Executive summary

AuthorNaldini, Andrea; Pompili, Marco; Peruccacci, Eleonora
Executive Summ ary
The Fact-finding study on the
implem entat ion of t he evaluat ion
requirem ents foreseen by t he GBER and
relev ant guidelines analy ses t he
implem entat ion of t he evalu ation
requirem ent s as defined by bot h t he
General Block Exemption Regulation
(GBER) and the European Com mission ’s
( EC) re lev ant g uid elin es t o inf orm th e EC
policy making with findings and lessons
learnt. I n particu lar, the st udy aim s to
assess t he efficiency of the
implem entat ion of t he evaluat ion
requirem ent s fr om a legal,
organisat ion al and t ech nica l p ers pect iv e.
To achiev e this goal the st udy analyses
the national requirem ent s fo r the
ev aluat ion of St at e ai d in th e 2 7 MSs and
the UK ( under task 1) and t he
implem entat ion of t he evaluat ion
requirem ent s in t he 14 MSs an d t he UK
for which an evaluat ion plan w as either
under discussion or approv ed by a
Commission decision , by the end of
Decem ber 201 9 ( under t ask 2).
Th e m ain r esult s of t ask 1
Task 1 focused on the nat iona l ru les and
capacity in t he evaluation of St at e aid
schemes. The first finding of task 1
concer ns the possible adm inistrative
burden deriving from the evalu at ion of
State a id sc hem es: in cou ntr ies cove ring
around 70% of t he EU St at e aid
expenditur e, obligat ions to evaluate
alr eady exist and, consequently, a
higher quota of St ate aid schemes cou ld
be ev aluated wit hout excessiv e
add itional burden.
On the oth er hand, if the m ain pri ority is
t o in vol ve all th e co unt ri es i n ev alu at ions
of Stat e aid, t he potential bur den could
be sign if icant i n so me of th em . Ho wev er,
the ev aluation unit s creat ed for ESI F
programmes ar e widespread an d
relat ively developed in many cou ntries;
a mor e di rect inv olve men t of t hese u nit s
in Stat e aid evaluation m ay reduce t he
adm inist rat iv e impact of new
Monet ar y costs of t he evaluat ions are
modest and represent a minim al quota
of t he b udget for State aid .
Consequen tly, we can st at e that
adm inist rat iv e costs do not r epresent a
significant obst acle t o the evaluation of
aid schemes; however, they m ust be
consider ed from the perspective of
reinforcing eva luat ion act ivities.
A secon d im portant aspect concerns the
type of evaluation. I n pract ice, all MSs
implem ent some kind of evaluat ion of
State aid schem es. I n coun tries where
im pact evaluat ions are not car ried out,
ex-ante assessments t o verify
com pliance with EU rules and n at ional
budget constraints are g enerally
im plem ented. Every count ry has set up
a more or less sophist icated aid scheme
monitoring system to v er ify St ate aid
expenditur es, identif y beneficiaries and
to provide the EC w it h t he requ ir ed
inform ation . Expanding and
consolidat ing these systems a nd th e ex -
post assessments in their regular
act iv ities would be a logical integr at ion
of t he exist in g nat ional system s for
controlling State aid and the
organisat ion ther eof w ou ld n ot require
excessive effort.
A t hird aspect concern s t he willingness
to evaluat e. The analysis shows how
count r ies w ith obligat ions t o ev aluate
have built up t heir ev aluat ion capacity
over m any years of political and
adm inist rat iv e commit m en t to assess
public policies. Instead, in som e
cou nt ries wit hou t eval uat ion obl igat ion s,
the m anagem ent of St ate aid is
organised m or e to addr ess EC r eq uests
and com ply wit h EU r ules rather t han to
examine the efficien cy and t he
effect iveness of the aid schemes. It is
not easy to im prove and reinforce t he
com m itment to evaluate. As all the
national m an agem ent system s of State

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT