REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the interim evaluation of the Public Sector Loan Facility under the Just Transition Mechanism in 2025, as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1229
Date: 2025-10-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU environmental policy, EU loan, carbon neutrality, circular economy, climate change, green economy, public sector, regional aid, regional development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.10.2025  COM(2025) 628 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the interim evaluation of the Public Sector Loan Facility under the Just Transition Mechanism in 2025, as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1229  {SWD(2025) 287 final}  
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

The Public Sector Loan Facility (PSLF or ‘the Facility’) is the third pillar of the Just Transition 
Mechanism (JTM)1. The Facility  was established  in  July  2021 by  Regulation (EU) 2021/12292 
(‘PSLF  Regulation’)  to  help  achieve  the  Union’s  2030  climate  target  and  climate  neutrality  by 
2050 in an effective and socially fair manner.  

The  general  objective  of  the  Facility  is  to  address  serious  social,  economic  and  environmental 
challenges deriving from the transition towards: (i) the EU’s 2030 climate and energy targets and 
(ii) the objective of climate neutrality in the EU by 2050, at the latest set out in Regulation (EU) 
2021/11193.  The  Facility  is  targeted  for  the  benefit  of  the  EU  territories  identified  in  the 
territorial just transition plans (‘TJTPs’) approved by the Commission. 

The specific objective of the Facility is to increase public-sector investments which address the 
development  needs  of  the  territories  identified  in  the  TJTPs  by  facilitating  the  financing  of 
projects that do not generate sufficient streams of revenues to cover their investment costs. 

As a blended instrument, the support under the Facility consists of a loan and grant component. 
With the contribution of EUR 1.3 billion of EU grants, between EUR 6 billion and EUR 8 billion 
in  loans  from  the  European  Investment  Bank  (‘EIB’)  and  an  estimated  EUR  6  billion 
contribution  from  other  sources, the  Facility aims  at  mobilising  between  EUR 13.3 billion and 
EUR 15.3 billion of public investments over the period 2021-2027. 

Pursuant  to  Article  17  of  the  PSLF  Regulation,  an  interim  evaluation  of  the  Facility  was  
performed and a report on that interim evaluation is submitted to the European Parliament and to 
the Council.  

The  PSLF  interim  evaluation  involved  several  steps.  Its  Call  for  Evidence  was  open  from  2 
February 2024 to 1 March 2024. A supporting study, conducted from April 2024 to January 2025 
by  T33  Srl  and  Prognos AG,  complemented  the  evaluation  with  literature  review,  stakeholder 
consultations, interviews, surveys, and case studies. Furthermore, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
(RSB)  was  involved  through  an  upstream  meeting  on  16  December  2024  and  a  subsequent 
meeting on 14 May 2025. It provided a positive opinion about the evaluation on 16 May 2025 
with recommendations. The evaluation concluded with a comprehensive report within the Staff 
Working Document in 2025. 

This report presents the main findings and conclusions of the interim evaluation of the Facility. It 
is accompanied by a Staff Working Document (‘SWD’) that assesses to what extent the Facility 
is effective, efficient and coherent, provides EU added value and is relevant. 

1   The Just Transition Mechanism consists of three pillars: 1) the Just Transition Fund, 2) a dedicated scheme under 

the InvestEU Programme and 3à the Public Sector Loan Facility. The latter is the subject of this report. 

2   Regulation (EU) 2021/1229 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 July 2021 on the public sector 

loan facility under the Just Transition Mechanism (Regulation - 2021/1229 - EN - EUR-Lex). 

3   Regulation  (EU)  2021/1119  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  June  2021  establishing  the 
framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU)  2018/1999 
(‘European Climate Law’) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj/eng). 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  SCOPE OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION OF THE FACILITY 

Pursuant  to Article  17(2)  of  the  PSLF  Regulation,  the  purpose  of  the  interim  evaluation  is  to 
evaluate the PSLF implementation and its capacity to achieve the objectives set out in Article 3 
of the PSLF Regulation. In particular, it should assess:  

a)  the extent to which the Union support provided under the Facility contributed to address 

the needs of territories implementing the territorial just transition plans; 
b)  how the horizontal principles referred to in Article 4 were taken into account; 
c)  the need to carry out a gender impact assessment; 
d)  the  application  of  the  eligibility  conditions  set  out  in  Article  9  and  how  the  visibility 

obligations were applied; 

e)  on  basis  of  the  projects  supported  by  the  Facility,  the  extent  to  which  the  Facility 
contributed  to  the  environmental  objectives  laid  down  in Article  9  of  Regulation  (EU) 
2020/8524 . 

In addition  to  the specific evaluation  requirements laid out  above and in  the PSLF Regulation, 
and in line with the Better Regulation (‘BR’) Guidelines, the interim evaluation covers the five 
BR  evaluation  criteria:  (i)  effectiveness;  (ii)  efficiency;  (iii)  coherence;  (iv)  EU  added  value; 
(v) relevance. 

The scope of the evaluation covers the Facility from the date when the PSLF Regulation entered 
into force on 14 July 2021 until 31 January 2025 and targets all EU Member States, in particular, 
the territories identified in the TJTPs.  

This interim evaluation is conducted at an early stage of implementation and, as such, focuses on 
activities and outputs since results and impact cannot be assessed yet. The assessment of results 
and long-term impact will be included in the final evaluation, which is required by no later than 
31 December 2031 in accordance with the PSLF Regulation (Article 17(3)).  

3.  OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 

The findings presented in the scope of the evaluation build on two main components. Firstly, it is 
based on in-house expertise and documentation. Secondly, the assessment builds on the results of 
a supporting study contracted by the Commission and prepared by a consortium comprising T33 
srl and Prognos AG. The supporting study which was conducted between end of April 2024 and 
January 2025 combines various methods (document review/desk research, survey, interviews and 
case studies) to provide answers to the evaluation questions. 

An intervention logic was developed as part of this evaluation as well as an evaluation matrix. 
The matrix linked the evaluation criteria to the intervention logic and used the key elements to 
draw up research questions. 

4   Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment 
of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (Regulation (EU) 
2020/852 of the European Parliament). 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  THE INTERIM EVALUATION’S MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

This  section  summarises  the  evaluation’s  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  PSLF  interim 
evaluation  in  line  with  the  five  criteria  set  out  in  the  BR  guidelines:  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence, EU added value and relevance. 

4.1.  Effectiveness 

Since the launch of the  multi-annual  call for proposals  in  July  2022 until  31 January 2025, 46 
project proposals have been received, 30 out of these (65%) were found eligible and admissible, 
and  17  of  them  were  selected  for  funding  by  the  PSLF  evaluation  committee.  The  selected 
projects  submitted  are  expected  to  mobilise  approximately  EUR  228  million  in  grants, 
corresponding to 17% of the grant component budget, and EUR 1.4 billion in total investments 
including the grants, the loans and additional sources of financing. 

Eligible applications have been submitted by applicants from Greece, Sweden, France, Czechia, 
the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Latvia and Ireland, but not from the remaining Member States. 
Several factors are affecting the uptake of the Facility which include, among others, the overlap 
with  other  financing  sources  offering  higher  grant  co-financing  rates  for  the  same  type  of 
investments, the administrative capacity of public authorities, the availability of mature project 
pipelines, financial constraints of potential applicants and the ineligibility of projects benefitting 
from other EU funds since there is a condition under the PSLF that PSLF projects cannot receive 
support from other Union programmes. 

Other challenges  faced by PSLF potential beneficiaries relate to  (i) the minimum threshold for 
EIB  direct  lending  and  (ii)  the  requirements  for  beneficiaries  to  obtain  EIB  framework  loans 
which  can  be  a  significant  entry  barrier  for  municipalities  with  small  projects  and  limited 
administrative capacity preventing them from taking up a coordinating role. Different measures 
have been undertaken by the Commission and the EIB to mitigate the situation.  

The future uptake of the Facility is challenging to assess. While full grant budget absorption is 
unlikely  to  happen  in  the  first  call  for  proposals,  the  second  call  for  proposals  (2026-2027) 
presents  an  opportunity.  This  is  in  particular  the  case  since  awareness  about  the  PSLF  has 
increased and national shares will no longer apply beyond 2025. However, the extent to which 
other  EU  and  national  funds  are  programmed  or  consumed  will  be  a  decisive  factor  in  this 
regard. 

The inclusion of the PSLF in the TJTPs framework has created a clear reference, establishing a 
crucial  just  transition  strategy  that  PSLF  applicants  should  align  with  and  refer  to  in  their 
applications to the PSLF. In addition, TJTPs have created a first step of awareness raising about 
the PSLF.   

For  signed  projects,  the  grant  has  covered  between  5%  and  18%  of  the  total  investment  costs, 
while the loan has accounted for between 31% and 73%. This suggests that the key factor driving 
the PSLF’s value for beneficiaries is the structure of the EIB loan. Potential applicants will assess 
the interest rate, loan duration, financing amount, and the overall effectiveness of the EIB loan 
negotiation  process  in  addressing  their  needs,  compared  to  the  terms  offered  by  commercial 
banks.  Although  the  PSLF  is  generally  well-positioned  to  provide  more  favourable  financing 
conditions by combining EIB loans with EU grants, commercial banks often have the advantages 
of quicker loan processing, simpler procedures, and established relationships with their clients. 

3 

 
 
The  advisory  support  provided  by  the  EIB  for  the  PSLF  is  delivered  through  the  InvestEU 
Advisory Hub. By 31 January 2025, six  assignments  are ongoing,  and one is  completed. They 
cover  a  wide  range  of  sectors  including  energy,  mobility,  environment  and  social  investments. 
Although the PSLF advisory support is free of charge, initial  demand  has been low. Preliminary 
findings suggest that the advisory support provided via the InvestEU Advisory Hub has helped 
increase the uptake and the quality of applications.  

PSLF  is  a  new  instrument,  therefore  communication  and  information  actions  were  key  to 
promoting  its  uptake.  The  Commission,  in  close  cooperation  with  CINEA  and  the  EIB,  raised 
awareness  about  the  PSLF  through  many  joint  actions  targeting  several  types  of  potential 
beneficiaries. Initial findings suggest that communication efforts have been effective.  

Support for PSLF implementation by national authorities varies and is done on a voluntary basis. 
National  authorities  seem  to  be  involved  in  PSLF  when  they  have  sufficient  administrative 
capacity  and/or  when  they  perceive  PSLF  to  be  relevant.  Where  national  authorities  support 
PSLF uptake, project applications seem to be mature and successful. 

The  horizontal  principles  referred  to  in Article  4  of  the  PSLF  Regulation  are  integrated  in  the 
implementation and the management of the PSLF in several ways. PSLF applicants’ commitment 
to  these  horizontal  principles  is  assessed  during  the  evaluation  of  the  proposals  and  during 
implementation  via  periodic  reporting  and  on  the  spot  missions.  The  EIB  also  appraises  and 
monitors  all  projects  and  intermediated  operations  based  on  environmental,  social  and 
governance  criteria.  Only  those  activities  that  meet  EIB’s  sustainability  due  diligence 
requirements are financed. 

Concerning  gender  quality,  some  signed  grant  agreements  explicitly  incorporate  a  gender 
mainstreaming  approach,  while  others  do  not  directly  address  gender  equality.  In  terms  of  the 
estimated number of jobs created by the PSLF for the signed grant agreements, 50% (2 870 out 
of the 5 745)  are declared by applicants  to  be intended for women.  In terms  of the individuals 
which should be reached by the signed PSLF projects, 52% are estimated by beneficiaries to be 
women. 

Concerning  the  contribution  to  environmental  objectives,  the  broad  range  of  eligible  sectors 
imply that some projects concern climate action directly, while others will be climate-neutral or 
at least do no significant harm. Some just transition projects that do not lead to a direct reduction 
in  CO2  emissions might  still  score  high  on  environmental  sustainability. Four  out  of  the  seven 
projects  supported  by  the  PSLF  declare  that  they  will  contribute  to  CO2  emissions  reduction 
(estimated  135 805  tonnes  per  year  CO2  reduction).  The  other  projects  will  have  some 
environmental impact such as promoting circular economy and biodiversity.  

An  overall  weakness  of  the  PSLF  monitoring  framework  is  that  the  general  objective,  the 
specific  objective  and  the  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPIs)  do  not  currently  have  targets. 
However,  targets  for  several  regulatory  KPIs  of  the  PSLF  has  been  put  forward  as  part  of  this 
evaluation exercise.  

4.2.  Efficiency 

The launch of the first call for proposals was delayed due to the delayed adoption of the TJTPs, 
which were a necessary condition for PSLF support to be awarded. This had a direct impact on 
the timing and efficiency of the PSLF implementation. 

4 

 
 
The  multiannual  character  of  the  call  compared  to  an  annual  call  has  allowed  to  reduce  the 
administrative  burden  caused  by  its  management  and  ensure  a  predictable  framework  for  all 
stakeholders. The timing of the submission deadlines, which are 4 months apart from each other 
on average, allows applicants to submit applications at regular intervals. 

On the other hand, the separate application and reporting procedures for the grant and the loan 
are perceived as less efficient, compared to a single application for both the loan and the grant.  

Analysis  of  PSLF  implementation  indicates  that,  on  average,  the  evaluation  of  the  grant  has 
taken around two months, and that the adoption of the grant award decision has taken between 6 
and 13 months. The length  of the  entire process  is  mostly  affected by the maturity of the loan 
parameters at the time of submission of the grant application. 

The  information  collected  for  this  evaluation  is  not  sufficient  to  confirm  the  expected 
simplification  benefits  related  to  the  use  of  Financing  Not  Linked  to  Costs.  The  impact  on 
administrative  costs  of  the  PSLF’s  simplification  measures  have  not  been  estimated  due  to  the 
limited  number  of  applications  received  and  grant  agreements  signed  at  this  stage.  However, 
Financing  Not  Linked  to  Costs  and  the  high  percentage  of  the  total  grant  paid  by  the  pre-
financing payment seem to be highly appreciated by the PSLF beneficiaries so far.  

PSLF implementation has benefitted from the network of cohesion policy  managing authorities 
and  implementing  bodies  which  already  exists  in  the  Commission  and  from  the  EIB  wide 
network of local offices which has also supported the efficient implementation of the PSLF. 

While  it  is  too  early  to  project  the  value  of  the  PSLF  multiplier  (grant  leverage  effect)  for  the 
entire  PSLF  envelope,  focusing  on  the  seven  awarded  PSLF  projects,  the  average  ratio  of 
investments and PSLF grant amount to 12, ranging from 5.5 for less developed regions to 21.3 
for more developed and in transition regions. 

4.3.  Coherence 

The  coherence  of  the  three  JTM  pillars  is  outlined  in  the  TJTPs,  though  they  provide  limited 
details on the PSLF. While many Member States mention PSLF-eligible sectors, they often lack 
specification  or  clear  synergies  between  pillars.  Ultimately,  coherence  depends  on  submitted 
proposals  rather  than  a  predefined  strategy,  with  the  flexible  TJTP  framework  allowing 
coherence to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  

Coherence  between  PSLF  and  RRF  which  provides  funding  for  similar  types  of  investments 
depends  on  the  extent  to  which  there  is  potential  overlap  and  complementarity  between  the 
Resilience  and  Recovery  Plans  and  TJTPs.  The  RRF  is  seen  by  potential  applicants  as  more 
attractive.  

The EU funds under cohesion policy (ERDF, ESF+ and Cohesion Fund) also share overlapping 
sectoral eligibility with the PSLF, and they have more favourable funding conditions with higher 
grant  co-financing  rates.  They  have  also  required  considerable  programming  efforts  from 
Member  State  authorities  striving  to  meet  tight  spending  deadlines  and  requirements  to  access 
cohesion funds.  Altogether, this has also influenced their coherence with PSLF creating not only 
synergies  but  also  overlapping  between  instruments.  When  the  attractiveness  of  different  EU 
funding sources is analysed on the basis of their grant co-financing rates, the PSLF is crowded 
out. 

5 

 
 
The  overlap  of  different  funding  opportunities  creates  additional  complexity  for  potential 
beneficiaries  and  coordinating  entities  as  they  must  discern  the  most  appropriate  funding 
instrument for each investment and understand the functioning of the different EU funds. 

PSLF can also overlap with national programmes, for example the overlapping fund with similar 
objectives in Germany which could partly explain the limited implementation of the PSLF in this 
Member State.  

More  generally,  there  is  a  mismatch  between  the  allocated  national  shares  and  demand  for  the 
PSLF.  While  the  full  national  shares  of  the  Member  States  with  the  largest  national  shares 
remains available, other Member States, such as France which has exhausted its national share, 
could make use of additional resources from the PSLF. 

In  addition  to  the  PSLF  advisory  support  available  under  the  InvestEU Advisory  Hub,  public 
entities in  the concerned regions have  recurred to several  types of technical  assistance paid  by 
the Commission within the remit of other Union programmes such as TSI and JTP Groundwork. 
As some advisory and technical assistance initiatives are still ongoing and others have recently 
concluded, conclusions on the impact and complementarity of the initiatives cannot be reached at 
this stage. There is evidence that the awareness raising and communication activities which took 
place  within  the  framework  of  PSLF  advisory  support  and  the  other  technical  assistance 
assignments deployed by other consultants have contributed to increasing the knowledge about 
the PSLF.  

4.4.  EU added value 

Preliminary  feedback  suggests  that  PSLF  is  adding  value  by  making  additional  resources 
available to address transition needs in just transition regions. It is creating new opportunities for 
local  public  entities  to  cover  just  transition  investments  which  would  not  be  possible  only 
through their own resources at the local and national level. 

The  impact  of  the  PSLF  grant  on  project  materialisation  remains  uncertain  due  to  the  limited 
number  of  grants  awarded,  but  its  impact  is  contingent  upon  several  factors,  such  as  the  exact 
PSLF co-financing rate or the volume of the grant. The higher these factors are, the higher the 
grant’s impact is expected to be. 

Moreover, the grant serves as additional funding to expand project scopes, potentially ensuring 
the  inclusion  of  socially  valuable  but  otherwise  unprofitable  components.  PSLF  advisory 
services enhance project delivery by improving quality and accelerating application timelines. 

PSLF co-financing also offers immediate liquidity for projects after grant signature. Nonetheless, 
applying  for  PSLF  support  might  delay  implementation  compared  to  using  readily  available 
funding sources.  

4.5.  Relevance 

The  relatively  recent  adoption  of  the  TJTPs  combined  with  the  currently  ongoing  mid-term 
review  of  cohesion  policy  (including  TJTPs)  support  the  continued  relevance  of  the  PSLF  to 
meet current needs. Stakeholder engagement resulted in a wide consensus between institutional 
actors,  national  representatives  and  potential  and  actual  beneficiaries  that  PSLF  objectives  are 
relevant. 

6 

 
 
The  implementation  of  the  PSLF  aligns  closely  with  the  political  guidelines  of  the  new 
Commission  outlined  by  its  President  in  July  2024,  while  advancing  the  long-term  objectives 
established  in  the  European  Green  Deal  in  2019.  The  PSLF  is  delivering  on  EU  objectives 
ensuring that all citizens have an effective right to stay in the communities they call home and 
supporting  a  socially  sustainable  decarbonisation  in  the  regions  which  have  traditionally  been 
dependent on the fossil fuel industry. 

5.  CONCLUSION AND LESSONS LEARNED  

The  evaluation  of  the  Public  Sector  Loan  Facility  (PSLF)  highlights  several  challenges 
encountered during its early-stage implementation. Stakeholder feedback reveals varied levels of 
engagement  across  Member  States.  While  qualitative  data  offers  valuable  insights,  the  lack  of 
quantitative  data  hampers  a  comprehensive  assessment.  Despite  these  challenges,  there  is 
promising potential for impactful implementation. The following lessons offer guidance for the 
continued implementation of PSLF and inform the design of future financial instruments. 

Mismatch of national shares with potential beneficiaries’ needs 

For the first call for proposals (until 2025), national shares were established following the budget 
allocation key defined for the JTF. This has affected the uptake and coherence of the PSLF with 
other funding sources, highlighting the limitations of not considering that demand for repayable 
financing could differ from the JTF allocation method. While the full national shares of Member 
States  with  the  largest  national  shares  remain  available,  others  could  have  made  use  of  more 
resources. Additionally, in Member States where the national share was the lowest, there was less 
incentive  for  Member  States  and  applicants  to  invest  resources  in  supporting  or  developing 
applications to the PSLF.  

The PSLF has a limited capacity to support smaller projects 

While  smaller  projects  are  benefitting  from  PSLF  support,  including  5  projects  receiving 
intermediated loans ranging from EUR 1.5 million to EUR 12 million, intermediated lending is 
only available in two Member States. In other Member States, the minimum loan amount is EUR 
12.5 million, which is a substantial threshold for smaller applicants. Framework loans offer the 
possibility  to  meet  the  loan  size  threshold  by  pooling  multiple  projects  together,  but  this  
increases the complexity of the application process. Smaller entities may not have the requisite 
experience  or  resources  to  undertake  this  level  of  coordination  efficiently.  Therefore,  smaller 
projects might face exclusion from the PSLF. 

A  possible  solution  to  high  minimum  loan  size  and  coordination  issues  could  be  a  higher 
engagement  from  National  Promotional  Banks  Institutions  and  a  higher  use  of  financial 
intermediation, however the PSLF must offer them adequate incentives to get involved. In any 
case, the selection of financing partners for future financial instruments should be closely aligned 
with  the  needs  and  profiles  of  potential  beneficiaries  with  particular  attention  to  engaging 
partners  that  have  the  institutional  capacity  and  operational  frameworks  necessary  to  support 
smaller beneficiaries. 

The PSLF’s delivery model 

The delivery model of the PSLF provides several advantages that contribute to its appeal. One of 
the  key  strengths  of  the  PSLF  is  its  facilitation  of  direct  access  to  EU  level  funding  for  local 

7 

 
 
public  bodies.  Furthermore,  the  PSLF  employs  a  blended  finance  approach,  combining  EU 
grants  with  EIB  loans  and  additional  funding  sources.  This  method  potentially  amplifies  the 
financial resources available to projects, with EUR 1 of PSLF grant bringing on average EUR 12 
of investments.  

However,  the  PSLF’s  dual-application  structure,  necessitating  separate  applications  for  grants 
and  loans,  renders  the  application  process  complex.  The  PSLF  application  process,  from 
submission to the signing of final agreements, can extend up to an overall duration of 18 months, 
which might not be adequate for all beneficiaries’ project implementation timeframes.  

A system  that would allow the EIB and the  Commission to share data submitted by applicants 
with  each  other  could  have  potentially  increased  efficiency  and  reduced  administrative  burden 
for applicants, the EIB and the Commission. Better data sharing between the Commission and its 
financial  partners  should  be  explored  for  future  financial  instruments,  but  at  the  same  time 
establishing the necessary systems and processes would require substantial resource investment 
and must align with the planned rollout of the instrument. An alternative delivery model in which 
a  single  entity  manages  the  blended  financing  sources,  could  be  explored  for  future  financial 
instruments  to  streamline  the  application  process  and  enhance  the  EU’s  added  value.  Finally, 
both  the  grant  and  loan  parameters  should  be  carefully  calibrated  for  any  future  financial 
instruments.  The  grant  parameters  should  be  proportionate  to  the  nature  and  scale  of  the 
investments and in particular provide a meaningful incentive to apply for the instrument, while 
the loan parameters (interest rates, repayments conditions, loan negotiation process, etc.) should 
be attractive enough compared to market conditions in order to incentivise uptake. 

PSLF advisory support 

With Member States prioritising the use of funding offering higher grant  co-financing over the 
repayable  financing  provided  by  the  PSLF,  demand  for  advisory  services  under  the  PSLF  was 
initially  limited.  Only  one  completed  assignment  was  included  in  the  scope  of  this  evaluation. 
The PSLF advisory is  carried out  by the  EIB in  the framework of the  InvestEU Advisory Hub 
(under the InvestEU Regulation) and the interim evaluation of the Hub also deemed it premature 
to fully assess its impact due to limited uptake.  

If  current  trends  continue,  the  PSLF  advisory  is  expected  to  have  limited  impact  on 
administrative capacity due to low demand for assignments in this area.  

The PSLF’s monitoring framework 

A  weakness  of  the  PSLF  monitoring  framework  is  that  the  KPIs  associated  to  the  general 
objective and the specific objective do not have targets in the Regulation. Targets for the PSLF’s 
regulatory  KPIs  has  been  put  forward  as  part  of  this  exercise.  The  assessment  of  the 
simplification  and  administrative  costs  for  beneficiaries  and  applicants  was  limited  in  the 
framework of this evaluation because due to the PSLF’s early stage of implementation, it would 
have been based on a reduced, unrepresentative sample. Thorough analysis will take place during 
final evaluation once a sufficient pool of applicants and beneficiaries is available.   

The  established  indicators  from  the  InvestEU  Advisory  Hub,  such  as  expected  mobilised 
investments and participants’ satisfaction, will be fully used to measure the added value of PSLF 
advisory services during the final evaluation. 

8 

 
 
Gender impact 

The  PSLF  call  for  proposals  currently  lacks  a  reference  framework  for  applicants  concerning 
gender  equality.  To  address  this,  the  second  PSLF  call  for  proposals  (under  preparation)  will 
include additional measures to  promote  gender equality. The toolkit for just  transitions  regions 
with the title “Considering gender in regional transformations”5 (developed by the Commission) 
will provide guidance on managing the gender impact of the just transition. 

5   European  Commission  (2023),  Considering  gender  in  regional  transformations.  A  toolkit  for  just  transition 

regions  
(https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/funding/just-transition-fund/toolkit-
considering%20gender%20in%20regional%20transformations.pdf). 

9