COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION 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) 207 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  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) 208 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

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

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check ......................................................... 2 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ............. 3 

2.1  Description of the intervention and its objectives ............................................... 3 

2.2 

Point(s) of comparison ......................................................................................... 6 

3.  HOW  HAS  THE  SITUATION  EVOLVED  OVER  THE  EVALUATION 

PERIOD? ..................................................................................................................... 7 

Current state of play ........................................................................................................ 7 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ............................................. 10 

4.1.  TO  WHAT  EXTENT  WAS  THE  INTERVENTION  SUCCESSFUL  AND 

WHY? ........................................................................................................................ 11 

4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ........................ 15 

4.3.  IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? .................................................... 16 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ....................... 18 

5.1.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 18 

5.2.  LESSONS LEARNED .............................................................................................. 20 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................... 22 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ....................... 25 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS 

ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ........ 28 

ANNEX  IV.  OVERVIEW  OF  BENEFITS  AND  COSTS  [AND,  WHERE 
RELEVANT,  TABLE  ON  SIMPLIFICATION  AND  BURDEN 
REDUCTION] ........................................................................................................... 40 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION ........................................................ 41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AWP 
CBCDG 
CfP 
CNA 
DG ECFIN 
DG HOME 
DG JUST 
DG NEAR 
ECB 
ECEG 
EQ 
EU 
Eurojust 
Europol 
Interpol 
ISG 
MS 
OLAF 
OPC 
SWD 
TAIEX 
TOR 

Annual Work Programme 
Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group  
Call(s) for proposals 
Competent National Authority 
Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs 
Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs 
Directorate General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations 
European Central Bank 
Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group 
Evaluation Question(s) 
European Union 
European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit 
European Police Office 
International Criminal Police Organization 
Inter-Service Group 
Member State(s) 
European Anti-fraud Office 
Open Public Consultation 
Staff Working Document 
Technical Assistance and Information Exchange 
Terms of Reference 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

Pericles 2020 was a European Commission exchange, assistance and training programme 
aiming  at  promoting  actions  for  the  protection  and  safeguarding  of  the  euro  against 
counterfeiting. The budget for the Programme's implementation was approximately EUR 
7.3 million1.  

The  Pericles  2020  programme  ran  for  the  period  2014-2020  and  replaced  the  Pericles 
programme, which was established in 2001 for a period of four years (1 January 2002 to 
31 December 2005) 2 and was then extended until 31 December 20133.  

The Programme was a multiannual programme to promote actions for the protection and 
safeguarding  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting,  thus  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of 
the  Union's  economy  and  securing  the  sustainability  of  public  finances.  It  was  an 
exchange,  assistance  and  training  programme  aiming  at  preventing  and  combating 
counterfeiting  and  related  fraud,  thus  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  the  European 
Union's (EU) economy and securing the sustainability of public finances.  

The  Programme  actively  encouraged  and  entailed  an  increase  in  transnational 
cooperation for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting both inside and outside 
the EU. Particular attention was paid to those Member States or third countries that have 
the highest rates of euro counterfeiting.  

More specifically, the Programme, supported and supplemented the activities undertaken 
by  the  Member  States  and  assisted  the  competent  national  and  European  authorities  in 
order to develop among themselves and the Commission a close and regular cooperation 
and  an  exchange  of  best  practices,  where  appropriate  including  third  countries  and 
international organisations.  

The actions in order to achieve the above mentioned objectives, as defined in Article 8 of 
the Regulation, were:  
a.  the  exchange  and  dissemination  of  information,  through  the  organisation  of  
workshops, meetings and seminars, trainings, targeted placements and staff exchanges of 
competent national authorities; 

1  Regulation  (EU)  No  331/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  2014  and  
Council Regulation (EU) 2015/768 of 11 May 2015 (OJ L103, 5.4.2014, p.1) extending its application to 
the non-participating Member States.  
2 Council Decision 2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001, and Council Decision 2001/924/EC extending its 
application to the non-participating Member States. 
3 Council Decisions 2006/75/EC, 2006/76/EC, 2006/849/EC and 2006/850/EC.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
b.  technical,  scientific  and  operational  assistance  including  relevant  studies  with  a 
multidisciplinary and transnational dimension; 
c.  grants  to  finance  the  purchase  of  equipment  to  be  used  by  specialised  anti-
counterfeiting authorities for protecting the euro against counterfeiting.  

Projects  financed  under  the  Programme  were  implemented  either  directly  by  the 
Commission’s Directorate General  for Economic and Financial Affairs  (DG ECFIN) or 
in  the  form  of  grants  awarded  to  national  competent  authorities  in  the  EU  (both  in  the 
euro area and non-euro  area Member States). The common co-financing  rate for  grants 
awarded under the Programme was 75% of the total eligible costs. These projects  took 
place both inside and outside the EU.  

Pursuant to Article 13(6) of the Regulation, by 31 December 2021 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 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  study  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 Programme4.  

The study ran from April 2021 to March 2022. The cut-off date for the data/information 
used was 31 December 2020. However, as agreed during the Inception stage, because of 
implementation  delays  to  some  actions  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  the  study  also 
considered, where possible, actions financed by Pericles 2020 that were implemented in 
2021. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Since the introduction of the euro as a single currency, there has been a need to protect it 
at an EU level against counterfeiting and to have a specific programme dedicated for this 
purpose. The new single currency entailed a higher risk of counterfeiting which in turn 
had the potential to undermine trust in the euro. Therefore, to address this issue at the EU 
level, the Pericles programme was established in 2001 to precede the introduction of the 
single currency coins and banknotes in January 2002. Pericles was the predecessor of the 
Pericles 2020 programme. The legal basis of the Programme is Article 133 of the TFEU.  
The  Pericles  2020  programme  built  on  the  work  of  the  previous  Pericles  programmes, 
which operated from 2001 to 2013.   

4  Mid-term  Evaluation  under  Article  13  (4)  of  the  'Pericles  2020'  Regulation  |  European  Commission 
(europa.eu) 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Pericles  2020  was  a  training  for  trainers  programme  and  can  broadly  be  qualified  as  a 
capacity building, information dissemination and networking initiative. Its activities were 
aimed at: (i) raising awareness of the threat posed by euro counterfeiting; (ii) promoting 
closer  and  more  regular  coordination  and  cooperation  among  relevant  institutions;  (iii) 
enhancing  the  operational  capabilities  of  staff;  and  (iv)  developing  improved  tools  and 
methods  in  the  areas  of  euro  counterfeit  prevention,  detection  and  repression.  The 
Programme  was  also  actively  involved  in  supporting  the  improvement  of  the  legal  and 
institutional  framework  for  euro  protection,  namely  in  connection  with  the  general 
framework established by the 1929 Geneva Convention on Currency Counterfeiting and 
the  necessary  measures  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  established 
by Regulations 1338/20015 and 1339/20016. 

The  Programme  was  inspired  by  three  key  principles,  namely:  (i)  transnationality, 
which  entails  the  requirement  that  all  Programme  activities  see  the  participation  of  at 
least  two  countries;  (ii)  multidisciplinarity,  intended  to  facilitate  the  adoption  of  a 
common approach to euro protection by the target groups mentioned hereafter; and (iii) 
complementarity, with Programme activities intended to supplement and not to replace 
other euro protection initiatives implemented by Member States  or by EU/international 
institutions. 

In  line  with  its  multidisciplinary  approach,  the  Programme  sought  to  benefit  a  wide 
range  of  target  groups,  including:  (i)  law  enforcement  authorities  (police,  customs, 
ministries  of  interior,  intelligence  personnel);  (ii)  monetary  authorities  (national  central 
banks,  mints);  (iii)  judiciary  authorities  (ministries  of  justice,  judges,  prosecutors);  (iv) 
commercial  banks  and  other  financial  sector  operators  (money  exchange  or  transport 
companies, etc.); and (v) other private sector organisations (bankers’  associations, etc).  

The  Programme's  strategy  during  the  programming  period  focussed  on  four 
priority areas, namely:  (i) supporting EU Member States particularly  affected by  euro 
counterfeiting; (ii) fostering cooperation with third countries where there is evidence for 
or suspicion of counterfeit euro production; (iii) maintaining an efficient framework for 
the  protection  of  the  euro  in  South  Eastern  Europe;  and  (iv)  addressing  new 
developments and challenges.  

The Programme's priorities areas were updated on an annual basis and endorsed by the 
Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group (ECEG), a group of national counterfeit experts from 
all 27 Member States as well as representatives from the Commission, European Central 
Bank  (ECB),  and  Europol  and  then  incorporated  into  the  Annual  Work  Programme 
(AWP)7.  

5  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1338/2001  of  28  June  2001  laying  down  measures  necessary  for  the 
protection of the euro against counterfeiting (OJ L181.4.7.2001, p.9) 
6  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1339/2001  of  28  June  2001  extending  the  effects  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1338/2001 laying down  measures  necessary  for the  protection of the euro against counterfeiting to those 
Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency (OJ L181.4.7.2001, p.11).  
7 C(2019) 8362 final (1._commission_decision_c20198362.pdf.pdf (europa.eu)).  
  C(2019) 806 final(1._commission_decision_c2019806.pdf (europa.eu)).  
  C(2018) 470 final (c_2018_470_f1_commission_decision_en_v2_p1_960907.pdf (europa.eu)). 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: Pericles 2020 Programme’s Intervention Logic for the period 2014-2020 

The ‘intervention logic’ is a logical model describing in diagrammatic form the linkages 
between  the  various  elements  comprising  the  intervention  (Figure  1).  Pericles  2020’s 
intervention logic can be described with reference to six main elements, namely: 

  The  first  element  refers  to  the  needs  addressed  by  the  Programme,  i.e.  the 
growing international dimension and changing nature of euro counterfeiting; 
  The second consists of the inputs available to address these needs, which include 
the  Programme’s  financial,  human  and  managerial/administrative  resources  as 
well as the resources of the other entities involved; 

  The  third  concerns  the  actual  deployment  of  available  resources  through  the 
implementation of Pericles 2020 actions, i.e. the organisation of conferences and 
workshops, staff exchanges, etc.;  

  The fourth refers to the outputs delivered by the Programme actions, which can 

be described in terms of staff trained, best practices disseminated, etc.; 

  The  fifth  relates  to  the  ‘transformation’  of  the  outputs  into  outcomes,  i.e.  the 
discrete changes in euro protection capabilities that the Programme is expected to 
generate  (in  terms  of  increased  operational  capability,  closer  institutional 
cooperation, etc.); and 

  Finally, the sixth element refers to the Programme’s impact, i.e. its contribution to 
the  general  improvement  in  euro  protection,  which  in  turn  is  expected  to 
contribute to the end goal of improving general economic conditions. 

  C(2016) 8778 final (c_2016_8778_f1_annex_en_v3_p2_868936.pdf (europa.eu) ). 
  C(2016) 316 final (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/annex_838024_en.pdf). 
  C(2015) 2473 final (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission_decision_annex_en.pdf ). 
  C(2014) 3427 final.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
2.2 Point(s) of comparison  

The  Pericles  2020  programme  built  on  the  work  of  the  previous  Pericles  programmes, 
which operated from 2001 to 2013, aiming at protecting the euro as the single currency 
against  the  ongoing  threat  of  counterfeiting  at  EU  level.  It  also  operated  alongside  the 
additional measures and actions related to euro counterfeiting taken at national level.  

The Programme aimed at  identifying both  emerging and recurrent  threats and priorities 
outlined in the annual strategy paper aiming - in this way - to continue to respond to these 
threats and priorities in a flexible and effective way. The distribution of counterfeits and 
high  quality  components  on  the  internet  as  well  as  high  quality  euro  coin  counterfeits 
were  identified  as  threats  at  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period  and  remained 
among  the  priorities  of  the  Programme  through  the  entire  implementation  period. 
Specific  attention  was  given  to  high-risk  third  countries  whose  criminality  represents  a 
threat for euro counterfeiting. Europol and ECB contributed to the annual strategy paper 
for implementing Pericles 2020 and participated in the vast majority of the Programme’s 
actions.  

The  Programme  used  a  set  of  four  specific  quantitative  performance  indicators  as  laid 
down in the basic legal act: the number of (i) counterfeits detected, (ii) illegal workshops 
(print shops and mints) dismantled, (iii) individuals arrested, and (iv) penalties imposed. 
The  Programme’s  performance  overview8  illustrates  that    progress  in  achieving  the 
targets for the performance indicators was assessed positively and kept within the range 
of the reference band. Despite the fact that the numbers for these indicators approached 
their  targets,  the  primary  challenge  with  some of the performance indicators is  that the 
linkage  with  Pericles  2020  actions  appears  weak9;  in  many  instances  other  external 
factors  can  influence  the  indicators  and  they  primarily  measure  the  repression  (and  not 
the prevention) aspect of the phenomenon. 

The  Programme  showed  a  high  degree  of  consistency  and  complementarity  with  other 
relevant programmes and actions at Union level because it is dedicated exclusively to and 
focused on protecting the euro from a specific form of crime, namely euro counterfeiting. 
This  complementariry  appears  clear  with  respect  to  DG  NEAR’s  Technical  Assistance 
and  Information  Exchange  (TAIEX)  instrument,  that  is  most  often  used  in  support  of 
accession negotiations, and DG HOME's Internal Security Fund - Police10, which covers 
the prevention and combating of crime in general.  

8 Microsoft Word - AMPR2020 part F - annex 3 - part 2.3_ (europa.eu).  
9 SWD(2018)281 final, p.10.  
10  Regulation  (EU)  No  513/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  April  2014 
establishing,  as  part  of  the  Internal  Security  Fund,  the  instrument  for  financial  support  for  police 
cooperation,  preventing  and  combating  crime,  and  crisis  management  and  repealing  Council  Decision 
2007/125/JHA (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 93). 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

Budget and Management 

The  Programme  had  a  total  budget  of  €  7.344  million  for  the  2014  –  2020  period,  i.e. 
around  €  1  million  per  year.  Funds  were  used  for:  (i)  the  provision  of  grants  to 
Competent  National  Authorities  (CNA)  interested  in  implementing  actions  (‘CNA-
implemented  actions’);  and  (ii)  the  financing  of  actions  implemented  directly  by  DG 
ECFIN (‘direct actions’). The annual distributions varied, but around 70% of the annual 
budget was commonly allocated to CNA-implemented actions and 30% to direct actions. 

Until the end of 2014, the Programme was managed by the  European Anti-fraud Office 
(OLAF),  which  was  the  entity  responsible  for  managing  the  previous  Pericles 
Programme.  From  January  2015  to  the  end  of  the  programme,  Pericles  2020  was 
managed  by  DG  ECFIN.  Activities  were  undertaken  on  the  basis  of  a  yearly  updated 
rolling  strategy  and  Annual  Work  Programmes  (AWP).  Advice  on  the  strategic 
orientations of and planning for the Programme was provided by the ECEG.  

Operating Modalities 

Pericles 2020 actions were implemented through the provision of grants to CNAs or 
directly by DG ECFIN, through so called ‘direct actions’. Grants were provided on 
the  basis  of  Calls  for  Proposals  (CfPs),  while  direct  actions  were  implemented  via 
procurement  contracts.  CNA-implemented  actions  benefited  from  a  financial 
contribution in the form of a grant. CfPs were launched annually with two deadlines, 
one  in  spring  and  one  in  autumn  in  order  to  guarantee  a  prompt  and  flexible  reply  to 
upcoming unforeseen threats. The overall coordination, management, and administrative 
structures  have  been  assessed  positively  by  the  stakeholders  interviewed  for  the 
evaluation  (see  Annex  V  for  details  of  the  stakeholders’  consultation).  These 
stakeholders pointed out the importance of the Pericles 2020 programme, which provided 
training  and  capacity  building  activities  that  respond  to  law  enforcement  needs  and  fill 
gaps that would not be covered otherwise by a national or a European instrument.  

Each  CfP  indicated  the  value  of  funding  available  and  the  types  of  actions  eligible  for 
financing. Applications were assessed against a set of pre-defined criteria, reflecting the 
Programme's basic principles (transnationality, multidisciplinarity and complementarity) 
and taking into account the quality of the proposals and cost-effectiveness considerations. 
In case of an award, subsequent steps followed the Commission’s standard procedure 
for  grant-based  initiatives11,  with  the  signing  of  a  Grant  Agreement  and,  upon 
completion of the action, the submission of a Technical Report and a Financial Report12. 

11 Title VIII of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget 
of the Union, repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. 
12 Funding & tenders portal (reference documents). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
As  specified  in  Article  10(4)  of  the  Regulation,  the  Programme’s  maximum  financial 
contribution was normally set at 75% of eligible costs, but in certain duly justified cases, 
it could be increased up to 90%.  

Although  managed  by  DG  ECFIN,  direct  actions  were  always  implemented  in 
collaboration with national authorities in EU Member States or third countries. From 
an administrative point of view, direct actions were implemented through  procurement 
contracts. Upon completion, results were summarised in a report similar to the Technical 
Reports required for CNA-implemented actions. 

Actions Implemented – Overview 

Over the period between January 2014 to December 2020, commitments were made for a 
total of 80 actions. These included 21 actions implemented directly by DG ECFIN and 
59 actions implemented by 18 CNAs.  

Table 1: Overview of implemented actions based on the delivery mechanism 

Year 

2020 

2019 

2018 

2017 

2016 

2015 

2014 

Total 

Grants 

Projects initiated by the Commission 

7 

10 

8 

10 

9 

9 

6 

59 

1 

3 

3 

3 

4 

3 

4 

21 

The 80 actions had an initial total budget of about  € 8.2 million, with an EU financing 
contribution  of  about  €  6.9  million.  The  value  of  the  actions  varies  considerably,  the 
average  value  being  €  80,00013.  The  Programme's  actions  were  generally  evenly 
distributed over time, with 10 actions approved in 2014, 12 in 2015, 13 in 2016, 13 in 
2017, 11 in 2018, 13 in 2019 and 8 in 2020. Nearly all actions were  completed by the 
end  of  2020,  with  five  postponed  to  2021  and  one  cancelled,  because  owing  to 
restrictions liked to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

The  CNAs  involved  in  implementation  originated  from  ten  Member  States  (Croatia, 
France,  Germany,  Italy,  Spain,  Romania,  Bulgaria,  Portugal,  the  Netherlands,  and 
Austria)  and  included  monetary  authorities  (central  banks  and  national  mints)  and  law 
enforcement authorities. The Member States involved in the implementation of Pericles 
2020 actions are listed in the table below.  

13  The  grant  with  the  lowest  value  during  the  Pericles  2020  was  an  action  ‘Enhancing  the  knowledge  of 
Turkish Authorities of NACs and among national competent authorities’, committed in 2016 with a budget 
of € 6.288,30. The grant with the highest value was a ‘Training course on money counterfeiting for experts 
230.017,86.  
from 

2019  with 

committed 

America’, 

budget 

Latin 

of 

in 

€ 

a 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
Table 2: Distribution of Pericles actions financed per country (by year of commitment) 

Year 

Total 

EC 

ES 

IT 

BG  PT  HR 

FR  NL  RO 

A

DE  EE  BE  PL  HU 

LV 

- 

- 

11 

25 

4 

1 

4 

1 

3 

10 

2 

5 

3 

1 

1 

U 

10 

12 

13 

13 

11 

13 

8 

80 

4 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

2 

3 

3 

4 

4 

3 

5 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

21 

17 

23 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1  1 

1 

2  1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2006-

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2014-

2020 

As presented (see table 2), DG ECFIN and the Italian and Spanish CNAs were the most 
active implementers, cumulatively  accounting  for over 75% of  actions and  the related 
budget. Technical training, conferences, and staff exchanges are the most common types 
of actions, each accounting for about one quarter of all actions.  

Overview of Actions Implemented 

Table 3 – Distribution per type of Pericles action financed (by year of commitment) 

Year 

Total 

Staff 

Seminars / 

Technical 

Purchase of 

E-grants 

Study 

exchanges 

conferences 

training 

equipment 

2006-2013 

11314 

30 

32 

4115 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2014-2020 

10 

12 

13 

13 

11 

13 

8 

80 

2 

4 

3 

4 

4 

2 

2 

3 

7 

5 

6 

3 

7 

2 

3 

1 

3 

2 

2 

4 

2 

21 

33 

17 

7 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

2 

4 

1 

1 

It is to be noted that the Pericles 2020 programme funded 80 actions whilst the previous 
programme funded 113, This is due to the reduction of the available budget16 and, more 
markedly, due to the increase of the average cost of the co-financed actions17.  

14 A slightly different categorisation of actions was used in the period 2006-2013, which includes also the 
category  ‘Other’  (expert  visits  and  cross-border  operations)  –  3  activities  in  the  period  2006-2013,  thus 
amounting to 113 overall. 
15 The number includes technical training and workshops.  
16 The available budget for Pericles 2020 programme was € 7,262,500 whilst for the previous programme 
was € 7,900,000.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
CNAs  were  requested  through  the  ECEG  to  provide  data  related  to  law  enforcement 
activities  on  an  annual  basis.  These  data  are  used  to  monitor  the  key  performance 
indicators  (KPIs)  as  specified  in  Article  4  of  the  Regulation;  namely,  the  number  of 
counterfeits  detected,  illegal  workshops  dismantled,  individuals  arrested  and  penalties 
imposed.  Due  to  reporting  limitations  by  CNAs,  data  on  penalties  imposed  are  not 
available18.  

   Table 4: KPIs state of play  

KPIs 
Counterfeit 
notes 
detected 
Counterfeit 
coins 
detected 
Workshops 
dismantled 
Individuals 
arrested 
Penalties 
imposed 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

838,000  899,000  684,000  694,000  563,000  559,000  460,000 

192,195  146,899  150,258  160,914  179,353  187,602  201,565 

37 

32 

29  

22 

23 

22 

7946 

8879 

8724 

7494 

5932 

5994 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Data  from  stakeholders  (e.g.:  CNAs,  implementers  and  participants)  provided  a  major 
source of evidence to inform the evaluation.  

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

Evaluation Framework 

The  evaluation  study  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.  

In particular: 

  With respect to relevance, the exercise reviewed the rationale of the Programme 

with regard to the objectives, priorities, target groups, and actions; 

17 The average cost per co-financed action for the previous programme was € 69,911 and for Pericles 2020 
programme was € 90,781 (Calculations were made based on table 12 of the external study p.56.).  
18 Thus is due to the fact that penalties imposed cover more often also other offences expect the offences 
relate to counterfeiting. Thus, it is difficult for CNAs to report only on penalties imposed for the offences 
exclusively related to counterfeiting offences.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
  The  assessment  of  effectiveness  focused  on  the  Programme’s  ability  to  achieve 

the intended results in terms of outputs, outcomes, and impact; 

  The  analysis  of  efficiency  involved  a  review  of  the  management  and 

administrative arrangements put in place for Programme implementation; 

  With  regard  to  EU  added  value,  the  evaluation  focused  primarily  on  the 

Programme’s ability to promote transnational cooperation; and 

  The  analysis  of  coherence  considered  the  complementarity  of  Pericles  2020 
activities with other initiatives implemented at the national and EU/international 
levels.  

Since this was a final evaluation of the Programme, it also considered the impact of the 
Programme actions (as  a part of the effectiveness assessment), and the sustainability of 
the Programme’s actions in protecting the euro against counterfeiting. 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

The  Programme  throughout  its  entire  period  covered  all  the  envisioned  types  of 
activities, which led to the achievement of the operational objective. According to the 
Annual Reports, almost all the financed actions under the programme were completed on 
time  (with  a  few  exceptions  because  of  the  pandemic),  indicating  the  Programme’s 
effectiveness  in  delivering  the  diverse  types  of  activities,  envisioned.  The  Programme 
was  overall  effective  in  reaching  the  targeted  number  of  participants  in  actions.  The 
analysis  of  a  selected  number  of  Pericles  2020  actions  by  the  external  contractor  show 
that  even  though  the  number  of  actual  participants  in  these  actions  was  lower  than  the 
planned participants, the divergence was marginal19. Even though the external study did 
not  identify  direct  links  between  the  size  of  the  divergence  and  the  number  of 
participants,  however  it  was  noted  that  the  larger  the  event,  the  bigger  the  risk  for  not 
meeting  the  target  of  expected  participants.  The  external  study  also  concluded  that  the 
effectiveness of larger events is smaller as concerns the achievement of the target on the 
number of participants20.  

Evidence in  the  study from  the external  contractor  also  suggests that Pericles  2020 has 
been  effective  in  taking  into  account  the  transnational  aspect  of  the  counterfeiting 
phenomenon, as well as the multidisciplinary aspects of the fight against counterfeiting, 
in line with the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 331/2014. The Programme participants 
are  more  diverse  when  compared  with  the  preceding  programme,  and  it  has  been 
effective  in  taking  into  account  the  multidisciplinary  aspects  of  the  fight  against 
counterfeiting21.  

19  The  external  study  mentions  that  ‘The  review  of  40  Pericles  2020  actions  (staff  exchange, 
conferences/seminars, training courses) show that out of 2,183 planned participants, 2,063 participated in 
Programme  actions.  Even  though  the  number  of  actual  participants  was  lower  than  the  planned 
participants, the divergence is small: -5% (or 120 participants)’, p. 41.  
20 This is also illustrated in figure 18, Link between planned participants and percentage of deviation, of the 
external study, p. 42.  
21 See table 8, Professional background of participants in Pericles actions (by year of commitment), p. 44 of 
the external study.   

11 

 
 
                                                           
Moreover,  the  survey22  results  from  participants  of  actions  implemented  under  the 
Programme, show that activities undertaken were effective in terms of both establishing 
contacts  with  other  people  involved  in  the  protection  of  the  euro  and  in  disseminating 
best  practices.  The  establishment  of  contacts  between  people  and  institutions  has  been 
praised as one of the most important outputs of the Programme by the interviewees.  

Figure 2: Assessment of the Programme effectiveness in delivering qualitative outputs23 

Establishing contacts with other people involved in the
protection of the euro in EU Member States?

6%

8%

21%

63%

3%

Establishing contacts with other people involved in the
protection of the euro in non-EU countries?

11%

14%

25%

48%

2%

Learning about best practices in the prevention and/or
detection and/or repression of euro counterfeiting?

4%

4%

15%

76%

1%

Not at all

To a limited extent

To some extent

To a large extent

Don't know

The study concludes that the specific objective of the Programme has been achieved, 
as  Pericles  2020  contributed  strongly  to  the  enhancement  of  the  capacity  to  protect  the 
euro.  The  available  evidence  resulting  from  the  ‘deep  dives’24  performed  and  the 
stakeholders’  consultation  shows  that  the  specific  objectives  and  outcomes  have  been 
delivered.  The  Programme  achieved  strengthened  networking  amongst  participants  and 
greater  awareness  on  the  counterfeiting  phenomenon,  increased  the  cooperation  and 
coordination  between  Member  States,  third  countries  and  institutions,  enhanced  the 
operational  capacities  of  staff  involved  and  the  use  of  new  and  improved  tools  and 
methods against euro counterfeiting. In addition, the results from the deep dives pointed 
to some key success factors of the programme and challenges. 

The evaluation study also concurs with the finding of the Mid-Term evaluation that the 
available  data  on  the  performance  indicators  were  broadly  on  track  to  achieve  the 
intended targets. At the same time it underlines that these indicators, mostly linked to 
the results of operational counterfeit repression activities, are not fully adequate to 
measure  the  performance  of  the  Programme.  Quantifying  the  impact  of  a  capacity 

22  An  online  survey  with  participants  of  activities  implemented  under  the  Programme  was  undertaken  as 
part of the external study. There were 148 respondents. 
23 Figure 19 of the external study, p.45.  
24  Desk  research  and  the  interviews  undertaken  during  the  study  involved  deep  dives  into  the  type  of 
actions implemented under the Pericles 2020 programme in Italy and Spain, as the biggest beneficiaries in 
terms of budget allocated and the number of actions implemented. 

12 

 
 
      
 
 
 
                                                           
building initiative in  terms  of operational  results is  an exercise fraught  with  difficulties 
due  to  the  influence  of  a  host  of  intervening  factors.  This  is  particularly  the  case  with 
initiatives  intended  to  protect  against  criminal  activities,  the  magnitude  of  which  is 
almost by definition unknown. Subject to this major caveat,  there is evidence that the 
Programme  outcomes  contributed  to  detecting  counterfeit  euro  and  dismantling 
workshops. The study concludes that the EU framework for the protection of the euro, 
including the Pericles programme, has a bearing on the competitiveness of the economy 
and on the stability of public finances. In addition and as shown by the statistics, the EU 
framework , has been successfully keeping euro counterfeiting in check.  This, not only is 
avoiding  any  significant  direct  adverse  effects  on  the  public  finances  but,  mainly, 
increases  the  trust  of  the  citizens  and  businesses  in  their  currency  and,  thereby,  in  the 
economy  in  turn,  this  enhances  the  conditions  for  the  economy’s  competitiveness  and 
increases the sustainability of public finances25.  

It  is  indicative  that  the  overall  coordination,  management,  and  administrative 
structures  have  been  assessed  positively  by  the  stakeholders.  The  communication 
with  DG  ECFIN  has  also  been  positively  assessed  by  interviewees,  and  the  support 
provided by the EC experts has been highly rated and described as ‘prompt’. Promptness 
of  the  Programme  management  has  been  confirmed  by  its  relevant  timelines26.  Partner 
institutions  such  as  the  ECB  and  Europol  also  provided  a  very  positive  assessment  of 
their cooperation with DG ECFIN regarding the Pericles Programme. To a large extent, 
the  application  procedure  was  considered  demanding  by  applicants  and  non-applicants 
alike,  an  issue  which  is  expected  to  be  minimised  by  the  new  digital  grant  system  of 
Pericles  IV.  No  significant  efficiency-related  issues  were  reported  in  relation  to  the 
implementation  process.  The  external  study  compared  the  management  costs  of  the 
Programme with the ones of Fiscalis 2020 and Customs 2020 and concluded that these 
costs  are  higher  for  the  Pericles  2020  programme  as  a  proportion  of  its  spending. 
However, the external study considers that the high management costs of the programme 
are well justified since they are linked to the programme’s specificity27, which can only 
be  fully  maintained  if  the  programme  remains  stand-alone  and  can  offer  tailor-made 
actions for specific objectives28.   

The  study  showed  adequate  programming  and  allocation  of  the  available  resources, 
evidenced by the very high percentage of allocation as compared to the reference budget, 
achieved  by  Pericles  2020  (higher  than  Pericles  2006-2013)29.  The  committed  budgets 
proved  to  be  higher  than  the  actual  final  payments  that  needed  to  be  made.  Whilst  the 
outputs  of  the  actions  were  largely  delivered,  they  were  delivered  at  a  lower  cost  than 
initially planned,  which suggests the Programme is broadly efficient; at the same time, 

25 External study, p. 51.  
26 External study, p.54.  
27  External  study,  section  3.3.1.  Overall  efficiency  of  the  coordination,  management,  and  administrative 
structures, p.55.  
28  This  is  possible  through  the  coordination  and  the  discussion  of  Member  States’  training  plans  at  the 
meeting of Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group (ECEG). The ECEG is chaired by the Commission with the 
participation of all the national competent authorities, the ECB and Europol. 
29 External study, table 12, p.56.  

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
the  deep  dives  analysis  made  by  the  external  contractor  showed  that  the  difference  on 
average  between  the  planned  and  actual  grants  is  -19%30.  However,  the  overestimated 
grant budgets requested by applicants  clearly have a negative impact on the pipeline of 
Pericles  actions  as  unused  budgets  are  effectively  blocked  until  project  completion,  an 
issue for which solutions need to be found. Other indicators of efficiency are the fact that 
the costs for trainers were within the statutory staff costs of the respective countries, and 
that  the  average  unit  costs  for  seminars/conferences  and  training  sessions  can  be 
considered reasonable. 

Whilst  comparisons  with  other  programmes  -  such  as  Fiscalis  2020  and  Customs  2020 
programmes  -  are  challenging  due  to  different  types  of  activities,  geography,  and 
measurement  units,  the  comparison  of  the  number  of  seminars/conferences  of  the 
programmes demonstrates that the costs for Pericles 2020 are broadly in line with those 
of other programmes, albeit slightly higher31. 

Data collected by the study illustrated that most actions are performed at the co-financing 
threshold level, with many actions requiring a higher co-financing rate for well-justified 
cases32, and only a few requiring a co-financing of the Programme below 70%, thereby 
showing  how  crucial  the  financing  of  the  Programme  is  for  the  implementation  of  the 
actions. The co-financing setup of the Programme is generally regarded as appropriate by 
interviewees,  yet some interviewees pointed  out  that an increase in the threshold of the 
EU contribution to 90% would be preferable. However, a higher co-financing rate would 
mean a decrease in the number of actions financed by the Pericles budget, which would 
result in less actions financed by the Pericles programme. For this reason, an increase in 
the  contribution  rate  would  be  undesirable  if  not  accompanied  by  an  increase  in  the 
overall Programme budget. Based on all the considerations above, it can be concluded 
that  the  current  co-financing  setup  (up  to  75%  standard  rate,  and  90%  in  duly 
justified cases) is appropriate. 

Moreover, the consistency and complementarity of Pericles 2020 with other relevant EU 
programmes has been broadly confirmed by stakeholders in combination with the results 
of  the  desk  research.  No  significant  overlaps,  or  risks  for  potential  overlaps  have  been 
identified33.  The  added  value  of  the  Programme  and  its  overall  complementarity 
with other EU initiatives carried out at EU level have been highlighted. In particular, 
as regards existing actions implemented by the ECB and the Europol, the results of both 
the survey and interview feedback confirm the complementarity of Europol’s work to the 

30 This is illustrated in table 13, Difference between actual and plan budgets (deep dives), external study, p. 
58.  
31 External study, p. 60.  
32 Based on Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 331/2014, applicants can apply for a higher project funding 
rate (90%) in exceptional and duly justified cases, outlined in the annual strategy paper and included: a)  
actions  taking  place  in  third  countries  identified  in  priority  (e.g.  Colombia,  Peru,  China  and  Turkey),  b) 
actions  specifically  devoted  to  priority  action  such  as  distribution  of  counterfeits  and  high  quality 
components on the darknet, and c) actions introduced by competent national authorities that  did not apply 
for Pericles funding in the previous three calendar years in order to encourage greater participation.  
33  External  study,  section  3.4.1,  Consistency  and  complementarity  with  other  relevant  EU  programmes/ 
activities, p. 63.  

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Pericles programme, with the largest share of respondents agreeing on complementarity. 
As  regards  national  initiatives,  the  study  confirmed  the  findings  of  the  Mid-Term 
Evaluation, namely that Member States’ initiatives against euro counterfeiting were of a 
relatively basic nature, distant from Pericles 2020’s objectives and working methods, and 
therefore  indicating  the  Programme’s  full  complementarity  with  these  initiatives.  The 
results of the stakeholders’ consultations and of the deep dives, carried out in the context 
of 
the  evaluation  study  clearly  revealed  the  complementarity  between  the 
Programme’s  actions  with  the  national  initiatives,  without  any  overlaps,  with  the 
Programme effectively filling a gap. 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

The protection of the European single currency as a public good has a clear transnational 
dimension, and therefore euro protection goes beyond the interest and the responsibility 
of individual EU  Member States,  and even extends  beyond  the EU  area. Thus, there is 
the need to sustain cross border collaboration. The Programme adds value in this area by 
deepening relations between Member States. The value of transnational actions organised 
by Member States generally increased, with actions unlikely to have materialised without 
the  Programme.  Pericles  broadened  and  deepened  the  common  actions  across  different 
countries  and  regions  and  was  seen  to  be  the  driving  force  behind  transnational 
knowledge-generating  activities,  such  as  conferences,  which  would  not  take  place 
without it34.  

Figure 3: Adopted measures and practices35 

The  study  concluded  that  the  delivered  outputs  and  results  achieved  through  the 
Programme  are  likely  to  be  sustained  over  time,  as  available  evidence  suggests  that 
Programme participants  have adopted measures  or practices to  ensure the sustainability 
of delivered outputs and progress towards results. The study revealed a high involvement 
of  participants  in  activities  disseminating  the  knowledge  and  skills  gained  during  the 
Programme. A significant number of people have benefitted from training workshops and 

34 See section 3.5 on EU added value of the extremal study.  
35 Figure 28 of the external study, p.77. 

15 

Figure 1: Adopted measures and practices   
 
  
 
 
                                                           
presentations  carried  out  after  Pericles  2020  events.  Regulatory  changes  have  been 
introduced in third countries that lay the ground for using methods and practices acquired 
through  the  Programme’s  actions36.  The  majority  of  participants  in  the  Programme's 
activities  saw  an  evolvement  in  their  role  after  participating  in  the  Programme  and  an 
increase in  their involvement in  euro protection activities.  In addition,  staff involved in 
the Programme tend to continue to work for the same institution, with this degree of job 
stability  suggesting  longer  term  sustainability.  The  Commission  shares  the  contractor's 
opinion  that  these  points  indicate  a  high  level  of  strategic  and  institutional 
commitment to the continuation of euro protection activities linked to  Programme 
activities. 

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

Whilst  the  ‘dark’  figure  of  counterfeit  (the  amount  of  unreported  or  undiscovered 
counterfeits) could, to a certain extent, complicate the ability precisely  to determine the 
actual extent and nature of the current counterfeit problem37, most stakeholders consider 
counterfeiting to be a problem in their country with an EU and international dimension as 
well. The relevance of preventing and combatting counterfeiting and related fraud is not 
questioned,  and  stakeholders  confirmed  the  importance  of  continuing  to  tackle 
counterfeiting,  and  the  continuing  need  for  closer  and  more  regular  institutional 
cooperation  and  coordination.  The  role  of  criminal  elements  in  third  countries  is 
perceived  to  be  increasingly  a  threat  as  a  lack  in  these  countries  of  effective  measures 
against  counterfeiting  of  foreign  currencies  (such  as  the  euro)  could  result  in  more 
circulation in the EU economy. The Union’s free movement of people and goods makes 
the EU an ‘attractive’ place for organised crime, including counterfeiting. The innovative 
forms  of  production  and  distribution  of  counterfeit  euros  (for  example  through  the 
darknet) and the developments related to the digital euro that could open up new forms of 
“e-counterfeiting”  constitute  new  emerging  threats38.  In  particular,  experts  from  Italy, 
Spain  and  the  Netherlands  mentioned  the  importance  of  considering  the  possibility  to 
extend  the  scope  of  the  Pericles  programme  in  order  to  protect  the  future  digital 
currencies, such as the digital euro (if adopted), against counterfeiting. Depending on the 
architecture  of  these  currencies,  criminal  groups  could  be  interested  in  counterfeiting 
tokens  used  to  pay  with  digital  currencies  or  the  digital  euro  units  themselves.  This  is 
also confirmed by the ECB in its report on a digital euro in October 202039.  

36 Examples of such regulatory changes include the establishment of a national central office in Argentina 
in 2018, the adoption of the new regulation for cash operations for financial institutions by the Republic of 
Kosovo and the legal improvements of anti-mafia law in the Republic of Albania.  
37 The possibility of counterfeits circulating without being detected is limited due to the implementation of 
Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling euro coins unfit for 
circulation,  and  the  ECB/2010/14  decision  on  the  16th  September  2010  on  the  authenticity  and  fitness 
checking  and  recirculation  of  euro  banknotes  (as  amended  by  the  ECB/2012/19  decision  on  the  7th 
December 2012).  
38 Observation obtained by the stakeholders during the interviews and the online survey, see external study 
p. 33.  
39 Report on a digital euro (europa.eu), p.30.  

16 

 
                                                           
Figure 4: Overall perception on counterfeiting as a problem40 

To a large extent; 
30%

Not at all; 10%

To a limited 
extent; 18%

To some extent; 
42%

Figure 5: WordCloud of emerging threats/topics identified by survey respondents41 

When  asked  about  the  relevance  of  contributing  to  the  enhancement  of  the  capacity  to 
protect  the  euro  among  relevant  institutions  in  EU  Member  States  and  third  countries, 
stakeholders  above  all  confirm  the  continuing  need  for  closer  and  more  regular 
institutional  cooperation  and  coordination.  The  Programme’s  relevance  lies  in  the  fact 
that Pericles brings stakeholders from different institutions and countries together, 
and  in  this  way  drives  cooperation  in  tackling  the  problem.  The  need  to  enhance 
operational capacities and improve institutional and legal frameworks are seen to be most 
relevant in light of the cooperation with third countries. 

40 Figure 10 of the external study, p.31. 
41 Figure 13 of the external study, p.34. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Stakeholders have emphasised that cross-border actions are needed in order to build trust 
and  foster  collaboration.  Key  participants  in  the  Programme  confirm  that  the 
Programme  adequately  addresses  their  needs.  It  is  recognised  that  regarding  the 
typologies  of  actions,  the  Programmes's  set  of  instruments  is  well  suited  to  the 
purpose.  Conferences,  workshops,  trainings  and  staff  exchanges  serve  different  but 
complementary  purposes  and  are  generally  highly  appreciated  by  stakeholders.  Studies 
are also considered useful, especially to inform on new developments, and the possibility 
provided  by  the  Programme  to  finance  studies  in  the  field  is  unique  and  can  drive 
innovations.  The purchase of equipment for third country42 authorities is not well-known 
to  all  stakeholders,  and  while  some  expressed  that  their  procedures  for  purchasing 
equipment  are  particularly  difficult  nevertheless  it  represents  an  important  tool  to 
strengthen  the  protection  of  the  euro  in  high  risk  third  countries  by  reinforcing  the 
equipment  at  disposal  of  competent  authorities.    As  regards  the  Programme’s  target 
groups, key participants to the Programme indeed confirm that the right groups are 
targeted.  

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

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 has received remarkable praise from stakeholders, and 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.  For  all  these  reasons  and  due  to  the 
ever-evolving threats to the euro that counterfeiting poses, there is a continued need for 
Pericles actions.  

Overall,  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. In particular, counterfeiting activities in third countries are increasingly 
perceived  to  be  a  threat.  The  lack  of  effective  measures  in  third  countries  against 
counterfeiting of foreign currencies (such as the euro) could result in more circulation of 
counterfeits  in  the  EU  economy.  Secondly,  the  Union’s  free  movement  of  people  and 
goods makes the EU an ‘attractive’ place for cross-border crime, such as counterfeiting. 
Moreover,  the  use  of  the  dark  web43,  movie  money44  and  digital  currencies45  are 

42 Non EU countries  where counterfeiting activities represent a threat  for the euro (e.g.: Colombia, Peru, 
China).  
43  This  is  an  encrypted  online  environment  that  consists  of  networks  that  use  the  Internet,  but  require 
specific  software  to  access  it.  It  allows  for  computers  to  communicate  in  a  private  environment  and 
exchange information.  
44 This is a product that resembles euro banknotes and is seemingly designed for the entertainment industry 
to use in movies, music videos, etc.  

18 

 
 
 
                                                           
highlighted  as  actual  or  potential  threats.  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.  Finally,  this  evaluation  finds  that  there  is  a  continuing  need  for  closer  and 
more regular institutional cooperation and coordination.  In addition, the groups targeted 
and  actions  implemented  under  the  Programme  align  with  the  expectations  of 
stakeholders.  

The  Programme  has  been  effective,  as  both  its  specific  and  general  objective  have 
been  achieved.  The  Programme  has  been  successful  in  delivering  all  the  envisaged 
diverse types of activities with respect to the protection of the euro, whilst there is still 
some  room  for  improvement  in  strengthening  the  efforts  to  establish  contacts  between 
EU  and  third  country  officials  involved.  It  has  also  been  effective  in  reaching  the 
envisaged  number  of  participants  in  actions.  The  Programme  participants  are  more 
diverse when compared with the previous programme, and it has been effective in taking 
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 and also the Programme’s beneficiaries did  not 
report  any  significant  efficiency-related  issues  in  the  implementation  stage.  The 
evaluation  study indicates that the application procedure was considered  demanding by 
applicants and non-applicants alike, but this issue is expected to be reduced by the digital 
grant  system  of  Pericles  IV.  Moreover,  the  study  considers  that  the  Programme’s 
management costs are relatively high but they are well-justified. The external study also 
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. 
Furthermore,  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. At the same time, the difference on 
average  between  the  planned  and  actual  grants  creates  challenges  for  the  financial 
planning of the Programme and its pipeline of actions. The current co-financing setup 
is deemed appropriate.  

It  is  worth  mentioning  that  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. No particular instances of overlap with EU or international initiatives have 
been  identified.  The  Programme  has  been  praised  by  consulted  stakeholders  for  its 
uniqueness in bringing together a relevant network of stakeholders. The network of 

45 The reference to digital currencies relates to the possible future introduction of a digital euro or other e-
currencies issued by governments.  

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
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  study  also  concludes  that  the  Programme  adds  value,  in  particular  in  sustaining 
cross  border  collaboration  by  providing  training  and  establishing  networks.  In 
addition,  the  Programme  is  seen  to  be  the  driving  force  behind  transnational 
knowledge-generating  activities,  such  as  conferences,  which  would  not  take  place 
without  Pericles.  Problems  that  Member  States  need  to  tackle  in  relation  to 
counterfeiting  cannot  be  addressed  only  at  the  national  level.  While  operational  work 
against  counterfeiting  would  likely  take  place  regardless  of  Pericles,  the  Programme  is 
seen to broaden and deepen the common actions across different countries and regions.  

Lastly, 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.  New  methods  used  and  the 
strengthening of operational capabilities were applied the most after participation in the 
Programme,  with  a  high  level  of  participants  indicating  involvement  in  dissemination 
activities. A significant  number of people have  benefitted from  training  workshops  and 
presentations carried out after Pericles 2020 events. 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. Most of 
the  staff  participating  or  organising  Pericles  2020  actions  still  work  for  the  same 
institution,  showing  a  high  retention  rate  and  thereby  contributing  to  institutional 
capacity building. 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

Based  on  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  evaluation,  key  lessons  learned  have 
emerged. To begin with, as the problem of counterfeiting evolves with new tools and 
methods,  it  is  important  to  carry  out  a  continuous  strategic  and  operational  needs 
assessment,  to  ensure  the  continued  relevance  of  the  Programme.  This  could  take  the 
form  of  dedicated  sessions  on  needs  assessment  during  the  ECEG  meetings  and 
dedicating a specific section on needs in  the annual  updates  of the strategy.  There are 
indications of the expansion of the scope of action 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 counterfeiting 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. Moreover, 
evidence shows that the larger the event, the bigger the risk of not meeting the target of 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
expected participants. Hence, extra efforts are needed by Programme applicants to reach 
the targeted number of participants in large events.  

Furthermore,  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, but leads to the reduction of the number 
of Pericles actions. For this reason, it is advisable to keep the higher co-financing rate for 
limited cases. In addition, 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.  Lastly,  it  can  be  concluded  that  keeping  the  focus  on 
increased  cooperation  with  third  countries  continues  to  be  a  valid  objective  of  the 
Programme. 

The Pericles Programme has been continued through the Pericles IV46 Programme, 
for the period covering January 2021 – December 2027. The agreed programme budget is 
EUR 6.2 million. Its main novelty being the revised Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 
that  were  modified  to  better  reflect  the  results  of  the  actions  implemented  under  the 
Programme.  More  specifically,  two  of  the  KPIs  were  removed,  namely  the  number  of 
individuals arrested and the penalties imposed. The reason for their removal was that the 
linkage  with  Pericles  2020  actions  appeared  weak,  as  other  external  factors  could 
influence  the  indicators.  In  addition  these  indicators  primarily  measured  the  repression 
(and not the prevention) aspect of the phenomenon and were difficult to measure. Finally, 
one quantitative indicator has been added, namely  the number of competent  authorities 
applying to the Programme. Two qualitative indicators have also been added to the KPIs 
for Pericles IV, namely the satisfaction rate of participants in the actions financed by the 
Programme  and  the  feedback  of  participants  that  have  already  taken  part  in  previous 
Pericles actions on the impact of the Programme on their activities in protecting the euro 
against counterfeiting. 

46 The Pericles IV programme | European Commission (europa.eu) 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The  final  evaluation  study  of  the  Pericles  2020  Programme  was  led  by  DG  ECFIN 
(PLAN/2020/8652). DG ECFIN has lead responsibility for the oversight, implementation 
and  evaluation  of  the  Pericles  2020  Programme.  An  Interservice  Group  (ISG)  was 
established to  steer the final  evaluation  study. The  ISG was  composed of  representatives 
from DG ECFIN, DG JUST and SG. The ISG was responsible for finalising the evaluation 
roadmap,  establishing  the  terms  of  reference  for  the  appointment  of  an  external  contract 
and  the  quality  assessment  of  each  stage  of  the  reporting  process.  In  addition,  the  ISG 
undertook  a  significant  portion  of  work  by  written  procedure  throughout  the  evaluation 
process. The ISG met on 2 occasions between May 2020 –March 2021. 

The chronology of the evaluation was as follows: 

Date 
04/05/2020 

15/07/2020 
15/07/2020 
19/01/2021 

11/02/2021 
24/03/2021 
30/03/2021 
26/04/2021 
15/07/2021 
29/07/2021 
03/09/2021 
01/12/2021 
17/12/2021 
08/03/2022 

the  Interservice  Steering  Group  (ISG) 

Task 
Appointment  of 
including representatives of ECFIN, SG and JUST 
Evaluation and Fitness Check Roadmap 
Completion of the Consultation Strategy  
Service request sent to the contratcors under framework 
contracts TAXUD/2019/CC/148-149-150 
Offers received from contractors in responce to the ToR 
Evaluation committee report  
Award Decision by the AOSD  
Signature of the procurement contract 
ISG Kick-off meeting 
Inception Report 
Interim Report 
Draft Final Report 
ISG Meeting 
Final Report of the evaluation study  

Evidence used to inform the evaluation 

The  study  covered  all  types  of  actions  under  the  Pericles  2020  Programme  and 
considered the progress on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Mid-
term  evaluation  of  the  Programme.  A  wide  range  of  data  sources  were  used  to  gather 
evidence to carry out the evaluation study whilst the great majority of stakeholders were 
consulted through a targeted consultation strategy during the evaluation phase, since the 
Programme was addressed to very specialist stakeholders.  

The  initial  fact  finding  work  consisted  of  different  components.  Each  component 
gathered different forms of information.  

Desk Research 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Desk Review involved the analysis of the following  types of documentary sources. 

Analysis of Programme and Action Documents.  
Legal  texts,  AWPs,  Working  Programme  Statements,  ECEG  meeting  reports,  Action 
Technical  Reports,  Annual  Implementation  Reports,  Technical  and  Financial  Reports, 
ToRs, Grant Agreements 

Analysis of Other Documents.  
This group of documents include:  
  Documentation  (e.g.  annual  reports)  on  capacity  building  initiatives  of  EC,  ECB, 
Interpol 
  Documentation on operational activities of Europol, Eurojust, Interpol 
  ECEG reports 
  statistics published by ECB, ETSC, Europol reports (OCTA/SOCTA) 

Interviews   

Interviews were carried out with four categories of intervieweess, namely:  Member State 
competent  authorities,  applicants  and  beneficiaries  of  the  Programme,  participants  in  the 
actions financed under the Programme, EU Institutions and international partners.  

All interviews were carried out on the basis of structured questionnaires developed during 
the Inception Phase and agreed upon with DG ECFIN. There were several categories for  
interviwees,  who  received  different  questionaires  prepared  for  each  specific  category.  
Input from above 40 interviewees was received.  

Online Survey 

The Survey of Participants was targeted at the individuals who had taken part in Pericles 
2020 actions committed for the Programme’s entire period (2014-2020). The survey was 
primarily  aimed  at  collecting  information  on  the  effectiveness  of  Pericles  2020  actions. 
The main themes investigated included: (i)overall assesment of the programme; (ii)extent 
to which counterfeiting is considered a problem; (iii)Results of Programme participation, 
(iv) dissemination of results.  

The Survey of Participants  was conducted through an online questionnaire,  implemented 
via the web, using EU Survey. In order to incentivise participation, the questionnaire was 
relatively  short,  mostly  consisting  of  closed  questions  and  was  made  available  in  four 
languages; English, French, Italian and Spanish.   

The survey was carried out  over the September-october  period. A total of 148 individuals 
participated in the survey. 

23 

 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deep Dives 

The  desk  research  and  the  interviews  also  involved  deep  dives  into  the  type  of  actions 
implemented under the Pericles 2020 programme for two selected countries, namely Italy 
and  Spain  as  the  biggest  beneficiaries  in  terms  of  budget  allocated  and  the  number  of 
actions implemented, while keeping in mind a balanced distribution of the type of actions 
implemented.  Notably,  these  are  among  Member  States  most  affected  by  euro 
counterfeiting47,  and  the  selection  was  deemed  appropriate  by  the  interviewees  in  the 
Inception phase. The deep dives covered a set of 10 implemented activities (4 for Italy, 3 
for Spain, and 3 actions implemented by the Commission) under the three types of actions 
eligible for financing under Pericles 2020.  

The  objective  of  the  deep  dives  was  to  provide  key  information  for  several  criteria,  in 
particular,  the  evaluation  of  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value.  The  information 
was  gathered  by  a  review  of  the  following  four  main  types  of  documents:  (i)  the  grant 
applications  submitted  by  CNA  (inclusive  of  the  proposed  budgets);  (ii)  the  grant 
agreements  with  CNA  and  the  procurement  contracts  for  the  direct  actions;  (iii)  the 
Technical  Reports  summarising  the  results  achieved,  (iv)  the  Financial  Reports 
summarising the costs incurred; and (v) evaluation forms (where applicable).  

External expertise 

An  external  contractor  was  engaged  to  undertake  the  supporting  work  of  the  evaluation 
study; the work of the contractor included the development of a comprehensive evaluation 
framework that sought to gather and analyse a wide range of data from desk research and a 
detailed and extensive consultation strategy.  

47 COM (2020) 230 final. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

An Inter-Service Group48 (ISG) was established and a third party contractor was engaged 
to  undertake  the  work  of  the  evaluation.  The  specific  contract  for  the  evaluation  study 
became effective in April 2021 and expired in March 2022. The study was carried out in 
line  with  the  principles  commonly  applied  for  the  evaluation  of  EU  initiatives,  as 
enshrined in the Better Regulation Guidelines49. The study was performed in four stages: 
1)  structuring;  2)  data  collection;  3)  analysis;  and  4)  drafting  and  reporting  phase.  The 
first  stage,  structuring,  represents  the  Inception  phase,  which  resulted  in  the  Inception 
report. Data collection focused on collecting quantitative and qualitative data through the 
use  of  different  tools.  Analysis  refers  to  the  iterative  steps  used  to  process  data.  This 
means verifying, organising, integrating and extracting data to assess and describe facts, 
detect  patterns  and  develop  explanations.  Reporting  concerns  the  final  stage  in  the 
evaluation approach, where answers to the evaluation questions and lessons learned are 
provided. The most substantial part of the work was carried out during the data collection 
and analysis phase. The methodological approach was discussed at the kick-off meeting 
with the external contractor and it was endorsed by the members of the ISG. 

Data collection (Field work)    

Data collection consisted of five components, namely: desk research, interviews, online 
survey, deep dives, and expert group meetings  

I) 

Desk Review  

It  involved  the  analysis  of  different  types  of  documentary  sources,  namely:  (i)  various 
Programme and Action Documents ((ii) other relevant documentation and  documentary 
resources from other EU programmes and (iii) ECEG reports. 

II) 

Stakeholder Consultations and their results 

Stakeholder consultations were used to  ensure  efficient data  collection, and to  ensure  a 
representative  sample  of  consulted  stakeholders  to  gather  evidence  to  answer  the 
evaluation  questions.  A  combination  of  data  collection  and  validation  activities  were 
used  throughout  the  process  guaranteeing  regular  updates  and  buy-in  from  the  main 
relevant stakeholders. The stakeholder consultation tools included: interviews, an online 
survey, and consideration for the results of the feedback on the evaluation roadmap.  

III) 

Semi- structured interviews 

Interviews  in  a  semi-structured  format  were  used  as  a  means  to  add  to  the  knowledge 
gathered  through  desk  research.  They  were  useful  to  validate  findings  in  a  one-on-one 
setting. A wide spectrum of stakeholder groups was included, with different stakeholders 

48 The ISG was composed by representatives of ECFIN, SG and JUST.  
49 Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox | European Commission (europa.eu) 

25 

 
 
    
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
i)  EU 

institutions  and 

interviewed,  namely 

groups  having  been 
international 
organisations, ii) Implementers of the Pericles programme, iii) Unsuccessful applicants, 
iv)  Non-applicants,  and  v)  Supported  authorities  in  third  countries.  For  the  different 
stakeholder groups different questionnaires were prepared, and in line with the research 
design, overall, input from above 40 interviewees was received (including in writing via 
filled-in questionnaires). There was a strong consensus among different stakeholders on 
the merits of the Programme. In this sense, the input received was largely homogenous, 
and the findings based on the interview input are robust. 

IV)  Online Survey 

The  online  survey  was  carried  out  during  the  period  September-October  2021, 
implemented by the web, using EU Survey. It took the form of short and straightforward 
questionnaires, to ensure a decent response rate. The online survey targeted participants 
of  activities  implemented  under  Pericles  2020  in  the  period  2014  –  2020.  A  list  of 
recipients  was  prepared  based  on  documentation  from  the  Pericles  programme,  which 
was  confirmed  by  the  Commission.  The  survey  was  available  in  different  languages, 
namely i) English, ii) Italian, iii) Spanish, and iv) French to suit all target groups. A total 
number of 148 responses was received, with a distribution that is overall aligned to the 
Programme  participants:  law  enforcement  authorities  –  52%,  judiciary  authorities  – 
14.2%,  monetary  authorities  –  21.6%,  private  entities  and  banks  –  10.8%.  Similarly  to 
the  interview  input,  the  online  survey  results  also  delivered  homogenous  and  positive 
feedback  on  the  Programme  merits.  Moreover,  both  stakeholder  consultation  tools 
(interviews and online survey) yield similar results on the key topics.  

V) 

Deep dives  

The desk research and the interviews also involved deep dives into a set of implemented 
activities under the three type of actions eligible for financing and implemented under the 
Pericles  2020  programme  for  two  selected  countries,  namely  Italy  and  Spain  because 
they are the biggest beneficiaries in terms of budget allocated and the number of actions 
implemented.  Notably,  these  are  also  among  Member  States  most  affected  by  euro 
counterfeiting50,  and  the  selection  was  deemed  appropriate  by  the  interviewees  in  the 
Inception phase. The deep dives aimed to provide key information for several criteria, in 
particular, the evaluation of efficiency, coherence and EU added value. The information 
was gathered by a review of the following four main types of documents: (i) the grant 
applications submitted by CNA; (ii) the grant agreements with CNA and the procurement 
contracts  for  the  direct  actions;  (iii)  the  Technical  Reports  summarising  the  results 
achieved,  (iv) the Financial Reports summarising the costs incurred;  and (v) evaluation 
forms. 

50 COM (2020) 230 final.  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
VI) 

Expert group meetings 

The  contractor  attended  and  used  information  during  the  data  collection  phase  by  also 
attending one meeting of the Euro Counterfeiting Expert Group meeting and two of the 
Programme’s actions.   

Limitations, considerations for future evaluations 

The  evaluation  process  followed  the  envisaged  steps;  the  interviews,  deep  dives,  and 
survey were conducted as planned; and the data gathering and analysis proceeded in line 
with  the  agreed  intervention  logic  and  evaluation  matrix.  No  major  limitations  to  the 
study were identified. Some considerations emerged that could potentially limit the study 
during  the  evaluation  process,  namely,  that  the  evaluation  also  considered  actions 
performed  in  2021  (actions  the  performance  of  which  had  to  be  postponed  due  to  the 
COVID-19 pandemic), the number of responses to the online survey was lower than the 
responses  to  the  survey  used  in  the  Mid-term  evaluation,  the  absence  of  targets  of  the 
indicators for outputs, the fact that drawing a causal link between the Programme and the 
number of counterfeits detected and illegal workshops dismantled was challenging due to 
the lack of evidence, and the fact that comparisons of unit costs with other programmes 
was  challenging  because  of  the  diversity  of  Pericles  actions.  However,  all  these 
considerations  were  addressed  and  did  not  affect  in  a  negative  way  the  robustness  and 
reliability of the conclusions. 

External reviewers 

Two independent experts assured the quality of the evaluation study, as foreseen by the 
ToR.  The  reviewers  provided  a  critical  review  of  the  methodology  and  approach,  the 
scale  and  scope  of  the  activities  to  be  undertaken  as  well  as  they  provided  a  critical 
review  of  the  draft  final  report,  the  validity,  relevance  and  adequacy  of  the  findings, 
conclusions and lessons learnt. The comments made by the external reviewers during the 
different  phases  of  the  evaluation  study  were  taken  into  consideration  by  the  external 
contractor.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON  ANSWERS  TO 
THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION)  

The  methodology  for  the  evaluation  study  conducted  by  the  external  contractor  was 
based on two key elements: the evaluation matrix and the fieldwork tools.  

The evaluation matrix as shown below, included judgement criteria, indicators and sources of 
information for each respective evaluation question, grouped per evaluation criterion.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Matrix: Relevance (EQ #1 – 4)  
Evaluation Questions 
1. To what extent is there a need to protect the euro against counterfeiting and related fraud? 
2. To what extent is the Programme relevant to meet this need and any possible evolution of this need? 
3. To what extent are the specific objectives of the Programme (i.e. enhance institutional capacity) relevant 
to achieve its overall objective (i.e. euro protection)? 
4. To what extent are the Programme actions and target groups relevant to achieve its overall and specific 
objectives? 

What do we want to measure? 
The  analysis  of  relevance  of  the  Pericles  2020  Programme  assesses  the  rationale  of  the  programme  in 
relation to its objectives (EQ #3), the  defined actions and, target groups (EQ #4) and the problems to be 
addressed  (both  initial  needs  and  actual  needs  or  ‘new  threats’)  (EQ  #1,  EQ  #2),  as  defined  in  the 
Regulation  331/2014  and  other  relevant  programming  documents  (e.g.,  Commission  Decisions  for  the 
AWPs, Pericles 2020 Strategy, etc). 
The  analysis  can  be  divided  into  two  main  lines  of  inquiry.  The  first  line  of  inquiry  will  assess:  (1)  the 
actual  extent  and  nature  of  the  current  euro  counterfeit  problem  and  how  it  has  evolved  since  the 
Programme  was  launched  (i.e.  Is  the  initial  need  still  relevant  today?)  (EQ  #1);  and  (2)  whether  the 
programme’s  objectives  (specific  and  general)  remain  relevant  to  address  actual  needs,  including  ‘new 
threats’ (EQ #2). The aim is to determine whether the rationale underlying the Programme in general and 
its  specific  objectives  and  priorities  in  particular,  are  still  appropriate  and  are  expected  to  remain 
appropriate. 
The second line of inquiry will examine the logical design of the Programme and its strategic orientations 
(EQ#  3,  EQ#3).  This  analysis  can  be  cascaded  in  two  steps.  The  first  step  will  assess  the  alignment 
between the specific objectives of the programme (i.e. enhanced institutional capacity to protect the euro 
within relevant institutions) and the general objective of the programme (i.e. euro protection. The second 
step  will assess the alignment and  relevance of the various types of actions (Article 8) and target groups 
(Article 7) with the general and specific objectives. 

Judgement criteria 

JC1: The risk of euro 
counterfeiting and related 
fraud remains a threat 

Indicators 
 Nature  and  severity  of  actual  euro  counterfeiting  problem  across  countries 

(baseline indicators described in section 3.2.2) 

 Counterfeit  euro  coins  detected  in  circulation  (ETSC  reports  on  euro 

counterfeiting) 

 Nature  and  severity  of  ‘new  threats’  resulting  from  innovative  forms  of 
counterfeiting production and/or distribution (e.g. distribution on internet) 

 Illegal mints discovered (ETSC report) 
 Stakeholders’ perceptions of threat severity 

JC2: The objectives of 
the Programme are 
covering the identified 
risks  of euro 
counterfeiting and related 
fraud remains a threat 

 Match  between  Programme  objectives  (and 

their  scope)  and 

the 

existing/emerging threats 

 Stakeholders assessments of the extent to which the Programme is relevant 

to meet the current/emerging needs 

JC3: There is a continued 
need to increase the 
institutional capacity  to 
protect the euro against 
counterfeiting and related 
fraud 

JC4:  The various types 
of actions and stakeholder 

 State of the legal and institutional framework in the countries considered ‘at 

risk’  

 Status  of  operational  capabilities  to  protect  the  euro  against  ‘new  threats’ 

(production and/or distribution) 

 Stakeholders’ assessment of capacity building needs 
 Stakeholder  motivations  to  participate  in  the  Programme  (e.g.,  improved 
understanding  of  euro  counterfeiting  issues,  establish  contacts  in  EU  and 
non-EU countries, learn best practices, acquire practical skills, etc)  

 Strength of the logical links between needs, actions, stakeholder groups, and 

objectives 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Matrix: Relevance (EQ #1 – 4)  
groups correspond to 
actual and perceived 
needs and Programme 
objectives 

 Stakeholders perceptions regarding the relevance of the target groups 
 Stakeholders  perceptions  regarding  the  usefulness  of  different  types  of 

actions to addressed needs (initial needs and actual needs / new threats) 

 Stakeholder views regarding appropriateness of actions targeting weak legal 

and institutional frameworks in ‘at risk’ countries 

Methods and approach  
The analysis will rely primarily on a qualitative content analysis of the relevant programming documents, 
complemented  with  consultations  with  CNA’s,  third-country  authorities  and  programme  participants. 
Perceptions of EU and international stakeholders will be collected to triangulate the results.   

The analysis will sketch the actual and perceived current needs, as well as the evolution of needs over the 
period  of  implementation  according  to,  inter  alia,  objectives  set  in  the  relevant  programme  and  action 
documents,  other  documentary  evidence  and  stakeholder  consultations.  The  analysis  will  focus  in 
particular on the adequacy of institutional and operational capacities to protect the euro, taking into account 
the differing levels of capabilities and needs across countries and the degree to which there is a collective 
or targeted need for continued capacity-building support. 

Four  all  four  evaluation  questions,  we  will  conduct  a  mapping  exercise  to  identify  if  there  are:  (i)  gaps 
between  initial  and  actual  needs  (i.e.  the  continued  relevance  of  initial  needs),  (ii)  gaps  between  actual 
needs  /  new  threats  and  objectives  set  in  the  corresponding  programming  documents  (i.e.  continued 
relevance  of  the  Programme);  (iii)  gaps  between  actions  /  target  groups  and  objectives;  and  (iv)  gaps 
between specific and general objectives.   

Sources 
 Programme  and  Action  Documents  (e.g.  legal  texts,  AWPs,  Working  Programme  Statements,  ECEG 

meeting reports, etc.)  

 Other documentary sources (e.g. statistics published by ECB, ETSC, Europol reports (OCTA/SOCTA), 

etc.)  

 Interviews  with  CNAs  (Implementers,  Unsuccessful  applicants,  Non-applicants)  and  supported  third 

country authorities 

 Interviews with EU and other international institutions 
 Survey to programme participants 
 Deep dives 
 ECEG meetings  

30 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation Matrix: Effectiveness (formerly EQ # 8 – 10)  
Evaluation Questions 
5. To what extent are the operational objectives (exchange of best practices/training, provision of studies, 
and purchase of equipment) of the Programme achieved? 
6. To what extent is the specific objective (enhance the capacity to protect the euro among relevant 
institutions in EU MS and third countries) of the Programme achieved? 
7. To what extent is the general objective (prevent and combat euro counterfeiting and related fraud, 
contributing to enhancing trust in the euro, and sustainable public finances) of the Programme achieved? 

What do we want to measure? 
The  assessment  of  effectiveness  looks  at  the  extent  to  which  the  Programme’s  actions  delivered  the 
intended outputs, results, and impacts. It explores evidence of the expected and achieved contribution of 
the implemented actions to the operational, specific, and general objectives of the Programme in terms of 
improved institutional capabilities and impact on euro protection operations. Thus, the evaluation questions 
are  structured  along  the  different  levels  of  objectives  of  the  Programme  and  cover  issues  like  enhanced 
operational capacity, increased awareness, and improved cooperation.  

Judgement criteria 

JC5: The outputs of the 
Programme were delivered 

JC6.1: The results of the 
Programme were achieved 
JC6.2: Stakeholders agree that 
the Programme contributed to 
the achievement of the results 

JC7.1: The expected impacts of 
the Programme were achieved 
JC7.2: Stakeholders agree that 
the Programme contributed to 
the achievement of the impacts 

JC7.3: Contribution to support 
smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth and to improve the 
efficient functioning of the 
Monetary Union 

Indicators 
 Number of staff trained 
 Best practices/information on emerging threats was disseminated 
 Number of conferences and workshops 
 Number of studies performed 
 Inter-institutional contacts were established 
 Purchased equipment 

 Enhanced operational capacities of staff 
 Improved tools and methods 
 Improved institutional and legal frameworks (e.g. centres established, 

legislation introduced/ratified) 

 Greater awareness of the threat of euro counterfeiting 
 Closer  and  more  regular  institutional  cooperation  and  coordination 

(with third countries) 

 Stakeholders’  assessment  on  contribution  of  Pericles  actions  to 
enhancing  the  institutional  and  operational  capacity  of  relevant 
authorities in both EU Member States and third countries 

 Stakeholders’  perceptions  on  the  role  and  impact  of  other  external 

factors in contributing to enhanced capacities 

 Concrete  examples  of  Programme  actions  contributing 

to 

improvements in the above indicators 

 Number of counterfeits detected and their evolution over time 
 Illegal workshops dismantled and their evolution over time 
 Stakeholders’  assessment  on  contribution  of  Pericles  actions  to 
enhancing  the  institutional  and  operational  capacity  of  relevant 
authorities in both EU Member States and third countries 

 Stakeholders’  perceptions  on  the  role  and  impact  of  other  external 

factors in contributing to enhanced capacities 

 Concrete  examples  of  Programme  actions  contributing 

to 

improvements  

 Stakeholders’  perceptions  on  the  possible  contribution  to  ‘broad 

economic’ effects 

 Stakeholders’  perceptions  on  the  role  and  impact  of  other  external 

factors. 

Methods and approach  
In answering the evaluation questions listed in the Tender specifications, the study will apply a standard, 
contribution  analysis  approach  that  draws  primarily  on  qualitative  evidence,  complemented  with 

31 

 
 
Evaluation Matrix: Effectiveness (formerly EQ # 8 – 10)  
quantitative data as much as possible. Relevant documents to be consulted include, inter alia: (i) awarded 
grant applications submitted by CNAs and the specifications prepared by DG ECFIN for the direct actions; 
(ii)  Technical  Reports  summarising  results  achieved;  (iii)  the  Programme’s  strategic  and  implementation 
documents, including annual implementation reports; and (iv) previous evaluations and impact assessment 
documents.  The  first  category  will  be  used  to  refine  our  understanding  of  the  action-specific  theories  of 
change in terms of how the selected activities were expected to lead to the desired outputs and ultimately 
contribute to the intended outcomes.  

The document analysis will be complemented with stakeholder consultations (interviews with CNA’s and 
third-country authorities and the survey to programme participants) to provide detailed information on the 
achieved outputs/results/impacts from specific actions. In particular, questions will be formulated to collect 
factual  information  and  insights  regarding  the  concrete  and  tangible  ways  in  which  these  outputs  (i.e. 
contacts that were developed and/or the knowledge, skills and information acquired through participation 
in the Programme’s actions) have been put into practice at both the personal and institutional level and how 
these changes have contributed to enhanced institutional capacity to protect the euro against counterfeiting 
(e.g.  through  seizure  of  illegal  mints,  strengthening  of  procedures  in  commercial  banks,  identification  of 
smugglers of counterfeited euros, etc). 

To  assess  the  relationship  between  the  delivery  of  capacity  building  outputs  and  the  effectiveness  (or 
results) of operational counterfeit repression activities, the analysis of key performance indicators will be 
supplemented  with qualitative inputs and analysis derived from both documentary sources (e.g. SOCTA) 
and primary sources (interviews and survey). The data on performance indicators will be used to formulate 
targeted  interview  and  survey  questions  around  identifying  whether  particular  operational  activities  in 
selected  situations  can  be  directly  or  indirectly  linked  to  improvements  in  institutional  capacity  resulting 
from  participation  in  specific  Programme  actions  (i.e.  contribution  analysis).  External  enabling  and/or 
hindering factors will also be explored during the interviews.  

Sources 
 Action and Programme Documents (Action Technical Reports, Annual Implementation Reports) 
 Interviews with CNAs, third-country authorities, EU / international institutions 
 Participants survey 
 National statistics / EU reports (e.g., Europol) 
 ECEG reports 
 Crime statistics (national and EU level) 
 Deep dives 
 ECEG meetings 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Matrix: Efficiency (formerly EQ # 5 – 7)  

Evaluation Questions 
8. To what extent do the coordination (with MS, ECB, Europol and other stakeholders), management and 
administrative structures currently in place ensure efficient use of resources in the achievement of the 
Programme outputs, results and impacts? 
9. To what extent are the actions and outputs of the Programme delivered at a reasonable cost? 
10. To what extent is the co-financing rate appropriate? 

What do we want to measure? 
The  analysis  of  efficiency  examines  the  extent  to  which  the  established  coordination,  management  and 
administrative structures enable the Programme to deliver the intended outputs and contribute to outcomes in an 
efficient manner (EQ #8); the appropriateness of the co-financing rate for actions (EQ #10); and the overall cost-
effectiveness of the implemented actions and delivered outputs (EQ #9).  

The  management  and  coordination  structures  comprise  the  programming  documents  (e.g.  Pericles  2020 
Strategy, AWPs, etc) and ECEG meetings. The study will assess the extent to which the established structures 
and  administrative  procedures  have  facilitated  or  otherwise  hindered  the  implementation  of  high-quality  and 
priority actions. The analysis will focus on the extent to which the established structures enable the Programme 
to deliver the planned outputs, thereby contributing to the intended outcomes in an efficient manner.  

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

JC8.1: The existing 
management and 
coordination structures and 
procedures ensure efficient 
use of resources  

JC8.2: The established 
administrative procedures 
ensured efficient use of 
resources 

JC9: The Programme 
outputs are achieved in a 
cost-effective manner 

 Stakeholders’  assessment  of  relevance  and  usefulness  of 

information 

communicated in programming documents  

 Support  provided  during  the  various  stages  of  implementation  by  the  unit 

managing the programme  

 Costs associated with programme management (Pericles, similar programmes) 

 CNAs’  perceptions  regarding  clarity  of  procedures  and  quality  of  assistance 

provided by ECFIN 

 Administrative burdens borne by CNAs (proposal preparation, reporting)  
 Administrative  burdens  borne  by  beneficiaries  in  other,  similar  EU-funded 

programmes (to the extent available/comparable) 

 Stakeholders’ motivations for applying or not applying for funding (linked to 

management / administrative procedures) 

 Proportionality of administrative costs to delivered outputs (burdens relative to 

action budgets and/or achieved outputs) 

 CNAs’  assessment  of  cost-benefit  ratio,  areas  for  improvement  in  reducing  / 

simplifying procedures 

 CNAs’  views  regarding  areas  for  improvement  in  the  administrative  and 

financial arrangements  

 Unit cost of Pericles actions per participant for specific outputs 
 Unit cost of EU contribution per participant for specific outputs  
 Unit costs (total and EU contribution) for specific outputs / outcomes in other, 

similar EU-funded programmes (to the extent available / comparable) 

 Difference between budgeted and actual costs 
 Personnel costs of CNAs as implementers  
 Cost-benefit ratio for sample selection of actions’ outputs / outcomes 

33 

 
 
Evaluation Matrix: Efficiency (formerly EQ # 5 – 7)  

JC10.1: The mobilization of 
co-financing does not 
discourage participation 
JC10.2: Different co-
financing rates could 
broaden (or shrink) the pool 
of interested applicants 

 Co-financing rates applied to actions 
 Number,  quality  and  focus  of  applications  for  CNA-implemented  actions  at 

different EU contribution rates 

 Stakeholders’ views on the ability to mobilise co-financing and incentivization 

of top priority actions 

 Data on co-financing rates in other, similar EU-funded programmes 

Methods and approach  
The assessment of the efficiency of established coordination, management and administrative structures will rely 
primarily  on  sources  collected  via  interviews  with  CNAs,  complemented  with  a  review  of  financial  reports 
estimate  the  quantitative  costs  associated  with  programme  implementation.  Costs  associated  with  the 
management  of  the  Pericles  programme  will  be  quantified  and  monetised  on  the  basis  of  DG  ECFIN  Annual 
Reports, according to the reported Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff requirement for programme implementation 
and  management.  The overall programme  management costs  will be compared against  similar programmes to 
establish the relative cost-efficiency of the Pericles Programme.  

Focused interview questions will be formulated around the allocation of CNA staff resources (staff time spent in 
FTE) for the preparation of Pericles actions (proposal preparation) and compliance with reporting requirements, 
as well as perceptions of the cost-benefit ratio. Staff costs will be quantified and monetised by multiplying the 
amount of time  spent (FTE) in preparing proposals and complying  with reporting requirement by  the average 
daily labour cost as indicated in available the Financial Reports summarising costs incurred. The proportionality 
of administrative burdens borne by CNAs will be analysed by comparing the administrative cost estimates with 
the  average  budgets  of  the  different  types  of  actions  implemented.  The  findings  will  be  complemented  with 
stakeholder  perceptions  on  the  cost-benefit  ratio  and  documentary  evidence  from  Technical  Reports 
summarising the results achieved.  

Information  on  the  budgetary  outlays  to  fund  Pericles  actions  will  be  collected  from  the  relevant  Action 
Documents  (i.e.,  grant  applications  and/or  Financial  Reports  summarising  costs  incurred).  Stakeholder 
perceptions regarding the cost-benefit ratio of funded actions will be collected via interviews and the survey to 
programme participants, supplemented with concrete examples of tangible results (quantitative and qualitative) 
that can be linked to participation in Programme actions. The results will additionally be compared against the 
corresponding  values  of  other,  comparable  EU-funded  programmes  that  support  public  administrations  using 
similar implementing modalities.  

The  assessment  of  the  co-financing  rate  will  rely  on  a  combination  of  interviews  with  CNAs  (Implementers, 
Unsuccessful Applicants and Non-Applicants) and documentary sources. The latter will include a review of the 
grant  applications  submitted  by  CNAs  (including  proposed  budgets)  and  corresponding  Tender  specifications 
prepared  by  DG  ECFIN  in  order  to  identify  potential  variations  in  the  number  and  types  of  applicants,  the 
quality of applications submitted and the focus on top priorities / themes based on the co-financing rate applied. 
The  results  will  additionally  be  compared  against  data  on  co-financing  rates  in  other,  similar  EU-funded 
programmes. 

Sources 
 Action documents (Technical and Financial Reports, ToRs, Grant Agreements, etc.,) 
 Documentation from other EU programmes (Implementation / Financial reports, Evaluations, etc.,)  
 Interviews  with CNAs (Implementers, Unsuccessful applicants, Non-applicants) and supported third country 

authorities, Interviews with EU and other international institutions 

 Survey to programme participants and Deep dives, and ECEG meetings 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Matrix: EU Added Value (EQ # 11)  

Evaluation Questions 
11. To what extent does the Programme provide EU added value, within the meaning of Article 2 of the 
Regulation?  

What do we want to measure? 
The assessment of EU Added Value looks at the benefits of the Programme in terms of promoting transnational 
and  multidisciplinary  cooperation.  As  laid  down  in  Article  2  of  the  Regulation,  such  cooperation  shall 
contribute to strengthening euro protection through the exchange of best practice, common standards and joint 
specialised trainings. In addressing this evaluation question, we will investigate EU added value of the Pericles 
Programme from three perspectives:  

 The  added  value  resulting  from  the  intervention(s)  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by  the  Member 
States  at  national  level.  The  study  will  focus  in  particular  on  the  programme’s  ability  to  support  collective 
forms of international cooperation that are beyond reach of individual national authorities. 

 The analysis will investigate the feasibility for MS to perform the same types of transnational activities on a 
comparable scale in a hypothetical scenario without the Programme. We will focus in particular on the role 
and  importance  of  Pericles  2020  financial  support  and  the  importance  of  an  EU  programme  in  providing 
visibility for the action and attracting participants from different countries. 

 The extent to which the needs addressed by the intervention continue to require action at EU level. This  line 
of investigation  will draw  from the  findings on the  continued relevance of the programme (EQ #1, EQ #2) 
with  particular  focus  on  the  role  and  relevance  of  the  programme  in  creating  and  fostering  a  transnational 
network and promoting cross-border cooperation.  

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

JC11.1: The EU Member States would not be 
able to implement transnational actions without 
Pericles 

JC11.2:  The programme increased the ability 
of MS to engage with partners outside of the EU 
on issues related to counterfeit prevention and 
combating 

 Financial 

resources  dedicated 

to  comparable  euro 

protection activities at Member State / third country level 
 Stakeholders’  views  regarding  possible  developments,  if 

the Programme was not available 

 Stakeholder  perceptions  /  assessment  of  the  ability  to 
implement  similar  transnational  actions  without  Pericles 
(role / impact of EU financial support and visibility of EU 
programme) 

 Stakeholders’ views on the importance of the programme 
in triggering transnational  actions (and feasibility of such 
actions in the absence of financial support) 

 Stakeholders’  assessment  on 

the 

importance  of  a 

transnational approach to enhance euro protection 

Evaluation Matrix: EU Added Value (EQ # 11)  

Methods and approach  
The approach will mostly rely on interviews with CNAs, third-country authorities and EU institutions, as well 
as  the  survey  to  participants.  Interviews  will  provide  critical  insights  on  the  more  qualitative  benefits  of 
transnational  cooperation  activities  supported  by  Programme  in  relation  to  strengthening  euro  protection 
through the creation of a transnational network, promoting cross-border cooperation and fostering relationships 
with  more  challenging  third  countries  (e.g.  China,  South  America).  Interviews  will  also  provide  expert 
judgement on how the programme compares to what could be achieved by Member States alone. Information 
collected  from  interviews  will  be  complemented  by  a  comparative  assessment  of  the  financial  resources 
dedicated to  comparable euro protection activities at Member State level. 

Sources 
 Answers to the previous evaluation questions 
 Interviews with CNAs and third-country authorities  
 Participants survey 

35 

 
 
 
 
 Institutional websites / Financial reports of other programmes at national / EU level  
 Deep dives 
 ECEG meetings 

Evaluation Matrix: Coherence (EQ # 12 – 13)  

Evaluation Questions 
12. To what extent have the coordination and cooperation mechanisms in place for the Programme ensured 
consistency and complementarity with other relevant EU programmes and activities? 
13. To what extent have the coordination and cooperation mechanisms in place for the Programme ensured 
consistency and complementarity with existing actions implemented by MS, the ECB and Europol, with a 
view to achieving the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting? 

What do we want to measure? 
The  evaluation  of  coherence  looks  at  the  consistency  and  complementarity  of  the  Programme  and  the 
implemented actions with other relevant EU programmes and  initiatives (EQ #12) and/or existing actions 
implemented at a national level or by the ECB and Europol (EQ #13) seeking to protect the euro against 
counterfeiting and related fraud.  

At the national level, related initiatives are likely to include generalised trainings on the authentication of 
banknotes. At the EU and international level, the assessment will consider, inter alia,  

 capacity  building  initiatives  supported  by  the  Commission,  such  as  ISF-P  (DG  HOME),  TAIEX  and 

Twinning instruments (DG NEAR);  

 analytical and technical assistance support provided by entities such as the ETSC, ECB and CBCDG; and  

 operational  and  tactical  assistance  provided  to  law  enforcement  authorities  by  EU  and  international 

entities such as Europol, Interpol and Eurojust. 

A  final  topic  to  be  investigated  is  the  degree  to  which  the  established  coordination  and  cooperation 
mechanisms  have  either  helped  to  ensure,  or  alternatively  hindered  consistency  and  complementarity 
between  the  Pericles  Programme  and  other  relevant  programmes  and  initiatives  at  national,  EU  and 
international  levels. The analysis  will  focus on the role and effectiveness of coordination  mechanisms in 
reducing and/or avoiding overlaps with other initiatives at the programming stage, during the selection of 
the actions to be implemented as well as implementation of specific actions.   

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

JC12.1: Degree of complementarity / 
overlap with other EU / international 
euro protection initiatives  
JC12.2: Contribution of established 
coordination and cooperation 
mechanisms to achieved consistency / 
complementarity with EU / 
international initiatives  

 Nature, scope of capacity building, analytical and/or technical 

support initiatives implemented by EC, ECB, Interpol 

 Nature,  scope  of  operational  activities  supported  by  Europol, 

Eurojust and Interpol 

 Stakeholders’  views  on  complementarity  of  Programme 
actions and other EU / international programmes and initiatives 
 Stakeholders’  assessment  on  the  role  and  contribution  of 
(e.g.  ECEG 

coordination  and  cooperation  mechanisms 
meetings) 

JC13.1: Degree of complementarity / 
overlap with national initiatives and 
operations  
JC13.2: Contribution of established 
coordination and cooperation 
mechanisms to achieved consistency / 
complementarity with national 
initiatives 

 Nature,  scope  of  national  initiatives  and  operations  (e.g. 
training  on  authentication  methods  implemented  by  Central 
Banks or banking associations) 

 Stakeholders’  views  on  complementarity  of  Programme 

actions and initiatives implemented at national level  

 Stakeholders’  assessment  on  the  role  and  contribution  of 
(e.g.  ECEG 

coordination  and  cooperation  mechanisms 
meetings) 

36 

 
 
Evaluation Matrix: Coherence (EQ # 12 – 13)  

Methods and approach  
The  assessment  of  coherence  will  be  based  on  a  qualitative  review  of  various  documentary  sources, 
including  institutional  websites,  websites  of  other  programmes  and  initiatives,  such  as  ISF-P  and  the 
database of TAIEX events, as well as information gathered via stakeholders consultations (interviews with 
CNAs, third-country authorities, EU and international entities). CNA interviews will cover Implementers, 
Unsuccessful  Applicants  and  Non-Applicants.  Interviews  with  non-applicants  will  serve  to  mitigate 
potential selection bias among responses. Specifically, targeted questions will be formulated to assess the 
degree  to  which  a  lack  of  coherence  and  complementarity  between  Pericles  actions  and  those  at  the 
national level was a factor behind CNAs’ decisions not to apply. 

Sources 
 Documentation (e.g. annual reports) on capacity building initiatives of EC, ECB, Interpol 
 Documentation on operational activities of Europol, Eurojust, Interpol 
 ECEG reports 
 Interviews with EU / International organisations 
 Interviews with CNAs, third-country authorities 
 Participants survey 
 Deep dives 
 ECEG meetings 

37 

 
 
 
Evaluation Matrix: Sustainability (EQ # 14)  

Evaluation Questions 
14. To what extent are the delivered outputs and results achieved (likely to be) sustainable? 

What do we want to measure? 
The  evaluation  of  sustainability  will  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  outputs  and  progress  towards  the 
achievement  of  intended  outcomes  are  likely  to  endure  over  time.  Specifically,  the  assessment  will 
investigate  the  measures  and  practices  adopted  by  participating  Member  States’  and  supported  third 
countries’  CNAs  to  ensure  that  delivered  outputs  of  the  supported  actions  are  implemented  or  otherwise 
institutionalised  after  support  ends,  and  how  such  measures  have  been  implemented  and  performed  in 
practice.  
Measures to ensure sustainability might include:  

 formal or informal distribution of materials received through the programme action;  

 preparation of reports, memos, etc on the action;  

 delivery of a presentation at internal team meetings, workshops, etc;  

 delivery of a formal training course;  

 sharing  of  acquired  contacts,  information,  knowledge,  skills,  etc.  with  colleagues  through  informal 

mechanisms or regular operational activities; or  

 or other forms of dissemination. 

Typical challenges to sustainability include:  
 insufficient mobilisation of national resources (financial support);  

 staffing shortages and/or high staff turnover; 

 political and/or legislative support;  

 stakeholder commitment; or 

 cultural barriers, such as language barriers.  

The  assessment  of  both  the  current  sustainability  (based  on  existing  established  practices)  and  the  likely 
future sustainability of delivered results will take into account these and other relevant barriers as part of 
the analysis.  

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

JC14.1:  Programme participants have 
adopted measures or practices to 
ensure sustainability of delivered 
outputs / progress towards results 
JC14.2:  Adopted measures or 
practices to ensure sustainability of 
delivered outputs / progress towards 
results have been implemented in 
practice 

 Measures adopted to ensure sustainability of delivered outputs / 
progress  towards  outcomes  (i.e.  delivery  of  internal  trainings, 
preparation  of  memos  or  reports,  sharing  of  contacts  / 
knowledge, delivery of presentations, etc)  

 Actual  utilization  of  contacts  developed  and/or  information  / 

knowledge / skills acquired in practice 

 Stakeholders’  assessment  on  the  role  and  impact  of  external 
factors in contributing to (or hindering) sustainability of results 

JC14.3:  Involvement of participating 
organisations in euro protection 
activities has evolved (increased) 

 Intensity  and  quality  of 

transnational  coordination 

/ 

cooperation activities 

 Stakeholders’  assessment  on  the  role  and  impact  of  external 
factors in contributing to (or hindering) increased involvement 
in euro protection activities  

38 

 
Evaluation Matrix: Sustainability (EQ # 14)  

JC14.4: Level of strategic and 
institutional  commitment to the 
continuation of euro protection 
activities linked to programme 
activities 

 Stakeholders’  experiences  regarding 

the  availability  and 
allocation of resources (financial, human) to sustain the outputs 
/ results achieved to date. 

 Stakeholders’  perceptions  regarding  prospects  for  future 
sustainability  in  terms  of  allocation  of  resources  and  strategic 
commitment, external enabling / hindering factors, etc. 

Methods and approach  
The  assessment  will  rely  primarily  on  evidence  gathered  through  the  interview  consultations  with  CNAs 
and  third  country  authorities  and  the  survey  of  Programme  participants,  complemented  with  a  review  of 
Action  documents  to  identify  concrete  measures  that  were  envisioned  by  the  actions  to  ensure 
sustainability of delivered outputs as needed. 

Building on the analysis of effectiveness, the approach takes as the starting point the collection of factual 
information  and  insights  regarding  the  concrete  and  tangible  ways  in  which  the  delivered  outputs  (i.e. 
contacts that were developed and/or the knowledge, skills and information acquired through participation 
in  the  Programme’s  actions)  have  been  put  into  practice  at  both  the  personal  and  institutional  level  and 
stakeholder perceptions regarding the likely sustainability of such practices in the mid- to long-term. The 
consultations  will  examine  a  mix  of  actions  that  have  been  implemented  over  the  Programme  duration, 
though  with  particular  emphasis  on  a  representative  sample  of  actions  that  were  implemented  during  the 
first  half  of  the  programme  in  order  to  understand  how  outputs  and  results  have  been  sustained  (i.e. 
continued to be utilised) over a longer timeframe. 
Targeted  interview  and  survey  questions  will  be  formulated  around  identifying  (i)  the  specific  types  of 
measures adopted by programme participants to utilise and further disseminate the delivered outputs, and 
(ii)  how  these  measures  and  practices  have  been  implemented  in  practice,  and  (iii)  the  degree  to  which 
there  is  evidence  of  the  programme  having  contributed  to  increased  involvement  in  euro  protection 
activities among the Programme participants.  

Interviews with CNAs, third country authorities, EU institutions 

Sources 
 
  Participants survey 
  Deep dives 
  ECEG meetings 
  Action Documents (proposals, Technical reports) 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] 

The euro is, as the single currency of the Union, a core European interest, the integrity of which needs to be protected in all its dimensions. Counterfeiting 
of the euro poses a threat for the Union and for its institutions. Counterfeits harm citizens and businesses that are not reimbursed even if received in good 
faith. More generally, it impacts the legal tender status of, and the trust of citizens and businesses in genuine euro notes and coins. 

The Pericles 2020 programme was specifically dedicated to the protection of euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting.  A solid protection of the 
euro  against  counterfeiting  forms  an  essential  component  of  security  as  one  of  the  focal  points  of  EU  action.  The  prevention  and  combatting  of 
counterfeiting  and  related  fraud  aims  at  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  euro  system,  thereby  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU's  economy  and 
securing the sustainability of public finances. Therefore, the Pericles 2020 programme was also directly linked to the Union's objective to improve the 
efficient functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union.  

Actions  financed  under  the  Pericles  2020  programme  contributed  in  keeping  the  phenomenon  of  euro  counterfeiting  under  control.  This  constitutes  a 
direct  benefit for the citizens/consumers both  in ensuring their trust  in  the single currency, but  also in minimising the direct  costs they might  bear by 
receiving counterfeit notes and coins. In addition, businesses could rely on the fact that notes and coins in circulation are genuine and thus potential losses 
from  counterfeits  are minimised.  An overall  amount of 4.697.0000 of  counterfeit banknotes and  1.210.786 coins  were  found in  circulation  during the 
programming period. These amounts would have been a loss for businesses and citizens if they were continuing to be in circulation and even more so, 
they prove that the phenomenon is under control also highlighting the importance of maintaining an efficient prevention and detection framework. For the 
actions financed under the Pericles 2020 programme by the competent national authorities, the standard co-financing rate was up to 75% and 90% in duly 
justified  cases.  These  implemented  actions  increased  the  capacity  of  the  competent  national  authorities  to  effectively  protect  the  euro  against 
counterfeiting.  During  the  programming  period  (2014-2020),  the  overall  contribution  of  the  competent  national  authorities  implementing  the 
Programme’s actions was 890.281 euros51.  

51 The calculation was based on the implemented actions, for which a final financial report has been received by the competent national authorities.  

40 

 
 
                                                           
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

As a first step an evaluation roadmap was prepared by the ISG and published centrally52 to enable citizens to provide feedback on the evaluation process 
and to insure full transparency. A consultation strategy was drafted and further developed by the external contractors once selected 

Owing to the specific character and scope of the Programme as well as the confidential nature of some of its activities, it was considered appropraite that 
extensive consultations with stakeholders were  carried out. The targeted stakeholder consultation occurred early in the process and followed the initial 
desk research and the information gathered from stakeholders was used to inform the evaluation process. 

The objective of the stakeholder consultations was to: 1) ensure efficient data collection; and 2) ensure a representative sample of consulted stakeholders 
to  gather  evidence  to  answer  the  evaluation  questions.  The  contractor  used  a  combination  of  data  and  validation  activities  throughout  the  process 
guaranteeing  regular  updates  and  buy-in  from  the  main  relevant  stakeholders.  The  stakeholder  consultation  tools  included  interviews  and  an  online 
survey. 

The  following  table  includes  a  detailed  summary  of  the  stakeholders  consulted,  the  methodological  tools  used,  the  key  questions  covered,  the  main 
findings and a qualitative analysis of the relevant consultations: 

52 Protecting the euro against counterfeiting – the Pericles 2020 programme (final evaluation) (europa.eu).  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Methodological tool 

Stakeholder 

Key questions covered 

Main findings 

Interviews 

  Member  State  competent 

authorities,  

  applicants 

beneficiaries 
Programme,  

and 
the 

of 

Overall  assessment  of  the 
Programme 

  participants  in  the  actions 
the 

under 

financed 
Programme,  

  EU 

Institutions 

and 

international partners.  

Relevance of the Programme 
euro 
(situation 
counterfeiting  and  current 
needs) 

with 

42 

protection, 
of 
the 

The Programme has earned 
widespread  acclaim  from 
stakeholders,  with  more 
than  95  per  cent  rating  it 
positively.  Furthermore,  it 
is  regarded  as  the  only 
programme  that  supports, 
on an EU and global scale, 
the  enhancement  of 
the 
capacity  of 
operational 
stakeholders 
in 
involved 
the 
euro 
best 
dissemination 
fight 
in 
practices 
against  counterfeiting,  and, 
the 
most 
importantly, 
development 
trust 
between  institutions  across 
countries and regions. 
counterfeiting, 
Euro 
the 
to 
according 
stakeholders 
interviewed, 
is an issue within their own 
countries  as  well  as  a 
spans 
phenomenon 
Member  State  and  EU 
The 
external 

borders. 

that 

of 

Qualitative analytical 
overview 
The 
Commission 
concurs  with  the  main 
which 
findings 
recognise  the  high  EU 
added  value  of 
the 
Programme. 

The  findings  show  that 
the  Programme  proves 
to  have  a  direct  impact 
on  the  daily  work  of 
anti-counterfeiting 
experts  and  contributed 
to  enhance  cooperation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and 

problem  is  highlighted  by 
parties  closely  involved  in 
and 
discovery 
the 
repression 
euro 
of 
counterfeits,  such  as  law 
the 
enforcement 
judiciary  .The  involvement 
of  organised  crime  from 
third  countries,  which  is 
seen  as  a 
increasingly 
threat,  receives  the  most 
attention 
of 
in 
importance. 

terms 

in 

for 

resulting 

Stakeholders 
that  were 
interviewed appreciated the 
its 
Programme 
distinctiveness  in  bringing 
together a relevant network 
of stakeholders on a regular 
the 
basis 
establishment 
of 
sustainable cooperation 
feedback 
Stakeholder 
unanimously 
pointed 
towards  a  conclusion  that 
the  Programme's  specific 
goal was met, as according 
interviewees,  Pericles 
to 
to 
contributed 
2020 
increased 
to 
capacity 
protect  the  euro,  increased 

among 
experts 
different countries.  

in 

The 
the 
findings  of 
stakeholder  consultation 
effectively  demonstrate 
the  concrete  impact  and 
the  long  term  outcomes 
of the Programme. 

groups 

The  Commission  takes 
note  of  the  finding  that 
certain 
of 
stakeholders such as law 
and 
enforcement 
judiciary 
are  mostly 
concerned with  the euro 
counterfeiting  problem, 
and 
highlighted 
importance of the role of 
third countries. 

the 

Complementarity 
Programme 

of 

the 

Key outcomes (except for the 
unsuccessful 
group 
applicants 
non-
and 
applicants) 

of 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The application process 

Overall  assessment  of  the 
Programme 

44 

Online Survey  
(September-October 2021) 

of 

The  online  survey  targeted 
participants 
activities 
implemented  under  Pericles 
2020  in  the  period  2014  – 
2020.  The  questions  were 
targeting 
different 
stakeholders ranging from law 
to 
enforcement 
judicial 
higher-ranked 

officers 

The  Commission  takes 
note 
the 
that 
applications  process  is 
deemed burdensome.  

The  Commission  takes 
note  with  the  very  high 
overall  satisfaction  of 
the partcipants  and their 
interest  to  continue  to 
future 
in 
participate 
Pericles actions.  

and 
cooperation 
coordination 
between 
countries/institutions,  and 
increased  awareness  of  the 
euro counterfeiting threat. 
The  application  process 
and  the  interaction  with 
DG  ECFIN  have  been 
perceived  as  quite  helpful, 
although according to some 
interviewees,  the  workload 
and  documents  needed  for 
the 
application  process 
were  quite  burdensome  in 
tape.  The 
terms  of  red 
and 
communication 
the 
support 
Commission’s  side  have 
been perceived as relevant. 

on 

of 

The  online  survey  results 
show  a  very  high  overall 
satisfaction 
the 
participants 
in  Pericles 
2020  actions.  95%  of  the 
an 
participants  provide 
overall 
of 
assessment 
Pericles  2020  as  ‘positive’ 
‘very 
(26%/39) 

and 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
officers.  The 
survey  was 
prepared  in  English,  Italian, 
Spanish, and French. 

Extent 
which 
to 
counterfeiting is considered a 
problem  in  EU  and  non-EU 
countries 

45 

that 

that 

future 

(9.5%/14) 

stakeholder 

positive’  (69%/102),  with 
only  5%/7  having 
an 
overall 
neutral/negative/very 
negative 
assessment. 
Similarly,  more  than  96% 
claim 
they  would 
‘definitely’  (87.2%/129)  or 
probably 
be 
interested  in  participating 
in 
Pericles 
initiatives. 
survey 
The 
most 
shows 
respondents 
consider 
counterfeiting a problem in 
(to  some 
their  country 
extent  42%/62  and  to  a 
large 
30%/40). 
These  results  are  largely 
consistent between EU and 
non-EU countries, i.e. in all 
stakeholders 
countries, 
euro 
consider 
counterfeiting is a problem. 
A  breakdown  per  type  of 
respondent  shows  that  law 
judicial 
enforcement  and 
authority 
respondents 
perceive  counterfeiting  to 
be  “more  of  a  problem”  as 
to  monetary 
opposed 
authority  respondents,  and 

extent 

that 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The 
Commission 
concurs with the finding 
Programme 
that 
activities  were  effective 
in  terms  of  establishing 
other 
contacts  with 
people  involved  in  the 
protection  of  the  euro 
and 
in  disseminating 
best practices.  

of 

and 

other  private  entities  or 
commercial 
banks. 
Probably the reason for this 
is that law enforcement and 
the 
are 
judiciary 
operationally involved with 
tackling the problem. 
The  results  of  the  survey 
show  that  the  Programme 
activities  were  effective  in 
terms 
establishing 
contacts  with  other  people 
involved  in  the  protection 
in 
euro 
the 
of 
best 
disseminating 
This 
practices. 
was 
the  case  for 
particularly 
disseminating 
best 
practices  – 91%/123 of the 
responses  in  the  positive 
scale  (“To  some  extent” 
and  “To  a  large  extent”). 
establishment 
The 
of 
people 
with 
contacts 
involved  in  the  protection 
of 
in  non-EU 
countries was also assessed 
positively  (73%/99  of  the 
responses 
the 
are 
positive  scale),  but  to  a 
smaller extent as compared 
the  establishment  of 
to 
contacts  with  Member 

the  euro 

in 

Results 
of 
participation 

Programme 

46 

 
 
(84%/113 

States 
positive scale). 

in 

the 

Respondents  point  towards 
involvement  of 
a  high 
participants 
in 
activities. 
dissemination 
The  most  frequent  form  of 
occurred 
dissemination 
informal 
through 
knowledge  transfer  on  the 
job  (76%).  This  included 
transferred, 
contacts 
knowledge 
information, 
and 
gained 
informally  during  regular 
activities. 
operational 
Preparation 
of 
internal 
presentations  for 
workshops 
and 
delivery  of  formal  training 
courses  (33%)  were  less 
popular. 

(56%) 

skills 

Dissemination of results 

47