COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS European Structural and Investment Funds 2022 Summary report of the programme annual implementation reports covering implementation in 2014-2020
Date: 2023-01-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EAFRD, EU aid, EU investment, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, European Structural and Investment Funds, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.1.2023  SWD(2023) 22 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS European Structural and Investment Funds         2022 Summary report of the programme annual implementation reports          covering implementation in 2014-2020 {COM(2023) 39 final}  
 
 
STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  

ON THE 

SYNTHESIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATIONS OF 

EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS  

PROGRAMMES 2014-2020 

accompanying the 2022 Annual Summary Report  

Contents 

1 

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

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

2.1  Evaluations in the Member States ..................................................................... 3 
2.1.1  General overview ................................................................................ 3 
2.1.2  Main findings of evaluations ............................................................... 8 
Support to the Member States ........................................................... 22 
2.1.3 
2.2  Evaluation work by the Commission .............................................................. 23 

3 

EUROPEAN  AGRICULTURAL  FUND  FOR  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT 
(EAFRD) ................................................................................................................... 24 

3.1  Evaluations in the Member States ................................................................... 24 
3.1.1  General overview .............................................................................. 24 
3.1.2  Main findings of evaluations ............................................................. 26 
Support to the Member States ........................................................... 29 
3.1.3 
3.2  Evaluation work by the Commission .............................................................. 29 

4 

EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND (EMFF) ................................ 32 

4.1  Evaluations in the Member States ................................................................... 32 
4.2  Evaluation work by the Commission .............................................................. 33 

5 

FINAL REMARKS ................................................................................................... 34 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

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

So far, around 3 000 evaluations have been carried out by Member States on all ESI Funds for 
the 2014-2020 programming period. While the evaluation work at the beginning of this period 
focused  a  lot  on  process,  as  implementation  of  the  programmes  picked  up  pace,  Member 
States  have  increasingly  focused  their  evaluations  on  impact.  The  Commission  has  also 
started its ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 programmes, which will produce a number of 
deliverables until the work is completed in the synthesis report due in 2025.  

In line with Article 53 of the CPR, this staff working document summarises the findings of 
the  latest  available  evaluations  of  the  programmes  supported  by  the  ESI  Funds3.  While  this 
report is published annually, it consolidates all of the findings of Member States’ evaluations. 
It accompanies the 2022 summary report of the programme annual implementation reports, 
which cover implementation in 2014-2020, and until the end of 2021. 

The implementation  of cohesion  policy has been affected by the  COVID-19 pandemic  and 
the latest refugee and energy crises. The Commission responded quickly to the effects of the 
pandemic  with  the  Coronavirus  Response  Investment  Initiative  (CRII  and  CRII+).  Then 
NextGenerationEU  made  additional  resources  from  the  EU  budget  available  for  cohesion 
policy, through the new instrument Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of 
Europe  (REACT-EU).  Further  action  followed  in  response  to  the  Ukrainian  refugee  crisis 
via  Cohesion’s  Action  for  Refugees  in  Europe  (CARE)  and  flexible  assistance  to  territories 
(FAST-CARE).  More  recently,  in  reaction  to  the  energy  crisis,  the  REPowerEU  plan 
addressed the need to accelerate the transition to clean energy, diversify energy sources and 
increase energy savings. The plan could also mobilise cohesion policy resources. Finally, the 
latest  proposal  of  exceptional  measures  to  address  the  current  energy  price  increases  will 
provide  support  to  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  and  vulnerable  families 
particularly affected by this. 

So  far,  only  a  few  evaluations  have  addressed  the  response  to  COVID-19  and  how  the 
pandemic  has  affected  some  sectors  and  programming  choices.  The  number  of  evaluations 
looking at these issues and the other measures introduced to respond to the latest refugee and 
energy crises is expected to increase in the future. Likewise, the Commission plans to address 
these issues in the ex post evaluation. 

1 

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/glossary/sustainable-development_en 

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

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303  

3 

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ 

2 

 
                                                 
In  publishing  the  report  it  is  important  to  underline  the  limitations  of  this  exercise. 
Evaluations  carried  out  by  Member  States  are  mostly  designed  to  deal  with  the  results  of 
projects in a local context, so it is sometimes difficult to aggregate the findings.  

Section 2  covers  cohesion  policy  programmes,  supported  by  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund  (ERDF),  the  Cohesion  Fund  (CF)  and  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF) 
including the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI). Section 3 is devoted to rural development 
policy,  supported  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD). 
Section 4  focuses  on  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF)  and,  finally, 
Section 5 contains some concluding remarks. 

2 

COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES 

Cohesion policy is one of the most evaluated of the EU’s policies. This section presents the 
main findings of the evaluations of the three cohesion policy funds carried out by the Member 
States and the Commission. 

2.1 

Evaluations in the Member States 

2.1.1  General overview 

Since January 2015, the  Member States have published around 1 800 evaluations of 2014-
2020  operational  programmes.  The  growing  number  of  evaluations  shows  that  the  Member 
States  have  endorsed  a  more  evidence-based  approach  to  policy  making  and  a  focus  on 
results. 

An  increasing  number  of  evaluations  aim  to  assess  the  impact  of  EU  support,  and  the 
mechanisms  that  influence  the  effectiveness  of  this  support.  The  evidence  from  these 
evaluations  played  an  important  role  in  the  negotiations  between  the  Commission  and  the 
Member States for the 2021-2027 programmes.  

Summary of common evaluation findings 

Some common findings that are important to highlight:  

  Smart  growth:  research  and  innovation,  information  and  communication  technology 

(ICT) and competitiveness of small and medium enterprises  

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

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

Support  to  SMEs  has  boosted  innovation  in  businesses,  strengthening  their  competitiveness 
and enabling them to enter new markets and expand their exports.  

3 

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

energy networks 

On  the  shift  to  a  low-carbon  economy,  there  are  positive  results  in  reducing  energy 
consumption  in  public  and  private  buildings  and  businesses,  but  evidence  on  renewable 
energy production is still limited because many projects have yet to be completed. 

Evaluations  have  shown  that  collaboration  between  managing  authorities  in  neighbouring 
Member  States  via  cross-border  cooperation  programmes  is  key  to  making  support  for 
climate change adaptation and risk prevention truly effective for the regions concerned. 

Installing  and  improving  infrastructure  for  wastewater  treatment  and  municipal  waste 
management  often responds  to  the need  to  comply with  EU environmental  directives. This 
has helped increase the number of users connected to sewage treatment systems and selective 
waste collection. 

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

 

Inclusive growth: employment, social inclusion and education 

Employment-related  measures  and  training  have  proved  to  be  more  successful  when 
tailored  to  both  the  needs  of  those  receiving  support  and  the  skills  needed  in  the  labour 
market.  Apprenticeships  and  traineeships  have  proved  to  be  very  effective.  Evaluation  has 
also found that in some instances there was a shortage of skills for technical training and that 
it is therefore important to continue improving the skills of teachers and trainers. 

Initiatives that aimed to  foster social inclusion have helped vulnerable and disadvantaged 
people find work. Further cooperation is required to identify the most suitable education and 
training paths as well as the social support that may be needed. This is equally important for 
reducing school drop-out rates. 

Evaluations have also found that projects have helped increase access to and the quality of 
healthcare. 

  Strengthening institutional capacity and making public administrations more efficient 

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

Some  of  the  evaluations  point  to  difficulties  in  achieving  the  targets  on  energy  saving,  for 
example  in  the  areas  of  energy  efficiency  actions  in  the  housing  sector,  and  in  urban 
regeneration  programmes.  The  evaluations  identified  the  increase  in  the  prices  of  raw 
materials and commodities in the construction sector as one of the main reasons for this.  

Evaluations  sometimes  find  contrasting  evidence  in  different  regions.  This  suggests  that 
analytical  work  must  increase  its  focus  on  the  contextual  factors  that  affect  implementation 
and, consequently, the results of the actions supported. Such an analysis will be part of the ex 
post  evaluation  of  cohesion  policy  in  the  2014-2020  period,  which  the  Commission  has 
already started (see Section 2.2). 

4 

 
Completed evaluations 

The number of evaluations of 2014-2020 cohesion policy operational programmes completed 
and published since January 2015 has reached 1 7974.  

In  2021,  324  evaluations  were  carried  out  by  the  Member  States,  of  which  134  aimed  to 
assess impact. While the number of impact evaluations has slightly increased (+7% compared 
to 2020), the overall number of evaluations is 20% less than in 2020. The fall in the number 
of evaluations published in 2021 is directly linked to a natural shift in the main purpose of 
evaluations. During the final years of the programming period, there is a decrease in process 
evaluations,  i.e.  those aimed  at assessing  how  the actions supported were carried out, while 
the number of impact evaluations is expected to grow. 

The distribution of evaluations across the funds has not changed much in the past year, with 
around 40% of evaluations specific to ERDF/CF, 40% specific to ESF/YEI and almost 20% 
of evaluations covering both ERDF/CF and ESF/YEI (multi-fund). 

Figure  1:  Evaluations  of  cohesion  policy  programmes  published  since  January  2015  – 
breakdown by year and fund  

Source: Commission evaluation helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

Almost  50%  of  the  evaluations  published  in  2021  are  related  to  programmes  in  Italy  and 
Poland,  who  were  the  main  beneficiaries  of  cohesion  funds  in  2014-2020.  Overall,  six 
countries  accounted  for  over  75%  of  the  evaluations  of  cohesion  policy  that  have  been 
published so far. Poland, which has produced the largest number of evaluations, and Italy are 
followed by Germany, Czechia, Spain and France.  

The reason for the large differences between countries, which are clearly shown in Figure 2, is 
the marked variation in the scope of the evaluations undertaken. For example, in Poland, 
26  evaluations  have  been  carried  out  solely  on  the  Smart  Growth  operational  programme. 
Many of them are very  narrowly focused on support for particular sectors, project  selection 
criteria or the reasons for the low participation of large firms. This contrasts with the situation 
in other countries, where in many cases evaluations cover all the support provided under one 

4  This number includes a few evaluations related to both the 2014-2020 and the 2007-2013 period.  

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
thematic  objective.  The  number  of  evaluations  carried  out,  therefore,  does  not  necessarily 
reflect the evaluation effort being made, since evaluations vary substantially not only in terms 
of scope but also in terms of size and the degree of detail they go into. 

Figure  2: Evaluations  of  2014-2020 cohesion  policy  operational  programmes  published 
since January 2015 – breakdown by Member State 

Source: Commission evaluation helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

Types of evaluations 

The  number  of  evaluations  focusing  on  implementation  and  progress,  which  look  mostly 
into  procedural  aspects  or  progress  in  achieving  policy  targets,  has  decreased  over  the  past 
two  years.  As  expected,  the  number  of  impact-oriented  evaluations,  which  are  normally 
carried  out  later  in  the  programme  cycle,  has  been  stable,  with  around  130  evaluations 
published each year since 2019. As a result, the share of impact evaluations grew to 41% in 
2021, up from around 30% in the previous two years. In Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal and 
Sweden, more than 80% of evaluations published in 2021 are impact-oriented. 

6 

 
 
 
The  number  of  impact  evaluations  is  expected  to  grow  further  in  the  coming  years,  when 
more projects will have been completed and will have produced results.  

Figure  3: Evaluations  of  2014-2020 cohesion  policy operational  programmes  published 
since January 2015 – by type and year 

Source: Commission evaluation helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

Most evaluations combine relatively simple qualitative methods with quantitative ones. More 
advanced  research  methods,  such  as  counterfactual  evaluation  techniques  (mostly  in 
ESF/YEI  evaluations),  theory-based  techniques  (mostly  in  ERDF/CF  evaluations)  and  cost-
benefit analysis (used to a lesser extent, primarily in ERDF/CF evaluations) are used in more 
than half of all impact evaluations.  

Thematic distribution 

The distribution of evaluations  across  thematic  objectives (TOs) is  uneven  and more than 
half of the evaluations cover multiple TOs.  

Figure 4 shows the thematic coverage of evaluations for the 2014-2020 programming period. 
Evaluations  covering multiple  TOs  are reported  under  all  of the  TOs in  question. However, 
the chart does not include evaluations that broadly address all TOs. A few evaluations have 
addressed  the  COVID-19  response  and  how  the  pandemic  has  affected  some  sectors  and 
programming choices. However, no specific evaluation has been published yet under the new 
TO  on  ‘Fostering  crisis  repair  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  its  social 
consequences  and  preparing  a  green,  digital  and  resilient  recovery  of  the  economy’.  The 
resources  of  the  new  instrument  ‘Recovery  Assistance  for  Cohesion  and  the  Territories  of 
Europe’ (REACT-EU) have been allocated to this TO. 

7 

 
 
Figure  4: Evaluations  of 2014-2020 cohesion  policy operational  programmes  published 
since January 2015 – thematic coverage 

Source: Commission evaluation helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

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

2.1.2  Main findings of evaluations 

Based  on  the  information  on  the  data  used  and  the  methods  applied,  the  findings  of  the 
Member States evaluations appear to be reasonably robust.  

In  addition  to  showing  the  emerging  findings  per  policy  area  and  TO,  this  section  also 
includes  findings  on  integrated  territorial  investment,  financial  instruments  and  European 
territorial cooperation, and a review of the cross-cutting findings of evaluations that assessed 
procedural  aspects.  In  line  with  the  2022  annual  summary  report,  a  brief  overview  of  the 
achievements  and financial evolution  by the end  of 2021  accompanies  each headline policy 
investment discussed below. 

Figure 5 shows the overall  planned contribution of cohesion  policy  funds to  the  TOs by the 
end of 2021.  

8 

 
 
Figure  5:  Total  amount  planned  (EU  and  national)  under  2014-2020  cohesion  policy 
operational programmes – breakdown by thematic objective (TO) 

Source: European Commission. 

  Smart  growth:  research  and  innovation,  information  and  communication 

technology and competitiveness of small and medium enterprises 

The ERDF invested EUR 114.9 billion5 in smart growth between 2014 and 2020. Projects had 
spent  EUR 82.4  billion  (72%)  of  this  total  by  the  end  of  2021,  up  from  52%  at  the  end  of 
2020. The total eligible costs of the selected projects contributing to this headline priority is 
even higher than the ERDF allocations, i.e. EUR 141.6 billion. Programme authorities use this 
selection  strategy  to  ensure  that  by  the  end  of  the  programming  period,  resources  are  fully 
spent. 

  TO 1: Research and innovation 

By  the  end  of  2021,  the  cohesion  policy  programmes  had  planned  EUR 56.6  billion  of 
investment in the area of research and innovation, of which they had already spent EUR 37.1 
billion (66%). Thanks to the ERDF investment in research and innovation, more than 61 000 
companies  cooperated  with  research  institutions  (93%  of  the  target)  and  around  30 000 
enterprises introduced new products to the market (94% of the target). 

Evaluations  give  an  insight  into the performance of the projects  that contributed to  meeting 
these  targets.  Evaluations  in  various  Member  States  show  successful  examples  of 
cooperation  between  SMEs,  universities  and  research  centres.  In  Czechia,  some  EU-
funded projects have exceeded their targets for cooperation between businesses and research 
centres. Moreover, most of the companies involved (70%) have continued to cooperate after 
ERDF support finished. Fruitful cooperation has also helped develop cross-border technology 
transfers between Germany and the Netherlands, and improve the innovation environment in 
Austria.  

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

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

9 

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

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

Recent  evaluations  have  also  shown  that  measures  to  promote  innovation  in  Belgium 
(Wallonia) have had positive effects in terms of new competences and interactions between 
SMEs,  but  less  positive  effects  in  terms  of  spin-offs  or  innovative  products.  In  Lithuania, 
measures  to  develop  research  and  innovation  infrastructure  have  helped  strengthen  the 
capacity  to  commercialise  research  and  development  (R&D)  results  and  increase  the 
competitiveness of businesses. Under the Sweden, Denmark and Norway Interreg operational 
programme (in Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak), support for innovation resulted in an increased 
number  of  researchers,  new  and  strengthened  research  networks  and  more  exchanges 
between local players. 

  TO2: Information and communication technology 

Supporting the digital transition in the EU is one of the Commission’s headline priorities. The 
planned ERDF allocation for this objective in 2014-2020 was EUR 14.2 billion. Programmes 
spent EUR 8.9 billion of this total by the end of 2021. As a result, 6.3 million households had 
improved  broadband  access,  representing  more  than  52%  of  the  target.  11.5  million 
households are expected to benefit from improved broadband access by the end of 2023.  

Evaluations  show  that  cohesion  policy  support  has  helped  increase  broadband  access  in 
some  EU  regions.  In  France,  for  example,  ERDF  support  has  made  it  possible  to  provide 
high-speed  broadband  services.  In  many  other  EU  regions,  including  in  Sweden,  Spain  and 
Italy,  cohesion  policy  has  helped  deliver  major  infrastructural  projects.  In  Poland,  ERDF 
funding has significantly improved ICT infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. However, 
a  recent  evaluation  in  Romania  found  that  interventions  were  delayed  because  they  were 
hampered by the reorganisation of strategic public beneficiaries and the heterogeneity of local 
regulations and procedures. 

Evaluations  have  also  found  that  support  for  digitalisation  has  created  opportunities  to 
develop  ICT  products  and  services  and  e-government.  In  Poland,  for  example,  the  wide 
use of e-services funded by the EU has increased the transparency of public sector activities 
and reduced digital exclusion among older people. In Italy, digital platforms set up to improve 
communication  between  local  administrations  and  businesses  have  reduced  administrative 
costs. 

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

10 

 
  TO3: Competitiveness of SMEs 

Increasing  the  growth,  productivity  and  competitiveness  of  businesses  is  one  of  the  best 
performing areas of ERDF support. This support proved to be vital, especially in response to 
the global health crisis. By the end of 2021, cohesion policy programmes had planned EUR 
44.1  billion  of  investment  in  this  area,  of  which  they  had  already  spent  EUR  36.3  billion 
(82%). More than 2 million  businesses (an increase of 600 000 compared to the situation at 
the end of 2020) had received ERDF support in the form of grants, financial instruments6 or 
non-financial  support.  The  businesses  that  were  supported  had  created  310 000  new  jobs, 
while an additional 200 000 jobs are expected to be created by the end of 2023.  

Evaluations  of TO3 have found  that support in  this sector has  often achieved its  objectives, 
such  as  increasing  companies’  competitiveness  and  the  number  of  people  they  employ. 
This was the case in several regions of Poland and Germany, where companies now also have 
better access to international markets thanks to the availability of additional capital through 
grants and financial instruments.  

Recent  counterfactual  analysis  in  Poland  (in  Warmińsko-Mazurskie),  found  that  companies 
that benefitted from  innovation  and competitiveness  support had slightly higher revenues or 
profits  in  the  period  2016-2019  and  the  increase  in  employment  was  4  percentage  points 
higher  than  for  non-beneficiaries.  Among  the  beneficiaries  of  support,  a  bigger  share  of 
companies (11 percentage points more) invested in R&D activities than in the control group. 
An increase in employment was also confirmed by a recent evaluation in Germany (Hessen).  

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

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

Sustainability  is  an  important  aspect  of  improving  SME  competitiveness.  Initial  evidence 
suggests that the sustainability of the positive results depends in particular on the relationships 
developed  between  businesses  and  research  centres  and  the  ability  to  attract  other 
co-investors.  Sustainability  can  be  improved  by  having  selection  criteria  for  funding  that 
favour companies with an explicit, and seemingly viable, expansion strategy. 

In  general,  measures  for  start-ups  should  be  fine-tuned  according  to  the  specific  phase  of 
business  development  that  is  the  object  of  support  (seed,  early,  growth,  etc.).  This  includes 
choosing  a  suitable  combination  of  repayable  and  non-repayable  support.  Enabling  factors 
include  the  development  university  and  company  networks  and  the  availability  of  suitable 
infrastructure. On the other hand, excessive administrative requirements and uncertainty about 
the timing of funding and payments are major obstacles to the use of the funds. 

In Italy (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), measures for business creation have resulted in the creation 
of new companies mainly in retailing and tourism, with a significant presence of women and 
young people reported. While most of the companies that were supported have grown, those 
engaged in cultural and creative activities have reduced in size as a result of the pandemic. 

6 

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/glossary/financial-instruments_en  

11 

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

transport and energy networks 

The European Green Deal is at the forefront of EU investment and support policies. Cohesion 
policy funds play their part by supporting investments in a climate-neutral, clean and circular 
economy and in the areas of environment and climate change adaptation. The ERDF and the 
CF have supported this headline priority with more than EUR 136.2 billion in funding during 
the  2014-2020  programming  period,  of  which  the  Commission  had  already  paid  EUR  85.6 
billion (63%) to the Member States by the end of 2021. 

  TO4: Low-carbon economy 

The  low-carbon  economy  thematic  objective  is  primarily  focused  on  investment  in  energy 
efficiency  and  the  production  of  renewable  energy.  By  the  end  of  2020,  cohesion  policy 
programmes  had  planned  EUR  37.8  billion  of  investment  in  this  field,  of  which  EUR 22.3 
billion  (59%)  had  already  been  spent.  By  the  end  of  2021,  the  ERDF  had  helped  almost 
460 000  households  to  improve  their  energy  consumption  classification  (up  by  100  000 
compared  to  the  achievements  reported  last  year).  It  has  also  helped  increase  the  EU’s 
renewable energy production capacity by 3 660 MW; the target for the end of 2023 is 8 800 
MW.  

The  Commission  has  recently  published  a  Communication  on  the  REPowerEU  joint 
European action for more affordable, secure and sustainable energy7 and the REPowerEU 
plan8 to accelerate the transition to clean energy, diversify energy sources and increase energy 
savings.  Cohesion  policy  will  be  mobilised  to  help  achieve  these  objectives  and  we  expect 
that Member States will carry out further evaluations in this area in the future. 

Evaluations  have  found  that  measures  to  improve  energy  efficiency  have  been  effective 
across  the  EU.  Some  positive  results  have  been  obtained  by  projects  to  reduce  energy 
consumption  in  companies  and  in  public  and  private  buildings.  The  range  of  measures 
carried out is extremely wide, encompassing improvements in the energy efficiency of public 
buildings,  businesses  and  houses,  electrification  of  public  transport  and  the  construction  of 
tramways  and  metro  lines  to  take  cars  off  city  roads,  and  investment  in  the  production  of 
renewable energy. 

A study in Italy has found that the support has helped reduce energy use in public buildings. 
Most  recent  evaluations  have  shown  the  positive  results  of  investments  to  improve  energy 
efficiency in public buildings and/or housing in a number of regions  and Member States, 
such as in Germany (Saxony-Anhalt), Lithuania and France (Ile-de-France and Seine).  

Some  results  can  be  observed  in  projects  to  improve  companies’  energy  efficiency  and 
reduce  CO2  emissions.  This  includes  the  use  of  new  technologies  in  Germany  (Saxony-
Anhalt),  where  the  complementarity  between  the  one-stop  shop  approach  and  federal 
measures, together with  attractive funding conditions, helped companies reduce their energy 
consumption. Also in Germany (Hessen), energy savings were achieved along with innovative 
organisational changes, thus improving the overall competitiveness of the SMEs supported. 

In  Poland,  thanks  to  the  replacement  of  small,  local  heating  plants  powered  by  low-quality 
solid  fuels  with  high-efficiency  cogeneration  units,  environmental  benefits  have  resulted 

7  COM(2022) 108 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0108  

8  COM(2022) 230 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0230  

12 

 
                                                 
from reducing primary energy consumption on average by 37%, CO2 emissions by 65%, NOx 
by 69%, and particle emissions entirely or almost entirely.  

In Estonia, measures supported by the ERDF addressing the production of renewable energy 
are leading to the generation of more than 400 GWh of electricity a year. Positive results have 
also  been  achieved  in  France  (Auvergne  and  Rhône-Alpes).  In  Poland,  the  use  of  financial 
instruments  to  support  the  production  of  renewable  energy  and  to  increase  the  energy 
efficiency of businesses has been found to be an appropriate form of support. 

Cohesion policy support under this TO also aimed to improve urban transport systems and 
make  them  more  environmentally  friendly,  for  example  by  reducing  the  use  of  private  cars 
and improving the connections between different modes of transport. 

  TO5: Climate change adaptation and risk prevention 

Cohesion  policy  funds  also  support  investment  in  climate  change  adaptation  and  risk 
prevention. By the end of 2021, Member States had already spent EUR 3.4 billion (57%) of 
the total amount planned of EUR 6.0 billion. Thanks to these investments, 21.7 million people 
(more than 63% of the target) are now less exposed to flood risks.  

Support under TO5 has tended to focus on tackling specific risks in particular areas, such as 
flooding or fires, and on developing or improving systems to monitor natural disasters and 
to  manage  the  outcomes.  In  Romania,  projects  to  monitor  such  events  have  limited  floods, 
reduced the damage and provided appropriate emergency equipment. Further evaluations have 
also  shown  the  successful  results  of  flood-protection  measures  in  Germany  (Bavaria  and 
Saxony-Anhalt).  In  Poland,  funding  has  helped  to  develop  a  disaster  recovery  system  and 
improve the volunteer fire brigade (in Świętokrzyskie),  and to  increase  resilience to  climate 
change threats (in Podkarpackie).  

Such projects are a feature of many Interreg programmes in neighbouring regions in different 
countries, recognising  that natural  disasters do not  respect  national  borders and that disaster 
prevention or response often needs to have a cross-border dimension to be effective. 

Cross-border cooperation between institutions on risk prevention and civil protection has been 
strengthened.  Italy  and  France  have  taken  joint  measures  to  manage  the  risks  of  climate 
change, authorities in Czechia and Poland have cooperated to improve their ability to tackle 
emergency situations, and Italy and Austria have exchanged good practices and improvements 
in monitoring and evaluation systems.  

  TO6: Environment protection and resource efficiency 

The ERDF and CF have allocated EUR 29.5 billion to projects on environment protection and 
resource efficiency. Implementation is progressing steadily: by the end of 2021, projects had 
already spent  EUR 15.4 billion (52% of the total). Thanks to  these investments, 5.1 million 
people already benefit from an improved water supply, with a target of 15.4 million people by 
the end of the 2023. 

The  actions  in  support  of  environmental  protection  and  resource  efficiency  often  have  an 
integrated  approach  and  address  various  dimensions  altogether,  such  as  wastewater 
management and nature preservation or natural and cultural heritage. Evaluations have found 
that  they  were  effective  in  improving  wastewater  management  and  preserving  natural 
habitats.  In  France  and  Latvia,  measures  to  improve  wastewater  management  and  preserve 
water  basins  have  strengthened  the  conservation  of  habitats.  Biodiversity  territorial 
cooperation  programmes  have  also  helped  to  protect  ecosystems,  such  as  the  one  between 

13 

 
Italy  and  France,  which  aims  to  protect  ecosystems  by  developing  green  infrastructure.  In 
Romania, support helped expand the sewer network, increase the extent of recycling and close 
non-compliant  landfills.  However,  the  connection  of  households  to  mains  drainage  is  still 
limited. 

EU support has also helped to improve waste management systems in Czechia, Poland and 
Portugal and has boosted the circular economy in France and Belgium. 

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

  contributing  to  the  development  of  an  integrated  network  of  tourism  sites  in 

Poland;  

  safeguarding  the  Pompeii  archaeological  site  in  Italy  and  improving  its 

accessibility; and  
fostering cooperation between Germany and Czechia. 

 

Evaluations  have  found  evidence  that  cohesion  policy  investments  have  also  helped 
rehabilitate  urban  areas  in  Austria,  Czechia,  Poland  and  Portugal.  A  recent  evaluation 
showed  that  in  Germany  (Hessen)  ERDF  support  has  helped  to  reconvert  old  military  and 
industrial  buildings,  to  clean  up  contaminated  sites  for  commercial  use,  and  contributed 
directly  to  the  relocation  of  businesses  to  urban  areas,  to  the  removal  of  potential 
environmental hazards from the land, and to improving the attractiveness of cities. 

  TO7: Transport and energy network infrastructure 

Energy  and  transport  network  infrastructure  received  EUR  62.9  billion  of  support  from  the 
ERDF and CF in the 2014-2020 programming period. By the end of 2021, projects had spent 
EUR 44.5 billion, thus spending 71% of the total budget. Investments in clean urban transport 
supported  by  the  ERDF  and  CF  had  delivered  172  km  of  new  or  improved  tram  and  metro 
lines by the end of 2021 (34% of the target). An additional 330 km of track is expected to be 
put into use in the coming years. 

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

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

In Poland, an evaluation examined natural gas projects financed under the Infrastructure and 
Environment  national  OP. Among them, the expansion of the liquefied natural  gas terminal 
and transmission projects will increase the security and diversification of energy supplies.  

14 

 
Further  evaluations  are  expected  to  follow  on  energy  network  infrastructure,  given  the 
importance of this policy area. They will be done at a later stage, depending on the timetable, 
since large infrastructures are still under construction or have been recently completed, such 
as  the  recently  inaugurated  gas  interconnector  between  Greece  and  Bulgaria.  This  area  will 
also be thoroughly covered in the Commission’s ex post evaluation. 

  Inclusive growth: employment, social inclusion and education 

The European Pillar of Social Rights, which is the basis of the EU’s social agenda, is one of 
the main driving forces of cohesion policy investment in sustainable and quality employment 
(EUR  45.3  billion),  social  inclusion  (EUR  40.7  billion)  and  educational  and  vocational 
training (EUR 37.3 billion). By the end of 2021, the average spending rate for the three topics 
was 70% of the total budget (EUR 86.2 billion of declared expenditure), a significant increase 
compared  to  2020  (54%).  The  ESF  has  been  the  main  fund  used  to  support  social  and 
educational  services,  keep  people  in  employment  and  support  vulnerable  groups,  e.g.  by 
supporting  short-time  work  arrangements,  supplementing  the  wages  of  healthcare  personnel 
and providing services for vulnerable groups. 

  TO8: Sustainable and quality employment 

By the end of 2021, cohesion policy programmes had planned EUR 45.4 billion of investment 
in this area, of which they had already spent EUR 32.0 billion (70%). The ESF and YEI had 
supported  55.2  million  participants,  including  nearly  19.9  million  unemployed  and  20.9 
million inactive people. A total of 6.4 million people had found a job thanks to ESF and YEI 
support.  

The  actions  dedicated  to  helping  people,  especially  young  people,  to  find  jobs  are  often 
combined  in  tailored  support  packages,  which  take  the  form  of  training  programmes, 
internships, and work experience. Several counterfactual evaluations9 show that participation 
in the programmes significantly increases the chances of finding a job. In Italy, for example, 
traineeships  and  voucher  schemes  have  increased  participants’  chances  of  finding  a  job 
compared to non-participants. In Germany, more participants were employed 15 months after 
the  end  of  the  projects  compared  to  non-participants.  In  Poland,  such  projects  have  also 
proved  successful  for  the  long-term  unemployed,  young  people  and  low-skilled  individuals. 
Most recently, the evaluation of the JobPlus  programme in  Ireland  estimated that long-term 
unemployed people who participated in the programme where 18 percentage points less likely 
than non-participants to be unemployed two years after entering the programme.  

The  ESF  can  also  help  participants  to  improve  their  entrepreneurial  skills  and  provides 
support  for  business  start-ups.  In  Poland  and  Italy,  such  projects  have  helped  create  new 
businesses  and  helped  businesses  to  survive  after  the  ESF  support  ended.    In  Germany,  a 
factor  in  the  success  of  ESF-supported  actions  for  business  creation  is  the  complementarity 
between  mentors  who  provide  technical  assistance  and  coaches  who  support  businesses  on 
management issues.  

Beyond support to unemployed people, the ESF also helps employees and businesses to adapt 
to change. In Germany,  a positive effect on people who had attended training  was that they 
were  able  to  better  adapt  to  changes  in  market  conditions  and  to  move  to  activities  that 
required more qualifications and had greater responsibilities. 

9 

https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/scientific-activities-z/counterfactual-impact-evaluation_en  

15 

 
                                                 
  TO9: Social inclusion 

By the end of 2021, cohesion policy programmes had planned EUR 40.8 billion of investment 
in  this  area,  of  which  they  had  already  spent  EUR  28.0  billion  (69%).  Cohesion  policy 
investments  have  improved  skills  for  the  job  market  and  employment  opportunities  for  3.6 
million participants with disabilities, 8 million participants who were migrants, or had a non-
EU or ethnic minority background, and 10.3 million other disadvantaged people. In addition, 
59 million people have benefitted from improved healthcare services across the EU. 

Measures have been introduced that amend cohesion policy rules to support Member States in 
managing  the  arrival  of  Ukrainian  refugees,  by  the  CARE  and  the  Flexible  assistance  to 
territories (FAST-CARE) proposals, which allow a swift reallocation of available funding to 
such emergency support. We expect that Member States will carry out evaluations in this area 
in the future. 

In  many  less  developed  regions,  significant  ESF  investment  went  into  support  for  health 
services  and  this  was  complemented,  in  a  number  of  cases,  by  ERDF  investment  in  related 
buildings  and  equipment.  Several  evaluations  have  found  that  these  projects  have  increased 
access  to  and  improved  the  quality  of  healthcare.  In  Lithuania,  such  projects  have  helped 
reduce  the  risk  of  death  from  cardiovascular  disease  and  reduce  the  suicide  rate.  Recent 
evaluation  in  Poland  has  shown  that  the  support  provided  under  the  Investment  and 
Employment  OP  to  improve  healthcare  has  had  a  significant  positive  impact  on  medical 
services. It has helped to adapt facilities to the needs resulting from demographic change and 
to create additional units in the state medical rescue service.  

In addition, there has been a strong focus on increasing the chances of vulnerable people to 
find  employment.  In  Spain,  projects  have  succeeded  in  doing  this  while  also  reducing  the 
participants’  risk  of  suffering  from  mental  illnesses.  In  Italy  (Tuscany),  20%  of  the 
participants  in  a  project  supporting  the  employability  of  people  with  disabilities  or  other 
disadvantages had a job one year after the project ended. A recent counterfactual evaluation in 
Italy  (Marche),  showed  that  the  percentage  of  disadvantaged  people  who  were  employed  6 
months after participating in ESF-financed traineeships was 6 to 8 points higher than that of 
equally disadvantaged participants in non-ESF traineeships. 

  TO10: Education and vocational training 

By the end of 2021, total funding of projects in educational and vocational training amounted 
to EUR 37.3 billion, of which EUR 26.3 billion (71%) were already spent. Thanks to ESF and 
YEI support, 25.9 million low-skilled people had participated in specific activities, 8.8 million 
had  gained  a  qualification  and  2.6  million  had  participated  in  education  and  training.  In 
addition,  23.3  million  people  have  had  access  to  expanded  childcare  and  education 
infrastructure. 

Evaluations  have  found  that  education  and  vocational  training  has  reduced  early  school 
leaving and improved attitudes to schools, in particular in Germany, where this training also 
improved  the  integration  of  migrants.  In  Germany,  training  was  also  open  to  teachers,  who 
have  gained  communication  and  conflict  resolution  skills.  In  Portugal,  using  different 
teaching  methods  has  helped  to  reduce  school  dropouts,  and  the  ‘Integrated  and  innovative 
plans  to  combat  school  failure’  have  created  new  educational  activities.  One  recent 
counterfactual  evaluation  in  Spain  found  that  a  scheme  to  reduce  early  school  leaving  has 
made it easier for those targeted to access upper secondary education. 

16 

 
Evaluations show positive results from the support for high quality education, which is most 
successful when tailored to the needs of the beneficiaries.  

Projects  have  also  improved  the  links  between  education  and  the  labour  market.  In 
Poland,  increased  cooperation  between  vocational  training  schools  and  employers  has 
improved  teachers’  skills  and  helped  students  choose  suitable  courses.  In  Germany 
(Brandenburg), the most effective factors in helping students to make career choices are high-
quality input from teachers, discussions with parents and practical training in companies. Also 
in  Germany  (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern),  cooperation  with  local  entrepreneurs  has  enabled 
students to make informed career decisions, and in Italy, technical courses have improved the 
participants’ chances of finding a job.  In Czechia, however, the counterfactual analysis does 
not show that projects have had any consistent effect on exam results in maths and the Czech 
language,  as  the  supported  schools  performed  much  the  same  as  schools  that  were  not 
supported. 

Under  TO10,  the  ERDF  focuses  on  investing  in  infrastructure  to  make  education  more 
accessible  and  relevant  equipment.  Investing  in  education  infrastructure  in  Lithuania  has 
helped  to  improve  the  quality  of  pre-school  and  general  education,  although  the  falling 
number of secondary level students remains a challenge. On the other hand, support for higher 
education has made universities more international, increasing the share of foreign students 
and the number of Lithuanian students spending part of their studies abroad.  

  Strengthening institutional capacity and making public administrations more 

efficient 

  TO11: Efficient public administration 

By the end of 2021, cohesion policy programmes had planned EUR 5.6 billion of funding for 
actions to improve institutional capacity. The amount spent had reached 41% of the total, with 
the Member States having received EUR 3.1 billion in payments. Thanks to the investments 
under this TO, more than 840 000 people had participated in targeted activities in more than 
3 000 supported projects. 

Evaluations  of institutional  capacity have found  that in  many  EU regions, investment  under 
this TO has strengthened collaboration and networks between those involved in cohesion 
policy.  In  Poland,  an  improved  understanding  of  good  governance  practices  has  led  public 
authorities  to  increase  people’s  involvement  in  urban  planning  procedures.  In  Slovenia, 
projects have helped strengthen networks of non-governmental organisations and put them in 
contact with public authorities. In Czechia, such investment has enabled  better collaboration 
between social partners.  

In many instances, this investment has also made public administrations more transparent, 
for example by improving the exchange of information on government decisions in Estonia. 
However, public administrations also suffer from a lack of resources, making it difficult to put 
communication strategies and evaluations into practice.  

Improved governance thanks to  projects  in  this field  has also  improved the skills  of staff in 
the  managing  authorities.  In  Czechia,  staff  have  improved  their  know-how  and  capabilities, 
which has helped make the organisation more efficient. In Latvia, supported projects have 
given  public  authorities  a  better  understanding  of  how  to  promote  entrepreneurship.  In 
Lithuania, projects have increased the efficiency of investments by creating  a stronger link 
with reforms. In Romania, the measures supported have helped staff to improve hard and soft 
personal  skills,  to  improve  the  coordination  of  national  programmes,  strengthen  decision-

17 

 
institutional  procedures  (such  as  simplifying 

making  and 
the 
administrative burden and improving inter-organisational relations), and improve the quality 
of judicial services and access to the justice system 

legislation,  reducing 

  Helping the EU recover from the COVID-19 crisis and become more resilient 

In  order  to  fight  the  effects  and  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  EU  put  in  place 
NextGenerationEU, its largest ever recovery package, to emerge more resilient from the crisis 
and  to  support  Europe’s  digital  and  green  transformation.  For  this  purpose  and  within  the 
framework  of  the  2014-2020  structural  funds,  new  resources  of  EUR  50.6  billion  were 
planned via the instrument  Recovery  Assistance  for Cohesion  and the Territories of Europe 
(REACT-EU), with funding of EUR 39.6 billion already programmed in 2021. 

The funds were planned to support medical institutions, researchers, business owners, workers 
and  vulnerable  people.  So  far,  EUR  6.8  billion  has  been  allocated  to  green  investments  (of 
which EUR 5.8 billion to climate action) and EUR 3 billion to the digital economy; EUR 8 
billion  have been allocated  to  supporting  businesses;  EUR 7 billion  to the health sector and 
EUR 15.6 billion for measures dealing with the labour market, social inclusion and education 
and training.  

While there are no evaluations yet that broadly address the impact of the resources allocated 
under CRII, CRII+ and REACT-EU, a few evaluations have targeted specific actions carried 
out  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis.  These  evaluations  cover  different  areas,  such  as 
business support in Hungary, where the use of the ERDF seems to have had a positive effect 
on  the  turnover  of  the  companies  that  were  supported.  In  Italy  (Piedmont),  activities  that 
provided  remote  counselling  for  young  people  were  well  managed  and  organised  despite 
being planned at short notice. Also in Italy (Campania), R&D activities were carried out in 
the health sector. This  strengthened  cooperation  between national  and international  research 
institutes, but projects suffered delays because of the late supply of the materials needed. An 
evaluation  in  Czechia  took  stock  of  the  use  of  cohesion  funds,  including  REACT-EU,  that 
were  deployed  in  response  to  the  pandemic.  CRII  support  was  concentrated  on  financing 
working capital and job retention measures, mostly via financial instruments, while REACT-
EU resources were targeted more on healthcare infrastructure, integrated rescue systems and 
the provision of social services. 

Further  evaluations  are  expected  not  only  on  CRII/CRII+  and  REACT-EU,  but  also  on  the 
support offered by cohesion policy via CARE and FAST-CARE in response to the Ukrainian 
refugee crisis, and in support of REPowerEU’s objectives in the context of the energy crisis, 
including the latest proposal of exceptional measures to address energy price increases.  

  Cross-cutting instruments 

  Territorial  instruments:  integrated  territorial  investment,  community-led 

local development and sustainable urban development 

Cohesion  policy  has  strengthened  its  support  for  integrated  territorial  development  and 
sustainable  urban  development  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period.  Several  tools  have 
been put in place to help achieve the goal of coherent development of the various dimensions 
of  urban  life,  such  as  integrated  territorial  investment  (ITI)  and  community-led  local 
development  (CLLD).  It  was  planned  to  spend  approximately  EUR  32  billion  of  cohesion 
policy funds on integrated territorial development and sustainable urban development. By the 
end of 2021, EUR 31.5 billion  had been allocated to projects, representing 99% of the  total 

18 

 
planned allocation. Projects also speeded up their spending, with 52% (EUR 17 billion) of the 
planned  allocation  spent  by  the  end  of  2021,  up  from  39%  at  the  end  of  2020.  These 
investments  are  expected  to  produce  58  million  square  meters  of  renovated  or  newly 
developed urban open space, which will be accessible to the public, 3.5 million square meters 
of renovated or newly built public buildings, and over 24 000 renovated housing units.  

Most evaluations of territorial approaches to local development still look into implementation 
processes, considering the nature of the investments concerned and the long time-scale over 
which their results are likely to become visible. In a number of cases, they have been effective 
in stimulating cooperation at local level to carry out local strategies and in improving the 
attractiveness of the areas concerned.  

In the two Polish regions that used CLLD, many people have become involved in developing 
local development strategies, and new beneficiaries who had not received EU funding before 
have  been  reached.  In  Czechia,  the  CLLD  approach  has  helped  to  further  consolidate  the 
interconnections  between  different  actors  in  the  country  and  has  enabled  a  large  number  of 
actors to cooperate. 

Again  in  Poland,  ITIs  have supported the development of natural  and cultural  assets, which 
has  made  the  areas  concerned  more  attractive,  increased  their  tourism  potential,  and 
protected biodiversity. 

Important  factors  in  the  efficient  and  effective  management  and  coordination  of  activities 
include clearly defined and appropriate procedures for creating local partnerships, political 
commitment  and  clear  leadership  by  the  participating  institutions.  In  the  Netherlands,  for 
example,  integrated  territorial  instruments  have  enabled  policymakers  to  better  integrate  the 
social and economic aspects of local policies. They have also increased cooperation between 
public  and  private  stakeholders.  In  France,  they  have  improved  the  collaboration  between 
public authorities and local community organisations.  

Effective cooperation between local stakeholders and local people involved in planning and 
carrying  out  projects  took  place  in  Germany  (Thuringia),  where  ERDF  projects  have  been 
integrated  into  a  broader  urban  development  strategy.  However,  a  recent  evaluation  of 
integrated territorial investments in Italy (Sardinia) found that there was significant room for 
improvement in the governance of the strategies. 

  Financial instruments 

More  than  EUR 30  billion  were  spent  by  the  end  of  2021  through  financial  instruments  in 
different policy areas. By the end of 2021, more than 514 000 businesses had received support 
via financial instruments, with 24 000 more expected to benefit from this type of support by 
the end of 2023. This in turn has already generated more than EUR 11.4 billion in matching 
private investment with an additional EUR 3 billion expected by the end of the programming 
period.  

Financial instruments, including loans, guarantees, equity and other risk-bearing mechanisms 
have been key in supporting different policy areas, such as SME competitiveness, research 
and  innovation  or  energy  efficiency.  Many  evaluations  have  found  the  use  of  financial 
instruments to be successful, mostly in the area of business support.  

The use of financial instruments has supported the growth of companies, and business start-
ups,  which  often  have  difficulty  in  obtaining  finance,  and  helped  to  increase  funding  for 
business investment. In Germany and Northern Ireland, financial instruments have increased 

19 

 
business  competitiveness,  profits  and  turnover.  A  recent  evaluation  shows  that  in  Poland 
financial instruments have had a positive impact on promoting self-employment, with 84% of 
the entrepreneurs supported still active after two years. 

Financial  instruments  have  been  used  to  fund  research  and  innovation in  SMEs  and  have 
been  an  important  factor  in  fostering  innovation  and  competitiveness.  Positive  results  are 
reported  in  Italy  (Lombardy)  where  a  loan  guarantee  measure  has  helped  SMEs  to  improve 
the organisation of their work, invest in innovative products and increase revenue.  

In  some  cases,  evaluations  have  reported  difficulties  stemming  from  the  complexity  of  the 
instruments.  In  Czechia,  the  number  of  available  instruments  at  EU,  national  and  regional 
level creates fragmentation and overlaps. Polish  authorities face difficulties arising from the 
complex national regulatory framework, the complicated implementation model and a lack of 
coordination and harmonisation of the offer. 

  European territorial cooperation  

One  of  the  goals  of  the  ERDF  directly  targets  the  territorial  cooperation  dimension  at  EU 
level.  Funding  of  EUR  13  billion  was  planned  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period  for 
measures in support of this goal. By the end of 2021, EUR 8 billion (64% of the total planned 
amount) had been spent. In terms of the outputs generated by this funding, more than 33 500 
businesses have participated in cross-border, transnational or interregional research projects, 
and 165 000 people have benefitted from cross-border mobility initiatives.  

Most  of  the  cooperation  projects  would  not  have  taken  place  without  ERDF  funding. 
Research, development and innovation, and the environment are the policy areas that received 
the  largest  share  of  financial  resources.  Several  projects  focused  on  cooperation  in  R&D 
between  research  centres  and  companies  on  both  sides  of  a  border,  such  as  under  the  Italy-
Austria  OP  and  the  Germany-Denmark  OP.  The  projects  also  helped  increase  cooperation 
between institutions and local communities across borders.  

Projects  have  also  helped  to  involve  more  locals  in  decision-making  processes,  leading  to 
more  inclusive  and  effective  policies.  For  example,  more  networking  and  institutional 
cooperation took place between Germany and Czechia, and Polish and Czech local authorities 
have embarked on long-term cooperation. 

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

  creating  cross-border  networks  for  technology  transfer  and  to  promote  energy 

efficiency between Germany and the Netherlands;  

  producing  joint  measures  to  protect  biodiversity  and  manage  the  risks  of  climate 

change between France and Italy;  

  promoting cultural heritage in Estonia and Latvia.  

The  findings  of  a  recent  evaluation  show  that,  as  a  result  of  the  Romania-Serbia  Interreg 
programme,  cross-border  cooperation  intensified  in  all  relevant  areas.  Under  the  Sweden, 
Denmark  and  Norway  Interreg  OP  (in  Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak),  in  addition  to  the 
positive achievements already reported under TO1, the vast majority of projects on the green 
economy have achieved good results. 

In  some  instances,  however,  differences  in  regulatory  frameworks  and  the  limited 
involvement  of  policymakers  restricted  the  extent  of  cooperation,  highlighting  that  there  is 

20 

 
still  some  room  to  improve  cooperation  between  the  bodies  that  manage  cooperation 
programmes. 

  General findings on implementation 

While projects were still running and before their effectiveness, efficiency and impact could 
be  assessed,  managing  authorities  have  invested  in  evaluating  how  the  funding  has  been 
managed  and  spent,  to  improve  the  design  of  projects  and  the  quality  of  outputs.  Systemic 
success factors and weaknesses have thus started to emerge, along with  mixed findings on 
some  general  aspects,  providing  important  information  for  the  managing  authorities  of  the 
2014-2020 period, which was also useful for planning of 2021-2027 programmes.  

Evaluations  have  highlighted  the  importance,  during  the  planning  process,  of  keeping  the 
design  of  the  interventions  flexible  and  of  involving  stakeholders  to  ensure  that  the 
programme  delivers  its  objectives  and  that  it  is  consistent  and  complementary  with  other 
national or regional development policies. 

Some  crucial  elements  can  also  improve  the  selection  process.  The  use  of  standardised 
models  for  calls  for  proposals,  pre-selection  or  two-step  selection  procedures,  increased 
transparency  and  electronic  platforms  to  submit  projects  all  help  to  reduce  administrative 
burdens and improve the quality of project applications. 

Arrangements to ensure smooth communication between stakeholders  while the projects  are 
running  are  essential  to  solving  problems  and  taking  quick  action.  Efficient  communication 
and monitoring systems are key tools to guide how programmes can be run effectively.  

Governance issues have recently been reported in Italy (Sicily), where the running of some 
environmental  and  cultural  projects  faced  problems  because  of  insufficient  coordination 
between the departments involved. Similarly, in Croatia, there has been limited cooperation 
and  communication  between  the  management  and  control  bodies  and  the  beneficiaries  and 
stakeholders.  

In some cases, the selection process has been too long and the application procedures were 
considered  to  be  excessively  complicated.  The  long  duration  of  the  selection  process, 
together  with  administrative  complexity,  delayed  measures  to  support  SMEs  in  Slovakia, 
while in  Italy (Marche) the complexity of procurement procedures and the lack of  adequate 
resources  created  delays.  In  other  instances,  the  selection  criteria  were  not  suitable  for 
selecting  the  best  projects.  In  Italy  (Friuli-Venezia  Giulia)  a  lack  of  selectivity  in  choosing 
actions to support advanced manufacturing systems, advanced materials and nanoelectronics 
led  to  the  financing  of  many  projects  that  probably  would  have  happened  anyway  in  the 
absence of ERDF support (known as ‘deadweight’). 

Shortage  of  skills  and  available  personnel  is  a  recurring  issue,  most  recently  reported  in 
Hungary in the area of planning and management in the Environmental and Energy Efficiency 
and the Competitive Central-Hungary OPs. 

Difficulties  emerged  in  respect  of  understanding  and  applying  simplified  cost  options  in 
some  Member  States,  most  recently  in  Poland.  However,  in  other  cases  these  were  applied 
successfully, and some evaluations in Italy (Marche and Veneto) propose to make more use of 
simplified cost options in 2021-2027 programmes. 

The  administrative  burden  was  considered  too  high  according  to  recent  evaluations  in 
Poland  (Kujawsko-Pomorskie)  of  measures  supporting  business  activities,  and  in  Italy 
(Veneto), where beneficiaries considered application procedures burdensome. Together with 

21 

 
uncertainty  about  the  time  frame  for  funding,  this  limited  the  participation  of  start-ups. 
Burdensome  reporting,  especially  drafting  intermediate  and  final  reports  on  project 
participants, was also reported as an issue for ESF actions aimed at promoting active inclusion 
in the Netherlands.  

2.1.3  Support to the Member States 

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

The Commission has continued to run its cohesion policy evaluation helpdesk to strengthen 
Member  States’  evaluation  capacity.  The  experts  of  the  helpdesk  collect,  categorise, 
summarise and analyse the evaluations carried out by the Member States. The main findings 
on  impacts  are  summarised  by  country  and  by  thematic  objective.  All  evaluations,  together 
with their summaries in English, are uploaded to the evaluation library10. The helpdesk also 
provides  customised  support  to  the  Member  States  on  specific  evaluation  issues,  including 
feedback  and  advice  on  evaluation  questions,  the  scope  of  evaluation  and  choice  of 
methodology.  The  Member  States  have  also  received  expert  feedback  on  drafting  terms  of 
reference, evaluation reports and evaluation plans. 

In addition, the Commission organises evaluation summer schools for managing authorities 
and  other  public  bodies  involved  in  the  evaluation  of  ERDF/CF  programmes.  The  schools 
provide practical training in the areas most requested by the Member States. After the 2021 
edition  in  hybrid  format,  at  the  latest  summer  school  in  Prague,  Czechia  in  June  2022  all 
participants  were  physically  present,  which  meant  they  could  take  full  advantage  of  group 
work  and  face-to-face  interaction.  The  summer  school  focused  on  the  general  theme  of 
evaluation design and included a masterclass on the evaluation of territorial effects. 

In  cooperation  with  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC),  the  Directorate-General  for 
Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  promotes  the  use  of  counterfactual  impact 
evaluations  (CIEs).  Special  efforts  are  made  to  increase  managing  authorities’  capacity  to 
conduct  CIEs  because  these  types  of  evaluations  can  provide  robust  evidence  on  the 
effectiveness  of  the  ESF.  The  managing  authorities  can  receive  tailor-made  support  in 
different phases of the evaluation. In 2022, JRC experts provided support to six countries to 
carry  out  CIEs.  The  managing  authorities  can  exchange  experience  in  the  regular  CIE 
community  of  practice  meetings  organised  by  the  JRC.  One  larger  and  three  smaller  scale 
meetings took place in 2022. The participants discussed a wide range of topics, including the 
latest developments in CIEs in the EU, communicating the evaluation  results, the quality of 
evaluation reports and data needs. 

In 2022, the Commission published the translations in 23 EU languages of the updated guide 
‘Design and commissioning of counterfactual impact evaluations’11. The guide is the 2021 

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

11  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/dd4a4fc7-42a3-11ec-89db-01aa75ed71a1  

22 

 
                                                 
update  of  material  published  in  2013,  and  it  is  intended  for  managing  authorities  and  other 
stakeholders involved in the evaluation of programmes funded by ESF+. The guide introduces 
the concepts of the CIEs and helps with the planning, design and commissioning of CIEs. 

With a view to sharing good practice and mutual learning in ESF monitoring, the ESF Data 
Support  Centre  held  data  network  meetings  with  national  ESF  authorities,  including  on 
target  setting,  informed  estimates  and  soft  indicators.  Methodological  advice  has  been 
published  in  the  ESF+  common  indicators  toolbox  and  in  the  FAQs  section  in  the  SFC 
electronic data exchange system12. 

2.2 

Evaluation work by the Commission 

Several evaluations were completed in 2022, including: (i) the ex post evaluation of research 
and  technological  development  infrastructures  and  activities  financed  by  the  ERDF  in  the 
2007-2013  period;  (ii)  the  evaluation  of  the  e-Cohesion  system;  (iii)  the  preliminary 
evaluation  of  support  from  the  ESF  and  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived 
(FEAD)  under  CRII  and  CRII+;  (iv)  the  meta-analysis  of  the  ESF  and  YEI  counterfactual 
impact evaluations. 

The Commission is finalising its ex post evaluation of investment projects in infrastructures, 
competence  centres  and  activities  for  research  and  technological  development  (RTD) 
financed  by  the  ERDF  in  the  period  2007-2013.  Preliminary  findings  indicate  that  ERDF 
support has helped regions to catch up in terms of their RTD capacities, particularly in 
EU13  lagging  regions.  This  good  result  was  mainly  delivered  by  targeting  infrastructure 
investments  on  upgrading  and  modernising  existing  facilities  and  building  new  ones.  In 
addition, support for RTD projects, both individual and collaborative, resulted in observable 
effects on scientific production and capacity. The main drawback was the lack of observable 
long-term  impacts,  as  far  as  the  use  of  research  results  for  technological  development  and 
innovation  are  concerned.  Synergies  and  complementarities  with  existing  funding  sources 
were  also  not  always  well  exploited.  A  preliminary  conclusion  is  that  ERDF  support  alone 
may  not  be  enough:  other  supporting  factors  and  more  place-based  approaches  are 
probably  necessary  for  a  noticeable  shift  in  technological  capacity.  These  shortcomings 
have  been  mostly  addressed  by  new  elements  introduced  into  the  ERDF  in  2014-2020  and 
2021-2027. The evaluation report will be published in the first quarter of 2023. 

The  evaluation  of  e-cohesion,  the  electronic  data  exchange  system  that  simplifies  the 
exchange  of  documents  and  data  between  the  beneficiaries  of  ESI  Funds  and  the  relevant 
authorities,  is  under  finalisation.  Preliminary  findings  reveal  that  e-cohesion  systems  have 
been  widely  introduced,  as  99%  of  the  302  ERDF/CF  OPs  analysed  have  an  e-cohesion 
system.  In  addition,  most  users  who  responded  to  the  surveys  (80%)  agree  that  e-cohesion 
represents an improvement in information exchange between beneficiaries and programme 
authorities and that its advantages outweigh its operating costs. Future improvements should 
eliminate  the  paper-based  exchanges  that  are  still  in  place  in  certain  instances  (audit 
verifications)  and  take  advantage  of  the  potential  for  interoperability  between  systems.  The 
Commission will publish the evaluation report in the second quarter of 2023. 

The  study  supporting  the  preliminary  evaluation  of  support  from  the  ESF  and  FEAD 
under the CRII and CRII+ is also under finalisation, with publication of the evaluation report 
scheduled for the second quarter of 2023. The evaluation focuses on the process of reacting to 
the COVID-19 crisis and the role that the ESF and FEAD played in the reactions of the EU 
Member States and UK. 

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

23 

 
                                                 
In  2022,  the  Commission  carried  out  the  meta-analysis  of  CIEs  on  the  ESF  and  YEI. 
During the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods the Member States and the UK 
conducted  more  than  one  hundred  CIEs  on  the  ESF  and  YEI.  The  purpose  of  the  meta-
analysis was to synthesise the findings of these individual evaluations and to find systematic 
evidence  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  ESF  and  YEI.  The  results  showed  that  overall  the 
ESF/YEI interventions in the EU are effective: the size of the average estimated effect in the 
sample  was  a  7.3  percentage  point  increase  in  the  probability  of  participants  to  find 
employment.  The  meta-analysis  has  identified  employment  subsidies  and  internships  as  the 
most successful types of ESF/YEI intervention, while public employment programmes were 
found to be relatively ineffective. A meta-analysis of the CIEs on education outcomes could 
not be carried out due to the low number and high degree of heterogeneity of education CIEs. 

In line with Article 57 of the Common Provisions Regulation, and after extensive discussions 
at  the  ninth  conference  on  the  evaluation  of  EU  cohesion  policy  in  September  2021,  the 
Commission started the ex post evaluation of cohesion policy in 2014-2020. For ERDF and 
CF  investments,  the  evaluation  work  is  structured  according  to  five  cross-cutting  and  eight 
thematic work packages, most of which are now under way13. The ‘Preparatory study on data 
collection’  (work  package  2)  has  been  finalised  and  has  produced  rich  datasets  on 
operations,  beneficiaries  and  indicators14.  These  datasets  go  beyond  the  public  lists  of 
operations,  national  open  data  platforms  and  annual  implementation  reports  (AIRs)  and 
provide  an  important  additional  source  for  analysis  in  the  thematic  work  packages.  The  ex 
post  evaluation  of  ESF  investment  was  also  launched  in  2022,  and  will  cover  all  ESF 
investment priorities in order to obtain a complete overview of the ESF and YEI, building on 
the interim evaluations completed in 2020. The ex post evaluation will be finalised with the 
synthesis report due by the end of 2025, but a number of interim deliverables will be available 
sooner. 

3 

EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL FUND FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 
(EAFRD) 

3.1 

Evaluations in the Member States 

3.1.1  General overview 

The number of completed evaluations (209), reported in 114 AIRs submitted and analysed 
in  2022,  slightly  decreased  (-4%)  compared  to  the  previous  year  (217)  and  brings  the  total 
number of evaluations completed in the 2014-2020 period to 1 160.  

The  209  evaluations  were  carried  out  by  22  Member  States  and  the  biggest  share  covered 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) objective 2 (Ensuring sustainable management of natural 
resources  and  climate  action),  followed  by  evaluations  on  multiple  rural  development 
programme (RDP) priorities and objectives. 

13  https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/ec/2014-2020/  

14  For  a  full  description  of  the  data,  see  the  related  story  on  the  Cohesion  open  data  platform,  at: 

https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/h9bm-ur7f  

24 

 
 
                                                 
Figure  6:  Completed  evaluations  (209  in  total)  across  main  topics  reported  in  AIRs  in 
2022 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2022). 

The main  types of evaluations  reported in 2022 were  evaluations  of achievements (31%) 
followed  by  impact  evaluations  (27%).  The  share  of  impact  evaluations  with  a  clear 
counterfactual approach increased (10% of the total, compared to 3% in 2021). Furthermore, 
process  evaluations  of  the  implementation  system  (13%)  and  research  studies  other  than 
evaluations,  such  as  monitoring  studies  (16%),  were  also  carried  out.  Various  evaluations 
related  to  the  ex  ante  evaluation  of  the  CAP  strategic  plans  2023-2027,  including  ex  ante 
evaluations of financial instruments and strategic environmental assessments, some of which 
at the drafting stage. 

Figure 7: Type of evaluations reported (in absolute numbers, total=209) 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2022). 

A  substantial  number  of  communication  activities  (348)  on  evaluation  findings  was 
reported in 2022 and Member States estimate that  altogether around 6 million people were 
reached, which is considerably higher than the number reported in 2021 (3.8 million). Most 
people  were  reached  through  websites  (4.6  million  or  76%),  followed  by  internal  meetings 

25 

 
 
 
with  programme  authorities  (17%).  A  smaller  share  was  reached  through  a  combination  of 
various  communication  channels,  including  newsletters,  publicly  available  documents, 
meetings and outreach event, social media, etc. 

Follow-ups  to  evaluation  results  (471)  were  reported  to  a  greater  extent  than  in  2021. 
Member  States  used  the  evaluation  results  mainly  to  improve  the  RDP  delivery 
mechanism (43%) and to the prepare the CAP Strategic Plans (27%) for the programming 
period  2023-2027.  To  a  lesser  degree,  evaluation  results  were  used  to  improve  the 
intervention  logic  of  the  RDP  (14%)  and  to  adapt  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  system 
(11%). 

Figure 8: Use of evaluation results (in %, N=471) 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2022). 

3.1.2  Main findings of evaluations 

The overall number of evaluation findings reported is steadily increasing. In 2022, it has 
more than doubled (397 compared to 198 in 2021, and 156 in 2020).  

Member  States  reported  considerably  more  evaluation  findings  in  relation  to  the  three  CAP 
objectives and the cross-cutting objective in 2022 compared to 2021. Evidently, in the more 
advanced  phase  of  the  implementation  period,  Member  States  were  able  to  generate 
evaluation insights in areas that previously could not be assessed due to the level of uptake. 

Evaluation  findings  are  increasingly  derived  from  the  assessment  of  observed  impacts  and 
results,  given  that  more  data  is  available  at  this  stage  of  the  policy  cycle.  In  2022,  64%  of 
findings were based on the assessment of impacts and results, compared to 60% in 2021. 
A  smaller  share  of  findings  (18%  in  2022)  is  based  mainly  on  the  analysis  of  inputs  and 
outputs, while some findings (7%) follow an analysis of contextual trends at the macro level 
(i.e.  no  effect  of  the  RDP  was  assessed).  Other  forms  of  evidence  (e.g.  expert  judgement, 
process analysis, etc.) were the source of 11% of the reported findings. 

26 

 
 
 
Figure  9:  Evidence  basis  of  evaluation  findings  reported  in  the  AIRs  in  2022  (N=397 
findings)

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2022). 

Member  States  report  that  a  large  share  of  evaluation  findings  (41%)  show  clear 
positive  effects  of  CAP  expenditure,  in  particular  within  CAP  objective  1  (viable  food 
production) and multiple RDP priorities. 

Mixed effects are reported in 23% of the findings, negative in 4%, and zero effects were 
reported  in  5%  of  cases.  The  share  of  findings  for  which  the  direction  of  effects  cannot  be 
specified remains high (27%, i.e. the same share as in 2021). In such cases, the link between 
the policy and the development of impact or result indicators could not be demonstrated or is 
not applicable (e.g. for findings related to the CAP strategic plan 2023-2027). 

Figure 10: Direction of effects of reported evaluation findings (N=397 findings) 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2022). 

A further breakdown of the subset of reported evaluation findings linked to individual CAP 
objectives provides the following picture:  

27 

 
 
 
CAP Objective 1 - Fostering the competitiveness of agriculture  

For  this  objective,  27  RDPs  (11  Member  States)  reported  75  evaluation  findings  in  2022, 
which is nearly three times higher compared to the previous  year.  55% of the findings are 
clearly positive, followed by mixed (12%), unspecified (28%) and negative effects (5%).  

The  highest  number  of  positive  findings  under  this  objective  is  related  to  RDP  Priority  2: 
Farm viability and competitiveness. Member States mention  the clear positive net effects of 
the support given on the competitiveness of farms (e.g. increases in gross value added, farm 
incomes,  level  of  competitiveness  index)  compared  to  the  control  group  of  non-supported 
farms. An increase in the efficiency of production processes and labour productivity has been 
found as a result of the investments.  

For  RDP  Priority  3:  Food  chain  organisation,  animal  welfare  and  risk  management,  the 
positive effects were the increased efficiency and profitability of food production (processing) 
and  increased  income  for  producers.  The  measures  carried  out  under  the  RDP  have  clearly 
improved the participation of producers in the food chain. 

CAP  Objective  2  -  Ensuring  the  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  and 
climate actions  

The  environmental  CAP  objective  shows,  as  in  previous  years,  the  highest  number  of 
evaluation findings (137) among all CAP objectives, which increased by more than 70% on 
the previous year. Altogether 42 RDPs (17 Member States) reported findings of which 41% 
are positive effects, followed by mixed (26%), unspecified (18%), zero effects (11%) and 
negative effects (4%).  

The highest number of positive effects were reported for RDP Priority 4: Ecosystems related 
to  agriculture  and  forestry,  which  has  also  a  high  number  of  mixed  effects.  Under  RDP 
Priority  4,  Member  States  reported  a  considerable  reduction  in  soil  loss  through  RDP 
measures, as well as a substantial increase of soil organic matter. A positive effect on water 
quality was found in the agricultural areas supported and nitrogen loads and surplus have been 
significantly reduced since the adoption of RDP interventions.  

A  high  number  of  positive  effects  were  also  reported  under  RDP  Priority  5:  Resource 
efficiency,  low-carbon  and  climate  resilient  economy.  Moderate  reductions  in  nitrate, 
phosphorus, nitrous oxide and methane were reported under RDP Priority 5. 

CAP Objective 3 - Achieving a balanced territorial development  

The number of evaluation findings under the third CAP objective has tripled compared to the 
previous year. 31 RDPs (10 Member States) reported 59 findings in 2022. While the largest 
number  of  reported  effects  are  positive  (44%),  there  are  also  mixed  (20%),  unspecified 
(31%), zero effects (3%) and negative effects (2%).  

job  creation  and  ICT 

Most of the findings relate to CLLD/LEADER/LAGs and less to other Priority 6 topics such 
as  diversification, 
to 
CLLD/LEADER/LAGs often also show mixed or unspecified effects. Evaluation activities by 
LAGs  showed  achievements  such  as  helping  people  enter  the  labour  market,  mitigating 
depopulation, creating jobs, increasing equal opportunities in rural areas, or improving public 
services for disadvantaged people and those at risk of social exclusion.  

in  rural  areas.  Findings 

in  relation 

Horizontal  Priority  1:  Fostering  knowledge  transfer  and  innovation  in  agriculture, 
forestry, and rural areas  

Under  this  priority  a  small  group  of  19  RDPs  (8  Member  States)  reported  30  evaluation 
findings in 2022, which is more than three times higher than in the previous year and overall 
the biggest increase among all CAP objectives. 37% of the reported findings show positive 
effects, which relate in  particular to EIP-Agri and innovation support but less to knowledge 

28 

 
transfer.  These  largely  positive  results  might  not  be  representative  of  the  total  number  of 
RDPs  due the still relatively  small  number of reported findings. 27% of the findings show 
mixed  effects,  3%  zero  effects  and  3%  negative  effects.  30%  of  the  findings  are 
unspecified.  

The evaluation findings show that RDP support has made it possible to carry out projects that 
opened  up  new  lines  of  work  between  actors  in  the  agri-food  value  chain,  thanks  to  the 
combination of cooperation and innovation. Cooperation activities have also made it possible 
to overcome certain problems in the mechanism of knowledge transfer and the generation of 
innovation  processes  within  the  agri-food  value  chain.  The  RDPs  helped  to  establish  links 
between research  centres and universities  and farmers, food companies and agricultural  and 
livestock associations. 

3.1.3  Support to the Member States 

In  December  2021,  the  new  European  Evaluation  Helpdesk  for  the  CAP  started  its  support 
activities, replacing the European Network for Rural Development Evaluation Helpdesk. As 
part of the EU CAP Network, the Evaluation Helpdesk15 supports Member States by assisting 
managing authorities, national CAP networks, paying agencies and  evaluators on a range of 
issues, from conducting ex ante and ex post evaluations of the CAP strategic plan to assessing 
specific objectives and types of interventions. 

3.2 

Evaluation work by the Commission 

Since  October  2021,  the  Commission  has  published  the  following  evaluations  or  support 
studies on EAFRD funding: 

  On  8  December  2021,  the  Commission  published  a  staff  working  document  on 
evaluation  of  the  information  policy  of  the  CAP16,  which  showed  that  the 
information  actions  on  the  CAP  increase  understanding  of  the  policy  and  improve 
perception among stakeholders and people in the EU, but also acknowledges scope to 
further  improve  and  adapt  them  to  the  new  CAP  and  to  the  needs  of  society.  The 
activities were effective (as reflected in Eurobarometer surveys), which indicated that 
nearly  three  out  of  four  people  in  Europe  are  aware  of  the  CAP  and  consider  that  it 
benefits everyone, not just farmers. 

  On 10 December 2021, the Commission published a staff working document on the 
impact  of  the  CAP  on  territorial  development  of  rural  areas:  socio-economic 
aspects17. It showed that the CAP is effective in improving the viability of farms and 
keep farms running in rural areas. The uneven distribution of support, however, limits 
its effectiveness in reducing economic disparities between farmers. CAP support has a 
significant spill-over effect into the wider rural economy, especially in less developed 
regions, and generates gross value added and employment in rural areas across the EU 
and  contributes  to  generational  renewal.  The  document  concluded  that  poverty  and 
land  abandonment  would  be  more  pronounced  in  the  absence  of  the  CAP;  however, 
administrative burdens limit the efficiency of CAP support in rural areas. 

  On 16 December 2021, the Commission published a report on the implementation 
of the common monitoring and evaluation framework including an assessment of 

15  https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/support/european-evaluation-helpdesk_en  

16  SWD(2021) 980 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0980  

17  SWD(2021) 384 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0394 

29 

 
                                                 
the performance of the CAP in 2014-202018. This report shows how the 2014-2020 
measures  under  the  CAP  provided  economic,  environmental,  social  and  political 
added value in the EU. In particular, this has included: (i) supporting a fair standard of 
living for farmers and addressing needs in rural areas, in particular in remote areas and 
areas with low population density, thus strengthening regional and social cohesion; (ii) 
ensuring a stable, safe and healthy food supply; (iii) providing clear food information 
to  consumers  in  the  EU;  (iv)  strengthening  environmental  protection  and  climate 
action by raising standards and encouraging change. However, the CAP must still do 
more to support the sustainability of EU agriculture, in line with the European Green 
Deal and its farm-to-fork strategy.  

  On 17 December 2021, the Commission published a staff working document on the 
impact  of  the  CAP  on  biodiversity,  soil  and  water  (natural  resources)19.  It 
concluded that the CAP provides EU added value by setting a higher level of ambition 
than might be possible under a purely national approach, requiring minimum levels of 
financial  support,  and  supporting  knowledge  sharing  between  Member  States. 
However, the potential of the CAP to address the sustainable management of natural 
resources  was  not  fully  exploited  between  2014  and  2020.  Member  States  did  not 
allocate  enough  funding  to  the  most  relevant  measures,  and/or  took  a  minimalistic 
approach  to  cross-compliance  and  greening  conditions.  The  evaluation  reaffirms  the 
relevance  of  the  CAP’s  objective  to  address  the  sustainable  management  of  natural 
resources  and  the  CAP’s  potential  to  fulfil  sustainable  management  objectives  by 
providing  extensive  protection  through  cross-compliance,  greening  obligations  and 
more  targeted  voluntary  commitments  under  rural  development  support.  The 
evaluation also concluded that the CAP can prevent land abandonment and slow down 
specialisation  in  farming  systems,  and  help  maintain  diversified  land  use,  including 
farming and permanent grasslands. 

  On 17 March 2022, the Commission published an evaluation support study on the 
impact  of  LEADER  on  balanced  territorial  development20.  It  concluded  that 
LEADER, by promoting integrated rural CLLD through a bottom-up and multi-sector 
approach, has demonstrated its relevance, effectiveness and added value for integrated 
and  sustainable  rural  development  at  a  local  level  across  Europe. Despite  its  limited 
resources,  LEADER has been able to develop  complex and locally tailored solutions 
to many rural development challenges. However, certain areas for improvement were 
identified,  particularly  on  knowledge  exchange  between  different  levels  of  the 
governance and delivery system. The study also recommended that procedures should 
be  simplified,  cooperation  should  be  strengthened  and  new  indicators  and  methods 
should be developed to better capture LEADER’s added value. 

  On 5 May 2022, the Commission published a staff working document on the CAP’s 
impact  on  knowledge  exchange  and  advisory  activities21.  The  evaluation  showed 
that  the  CAP  was  effective  in  addressing  the  objective  of  creating  knowledge 
exchange  and  innovation,  and  fostering  advisory  activities.  The  CAP  also  helped  to 
build  knowledge,  in  particular  on  technology,  cross-compliance  and  environmental 
sustainability. Advisory services contributed to farmers’ lifelong learning, but Member 

18  SWD(2021) 387 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0387  

19  SWD(2021) 424 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0424  

20  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bd6e4f7c-a5a6-11ec-83e1-01aa75ed71a1  

21  SWD(2022) 137 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022SC0137  

30 

 
                                                 
States’ responses to the obligation to set up a farm advisory system (FAS) have varied. 
The evaluation  confirmed that CAP  instruments and measures contribute to  Member 
State agricultural knowledge and innovation systems, however the coherence between 
the EU measures was lacking. Advisory services supported through the FAS and rural 
development  were  managed  by  different  authorities  with  sometimes  different 
jurisdictional powers and objectives. This produced a lack of consistency between the 
two policy instruments. Although the policy was deemed to have a significant role in 
helping farmers make the transition to a green and sustainable agricultural sector, the 
limited uptake was a considerable drawback, since it reached fewer than 10% of farm 
holdings in the EU.  

  On  11  May  2022,  the  Commission  published  a  study  on  CAP  measures  and 
in  the  use  of 
instruments  promoting  animal  welfare  and  a  reduction 
antimicrobials22.  The  study  concluded  that  CAP  instruments  and  measures  can 
contribute to animal welfare and help reduce the use of antimicrobials. As only a few 
Member  States  had  introduced  monitoring  systems,  which  did  not  collect  enough 
information  to  determine  progress  in  this  area,  the  study  recommended  that 
appropriate indicators should be drawn up. 

  On  30  June  2022,  the  Commission  published  a  staff  working  document  on  the 
evaluation  of  the  2007-2013  rural  development  programmes23.  Although  it  was 
difficult  to  establish  the  extent  to  which  positive  changes  in  the  various  programme 
areas  were  due  to  the  measures  introduced,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  2007-2013 
RDPs were generally successful in improving the competitiveness of the agricultural 
and  forestry  sector  (rural  development  objective  1).  Investments  aiming  to  improve 
productivity, efficiency and sustainability were key. Measures to attract young people 
to  rural  areas  targeted  the  maintenance  rather  than  the  creation  of  farming  jobs, 
particularly  in  marginal  areas.  On  the  environment  and  countryside  (objective  2), 
Member  States/regions  reported  benefits  from  the  rural  development  policy, 
suggesting that although natural resources deteriorated over the programming period, 
the deterioration would have been worse and more land would have been abandoned 
without  the  CAP.  The  programmes  improved  quality  of  life  in  rural  areas  and 
encouraged  diversification  in  the  rural  economy  (objective  3)  only  marginally.  On 
building local capacity for employment and diversification (objective 4),  local action 
groups  contributed  to  the  objectives  under  local  development  strategies  and  rural 
development programmes only to a limited extent. The rural development programmes 
made  a  moderate  contribution  to  building  local  capacities  for  employment  and 
diversification of the rural economy through LEADER. Overall, the rural development 
programmes  have  helped  address  the  needs  identified  in  the  programme  area  to  a 
moderate  extent.  On  the  social  and  economic  dimensions,  there  are  considerable 
differences in the extent to which individual needs were addressed by the RDPs, while 
in the environmental dimension needs were addressed more homogeneously. 

22  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1dfbca3d-d0d3-11ec-a95f-01aa75ed71a1  

23  SWD(2022) 182 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022SC0182  

31 

 
                                                 
4 

EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND (EMFF) 

4.1 

Evaluations in the Member States 

By the end of 2021, EUR 4.9 billion of EMFF funding had been committed to operations in 
the  Member  States.  This  corresponds  to  87%  of  the  total  EMFF  budget  of  EUR  5.6  billion 
available  under  shared  management.  Expenditures  declared  by  beneficiaries  have  reached 
EUR 3.1 billion (55% of total EMFF funding) since the beginning of the programming period.  

During this time, a total of 64 evaluation operations were reported24 on the 16 Member State 
programmes, with EUR 6.5 million committed to support this work. Of this amount, half of 
the commitments were for Spain (EUR 3.2 million), followed by Sweden (EUR 0.8 million) 
and  Italy  (EUR  0.7  million).  Spain,  Sweden  and  Czechia  reported  the  highest  number  of 
evaluations.  The  Commission  provides  practical  support  to  managing  authorities  to  boost 
Member  States’  capacity  to  evaluate  the  EMFF  and  to  enrich  the  scope  and  quality  of  the 
evaluations conducted. 

The  information  used  for  EMFF  evaluations  comes  from  the  annual  implementation  reports 
(AIR). However, the information presented in the AIRs varies significantly between Member 
States  in  terms  of  the  level  of  detail  provided  and  this  is  likely  correlated  to  the  scope  and 
depth  of  the  evaluation  process  itself.  Several  Member  States  have  rather  small  EMFF 
budgets, which is a factor in limiting the scope of the evaluations. 

The type of evaluation varies  considerably  between  the Member States.  Process  evaluations 
are  the  most  frequently  mentioned  type  of  evaluation.  Effectiveness  and  impact  evaluations 
cover  a  wide  range  of  issues,  and  address  effectiveness  and  efficiency  at  the  operational 
programme level and the level of the partnership agreement and at the levels of EU priorities, 
specific objectives and measures (for example, CLLD and permanent cessation) or strategies 
(for example, the aquaculture strategy). Several impact evaluations were also carried out, for 
example, impact assessment at the level of EU priorities and assessment of the impact of the 
COVID-19 pandemic on the fisheries sector.  

Recommendations  included  in  the  evaluations  also  cover  a  wide  range  of  issues  and  some 
recommendations were mentioned by multiple Member States. One such recommendation is 
that  amendments  to  the  national  operational  programmes  and  the  reallocation  of  financial 
resources are crucial to the implementation of the EMFF. This is particularly important since 
EMFF expenditures are eligible only for two more years (until 2023).  

Several Member States also recommended to further reduce administrative burdens and take 
action to increase the administrative capacity of managing authorities.  

Recommendations to specific countries included suggestions to: (i) improve the efficiency of 
communication and publicity measures; (ii) increase knowledge dissemination; (iii) consider 
cross-cutting issues (e.g. reduce environmental impact, use of environmental indicators); (iv) 
encourage  the  creation  of  producer  organisations;  (v)  consider  subsidising  the  collection  of 
marine  litter;  (vi)  provide  additional  education  to  fisheries  local  action  groups  (FLAGs)  on 
strategic planning, networking and creating partnerships, and on preparing and implementing 
projects,  on  broader  topics  related  to  blue  growth;  (vii)  include  principles  to  be  generally 
applied  in  procurement  procedures  (e.g.  green  public  procurement);  (viii)  outsource  the 
evaluation of project proposals to speed up the selection process.  

24  Member States report in line with Article 97(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014. 

32 

 
                                                 
Several  evaluations  provided  recommendations  on  preparations  for  the  2021-2027  period. 
These  included  suggestions  to:  (i)  use  simplified  cost  options;  (ii)  simplify  administrative 
procedures  to  ensure  the  timely  and  optimal  implementation  of  CLLD  measures  and  to 
strengthen  national  FLAGs  networks;  (iii)  streamline  the  number  of  interventions  in  the 
interests of efficiency and clarity; (iv) ensure clear targeting to areas of need, minimising any 
potential for overlap; (v) improve the efficiency of programme management as regards the IT 
system  and  process  more  grants  online.  Some  Member  States  also  carried  out  strategic 
environmental impact assessments for 2021-2027 programmes under the scope of evaluations.  

Overall,  EMFF  evaluations  helped  Member  States  to  assess  funding  needs  and  facilitated 
preparations for the 2021-2027 period. The evaluations established the feasibility of the draft 
programme; the appropriateness of the intended goals, priorities and measures in the context 
of the sector’s needs; and the appropriateness of the financial allocations. 

The list of specific evaluations includes the following: 

  An  evaluation  of  support  payments  for  organic  aquaculture  for  the  promotion  of 
environmental services in aquaculture and the development of organic aquaculture; 
  An assessment of mechanisms to  improve the development  and  use of innovation in 

fisheries; 

  Methodological issues in evaluation and data collection; 
  Climate adaptation in EU programmes 2014-2020; 
  A model for the evaluation of LEADER; 
  Local indicators in locally led development; 
  LEADER or not – that is the question; 
  Selection criteria in locally led development; 
  An evaluation of the environmental benefits delivered through the EMFF; 
  The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the fisheries sector. 

Detailed  information  summarising  the  evaluations  of  each  Member  State,  based  on 
information  provided in AIRs,  is  available in  Section 7 of the EMFF implementation  report 
for  2019,  published  in  December  202025  and  the  EMFF  implementation  report  for  2020, 
published in September 202126. 

4.2 

Evaluation work by the Commission 

The  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  EMFF  (under  Article  117  of  the  EMFF  Regulation  and  in 
accordance with Article 57 of the CPR 2014-2020) has to be carried out by the end of 2024. 
External  contractors  will  analyse  all  available  data  at  EU  level.  They  will  also  contact 
managing  authorities  through  surveys,  questionnaires  and  interviews,  to  deliver  a  detailed 
evaluation report assessing the contribution and achievements of the EMFF. 

A synthesis report outlining the main conclusions of the ex post evaluation will be prepared 
by the end of 2025. 

25  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/document/download/11811d61-8ebf-4fc5-bbbc-4842d64d208b  

26  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/document/download/68276db8-058c-4766-8368-34681e09993b  

33 

 
 
                                                 
5 

FINAL REMARKS  

Evaluation is a fundamental part of the policy cycle, as it produces evidence that can be used 
to ensure a result-oriented policy that is able to learn from past experience and adapt to new 
challenges.  This  is  particularly  true  of  cohesion  policy,  which  combines  its  main  long-term 
objective  of  reducing  territorial  disparities  between  regions  in  the  EU  with  the  need  to 
respond to multiple emerging crises with a high degree of flexibility. 

The  evaluation  effort  of  the  Member  States  fits  into  framework.  In  2021  this  effort  has 
continued with increasing resources dedicated to assessing the impact of actions supported by 
ESI  Funds,  and  with  a  lower  intensity  on  evaluations  focused  on  the  implementation  of  the 
funds.  This  confirms  once  again  the  commitment  of  the  Member  States  to  go  beyond 
compliance with regulatory requirements and to  invest valuable resources in evaluation as a 
tool  that  promotes  accountability,  transparency  and  better  policies  by  learning  from 
experience.  The  need  to  carry  out  evaluations  while  further  readapting  operational 
programmes after the pandemic and the allocation of REACT-EU resources, in parallel to the 
negotiation of the 2021-2027 programmes, makes their effort even more remarkable. 

Evidence that emerges from evaluations carried out in the Member States typically refers to 
the specific local context of the supported actions. While the findings cannot be generalised as 
such,  they  provide  the  valuable  insight  necessary  to  make  adjustments  to  actions  and 
projects, which is needed in the final part of the 2014-2020 programming period and, even 
more importantly, to design the new actions in the 2021-2027 programmes. In addition, as a 
result  of  the  increasing  number  of  evaluations,  some  common  findings  are  starting  to 
emerge. They will also feed into the ex post evaluation of the Commission, whose work has 
already started and will produce several outputs, before its final completion with the synthesis 
report due in 2025. 

In order to help Member States cope with new challenges and emergencies  that have  arisen 
since  2020  with  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  cohesion  policy  has  been  promptly  adapted  with 
targeted  regulatory  amendments  and  strengthened  with  new  financial  resources.  A  few 
evaluations  have  already  addressed  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  how  it  has  affected 
some sectors or forced changes to some of the actions previously planned in the programmes. 
The  number  of  these  evaluations  is  still  very  small  but  is  expected  to  grow  in  the  coming 
months and years.  

Evaluations  will  not  only  analyse  the  effects  of  CRII/CRII+  and  REACT-EU,  but  will  also 
focus  on  the  additional  support  offered  by  cohesion  policy  via  CARE  and  the  flexible 
assistance  to  territories  (FAST-CARE)  in  the  context  of  the  Ukrainian  refugee  crisis. 
Evaluations will also consider the REPowerEU objectives in the context of the energy crisis, 
including the latest proposal of exceptional measures to address the energy price increases. 

The Commission reaffirms its commitment to collaborate with the Member States and to 
help produce quality evaluations, by offering dedicated methodological support services and 
discussion fora on evaluation topics. In parallel, the Commission will continue to promote the 
importance of evaluation as an essential tool for policymakers to learn from past experience 
and to make the best decisions based on robust evidence, and to address the challenges of our 
fast-changing world. 

34