencies  in  the 
monitoring systems. These systems are the primary source of information on implementation 
progress  and  data  for  impact  evaluations.  However,  studies  have  also  found  examples  of 
improving monitoring systems in Bulgaria, Poland and Italy, where IT systems supported and 
strengthened data reporting.  

The new regulatory framework for the 2021-2027 programming period addresses some of the 
findings reported under the various TOs. Notably, sharp simplification measures have been 
introduced, e.g. deleting the designation procedure applicable to the management and control 
system or cancelling the obligation to set up a distinct certifying authority. Clarification of 
rules governing simplified cost options, regarding in particular the scope of audits, is also 
meant to overcome the observed difficulties. In order to deliver effective outcomes, this 
simplification will have to be accompanied by efforts to detect and reduce gold-plating 
practices in the Member States.  

18 

 
 
 
2.1.3.  Support to the Member States 

The Commission supports the Member States to enable them to carry out quality evaluations. 
This  support  includes  methodological  guidance,  expert  reviews,  tailored  assistance  and 
discussion  fora  to  exchange  experience.  The  Commission  runs  the  evaluation  network 
(managed  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Regional  and  Urban  Policy)  and  the  European 
Social Fund Plus (ESF+) evaluation partnership (managed by the Directorate-General for 
Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion),  which  are  the  main  platforms  to  exchange 
experience  in  monitoring  and  evaluating  cohesion  policy.  These  platforms  bring  together 
evaluation experts from the national authorities of the Member States. They meet two to four 
times  per  year  to  share  experience  and  good  practice  and  to  strengthen  evaluation  capacity 
throughout the EU. 

The Commission has continued to run its cohesion policy evaluation helpdesk to strengthen 
Member  States’  evaluation  capacity.  The  experts  of  the  helpdesk  collect,  categorise, 
summarise and analyse the evaluations carried out by the Member States. The main findings 
on impacts are summarised by country and TO. All evaluations together with their summaries 
in  English  are  uploaded  in  the  evaluation  library8.  The  helpdesk  also  provides  customised 
support to the Member States on specific evaluation issues. Last year, 12 expert meetings took 
place providing support to eight Member States. The experts provided feedback and advice on 
evaluation  questions, evaluation  scope and choice of methodology. The Member States also 
received expert feedback on draft terms of reference, evaluation reports and evaluation plans. 

In addition, the Commission organises evaluation summer schools for managing authorities 
and  other  public  bodies  involved  in  the  evaluation  of  ERDF/CF  programmes.  The  schools 
provide practical training in the areas most requested by the Member States. After the online 
edition of 2020, the latest summer school took place in a hybrid format in Tallinn, Estonia in 
October  2021.  It  focused  on  the  general  theme  of  evaluation  design  in  relation  to  both  the 
remaining ex-post evaluations for the 2014-2020 period and the evaluation plans that need to 
be prepared for the 2021-2027 period. 

In  cooperation  with  the  Joint  Research  Centre,  the  Directorate-General  for  Employment, 
Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  promotes  the  use  of  counterfactual  impact  evaluations9 
because these methods provide robust evidence of the effectiveness of the ESF at the micro-
level  .  Joint  Research  Centre  experts  have  provided  customised  methodological  support  to 
seven managing authorities during the last year. The questions discussed included the choice 
of supported projects to be evaluated using counterfactual impact evaluations, anonymisation, 
data  linkage,  access  to  data,  data  needs,  evaluation  design,  selection  of  control  group  and 
other  issues.  Two  community  of  practice  meetings  took  place  where  managing  authorities, 
evaluation  practitioners  and  the  Commission  discussed  the  challenges  of  the  counterfactual 
impact evaluations of the ESF. 

8   https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/member-states/  

9   https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/projects-activities/centre-research-impact-evaluation-crie_en  

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
A  good  monitoring  system  is  key  for  quality  evaluations.  In  July  2021,  the  Commission 
published  a  staff  working  document  on  Performance,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the 
European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the Just Transition Fund in 
2021-202710.  The  document  illustrates  how  the  new  legislative  package  provides  for  a 
systematic approach to performance, based on monitoring and evaluation. It also sets out the 
context for the use of the common output and result indicators listed in the fund regulations.  

To  support  the  Member  States  in  fulfilling  the  ESF+  monitoring  requirements,  the 
Commission has set up the ESF Data Support Centre11 (DSC). It provides methodological 
support  and  guidance  on  data  collection,  storage  and  processing.  The  ESF+  common 
indicators toolbox and issue papers offer guidance and advice on the monitoring of the ESF+. 
In addition, the DSC provides answers to managing authorities’ questions on monitoring. The 
questions and answers are publicly available in a searchable database. The DSC also runs the 
meetings of the ESF+ Data network, during which Member States can exchange experience 
on ESF+ monitoring.  

2.2.  Evaluation work by the Commission 

The  Commission  is  completing  i  its  ex-post  evaluation  of  investment  projects  in 
infrastructures,  competence  centres  and  activities  for  research  and  technological 
development financed by the ERDF in the 2007-2013 period. Starting from the collection of 
detailed data on projects and beneficiaries12, the analysis has led to the production of a manual 
in the form of a cookbook. It details the underlying mechanisms of the main work funded by 
the policy and summarises the key ingredients for an effective policy. The Commission will 
publish the evaluation report in 2022. 

At  the  end  of  2020,  the  Commission  launched  the  evaluation  of  e-Cohesion,  the  electronic 
data exchange system to make it easier to exchange documents and data between ESI  Funds 
beneficiaries  and  the  relevant  authorities.  This  evaluation  is  progressing  on  schedule.  The 
main  data  collection  is  complete  and  the  analysis  phase  has  begun.  The  Commission  will 
publish the evaluation report in 2022. 

In September 2021, the Commission launched a call for a study supporting the preliminary 
evaluation  of  the  support  from  the  ESF  and  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most 
Deprived  under  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiative  and  the  Coronavirus 
Response Investment Initiative Plus. 

10   https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/evaluations-guidance-

documents/2021/performance-monitoring-and-evaluation-of-the-european-regional-development-fund-the-
cohesion-fund-and-the-just-transition-fund-in-2021-2027  

11   https://ec.europa.eu/sfc/en/2021/support-ms/2021MNTESF#/  

12  Data at the level of projects and beneficiaries collected during the evaluation are published on the Cohesion 

open data platform: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/d/kkj2-8bik  

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
On  16-17 September 2021,  the  Commission  organised  the  ninth  Conference  on  the 
Evaluation of EU Cohesion Policy in Porto, Portugal. More than 100 participants attended 
the conference in person and 400 more participated online in the first event organised by the 
Commission in hybrid format, one and a half years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
It  was  an  occasion  to  discuss  evaluation  issues  specific  to  the  headline  initiatives  of  the 
Commission and to disseminate the evaluation culture further among local stakeholders. The 
title  of  the  conference,  Shaping  Transition  with  Evidence,  referred  to  the  guiding  role  that 
evaluation  must  play  in  shaping  and  informing  the  green  and  digital  transitions  under 
cohesion policy. However, although evaluation can support policy learning with findings on 
what works and the underlying mechanisms, it is the responsibility of the policymakers to set 
out the desired achievements and, most importantly, what can be considered as a success. 

During the conference, the Commission presented its approach to the ex-post evaluation of 
the 2014-2020 period. The structure of the evaluation of ERDF/CF investment will consist 
of cross-cutting and thematic work packages covering the various sectoral domains supported 
by cohesion policy. The preparatory study on monitoring systems and data started in 2020. 
It  is  part  of  the  cross-cutting  work  packages  and  will  provide  valuable  data  at  the  level  of 
projects and beneficiaries to organise the thematic work packages.  

The  Commission  will  launch  its  ex-post  evaluation  of  ESF  investment  in  2022.  The 
evaluation  will build on the findings of the four  thematic evaluations  published in  2020: (i) 
youth  employment;  (ii)  employment  and  labour  mobility;  (iii)  social  inclusion;  and  (iv) 
education and training13. 

3.  EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL FUND FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

(EAFRD) 

3.1.  Evaluations in the Member States 

3.1.1.  General overview 

The  Member  States  provided  very  comprehensive  information  on  the  progress  in 
implementing  the  evaluation  plans  (i.e.  annual  implementation  report  (AIR)  Chapter 2). 
However, the 115 AIRs  analysed in 2021  were slightly less  comprehensive, suggesting that 
overall Member States have slightly reduced their evaluation activities.  

According  to  the  AIRs  submitted  in  2021,  modifications  to  the  evaluation  plans  for  the 
rural development programmes (RDPs) have decreased significantly by 42% compared to 
2020. Overall, the 12 AIRs that filled this sub-section in 2021 have reported 15 modifications. 

13 

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8307&furtherPubs=yes,
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8330&furtherPubs=yes,
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8350&furtherPubs=yes,
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8346&furtherPubs=yes 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
These mainly concerned the update of the planned evaluation timeline and of the evaluation 
work.  

The number of evaluations (396 reported by 98 AIRs) has decreased by 21% compared 
to  the  previous  year  (499).  This  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  all  types  of  reported 
evaluation activities had a peak during the reporting  years with major evaluation milestones 
(2017 and 2019) and decreased since then in line with the evaluation cycle. It can be expected 
that  evaluation  activity  will  increase  again  because  of  the  ex-post  evaluations  in  2026.  The 
Member States have carried out new evaluation work to prepare the new programming period 
(ex-ante evaluation for the strategic plan of the common agricultural policy (CAP)). Overall, 
the  evaluations  show  good  progress  and  concern  a  wide  variety  of  topics  (including  the 
COVID-19 pandemic). The most common topics of the reported evaluations are RDP priority 
4 (restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry) and the 
assessment of community-led local development, LEADER14 and local action groups. There 
were also many multi-thematic evaluations. 

14   LEADER  is  a  local  development  method  which  has  been  used  for  30  years  to  engage  local  actors  in  the 
design and delivery of strategies, decision-making and resource allocation for the development of their rural 
areas.  In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  the  LEADER  method  has  been  extended  under  the  broader 
term Community-Led Local Development (CLLD)  

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 5: Distribution of reported evaluations (N=396) in AIRs submitted in 2021 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development (2021). 

The  2021  AIRs  have  reported  less  data-related  evaluations.  The  overall  number  of 
evaluations  on  data  provision  and  management  (312)  have  dropped  by  13%  compared  to 
2020.  Most  concerned  the  preparing  and  conducting  phase.  Data  collection  work  (which  is 
part of the conducting phase), however, has increased. Also, work to improve the IT system 
has  increased,  evidently  to  prepare  for  the  ex-post  evaluations  and  the  stricter  rules  for 
performance monitoring in the next programming period. 

The number of completed evaluations has dropped by 24% compared to the 2020 AIRs. In 
2021, 85 AIRs reported 217 completed evaluations. As in the previous year, most related to 
multiple  RDP  priorities  and  objectives,  and  to  CAP  objective  2  (ensuring  sustainable 
management of natural resources and climate action).  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6: Completed evaluations across main topics (N=217) reported in AIRs in 2021 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development (2021). 

The main types of evaluations reported in 2021 were evaluations of achievements of results 
(36%), followed by impact evaluations (18%), out of which the number of evaluations with a 
clear  counterfactual  approach  was  rather  modest  in  this  reporting  year  (3%  of  total 
evaluations). This was not related to any major evaluation milestone. Furthermore, the AIRs 
contained process evaluations of the implementation system (7%) and research studies other 
than evaluations (e.g. monitoring studies) (11%). Various reported evaluations related to the 
ex-ante evaluations of the CAP strategic plans.  

24 

 
 
 
 
The  2021  AIRs  have  reported  a  substantial  number  of  communication  activities  on  the 
dissemination of evaluation findings (303). However, this is 68 activities less than reported in 
2020. Altogether, these activities have reached 3.8 million stakeholders, which is less than in 
2020  (5  million)15.  Websites  were  most  effective  in  reaching  stakeholders  (3.2  million, 
representing a large majority of 84%), followed by external publications or evaluation reports 
(0.6 million; 15%). Other communication channels, i.e. newsletters, social media and internal 
or external meetings (e.g. workshops, seminars, etc.), reached a smaller share of stakeholders. 

About half of the communication activities were targeted either to the general audience (31%) 
or  the  RDP  monitoring  committee  (21%).  Other  target  groups  included  researchers  and 
thematic  experts,  local  action  groups,  national/regional  authorities,  evaluators,  RDP 
beneficiaries and national rural networks.  

Figure 7: Number of communication activities by type and stakeholders reported in the 
AIRs in 2021 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development (2021). 

The 2021 AIRs have reported much fewer follow-ups to evaluation results than in 2020, 
when exceptionally high numbers were observed. Evidently, the lower number of completed 
evaluations and the absence of a major evaluation milestone can explain this trend.  In more 
than half of the cases, the follow-ups concerned the:  

improvement of the RDP delivery mechanism and implementation (52%); 

 
  adaptation of the RDP monitoring and evaluation system (20%); and  
 
the preparation of the CAP strategic plan for the new period (11%).  

15   Websites reach the largest share of stakeholders. Their number is traditionally very difficult to estimate. As 
there is no common counting method, the reported numbers vary significantly between reporting years and 
must be interpreted with caution.  

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
To a lesser degree, reported follow-ups concerned the improvement of the RDP intervention 
logic (9%) and other topics (8%). 

3.1.2.  Main findings of evaluations 

In  total,  76  AIRs  have  reported  198  evaluation  findings.  The  distribution  of  their  topics  is 
similar  to  that  of  the  completed  evaluations:  findings  for  CAP  objective  2  (ensuring  the 
sustainable  management  of  natural  resources,  and  climate  action)  prevail  with  38%.  This  is 
followed by findings covering multiple RDP priorities and objectives (15%), CAP objective 1 
(fostering  the  competitiveness  of  agriculture)  (13%)  and  CAP  objective  3  (achieving  a 
balanced  territorial  development  of  rural  economies  and  communities)  (8%).  Other  aspects 
(CAP strategic plan, governance, monitoring and evaluation system, technical assistance and 
national rural networks) are less represented in the reported evaluation findings.  

Most  of  the  findings  are  based  on  an  assessment  of  gross  results,  gross  impacts  and 
input/output  achievements  of  RDPs  rather  than  of  net  impacts.  Nearly  60%  of  the  reported 
findings  derive  from  the  assessment  of  impacts  and  results,  whereas  13%  of  the  evaluation 
findings  are  mainly  based  on  the  analysis  of  inputs  and  outputs,  which  is  considered  a  less 
robust  approach.  A  significant  share  of  the  findings  (10%)  is  based  on  an  analysis  of 
contextual trends at the macro level (i.e. no impact of the RDP was assessed) and an analysis 
of  other  issues  (e.g.  administrative  obstacles).  Therefore,  the  reported  findings  are  not  only 
based on RDP results and impacts, but also relate to a much broader range of evaluation and 
research outcomes.  

Figure 8: Evidence bases of evaluation findings reported in the AIRs in 2021 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development (2021). 

With regard to the direction of the effects of the reported findings, a large number of positive 
effects  (45%) and mixed effects  (21%)  were  observed. Negative and zero effects  concerned 
only  7%  of  the  reported  findings.  However,  for  a  large  share  of  the  findings  (27%),  it  was 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
impossible to determine the direction of the effect. This indicates that evaluations at this stage 
cannot  provide  clear  findings  on  achievements  in  terms  of  positive/negative  results  or 
impacts. Such findings are, however, expected for the ex-post evaluation.  

Figure 9: Direction of effects in reported evaluation findings (N=198) in AIRs in 2021 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development (2021). 

A further breakdown of the findings by CAP objective and priority shows the below picture. 

CAP objective 1: fostering the competitiveness of agriculture  

In this thematic area, 17 RDPs have reported 26 findings, of which around 62% are positive. 
However, there are also mixed (15%), unspecified (19%) and zero effects (4%). 

On  farm  viability  and  competitiveness  (RDP  priority  2),  mainly  positive  (gross)  results  are 
reported, thanks to investment in agricultural holdings (e.g. to optimise cultivation techniques 
and  machinery).  Also  with  regard  to  CAP  impacts  on  the  competitiveness  of  agricultural 
sectors, there are positive findings. These include improved participation of producers in the 
food chain, more added value in each food sub-sector, etc. On food chain organisation, animal 
welfare  and  risk  management  (RDP  priority  3),  measures  promoting  the  processing  and 
marketing of agricultural products show positive effects. However, these are limited by high 
deadweight  losses  (zero  effects),  i.e.  projects  would  have  been  carried  out  even  without 
promotion measures.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CAP objective 2: ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources and climate 
actions  

Out of 75 evaluation findings reported under CAP objective 2, 53% findings from 29 RDPs 
are  clearly  positive,  followed  by  unspecified  (19%),  mixed  (16%),  negative  (9%)  and  zero 
effects  (3%).  Positive  findings  include  better  water  and  water  management  with  reduced 
leaching of fertilisers and nutrients, reduced  greenhouse gas emissions and protected carbon 
storage in soils.  

Negative  effects  are  reported  mainly  in  the  area  of  ecosystems  related  to  agriculture  and 
forestry (RDP priority 4) and also include an overall decline in bird species. Around 40% of 
the findings are clearly positive (e.g. better soil characteristics, less erosion, etc.). 

On  resource  efficiency,  low-carbon  and  climate-resilient  economy  (RDP  priority  5)  and  the 
cross-cutting  objectives  environment  and  climate,  the  results  are  clearly  more  positive  and 
measurable.  

CAP objective 3: achieving a balanced territorial development  

In  this  thematic  area,  14  RDPs  have  reported  16  findings,  of  which  44%  are  positive. 
However,  there  are  also  mixed  (12%)  and  unspecified  effects  (44%).  Most  of  the  findings 
relate  to  community-led  local  development  (CLLD),  LEADER  or  local  actions  groups  and 
less to other priority 6 topics such as diversification, job creation or ICT in rural areas. There 
are only few assessments of the effects of LEADER, 40% of which show a positive direction 
demonstrating  that  CLLD  projects  create  more  added  value  than  structural  changes 
(entrepreneurship, jobs, etc.). The effective implementation of CLLD/LEADER still seems to 
be a major challenge. However, in other sections of the AIR, it was reported that the RDPs are 
still preparing a number of CLLD/LEADER evaluations. These may provide insights into the 
success  of  LEADER  soon.  Business  investment  under  priority  6  has  positive  effects,  in 
particular in terms of productivity and turnover. 

Horizontal  priority:  knowledge  transfer  and 
Partnership on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI)  

innovation,  European  Innovation 

In this thematic area, 8 RDPs have reported 8 evaluation findings, of which 75% are positive 
at  all  levels  (input/output,  results  and  impacts).  They  particularly  relate  to  EIP-AGRI  and 
innovation support but less to knowledge transfer. The predominantly positive results (such as 
improved interaction between companies and stakeholders in the agri-food value chain, better 
cooperation, increased knowledge, etc.) might not be representative for the total population of 
RDPs due the small number of reported findings. 13% of the findings show zero effects and 
12% are unspecified. 

National rural networks (other RDP aspects) 

In  this  thematic  area,  a  small  sample  of  5  RDPs  have  reported  7  findings,  of  which  around 
57% are positive (e.g. in identifying good practices, stakeholder participation or consolidation 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
of  thematic  networks),  but  there  are  also  mixed  (14%)  and  unspecified  effects  (29%),  e.g. 
limited effectiveness in engaging with other RDP schemes. 

3.1.3.  Support to the Member States 

In  2021,  the  European  Network  for  Rural  Development  Evaluation  Helpdesk  continued  to 
assist  Member  States  in  their  efforts  to  improve  their  evaluation  capacities.  Examples  of 
specific activities included:  

  organising  yearly  capacity  building  events  for  Member  States  (on  evaluation,  better 

data to evaluate the CAP, etc.);  

  organising  good  practice  workshops  to  discuss  lessons-learned  and  experiences  on 

selected topics;  

  publishing guidance documents and tools; and  

  collecting  good  practice  and  publishing  it  on  webpages,  in  newsletters  and  in 
factsheets of the European Network for Rural Development Evaluation Helpdesk (e.g. 
on RDPs’ impact on the gross nutrient balance, etc.). 

3.2.  Evaluation work by the Commission 

The  Commission  finances  external  studies  that  support  specific  thematic  evaluations  of  the 
effects  of  RDPs.  These  assess  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  consistency  and  EU 
added  value  of  all  relevant  CAP  instruments.  Since  March  of  2021,  the  below  evaluations 
have taken place. 

  On 1 June 2021, the Commission published a staff working document on the CAP’s 
impact  on  climate  change  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions  was  published.  The 
evaluation concluded that although the climate footprint per unit of agricultural output 
continued to improve, EU greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture have stagnated 
since  2010.  The  CAP  has  helped  mitigate  climate  change  mainly  by  protecting 
existing  carbon  stocks,  notably  thanks  to  the  maintenance  of  permanent  grasslands 
supported  by  extensive  livestock  grazing  systems.  However,  there  is  potential  to 
increase carbon storage in EU soils further. Climate adaptation is mainly achieved by 
supporting  diversity  of  crops  and  farming  systems,  supporting  investment  in 
adaptation to new climate conditions, limiting soil erosion and improving resilience to 
floods.  However,  better  targeting  of  CAP  support  would  increase  efficiency.  Rural 
development  supports  emission  reduction  in  the  livestock  sector  using  various 
measures,  such  as  certain  agri-environmental  commitments  with  respect  to  feed  or 
manure  management  or  investment  in  physical  assets  relating  to  manure  storage, 
animal housing or installation of anaerobic digesters. 

  On  12 May 2021,  the  Commission  published  a  staff  working  document  on  the 
impact of the CAP measures on the general objective of viable food production. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
The  evaluation  concluded  that  direct  income  support  played  an  important  part  in 
stabilising  farm  income,  with  direct  payments  and  support  to  areas  facing  natural 
constraints  playing  a  particularly  important  role.  Market  measures,  EU  quality 
schemes  and  various  rural  development  measures  enabling  productivity  growth  also 
supported  farm  income  by  limiting  price  reductions  and  improving  competitiveness. 
However,  despite  a  steady  and  continuous  improvement,  the  income  gap  between 
agricultural and non-agricultural income remains considerable. 

  On  8 April 2021,  the  Commission  published  a  staff  working  document  on  the 
impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local development and jobs in rural 
areas.  The  evaluation  found  that  the  CAP  measures  to  support  generational  renewal 
helped  increase  the  number  of  young  farmers,  although  to  a  limited  extent.  This 
positive impact  also  depends on other  factors.  For instance, socio-cultural  and wider 
economic incentives play a major role in deciding to get into farming or living in rural 
areas.  In  addition  to  support  under  other  EU  policies,  such  as  regional  and  cohesion 
policy  support  to  rural  economic  diversification,  better  services  and  infrastructure 
(including  broadband),  rural  development  support  was  vital  to  improve  the  broader 
economic  climate,  particularly  in  rural  areas.  Member  States  could  improve  the 
delivery and impact of CAP generational renewal measures by developing integrated 
approaches,  consistently  using  various  CAP  and  non-CAP  instruments  and  broader 
legislative and fiscal  provisions. The CAP  on its own  cannot  remove the  main entry 
barriers to farming, such as access to land and access to capital. 

  An  evaluation  study  on  the  impact  of  LEADER  on  balanced  territorial 
development is due to be completed by the end of 2021. It takes a broader analytical 
perspective assessing not only the effects of local strategies on local development, but 
also  the  LEADER  added  value.  To  this  end,  the  evaluation  study  factors  in  the 
principles  that  define  the  LEADER  approach  and  make  it  distinct  in  terms  of 
programme  implementation  (the  ‘seven  features’  of  LEADER).  The  evaluation 
examines the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, consistency and EU added value of 
LEADER.  The  study  also  assesses  LEADER’s  consistency  with  other  EU  policies, 
particularly  CLLD  under  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (multi-funding 
CLLD),  and  other  national  and  regional  policies.  The  Commission  will  publish  the 
evaluation report in 2022. 

  Additional activities should be concluded before the end of 2021, with the publication 

of staff working documents on:  

o  the impact of the CAP on biodiversity, soil and water (natural resources);  

o  the  CAP’s 

impact  on 
(socio-economic aspects);  

territorial  development  of  rural  areas 

o  the CAP’s impact on knowledge exchange and advisory activities. 

30 

 
 
 
o  Report on the implementation of the common monitoring and evaluation 
framework  including  an  assessment  of  the  performance  of  the  common 
agricultural policy 2014-2020.  

4.  EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND (EMFF) 

4.1.  Evaluations in the Member States 

By  the  end  of  2020,  programmes  had  committed  EUR 4.1  billion  of  EMFF  funding  to 
operations  in  the  Member  States.  This  corresponds  to  72%  of  the  total  EMFF  budget  of 
EUR 5.7 billion available under shared management. Since the beginning of the programming 
period,  beneficiaries  have  declared  EUR 2.4  billion  of  expenditure  (41%  of  total  EMFF 
funding).  

During this time, Member States carried out a total of 54 evaluations on the 27 programmes, 
with EUR 5.1 million committed to support this work. The Commission has boosted Member 
States’  ability  to  evaluate  EMFF  programmes  by  providing  practical  support  to  managing 
authorities. This has helped to strengthen evaluations and to extend their scope.  

The level of detail of the information varies significantly across Member States and correlates 
with the scope and depth of the evaluation itself. Several Member States’ EMFF budgets are 
rather small, which limits the scope of evaluations.    

The  number  and  type  of  evaluations  vary  significantly  across  Member  States.  Process 
evaluations  are  the  most  frequent  type.  Effectiveness  and  impact  evaluations  cover  a  wide 
range of issues. They assess effectiveness and efficiency at the operational programme level 
and in relation to EU priorities, specific objectives and measures (for example community-led 
local development and permanent cessation).  

The  recommendations  of  the  evaluations  also  cover  a  wide  range  of  subjects.  Many 
evaluations  concluded  that  re-allocating  financial  resources  is  pivotal  to  successful  EMFF 
implementation.  Another  recommendation  was  to  reduce  administrative  complexity  further 
and  to  digitise  EMFF  implementation  as  much  as  possible.  For  one  Member  State  where 
EMFF  implementation  takes  place  at  the  regional  level,  the  evaluation  recommended  to 
reduce the number of intermediate bodies and to improve communication between managing 
authorities,  intermediate  bodies  and  beneficiaries.  Recommendations  also  encouraged 
additional  networking  of  producers  in  producer  organisations  and  the  creation  of  new 
producer organisations and interbranch organisations. One evaluation underlined the need to 
focus  on  innovation  in  fisheries  and  aquaculture.  Several  overarching  issues  were  also 
covered:  

  promotion of cross-cutting principles, such as green public procurement;  

 

introduction  of  financial  instruments  to  increase  final  recipients’  operations  by 
combining grants with financial instruments; and  

  use of simplified cost options.  

31 

 
 
 
 
Most  commonly,  Member  States  use  the  results  of  evaluations  to  inform  amendments  of 
national operational programmes and reallocations of financial resources within EU priorities. 
Several  Member States  mentioned that EMFF evaluations  directly  facilitate  preparations for 
European  Maritime,  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Fund  programming.  In  addition,  several 
Member  States  have  carried  out  assessments  of  the  use  of  financial  instruments  and 
environmental impact assessments to prepare the next programming period.  

Specific evaluations include: 

- 

aquaculture providing environmental services; 

-  multi-fund approach in fisheries local action group funding; 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the fisheries sector; 

review of the fisheries local action group programme;  

cost-benefit analysis of the proposed decommissioning scheme; 

ex-ante assessment of the use of financial instruments; 

evaluation of the lobster V-notching scheme; 

evaluation of the sustainable fisheries scheme; 

assessment of the role of fisheries in the circular economy and the bio-economy;  

the effects of support for selective gear and predator proof gear; 

evaluation of the environmental benefits from the EMFF. 

Section 7 of the EMFF implementation reports for 2019 (published in December 202016) and 
2020  (published  in  September  202117)  contains  detailed  summaries  of  each  Member  State’s 
evaluations based on information from the annual implementation reports. 

4.2.  Evaluation work by the Commission 

The Commission has carried out a mid-term evaluation of the direct management portion of 
the EMFF budget under direct management. It published the resulting staff working document 
(SWD(2020) 221 final18)  in  2020.  The  evaluation  found  that  the  investment  had  provided 
value  for  money  and  recommended  a  framework  of  indicators  compatible  with  shared 
management  in  the  future.  The  European  Maritime,  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Fund  for 
2021–2027  incorporates  this  framework.  Preparatory  work  for  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the 
EMFF is underway. 

16   https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/document/download/11811d61-8ebf-4fc5-bbbc-

4842d64d208b_en  

17   https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/document/download/68276db8-058c-4766-8368-

34681e09993b_en  

18   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0221&rid=5 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.  FINAL REMARKS  

The evidence collected via the evaluations carried out in the Member States has kept growing 
in  the  past  year,  whereas  the  number  of  evaluations  has  overall  stabilised.  This  proves  the 
extraordinary work of the managing authorities to dedicate resources to evaluations during 
the  public  health  crisis.  This  came  at  the  same  time  as  the  intense  reprogramming  of  the 
resources  under  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiative  (Plus)  and  REACT-EU. 
Moreover,  it  shows  how  managing  and  coordination  authorities  are  using  evaluation  as  a 
working tool to  ensure a result-oriented policy, and not  merely to  comply  with  regulatory 
requirements. 

This shows that the evaluation culture in the Member States has improved, also thanks to 
the  Commission’s  commitment  to  providing  dedicated  services  for  methodological  support 
and exchange platforms on evaluations issues. 

Impact evaluations, which account for around one third of the total evaluations, provide useful 
insights for policy learning in the specific context of the  supported projects. Although some 
common findings are starting to emerge from evaluations carried out in the Member States, 
a  broader  assessment  of  EU-wide  results  will  be  available  with  the  Commission’s  ex-post 
evaluation,  whose  preparation  has  already  started.  Most  evaluations  provide  further  useful 
information, including those that are more focused on implementation. The findings of these 
evaluations support the managing authorities in adjusting projects to maximise their benefits. 

Finally,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  impacted  many  programmes.  First  the  reallocations 
under  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiative  (Plus)  and  then  the  programming  of 
fresh  REACT-EU  resources  have  reshaped  much  of  the  2014-2020  programmes’  work  and 
targets.  Still,  only  a  very  limited  number  of  evaluations  undertaken  in  the  Member  States 
cover  this  impact  already.  This  number  is  expected  to  grow  in  the  coming  years  and  future 
analyses will factor in the results of these evaluations.  

33