Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52013SC0304

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the PERICLES programme Final rapport June 2013 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles' Programme)

52013SC0304

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the PERICLES programme Final rapport June 2013 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles' Programme)


European Anti-Fraud Office

Internal Audit Capability and Evaluation

Ref. Ares(2013)2101030 - 13/06/2013

European Anti-Fraud Office

Evaluation of the PERICLES programme

Final Report

June 2013

European Anti-Fraud Office

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                                                            4

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT                                                                                    7

1 - INTRODUCTION                                                                                      7

1.1   The protection of the euro                                                                     7

1.2   The PERICLES programme                                                                      8

1.3   The evaluation of the Pericles programme                                                 9

1.4   Previous evaluations of the PERICLES programme                                      10

2 - THE OBJECTIVES AND INTERVENTION LOGIC OF THE PERICLES                      11

PROGRAMME

3 - EVALAUTION OF THE RELEVANCE, EFFICIENTCY AND EFFECTIVENESS             13

OF THE PERICLES PROGRAMME

3.1   Relevance                                                                                         15

3.2   European and overall added value of the programme                                 24

3.3   Efficiency                                                                                          26

3.4   Effectiveness                                                                                     35

3.5   Prospects for sustainability                                                                   44

4 – CONCLUSSIONS                                                                                    45

Annexes:

Annex I:    Programme's intervention logic

Annex II:  Methodology

Annex III: Evaluation matrix

Annex IV: Replies to the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and

Europol

Annex V:   Replies to the questionnaire to competent authorities in third countries

Annex VI: Replies to the questionnaire to participants in programme's activities

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CTW                     Activities financed by the programme which combine conference, training and workshop

CNAC                Coins National Analysis Centre

EC                   European Commission

ECB                  European Central Bank

ECEG                Euro Counterfeit Expert Group

EQ                   Evaluation Question

ETSC                European Technical and Scientific Centre

EU                   European Union

EUROJUST         European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit

EUROPOL           European Police Office

MS/EU MS         Member States of the European Union

NAC                 National Analysis Centre NCO    National Central Office OLAF European Anti-fraud Office USA                       United States of America VAT   Value Added Tax

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The protection of the euro

Euro banknotes and coins were first introduced in 2002 for 12 Member States of the European Union (MS). Currently, the euro is the single currency shared by the 17 Member States of the euro area in use for 330 million people in this area. It is also used in a large scale for international trading transactions and serves as an important reserve currency for third countries.

Counterfeiting of currencies remains a concern throughout the European Union. Counterfeits  decrease  the  acceptability  of  notes  and  coins  and  harm  citizens  and businesses that are not reimbursed for counterfeits even if received in good faith. For the euro, its use in 17 MS and its worldwide importance means that it is also open to the risk of counterfeiting on a transnational scale.

The Pericles programme

The  Pericles  programme  ("the  programme")  was  established  by  Council  Decision

2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001 for a four years period (1st January 2002 to 31

December 2005) and subsequently extended until 31 December 2013. The programme budget is Euro 1 million per year. The programme is implemented and coordinated by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), on behalf of the Commission, and the MS. This coordination should take account of other measures undertaken at MS and European level, in particular by the European Central Bank (ECB) and European Police Office (Europol).

The overall objective of the programme is to protect the euro against counterfeiting, with particular attention to transnational and multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence among MS.

The specific objectives of the programme are: raising awareness, providing high level training, encouraging cooperation, and promoting exchanges of information, experiences and good practices of staff concerned in the EU and third countries. The main target groups for the programme are police forces, intelligence personnel, representatives of national central banks, mints,  judicial  officers,  commercial banks and other relevant private  sector  organisations.  To  achieve  its  specific  objectives,  the  main  activities supported by the programme are: training, networking and dissemination activities, information and staff exchanges and technical assistance (including studies and teaching sources).

The evaluation of the programme

The evaluation covered by this report is mandated by Council Decision 2001/923/EC, as amended by Council Decision 2006/849/EC. As requested by the Council Decision, the evaluation has focussed on the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme. The prospects for sustainability of the results achieved have also been assessed.

The evaluation has not assessed the overall relevance of the programme (whether the programme should be continued after 2013) as this was assessed in the context of the mid-term evaluation performed by the Commission and the impact assessment which supported the Commission's proposal for the continuation of the programme during the period 2014/20201  (the "Pericles 2020"). Nevertheless, the evaluation has assessed the

1 Impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011) 1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme)

European and overall added value of the programme and its complementarity and coherence with other existing activities at MS and European level.

Overall performance of the programme

The programme provides a clear European added value. The specific objectives of the programme are highly relevant to the achievement of its overall objective. The activities financed by the programme and the target groups involved are highly relevant to achieve its  specific  objectives.  The  transnational  and  multidisciplinary  dimensions  of  the programme activities also represent a clear added value of the programme compared to activities carried out at MS and European level. Overall, the efficiency of the programme is satisfactory and the programme has been highly effective in contributing to the achievement of its specific objectives. The evaluation has identified some potential improvements which could enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the programme.

Relevance

The specific objectives of the programme are highly relevant to the achievement of its overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting. The target groups and activities financed by the programme are also, in general, highly relevant to the specific objectives and the programme resources have been used mainly to finance the activities with the highest relevance and for the most relevant target groups.

European and overall added value of the programme

The euro is the single currency shared by the 17 Member States of the euro area. It is also used at a large scale in international trading transactions and serves as an important reserve currency for third countries. The protection of the euro against counterfeiting is clearly therefore of European interest which goes beyond the interest of individual MS.

Addressing the threats posed by criminal groups involved in the production and/or distribution of counterfeit euro and operating in different MS and third countries requires the cooperation among the competent authorities in the MS and with their counterparts in third countries. The programme facilitates this cooperation by providing technical and operational training, networking, dissemination and exchange activities to the staff of relevant competent authorities in the MS and third countries and, by so doing, it provides a clear European added value.

The evaluation also showed that the activities implemented by a competent authority in one MS also address the needs of other competent authorities in the same or other MS.

The combination of an European/international dimension of the programme, together with a multidisciplinary dimension, represents a clear added value of the programme compared to activities carried out at MS and European level (namely by the ECB, Europol and Eurojust). The programme is also the only specific programme at European level which finances activities on euro protection.

Efficiency

Overall, the programme's activities and outputs are delivered at a reasonable cost and correspond to the priorities and needs identified, although there is some potential to improve efficiency.

The  complementarity  and  coherence  of  the  programme  activities  are  in  general satisfactory.  However, these and other efficiency aspects are not always clearly presented and reported.

The meetings of the Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group (ECEG) provide an adequate mechanism for coordinating and steering the programme. The evaluation has identified some potential improvements which could facilitate the role of the ECEG for coordinating and steering the programme.

Effectiveness

The specific objectives of the programme are being achieved satisfactorily. Overall, the programme has been highly effective in contributing to the achievement of its specific objectives.

Concrete results achieved with the programme's contribution have been reported by the competent authorities and include: satisfactory cooperation among competent authorities in the EU and with third countries, improved capacity of competent authorities in the EU and third countries, successful cross-border operations, and the promotion of national structures  and  the  development  of  relevant  legal  instruments  on  euro  protection. Intangible effects deriving from networking, motivation of officials and facilitating mutual trust among officials of competent authorities are important contributions of the programme.

The activities financed by the programme have a clear transnational and multidisciplinary dimension. The programme has also contributed to the promotion of convergence among the MS on euro protection, mainly by providing high level training, which is one of the specific objectives of the programme. It has also contributed by facilitating the exchange of information and best practices improving the understanding of the various situations in the MS, and the consequences of different levels of protection resulting from different criminal law systems. The role of the programme in promoting convergence beyond these areas is more uneven.

Overall,  the  complementarity  and  coherence  of  the  programme  activities  with  other existing measures in MS, and at European level, are satisfactory. The existing coordination and cooperation mechanisms are adequate to achieve the overall objective of the programme. Nevertheless, while the existing planning process has, in general ensured coordination and flexibility to address new threats and priorities, a multi-annual strategy for the programme with a clearly defined timeframe is not in place and the current annual reporting does not provide sufficient information on the results achieved by the programme.

Prospects for sustainability

The sustainability of the results achieved will depend significantly on the possibility to continue financing similar activities to maintain the existing level of cooperation among the competent authorities, a continuous training of the staff concerned and responding to new threats and needs (new counterfeits, new modus operandi of criminal groups, new MS or third countries affected by counterfeiting, new euro notes issued by the ECB as from

2013, etc.).

The evaluation showed that the continuation of the activities currently implemented by the

MS with the programme support would be at risk without financing at EU level.

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 – The protection of the euro

Euro banknotes and coins were first introduced in 2002 for 12 EU MS. Currently, the euro is the single currency shared by the 17 Member States of the euro area in use for 330 million people in this area. It is also used at a large scale in international trading transactions and serves as an important reserve currency for third countries.

Counterfeiting of currencies remains a concern throughout the European Union. Counterfeits  decrease  the  acceptability  of  notes  and  coins  and  harm  citizens  and businesses that are not reimbursed for counterfeits even if received in good faith. For the euro, its worldwide importance means that it is also open to the risk of counterfeiting on a transnational scale.

Table 1: Counterfeit euro bank notes

Year || Number of counterfeit bank notes detected in circulation2

2002 || 167,000

2003 || 542,000

2004 || 594,000

2005 || 579,000

2006 || 565,000

2007 || 561,000

2008 || 666,000

2009 || 860,000

2010 || 751,000

2011 || 606,000

2012 || 531,000

At European level, responsibilities of preventing and fighting counterfeiting are shared between the European Commission, the European Central Bank, Europol and Eurojust. The Commission prepares legislative initiatives. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), on behalf of the Commission, organises and finances training and technical assistance to the Member States and manages the European Technical and Scientific Centre (ETSC), the centre for technical analysis of new types of counterfeit coins.

The  European  Central  Bank  (ECB)  performs  a  technical  analysis  of  new  types  of counterfeit euro banknotes, stores the technical and statistical data on counterfeit banknotes and coins in a central database and disseminates them to all those involved in combating  counterfeiting.  Europol  supports  law  enforcement  services  in  the  Member States, and third countries having an operational/strategic agreement (e.g. certain South American countries). This support seeks to prevent and combat euro counterfeiting by facilitating the exchange of information, providing operational and strategic analysis, financial support to cross-border operations, and technical and on the spot operational

2 Source: ECB

support. For third countries not having a strategic or operational agreement, Europol also provides support, normally through MS liaison officers. Eurojust facilitates investigations and prosecutions between competent authorities in Member States, as well as the execution of international mutual legal assistance requests and provides financial support to Joint Investigation Teams.

The number of counterfeit euro banknotes detected in circulation since 2002 has been relatively  stable  with  a  peak  during  the  period  2008-2010.  A  total  of  531,000  of counterfeit euro banknotes were withdrawn from circulation in 2012.

The 20 and 50 euro denomination are the most frequently counterfeited banknotes representing almost 80% of the total counterfeit euro banknotes.

The number of counterfeit euro coins removed from circulation increased by 17% to

184,000 in 2012. According to the ETCS/OLAF, this increase could be attributed to the efforts of the MS in implementing the regulation concerning authentication of euro coins.

Table 2: Counterfeit euro coins

Year || Counterfeit euro coins detected in circulation3

2002 || 2 300

2003 || 32 800

2004 || 74 500

2005 || 100 500

2006 || 163 800

2007 || 211 100

2008 || 195 900

2009 || 172 100

2010 || 185 800

2011 || 157 500

2012 || 184 000

The 2-euro denomination remains by far the most affected by this criminal activity, representing almost 2 out of every 3 counterfeit euro coins detected4.

1.2 – The Pericles programme

The  Pericles  programme  ("the  programme")  was  established  by  Council  Decision

2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001 for a four years period (1st January 2002 to 31

December 2005). This Decision was amended by two Council Decisions: 2006/75/EC of 30

January 2006 and 2006/849/EC of 20 November 2006. The latter Decision extended the duration of the programme until 31 December 2013. The programme budget is Euro 1

million per year.

3 Source: ETSC/OLAF

4 Source "Euro coin counterfeiting in 2012" press release (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-

105_en.htm)

The  objectives  of  the  programme  are  established  by  article  2  of  Council  Decision

2011/923/EC. Its overall objective is to protect the euro against counterfeiting. The Decision provides that the programme "shall take account of transnational and multidisciplinary aspects" and should "concentrate on promoting convergence of the substance of measures so as to guarantee equivalent levels of protection on the basis of consideration of best practice while also respecting the distinct traditions of each Member State".

As per article 5 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC, the programme shall be implemented and coordinated by the Commission and the Member States of the European Union (EU MS). This coordination should take account of measures undertaken elsewhere, in particular by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Europol.

Activities financed under the programme are implemented either directly by the Commission (OLAF) or by the competent authorities in the MS, both in MS in the euro area and in MS which are not part of the euro area. Beneficiary authorities in the MS implementing the programme should co-finance at least 20% of the total eligible costs.

Activities can take place both inside and outside of the EU and the cost of participation of relevant target groups from third countries in these activities is eligible for co-financing from the programme.

Within the Commission, Unit D5 in OLAF (HERCULES, PERICLES and Euro protection) is responsible for the management and implementation of the programme.

The Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group (ECEG), which includes representatives from the competent national authorities, the ECB and Europol, plays an important role to define the priorities for euro counterfeiting and to discuss different policy areas related to the protection of the euro. In practice, the ECEG also provides steering and guidance on the activities  to  be  financed  by  the  Pericles  programme.  The  results  of  the  programme activities are presented to the ECEG. The ECEG meets three times per year. Eurojust and Interpol are also invited to participate as observers. More information about the role played by the ECEG is provided in EQ 4.

1.3 The evaluation of the Pericles programme

The evaluation covered by this report is requested by Council Decision 2001/923/EC, as amended by Council Decision 2006/849/EC, which provides that, by 30 June 2013, the Commission should send to the European Parliament and the Council a report, which shall be independent of the programme manager, evaluating the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme and a communication on whether the programme should be continued and adapted, accompanied by an appropriate proposal.

The  evaluation  has  been  performed  by  the  Internal  Audit  Capability  and  Evaluation function of OLAF assisted by a Steering Group which also ensured the quality control of the evaluation. The steering group included representatives from the European Central Bank (Anti-Counterfeiting Section) and the following European Commission services: OLAF D5 (Hercules, Pericles and euro protection) OLAF R2 (Budget), Secretariat General C1 (Evaluation and simplification) and DG Justice B.2 (Criminal Law).

The tasks of the steering group have included: endorsing the Terms of Reference of the evaluation; endorsing the inception report for the evaluation, providing comments on the draft report, ensuring the overall quality control of the evaluation and providing general guidance and assistance to the evaluator.

Objectives of the evaluation

As established by Council Decision 2001/923/EC, the overall objective of the evaluation has been to assess the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme. Some aspects of sustainability have also been assessed.

The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

1.  Reporting to the European Parliament, the Council and other relevant stakeholders on the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness of the programme.

2.  Supporting decision making, namely on potential areas for improvement identified during the evaluation.

Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation covered the activities programmed and implemented from 2002 to the first call for proposals of 2012, but with special focus on activities implemented since 2006 (date of the first extension of the programme).

The  evaluation  has  covered  the  different  types  of  activities  financed  under  the programme, namely:  training and dissemination activities (including workshops, meetings and  seminars),  information  and  staff  exchanges,  technical  assistance,  studies  and teaching sources. A sample of activities was selected by the evaluator for desk review and to support interviews with OLAF D5, OLAF R2 (Budget) and competent national authorities which implemented these activities. Another sample of activities was selected to send questionnaires to the participants in these activities5.

1.4 – Previous evaluations of the Pericles programme

A first evaluation of the Pericles programme was carried out by the OLAF's Internal Audit

Capability and Evaluation function in 2004 following a similar request of Council Decision

2001/923/EC. This evaluation was carried at a very early stage of implementation of the programme and covered activities which took place between 1st January 2002 and March

2004. The evaluation concluded that in general the programme had contributed or was

contributing to achieve the specific objectives of the programme and provided several operational recommendations to improve efficiency and effectiveness. During the course of this evaluation, OLAF D5 reported that the recommendations have in general been implemented although a formal action plan for implementation was not prepared.

The Commission also undertook a "Mid-term evaluation 2006-2010" of the programme in

20116. This evaluation was mainly based on the replies to a questionnaire sent to the competent national authorities. The replies to the questionnaire provided relevant input to

identify areas for improvement and to determine whether the programme should continue

beyond 2013. This evaluation served to support the preparation of an impact assessment on the continuation of the programme beyond 2013. Based on this impact assessment, the proposal for Pericles 2014-2020 is currently being discussed in the trilogue European Parliament-Council-Commission.

5 The details of the samples size and selection criteria applied are provided in Annex II (Methodology)

6 The Mid-term evaluation is attached to the impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011) 1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against

counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme)

2 – THE OBJECTIVES AND INTERVENTION LOGIC OF THE PERICLES PROGRAMME

As  part  of  the  preparatory  work  for  this  evaluation,  the  evaluator  assessed  the intervention logic of the programme, including its different level of objectives, type of activities, target groups and decision making mechanisms. This work permitted the definition of the methodology for the evaluation, including drafting the questionnaires for different groups of stakeholders. The methodology was included in the inception report for the evaluation which was formally endorsed by the steering group. Annex I provides an outline of the intervention logic of the programme.

The  objectives  of  the  programme  as  established  by  article  2  of  Council  Decision

2011/923/EC are:

Overall objective:

To protect the euro against counterfeiting, with particular focus on:

• Transnational and multidisciplinary aspects, and

• promoting convergence of the substance of measures so as to guarantee equivalent levels of protection on the basis of consideration of best practice while also respecting the distinct traditions of each Member State.

Specific objectives:

a)  raising awareness of the staff concerned of the EU dimension of the new currency

(also as a reserve currency and a currency for international transactions);

b)  acting as a catalyst to encourage closer cooperation between the structures and staff concerned, the development of a climate of mutual trust and satisfactory knowledge, inter alia of methods of action and difficulties, by promoting various appropriate measures such as placements, specialist workshops or the involvement of guest speakers in national training and staff exchanges;

c)  promoting convergence of high-level training activities for trainers in ways which are compatible with national operational strategies;

d)  expanding general knowledge, in particular of relevant EU and international law and instruments;

e) disseminating the results achieved, as part of the exchange of information, experience and good practices.

When assessing relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme, the evaluator has taken the following approach:

• The specific objective of expanding general knowledge has been considered as part of the specific objective of raising awareness of staff concerned;

• while expanding general public awareness is not a specific objective of the programme, the effects of programme activities in expanding general public awareness have also been discussed with stakeholders and the questionnaire sent to competent authorities in the EU have included a question on this topic. The answers provided some indication on the programme's spillovers in expanding general public awareness of counterfeiting;

• disseminating the results achieved has been considered in the context of exchange of information, experience and best practice.

Taking into account the above-mentioned methodological considerations, the specific objectives can be summarised as follows:

a)  raising awareness of the staff concerned;

b)  acting as a catalyst to encourage closer cooperation between the structures and staff concerned, the development of a climate of mutual trust and satisfactory knowledge;

c)  promoting convergence of high-level training activities;

d)  exchange of information, experience and good practices;

The types of activities to achieve these objectives are described in article 3 of Council

Decision 2001/923/EC and include:

• Training and dissemination activities (including workshops, meetings and seminars);

• information and staff exchanges;

• technical   assistance   (including   studies,   teaching   sources,   computer   support applications such as software and other technical support instruments).

Article 3 also provides that financial support for cooperation in cross-border operations can be provided when such support is not available from other European institutions and bodies. To date, this type of support has been co-financed by the programme only once.

Article 4 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC provides that, in addition to the Commission contribution, other parties should be invited to contribute to the attainment of the objectives of the programme, including national central banks, the European Central Bank, Europol,  Interpol,  the  European  Technical  and  Scientific  Centre  (ETSC)  and  other specialised bodies. The contribution of these stakeholders is actually key to achieving the overall objective of the programme of protecting the euro against counterfeiting. In this regard, when evaluating the effectiveness of the programme, the evaluator has focussed on the specific objectives of the programme as described above and to what extent the programme has contributed to the achievement of these objectives. The evaluation has also assessed the added value of the programme as compared to other existing instruments.

Coordination with other existing instruments has also been assessed to evaluate the efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  programme.  As  per  article  5  of  Council  Decision

2001/923/EC, the programme shall be implemented and coordinated by the Commission and the EU Member States. Coordination should take account of measures undertaken

elsewhere, in particular by the ECB and Europol. The coordination namely takes place in

the context of Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group (ECEG), which includes representatives of competent national authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and Europol. Interpol and Eurojust are also often invited to attend the meetings of the ECEG.

As per article 7 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC, the programme is open to participants from third countries.

3 – EVALUATION OF THE RELEVANCE, EFFICIENTCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PERICLES PROGRAMME

The evaluation has focussed on the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness. Prospects for sustainability have also been evaluated. The European added value and general added value  of  the  programme  have  been  analysed  as  part  of  the  relevance  (EQ3).  The coherence of the programme has been assessed in the context of the added value of the programme     as  compared  to  other  existing  instruments  (EQ3),  the  coordination mechanisms (EQ4) and the complementarity of the programme with other existing measures at MS and European level (EQ8).

The evaluation questions (EQ) are: Relevance:

EQ1. To what extent are the specific objectives of the programme relevant to achieve its overall objective?

EQ2. To what extent are the programme activities and target groups relevant to achieve its specific objectives?

EQ3. To what extent does the programme provide European added value? Efficiency:

EQ4. To what extent do the management, coordination (with ECB, Europol and Member States) and administrative structures currently in place ensure an economic and efficient use of the programme resources?

EQ5. To which extent are the activities and outputs of the programme delivered at a reasonable cost?

Effectiveness:

EQ6. To what extent have the specific objectives of the programme been achieved?

EQ7. To what extent have the activities financed under the programme contributed to achieve its specific objectives?

EQ8. To what extent do the coordination and cooperation mechanisms in place ensure consistency and complementarity with other existing measures (in particular those implemented by the ECB and Europol) with the view to achieve the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting?

EQ9. To what  extent have transnational  and  multidisciplinary  aspects and promoting convergence among EU-MS been sufficiently taken into account by the programme?

Sustainability:

EQ10.To what extent are the results achieved (or likely will be) sustainable?

The DG BUDG’s guide7  “Evaluating EU activities – a practical guide for the Commission Services” has provided the overall methodology guidance for this evaluation. On the basis of this guide, the evaluator developed a specific methodology for this evaluation. The

7 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/evaluation/docs/eval_activities_en.pdf

methodology was included in the inception report and was formally endorsed by the steering group.

The main sources of information used by the evaluator have been:

• Examination of programme documentation and other relevant information;

• questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and Europol;

• questionnaire to a sample of authorities in third countries having participated in the programme activities;

• questionnaires to participants in a sample of programme activities; and

• interviews with key stakeholders (a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the

ECB, Europol, Eurojust and OLAF).

The replies to questionnaires, particularly the questionnaire sent to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol, have provided an important input to the evaluation. A total of 34 competent authorities replied to the questionnaire (32 replies from 23 different MS, 1 reply from the ECB and 1 reply from Europol). 17 out of the 32 competent authorities in the MS which have replied to the questionnaire have implemented programme activities. 5 of these competent national authorities have implemented more than 6 activities, 2 competent authorities have implemented from 4 to 6 activities and 10 competent authorities have implement from 1 to 3 activities. The details of the replies to this questionnaire are provided in annex IV.

The replies to the questionnaire have provided an overall indication on the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the programme. This information has been complemented with personal and/or telephone interviews with the ECB, Europol, Eurojust and a sample of competent authorities in the MS. Finally, the analysis has been completed with the examination of relevant documentation8  and the replies to the questionnaires sent to competent authorities in third countries and participants in a sample of programme activities. The details of the replies to these questionnaires are provided in annex V and annex VI.

Where the comparison of the difference sources of information has resulted in significant variations regarding the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness or sustainability of the programme, these variations are reported together with the different views expressed by stakeholders.

When  reporting  the  replies  to  the  questionnaires,  the  percentage  of  respondents expressing different opinions have been calculated without including those competent authorities or participants which did not express an opinion. In general, the number of non-opinion received is considered low and as not substantially affecting the results and performance       reported  by  the  respondents.  Nevertheless,  for  some  questions,  a significantly high number of non-opinion replies have been recorded. A high level of non- replies has been interpreted by the evaluator as an indication of uneven results and/or performance.

The methodology for this evaluation is explained in detail in annex II (Methodology) and annex III (Evaluation Matrix). The evaluation matrix provides relevant information on the analysis done and the different sources of information used to answer each evaluation question.

8 The details of the documentation reviewed, including the number of activities and the selection criteria applied are provided in Annex II (Methodology)

The following sections provide the results of the evaluation for each evaluation criteria and question.

3.1 - Relevance

The overall relevance of the programme (whether the programme should be continued after 2013) has been assessed in the context of the mid-term evaluation performed by the Commission and the impact assessment which supported the Commission's proposal for the continuation of the programme during the period 2014/20209  (the "Pericles 2020"). Therefore, a specific question on the overall relevance of the programme has not been included for this evaluation. Nevertheless, the evaluation has addressed the European added value of the programme (EQ3) and also the prospects for sustainability of the results achieved (EQ10).

The Terms of Reference for this evaluation included three questions related to relevance. These questions were intended to evaluate the relevance of the programme at four levels:

• The relevance of the specific objectives to achieve the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting;

• the relevance of the activities financed by the programme to achieve its specific objectives;

• the relevance of the target groups to achieve its specific objectives;

• the European added value of the programme and the added value of the programme compared to other financial instruments.

The relevance of the specific objectives is addressed by evaluation question (EQ) 1, and the relevance of activities and target groups by EQ 2. EQ 3 refers to the European added value of the programme and the added value of the programme compared to other existing financial instruments at MS and EU level.

EQ 1: To what extent are the specific objectives of the programme relevant to achieve its overall objective?

The  specific  objectives  of  the  programme  are  highly  relevant  to  achieve  its  overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting. The evaluation has not revealed more areas to be covered by the existing specific objectives.

The overall objective of the programme as per Council Decision 2001/923/EC is to protect the euro against counterfeiting, with particular focus on: (a) Transnational and multidisciplinary aspects, and (b) promoting convergence among EU-MS to guarantee equivalent level of protection.

The specific objectives of the programme are presented in section 2 of this report.

The replies from the competent national authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire reflect an overall high relevance of the specific objectives. Exchange of information, experience and good practices is the specific objective which presents the highest level of relevance.

9 The Mid-term evaluation is attached to the impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011) 1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against

counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme)

Interviews with a sample of MS, the ECB and the Europol and examination of documentation by the evaluator have also confirmed the opinions expressed by competent authorities in the questionnaire.

No  specific  formal  research  studies  have  been  identified  during  the  course  of  this evaluation which could provide additional relevant input as regards the relevance of the specific objectives. Examination of the minutes of the ECEG's meeting has not revealed any important concern which could question the relevance of the specific objectives.

Article 7 Council Decision 2001/923/EC explicitly refers to international cooperation with EU accession countries and other third countries. The evaluation has showed that cooperation with third countries is one area where important results have been achieved in terms of the specific objectives of the programme. Cooperation with third countries is therefore also highly relevant.

The replies to the questionnaire sent to competent national authorities in the MS, ECB and

Europol are summarised below:

Relevance of raising awareness of the staff concerned

79% (26 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (33 respondents) considered as high or very high the relevance of this specific objective and

21% (7 respondents) as positive/fair. No respondent considered the specific objective of no or of limited relevance and 1 competent authority did not express an opinion.

Relevance of acting as a catalyst to encourage closer cooperation

79% (26 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (33 respondents) considered as high or very high the relevance of this specific objective and

21% (7 respondents) as positive/fair. No respondent considered this specific objective of no or limited relevance and 1 competent authority did not express an opinion.

Relevance of promoting convergence of high-level training

The questionnaire did not include a specific question on converge of training but on the overall relevance of promoting convergence. 70% (23 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (33 respondents) considered as high or very high the relevance of promoting convergence among the MS to guarantee an equivalent level of protection and 27% (9 respondents) as positive/fair. 1 respondent considered convergence of limited relevance and 1 competent authority did not express an opinion.

Relevance of exchange of information, experience and good practices

This specific objective presents the highest relevance. 85% (29 respondents) of the competent authorities considered as high or very high the relevance of this specific objective and 15% (5 respondents) as positive/fair. No respondent considered the specific objective of no or of limited relevance and all competent authorities expressed an opinion.

EQ 2: To what extent are the programme activities and target groups relevant to achieve its specific objectives?

The target groups and activities financed by the programme are in general highly relevant to the achievement of its specific objectives. Training and dissemination/networking activities are the most relevant activities. Staff exchanges and teaching sources are also highly relevant and the relevance of studies is positive. Around 95% of the programme resources have been allocated to the activities with highest relevance (training, dissemination/networking and staff exchanges). The relevance of computer support applications such as software, so far not financed by the programme, and support to cross-border operations, so far very infrequently financed by the programme, is more uneven due the existence of other sources which fund these activities. The programme is most relevant for police forces which also represent the target group most involved in the implementation  of  the  programme  activities  both  as  organisers  and  as  participants. Judicial authorities and national central banks are also highly relevant and both target groups participate in most programme activities, although the evaluation findings suggest that there may be room to increase the participation of judicial authorities. Private sector, namely financial/banking sector, is also a relevant target group particularly for the MS which are not part of the euro area and third countries where training at national level is not always provided by national authorities.

The evaluation has assessed the relevance of activities and target groups at three levels:

a)  To what extent the activities and target groups foreseen in Council Decision

2001/923/EC are relevant to achieve the specific objectives of the programme;

b)  to what extent the programme resources have been allocated to the most relevant activities and target groups; and

c)  the involvement of the different target groups in the implementation of the activities.

Relevance of activities

The types of activities to achieve the specific objectives of the programme are described in article 3 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC and can be summarised as follows:

• Training activities;

• Dissemination     and  networking  activities   (including   workshops,  meetings   and seminars);

•  Information and staff exchanges;

• Technical   assistance  (including   studies,   teaching   sources,   computer   support applications and other technical support instruments);

• Financial support for cooperation in cross-border operations when such support is not available from other European institutions and bodies.

Based on the replies to the questionnaires to competent authorities and participants in programme activities, training and dissemination/networking are the most relevant activities. Staff exchanges and teaching sources are also highly relevant. The relevance of studies  is  clearly  positive  while  the  relevance  of  computer  support  applications  and support to cross-border operations, although positive, is more uneven due the existence of other sources which are funding these activities.

The "Mid-term evaluation 2006-2010" undertaken by the Commission identified that financing by the programme of specialised equipment to be used by third countries for the protection of the euro, which is not currently eligible for financing, would be relevant. The financing by the programme of specialised equipment has been included in the Commission's proposal for Pericles 202010 to respond to specific needs of some third countries in Latin America. During the course of this evaluation, the evaluator discussed the relevance of this type of activity with some stakeholders. Based on these discussions, the activity would be relevant to achieve the overall and specific objectives of programme and it is also used by the USA to support the protection of the US Dollar in the countries of the region. However, it was also underlined that the resources of the programme are limited and the value-for-money of financing theses activates, and coordination with other existing sources of funding such as Europol, should be carefully assessed when specific activities of this type are considered for financing under the programme in the future.

The analysis of the use of the programme resources allocated to the different type of activities  (Table  3  and  Chart  1)  showed  that  around  9.4%  of  resources  have  been allocated to conferences, 42% to activities which include different combinations of conferences, training and workshops (CTW), 30% to training and workshops (WS), 13% to staff exchanges, 5% for studies and teaching sources, and less that 1% to others (expert visits and the support to one cross border operation). These figures show that around 95% of the programme resources have been used for the most relevant activities (training, networking/dissemination and staff exchanges).

Table 3: Type of activities 2002/201211 (1st call)

Type of ac tivity || Number || Amount alloc ated

Conferenc es || 10 || €842,933

CTW || 37 || €3,764,391

Training/Workshops || 43 || €2,680,771

Staff Exc hanges || 40 || €1,160,359

Studies/Teac hing sourc es || 8 || €426,711

Other || 5 || €79,839

Total || 143 || €8,955,004

10 Impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011) 1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme)

11 The table has been prepared by the evaluator using the annual activity reports prepared by OLAF D5.

Chart 1: Number of activities and allocation of programme resources (2002-2012 first call)

The analysis of relevance for each type of activity, including the replies to the questionnaires, is provided below.  The analysis of the costs of the different activities is provided in EQ4.

Relevance of training activities

The replies to the questionnaires and interviews with stakeholders confirmed that training activities are highly relevant to achieve the specific objectives of raising awareness of staff concerned and promoting convergence of high-level training. Both competent authorities and participants in the programme activities considered the training provided by the programme as highly relevant for their work in the area of euro protection. 82% (28 respondents) of the competent authorities in the EU rated the relevance of training activities as high or very high, and 15% (5 respondents) as positive/fair. One competent authority considered the activity of limited relevance.

83% of the participants in training activities considered that their participation had been highly relevant for their work in the area of euro protection. 83% of the participants who replied to the questionnaire identified improving their knowledge and skills in the area of euro protection against counterfeiting among their objectives when participating in the programme activities.

Interviews and replies to questionnaires suggest that training in euro protection is also highly relevant for staff in competent authorities in MS which are not part of the euro area and third countries where training is not always provided at national level. Further analysis in this regards is provided in the sections on efficiency and effectiveness below.

Relevance of dissemination and networking activities

Dissemination and networking activities include conferences, workshops, meetings and seminars. Dissemination and training activities are often combined. Dissemination and networking activities are relevant to achieve all the different specific objectives of the programme.

The replies to the questionnaires and interviews with stakeholders confirmed an overall high relevance of dissemination and networking activities to achieve the different specific objectives of the programme. 79% (27 respondents) of the competent authorities in the

EU considered as high or very high the relevance of these activities and 16% (6 respondents) as positive/fair. One competent authority considered these activities of limited relevance. The relevance of these activities were also confirmed by the objectives pursued by competent authorities when organising and/or participating in programme activities. Encouraging closer cooperation and developing a climate of mutual trust with organisations and staff concerned in other EU countries and the exchange of information, experiences and best practices are among the objectives pursued by more than 80% of the competent national authorities organising and/or participating in programme activities. Cooperation and exchanges with organisations and staff concerned in third countries is among the objectives pursued by more than 60% of these authorities.

The replies to the questionnaires to competent authorities in third countries and to participants also showed a high relevance of dissemination and networking activities. 76% of   participants   in   networking   and   dissemination   activities   considered   that   their participation had been highly relevant for their work in the area of euro protection. 64% of the participants who replied to the questionnaire identified networking and improving cooperation and mutual trust with their counterparts in EU countries (46% with their counterparts in third countries) among their objectives when participating in the programme activities.

Relevance of information and staff exchanges

Staff exchanges include visits to the premises of competent authorities involved and often include operational training. Staff exchanges promote the exchange of information, experience and best practices, as well as enhance mutual trust among the competent authorities participating in the activity.

The replies to the questionnaires and interviews with stakeholders confirmed a high relevance of staff exchanges. 84% (27 respondents) of the competent authorities in the EU considered as high or very high the relevance of this activity and 16% (5 respondents) as positive/fair. No competent authority considered the activity of limited relevance and two competent authorities did not express any opinion.

Relevance of studies and teaching sources

Studies and teaching sources are potentially relevant to achieve all the different specific objectives of the programme. The replies to the questionnaires and interviews with competent authorities suggest that teaching sources are considered by competent authorities more relevant than studies. The replies to the questionnaire showed that 70% of respondents (23 competent authorities) considered as high or very high the relevance of teaching sources as compared to 52% (15 competent authorities) for studies. While 1 competent authority did not express an opinion on the relevance of teaching sources, 5 competent authorities did not express an opinion on the relevance of studies.

Only few studies and teaching sources have been financed by the programme. The examination of a sample of these activities and interviews with stakeholders confirmed their relevance.

Relevance of computer support applications such as software

Computer support applications are potentially relevant to achieve all the different specific objectives  of  the  programme.  The  replies  to  the  questionnaire  sent  to  competent

authorities in the EU showed that computer support application is considered a relevant activity although with some mixed results.  From the 27 competent authorities which expressed  an  opinion,  63%  (17  respondents)  considered  as  high  or  very  high  the relevance  of  this  activity  and  26%  (6  respondents)  as  positive/fair.  3  competent authorities considered the activity of limited relevance and 7 competent authorities did not express an opinion.

Computer support applications have not been financed by the programme. Interviews with competent authorities showed that software applications are already provided by Europol and Interpol (to support cross border operations) and by the ECB (central data base on counterfeit banknotes). Computer support applications such as software are therefore potentially relevant to achieve the specific objectives of the programme. However, other sources are already providing the necessary support. In this regard, the evaluation has not identified additional needs for specific software applications which could be co-financed by the programme.

Relevance of support to cross-border operations

The possibility to support cross-border operations with the programme resources was introduced by Council Decision 2006/75/EC of 30 January 2006 amending Council Decision

2001/923/EC. To date, this type of support has been provided only once.

The results of the questionnaires and interviews with stakeholders suggest that while support to cross-border operations is clearly relevant to support the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting, the relevance of this support under the programme is uneven, particularly because support to cross border operations is provided by Europol and Eurojust.

The replies to the questionnaire to the competent authorities in the EU have expressed a mixed view on whether support to these operations should be co-financed by the programme. 7 out of 34 competent authorities did not express an opinion. From those expressing an opinion (27 competent authorities), 63% (17 respondents) considered the relevance of this activity as high or very high and 30% (8 respondents) as positive/fair. 2 competent authorities considered the activity of limited relevance.

Interviews with stakeholders also suggest that there is not a common understanding on how the programme can complement other existing financing sources for cross-border operations,  namely  from  Europol  and  Eurojust.  The  interviews  showed  that  some competent authorities support the notion that it could be useful for the programme to provide financing for costs related to cross-border operations ineligible for financing from other sources. These costs would include the costs related to the participation of police or judicial authorities third countries in preparatory meetings or the costs related to the participation of experts, other than police or judicial authorities (for example, experts from national central banks) in preparatory meetings. However, it was revealed during the interviews with Europol and Eurojust that costs related to the participation of police or judicial authorities from third countries, or other relevant stakeholders from the EU, related to the preparation of cross-border operations could potentially be financed by their institutions under certain circumstances.

The feasibility of financing these types of activities was also discussed with stakeholders and  assessed  by  the  evaluator.  The  financing  of  cross-border  operations  by  the programme  is  difficult  given  their  inability  to  always  be  planned  in  advance. Implementation by the MS competent authorities, which requires previous examination of the Pericles evaluation committee, would therefore not be feasible and only direct implementation by the Commission/OLAF could render the financing of this type of activity under the programme feasible.

The existing approach that this type of support should be provided only when other sources of funding are not available seems reasonable. However, the findings of the evaluations suggest that there is not a common understanding among all relevant stakeholders on which costs can be financed by other sources of funding. So far there has been a limited risk of overlapping as this type of support has been financed by the programme in one occasion and for a limited amount (€ 6,600). Nevertheless, the evaluation showed the need to clarify the existing diverting views among stakeholders in order to ensure the coherence of future programme activities with other existing sources of financing, namely from Europol and Eurojust, as regards support to cross border operations.

Relevance of target groups

Article 4.1 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC provides the target groups for the activities financed by the programme. These target groups are: police forces, intelligence personnel, representatives of national central banks and other financial intermediaries, mints, judicial officers, commercial banks and other relevant private sector organisations (such as: chambers of commerce or comparable structures capable to provide access to small and medium size enterprises, traders and hauliers).

The relevance of the above-mentioned target groups was evaluated in the questionnaire sent to competent authorities and complemented with interviews and examination of relevant documentation. The replies to the questionnaire sent to competent authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and Europol showed a very high relevance for police, national central banks, judicial authorities and mints (it should be noted that 21 out the 32 competent authorities in the MS who replied to the questionnaire are police authorities).

The relevance of police and judicial authorities is confirmed by the nature of their activities and results achieved on the fight against euro counterfeiting (cross-border operations carried out, individuals arrested, sanctions imposed, counterfeit euros seized, etc).

The relevance of national central banks and mints is also clear given their role in distributing and producing banknotes and coins and as central players at national level to collect and analyse counterfeit notes and coins. Interviews with stakeholders, including interviews with three national central banks, and the examination of a sample of activities have showed that national central banks usually participate in the activities organised by other target groups and are also closely involved in the organisation of some of these activities.

For the other target groups (ministry of finance, financial/banking private sector and other relevant private sector organisations) the views expressed in the questionnaires are more mixed.

The interviews with stakeholders suggest that the relevance of ministries of finance as target groups for the programme is uneven and would vary depending on their different roles in the different EU MS. The examination of a sample of programme activities shows that activities implemented by the ministries of finance are mainly networking and awareness  raising  activities  which  also  involved  other  target  groups  (namely  police, judicial authorities, national central banks, and commercial banks). The examination of documentation by the evaluator also suggest that the results achieved by the ministries of finance on the fight against euro counterfeiting, and therefore their relevance for the programme activities, are more difficult to identify compared to other target groups. It is therefore particularly important for this target group that their role and potential contribution to achieve the programme specific objectives is clearly presented in the proposals for programme activities.

The interviews with stakeholders suggest that the relevance of the financial/banking private sector would depend on whether training is provided at national level. For the MS of the euro area, regular training on euro protection is provided to the financial/banking private sector by the national central banks. For third countries, and MS which are not members of the euro area, the relevance of this target group would be clearer as the competent national authorities in these countries do not have a legal requirement to play an active role in providing training on the protection of the euro in their countries. A similar analysis also applies for other relevant private sector organisations.

The following paragraphs analyses the relevance on the use of programme resources based on the involvement of the different target groups in the implementation of the programme activities both as organisers and participants.

Regarding the use of programme resources by the various target groups (Chart 2), 85% of the programme resources implemented by the competent national authorities in the MS are implemented by police authorities, 8% by ministries of finance, 6% by National Analysis Centers, Coins National Analysis Centers and National Central Offices and less than 1% by national central banks.

Chart 2: Implementation of activities per target group 2002-2012 first call (funds allocated).

Ministry o f Finance

8.4%

Nationa Central Bank

0.4%

NAC/CNAC/NCO

5.7%

Police

85.3%

Chart 3: Profile of participants in programme activities 2006-2011

Regarding the profile of participants in the programme activities, during the period 2006-

2011 (Chart 3), 68% of participants were police forces, 9% staff from national central

banks, 6% judicial authorities, 6% financial sector, 3% ministry of finance and 6% others. Participants are therefore mainly police forces. Representatives of judicial authorities and central banks generally participate in all activities, although not always on staff exchanges activities or technical trainings. The review of a sample of activities suggests that the private financial/banking sector has mainly participated in activities organised outside the EU. Other participants include staff from the embassies of MS in the countries where activities take place and staff from EU institutions and bodies (ECB, Europol, Eurojust and the  Commission).  Interpol  and  the  US  secret  service  (which  is  competent  for  the protection of the US Dollar) also participate in the activities.

The examination of relevant documentation showed that the high participation of police in the programme activities is mainly explained by the fact that a significant part of the activities are training activities which are most relevant for police forces (identification of counterfeit notes, investigative techniques, etc.) or activities to promote cooperation and exchanges among police forces. Police also participate in the programme activities as organisers, facilitators and trainers, and this also explains the high participation of this target group.

Regarding national central banks, they mostly participate as facilitators or trainers. As regards judicial authorities, their relatively low participation in the programme activities compared to police would be partly explained because there are very few activities specifically targeted to this target group and that they do not usually participate as organisers, trainers or facilitators. According to interviews with stakeholders, the number of police officials dedicated to the protection of the euro in the MS is clearly higher than judicial officers and this also explains the higher participation of police compared to judicial authorities.

The interviews with stakeholders have not provided a conclusive view as to whether the participation of judicial authorities should be increased. Nevertheless, as discussed in EQ9, a potential to increase their involvement in the programme activities may exists.

3.2   European and overall added value of the programme

EQ3: To what extent does the programme provide European added value?

The protection of the euro as a common currency for 17 EU MS and as an international and reserve currency has a clear European interest which goes beyond the interest of individual MS. The fight against euro counterfeiting requires cooperation at European and international levels. The programme finances activities which facilitate this cooperation. The combination of an European/international dimension of the programme together with a multidisciplinary dimension represents a clear added value of the programme compared to activities carried out by the MS and other EU institutions or bodies. The programme also provides added value in terms of enhancing bilateral contacts, promoting mutual trust and as a motivational instrument.

The protection of the euro against counterfeiting has a clear European/international dimension: the euro is used as a common currency by 17 EU MS and it is also largely used internationally as a second currency and serves as reserve currency for third countries. The worldwide importance of the euro means that it is particularly open to the risk of counterfeiting on a transnational scale and the fight against euro counterfeiting requires therefore cooperation at European and international level.

The programme co-finances activities involving relevant competent authorities in the EU and third countries. These activities are intended mainly to provide relevant training, improve cooperation, exchanges of information and best practices among competent national authorities and their staff in different MS and third countries.

According  to  reports  from  the  EC12   and  Europol13   and  interviews  with  competent authorities  in  the  MS,  Europol  and  Eurojust,  criminal  groups  involved  in  euro counterfeiting often operate at a European and international level. Counterfeit euros are often distributed not only on the MS where they are produced but also in other MS. Criminal groups operating in third countries (EU neighbourhood countries in the Western Balkans, Mediterranean countries and Eastern Europe), are also involved in the distribution/production of euros produced/distributed in the EU.

Another area of particular risk is Latin America where counterfeit euros are produced by criminal groups for their later distribution in the EU as well as in the Latin America region. This situation entails a risk for the euro, not only because of the export of counterfeit euro into the EU, but also because the distribution of counterfeit euros in third countries undermines the confidence in the euro as an international currency.

Addressing threats from criminal groups from third countries on the production and/or distribution of counterfeit euro requires the cooperation between the MS and the third countries affected by euro counterfeiting. It also requires that the relevant authorities in the third countries involved have access to technical and operational training on the detection of counterfeit euro as well as on investigative techniques. It also requires raising awareness among the relevant authorities in third countries (namely police, judicial authorities and central banks).

Technical and operational training, networking and awareness raising activities are the main activities financed by the programme in third countries. The benefits of this support in terms of increased protection of the euro clearly provide a European added value which goes beyond the interest of individual MS.

The European added value of the programme has also been confirmed by the replies to the questionnaire sent to the competent authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and Europol.

74% (23 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (31 respondents) considered as high or very high the European added value of the programme

and 23% (7 respondents) as positive/fair. 1 competent authority considered the European added value as insufficient and 3 authorities did not express an opinion.

The questionnaire also included questions on the existing national strategies on euro protection.  Out  of  the  32  competent  authorities  in  the  MS  who  replied  to  the questionnaire, 18 (15 of them from the euro area) declared that they have a national strategy in place. Regarding their profile, 12 of these authorities are police, 4 national central banks and 2 others. The target groups for these national strategies are national stakeholders and, to a certain extent, include a multidisciplinary dimension. For the police authorities, the main target group of the national programmes are the police forces (100%) in their countries. Around 40% of the police national strategies are also addressed to the financial/banking private sector and to the national central banks, one third to other private sector (such as chambers of commerce and industry and other comparable structures) and one fourth to the judicial authorities. Regarding the national strategies of the national central banks which replied to the questionnaire, the main target groups are the staff of the banking/financial private sector and the general public.

12 Impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011) 1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme) Impact assessment (Commission Staff Working Paper SWD(2013) 19 final).accompanying the Commission's proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law.

13 Europol organised Crime Threat Assessments (OCTA 2011 and 2013).

The added value of the programme as compared to activities undertaken by the MS stems therefore mainly from its transnational dimension, at two levels: (a) cooperation between the MS, and (b) cooperation between the MS and third countries.

A transnational dimension is also provided by activities carried out by the ECB (to national central banks), Europol (training, technical and operational support and financial support to cross-border operations) and Eurojust (financial support to Joint Investigation Teams). The added value of the programme with respect to activities undertaken by other EU bodies stems from its multidisciplinary dimension and the focus on activities at European level which are not financed by other existing sources. Additionally, several national competent authorities interviewed have stressed that the program activities provide a clear added value in terms of further enhancing cross-border cooperation (as compared to other existing tools) by facilitating direct bilateral contacts and promoting a climate of mutual trust between the staff of the competent authorities in the MS and between the staff in the MS and third countries. Several national competent authorities also underlined that the participation in programme activities is an important motivational instrument for staff of competent authorities in both the EU and third countries.

The implementation modality which combines the implementation of activities by the Commission and MS is shown to be an important strength of the programme. The implementation of activities by MS allows competent national authorities to identify and address new threats and emerging needs, while ensuring the management of the programme at the European level. This also allows the programme to benefit from the strengths of the different MS in their relations with third countries. At the same time, the implementation by the Commission provides flexibility to rapidly define and implement activities and to complement the activities implemented by MS.

The Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument (TAIEX14) managed by the Directorate-General Enlargement of the European Commission has also funded a few activities (namely study visits) including themes related to currency counterfeiting to competent authorities from candidates and potential candidates to the EU. These activities are coordinated with OLAF and are not frequent. The Pericles programme is therefore the only programme at European level specifically addressing euro protection.

4.3   Efficiency

EQ 4: To what extent do the management, coordination (with ECB, Europol and Member States) and administrative structures currently in place ensure an economic and efficient use of the programme resources?

The main coordination mechanism for the programme is the Euro Counterfeiting Experts' Group (ECEG) where the competent authorities from the MS, the ECB and Europol are represented. Overall, the ECEG meetings provide an adequate mechanism for coordinating and steering the programme, although the evaluation has identified some potential improvements which could facilitate the role of the ECEG. The administrative structures in place provide an adequate framework for an efficient use of resources, although there is some room to further streamlining the application and reporting procedures.

The analysis of this question has been separated into two parts:

a)  Efficiency of the management and administrative structures for the implementation of the programme,

14 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/taiex/what-is-taiex/index_en.htm

b)  Efficiency of the role of the ECEG to steer the programme and coordinate its implementation with other existing measures at national and European level.

Efficiency of the management and administrative structures for the implementation of the programme

Article 12 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC provides that projects (activities) under the programme may emanate from the MS competent authorities or from the Commission.

Approximately 25-30% of the annual budget of the programme is implemented directly by the Commission (OLAF D5). These activities (workshops, seminars, studies, teaching material, etc) are implemented through contracts with external suppliers procured under exiting framework contracts managed by OLAF or other Commission services. The rest of the budget, around 70-75%, is implemented through grants signed with competent authorities in the MS following calls for proposals issued twice a year by OLAF D5. Both, procurement and grants, are regulated by the applicable rules for grants as established by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union15  and its rules of implementation16 (hereafter referred as the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union).

With regard to grants, competent authorities in the EU MS are invited to submit proposals for activities. The proposals are assessed by an evaluation committee in OLAF (the Pericles evaluation  committee).  Following  the  evaluation  of  the  proposals,  the  evaluation committee prepares a report with the recommended activities to be co-financed by the programme. Once the grant agreement between OLAF, on behalf of the Commission, and the competent national authority is signed, the latter is entitled to receive an advance payment equivalent to 50%, or 70% in exceptional and duly justified circumstances, of the grant amount. As per article 12 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC, competent authorities in the MS may present one or, exceptionally, two projects a year concerning workshops, meetings and seminars. Projects in connection with placements, exchanges or assistance may also be presented.

Once the activities are implemented, competent national authorities must submit a technical and a financial report to OLAF which may ask the competent national authorities for clarification on the information submitted and or additional supporting documentation before approving the final balance payment.

In order to assess the efficiency in the selection of activities, the evaluator has reviewed the efficiency criteria used when selecting the activities financed by the programme. Article 12 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC provides that the Commission shall select projects by the MS, and projects devised on its own initiative, on the basis on several criteria, including the following efficiency criteria: complementarity with other previous, current and future projects; cost-effectiveness ratio; the amount of aid requested and whether it is commensurate with the anticipated results.

For the activities implemented by the competent national authorities in the MS, the calls for  proposals  issued  by  OLAF  refer  to  the  selection  criteria  in  Council  Decision

2001/923/EC as part of the selection and award criteria. The examination of relevant documentation has also showed that several efficiency criteria are applied by the Pericles

evaluation committee when examining the proposals from MS (for instance whether the costs of different inputs are reasonable as compared to other activities or whether some of

15 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.

16Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.

the costs are actually needed for the project). The committee also assesses the eligibility of the activities (transnational and multidisciplinary aspects), the eligibility of costs proposed and the ceilings applicable (for example for accommodation and maintenance costs).

The examination of relevant supporting documentation has also showed that most projects which are submitted by the national competent authorities to OLAF have been previously presented and, to a variable extent, discussed at the ECEG meetings. These discussions, together with bilateral contacts between OLAF and the competent authorities in MS, define which projects are in line with the strategy and priorities identified for the programme. This coordination also takes into account the activities implemented by the Commission (OLAF).

This coordination work allows for the identification of projects which will be submitted to the Pericles evaluation committee and which in general do not exceed, or rarely exceed, the resources available for each call for proposal. The examination of the minutes of the Pericles evaluation Committee has showed that proposals are rarely rejected by the committee. Those which have been rejected have been so due to an insufficient demonstration of transnationality and/or multi-disciplinarity, but not due to a lack of sufficient resources.

The mechanism described above (presentation and previous discussions of the projects in the ECEG meetings and bilateral contacts between OLAF and MS) facilitates the coordination of efforts among the competent authorities in the MS. An alternative mechanism which would encourage competent authorities in the MS to prepare more applications which would be compared in term of their value for money could increase the efficiency on the use of the programme resources. However, it would also increase the administrative  burden  for  the  national  competent  authorities  as  higher  number  of proposals would not be accepted. Interviews with stakeholders also suggest that the rejection of proposals submitted may also entail a reputation risk for national competent authorities concerned and may discourage them from submitting further proposals.

Encouraging the submission of more proposals to OLAF could increase the efficiency of the use of resources. However, the costs associated to increase the number of proposals, and potential risks which could derive from the rejection of proposals, may outweigh the potential  gains.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  potential  efficiency  gains  to  obtain  by increasing the number of proposals are relatively limited given the small size of the programme.

Table 4 and Chart 4 provide details on the number of activities implemented and the allocation of the programme resources.  Table 4 shows that a total of 143 activities have been financed during the period from 2002 to 2012 (first call for proposals) for a total amount committed close to € 9 million. This shows that approximately 85% of the funds available for the programme have been committed since the inception of the programme in 2002. The annual reports on the implementation of programme activities show that for the period 2007-2012, the level of commitment of funds available has been over 90%. During the period from  2002  to 2012  (first call for proposals), around 26% of the programme resources have been implemented by the Commission (OLAF).

As regards the implementation of programme activities by the competent authorities in the MS through grant agreements signed with OLAF, Chart 4 shows that five MS (France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain) have implemented around 86% of the budget implemented by national competent authorities. The examination of programme documentation has showed that since 2007, the number of competent authorities and MS which have implemented programme activities has increased compared to the period

2002-2006, also as a consequence of the enlargement of the EU to 12 new MS in 2004 and 2007.

Table 4: Activities implemented per MS and EC/OLAF (2002 – 2012 first call)

Member State || Number || Amount alloc ated

Belgium || 5 || €104,508

Estonia || 2 || €16,850

Finland || 1 || €37,268

Franc e || 10 || €710,253

Germany || 14 || €1,552,391

DE, NL,UK || 1 || €28,900

Greec e || 3 || €240,890

Hungary || 2 || €84,302

Italy || 33 || €1,399,523

Poland || 3 || €164,587

Portugal || 8 || €619,856

Romania || 2 || €117,993

Spain || 16 || €1,408,740

The Netherland || s      1 || €117,733

Total MS || 101 || €6,603,794

EC/OLAF || 42 || €2,351,211

Grand Total || 143 || €8,955,004

Chart 4: Allocation of programme resources per MS (2002-2012 first call)

The interviews and the examination of the programme documentation suggest that the size of national administrations, in particular the staff dedicated to euro protection seems to be an important factor explaining why the largest MS in the euro area are those more active in organising and implementing programmes activities. Trade and migration flows and the use of a common language would also explain the involvement of some MS in the organisation and implementation of programme activities, particularly for activities involving third countries.

In order to assess the reasons why some competent authorities in the MS have not implemented programme activities, the questionnaire sent to these authorities included a question related to the main reasons for not having implemented programme activities.

The results of this question are provided in table 5 (the 15 competent national authorities which had not implemented activities were allowed to choose more than one reason).

Table 5: Main reasons reported by competent authorities in the MS

for not having implemented programme activities

|| N || %

Your requirements for transitional c ooperation are c overed by your partic ipation in PERICLES ac tivities organised by other organisations. || 9 || 60%

The administrative proc edures to organise PERICLES ac tivities are not suffic iently c lear and/or transparent || 1 || 7%

The administrative burden related to the preparation of the proposals and reporting requirements || 1 || 7%

Your organisation does not have suffic ient resourc es available to c o- financ e the ac tivities || 8 || 53%

Other || 2 || 13%

The above replies show that the main reason for not implementing programme activities reported by competent authorities is that that their requirements for transnational cooperation  are  covered   by   their   participation  in  activities  organised  by  other organisations. The lack of sufficient resources available to co-finance the activities is the second main reason.

The above replies show that the activities implemented by a competent authority in a MS also benefit and address the needs of other competent authorities in the same and/or another MS. The replies also show that the lack of sufficient resources available to co- finance the activities is an important hurdle for some competent authorities.

The evaluator has also assessed the objectives of a sample of activities and how efficiency aspects are presented in the proposals. The activities financed by the programme have different types of specific objectives. In some cases these objectives are broad (such as building institutional capacity in euro protection in a third country). In other cases, the objectives are more focussed (capacity building provided through training, information exchange and good practices) while other activities focus on maintaining the results already achieved (for example, satisfactory cooperation between staff concerned). These specific objectives are presented by the applicants with variable clarity and quality.

The proposals submitted also include information on the complementarity and coherence with previous and other existing programme activities, as well as the expected results. The quality and clarity of this information varies among the applications examined. The proposals also include information on the criteria used to select the participants and countries involved and other relevant value-for-money criteria (for example, different alternatives considered). Nevertheless, this information is not always sufficiently comprehensive.

In general, interviews with national competent authorities and OLAF D5 have provided satisfactory explanations on the complementarity of activities and other efficiency aspects. Nevertheless, further efforts in improving the definition of the specific objectives for each activity, its complementarity and coherence with other activities financed by the programme and value-for-money criteria would enhance the efficiency of the programme. In this regard, the application forms used could be revised to facilitate the presentation and  the  assessment  by  the  Pericles  evaluation  committee  of  the  complementarity,

coherence and value for money (including for example more information on the different alternatives considered by the applicants to organise the activity or the cost per participant) of the activities proposed.

The evaluation has also assessed the efficiency of the administrative procedures in term of their timeliness, administrative burden and clarity/transparency.

The questionnaire sent to competent authorities in the MS showed positive although mixed results regarding the efficiency of the administrative procedures as regards timeliness, administrative burden and clarity/transparency. The main concerns expressed by the competent authorities in the MS which have implemented activities are:

• The financial procedures are too rigid as some type of expenses are not eligible (Value Added Tax, local transportation, provision of interpretation facilities, rental of premises or costs related to currency exchange);

• The financial procedures are not sufficiently clear and often change;

Regarding the Value Added Tax (VAT), the competent national authorities interviewed declared that they are not always entitled to exemption of or reimbursement of the VAT when the programme activities take place in a different MS or in a third country. VAT can represent a significant cost for competent authorities organising the activities if they are not  entitled  to  exemption  or  reimbursement.  Some  national  competent  authorities declared that the non-eligibility of VAT may put at risk the organisation of future activities. The rules applied regarding the eligibility of VAT under the programme are those for grants financed from the budget of the Union as per the Financial Regulation and therefore there is no or very limited flexibility for OLAF to decide on the eligibility of VAT. These rules have been recently updated by the new Financial Regulation applicable to the budget of the Union17.

Regarding local transportation (internal transfers), interpretation facilities or rental of premises, relevant provisions are provided by article 8 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC. The implementation of these provisions is open to interpretation as to whether the costs associated to the provision of these inputs should always be borne by the MS or if the provisions apply only to those activities organised on their territory. As per the current application forms developed by OLAF, these costs should be borne by the competent national authorities, independently of the location of the activity. For several national competent authorities interviewed, providing these inputs pose problems to organise the activities as they, or the partner competent authorities in another MS or third country where the activity takes place, do not always have the means to provide the local transportation, interpretation facilities or premises. The concerns of competent MS authorities regarding this have already been identified in the Mid-term evaluation 2006-

2010 performed by the Commission18 and the Commission's proposal for an extension of the programme for the period 2014-2014 has included a proposal to eliminate these

provisions from the Council Decision.

The concerns from competent authorities in the MS regarding the clarity of financial procedures were also reported by the mid-term evaluation performed by the Commission.

17 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.

18 The Mid-term evaluation is attached to the impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011) 1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against

counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme)

To address them, in June 2011, a specific workshop was organised by OLAF on "How to apply and report under Pericles". Most competent national authorities attended the workshop  and,  according  to  their  replies  to  the  evaluation  sheet  distributed  to participants, the training was considered useful by most participants. Nevertheless, while complexity of administrative procedures is not among the main reason reported by competent authorities in the MS for not implementing programme activities as reported in Table 5 above, some competent national authorities interviewed consider that the administrative procedures are still complex for them. In this regards, the interviews with stakeholders and examination of relevant documentation suggest there may be some room for further streamlining the standard application and reporting forms in order to facilitate the presentation of the different costs and the verification of ceilings applicable.

Efficiency of the role of the ECEG to steer the programme and coordinate its implementation with other existing measures at MS and European level

The main coordination mechanism for the programme is the discussion at the ECEG meetings. Additionally, steering, at technical level, and high level meetings between the ECB, Europol and OLAF on the protection of the euro are also organised (usually once a year or every two years). The protection of the euro is also discussed during bilateral meetings between Europol and OLAF and between the ECB and OLAF.

The programme strategy is prepared by OLAF/D5 based on the discussions during the ECEG meeting. The strategy is subsequently presented and discussed with the ECEG. The strategy identifies the needs for support as well as the priority geographical areas. OLAF/D5 also keeps regular contacts with the ECB, Europol and the competent national authorities to identify the needs for programme's assistance and the activities they plan for the next 1-2 years. The strategy usually covers a period of one year although it also provides some indications on the priorities for future years. However, the scope in terms of the period of time covered by the strategy is not clearly defined.

The examination of the minutes of the ECEG meetings and the evaluator's participation in two meetings as observer showed that the activities which are planned to be implemented by the competent authorities in the MS and by OLAF are briefly presented at the ECEG meetings. The representatives of the MS and OLAF also present their preliminary ideas about potential actions at the ECEG.

The replies to the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol showed positive views of the existing coordination through the ECEG meetings to ensure an efficient use of the programme resources, although with areas for improvement. 76% (22 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion in the questionnaire (29 respondents) considered as high or very high the efficiency of the coordination mechanism and 21% (6 respondents) as positive/fair. 1 respondent considered it as insufficient and 5 did not express an opinion. Nevertheless, 5 competent authorities replied that there is room to improve the coordination with other exiting measures at MS and European level in terms of efficiency and 16 replied that there is some room for improvement.

The interviews with stakeholders and the comments provided in the questionnaires, together with the evaluator's examination of programme documentation and participation as observer in two meetings of the ECEG, provided some indications on potential areas for improvement.

The main potential improvement would be introducing a multi-annual strategy with a clear scope in terms of period of time covered (a 3-years coverage seems the most suitable option). This multiannual strategy would provide a more comprehensive and strategic planning and would facilitate a more advance planning by the competent national authorities in the MS. It would also facilitate the coordination among the programme's

activities and with other activities at European (by the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) and MS level. Stakeholders interviewed underlined that the multiannual strategy should however keep a certain level of flexibility to respond to new priorities or threats.

Another potential area for improvement regards the use of the technical reports of activities. Currently the results of the programme activities are usually briefly presented at the ECEG meetings and some technical reports on the implementation of activities are made available to the members of the ECEG when requested. Some competent authorities considered that it would more efficient that technical reports of activities are made available to the members of the ECEG and that only the results of the most relevant activities (or the results of a series of activities) are presented. The time saved could be dedicated to further discussions on the planning and coordination of the programme activities.

EQ5: To which extent are the activities and outputs of the programme delivered at a reasonable cost?

Overall, the activities and outputs are delivered at a reasonable cost. The evaluation has identified some potential areas for improving efficiency. These would include reorienting the content of some activities towards a more operational content and increasing training for trainers activities.

The efficiency of activities financed by the programme has been evaluated at two levels:

a)  The unitary costs (travel, accommodation, maintenance, etc);

b)  Cost  of  different  type  of  activities  (depending  on  their  nature,  duration  and periodicity).

The questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol included a question on whether they consider there is scope to save programme resources (without involving a significant negative impact on the overall achievements of the programme) by taking one or more the following actions: (a) Reducing the number of training activities, (b) reducing the number of dissemination/networking activities, (c) reducing the number of participants in training activities or (d) reducing the number of participants in dissemination/networking activities.

A majority of competent authorities replied there is not or there is only limited scope to save programme resources by taking any of the four measures presented above. Few competent authorities considered that there is scope to reduce the number of networking activities or reducing the number of participants in some activities. In this regard, some competent authorities interviewed considered that the participation in the programme activities could be limited to one or maximum two activities per year and participant as a way to save resources and encouraging the participation of more stakeholders. Nevertheless, while this approach could improve the efficiency of the programme, its implementation could create a significant administrative burden and it may not be always suitable (for example, when more than two types of training activities are organised per year).

Another potential improvement on the efficient use of the programme resources discussed with stakeholders would be that the costs related to travel and accommodation of staff and/or representatives of commercial banks and other relevant private sector bodies are not financed by the programme (unless they participate as trainers). For some stakeholders,  a high  level  training  provided  for free should be by  itself  a  sufficient incentive for private entities to participate in the programme activities. This would allow

increasing the number of training activities delivered to relevant private sector target groups without involving an increase of costs.

The questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and Europol also included a specific question on whether they considered that more programme resources should be dedicated to one type of activity compared to others. The responses largely supported those activities which already absorb around 95% of the budget of the programme (training, networking/dissemination and staff exchanges).

The evaluator also compared the costs of a sample of activities. This analysis showed that the most costly activities are conferences. This is mainly due to the higher number of participants compared to staff exchanges or training activities. Conferences are also often combined  with  training  and/or  workshops  and  therefore  involve  a  longer  duration compared to training and often require interpretation. The duration of these combined activities varies from 3 to 5 days. Based on interviews and the examination of documentation for a sample of activities, the duration of these activities is reasonable although some participants considered that some extra time would be preferable. Nevertheless,  interviews  showed  that  some  competent  authorities  consider  that  the agenda of some activities is excessively oriented towards general presentations. In their view, more time should be dedicated to more operational discussions, including work- shops and bilateral meetings, rather than general presentations.

The examination of supporting documents also showed that interpretation costs are significant for some activities (higher that 10% of the total budget for some activities reviewed). Interpretation into two or three languages is often needed for conferences and other activities. Nevertheless, for some activities, there may be some room to save resources and enhancing subsequent cooperation and exchanges by promoting the participation of trainers, facilitators and participants who can use a common language.

Regarding accommodation and maintenance costs, the procedures provide for the verification that unit costs for accommodation and maintenance are in accordance with the ceilings applicable to the EC officials as per the relevant regulations. These ceilings are also used for other programmes implemented by the Commission. Regarding travel costs, the review of a sample of activities showed that long distance flights for the activities implemented by the MS are usually booked in economy class.

Overall,  the  analysis  showed  that  the  activities  and  outputs  of  the  programme  are delivered at a reasonable cost.

The questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and Europol also included a specific question on whether they consider that there are activities which are not currently financed by the programme but which would provide a higher value for money compared to the activities currently financed by the programme. 6 out of 34 competent authorities replied "yes" to this question. Comments provided in the questionnaire and interviews with competent authorities showed that these competent authorities referred mainly to training activities at national level.

Activities at national level are not financed by the programme because they do not meet the transnational requirement. Nevertheless, the need for training at national level can be supported by the programme by the involvement of guest speakers in national training or by providing training for trainers, which can then be replicated at national level. The involvement of guest speakers in national training is specifically mentioned in article 2 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC as one the means to achieve the specific objectives of the programme.

The programme already provides training for trainers activities. However, the replies to the questionnaire and interviews with some competent authorities suggest that there may

exist further need for the programme to increase training for trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in national training.

3.4 - Effectiveness

EQ6. To  what  extent  have  the  specific  objectives  of  the  programme  been achieved?

Overall, the specific objectives of the programme are being achieved satisfactorily. In general, the degree of achievement of the specific objectives of raising awareness of the staff concerned, high level training, developing a climate of mutual trust and cooperation among competent national authorities, including effective exchange of information, experience and good practices, is highly satisfactory. Nevertheless, the evaluation findings suggest that there is still a need for further training for trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in national training. A more comprehensive and results- oriented reporting could further enhance information, experience and good practices exchanges.

The specific objectives of the programme are presented in section 2. The questionnaire sent to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol, included specific questions related to the degree of achievement of the different specific objectives. The details of the answers to these questions are provided below. The analysis was complemented with interviews and the analysis of relevant documentation.

Raising awareness on euro protection of staff concerned in the competent national authorities

The replies to the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol showed a high level of achievement of this objective. 71% (20 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (28 respondents) considered as high or very high the degree of achievement of this objective and 25% (7 respondents) as positive/fair. 1 respondent considered that this specific objective has not been achieved and 6 did not express an opinion.

The overall positive results reported by the competent authorities in the questionnaire were also supported by the interviews and the examination of relevant documentation.

Promoting convergence of high-level training

The questionnaire sent to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol did not include a specific question on the convergence of high-level training. Nevertheless, the replies to the questions on relevance showed that training is the activity considered as most relevant by the competent authorities. As presented for EQ7, competent authorities and participants in a sample of programme activities have also reported an overall high achievement on their knowledge of good practices on euro protection as a result of their participation in programme activities.

Nevertheless, as reported for EQ5, some competent authorities expressed the view that there is still a need for high level training of staff in some competent national authorities.

The questionnaire also included a question on the overall convergence among MS. The replies to this question are presented in EQ9.

Exchange of information, experience and good practices among competent national authorities

The replies to the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol also showed an overall high level of achievement of this objective. 72% (23 respondents) of the competent authorities expressing their opinion (32 respondents) considered the degree of achievement of this objective as high or very high and 22% (7 respondents) as positive/fair. 2 respondents considered that this specific objective was not achieved and 2 did not express an opinion.

In general, the results of the questionnaire are also supported by the interviews and the examination of relevant documentation. During the interviews, competent authorities underlined the existence of an overall effective exchange of information, experience and good practices with their counterparts in other MS.

Publishing the results achieved, as part of the exchange of information, experience and good practices

Article 2 of the Council Decision 2001/923/EC includes among the specific objectives of the programme the aim to publish the results achieved, as part of the exchange of information, experience and good practices.

The main source of information on results achieved is the technical reports of the activities prepared by the competent authorities and OLAF on the implementation of the activities. These technical reports are made available to the ECEG when requested. Competent national authorities are also invited to present the results of the activities implemented to the ECEG meetings.

OLAF D5 also presents a summary of the activities implemented to the ECEG meetings including information on the profile of participants, type of activities and other relevant information. OLAF D5 also prepares an annual report with the activities financed, the beneficiaries and the amounts allocated. This report is published on OLAF website19. However, the report does not provide information on results achieved by the programme.

Some results and an overall view on the implementation of the programme were provided in   the   mid-term   evaluation   2006-10   which   supported   the   Commission   impact assessment20. The Pericles strategy also provides some information on results achieved by previous activities.

While there exist a certain reporting of the results achieved by the activities financed by the programme, the interviews with competent authorities and the evaluator's assessment of  the  existing  reporting  suggest  that  a  more  comprehensive  and  results  oriented reporting could further enhance information exchange, experience and good practices, as well as the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the programme. The opportunity for a more results oriented reporting has also been identified by the impact assessment undertaken by the Commission as one of the areas to be improved for Pericles 2020.

EQ7. To  what  extent  have  the  activities  financed  under  the  programme contributed to achieve its specific objectives?

Overall, the programme has been highly effective in raising awareness of the staff concerned, providing high level training, developing a climate of mutual trust, encouraging cooperation and facilitating an effective exchange of information, experience and good practices between the competent national authorities in the EU and with third countries.

19 http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/euro-protection/training/index_en.htm

20 Impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011) 1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance

and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme).

Intangible effects deriving from networking, motivation of officials and facilitating mutual trust among officials of competent authorities are important contributions of the programme. The programme could further contribute to support training needs at national level by increasing training for trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in national training.

The three questionnaires used for this evaluation included questions intended to assess the contribution of the programme in achieving its specific objectives. The analysis was complemented with interviews and the analysis of relevant documentation.

The questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol, included two set of questions to evaluate the effectiveness of the programme's contribution to the achievement of its specific objectives: (a) a set of questions for each specific objective of the programme asking their assessment of the programme's contribution, and (b) a set of questions to assess to which extent they have achieved their own objectives when organising and/or participating in the programme activities. The questionnaires to competent  national  authorities  in  third  countries  and to  participants  in  a sample  of activities included questions referred to (b) only. The three questionnaires also included questions intended to collect information on results achieved by the programme activities. The analysis for each of the specific objectives and results achieved with the programme's contribution are presented below.

Programme's contribution in raising awareness on euro protection of staff concerned in the competent national authorities

The replies to the questionnaire sent to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol showed a high contribution of the programme in achieving this objective although a significant number of competent authorities (11) did not express an opinion on the overall programme's contribution. 83% (19 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (23 respondents) considered as high or very high the overall  contribution  of  the  programme  in  achieving  this  objective  and  17%  (4 respondents)   as   positive/fair.   No   respondent   considered   that   the   programme's contribution was not positive. The replies also showed that the highest contribution to this specific objective was provided by networking/dissemination, staff exchanges and training activities.

For the 22 competent authorities who identified this objective as one of the objectives pursued when participating in the programme activities, 16 reported a high or very high achievement, 4 a positive achievement, 1 an insufficient achievement and 1 did not express an opinion.

The replies to the questionnaire sent to participants in a sample of programme activities also showed overall positive results regarding the programme contribution to achieve this objective: 84% of the 64 participants which replied to the questionnaire expressed a high or very high degree of achievement of this objective through their participation in the programme activities and 16% a positive/fair achievement. No respondent expressed insufficient achievement or no opinion.

Programme's  contribution  in  promoting  exchange  of  information  and  good  practices among competent national authorities

The questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol shows an overall high contribution of the programme in achieving this objective. 81% (21 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (26 respondents) considered as high or very high the contribution of the programme in achieving this objective and 15% (4 respondents) as positive/fair. One respondent considered that the programme's contribution was insufficient and 8 did not express an opinion. The activities

which   most   clearly   contributed   to   the   achievement   of   this   objective   were networking/dissemination, training and staff exchanges.

The replies to the questions on the specific objectives pursued when participating in the programme activities show that the programme's contribution has been more evident in terms of cooperation and exchanges with other MS compared to cooperation with third countries. For the 27 competent authorities who identified exchange of information, experience and good  practices with organisations in other MS as one of the objectives pursued, 23 reported a high or very high achievement, 3 a positive achievement and 1 an insufficient achievement. For the 19 competent authorities who identified exchange of information, experience and good practices with organisations in third countries as one of the objectives pursued, 8 reported a high or very high achievement, 8 a positive achievement and 3 an insufficient achievement.

Similar results were obtained through the replies to a similar question for competent authorities who had identified closer cooperation and developing a climate of mutual trust with organisations and staff concerned in other MS and third countries among the objectives pursued when participating in the programme activities.

Positive results regarding the programme's achievement of this objective were also reported by the participants in a sample of programme activities who replied to the questionnaire. 87% of the 64 respondents expressed a high or very high satisfaction in terms of knowledge of good practices on euro protection as a result of their participation in programme activities and 11% expressed a fair satisfaction. On a related question, 81% of respondents considered that they have gained a high level of knowledge to contribute to protection of the euro and 15% a fair level. Only two respondents reported an insufficient level of knowledge to contribute to the protection of the euro in their fields.

The participants in a sample of programme activities were also asked about the degree of achievement of their personal objectives when participating in the programme activities. The degree of satisfaction reported is highly positive in terms of improved cooperation, increased mutual trust and satisfactory exchange of information and best practices. Compared to the results of the questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU presented above, the level of satisfaction of respondents in terms of improved cooperation and mutual trust is slightly higher with staff from competent authorities in third countries (83% expressed high level of satisfaction) than with staff from competent authorities in other MS (76% expressed high level of satisfaction).

The review of a sample of activities showed that competent authorities usually pay particular attention to promote networking and exchanges during the duration of the activities (for example, lunches and dinners are often used to promote networking). Several competent authorities interviewed underlined the importance of networking and exchanges to promote a climate of mutual trust.

Programme's contribution in promoting convergence of high-level training

The questionnaire sent to competent authorities in MS, the ECB and Europol did not include a specific question on the programme's contribution to the promotion of convergence of high level training. A question on the contribution of the programme to achieve overall convergence was included in the questionnaire and the results are presented in EQ9. In this section, the analysis is focussed on the contribution of the programme in promoting convergence of high level training, a specific objective of the programme.

The results reported by competent authorities in MS in terms of sufficient knowledge and skills to participate/contribute to euro protection activities and ability to cooperate with their counterparts in other countries in the context of cross border cooperation (the details are provided in the section "results achieved with the programme's contribution" in the

last  section  of  this  evaluation  question)  show  a  clear  programme's  contribution  in providing high level training. The interviews with competent authorities also confirmed the contribution of the programme in providing convergence of high level training. Nevertheless, the evaluation findings suggest that the programme contribution could be reinforced by increasing training for trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in national training.

The results reported by a sample of participants also showed that the programme has provided high level training to staff in the competent national authorities and therefore clearly contributed to achieve this specific objective. In general, the participants in training activities have assessed it both as of high quality and highly relevant for their work on the protection of the euro.

Programme's contribution in increasing general public awareness

As explained for EQ1, promoting general public awareness is not a specific objective of the programme. Activities to raise general public awareness are mainly organised at European level by the ECB and at the national level mainly by central national banks and in some cases also by the police.

Nevertheless, the questionnaire sent to the competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol included a question on the topic. The replies to the questionnaire show that the potential of the programme to increase general public awareness is uneven. 14 out of the

34 competent authorities did not express an opinion and among those competent authorities expressing an opinion, the views varied widely: 7 authorities considered as high or very high the contribution of the programme in achieving this objective, 7 as positive/fair and 6 considered that the programme's contribution was limited.

The examination of a sample of activities and interviews with stakeholders suggests that the contribution of the programme in raising general public awareness would stem from the coverage of some programme activities by the media, particularly dissemination and networking activities like conferences. The coverage by the media does not involve significant extra cost for the activity and may have a high impact on general public awareness. The review of a sample of technical reports showed some examples where the competent authorities reported on the coverage by media of conferences financed by the programme. The involvement of participants in activities which increase general public awareness on euro protection in their countries may also have a potential impact on increasing general public awareness. In this regard, 23% of the participants who replied to the questionnaire declared that, following their participation in the programme activities, they have been involved in actions to increase the general public awareness on euro protection in their country.

The possibility to define programme activities directly targeted at the general public was discussed with stakeholders. There is an overall common view among the stakeholders interviewed that a major constraint to finance this type of activities is the expected high cost of activities such as advertising and/or information campaign in the media (newspapers, TV, radio, etc.) which would absorb a significant amount of the programme resources.  Another  constraint  would  be  the  difficulty  to  define  activities  with  a transnational dimension.

Results achieved with the programme's contribution

The questionnaires to competent authorities and participants also included questions to assess the specific results of the programme. The replies to the question regarding the extent to which the organisation of and/or participation in programme activities has helped their organisation gain a sufficient knowledge and skills to participate/contribute to euro protection activities, showed that 80% of the competent authorities in the MS

replying (30 national competent authorities) considered the degree of achievement as high or very high and 20% reported a fair/positive achievement.

To  the  question  regarding  the  extent  the  organisation  of  and/or  participation  in programme activities has assisted a given organisation to cooperate with counterparts in other countries in the context of cross-border cooperation, 77% of the competent authorities  in  the  MS  which  replied  to  the  questionnaire  (26  national  competent authorities, most of them police) considered the degree of achievement as high or very high and 23% as positive fair.

14 out of the 21 police authorities which replied to the questionnaire reported that they have been involved in at least one cross-border operation on euro protection and 9 of them in more than 5 cross-border operations. 11 of these 14 police authorities reported that organising of and/or participating in the programme activities have been a key factor for the successful implementation of cross-border operations.

The above information shows a clear contribution of the programme to the achievement of concrete results.  It needs to be noted that other factors, in particular, cooperation with and support from Europol, were underlined by national competent authorities during the interviews as also a key factor for the successful implementation of cross-border operations.

Results in Latin America (particularly in Colombia, Peru and Argentina) were presented by the  Brigada  de  Investigación  del  Banco  de  España  (BIBE)  to  the  ECEG  meeting  in November 2012.  The results reported included 58 joint operations finished, 54 of them with results in terms of: individuals arrested (122), production and finishing centres seized (48),  distribution  networks  dismantled  (9)  and  counterfeit  currency  seized  (Euro  30 million, US Dollar 33 million). Other results reported were the establishment of a support structure in Colombia and the creation of a National Central Office in Peru.

BIBE underlined that the programme have provided a necessary contribution to the achievement of the above-mentioned results in Latin America. According to BIBE, such results would have not been achieved without the programme's support. Cooperation with and support from Europol was also underlined by BIBE as also necessary for the achievement of these results. The above-mentioned results also show that counterfeiting of euro and US Dollars are often linked (22 out of the above 54 operations completed with results were mixed euro/US dollar operations) and the importance of coordinating efforts with the US Secret Service. According to BIBE, the programme has been a very important tool to facilitate cooperation with the US Secret Service in Latin America as well as with the competent national authorities in the region who have also significantly contributed to the achievement of the above results.

Information on results achieved where the programme's contribution has been relevant was also collected through the questionnaire sent to competent authorities in third countries and participants in a sample of programme activities.

The 8 competent authorities from third countries (5 from the Western Balkans countries, 1 from Turkey, 1 from Brazil and 1 from Peru) which replied to the questionnaire (6 police and 2 national central banks) reported a high achievement in terms of their overall awareness on euro protection, knowledge of best practices on euro protection, sufficient knowledge and skills to participate/contribute to euro protection activities and ability to cooperate with their counterparts in other countries in the context of cross-border operations. Table 5 provides information on the number of competent authorities in third countries which have reported to having been involved in different actions on euro protection as a result of their participation in programme activities.

Table 6: Results reported by competent authorities in 3rd countries

|| N || %

Dissemination/training ac tivities within your organisation on euro protec tion. || 6 || 75%

Dissemination/training ac tivities in your c ountry but outside your organisation on euro protec tion. || 5 || 63%

Ac tivities to inc rease the general public ' awareness in your c ountry on euro protec tion. || 3 || 38%

Partic ipation in c ross- borders operations investigations on euro protec tion. || 4 || 50%

Setting/appointing a permanent c ontac t on euro protec tion within your organisation. || 4 || 50%

Setting a spec ialised struc ture on euro protec tion within your organisation || 2 || 25%

Development of relevant legal instruments on protec tion of the euro (for example, introduc tion of asset c onfisc ation, international c ooperation agreements, etc .) || 5 || 63%

Other || 1 || 13%

No spec ific ac tion || 0 || 0%

Table 7: Results reported by participants

|| All || EU || Non-EU

N || % || N || % || N || %

Dissemination/training ac tivities within your organisation || 36 || 56% || 9 || 41% || 27 || 64%

Dissemination/training ac tivities in your c ountry but outside your organisation || 19 || 30% || 8 || 36% || 11 || 26%

Ac tivities to inc rease the general public ' awareness in your c ountry on euro protec tion || 15 || 23% || 3 || 14% || 12 || 29%

Partic ipation in c ross-borders operations/investigations on protec tion of the euro against c ounterfeiting || 15 || 23% || 7 || 32% || 8 || 19%

Setting/appointing a permanent c ontac t on euro protec tion within your organisation || 23 || 36% || 10 || 45% || 13 || 31%

Setting a spec ialised struc ture on euro protec tion within your organisation || 17 || 27% || 6 || 27% || 11 || 26%

Development of relevant legal instruments on protec tion of the euro (for example, introduc tion of asset c onfisc ation, international c ooperation agreements, etc ) || 11 || 17% || 3 || 14% || 8 || 19%

Regarding participants in programme activities (Table 7), 64 participants (22 from EU MS and 42 from third countries) replied to the following question: "as a result of your participation in the PERICLES activities, have you been involved in one or more of the following actions?". Table 6 provides information on the number of participants and percentages which replied that they have participated in the different actions.

8.    To what extent do the coordination and cooperation mechanisms in place ensure consistency and complementarity with other existing measures (in particular those implemented by the ECB and Europol) with the view to achieve the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting?

Overall, the coordination and cooperation mechanisms are adequate to ensure complementarity and coherence with other existing measures at European and MS level, although the evaluation has identified some potential areas for improvement.

The analysis made for EQ4 regarding the role of the ECEG to steer the programme and coordinate its implementation with other existing measures at MS and European level is also valid for this evaluation question. The overall conclusion regarding the role of the ECEG revealed that the meetings of the ECEG provide an adequate mechanism for coordinating and steering the programme, although there is some potential to improve coordination. The areas for improvement are discussed in EQ4. These areas, when they are also relevant to improve the overall effectiveness of the programme, are also reported below.

Regarding the complementarity with other existing measures, the replies of competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire showed a satisfactory level of complementarity but with some areas for improvement. 67% (20 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion in the questionnaire (30 respondents) considered the complementarity as high or very high and 33% (10 respondents) as positive/fair. 4 competent authorities did not express an opinion. Nevertheless, on a related question on whether they consider that coordination and complementarity could be improved, 7 competent authorities replied that there is room for improvement and 18 indicated that there is some room for improvement.

The interviews with the stakeholders and the examination of programme documentation provided relevant information on potential areas for improvement. These areas are:

• A multi-annual strategy for Pericles as discussed in the efficiency section could further enhance the effectiveness of the programme in contributing to achieve the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting. The multi-annual strategy should however keep a certain level of flexibility to respond to new priorities or threats;

• an improved definition of the specific objectives of each activity, its complementarity to previous activities and those undertaken by others, as discussed in the efficiency section, would also enhance complementarity and coherence;

• some  competent  authorities  would  prefer  that  the  technical  reports  are  made available to them rather than presenting the results of individual activities during the ECEG meetings. This would allow more time to discuss priorities and strategic planning;

• a more results oriented and comprehensive reporting of the results achieved by the programme as discussed in EQ6 would also facilitate coordination, complementarity and coherence with other activities.

9.   To what extent have transnational and multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence among EU MS been sufficiently taken into account by the programme?

The activities financed by the programme have a clear transnational and multidisciplinary dimensions. The programme has contributed to the promotion of convergence among the MS,  namely  by  providing  high  level  training,  which  is  a  specific  objective  of  the programme. The programme has also contributed to convergence by facilitating the understanding of the different situations in the MS, including levels of protection resulting from different criminal law systems. The role of the programme in promoting convergence beyond these areas is more uneven. A targeted involvement in the programme activities of  judicial  authorities  could  potentially  increase  the  programme's  contribution  in supporting convergence on euro protection.

The Council Decision 2011/923/EC provides that the programme "shall take account of transnational and multidisciplinary aspects" and should "concentrate on promoting convergence of the substance of measures so as to guarantee equivalent levels of protection on the basis of consideration of best practice while also respecting the distinct traditions of each Member State".

The transnational and multidisciplinary aspects of the programme have been analysed to a certain extent in EQ3 in the context of the added value of the programme compared to other existing measures at MS and European level. The transnational and multidisciplinary dimension of the activities is among the criteria required in the call for proposals issued by OLAF and is assessed by the Pericles evaluation committee for each activity as a minimum requirement. The examination of the supporting documentation for a sample of activities and  minutes  of  the  committee  has  confirmed  that  the  activities  financed  by  the programme have a transnational and multidisciplinary dimension.

Regarding the contribution of the programme to promote convergence among MS, the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol included questions on the contribution of the different programme activities in promoting convergence among the MS and an equivalent level of protection. The replies suggest that networking/dissemination activities (21 out of 34 competent authorities considered the contribution as high or very high and 9 as positive) and training activities (21 out of 34 competent authorities considered the contribution as high or very high and 5 as positive) have clearly contributed to promote convergence. A positive contribution to convergence was also reported by competent authorities for information and staff exchanges and teaching sources.

Interviews with stakeholders also suggest that the programme has clearly contributed to promote convergence among MS mainly by providing high level training to staff in the competent national authorities and by contributing to awareness raising and facilitating the exchange of information and good practices which have contributed to the understanding of the various situations in the MS and the consequences of different levels of protection. Nevertheless, interviews with stakeholders and the high number of no opinion replies (10 out of 34) to the question on the overall contribution of the programme to  promote  convergence  suggest  that  the  role  of  the  programme  in  promoting convergence beyond these areas is more uneven.

Interviews with stakeholders and the examination of relevant documentation21  showed that the existence of differing criminal law legislation relating to money counterfeiting is one of the main areas to be addressed in order to achieve convergence and an equivalent

21 Impact assessment performed by the Commission accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law. Commission Staff Working Paper SWD(2013) 19 final.

level  of  protection  among  the  MS.  In  this  regard,  a  targeted  involvement  in  the programme activities of judicial authorities could potentially further increase the programme's contribution in supporting convergence on euro protection across MS.

3.5 – Prospects for sustainability

10.   To what extent are the results achieved (or likely to be) sustainable?

The sustainability of the results achieved will significantly depend on the possibility to continue financing similar activities which would allow maintaining the existing level of cooperation among the competent authorities and a continuous training of the staff concerned as well as to respond to new threats and needs. The evaluation showed that the continuation of the activities currently implemented by the MS with the programme support would be at risk without financing at EU level.

For the majority of the 34 competent authorities which replied to the questionnaire, the sustainability of the results achieved by the programme will be highly dependent on the continuation of the programme activities, especially training, dissemination/networking and staff exchanges activities.

Interviews with stakeholders and review of relevant documentation also showed that training and cooperation needs evolve (new counterfeits, new modus operandi of criminal groups, new MS or third countries affected by euro counterfeiting, new euro notes issued by the ECB as from 2013, etc). Therefore, there is a need to provide continuous and updated support. According to some competent authorities interviewed, turnover of staff concerned in the competent authorities (particularly in third countries) also represents a risk for sustainability and requires continuous training and cooperation. To address this risk, competent authorities interviewed agreed that it is important that the programme promote the participation of staff concerned who will most probably continue working on the area of euro protection.

The questionnaire sent to the competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol also included a question on whether the competent authorities in the MS would continue to organise activities with a transnational dimension for the protection of the euro if funding from the programme would not be available in the future. 9 out 17 competent national authorities that have implemented activities declared that they would not (or probably not) continue to implement activities mainly due to lack of national resources. Some of these competent authorities also replied that there is not a clear added value for their organisation to spend their own national resources on activities with an European and/or an international dimension.

The interviews with competent authorities have also showed that it would be difficult for them to justify the financing of activities with a transnational dimension from their own budget, particularly in the current context of budgetary contains in many MS.

4 - CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation has assessed the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme and the prospects for sustainability of the results achieved.

The overall relevance of the programme (whether the programme should be continued after 2013) has been assessed in the context of the mid-term evaluation performed by the Commission and the impact assessment which supported the Commission's proposal for the continuation of the programme during the period 2014/202022  (the "Pericles 2020"). Therefore, the evaluation has not assessed the overall relevance of the programme. Nevertheless, this evaluation has assessed the European and overall added value of the programme and its complementarity and coherence with other existing activities.

Overall performance of the programme

The programme provides a clear European added value. The specific objectives of the programme are highly relevant to the achievement of its overall objective. The activities financed by the programme and the target groups involved are both highly relevant to the achievement of its specific objectives. The transnational and multidisciplinary dimensions of  the  programme  activities  also  represent  a  clear  added  value  of  the  programme compared to activities carried out at MS and European level. Overall, the efficiency of the programme is satisfactory and the programme has been highly effective in contributing to the achievement of its specific objectives. The evaluation has identified some potential improvements which could enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the programme.

Relevance

The specific objectives of the programme are highly relevant to the achievement of its overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting. The evaluation has not revealed areas which are not currently covered by the existing specific objectives.

The  activities  financed  by  the  programme  are  in  general  highly  relevant  to  the achievement  of  its  specific  objectives.  Training  and  dissemination  and  networking activities are the most relevant activities. Staff exchanges and teaching sources are also highly relevant. Around 95% of the programme resources have been allocated to the activities with the highest relevance. Computer support applications such as software and support to cross-border operations are also eligible for financing from the programme. Nevertheless, other sources of funding at EU level are available to finance these type of activities. This explains why to date, the programme has not financed computer support applications and why the programme has provided support to cross-border operations only once. The evaluation has not identified further needs for computer support applications. As regards support to cross-border operations, the evaluation has not identified significant unmet needs. However, a common understanding among all relevant stakeholders on whether certain costs related to the support to cross-border operations may be financed by other existing sources of funding does not exist.

The target groups of the programme are also highly relevant. The most relevant target group is police which is also the target group most involved in the programme activities both as organisers and participants. Judicial authorities and national central banks are also highly relevant and both target groups participate in most programme activities although

22 The Mid-term evaluation is attached to the impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011) 1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against

counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme)

the evaluation findings suggest that increasing the involvement of the judicial authorities could be desirable. Private sector, namely the financial/banking sector, is also a relevant target group, particularly in MS which are not part of the euro area and third countries where training at national level is not always provided by national authorities.

European and overall added value of the programme

The euro is the single currency shared by the 17 Member States of the euro area in use for 330 million people in this area. It is also used at a large scale in international trading transactions  and  serves  as  an  important  reserve  currency  for  third  countries.  The protection of the euro against counterfeiting is therefore clearly of European interest which goes beyond the interest of individual MS.

Addressing the threats from criminal groups involved in the production and/or distribution of counterfeit euro operation in different EU member states and third countries requires the cooperation among the competent authorities in the MS and with their counterparts in the  third  countries.  The  programme  co-finances  activities  which  involve  relevant competent authorities in the EU and third countries and these activities are intended mainly to provide relevant training, improve cooperation, information exchange and to promote best practices among competent national authorities and their staff. It may therefore be concluded that the activities financed by the programme have a clear European added value.

The combination of an European/international dimension of the programme together with a multidisciplinary dimension, represents a clear added value of the programme compared to activities carried out by the MS and other EU institutions or bodies (namely by the ECB, Europol and Eurojust). The programme is the only specific programme at European level which finances activities on euro protection. The programme also provides added value in terms of further enhancing cross-border cooperation by facilitating bilateral contacts, mutual trust and motivation of staff of relevant competent authorities in the MS and third countries.

An important strength of the programme is its implementation modality which combines the implementation of activities by the Commission and the MS. The implementation of activities by MS allows competent national authorities to identify and address new threats and emerging needs, while ensuring the management of the programme at the European level. This also allows the programme to benefit from the strengths of the different MS in their relations with third countries. At the same time, the implementation by the Commission provides flexibility to rapidly define and implement activities and to complement the activities implemented by MS.

The evaluation has also showed that the activities implemented by a competent authority in one MS also address the needs of competent authorities in the same and other MS regarding euro protection.

Efficiency

Overall, the programme's activities and outputs are delivered at a reasonable cost and respond to the priorities and needs to be addressed, although there is some potential to improve efficiency.

In general, the complementarity and coherence of the programme activities are satisfactory, although these and other efficiency aspects are not always clearly presented and reported. In this regard, the procedures could be further streamlined to facilitate the presentation  and  reporting  of  the  value  for  money  and  to  better  illustrate  the

complementarity and coherence of activities with other activities previously financed by the programme.

The meetings of the Euro Counterfeit Experts Group (ECEG) provide an adequate mechanism for coordinating and steering the programme. The evaluation has identified some potential improvements which could facilitate the role of the ECEG for coordinating and steering the programme. In particular, a multi-annual strategy with a clearly defined timeframe and a more results oriented reporting as discussed in the effectiveness section below.

Effectiveness

The specific objectives of the programme are being achieved satisfactorily. Overall, the programme has been highly effective in contributing to the achievement of its specific objectives, namely raising awareness of the staff concerned, providing high level training, developing a climate of mutual trust, encouraging cooperation, and facilitating an effective exchange of information, experience and best practices between the competent national authorities both in the EU and with third countries. Nevertheless, the evaluation findings suggest that the programme could further contribute to address training needs at national level by increasing training for trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in national training.

Among the concrete results achieved with the programme's contribution which have been reported by competent authorities during the course of this evaluation are: a satisfactory cooperation among competent authorities in the EU and with third countries, improved capacity of competent national authorities in the EU and third countries, successful cross- border operations, the promotion of national structures and the development of relevant legal instruments on euro protection. Intangible effects deriving from networking, motivation of officials and facilitating mutual trust among officials of competent authorities are important contribution of the programme.

The evaluation results suggest that the programme may have also contributed to the expansion of general public awareness on the protection of the euro, which is not among the specific objectives of the programme, although this contribution is difficult to assess. This contribution would stem from spillovers of some programme activities, namely conferences, where the media cover the events or when participants are involved in general public awareness actions in their countries following their participation in training, dissemination or other programme activities.

The activities financed by the programme have clear transnational and multidisciplinary dimensions. The programme has also contributed to the promotion of convergence among the MS on euro protection, mainly by providing high level training, which is one of the specific objectives of the programme. It has also contributed in other areas, namely by facilitating the exchange of information and best practices which have contributed to the understanding of the various situations in the MS and the consequences of different levels of protection resulting from different criminal law systems. Nevertheless, the role of the programme in promoting convergence beyond these areas is more uneven. In this regard, a targeted involvement in the programme activities of judicial authorities could potentially increase the programme's contribution in supporting convergence on euro protection across MS.

Overall,  the  complementarity  and  coherence  of  the  programme  activities  with  other existing measures at MS and European level are satisfactory. The existing coordination and cooperation mechanisms are in general adequate to achieve the overall objective of the programme of protecting the euro against counterfeiting, although with some areas for improvement. In particular, while the existing planning process has in general ensured

coordination and flexibility to address new threats and priorities, a multi-annual strategy for the programme with a clearly defined timeframe is not in place and the existing annual reporting does not provide sufficient information on the results achieved by the programme. A multi-annual strategy for the programme would contribute to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the programme towards achieving the overall objective of protection of the euro against counterfeiting. The multi-annual strategy should however keep a certain level of flexibility to respond to new priorities or threats.  A more results oriented reporting on the contribution of the programme activities to the achievement of its specific objectives, both at programme level and for individual activities, would also contribute to further enhance its efficiency and effectiveness.

Prospects for sustainability

The sustainability of the results achieved will depend significantly on the possibility to continue financing similar activities to maintain the existing level of cooperation among the competent authorities and a continuous training of the staff concerned as well as to respond to new threats and needs (new counterfeits, new modus operandi of criminal groups, new MS or third countries affected by counterfeiting, new euro notes issued by the ECB as from 2013, etc). Turnover of staff concerned in the competent authorities (particularly in third countries) also represents a risk for sustainability.

The evaluation showed that the continuation of the activities currently implemented by the

MS with the programme support would be at risk without financing at EU level.

Annex I

PERICLES programme – Intervention logic

What we control …                                       Influence directly

Influence indirectly

Programming

Activities

Outputs

Results

Impact

CD 2001/923/EC

Target groups

Specific objectives        Overall objective

Call for proposals

Proposals (MS,EC) Ev. Committee

ECEG

Training Workshops Meetings Seminars

Staff exchanges

Technical assistance

Financial sup to

C-B operations

Staff trained

Networking

Studies Brochures IT tools

Meetings C-B

operations

Awareness raising

Closer cooperation

Convergence high level training

Knowledge of EC &

international law

Information & good practice exchange

Protecting the EURO against counterfeiting

Transnational &

multidisciplinary

MS convergence

MS/ECB/Europol/Eurojust activities

External Factors

Evaluation of the Pericles programme – Annex I

Annex II

Methodology

The DG BUDG’s guide1  “Evaluating EU activities – a practical guide for the Commission

Services” has provided the overall methodology guidance for this evaluation.

Evaluation criteria

The DG BUDG’s evaluation guide provides the following definitions:

Relevance: The extent to which an intervention’s objectives are pertinent to needs, problems and issues to be addressed.

Coherence:  The  extent  to  which  the  intervention  logic  is  not  contradictory/  the intervention does not contradict other interventions with similar objectives.

Economy:      The extent to which resources are available in due time, in appropriate quantity and quality at the best price.

Effectiveness: The extent to which objectives set are achieved.

Efficiency:     The extent the desired effects are achieved at a reasonable cost. Sustainability: The extent to which positive effects are likely to last after an intervention

has terminated

The  evaluation  has  focussed  on  relevance,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  aspects  as required by article 13 of Council Decision2001/923/EC. The following clarifications should be taken into consideration regarding the evaluation criteria:

•   The overall relevance of the programme (whether the programme should be continued after 2013) had been assessed in the context of the mid-term evaluation performed by OLAF D5 and a formal proposal for the continuation of the programme had already been submitted by the Commission before the inception of this evaluation. Therefore, a specific question on the overall relevance of the programme has not been included for this evaluation. Nevertheless, the evaluation has addressed the European and overall added value of the programme compared to other existing measures at MS and European level;

•    some aspects of economy (namely the extent that activities are made available in due time and best price) have been assessed as part of efficiency;

•    the coherence of the programme has been analysed in the context of the added value of the programme compared to other existing instruments (EQ3), the existing coordination mechanisms (EQ4) and the complementarity of the programme with other existing measures at MS and European level (EQ8);

•    when assessing effectiveness, the focus has been on the specific objectives where the degree of achievement can be attributed (at least to a reasonable extent) to the programme;

1 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/evaluation/docs/eval_activities_en.pdf

•  contribution of the programme to achieve the overall objective has been a qualitative assessment which took account of the size of the programme budgeted and measures undertaken elsewhere, in particular by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Europol, and other external factors which may affect the overall objective. Specially, the evaluation has focussed on the coordination mechanisms and complementarity with other existing measures at MS and European level;

•  the evaluation has also reported on results achieved with the programme's contribution;

•    some elements of sustainability (namely whether the results achieved are likely to be sustainable)  have also been assessed.

Methodology to answer the evaluation questions

Annex III provides the evaluation matrix with the judgement criteria, indicators/tools and sources of information used to answer each evaluation question.

The main tools and sources of information used to answer the evaluation questions were:

•      Examination of programme documentation and other relevant information;

•      A questionnaire addressed to competent authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and

Europol;

•  a questionnaire to authorities in third countries having participated in the programme activities;

•      a questionnaire to participants in a sample of programme activities;

•      interviews with some competent authorities and stakeholders.

The evaluator also participated in two meetings of the ECEG as observer (14 November

2012 and 13 March 2013). During the first meeting, the evaluator presented the evaluation to the members of the ECEG. During the second meeting the evaluator

presented the results of the questionnaire sent to competent authorities in the EU MS,

the ECB and Europol and the results of the questionnaire sent to competent authorities in third countries.

As part of the preparation phase for the evaluation, the evaluator also attended the first day of one of the activities co-financed by the programme (the 10th Euro South-East Conference which took place in Budapest, Hungary, from 21-25 October 2012)

Examination of programme documentation and other relevant information

The documentation examined has included:

•   Legal documents;

•   management and administrative procedures and guidelines;

•   calls for proposals;

•   a sample of minutes of the evaluation committee;

•   a sample of minutes of the ECEG meeting;

•   budget statistics;

•   statistics on costs of actions, number of participants, etc.

•   official reports from the ECB, Europol and the EC.

•   A sample of technical and financial reports of activities implemented. The sample included 18 activities implemented by the MS and 3 implemented by OLAF.

For the minutes of the Pericles evaluation Committee, the evaluator examined those minutes where the above-mentioned proposals selected had been discussed. Nevertheless, the review included the entire minutes, not only the assessment by the committee of these activities. For the Minutes of the ECEG, the evaluator examined the minutes of the meetings held in 2011 and 2012 and a sample of meetings held during the previous years.

The evaluation has not covered legality or regularity aspects of grants management, financial reporting or payments.

Questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol

The replies to the questionnaire are provided in annex IV. The questionnaire included questions related to all the evaluation questions. The questionnaire has provided relevant input to answer all the evaluation questions which have been complemented with the replies to the other questionnaires, interviews with stakeholders and examination of relevant documentation.

The questionnaire was addressed to:

•  The competent national authorities in the EU-MS which are eligible to implement actions financed by the programme (namely those referred to in Article 2 of Council Regulation 1338/2001);

• Other parties which are not included in the above categories, which should contribute to the attainment of the programme objectives as per article 4.2 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC, namely the ECB and Europol.

A total of 34 competent authorities replied to the questionnaire, including the ECB and

Europol. From the 32 responses received from national competent authorities in the MS,

22 were from MS which are part of the euro area and 10 from MS which are not part of the euro area. Regarding their profile, 21 were police authorities, 8 national central banks and 5 others. The highest number of responses was received from Italy (5), Belgium (2), Finland (2), Germany (2), Portugal (2) and Spain (2). Replies were received from a total of 23 MS (13 MS from the euro area and 10 from MS which are not part of the euro area).

Questionnaires to authorities in third countries

The replies to this questionnaire are provided in annex V. The questionnaire has provided relevant input regarding relevance (EQ2) and effectiveness (EQ7, particularly on the results achieved) of the programme.

The questionnaire was sent to a sample of authorities in third countries which co- organised and/or participated in programme activities. The sample mainly included authorities who regularly participate in annual regional events. The questionnaire was sent to competent authorities in the Western Balkans (Albania, BiH, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia), Turkey and Latin America (Brazil, Colombia and Peru).

8 competent authorities replied to this questionnaire: 5 from the Western Balkans, 1 from Turkey and 2 from Latin America.

Questionnaires to participants in a sample of programme activities

The replies to the questionnaire to participants in the programme activities are provided in annex VI. The replies provided relevant input regarding relevance (namely EQ 2) and effectiveness (namely EQ7 on the results achieved by the programme). 87 responses were received, 64 from participants, 10 from organisers/co-organisers and 13 from trainers. The replies reported in annex VI include the replies from the 64 participants only.

The sample included a total of 15 activities organised during the period 2007-2012 and were selected according to the following criteria:

•      Recurrent activities deployed in an annual or bi-annual basis were selected;

•      Budgetary relevance of the activities financed (a mix of high and low value activities);

•      Activities implemented by at least 5 different Member States. The sample included

11 activities implemented by France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain;

•      Coverage of activities implemented by the Commission. The sample included 4 activities implemented by OLAF D5;

•      Only  activities  implemented  during  the  last  5  years  were  selected  (it  was considered unlikely that feedback would be receive from older activities);

•      Coverage  of  different  types  of  activities  (training,  dissemination/networking activities and staff exchanges).

Interviews with stakeholders

The following groups of interviews took place:

•      OLAF's staff in charge of the management and implementation of the programme

(namely OLAF D5 and R2) and the ETCS;

•   The ECB, Europol and Eurojust. The role of Interpol on euro protection was discussed with the competent authorities and stakeholders interviewed;

•    A sample of competent authorities. The sample included the competent authorities in the five MS which have been most active in the implementation of the programme (France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain) and 4 MS which have not (or only in limited occasions) implemented programme activities (2 MS from the euro area  and 2 MS which are not part of the euro area);

ANNEX III

Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Question || Judgement criteria || Tools/Indicators of achievement || Sources of information

1.       To what extent the specific objectives of the programme are relevant to achieve its overall objective? || JC1.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the relevance of specific objectives to achieve the overall objective of the programme JC 1.2: What available reports by the MS, the EC, the ECB, Europol and other external sources of information report on the relevance of the specific objectives || •               Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •               Results of interviews with a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust •               Existing evidence and/or research || •  Art 2 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC •  Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •              Interviews with stakeholders (competent authorities in MS, Europol, Eurojust and relevant services in the Commission) •              Studies, research work •              Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF) •              Minutes of the ECEG meetings

2.       To what extent the programme activities and target groups are relevant to achieve its specific objectives? || JC 2.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the relevance of activities foreseen in Council Decision 2001/923/EC to achieve the specific objectives JC 2.2: What available studies and reports by the EC, the ECB, Europol, Interpol and other external sources of information report on the relevance of the activities foreseen in Council Decision 2001/923/EC to achieve the specific objectives JC 2.3: The procedures to manage and implement the programme ensure that activities financed are relevant as per Council Decision 2001/923/EC and reflect the policy priorities (as agreed by relevant policy bodies, such as the ECEG) JC 2.4: The activities financed by the programme are relevant as per Council Decision 2001/923/EC and (assessment by the evaluator) JC 2.5: The opinion of participants in programme activities on the relevance of these activities || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •        Results of interviews with a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust •        The administrative and selection procedures provide clear criteria to ensure the relevance of actions financed •               The examination of a sample of activities confirms that administrative and selection procedures are applied •               Policy priorities are reflected in the selection of activities •               Replies from participants to the questionnaire for a sample of activities •               Replies from participants to evaluation forms || •        Art 3 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC •       Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •       Interviews with stakeholders. •        Questionnaire to participants in a sample of activities. •               Participants' evaluation forms •               Minutes of the ECEG meetings •               Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF) •        Administrative procedures, guidelines, call for proposals and Pericles evaluation committee minutes •        Supporting documentation for a sample of activities financed by the programme (proposals, activity reports, etc.)

3.        To what extent the programme provides European added value? || JC 3.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the European added value of the programme JC 3.2: Stakeholders perception on whether alternative management options would be more suitable JC 3.3 Evaluator's assessment of the added value of the programme activities as compared to other existing measures at MS and European level || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •       Results of interviews with a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust || •        Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •        Interviews with stakeholders •        Minutes of the ECEG meetings •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF)

4.       To what extent the management, coordination (with ECB, Europol and EU Member States) and administrative structures currently in place ensure an economic and efficient use of the programme resources? || JC 4.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the performance of management, administrative and coordination mechanisms to promote an economic and efficient use of resource JC 4.2 Coordination mechanisms involving the key stakeholders are in place and functioning to avoid overlapping with activities financed by other existing programmes/measures JC 4.3 The procedures to manage and implementing the programme avoid overlapping among activities financed by the programme JC 4.4 The procedures to manage and implementing the programme promote activities with best value for money || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •    Results of interviews with a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust •    The administrative and selection procedures take into account value-for money and other efficiency criteria. •     The administrative and selection procedures include the assessment of the coherence and complementarity of activities. •     Examination of a sample of activities confirms that relevant assessment criteria are applied. •     Complementary and coherence among activities and value-for- money and other efficiency criteria are provided in the proposals for activities and the activity reports || •               Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •        Interviews with stakeholders •        Minutes of the ECEG meetings •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF) •        Administrative procedures, guidelines, call for proposals and minutes of the Pericles evaluation committee •        Supporting documentation for a sample of activities financed by the programme (proposals, activity reports, etc.)

5.       To what extent the activities and outputs of the programme are delivered at a reasonable cost? || JC 5.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on potential savings in the costs of activities JC 5.2: The unit costs for training and networking activities are provided at a reasonable cost as compared to similar activities financed under other programmes JC 5.3: The duration and periodicity of activities is reasonable for the objectives pursued || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Interpol •        Unit costs for accommodation, travelling, daily allowances, etc. are in accordance with applicable EC ceilings. •        Comparison of unit costs for different activities financed by the programme || •        Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •       Interviews with stakeholders •        Administrative procedures, guidelines, call for proposals and Pericles evaluation committee minutes •        Supporting documentation for a sample of activities financed by the programme (proposals, activity reports, etc.)

6.       To what extent the specific objectives of the programme have been achieved? || JC 6.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the achievement of the specific objectives of the programme JC 6.2 What the EC reports on the degree of achievement of the specific objectives JC 6.3 What available studies by third parties (including the ECB and Europol) report on the achievement of the specific objectives of the programme || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust •        Available reports and/or official studies on the achievement of the specific objectives || •        Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •        Interviews with stakeholders •        Minutes of the ECEG meetings •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF) •               Official reports from the EC (including mid-term evaluation and the impact assessment) •               Official reports form the ECB, Europol and other third parties

7.       To what extent activities financed under the programme have contributed to achieve its specific objectives? || JC 7.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the contribution of activities financed under the programme to achieve the specific objectives of the programme JC 7.2: To what extent activity reports provide evidence on the contribution of activities to achieve the specific objectives JC 7.3 Replies from competent authorities in third countries on how their participation in programme activities has contributed to achieve the specific objectives JC 7.4 Replies from participants in the programmes activities on how activities have contributed to achieve the specific objectives || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Interpol •               Results achieved are reported in the activity reports •              Replies from competent authorities in third countries •              Replies from participants in a sample of activities •              Dissemination activities (such as internal training, conferences at national level, etc) are organised following participation in programme activities || •              Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •              Interviews with stakeholders •       Minutes of the ECEG meetings •       Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF) •       Questionnaire to competent authorities in third countries •              Questionnaire to participants in a sample of activities •              Activity reports submitted by MS to OLAF for a sample of activities •              Activity reports prepared by the EC/OLAF •              Other reports from EC/MS on the results achieved

8.       To what extent the coordination and cooperation mechanisms in place ensure consistency and complementarity with other existing measures (in particular those implemented by the ECB and Europol) to achieve the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting? || JC 8.1: Evolution of euro counterfeiting as per official data from the ECB and ETSC JC 8.2: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the achievement of the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting JC 8.3: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the contribution of the programme to achieve overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting JC 8.4: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the consistency and complementarity of the programme activities with other existing measures JC 8.5: Coordination mechanisms involving the key competent authorities/stakeholders are in place and functioning || •       Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurujust •        Role of the ECEG in ensuring coordination and complementarity •        Available reports and/or official studies on the achievement of the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting || •        Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •       Interviews with key stakeholders •        Minutes of the Pericles evaluation committee •              Minutes of the ECEG meetings •              Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF) •        Activity reports prepared by the EC/OLAF •        Official reports from ECB, Europol and the EC

9.       To what extent transnational and multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence among EU-MS have been sufficiently taken into account by the programme? || JC 9.1 Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the extent the programme has taken into consideration multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence among EU MS JC 9.2 To want extent available statistics, studies and other relevant sources of information shows that transnational and multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence have been taken into consideration || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •        Results of interviews with a sample of MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust •        Transnational and multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence are considered when assessing proposals. || •       Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •       Interviews with stakeholders •        Minutes of the Pericles evaluation committee •        Minutes of the ECEG meetings •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF) •        Official reports from ECB, Europol and the EC

10.     To what extent the results achieved are (or likely will be) sustainable? || JC 10.1 Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on whether the results achieved are expected to  last if funding for PERICLES activities would not be available in the future JC 10.2 MS competent authorities' replies on whether they would continue activities without support from the programme JC 10.3 Evaluator assessment on whether alternative funding sources are/would be available JC.10.4 Participants in the programmes activities are using/continue to use the expertise and networking gained as a result of their participation in the programme activities || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust •              Participants in the programme activities continue to work in relevant areas in their public administrations for a certain time after participating in the activities || •      Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol •       Interviews with stakeholders •        Questionnaire to participants in a sample of activities •              Minutes of the ECEG meetings •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF) •       Official reports from ECB, Europol and the EC

Annex IV

Replies to the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol

The questionnaire was sent to all competent national authorities designated by the Member States as referred to in Article 2.b of Council Regulation 1338/2001, the European Central Bank and Europol.

In several questions competent authorities were invited to express their degree of agreement, assessment of the performance or satisfaction with different options. The following guidelines were provided to mark the different options:

•         Mark 0 to express lack of performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark from 1 to 4 to express different levels of insufficient performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark from 5 to 7 to express different levels of overall positive performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark from 8 to 9 to express a clear high performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•         mark 10 to express the highest performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark n/o (no opinion) if you consider that you do not have sufficient knowledge or information to answer one question.

REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

PART A - PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS All respondents (34)

MS || N

Austria || 0

Belgium || 2

Bulgaria || 1

Cyprus || 1

Czec h Republic || 1

Denmark || 1

Estonia || 1

Finland || 2

Franc e || 1

Germany || 2

Greec e || 0

Hungary || 1

Ireland || 0

Italy || 5

Latvia || 1

Lithuania || 1

Luxembourg || 0

Malta || 1

Netherlands || 1

Poland || 1

Portugal || 2

Romania || 1

Slovakia || 1

Slovenia || 1

Spain || 2

Sweden || 1

United Kingdom || 1

EU Institution/body/agenc y || N

European Central Bank || 1

Europol || 1

PART B - GENERAL QUESTIONS

1 - Measures at national level (excluding PERICLES activities)

1.1. Does your organisation have a strategy and action plan for the training of staff and other preventative measures to protect the Euro against counterfeiting?

YES (18 competent authorities in the MS)

NO (14 competent authorities in the MS)

1.2. When was this strategy/action plan established?

1.3. What is the budget for this strategy/action plan? (18 competent authorities in the

MS)

|| N

> € 1,000,000/year || 0

> € 300,000 and < € 1,000,000 || 1

> € 100,000 and < € 300,000 || 1

< € 100,000/year || 16

1.4. What are the target groups for the strategy/action plan? (18 competent authorities in the MS)

|| All || Polic e || NCB

N || % || N || % || N || %

Polic e || 14 || 78% || 12 || 100% || 1 || 25%

Judic iary/prosec utor authorities || 5 || 28% || 3 || 25% || 1 || 25%

Ministry of Financ e || 3 || 17% || 1 || 8% || 0 || 0%

National Central Bank || 7 || 39% || 5 || 42% || 1 || 25%

Mints || 3 || 17% || 2 || 17% || 0 || 0%

Financ ial/banking private sec tor || 10 || 56% || 5 || 42% || 4 || 100%

Other private sec tor || 8 || 44% || 4 || 33% || 2 || 50%

Other || 4 || 22% || 0 || 0% || 3 || 75%

1. 5. What are the specific activities involved in your plan? (18 competent authorities in the MS)

|| All || Polic e || NCB

N || % || N || % || N || %

Training ac tivities || 17 || 94% || 11 || 92% || 4 || 100%

Dissemination ac tivities (inc luding workshops, meetings and seminars), || 13 || 72% || 8 || 67% || 3 || 75%

Information and staff exc hanges, || 6 || 33% || 4 || 33% || 1 || 25%

Studies and teac hing sourc es (manuals, guides, etc ) || 11 || 61% || 6 || 50% || 3 || 75%

Computer support applic ations || 7 || 39% || 4 || 33% || 2 || 50%

Cross- border operations || 6 || 33% || 5 || 42% || 0 || 0%

Other || 2 || 11% || 1 || 8% || 1 || 25%

2 - PERICLES activities (Period: 2002- first call for proposals 2012)

2.1 Has your organisation implemented any PERICLES activity?

|| N

No || 17

1 - 3 ac tivities || 10

4 - 6 ac tivities || 2

More than 6 ac tivities || 5

Profile of national competent authorities which have implemented activities (17 competent authorities)

If NO, what is/are the main reason/s? (the table includes only the replies from the 15 competent authorities in the MS which have not implemented activities)

|| N || %

Your requirements for transitional c ooperation are c overed by your partic ipation in PERICLES ac tivities organised by other organisations. || 9 || 60%

The administrative proc edures to organise PERICLES ac tivities are not suffic iently c lear and/or transparent || 1 || 7%

The administrative burden related to the preparation of the proposals and reporting requirements || 1 || 7%

Your organisation does not have suffic ient resourc es available to c o- financ e the ac tivities || 8 || 53%

Other || 2 || 13%

If YES, which were the main objective/s pursued by your organisation when proposing and implementing programme activities? (please chose all relevant answers)

|| N || %

Raising awareness of the staff c onc erned in your organisation; || 8 || 47%

Raising awareness of staff c onc erned in other EU Member States; || 8 || 47%

Raising awareness of staff c onc erned in third c ountries; || 9 || 53%

Enc ouraging c loser c ooperation and to develop a c limate of mutual trust with organisations and staff c onc erned in other EU c ountries; || 15 || 88%

Enc ouraging c loser c ooperation and to develop a c limate of mutual trust with organisations and staff c onc erned in third c ountries; || 12 || 71%

Promoting c onvergenc e and equivalent level of protec tion of the euro ac ross EU Member States; || 10 || 59%

Expanding general public awareness on euro c ounterfeiting; || 5 || 29%

Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with organisations in other EU MS; || 14 || 82%

Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with organisations in third c ountries; || 12 || 71%

To respond to training needs for staff c onc erned in other MS; || 6 || 35%

To respond to training needs for staff c onc erned in third c ountries; || 8 || 47%

Other || 0 || 0%

(This part is relevant for Effectiveness) To which extent do you consider that your organisation has achieved the above objectives by organising PERICLES activities (0 not satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)?

Raising awareness of the staff concerned in your organisation;

Raising awareness of staff concerned in other EU Member States;

Raising awareness of staff concerned in third countries;

Encouraging closer cooperation and to develop a climate of mutual trust with organisations and staff concerned in other EU Member States;

Encouraging closer cooperation and to develop a climate of mutual trust with organisations and staff concerned in third countries;

Promoting convergence and equivalent level of protection of the euro across EU MS;

Exchange of information, experience and best practices with organisations in other EU Member States;

Exchange of information, experience and best practices with organisations in third countries;

To respond to training needs for staff concerned in other EU countries;

To respond to training needs for staff concerned in third countries;

Expanding general public awareness on euro counterfeiting

2.2 Has your organisation participated in PERICLES activities (other than those implemented by your organisation)?

|| N

Yes || 31

No || 3

Which type of activities?

|| N || %

In training ac tivities. || 25 || 81%

In dissemination/networking ac tivities inc luding workshops, meetings and seminars. || 26 || 84%

In information and staff exc hanges. || 19 || 61%

If NO, what is the main reason/s?

|| N

You are not aware of PERICLES ac tivities || 0

Suffic ient training on euro protec tion is provided by organisations from your own c ountry || 0

Your organisation is not involved in c ross-border c ooperation on euro protec tion with other MS and third c ountries || 1

Your organisation has no staff dedic ated to euro protec tion || 2

Other || 0

If YES, which were the main objectives pursued by your organisation when participating in PERICLES activities organised by other organisations? (Please chose all relevant answers)

|| N || %

Raising awareness of the staff c onc erned in your organisation; || 22 || 71%

Closer c ooperation and to develop a c limate of mutual trust with organisations and staff c onc erned in other EU Member States; || 30 || 97%

Closer c ooperation and to develop a c limate of mutual trust with organisations staff and staff c onc erned in third c ountries; || 20 || 65%

Ac hieving equivalent level of euro protec tion as c ompared to other EU Member States; || 17 || 55%

Expanding general public awareness on euro c ounterfeiting in your country; || 6 || 19%

Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with organisations in other EU Member States; || 27 || 87%

Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with organisations in third c ountries; || 19 || 61%

Responding to training needs for staff c onc erned in your organisation. || 15 || 48%

Other || 0 || 0%

(This part is relevant for Effectiveness) To which extent do you consider that your organisation has achieved the above objectives by participating in PERICLES activities (0 not satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)?

Raising awareness of the staff concerned in your organisation;

Closer cooperation and to develop a climate of mutual trust with organisations and staff concerned in other EU MS;

Closer cooperation and to develop a climate of mutual trust with organisations staff and staff concerned in third countries;

Achieving equivalent level of euro protection as compared to other EU MS;

Exchange of information, experience and best practices with organisations in other MS;

Exchange of information, experience and best practices with organisations in third countries;

Responding to training needs for staff concerned in your organisation.

Expanding general public awareness on euro counterfeiting in your country

PART C - QUESTIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PERCILES PROGRAMME

Relevance

3 - To what extent do you consider the following specific objectives of the programme relevant to achieve the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting (0: not relevant at all, 10: most relevant)? Please mark each activity.

Raising awareness of the staff concerned       A catalyst mechanism to encourage closer cooperation and to develop a climate of mutual trust and satisfactory knowledge

Promoting convergence and equivalent level of protection across EU MS

Exchange of information, experience and best practices

Relevance (Cont.)

4 - To what extent do you consider the following programme activities relevant to achieve the specific objectives of the programme listed in question 3 (0: not relevant at all, 10: most relevant)? Please mark each activity.

Training activities                                       Dissemination/networking activities

Information and staff exchanges                   Studies

Teaching sources                                       Computer support applications

Financial support cross-border operations

Relevance (Cont.)

5 - To what extent do you consider the following target groups (as per article 4.1 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC) are relevant to achieve the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting (0: not relevant at all, 10: most relevant)? Please mark each activity.

Police                                                      Judicial authorities

Ministry of Finance                                     National Central Bank

Mints                                                       Financial/banking private sector

Other private sector

European added value

6 - To what extent do you consider that the PERICLES programme provides European added value as compared to Member States activities in achieving the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting (0: not relevant at all, 10: most relevant)?

All                                                           Euro area (22 replies)

Efficiency

7 - To what extent do you consider that the existing coordination mechanism (namely in the Euro Counterfeiting Group of Experts where OLAF, the EU Member States, the ECB and Europol are represented) is adequate to ensure an economic and efficient use of the programme resources (0: not adequate at all, 10: most adequate)?

All (34 replies)                                           Euro area

8 - To what extent do you consider that the administrative procedures in place are satisfactory to ensure an economic and efficient use of the programme resources (0: no satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)? Especially as regards (only the replies from the

17 competent authorities which have implemented activities are included):

Balance between the administrative burden for national administrations and the results achieved

Timeliness of the administrative procedures

Clarity/transparency of the administrative procedures

Overall

Efficiency (Cont.)

9 – Do you consider that there is scope to save programme resources (without involving a significant negative impact on the overall achievements of the programme) if one or more of the following measures are taken (0: not agree at all, 10: totally agree):

Reducing the number of training activities       Reducing the number of dissemination/networking activities

Reducing the number of participants in training activities

Reducing the number of participants in dissemination/networking activities

Efficiency (Cont.)

10 – Do you consider that, as compared to the current distribution of resources among activities, more programme resources should be dedicated to (0: no agree at all, 10: totally agree)?

Training activities                                       Dissemination/networking activities

Information and staff exchanges                   Studies

Teaching sources (manuals, guides, etc)        Computer support applications

Financial support for cross-border operations

Efficiency (Cont.)

11 – Do you think that there are activities which are not financed by the programme but which would provide higher value for money as compared to the activities currently financed by PERICLES?

12 – Do you think there is room to improve the coordination with other existing measures on the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (particularly those implemented by UE Member States, the ECB and Europol) which would result in a more efficient use of the programme resources?

Effectiveness

13.1 - To what extent do you consider that the specific programme objective of raising awareness on euro protection of the staff concerned in your organisation has been achieved (0: not satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)?

All (34 replies)                                           Euro area MS (22 replies)

13.2 - To what extent do you consider that the participation in the following activities co- financed by the programme have contributed to raise awareness of the staff concerned in your organisation (0: no contribution, 10: great contribution)? Please mark each activity.

Overall                                                     Training

Dissemination (including workshops, meetings and seminars)

Information and staff exchanges

Studies                                                    Teaching sources

Effectiveness (Cont.)

14.1 To what extent do you consider that the objective of promoting convergence and equivalent level of protection across the EU MS has been achieved? (0: not satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)

All (34 replies)                                           Euro area MS (22 replies)

14.2 - To what extent do you consider that the following programme activities have contributed to promote convergence and equivalent level of protection across EU MS (0: no contribution , 10: most contribution)? Please mark each activity.

Overall                                                     Training

Dissemination (including workshops, meetings and seminars)

Information and staff exchanges

Studies                                                    Teaching sources

Effectiveness (Cont.)

15 - To what extent do you consider that the following programme activities have contributed to expanding general public' awareness on euro counterfeiting (0: no contribution, 10: great contribution)? Please mark each activity.

Overall                                                       Training

Dissemination (including workshops, meetings and seminars)

Information and staff exchanges

Studies                                                       Teaching sources

16.1 To what extent do you consider that the specific programme objective of facilitating an adequate exchange of information, experiences and good practices of staff concerned in your organisation with staff in other  MS has been achieved (0: not satisfactory at all,

10: most satisfactory)?

All (34 replies)                                            Euro area MS (22 replies)

Effectiveness (Cont.)

16.2 - To what extent do you consider that the following programme activities have contributed to achieve the specific programme objective of facilitating an adequate exchange of information, experiences and good practices of staff concerned in your organisation with staff in other  EU  MS (0: no contribution, 10: great contribution)? Please mark each activity.

Overall                                                     Training

Dissemination (including workshops, meetings and seminars)

Information and staff exchanges

Studies                                                    Teaching sources

Effectiveness (Cont.)

16.3 - To what extent do you consider that the following programme activities have contributed to facilitate an adequate exchange of information, experiences and good practices of staff concerned in your organisation with staff in third countries (0: no contribution, 10 most contribution)? Please mark each activity.

Overall                                                     Training

Dissemination (including workshops, meetings and seminars)

Information and staff exchanges

Studies                                                    Teaching sources

Effectiveness (Cont.)

17 – Overall, through the organisation of/participation in programme activities, what would be the degree of achievement of the following objectives in your organisation (0: no achievement, 10 completely achieved)

a.       Sufficient knowledge and skills to participate/contribute to euro protection activities

All (34 replies)                                           Euro area (22 replies)

Have implemented activities (17 replies)         Police (21 replies)

b.       Ability to cooperate with your counterparts in other countries in the context of cross border cooperation.

All (34 replies)                                           Euro area (22 replies)

Have implemented activities (17 replies)         Police (21 replies)

Effectiveness (Cont.)

18.1 - To what extent do you consider that the organisation of and/or participation in PERICLES activities have been a key factor in the successful implementation of cross- border/international operations (0: not relevant at all, 10 most important key factor)?

Police all MS (21 replies)                              Police Euro area MS (15 replies)

18.2 - For how many operations your organisation has been involved?.

Police all MS (21 replies)                              Police Euro area MS (15 replies)

19. To what extent do you consider that the programme has been effective in promoting activities which are complementarity with other existing measures (in particular those implemented by Member States, the ECB and Europol) to achieve the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting (0: not effective at all, 10 most effective)?

All (34 replies)                                           Euro area MS (22 replies)

20 - Do you think that the possibility to improve coordination and complementarity between the programme activities and other existing measures exists (particularly those implemented by EU Member States, the ECB and Europol) which would improve the effectiveness of the PERICLES programme in achieving the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting?

All (34 replies)                                           Euro area MS (22 replies)

Sustainability

21 –Should funding from PERICLES be not available in the future, would your organisation organise/continue to organise activities with an international dimension for the protection of the euro?

All                                                           Euro area (22 replies)

Competent authorities which have implemented activities (17 replies)

What would be the main reason/s why your organisation would not organise/continue to organise activities (include all competent authorities which replied clearly no or likely no):

|| N || %

There is not a c lear added value for your organisation to spend its own resourc es on ac tivities with an European and/or international || 4 || 24%

Your organisation does not have the resourc es available to organise suc h ac tivities || 15 || 88%

Other || 1 || 6%

Sustainability (Cont.)

22 - To what extent do you consider the continuation of the following programme activities is relevant to ensure the sustainability of the results reported so far (0: not relevant at all, 10 most relevant)? Please mark each activity.

Training activities                                       Dissemination/networking activities

Information and staff exchanges                   Studies

Teaching sources                                       Computer support applications

Financial support for cross-border cooperation

Annex V

Replies to the questionnaire for organisations in 3rd countries co-organisers/participants in PERICLES activities

The questionnaire was sent to a sample of authorities in third countries which co- organised and/or participated in programme activities. The questionnaire was sent to competent authorities in the Western Balkans (Albania, BiH, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia), Turkey and Latin America (Brazil, Colombia and Peru).

In several questions competent authorities were invited to express their degree of agreement, assessment of the performance or satisfaction with different options. The following guidelines were provided to mark the different options:

•         Mark 0 to express lack of performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark from 1 to 4 to express different levels of insufficient performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark from 5 to 7 to express different levels of overall positive performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark from 8 to 9 to express clear high performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•         mark 10 to express the highest performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark n/o (no opinion) if you consider that you do not have sufficient knowledge or information to answer one question.

REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

PART A - PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

Country:

|| N

Croatia || 2

Montenegro || 2

Serbia || 1

Turkey || 1

Brazil || 1

Peru || 1

Profile:

Was your office?

|| N

Partic ipant only || 2

Co-organiser || 6

Is your office currently involved in the protection of the euro against counterfeiting?

|| N

Yes || 7

No || 1

PART B – GENERAL QUESTIONS

1 – Since 2007, in approximately how many PERICLES activities your office has co- organised and/or participated:

|| N

Only onc e || 0

In 2/3 ac tivities || 1

In 4/5 ac tivities || 2

More than 5 ac tivities || 5

2 – Since 2007, in which type/s of PERICLES activities your office has mostly co- organised and/or participated:

|| N

Training ac tivities on detec tion, investigation, c onfisc ation, etc . || 3

Dissemination/networking ac tivities (suc h as workshops, c onferenc es and meetings) to improve c ooperation, sharing best prac tices, etc. || 3

Staff exc hanges || 2

Other || 0

3 – Since 2007, your office has mostly participated in:

|| N

PERICLES ac tivities organised in a regular basis (around onc e a year) by the same organisers || 4

A mix of different PERICLES ac tivities organised by different organisers || 1

A mix of both options above. || 3

PART C – PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAMME

Relevance

4 - To what extent do you consider the co-organisation of/participation in PERICLES activities has been relevant for the work of your office in the area of the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (0: no relevant at all, 10 most relevant)?

Effectiveness

5 - Which were the main objectives pursued by your office when participating in

PERICLES activities? (please chose all relevant answers)

|| N || %

Improve the knowledge and skills on the area of protec tion of the euro against c ounterfeiting || 6 || 75%

Networking and improve c ooperation and mutual trust with your c ounterparts in other c ountries || 7 || 88%

Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with your c ounterparts in other c ountries || 7 || 88%

Other || 0 || 0%

Effectiveness (Cont.)

6 –Following the participation in/co-organisation of PERICLES activities, to which extent are you satisfied as compared to your expectations (not satisfactory at all, 10 most satisfactory), particularly as regards:

Improved knowledge and skills on the area of protection of the euro against counterfeiting

Networking and improved cooperation and mutual trust with your counterparts in other countries

Exchange of information, experience and best practices with organisations in third countries

Overall

7 – Through the participation in/co-organisation of PERICLES activities, what would be the degree of achievement in your office of each of the following objectives (0: no achievement, 10 completely achieved)

The overall awareness on Euro protection in your office

The knowledge of good practices on euro protection in your office

Sufficient knowledge and skills in your office to participate/contribute to euro protection activities

Ability of your office to cooperate with your counterparts in other countries in the context of cross border cooperation

Effectiveness (Cont.)

8 –As a result of the participation in/coordination of PERICLES activities, has your office been involved in one or more of the following actions?

|| N || %

Dissemination/training ac tivities within your organisation on euro protec tion. || 6 || 75%

Dissemination/training ac tivities in your c ountry but outside your organisation on euro protec tion. || 5 || 63%

Ac tivities to inc rease the general public ' awareness in your c ountry on euro protec tion. || 3 || 38%

Partic ipation in c ross- borders operations investigations on euro protec tion. || 4 || 50%

Setting/appointing a permanent c ontac t on euro protec tion within your organisation. || 4 || 50%

Setting a spec ialised struc ture on euro protec tion within your organisation || 2 || 25%

Development of relevant legal instruments on protec tion of the euro (for example, introduc tion of asset c onfisc ation, international c ooperation agreements, etc .) || 5 || 63%

Other || 1 || 13%

No spec ific ac tion || 0 || 0%

Annex VI

Replies to the questionnaire for participants in PERICLES

activities

The questionnaire was sent to the participants in a sample of activities financed by the

PERICLES programme.

For several questions participants were invited to express their assessment of the performance, relevance, satisfaction or achievement of different options presented. The following guidelines were provided to mark the different options:

•         Mark 0 to express lack of performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark from 1 to 4 to express different levels of insufficient performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark from 5 to 7 to express different levels of overall positive performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark from 8 to 9 to express clear high performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•         mark 10 to express the highest performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;

•          mark n/o (no opinion) if you consider that you do not have sufficient knowledge or information to answer one question.

REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

PART A - PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS Profile of the respondents:

|| N || %

Organiser/Co-organiser || 10 || 11%

Trainer || 13 || 15%

Partic ipant || 64 || 74%

The results reported below refer to the 64 participants only

Country:

|| N || %

EU- Eurozone || 18 || 28%

EU- Non Eurozone || 4 || 6%

Total EU || 22 || 34%

EU c andidates and potential c andidates || 23 || 36%

EU neighborhood c ountries || 2 || 3%

Brazil || 4 || 6%

Latin Americ a (exc l Brazil) || 6 || 9%

Other || 7 || 11%

Total third countries || 42 || 66%

Profile of the organisation:

|| All || EU || Non-EU

N || % || N || % || N || %

Polic e || 34 || 53% || 15 || 68% || 19 || 45%

Judic iary || 13 || 20% || 4 || 18% || 9 || 21%

NCB || 10 || 16% || 1 || 5% || 9 || 21%

Ministry of Financ e || 1 || 2% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 2%

National Mint || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0%

EU Institution/Body || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0%

Banking/Financ ial private sec tor || 4 || 6% || 1 || 5% || 3 || 7%

Private sec tor-other than banking/financ ial || 1 || 2% || 1 || 5% || 0 || 0%

Other || 1 || 2% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 2%

Have you changed organisation since your participation in Pericles activities?

|| All || EU || Non-EU

N || % || N || % || N || %

Yes || 6 || 9% || 2 || 9% || 4 || 10%

No || 58 || 91% || 20 || 91% || 38 || 90%

PART B – GENERAL QUESTIONS

1 – Since 2007, in approximately how many PERICLES activities you have participated:

|| All || EU || Non-EU

N || % || N || % || N || %

Only onc e || 15 || 23% || 5 || 23% || 10 || 24%

2/3 ac tivities || 28 || 44% || 7 || 32% || 21 || 50%

4/5 ac tivities || 13 || 20% || 4 || 18% || 9 || 21%

More than 5 ac tivities || 8 || 13% || 6 || 27% || 2 || 5%

2 – Since 2007, in which type/s of PERICLES activities you have mostly participated

(please chose all relevant answers):

|| All || EU || Non-EU

N || % || N || % || N || %

PERICLES ac tivities organised in a regular basis (around onc e a year) by the same organisers || 26 || 41% || 7 || 32% || 19 || 45%

A mix of different PERICLES ac tivities organised by different organisers || 21 || 33% || 7 || 32% || 14 || 33%

A mix of both options above || 16 || 25% || 7 || 32% || 9 || 21%

Other || 1 || 2% || 1 || 5% || 0 || 0%

3 – Since 2007, you have mostly participated in (please chose all relevant answers):

|| All || EU || Non-EU

N || % || N || % || N || %

Training ac tivities on detec tion, investigation, confisc ation, etc || 40 || 63% || 9 || 41% || 31 || 74%

Dissemination/networking ac tivities (suc h as workshops, c onferenc es and meetings) to improve c ooperation, sharing best prac tic es, etc . || 34 || 53% || 16 || 73% || 18 || 43%

Staff exc hanges || 11 || 17% || 5 || 23% || 6 || 14%

Other || 2 || 3% || 0 || 0% || 2 || 5%

PART C – PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAMME

Relevance

4 - To what extent do you consider your participation in the PERICLES activities has been relevant for your work in the area of the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (0: no relevant at all, 10 most relevant)?

a.       Training activities on detection, investigation, confiscation, etc

All (40 replies)

EU (9 replies)                                              Non-EU (31 replies)

b.       Dissemination/networking activities (such as workshops, conferences and meetings) to improve cooperation, sharing best practices, etc.

All (34 replies)

EU (16 replies)                                            Non-EU (18 replies)

c.       Staff exchanges

All (11 replies)

EU (5 replies)                                            Non-EU (6 replies)

Effectiveness

5 - Which were the main objectives you pursued when participating in PERICLES

activities? (please chose all relevant answers)

|| All || EU || Non-EU

N || % || N || % || N || %

Improve your knowledge and skills on the area of protec tion of the euro against c ounterfeiting || 53 || 83% || 18 || 82% || 35 || 83%

Networking and improve c ooperation and mutual trust with your c ounterparts in EU c ountries || 41 || 64% || 15 || 68% || 26 || 62%

Networking and improve c ooperation and mutual trust with your c ounterparts in non- EU c ountries || 30 || 47% || 10 || 45% || 20 || 48%

Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with your c ounterparts in other c ountries || 50 || 78% || 18 || 82% || 32 || 76%

Other || 1 || 2% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 2%

6 – Following your participation in the PERICLES activities, to which extent are you satisfied as compared to your expectations  regarding (not satisfactory at all, 10 most satisfactory)

a.       Improved knowledge and skills on the area of protection of the euro against counterfeiting

All (53 replies)

EU (18 replies)                                           Non EU (35 replies)

Effectiveness (Cont.)

b.       Networking and improved cooperation and mutual trust with your counterparts in

EU countries

All (41 replies)

EU (15 replies)                                           Non EU (26 replies)

c.       Networking and improved cooperation and mutual trust with your counterparts in non-EU countries

All (30 replies)

EU (10 replies)                                           Non EU (20 Replies)

Effectiveness (Cont.)

d.       Exchange of information, experience and best practices with organisations in other countries

All (50 replies)

EU (18 replies)                                           Non EU (32 Replies)

7 – Through your participation in the PERICLES activities, what would be the degree of achievement of each the following objectives (0: no achievement, 10 completely achieved)

a.       Your overall awareness on euro protection

All

EU (22 replies)                                           Non-EU (42 Replies)

Effectiveness (Cont.)

b.       Your knowledge of good practices on the euro protection

All

EU (22 replies)                                           Non-EU (42 Replies)

c.       Sufficient knowledge and skills to participate/contribute to euro protection activities

All

EU (22 replies)                                           Non-EU (42 Replies)

Effectiveness (Cont.)

d.       Ability to cooperate with your counterparts in other countries in the context of cross border operations/investigations on the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (Police only).

All police (34 replies)

EU police (15 replies)                                  Non-EU police (19 replies)

8 – As a result of your participation in the PERICLES activities, have you been involved in one or more of the following actions?

|| All || EU || Non-EU

N || % || N || % || N || %

Dissemination/training ac tivities within your organisation || 36 || 56% || 9 || 41% || 27 || 64%

Dissemination/training ac tivities in your c ountry but outside your organisation || 19 || 30% || 8 || 36% || 11 || 26%

Ac tivities to inc rease the general public ' awareness in your c ountry on euro protec tion || 15 || 23% || 3 || 14% || 12 || 29%

Partic ipation in c ross-borders operations/investigations on protec tion of the euro against c ounterfeiting || 15 || 23% || 7 || 32% || 8 || 19%

Setting/appointing a permanent c ontac t on euro protec tion within your organisation || 23 || 36% || 10 || 45% || 13 || 31%

Setting a spec ialised struc ture on euro protec tion within your organisation || 17 || 27% || 6 || 27% || 11 || 26%

Development of relevant legal instruments on protec tion of the euro (for example, introduc tion of asset c onfisc ation, international c ooperation agreements, etc ) || 11 || 17% || 3 || 14% || 8 || 19%

Top