7 (f ) IV. there was no significant difference eXecutive summarY (b) investment projects were matched more closely with institution-building projects; (c) all donors active in the area, including the commission as the main donor, coordinated better with each other (for example one donor could fund or co-fund a project designed by another donor); (d) the procurement process for equipment was reconsidered by the donor community. wherever possible, joint investment pools managed by the recipient countries should be considered. V. project sustainability could be improved in the degree of success achieved in if: (d) although not all investment projects achieved fully satisfactory results and the sustainability is at risk, the investment assistance financed by the commission made a relevant and useful contribution to the national infrastructure and institutions; (e) on the other hand the achievements of institution-building projects were only partially satisfactory and unlikely to be sustainable. this was due to continued political weakness and lack of commitment (ownership) by the beneficiaries, as most reform initiatives do not come from within the region but from the european commission or other external stakeholders; projects managed by the delegations compared with those managed by the european agency for reconstruction. (a) beneficiary involvement were increased; (b) no projects were launched without a maintenance plan; (c) the commission monitored more closely the distribution and evaluated the use of eu-funded equipment and infrastructure; (d) the delivery of technical assistance was adequately complemented by active encouragement for institutional change. on the basis of these observations, the court makes recommendations which could help the commission to provide more efficient and effective assistance. the project results could be improved if: (a) when designing the justice and home affairs projects, the community support complied with annual programme objectives (for example the future joint border crossing points should be given priority as this would foster regional cooperation); special report no 12/2009 — the effectiveness of the commission's projects in the area of justice and home affairs for the western balkans 
7 d) trots att inte alla investeringsprojekt uppnådde helt tillfredsställande resultat och att hållbarheten är hotad, bidrog det investeringsstöd som finansierades av kommission på ett relevant och värdefullt sätt till den nationella infrastrukturen och de nationella institutionerna. saMMan-fattning b) investeringsprojekten i högre grad kompletterades med institutionsuppbyggnadsprojekt, c) samordningen mellan alla givare som är verksamma på området, även kommissionen såsom den största givaren, var bättre (till exempel kunde en givare finansiera eller samfinansiera ett projekt som utformats av en annan givare), d) givarsamfundet omprövade upphandlingsprocessen för utrustning; om möjligt bör gemensamma investe-ringspooler som förvaltas av mottagarländerna övervägas. e) å andra sidan var de resultat som institutionsuppbyggnadsprojekten uppnådde endast delvis tillfredsställande och sannolikt inte hållbara. detta berodde på fortsatt politisk svaghet och brist på engagemang (egenansvar) bland stödmottagarna, eftersom de flesta reforminitiativ inte kommer från regionen utan från europeiska kommissionen eller andra externa intres-V. senter. f) det var ingen större skillnad mellan de resultat som uppnåddes i projekt som hade förvaltats av delegationerna jämfört med de projekt som hade förvaltats av europeiska byrån för återuppbyggnad.