DISCUSIÓN DE LOS RESULTADOS Grafica 8 variables del peso en escolares

The Tacis Programme is the largest single programme for know-how transfer to the NIS in the territory of the former Soviet Union. In assessing the relevance of the programme, the evaluation has taken a number of factors into account.

• world-wide know-how transfer is recognised as being difficult to carry out and often experiences a low rate of success;

• the complexity and diversity of the programme environment in the NIS partner countries were virtually unknown when the programme started in 1991;

• the structural and systemic problems resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of its internal market were not understood, nor was the complexity of the transition process involved.

The chapter starts with a summary of the main findings of the criteria used in this evaluation for assessing relevance and concludes with the overall assessment of the Evaluation Team.

10.2 Performance against the

evaluation criteria

Appropriateness of programming

The idea behind Tacis is good. Technical assistance in the form of know-how transfer is very much needed in the NIS and Mongolia. The evaluation team concludes that, in 1991 as well as in 1997, it is appropriate for the EU to provide technical assistance rather than financial assistance.

The EU/Tacis Programme lacks a clear identity with respect to the specific policy objectives for which it stands in the countries and priority fields identified for support. Moreover, coherent strategies for promoting the two Tacis Programme

objectives, market oriented reforms and the reinforcement of democracy, are largely absent. On the NIS side, there is also room for improving the process of identifying and setting the priorities for multilateral and bilateral assistance in general and for Tacis assistance in particular.

For the country national programmes, the indicative programming process generates programme components in the priority fields which meet the apparent needs of the Tacis partner states in the NIS. However, in the absence of a systematic PSIP process in the NIS and in the absence of clear EU Tacis policy reflecting EU interests, it is not possible to assess the quality of the outcome of the programming process. Tacis has made various attempts to focus its programme on a limited number of priorities and issues. The effect of programming guidelines issued by DG1A/C1 on the subject has been largely cosmetic. As a result, Tacis activities are spread very widely.

Tacis performs relatively well in translating these IP priorities into Action Programme projects. These are found to be generally appropriate in the sense that they target important issues for the POs and users of the project outputs.

Effectiveness and Impact

The programme can be credited with a positive record on project effectiveness. The large majority of the projects are on record as having achieved their planned outputs and as being likely to achieve the targeted objectives. The latter is a necessary but not conclusive indicator for the tentative conclusion drawn by the Evaluation Team that Tacis is likely to have a positive impact in terms of contributing to market-oriented reform.

There are also indications of some positive impact in terms of reinforcing democracy, as evidenced in the theme paper on the impact of democracy prepared for this evaluation. A separate, full evaluation of the Democracy Programme is currently underway.

Implementation Efficiency

Tacis has established a well defined project cycle management system with reasonably clear procedures for project identification, project

formulation, tendering and contracting, project implementation and progress reporting by contractors, implementation monitoring, final reporting and invoicing. Nevertheless, implementation efficiency can be improved by utilising these procedures better.

The Commission does not have enough staff resources to utilise existing tools to their full potential and thereby ensure efficiency in accordance with increasingly tight financial and management requirements.

Transparency

The Tacis Programme performs well on most transparency issues and has developed a transparent set of project cycle management instruments. The quality of public information material on annual programming, budget allocations for countries and projects and tendering reached high standards early on in the programme. Likewise the tendering process itself is transparent and accountable in its set up. The publications from the Tacis information service are useful. A weak point is that the POs in the NIS are not adequately informed about project budgets and about the reasons for project contract management decisions.

Tacis performance in providing information on achievements and feedback to the ‘Committee” can be assessed as relatively weak. Negative comments from the ‘Committee’ are on record concerning the information content of reports submitted to them as reviews of Tacis performance. However, the new Evaluation Unit, which became operational in early 1997, is considered a positive step towards a more systematic approach to the provision of evaluation information on the achievements of the programme.

Accountability

The Tacis Regulations of 1991 and 1993 served their main purposes well. The 1996 Regulation seems adequate and flexible enough to accommodate the further evolution of the programme for the period 1996-1999, though it has added a further layer of financial and procedural control which affects productivity. The

regulations have set a workable framework for the evolution of the Tacis Programme.

The EC context in which Tacis operates has been exerting increasing pressure on Tacis to further improve accountability to acceptable standards. The Evaluation Team cannot assess the programme’s performance on this issue, which is in the competence of the Court of Auditors. The tightening of financial procedures and contracting procedures creates tension between concerns over accountability against concerns over cost-effectiveness.

The mounting criticism of Tacis from the NIS side on its performance relative to cost-effectiveness should be treated as a warning to Tacis management not to create an even more mature bureaucratic system which shows little concern for cost-effectiveness.

10.3 Overall conclusion

Taking the above findings into account, the Evaluation Team concludes that:

• Tacis is making a relevant contribution to its programme objectives. This has occurred despite the slower than expected and less than desired progress in the NIS towards free and open democratic systems and market-oriented economic systems;

• the relevance of Tacis is limited by shortcomings in terms of implementation efficiency, some aspects of transparency and an increasing emphasis on accountability and financial control. Some of these shortcomings stem from the corporate culture within the European Commission, in which Tacis is embedded. Other EU institutions have required changes in direction or additional controls but the Commission has lacked the resources to respond promptly and efficiently;

• the programme can be credited with a positive record on project effectiveness in achieving the intended objectives. For the Evaluation Team, this tips the balance of the final assessment on the Tacis Programme to the positive side.

Chapter 11 Recommendations