Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52012DC0675

**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/2012/0675 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.           Introduction

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. This report is the second report
and relates to the financial year 2011.[1]

In the context
of the budgetary discharge procedure for the financial year 2010, the European
Parliament encouraged the Commission "to review its systems for evaluating
the effectiveness of expenditure programmes to assess whether they are adding
value, delivering value for money and achieving the objectives for which they
were established".[2]
The European Parliament sought the opinion of the Court of Auditors which
suggested that the scope, purpose and content of the report be reviewed and
this should be the starting point for a discussion between the Commission, the
Council and the Parliament on how the report can be made useful to the
discharge authority.[3]

Based on the
indications given by the Parliament and taking into account the Court's
opinion, the Commission is examining how to design and structure this report to
ensure maximum value to the discharge authority. This includes a method to
report consistently and reliably on performance on a yearly basis. For the near
term, the Report will need to rely on performance information drawn from the
current monitoring and evaluation frameworks under the Multi-annual Financial
Framework (MFF) and the Commission's annual reporting instruments.[4] As indicated in last year's
report,[5]
the preparation of the next MFF provides the opportunity to make adjustments to
improve the Report in the future, particularly as concerns the production of improved
performance information.

Various issues
of purpose, scope and timing are being taken into account in designing the
future reports:

·
meaningful annual assessment of the
effectiveness and efficiency of expenditure to the budgetary authority. The
Report should provide an indication if the financial programmes are on track or
if there needs to be adjustment;

·
great variety in the size and content of the
programmes To be manageable, this requires agreement on a common framework– a
set of key objectives and main indicators and a framework for monitoring and
reporting on results relative to programme objectives and criteria such as
effectiveness, efficiency and EU added-value. This framework should be coherent
with and drawn from both the Commission's annual reporting instruments and its
evaluation work;

·
timely reporting on evaluations, taking into
account the Parliament's need to have the report available in the context of
the annual budgetary discharge procedure.

Article 318 links this evaluation Report to
the Discharge process. There is clearly a need to further clarify with the
discharge authority how to draft the evaluation report in the light of the
discharge resolutions . On timing, during the early years of financial
programmes to which the discharge would refer, the main focus is on the
initiation of the actions being financed. Conclusions on impacts would only be
possible at a later stage. This is because evaluations usually refer to funds
committed at least three to five years previously. Meeting the request of the
Court of Auditors to receive the Commission's next report on the n-2 budget
year significantly earlier in the year in order to take it into account in
their annual discharge report will further shorten the time available to report
on results.

The link
between the preparation and timing of the production of this report and the
Annual Activity Reports also needs to be reviewed. Finding the right balance
between early reporting and useful assessments of performance will be
important.

The conceptual
work has started and an agreed framework should underlie the future Evaluation
Reports.

Taking into account
the indications given by the Parliament, calling for a more comprehensive
approach,[6]
and the Court of Auditors[7] this report provides performance-related information which became
available in 2011 for funding under all of the main budget headings.

The report
identifies:

·
key issues of EU value added, effectiveness and
efficiency, indicating when relevant, the limitations inherent to the interim
character of many of the available evaluation reports;

·
information contributing to modifications in the
management of the programmes which could contribute to improve their final
impacts;

·
examples of evaluation results having
contributed to the design of the Commission proposals for the MFF 2014 – 2020.
These examples show how evaluations have contributed to simplification of the
programmes, better monitoring and evaluation frameworks and how they have
influenced policy making; a full set of evaluation summaries for each budget
heading[8]
and links to evaluation information from the Annual
Activity Reports (AAR)[9]
and Activity Statements[10]
are provided in the Staff Working Paper in annex.

2.           Overview of results achieved

This Report uses the evaluations completed
in 2011 (118 in total) as the main source of performance related information.
It summarises evaluation results on the financial programmes for each budget
heading, highlighting EU value added, focus and coherence, effectiveness and
efficiency as well as organisational issues. The Report
indicates if evaluations have made recommendations for
improvements. This section follows the structure of the 2007 – 2013 Financial
Framework.

Heading 1a -
Competitiveness for Growth and Employment

Enterprise

The Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme (CIP) includes the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme,
the ICT Policy Support Programme and the Intelligent Energy Europe
Programme. [11]

The interim
evaluation[12]
based on all three components, examined impacts and EU added-value. It
concludes that the overall programme and its constituent elements are all
performing well and on track to meet objectives. [13] The programme was assessed as
highly relevant, appropriately structured, effective and efficient. The
evaluation identified room for greater synergies between the component
programmes and a better strategic steer. In terms of results, the CIP has
become a major vehicle for promoting innovation with over 186,000 jobs created
or maintained largely due to its interventions. It supported 134 eco-innovation
projects in recycling, green business, food and drinks sector and the building
sector. The Growth and Innovative SME Facility (GIF) and SMEG loan and micro
credit facility were confirmed as relevant to the needs of small and
medium-sized businesses (SMEs) and, in terms of EU added-value, fulfil a demand
for finance which otherwise would not have been met. Between 2007 and 2011, the
financial instruments of the programme have assisted more than 155,000
companies financing EUR 11.4 billion under guarantees and investment volumes up
to EUR 2.2 billion under venture capital. More than 2 million SMEs each year
have used the Enterprise Europe Network, half of them to access new markets or
new product development.

The interim evaluation[14] of the Erasmus for Young
Entrepreneurs Programme[15]
identified the significant job creation potential of the programme. Half of the
new entrepreneurs who took part in the programme commented that they would be
likely to hire a new employee as a consequence of the placement despite the
risk of those persons becoming competitors. Costs of EUR 7,500 to EUR 8,500 per
job created, suggest cost effectiveness. Participation is increasing, with an
improvement in processing applications resulting in a higher number of
exchanges per month.

Economic and
Financial Affairs

The ex-post evaluation
of the Euratom Loan Facility (ELF)[16]
showed that the aims of the ELF remain valid and aligned with its energy
security and supply objectives. The ELF co-financed 21% of total investment in
new construction over the period 1977-2003 and created 6000 skilled jobs.
Without this investment, the EU would have had to import an additional 10m tons
of energy annually. The EFL directly contributed to safety enhancements in Bulgaria and Romania, helping to bring their nuclear installations in line with internationally
recognised standards. Euratom lending stimulated wider reform, including
creation of decommissioning funds, reform of electricity tariffs etc. The
financial performance of the EFL was good with all loans being fully repaid and
no recourse to the EU budget guarantee.

Mobility and
Transport

The Mid-term
evaluation[17]
of the The TEN-T programme[18] showed that while the programme
played an important role in structuring the EU transport network and meeting
mobility needs, progress in implementation
was behind schedule with only a few priority projects completed and key parts -
such as cross-border sections -
missing. It indicated that the TEN-T network is an assembly of largely national
sections, often poorly interlinked, rather than a full interoperable network. Most
Priority Projects focused on rail,[19]
without achieving a complete and coherent network linking all modes of
transport. In spite of the focus on rail, a Single European Railway Area still
does not exist, with continuing bottlenecks and significant obstacles to
interoperability. The Priority Projects were not delivering the expected
effects.

Based on this evaluation, the
Commission proposed new Guidelines for TEN-T projects
for the period 2014-2020 in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility.
These draft guidelines set out standards to ensure efficiency, interoperability
and better project planning. The aim is to achieve by 2030 of a core network of
European infrastructure and by 2050 a comprehensive network. The focus until
2020 will be on those elements which provide the highest European added-value:
cross border missing links, key bottlenecks and multi-modal modes.

The Evaluation[20]
of the Marco Polo Programme 2003-2010[21]
showed that while the programme delivers environmental benefits quantified in
hundreds of million EUR[22], the modal
shift targets expressed in tonne-kilometres of freight shifted from road to
short sea shipping, rail and inland waterway transport have not been fully
achieved. Being a market-driven programme, Marco Polo was particularly
sensitive to the market situation and the economic crisis. It has a unique
design where funding is largely performance related. However, at the same time,
it is considered by the market as a complex instrument. And 42 per cent of beneficiaries
stated that their projects would definitely have gone ahead without Marco Polo
funds. However, it was also concluded that it is too early fully to assess the
results of Marco Polo II as many projects are still being implemented.

As a result of
these findings taking into account the results delivered by the programme and
the evolution of the transport policy, the Commission has proposed that the
initiative be continued in the framework of the new Connecting Europe Facility
and the new TEN-T programme.

Information Society and Media

The interim evaluation[23] of the Safer Internet
Programme[24]
concluded that the programme adds value and responds well to changing societal
issues, including aspects of social media and cyber-bullying. The programme
supported projects that would not otherwise have been funded. It influenced national
and international activities, with the research and results widely used and
quoted. The programme could benefit from a longer term funding perspective and
a more strategic vision. In its proposal for the programme for the next MFF
(The Connecting Europe Facility) a more coherent and transparent approach to EU
funding is provided which will offer certainty and should thus attract more
private sector financing.

The final evaluation[25] of the eContent Plus
Programme[26]
found that the programme has contributed to making
digital content in Europe more accessible, usable and exploitable, facilitating
the creation and diffusion of information in areas of public interest. Concerning
the importance of this contribution, given increasing demand for quality
digital content in Europe from citizens, students, researchers, SMEs and other
businesses, the evaluation recommended continued support at European level to
increase the availability of European digital content. It was suggested to
target funding at areas where progress is likely to be slow and access to
content is limited by language and cultural barriers to maximise EU
added-value.

Energy

The Final Evaluation[27] of the Intelligent
Energy-Europe (IEE) II programme[28] found that the programme was well aligned with policy priorities
and contributing to EU objectives by promoting energy efficiency and the
utilisation of renewable energy. It has focused on the development of best
practices and cross-border activities.

The evaluation found that the programme addressed the needs and problems related to sustainable
energy but also that non-technological barriers continue to limit the
attainment of EU energy goals. To better address the financial barriers,
hindering the uptake of sustainable energy, the evaluation recommended
increased funding of activities promoting innovative techniques, processes and
products. This finding was corroborated by the ex-ante evaluation of the
successor to the IEE II programme, which found that the most cost-effective
policy option would be to continue the programme with an increased budget and
to give more emphasis to actions supporting policy implementation,
capacity-building and mobilisation of investment. The impact of the IEE II
Programme could also be higher if more actions were targeted at small and
medium players in the energy sector and if it was better linked to the
Structural Funds. This issue is addressed by the Commission's proposal for the
next programme. .Finally the
evaluation showed that the efforts made by the Executive Agency for
Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) to simplify the management process might
increase the effectiveness of the projects, and that the EACI was overall perceived as efficient.

The mid-term evaluation[29] of the European Energy
Programme for Recovery (EERP)[30] found that the funding had not always been used as rapidly as
envisaged. The overall objectives and the resources of the programme were
relevant to economic recovery, and energy policy, with short-term employment
generation and strong potential for long-term employment and competitiveness
benefits. Some completed projects were already contributing to security of
supply, competitiveness, greenhouse gas reduction and completion of the single
market. In some cases, projects took longer to get off the ground than had been
planned partially due to financing and permitting difficulties inherent in
large infrastructure projects.

The Commission has responded to the
evaluation findings in its proposal for energy infrastructure guidelines which
aims to introduce major improvements in the speed of implementation of the
programme. The proposal contains provisions to accelerate permit granting
procedures by the creation of single national authorities to manage this part
of the process, establishing a three year time limit for the permit granting
decision and increasing transparency and public participation.

Research

Under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)
Framework Programme on Research[31],
in 2011, 40% of participants in retained proposals
came from the Higher and Secondary Education sector, so mainly from
universities, 26% from industry, and 23% from research organisations. SMEs
received 16.3%[32] of the
funding for the Cooperation Specific Programme compared to the initial aim of
at least 15% SME funding. The strong international character of the FP is
illustrated by the 169 countries involved. Up to February 2012, over 14,000
grant agreements have been signed and over 1,000 projects completed. Based on
the final reports of the completed projects, on average each project produced
eight publications, four being 'open access'[33].
On average, FP7 projects generated twenty-two direct full-time equivalent (FTE)
jobs[34].

Evaluations conducted in 2011[35] underline that the Framework
Programmes have succeeded in involving Europe's best researchers and
institutes, picking up emerging fields of science or maintaining EU
competitiveness in setting research agendas. The evaluation studies[36] show that the FP7 significantly contributes to helping
European-wide partnerships to grow and strengthen. Some of the evaluation
studies provide valuable evidence about the contribution of the Framework
Programmes to developing innovative products, processes and services which have
an impact on competitiveness and job creation.

A study into
the 'Longer term impacts of the Framework Programmes' showed the diversity of
impacts according to the different fields of research analysed, allowing, for
example, the EU to become competitive with the other world R&D leaders in
the area of Quantum Information Processing and Computing or helping the
European research community to become a world leader in the area of
stratospheric ozone research. The study further highlights the importance of more
incidental impacts such as community-building, the creation of new disciplines
and staff exchange between academia and industry.

It was also concluded that Framework
Programme evaluations improved over time, but still suffer from the
predominance of input indicators and a scarcity of output and impact indicators. The
Commission's recent proposal for Horizon 2020 provides a more developed analytical
framework. It presents a coherent intervention logic for the programme as a
whole and its different components, including a hierarchy of programme
objectives and a list of key indicators to measure the outcomes and impact of
Horizon 2020. In addition, the proposal has been designed to introduce
simplifications to ease the administrative burden for participants, streamline
the applicable rules and procedures, ensure consistency between instruments and
apply a new risk/trust balance. Particular attention is being paid to ensuring
the participation of SMEs.

Education and Culture

The Interim Evaluation 2007-2013 of
the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP)[37] covered the four sectoral programmes[38] and the Transversal and the
Jean Monnet programmes, supporting transnational mobility, partnerships and
other cooperation projects in all educational sectors covered by the LLP.

It confirmed that the more integrated approach
increased the efficiency and effectiveness of the programmes. Important
synergies were exploited, particularly in administration and promotion actions.
However, the programme was found to be highly complex with around 70 actions
and too many objectives, often with missing links between different levels.

The LLP has progressed successfully towards
its objectives. Up to 96-100% of the earmarked funds were used in the initial
years of implementation. Institutional beneficiaries pointed to the benefits of
improved content and practice in education and training. The evaluation noted
significant European added-value: enhanced policy cooperation and interchange
between the Participating countries and an increased European dimension. The
evaluation identified nonetheless the risk that some of the programme's
quantified targets (such as on mobility and the Grundtvig) may not be reached
due to insufficient funding and that results needed to be better mainstreamed into
policy to increase the effectiveness of the programme.

Based on these findings, the Commission
proposals for 2014-2020 include further integration of the LLP with the Youth
in Action and various international co-operation programmes. This is intended
to create one simplified and streamlined system, helping to further develop a
coherent approach to lifelong learning, thereby improving efficiency and
cost-effectiveness. It is also planned to exploit similarities between the
previously different programmes to the full and ensure that activities in
certain areas gain the critical mass necessary to provide long lasting impact.
By improving flexibility and increasing the incentives available, the budget
allocation between actions, beneficiaries and countries should better reflect
performance and potential impact.

The evaluation of
the European Institute of Innovation and Technology [39]
covered the creation of the Institute, its entry into operation and initial actions
up to 2010. It concluded that EIT implementation remained on track and was even
ahead of schedule for the selection of the first Knowledge and Innovation
Communities (KICs). The budget was considered to be sufficient while leverage
rates within the KICs had been marginally higher than anticipated, with the
KICs drawing on additional sources of finance including partner’s own resources
(49%), national and regional funds (21%), and other EU sources (7%). It was
concluded that the EIT offers strong EU added-value.

Heading 1b - Cohesion for Growth and
Employment

Employment and Social Affairs

The Evaluation[40] of the European Social Fund
support for gender equality found that Member State implementation started more
slowly for gender-equality specific actions than for other parts of the ESF
Operational Programmes (OPs). For some Member States, this was the result of
the economic crisis which shifted attention and resources away from the
gender-equality objective towards labour market policies and reducing
unemployment. Nevertheless, all Member States take account of gender equality
although to varying degrees within their ESF OPs. In some cases the ESF
provides the only source of funding for the actions concerned. The evaluation
found that while ESF interventions focused on essential issues, there is a
tendency for Member States to focus on the supply-side— i.e. women's labour
market participation and their capacities to compete in the labour market’—
more than on crucial aspects and causes of gender inequality (e.g. educational
segregation, work organisation, cultural and social stereotypes). The
evaluation concluded that the programmes provided added-value in
capacity-building and supported the uptake of gender equality on the policy
agenda of most Member States .

The evaluation of European Social Fund
Support for Enhancing Access to the Labour Market and the Social Inclusion of
Migrants and Ethnic Minorities (2000-2006) confirmed that the ESF was making a
positive contribution in helping people with a migrant and minority background
to overcome barriers to labour market access, to improve language skills and
strengthen basic skills for employability. Regarding systems and structures,
the capacity of public institutions to promote the integration of people with a
minority background had been strengthened as a result.

In this policy area the ESF filled an
important funding gap. It had brought additional targeted funding support that
would not otherwise have been available. The ESF, and the EQUAL[41] programme in particular,
supported wider target groups than those normally covered by national budgets. Participation
by migrants and minorities was significantly higher in 2007-2013 than in 2000-2006
(1.19 m people, or approximately 8.7% of all ESF beneficiaries.)

The Commission proposal for the next
generation of Structural Funds should contribute to simplification of
procedures and improvement of the synergies with the European Regional and
Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development and the future European Maritime and Fisheries fund.

The ex-ante evaluation of the future
PROGRESS programme (the "European Union Programme Social Change and
Innovation") highlighted the need to increase the coherence of EU action
in the employment and social areas by bringing together and developing the combined
implementation of the PROGRESS and EURES programmes and the European Progress
Microfinance facility. In addition, the new Programme was found to provide an
opportunity to simplify implementation through common provisions covering,
inter alia, common general objectives, common typology of actions and
rationalisation of reporting and evaluation.

Regional
Policy

Regional Policy
is delivered through shared management with Member States and regions
responsible for implementing programmes combining EU and national and regional
resources aiming to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Evaluation is also a shared responsibility. Evaluation evidence is used
whenever it becomes available and is most likely to feed into changes in policy
when it accumulates across a number of evaluations. Evaluation evidence from
the 2000-2006 period (programmes were in operation until 2009) informed the
proposals for the future policy, 2014-2020, in the 5th Cohesion
Report in 2010 as well as the MFF proposals in 2011. Evidence obtained in
previous years, as well as that gathered in 2011 on the previous and current
programming period has also fed into the European Commission's position papers
on future Cohesion Policy in each Member State and will be discussed in the
negotiations on the new programmes – a process which will continue until the
end of 2013.

In 2011 the ex
post evaluations of the 2000 – 2006 programming period were still being
completed. Evaluation findings concerning the on-going implementation of the
2007-2013 period were also obtained. The evaluation results confirm the direction
of the Commission's proposals for the 2014-2020 programming period. Detailed
policy insights will be discussed with Member States so that they can be
reflected in the new programmes which will be developed in the coming year.

As part of the ex-post
evaluation of the Cohesion Fund 2000 – 2006, three work packages were
completed in 2011 with the final synthesis to be available in 2012. Two studies,[42] on transport and environment,
used ex post cost benefit analysis to evaluate impact. Although the evaluation
concluded that it was too early to fully assess impacts, the method was found
to be appropriate and will be used further in the future. All the transport
projects delivered value for money and the Cohesion Fund contribution was
necessary to unlock their economic benefits. The analysis of the environmental
projects showed that many environment infrastructure projects were carried out
to meet the legal requirements. Costs were higher than the benefits that could
be quantified but the projects generated important effects in terms of
environmental awareness and institutional learning. Important policy lessons
from these evaluations and from those completed in earlier years on transport
and environment projects co-financed by the ERDF are being discussed with the
Member States and will feed into the design of the future policy.

Evaluations of
Regional Policy enterprise and innovation support[43] provided further evidence to
confirm the correctness of the Commission's proposal to
exclude large enterprises from general ERDF support schemes in the future. The impact of enterprise support was found to be greatest when
targeted on smaller firms. The
study of innovation support in Germany[44]
showed that the R&D grants impacted on a wide range of measures, from
innovation in existing products and processes to the development of new ones.
More research is needed to explore if smaller grants might be more effective
than big grants over time and to further explore best use of loans rather than
grants.

The Expert Evaluation Network, which
reports each year on regional policy performance in the current programming
period, concluded that delays in implementing
programmes were increasing the risk of priority being given to absorption
rather than effectiveness. Nevertheless, there are
signs of accelerated implementation, increased evidence
of achievements and overall improvement in the quality of evaluations
undertaken by the Member States. Policy Papers on Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency, undertaken by the network, showed that the EU support is marginal relative to national funding,
raising the question of added-value. Investments in the sector need careful
analysis on a case by case basis to ensure good value for money.

Overall, the
evidence generated from evaluations in 2011 confirmed the necessity to
strengthen the results-focus of current and future policy and the necessity for
Member States to undertake more evaluations of the impacts of policy. These
elements are at the heart of the Commission's proposals for the future.

Heading 2 - Preservation and Management
of Natural Resources

Agriculture and Rural Development

The Evaluation of income effects of direct
support[45]
confirmed that direct payments have contributed to
enhancing the income of farmers and played an important role in generating farm
income. This was particularly true for grazing livestock farms (beef, sheep and
goats), field crops, mixed farms and dairy farms. Direct payments
have contributed to reducing the gap between the average farm income per labour
unit of small and large farms. The efficiency of direct payments providing
income support to farmers was quite high, although with notable differences
across regions.

The Evaluation of CAP measures applied to
the sugar sector[46] indicated that the 2006 sugar reform significantly
accelerated the restructuring process of the sector. Improvements in yields accelerated as did the concentration
of production in larger farms. Although
the overall objectives of the reform[47]
have been achieved, the management of the system by quota and reference price
remain complex.

The evaluation of CAP reform
measures applied to the dairy sector,[48]
showed dairy policy contributed to a falling structural excess of supply from
2004 onwards. The total cost of the dairy support policy declined whilst
the market balance. Producer income levels were maintained during the time
covered by the evaluation data and the interests of producers in production
flexibility and expansion were satisfied. The reform entailed more administrative
burden and exposure to price risk. The evaluation recommended the introduction
of more flexible instruments to respond to world market developments.

The evaluation of CAP reform
measures applied to the sheep and goat sector showed that the reform facilitated
an increase in productivity, although the overall competitiveness of the sector
was not improved. Payments granted in Italy and Greece in the framework of assistance to sectors with special problems were low and had little impact. In the sheep
meat sector, support offered through the rural development programmes is
considered critical to maintaining the sector. In addition, coupled support
provides environmental and social benefits in some regions and is necessary for
maintaining production in sensitive regions.

The evaluation of
promotion and information actions for agricultural products[49] reports that multi-country activities or campaigns in third
countries would be less likely without EU funding. While stakeholders are
enthusiastic about information and promotion programmes which have contributed
to improving the image and raising awareness of the quality and the specific
production methods of EU agricultural products, there is a need to better
identify direct economic impact of these programmes.

The evaluation of the
exceptional market support measures in the poultry and egg sector indicated
that the common EU approach to tackle strong market disturbances (such as
plummeting demand and prices caused by a lack of consumer confidence due to Avian
Flu) provided an adequate response. Although the measures could not stabilize
the market in the short term due to their long preparation time, they ensured
that a substantial part of the severe income losses could be compensated within
a reasonable time. The evaluation concluded that the Commission should develop instruments
to deal with such crises in consumer confidence that can be used swiftly to
stabilize the market.

Evaluation results have fed into the
Commission's October 2011 CAP reform proposals, for example in relation to the
proposals for further decoupling and in the design of the rural development
policy framework. In future, monitoring and evaluation is
planned to be brought under a common framework to measure the performance of
the CAP as a whole within Europe 2020. To this end, a process has started to
develop a common set of indicators linked to the policy objectives.

Maritime
Affairs and Fisheries

The Interim
evaluation (study) of the European Fisheries Fund (2007-2013)[50] concluded that the management
and control systems for the Fund had met with start-up problems, but are now
working satisfactorily. The shift towards one single operational programme,
while beneficial at EU level, has increased the management costs for most Member
States. Better audit and control methods have lowered financial risks, but the
administrative burden remains too high for small Member States particularly the
new Member States. Monitoring and evaluation frameworks focused on output
rather than impacts and lacked a common definition of the units to be measured.
Furthermore, indicators were not used for reporting nor verified
systematically.

These findings
were taken into account in the proposal for the new Fund for the EU maritime
and fisheries policies (2014-2020). Main changes include a major simplification
and alignment of different administrative rules and procedures on financial
decisions, reporting, monitoring and evaluation; stronger links with the key
objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform through the introduction
of conditionality rules, closer co-ordination with other
funds as well as an improved monitoring and evaluation system based on common
indicators across the Member States.

Heading 3a - Freedom, Security and
Justice

Home

The Report of the Commission and the Mid-Term
Evaluation of the External Borders Fund[51]
found that, despite start-up difficulties, the Fund was delivering in line with
its objectives to channel EU aid to boost investments at borders and in
consulates in the interest of the Schengen area as a whole. Investments in
national communication systems for border control and in the Schengen Information
System II improved the safety of EU external borders. In addition, investments
for the set–up of the Visa Information System improved the visa handling
process Despite the overall contribution of the Fund to a better border
management and use of new technologies, Member states have questioned the
effectiveness and efficiency of some of the projects.

The Report of the Commission and the Mid-Term
Evaluation of the European Return Fund (2008-2013) showed that the Fund
has contributed to developing and consolidating return management practices in
many Member States. For example, it contributed to: shortening the length of
stay in reception and/or detention centres and increased numbers of
third-country nationals opting for voluntary return. As a result, this
population benefited from better treatment than they would have encountered had
they been forcibly removed.

The Report of the Commission and the
Mid-Term Evaluation of the European Fund for the Integration of
third-country nationals (2008-2013) found that, in spite of start-up
difficulties, the majority of Member States expected to complete the planned
actions and meet the objectives set. By targeting specific measures or groups
not normally within the scope of mainstream funding instruments, the Fund
demonstrated genuine added value. In several Member States, the Fund supported
the design of a comprehensive policy framework and provided resources for its
implementation. However, the administrative workload associated with the
programmes should be reduced.

The Mid-Term Evaluation of the Framework
Programme Security and Safeguarding Liberties (2007-2013)[52] concluded that the Programme is effective
in its pan-European dimension and in supporting a wide range of activities. Rather
heavy administrative application procedures may have had a negative impact on
project implementation. The added value of the EU was nevertheless assessed as
high and the overall implementation of the programme was considered reasonably
successful.For the years 2014-2020, the Commission has proposed that the Home Affairs
funds and programmes should be reduced from six to two: The Asylum and
Migration Fund and The Internal Security Fund. Other evaluation
results were taken into account in these Commission proposals.

Justice

The interim evaluation[53] of the Civil Justice
Programme[54]
showed that the objectives were highly relevant in supporting European
justice policy. The activities financed help civil society organisations and
Member States to make an effective contribution to the formulation and smooth
implementation of EU law. In addition, the programme was considered to be
efficiently managed, despite limited human resources. The
interim evaluation suggested a merge of the Civil Justice and the Criminal
Justice Programme in the new Multiannual Financial Framework.

The interim evaluation of the Criminal
Justice Programme [55]confirmed
that the supported actions tackle important problems and complement national
measures. However, it also identified the need to increase the effectiveness of
funding through better priority setting, targeting increased European added
value, improving publicity and simplifying implementation.

The interim
evaluation[56]
of the Daphne III Programme[57] concluded that the programme is highly
relevant to the problems it was designed to address, although links between the
programme and policy development could be strengthened. There is room for
improvement to promote EU-wide partnerships and to
ensure a balanced geographic spread of lead organisations. The financial
resources to implement actions were assessed as allowing high quality projects
to be funded, while the ratio of success in project selection was ensuring
significant competition among projects. The dissemination of the results could
be improved. The interim evaluation of the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship
Programme[58]
indicated that, while it is too early to draw conclusions on impacts due to the
limited number of finalised projects, the type of projects funded were all
well-suited to the objectives and priorities of the programme. A wider European
dimension balanced participation of organisations from EU Member States and
dissemination of results are areas for improvement.

The interim
evaluation[59]
of the Drug Prevention and Information Programme (DPIP)[60] could not draw conclusions on effectiveness
as few projects were completed. Difficulties were being encountered involving
vulnerable groups and in ensuring long-term value added of projects. The need
for additional financial resources was identified as was the need to strengthen
the synergies between the various financial instruments supporting the
objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy. The evaluation recommended improved
cooperation with other programmes, the Public Health Programme in particular,
to avoid duplication and to allow potential beneficiaries to target their
applications more efficiently.

Heading 3b - Citizenship

Communication

The interim evaluation of Euranet[61] showed
that the existence of the network has led to an increased coverage of EU
affairs and enriched editorial value. Increased production and broadcasting of
EU news and programmes is unlikely to be sustainable without this funding. The
evaluation on the other hand pointed to issues, such as the uneven extent of
coverage of EU affairs as a share of overall production, the uneven
representation of different language groups in the participating partners and
the slow development of the network, especially in terms of expanding language
coverage. In the follow-up on these issues seven new radio stations have added
four languages across five countries and a stronger production focus on EU
issues has been introduced. The design of the next phase of the project has
been adapted according to the main conclusions of the evaluation.

Health and Consumer Protection

The ex-post
evaluation of the Public Health programme for 2003-2008[62] concluded that even if, as the first programme in the field of public health at EU
level, it may have been desirable to fund a broad spectrum of activities, a
more targeted effort in selected areas was of crucial importance for the next
generation of the programme. The evaluation called for a strengthened focus on European
added-value, both through choice of priority areas in annual work programmes
and in application decisions.

Similarly the mid-term evaluation of
the successor programme[63]
concluded that it should be much more focused on
priorities and concentrate financial support to bring the largest EU added-value.
In terms of organisation and management, it was confirmed that a process is in
place to determine priorities in the Annual Work Programmes and to ensure their
alignment with the overall objectives of the PHP. However, this process is not
considered as particularly clear or consistent. PHP actions generally
correspond to the objectives of the programme, but it is still too early to
assess results and impacts. The majority of actions are seen to have had EU wide
effects and most actions would not have taken place, or would have been
undertaken with a less ambitious scope, in the absence of PHP funding. The case
study assessment showed that EU added-value appeared to feature most
prominently in the areas of “promotion of best practices” and “networking”. On
efficiency, economies of scale were expected in most actions, although the ways
to measure this have not been clearly set out. The outsourcing of management to
the EAHC was identified as having resulted in a significant improvement in
delivery.

The new
Programme on Health aims to focus on fewer actions, of proven EU added-value,
that deliver concrete results, and respond to identified needs or gaps. The new
programme also seeks to improve the way Member States cooperate in the area of
health and to provide leverage for reform of national health policies.

Taxation and Customs Union

The Mid-term Evaluation of the Fiscalis
Programme[64]
concluded that the programme had made a positive contribution to improving the
functioning of taxation systems in the internal market and is relevant to the
challenges faced by national authorities. It concluded that the programme
offers high EU added-value: many activities necessary to achieve progress in
taxation cooperation would not have happened at all, or would have only
happened much later or at a higher cost and with less optimal results, if the
cooperation framework of the programme had not existed. The overall conclusion
was that Fiscalis offers good value for money.

The evaluation nonetheless indicated that
the programme's effectiveness was more limited in terms of increasing
understanding of EU law and in the fight against fraud. It also recommended that
a results-based monitoring and evaluation system be set-up. Results of the
programme should be better disseminated and programme activities could benefit
from the involvement of a larger community of stakeholders.

The Mid-term Evaluation of the Customs
Programme highlighted the programme's effective contribution to the functioning
of the internal market. The programme demonstrated EU added-value supporting
activities that would not have taken place, or would have been significantly
more resource or time-intensive, without EU coordination and financial support.
It facilitated increased co-operation and coordination between national customs
administrations, thus enhancing exchange of information and good practices.

The efficiency of the Joint actions under
the Programme were rated as high while there has been a much lower level of
co-operation with other public and private bodies to improve security and fight
against fraud. The contribution to trade facilitation with third countries was
not highly rated. The evaluation pointed out that further efficiency gains
could have been achieved by better disseminating results and broadening the
involvement of and support to the candidate and potential candidate countries.

Education and Culture

The Interim
Evaluation [65]
of the Youth in Action Programme (YiA)[66] concluded that the programme is successfully achieving its
objectives thus far, actively targeting young people with fewer opportunities. YiA
contributes to the achievement of EU Youth policy objectives and has fostered
continued youth participation in events after YiA, work for NGOs and increased
mobility. The activities that YiA supports would likely not find funding
elsewhere. YiA has a high absorption rate. The management costs appeared
relatively high, but justified by the nature of the Programme. The allocation
of the budget was appropriate. Nevertheless, youth organisations and National
Agencies both continued to experience a relatively high administrative burden
even though management tools had been considerably improved. There was high
participant satisfaction, comparing positively with youth programmes organised
in Member States, and the implementation structures were considered efficient.

Heading 4 -
EU as a Global Player

Development
and External relations

The two pilot evaluations on budget support in Tunisia[67] and Mali[68] concluded that Budget Support
is an effective tool in countries where the government is committed to robust
development policies. In Tunisia, Budget Support contributed to significant
economic growth, private sector development but should have better addressed poverty
reduction. In Mali, it contributed to some strong positive outcomes in education
and health. Budget Support is complementary to other forms of aid, especially
for capacity-building. It cannot determine major policy changes but can provide
additional support for policy implementation. Its impact is greater when linked
to wider political and economic partnerships.

The thematic evaluation[69]
EU support for employment and social inclusion in
partner countries (ESI)[70] concluded that, although ESI is a key priority in development
policy, there was little mainstreaming into development programmes and there
was a lack of ESI-related indicators in programme design. Few interventions
outside vocational education and training focused explicitly on employment
creation. The new instrument for development cooperation (2014-20) responds to
the need to target more human development through its
Global Public Goods and Challenges thematic programme, including health,
education, gender equality, employment, skills, social protection and social
inclusion as well as economic development-related aspects such as growth, jobs,
trade and private sector engagement.

The evaluation[71] of support to Conflict
Prevention and Peace-building (CPPB)[72] concluded that the EU has significantly increased its focus,
strengthened its policy framework and developed a wide range of financial and
non-financial instruments. The Commission provided value added in terms of
neutrality, reliability (continued presence), critical financial mass, ability
to draw on a wide array of instruments, long-term experience and credibility in
terms of promoting democracy, peace and human rights. However, the conceptual
orientations at policy level have not always been appropriate at operational
level. The EU should consolidate and further develop its support for CPPB and
ensure that its financial support is sufficiently complemented and leveraged by non-financial support.

The evaluation[73] of EC Cooperation with overseas countries and territories (OCTs)[74] concluded that EU support has been consistent with the EU policy
objectives of promoting the economic and social development and bringing them
economically closer to the EU. Regarding trade, the EU preference regime did
not sufficiently counterbalance the constraints on economic diversification.
The involvement of the OCTs in regional programmes was minimised by isolation
from regional networking, high participation costs and sometimes by language
barriers. Few results have been achieved on climate change and disaster crisis management.

The evaluation
of the crisis response and preparedness components of the European Union’s Instrument
for Stability (IfS)[75]
concluded that the IfS has significantly contributed to enhancing the overall
relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of EU crisis response and preparedness
actions and that the IfS makes also a significant contribution to the coherence
of the EU peace, security and development architecture – and to global peace
and stability. Critical to its contributions is the IfS demonstrated capacity
to provide quick and timely responses in situations of crisis.

Humanitarian
Aid and Civil Protection

The evaluations
concluded in 2011 showed that the Commission's activities: addressed major health risks, lowering mortality rates improving disease
control for Burmese refugees in Cambodia; provided a relevant and effective
response to the cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe; provided relevant and appropriate
multi-sectoral programmes in Uganda; and contributed actively to the overall
European response to the Haitian earthquake. .The evaluations in Haiti and Zimbabwe highlighted the need to define earlier in the interventions the necessary links
between relief with rehabilitation and development (LRRD). This finding confirms
the current Commission proposals in Humanitarian Aid, by consistently
mainstreaming and strengthening LRRD in humanitarian interventions.

Finally, the Evaluation of the Civil Protection Mechanism and
the CP Financial Instrument 2007-2009[76] has shown that both components have substantially contributed to
developing further European cooperation and coordination.

Enlargement

An evaluation
to support the preparation of pre-accession financial instruments (IPA)[77] beyond
2013 at sector, country and regional level, confirmed the overall relevance
ensured by IPA assistance. The evaluation also concluded that the economic and
wider benefits of enlargement would more than offset the cost of a new
financial instrument and that the EU instrument would enable the realisation of
European added value, linking financial support to progress with political
criteria, enabling the EU to act as a catalyst for supranational and
interregional cooperation, also acting as a broker to bring
in the expertise of different administrations and agencies within the EU (e.g.
twinning).

The evaluation
also confirms the existence of a strong rationale for the future pre-accession
financial instrument, which would usefully benefit from improved coherence between policy dialogue and financial cooperation, a programming
process focused on sectoral approaches, multi-annual programming, greater
involvement of beneficiaries and stakeholders in all stages as well as the
introduction of performance incentives

3.         Conclusions

Evaluation results in this Report generally
indicate that objectives of various financial programmes have been met and EU
value added demonstrated. However, the Report draws mainly on interim
evaluations which have a strong operational focus and are not conclusive
concerning final results or impacts. Lessons have been drawn from experience
and indications are given of possible areas for improvement. Where possible
this report has identified recommended remedial action that has influenced
follow-on programmes. Generally the report points to
the need for a stronger focus, linking results to objectives and for increased
attention to coherence and consistency across actions.

The Commission wishes
to define more clearly how to improve this report in discussion with the
Discharge authority. The Commission also notes the request of the Court of
Auditors for the report to be produced earlier in the year.

Looking to the
future, the Report will be designed to show whether EU programmes are on track
and to identify results and impacts as they become available. In order to achieve
this goal, a strong and consistent framework needs to
be established to ensure monitoring of progress throughout the life of the
programmes.

[1]               The first evaluation report on the financial year
2010 was adopted by the Commission on 17 Feb. 2012 (ref. COM(2012)40).

[2]               EP discharge decision of 10.05.2011 on discharge in
respect of the implementation of the EU budget for 2009; section III;
paragraphs 71 and 72

[3]               Court of Auditor's opinion 4/2012, received by the
Commission on 7 June

[4]               That is: the Commission's Strategic Planning and
Programming Cycle – the Annual Activity Reports, Annual Budget Statements, etc.

[5]               Conclusions section, page 16.

[6]               EP Discharge 2010
(P7\_TA(2012)0153)\_Part I).

[7]               Court of Auditor's opinion 4/2012, received by the
Commission on 7 June

[8]               Evaluative studies may contain reviews of specific
aspects of the performance of activities and/or focus on monitoring and
implementation issues.

[9]               Standing
instructions to 2011 AARs - Article 60(7) of the
Financial Regulation,

[10]             Art 33 FR

[11]             Approximate multiannual budget of EUR 3,6 billion.

[12]             The general approach in this report is to identify
Interim evaluations. Where there is no indication of the interim or ex-post
nature of the evaluation, it contains elements of both.

[13]             Even if the programme covers the period 2007-2013, it
is expected that the last results will be achieved around 2017.

[14]             http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/dg/files/evaluation/eye\_final\_report\_en.pdf

[15]             Approximate budget of EUR 34
million

[16]             EU budget only used for guarantees

[17]             The TEN-T programme is directed to ensuring the
cohesion, interconnection and interoperability of the trans-European transport network and access to it.

[18]             Approximate budget of EUR 8
billion

[19]             Eighteen address rail and two address inland waterways

[20]             The indication interim or ex post is not specified for
evaluations which concern predecessor and ongoing programmes

[21]             http://ec.europa.eu/transport/evaluations/doc/2011\_marco-polo-programme-2003-2010.pdf.
Partly an ex-post evaluation of the last programme and partly an interim
evaluation of the current programme

[22]             Approximate budget of EUR 417 million only for Marco
Polo I

[23]             http://ec.europa.eu/information\_society/activities/sip/policy/programme/current\_prog/index\_en.htm

[24]             Approximate budget of EUR 55 million

[25]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0548:FIN:En:PDF

[26]             Approximate budget of EUR 149
million

[27]             http://ec.europa.eu/energy/evaluations/doc/2011\_iee2\_programme.pdf

[28]             Approximate budget of EUR 730
million

[29]             http://ec.europa.eu/energy/evaluations/doc/2011\_eepr\_mid\_term\_evaluation.pdf

[30]             Approximate budget of EUR 4 billion

[31]             Approximate budget of EUR 55 billion (Euratom included)

[32]    Situation on
30.09.2012

[33]             ‘Open access’, defined as free access over the
internet, aims to improve and promote the dissemination of knowledge, thereby improving the efficiency
of scientific discovery and maximising return on investment in R&D by
public research funding bodies.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1294&lang=1

[34]             Fifth FP7
Monitoring Report - Monitoring Report 2011 – http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index\_en.cfm?pg=fp7-monitoring

[35]             http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index\_en.cfm

[36]             The evaluation of the FP7 Transport Research programme,
the survey carried out in the Impact Assessment of the Regions of Knowledge
Programme, the evaluation study of the FP6-NMP programme

[37]             Approximate budget of EUR 7 billion

[38]             http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education\_culture/evalreports/education/2011/llpreport\_en.pdf

[39]             Approximate budget of EUR 309 million

[40]                http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?type=0&policyArea=0&subCategory=0&country=0&year=0&advSearchKey=evaluationesf&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en

[41]             Addressing discrimination in employment and the jobs
market

[42]             http://ec.europa.eu/regional\_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/expost2006/wpb\_en.htm

[43]             http://ec.europa.eu/regional\_policy/information/evaluations/impact\_evaluation\_en.cfm#1

[44]             http://ec.europa.eu/regional\_policy/information/evaluations/impact\_evaluation\_en.cfm#2

[45]             http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/income/index\_en.htm

[46]             http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/sugar-2011/index\_en.htm

[47]             Restructuring of sugar
sector, market stabilisation and enhancing market orientation, availability of
sugar supplies.

[48]             http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/dairy-sector-2011\_en.htm

[49]             http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/promotion/index\_en.htm

[50]             http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/eff\_interim\_evaluation\_en.pdf Approximate budget
of EUR 4.3 billion

[51]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0857:EN:NOT

[52]             Composed of the programmes
"Prevention and Fight against Crime (ISEC)” and “Prevention,

Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security
Related Risks (CIPS)".

[53]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0351:FIN:EN:PDF

[54]             Approximate budget of EUR 109
million

[55]             Approximate budget of EUR 199
million

[56]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0254:FIN:EN:PDF

[57]             Approximate budget of EUR 116 million

[58]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0249:FIN:EN:PDF. Approximate budget of EUR 93 million

[59]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V5&T2=2011&T3=246&RechType=RECH\_naturel&Submit=Search

[60]             Approximate budget of EUR 21
million

[61]             The European radio network

[62]             Approximate budget of EUR 312
million

http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/ex\_post\_evaluation\_en.pdf

[63]             http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/mthp\_final\_report\_oct2011\_en.pdf

[64]             Approximate budget of EUR 157 million

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation\_customs/resources/documents/common/publications/studies/fiscalis2013\_mid\_term\_report\_en.pdf

[65]             http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education\_culture/evalreports/youth/2011/interimreport\_en.pdf

[66]             Approximate budget of EUR 885 million

[67]             http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation\_reports/2011/1286\_docs\_en.htm

[68]             http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation\_reports/2011/1290\_docs\_en.htm

[69]             http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation\_reports/2011/1296\_docs\_en.htm

[70]             Approximate budget of EUR 7,9
billion

[71]             http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation\_reports/2011/1291\_docs\_en.htm

[72]             Approximate budget of EUR 7,7
billion over 2001-2010

[73]             http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation\_reports/2011/1294\_docs\_en.htm

[74]             Approximate budget of EUR 286 million over 1999-2009

[75]             http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat\_general/evaluation/search/search.do

[76]             Approximate budget of EUR 190 million for the 2007-2013
period.

[77]             Approximate budget of EUR 11,5 billion over the
2007-2013 period

[Top](#document1)