Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52012DC0040

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on the results achieved /\* COM/2012/040 final \*/**

  

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the evaluation of the Union's finances
based on the results achieved

1.
preliminary remarks

This is the
first Commission report to the European Parliament (EP)
and the Council on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on the results
achieved, pursuant to Article 318 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU).

Article 318
TFEU provides that the Commission shall:

"submit to the European Parliament
and the Council an evaluation report on the Union's finances based on the
results achieved, in particular in relation to the indications given by the
European Parliament and the Council pursuant to Article 319."

Article 319 TFEU provides that the European
Parliament, acting on a recommendation from the Council, shall give a discharge
to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU budget. The
article also provides that, in doing so, the Council and the European
Parliament examine the accounts, the financial statement and the Article 318
TFEU evaluation report, plus the annual report by the Court of Auditors and the
replies of the institutions to the observations of the Court of Auditors, and the
statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality
and regularity of the underlying transactions required under Article 287 TFEU.

The Commission is examining
ways to align the reports required under the different procedures with due
regard to the different timing and coverage of evaluation and budget discharge
work and to avoid any duplication of work, as explained further in this report.
This will be a progressive process, building each year on the experience of
earlier years. As from the 2011 discharge procedure, the Commission will aim to
adopt the evaluation report by mid-November each year.

2.
Introduction

One of the main features of Article 318 TFEU
is that the evaluation report focuses on the finances of the Union from the standpoint
of the results achieved by the relevant programmes.

To contribute to this assessment of overall
results and impacts, the Commission undertakes evaluations during and after the
completion of the different financial programmes in order to analyse the extent
to which the programmes have achieved their objectives and to measure the
impact of the programmes on society.

The
implementation of the programmes entails initial capacity-building and it can
take several years for the momentum of change to gather force and speed, with
the result that expenditure is spread over several years. Longer-term impacts only
materialise over time and not necessarily on a uniform or regular annual basis.

It is also important to base the evaluation of results and subsequent
decision-making on data trends rather than single sets of figures so that sound
conclusions can be drawn. Sufficient and reliable information on the results
and impacts of specific programmes tend to become available only several years
after the completion of the whole programme.

In
contrast, the process for the discharge of annual expenditure under the EU
budget is a specific process designed to produce a definitive result on each
year's expenditure. It is a process which follows a set timetable which allows
it to be completed for a year of expenditure by May in the second subsequent
year.  Moreover, the budget discharge process has in
the past mainly focused on legality and regularity, although now a broader
focus is being developed.

Thus,
there is no direct match between the timing and coverage of evaluations of financial
programmes on the one hand and the discharge of annual expenditure on the other
hand. The indications given by the European Parliament and Council in
connection with the procedure for the financial discharge for expenditure
incurred in one year may not always relate to the phase of the financial
programme and the evaluation results produced at or around the same time.

A lot of detailed
information on the assessment of the results and impacts of different EU
financial programmes is already made available through individual evaluations
and Impact Assessments and through the Annual Activity Reports[1], the Synthesis Report of Management Achievements, the Activity
Statements[2] and the report on the follow-up to the Discharge resolution and
recommendation, which are all published year-on-year. In addition, the Article
318 TFEU evaluation report should not duplicate the evaluation work done as
required by the basic acts establishing the EU Programmes.

Therefore, the
Commission has considered whether the evaluation report should systematically
cover all programmes each year or rather in each year only those programmes for
which sufficient relevant and new information has become available . To cover
all of the programmes financed by the EU from year to year would risk producing
a very extensive and unfocussed outcome, with repetition of information
contained in earlier reports for those programmes where no major evolution has
taken place since the last report. A clearer and stronger focus will result
from reports which target a limited number of programmes each year, taking
account of the importance of each programme and the availability of recent
evaluation results, while ensuring that a broad range of financial sectors are
covered in the medium term.

In order to avoid
duplication and to start this new process of reporting, the Commission has
decided to focus on selected policy areas in this evaluation report. The report
covers two areas: Education and Culture, and Research. These areas seem most
appropriate for this first report as they contribute to the EU 2020 headline
targets and flagship initiatives.[3] They involve an important amount of expenditure, nearly € 8 billion
in 2010. They are also key examples of policies implemented on a centralised
basis, not on a shared basis with the Member States. In
future years the Commission intends to cover the main financial programmes
implemented on a centralised basis or by shared or decentralised management,
each year covering a different selection from such areas as Regional Policy or
one of the other Structural Funds, Enterprise, Taxation, Energy, Mobility and
Transport or Information Society.

The availability of
the recent evaluation results referred to later in this report in the two selected
areas makes them well-suited to be covered, even if recent evaluation material
is available this year for many financial programmes due to the preparations
under way for the new Multi-annual Financial Framework. In other years the
availability of recent evaluation results will vary, since
evaluations are programmed as much as possible to support decision-making. The Commission is therefore making an effort to better align the monitoring
and evaluation arrangements with the programming cycle, which means that there
are likely be more evaluations available for the preparation of new proposals
and fewer evaluations in the other years.

In line with Article
318 TFEU, the examination of the two selected policy areas should have been
linked to the 2009 discharge recommendation, that is to the requests
made by the European Parliament and Council with regard to those areas.
However, the Discharge Authority did not give any particular indications regarding
the policy outcomes of Education and Culture and Research in the 2009
resolution and recommendation.

In the following sections,
the report first identifies the programmes covered and then summarises their
role and current objectives. Second, it looks at the recent evaluation results
that have been produced, variously covering the extent to which the programmes
have contributed to their objectives and produced the expected impacts. Since
the programmes are still running, this evaluation report presents the main
conclusions on progress achieved so far. Finally, it also sometimes refers to evaluations
of earlier programmes in order to present a reasonably complete and coherent
picture. A list of reference documentation is provided in the accompanying
Staff Working Document.

3.
Education and Culture
3.1.
Introduction

The policy area
Education and Culture has the following general objectives:

(1)
Raise the level and relevance of skills
contributing to excellence and equity and to make mobility a possibility for
all young learners and researchers.

(2)
Foster creativity, promote intercultural
dialogue and cultural and linguistic richness and to build the job-creating
potential of the creative economy.

(3)
Reinforce participation, solidarity and
exchanges between people, focusing on the young.

(4)
Cooperate with world partner countries or
regions and international organisations to promote European values worldwide,
and to strengthening people to people contacts.

(5)
The Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP), the European
Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), the Marie Curie Actions (in the
FP7 People programme), Youth in Action, the Culture programme and MEDIA 2007
are the main financial instruments applied to achieve the general objectives,
with a total budget of nearly €14 billion for 2007-2013. As such, they also
contribute to several flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 agenda (Youth on
the Move, Agenda for new Skills and Jobs, Innovation Union, Digital Agenda, and
Platform against Poverty) and to progress in the Europe 2020 headline targets
in the education field.[4]

The added value of the programmes lies in
the transnational character of their activities, which are additional to
national or regional actions. In addition, the European action ensures a wider
dissemination of results, which can contributes to better informed
policy-making throughout the Union and beyond.

3.2.
Lifelong Learning

The Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP)
is comprised of five sector programmes:

(1)
Comenius (primary and secondary school
education)

(2)
Erasmus (higher/tertiary education)

(3)
Leonardo da Vinci (vocational education and
training)

(4)
Grundtvig (adult education)

(5)
Transversal and Jean Monnet (supporting
cross-cutting activities, such as policy cooperation and innovation).

The LLP supports mobility for students, pupils and education staff from
all education sectors to spend time learning in the educational system of
another Member State. In line with the Europe 2020 strategy, the general
objective is to contribute to the development of the EU as an advanced
knowledge-based society, with sustainable economic development, more and better
jobs and greater social cohesion.

The 2011 interim evaluation[5] finds that the LLP overall is effective in dealing with
the needs of the sectors addressed. It has been found that the actions carried
out bring a clear added value to national activities. The programme is either identified
as achieving most of its objectives or it is indicated that the implementation
and output results show that it will in all likelihood achieve those
objectives. Furthermore the main target groups are being reached. The programme
is evaluated as enhancing the skills, adaptability and employability of
students, and strengthening the openness and efficiency of labour markets. It
enhances professional development for staff members, improving the
effectiveness of European education.

Also in terms of interim results, 2.4 million students have
benefited from the Erasmus sub-Programme since 1987, building from a low
starting point, and with a target of 3 million students by 2013. The market value of this type of exchange is confirmed by more
than 40% of employers who consider that internationally experienced graduates
have higher competences than those without international experience. Over
40,000 members of university staff have benefited from the same programme every
year.

Similarly, according to the LLP interim evaluation, more than 77,000
persons have benefited from learning or teaching mobility supported by the
Leonardo da Vinci sub-programme. 85% of the
participants in Leonardo da Vinci mobility
find that their training placements were beneficial for their career.

The interim evaluation indicates that the LLP
has proven its added value in terms of increasing the European dimension of
learning in all its areas and sub-programmes. The higher education sub-programme,
Erasmus, shows measurable EU added value[6]
beyond "inspiring" or "influencing".

Overall, it is concluded that the efficiency and
effectiveness of LLP is good and the objectives are still relevant. Findings of
implementation problems are mostly due to negative external factors such as the
lack of language knowledge among potential participants. The Erasmus
sub-programme deals most directly with this.

However, according to the findings of the
interim evaluation, there are also clear indications that the performance of
the different sub-programmes is uneven and the level of ambition of the
objectives are in certain instances disproportionate to the funds allocated,
particularly for the sub-programme Comenius. The number of specific and
operational objectives is too large, which may have a negative influence on the
already fragmented nature of the LLP. Furthermore some of the specific
objectives lack a clear link to the general objectives and the objectives also
overlap in several cases. These findings provided critical input for the
streamlined design of the proposed "Erasmus for All" programme.

3.3.
European Institute of Innovation and Technology

The recently established European Institute of Innovation and
Technology targets the integration of higher education, research and
innovation. Its priorities are the transfer of long-term innovation activities
to commercial applications, in particular through start-up and spin-off
enterprises.

The first Knowledge and Innovation Communities
(KIC) supported by the EIT, but with 75% of KIC budget coming from other sources
of funding, started work in 2010. The first evaluation confirmed that the EIT
has broadly met its key operational objectives in the start-up phase, although with some delays due to its inherent
complexity.[7]

The evaluation also noted, however, that at this early stage in its
development, the EIT is still working towards achieving the objective of being
a reference model. It still needs to acquire a sufficient level of experience
and expertise across its functions. It was also found that the participation of
world-class universities and innovation centres as well as the complementary
relationship between the EIT and other EU programmes could be improved. The
process and the criteria for selecting participating actors could be clarified.
These evaluation findings provided input to the recent
Commission proposal for the amendment of the EIT regulation (Regulation (EC) No
294/2008) and an Action Plan will be prepared in response to the evaluation
results.

3.4.
Marie Curie[8]
actions

Marie Curie actions to support mobility and training of researchers
are financed through the "People" Specific Programme under the
Seventh Framework Programme for Research. The recent Interim Evaluation of FP7 concluded
that the People Programme seems to have been successful so far and that the
actions taken are well-structured and balanced. The actions set a valuable
bench-mark for the working conditions and employment standards of
EU-researchers. It was recommended for the remaining years of FP7 to abstain
from the introduction of new support schemes.

3.5.
Youth in Action

In the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Youth in Action
programme (YiA) aims at promoting opportunities for cross-border learning
mobility and employability of young people and youth workers, as well as
personal development and entrepreneurial spirit. According to the interim
evaluation of the YiA, since 2007, more than 500,000 young people or youth
workers participated in projects supported by the programme.[9] Up to 2011, more than 130,000
Youth pass non formal learning opportunities certificates were delivered,
documenting better the improved skills intended to increase employability.

The Interim Evaluation confirms the added value
of the programme. It is identified as helping young people having fewer
opportunities, a unique feature compared to other programmes. 95% of
participating young people consider that they learned to communicate better
with people who speak another language and 66% believe that their job chances
have increased thanks to the co-funded project experience. Furthermore, the
evaluation and recent monitoring surveys[10]
confirm that the programme is effective in encouraging the active participation
of young people in society.

However, it has also been identified that too high a number of
objectives and actions makes the programme lose focus and internal coherence. The
framework of the future single programme "Erasmus for All" provides
an opportunity to re-group and revise the current objectives to make them more
consistent and coherent.

3.6.
Culture

The Culture programme promotes cross-border mobility of those
working in the cultural sector, encourages the transnational circulation of
cultural and artistic output, and fosters intercultural dialogue.

The essential added value of the Programme is its contribution to
greater awareness of the existence of a common European heritage, intercultural
dialogue, the safeguarding and promotion of the diversity and richness of
European cultures, and the promotion of the transnational mobility of artistic
and cultural professionals and their works. In line with the Europe 2020
strategy, cultural and creative sectors supported by EU action (e.g. European
Capitals of Culture, translation of fiction, EU Prizes, etc) contribute to
innovation, to job creation, to local and regional development, and social
inclusion.

In 2010 alone, almost 20,000 artists and cultural workers moved
between Member States through transnational cooperation projects and several
thousands of works circulated within the EU due to the support provided. This
provided millions of Europeans with access to European cultural works; for
example, some 25 million people visited more than 22,600 sites open to the
public in 2010 under the European Heritage Days co-financed by the programme.

According to the Mid-term Evaluation, the
programme plays a unique role in stimulating cross-border cooperation,
promoting peer learning and the professionalisation of the sector, increasing
the access of European citizens to non-national works of European origin.[11]

However, the evaluation also concludes that there is a need to adapt
the current programme's three specific objectives to the real needs of project
promoters. Experience of the co-operation projects also shows a clear problem
with how the objectives of the programme should be understood, articulated and
promoted. In the management of the programme itself, there remains room for
further improvement on some aspects of the information systems supporting the
programme. Drawing on these lessons,
the Commission's proposal for the future Creative Europe framework programme seeks
to make the necessary adaptations to meet the challenges currently faced by
cultural and creative sectors in Europe.

3.7.
MEDIA 2007

In line with the Europe 2020 strategy, the main objective of the
MEDIA programme is to strengthen the competitiveness of the European
audiovisual sector. The programme supports training and networking for
professionals and the development and cross-border circulation of European
films and audiovisual works. The new MEDIA Production Guarantee Fund facilitates
access to financing for European audiovisual production companies. MEDIA Mundus
supports cooperation between professionals
from the EU and third countries.

The Commission estimates that, thanks to the leveraging effect of
the MEDIA Production Guarantee Fund, more
than €100 million will result in loans to film producers. About 300 new
films are supported by the MEDIA Development scheme every year, and those
supported under the MEDIA Distribution scheme represent 50% of European films
displayed in cinemas. One Euro invested from the MEDIA 2007 programme is
assessed as triggering the generation of €6 from private financing sources with
a multiplier of 14 in the funding of the cinema theatres sector.

The Interim Evaluation of MEDIA 2007 concludes that the programme is achieving its main objective. It contributes
substantially to the promotion of cultural diversity in Europe. The effectiveness of co-funded actions was affirmed
and the added value it brings to national interventions was confirmed.
The evaluations available for MEDIA Plus and MEDIA 2007 demonstrated that these programmes contributed
to a more even production of audiovisual works from European countries having varied
audiovisual production capacity.[12]

However, the interim evaluation also concludes that
there is poor effectiveness in the MEDIA programme's support for broadcasting
and for the development of online and offline interactive work. While efforts are
being made to adapt the MEDIA programme, in some instances, the programme's
traditional modes of intervention do not enable it to fully meet the
fast-changing needs of the sector. The Commission has proposed to remedy this
situation in the framework of the future “Creative Europe” programme.

4.
Research[13]
4.1.
Introduction

In line with the Treaty, the Europe 2020
strategy and the Innovation Union flagship initiative[14], there are three general
objectives for European research policy:

(1)
Developing an economy based on knowledge and
innovation.

(2)
Mobilizing and coordinating research and
innovation efforts on an appropriate scale to tackle societal challenges, such
as climate change, energy and resource efficiency, health and the ageing
population.

(3)
Strengthening the knowledge base and achieving
research excellence in Europe.

The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) is
the main policy tool of the European Union in the field of research with a
total budget of over € 50 billion.[15]

FP7 invests in and promotes leading-edge, world-class
research. The FP7 is being implemented through four specific programmes: Cooperation,
Ideas, People[16] and Capacities.

The Specific Programme 'Cooperation'
provides funding for collaborative research projects carried out by
transnational consortia of industry and academia organised through ten themes:
Health; Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Biotechnology; Information and
Communication Technologies; Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new
Production Technologies; Energy; Environment (including Climate Change);
Transport (including Aeronautics); Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities; Space;
Security.[17]

The Specific Programme 'Ideas'
provides funding for individuals and their teams engaged in frontier research
in new areas of scientific and technological advancement. The programme is
implemented by the European Research Council (ERC). The ERC has been
established with the objective of reinforcing excellence, dynamism and
creativity, as well as improving the attractiveness of Europe for the best
investigator-driven research projects.

The Specific Programme 'Capacities'
funds actions that are designed to improve Europe's research infrastructure and
the research capacity of SMEs. It also hosts smaller programmes relating to
Science in Society, Regions of Knowledge, Research Potential, International
Cooperation, and the Coherent Development of Research Policies.

For the first four years of FP7 (2007 until
2010), 245 concluded calls received 59,140 proposals[18],
involving about 312,600 applicants. Out of these, almost 12,500 proposals
involving about 69,300 participants were retained for funding negotiations,
with a corresponding total EU contribution envisaged of 20.4 billion €[19].

In 2010, 35% of participants in retained
proposals came from the Higher and Secondary Education sector, so mainly from
universities. 27% of the participants came from industry, and research
organisations represented another 24% of participants.

The Commission pays special attention to
the funding for SMEs under the Cooperation Specific Programme, following the
corresponding 15% target in the FP7 Decision[20].
Focusing on SME participation in the Cooperation Programme themes, just over 14%
of the Cooperation Programme budget is going to SMEs. With the scheduled SME
dedicated calls under the 2011 and 2012 Work Programmes, the 15% target should
be met before the end of FP7 in 2013.

The strong international character of the FP is illustrated by the
fact that 169 countries are involved in FP7 activities.

FP7 runs from 2007 until 2013. The evidence presented here is based
on the Interim Evaluation of FP7, which was carried out in 2010, and on the –
somewhat more extensive – Ex-post Evaluation of FP6, which was presented in
2009.

4.2.
Framework Programmes 6 and 7

The FP6 ex-post
evaluation report acknowledges the Framework Programme as a powerful mechanism
for catalysing research and development in Europe that could only be realised
through action at the European level. The activities under FP6 are identified
as having generated European added value, contributed generally towards
increased industrial competitiveness, generated network externalities, and
strengthened the knowledge infrastructure in Europe.[21]

More
specifically, but still concerning the performance of the overall programme, FP6
was identified as having included first-rate projects, involving top-quality
researchers and well-managed consortia. These have contributed to the improved
mobility of researchers and the internationalisation of research teams. This
has helped Europe to improve its capacity to perform internationally
competitive research at the frontiers of science and technology and in research
areas of social and industrial importance.

Concerning areas which need to be improved,
the goal of 40% female participation is some way from being met and is
particularly challenging given that women comprise only some 30% of the
research workforce across the EU. Women are also even less represented at the
most senior levels, even if this is expected gradually to improve over time.

Furthermore despite
the acknowledged importance of the participation in research of both large
companies and SMEs to bridge the gap between research results and innovation,
industry participation has been declining, whether measured as a share of
funding or number of participants. Industry participation fell from 39% in FP4
to 31% in FP6 and currently accounts for only 25% in FP7. There is still
evidence that small businesses are more easily deterred by complexity of
procedures and delays in contracts. This is the case even if increased industry
participation is expected to come from Joint Technology Initiatives which have
been slow to develop.

Nevertheless, FP7 has been evaluated as
creating and fostering a broad range of networking activities between a large
number of national research centres, opening opportunities for scientists and
supplementing existing financing such as through the Risk-sharing Finance
Facility. Its role has been confirmed in fostering collaborative research with
a strong international dimension through the participation of 169 countries
world-wide.[22]Whether
judged by the number of researchers involved, the geographical spread of teams
or the range of topics covered, the evaluation identifies that FP7 has an
impressively wide reach.[23]

More specifically, the FP7 Interim
Evaluation also reasoned that, even though the FP7 is defined as a pre-competitive
research and development programme, it has some key components that underpin
innovation processes and capacities contributing to industrial and market
efficiency. Reference is made to the ways in which research teams from
different countries and across different sectors collaborate, creating a
distinctive feature of dynamic innovation systems. This contributes to the finding
that participants from industry, research and higher education achieve a
high degree of inter-disciplinary collaboration and application-orientation.[24]

Evaluations acknowledge the correctness of
the FP implementation, highlighting that there has been considerable
improvement in the way evaluation of the FP is organised in recent years[25] and that, at a procedural level, calls have been developed and
processed effectively and that these procedures have ensured that funds are
allocated in a reasonably timely manner and with integrity[26].

At the same time, both FP level evaluations
identify a strong need for further efforts at simplification of the FP,
highlighting the various problems related to complexity in its functioning. The
FP6 Ex-Post Evaluation states that FP6 has continued to entail a cumbersome
level of administration. The experts point to the fact that this burden is especially
large for new participants – whether they are SMEs, young researchers,
participants from the new Member States or from ‘Third Countries’[27].

Two years later, in 2010, the FP7 Interim
Evaluation Panel highlights that several of the changes that were implemented
for FP7 have been welcomed by the research community and have undoubtedly been
successes, notably the Unique Registration Facility (URF), the EPSS submission
tool and less demanding audit requirements. Nevertheless, the experts judge the
lack of progress on many known problems as disappointing[28].

4.2.1.
Cooperation Programme

The Cooperation Programme is one of the main sources of public funding
for collaboration across national borders in the EU, ensuring European added
value. Existing evaluations underline the importance of the programme for the formation
of networks across Europe. The FP7 Interim Evaluation concludes that
collaborative projects are at the core of the European Research
Area and that FP7 is filling important gaps between national research
activities, thus ensuring critical mass and added value in many areas. Many FP7
activities are identified as not likely to have taken place without EU level
funding.[29]

One of the main conclusions from the body
of work on research networks and their formation is that the FPs have been
instrumental in stimulating a growing culture of knowledge-sharing. According
to one study, FP6 has facilitated the creation of the ERA by improving the
integration and coordination of research across Europe and has led to increased
competitiveness. The study highlights a significant change in attitudes and
behaviour among many of the FP6 participants and, in particular, an increased
openness to international knowledge-sharing and collaborative research.[30]

One of the
conclusions of the FP7 evaluation is also that the main added value of
collaborative health research at EU level is obtained from transnational
cooperation, the integration of different activities and participants in
different projects and the concentration of European effort on fewer but more
important priorities. It also indicates that research into transport activities
under FP7 applies a stronger as well as broader approach in addressing the
challenges, including integration of the various modes of transport, the
importance of the role of infrastructure and patterns of use. Multi-modal
activities, combining different forms of transport, such as road, rail, air and
waterway, are confirmed as of great European added value since national
programmes more rarely address these questions. The evaluation of
FP7 also shows that the Cooperation Programme develops the potential and capacity
of smaller Member States to participate and collaborate.

4.2.2.
Ideas Programme

The findings of
the FP7 Interim Evaluation on the Ideas Programme concluded that the
principle of excellence in project selection is largely achieved, notably as
leading researchers are being funded, the quality of proposals is generally
assessed to be high and there is robust competition for funding. It was
highlighted that the ERC has succeeded in attracting and funding world-class
research, playing an important role in anchoring research talent in the EU.

The funding of a mix of investigator-driven
competitive research proposals is identified as having allowed the ERC to fund
research which is both directly relevant to EU policy needs and has the
potential to address possible future challenges. Discoveries from ERC-funded
projects have been hailed as "landmark" and "exceptional
advances" by the research community.

4.2.3.
The Capacities Programme

Current
evidence shows that FP7 has enhanced the capacity for high level research and
knowledge in Europe by becoming the thread for networking for more than 500
national research infrastructures (RIs)[31]
in diverse fields and provided high level education and training to young
researchers through interactions encouraged in the framework of RIs. Also FP-7 supported RIs have been evaluated as having an impact on
European competitiveness as test-beds for promoting innovation and creating
'research market’ opportunities for industry.[32]

5.
Conclusions

The Commission has set out in this report
under Article 318 TFEU to provide an overview of the main results of recent evaluation
work focusing on the different stages in the development of two main areas of EU
financial intervention: Education and Culture and Research.

The report
focuses principally on the results and impacts identified as having been
achieved as a result of EU financing through the most recent and substantial
evaluations of the selected programmes and actions, sometimes supplemented by
reference to earlier evaluation results. It provides an overview of the main
recent evaluation results relevant to the selected programmes compared with the
more detailed reports and other documents already available on specific
elements of the programmes.

The report covers
the areas of Education and Culture and Research, mainly in view of the link with the EU 2020 headline targets and flagship initiatives,
the available performance and evaluation related information, and the
centralised management method. The report relies upon
the detailed information provided in the numerous sources identified in the
text. It seeks to provide an overview of the objectives of the programmes being
the subject of Union financing, and the impacts and results achieved dependent
on the stage reached in the programme at the time of the relevant evaluations.

As regards the
area of Education and Culture, the report shows that the financial instruments
put in place, depending of the stage of realisation, show a good record in
terms of producing tangible results and of achieving or being likely to achieve
most of the objectives of those instruments. Moreover, the report provides
various concrete examples of generated added value by, inter alia, introducing
a transnational dimension, by cross- border cooperation and wider dissemination
of knowledge or by generating leverage effects as for example in the case of
the Media 2007 Programme. The report has equally detected areas for
improvement, such as the need to better define and focus objectives or to
improve management, both issues which were remedied in the proposed successor
programmes.

In the area of
Research, the report indicates that the Framework Programmes have delivered or
are in the process of delivering the expected outcomes. Framework Programmes are
acknowledged as powerful mechanisms for catalysing research that could only be
realised through action at the European level. They are also acknowledged for generating
European added value, increased industrial competitiveness, network
externalities, and strengthening the knowledge infrastructure in Europe. FP7 is
clearly making a significant contribution to European science and the
development of the European Research Area and has a vast and impressive reach.
The report also recognises, as one of the areas for further improvement, the
need for further efforts regarding the simplification and implementation of the
FP. Steps in that direction have been taken in the design of the new programmes
prepared for the next financial framework, notably in the proposals for the
Horizon 2020 programme.

By covering
each year a limited number of programmes for which relevant evaluations have
become available, this report will be able to cover in the medium term a broad
range of financial programmes under the different management methods.

The evaluations
referred to in this report have also been used in the preparation of the
proposals for the new Multi-annual Financial Framework to run from 2014 to
2020. Experience of the functioning of evaluation work also feeds into the
design of future evaluations with a view to strengthening the process and
improving outcomes. The Commission will work to ensure that there is increased
co-ordination, exchange of information and coherence both within the Commission
and with Member States on the programming, organisation and use of monitoring
and evaluation in the next financial framework.

In producing
this report, the Commission also raises the question of the function and timing
of this report in relation to the annual discharge of the budget, particularly
given the varying timing and length of periods covered by the evaluation work
carried out compared with the more specific annual focus of the budget discharge
process.

The Commission is
examining further how to develop the content of this report, taking account of
the criteria set out in Article 318 TFEU, and the interests expressed by
Parliament and Council and is ready to adapt it in the
light of their reactions to this report.

[1]               Each Director General/Head of Service shall submit to
his/her institution an Annual Activity Report together with financial and
management information. This report gives account of the achievements of the
key policy objectives and core activities of the Directorate-General or Service
taking into account the corresponding resources used

[2]               Activity Statements provide the main elements of
justification for the level of resources requested by the Commission in its
Draft Budget (DB). They include details of the resources (human and financial)
allocated by Activity, as well as associated objectives, indicators and
outputs. Major achievements and evaluation results are also included. Hence,
they justify the Commission's DB in terms of performance information
(objectives, indicators, evaluation results and outputs), i.e. depict what
benefits are rendered to the beneficiaries of EU - programmes.

[3]               COM(2010)2020 final

[4]                      Reduce
the number of early school leavers to below 10% of 18-24 year olds by 2020
(declined from 17.6% in 2000 to 14.4% in 2009); increase the number of
graduates from tertiary education to at least 40% of 30-34 year olds by the
same date (increased from 22.4% in 2000 to 32.3% in 2009).

[5]               Interim evaluation of the Lifelong Learning Programme
(2007-2013), 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education\_culture/evalreports/education/2011/llpreport\_en.pdf

[6]               For more details on the EU added value, see SEC(2011)867: Commission
Staff Working Paper - The added value of the EU budget -accompanying
the document COM(2011)500: A budget for Europe 2020

[7]               Evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation,
2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education\_culture/evalreports/education/2011/eitreport\_en.pdf

[8]               Although Marie Curie actions are part of the People
Programme financed from the Seventh Framework Programme, they are included in
the policy area of Education and Culture according to the ABB nomenclature and
are therefore reported under this section.

[9]               Interim evaluation of Youth in Action, 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education\_culture/evalreports/youth/2011/interimreport\_en.pdf

[10]             YiA monitoring
surveys:
http://ec.europa.eu/youth/focus/doc/monitoring\_survey/report\_monitoring\_survey\_2011.pdf

[11]             Interim evaluation of the Culture Programme
(2007-2013), 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education\_culture/evalreports/culture/2010/progreport\_en.pdf

[12]             Interim
evaluation of the MEDIA 2007 Programme, 2010: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education\_culture/evalreports/culture/2010/media\_en.pdf
Évaluation finale des programmes MEDIA Plus et MEDIA Formation, 2007: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/programme/docs/overview/evaluation/reports/media%20plus/rapport\_finale\_m\_plus.pdf

[13]             This section focuses on research activities included in
title 8 'Research' of the General Budget. Activities in the Seventh Framework
Programme that are part of other policy areas according to the ABB nomenclature
are not included.

[14]             SEC(2010)1161

[15]             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), OJ L 412/2006

[16]             The achievement of objectives of Marie Curie Actions is
reported under the Education and Culture part as since 2010 it is DG EAC that
manages this Programme

[17]             Parts of the Cooperation
Program (Space and Security) are managed by DG Enterprise, while DG INFSO is
responsible for managing the Information and Communication Technologies part

[18]             Numbers based on eligible proposals and
not including first-stage proposals in the case of two-stage calls.

[19]             These figures and those in the three following
paragraphs are extracted from: Fourth FP7 Monitoring Report - Monitoring
Report 2010:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index\_en.cfm?pg=fp7-monitoring

[20]             The aim is to ensure that at least 15% of
the funding of the programme goes to SMEs.

[21]             Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes for
Research and Technological development 2002 – 2006:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2009/pdf/fp6\_evaluation\_final\_report\_en.pdf

[22]             Interim Evaluation of the
Seventh Framework Programme:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other\_reports\_studies\_and\_documents/fp7\_interim\_evaluation\_expert\_group\_report.pdf

[23]             Interim Evaluation of the
Seventh Framework Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other\_reports\_studies\_and\_documents/fp7\_interim\_evaluation\_expert\_group\_report.pdf

[24]             Interim Evaluation of the
Seventh Framework Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other\_reports\_studies\_and\_documents/fp7\_interim\_evaluation\_expert\_group\_report.pdf

[25]             FP6 Ex-Post Evaluation, p. vii

[26]             FP7 Interim Evaluation, p.7

[27]             FP6 Ex-Post Evaluation, p.36

[28]             FP7 Interim Evaluation, p. 56-57

[29]             Interim Evaluation of the
Seventh Framework Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other\_reports\_studies\_and\_documents/fp7\_interim\_evaluation\_expert\_group\_report.pdf

[30]             NetPact: Structuring effects of
Community research. The impact of the RTD Framework Programme on network
formation. Final report to the European Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp6-evidence-base/evaluation\_studies\_and\_reports/evaluation\_studies\_and\_reports\_2009/structuring\_effects\_of\_community\_research\_-\_the\_impact\_of\_the\_framework\_programme\_for\_rtd\_on\_network\_formation.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

[31]             Please note that parts on Research Infrastructures in
Capacities Programme, ICT-based Research Infrastructures (e-Infrastructures),
are managed by DG Information and Society

[32]             Fotkis C. (2010) FP7 Interim Evaluation: Analyses of
FP7 supported research infrastructures initiatives in the context of the
European Research Area, available from http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp7-evidence-base/experts\_analysis/c.%20fotakis\_-\_research\_infrastructure.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

[Top](#document1)