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, performance audit

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.4.2025  COM(2025) 171 final  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                 {SWD(2025) 87 final} - {SWD(2025) 88 final} - {SWD(2025) 89 final} - {SWD(2025) 90 final} - {SWD(2025) 91 final} - {SWD(2025) 92 final}  
 
 
Term or acronym 
Agencies 
CBA 
CHAFEA 

CINEA 

Commission 
EACEA 

EASME 

EISMEA 

ERCEA 
EU 
HADEA 
HR 
INEA 
IT 
REA 
SFS 
TFEU 

Glossary 

Meaning or definition 
Executive agencies 
Cost-benefit analysis 
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive 
Agency 
European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment 
Executive Agency 
European Commission 
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive 
Agency 
Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized 
Enterprises 
European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive 
Agency 
European Research Council Executive Agency 
European Union 
Health and Digital Executive Agency 
Human resources 
Innovation and Networks Executive Agency 
Information Technology 
Research Executive Agency 
Specific financial statement 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

To achieve its goals the European Union supports a wide field of policy areas through a range of 
funding  programmes. The  programmes  provide  grants  and  other  forms  of  funding  for  Member 
States, businesses, researchers, non-governmental organisations and others.  

In accordance with Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), 
the Commission is responsible for implementing the EU budget. In accordance with Article 62 of 
the Financial Regulation1, the Commission implements the budget in various ways: directly, under 
shared management with Member States or indirectly by entrusting budget implementation tasks 
to  third  parties  (such  as  non-EU  countries,  Member  State  organisations,  international 
organisations, public-private partnership bodies).  

Following the adoption of Regulation 58/20032, the Commission decided that it would be more 
effective  and  efficient  to  delegate  the  management  of  certain  implementation  tasks  for  some 
directly managed programmes to its executive agencies. Over time, the Commission delegated an 
increasing number of EU funding programmes to these agencies. This has enabled it to focus on 
its core institutional tasks.  

Executive  agencies  are  Union  bodies  with  legal  personality  implementing  the  EU  funding 
programmes, managing some or all the phases of the lifetime of projects, carrying out the necessary 
checks to that end and implementing the related budgets. They are autonomous bodies under the 
supervision of the Commission.  

The outsourcing of management tasks to the executive agencies however needs to stay within the 
limits set by the institutional system as set out in the TFEU. This means that tasks assigned to the 
institutions  by  the  TFEU  that  require  discretionary  powers  in  translating  political  choices  into 
action cannot be outsourced. Outsourcing should, moreover, be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. 

The operation of each executive agency is evaluated every 3 years to assess whether it functions 
well and whether the results anticipated in the ex ante cost-benefit analysis have been achieved3. 
This report covers the evaluations of the six executive agencies entrusted by the Commission with 
programme implementation under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework:  

•  Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA)4 

•  Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)5 

•  Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (EASME)6 

1  

2  

5  

6  

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. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks 
in the management of Community programmes, OJ L11, 16.1. 2003, p.1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/58/oj 

3   Art 25 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 
4  

Commission Implementing Decision 2013/770/EU of 17 December 2013 establishing the Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency, 
as amended by Commission Implementing Decision 2014/927/EU  
Commission  Implementing  Decision  2013/776/EU  of  18  December  2013  establishing  the  Education,  Audiovisual  and  Culture  Executive 
Agency 
Commission Implementing Decision 2013/771/EU of 17 December 2013 establishing the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized 
Enterprises 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
•  European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)7 

• 

Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)8 

•  Research Executive Agency (REA)9 

The  exact  evaluation  period  varies  per  agency  as  they  were  created  at  different  dates.  For 
CHAFEA,  INEA  and  EASME  the  individual  evaluations  cover  the  period  from  2017  to  2021, 
while for EACEA, ERCEA and REA they cover the period from 2018 to 2021.  

The evaluations assessed whether each agency had fulfilled its tasks in an effective and efficient 
way, as well as if there were overlaps, gaps or inconsistencies in the management of its portfolio. 
It also examined whether there was a clear delineation of tasks between the agency and its parent 
Directorates-General or other executive agencies.  

The evaluations included a retrospective cost-benefit analysis comparing the actual performance 
during  the  3-year  evaluation  period  with  the  expected  performance  in  the  ex  ante  cost-benefit 
analysis10.  All  evaluations  were  supported  by  external  studies11  that  followed  the  same 
methodology and applied the Commission’s better regulation principles12.   

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the operations of all executive agencies towards the end of their 
mandate. While they followed the Commission’s guidelines in dealing with the pandemic, their 
activities had to be adjusted in terms of day-to-day working arrangements (e.g. digitalisation of 
processes, working from home and remote collaboration) and project management (e.g.  project 
extensions or suspensions which led to amending and rescheduling of reviews and payments). This 
was also a crucial moment in preparing the next multiannual financial framework.  

Overall, many of the areas for improvement suggested by the studies supporting the evaluation 
have already been addressed since the pandemic, and a new distribution of delegated programmes 
among agencies was proposed, aiming to ensure more consistency and to facilitate synergies and 
efficiencies.  

As  from  1 April  2021,  new  agencies  were  created  under  the  2021-2027  multiannual  financial 
framework as successors of the agencies INEA, EACEA, EASME, REA and ERCEA. CHAFEA 
was wound up at the same time and a new agency – European Health and Digital Executive Agency 
(HADEA) – was created.  

The evaluation of the six executive agencies allowed for a comparative analysis based on a set of 
qualitative and quantitative indicators, as further detailed below. 

7  

8  

Commission Implementing Decision 2013/779/EU of 17 December 2013 establishing the European Research Council Executive Agency 
Commission Implementing Decision 2013/801/EU of 23 December 2013 establishing the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency  
Commission Implementing Decision 2013/778/EU of 13 December 2013 establishing the Research Executive Agency 

9  
10   Cost-benefit analysis for the delegation of certain tasks regarding the implementation of EU programmes 2014-2020 to the executive agencies 

— Final report for the Commission of 19 August 2013. 
11   Studies: CHAFEA; EACEA; EASME;  ERCEA; INEA; REA  
12   Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines SWD (2021) 305 final and toolbox. The guidelines were applied in a proportionate way. There 
was no need to assess the evaluation criterions of ‘EU value added’ and of ‘relevance’ as the agencies carry out tasks, which the Commission 
has transferred to them and these criterions are assessed when evaluating the programmes.  

3 

 
 
 
  
 
 
  
2.  OVERALL PERFORMANCE 

Overall,  all  agencies  implemented  their  delegated  programmes  efficiently  and  achieved  good 
results for most of key performance indicators, while executing increasing operational budgets. 
Efficiency gains were pursued by agencies and were achieved via a wide range of action, from 
internal measures (reorganisations, simplification of processes and procedures) to more corporate 
and cross-cutting actions, such as the consolidation of validation services for all programmes in 
REA and the introduction of simplified rules and procedures for Horizon 202013. The continuous 
improvement of both local and corporate IT tools also improved the agencies’ efficiency.  

The increase in the agencies’ operational budgets during the analysed period is presented below. 
The  biggest  growth  between  2017  and  2021  occurred  at  INEA  (62%)  and  at  CHAFEA  (42%), 
while the smallest increase was at EASME (17%).  

Operational budget (million EUR) in terms of payments across the agencies during 2017-2020 

4500,00

4000,00

3500,00

3000,00

2500,00

2000,00

1500,00

1000,00

500,00

0,00

3997,4

3177

2840,4

2460,1

2176,71

2140,66

1935,07

2087,9

2012,47

1697,18

1430,82

1751,51

1601,24

1200,75

1337,27

1147,24

814,43

734,19

654,08

635,94

115,2

115,16

98,98

80,66

CHAFEA

EACEA

EASME

ERCEA

REA

INEA

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluations of executive agencies 

The  indicators  for  executive  agencies  relate  to  financial  management,  in  particular  to  timely 
evaluation  of  the  proposals  and  grant  finalisation  (time-to-inform,  time-to-grant  and  timely 
execution  of  payments). Agencies  met  most  of  the  indicators  related  to  grant  management  and 
financial management although some deviations were registered, as further detailed in the staff 
working documents accompanying this report.  

The COVID-19 pandemic brought additional challenges in project management and the agencies 
demonstrated flexibility in their response, by constantly monitoring, adjusting their procedures and 
implementing new funding measures14 to respond to the needs emerging from the pandemic.  

13   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) 
In case of CHAFEA 

14  

4 

 
 
 
 
In such circumstances, some agencies even succeeded in improving their performance on some 
specific  aspects.  For  instance,  REA  and  INEA  increased  the  share  of  payments  made  by  the 
contractual deadline and ERCEA simplified its grant amendment procedure.  

Minor delays in implementing delegated actions were also observed due to the outbreak of the 
pandemic. In case of REA, the share of grants concluded within the time-to-grant target decreased 
by  2  percentage  points  in  2020  to  reach  98%,  as  applicants  requested  additional  time  for  their 
consortia to complete the necessary administrative obligations before signing the grant agreement. 
For  EASME,  some  examples  of  these  delays  were  the  extension  of  project  delivery  dates  or 
adjustment  of  deliverables  where  the  pandemic  restrictions  made  delivery  impossible.  Other 
activities were added and impacted the workload, such as the EIC’s pan-European Hackathon to 
meet  the  COVID-19  challenges,  or  the  supply  chain  of  advisory  services  put  in  place  by  the 
Enterprise Europe Network. In the case of EACEA, the delays due to pandemic are linked to the 
intrinsic nature of the programmes (young people studying abroad or culture/audiovisual projects). 

In terms of budget per operational staff member, INEA has achieved the highest value compared 
to other agencies. This was because it had bigger grants on average under the Connecting Europe 
Facility  programme  (CEF)15. The  agencies  implementing  research  programmes  achieved  better 
results than EACEA and CHAFEA. In the case of EACEA this was due to the complexity and 
diversity of its programme portfolio, the diverse nature of its applicants and beneficiaries, high 
volume of applications and grants, as well as their small average size. In CHAFEA’s case, this was 
due  to  the  small  size  of  the  agency,  the  diversity  of  its  programme  portfolio,  the  lack  of 
complementary activities and synergies. 

Budget per operational staff member (full time equivalent)’ in commitments (million EUR) across 
the agencies, 2018-2020 

40,00

30,00

20,00

10,00

0,00

31,60

31,32

28,42

2,29

2,91

2,68

5,75

5,25

3,91

4,84

4,80

4,57

6,57

6,16

6,41

3,55

3,48

2,49

CHAFEA

EACEA

EASME

REA

ERCEA

INEA

2018

2019

2020

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluations of executive agencies 

The overall quality of services provided by agencies was positively rated by beneficiaries (between 
86% to 94%)16 and experts (between 92% to 99%) and to a lesser extent by unsuccessful applicants 
(between 55% and 79%), as detailed further below:  

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

Facility 

16   The range of percentage represents the smallest and the highest percentage of positive answers for each respective category of respondents. 
5 

 
 
 
 
Satisfaction rate of unsuccessful applicants and beneficiaries across all agencies 

89

68

86

72

88

75

59

58

60

90

80

55

86

83

69

94

91

79 

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

ERCEA

REA

INEA

EASME

EACEA

CHAFEA

■■■■■■    Satisfaction of unsuccessful applicants 

■■■■■■·· Satisfaction of beneficiaries 

■■■■■■    Satisfaction of unsuccessful applicants and beneficiaries 

■■  ■■ ■■    The average value of combined satisfaction of unsuccessful applicants and beneficiaries across the EAs 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluations of executive agencies 

With regard to the legality and regularity of transactions, the Commission establishes the research 
framework  programmes  and  internal  control  strategies  and  is  in  charge  of  the  selection  of 
participations to be audited as well as defining the intensity of the ex post audit tests to perform. 
The residual  error rates  were  below the threshold  for most parts of the delegated programmes. 
However, some agencies registered error rates above the threshold for certain parts of programmes 
– such as REA for space, security and SME actions under the Seventh Framework Programme17, 
which can be largely attributed to the complexity of this scheme.  

In the case of EASME, the residual error rate threshold was systematically exceeded for CIP-IEE 
II and CIP-Eco-Innovation18, as well as for COSME19 in 2018 and 2020. But mitigating actions 
were taken, such as better informing beneficiaries and improving ex ante control mechanisms.  

For INEA, residual error rates exceeded the pre-set targets for CEF Telecom in 2019 and 2020, 
due  to  a  high  incidence  of  NGO  and  SME  participation,  a  high  percentage  of  personnel  costs 
among the declared costs and the limited use of certificates on financial statements.  

17   Decision  No  1982/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006  concerning  the  Seventh  Framework 

Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) 

18   Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation 

Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) 

19   Regulation  (EU)  No  1287/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2013  establishing  a  Programme  for  the 

Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME) (2014 - 2020) 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAFEA had a high residual error rate for the Public Health Programme20 in 2019 as a result of 
one ex post audit leading to a high recovery amount (of about EUR 75 000 and over 50% of the 
EU contribution) that was included in the sample. ERCEA and EACEA did not have residual error 
rates above the threshold during the evaluation period.  

All agencies set up and continuously updated their internal control processes to ensure that any 
risks related to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions were adequately managed. 
INEA established an overarching control strategy with a large number of control and reporting 
mechanisms.  This  allowed  to  closely  monitor  progress  against  objectives  and  to  prevent  and 
mitigate  potential  risks  to  its  operations  in  a  timely  and  effective  way.  REA  and  ERCEA  also 
improved  their  operations  and  took  remedial  measures  to  address  the  observations  or 
recommendations  made  in  the annual  reports of  the European  Court of Auditors  and any  other 
audit reports.  

EACEA  launched  an  in-depth  revision  of  its  internal  control  system  and  made  consistent 
improvements throughout the evaluation period to address the audit recommendations received. In 
this respect, EACEA also implemented the ‘EACEA Transformation Project‘ and achieved internal 
synergies  by  centralising  certain  business  processes  and  procedures  across  programmes  in 
horizontal  support  units.  This  gave  the  opportunity  to  carry  out  a  substantial  internal  mobility 
exercise to support career development and the best use of staff competencies. By the end of the 
evaluation period, EACEA demonstrated an effective and reliable internal control system aligned 
with the principles of sound financial management. 

EASME appropriately addressed any matter identified during the evaluation period, such as the 
update of its policy on sensitive posts21 and reported on this in subsequent annual activity reports22. 

CHAFEA  systematically  examined  the  available  control  results  and  indicators,  as  well  as 
addressed  the  observations  and  audit  recommendations.  It  continuously  improved  its  financial 
management  during  the  evaluation  period,  by  compiling  a  consolidated  multiannual  control 
strategy  over  transactions,  revising  financial  circuits,  streamlining  controls  and  workflows, 
developing and implementing its own anti-fraud strategy. 

Throughout  the  evaluation  period,  the  total  number  of  posts  filled  increased  in  every  agency 
(except for EACEA). The highest increase in staffing was noted at CHAFEA (from 61 in 2017 to 
77 in 2020, or 26%) and INEA (from 249 in 2017 to 312 in 2020, or 25%). The great majority of 
the  agencies’  staff  was  allocated  to  programme  implementation  and  only  to  a  limited  extent  to 
support functions.  

20   Decision  No  1350/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2007  establishing  a  second  programme  of 

21  

Community action in the field of health (2008-13) 
2018 audit of EU agencies in brief (europa.eu) 

22   Annual activity report 2019  

7 

 
 
 
Number of posts (actually filled) across all agencies in 2017-2020 

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

436

442

429

432

312

299

282

249

61

66

75

77

483

477

515

508

494

472

453

434

781

753

736

693

CHAFEA

INEA

EACEA

EASME

ERCEA

REA

 2017    

 2018    

 2019    

 2020    ---Average number of staff across all EAs, 2020 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluations of executive agencies 

The administrative budget increased for all agencies during the evaluated period, in line with the 
growth in operational budget. The biggest increases were in CHAFEA (34%)23 and INEA (27%), 
while the smallest were in EASME (5%) and EACEA (8%).  

Administrative budget (million EUR) in terms of payments across the agencies, 2017-2020 

78,10

74,78

66,77

66,12

52,97

51,04

47,98

47,02

51,58

49,30

48,20

47,86

90,00

80,00

70,00

60,00

50,00

40,00

30,00

20,00

10,00

0,00

30,10

29,10

26,30

23,74

9,70

9,05

8,33

7,23

45,32

43,87

43,74

43,03

CHAFEA

INEA

EASME

EACEA

ERCEA

REA

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluations of the executive agencies 

23   This is explained by increases of similar size in (i) the operational budget managed and (ii) the agency staff. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  COST EFFECTIVENESS  

The  retrospective  cost-benefit  analysis  analysed  the  extent  to  which  each  agency  achieved  its 
outcomes at a lower cost than would be the case with in-house management by the Commission.  

The  analysis  revealed  that  the  actual  costs  of  the  executive  agency  scenario  were  substantially 
lower  than  the  estimated  costs  of  the  in-house  scenario. As  in  the  past  evaluation24,  the  actual 
savings for most of the agencies (with the exception of CHAFEA) exceeded the initial savings 
estimations  to  a  large  extent.  The  average  actual  savings  across  the  agencies  amounted  to 
EUR 74.5 million.  

CHAFEA  achieved  lower  savings  than  initially  estimated  (EUR  4.1  million  compared  with 
EUR 7.37  million  in  the  specific  financial  statement  and  EUR  9.88  million  in  the  cost-benefit 
analysis). This is explained by CHAFEA’s higher-than-estimated staff costs25, which were not fully 
offset  by  lower-than-expected  overhead  costs  (infrastructure  and  operating  expenditure  and 
programme support expenditure). 

Savings during the 2017/2018-2021 evaluation period, estimated vs actual (million EUR) 26 

140,00

120,00

100,00

80,00

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00

9,88

7,37

4,10

82,20

66,59

87,70

70,37

98,00

78,61

68,15

57,40

42,36

38,29

42,18

47,67

117,60

87,36

84,73

CHAFEA

INEA

ERCEA

EACEA

EASME

REA

 CBA estimation    

 SFS estimation    

 Actual    ---Actual average cost across the EAs 

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluations of executive agencies 

24   Report from the Commission COM (2020)184  
25   The higher staff costs of CHAFEA can be related to: (i) its location in Luxembourg, a region with higher living costs, which required the 
agency to offer higher-grade positions to attract suitable candidates; (ii) the need to manage several programmes in parallel, requiring more 
specialised staff; and (iii) the small size of the agency, which increased the impact of higher-paid staff (middle and top management ) on the 
average salary, as compared with other agencies. 

26   This graph illustrates the savings by all agencies, for the purpose of comparability among them. However, in case of REA, its mandate was 

further extended in 2018 and the initial cost-benefit analysis of 2013 did not consider this change in its tasks and workload. 

9 

 
 
 
 
However,  the  study  supporting  the  evaluation  also  revealed  the  higher  actual  cost  under  staff-
related  expenditure  (Title  I)  compared  with  the  initial  estimates  as  a  common  feature  across 
agencies. This happened despite the actual number of staff and the composition of staff financed 
from the EU contribution being within specific financial statement estimates.  

This increase is due in part to the fact that the initial cost  estimates did not fully anticipate the 
salary indexation, promotion and increasing staff needs. Furthermore, the actual average staff cost 
of the agencies was higher than the average staff cost estimated, partly due to having higher-graded 
staff  (with  more  IT  skills),  which  allowed  the  agencies  to  concentrate  resources  on  more 
content-related tasks (a fact seen in REA’s evaluation) or due to the need for specialised staff to 
manage several programmes in parallel (in CHAFEA) or simply to maintain the attractiveness of 
working at the agency, due to the higher living costs in Luxembourg (for CHAFEA).  

The higher staff expenditure under Title I was offset by lower actual expenditure under Title II - 
Infrastructure and operating expenditure and Title III - Programme support expenditure. 

Another indicator that measured the cost-effectiveness of agencies is the programme management 
cost representing the ratio between the administrative and operational budget in terms of executed 
commitments. The evaluation demonstrated that most agencies became more cost efficient over 
time – with the exception of EASME, for which the ratio increased from 3.11% in 2017 to 3.46% 
in 2020 but remained close to the average ratio of 3.39% and below the target of 5.5%.  

The most significant improvement in the costs of programme management occurred at EACEA 
and CHAFEA, where the ratio improved, respectively, by 1.76 percentage points (from 6.97% in 
2017 to 5.21% in 2020) and by 1.26 percentage points (from 7.24 % to 5.98 % during the same 
period). However, these agencies had a higher programme management cost compared with the 
average ratio of 3.39% across all agencies in 2020.  

Programme management cost (ratio between the administrative and operational budget in terms 
of commitments) across all agencies, 2017-2020 

7,24

6,02

5,97

6,97

6,67

5,98

5,49

5,21

3,46

3,11

2,79

2,61

3,33

3,05

3,02

2,91

8,00

7,00

6,00

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

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 evaluations of executive agencies 

10 

 
 
 
 
4.  COHERENCE 

As  mentioned  above,  agencies  were  assessed  to  be  cost-effective  structures  for  managing  the 
programme  implementation,  compared  with  an  in-house  scenario.  But  the  portfolio  of  some 
agencies  consisted  of  diverse  programmes  (EACEA,  EASME,  INEA,  CHAFEA)  or  the  same 
programmes but across a diverse subject spectrum (REA, ERCEA).  

This  generated  a  complex  working  environment  (high  workload  and  administrative  burden, 
differing rules and procedures, coordination with a high number of parent Directorates-General) 
and limited the possibilities for improvements to programme management and the exploitation of 
synergies and complementarities. As a consequence, reducing the breadth of their portfolio was 
also necessary as was done in the current multiannual financial framework. 

Overall,  for  all  agencies  and  all  delegated  programmes,  the  evaluation  revealed  a  clear  and 
appropriate  delimitation  of  roles  between  them  and  their  parent  Directorates-General  and  no 
overlaps were identified, in line with the legal framework and the memorandum of understanding.  
In the case of CHAFEA, an internal audit service report27 identified as an area for improvement 
the delineation of tasks involving high-level missions. This was addressed by internal guidance 
developed  in  2018  by  CHAFEA  and  the  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development.  Further  measures  were  put  in  place  during  the  transfer  of  the  portfolio  for  the 
Promotion of Agriculture Products Programme28 from CHAFEA to REA, via revised cooperation 
guidelines  and  the  development  of  a  dedicated  memorandum  of  understanding  with  specific 
requirements for the implementation of (i) information provision and (ii) promotion measures for 
agricultural products. 

In terms of common, cross-cutting issues, the evaluation identified the need to develop a structured 
framework for systemic  provision  of feedback to policy, in  combination with  a mechanism for 
addressing  individual  policy  requests.  This  topic  was  addressed  under  the  current  multiannual 
financial framework. 

5.  CONCLUSION AND LESSONS LEARNED 

Overall,  the  agencies  have proven to  be  cost-effective structures for implementing  EU funding 
programmes, generating significant savings when compared with the in-house scenario. They have 
achieved  their  core  objectives  and  met  most  of  the  key  performance  indicators.  Their  main 
stakeholders appreciated their services, as demonstrated by their high level of satisfaction. 

Several  lessons  learned  and  areas  for  improvement  were  identified  for  each  agency  as  further 
detailed in  the staff working  documents accompanying  this report. Most  of the lessons learned 
were addressed in the delegation of programme implementation under the 2021-2027 multiannual 
financial framework and will be assessed in the next triennial evaluation of the successor agencies 
for the 2021-2024 period. 

27  

Final Audit Report on CHAFEA's management and control system for the implementation of the measures for the promotion of agricultural 
products - 15/09/2017 

28   Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on information provision and promotion 

measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries 

11