Contents

INTRODUCTION.. 3

PART I: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS. 5

I) The internal EU policies. 5

I.1 Improved reporting on the contribution of 2014-2020 MFF spending programmes to Europe 2020. 5

I.2 Increased focus on performance – the example of the European Structural and Investment Funds. 5

I.3. Annual reporting under Article 318 on programme implementation. 6

I.4. Management mode – implications for the MORE Frameworks. 6

1.5. Progressive performance reporting during 2014-2020: Which performance information becomes available when?. 8

II) External policies of the Union. 11

III) Concluding remarks. 12

PART II: OVERVIEW MORE FRAMEWORKS. 14

H1a Competitiveness for growth and jobs. 14

EGNOS and Galileo (European Satellite Navigation Programmes) 14

ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) 18

Copernicus (European Earth Observation Programme) 20

Nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia  25

Horizon 2020 (framework programme for research and innovation) 31

Euratom research and training programme. 37

COSME (Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises) 41

Erasmus +. 48

EaSI (programme for employment and social innovation) 57

Fiscalis 2020. 60

Customs 2020. 63

HERCULE III 66

Pericles 2020. 68

CEF (Connecting Europe Facility) 69

Transport envelope. 69

Energy envelope. 76

ICT envelope. 79

Standards in the fields of financial reporting and auditing. 81

ISA (Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations) 83

ESP (European Statistical Programme) 87

EGF (European Globalisation Adjustment Fund) 90

H1b Cohesion policy. 92

ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) 92

CF (Cohesion fund) 99

ESF (European Social Fund) 104

FEAD (Fund for European Aid for the most deprived) 109

H2 Sustainable growth.. 111

CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) 111

EAGF (European Agricultural Guarantee Fund) 112

EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) 116

EMFF (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund) 119

RFMOs and SFPAs. 129

LIFE (Environment and climate action) 137

Sub-programme for environment 137

Sub-programme for climate action. 143

H3 security and citizenship. 154

AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) 154

ISF (Internal Security Fund) 161

Justice Programme. 167

REC programme (Rights, Equality and Citizenship) 171

UCPM (Union Civil protection mechanism) 176

Europe for Citizens. 179

Food and Feed. 184

Third Health Programme. 187

Consumer Programme. 190

Creative Europe. 193

H4 Global Europe. 199

ENI (European Neighbourhood Instrument) 204

DCI (Development Cooperation Instrument) 209

EIDHR (European Instrument Democracy Human Rights) 212

All objectives except election observation missions. 212

Election Observation Missions. 215

PI (Partnership Instrument) 217

INSC (Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation) 221

IcSP (Instrument contributing to stability and peace) 223

relating to specific objectives 1 and 2. 223

relating to specific objective 3. 226

Humanitarian Aid. 228

EUAV (EU aid volunteers) 231

CFSP (Common foreign and Security policy) 232

Macro-financial assistance. 234

UCPM (Union Civil Protection Mechanism) 235

IPA II (Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance) 236

Cooperation with Greenland. 250

Instrument Turkish Cypriot Community. 252

INTRODUCTION

This Staff Working Document ('SWD' 1) is one of the two SWDs accompanying the Commission's fourth Article 318 Evaluation Report. It delivers on one of the actions promised by the Action Plan attached to last year's Art 318 Evaluation Report namely to[1]: 

"(…) describe the framework for monitoring, evaluation and reporting to the end of the next MFF that results from the legal instruments supporting the next generation of programmes and the additional work of the Commission to complete the framework. For each policy area it will include the general and specific objectives of the programme, where appropriate linked to the main indicators attached to each objective, monitoring arrangements and the timing and content of evaluations and reporting. It will show how annual reporting on progress in the early implementation of the next MFF will be accompanied by continuing work on the ex-post evaluation of the performance of the current programmes. Alongside information on progress in implementation, it will show when the main evaluations of the performance of the current programme will have been completed and when and how progress and performance reporting on the 2014 -2020 programme will be made, including Commission and Member State contributions. It will indicate the timing of actions remaining to be taken to complete the framework".

The purpose of this SWD is to show how the spending programmes under the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) are equipped, through monitoring, reporting and evaluation arrangements, to measure progress in implementation and to evaluate the programmes' performance. It provides an outline of which type of information can be expected at different points in time during and after the current MFF period, including ex-post evaluations of the previous 2007-2013 MFF programmes, which will be consequently reported on in the Article 318 Evaluation Report.

This document is structured as follows:   

Part I provides an analysis of the main features and structure of the monitoring, reporting and evaluation frameworks (hereinafter referred to as 'MORE frameworks') for the spending programmes under the MFF 2014-2020[2]. It highlights issues which the European Parliament and the European Council have considered important in recent Discharge Reports and in the European Parliament resolution of 25 February 2014 on the Article 318 Evaluation Report.

The analysis:

- confirms that the general objectives of main spending programmes are linked to the Europe 2020 objectives (in I.1) with a view to measuring and reporting better on the contribution of spending programmes towards the Union's main objectives as requested by the Discharge Authority.

- highlights an increased focus on the performance of the programmes in the MORE frameworks of the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds through the so-called 'performance reserve' (in I.2). The Article 318 Evaluation Report will include information on its functioning.  

- confirms that the implementation of the programmes is regularly monitored, which allows for annual reporting in the Article 318 Evaluation Report on progress in programme implementation and programme management on the basis of the performance information provided in the Annual Activity Reports of the Commission's departments (I.3).

- shows that there are differences between the MORE frameworks of programmes directly managed by the Commission or agencies and programmes under shared management by the Commission and Member States. The MORE frameworks of the latter type of programmes are far more complex, as a consequence data on implementation and performance becomes available later to the Commission, which affects the timing of reporting under Article 318   (I.4).

- gives indications to the Discharge Authority when the Article 318 Evaluation Report can be expected to start reporting on programme performance; addressing performance aspects such as effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value (I.5). It shows that, in the early years of implementation of the programmes, ex-post evaluations of the performance of the previous MFF programmes will become available. From 2017 onwards, so from four years into the current spending programmes, mid-term evaluations will be completed; typically focussing on lessons learned from the early years of implementation as well as providing first indications on progress towards the achievement of programme objectives. The mid-term evaluations provide input for the preparation of proposals for spending programmes for the next MFF. From 2020, when financial resources are spent, the final and ex-post evaluation work will start, later producing conclusions on the longer term impact, sustainability of the financing, the attainment of objectives and on issues as effectiveness, efficiency and EU-added value of the programmes.

Part II gives an overview for all spending programmes of the set-up of the MORE frameworks on which the analysis in Part I has been based. The MORE frameworks are based on the legal acts adopted by the EU legislators. The frameworks include the programmes' general and specific objectives, indicators and milestones, as well as the main monitoring, reporting and evaluation actions, their content and timing. In addition, they include the timing and content of ex-post evaluations of MFF-2007-2013 spending programmes. In particular, the overview in Part II provides for each spending programme:

- A description of the general and specific objectives of the spending programme and an indication of how progress in achieving the objectives will be measured. It gives the baseline values, indicators, intermediate milestones and 2020 targets.

- An explanation of how monitoring and reporting arrangements are set up; the actors involved; the provisions to allow tracking progress on achieving milestones and targets. The frequency of monitoring reports is given as well as the issues covered by these reports and the intended use of the available monitoring data.

- The timing of planned evaluations, their scope and coverage.

PART I: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

The MFF covers both spending programmes aimed at contributing to the internal EU policies as well as spending programmes contributing to the Union's external policy objectives. The European Parliament has asked the Article 318 Evaluation Report to deal separately with the internal and external programmes. In addition, the MORE frameworks of the latter spending programmes are rather different from the spending programmes contributing to the Union's internal policies. The analysis therefore deals first with the EU's internal policies (I), then with the EU's external policies (II), before presenting concluding remarks (III).

I) The internal EU policies

I.1 Improved reporting on the contribution of 2014-2020 MFF spending programmes to Europe 2020

The objectives of all the main spending programmes contributing to the internal policies of the Union are linked to Europe 2020 objectives. Indications are therefore given how the spending programmes of the European Union aim to contribute to the Union's core 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. This is illustrated below with regard to the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) programme:

The CEF aims at "contributing to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy, by developing modern and high-performing trans-European networks which take into account expected future traffic flows, thus benefiting the entire Union in terms of improving competitiveness on the global market and economic, social and territorial cohesion in the internal market (…)". Source: Article 3(a) CEF Regulation

In addition to the main spending programmes aiming to contribute to the Union's core objectives, the MFF also covers a number of smaller spending programmes focussing on problems not specifically related to Europe 2020, such as "Pericles 2020", which aims to prevent and combat counterfeiting and related fraud, or the "Union Civil Protection Mechanism", aiming to help public authorities when faced with natural and man-made disasters.

Linking the general objectives of spending programmes to the EU 2020 goals allows the focus to be maintained on the relevance of these programmes to the EU 2020 targets for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which have become an integral part of the intervention logic of major spending programmes and funds. This should facilitate the identification of the contribution of spending programmes to the Union's main objectives. As a result, the Article 318 Evaluation Report should provide a report to the Discharge Authority which focuses more on the contribution of EU spending programmes to the Union's main objectives, as has been requested. 

I.2 Increased focus on performance – the example of the European Structural and Investment Funds

Result-orientation has been envisaged as an essential feature of the European Structural and Investment ('ESI') Funds (comprising: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). A special performance reserve of 6% has been put in place for this purpose. In 2019 the Commission will assess on the basis of the Annual Implementation Reports or progress reports submitted by the Member States whether the spending programmes succeeded in achieving the defined mid-term targets (milestones) for the end of 2018. If yes, the performance reserve will be released. If not, the amount for the non-performing activities will not be released and possibly payments will be suspended. The final achievements of targets will be assessed in 2025 and might form the basis of financial corrections.

In addition, ex-ante conditionalities have been introduced to ensure that all institutional and strategic policy arrangements are in place for effective and efficient implementation of the five ESI Funds. The fulfilment of these conditionalities should guarantee that appropriate regulatory framework, effective policies with clear objectives and a sufficient administrative or institutional capacity are available before the start of investments. Non-fulfilment of applicable ex-ante conditionalities may trigger suspension of payments by the Commission.

I.3. Annual reporting under Article 318 on programme implementation

Almost all spending programmes will present at least an annual report covering the implementation of the programme and later also progress on achieving objectives. Less frequent reporting takes place on a bi-annual basis for two spending programmes: the EaSi programme (Programme for Employment and Social Innovation) and European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

For most spending programmes reporting begins either in 2014 covering implementation results of the same year, or in 2015 covering implementation results of the preceding year (n+1). The last year of reporting for most spending programmes is 2020 or 2021 (n+1), with some exceptions of reporting ending earlier[3]. However, for some programmes under shared management (such as the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund, the ESF, as well as the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund or the Internal Security Fund) annual reporting starts later in 2016 (n+2) and continues until 2024.

I.4. Management mode – implications for the MORE Frameworks

The MFF spending programmes are managed in various ways: Many spending programmes are managed either directly by the Commission or by its executive agencies (direct management). However, the main part of the MFF budget is spent through programmes which are implemented by bodies designated by Member States (shared management). The complexity of the spending programmes and their management modes are mirrored in the set-up of the MORE frameworks, as illustrated below.

The Horizon 2020 programme is a good example of a directly managed programme with a straightforward MORE framework.

Example 1: Horizon 2020

The monitoring and reporting system contains three main components:

1. The "CORDA Data Warehouse": A comprehensive system to collect all relevant data on the implementation of Horizon 2020 activities

2. The Commission's annual monitoring reports 2015-2020 giving a systematic overview of implementation and, as of 2018, of key achievements

3. Evaluations at EU level: 2015 (ex-post preceding programme); 2017(mid-term evaluation); and 2023 (ex-post evaluation). Key Performance Indicators focussing on results will be the main elements for the evaluations.

The MORE frameworks of programmes under shared management are more complicated. Given the higher number of actors involved in disbursing funds, in collecting data and in monitoring, additional steps are needed to aggregate the data at EU-level. As a consequence, EU-wide performance information from spending programmes under shared management becomes available later than for spending programmes that are centrally managed. This is illustrated by the example below. 

Example 2: European Structural and Investment Funds

Common monitoring, reporting and evaluation rules are in place for the ESI Funds[4]. They set out the respective responsibilities of the Member States and the Commission in tracking the performance of the ESI Funds. Performance information is collected and aggregated at different levels: at the level of the partnership agreements (setting out per Member State the operational programmes that will be financed by the Funds); at the level of the individual operational programmes; and at the level of the individual projects carried out under the operational programmes.

|| Member states || The Commission

Monitoring || Project level: monitor and collect data Operational Programme level Monitoring Committees: monitor programme implementation and performance; assess AIRs and evaluations and monitor resulting actions. || As of 2016 holds annual review meetings with Member States

Planning and reporting on performance || Operational Programme level: Provide an evaluation plan Carry out an ex-ante evaluation In 2016-2023 submit to Commission annual implementation reports (AIRs); including as of 2017 (in particular in 2019) progress on achieving objectives. In 2024: final implementation report. Conduct retrospective evaluation(s) and provide a report in 2022 summarizing evaluation results. In 2024: Ex-post evaluation || As of 2016 submits each year to other institutions summary reports based on the annual implementation reports of the Member States.

Partnership agreement level: Submit to Commission by end August 2017 and end August 2019 a progress report on implementation of Partnership Agreement. || Submits to other institutions by end 2017 and end 2019 a strategic report summarising the progress reports of the Member States on implementation of Partnership Agreements.

Evaluations Commission || || In 2015 and 2016: ex-post evaluations of the preceding programmes In 2025: synthesis reports outlining the main conclusions of ex-post evaluations for each of the ESI Funds.

As illustrated above, the management mode of the spending programmes and the resulting set-up of the MORE frameworks affect the timing of the availability of performance information and therefore performance reporting under Article 318.

1.5. Progressive performance reporting during 2014-2020: Which performance information becomes available when?

Period 2014-2016/2017: The early years of implementation of the current spending programmes and final ex-post evaluations of the previous spending programmes

As explained above, in 2014-2016, the first implementation reports on the current MFF spending programmes will become available. In addition, performance information on the previous MFF spending programmes will become available from ex-post evaluations which will be variously produced between one and four years after the end of the programmes. Below, a chart shows the number of ex-post evaluations of the previous MFF spending programmes which will be finalised in the first four years of the MFF 2014-2020 period, namely the years 2014-2017.

Chart 1: Planning of the ex-post evaluations of 2007-2013 MFF spending programmes[5]

Ex-post evaluations typically focus on issues such as the effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value, results achieved in relation to the objectives, sustainability of results and socio-economic impact. They try to identify factors contributing to the success or failure of programmes and identify good practice. The information from the ex-post evaluations of the previous MFF-spending programmes allows accounting for the resources spent, but also serves to make adjustments where appropriate to the current MFF 2014-2020 spending programmes or to provide input for the design of any future programmes.

Reporting under Article 318 for the years 2014-2016/2017 will therefore combine early signals of progress in implementing the MFF 2014-2020 programmes with feedback on results and impact of projects financed by the earlier programmes under the 2007-2013 MFF.

Period 2017-2018: mid-term evaluations of the current spending programmes. First indications on progress in achieving objectives

In the intermediate period of the MFF feedback starts to become available as to whether the programmes are on track in terms of progress being made towards meeting their objectives; for example concluding on whether or to what extent those milestones which have a clear focus on results have been met. As of the financial years 2017-2018, the Article 318 Evaluation Report will be able to include first conclusions on programme performance and whether programmes are on track or whether adjustments need to be, or have been, made to improve performance.  

Many MFF-spending programmes include mid-term evaluations in their planning. With one exception[6] these mid-term evaluations have been planned for 2017 and 2018, as can be seen from chart 2 below. Nineteen spending programmes will undertake a mid-term evaluation in 2017[7] and ten spending programmes[8] will undertake their mid-term evaluation in 2018. These include important spending programmes which aim to contribute to the EU's core objectives like the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and Horizon 2020. Mid-term evaluations typically focussing on lessons learned from the early years of implementation as well as providing first indications on the achievement of programme objectives. Their results are used to make programme adjustments and to provide input for the design of any future programme.

The mid-term evaluation planned in 2018 by the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) explains well how mid-term evaluations contribute to the mid-term stock-taking to re-examine the continued relevance of the programme:

"In 2018 the Commission and each Member State shall re-examine the situation, in the light of the interim evaluation reports submitted in 2017 by the Member States (…), the developments in Union policies and in the Member State concerned. The interim reports will include information on the implementation of the national programmes by reference to the financial data and the indicators, any significant issues which affect the implementation of the national programmes, the progress towards achieving the objectives in the national programmes, the involvement of relevant partners". Source: annexed fiche on 'AMIF'.

Not all spending programmes foresee a mid-term evaluation. Important spending programmes under shared management (for example the ESI Funds; see example 2 above) do not provide for an EU-wide mid-term evaluation. A different system has been chosen through which the conclusions of national evaluations are included into annual implementation reports. In this way, progressively, the available information on progress in achieving programme objectives becomes available on a yearly basis alongside information on progress in the implementation of the programme.  

Chart 2: Planning of mid-term evaluations of 2014-2020 MFF spending programmes

Period 2019 and beyond: conclusions on achievement of programme objectives

Only as of 2019 will more conclusive performance information become available from annual reporting and from ex-post evaluations feeding into the Article 318 Evaluation Report. This includes both the data relating to the achieving of the different objectives of individual spending programmes as well as their contribution to reaching the Europe 2020 goals. As regards the learning purpose from ex-post evaluations; as possible successor schemes will be well under way when the ex-post evaluations will be completed, the results will more likely be used for the mid-term adaptation of any successor spending programme post-2020.

As regards the timing of ex-post evaluations, across the MFF spending programmes it can be observed on the basis of the MORE frameworks of all spending programmes that the vast majority of them will take place after 2020 with two exceptions[9]. The exact date of the ex-post evaluation sometimes has not yet been defined[10]. For those spending programmes for which information is available, chart 3 below indicates the year of the ex-post evaluation.

Chart 3: Planning of ex-post evaluations of 2014-2020 MFF spending programmes[11]

The ex-post evaluations which become available in 2024 concern major spending programmes under shared management like the ESI Funds for which the Commission will produce synthesis reports in 2025.

II) External policies of the Union

The spending programmes financed in the area of external actions, representing around 6.5% of the budget of the MFF spending programmes, are complex and varied. They are used in partner countries via different types of interventions (projects and programmes, pooled funds with other donors, budget support) managed mainly by EU delegations. Partner countries may use funding from several spending programmes to reach the objectives of the EU cooperation. The MORE frameworks of the spending programmes under heading 4 reflect this complex structure and try to capture progress in two dimensions: the contribution to development results and to organisational performance (effectiveness and efficiency of management of operations).

The monitoring is carried out through two different methods and the evaluations have different focusses (see table below). For details and exact planning of the different types of evaluations reference is made to Part II of this SWD (the introduction part of Heading 4 'Global Europe' and the individual programme fiches.

In order to better streamline reporting on the implementation of the Union's external actions, including reporting under Article 318, a new Implementing Regulation has been proposed. It sets common rules and a common procedure for six[12] of the 12 spending programmes under Heading 4, representing almost 50% of the budget for external actions. For each of these spending programmes annual reporting starts in 2015 and contains information on the previous year. It will indicate the progress in achieving programme objectives and issues of efficiency and include performance results from monitoring and evaluations. The 2021 annual report will consolidate the information from previous annual reports. A mid-term review report in 2017 and a final evaluation (post 2020) are also foreseen. The table below shows the structure of the MORE frameworks for programmes falling under the Common Implementing Regulation and thereby gives an indication of what type of performance information is available at which point in time to support performance reporting under Article 318.

Monitoring || External Evaluations

Internal by Commission services and EU delegations of project implementation through the collections of analysis of data from progress reports, field visits etc. || At level of projects/ programmes: These evaluations aim to provide an understanding of project performance and results and identifying lessons learned.

External by independent consultants through the Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) system, which analysis a portion[13] of the aided projects and recommends improvements. || At level of strategies: These evaluations relate to geographic areas (co-operation with a country or region) or thematic programmes (e.g. health, conflict prevention) or use of aid channels (e.g. through intermediaries such as NGOs or UN or budget support). In 2016: meta-evaluations reviewing existing strategic evaluations relating to certain themes (e.g. on primary education).

|| At the level of the legal instrument: As of 2015: annual implementation reports 2017: Mid-term review report 2021: Final annual report consolidating information from previous reports Post 2020: Final evaluation.

In addition to the monitoring and evaluation arrangements for the six external action spending programmes covered by the Common Implementing Regulation, the Article 318 Evaluation Report will report on the results of three mid-term evaluations that are foreseen in 2017 for respectively Humanitarian Aid (EU Aid Volunteers part); the Cooperation with Greenland programme; and the assistance programme for the Turkish Cypriot community. Also ex-post evaluations will be carried out for these programmes after 2020.

   III) Concluding remarks

The MORE frameworks for the MFF 2014-2020 have been established by the European Parliament and the Council in the legal bases for the programmes. Reporting under Article 318 will be based on the monitoring, reporting and evaluation provisions included in these legal bases. The frameworks are better designed than those of the previous spending programmes; increased attention having been paid to this aspect in the adoption of the new programmes. Namely, all programme frameworks have objectives and relevant indicators; where appropriate a link is made between programme objectives and Europe 2020 goals; some frameworks contain a special reserve to be released only when performance objectives have been achieved; appropriate systems are in place to allow for annual tracking of progress; almost all programmes provide for a mid-term, or strong annual performance-focused reporting (ESI Funds), as of 2017 and ex-post evaluations. All these elements are expected to contribute to the success of the 2014-2020 MFF spending programmes and a meaningful performance reporting required in Article 318 of the TFEU. The frameworks include monitoring, evaluation and reporting provisions with respect to, on the one hand, the implementation of the programmes by the European Commission, its agencies, the Member States and other bodies, and, on the other hand, the effectiveness of the programmes on the ground, subject to the wide variety of factors that influence their achievements. The timing of the different phases in this work under the MORE framework largely reflects the timing of such work under previous MFF. This is because payments continue to be made throughout most of the life of the programmes, the actions financed by the programmes only follow-on from the payments, and the impacts of the actions financed can only be measured over subsequent years, particularly for any lasting effects. Consequently, reporting under the Article 318 Evaluation Report on performance will be bound by the timing set out in the legal frameworks. The framework for each spending programme also shows how the evidence gathered through monitoring and evaluation supports evidence-based policy making, potentially feeding programme adjustments and making input to future decisions on subsequent spending programmes.

PART II: OVERVIEW MORE FRAMEWORKS

H1a Competitiveness for growth and jobs EGNOS and Galileo (European Satellite Navigation Programmes)

Title spending programme: || EGNOS and Galileo (European Satellite Navigation Programmes)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The overall progress and performance reporting framework of the programmes' implementation is based on the following documents: - An annual work programme, in the form of an implementation plan of the actions required to meet the specific objectives of the Galileo and EGNOS programmes. This annual work programme shall also provide for the funding of those actions; - a quarterly status report on the achievements and development of the programmes in particular in terms of risk management, cost, schedule and performance; at least once a year, those reports should include the performance indicators referred to in the new GNSS Regulation; - an annual implementation report evaluating the fulfilment of the annual work programme to be proposed by the Commission each year when it presents the preliminary draft budget; that report should contain all information pertaining to the programmes, in particular in terms of risk management, overall cost, annual operating cost, revenues, schedule and performance and as regards the functioning of the delegation agreements concluded with ESA and the GSA; - a mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the Galileo and EGNOS programmes focusing on quantitative and qualitative results so far achieved to be published by 30 June 2017. Pursuant to Article 33 of the Regulation (EU) no 1285/2013 (GNSS Regulation), the Commission should also inform the European Parliament and the Council of the interim and final results of the evaluation of the procurement tenders and of the contracts with private sector entities established in the framework of the programmes. It should also inform them of any re-allocation of funds. Finally, in the day-to-day management, the Commission will implement a risk management mechanism and appropriate management tools to contain programmes' cost based on better cost estimation, taking stock of previous experience and actual system implementation. As regards the system in place to collect data, the Commission in exercising its powers of political supervision over the Galileo and EGNOS programmes will strengthen the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms over the programme management entities by requesting detailed annual management plans and implementation reports as well as organising regular programme progress meetings and carrying out financial and technological audits. Considering that the European GNSS Agency and the European Space Agency will have important roles in the implementation of the programmes in accordance to the GNSS Regulation, the delegation agreements between the Commission and those entities will provide for regular and ad-hoc reporting on programmatic, technical, contractual and financial aspects of the implementation of the tasks delegated by the Commission. This data collection system should support the reporting obligation set out in the GNSS regulation, in particular as regards the key performance indicators referred to in Article 34 thereof, which needs to be included in the Commission's reports on an annual basis. Galileo and EGNOS are complex industrial projects, which rely on the development of new technologies. The programmes are therefore adjusted on a regular basis in accordance to the latest developments and contracts' implementation. Decisions on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures taken pursuant to the GNSS Regulation should be taken further to the mid-term evaluation report expected to be published by 30 June 2017.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || Supporting satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo)

Impact indicator: || Current situation || Long term target 2020

Market share of EU GNSS industry in worldwide GNSS downstream market || 2012: 22% one year after EGNOS SoL declaration || 2020: 33%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || To develop and provide global satellite-based radio navigation infrastructures and services (Galileo) by 2019[14]

Indicator 1 || Cumulative number of operational satellites

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

2013: 4 || || 14 by 2015 || || || || || 30 satellites by 2020

Indicator 2 || Terrestrial infrastructure deployed version

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Version 1 in June 2011 || || Version 2 || || || || || No target yet foreseen after 2015

Indicator 3 || Number of services implemented

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

3 initial services by 2015 || || 3 initial services || || || || || 4 services by 2020

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || To provide satellite-based services  improving the performance of GPS to gradually cover the whole ECAC (European Civil Aviation Conference) region by 2020 (EGNOS) ) and European neighbouring countries[15]

Indicator 1 || Result indicator: Progress of the EGNOS coverage extension versus agreed coverage extension Source: GSA

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

No baseline established yet || Establishment of EU coverage extension plan for EU-28 in Sept 2014 || || || || || || Coverage of EU-28 with EGNOS

Indicator 2               || EGNOS service availability index based on the number of airports with EGNOS-based approach procedures with an operational status versus the total number of  airports with EGNOS –based approach procedures - Source: GSA

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

With operational status: 150 (2014); Total number: 150 (2014) Service availability index: 100% || Gradually increase the total number of airports with EGNOS-based approach procedures. || Maintain the service availability index constantly  at least on 99%

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the Galileo and EGNOS programmes will be mainly based on the information provided by the European GNSS Agency and the European Space Agency. On a quarterly basis, the Commission should report on the progress made to the GNSS Programme Committee. Such reporting should give a general overview of the programmes' status and developments, in particular in terms of risk management, cost, schedule and performance. Building on the information contained in the quarterly reports, the Commission should also inform, on an annual basis, the European Parliament, the Council and the GNSS Programme Committee on the progress made, in particular in terms of risk management, cost, revenues, schedule and performance. Pursuant to the GNSS Regulation, this annual reporting should also include an assessment of intellectual property rights management, an overview of the implementation of new project management systems and techniques implemented as well as an evaluation of the measures taken to maximise the socio-economic benefits of the programmes. The GNSS regulation also provides for this annual reporting to the GNSS Programme Committee to be based on specific indicators (relating to cost, schedule and performance) referred to in Article 34(2) thereof. Finally the GNSS Regulation provides for the use of best practice management systems and techniques with the support of experts in the field. These experts will support the Commission in the establishment, review and validation of the information provided by the other actors of the programmes and will contribute to the overall assessment of progress. This contribution is expected to occur for the production of each of the reports produced by the Commission at first and will become more focused on the production of the annual reports and of the mid-term evaluation in the medium term.

Actors involved in monitoring || The main actors involved in the monitoring process are the Commission services, the GSA, ESA and Member States. Independent experts (with technical and management background) will also be involved in the validation of the results.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || The GNSS Regulation provides for detailed reporting of the implementation of the programmes, in particular in terms of cost, schedule, risk and performance and be based on specific indicators set out in the Regulation. This reporting should also concern the effectiveness of the use of resources and European added value. .

Planned use of information || Information provided through the monitoring and reporting system will be used to perform necessary immediate actions in the programme implementation and steer the adaptation of annual work programmes for actions required in the medium term. The information provided in the performance monitoring reports will also be used for the elaboration of the mid-term evaluation, which could lead to revisions of the EGNOS and Galileo programmes.

Frequency of reporting                  || Programmes' reporting include annual management plans, annual and quarterly implementation reports, as well as regular programme progress meetings to be held on a quarterly basis in the framework of the GNSS Programme Committee. Additional reporting should be performed following yearly financial audits and ad-hoc technological audits performed in the event of failure, technical incident or delays significantly impacting the programmes' schedule.

Availability of reports  in the timeline Please note: Reporting in years X cover activities in and up to the previous year || 2014 X[16] || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 X

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Mid-term Evaluation 1. Deadline 30 June 2017 2. Mid-term evaluation 3. The evaluation will address the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence, the relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It will take into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the previous measures. The mid-term evaluation shall also address technological developments relating to the systems, the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence, the relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 4. Decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. 5. Commission, ESA, GSA, independent experts To perform this mid-term evaluation, the Commission will build on the information provided in its quarterly and annual reports, as well as on the results of the financial audits and potential technical audits. The Commission should also rely on experts in the field of programme management to support it in assessing past results.

ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)

Title spending programme: || ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)[17]

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || Monitoring and reporting are based on the management and reporting rules applied by the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (F4E) and the ITER Organization (IO), which require the approval of all key documents by their respective governing bodies. Through its representation in these bodies on behalf of Euratom, the Commission monitors and revises the documents defining the implementing activities for ITER. F4E is currently setting up a project management and reporting process, fully integrating various aspects of the system of reporting to the Governing Board (GB). Every year and in line with the Council conclusions of 12 July 2010, F4E reports to the Council on the progress achieved in implementing the cost containment and savings plan as well as on the performance and management of F4E and the ITER project, including the fulfilment of the schedule activities within its annual budget. In response to these Council conclusions, F4E has appointed an independent expert who assesses the project progress on the basis of existing reports and submits its opinion to the F4E GB and to the Competitiveness Council once a year. F4E and the Commission have signed an Administrative Agreement which defines the modalities and conditions applicable to the transfer of the Community financial contribution to F4E. In addition, the amended Council Decision contains two new articles on the protection of Union's financial interests (Article 5a) and on the mid-term review of the spending programme (Article 5b). This mid-term review report to be provided by the Commission to the Council and the Parliament is in addition to the reporting activity already in place for F4E (Annual Report of activities, Annual Progress report on the implementation of the cost containment and savings plan, independent assessment on project progress). The modalities and conditions applicable to the transfer of the Community financial contribution to F4E are defined in the Administrative Agreement between the Commission and F4E.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || Development of fusion as a potentially limitless, safe, sustainable, environmentally responsible and economically competitive source of energy

Impact indicator || Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at EU level compared to 1990

Baseline (2012) || 2016 || Target 2050

18% || 20% || 80 to 95%[18]

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE || To provide the Euratom contribution to ITER and to the ITER related activities

Indicator || Percentage of Euratom's obligations discharged by the ITER Organization (IO) through the Joint Undertaking F4E[19]

Baseline (2013) || 2014 || 2015 || Target 2020

6% || 17% || 26% || 100%

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The information sources used are mainly the F4E Annual Project Plan and Progress Reports submitted to the F4E Governing Board, as well as the annual independent assessment of F4E activities as requested by the Council in 2010. The Commission closely monitors F4E activities as a member of the F4E Governing Board.

Actors involved in monitoring || F4E, Commission

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring || Monitoring reports will cover implementation aspects and immediate results (subject to the availability of data).

Planned use of information || The information will be tracked to adjust the Commission's annual transfers to F4E according to the scheduled activity of F4E and its spending profile.

Frequency of reporting || F4E reports: annual Commission report: annual contribution to DG RTD's AAR; mid-term review on the implementation of the Decision

Indication of availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020

X || X || X || X || X || X || X

Evaluations of the spending programme

1. Deadline: 31 December 2017 2. Type: mid-term review 3. Main issues and coverage: The Commission should submit to the Council and to the European Parliament a progress report on the implementation of Decision 2007/198/Euratom on the basis of information provided by F4E. That report shall set out the results of the use of the Euratom contribution referred to in Article 2 of Decision 2007/198/Euratom as regards commitments and expenditure. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: The results of the evaluation will contribute to the adjustment of the profile of Commission's transfers to F4E according to the overall schedule of the ITER construction and F4E contribution to it for the period until 2020. 5. Actors involved: F4E shall provide the Commission with all the necessary information.

Copernicus (European Earth Observation Programme)

Title spending programme: || Copernicus

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Commission services have put the following planning, monitoring and evaluation system in place for the Copernicus programme: 1. Monitoring the deliverables of the Copernicus programme via specifically designed performance-driven Key Performance Indicators. The Indicators are specified in Annual Work programmes, and are monitored via the deliverables of the delegated operators. They are applicable for all Copernicus services which have reached operational level, as well as for the Space Component. The Commission monitors the progress of the programme via annual and quarterly implementation reports received from the delegated bodies throughout the lifetime of the programme. 2. Reporting on the results and achievements of the programme. The following mechanisms have been established: · A 7-year Implementation Plan provides a high-level overview of the multi-annual programme development, and is used as basis for the annual work programmes. It contains the general and specific objectives of the programme, and defines milestones for their achievement. · The Copernicus annual work programmes describe the activities to be undertaken in a specific year, and the budget allocated to these. · Reporting on periodic basis will inform the European Parliament and the European Member States on the progress and general status of the programme, in particular in terms of risk management, costs, schedule, performance and procurement.[i] · A quarterly status report on the achievements and development of the overall programme is maintained and updated. By 31December 2017, the Commission will establish an interim evaluation of the programme.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || Monitoring the Earth to support the protection of the environment and the efforts of civil protection and civil security

Impact indicator: || Current situation || Long term target 2020

Specific service components[20] corresponding to users’ service-level requirements to realise that Copernicus data and Copernicus information is made available for the environment, civil protection and civil security || The number of service components operational in 2015 = 6 || To increase the number of service components operational to 14

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 2 || Maximising socio-economic benefits, thus supporting of the Europe 2020 strategy and its objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by promoting the use of Earth observation in applications and services

Impact indicator: || Current situation || Long term target 2020

Growth in downstream EO-sector directly benefiting from Copernicus, as a result of progression in number of users, available access to volume of data and added-value information, increased number of downstream services, across Member States and the Union || Expected growth in downstream EO-sector directly benefiting from Copernicus, 2012 employment = 1, representing ~5000 jobs[21] || Increase growth from 2012 of 1 to 1.8, representing ~9000 jobs

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 3 || Fostering the development of a competitive European space and services industry and maximising opportunities for European enterprises to develop and provide innovative Earth observation systems and services

Impact indicator: || Current situation || Long term target 2020

Market penetration, including expansion of the existing markets and creation of new markets and competitiveness of the European downstream operators || 2013 Index=100, representing 5 main fields (agriculture, non-life insurance, oil and gas, water transport, electricity generation from renewable sources)[22] || Increase the market penetration from 100 to 140, representing 7 main fields

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 4  || Ensuring autonomous access to environmental knowledge and key technologies for Earth observation and geo-information services, thereby enabling Europe to achieve independent decision-making and action

Impact indicator: || Current situation || Long term target 2020

Use of Copernicus data and Copernicus information by Union institutions and bodies for autonomous decision-making || Number of directives and decisions directly invoking the use of Copernicus data in 2013 = 5 || Increase the number of directives and decisions to 30

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 5 || Supporting and contributing to European policies and fostering global initiatives, such as GEOSS

Impact indicator: || Current situation || Long term target 2020

Provision of Copernicus global Earth Observation data to Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) || Percentage of Copernicus global EO data available through GEOSS in 2016 = 40% (~10% for 2014) || Increase the percentage to 100%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Delivering accurate and reliable data and information to Copernicus users, supplied on a long term and sustainable basis enabling the services referred to in Article 4(1) and responding to the requirements of Copernicus Core Users

Indicator 1 || Number of engaged users showing sustained uptake through registered data download

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Recognised users served during pre-operational phase = 1 || || 1 || || 1.5 || || || 2

Indicator 2 || Progression in number of satisfied users[23]

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Percentage of returning & engaged users    || || 20% || || 40% || || || 65%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Providing sustainable and reliable access to space borne data and information from an autonomous European Earth observation capacity

Indicator 1 || The accomplishment of the space infrastructure in terms of satellites deployed and data it produces for integration into geo-information services

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

EU launched autonomous satellite capacity = 0 || 1 || 5 || 7 || || || 9 || 11

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Providing a sustainable and reliable access to in-situ data, relying, in particular, on existing capacities operated at European and national levels, and on global observation systems and networks

Indicator 1 || Sustained availability of in-situ data for  supporting Copernicus services

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Services receiving in-situ data || 2 || 4[24] || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6 || 6

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The Commission services will report on regular basis to the Copernicus Committee on the program status and on the progress made by comparing the indicators with the baseline. Feedback from the interim review in 2018 and the ex-post assessment upon completion of the period (2021) will contribute to the overall assessment of progress. The quarterly states reports additionally will track this progress on working level.

Actors involved in monitoring || Entrusted entities such as Union Agencies (EEA, FRONTEX, EMSA); International organizations (ESA, EUMETSAT, ECWMF); independent experts and expert groups; feedback from users at Member State level;

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || The regular reports to the Copernicus Committee will contain information on each of the main areas of activity of the space component and of the six services, and of the service delivery achieved in response to user demands/requests. Each activity will be quantified via reporting on the assigned performance indicators which will be included in the implementation reports. For the Copernicus Services this will be additionally complemented by independent expert reviews which will assess the transition from research-funded projects to fully operational services (applicable to the Marine, Security, Climate Change and Atmosphere Services). A substantial section of their review will be dedicated to providing an overall perspective, an assessment of progress in light of : · service user needs and feedback; · the development of the main product portfolio; · statistics on timeliness of the service provision, and · development of indicator trends.

Planned use of information || The regular reporting by the involved stakeholders will be used as input for the evaluation of the progress of the programme. Assessment of the Copernicus Service implementation will steer the adaptation of annual work programmes submitted by service operators, and adjustments to the multi-annual implementation plans of each service. Furthermore data provided within the monitoring framework will contribute to the wider monitoring and reporting activities within DG ENTR (namely DG ENTR Management Plan and Annual Activity Report).

Frequency of reporting || Regular Monitoring Reports to the Copernicus Committee The status reports for monitoring the progress of the programme are updated every quarter based on the working-level contact from the Commission with the involved stakeholders, and the quarterly and annual implementation reports received.

Availability of reports  in the timeline Please note: Reports published in the years marked with X will report on activities in (and up to) the previous year (e.g. the first report, covering activities in 2014, will become available in 2015) || 2014 || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 X

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed  and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Ex-post Evaluation in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 NB: Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 obligations were replaced by obligations foreseen in Regulation (EU) No 377/2014 thus the relevance of this evaluation will be reassessed. 1. End-2015 2. Ex-post evaluation of the GMES programme and its initial operations (GIO) in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 911/2010. 3. The evaluation would measure the overall achievement of the objectives of the GMES and its Initial Operations (GIO) programme from 2011-2013. It would address the effectiveness of all actions that were implemented in view of achievement of the general and specific programme objectives, and will draw lessons learned. 4. Based on the ex-post report, and the lessons learned therein, decisions may be taken within the routine phase of the programme in the period 2014-2021. 5. Independent experts; stakeholders. Interim Evaluation (according to the legal base Regulation (EU) No 377/2014 1. 2017 2. Interim Evaluation 3. The evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives of all the tasks financed by Copernicus at the level of their results and impacts, their European added value and on the efficiency of the use of resources. The evaluation shall address the continued relevance of all objectives, the performance of the organisational structure and the scope of services deployed. The evaluation shall also assess the impacts of the Copernicus data and Copernicus information policy, on stakeholders, downstream users, and the influence on business as well as on national and private investments in Earth observation infrastructures. 4. The evaluation shall include an assessment of a possible involvement of relevant European agencies and if appropriate be accompanied by relevant legislative proposals The Commission  communicate the result of the evaluation to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions and, if necessary, propose appropriate measures. 5. Independent experts; stakeholders, Member States. The above and possible other evaluations will be complementary to the continuous monitoring of the programme via the above-mentioned periodical monitoring reports.

Nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia

Title spending programme: || Nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia ||

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || Upon Accession, the 3 Member States Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia committed to close down early some of their nuclear power plants before the end of their scheduled lifetime. In exchange the Union agreed to assist the 3 Member States financially to decommission the concerned power plants Kozloduy units 1-4, Ignalina units 1-2 and Bohunice V1 units 1-2. This programme follows on from this commitment, and regulates the financial contributions towards safe decommissioning of the afore-mentioned units. By 01/01/2014 the 3 Member States have to provide the latest version of their decommissioning plans, setting out main objectives and tasks, milestones etc. These will be listed in an annex to the Implementing Act. On the basis of these plans, in the beginning of each year the Commission will adopt a joint annual work programme for each power plant specifying objectives, expected results, target end dates and related performance indicators. These will serve as a basis for the monitoring and reporting. Projects under the different objectives will only be eligible for funding when they stem from these decommissioning plans. The Commission will, on proposal by the Member States and beneficiaries, decide which projects from the decommissioning plan need funding at a certain moment in time. Daily project execution will be monitored by the implementing bodies (national agencies and EBRD or EIB). Monitoring will be done against the baseline of these original decommissioning plans, including progress as measured against the indicators that are equally enshrined in the Implementing Act. Monitoring will be done twice a year, in the monitoring committees presided by the Commission, together with the Member States, who bear ultimate responsibility for the safe decommissioning of these power plants. Each monitoring Committee will be analysing the monitoring report, structured as a traffic light system so as to highlight easily the problems that require attention, decisions and solutions on how to overcome difficulties, delays or cost overruns. Yearly there will be a report on the implementation of the joint annual work programmes from the Commission. These reports will be taken into account when adopting subsequent annual work programmes. In addition, the framework foresees the possibility to carry out possible audits, checks and inspections. An interim evaluation will be carried out in 2017 addressing issues as progress on achievement of programme objectives. It also addresses the progress of the decommissioning plans as well as programme and funds management. It takes into account evaluation results of predecessor schemes. The results of the interim evaluation will be used to amend or suspend measures, if appropriate. An ex-post evaluation will be carried out on the effectiveness and efficiency of the programme and it includes the impact of funding and EU added value. All reports shall be communicated to the EP and the European Council. ||

Nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria and Slovakia ||

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets ||

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || to assist the Member States towards the decommissioning end state of Kozloduy units 1 to 4 and Bohunice VI units 1 and 2                                                                                     ||

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020 ||

Provide funding in yearly commitments. || 01/01/2014 || Commitments 2014-2017 done || The current completion dates for decommissioning of: - Kozloduy units 1 to 4: 2030; - Bohunice V1 units 1 and 2: 2025. ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1. || (Kozloduy) Performing dismantling in the turbine halls of units 1 to 4 and in auxiliary buildings ||

Indicator: || Number and type of systems dismantled ||

Baseline 01/01/2014 Decontamination and dismantling activities in turbine halls 1 and 2 have started. || Milestones || Target 2020 Decontamination and dismantling activities in turbine halls and auxiliary buildings of Kozloduy units 1 to 4 according to the decommissioning plans ||

2014 || 2015 Continued decontamination and dismantling in auxiliary buildings in 2015 in accordance with the decommissioning plan || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2. || (Kozloduy)  Dismantling of large components and equipments in the reactor buildings of units 1 to 4 ||

Indicator: || Number and type of systems and equipment dismantled ||

Baseline Not yet started. || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 Continued decontamination and dismantling of equipment in 2015 in accordance with the decommissioning plan || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Decontamination and dismantling activities of large equipment according to decommissioning plans ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3. || (Kozloduy) Safely managing the decommissioning waste in accordance with a detailed waste management plan ||

Indicator: || Quantity and type of safely conditioned waste ||

Baseline 1/01/2014 Facilities for the treatment and conditioning of waste are being constructed || Milestones || Target 2020 Treatment and conditioning of decommissioning waste according to decommissioning and waste management plans ||

2014 || 2015 Treatment and conditioning of decommissioning waste starting in 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4. || (Bohunice) Performing dismantling in the turbine hall and auxiliary buildings of reactor V1 ||

Indicator: || Number and type of systems dismantled ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

1/01/2014 Dismantling of V1 turbine hall has started; Dismantling of external buildings (Phase 1) started || 2014 || 2015 Start of phase 2 of decommissioning || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Dismantling of V1 turbine hall advanced, and building to be used as temporary waste storage. Dismantling of external buildings completed as far as possible and building to be used as temporary waste storage. ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5. || (Bohunice) Dismantling of large components and equipments in the V1 reactor buildings ||

Indicator: || Number and type of systems and equipments dismantled ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

1/01/2014 Decontamination of V1 primary circuits has started || 2014 || 2015 Start of decontamination and dismantling of large components in the reactor building || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Decontamination and dismantling works advanced according to the decommissioning plan. ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6. || (Bohunice) Safely managing the decommissioning waste in accordance with a detailed waste management plan ||

Indicator: || Quantity and type of safely conditioned waste ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

1/01/2014 Stage 1 decommissioning waste management has started. || 2014 || 2015 Continued waste management according to decommissioning and waste management plan || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Stage 2 decommissioning waste management: 2013- end 2025. ||

Nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Lithuania ||

General Objective || to assist the Member State towards the decommissioning end state of units 1 and 2 of the Ignalina nuclear power plant ||

Indicator 1 : Number of major components and systems dismantled in all the concerned nuclear reactors in accordance with the respective decommissioning plans ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 206 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Information to be submitted by the Member States at the end of 2014 according to the Council Regulation || || || || || || || The current completion dates for decommissioning of Ignalina units 1 and 2: 2038 ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1. || (Ignalina) Defueling of the reactor core of unit 2 and the unit 1 and 2 reactor fuel ponds into the dry spent fuel storage facility ||

Indicator: || Number of unloaded fuel assemblies ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

1/01/2014 Unit 1 reactor core defueled, unit 2 reactor core partially defueled into the spent fuel ponds; In the ponds are used and unloaded fuel assemblies. || 2014 || 2015 || 206 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Complete defueling and transfer of all spent fuel assemblies to the dry spent fuel storage completed by end 2022 ||

|| Installation of defueling equipment in the units || || || || ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2. || (Ignalina) Safely maintaining the reactor units until ||

Indicator: || Number of registered incidents ||

Baseline Safe maintenance performed without incidents. || Milestones || Target 2020 No incidents until complete defueling of units 1 and 2 ||

2014 || 2016 || 2015 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || At least half of the fuel assemblies unloaded ||

0 || 0 || 0 || || || ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3. || (Ignalina) Performing dismantling in the turbine hall and other auxiliary buildings and safely managing the decommissioning waste in accordance with a detailed waste management plan ||

Indicator: || Type and number of auxiliary systems dismantled and the quantity and type of safely conditioned waste ||

Baseline 1/01/2014 Start of dismantling works in turbine hall of unit 1. Facilities for waste management are being constructed. || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 Decontamination and dismantling in unit 1 ongoing according to decommissioning plan || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Turbine halls main parts dismantled. Produced waste treated and stored safely. ||

Monitoring and reporting arrangements ||

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || In accordance with the Council Regulation (Euratom) 1368/2013, Council Regulation (Euratom) 1369/2013, Corrigendum to Council Regulation (Euratom) 1368/2013, and Corrigendum to Council Regulation (Euratom) 1369/2013, on Union support for the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia, the projects and activities, milestones, targets and indicators (which + their values) will be set in an Implementing Act specifying for each power plant objectives, expected results, target end dates and related performance indicators. Day-to-day monitoring is done by the implementing bodies. Monitoring visits on-site will take place at least twice a year. Every 6 months there will be a report by the beneficiaries and the Member States on the progress witnessed, based on the pre-defined indicators. 2 times a year a monitoring committee will meet to discuss the progress report, as well as the overall monitoring of the advancement of the objectives and the decommissioning programmes as a whole. In case of problems (delays, cost overruns, critical path, and deviation in indicator values as compared to baseline setting) remedial action will be discussed and follow-up actions agreed. ||

Actors involved in monitoring Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || The 3 beneficiaries (JAVYS for Bohunice, INPP for Ignalina and SERAW for Kozloduy nuclear power plants); the Member States; the nuclear regulators; the implementing bodies (national agencies and EBRD or EIB). ||

Actors involved in monitoring Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports Planned use of information || - Progress witnessed, based on the pre-defined indicators. - In case of problems (delays, cost overruns, critical path, and deviation in indicator values as compared to baseline setting) remedial action will be discussed. Main elements of monitoring reports (as per first preliminary draft implement act): (1) An updated version of the decommissioning plan, highlighting the offset compared to baseline; (2) the progress made in achieving the objectives under the respective decommissioning-related programme as set out in the corresponding annual work programmes; (3) the progress made towards meeting the expected results of the different activities and the related performance indicators; (4) any problems occurring with regard to the implementation of measures under the respective decommissioning-related programme during the monitoring period; (5) the measures and actions to be taken to address the occurring problems; (6) the financial implementation of the respective decommissioning-related programme; (7) the description of the status of concrete results of projects under the respective decommissioning-related programme as provided in the objectives of the corresponding annual work programmes and specified in the project documentation; (8) the description of activities performed during the monitoring period in respect of the implementation of measures under the respective decommissioning-related programme; (9) the contractual and financial data on projects implemented in line with the project documentation; (10) the visibility measures taken to provide information on and publicize the Union financial assistance under the respective decommissioning-related programme; (11) the steps taken by the Implementing Bodies to implement the recommendations made by the respective committee for monitoring; (12) the activities planned to implement the measures under the respective decommissioning-related programme during the next planned monitoring period. ||

Planned use of information || - Reporting to the Council and the European Parliament - Adjustments of annual work programmes - In case of delays identified in the annual reports, payments may be postponed or financial contributions reduced - Mid-term spending programme adjustments ||

Frequency of reporting  || Twice yearly from beneficiaries and Member States to the Commission. Yearly from the Commission to Council and the European Parliament. ||

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 ||

|| 2 to COM 0 to Council and EP || 2 to COM 1 to Council and EP || 2 to COM 1 to Council and EP || 2 to COM 1 to Council and EP || 2 to COM 1 to Council and EP || 2 to COM 1 to Council and EP || 2 to COM 1 to Council and EP ||

Evaluations of the spending programme ||

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Ex-post evaluation 2007-2013 period 1. Not later than 2017: 2. Ex-post evaluation of the 3 decommissioning programmes 2007-2013 3. effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value of spending programme 4. Use: accountability to Council and European Parliament ; input for interim evaluation 2014-2020 period – 5. Commission, Member States, implementing bodies, beneficiaries Mid-term evaluation 2014-2020 period 1. 2017: 2. Mid-term evaluation of the new decommissioning programme 2014-2020 3. Effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value of spending programme; addresses the progress of the decommissioning plans; programme and funds management. 4. Will be used for remedial action and to review appropriations 5. Commission, Member States, implementing bodies, beneficiaries Ex-post evaluation 2014-2020 period 1. Beyond 2020 when all commitments have been made: 2. Ex-post evaluation of the new decommissioning programme 2014-2020 3. effectiveness, efficiency, impact of funding and EU added value of spending programme 4. Accountability to Council and European Parliament 5. Commission, Member States, implementing bodies, beneficiaries. ||

Horizon 2020 (framework programme for research and innovation)

Title of spending programme: || Horizon 2020 (Framework Programme for Research and Innovation)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The legal basis for Horizon 2020 specifies, for the first time in the history of EU Framework Programmes, explicit intervention logic and the Key Performance Indicators to be used in the final evaluation of Horizon 2020. Since funding of Horizon 2020 will support research and innovation activities, result-related information will only become available with a certain time lag, as findings and results are based on efforts covering several years and might take some extra years to fully materialise. Against this difficulty, which is inherent to research and innovation funding, the monitoring and reporting system for Horizon 2020 is based on three main components:   1. A comprehensive system to collect all relevant data on the implementation of Horizon 2020 activities. Based on input from several IT- Tools, the CORDA Data Warehouse will be the one and only reference for Horizon 2020 reporting. 2. In line with Art. 31 of the Horizon 2020 Regulation the Commission will publish Annual Horizon 2020 Monitoring Reports, which will provide a systematic overview on implementation and, later during the lifetime of Horizon 2020, also on the key achievements. A particular focus will be on the reporting on cross-cutting issues as mentioned in Art. 14 (1) of the Horizon 2020 Regulation and Annex III of the Specific Programme. 3. The Key Performance Indicators as specified in Annex II of the Specific Programme will be a key element for the evaluation of Horizon 2020, notably for the Ex-Post evaluation in 2023. Since these Key Performance Indicators are focused on results, they will only become available in a statistically meaningful way as from 2018 onwards.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || To build an economy based on knowledge and innovation across the whole Union, while contributing to sustainable development.

Impact indicator || Current situation || Long term target (2020)

The Europe 2020 R&D target (3% of GDP) || 2.06% of GDP (2012) || 3% of GDP

The Europe 2020 innovation headline indicator (index with reference 100 in 2010) || 104.4 (2011) || Pending decision in the context of the European Semester

Share of researchers in the EU active population || 1.06% (2011) || 1.33%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Excellent science – European Research Council (ERC) – to reinforce the excellence, dynamism and creativity of European research ||

Indicator 1 || Share of publications from ERC-funded projects which are among the top 1% highly cited ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

New approach || || || || || 1.5 (ERC publications 2014-2016 cited until 2018) || || 1.8 ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Excellent science – Future and Emerging Technologies – to foster radically new technologies by exploring novel and high-risk ideas building on scientific foundations ||

Indicator 1 || Publications in peer-reviewed high impact journals ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

New approach || || || || 22 || || 25 || 50% of all FET publications are published in high impact peer review journals ||

Indicator 2 || Patent applications and patents awarded in Future and Emerging Technologies ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

New approach || || || || || || 1 || 1 patent application per €10 million funding[25] ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Excellent science – Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions – to ensure optimum development and dynamic use of Europe’s intellectual capital in order to generate, develop and transfer new skills and innovation and, thus, to realise its full potential across all sectors and regions ||

Indicator || Cross-sector and cross-country circulation of researchers, including PhD candidates (cumulative number) ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

50.000 (2007-2013), out of which 20% PhD || 7.500, out of which around 40% PhD || || X || 34.000, out of which around 40% PhD || X || X || 60.000 (2014-2020), out of which around 40% PhD ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || Excellent science – Research infrastructures (including eInfrastructures) - to endow Europe with world-class research infrastructures which are accessible to all researchers in Europe and beyond and fully exploit their potential for scientific advance and innovation ||

Indicator || Number of researchers who have access to research infrastructures through Union support ||

Baseline (FP7, 2013) || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

22,000 || || || || || 12,000 || || 20,000 additional researchers during H2020[26] ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 || Industrial leadership – to boost Europe's industrial leadership through research, technological development, demonstration and innovation in the following enabling and industrial technologies: information and communication technologies; nanotechnologies; advanced materials; biotechnology; advanced manufacturing and processing; and, space ||

Indicator 1 || Patent applications and patents awarded in the different enabling and industrial technologies ||

Baseline (FP7, 2014) || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

New approach || || || || || || 3[27] || 3 patent applications per €10 million funding ||

Indicator 2 || Share of participating firms introducing innovations new to the company or the market (covering the period of the project plus three years) ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

New approach || || || || || To be developed[28] || || To be developed on the basis of the first H2020 results [29] ||

Indicator 3 || Number of joint public-private publications ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

New approach || || || || || To be developed28 || || To be developed on the basis of the first H2020 results ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6 || Industrial leadership – to help remedy market deficiencies in accessing risk finance for research and innovation ||

Indicator 1 || Total investments mobilised via debt financing and Venture Capital investments ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

New approach || || || || 8 || || || €15 bn[30],[31] ||

Indicator 2 || Number of organisations funded and amount of private funds leveraged ||

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Number of organisations funded: New approach || || || || 2,000 (40% of the target) || || || 5,000 ||

Amount of private funds leveraged: New approach || || || || 15 || || || €35 bn30 ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 7 || Industrial leadership – to stimulate growth by means of increasing the levels of innovation in SMEs, covering their different innovation needs over the whole innovation cycle for all types of innovation, thereby creating more fast-growing, internationally active SMEs ||

Indicator 1 || Share of participating SMEs introducing innovations new to the company or the market (covering the period of the project plus three years) ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

New approach || || || 20% || || || || 50% ||

Indicator 2 || Growth and job creation in participating SMEs ||

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

New approach || || || || || || To be developed || To be developed ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 8-14 || Societal challenges ||

Indicator 1 || Publications in peer-reviewed high impact journals in the area of the different societal challenges ||

Specific Objective n° || Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 ||

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || ||

8 || 47[32] || || || || || || On average 20 || On average, 20 publications per €10 million funding ||

9 || 22 ||

10 || 9[33] ||

11 || 2 ||

12 || 25 ||

13 || 9 ||

14 || 3 ||

Indicator 2 || Patent applications and patents awarded in the area of the different societal challenges

Specific Objective n° || Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Patent applications || || || || || || On average: 2 || On average, 2 patent applications per €10 million funding

8 || 2

9 || 1.3

10 || 2

11 || 1

12 || 0

13 || 0

14 || New approach

Patents awarded

New approach

Indicator 3 || Number of prototypes and testing activities

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

New approach || || || || || || To be developed || To be developed on the basis of the first H2020 results

Indicator 4 || Number of joint public-private publications

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

New approach || || || || || || To be developed || To be developed on the basis of the first H2020 results

Indicator 5 || Share of the overall Energy challenge funds allocated to the following research activities: renewable energy, end-user energy-efficiency, smart grids and energy storage activities

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020 85%

2014 || 2015 || 2016 85% || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 15 || Spreading excellence and widening participation – to fully exploit the potential of Europe’s talent pool and to ensure that the benefits of an innovation-led economy are both maximised and widely distributed across the Union in accordance with the principle of excellence

Indicator || Evolution of the publications in high impact journals in the relevant research fields

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

New approach || || || || || || To be developed[34] || To be developed on the basis of the first H2020 results

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 16 || Science with and for society – to build effective cooperation between science and society, to recruit new talent for science and to pair scientific excellence with social awareness and responsibility

Indicator 1 || Share of research organisations funded implementing actions to promote Responsible Research and Innovation

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

New approach || || || || || || To be developed || To be developed on the basis of the first H2020 results

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 17 || Non-Nuclear Direct Actions of the Joint Research Centre – to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support to Union policies, while flexibly responding to new policy demands

Indicator 1 || Number of occurrences of tangible specific impacts on European policies resulting from technical and scientific support provided by the Joint Research Centre

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

248 || 215 +5 || || || 220+10 || || || 230 +15

Indicator 2 || Number of peer-reviewed publications in high impact journals

Baseline (average 2010 – 2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

460 || 460+10 || || || 470+15 || || || 480+20

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 18 || The European Institute of Innovation and Technology – integrating the knowledge triangle of higher education, research and innovation and thus to reinforce the Union's innovation capacity and address societal challenges

Indicator 1 || organisations from universities, business and research integrated in the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs)

Baseline (period 2010-2012 with 3 KICs) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

200 || 240 || || || 400 || || || 540 (2020)

Indicator 2 || collaboration inside the knowledge triangle leading to the development of innovative products, services and processes

Baseline (period 2010-2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

33 start-ups and spin-offs 210 innovations in existing businesses developed || 30 300 || || || 220 2 200 || || || 600 start-ups and spin-offs created by KICs students/researchers/professors; 6 000 innovations in existing businesses developed by KIC students/researchers/professors

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Monitoring and reporting for Horizon 2020 will be essentially based on information provided by the grant applicants at the time of proposal submission and by grant recipients through a continuously open reporting tool during the lifetime of the grant. This information will be complemented through other sources as, for example, flagging by Commission services or the use of surveys carried out up to three years after the end of grants to identify their impacts.

Actors involved in monitoring || Grant Applicants; Grant Recipients; Commission services; additional sources for specific information needs (e.g. impact factor of scientific journals)

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Annual Horizon 2020 Monitoring Reports will cover a wide range of implementation aspects, including notably the cross-cutting issues as specified in Annex III to the Specific Programme Decision and the respective mandatory targets related to those issues. Information on these issues will become available from 2015 onwards on a constant basis. Information on outputs, outcomes and results will be systematically monitored as from the start of the programme. However, due to the very nature of the research and innovation activities supported, reporting on a meaningful number of observations can only be expected as from 2018 onwards.

Planned use of information || Information provided through the monitoring and reporting system will be used for the preparation of subsequent Work Programmes and might be relevant for a possible revision of Horizon 2020.

Frequency of reporting || Annual Horizon 2020 Monitoring Reports Constant reporting on key implementation aspects through the CORDA Data Warehouse

Indicate the availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 X

Please note:     Reports published in the years marked with X will report on activities in (and up to) the previous year (e.g. the first report, covering activities in 2014, will become available in 2015)

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved   || FP7 Ex-Post Evaluation 1. Deadline: 2015 2. Type: Ex-Post Evaluation 3. Main issues: Rationale, Implementation and Impact. Full coverage of all FP7 activities. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: Possible use for a mid-term revision of Horizon 2020. 5. Actors involved: Independent experts; stakeholders; community at large; Member States. Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation 1. Deadline: 2017 2. Type: Interim Evaluation 3. Main issues: The achievements (in terms of results and progress) towards achieving an impact based, where applicable, on the indicators outlined in Annex II of the specific programme) of the objectives of Horizon 2020 and continued relevance of all related measures; the efficiency and use of resources, with particular attention to cross-cutting issues and other elements referred to in Article 14(1); and Union added value. Full coverage of all Horizon 2020 activities. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: Possible use for a mid-term revision of Horizon 2020. Input for the preparation of a possible successor programme as from 2020 onwards. 5. Actors involved: Independent experts; stakeholders; community at large; Member States. Horizon 2020 Ex-Post Evaluation 1. Deadline: 2023 2. Type: Ex-Post Evaluation3. Main issues: Rationale, implementation and achievements, as well as the longer-term impacts and sustainability. Full coverage of all Horizon 2020 activities 4. Planned use of evaluation results: Possible use for remedial action in the successor programme in light of specific issues identified during the evaluation of Horizon 2020. 5. Actors involved: Independent experts; stakeholders; community at large; Member States.

Euratom research and training programme

Title of spending programme: || Euratom research and training programme

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || A new system will be developed for the evaluation and monitoring of the indirect actions of the Euratom Programme. It will be based on a comprehensive, well-timed and harmonised strategy, with a strong focus on throughput, output, results and impacts. It will be supported by an appropriate data archive, experts, a dedicated research activity, and increased cooperation with Member States and Associated States, and it will be valorised through appropriate dissemination and reporting.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE* || Pursue nuclear research and training activities with an emphasis on continuous improvement of nuclear safety, security and radiation protection, notably to potentially contribute to the long-term decarbonisation of the energy system in a safe, efficient and secure way.

Impact indicator[35] || Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at EU level compared to 1990

Baseline (2012) || Milestone 2016 || Target 2020

18% || 20% || 21%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Supporting safety of nuclear systems

Indicator || Number of projects (joint research and/or coordinated actions) likely to lead to a demonstrable improvement in nuclear safety practice in Europe (cumulative indicator)

Baseline (Euratom 2007-2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

|| 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 ||

41 || || 7 || || || 14[36]

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Contributing to the development of solutions for the management of ultimate nuclear waste

Indicator || Number of projects contributing to the development of safe long-term solutions for the management of ultimate nuclear waste (cumulative indicator)

Baseline (Euratom 2007-2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

|| 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 ||

15 || || 5 || || || 8

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Support the development and sustainability of nuclear competences at Union level

Indicator 1 || Training through research - number of PhD students and Post-Doc researchers supported through the Euratom fission projects (cumulative indicator)

Baseline (Euratom 2007-2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

|| 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 ||

200 || || 500 || || || 1000

Indicator 2 || Number of fellows and trainees in the Euratom fusion programme (average per year)

Baseline (Euratom FP7, 2007-2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

|| 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 ||

27 || || 50 || || || 50

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || Support radiation protection and development of medical applications of radiation, including, inter alia, the secure and safe supply and use of radioisotopes

Indicator || Number of projects likely to have a demonstrable impact on regulatory practice regarding radiation protection and on development of medical applications of radiation

Baseline (Euratom FP7, 2007-2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

33 || || 15 || || || 25

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 || Move toward demonstration of feasibility of fusion as a power source by exploiting existing and future fusion facilities

Indicator || Number of publications in peer-reviewed high impact journals (average per year)

Baseline (Euratom FP7, 2007-2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

800 || || || 800 || || 800[37]

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6 || Lay the foundations for future fusion power plants by developing materials, technologies and conceptual design

Indicator || Percentage of the Fusion Roadmap's milestones established for the period 2014-2018 reached by the Euratom Programme

Baseline (Euratom FP7, 2007-2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

New approach || || || || || 90%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 7 || Promote innovation and industrial competitiveness

Indicator 1 || Number of spin-offs from the fusion research under Euratom Programme

Baseline (Euratom FP7, 2007-2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

4 || || 5 || || || 10

Indicator 2 || Patent applications generated and patents awarded on the basis of research activities supported by the Euratom Programme (average per year)

Baseline (Euratom 2007-2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

3 || || 3 || || || 4

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 8 || Ensure availability and use of research infrastructures of pan-European relevance

Indicator || Number of researchers having access to research infrastructures through Euratom support

Baseline 2008 || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

Ca. 800 || || 800 || || || 1200

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 9 || To improve nuclear safety including: nuclear reactor and fuel safety, waste management, decommissioning, and emergency preparedness

Indicator 1 || JRC policy support indicator – The number of occurrences of tangible specific impacts on Union policies resulting from technical and scientific policy support provided by the JRC

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

13 || || 12±1 || || || 12±2

Indicator 2 || The number of peer reviewed publications

Baseline (average 2010 – 2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

72 || || 72±4 || || || 72±8

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 10 || To improve nuclear security including: nuclear safeguards, non-proliferation, combating illicit trafficking, and nuclear forensics

Indicator 1 || JRC policy support indicator – The number of occurrences of tangible specific impacts on Union policies resulting from technical and scientific policy support provided by the JRC

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

15 || || 14±1 || || || 14±2

Indicator 2 || The number of peer reviewed publications

Baseline (average 2010 – 2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

16 || || 16±1 || || || 16±2

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 11 || To increase excellence in the nuclear science base for standardisation

Indicator 1 || JRC policy support indicator – The number of occurrences of tangible specific impacts on Union policies resulting from technical and scientific policy support provided by the JRC

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

15 || || 14±1 || || || 14±2

Indicator 2 || The number of peer reviewed publications

Baseline (average 2010 – 2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

58 || || 58±4 || || || 58±8

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 12 || To foster knowledge management, education and training

Indicator 1 || JRC policy support indicator – The number of occurrences of tangible specific impacts on Union policies resulting from technical and scientific policy support provided by the JRC

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

13 || || 12±1 || || || 12±2

Indicator 2 || JRC scientific productivity indicator – The number of peer reviewed publications

Baseline (average 2010 – 2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

35 || || 34±2 || || || 34±4

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 13 || To support the policy of the Union on nuclear safety and security

Indicator 1 || JRC policy support indicator - The number of occurrences of tangible specific impacts on Union policies resulting from technical and scientific policy support provided by the JRC

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

7 || || 6±1 || || || 6±1

Indicator 2 || JRC scientific productivity indicator – The number of peer reviewed publications

Baseline (average 2010 – 2013) || Milestones || Target 2018

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017

Not applicable || || || || || Not applicable

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Progress will be monitored on the basis of reports from projects' consortia.

Actors involved in monitoring || Grant holders, Member States, Commission

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Monitoring reports will cover implementation aspects and immediate results (subject to the availability of data).

Planned use of information || The information collected through the monitoring and reporting arrangements will be used for AARs and to provide potential adjustments when preparing the Commission proposal for the next Euratom Research and Training Programme (2019-2020)

Frequency of reporting                || On an annual basis (subject to the availability of data).  Reporting on some indicators will be delayed (for example on publications, patents, etc.)

Indication of availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020

X || X || X || X || X || ||

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || A. Ex-post evaluation of the Euratom Programme 2012-2013: 1. Deadline: 31 December 2015 2. Type: ex-post evaluation 3. Main issues addressed and coverage: rationale, implementation and achievements of the Programme 4. Planned use of evaluation results: to provide potential adjustments when preparing the Commission proposal for the Euratom Research and Training Programme (2019-2020). 5. Actors involved: Commission services, external experts. Where appropriate and available, Member States shall provide the Commission with data and information necessary for the monitoring and evaluation. B. Interim evaluation of the Euratom Programme 2014-2018: 1. Deadline: 31 May 2017 2. Type: interim evaluation 3. Main issues addressed and coverage: the evaluation should cover the achievements, at the level of results and progress towards impacts, of the Programme’s objectives, the continued relevance of all the measures, the efficiency and use of resources, the scope for further simplification, and the European added value. The evaluation shall additionally take into account the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures and the degree of synergy and interaction with other Union funding programmes, including the Structural Funds. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: to provide potential adjustments when preparing the Commission proposal for the Euratom Research and Training Programme (2019-2020). 5. Actors involved: where appropriate and available, Member States shall provide the Commission with data and information necessary for the monitoring and evaluation. C. Ex-post evaluation of the Euratom Programme 2014-2018: 1. Deadline: 31 December 2022 2. Type: ex-post evaluation 3. Main issues addressed and coverage: the evaluation should cover the rationale, implementation and achievements of the Programme, as well as the longer-term impacts and sustainability of the measures, to feed into a decision on a possible renewal, modification or suspension of the subsequent measure. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: to provide potential adjustments for the next Euratom Research and Training Programme. 5. Actors involved: where appropriate and available, Member States shall provide the Commission with data and information necessary for the monitoring and evaluation.

COSME (Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises)

Title spending programme: || COSME (Programme for  the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The multi-annual planning, monitoring and reporting cycles are based on the following elements: · 7-year Strategic Plan which provides a reference point for the establishment of the COSME annual work programmes. This plan facilitates the evaluation and communication on the progress and impact of the Programme over a 7-year period. · COSME annual work programme which describes the activities to be undertaken in a specific year and the budget allocated to these. · COSME annual monitoring report which describes the activities undertaken and comments on the achievements and the results obtained.  Evaluation reports: An interim and Final ex post evaluations will be conducted by external consultants in 2018 and 2021 respectively. It is assured there is a reliable system in place to collect performance reporting data. Annual reports on implementation of the Programme, examining efficiency and effectiveness of supported actions covering financial implementation, results, costs and, if possible, impact of the actions, will be prepared and presented to the Member States Committee. By 2018 an interim evaluation report will be prepared assessing level of results and impacts, efficiency of the use of resources and its European added value.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets An evaluation of results and impact of the measures will be establish following the objectives, indicators, milestones and targets, according to the legal base. The results will be published and submitted to the EP and the ECA,

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || To strengthen the competitiveness and sustainability of the Union’s enterprises, particularly SMEs.

Impact indicator: || Current situation || Long term target 2020

Performance of SMEs as regards sustainability || 2012: 26% (source Eurobarometer) || Increase the share of Union SME producing

Changes in unnecessary administrative and regulatory burden on both new and existing SMEs || Number of days to set up a new SME in 2012 = 5.4 days || Marked reduction of number of days[38]

Cost of start-up in 2012 = €372 || Marked reduction in average start-up costs in the Union[39]

Number of Member States where the time needed to get licences and permits (incl. environmental permits) to take up and perform the specific activity of an enterprise is one month = 2 || Marked increase in the number of Member States where the time needed to get licences and permits to take up and perform the specific activity of an enterprise is one month

Changes in share of SMEs exporting within or outside the Union || 25% of SMEs export and 13% of SMEs export outside the Union in 2009 || Increase in the share of SMEs exporting and increase in the share of SMEs exporting outside the Union

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 2 || To encourage an entrepreneurial culture and promote the creation and growth of SMEs

Impact indicator: || Current situation || Long term target 2020

Changes in SME growth || In 2010 SMEs provided more than 58% of total EU gross value added || Increase of SME output (value added) and employees

Total number of employees in SMEs in 2010 = 87.5 million (67% of private sector jobs in the EU)

Changes in share of Union citizens who wish to be self-employed || 2012 = 37% || Increase in share of EU citizens that would like to be self-employed

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || (Linked to general objectives 1 and 2) To improve access to finance for SMEs in the form of equity and debt

Indicator 1 || Number of Firms benefiting from debt financing

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

As of 31 December 2012, €13.4 billion in financing mobilised, reaching 219,000 SMEs (SMEG) || || || || Value of financing mobilised ranging from €7.5 billion to €11.5 billion; number of firms receiving financing which benefit from guarantees from the programme ranging from 115,000 to 178,000 || || || Value of financing mobilised ranging from €14 billion to €21 billion; number of firms receiving financing which benefit from guarantees from the programme ranging from 220,000 to 330,000

Indicator 2 || Number of VC investments from the Programme and overall volume invested

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

As of 31 December 2012, €2.3 billion in VC funding mobilised to 289 SMEs (GIF) || || || || Overall value of VC investments ranging from €0.74 billion to €1.1 billion; number of firms receiving VC investments from the Programme ranging from 100 to 150 || || || Overall value of VC investments ranging from €2.6 billion to €4.0 billion; number of firms receiving VC investments from the Programme ranging from 362 to 544

Indicator 3 || Leverage Ratio

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Leverage ratio for the SMEG facility 1:32 Leverage ratio for GIF 1:6.7 || || || || Debt instrument 1:20 – 1:30 Equity instrument 1:4- 1:6 || || || Debt instrument 1:20 – 1:30 Equity instrument 1:4- 1:6

Indicator 4 || Additionality of the EFG and LGF

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Additionality of the SMEG: 64% of final beneficiaries indicated that support was crucial to find the finance they needed. Additionality of the GIF: 62% of GIF final beneficiaries indicated that support was crucial to find the finance they needed || || || || Share of final beneficiaries that consider the EFG or the LGF to provide funding that could not have been obtained by other means equal to or higher than 70% || || || Increase in the share of final beneficiaries that consider the EFG or the LGF to provide funding that could not have been obtained by other means compared to baseline

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || (Linked to general objective 1) To improve framework conditions for the competitiveness and sustainability of Union enterprises, particularly SMEs, including in the tourism sector

Indicator 1 || Number of simplification measures adopted

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

3 in 2013 || 5 in 2014 || || || || || || At least 7 simplification measures per year

Indicator 2 || Making the regulatory framework fit for purpose

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

1 Fitness Check delivered in 2013 || || 2 by 2015 || || || || || Up to 5 fitness checks to be launched over the course of the COSME programme

Indicator 3 || Number of Member States using the competitiveness proofing test 

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Number of Member States using the competitiveness proofing test: 0 || || || || 25% of the Member States by end 2017 || || || Marked increase in the number of Member States using the competitiveness proofing test

Indicator 4 || Resource efficiency (which may include energy, materials or water, recycling, etc.) actions taken by SMEs

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

93% of SMEs are taking at least one action to be more resource efficient, with the most common actions being to minimise waste, save energy (both 67%) and save materials (59%). At least half are also recycling by reusing material or waste within the company, or by saving water (both 51%) Eight out of ten SMEs are planning additional resource efficiency actions in the next two years, particularly saving energy (58%) and minimising waste (56%). Almost half (49%) plan to save materials, while 43% will save water and 41% will recycle within the company. || A milestone will be defined following the launch of the European Resource-Efficiency self-assessment tool for SMEs in 2014 || || || || || || Increase in the share of Union SMEs that are taking at least one action to be more resource efficient (which may include energy, materials or water, recycling, etc.) compared to baseline (initial measurement) Increase in the share of Union SMEs that are planning to implement additional resource efficiency actions (which may include energy, materials or water, recycling, etc.) every two years compared to baseline (initial measurement)

Indicator 5 || Number of Member States using SME test

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Number of Member States using SME test: 15 MS || || || || 4 more Member States by 2017 || || || Increase in the number of Member States participating in transnational cooperation projects funded by the Programme

Indicator 6 || Participation in transnational cooperation projects in tourism

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

3 countries covered per project in 2011 || || || || 5 countries per project || || || Partnership agreements signed: 2500 per year

Indicator 7 || Number of destinations adopting the sustainable tourism development models promoted by the European Destinations of Excellence

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Number of European Destinations of Excellence awarded in total 98 in 2011 || || || || more than 150 || || || More than 200 destinations adopting the sustainable tourism development models promoted by the European Destinations of Excellence (about 20 every year)

Indicator 8 || Number of new products/services in the market

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

As this was restricted to analytical work of limited scale, the baseline will be 5 in 2017 || || || || || 15 || || Increase in the cumulative number of new products/services (initial measurement)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || (Linked to general objective 2) To promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture

Indicator 1 || Number of Member States implementing entrepreneurship solutions based on good practice identified through the programme

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Number of Member States implementing entrepreneurship solutions: 22 (2010) || || || || 25 || || || 100%

Indicator 2 || Number of Member States implementing entrepreneurship solutions targeting potential, young, new and female entrepreneurs, as well as other specific target groups

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

12 Member States in the European Network of Mentors for Women Entrepreneurs 6 Member States and 2 regions have a specific strategy for Entrepreneurship Education 10 Member States have incorporated national objectives related to entrepreneurship education in broader lifelong learning strategies and in 8 Member States entrepreneurship strategies are currently under discussion || || || || 12 Member States implementing new initiatives in this area || || || Marked increase in number of Member States

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || (Linked to general objectives 1 and 2) To improve access to markets, particularly inside the Union but also at  global level

Indicator 1 || Number of Member States implementing entrepreneurship solutions targeting potential, young, new and female entrepreneurs, as well as other specific groups

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

It is estimated that in regulatory cooperation with main trading partners (US, Japan, China, Brazil, Russia, Canada, India) there is an average of 2 relevant areas of significant alignment of technical regulations || || || || 3 relevant areas || || || 4 relevant areas of significant alignment of technical regulations with main trading partners (US, Japan, China, Brazil, Russia, Canada, India)

Indicator 2 || Number of partnership agreements signed

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Partnership agreements signed: 2475 (2012) || || || || 7500 signed || || || Partnership agreements signed: 2500 per year

Indicator 3 || Recognition of the Network amongst SME populations

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Recognition of the Network amongst SME population will be measured in 2015 || || Milestone to be determined once baseline has been set in 2015 || || || || || Increase in the recognition of the Network amongst SME population compared to baseline

Indicator 4 ||  Client satisfaction rate (% SMEs stating satisfaction, added-value of specific service provided by the Network)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Client satisfaction rate (% SMEs stating satisfaction, added-value of specific service): 78% || || || || 80% by end of 2017 || || || Client satisfaction rate (% SME stating satisfaction, added-value of specific service): > 82%

Indicator 5 ||  Number of SMEs receiving support services

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Number of SMEs receiving support services: 435,000 (2011) || || || || 1.400.000 by end of 2017 || || || Number of SMEs receiving support services 500,000/year

Indicator 6 ||  Number of SMEs using digital services (including electronic information services) provided by the Network

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

2 million SMEs per year using digital services || || || || 2.2 million SMEs || || || 2.3 million SMEs per year using digital services

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The Monitoring Report will measure annually the progress made by comparing the indicators with the baseline. Feedback from the actors involved in the monitoring process and the results of surveys and thematic evaluations will contribute to the overall assessment of progress.

Actors involved in monitoring || European Investment Fund, Enterprise Europe Network, Member States; Grant Recipients; Commission services; additional sources for specific information needs

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || According to Article 15 of the COSME Regulation, the Commission should prepare annual monitoring report assessing results, costs and impact. If possible, the report will include information on beneficiaries for each call for proposals, information on the amount of climate-related expenditure and impact of support to climate-change objectives. An annual report on each financial instrument (Article 140 (8) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012) will be included. An interim evaluation assessing achievement of the Programme objectives, results and impacts of the actions will be established. It shall address the scope of simplification, continued relevance of all objectives, and contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.  A final evaluation on a long-term impact and sustainability of effects of the measures will be prepared by the Commission.

Planned use of information || Information provided through the monitoring and reporting system will be used for the preparation of sub-sequent Work Programmes and might be relevant for a possible revision of COSME. Furthermore data provided within the COSME monitoring framework will contribute to the wider monitoring and reporting activities within the Commission (namely Management Plan and Annual Activity Report).

Frequency of reporting                  || Annual COSME Monitoring Reports Please note: Reports published in the years marked with X will report on activities in (and up to) the previous year (e.g. the first report, covering activities in 2014, will become available in 2015)

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 X

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || COSME Interim Evaluation 1. Deadline 2018 2. Interim Evaluation 3. The evaluation will focus on the achievement of the objectives of all the actions supported under the programme at the level of results and impacts, on the  efficiency of the use of resources and on its European added value. Furthermore it will address the scope for simplification. It shall also take into account evaluation  results on the long term impact of the predecessor measures. 4. Decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. 5. Independent experts; stakeholders; EIF; EEN; beneficiaries; Member States COSME Ex-Post Evaluation 1. Deadline 2021 2. Ex-Post Evaluation 3. Evaluation on the long-term impacts and the sustainability of effects of the measures. 4. Possible use for remedial action in the successor programme. 5. Independent experts; stakeholders; EIF; EEN; beneficiaries; Member States In addition to the annual reports to monitor efficiency and effectiveness of supported actions, to the interim evaluation to report on achievements of the objectives of all the actions and a final evaluation report on the longer-term impact and sustainability of effects of the measures, regarding Financial instruments, feed-back will be provided to Commission/EIF before summer break, and regarding the Enterprise Europe Network an evaluation is planned in 2014.

Erasmus +

Title spending programme: || Erasmus +

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || A new integrated programme and structure of Erasmus+ brings seven previously separated programmes into a single programme. The implementation of the programme will include both the centralised management modality by the Commission directly but also the indirect centralised via the executive agency EACEA and by the decentralised management through designated national agencies in all participating countries as well as a variety of other specialised designated bodies. The performance reporting framework for the programme has not been finalised yet. A comprehensive set of indicators has been established. They relate to outputs, results, impact and specific financial aspects and they cover the particular dissemination purpose of the programme. The detailed measurement framework necessary to follow the indicators, including the work to ensure that relevant data is collected in a coherent and coordinated manner, is planned to be finalised at the latest in 2015. Where relevant, the data collection will be carried out through the management systems of the programme (i.e. the dedicated IT tools E Plus Link for the National Agencies and Pegasus for the EAC Executive Agency).Where that is not possible  other means of data collection have been defined (i.e. EU Survey tool, Mobility tool). The concrete reporting mechanisms and frequency has not yet been determined. Specific statistics serving the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the programme will be made available as determined by the programme cycle. A regular reporting will be carried out within the framework of Annual Activity Reports (AAR). A mid-term evaluation of the new programme will be launched in 2016 and will be combined with an ex-post evaluation of the long term impact of the predecessor programmes. It will be a single evaluation exercise covering three different fields of action (i.e. education and training at all levels, youth and sport).  A final evaluation of the programme will be launched in 2020.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || To contribute to the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and of the Education and Training strategic framework 2020 (ET2020), including the corresponding benchmarks established in those instruments, to renewed framework for European Cooperation in the Youth field (2010-2018), to the sustainable development of third countries in the field of higher education and to developing the European dimension in sport, with a view to promoting a knowledge-based, innovative, sustainable and inclusive Europe.

Impact indicator 1: Early School Leaving (Europe 2020 headline target) Definition: Proportion of 18-24 year olds who have only lower-secondary education and are not enrolled in education or training. The share of the population aged 18-24 fulfilling the following two conditions: (1) who have only at most lower secondary (International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) level 0, 1, 2 or 3c short); (2) respondents declared not having received any education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey. Source: Eurostat,; The Labour Force Survey (annual average based on quarterly data)

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020 (Europe 2020)

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

12,7% || || || 11,5% || || || || Less than 10%

Impact indicator 2: Tertiary education attainment (Europe 2020 headline target) Definition: The share of the population  30 – 34  years who have successfully completed university or university-like tertiary-level) education that equals International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) level 5 or 6 Source:  The Labour Force Survey (annual average based on quarterly data)

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020 (Europe 2020)

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

35,7% || || || 38% || || || || At least 40%

Impact indicator 3: Employability of young people Definition:  The share of employed people aged 20-34 having successfully completed upper secondary or tertiary education 1-3 years before the reference year of the survey and who are no longer in education or training. Source:  The Labour Force Survey (annual average based on quarterly data)

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

75,7% || || || 78% || || || || 82%

Impact indicator 4: Early childhood education and care Definition: The share of the population aged 4 to the age when the compulsory primary education starts which are participating in early childhood education and care (ECEC) Source: Eurostat, UOE

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020 (ET 2020)

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

93,2% || || || || 94% || || || 95%

Impact indicator 5: Low achievement in basic skills at school Definition: The share of 15-year old Europeans failing to reach level 2 in reading, mathematics and science as measured by the OECD's PISA Source: OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Results reported every 3 years.

Baseline (2009) || Milestones || Target 2020 (ET 2020)

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Reading: 19,6% Maths 22,2% Science 17,7% || || 17% 19% 16% || || || 15% 17% 14% || || Less than 15% for all indicators

Impact indicator 6: Linguistic diversity at school Definition:  % of pupils in lower secondary education in the EU (ISCED level 2) that studied at least two foreign languages. Source: UOE Eurostat

Baseline (2011) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

63% || || || || 70% || || || 75%

Impact indicator 7: Learning mobility in higher education Definition:  % of higher education graduates (ISCED 1997 level 5+6) who have had a higher education-related study or training period (including work placement) abroad, representing a minimum of 15 ECTS credits or lasting a minimum three month Source: Eurostat, UOE data collection

Baseline (2015) || Milestones || Target 2020 (ET 2020)

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

The data collection needed for the indicator is under development || || First pilot results || || 17% || || || 20%

Impact indicator 8: Learning mobility in vocational education and training Definition: % of 18-34 year olds with an initial vocational education and training qualification (ISCED level 3) having had an initial VET-related study or training period (including work placements) abroad lasting a minimum of two weeks. Source: Eurostat

Baseline (2015) || Milestones || Target 2020 (ET 2020)

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

The survey data collection needed for the indicator is under development. (Within the Leonardo da Vinci sub-programme of LLP, data are only available for IVET mobility.) || || First pilot results || || 4% || || || 6%

Impact indicator 9: Share of non-EU students in the EU Definition: % of students from non-EU Member States enrolled/studying in EU Member States Source: OECD, Eurostat

Baseline (2010) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

4,6% || || || 7% || || || || 10%

Impact indicator 10: Youth out-of-school participation Definition: Percentage of young people declaring that they have participated in any out-of-school organisation (youth organisation, NGO, sport club…) during the last year. Source: Eurobarometer, every two years

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

55% || || || || 58% || || || 60%

Indicator 11 : The number of staff supported by the Programme, by country and by sector

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

HE 46 VET 9 Schools 13 Adult 2 Youth 16 || || || HE 50 VET 11 Schools 15 Adult 3 Youth 18 || || || || HE 70 VET 15 Schools 20 Adult 5 Youth 22

HE: higher education; VET: vocational education and training

Number in 1.000

Indicator 12 : The number of participants with special needs or fewer opportunities

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Special needs (LLP) 8 Fewer opportunities (Youth)18.7) || 15 || || || 21.6 || || || 40 37

Number in 1.000

Indicator 13 : The number and type of organisations and projects, by country and by action

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Available in September 2014 on the basis of the first applications received.[40] || || || || || || ||

Specific Objective 1 : to improve the level of key competences and skills, with particular regard to their relevance for the labour market and their contribution to a cohesive society, in particular through increased opportunities for learning mobility and through strengthened cooperation between the world of education and training and the world of work; PRELIMINARY COMMENT: New indicators or breakdown for target groups emerge for the 1st time in Erasmus+, therefore there is no baseline and the individual milestones and the final target 2020 are under construction. They will be determined in 2014, based on the individual measurements made in the course of the year.

Indicator 1: Learning mobility opportunities through Erasmus Definition:   Number of pupils, students and trainees participating in the programme, by country, sector, action and gender (in 1000) Source: EU reporting through Erasmus+ IT tool

Baseline 2013[41] || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

HE 260 || 244 || 278 || 304 || 348 || 380 || 402 || 429

VET 41 || 70 || 82 || 93 || 104 || 116 || 128 || 142

YOUTH 59 || 75 || 76 || 77 || 77 || 78 || 79 || 80

Indicator 2: Formal recognition of participation (Erasmus +) Definition: % of Erasmus +  participants who have received a certificate, diploma or other kind of formal recognition of their participation in the Programme

Baseline (2010) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Total || || || || || || ||

HE 100% VET 65% || || 100% 68% || || 100% 70% || || || 100% 75%

Indicator 3: Better skills for participants (Erasmus +) Definition:   % of Erasmus + participants declaring that they have improved their key competences and/or their skills relevant for employability Source:  Individual participant report to be submitted under Erasmus+

Baseline (2010) || Milestones (to be revised) || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

75% || || 77% || || 80% || || || 85%

Indicator 4: Employability of participants (Erasmus +) Definition: % of Erasmus +  participants indicating that participation in the programme contributed to finding a job Source:  Second individual participant report to be submitted under Erasmus+

Baseline (2014) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

See preliminary comment || || || || || || ||

Specific Objective 2 : to foster quality improvements, innovation excellence and internationalisation at the level of education and training institutions, in particular through enhanced transnational cooperation between education and training providers and other stakeholders;

Indicator 1: Innovation from participating organisations (Erasmus +) Definition: % of organisations that have developed/adopted innovative methods and/or materials, improved capacity; outreach methodologies, etc. Source:  Final report to be submitted by the beneficiary organisations under Erasmus+

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

50% (to be revised) || || 55% || || 65% || || || 70%

Indicator 2: The number of users of Euroguidance

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Not yet available (ongoing work by EACEA); data estimated to be available in July 2014 || || || || || || || Not yet available (ongoing work by EACEA); data estimated to be available in July 2014

Indicator 3: Number of strategic partnerships (school, HE, VET, Adult); knowledge alliances/sector skills alliances; web platforms

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Strategic partnerships || 1739 || 1780 || 2138 || 3026 || 3545 || 3916 || 4515

Knowledge/sector skills alliances || 13 || 20 || 36 || 48 || 60 || 72 || 88

Web platforms || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4

Specific Objective 3 : to promote the emergence and raise awareness of a European lifelong learning area designed to complement policy reforms at national level and to support the modernisation of education and training systems, in particular through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of Union transparency and recognition tools and the dissemination of good practices;

Indicator 1: Impact of EU coordination on national policy development (Education and training) Definition:   Number of Member States making use of the results of the OMC in their national policy developments measured by the aggregate progression rate of Member States implementing European transparency tools in education and training (recommendation on the European Qualification Framework (EQF) and recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning). Source:  DG EAC

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Aggregate  progression rate: 24% || || || || || 80% || || 100%

Indicator 2: Implementation of European Transparency tools in vocational education and training (ECVET and EQAVET) Definition: Number of countries having established a national approach to quality assurance in line with the European Quality Assurance for Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) Source: EQAVET secretariat survey Definition: Number of countries introducing European Credits for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) in their national systems through a political decision and/or tests. (An evaluation of ECVET will be carried out in 2014, following which the concept may be revised; milestones have therefore not been defined beyond 2015).   Source: Cedefop monitoring survey

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

ECVET: 10 || 12 || 15 || n.d. || n.d. || n.d. || n.d. || All MS

EQAVET: 23 || 24 || 25 || 28 || 28 || 28 || 28 || All MS

Indicator 3: % of participants who have received a certificate, diploma or other kind of formal recognition of their participation in the Programme

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

HE 100% VET 65% || || 100% 68% || || 100% 70% || || || 100% 75%

Specific Objective 4: to enhance the international dimension of education and training, in particular through cooperation between Union and partner-country institutions in the field of VET and in higher education, by increasing the attractiveness of European higher education institutions and supporting the Union's external action, including its development objectives, through the promotion of mobility and cooperation between the Union and partner-country higher education institutions and targeted capacity-building in partner countries

Indicator 1: Involvement of non-EU higher education institutions (Erasmus+) - The number of partner country higher education institutions involved in mobility and cooperation actions

Baseline (2013) || Milestones[42] || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

1 000 || 1 000 || || 1 100 || || 1 200 || || 1 300

Indicator 2: EU students going to non-EU countries and vice versa  (Erasmus+) Definition:  Number of higher education students receiving support to study in a third country, as well as the number of students coming to study in a participating country Source: The mobility tool used by NAs for decentralised actions and the EACEA Pegasus database

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

HE students going to partner country || 3.8 || 3.8 || 4 || 4.3 || 3.6 || 3 || 3.9

HE students coming from a partner country || 15 || 15 || 16 || 17 || 14 || 15 || 15

Number in 1000

Specific Objective 5: To improve the teaching and learning of languages and promote the Union's broad linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness

Indicator 1: Language skills of participants (Erasmus+) Definition:   % of Erasmus+ participants in long-term mobility declaring that they have increased their language skills Source: Individual participant report to be submitted under Erasmus+

Baseline (2010) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

HE: 94% VET: 81% || || 95% || || 96% 87% || || || 98% 90%

Specific Objective 6: To promote excellence in teaching and research activities in European integration through Jean Monnet activities worldwide

Indicator 1:  Students trained through Jean Monnet activities (Erasmus+) Definition: Number of Students directly exposed to teaching courses on European Union issues co-funded by the Jean Monnet Programme  Source:  Online Reporting Tool for the Jean Monnet Programme (which in the future should be connected to Pegasus to allow the creation of statistics)

Baseline (2007) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

120 000 || 215 000 || 235 000 || 260 000 || 285 000 || 310 000 || 335 000 || 360 000

Indicator 2: Worldwide scope of Jean Monnet activities (Erasmus+) Definition: Number of countries where Jean Monnet activities have been performed successfully, increasing knowledge in partner countries Source: Online Reporting Tool for the Jean Monnet to be connected to Pegasus

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

78 countries || 78 || 80 || 81 || 82 || 83 || 84 || 85

Specific Objective 7: to improve the level of key competences and skills of young people, including those with fewer opportunities, as well as to promote participation in democratic life in Europe and the labour market, active citizenship, intercultural dialogue, social inclusion and solidarity, in particular through increased learning mobility opportunities for young people, those active in youth work or youth organisations and youth leaders, and through strengthened links between the youth field and the labour market;

Indicator 1: % of participants declaring that they have increased their key competences

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

75% || || || 77% || || || || 80%

Indicator 2: % of participants in voluntary activities declaring that they have increased their language skills

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

87% || || 90% || || 92% || || || 95%

Indicator 3: Social and political participation of young people (Erasmus +) Definition:   % of Erasmus + young participants declaring being better prepared to participate in social and political life Source:  Individual participant report to be submitted under Erasmus+

Baseline (2011) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

78% || || 80% || || 80% || || || 80%

Indicator 4: The number of young people engaged in mobility actions supported by the Programme, by country, action and gender

Baseline (2012)[43][44] || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

59.400 || 69.500 || 69.900 || 69.900 || 77.400 || 92.200 || 107.500 || 124.000

Specific Objective 8: to foster quality improvements in youth work, in particular through enhanced cooperation between organisations in the youth field and/or other stakeholders;

Indicator 1:  the number of users of Eurodesk network

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

140.000 info enquiries answered through Eurodesk network || 140.000 || 140.000 || 140.000 || 140.000 || 140.000 || 140.000 || 140.000

Specific Objective 9: to complement policy reforms at local, regional and national level and to support the development of knowledge and evidence-based youth policy as well as the recognition of non-formal and informal learning, in particular through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of Union transparency and recognition tools and the dissemination of good practices;

Indicator 1:  % of participants who have received a certificate – e.g.Youthpass, diploma or other kind of formal recognition of their participation in the Programme

Baseline (2010) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

26% || || 35% || || 45% || || || 65%

Specific Objective 10: to enhance the international dimension of youth activities and the role of youth workers and organisations as support structures for young people in complementarity with the Union's external action, in particular through the promotion of mobility and cooperation between the Union and partner-country stakeholders and international organisations and through targeted capacity-building in partner countries.

Indicator 1:  Involvement of EU and non-EU youth organisations (Erasmus+) Definition: Number of youth organisations from both Programme countries and partner countries involved in international mobility and cooperation under the Erasmus+ programme Source: The mobility tool used by NAs for decentralised actions and the EACEA Pegasus database

Baseline (2011) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

5 300 || 5 500 || || 5 600 || || 5 800 || || 6 000

Specific Objective 11: To tackle cross-border threats to integrity of sport such as doping, match fixing, violence as well as all kind of intolerance and discrimination

Indicator 1:  % of Erasmus+ sport organisations[45] that use the results of cross-border projects to fight against threats to sport

Baseline (year) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

new EU action, no baseline available || || || || || || ||

New EU Action - Baseline, milestone(s) and target for this indicator will therefore be established across the present programme as early as September 2014 on the basis of data within applications received in 2014 and within past pilot projects

Specific Objective 12: To promote and support good governance in sport and dual careers of athlete

Indicator 1: % of Erasmus+ sport organisations that use the results of cross-border projects to improve good governance and dual careers

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

 new EU action, no baseline available || || || || || || ||

New EU Action - Baseline, milestone(s) and target for this indicator will therefore be established across the present programme as early as September 2014 on the basis of data within applications received in 2014 and within past pilot projects

Specific Objective 13: To promote voluntary activities in sport, together with social inclusion, equal opportunities and health-enhancing physical activity through increased participation in, and equal access to sport

Indicator 1 : % of participants who have used the results of cross-border projects to enhance social inclusion, equal opportunities and participation rates

Baseline (year) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

new EU action, no baseline available || || || || || || ||

New EU Action - Baseline, milestone(s) and target for this indicator will therefore be established across the present programme as early as September 2014 on the basis of data within applications received in 2014 and within past pilot projects

Indicator 2 : Size of membership of sport organisations applying for, and taking part in, the Programme, by country

Baseline (year) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

|| || || || || || ||

New EU Action - Baseline, milestone(s) and target for this indicator will therefore be established across the present programme as early as September 2014 on the basis of data within applications received in 2014 and within past pilot projects

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets is tracked || A full automation of business processes for the vast majority of activities is envisaged throughout the programme allowing for detailed data collection at all stages of programme implementation. The data collected from the management systems and other systems supporting the implementation of the programme will be made available for combined reporting via the IT tool Business Objects. The data models of the supporting systems will be finalised in Q1 / 2014. Hence, comprehensive reports can be defined as from Q2 / 2014; the final availability depends on the complexity and cannot yet be determined. Reports supporting the monitoring of ongoing business processes (i.e. the application, accreditation and the selection process) will be established and made available ad hoc.  Annual standard reports will be drafted in view of ensuring a generalised monitoring of key performance indicators within the framework of AAR.

Actors involved in monitoring || Programme end users: Applicant organisations, beneficiary organisations, individual participants Administrative / Implementing bodies of the Programme: Commission services, executive agency EACEA, national authorities, national agencies, Higher Education institutions,

Planned use of information || All indicators set in the programme will be reported on in the Commission's corresponding Annual Activity Report. When available, monitoring and evaluation findings will feed in the adjustments made to the implementation of the current programme or in the preparation of the next generation of programmes.

Frequency of reporting || Annual

Availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 Q2 || 2015 Q2 || 2016 Q2 || 2017 Q2 || 2018 Q2 || 2019 Q2 || 2020 Q2

Evaluations of the spending programme

Deadline || 2017

Type || External, Retrospective and Prospective; Interim evaluation incl. ex-post evaluations of previous MFF period

Main issues addressed  and coverage || - continued relevance and effectiveness of objectives; efficiency, sustainability, utility, European added value, internal and external coherence - scope for simplification of the programme - contribution to the realisation of Europe 2020

Planned use of evaluation results || -Improvement of design and execution of the programme  - Preparation of a successor programme

Actors involved || External Contractors, Commission services, EACEA, selected National authorities and  national agencies, selected final beneficiary organisations; other stakeholders

Deadline || 2022

Type || External, Retrospective and Prospective; Final evaluation

Main issues addressed  and coverage || - continued relevance and effectiveness of objectives; efficiency, sustainability, utility, European added value, internal and external coherence - scope for simplification of the programme - contribution to the realisation of Europe 2020

Planned use of evaluation results || -Improvement of design and execution of the next generation programme

Actors involved || External Contractors, Commission services, EACEA, selected National authorities and  national agencies, selected final beneficiary organisations; other stakeholders

EaSI (programme for employment and social innovation)

Title spending programme: || EaSI (programme for employment and social innovation)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Commission draws up an initial qualitative and quantitative monitoring report covering the first year, followed by three reports covering consecutive two-year periods. The reports shall cover the Programme's results and the extent to which the principles of equality between women and men and gender mainstreaming have been applied, as well as how anti-discrimination considerations, including accessibility issues, have been addressed through its activities. The system for monitoring and tracking performance has not yet been completed. The responsible Commission service concluded a contract with an external organisation that will assist the service in establishing and executing the monitoring of the performance of EaSI. It will: a) define the intervention logic, related performance indicators and baseline (by mid-2014) b) provide the support to collect the relevant information. This will be done through desk research in primary and secondary sources and complemented by an annual survey of the event s participants and biennial performance surveys of key stakeholders. c) establish the initial qualitative and quantitative monitoring report covering the first year (by mid-2015) In addition, reports on good practices will be produced twice a year and will contain analysis of the good practice cases and key findings.

Specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Support the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Union's instruments, policies (promoting a high level of quality and sustainable employment, guaranteeing adequate and decent social protection, combating social exclusion and poverty and improving working conditions) and relevant law and promote evidence-based policy-making, social innovation and social progress, in partnership with the social partners, civil society organisations and public and private bodies.

Indicator: || Declared gain of better understanding of EU policies and legislation

Baseline || Milestones || Target

2012 || 2017 || 2020

92% of respondents || Maintain 2012 high results (over 85%) || Maintain 2012 high results (over 85%)

Indicator: || Active collaboration and partnership between government institutions of the EU and Member States

Baseline || Milestones || Target

2012 || 2017 || 2020

87% of respondents || Maintain 2012 high results (over 85%) || Maintain 2012 high results (over 85%)

Indicator: || Declared use of  social policy innovation in the implementation of social CSRs and the results of social policy experimentation for policy making

Baseline || Milestones || Target

2012 || 2017 || 2020

None as new area of intervention. Will be defined in the frame of the new EaSI survey. || Will be defined on the basis of the results of the first survey || Will be defined on the basis of the results of the first survey

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Promote workers’ voluntary geographical mobility on a fair basis and boost employment opportunities by developing high-quality and inclusive Union labour markets that are open and accessible to all, while respecting workers’ rights throughout the Union, including freedom of movement.

Indicator: || Number of visits of the EURES platform (monthly average in million)

Baseline || Milestones || Target

2012 || 2016 || 2020

3.3 || 4 || 5

Indicator: || Number of placements made through the EURES Job Mobility Portal

Baseline || Milestones || Target

2010 || 2017 || 2020

100.000 placements / year || 120.000 placements / year || 150.000 placements / year

Indicator: || Number of individual personal contacts of EURES advisers with jobseekers, job changers and employers

Baseline || Milestones || Target

2012 || 2017 || 2020

1.019.852 || 1.200.000 || 1.400.000

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Promote employment and social inclusion by increasing the availability and accessibility of microfinance for vulnerable people who wish to start up a micro-enterprise as well as for existing micro-enterprises, and by increasing access to finance for social enterprises

Indicator: || Number of business created or consolidated that have benefitted from EU support

Baseline || Milestones || Target

2012 || 2017 || 2020

Microfinance: 6.089 [46] || 21.000 || 41.000 [47]

Social Enterprises: 0[48] || 500 social enterprises || 1350 social enterprises[49]

Indicator: || Proportion of beneficiaries that have created or further developed a business with EU microfinance that are unemployed or belonging to disadvantaged groups

Baseline || Milestones || Target

2011 || 2017 || 2020

In September 2011, 40% of beneficiaries were disadvantage (27% of them were unemployed or inactive and 13% were over the age of 54). ||  45% || 50% of beneficiaries are unemployed people or from disadvantaged groups

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Data will be mainly collected by the Commission through reports from beneficiaries, surveys of the participants to events and biennial performance surveys of key stakeholders.

Actors involved in monitoring || The programme is directly managed by the Commission. The monitoring will involve the responsible Commission service and the beneficiaries of the funding.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || The monitoring reports will focus on actual products (outputs) and programme results. The mid-term evaluation (2017) shall be carried out to measure, on a qualitative and quantitative basis, progress made in meeting the Programme's objectives, to address the social environment within the Union and any major changes introduced by Union legislation, to determine whether the resources of the Programme have been used efficiently and to assess its Union added value.

Planned use of information || The reports should be transmitted for information purposes to the European Parliament the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. If the evaluation reveals that the Programme has major shortcomings, the Commission may submit a proposal for amendments to the Programme. Information will also be used to provide the relevant information for the MP and AAR.

Frequency of reporting                  || In first year of programme implementation (2015) and subsequently every 2 years.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 x || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 x || 2019 || 2020 x

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Ex-post evaluation PROGRESS 2007-2013 1) 2014 2) Ex-post 3) impact and Union added value of the Programme 4) Implementation of EaSI activities 5) Beneficiaries, independent experts, stakeholders, Member States. Mid-term evaluation 1) By July 2017 2) mid-term 3) - measure on a qualitative and quantitative basis progress made in meeting the Programme's objectives - determine whether the resources of the Programme have been used efficiently and to assess its Union added value. 4) The results of that mid-term evaluation shall be presented to the European Parliament and to the Council. It is foreseen that if the evaluation reveals that the Programme has major shortcomings, the Commission should, if appropriate, submit a proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council, including appropriate amendments to the Programme to take account of the results of the evaluation 5) Beneficiaries, independent experts, stakeholders, Member States. Before submitting any proposal for a prolongation of the Programme beyond 2020, 1) end of 2017  (tbc) 2) Programme review to perform the ex-ante evaluation of the new programme 3) - evaluation of the conceptual strengths and weaknesses of the Programme in the period 2014 to 2020 - the Commission will present the report to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 4) In the ex-ante evaluation and in the new proposal. 5) Beneficiaries, independent experts, stakeholders, Member States. Ex-post evaluation 1) By 31 December 2022, 2) Ex-post evaluation 3) Impact and Union added value of the Programme 4) Accountability purposes on the achievements of the intervention. Transmitted to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 5) Beneficiaries, independent experts, stakeholders, Member States.

Fiscalis 2020

Title spending programme: || Fiscalis 2020

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The performance framework of the programme follows an integrated approach. The monitoring mechanism is applied to the different actions from their start up to their finalisation. As such each action regardless of its type (Joint Action, European Information Systems and training activities) will start from a proposal which includes information like the background (why the activity takes place), the expected results, and possibly reporting to other bodies or more details on how the activity will be organised. For each action there will be a monitoring of the budget execution both from a tool based (type of eligible actions) and business (programme objectives) perspective.  Subsequently, the (outputs) implementation and results (impacts) of actions are equally monitored through the action follow up forms addressed to action managers. Dependent on the duration of an action, these forms are completed at certain period in time. For the joint actions, follow up at the level of the participant is also foreseen at the end of an activity (immediate effect) and after a certain period of time (lasting impact)  The performance framework will be finalised in the second semester of 2014.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 etc.* || The overall objective of the programme shall be to improve the proper functioning of the taxation systems in the internal market by enhancing cooperation between participating countries, their tax authorities and their officials.

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

“The feedback from participants in actions under the Programme and users of the Programme” index will measure the perception of Programme stakeholders regarding the impact of the actions under the Programme inter alia in terms of: · networking impact of the actions under the Programme; · cooperation impact of actions under the Programme

|| Established during the final evaluation of the present programme || Established in view of the baseline reached || Established in view of the baseline reached

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 etc. || The specific objective of the programme shall be to support the fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning and the implementation of Union law in the field of taxation by ensuring exchange of information, by supporting administrative cooperation and, where necessary and appropriate, by enhancing the administrative capacity of participating countries with a view to assisting in reducing the administrative burden on tax authorities and the compliance costs for taxpayers

Indicator: || a) The Common Communication Network for the European Information Systems Indicator, which will measure the availability of the common network; b) the European Information System Availability Indicator, which will measure the availability of the Union components of IT applications c) The Union Law and Policy Application and Implementation Index, which will measure the progress in the application and implementation of Union law and policy in the field of taxations inter alia on the basis of: a. the number of actions under the Programme organised in this area; b. the number of recommendations issued following those actions; d) the Best Practices and Guideline Index, which will measure the evolution in the identification, development, sharing and application of best working practices and administrative procedures inter alia on the basis of: a. the number of actions under the Programme organised in this area; b. the number of guidelines and best practices shared; e) the Learning Index, which will measure the progress resulting from actions under the Programme aiming to reinforce skills and competences of taxation officials, inter alia on the basis of: a. the number of officials trained by using common training material of the Union; b. the number of times Programme eLearning modules were downloaded;

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

|| 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

These will be established during the final evaluation of the 2013 programme and will be available in the 2nd semester of 2014.

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || A regular and structured collection of monitoring data will be established. It will include several sources and data collection tools: · Monitoring data of the activities collected predominantly with the Activity Reporting Tool (ART) · Statistics of the European Information Systems and training modules · Surveys of participants in programme activities (Joint Actions) gathered at different intervals in time throughout the lifetime of the programme (see scheme below). The frequency of the event follow up forms is still under discussion · Surveys of Member States which will happen in the framework of the midterm and final evaluations (twice in the lifetime of the programme) The Commission collects the information at the different time intervals. Where possible the process is automated.

Actors involved in monitoring || The Commission triggers the collection of the different data collection forms and the statistics from the different IT systems. The programme stakeholders (Commission officials, Member States and their taxation officials) will provide the data.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || The monitoring will cover several implementation aspects results of the programme activities. Initially the data in the reports will have mainly a monitoring and output character. As time evolves the reports will gradually start including information on the available results as a typical action might last for 24 months before delivering. By the end of the programme also impact and long-term results will be covered.

Planned use of information || The monitoring information will also be used in the Annual Activity Reports and Management plans and whenever applicable in any other TAXUD reporting. The available information will annually feed into the Annual Work Programme, steering the overall orientation of the programme.

Frequency of reporting                  || · During the Committee meetings which will be organised in principle once a year · Annual or bi-annual reports (the frequency is still to be decided) · Mid-term and final evaluations respectively by 30 June 2018 and 31 December 2021

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 Annual Report (TBC) || 2015 Annual Report || 2016 Annual Report (TBC) || 2017 Annual Report || 2018 MT Evaluation / Annual Report (TBC) || 2019 Annual Report (TBC) || 2020 Annual Report (TBC) Final Evaluation (2021)

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. Deadline: 31/7/2014 2. Type: external, final evaluation of Fiscalis 2013 (MFF 2007-2013) 3. Main issues and coverage: The final evaluation will look at the entire duration of the programme (years 2008-2013). The final evaluation will cover all types of activities run under the Fiscalis 2013, assessing their strengths and weaknesses (EU added value, effectiveness). It will cross-check the results achieved with the resources put forward, including the extent to which the results have been integrated in the day-to-day business amongst the tax administrations (efficiency and impacts/utility). The evaluation will pay particular attention to the IT systems offered by the programme, which constitute about 75% of the programme’s overall budget. It will also re-examine relevant aspects identified in the Impact Assessment of the Fiscalis 2013 programme, look into the recommendations and follow-up processes based on the mid-term evaluation of the Fiscalis 2013 programme. 4. Planned use: The final evaluation will be used to demonstrate whether the activities conducted under the programme (a) have added (sustainable) value to the cooperation between the EU tax authorities by offering them a broad EU-wide cooperation platform, most importantly the communication and information-exchange systems; (b) have delivered value for money by running the right activities (thus generating revenue/benefits/impacts) at an optimal cost; (c) achieved the objectives they were set for and contributed to broader policy objectives not only in terms of the direct results but, most importantly, in terms of further-going impacts (short-term), or changes (long-term), they managed to trigger. Even though this evaluation will assess the programme from the EU perspective, in taking account of the national experience, it should also provide feedback for consideration at the national level. The final evaluation will also be used to assess and/or contribute to the revision of the to-date implementation and follow-up of the recommendations of past evaluations. Furthermore, the evaluation will inform the other European Institutions of the programme’s performance. 5. Actors involved: European Commission, Programme beneficiaries (i.e. tax administrations of participating countries) 1. Deadline: 30 June 2018 2. Type: External, Midterm evaluation of Fiscalis 2020 (MFF 2013-2020) 3. Main issues and coverage: specific terms of reference for this evaluation will be drafted around the time of the exercise. According to the programme’s Regulation, midterm evaluation will look at the achievement of the objectives of Fiscalis 2020, its efficiency and its added value at the European level. Additionally, it is expected to address the simplification and the continued relevance of the objectives, as well as the contribution of the programme to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Based on the first half of the programme duration, the evaluation is also expected to identify potential for improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the Programme, present concrete and actionable recommendations for the remainder of the Programme lifetime.   Coverage: Whole spending programme, all participating countries. 4.  Planned use: Preparation of a successor programme, feed into the respective impact assessments. Furthermore, the evaluation will inform the other European Institutions. 5. Actors involved: European Commission, Programme beneficiaries (i.e. tax administrations of the participating countries.) 1. Deadline: 31 December 2021 2. Type: External, final evaluation of Fiscalis 2020 (MFF 2013-2020) 3. Main issues and coverage: specific terms of reference for this evaluation will be drafted around the time of the exercise. According to the programme’s Regulation, in addition to the criteria as specified for the midterm evaluation, the final evaluation will deal the long-term impact and sustainability of effects of the programme, in particular compared to the baseline established by the Performance Measurement project.        Coverage: Whole spending programme, all participating countries. 4. Planned use: The evaluation will inform the other European Institutions. 5. Actors involved: European Commission, Programme beneficiaries (i.e. tax administrations of participating countries)

Customs 2020

Title spending programme: || Customs 2020

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The performance framework of the programme follows an integrated approach. The monitoring mechanism is applied to the different actions from their start up to their finalisation. As such each action regardless of its type (Joint Action, European Information Systems and training activities) will start from a proposal which includes information like the background (why the activity takes place), the expected results, and possibly reporting to other bodies or more details on how the activity will be organised. For each action there will be a monitoring of the budget execution both from a tool based (type of eligible actions) and business (programme objectives) perspective.  Subsequently, the (outputs) implementation and results (impacts) of actions are equally monitored through the action follow up forms addressed to action managers. Dependent on the duration of an action these forms are completed at certain period in time. For the joint actions, follow up at the level of the participant is foreseen at the end of an activity (immediate effect) and after a certain period of time (lasting impact)  The performance framework will be finalised in the second semester of 2014.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 etc.* || The general objective of the Programme shall be to support the functioning and modernisation of the customs union in order to strengthen the internal market by means of cooperation between participating countries, their customs authorities and their officials.

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

“The feedback from participants in actions under the Programme and users of the Programme” index will measure the perception of Programme stakeholders regarding the impact of the actions under the Programme inter alia in terms of: · networking impact of the actions under the Programme; · cooperation impact of actions under the Programme

|| Established during the final evaluation of the present programme || Established in view of the baseline reached || Established in view of the baseline reached

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 etc. || The specific objectives shall be to support customs authorities in protecting the financial and economic interests of the Union and of the Member States, including the fight against fraud and the protection of intellectual property rights, to increase safety and security, to protect citizens and the environment, to improve the administrative capacity of the customs authorities and to strengthen the competitiveness of European businesses.

Indicator: || a) The number of guidelines and recommendations issued following activities under the Programme relating to modern and harmonised approaches to customs procedures; b) The Common Communication Network for the European Information Systems Indicator, which will measure the availability of the common network; c) The Union Law and Policy Application and Implementation Index, which will measure the progress in the preparation, application and implementation of Union law and policy in the field of customs inter alia on the basis of: a. the number of actions under the Programme organised in this area, in particular relating to the protection of intellectual property rights, the issues of safety and security, the fight against fraud and the security in the supply chain; b. the number of recommendations issued following those actions; d) the European Information System Availability Indicator, which will measure the availability of the Union components of IT customs applications. e) the Best Practices and Guideline Index, which will measure the evolution in the identification, development, sharing and application of best working practices and administrative procedures inter alia on the basis of: a. the number of actions under the Programme organised in this area; b. the number of guidelines and best practices shared; f) the Learning Index, which will measure the progress resulting from actions under the Programme aiming to reinforce skills and competences of customs officials, inter alia on the basis of: a. the number of officials trained by using common training material of the Union; b. the number of times Programme eLearning modules were downloaded; g) the Cooperation with third parties Indicator, which will establish how the Programme supports authorities other than Member States' customs authorities by measuring the number of actions under the Programme supporting that objective.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

|| 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

These will be established during the final evaluation of the 2013 programme and will be available in the 2nd semester of 2014.

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || A regular and structured collection of monitoring data will be established. It will include several sources and data collection tools: · Monitoring data of the activities collected predominantly with the Activity Reporting Tool (ART) · Statistics of the European Information Systems and training modules · Surveys of participants in programme activities (Joint Actions) gathered at different intervals in time throughout the lifetime of the programme (see scheme below). The frequency of the event follow up forms is still under discussion. · Surveys of Member States which will take place in the framework of the mid-term and final evaluations (twice in the lifetime of the programme) The Commission collects the information at the different time intervals. Where possible the process is automated.

Actors involved in monitoring || The Commission triggers the collection of the different data collection forms and the statistics from the different IT systems. The programme stakeholders (Commission officials, Member States and their taxation officials) will provide the data.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || The monitoring will cover several implementation aspects and results of the programme activities. Initially the data in the reports will have mainly a monitoring and output character. As time evolves the reports will gradually start including information on the available results as a typical action might last for 24 months before delivering. By the end of the programme also impact and long term results will be covered.

Planned use of information || The monitoring information will also be used in the Annual Activity Reports and Management plans and whenever applicable in any other TAXUD reporting. The available information will annually feed into the Annual Work Programme, steering the overall orientation of the programme.

Frequency of reporting                  || · During the Committee meetings which will be organised in principle once a year · Annual or bi-annual reports (the frequency is still to be decided) · Mid-term and final evaluations by 30 June 2018 and 31 December 2021 respectively.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 Annual Report (TBC) || 2015 Annual Report || 2016 Annual Report (TBC) || 2017 Annual Report || 2018 MT Evaluation / Annual Report (TBC) || 2019 Annual Report (TBC) || 2020 Annual Report (TBC) Final Evaluation (2021)

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. Deadline: 1 August 2014 2. Type: External, final evaluation of Customs 2013 (MFF 2007-2013) 3. Main issues addressed and coverage: The final evaluation will look at the entire duration of the programme (years 2008-2013). It will cover all types of activities ran under the Customs 2013, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the activities, be it in general or purpose/objective-related context (EU added value, effectiveness). It will also cross-check the results achieved with the resources put forward, including the extent to which the results have been integrated in the day-to-day business amongst the customs administrations (efficiency and impacts/utility). The evaluation will pay particular attention to the IT systems offered by the programme. It will also re-examine relevant aspects identified in the Impact Assessment of the Customs 2013 programme and will look into the final evaluation will look into the recommendations and follow-up processes based on the mid-term evaluation. Coverage: Whole spending programme, all participating countries 4. Planned use: The final evaluation will be used to demonstrate whether the activities conducted under the Customs 2013 programme (a) have added (sustainable) value to the cooperation between the EU customs authorities by offering them a broad EU-wide cooperation platform, most importantly the communication and information-exchange systems; (b) have delivered value for money by running the right activities (thus generating revenue/benefits/impacts) at an optimal cost; (c) achieved the objectives they were set for and contributed to broader policy objectives not only in terms of the direct results but, most importantly, in terms of further-going impacts (short-term), or changes (long-term), they managed to trigger. Even though this evaluation will assess the programme from the EU perspective, in taking account of the national experience, it should also provide feedback for consideration at the national level. The final evaluation will also be used to assess and/or contribute to the revision of the to-date implementation and follow-up of the recommendations of past evaluations. Furthermore, the evaluation will inform the other European Institutions. 1. Deadline: 30 June 2018. 2. Type: External, Mid-term evaluation 3. Main issues addressed and coverage: specific terms of reference for this evaluation will be drafted around the time of the exercise. According to the programme’s Regulation, midterm evaluation will look at the achievement of the objectives of Customs 2020, its efficiency and its added value at the European level. Additionally, it is expected to address the simplification and the continued relevance of the objectives, as well as the contribution of the programme to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Based on the first half of the programme duration, it is also expected to identify potential for improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the Programme, present concrete and actionable recommendations for the remainder of the Programme lifetime. Coverage: Whole spending programme, all participating countries 4. Planned use: Preparation of a successor programme, feed into the respective impact assessments. Furthermore, the evaluation will inform the other European Institutions. 5. Actors involved: European Commission, Programme beneficiaries (i.e. customs administrations of participating Countries) 1. Deadline: 31 December 2021 2. Type: External, final evaluation Customs 2020 (MFF 2013-2020) 3. Main issues addressed and coverage: specific terms of reference for this evaluation will be drafted around the time of the exercise. According to the programme’s Regulation, in addition to the criteria as specified for the midterm evaluation, the final evaluation will deal the long-term impact and sustainability of effects of the programme, in particular compared to the baseline established by the Performance Measurement project. Achievement of the action objectives under the programme, efficiency of the use of resources and the added value at European level. Coverage: Whole spending programme, all participating countries 4. Planned use: The evaluation will inform the other European Institutions. 5. Actors involved: European Commission, Programme beneficiaries (i.e. customs administrations of participating countries).

HERCULE III

Title spending programme: || Hercule III: programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the European Union's financial interests

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Programme shall contribute to developing the activities at EU and Member State level to counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the EU's financial interests, including the fight against cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting. It shall contribute to an increased transnational cooperation and coordination at Union level, between Member States' authorities, the Commission and OLAF. It shall also contribute to an effective prevention of fraud, corruption and other illegal activities against the EU's financial interests. This shall be achieved by providing technical assistance to MS' authorities in order to strengthen their operational and investigative capacity and by funding training, conferences and seminars for law enforcement professionals to improve their skills and to allow for the exchange of knowledge and best practices. The support consists of grants as well as procured services made available to Member States. At the end of the action, the beneficiaries of grants will submit a final technical report and, in the case of technical assistance grants, a final implementation report (the templates for these documents are included in the grant agreement) in which they present its impact and results. Based on the final reports received the Commission will present an annual report to the EP and the Council on the 2014 implementation of the programme, as stipulated by Art. 11(1) of the draft Hercule III Regulation. The report will describe how each of the Programme's operational objectives was achieved for 2014 and the results and impact of the actions co-financed.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 etc.* || To protect the financial interests of the Union thus enhancing the competitiveness of the Union's economy and ensuring the protection of the taxpayers' money. The definition and collection of information for impact indicators would be disproportionate to the modest size of the programme.

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES || The specific objective of the programme is to prevent and combat fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the Union's financial interests. The Regulation provides that the achievement of this objective shall be monitored through four key performance indicators (Article 4 of the draft Hercule III Regulation). Two indicators for monitoring the achievement of specific objectives have been elaborated below in the light of the operational objectives in the Regulation.

Indicator 1: || The number of cigarettes in the EU that were seized with equipment purchased under the Hercule III actions, expressed as percentage of the overall number of cigarettes seized within the Member States, as referred to in Art.4 first indent of the draft Hercule III Regulation.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

|| 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0% || 1% || 1.5% || 2% || 3% || 3.5% || 4% || 5%

Indicator 2: || The number and type of training activities funded under the Hercule III programme, including the amount of specialised training, as referred to in Art.4 fourth indent of the draft Hercule III Regulation.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

25 || 25 || 25 || 25 || 25 || 25 || 25 || 25

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Beneficiaries of grants have to submit a final technical report and a final implementation report (one year after the final payment) in which information shall be provided on tangible results achieved with the equipment purchased with funding from the programme. Participants to trainings, conferences and seminars will be requested to fill in a questionnaire to measure the overall satisfaction and relevance of the event for their professional activities.

Actors involved in monitoring || Grant beneficiaries (national and regional administrations); participants in Conferences, seminars, trainings, etc.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Information on the number of cigarettes seized with the help of e.g. x-rays scanners or other equipment purchased under the Hercule III actions; the number of arrests and persons convicted as the result of operations that were made possible with the Hercule III funded equipment; seizures of cash, drugs, etc. The Commission will submit an annual report to the EP and the Council on the implementation of the Programme (Art. 11(1)) of the draft Hercule III Regulation.

Planned use of information || Input for the impact indicators for the operational objectives; input for the annual implementation reports; input for the mid-term evaluation.

Frequency of reporting                  || Annual

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 yes || 2015 yes || 2016 yes || 2017 yes || 2018 yes || 2019 yes || 2020 yes

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. December 2014 2. Ex-post Evaluation Hercules II 3. Achievement of the objectives of the programme 4. Possible modifications of actions 5. Commission 1. 31 Dec. 2017/31December 2021 2. Mid-term/final 3. Achievement of the objectives of all the actions, results and impacts, the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of resources and its added value. It shall also address the scope for simplification, the internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives as well as the contribution of the actions to the Union's priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Moreover, it shall take account of the final evaluation of the Hercule II report. 4. The evaluation shall be used in view of a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the actions. 5. Beneficiaries in the Member States: national and regional administrations for Technical Assistance; NPO, Universities and participants for training actions.

Pericles 2020

Title spending programme: || Pericles 2020: Exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Programme shall actively encourage and entail an increase in transnational cooperation for the protection of the euro inside and outside the Union and with the Union's trading partners, and with attention also being paid to those Member States or third countries that have the highest rates of euro counterfeiting, as shown by the relevant reports issued by the competent authorities; this cooperation shall contribute to the greater effectiveness of these operations through the sharing of best practice, common standards and joint specialised training.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 etc.* || To prevent and combat counterfeiting and related fraud thus enhancing the competitiveness of the Union's economy and securing the sustainability of public finances

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 etc. || To protect the euro banknotes and coins against counterfeiting and related fraud, by supporting and supplement the measures undertaken by the Member States through a regular cooperation, also including third countries and international organisations

Indicator: || Number of counterfeits detected

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

(2011) 606 000 notes 157 000 coins || 2014 n.a. || 2015 n.a. || 2016 n.a. || 2017 +/- 5% compared to 2011 || 2018 n.a. || 2019 n.a. || Keep counterfeits under control in an average +/- 5% compared to 2011

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Sources: annual reports from Member States Competent National Authorities, ECB and Europol. All relevant stakeholders are invited to provide timely information on the number of counterfeits detected. The implementation of Pericles 2020 is regularly discussed at the meetings of the Euro Counterfeiting Expert Group (ECEG). The ECEG meets 3 times per year.

Actors involved in monitoring || Member States' Competent National Authorities, ECB, Europol.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Reports on counterfeit euro banknotes and coins seized before and after circulation.

Planned use of information || Preparation of annual strategy papers in order to adapt and focus training priorities.

Frequency of reporting                  || Annual information to EP and Council; Continuous updates to Member States, ECB and Europol at the ECEG meetings.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 yes || 2015 yes || 2016 yes || 2017 yes || 2018 yes || 2019 yes || 2020 yes

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. 2017/2021 2. Mid-term/final 3. Effectiveness/efficiency/EU value-added/relevance sustainability/coherence full coverage of implemented actions 4. The evaluation shall be used in view of a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. 5. National and European stakeholders (Member States' Competent National Authorities, ECB and Europol)

CEF (Connecting Europe Facility)

Transport envelope

Title spending programme: || CEF Transport envelope

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || Under article 49 of the TEN-T guidelines and article 22 of the CEF, the Commission through TENtec (the information system of DG MOVE to store and collect technical, financial reporting and geographical data, to manage the submission and evaluation of project proposals and to create TEN-T decisions per projects) will gather Member States' information on progress made in implementing TEN-T projects and the investments made for this purpose (including under the CEF, Cohesion Fund, ERDF, Horizon 2020 and EIB loans and financing instruments). The Commission will issue a global annual and a bi-annual progress report on implementation of TEN-T, including technical and financial data on the implementation progress made. According to the TEN-T regulation, a review of the implementation of the core network in 2023 will be done as well. The Commission will also establish an evaluation report on the CEF by end 2017 (see below: Evaluation of the spending programme) and carry out an ex-post evaluation of the programme. Individual European Coordinators reports will be published annually as well.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 2* || To contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by developing modern and high performing trans-European networks (linked to CEF)

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone || Long term target

Volume of private, public or public-private partnership investment in projects of common interest (Source: TENtec) (B1/B4) || 0 in 2013 || By 2017, EUR 280 billion of investments realised on the entire TEN-T network, of which EUR 140 billion on the core network || By 2022, EUR 500 billion of investments realised on the entire TEN-T network, of which EUR 250 billion on the core network (target date set to 2022 due to n+2 rule)

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 3 || To enable the Union to achieve its sustainable development targets, including a minimum 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels and a 20% increase in efficiency, and raising the share of renewable energy to 20% by 2020 (linked to CEF)

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone || Long term target

KPI: GHG emissions from transport (excluding maritime international bunkers but including international aviation)  (source: EEA) (A3) || 848.586 million tonnes CO2 eq. (1990) 1.109.629 million tonnes CO2 eq. (2008) (EU28) || 884 Mt of CO2 eq (level in 2030) (20% reduction by 2030 compared to 2008) || 338 Mt of CO2 eq (level in 2050) (60% reduction by 2050 compared to 1990)

Increase in energy efficiency in transport (MOVE.B and A3)[50] || || ||

Share of renewable energy in transport[51] (Measurement unit: %; Source: Eurostat) (A3) || 4.8 % (2010, EU27) || || 10% by 2020

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 || To enable more performing transport infrastructure by removing bottlenecks, enhancing rail interoperability, bridging missing links and, in particular, improving cross border sections

Indicator: 1 || Setting up of core network corridors structures with designation of Coordinators, creation of  Corridor Forums and approval of work plans (MOVE B1)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2014

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

no corridor existing || 9 core network corridors by end of 2014 || || || || || ||  See column for 2014

Indicator: 2 || Number of new or improved cross-border connections* (MOVE B)

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

0 in 2013 || || || || 6 || || || 14 (rising to 36 by 2030)

Indicator: 3 || Number of removed bottlenecks and sections of increased capacity for all modes on core network corridors which have received funding from the CEF (source: TENTec) (B1)

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

0 in 2013 || || || || 5 || || || 13

Indicator: 4 || Length of inland waterway network by class * (MOVE B)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2030

|| 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

|| || || || || || || Whole TEN-T inland waterways reaching class IV standards or higher by 2030, except where allowed by Regulation

Indicator: 5 || Length of the railway network in the EU-28 upgraded following the requirements set out in Article 45(2) of the TEN-T regulation* (MOVE B)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2030

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

|| || || || || || || Whole core network complying with the requirements

Indicator: 6 || Km of lines in service equipped with the European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS), linked to TEN-T  (MOVE B.2)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

2013 in service: 4199 km 2013 in service + under construction: 9411 km || || 12 000 km || || || || || 30 000 km

Note: indicators marked with * will be assessed in the framework of the work plans for the core network corridors. The work plans will be established by the end of 2014. At that time, a reliable baseline scenario and precise targets can be defined.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6 || To ensure sustainable and efficient transport systems in the long run

Indicator: 1 || Number of supply points for alternative fuels for vehicles using the TEN-T core network for road transport in the EU-28* (C1)

Baseline 2014 || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020-2025

CNG public fuelling stations (EU-wide): 2482 LNG: public fuelling stations: 77 Hydrogen public fuelling stations: 101 || || || || || || || CNG: 3136 EU-wide LNG road transport: 221 Hydrogen: 178 By 2020 (maritime ports) and 2025 (inland ports).

Indicator: 2 || Number of inland and maritime ports of the TEN-T core network equipped with supply points for alternative fuels in the EU-28* (C1)

Baseline 2014 || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020-2025

Maritime LNG supply points: 1 Inland Waterway LNG supply points: 1 || || || || || || || All 85 maritime ports  in core  network and the 54 inland ports in core network to be equipped by LNG refuelling points by 2020 (maritime ports) and 2025 (inland ports)

Indicator: 3 || Number of fatalities in road transport accidents (Source: CARE) (MOVE.C4)

Baseline 2010 || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020

31500 (EU28 ) || || || || || || || Max 15750 (EU 28)

Note: indicators marked with * will be assessed in the framework of the work plans for the core network corridors. The work plans will be established by the end of 2014. At that time, a reliable baseline scenario and precise targets can be defined. The figures presented above correspond to the financial statement accompanying the Commission proposals of 2011.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 7 || To optimise the integration and interconnection of transport modes and enhancing the interoperability of transport services

Indicator: 1 || Multimodal logistic platforms, including inland and maritime ports and airports connected to the railway network* (MOVE B)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020-2050

- 27 maritime ports connected - 12 airports connected || || || || - 41 (improved) connections of maritime ports by 2017 - 18 (improved) connections of airports by 2017 || || || - 54 (improved) connections of maritime ports by 2020 - 24 (improved) connections of airports by 2020 - All core maritime ports connected by 2030 - 38 core airports connected by 2050

Indicator: 2 || Improved rail-road terminals* (MOVE B)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

|| || || || || || ||

Indicator: 3 || Number of improved or new connections between ports through Motorways of the Sea* (MOVE B)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

|| || || || || || ||

Indicator: 4 || Synchronisation of the deployment process of SESAR related technology (MOVE E2)

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2025

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2025

0 || Identification of the first common project Nomination of the ATM deployment Manager by the Commission || || || || || || Development and deployment of a new generation ATM system

Indicator: 5 || Kilometres of roads covered by (real-time) Traffic Information Services or equipped for (dynamic) Traffic Management, including speed related ITS services (Variable Message Signs or equivalent means) (Source: TEN-T EasyWay II project) (MOVE.C.3)

Baseline 2012 || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

30/11/2012 :- 15.500 km equipped with VMS (lane control & info/warning/ rerouting) - 200.000 km covered by Traffic Info Services, of which 25.500 km equipped with Travel Time Forecast systems - Overall 250.000 km of roads equipped with ITS Services ||   || || || || || || Yearly increases of 10%

Indicator: 6 || Status of implementation of RIS (River Information Services) (source : PLATINA 7RFP research project ) (MOVE.B3)

Baseline 2012 || Milestones || Target 2015

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

12/2012: 8900 km of class Va+ waterways equipped with ENC's (Electronic navigation charts 12/2012: 4300 km of class Va+ waterways equipped with shore based inland AIS infrastructure 12/2012: 11500 vessels equipped with AIS transponders 12/2012: Electronic Reporting operational on the Rhine; in other regions still in the starting phase || || 2015 full coverage with ENC for Class Va+ waterways (10500km) 2020: full coverage of class Va+ waterways equipped with shore based inland AIS infrastructure  (10500km) 2015: all commercial vessels equipped with inland AIS  (app. 12000vessels) Electronic reporting fully operational in 2015 for BtA and AtA communication || || || || || See under column for 2015

Note: indicators marked with * will be assessed in the framework of the work plans for the core network corridors. The work plans will be established by the end of 2014. At that time, a reliable baseline scenario and precise targets can be defined. The figures presented above correspond to the financial statement accompanying the Commission proposals of 2011.

Monitoring and reporting arrangements  - Specific objectives 5-7

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Through TENtec Information System (the information system of DG MOVE to store and collect technical, financial reporting and geographical data, to manage the submission and evaluation of project proposals and to create TEN-T decisions per projects) on project basis through the Action Status Report (ASR) (Annual report submitted by the implementing body on the technical progress of the project against the initial plan, and the associated budget consumption. It is the main document used by the Agency to assess progress. For multi-annual projects, the ASR serves as the basis for deciding whether funding for the next phase of work should be allocated) and the SAP (Stategic Action Plans) (a project management document which identifies the activities to be carried out and the associated resources, timeline and dependencies. It is used to: monitor project progress against the plan provide decision-makers with all relevant information concerning deviation from plan, and their impact) through INEA, reported through project promoters. On a political level information will be collected directly from Member States using the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and iReport Modules for annual implementation reports (including technical and financial data on the implementation progress made) on the implementation of priority projects and bi-annual progress reports on the implementation of the core and comprehensive networks in each Member State., to be presented to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.  On top annual reports of European Coordinators will be published. When available some of the data will be collected from other external sources including EUROSTAT reports.

Actors involved in monitoring || European Commission, INEA, Member States, Project Promoters, European Coordinators

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Progress of the implementation of the Core Network (about the progress made in implementing projects and the investments made for that purpose).

Planned use of information || AAR, Work plans for the Core Network Corridors of European Coordinators, readjusting implementation and reporting to other EU Institutions/Bodies and stakeholders, not on an annual basis but can be adjusted according to the legal basis.

Frequency of reporting || Annual and Biannual reports (See Art. 49 of TEN-T Regulation No 1315/2013 and Art. 22 of CEF-regulation No 1316/2013)

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 X || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 X

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Planned evaluations on TEN-T and CEF: 1 Ex-Post evaluation on TEN-T 1.1 2014 1.2 Ex-Post evaluation on TEN-T 2007-2013 1..3 The ex post evaluation shall examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the TEN-T and its impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as its contribution to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and the scale and results of support used with a view to attaining climate-change objectives. 1.4  Preparation of a successor (yes, remedial actions could be considered) 1.5 European Commission, TENtec, INEA, 2. Mid-term evaluation of the CEF 2.1 end of 2017 2.2 mid-term evaluation, article 27.1 of the CEF 2.3 The achievement of the objectives of all the measures, the efficiency of the use of resources and the European added value of the CEF. 2.4. With a view to deciding on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The evaluation shall also address the scope for simplification, the internal and external coherence of the measures, the continued relevance of all objectives and their contribution to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, including their impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion. 2.5 European Commission and INEA, TENtec, EIB 3. Independent full-scale evaluation of the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative (PBI) 3.1 2015, the final project bond operations 3.2 ex-post evaluation of the PBI pilot phase, foreseen in EC/680/2007, article 8 3.3. relevance of the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative and its effectiveness in increasing the volume of investments in priority projects and enhancing the efficiency of Union spending 3.4 continuation of the Project Bond instrument under the CEF, and adaptation of the project bond instrument. 3.5. European Commission and EIB 4. Ex-post evaluation of the CEF 4.1 at the end of the MFF period 4.2 Ex-post evaluation foreseen by article 27.3 4.3 The ex post evaluation shall examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the CEF and its impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as its contribution to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and the scale and results of support used with a view to attaining climate-change objectives. 4.4 preparation of a successor 4.5 Commission and INEA, TENtec, EIB, beneficiaries 5. Review of Core Network 5.1 2023 5.2 Revision of (Art. 54; TEN-T Regulation) 5.3 The European Commission, having consulted with Member States as appropriate and with the assistance of the European Coordinators, should carry out a review of the implementation of the core network, evaluating: (a) compliance with the provisions laid down in this Regulation; (b) progress in the implementation of this Regulation;  (c) changes in passenger and freight transport flows; (d) developments in national transport infrastructure investment; (e) the need for amendments to this Regulation. In addition to carrying out that review, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, should assess whether new sections, such as certain former cross-border priority projects listed in Decision No 661/2010/EU, are to be included in the core network. The Commission should present a legislative proposal if appropriate. 5.4 When carrying out that review, the Commission should evaluate whether the core network as provided for in this Regulation will comply with the provisions of Chapter III by 2030 while taking into account the economic and budgetary situation in the Union and in individual Member States. The Commission should also evaluate, in consultation with the Member States, whether the core network should be modified to take into account developments in transport flows and national investment planning. If necessary, the Commission may submit a proposal for amendment of this Regulation. 5.5 European Commission, TENtec, Member States

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 8[52] || To create an environment more conducive to private and public investments notably through the financial instruments under the CEF

Indicator: 1 || Volume of private investment in projects of common interest achieved through the financial instruments under the CEF regulation (B4)

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2022

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2022

0 || || || || EUR 8 bn of private investment in projects of common interest || || || EUR 23 bn of private investment in projects of common interest (target date set to 2022 due to n+2 rule)

Monitoring and reporting arrangements – Specific objective 8

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Through TENtec Information System (the information system of DG MOVE to store and collect technical, financial reporting and geographical data, to manage the submission and evaluation of project proposals and to create TEN-T decisions per project) on project basis through the Action Status Report (ASR) (Annual report submitted by the implementing body on the technical progress of the project against the initial plan, and the associated budget consumption. It is the main document used by the Agency to assess progress. For multi-annual projects, the ASR serves as the basis for deciding whether funding for the next phase of work should be allocated) and the SAP (Strategic Action Plans) (a project management document which identifies the activities to be carried out and the associated resources, timeline and dependencies. It is used to: monitor project progress against the plan provide decision-makers with all relevant information concerning deviation from plan, and their impact) through INEA, reported through project promoters. On a political level information will be collected directly from Member States using the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and iReport Modules for annual implementation reports (including technical and financial data on the implementation progress made) on the implementation of priority projects and bi-annual progress reports on the implementation of the core and comprehensive networks in each Member State., to be presented to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.  On top annual reports of European Coordinators will be published. When available some of the data will be collected from other external sources including EUROSTAT reports.

Actors involved in monitoring || European Commission, INEA, Member states, EIB (and other financial institutions), DG ECFIN

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Assessment of general market developments/economic situation and volume of investments, taking into account the objective and the implementation of the programme.

Planned use of information || AAR, Work plans for the Core Network Corridors of European Coordinators, readjusting implementation and reporting to other EU Institutions/Bodies and stakeholders, not on an annual basis but can be adjusted according to the legal basis.

Frequency of reporting || Annual and Biannual reports (See Art. 49 of TEN-T Regulation No 1315/2013 and Art. 22 of CEF-regulation No 1316/2013 )

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 X || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 X

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed  and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Independent full-scale evaluation of the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative (PBI) Reference is made to the information on this item in the evaluation heading below specific objective 7. Mid-term evaluation of the CEF  Reference is made to the information on this item in the evaluation heading below specific objective 7. Ex-post evaluation of the CEF  Reference is made to the information on this item in the evaluation heading below specific objective 7.

Energy envelope

Title spending programme: || CEF -energy envelope

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || In the process of the CEF implementation the Commission will collect and maintain a set of data on each project benefiting from the CEF (through grants and financial instruments). The data regarding grants will be collected by the executive agency through their standard grant application/grant execution monitoring IT systems (adapted TENTEC application). The data regarding projects benefiting from financial instruments will be reported by financial intermediaries who partner the Commission. The nature of data which will be collected will correspond to the result indicators specified in Art 3(4) of the CEF regulation. It will constitute the basis for subsequent evaluation of the performance of the programme against the specific sectoral objectives (Art 4) and contribute to the reporting against the general objectives for CEF (Art 3). Moreover, data will be collected for each of the CEF assisted projects on its relevance for climate-related objectives. A general overview of the progress in implementation of each action receiving CEF support will be made available (updated annually) through an on-line platform. As regards the financial instruments, there will be specific reporting modalities on their implementation introduced in the agreements which the Commission will sign with the financial institutions partnering the Commission in launching and offering such instruments. In addition, the Commission will, with the support of those financial institutions, report annually to the European Parliament and the Council until 2023 in particular on implementation, the prevailing market conditions for the use of the instrument, the updated projects and the project pipeline. The necessary data will be collected to this end (in cooperation with those financial institutions) during the implementation of the programme. Last but not least the Commission will be reporting annually (in the AARs) on the execution of the budget and of the yearly progress in performance (e.g. number of actions receiving grants or accessing financial instruments) which will be made available each year for the CEF energy programme. In line with Art 27 of the CEF regulation, the programme will be evaluated by the Commission (in cooperation with the Member States and beneficiaries concerned) by 31 December 2017 (mid–term). In particular the Commission will report on the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of results and impacts), the efficiency of the use of resources and the European added value of the programme. After the budgetary period 2014-2020 runs to the end, the Commission will also carry out ex-post evaluation of the programme (in close cooperation with the Member States and beneficiaries). The ex-post evaluation will examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the CEF and its impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as its contribution to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and the scale and results of support used with a view to attaining climate-change objectives.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || Developing modern and high-performing trans-European networks and creating an environment more conducive to private, public or public-private investment

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2022

Volume of public and private investment in projects of common interest || 0 in 2013 || (*) || Energy: By 2022 EUR 200 billion(**)

Volume of public and private investment in projects of common interest realised through the Financial Instruments under this Regulation (***) || 0 in 2013 || (*) || Energy: By 2022 EUR 30-60 billion

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 2 || To enable the Union to achieve its sustainable development targets, including a minimum 20 % reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels, a 20 % increase in energy efficiency and raising the share of renewable energy to 20 % by 2020

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions || Energy: 18 % (2012) || Energy: Greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 decreased by 18% relative to emissions in 1990 and are expected to reduce further by 24% and 32% in 2020 and 2030 respectively on the basis of current policies (****) || Energy : 20% (Europe 2020 target) (****)

Increase in energy efficiency || Energy: Saving of energy of around 14.6 % (2012) compared to baseline (2007)[53] || Energy: Mid-2014: Review of the progress towards the 2020 energy efficiency target (****) || Energy: savings of energy by 20% (Europe 2020 target) (****)

Share of renewable energy || Energy: Share of RES in final energy consumption[54] at 14,1% (2012) || Energy: RES in final energy consumption  Trajectory with interim targets contained in Annex 1b of Dir. 2009/28/EC: 2011/2012: 10.8%; 2013/2014: 12%; 2015/2016: 13.7%; 2017/2018: 16% End-2014: Commission's 2014 Renewable energy progress report (****) || Energy: Share of RES in final energy consumption at 20% (Europe 2020 target)  (****)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1   || Increasing competitiveness by promoting the further integration of the internal energy market and the interoperability of electricity and gas networks across borders.

Indicator: || Result indicators (as provided for in the CEF regulation Art 3(3)(a)): (i) the number of projects effectively interconnecting Member States' networks and removing internal constraints; (ii) the reduction or elimination of Member States' energy isolation; (iii) the percentage of electricity cross-border transmission power in relation to installed electricity generation capacity in the relevant Member States; (iv) price convergence in the gas and/or electricity markets of the Member States concerned; and (v) the percentage of the highest peak demand of the two Member States concerned covered by reversible flow interconnections for gas. The values (and targets) cannot be determined ex ante (and for this reason Art 3(3) of the CEF explicitly refers to ex-post measurement). The results will gradually become available as the cumulative impact of the PCI projects benefiting from the CEF.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Enhancing Union security of energy supply

Indicator: || Result indicators (as provided for in the CEF regulation Art 3(3)(b)): (i) the number of projects allowing diversification of supply sources, supplying counterparts and routes; (ii) the number of projects increasing storage capacity; (iii) system resilience, taking into account the number of supply disruptions and their duration; (iv) the amount of avoided curtailment of renewable energy; (v) the connection of isolated markets to more diversified supply sources; (vi) the optimal use of energy infrastructure assets; The values (and targets) cannot be determined ex ante (and for this reason Art 3(3) of the CEF explicitly refers to ex-post measurement). The results will gradually become available as the cumulative impact of the PCI projects benefiting from the CEF.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Contributing to sustainable development and protection of the environment, inter alia by the integration of energy from renewable sources into the transmission network, and by the development of smart energy networks and carbon dioxide networks.

Indicator: || Result indicators (as provided for in the CEF regulation Art 3(3)(c)): (i) the amount of renewable electricity transmitted from generation to major consumption centres and storage sites; (ii) the amount of avoided curtailment of renewable energy; (iii) the number of deployed smart grid projects which benefited from the CEF and the demand response enabled by them; (iv) the amount of CO2 emissions prevented by the projects which benefited from the CEF; The values (and targets) cannot be determined ex ante (and for this reason Art 3(3) of the CEF explicitly refers to ex-post measurement). The results will gradually become available as the cumulative impact of the PCI projects benefiting from the CEF.

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Collecting the relevant data from grant applications of each project, technical reports on grant implementations, ex-post evaluation of CEF supported projects. Collecting the relevant data, through the financial institutions (intermediaries) involved, from projects benefiting from financial instruments. (The collected data will subsequently also contribute to quantifying the performance of the programme).

Actors involved in monitoring || Project Promoters (provide data for actions receiving CEF), Commission (with the assistance of an executive agency – collect and analyse the data), financial institutions providing financial instruments under the CEF (provide data for actions receiving CEF)

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Budget execution will be monitored (and reported on) annually. The information on the progress in implementation made year by year by each action receiving CEF will be made available through an on-line tool.

Planned use of information || AARs, review of multi-annual work programmes (mentioned in regulation) Take corrective measures to address possible issues on programme implementation. Possible re-allocation of financial envelops between sectors covered by the programme (art 5(3) of Regulation). 

Frequency of reporting                  || Budget execution reporting: annually Reporting on progress in implementation of financial instruments: annually (as required by the financial regulation). Reporting on  progress made annually by each action receiving CEF support

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 X || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 and beyond X

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || The different types of evaluation of the CEF programme (Art 27 CEF) will be common for all three sectors of CEF: transport, energy and ICT. Reference is made to the evaluation heading in the fiche above of CEF Transport. Furthermore, in line with the legal base for the pilot phase of the Project Bond initiative (Decision No 1639/2006/EC and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007), a full-scale, independent evaluation of the pilot phase of this initiative will take place in 2015.  Reference is made to the evaluation heading in the fiche above of CEF transport.

(*) For this indicator the information currently available does not allow for defining the CEF Energy milestone for 2017.  

(**) It is important to note that the 200 billion target for 2022 will be achieved through the combination of measures under the TEN-E guidelines (permitting, regulatory) and not only CEF (financing).

(***) This indicator is not applicable to Energy as the uptake of financial instruments will depend on the market (not on what the responsible Commission service develops as actions under the CEF programme). There is no possibility to put any meaningful target.

(****) The CEF will be contributing to but CEF will not be the key driver.

ICT envelope

Title spending programme: || CEF – ICT envelope

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The monitoring and evaluation framework for CEF will assess the achievements (at the level of results and progress towards impacts), effectiveness (at the level of results and impacts), and efficiency (use of resources) of the Connecting Europe Facility. It will assess its impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion, its European added value, as well as its contribution to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The results of the evaluation shall feed into the design of a possible successor programme. In addition, it will address the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence and the continued relevance of all objectives.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Accelerating the deployment of fast and ultra-fast broadband networks and their uptake, including by small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), to be measured by the level of broadband and ultrafast broadband coverage and the number of households having subscribed for broadband connections for above 100 Mbps. The number of additional households connected to Broadband per year through the measure is expected to grow from 1 million in 2014 to 12,8 million and reach a total of 45,6 million by 2020.

Indicator: || Level of coverage of fast broadband coverage (30 Mbps)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2010: 28.7% of households || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 100%

|| || || 60% || ||

Indicator: || Level of subscriptions to broadband connections above 100 Mbps

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2010: <1% || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 50%

|| || || 20% || ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Promoting the interconnection and interoperability of national public services online as well as access to such networks. This objective will be articulated further in the future.

Indicator: || Citizens and businesses using public services on-line[55]

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2010: 41,2% of citizens, 75,7% of businesses || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 60% of citizens; 100% of businesses

|| || || 50% of citizens 85% of businesses || ||

Indicator: || Availability of cross-border public services[56]

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

n/a || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 100%

|| || || 80% || ||

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The on-going programme will be monitored via annual monitoring reports and an interim evaluation of the CEF Regulation including a performance review. In addition, mid-term reviews of multi-annual work programmes will be carried out. Mid-term and ex-post evaluations should be carried out by the Commission in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the funding and its impact on the overall goals of the Facility and the Europe 2020 Strategy's priorities.

Actors involved in monitoring || The Regulation draws on extensive consultation with stakeholders, EU institutions and bodies, Member States, regional or local authorities, social and economic partners, academic experts and international institutions. The results of mid-term evaluations carried out on the 2007-13 programmes as well as a broad range of studies and expert advice were used as input. On the level of the actions, beneficiaries will provide on a regular basis and on the terms of the agreements/decisions reports on the actions to be implemented. The CEF regulation provides furthermore for the possibility to request Member States specific evaluations of actions and linked projects

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports ||

Planned use of information || AARs, spending programme adjustments, DG CNECT evaluation and monitoring feeding into leading DG's evaluations

Frequency of reporting                  || Budget execution reporting: annually Reporting on progress in implementation of financial instruments: annually (as required by the financial regulation). Reporting on  progress made annually by each action receiving CEF support Evaluation: Interim evaluation by the end of 2017, Final (ex post) at the end of the programme period.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 x || 2019 || 2020

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Mid-term evaluation of the CEF. Reference is made to the evaluation heading of the fiche of CEF transport. Ex-post evaluation of the CEF. Reference is made to the evaluation heading in the fiche on CEF Transport.

 

Standards in the fields of financial reporting and auditing

Title spending programme: || Standards in the fields of financial reporting and auditing - Programme to support specific activities in the field of financial reporting and auditing

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The main goal of the programme is to ensure comparability and transparency of company accounts throughout the EU and globally, thereby contributing to the smooth functioning of the capital markets at EU and global level. The EU is the largest jurisdiction applying IFRS (Regulation 1606/2002). It is in our interest to make international accounting standards (IFRS) the global accounting language and to ensure the EU representation at the public oversight of the IFRS Foundation (where membership in the oversight body will be tied to contribution to funding). Also significant, credible and independent technical upstream European input is essential at the development of those standards. EFRAG is responsible for those activities. The EU may adopt International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) based on Directive 2006/43. It has therefore a direct interest in ensuring that those standards are of high quality and the due process of their adoption is subject to independent public oversight by the PIOB.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 etc. || To promote the global adoption of IFRS while ensuring the EU's weight in influencing the development of IFRS

Impact indicator: || Number of countries worldwide applying IFRS

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

At the end of 2012 125 countries were applying IFRS and 128 countries at the end of 2013. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || Application of IFRS in most countries including major jurisdictions.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || To improve the conditions for the functioning of the internal market by supporting transparent and independent development of international financial reporting and auditing standards.

Indicator: || Percentage of standards endorsed in the EU compared to the number of standards issued by the IASB by 2020

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

On 29 October 2012, 89% of IFRSs was endorsed in the EU (124 standards out of 139). || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || 100%

Indicator: || Number of EU countries using ISAs

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

end-2012: 20 Member States had fully endorsed the clarified ISAs || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || n.a. || Adoption and implementation of high quality ISAs in all Member States

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || As of 2015 The Commission should prepare annual reports on the activity of IFRS as regards the development of OFRS, the PIOB and the EFRAG. 12 months before the end of the programme – a report of achievements of the objective of the programme.

Actors involved in monitoring || Commission.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || With regard to the IFRS Foundation, the report shall cover the activity of IFRS Foundation and in particular the general principles against which new standards have been developed. This report shall also cover whether the IFRS standards take due accounts of different business models, are reflecting the actual consequences of economic transactions, are not overly complex, and avoid artificial short-term and volatility biases. Following the issuance of the revised Conceptual Framework, the report of the Commission should address any changes that have been introduced in the Conceptual Framework, with a particular focus on the concepts of prudence and reliability. With regard to the PIOB (or its successor organization), the report shall cover developments in the diversification of funding. If funding by the International Federation of Accountants in a given year reaches more than two-thirds of the total annual PIOB funding, the Commission should propose to limit its annual contribution for that year to a maximum of EUR 300 000. With regard to the EFRAG, the report shall cover the following: i)              Whether EFRAG in its technical work on IAS takes appropriate account of the requirement of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002, in particular, in assessing whether new or amended IFRS are consistent with the "true and fair view" principle and conducive to the European public good; and ii)             Whether EFRAG in its technical work on IFRS provides adequate assessment of whether draft, new or amended international accounting standards developed by IASB are evidence-based, respond to Union's needs taking into account the diversity of accounting and economic models and views in the Union; and iii)            EFRAG's progress in the implementation of its governance reforms, taking into account developments following the recommendations of the special advisor to the Commissioner for Internal Market and Services of October 2013.

Planned use of information || Reporting to the European Parliament and the Council.

Frequency of reporting                  || Annual as of 2015.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 June || 2016 June || 2017 June || 2018 June || 2019 June/ December || 2020

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 31 December 2019 Commission report Achievement of programme objectives Reporting to the European Parliament and the Council The European Parliament and the Council

ISA (Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations)

Title spending programme: || For the period until 31.12.2015: “Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations – ISA” Programme (hereinafter referred to as ISA) For the period 01.01.2016 – 31.12.2020: “Interoperability Solutions for European Public administrations, businesses and citizens ISA2 Programme (hereinafter referred to as “ISA2. (COM) XX of xx.05.2014.

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The “ISA” programme concerns funding of selected actions (through a call for proposal procedure) on interoperability. It has 2 streams of performance monitoring: · At action level, through a cross-cutting action dedicated to “Monitoring and Evaluation” that applies a methodology based on the measuring of certain indications such as effectiveness, efficiency in terms of achieving targets at reasonable cost, perceived quality, relevance to programme’ objectives,  availability, … · At programme level, though the application of an interim evaluation that was held already in Oct 2012 and a final evaluation by end 2015. ISA2 will apply the same type of performance monitoring mechanism, both at action and at programme level. For the latter case, “interim” and “final” evaluations by Dec 2018 and Dec 2021 respectively are foreseen, to be communicated to the European Parliament and to the Council. In ISA2 the general objective, derives directly from its predecessor programme and is adjusted to the present requirements, is to facilitate the efficient and effective electronic cross-border or cross-sector interaction of European public administrations. This interaction should be among administrations and with citizens and businesses, so as to enable the delivery of electronic public services supporting the implementation of Union policies and activities and the exchange of public sector information and, at the same time, help public administrations fulfil their essential role in contributing to the economic recovery of the EU Member States. In relation to the general objective, the proposed programme also sets specific objectives that will allow the continuity of the ISA developments, break new ground in interoperability solutions, provide more and concrete solutions to EU public administrations and support the implementation of Union policies in a consistent and coherent way. Therefore, the specific objectives mentioned in the below reflect the adjustment of the upcoming needs to the proposed programme.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1* || “Interoperable delivery of pan-European e-government services to European public administrations” for the ISA programme – scope extension to cover “businesses and citizens contributing to the modernisation of public administrations within them and across Europe” for ISA2.

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

|| Support and development of interoperability solutions supporting the European public administrations under the ISA programme || The European Federated Interoperability Repository (EFIR) contains a satisfactory number of qualitative assets covering all interoperability levels which are widely reused, including the relevant trans-European systems supporting EU policies in scope of the Commission’s ICT rationalisation initiative [the exact milestone is still to be defined in relation to the objectives and roadmap of ISA2 currently under preparation] || A complete package of interoperability solutions can be offered to the stakeholders along with their strategic models, frameworks, implementation guidelines and supportive technical platforms [the exact milestone is still to be defined in relation to the objectives and roadmap of  ISA2r currently under preparation]

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Promote modernisation of European public administrations and improve efficiency and collaboration between them by facilitating electronic interaction in support of the implementation of Community policies and activities - Assess, develop, support and maintain interoperability solutions (frameworks, tools and platforms)

Indicator: || European public administrations are provided with a “toolset” to apply and boost interoperability at all levels in practise.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

At strategic level, interoperability development is guided by the European Interoperability Strategy (EIS) and the European Interoperability Framework (EIF). A medley of solutions is already funded as programme’s actions, sTesta, IMI, ECI, MT@EC, e-prior, work on semantics, just to name some. The scope is foreseen to be expected over time, always subject to budget availability. || 2014 Intensify work for the delivery of the first version of the European Interoperability Reference Architecture (EIRA) || 2015 The EFIR contains samples of assets at all interoperability levels mapped to the EIRA || 2016 [to be defined under the ISA2 || 2017 [to be defined under the ISA2 || 2018 [to be defined under the ISA2 || 2019 [to be defined under the ISA2 || A complete “toolset” of support instruments to ensure efficient interoperability, implementation and governance namely, the EIS, EIF, EIRA and with available relevant guidelines and supported solutions.

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || There is a horizontal actions called “Monitoring and Evaluation” that assesses progress of each separate programme action

Actors involved in monitoring || Commission staff is responsible for the management of actions. Members States representations are reviewing and give opinion. The interim and final evaluation reports are submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for review

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Report on the individual actions is done on the basis of conformance to criteria such as effectiveness, efficiency, perceived quality, relevance to programme’ objectives and availability. Interim and final reports include the above mentioned criteria and supplementary ones such as sustainability and coordination

Planned use of information || Information collected by the performance monitoring actions is used to better adjust the scope of the work programme actions and select new proposals that will better server programme’s objectives in areas where weaknesses are identified

Frequency of reporting                 || Reporting at actions level is done on a monthly, trimester and semester basis. The Commission is reporting annually to the ISA Committee on the implementation of the ISA work programme (articles 9 and 13 of the ISA Decision). The ISA programme went through an interim evaluation (December 2012) and will undergo a final evaluation (end of 2015). The successor ISA2 Programme will follow the same frequency with an interim evaluation by the end of 2018 and a final by the end of 2021.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 x || 2015 x December: Final evaluation report for the ISA || 2016 (to be confirmed under ISA2) || 2017 (to be confirmed under ISA2) || 2018 December: Interim evaluation report for  ISA2 (provisional planning) || 2019 (to be confirmed under ISA2) || 2021 December: Final evaluation report for ISA2 (provisional planning)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Promote modernisation of European public administrations and improve efficiency and collaboration between them by facilitating electronic interaction in support of the implementation of Community policies and activities - ICT implications are properly assessed at the time the legislation is produced

Indicator: || Broad coverage of Impact Assessments

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

DIGIT is asked to take a seat in selected Impact Assessment Steering Committees. A basic method for assessing ICT impact is available but only tested in one single case. || 2014 Participation in minimum 5 Impact Assessment procedures. The assessment method is revised and finalised. || 2015 Participation in all ICT related Impact Assessments in the Commission || 2016 [to be defined under  ISA2] || 2017 [to be defined under  ISA2 ] || 2018 [to be defined under  ISA2 ] || 2019 [to be defined under  ISA2] || ICT impact becomes an integrated process within all Impact Assessment procedures, supported by the appropriate method and with results linked to the ICT Governance of the Commission

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || There is a horizontal actions called “Monitoring and Evaluation” that assesses progress of each separate programme action

Actors involved in monitoring || Commission staff is responsible for the management of actions. Members States representations are reviewing and give opinion. The interim and final evaluation reports are submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for review

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Report on the individual actions is done on the basis of conformance to criteria such as effectiveness, efficiency, perceived quality, relevance to programme’ objectives and availability. Interim and final reports include the above mentioned criteria and supplementary ones such as sustainability and coordination

Planned use of information || Information collected by the performance monitoring actions is used to better adjust the scope of the work programme actions and select new proposals that will better server programme’s objectives in areas where weaknesses are identified

Frequency of reporting                 || Reporting at actions level is done on a monthly, trimester and semester basis.  The Commission is reporting annually to the ISA Committee on the implementation of the ISA work programme (articles 9 and 13 of the ISA Decision). The ISA programme went through an interim evaluation (December 2012) and will undergo a final evaluation (end of 2015). The successor ISA2 Programme will follow the same frequency with an interim evaluation by the end of 2018 and a final by the end of 2021.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 x || 2015 x December: Final evaluation report for the ISA || 2016 [to be defined under ISA2] || 2017 [to be defined under ISA2] || 2018 December: Interim evaluation report for ISA2 (provisional planning) || 2019 [to be defined under ISA2] || 2021 December: Final evaluation report for  ISA2  (provisional planning)

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type (e.g. mid-term or ex-post, incl. ex-post evaluations of previous MFF period) 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || By Dec 2015: Final evaluation of the ISA programme assessing effectiveness, efficiency, perceived quality, relevance, coherence and coordination, to be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. It also examines the extent to which the programme has achieved its objectives. By Dec 2018: Interim evaluation of ISA2 (provisional planning) By Dec 2021: Final evaluation of ISA2 (provisional planning)

ESP (European Statistical Programme)

Title spending programme: || ESP (European Statistical Programme)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || · Monitoring twice a year of the achievement of the Outputs of the Management Plan which are related to general and specific objectives (which are broken down into detailed objectives). · Mid-term evaluation of 5 years programme (ESP 2013 – 2017) · Final evaluation of 5 years programme (ESP 2013 – 2017)

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE * || To be the leading provider of high quality statistics on Europe

Impact indicator: || Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Percentage of users that rate as "Very good" or "Good" the overall quality of the data and services provided by Eurostat || 70.6 % (this will be the baseline for the whole period of the ESP 2013-2017) || 75 % It is assumed that that there will be an approximately linear progression between the value of 2012 and the target for 2017: || Not available - the procedure for extension up to 2020 of the European Statistical Programme 2013 - 2017 is not yet launched.

2014: 72.4% || 2015: 73.2% || 2016: 74.1%

These annual targets are only indicative because the indicator is based on an internet opinion survey and the level of representativeness of the sample of respondents cannot be assessed and may vary from one year to the other.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 1 and 4 || Provide quality statistical information in a timely manner, to support the development, monitoring and evaluation of the policies of the European Union properly reflecting priorities while keeping a balance between economic, social and environmental fields and serve the needs of the wide range of users of European statistics, including other decision-makers, researchers, businesses and European citizens in general, in a cost-effective manner without unnecessary duplication of effort. Ensure that delivery of such statistics is kept consistent throughout the whole duration of the programme, provided that this does not interfere with the priority-setting mechanisms of the European Statistical System.

Indicator: || Percentage of users that rate as "Very good" or "Good" the overall quality of European statistics

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

62.9 % (this will be the baseline for the whole period of the ESP 2013-2017) || 70 % It is assumed that that there will be an approximately linear progression between the value of 2012 and the target for 2017: || Not available - the procedure for extension up to 2020 of the European Statistical Programme 2013 - 2017 is not yet launched.

|| 2014: 65.7% || 2015: 67.2% || 2016: 68.6% ||

|| These annual targets are only indicative because the indicator is based on an internet opinion survey and the level of representativeness of the sample of respondents cannot be assessed and may vary from one year to the other. ||

Indicator: || Number of data extractions made by external users from Eurostat reference databases (EuroBase and Comext) via the Eurostat website

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

7.87 Mio (this will be the baseline for the whole period of the ESP 2013-2017) || + 10 % = 8.7 Mio It is assumed that that there will be an approximately linear progression between the value of 2012 and the target for 2017: || Not available - the procedure for extension up to 2020 of the European Statistical Programme 2013 - 2017 is not yet launched.

|| 2014: 8.1 Mio || 2015: 8.3 Mio || 2016: 8.5 Mio ||

Indicator: || Degree of achievement of the objective measured as percentage of the achievement of the outputs related to it.  Twice a year, Eurostat units give a mark to each of the MP outputs under their responsibility.  The marks are the following:  "Completed", "On target", "Emerging difficulties", "Serious difficulties"

Baseline 2012 || Target of each year

87.8 % completed || 100 % completed

Indicator: || Length of the time series of a sample of statistics: Euro Indicators (active series)

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

≥ 15 years: 41.3 % || ≥ 15 years: 60 % || Not available - the procedure for extension up to 2020 of the European Statistical Programme 2013 - 2017 is not yet launched.

2014 || 2015 || 2016

≥ 15 years: 48.8% || ≥ 15 years: 52.5% || ≥ 15 years: 56.3%

≥ 15 years: 41.3 % ≥ 10 years: 93.4 % || Target for each year for Euro Indicators time series ≥ 10 years:  ≥ 90% This target is not 100% because a balance has to be found between the time series' "consistency throughout the whole duration of the programme" (see Specific Objective n. 4 above) and the goal of improving/adapting the statistics (e.g. with a new methodology), which may create breaks in the time series.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Implement new methods of production of European statistics aiming at efficiency gains and quality improvements.

Indicator: || Percentage of users that rate as "Very good" or "Good" the timeliness of European statistics for their purposes

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

56.3 % (this will be the baseline for the whole period of the ESP 2013-2017) || 60 % It is assumed that that there will be an approximately linear progression between the value of 2012 and the target for 2017: || Not available - the procedure for extension up to 2020 of the European Statistical Programme 2013 - 2017 is not yet launched.

2014: 57.8% || 2015: 58.5% || 2016: 59.3%

These annual targets are only indicative because the indicator is based on an internet opinion survey and the level of representativeness of the sample of respondents cannot be assessed and may vary from one year to the other.

Indicator: || Timeliness of a sample of statistics: average number of days in advance (positive) or delay (negative), in comparison to the legal target: 1) PEEIs: Euro Area – monthly series 2) PEEIs: Euro Area – quarterly series 3) Comext-Extra: data sent by MS to Eurostat

Baseline 2012 || Target of each year

1) -0.10 2) -1.09 3) +3 || ≥ 0 ≥ 0 ≥ 0

Indicator: || Degree of achievement of the objective measured as percentage of the achievement of the outputs related to it.  Twice a year, Eurostat units give a mark to each of the MP outputs under their responsibility.  The marks are the following:  "Completed", "On target", "Emerging difficulties", "Serious difficulties"

Baseline 2012 || Target of each year

87.8 % completed || 100 % completed

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Strengthen the partnership within the European Statistical System and beyond in order to further enhance its productivity and its leading role in official statistics worldwide.

Indicator: || Percentage of users that rate as "Very good" or "Good" the comparability of European statistics among regions and countries

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

56.2 % (this will be the baseline for the whole period of the ESP 2013-2017) || 60 % It is assumed that that there will be an approximately linear progression between the value of 2012 and the target for 2017: || Not available - the procedure for extension up to 2020 of the European Statistical Programme 2013 - 2017 is not yet launched.

2014: 57.8% || 2015: 58.5% || 2016: 59.3%

These annual targets are only indicative because the indicator is based on an internet opinion survey and the level of representativeness of the sample of respondents cannot be assessed and may vary from one year to the other.

Indicator: || Degree of achievement of the objective measured as percentage of the achievement of the outputs related to it.  Twice a year, Eurostat units give a mark to each of the MP outputs under their responsibility.  The marks are the following:  "Completed", "On target", "Emerging difficulties", "Serious difficulties"

Baseline 2012 || Target of each year

87.8 % completed || 100 % completed

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || User satisfaction/ perception: Annual user satisfaction survey and related report || Number of extractions: ESTAT monthly users monitoring reports || Degree of achievement: ESTAT twice-a-year monitoring procedure and related reports to the top management and the Cssr || Length of time series: ESTAT || Timeliness: Eurostat annual Status Report on Information Requirements in EMU to the Economic and Financial Committee

Actors involved in monitoring || Sample of users of ESTAT data || User of ESTAT website || ESTAT management || ESTAT || ESTAT

Issues covered  in monitoring reports || 1. General information (user profile, how important are European statistics. 2. Quality aspects (timeliness, completeness, comparability, trust). 3. Dissemination aspects (website, media support, release calendar). || 1. Availability and performance of the service. 2. Number of visits, requests, downloads (datasets, tables, publications, methodologies), news feeds consultations. 3. Use of visual tools (e.g. atlas, dashboards, country profiles). || Number of Outputs achieved, on target or facing difficulties. For those facing difficulties and explanation has to be done. || Percentage of the time series of a sample of statistics – Euro Indicators (active series) – that are longer than 15 years or longer than 0 years || Timeliness, availability, methodological developments, data by country. Implementation plan, progress made since previous report, resources needed.

Planned use of information || AAR, report to senior management and Commissioner, preparation of next MP and AWP, Mid-term evaluation and if necessary revision of ESP 2013-2017.

Frequency of reporting || Annual || Monthly || Twice a year || Annual || Annual

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 x || 2015 x || 2016 x || 2017 x || 2018 || 2019 || 2020

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Mid-term evaluation of ESP 2013 - 2017: 1. Deadline 30 June 2015 2. Mid-term 3. Main issues addressed: effectiveness, efficiency and relevance. Coverage: overall spending programme. 4. Results will be used to suggest corrections to make in the ESP 2013-2017 and for the preparation of the next ESP. 5. Actors: Eurostat evaluation team with input from all Eurostat’s units. Input from users via user satisfaction surveys. Opinion of the European Statistical System Committee (ESSC) on the report. Final evaluation of ESP 2013 - 2017: 1. Deadline 31 December 2018 2. Final 3. Main issues addressed: effectiveness, efficiency and relevance. Coverage: overall spending programme. 4. Results will be used to suggest corrections to make in the next ESP. 5. Actors: Eurostat evaluation team, with the support of external evaluation experts, and input from all Eurostat’s units. Input from users via user satisfaction surveys plus interviews of main users and data producers. Opinion of the ESSC on the report.

EGF (European Globalisation Adjustment Fund)

Title spending programme: || EGF (European Globalisation Adjustment Fund)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || Expenditure at Union level should be result-oriented, thus ensuring that the output and impact of the expenditure push forward the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and the achievement of its targets. For expenditure related to the EGF the MFF sets the target that the largest possible number of workers assisted through the EGF should find sustainable employment as soon as possible within the six-month period before the final report is due. In order to enable the Commission to monitor whether Member States are successfully striving towards this target, Member States will present a final report for each EGF case (active labour market policy measures in response to Member State applications) which will cover the following elements: * information [57] on the type of actions and main outcomes, the names of the bodies delivering the package of measures in the Member State; the characteristics of the targeted workers and their employment status, whether the undertaking, with the exception of SMEs and micro enterprises, has been a beneficiary of State aid or previous funding from Union cohesion or structural funds in the preceding five years;  together with a statement justifying the expenditure and indicating whenever possible the complementarity of actions with those funded by the ESF. Whenever possible data related to beneficiaries shall be broken down by sex. These reports are the main sources of information on the results achieved by the EGF and are supplemented by information shared by Member States in direct contacts with the Commission and during meetings, conferences and audit visits during the year. These reports are the basis of the biennial reports (first one in 2015) from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the activities of the EGF. The report shall focus mainly on the results achieved by the EGF and shall in particular contain information relating to applications submitted, decisions adopted, actions funded, including their complementarity with actions funded by other Union Funds. The Commission should carry out a mid-term evaluation of the effectiveness and sustainability of the results obtained (2017) and an ex-post evaluation with the assistance of external experts, to measure the impact of the EGF and its added value (2021).

Specific objective, indicator, milestone and target

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE || Contribute to smart, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and to promote sustainable employment in the Union by enabling the Union to demonstrate solidarity towards and to support workers made redundant and self-employed persons whose activity has ceased as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation, as a result of a continuation of the global financial and economic crisis addressed in Regulation (EC) No 546/2009, or as a result of a new global financial and economic crisis

Indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Proportion of redundant workers reintegrated into employment following EGF supported measures Source: EGF Biannual Report || 47% (*) % of workers targeted that were re-employed at final reporting time. This is an average figure based on the five annual reports available (2008 to 2012) || 49% || 50 % of the targeted workers are employed at final report stage or soon afterwards.

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The EGF personnel have an internal database, in which information from the Member States at application time and final reporting stage are recorded. Commission staff also makes site visits, both for monitoring purposes and for audits. At the end of each EGF case, the Member State submits a final report (as detailed above) to the Commission.

Actors involved in monitoring || Commission staff including auditors, as well as the EGF implementing bodies in the Member States, led by the Contact Persons (EGF representatives in the Member States) in each country. Other stakeholders (e.g. social partners, regional bodies, universities) may also become involved at application, implementation and / or reporting stage.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || The issues covered in the biennial reports on the implementation of the EGF are laid down in the EGF Regulation (applications submitted, decisions adopted, actions funded, reintegration rates of beneficiaries, complementarity with other Union funds, winding up of contributions, and applications rejected or reduced). These reports are based on the final reports submitted by the Member States for each EGF case.

Planned use of information || The information will be used for the following purposes: * to extract success stories and good practices which can be recommended to other Member States * to highlight the Fund and improve its visibility among the citizens of the Union. * to improve the quality of the intervention as Member States could adjust the planned active labour market policy measures if other measures become more relevant and promising to reach a higher reintegration rate (subject to approval by the Commission) The recommendations of the evaluation will be taken into account for the design of new programmes in the area of employment and social affairs.

Frequency of reporting                  || The Regulation requires the Commission to send to the European Parliament and to the Council etc. a biennial quantitative and qualitative report on the activities of the EGF in the previous two years.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2015 x || 2017 x || 2019 x

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Ex-post evaluation EGF 2007-2013 1. 2014 2. ex-post  evaluation 3. Impact and added value 4. Accountability purposes on the achievements of the financial contributions. 5. Stakeholders, beneficiaries, Member States Mid-term evaluation EGF 2014-2020 1. June 2017 2. Mid-term evaluation 3. Effectiveness & sustainability of the results (reintegration into employment). 4. Input for the preparation of a possible successor programme from 2020 onwards and for possible adjustments to the current Regulation and / or its implementation. 5. Stakeholders, beneficiaries, Member States Ex-post evaluation EGF 2014-2020 1. 2021 2. ex-post evaluation 3. Impact of the EGF and its added value. 4. Accountability purposes on the achievements of the financial contribution 5. Stakeholders, beneficiaries, Member States The results will be transmitted, for information, to the European Parliament, the Council, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the social partners.  The recommendations of the evaluations will be taken into account for the design of new programmes in the area of employment and social affairs.

H1b Cohesion policy ERDF (European Regional Development Fund)

Title spending programme: || ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) *

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The intervention logic of the programmes The thematic objectives for the ERDF and CF are set out in the Fund-specific regulations.  The ERDF can contribute to 11 thematic objectives, while the CF can contribute to 5 of these.  The 11 thematic objectives are broken down into 39 investment priorities, which are also common across all Member States.  Member States select the thematic objectives and investment priorities which correspond most closely to the needs and challenges facing the region or sector concerned. The strengthened results orientation of operational programmes co-financed by the ERDF requires specific objectives which articulate the change sought by the policy. The specific objectives articulate what the common investment priorities are expected to achieve in their specific context. These specific objectives must have a corresponding result indicator and a baseline and a target. The Commission will in 2014 and 2015 analyse the result indicators for each investment priority and thematic objective, but because they are specific to each programme (and member State and region) they cannot be aggregated.  They capture what the policy achieves plus the contribution of other factors.  Only evaluation can disentangle the effects due to the policy from those of other factors. Common output indicators must be used when relevant (supplemented by programme specific output indicators when necessary). Output indicators must have cumulative quantitative targets for 2023; baselines are zero.  Outputs are the products of operational programmes.   The common output indicators – their targets and achievements can be aggregated to the EU level per thematic objective. The common output indicators related to the different thematic objectives are presented in the tables below.  Target values for 2023 can only be inserted when the programmes are approved.  Currently (June 2014), no operational programmes are yet agreed. Each priority of each programme will have a performance framework which involves milestones and targets for expenditure and a subset of the output indicators (representing more than half of the expenditure), supplemented by key implementation steps where necessary.  Milestones are fixed for 2018, while targets are for 2023.  The performance framework triggers the allocation of the performance reserve in 2019, while serious failure can lead to financial suspensions or corrections. Milestones will only be available for the subset of output indicators related to the majority of expenditure which are in the performance frameworks. Reporting by Member States In 2014 and 2015 annual implementation reports by the managing authorities will relate to the 2007-2013 programming period.  From 2016 annual implementation reports will relate to the 2014-2020 programming period.  In the annual implementation reports (per operational programme), Member States (managing authorities at national or regional level) report yearly against result and output indicators (including common indicators) and categories of expenditure from 2016. From 2017, they also report progress under the performance framework. In 2017 and 2019, annual implementation reports, in addition to reporting key information on implementation of the programme and findings of any evaluations becoming available, will also assess progress made towards achieving the objectives of the programme.  In these years also (2017 and 2019), Member States will produce progress reports on the implementation of the ESI Funds and contribution towards achievement of the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as well as the missions of the Funds.  Each operational programme must have an evaluation plan which is adopted within one year of the approval of the programme.  There must be at least one evaluation during the programming period which assesses the contribution of each priority to the achievement of its objectives, i.e., which evaluates the contribution of the outputs delivered to change in the result indicator.  In 2022, each managing authority will synthesise the evidence from evaluations and the monitoring system on the performance of the policy.  Reporting by the Commission Each year from 2016, the European Commission will produce a report to Council and Parliament on the achievements of the 5 ESI Funds.  This report will be produced in co-operation between DGs REGIO, EMPL, AGRI and MARE. Evaluations carried out by the Commission in 2014 to 2016 will focus on the achievements of the 2007-2013 programming period.  Some further evaluations of interventions co-financed in 2007-2013 will be undertaken in later years to explore the effects of interventions which take longer to materialise. The Commission plans to evaluate the intervention logic of programmes adopted in 2014 and 2015. These evaluations will feed into the impact assessment for the 2020-2027 financial framework. The main evaluation work undertaken by the Commission in the 2016-2020 period will relate to the accumulation of evidence from Member State impact evaluations, with specific evaluations launched to fill gaps or meet particular needs arising.  In 2020-2023, the Commission will launch the ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 period.  

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.1 || Strengthening research, technological development and innovation

Indicator: || Number of new researchers in supported entities

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 12.073 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 26.442 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Number of enterprises cooperating with research institutions

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 17.647 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 26.419 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Number of researchers working in improved research infrastructure facilities Private investment matching public support in innovation or R&D projects Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to the market products Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to the firm products

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.2 || Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and communication technologies

Indicator: || Additional households with broadband access of at least 30 Mbps

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 4.980.459 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 7.097.599 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.3 || Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises

Indicator: || Number of enterprises receiving support

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 171.450 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 214.978 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Number of new enterprises supported

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 75.123 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 81.619 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Employment increase in supported enterprises

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 381.208 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 873.429 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Number of enterprises receiving grants Number of enterprises receiving financial support other than grants Number of enterprises receiving non-financial support Private investment matching public support to enterprises (grants) Private investment matching public support to enterprises (non-grants) Employment increase in supported enterprises Increase in expected number of visits to supported sites of cultural and natural heritage and attractions (sustainable tourism)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.4 || Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors

Indicator: || Additional capacity of renewable energy production

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 1.874 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 5.143 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Number of households with improved energy consumption classification Decrease of annual primary energy consumption of public buildings Number of additional energy users connected to smart grids Estimated annual decrease of GHG

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.5 || Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management

Indicator: || Population benefiting from flood protection measures

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 3.866.132 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 9.801.862 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Population benefiting from forest fire protection measures

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 16.814.896 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 21.624.546 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.6 || Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency

Indicator: || Additional population served by improved water supply

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 3.221.629 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 15.047.893 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Additional population served by improved wastewater treatment

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 5.001.958 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 19.696.696 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Additional waste recycling capacity Total surface area of rehabilitated land Surface area of habitats supported to attain a better conservation status

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.7 || Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures

Indicator: || Total length of new railway line

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 301 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 354 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of reconstructed or upgraded railway line

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 2.104 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 3.539 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of newly built roads

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 1.975 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 6.746 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of reconstructed or upgraded roads

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 22.711 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 24.485 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of new railway line of which: TEN-T

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 1.344 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 2.102 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of newly built roads of which: TEN-T

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 1.202 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 4.177 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Total length of reconstructed or upgraded railway line of which: TEN-T Total length of reconstructed or upgraded roads of which: TEN-T Total length of new or improved tram and metro lines Total length of improved or created inland waterway

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.8 || Promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility

Indicator: || Indicator to be proposed after approval and based on the content of 2014-2020 OPs

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.9 || Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Population covered by improved health services Open space created or rehabilitated in urban areas Public or commercial buildings built or renovated in urban areas Rehabilitated housing in urban areas

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.10 || Investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning

Indicator: || Capacity of supported childcare or education infrastructure

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 4.283.533 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 5.171.846 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.11 || Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and an efficient public administration

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Population living in areas with integrated urban development strategies (indicator to be confirmed after approval and based on the content of 2014-2020 OPs)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.12 || Developing regional and local potential through encouraging integrated development approach, capacity building, cross border and transnational cooperation and supporting networking, exchange of experience and cooperation between regions, towns and relevant social, economic and environmental actors

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Number of participants in cross-border mobility initiatives Number of participants in joint local employment initiatives and joint training Number of participants in projects promoting gender quality, equal opportunities and social inclusion across borders Number of participants in joint education and training schemes to support youth employment, educational opportunities and higher and vocational education across borders

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1.13 || Supporting cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation (European territorial cooperation) including cross-border cooperation between Member States and candidate or potential candidate countries

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Number of enterprises participating in cross-border, transnational or interregional research projects Number of research institutions participating in cross-border, transnational or interregional research projects

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Progress in milestones and targets is monitored through: - the annual implementation reports (yearly from 2016) - from 2017 the annual implementation report also on progress towards the milestones and targets of the  performance framework National audit authorities will check the reliability of indicator reporting from the level of the operations, while systems audits may also be launched.  In 2016, the Commission plans to carry out audit work on the reliability of data reported. 

Actors involved in monitoring || Member States' Managing Authorities monitor progress against the indicators of the operational programmes and report on achievements in the relevant annual implementation reports.  The annual implementation reports will be required to contain much more structured data which will be easier to analyse and compare than in past programming periods.  REGIO geographic units monitor overall performance. They analyse the annual implementation reports and provide observations to the Managing Authorities concerned.  Where there are issues which might significantly affect the implementation of the programme, the Managing Authority must provide information in response.  Where there is information concerning a serious deficiency in the quality and reliability of the monitoring system or of the data on common and specific indicators, the Commission may proceed to the suspension of interim payments to all or part of priorities or programmes. REGIO evaluation unit analyses common indicator data and produces the aggregate figures which are used by the Commission for monitoring progress and communicating the achievements of the policy.  From the second half of 2014 it will launch a process of analysis of result indicators and their targets by thematic objective and the different intervention logics contributing to the EU priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.  The performance frameworks will also be analysed. Annual implementation reports are considered by the Monitoring committees.  The role of the Monitoring Committee has been strengthened to include a stronger focus on the performance of programmes.  The monitoring committee also reviews the evaluation plans and the findings of evaluations and their follow-up. Monitoring Committees are composed of representatives of the relevant Member States authorities, intermediate bodies and the social and economic partners involved in the design and delivery of programmes. The European Commission participates in the work of the monitoring committee in an advisory capacity.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || First two Annual Management Plans in the 2014-2020 MFF will report on achievements related to funding from the 2007-2013 MFF (n+2 rule).  As of 2016, Member States will report on first achievements using funding from the 2014-2020 MFF

Planned use of information || Information will be used for accountability purposes and to establish benchmarks and make comparisons.

Frequency of reporting                  || Annual implementation reports are delivered on an annual basis from mid-2016 onwards related to the previous year.  The Performance Framework will also be reported on annually in the annual implementation reports from 2017 onwards.

Availability of reports  in the timeline AIRs on 2007-2013 AIRs on 2014-2020** || 2014 x || 2015 x || 2016 x || 2017 x || 2018 x || 2019 x || 2020 x

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Evaluations carried out by European Commission 2007-2013 ex post evaluation Deadline: by end 2015 Type:  ex post of previous MFF Main issues:  Report on outcomes of the 2007-2013 generation of cohesion policy programmes. Examine the extent to which the resources were used, the effectiveness and the socio-economic impact. Identify factors contributing to the success or failure of programmes and identify good practice Coverage:  selected themes, including Enterprise support, Innovation, ICT, Transport/Environment, Energy, Culture, Tourism, Urban development, ETC Use of results:  Regulatory requirement, SPP documents, dissemination to Member States, adaptation of 2014-2020 programmes where necessary, policy debate on the requirements for Cohesion Policy post 2020 Actors involved:  DG REGIO (managing the evaluations) and other DGs on the Steering Group, Member States and Managing Authorities, social and economic partners, intermediary bodies, international organisations, academics all being evaluated or contributing to the analysis or using the findings. Ex-post 2014-2020 1. Deadline:  end 2024 2. Type:  Ex-post 2014-2020 3. Main issues and coverage: Effectiveness and efficiency of the ERDF and CF and their contribution to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and to the mission of the individual funds.  It will also assess the extent to which programmes achieved their specific objectives and identify factors of success or failure 4. Planned use of evaluation results:  To be accountable for the resources spent, to contribute to policy learning and most immediately to feed into a synthesis report by the Commission by end 2023. 5. Actors involved:  DG REGIO (managing the evaluations) and other DGs on the Steering Group, Member States and Managing Authorities, social and economic partners, intermediary bodies, international organisations, academics all being evaluated or contributing to the analysis or using the findings. Thematic evaluations (to be determined) Deadline: during the current MFF Type:  ad hoc (to be determined) Main issues:  Effectiveness Coverage:  specific themes  and using specific evaluation methods Use of results:  SPP documents, dissemination to Member States, adaptation of 2014-2020 programmes where necessary, policy debate on the requirements for Cohesion Policy post 2020 Actors involved:  to be decided on a case by case basis, but always Commission managing the evaluations and selected Member State authorities' policies being evaluated. European Semester Deadline: 2015 Type:  ad hoc Main issues:  Insight into plausibility of output and result indicators used; intervention logics across different types of region for similar specific objectives, robustness of performance frameworks. Coverage:  selection of the most important thematic objectives. Pilots in 2014/early 2015 to determine the extent to which such analysis will be useful. Use of results:  Dissemination to Member States, policy debate as to coherence among similar interventions, reflection on the robustness of the 2014-2020 provisions on programming and any need for change in the future. Actors involved:  European Commission, Member State authorities, relevant academics/experts.

*   there is no differentiation in monitoring ERDF / CF.  Only data on achievements will differentiate between funds.

** reports in 2014 and 2015 will cover achievements of the 2007-2013 MFF

CF (Cohesion fund)

Title spending programme: || CF (Cohesion Fund)*

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The intervention logic of the programmes The thematic objectives for the ERDF and CF are set out in the Fund-specific regulations.  The ERDF can contribute to 11 thematic objectives, while the CF can contribute to 5 of these.  The 11 thematic objectives are broken down into 39 investment priorities, which are also common across all Member States.  Member States select the thematic objectives and investment priorities which correspond most closely to the needs and challenges facing the region or sector concerned. The strengthened results orientation of operational programmes co-financed by the CF requires specific objectives which articulate the change sought by the policy. The specific objectives articulate what the common investment priorities are expected to achieve in their specific context.  These specific objectives must have a corresponding result indicator and a baseline and a target.  The Commission will in 2014 and 2015 analyse the result indicators for each investment priority and thematic objective, but because they are specific to each programme (and member State and region) they cannot be aggregated.  They capture what the policy achieves plus the contribution of other factors.  Only evaluation can disentangle the effects due to the policy from those of other factors. Common output indicators must be used when relevant (supplemented by programme specific output indicators when necessary). Output indicators must have cumulative quantitative targets for 2023; baselines are zero.  Outputs are the products of operational programmes.   The common output indicators – their targets and achievements can be aggregated to the EU level per thematic objective. The common output indicators related to the different thematic objectives are presented in the tables below.  Target values for 2023 can only be inserted when the programmes are approved.  Currently (June 2014), no operational programmes are yet agreed. Each priority of each programme will have a performance framework which involves milestones and targets for expenditure and a subset of the output indicators (representing more than half of the expenditure), supplemented by key implementation steps where necessary.  Milestones are fixed for 2018, while targets are for 2023.  The performance framework triggers the allocation of the performance reserve in 2019, while serious failure can lead to financial suspensions or corrections. Milestones will only be available for the subset of output indicators related to the majority of expenditure which are in the performance frameworks. Reporting by Member States In 2014 and 2015 annual implementation reports by the managing authorities will relate to the 2007-2013 programming period.  From 2016 annual implementation reports will relate to the 2014-2020 programming period.  In the annual implementation reports (per operational programme), Member States (managing authorities at national or regional level) report yearly against result and output indicators (including common indicators) and categories of expenditure from 2016.  From 2017, they also report progress under the performance framework. In 2017 and 2019, annual implementation reports, in addition to reporting key information on implementation of the programme and findings of any evaluations becoming available, will also assess progress made towards achieving the objectives of the programme.  In these years also (2017 and 2019), Member States will produce progress reports on the implementation of the ESI Funds and contribution towards achievement of the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as well as the missions of the Funds.  Each operational programme must have an evaluation plan which is adopted within one year of the approval of the programme.  There must be at least one evaluation during the programming period which assesses the contribution of each priority to the achievement of its objectives, i.e., which evaluates the contribution of the outputs delivered to change in the result indicator.  In 2022, each managing authority will synthesise the evidence from evaluations and the monitoring system on the performance of the policy.  Reporting by the Commission Each year from 2016, the European Commission will produce a report to Council and Parliament on the achievements of the 5 ESI Funds.  This report will be produced in co-operation between DGs REGIO, EMPL, AGRI and MARE. Evaluations carried out by the Commission in 2014 to 2016 will focus on the achievements of the 2007-2013 programming period.  Some further evaluations of interventions co-financed in 2007-2013 will be undertaken in later years to explore the effects of interventions which take longer to materialise. The Commission plans to evaluate the intervention logic of programmes adopted in 2014 and 2015. These evaluations will feed into the impact assessment for the 2020-2027 financial framework. The main evaluation work undertaken by the Commission in the 2016-2020 period will relate to the accumulation of evidence from Member State impact evaluations, with specific evaluations launched to fill gaps or meet particular needs arising.  In 2020 – 2023, the Commission will launch the ex post evaluation of the 2014-2020 period.  

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors

Indicator: || Additional capacity of renewable energy production

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 851 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 1.988 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Number of households with improved energy consumption classification Decrease of annual primary energy consumption of public buildings Number of additional energy users connected to smart grids Estimated annual decrease of GHG

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management

Indicator: || Population benefiting from flood protection measures

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 2.071.208 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 6.906.162 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Population benefiting from forest fire protection measures

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 16.775.034 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 21.510.746 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency

Indicator: || Additional population served by improved water supply

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 2.769.585 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 14.439.893 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Additional population served by improved wastewater treatment

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 3.784.595 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 16.773.060 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Additional waste recycling capacity Total surface area of rehabilitated land Surface area of habitats supported to attain a better conservation status

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures

Indicator: || Total length of new railway line

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 59 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 253 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of reconstructed or upgraded railway line

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 1.032 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 2.372 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of newly built roads

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 1.839 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 6.368 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of reconstructed or upgraded roads

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 21.088 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 23.873 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of new railway line of which: TEN-T

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 429 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 1.440 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicator: || Total length of newly built roads of which: TEN-T

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

(2012) 1.202 || 2007-2015 (cumulative) 4.177 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Total length of reconstructed or upgraded railway line of which: TEN-T Total length of reconstructed or upgraded roads of which: TEN-T Total length of improved or created inland waterway Total length of new or improved tram and metro lines

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 || Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and an efficient public administration

Indicators for which data concerning baseline, milestones and target values are not yet available: || Indicator to be proposed after approval and based on the content of 2014-2020 OPs

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Progress in milestones and targets is monitored through: - the annual implementation reports (yearly from 2016) - from 2017 the annual implementation report also on progress towards the milestones and targets of the  performance framework National audit authorities will check the reliability of indicator reporting from the level of the operations, while systems audits may also be launched.  In 2016, the Commission plans to carry out some audit work on the reliability of data reported. 

Actors involved in monitoring || Member States' Managing Authorities monitor progress against the indicators of the operational programmes and report on achievements in the relevant annual implementation reports.  The annual implementation reports will be required to contain much more structured data which is will be easier to analyse and compare than in past programming periods.  REGIO geographic units monitor overall performance. They analyse the annual implementation reports and provide observations to the Managing Authorities concerned.  Where there are issues which might significantly affect the implementation of the programme, the Managing Authority must provide information in response.  Where there is information concerning a serious deficiency in the quality and reliability of the monitoring system or of the data on common and specific indicators, the Commission may proceed to the suspension of interim payments to all or part of priorities or programmes. REGIO evaluation unit analyses common indicator data and produces the aggregate figures which are used by the Commission for monitoring progress and communicating the achievements of the policy.  From the second half of 2014 it will launch a process of analysis of result indicators and their targets by thematic objective and the different intervention logics contributing to the EU priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.  The performance frameworks will also be analysed. Annual implementation reports are considered by the Monitoring committees.  The role of the Monitoring Committee has been strengthened to include a stronger focus on the performance of programmes.  The monitoring committee also reviews the evaluation plans and the findings of evaluations and their follow-up. Monitoring Committees are composed of representatives of the relevant Member States authorities, intermediate bodies and the social and economic partners involved in the design and delivery of programmes. The European Commission participates in the work of the monitoring committee in an advisory capacity.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || First two Annual Management Plans in the 2014-2020 MFF will report on achievements related to funding from the 2007-2013 MFF (n+2 rule).  As of 2016, Member States will report on first achievements using funding from the 2014-2020 MFF

Planned use of information || Information will be used for accountability purposes and to establish benchmarks and make comparisons.

Frequency of reporting                  || Annual implementation reports are delivered on an annual basis.  The Performance Framework will also be reported on annually in the annual implementation reports from 2016 onwards.

Availability of reports  in the timeline ** AIRs on 2007-2013 AIRs on 2014-2020 || 2014 x || 2015 x || 2016 x || 2017 x || 2018 x || 2019 x || 2020 x

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Evaluations carried out by European Commission 2007-2013 ex post evaluation Deadline: by end 2015 Type:  ex post of previous MFF Main issues:  Report on outcomes of the 2007-2013 generation of cohesion policy programmes. Examine the extent to which the resources were used, the effectiveness and the socio-economic impact. Identify factors contributing to the success or failure of programmes and identify good practice Coverage:  selected themes, including Enterprise support, Innovation, ICT, Transport/Environment, Energy, Culture, Tourism, Urban development, ETC Use of results:  Regulatory requirement, SPP documents, dissemination to Member States, adaptation of 2014-2020 programmes where necessary, policy debate on the requirements for Cohesion Policy post 2020 Actors involved:  DG REGIO (managing the evaluations) and other DGs on the Steering Group, Member States and Managing Authorities, social and economic partners, intermediary bodies, international organisations, academics all being evaluated or contributing to the analysis or using the findings. Ex-post 2014-2020 Deadline:  end 2024 Type: Ex-post 2014-2020 Main issues addressed   and coverage:   Effectiveness and efficiency of the ERDF and CF and their contribution to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and to the mission of the individual funds.  It will also assess the extent to which programmes achieved their specific objectives and identify factors of success or failure Planned use of evaluation results:  To be accountable for the resources spent, to contribute to policy learning and most immediately to feed into a synthesis report by the Commission by end 2023. Actors involved:  DG REGIO (managing the evaluations) and other DGs on the Steering Group, Member States and Managing Authorities, social and economic partners, intermediary bodies, international organisations, academics all being evaluated or contributing to the analysis or using the findings. Thematic evaluations (to be determined) Deadline: during the current MFF Type:  ad hoc (to be determined) Main issues:  Effectiveness Coverage:  specific themes  and using specific evaluation methods Use of results:  SPP documents, dissemination to Member States, adaptation of 2014-2020 programmes where necessary, policy debate on the requirements for Cohesion Policy post 2020 Actors involved:  to be decided on a case by case basis, but always the Commission managing the evaluations and selected Member State authorities' policies being evaluated. European Semester Deadline: 2015 Type:  ad hoc Main issues:  Insight into plausibility of output and result indicators used; intervention logics across different types of region for similar specific objectives, robustness of performance frameworks Coverage:  selection of the most important thematic objectives. Pilots in 2014/early 2015 to determine the extent to which such analysis will be useful. Use of results:  Dissemination to Member States, policy debate as to coherence among similar interventions, reflection on the robustness of the 2014-2020 provisions on programming and any need for change in the future. Actors involved:  European Commission, Member State authorities, relevant academics/experts.

* there is no differentiation in monitoring ERDF / CF.  Only data on achievements will differentiate between funds.

** reports in 2014 and 2015 will cover achievements of the 2007-2013 MFF

ESF (European Social Fund)

Title spending programme: || ESF (European Social Fund)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The ESF shall promote high levels of employment and job quality, improve access to the labour market, support the geographical and occupational mobility of workers and facilitate their adaptation to industrial change and to changes in production systems needed for sustainable developments, encourage a high level of education and training for all and support the transition between education and employment for young people, combat poverty, enhance social inclusion, and promote gender equality, non-discrimination and equal opportunities, thereby contributing to the priorities of the Union as regards strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion. Implementation of operational programmes will be monitored through the monitoring committees (CSF, art. 47). They will meet at least once a year and review implementation of the programmes towards achieving its objectives by having regard to the financial data and to common output and result indicators as well as programme-specific indicators. The monitoring committees may make observations on programme performance to the managing authority and shall monitor the resulting actions taken. Member States will submit annual implementation reports (AIR) as from 2016 and a final report by end 2024. The AIRs shall set out key information on implementation of the programme and its priorities by reference to the financial data, programme-specific and common indicators and quantified target values. Milestones and targets for the indicators can be provided after the adoption of Partnership Agreements and individual operational programmes. The AIRs shall also cover a synthesis of the findings of evaluations of the programme that have become available during the financial year, any issue which affect the performance and the measures taken. The Commission will analyse these reports and may make observations to the Member States and to managing authorities if some issues significantly affect the programme implementation. As from 2016, the performance of the programmes will be discussed in annual review meetings between the Commission and each Member State. The Member States will ensure proper follow-up and inform the Commission within three months of the measures taken (CPR, art. 51). As regards evaluations, Member States will carry out ex-ante evaluations to improve the quality of each programme (CPR, art. 55). They will also draw up67    evaluation plans and submit them to monitoring committees no later than a year after the adoption of the programme. At least once during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess how support from the ESI Funds has contributed to the objectives for each priority. All evaluations shall be examined by the monitoring committee and sent to the Commission. A report summarising the findings of evaluations, the main outputs and results of the OP as well as providing comments on the reported information will be submitted by the managing authorities to the Commission by the end of 2022 (CPR, art. 114). The Commission may carry out evaluation of programmes (CPR, art. 56) and will perform ex-post evaluations by end 2024 in close cooperation with the Member States and managing authorities (CPR, art. 57 and 114). For the Youth Employment Initiative at least twice during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of joint support from the ESF and the specific allocation for YEI including for the implementation of the Youth Guarantee (ESF Reg., art. 19).

Specific objectives[58] and indicators[59]

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility

Indicator:1 || Number of participants benefiting from ESF under this thematic objective[60]

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

3.1 million per year || 14.6 million cumulative (2014-2018) || 21.7 million cumulative

Indicator:2 || Participants (unemployed or inactive) in employment, including self-employment, upon leaving

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination[61]

Indicator:1 || Participants considered as part of disadvantaged groups that are reached by the ESF[62]

Latest known results || Target 2020

2009 || 2010 || 2011

19% || 18% || 19%

7% || 6% || 9.,2% || 8% ||

20%[63]

||

Indicator:2 || Inactive participants engaged in job searching upon leaving

Indicator:3 || Participants above 54 years of age who are unemployed, including long-term unemployed, or inactive not in education or training

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and life-long learning

Indicator:1 || Number of participants benefiting from ESF under this thematic objective[64]

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

3.4 million per year || 15.9 million cumulative (2014-2018) || 23.8 million cumulative

Indicator:2 || Participants gaining a qualification upon leaving

Indicator:3 || Participants in education/training upon leaving

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration

Indicator:1 || Number of projects targeting public administrations or public services at national, regional or local level[65]

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

185 projects per year || 550 projects (2014-2018) || 1300 projects

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 || Promoting specific support to young NEETS (15-24)[66]

Indicator:1 || Number of participants aged 15-24 benefiting from ESF[67]

Latest known results || Milestones || Target 2020

3 million per year || 15.5 million cumulative (2014-2018) || 23.1 million cumulative

Indicator:2 || Unemployed participants who complete the YEI supported intervention

Indicator:3 || Unemployed participants in education/training, gaining a qualification or in employment, including self-employment, upon leaving the YEI supported intervention

Indicator:4 || Inactive participants not in education or training who complete the YEI supported intervention

Indicator:5 || Inactive participants not in education or training, gaining a qualification or in employment, including self-employment, upon leaving the YEI supported intervention

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || At the same time as the annual implementation reports (starting in May 2016, for YEI starting in April 2015), the managing authority shall transmit electronically structured data for each investment priority. (ESF, art.5.2) To this end the managing authority shall establish a system to record and store in computerised form data on each operation necessary for monitoring, evaluation, including data on individual participants in operations, where applicable (CPR art. 125(2)(d). These data aggregated at the level of Investment Priority, and category of region (except YEI support), are the basis for reporting achievements of milestones and targets. The performance framework requires setting milestones which are to be achieved by 31 December 2018 and to be assessed in 2019. The targets themselves are set to be achieved by 31 December 2023 and their accomplishment will be assessed at the closure of the programme period in 2025. Starting with the annual implementation report submitted in 2017, Member States shall set out information on the achievement of milestones defined in the performance framework (Art. 50(2) CPR). The Commission shall transmit each year from 2016 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, a summary report in relation to ESI Fund programmes based on the annual implementation reports of the Member States as well as a synthesis of the findings of the available evaluations of programmes (art. 53 (1) CPR). In 2017 and 2019 the Member State shall submit to the Commission a progress report on implementation of the Partnership Agreement (art. 52 (1) CPR). The progress reports shall include additional information, and assess the implementation of, the YEI (art. 19 (5) ESF). By 31 December 2017 and 31 December 2019 the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions a strategic report summarising the progress reports of the Member States. Those institutions shall be invited to hold a debate on it (art. 53 (2) CPR).

Actors involved in monitoring || Managing authorities are responsible for the submission of structured data on indicators to the Commission. In accordance with the partnership principle and the multi-level governance approach, (a) competent urban and other public authorities; (b) economic and social partners; and (c) relevant bodies representing civil society, including environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible for promoting social inclusion, gender equality and non-discrimination. shall be involved by Member States through participation in the monitoring committees (CPR, art. 5). The monitoring committee shall review implementation of the programme and progress made towards achieving its objectives. In doing so, it shall have regard to the financial data, common and programme-specific indicators, including changes in the value of result indicators and progress towards quantified target values, and the milestones defined in the performance framework and, where relevant, the results of evaluations. The monitoring committee shall examine all issues that affect the performance of the programme, including the conclusions of the performance reviews. (CPR, art. 49).

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Annual Implementation Reports submitted by Member States (By 31 May 2016 and by the same date of each subsequent year until and including 2023) will cover the implementation aspects of the operational programme and the progress in preparation and implementation of major projects and joint action plans. The annual implementation report to be submitted in 2017 shall in addition set out and assess progress made towards achieving the objectives of the programme, including the contribution of the ESI Funds to changes in the value of result indicators, when evidence is available from relevant evaluations. Analysis of achievement of objectives of the programme and its contribution to achieving the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth will be in the AIR in 2019 and in the final implementation report in 2024 (CPR, art. 50).

Planned use of information || This will be used for internal monitoring as well as for internal and external communication (such as AAR etc.). The information received will also feed the management of the operational programmes. Indeed, the new regulations foresee a performance framework and an associated performance reserve (6% of the resources allocated to the European Social Fund, except for the Youth Employment Initiative). The performance framework consists of selected financial, output and result indicators as well as key implementation steps for each priority. If the priorities are implemented as planned, the performance reserve will be released following the performance review in 2019 (CPR, article 21 and 22). But suspension of payments and financial corrections may be applied to priorities with serious failures.

Frequency of reporting                  || The reporting will be annual as from 2016 (for YEI first report is expected in April 2015).

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 AIR || 2017 AIR || 2018   AIR || 2019 AIR || 2020 AIR || 2021 AIR || 2022 AIR || 2023 AIR || 2024 Final report

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Evaluations carried out by European Commission The ex-post evaluation of the ESF 2007-2013 is under way (preparatory study, launch of tender for first thematic studies). In addition a synthesis report and possibly country reports will be produced. Results will be available towards the end of 2015. Scope of the ex post thematic evaluations on Social Inclusion, Human Capital, Employment: Overview covering all MS on - how ESF programmes support policy fields - outputs achieved and budget spent - implementation approaches In-depth assessment of effectiveness and results for a sample of MS Main issues addressed: · Examine use of resources, effectiveness and efficiency of Fund programming and socio-economic impact · Aim to draw conclusions for the policy on economic and social cohesion · Identify factors contributing to success or failure of the implementation of OPs · Identify good practices The Commission may carry out evaluations of programmes at its own initiative during the programming period 2014-2020 (art. 56 (4) CPR). At least twice during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of joint support from the ESF and the specific allocation for YEI including for the implementation of the Youth Guarantee (art. 19 (6) ESF) The Commission shall carry out ex post evaluations in close cooperation with the Member States and managing authorities (art. 114 CPR). Ex post evaluations shall be completed by 31 December 2024 (art. 57(2) CPR) Evaluations carried out by Member States Art. 57(3) CPR “During the programming period, the managing authority shall ensure that evaluations are carried out, including evaluations to assess effectiveness, efficiency and impact, for each programme on the basis of the evaluation plan and that they are subject to appropriate follow up in accordance to the Fund-specific rules. At least once during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess how support from the Funds covered by the CPR has contributed to the objectives for each priority. All evaluations shall be examined by the monitoring committee and sent to the Commission.” Art. 114 CPR "1. An evaluation plan shall be drawn up by the managing authority or Member State for one or more operational programmes. The evaluation plan shall be submitted to […] the monitoring committee no later than a year after the adoption of the programme. 2. By 31 December 2022, managing authorities shall submit to the Commission, for each programme, a report summarising the findings of evaluations carried out during the programming period […] and the main outputs and results of the programme, providing comments on the reported information." Two evaluations for Youth Employment Initiative (Art. 19 ESF Reg.): 1. completed by end 2015 2. completed by end 2018 Scope: assess effectiveness, efficiency and impact

FEAD (Fund for European Aid for the most deprived)

Title spending programme: || FEAD (Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || Implementation of operational programmes for social inclusion of the most deprived persons (OP IIK) will be monitored through the monitoring committees (FEAD, art. 10a). They will meet at least once a year and review implementation of the programmes towards achieving its objectives by having regard to the financial data and to common output and result indicators as well as programme-specific indicators. The monitoring committees may make observations on programme performance to the managing authority and shall monitor the resulting actions taken. Member States will submit annual implementation reports (AIR) as from 2015 and a final report by September 2024 (FEAD, art 11). The content of the AIRs will be defined in a delegated act to be adopted by 17 July 2014. The Commission will analyse these reports and may make observations to the Member States and to managing authorities if some issues significantly affect the programme implementation. As from 2016, the performance of the programmes will be discussed in annual review meetings between the Commission and each Member State. The Member States will ensure proper follow-up and inform the Commission within three months of the measures taken (FEAD, art. 12). In the case of operational programmes for food and/or basic material assistance (OP I), as there is no monitoring committee foreseen, the relevant stakeholders will be consulted on the AIRs and will be invited to participate in the annual review meetings. As regards evaluations, Member States will carry out ex-ante evaluations to improve the quality of each programme (FEAD, art. 14). At least once during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the operations supported by OP II. The Commission will carry out a mid-term evaluation of the FEAD by end 2018, may carry out evaluation of programmes (FEAD, art. 15) and will perform ex-post evaluations by end 2024 in close cooperation with Member States and managing authorities (FEAD, art. 16).

|| Specific objective, indicator, milestone and target [68]

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE || Alleviating the worst forms of poverty, by providing non-financial assistance to the most deprived persons by food and/or basic material assistance, and social inclusion activities aiming at the social integration of the most deprived persons

Indicator:1 || Number of persons receiving assistance from the Fund

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

0[69] || 8 million || 14 million

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The content of the annual implementation reports will be defined in a delegated act. However, in accordance with the basic act,  the managing authority shall establish a system to record and store in computerised form data on each operation necessary for monitoring, evaluation, including data on individual participants in operations, where applicable (FEAD art. 29(2)(c).

Actors involved in monitoring || Managing authorities are responsible for the submission of annual implementation reports to the Commission. In addition, all relevant stakeholders shall be consulted on the annual implementation reports and shall be invited to participate in the annual review meetings or shall participate in the monitoring committee depending on the type of operational programme

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Annual Implementation Reports submitted by Member States (By 30 June 2015 and by the same date of each subsequent year until and including 2023) will cover the implementation aspects of the operational programme.

Planned use of information || This will be used for internal monitoring as well as for internal and external communication (such as AAR etc.). The information received will also feed the management of the operational programmes.

Frequency of reporting                  || The reporting will be annual as from 2015

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 AIR || 2016 AIR || 2017 AIR || 2018   AIR || 2019 AIR || 2020 AIR || 2021 AIR || 2022 AIR || 2023 AIR || 2024 Final report

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || By the Commission: FEAD, art. 17: 1. The Commission shall present a mid-term evaluation of the Fund to the European Parliament and to the Council by 31 December 2018. 2. The Commission may, at its own initiative, evaluate operational programmes. Ex post evaluation: by 31 December 2023 By the Member States: Member States shall carry out an ex-ante evaluation of each OP (FEAD, art. 16).  During the programming period, the managing authority of an OP I may evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the operational programme. The managing authority of an OP I shall carry out a structured survey on end recipients in 2017 and 2022, in accordance with the template adopted by the Commission. The managing authority of an OP II shall carry out at least one evaluation before 31 December 2022. The evaluation shall assess the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the operations (art. 17 (3),(4),(5)).

H2 Sustainable growth CAP (Common Agricultural Policy)

The general objectives are common to the 2 funds (EAGF and EAFRD).

Overall, the CAP aims at achieving three general objectives, which together feed into the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Both CAP pillars contribute to the general objectives. The general objectives are broken down into specific objectives, some of which are common to Pillar I (broadly, agricultural income and market support) and II (rural development), whereas others are linked either to Pillar I or to Pillar II.

General Objective 1 : To promote a viable food production

Impact indicator || Current situation || Long term target

Agricultural factor income || In current prices: 14 376.7 EUR/AWU In real prices: 12 767.7 EUR/AWU Indicator A: 131.0 (index 2005 = 100) (2012 – EU28) || To increase

Agricultural productivity || Not available – index to be calculated || To increase

EU commodity price variability || Coefficient of variation Commodity || World Jan 2010-Dec 2012 || EU Jan 2010-Dec 2012 || To decrease

Beef Poultry Pig || 10.1% 4.7% 10.7% || 8.2% 6.5% 9.9%

Soft wheat Maize Barley || 17.9% 23.1% 22.7% || 21.2% 17.8% 22.0%

Butter Cheese (Cheddar) Skimmed milk powder (SMP) Whole milk powder (WMP) || 14.9% 6.6% 10.0% 11.0% || 12.0% 9.1% 8.0% 7.2%

General Objective 2 : To promote a sustainable management of natural resources and climate action

Impact indicator || Current situation || Long term target

Emissions from agriculture || Greenhouse gas: 510 324 (2010)[70] || To reduce

Water abstraction in agriculture: volume of water applied to soils for irrigation purposes || 39 724 586 (2010)[71] || To decrease

General Objective 3 : To promote a balanced territorial development

Impact indicator || Current situation || Long term target

Rural employment rate || 63,4% (2012- EU28) || To increase

EAGF (European Agricultural Guarantee Fund)

Title spending programme: || EAGF (European Agricultural Guarantee Fund)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The EAGF finances both agricultural market measures and direct payments to farmers, on an annual basis. The framework for the monitoring and evaluation of the EAGF (as part of the CAP) is described in Article 110 of the Regulation n° 1306/2013[72], the "CAP horizontal regulation", and its implementing act (still to be adopted). As part of this framework, a set of output, result and impact indicators have been defined to support the assessment of the performance of the fund.  For each of the instruments, a mapping has been made to which of the specific objectives it contributes. Specific objectives in turn contribute to the overall CAP general objectives. The direct payments support contributes to stabilise the farmers' income, improve competitiveness and support the provision of environmental public goods and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Market measures allow for a safety net in times of market disturbance or crisis, hence help maintain market stability and meet consumer expectations. A number of horizontal instruments support these objectives. Overall, these measures help to maintain a diverse agriculture in the EU. The indicators correspond to a three level hierarchy: impact indicators describe the progress towards the general objectives, result indicators link to the specific objectives and output indicators for the individual instruments. The information used for these indicators is (to the maximum possible) collected through existing channels, to avoid creating additional administrative burden for beneficiaries and Member States. This entails that there is a wide range of data sources used for the overall CAP monitoring and Evaluation framework, e.g. communications and notifications from Member States, official Eurostat statistics, data collected by the European Environmental Agency, World Bank data etc. For each of the indicators used, a detailed information sheet has been produced explaining the exact data definition, data source, level of geographical detail, reporting frequency and delay etc. These sheets will be published once the implementing acts have been adopted. Most of the information will be available at least annually, yet a few data items, e.g. those based on the Eurostat Farm Structure Survey, are collected with a larger interval. All indicator information will be uploaded regularly (at least yearly) in the AGRIVIEW database, where it will be accessed for the evaluation of the performance of the policy. As required by Regulation No 1306/2013, a first report will be submitted to the Council and Parliament in 2018, a second one, focussing on the impact of the policy, in 2021. These reports will be based on thematic evaluations to be launched in 2017, structured around the three general objectives of the CAP, i.e. viable food production, sustainable management of natural resources and climate action, and balanced territorial growth. These evaluations will be underpinned by a mapping and analysis in 2015-2016 of the implementation by the Member States of the CAP instruments. It should be noticed that the impact of a policy takes time to become visible, hence the 2018 report will focus more on implementation aspects and first results, while the 2021 report focuses on results and impacts. The information collected through the monitoring and evaluation system will also feed into the responsible Commission's service annual activity report and the program statements accompanying the draft budget. The full list of CAP indicators will be listed in the implementing act for Article 110 of Reg. n°1306/2013 and the implementing act of Reg. 1305/2013 on rural development. For the EAGF, in addition to the 16 impact indicators used for the whole CAP, a set of 58 output indicators and 16 result indicators will be used.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1   || To improve the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and enhance its value share in the food chain

Indicator 1: || Share of EU agricultural exports in world market

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

16.7% (2011) || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Share in world market maintained

Indicator 2: || Value added for primary producers in the food chain

Baseline

(2010 – EU-27) Crop and animal production, hunting and related services Food and beverage manufacturing || Value added (in EUR million) 154,4 203,9

Agents involved in the sale of food/beverages || 4,8

Wholesale of food/beverages Retail sale in non-specialised stores with food/beverages || 79,255 127,480

Retail sale of food/beverages in specialised stores || 29,900

Retail sale via stalls and markets of food/beverages || 2,398

Food and beverage service activities || 131,699

Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Share in world market maintained

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || To foster market stability

Indicator 1: || Export refunds Ratio of the volume of the products exported with export refunds and the total EU production per given period

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

Beef: 3.3% (2011/2012) Pigmeat: 0.2% (2011/2012) Poultry: 2.0% (2011/2012) || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Used only in case of need (seen against market developments)

Indicator 2: || Public intervention, ratio of volume of the products bought in the intervention storage and the total EU production of those respective products

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0% (2012) || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Used only in case of need (seen against market developments)

Indicator 3: || Private storage, Ratio of volume of the products placed into the publicly aided private storage and the total EU production of those respective products

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

Butter: 5.6% (2012) Olive oil: 8.2% (2012) || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Used only in case of need (seen against market developments)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || To better reflect consumer expectations

Indicator: || EU commodity prices compared to world prices

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

(see table in ABB 02) || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Prices brought closer to world prices

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 [from 2015] || To contribute to farm incomes and limit farm income variability in a minimally trade distorting manner

Indicator: || Share of direct support in agricultural income

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

TO BE COMPLETED || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || Decrease is desired but is not dependent on CAP intervention only (agricultural income may vary from many other factors)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 [from 2015] || To support the provision of public goods (mostly environmental) and pursue climate change mitigation and adaptation

Indicator: || E.g. Share of eligible land under greening practices

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 70% (to be adjusted)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6 [from 2015]   || To promote the maintenance of a diverse agriculture across the EU

Indicator: || Farm Structural diversity

Baseline (FSS 2010 – EU 28) || Milestones || Target 2020

Structural diversity: - in absolute terms: - number of farms = 12 247 850 - number of ha of UAA = 172 920 330 ha - number of LSU = 135 212 340 LSU - number of AWU = 9 945 790 AWU - total Standard Output = EUR 307 887.9 million - in relative terms: - distribution of holdings according to their size: - 0 ha = 2.1% - Less than 2 ha = 47.0% - From 2 to 4.9 ha = 20.2% - From 5 to 9.9 ha = 10.9% - From 10 to 19.9 ha = 7.5% - From 20 to 29.9 ha = 3.1% - From 30 to 49.9 ha = 3.3% - From 50 to 99.9 ha = 3.2% - 100 ha and over = 2.7% - their economic size - 0 EUR = 2.0% - Less than 2 000 EUR = 42.6% - From 2 000 to 3 999 EUR = 15.8% - From 4 000 to 7 999 EUR = 12.5% - From 8 000 to 14 999 EUR = 8.0% - From 15 000 to 24 999 EUR = 4.9% - From 25 000 to 49 999 EUR = 5.1% - From 50 000 to 99 999 EUR = 3.8% - From 100 000 to 249 999 EUR = 3.4% - From 250 000 to 499 999 EUR = 1.2% - 500 000 EUR or over = 0.7% - their specialisation/farm type - their specialisation/farm type : - Field cropping = 25.0% - Horticulture = 2.0% - Permanent crops = 20.2% - Grazing livestock = 15.8% - Granivores = 11.6% - Mixed cropping = 4.2% - Mixed livestock = 6.5% - Mixed crops/livestock = 12.6% - Non-classified = 2.0% || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||  Maintenance

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Most of the indicators are subject to annual updates, either through existing databases (Eurostat) or specific notifications by Member States. The indicators mentioned here are part of a bigger Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, with not only impact and result indicators, but also a set of output indicators related to each instrument.

Actors involved in monitoring || Given the wide range of measures in the CAP and the corresponding diversity in indicators, actors involved in the collection and reporting of data vary from indicator to indicator. Since the EAGF is in shared management, data collection is mostly done by the Member States (depending on the indicator sometimes based on claims or information submitted by beneficiaries to the Paying Agencies) and/or transmitted for further processing to Eurostat, the EAA or directly to the European Commission.

Issues covered in subsequent monitoring reports || An implementing act for Article 110 will set out the information to be transmitted as part of the Monitoring and Evaluation framework.  It will cover information on policy output (per measure), policy results (per specific objective) and impacts of the policy (per general objective).

Planned use of information || The Monitoring and Evaluation framework, including the set of indicators, will be used for all legally binding requirements on reporting and evaluation, but beyond that, they can be used for MP, AAR, further assessment of policy performance, studies and publications such as the yearly report: "Agriculture in the European Union – Statistical and economic information". Monitoring information will be used for management of the measures (e.g. crisis management), while the evaluation information can be used for future improvements of the policy.

Frequency of reporting || In general information will be available in the AGRIVIEW database and updated regularly. From the database at least annual extractions can be made public.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 Statistical reports || 2015 Statistical reports || 2016 Statistical reports || 2017 Statistical reports || 2018 Statistical reports First report to the Parliament and the Council with first results on the performance of the CAP || 2019 Statistical reports || 2020 Statistical reports 2021: Second report to the Parliament and the Council with assessment of the performance of the CAP

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || At EU level, the contributions of the common agricultural policy towards its three general objectives will be evaluated in line with Article 30 of the Financial Regulation and Article 18 of the Rules of Application and the guidelines for evaluations. This implies that each evaluation planned in the responsible Commission service DG AGRI aims to address – where relevant – efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence and EU value added of the most important CAP measures at least every six years. All evaluations launched by the Commission are carried out by external contractors and followed up by a steering group of officials of DG AGRI and other relevant Commission services. To facilitate the evaluations for the CAP towards 2020, a call for tender for a framework contract will be published during 2014. It is intended that separate evaluations, carried out in 2017-2018 will look at impacts on viable food production, sustainable management of natural resources and climate action and balanced territorial growth. These will be underpinned by an analysis of the implementation by the Member States of the CAP. This analysis is scheduled for mid-2015 to mid-2016. Next to this, particular aspects of the CAP in the current programming period, such as Article 68 will be evaluated in 2014-2015. More details of the evaluation planning can be found in the DG AGRI evaluation plan. The results of these evaluations will be serving as input for the reporting on the impact of the policy in 2018 and 2021, and where necessary, adaptations to the policy implementation and/or design.

EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development)

Title spending programme: || EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The EAFRD co-finances Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) on a multi-annual basis (2014-2020). There are six priorities (specific objectives) for Rural Development, each broken down into a number of focus areas (with target indicators). Five of the priorities directly feed into the CAP general objectives: Two aim at improving competitiveness and farm viability, improving the position of the primary producers in the food chain and management of risks. In this way they contribute to the general objective of viable food production. Other two priorities (one focussing on restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems and one focussing on resource efficiency and a shift towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy) contribute to the general objective of sustainable management of natural resources and climate action. One priority focusses on social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas, thereby contributing to the general objective of a balanced territorial development. These five priorities are supported by one overall priority, i.e. knowledge transfer and innovation, which contributes to the general CAP objectives via the five other priorities. The system for the monitoring and evaluation of the RDPs is described mainly in the Title VII of Regulation n° 1305/2013[73] and its implementing act (still to be adopted). As part of this system, a set of output, result and impact indicators have been defined to support the assessment of the performance of the RDPs. The indicators correspond to a three level hierarchy: impact indicators describe the progress towards the general objectives, result indicators link to the specific objectives (focus areas) and output indicators for the individual measures. For each of the indicators used a detailed information sheet was produced explaining the exact data definition, data source, level of geographical detail, reporting frequency and delay etc. These sheets will be published once the implementing acts have been adopted. Most of the information is available at least annually, yet a few data items (some result indicators) are collected with a larger interval. All indicator information will be uploaded regularly (at least yearly) in the Rural Development Information System (RDIS) database, where it will be accessed for the evaluation of the performance of the policy. As required by Regulation n° 1305/2013, syntheses of the ex-ante and ex-post evaluation made at RDP level will be undertaken under the responsibility of the Commission respectively by the end of the year following the latest ex-ante evaluation submitted and by the end of 2025. Annual Implementation Reports (AIRs) and enhanced AIR (2017 and 2019) will provide information on a regular basis in order to steer the programme implementation and assess intermediate results of the policy. The information collected through the monitoring and evaluation system will also feed into the responsible Commission service annual activity report and the program statements accompanying the draft budget. The full list of CAP indicators will be listed in the implementing act for Article 110 of Reg. n°1306/2013 and the implementing act of Reg. 1305/2013 on rural development. For the EAFRD, in addition to the 16 impact indicators used for the whole CAP, a set of 26 output indicators and 25 result indicators will be used.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas

Indicators: || · TR1 % of expenditure for the 3 measures: 'Knowlegde transfer & information action' + 'advisory services' + 'cooperation' in relation to the total expenditure for the RDP (1A) · TR2 Total number of co-operation operations supported under the cooperation measure (groups, networks/clusters, pilot project…) (1B) · TR3 Total number of participants trained (1C)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Enhancing farm viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture in all regions and promoting innovative farm technologies and the sustainable management of forests

Indicators: || · TR4 % of agriculture holdings with RDP support for investments in restructuring (P2A) · TR5 % of agriculture holdings with RDP supported business development plan/investments for young farmers (P2B)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Promoting food chain organisation, including processing and marketing of agricultural products, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture

Indicators: || · TR6 % of agricultural holdings supported under quality schemes, local markets and short supply circuits, and producer groups/organisations (P3A) · TR7 % of farms participating under risk management schemes (P3B)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry

Indicators: || · TR8 % Forest or other wooded area under management contracts supporting biodiversity (P4A) · TR9 % Agricultural land under management contracts supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes (P4A) · TR10 % of Agricultural land under management contracts improving water management (P4B) · TR11 % of forestry land under management contracts to improve water management (P4B) · TR12 % of Agricultural land under management contracts improving soil management and or preventing soil erosion (P4C) · TR13 % of forestry land under management contracts to improve soil management and or preventing soil erosion (P4C)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 || Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors

Indicators: || · TR14 % of irrigated land switching to more efficient irrigation system (P5A) · TR15 LU concerned by investments in live-stock management in view of reducing GHG and/or ammonia emissions (P5D) · TR16 % of agricultural land under management contracts targeting reduction of GHG and/or ammonia emissions (P5D) · TR17 % of agricultural and forest land under management contracts contributing to carbon sequestration (P5E)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6 || Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas

Indicators: || · TR18 Jobs created in supported projects (P6A) · TR19 % of rural Population covered by local development strategies (P6B) · TR20 Rural population benefiting from improved services / infrastructures (P6B) · TR21 Jobs created in supported projects (Leader) (P6B) · TR22 Rural Population benefiting from new or improved services / infrastructures (ICT) (P6C)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 / || 2015 / || 2016 / || 2017 / || 2018 To be compiled from RDP[74] || 2019 / || To be compiled from RDP

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Milestones and targets are part of the common monitoring and evaluation system (CMES). They are set at the level of the RDP and monitored by the Member states/Regions on an on-going basis. Each operation is recorded in the operation database(s). In the AIR, Member states submit the aggregates from the database(s) showing the evolution for these indicators. The Commission aggregates the indicators at EU level.

Actors involved in monitoring || Managing authorities (MA) submit the AIR. Together with the Paying Agency, the MAs collect required data from beneficiaries. Stakeholders are also involved through the monitoring committee.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || An implementing act for Regulation n° 1305/2013 will stipulate the information to be transmitted as part of the Monitoring and Evaluation framework. It will cover information on policy output (per measure) and policy results/targets (per Focus areas). The implementing act should be ready in the first half of 2014.

Planned use of information || The Monitoring and Evaluation framework, including the set of indicators, will be used for all legally binding requirements on reporting and evaluation, but beyond that, they can be used for Management Plan, Annual Activity Report, further assessment of policy performance, studies and publications such as the yearly report: "Rural Development in the European Union – Statistical and economic information". Monitoring information will be used for management of the measures (e.g. crisis management), while the evaluation information can be used for future improvements of the policy.

Frequency of reporting                  || Annual (AIR)

Availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 Statistical reports || 2015 Statistical reports || 2016 Statistical reports 2014 and 2015 AIR || 2017 Statistical reports 2016 AIR || 2018 Statistical reports 2017 AIR || 2019 Statistical reports 2018 AIR || 2020 Statistical reports 2019 AIR

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type (e.g. mid-term or ex-post, incl. ex-post evaluations of previous MFF period) 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 2007-2013 ex-post evaluations A synthesis of the ex-post evaluations of the Rural Development Programmes carried out by the Member States will be conducted in 2016-2017. It will show the main impacts and realisations of the RDPs during the previous programming period and allow drawing lessons for the future. 2014-2020 evaluations At EU level, the contributions of the common agricultural policy towards its three general objectives will be evaluated in line with Article 30 of the Financial Regulation, Article 18 of the Rules of Application and the guidelines for evaluations. This implies that each evaluation planned in AGRI aims to address –where relevant - efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence and EU value added of the most important CAP measures at least every six years. All evaluations launched by AGRI are carried out by external contractors and followed up by a steering group of officials of DG AGRI and other relevant DGs. To facilitate the evaluations for the CAP towards 2020, a call for tender for a framework contract will be published during 2014. For the Rural Development, evaluations (ex-ante evaluation, some elements of the enhanced AIR 2017 and 2019 and ex-post evaluation) are made for each programme by external contractors hired by the managing authority. The Commission will launch a study carried out by external contractor to synthetize at EU-28 level the RDP Ex-ante and Ex-post evaluations. More details of the evaluation planning can be found in the DG AGRI evaluation plan. The results of these evaluations will be serving as input for the reporting on the impact of the policy in 2018 and 2021, and where necessary, adaptations to the policy implementation and/or design. Additionally, specific evaluation requirements are laid down for each RDP.

EMFF (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund)

Title spending programme: || EMFF (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || A.             Monitoring and reporting rules under shared management EMFF measures under shared management are monitored by the Monitoring Committee, with the participation of all relevant stakeholders. Annual Implementation Reports provide information on the state of progress whilst Annual Review meetings aim at solving any issues arising in the course of implementation. These basic tools have been complemented by a new “Common Monitoring and Evaluation System” in order to foster the result orientation that has been given to all the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds. The result-orientation of the ESI Funds is based on five complementary elements: · Ex-ante conditionalities to improve effectiveness of the implementation. · Better programmes constructed around stronger intervention logic, defining targets to achieve to address the needs identified. · Common context, output and result indicators adopted via a Delegated Act and that will be used consistently at all stages of the implementation: construction of the programme, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. · Better performance of the delivery, to be achieved by the use of robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms but also by the inclusion of the Performance framework (and the related Performance Reserve representing 6% of the Funds) in the Operational Programmes. · Better evaluations through the use of the Evaluation Plan. The Common Monitoring and Evaluation System (CMES) has been designed to support this orientation; its specific objectives are the following: a) to demonstrate progress and achievements of the policy and assess the operations; b) to contribute to better targeted support for the policy; c) to support a common learning process related to monitoring and evaluation; d) to provide robust, evidence based evaluations of the EMFF operations that feeds into the decision making process. The development of the CMES and the Common Indicators has been undertaken in dialogue with the MS in the framework of Expert group meetings held since 2012. The Commission intends to carry on this dialogue in the framework of further meetings involving MAs, evaluators and desk officers. Progress reports to be submitted by MS in 2017 and 2019 will cover the implementation of the partnership agreements for the five ESI Funds, requiring further reporting on the EMFF. They will be summarised in the Commission's strategic reports and submitted to the EU institutions. The ex-post evaluation will be the responsibility of the Commission, to be finalised by 31 December 2024. B. monitoring and reporting rules under direct management A. The EMFF legislation sets out the information the annual work programmes should contain in respect of grants and public procurement under direct management. Regular monitoring and periodic reporting are also planned. The Commission is expected to submit the following to the European Parliament and the Council: - No later than 31 March 2017: an interim evaluation report on the results obtained and the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of the actions financed under the EMFF Regulation; - No later than 30 August 2018: a Communication on the continuation of the actions financed under this Regulation; - No later than 31 December 2021: an ex-post evaluation report. The main evaluation questions, in particular on efficiency, will be considered and carefully answered in evaluations on legislation and policy that will be carried out during this programming period.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || To develop the potential of the European maritime economy and to secure sustainable fisheries, a stable supply of seafood, healthy seas and prosperous coastal communities – for today's Europeans and for future generations.

Impact indicator 1a || Baseline 2013 || Milestone per year between 2013 and 2020 || Long term target: by 2015 where possible and by 2020 at the latest

Number of stocks that are fished at MSY levels. This indicator relates to the conservation and sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources. || || Consistent increase in the number of commercially exploited stocks fished at MSY rate. || Exploitation at MSY rate for all commercially exploited stocks.

Impact indicator 1b || Baseline 2013 || Milestones (annual) || Long term target: by 2015 where possible and by 2020 at the latest

Number of stocks for which the MSY fishing mortality rate is known. This indicator relates to the conservation and sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources. || || Consistent increase in the number of commercially exploited stocks for which MSY rate is known. || Scientific assessment of MSY rate is achieved for all commercially exploited stocks on a progressive, incremental basis.

Impact indicator 2a || Baseline 2012[75] || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Economic growth (in terms of gross value added per year) and jobs (in FTE) in the blue economy[76] of the EU. This indicator relates to the Blue Growth initiative. || · Gross value added per year in the blue economy of the EU: 485 billion €. · Full time equivalents (FTE) in the blue economy of the EU: 5.4 million. || · 543 billion € ·  6.2 million FTE || · 600 billion € · 7 million FTE

Impact indicator 2b || Baseline 2011[77] || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Labour productivity (in terms of gross value added per employee) in the EU fisheries sector. This indicator relates to the economic sustainability of the EU fisheries sector. || - EU fishing fleet:  38,700 €/employee. - EU aquaculture:  44,000 €/employee. - EU fish processing:  53,500 €/employee. Employment is measured in full time equivalents. || Increase in fisheries sector's productivity: (%) equals or exceeds that of the EU economy (%). || Increase in fisheries sector's productivity: (%) equals or exceeds that of the EU economy (%).

Impact indicator 3 || Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Long term target 2023

Degree to which the market policies of the Union contribute to ensure its price stability and thus contribute to the profitability of fishery and aquaculture producers, while ensuring that supply reaches consumers at reasonable prices. || First sale prices of a reference basket: the reference index is set at 100. || The evolution will be calculated on a yearly basis from 2014 (once the Observatory – EUMOFA –   is fully operational). || The evolution of first sale prices reflects stability, increased matching with market demand and reasonable level of prices for EU consumers. This offers predictability to operators, in particular those members of producer organisations.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Promote sustainable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture.

Indicator 1: || Volume of discards of commercially exploited species[78].

Baseline 2010 || Milestones || Target 2023

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

> 1 million tonnes (t) || > 1 million t || 900 000 t || 600 000 t || 450 000 t || 300 000 t || Discarding eliminated, and unwanted catches reduced [79] ||   Discarding eliminated, and unwanted catches reduced (cf. previous footnote)

Indicator 2: || Value of aquaculture production in the EU.

Baseline 2011 || Milestones || Target 2023

2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020

€3,5 billion || + 1% || + 1% || + 1% || + 1% || + 1% || At least + 5% compared to the baseline 2011.

Indicator 3: || Relative value and volume of products placed on the market by Producers Organisations (POs) and associations of POs.

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 and 2019 || Target 2023

Lack of comparable data across Member States. The baseline will be drawn from the Member States' ex-ante evaluation on their EMFF operational programmes for 2014-2020. || The evolution will be calculated on an annual basis from 2014 on, once EUMOFA is fully operational[80]. Milestones for 2017 and 2019 will be defined on the basis of the data available in 2014. || Continuous upward trend up to 2023 and increasing share of products from members of POs.

Indicator 4: || Number of local strategies implemented by Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs).

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2023

EFF[81]: number of local strategies implemented by FLAGs: 0 || EFF: number of local strategies implemented by FLAGs: 307 || / (see footnote under baseline 2012)

EMFF[82]: number of local strategies implemented by the new FLAGs: 0 || EMFF: number of local strategies implemented by the new FLAGs: 0 || EMFF: number of local strategies implemented by the new FLAGs: 300. The target is to keep approximately the status quo compared to the baseline situation since there will be some evolutions and merging with Leader in some Member States.

Note of caution as to the baseline, milestones and target: these provisional data will be updated in light of the data contained in the operational programmes (that are to be provided by Member States once the EMFF regulation is adopted). Aggregated data will be available only at the end of 2015.

Indicator 5: || Profitability of the EU fishing fleet by fleet segment.

Baseline 2011 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2023

Net profit margin of the EU fishing fleet: average 6% By main segment category: - small scale fleet 8.0% - large scale fleet 5.3% - long distant water fleet 5.6% || Net profit margin of the EU fishing fleet: average 12%. || Net profit margin of the EU fishing fleet: average 15%.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Foster the development and implementation of the Union's Integrated Maritime Policy in a complementary manner to Cohesion policy and to the Common Fisheries Policy.

Indicator 1 related to 'Marine Knowledge 2020 initiative': || Degree of use of the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) measured by the number of users downloading data.

Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

1105 users of low resolution seabed mapping of European seas. || 5000 users per year of low resolution seabed mapping of European seas. || 17000 users per year of multi-resolution digital seabed map of European seas.

Indicator 2 related to 'Maritime surveillance' || Percentage of available cross-sectorial and/or cross-border data, as a percentage of the total information gap[83]. This indicator relates to the European Maritime Security Strategy (EMSS) and to the Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) for the surveillance of the EU maritime domain.

Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2018 || Target 2020

0% of the CISE baseline (see impact assessment[84]) || Between 10% and 20% || Between 20% and 40% of the gap closure of the TAG[85] data matrix which corresponds to 60% realisation of the CISE full potential.

Indicator 3 measuring the increase in installed capacity in ocean renewable energy || (0.5 x growth rate of installed capacity in offshore wind) + (0.5 x growth rate of installed capacity in other offshore energy)[86].

Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

5,000MW installed wind energy growing at 40% a year and 260MW installed capacity ocean energy at almost zero growth rate. || Composite growth rate of 30%. || 30,000MW installed capacity wind and 1MW installed ocean energy.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Fostering the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy by stepping up the fight against IUU fishing, an effective Union fisheries control system and an adequate data collection framework.

Indicator 1: || Control of imports of fisheries products in the EU. 

Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

Number of refusal of imports into the EU[87]: 65 || 30 || Decrease the number of refusals to a level close to zero.

Number of non-cooperating countries[88] divided by the number of countries allowed to export to the EU under the IUU regulation: 12 % || 6% || Decrease the number of countries that are non-cooperating to a level close to zero.

Indicator 2: || Number of apparent infringements of CFP rules by operators found in the framework of specific control and inspection programmes (SCIPs), divided by the number of inspections conducted.

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

Number of apparent  infringements/number of inspections (ratio): 18% || 15 % || 10 %

Indicator 3: || Number of Member States with an effective control system.

Baseline December 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

Number of Member States having been subject to or under an action plan to overcome shortcomings in their fisheries control system: 7 || Max. 6 Member States are under an action plan. || No Member States are under an action plan meaning that all Member States have an effective control system.

Indicator 4: || Degree of adequate[89] responses to data calls under the data collection framework (in %[90]).

Baseline 2010 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

92% || 96% || 100%

Monitoring and reporting arrangements (shared management only)

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The monitoring system is composed of the following elements: - A database at MS level, INFOSYS, in which information on each operation is stored, following a common structure and using common indicators; - Every year, at the end of May a report is sent by the Managing Authorities to the Commission presenting all information contained in the Infosys database The main sources of information are the application forms filled in by applicants, in which some specific information is requested. Information on results is provided by applicants, but needs to be validated after the completion of the operation. This can be undertaken via monitoring surveys addressed to beneficiaries or in the framework of evaluation activities. These are included in the evaluation plan. Whilst the INFOSYS database is maintained by the MS at the level of individual operations, reporting tables are communicated through SFC2014 to the Commission when reports are due. This is compiled in a central database in order to allow consolidation of the data at EU level. The system provides the aggregated information needed for the reporting required by the Regulations

Actors involved in monitoring || The main actors are the MS via their Managing Authorities as well as the European Commission services. The Managing Authorities are responsible for the submission to the Commission of structured data on indicators through the INFOSYS database. They are also responsible for reporting and evaluation as explained beforehand. Under shared management, a Monitoring Committee is set up for each OP with the Commission and MS represented. The Monitoring Committee is the decision-making body in which the stakeholders in the implementation of the programme are represented. A "European code of conduct on partnership in the framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds" is being adopted as a Delegated Act. It defines in detail the way stakeholders should be involved in the management of the ESI Funds. EMFF Operational Programmes are established at national level. Regionalisation should be managed directly by the Member State, with no impact on the OP. Under direct management the Commission is primarily responsible for monitoring the implementation.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Under shared management: - Ex-ante evaluation by MS including a SWOT analysis, identification of the needs to be addressed in the geographical area covered by the programme, the programme's intervention logic and targets. MS ensure that the evaluator is engaged from an early stage in the development of the EMFF programme. - Commission synthesis at Union level of the ex-ante evaluations. - Member States' Evaluation plan that is drawn up by the Managing Authority responsible for the preparation of the programme. Evaluations assess effectiveness, efficiency and impact, for each programme on the basis of this evaluation plan. - Annual Implementation Report (AIR) as explained below and annual monitoring reports (Infosys). - The progress reports to be submitted by MS in 2017 and 2019 cover the implementation of the partnership agreements. - Ex post evaluations by the Commission assessing effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation and the impact on the overall goals of the interventions financed and the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The template of the Annual Implementation Report (AIR) allows for the reports to be consistent, comparable and, where necessary, to be aggregated at EU level. The Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) outlines the common rules for all 5 European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in 2014-2020 as to the content and timing of the AIR. MS submit to the Commission an AIR covering the previous financial year from 2016 until the end of the programming period in 2023. The AIR should include the information as set out in Article 44 of CPR and in Article 115 of the draft EMFF regulation. MS focus in the AIR on implementation and use of EMFF resources. Technical aspects of data collection should be left for the annual report as set out in Article 37 of the Basic Regulation. The AIR is divided into three parts: - Part A: information required in all years - Part B: additional information referred to in the CPR article 50.4, to be provided in reports submitted in 2017 and 2019; - Part C: additional information referred to in CPR article 50.5 that has to be provided only in the report submitted in 2019. The model for the AIR will be complemented by a model for the report on implementation of financial instruments as required in Article 40(1) and (3) of CPR that is identical to that of the Structural Funds. The last AIR for EMFF covers information and data only for the last year of implementation, i.e. 2023. Under direct management: - Annual work programme for procurement and grants - An interim evaluation report on the results obtained and the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of the actions financed under the EMFF regulation (by 31 March 2017) - A Communication on the continuation of the actions financed under the EMFF regulation (by 30 August 2018); - An ex-post evaluation report (by 31 December 2021).

Planned use of information || This will be used for internal monitoring as well as for internal and external communication.

Frequency of reporting           || As the reporting frequency varies, therefore please see the different time schedules as outlined above.

Availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020

Evaluations of the spending programme

Ex-post evaluation of European Fisheries Fund (EFF) 2007-2013

1. Deadline || 31 December 2016

2. Type || Ex-post evaluation of previous MFF period (2007-2013)

3. Main issues addressed and coverage || The evaluation examines the degree of utilisation of resources, the effectiveness and efficiency of the OP and the results achieved in relation to the objectives, namely: · support the CFP so as to ensure sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources and support aquaculture in order to provide sustainability in economic, environmental and social terms; · promote a sustainable balance between resources and the fishing capacity of the EU fishing fleet; · promote a sustainable development of inland fishing; · strengthen the competitiveness of the operating structures and the development of economically viable enterprises in the fisheries sector; · foster the protection and the enhancement of the environment and natural resources where related to the fisheries sector; · encourage sustainable development and the improvement of the quality of life in areas with activities in the fisheries sector; · promote equality between men and women in the development of the fisheries sector and fisheries areas. It also plans to identify the factors which contributed to the success or failure of the implementation of the OP, including from the point of view of sustainability, and best practice.

4. Planned use of evaluation results || Use for the mid-term reflection of the EMFF (2013-2020) and in the preparation of a successor financial instrument.

5. Actors involved || · Member States and their relevant authorities; · Stakeholders, primarily industry representatives and FLAGs.

Ex-post evaluation on establishing Community financial measures for the implementation of the CFP and in the area of the Law of the Sea 2007-2013.

1. Deadline || Although the evaluation should be finished by 31 December 2014, due to the delay in the adoption of the EMFF regulation that will serve as basis for financing the project, it will likely only be finished in the first half of 2015.

2. Type || Ex post evaluation of previous MFF period (2007-2013).

3. Main issues addressed and coverage || The main purpose of this evaluation is to assess the results obtained by the different measures that were financed and to verify that they were consistent with the objectives set. The financial instrument provides the legal basis for a series of EU financial measures for the implementation of the CFP and in the area of the Law of the Sea for the period from 2007 to 2013, covering the following four thematic areas: · Control and enforcement; · Conservation, data collection and scientific advice; · Fisheries governance; · International fisheries relations, including Law of the Sea matters.

4. Planned use of evaluation results || Facilitate better informed decision making in fisheries resource management and utilisation.

5. Actors involved || Member states and their relevant authorities; Relevant stakeholder incl. industry, NGOs, thirds countries, international organisations.

Ex post evaluation of the transitional financial programme of IMP

1. Deadline || 31 December 2014 (may be delayed with some months due to the delay in the adoption of the EMFF regulation).

2. Type || Ex post evaluation

3. Main issues addressed and coverage || It assesses to what extent the financial programme has met the needs it aimed to satisfy and actually achieved its expected effects. It is also aims to examine the financial programme's impact on other Union policies.

4. Planned use of evaluation results || Use in the implementation of the EMFF.

5. Actors involved || Relevant maritime stakeholders.

Interim evaluation of the EMFF measures financed under direct management

1. Deadline || 31 March 2017

2. Type || Interim evaluation of current MFF period (2014-2020)

3. Main issues addressed and coverage || The results obtained and the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of the operations financed under this financial instrument.

4. Planned use of evaluation results || Facilitate better informed decision making in fisheries resource management and utilisation as well as use in the preparation of a successor financial instrument post 2020.

5. Actors involved || Member states and their relevant authorities; Stakeholder, primarily industry representatives.

||

Ex-post evaluation of the EMFF measures financed under shared management

1. Deadline || 31 December 2024

2. Type || Ex-post evaluation of current MFF period (2014-2020)

3. Main issues addressed and coverage || The evaluation examines the degree of utilisation of resources, the effectiveness and efficiency of the OP and its impact in relation to the objectives.

4. Planned use of evaluation results || Use for the mid-term reflection of a successor financial instrument post 2020.

5. Actors involved || Member states and their relevant authorities; Relevant stakeholder primarily industry representatives

||

Ex-post evaluation of the EMFF measures financed under direct management

1. Deadline || 31 December 2021

2. Type || Ex-post evaluation of current MFF period (2014-2020)

3. Main issues addressed and coverage || The evaluation examines the degree of utilisation of resources, the effectiveness and efficiency of the operations financed under this financial instrument and its impact in relation to the objectives.

4. Planned use of evaluation results || Facilitate better informed decision making in fisheries resource management and utilisation as well as use in the preparation of the implementation of a successor financial instrument post 2020.

5. Actors involved || Member states and their relevant authorities; Relevant stakeholder incl. industry, NGOs, thirds countries, international organisations.

||

In addition, as to the EMFF measures financed under shared management, the Member States have the primarily responsibility to evaluate the financed measures at OP level. Accordingly: · An ex ante evaluation is carried out for each OP that includes a SWOT analysis, identification of the needs to be addressed in the geographical area covered by the OP as well as the OP's intervention logic and targets. · A synthesis of these ex ante evaluations is undertaken by the Commission. · Member States annex an evaluation plan to their OP (draft EMFF art. 116.1) that lists the evaluations to be carried out by managing authorities to assess effectiveness, efficiency and impact for each OP. At least once during the programming period an evaluation assesses how support has contributed to the objectives of each EMFF priority.

RFMOs and SFPAs

To promote sustainable fisheries and healthy seas globally (RFMOs and SFPAs)

General introduction:

Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SPFAs) with non-EU countries are negotiated and concluded by the European Commission on behalf of the EU. They are intended to allow EU vessels to fish for surplus stocks in that country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), in a legally regulated environment.

Two forms of SPFAs:

· Tuna agreements – allow EU vessels to pursue migrating tuna stocks as they move along the shores of Africa and through the Indian Ocean.

· Mixed agreements – provide access to a wide range of fish stocks in the partner country's exclusive economic zone.

These agreements also focus on resource conservation and environmental sustainability, ensuring that all EU vessels are subject to the same rules of control and transparency.

In return, the EU pays the partner countries a financial contribution composed of 2 distinct parts:

· access rights to the EEZ

· "sectoral" financial support. The sectorial support aims to promote sustainable fisheries development in the partner countries, by strengthening their administrative and scientific capacity through a focus on sustainable fisheries management, monitoring, control and surveillance.

Country || Expiry date || Type || EC contribution per year || Earmarked for fisheries policy development

Cape Verde || 31.08.2014 || Tuna || 435 000 € || 110 000 €

Comoros || 31.12.2016 || Tuna || 600 000 € || 300 000 €

Côte d'Ivoire || 30.06.2018 || Tuna || 680 000 € || 257 500 €

Gabon || 23.07.2016 || Tuna || 1 350 000 € || 450 000 €

Gambia || No protocol in force

Greenland || 31.12.2015 || Mixed || 15 104 203 € || 2 743 041 €

Guinea || Agreement and Protocol provisionally applied during 2009 but subsequently withdrawn.

Guinea- Bissau || No protocol in force

Equatorial Guinea || No protocol in force

Kiribati || 15.09.2015 || Tuna || 1 325 000 € || 350 000 €

Madagascar || 31.12.2014 || Tuna || 1 525 000 € || 550 000 €

Mauritania || 15.12.2014 || Mixed || 70 000 000 € || 3 000 000€

Mauritius || 27.01.2017 || Tuna || 660 000 € || 302 500 €

Micronesia || No protocol in force since 25.2.2010

Morocco || New Protocol initialled – awaiting signature and provisional application.

Mozambique || 31.01.2015 || Tuna || 980 000 € || 460 000 €

São Tomé and Principe || New protocol initialled – awaiting signature and provisional application.

Senegal || New protocol initialled – awaiting signature and provisional application.

Seychelles || 17.1.2020 || Tuna || 5 530 000 € (year 1-2) 5 000 000 (year 3-6) || 2.600.000 € (year 1-2)     2.500.000 € (year 3-6)

Solomon Islands || No protocol in force since 9.10.2012

Regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) are international organisations formed by countries with fishing interests in an area. Some of them manage all the fish stocks found in a specific area, while others focus on particular highly-migratory species, notably tuna, throughout vast geographical areas.

These organisations are open both to countries in the region (“coastal states”) and countries with interests in the fisheries concerned. Most RFMOs have management powers to set catch and fishing effort limits, technical measures, and control obligations. Nevertheless, some organisations have only a purely advisory role. The EU, represented by the Commission, plays an active role in six tuna organisations and 11 non-tuna organisations.

Title spending programme: || RFMOs (Compulsory contributions to Regional Fisheries Management Organisations) and SFPAs (other International Organisations and Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Council Conclusions on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy adopted on 19 March 2012[91] request that an ex-post and ex-ante evaluation be undertaken by the Commission before the signature of a new SFPA. This is also confirmed by Article 30 of the Financial Regulation and Article 18 of its Application Rules, which stipulate that the Commission Services have to undertake both ex-ante and ex-post evaluations for each SFPA. These evaluations are proportionate to the resources mobilised for and the impact of the programme and activity concerned. These evaluations are carried out in line with the 2-4-year timeframe of these SFPAs. As to the compulsory contributions to RFMOs and bodies set up by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea no specific evaluation and monitoring arrangements have been set up[92] because: · the yearly financial resources mobilised remained below the ceiling of €5 million during the last years, and · it relates to compulsory contributions to ensure the Union’s active participation in international fisheries organisations responsible for the long-term conservation and sustainable exploitation of marine fisheries resources.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || To develop the potential of the European maritime economy and to secure sustainable fisheries, a stable supply of seafood, healthy seas and prosperous coastal communities – for today's Europeans and for future generations.

Impact indicator || Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Contribution to long-term sustainability of fisheries worldwide, measured by the number of emblematic tuna stocks fished with a fishing mortality rate being at or below Fmsy levels as per relevant scientific advice. Representative tuna species (Bigeye tuna, Bluefin tuna, Skipjack tuna, Yellowfin tuna, Pacific Bluefin tuna) fished at sustainable levels (Fcurr/Fmsy ≤ 1) in relevant geographical areas (Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean). || 14 out of 17 selected stocks at sustainable levels. || 15 stocks || 17 stocks

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE || To contribute to long-term sustainability of fisheries worldwide through an active involvement in international organisations and by concluding sustainable fisheries partnership agreements with third countries.

Indicator 1: || Conservation measures based on scientific advice adopted, for all species under the purview of RFMOs to which the EU is a member.

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

49 out of 53 conservation measures adopted by RFMOs in their annual meeting are in line with the best available scientific advice. || 95% of the conservation measures adopted by RFMOs in their annual meetings are in line with the best available scientific advice. || All conservation measures adopted by RFMOs in their annual meetings are in line with the best available scientific advice. Source: RFMO reports.

Indicator 2: || Number of SFPAs in force, with an agreed matrix of support measures, ensuring an adequate network of the agreements at regional level. ||

Baseline 2013 || Milestones || Target 2020

2015 || 2017

10 || 13 || 14 || 15

Indicator 3: || Number of fishing licences under SFPAs for Union fishing vessels. ||

Baseline end 2013 || Milestone 2016 || Target 2020

Number of fishing licences || Increase by 5% to 10% the number of fishing licences available to the EU fleet in the framework of the SFPAs in relation to the 2013 baseline. || Maintain or slightly increase the baseline situation of end 2013[93].

Tuna vessels || 210

Fishing vessels for mixed SFPAs || 160

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Ex-ante and ex-post evaluations are to be carried out for each SFPA. Joint Committees shall be set up to monitor the application of these Agreements. Meetings of the joint committees take place to assess the level of utilisation of each agreement, including the level of fishing opportunities and catches.

Actors involved in monitoring || Member States and their authorities, in particular those that have a long distance fleet and that fish under SFPAs; Relevant stakeholders incl. industry, NGOs, third countries, international organisations.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Each evaluation of an SFPA covers an overall assessment of on-going activities carried on in the framework of the concerned protocol with special interest on the effectiveness, efficiency, economy, coherence and acceptability of the intervention. The utilisation of the sectorial support is also examined. In case of a possible new protocol an ex ante evaluation will also be carried out.

Planned use of information || DG MARE Annual Activity Report and spending programme adjustments.

Frequency of reporting                  || According to their 2-4-year timeframe of the SFPAs.

Availability of reports  in the timeline* *as explained above evaluation reports for the different SFPAs become available depending on their individual timeframes || 2014 * || 2015 * || 2016 * || 2017 * || 2018 * || 2019 * || 2020 *

Evaluations of the spending programme

Ex-post evaluation of the current Protocol to the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement (SFPA) between the European Union (EU) and [name of the third country][94], and ex-ante evaluation including an analysis of the impact of the future Protocol on sustainability

1. Deadline || In due time to finish a negotiation of a new protocol.

2. Type || Ex-post and ex-ante evaluations

3. Main issues addressed   || Effectiveness, efficiency, economy coherence, acceptability and added value of Union involvement.

4. Planned use of evaluation results || Commission (DG MARE) will be the primary user of the evaluations to assess the possibility of negotiating new FPAs and Protocols. The evaluations will be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council and they will also be made available on the Internet for stakeholders' information.

5. Actors involved || Commission services; EEAS; Member States and their authorities, in particular the directly concerned ones; relevant stakeholders incl. industry, NGOs, third countries, international organisations.

 LIFE (Environment and climate action) Sub-programme for environment

Title spending programme: || Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)[95] Sub-programme for Environment

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The new LIFE programme is a specific funding instrument dedicated to the environment and climate action (for the latter component see fiche below). The LIFE sub-programme for Environment addresses environmental problems and solutions, facilitates knowledge-sharing and acts as a catalyst and leverage to actions crucial for implementing EU environmental policy and for addressing environmental problems. The new LIFE programme enables better alignment with policy priorities in a more strategic, cost-effective way. It also promotes the integration of different policy areas and different funding mechanisms in the resolution of environmental problems. The new Integrated Projects will make a clear link between the actions funded through LIFE and those funded through other spending instruments. The responsibility for the implementation of the LIFE programme is delegated to an executive agency[96], with the exception of Integrated projects under the sub-programme for Environment, Technical Assistance and Preparatory Projects, which will, for the time being, be managed directly by the Commission in order to ensure that these new types of projects develop in a way which fosters a close link with policy priorities. Each project will be subject to regular monitoring (progress reports and final report). Beneficiaries will have to indicate in their reports the contribution of their projects to one or more impact indicators, which will be linked to the outcome and performance indicators as defined in the LIFE Regulation and the LIFE multiannual work programme for 2014-2017, and thus ultimately to the performance of the LIFE Programme. Immediate results of these reports will be analysed technically and financially to steer the Programme implementation. Thematic reports and publications (e.g. regarding nature conservation, biodiversity, air, water, and waste) will be produced. Platform meetings will be organised in order to promote the exchange of information and knowledge as well as to increase the link with environmental policies. On the basis of thematic reports an analysis will be made to assess to which extent environmental solutions provided by the LIFE Programme are taken into account in the implementation of relevant legislation. Equivalent tools for Integrated Projects will be developed. Information will be used for adapting the Programme to environmental policies as well as to assess the role of this Programme in the implementation of environmental concerns in other policies.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets[97]

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1  (LIFE, Article 3.1(a)) || to contribute to the shift towards a resource-efficient economy, to the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment and to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, including the support of the Natura 2000 network and tackling the degradation of ecosystems

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone || Long term target

attributable environmental improvements || 0 || 60% of ongoing/ finalised projects progress towards environmental improvements || ≥60% of ongoing projects progress towards/ of finalised projects achieved environmental improvements

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone || Long term target 2020

Percentage of the Natura 2000 network targeted by LIFE projects restored or brought to adequate management || 0 || 10% of the Natura 2000 network targeted by ongoing/finalised projects are progressing towards restoration/ adequate management || 12% of the Natura 2000 network targeted by ongoing projects are progressing towards/ of finalised projects achieved restoration/ adequate management

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone || Long term target 2020

Percentage of surface and type of ecosystems targeted by LIFE projects restored || 0 || 10% of ecosystem surfaces and type targeted by ongoing/ finalised projects are progressing towards an improvement/ restoration || ≥10% of ecosystem surfaces and type targeted by ongoing projects are progressing towards/ of finalised projects achieved an improvement/ restoration

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone || Long term target 2020

Percentage of types of habitats and of species targeted with improving conservation status || 0 || 10% of habitats and 10% of species targeted by ongoing/finalised projects which  progress towards an improved conservation status || ≥10% of habitats and ≥10% of species targeted by LIFE projects  progress towards / of finalised projects achieved an  improved conservation status

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 2 (LIFE, Art.3.1(b)) || to improve the development, implementation and enforcement of Union environmental policy and legislation, and to act as a catalyst for, and promote, the integration and mainstreaming of environmental objectives into other Union policies and public and private sector practice, including by increasing the public and private sector's capacity

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone || Long term target 2020

Number of LIFE interventions (projects, measures, approaches) suitable for being replicated or transferred[98] || 0 || 270of ongoing/ finalised projects implement replicable/ transferable actions || 650 of ongoing projects / of finalised projects implement replicable/ transferable actions

Number of interventions developed or undertaken that implement plans, programmes or strategies pursuant to Union environmental policy and legislation || 0 || 20 Integrated Projects (IPs)[99] || 40 IPs

Number of interventions achieving synergies with or mainstreamed into other Union funding programmes, or integrated into public or private sector practice || 0 || 20 Integrated Projects (IPs)[100] || 40 IPs

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 3 (LIFE, Art.3.1(c)) || to  support better environmental governance at all levels, including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone || Long term target 2020

Number of interventions to ensure better governance, dissemination of information and awareness of environmental aspects || 0 || 400 interventions[101] || 600 interventions

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 4 (LIFE, Art 3.1(d)) || to support the implementation of the 7th Environment Action Programme

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone || Long term target 2020

Number of interventions to support the implementation of the 7th EAP || 0 || 1200 interventions[102] || 2200 interventions

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Contribute to a greener and more resource-efficient economy and to the development and implementation of EU environmental policy and legislation (Environment and Resource Efficiency priority area)

Indicator (WASTE): || Percentage of regions covered by waste IPs and thus progressing towards or having reached adequate waste management

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

0 || 2% of regions Union wide are covered by waste IPs and progress towards adequate waste Management.  

Indicator (WATER): || No. of water bodies covered by projects and thus progressing towards or having reached an improved ecological status

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

|| 100 water bodies are covered by ongoing or finalised projects and progress towards an improved ecological status[103]

Indicator (WATER): || Percentage of River Basin Districts (RBD) covered by IPs  and thus progressing towards or having reached adequate management Scale of complementary funding mobilised through IPs compared to the total value of the budgets of these Ips

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

|| 3% of river basin districts are covered by IPs and progress towards adequate management

Indicator (ENVIRONMENT): || Number of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union environmental policy and legislation, and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on the environment

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

0 || 300 interventions[104]

Indicator (AIR QUALITY): ||

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

0 || 1 million persons are covered by ongoing/ finalised projects which progress towards improved air quality.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Halting and reversing the biodiversity loss, including the support of the Natura 2000 network and tackling the degradation of ecosystems (Biodiversity priority area)

Indicator (NATURE): || Percentage of habitats targeted progressing towards or improving conservation status as a consequence of LIFE interventions

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

|| 10% of habitats targeted by ongoing/finalised LIFE projects progress towards improved conservation status

Indicator (NATURE): || Percentage of species targeted progressing towards or improving conservation status as a consequence of LIFE interventions

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

|| 10% of species targeted by ongoing/finalised LIFE projects progress towards improved conservation status

Indicator (NATURE): || Percentage of the Natura 2000 sites covered by nature IPs and thus progressing towards the implementation of  prioritised actions frameworks

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

|| 4% of the Natura 2000 sites are targeted by nature IPs and progress towards the implementation of prioritised actions frameworks

Indicator (BIODIVERSITY): || Percentage of surface and type of ecosystems targeted by LIFE projects  restored

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

|| 10% of ecosystem surfaces and types are targeted by ongoing/finalised projects which progress towards improvement/restoration

Indicator (BIODIVERSITY): || Number of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union nature and biodiversity policy and legislation and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on nature and biodiversity

|| Target / Milestone 2017

|| 300 interventions[105]

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Support better environmental governance and information at all levels (Environmental Governance and Information priority area)

Indicator (INFORMATION AND AWARENESS): || Number of stakeholders and citizens participating in awareness raising activities in the framework of LIFE interventions

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

|| 500,000  stakeholders or citizens

Indicator (NGOs): || Percentage of increase in the participation of NGOs in consultations on EU environmental policy

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

|| 12% increase[106]

Indicator (ENFORCEMENT): || Percentage of projects promoting and contributing  to a more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union environmental law

Baseline || Target / Milestone 2017

|| 5% of governance and information projects progress towards improved compliance and enforcement of Union environmental law

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || On project level, each beneficiary will have to establish at the beginning of the project the baselines regarding the indicators that are relevant for the priority area/thematic priority under which the project falls. At the end of the project, the results and impact of the project actions regarding these indicators will be established. The data thus obtained will be collected and analysed in thematic and impact reports. On the basis of regular thematic reports covering the thematic priorities, an analysis will be made on the extent to which environmental solutions provided by the LIFE Programme are taken into account for the implementation or development of Union environmental policy. The impact reports will take the form of Mid-term report regarding the uptake, since probably no projects will have ended by 2017, and Final/Ex-post report regarding the environmental impact per priority area and thematic priority.

Actors involved in monitoring || Member States, LIFE contact points in regular meetings of the LIFE Committee, stakeholders as well as beneficiaries which will have to indicate in their reports the contribution of their projects to one or more indicators.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Each project will be subject to regular monitoring (inception report at the beginning, mid-term report, and final report). This is reported in an IT data base. Immediate results of these reports are analysed technically and financially to steer the Programme implementation. Thematic reports and publications (air, water and waste) will be produced as well as platform meetings in order to ensure a careful monitoring of the implementation of the Programme.

Planned use of information || Information will be used for reporting on the performance of the programme in its function as a catalyst and a tool for policy implementation and development (including the integration of environmental requirements in other policies), for establishing the priorities for the 2018-2020 MAPW and for initiating reflection on the follow-up to the LIFE 2014-2020 Programme.

Frequency of reporting                || Annual Activity Report (AAR) reporting error rates (Financial performance of the Programme) every year and thematic reporting. Mid-term report at the end of the first MWP (2017) and final/ex-post report at the end of the Programme ( before end 2023)

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 AAR || 2015 AAR || 2016 AAR || 2017 AAR Mid-term evaluation report on the implementation of LIFE || 2018 AAR || 2019 AAR || Before end 2023 AAR Final/Ex-post evaluation of  implementation of LIFE

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed  and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || LIFE+ (2007-2013) Final Evaluation: 1. Deadline: December 2012 2. Type : Final evaluation[107] 3. Main issues addressed and coverage: The evaluation covered the achievements of the LIFE+ programme from 2007 to December 2012, which was overall considered to be successful and worthy to be continued. It addressed the following challenges in the proposal for the new LIFE Programme for 2014 to 2020: need for more focus, higher EU added value, better measurable monitoring, indicators, and targets, and maintaining a high quality but faster selection procedure. To address the need for more strategic and targeted programming in the new LIFE Programme and to avoid the dissipation of invested funds two distinct sub-programmes were created, one for climate action and one for the environment, each encompassing three specific priority areas. In addition, for the sub-programme for environment, thematic priorities were defined. Moreover, the Multiannual Work Programmes, the first covering 2014-2017, contain the indicative budget for the relevant period, define project topics for the sub-programme for environment, detail the selection procedure, lay down the outcome indicators, milestones and targets, and contain a preliminary timetable for calls for expression of interest. Indicative national allocations hampering the selection of best projects were entirely abolished as of 2018. Both DG ENV and DG CLIMA strive to improve the quality of the project selection and evaluation, the monitoring of the actions and the dissemination of results in close cooperation with external consultants and the Executive Agency EASME. In order to achieve the objective of LIFE acting as a catalyst for environmental and climate action, innovative features were introduced such as 'integrated projects' which aim to implement plans or strategies In order to create more EU added value, synergies and coherence with national, regional and local programmes, as well as 'financial instruments' (loan, guarantee, equity) to lever other funds (public or private) in support of large scale projects. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: Though the evaluation report was issued after the adoption of the proposal for a new LIFE regulation (2014-2020) (COM(2011) 874 final of 12 December 2011), its preliminary conclusions were used to adjust the proposal and will be factored into the implementation of new the LIFE Regulation ((EC) No 1293/2013 of 20 December 2013). 5. Actors involved: European Commission, Member States (including national contact points) and third countries, beneficiaries (including NGO's) LIFE 2014-2020 Mid-term evaluation 1. Deadline 2017 2. Mid-term Evaluation 3. the achievements (at the level of results and progress - towards achieving an impact, based, where applicable, on the indicators outlined in the specific programme) of the objectives of LIFE  and continued relevance of all related measures;  the efficiency and use of resources, with particular attention to complementarity  s referred to in Article 8 and Union added value.  Full coverage of all LIFE activities 4. Possible use for a mid-term revision of LIFE as input for the preparation of a possible successor programme as from 2020 onwards       5. Independent experts; stakeholders; community at large; Member States LIFE  2014-2020 Ex-Post Evaluation 1. Deadline 2023 2. Ex-Post Evaluation 3. rationale, implementation and achievements, as well as     the longer-term impacts and sustainability     Full coverage of all LIFE activities 4. Possible use for remedial action in course of implementation of the successor programme) in light of specific issues identified during the mid-term evaluation (of the LIFE Programme. 5. Independent experts; stakeholders; community at large; Member States

Sub-programme for climate action

Title spending programme: || LIFE  + Sub-programme Climate Action

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The 2 overarching objectives of the (domestic) LIFE programme are the contribution to the shift towards a low carbon (mitigation) and climate-resilient (adaptation) economy in the EU and to support the implementation of the 7th Environment and Climate Action Programme of which prime climate change objectives mutually reinforce the objectives of the LIFE programme: -to turn the Union into a green and competitive low-carbon economy; - to secure investment for climate policy; - to increase the Union's effectiveness in addressing international climate-related challenges. The part of the new LIFE programme, dedicated to the climate action, assists Member States that face climate related problems of EU relevance. LIFE facilitates knowledge-sharing and acts as a catalyst and leverage to actions crucial for implementing EU climate policy and for addressing climate mitigation, adaptation, information and governance problems. The new LIFE programme enables better alignment with policy priorities in a more strategic, cost-effective way. It also promotes the mainstreaming of climate action in different policy areas and different funding mechanisms in order to achieve 20 % of climate spending by 2020 across the EU budget. The new concept of Integrated Projects will make a clear link between the actions funded through LIFE and those funded through other spending instruments. The tracking of climate–related expenditure will use the so called ‘Rio markers’ (0%, 40 % or 100% climate expenditure). The responsibility for the implementation of the LIFE programme is partly delegated to an executive agency (EASME) and partly to the European Investment Bank. Each subsidised grant project will be subject to regular monitoring (mid-term report and final report). Beneficiaries will have to indicate in their reports the contribution of their projects to a range of indicators partly defined in the LIFE Multiannual Work Programme 2014-2017. Immediate results of these reports will be analysed technically and financially to steer the Programme implementation. The EIB will report on a quarterly basis the first two years, and then twice per year on the implementation of the financial instruments. The implementation of the climate sub-programme will start only mid-2014, thus significant performance results can be expected, at the earliest only, around 2017, when the Interim Evaluation will be produced. The complex architecture of the climate sub-programme, comprising 4 general objectives and 12 specific objectives, will not facilitate the performance reporting.  Data availability will also limit the reporting, especially in the start-up phase. A logical sequence in terms of performance reporting will be built up: first info will be available on budget execution, then implementation/output, later on results and impacts. As regards indicators, this MP 2014 is based on the final draft Multi-annual work programme of the LIFE Instrument for the period 2014-17.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 (Life, art 3.1) || Contribute to the shift towards a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy

Impact indicator: || Baseline (2010) || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Attributable climate improvements (Life, art 3.3)[108] Contribution to the 2020 headline target of reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in EU 28 compared to 1990 || EU 2020 Strategy adopted in 2010 Minus 16, 8 % in 2011 ) || || Minus 20% in 2020 ( including an increase to 30 % if conditions are right[109]) EU 2020 headline indicators

Attributable climate improvements (Life, art 3.3) || 0 || 80% of ongoing/ finalised projects progress towards environmental and/or climate improvements || ≥ 80% of ongoing projects progress towards/ of finalised projects achieved environmental and/or climate improvements

Priority area "Climate Mitigation" (Life, art 14 )

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || To contribute to the implementation and development of EU policy and legislation on climate mitigation including mainstreaming across policy areas by  developing, testing  and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practises, solutions for the climate mitigation priority area

Indicator: || Number and geographical coverage of climate change mitigation strategies or action plans developed or implemented through LIFE

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2012 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

In 2012 less than 10% of the climate mitigation project proposals submitted in LIFE+ concerned development of mitigation strategies and action plans. || || || || Support development and/or implementation  of at least one climate change  mitigation strategy or action plan in 13 different geographical  regions || || || Support development and/or implementation of at least one climate change mitigation strategy or action plan per Member State

Indicator: || Tons of greenhouse gases reduced by new technologies, systems, methods or instruments and/or other best practice approaches developed and taken up following LIFE examples

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Data not available || || || || Relative reduction in tons of greenhouse gasses per project of at least 20% compared to project baseline. 80% of the projects funded in climate change mitigation priority area 2014-2017 should promote innovative technologies and/or other best practice solutions for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions || || || Relative reduction in tons of greenhouse gasses per project of at least 20% compared to project baseline. 80% of the projects funded in climate change mitigation priority areas should promote innovative technologies and/or other best practice solutions for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || To improve the knowledge base (development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation) of effective climate mitigation and enhance its capacity to apply in practise (climate mitigation priority area)

Indicator || Number of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union climate policy and legislation, and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on the climate (cf. Article 14(b) Regulation 1293/2013

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Data not available || || || || 80% of IPs and 30% of the traditional projects funded in climate change mitigation priority area 2014-2017 || || || 100% of IPs and 25% of the traditional projects funded in climate change mitigation priority area

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE  3 || To facilitate development and implementation of integrated approaches for climate mitigation strategies and action plans at local, regional or national level  (climate mitigation priority area)

Indicator: || Number of MS applying integrated approaches for mitigation , with support from an Integrated Project (IP) or replicating the results of an IP

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

No data || || || || 7 || || || To be defined in 2nd multi-annual work programme 2018-2020

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || To contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative technologies systems, methods and instruments for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed for climate mitigation

Indicator: || % of funded projects promoting innovative technologies, systems and instruments and other best practise solutions for greenhouse gas reductions

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

No data || || || || 80% || || || To be defined in 2nd multi-annual work programme 2018-2020

Priority area " Climate adaptation" (Life, art 15)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 || To contribute to the implementation and development of EU policy and legislation on climate adaptation including mainstreaming across policy areas by  developing, testing  and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practises, solutions for the climate adaptation priority area

Indicator 1: || Number and coverage of climate change adaptation strategies or action plans and vulnerability assessments developed or implemented through LIFE

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

End 2013, 14 MS had adopted an adaptation plan/strategy. || || 20 MS || || All MS have adopted a national adaptation strategy || || || All MS are effectively implementing their national adaptation strategies.

Indicator 2 : || Attributable climate resilience, broken down by sector, due to the demonstrated new technologies, systems, instruments and/or other best practice approaches developed and taken up following LIFE examples

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Under the 2012 call of the LIFE+ regulation, only 15% of climate project proposals submitted were on adaptation || || || || Increased climate resilience due to LIFE funded projects in vulnerable areas as identified in the EU adaptation strategy.80% of funded projects promoting innovative policy approaches and/or other best practice solutions for more climate resilience || || || Increase in attributable climate resilience per sector. 80% of funded projects promoting innovative policy approaches and/or other best practice solutions for more climate resilience.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6 ||  To improve the knowledge base (development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation) of effective climate adaptation and enhance its capacity to apply in practise (climate adaptation priority area)

Indicator: || Number of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union climate policy and legislation, and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on the climate resilience (cf. Article 15(b) Regulation 1293/2013)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Data not available || || || || 80% of IPs and 30% of the traditional projects funded in climate change adaptation priority area 2014-2017 || || || 100% of IPs and 25% of the traditional projects funded in climate change adaptation priority area

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 7 || To facilitate development and implementation of integrated approaches such as for both climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and action plans at local, regional or national level  (adaptation)

Indicator: || Number of MS applying integrated approaches for adaptation , with support from an IP or replicating the results of an IP

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

No data || || || || 7 || || || To be defined in 2nd multi-annual work programme 2018-2020

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 8 || To contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative technologies systems, methods and instruments for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed for climate adaptation

Indicator: || % of funded projects promoting innovative technologies , systems and instruments and other best practise solutions increasing climate resilience

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

No data || || || 7 || || || || To be defined in 2nd multi-annual work programme 2018-2020

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 2 (sub-ordinate to general objectives 1 and 4) (Life, art 3.1) || To improve the development, implementation and enforcement of Union climate policy and legislation and to catalyse and promote integration and mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives into other Union policies and public and private sector practice, including by increasing their capacity

Impact/Result indicator(Life, art.3.3) || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Number of interventions developed or undertaken that implement plans, programmes or strategies pursuant to Union environmental or climate policy or legislation || No data || 5 IPs || 14 IPs

Impact/Result indicator(Life, art.3.3) || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

The number of interventions suitable for being replicated or transferred, as regards the objectives linked to development and implementation || No data || 50 of ongoing/finalised projects implement replicable/transferable actions || ≥ 180 of ongoing projects/ of finalised projects implement replicable/transferable actions

Impact/Result indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

The number of interventions achieving synergies with or mainstreamed into other Union funding programmes, or integrated into public or private sector practice, || No data || 5 IPs || 14 IPs

SPECIFIC  OBJECTIVES 1-2 || To contribute to the implementation and development of EU policy and legislation on climate mitigation/adaptation including mainstreaming across policy areas To improve the knowledge base and enhance the capacity

Indicator: || Number of climate policy proposals based on evaluations funded by LIFE

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Pilot evaluation started in 2013 || 1 || 1 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 3 || All significant policy proposals

Indicator: || Number of transposition checks of Directives completed based on external conformity studies funded by LIFE

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

3 conformity assessments started in 2013 || 3 || 2 || || || || ||

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 3 (sub-ordinate to general objectives 1 and 4) (Life, art 3.1) || To support better climate governance at all levels including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors  

Priority area 'governance and information' (Life, art 16)

Result indicator: (Life, art 3.3) || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Number of interventions to ensure better governance, dissemination of information and awareness on environmental and climate aspects || No data || 80 interventions || 160 interventions

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE  1 || To promote awareness raising and knowledge on sustainable development     

Indicator: ||  Number of stakeholders and citizens participating in awareness raising activities at all levels

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

|| 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

No data || || || || 14.000 stakeholders or citizens || || || 28.000 stakeholders or citizens

Indicator: || Increased awareness regarding human-caused climate change and solutions, as measured by Eurobarometer surveys

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2011 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

In June 2011 , 68% of the citizens polled considered climate change a very serious problem (up from 64% in 2009) || || || || Status-quo  to 10% increase || || || To be defined in 2nd multi-annual work programme 2018-2020

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2  || To support communication, management, and dissemination of information in the field of the environment +  knowledge sharing

Indicator: || Number of interventions to support communication, management and dissemination of information in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation and to facilitate knowledge sharing

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

In 2012 less than 5% of the  traditional climate project proposals submitted related to climate awareness raising activities at local, regional, national or cross-border levels* || || || || 10% of climate projects are targeted to specific climate governance, awareness raising or information activities at local, regional, national or cross-border levels. All LIFE projects under the priority area climate governance and information achieve knowledge sharing. || || || To be set in the second MAWP 2018-20. All LIFE projects under the priority area climate governance and information achieve knowledge sharing.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3  || To promote the development and dissemination of best practices and policy approaches

Indicator: || Share of projects promoting and contributing to a more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union climate law

Baseline || || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

No data || || || || 5% of governance and information projects progress towards improved compliance and enforcement of Union climate law || || || More than 5% of governance and information projects progress towards improved compliance and enforcement of Union climate law

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4  || To broaden stakeholder involvement, including NGOs, in consultation on and implementation of policy

Indicator: || Number of interventions emanating from NGOs funded by LIFE with an impact on EU policy

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2012 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Under the 2012 call of the LIFE + Regulation, the work programme of only 6 specific climate NGO's proposals plus a number of environmental NGO's that also have a climate focus were co-funded || || || || Stable level of operating grants to NGO's with climate related work programmes. || || || Stable level of operating grants to NGO's with climate related work programmes.

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 4 (Life, art 3.1 || To support the implementation of the 7th Environment and Climate Action Programme (7 EAP) The prime climate change objectives of the 7 EAP coincide with the LIFE objectives : -  to turn the Union into a green and competitive low-carbon economy -  to secure investment for climate policy - to increase the Union's effectiveness in addressing international climate-related challenges No specific indicators in legal base LIFE (See General Objective 1 of for indicators)

Result indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Number of interventions to ensure better governance, dissemination of information and awareness on environmental and climate aspects || No data || 260 interventions || 340 interventions

OBJECTIVE 1 of the 7 EAP || To turn the Union into a green and competitive low-carbon economy

Indicator: || See indicators under General Objective 1

OBJECTIVE 2 of the 7 EAP || To secure investment for climate policy

Indicator: || See indicators under General Objective 1

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 of the 7 EAP || To increase the Union's effectiveness in addressing international climate-related challenges

Indicator: || Comprehensive global legally binding framework to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

Progress made at UNFCC COP 19 summit in Warsaw (Poland) || || Binding global agreement at COP 21 in Paris || || || || || Implementation of  global agreement

Monitoring and reporting arrangements ||

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Financial instruments: Quarterly reports from the EIB in the first two years and then twice per year on the implementation of the financial instruments PF4EE (Private Financing for Energy Efficiency Instrument) and NCFF (Natural Capital Financial Facility)   Projects and integrated projects level: In principle quarterly reports from the Executive Agency EASME. On the basis of regular thematic reports (such as "LIFE and sustainability"; "LIFE and creation of green jobs" or "Adaptation to climate change in an urban environment"), an analysis will be made on the extent to which environmental solutions provided by the LIFE Programme are taken into account in the state of implementation of relevant legislation. Equivalent tools for integrated projects will be developed in the light of the level and quality of their implementation Programme level: 1) reports on the result of annual calls for proposals (compilations presenting the annual selection of projects and work programmes (NGO's) under the 3 climate action strands: mitigation, adaptation, governance and information), Author: EASME 2) annual report on implementation of the multi-annual work programme (comprising both the calls for proposals and the financial instruments = report on implementation of the annual work programme (financing decision), Author: the Commission (DG CLIMA) based on EASME/EIB reports 3) minutes of the meetings of the LIFE committee (= implementation and discussion forum), Authors: the Commission (DG ENV and DG CLIMA) 4) mid-term evaluation report and final evaluation report (one-off): the Commission (DGs ENV and CLIMA) with support from an external consultant Mainstreaming: Tracking of climate-related expenditure will be performed according to three categories, based on an established OECD methodology ("Rio markers, further tracking via annual report on EU emissions and progress towards Kyoto targets. Regular budget implementation reports, report on mainstreaming with assistance of DG BUDG.

Actors involved in monitoring || Executive Agency EASME, EIB, European Environment Agency, European Commission (DG ESTAT, DG JRC),   LIFE contact points in Member States, LIFE Committee, project beneficiaries, intermediary banks, loan recipients.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || 1) Execution rate of the budget, 2) implementation: Grants: number of grant agreements signed, success rate of the calls,  geographical spread of projects, Financial instruments: number of financial agreements signed with beneficiaries Each project will be subject to regular monitoring (inception report at the beginning, mid-term report, and final report). This is reported in an IT data base. Immediate results of these reports are analysed technically and financially to steer the Programme implementation. Platform meetings will be organised in order to ensure a careful monitoring of the implementation of the Programme. 3) result and impact: success stories of the projects, leverage effect of the financial instruments, spill-over and marketing of projects, replication of innovative processes and approaches. mid-term and ex post evaluation of the programme will assess EU added value, effectiveness, efficiency, economy, relevance ||

Planned use of information || Information will be used for adapting the Programme to environmental policies as well as to assess the role of this Programme in the implementation of climate requirements in other policies. It will be used as input to the mid)-term and ex-post evaluation ||

Frequency of reporting  || Annual Activity Report (AAR) annual reporting error rates (financial performance of the programme) every year and thematic reporting. Mid-term evaluation report at the end of the first Multi-annual Work Programme (2017) and final/ex-post evaluation report at the end of the Programme (before end 2023). ||

                || 2014 AAR || 2015 AAR || 2016 AAR || 2017 AAR Mid-term evaluation report on the implementation of the LIFE Programme || 2018 AAR || 2019 AAR || 2020 - 2023 AAR Ex-post evaluation report on the implementation of the LIFE Programme ||

Evaluations of the spending programme ||

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || LIFE+ 2007-2013 Final Evaluation 1. Deadline:  December 2012 2. Type: Final evaluation 2007-2013 3. Main issues addressed and coverage: The Commission took the preliminary findings and conclusions about more focus, EU added value, monitoring, indicators, targets and selection procedure into account in the design of the proposal for the new Regulation for the LIFE programme 2014-2020 and its performance framework. To address the clear need for more strategic and targeted programming in the new LIFE Programme - as too may objectives lead to dissipation of invested funds - two distinct sub-programmes were created, one for climate action and one for the environment and it was proposed to elaborate the specific priority areas  under each sub-programme in the Multiannual Work Programmes, the first covering 2014-2017. Indicative national allocations hampering the selection of best projects were abolished in the new climate sub-programme. A serious effort was paid into the design of a performance framework comprising qualitative and quantitative objectives and indicators. Both DG ENV and DG CLIMA strive to improve the quality of the project selection and evaluation, the monitoring of the actions and the dissemination of results in close cooperation with external consultants and the Executive Agency EASME. In order to achieve the objective of LIFE acting as a catalyst for environmental and climate action, innovative features were introduced such as cross-cutting 'integrated projects' to create more EU added value, synergies and coherence with national, regional and local programmes and 'financial instruments' (loan, guarantee, equity) to lever other funds (public and/or private) in support of large scale projects. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: Though the evaluation report was issued after the adoption of the proposal for a new LIFE regulation (2014-2020) (COM(2011) 874 final of 12 December 2011), its preliminary conclusions were used to adjust the proposal and will be factored into the implementation of new the LIFE Regulation ((EC) No 1293/2013 of 20 December 2013) 5. Actors involved: European Commission, Member States (including national contact points) and third countries, beneficiaries (including NGO's) LIFE 2014-2020 Mid-term evaluation 1) Deadline:  no later than 30 June 2017, 2) Type: an external and independent mid-term evaluation report of the LIFE Programme (and its sub-programmes), 3) Main issues addressed and coverage: The evaluation will include qualitative and quantitative aspects of its implementation, the amount of climate-related expenditure, the extent to which synergies between the objectives have been reached, and its complementarity with other relevant Union programmes, the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of results and impacts, when possible), the efficiency of the use of resources and the Union added value of the Programme, with a view to taking a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The evaluation shall additionally address the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures under the LIFE Programme to the Europe 2020 Strategy objectives and targets and to sustainable development. It shall take into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of LIFE. The mid-term evaluation report shall be accompanied by remarks by the Commission including the manner in which the findings of the mid-term evaluation shall be taken into account when implementing the LIFE Programme, and, in particular, the extent to which the thematic priorities set out in Annex III need to be modified. 4) Planned use of evaluation results: It will be conducted with a view to taking a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The mid-term evaluation report shall contain or be accompanied by a thorough assessment of the extent and quality of the demand for, planning of and implementation of integrated projects. 5) Actors involved: European Commission (DG CLIMA, DG ENV), EASME, EIB, beneficiaries, intermediate bodies, EEA, MS LIFE 2014-2020 Ex-post evaluation 1) Deadline:  no later than 31 December 2023, 2) Type: an external and independent ex-post evaluation report 3) Main issues addressed and coverage: covering the implementation and results of the LIFE Programme (and its sub-programmes), including the amount of climate-related expenditure, the extent to which the LIFE Programme as a whole, and each of its sub-programmes, has achieved its objectives, the extent to which synergies between the various objectives have been realised, and the contribution of the LIFE Programme to achieving the Europe 2020 Strategy objectives and targets. The ex-post evaluation report shall also examine the extent to which integration of environment and climate objectives into other Union policies has been achieved and, to the extent possible, the economic benefit achieved through the LIFE Programme as well as the impact and added value for the communities involved 4) Planned use of evaluation results: Will be used to adjust the successor of the LIFE programme, if appropriate 5) Actors involved: European Commission (DG CLIMA, DG ENV), EASME, EIB, beneficiaries, intermediate bodies, EEA, MS A special study/evaluation will be considered on the implementation of the 2 financial instruments by EIB. ||

H3 security and citizenship AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund)

Title spending programme: || AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 laying down general provisions on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management specifies the overall progress and performance reporting framework.  Article 55 of this Regulation sets out the common monitoring and evaluation framework for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and Internal Security Fund. The common monitoring and evaluation framework will be established through a delegated act. Member States will apply this common monitoring and evaluation framework to the monitoring and evaluation of their programmes and the collecting and reporting on common and programme specific indicators. The common indicators are specified in the legal basis of the Regulation establishing Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. The programme specific indicators will be specified by the Member States in their national programmes. Member States shall establish from the beginning of the implementation of their national programmes monitoring and evaluation functions with regard to the collection of information, the analysis of monitoring data and the management of evaluation studies. The role of monitoring functions shall be to observe whether the intended outputs and results are delivered and whether the implementation is in compliance with the agreed objectives. The role of evaluation functions shall be to verify the capacity of the programme to deliver its desired impact and also to assess the quality of the programme implementation. Member States shall carry out monitoring (annual, mid-term, final implementation reports) to check outputs against quantified targets and objectives agreed in the national programmes. Member States shall carry out evaluations (mid-term and ex-post) to improve the quality of the design and the implementation of national programmes as a mean to support efficient resource allocation and decision-making with regard to the changes of national programmes. The monitoring and evaluation reports shall be submitted to the Commission via the computerised system for fund management set up by the Commission.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || To contribute to the efficient management of migration flows and to the implementation, strengthening and development of the common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection and the common immigration policy, while fully respecting the rights and principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Impact indicators: || Baseline 2011 || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

|| || ||

|| || ||

Effectiveness of return policy as reflected by the ratio between the number of irregular migrants returned to their country of origin compared to return decisions issued || 41% in 2012 (206.045 returned / 498.680 issued with a return decision). Source: Member States || Increased ratio. || Increased ratio.

Ratio voluntary/forced return || 41.1% in 2012. Source: Member States || Increased ratio. || Increased ratio.

|| || ||

Difference in employment rates of third-country nationals compared to that of EU nationals  || 10% in 2011 (employment rates: 54% TCN / 64% EU nationals). Source: Eurostat || Gradual approximation of employment rates of TCNs and nationals || Gradual approximation of employment rates of TCNs and nationals

Convergence of recognition rates by Member States for asylum applicants from a same third country || The standard deviation in terms of recognition rates for international protection among Member States on the caseload of Afghanistan, one of the most relevant in the EU, is 21.  In 2013 (latest annual data available), recognition rates for asylum seekers from Afghanistan varied from 9 to 82% (56% in BE, 31% in DK, 26% in DE, 9% in EL, 18% in IE, 82% in IT, 50% in SE) || Lower (increased convergence) || Lower (increased convergence)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || To strengthen and develop all aspects of the Common European Asylum System, including its external dimension

Indicator 1: || Number of target group persons provided with assistance through projects in the field of reception and asylum systems supported under the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 100 000 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 106 000 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020 :  655 000

Indicator 2: || Capacity (i.e. number of places) of new reception accommodation infrastructure set up in line with the common requirements for reception conditions set out in the Union acquis and of existing reception accommodation infrastructure improved in line with the same requirements as a result of the projects supported under the Fund and the percentage in the total reception accommodation capacity.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 100 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 200 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020 :  990

Indicator 3: || Number of persons trained in asylum-related topics with the assistance of the Fund, and that number as a percentage of the total number of staff trained in those topics

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 270 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 270 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020 :  1 701

Indicator 4: || Number of country-of-origin information products and fact-finding missions conducted with the assistance of the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 10 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 10 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020 : 63

Indicator 5: || Number of projects supported under this Fund to develop, monitor and evaluate asylum policies in Member States.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 27 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 27 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020 : 170

Indicator 6: || Number of persons resettled with support of the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

3.962 in 2013 under the previous European Refugee Fund || 2014 4000 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 4 800 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020 : 34 000

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || To support legal migration to the Member States in accordance to their economic and social needs such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to promote the effective integration of third-country nationals.

Indicator 1: || Number of target group persons who participated in pre-departure measures supported under the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 4 000 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 5 000 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020 : 29 700

Indicator 2: || Number of target group persons assisted by the Fund through integration measures in the framework of national, local and regional strategies.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 200  000 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 225 000 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020: 1 363 500

Indicator 3: || Number of local, regional and national policy frameworks/measures/tools in place for the integration of third country nationals and involving civil society and migrant communities, as well as all other relevant stakeholders as a result of the measures supported under the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 5 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 5 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020: 31

Indicator 4: || Number of cooperation projects with other Member States on the integration of third-country nationals supported under the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 15 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 15 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020:  94

Indicator 5: || Number of projects supported under the Fund to develop, monitor and evaluate integration policies in Member States.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 27 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 27 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020: 170 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || To enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States which contribute to combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit

Indicator 1: || Number of persons trained on return-related topics with the assistance of the Fund

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 40 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 40 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020: 252 

Indicator 2: || Number of returnees who received pre or post return reintegration assistance co-financed by the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 1.500 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 3.000 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020: 16 200 

Indicator 3: || Number of returnees whose return was co-financed by the Fund, persons who returned voluntarily and persons who were removed.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 38 000 Of which: 10.830 voluntary returns and 27.170 forced returns || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 40 000 Of which: 12.000 voluntary returns and 28.000 forced returns || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020: 248 400 

Indicator 4: || Number of monitored removal operations co-financed by the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 27 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 27 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020: 170 

Indicator 5: || Number of projects supported under the Fund to develop, monitor and evaluate return policies in Member States.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 27 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 27 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020: 170 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || To enhance solidarity and responsibility sharing between the Member States, in particular with those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical cooperation

Indicator 1: || Number of applicants and beneficiaries of international protection transferred from one Member State to another with support of the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 80 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 120 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020:  702

Indicator 2: || Number of cooperation projects with other Member States on enhancing solidarity and responsibility sharing between the Member States supported under the Fund.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 3 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 6 || 2018 || 2019 || Total 2014 – 2020: 31 

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Monitoring The Member States will carry out monitoring to check out outputs against quantified targets and objectives agreed in the national programmes. By 31 March 2016 and by 31 March of each subsequent year until and including 2022, Member States shall submit to the Commission an annual report on implementation of each national programme in the previous financial year and may, at the appropriate level, publish this information. The report submitted in 2016 shall cover the financial years 2014 and 2015. The Member State shall submit a final report on implementation of the national programmes by 31 December 2023. The implementation reports will be submitted to the Commission via the computerised system for fund management set up by the Commission. The system will collect monitoring indicators and it shall produce the information required to track progress: 1. In achieving targets agreed in the national programmes, including for result indicators. If result indicators cannot be collected through monitoring, they shall be collected through evaluation. 2. In achieving common indicators with the aim to collect more comparable information on outputs and results achieved across national programmes at European level. Evaluation The Member States shall carry out the evaluations to improve the quality of the design and the implementation of national programmes as a mean to support efficient resource allocation and decision making with regard to the changes of national programme. The Member States shall provide an interim-evaluation report in 2017 and an ex-post evaluation report in 2023. These reports shall be submitted via the computerised system for fund management set by the Commission. The Commission will submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: (a)           an interim evaluation report on the implementation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund at the level of the Union by 30 June 2018. (b)           an ex-post evaluation report on the effects of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, following the closure of the national programmes, by 30 June 2024

Actors involved in monitoring || European Commission, Member States

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Annual implementation reports shall set out information on: (a) implementation of the national programme by reference to the financial data and the indicators;  (b) any significant issues which affect the performance of the national programme. In the light of the mid-term review, the annual implementation report submitted in 2017 shall set out and assess: (a) implementation of the national programme by reference to the financial data and the indicators;  (b) any significant issues which affect the performance of the national programme. (c) the progress towards achieving the objectives in the national programmes pursued with the contribution from the Union budget; (d) the involvement of relevant partners as referred to in article 12 of the Horizontal regulation.

Planned use of information || The information provided in the annual implementation reports will be used by the Commission in assessing the possible issues that could affect the implementation of the national programmes. The Commission will make observations to the Member States on such issues and when appropriate, Member States should inform within three months the Commission of the measures taken.

Frequency of reporting || Annual implementation reports (AIR), Interim Evaluation reports in 2018, Ex-post evaluation reports in 2024

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 AIR || 2017 AIR Interim evaluation reports || 2018 AIR Interim evaluative reports by COM || 2019 AIT || 2020 AIR || 2021 AIR || 2022 AIR || 2023 Final Implementation Reports Ex-post evaluation reports by MS || 2024 Ex-post evaluation reports by COM

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Mid-term review 2018 1. Deadline 2018 2. Interim Evaluation 3. In 2018 the Commission and each Member State shall re-examine the situation, in the light of the interim evaluation reports submitted in 2017 by the Member States in accordance with Article 57(1) of the Horizontal Regulation, the developments in Union policies and in the Member State concerned. The interim evaluation reports will include information on the implementation of the national programmes by reference to the financial data and the indicators, any significant issues which affect the implementation of the national programmes, the progress towards achieving the objectives in the national programmes, the involvement of relevant partners. After the completion of the mid-term review, and as part of the interim evaluation, the Commission should report on the mid-term review to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 4. Following this re-examination, Member States may revise their national programmes. At this occasion, possible new resources can be allocated pro rata for the period 2018-2020. 5. Member States, European Commission Ex-post evaluation 2024 1. Deadline 2024 2. Ex-post Evaluation 3. In 2024 the Commission and each Member State will assess the impact of the AMIF, in light of the ex-post evaluation reports submitted by the Member States in 2023. The assessment will include the contribution to the following objectives: the development of a common culture of border security, law enforcement cooperation and crisis management; solidarity and co-operation between Member States in addressing internal security issues, a common approach of the Union on security towards third countries. 4. Possible use for the successor programmes. 5. Member States, European Commission Ex-post evaluation 2015, European Integration Fund, European Refugee Fund, European Return Fund 1. Deadline 31 December 2015 2. Ex-post Evaluation 3. The Funds will be evaluated for the period 2011-2013 by the Commission in partnership with the Member States to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impact of actions in the light of the achievement of the established objectives. 4. Possible use for the successor programmes. 5. Member States, European Commission

*The part on objectives, follows the latest version of the legal bases for the Home Affairs Funds, the part on indicators, milestones and long term targets follows the structure of the Programme Statements

ISF (Internal Security Fund)

Title spending programme: || ISF (Internal Security Fund)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 laying down general provisions on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management specifies the overall progress and performance reporting framework.  Article 55 of this Regulation sets out the common monitoring and evaluation framework for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and Internal Security Fund. The common monitoring and evaluation framework will be established through a delegated act. Member States will apply this common monitoring and evaluation framework to the monitoring and evaluation of their programmes and the collecting and reporting on common and programme specific indicators. The common indicators are specified in the legal bases of the regulations establishing the Internal Security Fund, both Police and Borders component. The programme specific indicators will be specified by the Member States in their national programme. Member States shall establish from the beginning of the implementation of their national programmes monitoring and evaluation functions with regard to the collection of information, the analysis of monitoring data and the management of evaluation studies. The role of monitoring functions shall be to observe whether the intended outputs and results are delivered and whether the implementation is in compliance with the agreed objectives. The role of evaluation functions shall be to verify the capacity of the programme to deliver its desired impact and also to assess the quality of the programme implementation. Member States shall carry out monitoring (annual, mid-term, final implementation reports) to check outputs against quantified targets and objectives agreed in the national programmes. Member States shall carry out evaluations (mid-term and ex-post) to improve the quality of the design and the implementation of national programmes as a mean to support efficient resource allocation and decision-making with regard to the changes of national programmes. The monitoring and evaluation reports shall be submitted to the Commission via the computerised system for fund management set up by the Commission.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 etc.* || To contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the Union while facilitating legitimate travel, through a uniform and high level of control at the external borders and the effective processing of Schengen visas, in compliance with the Union’s commitment to fundamental freedoms and human rights

Impact indicators: || Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Number of irregular migrants apprehended at the EU external borders || 73 042 Apprehensions || 40 000 || 40 000 (stable figure, reflecting stabilisation of the situation regarding arrivals of irregular migrants)

Volume of terrorism in the EU expressed by the number of failed, foiled or completed terrorist attacks in EU MS || 219 || 170 || Below 120

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Supporting a common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel, provide a high quality of service to visa applicants, ensure equal treatment of third country nationals and tackle illegal migration

Indicator 1: || Number of consular cooperation activities (collocations, common application centres, representations, others) developed with the help of the Instrument.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 || || || || 15 || || || 35

Indicator 2: || Number of staff trained and number of training courses in aspects related to common visa policy with the help of the Instrument.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 || || || || 1000 staff trained, 50 training courses || || || 2000 staff trained, 100 training courses

Indicator 3: || Number of specialised posts in third countries supported by the Instrument

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 || || || || 45 || || || 60

Indicator 4: || Percentage and number of consulates developed or upgraded with the help of the Instrument out of the total number of consulates

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 || || || 100 || || || || 200

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Supporting integrated borders management, including promoting further harmonisation of border management-related measures in accordance with common Union standards and through the sharing of  information between Member States and between Member States and the Frontex Agency, to ensure, on one hand, a uniform and high level of control and protection of the external borders, including by the tackling of illegal immigration, and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis, while guaranteeing access to international protection for those needing it, in accordance with the obligations contracted by the Member States in the field of human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement.

Indicator 2: || Number of staff trained and number of training courses in aspects related to borders management with the help of the Instrument

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 || || || || 750 staff trained, 25 training courses || || || 1500 staff trained, 50 training courses

Indicator 1: || Number of border control (checks and surveillance) infrastructure and means developed or upgraded with the help of the Instrument

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 This indicator can only be computed once the Commission will have received all National Programme from the MS || || || || n.a. || || || n.a.

Indicator 3: || Number of  border crossings of the external borders through ABC gates supported from the Instrument  out of the total number of border crossings

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 || 20 gates 600 000 crossings out of 750 million || || || 45 gates 2 million crossings out of 820 million || || || 100 gates                                   25 million crossings out of 950 million

Indicator 4: || Number of national border surveillance infrastructure established/further developed in the framework of EUROSUR (National Coordination Centres, Regional Coordination Centres, local Coordination Centres, other type of coordination centres)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

19 || 30 || || || 30 || || || 30

Indicator 5: || Number of incidents reported by Member States to the European Situational Picture (illegal immigration, including incidents related to a risk to the lives of migrants, cross-border crime, crisis situations)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

EUROSUR entered into force only on 02/12/2013. Relevant indicators, data and their evolution can be assessed and quantified only from 2015 onwards ||   || || || n/a || || || n/a

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Crime prevention, combating cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities of Member States and other national authorities of Member States, including with Europol or other relevant Union bodies, and with relevant third-countries and international organisations

Indicator 1: || Number of joint investigation teams (JITs) European Multidisciplinary Platform against Criminal Threats (EMPACT)  operational projects supported by the Instrument, including the participating Member States and authorities

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 || || || || 820 || || || 1 285

Indicator 2: || Number of law enforcement officials trained on cross-border-related topics with the help of the Instrument, and the duration of their training (person days).

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 official trained 0 person/days || || || || 20 000 40 000 || || || 39 200 78 400

Indicator 3: || Number and financial value of projects in the area of crime prevention.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 The value for this indicator will be available once the Commission will have received all National Programme from the MS || || || || n.a. || || || n.a.

Indicator 3: || Number of projects supported by the Instrument, aiming to improve law enforcement information exchange, which are related to Europol data systems, repositories or communication tools.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 || || || || 24 || || || 43

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || Enhancing the capacity of Member States and the Union for managing effectively security-related risks and crisis, and preparing for and protecting people and critical infrastructure against terrorist attacks and other security related incidents

Indicator 1: || Number and tools put in place and/or further upgraded with the help of the Instrument to facilitate the protection of critical infrastructure by Member States in all sectors of the economy. 

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

1 || || || || 2 || || || 2

Indicator 2: || Number of projects relating to the assessment and management of risks in the field of internal security supported by the Instrument.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

0 || || || || 60 || || || 105

Indicator 3: || Number of expert meetings, workshops, seminars, conferences, publications, websites and online consultations organised with the help of the Instrument.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2013 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||

10 || || || || 15 || || || 20

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Monitoring The Member States will carry out monitoring to check out outputs against quantified targets and objectives agreed in the national programmes. By 31 March 2016 and by 31 March of each subsequent year until and including 2022, Member States shall submit to the Commission an annual report on implementation of each national programme in the previous financial year and may, at the appropriate level, publish this information. The report submitted in 2016 shall cover the financial years 2014 and 2015. The Member State shall submit a final report on implementation of the national programmes by 31 December 2023. The implementation reports will be submitted to the Commission via the computerised system for fund management set up by the Commission. The system will collect monitoring indicators and it shall produce the information required to track progress: 1. In achieving targets agreed in the national programmes, including for result indicators. If result indicators cannot be collected through monitoring, they shall be collected through evaluation. 2. In achieving common indicators with the aim to collect more comparable information on outputs and results achieved across national programmes at European level. Evaluation The Member States shall carry out the evaluations to improve the quality of the design and the implementation of national programmes as a mean to support efficient resource allocation and decision making with regard to the changes of national programme. The Member States shall provide an interim-evaluation report in 2017 and an ex-post evaluation report in 2023. These reports shall be submitted via the computerised system for fund management set by the Commission. The Commission will submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: (a) an interim evaluation report on the implementation of the Internal Security Fund at the level of the Union by 30 June 2018. (b) an ex-post evaluation report on the effects of the Internal Security Fund, following the closure of the national programmes, by 30 June 2024.

Actors involved in monitoring || European Commission, Member States

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Annual implementation reports will set out information on: (a) implementation of the national programme by reference to the financial data and the indicators;  (b) any significant issues which affect the performance of the national programme. In the light of the mid-term review, the annual implementation report submitted in 2017 shall set out and assess: (a) implementation of the national programme by reference to the financial data and the indicators;  (b) any significant issues which affect the performance of the national programme. (c) the progress towards achieving the objectives in the national programmes pursued with the contribution from the Union budget; (d) the involvement of relevant partners as referred to in article 12 of the Horizontal Regulation.

Planned use of information || The information provided in the annual implementation reports will be used by the Commission in assessing the possible issues that could affect the implementation of the national programmes. The Commission will make observations to the Member States on such issues and when appropriate, Member States should inform within three months the Commission of the measures taken.

Frequency of reporting || Annual implementation reports (AIR), Interim Evaluation reports in 2018, Ex-post evaluation reports in 2024

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 AIR || 2017 AIR Interim Evaluation reports by MS || 2018 AIR Interim Evaluation reports by COM || 2019 AIR || 2020 AIR || 2021 AIR || 2022 AIR || 2023 Final Implementation Reports Ex-post evaluation reports by MS || 2024 Ex-post evaluation reports by COM

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Mid-term review 2018 1. Deadline 30 June 2018 2. Interim Evaluation 3. In 2018 the Commission and each Member State shall re-examine the situation, in the light of the interim evaluation reports submitted in 2017 by the Member States in accordance with Article 57(1) of the Horizontal Regulation, the developments in Union policies and in the Member State concerned. The interim evaluation reports will include information on the implementation of the national programmes by reference to the financial data and the indicators, any significant issues which affect the implementation of the national programmes, the progress towards achieving the objectives in the national programmes, the involvement of relevant partners. After the completion of the mid-term review, and as part of the interim evaluation, the Commission should report on the mid-term review to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 4. Following this re-examination, Member States may revise their national programmes. At this occasion, possible new resources can be allocated pro rata for the period 2018-2020. 5. Actors involved: Member States, European Commission Ex-post evaluation 2024 1. Deadline 2024 2. Ex-post Evaluation 3. In 2024 the Commission and each Member State will assess the impact of the ISF, in light of the evaluation reports submitted by the Member States in 2023. The assessment will include the contribution to the following objectives: the development of a common culture of border security, law enforcement cooperation and crisis management; solidarity and co-operation between Member States in addressing internal security issues, a common approach of the Union on security towards third countries. 4. Possible use for the successor programmes. 5. Actors involved: Member States, European Commission. Ex-post evaluation 2015 European Borders Fund 1. Deadline 31 December 2015 2. Ex-post Evaluation 3. The Fund will be evaluated for the period 2011-2013 by the Commission in partnership with the Member States to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impact of actions in the light of the achievement of the established objectives. 4. Possible use for the successor programmes. 5. Actors involved: Member States, European Commission. Ex-post evaluation 2015 Specific Programme ‘Prevention of and Fight against Crime’ 1. Deadline 15 March 2015 2. Ex-post Evaluation 3. The Programme will be evaluated by the Commission in partnership with the Member States to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impact of actions in the light of the achievement of the established objectives. 4. Possible use for the successor programmes. 5. Actors involved: Member States, European Commission. Ex-post evaluation 2015 Specific Programme ‘Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security related risks’ 1. Deadline 15 March 2015 2. Ex-post Evaluation 3. The Programme will be evaluated by the Commission in partnership with the Member States to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impact of actions in the light of the achievement of the established objectives. 4. Possible use for the successor programmes. 5. Actors involved: Member States, European Commission.

Justice Programme

Title spending programme: || Justice programme

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The general objective of the Programme shall be to contribute to the further development of a European area of justice based on mutual recognition and mutual trust and in particular by promoting judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. The actions of the Programme will be implemented under 4 specific objectives. Since the results of funding activities can only be fully measured and evaluated once these activities are finalised and have produced their results, a two-step approach for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the Programme has been put in place. 1. The Commission will monitor the Programme annually focusing on budget execution and on the indicators set out in Art. 15(2) of the Programme (mainly output indicators). To that effect the Commission will put in place a comprehensive reporting system to collect from each funded activity all relevant information for these indicators. A report will be submitted annually to the European Parliament and to the Council presenting the use of the year's funds and the yearly data on the indicators of Art. 15(2). 2. The evaluation of the Programme will take place twice in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the Programme. The evaluation will be an in-depth report: it will build on the annual monitoring reports and it will also evaluate the results achieved by the funded activities, as well as the impact of the whole Programme. The Commission will provide the European Parliament and the Council with an interim evaluation report by mid-2018. This report will take into account the results of the activities finalised until that time. An ex-post evaluation report will be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council by the end of 2021. It will build on the interim evaluation and it will present and evaluate the results and impact achieved by the Programme during its whole duration.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || To contribute to the further development of a European area of Justice based on mutual recognition and mutual trust and in particular by promoting judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters.

Result indicator || Baseline  (2012 unless specified) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

cumulative number of legal professionals receiving training on EU law or law of another Member State, including Civil Justice, Criminal Justice and Fundamental Rights || 87 000 (2011) || (2016) 420 000 (2017) 490 000 || 700  000

annual growth in use of the e-justice portal || 630 000 || Annual growth rate 50% || Annual growth rate 20%

share of citizens that consider that it is easy to access civil justice in another Member State || 14% (2010) || 30% || 50%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || To facilitate and support judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters

Result indicator || Baseline  (2012 unless specified) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

average time of the surrender procedure (time between the arrest and the decision on the surrender of the person sought) under the European Arrest Warrant in cases where the person consents to the surrender (source: the Commission from national reports to Council) || 16 days[110] (average 2005-2012) || The annual average should remain stable, in the range of 14 to 19 days || The annual average should remain stable, in the range of 14 to 19 days

number of exchanges of information in the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) (source: the Commission) || 300 000 || 1 300 000 || 2 300 000

the number of dynamic forms related to civil and commercial matters generated in the e-justice portal per year || 5000[111] (2013) || ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || To support and promote judicial training, including language training on legal terminology, with a view to fostering a common legal and judicial culture

Result indicator || Baseline  (2012 unless specified) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

cumulative number of legal professionals receiving training on EU law or law of another Member State (source: the Commission) || 87 000 (2011) || 420 000 (2016) 490 000 (2017) || 700 000

the number and percentage of members of the judiciary and judicial staff in a target group that participated in training activities, staff exchanges, study visits, workshops and seminars funded by the Programme || 0 || Milestones and Targets will be set based on experience from the first year implementation of the Programme || the number and percentage of members of the judiciary and judicial staff in a target group that participated in training activities, staff exchanges, study visits, workshops and seminars funded by the Programme

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || To facilitate effective access to justice for all, including to promote and support rights of victims of crime, while respecting the right of the defence

the European perception of access to justice (source: Eurobarometers) || || ||

Annual growth in the use of the European e-Justice Portal (source: the Commission) || 630 000 || 50% (2016) || 20%

the number of Victim Support Organisations with national coverage (implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU) (source: the Commission) || 10 || 20 || 28

share of citizens that consider that it is easy to access civil justice in another Member State || 14% (2010) || 30% || 50%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || To support initiatives in the field of drugs policy as regards judicial cooperation and crime prevention aspects closely linked to the general objective of the Programme, insofar as they are not covered by the Internal Security Fund or by the Health for Growth Programme

number of new psychoactive substances assessed (including through testing, if necessary) to enable the EU or the Member States to take appropriate action to protect consumers, depending on the type and level of risk that they may pose when consumed by humans (source: the Commission) || 68 || 85 || 95

percentage of problem opioid users that are in drug treatment (source: EMCDDA) || 50% || 55% || 60%

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Annual monitoring is foreseen to report on the expenditure related outputs funded under each specific objective (quantitative information). This information will give indications on the progress on achieving the objectives and will feed into and inform the implementation of the programme. Qualitative information will be submitted by the beneficiaries in their mid-term and final reports, in the middle and after the finalisation of the respective actions. This information will be evaluated in the mid-term and final evaluations of the programme.

Actors involved in monitoring || Grant applicants; Grant recipients; Commission services

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || As foreseen in the legal base the annual monitoring will cover specific aspects linked with the implementation of the expenditure related outputs. For the REC programme the relevant indicators are: a) the number and percentage of persons in the relevant target groups reached by the awareness-raising activities funded by the Programme; b) the improvement in the level of knowledge of Union law and policies and where applicable, of rights, values and principles underpinning the Union, in the groups of participants in activities funded by the Programme in comparison with the entire target group; c) the number of stakeholders participating inter alia in training activities, exchanges, study visits, workshops and seminars funded by the Programme; d) the number of cases, activities and outputs of cross-border cooperation; including cooperation by means of information technology tools and procedures established at Union level; e) participants’ assessment of the activities they participated in and on their (expected) sustainability; the geographical coverage of the activities funded by the Programme.

Planned use of information || Annual monitoring reports to the European Parliament and to the Council AARs; AWPs for the forthcoming years

Frequency of reporting  || Annual monitoring reports

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 x || 2016 x || 2017 x || 2018 x || 2019 x || 2020 x

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Ex-post evaluation of 2007-2013 programmes Deadline:  31 December 2014 Type: ex post evaluation (specific contract under framework contract) Main issues addressed   and coverage: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the implementation of activities carried out under the Civil Justice Programme, the Criminal Justice Programme and the Drugs Prevention and Information Programme, and their results, and to assess the impact of these projects and of EU funding in the respective policy areas. Additionally, the study should build on the outcomes of the evaluation of the 2007-2013 programmes and provide recommendations and factual evidence for setting baselines to prepare and support the implementation of the 2014-2020 Justice Programme, including their potential mid-term evaluations. Planned use of evaluation results: improve management of Justice Programme, identify success stories for communication purposes Actors involved: European Commission, beneficiaries, contractor Interim evaluation 2014-2020 programme Deadline: by mid-2018 Type: Interim evaluation Main issues addressed and coverage: The interim evaluation report shall assess the achievement of the Programme's objectives, the efficiency of the use of resources and the Programme's European added value. It shall take into account the results of the ex-post evaluations of the previous 2007-2013 programmes. Planned use of evaluation results: The evaluation should be used to determine whether funding in areas covered by the Programme should be renewed, modified or suspended after 2020. It shall also address the scope for any simplification of the Programme, its internal and external coherence, as well as the continued relevance of all objectives and actions. Actors involved: European Commission Ex-post evaluation 2014-2020 programme Deadline: by end of 2021 Type: Ex-post evaluation Main issues addressed and coverage: The ex-post evaluation report shall assess the long-term impacts of the Programme and the sustainability of its effects of the Programme, with a view to feeding into a decision on a subsequent programme. Planned use of evaluation results: The evaluation should feed into a decision on a subsequent programme. Actors involved: European Commission

 REC programme (Rights, Equality and Citizenship)

Title spending programme: || Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) Programme

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The general objective of the REC Programme shall be to contribute to the further development of an area, where equality and the rights of persons as enshrined in the TEU, in the TFEU, in the Charter and in the international human rights conventions to which the Union has acceded, are promoted, protected and effectively implemented. The actions of the Programme will be implemented under 9 specific objectives. Since the results of funding activities can only be fully measured and evaluated once these activities are finalised and have produced their results, a two-step approach for monitoring and evaluating the progress of the Programme has been put in place. 1. The Commission will monitor the Programme annually focusing on budget execution and on the indicators set out in Art. 14(2) of the Programme (mainly output indicators). To that effect the Commission will put in place a comprehensive reporting system to collect from each funded activity all relevant information for these indicators. A report will be submitted annually to the European Parliament and to the Council presenting the use of the year's funds and the yearly data on the indicators of Art. 14(2). 2. The evaluation of the Programme will take place twice in accordance with Articles 13 and 14 of the Programme. The evaluation will be an in-depth report: it will build on the annual monitoring reports and it will also evaluate the results achieved by the funded activities, as well as the impact of the whole Programme. The Commission will provide the European Parliament and the Council with an interim evaluation report by mid-2018. This report will take into account the results of the activities finalised until that time. An ex-post evaluation report will be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council by the end of 2021. It will build on the interim evaluation and it will present and evaluate the results and impact achieved by the Programme during its whole duration

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || To contribute to the further development of an area, where equality and the rights of persons as enshrined in the Treaty on European Union, in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the international human rights conventions to which the Union has acceded, are promoted, protected and effectively implemented

Impact indicator || Baseline  (2011) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

progress towards equal participation in the labour market: (a) female employment rate 20-64 age group || 62.4% (2012) || 68% || 75% (for both women and men): Europe 2020 headline target; 71% for women

(b) employment rate of people with disabilities || 46.9% || 50% || 55%

(c) the gender pay gap || 17% || 15% || 14%

(d) the percentage of women among non-executive directors on boards of listed companies Source: European Commission || 16.2% || 30% || 40%

Percentage of Europeans who consider themselves as “well or “very well” informed of the rights they enjoy as citizens of the Union (source: Eurobarometers) || 32% (2010) || 45% || 51%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || To promote the effective implementation of the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, and to respect the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds provided for in Article 21 of the Charter

Result indicator || Baseline  (2012 unless stated) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

the number of Europeans aware of their rights if they fall victims of discrimination (source: Eurobarometers) || 37% || 45% || 55%

the number of Member States that set up structural co-ordination mechanisms with all stakeholders, including Roma, on the implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategies  (source: national reporting to the Commission) || 0 (2011) || 14 || 28

the number of applications and grants related to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || To prevent and combat racism, xenophobia, homophobia and other forms of intolerance

Result indicator || Baseline  (2012 unless stated) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

the percentage of unreported incidents of hate crime and hate speech (source: the Commission) || 57% - 74% of incidents of assault or threat suffered by members of minority or migrant groups in the EU were not reported to the police by their victims (FRA) 75% - 90% of incidents of serious harassment were not reported to the police (FRA) || 50%-70% 70%-85% || 40-60% 60-75%

the number of applications and grants related to this specific objectives || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || To promote and protect the rights of people with disabilities

employment rate of people with disabilities (source: Eurostat) || 46% || 50% || 55%

the number of applications and grants related to this specific objectives || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || To promote equality between women and men and to enhance gender mainstreaming

female employment rate 20-64 age group  (source: Eurostat) || 62.4% || 68% || 75% (for both women and men) 71% for women

the percentage of women among non-executive directors on boards of listed companies (source: the Commission) || 17% || 30% || 40%

the gender pay gap (source: Eurostat) || 16.2% (2011) || 15% || 14%

the number of applications and grants related to this specific objectives || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5 || To prevent and combat all forms of violence against children, young people and women, as well as violence against other groups at risk, in particular groups at risk of violence in close relationships, and to protect victims of such violence

percentage of people that consider that domestic violence against women is unacceptable  || 84% (2010) || 90% || 100%

the number of applications and grants related to this specific objectives || 0 (2014) || ||

the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6 || To promote and protect the rights of the child

the percentage of children aware that they enjoy specific rights || 65% (2009) || 70% || 75%

the number of applications and grants related to this specific objectives || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 7 || To contribute to ensuring the highest level of protection of privacy and personal data

number of complaints received by data protection authorities from individuals relating to data protection (source: the Commission) || 42 955 (2011) || 50 000 || 60 000

the number of applications and grants related to this specific objectives || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 8 || To promote and enhance the exercise of rights deriving from the citizenship of the Union

awareness of the citizenship of the Union and the rights attached to it. 1(a) – share of the population that knows the meaning of “Citizenship of the Union” 1(b) – share of the population considering themselves as “well” or “very well” informed of the rights they enjoy as citizens of the Union (source: Eurobarometers) || (a) 43% (b) 32% (2010) || 50% 45% || 53% 51%

awareness of the right to vote and to stand as candidate in European election in the Member State of residence, without having the nationality of that Member State (source: Eurobarometers) || 67% (2010) || 76% || 80%

the number of applications and grants related to this specific objectives || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 9 || To enable individuals in their capacity as consumers or entrepreneurs to fully benefit from the European Single Market by removing remaining legal obstacles and ensuring enforcement of their rights deriving from Union law, having regard to the projects funded under the Consumer Programme

the perception of consumers of being protected (source: Eurobarometers) || 60% (2011) || 65% || 70%

consumer and retailer awareness of rights and obligations. 2(a) – percentage of consumers who are not aware of their right to return the product purchased via the internet 2(b) – percentage of retailers in the EU who are correctly able to state the length of the “cooling-off” period (source: Eurobarometers) || (a) 40% (b) < 30% (2011) || 35% 40% || 30% 50%

level of consumer confidence in cross-border shopping, as measured by the percentage of consumers who have at least equal level of confidence in sellers from their own country as from another EU country (source: Eurobarometers) || 49% (2011) || 55% || 60%

the number of applications and grants related to this specific objectives || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

the level of funding requested by applicants and granted in relation to this specific objective || 0 (2014) || available in 2015 || available in 2015

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Annual monitoring is foreseen to report on the expenditure related outputs funded under each specific objective (quantitative information) measuring the indicators set out by the Programme for the specific objectives. This information will give indications of progress in achieving the objectives and will feed into and inform the implementation of the programme. Qualitative information describing in detail the specific outputs and results achieved by each project and possible challenges, difficulties, adjustments and changes will be submitted by the beneficiaries in their mid-term and final reports, in the middle and after the finalisation of the respective actions. This information will be evaluated in the mid-term and final evaluations of the programme.

Actors involved in monitoring || Grant applicants; Grant recipients; Commission services

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || As foreseen in the legal base the annual monitoring will cover specific aspects linked with the implementation of the expenditure related outputs. For the REC programme the relevant indicators are: a) the number and percentage of persons in the relevant target groups reached by the awareness-raising activities funded by the Programme; b) the improvement in the level of knowledge of Union law and policies and where applicable, of rights, values and principles underpinning the Union, in the groups of participants in activities funded by the Programme in comparison with the entire target group; c) the number of stakeholders participating inter alia in training activities, exchanges, study visits, workshops and seminars funded by the Programme; d) the number of cases, activities and outputs of cross-border cooperation; e) participants’ assessment of the activities they participated in and on their (expected) sustainability; f) the geographical coverage of the activities funded by the Programme; g) the number of applications and grants related to each specific objective; h) the level of funding requested by applicants and granted related to each specific objective.

Planned use of information || Annual monitoring reports to the European Parliament and to the Council AARs AWPs for the forthcoming years

Frequency of reporting                  || Annual monitoring reports

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 x || 2016 x || 2017 x || 2018 x || 2019 x || 2020 x

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Ex-post evaluation of 2007-2013 programmes Deadline  31 December 2014 Type ex post evaluation (specific contract under framework contract) Main issues addressed and coverage: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the implementation of activities carried out under the Daphne III Programme and the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme, and their results, and to assess the impact of these projects and of EU funding in the respective policy areas. Additionally, the study should build on the outcomes of the evaluation of the 2007-2013 programmes and provide recommendations and factual evidence for setting baselines to prepare and support the implementation of the 2014-2020 Rights and Citizenship Programme, including their potential mid-term evaluations. Planned use of evaluation results: improve management of Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme, identify success stories for communication purposes Actors involved: European Commission, beneficiaries, contractor Interim evaluation of 2014-2020 programme Deadline: by mid-2018 Type: Interim evaluation Main issues addressed and coverage: The interim evaluation report shall assess the achievement of the Programme's objectives, the efficiency of the use of resources and the Programme's European added value with a view to determining whether funding in areas covered by the Programme should be renewed, modified or suspended after 2020. It shall also address the scope for any simplification of the Programme, its internal and external coherence, as well as the continued relevance of all objectives and actions. It shall take into account the results of the ex-post evaluations of the previous 2007-2013 programmes. Planned use of evaluation results: The evaluation should be used to determine whether funding in areas covered by the Programme should be renewed, modified or suspended after 2020. It shall also address the scope for any simplification of the Programme, its internal and external coherence, as well as the continued relevance of all objectives and actions. Actors involved: European Commission Ex-post evaluation of 2014-2020 programme Deadline: by end of 2021 Type: Ex-post evaluation Main issues addressed and coverage: The ex-post evaluation report shall assess the long-term impacts of the Programme and the sustainability of its effects. Planned use of evaluation results: The evaluation should feed into a decision on a subsequent programme. Actors involved: European Commission

UCPM (Union Civil protection mechanism)

Title spending programme: || UCPM (Union Civil Protection Mechanism)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The general objective of the UCPM is to be able to prevent, prepare and respond to disasters in a coordinated, effective and efficient way. This is why the monitoring and performance/evaluation framework is directed to assess the level of protection, prevention and preparedness, the speed of intervention and the general Member States involvement achieved. Prevention and preparedness actions are covered by an annual work programme adopted as a Commission Decision. Civil protection response is covered by a separate Commission financing decision. Response activities are dependent on requests for assistance from countries affected by disaster, inside or outside Europe, which are by definition unpredictable. The legal basis for UCPM specifies clearly the objectives, intervention logic and the Key Performance Indicators. Funding of UCPM prevention and preparedness actions having a long-term perspective, part of the result-oriented information will only become available with a certain time lag, and might take some time to fully materialise. Nevertheless, the monitoring and reporting system for UCPM will be immediately implemented and  is based on two main components: 1. A comprehensive system to collect all relevant data on the implementation of EUCPM activities and on related KPIs.  Most of the response related data is automatically or semi-automatically collected in the Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS). Preparedness data is also collected in CECIS, a number of specialised listings and databases, as well as an advanced lessons-learned system. The systems owner is unit ECHO.B1. Prevention related indicators are compiled by unit ECHO.A3 who also uses the Commission owned CIRCABC IT system.  2. The Key Performance Indicators on the achievement of specific objectives will be a key element for the evaluations of the UCPM, notably for the interim evaluation in 2017 and the Ex-Post evaluation in 2021. Nevertheless reporting on some of these Key Performance Indicators will be yearly ensured through the Annual Activity Report.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || CIVIL PROTECTION For public authorities to be able to prevent, prepare for and respond to natural and man-made disasters in a coordinated, effective and efficient way.

Impact indicator: || Annual Average 2010-2012 || Annual Average 2014-2019 || Long term target 2020

Economic damage caused by natural disasters || 164 825 115 000 || 106 166 666 666 || 106 000 000 000

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || PREVENTION Achieve a high level of protection against disasters by preventing or reducing their potential effects, by fostering a culture of prevention and by improving cooperation between the civil protection and other relevant services.

Indicator 1: || Number of Member States that have made available to the Commission a summary of their risk assessments and an assessment of their risk management capability.

2013 || 2014 || 2016 || 2018 || 2020

14 || 17 || 21 || 25 || 28

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || PREPAREDNESS Enhance preparedness at Member States and Union level to respond to disasters.

Indicator 1: || % of response capacities included in the voluntary pool in relation to the capacity goals.

2013 || 2014 || 2016 || 2018 || 2020

25% || 50% || 75% || 90% || 100%

Indicator 2: || N° of standard response units (modules) registered in the EU's Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS).

2013 || 2014 || 2016 || 2018 || 2020

150 || 160 || ≥160 || ≥175 || ≥180

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || RESPONSE Facilitate a rapid and efficient response (deployment of EU MS in-kind assistance) in the event of disasters or imminent disasters.

Indicator 1: || Average speed of interventions under the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (from the acceptance of the offer to deployment); and the extent to which the assistance contributes to the needs on the ground.

2013 || 2014 || 2017 || 2020

≤36 hours || ≤24 hours || ≤18 hours || ≤12 hours

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || AWARENESS: To increase public awareness and preparedness for disasters.

Indicator 1 || The level of awareness of Union citizens of the risks in their regions

2013 || 2017 || 2020

N/A new || The methodology related to the gathering of the relevant information is being discussed with DG Communication and Member States

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The progress on achieving indicators milestones and targets of each objective is mainly tracked through ECHO IT reporting systems (ABAC for financial, CECIS for operations...) and through the constant monitoring done by the desks. A specific tracking tool with lead services is under implementation to ensure all objectives are tracked and reported on (a chef-de-file is identified per indicator). Systems are mainly fed by ECHO staff but also by partners (Member States). ECHO is also using several external internationally recognised sources of information to complete needs assessment and to follow-up on macro-level indicators. Monitoring information is also provided by grant and contract recipients through their reporting.

Actors involved in monitoring || All relevant stakeholders, including Member States, implementing partners and ECHO staff.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || ECHO monitoring is directed towards mandatory targets and objectives enshrined in the legal base. It focuses on the implementation of projects, the quality assessment, the timing of intervention, the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. Information on outputs, outcomes and result is systematically monitored as from the start of the activities. Nevertheless, given the character of operations for which DG ECHO is responsible, combined with the heterogeneous type of interventions, the reporting of several indicators (including impact indicators) is much more complicated and could be delayed to 2015.

Planned use of information || Information collected is used, amongst others, for: - The annual UCPM work programme; - The ABM cycle reporting (Management Plan, Annual Activity Report,…); - The yearly Mid-Term Review occurring at summer time; - annual report to the EP on the implementation of the Decision, including the budget breakdown, as of 2015; - Ad-hoc reporting towards all external/internal stakeholders (requests EP/Council, reporting to Member States... - Communication on the continued implementation of this Decision no later than by 31 December 2018; - Senior management reporting database. - Evaluation reporting as described below. - The Communication to Parliament and Council on the continued implementation of the ECPM.

Frequency of reporting                  || Most of the reports are yearly but monitoring is constant. The Communication on the implementation of the ECPM as referred above is no later than 31 December 2018.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 x || 2015 x || 2016       x || 2017 x || 2018                x || 2019          x || 2020 x

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. Ex-post evaluation of the Civil Protection legal instrument by 2014, Interim evaluation of the Civil Protection Mechanism by 2016 (max. deadline June 2017), and final by December 2021. Thematic evaluation by 2018. 2. Mid-term, thematic and ex-posts. 3. As adopted in the UCPM legal base, mid-term and ex-post evaluations will focus on the objectives and KPIs identified. They will look at the state of implementation and be users-driven and focused on learning. The scope of each evaluation will cover at least relevance, EU added value, transparency, accountability, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. It will also emphasize the need to learn from past experience. Further additional thematic evaluation may be added in 2018 on the basis of internal information needs for future approaches; 4. Learning from past experience to increase/improve performance and accountability. Possible use for a mid-term revision or remedial actions in the preparation of a successor programme. 5. All stakeholders.

                                      

Europe for Citizens

Title spending programme: || "Europe for Citizens" programme

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 establishing for the period 2014-2020 the "Europe for Citizens" programme has been adopted on 14 April 2014[112].  The new programme integrates the recommendations of the mid-term evaluation of the 2007-2013 programme, in particular the need for strengthening the policy impact of the programme for closer link to the key topics on the EU agenda, for coherence with a view to improving European governance and to exploit synergies with other EU programmes and policies. In 2012, the Commission launched a study in order get a comprehensive approach and system of indicators that could be used to assess the impacts of the "Europe for Citizens" 2014-2020 programme (http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/news-events/news/11072013_studyefc_en.htm. In the frame of this study, monitoring indicators have been developed and the overall intervention logic of the programme has been produced and describes the causal links between: 1. the outputs (the “production” of the European Commission); 2. the results on target groups (here the civil society organisations, local authorities, think tanks and EU networks and umbrellas); 3. the intermediary impacts on direct beneficiaries (here the participants to the various organised activities); 4. and the final (long term) expected impacts on direct and indirect beneficiaries (here citizens at large). Specific intervention logics for each strands of the programme have been also produced in the frame of this study, taking into account that the Union added value of the "Europe for Citizens" programme can be demonstrated at the level of its individual actions: European remembrance, democratic engagement and civic participation and valorisation. The management of the programme and the majority of actions will be centrally managed by an executive agency (EACEA). Quarterly monitoring reports will be provided by EACEA while annual activity reports will be provided by the Commission to the "Europe for Citizens" programme committee, composed by Member States and participating countries.  The data will be collected mainly on the basis of the elements requested in the applications (ex-ante) and final reports (ex-post). Both applications and reports are submitted on electronic form (the process is paper-less) which simplify the collection of data through a database and the Business Objects system and allow a rapid global synthesis of the data itself. Furthermore, projects' visits in situ favours the direct monitoring of projects and verification of indicators. Type of info available in the monitoring reports will be related to success rate, time to award and contract, budgetary execution, geographical coverage, number of participants. In line with Article 15 of the draft Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the "Europe for Citizens" programme, the Commission will submit: -  by 31 December 2017 an interim evaluation report on the results obtained and on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of the programme, including the long term impacts of the predecessor programme (taking into account that the ex-post evaluation report for the "Europe for Citizens" 2007-2013 programme is not envisaged); - by 1st July 2023 an ex-post evaluation.

  General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1* || To contribute to citizens' understanding of the Union, its history and diversity, to foster European citizenship and to improve conditions for civic and democratic participation at Union level.

Impact indicator: || Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Percentage of EU citizens feeling European || 59 % (EB 80 - autumn 2013) || Stable || Stable

|| || ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1[113] || To raise awareness of remembrance, the common history and values of the Union and the Union's aim, namely to promote peace, the values of the Union and the well-being of its peoples, by stimulating debate, reflection and the development of networks.

Indicator 1: || The number of participants who are directly involved 

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

100 000 || 100 000 || 100 000

Indicator 2: || The number or persons indirectly reached by the programme

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

150 000 || 180 000 || 202 500

Indicator 3: || The number of projects

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

31 || 68 || 77

Indicator 4: || The quality of the  projects applications and the degree to which the results of selected projects can be further used, transferred

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

Lowest score obtained by a retained project: 80 Number of events organised: 50 || 81,6 85 || 83,2 95

Indicator 5: || Percentage of first time applicants

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

Percentage of first-time applicants to the programme: 40% || 35% - 45% || 35% - 45%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2[114] || To encourage the democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, by developing citizens' understanding of the Union policy making-process and promoting opportunities for societal and intercultural engagement and volunteering at Union level. ||

Indicator 1: || The number of participants who are directly involved 

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

1 000 000 || 1 000 000 || 1 000 000

Indicator 2: || The number or persons indirectly reached by the programme

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

1 000 000 || 1 200 000 || 1 350 000

Indicator 3: || The number of participating organisations

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

1 000 || 1 400 || 1 700

Indicator 4: || The perception of the Union and its institutions by the beneficiaries

Baseline 2012 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

77 % feel more European as a result of their participation in the "Europe for Citizens" programme || Stable at 77 % || Stable at 77%

Indicator 5: || The quality of project applications

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

Lowest score obtained by a retained project: 71 || 72,4 || 73,9

Indicator 6: || The percentage of first time applicants

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

Percentage of first time applicants to the programme: 40 % || 35% - 45% || 35% - 45%

Indicator 7: || The number of transnational partnerships including different types of stakeholders

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

Average number of types stakeholders: 1,3 || At least 2 types of stakeholders || At least 2 types of stakeholders

Indicator 8: || The number of networks of twinned towns

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

41 || 108 || 122

Indicator 9: || The number and quality of policy initiatives following-up on activities supported by the Programme at the local or European level (source: peer reviews)

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

Not measured before || 2 || 2

Indicator 10: || The geographical coverage of the activities

Baseline 2013 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

The comparison between the percentage of projects submitted by one Member State as a lead partner and the percentage of its population in the total population of the Union[115]: 13 The comparison between the percentage of projects selected per Member State as a lead partner and the percentage of its population in the total population of the Union[116]:  12 The comparison between the percentage of projects submitted by one Member State as a lead partner or co-partner and the percentage of its population in the total population of the Union[117]: 18 The comparison between the percentage of projects selected per Member State as a lead partner or co-partner and the percentage of its population in the total population of the Union[118]:  15 || 19 17 24 19 || 23 20 26 22

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Regular reports from the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) with detailed information on the different indicators. The Commission will monitor the policy impact of the programme, its links to the key topics on the EU agenda, its coherence and synergies with other EU programmes and policies and will report on these aspects in the annual activity reports submitted to the Programme Committee. The data will be collected mainly on the basis of the elements requested in the applications (ex-ante) and final reports (ex-post). Both applications and reports are submitted on electronic form (the process is paper-less) which simplify the collection of data through a database and the Business Objects system and allow a rapid global synthesis of the data itself. Furthermore, projects' visits in situ favours the direct monitoring of projects and verification of indicators.  Ad hoc reports can be generated upon specific request.

Actors involved in monitoring || The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) which will manage the implementation of the programme in cooperation with the Commission taking also into account stakeholders and beneficiaries of the programme.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Programme management and implementation aspects: number of call for proposals launched, results of each selection, time to commit, to award, to contract and to pay, monitoring visits. Progressively during the programme period, more information should become available on immediate results as well as intermediate results towards the fulfilment of the objectives of the programme and assessment of quality of its outputs and impacts.  The Unit C1 of the EACEA is available to provide more information on performance during the programme period to assess the quality of the impact on the basis of the established indicators.

Planned use of information || The information will be used for the annual activity report to be provided each year to the "Europe for Citizens" programme committee and for the annual activity report to be established by the Commission.  The information may be used to fine-tune the implementation of the programme if needed.

Frequency of reporting || Quarterly reports from the EACEA and annual activity report by DG COMM.

Availability of reports  in the timeline Annual Activity Reports Quarterly Reports by EACEA 2014 || 2014 || 2015 X X 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters || 2016 X X Each quarter || 2017 X X Each quarter || 2018 X X Each quarter || 2019 X X Each quarter || 2020 X X Each quarter

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed  and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || "Europe for Citizens" programme 2007-2013 – ex-post evaluation 1. By 31 December 2015 2. Ex-post evaluation 3. Full coverage of all "Europe for Citizens" 2007-2013 programme: implementation and achievements, as well as the longer-term impacts and sustainability 4. Possible use for remedial action for the successor programme 2014-2020. 5. Stakeholders, beneficiaries and "Europe for Citizens" contact points in the Member States will be involved in the evaluation process. "Europe for Citizens" programme 2014-2020 – mid-term evaluation 1. No later than 31 December 2017 2. Mid-term evaluation 3. Will cover the results obtained and the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of the "Europe for Citizens" programme, including the long term impacts of the predecessor programme (taking into account that the ex-post evaluation report for the "Europe for Citizens 2007-2013 programme is not envisaged); The main issues addressed will be: · Relevance: Appropriateness of the explicit objectives of an intervention, with regard to the socio-economic problems the intervention is meant to solve. · Internal coherence: Correspondence between the different objectives of the same intervention (internal coherence implies that there is a hierarchy of objectives, with those at the bottom logically contributing towards those above) and adaptation of the inputs (resources) to the objectives. · External coherence: Correspondence between the objectives of an intervention and those of other public interventions which interact with it. · Effectiveness: The fact that expected effects have been obtained and that objectives have been achieved (an effectiveness indicator is calculated by relating an output, result or impact indicator to a quantified objective). The need for strengthening the policy impact of the programme, for closer link to the key topics on the EU agenda, for coherence with a view to improving European governance and to exploit synergies with other EU programmes and policies should also be assessed (in the frame of the Programme's objectives). · Efficiency: The fact that the effects were obtained at a reasonable cost. · Utility: The fact that the impacts obtained by an intervention correspond to society's needs and to the socio-economic problems to be solved. · Sustainability: The ability of effects to last in the middle or long term. · Added value: The principle which justifies that a public authority decides to implement an intervention rather than to leave it up to private initiative or another public authority. 4. The evaluation results will be used to fine-tune, if needed, the implementation of the programme. Possible use for the preparation of a possible successor programme as from 2020 onwards. 5. Stakeholders, beneficiaries and "Europe for Citizens" contact points in the Member States will be involved in the evaluation process. "Europe for Citizens" programme 2014-2020 – ex-post evaluation 1. By 1st July 2023 2. Ex-post evaluation 3. Full coverage of all "Europe for Citizens" 2014-2020 programme: implementation and achievements, as well as the longer-term impacts and sustainability 4. Possible use for remedial action for the possible successor programme as from 2020 onwards. 5. Stakeholders, beneficiaries and "Europe for Citizens" contact points in the Member States will be involved in the evaluation process.

Food and Feed

Title spending programme: || (Proposal) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || By 31 December 2018, an evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives; the efficiency of the use of resources; and its added value at Union level. The evaluation shall also address the scope for simplification, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It shall take into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures. By 30 June 2022 the Commission shall carry out an ex-post evaluation of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 in close cooperation with the Member States.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || Contributing to a high level of health for humans, animals and plants along the food chain and in related areas by preventing and eradicating diseases and pests, ensuring a high level of protection for consumers and the environment while enhancing the Union food and feed industry, competitiveness and favouring the creation of jobs

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2018 || Long term target 2020

Reduction in the incidence of main food-borne disease in the EU (BSE & Salmonella) || 2012 – 18 BSE cases 2012 – 90 000 confirmed cases of human salmonellosis || 10 BSE cases 67 000 confirmed cases of human salmonellosis || 5 BSE cases (60 000 cases) continuous reduction/no eradication possible

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || to contribute to a high level of safety of food and food production systems and of other products which may affect the safety of food, while improving the sustainability of food production;

Indicator: || the reduction of the number of cases of diseases in humans in the Union and which are linked to food safety or zoonoses;

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

Salmonella 90 000 cases in humans (2012) || 2018 67 000 cases || 60 000 cases (continuous reduction/no eradication possible)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || to contribute to a higher animal health status in the Union and to support the improvement of the welfare of animals

Indicator: || the increase of the number of Member States or regions thereof which are free from animal diseases for which a financial contribution is granted

Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

Bovine brucellosis: 15 MS and 19 regions officially free Bovine tuberculosis: 15 MS and 13 regions officially free Brucella melitensis 20 MS and 18 regions officially free || 18 MS and 30 regions officially free 17 MS and 20 regions officially free 24 MS and 28 regions officially free || Eradication except 1 MS Eradication except 1 MS Eradication except 1 MS and 5 regions

Indicator || an overall reduction of disease parameters such as incidence, prevalence and number of outbreaks

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

Classical swine fever 0 outbreaks || 0-5 outbreaks || 0 outbreaks

BSE 28 positive animals || 15 positive animals || 5 positive animals

Scrapie (sheep and goats) 17 % prevalence || 14 % prevalence || 8 % prevalence

Rabies 518 cases in wild animals || 350 cases in wild animals || 100 cases in wild animals

Avian Influenza 0 outbreak of HPAI || 0 (subject to wild birds situation) || 0 (subject to wild birds situation)

Bluetongue 39 outbreaks || 30 || 0 (subject to vector and climate changes)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || to contribute to timely detection of pests and their eradication where those pests have entered into the Union

Indicator: || the coverage of the Union territory by surveys for pests, in particular for pests not known to occur in the Union territory and pests considered to be most dangerous for the Union territory

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

5% (2012) || 2015 50% || 2017 70% || 100%

Indicator: || the time to eradicate such pests (For pests not known to occur in the Union, the number of days between finding and notification – 2012)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

10 days (2012) || 2015 8 days || 2017 4 days || 3 days

Indicator || the success rate in eradicating such pests (For pests not known to occur in the Union, the success rate of eradication of pests - 2012)

Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

0 (2013) || 60% || 95%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || to contribute to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and reliability of official controls and other activities carried out in view of the effective implementation of and compliance with the Union rules

Indicator: || Percentage of FVO recommendations following FVO audits that Member States have satisfactorily addressed with corrective action

Baseline || Milestones 2014 || Target 2020

60% for recommendations from reporting cycles 2010 – 2012 (2013) || 70% of all recommendations from these reporting years to be addressed ||

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Via implementing reports, dissemination reports Via mid-term and ex-post evaluations Monitoring data from publicly available databases (e.g. Eurostat and OECD), RASSF, EFSA, FVO, ECDC Evaluation of national programmes

Actors involved in monitoring || European Commission (notably DG Health and Consumers, the Food and Veterinary Office) EU Member States Executive Agency for Health and Consumers

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Details on actions/projects funded Budget implementation Key results achieved over the year

Planned use of information || AAR Implementation reports Where necessary, spending programme adjustments/eligibility adjustments Communications to the European Parliament and Council

Frequency of reporting                  || dedicated section in the DG Health and Consumers Annual Activity Report; 1 Mid-term; 1 ex-post

Indicate availability of reports  in the timeline Annual reports Mid-term evaluation || 2014 X || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X X || 2019 X || 2020 X

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 31 December 2014 Ex-post evaluation 2007-2013 Issues: effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value Coverage: spending programme, priorities Use: Improvements to programme implementation and set up of successor programmes European Commission, CHAF-EA.

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 31 December 2018 Mid-term evaluation Resource efficiency and value added at EU level; scope for simplification; continued relevance of objectives; contribution of measures to smart, sustainable, inclusive growth. Monitoring and if necessary, remedial action European Commission; EU Member States

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 30 June 2022 Ex-post evaluation Progress made on basis of indicators identified, effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value. Covering the spending programme and its priorities European Commission; EU Member States

Third Health Programme

Title spending programme: || Third Health Programme

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Programme will be monitored on an annual basis in order to both assess headway towards the achievement of its specific objectives against its outcome and impact indicators and allow for any necessary adjustments of the policy and funding priorities.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || to complement, support and add value to the policies of the Member States to improve the health of Union citizens and reduce health inequalities by promoting health, encouraging innovation in health, increasing the sustainability of health systems and protecting Union citizens from serious cross- border health threats

Impact indicator: || Baseline 2010 (2011) || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Number of Healthy Life Years at birth || Males: 61.9 (61.8) Females: 62.7 (62.2) || || Increase by 2 years

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || identify, disseminate and promote the uptake of evidence-based and good practices for cost-effective health promotion and disease prevention measures by addressing in particular the key lifestyle related risk factors with a focus on the Union added value

Indicator: || number of Member States involved in health promotion and disease prevention, using evidence-based and good practices through measures and actions taken at the appropriate level in Member States

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

MS having a national initiative on reduction of saturated fat. Baseline 2012: 12. MS in which the European accreditation scheme for breast cancer services is implemented – establishment of the scheme. Baseline 2012: 0 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 28 MS 28 MS

16 MS || 18 MS || 20 MS || 22 MS 10 MS || 24 MS || 25 MS

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || identify and develop coherent approaches and promote their implementation for better preparedness and coordination in health emergencies

Indicator: || number of Member States integrating coherent approaches in the design of their preparedness plans

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

To be determined through a study. Results are expected at the end of 2014[119] || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 24 MS

3 MS || 4 MS || 8 MS || 14 MS || 18 MS || 20 MS

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || identify and develop tools and mechanisms at Union level to address shortages of resources, both human and financial, and to facilitate the voluntary uptake of innovations in public health intervention and prevention strategies

Indicator: || advice produced and the number of Member States using the tools and mechanisms identified in order to contribute to effective results in their health systems

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

Number of Health Technology Assessment produced Baseline 2012: 2 Information on the number of MS not yet available at this stage. || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 50 annually

6 || 6 || 6 || 10 || 20 || 40

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || increase access to medical expertise and information for specific conditions beyond national borders, facilitate the application of the results of research and develop tools for the improvement of healthcare quality and patient safety

Indicator: || number of European reference networks established in accordance with Directive 2011/24/EU

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 8

0 || 3 || 5 || 6 || 8 || 8

Indicator: || number of healthcare providers and centres of expertise joining European reference networks

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||                                 148

0 || 45 || 81 || 106 || 148 || 148

Indicator: || number of Member States using the tools developed

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

0 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 ||                                   13

0 || 0 || 5 || 7 || 9 || 11

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Via implementing reports, dissemination reports Via mid-term and ex-post evaluations Monitoring data from publicly available databases (e.g. Eurostat and OECD) Via progress brochures and public project database

Actors involved in monitoring || European Commission EU Member States and National Focal Points Executive Agency for Health and Consumers European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Details on actions/projects funded Budget implementation Key results achieved over the year

Planned use of information || AAR Implementation reports Where necessary, spending programme adjustments Communications to the European Parliament and Council

Frequency of reporting                  || Dedicated section in the DG Health and Consumers Annual Activity Report; Annual implementation reports; 1 Mid-term; 1 ex-post

Indicate availability of reports  in the timeline Annual activity reports Implementing reports Mid-term evaluation Ex-post evaluation of the previous Health Programme (2008-13) || 2014 X X || 2015 X X X || 2016 X X || 2017 X X || 2018 X X X || 2019 X X || 2020 X X

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || End 2015 Ex-post evaluation of the 2008-2013 Health Programme Issues: effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value Coverage: spending programme, priorities To fulfil the legal obligation (Article 13 (3)(c) of Decision No 1350/2007/EC) for reporting to EP and Council on the implementation and results of the Programme. European Commission, Executive Agency,  EU Member States, Civil society

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Mid-2017 Mid-term Progress made in meeting the Programme objectives, determining whether the thematic priorities and actions financed are relevant for the achievement of the Programme objectives and whether its resources have been used efficiently, assessing its European added value, etc. For possible adjustments necessary for achieving the Programme’s objectives to be adopted by delegated acts, and other remedial action European Commission, Executive Agency, EU Member States, Civil society

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results (e.g.  remedial action, preparation of a successor) 5. Actors involved || End 2021  Ex-post evaluation 2014-2020 Issues: effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value, utility Coverage: spending programme, priorities European Commission,  Executive Agency, EU Member States, Civil society

Consumer Programme

Title spending programme: || Consumer Programme

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Programme foresees that by 30 September 2017 an evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives of all the measures, the efficiency of the use of resources and its European added value, in view of a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The longer-term impacts and the sustainability of effects of the Consumer Programme should also be evaluated with a view to feeding into a decision on a possible renewal, modification or suspension of a subsequent programme.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || To ensure a high level of consumer protection, to empower consumers and to place the consumer at the heart of the internal market, within the framework of an overall strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth

Impact indicator: || Baseline (2011) || Milestone (2017) || Long term target (2020)

Consumer conditions index[120] (2011) || 62 (on a scale of 100) || 65 || 67

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE I || Safety: to consolidate and enhance product safety through effective market surveillance throughout the Union

Indicator: || Percentage of RAPEX notifications (Rapid Alert System for Dangerous Consumer Products) entailing at least one reaction (by other Member States) Source: RAPEX

Baseline || Milestone (2017) || Target 2020

43% (2010) || 45% || Increase of 10% (47.5%)

Indicator: || Ratio number of reactions/number of RAPEX notifications (serious risks) % Source: RAPEX

Baseline || Milestone (2017) || Target 2020

1.07 (2010) || 1.15 || Increase of 15% ( 1.23)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE II || Consumer information and education, and support to consumer organisations: to improve consumers’ education, information and awareness of their rights, to develop the evidence base for consumer policy and to provide support to consumer organisations, including taking into account the specific needs of vulnerable consumers

Indicator: || Number of complaint bodies and number of countries submitting complaints to the European Consumer Complaints Registration System (ECCRS) (Source: ECCRS)

Baseline || Milestone (2017) || Target 2020

33 complaint bodies from 7 countries in 2012 || 50 complaint bodies from 14 countries || 70 complaint bodies from 20 countries

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE II || Rights and redress: to develop and reinforce consumer rights in particular through smart regulatory action and improving access to simple, efficient, expedient and low-cost redress including alternative dispute resolution

Indicator: || Percentage of those cases dealt with by European Consumer Centres (ECCs) and not resolved directly with traders which were subsequently referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). (Source: Annual ECC report)

Baseline || Milestones (2017) || Target 2020

9% in 2010 || 42% || 75%

Indicator ||  Number of cases dealt with by a Union-wide online dispute resolution system. (Source: ODR platform)

Baseline || Milestones (2017) || Target 2020

17 500 (complaints received by ECCs related to e-commerce transactions) in 2010. || 58 000 || 100 000

Indicator: || Percentage of consumers who took action in response to a problem encountered in the past 12 months. (Source: Consumer Scoreboard)

Baseline || Milestones (2017) || Target 2020

83% in 2010 || 86% || 90%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE IV || Enforcement: to support enforcement of consumer rights by strengthening cooperation between national enforcement bodies and by supporting consumers with advice

Indicator: || Level of information flow and cooperation with the CPC Network

Baseline: annualised average 2007-2010 || Milestone (2017) || Target 2020

- 129 requests to exchange information between CPC authorities - 142 requests for enforcement measures between CPC authorities - 63 alters within the CPC network (source: CPC Network database) || 156 172 76 || Increase of 30%  (167) Increase of 30% (184) Increase of 30% (82)

Indicator: || Percentage of  enforcement requests handled within 12 months within the CPC network (Source: CPC network database)

Baseline || Milestone (2017) || Target 2020

50% (reference period 2007-2010) || 55% || 60%

Indicator: || Percentage of information requests handled within 3 months within the CPC Network

Baseline || Milestone (2017) || Target 2020

33% (reference period 2007-2010) (source: CPC Network database) || 37% ||  50%

Indicator: || Number of contacts with consumers handled by the ECC (source: ECC report)

Baseline || Milestone (2017) || Target 2020

71 000 (2010) || 88 750 || Increase of 50% (106 500)

Indicator: || Number of visits to the websites of the ECCs.

Baseline 2011 || Milestone (2017) || Target 2020

1 670 000 (source: ECCNet evaluation report) || 2 254 500 || Increase of 70% (2 839 000)

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Via implementing reports, dissemination reports Via mid-term and ex-post evaluations Monitoring data from publicly available databases (e.g. Eurostat and OECD), ECC-Net, RAPEX, ECCRS, Consumer Conditions Scoreboard

Actors involved in monitoring || European Commission Executive Agency for Health and Consumers Network of European Consumer Centres (ECC-Net)

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Details on actions/projects funded Budget implementation Key results achieved over the year

Planned use of information || AAR Implementation reports Where necessary, spending programme adjustments Communications to the European Parliament and Council

Frequency of reporting                  || dedicated section in the DG Health and Consumers Annual Activity Report; 1 Mid-term; 1 ex-post

Indicate availability of reports  in the timeline Annual reports Ex-post evaluation of 2007-13 programme Mid-term evaluation || 2014 X || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X X X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 X

Evaluations of the spending programme

1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || End 2017 Mid-term review 2014-2020 Consumer Programme and ex-post evaluation of 2007-2013 EU Consumer Programme (these will be done together) Issues: effectiveness, efficiency and EU added-value of programme Coverage: Spending programme; priorities Use: Improve programme implementation and set up possible successor programmes European Commission; Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency

1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 2021 Ex-post evaluation of the  Consumer Programme 2014-2020 Issues: effectiveness, efficiency and EU value-added of programmes. Coverage: Spending programme; priorities Use: Assess programme results; improve programme implementation and set up possible successor programmes European Commission; Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency

Creative Europe

Title spending programme: || Creative Europe

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The programme is managed centrally by the Commission, with the help of an Executive Agency (indirect central management), and its budget is not broken down per country. Projects are only supported on quality grounds and they are individually monitored by the Agency through the usual monitoring tools such as for instance on-site visits and sample audits in addition to contractual monitoring obligations (final and, where foreseen, interim report) A regular reporting will be carried out within the framework of Annual Activity Reports (AAR). The information on impact indicators will be reported on through the mid-term and the ex-post evaluation reports scheduled respectively for 2017 and 2022. A mid-term evaluation of the programme will be launched in 2016 and will cover all three strands of the programme (i.e. MEDIA, Culture and Cross-sectoral activities). The results of previous programmes in the field of culture will be taken into account. A final evaluation of the programme will be launched in 2020. The Creative Europe programme committee, composed of representatives from the member States, will be informed as appropriate on the programme implementation and the results of its monitoring and evaluation.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 3 ||  (a) to safeguard, develop and promote European cultural and linguistic diversity and to promote Europe's cultural heritage; (b) to strengthen the competitiveness of the European cultural and creative sectors, in particular of the audiovisual sector, with a view to promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Indicators highlighted with an asterisk(*) below are mandatory (from programme legal basis)

* Impact indicator 12: Access of EU citizens to European non-national cultural works Definition:  Percentage of Europeans reporting that they access European non-national cultural and creative works Source:  Special Eurobarometer 399 on Cultural access and participation (2013); mid-term evaluation, 2018

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

% of Europeans declaring that they benefited from the following items from another European country: · 31% read a book; · 27% watched or listened to a cultural programme on TV/radio; · 19% visited a historical monument or site; · 13% were to a musical performance; · 10% attended a performance, festival, etc; · 6% seen a ballet, dance performance, or opera; · 4% been to a theatre performance. || || || || || To be assessed during mid-term evaluation on data until 2017 || || Increase of 2% in comparison to 2013 results

* Impact indicator 13: Contribution of cultural and creative sectors to the EU economy Definition: The cultural and creative sectors' share in the total European workforce and European GDP Source: EU competitiveness report 2010

Baseline (2010) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Between 3% and 3.8% of the total European workforce[121] Between 3.3% and 4.5% of total European GDP || || || || || To safeguard 2010 figures || || 4% of the total European workforce 4,8% of total European GDP

* Impact Indicator 14: Audience of European audiovisual works (MEDIA sub-programme)  Definition: a) Number of people (in %) in the EU accessing non-national European audiovisual works; b) number of people (in %) in the countries participating in the programme accessing European audiovisual works.  Source: European Audiovisual Observatory Annual Report; mid-term evaluation of MEDIA sub-programme

Baseline (not available) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

EU || || || || 60% || || || 66%

Participating countries || || || || 55% || || || 60%

Specific Objective 3.1:   To promote the transnational circulation of cultural and creative works and transnational mobility of cultural and creative players, in particular artists, as well as to reach new and enlarged audiences and improve access to cultural and creative works in the Union and beyond, with a particular focus on children, young people, people with disabilities and under-represented groups;  

* Result Indicator 40: Audience of the Creative Europe programme (Culture sub-programme) Definition:  Number of people directly and indirectly reached through projects supported by the Programme Source: Future projects final reports and mid-term programme evaluation 

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

No baseline, first known results (2017)  available in 2018 for the first time || || || || 46 million || || || 80 million

* Result Indicator 41: Global audience of European films in cinemas (MEDIA Subprogramme) Definition: Number of admissions for non-national European films in Europe and European films worldwide (10 most important non-European markets) based on the number of cinema tickets sold. Source: Annual report of the European Audiovisual Observatory; Rentrak database (non-European markets) 

Baseline (2009) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

EU: 120 million || || || || 135 million || || || 150 million

Worldwide:  117 million || || || || 135 million || || || 165 million

* Result Indicator 42: Market share of European audiovisual works in Europe (MEDIA sub-programme) Definition: % of European audiovisual works programmed in cinemas, TV and digital platforms in the EU Source: annual report of the European Audiovisual Observatory   

Baseline (2009 & 2010) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

Cinemas: 59% || || || || 59% || || || 60%

TV: 66.4% || || || || 66.4% || || || 67%

Digital platforms:48,2% || || || || 55% || || || 67%

* Result Indicator 43: Production of European video games (MEDIA sub-programme)   Definition: Estimated turnover of companies producing video games a) in the Union; b) in the 5 largest national markets in the EU (DE, FR, IT, NL, UK) Source: PWC Global entertainment and media outlook 2013-2017   

Baseline (2011) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

EU: €21.3 bn || || || || €25bn || || || €30 bn

5 biggest markets €13.35 bn || || || || €14.5bn || || || €16 bn

Result Indicator 44: Supported circulation of non-national European films in Europe Definition: % of European non-national films programmed by Europa Cinemas Network across Europe Source:  Annual report of the European Audiovisual Observatory, Annual Report of the Europe Cinemas Network

Baseline (2010) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

36% || || || || 38% || || || 40%

Specific Objective 3.2: To support the capacity of the European cultural and creative sectors to operate transnationally and internationally

* Result indicator 45: Internationalisation of EU-supported cultural operators (Creative Europe)  Definition: Number of transnational partnership projects funded by the Creative Europe programme with the participation of operators from more than 3 countries Source:   Projects final reports

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

7 000 transnational partnerships || || || || 7 600 || || || 8 000 transnational partnerships

* Result Indicator 46: Professionals with better skills and employability (Creative Europe)  Definition: Number of professionals (artists, cultural and creative operators, including audiovisual professionals) with learning experience gained through the Creative Europe programme which have increased their skills and employability Source:   Projects final reports

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

140 000 professionals with learning experience || || || || 190 000 || || || 240 000 professionals with learning experiences

Specific Objective 3.3: To strengthen the financial capacity of SMEs and micro, small and medium-sized organisations in the cultural and creative sectors in a sustainable way, while endeavouring to ensure a balanced geographical coverage and sector representation;

* Result indicator 47: Guaranteed loan supply Definition: Total volume of loans granted to SMEs in cultural and creative sectors in the framework of the financial facility[122]    Source: annual report from the European Investment Fund

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

20 million EUR supported loans || || || || 180 million EUR || || || 0,5 billion EUR

* Result indicator 48: Average default rate of loans Definition: The average default range of loans granted to SMEs in cultural and creative sectors in the framework of the financial facility Source: annual report from the European Investment Fund

Baseline (2011)[123] || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

10% (estimated) || || || || || 9% || || 8%

* Result indicator 49: Leverage effect of guaranteed loans Definition: Leverage effect of guaranteed loans in relation to the indicative leverage effect (1:5,7) achieved by SMEs in cultural and creative sectors in the framework of the financial facility Source: annual report from the European Investment Fund

Baseline (2011)[124] || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

1 : 5,7 (estimated) || || || || 1:5,7 || || || 1:6

Result Indicator 50: Diversity of guaranteed loan supply Definition: Number and geographical spread of banks and other financial institutions providing access to finance for the cultural and creative sectors through the guarantee facility Source: annual report from the European Investment Fund

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

2 financial institutions from 2 Member States || || || || 7 financial institutions from 5 different Member States || || || 10 financial institutions from 10 different Member States

Result Indicator 51: Diversity of guaranteed loan beneficiaries Definition: Number, national origin and sub-sectors of final beneficiaries benefitting from the financial facility[125]  Source: annual report from the European Investment Fund

Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

100 beneficiaries from audio-visual sector from 8 Member States || || || || 3 000 beneficiaries from 5 sub-sectors, from 10 Member States || || || 10 000 beneficiaries from 5 sub-sectors, from 15 Member States

Specific Objective 3.4:  To foster policy development, innovation, creativity, audience development and new business and management models through support for transnational policy cooperation.

* Result indicator 52: Influence of EU cultural cooperation on national policy making Definition: Number of Member States making use of the results of the Open Method of Coordination in their national policy development and the number of new initiatives to improve policy making  Source: Voluntary reports by EU MS 

Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target 2020

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

10 Member States || 12 || 13 || 14 || 15 || 16 || 17 || 20

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets is tracked || The main monitoring and reporting obligations are specified in the Article 18 of the Regulation establishing the Creative Europe Programme. The article lists a number of indicators which should be regularly (on annual basis) monitored by the Commission. The general issues to be monitored include the cultural and creative sectors shares in economy, employment levels in sectors as well as demand for the products and services within the sector.  The specific issues to be monitored include the scale of international activities within the sector, learning experiences, penetration of European audiovisual works in cinemas and digital platforms, number of people benefiting from the projects including children and young, volume and structure of loans granted, etc. Depending on their nature, they can be monitored in different ways including studies, annual activity reports, reports from the European Audiovisual Observatory, reports form the European Investment Fund and the programme's mid-term evaluation.

Actors involved in monitoring || Programme end users: Applicant organisations, beneficiary organisations, individual participants Administrative / Implementing bodies of the Programme: the Member States will be informed through the Creative Europe programme committee. Other elements might be gathered by the Commission and its executive Agency and submitted for information to the programme committee.

Planned use of information || All indicators set in the programme will be reported on in the mid-term and ex-post evaluations and, where relevant, in the corresponding Commission's Annual Activity Report. When available, monitoring and evaluation findings will feed in the adjustments made to the implementation of the current programme or in the preparation of the next generation of programmes.

Frequency of reporting || Annual. Other forms of reporting to the Creative Europe programme committee, if appropriate, could be for example annual and might consist for example of general reports on the programme implementation, of presentations before the programme committee or of specific reports or notes sent to the committee. The time of the year is not known at this stage. It will be part of the Creative Europe committee meeting/discussions.

Availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 Q2 || 2015 Q2 || 2016 Q2 || 2017 Q2 || 2018 Q2 || 2019 Q2 || 2020 Q2

Evaluations of the spending programme

Deadline || 2017

Type || External, Retrospective and Prospective; Mid-term incl. ex-post evaluations of previous MFF period

Main issues addressed and coverage || - continued relevance and effectiveness of objectives; efficiency, sustainability, utility, European added value, internal and external coherence - scope for simplification of the programme - contribution to the realisation of Europe 2020

Planned use of evaluation results || -Improvement of design and execution of the Programme - Preparation of a successor Programme

Actors involved || External Contractors, European Commission, EACEA, selected National authorities and  national agencies, Programme beneficiaries and applicants, stakeholders from the cultural and creative sectors

Deadline || 2022

Type || External, Retrospective and Prospective; Final evaluation

Main issues addressed  and coverage || - continued relevance and effectiveness of objectives; efficiency, sustainability, utility, European added value, internal and external coherence - contribution to the realisation of Europe 2020

Planned use of evaluation results || -Improvement of design and execution of the next generation programme

Actors involved || External Contractors, European Commission, EACEA, selected National authorities and  national agencies, selected final beneficiary organisations; other stakeholders

H4 Global Europe

Introduction with regard to the programmes: ENI, DCI, EIDHR, PI, INSC, and IcSP (specific objective 3)

The programmes financed in the area of external actions are large and complex and involve a variety of legal instruments in the new Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF); some are thematic (European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace, Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation) and one is both geographic and thematic (Development Co-operation Instrument).

Most of the funds are used in partner countries via different types of interventions (projects and programmes, pooled funds with other donors, budget support, etc.) managed mainly by EU Delegations (EUD), although some funds are managed centrally by Headquarters. In each country, funding under several instruments may be used in order to reach the objectives of EU cooperation with the given country.

EuropeAid’s overall monitoring, reporting and evaluation framework applies across spending instruments and programmes. For the Neighbourhood countries, specific additional reporting takes place through annual progress reports which account for the implementation of the Action Plans, where these have been agreed in order to monitor the progress of the countries aligning with the EU’s acquis of internal rules and systems.

The main elements of EuropeAid’s overall monitoring and reporting framework for the MFF 2014-2020 are the following:

· Internal monitoring and reporting by Commission services and EU Delegations: the monitoring by the operational managers, in the Delegation or HQ services, of the progress of project/programme implementation through the collection and analysis of data from progress reports, field visits and other meetings and sources.

· External monitoring by independent consultants (ROM – Results oriented monitoring system): a standardized external review which looks at a share of EuropAid’s project performance and gives recommendations for improvement. The system is centrally managed by Headquarters but is being reformed for the second quarter of 2014. This will turn the system more in support of the management of projects and programmes, in particular where implementation poses a problem. It will also enable it to support more effectively the monitoring and reporting on projects and programmes, in particular the reporting on results.

· External evaluations of projects and programmes: they provide an in-depth understanding of project performance and results, identifying lessons learned. They are managed by the operational manager at the EUD level, or at HQ level for the projects and programmes managed by HQ services.

· External evaluations of strategies: strategic evaluations may cover strategies relating to geographic programmes (co-operation with a country or region), or thematic programmes (health, conflict prevention), or also to the use of certain “modalities” (e.g. channelling of aid through intermediaries such as NGOs or the UN). They contribute to the accountability of EU development aid, while identifying lessons for future policies (e.g. in relation to Private sector, Human Rights, Fragile States, etc.) and programming. The Commission services concerned work closely with the European External Action Service on these evaluations.

Monitoring and reporting

EuropeAid’s internal monitoring and reporting system has the purpose of monitoring and reporting EuropeAid’s performance in two different dimensions: the contribution to development results and EuropeAid’s organizational performance (effectiveness and efficiency of EuropeAid in the management of its operations).

EuropeAid’s contributions to development results are captured at project and programme level through indicators specified within the performance monitoring arrangements and frameworks specified in the individual project and programme documents. These indicators are mainly used at outcome and output levels. However, process indicators are used when appropriate.

At the impact development results are monitored as to measure the long term change indirectly influenced by EU funded actions. The indicators being monitored are often the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or other internationally agreed indicators. Most indicators included in the legal basis of the various spending programmes for 2014-2020 are at the impact level.

In that context, milestones and targets have often been agreed to by the EU in international fora. Due to the complexity and cost of data collection for these indicators, their measurement and reporting has - where country statistics were not yet sufficiently reliable-, been entrusted by the EU, its Member States and the global donor community to specialised UN Agencies and International Finance Institutions (IFIs). Updates for these indicators are provided at regular intervals of 3 to 5 years for each country. Thus, for these types of indicators, EuropeAid does not directly collect the information but it receives the information processed by global development partners and reports it under the relevant spending programmes.

At outcome and output level, indicators (including for those mentioned in the legal instruments) are being monitored by EU Delegations and HQ services through project and programme monitoring systems. Guidelines for internal monitoring exist and training is being provided to operational project managers in EU Delegations and in HQ.

At present, the information on project and programme implementation is aggregated at corporate level through two Key Performance Indicators for which the EU Delegations report through the External Assistance Management Reports (EAMR). The two indicators measure the proportion of projects of which the implementation is considered to be on track and the proportion of projects the Delegations consider will attain their objectives.

Information is also aggregated for specific purposes. For example, for the reporting on the EU contributions to the achievement of the MDGs as reported over past years at two occasions (2010 and 2013), the information was aggregated.

Information on the performance of projects and programmes is complemented by external reviews via the Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) system. These are reviews of projects’ and programmes’ performance and are carried out by independent consultants through a standardised methodology. So far, such a review was used to analyse the projects' performance according to the five DAC evaluation criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact), for each of which project performance was subject to qualitative grading, highlighting strengths and weaknesses and accompanied, where appropriate, by  recommendations for improvements.

Today, ROM reviews are carried out for some 30% of the projects and programmes portfolio with an EU contribution of about €1 million that have already been under implementation for at least six months and that have run for a further six months. For projects funded below this amount, a sample of 10% was to be assessed. The system, centrally managed by EuropeAid, was also used to provide an insight into the portfolio's performance at EU Delegation level.

ROM is currently subject to a reform which aims at strengthening the internal project management, monitoring and reporting functions of both EU Delegations and Commission HQ services. The overall reform should be implemented over 2014/2015, the one on internal monitoring and reporting progressively over 2014 and 2015 and the one on ROM over 2014.

Furthermore, as from 2015, the forthcoming establishment of an EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework should enable DEVCO to aggregate information in a more systematic way on selected outcomes and outputs at corporate level[126].

As far as the reporting on organisational performance is concerned, the Authorising Officers by Sub-delegation (AOSD) within EuropeAid and EU Delegations, draw an annual report in which they sign a statement of assurance on the sound management of the funds (sub)-delegated to them and on the legality and regularity of the underlying operations.

The reporting function and assurance chain within DG DEVCO is organised along the Control Pyramid concept and based on a set of indicators supporting the assurance provided by the AO(S)D and/or on the monitoring of the implementation of specific policies or activities decided by the DG. At the basis of the Control Pyramid is the External Assistance Management Report (EAMR) elaborated by the Heads of Union Delegations in accordance with Article 67.3 of the Financial Regulation[127].

The External Assistance Management Reports, the reports of the Directors within EuropeAid and the Annual Activity Report contain a set of 26 Key Performance indicators (covering aspects of efficiency and effectiveness) for part of which quantified targets are set in the Management Plan. The monitoring of the execution against these targets is reported regularly to the EuropeAid Management and actions are to be undertaken by Directorates and Delegations to tackle identified deviations.

The set of EAMR reports for a corresponding year are enclosed in the Annual Activity Report of EuropeAid and are put at the disposal of the European Parliament shortly after the adoption by the Commission of the Synthesis Report on the European Commission’s management Achievements.

Evaluations

The strategic evaluations of “spending programmes” included in tables 5.1 to 5.7 concern National indicative programmes (country level), Regional indicative programmes and Thematic programmes, all multi annual.  DG EuropeAid’s Evaluation Unit is responsible for the management of these evaluations. Each year around 15 evaluations are finalised[128]  and all are published on the Commission's website[129].

Various measures have been taken to respond to the requirements of the new Common Implementing Regulation (CIR). Firstly, the revised terms of reference require the evaluation team (external consultants who undertake evaluations) to make a distinction in each evaluation between the different legal instruments applied and to formulate specific conclusions on each of them. Secondly, a new Evaluation plan is under preparation which is designed to provide adequate evidence for the mid-term report on financial instruments (effectiveness, efficiency, impact and EU value added) in all the main policy areas of the new instruments. To do so, and to prepare the new MFF after 2020, the draft 2014-18 work programme intends to have a balance between geographic evaluations (14 in ACP countries, 5 in Asia, 2 in Central and Latin America and 4 in Neighbourhood countries; plus 5 regional evaluations) and other types of evaluations (9 to 10 budget support evaluations and 5 on other channels and modalities, along with 14 thematic evaluations). In addition, meta-evaluations (the reviews of existing strategic evaluations) are planned to be launched in 2016 as to provide information for 2017, as required in the new CIR and EDF regulation on the following:

·  Poverty & women’s empowerment;

·  Primary education;

·  Health including children and women;

·  Private sector & trade in rural and urban areas;

·  Environmental sustainability & climate change;

·  Fragile States; and

·  Graduation strategies for middle income countries.

Funding is nevertheless a continuous process and because the implementation of actions financed under the old instruments may continue well into the period of the new MFF, the principle of continuity is applied between the old financial instruments and the new ones.

Hereunder there is a draft of the Evaluation plan for strategic evaluations. It has still to be discussed and finalised and formally approved. This means that some changes can still occur.

In addition, the planning of some evaluations (particularly the Joint evaluations with other donors, and with strong involvement of the partner country) is tentative. On average, a geographic evaluation takes at least 12 months and a thematic evaluation at least 18 months.  Evaluation Plan 2014-2018

· Fixed plan[130]

Note: Joint evaluation and Budget support evaluations depend of the final willingness of other partners (member states, partner country).

Year of launch || Countries and regions || Thematic evaluations || Channel & Instruments || Other Evaluations || Other Studies

2014 || · Chad · Côte d’Ivoire (JO) · Ghana (BS)? · Lesotho · Sierra Leone (UK BS) · Uganda (BS) · Asia BS? · Bangladesh (JO) · Pakistan · Paraguay (BS) · Central Asia (RE) || · Higher Education; · Combat drought and famine in the Sahel and the Horn of Africa; · Democracy. || · Delegated cooperation. || || · Quality process and assessment; · Country sector evaluations; · Lessons learned budget support.

2015 || · Ethiopia · Rwanda · Senegal (BS) · South Sudan (JO) · Afghanistan (JO) · Guatemala (JO) · Egypt (BS) · Eastern & Southern  Africa (RE) || · LRRD; · Renewable forms of energy OR Rural energy; · Agriculture; · Support to food security; · Energy for all. || · Blending. || ||

· To prepare the CIR reports due in 2017

2016 || · Burkina Faso (BS) · Malawi (BS) · East Caribbean · PNGuinea · Myanmar · Nicaragua (JO) · Armenia · West Africa (RE) || · Human Rights; · Nuclear Safety; · Social protection & transfers. || || ·  Graduation (China- UMIC/India-LMIC/ Mexico-UMIC); · Meta evaluations on: - Poverty & women’s empowerment; - Primary education; - Health including children & women; - Private sector & trade; - Environmental sustainability & climate change; - - Fragile States. ||

Note: Meta evaluations (the reviews of existing strategic evaluations) should start in the second semester of 2016 and last not more than 6 months:

· First 3 topics will depend on post 2015 MDG while also linked to the Agenda for Change;

· Last 4 topics are more linked to the implementation of the Agenda for Change (including the evaluation of “graduation”).

· Tentative plan for 2017-2018

Year of launch || Countries and regions || Thematic evaluations || Channel & Instruments || Other Evaluations || Other Studies

2017 || · Guinea Bissau Niger · Somalia (JO) · Tanzania (JO) · Asia (BS)/Cambodia? · El Salvador (BS) · Moldova · Morocco · Mercosur (RE) || ·  Resilience; ·  Policy coherence for development. || || || · Lessons learned budget support; · CIR EDF report; · CIR (other) Financial instruments report.

2018 || · Mali · Fiji & other countries around · Tajikistan · Lebanon · Central Africa (RE) || · New Deal; · Conflict prevention & peace building; · Vocational training/education; · Health OR Water & sanitation. || · Funds implemented by NGO; · Support to local authorities. || · Fitness check EDF. || · Evaluating budget support: division of labour between HQ & EUDs; methodology refinement; · Review of evaluations undertaken by UN & WB.

ENI (European Neighbourhood Instrument)

Title spending programme || ENI (European Neighbourhood Instrument)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || Please refer to introduction section under heading 4.

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS, MILESTONES AND TARGETS

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1: Establishing an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness involving the Union and the partner countries by developing a special relationship founded on cooperation, peace and security, mutual accountability and shared commitment to universal values of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in accordance with the Treaty on EU.

IMPACT INDICATOR: Number of comprehensive agreements and individual ENP Action Plans in place with interested neighbouring countries*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestone 2014 || Milestone 2017 || Long term target (2020)

Neighbourhood East: · 5 Partnership and Cooperation Agreements in force, one Association Agreement (Ukraine) initiated on 30.03.2012 · Negotiations for Association Agreements ongoing with 4 countries: Republic of Moldova (launched in January 2010), Armenia, Azerbaijan & Georgia (July 2010). · 5 Action Plans in force.  Neighbourhood South: · Association Agreements in force with 8 of the 10 southern partners (i.e. excluding Libya and Syria). · 3 first generation Action Plans (or equivalent documents) adopted or in place: Israel, Egypt, and Palestine. · Second generation action plans for Jordan and Morocco approved. Political agreement on the second generation of Action Plans for Tunisia and Lebanon, but formal adoption by the Council pending. · Since 2012 negotiations with Algeria on an ENP action plan. Comment: Libya: Discussions ongoing on the possibility to re-start negotiations for a Framework Agreement. The ratification of Association Agreement with Syria suspended. || Neighbourhood East: Two Association Agreements signed (Georgia and Moldova) Neighbourhood South: ENP action plans adopted with Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine and Tunisia. Restart of negotiations on the EU Libya Framework Agreement. || The negotiations and conclusions of agreements and ENP action plans show a positive trend. || 16 Association or similarly comprehensive Agreements in force and 16 Action Plans or similar documents adopted by 2020.  

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, principles of equality, and fight against discrimination in all its forms, establishing deep and sustainable democracy, promoting good governance, fight against corruption, strengthening institutional capacity at all levels and developing a thriving civil society including social partners.

INDICATOR 1: Number of countries above 40% average based on following World Bank Good Governance Indicator(s): “Voice and accountability”; “Government effectiveness”; “Rule of Law”; “Control of corruption”. || Baseline (2011) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

5 || 10 || 14 (of which 4 above 50%)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Achieving progressive integration into the Union internal market and enhanced sector and cross-sectoral cooperation including through legislative approximation and regulatory convergence towards Union and other relevant international standards, and improved market access including through deep and comprehensive free trade areas, related institution building and investments, notably in interconnections.

INDICATOR 1: Value of ENI countries export to EU-28 in relation to baseline data in year 2010 (Eurostat figures)*. || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2017) || Target (2020)

· East: EUR 25 billion. · South: EUR 62 billion. || · East: EUR 29 billion. · South: EUR 83 billion || · East: EUR 32 billion. · South: EUR 101 billion.

INDICATOR 2: Number of Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTA) and Agreements on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of industrial products (ACAA)*. || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2017) || Target (2020)

· East: o No DCFTA and ACAA signed; o 4 DCFTA under negotiation. · South: o 1 ACAA; o 4 Agreements on liberalisation of trade in agriculture; 1 Memorandum of Understanding on Energy. || · East: 4 DCFTA in place. · South: o 1 DCFTA in place and 3 in negotiations; o 1 ACAA in place and 3 under negotiation; o 4 Agreements on liberalisation of trade in agriculture in place and 1 being negotiated; o 1 Agreement on Air Transport in place; 2 Memorandum of Understanding on Energy in place. || · East: DCFTA in place with all interested ENI countries. · South: o 4 DCFTA in place; o 4 ACAA in place; o Agreements on liberalisation of trade in agriculture in place; o 2 Agreements on Air Transport in place; o 2 Memorandum of Understanding on Energy in place.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Creating conditions for the better organisation of legal migration and the fostering of a well-managed mobility of people, for the implementation of existing and future agreements concluded in line with Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, and for and promotion of people-to-people contacts, in particular in relation to cultural, educational, professional and sporting activities.

INDICATOR 1: Number of Mobility Partnerships in place*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestone (2017) || Target (2020)

· East: 3 Mobility Partnerships in place and none under negotiation (2012). · South: Mobility Partnership signed with one country in 2013. Preparatory discussions launched with two countries. || · East: 1 under negotiation. · South: o 2 in place; o 2 under negotiation. || · East: 4 Mobility Partnerships in place. · South: 4 in place.

INDICATOR 2: Number of readmission/visa facilitation agreements and Visa Liberalisation Action Plans (VLAP) in place*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestone (2017) || Target (2020)

· East: o 1 readmission/visa facilitation agreements in place and 2 under negotiation;  o 2 Visa Liberalisation Action Plan in place. · South: No agreements/Visa Liberalisation Action Plans in place. || · East: 3 readmission/visa facilitation agreements. · South: 2 readmission/visa facilitation agreements in place. || · East: 4 Visa Liberalisation Action Plans. · South: 5 readmission/visa facilitation agreements in place.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4: Supporting smart, sustainable and inclusive development in all aspects; poverty reduction, including through private-sector development and reduction of social exclusion; promoting of capacity building in science, education and in particular higher education, technology, research and innovation; promotion of internal economic, social and territorial cohesion; rural development; public health; environmental protection, climate action and disaster resilience.

INDICATOR 1: Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index (source: UNDP). || Baseline (2011) || Milestones (2017) || Target (2020)

· East: 2 countries with indicator equal or above 0.655 on the scale of 1 (between high and very high human development). · South: 1 country with indicator equal or above 0.590 on the scale of 1 (high human development). N.B: Countries with no data considered below threshold. || · East: 4 countries with an indicator equal to or above 0.655 · South: 2 countries with an indicator equal to or above 0.590 || · East: 5 countries with an indicator equal to or above 0.655 · South: 4 countries with an indicator equal to or above 0.590

INDICATOR 2: Ease of doing business index (1=most business-friendly regulations). || Baseline (2012) || Milestones (2017) || Target (2020)

Number of countries ranking among the first 100:

· East – 5 (out of 6) · South – 3 (out of 10) || · East – 5 (out of 6) · South – 4 (out of 10) || · East – 6 (out of 6) · South – 5 (out of 10)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5: Promoting confidence building, good neighbourly relations and other measures contributing to security in all forms and the prevention and settlement of conflicts, including protracted conflicts.

INDICATOR 1: Political stability and absence of violence: number of countries in a percentile rank above 0-10 (lowest rank). || Baseline (2011) || Milestones (2017) || Target (2020)

· East:  4 countries in a percentile rank above 0-30 (Armenia, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine). · South:  6 countries in a percentile rank above 0-10 (Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Israel) || · East: 5 countries · South: 8 countries (6 + Algeria, Lebanon) || · East: 6 countries · South: 9 countries (8+ Syria))

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 6: Enhancing sub-regional, regional and Neighbourhood wide collaboration as well as Cross-Border Cooperation.

INDICATOR 1: Number of Cross-Border Cooperation programmes in place* || Baseline (2012) || Milestones (2017) || Target (2020)

13 ENPI CBC programmes adopted and implemented || All ENI CBC programmes (17) are adopted. || All 17 programmes foreseen in the CBC Programming Document are fully under implementation and all available funds are committed.

INDICATOR 2: Number of on-going regional programmes covering Southern Neighbourhood countries*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestones (2017) || Target (2020)

50 || 55 || 60

INDICATOR 3: Number of on-going regional programmes covering 3 or more Eastern Partnership countries*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestone (2017) || Target (2020)

70 || 75 || 80

MONITORING AND REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The achievement of the milestones and targets as set out for the present spending programme will be monitored by the international donor community as well as partner countries within the framework of the appropriate UN institutions and gremia. Indicators marked with (*) will be monitored through the internal monitoring and reporting tool as well as through ad-hoc aggregation on the basis of data provided by project/programme internal monitoring systems at country and regional level.

Actors involved in monitoring || EU Delegations and DEVCO Headquarters services, UN institutions, its members (including EU Member states and partner countries), other international institutions, national and international civil society organisations and networks.

Issues covered in subsequent monitoring reports || Information on the status of the indicators above will be included within AAR and DEVCO Development Report on an annual basis.

Planned use of information || Information on the status of the indicators above will be included within AAR and DEVCO Development Report on an annual basis. Information can be used to review MIPs priorities at any time within the programming period (2014-2020). It may also lead to changes in the focus of specific projects and programmes under implementation or still at formulation stage.

Frequency of reporting (yearly reports contain information relating to previous year). || For MDGs -Reporting at country level will be based on data availability as provided by the UN institutions and gremia for 2014 and 2015. Subsequently, reporting will be based on the Post-2015 global framework. For indicators marked with (*) - Frequency of reporting will be annual. Status of indicators will be reported within the Annual Activity Report on an annual basis. Art 13 of Common Implementing Regulation: As of 2015 annual reporting, containing information relating to the previous year, report on the achievement of objectives of each regulation by means of indicators, measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the instrument. The annual report of 2021 contains consolidated info from annual reports of 2014-2020.

Availability of reports in the timeline(yearly reports contain information relating to previous year) || 2014 X || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 X || 2021 x

EVALUATIONS OF THE SPENDING PROGRAMME

1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1: see introduction section under heading 4 for deadlines: ü 3 geographic evaluations; ü 1 budget support evaluation; ü 2 Channels evaluations (Delegated cooperation and Blending) all over the world; ü 12 Thematic evaluations all over the world which cover Education, Food security, Democracy, LRRD, Energy, Agriculture, Human rights, Social protection and transfers, Resilience, PCD); ü Meta evaluations to provide information on financial instruments. 2. All these evaluations will take into account the previous MFF period still under implementation and the new MFF as much as possible. Every strategic evaluation gives a judgement on EU cooperation mainly on the basis of secondary information (outputs of internal monitoring, on-going and final ROM and existing projects and programmes evaluations) complemented by primary information (field visits). 3. All are spending programmes evaluations and will address 7 evaluations criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, EU value added. 4. Mid-term review of multiannual country programmes (to be determined for each country depending of the length of their programming under completion), thematic guidelines, development policies and new MFF. 5. HQ and EUDs + EEAS for geographic evaluations + Member States for geographical joint evaluations + Partner countries for budget support evaluations. 1. 31/12/2017 2. Mid-term review (art 16 common implementing regulation) 3. Implementation of regulation from 1 Jan 2014 to 30 June 2017 and focus on achievements of objectives by means of indicators measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of instruments. 4. Improving implementation of Union's assistance. Inform decisions on multiannual country programmes. 5. Commission and partner countries 1. Post- 2020 (together with interim review of next financial period) 2. Type: final evaluation report 3. Longer-term outcomes and impacts and sustainability of effects of the instruments 4. –design of future instrument and adjustment of follow-up instrument. 5. Commission and partner countries

DCI (Development Cooperation Instrument)

Title spending programme || DCI (Development Cooperation Instrument)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || Please refer to the introduction section under heading 4.

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS, MILESTONES AND TARGETS

GENERAL OBJECTIVE: Fostering the sustainable and inclusive development of partner countries and regions and the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, good governance and the respect of human rights, as foreseen in the TEU, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty.

IMPACT INDICATOR: MDG 1.1: Proportion of population living below 1.25 dollar (PPP) per day.  || Baseline || Target (2015) || Long term target (2020)

43.1% (1990) 22.7% (2008) || 21.5% || TBD post-2015

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Poverty reduction and fostering sustainable economic, social and environmental development.

INDICATOR 1: MDG 1,2 - Poverty gap ratio at 1.25$ a day (2005 PPP), percentage. || Baseline (2008) || Milestone (2015) || Target (2020)

Least Developed Countries (LDCs) : 18.3 || 13.5 || TBD post-2015

INDICATOR 2: MDG 1.5: Employment-to-population ratio, percentage. || Baseline (2011) || Milestone (2015) || Target (2020)

Least Developed Countries (LDCs): 69.0% || INCREASING TREND || TBD post-2015

INDICATOR 3: MDG 3.1: Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary, tertiary education-developing countries. || Baseline (2011) || Milestone (2015) || Target (2020)

Primary level 97%, Secondary level 96%, Tertiary level 98% || 100% || TBD post-2015

INDICATOR 4: MDG 2.2: Proportion of pupils starting in grade 1 who reach the last grade of primary-developing countries. || Baseline (2011) || Milestone (2015) || Target (2020)

89.4% Girls: 88.4% Boys: 91.3% || 100% || TBD post-2015

INDICATOR 5: MDG 4.1: Under-five mortality rate (deaths per 1000 live births). || Baseline (2012) || Milestone (2015) || Target (2020)

Developing regions: 55% || 32.3% || TBD post-2015

INDICATOR 6: MDG 5.1: Maternal Mortality Ratio. || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2015) || Target (2020)

Developing regions: 240 || 110 || TBD post-2015

INDICATOR 7: Prevalence of stunting of children under-five years of age, percentage. || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2015) || Target (2020)

Developing Regions: 37% || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || 20%

25.4% || 24.4 % || 23.6 % || 22.6 % || 21.7 % || 20.8 % || 20 %

INDICATOR 8: CO2 equivalent emission reduction by 2020 in the context of global action to keep the global temperature rise below 2°C. || Baseline (2009) || Milestone (2017) || Target (2020)

Developing countries: 29.7 GtCO2 equivalent Globally: 50.1 GtCO2 equivalent || Developing countries:  27-31 GtCO2 equivalent Globally: 46 GtCO2 equivalent || Developing countries:26-32 GtCO2 equivalent Globally: 44 GtCO2 equivalent

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Consolidating and supporting democracy, the rule of law, good governance, human rights and the relevant principles of international law.

INDICATOR 1: Number of DCI beneficiary countries having improved their overall governance performance annually as measured by the World Bank's Worldwide Governance indicator average. || Baseline (average 2007 -2012) || Milestones || Target (2020)

20 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 30

20 || 20 || 23 || 25 || 25 || 27

INDICATOR 2: Number of projects funded from the DCI to promote democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect of human rights in the DCI beneficiary countries*. || Baseline (average 2010-2012) || Milestones || Target (2020)

70 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 100

70 || 70 || 75 || 80 || 85 || 90

INDICATOR 3: Level of political representation of women: percentage of women as parliamentarians worldwide. || Baseline (2011) || Milestone (2016) || Target (2020)

19.7 % || 26% || 40%

MONITORING AND REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked. || The achievement of the milestones and targets as set out for the present spending programme will be monitored by the international donor community as well as partner countries within the framework of the appropriate UN institutions and gremia. Indicators marked with (*) will be monitored through the internal monitoring and reporting tool.

Actors involved in monitoring || EU Delegations and DEVCO Headquarters services, UN institutions, its members (including EU Member states and partner countries), other international institutions, national and international civil society organisations and networks.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Information on the status of the indicators above will be included within AAR and DEVCO Development Report on an annual basis.

Planned use of information || Information collected will be used to review MIPs priorities at any time within the programming period (2014-2020). It may also lead to changes in the focus of specific projects and programmes under implementation or still at formulation stage.

Frequency of reporting || For MDGs -Reporting at country level will be based on data availability as provided by the UN institutions and gremia for 2014 and 2015. Subsequently, reporting will be based on the Post-2015 global framework. For indicators marked with (*) - Frequency of reporting will be annual. Status of indicators will be reported within the Annual Activity Report on an annual basis. Art 13 of Common Implementing Regulation: As of 2015 annual reporting, containing information relating to the previous year, report on the achievement of objectives of each regulation by means of indicators, measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the instrument. The annual report of 2021 contains consolidated info from annual reports of 2014-2020.

Availability of reports in the timeline (yearly reports contain information relating to previous year) || 2014 X || 2015 X || 2016 X || 2017 X || 2018 X || 2019 X || 2020 X || 2021 X

EVALUATIONS OF THE SPENDING PROGRAMME

1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1.  for deadlines see introduction section below heading 4. - 8 geographic evaluations including regional ones (Asia, Central and Latin America); - 2 to 3 budget support evaluations in the same regions; - 2 Channels evaluations (Delegated cooperation and Blending) all over the world; - 13 Thematic evaluations all over the world which cover Education, Food security, Democracy, LRRD, Energy, Agriculture, Human rights, Social protection and transfers, Resilience, PCD); - Meta evaluations to provide information on financial instruments. 2. All these evaluations will take into account the previous MFF period still under implementation and the new MFF as much as possible. Every strategic evaluation gives a judgement on EU cooperation mainly on the basis of secondary information (outputs of internal monitoring, on-going and final ROM and existing projects and programmes evaluations) complemented by primary information (field visits). 3. All are spending programmes evaluations and will address 7 evaluations criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, EU value added. 4. Mid-term review of multiannual country programmes (to be determined for each country depending of the length of their programming under completion), thematic guidelines, development policies and new MFF. 5. HQ and EUDs + EEAS for geographic evaluations + Member States for geographical joint evaluations + Partner countries for budget support evaluations. FPI and other DGs for relevant thematic evaluations. 1. 31/12/2017 2. Mid-term review (art 16 common implementing regulation) 3. Implementation of regulation from 1 Jan 2014 to 30 June 2017 and focus on achievements of objectives by means of indicators measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of instruments. 4. Improving implementation of Union's assistance. Inform decisions on renewal, modification or suspension of types of actions implemented. 5. Commission and partner countries 1. Post-2020: (together with interim review of next financial period) 2. Type: final evaluation report 3. Longer-term outcomes and impacts and sustainability of effects of the instruments 4. design of future instrument and adjustment of follow-up instrument.- 5. Commission and partner countries

EIDHR (European Instrument Democracy Human Rights) All objectives except election observation missions

Title spending programme: || EIDHR (European Instrument Democracy Human Rights)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || Please refer to introduction section under heading 4.

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS, MILESTONES AND TARGETS

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1: Enhancing the respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments, and strengthening their protection, promotion, implementation and monitoring, mainly through support to relevant civil society organisations, human rights defenders and victims of repression and abuse.

IMPACT INDICATOR: Number of strategic and targeted campaigns and operations, in third countries  in line with the UN OHCHR Human Rights indicators || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2014) || Long term target (2020)

30 || 50 || 350 by 2020

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 2: Supporting, developing and consolidating democracy in third countries, by enhancing participatory and representative democracy, strengthening the overall democratic cycle, in particular by reinforcing an active role for civil society within this cycle, and improving the reliability of electoral processes, in particular by means of election observation missions.

IMPACT INDICATOR: Number of electoral processes and democratic cycles supported, observed, and followed, in particular the number of EU EOMs recommendations implemented in the field*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestone (2014) || Long term target (2020)

20 || 25 || 175 by 2020

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Support to Human Rights and Human Rights Defenders in situations where they are most at risk.

INDICATOR 1: Number of Human Rights Defender individuals being protected politically, legally and/or physically and pulled out of their abusive situations*. || Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target (2020)

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

230 || 300 || 300 || 300 || 300 || 300 || 300 || 300

INDICATOR 2: Number of projects in most difficult countries and situations, and in particular the number of activities and actors reached in these most difficult contexts*. || Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target (2020)

2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019

10 || 15 || 15 || 15 || 15 || 15 || 15 || 15

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Support to other EU Human Rights Priorities

INDICATOR 1: Number of fragile CSO and/or disenfranchised groups have been supported, that would have been left alone otherwise*. || Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target (2020)

300 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 500

500 || 500 || 500 || 500 || 500 || 500

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Support to democracy

INDICATOR 1: Number of projects developed in pilot countries to deepen and strengthen democracy*. || Baseline (2013) || Milestone || Target (2020)

5 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 10

10 || 10 || 10 || 10 || 10 || 10

INDICATOR 2: Number of key actors supported, in particular international organisation's actions, reports, case law and/or statement directly linked to our support. || Baseline (2013) || Milestone || Target (2020)

0 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 7

2 || 5 || 5 || 5 || 7 || 7

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5: Support to targeted key actors and processes, including international and regional human rights instruments and mechanisms.

INDICATOR 1: Number of international convention ratification and in particular how many conventions could enter into practice in how many countries as a result of our support. || Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target (2020)

5 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 10

10 || 10 || 10 || 10 || 10 || 10

INDICATOR 2: Number of key actors supported, in particular international organisation's actions, reports, case law and/or statement directly linked to our support*. || Baseline (2013) || Milestones || Target (2020)

10 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 15

15 || 15 || 15 || 15 || 15 || 15

MONITORING AND REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked. || The achievement of the milestones and targets as set out for the present spending programme will be monitored by the international donor community as well as partner countries within the framework of the appropriate UN institutions and gremia. Indicators marked with (*) will be monitored through the internal monitoring and reporting tool as well as through ad-hoc aggregation on the basis of data provided by project/programme internal monitoring systems at country and regional level.

Actors involved in monitoring || EU Delegations and DEVCO Headquarters services, UN institutions, its members (including EU Member states and partner countries), other international institutions, national and international civil society organisations and networks.

Issues covered in subsequent monitoring reports || Information on the status of the indicators above will be included within AAR and DEVCO Development Report on an annual basis.

Planned use of information || Information on the status of the indicators above will be included within AAR and DEVCO Development Report on an annual basis. Information can be used to review MIPs priorities at any time within the programming period (2014-2020). It may also lead to changes in the focus of specific projects and programmes under implementation or still at formulation stage.

Frequency of reporting           || For MDGs -Reporting at country level will be based on data availability as provided by the UN institutions and gremia for 2014 and 2015. Subsequently, reporting will be based on the Post-2015 global framework. For indicators marked with (*) - Frequency of reporting will be annual. Status of indicators will be reported within the Annual Activity Report on an annual basis. Art 13 of Common Implementing Regulation: As of 2015 annual reporting, containing information relating to the previous year, report on the achievement of objectives of each regulation by means of indicators, measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the instrument. The annual report of 2021 contains consolidated info from annual reports of 2014-2020.

Availability of reports in the timeline(yearly reports contain information relating to previous year) || 2014 x || 2015 x || 2016 x || 2017 x || 2018 x || 2019 x || 2020 x || 2021 x

EVALUATIONS OF THE SPENDING PROGRAMME

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. Two evaluations will take into account the EIDHR instrument: a. Evaluation of EU support to Democracy (start 2014). b. Evaluation of EU support to Human Rights (start 2016). Every country level evaluation in countries where EIDHR has been used will also provide inputs to the above evaluations. This will inform the CIR report including the meta evaluation on Fragile States. The two evaluations will take into account the previous MFF period still under implementation and the new MFF as much as possible. 2. They will be mainly ex-post evaluations (and mid-term ones) as they will be based on the outputs of internal monitoring, on-going and final ROM and existing projects and programmes evaluations. 3. All are spending programmes evaluations and will address 7 evaluations criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, EU value added. 4. Mid-term review of multiannual country programmes (to be determined for each country depending of the length of their programming under completion), thematic guidelines, development policies and new MFF. 5. HQ and EUDs + EEAS and FPI. 1. 31/12/2017 2. Mid-term review (art 16 common implementing regulation) 3. Implementation of regulation from 1 Jan 2014 to 30 June 2017 and focus on achievements of objectives by means of indicators measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of instruments. 4. Improving implementation of Union's assistance. Inform decisions on renewal, modification or suspension of types of actions implemented. 5. Commission and partner countries   1. Post-2020 (together with interim review of next financial period) 2. Type: final evaluation report 3. Longer-term outcomes and impacts and sustainability of effects of the instruments 4. Design of future instrument and adjustment of follow-up instrument. 5. Commission and partner countries

Election Observation Missions

Title spending programme: || Election Observation Missions (EIDHR)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The legal basis of the EIDHR does not provide for any performance indicators. However, a comprehensive review on performance for the previous year will be provided in the AAR. Specific objectives and performance indicators will be reviewed each year as part of the SPP cycle (Programme Statements, AMP, AAR). A thorough analysis of the actions implemented will be undertaken on a regular basis in order to allow assessing the overall progress of the different objectives of the EU Election Observation Missions. Specific impact indicators developed for the Programme Statement will be monitored on a yearly basis and the aggregated data will provide a general overview of the global impact of the EU Election Observation Missions.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE || Supporting and consolidating democratic reforms in third countries, by enhancing participatory and representative democracy, strengthening the overall democratic cycle, and improving the reliability of electoral processes, in particular by means of election observation missions.

Impact indicator: || Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Number of electoral processes and democratic cycles supported, observed, and followed by means of Election Observation Missions, Election Assessment Teams and Election Experts Missions proposing recommendations to the host country. || 16 per year || 23 per year A mid-term review should be conducted to assess the format and size of missions deployed and their impact. || 25 per year.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE || Deliver a strengthened and better integrated approach to democratic cycles, through election observation and other types of support to democratic and electoral processes.

Indicator 1: || Number of Election Follow-up Missions (post-election expert missions) deployed in countries after an Election Observation Mission to assess the implementation of recommendations.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

2012 1 || 2014 2 || 2015 3 || 2016 3 || 2017 4 || 2018 4 || 2019 4 || 2020 5

Indicator 2: || EU capacity to support and assess democratic and electoral processes expressed in number of experts trained.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

The baseline is the number of experts trained during the previous training programme (NEEDS) in 2009-2012, with an average of 130 experts and observers trained per year. || 2014 130 || 2015 140 || 2016 140 || 2017 150 || 2018 150 || 2019 160 || 2020 160

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Regular reviews (at least twice-yearly) of the achievements by indicators will be performed. The list of priority countries is prepared once per year and reviewed once during the year according to developments. Regular review of trainings required and number of experts and observers trained (at least twice-yearly).

Actors involved in monitoring || European Commission: FPI EEAS Member States through Focal Points meetings EODS

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Monitoring reports will cover all aspects relating to implementation of missions: use of framework contracts for the selection of service providers, cooperation with Member States Focal Points for the selection of observers, evaluation of observers and Core Team members, provision of trainings for observers and experts.

Planned use of information || Annual Management Plans, Annual Activity Reports, SDAO reports, Annual Action Programmes, EIDHR Strategy Paper, EIDHR Multiannual Indicative Programme.

Frequency of reporting || Reporting will follow the EC framework (AARs, SDAO, etc.), i.e. on an annual basis. Art 13 of Common Implementing Regulation: As of 2015 annual reporting, containing information relating to the previous year, report on the achievement of objectives of each regulation by means of indicators, measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the instrument. The annual report of 2021 contains consolidated info from annual reports of 2014-2020.

Indicate the availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2015 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2016 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2017 AMP AAR Budget updates Mid-term review || 2018 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2019 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2020 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2021 Report consolidated info

Evaluations of the spending programme

Per evaluation indicate: 1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed  and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. end of 2017 2. Mid-term evaluation 3. evaluation of the effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value 4. Remedial action 5. FPI, EEAS, Member States (Focal Points), European Parliament (DEG) 1. Post-2020 (together with interim review of next financial period) 2. Final evaluation report 3. Longer-term outcomes and impacts and sustainability of effects of the instruments 4. Design of future instrument and adjustment of follow-up instrument. 5. Commission and partner countries  

PI (Partnership Instrument)

Title spending programme: || PI (Partnership Instrument for Cooperation with third Countries)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The Partnership Instrument is a new instrument (as successor to the small and limited Industrialized Countries Instrument). The legal basis of the PI foresees performance indicators for the respective four specific indicators. The performance indicators (and their data sources) will be reviewed each year as part of the SPP cycle (Programme Statements, AMP, AAR). A thorough analysis of the actions and programmes implemented will be undertaken on a regular basis in order to allow assessing the overall progress of the different objectives of the PI. Specific impact indicators will be developed with the successive AAPs so that the aggregated data of these impact indicators can give a general overview of the global impact of the instrument All PI actions will be regularly monitored and reported. The monitoring will be carried out by the Project Managers (either in Delegations or at Headquarters depending on whether the action is managed locally or not) on a regular basis through meetings with the beneficiaries and other stakeholders, field visits and the review of interim and final operational and financial reports provided by the beneficiaries. All actions must submit a final audit or expenditure verification report and some of these are submitted for an ex-post control performed either by Commission staff or external auditors that are contracted by the Commission. Delegations and Headquarters have to report through the AOSD's annual report to the Head of Service of FPI and therefore contribute to the AAR and the declaration of assurance. The PI annual report to Council and EP will be included in the overall annual report on external instruments in accordance with the Common Implementing Regulation.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE ||  The Partnership Instrument shall support measures that respond in an effective and flexible manner to objectives arising from the Union's bilateral, regional or multilateral relationships with third countries and shall address challenges of global concern and ensure an adequate follow-up to decisions taken at a multilateral level.

Impact indicator: || Baseline 2014 || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Increased influence of EU on policy formulation, agreements concluded, and increased coordination in multilateral fora with partner countries in line with EU interests. || A mapping of existing agreements with key partner countries  and of positions of  key partner countries will be established in 2014 to create a baseline as regards: 1) Challenges of global concern. 2) Selected areas of cooperation within the scope of the “EU 2020 strategy”. 3) The perception about the EU. || A mid-term review will be conducted to measure the evolution agreements and positions compared to the 2014 baseline. || Positions, approaches and policies of key partner countries have evolved in closer consonance with EU’s views and vision as reflected in negotiations and/or agreements.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || Support for the Union’s bilateral, regional and inter-regional cooperation partnership strategies by promoting policy dialogue and by developing collective approaches and responses to challenges of global concern. The attainment of that objective shall be measured inter alia by the progress made by key partner countries in the fight against climate change or in promoting the environmental standards of the Union.

Indicator: || Number of negotiations processes launched, agreements concluded (e.g. FTAs, PCAs, MoUs, TTIP, etc.), and legislation adopted and/or amended by the key partner countries, in particular in the fields of climate change and the protection of environment.

Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

Mapping of existing agreements with key partners to be established in 2014. || Mid-term review of the Instrument. || Increased EU influence on positions, approaches and policies of key partner countries, evolving in closer consonance with EU’s views and vision as reflected in negotiations and/or agreements. Improved coordination with key partner countries with regard to international climate change and environmental negotiations in line with EU interest.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || Implementing the international dimension of "Europe 2020 ". The attainment of that objective shall be measured by the uptake of the "Europe 2020" policies and objectives by key partner countries.

Indicator: || Closer collaboration with international stakeholders and key strategic partner countries on topics relating to the “Europe 2020 Strategy”. Number of actions funded within the scope of the "Europe 2020" strategy

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

Mapping of position of key partner countries with regard to Europe 2020 policies and objectives to be established in 2014. || || 2017 Mid-term review of the Instrument. || Uptake of Europe 2020 policies and objectives attributed partly to a conducive external/global environment, influenced by successful actions funded under the present objective.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || Improving access to partner country markets and boosting trade, investment and business opportunities for European companies, while eliminating barriers to market access and investment, by means of economic partnerships, business and regulatory cooperation. The attainment of that objective shall be measured by the Union's share in foreign trade with key partner countries and by trade and investment flows to partner countries specifically targeted by actions, programmes and measures under this Regulation.

Indicator: || EU share in foreign trade with key partner countries (BRIC, US, and Japan and Canada) EU trade and investments flows to key partner countries (BRIC, US and Japan and Canada)

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

- EU share in trade with Strategic Partners (BRIC, US and Japan). 2008: 44.2% 2009: 44.3% 2010: 48% 2011: 44.7% 2012: 44.3% (Source: COMEXT/IMF) - EU Foreign Direct Investment Inflows: 169 billion EUR Outflows: 196 billion EUR (Source: EUROSTAT) || || 2017 Mid-term review of the Instrument. Maintain share || Overall increase in share of global trade flows. Increase in FDI inflows and outflows in parallel with global economic growth.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4 || To enhance widespread understanding and visibility of the Union and of its role on the world scene by means of public diplomacy, people-to-people contacts, cooperation in educational and academic matters, think tank cooperation and outreach activities to promote the Union's values and interests. The attainment of that objective may be measured, inter alia, by opinion surveys or evaluations.

Indicator: || Opinion surveys or evaluations.

Baseline || Milestones || Target 2020

N/A || Mid-term review of the Instrument. || Positive impact on strengthening existing academic collaboration, while establishing new partnerships. Increase positive perception of the EU and its policies in key partner countries.

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || A mapping of existing agreements with key partner countries  and of positions of  key partner countries will be established in 2014 to create a baseline as regards: 1) Challenges of global concern. 2) Selected areas of cooperation within the scope of the “EU 2020 strategy”. 3) The perception about the EU. As regards specific objective 3 (trade component), constant Eurostat surveys allow for a close monitoring of the evolution of the situation. Country specific projects will be followed by the FPI colleagues in delegations (where existing) supported by the “Market Access Teams”/TRADE colleagues in those delegations. The mid-term review is foreseen for 2017.

Actors involved in monitoring || FPI.4 relevant team, with the support of colleagues in delegation Service providers (2014 baseline survey, Mid-Term review and final evaluation) Think tanks, civil society organisations and stakeholders from the academic and cultural spheres Eurostat Independent experts PI steering group(s) to be established for evaluation and steering purposes, as per the new Guidelines for evaluation. The steering groups will include all relevant services according to the themes covered and comprising in each one at least the FPI and the EEAS.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Monitoring reports will cover all aspects relating to implementation issues (best approach), methodological issues (relevance of the strategy proposed at each level ranging from the specific objectives onto the level of the smallest action funded) and policy issues (EU-partner country policy dialogues’ evolution for instance). Hence, reporting will address indicators ranging from immediate results and outcomes up to the level of impact indicators and including all intermediate levels (performance indicators, etc.).

Planned use of information || The information made available thanks to the above monitoring strategy will feed in the different mandatory and ad hoc reporting needs (AARs, SDAO reports, AMPs, etc.) as well as the steering needs for both the global strategy and that of each specific objective in order to get as close as possible of changing needs according to the evolution of the situation addressed by the different programmes and projects.

Frequency of reporting  || Reporting will follow the EC framework (AARs, SDAO, etc.), i.e. on an annual basis. Internally (FPI) and for the needs of the PI steering Groups, a bi-annual reporting might be considered for limited aspects. As of 2015 annual reporting, containing information relating to the previous year, report on the achievement of objectives of the regulation by means of indicators, measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the instrument. The annual report of 2021 contains consolidated info from annual reports of 2014-2020.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2015 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2016 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2017 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2018 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2019 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2020 AMP AAR Budget updates || 2021 Report consolidated info 2014-2020

Evaluations of the spending programme

1. Deadline: 2017 2. Type: an in-depth Mid-Term Review, in order to fine-tune the programme for the second period of the MFF 3. Main issues addressed: MTR will address the effectiveness of chosen actions per specific objective. It will have to show to which extent choices made have given a clear added value to the EU action and perception abroad. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: stocktaking of achievements, of successes and failures. Improving the approach for the second term of the MFF on the basis of lessons learnt. It will be used as the basis for adopting a delegated act amending the annex by 31 March 2018 (article 4 proposed Regulation).  5. Actors involved: FPI (annual context) and EEAS (multi-annual context) 1. Deadline Post-2020 (together with interim review of next financial period) 2. Type: Final evaluation report 3. Main issues addressed: Longer-term outcomes and impacts and sustainability of effects of the instruments 4. Planned use of evaluation results: Design of future instrument and adjustment of follow-up instrument. 5. Actors involved: Commission and partner countries

INSC (Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation)

Title spending programme: || INSC (Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework ||  Please refer to introduction section under heading 4.

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS, MILESTONES AND TARGETS

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1: Support the promotion of a high level of nuclear safety, radiation protection and the application of efficient and effective safeguards to nuclear material in third countries.

IMPACT INDICATOR: Support provided to countries embarking in nuclear energy to promote the establishment of a nuclear safety culture based on the transfer of EU experience. || Baseline (2013) || Milestone (2017) || Target (2020)

· The countries currently embarking in nuclear energy are: Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, the Philippines, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam. · The countries with radioprotection issues are Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. || 5 countries supported by 2017 || 8 countries covered by 2020

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1: Promotion of an effective nuclear safety culture and implementation of the highest nuclear safety and radiation protection standards, and continuous improvement of nuclear safety

INDICATOR 1: Number and importance of issues identified during relevant IAEA peer review missions (projects funded by the EC to respond to the issues identified and eligible)*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target (2020) = Total 2014-2020

4 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || 8

2 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: Responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, the decommissioning and remediation of former nuclear sites and installations.

INDICATOR 1: Progress on the strategies related to spent fuel, nuclear waste and decommissioning strategies, the respective legislative and regulatory framework and implementation of projects: number of national strategy document for spent fuel, nuclear waste management and decommissioning  activities (request from individual countries for bilateral cooperation)*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target (2020) = Total 2014-2020

2 || 2014 || 2016 || 2018 || 2019 || 4

1 || 1 || 1 || 1

INDICATOR 2: Waste management and remediation projects*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target (2020) = Total 2014-2020

4 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 6

2 || 2 || 1 || 1

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3: Establishment of frameworks and methodologies for the application of efficient and effective safeguards for nuclear material in third countries.

INDICATOR 1: Number and importance of issues identified in relevant  IAEA nuclear safeguards reports (projects funded by the EC)* || Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target 2020= Total 2014-2020

0 || 2015 || 2017 || 2019 || 3

1 || 1 || 1

MONITORING AND REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The achievement of the milestones and targets as set out for the present spending programme will be monitored by the international donor community as well as partner countries within the framework of the appropriate UN institutions and gremia. Indicators marked with (*) will be monitored through the internal monitoring and reporting tool as well as through ad-hoc aggregation on the basis of data provided by project/programme internal monitoring systems at country and regional level.

Actors involved in monitoring || EU Delegations and DEVCO Headquarters services, UN institutions, its members (including EU Member states and partner countries), other international institutions, national and international civil society organisations and networks.

Issues covered in subsequent monitoring reports || Information on the status of the indicators above will be included within AAR and DEVCO Development Report on an annual basis.

Planned use of information. || Information on the status of the indicators above will be included within AAR and DEVCO Development Report on an annual basis. Information can be used to review MIPs priorities at any time within the programming period (2014-2020). It may also lead to changes in the focus of specific projects and programmes under implementation or still at formulation stage.

Frequency of reporting ||  For MDGs -Reporting at country level will be based on data availability as provided by the UN institutions and gremia for 2014 and 2015. Subsequently, reporting will be based on the Post-2015 global framework. For indicators marked with (*) - Frequency of reporting will be annual. Status of indicators will be reported within the Annual Activity Report on an annual basis.

Availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020

X || X || X || X || X || X || X

EVALUATIONS OF THE SPENDING PROGRAMME

1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. · 2 country level evaluations will provide information on INSC: Bangladesh and Morocco, in addition with regular INSC evaluations undertaken by the thematic unit and the strategic evaluation on Nuclear Safety foreseen in 2016. · Depending on their timing, these evaluations will take into account the previous MFF period still under implementation (e.g. Bangladesh in 2014) and/or the new MFF (Nuclear Safety and Morocco). 2. The evaluation on Nuclear Safety will give a judgement on EU cooperation mainly on the basis of secondary information (outputs of internal monitoring, on-going and final ROM and existing projects and programmes evaluations) complemented by primary information (field visits). 3. All are spending programmes evaluations and will address 7 evaluations criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, EU value added. 4. Mid-term review of multiannual country programmes, thematic programmes and new MFF. 5. HQ and EUDs + EEAS.

IcSP (Instrument contributing to stability and peace) relating to specific objectives 1 and 2

Title spending programme: || IcSP (Instrument contributing to stability and peace) – specific objectives 1 and 2

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The legal basis of the IcSP (which replaces the Instrument for Stability – IfS) does not provide for any performance indicators (the co-legislators maintained that indicators were inappropriate for a political instrument such as the IcSP). However, a comprehensive review on performance for the previous year will be provided in the AAR. All IfS/IcSP actions are regularly monitored and reported. The monitoring is carried out by the Project Managers (either in Delegations or at Headquarters depending on whether the action is managed locally or not) on a regular basis through meetings with the beneficiaries and other stakeholders, field visits and the review of interim and final operational and financial reports provided by the beneficiaries. All actions must submit a final audit or expenditure verification report and some of these are submitted for an ex-post control performed either by Commission staff or external auditors that are contracted by the Commission. Reporting from Delegations to Headquarters is done twice a year through the mid-year report, the IfS/IcSP annual report and the AOSD report. FPI informs the Member States on the IfS/IcSP measures through monthly notes to the Political and Security Committee (PSC), updated notes on the individual actions and through the IfS annual report to Council and EP (from 2014, the IfS/IcSP annual report contribution will be included in the overall annual report on external instruments in accordance with the Common Implementing Regulation). Delegations and Headquarters report through the AOSD's annual report to the Head of Service of FPI and therefore contribute to the AAR and the declaration of assurance. Some individual IfS/IcSP actions are also evaluated (mid-term/final evaluations). These evaluations will be one of the elements taken into account in the design of a follow-on action in protracted crisis situations. A programme-level evaluation was launched in 2013 for IfS Peacebuilding Partnership (PbP) actions (under article 4.3 of the IfS) as a follow-up of the 2009 PbP evaluation. A programme-level evaluation on crisis response actions will be launched to cover the end of the previous programming period (as a follow-up of the 2011 programme-level evaluation of IfS crisis response). For the period 2014-2020, monitoring, reporting and evaluations provisions have been inserted under the Common Implementing Regulation laying down common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action as follows: - regular monitoring and evaluation of its actions and policies (Article 12); - an annual report on the achievement of the objectives of each Regulation by means of indicators, measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the relevant Instrument (Article 13); - by 31 December 2017, a mid-term review and evaluation of the instrument (Article 16). - a final evaluation report on the period 2014-2020 (Article 17). 

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || To provide direct  support for the Union's external policies by increasing the efficiency and coherence of the Union's actions in the areas of crisis response, conflict prevention, peace-building and crisis preparedness, and in addressing global and trans-regional threats

Impact indicator: || Baseline (2012) || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Number of conflicts worldwide (source: Conflict Barometer http://hiik.de/en/index.html) || 396 || 393 || 390

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1. || In a situation of crisis or emerging crisis, to swiftly contribute to stability by providing an effective response designed to help preserve, establish or re-establish the conditions essential to the proper implementation of the Union's external policies and actions in accordance with Article 21 TEU.

Indicator: || Percentage of projects adopted within 3 months of a crisis context (date of presentation to PSC).

Baseline (2011) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

57% || 70% || 75%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2. || To prevent conflicts, ensure preparedness to address pre- and post-crisis situations and build peace.

Indicator: || Strengthened capacity of EU and beneficiaries of EU assistance to prevent conflicts, address pre and post conflict situations and to build peace (expressed in the number of processes and entities with strengthened capacity attributable to IcSP funding).

Baseline (2011) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

952 || 1,200 || 1,500

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Specific objective 1: the HIIK annual report will provide updated figures as reported via their conflict barometer, including for those countries and regions in which the IfS/IcSP has crisis response interventions. Specific objective 2: progress towards targets and their milestones will be tracked using project data from completed or ongoing crisis preparedness, conflict prevention and peace building actions, whereby a manual count will be undertaken. This process will be undertaken twice yearly, in line with the reporting cycle pertaining to this objective.

Actors involved in monitoring || As outlined in the ‘summary’ section above: Staff at HQ; Staff at EU Delegations; Auditors; Beneficiaries; and Member States.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || IcSP responses often require a collective effort based on strong partnerships with other States, civil society actors, multilateral and regional partners. Thus any direct and immediate causality between outcomes and the programme attribution to these outcomes is difficult to ascertain. As a global player, the EU has the credibility and perception of neutrality that provides a competitive advantage to intervene in many conflict areas to avoid escalation or to offer assistance in preventing conflicts. Thus, an impact is achieved when the response is provided at EU level, as combined efforts provide increased leverage over authorities and international partners. This first set of indicators will be a test-case.

Planned use of information || Management Plan (SPP), AAR (SPP), IcSP Annual Report (non-SPP), spending programme updates and adjustments (non SPP).

Frequency of reporting                  || Annually in the SPP cycle and other ad-hoc reporting. Twice a year within FPI as part of ongoing internal performance management. Art 13 of Common Implementing Regulation: As of 2015 annual reporting, containing information relating to the previous year, report on the achievement of objectives of the regulation by means of indicators, measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the instrument. The annual report of 2021 contains consolidated info from annual reports of 2014-2020.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2015 MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2016 MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2017 MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2018 MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2019 MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2020 MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2021 Final consolidated report

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. Deadline: 2015 2. Type: Evaluation on IfS crisis response measures, under the previous MFF, in order to incorporate lessons learned and best practice into the design of future interventions under the new IcSP. 3. Main issues addressed: To address the effectiveness of crisis response actions, giving insight to the extent to which decisions made have given a clear added value to the EU action. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: stocktaking of achievements, of successes and failures. Improving the approach for actions under the new IcSP regulation. 5. Actors involved: FPI, EEAS, implementing partners and beneficiaries.

1. Deadline: 2017 2. Type: an in-depth Mid-Term Review, in order to fine-tune the programme for the second period of the MFF. 3. Main issues addressed: MTR will address the effectiveness of chosen actions per specific objective. It will have to show to which extent choices made have given a clear added value to the EU action. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: stocktaking of achievements, of successes and failures. Improving the approach for the second term of the MFF on the basis of lessons learnt. 5. Actors involved: FPI, EEAS, implementing partners and beneficiaries.

1. Deadline: Post-2020 2. Type: Final Term Review, in order to assess the success of the IcSP under the 2014-2020 MFF and feed into improvements in the next MFF. 3. Main issues addressed: To address the effectiveness of crisis response actions, giving insight to the extent to which decisions made have given a clear added value to the EU action. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: stocktaking of achievements, of successes and failures. Improving the approach for actions under any new IcSP regulation. 5. Actors involved: FPI, EEAS, implementing partners and beneficiaries.

1. Deadline: Ongoing through 2014-2020 2. Type: IcSP project-level Monitoring/evaluations. Monitoring and evaluation of ongoing IcSP projects and actions with final recommendations communicated and implemented as appropriate. The monitoring/evaluation approach will be reviewed annually to ensure its appropriateness in the monitoring of short-term actions, which is very difficult to do under the standard ROM approach used for development programmes. 3. Main Issues: Fine tuning an appropriate monitoring/evaluation approach to crisis response measures which typically only run for 18 months. 4. Planned use of results: Final recommendations will be communicated to staff at HQ and Delegations and implemented as appropriate in the design of future IcSP actions. 5. Actors involved: Staff at HQ, staff at EU Delegations, external evaluators and auditors.

relating to specific objective 3

Title spending programme: || IcSP (Instrument contributing to stability and peace)- specific objective 3

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework. || Please refer to introduction section under heading 4.

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS, MILESTONES AND TARGETS

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1: To provide direct support for the Union's external policies by increasing the efficiency and coherence of the Union's actions in the areas of conflict prevention, crisis preparedness and crisis response and peace-building, and in addressing global and trans-regional threats.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3:  To address specific global and trans-regional threats to peace, international security and stability.

INDICATOR 1: The degree of alignment with relevant EU external security policy, including the external dimension of internal security*. || Baseline (2012) || Milestones || Target (2020)

Risk mitigation: Number of former weapon scientists talents redirected to peaceful activities (ISTC and STCU in Moscow and Kiev)*: 18.000 || 18.300 (2015) || 18.600

Strengthening capabilities against biological threats: Number of facilities upgraded to  international standard level*: 2 || 8 (2015) || 12

Regional centres of excellence: Number of partner countries benefitting from the assistance of the EC acting in multilateral framework*: 15 || 60 (2016) || 70

Countering Terrorism: Number of countries covered by the counter  terrorism activities*: 5 || 8 (2016) || 12

Fighting organised crime: Number of major drug smuggling routes covered by the organised crime activities*: 2 || 2 (2016) || 2

Protecting critical infrastructure: The number of countries covered by critical infrastructure activities*:  4 || 6 (2016) || 10

MONITORING AND REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The achievement of the milestones and targets as set out for the present spending programme will be monitored by the international donor community as well as partner countries within the framework of the appropriate UN institutions and gremia. Indicators marked with (*) will be monitored through the internal monitoring and reporting tool as well as through ad-hoc aggregation on the basis of data provided by project/programme internal monitoring systems at country and regional level.

Actors involved in monitoring || EU Delegations and DEVCO Headquarters services, UN institutions, its members (including EU Member states and partner countries), other international institutions, national and international civil society organisations and networks.

Issues covered in subsequent monitoring reports || Information on the status of the indicators above will be included within AAR and DEVCO Development Report on an annual basis.

Planned use of information || Information on the status of the indicators above will be included within AAR and DEVCO Development Report on an annual basis. Information can be used to review MIPs priorities at any time within the programming period (2014-2020). It may also lead to changes in the focus of specific projects and programmes under implementation or still at formulation stage.

Frequency of reporting ||  For MDGs -Reporting at country level will be based on data availability as provided by the UN institutions and gremia for 2014 and 2015. Subsequently, reporting will be based on the Post-2015 global framework. For indicators marked with (*) - Frequency of reporting will be annual. Status of indicators will be reported within the Annual Activity Report on an annual basis. Art 13 of Common Implementing Regulation: As of 2015 annual reporting, containing information relating to the previous year, report on the achievement of objectives of the regulation by means of indicators, measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the instrument. The annual report of 2021 contains consolidated info from annual reports of 2014-2020.

Availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 x || 2015 x || 2016 x || 2017 x || 2018 x || 2019 x || 2020 x || 2021 x

EVALUATIONS OF THE SPENDING PROGRAMME

1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. Four thematic evaluations may take into account the results of specific interventions financed through IcSP: Democracy (2014), LRRD (2015), Human Rights (2016), Resilience (2017). (1) Every country level evaluation in countries where IcSP has been used will also provide inputs to the above evaluations. (2) This will inform the CIR reports including the meta-evaluation on Fragile States. 2. The 4 evaluations will take into account the previous MFF period still under implementation and the new MFF (mainly for the 2 last ones). (3) They will be mainly ex-post evaluations (and mid-term ones) as they will be based on the outputs of internal monitoring, on-going and final ROM and existing projects and programmes evaluations. 3. All are spending programmes evaluations and will address 7 evaluations criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, EU value added. 4. Mid-term review of multiannual country programmes (to be determined for each country depending of the length of their programming under completion), thematic guidelines, development policies and new MFF. 5. HQ and EUDs + EEAS and FPI. 1.2017 2. In-depth Mid-Term Review, in order to fine-tune the programme for the second period of the MFF. 3. MTR will address the effectiveness of chosen actions per specific objective. It will have to show to which extent choices made have given a clear added value to the EU action. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: stocktaking of achievements, of successes and failures. Improving the approach for the second term of the MFF on the basis of lessons learnt. 5. Actors involved: FPI, European Commission, implementing partners and beneficiaries. 1. Post-2020 (together with interim review of next period) 2. Type: Final Term Review, in order to assess the success of the IcSP under the 2014-2020 MFF and feed into improvements in the next MFF. 3. Main issues addressed: To address the effectiveness of crisis response actions, giving insight to the extent to which decisions made have given a clear added value to the EU action. 4. Planned use of evaluation results: stocktaking of achievements, of successes and failures. Improving the approach for actions under any new IcSP regulation. 5. Actors involved: European Commission, implementing partners and beneficiaries.

Humanitarian Aid

 Title spending programme: || Humanitarian Aid (including  EUAV - EU Aid Volunteers)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || It shall be recalled that, given the character of operations for which DG ECHO is responsible, combined with the heterogeneous type of interventions and the absence of multi-annual planning (due to the short term nature of its operations), the definition of long-term planning and concrete targets and indicators in the policy area is complicated. The general objective of Humanitarian Aid is to improve the chances of survival of people affected or vulnerable to disaster or crisis. To that end it must ensure that the humanitarian aid response is adequate i.e., needs-based, efficient and timely. It should also build and strengthen the capacity and resilience of affected communities. This is why the monitoring and performance/evaluation framework is directed to assess where the money goes, our ability to identify the humanitarian needs, the time to grant and the quality of the results achieved. Programming and implementation is established annually, on the basis of a multi-phased methodology, governed, for HA, by the Integrated Analysis Framework (IAF), an internal needs-based decision making process, which brings together the information and data requirements from different sources. This methodology ensures: i) a more integrated approach to the analysis of context, vulnerability and needs ii) quality of country analysis and transparency. A share of the humanitarian budget (above 10%) remains unallocated and put aside to address new crises or deterioration of existing crises during the year. Decisions on the mobilization of this operational reserve to cover these new situations are based on specific assessment of the needs. Monitoring is constant with day to day follow-up of projects by our experts in the field, visits of HQ officers to projects, selection and assessment of partners, project appraisal worksheet, audits of each partners every 2 to 4 years, review of partners reporting and around 6 evaluations a year focusing on major country operations, partners and thematic issues. A mid-term review is also ensured to identify any discrepancy with target and any potential change in the strategy. Reporting is ensured through different layers such as the Annual Activity Report including Declaration of Assurance, the yearly evaluation report and release of all individual evaluation reports, the yearly report on Audits, the DG ECHO Annual Reports on operations, the annual Strategy document (work plan), information systems towards external stakeholders such as Tr-Aid and Edris (including all financial information per country of operations). As from 2014, DG ECHO will start implementing a new system enabling to collect output oriented information so as to strengthen its yearly reporting on outcomes. Various expected outcomes are detailed below and, in view of the short term nature of its projects; DG ECHO intends to produce first output reporting as from 2014 AAR. The EU Aid Volunteers intervention logic is in most of its aspects replicating the one for Humanitarian Aid as it supports and complements it in Third Countries. As opposed to Humanitarian Aid, a new Legal basis has been proposed for the EUAV, clearly identifying the minimum Key Performance Indicators expected and the yearly reporting requirements, which will focus both on implementation and the above mentioned KPIs. It also clearly mentions the evaluation requirements.

|| General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE For children and adults affected by or vulnerable to disasters or crises outside the EU to have improved chances of survival.

Impact indicators: || Annual Average 2010-2012 || Annual average 2014-2019 || Long term target 2020

1. N°. of deaths due to natural disasters || 98 689 || 100 000 || 100 000

Impact indicators: || 2013-2014 || Annual average 2014-2019 || Long term target 2020

2. N°. of countries ≥ 11  in the EU's Global Vulnerability and Crisis (final) Index || 19 || 18 || 17

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 || HUM. AID RESPONSE Provide needs based delivery of EU assistance to people faced with natural and manmade disasters and protracted crises.

Indicator 1: || % of EU HA funds for specific crises spend in most vulnerable countries

2013 || 2016 || 2018 || 2020

50% || 61% || 63% || 65%

Indicator 2: || % of EU HA initial budget for specific crises spent in forgotten crises

2013 || 2016 || 2018 || 2020

18,3% || 21% || 22% || 22%

Indicator 3: || % of projects meeting quality standards in food, nutrition, health, shelter and water / sanitation / hygiene intervention sectors

2013 || 2017 || 2018 || 2020

N/A || 92% || 93% || 95%

Indicator 4: || % of contracts issued under following targets for number of days elapsed  from decision to contracting: Primary Emergency decision: 5 days; Emergency decision :  18 days; Other decisions : 56 days

2013 || 2014 || 2020

50% || 75% || 95%

Output 1: || N° of beneficiaries of ECHO operations

2012 || Annual average 2013-2019 || 2020

122 Million || >122 Million || 125 Million

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2 || RESILIENCE Build the capacity and resilience of vulnerable or disaster affected communities.

Indicator 1: || N° of vulnerable countries with country resilience priorities in place

2013 || 2014 || 2016 || 2020

New N/A || 3 || 10 || 20

Indicator 2: || % of actions 'on track' of Resilience Action Plan.

2013 || 2014 || 2016 || 2020

New N/A || 70% || 80% || 90%

Output 1: || % of ECHO funded operations in which Disaster Risk Reduction has been mainstreamed

2013 || 2014-2019 || 2020

40% || 40% || 40%

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3 || EU AID VOLUNTEERS Ensure deployment of EU volunteers and provide capacity building for volunteering

Indicator 1: || Number of EU Aid Volunteers deployed

2013 || 2014 || 2018 || 2020

New N/A || 70 || 691 || 981

Indicator 2: || Number of third country staff and volunteers participating in capacity building actions.

2013 || 2014 || 2018 || 2020

New N/A || 438 || 705 || 900

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The progress on achieving indicators milestones and targets of each objective is mainly tracked through ECHO IT reporting systems (ABAC for financial, Hope and e-tools/e-fichop for contracts/projects, GVI/GCI for needs assessments...) and through the constant monitoring done by the desks and field experts. A specific tracking tool with lead services is under implementation to ensure all objectives are tracked and reported on (a chef-de-file is identified per indicator). Systems are mainly fed by ECHO staff and field experts but also by partners when submitting proposals and final reports. ECHO is also using several external internationally recognised sources of information to complete needs assessment and to follow-up on macro-level indicators.

Actors involved in monitoring || All relevant stakeholders, including volunteers, implementing partners, ECHO staff and experts in the field, Commission services, EP and Council through budgetary and development/HA committees.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || ECHO monitoring is directed towards the implementation of projects, the quality assessment, the timing of intervention, the efficiency and effectiveness of operations and the adherence/respect to humanitarian principles. It is constantly assessed where the money goes, where are the humanitarian needs, what is the time to grant and the quality of the results achieved. Information on outputs, outcomes and result is systematically monitored as from the start of the activities. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the summary, given the character of operations for which DG ECHO is responsible, combined with the heterogeneous type of interventions and the absence of multi-annual planning (due to the short term nature of its operations), the definition of long-term planning and concrete targets and indicators in the policy area is complicated so as the collection and reporting. In line with this, the reporting of several indicators (including impact indicators) is much more complicated and could be delayed to 2015.

Planned use of information || Information collected is used, amongst others, for: - The annual "General Guidelines on Operational priorities for Humanitarian Aid" and the annual EUAV work programme; - The ABM cycle reporting (Management Plan, Annual Activity Report,…); - The Annual Report on operational HA activities and on EUAV programme; - The yearly Mid-Term Review occurring at summer time; - Fill-in of projects appraisal sheets (Fichop); - Ad-hoc reporting towards all external/internal stakeholders (requests EP/Council, reporting to UN. - Senior management reporting database.

Frequency of reporting                  || Most of the reports are yearly but monitoring is constant.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 X || 2015 X || 2016         X || 2017 X || 2018                X || 2019                  X || 2020 X

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1-2. 6 evaluations will be launched every year on the basis of the ECHO evaluation programme. Regarding EUAV, an interim evaluation is planned for 2017 whereas final ex-post evaluation is required in 2021. 3. The evaluation programme will first of all have geographical orientations (coverage per region – each of the 13 regions to be covered at least once every 5 years). All major aspects of ECHO presence will be covered as well as a set of specific themes and policies. Geographical evaluations should be complemented by cross-cutting evaluations of relevant themes, policies and working methods, mainly users-driven and focused on learning. The scope of each evaluation will cover at least relevance, EU added value, transparency, accountability, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. It will also emphasize on the need to learn from past experience. As adopted in the EUAV programme, mid-term and ex-post evaluations will also focus on the objectives and KPIs identified. 4. Learning from past experience to increase/improve performance and accountability. On EUAV programme, possible use for a mid-term revision or remedial actions in the preparation of a successor programme. 5. All stakeholders.

EUAV (EU aid volunteers)

The Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation framework of EU aid volunteers is integrated in the monitoring, reporting, and evaluation framework of the Humanitarian aid programme. Reference is made to specific objective 3 of the framework of the latter programme.

CFSP (Common foreign and Security policy)

Title spending programme: || CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy)

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || All CFSP actions are regularly monitored and reported. The monitoring is carried out by the Project managers on regular basis through the review of monthly, quarterly and financial final reports provided by the beneficiaries. All actions must submit a final audit or expenditure verification report and some of them are submitted to an Ex-post control performed by Commission staff on the spot. The overall progress performance is verified through the 6 monthly reports on activities and the final reports submitted regularly by the beneficiaries to the Commission. The 6 monthly reports are discussed and approved by the Council. Moreover, the Commission submits a quarterly report to the budgetary authority focussed exclusively on the implementation of the CFSP actions. As a result of the specific nature of CFSP, evaluations of CFSP projects will be carried out in close cooperation with the other institutions involved with the management and oversight of CFSP actions.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1 || Contribute to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty (Article 21 (2) (c) which seeks to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and with the aims of the Charter of Paris.

Impact indicator: || Baseline || Milestone 2017 || Long term target 2020

Number and intensity of conflicts worldwide || Current situation in the Conflict Barometer. || Decrease of the intensity of the conflicts where the main CFSP operations intervene. || Contribute to stabilization or decrease in the number and/or intensity of conflicts where the main CFSP operations intervene.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 etc. || Support to preservation of stability through substantial CSDP missions and EUSRs

Indicator: || The Conflict Barometer is published annually by Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict research: http://hiik.de/en/index.html

Baseline (2012) || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

43 highly violent conflicts worldwide (18 wars and 25 limited wars). · 11 CSDP missions · 11 EUSRs || Stabilization or decrease in the number of highly violent conflicts and decrease in the intensity of conflicts where the most substantial CSDP missions and EUSRs are deployed. || Contribute to stabilization or decrease in the number and/or intensity of conflicts where the main CFSP operations intervene, e.g.: Georgia and Kosovo from 3 (violent crisis) to 2 (non-violent crisis). DR Congo from 4 (limited war) to 3.5 (violent crisis). Palestinian Territories from 2.6 to 2.4 (decrease in intensity of non-violent crisis). Afghanistan from 4 (limited war) to 3.5 (violent crisis).

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || Every month project managers verify the mission’s monthly report. Every six months the mission submits a global implementation report that is approved by the Council. The Commissions monitors annually the Conflict barometer and includes the results in the AMP.

Actors involved in monitoring || CSDP missions and EUSRs, EEAS, Commission and Council of the Union.

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Beneficiaries describe the actions performed, the level of implementation and the achieved results.

Planned use of information || The reports are used to assess the implementation of the mission and their financial needs.

Frequency of reporting                  || Monthly, 6 monthly and annual (final contractual reports).

Availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 6 monthly reports per mission and year Annual contractual report MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2015 6 monthly reports per mission and year Annual contractual report MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2016 6 monthly reports per mission and year Annual contractual report MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2017 6 monthly reports per mission and year Annual contractual report MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2018 6 monthly reports per mission and year Annual contractual report MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2019 6 monthly reports per mission and year Annual contractual report MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates || 2020 6 monthly reports per mission and year Annual contractual report MP AAR Annual Report, Budget updates

Evaluations of the spending programme

Information per evaluation: 1. Deadline  2. Type 3. Main issues addressed   and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || The projects are financed on an annual basis. Evaluations of individual projects will be carried out in close cooperation with the EEAS.

Macro-financial assistance

Macro-Financial Assistance (MFA) is an exceptional financial (short-term) crisis-related instrument with the objective to ease financial constraints on certain third countries experiencing macro-financial difficulties characterised by balance of payment deficits and/or serious budgetary imbalances. It is directly linked to the implementation by the recipient countries of macro-financial stabilisation and structural adjustment measures. As a rule, Union actions complement those of the International Monetary Fund, coordinated with other bilateral donors. Each of the MFA programmes needs to be adopted by the Council and the EP.

The Commission informs the budgetary authority regularly of the macro-financial situation of the beneficiary countries and reports on the implementation of this assistance on a yearly basis.

External ex-post evaluations of MFA operations are carried out regularly and on ad-hoc basis. The reports can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/economy_finance/evaluation/completed/index_en.htm 

UCPM (Union Civil Protection Mechanism)

Reference is made to the description of the programme under heading 3, which includes also the actions outside the EU.

IPA II (Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance)

Title spending programme: || IPA II (Instrument for Pre-accession assistance)

Summary - general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The successor of IPA I, the IPA II will continue to be implemented following rigorous and comprehensive monitoring rules. They will however be further oriented towards a performance review of the progress achieved related to results at the strategic, sector and action level. Hence, the monitoring and reporting framework is set up to shift the monitoring culture of the responsible Commission department from essentially focussing on financial execution performance to results-based performance, and this irrespective of the management mode. Moreover, the indicators to measure the progress at different levels are set out to review, monitor and evaluate the performance. In addition, specific reporting obligations are resulting from the Regulation establishing common rules and procedures for EU external action instruments about annual tracking of expenditure related to climate change and biodiversity. The progress and performance reporting framework is designed to follow the life-cycle of the actions, programmes and the overall implementation of IPA instrument. The IPA II monitoring and reporting system is based on a three-tier approach: (1) Strategic/policy level – as the assistance will be provided on the basis of the Country-Strategy Papers or Multi-Country Strategy Papers, established for the duration of the Multi-annual Financial Framework, the progress will be tracked by measuring the indicators set out in these documents, as required by the IPA II Regulation (notably articles 2(2) and 6, mainly by outcome and impact indicators, but also looking at some context indicators. They will provide valuable information on the path towards the achievement of those policy objectives to which IPA is aiming to contribute. . (2) Sector level – on the basis of the IPA annual or multi-annual (sector) programmes, the progress in accomplishing the objectives will be measured by sector outcome and output indicators. They will enable better apprehension of the results achieved by policy areas and sector performance. (3) Action (project) level – the progress will be measured by defining process and output indicators, targeting at particular actions, measures, projects. The data collection within the above mentioned approach involves different stakeholders and means. IPA II beneficiaries shall be required by the Commission to provide all the data and information necessary, in line with the international commitments on aid effectiveness, to permit the monitoring and evaluation of the concerned measures. National IPA Co-ordinator (NIPAC) in all beneficiary countries will bear responsibility for the overall process of monitoring, reporting and evaluation of IPA assistance. NIPAC will collect information on the performance of the actions and programmes (process, output and outcome indicators) and coordinate the collection/production of indicators coming from national sources (national statistics, administrative sources, project/programme management information system) according to a reporting template defined by the Commission. In addition, the Commission through the EU Delegations will also collect performance data, based on the risk assessment and monitoring of the actions/projects (process, output indicators). The Commission will gather and assess relevant data at macro level coming from international sources and the Commission itself and will contribute to measuring the progress versus the outcome and impact indicators. The data collected from all sources (beneficiary countries, the Commission and EU Delegations) will be aggregated and analysed in terms of tracking the progress versus the targets and milestones. It will be reported in several reports, pursuing different objectives and will be published and publically available. The frequency of the data collection will be in principle annual. The same frequency applies to the reporting. The performance data will become available in the following order (sequence): first, both quantitative data on budget execution and attained process indicators and outputs will be provided by the beneficiary countries (through an annual report provided by NIPAC and NAO) and EU Delegations (through an annual AOSD report); then information on results, outcome and impact (again collected by the Commission and beneficiary countries) will be available in the Commission's internal AOSD reports and, mostly, the published IPA annual report. In line with articles 2(2) and 2(3) of the IPA II Regulation, the annual Progress Reports shall also be taken as a point of reference when assessing the results of IPA II assistance, with the relevant indicators defined and included in the strategy papers and programmes referred to the IPA II Regulation. More accurate and comprehensive reporting will take place in the Mid-term review of IPA assistance (expected to be delivered by the end of 2017). The overall progress will be monitored by means of several sources: · Result Orientated Monitoring (ROM) system: It gives an independent assessment of the on-going or ex post performance of a project or programme component through monitoring of the performance and results of operations financed from IPA in the Western Balkans and Turkey region. Its future orientation on monitoring sector performance is under consideration in the framework of the IPA II. · Beneficiaries own monitoring: In IPA II, beneficiaries will perform a stronger and greater role in monitoring the implementation of the assistance. The new framework will reward the improved performance and growing ownership in achieving the objectives, results, outcomes and impacts set out in the strategic documents. · Self-monitoring performed by the EU Delegations: It is part of the annual assurance strategy process and is done based on the ex-ante risk assessment of projects/contracted considered riskier. · Joint monitoring by the Commission and the IPA II beneficiaries: the compliance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and coordination in implementation of IPA assistance will be regularly (at least once a year) monitored by an IPA Monitoring committee. It will be supported by Sectoral Monitoring committees which will ensure monitoring process at sector level, mostly on a bi-annual basis.  The monitoring data will be a basis for a portfolio analysis of the performance of a cross section of programmes by country, by sector or by intervention type. The results will be used in the policy-making process to propose any programme adjustments and corrective actions. More particularly, the IPA Monitoring Committee may make proposals to the Commission and the IPA II beneficiaries on better coherence and coordination of IPA assistance, on renewal, modification or suspension of the types of actions implemented under the Instruments. Moreover, the performance indicators as referred to in article 2(2) of the IPA II Regulation and specified in the strategy papers shall, in the context of the performance reward referred to in article 14 of that Regulation, be taken into account for an assessment of performance and progress over a period of several years but not later than in 2017 and 2020, respectively. The set up performance framework is complemented by Commission's evaluations, which will assess the impact and the effectiveness of the implementation its strategic and sectoral policies and actions and the effectiveness of programming.

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

Relevant general objective:  The Instrument for Pre–accession Assistance (“IPA II”) shall support candidate countries and potential candidates in adopting and implementing the political, institutional, legal, administrative, social and economic reforms required by the beneficiaries listed in Annex I to comply with Union values and to progressively align to Union rules, standards, policies and practices with a view to Union membership. Through such support, IPA II shall contribute to stability, security and prosperity in the beneficiaries

Impact indicator:  Overall assessment provided by the Progress Report. Source: Progress Reports

Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020 (coherent with 2014-2020 programming period, bringing candidate and potential candidates closer to the EU).

Candidate countries meet some accession criteria. Potential candidates are not sufficiently advanced to be granted candidate status. || Candidate countries meet many accession criteria. Potential candidates are further advanced in steps towards meeting criteria for candidate status. || Candidate countries closer to meet all accession criteria. Potential candidates are further advanced in steps towards meeting criteria for candidate status.

Impact indicator:  Degree of alignment with the acquis. Source: Progress reports/Screening

Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020 (coherent with 2014-2020 programming period, bringing candidate and potential candidates closer to the EU).

Candidate countries have made some progress with the implementation of the EU acquis. || Candidate countries are advanced with the implementation of the EU acquis. || Candidate countries are well advanced in implementing the EU acquis.

Specific Objective 1: Support for political reforms. ||

Indicator 1 : Overall assessment provided by the Progress report on the political reform

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

1. Western Balkans: early stage || some progress || further progress

2. Turkey: early stage || Some progress || further progress

Indicator 2: Average score provided by eight external sources (Corruption Perception (Transparency International), Press Freedom (Reporters without Borders), Freedom of Press (Freedom House), Government Effectiveness (World Bank), Control of Corruption (World Bank), Rule of Law (World Bank), Voice and Accountability (World Bank) and Regulatory Quality (World Bank))

Baseline 2010 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

1. Western Balkans: 51.4 || > 52 || > 55

2. Turkey: 52.1 || > 53 || > 55

|| ||

|| ||

|| ||

Specific Objective 2: Support for economic, social and territorial development, with a view to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. ||

Indicator 1: World Bank's 'Doing Business' (distance to frontier-score)

Baseline 2010 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

1. Western Balkans: 60.5 || 67 || 70

2. Turkey: 63.1 || 68 || 72

3. Iceland: 78.7 || ||

* Iceland remains a potential beneficiary country under IPA II legal framework but without a specific country allocation in the budget for 2014.

|| ||

|| ||

|| ||

|| ||

Indicator 3 :  Average of exports and imports of goods and services/ GDP - %- Eurostat

Baseline 2010 (€) || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

1. Western Balkans: 31.2 || 44 || 48

2. Turkey: 20.47 || 27 || 30

* Iceland remains a potential beneficiary country under IPA II legal framework but without a specific country allocation in the budget for 2014.

Specific Objective 3: Strengthening of the ability of the beneficiaries listed in Annex I at all levels to fulfil the obligations stemming from Union membership by supporting progressive alignment with and adoption, implementation and enforcement of the Union acquis, including preparation for management of Union structural, cohesion, agricultural and rural development funds. ||

Indicator 1: Degree of alignment on the acquis

Baseline 2010 || Milestones 2017 || Target 2020

1. Western Balkans: early stage || Some progress || Further progress

2. Iceland[131]: well advanced || ||

3. Turkey: early stage || Some progress || Further progress

Specific Objective 4: Strengthening regional integration and territorial cooperation involving the beneficiaries listed in Annex I, Member States and, where appropriate, third countries within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 232/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council. ||

Indicator: Number of cross border co-operation programmes concluded between IPA/EU countries and IPA/IPA countries[132]

Baseline 2010 || Milestone[133] 2017 || Target 2020

All IPA II beneficiary countries: 18 || 19 || 20

|| ||

|| ||

|| ||

For other indicators relevant to Specific Objective 4 please refer to indicators under Specific Objectives 1, 2 and 3

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description on how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked || The monitoring and reporting system is relevant for all indicators, irrespectively of the specific objective. Milestones and targets of each objective will be tracked through both internal (undertaken by the Commission and the IPA II beneficiaries) and external monitoring mechanisms (performed by an external contractor, contracted either by the Commission or by national authorities). The system comprises of the following major elements: At project/action level, the progress will be monitored both by the beneficiary countries and the EU Delegations. On behalf of the beneficiary countries, the NIPAC will coordinate the collection, analysis and reporting of the indicators (process, output, outcome). Data will be provided by relevant national authorities (e.g. national statistic institutions, local authorities, other public institutions, etc). It will be provisionally reported by the NIPAC to the Commission in an annual report by 15 February of the following financial year and will contain quantitative and qualitative data available at that moment on the progress made in achieving the objectives, results, indicators set in the annual and multi-annual (sector) planning documents. The monitoring performed by the EU Delegations will be based on the ex-ante risk assessment carried out by the EU Delegations. This risk assessment will be the basis for the preparation of an annual work plan, which will be annexed to the AOSD Report of each individual Delegation and will concur to the setting up of the Commission AOSD reports and Annual Assurance Strategies.  This monitoring plan can involve various forms of activities implemented by the task managers: project monitoring meetings (with the contractor and/or the beneficiaries in view to ensure a proper follow up and to discuss any particular issues to be solved), projects steering committee meetings (with the team leader, beneficiaries and stakeholders to analyse the implementation of the project), regular monitoring missions or more focused on-the-spot checks (in particular for supplies and works contracts) and in general for those projects/contracts considered riskier. At strategic and programme level, the progress will be tracked by performance of macro indicators (outcome and impact). Whilst the NIPAC will be responsible to coordinate the collection/production of indicators coming from national sources (national statistics, administrative sources, project management systems), Commission services (evaluation sector together with the IPA strategy and quality unit) will gather and assess relevant data at macro level. These data, together with sector data at national/regional level, will be subject to a report, submitted to the IPA Steering Committee and then disseminated, as appropriate, within the ordinary reporting. In addition to these monitoring mechanisms, a complementary one, which has proved so far to be efficient - Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) - will continue to be used in the IPA II framework. ROM is undertaken by an external contractor and is focused on on-going and ex-post assessment at project and programme level. The assessment consists of a separate rating awarded for each project of the DAC criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability). The ratings contained in ROM reports is collated and entered into a database (workbook), which is produced on an annual basis. It provides an overall view of project performance. This forms a basis for a portfolio analysis of the performance of a cross section of programmes by country, by sector or by intervention type. This higher level analysis is particularly useful for informing higher level decision making on the direction of the intervention strategy. At the highest level, the ROM reporting system includes the provision of recommendations from the monitors and of observations or lessons learned. The current contract with the external contractor who undertakes ROM mission defines that the reporting is every 6 months and on an annual basis. Problems and possible adjustments during the implementation will be detected through ROM reports, regular project/programmes meetings and other exchanges with beneficiaries, and stakeholders. Issues at stake will be discussed within Steering Committee meetings and, whenever appropriate, in Sector Monitoring Committees and possibly IPA monitoring committees, the tasks and composition of which are described below. Committees are also due to review progress on indicators (at sector and macro level) and possible measures to take to address possible deviations.

Actors involved in monitoring || The monitoring will be carried out by different actors who have clear distinguishable roles and responsibilities in the process. The NIPAC is the main counterpart of the Commission in the overall process of monitoring the implementation, reporting and evaluation IPA II. The NIPAC ensures co-ordination within the beneficiary country with other donors and national actors and a close link between the use of IPA assistance and the general accession process. This will enable smooth tracking, reviewing and reporting of performance framework. EU Delegations are involved in the monitoring process by carrying out monitoring activities, also consistent with the work plan. They assess ROM reports and may take action as appropriate. To ensure effectiveness, coherence and coordination of the IPA assistance, the Commission and the beneficiary countries set up an IPA Monitoring Committee. The Committee is entitled to review the overall effectiveness, quality and coherence of the implementation of all actions towards meeting the objectives set out in the financing agreements and the Country Strategy Papers. The IPA monitoring committee shall be composed of representatives of the Commission (including other relevant DGs), the NIPACs and other relevant national authorities and bodies of the beneficiary countries (such as the central finance and contract units, whenever relevant, the audit authority, the Treasury, relevant line Ministries) and, where relevant, International Financial Institutions and other stakeholders, including civil society and private sector organisations. Sectoral monitoring committees shall be set up to monitor and report on the effectiveness, coherence and coordination of the implementation of IPA assistance at sector level. Each Sectoral Monitoring Committee shall assess progress in relation to achieving the objectives of the actions and their expected outputs, results and impact by means of indicators related to a baseline situation, as well as progress with regard to financial execution. The Sectoral Monitoring Committee shall be composed of representatives of relevant national authorities and bodies, other stakeholders such as economic, social and environmental partners and international organisations such as International Financial Institutions. Specific actors (beneficiaries, other stakeholders, IFIs, Technical Assistance or other institutions involved in the implementation) will be involved in the Steering Committees at project/programme level. The Commission will coordinate the implementation and control of the monitoring, reporting and evaluation framework. Apart from its overarching function, it will be responsible for gathering and assessing data on macro indicators (outcome and impact) that are coming from international sources. Finally, the Commission services will be responsible for examining the progress made in implementing the assistance and submit to the European Parliament and to the Council an annual report on the results and, as far as possible, on the main outcomes and impacts of the Union's financial assistance. This report will also be submitted to the European Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions.

Issues covered  in subsequent reports || The Commission will report on the implementation of the accession policy and of the performance of the assistance in the framework of the usual internal reporting, as explained below. The enlargement policy framework defined by the Union for each beneficiary country is reflected in the annual Enlargement Package of the Commission, which includes the Progress Reports and the Enlargement Strategy for the coming period. The Progress Reports present the assessment of the Commission of what each candidate and potential candidate has achieved over the last year. The AOSD report which is an extensive internal bi-annual mechanism to report on the performance of the financial assistance. It highlights key issues with regard to the implementation of the assistance, risk management plan and assurance strategy to meet the objectives effectively and efficiently and in compliance with the legality and regularity principles. As specified above, the beneficiary countries (NIPAC, NAO, Operating structures and Audit authority) also provide to the Commission annual reports on the implementation of the tasks entrusted, which will be used for monitoring purposes within country level monitoring platforms (IPA and Sector Monitoring Committees) and, at an aggregated level, in the DG Enlargement AOSD reports. The beneficiary countries shall provide a final report which will cover the whole implementation period of IPA assistance (in 2021 as part of the latest annual report). Its findings and conclusions will be aggregated into a Commission final report on the implementation of IPA assistance. The progress made in implementing the measures of financial assistance in IPA is subject to an IPA annual report which presents achievement of objectives, outlining the results delivered and the efficiency of the Instrument. The annual report contains information relating to the previous year on the measures financed, the results of monitoring and evaluation exercises, implementation of budgetary commitments and of payments appropriations broken down by country. It shall assess, the results of the Union's financial assistance using as far as possible, specific and measurable indicators of its role in meeting the objectives, as well as, where possible and relevant, the adherence to aid effectiveness principles. This report will be submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions. The Director General’s Annual Activity Report reports on whether, to what extent, and how the objectives set in the Annual Management Plan were achieved. It provides indicators for policy results, management performance, internal control in order to ensure reasonable assurance regarding the legality and regularity and the sound financial management of the budget and resources delegated to him. It also describes the progress on achieving the milestones and targets as set out in the AMP and the Programme Statement. Annual Activity Reports allow the Commission to take stock of the achievements and management performance of the services and decide on any necessary measures. Information contained in this report will be used in the preparation of the Art. 318 Evaluation Report. In the Mid-term review of IPA assistance, the Commission will report on the achievement of the objectives of IPA II by means of the indicators set out in Country Strategy Papers and sector programmes also using the indicators enabling to track the degree of achievements of those specific objectives to which the Instrument is aiming to contribute. This review is defined in the Common Implementing Regulation[134] and shall be considered as an interim IPA evaluation. The report will cover the period 1 January 2014 – 30 June 2017 and shall be submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council no later than 31 December 2017. It shall · address the added value of IPA II, · internal and external coherence, including the complementarity and synergies between the other external assistance instruments, · the continued relevance of all objectives, · the contribution of the measures to a consistent EU external action · and, where relevant, to the Union priorities for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. This report will be undertaken for the specific purpose of improving the implementation of Union's assistance, including inter alia proposals for simplification. It shall be accompanied if appropriate, by legislative proposals introducing the necessary modifications to the instruments and to IPA Regulation[135].It will inform decisions on the renewal, modification or suspension of the types of actions implemented under the instrument. There will be a final report on the implementation of IPA assistance, issued in 2021 which will cover the whole period of implementation from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020. It shall contain consolidated information from annual reports of 2014-2020 on all funding, including external assigned revenues and contributions to EU trust funds (if applicable) and offering a breakdown of spending by beneficiary country, use of financial instruments, commitments and payments. In order to be able to provide an exhaustive assessment of the impact of the financial assistance specific evaluations, at programme/project and sector level, will be carried out, as well as an ex-post evaluation (indicatively in 2027) to get more evidence based assessment of the actual contribution that the Instrument has produced in bringing the beneficiary countries closer to EU standards and values, and therefore to the perspective of accession.

Planned use of the information || The various reports, referred to above, will be a key tool in providing an indication on the extent to which the process of programme/project implementation is going in the right direction and whether it requires adaptation. Hence, the information will be used to: (1) Measure, track and monitor the performance of the assistance, achievement of objectives, results delivered and the efficiency of the instrument. Identified problems and possible deficiencies in the system will be reported and discussed in technical meetings, Steering Committee meetings (at action/project level), at Sector Monitoring Committees (at sector level) and IPA Monitoring Committees (at strategic policy and instrument level). Committees will review progress on indicators (at sector and macro level) and propose possible measures to the Commission and beneficiary countries to address possible deviations. (2) Support the functioning of the control environment and internal control system. The information will feed the risk assessment process done by the Commission and EU Delegations in preparing work plans as part of the annual assurance strategy and their follow-up implementation. (3) Take corrective measures and adjustment of the programmes, (programmes adjustments, renewal, modification or suspension of the types of actions implemented under the instrument). After the adoption of the programmes, they may, if necessary, be amended in order to take into account the relevant new information and results relating to the implementation of the actions concerned, including the results of monitoring and evaluation, as well as the need to adjust the amounts of assistance available. (4) Enhance the evaluation function in DG Enlargement, while ensuring quantified data on the performance of the assistance, which will underpin the robustness of the evaluation reports. Evaluations represent an obligation according to art. 30(4) of the Financial Regulation. During the period of the implementation of IPA II, the Commission plans to undertake several evaluations (defined in Annex 4 and in the table below), the major of which are: Two interim evaluations on IPA II (one in 2016 and the other in 2018) to assess the performance of the assistance and results obtained in order to verify that they are consistent with the objectives set. Both are in line with DG Enlargement’s strategic orientation in putting increasing emphasis on interim evaluation, which presents the advantage to capture evidence from past and on-going activities and provide lessons learned that can be used for both adjusting on-going operations and modify the design of future policies and operational interventions, therefore playing a strategic role. While the first interim evaluation fulfils the legal requirement (input for the Mid-term review of IPA in 2017), the second one is foreseen to provide input to the programming process beyond 2020. Currently, the Commission has started a third interim evaluation of IPA I assistance, the results of which will be used in programming and implementation of IPA II assistance. The Commission plans to undertake an ex-ante evaluation for a possible new financial instrument (beyond 2020 year) in the framework of the current financial perspective (indicatively in 2017) in order to provide an input for the new programming process and to assess the relevance of a policy/instrument, to determine the resources to be allocated and to make a tentative impact assessment, whenever relevant also at regulatory level. An ex-post evaluation of IPA I (2007-2013) is foreseen indicatively to take place in 2020, in order to take full stock of attained results, measure the sustainability of outcome and impact delivered. An ex-post evaluation of IPA II is feasible to take place in 2027. Several thematic and sector oriented evaluations will take place in the period 2014-2020 (e.g. in the Rule of Law sector, Good governance and Democracy sector, Environment, Transport, Energy, etc), pursuing to provide a sector performance assessment on the assistance in support of an IPA II sector approach and arriving with recommendations in a view of mid-term review and possible revision of Country Strategy Papers and a Multi-Country Strategy Paper. A separate evaluation on the application of sector approaches is planned to be contracted at the end of 2014 for implementation in 2015, which will review the extent to which the IPA institutional setting and the actual programming have succeed in conceiving the sector approach. The results of evaluations shall be published and shall be taken into account by the IPA monitoring committee and the Sectoral monitoring committees. (5) Provide a basis for giving incentives to improve performance by the beneficiary countries, such as a performance reward. IPA II framework encourages and rewards good performance based on absorption capacity of the IPA II beneficiaries and on achieving strategic targets. The information will be used in the decision on resource allocation. (6) Increased accountability, transparency, visibility of IPA assistance, enabling dissemination of achieved results to general public, stakeholders and civil society.

Frequency of reporting || The frequency of the reports is presented below in the table.

Availability of reports  in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || 2021

AOSD Report || x x || x x || x x || x x || x x || x x || x x ||

Annual Progress Reports and DG Enlargement annual Enlargement Package || x || x || x || x || x || x || x ||

IPA annual report || x || x || x || x || x || x || x ||

Director General’s Annual Activity Report || x || x || x || x || x || x || x ||

Mid-term review of the IPA assistance || || || || x || || || ||

Final report on IPA  (information annual reports 2014-2020) || || || || || || || || X

Ex-post evaluation of IPA I (2007-2013) || || || || || || || x ||

Evaluations of the spending programme (indicative year of completion of the evaluations)

Information per evaluation: 1. Timing 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed  and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Sector approach (indicative) Timing – 2016 Type – strategic evaluation Main issues - Assessment of the programming process under IPA II in view of implementation of sector approaches Coverage – IPA II, Country and Multi-country strategy papers, annual and multi annual (sector) programmes Use of evaluation - Input for the mid-term review and revision of IPA strategic documents Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Thematic evaluation of governance/corruption Timing – 2015 Type – Thematic evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 programmes, themes Public administration reform, Corruption/Fight against corruption Use of evaluation – assessment of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness impact of action in the area/Programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes in the IPA II sector of good governance and fight against corruption Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Thematic evaluation of EU's support to Roma community Timing – 2015 Type – Thematic evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 programmes Use of evaluation – assessment of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness impact of action in the area/Programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes in the IPA II sector of good governance and fight against corruption Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Evaluation of TAIEX instrument Timing – 2015 Type – Instrument evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA 2007-2013 programmes, TAIEX instrument Use of evaluation – Programming of IPA II (annual and multi-annual programmes), pursuing better utilisation of the instrument Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Evaluation of Western Balkan Investment Framework (WBIF) Timing – 2015 Type – Instrument evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage –  WBIF (established in 2009 as a joint initiative of the European Commission, the EIB, EBRD and the CEB) Use of evaluation – Programming of IPA II (annual and multi-annual programmes) with a focus to design WBIF based on the lessons learned from its previous  project facilities rounds Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Evaluation of Employment/Social Policies (indicative) Timing – 2016/2017 Type – Thematic evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 programmes and IPA 2014-2015

Evaluation of Regional Housing programme (indicative) Timing – 2016/2017 Type – Instrument and thematic evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage –  Regional Housing programme, implemented under IPA 2007-2013 Use of evaluation – Improvement in implementation of the Regional Housing programme under IPA II in 2016-2018. Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries, international stakeholders (UNHCR, OSCE and USA)

Thematic evaluation in the field of border management and migration including asylum, organised crime and police cooperation (indicative) Timing – 2016/2017 Type – Thematic evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 programmes and IPA 2014-2015, sector Rule of Law, secondary sector Border management and security, Migration and asylum, etc. Use of evaluation – Programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes in the IPA II sector of good governance and democracy Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Evaluation of the cooperation with World Bank (indicative) Timing – 2016/2017 Type –evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the cooperation Coverage – IPA programmes Use of evaluation – Improving the cooperation with international organisations under different management modes, lessons learned Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Evaluation of twinning instrument (indicative) Timing – 2018 Type – Instrument evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA 2007-2013 programmes, twinning instrument Use of evaluation – Programming of IPA II (annual and multi-annual programmes), pursuing better utilisation of the instrument Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Mid-term review of IPA assistance Timing – 2017 Type – Interim evaluation; feeding into the mid-term review report under art. 17 of the Common Implementing Regulation for external actions[136] Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA 2014-2017 Use of evaluation - Improving the implementation of Union's assistance, including if appropriate, legislative proposals introducing the necessary modifications to the instruments (renewal, modification or suspension of the types of actions) and to IPA II legal and strategic framework. Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Ex-post evaluation of assistance to Croatia (indicative) Timing – 2017/2018 Type – ex-post evaluation Main issues – EU value added, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of IPA assistance Coverage – IPA 2007-2013 Croatia national programmes and relevant regional programmes Use of evaluation - Provide information on the accountability with respect to the value for money and the use of funds and lessons learned on financial assistance where relevant Actors – European Commission, Croatia, beneficiary countries

Sector evaluation of Public administration reform (indicative) Timing – 2017/2018 Type – Sector evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 and IPA 2014-2016 programmes, sector Public administration reform; Use of evaluation – Review and revision of Country Strategy papers and Multi-country strategy papers, programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes in the sector Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Evaluation of the cooperation with UN (indicative) Timing – 2017/2018 Type – Instrument evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the cooperation Coverage – IPA programmes Use of evaluation – Improving the cooperation with international stakeholders under different management modes, lessons learned Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Evaluation of instrument People to people (P2P) (indicative) Timing – 2017/2018 Type – Instrument evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA 2007-2013 and IPA 2014-2016 programmes Use of evaluation – Programming and implementation of IPA II (annual and multi-annual programmes), pursuing better utilisation of the instrument Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Thematic evaluation in the field of rule of law Timing – 2018/2019 Type – Sector evaluation Main issues – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 and IPA 2014-2016 programmes in the area of rule of law Use of evaluation – Programming the new instrument beyond 2020, optimise the budget resources, improving quality in programming Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Ex-ante evaluation preparation new financial instrument (indicative) Timing – 2018/2019 Type – ex-ante evaluation Main issues – identify and appraise the disparities, gaps and potential for development, the goals to be achieved, the results expected, quantified targets, coherence, strategy proposed, quality of procedures, allocation of budget resources Coverage – new financial instrument beyond 2020 Use of evaluation – Programming the new instrument beyond 2020, optimise the budget resources, improving quality in programming Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Sector evaluation of Transport (indicative) Timing – 2019 Type – Sector evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 and IPA 2014-2016 programmes, sector Transport; Use of evaluation – Review and revision of Country Strategy papers and Multi-country strategy papers, programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes in the sector Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Evaluation of Cross-border programmes (indicative) Timing – 2018/2019 Type – policy evaluation Main issues – (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA 2007-2013 CBC programmes (retrospective) and IPA II (perspective) CBC programmes Use of evaluation - Programming of IPA II (annual and multi-annual programmes), Mid-term review of IPA assistance Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Sector evaluation of Public financial management (indicative) Timing – 2020 Type – Sector evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 and IPA 2014-2016 programmes, sector PFM; Use of evaluation – Review and revision of Country Strategy papers and Multi-country strategy papers, programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes in the sector Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Evaluation of the cooperation with Council of Europe (indicative) Timing – 2018/2019 Type – Instrument evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the cooperation Coverage – IPA programmes Use of evaluation – Improving the cooperation with international stakeholders under different management modes, lessons learned Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Sector evaluation Economic governance and global competitiveness (indicative) Timing – 2018/2019 Type – Sector evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA 2014-2016 programmes Use of evaluation – Review and revision of Country Strategy papers and Multi-country strategy papers, programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes in the sector Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Sector evaluation Competitiveness/Innovation (indicative) Timing – 2019 Type – Sector evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA 2014-2016 programmes Use of evaluation – Review and revision of Country Strategy papers and Multi-country strategy papers, programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes in the sector Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Interim evaluation of IPA assistance (indicative) Timing – 2019 Type – Interim evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA 2014-2017 Use of evaluation – Input for the new programming beyond 2020 Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Sector evaluation of Environment (indicative) and climate action Timing – 2018/2019 Type – Sector evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 and IPA 2014-2017 programmes  on environment and climate action; Use of evaluation – Review and revision of Country Strategy papers and Multi-country strategy papers, programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Instrument evaluation SIGMA (indicative) Timing – 2020 Type – Instrument evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 and IPA 2014-2017 SIGMA interventions; Use of evaluation – Retrospective evaluation of the instrument in view of its possible fine-tuning Actors – European Commission, OECD, beneficiary countries

Sector evaluation of Energy (indicative) Timing – 2020 Type – Sector evaluation Main issues (indicatively) – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention Coverage – IPA I 2007-2013 and IPA 2014-2017 programmes, sector energy; Use of evaluation – Review and revision of Country Strategy papers and Multi-country strategy papers, programming of annual and multi-annual sectoral programmes in the sector Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Ex-post evaluation of IPA I (2007-2013) Timing – 2021 Type – ex-post evaluation Main issues – EU value added, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of IPA assistance Coverage – IPA 2007-2013 Use of evaluation - Provide information on the accountability with respect to the value for money and the use of funds and lessons learned on financial assistance. Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

|| Ex-post evaluation of IPA II (2014-2020) 1. Timing –2027 2. Type – ex-post evaluation 3. Main issues – Longer-term outcomes and impacts and sustainability of effects of the instruments Coverage – IPA 2014-2020 4. Use of evaluation - Provide information on the accountability with respect to the value for money and the use of funds and lessons learned on financial assistance. 5. Actors – European Commission, beneficiary countries

Cooperation with Greenland

Title spending programme: || Cooperation with Greenland

Summary, general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework. ||  Please refer to introduction section under heading 4.

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES, INDICATORS, MILESTONES AND TARGETS

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1: The EU/Greenland partnership aims to preserve the close and lasting links between the partners, while supporting the sustainable development of the Greenlandic society.

IMPACT INDICATOR: Percentage fiscal deficit without grants in GDP || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2014) || Long term target (2020)

- 30.9 % || -30,8% || - 27 %

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1:  To support and cooperate with Greenland in addressing its major challenges in particular the sustainable diversification of the economy, the need to increase the skills of its labour force, including scientists, and the need to improve the Greenlandic information systems in the field of Information and Communication Technologies.

INDICATOR 1: Number of internet providers* || Baseline (2012) || Milestone (2014) || Target (2020)

1 || 1 || 2

INDICATOR 2: Number of internet connections* || Baseline (2008) || Milestone (2014) || Target (2020)

11.695 || 11.700 || 12.000

INDICATOR 3: Expenditure on education as a percentage of total public expenditure || Baseline (2010) || Milestones || Target (2020)

19,2 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 19.2

19.2 || 19.2 || 19.2 || 19.2 || 19.2 || 19.2

INDICATOR 4: Completion of education, total || Baseline (2011) || Milestone (2014) || Target (2020)

851 pupils (secondary and tertiary education)=100 || 105 || 150

INDICATOR 5: Percentage of trade balance in GDP || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2014) || Target (2020)

-21,2 || -21.0 || -18

INDICATOR 6: Percentage of fisheries in total exports || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2014) || Target (2020)

89,8 || 89 || 83

INDICATOR 7: Percentage of natural resources, including raw materials, in the total exports || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2014) || Target (2020)

0.9 || 0.9 || 10

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2: To contribute to the capacity of the Greenlandic administration to formulating and implementing national policies in particular in new areas of mutual interest as identified in the Programming Document for the Sustainable Development of Greenland (PDSD).

INDICATOR 1: Number of administrative personnel completing training* || Baseline (2010) || Milestones || Target (2020)

50 || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 50

50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50 || 50

INDICATOR 2: Number of apprenticeship places in European industries (either in Greenland or outside)*. || Baseline || Milestone (2014) || Target (2020)

15 || 15 || 30

INDICATOR 3: Number of public officials on training in European public administrations* || Baseline (2010) || Milestone (2016) || Target 2020

0 || 1 || 3

INDICATOR 4: Percentage of civil servants that are (long-term) residents in Greenland || Baseline || Milestone (2014) || Target (2020)

40 || 40 || 50

MONITORING AND REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

Description of how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked. || Considering the specificity of this instruments, the achievement of the milestones and targets as set out for the present spending programme will be monitored by the EU as part of ad-hoc reporting on the basis of data provided mainly by the Greenland authorities. Indicators marked with (*) will be monitored through the internal monitoring and reporting tool as well as through ad-hoc aggregation on the basis of data provided by project/programme internal monitoring systems at country and regional level.

Actors involved in monitoring || EU, Greenland Authorities,  local and EU civil society organisations and networks

Issues covered  in subsequent monitoring reports || Ad-hoc reporting will be addressing specific issues concerning status of the indicators above.

Planned use of information || Low progress at country level in relation to one or more objectives may lead to inclusion of the indicators in future budget support programmes funded by EU.

Frequency of reporting           || As part of Annual report on EU development policies and implementation.

Availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020

X || X || X || X || X || X || X

EVALUATIONS OF THE SPENDING PROGRAMME

1. Deadline 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || 1. 31/12/2017 2. Mid-term evaluation leading to a report by mid-2018 3. On the achievement of the objectives and EU added value by means of results and impact indicators on the efficiency of the use of resources. It shall also address scope simplification, coherence, continued relevance and contribution to Europe 2020. . 4. A decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. 5. European Commission, Greenland and Denmark 1. Post-2020 2. Ex-post evaluation 3. To evaluate the impacts and sustainability of effects after the programme's duration. 4. – 5. European Commission, Greenland and Denmark

Instrument Turkish Cypriot Community

Spending programme: || Assistance programme for the Turkish Cypriot community

Summary - general description of the logic and sequence of the overall progress and performance reporting framework || The monitoring and reporting framework is set up to shift from focus on financial execution performance to results-based performance. Since 2014 is the first year for which multi-annual perspective has existed for the assistance programme to the Turkish Cypriot community, a wider set of indicators including outcome and impact is being developed. The progress and performance reporting framework is designed to supplement the project-level indicators used up to 2013. The monitoring and reporting system will be based on a three-tier approach: (1) Strategic/policy level – as the assistance will be provided on the basis of the Aid Regulation 389/2006, the strategic progress will be tracked by measuring the indicators defining impact and progress towards the overall objective of reunification of Cyprus. (2) Sector level –the progress in accomplishing the objectives will be measured by sector outcome and output indicators. This will enable better appreciation of the results achieved by the Aid Regulation's individual objectives. (3) Action (project) level – the progress will be measured by defining process and output indicators, targeting particular actions and projects. Apart from the monitoring exercise, which will evaluate progress according to predefined indicators, evaluations looking at programme level, at sector level and for individual projects will be carried out, either ex-post or during implementation, according to annual evaluation plans. These evaluations will look at effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of the project or programme. Steering committees at project or programme level will review progress and there is a beneficiary-led structure for review and input, particularly for progress towards the acquis. The performance monitoring framework described hereafter is linked to the General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets that can be found in Parts 3 and 4 of the main text of the DG Enlargement Management Plan 2014.  

General and specific objectives, indicators, milestones and targets

General objective: To facilitate the reunification of Cyprus by encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community with particular emphasis on the economic integration of the island, on improving contacts between the two communities and with the EU, and on preparation for the acquis.

Specific objective: Economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community

Result indicator: Technically and politically support settlement process to prepare for the application of the acquis to the whole island after the achievement of settlement

Impact indicator: Progress towards reunification

Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

Political stalemate; social/economic separation || Substantive progress in political and technical processes || Social and economic integration, advanced acquis alignment

Result indicator (definition): GDP per capita gap between the government controlled areas of the Republic of Cyprus and the northern part of Cyprus in process of progressive reduction 

Baseline 2013 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

TCC GDP/cap  as % of that of government controlled area : 45% || 52% || 59%[137]

Result indicator (definition): Cross green line trade volume in process of progressive increase (source: TCC Chamber of Commerce)

Baseline 2012 || Milestone 2017 || Target 2020

€4,196,465 || €6,500,000 || €8,500,000

Monitoring and reporting arrangements

Description on how progress on achieving milestones and targets of each objective is tracked and actors involved in monitoring || Data for monitoring purposes will be collected by: · On-the-spot project checks by Commission or Technical Assistance (TA) staff, with frequency dependent on the assigned risk; · The Turkish Cypriot community, which already collects a wide range of socio-economic data; · External consultants specifically tasked with tracking the performance against the predefined indicators and consolidating inputs from various sources. This is likely to include the World Bank, which will monitor local economic performance; · Eurobarometer surveys on public opinion; · Steering Committees at project level. TAIEX activities, for example, are monitored through more than 20 Project Steering Groups, plus biannual Monitoring Mechanism meetings. TAIEX logistics are monitored through the on-line TAIEX Management System. A consolidation of this data will allow both tracking of project and programme performance towards objectives and the wider programme impact, including socio-economic trends

Reporting and planned use of the information || Monitoring activities and performance of the assistance programme will be reported through: · The AOSD report, which is delivered biannually, reporting on the performance of the financial assistance, highlighting key issues and risks; · The DG's Annual Activity Report, showing performance against the Annual Management Plan for the year; · The Annual Report to the European Parliament and the Council, required by the Aid Regulation, and explaining deliveries and performance under the Aid Regulation; · An Annual report by an external consultant with a consolidation of monitoring data and an evaluation of programme performance against indicators. The above reports will be used to assess the programme pace and performance against the Aid Regulation objectives and will provide input for any adaptions to the programme. Other important considerations in this respect will be the status of the Cyprus political settlement process, which may require a radical revision and project/programme evaluation reports. Overall programme evaluations were performed in 2009 and 2013 and this will be repeated in 2017 as an MFF mid-term report.

Availability of reports in the timeline || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || 2021

AOSD Report || xx || xx || xx || xx || xx || xx || xx ||

Annual Report (EP/council) || x || x || x || x || x || x || x ||

Annual Activity Report || x || x || x || x || x || x || x ||

Annual Monitoring Report || || x || x || x || x || x || x ||

Mid-term/Final Report || || || || x || || || || x

Evaluations of the spending programme (contracting year)

Per planned evaluation: 1. Timing 2. Type 3. Main issues addressed  and coverage 4. Planned use of evaluation results 5. Actors involved || Assessment of the EU-funded support to the Committee on Missing Persons Timing – 2014 Type – project evaluation Main issues – Efficiency of process, contribution to reconciliation Coverage – All Cyprus Use of evaluation – Assessment of the value of CMP to the objectives of the Aid Regulation and recommendations for future support Actors – European Commission, Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriots, bicommunal Technical Committee, CMP

Evaluation of selection of indicators Timing – 2014 Type – horizontal evaluation Main issues  – selection of indicators up to 2013, proposals for 2014-20 Use of evaluation – establishment of indicator set Actors – TCc, European Commission

Rural development sector evaluation Timing – 2014 Type – Thematic evaluation Main issues – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the intervention 2006-13 Use of evaluation – assessment of programme, recommendations Actors – European Commission, TCc

Evaluation of equipment supply Timing – 2014 Type – Horizontal evaluation Main issues  – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, effectiveness, sustainability of equipment supplies, recommendations Use of evaluation – increase of sustainability, recommendations Actors – European Commission, TCc

Evaluation of Famagusta water/wastewater networks Timing – 2014 Type – Project evaluation Main issues  – Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness Use of evaluation – improvement of future support Actors – European Commission, TCc

MFF mid-term and final evaluations Timing-2017 1md 2021 Type: mid-term an final evaluations Main issues: Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness Use of evaluation: Assessment of programme 2014-20 Actors: European Commission, TCc

[1] Reference is made to SWD2 for an overview of the actions taken and actions still to be taken on the Action Plan.

[2] The European Development Fund is an extra-budgetary fund outside the MFF. It is therefore not taken up in this document. The same is true for the emergency aid reserve which is a special instrument and its actions cannot be programmed. The emergency aid reserve is entered into the Union budget as a provision. There are some others that technically are spending programmes, although with a very specific set-up and purpose. For reasons of completeness, these instruments are described in this SWD (e.g. the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund; Compulsory contributions to Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs); other International Organisations and Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs); and Macro-Financial Assistance).

[3] European Statistical Programme 2013-2017 final report in 2017; Euratom 2014-2018 final report in 2018; Standards in the fields of Financial Reporting and European Globalisation Adjustments Fund last annual reports in 2019.

[4] REGULATION (EU) No 1303/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 9/12/2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

[5] Predecessor programmes of the following MFF 2014-2020 programmes: 2014: EaSi (PROGRESS 2007-2013); Customs 2020; Fiscalis 2020; Hercule III; CEF predecessor (TEN-T); EGF; UCPM Justice; REC; Food and Feed. 2015: Horizon 2020; Euratom; Copernicus; ISA; ERDF; Cohesion Fund; ESF; EMFF direct management (CFP and area law of the sea 2007-2013); Third Health Programme; AMIF; Internal Security Fund; Europe for Citizens. 2016: CAP (second pillar: EAFRD); EMFF shared management (EFF 2007-2013). 2017: nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes; Erasmus; Consumer Programme; Creative Europe Programme.

[6] The European Statistical Programme runs only until 2017 and will conduct its mid-term evaluation in 2015; two years before a possible renewal.

[7] 2017: EGNOS and GALILEO; nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes; ITER, Horizon 2020; Euratom; Erasmus +; EaSi; Hercule III; Pericles 2020; CEF; EGF; EMFF (direct management); LIFE; UCPM; Europe for Citizens; Third Health Programme; Consumer Programme, Creative Europe Programme; Copernicus.

[8] 2018: COSME; Customs 2020; Fiscalis 2020; ISA; FEAD; Food and Feed; AMIF; Internal Security Fund; Justice Programme; REC.

[9] The European Statistical Programme runs until 2017 and an ex-post evaluation is foreseen for 2018. A report on the achievement of programme objectives is foreseen for the Programme Standards in the field of Financial Reporting 12 months before the end of the programme. 

[10] Nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes and CEF.

[11] 2018: ESP. 2019: standards in the fields of financial reporting and auditing. 2021: COSME; Customs 2020; Fiscalis 2020; Hercule III, Pericles 2020; EGF; EMFF (direct management part); Third Health Programme; Consumer Programme; Justice Programme; REC Programme; Union Civil Protection Mechanism, ISA. 2022: Euratom; Erasmus +; EaSI; Food and Feed; Creative Europe Programme. 2023: Horizon 2020; LIFE; Europe for Citizens. 2024: ERDF; Cohesion Fund; ESF; CAP (second pillar); EMFF (shared management part); FEAD; AMIF; Internal Security Fund.

[12] Namely the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI); the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR); the Partnership Instrument (PI),  the Instrument Contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP); Instrument for Pre-accession assistance) and IPA II.

[13] In 2013, for all EU contributions above EUR 1 million 30% of the projects and programmes portfolio have been assessed. For contributions below EUR 1 million a sample of 10% was assessed.

[14]  According to Regulation (EU) No 1285/2013 the specific objectives of Galileo cover the following 5 services: Open Service (OS), Integrity monitoring Service, Commercial Service (CS), Public Regulated Service (PRS) and the Search and Rescue support Service (SAR).

[15] According to Regulation (EU) No 1285/2013 the specific objectives of EGNOS cover the following 3 services. Open Service (OS), EGNOS Data Access Service (EDAS) and Safety-of-Life Service (SoL).

[16] The 2014 report will cover the period 2012/13 of the previous MFF 2007-2013.

[17] Council Decision amending Decision 2007/198/Euratom establishing the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy and conferring advantages upon it (adopted on 13 December 2013).

[18] Energy Roadmap 2050 - COM(2011)885 of 15.12.2011.

[19] Progress in the Euratom contribution to ITER construction is measured according to credits granted by IO to F4E according to the ITER International Agreement.

[20] Service components are defined as follows in the Copernicus Work Programme and multi-annual implementation plan: Baseline known from GMES Initial Operations Programme 2013: Services ready to be operational in 2015 are Emergency Mapping, Early Warning System of Floods, Pan-EU land service, EU local Land service, Global land service, and provision of access to reference data access = 6 components responding to Copernicus Regulation Art 5(1e) and Art 5(1c) In 2014 initiate additionally, to be operational in 2016: Services on Global Hot spots, Border Surveillance, Maritime Surveillance, External Action Service, Early Warning System Forest fires = 5 components operational In 2017, Marine Environment, and Atmosphere service to be operational In 2019, Climate change service to be operational

[21] Based on EARSC study of 2012.

[22] Based on SpaceTec study of 2012.

[23] User satisfaction being expressed as percentage of Copernicus users which integrate the service products regularly into their workflows

[24] The in-situ sensors are already deployed, as soon as the remaining 4 Copernicus services become operational, in-situ data will be fed into them.

[25] No sufficient amount of meaningful data are expected for "patents awarded" before 2020, because of the time that is needed for a patent to be awarded.

[26] Although the overall budget for research infrastructure has increased in Horizon 2020 compared to FP7, the result for this indicator is expected to slightly decrease since priority in Horizon 2020 will be given to the new emerging infrastructures as well as to targeting new communities (starting communities) whose infrastructures are usually not able to provide as large an access as the advanced communities.

[27] The target and the milestone refer to the "Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies" specific objective as a whole (i.e. all six enabling and industrial technologies). No target has been set for each enabling and industrial technology.

[28] Since this is a new indicator and there are currently no comparable data for FP7, the target and the milestone will be established on the basis of the FP7 ex-post evaluation studies and/or the first project results under H2020.

[29] No sufficient amount of meaningful data is expected for this indicator before 2020.

[30] Based on the current negotiations the contribution from other financial institutions that will be made to the SME initiative, SET Plan, Equity Facility for R&I, Piloting Co-Investments by Business Angels in Innovative ICT Firms and TTFF is not available. Consequently the figures might be updated as soon as they are available. 

[31] Depending on the demand and the type of operations involved.

[32] This figure does not include ICT projects of FP7 and CIP-PSP.

[33]  The common result indicators under the Societal challenges are not relevant for the H2020 funds managed by the Directorate-General for Energy (ENER). The following ENER specific result indicators, agreed with RTD, will be introduced as of 2017 (i.e. once they become relevant due to the availability of data): Investments triggered by close-to-market projects in the area of Secure, clean and efficient energy. Energy savings (GWh/year/million€) triggered by projects funder under the Energy Efficiency focus area of secure, clean and efficient energy. Smart Cities: Demonstration and up scaling of major innovative solutions combining energy, transport and ICT technologies that enable cities where they are demonstrated to outperform EU targets on CO2, use of RES and energy efficiency.

[34] For this specific objective no performance indicator has been defined in Annex II of the Horizon 2020 Specific Programme. It has been developed by the Commission services and it is subject to possible revision in the future.

[35]      The legal base does not specify any indicator for the general objective.

[36]      The target figure is lower compared to the baseline due to the larger average size of the projects expected in Horizon 2020.

[37] with the Euratom fusion programme's emphasis in Horizon 2020, shifting from research to technology development, this target could be lower than expected.

[38]   A 2020 target of 3 days is mentioned in the recent Industrial Policy Communication COM(2014)14 of 22 January 2014.

[39] A 2020 target of €100 is mentioned in the recent Industrial Policy Communication COM(2014)14 of 22 January 2014.

[40] Given the conceptual differences between the past and the present programmes a direct comparison of numbers achieved in the past and numbers to be achieved in the future is not possible. Baseline, milestone(s) and target for this indicator will therefore be established across the present programme as early as September 2014 on the basis of data within applications received in 2014.

[41] Reporting on the performance of the programme in a specific year (n) including detailed reports (breakdown) on the indicators annexed to the basic act will be produced by Q2 of the following year (n+1) and published on the Erasmus+ website.

[42] These figures come from the numbers of non EU HEIs having participated in EM and Tempus from 2009 to 2013.

[43] Total of outputs for two actions: Youth exchanges and European Voluntary Service

[44] Reporting on the performance of the programme in a specific year (n) including detailed reports (breakdown) on the indicators annexed to the basic act will be produced by Q2 of the following year (n+1) and published on the Erasmus+ website.

[45] The size of membership of sport organisations applying for, and taking part in the Programme, by country is monitored in EU funded projects.

[46] Number of final beneficiaries who received a microloan under the Progress Microfinance

[47] The target has been based on the past experience with the Progress Microfinance. The target is subject to change, as the final budget, the required leverage and potential co-investments are unknown at this stage.

[48] There was no such support offered by the European Commission to social enterprises in the past.

[49] This calculation is based on the total volume of the guarantees and funded instruments funds, multiplied by the expected leverage and divided by an average investment size of 200.000 euros per social enterprise. For the funded instruments, an expected co-investment of 20 million euros was taken into account. The target is subject to change, as the final budget, the required leverage and potential co-investments are unknown at this stage.

[50] Data not yet available as methodology still has to be developed. Figures will not be ready within the first two years of implementation of CEF

[51] This indicator is defined according to the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC.

[52] This specific objective is derived from one of the indicators of the wide general objective of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) Regulation as regards the contribution to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which is reflected in the 2nd General Objective of the CEF Programme Statement. It was deemed appropriate for the purpose of monitoring the activity of DG MOVE to include in the Management Plan a specific objective concerning the improvement of the environment for investing in infrastructure since it is an important policy objective. The Legislators have insisted on the importance of the reporting for the use of CEF financial instruments; therefore, a corresponding indicator has been included herewith. The other indicators mentioned under specific objective 8 in the management plan (p.25), though important politically, are not directly linked to the budgetary activity of the DG and therefore do not need to be used for the purpose of this Annex.  It must be noted that the policy focus for DG MOVE is on attracting private investments into transport infrastructure, as reflected in the indicator chosen. However, the indicator chosen in the CEF Programme Statement, refers to the volume of public and private investment in projects of common interest realised through the Financial Instruments under the CEF, to measure the total leverage effect of the CEF financial instruments.

[53] Baseline is PRIMES 2007 in 2020, which includes policies to be implemented up to 2006 with an oil price of $61 per barrel and reference year 2005. Calculated as Gross Inland Consumption minus Final Non-Energy Use Consumption. Source: Eurostat, Commission studies.

[54]  Source: Annex 1b of Dir. 2009/28/EC

[55] As measured: citizens and businesses using e-Government services.

[56] Cross-border public services: this cannot yet be measured, as the list of services is still under definition by Member States.

[57] No later than six months after the expiry of the period specified in Article 16(4).

[58] For the purpose of this document, specific objectives are considered as the "thematic objectives" of the ESF and not the specific objectives in the sense of the regulation (In the CPR specific objective means the result to which an investment priority or Union priority contributes in a specific national or regional context through actions or measures undertaken within such a priority). The specific objective 5 however doesn't correspond to a thematic objective but to the Youth Employment Initiative.

[59] the output indicator 1 "Number of participants" cover participants benefitting from ESF under this thematic objective only whilst the second indicator  covers all operations under all thematic objectives.

[60] These estimates are based on the current ESF performance 2007-2013. These figures are indicative and will be revised to take into account the targets set in the Operational Programmes.

[61] These indicators cover all operations under all thematic objectives

[62] Migrants, participants with a foreign background, minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma); Participants with disabilities; Participants who live in a single adult household with dependent children; Participants who live in jobless households; Other disadvantaged. These will be broken down by the different categories. Persons may cumulate several disadvantages.

[63] The target figure is indicative and will be revised to take into account the targets set in the Operational programmes

[64] These estimates are based on the current ESF performance 2007-2013. The figures are indicative and will be revised to take into account the targets set in the Operational Programmes.

[65]  The baseline provided is an estimate based on some Programmes of the 2007-2013 programming period. These figures are indicative and will be revised to take into account the targets set in the Operational Programmes.

[66] The output indicator 1 "Number of young participants" cover participants benefitting from ESF under all thematic objective whilst the other indicators (2 to 7) refer exclusively to the YEI supported operations.

[67] These estimates are based on the current ESF performance 2007-2013. The figures are indicative and will be revised to take into account the targets set in the Operational Programmes.

[68]   The basic act foresees that the common indicators will be defined in an implementing act to be adopted by July 2014.

[69] Note 1: The FEAD is a new Fund, hence with a baseline at 0. The figures used in the framework of the existing Food assistance programme are established through a methodology which does not yield figures that could be comparable to the one of the new FEAD, thus they cannot be used as a baseline.

Note 2: The Commission Proposal foresees the definition of common indicators to be adopted by the Commission through Implementing Acts. The specific objective's indicator will be complemented and possibly revised at the later stage, in light of the Implementing Act.

[70] Total net emissions from agriculture including soil in 1000 t of CO2 equivalent (Source: EEA).

[71] Data available for EU27 excluding BE, CY, LU and AT in 1000 m3 (Source: Eurostat – SAPM).

[72] Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, OJ L 347 of 20.12.2013

[73] Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, OJ L 347 of 20.12.2013

[74] Milestones are only set for some of the indicators. The common indicators are part of the Performance Framework.

[75] Based on data from the Blue Growth Study 'Scenarios and drivers for sustainable growth from the oceans, seas and coasts', ECORYS, 2012: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/content/2946

[76] Defined in COM(2012) 494 final.

[77] Based on data from the Blue Growth Study 'Scenarios and drivers for sustainable growth from the oceans, seas and coasts', ECORYS, 2012: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/content/2946

[78] The landing obligation is defined in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC.

[79] Regulation (EU) N° 1380/2013: Article 15 (1) for the years 2014-2018, and Article 15 (4) for the years 2019-2023.

[80] Probably from the second half of 2014 on.

[81] Please note that the current 303 FLAGs that are supported under the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) will close their activity at the end of 2015 at the latest.

[82] The new FLAGs supported under the EMFF must be selected before the end of 2017 (Article 33.4. CPR) and will not have implemented their strategies before 2023.

[83] The information gap analysis was carried out by the expert group in charge of the CISE project. It identified the unsatisfied cross-sectoral demand (gap) for ~500 generic maritime surveillance data elements. Depending on the sectors, the gap revealed to range between 40% and 90% of total information necessary for relevant sectors.

[84] http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2013_en.htm

[85] Established by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG).

[86] A composite indicator is used based on growth rate in installed capacity of (a) offshore wind which is an established industry but still vulnerable to switches in energy policies of EU and Member States and (b) ocean energy which is emerging. Between 2010 and 2013 the growth rate in ocean wind has been 40% on average. Because of the large size of one particular plant (the French Rance tidal barrage) and the small size of the newer demonstrators it will only be towards 2020 that double figure growth can be achieved for the ocean energy.

[87] This number is outside the influence of the European Commission as it concerns Member States' implementation as well as actual attempts to import illegal products into the EU by operators.

[88] Countries which fail to adhere to their responsibility as a flag, coastal, port or market State and refuse to cooperate in the fight against IUU fishing.

[89] Complete and of required quality.

[90] 100% minus failures to deliver the full data set required within a module within a specific data call relative to the overall number of data calls in %.

[91] Council conclusions on the external dimension of the CFP, 19.03.2012, 7086/12 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf )

[92] Voluntary contributions are included into the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) under direct management.

[93] In the medium/long-term perspective and on the basis of the principles of the CFP reform on sustainability, this target aims at stabilising the level of fishing possibilities by aligning the fishing possibilities granted through SFPAs with the needs of the EU fleet. The level of the fishing possibilities should be in accordance with the status of the targeted stocks. To ensure value for money, when negotiating fishing possibilities, the EU seeks the best match between the requests of the EU fishing fleet and the real utilisation of the fishing possibilities made available by the third country, taking into account the best available scientific advice.

[94] See the list of the current SFPAs/Protocols above.

[95] Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), OJ L 347, p.185. The qualitative and quantitative indicators, outcomes and targets related to the general and specific objectives for the LIFE sub-programme for environment defined in Articles 3, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 are set out in the LIFE multiannual work programme 2014-2017 (MAWP), which is expected to be adopted in March 2014.

[96] Executive Agency for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (EASME).

[97] Where the targets refer to on-going projects, they are actually rather milestones. These milestones consist in having set up the projects in such a way that they can reach the targets by 2020. The few projects that would be finalised by 2017, should naturally reach the target they were set up to meet.

[98] Projects within the meaning of Articles 2 and 18 (a), (b), (c) and (h) Regulation No 1293/2013 will be specifically assessed for their potential replicability/transferability and are therefore used as the reference indicator. It is expected that 80% of these projects implement replicable/transferable actions.

[99] Although many LIFE interventions will implement plans, programmes or strategies pursuant to Union environmental or climate policy or legislation, integrated projects (IPs), which are new under the LIFE programme, are specifically designed for this and are therefore used as the reference de minimis indicator.

[100] Although all projects should to a certain degree promote synergies and integration into practice, integrated projects (IPs), which are new under the LIFE programme, are specifically designed for this and are therefore used as the reference indicator.

[101] Although all interventions contain an information, dissemination and awareness raising element, governance and information interventions, whether funded through grants or procurement, are specifically designed to address this objective and are therefore used as the reference indicator.

[102] All LIFE interventions, whether funded through grants, procurement or financial instruments, support the implementation of at least one of the priority objectives of the 7th Environment Action Programme.

[103] LIFE contribution is calculated taking into account an estimated total of 138.000 water bodies and the fact that  43% of water bodies already achieved good ecological status  according to the Commission Communication, A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources COM(2012) 673 final.

[104] Estimated to be 100% of the interventions financed by the 07 02 01.

[105] Estimated to be 100% of the interventions financed by the 07 02 02 plus the number of “Nature” projects and 1/3 of the operating grants financed under 07 02 03.

[106] All NGO's funded by operating grants are expected to increase their participation in consultations on EU environmental policy.

[107] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Final evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+), OJEU.

[108] The climate action sub-programme of LIFE is too small to achieve EU 2020 targets for climate action but it contributes. The LIFE contribution to achieving those objectives and targets are defined in the milestones and targets for each of the Specific Objectives.

[109] "Provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and that developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities"

[110] The average of the 8 yearly averages. Data are missing for some Member States and years as follows: 2005 - 2 MS (BE, DE); 2006 - 3 MS (BE, DE, IT); 2007 - 4 MS (BE, BG, DK, IT); 2008 - 6 MS (BE, BG, IT, NL, PT UK); 2009 - 2 MS (BG, IT); 2010 - 5 MS (IE, IT, PT, NL and AT); 2011 - 9 MS (BE BG, EL, IT, HU, NL, AT, RO, FI,) 2012 - 9 MS (BG, EL, IT, LV, HU, NL, RO, SI, UK)

[111] This figure is an estimate. Data will be collected as of June 2014.

[112] OJ L 115, 17.4.2014, p. 3..

[113] For indicators related to the specific objective 1, the source data is EACEA - Indicators, milestones and targets have been set out on the basis of a study launched by DG COMM in 2012-2013 in order to measure the impact of the Europe for Citizens programme – http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/news-events/news/11072013_studyefc_en.htm.

[114]For indicators related to the specific objective 2, the source data is EACEA - Indicators, milestones and targets have been set out on the basis of a study launched by DG COMM in 2012-2013 in order to measure the impact of the Europe for Citizens programme – http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/news-events/news/11072013_studyefc_en.htm.

[115] Geographical coverage at EU level = number of Member States for which 90 % < NC < 110 %. NC = National coverage = % of projects submitted per member State as a lead partner / % of its population in the total population of the EU.

[116] Geographical coverage at EU level = number of Member States for which 90 % < NC < 110 %. NC = National coverage = % of projects selected per member State as a lead partner / % of its population in the total population of the EU.

[117] Geographical coverage at EU level = number of Member States for which 90 % < NC < 110 %. NC = National coverage = % of projects submitted per member State as a lead partner or co-partner / % of its population in the total population of the EU.

[118] Geographical coverage at EU level = number of Member States for which 90 % < NC < 110 %. NC = National coverage = % of projects selected per member State as a lead partner or co-partner / % of its population in the total population of the EU.

[119] Launch of a study on the state of play as regards the availability of plans in the area of generic preparedness in the Member States, including a gap-analysis of areas not covered by preparedness planning and the identification of incompatibilities between Member States’ plans, especially concerning cross-border interaction. The study is ongoing and should be ready by summer 2014. Member states should answer on the preparedness of the health sector before end November 2014

[120] The Consumer Scoreboard is the Commission’s main tool to monitor the Single Market from a consumer perspective. The Consumer Conditions Index provides an overview of the key indicators describing the consumer environment at national level, as measured through surveys of perceptions, attitudes and experiences of consumers in particular.

[121] See Communication on promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs in the EU – COM(2012)537

[122] Breakdowns by national origin, size and sectors of SMEs or organisations and by participating financial intermediaries categorised by national origin are provided in the annual report from the European Investment Fund.

[123] There is no EU wide financial instrument for the sector. An estimated 10% according to the ex-ante impact assessment of the Creative Europe programme.

[124] There is no EU wide financial instrument for the sector. An estimated ratio of 1:5,7 according to the ex-ante impact assessment for the Creative Europe programme.

[125] Breakdowns by national origin, size and sectors of SMEs or organisations are provided in annual reports from the European Investment Fund.

[126] "Paving the way for an EU Development and Cooperation Results Framework". EC Staff Working Document(2012) 530.

[127] See Article 67.3 of the FR: Heads of Union Delegations acting as authorising officers by Sub-delegation in accordance with Article 56f2) shall report to their authorising officer by delegation so that the latter can integrate their reports in his or her annual activity report referred to in Article 66(9). The reports of the Heads of Union Delegations shall include information on the efficiency and effectiveness of internal control systems put in place in their Delegation, as well as on the management of operations sub-delegated to them, and provide the assurance referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 73(51. Those reports shall be annexed to the annual activity report of the authorising officer by delegation, and shall be made available to the European Parliament and the Council having due regard, where appropriate, to their confidentiality.

[128] The number of evaluations finalised is directly linked to the human resources available in the evaluation unit.

[129] http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/index_en.htm

[130] JO: Joint evaluation; BS: Budget support evaluation; RE: Regional evaluation

[131] Iceland remains a potential beneficiary country under IPA II legal framework but without a specific country allocation in the budget for 2014.

[132] This indicator includes both CBC Programmes IPA/EU (managed by DG Regional Policy) and IPA/IPA (managed by DG Enlargement)

[133] The column should be deleted if only short-and medium term (less than 3 years) targets are set. 

[136] Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the  Council of 11 March 2014 laying down common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union's instruments for financing external action

[137] Slow approximation is foreseen.

[i] As required by the Copernicus Regulation, Art. 30, paragraph 7.