"This Global Thematic Evaluation of EU Actions to Counter Disinformation and Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) assessed 45 Actions funded by the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) since 2021, with a combined budget of around €100 million. The portfolio covered Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the EU Neighbourhood and Enlargement regions, spanning media literacy, fact-checking, journalism support, and targeted counter-disinformation initiatives. The evaluation reviewed all Actions and analysed 12 in depth, combining desk research, surveys, interviews, and six field missions.
Relevance: The Actions were broadly relevant to EU commitments on countering disinformation and FIMI, aligning with the IcSP/FPI mandate and the EEAS Stratcom agenda, and responding to the concrete needs of journalists, fact-checkers, and civil society in fragile contexts. Flexibility allowed rapid mobilisation, which was widely valued. However, strategic articulation was weak: many Actions remained stand-alone or implementer-driven, without clear embedding in a wider EU counter-FIMI strategy. The portfolio was largely reactive, drawing little on foresight capacities, and emerging themes such as gendered disinformation, climate/environmental narratives, digital security, or psychosocial support were rarely addressed systematically.
Effectiveness: Most Actions were implemented as planned, despite serious disruptions, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine or weak digital infrastructure in some contexts. Outcomes, however, were uneven: ambitious objectives were often poorly matched with measurable indicators, making achievements difficult to evidence. Implementing Partners with local credibility and contextual expertise proved decisive, while those lacking local embeddedness delivered weaker or short-lived results. Innovations such as AI-driven tools demonstrated potential but struggled with uptake due to usability issues, lack of long-term financing models, and limited cooperation from social media platforms. Effectiveness was consistently higher where in-country engagement (for example through EU Delegations) and cooperation with the EEAS and other services successfully linked projects to EU policy efforts, ensuring stronger coordination.
Efficiency: The IcSP/FPI instrument proved flexible and resilient, with most Actions delivered broadly on time and within budget, even in fragile and high-risk environments. A rapid budget review confirmed significant variation in cost distribution, ranging from highly cost-effective interventions to projects where management and overheads absorbed disproportionate resources. Variation is expected in a diverse portfolio, but the absence of common budgetary parameters constrained comparability and transparency. Efficiency was higher where Actions partnered with trusted local organisations, leveraged existing infrastructure, and were designed for scalability. At the same time, duplication occurred in some cases (e.g. overlapping AI initiatives), reflecting limited technical coordination. Digital security and GDPR compliance were also weakly addressed in several Actions handling sensitive data, raising risks and inefficiencies.
EU Added Value: The EU’s added value was evident in its neutrality and legitimacy, enabling access in contexts where Member States faced political constraints. The rapid-response capacity of FPI was a distinct comparative advantage, with activities launched in weeks rather than months. The EU’s ability to operate at scale and across regions added weight and reach to counter-FIMI efforts. However, visibility of EU support was often low, with Delegations sometimes deliberately keeping a low profile in sensitive environments. Weak articulation of Team Europe further limited collective EU impact and visibility.
Coherence: Cooperation with EEAS Stratcom and certain Commission DGs (INTPA, CONNECT, RTD) was constructive, providing continuity and complementarity. At Action level, collaboration between FPI, Delegations, and Implementing Partners generally worked well. Nonetheless, internal coherence remained a challenge: there was no common prioritisation framework, and lesson-sharing across Actions and regions was mostly informal and ad hoc. Coordination with Member States varied: in some countries, EUDs and national embassies worked closely together, while in others MS distanced themselves from sensitive projects. Team Europe approaches were therefore inconsistently applied, limiting collective visibility and strategic weight.
Sustainability and impact: Sustainability was strongest where Actions were embedded in credible institutions, such as Strategic Communication Centres in Moldova and Ukraine. Stand-alone platforms and networks often collapsed once funding ended, unless informal peer-to-peer groups were deliberately nurtured. Training effects were fragile due to staff turnover and limited institutional uptake. Many platforms and dashboards lacked handover or financing models, leaving investments vulnerable. These gaps reflect the structural trade-off of a rapid-response instrument: immediacy and flexibility often take precedence over sustainability. At impact level, Actions delivered visible results at micro and meso levels (skills, peer learning, new tools), but systemic change in disinformation dynamics was neither realistic nor evidenced at current scale. Weak outcome-level monitoring further limited the ability to demonstrate incremental long-term effects." (Executive summary, page iv-v)