REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Ex post evaluation of the Structural Reform Support Programme
Date: 2023-10-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, EU financing, EU programme, administrative reform, economic convergence, economic reform, institutional reform, structural adjustment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 5.10.2023  COM(2023) 571 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Ex post evaluation of the Structural Reform Support Programme {SWD(2023) 322 final}  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Ex post evaluation of the Structural Reform Support Programme 

INTRODUCTION 

Structural reforms are essential for modernising economies, encouraging investment, creating 
jobs and raising living standards. Reforms are complex processes by their very nature.   

In  May  2017,  Regulation  (EU)  2017/825  on  the  establishment  of  the  Structural  Reform 
Support Programme (“the SRSP Regulation”) was adopted. It was meant as a tool to provide 
technical  support  to  national  authorities  and  help  Member  States  design  and  implement 
institutional, administrative and growth-sustaining structural reforms.   

The budget for the Structural Reform Support Programme (“the programme” or “the SRSP”) 
was EUR 222.8 million over 2017-20. The programme was managed by the Structural Reform 
Support  Service  (SRSS)  which,  on  January  1  2020,  became  the  Directorate-General  for 
Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM).   

METHODOLOGY 

An  independent  external  contractor  conducted  an  evaluation  study  to  inform  the  ex-post 
evaluation  of  the  Structural  Reform  Support  Programme.  The  study  was  carried  out  over  a 
period of 11 months, starting on 11 October 2021. It included 826 SRSP-funded projects from 
2017 to 2020, covering beneficiaries in all Member States.  

The contractor deployed a complex methodology in line with EU Better Regulation guidelines 
to  collect  robust evidence, consisting of extensive desk  research (including DG REFORM’s 
information  extracted from  its  internal  monitoring tool, with  data up  until  November 2021), 
stakeholder  consultation  activities  (interviews  with  key  stakeholders,  open  public 
consultation,  a  survey  of  key  stakeholders  and  focus  groups),  and  in-depth  case  studies  (30 
projects in 8 Member States, and 1 multi-country project covering 17 Member States.)  

The contractor carried out all tasks under the scrutiny of an  inter-service steering group and 
the  guidance  of  DG  REFORM.  The  quality  and  the  representativeness  of  the  collected 
evidence  was  considered  to  be  solid  and  meaningful,  allowing  us  to  draw  conclusions  and 
provide reliable and valid answers to the evaluation questions. 

MAIN FINDINGS 

In  compliance  with  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines,  the  SRSP  ex-post  evaluation  is 
articulated around the following five criteria:   

•  Relevance  

•  Effectiveness  

•  Efficiency  

•  Coherence (consistency) 

•  EU added value (value that is additional to what would otherwise have been 
created by EU countries acting alone) 

1 

 
 
 
General objective 

The  general  objective  of  the  SRSP  was  to  contribute  to  institutional,  administrative  and 
growth-sustaining  structural  reforms  in  the  Member  States  by  providing  support  to  national 
authorities. The support was also designed to help non-euro area Member States prepare for 
joining the euro area.  

Overall, according to  available evidence, the implementation of the SRSP was successful in 
terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The programme was also found to be highly 
relevant  in  addressing  the  needs  of  beneficiary  authorities  and  Member  States  and  had  ‘EU 
added value’.   

Effectiveness 

The programme successfully achieved its general objective and has substantially advanced the 
reform  agenda in  Member States. The actual achievement of different  types of reforms  also 
depended  on  the  wider  efforts  of  the  Member  States  and  not  only  the  results  of  other  EU 
programmes and instruments.  

Where  the  projects  have  not  generated  the  full  intended  results  and  impacts,  this  tended  to 
reflect  wider  challenges  in  the  reform  process  rather  than  any  inherent  weaknesses  in  the 
projects or in the provision of technical support. More policy impacts are, however, expected 
to occur in future, as about one third of all evaluated projects were still ongoing during the ex-
post evaluation study.  

In addition, recommendations from some SRSP projects were integrated as milestones in the 
national  recovery  and  resilience  plans,  ensuring  there  would  be  an  impact  when  the 
milestones were completed.1 More time would thus be necessary for the expected results and 
impacts to occur, due to the long logical chain between the provision of technical support and 
the expected results/impacts.   

Active involvement by the beneficiary authorities and their ownership of the projects is key to 
achieving the results. This involvement is essential not only during the project implementation 
and  follow-up,  but  also  in  the  pre-implementation  phase,  in  terms  of  defining  the  project 
objectives and timelines, creating ownership and commitment to change.  

While  absorbing  technical  support  and  implementing  its  recommendations,  beneficiary 
authorities  sometimes  lacked  adequate  administrative  capacity,  which  affected  the  smooth 
running  of 
resulting 
recommendations.  While  the  provision  of  technical  support  does  not  imply  costs  for  the 
beneficiary  authorities,  sometimes  they  lacked  sufficient  financial  resources  to  implement 
project recommendations and the related reforms.  

technical  support  projects  and 

implementation  of 

the 

the 

Overall, communication activities were rarely included in project design, despite an increase 
in the number of communication initiatives in the 2019 and 2020 rounds of the programme. 
However, when engagement and communication with external stakeholders happened during 
the  provision  of  technical  support  it  was  crucial,  because  the  effective  implementation  of 
these activities contributed to increase the legitimacy, quality and sustainability of the reforms 
and reduce organisational resistance to change.   

1  The  Regulation  (EU)  2021/241  establishing  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  was  adopted  in  February 
2021;  by  that  time,  many  SRSP-funded  projects  had  achieved  their  expected  results  and  produced 
recommendations that were instrumental in defining milestones and targets in national recovery and resilience 
plans. 

2 

 
 
 
 
Efficiency 

The  SRSP  proved  successful  in  attracting  many  high-quality  requests  relative  to  the  budget 
available.  Moreover,  the  programme  was  able  to  support  projects  of  increasing  size  and 
budget, thus increasing the potential for projects to achieve greater impact. Growing demand 
for technical support among Member States and a sufficient level of competition among the 
SRSP requests enabled the authorities to select high-quality proposals.   

The  programme’s  stakeholders  –  including  beneficiary  authorities,  coordinating  authorities 
and  providers  –  generally  agreed  that  the  financial  contribution  from  the  SRSP  was 
proportionate  to  the  needs  and  estimated  scope  of  technical  support  and  regarded  SRSP 
projects as a user-friendly and cost-effective instrument. The costs of controls on total annual 
payments  at  DG  REFORM  were  comparable  to  other  EU  programmes  under  direct 
management mode. DG REFORM achieved good results in executing the SRSP budget.  

Most  notably,  the  assessment  and  selection  of  technical  support  requests  was  completed  on 
time  and  in  line  with  the  target  set  in  the  Financial  Regulation,  compared  with  other  EU 
programmes.  As  one  of  the  selection  criteria  for  funding  a  project  under  the  SRSP  was  the 
urgency  of  the  reform,  Member  States  expected  each  project  to  be  running  as  early  as 
possible, to ensure the reforms remained relevant and were implemented on time.  

The  stakeholders  involved  in  the  programme  were  generally  positive  about  the  clarity, 
transparency  and  user-friendliness  of  the  SRSP’s  administrative  procedures  and  the 
proportionality of the administrative burden. One area for improvement is related to the need 
to further develop and refine project monitoring and evaluation practices.  

DG  REFORM  efficiently  and  effectively  coordinated  the  technical  support  given  to  the 
Member States with other Commission departments. However, according to the  study, there 
could  have  been  closer  cooperation  with  other  Commission  departments  in  2017-20  in 
disseminating  and  exploiting  the  outputs  from  the  technical  support,  once  the  projects  had 
been completed.   

Coherence 

The SRSP is evaluated to be a coherent policy tool with clear internal logic, well aligned with 
the objectives set out in the SRSP Regulation, with no major gaps, inconsistencies or overlaps 
in  the  internal  structure  of  projects.  The  design  of  the  programme  allowed  for  considerable 
flexibility when selecting project activities that are best tailored to specific project objectives 
and beneficiary needs.   

The structure and activities of the SRSP were adjusted over time to better respond to newly 
emerging challenges and to achieve its objectives in a more effective way, e.g., by introducing 
dedicated calls for requests that met the newly emerging needs of Member States. However, 
the  discrete  nature  of  the  projects  means  that  additional  effort  could  be  required  to 
disseminate  and  exploit  project  outputs  to  wider  audiences,  so  that  greater  impact  can  be 
generated.  

Evidence  also  shows  that  the  SRSP  was  highly  consistent  with  other  EU  programmes  and 
instruments (including ESF, ERDF, Horizon 2020, COSME, Fiscalis), as well as those of the 
Member  States  themselves.  This  was  because  it  addressed  different  aspects  of  similar 
objectives, issues and target groups. Having common themes with other EU programmes, the 
SRSP-funded  projects  largely  complemented  those  projects  by  providing  tailor-made 
technical support for national authorities in specific sectoral areas.   

In terms of consistent objectives, the SRSP reinforced wider reform agendas of the Member 
States and the EU, including by addressing  country-specific  recommendations (CSRs) made 

3 

 
 
as  part  of  the  European  Semester  process.  Generally,  the  stakeholders  of  the  SRSP  highly 
valued  the  programme’s  contribution  to  the  Semester  process.  In  some  cases,  the  SRSP-
funded projects helped better define, clarify and operationalise the CSRs, and provide specific 
guidelines  for  Member  States  to  implement  them.  In  other  instances,  the  results  of  SRSP-
funded projects were used to formulate these recommendations.   

Although  overall  there  were  sufficient  mechanisms  to  ensure  the  linkages  and  integration 
between the SRSP and the European Semester process/CSRs, the supporting study for the ex-
post  evaluation  showed  that  there  was  insufficient  monitoring  of  how  the  SRSP-funded 
projects  contributed  to  meeting  the  CSRs.  There  was  also  a  lack  of  references  to  SRSP 
projects in the European Semester country reports.   

EU added value  

The  SRSP  delivered  this  by  providing  Member  States  with  better  access  to  international 
expertise than they would have experienced in the absence of the SRSP. Even in the limited 
cases  when  project  benefits  could  have  been  realised  without  EU  technical  support,  these 
would have been much smaller in scope or realised later in time. As a result, EU added value 
was  attained  in  terms  of  the  strengthened  reform  processes  in  the  Member  States  and 
strengthened contribution to achieving EU policy objectives, not least those of the European 
Semester.  

The  SRSP  had  significant  cross-border,  EU-wide  impacts  going  beyond  single  Member 
States.  Such  impacts  included  helping  the  Member  States  to  implement  EU  policies  and 
priorities nationally, including the promotion of European values, as well as helping them to 
share good practice  among  themselves.  In general,  these good practices  and lessons learned 
were actively used by the beneficiaries after the end of the relevant SRSP-funded projects.  

Relevance 

The  SRSP  was  found  to  be  a  highly  relevant  instrument,  well-tailored  to  improving  the 
administrative  capacities  of  Member  States  to  design  and  implement  the  reforms  needed  to 
address the challenges they face.  

The beneficiary authorities and other stakeholders viewed positively  the different  aspects  of 
the SRSP’s design and structure and its relevance for achieving the reform goals. At the same 
time, the objectives of technical support projects largely corresponded to the key reform goals 
and challenges faced by the Member States.   

The technical support provided by the SRSP was highly relevant to addressing the needs of 
beneficiary authorities and Member States, both in terms of the implementation method (i.e. 
international  technical  support  providers  sourced  by  the  Commission)  and  the  nature  of  the 
support provided (i.e. tailored to the needs of each beneficiary authority). The programme  – 
uniquely  and  in  an  effective  and  efficient  manner  –  fulfils  the  need  of  Member  States  to 
access  high-level  international  expertise  when  they  are  in  the  process  of  designing  or 
implementing reforms.   

At the same time, where the SRSP was used in an emergency capacity it was not very suitable 
for  coping  with  reform  or  capacity-building  on  the  ground,  since  it  was  restricted  by  the 
timetable laid down in the calls for requests.   

Despite  having  received  the  SRSP’s  contribution  over  many  years,  beneficiary  authorities 
were still in need of the technical support provided by the programme. The growing need for 
technical  support  was  also  showcased  by  the  increasing  number  of  requests  from  Member 
States, as well as by the increasing average budget for the projects.   

4 

 
 
MAIN LESSONS LEARNED 

The following main lessons have been learned from the implementation of the SRSP. The 
application of these lessons can help improve the design and management of future 
programmes for providing technical support. The lessons are grouped by subject.Engagement 
of stakeholders  

•  Active  communication  with  and  involvement  of  external  stakeholders  was 
crucial during the provision of technical support: it increased the legitimacy, quality 
and sustainability of reforms and reduced organisational resistance to change.   

•  Engagement of beneficiary authorities was key in implementing technical support 
projects and in the reform process, to enable the smoother implementation of projects 
and their results.   

•  Close  involvement  of  national  coordinating  authorities  was  important  in 
monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  technical  support  projects,  discussing  their 
progress and taking follow-up action to use the outputs after project completion.   

Cross-country dimension  

• 

Providing  access  to  international  expertise  for  Member  States  that  might  not 
otherwise have had access to it was a key feature of the programme.   

•  Exchanges of civil servants provided a basis for greater use of peer-to-peer advice 
within  national  administrations  in  future.  The  accumulated  knowledge  of  civil 
servants in the Member States represented an enormous pool of expertise and skills.   

•  Disseminating the results  of technical support projects within and across Member 

States encouraged the sharing and replication of good practice. 

•  The transnational dimension of the programme – for example through projects that 
support several Member States and through better dissemination of results to wider 
audiences – was instrumental in strengthening the ‘EU added value’.  

Facilitator role of the European Commission  

•  Reducing  the  complexity  of  technical  support  projects  made  their  implementation 

easier and more effective.   

•  The capacity to provide tailored solutions resulted in low administrative burdens for 
beneficiary  authorities  and  ongoing  guidance  for  them,  and  it  helped  facilitate  and 
legitimise the reforms.  

•  The  Commission  played  a  valuable  role  in  facilitating  collaboration  between 
potential beneficiary authorities in different Member States who had similar needs 
and priorities.   

Effective implementation of reforms and coordination with other EU processes  

• 

Improved  monitoring  and  evaluation  contributed 
to  a  more  efficient 
implementation  of  the  programme  and  a  better  dissemination  and  exploitation  of 
technical support outputs. A solid monitoring system may allow to assess the impact 
of actions and reforms as well as their sustainability over time.  

•  When  in  place,  the  monitoring  of  the  SRSP’s  contribution  to  the  European 
Semester process  and the fulfilment of specific CSRs in  specific national  contexts 
was significant to understand what worked well and what could be improved.   

5 

 
 
•  Technical  support  was  also  crucial  in  areas  where  the  subject  of  the  request  is  less 

frequent, such as assistance in applying and implementing EU legislation.   

Technical Support Instrument  

In 2021 the Technical  Support  Instrument (TSI)  replaced the SRSP as  the  main programme 
for delivering technical support in 2021–27.  

The TSI  was designed on the basis of several recommendations proposed in the SRSP mid-
term evaluation  and factoring in some of the conclusions of this ex-post evaluation, such as 
more active involvement of stakeholders, a tighter focus on the cross-country dimension and 
increased attention on monitoring and evaluation.   

6