COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SYNTHESIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATIONS OF EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS PROGRAMMES 2014-2020 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 2023 summary report of the annual programme implementation reports covering implementation in 2014-2020
Date: 2024-01-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EAFRD, EU Member State, EU programme, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, European Structural and Investment Funds, activity report, investment promotion

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.1.2024  SWD(2024) 2 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT SYNTHESIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATIONS OF   EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS    PROGRAMMES 2014-2020       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 2023 summary report of the annual programme implementation reports covering implementation in 2014-2020     {COM(2024) 6 final}  
 
 
STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  

ON THE 

SYNTHESIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATIONS OF 

EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS  

PROGRAMMES 2014-2020 

accompanying the 2023 Annual Summary Report  

Contents 

1 

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

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

2.1  Evaluations by the Member States .................................................................... 3 
2.1.1  General overview ................................................................................ 3 
2.1.2  Main findings of evaluations ............................................................... 6 
2.2  Evaluation work by the Commission .............................................................. 17 

3 

EUROPEAN  AGRICULTURAL  FUND  FOR  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT 
(EAFRD) ................................................................................................................... 19 

3.1  Evaluations by the Member States .................................................................. 19 
3.1.1  General overview .............................................................................. 19 
3.1.2  Main findings of evaluations ............................................................. 20 
3.2  Evaluation work by the Commission .............................................................. 24 

4 

EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND (EMFF) ................................ 26 

4.1  Evaluations by the Member States .................................................................. 26 
4.2  Evaluation work by the Commission .............................................................. 27 

5 

FINAL REMARKS ................................................................................................... 28 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The European Structural and Investment (ESI) funds are managed jointly by the Commission 
and  the  Member  States  under  shared  management.  This  means  that  while  the  Commission 
remains  responsible  for  implementing  the  funds,  Member  States  oversee  the  day-to-day 
management of the programmes. Member States are required to evaluate each programme to 
improve the quality of the design and implementation of programmes and to assess their 
effectiveness, efficiency and impact.  
In line with  Article 53 of the  Common Provisions  Regulation1, this staff working  document 
presents  a  summary  of  the  findings  of  the  latest  available  evaluations  of  the  programmes 
supported  by  the  ESI  Funds2.  It  accompanies  the  2023  summary  report  of  the  annual 
implementation  reports  of  the  programmes,  covering  the  implementation  of  the  2014-2020 
ESI Funds at the end of 2022. 

So far, around 3 600 evaluations have been done by Member States of all ESI funds for the 
2014-2020  programming  period.  As  implementation  progresses  and  more  evidence  on  the 
results  becomes  available,  Member  States  have  continued  to  focus  on  impact  evaluations. 
The  Commission  has  also  done  a  number  of  evaluations,  including  an  evaluation  on  e-
Cohesion, and it is doing an ex post evaluation of the funds for the 2014-2020 programming 
period,  which  will  be  completed  in  2025.  The  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development is not covered, as the duration of its programmes has been extended.  

The 2014-2020 period  is a particularly  challenging  period to  evaluate.  The ESI  Funds, with 
their long-term planning and 10-year implementation period, have continued to offer a stable 
and predictable framework for public and private investment. However, their implementation, 
which  spans  until  2023,  has  been  affected  by  major  challenges,  such  as  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, the energy crisis and Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. 

Evaluations done by Member States mostly aim to analyse features and results in a regional 
or  national  context,  so  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  aggregate  the  findings  and  make 
assumptions about their general validity. Nevertheless, these evaluations provide material that 
it is important to discuss in the meetings of the monitoring committees of the programmes.  

This document is organised thematically according to the policy areas and reflects how these 
are covered in the evaluations the Member States did. 

After the introductory Section 1, 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 
covers  rural  development  programmes,  supported  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for 
Rural  Development  (EAFRD).  Section 4  covers  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund 
(EMFF). Section 5 wraps up with some concluding remarks. 

1  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  

2 

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

2 

 
 
 
 
2  COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES 

This section presents the main findings of the evaluations of the three cohesion policy funds 
(the ERDF, the CF and the ESF) done by the Member States and the Commission. 

2.1  Evaluations by the Member States 

2.1.1  General overview 

Since January 2015,  Member States  have published more  than 2 200  evaluations of  2014-
2020  operational  programmes  co-financed  by  cohesion  policy  funds.  This  proves  how 
committed they are to an evidence- and results-based approach to policymaking.  

In  2022,  Member  States  published  around  350  evaluations,  with  the  number  of  impact 
evaluations increasing from the previous year and the number of implementation evaluations 
slowly decreasing (-14%), as is to be expected towards the end of a programming period. 

The number of evaluations of 2014-2020 cohesion policy operational programmes completed 
and published since January 2015 has reached 2 2233. On the basis of the information on the 
data and the methods used, the findings of the evaluations done by the Member States appear 
to be reasonably strong.  

The overall distribution of evaluations across the funds remains at around 40% of evaluations 
covering  the  ERDF/CF,  40%  covering  the  ESF/YEI,  and  almost  20%  covering  both  the 
ERDF/CF and the ESF/YEI (labelled as ‘multi-fund’ in Figure 1). 

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

Source: Commission Evaluation Helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

Almost 45% of the evaluations published in 2022 are on programmes in Italy and Poland, the 
main  beneficiaries  of  cohesion  policy  funds  in  2014-2020.  Overall,  six  countries  accounted 
for 73% of cohesion policy evaluations. Poland and Italy did the most evaluations, followed 

3  This includes some evaluations for both 2014-2020 and 2007-2013.  

3 

 
 
 
by  Germany,  Czechia,  France  and  Spain.  This  does  not  necessarily  reflect  the  evaluation 
effort, because evaluations vary significantly not only in terms of scope but also in terms of 
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 on implementation and progress, which cover mainly procedural 
aspects or progress in reaching policy targets, has decreased since the 2019 peak. By contrast, 
the share of impact evaluations increased to 44% in 2022, up from around 30% in 2019-2020. 
All  11  evaluations  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Lithuania  and  Spain  published  in  2022  are  impact 
evaluations. The number of impact evaluations will keep increasing in the coming years, even 
after the end of the programming period, when all projects have been completed and produced 
results.  

Most evaluations combine relatively simple qualitative with quantitative methods. However, 
over half of all impact evaluations use more advanced research methods, with their share 
rising  to  62%  in  2022,  up  from  49%  in  2019.  Counterfactual  analysis  is  used  mostly  in 
ESF/YEI  evaluations,  and  theory-based  techniques  mostly  in  ERDF/CF  evaluations,  while 
cost-benefit analysis is used to a lesser extent, primarily in ERDF/CF evaluations. There are 
some  shortcomings  that  should  be  remedied,  in  particular  evaluations  could  spell  out  more 
clearly their methodological choices, especially their theory of change. Analysis should also 
be  based  on  data  that  is  as  reliable  as  possible.  This  means  using  data  from  administrative 
sources more often. 

4 

 
 
 
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. 

Thematic distribution 

The distribution of evaluations  across  thematic objectives is  uneven, with over half of the 
evaluations covering more than one thematic objective.  

Figure 4 shows the thematic coverage of evaluations for the 2014-2020 programming period.  

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

Source: Commission Evaluation Helpdesk for cohesion policy. 

4  Evaluations  covering  more  than  one  thematic  objective  are  reported  under  all  the  thematic  objectives  in 

question. Evaluations that broadly cover all thematic objectives have not been included in the chart. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2  Main findings of evaluations 

LESSONS ON SMART GROWTH  

Research  and  innovation,  information  and  communication  technology, 
competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 

Smart  specialisation  strategies have  helped  identify competitive advantages  at  national  and 
regional level, and to encourage stakeholders’ involvement.  

More  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  monitoring  outcomes,  as  standard  monitoring  systems 
seem to have limited ability to track the outcomes of these often cross-cutting actions. 

Support  for  research  and  innovation  has  been  particularly  successful  in  strengthening 
cooperation  between  research  centres  and  businesses  cooperation  between  SMEs, 
universities and research centres, creating commercial opportunities.  

Investment in collaboration needs to be balanced with support for education and training as 
well as infrastructure and appropriate equipment. 

Investments  in  SME  competitiveness  have  helped  to  boost  business  innovation,  enabling 
companies to enter new markets.  

Administrative  requirements  remain  a  burden,  in  particular  for  small  and  for  new 
companies.  Support  for  SMEs  would  benefit  from  a  combination  of  measures,  including 
repayable  and  non-repayable  support/grants  and  financial  instruments,  depending  on  the 
phase of business development. 

Investments in information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure take a long 
time to produce tangible results. They have been of most benefit to less developed regions 
where  there  is  a  risk  of  the  digital  divide  with  more  developed  regions  widening  further. 
Support  for  the  digitalisation  of  services  has  helped  to  significantly  increase  the  use  and 
quality of e-services in the public sector. 

Evaluations  suggest  that  the  heterogeneity  of  local  regulations  and  procedures  may  have 
caused delays in the implementation of certain actions.  

Investments in ICT infrastructure and the digitalisation of services would benefit from more 
support for digital literacy. 

Thematic objective 1: Research and innovation 

A recent evaluation in Romania shows that measures to boost research capacity have led to 
greater  participation  of  the  supported  centres  in  international  research  groups,  a  higher 
publication rate of scientific articles co-authored with researchers from abroad, and the setting 
up of more new research projects than by non-supported bodies. An example of the long-term 
sustainability  of  the  links  established  between  the  private  sector  and  academia  comes  from 
Czechia,  where  around  70%  of  companies  supported  launched  further  joint  research 
initiatives after support from EU funds ended.  

In Germany, Poland and Lithuania, evaluations show an increased capacity to commercialise 
research and development (R&D) results and enter new markets. In Germany (Hamburg), 

6 

 
 
 
a recent evaluation found that 81% of the start-ups surveyed had successfully launched their 
products on the market, and 82% of start-ups saw an average yearly increase in sales of 63% 
since the first investment supported by ERDF. In Italy (Lombardy), the involvement of large 
companies  in  research  projects  was  particularly  welcomed  by  smaller  companies  because 
larger  companies  tend  to  have  greater  capacity  to  commercialise  the  output  of  R&D.  In 
Belgium (Wallonia), measures to promote innovation have also had positive effects in terms 
of the development of new skills and interactions between SMEs, but less positive effects in 
terms of innovative products.  

Thematic objective 2: Information and communication technology (ICT) 

Recent  evaluations  show  that,  in  Spain,  the  expansion  of  the  broadband  network  has  gone 
hand in hand with an increase in the number of companies operating in the areas concerned. 
Also in Spain, a recent evaluation found that there were significant differences between urban 
and rural areas in access to high-speed internet, and that EU-funded investment in broadband 
had improved coverage in rural  areas. Similarly, in Poland, ERDF funding has  significantly 
improved  ICT  infrastructure,  particularly  in  rural  areas.  However,  an  evaluation  in 
Romania  found  that  interventions  were  delayed  because  of  the  reorganisation  of  strategic 
public beneficiaries and the heterogeneity of local regulations and procedures. 

In  Poland,  projects  helped  to  significantly  increase  the  use  and  quality  of  e-services  in  the 
public  sector.  However,  low  access  to  broadband  and  low  digital  literacy  are  obstacles  to 
citizens’  uptake  of  e-government  applications.  Recent  evaluations  show  progress  in 
developing big data platforms and e-government services in Romania, and the acceleration of 
the digitalisation of public management procedures, and an increase  in  the availability of e-
services, in Lithuania. 

Thematic objective 3: Competitiveness of SMEs 

Counterfactual  analysis  in  Poland  (Warmińsko-Mazurskie)  found  that  companies  with 
innovation and competitiveness support had slightly higher revenues or profits, an increase 
in employment that was 4 percentage points higher than for non-beneficiaries, and more such 
companies (11 percentage points more) invested in R&D activities than in the control group. 
Also in Poland (Małopolskie), a recent evaluation showed direct support (grants) to be more 
effective  than  promotional  activities  in  increasing  the  internationalisation  of  SMEs.  Recent 
evaluations  show  that,  in  Slovakia,  the  SMEs  supported,  mostly  start-ups,  had  significantly 
higher growth rates in production, value added and employment than those not supported, and 
in France support for start-ups created new job opportunities and helped increase turnover. 

Direct support for R&D and innovation has also boosted the capacity of companies to develop 
new  products  and  processes  across  the  EU.  This  in  turn  has  increased  turnover  and 
employment,  as  in  Germany  (Saxony)  for  example.  In  Czechia,  support  was  provided  to 
increase the availability  of infrastructure for  companies (the  ‘Real  Estate’ programme). The 
support enabled recipients to innovate and expand their production. 

7 

 
 
 
LESSONS ON SUSTAINABLE GROWTH  

Low-carbon  economy,  climate  change,  environment,  transport  and 
energy networks 

Evidence  suggests  that  actions  aimed  at  increasing  energy  efficiency  in  SMEs  have  been 
effective.  

Some  evaluations  suggest  that  in  some  cases  investments  in  large  companies  would  have 
been made without EU funding. 

Positive  results  are  visible  for  projects  for  the  generation  and  distribution  of  electricity, 
mainly from renewables, and the reduction of energy consumption in companies as well as 
in public and private buildings.  

Evidence of impact is still limited because many projects have yet to be completed. 

Environmental  protection  measures,  such  as  wastewater  treatment  and  water  supply 
measures,  have  helped  meet  water  policy  objectives  and  reach  compliance  with  EU  water 
directives.  

Decisions  to  invest  in  wastewater  treatment  and  water  supply  should  also  consider 
maintenance costs and charges, as these may affect the households’ willingness to connect to 
the infrastructure. 

Rail investments have helped reduce journey times and improve connections between cities. 

Network  projects  often  take  a  long  time  to  deliver  results  and  it  is  difficult  to  assess  their 
impact while the programming period is still ongoing.  

To  ensure  the  success  of  the  measures,  policymakers  should  consider  other  investments 
needed, in particular in multimodal nodes connecting rail and road infrastructure.  

Thematic objective 4: Low-carbon economy 

Several  evaluations  show  the  positive  results  of  these  measures  in  Germany,  Estonia, 
Lithuania, France and Poland. In Poland, financial instruments were used  successfully. Also 
in Poland, a recent evaluation shows that support from the national programme ‘Infrastructure 
and Environment’ for the production of thermal and photovoltaic energy led to an increase in 
production roughly equivalent to the output of 700 new wind turbines. The modernisation of 
district heating networks has also reduced energy consumption. 

While actions aimed at increasing energy efficiency in SMEs have been effective, the overall 
effects  are  sometimes  limited  because  of  the  small  size  of  the  companies  supported 
(Rhineland-Palatinate). When large companies were given support, in many cases they would 
have  invested  even  without  EU  funding  (Saxony-Anhalt).  A  recent  evaluation  in  Belgium 
(Wallonia) shows that sustainable mobility projects have helped reduce energy consumption 
and CO2 emissions.  

8 

 
 
Thematic objective 5: Climate change adaptation and risk prevention 

In several countries, investment support to react and adapt to climate change has focused on 
strengthening resilience to natural disasters and improving systems for managing the risks 
involved.  Evaluations  show  that  new  flood  protection  measures  have  been  effective  in 
Romania, Germany (Bavaria and Saxony-Anhalt) and, most recently, France (Ile-de-France). 
However,  the  evaluation  in  France  suggests  that  the  success  of  the  measures  could  be 
jeopardised  by  the  limited  funding  available  compared  to  the  significant  structural  costs 
involved. 

Funding  has  also  been  allocated  to  this  broad  area  under  many  Interreg  programmes.  Joint 
measures  for  managing  climate  change  have  been  implemented  under  the  Italy-France 
Maritime programme, and the joint risk-management projects undertaken under the Czechia-
Poland  programme  have  increased  the  capacity  of  the  authorities  concerned  to  deal  with 
critical events and emergency situations. A recent evaluation shows that better coordination of 
country responses to potential natural disasters has been established under the Indian Ocean 
Area Interreg Programme, under which almost 70 000 people have been trained or informed 
of natural hazards risks related to climate change. 

Thematic objective 6: Environmental protection and resource efficiency 

Recent  evaluations  in  Poland  (Lubelskie)  suggest  that  environmental  protection  measures 
have  resulted  in  greater  use  of  drainage  systems  and  water  supply  mains  in  the  supported 
areas,  and  have  been  associated  with  less  outward  migration.  In  Pomorskie,  an  evaluation 
suggests that projects for water retention in natural or semi-natural eco-systems have been the 
most  cost-effective.  Evaluations  show,  however,  that  the  installation  of  the  necessary 
infrastructure  is  not  always  sufficient  in  itself  to  persuade  households  to  connect  to  it,  with 
maintenance costs and charges given insufficient weight in the initial investment decision. In 
Bulgaria,  green  investment  projects  have  helped  create  new  jobs  and  promote  a  culture  of 
respect for the environment, improving people’s quality of life. 

Actions  in  the  area  of  cultural  and  natural  heritage  have  also  led  to  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  visitors  to  the  areas  concerned,  as  in  Italy  (Campania),  where  the  archaeological 
site of Pompeii was supported with a major project recently completed. Improvements in the 
urban  environment  are  also  evident  in  several  places,  with  positive  evidence  of 
rehabilitated urban areas in Austria, Czechia, Poland and Portugal.  In Germany (Hessen), 
the renovation of buildings and clean-up of contaminated sites has helped prompt companies 
relocate to urban areas. 

Thematic objective 7: Transport and energy network infrastructure 

Rail  investments  have  helped  increase  the  capacity  of  railway  networks,  reducing  journey 
times  and  improving  connections  between  cities.  In  Estonia  and  Spain,  investment  in  rail 
infrastructure has made train travel more attractive and competitive, increasing railway use. 
Recent  evaluations  show that  in Slovakia, the modernisation of tram  lines has increased the 
frequency of connections, reducing travel time while improving safety and helping to reduce 
noise and vibration. Evaluations in Poland suggest the success of the measures may depend on 
addressing the lack of well-functioning multimodal nodes connecting roads to rail and other 
transport networks and that, in addition to investment in infrastructure, it is necessary to take 
measures to make public transport a more appealing way to travel. 

9 

 
 
LESSONS ON INCLUSIVE GROWTH  

Employment, social inclusion and education 

EU  support  has  helped  increasing  employment  opportunities,  especially  through  integrated 
approaches, in particular to serve the needs of disadvantaged people and the most vulnerable 
people.  

Challenges  remain  in  terms  of  supporting  long-term  unemployed  and  unskilled  people. 
Evidence  points  to  the  need  to  take  integrated  approaches,  extending  support  to  the 
identification of the most suitable education and training paths to follow as well as whatever 
social support may be needed, something that requires cooperation with the relevant social 
services. 

Evaluations  show  that  investments  have  increased  access  to  and  improved  the  quality  of 
healthcare.  

Evidence  suggests  that  the  combination  of  ESF  support  and  ERDF  investment  in  related 
infrastructure and equipment has been successful in many less developed regions. 

The effectiveness of ESF support in improving the quality of education is demonstrated by 
several  examples,  including  actions  aimed  at  reducing  early  school  leaving  or  increasing 
participants’ chances to go on to higher education.  

Evidence  points  to  the  need  for  continued  support  throughout  studies.  It  also  shows  that 
support  for  improving  the  know-how  and  capabilities  of  teachers  and  trainers  is  equally 
important, especially those teaching, or organising training for, the most vulnerable groups 
of people, facing problems of social and economic integration. 

Positive effects are evident with regard to support for company creation and the adaptation 
of  workers  and  companies  to  change.  Most  evaluations  find  that  participants  supported  by 
ESF measures tended to remain longer in operation or were more likely to improve their job 
situation than those not supported. 

The  effect  of  EU  support  on  the  quality  of  the  jobs  obtained  (wages,  work  pattern,  type  of 
contract) could be further evaluated. 

Thematic objective 8: Sustainable and quality employment 

Evidence of the effectiveness of the actions aimed at increasing employment opportunities 
is  consistent  in  various  Member  States,  including  Italy,  Germany,  Poland,  Slovakia  and 
Ireland,  but  challenges  remain  for  measures  targeting  long-term  unemployed  and  unskilled 
people.  

In Poland, a recent  evaluation estimates  that overall, in 2021, about  490 000 additional jobs 
(half of them in sustainable growth areas) were created as a result of support from cohesion 
policy, with 55 000 jobs created directly by the projects supported. These jobs were mostly in 
services  and  urban  areas  and  required  higher  education.  In  Portugal,  YEI  measures  have 
proved  to  be  effective,  especially  traineeships  and  hiring  incentives  for  employers,  with 
participants  in  traineeships having  an employment  rate 37 percentage points higher than  the 
control  group,  and,  more  generally,  with  support  under  YEI  having  increased  the 

10 

 
 
probability  of  a  person  being  in  employment  after  3  years  by  8  to  32  percentage  points, 
depending on the measure.  

Evaluations  of the effects of  company creation  found that ESF  support  helped participants 
improve their entrepreneurial skills and launch their own company. Recently, an evaluation in 
France  (Ile-de-France  et  Seine)  found  that  95%  of  the  entrepreneurs  supported  were  still 
operating businesses 3 years after a project had ended. 

In  Belgium  (Wallonia),  an  evaluation  assessing  socio-economic  and  environmental  impact, 
with a specific focus on the contribution of the funds to employment growth and greenhouse 
gas (GHG) reduction, estimated that ERDF support led to the creation of 4 675 jobs, reduced 
annual GHG emissions by 126 369 tonnes of CO2 equivalent, and helped increase the number 
of SMEs in the region, as well as boosting R&D intensity and innovation. 

Thematic objective 9: Social inclusion 

Evaluations  also  show  that  integrated  activation  pathways  for  social  inclusion  have  been 
effective  in  increasing  vulnerable  people’s  chances  of  finding  a  job.  A  counterfactual 
evaluation  in  Italy  (Marche)  shows  that  the  percentage  of  disadvantaged  people  who  were 
employed  6  months  after  participating  in  ESF-financed  traineeships  was  6  to  8  percentage 
points higher than that of equally disadvantaged participants in ESF traineeships without ESF 
financing. 

A  recent  evaluation  in  Germany  (Berlin)  found  that  measures  that  were  part  of  a 
comprehensive individual approach have helped increase the social integration of vulnerable 
groups. Similarly, in Italy (under the National Operational Programme for Metropolitan Cities 
OP),  a  recent  evaluation  found  that  a  combination  of  welfare,  social  housing  and  training 
implemented  through  collaboration  between  public  administration  bodies,  civil  society 
organisations, the business community and the general public led to positive outcomes for the 
integration of vulnerable people.  

In  many  less  developed  regions,  significant  ESF  investment  went  into  support  for  health 
services  and  was  complemented,  in  several  cases,  by  ERDF  investment  in  related 
infrastructure and equipment. Evaluations show that these investments have increased access 
to and improved the quality of healthcare. In Poland, an improvement in social services has 
led to a significant reduction in access inequalities in deprived areas, as shown most recently 
by an evaluation in Podlaskie. 

Thematic objective 10: Education and vocational training 

The  effectiveness  of  ESF  support  in  improving  the  quality  of  education  is  demonstrated  by 
several  examples,  including  actions  aimed  at  reducing  early  school  leaving  or  increasing 
participants’  chances  of  going  on  to  higher  education.  According  to  a  counterfactual 
evaluation recently published in Hungary, the proportion of students in supported schools not 
wanting to continue their education fell more than in the schools of the control group, and the 
proportion  of  disadvantaged  young  people  wanting  to  go  on  to  vocational  training  also 
increased. 

In  Portugal,  grants  for  less  privileged  people  had  a  positive  effect  on  first-year  students  in 
higher  education  by  reducing  drop-out  rates,  thereby  increasing  the  probability  of  students 
graduating on time. For second-year students, the effects were more noticeable for those who 
had  received  grants  in  the  first  year.  The  effects  were  more  noticeable  still  for  women  and 
students from less developed regions. 

11 

 
There  have  been  positive  results  in  facilitating  participants’  transition  from  education  to 
work,  as  shown  by  evaluations  in  Poland,  Italy  and  Germany,  where  a  recent  evaluation  in 
Hessen shows that 30% of participants in the ‘Practice and School’ scheme had a job or were 
in training 6 months after the scheme ended. 

12 

 
 
LESSONS ON INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY  

Making public administration more efficient 

Evidence  suggests  that  EU  support  has  helped  to  bring  about  structural  change  in  public 
administration.  

The  efficiency  of  public  administrations  could  be  further  improved,  and  additional 
simplification of procedures would reduce the burden on beneficiaries. 

Evaluations  show  that  investments  have  strengthened  collaboration  and  networks  between 
the  bodies  involved  in  cohesion  policy  and  increased  transparency  on  activities  of  public 
administrations. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  measures  concerned  seems  to  depend  as  much  on  the  political 
willingness  and cooperation of  the staff involved as on the specific design of  the measures 
themselves. 

Thematic objective 11: Efficient public administration 

A recent evaluation in Lithuania shows that support has helped improve the quality of public 
services, implement state reforms, including in the justice system, and increase the expertise 
of  civil  servants.  Similarly,  in  Romania,  the  measures  implemented  have  helped  simplify 
legislation, improve the quality of judicial services and increase access to the justice system. 
However,  institutional  instability,  complex  procedures  and  administrative  bottlenecks  have 
meant that the measures were not as effective as they could otherwise have been. 

In Latvia, a set of measures for developing the skills of staff in public authorities has led to a 
better  understanding  of  ways  of  stimulating  entrepreneurship  in  SMEs,  while  corruption 
prevention training has also led to more cases of money laundering being brought to light. 

In Czechia, measures have been introduced to improve transparency in the implementation of 
the  ESI  Funds  and  to  prevent  conflicts  of  interest  from  arising  during  project  selection.  In 
Estonia, the quality of government decisions, exchange of information and transparency have 
improved.  

Public  administration  digitalisation  projects  supported  under  this  thematic  objective  have 
helped  improve  operational  performance,  as  in  Portugal,  where  procedures  have  become 
faster  and  better  tailored  to  users’  needs,  and  in  Lithuania,  where  digitalisation  has  helped 
shift the focus more towards results. 

Some evaluations found the project selection process too long, with the procedures to apply 
for  funding  considered  too  complicated  and  responsible  for  delays.  A  recent  evaluation  in 
Germany reports contrasting  findings: in  Bremen, administrative and application procedures 
were generally considered to  be simple and flexible,  while in  Bayern,  they were considered 
complex, particularly for organisations lacking experience. 

Several evaluations found that the administrative burden was still considered excessive, most 
recently  in  France  (Grand  Est),  with  the  effect  of  deterring  potential  beneficiaries,  and  in 
Greece  (in  the  North  Aegean),  where  the  administrative  burden  appears  to  have  hindered 
collaboration between public authorities and local stakeholders. 

13 

 
 
 
LESSONS ON CROSS-CUTTING INSTRUMENTS  

Territorial instruments, financial instruments, territorial cooperation 

Territorial  instruments  such  as  integrated  territorial  investment,  community-led  local 
development  and  sustainable  urban  development  have  been  effective  in  stimulating 
cooperation at local level to carry out local strategies, and in improving the attractiveness of 
the areas concerned.  

The results on the ground depend highly on the administrative capacity of the authorities in 
charge.  

Support  provided  by  financial  instruments  has  shown  positive  results,  for  example,  in 
funding research and innovation in SMEs. 

Evidence suggests that in some cases, the reason for limited uptake of financial instruments 
seems  to  have  been  the  perceived  complexity  of  the  rules,  which  have  been  significantly 
simplified for the 2021-2027 period.  

Evaluations  show  that  cooperation  projects  have  been  effective  in  building  cross-border 
networks between institutions and local communities. 

In  a  few  cases,  however,  differences  between  national  regulatory  frameworks,  the  limited 
involvement of policymakers and administrative complexity hampered cooperation. 

Territorial  instruments:  integrated  territorial  investment,  community-led  local  development 
and sustainable urban development 

In  general,  territorial  instruments  and  integrated  approaches  have  been  effective  in 
stimulating  cooperation  at  local  level  to  carry  out  local  strategies  and  in  improving  the 
attractiveness of the areas concerned. In Poland (Świętokrzyskie), the integrated territorial 
instruments approach to policymaking for investment in natural and cultural assets was found 
to have worked efficiently and effectively and to have helped increase the attractiveness of the 
areas concerned, reducing the pace of decline in biodiversity and increasing opportunities 
for tourism. 

In the Netherlands, the integrated territorial investment-based approach taken in Amsterdam, 
the Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht has led to greater policy integration of social and economic 
aspects and increased cooperation between municipalities, schools and companies. In France 
(Brittany), this approach has helped to improve cooperation between the regional council and 
local people and organisations. 

In  Poland  (Podlaskie),  community-led  local  development  (CLLD)  strategies  were  prepared 
with  the  close  involvement  of  local  people  and  organisations,  with  many  of  the  projects 
submitted  under  CLLD  coming  from  first-time  applicants  for  EU  funding.  In  Czechia,  the 
local  action  groups  responsible  for  implementing  the  CLLD  approach  were  considered  a 
useful means of establishing long-term collaboration between local actors and were successful 
in promoting social activities. 

Evaluations  of  sustainable  urban  development  strategies  show  mixed  results.  In  Italy,  under 
the National Operational Programme for Metropolitan Cities, the evaluation of the support for 

14 

 
 
access to housing in Genoa, Turin, Bologna and Milan emphasises the need of the authorities 
concerned  for  staff  with  administrative,  legal  and  managerial  skills  as  well  as  the  ability  to 
provide psychological and social support. Measures for active inclusion show positive results 
with  regard  to  housing  autonomy,  but  this  is  less  the  case  with  regard  to  improving  the 
employment  situation  of  participants.  Nevertheless,  social  enterprise  measures  in  deprived 
areas have had positive effects on the social and employment inclusion of vulnerable people. 

Financial instruments 

A recent evaluation shows that in Germany (Berlin), support for investment through venture 
capital funds has helped create around 1 900 jobs. In Lithuania, the net benefit of the financial 
instruments in question was estimated to be an additional 1% on average of annual nominal 
GDP, a figure that includes financial instruments not supported by cohesion policy. In Poland, 
financial instruments were used to promote self-employment, with 84% of the self-employed 
people supported still active 2 years after the end of the project. 

Financial  instruments  have  been  used  to  fund  research  and  innovation  in  SMEs,  with 
positive  results  reported  in  Italy  (Lombardy),  where  a  loan  guarantee  measure  has  helped 
SMEs  invest  in  innovative  products  and  increase  revenue,  and  Poland,  where  different 
schemes  supported  the  use  of  innovative  technology,  the  development  of  new  products  and 
projects with high market potential. In some cases, the perceived complexity of the rules led 
to limited uptake of financial instruments. The rules were therefore significantly simplified for 
the 2021-2027 period. 

European territorial cooperation  

In the Germany-the Netherlands programme, projects to strengthen cross-border research, 
technological development and innovation have made a significant contribution in terms of 
creating  new  knowledge  and  improving  technology  transfer.  Similar  positive  results  were 
reported  under  the  Germany-Denmark  programme,  which  supported  the  development  of 
technologies for sustainable decentralised energy sources, and the Italy-Austria programme. 

A few evaluations  cover  measures  aimed at  protecting the environment and  reducing  CO2 
emissions.  For  example,  the  Alpine  Space  programme  has  helped  develop  an  ecosystem 
service concept in the Alps, while the Sweden-Finland-Norway Botnia-Atlantica programme 
has increased knowledge of how to better protect and manage the sea and coastal areas. The 
Estonia-Latvia programme has increased awareness of energy conservation, waste sorting and 
re-use,  and  the  Croatia-Serbia  programme  has  supported  electricity  production  from 
renewables and helped increase energy efficiency. 

Recent evaluations show successful cooperation on thematic issues, such as smart cities ICT 
projects in Greece and Cyprus, and natural heritage projects in Italy and Austria. 

15 

 
 
 
LESSONS ON CRISIS RESPONSE  

Preparing for a green, digital and resilient recovery of the economy 

Evaluation  in  this  area  is  still  limited,  but  findings  suggest  that  crisis  measures  have  been 
effective  in  giving  Member  States  flexibility  to  re-programme  and  redirect  resources  to 
where they are most needed. 

Evidence  shows  the  trade-offs  to  be  made  between  attempting  to  cover  large  numbers  of 
beneficiaries under the projects and the importance of scale for the projects to succeed. 

The re-programming of resources to shift funding to where it is most needed and the crisis 
measures taken have generally contributed to alleviating the negative effects of crises even 
if, in some cases, the needs of people affected by a crisis were not fully addressed. 

Evidence shows the importance of giving support to the sectors and regions most affected by 
a crisis. 

Evaluations  suggest  that  the  higher  co-financing  rate  and  the  adoption  of  simplified  cost 
options,  as  well  as  the  simplification  of  administrative  procedures,  have  improved  the 
implementation of the measures supported. 

Among the crisis measures taken by Member States, only a few programmes have evaluated 
this area so far. Support for companies featured prominently in many countries, such as loans 
for SMEs to keep them in operation in Slovakia, Czechia, and the Centre Region of France; 
support for innovative companies in Italy; financing for working  capital and support for job 
retention  in  Czechia;  and,  in  Italy,  lump-sum  support  for  self-employed  people,  the 
development of distance learning and healthcare technology projects for monitoring patients, 
diagnostic testing and genetic studies. 

In  Czechia,  an  evaluation  examined  the  impact  of  the  measures  implemented  to  tackle  the 
consequences  of  COVID-19.  Surveys  of  both  supported  and  non-supported  companies 
suggest  that  the  decline  in  employment  was  less  steep  for  those  receiving  support.  In  the 
Netherlands,  Malta  and  France  (Grand  Est),  the  measures  were  considered  relevant  to  the 
needs of people and companies. At the same time, the evidence suggests that the support was 
not particularly well targeted towards the sectors most affected by the crisis. 

In  Czechia,  an  evaluation  found  that,  for  a  specific  programme,  only  293  out  of  1  000  pre-
identified companies in the most affected sectors had received support. In Italy (Veneto), most 
ESF projects supported were located in urban centres with high income levels, not in the areas 
that  needed  them  the  most,  while  in  Abruzzo,  there  were  difficulties  in  reaching  potential 
beneficiaries of ESF measures aimed at training workers in companies affected by the crisis. 
In  Hungary,  half  of  the  SMEs  supported  reported  that  the  projects  did  not  fully  meet  their 
needs because the level of funding was inadequate.  

In  the  Netherlands,  an  evaluation  assessed  the  application  process  for  accessing  ‘Recovery 
Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe’ (REACT-EU) funding and identifying 
the bottlenecks to be tackled next. It found evidence that the REACT-EU scheme was tailored 
to  the  needs  of  beneficiaries,  mostly  special  education  secondary  schools  and  training 
institutes. Application procedures were found to be easy for applicants to use, and both the co-
financing rate (increased from 75% to 100%) and the adoption of simplified cost options were 

16 

 
 
welcomed  by  beneficiaries.  However,  according  to  applicants,  they  weren’t  given  enough 
time to implement projects. 

The higher co-financing rate and the adoption of the simplified cost option in the Netherlands, 
and  the  simplification  of  administrative  procedures  in  Italy  (Lombardy),  improved  the 
implementation of the measures supported.  

By  contrast,  the  counterfactual  analysis  done  in  Czechia  of  the  measures  taken  during  the 
COVID-19  pandemic  did  not  find  statistically  significant  effects  on  company  survival  rates 
and employment, perhaps because of the short time that has elapsed since the measures were 
implemented, but also possibly because support was not given to the companies most in need 
of it.  

2.2  Evaluation work by the Commission 

In March 2023, the Commission published the final evaluation report of the ex post evaluation 
of  infrastructures,  competence  centres  and  activities  for  research  and  technological 
development  (RTD)  financed  by  the  ERDF  in  the  2007-2013  period5.  It  found  that  ERDF 
support had positively contributed to catch-up in RTD capacities, particularly in regions that 
were  lagging  behind.  ERDF  support  did  this  by  helping  to  reduce  disparities  between  EU 
regions  in  terms  of  performing  quality  research,  as  some  key  RTD  performance  indicators 
show. On the other hand, evidence shows that there is a lack of observable long-term impacts 
on the use of research results for technological development and innovation, which ultimately 
did not increase regional competitiveness. Smart specialisation strategies were introduced in 
2014-2020 to address these issues and increase the market orientation of investments. 

The Commission also published the evaluation report of e-cohesion in 2014-2020. E-cohesion 
refers  to  systems  for  electronic  data  exchange  between  beneficiaries  and  programme 
authorities6. The evaluation found that e-cohesion systems reached their goal of reducing the 
administrative burden on beneficiaries and programme authorities, particularly in the areas of 
the  submission  and  management  of  payment  claims  and  progress  reporting.  Further 
improvements  could  be  made  with  greater  interoperability  between  e-cohesion  systems  and 
national databases and systems. 

The preliminary evaluation of support provided by the ESF and the Fund for European Aid to 
the Most Deprived (FEAD) under the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative (CRII) and 
the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative Plus (CRII+), was also published7. The results 
showed that, compared to the aftermath of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the EU responded 
much more quickly and more extensively to the socio-economic challenges COVID-19 gave 
rise  to.  The  CRII  and  CRII+  were  effective  in  giving  Member  States  flexibility  to  re-
programme the ESF and redirect resources to where they were most needed.  

The  work  on  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  ERDF/CF  and  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  ESF/YEI  is 
ongoing.  These  evaluations  cover  all  investment  priorities  in  order  to  obtain  a  complete 
overview  of  the  funds,  including  CRII,  CRII+  and  REACT-EU  support  provided  in  all  27 
Member States and the UK. They will be ready by the end of 2025.  

5 

6 

7 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52023SC0071  

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52023SC0258  

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8558&furtherPubs=yes  

17 

 
 
 
Preliminary  findings  generally  support  the  evidence  from  Member  States’  evaluations. 
Findings  on  SME  support  suggest  that  investments  have  had  positive  effects  on  turnover, 
employment and productivity in supported SMEs. Quick project selection and a short time-to-
grant  were  crucial  for  ensuring  good  results.  Likewise,  in  ICT,  the  Commission’s  findings 
corroborate the evidence from Member States that investment in the digital sector  is crucial 
for bridging the emerging  technological  divide between more  developed  and less developed 
areas of Member States. 

The  Commission  has  also  started  the  work  on  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  cohesion  policy 
funds of the 2021-2027 programming period. For the ERDF, the CF and the Just Transition 
Fund and the ESF+, the staff working document will be finalised by the end of 2024. 

The  Commission  also  did  a  study8  to  assess  the  legal  and  practical  challenges  in  accessing 
and  using  administrative  data  for  the  evaluations  of  the  ESF+.  The  study  provides 
recommendations  for  the  Member  States  on  how  to  facilitate  access  to  administrative  data 
while following data protection rules.  

8 

https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8562&furtherPubs=yes  

18 

 
 
 
 
3  EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL FUND FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT (EAFRD) 

3.1  Evaluations by the Member States 

3.1.1  General overview 

Overall, reporting on evaluations by the Member States in 2023 shows solid progress, but also 
a slight decrease in the number of completed evaluations compared to the previous year. On 
the  one  hand,  Member  States  reported  160  evaluations  completed,  a  decrease  of  23% 
compared  to  the  year  before  (209).  This  brings  the  cumulative  number  of  evaluations 
completed  in  the  2014-2022  period  to  1 320.  These  evaluations  were  reported  on  by  23 
Member States and the UK, and most of them covered the common agricultural policy (CAP) 
general  objective  2  (Ensuring  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  and  climate 
action).  This  was  closely  followed  by  evaluations  covering  several  rural  development 
programme (RDP) priorities and objectives. On the other hand, there has been an increase in 
the reported evaluation findings, suggesting that Member States are effectively capitalising on 
the groundwork done in previous years.  

Figure 5: Completed evaluations (160 in total) across the main topics reported in annual 
implementation reports in 2023 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2023). 

Many communication activities (271) publicising evaluation findings were reported in 2023, 
with Member States estimating that altogether around 3.3 million people were reached. Many 
of  them  were  reached  through  websites  (2.5  million  people  or  77%),  followed  by  external 
publications  or  evaluation  reports  (438  000  or  13%).  Fewer  people  were  reached  through  a 
combination of various communication channels, such as meetings and written consultations, 
exhibitions, outreach events and social media.  

Fewer follow-up activities on evaluation results (355) were reported compared to 2022 (471). 
Member  States  used  the  evaluation  results  mainly  to  improve  the  RDP  delivery  mechanism 
(35%)  and  to  prepare  the  CAP  Strategic  Plans  (27%).  Evaluation  results  were  also  used  to 
improve  the  intervention  logic  of  the  RDP  (19%)  and  adapt  monitoring  and  evaluation 
systems (11%). 

19 

 
 
Figure 6: Use of evaluation results (N=355 follow-up activities). 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2023). 

3.1.2  Main findings of evaluations 

Despite a slight decrease in the number of evaluations reported on, compared to the previous 
year, the overall number of evaluation findings reported is steadily increasing. In 2023, it 
increased  slightly  by 9%  from  the previous year  (433 compared to  397 in  2022, and 198 in 
2021). Among them, the findings on the three CAP objectives and the cross-cutting objective 
of knowledge-transfer and innovation have increased even more (26%).  

Figure 7: Evidence basis  for evaluation findings reported on in annual implementation 
reports in 2023 (N=433 findings) 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2023). 

Most findings reported in 2023 are based on the assessment of gross results, constituting 39% 
of the total. There has been a significant decrease in findings based on impacts, recording, at 
9%, a decline from the previous year’s 16%. This could be because of the stage the evaluation 
cycle  is  at,  with  managing  authorities  preparing  for  the  next  major  milestone  –  an  ex  post 
evaluation in 2026. 

20 

 
 
Further  analysis  of  the  evaluation  findings  reported  from  2021  to  2023  on  different  CAP 
objectives (379 findings out of the total 433 reported) highlights several overarching trends.  

CAP objective 1 – Fostering the competitiveness of agriculture  

Over  the  last  few  years,  the  competitiveness  objective  registered  a  total  of  195  findings, 
showing consistent annual growth in the number of reported evaluation findings. In 2023, 33 
RDPs  (from  11  Member  States)  reported  94  evaluation  findings,  an  increase  of  about  25% 
from the previous year.  

Figure 8: Evaluation findings under CAP objective 1 ‘Competitiveness’ reported in the 
2021-2023 period 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2023). 

Findings  showing  positive  effects  were  dominant,  up  to  38  by  2023  (40%).  Negative 
effects,  initially  absent,  accounted  for  6  findings  (6%)  in  2023.  Mixed  effects  are  also 
reported in a small number of cases (8 in 2023). Findings categorised as unspecified increased 
sharply, reaching 38 in 2023 (40.4%). 

For 2023, the largest number of positive findings under this objective is associated with rural 
development  (RD)  Priority  2:  Farm  viability  and  competitiveness.  Member  States  have 
demonstrated  the  positive  effects  of  the  support  given  on  the  competitiveness  of  farms, 
evidenced  by  an  increase  in  economic  performance,  gross  value  added  and  farm  incomes 
(Czechia,  France-Pays  de  la  Loire,  Ireland,  Italy-Calabria  and  Campania,  Lithuania).  It  has 
also been shown that investments have been a catalyst for more efficient production processes 
and higher labour productivity (Germany-Sachsen, Italy-Emilia-Romagna, Lithuania). 

In 2023, Member States also reported positive effects of the measures implemented under RD 
Priority  3,  which  centres  on  food  chain  organisation,  animal  welfare  and  risk  management. 
These  positive  effects  encompass  various  aspects,  such  as  the  rise  in  the  number  of  farms 
participating  in  quality  schemes  and  producer  organisations,  strengthened  relationships 
between  the  parties  involved,  greater  demand  for  regional  agricultural  products,  and  greater 
profitability  of  food  production  and  processing  (Czechia,  Italy-Calabria,  Emilia-Romagna, 
Lazio, Apulia and Veneto). 

21 

 
 
CAP  objective  2  –  Ensuring  the  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  and 
climate actions  

In 2023, the environmental CAP objective was, as in previous years, the most evaluated, with 
the highest number of evaluation findings (132) of all CAP objectives. Altogether, 35 RDPs 
(17 Member States) reported findings. More than half of the findings were positive about 
the effects of the CAP on the sustainable management of natural resources and climate 
action in 2023 (54%), while 12% were negative, 11% mixed, 5% showed no effect, and in 
18% of cases no conclusion could be reached.  

Figure  9:  Evaluation  findings  under  CAP  objective  2  ‘Environment’  reported  in  the 
2021-2023 period 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2023). 

For 2023, RD Priority 4, on ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry, stands out as the 
priority with the most positive effects. Member States report examples showing a significant 
reduction in soil erosion due to RDP measures and a substantial increase in soil organic matter 
(Italy-Campania,  Emilia-Romagna  and  Veneto,  and  Malta).  They  have  also  reported 
improvements  in  water  quality  in  the  agricultural  areas  supported  (Spain-Navarra,  Italy-
Campania,  Emilia-Romagna  and  Sicily).  The  support  given  has  also  played  a  major  role  in 
bolstering  organic  farming,  as  reflected  in  the  increase  in  land  under  organic  farming  and 
improved  soil  sustainability  (Germany-Saarland  and  Saxony,  Spain-Navarra,  Italy-Friuli-
Venezia Giulia and Lazio). Member States have also reported that RDP measures have greatly 
enhanced high nature value areas and protected biotopes and species (Germany-North Rhine-
Westphalia,  Spain-Navarra,  Italy-Calabria).  Targeted  funding  allocation  has  preserved  or 
improved  the  quality  and  connectivity,  and  increased  the  biological  diversity,  of  agri-
ecosystems (Italy-Emilia-Romagna).  

Under  RD  Priority  5:  Resource  efficiency,  a  low-carbon  and  climate-resilient  economy,  in 
2023 Member States have also reported such positive effects as an increase in the production 
of  renewable  energy  in  projects  supported  by  RDP  measures  (Estonia)  and  the  continued 
growth  of  carbon  sink  capabilities,  contributing  to  carbon  sequestration  (Spain-Navarra). 
Investments  facilitated  by  the  RDP  have  led  to  higher  organic  carbon  storage  in  forest 
biomass (Italy-Emilia-Romagna). 

22 

 
 
 
CAP objective 3 - Achieving a balanced territorial development  

Over  the  last  3  years,  a  total  of  188  findings  were  reported  for  territorial  development, 
showing a consistent yearly increase. 35 RDPs from 9 Member States reported 113 findings. 
The  share  of  findings  with  positive  effects  increased  slightly  to  45%  (51)  in  2023.  The 
number of reported mixed and negative effects was small. Findings reporting unspecified 
effects remained significant, at 45 in 2023 (40%). 

Figure 10: Evaluation findings under CAP objective 3 ‘Territorial balance’ reported in 
the 2021-2023 period 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2023). 

Half of the findings pertain to LEADER9, followed by other topics under RD Priority 6, such 
as  diversification,  job  creation  and  ICT  in  rural  areas.  Findings  reported  in  relation  to 
LEADER  often  show  mixed  or  unspecified  effects.  Nonetheless,  LEADER  evaluations 
reported by Member States have highlighted several achievements. These include supporting 
the  establishment  and  expansion  of  companies  in  rural  areas,  supporting  job  creation, 
promoting  non-agricultural  activities 
increasing  equal 
opportunities  in  rural  regions,  and  improving  public  services  for  disadvantaged  people  and 
people  at  risk  of  social  exclusion  (Estonia,  Spain-Andalusia,  Castilla  la  Mancha  and 
Extremadura, Italy-Calabria, Emilia-Romagna, Apulia and Veneto, and Malta). The LEADER 
interventions  have  had  a  positive  impact  on  social  capital10  and  helped  to  strengthen 
community  bonds  (Spain-Andalusia,  Malta,  United  Kingdom-Wales).  The  development  of 
joint  actions,  integrated  territorial  approaches  and  innovative  collaborations  in  the  areas  in 
question also underscores the positive effects of LEADER (Italy-Apulia and Marche, Spain-
Andalusia).  The  findings  also  suggest  promising  advancements  in  involving  diverse  socio-
economic  actors  in  decision-making  processes  and  encouraging  greater  participation  of 

to  diversify  rural  economies, 

9  LEADER  (Liaison  Entre  Actions  de  Développement  de  l’Économie  Rurale)  promotes  integrated  rural 
community-led  local  development  with  key  features  of  bottom-up  and  multi-sector  approaches,  local 
partnerships  and  place-based  design  and  delivery,  funded  through  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy 
(Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013), under a common framework (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013). 

10  Social capital can be defined as the features of social organisation such as networks, norms and trust that can 
facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit. It is linked to social relations and  participation in local 
community activities. 

23 

 
 
 
women  in  local  action  groups  (Germany-Lower  Saxony-Bremen,  Spain-Aragon  and 
Extremadura, Malta).  

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

Under this priority, 78 findings were reported, reflecting a pronounced increase after a modest 
start in 2021. For 2023, 20 RDPs from 7 Member States reported 40 evaluation findings. Of 
these,  38%  indicate  positive  effects,  primarily  concerning  the  European  Innovation 
Partnership  for  Agricultural  Productivity  and  Sustainability  (EIP-Agri),  under  the  cross-
cutting objective of knowledge-transfer and innovation. The remainder of the findings show 
mixed  (7%)  or  zero  (5%)  effects,  with  none  considered  to  have  negative  effects.  However, 
half of the findings showed unspecified effects. 

Figure 11: Evaluation findings under the horizontal priority reported in the 2021-2023 
period 

Source: European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP (2023). 

The  evaluation  findings  show  that  the  funded  actions  centred  on  product  and  process 
innovations, as well as the facilitation of knowledge flows, through the European Innovation 
Partnership  for  Agricultural  Productivity  and  Sustainability  (EIP-Agri).  For  instance, 
supported projects have showcased the potential of scalability to offer significant benefits to 
the  industry  (Germany-Thuringia,  Italy-Tuscany,  UK-Wales).  Italy-Tuscany  and  UK-Wales 
report that collaboration among members of operational groups (OGs) has been constructive, 
with  signs  pointing  to  sustained  cooperation  beyond  the  lifespan  of  individual  projects.  OG 
members have also reported on the success of their projects, highlighting tangible changes in 
practices,  including  advancements  in  farming  techniques,  better  animal  health,  data-driven 
decision-making,  and  the  generation  of  new  income  streams  or  cost  reductions  (Germany-
Thuringia, Italy-Liguria, UK-Wales). 

3.2  Evaluation work by the Commission 

In  June  2023,  the  Commission  published  a  study  on  the  European  Network  for  Rural 
Development  (ENRD)  and  the  National  Rural  Networks’  (NRNs)  contribution  to  the 

24 

 
 
implementation  of  EU  rural  development  policy11.  The  study  concluded  that  networking 
activities carried out by the ENRD and NRNs  had increased stakeholder involvement in the 
implementation  of  the  2014-2020  rural  development  policy  with  respect  to  the  previous 
period.  The  increased  exchange  of  information  and  good  practices  facilitated  by  these 
networks  ensured  better  quality  administration  and  management  of  rural  development 
programmes,  strengthening  coordination  between  all  stakeholders  and  addressing  the  real 
needs  of  beneficiaries.  The  stakeholders  involved  represented  a  wide  range  of  individuals, 
including  policy  and  programme  designers  and  implementers,  organisations  representing 
farmers, forest managers, environmental organisations, rural communities, and actors on the 
ground  such  as  farmers,  project  beneficiaries  and  local  action  groups.  Networks  at  EU  and 
national  levels  have  contributed  to  balanced  territorial  development  through  their  mutually 
beneficial relationship in support of rural development, and through specific thematic support. 

11  Study on the ENRD and the NRNs’  contribution to the  implementation of EU rural development policy - 

Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu) 

25 

 
 
 
4  EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND (EMFF) 

4.1  Evaluations by the Member States 

By  the  end  of  2022,  a  total  of  72  evaluation  operations  have  been  reported12  for  17  EMFF 
programmes. EUR 8.6 million of total eligible public costs (EMFF and national contributions) 
was  committed  to  support  this  work.  Of  this  amount,  around  one  third  was  committed  in 
Spain (EUR 3.1 million), followed by Sweden (EUR 1.3 million), Finland (EUR 1.2 million) 
and  Italy  (EUR  1.2  million).  Spain,  Czechia  and  Sweden  reported  the  highest  number  of 
evaluations (18, 10 and 9 respectively). The Commission gives practical support to managing 
authorities  to  boost  Member  States’  evaluation  capacity  for  the  EMFF  and  to  broaden  the 
scope and the quality of the evaluations. 

The  information  used  for  EMFF  evaluations  comes  from  the  annual  implementation  reports 
(AIR).  However,  the  information  presented  in  them  varies  significantly  from  one  Member 
State to another in terms of the level of detail, likely correlated to the scope and depth of the 
evaluation  process  itself. It  should be  borne in  mind  that for several  Member States,  EMFF 
budgets are rather small, a limiting factor for the scope of the evaluations. 

Evaluations vary considerably by type. In recent years Member States’ focus has shifted from 
process and mid-term evaluations to effectiveness and impact evaluations. They cover a wide 
range of topics, considering effectiveness and efficiency at the operational programme level, 
at  the  level  of  the  Partnership  Agreement,  and  at  the  levels  of  EU  priorities,  specific 
objectives  and  measures  (for  example,  community-led  local  development  (CLLD)  and 
permanent  cessation)  or  strategies  (for  example,  aquaculture  strategy).  Several  impact 
evaluations were also done – for example, assessing the impact at the level of EU priorities 
and specific EMFF measures,  the impact of the operational programme interventions on the 
environment and sustainability, and assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and 
Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine on the fisheries sector.  

Several Member States have mentioned in their annual implementation reports preparing for 
ex  post  evaluations,  where  a  detailed  assessment  of  the  achievement  of  programme-specific 
objectives will be done, considering their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and durability. 

in 

Recommendations 
topics,  with  some 
the  evaluations  cover  a  wide  range  of 
recommendations  common  to  several  Member  States.  One  such  recommendation  is  that 
amendments  to  the  national  operational  programmes  and  the  re-allocation  of  financial 
resources  should  be  pivotal  to  EMFF  implementation;  this  is  particularly  important  since 
EMFF expenditures are eligible only until the end of 2023.  

Country-specific  recommendations  include  suggestions  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden; 
build  the  capacity  of  managing  authorities;  improve  the  efficiency  of  communication  and 
publicity measures; introduce simplified cost options; make the instructions for applicants and 
beneficiaries  provided  by  the  managing  authorities  more  clear;  centralise  information  for 
applicants  and  beneficiaries  to  improve  accessibility;  establish  a  streamlined  and  permanent 
electronic  system  for  data  collection;  support  innovation  in  programmes;  introduce  more 
systematic  monitoring  of  strategically  important  investments;  enable  the  pre-financing  of 
projects  to  encourage  a  larger  number  of  potential  beneficiaries  to  apply;  facilitate  active 
communication  with  commercial  banks  to  offer  suitable  financial  packages  to  top  up  the 
EMFF grant to support project implementation; streamline the number of interventions in the 
interests  of  efficiency  and  clarity;  ensure  clear  targeting  (to  increase  uptake)  of  areas  with 
pressing needs. 

12  MS reports in line with Article 97(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014. 

26 

 
 
EMFF  evaluations  have  helped  Member  States  to  assess  funding  needs  and  facilitated 
preparations for the 2021-2027 period. The evaluations have confirmed the feasibility of the 
European  Maritime,  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Fund  programme  drafts;  the  appropriateness 
of  the  intended  goals,  priorities  and  actions  in  the  context  of  the  sector’s  needs;  and  the 
appropriateness  of  the  financial  allocations.  Some  Member  States  also  did  strategic 
environmental assessments for 2021-2027 programmes as part of evaluations.  

Here is a non-exhaustive list of specific evaluation topics. 

•  Seals and cormorants damage compensation scheme. 
•  Review  of  the  fisheries  local  action  groups  (FLAG)  component  of  the  programme 

(EMFF Union Priority 4);  

•  Cost-benefit analysis of the fishing vessels decommissioning scheme.  
•  Ex ante assessment of the use of financial instruments.  
•  Sustainable fisheries scheme. 
•  Communication means and channels for primary target audiences. 
•  Compensation of aquaculture environmental measures. 
•  Sustainability  of  the  fishing  industry  in  terms  of  the  consumption  of  productive 

resources. 
Investment support for aquaculture and the processing industry.  

• 
•  Follow-up of investment support for aquaculture and nutrient reduction.  
•  Testing of the model for the LEADER effects evaluation. 
•  Environmental benefits of the EMFF. 

There is  detailed information  summarising  the evaluations  of each Member State  and based 
on  information  provided  in  annual  implementation  reports  in  Section  7  of  the  EMFF 
implementation report for 2022, published in October 2023. 

4.2  Evaluation work by the Commission 

The  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  2014-2020  European  Maritime  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF) 
under  Article  117  of  the  EMFF  Regulation  and  Article  57  of  the  2014-2020  Common 
Provisions  Regulation  needs  to  be  done  by  the  end  of  2024.  The  evaluation  will  aim  to 
identify: 

•  how the planned objectives have been achieved in different sectors and in relation to 

topics for each Union Priority separately, using the theory of change approach; 

•  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  support 

given through the EMFF programmes in the 2014-2020 programming period; 

•  aspects regarding the actions taken to respond to recent and ongoing crises and market 
disruptions (COVID-19, Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, climate change, 
biodiversity, etc.). 

The  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  2021-2027  European  Maritime,  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture Fund, also needs to be done by the Commission by 31 December 2024 in line 
with Article 45 of the 2021-2027 Common Provisions Regulation. The evaluation will cover 
all  26  EMFAF  programmes  implemented  under  shared  management  and  the  support  under 
Title  III  of  the  EMFAF  Regulation,  managed  under  direct  management  in  the  2021-2027 
programming period.  

27 

 
 
 
5  FINAL REMARKS  

In  2022,  Member  States  continued  to  allocate  a  considerable  amount  of  resources  to 
evaluation, with an increasing focus on the impact of the actions supported. This confirms the 
commitment  of  the  Member  States  to  invest  valuable  resources  in  evaluation  as  a  tool  that 
promotes accountability, transparency and policy learning. 

The Commission continues to provide support and collaborate with the Member States to help 
them produce quality evaluations. It has also increased its methodological support services for 
the 2021-2027 period. 

The  evaluation  findings  have  been  used  for  programme  adjustments  in  the  final  part  of  the 
2014-2020  programming  period  and  for  the  design  of  the  programmes  for  the  2021-2027 
period.  They  will  also  feed  into  the  ex  post  evaluations  of  cohesion  policy  funds  the 
Commission  is  doing, which will produce several  intermediate outputs,  before the synthesis 
reports for each fund are due in 2025. 

28