Have results been disseminated to the identified 2 stakeholders? Has the implementation of the annual work programme 3 produced any impact at policy level? Are the produced outputs of good quality? (e.g. 2 website/publications etc.) 4. Impact 10 Has the beneficiary clearly identified and described 7 indicators (qualitative and quantitative) to measure impact? Was an internal monitoring strategy put in place and 3 described? 5. Operating management 10 Was all foreseen staff employed? 3 Were all foreseen statutory meetings held? 3 Does the report explain how communication and networking 3 occurred within the beneficiary organisation? Is the final financial statement correctly presented (e.g. with 1 correct amounts and references to staff number and statutory meetings number)? The total score (on 10 points) will be obtained by calculating the average of the 5 individual scores related to the 5 assessment criteria (e.g. sum of the 5 scores /divided by 5; 40/50=8/10). All the 5 assessment criteria have the same weighting. N.B. The reports will be scored taking into account the extent to which they thoroughly address all the aspects covered by the assessment criteria. 8. Beneficiaries will be informed of the assessment results. Following the assessment, the Agency shall reduce the amount of the final payment in the event of weak implementation of the work programme in accordance with Article II.25.4 of the Framework Partnership Agreement and as outlined in the table below. Score Definition Description of the score Reduction of the final EU contribution 10 Very Good Addresses the criterion with all aspects of high quality 9 0% 8 Good Addresses the criterion with some 7 aspects of high quality 6 Acceptable Addresses the criterion sufficiently 5 4 Weak Addresses the criterion but with some 25% weaknesses 3 50% 2 Very Weak Addresses the criterion but with 75% significant and/or many weaknesses 1
Have results been disseminated to the identified stakeholders? 2 Has the implementation of the annual work programme produced any impact at policy level? 3 Are the produced outputs of good quality? (e.g. website/publications etc.) 2 4. Impact 10 Has the beneficiary clearly identified and described indicators (qualitative and quantitative) to measure impact? 7 Was an internal monitoring strategy put in place and described? 3 5. Operating management 10 Was all foreseen staff employed? 3 Were all foreseen statutory meetings held? 3 Does the report explain how communication and networking occurred within the beneficiary organisation? 3 Is the final financial statement correctly presented (e.g. with correct amounts and references to staff number and statutory meetings number)? 1 The total score (on 10 points) will be obtained by calculating the average of the 5 individual scores related to the 5 assessment criteria (e.g. sum of the 5 scores /divided by 5; 40/50=8/10). All the 5 assessment criteria have the same weighting. N.B. The reports will be scored taking into account the extent to which they thoroughly address all the aspects covered by the assessment criteria. 8. Beneficiaries will be informed of the assessment results. Following the assessment, the Agency shall reduce the amount of the final payment in the event of weak implementation of the work programme in accordance with Article II.25.4 of the Framework Partnership Agreement and as outlined in the table below. Score Definition Description of the score Reduction of the final EU contribution 10 Very Good Addresses the criterion with all aspects of high quality 0% 9 8 Good Addresses the criterion with some aspects of high quality 7 6 Acceptable Addresses the criterion sufficiently 5 4 Weak Addresses the criterion but with some weaknesses 25% 3 50% 2 Very Weak Addresses the criterion but with significant and/or many weaknesses 75% 1
e_csc_et_reporting_guidelines_2015_en.docx