COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Accompanying the document EVALUATION REPORT on the final evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles 2020' Programme)
Date: 2022-07-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, counterfeiting, cross-border cooperation, euro, fraud, fraud against the EU, project evaluation

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.7.2022  SWD(2022) 208 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Accompanying the document  EVALUATION REPORT  on the final evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles 2020' Programme)                 {SWD(2022) 207 final}  
 
 
Executive summary 

The  Pericles  2020  Programme  (hereinafter  ‘Pericles  2020’  or  the  ‘Programme’)  was 
established by Regulation (EU) No 331/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
on  11  March  2014  (hereinafter  'the  Regulation')  for  the  period  from  1  January  2014  to  31 
December  2020.  It  was  a  European  Union  (EU)  initiative  intended  to  contribute  to  the 
protection  of  the  euro.  In  particular,  the  Programme  provided  financial  support  to  activities 
intended  to  strengthen  the  capacity  to  prevent  and  combat  counterfeiting  of  the  euro  and 
related fraud in relevant authorities in EU Member States (MS) as well as in countries outside 
of the EU (hereinafter ‘third countries’).  

The  Programme  financed  the  following  main  types  of  actions:  conferences;  workshops; 
training activities; staff exchanges; studies; and provision of equipment to anti-counterfeiting 
authorities in third countries. 

Pursuant  to  Article  13(6)  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  shall  present  to  the  European 
Parliament and to the Council a final evaluation report on the achievement of the objectives of 
the  Programme.  In  this  respect,  an  evaluation  study,  which  ran  from  April  2021  to  March 
2022,  was  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor  and  assessed  the  Programme’s  overall 
implementation  in  the  period  from  1  January  2014  to  31  December  2020.  The  present 
evaluation report is based on this evaluation study (hereinafter the ‘Evaluation’).  

The Evaluation covered all types of actions under the Pericles 2020 Programme (both within 
EU  Member  States  and  third  countries)  and  considered  the  progress  on  the  findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations of the mid-term evaluation of the Programme. 

The Evaluation covered all the five evaluation criteria typically used in the assessment of EU 
programmes,  namely:  (i)  relevance;  (ii)  effectiveness;  (iii)  efficiency;  (iv)  EU  added  value; 
and  (v)  coherence.  In  addition,  the  Evaluation  also  considered  a  sixth  criteria:  (vi) 
sustainability, in line with the evaluation requirements of Regulation (EU) No 331/2014.  

The key findings of the Evaluation  can be summarised below: 

  All  findings  converge  towards  an  unambiguously  positive  overall  assessment. 
From the evaluation study it is clear that Pericles 2020 has achieved both its general 
and specific objectives; 

  It  is  seen  as  the  only  programme  that  supports,  on  an  EU  and  global  level,  the 
enhancement of the operational capacity of stakeholders involved in the protection of 
the euro, dissemination of best practices regarding the fight against counterfeiting, and 
essentially building trust between institutions across countries and regions. Therefore, 
and  due  to  the  ever-evolving  threats  to  the  euro  that  counterfeiting  poses,  there  is  a 
continued need for Pericles actions;  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Stakeholders interviewed and surveyed perceive euro counterfeiting as a problem 
within  their  countries  and  as  a  phenomenon  that  crosses  Member  State  and  EU 
external borders; 

  A new emerging threat area identified evolves around the possible development 
of the digital euro and the related risk of e-counterfeiting for example the replication 
of tokens possibly used for a digital currency and thus a continued need for closer and 
more regular institutional cooperation and coordination is necessary; 

  The Programme has been effective, since it has been successful in delivering all the 
envisaged  diverse  types  of  activities  with  respect  to  the  protection  of  the  euro  and 
also  since  it  took  into  account  the  multidisciplinary  aspects  of  the  fight  against 
counterfeiting.  Moreover,  it  became  evident  that  the  face-to-face  aspect  of  the 
actions  implemented  under  the  Programme  are  vital  for  its  effectiveness  and  it 
constitutes one of its main benefits;  

  The overall coordination, management, and administrative structures have been 

positively assessed by the stakeholders; 

  The external evaluation study points outs that the Programme is very specific, which 
can only be fully maintained if it remains stand-alone and can offer tailor-made 
actions for specific objectives; 

  The Programme has achieved a very high percentage of allocation as compared to 
the reference budgets. The outputs of the actions were largely delivered at a lower 
cost  than  what  was  initially  envisaged  whilst  the  current  co-financing  setup  is 
deemed appropriate; 

  Both  implementers  and  supported  authorities  from  third  countries,  who  have 
participated  in  other  EU  or  international  initiatives  in  the  field  of  anti-currency 
counterfeiting,  confirmed  the  complementarity  of  the  Pericles  2020  programme. 
The Programme has been praised by consulted stakeholders for its uniqueness in 
bringing  together  a  relevant  network  of  stakeholders.  The  network  of 
acquaintances and contacts established through Pericles actions can then be leveraged 
for the implementation of national and cross-border activities, and in the context of the 
other fora provided by EU agencies or international organisations; 

  The  Programme  is  seen  to  be  the  driving  force  behind  transnational  knowledge-
generating  activities,  such  as  conferences,  which  would  not  take  place  without 
Pericles; 

  The  results  achieved  through  Pericles  2020  actions  and  the  improvements  in 
institutional capacity resulting from these actions are likely to be sustained over 
time.  Measures  or  practices  to  ensure  the  sustainability  of  delivered  outputs  and 
progress  towards  results  have  been  adopted  by  participants.  Overall,  the  majority  of 
participants  in  Pericles  2020  actions  saw  a  positive  evolution  in  their  role  since 
participating in the Programme, with an increase in involvement in euro protection 
activities. 

2 

 
 
 
 
Based on the findings and conclusions of the evaluation, key lessons learned have emerged, as 
shown below: 

  While  the  problem  of  counterfeiting  evolves  with  new  tools  and  methods,  it  is 
important to carry out a continuous strategic and operational needs assessment and 
to ensure the relevance of the Programme; 

  There are indications of the expansion of the scope of anti-counterfeiting authorities 
to cover also digital currencies, including the digital euro, if introduced. Thus, there is 
a growing need to follow closely the developments related to the digital euro project, 
and to continuously assess the need to potentially expand the scope of future Pericles 
actions to include issues related to the digital euro; 

  Based on the stakeholders’ feedback, it can be concluded that the face-to-face aspect 

 

of the Pericles actions is a crucial factor for the success of the Programme; 
It  can  be  observed  that  the  prudent  budgetary  approach  of  Pericles  applicants 
allows  the  over-commitment  of  the  available  budget  by  at  least  15%  more  than  the 
budget envisaged per annual programme, and that there is a very high diversity in the 
costs for Pericles events beyond the EU; 

  The  higher  co-financing  rate  was  useful 

in  extending  the  geography  of 

 

 

participation; 
It  is  important  to  maintain  a  regular  coordination  with  relevant  DGs  and  other 
institutions  as  a  way  of  ensuring  complementarity  and  avoiding  overlaps  on 
counterfeit-related projects; 
It  can  be  concluded  that  keeping  the  focus  on  increased  cooperation  with  third 
countries continues to be a valid objective of the Programme. 

3