REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Mid-term evaluation of the Technical Support Instrument (2021-2027)
Date: 2025-05-12
Institutions: European Commission, Reform and Investment Task Force
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, EU financial instrument, EU financing arrangements, economic and social cohesion, economic reform, structural adjustment, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.5.2025  COM(2025) 198 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Mid-term evaluation of the Technical Support Instrument (2021-2027) {SWD(2025) 117 final}  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Mid-term evaluation of the Technical Support Instrument (2021-2027) 

INTRODUCTION 

Structural reforms can be understood as measures with long-lasting effects on the structure 
of  the  economy,  the  institutional  and  regulatory  framework  in  which  businesses  and  people 
operate,  public  governance,  or  progress  towards  relevant  policy  objectives.  The  Technical 
Support  Instrument  (TSI)  was  set  up  by  Regulation  (EU)  2021/240,  building  on  its 
predecessor - the structural reform support programme (SRSP, 2017-2020) - and managed by 
the Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM)1. Since its creation in 
2021,  the  TSI  has  provided  tailor-made  technical  expertise  to  any  Member  State  facing 
challenges in designing and implementing its reform agenda in a wide range of policy areas. 
The support is demand-driven and does not require co-financing from Member States. 

This  mid-term  evaluation  covers  all projects  funded under the  2021,  2022  and  2023  TSI 
cycles,  in  all  27 Member  States.  This  constitutes  a  total  of  611  technical  support  projects, 
corresponding to 886 national components of projects, for a total budget of EUR 359 million. 
The  mid-term  evaluation  analyses  the  operational  cycle  of  the  TSI  annual  work 
programmes, from the reception and assessment of Member States’ technical support requests 
to the evaluation of closed technical support projects after implementation. 

The  results  of  this  evaluation  will  help  identify  potential  ways  to  improve  the 
implementation  of  the  TSI  until  end-2027  and  will  inform  discussions  and  decision-making 
on the future of technical support. 

METHODOLOGY 

This  evaluation  is  informed  by:  (i)  a  supporting  study 2  carried  out  by  an  independent 
contractor  over  a  period  of  11  months  starting  on  21-December-2023;  (ii)  a  series  of  four 
internal  workshops  organised  by  DG  REFORM;  and  (iii)  monitoring  data,  including 
information collected after the closure of TSI projects through the feedback mechanism3. In 

1  Since  1  February  2025,  DG  REFORM  was  merged  into  the  Reform  and  Investment  Task  Force  (SG 
REFORM). 
2 PPMI  and  CSES  (2025),  Supporting  study  for  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Technical  Support  Instrument 
(2021-2027):  final  report.  Publications  Office:  https://op.europa.eu/publication/catalogue_number/HT-01-25-
000-EN-N. 
3 DG REFORM has put in place in 2019 a two-step ‘feedback mechanism’ to monitor and assess individual TSI 
projects  after  their  implementation.  First,  after  closure  of  each  technical  support  project,  ‘satisfaction 
questionnaires’ are respectively sent to main stakeholders (Commission  policy officers, beneficiary authorities, 
and technical support providers) to gather feedback on the project’s design and implementation, the interaction 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
line  with  EU  better  regulation  guidelines,  the  mid-term  evaluation  is  structured  around  the 
five evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and EU added value. 

The evaluation methods used include a desk review (of DG REFORM monitoring data, TSI 
project documents,  and other publicly available documents) and  stakeholder  consultations. 
Consultation activities included: (i) an open public consultation;(ii) three surveys targeting 
TSI  stakeholders 
(technical  support  providers,  and  coordinating  and  beneficiary 
authorities),receiving 289 responses; (iii) three focus  group discussions, gathering a total of 
37  participants;  and  (iv)  114  interviews.  The  evaluation  also  relies  on  several  analyses, 
including: (i) a cost-benefit analysis; (ii) seven case studies, covering 98 projects in various 
policy  areas  ();  and  (iii)  an  analysis  of  TSI  projects’  contribution  to  the  United  Nations 
Sustainable Development Goals.  

The  evaluation  process  has  encountered  some  limitations,  particularly  with  respect  to  the 
assessment of effectiveness. The first  main limitation relates to the nature and design of the 
TSI: the TSI Regulation does not include the actual adoption and implementation of reforms 
in  Member  States  among  the  general  and  specific  objectives  of  the  instrument,  but  it  rather 
focuses  on  ‘assisting  national  authorities  in  improving  their  capacity’.  In  addition,  the  TSI 
Regulation does not impose specific reporting obligations on Member States concerning the 
use  of  the  support  measures  and  the  status  of  the  reforms  supported.  A  second  limitation 
relates  to  the  current  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  of  TSI  projects,  which  does  not 
capture in a systematic and objectively verifiable manner the  achievements of TSI projects, 
especially  at  outcome  and  impact  level.  Data  collection  tools  used  (such  as  surveys  and 
questionnaires) rely on self-reporting, which can introduce bias into the measurements. Third, 
the  TSI  started  in  2021,  and  around  half  of  projects  from  the  2021-2023  cycles  had  been 
closed  by  the  time  of  this  evaluation.  The  outcomes  and  the  longer-term  impacts  of  the 
support may only be observable in the Member States after some years, and  only if specific 
reforms have actually been implemented, so it is possible that several results of projects have 
not materialised yet.  

The  mid-term  evaluation  includes  mitigation  measures  to  address,  to  the  extent  possible, 
these  limitations  and  ensure  the  reliability  of  findings.  In  particular,  multiple  data  sources 
were  combined  and  cross-referenced,  for  example,  by  complementing  the  perceptions  of 
stakeholders  with  more  objective  data.  In  addition,  a  case  study  on  the  follow-up  to  SRSP 
projects  has  been  carried  out  to  better  analyse  the  use  of  technical  support  measures  by 
Member States and their sustainability in the medium-term.  

is 

important 

to  acknowledge 

It 
limitations.  Firstly,  because 
acknowledging them better prepares the ground for the ex post evaluation, which will enable a 
more  accurate  assessment  of  outcomes  and  impacts  once  the  programme  ends.  Secondly, 
recognising  these  limitations  provides  valuable  insights  that  can  guide  future  planning  and 

the  aforementioned 

between  the  stakeholders,  as  well  as  on  the  scope  for  improvement  and  lessons  learned.  Second,  6,  12  or  18 
months later, another ‘outcome questionnaire’ is sent to the beneficiary authorities only, to assess the extent to 
which the expected project outcomes were achieved, with a score ranging between 1-10. 

2 

 
 
 
decision-making.  SG  REFORM  is  currently  working  on  several  workstreams  to  improve 
monitoring and evaluation of the TSI, moving towards a more results-oriented monitoring and 
evaluation  system  that  might  improve  the  measurement  of  the  medium-  and  long-term 
impacts of the TSI.  

The contractor carried out all tasks under the scrutiny of an interservice steering group and the 
guidance  of  DG  REFORM.  The  evidence  collected  is  considered  to  be  representative  and 
meaningful, making it possible to provide solid answers to the evaluation questions and draw 
reliable conclusions and lessons learned. 

MAIN FINDINGS 

Since  its  creation  in  2021,  the  TSI  has  provided  technical  support  to  Member  States  to 
improve  their  capacity  to  design,  develop  and  implement  reforms,  as  well  as  to  prepare, 
amend, implement  and revise  recovery and resilience plans (RRPs)  under the Recovery and 
Resilience Facility (RRF). 

While keeping the above-mentioned limitations in mind, the implementation of the TSI was 
found to be overall successful in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence in 2021-
2023.  The  programme  was  also  found  to  be  highly  relevant  in  addressing  the  needs  of 
beneficiary  authorities  and  Member  States,  which  is  mainly  due  to  the  design  of  the 
instrument. The TSI also had EU added value compared to what could have been achieved by 
Member States alone. 

Effectiveness 

Despite the limitations described above, findings from the evaluation show that between 2021 
and  2023,  the  TSI  made  significant  progress  towards  its  objectives,  as  set  out  in  the  TSI 
Regulation.  Regarding  its  specific  objectives,  the  TSI  effectively  assisted  Member  States  in 
improving  their  capacity  to  design  and  implement  reforms.  It  also  effectively  supported  the 
preparation and implementation of national RRPs by contributing to more than 500  projects 
directly or indirectly linked to specific RRP milestones.  

In  relation  to  support  to  RRPs,  certain  misalignments  between  the  deadlines  of  the  RRP 
milestones and the delivery schedule of TSI support occurred during the early implementation 
of the support in 2021. In some cases, TSI support was provided too early while in others it 
arrived  too  late  to  be  used,  which  was  due  to  the  very  narrow  window  in  terms  of  timing. 
These shortcomings highlight the relevance of addressing technical support needs of Member 
States  from  the  outset  of  funding  or  policy  initiatives,  ensuring  timelines  and  deadlines  are 
properly aligned. 

A vast majority of TSI stakeholders expressed high satisfaction with the success and results of 
technical  support  projects.  TSI  projects  have  delivered  valuable  outputs,  especially 
recommendations, workshops, training sessions and training material, analysis reports, action 
plans  and  roadmaps,  and  guidelines.  Outputs  have  been  utilised  to  a  substantial  extent  by 
beneficiary authorities to achieve changes at individual, organisational and policy levels. This 
contributed to  progress in achieving expected outcomes of the TSI.  

3 

 
 
The  TSI  played  a  significant  role  in  strengthening  all  types  of  administrative  capacities, 
especially internal administrative mechanisms for reforms across the EU.  

However, these achievements are highly dependent on national factors, such as ownership of 
reforms, availability of financial resources to follow up on recommendations, staff stability as 
well  as  political  and  administrative  continuity.  The  actual  achievement  of  reform  results 
depends  on  wider  efforts  of  Member  States,  considering  that  the  cooperation  and  support 
plans,  in  which  their  commitment  to  engage  in  the  implementation  of  support  measures  is 
expressed, are not legally binding documents. Nevertheless, there is good potential to multiply 
these  benefits  and  improve  their  sustainability,  by  fostering  (in)formal  connections  for 
existing  and  future  collaborations  and  exploiting  existing  knowledge,  through  a  more 
systematic dissemination of project results, continued support from Commission officials and 
exchange of knowledge among Member States.  

Efficiency 

Overall, the execution of the TSI and its associated administrative processes has been largely 
efficient.  Thanks  to  the  design  of  the  instrument,  there  are  no  reporting  obligations  for 
Member  States,  and  the  administrative  burden  is  very  low  compared  to  other  EU 
instruments,  which  is  praised  by  all  Member  States.  Beneficiary  authorities  considered  the 
administrative burden associated with the application and project implementation processes to 
be reasonable and proportionate.  

The  high  demand  for  TSI  support  ensured  a  good  level  of  competition  and  the  selection  of 
high-quality proposals, based on the internal scoring attributed to the selected requests under 
the seven criteria assessed.  

To  improve  efficiency,  DG  REFORM  has  implemented  lessons  learned  from  evaluations  of 
the  SRSP,  for  example  by  simplifying  and  streamlining  programme  management.  The 
introduction of multi-country projects, representing about 10% of all TSI projects from 2021 
to  2023,  helped  tackle  common  issues  among  Member  States.  Multi-country  and  flagship 
projects  appear  to  be  more  cost-effective  and  time-efficient  than  stand-alone  projects  and 
those selected under general requests. However, the efficiency of multi-country projects may 
potentially be affected by the increased complexity of such projects.  

In  2021-2023,  the  programme  was  efficient  in  terms  of  process  duration  and  budget 
execution  from  commitments  to  payments,  achieving  a  high  budget  utilisation  rate.  The 
overall  cost  of  controls  by  DG  REFORM  progressively  decreased  in  2021-2023  and 
remained in line with the DG REFORM target and comparable with other EU programmes.  

The total time between the application deadline and the start of technical support slightly but 
continuously  decreased  over  the  evaluation  period,  amounting  to  11  months  on  average. 
Minimising  the  time  gap  between  the  application  and  the  actual  start  of  the  project  was 
considered  crucial  for  the  success  of  individual  projects  and  their  effective  contribution  to 
ongoing reforms, especially to respond to urgent needs. Further reflection may be considered 
on the annual deadlines for the submission of general requests and the extent to which setting 
different deadlines could improve the efficiency at the start of technical support.  

4 

 
 
TSI projects are implemented through various delivery methods. Beneficiary authorities and 
technical  support  providers  were  generally  very  positive  about  the  clarity,  transparency  and 
user-friendliness  of  the  procedures  for  application  and  selection  of  requests  for  funding, 
approval  of  deliverables,  project  monitoring  and  evaluation.  Coordinating  authorities  were 
less satisfied with the monitoring of TSI projects, especially with the tools and procedures 
and the access to relevant information at national level. Beneficiary authorities considered the 
support  of  DG  REFORM  policy  officers  as  highly  useful,  from  the  start  to  the  end  of  the 
technical support.  

Coherence 

In  terms  of  internal  coherence,  the  evaluation  found  no  major  inconsistencies  between  the 
TSI projects in individual Member States. However, there is limited evidence of collaborative 
mechanisms  between  different  TSI  projects  in  the  same  Member  State.  The  evaluation  also 
found  significant  differences  in  coordinating  authorities’  involvement  in  programme 
implementation  across  the  EU.  There  is  room  for  exploring  synergies  between  TSI-funded 
projects in the same Member State in the same policy area. 

During the evaluation period, the TSI demonstrated increased external coherence compared 
to its predecessor, the SRSP, with regional and national level interventions as well as other EU 
interventions having similar objectives. The TSI operates in a complementary manner to other 
EU instruments and programmes. The evaluation found the TSI’s purpose and its activities to 
be  complementary  to  those  of  the  European  Social  Fund  Plus,  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund  and  the  RRF.  The  TSI  is  not  only  different  in  terms  of  budget 
implementation methods, but also in its cross-cutting nature and broad scope of intervention 
(not  limited  to  a  specific  policy  sector),  the  duration  of  support  provided  and  the  type  of 
capacities  supported.  Coherence  could  be  further  improved  if  Member  States  strategically 
combined  various  EU  instruments  to  support  the  whole  reform  cycle  from  design  to 
implementation. The greatest synergies appear to be developed with the RRF and TAIEX4. By 
providing both general and specialised support, the TSI was able to address issues crucial for 
the  implementation  of  the  RRPs,  such  as  project  management  and  governance.  Evaluation 
evidence  highlighted  the  significance  of  TSI  support  in  strengthening  the  operational 
capabilities  required  to  effectively  execute  RRF  initiatives.  However,  the  evaluation  raised 
concerns from some Member States on the need to have a more comprehensive view due to 
the availability of multiple funding instruments within the EU policy framework. 

The  TSI  is  also  consistent  with  the  European  Semester  process,  through  the  role  it  plays  in 
addressing  country-specific  recommendations  (CSRs)  issued  as  part  of  the  European 
Semester.  Most  coordinating  and  beneficiary  authorities  stated  that  TSI  projects  supported 
reforms  addressing  CSRs  to  a  high  or  a  moderate  extent.  This  was  confirmed  by  the  case 
studies,  which  demonstrated  that  the  TSI  played  a  major  role  in  implementing  CSRs. 
However,  challenges  remain  regarding  the  systematic  monitoring  of  how  TSI  projects 

4 TAIEX (Technical Assistance and Information Exchange) is an EU institution building tool,  which mobilises 
public sector expertise from EU Member States in a Team Europe spirit to support reform processes around the 
world. 

5 

 
 
 
specifically  contribute  to  carrying  out  CSRs,  due  to  the  limited  mandate  of  the  TSI  after 
project implementation.  

Finally,  TSI  projects  are  closely  aligned  with  the  Commission’s  top  priorities,  such  as  the 
digital  and  green  transitions.  The  increasing  number  of  TSI  projects  contributing  to  top 
priorities may be linked with  the introduction of flagship requests.  The TSI has also  gained 
recognition as a valuable tool to support Member States in implementing EU legislation.  

EU added value 

The TSI exceeded what individual Member States could have accomplished independently. In 
particular,  the  TSI  offers  international  -  especially  European  -  expertise  that  is  typically 
unavailable at local, regional or national levels, addressing specific needs that Member States 
would struggle to meet alone. By combining international and local expertise, the TSI proved 
to  be  beneficial  -  with  local  experts  offering  context-specific  insights  and  international 
providers  providing  more  strategic  approach  -  and  helped  to  increase  the  credibility  and 
acceptance of reforms.  

The TSI provided EU added value by supporting the development and implementation of the 
RRPs.  The  TSI  produced  significant  cross-country  impacts,  and  delivered  high  EU  added 
value by building communities of experts and sustained cooperation among Member States. 
By  offering  the  chance  to  create  channels  of  communication  with  peers  and  professionals 
across  various  Member  States,  the  TSI  facilitated  the  sharing  of  lessons  learned  and  good 
practices across Member States. Also, TSI projects have played a major role in implementing 
EU  policies  and  priorities  and  supporting  the  digital  and  green  transitions.  In  this  regard, 
flagship  projects  (encompassing  both  standalone  and  multi-country  projects)  add  value  by 
supporting EU priorities, driving regulatory compliance, and promoting the application of EU 
law. However, stakeholders noted that flagship projects risk diverging from the specific aim of 
the TSI, which is to provide support tailored to the needs of specific Member States. There is 
a strong consensus among stakeholders consulted on the TSI’s significant contribution to the 
digital  and  green  transitions.  In  particular,  the  TSI  contributes  more  to  the  green  transition 
than its predecessor, the SRSP. 

Multi-country projects are seen as valuable because of their ability to tackle broader, cross-
border  challenges  while  boosting  collaboration  and  the  sharing  of  good  practices  among 
participating  countries.  However,  concerns  were  raised  about  their  complexity  and  the  fact 
that  these  projects  may  lead  to  lower  ownership  and  political  commitment  by  participating 
countries, potentially undermining their success.  

Relevance 

Findings from the consultation suggest that the  TSI  is  a  highly  relevant  instrument,  well-
tailored  to  the  needs  of  Member  States  and  their  beneficiary  authorities,  with 
improvements in areas identified in the ex post evaluation of SRSP. Evidence shows that there 
is still a need for technical  support, especially in developing and implementing procedures 
and methodologies.  

Most  consulted  beneficiary  authorities  and  coordinating  authorities  agreed  that  the  TSI  was 
suitable to provide technical support, and confirmed that TSI projects were able to address the 

6 

 
 
main needs of their institutions, mainly thanks to the design of the instrument, and in a timely 
manner.  All  stakeholders  view  the  TSI’s  design  and  structure  as  highly  relevant  for 
strengthening  the  administrative  and  institutional  capacity  of  Member  States  to  design  and 
implement the reforms needed to tackle the challenges faced. 

However, it is important to consider these positive findings in the context that TSI support is 
provided  at  almost  no  cost  to  all  Member  States  whose  requests  are  accepted,  regardless  of 
their capacity to organise their own technical support. Interviews highlighted some limitations 
in  the  response  to  urgent  needs  through  general  calls  of  the  annual  cycle,  considering  the 
necessary  duration  for  projects  to  start  after  the  need  emerges.  However,  The  TSI  design 
demonstrated  high  flexibility  to  address  Member  States’  unforeseen  and  emerging  needs 
through dedicated calls and special measures outlined in the TSI Regulation. Compared to the 
ex post evaluation of SRSP, and thanks to these modalities,  most beneficiary authorities and 
national coordinating authorities agreed that thanks to its design, the TSI was able to address 
urgent  and/or  unforeseen  needs  of  the  country.  The  introduction  of  flagship  requests  for 
support and of multi-country and multi-regional projects made it possible for the programme 
to better address EU priorities and to improve the application and implementation of EU law.  

MAIN LESSONS LEARNED 

The evaluation highlighted several improvements in the TSI compared to its predecessor, the 
SRSP, demonstrating a more active involvement of stakeholders and a  greater cross-country 
dimension. The main lessons learned from the TSI mid-term evaluation, based on its findings 
and conclusions, are set out below:  

Design of the TSI 

•  The  demand-driven  nature  of  the  TSI  helps  ensure  Member  State’s  ownership  of 
projects  and  stakeholders’  commitment,  which  are  crucial  for  the  success  of  reforms, 
although  concrete  achievements  are  highly  dependent  on  national  factors.  Projects’ 
alignment  with  the  European  Semester  framework  and  relevant  EU  priorities  is  ensured 
during the selection process, through the selection criteria. 

•  The  current  design  of  the  TSI  suffers  from  limitations  in  tracking  specific  outcomes  in 
Member  States  because  its  legal  base  does  not  directly  refer  to  the  achievement  of 
reforms, nor does it impose specific requirements on Member States to report on the status 
of supported reforms. In the future, these observations should be taken into account and 
ways should be explored to improve the focus on reforms. Additionally, specific reporting 
obligations  should  be  considered,  while  ensuring  that  the  administrative  burden  remains 
proportionate to the activities carried out under the instrument. 

•  Technical  support  should  maintain  enough  flexibility  to  cater  to  the  needs  of  Member 
States  and  adapt  to  shifting  political  priorities  and  situations.  Public  authorities  might 
encounter  both  internal  and  external  changes  -  including  policy  changes,  economic  and 
social  challenges,  and  changing  legal  and  regulatory  landscapes  -  which  necessitate 
technical support and assistance to adjust to new objectives and strategies. 

7 

 
 
 
 
•  The TSI’s design has been generally effective in addressing the needs of Member States, 
but the annual cycle might limit its ability to respond to urgent needs of Member States. 
While the TSI effectively addressed some urgent needs through dedicated calls, these calls 
require significant time and resource investment. 

TSI project implementation 

•  Evaluation  findings  highlight  the  importance  of  identifying  the  most  appropriate  project 
type for technical support, considering Member States’ strengths, weaknesses, needs and 
contexts.  Multi-country  and  flagship  projects  (covering  stand-alone  and  multi-country 
projects) proved to be highly relevant in addressing EU priorities, fostering collaboration, 
and  sharing  good  practices  across  borders.  Stand-alone  projects  appear  to  be  more 
appropriate  and  better  tailored  to  address  more  specific  needs,  as  they  enable  more 
targeted reforms, ensuring more engagement by beneficiary authorities.  

•  A  variety  of  delivery  methods  were  used  across  technical  support  projects,  with  high 
satisfaction rates among  stakeholders. Evidence demonstrates that private providers may 
be more suitable to deliver technical tasks, while international organisations appear to be 
better  suited  to  contribute  to  broader  strategic  issues,  and  ensure  a  consistent  response 
across  the  EU  to  the  same  type  of  need  in  the  case  of  multi-country  projects.  Using  a 
tailored  mix  of  delivery  methods  –  such  as  combining  TAIEX  with  other  methods  – 
proved to be an effective approach, particularly for complex or multi-country projects.  
•  Nevertheless, further efforts are needed to ensure the effective use of TSI deliverables and 

concrete follow-up by Member States. 
The ad-hoc support of DG DIGIT providing expert advice has been assessed as beneficial 
for the implementation of projects. This support has been exacerbated after the adoption 
of the Interoperable Europe Act Regulation (EU) 2024/903. Remarkably, the “Statistical 
Interoperability Node” project was awarded the special “ASEDIE 25 years” prize due to 
the value provided. 

Facilitator role of the Commission  

•  The  evaluation  found  that  the  Commission  has  played  a  significant  role  in  the 
implementation  of  TSI  projects.  In  particular,  DG  REFORM  policy  officers’  close 
involvement  was  crucial  in  supporting  project  design  (to  facilitate  implementation)  and 
addressing  diverse  challenges  encountered  during  implementation.  Their  continuous 
operational supervision was important too. 

• 

•  Stakeholders indicated that further support by Commission policy officers might be useful 
after  the  completion  of  TSI  projects  to  ensure  the  sustainable  achievement  of  long-term 
results. 
In some cases, closer involvement of policy officers from specific Directorates-General 
of  the  Commission  was  highlighted  as  beneficial  for  improving  the  implementation  of 
TSI projects, especially for TSI projects related to the implementation of EU law (in the 
case  of  complex  EU  legislative  requirements,  such  as  the  ‘do  no  significant  harm’ 
principle). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Results and sustainability of the technical support 

•  Beneficiary authorities have used the outputs of TSI projects - such as recommendations, 
findings  from  workshops,  and  analysis  reports  -  to  achieve  changes  at  individual, 
organisational and policy level. 

•  The success  of  technical  support  and  the achievement of long-term  sustainable  results 
depend on Member States’ consistent and systematic follow-up  of technical support 
projects.  Continued  ownership  by  national  authorities  proved  to  be  a  crucial  factor  to 
ensure  that  they  take  follow-up  action  and  that  outputs  delivered  by  technical  support 
projects  are  used.  The  evaluation  found  that  this  follow-up  also  depends  on  national 
factors,  such  as  ownership  of  reforms,  availability  of  financial  resources,  staff  stability, 
and political and administrative continuity. 

•  However,  apart  from  filling  in  the  satisfaction  and  outcome  questionnaires,  national 
authorities have not yet formally committed to following up on technical support projects 
(e.g.  by  adopting  relevant  reforms).  Further  reflection  may  be  considered  on  how  to 
incentivise Member States to more consistently and systematically follow up on technical 
support  projects  and  report  on  this  follow  up.  There  is  also  a  need  to  strengthen  the 
monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  technical  support  to  better  track  achievements, 
objectively  and  depending  on  the  type  of  measures  (e.g.  training  and  capacity  building, 
support for specific reforms, recommendations to national authorities, etc.), as well as to 
use lessons learned to improve new projects. 

Multi-annual dimension 

•  The  TSI  currently  lacks  a  medium-  to  long-term  programming  approach,  which 
would connect technical support to other programmes to improve their effectiveness 
and create a coherent strategic vision for technical support in a given Member State. 
However, this needs to  be reconciled with  the annual  nature of the instrument, which is 
enshrined  in  the  TSI  Regulation.  A  short-term  strategic  overview  of  the  TSI’s 
implementation is provided in cooperation and support plans, but these documents are not 
legally  binding.  In  2021-2023,  the  alignment  of  technical  support  with  the  ongoing 
reforms at national level was also ensured through national RRPs. 

•  Some  consideration  may  also  be  required  on  the  definition  of  flagship  projects.  For 
example,  it  might  be  advantageous  to  develop  them  with  a  medium-term  perspective, 
spanning  multiple  years  or  calls  for  technical  support.  A  medium-term  perspective  on 
flagship  projects  could  bring  more  focus  to  specific  challenges  faced  by  Member  States 
and  the  EU  as  a  whole  and,  at  the  same  time,  improve  efficiency  by  reducing  the 
administrative burden linked to  annual  consultations with different  Commission services 
and Member States and the adjustment of corporate tools on an annual basis. 

Thematic and policy dimension  

•  Since 2023, initiatives such as the European Administrative Space (ComPAct) – including 
the  Public  Administration  Cooperation  Exchange  Programme  (PACE)  –  have  proposed 
specific  actions  implemented  through  the  TSI,  to  help  public  administrations  meet  the 
needs  of  people  and  businesses  across  the  EU.  These  initiatives  have  highlighted  the 
added  value  of  the  TSI  in  strengthening  the  administrative  capacity  of  public 
administrations at national, regional and local level, and ensuring all citizens have access 

9 

 
 
 
 
to  timely  and  high-quality  public  service  provision.  If  successfully  implemented,  these 
initiatives  and  projects  could  serve  as  an  inspiring  example  in  terms  of  policy 
integration, coherence and effectiveness in the provision of technical support across 
policy areas. 

•  The ComPAct initiative provides a good platform and ‘knowledge hub’ for the provision 
of technical support in the field of governance and public administration, complementing 
other EU instruments.  

•  Over  the  years,  technical  support  projects  have  generated  a  wealth  of  thematic  policy 
knowledge.  In  the  evaluation  period,  DG  REFORM  played  a  more  active  role  in 
disseminating outputs and deliverables of technical support, which could be strengthened 
to better use them in all thematic  fields. The EU Supervisory Digital Finance Academy 
platform constitutes a good practice example of effective dissemination to foster the use of 
materials  and  deliverables  from  other  and  closed  projects,  especially  in  the  same  policy 
area. 

•  Through the TSI, Member States have benefitted of tailored technical expertise to design 
and implement digital reforms. It has supported projects that enhance digital governance, 
modernise  public  administration,  and  improve  public  service  delivery  through  the 
adoption of digital technologies and foster cross-border interoperability. 

Country dimension 

•  The  evaluation  found  that  there  is  a  need  for  improved  coordination  and  synergies 
between TSI-funded projects in the same Member State. Some consideration may also 
be required  on how to  further  improve  the overview and follow-up of support provided, 
developing a more holistic vision of country support. This might also  help to strengthen 
synergies  and  complementarities  between  different  EU  programmes  and  to  better  align 
timelines and country-specific deadlines. 

•  Over  the  evaluation  period,  the  role  of  DG  REFORM  country  coordinators  and 
coordinating  authorities  proved  key  to  ensuring  the  country  relevance  of  the  technical 
support  measures  delivered,  identifying  any  issues  emerging  during  the  implementation 
phase, and proposing adequate mitigation measures.  

•  Evidence  shows  untapped  potential  for  coordinating  authorities  to  monitor  the  need  for 
and use of technical support deliverables at national level to achieve medium- and longer-
term  results  (e.g.  adopt  the  relevant  reforms)  as  well  as  to  adopt  a  strategic  approach 
towards combining technical support with other EU programmes and instruments.  

•  The  evaluation  found  that  the  engagement  of  coordinating  authorities  might  depend  on 
their  position  within  the  institutional  framework,  the  size  of  the  Member  State’s  public 
administration,  and  the  resources  dedicated  to  this  task.  Strengthening  the  institutional 
framework  and  introducing  reporting  obligations  for  Member  States  might  increase  the 
effectiveness of the programme. 

•  A  more  formalised  and  unified  role  for  coordinating  authorities  has  the  potential  to 
strengthen  ownership  of  reforms  (through  an  improved  prioritisation  of  requests)  and 
improve the monitoring of projects across Member States, while keeping some flexibility 
in tailoring their role to the specific context of each Member State.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
Cross-country dimension 

•  The TSI has demonstrated significant cross-country impacts, with multi-country projects 
tackling broader, cross-border challenges and strengthening collaboration and the sharing 
of knowledge and good practices among participating countries. 

•  The  programme  has  built  communities  of  experts  and  sustained  cooperation  among 

Member States, delivering high EU added value.  

•  The  TSI  has  also  been  instrumental  in  increasing  the  credibility  and  acceptance  of 

reforms, boosting their legitimacy and visibility at national and EU levels. 

•  The introduction of multi-country and multi-region requests has also brought significant 
efficiency gains, by enabling the selection of multiple requests under a single contract or 
agreement.  However,  these  projects  present  a  certain  risk  of  diluting  country-specific 
needs, limiting the engagement of Member States progressing at different paces.  

•  The introduction of flagship  requests was considered a success as they enabled a better 
alignment between national reforms and EU priorities, driving regulatory compliance, and 
promoting  the  application  of  EU  law.  These  projects  could  cater  to  more  long-standing, 
structural challenges across Member States and the EU at large. 

Synergies with other EU programmes  

•  The TSI has been effective in supporting the implementation of reforms, with a significant 
number  of  reforms  linked  to  specific  RRP  milestones.  Incorporating  technical  support 
from  the  outset  of  implementation  of  funds  and  other  policy  instruments,  as  it  has 
happened in specific cases for the RRF, could be advantageous, and could help ensure that 
administrative capacity requirements are satisfied, and timelines are synchronised. 

•  The TSI has been  consistent  with  other  EU  processes, such as the  European Semester, 
and  has  contributed  to  the  achievement  of  EU  priorities,  including  the  digital  and  green 
transitions. 

•  The  TSI  can  improve  the  effectiveness  of  other  programmes  by  building  the 
administrative  and  institutional  capacity  required  for  their  successful  implementation. 
However, the evaluation  showed that some  Member States  would prefer  to have a more 
comprehensive view given the availability of multiple funding instruments within the EU 
policy framework. 

11