kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2025
KOM (2025) 0171
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 16.4.2025

SWD(2025) 91 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Evaluation of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE

COUNCIL AND THE COURT OF AUDITORS

Evaluation of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency, the

Educational, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, the Executive Agency for

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, the European Research Council Executive

Agency, the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency and the Research Executive

Agency

{COM(2025) 171 final} - {SWD(2025) 87 final} - {SWD(2025) 88 final} -

{SWD(2025) 89 final} - {SWD(2025) 90 final} - {SWD(2025) 92 final}

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3

WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................................... 5

2.1 D

ESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES

............................................................................ 5

2.2 P

OINT

(

)

OF COMPARISON

.............................................................................................................................. 8

HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........................... 8

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ............................................................................ 11

4.1 T

O WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY

? ........................................................... 11

4.2 C

OST

BENEFIT ANALYSIS

............................................................................................................................. 23

WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ..................................................... 26

5.1 C

ONCLUSIONS

.............................................................................................................................................. 26

5.2 L

ESSONS LEARNED

...................................................................................................................................... 27

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 30

ANNEX II: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ...................................................... 32

ANNEX III: EVALUATION MATRIX AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY

CRITERION) ...................................................................................................................................................... 34

ANNEX IV: OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................................... 35

ANNEX V: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 36

ANNEX VI. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT ................................................ 40

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Glossary

Term or acronym Meaning or definition

Agencies

CBA

CEF

CHAFEA

CINEA

EACEA

EASME

EEA

EFTA

ERCEA

H2020

IDEA

INEA

PPMI

REA

SFS

SME

TEN-T

TRIMIS

Executive agencies

Cost-benefit analysis

Connecting Europe Facility

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency

Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

European Economic Area

European Free Trade Association

European Research Council Executive Agency

European Union

Horizon 2020, the 8

EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation

(2014-2020)

Inspire, Debate, Engage and Accelerate Action

Innovation and Networks Executive Agency

Information Technology

Public Policy and Management Institute

Research Executive Agency

Specific financial statement

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise

Trans-European Transport Network

Transport Research and Innovation Monitoring and Information System

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

NTRODUCTION

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/fitness check

In accordance with Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 laying down the statute

for executive agencies (the Framework Regulation)

, the Commission carries out an

evaluation of the operation of each executive agency every 3 years, including a cost-benefit

analysis. It submits the respective report to the agency’s Steering Committee, to the European

Parliament, to the Council and to the Court of Auditors.

This staff working document reports on the triennial evaluation of the Innovation and

Networks Executive Agency (INEA or ‘the Agency’). The evaluation was carried out in the

context of the evaluation of the six executive agencies

for the period of INEA’s mandate

under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework, which still needed to be evaluated, i.e.

from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2021. This is the period just before the establishment of the

new agencies for the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework, including INEA’s

successor, the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency

(CINEA), on 1 April 2021.

In line with Article 12 of the Establishment Decision on new agencies

, the evaluation

covered all six agencies in a coordinated manner and followed a common evaluation

methodology. It focused on the operation of the agencies and their performance during the

evaluation period by providing answers to specific evaluation questions on effectiveness,

efficiency and coherence, including a retrospective cost-benefit analysis.

The purpose of evaluating the operation of INEA was to assess its implementation of the parts

of the EU funding programmes that have been entrusted to it: Connecting Europe Facility –

transport, energy and telecommunications (including the Wifi4EU subprogramme on the

promotion of internet connectivity in local communities as of May 2018); Horizon 2020 –

‘Smart, green and integrated transport’ and ‘Secure, clean and efficient energy’; as well as the

Innovation Fund as of June 2020.

INEA operated between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2021 and was governed by the

following Commission legal bases: (i) the Establishment Decision

which established the

Agency and set out its mandate; (ii) the Delegation Decision

, which specified the tasks to be

Council Regulation 58/2003 of 19 December 2003 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in

the management of Community programmes (OJ L 11 of 16 January 2003, p. 1).

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA), Executive Agency for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

(EASME), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA),

Research Executive Agency (REA) and European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA).

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/173 of 12 February 2021 establishing the European Climate, Infrastructure and

Environment Executive Agency, the European Health and Digital Executive Agency, the European Research Executive Agency, the

European Innovation Council and Executive Agency for SMEs, the European Research Council Executive Agency, and the European

Education and Culture Executive Agency and repealing Implementing Decisions 2013/801/EU, 2013/771/EU, 2013/778/EU,

2013/779/EU, 2013/776/EU and 2013/770/EU (OJ L 50, 15.2.2021, p. 9).

Commission Implementing Decision 2013/801/EU of 23 December 2013 establishing the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency

and repealing Decision 2007/60/EC as amended by Decision 2008/593/EC.

Commission Decision C(2013) 9235 of 23 December 2013 delegating powers to the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency with a

view to the performance of tasks linked to the implementation of Union programmes in the field of transport, energy and

telecommunications infrastructure and in the field of transport and energy research and innovation comprising, in particular,

implementation of appropriations entered in the general budget of the Union.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

carried out by, and the powers delegated to the Agency in order to perform its mandate; and

(iii) the Decision establishing the Agency’s Steering Committee

In line with the Commission’s Better Regulation principles

, the evaluation applies several

standard evaluation criteria. It assesses whether the Agency has fulfilled its tasks in an

effective and efficient way, whether there are overlaps/gaps/inconsistencies in the Agency’s

management of the programme portfolio, and whether there is a clear delineation of tasks

between INEA and the parent Directorates-General or other executive agencies (coherence)

The evaluation also assesses whether the Agency’s functioning has yielded the expected

positive results as estimated in the 2013 cost-benefit analysis for delegating tasks to the

executive agency

and identifies potential areas of improvement. To this end, the estimations

of the 2013 cost-benefit analysis have been tested to provide evidence on the validity of the

assumptions in the

ex ante

scenario by considering the actual costs and benefits of programme

implementation by the Agency in a structured way. The aspects to be covered by the cost-

benefit analysis are specified in Article 3(1) of the Framework Regulation

and in the

guidelines on establishing and operating executive agencies

The evaluation does not cover the achievements of the EU funding programmes managed by

INEA, which are themselves subject to mid-term and

ex post

evaluations. The evaluation of

INEA nevertheless provides useful input for the programmes’ evaluations given that the

Agency’s performance affects the efficiency and effectiveness of the programmes it manages.

The evaluation examines the efficient use of resources and the effective achievement of the

tasks entrusted to the Agency. It looks in particular at whether (i) the alignment of more

coherent programme portfolios with the Agency’s core competences and its brand identity

delivered the estimated qualitative benefits; (ii) the assembly of the management of different

EU programmes delivered the estimated synergies, simplification and economies of scale; and

(iii) the pooling of instruments guaranteed consistent service delivery and whether there is

scope for simplification and further efficiency gains.

The evaluation is based on a study carried out by an external contractor

Commission Decision C(2014)520 of 6 February 2014 appointing the members and observers of the Steering Committee of the

Innovation and Networks Executive Agency, as last amended by Commission Decision C(2020) 4848 final of 22.7.2020.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions on ‘Better Regulation: joining forces to make better laws’, COM(2021)219 final of 29.4.2021, and

Commission Staff Working Document on ‘Better Regulation Guidelines’, SWD(2021)305 final of 3.11.2021.

The assessment of the evaluation criterion ‘EU added-value’, i.e. why the EU should act, is not perceived to be a relevant criterion for

the evaluation of the executive agencies as they carry out tasks which the Commission has transferred to them. The EU added-value of

the programmes that the agencies manage is assessed in the context of the delegated programmes’ evaluations. The previous needs

which INEA was meant to address and whether they are still pertinent at present (relevance) are illustrated in the context of this

evaluation.

Cost-benefit analysis for the delegation of certain tasks regarding the implementation of Union Programmes 2014-2020 to the executive

agencies – Final report for the Commission of 19 August 2013.

The cost-benefit analysis should include the following factors: identification of the tasks justifying outsourcing, cost-benefit analysis

including the costs of coordination and checks, the impact on human resources, possible savings within the general budgetary

framework of the European Union, efficiency and flexibility in the implementation of outsourced tasks, simplification of the procedures

used, proximity of outsourced activities to final beneficiaries, visibility of the EU as promoter of the EU programme concerned and the

need to maintain an adequate level of know-how inside the Commission.

Appendix II of the Guidelines for the establishment and operation of executive agencies financed from the Union budget (C(2014) 9109

from 2 December 2014.

Study supporting the evaluation of Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA), Education, Audiovisual

and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME), European Research

Council Executive Agency (ERCEA), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) & Research Executive Agency (REA)

(2017/2018-2021), Final Report: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), 14.03.2023, PPMI and Inspire, Debate, Engage

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

HAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives

As outlined in the Framework Regulation and in INEA’s Establishment Decision, the

outsourcing of certain management tasks to the Agency in the 2014-2020 multiannual

financial framework intended to:

−

Allow the Commission to focus on its institutional tasks, i.e. tasks assigned to the

institutions by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that require

discretionary powers in translating political choices into action. Such institutional

tasks should not be outsourced.

−

Enable the Commission to achieve the objectives of the delegated EU programmes

more effectively. According to the 2013 cost-benefit analysis, the delegation of certain

programme tasks to the Agency was estimated to be more cost-efficient than an in-

house scenario. The Establishment Decision stated that the alignment of more

coherent programme portfolios with the Agency’s core competences and its brand

identity would bring qualitative benefits. In addition, it estimated that assembling the

management of different EU programmes would bring synergies, simplification and

economies of scale.

The original objective of the intervention involved entrusting the Agency with the

implementation of several EU programmes. Originally, the Agency was entrusted with the

implementation of parts of:

−

the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)

: transport, energy and telecommunications;

and

−

Horizon 2020

: transport and energy research (Part III Societal challenges of the

Specific Programme).

It was also responsible for the management of the trans-European transport network (TEN-

and Marco Polo

legacy programmes under the 2007-2013 multiannual financial

framework (until their last projects closed in 2018 and 2020 respectively).

As of May 2018, the Agency’s mandate was extended to include implementation of the new

Wifi4EU initiative as part of CEF Telecom

. As of June 2020, it was further extended to

and Accelerate Action (IDEA):

Study supporting the evaluation of CHAFEA, EACEA, EASME, ERCEA, INEA & REA (2017/2018-

2021) - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu)

Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting

Europe Facility (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129).

Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 — the

Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014- 2020) (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 104); and Council Decision 2013/743/EU

of 3 December 2013 establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and

Innovation (2014-2020) (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 965).

Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 laying down general rules for the

granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (OJ L 162, 22.6.2007, p. 1).

Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing the second ‘Marco

Polo’ programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport

system (Marco Polo II) (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 1).

Commission Decision C(2018) 1281 final of 27.2.2018 and C(2018) 6366 final of 4.10.2018 on amending Decision C(2013)9235

delegating powers to the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency, as regards promotion of internet connectivity in local

communities.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

include implementation of the Innovation Fund

managed by the Directorate-General for

Climate Action

By the end of the evaluation period, the Agency was working under the supervision of five

parent Directorates-General:

−

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (lead parent Directorate-General);

Directorate-General for Energy;

Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology;

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; and

Directorate-General for Climate Action.

In implementing the programmes delegated to it, INEA was responsible for monitoring the

projects, making the necessary checks and recovery procedures, and performing budget

implementation tasks covering revenue and expenditure within the meaning of the EU

Financial Regulation

, and in particular:

−

managing the operations and procedures leading to the adoption of Commission award

decisions and to the conclusion of grant agreements and managing the ensuing

decisions and agreements;

−

providing support in programme implementation;

−

performing all the operations required to launch contests and award prizes in

accordance with the EU Financial Regulation;

−

concluding public procurement procedures and managing the ensuing contracts,

including the operations required to launch and conclude such procedures.

The intervention logic (Figure 1 below) closely follows the provisions and logic provided in

the key documents defining the objectives, tasks and activities of the Agency.

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas

emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/669 of 18 May 2020 amending Implementing Decision 2013/801/EU as regards

entrusting the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency with the implementation of the Innovation Fund (OJ L 156, 19.5.2020, p.

20).

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable

to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No

1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and

repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p.1).

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Figure 1: INEA’s intervention logic

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

2.2 Point(s) of comparison

The current evaluation of INEA operations for the period January 2017-March 2021 assesses

the actual costs and benefits of programme implementation by INEA (executive agency

scenario) when compared with the alternative scenario of management by the Commission

(in-house scenario).

Accordingly, the reference points for this INEA evaluation are the 2013

ex ante

cost-benefit

analysis and INEA’s specific financial statement

The analysis of INEA’s performance during the reference period assesses the progress

achieved since the previous evaluation, which covered the Agency’s operations from 2014 to

2016.

The 2013 cost-benefit analysis estimation was that the savings from the delegation of tasks to

INEA over the period 2017-2020 would be EUR 38.3 million compared to the in-house

scenario. The specific financial statement estimated efficiency gains of EUR 42.4 million over

the same period.

The specific financial statement estimated that the total number of full-time equivalents

required to manage the programmes delegated to INEA in 2020 – the peak programming year

in terms of workload – was 318 (adjusted from 337 in the cost-benefit analysis). The total

initial operational budget entrusted to INEA in 2020-2024 was estimated at EUR 36.9 billion

in commitment appropriations and EUR 23.5 billion in payment appropriations. Considerable

efficiency gains were expected compared to the in-house scenario, along with non-

quantifiable benefits such as improved quality of programme management and service

delivery, improved visibility of the EU programmes and proximity to beneficiaries.

OW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD

Current state of play

INEA was set up on 23 December 2013 and started operating as an autonomous legal entity

on 1 January 2014.

As stipulated in the INEA Delegation Decision, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed

on 1 October 2014. It defined the modalities and procedures of interaction and set out a clear

delimitation of responsibilities between INEA and its parent Directorates-General

. This

evaluation assesses whether the distribution of roles has been complied with for the 2017-

INEA’s Specific Financial Statement was updated in March 2018 in view of the delegation of the Wifi4EU programme under CEF

Telecom to INEA, and in April 2020 in view of the delegation of the Innovation Fund to INEA. These amendments had an impact on

the administrative resources allocated to both the Agency and the Commission, and were therefore considered in the retrospective

CBA.

Memorandum of Understanding between the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, the Directorate-General for Energy, the

Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology, the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, and

the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) of 1 October 2014, subsequently amended. The Memorandum of

Understanding consists of four documents: Part I – General Provisions, Part IIa – Connecting Europe Facility, Part IIb – Horizon 2020,

and Annex – Administrative and logistical support services provided by the Research Executive Agency. The General Provisions and

Horizon 2020 parts of the Memorandum of Understanding were updated in December 2015 to take into account the lessons learned

about programme implementation as well as administrative developments within the Commission. The CEF part was updated in July

2018 notably also to take into account the delegation of the Wifi4EU programme under CEF Telecom to INEA on 1 May 2018. The

General Provisions were again updated in June 2020 to incorporate the Directorate-General for Climate Action as parent Directorate-

General following the delegation of the Innovation Fund to INEA, and a new Part IIc concerning the specific provisions for the

implementation of this fund was signed between INEA and the Directorate-General for Climate Action on that occasion.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

March 2021 period, as well as the effects of the intervention on the coherence and efficiency

of INEA’s action.

As mentioned above, the total operational budget estimated in the specific financial statement

for INEA for the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework was EUR 36.9 billion in

commitment appropriations, of which EUR 30.1 billion for CEF and EUR 6.8 billion for

Horizon 2020. However, the actual budget managed by the Agency in this period (without the

Innovation Fund) was somewhat lower: EUR 34.6 billion, of which EUR 29 billion for CEF

and EUR 5.6 billion for Horizon 2020, i.e. 94% of the originally estimated budget. This

mainly related to funds from the delegated programmes being transferred to the European

Fund for Strategic Investments (8.4% of CEF funds and 3.5% of Horizon 2020 funds for

Energy and Transport), as well as operational budget changes resulting from the multiannual

financial framework review and the annual budget review exercises. Nevertheless, this means

that INEA handled the largest budget of all the executive agencies in the 2014-2020

multiannual financial framework.

When considering only the period 2017-2020, the operational budget actually managed by

INEA was approximately EUR 23.3 billion in commitments (EUR 4.9 billion in 2017, EUR

5.1 billion in 2018, EUR 6.4 billion in 2019 and EUR 6.9 billion in 2020) and EUR 12.5

billion in payments (EUR 2.5 billion in 2017, EUR 2.8 billion in 2018, EUR 3.2 billion in

2019 and EUR 4 billion in 2020).

The Agency’s administrative budget evolved from EUR 24.3 million in 2017 (including

EEA/EFTA and non-EU contributions) to EUR 30.9 million in 2020. Due to changes in the

operational budget, the number of authorised staff at INEA was adjusted correspondingly. Its

staff numbers increased from 254 in 2017 to 313 in 2020, down from the specific financial

statement estimation of 272 and 337 respectively.

The total budget per head in terms of commitments increased from EUR 16 million in 2013 to

EUR 22.1 million in 2020, an increase of 38%. This was despite the programme portfolio

managed by the Agency during the 2014-2020 period being significantly more complex. The

increasing volume of INEA’s operational budget during this period outpaced the increase in

the number of Agency staff.

The number of proposals that INEA received and evaluated in 2014-2020 totalled 8 069

i.e. significantly lower than the cost-benefit analysis estimate of 9 207. It was significantly

higher than the cost-benefit analysis estimates for CEF Telecom, and lower for CEF Energy.

The number of projects managed per head decreased slightly from 8.82 in 2018 to 8.42 in

2020, well below the average of the executive agencies. This was due mainly to the

complexity of sizeable CEF infrastructure projects. The number of proposals evaluated per

head increased from 6.41 in 2018 to 7.11 in 2020.

The number of projects managed by INEA, which constitutes the main workload driver for

the Agency, increased from 1 583 in 2017 to 1 859 in 2020. The actual number of running

projects in 2017-2020 constituted on average 91% of the cost-benefit analysis estimate,

reaching 94% in 2020 (1 859 compared to the estimated 1 980). However, there were very

significant variations between the estimated and actual number of projects across the

programmes managed by INEA. For CEF Telecom, the number of running projects was

Excluding Wifi4EU and the Innovation Fund.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

substantially higher than in the cost-benefit analysis estimates, which related to the higher-

than-estimated operational budget of the programme and much lower average project size (as

a result of the Wifi4EU initiative). At the same time, the actual numbers of grant agreements

concluded and projects managed were much lower for CEF Energy, which related primarily

to its higher average grant size and the lower-than-anticipated number of projects, especially

studies. Programme management costs (defined as the ratio between the administrative and

operational budget in payments) decreased from 0.9% in 2016 to 0.45% in 2020.

INEA introduced several organisational and procedural changes to increase the efficiency of

programme implementation, in particular in the evaluation period:

−

further simplification and improvement of information management tools and grant

management procedures, notably on the use of the QlikSense project portfolio tool; the

transition from the TEN-Tec portal to e-Grants for CEF submission and evaluation of

proposals; and the preparation and signature of grant agreements and reporting;

−

the adoption of simplified Horizon 2020 business processes, such as the introduction

of a single set of rules, the electronic signing of grant agreements, the Participant

Portal as a one-stop shop for interactions with participants, the single reimbursement

rate, and a flat rate for indirect costs;

−

the adoption of a multiannual human resources strategy in April 2017 with specific

measures related to staff engagement, training, internal communication, career

development opportunities, well-being and work-life balance, aimed at improving

human resources management and increasing the effectiveness of the Agency’s

operations; followed by a staff retention plan in September 2018 to increase staff

satisfaction levels and help reduce staff turnover and vacancy rates;

−

the development of a methodology for workload analysis in 2017, based on the 2013

cost-benefit analysis and specific financial statement, to better assess the number of

available staff against the current and forthcoming workload and, as a result, better

allocate resources.

Moreover, the European Court of Auditors carried out a performance audit of INEA’s

management of the delegated EU funding programmes in 2018/2019. The audit focused on

the 2014-2020 programming period and examined whether INEA, together with the

Commission, (i) fulfilled the tasks delegated to it and achieved the expected benefits of

programme delegation; and (ii) followed robust procedures for managing the CEF.

In its 2019 report

, the European Court of Auditors inferred that INEA was a well-organised

Agency and that it was implementing the programmes delegated to it, in particular the CEF,

efficiently. However, the Court made a number of recommendations (14 in total) to improve

CEF implementation and the overall operational performance of the Agency, covering the

following areas:

1) improve the potential for synergies between the CEF and Horizon 2020 programmes, and

between CEF sectors;

2) strengthen the framework for INEA’s management of the delegated programmes;

3) ensure greater harmonisation and transparency of project selection procedures;

4) set better conditions for timely implementation of the CEF;

European Court of Auditors Special Report N° 19/2019; ‘INEA: benefits delivered but CEF shortcomings to be addressed’, 7

November 2019.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

5) redesign the performance framework to better monitor project results.

The Commission and INEA addressed the European Court of Auditors’ recommendations by

establishing the new executive agency – CINEA– in 2021 and also adopting the new CEF

and Horizon Europe regulations in 2021, followed by the adoption of work programmes and

launch of calls for proposals. CINEA’s increased use of corporate management tools such as

e-Grants was also instrumental in meeting certain European Court of Auditors’

recommendations on call evaluations and project monitoring.

Despite this, the Court considered that a couple of its recommendations on the Agency’s key

performance indicators and the CEF performance framework had not been fully

implemented

. The Commission and INEA have held constructive discussions with the

Court on this in order to implement such recommendations to the extent possible, while taking

into consideration the difficulties inherent to the accurate results-oriented measurement of

performance of both the Agency and complex infrastructure funding programmes such as

CEF.

VALUATION FINDINGS

(

ANALYTICAL PART

)

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

Effectiveness

For the purpose of this evaluation, effectiveness relates to how successful the Agency has

been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives.

The evaluation inferred that during the period January 2017- March 2021, INEA operated

according to the legal framework that established it. INEA’s activities, as set out in its annual

work programmes and reported in the annual activity reports, corresponded to the tasks set out

in the Commission’s Establishment and Delegation Decisions.

As provided in the Delegation Decision, the modalities and procedures of interaction between

the Agency and its parent Directorates-General are set out in the Memorandum of

Understanding of 1 October 2014, as amended subsequently. The Memorandum of

Understanding provides for a supervision strategy to avoid gaps or duplication of efforts

resulting from crossover between the policymaking, monitoring and supervision tasks of the

parent Directorates-General and the execution tasks of the Agency. These provisions have

generally worked well, and all parent Directorates-General and INEA appreciate the

effectiveness of mutual cooperation.

In the evaluation period, INEA continuously improved its operations and achieved a high

level of overall effectiveness. The Agency was flexible and effective in addressing the key

challenges during the evaluation period, in particular:

Rec 2b) ‘The Commission and INEA should make use of more results-oriented goals and indicators’; Rec 5a) ‘Based on experience and

lessons learned from TEN-T and CEF projects, INEA and the Commission should define a performance framework that breaks down

the objectives of the CEF programme into clear and measurable indicators, covering all CEF sectors, and expected project results’; and

Rec 5b) ‘INEA should specify these indicators in call objectives, consider them in the evaluation of project proposals, monitor them

through grant agreements and report on them on a regular basis to the Commission’.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

−

the phasing-out and closure of its two legacy programmes TEN-T and Marco Polo;

−

the efficient monitoring of the CEF Transport project portfolio and implementation of

the ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ budget principle, which resulted in the launch of ‘Reflow’ calls

for proposals in 2019 and 2020;

−

the efficient integration of the new Wifi4EU subprogramme under CEF Telecom in

May 2018 and the successful management of the programme afterwards (until its

transfer to the new European Health and Digital Executive Agency on 1 April 2021);

−

the efficient integration of the new Innovation Fund programme in June 2020 and

successful management of the programme with a significantly higher budget than

originally envisaged, based on the EU emissions trading system;

−

the effective continuation of operations during COVID-19 due to sound organisation,

efficient internal procedures and resilient and dedicated staff.

During the preparatory phase for the integration of the Wifi4EU and Innovation Fund

initiatives in particular, the Agency was required to use its existing resources to handle a

significantly higher workload. Furthermore, with the delegation of the Innovation Fund, the

Directorate-General for Climate Action became the Agency’s fifth supervisory Directorate-

General, which also required operational adjustments.

INEA has developed strong internal control standards, including on the management of

financial and human resources. The Agency established an overarching control strategy with a

large number of control and reporting mechanisms. These allow it to closely monitor progress

against objectives. It also allows it to prevent and mitigate potential risks to its operations in a

timely and effective way. INEA in particular established a coherent anti-fraud strategy, which

it pursues effectively. This is reflected in positive assessments by the European Court of

Auditors and the Commission’s Internal Audit Service.

In 2017-2020, INEA achieved its targets to a large extent in terms of key performance

indicators. On time-to-inform

, it achieved this target (100%) for all programmes. It

managed to inform all participants in a timely manner, even though the volume of

applications grew during the evaluation period.

On time-to-grant

, the Agency was largely successful in meeting deadlines for the

preparation and signing of grant agreements under both Horizon 2020 and CEF programmes.

On Horizon 2020, the Agency was consistent and reliable in meeting the deadlines (100% in

2017-2019, and 99% in 2020). For CEF, the 100% target was not reached, in particular in

2017 (94%), mostly for reasons outside the Agency’s remit, such as the organisation of

official grant agreement signature ceremonies beyond the time-to-grant period (for

communication purposes). For CEF calls between 2018 and 2020, Wifi4EU had a much lower

average grant preparation time than the CEF average. In fact, the preparation and management

of WiFi4EU vouchers was significantly simpler than the other CEF calls’ grant agreements

and required less time.

Time-to-inform: the maximum time from a call being closed to informing applicants of the outcome of the evaluation of their

application was set at 6 months (184 days) for CEF (and legacy programmes), and 5 months (153 days) for Horizon 2020.

Time-to-grant: the time the Agency required to sign grant agreements with successful applicants or to notify them of the grant decision

was set at 9 months (276 days) for CEF (and legacy programmes), and 8 months (245 days) for Horizon 2020.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

INEA’s performance on time-to-pay

was consistently high, with 100% for Horizon 2020

across the evaluation period, 99% for CEF between 2017 and 2019, and 100% in 2020. This

represents a consistent upward trend since 2014 (90%). Sub-targets included the timely

payment of experts, pre-financing, further pre-financing as well as interim and final payments.

The Agency reached its goal of paying external experts on time in more than 98% of cases.

More importantly, the Agency performed well on interim and final payments, executing

almost all payments in under 3 months.

In accordance with its annual work programmes, the Agency was required to meet deadlines

for pre-financing and further pre-financing in all cases. INEA’s outputs approximated these

standards each year for the former (with a minimum of 97.93% share of grant payments made

on time in 2019 and a maximum of 99.56% in 2018) and met the target for the latter in 2017,

though not in the remaining years (but still with a minimum of 98.01% in 2019). In 2020,

even though the number of all three types of payment requests peaked, the Agency still

achieved good performance (above 99% for all), with the average number of days for

payments under the set targets

For interim and final payments in particular, INEA reduced its average payment time

significantly over the evaluation period, from 64 to 56 days. In 2019, however, INEA fell

slightly below the target for the timely delivery of pre-financing of external experts under the

Horizon 2020 programme.

INEA achieved full execution of its operational budget in 2017-2020 both in commitment and

payment appropriations. For CEF Transport in particular, as mentioned above, during the

evaluation period INEA and the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport implemented

the ‘use-it-or-lose it’ principle. INEA launched a comprehensive mid-term review of the

project portfolio in 2018, based on the projects’ annual action status reports, to assess the

performance of ongoing projects. This led to amendments to certain projects’ grant

agreements, including a reduction in (unused) grant amounts resulting mostly from

implementation delays. This allowed such funds to be reinjected into new calls for proposals

(‘reflow calls’) in 2019 and 2020.

With regard to the legality and regularity of transactions, in most years INEA was successful

in maintaining a sufficiently low residual multiannual error rate in terms of the operational

budget

, especially for CEF Energy and CEF Transport, which were frequently below 1%.

For CEF Telecom, however, residual error rates exceeded the pre-set targets in 2 consecutive

years. These higher error rates were due to the high participation of non-governmental

organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises, a high percentage of personnel costs

among the costs declared, and the limited use of certificates on financial statements. The

expected acceptable error rate for the Horizon 2020 programme was estimated to be between

2% and 5%, taking into account the cost of controls as well as issues with personnel costs.

INEA therefore remained within the target range for the programme in 2017-2020.

Time-to-pay: the time between receipt of a request for payment and its execution was set at 30 days for pre-financing, 60 days for

further pre-financing, and 90 days for interim/final payments.

The targets for payments were defined as meeting the deadline for the payment in 98% of cases, which was mostly achieved.

The multiannual residual error rate is equal to the extrapolated level of error remaining after corrections/recoveries undertaken by the

Commission/the Agency following audits.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Summary of INEA’s key performance indicators over 2017-2020

2017

Key performance

indicators

(1) Rate of execution of

commitment

appropriations

(2) Rate of execution of

payment appropriations

(3) Time to grant

(percentage of grants

signed on time)

(4) Net time to pay

(pre-financing) (days)

(5) Error rate of

payments at

ex post

control

Target

100%

CEF

100%

Horizon

2020

100%

2018

CEF

100%

Horizon

2020

100%

2019

CEF

100%

Horizon

2020

100%

2020

CEF

100%

Horizon

2020

100%

98%

100%

94%

100%

99%

100%

99%

11.43

8.75

12.13

7.55

12.4

2.33%

7.15

2.67%

13.4

2.5%

7.25

2.45%

<2%

Est.

2.24%

0.71% 2.45%

(<2% to

1-2%

5% for

H2020)

Source: INEA annual activity reports 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Despite the tight timing of call launch and evaluation and selection processes, INEA adapted

well to peak periods of very high workload. Such heavy workload was especially felt in the

2018/2020 period when the Wifi4EU and Innovation Fund calls were being prepared, the

Agency was still recruiting supplementary staff, in addition to other regular calls under CEF

(especially several CEF Transport calls, including blending and SESAR Air Traffic

Management calls) and Horizon 2020. Regular coordination meetings between the parent

Directorates-General and INEA resulted in more efficient planning and coordination of the

calls. Towards the end of the evaluation period, the Agency decentralised the call evaluation

coordination function from the Programme Support unit (R1) to the operational units to

streamline the call evaluation and selection processes.

While providing recommendations for addressing minor shortcomings, the reports of the

independent observers accompanying the evaluations, for both CEF and Horizon 2020, were

consistently complementary to INEA’s work on the transparency and efficiency of the

evaluation process. On Horizon 2020, the very small share of evaluation review/redress cases

filed and (fully or partially) upheld compared to the number of proposals evaluated supports

the general trust in the evaluation process. The redress rate decreased from 3.28% in 2017 to

2.97% in 2020 for Horizon 2020 Energy, and from 2.4% in 2017 to 1.7% in 2020 for Horizon

2020 Transport.

As a follow-up to the 2019 European Court of Auditors’ performance audit, the Agency

introduced a new key performance indicator in its annual work programme on the rate of

review/redress cases. This provided an indication of the quality of the evaluation and selection

process organised by INEA jointly with the parent Directorates-General.

The survey of INEA’s applicants and beneficiaries indicates satisfaction in their dealings with

the Agency. In general, beneficiaries (92%) and experts (96%) were satisfied with the overall

quality of programme management by INEA. Among unsuccessful applicants, satisfaction

only reached 60%. Out of all applicants, a very high number would apply again for funding

Given their gradual phasing out and for the sake of succinctness, the legacy programmes TEN-T and Marco Polo are not mentioned

here.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

following their experience with INEA – 99% of successful applicants and 89% of

unsuccessful applicants. Similarly, 99% of experts replied that they would be willing to work

with the Agency in future.

However, the survey showed that the Agency could still improve the call evaluation process

by providing clearer feedback to applicants. Specifically, the evaluation process was

considered fair and transparent by 85% of beneficiaries surveyed, compared to 45% of

unsuccessful applicants. Among the latter, 51% believed that they did not receive useful and

practical feedback on their applications. The survey also noted that CEF applicants were

slightly more dissatisfied with the overall quality of services during the application process

compared to Horizon 2020 applicants surveyed.

Most programme participants appreciated INEA’s flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic:

96% of beneficiaries, 94% of unsuccessful applicants and 96% of external experts believed

that the Agency maintained the quality of its services.

As a follow-up to the 2019 European Court of Auditors’ performance audit, the Agency also

introduced a new results-oriented key performance indicator concerning the launch of a

targeted stakeholder satisfaction survey every 2 years (starting in 2022). This allows the

Agency to receive first-hand feedback on the quality of its operational activities.

INEA was successful in ensuring proximity to stakeholders and the visibility of the EU as a

promoter of the programmes delegated to it. In terms of proximity to stakeholders, INEA

acted as a direct contact point for programme applicants and beneficiaries. INEA’s

communication with beneficiaries came in the form of personal, regular contact, monitoring

visits and through multiple knowledge-sharing events (thematic workshops, panel discussions,

webinars for Horizon 2020 participants, and ‘projects of common interest’ days, among

others). For CEF Transport, a long-established Advisory Group, which aims to ensure regular

contact with programme stakeholders and obtain advice on programme implementation

issues, continued its valuable work.

Separation of policymaking and implementation benefits the beneficiaries insofar as they

obtain specialised advice and service. During the evaluation period, INEA made sustained

efforts to boost awareness of new funding opportunities for project promoters (under CEF and

Horizon 2020, and later under the Innovation Fund) and consolidate service-oriented

communication. It also supported parent Directorates-General, giving visibility to the

delegated programmes by promoting success stories.

The Agency performed its communication functions in a satisfactory manner, as recognised

by programme participants. During the evaluation period, the Agency’s communication

strategy developed further. INEA’s activities for maintaining close communication with

beneficiaries and external experts were effective, and participants found that the Agency was

accessible throughout the project cycle. A proportion of unsuccessful applicants, however, felt

they lacked opportunities for communication during the application process.

As a follow-up to the 2019 European Court of Auditors’ performance audit, the Agency

introduced yet another new results-oriented key performance indicator concerning

communication outreach. This is intended to measure the visibility of the delegated

programmes through the registered total potential reach via all communication channels. In

2020, the Agency achieved 93% of the planned communication target, which indicates high

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

performance despite difficulties connected with the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. the

cancellation of events).

On the EU’s visibility as a promoter of the programmes entrusted to INEA, the evaluation

suggests that there is awareness among stakeholders that the Agency is acting under powers

delegated by the Commission. The Agency’s contributions to increased visibility of the

programmes included info days, project management workshops, proactive use of social

media tools and high-quality graphic and communication materials, in particular on its

website. The many channels of communication used by the Agency resulted in greater

visibility of the programmes.

Efficiency

This section considers the relationship between the resources used by the Agency and its

output. It also includes an analysis of the administrative and regulatory burden and looks at

aspects of simplification.

In 2017-2020, INEA proved to be an efficient and cost-effective body for the management of

the delegated programmes. As mentioned in Section 3, INEA’s administrative budget

(including EEA/EFTA and non-EU contributions) increased from EUR 24.3 million in 2017

to EUR 30.9 million in 2020. Its programme management costs (the ratio between the

administrative and operational budget) decreased from 0.50% in 2017 to 0.45% in 2020 based

on commitment appropriations, and from 0.97% in 2017 to 0.75% in 2020 based on payment

appropriations, which are the lowest of all agencies (see Figures 2 and 3 below). The budget

managed per head (in commitment appropriations) increased from EUR 16 million in 2013 to

EUR 22 million in 2020, and the budget per operational head (full-time equivalent) (in

commitment appropriations)

also increased from EUR 28.4 million in 2018 to EUR 31.3

million in 2020, which are the highest of all agencies.

The number of admissible and eligible proposals evaluated by INEA in 2017-2020 was 4 935.

The total number of running projects increased from 1 583 in 2017 to 1 859 in 2020. During

the evaluation period, INEA’s actual workload was higher than estimated in the 2013 cost-

benefit analysis due to factors beyond the Agency’s control that influenced its workload, such

as the average grant size, number of proposals and grants, and the reinjection of budget into

new reflow calls. The number of running projects per operational head decreased from 8.82 in

2018 to 8.42 in 2020.

A detailed analysis of INEA’s cost efficiency and the results of the cost-benefit analysis is

presented in Section 4.2.

The budget per operational head is a more accurate indicator for measuring the efficiency of operational staff directly involved in the

management of the operational budget. However, data for this indicator are only available for 2018-2020.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Figure 2: Programme management costs (ratio between the administrative and operational

budgets in terms of commitments) across the agencies, 2017-2020

8,00

7,24

6,02

5,97

5,98

7,00

6,00

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

6,97

6,67

5,49

5,21

3,46

3,11

2,79

2,61

3,33

3,05

3,02

2,91

2,45

2,41

2,39

2,34

0,52

0,50 0,45

0,45

CHAFEA

EACEA

EASME

2017

2018

2019

REA

2020

ERCEA

INEA

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on the annual activity reports of the

agencies.

Figure 3: Programme management costs (ratio between the administrative and operational

budgets in terms of payments) across the agencies, 2017-2020

10,00

9,00

8,00

7,00

6,00

5,00

3,59

3,90

3,49

3,45

3,75

3,64 3,39

3,07

8,96

8,42 8,42

7,86

7,53

7,37

6,71

6,33

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

2,94

2,74

2,54 2,54

0,97

0,93

0,92

0,75

CHAFEA

EACEA

2017

REA

2018

2019

EASME

2020

ERCEA

INEA

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency, based on the annual activity reports of the

agencies.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

INEA budget, staff and workload indicators, 2017-2020 (in € million, number or %)

2017 2018 2019 2020

Operational budget, commitments

Operational budget, payments

Administrative budget, commitments

Administrative budget, payments

Actual number of staff (at the end of the year)

Programme management costs* (commitments)

Programme management costs (payments)

Budget per operational head (commitments)

Proposals received

Total running projects

Running projects per operational head

* Defined as the ratio between the administrative and operational budget.

4898 5113

2460 2840

24.30 26.54

23.74 26.30

254

287

0.50 0.52

0.97 0.93

NA 28.42

1124 1154

1583 1587

NA 8.82

6355

3177

28.83

29.10

299

0.45

0.92

31.6

1087

1766

8.78

6910

3997

30.91

30.10

313

0.45

0.75

31.32

1570

1859

8.42

On human resources management, as mentioned in Section 3, the Agency adopted a

comprehensive multiannual human resources strategy in April 2017. This included specific

measures relating to staff engagement, training, internal communication, career development

opportunities, well-being and work-life balance. The aim was to improve human resources

management and increase the effectiveness of the Agency’s operations.

The human resources strategy was followed by the adoption of a staff retention action plan in

September 2018 – identified as a key action – to increase staff motivation and reduce annual

turnover rates. In fact, INEA had to cope with increasing staff turnover rates in the first years

of operation (which reached 11.8% in 2016, the target level being 3%). The staff retention

policy addressed this issue successfully, with initiatives such as encouraging internal staff

mobility, announcing vacant positions internally and organising job shadowing and

mentoring. As a result, INEA was more effective during the evaluation period in retaining

staff and filling vacancies, with the turnover rate dropping to 7% in 2020. The vacancy rate

also dropped significantly, from 10% in 2016 to 7% in 2017, and to 6% in 2020.

To optimise the allocation of human resources across its delegated programmes, INEA

developed a methodology to calculate its operational workload and staffing needs. This was

approved by the Steering Committee in February 2018 and has been kept up to date. The

methodology is based on three main workload drivers: proposals to be evaluated, grant

agreements to be signed, and ongoing projects to be managed. While Commission budgetary

rules did not allow Agency staff to be moved between programmes, the workload assessment

methodology proved useful in reallocating staff resources more efficiently within programme

sectors, in agreement with the parent Directorates-General.

In the 2018 Commission Staff Satisfaction Survey, INEA registered the second highest

response rate across the Commission (80%). The survey revealed an increase in INEA’s staff

engagement index for the third consecutive time, from 61% in 2014 to 68% in 2016, and to

70% in 2018. This is slightly above the average of the other executive agencies (67.5%) and

of the Commission (69%). The staff engagement index is a composite indicator

that helps

The staff engagement index is composed of the following seven individual questions:

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

measure how connected staff are to the Agency and how committed they are to helping it

achieve its goals. With an improvement of 9% from 2014, it clearly shows that INEA has

made good progress in this area.

Overall job satisfaction also increased to 75%, although it is still slightly lower than the

Commission average (77%). However, the results of the survey also show points for attention:

decreasing staff satisfaction with workload levels, work recognition and performance

management as well as lower satisfaction rates with the Agency’s middle management. There

is also concern about the limited opportunities for mobility and career development, which is

an issue common to all agencies.

The results of the survey were presented to and discussed with INEA staff in each department,

with an action plan then drawn up and adopted, including a list of 10 actions. INEA staff

recognised that the Agency placed a great deal of emphasis on the staff survey, and tried to

address the challenges and shortcomings highlighted by them.

In late 2019, the Agency ran an internal mobility exercise in which all staff members were

invited to express their interest in potential internal mobility and identify concrete

opportunities. Interviews were conducted with all colleagues who expressed an interest. Based

on the outcomes of these (around 15% of staff), the remaining vacancies were published

externally. Meetings were also held with the trade unions and the Common Staff Committee

as part of the social dialogue in order to harmonise and align policies on internal mobility and

career progression between the agencies.

INEA launched various other initiatives as a follow-up to the staff survey and in response to

other concerns:

−

It developed a preventive framework based on the Commission’s health and well-being

strategy 2017-2020. The framework is structured around three key areas of well-being:

physical, mental and social.

−

A training plan was drawn up for 2020 (as in previous years), the purpose of which was to

identify the Agency’s learning needs for 2020. This provided a structured overview of the

different courses the Agency planned to offer its staff.

−

In 2020, the Agency also increased its efforts to implement the Commission’s Gender

Equality Strategy, with the aim of achieving a target of 50% of management positions

being filled by women by 2024. As women occupied just 20% of the Agency’s

management positions by the end of 2020, both INEA and its parent Directorates-General

noted this as a priority for recruitment.

In 2018, the Agency also worked harder on reducing its vacancy rate, with the ultimate goal

of keeping it below 3%, despite challenges resulting from the new Selection Tool

recruitment system for contract agents launched in March 2017 and the suspension of EPSO

testing for several months due to COVID-19. To speed up recruitment, the Agency revised

•

I have the appropriate and timely information to do my work well;

My colleagues are committed to doing quality work;

I have a clear understanding of what is expected from me at work;

I have recently received recognition or praise for good work;

I feel that my opinion is valued;

My manager seems to care about me as a person;

My line manager helps me to identify my training and development needs.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

its selection and recruitment procedures and adopted simplification measures. It also set up

a dedicated onboarding programme to integrate new staff members. It included career

development and learning opportunities, a mandatory mentor for each newcomer and other

activities and events. These were evaluated positively by newcomers. The vacancy rate in

2020 and for some time afterwards was nevertheless affected by the lengthy process of

recruiting new staff for the Innovation Fund.

The evolution of key indicators for staff satisfaction after 2018 has been encouraging. In the

staff satisfaction survey launched in 2021

, the staff engagement index increased to 72%,

and 59% of staff believed that the Agency cared about their well-being, compared with 47%

at the Commission. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020/2021, INEA did its best to

ensure the well-being of its staff and keep staff engagement high through IT procurement,

remote project management (including remote evaluation), pulse surveys and multiple

adjustments to its internal procedures.

Overall, the size and structure of INEA and the level of resources in each of its departments

were appropriate to its mandate and delegated tasks during the evaluation period. Until 2020,

INEA had a lean organisational governance structure, with three operational departments

structured around the various programmes (Department C responsible for CEF; Department H

responsible for Horizon 2020 and, since June 2020, also for the Innovation Fund), assisted by

Department R responsible for programme support and resources. The CEF programme

department was organised according to thematic areas (energy, transport,

telecommunications), as was the Horizon 2020 department (energy, transport).

INEA’s organisational structure was reviewed and effectively aligned to cope with policy

changes such as the evolution of its mandate, notably the creation of a dedicated unit for CEF

Telecom linked to the delegation of the WiFi4EU programme to INEA and the integration of

the Innovation Fund into the Horizon 2020 Energy unit linked to the delegation of this

programme to the Agency.

The Agency’s internal control mechanisms were also reorganised during the evaluation period

to introduce greater decentralisation. At the beginning of the evaluation period, the Director of

the Agency was responsible for most of its decision-making and for communication with the

European Court of Auditors and the Internal Audit Service. By the end of the evaluation

period, these tasks had became more spread across the Agency, in particular communication

with the auditing services was shifted to the Head of Department R.

During the evaluation period, the Agency underwent an operational decentralisation process.

Several decision-making procedures were simplified and delegated to lower-level staff, which

made the Agency more agile. INEA also optimised its use of IT tools and their harmonisation

among different programmes. It introduced the QlikSense portal, which provides a

comprehensive overview of the portfolio of programmes and projects it manages. This portal

includes a publicly accessible dashboard to communicate real-time information in an easy,

transparent, flexible and user-friendly manner.

A comprehensive e-Manual of Procedures comprising various easily accessible sections was

also made available to INEA staff on its intranet website. Moreover, like the other agencies,

Staff Survey was launched in November 2021, thus falling outside the reference period of the current evaluation.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

INEA extended the use of the corporate e-Grants tool, previously used only for the

management of Horizon 2020 programmes, to all its delegated programmes. While this

transition took place outside the evaluation period, the transition process from the TENtec

system (developed in-house for CEF projects) to the e-Grants system was thoroughly

prepared from 2018.

INEA also developed IT solutions that benefit applicants and beneficiaries, including a

complementary module to allow geographical data to be submitted during the submission

phase (with e-Grants), the simplification and improvement of the Business Object

environment for e-submission and evaluation processes, as well as the switch from the

TENtec tool to the e-Grants tool for the CEF programme. Examples of improved information

sharing include the sharing of more extensive and more specific guidelines for applications

and the development of a tailored financial spreadsheet template for the CEF programme to

help applicants and evaluators better substantiate the financial aspects of project applications.

Coherence

Coherence looks at any overlaps and complementarities within the programme portfolio

managed by the Agency or delimitation of responsibilities between the Agency and its parent

Directorates-General.

In the evaluation period, INEA demonstrated flexibility in implementing a diverse programme

portfolio and being answerable to four different parent Directorates-General (five as of June

2020). The evaluation did not find any evidence of overlaps, duplications, gaps or

inconsistencies within the INEA programme portfolio. The Memorandum of Understanding

as last amended in June 2020 provides for a clear delimitation of responsibilities and tasks

between INEA and its parent Directorates-General.

Since INEA was established around the concept of network industries and related research

and innovation, there was strong coherence between the CEF and Horizon 2020 programmes

delegated to the Agency, particularly the energy and transport sectors.

However, the evaluation inferred that the management of Horizon 2020 Energy, shared

between INEA and the Executive Agency for SMEs (EASME), could have been streamlined

by entrusting the entire programme cluster to a single agency. This was corroborated by the

European Court of Auditors in its 2019 audit report

. This more coherent approach was

implemented under 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework when the successor of INEA

– CINEA – became responsible for the entire Horizon Europe energy topics.

Coherence in the programmes managed by INEA also helped to exploit synergies to the

extent possible. On synergies at programme level, these have been effective. For example,

with regard to CEF, common implementation by INEA with the same business processes,

three-sector (transport, energy and telecoms) coordination, the common CEF coordination

committee of Member States and common work programmes for CEF financial instruments

generated economies of scale and simplification. However, the CEF 1 (2014-2020) legal basis

was not sufficiently flexible to allow funding of large-scale infrastructure projects that

combine two or three sectors.

The European Court of Auditors noted that while the two agencies coordinated calls for proposals, each administered its part of the

programme separately, which meant administrative costs on both sides and limited potential for synergies.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

With regard to synergies between Horizon 2020 and CEF, despite some intrinsic difficulties

linked with the legal bases of both programmes, different business processes and distinct

types of support projects (research vs deployment and/or infrastructure building), INEA and

the parent Directorates-General endeavoured to take initiatives in this field. INEA launched a

reflection exercise on the transport sector, which led to a report being presented to the

Steering Committee in 2017. Several actions were taken at project level, including technical

meetings with the parent Directorates-General, collaboration on the Transport Research and

Innovation Monitoring and Information System (TRIMIS), and the creation of a synergies

webpage on the INEA website. As a result of this exercise, Horizon 2020 projects had a

greater presence at the TEN-T Days organised by the Directorate-General for Mobility and

Transport (as of the 2017 edition). In addition, there was a higher degree of coordination

between Horizon 2020 and CEF work programmes. Several proposals that applied for CEF

Transport funding have referred to results from Horizon 2020 projects.

INEA also conducted a technology mapping exercise in 2019 to assess whether technologies

being developed in Horizon 2020 could be used in CEF, which it submitted to its parent

Directorates-General. However, in the case of CEF Energy, the mapping revealed that, at the

time, the technologies developed under Horizon 2020 would be of limited use to CEF Energy

actions. The Steering Committee therefore noted a ‘lack of bridges between the two funding

programmes’ and advised that a basis needs to be explored as to which players should be

better connected to improve synergies.

Also, one of the reasons why the Commission decided to delegate the Innovation Fund to

INEA in 2020 was because of the potential synergies between CEF, Horizon 2020 and this

new fund aimed at boosting innovation in low-carbon technologies. The

ex ante

cost-benefit

analysis carried out before such delegation estimated that entrusting the Agency with the

implementation of the Innovation Fund would result in cost savings of about EUR 30.5

million over the 2020-2030 period compared to the in-house management cost. It would also

increase efficiency and flexibility, provide for significant synergies between the Innovation

Fund and other EU programmes managed by the Agency, and increase proximity to the

beneficiaries as well as visibility of EU funding.

The evaluation concluded that INEA would gain from a closer alignment of procedures, as

appropriate, between the infrastructure programme (CEF) and the research programmes

(Horizon 2020), as well as the newly delegated Innovation Fund, in terms of call launching,

submission of proposals, the evaluation and selection process and grant awarding for the

2021-2027 multiannual financial framework. Work was developed successfully in this respect

in the context of the Commission’s corporate e-Grants process, including the model grant

agreement.

INEA enjoys a very good working relationship with parent Directorates-General. They were

generally satisfied with the levels of formal and informal communication taking place in a

regular and structured manner. The fact that some of the Agency’s personnel, mainly at

management level, were either seconded from one of the parent Directorates-General (in

2020, 21 out of 313 staff) or had previously worked for them was an important asset in this

respect.

INEA provided enough information to its parent Directorates-General to enable them to

maintain sufficient know-how in relation to the delegated programmes. Despite the inherent

difficulties linked with reporting on programme implementation (grant funding) of a variety

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

of delegated programmes and subprogrammes, INEA has been proactive and constructive in

providing feedback to policy to the parent Directorates-General. This is the case in particular

on lessons learned from the evaluation and selection process, project management and from

project funding, which are fed into the preparation of subsequent work programmes and

evaluation processes. However, in the evaluation period there was no framework in place to

ensure that feedback to policy was coordinated and planned in an appropriate manner, or to

ensure that requests from parent Directorates-General were prioritised and based on the

competences and knowledge within the Agency. Important steps have since been taken under

2021-2027 multiannual financial framework – for instance, through feedback from individual

programmes feeding into the policy framework/plans and the adoption of a strategy on

improving synergies through cross-programme feedback to policy in 2021. This is being

addressed and improved constantly through close cooperation between the parent

Directorates-General and the Agency.

4.2 Cost-benefit analysis

The retrospective cost–benefit analysis for January 2017 to March 2021 was carried out based

on the results of the 2013

ex ante

cost-benefit analysis, the assumptions laid down in the

specific financial statement and the actual costs of INEA.

As mentioned in Section 2 above, given that the Commission decided to extend INEA’s

mandate with additional programmes (the new WiFi4EU initiative under CEF Telecom and

the Innovation Fund were delegated in 2018 and 2020 respectively), INEA’s specific financial

statement was updated twice on those occasions. These amendments had an impact on the

administrative resources allocated to both the Agency and the Commission, and were

therefore considered in the retrospective cost-benefit analysis.

The 2013

ex ante

cost-benefit analysis estimated that the delegation of programme

implementation to INEA would result in savings of around EUR 54 million over the 2014-

2020 multiannual financial framework compared to management by the Commission (in-

house scenario).

The retrospective cost-benefit analysis showed that the overall actual costs of the executive

agency scenario amounted to EUR 123.2 million in 2017-2020. To evaluate the extent to

which the actual costs corresponded to the initial specific financial statement estimates, the

same assumptions that led to the specific financial statement estimates were followed. The

specific financial statement estimates (EUR 128.2 million for 2017-2020) were based on the

EU contribution, but INEA’s administrative budget also included contributions from the

EEA/EFTA and third countries (EUR 1.3 million in 2017-2020) to manage its additional

operational budget. As a result, the actual costs of the executive agency scenario were EUR

121.9 million based on the EU contribution alone, which means that savings amounted to

EUR 6.3 million and accounted for 4.9% of the specific financial statement estimates.

Significant cost savings were made in Title II ‘Infrastructure and administrative expenditure’

and Title III ‘Programme Support Expenditure’ of INEA’s administrative budget. As

envisaged in the previous evaluation (2014-2016), Title I expenditure, i.e. ‘Staff-related

expenditure’, was higher than estimated in the specific financial statement, which related to

higher average staff costs (due to salary indexation, promotions and/or increasing staff

seniority).

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

The costs of the executive agency scenario were much lower than the estimated costs of the

in-house scenario. During the 2017-2020 period, the actual cost savings deriving from a cost

difference between the executive agency scenario and the in-house scenario amounted to EUR

57.4 million (or 31.8% of the estimated costs under the in-house scenario).

When comparing the savings initially estimated in the specific financial statement and cost-

benefit analysis with the actual savings from the delegation of tasks to INEA, it was found

that the actual savings during the 2017-2020 period were 35.5% higher than the 2013 specific

financial statement estimates (EUR 57.4 million, compared with EUR 42.4 million), and

49.9% higher than the 2013 cost-benefit analysis estimates (EUR 57.4 million, compared with

EUR 38.3 million) (Figures 4 and 5). As forecasted in the

ex ante

cost-benefit analysis and the

specific financial statement, the savings in the executive agency scenario resulted primarily

from a higher share of lower-cost external staff (contract agents) employed within the

Agency, and a lower overall number of staff.

Figure 4: Estimated costs and savings of the executive agency scenario 2017-2020, EUR million

200,00

180,57

180,00

160,00

140,00

128,19

123,18

170,55

120,00

100,00

80,00

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00

57,39

42,36

SFS estimations

Costs of the in-house scenario

Costs of the executive agency (EA) scenario

Actual

Savings of the EA scenario

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Figure 5: Estimated costs and savings of the executive agency scenario 2017-2020 (Title I and Title

II expenditure), EUR million

200,00

180,00

176,37

152,09

159,50

160,00

140,00

120,00

100,00

80,00

113,80

117,14

118,98

60,00

40,00

20,00

0,00

CBA estimations

Costs of the in-house scenario

38,29

57,39

42,36

SFS estimations

Costs of the executive agency (EA) scenario

Actual

Savings of the EA scenario

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency

The workload analysis in the retrospective cost-benefit analysis revealed that the actual

operational budget in terms of executed commitment appropriations for the 2014-2020 period

was 6% lower than the specific financial statement estimates (EUR 34.6 billion instead of

EUR 36.9 billion in terms of commitment appropriations). This mainly related to funds from

programmes delegated to INEA being transferred to the European Fund for Strategic

Investments. Many other parameters of the delegated programmes deviated significantly from

the 2013 cost-benefit analysis assumptions (e.g. the higher-than-estimated operational budget

of the CEF Telecom programme and the much lower average grant size due in particular to

Wifi4EU; the lower-than-anticipated number of study projects under CEF Energy; the return

of unused funds from CEF Transport projects that fed into additional ‘reflow calls’ in 2019

and 2020, as well as operational budget changes resulting from the multiannual financial

framework review exercise and the annual budget review exercise). However, such deviations

were beyond INEA’s control. As a result, the number of authorised staff in INEA was reduced

to 254 in 2017 and 313 in 2020, down from the specific financial statement estimate of 272

and 337 respectively.

Experience from the implementation of the programmes also shows that productivity

indicators could differ within the same programme (e.g. the administration of lump-sum

actions in CEF Telecom was less work-intensive than the administration of real-cost actions;

the administration of CEF Energy and CEF Transport studies was less work-intensive than

works, etc.). Evidence gained during this evaluation shows that INEA monitored the actual

workload and the main factors that contributed to it and then redeployed staff resources

(subject to the flexibility provided for in the corresponding legal acts

The evaluation reveals that INEA managed to achieve the productivity level initially

estimated in the 2013 cost-benefit analysis. The budget per head ratio in INEA increased from

EUR 16.0 million in 2013 to EUR 22.1 million in 2020

– an increase of 38% – despite the

Administrative resources could be redistributed within the same programme, but not across the programmes.

In commitment appropriations.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

programme portfolio managed by the Agency during the 2014-2020 period being significantly

more complex.

HAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

5.1 Conclusions

The external study supporting the evaluation of INEA operations from January 2017 to March

2021 confirmed that INEA achieved effective management of the delegated programmes

while operating according to the legal framework governing it. The portfolio of tasks

delegated to INEA was diverse but provided for synergy opportunities. Due to the Agency’s

focus on transport and energy, there was room for further delegating tasks connected to green

innovations. This occurred by expanding the portfolio to the Innovation Fund – adding the

Directorate-General for Climate Action as parent Directorate-General.

INEA adopted several measures for simplifying the management of the programmes,

including operational optimisation, streamlining and harmonisation of funding rules and

procedures across different programmes and programme strands. However, based on

interviews, there was still room for improvement in terms of agile decision-making within the

Agency.

Coherence of the thematic areas of programmes increased the possibility of synergies.

Various initiatives were noted within the CEF programme and between CEF and Horizon

2020, such as technical meetings with parent Directorates-General, a ‘synergies’ section on

the INEA webpage, and a higher degree of coordination between Horizon 2020 and CEF

work programmes.

INEA operated according to the legal framework and responded flexibly to key changes (e.g.

integration of Wifi4EU and Innovation Fund programmes, COVID-19, and preparation for the

transition to the successor agency). It also adapted to the significant increase in its

responsibilities and workload. It successfully implemented delegated programmes and

performed well on most of the intended outputs and key performance indicators. Overall, it

improved programme management. It maintained strong procedures to ensure the legality and

regularity of budget expenditure.

The Agency carried out its communication functions in a satisfactory manner, as recognised

by programme participants. INEA’s activities for maintaining close communication with

beneficiaries and external experts were effective, and participants found that the Agency was

accessible throughout the project cycle. However, a proportion of unsuccessful applicants felt

they lacked opportunities for communication during the application process. CEF applicants

more often showed dissatisfaction with the overall quality of services compared to Horizon

2020 applicants.

INEA’s key stakeholders were satisfied overall with the Agency’s performance.

Representatives of parent Directorates-General believed that INEA was operating in a

professional and efficient manner.

INEA’s performance on measures of efficiency (e.g. time-to-pay, time-to-grant and time-to-

inform) was high. The operational budget was fully executed in all years (100%) in terms of

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

commitment appropriations. The cost-effectiveness of INEA’s management and control

arrangements was the best among all agencies.

During the evaluation period, INEA managed to successfully launch and complete almost all

calls for proposals envisaged in the work programmes. A significant majority of beneficiaries

and unsuccessful applicants agreed that the requirements for the application process were

reasonable and proportionate. The beneficiaries of INEA were generally positive about

cooperation with the Agency during the project implementation phase. External experts

evaluated their work experience with INEA positively.

INEA was efficient in terms of human resources management, keeping the ratio between its

administrative and operational budgets low and stable (around 1%). While good use of IT

tools and the continuous search for and implementation of simplifications helped achieve

efficiency gains, the available data also pointed to a certain lack of flexibility in various

procedures.

The 2018 staff statisfaction survey revealed very reasonable levels of INEA staff engagement

(70%) and well-being (63%). The Agency actively addressed shortcomings in its 2017-2020

multiannual human resources strategy and dedicated action plan, including through its staff

retention policy. The turnover and vacancy rates in particular have been significantly reduced.

The legal framework and the Memorandum of Understanding set out clear provisions on the

delimitation of responsibilities between INEA and its parent Directorates-General. These were

also clarified by supporting guidance documents. Further room for improvement remained in

the delineation of tasks involving feedback to policy, based on the clear expectations of the

parent Directorates-General and the Agency’s capacity to fulfil them. The awareness about

the delineation of responsibilities and tasks between INEA and its parent Directorates-General

was rather high among the beneficiaries and external experts.

The costs of the executive agency scenario were much lower than the estimated costs of the

in-house scenario. In 2017-2020, the actual cost savings deriving from a difference in costs

between the executive agency scenario and the in-house scenario amounted to EUR 57.4

million (or 31.8% of the estimated costs under the in-house scenario). The cost-benefit

analysis carried out for this evaluation reveals that INEA managed to achieve the level of

productivity initially estimated in the 2013 cost-benefit analysis.

5.2 Lessons learned

In light of the above, the external study supporting the evaluation identified areas where

further improvements are recommended from both the Commission and INEA, aimed at

further streamlining the efficient management of the delegated programmes:

(1) The Commission should continue to optimise the delegation of programmes and tasks

between the agencies by (i) ensuring that the thematic areas linked to the European Green

Deal are mostly managed by INEA’s successor agency (CINEA) alone; (ii) further

exploring the good practice of bringing Green Deal-related programmes under the sole

management of INEA’s successor agency (CINEA); and (iii) ensuring that the future

delegation of programmes among agencies is organised in a similar way.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

(2) The Agency should increase the quality of information provided to CEF applicants during

the application and selection phase to ensure high levels of transparency and trust. In

particular, it should increase: (i) the information for applicants as predefined in the FAQ

system embedded in the e-Grants portal; and (ii) improve the clarity of the answers given

and the quality of information provided during info days.

(3) The Agency should continue to explore potential simplifications at different stages of

programme management and daily operations, as well as ways to streamline and simplify

the decision-making process in day-to-day operations: (i) further explore potential

simplifications of various procedures and processes, focusing on how to optimise them in

light of the constant expansion of INEA’s size and responsibilities; (ii) continue exploring

the delegation of decision-making powers to lower-level management (for example, heads

of sector) with regard to day-to-day operations to ensure a leaner decision-making process

in various situations and in light of various challenges.

(4) The Agency and the Commission should continue to explore potential solutions to better

align the Agency’s workload with its resources: (i) further explore opportunities to

improve the recruitment process and suitable additional tools to better target potential

candidates; (ii) further consider potential ways to improve workload planning practices in

order to ensure that various tasks and requests, including potential unforeseen requests

relating to feedback to policy, are taken into account at the planning stage; (iii) avoid

supporting projects that are too small or organising small calls – these have

disproportionate impacts on workload (within the limits of the resources provided for by

the cost-benefit analysis); (iv) explore potential ways to further improve communication

between the Commission and the Agency, ensuring that the Commission is aware of the

digital platforms to which it has direct access and can retrieve necessary data, and that it

has the necessary tools and channels to communicate its needs in a timely manner.

(5) The Agency and the Commission should continue to improve the existing framework for

the Agency’s provision of feedback to policy to its parent Directorates-General by

developing a more structured and streamlined process. Important steps have already been

taken in this regard by CINEA – for instance, through feedback from individual

programmes into the policy framework/plans and the adoption of a strategy on improving

synergies through cross-programme feedback on policy in 2021: (i) further delineate the

Agency’s responsibilities with regard to providing feedback to policy, taking into account

the specific needs of each programme/Directorate-General resources available through

feedback to policy plans; (ii) ensure two-way communication between the Commission

and INEA to create lean processes for feedback to policy that are suitable for both bodies;

(iii) empower and encourage Commission staff to obtain project-related information and

data via the digital platforms to which they have access.

It should nevertheless be noted that in the transition phase from INEA to its successor agency

- CINEA – (which started operating on 1 April 2021) and beyond, the Agency has constantly

improved its operations. CINEA is now responsible for the Green Deal thematic areas,

notably in the area of environment, maritime, fisheries and aquaculture, and Just Transition,

including Horizon Europe energy topics. It has also improved call procedures for all delegated

programmes to the satisfaction of the parent Directorates-General and stakeholders, notably

call texts, info days, guidance to the applicants, help desk, FAQs and guidance to experts. All

such procedures have been harmonised in view of the widespread use of the corporate e-

Grants system. The Agency has also simplified internal procedures, notably in the run-up to

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

the integration of programmes and staff from EASME, and constantly reviews and allocates

staff resources in view of evolving workload. It is also continuously exploring possibilities for

synergies and improving feedback to policy in close coordination with the parent

Directorates-General.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

NNEX

I: P

ROCEDURAL

NFORMATION

The evaluation of INEA’s operations had a clearly defined scope:

The reference period of the evaluation ran from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2021.

The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the performance of INEA, as per the criteria of

effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.

The scope of the evaluation covered the implementation of programmes managed by INEA

in the reference period: Connecting Europe Facility (CEF Transport, CEF Energy and CEF

Telecom, including WiFi4EU), Horizon 2020 Energy and Transport, and – since 2020 – the

Innovation Fund.

The evaluation did not focus on the operational achievements of the delegated programmes,

as these are the subject of separate evaluations.

The current generation of agencies established under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial

framework was outside the scope of this evaluation.

The evaluation INEA was part of the evaluation of all the six agencies, which was made in a

coordinated manner based on a supporting study carried out by an external contractor. The

preparations for the evaluation started in 2022, when an interservice group was set up by all lead

parent Directorates-General and the concerned central services (Directorate-General for Budget

and the Secretariat-General). The group meetings (i.e. 6) were chaired by the Common

Implementation Centre, set up within the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, who

also ensured the secretariat. The evaluation of each agency was led by the respective lead parent

Directorate-General (PLAN/2022/1912). The Commission also launched a ‘call for evidence’ on

10 March 2023 on its ‘Have your say’ portal. The call was open for feedback on agencies

activities until 7 April 2023.

The methodology used for the evaluation was consistent across the agencies in accordance with

the criteria provided in the Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines. The assessment of the

evaluation criteria ‘EU added value’, i.e. why the EU should act, was not considered relevant as

each agency carries out tasks which the Commission transferred to it. The EU added value of the

programmes that each agency manages is assessed in the context of the programme evaluations.

Evidence was taken from sources such as the Commission databases, annual reporting exercises,

adopted decisions. The supporting study was prepared using a mixed-methods approach at the

levels of methodologies and methods and worked on a qualitative methodological approach

(based on documentary review and desk research, interviews, answers to open-ended survey

questions and qualitative cost-benefit analysis) combined with a quantitative methodological

approach (based on administrative and monitoring data, surveys and quantitative cost-benefit

analysis), as detailed in Annex II.

Knowledge from the present evaluation will inform internal decision-making in INEA's successor

agency, namely the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency

(CINEA), as well as its parent Directorates-General (Directorates-General) with regard to

possible improvements to the implementation of legacy programmes and the next generation of

programmes by the Commission.

Furthermore, the results of the present evaluation will be useful for accountability purposes. The

final evaluation reports regarding the performance of the six agencies will allow the Commission

to report the results of the retrospective cost-benefit analysis to the budgetary authority, while

informing various European Union (EU) institutions on the value of cost savings achieved as a

result of the executive agency scenario compared with the costs of in-house management by the

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Commission, as well as identifying potential areas for improvement. The results of this

evaluation will be communicated to the Steering Committees of the six current agencies, to the

European Parliament, to the Council, and to the European Court of Auditors.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

NNEX

II: M

ETHODOLOGY AND

NALYTICAL MODELS USED

Short description of methodology

As mentioned in Section 1 above, the evaluation was supported by a study carried out by an

external contractor. The study covered the evaluation of the six executive agencies (INEA,

EACEA, EASME, ERCEA, CHAFEA and REA) in the period between 2017/2018 and March

2021 in a coordinated manner, based on the same methodology. The study was structured around

a series of evaluation questions outlined in Annex to the study report.

The evaluation methods providing for the collection of qualitative and quantitative information

and evidence included:

•

Documentary review and desk research concerning all relevant documentation relating to

INEA: its legal bases; the memorandum of understanding between the parent Directorates-

General and INEA; annual work programmes; annual activity reports; European Court of

Auditors (ECA) and Internal Audit Service (IAS) audit reports; previous evaluations and

cost-benefit analysis studies; financial documents; action plans; staff satisfaction and staff

mobility reports; minutes of the steering committee, management, and coordination

meetings; the evaluation relied also on the results of the 2018 staff satisfaction survey;

Interview programme: a total of 35 interviews were held with 41 interviewees representing

the main stakeholders, in three stages:

−

The scoping phase consisted of exploratory and scoping interviews with officials in

the lead parent Directorate-General and in the Agency who worked in a position that

required them to have a strategic outlook and be familiar with the overall key

developments that took place during the evaluation period (1 interviewee in

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport and 2 interviewees in INEA);

−

The main phase consisted of semi-structured interviews, based on survey

questionnaires tailored to each target group to ensure that all evaluation questions

and all aspects of the organisational model were covered (35 interviewees - staff of

INEA and its parent Directorates-General; unsuccessful and successful applicants

(beneficiaries); and external experts contracted to assist in the evaluation of

proposals under the delegated progammes’ calls (CEF, Horizon 2020 and Innovation

Fund);

−

The follow-up phase consisted of in-depth interviews to contextualise and deepen the

understanding of the data emerging during the previous stages of the interview

programme and the data collection process overall (3 interviewees in Directorate-

General for Mobility and Transport and INEA).

Survey programme: two surveys were carried out as part of the evaluation:

−

Survey A targeted the unsuccessful and successful applicants (beneficiaries) and

external experts contracted by INEA. The total number of persons targeted was

3 154, of which 342 responded (response rate of 10.9%);

−

Survey B targeted external experts. The total number of persons targeted was 1 708,

of which 523 responded (response rate of 30.6%).

A retrospective Cost–Benefit Analysis, including an analysis of the workload and of the

cost-effectiveness of the delegation of programme implementation ot the agency, comparing

the actual indicators with the estimates in the

ex ante

cost-benefit analysis and Specific

Financial Statement of 2013.

•

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

In addition, building on the results of the desk research and the interview / survey programme,

and to shed light on the success stories and lessons learned as a result of key developments

during the evaluation period, an in-depth analysis of INEA’s performance in two areas was

carried out: (1) its retention policy introduced to address high levels of staff turnover, and (2) its

regular workload analysis, to address high workload and improve planning. Analysis of these

cases has provided evidence of benefit to the implementation of any future reorganisations as

well as insights into possible synergies across the agencies.

Limitations and robustness of findings

The external contractors consulted a representative sample of Commission and INEA staff and

stakeholders (both applicants of rejected proposals and beneficiaries) and external experts in the

course of the evaluation. Compared to the overall population, as expected, unsuccessful

applicants participated less actively in the survey than programme beneficiaries; both categories

of applicants participated less actively than external experts.

No sampling bias was observed as the profile of the respondents to the surveys was very similar

to the overall population, guaranteeing statistical representativeness. The non-response bias (not

all characteristics of the group that did not reply had been captured in full) was mitigated through

triangulation with the results of follow-up interviews. The triangulation approach, using multi-

level and multi-stakeholder dimension in the data collection, ensured the robustness and

reliability of the data and information used to draw up conclusions in the supporting study.

With regard to the survey, it should be noted that the successor agency – CINEA – launched a

stakeholder satisfaction survey of its own in 2022 (covering also applicants and beneficiaries of

calls for proposals launched by INEA prior to March 2021). It was therefore decided not to target

recipients of that survey (for the calls for proposals before March 2021) given that many

questions overlapped, which might lead to survey fatigue among the applicants.

The target group for the survey was thus smaller than originally foreseen. As the evaluation team

had access to the results of CINEA’s survey of 2022, these were also integrated into the analysis

for this evaluation. The limitation has thus been sufficiently mitigated, and the perspectives of

applicants excluded in the present evaluation survey have still been reflected in the findings.

A mix of parent Directorates-General and INEA managers and policy / project officers were

interviewed extensively. Some answers to evaluation questions, notably in the ‘Coherence’

section, rely largely on interview and desk research data. Some views from Commission and

Agency staff gathered from the interviews and mentioned in the study illustrate personal

experience, and they may not be representative of overall relations between the Commission and

the Agency.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

NNEX

III: E

VALUATION

CRITERION

)

MATRIX AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

(

The core task of the evaluation was to respond to evaluation questions relating to the

effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of INEA as defined by the Better Regulation guidelines.

Evidence-based answers, including points of comparison and sources, can be found in Section 4

of the evaluation study carried out by an external contractor

Study supporting the evaluation of CHAFEA, EACEA, EASME, ERCEA, INEA & REA (2017/2018-2021) - Publications Office of the EU

(europa.eu)

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

NNEX

IV: O

VERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

The benefits and costs are detailed in the cost-benefit analysis outlined in Section 4.2 above and

Annex V below.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

NNEX

V: C

OST

-B

ENEFIT

NALYSIS

A retrospective cost-benefit analysis was performed to assess whether the estimates (of savings)

and conclusions of the 2013

ex-ante

cost-benefit analysis and specific financial statement are still

valid when compared with the actual situation, and what the overall savings are.

The following approach was adopted:

To use data on INEA’s actual performance (actual execution of the administrative budget, actual

staffing, etc.) for the executive agency scenario.

In order to ensure the comparability and validity of results, to follow the assumptions laid down

in the 2013 cost-benefit analysis and specific financial statement, and provide estimates of the

comparable ‘actual’ in-house scenario (the comparator), which would best reflect the actual

situation.

Based on these estimates, to assess whether the conclusions of the

ex-ante

cost-benefit analysis

and specific financial statement are still valid when compared to the actual situation, and what

the overall savings are.

To deconstruct the ‘actual’ in-house scenario (the ‘comparator’), estimates were based on the

following cost-benefit analysis/specific financial statement assumptions:

The number and composition of staff at the Commission under an in-house scenario

corresponds to specific financial statement estimations

. Additional contract agents were

added to the estimated number of Commission staff for 2017-2020 (five contract agents), to

reflect additional authorised staff at INEA financed from the contributions of EEA/EFTA and

participation of candidate countries and/or third countries, to manage additional operational

budget not covered in the cost-benefit analysis/specific financial statement resource

calculations.

Commission staff costs and overheads correspond to the average costs set by Directorate-

General for Budget for the estimates of human resources and overheads in legislative financial

statements for the respective year.

Programme support expenditure (Title III) remains the same under both the in-house scenario

and the executive agency scenario.

The table below presents the results of our analysis of the estimated actual costs of the in-house

scenario, and the actual costs of the executive agency scenario.

The table below presents the results of the analysis of the estimated actual costs of the in-house

scenario and the actual costs of the executive agency scenario.

Additional resources allocated under specific financial statement amendments are also considered.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Estimated actual costs of the in-house (Commission) scenario and actual costs of the executive

agency scenario, thousand EUR

2017

No.

In-house scenario

Commission

Title I. Staff-

expenditure

Establishment

plan posts

Contract agents

Title II.

Infrastructure

and

administrative

expenditure

Title III.

Programme

support

expenditure

TOTAL COST

Executive agency

scenario

INEA

Title I. Staff

expenditure

Establishment

plan posts

Contract agents

Interim supportive

agents and

trainees

Professional

development and

recruitment costs

Title II.

Infrastructure

and

administrative

expenditure

Title III.

Programme

support

expenditure

Cost

2018

No.

Cost

2019

No.

Cost

2020

No.

Cost

Total

2017-

2020

333.7

31,331

345.8

33,753

357.7

36,130

388.3

40,530

141,744

230.1

103.6

26,462

4,869

7,675

238.6

107.2

28,393

5,360

8,299

246.9

110.8

30,369

5,762

8,943

273.9

114.4

34,238

6,292

9,708

119,461

22,283

34,624

1,137

1,159

1,076

831

4,203

333.7

40,143

345.8

43,212

357.7

46,149

388.3

51,068

180,571

254

18,981

287

21,154

299

23,853

313

25,770

89,758

189

7,609

9,844

403

220

8,229

11,384

287

229

8,693

13,572

272

236

9,511

14,559

264

34,042

49,359

1,226

1,125

1,254

1,316

1,436

5,131

4,183

4,230

3,909

4,311

16,633

1,137

1,159

1,076

831

4,203

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

2017

No.

Total INEA cost:

Commission

Title I. Staff-

expenditure

Establishment

plan posts

Contract agents

Title II.

Infrastructure

and

administrative

expenditure

Total

Commission cost:

TOTAL COST

ESTIMATED

SAVINGS

Cost

24,301

2018

No.

Cost

26,543

2019

No.

Cost

28,838

2020

No.

23.4

2,215

23.6

2,325

23.6

2,406

Total

2017-

Cost

2020

30,912

110,594

29.6

3,210

10,156

16.4

1,886

329

538

16.6

7.0

1,975

350

566

16.6

7.0

2,042

364

590

22.6

7.0

2,825

385

740

8,728

1,428

2,435

2,753

277.4

56.3

27,054

13,089

310.6

35.2

2,892

29,435

13,777

322.6

35.1

2,996

31,834

14,315

342.6

45.7

3,950

34,862

16,206

12,591

123,185

57,386

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency

The analysis led to the conclusion that:

The overall actual costs of the executive agency scenario

amounted to EUR 123.2 million

during the period 2017-2020. To evaluate the extent to which the actual costs corresponded to

the initial specific financial statement estimates, it is important to follow the same assumptions

that led such specific financial statement estimates. The specific financial statement estimates

(EUR 128.2 million during the period 2017-2020) were based on the EU contribution, but

INEA’s administrative budget also included contributions from the EEA/EFTA and third

countries (EUR 1.3 million during 2017-2020) to manage its additional operational budget.

Consequently, based on the EU contribution alone, the actual costs of the executive agency

scenario constituted EUR 121.9 million, which means that savings amounted to EUR 6.3

million and accounted for 4.9% of the specific financial statement estimates. Significant cost

savings occurred in Title II, ‘Infrastructure and administrative expenditure’ and Title III

‘Programme Support Expenditure’ of INEA’s administrative budget. Title I, ‘Staff-related

expenditure’ was higher than estimated in the specific financial statement, which related to

higher average staff costs.

The costs of the executive agency scenario were much lower than the estimated costs of the in-

house scenario. During the period 2017-2020, the actual cost savings deriving from a cost

difference between the executive agency scenario and the in-house scenario amounted to EUR

57.4 million (or 31.8% of the estimated costs under the in-house scenario).

Comparing the savings initially estimated in the specific financial statement and cost-benefit

analysis with the actual savings from the delegation of tasks to INEA, it was found that the

actual savings during the 2017-2020 period were 35.5% higher than the initial specific

Including the cost of coordination and monitoring by the Commission, and the costs covered from non-EU contributions.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

financial statement estimates (EUR 57.4 million, compared with EUR 42.4 million), and 49.9%

higher than the initial cost-benefit analysis estimates (EUR 57.4 million, compared with EUR

38.3 million). As forecasted in the specific financial statement and the

ex-ante

cost-benefit

analysis, the savings in the executive agency scenario resulted primarily from a higher share of

lower-cost external personnel (contract agents) employed within the Agency, and a lower

overall number of staff

The number of staff in the executive agency scenario was reduced; however, the in-house scenario was not modified in the specific financial

statement.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

NNEX

VI. S

TAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

– S

YNOPSIS REPORT

This Annex summarises the stakeholder consultation that was carried out as part of the

evaluation, based on the Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines.

1. Outline of the consultation strategy

The consultation strategy was designed and carried out as follows:

Design of the consultation strategy

Setting

consultation

objectives

Mapping

stakeholders

Determining

consultation

methods

Conducting consultation work

Surveys

Informing policymaking

Preparation of the evaluation

reports

Presentations to the ISG and the

Steering Committees of agencies

Interviews

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency,

based on the Commission’s Better Regulation

guidelines.

Considering the scope of the Agency’s activities, the consultation included various categories of

stakeholders, in particular Commission officials from the parent Directorates-General, Agency

staff, beneficiaries of and unsuccessful applicants to the programmes managed by INEA, as well

as external experts contracted by the Agency.

Two surveys, an extensive interview programme and the triangulation of various data sources

were carried out.

CONSULTATION ACTIVITY

Survey A

Surveys

Survey B

TARGET GROUPS

Beneficiaries of and unsuccessful

applicants to the programmes managed

by INEA

External experts contracted by INEA

DATE

29 November– 9

December 2022

29 November – 9

December 2022

Commission officials from

parent Directorates-General

Director of INEA

Heads of department and heads

of unit

Members of the INEA Steering

Interview programme

Committee

Beneficiaries of and

unsuccessful applicants to the

programmes managed by

INEA

External experts contracted by

INEA

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency

9 August 2022 – 24

January 2023

These different types of stakeholder consultation activities complemented each other. The survey of

and interviews with unsuccessful applicants, beneficiaries and external experts informed questions

on the Agency’s effectiveness and efficiency. Interviews with the Commission and INEA officials

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

not only provided information on these questions, but also allowed coherence-related evaluation

questions to be covered.

Consultation activity and evaluation criteria covered

Effectiveness

Interviews with the

Commission

Interviews with INEA

Interviews with

unsuccessful applicants,

beneficiaries and experts

Survey of INEA’s

beneficiaries and

unsuccessful applicants

Survey of external experts

contracted by INEA

✓

Efficiency

✓

Coherence

✓

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency

2. Key results of consultation activities

2.1 Summarised results of the survey

Two surveys were carried out: Survey A for applicants (beneficiaries and unsuccessful

applicants) and Survey B for external experts. The questions in both surveys aimed to ensure

comparability across groups of respondents, as well as complementarity with the other evaluation

methods used, including interviews. The surveys ran for around 2 weeks.

Overall, fewer beneficiaries and applicants were reached than experts (see table below). Experts

also showed a higher response rate, with 30.6% of those contacted filling out the survey (523 out

of 1 708). This compares with an average response rate of 11.5% among beneficiaries and

applicants (165 out of 1 180 beneficiaries contacted, and 177 out of 1 908 unsuccessful applicants

contacted). Among the respondents to Survey A, a greater number of the unsuccessful applicants

were involved in Horizon 2020 calls (139 out of 177) compared with CEF calls (38 out of 177).

Among the beneficiaries, slightly more were connected to CEF programmes (98 out of 165).

Commission and INEA staff did not take part in the surveys, only in the interview programme.

Main statistics on the implementation of the surveys

Target group

Full launch of

the survey

(majority of all

invitations sent

on this date)

Survey closure

date

Population

targeted/no. of

invitations sent out

No. of responses

received

Response rate*

No. of

responses

included in the

analysis after

cleaning

165

Beneficiaries

29 November

2022

9 December

2022

1 199

Partial*: 0

Complete: 165

Total: 165

Partial*: 0

Complete: 177

Total: 177

Partial*: 29

Complete: 494

Total: 523

Unsuccessful

applicants

29 November

2022

9 December

2022

1 955

Total: 13.8%

Only including

complete:

13.8%

Total: 9.1%

Only including

complete: 9.1%

Total: 30.6%

Only including

complete:

28.9%

177

523

Experts

29 November

2022

9 December

2022

1 708

Note: Response rate was calculated using the formula:

�� =

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency

��.��

∗ 100%

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

The survey data fed into all of the evaluation questions, in particular those aspects in which the

opinions of respondents are of prime importance. A summary of the findings from the survey data,

grouped by the evaluation criteria, is presented below.

Effectiveness

In general, beneficiaries and experts were satisfied with the overall quality of programme

management by INEA – 96% of experts (468 out of 486); 92% of beneficiaries (142 out of 155).

Among unsuccessful applicants, satisfaction only reached 60% (89 out of 148). Out of all

applicants, a very high number would apply again for funding following their experience with

INEA – 99% among successful applicants (154 out of 156); 89% among unsuccessful applicants

(151 out of 169). Similarly, 99% of experts (487 out of 491) replied that they would be willing to

work with the Agency in future.

The effectiveness of the Agency’s evaluation and selection process for applications was assessed

differently by the groups surveyed. Unsuccessful applicants expressed dissatisfaction with the

selection process and the feedback given. Only 45% of unsuccessful applicants (77 out of 171)

agreed that the evaluation was fair, and 43% (72 out of 167) had objections to the outcome. Few

among the unsuccessful applicants believed they had received useful and practical feedback (34%;

57 out of 170), and few believed they had received clear information as to why their application was

rejected (38%; 65 out of 171). This was in contrast to the perceptions of successful applicants, who

mostly viewed the evaluation and selection process positively: 85% (123 out of 144) believed that

the process was fair and transparent, while 86% (119 out of 139) considered the feedback given to

be useful and practical. More than half of the experts surveyed also agreed that the selection process

was transparent (63%; 185 out of 294).

The survey results supported the effectiveness of INEA’s communication activities. Most applicants

believed they knew where to send questions when preparing and submitting the application – during

preparation, 79% of successful applicants (101 out of 128) and 57% of unsuccessful applicants

(81% out of 143); during submission, 79% successful applicants (102 out of 129) and 63%

unsuccessful applicants (92 out of 145). Most participants also held a positive view of the info days

organised for proposals: 87% of successful applicants (89 out of 102) and 75% of unsuccessful

applicants (82 out of 110) considered them important sources of information. Among the external

experts, 98% (469 out of 480) also agreed INEA staff were responsive.

Beneficiaries were satisfied with the Agency’s availability and accessibility during different stages

of the project implementation cycle – 95% (134 out of 141) during grant preparation; 90% (131 out

of 144) during project implementation; and 96% (94 out of 98) in the event of grant or project

amendments. Most beneficiaries (86%; 101 out of 117) found the kick-off meeting useful, while

89% (127 out of 142) believed that the answers they received from INEA were clear and accurate.

A high percentage of all programme participants believed that the funding opportunities provided

by INEA were well promoted – specifically, 78% of experts (387 out of 496), 77% of successful

applicants (121 out of 157) and 61% of unsuccessful applicants (95 out of 157) agreed that

programmes managed by INEA are well promoted.

Efficiency

Most survey respondents were satisfied with the efficiency of the application process. To most

applicants, the information given was clear and helpful – 87% of successful applicants (129 out of

149), and 85% of unsuccessful applicants (146 out of 172). The information was also easy to find

for 86% of successful applicants (137 out of 160) and 87% of unsuccessful applicants (150 out of

173). Fewer applicants (but still a high number) believed that the requirements for application were

reasonable – 79% of successful applicants (120 out of 152), and 69% of unsuccessful applicants

(119 out of 172). Both groups shared an appreciation for the user-friendliness of the e-form for

applications – 84% of successful applicants (114 out of 136) and 78% of unsuccessful applicants

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

(131 out of 169) agreed that it was user-friendly). Similar appreciation was expressed for the user-

friendliness of the programme guides – 79% of successful applicants (103 out of 131) and 71% of

unsuccessful applicants (119 out of 168). In terms of the overall administrative work required from

applicants, out of the 69 companies that answered, most required one or two full-time employees

per month for the whole application process (22 answered one; 17 answered two; the rest of the

answers varied widely). Although it is not possible to find out how much time applicants spend on

their applications based on the surveys, it appears that they took between 8 months and a year based

on the interviews. Most interviewees confirmed that at least one employee had to dedicate their

entire working time to administrative tasks throughout that period.

Among unsuccessful applicants, 48% (51 out of 106) were not satisfied with the time it took for

INEA to respond to their queries during the application process. Meanwhile, 80% of successful

applicants (85 out of 106) reported being satisfied. Similar differences existed between the groups

with regard to satisfaction with the application feedback mentioned above.

In relation to INEA’s work with external experts, survey respondents found the process of

becoming an expert efficient. 76% (228 out of 299) believed that information on how to become an

expert was easy to find, while 96% (483 out of 502) believed that the contract was easy to access

and sign. The communication tools and the frequency of communication were also satisfactory for

91% of experts (416 out of 458), including the web tool for Legal Entities / Bank Accounts

validation, which was easy to use according to 83% of experts (337 out of 405). 94% (442 out of

472) believed that the electronic evaluation system was also easy to access, while 93% (439 out of

471) believed it was easy to use.

Beneficiaries also had a positive view of efficiency in relation to project implementation. They

found the time-to-grant appropriate – 81% (125 out of 154) agreed this was within a reasonable

time. Slightly fewer – 78% (127 out of 153) – agreed that the time-to-inform was appropriate.

Overall, 89% (137 out of 154) found the granting process clear and transparent, with 87% (85 out of

98) also being satisfied with the time it took the Agency to process grant amendments.

The Agency’s monitoring requirements and auditing processes were generally viewed positively by

beneficiaries. 89% (135 out of 152) believed that the monitoring requirements were clear and user-

friendly, while 86% (124 out of 145) believed they were useful for project implementation. In

general, 93% (140 out of 150) said that requests from INEA were clear overall.

Not many respondents were audited, but among these, 82% (37 out of 45) believed that the time it

took INEA to conduct an audit was appropriate, and 85% (41 out of 48) believed that the scope of

the information requested (for monitoring/audit) was reasonable. Overall, 85% (40 out of 47)

judged the auditing process to be smooth.

Overall, payment processes were likewise well appreciated: 92% (127 out of 138) of beneficiaries

believed the process was smooth. External experts appreciated the timeliness of the process: 97%

(251 out of 259) were satisfied with the timeliness of reimbursement, while 93% (455 out of 489)

were satisfied with the timeliness of payments. However, some experts believed that their

remuneration was not enough for their work. Correspondingly, only 68% (338 out of 491) agreed

that the payment received matched their efforts.

Lastly, most programme participants appreciated INEA’s flexibility during the pandemic: 96% of

beneficiaries (129 out of 134), 94% of unsuccessful applicants (80 out of 85) and 96% of external

experts (393 out of 409) believed that the Agency maintained the quality of its services.

Coherence

Most programme participants were aware of the involvement of the Commission, but the

delineation of responsibilities between the Commission and INEA was not clear to some

participants. 83% of experts (123 out of 509), 88% of beneficiaries (140 out of 160) and slightly

fewer unsuccessful applicants (60%; 101 out of 169) knew that the Agency was entrusted to

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

manage the programme by the Commission. However, fewer people believed that the delineation of

responsibilities between the two bodies was clear. Among external experts, 73% (365 out of 500)

considered the division of responsibilities between the Commission and INEA to be clear,

compared with 69% of beneficiaries (109 out of 159) and only 44% of unsuccessful applicants (73

out of 165).

2.2. Summarised results of the interview programme

The interview programme encompassed a scoping phase, a main phase and follow-up interviews

with the representatives of the Commission and the Agency, as well as with beneficiaries,

unsuccessful applicants and external experts contracted by the Agency. The programme was

designed to embrace a wide variety of views, including those coming from the Commission and

Agency as well as those of other stakeholders.

The interviews were conducted in line with a standardised questionnaire, including questions on the

evaluation criteria and adjusted to the experience of individual stakeholders. Each interview was

recorded, and interview notes and/or transcripts were prepared on the basis of the recording. As

envisaged, a total of 24 interviews with 26 interviewees were conducted:

7 interviews (9 interviewees) with representatives of parent Directorates-General;

12 interviews (13 interviewees) with representatives of INEA and its successor agencies;

9 interviews (11 interviewees) with unsuccessful applicants or beneficiaries and service

providers of programmes managed by INEA;

1 interview (1 interviewee) with an external expert who worked on project evaluations;

1 interview (1 interviewee) with INEA staff, conducted for the purposes of follow-up and

validation;

1 interview (1 interviewee) with a representative of a parent Directorate-General, conducted

for the purposes of follow-up and validation.

The interview data fed into responses to the relevant evaluation questions, in particular aspects of

those questions to which the opinions of the interviewees are of prime importance. All evidence

from the interviews was incorporated into the evaluation’s final report. A summary of the findings

from the interview data is presented below.

Effectiveness

Based on the interviews with INEA and the Commission, the Agency followed the legal framework

and did not overstep its boundaries. It was also flexible in incorporating new programmes and

adapting to changing circumstances.

Overall, key stakeholders were very satisfied with INEA’s work and effectiveness. Staff also

believed they had established good relationships with beneficiaries and applicants and that overall,

key stakeholders were satisfied. Both INEA’s employees and the Commission agreed that INEA is

reliable.

Staff said that the evaluation process was of high quality, and stressed that there were few redress

cases. However, more than one interviewee highlighted the need for greater transparency in the

evaluation process, e.g. more information on the outcomes of the selection process could be made

publicly available. In connection with this, the external expert who was interviewed believed that

applications were not fully transparent.

Overall, all programme participants held a very positive view of the Agency’s communication

activities. A few applicants requested more input from the Agency during implementation (i.e.

monthly check-ins, sending alerts for deliverables, site visits). One beneficiary also suggested

project management meetings, with the Agency and the beneficiary organisation present. Many

applicants highlighted info days as being especially useful and a crucial source of information.

Some applicants, however, found the application process burdensome and also suggested training,

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

webinars or other training/learning materials for new applicants to make the process more

accessible.

According to interviews, the Agency’s role in relation to feedback to policy was not standardised.

However, most parties shared the view that INEA delivered effective inputs. Many interviewees

stressed the importance of informal communication for delivering feedback. Although the majority

of them held positive views, the outcome of interviews points to a mismatch between the

Commission and INEA with regard to expectations for the delivery of this function. One official

from the Commission believed that Agency employees should not be

too close to

policy areas,

whereas INEA employees believed that requests from the Commission were not always sufficiently

clear.

Employees believed that the Agency’s work on external communications was effective. For

example, they mentioned its good practice in flagging success stories. The interview programme

suggested that external communication was usually organised together with units in the parent

Directorates-General. Interviews also indicated that communication is very resource-intensive, and

one Commission official suggested that the Agency’s resources could be increased to make it more

effective in this regard. Importantly, applicants and the external expert appreciated INEA’s work on

external communication. All beneficiaries believed that sufficient opportunities were given to share

project results and that it is not solely INEA’s responsibility to encourage communication. Two

applicants said that greater visibility might be needed.

Efficiency

Overall, most of the representatives of INEA and parent Directorates-General, as well as successful

and unsuccessful applicants interviewed, said that the Agency was efficient at managing

applications and communication with beneficiaries, and that it was more efficient than an in-house

scenario would have been.

Most INEA employees were satisfied with the organisational structure of the Agency, and believed

that it contributed to its efficiency. Most agreed that decentralisation, standardisation and

communication between units increased efficiency and contributed to smooth operations. Two

employees said that having the coordination of evaluation not located within individual operational

units was not efficient, but this situation was later changed when CINEA was set up. One employee

also advised that financial engineering positions could be fully relocated into individual operational

units, but another employee disagreed. Another employee did not support energy efficiency areas

being split between EASME and INEA, and believed that overall, having six parent Directorates-

General introduced inefficiencies into management. Lastly, multiple employees expressed that they

might not have enough resources to allow efficient feedback to policy.

INEA staff mostly held a slightly negative perception of workload management, but a positive view

of human resource management practices at the Agency, especially in relation to practices that

address the challenges related to high workload. It was mentioned that workload analysis was

helpful in allocating resources and to gain an overview for managing human resources. Employees

saw career development exercises, introduced by INEA during the evaluation period, as an

improvement. As they explained, this was because the previous lack of prospects for some staff

members had a negative effect on staff retention. Interviewees also said that the Agency followed

up on the results of the staff satisfaction survey.

The IT tools used by the Agency were mostly appreciated, although some interviewees said it took

them some time to get used to them. Most employees believed that with further sub-delegation and

harmonisation between programmes, the Agency could increase its efficiency. They also expressed

the view that involving staff in thought exercises to improve efficiency and overall communication

between departments was beneficial to INEA.

Interviewed applicants found the application process time-consuming but clear overall. Multiple

applicants mentioned that with experience, the process became easier. They generally shared a

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

positive view of the materials provided and the user-friendliness of the tools, although one person

expressed criticism of the applicant portal. Many applicants said that attaching formal documents

from national ministries (Member State signatures) takes a lot of time and makes the application

process stressful. Others thought that having two-stage applications would reduce wasted resources,

because proposals would not be submitted by organisations who have a similar background.

INEA staff believed that application evaluation was of good quality and efficient. Most applicants

(both successful and unsuccessful) shared this view: they mostly found the feedback to be timely

and clear. Only one interviewee expressed dissatisfaction with the feedback, as they believed it was

not clear and was therefore not useful. Another interviewee was dissatisfied with its timeliness, as

they believed it took INEA a long time to make a decision. The external expert interviewed

believed that the deadlines for experts were short and the workload was too much for evaluations –

INEA was not flexible in this regard.

INEA staff and programme participants who were interviewed were also satisfied with INEA’s

efficiency and did not have ideas on how to create further efficiency gains. Staff and participants

both stressed that the Agency reacted quickly to the pandemic and switched to virtual evaluations.

According to employees, contact with beneficiaries remained good. Beneficiaries generally believed

that project implementation was smooth and that INEA was accessible and responsive during this

time. Many among them noticed simplifications and greater flexibility in processes during the

evaluation process. Contracting and monitoring requirements were also viewed positively, although

one beneficiary believed that the amount of work required to audit their organisation was too high

and not efficient.

Coherence

Both INEA staff and Commission officials found the division of tasks and responsibilities to be

clear, and all interviewees believed that the Agency acted appropriately. Similarly, with the

exception of one of the programme participants interviewed, the distinction between the Agency

and the Commission was clear.

The results of the interview programme suggest that some INEA employees regarded some of the

tasks requested by the Agency to be outside their mandate. One employee said that the

memorandum of understanding is too broad and the Commission can delegate anything to the

Agency. Another employee expressed the criticism that too much input is required from INEA into

work programmes. One employee said that it should not be necessary for INEA to instruct

applicants with regard to applications, while another believed that popularising project results is not

the job of the Agency but of beneficiaries. At the same time, several Commission officials criticised

INEA’s reluctance to carry out certain tasks.

Most of the Commission officials interviewed believed that INEA freed the Commission to work on

policy-related tasks. Many among them appreciated INEA’s ad hoc and flexible contributions to

policymaking, although a few interviewees believed they were not always able to gain sufficient

information about programme outcomes and lessons learned. On the positive side, multiple

interviewees from the Commission mentioned that they enjoyed good informal relations with

Agency staff, which helped in obtaining know-how from projects. Most INEA employees and

Commission officials also believed that the reporting processes set up were sufficient to achieve a

good level of understanding within the Commission with regard to programme outcomes.

2.3. Comparison of the results of consultation activities

The table below presents the key results per consultation activity, organised by evaluation criteria as

well as by the level of consistency, complementarity and contradiction of results across consultation

activities. Overall, as summarised in the table, there was high convergence in the results of different

consultation activities.

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

Key findings of the consultation activities

Evaluation criterion

Survey

Interview programme

Consistency

of results

across

consultation

activities

High

Complementarity

of results across

consultation

activities

High

Contradiction of

results across

consultation

activities

Low

Effectiveness

In general, beneficiaries and experts were

satisfied with the overall quality of programme

management by INEA.

The effectiveness of evaluation and selection

processes was assessed differently by the groups

surveyed. Unsuccessful applicants expressed

dissatisfaction with the selection process and the

feedback given, while successful applicants

were more positive.

The effectiveness of INEA’s communication

activities was supported by the survey.

Beneficiaries were satisfied with the Agency’s

availability and accessibility during different

stages of the project implementation cycle.

High percentages of all programme participants

believed that the funding opportunities provided

by INEA were well promoted.

Beneficiaries held a positive view of efficiency

in relation to project implementation, including

reporting requirements, payments and auditing.

Most programme participants appreciated

INEA’s flexibility during the pandemic.

Most survey participants were satisfied with the

efficiency of the application process. For most,

the information given was clear, helpful and

easy to find.

Almost half of unsuccessful applicants were not

The Agency followed the legal framework

and did not overstep its boundaries.

Overall, key stakeholders were very

satisfied with INEA’s work and

effectiveness.

Staff said that the evaluation process was

of high quality and stressed that there were

few redress cases. However, more than one

interviewee highlighted the need for

greater transparency in the evaluation

process, e.g. more information about the

outcomes of the selection process could be

made publicly available.

Overall, all programme participants held

very positive views of the Agency’s

communication activities.

Efficiency

Overall, most interviewees among INEA

representatives, representatives of parent

Directorates-General and successful and

unsuccessful applicants believed that the

Agency was efficient at managing

applications and communication with

beneficiaries, and that it was more efficient

than an in-house scenario would have

been.

Most INEA employees were satisfied with

High

Low

kom (2025) 0171 - Ingen titel

satisfied with the time it took for INEA to

respond to their queries during their

applications. Whereas most of the successful

applicants were satisfied.

Coherence

Most programme participants were aware of the

Commission’s involvement, but the delineation

of responsibilities between the Commission and

INEA was not clear for some participants.

the organisational structure of the Agency

and believed that it contributed to its

efficiency.

INEA staff mostly held slightly negative

perceptions of workload management, but

had a positive view of human resource

management practices at the Agency,

especially with regard to practices that

address challenges related to high

workload.

The applicants interviewed found the

application process time-consuming but

clear overall; multiple applicants

mentioned that the process became easier

with experience.

INEA staff believed that the evaluation of

applications was of good quality and

efficient. Most applicants (both

unsuccessful and successful) shared this

view: they generally found the feedback

provided to be timely and clear.

Both INEA staff and Commission officials

found the division of tasks and

responsibilities clear, and all interviewees

believed that the Agency acted

appropriately.

Most of the Commission officials

interviewed believed that INEA allowed

the Commission to concentrate on policy-

related tasks.

High

Low

Source: Study supporting the triennial evaluation of the Agency