2018年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_Mid_198页_2mb

Mid-term Evaluation of the Hercule III Programme Summary

Core Content

The mid-term evaluation of the Hercule III Programme, conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), assesses the Programme's relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value, and sustainability. The evaluation is based on primary data collected from 574 stakeholders and secondary data from various documents and reports. The Programme, established by Regulation (EU) No 250/2014, aims to protect the EU's financial interests by combating fraud, corruption, and illegal activities, particularly in areas such as cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting.

Main Evaluation Criteria and Findings

1. Relevance

• Specific and Operational Objectives: The Programme's objectives are aligned with the general objective of protecting the EU's financial interests (PFI).
• Stakeholder Feedback: Most stakeholders believe the Programme addresses relevant needs and problems, particularly those related to fraud and corruption.
• Action Alignment: All eligible actions are considered relevant to the Programme's goals, although some stakeholders suggest expanding the scope to address additional issues and fund new actions.

2. Coherence

• Internal Coherence: The Programme maintains a balanced allocation of resources, with 80% of commitments directed towards Technical Assistance (TA) actions and 20% towards Training and Legal Studies (LTS).
• External Coherence: Synergies with other EU programmes like Customs 2020 and Fiscalis 2020 exist, though overlaps are limited. Informal coordination is more effective in ensuring synergy than formal mechanisms.
• Recommendation: To increase relevance, the Programme should enhance synergies with DG TAXUD and DG HOME in combating corruption and VAT fraud.

3. Effectiveness

• Programme Activities: Hercule III actions contributed to the achievement of the Programme's objectives, particularly in training and legal studies.
• Event Participation: Over 80 events were organized, addressing relevant issues and aligning with expected outputs.
• Impact: While long-term impacts cannot be fully assessed in a mid-term evaluation, reported fraud and irregularities suggest the need for increased focus on expenditure-side protection and VAT fraud.

4. Efficiency

• Administrative Costs: The average regulatory cost for beneficiaries was around €4,500, with AFT beneficiaries receiving a return of €12.40 per euro spent, LTS beneficiaries €7.30, and TA beneficiaries €66.80.
• Cost-Effectiveness: AFT and LTS actions are cost-effective, with average costs per participant aligning with other EU-funded programmes.
• Simplification Needs: 30% of applicants found the process too cumbersome, with suggestions for digitalization and streamlining procedures. However, regulatory constraints limit the extent of simplification possible.

5. EU Added Value

• Cross-Border Cooperation: The Programme enables cross-border collaboration, which would be difficult to achieve at the national level.
• Comparative Legal Analysis: It promotes the development of legal frameworks for protecting EU financial interests.
• Recommendation: The Programme should continue to focus on areas where EU-level intervention provides added value, such as combating corruption and VAT fraud, and enhancing cross-border cooperation.

Key Recommendations

• Continue Funding: The Programme is recommended for continuation to sustain the protection of EU financial interests.
• Resource Allocation: More resources should be allocated to expenditure-side protection, fighting corruption, and VAT fraud.
• Enhance Cross-Border Cooperation: Strengthening collaboration between national authorities is crucial.
• Procurement and Technical Equipment: Provide more technical equipment and support to national authorities.
• Simplification: Streamline the application and reporting processes to reduce administrative burden and costs.
• Expand Scope: Consider expanding the Programme's scope to address other issues affecting PFI and support new specific actions.

Supporting Evidence

• Stakeholder Engagement: Feedback from 574 stakeholders, including officials, beneficiaries, unsuccessful applicants, event participants, and service users.
• Data Sources: Annual Work Programmes, Annual Implementation Reports, PFI Reports, and application/reporting documents.
• Performance Indicators: Used to assess the alignment of actual and expected outcomes.

Conclusion

The Hercule III Programme has demonstrated strong performance across all evaluation criteria. It has contributed to the protection of EU financial interests and indirectly supported the Europe 2020 strategy. The evaluation recommends the continuation of the Programme with targeted improvements to enhance its effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in areas of high risk and relevance.