COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COURT OF AUDITORS Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, the Educational, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, the European Research Council Executive Agency, the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency and the Research Executive Agency
Date: 2025-04-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, EU programme, executive agency, financial control, innovation, performance audit, trans-European network, transport network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.4.2025  SWD(2025) 91 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)          Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COURT OF AUDITORS Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, the Educational, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, the European Research Council Executive Agency, the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency and the Research Executive Agency {COM(2025) 171 final} - {SWD(2025) 87 final} - {SWD(2025) 88 final} - {SWD(2025) 89 final} - {SWD(2025) 90 final} - {SWD(2025) 92 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................................... 5 

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES ............................................................................ 5 
2.2 POINT(S) OF COMPARISON .............................................................................................................................. 8 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........................... 8 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ............................................................................ 11 

4.1 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? ........................................................... 11 
4.2 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 23 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ..................................................... 26 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 26 
5.2 LESSONS LEARNED ...................................................................................................................................... 27 

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 30 

ANNEX II: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ...................................................... 32 

ANNEX III: EVALUATION MATRIX AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY 
CRITERION) ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 

ANNEX IV: OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................................... 35 

ANNEX V: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 36 

ANNEX VI. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT ................................................ 40 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym  Meaning or definition 

Agencies 

Executive agencies 

CBA 

CEF 

Cost-benefit analysis 

Connecting Europe Facility 

CHAFEA 

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency 

CINEA 

Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency 

EACEA 

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency 

EASME 

Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 

EEA 

EFTA 

European Economic Area 

European Free Trade Association 

ERCEA 

European Research Council Executive Agency 

EU 

European Union 

H2020 

IDEA 

INEA 

IT 

PPMI 

REA 

SFS 

SME 

Horizon 2020, the 8th EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 
(2014-2020)  

Inspire, Debate, Engage and Accelerate Action 

Innovation and Networks Executive Agency 

Information Technology 

Public Policy and Management Institute 

Research Executive Agency 

Specific financial statement 

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise 

TEN-T 

Trans-European Transport Network 

TRIMIS 

Transport Research and Innovation Monitoring and Information System 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check 

In accordance with Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 laying down the statute 
for  executive  agencies  (the  Framework  Regulation) 1,  the  Commission  carries  out  an 
evaluation of the operation of each  executive agency every 3 years, including a cost-benefit 
analysis. It submits the respective report to the agency’s Steering Committee, to the European 
Parliament, to the Council and to the Court of Auditors.  

This  staff  working  document  reports  on  the  triennial  evaluation  of  the  Innovation  and 
Networks Executive Agency (INEA or ‘the Agency’). The evaluation was carried out in the 
context  of  the  evaluation  of  the  six  executive  agencies 2  for  the  period  of  INEA’s  mandate 
under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework, which still needed to be evaluated, i.e. 
from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2021. This is the period just before the establishment of the 
new  agencies  for  the  2021-2027  multiannual  financial  framework,  including  INEA’s 
successor,  the  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency 
(CINEA), on 1 April 2021. 

In  line  with  Article  12  of  the  Establishment  Decision  on  new  agencies 3,  the  evaluation 
covered  all  six  agencies  in  a  coordinated  manner  and  followed  a  common  evaluation 
methodology.  It  focused  on  the  operation  of  the  agencies  and  their  performance  during  the 
evaluation  period  by  providing  answers  to  specific  evaluation  questions  on  effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence, including a retrospective cost-benefit analysis. 

The purpose of evaluating the operation of INEA was to assess its implementation of the parts 
of the EU funding programmes that have been entrusted to it: Connecting Europe Facility  – 
transport,  energy  and  telecommunications  (including  the  Wifi4EU  subprogramme  on  the 
promotion  of  internet  connectivity  in  local  communities  as  of  May  2018);  Horizon  2020  – 
‘Smart, green and integrated transport’ and ‘Secure, clean and efficient energy’; as well as the 
Innovation Fund as of June 2020.  

INEA  operated  between  1  January  2014  and  31  March  2021  and  was  governed  by  the 
following  Commission  legal  bases:  (i)  the  Establishment  Decision 4,  which  established  the 
Agency and set out its mandate; (ii) the Delegation Decision 5, which specified the tasks to be 

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

Council Regulation 58/2003 of 19 December 2003 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in 
the management of Community programmes (OJ L 11 of 16 January 2003, p. 1). 
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA), Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises 
(EASME),  Innovation  and  Networks  Executive  Agency  (INEA),  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  (EACEA), 
Research Executive Agency (REA) and European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA). 
Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2021/173  of  12  February  2021  establishing  the  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and 
Environment Executive  Agency,  the European  Health  and  Digital Executive  Agency,  the  European Research Executive  Agency, the 
European Innovation Council and Executive Agency for SMEs, the European Research Council Executive Agency, and the European 
Education  and  Culture  Executive  Agency  and  repealing  Implementing  Decisions  2013/801/EU,  2013/771/EU,  2013/778/EU, 
2013/779/EU, 2013/776/EU and 2013/770/EU (OJ L 50, 15.2.2021, p. 9). 
Commission Implementing Decision 2013/801/EU of 23 December 2013 establishing the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency 
and repealing Decision 2007/60/EC as amended by Decision 2008/593/EC. 
Commission Decision C(2013) 9235 of 23 December 2013 delegating powers to the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency with a 
view  to  the  performance  of  tasks  linked  to  the  implementation  of  Union  programmes  in  the  field  of  transport,  energy  and 
telecommunications  infrastructure  and  in  the  field  of  transport  and  energy  research  and  innovation  comprising,  in  particular, 
implementation of appropriations entered in the general budget of the Union. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
carried out by, and the powers delegated to the Agency in order to perform its mandate; and 
(iii) the Decision establishing the Agency’s Steering Committee 6.  

In  line  with  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  principles 7,  the  evaluation  applies  several 
standard  evaluation  criteria.  It  assesses  whether  the  Agency  has  fulfilled  its  tasks  in  an 
effective and  efficient way, whether there are overlaps/gaps/inconsistencies in  the  Agency’s 
management  of  the  programme  portfolio,  and  whether  there  is  a  clear  delineation  of  tasks 
between INEA and the parent Directorates-General or other executive agencies (coherence) 8.  

The  evaluation  also  assesses  whether  the  Agency’s  functioning  has  yielded  the  expected 
positive  results  as  estimated  in  the  2013  cost-benefit  analysis  for  delegating  tasks  to  the 
executive agency 9 and identifies potential areas of improvement. To this end, the estimations 
of the 2013 cost-benefit analysis have been tested to provide evidence on the validity of the 
assumptions in the ex ante scenario by considering the actual costs and benefits of programme 
implementation  by  the  Agency  in  a  structured  way.  The  aspects  to  be  covered  by  the  cost-
benefit  analysis  are  specified  in  Article  3(1)  of  the  Framework  Regulation 10  and  in  the 
guidelines on establishing and operating executive agencies 11. 

The evaluation does not cover the achievements of the EU funding programmes managed by 
INEA, which are themselves subject to mid-term and ex post evaluations. The evaluation of 
INEA  nevertheless  provides  useful  input  for  the  programmes’  evaluations  given  that  the 
Agency’s performance affects the efficiency and effectiveness of the programmes it manages. 

The evaluation  examines the efficient  use of resources and the  effective achievement of the 
tasks  entrusted  to  the  Agency.  It  looks  in  particular  at  whether  (i)  the  alignment  of  more 
coherent  programme  portfolios  with  the  Agency’s  core  competences  and  its  brand  identity 
delivered the estimated qualitative benefits; (ii) the assembly of the management of different 
EU programmes delivered the estimated synergies, simplification and economies of scale; and 
(iii)  the  pooling  of  instruments  guaranteed  consistent  service  delivery  and  whether  there  is 
scope for simplification and further efficiency gains.  

The evaluation is based on a study carried out by an external contractor 12.  

6  

7  

8  

9  

Commission  Decision  C(2014)520  of  6  February  2014  appointing  the  members  and  observers  of  the  Steering  Committee  of  the 
Innovation and Networks Executive Agency, as last amended by Commission Decision C(2020) 4848 final of 22.7.2020. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee  of  the  Regions  on  ‘Better  Regulation:  joining  forces  to  make  better  laws’,  COM(2021)219  final  of  29.4.2021,  and 
Commission Staff Working Document on ‘Better Regulation Guidelines’, SWD(2021)305 final of 3.11.2021. 
The assessment of the evaluation criterion ‘EU added-value’, i.e. why the EU should act, is not perceived to be a relevant criterion for 
the evaluation of the executive agencies as they carry out tasks which the Commission has transferred to them. The EU added-value of 
the  programmes  that  the  agencies  manage  is  assessed  in  the  context  of  the  delegated  programmes’  evaluations.  The  previous  needs 
which  INEA  was  meant  to  address  and  whether  they  are  still  pertinent  at  present  (relevance)  are  illustrated  in  the  context  of  this 
evaluation. 
Cost-benefit analysis for the delegation of certain tasks regarding the implementation of Union Programmes 2014-2020 to the executive 
agencies – Final report for the Commission of 19 August 2013. 

10   The cost-benefit analysis should include the following factors: identification of the tasks justifying outsourcing, cost-benefit analysis 
including  the  costs  of  coordination  and  checks,  the  impact  on  human  resources,  possible  savings  within  the  general  budgetary 
framework of the European Union, efficiency and flexibility in the implementation of outsourced tasks, simplification of the procedures 
used, proximity of outsourced activities to final beneficiaries, visibility of the EU as promoter of the EU programme concerned and the 
need to maintain an adequate level of know-how inside the Commission. 

11   Appendix II of the Guidelines for the establishment and operation of executive agencies financed from the Union budget (C(2014) 9109 

from 2 December 2014. 

12   Study supporting the evaluation of  Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA), Education, Audiovisual 
and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME), European Research 
Council  Executive  Agency  (ERCEA),  Innovation  and  Networks  Executive  Agency  (INEA)  &  Research  Executive  Agency  (REA) 
(2017/2018-2021), Final Report: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), 14.03.2023, PPMI and Inspire, Debate, Engage 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

As  outlined  in  the  Framework  Regulation  and  in  INEA’s  Establishment  Decision,  the 
outsourcing  of  certain  management  tasks  to  the  Agency  in  the  2014-2020  multiannual 
financial framework intended to: 

−  Allow  the  Commission  to  focus  on  its  institutional  tasks,  i.e.  tasks  assigned  to  the 
institutions  by  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  that  require 
discretionary  powers  in  translating  political  choices  into  action.  Such  institutional 
tasks should not be outsourced. 

−  Enable  the  Commission  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  delegated  EU  programmes 
more effectively. According to the 2013 cost-benefit analysis, the delegation of certain 
programme  tasks  to  the  Agency  was  estimated  to  be  more  cost-efficient  than  an  in-
house  scenario.  The  Establishment  Decision  stated  that  the  alignment  of  more 
coherent  programme  portfolios  with  the  Agency’s  core  competences  and  its  brand 
identity would bring qualitative benefits. In addition, it estimated that assembling the 
management  of  different  EU  programmes  would  bring  synergies,  simplification  and 
economies of scale. 

The  original  objective  of  the  intervention  involved  entrusting  the  Agency  with  the 
implementation  of  several  EU  programmes.  Originally,  the  Agency  was  entrusted  with  the 
implementation of parts of: 

− 

the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)13:  transport,  energy  and  telecommunications; 
and 

−  Horizon  202014:  transport  and  energy  research  (Part  III  Societal  challenges  of  the 

Specific Programme). 

It  was  also  responsible  for  the  management  of  the  trans-European  transport  network  (TEN-
T)15  and  Marco  Polo16  legacy  programmes  under  the  2007-2013  multiannual  financial 
framework (until their last projects closed in 2018 and 2020 respectively).  

As of May 2018, the Agency’s mandate was extended to include implementation of the new 
Wifi4EU  initiative  as  part  of  CEF  Telecom 17.  As  of  June  2020,  it  was  further  extended  to 

and Accelerate Action (IDEA): Study supporting the evaluation of CHAFEA, EACEA, EASME, ERCEA, INEA & REA (2017/2018-
2021) - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu) 

13   Regulation  (EU)  No  1316/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2013  establishing  the  Connecting 

Europe Facility (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129). 

14   Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 — the 
Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014- 2020) (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 104); and Council Decision 2013/743/EU 
of 3 December 2013 establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and 
Innovation (2014-2020) (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 965). 

15   Regulation  (EC)  No  680/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2007  laying  down  general  rules  for  the 
granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (OJ L 162, 22.6.2007, p. 1). 
16   Regulation  (EC)  No  1692/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  2006  establishing  the  second  ‘Marco 
Polo’ programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport 
system (Marco Polo II) (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 1). 

17   Commission  Decision  C(2018)  1281  final  of  27.2.2018  and  C(2018)  6366  final  of  4.10.2018  on  amending  Decision  C(2013)9235 
delegating  powers  to  the  Innovation  and  Networks  Executive  Agency,  as  regards  promotion  of  internet  connectivity  in  local 
communities. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
include  implementation  of  the  Innovation  Fund18  managed  by  the  Directorate-General  for 
Climate Action 19. 

By the end of the evaluation period, the Agency was working  under the  supervision  of five 
parent Directorates-General: 

−  Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (lead parent Directorate-General); 
−  Directorate-General for Energy; 
−  Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology;  
−  Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; and  
−  Directorate-General for Climate Action. 

In  implementing  the  programmes  delegated  to  it,  INEA  was  responsible  for  monitoring  the 
projects,  making  the  necessary  checks  and  recovery  procedures,  and  performing  budget 
implementation  tasks  covering  revenue  and  expenditure  within  the  meaning  of  the  EU 
Financial Regulation 20, and in particular: 

−  managing the operations and procedures leading to the adoption of Commission award 
decisions  and  to  the  conclusion  of  grant  agreements  and  managing  the  ensuing 
decisions and agreements; 

−  providing support in programme implementation; 
−  performing  all  the  operations  required  to  launch  contests  and  award  prizes  in 

accordance with the EU Financial Regulation; 

−  concluding  public  procurement  procedures  and  managing  the  ensuing  contracts, 

including the operations required to launch and conclude such procedures. 

The intervention logic (Figure 1 below) closely follows the provisions and logic provided in 
the  Agency.
the  key  documents  defining 

tasks  and  activities  of 

the  objectives, 

18   Directive 2003/87/EC  of  the  European  Parliament and of the Council  of 13  October  2003  establishing  a  scheme  for  greenhouse  gas 

emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32). 

19   Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2020/669  of  18  May  2020  amending  Implementing  Decision  2013/801/EU  as  regards 
entrusting the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency with the implementation of the Innovation Fund (OJ L 156, 19.5.2020,  p. 
20). 

20   Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable 
to the general  budget of  the  Union, amending Regulations  (EU)  No 1296/2013,  (EU)  No  1301/2013,  (EU)  No  1303/2013,  (EU)  No 
1304/2013,  (EU)  No  1309/2013,  (EU)  No  1316/2013,  (EU)  No  223/2014,  (EU)  No  283/2014,  and  Decision  No  541/2014/EU  and  
repealing Regulation (EU,  Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p.1). 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: INEA’s intervention logic 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2 Point(s) of comparison  

The current evaluation of INEA operations for the period January 2017-March 2021 assesses 
the  actual  costs  and  benefits  of  programme  implementation  by  INEA  (executive  agency 
scenario)  when  compared  with  the  alternative  scenario  of  management  by  the  Commission 
(in-house scenario). 

Accordingly, the reference points for this INEA evaluation are the 2013 ex ante cost-benefit 
analysis and INEA’s specific financial statement 21. 

The  analysis  of  INEA’s  performance  during  the  reference  period  assesses  the  progress 
achieved since the previous evaluation, which covered the Agency’s operations from 2014 to 
2016. 

The 2013 cost-benefit analysis estimation was that the savings from the delegation of tasks to 
INEA  over  the  period  2017-2020  would  be  EUR  38.3  million  compared  to  the  in-house 
scenario. The specific financial statement estimated efficiency gains of EUR 42.4 million over 
the same period. 

The  specific  financial  statement  estimated  that  the  total  number  of  full-time  equivalents 
required to manage the programmes delegated to INEA in 2020 – the peak programming year 
in  terms  of  workload  –  was  318  (adjusted  from  337  in  the  cost-benefit  analysis).  The  total 
initial operational budget entrusted to INEA in 2020-2024 was estimated at EUR 36.9 billion 
in commitment appropriations and EUR 23.5 billion in payment appropriations. Considerable 
efficiency  gains  were  expected  compared  to  the  in-house  scenario,  along  with  non-
quantifiable  benefits  such  as  improved  quality  of  programme  management  and  service 
delivery, improved visibility of the EU programmes and proximity to beneficiaries. 

3. 

HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

INEA was set up on 23 December 2013 and started operating as an autonomous legal entity 
on 1 January 2014.  

As stipulated in the INEA Delegation Decision, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed 
on 1 October 2014. It defined the modalities and procedures of interaction and set out a clear 
delimitation  of  responsibilities  between  INEA  and  its  parent  Directorates-General 22.  This 
evaluation  assesses  whether  the  distribution  of  roles  has  been  complied  with  for  the  2017-

21  

INEA’s  Specific  Financial  Statement  was  updated  in March  2018 in  view  of  the  delegation  of the  Wifi4EU programme  under  CEF 
Telecom to INEA, and in April 2020 in view of the delegation of the Innovation Fund to INEA. These amendments had an impact on 
the  administrative  resources  allocated  to  both  the  Agency  and  the  Commission,  and  were  therefore  considered  in  the  retrospective 
CBA. 

22   Memorandum of Understanding between the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, the Directorate-General for Energy, the 
Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology, the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, and 
the  Innovation  and  Networks  Executive  Agency  (INEA)  of  1  October  2014,  subsequently  amended.  The  Memorandum  of 
Understanding consists of four documents: Part I – General Provisions, Part IIa – Connecting Europe Facility, Part IIb – Horizon 2020, 
and Annex – Administrative and logistical support services provided by the Research Executive Agency. The General Provisions and 
Horizon 2020  parts  of  the  Memorandum of  Understanding  were updated  in  December 2015  to take  into  account the  lessons  learned 
about programme implementation as well as administrative developments within the Commission. The CEF part was updated in July 
2018 notably also to take into account the delegation of the Wifi4EU programme under CEF Telecom to INEA on 1 May 2018. The 
General Provisions were again updated in June 2020 to incorporate the Directorate-General for Climate Action as parent Directorate-
General  following  the  delegation  of  the  Innovation  Fund  to  INEA,  and  a  new  Part  IIc  concerning  the  specific  provisions  for  the 
implementation of this fund was signed between INEA and the Directorate-General for Climate Action on that occasion. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
March 2021 period, as well as the effects of the intervention on the coherence and efficiency 
of INEA’s action. 

As mentioned above, the total operational budget estimated in the specific financial statement 
for  INEA  for  the  2014-2020  multiannual  financial  framework  was  EUR  36.9  billion  in 
commitment  appropriations,  of  which  EUR  30.1  billion  for  CEF  and  EUR  6.8  billion  for 
Horizon 2020. However, the actual budget managed by the Agency in this period (without the 
Innovation Fund) was somewhat lower: EUR 34.6 billion, of which EUR 29 billion for CEF 
and  EUR  5.6  billion  for  Horizon  2020,  i.e.  94%  of  the  originally  estimated  budget.  This 
mainly  related  to  funds  from  the  delegated  programmes  being  transferred  to  the  European 
Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  (8.4%  of  CEF  funds  and  3.5%  of  Horizon  2020  funds  for 
Energy and Transport), as well as operational budget changes resulting from the multiannual 
financial framework review and the annual budget review exercises. Nevertheless, this means 
that  INEA  handled  the  largest  budget  of  all  the  executive  agencies  in  the  2014-2020 
multiannual financial framework.  

When  considering  only  the  period  2017-2020,  the  operational  budget  actually  managed  by 
INEA was approximately EUR 23.3 billion in commitments (EUR 4.9 billion in 2017,  EUR 
5.1  billion  in  2018,  EUR  6.4  billion  in  2019  and  EUR  6.9  billion  in  2020)  and  EUR  12.5 
billion  in  payments  (EUR  2.5  billion  in  2017,  EUR  2.8  billion  in  2018,  EUR  3.2  billion  in 
2019 and EUR 4 billion in 2020). 

The  Agency’s  administrative  budget  evolved  from  EUR  24.3  million  in  2017  (including 
EEA/EFTA and non-EU contributions) to EUR 30.9 million in 2020. Due to changes in the 
operational budget, the number of authorised staff at INEA was adjusted correspondingly. Its 
staff numbers  increased  from  254 in 2017 to  313 in  2020, down from  the  specific  financial 
statement estimation of 272 and 337 respectively. 

The total budget per head in terms of commitments increased from EUR 16 million in 2013 to 
EUR  22.1  million  in  2020,  an  increase  of  38%.  This  was  despite  the  programme  portfolio 
managed by the Agency during the 2014-2020 period being significantly more complex. The 
increasing volume of INEA’s operational budget during this period outpaced the increase in 
the number of Agency staff. 

The  number  of  proposals  that  INEA  received  and  evaluated  in  2014-2020  totalled  8 069 23, 
i.e.  significantly  lower  than  the  cost-benefit  analysis  estimate  of  9 207.  It  was  significantly 
higher than the cost-benefit analysis estimates for CEF Telecom, and lower for CEF Energy. 
The  number  of  projects  managed  per  head  decreased  slightly  from  8.82  in  2018  to  8.42  in 
2020,  well  below  the  average  of  the  executive  agencies.  This  was  due  mainly  to  the 
complexity  of  sizeable  CEF  infrastructure  projects.  The  number  of  proposals  evaluated  per 
head increased from 6.41 in 2018 to 7.11 in 2020. 

The  number  of  projects  managed  by  INEA,  which  constitutes  the  main  workload  driver  for 
the  Agency,  increased  from  1 583  in  2017  to  1 859  in  2020.  The  actual  number  of  running 
projects  in  2017-2020  constituted  on  average  91%  of  the  cost-benefit  analysis  estimate, 
reaching  94%  in  2020  (1 859  compared  to  the  estimated  1 980).  However,  there  were  very 
significant  variations  between  the  estimated  and  actual  number  of  projects  across  the 
programmes  managed  by  INEA.  For  CEF  Telecom,  the  number  of  running  projects  was 

23   Excluding Wifi4EU and the Innovation Fund. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
substantially  higher  than  in  the  cost-benefit  analysis  estimates,  which  related  to  the  higher-
than-estimated operational budget of the programme and much lower average project size (as 
a result of the Wifi4EU initiative). At the same time, the actual numbers of grant agreements 
concluded and projects managed were much lower for CEF Energy, which related primarily 
to its higher average grant size and the lower-than-anticipated number of projects, especially 
studies.  Programme  management  costs  (defined  as  the  ratio  between  the  administrative  and 
operational budget in payments) decreased from 0.9% in 2016 to 0.45% in 2020. 

INEA introduced several organisational and procedural changes to increase the efficiency of 
programme implementation, in particular in the evaluation period: 

− 

− 

− 

− 

further  simplification  and  improvement  of  information  management  tools  and  grant 
management procedures, notably on the use of the QlikSense project portfolio tool; the 
transition from the TEN-Tec portal to e-Grants for CEF submission and evaluation of 
proposals; and the preparation and signature of grant agreements and reporting; 
the adoption of simplified Horizon 2020 business processes, such as the introduction 
of  a  single  set  of  rules,  the  electronic  signing  of  grant  agreements,  the  Participant 
Portal as a one-stop shop for interactions with participants, the single reimbursement 
rate, and a flat rate for indirect costs; 
the  adoption  of  a  multiannual  human  resources  strategy  in  April  2017  with  specific 
measures  related  to  staff  engagement,  training,  internal  communication,  career 
development  opportunities,  well-being  and  work-life  balance,  aimed  at  improving 
human  resources  management  and  increasing  the  effectiveness  of  the  Agency’s 
operations;  followed  by  a  staff  retention  plan  in  September  2018  to  increase  staff 
satisfaction levels and help reduce staff turnover and vacancy rates; 
the development of a methodology for workload analysis in 2017, based on the 2013 
cost-benefit  analysis  and  specific  financial  statement,  to  better  assess  the  number  of 
available  staff  against  the  current  and  forthcoming  workload  and,  as  a  result,  better 
allocate resources. 

Moreover,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  carried  out  a  performance  audit  of  INEA’s 
management  of  the  delegated  EU  funding  programmes  in  2018/2019.  The  audit  focused  on 
the  2014-2020  programming  period  and  examined  whether  INEA,  together  with  the 
Commission,  (i)  fulfilled  the  tasks  delegated  to  it  and  achieved  the  expected  benefits  of 
programme delegation; and (ii) followed robust procedures for managing the CEF.  

In its 2019 report 24, the European Court of Auditors inferred that INEA was a well-organised 
Agency and that it was implementing the programmes delegated to it, in particular the CEF, 
efficiently. However, the Court made a number of recommendations (14 in total) to improve 
CEF  implementation  and  the  overall  operational  performance  of  the  Agency,  covering  the 
following areas:  

1)  improve the potential for synergies between the CEF and Horizon 2020 programmes, and 

between CEF sectors; 

2)  strengthen the framework for INEA’s management of the delegated programmes; 
3)  ensure greater harmonisation and transparency of project selection procedures; 
4)  set better conditions for timely implementation of the CEF; 

24   European  Court  of  Auditors  Special  Report  N°  19/2019;  ‘INEA:  benefits  delivered  but  CEF  shortcomings  to  be  addressed’,  7 

November 2019. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5)  redesign the performance framework to better monitor project results. 

The Commission and INEA addressed the European Court of Auditors’ recommendations by 
establishing  the  new  executive  agency  –  CINEA–    in  2021  and  also  adopting  the  new  CEF 
and Horizon Europe regulations in 2021, followed by the adoption of work programmes and 
launch of calls for proposals. CINEA’s increased use of corporate management tools such as 
e-Grants  was  also 
in  meeting  certain  European  Court  of  Auditors’ 
recommendations on call evaluations and project monitoring.  

instrumental 

indicators  and 

Despite this, the Court considered that a couple of its recommendations on the Agency’s key 
performance 
the  CEF  performance  framework  had  not  been  fully 
implemented 25.  The  Commission  and  INEA  have  held  constructive  discussions  with  the 
Court on this in order to implement such recommendations to the extent possible, while taking 
into  consideration  the  difficulties  inherent  to  the  accurate  results-oriented  measurement  of 
performance  of  both  the  Agency  and  complex  infrastructure  funding  programmes  such  as 
CEF. 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

Effectiveness 

For  the  purpose  of  this  evaluation,  effectiveness  relates  to  how  successful  the  Agency  has 
been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives. 

The  evaluation  inferred  that  during  the  period  January  2017-  March  2021,  INEA  operated 
according to the legal framework that established it. INEA’s activities, as set out in its annual 
work programmes and reported in the annual activity reports, corresponded to the tasks set out 
in the Commission’s Establishment and Delegation Decisions. 

As provided in the Delegation Decision, the modalities and procedures of interaction between 
the  Agency  and  its  parent  Directorates-General  are  set  out  in  the  Memorandum  of 
Understanding  of  1  October  2014,  as  amended  subsequently.  The  Memorandum  of 
Understanding  provides  for  a  supervision  strategy  to  avoid  gaps  or  duplication  of  efforts 
resulting from crossover between the policymaking, monitoring and supervision tasks of the 
parent  Directorates-General  and  the  execution  tasks  of  the  Agency.  These  provisions  have 
generally  worked  well,  and  all  parent  Directorates-General  and  INEA  appreciate  the 
effectiveness of mutual cooperation.  

In  the  evaluation  period,  INEA  continuously  improved  its  operations  and  achieved  a  high 
level  of  overall  effectiveness.  The  Agency  was  flexible  and  effective  in  addressing  the  key 
challenges during the evaluation period, in particular:  

25   Rec 2b) ‘The Commission and INEA should make use of more results-oriented goals and indicators’; Rec 5a) ‘Based on experience and 
lessons learned from TEN-T and CEF projects, INEA and the Commission should define a performance  framework that breaks down 
the objectives of the CEF programme into clear and measurable indicators, covering all CEF sectors, and expected project results’; and 
Rec 5b) ‘INEA should specify these indicators in call objectives, consider them in the evaluation of project proposals, monitor them 
through grant agreements and report on them on a regular basis to the Commission’.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
− 
− 

− 

− 

− 

the phasing-out and closure of its two legacy programmes TEN-T and Marco Polo;  
the efficient monitoring of the CEF Transport project portfolio and implementation of 
the ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ budget principle, which resulted in the launch of ‘Reflow’ calls 
for proposals in 2019 and 2020;  
the  efficient  integration  of  the  new  Wifi4EU  subprogramme  under  CEF  Telecom  in 
May  2018  and  the  successful  management  of  the  programme  afterwards  (until  its 
transfer to the new European Health and Digital Executive Agency on 1 April 2021); 
the  efficient  integration  of  the  new  Innovation  Fund  programme  in  June  2020  and 
successful  management  of  the  programme  with  a  significantly  higher  budget  than 
originally envisaged, based on the EU emissions trading system; 
the effective continuation of operations during COVID-19 due to sound organisation, 
efficient internal procedures and resilient and dedicated staff. 

During  the  preparatory  phase  for  the  integration  of  the  Wifi4EU  and  Innovation  Fund 
initiatives  in  particular,  the  Agency  was  required  to  use  its  existing  resources  to  handle  a 
significantly  higher  workload. Furthermore, with the  delegation of the  Innovation Fund,  the 
Directorate-General  for  Climate  Action  became  the  Agency’s  fifth  supervisory  Directorate-
General, which also required operational adjustments. 

INEA  has  developed  strong  internal  control  standards,  including  on  the  management  of 
financial and human resources. The Agency established an overarching control strategy with a 
large number of control and reporting mechanisms. These allow it to closely monitor progress 
against objectives. It also allows it to prevent and mitigate potential risks to its operations in a 
timely and effective way. INEA in particular established a coherent anti-fraud strategy, which 
it  pursues  effectively.  This  is  reflected  in  positive  assessments  by  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors and the Commission’s Internal Audit Service. 

In  2017-2020,  INEA  achieved  its  targets  to  a  large  extent  in  terms  of  key  performance 
indicators.  On  time-to-inform 26,  it  achieved  this  target  (100%)  for  all  programmes.  It 
managed  to  inform  all  participants  in  a  timely  manner,  even  though  the  volume  of 
applications grew during the evaluation period.  

On  time-to-grant 27,  the  Agency  was  largely  successful  in  meeting  deadlines  for  the 
preparation and signing of grant agreements under both Horizon 2020 and CEF programmes. 
On Horizon 2020, the Agency was consistent and reliable in meeting the deadlines (100% in 
2017-2019,  and  99%  in  2020).  For  CEF,  the  100%  target  was  not  reached,  in  particular  in 
2017  (94%),  mostly  for  reasons  outside  the  Agency’s  remit,  such  as  the  organisation  of 
official  grant  agreement  signature  ceremonies  beyond  the  time-to-grant  period  (for 
communication purposes). For CEF calls between 2018 and 2020, Wifi4EU had a much lower 
average grant preparation time than the CEF average. In fact, the preparation and management 
of  WiFi4EU  vouchers  was  significantly  simpler  than  the  other  CEF  calls’  grant  agreements 
and required less time. 

26   Time-to-inform:  the  maximum  time  from  a  call  being  closed  to  informing  applicants  of  the  outcome  of  the  evaluation  of  their 

application was set at 6 months (184 days) for CEF (and legacy programmes), and 5 months (153 days) for Horizon 2020.  

27   Time-to-grant: the time the Agency required to sign grant agreements with successful applicants or to notify them of the grant decision 

was set at 9 months (276 days) for CEF (and legacy programmes), and 8 months (245 days) for Horizon 2020. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INEA’s  performance  on  time-to-pay 28  was  consistently  high,  with  100%  for  Horizon  2020 
across the evaluation period, 99% for CEF between 2017 and 2019, and 100% in 2020. This 
represents  a  consistent  upward  trend  since  2014  (90%).  Sub-targets  included  the  timely 
payment of experts, pre-financing, further pre-financing as well as interim and final payments. 
The Agency reached its goal of paying external experts on time in more than 98% of cases. 
More  importantly,  the  Agency  performed  well  on  interim  and  final  payments,  executing 
almost all payments in under 3 months. 

In accordance with its annual work programmes, the Agency was required to meet deadlines 
for  pre-financing  and  further  pre-financing  in  all  cases.  INEA’s  outputs  approximated  these 
standards each year for the former (with a minimum of 97.93% share of grant payments made 
on time in 2019 and a maximum of 99.56% in 2018) and met the target for the latter in 2017, 
though  not  in  the  remaining  years  (but  still  with  a  minimum  of  98.01%  in  2019).  In  2020, 
even  though  the  number  of  all  three  types  of  payment  requests  peaked,  the  Agency  still 
achieved  good  performance  (above  99%  for  all),  with  the  average  number  of  days  for 
payments under the set targets 29.  

For  interim  and  final  payments  in  particular,  INEA  reduced  its  average  payment  time 
significantly  over  the  evaluation  period,  from  64  to  56  days.  In  2019,  however,  INEA  fell 
slightly below the target for the timely delivery of pre-financing of external experts under the 
Horizon 2020 programme. 

INEA achieved full execution of its operational budget in 2017-2020 both in commitment and 
payment  appropriations.  For  CEF  Transport  in  particular,  as  mentioned  above,  during  the 
evaluation period INEA and the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport implemented 
the  ‘use-it-or-lose  it’  principle.  INEA  launched  a  comprehensive  mid-term  review  of  the 
project  portfolio  in  2018,  based  on  the  projects’  annual  action  status  reports,  to  assess  the 
performance  of  ongoing  projects.  This  led  to  amendments  to  certain  projects’  grant 
agreements,  including  a  reduction  in  (unused)  grant  amounts  resulting  mostly  from 
implementation delays. This allowed such funds to be reinjected into new calls for proposals 
(‘reflow calls’) in 2019 and 2020.  

With regard to the legality and regularity of transactions, in most years INEA was successful 
in  maintaining  a  sufficiently  low  residual  multiannual  error  rate  in  terms  of  the  operational 
budget 30, especially for CEF Energy and CEF Transport, which were frequently below 1%. 
For CEF Telecom, however, residual error rates exceeded the pre-set targets in 2 consecutive 
years.  These  higher  error  rates  were  due  to  the  high  participation  of  non-governmental 
organisations and  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises, a high  percentage of personnel  costs 
among  the  costs  declared,  and  the  limited  use  of  certificates  on  financial  statements.  The 
expected acceptable error rate for the Horizon 2020 programme was estimated to be between 
2%  and  5%,  taking  into account  the  cost  of  controls  as  well  as  issues  with  personnel  costs. 
INEA therefore remained within the target range for the programme in 2017-2020. 

28   Time-to-pay:  the  time  between  receipt  of  a  request  for  payment  and  its  execution  was  set  at  30  days  for  pre-financing,  60  days  for 

further pre-financing, and 90 days for interim/final payments. 

29   The targets for payments were defined as meeting the deadline for the payment in 98% of cases, which was mostly achieved. 

30   The multiannual residual error rate is equal to the extrapolated level of error remaining after corrections/recoveries undertaken by the 

Commission/the Agency following audits. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary of INEA’s key performance indicators over 2017-2020 31  

Key performance 
indicators 
(1) Rate of execution of 
commitment 
appropriations 
(2) Rate of execution of 
payment appropriations 
(3)  Time 
to  grant 
(percentage  of  grants 
signed on time) 
(4)  Net  time  to  pay 
(pre-financing) (days) 
(5)  Error 
of 
payments  at  ex  post 
control 

rate 

Target 

100% 

2017 
CEF   Horizon 

2018 
CEF  Horizon 

2019 
CEF  Horizon 

2020 
CEF  Horizon 

2020 
100%  100% 

100% 

2020 
100% 

100% 

2020 
100% 

2020 
100%  100% 

100% 

100%  100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100%  100% 

98% 

94% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

99% 

99% 

30 

11.43  8.75 

12.13 

7.55 

12.4 

7.15 

13.4 

7.25 

2.24% 

0.71%  2.45% 

2.33%  2.67% 

2.5% 

2.45% 

Est. 
1-2% 

<2% 
(<2%  to 
for 
5% 
H2020) 

Source: INEA annual activity reports 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. 

Despite the tight timing of call launch and evaluation and selection processes, INEA adapted 
well to peak periods of very high workload. Such heavy workload was especially felt in the 
2018/2020  period  when  the  Wifi4EU  and  Innovation  Fund  calls  were  being  prepared,  the 
Agency was still recruiting supplementary staff, in addition to other regular calls under CEF 
(especially  several  CEF  Transport  calls,  including  blending  and  SESAR  Air  Traffic 
Management  calls)  and  Horizon  2020.  Regular  coordination  meetings  between  the  parent 
Directorates-General  and  INEA  resulted  in  more  efficient  planning  and  coordination  of  the 
calls. Towards the end of the evaluation period, the Agency decentralised the call evaluation 
coordination  function  from  the  Programme  Support  unit  (R1)  to  the  operational  units  to 
streamline the call evaluation and selection processes.  

While  providing  recommendations  for  addressing  minor  shortcomings,  the  reports  of  the 
independent observers accompanying the evaluations, for both CEF and Horizon 2020, were 
consistently  complementary  to  INEA’s  work  on  the  transparency  and  efficiency  of  the 
evaluation process. On Horizon 2020, the very small share of evaluation review/redress cases 
filed and (fully or partially) upheld compared to the number of proposals evaluated supports 
the general trust in the evaluation process. The redress rate decreased from 3.28% in 2017 to 
2.97% in 2020 for Horizon 2020 Energy, and from 2.4% in 2017 to 1.7% in 2020 for Horizon 
2020 Transport.  

As  a  follow-up  to  the  2019  European  Court  of  Auditors’  performance  audit,  the  Agency 
introduced  a  new  key  performance  indicator  in  its  annual  work  programme  on  the  rate  of 
review/redress cases. This provided an indication of the quality of the evaluation and selection 
process organised by INEA jointly with the parent Directorates-General. 

The survey of INEA’s applicants and beneficiaries indicates satisfaction in their dealings with 
the Agency. In general, beneficiaries (92%) and experts (96%) were satisfied with the overall 
quality  of  programme  management  by  INEA.  Among  unsuccessful  applicants,  satisfaction 
only reached 60%. Out of all applicants, a very high number would apply again for funding 

31   Given their gradual phasing out and for the sake of succinctness, the legacy programmes TEN-T and Marco Polo are not mentioned 

here. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
following  their  experience  with  INEA  –  99%  of  successful  applicants  and  89%  of 
unsuccessful applicants. Similarly, 99% of experts replied that they would be willing to work 
with the Agency in future. 

However, the survey showed that the Agency could still improve the call evaluation process 
by  providing  clearer  feedback  to  applicants.  Specifically,  the  evaluation  process  was 
considered  fair  and  transparent  by  85%  of  beneficiaries  surveyed,  compared  to  45%  of 
unsuccessful applicants. Among the latter, 51% believed that they did not receive useful and 
practical  feedback  on  their  applications.  The  survey  also  noted  that  CEF  applicants  were 
slightly  more  dissatisfied  with  the  overall  quality  of  services  during  the  application  process 
compared to Horizon 2020 applicants surveyed. 

Most programme participants appreciated INEA’s flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic: 
96%  of  beneficiaries,  94%  of  unsuccessful  applicants  and  96%  of  external  experts  believed 
that the Agency maintained the quality of its services. 

As a follow-up to the 2019 European Court of Auditors’ performance audit, the Agency also 
introduced  a  new  results-oriented  key  performance  indicator  concerning  the  launch  of  a 
targeted  stakeholder  satisfaction  survey  every  2  years  (starting  in  2022).  This  allows  the 
Agency to receive first-hand feedback on the quality of its operational activities. 

INEA was successful in ensuring proximity to stakeholders and the visibility of the EU as a 
promoter  of  the  programmes  delegated  to  it.  In  terms  of  proximity  to  stakeholders,  INEA 
acted  as  a  direct  contact  point  for  programme  applicants  and  beneficiaries.  INEA’s 
communication with beneficiaries came in the form of personal, regular contact, monitoring 
visits and through multiple knowledge-sharing events (thematic workshops, panel discussions, 
webinars  for  Horizon  2020  participants,  and  ‘projects  of  common  interest’  days,  among 
others). For CEF Transport, a long-established Advisory Group, which aims to ensure regular 
contact  with  programme  stakeholders  and  obtain  advice  on  programme  implementation 
issues, continued its valuable work.  

Separation  of  policymaking  and  implementation  benefits  the  beneficiaries  insofar  as  they 
obtain  specialised  advice  and  service.  During  the  evaluation  period,  INEA  made  sustained 
efforts to boost awareness of new funding opportunities for project promoters (under CEF and 
Horizon  2020,  and  later  under  the  Innovation  Fund)  and  consolidate  service-oriented 
communication.  It  also  supported  parent  Directorates-General,  giving  visibility  to  the 
delegated programmes by promoting success stories. 

The Agency performed its communication functions in  a satisfactory manner,  as  recognised 
by  programme  participants.  During  the  evaluation  period,  the  Agency’s  communication 
strategy  developed  further.  INEA’s  activities  for  maintaining  close  communication  with 
beneficiaries and external experts were effective, and participants found that the Agency was 
accessible throughout the project cycle. A proportion of unsuccessful applicants, however, felt 
they lacked opportunities for communication during the application process.  

As  a  follow-up  to  the  2019  European  Court  of  Auditors’  performance  audit,  the  Agency 
introduced  yet  another  new  results-oriented  key  performance 
indicator  concerning 
communication  outreach.  This  is  intended  to  measure  the  visibility  of  the  delegated 
programmes  through  the  registered  total  potential  reach  via  all  communication  channels.  In 
2020, the Agency achieved 93% of the planned communication target, which indicates high 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
performance  despite  difficulties  connected  with  the  COVID-19  pandemic  (e.g.  the 
cancellation of events). 

On  the  EU’s  visibility  as  a  promoter  of  the  programmes  entrusted  to  INEA,  the  evaluation 
suggests that there is awareness among stakeholders that the Agency is acting under powers 
delegated  by  the  Commission.  The  Agency’s  contributions  to  increased  visibility  of  the 
programmes  included  info  days,  project  management  workshops,  proactive  use  of  social 
media  tools  and  high-quality  graphic  and  communication  materials,  in  particular  on  its 
website.  The  many  channels  of  communication  used  by  the  Agency  resulted  in  greater 
visibility of the programmes. 

Efficiency  

This  section  considers  the  relationship  between  the  resources  used  by  the  Agency  and  its 
output.  It  also  includes  an  analysis of the administrative and regulatory burden and looks at 
aspects of simplification. 

In 2017-2020, INEA proved to be an efficient and cost-effective body for the management of 
the  delegated  programmes.  As  mentioned  in  Section  3,  INEA’s  administrative  budget 
(including EEA/EFTA and non-EU contributions) increased from EUR 24.3 million in 2017 
to  EUR  30.9  million  in  2020.  Its  programme  management  costs  (the  ratio  between  the 
administrative and operational budget) decreased from 0.50% in 2017 to 0.45% in 2020 based 
on commitment appropriations, and from 0.97% in 2017 to 0.75% in 2020 based on payment 
appropriations, which are the lowest of all agencies (see Figures 2 and 3 below). The budget 
managed per head (in commitment appropriations) increased from EUR 16 million in 2013 to 
EUR  22  million  in  2020,  and  the  budget  per  operational  head  (full-time  equivalent)  (in 
commitment  appropriations) 32  also  increased  from  EUR  28.4  million  in  2018  to  EUR  31.3 
million in 2020, which are the highest of all agencies. 

The number of admissible and eligible proposals evaluated by INEA in 2017-2020 was 4 935. 
The total number of running projects increased from 1 583 in 2017 to 1 859 in 2020. During 
the  evaluation  period,  INEA’s  actual  workload  was  higher  than  estimated  in  the  2013  cost-
benefit analysis due to factors beyond the Agency’s control that influenced its workload, such 
as the average grant size, number of proposals and grants, and the reinjection of budget into 
new reflow calls. The number of running projects per operational head decreased from 8.82 in 
2018 to 8.42 in 2020. 

A  detailed  analysis  of  INEA’s  cost  efficiency  and  the  results  of  the  cost-benefit  analysis  is 
presented in Section 4.2. 

32   The budget per operational head is a more accurate indicator for measuring the efficiency of operational staff directly involved in the 

management of the operational budget. However, data for this indicator are only available for 2018-2020. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  2:  Programme  management  costs  (ratio  between  the  administrative  and  operational 
budgets in terms of commitments) across the agencies, 2017-2020 

7,24

6,02

5,97

5,98

6,97

6,67

5,49

5,21

3,11

3,46

2,79

2,61

8,00

7,00

6,00

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

3,33

3,05

3,02

2,91

2,45

2,41

2,39

2,34

0,52

0,50

0,45

0,45

CHAFEA

EACEA

EASME

REA

ERCEA

INEA

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source:  Study  supporting  the  triennial  evaluation  of  the  Agency,  based  on  the  annual  activity  reports  of  the 
agencies. 

Figure  3:  Programme  management  costs  (ratio  between  the  administrative  and  operational 
budgets in terms of payments) across the agencies, 2017-2020 

8,96

8,42

8,42

7,86

7,53

7,37

6,71

6,33

3,90

3,59

3,49

3,45

10,00

9,00

8,00

7,00

6,00

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

3,75

3,64

3,39

3,07

2,94

2,74

2,54

2,54

0,97

0,93

0,92

0,75

CHAFEA

EACEA

REA

EASME

ERCEA

INEA

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source:  Study  supporting  the  triennial  evaluation  of  the  Agency,  based  on  the  annual  activity  reports  of  the 
agencies. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INEA budget, staff and workload indicators, 2017-2020 (in € million, number or %) 

Operational budget, commitments 
Operational budget, payments 
Administrative budget, commitments 
Administrative budget, payments 
Actual number of staff (at the end of the year) 
Programme management costs* (commitments) 
Programme management costs (payments) 
Budget per operational head (commitments)  
Proposals received 
Total running projects  
Running projects per operational head  

2017  2018 
5113 
4898 
2840 
2460 
24.30  26.54 
23.74  26.30 
287 
254 
0.52 
0.50 
0.97 
0.93 
NA  28.42 
1154 
1587 
8.82 

1124 
1583 
NA 

2020 
2019 
6910 
6355 
3997 
3177 
28.83  30.91 
29.10  30.10  
313 
299 
0.45 
0.45 
0.92 
0.75 
31.6  31.32 
1570 
1087 
1859 
1766 
8.42 
8.78 

* Defined as the ratio between the administrative and operational budget. 

On  human  resources  management,  as  mentioned  in  Section  3,  the  Agency  adopted  a 
comprehensive  multiannual  human  resources  strategy  in  April  2017.  This  included  specific 
measures relating to staff engagement, training, internal communication, career development 
opportunities,  well-being  and  work-life  balance.  The  aim  was  to  improve  human  resources 
management and increase the effectiveness of the Agency’s operations.  

The human resources strategy was followed by the adoption of a staff retention action plan in 
September 2018 – identified as a key action – to increase staff motivation and reduce annual 
turnover rates. In fact, INEA had to cope with increasing staff turnover rates in the first years 
of  operation  (which  reached  11.8%  in  2016,  the  target  level  being  3%).  The  staff  retention 
policy  addressed  this  issue  successfully,  with  initiatives  such  as  encouraging  internal  staff 
mobility,  announcing  vacant  positions  internally  and  organising  job  shadowing  and 
mentoring.  As  a  result,  INEA  was  more  effective  during  the  evaluation  period  in  retaining 
staff and filling vacancies, with the turnover rate dropping to 7% in 2020. The vacancy rate 
also dropped significantly, from 10% in 2016 to 7% in 2017, and to 6% in 2020. 

To  optimise  the  allocation  of  human  resources  across  its  delegated  programmes,  INEA 
developed a methodology to calculate its operational workload and staffing needs. This was 
approved  by  the  Steering  Committee  in  February  2018  and  has  been  kept  up  to  date.  The 
methodology  is  based  on  three  main  workload  drivers:  proposals  to  be  evaluated,  grant 
agreements to be signed, and ongoing projects to be managed. While Commission budgetary 
rules did not allow Agency staff to be moved between programmes, the workload assessment 
methodology proved useful in reallocating staff resources more efficiently within programme 
sectors, in agreement with the parent Directorates-General. 

In  the  2018  Commission  Staff  Satisfaction  Survey,  INEA  registered  the  second  highest 
response rate across the Commission (80%). The survey revealed an increase in INEA’s staff 
engagement index for the third consecutive time, from 61% in 2014 to 68% in 2016, and to 
70% in 2018. This is slightly above the average of the other executive agencies (67.5%) and 
of the Commission (69%). The staff engagement index is a composite indicator 33 that helps 

33   The staff engagement index is composed of the following seven individual questions: 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
measure  how  connected  staff  are  to  the  Agency  and  how  committed  they  are  to  helping  it 
achieve  its  goals.  With  an  improvement  of  9%  from  2014,  it  clearly  shows  that  INEA  has 
made good progress in this area.  

Overall  job  satisfaction  also  increased  to  75%,  although  it  is  still  slightly  lower  than  the 
Commission average (77%). However, the results of the survey also show points for attention: 
decreasing  staff  satisfaction  with  workload  levels,  work  recognition  and  performance 
management as well as lower satisfaction rates with the Agency’s middle management. There 
is also concern about the limited opportunities for mobility and career development, which is 
an issue common to all agencies.  

The results of the survey were presented to and discussed with INEA staff in each department, 
with  an  action  plan  then  drawn  up  and  adopted,  including  a  list  of  10  actions.  INEA  staff 
recognised that the Agency placed a great deal of emphasis on the staff survey, and tried to 
address the challenges and shortcomings highlighted by them. 

In  late  2019,  the  Agency  ran  an  internal  mobility  exercise  in  which  all  staff  members  were 
invited  to  express  their  interest  in  potential  internal  mobility  and  identify  concrete 
opportunities. Interviews were conducted with all colleagues who expressed an interest. Based 
on  the  outcomes  of  these  (around  15%  of  staff),  the  remaining  vacancies  were  published 
externally. Meetings were also held with the trade unions and the Common Staff Committee 
as part of the social dialogue in order to harmonise and align policies on internal mobility and 
career progression between the agencies. 

INEA launched various other initiatives as a follow-up to the staff survey and in response to 
other concerns: 

− 

It  developed  a  preventive  framework  based  on  the  Commission’s  health  and  well-being 
strategy  2017-2020.  The  framework  is  structured  around  three  key  areas  of  well-being: 
physical, mental and social.  

− 

−  A training plan was drawn up for 2020 (as in previous years), the purpose of which was to 
identify the Agency’s learning needs for 2020. This provided a structured overview of the 
different courses the Agency planned to offer its staff.  
In  2020,  the  Agency  also  increased  its  efforts  to  implement  the  Commission’s  Gender 
Equality  Strategy,  with  the  aim  of  achieving  a  target  of  50%  of  management  positions 
being  filled  by  women  by  2024.  As  women  occupied  just  20%  of  the  Agency’s 
management positions by the end of 2020, both INEA and its parent Directorates-General 
noted this as a priority for recruitment. 

In 2018, the Agency also worked harder on reducing its vacancy rate, with the ultimate goal 
of  keeping  it  below  3%,  despite  challenges  resulting  from  the  new  Selection  Tool 
recruitment system for contract agents launched in March 2017 and the suspension of EPSO 
testing for several months due to COVID-19. To speed up recruitment, the Agency revised 

I have the appropriate and timely information to do my work well;  

• 
•  My colleagues are committed to doing quality work; 
• 
• 
• 
•  My manager seems to care about me as a person; 
•  My line manager helps me to identify my training and development needs. 

I have a clear understanding of what is expected from me at work; 
I have recently received recognition or praise for good work; 
I feel that my opinion is valued;  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
its selection and recruitment procedures and adopted simplification measures. It also set up 
a  dedicated  onboarding  programme  to  integrate  new  staff  members.  It  included  career 
development and learning opportunities, a mandatory  mentor for each newcomer and other 
activities  and  events.  These  were  evaluated  positively by  newcomers.  The  vacancy  rate  in 
2020  and  for  some  time  afterwards  was  nevertheless  affected  by  the  lengthy  process  of 
recruiting new staff for the Innovation Fund. 

The evolution of key indicators for staff satisfaction after 2018 has been encouraging. In the 
staff satisfaction survey launched in 202134, the staff engagement index increased to 72%, 
and 59% of staff believed that the Agency cared about their well-being, compared with 47% 
at  the  Commission.  During  the  COVID-19  pandemic  in  2020/2021,  INEA  did  its  best  to 
ensure the well-being of its staff and keep staff engagement high through IT procurement, 
remote  project  management  (including  remote  evaluation),  pulse  surveys  and  multiple 
adjustments to its internal procedures. 

Overall, the size and structure of INEA and the level of resources in each of its departments 
were appropriate to its mandate and delegated tasks during the evaluation period. Until 2020, 
INEA  had  a  lean  organisational  governance  structure,  with  three  operational  departments 
structured around the various programmes (Department C responsible for CEF; Department H 
responsible for Horizon 2020 and, since June 2020, also for the Innovation Fund), assisted by 
Department  R  responsible  for  programme  support  and  resources.  The  CEF  programme 
department  was 
transport, 
according 
telecommunications), as was the Horizon 2020 department (energy, transport).  

organised 

thematic 

(energy, 

areas 

to 

INEA’s  organisational  structure  was  reviewed  and  effectively  aligned  to  cope  with  policy 
changes such as the evolution of its mandate, notably the creation of a dedicated unit for CEF 
Telecom linked to the delegation of the WiFi4EU programme to INEA and the integration of 
the  Innovation  Fund  into  the  Horizon  2020  Energy  unit  linked  to  the  delegation  of  this 
programme to the Agency. 

The Agency’s internal control mechanisms were also reorganised during the evaluation period 
to introduce greater decentralisation. At the beginning of the evaluation period, the Director of 
the Agency was responsible for most of its decision-making and for communication with the 
European  Court  of  Auditors  and  the  Internal  Audit  Service.  By  the  end  of  the  evaluation 
period, these tasks had became more spread across the Agency, in particular communication 
with the auditing services was shifted to the Head of Department R. 

During the evaluation period, the Agency underwent an operational decentralisation process. 
Several decision-making procedures were simplified and delegated to lower-level staff, which 
made the Agency more agile. INEA also optimised its use of IT tools and their harmonisation 
among  different  programmes.  It  introduced  the  QlikSense  portal,  which  provides  a 
comprehensive overview of the portfolio of programmes and projects it manages. This portal 
includes  a  publicly  accessible  dashboard  to  communicate  real-time  information  in  an  easy, 
transparent, flexible and user-friendly manner.  

A comprehensive e-Manual of Procedures comprising various easily accessible sections was 
also made available to INEA staff on its intranet website. Moreover, like the other agencies, 

34   Staff Survey was launched in November 2021, thus falling outside the reference period of the current evaluation. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INEA  extended  the  use  of  the  corporate  e-Grants  tool,  previously  used  only  for  the 
management  of  Horizon  2020  programmes,  to  all  its  delegated  programmes.  While  this 
transition  took  place  outside  the  evaluation  period,  the  transition  process  from  the  TENtec 
system  (developed  in-house  for  CEF  projects)  to  the  e-Grants  system  was  thoroughly 
prepared from 2018. 

INEA  also  developed  IT  solutions  that  benefit  applicants  and  beneficiaries,  including  a 
complementary  module  to  allow  geographical  data  to  be  submitted  during  the  submission 
phase  (with  e-Grants),  the  simplification  and  improvement  of  the  Business  Object 
environment  for  e-submission  and  evaluation  processes,  as  well  as  the  switch  from  the 
TENtec tool to the e-Grants tool for the CEF programme. Examples of improved information 
sharing  include  the  sharing  of  more  extensive  and  more  specific  guidelines  for  applications 
and the development of a tailored financial spreadsheet template for the CEF programme to 
help applicants and evaluators better substantiate the financial aspects of project applications. 

Coherence  

Coherence  looks  at  any  overlaps  and  complementarities  within  the  programme  portfolio 
managed by the Agency or delimitation of responsibilities between the Agency and its parent 
Directorates-General.  

In the evaluation period, INEA demonstrated flexibility in implementing a diverse programme 
portfolio and being answerable to four different parent Directorates-General (five as of June 
2020).  The  evaluation  did  not  find  any  evidence  of  overlaps,  duplications,  gaps  or 
inconsistencies  within  the  INEA  programme  portfolio.  The  Memorandum  of  Understanding 
as  last  amended  in  June  2020  provides  for  a  clear  delimitation  of  responsibilities  and  tasks 
between INEA and its parent Directorates-General.  

Since  INEA  was  established  around  the  concept  of  network  industries  and  related  research 
and innovation, there was strong coherence between the CEF and Horizon 2020 programmes 
delegated to the Agency, particularly the energy and transport sectors.  

However,  the  evaluation  inferred  that  the  management  of  Horizon  2020  Energy,  shared 
between INEA and the Executive Agency for SMEs (EASME), could have been streamlined 
by entrusting the entire programme cluster to a single agency. This was corroborated by the 
European  Court  of  Auditors  in  its  2019  audit  report 35.  This  more  coherent  approach  was 
implemented under 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework when the successor of INEA 
– CINEA – became responsible for the entire Horizon Europe energy topics. 

Coherence  in  the  programmes  managed  by  INEA  also  helped  to  exploit  synergies  to  the 
extent  possible.  On  synergies  at  programme  level,  these  have  been  effective.  For  example, 
with  regard  to  CEF,  common  implementation  by  INEA  with  the  same  business  processes, 
three-sector  (transport,  energy  and  telecoms)  coordination,  the  common  CEF  coordination 
committee of Member States and common  work programmes for CEF  financial  instruments 
generated economies of scale and simplification. However, the CEF 1 (2014-2020) legal basis 
was  not  sufficiently  flexible  to  allow  funding  of  large-scale  infrastructure  projects  that 
combine two or three sectors.  

35   The  European Court of  Auditors  noted  that  while  the  two  agencies  coordinated  calls  for proposals, each  administered  its part of the 

programme separately, which meant administrative costs on both sides and limited potential for synergies. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
With regard to synergies between Horizon 2020 and CEF, despite some intrinsic difficulties 
linked  with  the  legal  bases  of  both  programmes,  different  business  processes  and  distinct 
types of support projects (research vs deployment and/or infrastructure building), INEA and 
the parent Directorates-General endeavoured to take initiatives in this field. INEA launched a 
reflection  exercise  on  the  transport  sector,  which  led  to  a  report  being  presented  to  the 
Steering Committee in 2017. Several actions were taken at project level, including technical 
meetings  with  the  parent  Directorates-General,  collaboration  on  the  Transport  Research  and 
Innovation  Monitoring  and  Information  System  (TRIMIS),  and  the  creation  of  a  synergies 
webpage  on  the  INEA  website.  As  a  result  of  this  exercise,  Horizon  2020  projects  had  a 
greater  presence  at  the  TEN-T  Days  organised  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Mobility  and 
Transport  (as  of  the  2017  edition).  In  addition,  there  was  a  higher  degree  of  coordination 
between  Horizon  2020  and  CEF  work  programmes.  Several  proposals  that  applied  for  CEF 
Transport funding have referred to results from Horizon 2020 projects.  

INEA also conducted a technology mapping exercise in 2019 to assess whether technologies 
being  developed  in  Horizon  2020  could  be  used  in  CEF,  which  it  submitted  to  its  parent 
Directorates-General. However, in the case of CEF Energy, the mapping revealed that, at the 
time, the technologies developed under Horizon 2020 would be of limited use to CEF Energy 
actions. The Steering Committee therefore noted a ‘lack of bridges between the two funding 
programmes’  and  advised  that  a  basis  needs  to  be  explored  as  to  which  players  should  be 
better connected to improve synergies. 

Also,  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  Commission  decided  to  delegate  the  Innovation  Fund  to 
INEA  in  2020  was  because  of  the  potential  synergies  between  CEF,  Horizon  2020  and  this 
new fund aimed at boosting innovation in low-carbon technologies. The ex ante cost-benefit 
analysis  carried  out  before  such  delegation  estimated  that  entrusting  the  Agency  with  the 
implementation  of  the  Innovation  Fund  would  result  in  cost  savings  of  about  EUR  30.5 
million over the 2020-2030 period compared to the in-house management cost. It would also 
increase  efficiency  and  flexibility,  provide  for  significant  synergies  between  the  Innovation 
Fund  and  other  EU  programmes  managed  by  the  Agency,  and  increase  proximity  to  the 
beneficiaries as well as visibility of EU funding. 

The  evaluation  concluded  that  INEA  would  gain  from  a  closer  alignment  of  procedures,  as 
appropriate,  between  the  infrastructure  programme  (CEF)  and  the  research  programmes 
(Horizon 2020), as well as the newly delegated Innovation Fund, in terms of call launching, 
submission  of  proposals,  the  evaluation  and  selection  process  and  grant  awarding  for  the 
2021-2027 multiannual financial framework. Work was developed successfully in this respect 
in  the  context  of  the  Commission’s  corporate  e-Grants  process,  including  the  model  grant 
agreement. 

INEA enjoys a very good working relationship with parent Directorates-General. They were 
generally  satisfied  with  the  levels  of  formal  and  informal  communication  taking  place  in  a 
regular  and  structured  manner.  The  fact  that  some  of  the  Agency’s  personnel,  mainly  at 
management  level,  were  either  seconded  from  one  of  the  parent  Directorates-General  (in 
2020, 21 out of 313 staff) or had previously worked for them was an important asset in this 
respect.  

INEA  provided  enough  information  to  its  parent  Directorates-General  to  enable  them  to 
maintain sufficient know-how in relation to the delegated programmes. Despite the inherent 
difficulties linked with reporting on programme implementation (grant funding) of a variety 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of delegated programmes and subprogrammes, INEA has been proactive and constructive in 
providing feedback to policy to the parent Directorates-General. This is the case in particular 
on lessons learned from the evaluation  and selection process, project management and from 
project  funding,  which  are  fed  into  the  preparation  of  subsequent  work  programmes  and 
evaluation processes. However, in the evaluation period there was no framework in place to 
ensure that  feedback to  policy was coordinated and planned in  an appropriate manner, or to 
ensure  that  requests  from  parent  Directorates-General  were  prioritised  and  based  on  the 
competences and knowledge within the Agency. Important steps have since been taken under 
2021-2027 multiannual financial framework – for instance, through feedback from individual 
programmes  feeding  into  the  policy  framework/plans  and  the  adoption  of  a  strategy  on 
improving  synergies  through  cross-programme  feedback  to  policy  in  2021.  This  is  being 
the  parent 
improved  constantly 
addressed  and 
Directorates-General and the Agency.  

through  close  cooperation  between 

4.2 Cost-benefit analysis 

The retrospective cost–benefit analysis for January 2017 to March 2021 was carried out based 
on  the  results  of  the  2013  ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis,  the  assumptions  laid  down  in  the 
specific financial statement and the actual costs of INEA. 

As  mentioned  in  Section  2  above,  given  that  the  Commission  decided  to  extend  INEA’s 
mandate  with  additional programmes  (the  new  WiFi4EU  initiative  under  CEF  Telecom  and 
the Innovation Fund were delegated in 2018 and 2020 respectively), INEA’s specific financial 
statement  was  updated  twice  on  those  occasions.  These  amendments  had  an  impact  on  the 
administrative  resources  allocated  to  both  the  Agency  and  the  Commission,  and  were 
therefore considered in the retrospective cost-benefit analysis. 

The  2013  ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis  estimated  that  the  delegation  of  programme 
implementation  to  INEA  would  result  in  savings  of  around  EUR  54  million  over  the  2014-
2020  multiannual  financial  framework  compared  to  management  by  the  Commission  (in-
house scenario).  

The  retrospective  cost-benefit  analysis  showed  that  the  overall  actual  costs  of  the  executive 
agency  scenario  amounted  to  EUR  123.2  million  in  2017-2020.  To  evaluate  the  extent  to 
which  the  actual  costs  corresponded  to  the  initial  specific  financial  statement  estimates,  the 
same  assumptions  that  led  to  the  specific  financial  statement  estimates  were  followed.  The 
specific financial statement estimates (EUR 128.2 million for 2017-2020) were based on the 
EU  contribution,  but  INEA’s  administrative  budget  also  included  contributions  from  the 
EEA/EFTA  and  third  countries  (EUR  1.3  million  in  2017-2020)  to  manage  its  additional 
operational budget. As a result, the actual costs of the executive agency scenario were EUR 
121.9  million  based  on  the  EU  contribution  alone,  which  means  that  savings  amounted  to 
EUR 6.3 million and accounted for 4.9% of the specific financial statement estimates.  

Significant cost savings were made in Title II ‘Infrastructure and administrative expenditure’ 
and  Title  III  ‘Programme  Support  Expenditure’  of  INEA’s  administrative  budget.  As 
envisaged  in  the  previous  evaluation  (2014-2016),  Title  I  expenditure,  i.e.  ‘Staff-related 
expenditure’,  was  higher than estimated in  the  specific financial  statement, which related to 
higher  average  staff  costs  (due  to  salary  indexation,  promotions  and/or  increasing  staff 
seniority). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The costs of the executive agency scenario were much lower than the estimated costs of the 
in-house scenario. During the 2017-2020 period, the actual cost savings deriving from a cost 
difference between the executive agency scenario and the in-house scenario amounted to EUR 
57.4 million (or 31.8% of the estimated costs under the in-house scenario). 

When comparing  the savings initially  estimated in  the  specific financial statement and cost-
benefit  analysis  with  the  actual  savings  from  the  delegation  of  tasks  to  INEA,  it  was  found 
that the actual savings during the 2017-2020 period were 35.5% higher than the 2013 specific 
financial  statement  estimates  (EUR  57.4  million,  compared  with  EUR  42.4  million),  and 
49.9% higher than the 2013 cost-benefit analysis estimates (EUR 57.4 million, compared with 
EUR 38.3 million) (Figures 4 and 5). As forecasted in the ex ante cost-benefit analysis and the 
specific  financial  statement,  the  savings  in  the  executive  agency  scenario  resulted  primarily 
from  a  higher  share  of  lower-cost  external  staff  (contract  agents)  employed  within  the 
Agency, and a lower overall number of staff. 

Figure 4: Estimated costs and savings of the executive agency scenario 2017-2020, EUR million 

170,55

180,57

128,19

123,18

42,36

57,39

200,00

180,00

160,00

140,00

120,00

100,00

80,00

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00

SFS estimations

Actual

Costs of the in-house scenario Costs of the executive agency (EA) scenario

Savings of the EA scenario

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Estimated costs and savings of the executive agency scenario 2017-2020 (Title I and Title 
II expenditure), EUR million 

152,09

113,80

159,50

176,37

117,14

118,98

38,29

42,36

57,39

200,00

180,00

160,00

140,00

120,00

100,00

80,00

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00

CBA estimations

SFS estimations

Actual

Costs of the in-house scenario Costs of the executive agency (EA) scenario Savings of the EA scenario

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency 

The  workload  analysis  in  the  retrospective  cost-benefit  analysis  revealed  that  the  actual 
operational budget in terms of executed commitment appropriations for the 2014-2020 period 
was  6%  lower  than  the  specific  financial  statement  estimates  (EUR  34.6  billion  instead  of 
EUR 36.9 billion in terms of commitment appropriations). This mainly related to funds from 
programmes  delegated  to  INEA  being  transferred  to  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investments. Many other parameters of the delegated programmes deviated significantly from 
the 2013 cost-benefit analysis assumptions (e.g. the higher-than-estimated operational budget 
of the CEF Telecom programme and the much lower average grant size due  in particular to 
Wifi4EU; the lower-than-anticipated number of study projects under CEF Energy; the return 
of unused funds from  CEF Transport projects  that fed into additional ‘reflow calls’ in  2019 
and  2020,  as  well  as  operational  budget  changes  resulting  from  the  multiannual  financial 
framework review exercise and the annual budget review exercise). However, such deviations 
were beyond INEA’s control. As a result, the number of authorised staff in INEA was reduced 
to 254 in 2017 and 313 in 2020, down from the  specific financial statement estimate of 272 
and 337 respectively. 

Experience  from  the  implementation  of  the  programmes  also  shows  that  productivity 
indicators  could  differ  within  the  same  programme  (e.g.  the  administration  of  lump-sum 
actions in CEF Telecom was less work-intensive than the administration of real-cost actions; 
the  administration  of  CEF  Energy  and  CEF  Transport  studies  was  less  work-intensive  than 
works,  etc.).  Evidence  gained  during  this  evaluation  shows  that  INEA  monitored  the  actual 
workload  and  the  main  factors  that  contributed  to  it  and  then  redeployed  staff  resources 
(subject to the flexibility provided for in the corresponding legal acts 36).  

The  evaluation  reveals  that  INEA  managed  to  achieve  the  productivity  level  initially 
estimated in the 2013 cost-benefit analysis. The budget per head ratio in INEA increased from 
EUR 16.0 million in 2013 to EUR 22.1 million in 2020 37 – an increase of 38% – despite the 

36   Administrative resources could be redistributed within the same programme, but not across the programmes. 
37  

In commitment appropriations. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
programme portfolio managed by the Agency during the 2014-2020 period being significantly 
more complex. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1 Conclusions 

The external study supporting the evaluation of INEA operations from January 2017 to March 
2021  confirmed  that  INEA  achieved  effective  management  of  the  delegated  programmes 
while  operating  according  to  the  legal  framework  governing  it.  The  portfolio  of  tasks 
delegated to INEA was diverse but provided for synergy opportunities. Due to the Agency’s 
focus on transport and energy, there was room for further delegating tasks connected to green 
innovations.  This  occurred  by  expanding  the  portfolio  to  the  Innovation  Fund  –  adding  the 
Directorate-General for Climate Action as parent Directorate-General. 

INEA  adopted  several  measures  for  simplifying  the  management  of  the  programmes, 
including  operational  optimisation,  streamlining  and  harmonisation  of  funding  rules  and 
procedures  across  different  programmes  and  programme  strands.  However,  based  on 
interviews, there was still room for improvement in terms of agile decision-making within the 
Agency. 

Coherence  of  the  thematic  areas  of  programmes  increased  the  possibility  of  synergies. 
Various  initiatives  were  noted  within  the  CEF  programme  and  between  CEF  and  Horizon 
2020,  such  as  technical  meetings  with  parent  Directorates-General,  a  ‘synergies’  section  on 
the  INEA  webpage,  and  a  higher  degree  of  coordination  between  Horizon  2020  and  CEF 
work programmes. 

INEA operated according to the legal framework and responded flexibly to key changes (e.g. 
integration of Wifi4EU and Innovation Fund programmes, COVID-19, and preparation for the 
transition  to  the  successor  agency).  It  also  adapted  to  the  significant  increase  in  its 
responsibilities  and  workload.  It  successfully  implemented  delegated  programmes  and 
performed well on most of the intended outputs  and  key performance indicators. Overall, it 
improved programme management. It maintained strong procedures to ensure the legality and 
regularity of budget expenditure. 

The Agency carried out its communication functions in a satisfactory manner, as recognised 
by  programme  participants.  INEA’s  activities  for  maintaining  close  communication  with 
beneficiaries and external experts were effective, and participants found that the Agency was 
accessible throughout the project cycle. However, a proportion of unsuccessful applicants felt 
they lacked opportunities for communication during the application process. CEF applicants 
more  often  showed  dissatisfaction  with  the  overall  quality  of  services  compared  to  Horizon 
2020 applicants.  

INEA’s  key  stakeholders  were  satisfied  overall  with 
the  Agency’s  performance. 
Representatives  of  parent  Directorates-General  believed  that  INEA  was  operating  in  a 
professional and efficient manner.  

INEA’s performance on measures of efficiency (e.g.  time-to-pay,  time-to-grant and  time-to-
inform) was high. The operational budget was fully executed in all years (100%) in terms of 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
commitment  appropriations.  The  cost-effectiveness  of  INEA’s  management  and  control 
arrangements was the best among all agencies.  

During the evaluation period, INEA managed to successfully launch and complete almost all 
calls for proposals envisaged in the work programmes. A significant majority of beneficiaries 
and  unsuccessful  applicants  agreed  that  the  requirements  for  the  application  process  were 
reasonable  and  proportionate.  The  beneficiaries  of  INEA  were  generally  positive  about 
cooperation  with  the  Agency  during  the  project  implementation  phase.  External  experts 
evaluated their work experience with INEA positively. 

INEA was efficient in terms of human resources management, keeping the ratio between its 
administrative  and  operational  budgets  low  and  stable  (around  1%).  While  good  use  of  IT 
tools  and  the  continuous  search  for  and  implementation  of  simplifications  helped  achieve 
efficiency  gains,  the  available  data  also  pointed  to  a  certain  lack  of  flexibility  in  various 
procedures. 

The 2018 staff statisfaction survey revealed very reasonable levels of INEA staff engagement 
(70%) and well-being (63%). The Agency actively addressed shortcomings in its 2017-2020 
multiannual  human  resources  strategy  and  dedicated  action  plan,  including  through  its  staff 
retention policy. The turnover and vacancy rates in particular have been significantly reduced. 

The legal framework and the Memorandum of Understanding set out clear provisions on the 
delimitation of responsibilities between INEA and its parent Directorates-General. These were 
also clarified by supporting guidance documents. Further room for improvement remained in 
the delineation of tasks involving feedback to  policy, based on the clear expectations of the 
parent  Directorates-General  and  the  Agency’s  capacity  to  fulfil  them.  The  awareness  about 
the delineation of responsibilities and tasks between INEA and its parent Directorates-General 
was rather high among the beneficiaries and external experts. 

The costs of the executive agency scenario were much lower than the estimated costs of the 
in-house scenario.  In 2017-2020, the actual  cost  savings deriving from a  difference in  costs 
between  the  executive  agency  scenario  and  the  in-house  scenario  amounted  to  EUR  57.4 
million  (or  31.8%  of  the  estimated  costs  under  the  in-house  scenario).  The  cost-benefit 
analysis  carried  out  for  this  evaluation  reveals  that  INEA  managed  to  achieve  the  level  of 
productivity initially estimated in the 2013 cost-benefit analysis.  

5.2 Lessons learned 

In  light  of  the  above,  the  external  study  supporting  the  evaluation  identified  areas  where 
further  improvements  are  recommended  from  both  the  Commission  and  INEA,  aimed  at 
further streamlining the efficient management of the delegated programmes: 

(1) The  Commission  should  continue  to  optimise  the  delegation  of  programmes  and  tasks 
between the agencies by (i) ensuring that the thematic areas linked to the European Green 
Deal  are  mostly  managed  by  INEA’s  successor  agency  (CINEA)  alone;  (ii)  further 
exploring  the  good  practice  of  bringing  Green  Deal-related  programmes  under  the  sole 
management  of  INEA’s  successor  agency  (CINEA);  and  (iii)  ensuring  that  the  future 
delegation of programmes among agencies is organised in a similar way. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2) The Agency should increase the quality of information provided to CEF applicants during 
the  application  and  selection  phase  to  ensure  high  levels  of  transparency  and  trust.  In 
particular, it should increase: (i) the information for applicants as predefined in the FAQ 
system embedded in the e-Grants portal; and (ii) improve the clarity of the answers given 
and the quality of information provided during info days.  

(3) The  Agency  should  continue  to  explore  potential  simplifications  at  different  stages  of 
programme management and daily operations, as well as ways to streamline and simplify 
the  decision-making  process  in  day-to-day  operations:  (i)  further  explore  potential 
simplifications of various procedures and processes, focusing on how to optimise them in 
light of the constant expansion of INEA’s size and responsibilities; (ii) continue exploring 
the delegation of decision-making powers to lower-level management (for example, heads 
of sector) with regard to day-to-day operations to ensure a leaner decision-making process 
in various situations and in light of various challenges.  

(4) The Agency and the Commission should continue to explore potential solutions to better 
align  the  Agency’s  workload  with  its  resources:  (i)  further  explore  opportunities  to 
improve  the  recruitment  process  and  suitable  additional  tools  to  better  target  potential 
candidates; (ii) further consider potential ways to improve workload planning practices in 
order  to  ensure  that  various  tasks  and  requests,  including  potential  unforeseen  requests 
relating  to  feedback  to  policy,  are  taken  into  account  at  the  planning  stage;  (iii)  avoid 
supporting  projects  that  are  too  small  or  organising  small  calls  –  these  have 
disproportionate impacts on workload (within the limits of the resources provided for by 
the cost-benefit  analysis); (iv) explore potential ways to  further improve communication 
between the Commission and the Agency, ensuring that the Commission is aware of the 
digital platforms to which it has direct access and can retrieve necessary data, and that it 
has the necessary tools and channels to communicate its needs in a timely manner. 

(5) The Agency and the Commission should continue to improve the existing framework for 
the  Agency’s  provision  of  feedback  to  policy  to  its  parent  Directorates-General  by 
developing a more structured and streamlined process. Important steps have already been 
taken  in  this  regard  by  CINEA  –  for  instance,  through  feedback  from  individual 
programmes into the policy framework/plans and the adoption of a strategy on improving 
synergies through cross-programme feedback on policy in 2021:  (i) further delineate the 
Agency’s responsibilities with regard to providing feedback to policy, taking into account 
the  specific  needs  of  each  programme/Directorate-General  resources  available  through 
feedback  to  policy  plans;  (ii)  ensure  two-way  communication  between  the  Commission 
and INEA to create lean processes for feedback to policy that are suitable for both bodies; 
(iii) empower and encourage Commission staff to obtain project-related information and 
data via the digital platforms to which they have access. 

It should nevertheless be noted that in the transition phase from INEA to its successor agency 
- CINEA – (which started operating on 1 April 2021) and beyond, the Agency has constantly 
improved  its  operations.  CINEA  is  now  responsible  for  the  Green  Deal  thematic  areas, 
notably in the area of environment, maritime, fisheries and aquaculture,  and Just Transition, 
including Horizon Europe energy topics. It has also improved call procedures for all delegated 
programmes  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  parent  Directorates-General  and  stakeholders,  notably 
call texts, info days, guidance to the applicants, help desk, FAQs and guidance to experts. All 
such  procedures  have  been  harmonised  in  view  of  the  widespread  use  of  the  corporate  e-
Grants system. The Agency has also simplified internal procedures, notably in the run-up to 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the integration of programmes and staff from EASME, and constantly reviews and allocates 
staff resources in view of evolving workload. It is also continuously exploring possibilities for 
synergies  and  improving  feedback  to  policy  in  close  coordination  with  the  parent 
Directorates-General. 

29 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The evaluation of INEA’s operations had a clearly defined scope: 

- 

The reference period of the evaluation ran from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2021.  

The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the performance of INEA, as per the criteria of 

- 
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.  

- 
The scope of the evaluation covered the implementation of programmes managed by INEA 
in  the  reference  period:  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF  Transport,  CEF  Energy  and  CEF 
Telecom,  including  WiFi4EU),  Horizon  2020  Energy  and  Transport,  and  –  since  2020  –  the 
Innovation Fund. 

The evaluation did not focus on the operational achievements of the delegated programmes, 

- 
as these are the subject of separate evaluations. 

The  current  generation  of  agencies  established  under  the  2021-2027  multiannual  financial 

- 
framework was outside the scope of this evaluation.  

The  evaluation  INEA  was  part  of  the  evaluation  of  all  the  six  agencies,  which  was  made  in  a 
coordinated  manner  based  on  a  supporting  study  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor.  The 
preparations for the evaluation started in 2022, when an interservice group was set up by all lead 
parent  Directorates-General  and the concerned  central  services (Directorate-General  for  Budget 
and  the  Secretariat-General).  The  group  meetings  (i.e.  6)  were  chaired  by  the  Common 
Implementation Centre, set up within the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, who 
also ensured the secretariat. The evaluation of each agency was led by the respective lead parent 
Directorate-General (PLAN/2022/1912). The Commission also launched a ‘call for evidence’ on 
10  March  2023  on  its  ‘Have  your  say’  portal.  The  call  was  open  for  feedback  on  agencies 
activities until 7 April 2023.  

The methodology used for the evaluation was consistent across the agencies in accordance with 
the  criteria  provided  in  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  guidelines.  The  assessment  of  the 
evaluation criteria ‘EU added value’, i.e. why the EU should act, was not considered relevant as 
each agency carries out tasks which the Commission transferred to it. The EU added value of the 
programmes that each agency manages is assessed in the context of the programme evaluations.  

Evidence was taken from sources such as the Commission databases, annual reporting exercises, 
adopted  decisions.  The  supporting  study  was  prepared  using  a  mixed-methods  approach  at  the 
levels  of  methodologies  and  methods  and  worked  on  a  qualitative  methodological  approach 
(based  on  documentary  review  and  desk  research,  interviews,  answers  to  open-ended  survey 
questions  and  qualitative  cost-benefit  analysis)  combined  with  a  quantitative  methodological 
approach  (based  on  administrative  and  monitoring  data,  surveys  and  quantitative  cost-benefit 
analysis), as detailed in Annex II. 

Knowledge from the present evaluation will inform internal decision-making in INEA's successor 
agency,  namely  the  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency 
(CINEA),  as  well  as  its  parent  Directorates-General  (Directorates-General)  with  regard  to 
possible improvements to the implementation of legacy programmes and the next generation of 
programmes by the Commission.  

Furthermore, the results of the present evaluation will be useful for accountability purposes. The 
final evaluation reports regarding the performance of the six agencies will allow the Commission 
to  report  the  results  of  the  retrospective  cost-benefit  analysis  to  the  budgetary  authority,  while 
informing various European Union (EU) institutions on the value of cost savings achieved as a 
result of the executive agency scenario compared with the costs of in-house management by the 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Commission,  as  well  as  identifying  potential  areas  for  improvement.  The  results  of  this 
evaluation will be communicated to the Steering Committees of the six current  agencies, to the 
European Parliament, to the Council, and to the European Court of Auditors. 

31 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Short description of methodology 

As  mentioned  in  Section  1  above,  the  evaluation  was  supported  by  a  study  carried  out  by  an 
external  contractor.  The  study  covered  the  evaluation  of  the  six  executive  agencies  (INEA, 
EACEA,  EASME,  ERCEA,  CHAFEA  and  REA)  in  the  period  between  2017/2018  and  March 
2021 in a coordinated manner, based on the same methodology. The study was structured around 
a series of evaluation questions outlined in Annex to the study report. 

The evaluation  methods  providing for the collection of qualitative  and quantitative information 
and evidence included:  

•  Documentary  review  and  desk  research  concerning  all  relevant  documentation  relating  to 
INEA: its legal bases; the memorandum of understanding between the parent Directorates-
General  and  INEA;  annual  work  programmes;  annual  activity  reports;  European  Court  of 
Auditors  (ECA)  and  Internal  Audit  Service  (IAS)  audit  reports;  previous  evaluations  and 
cost-benefit  analysis  studies;  financial  documents;  action  plans;  staff  satisfaction  and  staff 
mobility  reports;  minutes  of  the  steering  committee,  management,  and  coordination 
meetings; the evaluation relied also on the results of the 2018 staff satisfaction survey; 

• 

Interview programme: a total of 35 interviews were held with 41 interviewees representing 
the main stakeholders, in three stages: 

−  The scoping phase consisted of exploratory and scoping interviews with officials in 
the lead parent Directorate-General and in the Agency who worked in a position that 
required  them  to  have  a  strategic  outlook  and  be  familiar  with  the  overall  key 
developments  that  took  place  during  the  evaluation  period  (1  interviewee  in 
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport  and 2 interviewees in INEA); 

−  The  main  phase  consisted  of  semi-structured  interviews,  based  on  survey 
questionnaires  tailored  to  each  target  group  to  ensure  that  all  evaluation  questions 
and all aspects of the organisational model were covered (35 interviewees - staff of 
INEA  and  its  parent  Directorates-General;  unsuccessful  and  successful  applicants 
(beneficiaries);  and  external  experts  contracted  to  assist  in  the  evaluation  of 
proposals under the delegated progammes’ calls (CEF, Horizon 2020 and Innovation 
Fund); 

−  The follow-up phase consisted of in-depth interviews to contextualise and deepen the 
understanding  of  the  data  emerging  during  the  previous  stages  of  the  interview 
programme  and  the  data  collection  process  overall  (3  interviewees  in  Directorate-
General for Mobility and Transport and INEA).  

•  Survey programme: two surveys were carried out as part of the evaluation: 

−  Survey  A  targeted  the  unsuccessful  and  successful  applicants  (beneficiaries)  and 
external  experts  contracted  by  INEA.  The  total  number  of  persons  targeted  was 
3 154, of which 342 responded (response rate of 10.9%); 

−  Survey B targeted external experts. The total number of persons targeted was 1 708, 

of which 523 responded (response rate of 30.6%). 

•  A  retrospective  Cost–Benefit  Analysis,  including  an  analysis  of  the  workload  and  of  the 
cost-effectiveness of the delegation of programme implementation ot the agency, comparing 
the  actual  indicators  with  the  estimates  in  the  ex  ante  cost-benefit  analysis  and  Specific 
Financial Statement of 2013. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In addition, building on the results of the desk research and the interview / survey programme, 
and  to  shed  light  on  the  success  stories  and  lessons  learned  as  a  result  of  key  developments 
during  the  evaluation  period,  an  in-depth  analysis  of  INEA’s  performance  in  two  areas  was 
carried out: (1) its retention policy introduced to address high levels of staff turnover, and (2) its 
regular  workload  analysis,  to  address  high  workload  and  improve  planning.  Analysis  of  these 
cases  has  provided  evidence  of  benefit  to  the  implementation  of  any  future  reorganisations  as 
well as insights into possible synergies across the agencies. 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  external  contractors  consulted  a  representative  sample  of  Commission  and  INEA  staff  and 
stakeholders (both applicants of rejected proposals and beneficiaries) and external experts in the 
course  of  the  evaluation.  Compared  to  the  overall  population,  as  expected,  unsuccessful 
applicants participated less actively in the survey than programme beneficiaries; both categories 
of applicants participated less actively than external experts.  

No sampling bias was observed as the profile of the respondents to the surveys was very similar 
to the overall population, guaranteeing statistical representativeness. The non-response bias (not 
all characteristics of the group that did not reply had been captured in full) was mitigated through 
triangulation  with  the  results  of  follow-up  interviews.  The  triangulation  approach,  using  multi-
level  and  multi-stakeholder  dimension  in  the  data  collection,  ensured  the  robustness  and 
reliability of the data and information used to draw up conclusions in the supporting study. 

With regard to the survey, it should be noted that  the successor agency – CINEA – launched a 
stakeholder satisfaction survey of its own in 2022 (covering also applicants and beneficiaries of 
calls for proposals launched by INEA prior to March 2021). It was therefore decided not to target 
recipients  of  that  survey  (for  the  calls  for  proposals  before  March  2021)  given  that  many 
questions overlapped, which might lead to survey fatigue among the applicants.  

The target group for the survey was thus smaller than originally foreseen. As the evaluation team 
had access to the results of CINEA’s survey of 2022, these were also integrated into the analysis 
for  this  evaluation.  The  limitation  has  thus  been  sufficiently  mitigated,  and  the  perspectives  of 
applicants excluded in the present evaluation survey have still been reflected in the findings. 

A  mix  of  parent  Directorates-General  and  INEA  managers  and  policy  /  project  officers  were 
interviewed  extensively.  Some  answers  to  evaluation  questions,  notably  in  the  ‘Coherence’ 
section,  rely  largely  on  interview  and  desk  research  data.  Some  views  from  Commission  and 
Agency  staff  gathered  from  the  interviews  and  mentioned  in  the  study  illustrate  personal 
experience, and they may not be representative of overall relations between the Commission and 
the Agency. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  III:  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND  ANSWERS  TO  THE  EVALUATION  QUESTIONS  (BY 
CRITERION) 

The  core  task  of  the  evaluation  was  to  respond  to  evaluation  questions  relating  to  the 
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of INEA as defined by the Better Regulation guidelines. 
Evidence-based answers, including points of comparison and sources, can be found in Section 4 
of the evaluation study carried out by an external contractor38. 

38   Study  supporting  the evaluation  of  CHAFEA,  EACEA,  EASME,  ERCEA,  INEA  &  REA  (2017/2018-2021)  - Publications  Office of  the  EU 

(europa.eu) 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV: OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

The benefits and costs are detailed in the cost-benefit analysis outlined in Section 4.2 above and 
Annex V below. 

35 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX V: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

A retrospective cost-benefit analysis was performed to assess whether the estimates (of savings) 
and conclusions of the 2013 ex-ante cost-benefit analysis and specific financial statement are still 
valid when compared with the actual situation, and what the overall savings are.  

The following approach was adopted: 

-  To use data on INEA’s actual performance (actual execution of the administrative budget, actual 

- 

staffing, etc.) for the executive agency scenario. 
In order to ensure the comparability and validity of results, to follow the assumptions laid down 
in the 2013 cost-benefit analysis and specific financial statement, and provide estimates of the 
comparable  ‘actual’  in-house  scenario  (the  comparator),  which  would  best  reflect  the  actual 
situation. 

-  Based on these estimates, to assess whether the conclusions of the ex-ante cost-benefit analysis 
and specific financial statement are still valid when compared to the actual situation, and what 
the overall savings are. 

To  deconstruct  the  ‘actual’  in-house  scenario  (the  ‘comparator’),  estimates  were  based  on  the 
following cost-benefit analysis/specific financial statement assumptions: 

-  The  number  and  composition  of  staff  at  the  Commission  under  an  in-house  scenario 
corresponds  to  specific  financial  statement  estimations39.  Additional  contract  agents  were 
added  to  the  estimated  number  of  Commission  staff  for  2017-2020  (five  contract  agents),  to 
reflect additional authorised staff at INEA financed from the contributions of EEA/EFTA and 
participation  of  candidate  countries  and/or  third  countries,  to  manage  additional  operational 
budget  not  covered  in  the  cost-benefit  analysis/specific  financial  statement  resource 
calculations.  

-  Commission  staff  costs  and  overheads  correspond  to  the  average  costs  set  by  Directorate-
General for Budget for the estimates of human resources and overheads in legislative financial 
statements for the respective year.  

-  Programme support expenditure (Title III) remains the same under both the in-house scenario 

and the executive agency scenario. 

The table below presents the results of our analysis of the estimated actual costs of the in-house 
scenario, and the actual costs of the executive agency scenario. 

The table below presents the results of the analysis of the estimated actual costs of the in-house 
scenario and the actual costs of the executive agency scenario. 

39   Additional resources allocated under specific financial statement amendments are also considered. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estimated actual costs of the in-house (Commission) scenario and actual costs of the executive 
agency scenario, thousand EUR 

2017 
No. 

Cost 

2018 
No. 

Cost 

2019 
No. 

Cost 

2020 
No. 

Cost 

Total 
2017-
2020 

In-house scenario  
Commission 
Title I. Staff-
related 
expenditure 
Establishment 
plan posts 
Contract agents 
Title II. 
Infrastructure 
and 
administrative 
expenditure 
Title III. 
Programme 
support 
expenditure 
TOTAL COST 
Executive agency 
scenario  
INEA 
Title I. Staff 
related 
expenditure 
Establishment 
plan posts 
Contract agents 
Interim supportive 
agents and 
trainees 
Professional 
development and 
recruitment costs 
Title II. 
Infrastructure 
and 
administrative 
expenditure 
Title III. 
Programme 
support 
expenditure 

333.7 

31,331 

345.8 

33,753 

357.7 

36,130 

388.3 

40,530 

141,744 

230.1 

26,462 

238.6 

28,393 

246.9 

30,369 

273.9 

34,238 

119,461 

103.6 

107.2 

4,869 
7,675 

110.8 

5,360 
8,299 

5,762 
8,943 

114.4 

6,292 
9,708 

22,283 
34,624 

1,137 

1,159 

1,076 

831 

4,203 

333.7 

40,143 

345.8 

43,212 

357.7 

46,149 

388.3 

51,068 

180,571 

254 

18,981 

287 

21,154 

299 

23,853 

313 

25,770 

89,758 

65 

7,609 

67 

8,229 

70 

8,693 

77 

9,511 

34,042 

189 

9,844 
403 

220 

11,384 
287 

229 

13,572 
272 

236 

14,559 
264 

49,359 
1,226 

1,125 

1,254 

1,316 

1,436 

5,131 

4,183 

4,230 

3,909 

4,311 

16,633 

1,137 

1,159 

1,076 

831 

4,203 

37 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
2017 
No. 

Cost 

2018 
No. 

Cost 

2019 
No. 

Cost 

2020 
No. 

Cost 

24,301 

26,543 

28,838 

30,912 

23.4 

2,215 

23.6 

2,325 

23.6 

2,406 

29.6 

3,210 

Total 
2017-
2020 

110,594 
0 
10,156 

16.4 

1,886 

16.6 

1,975 

16.6 

2,042 

22.6 

2,825 

8,728 

7 

329 
538 

7.0 

7.0 

350 
566 

364 
590 

7.0 

385 
740 

1,428 
2,435 

2,753 

2,892 

2,996 

3,950 

12,591 

277.4 
56.3 

27,054 
13,089 

310.6 
35.2 

29,435 
13,777 

322.6 
35.1 

31,834 
14,315 

342.6 
45.7 

34,862 
16,206 

123,185 
57,386 

Total INEA cost: 
Commission 
Title I. Staff-
related 
expenditure 
Establishment 
plan posts 
Contract agents 
Title II. 
Infrastructure 
and 
administrative 
expenditure 
Total 
Commission cost: 
TOTAL COST 
ESTIMATED 
SAVINGS 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency 

The analysis led to the conclusion that: 

-  The  overall  actual  costs  of  the  executive  agency  scenario40  amounted  to  EUR  123.2  million 
during the period 2017-2020. To evaluate the extent to which the actual costs corresponded to 
the initial specific financial statement estimates, it is important to follow the same assumptions 
that led such specific financial statement estimates. The specific financial statement estimates 
(EUR  128.2  million  during  the  period  2017-2020)  were  based  on  the  EU  contribution,  but 
INEA’s  administrative  budget  also  included  contributions  from  the  EEA/EFTA  and  third 
countries  (EUR  1.3  million  during  2017-2020)  to  manage  its  additional  operational  budget. 
Consequently,  based  on  the  EU  contribution  alone,  the  actual  costs  of  the  executive  agency 
scenario  constituted  EUR  121.9  million,  which  means  that  savings  amounted  to  EUR  6.3 
million  and accounted for 4.9% of the  specific  financial statement estimates. Significant  cost 
savings  occurred  in  Title  II,  ‘Infrastructure  and  administrative  expenditure’  and  Title  III 
‘Programme  Support  Expenditure’  of  INEA’s  administrative  budget.  Title  I,  ‘Staff-related 
expenditure’  was  higher  than  estimated  in  the  specific  financial  statement,  which  related  to 
higher average staff costs. 

-  The costs of the executive agency scenario were much lower than the estimated costs of the in-
house  scenario.  During  the  period  2017-2020,  the  actual  cost  savings  deriving  from  a  cost 
difference between the executive agency scenario and the in-house scenario amounted to EUR 
57.4 million (or 31.8% of the estimated costs under the in-house scenario). 

-  Comparing  the  savings  initially  estimated  in  the  specific  financial  statement  and  cost-benefit 
analysis  with  the  actual  savings  from  the  delegation  of  tasks  to  INEA,  it  was  found  that  the 
actual  savings  during  the  2017-2020  period  were  35.5%  higher  than  the  initial  specific 

40  

Including the cost of coordination and monitoring by the Commission, and the costs covered from non-EU contributions. 

38 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
financial statement estimates (EUR 57.4 million, compared with EUR 42.4 million), and 49.9% 
higher than the initial cost-benefit analysis estimates (EUR 57.4 million, compared with EUR 
38.3  million).  As  forecasted  in  the  specific  financial  statement  and  the  ex-ante  cost-benefit 
analysis, the savings in the executive agency scenario resulted primarily from a higher share of 
lower-cost  external  personnel  (contract  agents)  employed  within  the  Agency,  and  a  lower 
overall number of staff41. 

41   The number of staff in the executive agency scenario was reduced; however, the in-house scenario was not modified in the  specific financial 

statement. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT  

This  Annex  summarises  the  stakeholder  consultation  that  was  carried  out  as  part  of  the 
evaluation, based on the Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines. 

1. Outline of the consultation strategy 

The consultation strategy was designed and carried out as follows: 

Design of the consultation strategy

Setting 
consultation 
objectives

Mapping 
stakeholders

Determining 
consultation 
methods

Conducting consultation work

Surveys

Informing policymaking

Interviews

Preparation of the evaluation 
reports

Presentations to the ISG and the 
Steering Committees of agencies

Source:  Study  supporting  the  triennial  evaluation  of  the  Agency,  based  on  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation 
guidelines. 

Considering the scope of the Agency’s activities, the consultation included various categories of 
stakeholders,  in  particular  Commission  officials  from  the  parent  Directorates-General,  Agency 
staff, beneficiaries of and unsuccessful applicants to the programmes managed by INEA, as well 
as external experts contracted by the Agency. 

Two  surveys,  an  extensive  interview  programme  and  the  triangulation  of  various  data  sources 
were carried out.  

CONSULTATION ACTIVITY 

TARGET GROUPS 

DATE 

Surveys 

Survey A 

Survey B 

Beneficiaries of and unsuccessful 
applicants to the programmes managed 
by INEA 

External experts contracted by INEA 

29 November– 9 
December 2022 

29 November – 9 
December 2022 

Interview programme 

-  Commission officials from 
parent Directorates-General 

-  Director of INEA 
-  Heads of department and heads 

of unit 

-  Members of the INEA Steering 

Committee 

-  Beneficiaries of and 

unsuccessful applicants to the 
programmes managed by 
INEA 

-  External experts contracted by 

INEA 

9 August 2022 – 24 
January 2023 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency 

These different types of stakeholder consultation activities complemented each other. The survey of 
and interviews with unsuccessful applicants, beneficiaries and external experts informed questions 
on the Agency’s effectiveness and efficiency. Interviews with the Commission and INEA officials 

40 

 
 
 
not only provided information on these questions, but also allowed coherence-related evaluation 
questions to be covered. 

Consultation activity and evaluation criteria covered 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

✓ 

✓ 

Interviews with the 
Commission 

Interviews with INEA 

Interviews with 
unsuccessful applicants, 
beneficiaries and experts 

Survey of INEA’s 
beneficiaries and 
unsuccessful applicants 

Survey of external experts 
contracted by INEA 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency 

2. Key results of consultation activities 

2.1 Summarised results of the survey  

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

✓ 

Two  surveys  were  carried  out:  Survey  A  for  applicants  (beneficiaries  and  unsuccessful 
applicants)  and  Survey  B  for  external  experts.  The  questions  in  both  surveys  aimed  to  ensure 
comparability across groups of respondents, as well as complementarity with the other evaluation 
methods used, including interviews. The surveys ran for around 2 weeks. 

Overall, fewer beneficiaries and applicants were reached than experts (see table below). Experts 
also showed a higher response rate, with 30.6% of those contacted filling out the survey (523 out 
of  1 708).  This  compares  with  an  average  response  rate  of  11.5%  among  beneficiaries  and 
applicants (165 out of 1 180 beneficiaries contacted, and 177 out of 1 908 unsuccessful applicants 
contacted). Among the respondents to Survey A, a greater number of the unsuccessful applicants 
were involved in Horizon 2020 calls (139 out of 177) compared with CEF calls (38 out of 177). 
Among  the  beneficiaries,  slightly  more  were  connected  to  CEF  programmes  (98  out  of  165). 
Commission and INEA staff did not take part in the surveys, only in the interview programme.  

Main statistics on the implementation of the surveys 

Target group 

Full launch of 
the survey 
(majority of all 
invitations sent 
on this date) 

Survey closure 
date 

Population 
targeted/no. of 
invitations sent out 

No. of responses 
received 

Response rate* 

Beneficiaries 

29 November 
2022 

9 December 
2022 

Unsuccessful 
applicants 

29 November 
2022 

9 December 
2022 

Experts 

29 November 
2022 

9 December 
2022 

1 199 

1 955 

1 708 

Partial*: 0 
Complete: 165 
Total: 165 

Partial*: 0 
Complete: 177 
Total: 177 

Partial*: 29 
Complete: 494 
Total: 523 

Total: 13.8% 
Only including 
complete: 
13.8% 
Total: 9.1% 
Only including 
complete: 9.1% 

Total: 30.6% 
Only including 
complete: 
28.9% 

No. of 
responses 
included in the 
analysis after 
cleaning 

165 

177 

523 

Note: Response rate was calculated using the formula: 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 =

𝑁𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑

𝑁𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡

∗ 100% 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The survey data fed into all of the evaluation questions, in particular those aspects in which the 
opinions of respondents are of prime importance. A summary of the findings from the survey data, 
grouped by the evaluation criteria, is presented below. 

Effectiveness 

In  general,  beneficiaries  and  experts  were  satisfied  with  the  overall  quality  of  programme 
management by INEA – 96% of experts (468 out of 486); 92% of beneficiaries (142 out of 155). 
Among  unsuccessful  applicants,  satisfaction  only  reached  60%  (89  out  of  148).  Out  of  all 
applicants,  a  very  high  number  would  apply  again  for  funding  following  their  experience  with 
INEA  –  99%  among  successful  applicants  (154  out  of  156);  89%  among  unsuccessful  applicants 
(151 out of 169). Similarly, 99% of experts (487 out of 491) replied that they would be willing to 
work with the Agency in future. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  Agency’s  evaluation  and  selection  process  for  applications  was  assessed 
differently  by  the  groups  surveyed.  Unsuccessful  applicants  expressed  dissatisfaction  with  the 
selection  process  and  the  feedback  given.  Only  45%  of  unsuccessful  applicants  (77  out  of  171) 
agreed that the evaluation was fair, and 43% (72 out  of 167) had objections to  the outcome. Few 
among the unsuccessful applicants believed they had received useful and practical feedback (34%; 
57 out of 170), and few believed they had received clear information as to why their application was 
rejected (38%; 65 out of 171). This was in contrast to the perceptions of successful applicants, who 
mostly viewed the evaluation and selection process positively: 85% (123 out of 144) believed that 
the process was fair and transparent, while 86% (119 out of 139) considered the feedback given to 
be useful and practical. More than half of the experts surveyed also agreed that the selection process 
was transparent (63%; 185 out of 294).  

The survey results supported the effectiveness of INEA’s communication activities. Most applicants 
believed they knew where to send questions when preparing and submitting the application – during 
preparation,  79%  of  successful  applicants  (101  out  of  128)  and  57%  of  unsuccessful  applicants 
(81%  out  of  143);  during  submission,  79%  successful  applicants  (102  out  of  129)  and  63% 
unsuccessful applicants (92 out of 145). Most participants also held a positive view of the info days 
organised  for  proposals:  87%  of  successful  applicants  (89  out  of  102)  and  75%  of  unsuccessful 
applicants (82 out of 110) considered them important sources of information.  Among the external 
experts, 98% (469 out of 480) also agreed INEA staff were responsive.  

Beneficiaries were satisfied with the Agency’s availability and accessibility during different stages 
of the project implementation cycle – 95% (134 out of 141) during grant preparation; 90% (131 out 
of  144)  during  project  implementation;  and  96%  (94  out  of  98)  in  the  event  of  grant  or  project 
amendments.  Most  beneficiaries  (86%;  101  out  of  117)  found  the  kick-off  meeting  useful,  while 
89% (127 out of 142) believed that the answers they received from INEA were clear and accurate.  

A high  percentage of all programme participants believed that the funding opportunities provided 
by INEA were well promoted  – specifically, 78% of experts (387 out  of 496), 77% of successful 
applicants  (121  out  of  157)  and  61%  of  unsuccessful  applicants  (95  out  of  157)  agreed  that 
programmes managed by INEA are well promoted. 

Efficiency  

Most  survey  respondents  were  satisfied  with  the  efficiency  of  the  application  process.  To  most 
applicants, the information given was clear and helpful – 87% of successful applicants (129 out of 
149), and 85% of unsuccessful applicants (146 out of 172). The information was also easy to find 
for 86% of successful applicants (137 out of 160) and 87% of unsuccessful applicants (150 out of 
173). Fewer applicants (but still a high number) believed that the requirements for application were 
reasonable  –  79%  of  successful  applicants  (120  out  of  152),  and  69%  of  unsuccessful  applicants 
(119  out  of  172).  Both  groups  shared  an  appreciation  for  the  user-friendliness  of  the  e-form  for 
applications –  84% of successful  applicants  (114 out  of 136) and 78%  of unsuccessful applicants 

42 

 
 
(131 out of 169) agreed that it was user-friendly). Similar appreciation was expressed for the user-
friendliness of the programme guides – 79% of successful applicants (103 out of 131) and 71% of 
unsuccessful applicants (119 out of 168). In terms of the overall administrative work required from 
applicants,  out  of the 69 companies that answered, most required one or  two full-time employees 
per  month  for  the  whole  application  process  (22  answered  one;  17  answered  two;  the  rest  of  the 
answers varied widely). Although it is not possible to find out how much time applicants spend on 
their applications based on the surveys, it appears that they took between 8 months and a year based 
on  the  interviews.  Most  interviewees  confirmed  that  at  least  one  employee  had  to  dedicate  their 
entire working time to administrative tasks throughout that period.  

Among  unsuccessful  applicants,  48%  (51  out  of  106)  were  not  satisfied  with  the  time  it  took  for 
INEA  to  respond  to  their  queries  during  the  application  process.  Meanwhile,  80%  of  successful 
applicants (85 out of 106) reported being satisfied. Similar differences existed between the groups 
with regard to satisfaction with the application feedback mentioned above.  

In  relation  to  INEA’s  work  with  external  experts,  survey  respondents  found  the  process  of 
becoming an expert efficient. 76% (228 out of 299) believed that information on how to become an 
expert was easy to find, while 96% (483 out of 502) believed that the contract was easy to access 
and sign. The communication tools and the frequency of communication were also satisfactory for 
91%  of  experts  (416  out  of  458),  including  the  web  tool  for  Legal  Entities  /  Bank  Accounts 
validation, which was easy to use according to 83% of experts (337 out of 405). 94% (442 out of 
472) believed that the electronic evaluation system was also easy to access, while 93% (439 out of 
471) believed it was easy to use.  

Beneficiaries  also  had  a  positive  view  of  efficiency  in  relation  to  project  implementation.  They 
found  the  time-to-grant  appropriate  –  81%  (125  out  of  154)  agreed  this  was  within  a  reasonable 
time.  Slightly  fewer  –  78%  (127  out  of  153)  –  agreed  that  the  time-to-inform  was  appropriate. 
Overall, 89% (137 out of 154) found the granting process clear and transparent, with 87% (85 out of 
98) also being satisfied with the time it took the Agency to process grant amendments. 

The Agency’s monitoring requirements and auditing processes were generally viewed positively by 
beneficiaries. 89% (135 out of 152) believed that the monitoring requirements were clear and user-
friendly,  while  86%  (124  out  of  145)  believed  they  were  useful  for  project  implementation.  In 
general, 93% (140 out of 150) said that requests from INEA were clear overall.  

Not many respondents were audited, but among these, 82% (37 out of 45) believed that the time it 
took INEA to conduct an audit was appropriate, and 85% (41 out of 48) believed that the scope of 
the  information  requested  (for  monitoring/audit)  was  reasonable.  Overall,  85%  (40  out  of  47) 
judged the auditing process to be smooth.  

Overall, payment processes were likewise well appreciated: 92% (127 out of 138) of beneficiaries 
believed the process was smooth. External experts appreciated the timeliness of the process: 97% 
(251 out of 259) were satisfied with the timeliness of reimbursement, while 93% (455 out of 489) 
were  satisfied  with  the  timeliness  of  payments.  However,  some  experts  believed  that  their 
remuneration was not enough for their work. Correspondingly, only 68% (338 out of 491) agreed 
that the payment received matched their efforts.  

Lastly, most programme participants appreciated INEA’s  flexibility  during the pandemic:  96% of 
beneficiaries (129 out of 134), 94% of unsuccessful applicants (80 out of 85) and 96% of external 
experts (393 out of 409) believed that the Agency maintained the quality of its services. 

Coherence 

Most  programme  participants  were  aware  of  the  involvement  of  the  Commission,  but  the 
delineation  of  responsibilities  between  the  Commission  and  INEA  was  not  clear  to  some 
participants. 83% of  experts (123 out  of 509), 88% of beneficiaries (140 out  of 160)  and slightly 
fewer  unsuccessful  applicants  (60%;  101  out  of  169)  knew  that  the  Agency  was  entrusted  to 

43 

 
 
manage the programme by the Commission. However, fewer people believed that the delineation of 
responsibilities between the two bodies was clear. Among external experts, 73% (365 out of 500) 
considered  the  division  of  responsibilities  between  the  Commission  and  INEA  to  be  clear, 
compared with 69% of beneficiaries (109 out of 159) and only 44% of unsuccessful applicants (73 
out of 165).  

2.2. Summarised results of the interview programme 

The  interview  programme  encompassed  a  scoping  phase,  a  main  phase  and  follow-up  interviews 
with  the  representatives  of  the  Commission  and  the  Agency,  as  well  as  with  beneficiaries, 
unsuccessful  applicants  and  external  experts  contracted  by  the  Agency.  The  programme  was 
designed  to  embrace  a  wide  variety  of  views,  including  those  coming  from  the  Commission  and 
Agency as well as those of other stakeholders.  

The interviews were conducted in line with a standardised questionnaire, including questions on the 
evaluation  criteria  and  adjusted  to  the  experience  of  individual  stakeholders.  Each  interview  was 
recorded,  and  interview  notes  and/or  transcripts  were  prepared  on  the  basis  of  the  recording.  As 
envisaged, a total of 24 interviews with 26 interviewees were conducted: 

-  7 interviews (9 interviewees) with representatives of parent Directorates-General; 
-  12 interviews (13 interviewees) with representatives of INEA and its successor agencies; 
-  9  interviews  (11  interviewees)  with  unsuccessful  applicants  or  beneficiaries  and  service 

providers of programmes managed by INEA; 

-  1 interview (1 interviewee) with an external expert who worked on project evaluations; 
-  1 interview  (1 interviewee)  with  INEA staff, conducted for the purposes of follow-up and 

validation; 

-  1 interview (1 interviewee) with a representative of a parent Directorate-General, conducted 

for the purposes of follow-up and validation. 

The interview data fed into responses to the relevant evaluation questions, in particular aspects of 
those  questions  to  which  the  opinions  of  the  interviewees  are  of  prime  importance.  All  evidence 
from the interviews was incorporated into the evaluation’s final report. A summary of the findings 
from the interview data is presented below. 

Effectiveness 

Based on the interviews with INEA and the Commission, the Agency followed the legal framework 
and  did  not  overstep  its  boundaries.  It  was  also  flexible  in  incorporating  new  programmes  and 
adapting to changing circumstances.  

Overall,  key  stakeholders  were  very  satisfied  with  INEA’s  work  and  effectiveness.  Staff  also 
believed they had established good relationships with beneficiaries and applicants and that overall, 
key stakeholders were satisfied. Both INEA’s employees and the Commission agreed that INEA is 
reliable.  

Staff said that the evaluation process was of high quality, and stressed that there were few redress 
cases.  However,  more  than  one  interviewee  highlighted  the  need  for  greater  transparency  in  the 
evaluation process, e.g. more information on the outcomes of the selection process could be made 
publicly  available. In connection with  this, the external  expert who was interviewed believed that 
applications were not fully transparent.  

Overall,  all  programme  participants  held  a  very  positive  view  of  the  Agency’s  communication 
activities.  A  few  applicants  requested  more  input  from  the  Agency  during  implementation  (i.e. 
monthly  check-ins,  sending  alerts  for  deliverables,  site  visits).  One  beneficiary  also  suggested 
project  management  meetings,  with  the  Agency  and  the  beneficiary  organisation  present.  Many 
applicants  highlighted  info  days  as  being  especially  useful  and  a  crucial  source  of  information. 
Some applicants, however, found the application process burdensome and also suggested training, 

44 

 
 
webinars  or  other  training/learning  materials  for  new  applicants  to  make  the  process  more 
accessible.  

According to interviews, the Agency’s role in relation to feedback to policy was not standardised. 
However,  most  parties  shared  the  view  that  INEA  delivered  effective  inputs.  Many  interviewees 
stressed the importance of informal communication for delivering feedback. Although the majority 
of  them  held  positive  views,  the  outcome  of  interviews  points  to  a  mismatch  between  the 
Commission  and  INEA  with  regard  to  expectations  for  the  delivery  of  this  function.  One  official 
from  the  Commission  believed  that  Agency  employees  should  not  be  too  close  to  policy  areas, 
whereas INEA employees believed that requests from the Commission were not always sufficiently 
clear.  

Employees  believed  that  the  Agency’s  work  on  external  communications  was  effective.  For 
example,  they  mentioned  its  good  practice  in  flagging  success  stories.  The  interview  programme 
suggested  that  external  communication  was  usually  organised  together  with  units  in  the  parent 
Directorates-General. Interviews also indicated that communication is very resource-intensive, and 
one Commission official suggested that the Agency’s resources could be increased to make it more 
effective in this regard. Importantly, applicants and the external expert appreciated INEA’s work on 
external communication. All beneficiaries believed that sufficient opportunities were given to share 
project  results  and  that  it  is  not  solely  INEA’s  responsibility  to  encourage  communication.  Two 
applicants said that greater visibility might be needed.  

Efficiency 

Overall, most of the representatives of INEA and parent Directorates-General, as well as successful 
and  unsuccessful  applicants  interviewed,  said  that  the  Agency  was  efficient  at  managing 
applications and communication with beneficiaries, and that it was more efficient than an in-house 
scenario would have been.  

Most INEA employees were satisfied with the organisational structure of the Agency, and believed 
that  it  contributed  to  its  efficiency.  Most  agreed  that  decentralisation,  standardisation  and 
communication  between  units  increased  efficiency  and  contributed  to  smooth  operations.  Two 
employees said that having the coordination of evaluation not located within individual operational 
units was not efficient, but this situation was later changed when CINEA was set up. One employee 
also advised that financial engineering positions could be fully relocated into individual operational 
units, but  another employee disagreed.  Another  employee did  not  support  energy  efficiency  areas 
being split between EASME and INEA, and believed that overall, having six parent  Directorates-
General introduced inefficiencies into management. Lastly, multiple employees expressed that they 
might not have enough resources to allow efficient feedback to policy. 

INEA staff mostly held a slightly negative perception of workload management, but a positive view 
of  human  resource  management  practices  at  the  Agency,  especially  in  relation  to  practices  that 
address  the  challenges  related  to  high  workload.  It  was  mentioned  that  workload  analysis  was 
helpful in allocating resources and to gain an overview for managing human resources. Employees 
saw  career  development  exercises,  introduced  by  INEA  during  the  evaluation  period,  as  an 
improvement.  As  they  explained,  this  was  because  the  previous  lack  of  prospects  for  some  staff 
members had a negative effect on staff retention. Interviewees also said that the Agency followed 
up on the results of the staff satisfaction survey.  

The IT tools used by the Agency were mostly appreciated, although some interviewees said it took 
them some time to get used to them. Most employees believed that with further sub-delegation and 
harmonisation between programmes, the Agency could increase its efficiency. They also expressed 
the view that involving staff in thought exercises to improve efficiency and overall communication 
between departments was beneficial to INEA. 

Interviewed  applicants  found  the  application  process  time-consuming  but  clear  overall.  Multiple 
applicants  mentioned  that  with  experience,  the  process  became  easier.  They  generally  shared  a 

45 

 
 
positive view of the materials provided and the user-friendliness of the tools, although one person 
expressed criticism of the applicant  portal. Many applicants  said  that  attaching  formal documents 
from  national  ministries  (Member  State  signatures)  takes  a  lot  of  time  and  makes  the  application 
process stressful. Others thought that having two-stage applications would reduce wasted resources, 
because proposals would not be submitted by organisations who have a similar background.  

INEA staff believed that application evaluation was of good quality and efficient. Most applicants 
(both successful and unsuccessful) shared this view:  they mostly  found the feedback to  be timely 
and clear. Only one interviewee expressed dissatisfaction with the feedback, as they believed it was 
not clear and was therefore not useful. Another interviewee was dissatisfied with its timeliness, as 
they  believed  it  took  INEA  a  long  time  to  make  a  decision.  The  external  expert  interviewed 
believed that the deadlines for experts were short and the workload was too much for evaluations – 
INEA was not flexible in this regard.  

INEA  staff  and  programme  participants  who  were  interviewed  were  also  satisfied  with  INEA’s 
efficiency and did  not  have  ideas  on how to  create further efficiency gains. Staff and participants 
both stressed that the Agency reacted quickly to the pandemic and switched to virtual evaluations. 
According to employees, contact with beneficiaries remained good. Beneficiaries generally believed 
that project implementation was smooth and that INEA was accessible and responsive during this 
time.  Many  among  them  noticed  simplifications  and  greater  flexibility  in  processes  during  the 
evaluation process. Contracting and monitoring requirements were also viewed positively, although 
one beneficiary believed that the amount of work required to audit their organisation was too high 
and not efficient. 

Coherence 

Both  INEA  staff  and  Commission  officials  found  the  division  of  tasks  and  responsibilities  to  be 
clear,  and  all  interviewees  believed  that  the  Agency  acted  appropriately.  Similarly,  with  the 
exception  of  one  of  the  programme  participants  interviewed,  the  distinction  between  the  Agency 
and the Commission was clear.  

The results of the interview programme suggest that some INEA employees regarded some of the 
tasks  requested  by  the  Agency  to  be  outside  their  mandate.  One  employee  said  that  the 
memorandum  of  understanding  is  too  broad  and  the  Commission  can  delegate  anything  to  the 
Agency. Another employee expressed the criticism that too much input is required from INEA into 
work  programmes.  One  employee  said  that  it  should  not  be  necessary  for  INEA  to  instruct 
applicants with regard to applications, while another believed that popularising project results is not 
the job of the Agency but of beneficiaries. At the same time, several Commission officials criticised 
INEA’s reluctance to carry out certain tasks.  

Most of the Commission officials interviewed believed that INEA freed the Commission to work on 
policy-related  tasks.  Many  among  them  appreciated  INEA’s  ad  hoc  and  flexible  contributions  to 
policymaking,  although  a  few  interviewees  believed  they  were  not  always  able  to  gain  sufficient 
information  about  programme  outcomes  and  lessons  learned.  On  the  positive  side,  multiple 
interviewees  from  the  Commission  mentioned  that  they  enjoyed  good  informal  relations  with 
Agency  staff,  which  helped  in  obtaining  know-how  from  projects.  Most  INEA  employees  and 
Commission officials also believed that the reporting processes set up were sufficient to achieve a 
good level of understanding within the Commission with regard to programme outcomes. 

2.3. Comparison of the results of consultation activities 

The table below presents the key results per consultation activity, organised by evaluation criteria as 
well as by the level of consistency, complementarity and contradiction of results across consultation 
activities. Overall, as summarised in the table, there was high convergence in the results of different 
consultation activities.  

46 

 
 
Key findings of the consultation activities 

Evaluation criterion 

Survey 

Interview programme 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

In general, beneficiaries and experts were 
satisfied with the overall quality of programme 
management by INEA. 
The effectiveness of evaluation and selection 
processes was assessed differently by the groups 
surveyed. Unsuccessful applicants expressed 
dissatisfaction with the selection process and the 
feedback given, while successful applicants 
were more positive. 
The effectiveness of INEA’s communication 
activities was supported by the survey. 
Beneficiaries were satisfied with the Agency’s 
availability and accessibility during different 
stages of the project implementation cycle. 
High percentages of all programme participants 
believed that the funding opportunities provided 
by INEA were well promoted. 

The Agency followed the legal framework 
and did not overstep its boundaries. 
Overall, key stakeholders were very 
satisfied with INEA’s work and 
effectiveness. 
Staff said that the evaluation process was 
of high quality and stressed that there were 
few redress cases. However, more than one 
interviewee highlighted the need for 
greater transparency in the evaluation 
process, e.g. more information about the 
outcomes of the selection process could be 
made publicly available. 
Overall, all programme participants held 
very positive views of the Agency’s 
communication activities. 

Beneficiaries held a positive view of efficiency 
in relation to project implementation, including 
reporting requirements, payments and auditing. 
Most programme participants appreciated 
INEA’s flexibility during the pandemic. 
Most survey participants were satisfied with the 
efficiency of the application process. For most, 
the information given was clear, helpful and 
easy to find. 
Almost half of unsuccessful applicants were not 

Overall, most interviewees among INEA 
representatives, representatives of parent 
Directorates-General and successful and 
unsuccessful applicants believed that the 
Agency was efficient at managing 
applications and communication with 
beneficiaries, and that it was more efficient 
than an in-house scenario would have 
been. 
Most INEA employees were satisfied with 

47 

Consistency 
of results 
across 
consultation 
activities 

Complementarity 
of results across 
consultation 
activities 

Contradiction of 
results across 
consultation 
activities 

High 

High 

Low 

High 

High 

Low 

 
 
 
 
satisfied with the time it took for INEA to 
respond to their queries during their 
applications. Whereas most of the successful 
applicants were satisfied. 

Coherence 

Most programme participants were aware of the 
Commission’s involvement, but the delineation 
of responsibilities between the Commission and 
INEA was not clear for some participants. 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency 

the organisational structure of the Agency 
and believed that it contributed to its 
efficiency.  
INEA staff mostly held slightly negative 
perceptions of workload management, but 
had a positive view of human resource 
management practices at the Agency, 
especially with regard to practices that 
address challenges related to high 
workload. 
The applicants interviewed found the 
application process time-consuming but 
clear overall; multiple applicants 
mentioned that the process became easier 
with experience. 
INEA staff believed that the evaluation of 
applications was of good quality and 
efficient. Most applicants (both 
unsuccessful and successful) shared this 
view: they generally found the feedback 
provided to be timely and clear. 
Both INEA staff and Commission officials 
found the division of tasks and 
responsibilities clear, and all interviewees 
believed that the Agency acted 
appropriately. 
Most of the Commission officials 
interviewed believed that INEA allowed 
the Commission to concentrate on policy-
related tasks. 

48 

High 

High 

Low