The use of new provisions during the programming phase of the European structural and investment funds : final report.
Date: 2016-07-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, European territorial cooperation, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, financial instrument, operational programme, regional policy, report

THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS  
DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND 
INVESTMENT FUNDS  

FINAL REPORT 

FWC Assignment Nr 2014CE16BAT061 

Altus Framework Consortium 
May 2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Directorate DGA1 — Policy, Performance and Compliance 
Unit DGA1.01 — Policy Development, Strategic management and Relations with the Council 

Contact: Mr. Peter Berkowitz 

E-mail:  REGIO-DGA1.01-HEAD-OF-UNIT@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS  
DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND 
INVESTMENT FUNDS  

FINAL REPORT 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

2016 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

This  document  was  written  and  edited  by  Heil  Péter  and  Tétényi  Tamás,  using  information  processed  and 
provided by  

Colm McClements, Damjan Kavaš, Dessislava Kovatcheva, Dimitra Ionnau, Eila Heikkila, Elena Grammatikova, 
George Dimos, Hakan Ottoson, Hrvoje Dolenec, Jean-Claude Ebel, Jean-Paul Delattre, Jekaterina Šarmavičienė, 
Jorge  Sánchez-Cruzado  Ramírez,  Kadri  Kuusk,  Luis  Madureira  Pires,  Mariusz  Frankiewicz,  Mart  Nugteren, 
Michael  Burisch,  Mike  Danson,  Miklós  Losoncz,  Oto  Potluka,  Pavel  Lucian,  Pavol  Weiss,  Piotr  Stronkowski, 
Radnai György, Richard W L  Crofts, Roland Blomeyer, Sandra Spule, Tomasz Klimczak, Valér Jobbágy, Zoltán 
Teiszler. 

The authors express their gratitude to those who responded to the web-surveys and made themselves available 
for  interviews.  The  authors  are  also  grateful  for  the  very  helpful  insights  from  the  Commission  staff  and 
particularly  to  Peter  Berkowitz,  Mélanie  Villiers,  Eveline  Petrat,  Jerzy  Pienkowski,  Caterina  Esempio,  Joëlle 
Salmon, Vitor Nogueira, Tessa Van Blaricum and to other members of the Steering Group. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

ISBN 978-92-79-60825-4 
doi: 10.2776/578179 

© European Union, 2016 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

ABSTRACT 

The  analysis  of  all  the  28  Partnership  Agreements  and  of  292  operational  and  co-
operation  programmes  for  the  2014-2020  period  financed  by  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund, completed with a 
survey of managing authorities and interviews at European, national and regional levels, 
revealed that the new regulatory framework has significantly altered the Member States’ 
approach to programming.  

The  new  provisions  required  programmers  to  link  strategic  thinking  and  result-based 
management,  and  relate  strategic  thinking  with  the  objectives  and  the  means  of  the 
Europe 2020 strategy.  

The new programming approach succeeded to make the strategy behind the allocation of 
resources,  the  links  between  means  and  results  more  specific  and  transparent  than 
before. However, the presentation of programmes became rather complicated. The wide 
range  of  needs  addressed  suggests  an  apparent  demand  for  integrated  territorial 
approach.  At  the  same  time,  the  scope  for  applying  the  integrated  instruments  in  all 
sectors and types of areas has not yet been exhausted.  

Implementation-related  new  provisions  were  among  the  less  controversial  elements  of 
the  nineteen  new  provisions  analyzed,  and  in  general,  Member  States  did  comply  with 
new  requirements  in  this  area.  This  provides  a  good  basis  for  further  developing 
implementation capacity.  

5 

 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 5 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 6 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 10 

1 

2 

3 

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 20 

THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS ................................................................................ 24 

RESEARCH RESULTS BY PROVISION....................................................................... 31 

3.1  Strategic Programming ..................................................................... 31 

3.1.1  Background ......................................................................... 31 
3.1.2  What  was 

the  strategic  background  of  programming 

3.1.3 

documents? ........................................................................ 31 
In  which  areas  of  investment  were  direct  references  to  EU 
strategies the most frequent? ................................................ 34 
3.1.4 
The use of flexibilities ........................................................... 36 
Establishing Priorities – the Negotiation Process ....................... 37 
3.1.5 
3.1.6  Specific conclusions .............................................................. 39 
3.2  Thematic Concentration .................................................................... 41 

3.2.1  Background ......................................................................... 41 
3.2.2  Selection of Thematic Objectives and Investment Priorities ....... 41 
3.2.3  Main Results sought ............................................................. 47 
The negotiation process ........................................................ 49 
3.2.4 
3.2.5  Specific Conclusions ............................................................. 49 
3.3  Building of Priority Axes ................................................................... 51 

3.3.1  Background ......................................................................... 51 
3.3.2 
The use of simple vs. combination priority axes ....................... 52 
3.3.3  Dedicated Priority Axes ......................................................... 56 
3.3.4 

Establishing  the  Structure  of  Priorities  –  the  Negotiation 
Process ............................................................................... 57 
3.3.5  Specific Conclusions ............................................................. 58 
3.4  Result Orientation ............................................................................ 60 

3.4.1  Background ......................................................................... 60 
3.4.2  Definition of Specific Objectives and Results ............................ 61 
3.4.3  Definition of Actions and Principles for the Selection of Actions .. 65 
Establishing Objectives and Results – The Negotiation Process... 69 
3.4.4 
3.4.5  Specific Conclusions ............................................................. 71 
3.5  Planned use of financial instruments .................................................. 73 

3.5.1  Background ......................................................................... 73 
The Use of Financial Instruments ........................................... 74 
3.5.2 
3.5.3 
Justifications  and  expectations 
instruments ......................................................................... 75 
3.5.4  Specific Conclusions ............................................................. 77 
3.6  Planned use of major projects ........................................................... 79 

towards  using 

financial 

3.6.1  Background ......................................................................... 79 

6 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The use of major projects ..................................................... 79 
3.6.2 
3.6.3  Specific Conclusions ............................................................. 82 
3.7  Use of co-financing rates .................................................................. 83 

3.7.1  Background ......................................................................... 83 
3.7.2  Modulation and justification ................................................... 83 
3.7.3  Specific Conclusions ............................................................. 85 
3.8  Territorial Challenges in Programming ................................................ 86 

3.8.1  Background ......................................................................... 86 
Types of Territories .............................................................. 87 
3.8.2 
3.8.3 
External challenges to territories ............................................ 89 
Territorial development needs ............................................... 90 
3.8.4 
3.8.5  Coordination Arrangements to address Territorial Challenges .... 95 
3.8.6  Difficulties and ways of territorial analysis, the role of territorial 

approach ............................................................................ 97 
3.8.7  Specific conclusions – the role of the territorial approach .......... 99 
3.9  Community-led local development (CLLD) ........................................ 100 

3.9.1  Background ....................................................................... 100 
3.9.2  Needs to be addressed by CLLD ........................................... 101 
3.9.3 
Types of territories to be addressed by CLLD ......................... 101 
3.9.4  Resources Allocated to CLLD ............................................... 102 
Involvement of Stakeholders ............................................... 104 
3.9.5 
3.9.6 
The Negotiation process: Arguments for and against CLLD ...... 105 
3.9.7  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 107 
3.10  Integrated territorial investments (ITI) ............................................. 109 

3.10.1  Background ....................................................................... 109 
3.10.2  Types of territories ............................................................. 110 
3.10.3  Resources Allocated to ITIs ................................................. 111 
3.10.4  Implementation - delegation of functions .............................. 112 
3.10.5  The negotiation process – arguments for and against ITI ........ 113 
3.10.6  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 115 
3.11  Sustainable Urban Development (SUD) ............................................ 116 

3.11.1  Background ....................................................................... 116 
3.11.2  Identification of SUD areas and strategies ............................. 116 
3.11.3  Resources Allocated to SUD, ................................................ 118 
3.11.4  Level of delegation of functions in implementation ................. 121 
3.11.5  Difficulties encountered and the negotiation process............... 121 
3.11.6  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 123 
3.12  Territorial Co-operation and Macro-regional Strategies ....................... 124 

3.12.1  Background ....................................................................... 124 
3.12.2  Priority areas for co-operation ............................................. 125 
3.12.3  Links to macro-regional and sea-basin strategies ................... 126 
3.12.4  Programmes  with  beneficiaries  in  at  least  one  other  Member 

States 

128 

3.12.5  Co-ordination Arrangements ................................................ 128 
3.12.6  The 

Process  –  Establishing 

programming, 

priorities, 

negotiations ...................................................................... 129 

7 

 
3.12.7  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 131 
3.13  Poverty, Social exclusion ................................................................ 132 

3.13.1  Background ....................................................................... 132 
3.13.2  Territories affected by poverty – types of territories and needs 133 
3.13.3  Vulnerable groups – types of groups and needs ..................... 134 
3.13.4  Actions planned as part of the integrated approach ................ 136 
3.13.5  Particular difficulties and support measures ........................... 137 
3.13.6  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 138 
3.14  Regions with permanent handicaps .................................................. 139 

3.14.1  Background ....................................................................... 139 
3.14.2  Types of regions with permanent handicaps .......................... 139 
3.14.3  Needs identified for regions with permanent handicaps ........... 141 
3.14.4  Actions planned for  regions with permanent handicaps .......... 141 
3.14.5  Particular difficulties and envisaged support measures ............ 142 
3.14.6  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 143 

3.15  Coordination  between  the  ESI  Funds  and  other  Union  and  national 

funding instruments and with the EIB .............................................. 144 

3.15.1  Background ....................................................................... 144 
3.15.2  Areas  Where  a  Co-ordinated  use  of  Funds  &  Instruments  is 

Planned  144 

3.15.3  Arrangements for the Co-ordination of Funds and Instruments 147 
3.15.4  Establishing  Co-ordination  Arrangements  -  the  Negotiation 

Process  148 

3.15.5  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 150 
3.16  Capacity Building ........................................................................... 152 

3.16.1  Background ....................................................................... 152 
3.16.2  Capacities of the Authorities ................................................ 153 
3.16.3  Capacities of the Beneficiaries ............................................. 156 
3.16.4  Establishing Needs and Actions – the Negotiation Process ....... 158 
3.16.5  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 160 
3.17  Reducing the Administrative Burden on Beneficiaries ......................... 161 

3.17.1  Background ....................................................................... 161 
3.17.2  Sources of the Administrative Burden ................................... 161 
3.17.3  Actions to reduce the Administrative Burden ......................... 162 
3.17.4  Use of TA 164 
3.17.5  Timing of Actions ............................................................... 165 
3.17.6  Targeting of measures ........................................................ 165 
3.17.7  Establishing Needs and Actions – the Negotiation Process ....... 166 
3.17.8  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 167 
3.18  Horizontal Principles ....................................................................... 168 

3.18.1  Background ....................................................................... 168 
3.18.2  References to Horizontal Principles in programming documents 169 
3.18.3  Methods to promote horizontal principles .............................. 171 
3.18.4  The Negotiation Process – Challenges and Opportunities ......... 175 
3.18.5  Specific conclusions ............................................................ 177 
3.19  E-Cohesion ................................................................................... 178 

8 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.19.1  Background ....................................................................... 178 
3.19.2  Current and planned e-government service levels .................. 179 
3.19.3  Actions envisaged to boost e-service levels ........................... 180 
3.19.4  The perception of E-cohesion rules ....................................... 181 
3.19.5  Specific Conclusions ........................................................... 181 
3.20  Tabular Overview of key findings ..................................................... 183 

4 

ANNEXES .......................................................................................................... 198 

4.1  Annex to “Background” – Deeper statistical analysis (correlations) ...... 198 

4.2  Annex to NP1 – Strategic programming - .......................................... 201 

4.3  Annex to NP2 – Thematic concentration ........................................... 203 

4.4  Annex to NP4 – Result orientation ................................................... 215 

4.9  Annex to NP9 – CLLD ..................................................................... 241 

4.10  Annex to NP10 – integrated territorial investments (ITI) ..................... 245 

4.11  Annex to NP11 – Sustainable Urban Development (SUD) .................... 250 

4.12  Annex to NP12 – Territorial Cooperation and Macro-regional Strategies 255 

4.13  Annex to NP13 – Poverty, Social exclusion ........................................ 259 

4.14  Annex to NP 15 - Coordination between the ESI Funds and other Union 

and national funding instruments and with the EIB ............................ 262 

4.15  Annex to NP 16 – Administrative Capacity ........................................ 269 

4.16  Annex to NP 17 – Reduction of the administrative burden ................... 270 

4.17  Annex to NP 18 – Horizontal Principles ............................................. 271 

4.18  Annex to NP 19 – E-Cohesion .......................................................... 272 

4.19  List of Programmes Analysed .......................................................... 274 

4.20  Responses to the Survey ................................................................ 281 

4.21  List of Interviews ........................................................................... 282 

4.22  Abbreviations ................................................................................ 286 

4.23  List of Figures ............................................................................... 288 

4.24  Literature ..................................................................................... 295 

9 

 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

The Task 

This  report  summarises  the  results  of  a  study  undertaken,  between  October  2014  and 
February 2016, for the European Commission’s services (Directorate General for Regional 
and Urban Policy - DG REGIO, also involving DG EMPL and DG AGRI). Its mission was to 
examine the integration of a set of 19 new provisions of the reformed legal framework 
for Cohesion Policy in the programming phase for 2014-2020. 

The  study  follows  up  on  the  outcomes  of  the  comprehensive  reform  debate  on 
Cohesion  Policy  conducted  since  2008.  As  a  result  of  the  debate,  while  keeping  the 
policy’s  original  treaty  mandate  –  to  strengthen  the  EU’s  economic,  social  and 
territorial  cohesion,  as  well  as  reducing  disparities  between  regions,  and  the 
backwardness of the least favoured territories – Cohesion Policy has been established as 
the  EU's  main  investment  policy  to  support  the  achievement  of  European  objectives,  as 
described in the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.  

The  new  provisions,  the  uptake  of  which  has  been  assessed,  can  be  grouped  into  three 
categories: 

 

 

 

links 

including 

instruments  of 

to  Europe  2020  strategy, 

Provisions related to the contents of the programming documents and their 
thematic 
result-orientation, 
concentration,  building  priority  axes  in  programmes,  the  intervention  logic  and 
results,  planned  use  of  financial  instruments,  co-financing  rates  and  major 
projects, as well as horizontal principles.   
New, integrated approaches to territorial development including the use of new 
Cohesion  Policy 
investments  (ITIs), 
community-led  local  development  (CLLD)  and  sustainable  urban  development 
(SUD).  In  addition,  the  study  analysed  the  priorities  of    European  territorial  co-
operation  and  macro-regional  strategies,  as  well  as  specific  approaches  towards 
regions  affected  by  poverty  and  with  permanent  geographic  or  demographic 
handicaps; 
New rules regarding the efficiency of programme management: co-ordination 
of  ESI  Funds  with  other  European  and  national  funding  instruments;  e 
strengthening of capacities of programme authorities and beneficiaries, reduction 
of  the  administrative  burden,  and  the  use  of  electronic  government  solutions  in 
cohesion policy. 

integrated 

territorial 

The  study  covered  the  analysis  of  all  28  Partnership  Agreements  and  292 
Programmes,  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund,  including  75  European 
territorial co-operation programmes as well as 92 multi-fund operational programmes co-
financed by the European Social Fund. Of these, 245 were adopted by the study’s cut-off 
date,  the  remaining  ones  were  processed  in  their  latest  available  version.  Beyond 
the  assessment  of  the 
documentary  analysis, 

the  work  has  also  covered 

10 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

programming  process  (through  a  web-survey  involving  a  representative  number  of 
Managing Authorities and interviews at European, national and/or regional levels).1  

The study has been monitored by a steering group composed of members from different 
Commission  services.  The  draft  final  report  has  been  shared  with  Member  States  and 
takes account of comments made in this context.  

The  findings  will  feed  into  the  Commission's  assessment  of  the  outcome  of 
programming negotiations and into further reflections on the future of the policy. 

General observations 

The  study  shows  that  the  new  provisions  have  significantly  altered  the  approach  to 
programming.  Most  prominently,  the  focus  on  results  has  required  programmers  to 
link  strategic  thinking,  result-based  management  and  place-based  policy  making. 
Programmers  were  encouraged  to  think  in  terms  of  a  hierarchy  of  objectives  and 
measuring results. The  new regulations relate strategic thinking with the objectives and 
the  means  (i.e.  the  Country-Specific  Recommendations  -  CSRs)  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy  in  line  with  territorial  needs.  Elements  of  result-based  management  appear  in 
the  compulsory  definition  of  the  specific  objectives  as  results  to  which  the  investment 
priorities contribute, and they are also present in the consistent requirements of defining 
and  using  indicators  and  the  performance  framework.  Place-based  policy  is  apparent  – 
inter alia2 – in the provisions of the integrated approach to territorial development. 

In  view  of  the  above,  the  structure  of  programming  documents  has  also  been 
substantially  changed  for  2014-2020.  The  new  programming  approach  makes  the 
strategy  behind  the  allocation  of  resources  more  specific,  more  transparent  and 
provides  a  consistent  structure.  The  links  between  means  (priority  axes,  investment 
categories and actions) on the one hand, and results on the other, are more specific than 
before. Priority axes and investment priorities play a parallel role here, but it is only the 
priority  axes  that  have  clearly  identified  financial  allocations.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
presentation  of  programmes  became  rather  complicated,  due  to  multi-priority  and 
multi-region axes. It remains to be seen whether in practice this makes the contribution 
of Cohesion Policy to Union priorities more evident and better measureable. 

1 – Provisions related to the contents of programming documents and the focus 
on results 

Strategic  programming  and  link  with  Europe  2020  strategy.    The  study  found 
considerable  alignment  between  the  priorities  of  Partnership  Agreements  and 
Cohesion  Policy  programmes  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  priorities  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy on the other. Explicit references to Europe 2020 strategy headline targets or 

1  For  this  purpose,  292  survey  questionnaires  were  sent  out  to  Managing  Authorities,  of  which  51%  were 
returned in a completed form. Overall, authorities from 26 MS responded,  EE and LT authorities did not (See 
also  Annex  4.20).  Also,  41  interviews  were  conducted,  covering  all  MS  except  HU  and  CY  where  no  partners 
were available  

2 The place-based approach also results from the overall intervention logic of the programmes, which are not 
only designed to reflect EU strategies but also territorial needs. 

11 

 
  
 
                                           
included 

recommendations  were 

in  43%  of  programmes 
country-specific 
representing  58%  of  Cohesion  Policy  budget.  The  highest  number  of  explicit 
references  to  Europe  2020  was  found  in  the  programmes  the  field  of  research  and 
innovation  and  low  carbon  economy.    In  Partnership  Agreements,  the  number  of 
references  to  Europe  2020  is  higher  than  the  number  of  references  to  other  strategic 
documents,  Operational  and  co-operation  programmes  are  more  policy-oriented  and 
include  references  both  to  Europe  2020  strategy  and  to  other  European  and  national 
policy  documents,  national  reform  programmes,  national  and  regional  strategies. 
Regional strategies were the most frequent starting points for programming, followed by 
national strategies and European policies.  

Thematic  concentration.  The  results  of  the  study  show  a  substantial  degree  of 
concentration of ERDF and the Cohesion Fund on thematic objectives. Altogether, 56% 
of  ERDF  budget  was  allocated  to  three  thematic  objectives  which  received  the  highest 
funding:  

  TO 1 

strengthening research, technological development and innovation (22%);  

  TO 3 

enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs (17%);  

  TO 4 

supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy (17%).   

In line with its Treaty objectives, Cohesion Fund allocations are strongly concentrated on 
TO 7 (transport and network infrastructures) and TO 6 (environment). 

The  allocations  of  more  developed  regions  are  focused,  first  of  all,  on  research  and 
innovation,  followed  by  SME  support  and  low  carbon  economy.  Less  developed  regions 
allocated the highest amounts of their ERDF and CF funding to four thematic objectives: 
research and innovation, network infrastructure, SME support and low carbon economy.  

Overall,  the  “menu  approach”  of  thematic  objectives  and  investment  priorities  made 
allocation and programming more transparent and programmes more apt to analysis and 
scrutiny.  Thematic  concentration  received  more  attention  during  programming, 
concentration  requirements  were  several  times  exceeded,  channelling  more  funds  to 
investment fields central to the Europe 2020 strategy. 

Result  orientation.  The  definitions  of  results  and  specific  objectives  used  in  the 
programmes  were  mostly  consistent  with  investment  priorities.  The  results  were  also 
rather  well  defined  in  terms  of  methodology:  only  1%  of  the  references  can  be 
considered as problematic (i.e. not reflecting genuine results or  specific objectives).  On 
the  other  hand,  the  definitions  of  actions  and  selection  criteria  were  in  many  cases  too 
broadly  defined.  OPs  used  a  broad  range  (several  hundred  types)  of  specific  objectives, 
expected  results,  actions  and  selection  principles.  However,  they  used  these  types  in  a 
rather  concentrated  manner:  one  quarter  of  them  account  for  three  quarters  of  the 
references.  Interestingly,  as  survey  results  show,  the  dialogue  with  partners  appears  to 
have  focussed  on  the  definition  of  actions.  Conversely,  the  dialogue  with  the  EC  was, 
apparently centred on improving the overall level of the intervention logic (objectives and 
results).  Overall,  the  transition  from  action-based  programming  to  a  result-based  one 
seems  to  have  proved  challenging  for  Member  States;  the  major  challenge  was,  in 
particular, the identification of result indicators.  

Building  of  priority  axes.  Half  of  the  ERDF  budget,  41%  of  ESF  funding  (in 
programmes  jointly  financed  with  ERDF)  and  21%  of  the  Cohesion  Fund  are  disbursed 
through  combined  priority  axes.  Under  the  Investment  for  Growth  and  Jobs  goal, 

12 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

complex  priority  axes  represent  29%  of  the  total  number  of  1.283  priority  axes 
representing 43% of its budget. Among them, only fifteen priority axes combine ESF and 
ERDF funding, giving a prevailing picture of mono-fund approach at priority axes level in 
the new programming period.3 More frequently, combined priority axes covered different 
categories of regions (8% of priority axes) or multiple thematic objectives (14%). Under 
the ETC goal, combined options only represent 11% of the priority axes.  In many cases, 
the Commission considered that further justification for the combination axes was needed 
as  this  risked  undermining  the  clarity  of  the  intervention  logic.  Still,  the  alternative  of 
using integrated territorial instruments instead of such axes was – as survey results show 
– in general not considered by Member States as an appropriate substitution. 

Financial  instruments.  The  new  regulatory  framework  supports  the  use  of  financial 
instruments (FI) in multiple policy areas. As programme data show, financial instruments 
are indeed planned to be used under at least nine, and possibly under all eleven thematic 
objectives.  With  the  exception  of  only  four  Member  States,  all  EU  countries  stated  their 
intention  to  make  use  of  such  instruments.  According  to  the  OPs,  financial  instruments 
will  account  for  9.5%  of  the  ERDF,  2.7%  of  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  1.3%  of  the  ESF 
allocations  included  in  multifund  programmes  covered  by  the  study.  The  average 
allocation to FIs is 7.2%4. This compares to 5% of ERDF allocation to FI in the previous 
period.  More  than  half  of  support  through  financial instruments  is  to  be  provided  in  the 
form  of  loans  and  equivalent  instruments,  and  one  quarter  through  support  to  venture 
capital  and  equity.  The  most  frequent  justification  for  using  financial  instruments, 
according  to  the  relevant  programmes  and  ex-ante  evaluations,  was  to  support 
potentially  profitable  projects  with  financing  needs  not  met  by  the  market,  and  to 
complement  the  funds  available  for  grants.  Speeding  up  the  deployment  of  EU 
assistance,  and  increasing  the  number  of  enterprises  (or  other  project  beneficiaries) 
benefitting from refundable assistance, were also the reasons behind the use of financial 
instruments.  Overall,  the  new  provisions  on  financial  instruments  enjoyed  a  cautious 
reception  by  Member  States  –  despite  the  possibility  of  reaching  higher  leverage  of  EU 
funds.   

Major projects.  They are planned across almost all thematic objectives, but their use is 
fairly  concentrated  on  one  or  two  investment  priorities  for  each  thematic  objective, 
except  for  promoting  sustainable  transport  and  removing  bottlenecks  in  key  network 
infrastructures that relies heavily on major projects in most investment priorities. 13% of 
the  planned  projects  are  phased  ones,  continuations  of  those  having  successfully 
implemented their first phase in the previous programming period. The phasing of major 
projects should contribute to the launch of operational programmes for 2014-2020. 

Use of co-financing rates.  Data show that there is variation in the co-financing rates 
especially  in  more  developed  regions,  transition  regions,  EU-15  Member  States  and  co-
operation  programmes.  At  the  same  time,  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  EU-13  programmes 
mostly  apply  maximum  rates.  Altogether,  one  third  of  the  programmes  foresee  to  use 

3  Only  8%  of  the  total  of  ERDF+ESF+CF  allocations  of  the  programmes  analysed  correspond  to  multifund 
priority  axes.  The  share  of  ESF  allocations  in  ESF  multifund  priority  axes  is  only  6,5%  of  the  total  ESF 
allocations to these programmes. 

4  These  figures  reflect  the  intentions  of  use  of  financial  instruments,  based  on  the  the  contents  of  the 
programmes. The actual uptake of FI will depend, inter alia, on the results of mandatory ex ante assessments.  

13 

 
                                           
modulation.  In  almost  two-thirds  of  these  cases  the  reason  is  the  importance  of  the 
priority axis for the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy. 

Horizontal principles. They received lot of attention in the programming documents. In 
particular,  horizontal  principles  of  sustainable  development,  social  inclusion  and  non-
discrimination  principles  have  been  included  in  the  highest  number  of  programmes  (in 
80-90%  of  programmes),  while  accessibility,  climate  change  and  demography  seem  to 
receive  comparatively  less  attention.  Mainstreaming  is  the  most  popular  method  to 
promote horizontal principles, mentioned in about 2/3 of PAs and programmes.  

2 – Integrated approach to territorial development 

Integrated  approaches  enable  the  combination  of  resources  from  different  funds  and 
can reinforce the territorial dimension of Cohesion Policy.  

As  data  show,  the  territorial  approach  has  received  considerable  attention  in 
programmes.  Every  Member  State  has  identified  territories  where  integrated  territorial 
approaches needed to  be applied, as well as specific challenges and development needs 
that  are  to  be  addressed  by  territorial  instruments.  Sixty  percent  of  the  managing 
authorities reported that their programme was primarily responding to regional and local 
needs, and only 11% said that it did not consider them. Purely sectoral OPs are therefore 
rare.  In  over  70%  of  the  cases  the  territorial  analysis  was  also  prepared  at  the  local 
level, reflecting a strong bottom-up element. In financial terms: 

  Altogether  20  MS  (94  programmes,  including  2  ETC  programmes)  are 
using integrated territorial investments (ITI). The amount allocated to 
ITI is € 14.77 billion, with 68% going to urban ITIs, and 87% coming from 
the ERDF.  

  The total amount allocated to sustainable urban development (SUD) is 
€  15.47  billion.  14,2  billion  (92,5%)  of  the  total  amount  for  SUD  is  to  be 
financed  by  the  ERDF  and  1,27  billion  (7,5%)  by  the  ESF  (in  multi-fund 
programmes). About half of that amount is delivered through ITIs.  

  The allocations to community-led local development (CLLD) – from the 
Cohesion Policy funds, not counting EAFRD or EMFF, is € 1.496 billion.  The 
share  of  ERDF  and  ESF  from  this  amount  is  81%  and  19%,  respectively. 
This  corresponds  to  around  0.6%  of  the  ERDF  budget  and  only  0.43%  of 
the total Cohesion Policy budget for the 28 Member States. 

This means that, at EU level, SUD is responsible for ca. 8% of the ERDF, which is almost 
50%  more  than  the  regulatory  requirement,  and  €  6.2  billion  of  ERDF  and  ESF 
(included  in  multi-fund  programmes)  are  invested  into  integrated  instruments  on  a 
voluntary  basis,  irrespective  of  any  regulatory  obligation.  Given  that  ITI  was  not 
compulsory,  and  there  was  no  additional  financial  incentive  –  e.g.  for  using  a  specific 
priority axis - the amount invested into it is also considerable.  

Compared  to  the  other  two  new  territorial  instruments,  the  investment  in  CLLD  seems 
rather  low  –  even  though  CLLD  had  a  precursor  and  there  also  was  an  extra  financial 
incentive  to  use  CLLD  –  if  a  specific  priority  axis  was  designed.  Its  use  is  also  rather 
concentrated: the top 3 countries are  responsible for almost half of the funds for CLLD. 
The  13  priority  axes  entirely  dedicated  to  CLLD  account  for  65%  of  the  allocated 
resources. Both facts suggest that the expansion of CLLD stays rather limited in cohesion 

14 

 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

policy funds. (At the same time ca. € 4 bn were allocated to CLLD from EAFRD, which is 
not included in the numbers above.) 

The  arguments  motivating  Member  States  for  or  against  the  use  of  territorial 
instruments were explored both through the survey and interviews. On the positive side 
the  most  frequently  mentioned  aspects  were  their  ability  to  address  complex,  cross-
sectoral  challenges  and  needs  in  a  territorial  context,  and  the  possibility  to  involve 
stakeholders from the sub-national level. Those who decided against them claimed that 
they were not appropriate to their programmes  –  e.g. because they targeted  objectives 
that were served by predominantly sectoral policies (especially TOs on R&D, ITC and SME 
development).  Some  respondents  also  perceived  the  new  tools  as  being  complicated.5 
Further reservations, in case of Member States with limited EU allocations were related to 
a perceived danger of “dispersing” scarce resources into smaller programmes.  

As  regards  the  integrated  nature  of  interventions  under  these  instruments  programme 
data reflect that: 

 

 

ITIs  and  SUD  are  focused  mainly  on  urban  areas,  followed  by  urban-
rural  and  rural  areas.  CLLD  in  turn  is  most  present  in  rural  areas,  and 
fisheries  areas.  At  the  same  time,  in  almost  50%  of  programmes  where 
CLLD  has  been  selected  it  will  be  available  to  urban  areas  as  well.  Areas 
with  permanent  natural  handicaps,  or  those  affected  by  poverty  or  with 
sizeable vulnerable groups, are less emphasised. 
In  terms  of  needs  to  be  addressed  and  actions  planned,  both  integrated 
instruments  in  general,  as  well  as  CLLD  in  particular,  focus  on  SME 
development,  employment,  social  inclusion  and  the  environment. 
For  ITI  and  SUD,  the  list  of  priority  investment  areas  includes  also 
connectivity,  research  &  development,  and  education.  For  CLLD,  natural 
and  cultural  heritage,  education  and  urban-rural  linkages  are  also 
important6.  

The  above  suggests  that  under  all  three  territorially  integrated  instruments  there  is  a 
wide  range  of  needs  to  be  addressed,  which  suggests  a  demand  for  integrated 
approach.  At  the  same  time,  the  scope  for  applying  the  integrated  instruments  in  all 
sectors and types of areas has not yet been exhausted.  

In addition, the study found that: 

  Areas  for  European  territorial  co-operation  have  been  identified  in 
programming  documents,  with  environmental  protection,  transport,  SME 
as well as research and development selected most frequently as priorities. 
Programmes  contain  also  many  references  to  macro-regional  and  sea-
basin  strategies  –  among  them  mainly  to  the  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea 
Region  and  the  Danube  Strategy.  Nevertheless,  due  to  procedural 
differences7, synergies between mainstream OPs and ETC, as well as ESIF 

5 Note: Opinions on this point are divided in Member States. Around half of the managing authorities of those 
programmes where the territorial instruments are used, did not report any major difficulty in deploying them. 

6 For details, please refer to sections 3.8.4 and 3.9.2 of the study 

7 The programming schedules for the “mainstream” OPs and those for territorial co-operation differed. Macro-
regional  and  sea-basin  strategies  are  drafted  in  a  process  separate  from  cohesion  policy  programming.  A  co-
financing by ESIF to such strategies is not a priori guaranteed by regulatory provisions (see also Chapter 3.12). 

15 

 
                                           
programmes  and  macro-regional  and  sea-basin  strategies  proved  difficult 
to achieve in the programming process. There are question marks reported 
by  interview  partners  to  what  extent  "mainstream  programmes"  will  in 
practice  be  able  to  contribute  to  transnational  co-operation  and  macro-
regional  strategies.  In  this  area  therefore,  good  co-ordination  during 
implementation will be of particular importance.  

  Specific  integrated  approaches  towards  poor  regions  and  vulnerable 
groups appear in slightly more than half of the Member States. The most 
frequent  types  of  territories  among  poor  regions  are  those  with  socially 
marginalised  communities,  urban-rural  areas,  and  areas  with  permanent 
geographical  or  demographic  handicaps.  The  social  groups  to  be  most 
frequently  targeted  in  ERDF/  CF  programmes  (including  multi-fund  OPs) 
are the unemployed, the young, disabled people and minorities. The range 
of  planned  actions  reflects  a  rather  sectoral  approach.  Human  services, 
such as employment, education and social and antidiscrimination policy are 
at  the  top  of  Member  States’  intervention  lists,  other  policy  areas 
necessary  for  a  more  integrated  approach  (e.g.:  SME  promotion)  are  less 
present.  During  the  negotiations,  DG  Employment  was  pushing  for  a 
target-group-based  approach  when  addressing  the  needs  of  the  poor.  On 
this  point  though,  there  was  resistance  from  some  Member  States 
preferring a territorially based approach.8 

  The  regions  with  permanent  geographical  handicaps  are  generally 
identified  in  PAs  and  OPs,  although  the  number  of  OPs  addressing  those 
regions  is  rather  low.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  coherence  between 
needs  identified  and  actions  planned,  and  planned  actions  cover  a  wide 
range  of  policy  areas,  which  suggests  an  integrated  approach.  Overall, 
there  were  very  few  difficulties  mentioned  by  Member  States  in  the 
application  of  the  provisions  targeted  at  regions  with  permanent 
handicaps.  This  is  most  likely  thanks  to  the  considerable  experience 
countries  concerned  have  already  accumulated.  The  main  issue  which 
hinders implementation according to MAs is apparently the lack of accurate 
data and indicators specific to these areas. 

Overall,  with  respect  to  the  above  three  points,  it  appears  that  in  certain  cases  not  all 
relevant  objectives,  regions  and  target  groups  are  addressed  by  Member  States,  and, 
even where these specific territorial aspects appear, programmes do not contain specific 
(financial)  commitments.  This  may  be  related  to  methodological  problems  (e.g.  in 
programming  ETC),  the  scarcity  of  resources  –  e.g.  in  more  developed  Member  States, 
where funding has to be concentrated on an even more limited number of areas – or the 
perception  that  a  problem  –  e.g.  poverty  –  is  not  territorially  defined.  In  any  case,  the 
implementation  of  programme  elements  related  to  territorial  co-operation  and  macro-
regional  strategies,  regions  affected  by  poverty,  vulnerable  groups  and  areas  with 
permanent handicaps, should be closely monitored.   

Another  important  aspect  in  relation  to  integrated  territorial  approaches  is  the  sharing 
of tasks between the  programme authorities and  beneficiaries of assistance at regional 
and  local  levels.  For  all  instruments,  it  appears  that  the  willingness  of  programme 

8 See section 3.13.6 of the study 

16 

 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

authorities  to  delegate  functions  –  unless  it’s  compulsory,  as  in  the  case  of  SUD  –  is 
limited.  

The  key  challenges  (difficulties)  related  to  territorial  instruments  are,  apparently, 
related  to  programming:  establishing  a  coherent  framework  for  addressing  different 
kinds  of  territorial  challenges,  reconciling  with  each  other  territorial  approaches  and 
sectoral  policies,  and  the  preparation  of  good  quality  territorial  development  strategies. 
Difficulties with understanding and applying the regulation – although they did appear in 
interviews – seem to be secondary.  

3 – Expected effectiveness of programme management 

New  provisions  related  to  management  –  funds  co-ordination;  capacity  building,  the 
reduction  of  the  burden,  horizontal  principles  or  electronic  administration  –  are,  again, 
not  entirely  “new”.  They  have  been  the  subject  of  continuous  discussion  between  the 
Commission  and  Member  States  in  recent  years.  Nevertheless,  the  programming 
templates  required  Member  States  to  provide  substantially  more  specific  details  on 
these aspects than in previous periods. In general, Member States did comply with these 
requirements,  which  provides  a  good  basis  for  developing  implementation  capacity. 
Implementation-related  new  provisions  were  among  the  less  controversial  elements  of 
the negotiations between the Commission and Member States.  

Coordination  between  the  ESI  Funds,  other  funding  and  EIB:  At  the  level  of 
programming documents, Member States paid considerable attention to the co-ordination 
of funds and policies. Co-ordination was the strongest among the ESI Funds themselves, 
followed  by  other  EU  instruments  like  Horizon  2020,  LIFE,  COSME  and  CEF,  and  then 
national funds and the EIB.  As regards methods of co-ordination, the efforts are focused 
on  programming,  in  particular  through  a  synergetic  use  of  funds  via  joint  strategies, 
multi-fund programmes etc., as well as on institutional arrangements, such as the use of 
the  co-ordination body in the sense of Art. 123(8). Co-ordination during implementation 
was mentioned less often, which may indicate some weaknesses. Surveys and interviews 
confirmed  the  view  that  overall  co-ordination  improved,  especially  in  the  programming 
phase. 

Administrative capacity building. New provisions in this field include the requirements 
to  assess  gaps  in  administrative  capacities  of  authorities  and  beneficiaries  and  to 
describe main actions to reinforce administrative capacities. Member States fulfilled these 
requirements,  but  the  quality  of  the  action  plans  was  assessed  in  the  study  as  rather 
weak.  The  areas  in  which  programme  authorities  had  the  most  urgent  capacity  building 
needs  included  project  selection,  monitoring  and  evaluation  (including  results-oriented 
management), as well as financial control, public procurement and state aid. As regards 
capacity  building  of  beneficiaries,  Member  States’  needs  were  fairly  evenly  spread 
between  project  generation,  public  procurement,  financial  management  and  monitoring. 
As  regards  possible  difficulties  in  capacity  building,  interviewed  authorities  cited  the 
complexity  and  exceedingly  technical  nature  of  management  rules,  especially  with 
respect to state aids and public procurement, followed by financial instruments.  

Reducing  administrative  burden  on  beneficiaries.  Programming  documents  contain 
a  lot  of  information  regarding  the  administrative  burden  on  beneficiaries,  and  planned 
actions  to  reduce  it.  In  about  half  of  the  cases,  this  information  is  based  on  a  detailed 

17 

 
 
needs  assessments.  The  most  important  actions  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden 
include  the  increased  use  of  simplified  cost  options  and  e-cohesion,  as  well  as 
simplification  of  application,  procurement  and  payment  procedures  and  a  reduction  of 
archiving requirements.  

E-cohesion.  New provisions in this area include a requirement for  electronic exchange 
of  information  between  programme  authorities  and  beneficiaries.    An  analysis  of  data 
from  Partnership  Agreements  indicates  clear  progress  in  all  Member  States  and  with 
respect to all stages of the programme cycle. Full electronic administration and electronic 
access  for  beneficiaries  to  the  IT  management  systems  is  envisaged  all  over  the  EU. 
Steps  towards  the  integration  of  other  national  IT  systems  and  the  elimination  of  the 
paper  trail  –  as  suggested  by  the  EC’s  relevant  e-cohesion  guidelines  –  are  also 
envisaged.   

Overall,  Member  States  are  optimistic  about  prospects  to  improve  funds’  management 
in the new period. Still, the level of detail regarding planned actions in programmes could 
be deeper. Plans to reduce the administrative burden, for instance, were, in many cases, 
not based on thorough needs assessments.  

The  implementation  of  the  management-related  new  provisions  will  be  key  for  the 
overall success of the new regulatory framework. It is too early to judge, to what extent 
Member  States’  capacity  building  plans  in  the  PAs  and  programmes  shall  be  realised. 
Continued  attention  –  and  co-operation  between  the  Commission  and  programme 
authorities, and among programme authorities – will be required especially in the areas 
of  funds  co-ordination,  and  results-oriented  management,  as  synergetic  programming 
alone may not be sufficient to ensure a close co-operation among ESI and other EU funds 
and may lead to working in silos with losing out on real synergy effects by combined or 
coordinated investments.9  

4 - The Negotiation Process 

The  negotiation  process  was  examined  through  the  survey  and  the  interviews  with 
national  EU  funds  coordinating  bodies,  managing  authorities  and  the  Commission 
officials.  

In  about  two-thirds  of  the  cases,  the  Partnership  Agreement  and  the  operational 
programmes  were  prepared  in  parallel.  More  frequently  it  was  the  Partnership 
Agreement  that  provided  the  strategic  framework  which  programmes  followed.  In  the 
ESF – in some contrast to the ERDF and CF – it was rather the operational programmes 
where strategic issues were settled. According to interviews, co-ordination on the side of 
Member  States  differed  according  to  governance  traditions,  prevailing  policy,  as  well  as 
administrative capacity. There is no dominant method or approach that could be said to 
be  “typical”.  On  the  Commission’s  side,  negotiations  are  reported  to  have  been  more 
strongly  co-ordinated  than  in  previous  planning  periods.  There  was  a  new  matrix 
structure  established  between  functional  and geographical units,  which  co-operated  and 
discussed  the  status  of  programming  several  times  during  the  negotiations.  In  general, 

9  In  this respect,  mention should  be  made of  a parallel  study commissioned  by DG REGIO  with  regard  to  the 
implementation of new provisions on ex ante conditionalities. Such conditionalities are important to ensure that 
the use of ESIF funds takes place in an appropriate policy, strategic, regulatory and institutional environment.  

18 

 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Commission  officials  assessed  the  process  as  resource  intensive,  but  useful.  Reinforced 
co-ordination  within  the  Commission  has  also  resulted  in  a  more  unified  approach 
towards  the  Member  States.  These  factors  have  apparently  helped  the  Commission  to 
negotiate effectively, as survey data have demonstrated. 

The  most  frequently  mentioned  factor  that  influenced  the  negotiations  overall  –  as 
Managing  Authorities  reported  –  was  the  informal  dialogue  with  the  European 
Commission. Specifically, it was reported to have had the biggest impact on the definition 
of specific objectives, the selection of actions and the use of indicators. It was also cited 
as the most important  element  of the negotiations  and with regard to the  co-ordination 
of  funds.  The  feedback  from  MAs  also  underscores  the  importance  of  partnership  with 
domestic stakeholders, especially in the areas of selecting objectives and actions, the use 
of  Integrated  Territorial  Investments  and  Community-led  Local  Development,  as  well  as 
efforts to reduce the administrative burden on beneficiaries.  

On  average,  for  about  half  of  the  issues  that  were  addressed  during  programming, 
managing  authorities  did  not  report  major  differences  of  opinion.  Where  there  was 
disagreement,  in  almost  two  thirds  of  the  cases  (29%  overall),  a  compromise  solution 
was  found,  somewhere  “half  way”  between  the  negotiating  positions  of  the  EU  and  the 
Member State. For the remaining open questions, it seems to have been the Commission 
that has carried the day, twice as often as the Member State. Overall, this would indicate 
both a general tendency towards flexibility and seeking consensus, as well as a relatively 
strong position of the EC during the negotiations. 

Areas  with  apparently  the  largest  initial  differences  are  the  use  of  indicators,  the 
selection of actions to be supported and the definition of specific objectives, but also the 
use  of  combination  axes.  The  areas  with  the  highest  degree  of  consensus  from  the 
beginning include co-ordination with transnational actions and ETC, and the co-ordination 
among funds and with EU policies. 

The Commission seems to have been the most flexible towards Member State’s proposals 
with respect to the use of combination axes; as well as the use of Integrated Territorial 
Instruments and Community-led Local Development. Conversely, Member States needed 
to  adjust  their  positions  above  all  in  relation  to  the  use  of  indicators,  the  definition  of 
objectives, and the selection of thematic objectives. 

Overall,  perhaps  most  importantly,  on  the  basis  of  the  new  regulatory  framework, 
Member States made a significant step towards reinforcing the  result-orientation 
of  Cohesion  Policy,  on  the  basis  of  the  Union’s  strategy  for  smart  sustainable  and 
inclusive  growth.  The  actual  achievement  of  results  and  any  future  progress  into  this 
direction  will,  of  course,  depend  on  the  experience  from  implementation.  The  study 
attached contains more details and further specific conclusions with respect to each of 
the 19 new provisions addressed. 

19 

 
1  BACKGROUND 

As a result of a wide-ranging debate lasting several years, the EU’s cohesion policy has 
undergone a major reform for the period 2014-2020.  

  On  the  one  hand,  it  has  retained  its  original  treaty  mandate  to 
strengthen  the  EU’s  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion,  as  well  as 
reducing  disparities  between  regions,  and  the  backwardness  of  the  least 
favoured territories. (European Union, 2009, p. Art. 174)  

  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  established  as  the  EU's  main 
investment policy to support the achievement of European objectives, as 
described in the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth.  

In  other  words,  cohesion  policy’s  twin  objectives  of  solidarity  and  development  have 
found a new, sustainable balance. 

The reform debate addressed all aspects of policy, and all stages of programme design 
and  delivery.  Some  of  its  key  outcomes  that  found  their  way  into  the  new  regulatory 
framework are:  

  The  identification  of  eleven  thematic  objectives  on  the  basis  of  Europe 
2020 in order to maximise the impact of ESI investments, and to provide a 
basis for the concentration of funds on a limited number of priorities in all 
Member States (Member States) and regions; 

  An  increased  focus  on  measureable  results,  in  all  programmes,  from 
the initial design stage on. Each programme is required to establish a clear 
intervention  logic,  a  set  specific  objectives,  and  to  determine  clearly  the 
results expected – in line with needs identified in the area addressed; 

  An increased use  of  financial instruments in SME promotion, to provide 
better  access  to  funding  and  reduce  aid  dependency;  but  also  in  other 
information  and  communication 
areas,  such  as  energy  efficiency, 
technology, transport and R&D support; 

  The 

introduction  –  or 

further  development  –  of  new  ways  of 
implementing  the  policy  to  tackle  territorial  challenges  including 
integrated  territorial  investments,  community-led  local  development  and 
multi-fund programmes combining ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion Fund; 
  Improved  co-ordination  of  the  ESI  funds  through  common  regulatory 
provisions  and  a  Common  Strategic  Framework  to  provide  strategic 
direction  –  in  order  to  achieve  synergies  and  avoid  overlaps  with  each 
other as well as with EU and national instruments and policies; helping to 
promote horizontal principles;  

  Renewed  efforts  for  an  effective  and  efficient  implementation  of 
programmes  on  the  ground,  inter  alia,  through  the  reinforcement  of 
administrative  capacity,  simplification  and 
the 
administrative burden on beneficiaries – including “e-cohesion”. 

reduction  of 

the 

Parallel studies examined the uptake of other important new regulatory provisions, 
regarding  

20 

 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

 

 

the  use  of  ex  ante  conditionalities,  designed  to  ensure  that  the 
existence  of  an  effectiveness  of  EU  investment  is  not  undermined  by 
unsound policies, regulatory, administrative or institutional bottlenecks;  
the  performance  framework,  defined  for  each  programme  priority10,  to 
monitor progress towards achieving objectives and targets and in order to 
promote and reward good performance; 

  partnership  and  multi-level  governance,  strengthened  in  particular 
of  the  European  Code  of  Conduct  on 

introduction 

through  the 
Partnership11.  

In October 2014, the European Commission launched a series of studies examining 
the application of new regulatory provisions for 2014-2020. The overall purpose of 
the work was to develop an evidence-base on how these new provisions were used in 
the  new  Partnership  Agreements  and  programmes  financed  by  the  European  Regional 
including  multi-fund 
Development  Fund  (ERDF)  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  (CF), 
programmes.  

This report covers the results of a detailed examination of  19 groups new provisions, 
related to: 

  1 - strategic programming  
  2 - thematic concentration  
  3 - the building of priority axes  
  4 - result-orientation ('Intervention logic') 
  5 - the planned use of financial instruments  
  6 - the planned use of major projects  
  7 - the use of co-financing rates  

 

Integrated approaches to territorial development, including 

o  8 - the analysis of territorial challenges in programming documents; 
o  9 - community-led local development (CLLD); 
o  10 - integrated territorial investments – ITI; 
o  11 - actions for sustainable urban development; 
o  12 - macro-regional and sea-basin strategies; 
o  13  -  the  specific  needs  of  geographical  areas  most  affected  by 
poverty;  and  with  populations  at  the  highest  risk  of  discrimination 
and social exclusion; 

o  14  -  regions  which  suffer  from  severe  and  permanent  natural  or 

demographic handicaps;  

  15 - the coordination between the ESI funds and other Union and national 

funding instruments and with the European Investment Bank  

  16 - administrative capacity building  
  17 - actions to reduce administrative burden on beneficiaries 

10  Except for  technical  assistance  and  programmes dedicated  to  financial  instruments  in  favour of SME  as  set 
out in Art. 39 of the CPR). 

11 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) N°204/2014 of 7 January 2014 on the European code of conduct on 
partnership in the framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  18 - horizontal principles and policy objectives 
  19 - the efficient implementation of the ESI Funds (e-cohesion). 

The specific objectives of the analysis were to deliver: 

(1) A  synthesis  of  how  the  new  provisions  are  reflected  in  all  Partnership 
Agreements,  operational  programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  CF, 
including  multi-fund  programmes,  and  ETC  programmes  financed  by  the 
ERDF; 

(2) An  assessment  of  how  the  new  provisions  have  been  used  during  the 

programming phase; 

(3) Conclusions  on  strengths  and  weaknesses  with  regard  to  the  application 
of  the  new  provisions  during  the  programming  phase,  as  well  as  first 
conclusions on their value. 

The 1st objective was addressed through desk studies of  

the 28 Partnership Agreements,  

 
  217  Operational  Programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  CF,  including 
the  92  multi-fund  programmes  co-financed  by  the  ESF,  as  well  as  the  75 
Co-operation Programmes financed by the ERDF12. 

  Desk  studies  also  covered  the  relevant  parts  of  the  Commission’s  formal 
observations on all Partnership Agreements and relating programmes. 

The 2nd and 3rd objectives were examined using  

 
 

the outcome of the desk studies;  
the  relevant  parts  of  ex  ante  evaluations  carried  out 
programme13;  

for  each 

  an on-line survey covering all Managing Authorities14; and  
  a  total  of  41  interviews  of  the  main  relevant  actors  at  Union  level 
(geographical desks in DG REGIO and DG EMPL and competence centres in 
DG  REGIO  etc.)  and  at  national  level  (through  a  selection  of  coordinating 
ministries/services/bodies 
the  Member  States  and  Managing 
authorities).15  

in 

In  addition,  results  from  documentary  analysis  were  also  subjected  to  deeper  statistical 
analysis. (See annex 4. for details) 

12  At  the  time  of  conducting  the  analysis,  13  OPs  and  33  ETC  programmes  were  not  yet  finally  adopted. 
Therefore, the last available versions at that time ( July 30th, 2015) were examined. 

13 in accordance with Article 55 of the CPR (Regulation of the EP and the Council No. 1303/2013). 

14 Overall, 292 survey questionnaires were sent out to Managing Authorities, of which 51% were returned in a 
completed form. Overall,  authorities from 26  MEMBER STATES responded,  EE  and  LT authorities  did  not  (See 
also Annex 4.20).  

15  The  process  covered  all  Member  States,  except  Hungary  and  Cyprus  (where  no  interviews  could  be 
organised). See also Annex 4.21) 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The  findings  are  to  feed  into  the  Commission's  assessment  of  the  outcome  of 
programming  negotiations  and  into  further  reflections  on  the  future  of  the  policy.  They 
may also contribute to improving the implementation of these new provisions during the 
implementation phase of the 2014-2020 programmes. 

Providing an overview of the outcomes of the research 

  Chapter 2 summarises results regarding the negotiation process overall; 
  Chapter  3  reviews  the  application  of  each  of  the  19  new  provisions 
examined. At the end of the Chapter, we also provide a tabular overview of 
the  application  of  the  new  provisions  during  the  programming  phase,  as 
well as key findings. 

23 

 
 
 
 
2  THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS 

The  negotiation  process  was  examined  through  the  survey  and  the  interviews. 
Research  questions  addressed  both  horizontal  and  provision-specific  angles.  In  this 
Chapter,  we  concentrate  on  horizontal  lessons.  In  Chapter  3,  we  will  review  findings 
specific to each policy area.  

The overall process 

In  about  two-thirds  of  the  cases,  the  Partnership  Agreement  and  the  operational 
programmes  were  prepared  in  parallel.  More  frequently  it  was  the  partnership 
agreement  that  provided  the  strategic  framework  which  programmes  followed.  It  was 
only in about 10% of the cases where the preparation of programmes was done bottom-
up  and  PAs  were  therefore  an  aggregation  of  programmes  data  and  orientations.    (See 
also Chapter 3.1 on Strategic Programming).  

At the same time, officials from DG Employment pointed out that in the case of the ESF 
– in some contrast to the ERDF and CF – it was rather the operational programmes 
where  strategic  issues  were  settled.  To  them,  the  real  policy  questions  came  onto 
the  table  only  with  the  selection  of  investment  priorities,  and  that  is  where  the  DG  has 
focussed their efforts.  

According  to  interviews,  co-ordination  on  the  side  of  Member  States  differed 
according  to  governance  traditions,  prevailing policy,  as  well  as  administrative  capacity. 
There  is  no  dominant  method  or  approach  that  could  be  said  to  be  “typical”.  In  some 
cases  it  was  one  ministry  –  or  the  office  of  the  prime  minister  –  that  dominated  the 
discussions,  while  sector  ministries  and  regions  were  following  the  lead.  Elsewhere, 
despite  a  centralised  government  tradition,  co-ordination  between  PA  and  OP  writers 
proved weak, due to limits in administrative capacity. In federal systems, like Belgium or 
Germany,  as  well  as  in  France,  it  was  the  regions  that  took  the  lead.  In  Belgium,  this 
even  led  to  the  preparation  of  a  bi-lingual  Partnership  Agreement.  Conversely,  in  Italy, 
the government wished to co-ordinate more strongly despite the large weight of regional 
OPs. Accordingly, the Italian Partnership Agreement is a rather more detailed document.  

On  the  Commission’s  side,  negotiations  are  reported  to  have  been  more  strongly  co-
ordinated  than  in  previous  planning  periods.  There  was  a  new  matrix  structure 
established between functional and geographical units, which co-operated and discussed 
the status of programming several times during the negotiations. In general, Commission 
officials assessed the process as resource intensive, but useful.  At the same time, there 
were  complaints  about  excessive  bureaucracy,  and  delays.  Reinforced  co-ordination 
within  the  Commission  has  also  resulted  in  a  more  unified  approach  towards  the 
Member  States.  These  factors  have  apparently  helped  the  Commission  to  negotiate 
effectively  (as  survey  data  will  demonstrate  further  below).  At  the  same  time,  at  least 
one  Country  Unit  remarked  that  this  centralised  approval  resulted  in  quite  rigid 
negotiating  mandates,  which  in  some  cases  did  not  allow  finding  solutions  that  would 
have been tailored to national needs. 

24 

 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Factors influencing the content of programmes 

In  order  to  assess  the  overall  impact  of  the  negotiation  process  on  the  content  of 
programmes, the survey asked Managing Authorities where and why the content of the 
final  programming  documents  was  significantly  different  from  the  initial  position 
(intentions)  of  the  Member  States.  Where  such  changes  have  occurred,  these  were 
deemed to be the effect of negotiations. Conversely, where the outcome of programming 
was the same as the Member State’s starting position, the negotiations, apparently, have 
not made a major impact.  

The  list  of  factors  that  survey  respondents  could  choose  from,  in  order  to  explain  the 
reasons and motivations behind an eventual change of Member State positions, included: 

Informal dialogue with the Commission 

  The text of the regulations 
  Commission guidance materials  
 
  The EC position paper issued at the beginning of the negotiations 
  Formal observations by the Commission on draft programming documents 
  Opinion of the (domestic) partners 
  Domestic legal, institutional or methodological context 
  Ex ante evaluations. 

For  each  of  the  19  policy  areas  that  the  survey  addressed,  MAs  could  select  up  to  3 
factors,  or  choose  none,  if  they  considered  that  the  negotiations  did  not  make  a 
significant impact on their choices in that particular policy area.  

According  to  results,  the  most  important  factors  that  influenced  the  outcome  of  the 
negotiations were the informal dialogue with the Commission, and the provisions of the 
new  regulations  on the one hand,  and the  national  legal-institutional  context and 
the opinion of partners consulted during programming, on the other. 

Figure 1 - Factors influencing the outcome of programming (overall) 

Opinion of the (domestic) partners

Ex ante evaluation

11% 

Domestic legal, institutional context

Informal dialogue with the Commission

Formal comments from the Commission

EC position paper

8% 

Commission guidance materials

Actual text of the regulation

14% 

12% 

18% 

19% 

20% 

19% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

(Percentage  of  respondents  indicating  the  role  of  a  given  negotiation  factor,  across  the  19  policy  areas,  on 
average) 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The significance of the individual factors was, of course, different according to area 
(provision): 

  The informal dialogue – taking place during 2013 between the European 
Commission and each Member State, following the handover of the official 
positions from the European Commission for the programming negotiations 
at  the  end  of  2012,  and  providing  an  additional  forum  to  discuss 
programming  priorities  –  was  the  most  frequently  mentioned  negotiation 
factor overall. Specifically, it was reported to have had the biggest impact 
on the definition of specific objectives, the selection of actions and the use 
of  indicators.  It  was  also  cited  as  the  most  important  element  of  the 
negotiations with regard to the co-ordination of funds 

  The  text  of  regulations  was  the  most  important  point  of  reference  for 
Member States with regard to 8 out of the 19 aspects listed. Among them, 
those  most  frequently  mentioned  were  strategic  programming  (Europe 
2020); the selection of thematic objectives; results and actions, as well as 
the use of indicators.  

  The  Commission’s  guidance  materials  were  most  often  consulted  with 
regard  to  the  use  of  indicators,  as  well  as  the  definition  of  objectives  and 
results. 

  The  EC’s  initial  position  paper  impacted  above  all  on  the  references  to 

Europe 2020, and the selection of thematic objectives. 

  Formal  EC  Observations  had  a  major  influence  –  just  like  the  informal 
dialogue  –  on  the  identification  of  specific  objectives,  actions  and 
indicators. 

  The  domestic  legal,  institutional  and  methodological  context  was 
reported  to  have  been  key  for  the  co-ordination  among  funds,  the 
approach to sustainable urban development, combating poverty, as well as 
measures to ease the administrative burden on beneficiaries. 

  Ex-ante  evaluations  were  mentioned  as  influential  with  respect  to 
indicators,  the  definition  of  objectives,  as  well  the  selection  of  thematic 
objectives.  

  The opinion of partners in programming was most important with regard 
territorial 
to  selecting  objectives,  actions, 
investments  and  community-led  local  development,  as  well  as  efforts  to 
reduce the administrative burden on beneficiaries. 

the  use  of 

integrated 

These results are graphically presented in Figure 2 overleaf. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 2 - Significance of negotiation factors by policy area (summary) 

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Opinion of the (domestic) partners

Ex ante evaluation

Domestic legal, institutional or methodological context

Informal dialogue with the Commission

Formal comments from the Commission

EC position paper

Commission guidance materials

Actual text of the regulation

27 

 
 
Still  using  the  same  data,  it  is  interesting  also  to  compare  the  influence  of  the 
informal  dialogue with the EC  on the one hand,  and the exchanges with  domestic 
partners  on  the  other.  As  Figure  3  demonstrates,  both  types  of  discussions  focussed 
predominantly  on  the  content  of  programmes  (rather  than,  say,  technical  management 
issues).  Thereby,  the  talks  with  the  Commission  had  a  relatively  larger  impact  with 
respect to the choice of objectives and results, while in exchanges with domestic partners 
the selection of actions was emphasised. To put it differently, the Commission apparently 
showed interest towards policy aspects, while domestic partners concentrated somewhat 
more on what could be financed out of the programmes.  

Also,  the  opinion  of  the  domestic  partners  weighed  significantly  with  respect  to  the 
administrative burden on beneficiaries.  

Figure 3 - Significance of the informal dialogue with the EC vs. the opinion of 
domestic partners 

Horizontal principles

Administrative burden

Capacity development

Co-ordination with EU
policies

EU 2020

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Thematic objectives

Results

Flexibilities

Financial Instruments

Co-ordination of funds

Combination axes

Poverty

Specific objectives

Transnational and ETC

Selection of actions

SUD

Result indicators

ITI

CLLD

Informal dialogue with the Commission

Opinion of the (domestic) partners

Impact of Exchanges with the Commission 

Another survey question was posed to managing authorities in order to identify how the 
exchanges  with  the  Commission,  specifically,  have  influenced  Member  States’ 
choices.  

For  each  policy  area,  respondents  could  indicate,  whether  the  positions  of  the  Member 
States and the EC coincided from the beginning, or whether the Member States or the EC 
have changed their initial views, reaching an intermediate arrangement, or resulting in a 
totally  new  approach.  In  other  words,  results  indicate,  whose  position  (that  of  the 
Commission or that of the Member State) seems to have prevailed in a given area  – as 
seen through the eyes of the managing authorities responding.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

On average, for about half of the issues that were addressed during programming, 
managing  authorities  did  not  report  major  differences  of  opinion.  Where  there  was 
disagreement, in almost two thirds of the cases (29% overall), a compromise solution 
was  found,  somewhere  “half  way”  between  the  negotiating  positions  of  the  EU  and  the 
Member State. For the remaining open issues, it seems to have been the Commission 
that  has  carried  the  day,  twice  as  often  as  the  Member  State.  Overall,  this  would 
indicate  both  a  general  tendency  towards  flexibility  and  seeking  consensus,  as  well 
as a relatively strong position of the EC during the negotiations.  

Figure 4 - Impact of exchanges with the Commission16 

AVERAGE
EU 2020
Thematic objectives
Results
Flexibilities
Financial instruments
Cobmiantion axes
Specific objectives
Selection of actions
Result indicators
ITI
CLLD
SUD
Transnational & ETC
Poverty
Co-ordination of Funds
Co-ordination with EU policies
Capacity Development
Administrative Burden
Horizontal principles

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

EC accepted MS position

Compromise

EC changed position

No disagreement

As regards individual areas, based on the survey responses by MA,  

  The  Commission  seems  to  have  been  most  flexible  towards  Member 
State’s proposals with respect to the use of combination axes; as well 
as  the  use  of  Integrated  Territorial  Instruments  and  community-led 
local development.  

  Conversely,  Member  States  needed  to  adjust  their  positions  above 
all  in  relation  to  the  use  of  indicators,  the  definition  of  objectives,  and 
the selection of thematic objectives.  

  Areas  with  apparently  the  largest  initial  differences  are  the  use  of 
indicators, the selection of  actions to be supported and the definition of 
specific objectives, but also the use of combination axes. 

16 For a more detailed explanation of the graph pls. see the first two paragraphs of this subchapter. 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                           
  Areas with the highest degree of consensus from the beginning include 
co-ordination  with  transnational  actions  and  ETC,  and  the  co-
ordination among funds and with EU policies. 

Overall, results are coherent with the results from the other horizontal question 
discussed  above  (regarding  factors  of  change).  They  confirm  that  negotiations 
concentrated on the substance  of programmes, with the most debated points related to 
the  choice  of  objectives.  The  apparent  intensity  of  the  debate  in  relation  to  indicators 
shows  significant  attention  paid  to  results-orientation  and  enhancing  the 
methodology  of  programming  towards  a  more  developed  performance  framework, 
although it also involved considerable technical work On the other hand, there seemed to 
be a mutual openness towards using ESI Funds in a co-ordinated and strategic manner, 
in synergy with different available policy instruments. 

30 

 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3  RESEARCH RESULTS BY PROVISION 

3.1  STRATEGIC PROGRAMMING 

3.1.1  Background 

In  line  with  the  conclusions  for  the  European  Council  of  17  June  2010,  the  Union  has 
established  its  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  (Europe  2020).  In 
this context cohesion policy has been positioned as a key investment policy to support 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, while promoting harmonious development of the 
Union  and  reducing  regional  disparities,  in  accordance  with  Article  174  of  the  Treaty  on 
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).  

ESI Funds are to play a significant role in this.  (CPR, p. Recital 3). Therefore, legislative 
changes  have  been  introduced  into  the  cohesion  policy  regulations  to  ensure  that  the 
policy  –  commanding  one  third  of  the  EU  budget  –  provides  European  added  value, 
and  produces  measureable  results  contributing to  the  EU’s  overall  policy  objectives.  For 
the period 2014-2020, cohesion policy’s objectives have been brought into line with the 
Europe  2020  strategy.  The  strategy  and  the  related  Country-Specific  Recommendations 
(CSR)  of  the  Council  are  systematically  being  taken  into  account  when  planning 
investments (6th Cohesion Report, pp. xx, xxvi).  

Under the study, experts collected and analysed how the sectoral needs and growth 
potentials to be addressed through the ESI Funds have been identified in Partnership 
Agreements  and  through  cohesion  policy  funds  in  Operational  Programmes,  looking 
especially at explicit  references to the  Europe 2020 strategy and the Country Specific 
Recommendations for each Member State – checking the uptake of Article 15(1)(a)(i) of 
the CPR and its direct impact on programming.17  

Furthermore, we have assessed the use of the flexibilities provided by the regulations 
to  transfer  funds  between  categories  of  region  and  from  the  European  Territorial 
Cooperation goal to the Investment for Growth and Jobs goal.  

Last but not least, we examined what types of strategic and policy documents – from 
European,  national  and  regional  level  –  were  taken  as  a  basis  for  planning  and 
programming.  

3.1.2  What was the strategic background of programming documents? 

a) Results of the data analysis  

Distribution of references at the level of thematic objectives shows a quite different 
picture  by  types  of  documents  (Figure  5).  In  the  Partnership  Agreements,  explicit 
references to Europe 2020 headline targets are the most frequent, while Country-Specific 
Recommendations constitute one quarter of all the other  references and other strategies 
the  other  quarter.  All  Partnership  Agreements  referred  to  Europe  2020  headline 

17 In order to avoid problems due to differences in interpretation, implicit references (without a clear indication 
of a connection to an Europe 2020 target or CSR) were not taken into account.   

31 

 
                                           
targets  and  other  types  of  strategic  documents,  while  most  Partnership  Agreements 
referred to Country-Specific Recommendations18 as well.  

Overall, at PA level, the number of explicit references to Europe 2020 headline targets 
and CSRs is substantially higher than the number of explicit references to other strategic 
documents  (from  either  national  or  EU  level).  Altogether,  references  to  CSRs  and  other 
strategic  documents  account  each  for  about  ¼  of  all  references.In  the  programmes, 
Europe  2020  headline  targets  are  much  less  referenced  than  in  the  PAs  (though  still 
to  Country-Specific 
representing  1/3  of 
Recommendations  account  for  only  15%  of  the  other  references.  Almost  half  of  the 
strategic  references  in  programmes  refer  to  other  policies  and  strategies.  Co-operation 
programmes  do  not  refer  to  CSRs,  explicit  references  evenly  distribute  across  Europe 
2020 and other strategies.    

references),  while 

references 

the 

Figure 5 - Explicit references to types of strategic documents in programming 
documents19  

53.70% 

38.30% 

39.80% 

22.40% 

15.90% 

21.10% 

Europe 2020

CSR

Other strategies

PA

Programs

(Share  of  thematic  objectives  selected  on  the  basis  of  explicit  references  to  Europe  2020,  CSR  or  other 
strategies – as opposed to the overall number of TOs chosen in programme documents)  

Behind  the  heading  "other  strategies",  European  policies,  followed  by  national  and 
regional  strategies  are  overall  evenly  mentioned  in  Partnership  Agreements  and 

18  Portugal  made  no  references  to  Country-Specific  Recommendations  in  her  Partnership  Agreement,  while 
Cyprus and Greece had no Country-Specific Recommendation in effect at the time of the adoption of PAs. 

19  References  in  Partnership  Agreements  and  programmes  have  been  counted  and  consolidated  to  avoid 
duplications. This consolidation exercise was done at different levels: 

- 

- 

- 

at PA or programme level, all references to a specific type of document (CSRs,  Europe 2020 headline 
targets, other strategies) were only counted as a single reference 
at  thematic  objective  level,  several  references  to  a  specific  type  of  document  in  relation  with  one 
thematic objective were only counted once. However, references to the same type of document made 
in relation to different thematic objectives were counted as different references. Analyses included in 
this chapter have been based on this ground. 
in the programmes, references were also counted at investment priority level 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Programmes.  References  to  national  reform  programmes  and  sectoral  strategies  are 
more prominent in Partnership Agreements than in the Programmes (Figure 6). Overall, 
the  frequency  of  references  to  different  types  of  strategic  documents  was 
consistent in PAs and OPs. 

Figure 6 – References in Partnership Agreements and Programmes to other 
strategy documents 

European policies

National strategies

Regional strategies

National reform programme

Sectoral strategies

Other international strategies

Economic Adjustment Programme

4% 

3% 

0% 
0% 

24% 

28% 

18% 

22% 

20% 

23% 

17% 

14% 

13% 

13% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

PA

Programs

 (Share  of  references  to  a  particular  type  of  “other”  strategy,  expressed  as  %  of  the  total  number  of  such 
references ) 

Results of the data analysis show that most of the explicit references in the PA had an EU 
background,  while  national  and  regional  strategies  played  an  important  role  in  the 
programmes set-up (as influential as EU strategies). 

b) Result of the surveys  

Starting points for programming were, by far most frequently, regional strategies. 
They were followed by national strategies, and European policies. Action plans containing 
already identified interventions were also considered.  

Figure 7 - Survey Q 1.1 Definition of programme objectives (strategy) started 
with ... 

Regional strategy

National strategy

European policies

Action Plans

Other strategies

Sectoral strategy

Local strategy

2% 

14% 

13% 

12% 

9% 

9% 

49% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe  2020  headline  targets  and  Country-Specific  Recommendations  were,  in 
almost  half  of  the  cases,  taken  by  managing  authorities  as  a  “condition  to  respect”. 
Almost  as  many  MAs,  however,  saw  them  outright  as  the  starting  points  of  the 
programming process.  It is only 15% of respondents who saw  Europe  2020 targets and 
Country-Specific  Recommendations  in  a  more  flexible  role,  as  “recurring  topics”  of 
negotiations, or even “unimportant” for programming. 

Figure 8 - Survey Q 1.3 References to Europe 2020 headline targets and 
Country-Specific Recommendations was 

5.37% 

10.74% 

A condition to respect

45.64% 

A starting point

38.26% 

Recurring topics of discussions
with the Commission

Of no apparent importance to
programming

Defined  as  a  starting  point  or  as  a  condition  to  respect  (when  starting  from  a  regional 
strategy), Europe 2020 strategy played a decisive role in programming, referred to in the 
programmes as often as to other strategic documents.  

3.1.3  In  which  areas  of  investment  were  direct  references  to  EU 

strategies the most frequent? 

Among  Europe  2020  headline  targets  (representing half  of  the  explicit  references  in  the 
PA and 1/3 in ERDF/CF programmes), targets related to employment, climate change 
/  energy  efficiency  /renewables  and  R&D  investment  appear  first.  They  are 
mentioned  in  all  Partnership  Agreements  and  in  most  programmes.  However,  their 
frequency differs across programming documents.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 9 – References in PAs and Programmes to Europe 2020 targets 

R&D Investment

Energy efficiency

Greenhouse

Renewables

Employment

Poverty and social exclusion

Early school leaving

Third level education

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

PA

Programs

(Share  of  references  to  a  particular  target,  expressed  as  %  of  the  total  number  of  such  references  – 
consolidated at TO level) 

The  intensity  of  explicit  references  to  Europe  2020  targets  and  CSRs  in  the  Partnership 
Agreements and programmes can also be detailed at the level of thematic objectives and 
funds (See Annex 4.1).  

First, one can examine, which thematic objectives mentioned in PAs and OPs had been 
underpinned by direct reference to  Europe 2020 headline targets and  CSRs. Results are 
as follows: 

  At Partnership Agreement level (i.e. covering all ESI Funds), the thematic 
objectives  with  the  highest  frequency  of  references  to  Country-Specific 
Recommendations  and  Europe  2020  headline  targets  are  education  and 
training,  employment  and  innovation;  and  the  less  frequent  ones  are 
information  and  communication  technologies,  transport  and  small-  and 
medium  enterprises.  At  programme  level  (i.e.  focusing  on  ERDF/CF 
interventions, including ESF multi-fund OPs), the most frequent references 
to  headline  targets  and  Country-Specific  Recommendations  apply  to 
innovation and low-carbon economy;  references are less frequent for 
climate change mitigation and environment. 

  On  average  for  all  thematic  objectives  in  Partnership  Agreements,  the 
choice of thematic objectives was underpinned by a direct Europe 2020 or 
CSR reference in about 40% of the cases, representing also about 40% of 
the overall allocations.  

  The  same  results  apply  at  programme  level,  where  42,9%  of  the 
thematic objective directly (representing 57,7% of the financial allocation) 
refer to Europe 2020 headline targets and CSRs. 

  As  to  co-operation  programmes,  only  one-third  of  the  investments  are 
directly  related  to  Europe  2020  headline  targets  and  Country-Specific 

35 

 
 
 
Recommendations,  both  in  terms  of  the  number  of  selected  thematic 
objectives and in terms of ERDF funding. 

As to the funds (see Annex 4.2):  

  For  the  ERDF,  thematic  objectives  have  been  underpinned  in  43%  of  the 
cases  by  direct  references  to  Europe  2020  headline  targets  or  CSRs,  and 
almost 60% in money terms in the programmes. Most frequent references 
to  European  targets  correspond  in  PA  to  employment  and  education 
objectives,  while  in  programmes  to  innovation  and  the  shift  to  the  low 
carbon economy. 

  For  the  CF,  European  references  are  less  frequent  in  programmes  and 
Partnership Agreements than for the ERDF; 28% of the thematic objectives 
in  the  programmes  (representing  54%  of  the  budget)  are  supported  by 
explicit  EU  references.  However,  the  selection  of  thematic  objective  4 
relating  to  the  shift  towards  a  low-carbon  economy  (TO4)  was  in  more 
than  70%  of  the  cases  supported  by  references  to  Europe  2020  headline 
targets and CSRs. 

  For  the  ESF,  thematic  objectives  supported  by  explicit  references  to  EU 
headline targets and CSRs are overall more frequent than for the ERDF and 
the  CF:  they  concern  half  of  the  cases  covering  about  2/3  of  ESF 
allocations  in  ERDF/CF  programmes.  At  Partnership  Agreement  level 
education  is  the  thematic  objective  supported  by  the  most  frequent  EU 
references,  while  in  the  OP  covered  by  the  study  education  and  social 
inclusion  appear  at  the  same  level.  References  to  EU  targets  for  TO  11 
(institutional  and  administrative  capacity)  are  twice  bigger  in  the 
Partnership  Agreements  than  the  OPs  covered  by  the  study.  Finding  out 
the  reason  for  these  differences  would  require  though  a  complementary 
analysis  of  OPs  solely  financed  from  ESF,  which  falls,  however,  out  of  the 
scope of the present assignment. 

  For the EAFRD, patterns are more (in number of cases) or less (in money 
terms)  similar  as  for  the  ERDF.  The  only  prominent  difference  relates  to 
promoting  sustainable  transport  and  removing bottlenecks  in  key  network 
infrastructures (TO7) where all Member States explicitly referred to Europe 
2020 headline targets and CSRs.  

  Partnership Agreements show a similar pattern regarding EMFF (but EMFF 
is planned to be used only for TO3 – Support to SMEs, TO4 – shift to a low 
carbon economy, TO6 – environment- and TO 8 - employment). 

3.1.4  The use of flexibilities 

13  transfers  between  different  categories  of  regions  were  registered  in  the 
Partnership  Agreements,  amounting  to  EUR  3,6  bn  (some  1%  of  the  total  allocations). 
These  transfers  did  not  reduce  the  funding  originally  allocated  to  the  different  types  of 
regions  considerably  (3%  on  average,  respecting  the  overall  limit  laid  down  in  Art.  93 
CPR).  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The  majority  of  transfers  went  from  less  developed  regions  to  more  developed 
regions  (75%  of  the  total  of  the  transfers).  The  reason  given  by  the  Member  States 
concerned20  is  that  they  were  done  where  intra-regional  differences  could  not  be 
treated otherwise because  of the statistical effects of the more developed  capital city in 
capital  areas  also  comprising  of  poor  and  less  developed  sub-regions21.  Reverse 
transfers  from  transition  or  more  developed  regions  were  also  made  in  other  Member 
States.  

Figure 10 - Transfers between categories of regions 

Transfers to... 

Million EUR to: 

Less 
developed 

Less developed 

Transfers from… 

Transition 

More developed 

79 

200 

Transition  More developed 

2730 

364 

238 

One  transfer  of  EUR  0,9  bn  from  the  European  Territorial  Cooperation  goal  to  the 
Investment for Growth and Jobs goal (to more developed and transition regions) was 
registered  in  one  Partnership  Agreement.  Details  about  the  reasons  have  not  been 
provided. 

3.1.5  Establishing Priorities – the Negotiation Process 

As  mentioned  during  interviews,  the  co-ordination  mechanisms  employed  during  the 
programming  process  were,  naturally,  adjusted  to  the  national  legal  and  institutional 
context.  In  general  terms,  the  process  has  been  led  by  (a  varying  combination  of) 
political level committees, with the highest level decisions coming from the government; 
high-level  committees  between  the  national  government  and  the  regions  (in  federal 
states,  programming  at  programme  level  was  led  by  the  regional  authorities);  inter-
ministerial  expert  and  working  groups,  of  the  programme  authorities  as  well  as  line 
ministries in charge of public investment policies; the Ministry in charge of co-ordinating 
the use of EU funds; committees comprising of representatives of social partners and civil 
society; external experts recruited for the task.  

20  
of the country  

in all EU-13 Member States (except for one) where the capital region is more developed than the rest 

21  
E.g.  transfer  of  3%  the  Bratislava  self-governing  region.  At  the  NUTS  2  level,  the  Bratislava  self-
governing  region  is  the  only  of  the  four  regions  of  Slovakia  where  GDP  per  capita  exceeds  90  %  of  the  EU 
average  in  PPS.  The  region’s  high  performance  is  mainly  a  result  of  the  presence  of  the  capital  city, 
nevertheless,  unlike  other  metropolitan  regions  in  the  EU,  the  Bratislava  self-governing  region  also  includes 
three further districts which have a 31 % share in the region’s population and an area more than 4 times larger 
than  that  of  the  city  of  Bratislava.  The  requirement  for  a  balanced  polycentric  development  needs  to  be 
ensured,  in  particular,  in  the  context  of  eliminating  the  disproportionate  growth  of  internal  flows  and  internal 
migration  of  people  for  work  and  services,  which  could  lead  to  crisis  situations  if  the  spatial  growth  is 
unorganised.  A  systematic  approach  to  managing  the  development  of  the  Bratislava  self-governing  region 
requires  that  the  existing  natural  centres  be  respected  and  promoted  and  the  emerging  sub-centres,  which 
must be assigned a role in the urban system, have to be regulated. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
As to the “order” or “direction” of programming, all three options (top-down; bottom-up 
and  parallel  preparation  of  the  Partnership  Agreement  and  programme)  were  used. 
Interview  responses  reflect  a  relative  majority  of  countries  using  a  parallel 
programming  approach.  In  two-thirds  of  the  cases,  the  Partnership  Agreement  and 
programmes  were  prepared  in  parallel.  In  one  quarter  of  cases  the  Partnership 
Agreement was established first, with programmes following. These two together account 
for 90% of the programmes. 

Figure 11 - Survey Q 1.2 Programme was prepared … 

4.03% 

6.71% 

25.50% 

63.76% 

Parallel to drafting on the
Partnership Agreement

Based on a draft Partnership
Agreement

Based on programming
guidelines not considering the
Partnership Agreement
Before the drafting of the
Partnership Agreement

The factors perceived as most important catalysts of change in the position of Member 
States were the regulations, the EC’s negotiating positions and the informal dialogue. All 
of  these  were  perceived  as  more  important  than  the  national  factors.  Strategic 
programming  was  an  area  where  there  was  a  relatively  high  level  of  consensus 
between the two sides – especially as compared to the negotiations about objectives and 
results.  Even  so,  in  cases  of  disagreement,  the  position  of  the  EC  was  four  times  more 
likely to prevail than that of the Member State. 

Figure 12 - Factors influencing strategic programming – Consideration of 
Europe 2020 headline targets 

12% 

8% 

17% 

16% 

21% 

14% 

26% 

28% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The  2nd  horizontal  question  asked  about  the  impact  of  exchanges  with  the  Commission. 
As the table below demonstrates, strategic programming was an area where there was a 
relatively high level of consensus between the two sides – especially as compared to the 
negotiations about objectives and results. Even so, in cases of disagreement, the position 
of the EC was 4 times more likely to prevail than that of a member state.  

Figure 13 – Impact of exchanges with EC on consideration of Europe 2020 
headline targets and Country-Specific Recommendations in the programme 
strategy 

3% 

21% 

64% 

12% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

The two graphs together indicate both that the objective of strategic programming was, 
at  least  at  general  level,  shared  by  the  Member  States  and  the  EU  –  and  also  that  the 
European Commission had a strong position in the negotiations.  

3.1.6  Specific conclusions 

As regards strategic references, Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes 
are strongly based on  European references (Europe 2020 headline targets and Country-
Specific Recommendations), while the strategic background of co-operation programmes 
is somewhat different, less related to the Europe 2020 strategy. 

References  to  Europe  2020  headline  targets  and  to  Country-Specific 
Recommendations  are  explicit  for  40%  of  thematic  objectives  (chosen  in  the 
Partnership  Agreements).  References  are  especially  frequent  in  areas  such  as 
strengthening  research,  technological  development  and innovation,  as  well  as  education 
and training, and employment in PAs, and low-carbon economy in programmes; they are 
rare  in  other  areas  such  as  promoting  climate  change  adaptation,  risk  prevention  and 
management.  In  money  terms,  the  investment  into  Europe  2020-referenced  thematic 
objectives covers 58% of the programmes. 

39 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Flexibilities  to  transfer  funds  have  been  used  in  most  cases  from  less  developed 
regions to more developed regions, to offset intra-regional imbalances (in capital regions 
of certain Member States). 

40 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.2  THEMATIC CONCENTRATION 

3.2.1  Background 

Under  the  reformed  cohesion  policy  regulations,  Member  States  and  regions  need  to 
concentrate  funding  on  a  limited  number  of  areas  at  the  heart  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy:  innovation  and  research,  the  digital  agenda,  support  for  SMEs  and  the  low-
carbon economy. 

ESF will be concentrated on up to five investment priorities. This will ensure a clearer 
link  with  the  European  Employment  Strategy  and  the  Integrated  Guidelines  on 
Employment, and support the  consolidation of outputs and results at European level. At 
least  20%  of  the  ESF  budget  will  be  ring-fenced  for  supporting  social  inclusion  and 
combating poverty and discrimination (6th Cohesion Report, p. xxi). 

In  cross-border  and  transnational  co-operation  programmes,  at  least  80%  of  the 
ERDF resources under the ETC goal shall be concentrated to a maximum of  four of the 
thematic objectives set out in (CPR, Art. 9). 

Regions  and  Member  States  have  to  make  clear  choices  about  their  objectives,  and 
ensure  that  the  amount  of  resources  allocated  to  each  key  objective  reaches  the 
necessary critical mass. This guarantees a meaningful impact and that investments are 
made  in  those  areas  that  have  a  direct  and  immediate  impact  on  growth  and  jobs  (6th 
Cohesion Report, p. xxi). 

The  study  has  analysed,  on  the  basis  of  the  programming  documents,  what  thematic 
objectives – and with what budgets  – and investment priorities Member States had 
selected.  The  analysis  was  differentiated  by  Funds,  and  by  categories  of  regions. 
Furthermore,  we  have  reviewed,  by  thematic  objective,  what  main  results  were  being 
sought  for  each  fund,  especially  in  relation  to  Europe  2020  and  the  relevant  Country-
Specific  Recommendations.  The  survey  and  interviews  were  used  to  review  the  process 
of establishing priorities as well as the negotiations.  

3.2.2  Selection of Thematic Objectives and Investment Priorities  

Selection of TOs 

Based on the data of all programmes examined under the study, it can be demonstrated 
that  

  Regional  policy  funds  (ERDF,  Cohesion  Fund)  concentrate  on  thematic 

objectives22  

‒  TO  1  -  Strengthening  research,  technological  development  and 

innovation,  

‒  TO 3 - Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs,  
‒  TO 4 - Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all 

sectors (ERDF),  

22 For the ERDF, thematic concentration has been laid down by Art.4 ERDF Regulation. For the Cohesion Fund, it 
is the result of the limited number of TOs to be supported by the Fund (in accordance with Art.4 CF Regulation). 

41 

 
                                           
‒  TO 6 - Environment protection (Cohesion Fund) and  
‒  TO 7 - Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks 
in key network infrastructures (both ERDF and Cohesion Fund).  

  ESF  (in  programmes  jointly  financed  with  ERDF  and  CF)  is  evenly 

distributed among specific objectives  

‒  TO  8  -  Promoting  sustainable  and  quality  employment  and 

supporting labour mobility,  

‒  TO  9  -  Promoting  social  inclusion,  combating  poverty  and  any 

discrimination and  

‒  TO  10  -  Investing in  education,  training  and  vocational  training  for 
skills  and  lifelong  learning  by  developing  education  and  training 
infrastructure. 

Figure 14: Financial allocations in Operational and Co-operation Programmes, 
excluding technical assistance priority axes (EUR million) 

TO 

CF 

ERDF 

ESF 

YEI 

Total 

ETC 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

Other23 

- 

- 

- 

41 473 

13 288 

33 491 

8 110 

31 860 

10 464 

4 544 

20 984 

18 117 

32 723 

25 888 

- 

- 

- 

-  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

-  

- 

- 

41 473  

1 693 

13 288 

33 491 

39 970 

15 008 

2 

479 

540 

406 

39 101 

2 260 

58 611 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

3 409 

9 096 

606 

13 111 

11 732 

6 876 

6 327 

10 442 

1 421 

1 916 

675 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

18 608 

16 769 

3 336 

675 

806 

414 

242 

185 

801 

1 257 

9 084 

Total 

72 281 

192 224 

28 329 

606 

293 440 

In  Partnership  Agreements,  regarding  all  ESIF  allocations,  the  picture  was 
similar.  The  shift  towards  a  low-carbon  economy  drops  down  the  list,  due  to  the 
relatively low  additional  funding  from  EAFRD,  while  social inclusion  and  fighting  poverty 
gains considerably (due to funding from EAFRD and ESF in programmes falling out of the 
scope of the present analysis). (See Figures Figure 15 vs. Figure 16) 

23 Other relates to the extra allocation to outermost regions – ERDF Regulation, Art. 12 (1) 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 15 - Financial allocations of European Structural and Investment Funds 
in Partnership Agreements by thematic objectives (cumulated, EUR bn) 

01 - R&D
80

03 - SME

60

40

20

0

02 - ICT

10 - Education

08 - Employment

04 - Low-carbon
economy

07 - Transport

06 - Environment

05 - Climate
change

EMFF

EAFRD

CF

ESF

ERDF

09 - Social
inclusion

TA

11 - Public
administration

Figure 16 - financial allocations of cohesion policy Funds in operational and co-
operation programmes by thematic objectives (cumulated, EUR bn) 

01 - R&D

 60

 50

 40

 30

 20

 10

 -

03 - SME

02 - ICT

10 - Education

08 - Employment

04 - Low-carbon
economy

07 - Transport

 ESF

 CF

 ERDF

06 - Environment

05 - Climate
change

09 - Social
inclusion

 12

11 - Public
administration

Article  4  of  the  ERDF  regulation  prescribes  that  Member  States  should  concentrate 
support on two or more  TOs from among TO  1, 2, 3 and 4. This has been achieved: as 
Figure  16  shows,  ERDF  is  concentrated  on  3  of  them.  In  addition  there  is  also  a 
concentration  of  ERDF  funds  on  TO  7  –  transport  –  which  goes  beyond  the  regulatory 
requirements (in terms of concentration).  

Moreover,  the  distribution  of  ERDF  allocations  in  different  types  of  regions  (See  Annex 
4.3) shows that: 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Less  developed  regions  concentrated  their  allocations,  of  similar  size,  on  four 
thematic objectives: T01 (research and innovation), TO3 (SME support), TO4 (low 
carbon economy) and TO7 (transport and network infrastructure) – see figure 143 
in the annex. 

  More  developed  regions  focused  most  of  their  allocations  on    research  and 
innovation,  followed by SME support and low carbon economy – see figure 145 
  Outermost  and  Northern  sparsely  populated  regions also used their special 
allocations24 related to their special needs, rather than on environmental and low-
carbon investments.  

  European  Territorial  Co-operation  programmes  also  promote  sustainable 
transport  and  removing  bottlenecks  in  key  network  infrastructures  and  heavily 
invest  in  promoting  sustainable  transport  and  removing  bottlenecks  in  key 
network infrastructures. 

Concentration requirements 

The  concentration  requirements  were,  as  far  as  we  could  check,  overall  respected 
by  Member  States’  programmes.  Also,  there  were  some  countries  and  regions 
substantially exceeding the floors set in Art. 4(1) of the ERDF Regulation: 

  The obligation to allocate at least 80% of the total ERDF resources in more 
developed  regions,  at  least  60%  in  transition regions  and  at least  50%  in 
less  developed  regions,  at  national level,  to  two  or  more  of  TOs  1-4  was 
substantially  exceeded  by  the  less  developed  regions  of  Portugal  and 
Slovenia and the transition regions of Austria and Denmark. 

  The requirement to concentrate at least 20% of the total  ERDF resources 
in more developed regions, at least 15% in transition regions and at least 
12% in less developed regions, at national level, to thematic objective 4 
was  substantially  exceeded  in  Luxembourg  and  Romania,  in  the  less 
developed regions of Bulgaria and the transition regions of France. 

It  is  notable  that  here  concentration  beyond  the  regulatory  requirement  was  used  for 
reasons other than those set out in Art. 4 (2)25. 

According to the ETC regulation26, at least 80% of the ERDF allocation to each cross-
border  cooperation  and  transnational  programme  shall  be  concentrated  on  a 
maximum  of  four  of  the  thematic  objectives.  Out  of  the  68  Co-operation  Programmes 
that could be checked in this context27, 65 respected the floor limit set by the regulation, 
and  the  others  missed  it  only  by  a  small  margin.  Also,  there  were  several  programmes 

24 cf. Art. 12 (1) of the ERDF Regulation (TO12 in Figure 11) 

25  According  to  Art.  4(2),  it  is  possible  for  a  Member  State  to  fall  behind  region-specific  concentration 
requirements  in  a  certain  type  of  region  in  case  this  is  compensated  by  exceeding  the  conentration 
requirements in another type of region. 

27 Some of the Co-operation Programmes not yet accepted did not lend themselves for analysis, due to the lack 
of essential details. 

44 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

well  exceeding  the  floor  limit,  the  average  allocation  to  the  four  biggest  thematic 
objectives amounts to 91,8%. 

With  respect  to  the  ESF,  the  obligation  to  concentrate  ESF  resources  on  a  maximum  of 
five investment priorities was substantially exceeded in each type of region. In more 
developed regions, the five largest allocations to investment priorities average at 93,1% 
(against the floor  set at 80%)28; in transition regions, at 95,4% (against 70%); and, in 
less developed regions, at 83,7% (against 60%). 

In the interviews, national authorities were asked  which thematic objective – in their 
view  –  would  have  received  more  funding,  had  there  not  been  for  the  thematic 
concentration requirements. Answers widely differed across countries, so that ultimately, 
the question cannot be answered. In the end, every TO received some “votes”, but none 
could be singled out as the “favourite choice”. On the basis of the interviews, in fact, it is 
not  possible  to  determine  even  a  shortlist  of  thematic  objectives  that  would  have 
deserved more funding.  

Selection of Investment Priorities 

As  to  the  selection  of  investment  priorities,  references  in  the  Operational  and  Co-
operation  Programmes  are  fairly  concentrated.  Of  the  69  investment  priorities  listed  in 
the fund-specific regulations and also used in the programmes, 30% account for 70% 
of the references29. The concentrated use of IPs applies for all Cohesion policy funds, it 
is more accentuated in ERDF: 

 

 

 

In ERDF, 23% of the 51 investment priorities selected account for 77% of 
the references;  
in CF, 30% of the 16 investment priorities selected account for 70% of the 
references; 
in  ESF,  30%  of  the  20  investment  priorities  selected  account  for  70%  of 
the references. 

Figure 17 – IPs most frequently used 

For  the  ERDF  under  the  IfGJ  goal,  33%  of  the  43  IP  cover  67%  of  the 
references. These mainly cover issues relating to: 
1a 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and  capacities  to 
develop  R&I  excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of  competence,  in  particular 
those of European interest 
Promoting business investment in R&I, developing links and synergies between 
enterprises, research and development centres and the higher education sector, 
in  particular  promoting  investment  in  product  and  service  development, 
technology transfer 

1b 

28 Priority axes dedicated to social innovation and transnationality are excluded from the calculation. 

29 Since Cohesion Fund investment priorities are aligned with European Regional Development Fund investment 
priorities, for the sake of clarity, CF and ERDF investment priority references have been consolidated. 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                           
For  the  ERDF  under  the  IfGJ  goal,  33%  of  the  43  IP  cover  67%  of  the 
references. These mainly cover issues relating to: 
2c 

in  particular  by 

Strengthening  ICT  applications  for  e-government,  e-learning,  e-inclusion,  e-
culture and e-health 
facilitating  the  economic 
Promoting  entrepreneurship, 
exploitation  of  new  ideas  and  fostering  the  creation  of  new  firms,  including 
through business incubators 
Supporting the capacity of SMEs to grown in regional, national and international 
markets, and to engage in innovation processes 
Supporting energy efficiency, smart energy management and renewable energy 
use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public  buildings,  and  in  the  housing 
sector 
Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in  particular  for 
urban areas, including the promotion  of sustainable multimodal  urban mobility 
and mitigation-relevant adaptation measures 
Conserving, protecting, promoting and developing natural and cultural heritage 

For the ERDF under the ETC goal, 30% of the 40 IP cover 70% of the references. These 
mainly cover issues relating to: 
5b 

Promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and 
developing disaster management systems 
Conserving, protecting, promoting and developing natural and cultural heritage 
Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting  ecosystem 
services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure 
Promoting  innovative  technologies  to  improve  environmental  protection  and 
resource efficiency in the waste sector, water sector and with regard to soil, or 
to reduce air pollution 
Enhancing regional mobility by connecting secondary and tertiary nodes to TEN-
T infrastructure, including multimodal nodes 
Developing  and  improving  environmentally-friendly  (including  low-noise)  and 
low-carbon  transport  systems,  including  inland  waterways  and  maritime 
transport, ports, multimodal links and airport infrastructure 
Promoting  sustainable  and  quality  employment  and  supporting  labour  mobility 
by  integrating  cross-border  labour  markets,  including  cross-border  mobility, 
joint  local  employment  initiatives,  information  and  advisory  services  and  joint 
training 
Investing  in  education,  training  and  vocational  training  for  skills  and  lifelong 
learning  by  developing  and  implementing  joint  education,  vocational  training 
and training schemes 
Enhancing  institutional  capacity  of  public  authorities  and  stakeholders  and 
efficient  public  administration  by  promoting 
legal  and  administrative 
cooperation and cooperation between citizens and institutions 

3a 

3d 

4c 

4e 

6c 

6c 
6d 

6f 

7b 

7c 

8e 

10b 

11b 

For  the  CF  40%  of  the  16  IP  cover  60%  of  the  references.  The  six  IPs  cover  issues 
relating to: 
4iii 

Supporting energy efficiency, smart energy management and renewable energy 
use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public  buildings,  and  in  the  housing 
sector 
Investing  in  the  waste  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Union's 
environmental  acquis  and  to  address  needs,  identified  by  the  Member  States, 
for investment that goes beyond those requirements 
Investing  in  the  water  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Union's 
environmental  acquis  and  to  address  needs,  identified  by  the  Member  States, 
for investment that goes beyond those requirements 

6i 

6ii 

46 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

For  the  ERDF  under  the  IfGJ  goal,  33%  of  the  43  IP  cover  67%  of  the 
references. These mainly cover issues relating to: 
6iv 

Taking action to improve the urban environment, to revitalise cities, regenerate 
and  decontaminate  brownfield  sites  (including  conversion  areas),  reduce  air 
pollution and promote noise-reduction measures 
Supporting  a  multimodal  Single  European  Transport  Area  by  investing  in  the 
TEN-T 
Developing  and  improving  environmentally-friendly  (including  low-noise)  and 
low-carbon  transport  systems,  including  inland  waterways  and  maritime 
transport,  ports,  multimodal  links  and  airport  infrastructure,  in  order  to 
promote sustainable regional and local transport 

7i 

7ii 

For  the  ESF,  40%  of  the  19  IPs  cover  60%  of  the  references.  These  seven  IPs  cover 
issues relating to: 
8i 

Access to employment  for  job-seekers and inactive people, including  the  long-
term  unemployed  and  people  far  from  the  labour  market,  also  through  local 
employment initiatives and support for labour mobility 
Self-employment,  entrepreneurship  and  business  creation  including  innovative 
micro, small and medium sized enterprises 
Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change 
Active  inclusion,  including  with  a  view  to  promoting  equal  opportunities  and 
active participation, and improving employability 
Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high- quality services, including 
health care and social services of general interest 
Enhancing  equal  access  to  lifelong  learning  for  all  age  groups  in  formal,  non-
formal and informal settings, upgrading the knowledge, skills and competences 
of the workforce, and promoting flexible learning pathways  
Improving  the  labour  market  relevance  of  education  and  training  systems, 
facilitating the transition from education to work, and strengthening vocational 
education and training systems and their quality 

8iii 

8v 
9i 

9iv 

10iii 

10iv 

With  respect  to  the  ESF,  investment  priorities  and  intervention  codes  in  Commission 
Implementing Regulation 215/2014 (Annex 1, Table 1) are fully aligned with each other. 
Hence,  it  is  possible  to  establish  a  direct  correspondence  between  ESF  allocations  and 
strategic references in the OPs to the Europe 2020 headline targets and the CSRs.  

Overall,  65%  of  the  ESF  allocations  to  jointly  financed  programmes  (i.e.  multi-
fund  programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  CF)  were  made  with  an  explicit 
reference  to  headline  targets  and  Country-Specific  Recommendations  (see  in 
Annex 4.3). 

3.2.3  Main Results sought 

According to Article 15.1(a)(iii), Partnership Agreements should contain, for each of the 
selected thematic objectives, a summary of the main results expected for each of 
the ESI Funds (see also Annex 4.3). 

In theory at least, each main result should always be mentioned in relation to one 
thematic  objective,  and  no  other.  In  the  majority  of  the  cases,  this  was  confirmed  in 
practice.  However,  our  frequency  analysis  of  the  main  results  referenced  in  the 
Partnership  Agreements  detected  several  inconsistencies.  The  possible  reasons  for 
referring to the same main result under different thematic objectives may be due to  

47 

 
 
 
 

 

the  result  in  question  being  a  “borderline  case”  –  i.e.  one  that  may  be 
reasonably  be  identified  under  several  thematic  objectives,  due  to  an 
imprecise demarcation between two thematic objectives; or  
the  reference  to  a  main  result  under  a  different  thematic  objective 
(different  from  the  “standard”  one)  reflecting  either  very  specific 
circumstances or an actual inconsistency of the programming logic 

Figure 18 – Correspondence table of main results and thematic objectives 

Original/programmed 

01  02  03  04  05  06  07  08  09  10  11 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

31 

1 

1 

1  14 

1 

29 

1 

44 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

23 

1 

23 

3 

1 

2  17 

7 

4 

1 

1 

1 

33 

2 

1 

2 

3  22 

1 

4 

1  23 

1 

1 

25 

3 

“unallocated” main results

30

2 

2 

2 

8 

1 

Figure  18  provides  an  overview  of  how  main  results  registered  in  the  PAs  relate 
(correspond) to thematic objectives:  

 

some  T02,  TO3  and  even  TO4-related  main  results  are  programmed  as 
R&I  results.  Almost  one  third  of  R&I  main  results  could  have  been 
programmed – i.e. they are linked – to other thematic objectives; 

  environmental,  climate  change  and  network-related  main  results 

 

(TO4 to TO7) show a limited, 85% correspondence31;  
the  same  applies  to  employment,  inclusion  and  education  (85% 
correspondence rate, too); 

  a number of cross-cutting territorial challenges have been identified in 
PAs with no clear correspondence to any thematic objective, illustrating the 
fact  that  the  reformed  policy  does  not  only  address  sectoral  but  also 
macroeconomic and territorial needs. 

The  existence  of  borderline  cases  and  inconsistencies  also  shows  that,  in  the 
negotiation  process,  there  was  some  flexibility  when  defining  main  results  expected 
in  relation  to  a  thematic  objective.  In  contrast  with  the  investment  priorities,  thematic 

30 „unallocated main results” were elements defined without a firm association to any thematic objective (e.g. 
territorial or macroeconomic results, e.g. „land use”). 

31  The  number  of  references  to  a  TO  outside  the  diagonal  vs.  total  number  of  the  references  in  a  blue  block, 
including the diagonal shows the weakness of the correspondence. Here: 31 / (31+1+7+4) = 72% 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

objectives    are  not  defined  in  detail  by  the  CPR  (only  listed,  in  Article  9)  and  the 
demarcation within these groups are somewhat ambiguous. 

3.2.4  The negotiation process 

As  to  the  methods  used  to  determine  the  choice  of  and  allocations  to  different 
objectives,  interview  partners  reported  about  a  whole  range  of  different  solutions, 
including depending of the national contexts: 

scientific assessments of the socio-economic situation 

 
  macro-economic modelling 
  existing strategies 
  Europe  2020 

/  National  Reform  Programmes 

/  Country-Specific 

Recommendations  

  experiences (evaluations) of the previous programming period 
  political  decisions  by  the  government  regarding  the  choice  and  allocations 

of thematic objectives and programmes 
  bottom-up programming led by the regions 
considerations of absorption capacity . 
 

The factors influencing negotiations regarding the selection of thematic objectives were, 
above all, the regulation and the informal dialogue. Partners’ opinion was also taken into 
account. On this provision, there were relatively many debates, and in those debates, the 
Commission had a quite strong position (See Annex 4.3).  

Challenges  identified  by  interviewees:  EU  Member  States  already  had  experience  with 
strategy-based programming and concentration of funds from the previous programming 
period.  Nevertheless,  the  new  approach  based  on  thematic  objectives  did  pose 
difficulties  in  some  Member  States.  On  the  one  hand,  difficulties  of  understanding 
what  thematic  objective  meant  what.  On  the  other  hand,  the  thematic  objectives  were 
perceived  as  a  limitation  to  programming,  or  even  as  a  cause  for  an  artificial 
fragmentation of funds and measures.  

The  consultation  process  with  partners  and  stakeholders,  in  particular,  led  to  a 
proliferation of needs and expectations, which conflicted with the Commission’s push for 
concentration. In many cases, national framework documents on development policy and 
strategy  were  drafted  before  the  regulation  was  drafted  and  approved.  This  made  a 
reconciliation  of  positions  even  more  difficult.  Quite  often,  especially  in  the  more 
developed countries, resources available were insufficient to cover all needs. 

3.2.5  Specific Conclusions 

The  main  conclusions  from  the  analysis  of  programme  data,  the  surveys  and  interviews 
are as follows: 

  Overall,  a  limited  number  of  main  results  have  been  identified  per 
thematic  objective  in  Partnership  Agreements.  However,  there  were  main 
results expected by the Member States that could not be directly related to 
thematic objectives, i.e. macro-economic and territorial results.  

49 

 
 
 
 
  As  regards  the  allocation  of  the  ESI  Funds  to  thematic  objectives, 
ERDF  concentrates  on  strengthening  research,  technological  development 
and  innovation  and  the  competitiveness  of  SMEs,  Cohesion  Fund  mainly 
invests in supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors 
and promoting sustainable transport and key network infrastructures.  The 
European  Social  Fund  allocations  distribute  evenly  in  jointly  financed 
programmes  across  thematic  objectives  related  to  jobs,  education  and 
combating poverty. 

  Thematic  objectives,  however,  are  not  defined  in  an  exclusive  manner. 
Almost one third of R&I (TO1) main results could have been programmed 
to  TO2,  TO3  and  even  TO4  thematic  objectives.  Environmental,  climate 
change  and  network-related  main  results  (TO4  to  TO7)  do  show  limited 
overlap;  and  the  same  applies  to  employment,  inclusion  and  education 
(TO8 to TO10). 

  As  regards  the  investment  priorities  selected,  references  in  the 
Operational  and  Co-operation  Programmes  concentrate  in  30%  of  the 
investment priorities that account for 70% of the references. 

  65%  of  ESF  allocations  to  jointly  financed  programmes  refer  directly  to 

headline targets and Country-Specific Recommendations. 

influencing  Member  States’  positions 

  As  regards  the  negotiation  process,  survey  results  show  that  the  main 
factors 
thematic 
concentration  were  the  Regulation  and  the  informal  dialogue  with  the 
Commission. As to domestic factors, the exchanges with partners were the 
most important. 

regarding 

 

  Thematic  concentration  received  more  attention  during  programming, 
and  was  also  more  controversial  than  other  new  provisions.  The 
Commission  seems  to  have  held  a  strong  position  in  these  parts  of  the 
negotiation.  
Interview  partners  from  Member  States  said  that  the  provisions  on 
thematic  objectives  did  pose  some  difficulty,  even  though  Member 
States  already  had  experience  with  strategic  programming.  The 
reconciliation  of  Member  States’  positions  –  which  were  often  based  on 
strategy  documents  drafted  before  the  new  regulations  –  with  the 
Thematic Objective structure was a challenge in some Member States.  

50 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.3  BUILDING OF PRIORITY AXES 

3.3.1  Background 

The  concept  of  priority  axes  was  introduced  to  the  programming  and  management  of 
Cohesion  policy  for  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  defining  it  as  “one  of  the 
priorities of the strategy in an operational programme comprising a group  of  operations 
which  are  related  and  have  specific  measurable  goals”  (ERDF  general  provisions,  p. 
2(2)), but precursors existed in the previous programming periods.  

In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  priority  axes  of  Operational  Programmes 
concern,  as  a  general  rule,  one  Fund  and,  for  the  Structural  Funds  (ERDF,  ESF) 
one  category  of  region.  Furthermore,  they  correspond  to  one  thematic  objective, 
comprising  one  or  more  of  the  investment  priorities  of  that  thematic  objective,  in 
accordance with the Fund-specific rules (CPR, p. 96.1).  

In duly justified cases, this “normal” setup can be adjusted to specific intervention needs 
under specific arrangements (combination of more than one category of region, of more 
than one Fund and/or more than one thematic objective).  

In  ETC  programmes,  "normal"  priority  axes  shall  correspond  to  one  thematic  objective 
but may be adjusted, in duly justified cases, to cover more than one Thematic Objective. 
(ETC Regulation, p. 8.1) 

Priority  axes  may  also  represent  groups  of  operations  dedicated  solely  to  financial 
instruments,  community-led  local  developments  and,  in  the  case  of  programmes 
co-funded  by  ESF,  social  innovation  and  trans-nationality.  For  such  priorities  the 
maximum co-financing rate for a priority axis may be increased. Special rules apply also 
to  priority  axes  applying  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative  (YEI)  and  to  those 
dedicated to Sustainable Urban Development (SUD). 

Based on the programmes, the  study has  analysed, which types of  priority  axes are 
used  in  the  programmes,  and  to  what  extent  complex  priorities  have  been  used. 
Furthermore, it was assessed, to which extent priority axes were dedicated to financial 
instruments, community-led local developments, social innovation and trans-nationality.  

In  parallel,  the  survey  and  interviews  examined,  how  these  Member  States’  choices 
regarding  the  structure  of  priorities  had  been  established,  and  negotiated  with  the 
Commission. 

51 

 
 
 
 
  
3.3.2  The use of simple vs. combination priority axes 

In  the  278  operational  and  co-operation  programmes  which  had  been  analysed  under 
this chapter (210 OP and 68 ETC programmes)  32, there are 1543 priority axes, ranging 
from 1 to 14 priority axes per programme. The average is around 5,5 priority axes per 
programme.  ESF-co-financed  programmes  have  an  average  just  below  8.  (From  a 
different  angle:  programmes  with  more  priority  axes  tend  to  use  also  the  ESF).  Co-
operation programmes usually have less priority axes, with an average below 4.  

As  mentioned  above,  Art.  96.1  of  the  CPR  sets  out  that  priority  axes  should  as  a 
general  rule  cover  one  Fund,  one  category  of  region  and  one  thematic  objective. 
However,  derogations  are  foreseen  and  could  lead  to  the  combination  of  several  Funds, 
several categories of region, several thematic objectives or all combinations as the same 
time under one priority axis.  

  Out  of  the  1283  priority  axes  of  210  Investment  for  growth  and  jobs 
programmes,  29%  (included  in  159  programmes  and  accounting  for 
43%  of  Cohesion  policy  funds,  EUR  117,4  bn)  have  a  complex 
structure in the meaning of the CPR Art. 96.1. 60% of the combined axes 
(accounting  for  42%  of  the  funds  in  combined  axes)  are  multiobjective; 
16% (20%) are multifund; and 33% (50%) are multiregion priority axes33.

  Similar  rules  also  apply  for  ETC  programmes  (Art.  8.1  ETC  Regulation). 
Among  the  68  co-operation  programmes  that  could  be  analysed,  there 
are  only  11%  combination  priority  axes  (included  in  19  co-operation 
programmes)  with  15%  of  European  Regional  Development  Fund  funding 
dedicated to the European Territorial Cooperation goal. 

32  Technical  assistance  programmes 
(2014FR16M2TA001,  2014PL16CFTA001,  2014SK16RFTA001, 
2014GR16M3TA001,  2014PT16RFTA001,  2014RO16RFTA001,  2014CZ16CFTA001)  and  priorities  have  been 
excluded  from  the  analysis.  Some  programmes  not  yet  adopted  at  the  cut-off  date  of  the  report 
(2014TC16M4TN002,  2014TC16RFCB013,  2014TC16RFCB027,  2014TC16RFCB040,  2014TC16RFCB051, 
2014TC16RFPC001,  2014TC16RFTN010)  have  not  presented  their  programming  details  regarding  the 
composition of the priority axes.  

33 Percentages of options add up to more than 100% because of axes combining options. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 19 - Priority axes - breakdown by structure  

Investment for growth and jobs 

Total 

CF 

number 
of 
priority 
axes 

Cohesion Policy Fund 
allocation (EUR) 

% of total 
allocation 

number 
of 
priority 
axes 

CF allocation 

% of CF 
allocation 

number 
of 
priority 
axes 

ERDF 

ERDF allocation 

% of 
ERDF 
allocation 

number 
of 
priority 
axes 

ESF 

ESF allocation  % of ESF 
allocation 

European territorial co-
operation 

number 
of 
priority 
axes 

ERDF 
allocation 
(EUR) 

All 

Simple 

Combined:  

Multi-region 
(CPR 
Art.96.1.a) 
Multi-fund 
(CPR 
Art.96.1.b) 
Multi-
objective 
(CPR 
Art.96.1.c) 
of which: 3 
objectives 
of which: 4 
objectives 
of which: 5 
objectives 
multi-ESF 
(CPR 
Art.96.1.d)34 
combine 
options above 
Combined 

1283 

272 633 402 456 

100,0% 

65 

61 255 603 415 

100,0% 

1047 

182 442 068 832 

100% 

222 

28 329 262 036 

100% 

260  7 854 948 551 

908 

375 

101 

155 280 515 834 

57,0% 

44 

47 994 982 417 

78,4% 

711 

90 233 736 833 

49,5% 

140 

16 583 773 358 

58,5% 

231  6 678 175 615 

117 352 886 622 

43,0% 

21 

13 260 620 998 

21,6% 

336 

92 208 331 999 

50,5% 

82 

11 745 488 678 

41,5% 

29  1 176 772 936 

48 925 145 176 

17,9% 

0 

0 

0% 

86 

44 837 153 268 

24,6% 

17 

3 220 864 512 

11,4% 

45 

17 519 032 637 

6,4% 

12 

7 028 248 120 

11,5% 

45 

6 439 717 207 

3,5% 

15 

1 841 990 448 

6,5% 

179 

36 509 326 230 

13,4% 

50 

16 

6 

16 

34 

7 509 212 014 

2,8% 

5 993 779 339 

2,2% 

5 270 069 360 

1,9% 

1 170 303 192 

0,4% 

13229079387 

4,9% 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

4 432 684 434 

7,2% 

175 

32 056 533 550 

17,6% 

27 

3 138 772 632 

11,1% 

29 

1 176 772 936 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

47 

16 

6 

0 

6 814 797 280 

3,7% 

13 

1 164 342 143 

4,1% 

5 873 953 051 

3,2% 

5 270 069 360 

2,9% 

2 

1 

53 198 195 

28 050 075 

0% 

0% 

0 

0% 

16 

1 170 303 192 

4,1% 

1 799 688 444 

2,9% 

30 

8 874 927 974 

4,9% 

7 

2 373 557 894 

8,4% 

29,2% 

43,0% 

32,3% 

21,6% 

32,1% 

50,5% 

36,9% 

41,5% 

11,2% 

15,0% 

(Source: programme data) 

34 Multiobjective priority axes combining TO8-TO11 funded by ESF. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
is  disbursed 

Overall, half of the ERDF allocated to Investment for Growth and Jobs and 21% of the 
Cohesion  Fund 
in  combined  priority  axes  of  operational 
programmes, while 41% of ESF funding (in programmes jointly financed with ERDF) is 
also  dealt  with  through  combined  axes.  There  are  no  specific  patterns  related  to  the 
spatial or programming structure relevant to the choice of using combined axis. However, 
combined  priority  axes  tend  to  have  significantly  larger35  funding  than  simple 
ones.  

Thematic  objectives  contributing  most  to  the  financing  of  complex  priority  axes 
are:  

  TO  4  -  Supporting  the  shift  towards  a  low-carbon  economy  in  all  sectors 

(15%) 

  TO  6  -  Protecting  the  environment  and  promoting  resource  efficiency  and 

(27%) 

  TO 3 - Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs (13%) 

These three thematic objectives account for more than half of the allocations in complex 
priority axes. (Figure 20) 

Figure 20 – Thematic objectives contributed to in complex priorities36  

10 - Education 
5% 

09 - Social inclusion 
10% 

08 - Employment 
4% 

07 - Transport 
7% 

11 - Public 
administration 
0% 

12 
1% 

01 - Research and 
innovation 
7% 

02 - ICT 
4% 

03 - SMEs 
13% 

04 - Low carbon 
economy 
15% 

06 - Environment 
27% 

05 - Climate change 
7% 

35  To  see  if  combined  priority  axes  of  the  IGJ  goal  are  significantly  bigger  than  simple  priority  axes,  the  null 
hypothesis  that  both  combined  and  simple  priority  axes  have  a  distribution  of  the  same  mean  (average)  was 
tested. The (one-sided) Wilcoxon–Matt-Whitney test showed that the difference in the allocations to combined 
vs.  simple  priority  axes  is  too  high  on  any  level  of  significance  for  the  null  hypothesis  to  be  valid.  Thus,  the 
alternative hypothesis that combined priority axes have a higher mean has to be accepted. 

36 Including both IfGJ and ETC goals. “TO12” is a shorthand notation for special allocations to outermost regions 
(Article 12 of the ERDF Regulation)37 A combined priority axis might have more than one type of justification. 
E.g. having integrated projects does not exclude a holistic approach.  

54 

 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

A justification for planning complex priority axes in the programmes was given only for 
three  quarters  of  the  cases  (318  of  the  404  combined  axes  identified).  Justifications 
were as shown on Figure 21. 

Figure 21 - Justifications of complex priority axes37 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Integrated projects

Holistic approach

Universal projects

Place-based policies

Common implementation bodies

Use of matching funds

One-stop-shop

Social innovation

Socio-economic similarities between sub-regions

Disproportionate implementing costs

Smart developement of cross border region

Explaining the table: 

  “Integrated projects” are complex interventions combining several types 
of operations or inter-related actions to achieve the maximum result. “Uni-
versal projects” (e.g. national measures) cover several types of regions. 
If an OP uses combination axes for such integrated and universal projects, 
it is likely that these have already been identified, and the programming of 
the  OP  follows  the  logic  of  an  already  defined  (or  at  least,  developing) 
project portfolio. This is the most frequent case. 

  A  “holistic  approach  to  project  selection”  –  such  as  place-based 
approaches  (like  CLLD)  –  allow  for  several  types  of  operations  to  be 
selected  during  implementation.  In  these  –  also  frequent  –  cases, 
combination  axes  are  introduced  without  having  decided  about  concrete 
projects, in a policy-driven manner. 

The (compulsory) “use of matching funds” (e.g. on-site training for investments) and 
“one-stop-shop  approach  are  rather  based  on  implementation  considerations.  The 
justification given for programming multiobjective axes (that accounts for the majority of 
the combinations) shows no major differences across funds. 

37 A combined priority axis might have more than one type of justification. E.g. having integrated projects does 
not exclude a holistic approach.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 22 – Justifications given for programming multiobjective axes by funds  

Multiobjective 

CF 

ERDF 

ESF 

Total 

None 

Integrated projects 

Universal projects 

Holistic approach 

Place-based policies 

Common implementation bodies 

Use of matching funds 

Disproportionate implementing costs 

Smart development of cross border region 

One-stop-shop 

Social innovation 

Socio-economic similarities between sub-regions 

1 

4 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

38 

143 

14 

69 

39 

11 

5 

4 

4 

3 

5 

1 

2 

14 

40 

156 

2 

5 

2 

2 

5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

16 

72 

39 

12 

10 

4 

4 

3 

6 

1 

3.3.3  Dedicated Priority Axes 

Art. 120 (5) of the CPR stipulates that “the maximum co-financing rate at the level of a 
priority  axis  shall  be  increased  by  ten  percentage  points,  where  the  whole  of  a  priority 
axis  is  delivered  through  financial  instruments,  or  through  community-led  local 
development”  (CPR,  p.  120.5).  This  provision  had  created  an  incentive  to  programme 
additional, dedicated priority axes.  

  10  priority  axes  of  seven  Operational  Programmes  and  one  Co-
operation  Programme  will  be  implemented  solely  through  financial 
instruments. The sum of the cohesion policy funds allocated to these six 
priority  axes  amounts  to  EUR  3,4  bn,  i.e.  17%  of  all  ESI  funds  disbursed 
via  financial  instruments  (see  Chapter  3.5).  Eleven  priority  axes38  of  four 
Operational and one Co-operation Programmes will be implemented solely 
through  financial  instruments  set  up  at  Union  level,  with  the  amount  of 
EUR 1 bn. 

  19  priority  axes  of  nine  Operational  Programmes  and  three  Co-
Operation  Programmes  will  be  implemented  solely  through  community-
led  local  development.  The  sum  of  cohesion  policy  funds  allocated  to 
these priority axes amount to EUR 1,2 bn (75% of the resources allocated 
to CLLD – see section 3.9.1.1). 

Furthermore, Art. 120 (3) determines that “The maximum co-financing rate […] shall be 
increased  for  each  priority  axis  […]  where  a  priority  axis  is  dedicated  to  social 
innovation or to transnational cooperation, or a combination of both”. 

  2  priority  axes  of  two  Operational  Programmes  are  dedicated  to 
social  innovation  and  trans-nationality.  The  sum  of  the  ESF  funds 

38 see New provision 5 for further details 

56 

 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

allocated to these two priorities amount to EUR 0,04 bn euro (1,6‰ of the 
total ESF funding to jointly funded operational programmes). 

3.3.4  Establishing the Structure of Priorities – the Negotiation Process 

As interview partners indicated, in some cases, the structure of priority axes mirrored 
that of the previous period. In the others, it was the structure of thematic objectives and 
the regulatory concentration requirements together that defined – at least in broad terms 
– the programmes and their structure.  

About  half  of  the  Member  States  wanted    priority  axes  combining  several  TOs. 
However,  Commission  services  –  although  to  differing  extents  –  were  rather  against 
complex  axes.  One-third  of  the  respondents  stated  that  this  led  to  a  fragmentation  of 
programme structure. 

One alternative to using multi-thematic axes – if the objective is to use different funds 
or  thematic  objectives  together  –  would  have  been  the  use  of  integrated  territorial 
instruments. In our survey, however, Member States authorities indicated that they in 
fact  did  not  see  territorial  instruments  as  an  alternative  to  combination  axes  –  not 
even  in  cases  where  the  authorities  had  otherwise  considered  ITIs,  CLLDs  and  Joint 
Action Plans. 

Figure 23 - Survey Q 3.2 When considering the use of complex priorities, have 
the options of using ITIs, CLLDs, JAPs been considered? 

15.56% 

20.00% 

64.44% 

0 Not

1 Considered and adopted

2 Considered and abandoned

Member  States’  positions  during  the  negotiations  on  programming  –  with  respect  to 
the  definition  of  main  results  –  were  influenced  most  by  the  new  regulatory  framework 
and the informal dialogue with the Commission. Exchanges with the  Commission  – with 
the exception of the EC’s initial negotiating position – were considered by the responding 
MAs as more important than any national factors.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 24 - Factors influencing negotiations – The main results sought for each 
ESI Fund 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

10% 

15% 

15% 

9% 

21% 

17% 

19% 

21% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

As  compared  to  similar  data  on  other  provisions,  the  definition  of  priority  axes  was 
the 2nd most debated from all provisions, as shown in Figure 25. In almost half of the 
cases,  the  initial  negotiation  positions  changed,  with  both  the  Member  States  and  the 
European Commission apparently ready to compromise. 

Figure 25 - Impact of exchanges with the Commission - use of combination axes 

26% 

26% 

EC accepted MS
position

Compromise

EC changed position

18% 

30% 

No disagreement

3.3.5  Specific Conclusions 

The key conclusions from this provision can be summarised as follows: 

 

In  the  Operational  Programmes,  the  number  of  priority  axes  averages 
around 5,5 per programme. ESF-co-financed programmes have an average 
just below 8. (From a different angle: programmes with more priority axes 
tend  to  use  also  the  ESF).  Co-operation  programmes  usually  have  less 
priority axes, with an average below 4. 

  Under  Investment  for  Growth  and  Jobs  programmes,  combined  axes 
represent  29%  of  the  overall  number  of  priority  axes.  Under  ETC,  the 
same  ratio  is  only  11%.  Overall  (for  Investments  for  Growth  and  Jobs), 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

half of the ERDF and 21% of the Cohesion Fund is disbursed in combined 
priority  axes,  while  41%  of  ESF  funding  (in  programmes  jointly  financed 
with  ERDF)  is  also  financing  combined  axes.  Multi-thematic  priority  axes 
represent  17%  of  all  axes  and  encompass  18%  of  the  programme 
allocations covered by the study.  

  Despite  the  special  incentives  to  create  priority  axes  dedicated  to  certain 
delivery  mechanisms,  the  number  of  dedicated  axes  is  small.  10 
priority  axes  will  be  implemented  solely  through  financial  instruments,  2 
priority  axes  are  dedicated  to  social  innovation  and  trans-nationality.  The 
only  notable  exception  are  the  13  priority  axes  implemented  solely 
through  community-led  local  development,  amounting  to  65%  of  the 
overall  Cohesion  policy  resources  allocated  to  CLLD  (in  the  programmes 
analysed by the study).  

  The  general  position  of  the  European  Commission  was  rather 
negative  vis-à-vis  the  use  of  multi-thematic  priority  axes.  The  issue  was 
intensively discussed during the negotiations. Respondents stated that this 
led  to  a  fragmentation  of  programme  structure,  while  the  Commission 
considered  that  the  use  of  these  axes  undermined  result  orientation.  The 
average  size (budget) of simple axes is significantly smaller than those  of 
combination  axes.  The  alternative  of  using  territorial  instruments  was 
rarely considered by Member States.  

59 

 
3.4  RESULT ORIENTATION 

3.4.1  Background 

The  Conceptual  framework  and  provisions  related  to  intervention  logic  (actions, 
results,  selection  principles)  have  long  been  part  of  Cohesion  policy  (at  least  since  the 
Maastricht Treaty). Based on this, programmes have (since then) been required to spell 
out  their  strategy  (objectives  and  instruments).  Nevertheless,  there  were  major 
differences  among  programme  documents  as  to  how  they  have  complied  with  these 
requirements,  and  to  what  extent  they  provided  clear  and  unambiguous  targets  and 
indicators. (Casavola, 2009, page: 7).  

The  focus  on  results  and  delivering  measureable  added  value  was  one  of  the  main 
trends  of  the  reform  debate  preceding  reform  of  cohesion  policy  regulations  for  2014-
2020.  Accordingly,  the  new  provisions  put  a  lot  of  emphasis  on  making  specific 
objectives,  as  well  as  results  and  impacts  explicit,  following  a  standardised,  uniform 
presentation  method,  with  clear  baselines  and  targets  to  measure  progress  (6th 
Cohesion Report, p. xxii). 

The  analysis  of  programme  documents39  has  focused  on  assessing  the  way  in  which 
Member  States  have  defined  specific  objectives  linked  to  investment  priorities  for  each 
thematic  objective  chosen  and  results  (i.e.  changes)  sought  in  view  of  the  specific 
objective  that  Member  States  seek  to  achieve  with  Union  support.  Furthermore,  it  was 
examined  how  actions  to  be  supported  by  the  ERDF,  the  CF  and  the  ESF  (in  multi-fund 
programmes)  were  presented,  and  what  principles  would  guide  the  selection  of 
operations.  

Interviews  and  the  survey  were  used  to  explore  how  Member  States  have  shifted  the 
emphasis  of  programming  towards  results,  and  whether  they  encountered  challenges  in 
defining specific objectives and result indicators.  

specific  objectives,  actions  and 

39 Out of the 292 programmes covered by the study, 18 programmes could not be covered by the analysis of 
results, 
selection  principles.  Technical  assistance  programmes 
(2014FR16M2TA001,  2014PL16CFTA001,  2014SK16RFTA001,  2014GR16M3TA001,  2014PT16RFTA001, 
2014RO16RFTA001,  2014CZ16CFTA001)  and  priorities  have  been  excluded  from  the  analysis.  Some 
programmes  not  yet  adopted  at  the  cut-off  date  of  the  report  (2014TC16M4TN002,  2014TC16RFCB013, 
2014TC16RFCB027, 2014TC16RFCB040, 2014TC16RFCB051, 2014TC16RFPC001, 2014TC16RFTN010) have not 
presented their programming details regarding the selection of results, specific objectives, actions and selection 
principles 
to  SME  Initiative  programmes  (2014ES16RFSM001, 
2014MT16RFSM001,  2015BG16RFSM001).  The  207  operational  and  67  co-operation  programmes  contained 
1505 non-technical assistance priority axes. 

to  cut-off  date.  The  same  refers 

60 

 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.4.2  Definition of Specific Objectives and Results40 

Results 

Out  of  the  6  500  references  to  results  that  the  Member  States  and  regions  made, 
about  600  types  have  been  established.  However,  one  quarter  of  these  types 
account for three quarters of the references.  

The  definition  of  results  was,  in  99%  of  the  cases,  methodologically  sound.  It  was  less 
than  1%  of  references  that  had  to  be  considered  problematic  –  as  a  wrongly  defined 
statement that did not represented outputs, rather than genuine results.  

40  Based  on  the  analysis  of  Section  2.A.5  of  programmes,  which  aims  at  "specif[ying]  the  specific  objective 
linked to a particular investment priority and […] outlin[ing] the results sought" (Guidelines for the content of 
the OP, p.10). 

61 

 
 
                                           
Figure 26 - Most frequent results 

Expected results  
Increased  knowledge  sector  cooperation.  Addressing 
bottlenecks to innovation and increasing investment in 
business  R&D  through  close  collaboration  between 
public and private actors. 
More product development by SMEs 
More  university-company  R&D  contracting.  Temporary 
collaboration  between  researchers  and  knowledge-
intensive industries 

Lower burden on SMEs of data submission. Better data 
submission and use processes 
More  high  growth  SMEs.  Creating  higher  incomes, 
employment 

for  growth  and  cohesion  due 

Sustainable  urban  public  transport,  represented  either 
in  quantitative  or  qualitative  terms  (e.g.  increased 
number  of  passengers  in  sustainable  public  transport, 
increased  sustainable  urban  transport  engineering 
capacity, exchange of information, etc.) 
Opportunities 
to 
preserved  natural  and  cultural  heritage:  either  in 
qualitative  or  quantitative  terms,  e.g.  increase  in 
employment  or  earnings,  social  cohesion,  improved 
attractiveness  of  the  region,  increase  in  tourism 
investments 
of 
visitors/participants, better management, etc. 
Status of the cultural heritage - either in qualitative or 
quantitative terms, e.g. number of permits to intervene 
on  cultural  heritage,  number  of  managed  cultural 
heritage 
Conserved  biodiversity,  and/or  restored  ecosystems  - 
either in qualitative or quantitative terms 

products, 

number 

and 

Number of 
references 

Number of 
programmes 

168 

124 
94 

114 

73 

79 

119 

102 
76 

92 

67 

73 

125 

106 

103 

85 

84 

75 

1
b 

Investment priority 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing 
links  and  synergies  between  enterprises,  research 
and  development  centres  and  the  higher  education 
sector,  in  particular  promoting  investment  in  product 
and  service  development,  technology  transfer,  social 
service 
innovation, 
networking, 
applications, 
clusters  and  open 
smart 
specialisation,  and  supporting 
technological  and 
applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product  validation 
actions, advanced manufacturing capabilities and first 
production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling  technologies 
and diffusion of general purpose technologies 

eco-innovation, 
demand 

stimulation, 

innovation 

through 

public 

2c  Strengthening  ICT  applications  for  e-government,  e-

3
d 

learning, e-inclusion, e-culture and e-health 
Supporting the capacity of SMEs to grown in regional, 
national  and  international  markets,  and  to  engage  in 
innovation processes 

4e  Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of 
territories, in particular for urban areas, including the 
promotion  of  sustainable  multimodal  urban  mobility 
and mitigation-relevant adaptation measures 

6c  Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing 

natural and cultural heritage 

6
d 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and 
promoting  ecosystem  services,  including  through 
Natura 2000, and green infrastructure 

62 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Results  were  defined  mostly  consistently  with  the  thematic  objectives  and 
investment priorities selected. There were only relatively few cases where the results 
chosen related to an IP different from the one that was actually used for financing. (2% 
of these were “borderline” cases, and less than 1% were deemed to be incorrect). From 
these  “misplaced”  references,  it  was  less  than  0,5%  that  related  not  only  to  a  different 
IP,  but  a  different  TO  as  well.  All  the  others  referred  to  different  investment  priorities 
contributing  to  the  same  thematic  objective.  Thus,  an  intentional  misplacement  of 
references is unlikely. 

Specific objectives 

Specific objectives are, in the meaning of the regulations (Art. 2(34) CPR), 'results to 
which  an  investment  priority  contributes  through  actions  undertaken  within  such  a 
priority'.  .  They  are  therefore  necessary  points  of  reference  for  the  selection  of 
investment priorities.  

Out  of  the  four  thousand  references  to  specific  objectives  that  the  Member  States 
and  regions  used,  400  types  have  been  established.  However,  only  one  quarter  of 
these types account for three quarters of the references.  

Overall, Member States defined the specific objectives consistently with the definition of 
expected results. It was only in slightly over 1% of the cases that a specific objective was 
defined without stating a corresponding result as well. . 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 27 - Most frequent specific objectives 

Investment priority 
1a 

Enhancing research and innovation (R&I)  infrastructure and capacities 
to  develop  R&I  excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of  competence,  in 
particular those of European interest 

Expected specific objectives 
More 
Strengthening public R&D infrastructures 

laboratories 

innovation 

and 

centres. 

References  Programmes 
89 

96 

service  applications,  demand 

Promoting business investment in R&I, developing links and synergies 
between enterprises, research and development centres and the higher 
education  sector,  in  particular  promoting  investment  in  product  and 
service  development,  technology  transfer,  social  innovation,  eco-
innovation,  public 
stimulation, 
networking, clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation, 
and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early 
product  validation  actions,  advanced  manufacturing  capabilities  and 
first production, in particular in key enabling technologies and diffusion 
of general purpose technologies 
Extending  broadband  deployment  and  the  roll  out  of  high  speed 
networks  and  supporting  the  adoption  of  emerging  technologies  and 
networks for the digital economy 

Strengthening  ICT  applications  for  e-government,  e-learning,  e-
inclusion, e-culture and e-health 

1b 

2a 

2c 

3a 

More R+D in enterprises. Can also apply to SMEs and 
large firms separately 

120 

100 

More  researcher-knowledge-sector  links.  Can  also 
apply to SMEs and large firms separately 

93 

70 

More  broadband  &  better  ITC  systems.  Faster  and 
greater capacity, lower cost 

Better  sub-national  government  ICT  use.  Examples 
could  include  IT  developments  in  inspecting  health 
remotely 

Promoting  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  by  facilitating  the  economic 
exploitation  of  new  ideas  and  fostering  the  creation  of  new  firms, 
including through business incubators 

Raising  new  innovative  firms  birth  rate.  Raising  the 
rates  of  formation  of  new  innovative  firms  and 
university start-ups 

4b 

Promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in enterprises 

Increased energy efficiency -enterprises 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and 
renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public 
buildings, and in the housing sector 

Increase  in  the  energy  efficiency  of  public  buildings/ 
infrastructure 

Conserving, protecting, promoting and developing natural and cultural 
heritage 

Improved  natural  and  cultural  heritage.  Increase  in 
the status of the natural and cultural heritage 

Protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting ecosystem 
services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure 

Improved  protection  of  biodiversity,    preserved 
biodiversity 
environment, 
coordinated/integrated  management  of  natural 
territories, 
through  sustainable  urban 
development, preserved green and blue zones, etc. 

including 

natural 

and 

4c 

6c 

6d 

64 

73 

107 

87 

71 

71 

69 

67 

67 

88 

79 

69 

66 

64 

63 

 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Only 1% of the references to specific objectives had to be considered as problematic (i.e. 
being  methodologically  incorrect,  reflecting  no  genuine  specific  objectives)  in  the 
meaning  of  the  regulation  (Article  2(34)  CPR).  There  were  1%  borderline  and  3% 
incorrect  references  in  terms  of  the  selected  investment  priorities,  of  which  there  were 
1% inter-objective references.  

3.4.3  Definition of Actions and Principles for the Selection of Actions 

Out  of  the  seven  thousand  references  to  actions  that  the  Member  States  and  regions 
used,  500  types  have  been  established.  However,  only  one  quarter  of  these  types 
account for three quarters of the references.  

65 

 
 
 
Figure 28 - Most frequent actions 

Expected actions 
Strengthening  RTD  infrastructure,  including  innovative 
fieldwork and trials 

References  Programmes 
124 

127 

Investment priority 
1a 

Enhancing research and innovation (R&I) infrastructure and capacities 
to  develop R&I excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of  competence,  in 
particular those of European interest 
Promoting business investment in R&I, developing links and synergies 
between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres  and  the 
higher education sector, in particular promoting investment in product 
and service development, technology transfer, social innovation, eco-
stimulation, 
innovation,  public 
networking, 
smart 
specialisation,  and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research, 
pilot  lines,  early  product  validation  actions,  advanced  manufacturing 
capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling 
technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies 
Strengthening  ICT  applications  for  e-government,  e-learning,  e-
inclusion, e-culture and e-health 

service  applications,  demand 

clusters  and  open 

innovation 

through 

Assistance to R+I in SMEs 

Networking  between  SMEs  and  universities.  Promoting 
SME-researcher co-operation 

Local  government  and  agencies  ICT  applications. 
Including e-health, e-education, e-administration 

Promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the economic 
exploitation  of  new  ideas  and  fostering  the  creation  of  new  firms, 
including through business incubators 

Innovative new businesses development. Include range 
of services, advice and help securing property, finance, 
specialist assistance, labour market etc. 

Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional,  national  and 
international markets, and to engage in innovation processes 

Development  support  for  high  growth  SMEs.  Advisory 
services 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and 
renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public 
buildings, and in the housing sector 
Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in 
particular  for  urban  areas,  including  the  promotion  of  sustainable 
multimodal  urban  mobility  and  mitigation-relevant  adaptation 
measures 
Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and 
cultural heritage 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting 
ecosystem  services,  including  through  Natura  2000,  and  green 
infrastructure 

Investments  in  energy  efficiency  and  smart  energy 
management in public buildings. 

Sustainable urban transport 

115 

104 

Investments 
improvement of cultural infratsructures 

cultural 

for 

heritage, 

including 

Investments  for  observing,  preserving  and  improving 
biodiversity and ecosystems, environmental restoration, 
including costal protection, removal of invasive species, 
rehabilitation of reserves and biodiversity corridors, etc. 

114 

102 

108 

97 

158 

158 

125 

131 

118 

137 

146 

152 

117 

127 

112 

128 

1b 

2c 

3a 

3d 

4c 

4e 

6c 

6d 

66 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Actions  were  defined  mostly  consistently  with  the  thematic  objectives  and 
investment priorities selected. There were 2,5% borderline and 2,5% incorrect references 
in  terms  of  the  selected  investment  priorities,  of  which  there  were  1%  “inter-objective” 
references  (i.e.  references  to  actions  that  relate  to  another  TO).  In  line  with  the 
Regulation,  actions  were  defined  only 
investment  priorities.Thus, 
unfortunately, a  1 to 1 correspondence between specific objectives and types of actions 
could  not  be  reconstructed  from  the  programming  documents.  This  limited  the  scope  of 
our analysis of the intervention logic. 

in  terms  of 

Members of the expert team implementing the research were asked to score the quality 
of  the  definition  of  actions.  The  picture  was  mixed:  32%  of  the  actions  have  been 
assessed  as  clear  and  precise,  but  50%  were  considered  as  too  broad  and  17% 
ambiguous  or  non-existent.  The  assessment  of  actions  by  thematic  objectives  is 
summarised  in  Figure  29  below.  Problems  with  the  quality  of  the  definition  of  actions 
were  not  limited  to  any  specific  thematic  objective,  each  TO  (except  for  TO11, 
development of public administration) lacked precision and specificity in defining actions 
to some extent. Thus, problems in defining the action are not rooted in the nature of the 
interventions themselves, they rather relate to other causes. One hypothesis is that loose 
action  definition  could  have  been  done  to  preserve  some  degree  of  freedom  in 
implementation.  

Figure 29 – Quality assessment of description of the main types of actions in the 
programmes 

Thematic objective 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

RTDI 

ICT 

SME 

Low-carbon economy 

Climate change 

Environment protection 

Transport 

Employment 

Poverty and discrimination 

Education 

Public administration 

Not applicable (Outermost territories) 

clear 
and 
precise 
165 

136 

175 

276 

66 

271 

144 

148 

210 

145 

14 

4 

too 
broad 

ambi-
guous 

none 

8 

12 

8 

16 

16 

12 

12 

4 

12 

328 

178 

394 

468 

98 

454 

126 

166 

286 

150 

78 

8 

66 

57 

78 

96 

24 

114 

57 

87 

135 

66 

48 

3 

Out of the five thousand references to guiding principles of project selection that the 
Member  States  and  regions  intend  to  use,  guiding  monitoring  committees  in  examining 
and  approving  criteria  for  project  selection  (in  line  with  Rt.  110  (2)(a)  of  the  CPR.  Of 
these  five  thousand  references,  600  types  have  been  established.  One  quarter  of 
these types account for three quarters of the references.  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References  Programmes 
88 

144 

67 

127 

126 

76 

105 

217 

37 

91 

55 

60 

73 

74 

Figure 30 - Most frequent project selection principles 

Investment priority 
1a 

Enhancing  research  and 
infrastructure  and 
capacities  to  develop  R&I  excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of 
competence, in particular those of European interest 

innovation  (R&I) 

investment 

in  R&I,  developing 

Promoting  business 
links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres 
and  the  higher  education  sector,  in  particular  promoting  investment 
in  product  and  service  development,  technology  transfer,  social 
innovation,  eco-innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand 
stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart 
specialisation,  and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research, 
pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced manufacturing 
capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling 
technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies 

Expected selection principles 
Horizon 2020 restricted call for support. High technology 
research centres support 

Macro  regional  contribution.  Project  contribution  to 
wider Regional Strategy 
Promoting  researcher-company  networking.  Addressing 
bottlenecks  to  innovation  and  increasing  investment  in 
business  R&D  through  close  collaboration  between 
public and private actors, including cross border 

Open  call  for  SMEs.  Wider  benefits  to  region  and 
partners 

Open call for entry to innovation centre and networks 

Strengthening  ICT  applications  for  e-government,  e-learning,  e-
inclusion, e-culture and e-health 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and 
renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public 
buildings, and in the housing sector 

Open call for SMEs to access ICT services 

Strategy.  Selection  of  operations  based  on  fitting  to  a 
national, regional or local strategy or plan 

1b 

2c 

4c 

68 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Principles  of  project  selection  were  defined  mostly  consistently  with  the  thematic 
objectives  and  investment  priorities  selected.  Generally,  20%  of  the  definitions  was 
assessed  as  clear  and  precise,  vis-à-vis  44%  too  broad,  and  36%  ambiguous  or 
non-existent.  Again,  quality  problems  of  the  definition  of  guiding  principles  of  project 
selection were not limited to any specific thematic objective: 

Figure 31 – Quality assessment of the description of the guiding principles of 
project selection in the programmes 

Thematic objective 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

RTDI 

ICT 

SME 

Low-carbon economy 

Climate change 

Environment protection 

Transport 

Employment 

Poverty and discrimination 

Education 

Public administration 

Not applicable (Outermost reasons) 

clear 
and 
precise 
139 

79 

123 

195 

41 

162 

87 

80 

104 

80 

8 

too 
broad 

ambi-
guous 

none 

244 

162 

312 

390 

94 

364 

134 

200 

240 

198 

46 

8 

159 

99 

174 

183 

33 

222 

84 

99 

156 

96 

63 

12 

24 

64 

72 

104 

28 

60 

24 

24 

48 

48 

20 

4 

Comparing  the  quality  of  actions  and  guiding  principles  of  selecting  actions,  the 
conclusion  is  that  clear  and  precise  definitions  account  for  one  third  of  references  to 
actions and one quarter of guiding principles; but half of the definitions are too broad.  

3.4.4  Establishing Objectives and Results – The Negotiation Process 

According to survey results, the process of defining specific objectives was managed 
relied  on 
in  a  rather  centralised  manner.  Managing  authorities  mostly 
experts/professionals and directed the process by issuing regulations and guidelines in a 
top-down manner. 

Figure 32 - process of defining specific objectives, result orientation 

Reliance on experts/professionals

Regulation and guidelines

Top-down programming

Other answers

Training the stakeholders

1% 

36% 

30% 

27% 

20% 

0%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  all  three  aspects  –  the  choice  of  objectives,  actions  and  result  indicators  –  survey 
feedback  from  the  Managing  Authorities  indicates  major  debates.  And,  while  in  about 
half  of  the  cases  a  compromise  solution  was  found,  in  many  cases  it  seems  to  be  the 
Commission  that  managed  to  convince  the  Member  State  to  modify  its  position,  rather 
than the other way around. Overall, undoubtedly, the issues related to result orientation 
were  right  at  the  heart  of  the  negotiations,  and  the  Commission  seems  to  have 
had a strong influence on the outcome.  

Figure 33 - Exchanges with the Commission – impact on the choice of objectives 

4% 

25% 

48% 

23% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

Figure 34 - Exchanges with the Commission – impact on the selection of actions 

8% 

26% 

18% 

48% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

Figure 35 - Exchanges with the Commission – impact on the use of result 
indicators 

12% 

3% 

35% 

50% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The biggest influencing factors of the above changes were the formal observations from 
and  the  informal  dialog  with  the  Commission.  As  to  the  “Member  State”  factors, 
partners’  opinions  were  considered  overwhelmingly  more  during  the  definition  of 
actions. This could reflect that the focus of the dialogue with partners was rather “down-
to-earth”,  focussing  on  what  EU  funds  could  actually  be  used  for.  Conversely,  the 
dialogue with the EC apparently focused on the definition of  objectives and results, 
i.e. the higher levels of the intervention logic. 

As to the particular  challenges related to this new provision, almost 40%  of managing 
authorities indicated in the survey problems related to the definition of result indicators. 
25%  reported  difficulties  with  understanding  the  related  methodologies  (concepts). 
Compared  to  that,  difficulties  to  forge  an  agreement  on  objectives,  actions,  or  selection 
principles were mentioned much less frequently (7-12%). 

Specific  challenges  faced  by  programmers  in  defining  specific  objectives  and  result 
indicators  were  also  addressed  by  the  interviews  with  Member  States  authorities.  Their 
answers  indicated  a  general  problem  of  changing  action-based  approaches  to  a  result-
based one, while this problem manifested itself in the form of a search for specific result 
indicators  monitoring  the  change.  This  conceptual  problem  interacted  with  two-level 
programming in some Member States and – as they perceived – the not fully harmonized 
approach of country desks of different Commission services.  

3.4.5  Specific Conclusions 

The  main  conclusions  from  the  analysis  of  programme  data,  the  surveys  and  interviews 
are as follows: 

  Overall, programmes used a  broad  range (several hundred)  of  types of 
specific  objectives,  results,  actions  and  selection  principles. 
However,  they  used  these  types  rather  concentrated,  as  about  one 
quarter of them account for the majority of the references.  

  Their  definitions  were  rather  consistent,  both  with  the  breakdown  of 
TOs  and  IPs  (with  only  a  few  “misplaced”  references)  and  the  relevant 
methodologies (with very few irrelevant/faulty definitions).  

  2/3 of the definitions of actions and 80% of the definitions of selection 
criteria were assessed as problematic: considered either as too broad or 
ambiguous or non-existent. Such problems were not limited to any specific 
thematic  objective,  each  TO  (except  for  TO11,  development  of  public 
administration) lacked precision and specificity in defining actions to some 
extent. Thus, problems in defining the action are not rooted in the nature 
of  the  interventions  themselves,  they  rather  relate  to  other  causes.  One 
hypothesis is that loose action definition could have been done to preserve 
some degree of freedom in implementation. 

  Comparing  the  quality  of  actions  and  guiding  principles  of  selecting 
actions, the conclusion is that clear and precise definitions account for one 
third of references to actions and one quarter of guiding principles; but half 
of the definitions are too broad. 

  As feedback from managing authorities indicates: the choice of objectives, 
actions  and  result  indicators  were  at  the  heart  of  the  negotiations 
during the planning process. There were major debates, and the positions 

71 

 
 
of  Member  States  have  changed  substantially  in  more  than  two  thirds  of 
the cases. And, while finding a compromise solution was the most frequent 
solution, clearly it seems to be the Commission that managed to convince 
the  Member  State  to  modify  their  position,  rather  than  the  other  way 
around.  

  Overall,  according  to  interviews,  the  transition  from  action-based 
programming to a result-based one seems to have proved difficult for 
Member  States.  The  identification  of  result  indicators  was  the  major 
challenge in establishing the intervention logic, as almost 40% of the MAs 
indicated. 

72 

 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.5  PLANNED USE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS 

3.5.1  Background 

Regional Policy is traditionally based on grants. Nevertheless, financial instruments have 
been  used  for  delivering  investments  for  Structural  Funds  since  the  1994-1999 
programming  period.  Their  relative  importance  has  increased  during  the  programming 
period  2007-2013  and  they  now  represent  around  5%  of  total  European  Regional 
Development  Fund  (ERDF)  resources41.  Financial  instruments  are  expected  to  play  an 
even  stronger  role  in  cohesion  policy  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period.  (Financial 
instruments factsheet, p. 2).  

The new regulatory framework contains substantially more detailed provisions regarding 
financial  instruments,  aimed  at  increasing  their  use  and  widening  their  scope  of 
application.  Key  changes  relating  to  use  of  financial  instruments  under  the  ERDF  and 
ESF for 2014-2020 are summarised in the table below. 

Figure 36 – Financial instruments 2007-2013 vs. 2014-2020 

2007-2013 

2014-2020 

Scope 

Set-up 

Support for enterprises, urban develop-
ment, energy efficiency and renewable 
energies in building sector.  

Voluntary gap analysis for enterprises 
and at the level of Holding fund.  

Support for all thematic objectives 
covered under a programme. 

Compulsory ex-ante assessment 

Implementation 
options  

Financial instruments at national or 
regional level – tailor made only  

Payments 

Possibility to declare to the Commission 
100% of the amount paid to fund – not 
linked to disbursements to final 
recipients  

Legal basis set out in successive 
amendments of the regulations and 
recommendations/interpretations set 
out in three COCOF notes  

Management 
costs and fees, 
interest, resour-
ces returned, 
legacy 

Reporting 

Financial instruments at national, regional 
level, transnational or cross-border level: 
Tailor-made or off-the-shelf or MA loans 
/guarantees. 
Contribution to EU level instruments  

Phased payments linked to disbursements 
to final recipients National co-financing 
which is expected to be paid can be 
included in the request for the interim 
payment  

Full provisions set out from outset in 
basic, delegated and implementing acts  

Compulsory reporting only from 2011   
onwards, on a limited range of 
indicators 

Compulsory reporting from the outset, on 
a range of indicators linked to the financial 
regulation. 

Based on: (Financial instruments reference guide, pp. 2-3).  

41   Source: Financial Instruments in Cohesion Policy 2014-2020.   The “Summary of Data on the progress made 
in financing and implementing financial engineering instruments" (EU Commission, October 2015, page 21f) put 
the amount of funds dedicated to FI in the previous programming period to 5.2% of the ERDF, and 0,6% of the 
ESF, or 3,2% of the combined cohesion policy allocation). 

73 

 
 
 
 
                                           
This part of the analysis focussed on the ex-ante evaluations of programmes, examining 
the justifications for using financial instruments. The survey and interviews examined the 
expectations from Member States/regions towards using financial instruments, as well as 
why  the  majority  of  Member  States  did  not  take  up  the  SME  initiative,  i.e.  the  financial 
instrument for the support of small and medium-sized enterprises. 

3.5.2  The Use of Financial Instruments 

Most  Member  States  intend  to  use  financial  instruments  (with  the  exception  of  four 
Member  States).  Five  Member  States  plan  to  deploy  around  or  over  15%  of  their 
allocations through financial instruments.  

FIs  are  mentioned  in  141  operational  programmes42.  The  total  EU  funding  to  be 
dedicated to these instruments reaches EUR 20.887 billion.  

By  the  cut-off  date  of  end  July  2015,  three  Member  States43  had  joined  the  SME 
Initiative  with  the  amount  of  EUR  1  bn,  and  two  regional  and  two  sectoral  operational 
programmes have priority axes dedicated solely to financial instruments.  

More than half of cohesion policy funding through financial instruments will be extended 
through loans and equivalent instruments, while one quarter will be used to generate 
venture and equity capital.  

Figure 37 - Support through financial instruments 

venture and equity, 
22.5% 

SME Initiative, 4.4% 

guarantee or 
equivalent, 16.9% 

interest rate 
subsidy, 4.9% 

loan or equivalent, 
51.3% 

Financial instruments will account for 9,5% of the ERDF, 2,7% of the Cohesion Fund and 
1,3%  of  the  ESF  allocations.  Financial  instruments  are  more  frequently  delivered  in  a 

42  This  overview  reflects  the  content  of  programmes  at  the  stage  of  their  adoption  or  at  the  cut-off  date  of 
31/07 for the ones already adopted. The situation has evolved since then. 

43 In addition, three Member States submitted SME Initiative OPs after this cut-off date. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

multi-objective,  multi-regional  context.  Correlation  analyses  have  shown  that  multi-
objective  programmes  use  interest  rate  subsidy,  guarantee  fee  subsidy,  technical 
support  or  equivalent  measures  relatively  more  frequently,  while  multi-regional 
programmes  use  them  more  rarely  than  other  types  of  programmes.  Financial 
instruments are going to be used for at least 9 thematic objectives44. In any case, the 
use  of  financial  instruments  is  substantially  more  widespread  (in  terms  of  policy 
areas covered) than in the previous period. 

3.5.3  Justifications and expectations towards using financial instruments 

The  justification  for  using  financial  instruments  is  scattered  and  often  missing.  It 
was  not  a  requirement  towards  the  programmers  to  give  such  a  justification  in  the 
programme document. Support of financial instruments shall be based on specific ex ante 
assessments  (which  have  to  establish  evidence  of  market  failures  or  suboptimal 
investment  situations,  and  the  estimated  level  and  scope  of  public  investment  needs, 
including types of financial instruments to be supported). Such ex ante assessments may 
be completed later on, during the course of programme implementation. 

Although it was a general requirement to ex ante evaluators to appraise the rationale for 
the  form  of  support  proposed  in  the  programme  (CPR,  Article  55(3)(h)),  it  is  only  80 
programmes  –  58%  of  those  planning  to  use  FI  –  where  either  the  ex  ante 
evaluations  or  the programme  document  offer  a  justification for their use.  These 
are summarised in the table below. 

Figure 38 - justifications for using financial instruments 

Profitable projects with financing needs uncovered on the market 
Lack of ample assistance to finance grants  
Providing extra assistance to top-up existing grant schemes 
Non-profitable projects with financing needs uncovered on the market 
Speed or flexibility to deploy assistance (to spend) 
Assessment and funding of the project is done on a more market-compatible 
and a closer-to-market way. 
Relying on recommendations of an international organization, e.g. OECD 
recommendation on venture capital 

58 
41 
21 
8 
6 
4 

4 

In percentage terms, 41% of the programmes that opted for using financial instruments 
made  their  decisions  based  on  detecting  insufficient  funding  on  financial  markets; 
and 19% chose these instruments due to the limited sources available for grants. 

Comments  made  by  the  Commission  regarding  the  justification  for  using  FI  reflect  a 
different approach. As the EC sees it, a lack of ample assistance for grants should not 
be seen as a valid argument for the use of FI, as it is the MA that decides how funding is 

44 For TO 5 and TO 11, there is no conclusive information. There are financial instruments planned contributing 
to multi-thematic priority axes, where TO 5 and TO 11 are also covered. However, programmes do not specify 
whether the FI will also contribute to these two thematic objectives. 

75 

 
 
 
                                           
invested  through  grants  and  how  much  through  financial instruments.  Furthermore,  the 
financing of non-profitable projects is in conflict with Art. 37 CPR.45  

Member  States’  expectations  (collected  in  response  to  a  specific  survey  question) 
towards the use of financial instruments distribute rather  evenly between the intentions 
of  increasing  the  number  of  assisted  projects,  improving  financial  market  conditions 
indirectly  widening  financing  possibilities  and  absorption  (in  the  sense  that  more  funds 
can  be  quickly  disbursed).  One  quarter  of  the  respondents,  however,  have  diverse 
expectations. 

Figure 39 - Survey Q 5.1 - What are expectations to use financial instruments?46 

Project financing increases

26.60% 

29.79% 

Uncovered financing needs decrease

Assistance quickly deployed

2.13% 

17.02% 

24.47% 

Number of debtors grows

Other answers

It  is  interesting  to  contrast  the  justification  given  by  the  programmers  and  the  ex-
ante  evaluators  as  to  why  they  plan  to  use  financial  instruments  with  the  goals  they 
want  to  obtain.  As  statistical  analysis  revealed,  there  is  a  definite  correspondence 
between the two:  

  Those  viewing  financial  instruments  as  extra  assistance  to  top-up 

existing grant schemes aim at quick absorption.  

  Those  choosing  them  as  closer-to-market  means  –  stating  that  even 
profitable projects have financing needs uncovered on the market – aim at 
a  growing  number  of  projects  getting  assistance,  without  aiming  at  a 
general decrease of uncovered financing needs.  

  Still  others  wish  to  employ  financial  instruments,  acting  also  in  line  with 
recommendations  by  international  institutions,  in  order  to  provide 
affordable  funds  to  projects  which  would  otherwise  be  not  profitable 
under prevailing market conditions.  

During  the  negotiations,  Member  States’  positions  regarding  the  use  (or  non-use)  of 
financial  instruments  were  shaped,  above  all,  through  the  informal  dialogue,  and  EC 
formal  comments  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  national  legal  and  institutional  context,  as 

45  “…Financial  instruments  shall  be  implemented  to  support  investments  which  are  expected  to  be  financially 
viable and do not give rise to sufficient funding from market sources.” (CPR, Article 37(1)) 

46 „Number of debtors grows” = the number of enterprises using (benefitting from) financial instruments grows. 

76 

 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

well  as  ex-ante  evaluations  on  the  other.  The  text  of  the  regulations  –  substantially 
extended as regards financial instruments – was also important.  

As  regards  the  impact  of  exchanges  with  the  Commission,  the  issue  of  financial 
instruments was slightly more controversial than average. In cases where there was 
debate,  the  outcome  seems  to  reflect  a  middle  way  between  the  national  and  EC 
positions. (The Commission’s line was to encourage the use of financial instruments). 

Figure 40 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the use of financial instruments 

12% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

46% 

30% 

12% 

The dialogue led to a
compromise solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

The  low  uptake  of  the  SME  Initiative  was  discussed  in  interviews  with  both  Member 
State  representatives  and  focus  groups  with  the  Commission.  Many  Member  States  did 
not  decide  to  join  the  SME  Initiative  because  similar  financial  instruments  already 
existed  on  the  national  market;  or  because  the  regulatory  initiative  came  too  late, 
when  decisions  about  the  distribution  of  ESIF  funding  –  e.g.  the  decentralisation  of 
funding to regions – was already decided. Member States considered the instrument too 
complicated and expensive to manage, or available funding was considered too small 
to  justify  the  costs  and  the  rules  were  perceived  as  unclear.  Some  Member  States 
perceived the EIB as less flexible in negotiations than a domestic development bank and 
considered that governments would have a stronger negotiating position in case of the 
latter. There were fears that using the EIB would preclude the strengthening of national 
expertise and capacity and create unwanted dependence on an external player. There 
was also scepticism about the initiatives’ potential to exert a discernible influence on the 
access to finance to SMEs, as it was expected to be relatively expensive, and limited 
in size. The countries that in the end did or may adopt the instrument may have decided 
in favour of the initiative because their earlier domestic attempts did not bring sufficient 
results. 

3.5.4  Specific Conclusions 

The regulatory provisions regarding the use of financial instruments were substantially 
extended for the period 2014-2020, with the intention of providing better, more detailed 
guidance to Member States. The Commission’s intention was to  support the spread of 
FIs in different policy areas. 

77 

 
 
 
 
As programme data show (based on OPs at the time of their adoption or at the other cut-
off date of end July 2015 for the ones not yet adopted by then), financial instruments are 
indeed  planned  to  be  used  under  at  least  9  thematic  objectives,  and  possibly  all 
eleven.  With  the  exception  of  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Ireland  and  Luxembourg,  all  Member 
States  stated  their  intention  to  implement  such  schemes.  The  Netherlands,  Portugal, 
Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom plan to use around or over 15% of their ERDF 
allocations  within  the  objective  for  investments  for  growth  and  employment  through 
financial instruments. At the same time (as of end July 2015), the SME initiative was only 
taken up by three Member States  – Bulgaria, Malta and Spain. ETC programmes do not 
plan to use FIs. 

Judged by the relevant programmes and ex-ante evaluations, the principal motivation 
of  Member  States  to  employ  financial  instruments  was  to  increase  available 
funding  on  the  market,  and  to  complement  the  funds  available  for  grants,  which  are 
inherently  limited.  Speeding  up  the  deployment  of  EU  assistance,  and  increasing  the 
number  of  enterprises  (or  other  project  owners)  benefitting  from  refundable  assistance, 
were also well represented among the motivations of authorities planning with FIs. 

The  apparent  reluctance  of  Member  States  to  take  up  the  SME  initiative  could  be 
explained  with  several  arguments.  Several  Member  States  considered  that  their  own 
financial  sectors  were  well  capable  of  providing  similar  financial  products  without  EIB 
assistance. Others considered the scheme too small and too expensive. The wish to avoid 
dependence on a foreign bank was also cited among the reasons for abstaining.  

Overall, financial instruments are planned to take up around EUR 20,887 billion, or 7,2% 
of  the  budget  of  the  programmes  under  examination.  More  than  half  of  that  amount 
will  be  dedicated  to  loans,  with  venture  and  equity  financing  taking  up  22%,  and 
guarantees 16,9%.  

One expectation – namely that the use of financial instruments would spread well 
beyond  the  remit  of  enterprise  support,  definitely  seems  to  be  coming  true.  FIs 
should operate at least under nine, possibly all eleven thematic objectives. 

78 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.6  PLANNED USE OF MAJOR PROJECTS  

3.6.1  Background 

Major  projects  (large-scale  infrastructure  projects  in  transport,  environment  and  other 
sectors such as culture, education, energy or ICT, co-funded by ERDF and CF and subject 
to an assessment and a specific decision by the European Commission) have been  part 
of  cohesion  policy  since  the  outset.  Experience  and  benchmark  data  have  been 
accumulated  for  decades  and  related  problems  –  especially  those  related  to  project 
preparation  and  appraisal  –  are  known  to  be  a  critical  area  of  responsibility  for  public 
agencies (RGL Forensys, Faber Maunsell/Aecom and Frontier Economics, 2009, p. 70).  

Regulations regarding major projects have regularly been adjusted, and several changes 
to the earlier provisions were introduced for the 2014-2020 programming period as well, 
including: 

  streamlined  approval  procedure  and  stronger  role  of  independent 

 

experts (such as JASPERS); 
simplified approval for phased projects under certain conditions (CPR, p. 
103), i.e. phasing; 

  higher thresholds and based on total eligible cost after taking account of 

 

Article 61;  
stronger  focus  on  timely  realisation  of  major  projects:  all  Commission 
decisions  are  conditional;  stricter  check  of  administrative  capacity  of 
beneficiaries; no N+3 deductions due to major projects; 

  certification of expenditure possible only when the project is submitted to 

the Commission; 

  compulsory  list  of  major  projects  in  the  operational  programmes,  and 

better linking them to intervention logic; 

  no  financing  of  completed  projects  (this  is  a  horizontal  principle  but 

applies to major projects as well). 

For  this  study,  we  have  examined  which  Member  States  are  planning  to  use  major 
projects,  under  what  funds,  types  of  programmes,  thematic  objectives  and 
investment  priorities.  We  also  looked  at  the  use  of  phasing.  The  issue  of  major 
projects was included neither in the survey nor in the interviews questionnaires. 

3.6.2  The use of major projects 

Altogether, 289 major  projects  were planned in 202 investment priorities selected in 54 
programmes (one sixth of the programmes) at the time of their adoption (or at the cut-
off date of 31 July 2015 for the programmes not yet adopted by then). 83% of the major 
projects are programmed in nine Member States47. 

47 Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovakia 

79 

 
                                           
Figure 41 - Planned use of major projects by country 

42 

30 

28 
28 
28 

24 

20 
20 

18 

14 

10 
10 

Poland
Hungary
Romania
Italy
France
Greece
Slovakia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Portugal
Spain
Bulgaria
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Lithuania
Ireland
Malta
Latvia

6 
6 

4 
4 

2 
2 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Major  projects  are  planned  across  all  thematic  objectives  –  except  TO  8 
(employment).  Multi-objective  and  ESF  programmes  (practically)  do  not  use  major 
projects. Other patterns (clusters) across Member States, or types of programmes were 
not identified. As to the IPs level, the use of major projects is fairly concentrated on 
one  or  two  investment  priorities  for  each  thematic  objective,  with  the  notable 
exception of network areas (transport and energy) where more investment priorities are 
tackled.  

Thematic  objective  07,  Promoting  sustainable  transport  and  removing  bottlenecks  in  key  network 
infrastructures, relies heavily on major projects.  

Major projects are also frequently (more than 10 projects) used in the following investment priorities: 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and  capacities  to  develop  R&I 
excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of  competence,  in  particular  those  of  European  interest 
(1a), 

Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in  particular  for  urban  areas, 
including  the  promotion  of  sustainable  multimodal  urban  mobility  and  mitigation-relevant 
adaptation measures (4e), 

Investing in the waste sector (6i) and the water sector (6ii) to meet the requirements of the 
Union's  environmental  acquis  and  to  address  needs,  identified  by  the  Member  States,  for 
investment that goes beyond those requirements, and 

Investing in health and social infrastructure which contributes to national, regional and local 
development,  reducing  inequalities  in  terms  of  health  status,  promoting  social  inclusion 
through improved access to social, cultural and recreational services and the transition from 
institutional to community-based services (9a). 

● 

● 

● 

● 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
  
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 42 – (IPs with) major projects in thematic objectives 

10 - Education 
2% 
09 - Social inclusion 
5% 

11 - Public 
administration 
1% 

01 - Research and 
innovation 
5% 

02 - ICT 
5% 

03 - SMEs 
5% 

04 - Low carbon 
economy 
13% 

07 - Transport 
44% 

05 - Climate change 
4% 

06 - Environment 
16% 

Phasing occurs under almost all TOs where they are present, except for TO 3 and 11. 
Transport  is  somewhat  overrepresented  among  phased  projects.  13%  of  the  planned 
projects  are  phased  ones,  meaning  that  they  have  already  been  started  during  the 
previous  programming  period  and  are  continuations  of  those  has  successfully 
implemented  their  first  phase.  This  definitely  accelerates  starting  the  new  programming 
period. 

Figure 43 - (IPs with) phased major projects in thematic objectives 

10 - Education 
7% 

01 - Research and 
innovation 
12% 

02 - ICT 
1% 

07 - Transport 
56% 

04 - Low carbon 
economy 
10% 

05 - Climate change 
2% 

06 - Environment 
12% 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
3.6.3  Specific Conclusions 

Overall, the main findings on this provision are that: 

  The  use  of  major  projects  is  planned  in  at  least  18  Member  States,  more 

extensively in 9 Member States.  

  Major  projects  are  planned  to  be  used  under  all  TOs,  except  for  TO  8 

(employment) and 11 (institutional and administrative capacity).  

  Almost all TOs, and more than half of the investment priorities concerned plan to 
use phasing, and continue projects already started in the previous programming 
period. This should have a positive “streamlining” effect on the approval of major 
projects. 

82 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.7  USE OF CO-FINANCING RATES  

3.7.1  Background 

When  deciding  about  programmes,  the  Commission’s  decision  fixes  the  co-
financing rate and the maximum amount of support from the Funds for each priority 
axis.  Where  a  priority  axis  concerns  more  than  one  category  of  regions,  more  than 
one  Fund  and/or  combines  investment  priorities  from  different  thematic  objectives, 
the Commission decision, where necessary, fixes the co-financing rate by category of 
region, Fund and thematic objective – respecting the provisions of the regulations.  

The  co-financing rate from the Funds to a priority axis  may  be modulated to take 
account of: 

 

 

 
 

the importance of the priority axis for the delivery of the Europe 2020 
strategy, having regard to the specific gaps to be addressed; 
the  protection  and  improvement  of  the  environment,  principally 
through  the  application  of  the  precautionary  principle,  the  principle  of 
preventive action and the polluter pays principle; 
the rate of mobilisation of private financing; 
the  coverage  of  areas  with  severe  and  permanent  natural  or 
demographic handicaps. 

While the provisions are essentially similar to those in the previous programming 
periods,  the  application  of  the  provisions  is  different  due  to  changes  in  the 
programming context of financial planning:  

  Maximum  co-financing  rates  are  defined  in  a  new  programming 
context: rates  set by funds and types of regions  (CPR, p. 120(3)) are 
increased  for  priority  axes  dedicated  to  CLLDs,  financial  instruments, 
social innovation or to transnational cooperation; or implementing YEI. 
  Part  of  the  modulation  –  i.e.  modulation  by  thematic  objectives  –  is 

defined in the programming phase. 

  Focusing  more  on  results  –  as  opposed  to  spending  –  means  that  a 
higher  co-financing  rate  reflects  more  European  added  value,  rather 
than less national funding (and importance). 

Analysing  the  programmes,  we  have  examined,  how  co-financing  rates  vary  over 
Member States, Funds and types of programmes, in relation to applicable maximum 
rates.  The  study  also  sought  to  identify  where  modulation  was  to  be  applied,  and 
with  what  justifications  and  methods.  The  issue  of  co-financing  rates  was  included 
neither in the survey nor in the interviews questionnaires. 

3.7.2  Modulation and justification 

Co-financing  rates  –  as  calculated  on  the  priority  axis  and  fund  level  –  do  show 
variations  over  Member  States,  funds  and  types  of  programmes.  (See  table  below 
Figure  44).  Median  co-financing  rates  for  ERDF,  ESF  and  CF  are  75%,  80%  and 
85% (the applicable maximum co-financing rates) respectively.  

83 

 
 
There  is  substantial  variation  in  priority  axes  financed  by  ERDF  and  ESF.  This 
variation  of  ERDF  co-financing  is  mainly  due  to  differences  in  co-financing 
between different types of regions. In more developed and transition regions, as 
well  as  in  EU-15  Member  States,  lower-than-average  co-financing  rates  are 
more  frequent48.  The  opposite  is  true  for  less  developed  regions  and  EU-13:  here, 
priorities with low co-financing rates comparatively are rare. 49 The same divide could 
be observed regarding variance (i.e. degree of dispersion of the sample): EU-13 and 
less  developed  regions  show  small  variance  in  co-financing  rates,  the  opposite 
is true in more developed and transition regions and in EU-15 Member States. There 
are,  however,  extremely  high  and  low  co-financing  rates  as  well.  The  0%  co-
financing  rate  of  the  Baltic  Sea  ENI  finance  and  the  100%  percent  rate  of  a  French 
regional  programme  are  clearly  extremities,  but  18-30%  rates  characterize  25 
priority  axes  in  ten  programmes,  while  17  priority  axes  in  another  dozen 
programmes feature 90% and higher rates. 

It seems that maximum applicable rates are generally used in the Cohesion Fund, 
EU-13  Member  States  and  less  developed  regions.  Priority  axes  of  co-operation 
programmes. The EU-15 and more developed regions tend to differ much more. 

Figure 44 - Co-financing rates in operational and co-operation programmes 

Overall 
ERDF 
ESF 
CF 
More developed regions 
Transition regions 
Less developed regions 
EU-15 
EU-13 
ETC programmes 
Mainstream programmes 

EU co-financing rates (%) 

Total 

EU 

Mean 

Variance  Median  Minimum  Maximum  Weighted 
average 

Funding 
EUR'000'000'000 

69,0% 
67,5% 
72,6% 
84,0% 
54,3% 
64,1% 
79,2% 
61,2% 
82,5% 
75,8% 
67,4% 

3,0% 
3,0% 
2,4% 
0,3% 
2,1% 
2,6% 
1,3% 
2,8% 
0,7% 
2,3% 
3,1% 

80,0% 
75,0% 
80,0% 
85,0% 
50,0% 
60,0% 
85,0% 
50,0% 
85,0% 
85,0% 
75,0% 

18,0% 
18,0% 
26,0% 
40,7% 
18,0% 
19,0% 
20,0% 
18,0% 
40,7% 
0,0% 
18,0% 

100,0% 
100,0% 
95,0% 
85,0% 
100,0% 
100,0% 
100,0% 
100,0% 
100,0% 
95,0% 
100,0% 

73,9% 
70,9% 
75,4% 
83,9% 
52,7% 
69,1% 
78,4% 
63,3% 
83,1% 
28,3% 
73,8% 

380 
268 
38 
73 
66 
36 
191 
160 
183 
36 
344 

280 
190 
28 
61 
35 
25 
150 
102 
152 
10 
254 

Reasons  for  using  modulation  are  given  in  102  programmes  (1/3  of  the 
programmes).  However,  no  justifications  are  given  and  no  specific  ways  how  to 
in  any  programme. 
apply  modulation  of  co-financing  rates  are  described 
Programmes specify the legal basis for a modulation with respect to CPR Article 121, 
but  they  do  not  determine  how  this  will  affect  the  co-financing  rates  of  individual 
projects within the relevant priority. 

48  Means  are  higher  than  medians.  A  mean  higher  than  the  median  means  a  left-skewed  distribution, 
meaning that there are more of the smaller units (priority axes with relatively smaller co-financing rates) 
compensated in the mean by a small number of higher-than-average units. ) 

49 All Member States that joined in 2004, 2007 and 2013: BG, CZ, EE, HR, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, PL, RO, SI, 
SK. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 45 - Reasons for modulation (number of programmes) 

The protection and 
improvement of the 
environment, 
principally through 
the application of 
the precautionary 
principle, the 
principle of 
preventive action 
and the polluter … 

The coverage of 
areas with severe 
and permanent 
natural or 
demographic 
handicaps 
14% 

The rate of 
mobilisation of 
private financing 
11% 

The importance of 
the priority axis for 
the delivery of the 
EU 2020 strategy, 
having regard to the 
specific gaps to be 
addressed 
62% 

3.7.3  Specific Conclusions 

There is variation in the co-financing rates in more developed regions, transition 
regions, EU-15 Member States and co-operation programmes. At the same time, the 
Cohesion Fund and EU-13 programmes mostly apply maximum rates. 

One  third  of  the  programmes  foresee  modulation.  Almost  two-thirds  of  indicated 
modulations address the importance of the priority axis for the delivery of the Europe 
2020 strategy, having regard to the specific gaps to be addressed. 

No  information  could  be  collected  as  regards  the  ways  in  which  modulation 
would be applied when implementing programmes (to the co-financing of individual 
projects, or measures within a priority). 

85 

 
 
 
 
3.8  TERRITORIAL CHALLENGES IN PROGRAMMING 

3.8.1  Background 

Territorial  cohesion  has  been  added  to  the  goals  of  economic  and  social  cohesion 
by the TFEU, and it is necessary to address the role of cities, functional geographies 
and sub-regional areas facing specific geographical or demographic problems. 

Member States and regions increasingly face challenges that relate to the impact of 
globalisation,  environmental  and  energy  concerns,  population  ageing  and 
demographic shifts, technological transformation and innovation demands, and social 
inequality.  Due  to  the  complex  and  interrelated  nature  of  such  challenges,  the 
solutions  supported  by  the  ESI  Funds  should  be  of  an  integrated  nature,  multi-
sectoral and multi-dimensional. 

The  overall  approach  to  promoting  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  will 
therefore  have  to  reflect  the  role  of  cities,  rural  areas,  fisheries  and  coastal 
areas,  areas  facing  specific  geographical  or  demographic  handicaps.  It  will 
also have to take account of the specific challenges of the outermost regions, the 
northernmost  regions  with  a  very  low  population  density  and  of  island,  cross-
border  or  mountain  regions,  as  explicitly  recognized  by  the  Lisbon  Treaty. 
Territorial cohesion also means addressing urban-rural linkages, in terms of access 
to  affordable,  quality  infrastructures  and  services,  and  problems  in  regions  with  a 
high concentration of socially marginalised communities.  

“An  integrated  approach  to  sustainable  urban  and  territorial  development 
has  been  on  the  agenda  of  EU  Regional  Policy  for  over  two  decades.  The  European 
Pilot Projects, the URBAN I and II Community Initiatives and the URBACT programme 
are  examples  of  the  importance  of  integrated  urban  and  territorial  development  at 
the  EU  level.  These  initiatives  came  into  existence  because  the  complexity  of 
interlinked challenges (unemployment, transport, water, energy etc.) required a shift 
from  sectorial,  isolated  interventions,  to  cross-sectorial,  integrated  approaches  to 
economic  and  social  development.  This  was  also  confirmed  by  the  work  undertaken 
in  the  context  of  the  intergovernmental  process  (e.g.  Leipzig  Charter  2007,  Toledo 
Declaration 2010, and Territorial Agenda 2011). 

All  this  work  manifested  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  in  the 
development of a clearer narrative accompanied by dedicated instruments to support 
more integrated investments.”  

The analysis under this study focused on: 

 

 

 

 
 

the types of territory being considered by Member States in the context of a 
territorial approach, 
the  types  of  external  challenges  (threats)  to  sustainable  socio-economic 
development identified,  
the  territorial  needs  (weaknesses  or  internal  characteristics)  to  be 
addressed in an integrated manner, 
the methods for the coordination (integration) of instruments, and finally 
the  difficulties  encountered  in  identifying  territorial  challenges  and  applying 
them in programmes. 

86 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.8.2  Types of Territories 

Figure  46  shows  the  types  of  territories  identified  by  the  Member  States  as 
geographical areas to benefit from the use of territorial instruments.  

According to the data, Member States plan to apply integrated approaches above all 
in an urban context  (mentioned in more than 70%  of the PAs and  around 45% of 
the  programmes).  This  may  be  partly  explained  by  the  fact  that  sustainable  urban 
development is compulsory for all Member States. Next in line are rural areas, which 
also appear in 70% of the PAs (and to a less extent in programmes – around 33%), 
and  then  territories  characterised  by  urban-rural  linkages  (in  the  programmes)  and 
by geographical and demographic problems (in the PAs).  

The  figures  at  PA  vs.  programme  level  show  the  same  overall  trends,  but  there 
are some divergences. Overall, programme-level figures are lower, since on the one 
hand  that  PAs  are  wider  in  their  scope  (covering  all  ESI  Funds),  and  OP/ETC 
programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF/CF  focus  on  a  narrower  set  of  issues,  and  that 
analyses are deeper in PAs than in the programmes, on the other. Differences in the 
relative  frequency  of  types  of  territories  analysed  in  PA  vs.  programmes  show  that 
the  share  of  fisheries  and  coastal  regions  and  of  rural  areas  is  relatively  lower  at 
programme  level.  (The  assignment  only  targets  cohesion  policy  programmes  and 
these types of territories rely considerably on the EARDF and the EMFF.) Conversely, 
cross-border  areas  are  more  often  referred  to  in  (mainly  ETC)  programmes  than  in 
the PAs. 

Figure 46 - Types of territory identified in the analysis (PA, OP/ETC)50  

Urban areas
Rural areas
Fisheries and coastal areas
Urban and rural areas together
Demographic
Socially marginalised communities
Cross-border regions
Cross-sectoral challenges
Mountain
Island
Cross-jurisdictional regions
Outermost regions
Northern

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

PA

Programmes (OP and ETC)

(% of the total number of programming documents where each category51 has been identified) 

50 While PAs cover all ESIF funds, only programmes financed by the ERDF and the CF as well as multi-fund 
operational programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund are covered by the present study. 

51 Narrative of list elements: 
 Cross-border regions: Cross-border regions (incl. reg. covered by macro strategies) 
 Cross-jurisdictional  regions:  Cross-jurisdictional  regions  (e.g.  functional  regions,  spanning  across 

administrative boundaries) 

 Cross-sectoral  challenges:  Regions  with  cross-sectoral  challenges  affecting  several  economic  sectors  or 

spheres of society that require complex responses. 

 Demographic: Regions which suffer from demographic handicaps 
 Fisheries and coastal areas: Fisheries and coastal areas 
 Geographical or demographic problems: Areas facing specific geographical or demographic problems  

87 

 
 
                                           
 
The  spread  is  similar  for  ETC  programmes  –  while,  unsurprisingly,  the  category 
“cross-border regions” achieves the highest frequency of identification this time.  

Figure 47 - Types of territories targeted by integrated approaches in ETC 
programmes 

Cross-border regions

Rural areas

Urban areas

Urban and rural areas together

Fisheries and coastal areas

Cross-sectoral challenges

Mountain

Demographic

Outermost regions

Cross-jurisdictional regions

Island

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

(% of the total number of ETC programmes where each category has been identified) 

There  are  patterns  across  Member  States  as  regards  the  types  of  territories  of 
concerned. EU-13 Member States have chosen relatively more often rural areas, as 
well  as  urban  areas.  At  the  same  time,  Urban&rural  (periurban)  areas  and  the 
category  of  “areas  characterised  by  cross-sectoral  challenges”  were  chosen  less 
frequently by them in relative terms.  

Countries  using  the  Cohesion  Fund had a  relatively high representation of areas 
characterised  by  socially  marginalised  communities  in  their  analyses  (as  well  as 
mountains  and islands).  At  the  same  time,  cross-jurisdictional  regions,  cross-border 
regions and outermost regions were underrepresented in their analyses. 

Correlation  (contingency)  was  examined  also  between  the  type  of  the  territory  and 
the different territorial tools, by independence analysis with X2-test. Results show the 
following: 

 Rural areas: Rural areas 
 Socially  marginalised  communities:  Regions  with  a  high  concentration  of  socially  marginalised 

communities 

 Urban and rural areas together: Urban and rural areas together (with socio-economic linkages) 
 Urban areas: Urban areas 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                              
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 48 – Relation between type of territory and territorial tools52 

TERTYPE/TERAPP 

CLLD 

Cross-border regions 
Cross-jurisdictional regions 
Cross-sectoral challenges 
Demographic 
Fisheries and coastal areas 
Rural areas 
Socially 
communities 
Urban and rural areas together 
Urban areas 

marginalised 

X 

X 

SUD 

-X 

ETC 

XX 

ITI 

-X 

-X 

-X 

X 

-X 

3.8.3  External challenges to territories 

As Figure 49 shows, Member States consider environmental degradation (including 
air  and  water  pollution),  energy  and  climate  change  as  the  main  external  factors 
requiring  an  integrated  approach.  Demographic  challenges  also  mentioned  by 
about half of Member States in the PAs.  

Figure 49 - Territorial challenges (external) identified by Member States 
(PA, OP/ETC)53 

Environment

Energy

Climate

Demography

Migration

Crisis

Globalisation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

PA

Programmes (OP and ETC)

(% of the total number of programming documents where each category has been identified) 

52„X”  and  „XX”  indicate  positive  correlation,  i.e.  that  the  use  of  the  particular  approach  is  likelier  (than 
elsewhere)  in  a  given  type  region.  „-X”  a  negative  correlation.  Empty  cells  indicate  that  there  is  no 
significant correlation 

53 While PAs cover all ESIF funds, only programmes financed by the ERDF and the CF as well as multi-fund 
operational programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund are covered by the present study. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Overall,  challenges  identified  in  PA  and  programmes  are  consistent.  However, 
environment  and  demographic  concerns  concentrate  even  larger  attention  in  the 
programmes.  

Countries using the cohesion fund are  relatively more responsive to climate and 
energy  related  challenges  (as  regards  their  territorial  analyses  are  concerned).  EU-
13  countries  seem  to  have  paid  less  attention  (on  average)  to  demographic  issues. 
Outermost regions paid relatively high attention to the effects of globalisation, the 
recent crisis, and demographic changes in their programmes. 

3.8.4  Territorial development needs 

As  data  show  (Figure  50),  the  main  territorial  needs  that  Member  States  have 
singled  out  for  an  integrated  approach  include  economic  competitiveness  and 
growth (SMEs, employment, R&D, ICT), sustainability (environment, climate, CO2) 
and social inclusion.  

Figure 50 - Territorial needs (internal) identified by Member States (PA, 
OP/ETC programmes)54 

SME development

Employment

Inclusion

Climate and CO2

Connectivity

R&D

EU 2020

Education

Land use

IT & infrastructure

Resource use

Governance

Heritage

Ageing and demographic changes

Urban-rural

Interdependencies

Commuting

Development capacity

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PA

Programmes (OP and ETC)

(% of the total number of programming documents where each category55 has been identified) 

54 While PAs cover all ESIF funds, only programmes financed by the ERDF and the CF as well as multi-fund 
operational programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund are covered by the present study. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Correlation  (contingency)  was  also  used  to  examine  links  between  the  type  of  the 
territory  and  external  trends  as  well  as  its  needs  in  the  territorial  analysis.  Results 
show the following: 

Figure 51 – Relation between type of territory and external trends (OP/ETC 
programmes) 

Frequent 
appearance 

common 

Rare common appearance 

TERTYPE/TERCHAL 

Cross-border regions 

Cross-jurisdictional regions 
Cross-sectoral challenges  
Demographic 
Fisheries and coastal areas 
Island 
Mountain 
Northern 
Outermost regions 
Rural areas 
Socially marginalised communities 
Urban and rural areas together 
Urban areas  

Demography 
Climate 

Globalisation 
Demography 

Energy 
Crisis 

Crisis 
Environment 
Globalisation 
Migration 
Migration 

Migration 

Environment 

55 Narrative of list elements: 
 
 
 

Europe 2020: Europe 2020 targets 
R&D: Innovation gaps, research and development networks, clusters 
IT  &  infrastructure:  IT  connectivity  and  use  and  public  infrastructure  securing  public  services  and 
utilities, environmental protection and building resilience to natural threats thereby creating conditions 
for sustainable growth and an improved quality of life 
SME  development:  SME  sector  development  and  availability  of  support  and  SME  promotion 
instruments, adoption of innovation and support for traditional occupations where these have potential 
for growth 
Climate and CO2: Climate change vulnerabilities and impacts; Reduction of Greenhouse Gas output 
Resource use: Potential for more sustainable use of natural resources including renewables, 

 

 
 
  Heritage: Cultural, landscape and heritage features 
 

Connectivity:  Connectivity  and  accessibility  including  access  to  markets  and  the  workplace  for  all.  
This  is  particularly  significant  in  geographically  remote  areas  where  exceptional  additional  costs  can 
involved in most regeneration activity.  
Commuting: Commuting patterns 

 
  Development  capacity:  Planning  and  implementation  capacity  (administrative  capacities to  formulate 

 

and implement development policy programmes and measures) 
Employment:  Employment  and  labour  market  characteristics,  labour  mobility,  addressing  industrial 
decline and mono-industry dependence 
Education: Adequacy and quality of education, including adult and pre-school education 
Inclusion: Social inclusion combating poverty, deprivation and discrimination 
Ageing and demographic changes: Population ageing and demographic shifts 

 
 
 
  Governance:  Institutional  and  governance  issues  including  coordination  of  funding  through  local 

 

groups 
Interdependencies:  Interdependencies  between  different  sectors  of  the  economy  that  require  a 
complex response by different tools (funds, programmes, measures) 

  Urban-rural:  Linkages  between  rural  and  urban  areas  and  support  for  poly-centric  development  and 

 

restructuring 
Land  use:  Land  use  and  resource  constraints  including  those  based  on  particular  geographical 
parameters (coastal, mountain etc.) 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                              
Figure 52 – Relation between type of territory and needs (OP/ETC 
programmes) 

TERTYPE/TERCHAL 

Frequent common 
appearance 

Rare common appearance 

Cross-border regions 

Cross-jurisdictional regions 
Cross-sectoral challenges  
Demographic 
Fisheries and coastal areas 
Island 
Mountain 
Northern 
Outermost regions 
Rural areas 
Socially marginalised communities 
Urban and rural areas together 
Urban areas  

Demography 
Climate 

Globalisation 
Demography 

Energy 
Crisis 

Crisis 
Environment 
Globalisation 
Migration 
Migration 

Migration 

Environment 

The  statistical  examination  showed  as  well  that  association  between  the  codes  was 
detected, probability of correspondence is high.  

In  order  to  assess  the  intervention  logic  in  programming  documents  correlation 
(contingency)  was  examined  between  need  and  external  challenges  of  territories 
and TO/IP/Specific objectives. Results show the following: 

Figure 53 – Relation between external trends and Thematic Objectives 
(OP/ETC programmes) 

TERCHAL/TO 
Climate 
Crisis 
Demography 

Energy 

Environment 

Globalisation 

Migration 

Frequent common appearance 
Climate change 
ICT 

Low-carbon economy 

Climate change 
Environment protection 
Low-carbon economy 
RTDI 
SME 
Public administration 

Rare common appearance 

Public administration 
Climate change 
Employment 
Poverty and discrimination 

ICT 

Employment 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 54 – Relation between needs and Thematic Objectives (OP/ETC 
programmes) 

TERNEED/TO 

Frequent common appearance 

Rare common appearance 

Ageing and demographic changes  Public administration 

Employment 

Climate and CO2 

Climate change 

Employment 

Commuting 

Connectivity 

Development capacity 

Education 

Employment 

Europe 2020 

Public administration 

Employment 

Transport 

Education 

Climate change 

Transport 

Poverty and discrimination 

Governance 

Public administration 

Climate change 

Low-carbon economy 

Heritage 

Low-carbon economy 

ICT 

Environment protection 

Inclusion 

Public administration 

Poverty and discrimination 

RTDI 

Interdependencies 

Climate change 

IT & infrastructure 

ICT 

Public administration 

Land use 

R&D 

Resource use 

SME development 

Urban-rural 

Environment protection 

Poverty and discrimination 

Low-carbon economy 

RTDI 

Employment 

Environment protection 

Public administration 

(Note:  the  same  exercise  was  performed  for  IPs  and  Specific  Objectives  but  since  they  are  numerous, 
result will be handed over at the end of the project.) 

The  statistical  examination  showed  as  well  that  association  between  the  codes  was 
detected,  probability  of  correspondence  is  high.  The  same  is  true  for  the  relation 
between  needs/external  challenges  and  IPs  (a  bit  less  high)  and  needs/external 
challenges and Specific objectives (very high). 

Correlation  (contingency)  between  needs  and  external  challenges  and  the 
territorial tools was also examined. Results are summarised in the following table: 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 55 – Relation between external challenges and needs and territorial 
instruments (OP/ETC programmes) 

External challenges and needs 

CLLD 

ETC 

ITI 

SUD 

Ageing and demographic changes 

Climate 

Climate and CO2 

Commuting 

Connectivity 

Crisis 

Demography 

Development capacity 

Education 

Employment 

Energy 

Environment 

Europe 2020 

Globalisation 

Governance 

Heritage 

Inclusion 

Interdependencies 

IT & infrastructure 

Land use 

Maximising benefits of existing potential 

Migration 

R&D 

Resource use 

SME development 

Urban-rural 

-X 

X 

-X 

-X 

X 

X 

-X 

-X 

XX 

X 

X 

-X 

X 

-X 

-X 

-X 

-X 

X 

-X 

X 

X 

-X 

X 

-X 

X 

X 

-X 

Figure 55 shows among others that those territories opted for the tool of CLLD which 
are  more  characterised  by  demographic  and  (internal)  migration  problems  as 
external  challenges  and  lack  of  development  capacity  and  governance  as  internal 
needs  than  other  regions.  ETC  programmes  are  specific  to  regions  where  topics  as 
R&D,  resource  use  and  heritage  appear  more  often,  employment,  inclusion  and 
demography  less  frequently  as  internal  needs  than  in  other  territories.  It  is  also 
noticeable that ITI and SUD follow a different pattern from this point of view. While 
those  territories  having  opted  for  ITI  are  more  characterised  by  needs  in  fields  like 
education  and  inclusion  and  less  in  R&D  and  heritage  than  other  regions,  SUD 
territories  are  more  often  concerned  by  urban-rural, land use  and  climate  questions 
and less by Europe 2020 objectives than others. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.8.5  Coordination Arrangements to address Territorial Challenges 

The results of documentary analysis show that Member States mostly wish to ensure 
a  co-ordinated  use  of  funding  through  programming  (represented  by  the  values 
“synergetic  use  of  funds”  and  “clear  demarcation”  of  measures  to  avoid  overlaps). 
Further  frequently  used  arrangements  are  the  co-ordination  body  in  the  meaning 
of  Art.  123  (8),  as  well  as  co-ordination  committees  at  strategic-political  and 
technical  levels.  At  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  it  is  noteworthy  that  fund  co-
ordination  during  project  selection  (e.g.  through  selection  criteria  rewarding 
synergies) is relatively rarely applied. 

Figure 56 - Coordination arrangements across different territorial levels (PA, 
OP/ETC programmes)56 

Synergetic use of funds
Strategic and political co-ordination
Clear demarcation
Use of co-ordination body
Technical-level co-ordination
Co-op. in monitoring, evaluation, control, audit
Integrated implementation bodies
Common monitoring committee
Regular “cross-border” consultations 
Cross-participation of MAs
Selection criteria reward synergies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

PA

Programmes (OP and ETC)

(% of the total number of programming documents where each category57 has been identified) 

56 While PAs cover all ESIF funds, only programmes financed by the ERDF and the CF as well as multi-fund 
operational programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund are covered by the present study. 

57 Legend: 
 

Clear  demarcation:  Co-ordinate  programming:  clear  demarcation  of  the  ESI  Funds  in  order  to  avoid 
overlaps  
Common  monitoring  committee:  Common  monitoring  committee  for  programmes  implementing  the 
ESI Funds (CSF 3.2.1.d) 
Co-op.  in  monitoring,  evaluation,  control,  audit:  Co-operation  among  programmes  in  monitoring, 
evaluation, control and audit – CSF 3.2.1. h) 
Cross-participation of MA: MAs participate in the development of each-others' support schemes – (CSF 
3.2.1.c) – or in project selection under other programmes 
Integrated implementation bodies: Use of implementation bodies (MA; IB) managing several OPs 
Joint information activities: e.g. Common website for ERDF and ESF informing about new projects, the 
applications process, evaluations; contact points, etc 
Regular  “cross-border”  consultations:  Regular  “cross-border”  consultations  (e.g.  with  programme 
authorities  in  different  countries;  or  programme  authorities  of  trans-national  programmes  and 
strategies) 
Selection  criteria  reward  synergies:  Selection  criteria  also  assess  the  co-ordinated  use  of  funds 
(contributions to other programmes) 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

95 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Cluster analysis of co-ordination mechanisms at territorial level revealed that  

  For  multiregional  programmes,  cross-border  consultations  and 

joint 

information activities are more likely to be used;  

  For  Cohesion  Fund  programmes,  the  use  of  a  co-ordination  body  in  the 

sense of Art. 123 (8) of the CPR will be important. 

 

 

 

Strategic  and  Political  co-ordination:  Co-ordination  committees  at  political  level  (e.g.  committees  of 
ministers;  of  government  &  regions,  etc);  (CSF  3.2.1.b),  partnership  arrangements,  involvement  of 
partners in project selection, monitoring, etc. 
Synergetic use of funds: Co-ordinate programming: synergetic use of funds through joint strategies, 
plurifund OPs, (groups of) measures covering different sources; targeted calls... 
Technical-level  co-ordination:  Co-ordination  committees  at  technical  level  -  other  forms  of  co-
operation among authorities (those , without having an implementation responsibility included) 

  Use of co-ordination body: Use of co-ordination body in the sense of Art. 123 (8) of the CPR. 

96 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                              
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.8.6  Difficulties  and  ways  of  territorial  analysis,  the  role  of  territorial 

approach   

Managing authorities were asked by survey about difficulties they had encountered when 
identifying  territorial  challenges  and  applying  them  in  programmes.  As  shown  in  Figure 
57,  these  are  linked  especially  to  ensuring  consistency  between  territorial 
challenges identified. Matching territorial challenges with the sectoral approach 
of the policies represents another challenge.  

Figure 57 - Survey Q 8.1 Difficulties in identifying territorial challenges 

Difficulty to ensure consistency between all
territorial challenges identified

42% 

Difficulty to match identified challenges with the
sectoral approach of the policy

26% 

Difficulty to understand the new territorial tools for
integrated approaches

Territorial focus / tools have been defined at
national level, with little consideration for local…

14% 

13% 

Other answers

5% 

(% of MAs having responded) 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

According  to  the  MAs  that  responded,  programmes  with  purely  sectoral  approach  are 
rather  rare.  The  vast  majority  (90%)  of  programmes  reflects  territorial  approach.  60% 
has  a  predominantly  territorial  approach,  while  one  third  integrates  territorial  aspects 
into sectoral policies. 

Figure 58 – Survey Q 8.2 The role of a territorial approach 

11% 

The programme entirely reflects
regional and local needs, challenges
and assets

29% 

60% 

There is a territorial element in the
overall strategy of the programme,
however, it is secondary, and is
interpreted within the boundaries of
each sector policy.

The programme mainly follows a
sectoral logic with little consideration
for regional and local needs, challenges
and assets.

(% of the answers of MAs having responded) 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
MAs  also  provided  information  regarding  the  preparation  of  the  territorial  analysis.  As 
stated  by  the  MAs,  territorial  analyses  were  performed  starting  from  the  local  level, 
either on the basis of some national level guidance, or according to a general bottom-up 
approach. These two ways cover more than 70% of cases. According to the MAs having 
responded,  it  was  in  less  than  10%  of  all  OPs  that  territorial  analyses  were  not 
performed.  

Figure 59 – Survey Q 8.3 Ways to perform specific territorial analyses 

9% 

18% 

41% 

32% 

Territorial analyses were prepared at
regional / local level on the basis of
national guidance (centrally managed
bottom-up process)

Bottom-up: the national-level analysis
was based on territorial analyses (e.g.
at regional level)

Top-bottom: The territorial analyses
were prepared in the context of pre-
existing national / sectoral analyses

Specific territorial analyses were not
prepared.

(% of the answers of MAs having responded) 

As  regards  territorial  challenges,  interviews  were  also  passed  among  Managing 
Authorities. According to more than half of the interviewees there was no change in the 
approach  to  programming.  Reasons  for  not  using  the  new  tools  are  generally  the 
following: they are felt to be too complicated; not well explained by the EC; too strict and 
regulated  programming  and  implementing  environment;  give  too  much  power  and 
responsibility  to  actors  having  no  experience  in  the  management  of  Funds;  Member 
States use their  national territorial approach,  used in the previous periods; prefer using 
priority  axes  with  several  TOs;  not  (really)  adequate  to  the  (ETC)  programme.  Those 
Member States who do use the new instruments, do so because: of former, positive 
(national)  experience  with  such  instruments;  they  achieve  a  real  devolution  of 
implementation  functions  to  institutionalised  forms  of  partnerships;  they  better  suit 
specific territorial situations. 

Practices  for  the  promotion  of  territorial  approach  in  programming  and 
implementation most  mentioned by interviewees are: the existence  of a  characteristic 
national  regional  development  policy/strategy;  the  institutional  involvement  of 
regional  actors  in  programming;  and  specific  methods  during  the  implementation 
phase:  application  of  selection  criteria  giving  priority  to  projects  contributing  to  ITI 
programs;  necessity  to  justify  a  project  by  diagnosis  of  the  local  situation  and 
analysis of territorial impact; harmonisation of timing of calls for proposals. 

98 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.8.7  Specific conclusions – the role of the territorial approach 

Overall, the territorial approach is making an impact on the content of programmes. 
Every  member  state  has  identified  territories  where  integrated  territorial  approaches 
needed to be applied, as well as specific challenges and development needs that were to 
be  addressed  by  territorial  instruments.  However,  there  are  45  OPs  and  12  ETC 
programmes  which  do  not  have  territorial  analysis  (contain  neither  information  on  the 
type  of  the  territory  covered  nor  on  external  (territorial)  challenges  and  even  not  on 
territorial  needs.  All  countries  have  also  defined  methods  for  a  co-ordination  of 
interventions at regional and local levels.  

Survey  results  confirm  the  above:  sixty  percent  of  MAs  reported  that  their  programme 
was primarily responding to regional and local needs, and only 11% said that it did 
not consider them. Purely sectoral OPs are therefore rare. In over 70% of the cases the 
territorial  analysis  was  also  prepared  at  the  local  level,  reflecting  a  strong  bottom-up 
element. 

Purely sectoral OPs are rare – while the reconciliation of sectoral and territorial aspects is 
felt to represent a challenge. 

Data  regarding  the  identification  of  territories  indicate  a  focus  on  urban  and  rural 
areas – at least judged by the territorial analyses chapters of Pas and OPs. 

When asked about the  reasons for using / not using territorial instruments, in terms 
of  positive  arguments,  Member  States  mentioned  previous  positive  experiences  with 
similar measures, and the ability to better respond to needs on the ground, coupled with 
an element of decentralisation. As arguments against, respondents cited the complicated 
nature  of  territorial  instruments,  or  that  they  may  give  too  much  responsibility  to 
regional and local players lacking experience and capacity. Based on the survey results, 
though, this critique was not the majority standpoint. 

As visible from survey results, the main challenge that Member States saw with regard 
to  territorial  challenges  was  ensuring  a  consistency  between  territorial  challenges 
identified,  and  matching  territorial  challenges  with  sectoral  policy  approaches. 
At the same time, understanding the new territorial tools did not cause a significant 
problem in the application of territorial challenges into programmes.  

99 

 
 
 
 
3.9  COMMUNITY-LED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT (CLLD)  

3.9.1  Background 

The application of the principles behind CLLD have spread over the last twenty years 
building on the experience gained from LEADER approach which has been widely used in 
rural  areas.  Total  public  and  private  investment  supported  by  these  partnerships  has 
grown  significantly.  This  experience  has  shown  both  when  and  where  CLLD  approaches 
work  well,  and  how  they  can  add  value  to  national  and  regional  programmes.  In  this 
context,  there  is  a  major  opportunity  for  extending  the  CLLD  approach  to  other  area 
types and intervention fields, and thereby to using it to develop local responses to some 
of the most pressing social and environmental problems facing European citizens today.58 

Community-led local development initiatives are characterised by the following: they are 

 
 

 

focused on specific sub-regional areas; 
led  by  local  action  groups  composed  of  representatives  of  public  and  private 
local socio-economic interests; 
carried  out 
development strategies59.  

integrated  and  multi-sectoral  area-based 

through 

local 

  designed taking into consideration local needs and potential, and  
 

include  innovative  features  in  the  local  context,  networking  and,  where 
appropriate, cooperation.  

Partnership Agreements set out: the main challenges that the Member State intends to 
tackle  with  the  help  of  the  CLLD  approach;  the  main  objectives  for  CLLD  in  the 
Member  State;  the  types  of  territories  (not  a  list  of  territories)  where  CLLD  is 
envisaged to be implemented; how the integrated approach will be achieved at the local 
level; coordination of and administrative set-up for CLLD; where appropriate, whether 
the  Member  State  will  apply  the  possibility  to  designate  a  lead  Fund  in  the  context  of 
integrated multi-fund local development strategies. Operational Programmes set out the 
principles  for  the  definition  of  the  areas  covered  by  the  community-led  local 
development strategies, in accordance with the Fund-specific rules; and the approach to 
the use of CLLD in the particular OP (principles for the selection, approval and funding 
of CLLD strategies and local action groups). 

CLLD may combine several forms of EU funding and shall be carried out under one 
or more priorities of a relevant programme or programmes.  

The analysis under this study focussed on: 

 
 

the needs that the Member States intend to tackle with CLLD; 
the types of territories, where CLLD is to be used; 

58 Guidance on CLLD for local actors, 2014, European Commission 

59  Also  referred  to  under  the  term  ‘Community-led  local  development  strategies’  meaning  a  coherent  set  of 
operations, the purpose of which is to meet local objectives and needs, contributing to the Union strategy for 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, designed and implemented by a local action group. 

100 

 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

 

 

the  resources  allocated  to  CLLD;  the  role  of  stakeholders,  and  whether  or  not 
preparatory  support  is  provided  for  the  preparation  of  CLLDs,  by  Member 
States, and finally 
the  arguments  to  use  or  to  not  use  CLLD,  including  any  difficulties  that  it  is 
perceived to entail. 

3.9.2  Needs to be addressed by CLLD 

The  needs  which  the  Member  States  aim  to  address  with  CLLD,  according  to  the  PAs 
(thus covering all ESI Funds) are, most prominently, SME development, followed by the 
generation  of  employment  and  social  inclusion.  Environmental  issues  (resource 
use, climate and CO2, land use), are less frequently mentioned. (Figure 60)   

Figure 60 - Local needs to be addressed using a CLLD approach (PA) 

SME development
Employment
Inclusion
Resource use
Heritage
Education
Urban-rural
IT & infrastructure
Interdependencies
EU 2020
Land use
Climate and CO2
R&D
Connectivity
Development capacity
Ageing and demographic changes
Governance
Commuting

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

(frequency of categories as % of the total number of PAs with relevant data) 

3.9.3  Types of territories to be addressed by CLLD 

Figure 61 shows for what types of territories CLLD is to be applied. The focus in the PAs 
(covering  all  ESI  Funds)  is  –  perhaps  unsurprisingly  –  on  rural  and  fisheries  areas.  At 
programme  level  (33  programmes,  of  which  1 is  ETC)  this picture  is somewhat  altered: 
rural areas still lead the list but almost half of OPs where CLLD is to be applied, indicated 
the intention to use it in an urban context, too.  

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 61 - Types of Territories where CLLD is to be used (PA, OP/ETC)60 

Rural areas

Fisheries and coastal areas

Urban areas

Urban and rural areas together

Socially marginalised communities

Mountain

Island

Demographic

Outermost regions

Cross-jurisdictional regions

Cross-border regions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PA

Programmes (OP and ETC)

(frequency, expressed as % of the total number of programmes with relevant data) 

3.9.4  Resources Allocated to CLLD 

In  the  programmes61,  17  Member  States  have  indicated  financial  allocations  to  CLLD, 
from  ERDF  and  ESF  resources,  with  a  total  value  of  EUR  1,496  billion.  Several  Member 
States  use  ERDF  and  ESF  in  an  integrated  way,  other  use  only  ERDF  and  one  Member 
State  uses  only  ESF  for  financing  their  CLLDs.  In  absolute  terms  the  Czech  Republic 
takes the first place in using Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF) for CLLD. (Figure 62) 

Figure 62 - CLLD resources (OP/ETC) – EUR 

Austria
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Lithuania
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
ETC

ERDF

ESF

0

100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000

60  While  PAs  cover  all  ESIF  funds,  only  programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  CF  as  well  as  multi-fund 
operational programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund are covered by the present study. 

61 The study only covers ERDF/CF (and ESF co-financed multi-fund) programmes at the time of their adoption 
or atthe cut-off dateof end of July for the ones not yet adopted by then. 

102 

 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

In relative terms – as compared with their total ERDF allocations – the Czech Republic 
is  followed  by  Slovenia,  Bulgaria,  Slovakia  and  Austria.  The  average  allocation  to  CLLD 
(EU average) is around 0,6% of the total ERDF budget62. (Figure 63)  

Figure 63 – ERDF financed CLLD (OP/ETC) – % of total ERDF allocation 

Figure 64 shows that CLLD represent 3% of the allocation to programmes where CLLD is 
to  be  applied.  The  share  of  ERDF  and  ESF  from  this  amount  is  81%  and  19%, 
respectively. 

Figure 64 - Distribution and share of CLLD allocations 

CLLD 

Priority axes where CLLD approach 
is to be applied 
OPs where CLLD approach is to be 
applied 
Total ERDF allocation under IfGJ 
goal 
Total cohesion policy allocation 

Funds for CLLD 
(EUR) 

Part 
CLLD 

ERDF 
(EUR) 

Part 
ERDF 

ESF 
(EUR) 

Part 
ESF 

1 496 551 596 

100%  1 212 014 
919 

81% 

284 536 
677 

19% 

7 288 699 085 

21% 

58 464 521 903 

3% 

196 472 207 911 

0,76% 

0,62% 

349 693 200 000 

0,43% 

13  priority  axes  of  10  operational  programmes  (in  10  Member  States)  will  be 
implemented  solely  through  community-led  local  development  (allowing  for  an 
increase by 10% of the maximum co-financing rate, in line with Art. 120.5 CPR). 65% of 

62  CLLD  allocation  is  0,8%  of  total  Member  State  ERDF  allocations  without  ETC  programmes  –  CLLD  hardly 
concerns ETC programmes. 

103 

0,000%0,500%1,000%1,500%2,000%2,500%3,000%3,500%EU averageUnited KingdomSwedenSpainSloveniaSlovakiaRomaniaPortugalPolandLithuaniaItalyHungaryGreeceGermanyFranceCzech RepublicBulgariaAustria 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
the  overall  allocation  to  CLLD  will  be  implemented  through  that  way  –  what  shows  that 
the  use  of  CLLD  is  rather  concentrated,  the  majority  of  OPs  and  priority  axes  are  not 
concerned by it. 

3.9.5  Involvement of Stakeholders63  

Figure 65 informs about the ways in which Member States intend to ensure an integrated 
approach  at  the  local  level.  Similarly  to  other  provisions  –  e.g.  No.  8  (territorial 
challenges)  and  15  (coordination  mechanisms)  –  results  show  an  emphasis  on 
strategic  planning  and  the  use  of  co-ordination  committees  (in  this  case:  local 
partnerships)  with  regards  to  the  co-ordination  of  funds  and  measures.  Also,  as 
elsewhere,  the  technical-level  of  co-operation  of  funding  agencies  is  frequently 
mentioned.   

Figure 65 – How the integrated approach will be achieved at the local level 
(coordination), (PA) 

Stakeholder coop. defining CLLD

Co-ordinated planning

Partnership

Co-ordinated decisions

Cooperation btw. funding agencies

Measure preparation

Capacity building

Decision devolved to Operational Programmes

Networking

(frequency of categories64 as % of the total number of PAs with relevant data) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Specific  information  regarding  preparatory  support  for  CLLDs  (LAGs)  were  contained  in 
each  of  the  17  Member  States  where  CLLD  financed  by  ERDF  /  ESF  is  envisaged.  The 

63  Please  note:  Data  in  this  section  are  based  on  the  PAs  -  thus  they  apply  to  all  ESI  Funds  -  not  only  to 
ERDF/CF programmes) 

64 Narrative of list elements: 
  Stakeholder coop. defining CLLD: Co-operation with local stakeholders during the definition of the CLLD area 
  Partnership: Setting-up a partnership structure at local level to support the integrated use of different funds 
  Co-ordinated decisions: Funding agencies co-ordinate their decisions on funding 
  Co-ordinated planning: Stakeholders and funding agencies co-ordinate planning and strategy-making 
  Cooperation  btw.  funding  agencies:  Co-operation  among  funding  agencies  (MA  /  IB)  throughout  the 

programme 

  Capacity building: Co-ordinated capacity building 
  Measure  preparation:  Stakeholders  and  funding  agencies  co-ordinate  the  design  of  measures  /  projects  / 

applications in a partnership context 

  Networking: Networking actions, building trust and alliances 
  Decision devolved to Operational Programmes: The PA did not specify the method, and pointed to the OP. 
  Reviews: Joint periodical reviews of progress (monitoring, evaluation) 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

main  types  of  support  measures  to  be  applied  are  trainings,  support  to  already  existing 
LAGs, and a contribution towards their strategic and administrative costs. Figure 66 

Figure 66 – Measures planned for the preparation and support of CLLDs and 
LAGs (PA) 

Existing LAGs' support
Training
Strategy costs
LAG Co-operation
Administrative costs
Information
Studies
Operational costs
Advice
Pilots

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

(frequency of categories65 as % of the total number of PAs with relevant data) 

3.9.6  The Negotiation process: Arguments for and against CLLD 

Managing authorities were asked by survey on the reason why they did chose or did not 
chose  it.  The  main  reasons  for  opting  for  CLLD  were:  the  good  former  experience 
with LAGs; and that CLLD was seen as an appropriate tool to involve local partners and 
stakeholders. (See Annex 4.9) 

Managing Authorities were also asked by means of interviews too on the main arguments 
for the application of CLLD beyond EARDF, which were the following: good  response to 
the  identified  complex  needs  by  using  different  funds  in  a  multi-sectoral  approach; 
the  former  experience  with  the  LEADER  approach;  the  bottom-up  approach, 
promotion  of  local  ownership,  participation  and  initiative;  and  that  it  represents  a 
“natural trend/process”. 

When  asked  by  the  survey  about  difficulties  encountered  when  applying  CLLD,  half  of 
managing authorities did not report any. Most frequently mentioned challenges linked to 
CLLD  were related to programming  – the identification of areas and/or challenges to be 
tackled with the help of CLLD; the definition of the role, objectives, thematic focus of the 

65 Narrative of list elements: 
  Training: Training actions for local stakeholders  (Art. 35.1(a)(i)) 
  Existing  LAGs'  support:  Maintaining  and  further  strengthening  already  existing  LAGs  with  practical 

experience (Art. 35.1(d)) 

  Administrative  costs:  Administrative  costs  of  organisations  applying  for  support  under  CLLD  (Art. 

35.1(a)(iv)) 

Information: Information and guidance 

  Strategy costs: Covering costs related the preparation of Local Development Strategies (Art. 35.1(a)(iii)) 
 
  LAG Co-operation: Preparation and implementation of the LAG’s co-operation activities (Art. 35.1(e)) 
  Advice: Advisory services funded by the state to prospective LAGs 
  Studies: Studies for the area concerned (Art. 35.1(a)(ii),(iii)) 
  Operational costs: Operational costs implementing the local strategy (Art. 35.1(b)) 
  Exchanges: Animation, exchanges between stakeholders (Art. 35.1(e)) 
  Pilots: Support for small pilot project s(Art. 35.1(a)(v)) 

105 

 
 
 
 
                                           
CLLD;  the  setting  up  of  LAGs;  and  the  definition  of  principles  for  selection,  etc.  (Figure 
67).  

Figure 67 - Survey Q 9.3 Did you meet particular difficulties in implementing 
integrated approaches with the use of CLLD? 

No

Other answers

For the identification of areas and/or challenges to be tackled with
the help of CLLD

Difficulties in taking strategic choices defining the role, objectives or
potential thematic focus of CLLD

Difficulties in setting-up LAGs with necessary capacities

Difficulties in defining principles for the selection, approval and
funding of LAGs and CLLD strategies

Difficulties in the elaboration of high quality local development
strategies

21% 

21% 

21% 

14% 

50% 

43% 

36% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Arguments  against  using  CLLD  cover  a  variety  of  reasons.  Most  frequently 
mentioned was that the mechanism was not relevant for the TOs targeted by the given 
programme.  The  “too  complicated”  use  of  the  tool  and  that  it  was  “not  appropriate  to 
specific  territorial  challenges”  were  also  often  cited  by  the  MAs  as  negative  incentives 
(Figure 68). 

Figure 68 - Survey Q 9.2 Why did you choose NOT to use CLLD (beyond 
LEADER)? 

Mechanism not relevant for the thematic objectives targeted by the
OP.

The use of CLLD is too complicated

Inappropriate tool to address specific territorial challenges

19% 

17% 

48% 

The use of CLLD could impede the effective delivery of other
sectoral/regional strategies

10% 

Other answers

No willingness to give power to local groups

Lack of leadership to set-up LAGs (Local Action Group)

Not appropriate to the nature of the programme (generally ETC)

Insufficient guidance

The use of CLLD is too slow for addressing urgent territorial
challenges

Better suited for Rural Development programmes (EARDF)

Too small budget to split financing even more

9% 

9% 

7% 

5% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

According to interviewed national authorities, main factors to divert Member States from 
using  CLLD  (cons)  were:  less  appropriate  for  TOs  of  more  developed  areas;  it  is 
complicated,  burdensome,  generates  loss  of  efficiency,  needs  extra  administrative 
capacity  -  in  some  cases  existence  of  national  instruments  easier  to  handle;  too  much 
responsibility/power  to  local  actors,  majority  of  whom  must  be  non-public; 
difficulties linked to the identification of areas and selection, approval and funding of 
LAGs and CLLD strategies. 

In  the  negotiations,  in  about  60%  of  the  cases  –  according  to  survey  results  –  there 
was  agreement  from  the  outset  about  the  use  /  non-use  of  CLLD.  The  Commission 
seemed  to  be  relatively  flexible  in  this  respect.  (See  Annex  4.9)  The  main  factor 
influencing  Member  States’  position  was  the  opinion  of  partners.  The  informal  dialogue 
with the Commission did not have a major importance. (See Annex 4.9) 

3.9.7  Specific conclusions 

Only  33  of  the  programmes  under  review  have  mentioned  the  intention  to  use  CLLD. 
These  cover  17  Member  States  and  have  indicated  financial  allocations  to  CLLD,  from 
ERDF and  ESF  resources, with a  total  value  of  EUR  1,496  billion. The share of  ERDF 
and ESF from this amount is 81% and 19%, respectively.  

In  relative  terms  the  average  allocation  to  CLLD  at  EU-level  (EU  average)  is  around 
0.6% of the ERDF budget. 

13 priority axes of 10 operational programmes implemented solely through community-
led local development stand for 65% of the overall allocation to CLLD – what shows 
that the use of CLLD is rather concentrated, the majority of OPs and priority axes are 
not concerned by it.66 

The  needs  that  the  Member  States  intend  to  tackle  with  CLLD  do  go  beyond  rural 
development,  and  also  relate  to  SME  development,  followed  by  the  generation  of 
employment and social inclusion. 

Main  arguments  of  Member  States  pro  CLLD  include  that  it  is  appropriate  tool  to 
handle complex local problems; that it motivates for partnership and involvement; 
as  well  as  former  experience  gained  through  LEADER.  However,  challenges  and 
difficulties  were  also  reported,  e.g.  with  regard  to  the  identification  of  intervention 
areas; selection, approval and funding of LAGs and CLLD strategies; setting-up LAGs 
with necessary capacities. 

Main factors to eventually divert Member States from using CLLD (cons) were that it was 
felt to be more appropriate for rural development and EAFRD (compulsory); that it 
was perceived as complicated, burdensome, generated loss of efficiency, and needed 
extra  administrative  capacity.  Some  cases  Member  States  felt  that  existing  national 

66  At  the  same  time,  in  the  particular  context  of  CLLD,  it  should  be  underscored  that  the  study  only  covers 
“cohesion  policy”,  and  it  only  analyses  programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF  (including  92  ESF  co-financed 
multifund  programmes)  and  the  CF.  Partnership  Agreements,  of  course,  refer  to  all  funds  (ESF,  EAFRD  –  for 
which EAFRD is compulsory - and EMFF included). 

107 

 
 
 
                                           
instruments 
responsibility/power would be delegated to local actors.  

for  similar  purposes  were  easier  to  handle;  or  that  too  much 

Member  States  are  aware  of  the  challenge  linked  to  the  availability  of  local 
implementation capacity, therefore they provide preparatory support to these actors. 

Overall,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  overall  take-up  of  the  instrument  is,  however, 
relatively low.  

108 

 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.10  INTEGRATED TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS (ITI)  

3.10.1 

Background 

Integrated territorial investment (ITI) of Article 36 CPR is a new instrument facilitating 
the implementation of integrated territorial strategies at sub-national level. As delivery 
mechanism, ITI allows Member States to  implement programmes in a cross-cutting 
way, drawing on funding from at least two different priority axes in the same or different 
programmes  to  ensure  the  implementation  of  an  integrated  strategy  for  a  specific 
territory. The key elements of an ITI are: 

  a designated territory with an integrated (multi-sectoral) territorial development 

 

strategy  
that  it  draws  on  funds  from  at  least  two  different  priority  axes  of  one  or 
more programmes. 

ITIs can be mono-fund, however they can also combine ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion 
Fund,  and  be  complemented  by  financial  support  from  the  EARDF  and  EMFF  where 
complementarities exist. The support under an ITI must be used towards the objectives 
outlined in these programmes and actions supported must contribute to the objectives of 
each of the programmes from which funding is drawn. 

In Partnership Agreements, Member States describe their approach to the use of ITIs, 
including:  the  territories  or  types  of  territories  where  it  will  be  used  and  through  which 
Funds;  and  the  envisaged 
including  coordination 
arrangements  between  ESI  Funds  and  managing  authorities  and  arrangements  for  the 
delegation of management and implementation tasks of an ITI. 

implementation  arrangements 

Operational Programmes describe the OPs/priority axes where MSs have identified ITI 
as  a  possible  implementation  mechanism;  the  indicative  (overall)  financial  allocation  to 
ITIs  from  each  priority  axis;  the  types  of  areas  where  ITIs  will  be  used,  if  known;  how 
and  by  when  the  areas  covered  by  ITIs  will  be  decided;  and  the  arrangements  for  the 
management  and  implementation  of  the  ITI  including  the  coordination  between  the 
managing authorities and the possible delegation of tasks and responsibilities. 

ITIs  can  be  used  within  a  ETC  Programme,  allowing  to  draw  on  resources  from 
several  priority  axes  to  allow  for  the  implementation  of  integrated  actions  based  on  a 
joint strategy.  

The analysis under this study focussed on: 

 
 

 

 

the types of territories where ITI is used;  
the resources dedicated to ITI as identified in the OPs broken down as SUD and 
non-SUD; 
the implementation of ITI and the management functions that are delegated to 
the local level; and finally 
the  arguments  for  and  against  the  use  of  ITI,  including  any  difficulties  that  it 
might entail. 

109 

 
 
3.10.2 

Types of territories 

Figure 69 shows for what types of territories / territorial challenges ITI is to be used, 
according to the PAs and OPs.  

According to PA and OP data, ITI is to be applied most frequently in  urban areas. This 
figure, however, is influenced by the fact that sustainable urban development measures 
– part of them ITI – are compulsory under the ERDF regulation. Next in line are urban-
rural linkages and fisheries and coastal areas.  

Figure 69 - Types of territories where ITI is to be used (PA, OP/ETC) 

Urban areas

Urban and rural areas together

Fisheries and coastal areas

Rural areas

Island

Cross-sectoral challenges

Cross-jurisdictional regions

Socially marginalised communities

Demographic

Cross-border regions

Mountain

Outermost regions

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

PA

Programmes (OP and ETC)

(frequency, expressed as % of the total number of programmes with relevant data) 

Over  almost  90%  of  the  ITIs  so  far  indicated  by  Member  States  are  already 
identified, 4 are due in 2015 and the remaining 2 ‘later’. 

The methods for selecting ITI was also examined. Competitive selection is rather rare 
as type of selection, even more the selection on the basis of a framework strategy (See 
Annex  4.10).  It  could  be  deducted  that  ITIs  are  selected  according  to  a  predetermined 
political/technical  (territorial)  approach,  where  it  is  more  important  to  develop  and 
prepare potential ITI subjects in in order to join and profit from the initiative.  

As  concerns  competent  institutions  to  decide,  the  most  frequent  is  to  delegate  the 
decision  to  regional  level  –  but  that  number  is  slightly  diverged  by  the  high  number  of 
OPs  with  ITI  selected  at  regional  level  of  Poland.  Other  Member  States’  practice  is 
distributed evenly between selection by government and region. MAs play a lesser role in 
this respect. (See Annex 4.10)   

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.10.3 

Resources Allocated to ITIs 

The  first  three  figures  below  show  the  amounts  allocated  to  ITI  by  altogether  20 
Member  States  (involving  94  programmes,  including  2  ETC  programmes67).  As  it 
can  be  seen,  the  amount  allocated  to  ITI68  is  EUR  14,77  billion,  with  68%  going  to 
urban  ITIs,  and  87%  coming  from  the  ERDF.  Around  10%  of  allocations  of 
programmes where ITIs have been mentioned will be delivered through ITIs. 

Figure 70 - Distribution of ITI allocations 

Urban 

Other 

Total ITI 

Funds for  
ITI 
(mEUR) 

10 019,7 

Part Urb/ 
Oth/Total  

CF 
(mEU
R) 
68%  564,3 

Part 
CF 

ERDF 
(mEUR) 

Part  
ERDF 

ESF 
(mEUR) 

Part  
ESF 

6% 

8 591,3 

86% 

864,1 

4 799,8 

32%  116,1 

2% 

4 349,5 

91% 

334,2 

14 819,5 

100%  680,4 

5%  12 940,8 

87%  1 198,2 

9% 

7% 

8% 

Programmes where ITIs 
have been mentioned 
Total cohesion policy 
allocation 

149 593,7 

10%   

349 693,2 

4,24%   

In  absolute  terms,  the  biggest  user  of  ITI  is  Poland.  Major  differences  appear  between 
Member  States  whether  they  use  ITI  for  urban  or  other  purposes.  The  majority  of  the 
countries  use  ITI  for  sustainable  urban  development  while  Slovakia,  Spain,  Portugal, 
Romania  and  Belgium  use  the  bigger  part  of  their  allocation  (in  some  cases  the  whole 
allocation) to address the challenges of other (non-urban) types of territories.   

Figure 71 - ITI allocations in absolute terms 

Poland

Slovakia

Italy

Czech Republic

Spain

Portugal

Romania

Greece

France

United Kingdom

Germany

Lithuania

Croatia

Latvia

Slovenia

Belgium

Finland

Sweden

Netherlands

Luxemburg

ETC

 ITI - Urban

 ITI - Other

0

1,000,000,000

2,000,000,000

3,000,000,000

4,000,000,000

67 The study only covers ERDF/CF (and ESF co-financed multi-fund) programmes, at the time of their adoption 
(cut-off date: end of July). 

68 Figures come from Table 21 of Operational Programmes and Tables 20 of ETC Programmes. 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
In  relative  terms,  as  compared  to  the  total  cohesion  policy  allocation  of  each 
country, Slovakia tops the list with more than 10%69. As shown on Figure 72, the other 
Member  States  allocate  generally  around  4%  of  their  overall  envelope  to  ITI,  with  –  as 
stated above – urban dominance. 

Figure 72 - ITI and SUD resources as % of cohesion policy allocations 

Poland

Slovakia

Italy

Czech Republic

Spain

Portugal

Romania

Greece

France

United Kingdom

Germany

Lithuania

Croatia

Latvia

Slovenia

Belgium

Finland

Netherlands

Sweden

Luxemburg

 ITI - Urban

 ITI - Other

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

, 

3.10.4 

Implementation - delegation of functions70 

As  regards  the  sharing  of  tasks71,  project  selection  was  frequently  mentioned  –  but 
that  is  of  course  influenced  by  the  fact  that  in  SUDs  under  article  7  of  ERDF  regulation 

69  The  present  study  covers  only  programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  CF  as  well  as  multi-fund 
operational  programmes  co-financed  by  the  European  Social  Fund.  Therefore,  investments  in  ITIs  from  ESF 
programmes are not captured by the methodology. 

70 These findings are based on PA data (covering all ESIF funds), therefore they not only reflect the situation of 
programmes  covered  by  this  study  (i.e.  programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  CF  as  well  as  multi-fund 
operational programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund). 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

the  delegation  of  the  selection  of  operations  is  compulsory.  For  the  remainder  of 
functions, the spread is relatively even.  

All in all, figures would indicate that programme authorities (MA and IB) would, in most 
cases,  retain  most  of  their  functions  even  in  ITI  measures.  The  delegation  of 
implementing tasks to the local level is rather limited - even though ITI would give 
the possibility to delegate. 

Figure 73 - Implementation of ITI and delegation of functions to the local level 
(PA)72 

Planning and programming

Project selection

Project generation

Monitoring

Contracting

Financial control

Project closure

No MA or CA tasks

Disbursement

Call for proposal

Pre-Approved Action Plan

Evaluation

Application

Certification of expenditure

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

(% as compared to the number of programme documents containing specific data) 

3.10.5 

The negotiation process – arguments for and against ITI 

Based on the feedback of Managing Authorities in the framework of the survey, the most 
important  argument  to  use  ITI  was  that  it  was  felt  to  be  an  appropriate  tool  to  tackle 
territorial  –  as  opposed  to  sectoral  –  challenges.  In  about  one  quarter  of  cases  MAs 
pointed to national legal requirements related to partnership and multi-level governance.  

71  Note:  the  two  tasks  for  local  stakeholders  most  frequently  mentioned  by  programming  documents  were 
programming  and  project  generation.  However,  these  do  not  represent  compulsory  MA  functions  in  the  strict 
sense. Therefore, they are not included in this analysis.  

72 Planning, programming and project generation are not „delegated” functions of MAS or IBs. 

113 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                    
Figure 74 - Survey Q 10.1 Why did you choose to use ITI? 

Because it is better suited to tackling territorial challenges

43% 

Because of national legal requirements

28% 

Because there is appropriate institutional capacity at regional/local
level

Political visibility

Other answers

19% 

15% 

13% 

Because of the financial flexibilities provided by the use of ITIs

9% 

(% of MAs indicating an item. Multiple choice question, figures do not add up to 100%) 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

These  arguments  were  completed  during  the  interviews  passed  among  managing 
authorities  by  the  fact  that  it  represents  an  effective  bottom-up  approach,  an 
opportunity to develop cooperation models, based on partnership. 

Managing  authorities  were  also  asked  by  the  survey  about  the  difficulties  they  had 
encountered  when  applying  ITI.  Half  of  the  responding  MAs  (47%)  did  not  find  any 
difficulty.  The  main  challenges  identified  are  linked  especially  to:  the  definition  of 
principles for the selection, approval and funding of ITIs; the elaboration of high quality 
ITI strategies and the definition of the role and objectives of ITIs. (See Annex 4.10) 

Based  on  feedback  by  the  survey  from  MAs  the  programmes  of  which  are  not  ITI, 
arguments against using integrated instruments are, most frequently, those (See Annex 
4.10):  

the mechanism is not relevant to the TOs targeted by the given programme; 
too complicated use of the tool;  
insufficient guidance available;  

 
 
 
  worries  about  the  lack  of  sufficient  management  capacities  (whereby  in  the 

survey, this element was significantly less often (13% vs. 21% of MAs). 

These  counterarguments  were  reflected  by  the  interviews,  where  those  who  cited  the 
disadvantages  of  the  tool,  mentioned  above  all  that:  the  tool  was  complex,  not 
flexible, difficult to implement, that it caused additional administrative burden; and that 
too  much  uncertainty  was  linked  to  it.  Further  reasons  included  a  perceived  lack  of 
competence within responsible units of cities and territories, which would not be able to 
implement  ITI.  Additional  counterarguments  cited  by  interview  partners  were  the 
existence  of  similar  national 
implementation 
structures,  more  familiar  and  less  complicated  to  implement;  and  that  the  national 
pocket of ESI funds was too small to be cut it to even smaller allocation. 

instruments  and  decentralised 

MAs also provided information through the survey regarding preparatory support for ITIs. 
According  to  these,  the  main  types  of  support  measures  to  be  applied  are  most 
frequently  provision  of  information  and  guidance,  followed  by  trainings  and 
contribution to the preparation of their strategic documents. (See Annex 4.10) 

During  the  negotiations,  ITI  were  significantly  more  debated  than  the  use  of 
CLLD.  It  was  only  42%  of  respondents  –  as  opposed  to  59%  -  where  there  was 

114 

 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

agreement  from  the  outset.  The  Commission  did  show  a  similar  level  of  flexibility, 
though. Again, the most important factor to influence Member States’  positions was the 
opinion of partners, while the informal dialogue was relatively less important. (See Annex 
4.10) 

Feedback from Commission counterparts – from focus groups – indicated that there was 
genuine  interest  from  a  number  of  Member  States  to  use  integrated  instruments.  At 
the same time, in a number of cases, they also reported about considerable resistance 
from the side of not only national governments, but also regions (which did not want to 
share  “power”  with  cities  and  local  stakeholders).  EC  officials  also  confirmed  survey 
results stating that there were problems with understanding the detail of the regulations 
on  ITI.  One  interesting  observation  –  regarding  a  more  developed  member  state  –  a 
conflict  between  the  provisions  thematic  concentration  and  those  on  ITI:  the 
non-availability  of  funds  for  certain  TOs  acted  against  the  use  of  an  integrated 
instrument. 

3.10.6 

Specific conclusions 

In  OPs  analysed,  20  Member  States  (involving  around  one  third  (94)  of  the 
programmes,  including  2  ETC  programmes)  have  indicated  their  intention  to  start  ITI. 
The  total  budgets  reach  almost  EUR  15  billion,  which  represents  around  4,2%  of  the 
cohesion policy allocation.  

Overall,  ITI  is  being  used  in  the  majority  of  countries  with  a  considerable  budget  –
while  the  positive  correlation  with  ITI-type  sustainable  urban  development  certainly 
influences the figures. The apparent strong link to SUD also suggests that ITI could still 
be  adapted  to  areas  other  than  urban  development.  Where  used,  the 
identification of ITI's, though, is well advanced. 

Overall, MAs did not see institutional readiness for ITI as a major issue. Nevertheless, the 
delegation of functions to the local level – outside SUD – is limited. This is more due 
to  the  insistence  of  programme  authorities  to  retain  the  right  to  select  operations, 
rather than reservations on local implementation capacity. 

The  arguments  pro  and  contra the use  of  ITI are very similar to those registered  for 
CLLD. The importance of national legal requirements for choosing ITI, as reflected by the 
survey, reflects the role of multi-level governance in a number of countries. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
3.11  SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT (SUD)  

3.11.1 

Background 

According  to  Article  7  ERDF  Regulation,  sustainable  urban  development  shall  support 
integrated  actions  to  tackle  the  economic,  environmental,  climate,  demographic  and 
social  challenges  affecting  urban  areas,  including  functional  urban  areas,  while  taking 
into account the need to promote urban-rural linkages.  

Under  the  new  regulations,  in  SUD  operations,  projects  to  be  financed  are  to  be 
selected on a compulsory basis – which is a novelty – by the cities concerned, in line 
with  pre-defined  integrated  urban  development  strategies,  developed  by  them.  The 
strategies  are  to  be  implemented  in  an  integrated  way,  i.e.  drawing  on  funding  from 
different thematic objectives for a specific territory. Different delivery mechanisms can be 
used  in  view  of  this:  integrated  territorial  investment  (ITI),  a  specific  operational 
programme, or a specific priority axis involving at least two thematic objectives.  

At  least  5%  of  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  must  be  invested  in 
integrated sustainable urban development at national level. 

Partnership Agreements contain the approach to sustainable urban development, 
including  the  principles  for  identifying  the  urban  areas  where  integrated  actions  for 
sustainable urban development are to be implemented; and the indicative allocation at 
national  level  to  integrated  actions  for  sustainable  urban  development  per  Fund. 
Programmes  describe  whether  SUDs  will  be  undertaken  through  ITI,  a  dedicated  OP 
or  a multi-thematic  priority  axis;  the  indicative  amount  of  support  from  Funds  for 
integrated actions for sustainable urban development; the extent of the involvement of 
urban  authorities  in  the  management  of  these  actions  (including  in  the  selection  of 
operations). 

The analysis under this study focussed on: 

  The identification of SUD areas and strategies 
 

the  allocation  to  SUD:  the  indicative  amount  from  Funds  for  integrated 
actions  for  sustainable  urban  development,  as  well  as  the  approach  foreseen 
for programming the integrated actions for SUD; 
the  delegation  of  managing  authority 
stakeholders. 

functions  under  SUD  to  local 

 

In  addition,  the  survey  and  the  interviews  were  used  to  explore  the  process  of 
determining and negotiating national choices on SUD, and the eventual challenges tied to 
the use of the new instrument. 

3.11.2 

Identification of SUD areas and strategies 

The  preparation  of  sustainable  urban  development  operations  is  quite  advanced. 
Based on the programmes processed, in 80% of the cases, planned SUD areas had 
already been identified in 2014 (by the time of the programme drafting). Another 9% 

116 

 
 
  
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

would  follow  in  2015,  and  2%  in  2016.  About  10%  of  planned  SUDs  areas  will  be 
identified only at a later stage73.  

SUD  territories  cover  predominantly  entire  cities.  SUDs  at  district,  neighbourhood  or 
city-region levels can be expected to be less frequent. (See Annex 4.11) 

According  to  survey  data,  as  of  Summer  2015,  ca.  two  thirds  of  the  required  urban 
development  strategies  were  elaborated,  of 
that,  20%  were  already  under 
implementation. (See Annex 4.11)  

As to the method of selecting SUD, results below summarise findings for the Partnership 
Agreements  and  programmes  processed  (where  such  information  was  available  –  (see 
Figure  75).  It  could  be  deducted  here  also,  that  SUDs  are  selected  according  to  a 
predetermined  political/technical  (territorial)  approach,  where  it  is  more  important  to 
develop  and  prepare  potential  SUD  subjects  in  order  to  join  and  profit  from  the 
initiative.  

Figure 75 – Type of selection of SUD (PA, OP/ETC)  

Competitive selection

Strategy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PA

Programmes (OP and ETC)

(frequency,  expressed  as  %  of  the  number  of  Member  States  /  programmes  concerned.  Multiple  choices 
possible in each Member State/programme) 

As regards the institution competent to decide about SUD selection, the most frequent is 
to  delegate  the  decision  to  regional  level,  followed  by  governments  and  Managing 
Authorities. (Figure 76) 

Figure 76 - Competent institution to select SUD (PA, OP/ETC) 

Region selects

Government decides

MA selects

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

PA

Programmes (OP and ETC)

(frequency,  expressed  as  %  of  the  number  of  Member  States  /  programmes  concerned.  Multiple  choices 
possible in each Member State/programme) 

73 Figures from Partnership Agreements regarding the same question are consistent, though not identical. These 
would indicate that 56% of SUD were identified by the time of programme drafting in 2014, 28% would follow 
in 2015, 6% in 2016, and 11% at a later stage. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
3.11.3 

Resources Allocated to SUD74,75   

The total amount allocated to SUD in the meaning of Art. 7 ERDF Reg. – based on the 
OPs and ETC76 programmes examined – is EUR 15,47 billion. EUR 14,2 billion (92,5%) of 
the total amount for SUD is to be financed by the ERDF and  EUR 1,27 billion (7,5%) by 
the ESF77.  

As  regards  SUD  allocations  per  Member  State,  the  largest  allocations  in  absolute 
terms are planned by Poland (EUR 3,76 bn), Italy (EUR 1,38 bn) and Romania (EUR 1,18 
bn). (See Annex 4.11) In relative terms – compared to the overall national allocations 
under Structural Funds – the list is topped by Bulgaria (9,4%) and Cyprus (8,2%).  

Figure 77 – Share of SUD allocations per Member State (in relative terms)78  

Poland
Italy
Romania
Czech Republic
Hungary
Spain
Germany
France
Portugal
Bulgaria
Greece
Slovakia
United Kingdom
Croatia
Latvia
Lithuania
Belgium
Slovenia
Estonia
Cyprus
Sweden
Netherlands
Ireland
Finland
Austria
Malta
Denmark
Luxemburg

ERDF

ESF

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

(as percentage of the total cohesion policy allocation of each country) 

74  The  present  study  covers  only  programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  CF  as  well  as  multi-fund 
operational programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund. 

75 Figures in the text and the Figure are based on Table 20 for OP and Table 19 for ETC programmes. 

76 Only one ETC programme contains SUD. 

77 At the same time, the analysis of territorial categories of intervention (table 10) shows that sustainable urban 
development may get additional support outside the scope of Art. 7 ERDF from cohesion policy funds (including 
the CF). According to this table, EUR 19,1 bn should be allocated to SUD (in this broader sense), among which 
86,7% should be financed by the ERDF (EUR 16,57 bn), 7,% by the ESF (EUR 1,37 bn) and 6,% by the CF (EUR 
1,16 bn). Under this framework, 5,5% of cohesion policy funding (ERDF, CF, ESF) should be allocated to urban 
development. Attention must be also paid to the fact that the difference between allocations appearing in Table 
10 and Table 20 of the OPs is not only due to the scope of cohesion policy funds taken into account (including 
CF or not), but also to the fact that allocation data on Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) are not identical.    

78 Because of the limitation of the study (covers only programmes financed by the ERDF and the CF as well as 
multi-fund operational programmes  co-financed by the European Social Fund), investments in SUDs from ESF 
programmes are not captured by the methodology. 

118 

 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

As to the regulatory requirement to allocate 5% of  ERDF resources to  SUD, (prescribed 
by Art. 7 of ERDF Regulation), Table 10 of the OPs indicates that  overall Member States 
have complied.79 The figures  below – based  on  Table 20 of the OPs–  show considerable 
differences among Member States in this respect: 

  3 Member States allocated the minimum 
  10 Member States a slightly more (5,22-6,15%) 
  11 Member States significantly more (7,4-11%), and 
  3  Member  States  allocated  much  more,  15,34-20,63%  of  their  national 

allocation. 

The “EU-average” comes up to around 7,6% of the total IJG-related ERDF allocation. 

Figure 78 – ERDF SUD allocations per member state (%) 

(as percentage of the IJG-related ERDF allocation of each country) 

As  regards  delivery  modes,  allocations  are  programmed  mainly  through  ITI  (52,4%) 
and  specific  priority  axis  (43,8%),  a  3,8%  by  SUD-specific  OPs80  (Cf.  Article  7  (2)  of 

79  Data  from  Table  20  of  the  OPs  (Table  19  for  ETC)  would  indicate  that  Greece  would  be  below  the  5% 
threshold –  this  however  is  considered  to  be  due  to  a data  error.80  There  are  only 4 SUD  specific  OPs: OP of 
Prague  Growth  Pole,  OP  of  Stockholm,  OP  of  the  of  Brussels  Capital  Region,  and  the  National  OP  for 
Metropolitan Cities (Italy).   

80 There are only 4 SUD specific OPs: OP of Prague Growth Pole, OP of Stockholm, OP of the of Brussels Capital 
Region, and the National OP for Metropolitan Cities (Italy).   

119 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
ERDF Regulation). 81 – see Annex 4.11 

As  regards  the  use  of  SUD  under  different  thematic  objectives,  programme 
templates do not require Member States to give detailed information as to what thematic 
objectives SUD resources will be concentrated on. However, Table 10 of the OPs (Table 9 
of  ETC  programmes)  indicates  the  allocations  to  SUD  under  different  priority  axes.  The 
allocations under each  priority axis to each different thematic  objective are also known. 
One only needs to work on estimations in the cases of multi-thematic priority axes. 

Based on this, it can be established that: 

  SUD  resources  are  unambiguously  DEDICATED  to  TOs  for  82%  of  total 

SUD funds, or 328 identified SUD allocations out of 420.  

  For the remaining allocations – and on that basis, for the total allocation to 
SUD  –  one  can  come  up  with  an  ESTIMATED  distribution,  assuming  that 
SUD  funds  would  be  split  among  TOs  in  the  same  way  as  for  the  total 
budgets of the priority axes concerned. (This is, of course, not necessarily 
true.)  

The  results  of  that  calculation  are  shown  in  the  figure  below.  Thereby,  the  ESTIMATED 
column  refers  to  the  total  SUD  allocation.  The  figure  shows  that  overall  the  thematic 
objectives on which SUD can be expected to concentrate are mainly: 

  TO 4 – low-carbon economy 
  TO 9 – social inclusion and combating povertry and discrimination 
  TO 6 - environment and resource efficiency. 

Figure 79 - Estimated distribution of SUD funds among thematic objectives 

81  Distribution  by  delivery  mode  can  only  be  calculated  from  Table  10  of  OPs  (and  Table  9  for  ETC 
programmes). However, the comparison of those data with data encoded in Table 20 of OPs (and Table 19 of 
ETC programmes) demonstrates inconsistent encoding practices in some Member States. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.11.4 

Level of delegation of functions in implementation 

The  delegation  of  project  selection  is  compulsory  under  the  regulations.  As  to 
remaining  functions  to  be  delegated  –  as  shown  in  Figure  80  –  Member  States  most 
frequently mentioned planning and the preparation of projects.   

As in the case of ITI, figures on SUD indicate also that programme authorities (Managing 
Authorities  and  Intermediate  Bodies)  retain  most  of  their  functions.  Apart  from  project 
selection,  which  is  compulsory  under  SUD  the  delegation  of  further  implementing 
tasks to the local level is rather limited. 

Figure 80 - Tasks delegated to urban authorities (OP/ETC)82 

Selection

Planning

Project gen/prep

Monitoring

Procurement

Finance

Contracting

Control

Evaluation

All of these

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

(% as compared to the number of programme documents containing specific data) 

3.11.5 

Difficulties encountered and the negotiation process 

When  asked  by  survey  about  any  the  difficulties  encountered  when  applying  the 
instrument,  more  than  60%  of  the  responding  MAs  did  not  find  any  difficulty. 
Those  who  did  report  about  problems  mentioned  mostly  issues  related  to  programming 
(specification  of  geographical  areas,  quality  of  strategies,  uncertainties  relating  to  audit 
issues  -Figure  81).  Reservations  about  the  availability  of  local  implementation  capacity 
were relatively limited (16% of respondents).  

82 Planning, programming and project generation are not „delegated” functions of MAS or IBs. 

121 

 
 
  
 
  
                                           
Figure 81 - Survey Q 11.2B - Which kind of difficulties did you meet in 
implementing integrated approaches with the use of the SUD instrument? 

Difficulties in the specification of geographical area

Difficulties in the elaboration of high quality
territorial development strategies

Uncertainties related to audit issues (insufficient
guidance)

Other answers

20% 

Difficulties in finding territorial structure with
necessary capacities to be delegated functions of…

Role and responsabilities of ITI in implementation

16% 

16% 

52% 

52% 

40% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

MAs were also asked, in interviews, about eventual difficulties linked to the setting-up 
of  SUD.  The  most  frequents  answers  –  of  those  arguing  against  SUD  –  included 
complaints about the perceived complexity of  the tool and that it represented too much 
administrative burden. In addition, MAs mentioned uncertainties linked to the status of 
intermediate  body,  and  showed  reluctance  to  delegate  certain  implementation 
responsibilities  to  cities  due  to  their  perceived  lack  of  capacities  of  cities  in  strategy 
making, programming, and implementation. 

Conversely,  interviewees  arguing  for  SUD  –  eventually  going  beyond  the  regulatory 
requirement  of  5%  (ERDF)  –  praised  the  instrument  for  its  ability  to  support  complex, 
integrated  projects  addressing  specific  needs;  and  pointed  to  previous  positive 
experience  with  similar  instruments.  Last  but  not  least,  they  saw  it  as  a  cooperation 
model  based  on  partnership  of  different  administrative  levels  and  a  good 
instrument to animate local stakeholders and building their capacities. 

According  to  survey  results,  in  60%  of  the  cases,  the  relevant  MA  was  considering 
targeted  institution  building  support  to  cities  implementing  SUD.  The  main  types  of 
support  measures  to  be  applied  included  most  frequently  trainings;  the  provision  of 
information  and  guidance;  contribution  to  the  preparation  of  their  strategic  documents; 
provision/financing  of  advisory 
covering 
administrative costs of organisation. (See Annex 4.11) 

technical  assistance;  and 

services, 

As  regards  the  negotiation  process,  in  the  survey,  managing  authorities  also  indicated 
that the content of programming documents regarding the use of SUD was shaped 

  by the informal dialogue with the EC  
  by the opinion and proposals of partners; and  
  by the national legal and institutional context. (See Annex 4.11) 

In  60%  of  cases  there  were  discussions  between  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission.  Where  there  were  initial  differences,  compromise  solutions  were  found. 
Member States changed their positions in 16% of the cases – the EC in 11%. (See Annex 
4.11) 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.11.6 

Specific conclusions 

The use of SUD substantially exceeds the regulatory minimum defined by Article 7 of the 
ERDF  regulation.  The  Member  States  investing  the  largest  proportion  of  their  ERDF   
allocations  are  Cyprus  (around  20,6%)  and  Bulgaria  (around  20%).  The  EU  average 
level is around 7,7%. Delivery is planned mainly through ITI (52,3%) and specific 
priority axis (43,7%), a minor part of it covered by SUD-specific OPs (Cf. Article 7 (2) 
of  ERDF  Regulation).83  SUD  allocations  should  mainly  concentrate  TO  4  –  low-carbon 
economy, TO 9 – social inclusion and combating povertry and discrimination, and TO 6 - 
environment and resource efficiency84. 

The delegation of project selection in SUDs is compulsory. Programme authorities (MA 
and  IB)  retain  most  of  their  functions,  as  a  consequence  the  delegation  of  further 
implementing tasks to the local level is rather limited – just like under ITI, despite 
the fact that it is only 16% of survey respondents reported difficulties in finding territorial 
players with the skills and capacities necessary for SUD. 

Overall, the SUD instrument is apparently popular among Member States in terms of 
financial  allocation  exceeds  expectations.  At  the  same  time,  although  60%  of  MAs 
did  not  report  on  specific  difficulties,  SUD  is  not  without  its  challenges.  Difficulties 
most  frequently  mentioned  are:  the  specification  of  geographical  areas;  quality  of 
strategies;  the  perceived  complicated  nature  of  the  tool;  uncertainties  regarding  the 
status of intermediate body; and reservations about the availability of local capacities.  

The  delegation  of  implementing  tasks  from  programme  authorities  to  the  local  level 
above  the  compulsory  project  selection  is  rather  limited,  even  if  frequently  capacity 
building measures are taken in order to remedy any possible lack of experience on the 
part of the local authorities.  

83  Distribution  by  delivery  mode  can  only  be  calculated  from  Table  10  of  OPs  (and  Table  9  for  ETC 
programmes). 

84 Also based on data and estimations established based on Table 10 of OPs (and Table 9 for ETC programmes) 

123 

 
 
                                           
3.12  TERRITORIAL CO-OPERATION AND MACRO-REGIONAL STRATEGIES 

3.12.1 

Background 

In  line  with  the  new  regulations,  in  order  to  reinforce  the  effectiveness  of  cohesion 
policy  Member  States  are  required  to  seek  coordination  and  complementarity 
between programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal and the Investment 
for growth and jobs goal. To that end, Member States are to make use of the possibility 
of  carrying  out  interregional  and  transnational  actions  with  beneficiaries  located  in 
at  least  one  other  member  state  within  the  framework  of  the  operational  programmes 
under  the  Investment  for  growth  and  jobs  goal.  In  addition,  Member  States  should, 
where  appropriate,  ensure  that  the  objectives  of  macro-regional  and  sea-basin 
strategies  form  part  of  the  overall  strategic  planning,  in  Partnership  Agreements, 
and in programmes in the regions and Member States concerned. 

For that, Member States need also to establish  mechanisms to coordinate joint actions 
with  beneficiaries  from  different  Member  States  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  ESF  with 
investments  supported  by  the  programmes  under  the  Investment  for  growth  and  jobs 
goal.  

European  Territorial  Cooperation  (ETC)  is  one  of  the  two  goals  of  cohesion  policy  and 
provides  a  framework  for  the  implementation  of  joint  actions  and  policy  exchanges 
between  national,  regional  and  local  actors  from  different  Member  States.  Interreg  is 
built  around  three  strands  of  cooperation:  cross-border  (Interreg  A),  transnational 
(Interreg B) and interregional (Interreg C). 

Partnership  Agreements  describe  the  main  priority  areas  for  European  Territorial 
Cooperation, indicating how a complementary use of Funds from the ETC programmes 
and the programmes under the Investment for Growth and Jobs goal could contribute to 
addressing challenges identified; how macro-regional and sea-basin strategies have 
been  taken  into  account  in  strategic  programming;  and  whether  joint  actions  with 
beneficiaries  from  different  Member  States  will  be  financed  through  the  ERDF  and  the 
ESF. 

Operational  Programmes  detail  the  circumstances  where  actions  with  beneficiaries 
located  in  at  least  one  other  Member  State  are  planned  under  the  operational 
programme in question, the expected contribution of such actions to the achievement of 
the programme’s objectives and the expected benefit of such actions for the programme 
area ; and where appropriate, a description of how the macro regional and sea basin 
strategies have been taken into account. 

Cooperation Programmes, as well as OPs, are to include the coordination mechanisms 
established to link up to the implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies; 
and how the macro regional and sea basin strategies have been taken into account. 

The analysis of the PAs and programmes under the study focussed on: 

 
 
 

 

the main priority areas of cooperation, 
the links to macro-regional and sea-basin strategies 
the  use  of  the  possibility  to  finance  inter-regional  and  transnational  actions  with 
beneficiaries located in at least one other Member State, 
the co-ordination mechanisms regarding transnational action as well as macro-
regional strategies, and finally 

124 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The  survey  and  interviews  were  used  to  explore  the  process  of  setting  and  negotiating 
priorities, as well as any difficulties associated to co-operation.  

3.12.2 

Priority areas for co-operation 

Figure 82 shows the distribution of specific priority areas for co-operation in Partnership 
Agreements. 

The  graph  displays,  in  percentage  terms,  in  how  many  Partnership  Agreements  a  given 
thematic objective has been mentioned, as a priority area for co-operation. As it can be 
seen,  environmental  protection,  transport,  SME  as  well  as  research  and 
development  have  been  selected  in  a  majority  of  Member  States  as  areas  for 
cooperation.  

Figure 82 - Priority areas for co-operation in terms of Thematic Objectives (PA) 

RTDI

ICT

SME

Low-carbon economy

Climate change

Environment protection

Transport

Employment

Poverty and discrimination

Education

Public administration

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

(frequency as % of the total number of PAs comprising reference to Priority areas for co-operation) 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Investment Priorities most frequently chosen by programming documents (CPs 
and OPs) as priority areas for co-operation are: 

Investment Priority 

Frequency 

Promoting business investment in R&I (…) – Art 5.1(b), ERDF reg. 

Conserving, protecting, promoting and developing natural and cultural heritage – Art 5.6(c), 
ERDF reg. 

Supporting the capacity of SMEs to grow in regional, national and international markets (…) – 
Art 5.3(d), ERDF reg. 

Enhancing research and innovation  (R&I) infrastructure & capacities (…) – Art 5.1(a), ERDF 
reg. 

Promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing 
disaster management systems – Art 5.5(b), ERDF reg. 

Promoting  sustainable  and  quality  employment  and  supporting  labour  mobility  by  integrating 
cross-border labour markets, (…) – Art 7.8(e), ETC reg. 

63% 

50% 

46% 

42% 

38% 

38% 

Promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in enterprises – Art 5.4(b), ERDF reg. 

33% 

Supporting a multimodal Single European Transport Area by investing in the TEN-T – Art 5.7(a), 
ERDF reg. 

Enhancing regional mobility by connecting (…) to TEN-T (…) – Art 5.7(b), ERDF reg. 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting  ecosystem  services,  including 
through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure – Art 5.6(d), ERDF reg. 

Developing  and  improving  environmentally-friendly  (…)  and  low-carbon  transport 
systems, (…) – Art 5.7(c), ERDF reg. 

33% 

33% 

29% 

29% 

(frequency as % of the total number of programming documents comprising reference to Priority areas for co-
operation) 

Comparing  this  table  with  Figure  82  it  is  clear  that  the  approach  at  programme  level  is 
fully consistent with the approach at PA level (covering all ESI Funds). 

3.12.3 

Links to macro-regional and sea-basin strategies 

Operational  programmes  contain  many  references  to  macro-regional  and  sea-basin 
strategies.  Four  strategies  have  been  mentioned  in  the  OPs:  the  EU  Strategy  for  the 
Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR- endorsed in 2009 by the European Council), the EU Strategy 
for the Danube Region (EUSDR – endorsed in 2011), the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and 
Ionian  Region  (EUSAIR  –  endorsed  in  2014)  and  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Alpine  Region 
(EUSALP – adopted in 2015).  

The biggest number of referrals  points to the  EU Strategy for the  Baltic Sea Region, 
followed neck-and-neck by the Danube Strategy and the Alpine Strategy. 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 83 - Key Priorities linked to pillars of macro-regional and sea-basin 
strategies85 

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

22 

20 

19 

18 

30 

22 

25 

h
t
w
o
r
G
e
u
B

l

-

1
P

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
C

-

2
P

y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
S

-

3
P

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

-

4
P

h
t
w
o
r
G

.
t
s
u
S

-

1
P

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
C

-

2
P

y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
S

-

3
P

149 

76 

66 

47 

52 

50 

a
e
S

-

1
P

y
t
i
r
e
p
s
o
r
P

-

2
P

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
C

-

3
P

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
C

-

1
P

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

-

2
P

y
t
i
r
e
p
s
o
r
P

-

3
P

18 

n
e
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S

-

4
P

i

n
o
g
e
r

EUSAIR

EUSALP

EUSBSR

EUSDR

Comparing  the  referrals  in  programmes  to  the  priority  level  of  macro-regional  and  sea-
basin strategies (See Annex 4.12) with the identification of priority areas of co-operation 
shown  above  in  Figure  82,  one  can  find  that  some  areas,  as  Environment,  RDI  and 
Transport  are  equally  important,  while  others  (e.g.:  SME)  are  less  important  in  macro-
regional and sea-basin strategies.  

The  same  statistics  for  ETC  programmes  only  is  presented  in  Figure  84  below.  The 
distribution is similar to the one observed for all programmes together.  

Figure 84 - Contribution to macro-strategies, in ETC programmes 

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

7 

7 

5 

h
t
w
o
r
G
e
u
B
-
1
P

l

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
C
-
2
P

y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
S
-
3
P

6 

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E
-
4
P

9 

h
t
w
o
r
G

.
t
s
u
S
-
1
P

8 

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
C
-
2
P

7 

y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
S
-
3
P

36 

y
t
i
r
e
p
s
o
r
P
-
2
P

23 

a
e
S
-
1
P

25 

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
C
-
1
P

17 

y
t
i
v
i
t
c
e
n
n
o
C
-
3
P

32 

31 

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E
-
2
P

y
t
i
r
e
p
s
o
r
P
-
3
P

14 

i

n
o
g
e
r
n
e
h
t
g
n
e
r
t
S
-
4
P

EUSAIR

EUSALP

EUSBSR

EUSDR

85  The  statistics  presented  in  Figure  83  are  based  on  operational  programmes,  and  allow  multiple  references 
from  within  a  member  state  from  different  operational  programmes.  Accordingly,  it  somewhat  amplifies  the 
differences among the scores of the different strategies. This presentation was chosen as it is the “richest” in 
terms of information. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.12.4 

Programmes  with  beneficiaries  in  at  least  one  other  Member 

States  

The distribution of referrals in programmes to actions with beneficiaries in at least one 
other  member  state  –  according  to  thematic  objectives  –  shows  that  RDI,  SME  and 
this  comparison, 
Low-carbon  economy  are 
environmental  protection  and  climate  change  –  though  still  frequently  implied  –  are 
somewhat lower positioned than in Figure 82 above. 

the  most  often  mentioned.  In 

Figure 85 - Actions with beneficiaries in at least one other Member State, by TO 
(OP/ETC) 

RTDI
ICT
SME
Low-carbon economy
Climate change
Environment protection
Transport
Employment
Poverty and discrimination
Education
Public administration

52% 

40% 

31% 

25% 

24% 

14% 

16% 

13% 

14% 

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

7% 

7% 

10%

0%

(frequency  as  %  of  the  total  number  of  programming  documents  containing  references  to  operations  with 
beneficiaries in at least one other Member States. The graph eliminates “duplications”, in the sense that every 
TO is registered only once for each programme it is referred to, regardless of how many IPs under that TO have 
been referenced) 

3.12.5 

Co-ordination Arrangements 

Figure  86  describes  the  use  of  different  types  of  coordination  arrangements  among 
ESI  Funds  and  other  instruments  and  policies  with  respect  to  transnational  co-
operation, and for macro-regional and sea-basin strategies.  

According  to  programme  data,  the  most  frequently  used  for  the  co-ordination  of 
transnational  co-operation,  and  macro-regional  strategies  are  a  co-ordinated  (joined) 
programming  of  different  funds,  and  political-level  co-ordination  committees. 
Technical-level  co-ordination  committees  and  a  clear  demarcation  of  programmes  and 
intervention areas are following in the list. Overall, this reflects that co-ordination efforts 
rather focus on the programming phase. Similar results were obtained with regard to ITI 
(cf.  Chapter  3.10),  but  also  with  regard  to  funds  co-ordination  (Chapter  3.15)  overall. 
However,  as  regards  macro-regional  and  sea-basin  strategies,  the  role  of  the  national 
co-ordination authorities in the sense of Art. 123 (8) CPR is stronger. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 86 - Co-ordination arrangements86 of co-operation (OP/CP) 

Synergetic use of funds

Strategic and political co-ordination

Clear demarcation

Technical-level co-ordination

Regular “cross-border” consultations 

Cross-participation of MAs

Use of co-ordination body

Selection criteria reward synergies

Common monitoring committee

Integrated implementation bodies

Special support to help obtain additional…

Co-op. in monitoring, evaluation, control, audit

Joint information activities

Exchanges of experience between partners

Unspecified arrangement

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Coord. transnat. action

Coord. With macrostrat

(frequency as % of the total number of relevant programming documents) 

3.12.6 

The  Process  –  Establishing  priorities,  programming, 

negotiations 

In focus group interviews with Commission Officials reported that – while there was a lot 
of interest in transnational co-operation – in practice, there were still many difficulties 
on  the  ground.  The  synergy  between  the  programming  of  operational  and  ETC 
programmes was not fully satisfactory  – despite significant internal co-ordination efforts 

86 Legend: 
 

Clear  demarcation:  Co-ordinate  programming:  clear  demarcation  of  the  ESI  Funds  in  order  to  avoid 
overlaps  
Common  monitoring  committee:  Common  monitoring  committee  for  programmes  implementing  the  ESI 
Funds (CSF 3.2.1.d) 
Co-op.  in  monitoring,  evaluation,  control,  audit:  Co-operation  among  programmes  in  monitoring, 
evaluation, control and audit – CSF 3.2.1. h) 
Cross-participation  of  MA:  MAs  participate  in  the  development  of  each-others'  support  schemes  –  (CSF 
3.2.1.c) – or in project selection under other programmes 
Integrated implementation bodies: Use of implementation bodies (MA; IB) managing several OPs 
Joint  information  activities:  e.g.  Common  website  for  ERDF  and  ESF  informing  about  new  projects,  the 
applications process, evaluations; contact points, etc 
Regular  “cross-border”  consultations:  Regular  “cross-border”  consultations  (e.g.  with  programme 
authorities in different countries; or programme authorities of trans-national programmes and strategies) 
Selection  criteria  reward  synergies:  Selection  criteria  also  assess  the  co-ordinated  use  of  funds 
(contributions to other programmes) 
Strategic  and  Political  co-ordination:  Co-ordination  committees  at  political  level  (e.g.  committees  of 
ministers;  of  government  &  regions,  etc);  (CSF  3.2.1.b),  partnership  arrangements,  involvement  of 
partners in project selection, monitoring, etc. 
Synergetic  use  of  funds:  Co-ordinate  programming:  synergetic  use  of  funds  through  joint  strategies, 
plurifund OPs, (groups of) measures covering different sources; targeted calls... 
Technical-level  co-ordination:  Co-ordination  committees  at  technical  level  -  other  forms  of  co-operation 
among authorities (those , without having an implementation responsibility included) 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

  Use of co-ordination body: Use of co-ordination body in the sense of Art. 123 (8) of the CPR. 

129 

 
 
 
 
                                           
that  were  made  within  the  Commission.  This  has  had  some  systemic  causes  mentioned 
by  interviewees.  First,  the  programming  of  co-operation  programmes  came  6  months 
after  that  of  the  OPs,  by  which  time  most  of  the  funds  were  already  allocated.  Second, 
the priorities of macro-regional strategies proved often difficult to align with the thematic 
objectives.  Last  but  not  least,  ETC  programmes  are  also  more  complicated  from  a 
financial  management  point  of  view,  which  reduces  enthusiasm  for  them.  Overall,  there 
seems to be a need and room for further improvement in this area. 

According to interviews with Member States main difficulties experienced in identifying 
main priority areas for cooperation under ESI Funds are that:  

  ETC programmes were lagging behind PA and OP programming process, 

which hampered effective and timely cooperation in programming  

  more  actors  (authorities)  covered  by  several  programmes  need  higher 

level of coordination  

 

  OPs’ needs analysis did not take account of wider ETC issues as this 
was not seen as a major need at regional, local or even national level  
identification of synergies between OPs and ETC programmes or macro-
regional and sea-basin strategies is difficult  
it is difficult to find a place  for the  allocation  of macro-regional and sea-
basin strategies, especially for bigger projects  

 

  OPs  are  limited  in  scope,  so  ETC  projects  can  access  only  those  ETC 

priorities reflected in their own (national) OPs  

  Commission  officials  –  in  focus  group  interviews  –  confirmed  the  still 
existing mismatch between the directions chosen by national OPs and 
those  of  ETC  programmes,  and  the  macro-regional  and  sea-basin 
strategies (which can be very wide). 

On the other hand, both national OPs and ETC programmes are used to provide funding 
for macro  regional  strategies.  This  is  of  course  important  because  as  Macro-regional 
strategies do not have their own budgets. At the same time, OPs and ETC programmes – 
in  most  cases  –  do  not  have  specifically  earmarked  (ring-fenced)  budgets  for  macro-
regional  strategies  either.  Therefore,  the  cooperation  of  partner  countries  during 
implementation  is  of  high  importance.  As  interview  partners  reported,  macro  strategies’ 
contact  points  are  involved  in  the  work  of  the  Monitoring  Committees  of  ESIF, 
which should help that cause. Also, when selecting operations, several countries reported 
that they would give priority to projects directly contributing to Macro-regional strategies. 
The  use  of  ring-fenced  allocations  for  macro-regional  strategies  was  mentioned  in  the 
interview with one Member State. 

Managing authorities indicated in the survey that the content of programming documents 
regarding the territorial cooperation and macro-regional strategies was shaped 

  by the national legal and institutional context on the one hand; and 
  by the regulations on the other. (See Annex 4.12) 

In  the  negotiation  process  itself,  the  area  of  territorial  co-operation  and  sea-basin 
strategies was the least controversial. In almost three quarters of the cases managing 
authorities reported that there had been agreement with the EC from the very beginning 
of the process. (See Annex 4.12) 

130 

 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.12.7 

Specific conclusions 

identified 

in  programming  documents, 
Areas  for  co-operation  have  been 
environmental  protection,  transport,  SME  as  well  as  research  and  development  have 
been  selected  in  a  majority  of  Member  States.  Programmes  contain  also  many 
references  to  macro-regional  and  sea-basin  strategies.  The  greatest  numbers  of 
referrals  point  to  the  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  and  the  Danube  Strategy. 
Interregional  and  transnational  actions  with  beneficiaries  located  in  at  least  one 
other  Member  State  were  also  identified  across  the  board,  mainly  focused  on 
research and innovation, and support to SMEs thematic objectives.  

Nevertheless, due to systemic causes (e.g.: differences in programming schedules, some 
difficulty to reconcile the priorities of pre-existing MRS with the new thematic objectives), 
synergies between mainstream OPs and ETC,  as well as ESIF programmes and macro-
regional and sea-basin strategies are quite difficult to achieve. In this area therefore, 
good co-ordination during implementation will be of particular importance. 

131 

 
 
3.13  POVERTY, SOCIAL EXCLUSION 

3.13.1 

Background 

New efforts made within the new regulations for simplifying and enhancing the integrated 
use  of  ESI  Funds  is  particularly  important  in  addressing  the  territorial  dimension  of 
poverty.  The  integration  of  marginalised  communities  requires  coherent  and  multi-
dimensional  approaches  supported  from  the  various  ESI  Funds,  complementing  national 
resources and implemented coherently with reforms. 

This  multi-dimensional  integrated  approach  combining  actions  from  various  ESI 
Funds  (multi-fund  approach),  or  even  from  different  OPs  or  CPs,  is  particularly 
relevant  for  the  Roma  community,  whose  effective  integration  requires  investments  in 
employment,  education,  healthcare,  housing  and  social  integration.  In  deprived  urban 
areas,  the  physical  and  economic  regeneration  activities  supported  by  the  ERDF  should 
go hand in hand with ESF actions aimed at promoting the social inclusion of marginalised 
groups.  In  rural  areas,  EARDF  support  may  also  be  used  to  promote  social  inclusion, 
particularly through community-led local development (‘LEADER’), which will continue to 
be a compulsory element of rural development programmes. It is also essential to exploit 
the  synergies  between  the  ESI  Funds  in  order  to  reduce  inequalities  in  terms  of 
access  to  services.  To  increase  the  effectiveness  of  ESF  actions  aimed  at  enhancing 
access  to  affordable,  sustainable  and  high-quality  services,  the  ERDF  and  EARDF 
should be used in a complementary way to invest in social and health infrastructure in 
less developed regions and in rural areas. 

Partnership  Agreements  contain  information  on  the  geographical  areas  most 
affected  by  poverty  or  an  identification  of  the  target  groups  at  highest  risk  of 
discrimination  or  social  exclusion  and  a  description  of  their  specific  needs;  the 
integrated approach to address their specific needs and the concrete change aimed at; 
and  the  role  and  the  contribution  of  the  ESI  Funds  in  the  implementation  of  the 
strategy.  

Operational Programmes describe the geographical areas most affected by poverty  
or  an  identification  of  the  target  groups  at  highest  risk  of  discrimination  or  social 
exclusion and a description of their specific needs; a  strategy and funding compatible 
with  the  overall  strategy  to  address  these  specific  needs,  a  description  of  how  the 
operational  programme  in  the  implementation  of  the  programme's  strategy  will 
contribute  to  addressing  these  specific  needs;  and  an  indicative  amount  of  support 
from  Funds  for  interventions  on  specific  territories  or  groups,  with  indication  of  priority 
axis, intervention area and main type of actions. 

Considering the above, the analysis under this study focussed on: 

 

 
 
 

the  identification  of  geographical  areas  most  affected  by  poverty  or  the  target 
groups at highest risk of discrimination or social exclusion; 
the specific needs of these areas and target groups; 
the actions planned as part of the integrated approach; and 
the  particular  difficulties  encountered  when  applying integrated  approaches  to 
poor regions and vulnerable groups, and envisaged support measures.  

132 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.13.2 

Territories affected by poverty – types of territories and needs 

The  most  frequent  types  of  territory  identified  in  PAs  (covering  all  ESI  funds)  as 
territories  affected  by  poverty  are  those  with  socially  marginalised  communities,  urban 
and rural areas, and areas with permanent geographical or demographic handicaps.  

The  type  of  regions  identified  at  programme  level  differs  somewhat.  The  programmes 
under assessment - i.e. those financed by the ERDF and CF programmes including multi-
fund  OPs  with  ESF  co-financing  –  focus  more  on  urban  areas.  (Figure  87)  These  urban 
areas are likely to be territories with a high concentration  – or specific types – of social 
problems,  which  are  usually  connected  to  other  features  of  the  territory,  (e.g.  worse 
economic  situation,  weak  connectivity  to  other  territories,  limited  access  to  social 
services etc.) 

Altogether, 16 PAs (Member States) and OPs from 19 Member States contain territories 
affected by poverty. 

Figure 87 – Types of territories affected by poverty (PA/OP) 

Socially marginalised communities

Urban areas

Geographical or demographic problems

Rural areas

Urban and rural areas together

Cross-sectoral challenges

Demographic

Fisheries and coastal areas

Cross-border regions

PA%

OP%

(frequency of categories87 as % of the total number of programming documents) 

0%

5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Data sets based on the Partnership Agreements and programmes indicate that the main 
needs of territories affected by poverty are related to social inclusion, employment and 
education (Annex 4.13): 

87 

Urban and rural areas together: Urban and rural areas linked together with socio-economic linkages 

133 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 88 – Types of development needs characterising  regions affected by 
poverty (PA, OP/ETC) 

Inclusion

Employment

Education

SME development

Connectivity

Ageing and demographic changes

IT & infrastructure

EU 2020

Governance

Interdependencies

Development capacity

Urban-rural

Commuting

Land use

Resource use

Heritage

Climate and CO2

R&D

None

PA%

OP/ETC%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

(figures indicate the percentage of programme documents where a particular need is mentioned)  

The needs identified for poor regions provide information on the priorities given by the 
Member  States.  Most  of  them  used  a  “standard”  approach,  selecting  mainly  territories 
with low level of  employment and high level of social exclusion and need for education. 
Other, “non-classical” development needs e.g. the strengthening of development (policy) 
capacities, or on the use of land and resources are not in the focus. 

3.13.3 

Vulnerable groups – types of groups and needs 

Furthermore,  as  Figure  89  figure  shows,  the  target  groups  at  highest  risk  of 
discrimination  or  social  exclusion  most  referred  to  in  programming  documents  are  the 
long-term unemployed, the young, disabled people and ethnic minorities. This shows that 
the  situation  on  the  labour  market  was  one  of  the  main  criteria  for  the  demarcation  of 
vulnerable  groups,  reflecting  the  assumption  that  a  weak  access  to  the  labour  market 
increases the probability of social exclusion and poverty.  

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 89 – Vulnerable groups at risk of social exclusion (PA/OP) 

Long-term unemployed

Young people

Disabled people

Minorities

Migrants

Elderly people

Unemployed

Poverty and exclusion

Homeless

One person households

Women

Religious groups

Sexual minorities

PA%

OP%

0%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

(frequency of categories as % of the total number of programming documents) 

As  for  their  appearance  in  programming  documents,  17  PAs  (Member  States)  and  OPs 
from 16 Member States contain reference to vulnerable groups. 

As  statistical  analysis  revealed,  there  are  some  patterns  across  Member  States  as 
well:  

  OPs  using  ESF  address  all  categories  of  vulnerable  groups  –  while  ERDF 
and  CF  OPs  comparatively  less  to  women,  unemployed,  poor  people  and 
young people.   

  Outermost  regions  have  chosen  relatively  more  often  young  people  as 

vulnerable group and less frequently minorities than others. 

As  Figure  90,  shows,  members  of  vulnerable  groups  are  considered  to  be  in  need  of 
mainly  human  services  (employment,  social,  health,  education).  Activation  services 
(services with goal of integration of local communities), anti-discrimination measures and 
business development services are considered less important. 

Figure 90 – Needs of vulnerable (PA, OP) 

Activation

Anti-discrimination

Business development

Education

Employment

Health

Social services

PA%

OP%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

(frequency of categories as % of the total number of programming documents) 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
Altogether  28  OPs  (from  12  countries)  and  17  PAs  contain  an  assessment  of  needs  of 
vulnerable groups. 

The frequency of needs can be compared to the distribution of ESF funding (on the basis 
of IPs) of those priority axes where vulnerable groups are referred to. The distribution of 
ESF funding is as follows: 

Figure 91 – Distribution of ESF funding on relevant IPs (OP) 

Activation services (8i;9i)

Anti-discrimination (9ii;9iii)

Business development (8iii;9v)

Education (10i;10iii;10iv)

Employment (8vii)

Health and social services (9iv)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

On the basis of comparing the above two figures, it can be concluded that there is some 
inconsistency. While it should be stressed that Figure 90 refers to references in the text, 
and  Figure  91  reflects  financial  allocations  –  i.e.  we  are  comparing  to  substantially 
different categories – it may be conclude that 

  The share of ESF money to be spent on activation services is comparatively 

 

higher than the share of relevant references to needs; 
In  the  case  of  employment  as  well  as  health  and  social  services,  the 
situation is the opposite. Their relative share of “funds” is lower than their 
share in “references”.  

3.13.4 

Actions planned as part of the integrated approach  

Figure  92  presents  frequency  of  actions  (grouped  by  Thematic  Objectives)  foreseen  in 
Partnership Agreements (therefore covering all ESI Funds) in response to the needs of 
poor  regions  and  vulnerable  groups  discussed  above.  Accordingly,  actions  most 
frequently planned are related to the field of social and antidiscrimination policies as well 
as employment and education.   

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 92 - Actions for territories affected by poverty and vulnerable groups by 
TO (PA) 

RTDI

SME

Low-carbon economy

Climate change

Environment protection

Transport

Employment

Poverty and discrimination

Education

Public administration

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

(frequency of categories as % of the total number of programming documents) 

These  data  seem  to  indicate,  again,  that  most  of  the  Member  States  applied  a  rather 
traditional,  sectoral  approach  to  responding  to  the  needs  of  poor  regions  and 
vulnerable  groups.  Actions  are  most  often  envisaged  in  framework  of  the  “social”  TOs, 
while the others (e.g.: SME) are less emphasised. 

3.13.5 

Particular difficulties and support measures  

According  to  survey  results,  Managing  Authorities  did  not  perceive  the  issue  of  poor 
regions  and  target  groups  at  highest  risk  of  discrimination  as  particularly  contested 
during the negotiations. In two thirds of the cases there were no major differences 
in  approach  between  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission.  Where  there  were  initial 
differences, compromise solutions were found. (See Annex 4.13).  

The  content  of  programming  documents  regarding  poor  regions  and  vulnerable  groups 
was  shaped  mainly  by  the  national  legal  and  institutional  context.  The  informal 
dialogue  with  the  EC  and  the  opinion  and  proposals  of  partners  were  also  considered 
important by the MAs. (See Annex 4.13) 

Managing authorities were also asked about any difficulties they had encountered when 
applying integrated approaches to poor regions and vulnerable groups. More than  40% 
of  the  responding  MAs  did  not  find  any  difficulty  in  applying  the  new  rules. 
Challenges  that  were  reported  were  linked  especially  to  the  apparent  lack  of  data 
related  to  poor  regions  and  vulnerable  groups,  which  makes  the  design  of  policies  and 
the targeting of interventions difficult. (See Annex 4.13) 

Survey  data  also  indicate  significant  efforts  to  provide  support  to  beneficiaries/ 
stakeholders  concerned,  60%  of  responding  MAs  considered  institution  building 
measures,  or  other  support  to  beneficiaries/  stakeholders.  75%  are  planning  to 
issue  specific  information  and  guidance  materials,  and  almost  60%  are  preparing 
trainings, half of them animation and exchange measures. (See Annex 4.13) 

MAs were also asked by means of interviews on difficulties encountered. The majority of 
respondents considered the question of poverty mainly from a territorial point of view 
(and  less  as  one  concerning  of  social  groups).  Major  challenges  mentioned  as  regards 

137 

 
 
 
 
poverty mapping were: a lack of systematic and reliable data, especially at local level. 
Also,  data  were  considered  to  be  often  outdated  data,  as  assessments  dated  back  to 
the  years  2000.  Last  but  not  least,  interview  partners  said  that  –  in  their  view  –  there 
were  too  many  conflicting  definitions,  criteria  as  well  as  aspects  and  dimensions  of 
poverty currently used. 

3.13.6 

Specific conclusions 

Overall,  specific  integrated  approaches  towards  poor  regions  and  vulnerable  groups 
appear  in  slightly  more  than  in  half  of  the  Member  States.  Nevertheless,  an 
assessment  of  needs  of  vulnerable  groups  figure  in  only  28  OPs  (from  12 
Member  States),  and  less  than  half  of  the  Partnership  Agreements  comprise 
concrete actions for poor regions or vulnerable groups. 

The  most  frequent  types  of  territories  among  poor  regions  are  those  with  socially 
marginalised communities, urban, rural and urban-rural areas, and areas with permanent 
geographical  or  demographic  handicaps.  The  social  groups  to  be  most  frequently 
targeted are the unemployed, the young, disabled people and ethnic minorities.  

The range of planned actions reflects a rather sectoral approach. “Human services”, 
such  as  employment,  education  and  social  and  antidiscrimination  policy  are  at  the  top 
Member  States’  intervention  lists,  other  policy  areas  necessary  for  a  more  integrated 
approach (e.g.: SME promotion) are less present.  

Partly  for  this  reason,  during  the  negotiations,  DG  Employment  was  pushing  for  a 
target-group-based  approach  when  addressing  the  needs  of  the  poor.  On  this  point, 
though  there  was  resistance  from  some  Member  States,  which  complained  about 
difficulties  in  national  legislation  as  regards  the  identification  of  such  groups,  and  the 
consequent lack of appropriate data, as mentioned above.  

138 

 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.14  REGIONS WITH PERMANENT HANDICAPS 

3.14.1 

Background 

Geographic  or  demographic  features  can  intensify  territorial  development  problems. 
Under  the  new  regulations,  there  is  new  scope  for  the  ESI  Funds  to  address 
demographic  challenges  or  specific  development  needs  of  regions  with  severe  and 
permanent natural or demographic handicaps in an integrated manner. 

Among  the  regions  concerned,  particular  attention  is  to  be  paid  to  rural  areas,  areas 
affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from  severe and permanent 
natural  or  demographic  handicaps  such  as  the  northernmost  regions  with  very  low 
population density, island, cross-border and mountain regions. 

In Partnership Agreements, where the  Member States has highlighted specific needs 
in regions suffering from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicap, the PA 
shall contain a brief summary of how the ESI Funds will be used to tackle those specific 
needs. 

Operational  Programmes  are  to  describe  how  the  OP  addresses  demographic 
challenges of regions and the specific development needs  of certain regions with severe 
and permanent natural or demographic handicaps. 

The analysis under this study focussed on: 

 

 
 

 

the identification of regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or 
demographic handicaps; 
the identification of needs of these regions; 
the  identification  of  actions  planned  as  part  of  the  integrated  approach;  and 
finally on 
the  particular  difficulties  in  implementing  integrated  approaches  to  territorial 
development  in  regions  with  permanent  handicaps,  and  envisaged  support 
measures. 

3.14.2 

Types of regions with permanent handicaps 

Altogether, 15 Member States made a  reference to regions with permanent handicaps 
in  their  programming  documents.  Island  and  Mountain  territories  were  identified  by 
referrals  to  them  found  in  Partnership  Agreements.  For  the  identification  of  Outermost 
regions and Northern sparsely populated regions OP/ETC financial allocation tables were 
used.  

By  way  of  comparison  with  EUROSTAT  data  on  regions  with  permanent  handicaps88,  as 
shown  in  the  table  below,  it is  evident  that  not  all  relevant  regions  had  been  singled 
out in PAs as target territories for the ESI funds. (Especially not all mountain regions.) 

88 Sources: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Regional_typologies_overview ; 

 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2009_02_geographical.pdf;  

139 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 93 - Types of regions with permanent handicaps (PA, OP/ETC) 

Island 

Mountain 

Northern 

Outermost 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

0 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

0 

0 

X 

0 

X 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(Legend: X: existing handicap appearing in documents; 0: existing handicap not appearing in the documents; 
X: non-existing handicap appearing in documents) 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.14.3 

Needs identified for regions with permanent handicaps 

The  list  of  needs  identified  by  Member  States  for  regions  with  permanent  handicaps  is 
dominated  by  the  economy  (SME  development),  employment,  and  connectivity,  which 
reflects well the nature of handicaps in these territories. (Figure 94) At the same time, it 
is only 30 OPs that contained relevant data. 

Figure 94 - Types of needs identified in regions with permanent handicaps 
(PA,OP) 

SME development

Employment

Connectivity

Resource use

Ageing and demographic changes

Inclusion

Education

Urban-rural

R&D

IT & infrastructure

EU 2020

Climate and CO2

Land use

Heritage

Development capacity

Interdependencies

Commuting

Governance

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PA OP

(frequency of categories as % of the total number of programming documents comprising reference to regions 
with permanent handicaps) 

3.14.4 

Actions planned for  regions with permanent handicaps 

Figure  95  shows  the  responses  to  the  needs  identified  above  within  the  regions  with 
permanent handicaps. As data from PAs and programmes show, at the level of PA there 
is a strong coherence between needs identified and actions planned. The list is topped, in 
both  cases,  by  employment,  SME  promotion,  transport  /  connectivity  issues  as  well  as 
environmental  considerations.  At  the  level  of  programmes,  though,  education  seems 
much  more  frequently  referenced  than  other  areas.  It  should  be  also  noted  that  only  a 

141 

 
 
 
 
few  programmes  (around  30)  made  reference  to  needs  of  regions  with  permanent 
handicaps. 

Figure 95 – Actions planned in regions with permanent handicaps by TO (PA, 
OP) 

Employment

SME

Transport

Environment protection

Low-carbon economy

Climate change

RTDI

Education

ICT

Public administration

Poverty and discrimination

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

PA OP

(frequency of categories as % of the total number of programming documents comprising reference to regions 
with permanent handicaps) 

3.14.5 

Particular difficulties and envisaged support measures  

Through  the  survey,  Managing  Authorities  were  asked  about  the  difficulties  they  had 
encountered when addressing demographic or territorial handicaps.  

More  than  40%  of  the  responding  MAs  did  not  report  any  difficulties.  As  shown 
inFigure  96,  those  which  did,  most  frequently  mentioned  challenges  linked  especially  to 
data  availability  and  coordination  –  but  even  these  had  a  comparatively  low  frequency. 
Overall, there did not appear to be any major, characteristic difficulties to be present – at 
least as far as survey responses were concerned. 

Figure  96.:  Were  there  particular  difficulties  in  programming  the  use  of  ESI 
Funds to address demographic or specific territorial handicaps? 

None

Data availability

Issue of coordination of the different Funds

Lack of integrated tool to address those specific…

16% 

14% 

14% 

Other asnwers

Lack of co-financing potential

6% 

6% 

43% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Furthermore, MAs provided information regarding preparatory support to stakeholders 
and  (potential)  beneficiaries.  The  main  types  of  support  measures  to  be  applied  are 
trainings;  the  provision  of  information  and  guidance,  capacity  building;  generation  of 
partnership; 
strategic  documents; 
the  preparation  of 
provision/financing of advisory services, technical assistance; coverage of administrative 
costs of organisations; operating small pilot projects/fund. 

contribution 

their 

to 

As  already  indicated  under  the  survey,  Member  States  reported  in  interviews  very  few 
difficulties, if not at all – which is most probably thanks to the experience MSs concerned 
had gained previously in programming for those areas. 

3.14.6 

Specific conclusions 

Overall,  there  were  very  few  difficulties  mentioned  by  Member  States  in  the 
application  of  the  provisions  on  regions  with  permanent  handicaps.  This  is  most  likely 
thanks to the considerable experience the countries concerned have already accumulated 
in  this  area.  The  main  issue  which  hinders  implementation  according  to  MAs  is 
apparently the lack of accurate data and indicators specific to these areas. 

The regions with permanent geographical handicaps are generally identified in PAs and 
OPs,  although  they  do  not  directly  address  all  of  them  as  such.  The  number  of  OPs 
addressing regions with permanent handicaps is rather low.  

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  coherence  between  needs  identified  and  actions 
planned,  and  planned  actions  cover  a  wide  range  of  policy  areas,  which  suggests  an 
integrated approach.  

143 

 
 
 
 
3.15 

COORDINATION  BETWEEN  THE  ESI  FUNDS  AND  OTHER  UNION  AND 

NATIONAL FUNDING INSTRUMENTS AND WITH THE EIB 

3.15.1 

Background 

In different planning periods, different rules have applied to the joint or parallel use 
of  the  structural  and  cohesion  funds  at  programme,  measure,  or  operation  level.  The 
desire  to  “deliver  European  added  value”  led  the  Commission  to  propose,  in  the  draft 
regulations  for  the  programming  period  2014-2020  provisions  to  reinforce  the  co-
ordination  of  funds with each  other, as well as with other Union policies and financial 
instruments. As one particular aspect, Article 123 (3) of the CPR mentions the option to 
set  up  –  at  an  initiative  of  the  Member  State  –  an  authority  responsible  for  the  co-
ordination of EU funds.  

In the PA and the programmes89, Member States were due to describe the policy areas 
where  a  co-ordinated  use  of  funds,  and  a  co-ordination  with  other  union  and  national 
policies  was  deemed  necessary.  They  also  were  asked  to  provide  details  of  the 
mechanisms  to  be  used  for  co-ordination,  and  any  arrangements  planned  to  help 
beneficiaries to access different funds in a complementary manner.  

The analysis under this study focussed on clarifying 

In what areas a co-ordinated use of funding was planned? 

 
  What the mechanisms to ensure co-ordination are? 
  How were co-ordination arrangements determined, and did they contribute 

to a more synergetic use of funds and instruments? 

3.15.2 

Areas  Where  a  Co-ordinated  use  of  Funds  &  Instruments  is 

Planned 

Member  States  have  established  in  their  Partnership  Agreements  and  programmes  (cf. 
Annex 4.14) which cohesion policy funds (ERDF, ESF, CF) they wish to use together, - in 
a co-ordinated manner  – with other  resources  (ESI Funds,  other  EU  resources, National 
Funds, or the EIB).  

At the level of the partnership agreements,  

  All Member States made references to co-ordination among the ESI Funds 
  With  the  exception  of  3  Member  States,  the  co-ordination  with  other  EU 

instruments was also specifically mentioned.  

  The  co-ordination  needs  indicated  at  national  level  (PA)  were  also  taken 

over into the OPs. 

89 PA section 2.1; OP section 8; CP section 6 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

When  looking  at  where  Member  States  are  envisaging  the  use  of  different  funds  and  – 
EU as well as national – instruments in a synergetic manner90 the analysis found that for 
all ESI Funds, co-ordinated use is most frequently planned with another ESI fund 
(including the possibility of co-ordinating with the same fund from another programme). 
The  next  most  prominent  co-ordination  effort  relates  to  other  EU  policies  and 
programmes,  followed  by  national  instruments  and  –  last  but  not  least  –  the  EIB’s 
activities.  One  observes  similar  patterns  for  the  ERDF,  the  CF  and  the  ESF.  Results  are 
also similar at programme level (cf. Annex 4.14)91. 

Overall, coordination efforts planned in the programming documents are consistent with 
the coordination needs identified in the programmes (Figure 97)  

Figure 97 - Co-ordination needs by fund (measured at Programme level) 

(% of all the indicated co-ordination needs for each fund) 

Further analysis shows which instruments should be mainly used in a combined way with 
cohesion  policy  funds.  Figure  98  below  shows  how  often  a  given  fund  or  instrument 
(listed on the vertical axis) has been mentioned as a resource to be co-ordinated with the 
ERDF, ESF, or CF.92  

At  PA  level,  the  EAFRD,  the  EMFF,  ETC  programmes,  Horizon  2020,  and  the  ERDF, 
followed  by  the  national  budget,  and  then  LIFE  and  the  ESF  are  the  most  frequently 
mentioned instruments. The list is very similar at the level of Programmes: EAFRD, ESF, 
Horizon 2020, ERDF, LIFE, COSME and ETC are at the top of the list. 

90 based on the text of the PA and OPs, recording references to the co-ordinated use of funds 

91 Coordination efforts are most often mentioned with respect to other ESI Funds, then other EU instruments, 
followed by national funds, and the EIB being mentioned almost exclusively with respect to the ERDF. 

92  Co-ordination  needs  among  the  same  funds  (e.g.  ERDF-ERDF)  indicates  the  need  to  co-ordinate  between 
different programmes and measures financed by the same fund. 

145 

 
 
 
                                           
Co-ordination  priorities  for  the  each  of  the  cohesion  policy  funds  are  as  follows 
(measured by the number of Member States mentioning the need to co-ordinate in their 
Partnership Agreements): 

  For the ERDF: with the EAFRD (24 Member States); Horizon 2020 and LIFE 
(22  Member  States);  the  ESF  (21  Member  States)  and  the  EMFF  (21 
Member States), and COSME (20 Member States); 

  For the Cohesion Fund: with the ERDF (11 Member States); the Connecting 
Europe  Facility  (11  Member  States);  and  the  EIB  and  the  EAFRD  (10 
Member States); 

  For  the  ESF:  with  the  EAFRD  (20  Member  States);  Erasmus  +  and  the 
ERDF  (17  Member  States);  Horizon  2020  (14  Member  States)  and  the 
EMFF. 

Figure 98 - Combination of ESI Funds with other funding sources (as in PA) 

EAFRD
EMFF
ETC
H2020
ERDF
National Budget
LIFE
ESF
COSME
CEF
EIB
Erasmus+
CF
CFP
YEI
CAP
AMF
Local authority budget
Private capital
EaSI
Regional budget
ENI
IPA
State investment fund
NER 300
EDF
PEACE IV Programme
FEAMD
PROGRESS

CF

ESF

ERDF

0

5

10

15

20

25

(Number of fund-specific references to co-ordination needs in PAs, arranged by the total for ERDF + ESF + CF. 
Figures correspond to the number of Member States mentioning a given combination.) 

Provisions  in  the  programmes  on  the  co-ordination  of  funds  are  not  differentiated  by 
priority axes, thematic objectives or investment priorities. Accordingly, information  as to 
co-ordination needs associated with different policy areas can only be derived indirectly, 
and  to  a  limited  extent.  Above  we  have  established  the  types  of  funds  and  the  specific 
instruments  that  are  most  frequently  identified  as  sources  to  be  co-ordinated  with. 
Analysing  the  profile  of  those  instruments,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  policy  areas  of 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

rural  development,  fisheries,  research  and  development,  SME  support, 
environmental issues, and trans-European infrastructure are the areas where a co-
ordinated use of funding sources is most frequently envisaged.  

These  findings  would  mostly  correspond  to  expectations,  and  indicate  –  especially  with 
respect to rural development and fisheries – an intention by Member States to reinforce 
funds  co-ordination.  In  addition,  we  have  tested  whether  there  was  a  statistically 
significant  correlation  between  the  thematic  objectives  used  in  particular  programmes 
and  the  needs  for  co-ordination,  or  the  arrangements  used  for  such  co-ordination.  The 
outcome  is  negative.  It  is  only  in  a  handful  of  cases  that  correlations  –  with  sufficient 
probability and occurrence – were detected. 

3.15.3 

Arrangements for the Co-ordination of Funds and Instruments 

Methods  of  co-ordination  can  be  examined  from  the  perspective  of  the  authorities  and 
that of the beneficiaries. 

As  to  the  authorities  side,  based  on  the  Partnership  Agreements,  Member  States’  co-
ordination  efforts  seem  to  be  concentrated  more  on  the  planning  phase  than  on 
implementation.  

Within  that,  the  emphasis  is  on  programming  –  aiming  at  a  synergetic  use  of  funds 
through  joint  strategies,  multi-fund  programmes,  and  groups  of  measures  covering 
different  sources  –  is  topping  the  list.  The  clear  separation  –  or  “demarcation”  –  of 
interventions by different funds is also mentioned often: by two thirds of Member States.  

Next most frequently referred to are institutional solutions: the optional co-ordination 
body in the sense of Art. 123(8), followed by different types of co-ordination bodies – at 
political level or at administrative level.  

Less than half of Member States mention, though, the intention of co-ordination between 
managing authorities during implementation, e.g. in the form of “cross-participation” in 
project selection, or co-operation in monitoring, evaluation or control (Annex 4.14). The 
possibility  to  establish  selection  criteria  that  reward  operations  using  different  funds  or 
instruments  in  a  synergetic  manner  is  mentioned  only  rarely  (Figure  99).  A  failure  to 
ensure  synergies  between  he  different  EU  funds  in  the  course  of  their  implementation 
may 
in  the 
programming phase and result in a silo effect between the funds. 

jeopardise  the  positive  effects  of  the  complementarity  enshrined 

147 

 
 
Figure 99 - Use of co-ordination arrangements by Member States 

Synergetic use of funds
Use of co-ordination body
Strategic and political co-ordination
Technical-level co-ordination
Clear demarcation
Common monitoring committee
Cross-participation of MAs
Co-op. in monitoring, evaluation, control, audit
Integrated implementation bodies
Regular “cross-border” consultations 
Unspecified arrangement
Joint information activities
Selection criteria reward synergies

24 

20 

19 

18 
18 

11 

10 
10 

8 

6 

4 
4 

3 

5

0

10

15

20

25

30

(Number of Member States referring to a given co-ordination arrangement, in PAs) 

The above pattern is largely applicable for all three funds. Nevertheless, there are some 
statistically significant differences. According to the data:  

  ERDF  programmes  are  more  likely  than  others  to  use  “cross-participation 
of MAs in decision-making – i.e. involve other MAs in project selection; and 
to  co-operate  with  other  programmes  in  monitoring,  evaluations,  control 
and audit. 
In  Cohesion  Fund  programmes,  the  co-ordination  body  in  the  sense  of 
Art.  123  (8)  is  seen  to  play  an  important  role,  and  the  need  for  cross-
border consultations is also more frequently mentioned.  

 

  For  the  ESF,  the  importance  of  coordination  in  programming  is  relatively 

high, higher than for other funds. 

(See also Annex 4.14.) 

As regards co-ordination arrangements  helping beneficiaries to access different funds 
in  a  synergetic  manner,  Member  States,  quite  uniformly,  plan  to  provide  help  to 
beneficiaries  mainly  through  specific  guidance  documents  for  beneficiaries,  dedicated 
contact  points  and  one-stop-shop  information  services  to  beneficiaries  as  well  as  e-
government  solutions  (web-pages,  etc.).  21  Member  States  have  provided  specific 
measures in view of this (on average 2)  

(See also Annex 4.14.) 

3.15.4 

Establishing  Co-ordination  Arrangements  -  the  Negotiation 

Process 

Survey  data  indicate  that  the  co-ordination  of  funds  and  instruments  was  among  the 
least  controversial  of  all  new  provisions.  In  three  quarters  of  cases  the  there  was  no 
major  difference  between  the  approaches  of  the  Member  States  and  those  of  the  EU. 
Even where there was a discussion, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a compromise 
solution was found, close to Member States’ original intentions.  (See also Annex 4.14.) 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The  main  factor  influencing  Member  States  choices  –  quite  unsurprisingly  –  the 
national legal and institutional context. (See also Annex 4.14.) 

As to the quality of co-ordination 43% of survey respondents considered that the co-
ordination among funds would improve for the new period, and another 41% expected it 
to remain as it was. It was only 16% of managing authorities that feared a worsening of 
the situation. (Figure 100) 

Figure 100 - Did co-ordination mechanisms improve vis-à-vis the previous 
programming period? 

16.11% 

40.94% 

42.95% 

3 = Improved

2 = Did not change

1 = Worsened

In  general  terms,  most  Member  States  did  not  regard  the  co-ordination  of  funds  as  a 
particular  challenge,  which  might  however  also  be  an  indication  for  them  not  taking 
the  issue  very  seriously  and  continue  to  work  in  silos  between  the  different 
administrations in charge of different funds. Many authorities interviewed pointed to long 
years  of  experience,  and  well  established  structures  for  co-ordination  from  earlier 
periods.  These  structures  and  relationships  have  proved  to  work  effectively  under  the 
new regulatory framework. The list of potential problems  – mentioned during interviews 
with the authorities –included: 

  A  difficulty  to  get  the  role  of  the  central  co-ordination  authority  accepted 

by line ministries  

  The  classic  problems  of  demarcation  between  different  programmes  and 

beneficiaries  

  The multitude of organisations and the complexity of negotiations with the 

EIB; 

  The complexity of negotiations with stakeholders which, in many cases, did 

not have the appropriate capacity to participate; 

  The co-ordination between research institutions and SME under TO 1; 
  The  reconciliation  of  different  approaches  to  SME  support  under  the  ERDF 
and the EAFRD, which seems to create difficulties for rural SMEs to access 
finance. 

As  to  specific  solutions  to  challenges  –  apart  from  already  existing,  well-tested 
mechanisms – Member States are opting for  

149 

 
 
 
 
  using  the  same  bodies  for  managing  several  programmes,  funds  or  types  of 

intervention  

o  at managing authority level (BE, DK, LT, etc.)  
o  at regional level (FR) 
o  at IB (development agency) level (IE);  
o  but also, e.g., in financial control (BE)),  

  a strong technical co-ordination body for programming (PT, SI) 
 

special inter-ministerial working groups, joint monitoring committees (EE, HR, LU, 
MT, etc.)  
regular co-operation of programme authorities (e.g. through participation in each-
others monitoring committees or expert bodies (EE, IE); 

 

  one-stop-shop information services for applicants (EE); 
 
 
 

service-level agreements among bodies involved in different programmes (ES); 
the preparation of a “funding map” to avoid the risk of double financing (LT); 
the near full integration of EU and nationally funded support schemes (IE);  

In  a  number  of  cases,  the  importance  of  the  involvement  of  the  political  level  was  also 
mentioned (BE, RO, of the FR-DE-CH Upper Rhine Interreg programme).  

As  regards  factors  that  are  considered  most  promising  for  ensuring  good  co-
ordination among funds and instruments Member State partners mentioned: 

  The  experience of authorities working together, well-established traditions 

of co-operation; 
strong political co-ordination 

 
  a  technical  co-ordination  body  finding  common  solutions,  and  also  issuing 

guidelines, instructions etc. 
technical-level co-ordination committees 
joint monitoring committees 
regular  consultations  with  bodies  in  charge  of  parallel  (connected) 
programmes 
the integrated management of national and EU funding schemes. 

 
 
 

 

3.15.5 

Specific conclusions 

The  main  conclusions  of  the  study  with  respect  to  the  co-ordination  of  funds  are  as 
follows: 

  At  both  Partnership  Agreement  and  Programme  levels,  Member  States 
made specific statements with respect to the co-ordination among funds 
as this was a compulsory section in the PA and programmes, however, the 
quality of the descriptions and coordination differs.  

  Statements regarding needs for co-ordination among different instruments 
reflect  a  high  level  of  attention  towards  both  rural  development  and 
fisheries,  as  well  as  non-ESIF  EU  instruments  –  as  intended  by  the 
Regulations.  

  Co-ordination  is  strongest  among  the  ESI  Funds  themselves,  followed 

by other EU instruments, and then national funds. 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

  As  regards  co-ordination  methods,  Member  States  emphasise  the 
significance  of  programming  (attention  to  synergies,  demarcations); 
the  use  of  a  co-ordination  body  (Art.  123.8)  as  well  as  co-ordination 
committees at both political and technical level.  

  Co-ordination  during  implementation  is  mentioned  less  often.  (For 
the  ERDF,  co-operation  among  MAs  is  more  frequent,  according  to 
statistical  analysis).  This  is  indicative  of  a  weakness,  as  synergetic 
programming  alone  may  not  be  sufficient  to  ensure  a  close  co-operation 
among  funds  and  may  lead  to  working  in  silos  with  loosing  out  on  real 
synergy effects by combined or coordinated investments. 

  Overall,  according  to  the  survey,  the  area  of  funds  co-ordination  was  one 
of  the  least  controversial.  The  objective  of  enhanced  funds  co-ordination 
was shared by both the Member States and the EU. Where there were 
differences in opinion, compromise solutions were found. 

  Surveys and interviews confirm the general opinion by stakeholders that 
co-ordination did overall improve in the programming phase. (Again, it 
remains to be seen whether practice will prove that expectation.) 

Overall,  data  indicate  that  the  programming  process  was  conducted  so  that  needs  for 
co-ordination  were  systematically  mapped,  which  contributed  to  improved  co-
ordination.

151 

 
 
3.16 

CAPACITY BUILDING 

3.16.1 

Background 

The  importance  of  adequate  administrative  capacities  of  the  authorities  designing 
and  implementing  cohesion  policy  programmes  –  and  the  need  to  constantly  develop 
those  further  –  is  widely  recognised  by  Member  States.  Gaps  in  the  administrative 
capacities  of  those  authorities,  which  should  be  targeted  by  institution  building  actions, 
may include problems related to 

  Structure – the clear assignment of responsibilities and tasks to institutions, and 
departments  or  units  within  these 
including  management, 
programming,  implementation,  monitoring,  evaluation  as  well  as  financial 
management & control. Structure also relates to supervisory and ancillary bodies, 
such as Monitoring Committees, auditing tasks, partnership, etc. 

institutions  – 

  Human resources – the ability to detail tasks and responsibilities at the level of 
job descriptions, to  estimate the number and  qualifications of staff  required, and 
to fulfil recruitment needs.  

  Systems  and  tools  –  the  availability  of  instruments,  methods,  guidelines, 
manuals, systems, procedures, forms, etc. In brief, these are all job-aids that can 
enhance the effectiveness of the functioning of the system.  

Effective  management  of  the  Structural  Funds  requires  that  all  3  dimensions  are  taken 
into account. 

In  addition,  if  cohesion  policy  assistance  is  to  be  used  effectively  and  efficiently  –  the 
administrative capacities of the beneficiaries should receive similar attention by the 
programme authorities. This is not always the case. Gaps in administrative capacities of 
beneficiaries  may  include  functional  gaps  in  project  development  and  monitoring, 
procurement,  and  financial  management.  These  also  require  attention,  and  should 
be addressed. 

In previous programming periods, National Strategic Reference Frameworks (NSRFs) and 
OPs  had  to  contain  the  description  of  implementation  systems.  The  following 
requirements are, in that perspective, a novelty, i.e. the need to:  

  assess gaps in administrative capacities of authorities and beneficiaries, (in line 
with  the  logic  described  above,  taking  into  account  lessons  learnt  from  previous 
programme period/ex ante evaluations); 

  describe  main  actions  planned  –  referring  to  the  conclusions  under  Heading  
2.5  of  the  PA,  translating  them  to  operational  measures  financed  by  TA  –  for 
reinforcing administrative capacities of authorities and beneficiaries.  

In  the  Partnership  Agreements  and  programmes93  Member  States  were  requested 
(recommended)  to  do  their  analysis  following  the  “structures    human  resources   
systems and tools” logic as described above. The analysis was to conclude with a list of 
bottlenecks and challenges for the new programme period, which should be translated 
into operational measures in the OPs (to be supported by TA).  

93 Section 2.5 of the PA; Section 2.A.10 of operational programmes; Section 2.A.5 of co-operation programmes 

152 

 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The  analysis  focussed  on  examining  the  capacity  building  needs  at  both  the  level  of 
authorities as well as the beneficiaries. In both cases, we also looked at the  actions 
that were planned to strengthen these capacities. 

3.16.2 

Capacities of the Authorities 

In  the  Partnership  Agreements,  capacity  building  needs  for  the  authorities  were 
addressed by all except one Member State. The categories used to classify needs were as 
follows: 

Figure 101 - Capacity needs (problems) at the level of authorities (scale) 

Need (CAPNEEDAUT) 

Explanation 

Co-financing capacity 

HR management 

Information provision 

Legal fw. 

Organisation 

Procedures 

Skills 

Staff 

Not specified 

The  limited  capacity  to  mobilise  the  financial  resources 
was  a  key  issue  and  risk  factor  for  programmes 
performance 
High  turnover  of  staff  /  lack  of  motivation  and  retention 
policy 
Need  to  ensure  better  access  to  information  and  advice 
for applicants and beneficiaries 
The legal framework inhibits the functioning of authorities 

Inefficient  organisational  structure  (e.g. 
improper  / 
unclear assignment of responsibility), bad co-operation of 
authorities, instability of structures 
Lack of, or inefficient procedures, processes, workflows to 
regulate  the  execution  of  the  tasks  of  organisational 
units. 
Need to develop skills of staff, exchange good practices 

There is not enough staff positions / members to execute 
authorities' tasks 
Not specified, “nothing to do”, or irrelevant information 

Member  States’  assessment  of  the  needs  of  authorities  managing  ESI  funds  is 
summarised in Figure 102. The frequency of these needs in the Partnership Agreements 
has been expressed as a percentage of the number of Member States mentioning them. 

Figure 102 - Capacity development needs of the authorities in PAs 

Skills

Organisation

Procedures

Tools, methods

Staff

Legal fw.

HR management

Information provision

Co-financing capacity

14% 

7% 

71% 

71% 

68% 

64% 

64% 

61% 

54% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

(frequency – % of Member States explicitly mentioning an area of needs) 

153 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Results above show a fairly uniform spread of needs, with organisational and personal 
capacity  development  leading  the  way.  Training  –  a  cornerstone  of  HR  development  – 
appears  at  the  very  top  of  the  list.  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  the  need  to  hire 
more staff figures quite high on the “wish lists” of Member States (64% mentioning it in 
their  PAs),  despite  the  fact  that  –  as  expressed  by  Commission  officials  during  focus 
group  interviews  –  there  are  close  to  24  000  employees  working  on  the 
implementation  of  the  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund  programmes  all  over  Europe.  In  the 
Commission’s  view,  the  emphasis  should  rather  be  on  modern  methods  of  HR 
management  (such  as  career  development  and  staff  retention),  which  however,  is 
placed towards the end of the list, even if more than half of  Member States do mention 
it.  

Needs  identified  in  the  PAs  are  overall  consistent  with  the  needs  mentioned  by 
interviewees.  Most  Member  States  mentioned  in  this  context  trainings  and  the 
exchange  of  experiences  as  the  key  tools  for  the  strengthening  of  administrative 
capacities.  The  importance  of  human  resources  was  alo  stressed  by  several 
counterparts. Thereby, the continuity of staff was emphasised partly as a requirement 
or  as  existing  practice  that  has  a  major  positive  effect  on  the  quality  of  administration. 
Exchanges – internships – of experts among authorities in different Member States (and 
the Commission) were also mentioned by one counterpart.  

In  addition,  interview  partners  also  underlined  the  importance  of  a  continuity  of  the 
legal  framework,  so  that  experience  from  previous  periods  can  be  most  effectively 
used. Some authorities saw difficulties related to the very limited availability of funds for 
capacity building (due to overall budget).  

As regards the actions that Member States are planning in order to respond to needs 
identified, there is consistency in the sense that it is the same areas that are at the top 
of both lists. The perhaps most interesting point is again the already mentioned modest 
focus on HR management methods.  

Figure 103 - Capacity building actions for authorities in PAs, by area  

Procedures
Improve quality of systems and tools
Training
Legal fw.
Staff increase
Reorganisation
Co-operation
Procure external support
HR management
No action

68% 

64% 

57% 

43% 

39% 
39% 

36% 

29% 
29% 

4% 

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

(Frequency – % of Member States explicitly mentioning an area of actions) 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The categories used in the graph are explained as follows: 

Action 

Explanation 

Strengthen co-operation of authorities 

Co-operation 

HR management 

Improve quality of systems and tools 

Legal fw. 

Procedures 

Procure external support 

Reorganisation 

Staff increase 

Training 

Establish  /  improve  motivation  retention  and  performance 
management for HR 
Improve methods, guidelines, manuals, IT systems, etc. 

Developing the legal framework, changing regulations 

Development  of  procedures  to  increase  efficiency,  quality, 
reliability 
Provide for the recruitment of external experts (on a temporal 
basis) 
Reorganisation of the authorities to increase capacity 

Increase staff numbers 

Training and skills development for staff 

The  areas  where  capacity  building  was  considered  most  necessary  by  Member  State 
and ETC partners during the interview stage included 

  state aid  
  public procurement  
  performance oriented management 
  accounting, financial management and audits  
  strategy-making and long-term investment planning  
 

techniques  related  to  cost  benefit  analysis  and  the  choice  between 
investment options  

In  focus  group  interviews,  Commission  officials  mentioned  public  procurement  and 
financial  control  (incl.  management  of  irregularities)  as  the  two  main  sectors  of 
concern.  

Examining  planned  capacity  building  of  the  authorities  by  stages  of  the 
programme  cycle,  the  analysis  of  partnership  agreements  also  show  an  emphasis  on 
the  selection  of  operations,  programme  monitoring  and  evaluation.  This  would 
indicate increasing attention paid to results-oriented management.  

Figure 104 - Capacity building for authorities in PAs, by stages of the 
programme cycle 

Planning
Project generation
Selection
Contracting
Procurement
Finance
Monitoring
Control
Evaluation

11% 
11% 

25% 

14% 

14% 

18% 

25% 

29% 

21% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

(frequency – number of Member States explicitly mentioning a stage of the programme cycle)  

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall, in the eyes of interviewed Commission officials, capacity development should 
happen  in  the  context  of  overall  public  administration  reform  efforts  under  TO  11. 
DG Employment staff, however, were not satisfied with the extent to which programmes 
addressed this challenge. TA funds in the OPs substantially exceed the amounts planned 
under  TO  11,  and  most  of  those  funds  go  towards  staff  and  training  costs.  As  the 
Commission sees it, organisations  focus on ad hoc  and/or stand-alone actions (training, 
procedures). Member States should move away from using TA as a lump sum for 
administrative capacity building, and should programme it like any other priority axis 
in an OP (needs analysis, focus on areas in most need, clear targets).  

Furthermore, REGIO officials pointed out  

 

 

the  existence  of  a  new  PEER  2  PEER  exchange  instrument  for 
authorities managing the ERDF and Cohesion Fund; 
the  existence  of  fi-compass  -  a  unique  platform  for  advisory  services  on 
financial instruments provided by the Commission in partnership with EIB; 

  a  common  action  plan  on  state  aid  with  DG  COMP  which  includes 

seminars and trainings in Member States and Brussels; 

  a  Public  Procurement  Action  Plan  with  14  actions,  which  has  been  set 
up between DG GROW and ESIF DG's and EIB: implementation is on-going 
since beginning of 2014. 

As  regards  possible  difficulties  of  capacity  building,  interview  partners  cited  the 
complexity  and  exceedingly  technical  nature  of  management  rules,    above  all  – 
again  –  with  respect  to  state  aids  and  public  procurements,  followed  by  financial 
instruments; e-cohesion,  equal opportunities legislation; ITI and results orientation. The 
lack  of  sufficient  and  skilled  human  resources  is  a  further  frequently  mentioned 
problem also from the  perspective of capacity building.  One member  state  said that the 
rigidity  of  rules  applicable  to  the  structure,  size,  and  HR  management  of  public 
administration  institutions  did  not  allow  implementing  necessary  changes,  capacity 
increases, and performance-oriented HR management practices.  

3.16.3 

Capacities of the Beneficiaries 

As  regards  beneficiaries,  only  half  of  Member  States  made  specific  statements  on 
capacity building measures. They were of the opinion that the biggest needs were related 
to  project  generation,  public  procurement, 
financial  management  and 
monitoring, if expressed in terms of stages of the programme cycle.  

On  the  same  scale,  planned  actions  would  be  fairly  evenly  spread  among  different 
areas, with planning, project generation, procurement and financial management leading 
the way. (See Figure 105 for details).  

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 105 - Capacity development needs and actions for beneficiaries (stages) 

Planning

Project generation

Selection

Contracting

Procurement

Finance

Monitoring

Control

Evaluation

21% 

21% 

18% 

18% 

18% 

18% 

18% 

14% 

14% 

11% 

7% 

7% 

7% 

32% 

29% 

29% 

25% 

25% 

Needs

Actions

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

(% of Member States specifically mentioning an item) 

The above results from documentary analysis were also confirmed at the interview stage. 
Most  interview  partners  mentioned  knowledge  regarding  project  preparation  and 
management  as  the  most  pressing  needs  as  regards  the  capacity  of  beneficiaries. 
Within that, the importance of result orientation was emphasised, so that beneficiaries 
do  “not  develop  projects  for  the  projects'  sake  but  to  actually  conceive  of  sustainable 
projects”.  

Further issues where training and capacity building is said to be important are: 

  public procurement  
  state aids 
 
 
  Territorial instruments  

simplified costs  
the use of new information systems  

As regards tools and mechanisms for capacity building for beneficiaries, planned actions 
in  the  PA  to  help  beneficiaries  increase  their  capacities  mainly  focus  on  trainings,  and 
the provision of guidelines and methodologies (Figure 106).  

Figure 106 - Types of actions to help beneficiaries strengthen capacities 

Provide training / capacity building

39% 

Provide TA

32% 

Provide information or guidance materials

25% 

Provide funds

11% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

(% of Member States specifically mentioning an item) 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
In parallel, main tools mentioned by interview partners from Member States were: 

  Trainings,  
  guidance materials, 
 

information events and publications (about rules, techniques, as well as 
successful practices); 

  networks of contact points for beneficiaries (emphasised by transnational 

programme authorities); 

  as  well  as  the  use  of  TA  –  (up  to  the  level  of  specific  priority  axes  for 

strengthening beneficiaries capacity) 

As  to  who  should  implement  capacity  building  for  beneficiaries,  apart  from  managing 
authorities, again in interviews, 

counterparts mentioned the role of regional authorities; 

 
  one  OP  under  the  SME  Initiative  mentioned  the  responsibility  of 
financial intermediaries in setting up a “fast and agile” procedures, and 
preparing their clients for using them. 

Last but not least, the importance of practical experience – and therefore the stability of 
staff at beneficiary level – was also highlighted.  Interview partners also said that the 
practical  application  of  the  partnership  principle  –  e.g.  the  active  participation  of 
beneficiaries  in  Monitoring  Committees,  for  instance,  had  also  a  positive  influence,  e.g. 
by allowing the partners to develop relevant guidance materials for their members. 

3.16.4 

Establishing Needs and Actions – the Negotiation Process 

As  regards  the  negotiation  process,  according  to  survey  results,  the  area  of  capacity 
building  was  relatively  uncontroversial.  Almost  2/3  of  survey  respondents  said  there 
had been agreement from the outset, and compromise solutions had been found in most 
cases.  Where  there  was  debate,  the  Commission  seems  to  have  been  able  to  convince 
Member States of the Union’s position, rather than the other way round (13% vs. 4% of 
survey responses). (See also Annex 4.15) 

The most important factor shaping Member States positions was the opinion of domestic 
partners  –  who  are,  of  course,  the  among  the  main  “clients”  of  the  MAs  and  IBs.  
According  to  the  survey’s  results,  it  was  the  opinion  of  social  partners  and  civil  society 
organisations  that  shaped  the  programmes  above  all  else.  The  low  score  registered  for 
the Regulation (8%) suggests that – in this respect – Member States did not perceive the 
regulation as particularly novel. (See also Annex 4.15) 

The  survey  also  asked  respondents  to  assess  the  expected  effect  of  plans  to  build 
capacities  of  authorities  and  beneficiaries:  will  these  be  addressed  adequately  –  with 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

clear  and  credible  actions,  responsibilities,  targets  and  milestones?94  Expectations  by 
managing authorities are fairly optimistic in both cases, as shown in Figure . 

Figure 107 – Quality of capacity building plans according to MAs 

Authorities 

Beneficiaries 

7% 

17% 

25% 

51% 

1 = No

2 = [partially]

3 = [mostly]

4 = Fully

10% 

7% 

22% 

61% 

1 = No

2 = [partially]

3 = [mostly]

4 = Fully

This fairly optimistic feedback is in some contrast with the results of  the analysis of the 
Partnership  Agreements.  The  quality  of  Member  States’  action  plans 
for 
strengthening  authorities  was  assessed  by  the  country  experts  of  the  consortium.  The 
criteria of the examination were, whether Member States have ensured: 

  A clear structuring, and itemisation (breakdown to concrete, verifiable actions) of 

their plans; 

  The determination of clear responsibilities and deadlines; 
  Measureable targets, indicators, milestones; 
  Monitoring and reporting arrangements for implementing planned actions; 
  A clear specification of the funds needed to implement plans; 
  Actions being based on specific needs assessments; 

Scores given by country experts ranged from 1 to 4 (from ‘no’ – to ‘yes, fully’). Average 
marks  –  assessing  the  specificity  of  the  PAs  in  this  respect  –  are  rather  weak. 
Converting the scale to percentages (1=0; 4=100%), scores would rank from ca. 30% to 
56%. (See Figure 108) 

94This question was referring to any type of action plan (either formal or informal) not about TO 11. 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 108 - Quality of capacity building action plans 

Needs assessments

Structure and itemisation

Responsibilities and deadlines

Measureable targets

Funds

Monitoring and reporting

2.70 

2.43 

2.07 

2.07 

2.04 

1.96 

1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00

3.16.5 

Specific conclusions 

The  templates  of  the  Partnership  Agreements  required  Member  States  to  address 
capacity  building  in  a  fair  amount  of  detail.  All  Member  States  provided  specifics  as 
regards either the needs or planned actions with respect to the authorities in charge 
of EU funds. (Four Member States did not provide specifics on the actions planned). The 
capacities of beneficiaries were addressed in detail only by about half of them.  

Action  plans  devised  by  Member  States  seem  rather  unspecific.  (Figure  1087). 
Notwithstanding that, managing authorities, for their part, were fairly upbeat about 
the  perspectives  of  strengthening  capacities  of  both  the  authorities  and  beneficiaries. 
(Figure ).  

The  emphasis  among  planned  capacity  building  actions  on  project  selection,  monitoring 
and evaluation does signify attention to some of the key elements of the new regulations, 
e.g.  results-oriented  management.  At  the  same  time,  the  “evergreen”  topics  of 
financial control, public procurement and state aid are also being considered.  

As regards capacity building of beneficiaries, Member States see needs fairly evenly 
financial 
spread  among  the  areas  of  project  generation,  public  procurement, 
management  and  monitoring.  In  terms  of  thematic  areas,  it  was  state  aids,  the  use  of 
simplified  costs  options  and  new  information  systems,as  well  as  territorial  instruments 
that were added to the list of topics where national authorities plan to offer trainings and 
guidelines to assist beneficiaries.  

Capacity  building  does  not  seem  to  have  stood  in  the  foreground  of  negotiations. 
Nevertheless,  recent initiatives  for the exchange of  experiences  – such as the PEER 2 
PEER exchange instrument, and joint capacity building measures with DGs COMP and DG 
GROW  –  are  directly  relevant  for  the  main  concerns  of  the  Member  States  as  well  as 
the Commission.  

Substantial  TA  funds  continue  to  be  available  –  at  least  in  most  countries  –  to 
managing  authorities.  Not  forgetting  immediate  technical  concerns  of  programme 
implementation, a more strategically planned use of these TA funds – in conjunction 
with  overall  public  administration  reform  and  TO  11  –  should  be  at  the  core  of  capacity 
building efforts for cohesion policy.  

160 

 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.17 

REDUCING THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON BENEFICIARIES 

3.17.1 

Background 

Reducing  administrative  burden  has  been  a  constant  topic,  over  the  last  programming 
periods. More recently, it has also become a general requirement for many EU policies, 
e.g. in the context of the Small Business. It is also a recurring element of the recitals of 
the  CPR95.  Furthermore,  Article  4  (5)  of  the  CPR  reiterates  the  principle  of 
proportionality  –  keeping  the  administrative  burden  at  bay  with  respect  to  entire 
programme  cycle:  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  programmes,  monitoring, 
reporting,  evaluation,  management  and  control.  According  to  Article  4  (10)  “The 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  shall  carry  out  their  respective  roles  in  relation  to 
the  ESI  Funds  with  the  aim  of  reducing  the  administrative  burden  on 
beneficiaries”. 

Accordingly,  Section  2.6.  of  the  template  for  Partnership  Agreements  explicitly 
requires Member States to  

  Assess the administrative burden in the 2007-13 period;  
 
  Describe potential  scope  for  reduction for the 2014-20 period (referring 

Identify its main sources in the 2007-13 period;  

to data and studies where possible);  

  Describe  main  actions  already  taken  for  reduction  for  the  2014-20 

period;  

  Describe  main  actions  planned  for  further  reduction  for  the  2014-20 
period, including the introduction and use of simplified cost options, where 
appropriate (it is optional), with an indicative timeframe;  

  Describe the use of technical  assistance for implementing main actions 

for reduction for the 2014-20 period.  

Similar requirements are defined in Section 10 of the OPs and Section 7 of the CPs.  

The detailed analysis of the administrative burden on beneficiaries of cohesion policy, and 
its  presentation  of  the  programming  documents  is  a  novelty  as  compared  to  the 
previous period, where administrative burden was described at a more general level.  

3.17.2 

Sources of the Administrative Burden  

In  programming  documents,  Member  States  identified  the  application  process, 
payment and reporting as the main sources of the administrative burden, with audits 
and  controls  and  project  preparation  following  closely.  The  analysis  of  Partnership 
Agreements  and  Programmes  has  produced  very  similar  results  in  this  respect,  but  no 
real  surprises.  Perhaps,  the  relatively  low  frequency  of  procurement  being  mentioned 
may  seem  a  bit  odd,  given  that  this  area  is  among  the  most  frequent  sources  of 
irregularities.  Additional  issues  mentioned  as  sources  of  administrative  burden  included 
differences in eligibility rules and language problems in ETC programmes, or the lengthy 

95 See recitals No. 10; 29; 43; 48; 50; 95; 107; 117; 122 

161 

 
 
                                           
selection  procedures.  (Due  to  their  small  numbers,  these  do  not  appear  in  the  graph 
separately). 

Figure 109 - Sources of the administrative burden in PAs and Programmes 

Applications

Payment proc.

Audit / control

Reporting

Proj. preparation

Procurement

Overregulation

Archiving

Communication

PA%

PRG%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

(frequency: sources of burden mentioned as % of total number of sources identified) 

In  terms  of  patterns  across  Member  States,  statistical  analysis  of  data  from 
Operational Programmes reveals that  

  OPs from the EU-13 countries, as well as those using the Cohesion Fund, are 
comparatively  more  likely  to  cite  project  preparation  and  public  procurement 
among  the  sources  of  the  administrative  burden.  At  the  same  time,  they 
“complain” less about audits and control. 

  Significant patterns according to other discerning criteria – e.g. ETC vs. OPs; ESF 

or not – were not detected. 

3.17.3 

Actions to reduce the Administrative Burden 

The results regarding the planned actions were also very similar at PA and OP level. All 
Member States are mentioning the  

simplification of application, procurement and payment procedures, 

 
  extended use of electronic administration, 
  use of simplified cost options, and 
reduction of archiving requirements 
 

as priority actions to reduce the burden. 

About half of Member States mention measures such as 

  simplifying regulatory requirements (in general), 
specific information measures for beneficiaries, 
 
simplifying monitoring, reporting and control, and 
 
  capacity building at the programme management authorities.  

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The spread of actions among different areas appears to be  quite even in both the PAs 
and  OPs,  and  the  two  levels  of  programming  documents  confirm  each  other  in  this 
respect.  Also,  planned  actions  respond  well  to  the  identified  main  causes  of  the 
administrative burden. 

As to patterns across Member States, statistical analysis (clustering) did not reveal any 
discernible  variations  in  terms  of  the  nature  of  the  actions  planned  for  the  reduction  of 
the burden. Apparently, there are no significant differences in the approaches to reducing 
the  burden  among  OPs  from  the  EU-15  vs.  EU-13,  or  ESF  co-financed  OPs  vs.  ERDF/CF 
financed ones, etc. On the latter point, it should be noted that the analysis did not cover 
ESF-lead OPs – where a difference in approach would have been more likely to emerge. 

In interviews, the methods mentioned as most promising to achieve a reduction of the 
burden were, most frequently (almost uniformly),  

  simplified cost options, 
  e-cohesion, up to the full elimination of the paper trail. 

(Interestingly,  one country-specific counterparts called the introduction of e-cohesion as 
a  “solution  to  a  problem  that  did  not  exist”,  as  Irish  authorities  already  had  their  IT 
systems in place. They foresee some difficulties in relation to the integration of these IT 
applications.) 

Other preferred methods mentioned by Member States include  

 
 

 

the standardisation of rules, procedures and documents used; 
“once  only”  registration  –  avoiding  asking  beneficiaries  for  information 
that  the  member  state  already  has  (see  also  linking  up  national 
databases); 
reducing the burden caused by monitoring, reporting and controls (see 
also: elimination of duplicated controls). 

The integrated management of funds is also seen as a tool for reducing the burden – 
e.g. through reducing the number of funding sources a beneficiary needs to apply to, in 
order  to  get  funding  for  complex  projects.  Integrated  territorial  instruments  were 
mentioned  as  a  tool  for  reducing  the  burden  in  one  Member  State,  along  with  an 
increased decentralisation of funding to regional and local levels.  Another Member State 
plans to further expand “one-stop-shop” information services for applicants. 

Managers  from  ETC  programmes  spoke  out  in  favour  of  harmonised  eligibility  rules, 
and  reliable  advice  regarding  the  clear  interpretation  of  rules  (looking  also  at  the  EU 
Commission). 

Last but not least it should be mentioned that, in some Member States, the complicated 
nature  of  ESIF  management  was  even  said  to  deter  applicants  from  requesting  EU 
funds, and orientating them to other schemes where the EU does not participate.  

As  to  potential  problems  in  reducing  the  burden,  a  number  of  counterparts  did  not  see 
any  overly  difficult  areas.  At  the  same  time,  several  interview  partners  saw  the  new 
legal  framework  as  at  least  or  even  more  complicated  than  the  previous  one,  which 
would increase the administrative burden on beneficiaries. Frequently mentioned areas of 
difficulty were 

163 

 
 
 
  public procurement,  
  state aids (including the specific area of research and development), 
  monitoring  indicators  (where  the  regulations  are  introducing  new 

requirements), 

  e-cohesion, the further development of IT systems. 

3.17.4 

Use of TA  

As  regards  the  use  of  TA  both  PAs  and  OPs  show  largely  the  same  results,  which  is 
positive in the sense that apparently there is a match between overall intentions and 
the allocation of TA resources.  

According  to  the  analysis,  the  areas  where  Member  States  specifically  indicated  the  use 
of  TA  funds  most  frequently  are  –  again  –  application  and  payment  procedures,  as 
well  as  the  introduction  of  simplified  cost  options.  E-administration  leads  the  way 
this time, which is logical, given that IT management systems are quite cost intensive.  

It should be noted that data regarding an exact financial breakdown of funds for such 
actions are not available in the programmes. 

Figure 110 – Using TA to reduce the administrative burden 

E-administration

Application docs and procedures

Payment (reimbursement) docs and…

“Flat rate” 

unit cost

lump sum

Procurement docs and procedures

Specific information measures

Ease archiving

Capacity building at MA / IB

Simplifying regulatory requirements

Reduce audit-related burden

Simplification of reporting / monitoring

Regulate project size

PA%

PRG %

(Percentage of programming documents using TA in a given area of capacity building) 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Again, statistical analysis did not reveal significant variations across Member States or 
funds.  Multi-regional  OPs  and  programmes  addressing  outermost  regions  were  found  to 
be more likely to apply TA for the reduction of the burden.  

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.17.5 

Timing of Actions 

As regards the timing  of actions, more than half of the  cases,  Member States reported 
about  already  performed  actions,  with  short  term  measures  in  2015  also  frequently 
envisaged.  Overall,  there  appears  to  be  an  intention  to  front-load  actions  reducing 
administration. 

Figure 111 - Timing of actions to reduce the administrative burden 

Done

2015

2016

later

PA%

PRG%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Statistical  analysis  did  not  reveal  patterns  across  (groups  of)  Member  States  in  this 
respect either. However, Cohesion Fund and TA programmes did more often than others 
indicate  that  actions  related  to  the  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden  were  already 
done. 

3.17.6 

Targeting of measures 

When asked about the eventual targeting of anti-burden measures at specific groups of 
fund  users,  respondents  gave  fairly  general  answers.  More  than  half  of  them  said  that 
measures  would  be  horizontal,  for  all  beneficiaries  –  despite  the  fact  that  their  projects 
and needs are quite different.  

Figure 112 - Targeting measures reducing the administrative burden 

Other, i.e. 1

4% 

Other public beneficiaries

NGOs / CSOs

Government and state administration

Local authorities

SME

No – actions will be horizontal. 

13% 

15% 

15% 

20% 

28% 

52% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

(% of survey respondents indicating a given target group. Multiple choice question)  

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.17.7 

Establishing Needs and Actions – the Negotiation Process 

When asked about the basis for the establishment of needs and actions – whether there 
had  been  an  in-depth  assessment  of  the  sources  of  the  administrative  burden  – 
54% of the managing authorities responding to our survey answered positively, 46% said 
no.  

Those who did report about an in-depth assessment were also asked about the method. 
Within  the  group,  39%  of  respondents  pointed  to  internal  studies  by  the  responsible 
authorities. Almost as many reported about specific consultations with programme target 
groups and beneficiaries (19+14%). 8% had employed quantitative modelling methods, 
while  7%  based  their  plans  on  programme  evaluations.  Other  answers  referred  to  a 
combination of these methods. (Figure 113)  

Figure 113 - The method of assessing the administrative burden 

13% 

7% 

8% 

14% 

Internally, by the authorities

In a dialogue with beneficiaries (forums,
working groups)

39% 

Using surveys with beneficiaries,

Using detailed and specific quantitative 
modelling methods, such as the “standard cost 
model”, 

As part of programme assessments (e.g. mid-
term evaluations)

19% 

Other answers

During  negotiations,  the  main  factor  that  influenced  Member  States  in  determining 
the  needs  and  actions  related  to  the  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden  was  the 
national institutional context and the opinion of partners. The dialogue with the EC seems 
to  have  played  a  secondary  role.  70%  of  survey  respondents  said  that  there  was 
consensus from the very beginning, and less than 3% reported that their initial position 
needed to be significantly changed due to the EU’s intervention. (See also Annex 4.15) 

In the survey, when asked about the expected success of the planned measures, 56% 
thought  that  measures  were  comprehensive  enough,  and  were  likely  to  fully  or  mostly 
solve problems. 44% answered rather negatively. This reflects indecision. The feeling of 
a  major  new  departure  in  reducing  the  burden  does  not  appear  to  be  there,  at  least 
judged by the results from the survey.   

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 114 - Expected success of measures to reduce the administrative burden 

11% 

7% 

37% 

45% 

1 = No

2 = [partially]

3 = [mostly]

4 = Fully

At the same time, some interview partners also said that the desire for simplification was 
in  contradiction  to  the  level  of  detail  and  documentation  required  by  auditors.  
The  lack  of  legal  security  in  itself  could  lead  to  an  increased  administrative  burden.  In 
one  interview,  the  introduction  of  simplified  costs  was  reported  to  be  difficult  to  get 
accepted by national ministries. In another Member State authorities warned specifically 
that  any  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden  on  beneficiaries  should  not  lead  to  an 
increase of administration work on the part of the authorities. 

3.17.8 

Specific conclusions 

Programming documents contain substantial information regarding the administrative 
burden on beneficiaries, and planned actions to reduce it. However, it is only about half 
of  the  cases  that  this  information  is  based  on  recent,  detailed  needs  assessments. 
Survey respondents were quite undecided whether planned measures could be expected 
to reduce the burden. The feeling of a major new departure does not seem to be present. 

The  issue  of  the  administrative  burden  was  rather  non-controversial  during  the 
negotiations.  About  70%  of  survey  responses  indicated  no  major  difference  in  opinion 
between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States.  This  may  also  indicate  that  the  topic 
did not attract a high level of attention during programming. 

At  the  same  time,  key  new  regulatory  provisions  –  e.g.  the  increased  use  of 
simplified  cost  options  and  e-cohesion  –  figure  prominently  among  Member  States 
plans to reduce the burden. The introduction of integrated instruments could also help to 
address  one  of  the  most  important  sources  of  bureaucracy:  application  procedures.  In 
this sense, the new regulations seem to have a positive effect.   

167 

 
 
 
 
3.18 

HORIZONTAL PRINCIPLES 

3.18.1 

Background 

Horizontal  priorities  of  cohesion  policy  represent  policy  objectives  and  concerns  which 
are  relevant  across  all  objectives,  and  to  which  all  programmes  should  contribute 
positively.  ESI-supported  projects  primarily  aim  at  one  of  the  11  thematic  objectives  in 
the Regulations. But, they may have additional effects on horizontal policy objectives.  

A general principle of the regulation (Article 4 (2)) determines that “the Commission 
and  the  Member  States  shall  ensure,  taking  account  of  the  specific  context  of  each 
Member  State,  that  support  from  the  ESI  Funds  is  consistent  with  the  relevant  policies, 
horizontal principles referred to in Articles 5, 7 and 8 and priorities of the Union, and that 
it is complementary to other instruments of the Union.” Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the CPR, as 
well  as  the  Common  strategic  framework,  list  the  horizontal  principles  (although  in 
slightly different breakdowns):  

  Partnership  and  multi-level  governance,  including  strengthening  the 
institutional  capacity  of  partners–  which  is  dealt  with  under  a  parallel 
assignment;  

  Sustainable  development,  including  optimising  impacts  by  avoiding 
favouring  most  sustainable  options, 
options  with  negative 
comparing  life-time  costs  of  alternative  options,  favouring  green  public 
procurement;  and  paying  special  attention  to  climate  change  mitigation  
and water management;  

impact, 

  Equality  between  men  and  women  and  non-discrimination  including 
optimising  impacts  by  preventing  discrimination,  supporting  specific 
actions; providing expertise; paying special attention to employment;  
  Accessibility,  especially  for  persons  with  disabilities,  and  especially 

regarding physical environment, transport, ICT;  

  Addressing demographic change, especially in regions most affected by 
demographic  change,  and  especially  regarding  education,  research  and 
innovation, ICT, employment, social inclusion and health care;  

  Climate change mitigation and adaptation.  

The  analysis  under  this  study  focussed  on  how  Member  States  planned  to  ensure  the 
promotion  of  horizontal  principles,  and  to  what  extent  they  are  envisaging  a 
“mainstreaming”  of  these  objectives  into  the  general  processes  of  implementation, 
management  and  evaluations.  For  this,  we  have  reviewed  references  to  horizontal 
principles, and methods, specific actions addressing them. Last but not least, the survey 
and  interviews  were  used  to  examine  the  negotiation  process  and  the  particular 
challenges that are associated with this topic. 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.18.2 

References 

to  Horizontal  Principles 

in  programming 

documents 

As  Figure  115  shows,  the  horizontal  principles  most  frequently  targeted  by  Member 
States are sustainability, equality and non-discrimination. These are well rooted in 
the  logic  of  intervention  and  day-to-day  practices  of  managing  authorities,  while 
accessibility,  climate  change  and  demography  seem  to  receive  comparatively  less 
attention (especially in the programmes). Nevertheless,  results from PA and Programme 
level are consistent with each-other. 

Figure 115 – Horizontal priorities to be promoted – PA and programmes96 

Sustainability

Equality

Non-discrimination

Accessibility

Climate

Demography

PA%

PRG%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

(% of programme documents referring to each ) 

The coding system used for compiling and categorising references to horizontal principles 
in the programmes was as follows: 

Code  

Accessibility 

Figure 116 - Types of horizontal priorities  

Narrative 

Steps to prevent any discrimination based on disability. All products, public goods, 
services  and  infrastructures  co-  financed  by  the  ESI  Funds  are  accessible  to  all 
citizens. Barrier-free environment for persons with disabilities and the elderly. In 
particular, accessibility of the physical environment, transport, ICT etc. 

Climate 

Climate change mitigation and adaptation 

Demography 

Equality 

Use of the ESI Funds to tackle demographic problems and to create growth linked 
to  an  ageing  society.  Facilitate  inclusion  of  all  age  groups,  including  access  to 
education and social support structures. Ensuring a long and healthy working life 
for all. 

Ensuring  equality  between  men  and  women  and  the  integration  of  gender 
perspective 
including  monitoring,  reporting  and 
evaluation. 

throughout  programmes, 

96 At the OP level, references to horizontal principles were only recorded in cases the reference directly pointed 
to a specific action. Therefore, the figures reflect the specificity of the references.. 

169 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Code  

Narrative 

Non-discrimination (*) 

Prevent any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, 
disability, age or sexual orientation during the preparation and implementation of 
programmes. 

Sustainability 

Full  mainstreaming  of  sustainable  development  into  the  all  stages  of  using  ESI 
Funds  (sustainable  development,  environmental  protection,  polluter  pays 
principle)  Avoid  or  reduce  environmentally  harmful  effects  of  interventions  and 
ensure results in net social, environmental and climate benefits. 

Statistical analysis did not show differences between gropus of Member States (EU-15 
vs.  EU-13)  or  types  of  programmes  (ETC  vs.  OPs)  regarding  references  to  horizontal 
principles. However, some correlations were detected: 

  TA operational programmes (as well as Cohesion fund OPs) were shown to 

include “non-discrimination” more frequently than others ; 

  Programmes  with  combination  axes  more  often  than  others  referred  to 

sustainabiliy as a horizontal principle; 

  Outermost regions focused more often on sustainability, while climate and 

accessibility (for the disabled) were less emphasised by them. 

As  to  the  breakdown  of  the  category  “non-discrimination”,  the  social  group  most 
frequently referred to in programmes as a potential target group for non-discrimination 
action  are  women,  followed  by  the  disabled,  young  and  old  people  and  the  long-term 
unemployed  people.  Again,  data  from  PA  and  programme  levels  are  consistent.  Given 
recent  events,  the  apparently  low  level  of  focus  on  migrants  may  indicate  a  need  to 
revisit this aspect in programmes. 

Figure 117 - Non-discrimination: Target Groups in PA and programmes 

Women

Disabled people

Elderly people

Young people

Unemployed (long-term)

Ethnic minorities

Sexual minorities (LGBTQ)

Religious groups

Migrants

Homeless

Other

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

(% of programme documents referring to each)97 

97 To sexual minorities: LGBTQ = Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered people and queers 

170 

PA%

PRG%

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

As  regards  the  selection  of  target  groups  to  be  addressed  as  horizontal  priority,  cluster 
analysis  revealed  that  when  choosing  target  in  need  of  horizontal,  anti-discrimination 
support  

  ESF  co-financed  OPs,  as  well  as  OPs  in  the  EU-15,  more  often  included 
women  and  young  people  as  target  groups,  than  other  kinds  of 
programmes; 

  EU-13 countries target minorities relatively more often 
  ETC  programmes  address  the  long-term  unemployed  more  often  than 

mainstream OPs. 

3.18.3 

Methods to promote horizontal principles 

In addition to the question of what horizontal priorities Member States wish to promote, 
documentary analysis also examined, what methods Member States plan to apply for this 
purpose. The main options considered under this aspect were 

  Minimum  guarantees  –  establishing  mechanisms  to  ensure  that 
discriminatory  practices  and  projects  are  excluded  during  selection  and 
implementation. 

  Prioritising  actions  or  beneficiaries  –    when  during  the  selection  of 
operations  projects  that  positively  contribute  to  a  horizontal  principle  are 
preferred (e.g. giving higher scores) 

  Specific  actions  –  involving  specific  allocations  are  reserved  to  actions 
promoting horizontal principles, e.g. through a specific call for proposals. 
  Mainstreaming – Ensuring the presence of horizontal objectives, through 

a complex set of measures, throughout the programming cycle 

As  the  analysis  of  programme  documents  indicates,  from  these  main  categories  of 
methods, Member States have a clear preference towards mainstreaming.  

Figure 118 – Methods to promote horizontal principles in PAs and Programmes 

71% 

65% 

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

46% 

46% 

54% 

48% 

33% 

27% 

Mainstreaming

Minimum guarantees

Prioritising actions or
beneficiaries

Specific actions

PA% PRG%

(% of programme documents referring to each category) 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
Two  of  the  4  main  methods  above  –  mainstreaming  and  specific  actions  –  were  further 
analysed. 

Mainstreaming 

When  examining  possible  actions  to  achieve  a  mainstreaming  of  promoting  horizontal 
principles, we considered the following basic options: 

Figure 119 – Actions to achieve mainstreaming 

Code (MAINSTREAM) 

Narrative 

Legal fw. 

Training 

Develop legal background 

training for the staff of the managing authority and intermediate bodies, 

Measure design 

considering horizontal priorities during designing measures, 

Minimum guarantees 

There  are  mechanisms  to  ensure  that  discriminatory  practices  and  projects  are 
excluded during selection and implementation. 

Indicator use 

using specific indicators for monitoring and evaluation, 

Partnership 

strong  partnership  with  relevant  organisations  (governmental  and  non-
governmental) 

NGO capacity b. 

capacity building for relevant non-governmental organisations. 

Recruitment 

promoting equal opportunities during recruitment of staff, 

The results from PA and programme level are again similar. Within the programme cycle, 
Member States plan to concentrate their mainstreaming efforts on measure design and 
indicator  use,  followed  by  partnership.  This  indicates  a  positive  trend,  namely  that 
horizontal principal are indeed being incorporated into the logic of the policy intervention 
across the board.  

Figure 120 - Types of mainstreaming in PAs and programmes 

Measure design

Indicator use

Partnership

Legal fw.

Training

Recruitment

NGO capacity b.

PA %

PRG%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

(% of programme documents referring to each category) 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Coding  results  may  also  be  used  to  compare,  what  types  of  mainstreaming  are  used  in 
the context of the different horizontal principles. As the figure below shows, patterns are 
similar. (Demography is somewhat different, but it has a very small number of cases, as 
shown  on  the  right  hand  side  axis  of  the  graph).  The  conclusion  is  that  mainstreaming 
plans  mainly  concern  the  measure  design  stage,  followed  by  partnership,  and  indicator 
use.  The  use  of  mainstreaming  overall  is  most  frequent  under  the  sustainability  and 
equality principles.  

Figure 121 – The use of mainstreaming in the context of horizontal principles 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Training

Recruitment

Partnership

Not specified

NGO capacity b.

Measure design

Legal fw.

Indicator use

TOTAL

Accessibility

Climate

Demography

Equality

Sustainability

Specific actions  

The  category  “specific  actions”  was  also  further  analysed  –  according  to  thematic 
objectives and investment priorities in connection to which  Member States indicated 
specific actions in the programmes. 98 

At  the  level  of  thematic  objectives,  sustainable  development,  employment,  as well 
as the fight against poverty and discrimination are most often referred to.  

98  Data  reflect  the  numbers  of  references  in  programming  documents  to  planned  specific  ations  aimed  to 
promote horizontal principles, grouped according to the area of intervention (TO) they relate to. (e.g. a specific 
call for proposals for projects with a specific contribution to non-discrimination). 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 122 –Specific actions by thematic objective as planned in programmes 

RTDI

ICT

SME

Low-carbon economy

Climate change

Environment protection

Transport

Employment

Poverty and discrimination

Education

Public administration

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

(% of programme documents referring to each) 

The  investment  priorities  most  often  identified  in  the  PA  documents,  as  the  ones 
where  specific  actions  aimed  at  the  promotion  of  horizontal priorities  were  planned,  are 
the following: 

Figure 123 - Specific actions for the promotion of horizontal priorities, by IP 

IP 

Fund 

Narrative 

8iv 

ESF 

4b 

4a 

6d 

ERDF 

ERDF 

ERDF 

9a 

ERDF 

6a 

ERDF 

6c 

ERDF 

9iii 

ESF 

4e 

ERDF 

6iii 

CF 

Equality between men and women in all areas, including in 
access to employment, career progression, reconciliation of work 
and private life and promotion of equal pay for equal work 
Promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in 
enterprises 
Promoting the production and distribution of energy derived 
from renewable sources 
Protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting 
ecosystem services, including through Natura 2000, and green 
infrastructure 
Investing in health and social infrastructure which contributes to 
national, regional and local development, reducing inequalities in 
terms of health status, promoting social inclusion through 
improved access to social, cultural and recreational services 
Investing in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the 
Union's environmental acquis and to address needs, identified by the 
Member States, for investment that goes beyond those requirements 
Conserving, protecting, promoting and developing natural and 
cultural heritage 
Combating all forms of discrimination and promoting equal 
opportunities 
Promoting low-carbon strategies for all types of territories, in 
particular for urban areas, including the promotion of sustainable 
multimodal urban mobility and mitigation-relevant adaptation 
measures 
Protecting and restoring biodiversity and soil and promoting 
ecosystem services, including through Natura 2000, and green 
infrastructure 

Programmes 
envisaging 
specific 
actions 
26 

19 

18 

16 

15 

14 

14 

14 

12 

PRG
% 

9% 

7% 

6% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

12 

4% 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

IP 

Fund 

Narrative 

10a 

ERDF  Developing education and training infrastructure 

5b 

ERDF 

Promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster 
resilience and developing disaster management systems 

Programmes 
envisaging 
specific 
actions 
11 

11 

PRG
% 

4% 

4% 

Again,  the  list  is  in  line  with  the  selection  of  horizontal  priorities  by  Member  States 
overall, as shown above.  

3.18.4 

The Negotiation Process – Challenges and Opportunities 

The  results  of  the  survey  suggest  that  the  factors  most  influential  in  shaping  Member 
States’  positions  during  the  negotiations  were  the  regulations  and  EC  Guidance 
materials  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  opinion  of  social  partners  –  along  with  the 
existing  national  legal  and  institutional  context  –  on  the  other.  The  high  scores 
allocated to the regulation as well as EC guidance materials suggests that the application 
of  horizontal  policy  principles  still  seems  to  be  a  challenge  –  which  was  partially 
confirmed by the interviews (see below). The strong involvement of domestic partners is 
both to be expected, and to be registered positively. (See also Annex 4.17) 

As regards the negotiation process itself, horizontal priorities seem to have been among 
the less controversial ones.  In over two thirds of the cases, member state authorities 
did  not  register  a  major  difference  in  opinion.  Where  there  were  differences,  the  final 
result  was,  in  most  cases,  a  balanced  compromise.  For  the  remaining  issues  though,  it 
was  much  rather  the  Member  States  that  changed  their  initial  positions  than  the 
Commission  (9%  vs.  3%).  This  suggests  that  the  Commission  managed  to  “enforce”  a 
uniform, methodological approach across the Member States and programmes. (See also 
Annex 4.17) 

Going  further  into  details,  one  survey 
question  enquired  in  which  area  the  
new regulatory framework is expected to 
strengthen  the  practical  application  of 
horizontal  principles.  Responses  were 
implementation  of 
quite  clear: 
climate 
sustainable 
development  principles  is  being  seen  as 
substantially  improved.  18%  saw  no 
substantial  change.  (See  Figure  123)99 
responses 
Member  States 
coincided with the results of the survey.  

the 
change 

interview 

and 

Figure 124 – Regulatory improvements by area 

Demographic change

5% 

Equal opportunities for men…

Non-discrimination

Accessibility

All of these

None of these

Sustainable development

Climate change

11% 

11% 

11% 

17% 

18% 

35% 

44% 

0%

20%

40%

60%

99  Note  to  Figure  123  and  Figure  124:  multiple 
choice,  therefore,  numbers  do  not  add  up  to 
100%.) 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
intended 

Second,  –  as  illustrated  by  Figure  124  – 
the  survey  explored,  at  what  stage  of 
the  programme  cycle  Member  States 
(managing  authorities) 
to 
strengthen  the  promotion  of  horizontal 
objectives.  Votes 
the 
selection  of  operations  as  well  as 
monitoring  &  evaluation  were  quite 
evenly  spread.  Overall,  it  was  only  16% 
of authorities that had no such plans. This 
indicates  that  Member  States  are  indeed 
paying  attention  to  this  aspect  of  the 
regulations.  

for  planning, 

Figure 125 – Strengthening the management of 
hor. principles 

None of these – mechanisms 
are rather similar to those … 

16% 

All of these

38% 

Monitoring and evaluation

Selection of operations

21% 

26% 

Planning and programming

18% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

2% 

46% 

13% 

to 

1 = No

the 

Figure 126 - Improvement of mechanisms to 
promote horizontal principles 

Finally,  the  survey  also  asked  whether 
the  mechanisms  to  promote  horizontal 
objectives  had  improved,  overall,  in 
comparison 
previous 
programming  period.  The  outcome  is 
rather  undecided.  On  the  four-degree 
scale  used,  48  percent  of  respondents 
said  that  the  application  of  horizontal 
principles had rather improved, but only 
2 percent – 3 respondents out of 149 – 
fully  satisfied.  13%  saw  no 
were 
improvement 
all,  while  39% 
registered  partial  progress.  (Figure  125)  Similar  was  the  outcome  of  the  interviews. 
Several  partners  indicated  that  the  ability  of  ESI  Funds  to  address  horizontal  priorities 
had not improved, or that it had not had a discernible added value above that achieved 
through  national  legislation.  Others  did  see  a  clear  general  improvement,  as  the 
legislative  framework  had  become  clearer,  allowing  national  authorities  to  elaborate 
better guidelines, and devise specific mechanisms to better bring them to reality.  In one 
Member  State  authorities  mentioned  in  particular  the  introduction  of  the  ex-ante 
conditionalities as helpful to raise awareness. 

2 =
[partially]

3 = [mostly]

at 

39% 

As  mentioned  above,  some  survey  results  suggested  that  the  application  of  horizontal 
principles  may  have  been  a  challenge  to  some  managing  authorities.  Nevertheless, 
Member States with a longer tradition working with cohesion policy indicated otherwise, 
and  pointed  to  already  existing  practices  for  mainstreaming  horizontal  priorities  into 
working  processes.  Several  others  criticised  that  horizontal  requirements  were  more 
stringent in EU co-funded schemes. These did not always bear fruit, and may even have 
had a deterrent effect on beneficiaries, away from cohesion policy to nationally funded 
schemes. They also warned against the danger of increasing the administrative burden 
on  beneficiaries  through  the  emphasis  on  horizontal  priorities.  Some  authorities  from 
Member States also criticised that there was  no sufficient guidance available from EU 
level, and that there was an insufficient level of understanding in national authorities on 
the  meaning,  significance  and  methods  conducive  for  horizontal  priorities.  Respondents 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

of  a  Member  State  indicated  -  already  working  practices,  but  pointed  to  difficulties  in 
relation to the reconciliation with partners as well as the different levels of government.  

On  a  more  positive  note,  regarding  opportunities  to  further  improve  the  application  of 
horizontal  principles  –  again  confirming  survey  results  –  several  interview  partners 
emphasised  the  pivotal  role  of  partnership  and  consultations  with  agencies  and  NGOs 
active  in  the  relevant  policy  area.  Counterparts  from  other  Member  States  considered 
that clear and instructive regulations had a major role to play. Financial incentives and 
the  criteria  for  selecting  projects  were  mentioned  by  several  partners,  too.  The  already 
established  instruments  of  Strategic  Environmental  Assessments  and  Environmental 
Impact  Assessments  were  not  forgotten  either.  Guidelines  for  applicants  and 
awareness-raising were considered important by a few authorities. 

3.18.5 

Specific conclusions 

Overall, there seems to be an agreement between the EC and the Member States on the 
promotion  of  horizontal  principles,  and  negotiations  overall  seem  to  have  proceeded 
rather smoothly. 

Sustainable development, social inclusion and non-discrimination equally seem to 
receive  attention,  each  being  present  in  about  80%  of  programmes.  These  are  well 
rooted  in  the  logic  of  intervention  and  day-to-day  practices  of  managing  authorities, 
while  such  issue  as  accessibility,  climate  change  and  demography  seem  to  receive 
comparatively less attention. 

About  2/3  of  Member  States 
intend  to  promote  horizontal  priorities  through 
mainstreaming,  integrating  the  attention  to  such  priorities  in  the  general  programme 
planning, implementation and follow-up processes.  

In  the  survey,  84%  of  respondents  indicated  their  intention  to  strengthen  the 
management  of  horizontal  principles.  Ultimately,  though,  member  state  representatives 
were  rather  undecided  whether  or  not  the  promotion  of  horizontal  principles  would 
improve  in  the  new  programming  period,  or  not.  There  were  also  warnings  that  the 
pursuit  of  horizontal  priorities  was  still  a  challenge,  and  that  it  should  not  lead  to 
excessive administration, or an unwarranted complication of interventions, or programme 
monitoring. 

177 

 
 
 
3.19 

E-COHESION 

3.19.1 

Background 

The electronic exchange of data between the Commission and the Member States 
was  already  compulsory  during  the  2007-2013  programming  period.  For  this 
purpose,  a  central  information  system  was  established  by  the  Commission.  The 
system  was  used  to  collect  and  transmit  information  regarding  a  number  of  key 
transactions,  such  as  financial  allocations,  financing  plans,  statements  of  expenditure, 
annual  forecasts  of  payments,  as  well  as  the  financial  sections  of  annual  reports. 
Exchanges  of  data  bore  an  electronic  signature.100  At  the  same  time,  the  General 
Regulation  on  the  Funds  (1083/2006)  for  the  period  2007-2013  did  not  contain 
provisions  regarding 
information  between 
the  electronic  exchange  of 
programme authorities and beneficiaries. 

This  has  fundamentally  changed  for  the  new  programming  period.  Article  74  (4)  of 
the  CPR  upholds  the  principle  of  electronic  data  exchange  between  the  EC  and 
the  Member  States.  But  in  addition,  Art.  122  (3)  lays  down  that  Member  States  shall 
ensure  that  no  later  than  31  December  2015,  all  exchanges  of  information 
between  beneficiaries  and  a  managing  authority,  a  certifying  authority,  an  audit 
authority  and  intermediate  bodies  can  be  carried  out  by  means  of  electronic  data 
exchange systems.  

The  relevant  Implementation  Guidelines on  e-Cohesion (European Commission , 2014) 
lists a number of checkpoints on the basis of which compliance with the CPR needs to be 
tested: 

  The information system should cover all beneficiaries 
  The system should cover (as a minimum) transactions related to 

‒  Progress reporting 
‒  Expenditure declarations 
‒  Exchange of information related to management 
‒  Verifications 
‒  Audits 

  All information should be registered ‘only once’ 
  The information system should cover all authorities / bodies involved in the 

implementation of programmes 

  Beneficiaries  should  have 

the  option 

to  choose 

fully  electronic 

communications, without a parallel paper trail  

  Specifically, the system should ensure  
‒  Data integrity and confidentiality 
‒  Authentication of the sender 
‒  Storage in compliance with retention rules 
‒  Secure transfer of data 
‒  Availability outside office hours 
‒  Data  connection  to  relevant  national  IT  systems  (synchronisation, 

data recording) 

100 Commission Implementing Regulation 1088/2006, Art. 39-42 

178 

 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

‒  Protection of personal data 

Overall,  the  above  should  contribute  to  the  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden 
on beneficiaries.  

The study has assessed – based on Partnership Agreements – the information available 
regarding  the  current  status  of  electronic  information  and  management  systems  in 
Member States, as well as the expected future levels of e-services towards beneficiaries. 
Interviews were used to explore the pros and cons – potential benefits and difficulties of 
introducing a fully electronic data management and exchange.  

3.19.2 

Current and planned e-government service levels 

Specific  data  on  e-service  levels  were  found  in  22  Partnership  Agreements.  For  the 
remaining Member States, data were missing, unspecific, or incomplete. The analysis of 
both  the  current  and  planned  e-service  levels  was  made  on  the  basis  of  allocating  a 
score, for each stage of the programme cycle, to each member state based on their PAs 
(Figure 127):  

Figure 127 – Scale for assessing E-service levels 

Score / level 

Narrative 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

No e-government functions available 

Information: online info about public services 

Possibility to download of forms 

Possibility to download and fill in forms, incl. authentication 

Possibility of full electronic case handling; decision and delivery (payment) 

The  stages  of  the  programme  cycle  –  as  taken  for  the  basis  of  the  analysis  –  were 
defined as shown in Figure 128:  

Figure 128 - Code IT Stages 

CODE ITSTAGES 

Narrative 

INFORMATION 

CALLS 

APPLICATIONS 

SELECTION 

CONTRACTS 

EXCHANGES 

PROGRESS 

Comprehensive,  official,  and  up-to-date  publication  of  programming  documents, 
rules, guidance, and other useful materials 
Official; and "real time" publication of calls for proposals 

Option  of official  electronic  submission  of  applications  by beneficiaries  without  paper 
trail 
Full computerisation of project assessment 

Contracts with beneficiaries: electronic preparation / signature electronically 

Information  exchange  (letters,  notifications,  statements)  on  different  management 
issues 
Progress reporting without paper trail 

DECLARATION 

Declarations of expenditure via IT tools 

VERIFICATIONS 

Information exchange on verifications of costs 

CONTROL 

Information exchange on controls, audits 

Figure  129  calculates  an  average  results  for  all  Member  States,  at  each  stage  of  the 
project cycle from the data of all Partnership Agreements (i.e. those PAs that do contain 

179 

 
 
 
 
specifics). Overall, figures show clear progress towards more e-administration, at least 
in the case of Member States where plans are indeed implemented.  

Figure 129 - E-cohesion according to current and planned e-services 

2.44 

3.37 

AVERAGE

INFORMATION

CALLS

APPLICATIONS

SELECTION

CONTRACTS

EXCHANGES

PROGRESS

DECLARATION

VERIFICATIONS

CONTROL

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

E-services planned

E-services now

As the graph shows, the average levels for e-cohesion can be expected to improve, 
within  the  regulatory  deadline,  by  almost  an  entire  point  (25%)  on  the  4  point  e-
service scale.   

Using the same scale, average results can also be calculated  by Member State. Again, 
figures indicate that almost every member state is making progress. (See Annex 4.18). 

3.19.3 

Actions envisaged to boost e-service levels 

In addition, several actions are planned by Member States to upgrade of their e-cohesion 
IT systems in order to address the regulatory requirement in Art. 122(3): 

Figure 130 - Categorisation of actions for e-cohesion 

EGOVACT 

EGOVACT_Narrative 

Availability 

Availability of e-services outside office hours (24/7) 

Benef. Access 

Ensure availability (option to choose full e-administration) to all beneficiaries 

Coverage 

Ensuring that IT systems cover of all management bodies (MA/IB, CA, AA) 

Data protection 

Links 

Only once 

Ensure  data  integrity  and  confidentiality,  authentication,  secure  data  transfer, 
protection of personal data 
Automated  data  links  to  relevant  national  databases  for  synchronisation  and 
data recording - reducing administration 
Ensure that all information is recorded ‘Only once’ 

Paper trail 

Elimination of parallel paper trail (shadowing e-administration) 

Retention 

Enhancing  conformity  with  data  (document)  retention  requirements  (Art.  140 
CPR) 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Unfortunately, such data were available only for 7 Member States, as action plans in the 
other  PAs  were  not  explicit  enough.  In  line  with  the  regulations,  all  of  these  countries 
envisage  to  provide  beneficiaries  with  the  option  to  choose  full  e-administration. 
Furthermore, about half of them also indicate the intention to eliminate the paper trail, to 
connect  national  databases,  and  to  ensure  that  systems  cover  all  national  authorities. 
(See Annex 4.18) 

3.19.4 

The perception of E-cohesion rules 

During  interviews,  Member  States  showed  themselves  generally  happy  about  the 
move  towards  fully  electronic  administration.  Most  saw  the  IT  tools  as  a  good  way  to 
introduce  transparent,  one-channel  communication,  reducing  error  rates,  reducing 
administration  and  needs  for  archiving  and  optimising  the  work  of  the  institutions 
involved.  

In  several  countries,  already  existing  systems  mean  that  the  transition  to  full  e-
administration should not be a problem. Others, reported problems in the ability of the 
administration to work on a fully electronic basis. Counterparts in one Member State 
said that their national authorities already used electronic administration, which however 
were different, and not connected with each-other. In that sense, the new requirements 
are  seen  rather  as  a  burden  in  their  perspective.  As  counterparts  in  another  Member 
State said: designing an easy-to-use system for beneficiaries is not an easy task at all. 

Further  obstacles  indicated  included  the  lack  of  full  broadband  coverage,  the 
inappropriateness  of  electronic  administration  in  certain  social  cohesion  projects  ,  the 
need  to  redesign  working  processes  in  certain  institutions,  the  low  penetration  of 
electronic  signatures,  or  the  costs  of  setting  up  the  system,  and  training  for  the 
administration officials involved.  

As  regards  the  architecture  and  location  of  the  e-cohesion  IT  systems,  Member  States 
are planning to establish centralised systems, which are accessible to users – including 
those  in  regions  –  through  internet  portals.  Where  needed,  the  new  systems  will 
integrate already existing systems of other institutions.  

One Member State  indicated that their system for the beneficiaries would be introduced 
step-by-step:  first  applications,  then  payments  and  reporting.  Some  are  planning  to 
reach  IT  targets  by  adding  new  functionalities  to  their  existing  systems,  while  others 
envisage a completely new system. Trainings for users were also mentioned as important 
preparatory steps. 

3.19.5 

Specific Conclusions 

Partnership  Agreements  were  not  designed  to  allow  a  fully  detailed  and  specific 
assessment  of  systems  functionalities  either  now,  or  at  the  expiry  of  the  regulatory 
deadline  of  December  2015.  Nevertheless,  data  from  Partnership  Agreements  advocate 
clear progress in all Member States and with respect to all stages of the programme 
cycle.  

Data  on  actions  to  promote  e-cohesion  are  particularly  scarce  in  PAs.  Still,  interviews 
demonstrated that full electronic administration and electronic access for beneficiaries 

181 

 
 
 
 
to  the  IT  management  systems  is  envisaged  all  over  the  EU.  Steps  towards  the 
integration  of  other  national  IT  systems  and  the  elimination  of  the  paper  trail  –  as 
suggested by the EC’s relevant e-cohesion guidelines – are also envisaged. 

182 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

3.20 

TABULAR OVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGS 

Figure 131 - Overall Findings and Conclusions 

NP 

Provision Title 

Key findings underlying the conclusion 

NP 1 

Strategic programming 

 

As  regards  strategic  references,  Partnership  Agreements  are 
strongly based on European references (Europe 2020 headline targets 
and  CSRs),  while  operational  and  co-operation  programmes  are  more 
policy-oriented and refer principally to national strategies. 

  References  to  Europe  2020  headline  targets  and  to  Country-
Specific  Recommendations  have  been  explicit  for  40%  thematic 
objectives  (chosen  in  the  Partnership  Agreements).  (In  money  terms, 
the  investment  into  Europe  2020-referenced  TOs  covers  58%  of  the 
programmes). 

 

 
 

 

 

NP 2 

Thematic concentration 

research, 

technological 

strengthening 

concentrates  on 

ERDF 
development and innovation and the competitiveness of SMEs. 
Cohesion Fund mainly invests in TO 4, and 7  
European Social Fund allocations distribute evenly in jointly financed 
programmes, mainly across thematic objectives 8-9-10. 
Thematic objectives are not always exclusive. Almost one third of 
R&I (TO1) main results could have been programmed to TO2, TO3 and 
even  TO4  thematic  objectives.  Environmental,  climate  change  and 
network-related main results (TO4 to TO7) do show some overlap; and 
the  same  applies  to  employment,  inclusion  and  education  (TO8  to 
TO10). 
As  regards  the  investment  priorities  selected,  references  in  the 
Operational  and  Co-operation  Programmes  concentrate  in  30% of  the 
investment priorities that account for 70% of the references. 

  Overall, a limited number of main results have been identified per 
thematic  objective  in  Partnership  Agreements.  However,  there  were 
main results expected by the Member States that could not be directly 
related  to  thematic  objectives,  i.e.  macro-economic  and  territorial 
results. 
Thematic 
during 
programming,  and  was  also  more  controversial  than  other  new 
provisions 

received  more 

concentration 

attention 

 

NP 3 

Building of priority 
axes 

 

 

29%  of  IGJ  priority  axes,  but  only  11%  of  ETC  priority  axes  are 
combined. 
As  regards  combining  thematic  objectives,  environment-related 
objectives  are  favourite  targets  of  complex  priorities,  while  RTD,  ICT 
and  transport  (and  public  administration)  are  rather  addressed  in 
simple axes. 

  Where  the  use  of  complex  priority  axes  was  considered  –  Member 

States did not see territorial instruments as an alternative. 

183 

 
NP 

Provision Title 

Key findings underlying the conclusion 

  OPs  used  a  broad  range  (several  hundred)  of  types  of  specific 
objectives, expected results, actions and selection principles. However, 
they used these types rather concentrated, as one quarter of them 
account for three quarters of the references.  

  Results  and  specific  objectives  have  been  defined  mostly  in  line 
with the regulations and the Commission intents, rather consistently 
(with few methodological mistakes).  

NP 4 

Result-orientation 
('Intervention logic')  

 

  Actions  and  guiding  principles  of  project  selection, on  the  other 
hand, were subject to heavy debates and hard reconciliation processes 
with  the  domestic  partners  and  (possibly  as  a  consequence)  have 
been too broadly defined.    
As  the  survey  shows,  the  dialogue  with  partners  appears  to  have 
focussed on the definition of actions. Conversely, the dialogue with the 
EC  was,  apparently  centred  on  improving  the  overall  level  of  the 
intervention logic (objectives and results). 
The  transition  from  action-based  programming  to  a  result-
based one seems to have proved difficult for Member States 

 

NP 5 

Planned use of financial 
instruments  

NP 6 

Planned use of major 
projects  

NP 7 

Use of co-financing 
rates  

NP 8 

Territorial challenges in 
programming 
documents  

 

 

 

As regards  the  use  of  financial  instruments  in different  Member 
States, 24 Member States intend to use such instruments,. 
As  regards  the  use  of  financial  instruments  in  different  policy 
tools,  ERDF  relies  rather  heavily  on  the  use  of  financial  instruments, 
while Cohesion Fund and ESF make much less use of them. European 
Territorial  Co-operation  programmes  do  not  apply 
financial 
instruments. 
The  apparent  reluctance  of  Member  States  to  take  up  the  SME 
initiative could be explained with several arguments. Several Member 
States considered that their own financial sectors were well capable of 
providing  similar  financial  products  without  EIB  assistance.  Others 
considered the scheme too small and too expensive. 

 

The  use  of  major  projects  is  planned  in  at  least  18  Member 
States (by the time of programme adoption). 

  Major  projects  are  planned  to  be  used  under  all  TOs,  except  TO  8 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and 11. 
Phasing is widespread in all relevant TO and IPs. 

There  is  variation  in  the  co-financing  rates,  above  all  in  more 
developed  regions,  transition  regions,  EU-15  Member  States  and  co-
operation programmes. At the same time, the Cohesion Fund and EU-
13 programmes mostly apply maximum rates. 
As  regards  types  of  modulation,  one  third  of  the  programmes 
foresee  modulation.  Almost  two-thirds  of  indicated  modulations 
address  the  importance  of  the  priority  axis  for  the  delivery  of  the 
Europe  2020  strategy,  having  regard  to  the  specific  gaps  to  be 
addressed. 

Each Member State has identified territories for integrated territorial 
approaches. 
Territorial  challenges  and  needs  are  identified  also  by  all  of  the 
Member States.  
Survey  responses  indicated  that  programmes  with  purely  sectoral 
approach are rather rare. 
Ensuring a consistent approach with regard to territorial challenges 
identified  and  matching  territorial  challenges  with  the  sectoral 
approach  of  the  policies  represented  a  challenge  to  Member  States, 
according to the survey. 
Every  Member  State  has  included  in  the  programming  documents 
provisions for coordination. 

184 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

NP 

Provision Title 

Key findings underlying the conclusion 

NP 9 

Community-led local 
development  

NP10 

Integrated territorial 
investments 

NP11 

Sustainable urban 
development 

 

CLLD is being used beyond EAFRD, even though it is only optional. 
The overall take up of the instrument is, however, at less than around 
0,8% of the total ERDF budget. 

  Main arguments of Member States pro CLLD are: appropriate tool to 
handle  complex  local  problems;  motivation  for  partnership  and 
involvement; former experience gained through LEADER. 

  Main factors to eventually divert Member States from using CLLD were 
that it was felt to be more appropriate for rural development and 
it  was  perceived  as  complicated, 
EAFRD  (compulsory);  that 
burdensome,  generated 
loss  of  efficiency,  and  needed  extra 
administrative  capacity.  Some  cases  Member  States  felt  that  existing 
national  instruments  for  similar  purposes  were  easier  to  handle;  or 
that  too  much  responsibility/power  would  be  delegated  to  local 
actors, majority of whom must be non-public. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In  OPs  analysed,  20  Member  States  (involving  around  one  third 
(94)  of  the  programmes,  including  2  ETC  programmes)  have 
indicated their intention to start ITI. The total budgets reach almost 15 
billion  EUR,  which  represents  around  4,2%  of  the  cohesion  policy 
allocation. 
The  majority  of  the  countries  use  ITI  for  sustainable  urban 
development.  Slovakia,  Spain,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Belgium  use 
the bigger part of their allocation for other (non-urban) purposes. 
Almost  90%  of  the  ITIs  analysed  –  in  16  Member  States  –  are 
already identified. 
Challenges,  difficulties  encountered  by  MAs  during  the  preparation 
of  ITIs,  were:  the  definition  of  principles  for  the  selection, 
approval  and  funding  of  ITIs;  the  elaboration  of  high  quality  ITI 
strategies; 
the 
identification  of  areas  and/or  challenges  to  be  tackled  with  the 
help of ITI. 
As  data  show,  the  delegation  of  functions  to  the  sub-national  level 
is rather limited. 

the  definition  of  the  role  of  ITIs;  and 

Each  Member  State  allocated  at  least  5%  of  its  ERDF  allocation 
(under  the  IJG  goal)  to  integrated  sustainable  urban  development, 
some of them significantly more (11 Member States), and 3 MSs much 
more, almost 20% of their national allocation. The EU average level is 
around 7,7% 
80%  of  the  SUD  areas  have  already  been  identified.  The 
elaboration  of  integrated  urban  development  strategies  is  well  under 
way.  
It  is  only  16%  of  survey  respondents  reported  difficulties.  Difficulties 
most  frequently  mentioned  are:  the  specification  of  geographical  areas; 
quality  of  strategies;  the  perceived  complicatedd  nature  of  the  tool; 
uncertainties regarding the status of intermediate body; and reservations 
about the availability of local capacities. 
Around  60%  of  respondents  envisaged  capacity  building  actions  for 
local authorities.  
The delegation of implementing tasks from programme authorities 
to  the  local  level  above  the  compulsory  project  selection  is  rather 
limited. 

185 

 
NP 

Provision Title 

Key findings underlying the conclusion 

NP 12 

Main priority areas for 
cooperation under the 
ESI Funds, including 
macro-regional and 
sea-basin strategies  

NP 13 

Specific needs of 
geographical areas 
most affected by 
poverty or target 
groups at highest risk 
of discrimination or 
social exclusion  

NP 14 

Specific needs of 
geographical areas 
which suffer from 
severe and permanent 
natural or demographic 
handicaps 

 

  Areas  for  co-operation  have  been  identified  in  programming 
documents  -  environmental  protection,  transport,  SME  as  well  as 
research  and  development  –  have  been  selected  in  a  majority  of 
Member States. 
The greatest numbers of referrals to MRS point to the Strategy for the 
Baltic Sea Region and the Danube Strategy. 
Programmes  contain  also  many  references  to  macro-regional  and 
sea-basin  strategies.  Transnational  actions  with  beneficiaries 
located in at least one other Member State were also identified. 
Effective and timely cooperation in programming between IGJ and ETC 
was  hampered  by  the  fact  that  ETC  programmes  were  lagging 
behind PA and OP programming process. 

 

 

  With  respect  to  thematic  coherence  and  operational  realisation, 
coordination  and  cooperation  the  implementation  phase  will  be 
crucial. 

 

 

 

16  PAs  (thus  Member  States)  and  OPs  from 19  Member  States 
contain territories affected by poverty. The most frequent types 
of territories among poor regions are those with socially marginalised 
communities,  urban-rural  areas,  and  areas  with  permanent 
geographical or demographic handicaps.  
Nevertheless, 17 PAs and only 28 OPs (from 12 Member States) 
contain  an  assessment  of  needs  of  vulnerable  groups,  and  less 
than  half  of  the  Partnership  Agreements  comprise  concrete 
actions for poor regions or vulnerable groups.  
It  is  the  unemployed,  the  young,  disabled  people  and  minorities  that 
are most frequently identified by PAs and OPs as social groups most 
at risk of social exclusion. 

  OPs  using  ESF  address  all  categories  of  vulnerable  groups  –  while 
ERDF  and  CF  OPs  comparatively  less  to  women,  unemployed,  poor 
people and young people.  Actions envisaged concentrate heavily on 
human services, while other policy areas are less present.  

  Around 30 programmes contain references to needs and actions of 
handicapped  regions.  PAs  and  OPs  do  not  directly  address  all 
regions  with  permanent  geographical  handicaps  as  such,  especially 
mountainous  regions were  not  always mentioned  as an  issue  to 
address through the ESI Funds.  
The list of identified needs, priorities and objectives to be pursued for 
handicapped regions is dominated by employment, economy (SME) 
and connectivity, which reflects well the nature of handicaps in these 
territories.  
The main difficulty which hinders implementation – according to MAs 
– was the lack of accurate statistical data and indicators specific 
to these areas. 
No major difficulties with the use of this instrument. 

 

 

 

186 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

NP 

Provision Title 

Key findings underlying the conclusion 

 

 

 

NP 15 

Coordination between 
the ESI Funds and 
other Union and 
national funding 
instruments and with 
the European 
Investment Bank  

At  both  Partnership  Agreement  and  Programme  level,  Member  States 
made  specific  statements  with  respect  to  the  co-ordination  among 
funds.  
There was a high level of attention paid to both rural development 
and fisheries, as well as non-ESIF EU financial instruments 
As  regards  co-ordination  methods,  Member  States  emphasise  the 
significance 
synergies, 
demarcations); the use of a co-ordination body (Art. 123.8) as well as 
co-ordination  committees  at  both  political  and  technical  levels.  Co-
ordination  during  implementation  is  mentioned  less  often,  which 
carries  the  danger  that  authorities  may  still  work  “in  silos”,  and 
synergy effects of combined and co-ordinated investments may not be 
realised  after  all.  (For  the  ERDF,  co-operation  among  MAs  is  more 
frequent, according to statistical analysis). 

programming 

(attention 

of 

to 

NP 16 

Administrative capacity 
building  

NP 17 

Administrative burden  

NP 18 

Horizontal principles 
and policy objectives  

  Objective of enhanced funds co-ordination was  shared by both the 
Member  States  and  the  EU.  During  negotiations,  co-ordination  was 
uncontroversial. 

  Data  from  Task  3  confirm  the  general  opinion  by  stakeholders  that 
co-ordination  did  overall  improve.  Again,  it  remains  to  be  seen 
whether practice will prove that expectation. 

 

Information  about  the  capacity  building  needs  and  /  or  plans  of 
authorities  and  beneficiaries  in  programming  documents  are  there. 
However, plans appear to be little differentiated. 

  On  the  positive  side,  action  plans  at  the  level  of  authorities  show  a 

 

 

 

 

 

concentration on results-oriented management. 
As regards capacity building actions beneficiaries, Member States 
plan  to  organise  trainings  and  issue  guidelines.  Areas  they  focus  on 
include project preparation, procurement, financial management, state 
aids,  the  use  of  simplified  costs,  as  well  as  integrated  territorial 
instruments. 
The quality of action plans for capacity building does not seem to be 
very high. Overall, it is perhaps experience, rather than a new, clear-
cut strategy that seems to drive the process of institution building. 

About  half  of  countries  performed  a  specific  assessment  of  the 
administrative burden.  
All  Member  States  are  reporting  about  plans  to  reduce  the  burden, 
and their plans are also similar, which suggests a coherent approach 
across  the  EU.  On  the  other  hand,  their  plans  do  not  appear  to  be 
very differentiated. 
The  most  important  tools  to  reduce  the  burden  seem  to  be  e-
cohesion and the introduction of simplified cost options, which are 
both a result of the new regulations. 

 

  Member  states  are  paying  considerable  attention  to  the  issue  of 
horizontal principles. 84% of survey respondents reported intentions to 
strengthen  horizontal  principles  at  some  stage  of  the  programme 
cycle. 
and  non-
Sustainable 
discrimination  are  well  integrated  into  Member  States’  practices. 
Accessibility,  climate  change  and  demography  seem  to  receive 
comparatively less attention. 
About  2/3  of  Member  States  intend  to  promote  horizontal  principles 
through mainstreaming 

development, 

inclusion 

social 

 

  More than half of programmes also referred to specific actions in one 
or  more  policy  area(s).  The  list  of  these  areas  spreads  across  all 
thematic objectives. 

  Horizontal principles are an integral part of programme design. 

187 

 
NP 

Provision Title 

Key findings underlying the conclusion 

NP 19 

Efficient 
implementation of the 
ESI Funds ("e-
cohesion") 

 

  Data  from  Partnership  Agreements  indicate  clear  progress  in  all 
Member  States  and  with  respect  to  all  stages  of  the  programme 
cycle. 
Full electronic administration and electronic access for beneficiaries 
to the IT management systems is envisaged all over the EU. 
Steps towards the integration of other national IT systems and the 
elimination of the paper trail – as suggested by the EC’s relevant e-
cohesion guidelines – are also envisaged. 

 

188 

 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 132 - Strengths and weaknesses in applying the new regulatory provisions 

NP 

Provision Title 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

NP 1 

Strategic programming 

  References  to  Europe  2020  headline  targets  and  to 
Country-Specific Recommendations are explicit for about 
half  of  thematic  objectives  chosen  in  the  Partnership 
Agreements.  Direct 
to  Europe  2020  allow 
monitoring  strategic  alignment  in  programming  and 
during implementation. 

links 

  Strategic  programming  was  an  area  where  there  was  a 
relatively high level of consensus between the two sides. 
  Flexibilities  to  transfer  funds  have  been  used  in  most 
cases  to  fight  intra-regional  imbalances  and  offset 
unwanted regulatory distortions in fund allocation 

  The  menu  approach  of 

thematic  objectives  and 
investment  priorities  made  allocation  and  programming 
more transparent and programmes more apt to analysis 
and scrutiny. 

  A  limited  number  of  main  results  have  been  identified 

per thematic objective in Partnership Agreements. 

  Linking operational programmes with a timeframe of ten 
years to a strategy of half of it  may hinder strategic re-
alignment. 

  Macro-economic  and  territorial  goals  identified  by  the 
Member  States  could  not  be directly related  to  thematic 
objectives and thus did not fit into the system. 

  Thematic objectives are not defined in an exclusive way, 
many  main  results  were  programmed  to  more  than  one 
thematic objectives. 

NP 2 

Thematic concentration 

  Thematic  concentration  received  more  attention  during 
programming, 
requirements  were 
respected,  several  times  exceeded,  channelling  more 
funds to investment fields more important for the Europe 
2020 strategy. 

concentration 

  The  biggest  allocation  of  ESI  funds  goes  for  promoting 
sustainable  transport  and  removing  bottlenecks  in  key 
network  infrastructures,  a  thematic  objective  that  is 
compatible  but  not  in  the  heart  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy. 

  Thematic concentration was achieved on the level of the 
Community, making European added value more visible, 
both  on  the  level  of  thematic  objectives  and  regarding 
investment priorities. 

189 

 
NP 

Provision Title 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

NP 3 

Building of priority axes 

NP 4 

Result-orientation ('Intervention 
logic')  

  The  regulatory  framework  of  the  ERDF  and  CF  allow  for 
programming priority axes along strategic goals, drawing 
freely  from  the  available  pool  of  interventions,  making 
holistic  approaches  and  place-based  policies  easier  to 
program and to adjust during implementation.   

  In  priority  axes  financed  by  regional  policy  funds  (ERDF 
/CF),  there  is  no  breakdown  of  the  financial  allocations 
behind 
investment  priorities,  actions  and  specific 
objectives.  (For  the  ESF  there  is  a  tentative  breakdown 
for fields of action, which directly relate to IPs) 

  ESF-funded priority axes are easy to monitor and control 
to  finance  strategic  goals  defined  in  the  Europe  2020 
strategy  and  especially 
the  Country-Specific 
Recommendations. 

in 

  Simple  priority  axes  tend  to  be  smaller  and  more 
numerous than combined ones. This problem is relatively 
more  pronounced  in  the  case  of  programmes  jointly 
financed with the ESF.  

  Priority axes implemented solely through  community-led 
local  development  amount  for  two-thirds  the  overall 
Cohesion policy resources allocated to CLLDs. 

  Basic  elements  of  the  intervention  logic  had  to  be 
specifically  defined,  easing  monitoring  and  ensuring 
assessment. 

  Concentration  is  apparent,  one  quarter  of  the  specific 
objectives,  expected 
results,  actions  and  guiding 
principles  of  selection  account  for  three  quarters  of  the 
total references. 

  Definition of investment priorities is well-detailed yielding 

misplaced results and actions below 2%. 

  The  choice  of  specific  objectives,  actions  and  result 
indicators  were  at  the  heart  of  the  negotiations  during 
the  planning  process  and  usually  compromise  solutions 
were achieved. 

  Justifications provided for the use of combined axes were 

often missing or poor. 

  Despite  the  special  incentives  to  create  priority  axes 
dedicated to certain delivery mechanisms, the number of 
dedicated axes is small. 

  The  logical  link  between  actions  and  specific  objectives 
cannot be reproduced based on programming data, since 
actions  are  not  established  at  the  level  of  investment 
priorities. 

  The process to move from action-based programming to 
a  result-based  one,  especially  defining  indicators,  has 
been  very  demanding,  and  often  difficult  for  Member 
States. 

  The  definitions  of  actions  and  guiding  principles  for  the 
selection  of  operations  is  not  clear  and  precise  in  about 
two-thirds of the cases (i.e. too broad, or missing).  

  Domestic  partners  are  interested  in  the  actions  and 
selection rules, rather than in objectives and measurable 
results  creating  a  solid  base  for  result  orientation  and 
accountability. 

NP 5 

Planned use of financial 
instruments  

  Justification why to use financial instruments correspond 

to the goals they want to obtain.  

  The  use  of  financial  instruments  were  substantially 
extended  in  width  (planned  to  be  used  under  at  least  9 
thematic  objectives)  and  depth  (24  Member  States 
stated their intention to implement such schemes). 

  The  SME  initiative  uptake  is  low,  it  is  considered 
complicated  and  expensive.  Some  Member  States  also 
consider that it came too late and might create unwanted 
dependence on an external player instead of contributing 
to  developing  a  well-functioning  domestic  microcredit 
system. 

190 

 
 
 
NP 

Provision Title 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

NP 6 

Planned use of major projects  

NP 7 

Use of co-financing rates  

  The  use  of  major  projects  is  planned  in  at  least  18 
Member States, more extensively in 9 Member States.  
  Major  projects  are  planned  to  be  used  under  almost  all 

TOs. 

  Almost  all  TOs,  and  more  than  half  of  the  investment 
priorities  concerned  plan  to  use  phasing,  and  continue 
projects  already  started  in  the  previous  programming 
period.  

  There  is  variation  in  the  co-financing  rates  in  more 
developed  regions,  transition  regions,  EU-15  Member 
States and co-operation programmes.  

  One third of the programmes foresee modulation, mostly 
along the importance of the priority axis for the delivery 
of the Europe 2020 strategy 

  At  the  same  time,  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  EU-13 

programmes mostly apply maximum rates. 

  No information could be collected as regards the ways in 
which  modulation  would  be  applied  when  implementing 
programmes 

191 

 
 
NP 

Provision Title 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

  Each  Member  State  has 

identified 

territories 

for 

integrated territorial approaches. 

  Territorial challenges and needs are identified also by all 

of the Member States.  

  As to territories with special features, geographical areas 
most affected by poverty or target groups at highest risk 
of  discrimination  or  social  exclusion  as  well  as    regions 
with  permanent  geographical  handicaps  are  identified  in 
the programming documents.  

  Survey  answers  show  that  territorial  analyses  were 
performed  starting  from  the  local  level,  either  on  the 
basis  of  some  national  level  guidance,  or  according  to  a 
general  bottom-up  approach.  Survey  shows  also  that 
programmes with pure sectoral approach are rather rare, 
the  vast  majority  of  programmes  reflect  territorial 
approach,  most  of  them  entirely,  and  one  third  by 
integrating it into sectoral policies. 

  However,  there  are  45  OPs  and  12  ETC  programmes 
which  do  not  have  territorial  analysis  (contain  neither 
information  on  the  type  of  the  territory  covered  nor  on 
external  (territorial)  challenges  and  even  not  on 
territorial needs. 

  Ensuring  consistent  approach  with  regard  to  territorial 
challenges  identified  and  matching  territorial  challenges 
with  the  sectoral  approach  of  the  policies  represented  a 
challenge to Member States, according to the survey. 
  Reasons  given  for  opposing  the  use  new  territorial 
instruments  above  the  compulsory  extent 
included 
furthermore,  e.g.,  that  they  were  “too  complicated  and 
inflexible”,  the  wish  not  to  give  too  much  power  and 
responsibility  to  local  actors  (who  were  not  sufficiently 
experienced),  and  the  inappropriateness  of  the  tool  to 
programmes specific challenges/intentions. 

NP 8 

Territorial challenges in 
programming documents  

regional  development  policy/strategy; 
actors 
of 

  Practices  for  the  promotion  of  territorial  approach  in 
programming  and  implementation  most  mentioned  by 
interviewees  are:  the  existence  of  a  characteristic 
the 
national 
institutional 
in 
the 
programming;  and 
implementation  phase:  application  of  selection  criteria 
giving  priority  to  projects  contributing  to  ITI  programs; 
necessity  to  justify  a  project  by  diagnosis  of  the  local 
situation and analysis of territorial impact; harmonisation 
of timing of calls for proposals. 

specific  methods  during 

involvement 

regional 

  Every  Member  State  has  included  in  the  programming 

documents provisions for coordination.  

192 

 
 
NP 

Provision Title 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

  Only  33  programmes  in  17  Member  States  have 
indicated  financial  allocations  to  CLLD,  from  ERDF  and 
ESF resources. In relative terms the average allocation to 
CLLD  at  EU-level  (EU  average)  is  around  0,8%  of  the 
ERDF budget. 

solely 

  13  priority  axes  of  10  operational  programmes 
implemented 
local 
through 
development  stand  for  65%  of  the  overall  allocation  to 
CLLD  –  what  shows  that  the  use  of  CLLD  is  rather 
concentrated,  the  majority  of  OPs  and  priority  axes  are 
not concerned by it. 

community-led 

  Main  factors  to  divert  Member  States  from  using  CLLD 
(cons) were: more appropriate for rural development and 
EAFRD  (compulsory),  less  for  TOs  of  more  developed 
areas;  it  is  complicated,  burdensome,  generates  loss  of 
efficiency, needs extra administrative capacity - in some 
cases existence of national instruments easier to handle; 
too much responsibility/power to local actors, majority of 
whom  must  be  non-public;  difficulties  linked  to  the 
identification  of  areas  and  selection,  approval  and 
funding of LAGs and CLLD strategies.  

  CLLD is being used beyond EAFRD, even though it is only 

optional.  

  The  needs  that  the  Member States  intend  to  tackle with 
CLLD do go beyond rural development, and also relate to 
followed  by  the  generation  of 
SME  development, 
employment and social inclusion.  

  Main  arguments  of  Member  States  pro  CLLD  are: 
appropriate  tool  to  handle  complex  local  problems; 
motivation  for  partnership  and  involvement;  former 
experience gained through LEADER. 

  There  were  measures  to  provide  preparatory  support  – 
including training, support of existing LAGs and coverage 
of their strategic and administrative costs. 

NP 9 

Community-led local development  

193 

 
NP 

Provision Title 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

  The  total  budgets  reach  almost  15  billion  EUR,  which 
represents around 4,2% of the cohesion policy allocation. 
  In OPs analysed, 20 Member States  have indicated their 

intention to start ITI.  

  ITI  is  being  used  in  the  majority  of  countries  with  a 
considerable  budget  (while  the  positive  correlation  with 
ITI-type  sustainable  urban  development  certainly 
influences the figures.) 

NP10 

Integrated territorial investments 

  In terms of definition, almost 90% of the ITIs analysed – 

in 16 Member States – are already identified.  

NP11 

Sustainable urban development 

  According  to  Table  10  of  the  OPs  (and  Table  9  of  ETC 
programmes) all Member States have complied to Art. 7 
ERDF requirement.   Some of them allocated significantly 
more  (11  Member  States),  and  3  MSs  much  more,  15-
20% of their national allocation.  

  Main arguments of Member States pro SUD are: previous 
experience  of  similar  instrument;  possibility  for  local 
capacity  building  and  partnership;  partnership  also 
between  different  administrative  levels;  appropriate  tool 
for  complex,  integrated  projects  addressing  specific 
needs. 

  80% of the SUD Areas have already been identified and 
a further 10% are planned to be identified by the end of 
2016  –  with  only 10%  left  to  for  ‘later’.  The  elaboration 
of integrated urban development strategies is under way, 
one third of them is under consultation (approval), 30% 
are already approved or under implementation.  

  As a response to the survey, around 60% of respondents 
envisaged capacity building actions for local authorities.  

194 

  Main  factors  to  eventually  divert  Member  States  from 
using  ITI  are  (cons):  mechanism  is  not  relevant  to  the 
TOs targeted by the given programme (typically in more 
developed  areas);  too  complicated  use  of  the  tool, 
complemented by a kind of uncertainty, caused - among 
others  -  by  the  insufficient  guidance  available,  resulting 
in  a  worry  about  the  lack  of  sufficient  management 
capacities;  similar  national 
instrument/decentralised 
implementation  structures  are  more  familiar  and  less 
complicated to implement. 

  As  data  show,  the  delegation  of  functions  to  the  sub-
national  level  is  rather  limited  -  even  though  ITI  would 
give the possibility to delegate. The delegation of project 
selection  is  compulsory  under  SUD  (which  influences 
results on ITI, too). Otherwise, it is mostly planning and 
monitoring  where  –  based  on  partnership  –  the  local 
level will have a major role to play.  

  Inconsistent  encoding  practices  in  some  Member  States 
between  Tables  10  (categories  of  expenditure)  and  20 
(SUD allocations) of the OPs. 

  The  delegation  of  project  selection 

is 
compulsory. Delegation of further implementing tasks to 
the  local  level  (on  top  of  project  selection)  is  rather 
limited. 

in  SUDs 

  Several  kinds  of  challenges,  difficulties  occurred  during 
the implementation of SUDs, such as: difficulties related 
to  the  status  of  intermediate  body;  reluctance  of 
managing  authority  to  delegate  certain  implementation 
responsibilities to cities; the specification of geographical 
area, the selection criteria to be used for the designation 
of cities; the complicated and burdensome nature of the 
tool;  the 
lack  of  knowledge  of  the  tool  by  the 
programmers;  the  elaboration  of  high  quality  territorial 
development  strategies;  lack  of  capacities  of  cities  in 
strategy making, programming, and implementation. 

 
 
 
NP 

Provision Title 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

NP 12 

Main priority areas for cooperation 
under the ESI Funds, including 
macro-regional and sea-basin 
strategies  

NP 13 

Specific needs of geographical 
areas most affected by poverty or 
target groups at highest risk of 
discrimination or social exclusion  

NP 14 

Specific needs of geographical 
areas which suffer from severe and 
permanent natural or demographic 
handicaps 

  Areas 

for  co-operation  have  been 

in 
programming  documents,  environmental  protection, 
transport,  SME  as  well  as  research  and  development 
have been selected in a majority of Member States. 

identified 

  Programmes  contain  also  many  references  to  macro-
regional and sea-basin strategies. The greatest numbers 
of  referrals  point  to  the  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea 
Region and the Danube Strategy. 

  Interregional and transnational actions with beneficiaries 
located  in  at  least  one  other  Member  State  were  also 
identified. 

  Altogether,  16  PAs  (thus  Member  States)  and  OPs  from 
19  Member  States 
identify  territories  affected  by 
poverty.  Vulnerable  groups  have  been  identified  in  17 
PAs (Member States) and OPs from 16 Member States. 

  The  regions  with  permanent  geographical  handicaps  are 

generally identified in PAs and OPs 

  Overall, there is coherence between needs identified and 
actions  planned.  Planned  actions  cover  a  wide  range  of 
areas, which suggests an integrated approach.  

in 

the  application  of 

  There  were  very  few  difficulties  mentioned  by  Member 
States 
the  provisions  on 
handicapped  regions.  This  is  most  likely  thanks  to  the 
considerable  experience  the  countries  concerned  have 
already accumulated with these types of instruments.  

195 

  Effective  and  timely  cooperation  in  programming  was 
hampered by the fact that ETC programmes were lagging 
behind PA and OP programming process. 

  Since  no  specific 

funding  or  projects  have  been 
in  the  “mainstream”  programmes,  MAs 
earmarked 
consider  of  high  importance  cooperation  during  the 
implementation phase. 

  Although  territories  affected  by  poverty  and  vulnerable 
groups  have  been  identified  in  part  of  the  programming 
document, not all them in fact contain an assessment of 
needs  of  vulnerable  groups  (only  28  OPs  in  12  Member 
States)  and less than half of the Partnership Agreements 
comprise concrete actions for poor regions or vulnerable 
groups.  

  Planned  actions  concern  most  of  all  “human  services”, 
such  as  employment,  education  and  social  and 
antidiscrimination  policy, other  fields of policy  necessary 
for  an  integrated  approach  (e.g.:  SME)  are  much  less 
present.  

  There is a lack of systematic and reliable data, especially 

at local level. 

  PAs  and  OPs  do  not  directly  address  all  regions  with 
permanent  geographical  handicaps  as  such.  Especially 
mountainous  regions  were  not  always  mentioned  as  an 
issue  to  address  through  the  ESI  Funds  (out  of  the  17 
possible countries only 9 mentioned).  

  Among  the  programmes  where  permanent  geographical 
handicaps  had  been  identified,  a  few  of  them  only 
contains  reference  to  needs  and  actions  of  handicapped 
regions (around 30). 

  The  main  difficulty  which  hinders 

implementation 
according  to  MAs  is  the  lack  of  accurate  data  and 
indicators specific to these areas. 

 
NP 

Provision Title 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

NP 15 

Coordination between the ESI 
Funds and other Union and 
national funding instruments and 
with the European Investment 
Bank  

NP 16 

Administrative capacity building 
Partially confirmed 

NP 17  Administrative burden  

  Programming  documents  address  the  co-ordination  of 
funds  in  much  more  detail  than  in  previous  programme 
periods. 

  Approach in PA and OP seems consistent – indicative of a 

systematic approach 

  Attention  shown  towards  both  rural  development  and 

fisheries (i.e. non-cohesion policy instruments) 

  Objective  of  better  co-ordination  was  apparently  by 
Member  States  and  EC  during  negotiations  (no  major 
debates registered).  

  Programme  authorities  expect  that  that 

fund  co-

ordination should improve.  

  Capacity  building  is  specifically  discussed  in  programme 

documents of all Member States  

  Planned  capacity  building  measures  emphasise  some  of 
the  key  concerns  of  the  reform  –  e.g.  strategic 
programming,  project  selection  and  monitoring  – 
contributing to result-orientated management. 

  Programme  authorities  are  optimistic  about  prospects of 
capacities strengthening as a result of new provisions 

  Recent  capacity  building 

initiatives  (PEER  2  PEER 
network,  joint  capacity  building  actions  with  DG  COMP 
and  DG  GROW  etc.)  should  help  capacity  building  in  all 
Member States 

  Programme  documents  specifically  address  the  issue  of 

reducing the administrative burden on beneficiaries. 

  Member  States  plans  are  similar,  suggesting  a  coherent 

approach across the EU 

  Actions  planned  to  reduce  the  burden  are  matching  the 

diagnosis of causes. Also the use of TA funds. 

  The  use  of  key  new  regulatory  provisions  –  e.g.  the 
increased use of simplified cost options and e-cohesion – 
figure  prominently  among  Member  States  plans  to 
reduce the burden 

   

196 

  Co-ordination  methods  indicated  by  Member  States 
concentrate on programming phase. Co-ordination during 
implementation less emphasised. This carries the danger 
that co-ordination in the end may co-ordination may not 
improve after all. The possibility of MAs “working in silos” 
is still there. 

  Programme  documents  do  not  always  dedicate  equal 
capacity  building 
aspects 

attention 
(needs/actions; authorities/beneficiaries)  

all 

to 

of 

  Link  between  TA  and  TO  11  (public  administration 

reform) still to be strengthened 

  Technical Assistance funds apparently still often regarded 
as a “lump sum” for management, rather than a resource 
that  needs 
targets  and 
thorough  programming, 
monitoring. 

  Indications of planned capacity building measures appear 

to be rather weak and unspecific overall 

  Limited  funds  available  for  capacity  building  in  Member 

States with relatively smaller budgets 

  It  is  only  in  half  of  the  Member  States  that  action  plans 
to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  rely  on  specific 
needs assessments 

  Areas  of  financial  control,  public  procurement  and  state 
aids  still  regarded  as  sources  of  uncertainty  and 
administrative burden (NP 16) 

  Expectations of programme authorities about the success 

of planned measures are divided 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

NP 

Provision Title 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

  The 

intention  of  strengthening  the  application  of 
horizontal  principles  is  very  much  present  (84%  of 
survey respondents) 

  Accessibility,  climate  change  and  demography  are  –  as 
for  now  –  receiving  comparatively  less  attention  by 
Member States 

NP 18 

Horizontal principles and policy 
objectives  

NP 19 

Efficient implementation of the ESI 
Funds ("e-cohesion") 

  Sustainable  development,  social  inclusion  and  non-
discrimination  are  well  integrated  into  Member  States 
practices.  They  are  an  integral  part  of  programme 
design. 

  The  key  planned  method  of  addressing  horizontal 

principles is mainstreaming 

  Specific actions in support of horizontal principles spread 

across all thematic objectives. 

  Programming  documents  demonstrate  clear  progress  in 
e-administration in all Member States and with respect to 
all stages of the programme cycle 

  E-administration  seen  by  most  Member  States  as  a  key 
measure  to  reduce  administrative  burden  and  increase 
efficiency 

  Interviews  indicate  intentions  to  integrate  e-cohesion 
systems  with  other  national  data  systems,  and  to 
eliminate the paper trail, too 

  Some  stakeholders  warn  that  the  pursuit  of  horizontal 
priorities is still a challenge, and that it should not lead to 
a complication of management and monitoring 

  Data in PAs do not allow full assessment of the situation, 

in particular the fulfilment of Article 122 (3) 

  Possible  complications  due  to  inexperience  with  IT  –  on 
the part of both authorities and beneficiaries – may carry 
some risks. 

197 

 
 
4  ANNEXES 

4.1  ANNEX  TO  “BACKGROUND”  –  DEEPER  STATISTICAL  ANALYSIS 

(CORRELATIONS) 

As  indicated  in  Chapter  1,  where  relevant,  references  to  statistical  correlations.  The 
general methods to do statistical analysis are: 

a.)  Correspondence  analysis  –  determining  whether  or  not  the  behaviour  of  two 

codes showed a statistically significant correspondence; or 

b.) Cluster analysis – determining whether or not coding results for a given cluster 
of programmes – grouped according to a set of 10 criteria used uniformly across 
all provisions – could be statistically differentiated.  

The preconditions to mentioning such correlations in the report are that  

 

 

computer-based  statistical  analysis  finds  a  significant  correlation  or 
differentiation of results, with a sufficiently high degree of probability.  
the  detected  correlation  refers  to  a  number  of  cases  (programme 
documents) that can be seen as representative for the entire policy, rather 
than just a small number of elements in the overall database.  

The determination of whether or not this is the case, was the responsibility of a dedicated 
sectoral expert in charge of analysis in relation to the given provision. 

For Contingency Analysis we have used Pearson’s χ2 (chi-squared) test. The example 
below  tests  whether  or  not  the  choice  of  fund  co-ordination  arrangements  (code  ARR) 
depended  on  the  thematic  objectives  (code  TO)  addressed.  Our  conclusion  in  this  case 
was ultimately negative.  

Figure 133 – Example: χ2 Test of correlations between codes  

Them
atic 
objecti
ve 

Clear 
demarca
tion 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

-0,42 

-0,19 

-0,07 

-0,03 

-0,12 

0,00 

-0,03 

0,70 

0,20 

1,35 

0,00 

0,93 

Comm
on 
monitor
ing 
commit
tee 

Co-op. 
in 
monitori
ng, 
evaluati
on, 
control, 
audit 

-0,15 

0,00 

0,01 

-0,02 

-0,55 

0,10 

-0,02 

-0,24 

0,13 

-0,05 

3,96 

0,04 

-0,54 

4,07 

0,01 

-0,07 

0,47 

-0,71 

-0,78 

-0,92 

0,52 

1,10 

-1,89 

2,71 

Coopera
tion at 
Project 
level 

Cross-
participa
tion of 
MAs 

0,50 

-0,60 

-0,17 

-0,19 

2,17 

1,71 

0,10 

-0,71 

-0,31 

-1,03 

-0,02 

-0,08 

2,20 

-0,34 

1,63 

1,45 

-0,03 

0,37 

-1,27 

-2,18 

-0,48 

-5,04 

-0,05 

0,22 

Exchan
ges of 
experie
nce 
betwee
n 
partner
s 
-0,99 

0,21 

0,01 

0,01 

0,56 

0,00 

0,63 

-0,42 

0,38 

-0,49 

-0,21 

-0,02 

No 
formal 
coordinat
ion 
mechani
sms at 
this 
stage 

0,01 

-0,03 

0,06 

-0,29 

4,95 

0,04 

-0,86 

0,07 

0,00 

-0,91 

-0,39 

-0,03 

Regular 
“cross-
border” 
consultati
ons 

Selecti
on 
criteria 
reward 
synerg
ies 

0,02 

-1,60 

-0,34 

-0,16 

0,25 

1,19 

0,43 

0,44 

-0,63 

-0,03 

0,45 

-0,33 

0,93 

0,47 

0,52 

0,47 

-0,21 

-0,29 

-2,54 

-0,32 

0,00 

-0,01 

-1,06 

-0,19 

Spec. 
suppor
t to 
help 
obtain 
additio
nal 
funds 
1,98 

-0,73 

0,63 

1,45 

0,02 

-0,02 

-0,15 

-0,06 

-0,39 

-2,80 

-1,21 

-0,09 

Strateg
ic and 
politica
l co-
ordinat
ion 

Synerg
etic use 
of 
funds 

Techni
cal-
level 
co-
ordinati
on 

-0,27 

0,01 

-0,10 

-0,26 

0,11 

0,25 

0,00 

0,02 

0,20 

0,00 

0,10 

0,00 

-0,99 

-0,39 

-0,05 

-0,19 

-0,24 

0,44 

1,90 

0,16 

0,41 

0,38 

-0,48 

-0,02 

0,57 

0,00 

0,27 

0,03 

-0,06 

1,33 

-0,47 

-0,49 

-1,57 

-0,44 

0,05 

-1,09 

Integrated 
implement
ation 
bodies 

Joint 
informat
ion 
activitie
s 

1,07 

0,69 

0,44 

1,31 

-0,08 

-0,56 

-0,75 

-1,12 

-0,07 

-1,16 

-0,16 

-0,51 

2,34 

-2,04 

0,02 

0,47 

-0,74 

1,45 

0,22 

-0,32 

-2,21 

-0,79 

0,04 

-0,19 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 134 – Example: graphical presentation of the χ2 test 

As to Cluster Analysis, the list of criteria is shown in Figure 135 below. When performing 
the  analysis,  Partnership  Agreements  or  programmes  were,  every  time,  clustered  into 
two  groups  according  to  whether  or  not  the  given  criterion  applied  to  them,  or  not. 
Subsequently,  we  have  used  computer  analysis  to  determine,  whether  results  under  a 
given code (analytical question) could be differentiated depending on this criterion. 

Figure 135 - Criteria used in statistical analysis 

No.  Factor 

Explanation 

1  ETC 

Co-operation programmes vs. operational programmes 

2  CohesionCountry 

 “Cohesion countries” eligible for the CF – BG, CZ, EE, EI, HR, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, 
PL, PT, RO, SI, SK – vs. those which are not. 

3  EU-15 

Member states that joined the EEC / EC / EU before 2004 (AT, BE, DE, DK, EL, ES, 
FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, NL, PT, SE, UK) vs. all others 

4  EU-13 

5  TA 

6  ESF 

7  CF 

All Member States that joined in 2004, 2007 and 2013: BG, CZ, EE, HR, CY, LV, LT, 
HU, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK 

Member States that joined in 2004 and after: BG, CZ, EE, HR, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, 
PL, RO, SI, SK 

Operational programmes having technical assistance priorities only 

Operational programmes co-funded by the European Social Fund 

Operational programmes funded by the Cohesion Fund as well 

8  Multiobjective 

Operational  programmes  comprised  of  priority  axes  that  combine  one  or  more 
complementary  investment  priorities  from  the  ESI  Funds  under  one  or  more 
thematic objectives as well 

9  Multiregion 

10  Outermost 

Operational  programmes  comprised  of  priority  axes  related  to  more  than  one 
category of region as well 

Operational  programmes  covering  outermost  and  Northern  sparsely  populated 
areas as well 

11  National  /  regional 

Operational programmes covering all of a member state / or just certain regions 

OP 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
For example, in the case of arrangements for co-ordinating, the analysis has found that 
the  combination  of  instruments  was  indeed  slightly  different  for  individual  ESI  funds: 
ERDF  programmes  were  more  likely  to  invite  representatives  of  managing  authorities 
from  other  programmes  for  joint  decision  making;  Cohesion  Fund  programmes  were 
more  likely  to  perform  cross-border  consultations,  while  for  the  ESF  a  coordinated 
programming approach (“the synergetic use of funds”) seems especially important.  

200 

 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.2  ANNEX TO NP1 – STRATEGIC PROGRAMMING -  

Overview Tables on the use of Thematic Objectives  

The following four tables show: 

• 

• 

• 
• 

in  Figure  136  –  how  often  each  TO  has  been  selected  under  Partnership 
Agreements  with  specific  reference  to  Europe  2020  and  Country-Specific 
Recommendation  –  expressed  as  percentages  of  the  same  TO  being  selected 
by Partnership Agreements altogether. The calculation was performed for each 
TO (columns) and for each fund (rows). The bottom row is not an addition of 
the  numbers  above,  but  the  result  of  the  same  calculation  –  number  of  TO 
choices with explicit references vs. the total number of choices  – for all funds 
together. 
In  Figure  137  –  the  budget  of  the  Partnership  Agreements  having  selected  a 
given  TO  with  explicit  references  to  Europe  2020  and  Country-Specific 
Recommendation, versus the total budget of all Partnership Agreements, again 
expressed as percentages. 
Figure 138 – The same calculation as Figure 136 at programme level 
Figure 139 – The same calculation as Figure 137 at programme level 

Figure 136 –Selection of Thematic Objectives in Partnership Agreements  
Number of selections with explicit references to Europe 2020 & Country-Specific 
Recommendation – versus total number of TO selections  

frequency 

01 

02 

03 

04 

06 

05 
18,2%  26,7% 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

20,0% 

  40,0% 

69,6%  7,7%  24,0%  56,5% 

41,7%  36,0% 

100,0%  68,2%  56,0% 

73,9% 

  20,0%  50,0% 

  33,3% 

  60,0% 

66,7%  5,0%  24,0%  59,3% 

46,7%  31,8% 

26,3%  76,9%  50,0% 

77,8%  66,7% 

41,5% 

  69,2%  53,8% 

72,0%  50,0% 

49,6% 

68,0%  6,1%  22,7%  53,9% 

38,0%  32,6% 

25,7%  67,9%  53,3% 

74,2%  54,5% 

40,5% 

Figure 137 –Selection of Thematic Objectives in Partnership Agreements 
Budgets of Partnership Agreements with explicit references to Europe 2020 & 
Country-Specific Recommendation – versus the total budgets of Partnership 
Agreements 

budget 

01 

02 

03 

04 

06 

05 
14,0%  36,1% 

07 

9,7% 

08 

09 

10 

11 

  21,6% 

85,8%  3,5%  19,9%  76,2% 

54,8%  43,9% 

100,0%  79,8%  65,1% 

89,8% 

  29,6%  62,7% 

  34,5% 

  56,6% 

59,4%  1,8%  30,3%  55,4% 

43,1%  27,6% 

14,4%  28,1%  31,8% 

90,3%  70,3% 

36,7% 

60,8%  1,9%  26,4%  52,7% 

46,1%  36,2% 

12,3%  59,7%  49,7% 

78,8%  60,9% 

39,9% 

  67,8%  56,4% 

73,2%  56,8% 

63,8% 

201 

CF 

EAFRD 

EMFF 

ERDF 

ESF 

Under any 
fund 

CF 

EAFRD 

EMFF 

ERDF 

ESF 
Under any 
fund 

Total 
21,7% 

44,5% 

30,3% 

Total 
18,4% 

45,7% 

33,3% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 138 – Selection of Thematic objectives in Programmes 
Number of selections with explicit references to Europe 2020 & Country-Specific 
Recommendation – versus the total number of TO selections 

frequency 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

Others  Any TO 

CF 

  72,7% 

0,0%  40,0%  33,3% 

28,4% 

ERDF 

83,6% 

31,8%  44,6%  80,2%  10,8%  25,1%  39,5%  53,3%  64,8%  58,7%  21,4% 

20,0% 

42,9% 

 - of which 
ETC 
ESF 

Under any 
fund 

71,4%  100,0%  50,0%  58,8%  22,7%  27,9%  32,1%  57,9%  50,0%  50,0%  13,5% 

  65,2%  72,3%  74,0%  24,1% 

32,3% 

49,1% 

83,6% 

31,8%  44,6%  79,8% 

9,6%  26,1%  38,8%  52,3%  67,4%  65,7%  22,5% 

20,0% 

42,9% 

Figure 139 – Selection of Thematic objectives in Programmes 
Budgets of programmes with explicit references to Europe 2020 & Country-
Specific Recommendation – versus the total budgets of the programmes 

budget 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

Others  Any TO 

CF 

  90,0% 

0,0%  43,1%  60,4% 

54,0% 

ERDF 

86,2% 

44,8%  41,8%  75,7% 

8,7%  23,6%  57,6%  68,2%  76,3%  57,3%  34,0% 

7,7% 

57,7% 

 - of which 
ETC 
ESF 

62,2%  100,0%  53,7%  56,0%  27,0%  26,7%  29,6%  65,6%  39,7%  52,3%  16,2% 

  69,5%  70,6%  78,1%  26,2% 

35,0% 

66,5% 

Total 

86,2% 

44,8%  41,8%  78,5% 

4,7%  32,9%  59,2%  66,0%  74,1%  70,3%  29,5% 

7,7% 

57,7% 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.3  ANNEX TO NP2 – THEMATIC CONCENTRATION 

Main results sought 

According  to  Article  15.1(a)(iii),  Partnership  Agreements  should  contain  for  each  of  the 
selected thematic objective a summary of the main results expected for each of the ESI 
Funds. The analysis of PA provides the following results: 

Figure 140 – Main results101 expected by TO in Partnership Agreements 

Thematic 
objective 

Main results 

Used in 
PAs 

01 

02 

03 

03 

04 

04 

04 

05 

05 

06 

06 

06 

07 

08 

08 

09 

09 

10 

10 

11 

Increased RDT-based innovation 

Increase  in  ICT  products  and  services  sales  on 
internet 

More high growth SMEs 

More technology-based, innovative SMEs 

Reduction in GHG emissions 

Higher energy efficiency 

Renewable energy production 

Adaptation to climate change 

Better risk prevention 

Preserving natural and cultural heritage 

Improving waste collection 

Sustainable land use 

Better, quicker and safer accessibility 

Better employability 

Managing aging and youth unemployment 

Reduction in poverty 

Improved access to social services 

Inclusive education system 

Life-long learning widens 

Increased performance of public services 

21 

12 

16 

11 

15 

15 

14 

15 

8 

11 

10 

8 

10 

15 

12 

14 

8 

10 

9 

8 

Each  element  on  the  list  of  “main  results”  –  code  MAINRES,  used  as  the  basis  for  the 
frequency  analysis  –  unambiguously  matches  the  list  of  thematic  objectives  (i.e.  each 
main result corresponds to a single TO). This means that, in  theory at least, each main 

101 only main results common for ten or more Member States have been included in the table 

203 

 
 
 
                                           
result should always be mentioned in relation to one and the same TO. This is, however, 
not case, as shown in Figure 141. 

Primary 
TO 
01 
01 
01 
01 

02 
02 
02 

03 
03 

03 
04 
04 
04 
05 
05 
06 
06 
06 

06 
07 

07 

07 
08 
08 
08 
08 
08 

08 
08 
09 

09 
10 
10 

10 
10 
11 

11 
11 

11 

11 

Figure 141 - Main results and thematic objectives 

MAINRES 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

Increased RDI investment 
Increased RDT-based innovation 
More innovative firms 
Strengthening the European 
Research Area 
Better access to internet 
ICT in public services 
Increase in ICT products and 
services sales 
More high growth SMEs 
More technology-based, 
innovative SMEs 
Productivity increase 
Higher energy efficiency 
Reduction in GHG emissions 
Renewable energy production 
Adaptation to climate change 
Better risk prevention 
Environmental monitoring 
Improving waste collection 
Preserving natural and cultural 
heritage 
Waste reduction 
Better, quicker and safer 
accessibility 
Decrease in congestion and 
pollution 
Efficient energy network 
Better employability 
Bigger participation 
Flexicurity 
Improved PES 
Managing aging and youth 
unemployment 
More and better jobs 
Social dialogue 
Improved access to social 
services 
Reduction in poverty 
Educational capacities 

Formation of 
researchers 

Inclusive education system 
Life-long learning widens 
Administration capacity and 
efficiency 
Civil society participation 
Increased performance of public 
services 
Reduction of the administrative 
burden 
Transparency and corruption-free 
governance 
Improved cooperation betw 
urban/rural areas 
Macroeconomic and 
competitiveness goals 
Reducing territorial disparities 
Sustainable land use 
Education and training linked to 
the needs of the labour market 

2 
21 
3 
5 

1 

4 

2 
3 

1 

1 
3 
12 

1 

16 
11 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
5 
1 
15 
8 

1 
1 
10 
11 

1 

1 

2 

15 
15 
14 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

8 

204 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 
8 

7 

6 

2 

1 

1 

1 

10 

6 

1 

1 

15 
2 
1 
1 
12 

2 

2 

1 

1 
3 

1 

1 
8 

14 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 
2 

10 
9 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The possible reasons for referring to a main result under a different thematic objective 
may be due to that: 

 

the result in question is a “borderline case”, i.e. one that may be reasonably be 
identified  under  several  thematic  objectives,  due  to  an  imprecise  demarcation 
between two TOs.; (see cells highlighted in yellow) 

  or that reference to a main result under a different TO reflects either very specific 
circumstances  or  an  actual  inconsistency  of  the  programming  logic.  (see  cells 
highlighted in red). 

The  existence  of  borderline  cases  and  inconsistencies  shows  that  in  the  negotiation 
process,  there  was  some  flexibility  when  defining  main  results  expected  by  TO. 
Nevertheless,  as  demonstrated  in  the  Figure,  in  the  majority  of  the  cases,  main  results 
were generally associated with one thematic objective (cf. green cells).  

Considering  the  frequency  of  "borderline  cases  per  TO"  –  i.e.  the  frequency  numbers  in 
red  and  yellow  cells  pertaining  to  the  rows  or  columns  associated  with  a  TO  –  one  can 
conclude that  

 

the  definitions  of  thematic  objectives  01  related  to  RDI;  05  related  to 
climate  change  adaptation  and  risk  prevention;  and  06  related  to 
environment protection may have been insufficiently clear.  

  There is also some overlap between ESF-related thematic objectives, 
as  inclusive  education  and  lifelong  learning  may  be  associated  with 
combating poverty and improving education as well.  

  a  number  of  cross-cutting  territorial  challenges  –  (the  bottom  four 
rows  of  the  table)  that  had  been  identified  in  PAs  with  no  clear 
correspondence  to  any  thematic  objective,  therefore  illustrating  the  fact 
that  the  reformed  policy  does  not  only  address  sectoral  needs  but  also 
macroeconomic and territorial needs.  

205 

 
 
Financial  allocations  in  programmes  excluding  technical  assistance 
priority axes 

Figure 142 - Graph - financial allocations of European Territorial Co-operation  
by thematic objectives102 

2,500,000,000

12

2,000,000,000

01

02

11

1,500,000,000

1,000,000,000

500,000,000

10

0

09

03

05

04

08

06

07

Figure 143 - Allocations to less developed 
regions 

Figure 144 - Allocations to 
Transition Regions 

01

25,000,000,000

12

20,000,000,000

11

15,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

5,000,000,000

02

12

02

01

03

11

10

0

04

10

09

05

09

03

04

05

08

06

08

06

07

07

102  Specific  thematic  concentration  requirements  apply  to  cross-border  and  transnational  programmes 
(according to Art. 6 ETC Reg). 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 145 - Allocations to more 
developed regions 

Figure 146 - Allocations to outermost 
and Northernmost regions 

01

02

03

10,000,000,000

12

8,000,000,000

11

6,000,000,000

4,000,000,000

2,000,000,000

10

0

04

09

05

01

02

700,000,000
12
600,000,000

500,000,000

400,000,000

300,000,000

200,000,000

100,000,000

0

11

10

09

03

04

05

08

06

07

08

06

07

Investment priorities in the adopted Operational and Co-operation Programmes, 
by Fund 

The table below shows the use of investment priorities – as measured by the references 
to  them  in  the  programmes.  IPs  are  grouped  by  thematic  objectives.  References  are 
shown separately for ETC vs. IGJ, as well as per fund.103  

TO_key  IP_key 

Narrative 

01 

1a 

1b 

02 

2a 

03 

2b 

2c 

3a 

3b 

and 

research 

innovation 

investment 

in  particular  promoting 

(R&I) 
Enhancing 
infrastructure  and  capacities 
to  develop  R&I 
excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of  competence, 
in particular those of European interest 
Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing 
links  and  synergies  between  enterprises,  research 
and  development  centres  and  the  higher  education 
sector, 
in 
product  and  service  development, 
technology 
transfer, social 
Extending  broadband  deployment  and  the  roll  out 
of high speed networks and supporting the adoption 
of  emerging  technologies  and  networks  for  the 
digital economy 
Developing ICT products and services, e-commerce, 
and enhancing demand for ICT 
Strengthening  ICT  applications  for  e-government, 
e-learning, e-inclusion, e-culture and e-health 
Promoting  entrepreneurship, 
in  particular  by 
facilitating  the  economic  exploitation  of  new  ideas 
and  fostering  the  creation  of  new  firms,  including 
through business incubators 
Developing and implementing new business models 
for  SMEs, 
to 
internationalisation 

particular  with 

regard 

in 

ETC  IGJ  CF  ERDF  ESF  Grand 
Total 
146 

17  129    

146    

42  166    

208    

208 

0 

77    

77    

77 

0 

49    

49    

1  119    

120    

12  129    

141    

49 

120 

141 

6 

61    

67    

67 

103  
Since  Cohesion  Fund  investment  priorities  are  aligned  with  European  Regional  Development  Fund 
investment  priorities,  for  the  sake  of  clarity,  the  table  shows  the  CF  investment  priorities  under  the  relevant 
ERDF investment priority references. 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
                                           
TO_key  IP_key 

Narrative 

3c 

3d 

4a 

4b 

4c 

4d 

4e 

4f 

4g 

5a 

5b 

04 

05 

06 

6a 

6b 

6c 

6d 

6e 

6f 

6g 

7a 

7b 

07 

Supporting  the  creation  and  the  extension  of 
advanced  capacities 
for  products  and  service 
development 
Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in 
regional, national and international markets, and to 
engage in innovation processes 

Promoting the production and distribution of energy 
derived from renewable sources 
Promoting  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy 
use in enterprises 
Supporting  energy  efficiency, 
smart  energy 
management  and  renewable  energy  use  in  public 
infrastructure,  including  in  public  buildings,  and  in 
the housing sector 
Developing  and  implementing  smart  distribution 
systems  that  operate  at  low  and  medium  voltage 
levels 
Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of 
territories,  in  particular  for  urban  areas,  including 
the  promotion  of  sustainable  multimodal  urban 
mobility 
adaptation 
measures 
Promoting research and innovation in, and adoption 
of, low-carbon technologies 
Promoting  the  use  of  high-efficiency  co-generation 
of heat and power based on useful heat demand 
Supporting  investment  for  adaptation  to  climate 
change, including ecosystem-based approaches 
Promoting  investment  to  address  specific  risks, 
ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster 
management systems 

and  mitigation-relevant 

Investing 
in  the  waste  sector  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  Union's  environmental  acquis 
and  to  address  needs,  identified  by  the  Member 
States,  for  investment  that  goes  beyond  those 
requirements 
Investing 
the 
the  water  sector 
in 
requirements  of  the  Union's  environmental  acquis 
and  to  address  needs,  identified  by  the  Member 
States,  for  investment  that  goes  beyond  those 
requirements 
Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing 
natural and cultural heritage 
Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and 
promoting  ecosystem  services,  including  through 
Natura 2000, and green infrastructure 

to  meet 

innovative 

Taking action to improve the urban environment, to 
revitalise  cities,  regenerate  and  decontaminate 
brownfield  sites  (including  conversion  areas), 
reduce  air  pollution  and  promote  noise-reduction 
measures 
Promoting 
improve 
environmental  protection and resource efficiency in 
the  waste  sector,  water  sector  and  with  regard  to 
soil, or to reduce air pollution 
Supporting industrial transition towards a resource-
efficient  economy,  promoting  green  growth,  eco-
innovation 
performance 
management in the public and private sectors 

environmental 

technologies 

and 

to 

Supporting a multimodal Single European Transport 
Area by investing in the TEN-T 
connecting 
Enhancing 
TEN-T 
to 
secondary 
infrastructure, including multimodal nodes 

regional  mobility 
and 

by 
nodes 

tertiary 

208 

ETC  IGJ  CF  ERDF  ESF  Grand 
Total 
72 

72    

71    

1 

16  119    

135    

135 

3 

75 

1 

99 

6 

2 

72    

98    

10  156 

9 

157    

78 

100 

166 

0 

21 

4 

17    

21 

8  122 

6 

124    

130 

4 

21 

0 

16 

6 

33 

19 

67 

0 

1 

8 

8 

25    

15    

31    

78    

25 

16 

39 

86 

0 

55 

12 

43    

55 

6 

70 

15 

61    

76 

53  104 

0 

157    

32 

91 

8 

115    

157 

123 

5 

80 

9 

76    

85 

13 

4 

0 

17    

17 

10 

6 

0 

16    

16 

1 

36 

15 

22    

14 

61 

0 

75    

37 

75 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

TO_key  IP_key 

Narrative 

7c 

7d 

7e 

08 

8a 

Developing  and  improving  environmentally-friendly 
(including  low-noise)  and  low-carbon  transport 
systems,  including  inland  waterways  and  maritime 
transport,  ports,  multimodal 
links  and  airport 
infrastructure,  in  order  to  promote  sustainable 
regional and l 
Developing  and  rehabilitating  comprehensive,  high 
quality  and  interoperable  railway  systems,  and 
promoting noise-reduction measures 

Improving  energy  efficiency  and  security  of  supply 
through 
the  development  of  smart  energy 
distribution,  storage  and  transmission  systems  and 
through  the  integration  of  distributed  generation 
from renewable sources 
Supporting the development of business incubators 
and 
for  self-employment, 
micro- enterprises and business creation 

investment  support 

8b 

8c 

8d 
8e 

8i 

8ii 

8iii 

8iv 

8v 

8vi 
8vii 

09 

9a 

Supporting  employment-friendly  growth  through 
the development of endogenous potential as part of 
a territorial strategy for specific areas, including the 
conversion  of  declining 
industrial  regions  and 
enhancement  of  accessibility  to,  and  development 
of, s 
Supporting local development initiatives and aid for 
structures  providing  neighbourhood  services  to 
create  jobs,  where  such  actions  are  outside  the 
scope  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1304/2013  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council (1) 
Investing in infrastructure for employment services 
Promoting sustainable and quality employment and 
supporting  labour  mobility  by  integrating  cross-
including  cross-border 
border 
mobility, 
initiatives, 
information and advisory services and joint training 

local  employment 

labour  markets, 

joint 

Access  to  employment  for  job-seekers  and  inactive 
people,  including  the  long-term  unemployed  and 
people  far  from  the  labour  market,  also  through 
local  employment  initiatives  and  support for  labour 
mobility 
Sustainable  integration  into  the  labour  market  of 
young  people, 
in 
in  particular 
employment, education or training, including young 
people at risk of social exclusion and young people 
from  marginalised  communities,  including  through 
the implemen 
Self-employment,  entrepreneurship  and  business 
creation  including  innovative  micro,  small  and 
medium sized enterprises 

those  not 

Equality  between  men  and  women  in  all  areas, 
including 
to  employment,  career 
progression,  reconciliation  of  work  and  private  life 
and promotion of equal pay for equal work 

in  access 

of 

and 

workers, 

enterprises 

Adaptation 
entrepreneurs to change 
Active and healthy ageing 
Modernisation of labour market institutions, such as 
public  and  private  employment  services,  and 
improving  the  matching  of  labour  market  needs, 
enhance 
including 
transnational  labour  mobility  as  well  as  through 
mobility schemes and be 
Investing  in  health  and  social  infrastructure  which 
contributes 
local 
development,  reducing  inequalities  in  terms  of 
health  status,  promoting  social  inclusion  through 
improved access to social, cultural and recreational 
services 

regional  and 

to  national, 

through 

actions 

that 

209 

ETC  IGJ  CF  ERDF  ESF  Grand 
Total 
68 

58    

25 

10 

43 

1 

30 

7 

24    

31 

1 

11 

0 

12    

12 

3 

6    

9    

9 

3 

21    

24    

24 

1 

2    

3    

3 

0 
17 

2    
0    

2    
17    

2 
17 

0 

42    

0 

42 

42 

0 

29    

0 

12 

29 

0 

44    

0 

44 

44 

0 

26    

0 

26 

26 

0 

47    

0 

47 

47 

0 
0 

18    
9    

0 
0 

18 
9 

18 
9 

9 

72    

81 

0 

81 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
TO_key  IP_key 

Narrative 

9b 

9c 
9d 

9e 

9i 

9ii 

9iii 

9iv 

9v 

9vi 
10a 
10b 

10i 

10ii 

10iii 

10iv 

10 

11 

11a 

11b 

11c 

Providing support for physical, economic and social 
regeneration of deprived communities in urban and 
rural areas 

in 

investment 

Providing support for social enterprises 
Undertaking 
community- led local development strategies 
Promoting  social  inclusion,  combating  poverty  and 
any  discrimination  by  promoting  gender  equality, 
integration  of 
equal  opportunities,  and 
communities across borders 

context  of 

the 

the 

ETC  IGJ  CF  ERDF  ESF  Grand 
Total 
78 

78    

78 

0 

0 

1 
1 

2 

8    
21    

0    

9 
22 

2 

0 
0 

0 

9 
22 

2 

Active inclusion, including with a view to promoting 
equal  opportunities  and  active  participation,  and 
improving employability 

0 

53    

0 

53 

53 

integration 

of  marginalised 

Socio-economic 
communities such as the Roma 
Combating  all 
promoting equal opportunities 
Enhancing  access  to  affordable,  sustainable  and 
high-  quality  services,  including  health  care  and 
social services of general interest 

forms  of  discrimination  and 

implementing 

Promoting  social  entrepreneurship  and  vocational 
integration  in  social  enterprises  and  the  social  and 
solidarity  economy  in  order  to  facilitate  access  to 
employment 
Community-led local development strategies 
Developing education and training infrastructure 
Investing  in  education,  training  and  vocational 
training for skills and lifelong learning by developing 
and 
joint  education,  vocational 
training and training schemes 
Reducing  and  preventing  early  school-leaving  and 
promoting  equal  access  to  good  quality  early-
childhood,  primary  and  secondary  education 
including  formal,  non-formal  and  informal  learning 
pathways  for  reinte  grating  into  education  and 
training 
Improving the quality and efficiency of, and access 
to, tertiary and equivalent education with a view to 
increasing  participation  and  attainment 
levels, 
especially for disadvantaged groups 

Enhancing  equal  access  to  lifelong  learning  for  all 
age  groups  in  formal,  non-formal  and  informal 
settings,  upgrading  the  knowledge,  skills  and 
competences  of  the  workforce,  and  promoting 
flexible  learning  pathways  including  through  career 
guidance and va 
Improving the labour market relevance of education 
and training systems, facilitating the transition from 
education  to  work,  and  strengthening  vocational 
education  and  training  systems  and  their  quality, 
including through mechanisms for skills anticipatio 

Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities 
and stakeholders and efficient public administration 
through  actions  to  strengthen  the  institutional 
capacity and the efficiency of public administrations 
and public services related to the implementa 

Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities 
and stakeholders and efficient public administration 
by  promoting  legal  and  administrative  cooperation 
and cooperation between citizens and institutions 

Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities 
and stakeholders and efficient public administration 
by developing and coordinating macro-regional and 
sea-basin strategies 

210 

0 

22    

0 

22 

22 

0 

17    

0 

17 

17 

0 

46    

0 

46 

46 

0 

40    

0 

40 

40 

0 
3 
13 

19    
70    
0    

0 
73 
13 

19 
0 
0 

19 
73 
13 

0 

39    

0 

39 

39 

0 

19    

0 

19 

19 

0 

60    

0 

60 

60 

0 

41    

0 

41 

41 

7 

5    

12 

0 

12 

26 

0    

26 

0 

26 

3 

0    

3 

0 

3 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

TO_key  IP_key 

Narrative 

11e 

11f 

11i 

11ii 

12 

12a 

12b 

12c 

Promoting  the  exchange  of  experience  in  order  to 
reinforce the effectiveness of territorial cooperation 
programmes  and  actions  as  well  as  the  use  of 
EGTCs  pursuant  to  point  (3)(c)  of  Article  2 
transfer  and 
(concerning 
dissemination of 
Strengthening  the  evidence  base  in  order  to 
reinforce  the  effectiveness  of  cohesion  policy  and 
the achievement of the thematic objectives through 
the analysis of development trends 

identification, 

the 

lifelong 

training 

learning, 

Investment  in  institutional  capacity  and  in  the 
efficiency  of  public  administrations  and  public 
services  at  the  national,  regional  and  local  levels 
with  a  view  to reforms,  better  regulation  and  good 
governance 
Capacity  building  for  all  stakeholders  delivering 
education, 
and 
employment  and  social  policies,  including  through 
sectoral  and  territorial  pacts  to  mobilise  for  reform 
at the national, regional and local levels 
Freight  transport  services  and  start-up  aid  for 
transport services in the outermost regions 
Operations 
linked  to  storage  constraints,  the 
excessive size and maintenance of production tools, 
and the lack of human capital in the local market in 
the outermost regions 
Operating  aid  and  expenditure  covering  public 
service  obligations  and  contracts  in  the  outermost 
regions 

ETC  IGJ  CF  ERDF  ESF  Grand 
Total 
1 

0    

1 

1 

0 

1 

0    

1 

0 

1 

0 

25    

0 

25 

25 

0 

6    

0 

6 

6 

3    

1    

3    

1    

5    

5    

3 

1 

5 

Total 

0 

22 

2 

3 

17 

22 

References to Europe 2020 and CSRs in ESF co-financed programmes 

As  the  table  shows,  overall,  65%  of  the  ESF  allocations  to  jointly  financed  programmes 
(i.e.  multi-fund  programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF  and  the  CF)  were  made  with  an 
explicit reference to headline targets and Country-Specific Recommendations.104 

Intervention code/investment priority 

8i 

8ii 

Access to employment for job-seekers 
and inactive people, including the 
long-term unemployed and people far 
from the labour market, also through 
local employment initiatives and 
support for labour mobility 
Sustainable integration into the labour 
market of young people, in particular 
those not in employment, education or 
training, including young people at risk 
of social exclusion and young people 
from marginalised communities 

% of ESF 
allocations  
to IP 
with explicit  
Europe 2020/Country-Specific Recommendation 
reference 

Share 
of IP 
from 
total 
ESF 
funding 

72,7% 

15,8% 

24,6% 

2,8% 

104 Note: the ESF allocations referred to in the table do not add up to 100% of the ESF allocation, merely to the 
allocations made to ERDF-led jointly financed programmes. 

211 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
                                           
Intervention code/investment priority 

Self-employment, entrepreneurship 
and business creation including 
innovative micro, small and medium 
sized enterprises 
Equality between men and women in 
all areas, including in access to 
employment, career progression, 
reconciliation of work and private life 
and promotion of equal pay for equal 
work 
Adaptation of workers, enterprises and 
entrepreneurs to change 

8iii 

8iv 

8v 

8vi  Active and healthy ageing 

8vii 

9i 

9ii 

9iii 

9iv 

9v 

9vi 

10i 

10ii 

10iii 

Modernisation of labour market 
institutions, such as public and private 
employment services, and improving 
the matching of labour market needs, 
including through actions that enhance 
transnational labour mobility as well as 
through mobility schemes 
Active inclusion, including with a view 
to promoting equal opportunities and 
active participation, and improving 
employability 
Socio-economic integration of 
marginalised communities such as the 
Roma 
Combating all forms of discrimination 
and promoting equal opportunities 
Enhancing access to affordable, 
sustainable and high- quality services, 
including health care and social 
services of general interest 
Promoting social entrepreneurship and 
vocational integration in social 
enterprises and the social and 
solidarity economy in order to 
facilitate access to employment 
Community-led local development 
strategies 
Reducing and preventing early school-
leaving and promoting equal access to 
good quality early-childhood, primary 
and secondary education including 
formal, non-formal and informal 
learning pathways for reintegrating 
into education and training 
Improving the quality and efficiency 
of, and access to, tertiary and 
equivalent education with a view to 
increasing participation and 
attainment levels, especially for 
disadvantaged groups 
Enhancing equal access to lifelong 
learning for all age groups in formal, 
non-formal and informal settings, 
upgrading the knowledge, skills and 
competences of the workforce, and 
promoting flexible learning pathways  

% of ESF 
allocations  
to IP 
with explicit  
Europe 2020/Country-Specific Recommendation 
reference 

Share 
of IP 
from 
total 
ESF 
funding 

78,9% 

3,3% 

91,0% 

45,2% 

97,5% 

38,6% 

70,4% 

48,4% 

73,8% 

73,7% 

69,0% 

27,1% 

2,0% 

6,8% 

1,1% 

0,5% 

10,7% 

3,3% 

0,6% 

6,8% 

1,9% 

0,9% 

80,8% 

14,0% 

62,5% 

6,4% 

59,5% 

9,8% 

212 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Intervention code/investment priority 

10iv 

11i 

11ii 

Improving the labour market 
relevance of education and training 
systems, facilitating the transition 
from education to work, and 
strengthening vocational education 
and training systems and their quality 
Investment in institutional capacity 
and in the efficiency of public 
administrations and public services at 
the national, regional and local levels 
with a view to reforms, better 
regulation and good governance 
Capacity building for all stakeholders 
delivering education, lifelong learning, 
training and employment and social 
policies, including through sectoral and 
territorial pacts to mobilise for reform 
at the national, regional and local 
levels 
WEIGHTED AVERAGE / GRAND 
TOTAL 

% of ESF 
allocations  
to IP 
with explicit  
Europe 2020/Country-Specific Recommendation 
reference 

Share 
of IP 
from 
total 
ESF 
funding 

78,1% 

6,5% 

26,8% 

6,5% 

15,8% 

0,2% 

65,1% 

100,0% 

Negotiation process 

As shown on the figure below, the factors influencing negotiations regarding the selection 
of thematic objectives were, above all, the regulation and the informal dialogue. Partners’ 
opinion was also taken into account.  

Figure 147 - Factors influencing negotiations – Selection of thematic objectives 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

30% 

19% 

25% 

34% 

17% 

19% 

18% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

40% 

As regards the impact of contacts with the Commission, the survey indicated that on this 
provision, there were relatively many debates, and in those debates, the Commission had 
a quite strong position.  

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 148 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the selection of thematic 
objectives 

7% 

42% 

32% 

19% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Investment priority 

Expected results 

References  Programmes 

THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.4  ANNEX TO NP4 – RESULT ORIENTATION  

Most Frequently Targeted Results in Programmes 

Those results used the most frequently (accounting for 50% of the references) are as follows: 

TO 

01 

1a 

01 

1a 

01 

1a 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and  capacities  to 
develop  R&I  excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of  competence,  in 
particular those of European interest 

More 
and science centres 

laboratories 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and  capacities  to 
develop  R&I  excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of  competence,  in 
particular those of European interest 

SME  spin-outs  into 
transnational 
projects 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and  capacities  to 
develop  R&I  excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of  competence,  in 
particular those of European interest 

R&D  employment  in 
region and institutes 

Increased knowledge 
sector cooperation 

technology 

transfer,  social 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and  synergies 
between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres  and  the  higher 
education  sector,  in  particular  promoting  investment  in  product  and 
service  development, 
innovation,  eco-
innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation, and supporting 
technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product  validation 
actions,  advanced  manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in 
particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and  diffusion  of  general  purpose 
technologies 
Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and  synergies 
between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres  and  the  higher 
education  sector,  in  particular  promoting  investment  in  product  and 
service  development, 
innovation,  eco-
innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation, and supporting 
technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product  validation 
actions,  advanced  manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in 
particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and  diffusion  of  general  purpose 
technologies 

transfer,  social 

technology 

Demonstrable 
in 
labs  etc  that  are  accessible 
to SMEs 

increase 

SME 
transnational projects 

spin-outs 

into 

in 

Number  of  people  employed 
in research and development 
areas 
the  public  and 
private sectors and research 
to 
Addressing  bottlenecks 
increasing 
innovation  and 
investment  in  business  R&D 
through  close  collaboration 
between  public  and  private 
actors. 

72 

57 

38 

70 

54 

32 

168 

119 

More 
development 
SMEs 

product 
by 

More  product  development 
by SMEs 

124 

102 

215 

 
Investment priority 

Expected results 

References  Programmes 

TO 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

02 

2a 

02 

2a 

technology 

technology 

transfer,  social 

transfer,  social 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and  synergies 
between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres  and  the  higher 
education  sector,  in  particular  promoting  investment  in  product  and 
service  development, 
innovation,  eco-
innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation, and supporting 
technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product  validation 
actions,  advanced  manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in 
particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and  diffusion  of  general  purpose 
technologies 
Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and  synergies 
between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres  and  the  higher 
education  sector,  in  particular  promoting  investment  in  product  and 
service  development, 
innovation,  eco-
innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation, and supporting 
technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product  validation 
actions,  advanced  manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in 
particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and  diffusion  of  general  purpose 
technologies 
Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and  synergies 
between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres  and  the  higher 
education  sector,  in  particular  promoting  investment  in  product  and 
service  development, 
innovation,  eco-
innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation, and supporting 
technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product  validation 
actions,  advanced  manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in 
particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and  diffusion  of  general  purpose 
technologies 
Extending broadband deployment and the roll out of high speed networks 
and  supporting  the  adoption  of  emerging  technologies  and  networks  for 
the digital economy 

transfer,  social 

technology 

Extending broadband deployment and the roll out of high speed networks 
and  supporting  the  adoption  of  emerging  technologies  and  networks  for 
the digital economy 

02 

2b 

Developing  ICT  products  and  services,  e-commerce,  and  enhancing 
demand for ICT 

02 

2c 

Strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion, 
e-culture and e-health 

More 
company 
contracting 

university-
R&D 

collaboration 
researchers  and 

Temporary 
between 
knowledge-intensive 
industries 

94 

76 

More  SME–university 
product creation 

spin-outs 

Including 
universities 
corporate/large firms. 

from 
and 

69 

57 

(Wider  and  deeper) 
clusters 

More 
broadband  use 
online trading 

SME 
in 

Higher  online  take-
up in poorer areas 

in 

ICT 
and 

Increase 
products 
services 
Lower  burden  on 
data 
of 
SMEs 
submission 

forms 

New clusters, more members 
to  existing  clusters,  more 
activity  of  clusters  offering 
of 
permanent 
collaboration 
between 
researchers  and  knowledge-
intensive industries. May also 
be applied to large enterprise 
separately, if made explicit in 
Actions. 
SMEs involved in web trading 

Additional  households  with 
broadband  access  of  at  least 
30 Mbps 

Increase in ICT products and 
services 

Better  data  submission  and 
use processes 

65 

53 

43 

41 

38 

114 

41 

39 

34 

92 

216 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Investment priority 

Expected results 

References  Programmes 

TO 

03 

3a 

03 

3a 

Promoting  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  by  facilitating  the  economic 
exploitation  of  new  ideas  and  fostering  the  creation  of  new  firms, 
including through business incubators 

More 
innovative SMEs 

technology, 

More  technology,  innovative 
SMEs 

Promoting  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  by  facilitating  the  economic 
exploitation  of  new  ideas  and  fostering  the  creation  of  new  firms, 
including through business incubators 

growing 

More 
technology, 
innovative SMEs 

More  growing 
innovative SMEs 

technology, 

03 

3b 

03 

3b 

Developing and implementing new business models for SMEs, in particular 
with regard to internationalisation 
Developing and implementing new business models for SMEs, in particular 
with regard to internationalisation 

03 

3c 

Supporting  the  creation  and  the  extension  of  advanced  capacities  for 
products and service development 

03 

3d 

03 

3d 

03 

3d 

Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional,  national  and 
international markets, and to engage in innovation processes 
Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional,  national  and 
international markets, and to engage in innovation processes 
Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional,  national  and 
international markets, and to engage in innovation processes 

by 

exports 

SME-
firm 

More 
SMEs 
More 
international 
linkages 
More 
competitiveness 
new markets 
More  high  growth 
SMEs 
Volume 
exports 
More innovative SME 
products & services 

SME 
in 

SME 

of 

04 

4a 

Promoting  the  production  and  distribution  of  energy  derived  from 
renewable sources 

Renewable energy 

04 

4b 

Promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in enterprises 

Energy 
SMEs 

efficiency  

04 

4c 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and  renewable 
energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public  buildings,  and  in 
the housing sector 

Energy  efficiency  - 
public 

04 

4c 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and  renewable 
energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public  buildings,  and  in 
the housing sector 

Energy  efficiency  - 
residential 

04 

4c 

04 

4c 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and  renewable 
energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public  buildings,  and  in 
the housing sector 

GHG emissions 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and  renewable 
energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public  buildings,  and  in 
the housing sector 

Renewable 
use - public 

energy 

217 

More exports by SMEs 

More  SME-international  firm 
linkages 

More SME competitiveness in 
new markets 

Creating  higher 
employment 
Volume of SME exports 

incomes, 

Increase  innovative  products 
and  services  provided  by 
SMEs 
Renewable energy - either in 
qualitative  or  quantitative 
terms 
Energy  efficiency  in  SMEs  - 
either 
in  quantitative  or 
qualitative form. 
Energy  efficiency  from  public 
- 
buildings/infrastructure 
or 
in  qualitative 
either 
quantitative measure 
Energy 
from 
efficiency 
residential  buildings  -  either 
in  qualitative  or  quantitative 
measure 
GHG  emissions  from  public 
buildings/infrastructure  and 
residential buildings 

Renewable  energy  use 
public 
buildings/infrastructure 

in 

93 

66 

50 

34 

69 

73 

56 

44 

56 

57 

82 

62 

39 

25 

57 

67 

53 

40 

54 

55 

125 

112 

68 

68 

44 

61 

55 

41 

 
TO 

04 

4e 

Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in  particular 
for urban areas, including the promotion of sustainable multimodal urban 
mobility and mitigation-relevant adaptation measures 

Sustainable 
public transport 

urban 

Investment priority 

Expected results 

References  Programmes 

04 

4e 

Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in  particular 
for urban areas, including the promotion of sustainable multimodal urban 
mobility and mitigation-relevant adaptation measures 

GHG emissions 

04 

4e 

Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in  particular 
for urban areas, including the promotion of sustainable multimodal urban 
mobility and mitigation-relevant adaptation measures 

Implemented 
carbon measures 

low-

05 

5b 

Promoting  investment  to  address  specific  risks,  ensuring  disaster 
resilience and developing disaster management systems 

Preventive  measures 
and risk reduction 

exchange 

transport 
low 

Sustainable  urban  public 
transport,  represented  either 
in  quantitative  or  qualitative 
increased 
terms 
(e.g. 
in 
number  of  passengers 
sustainable  public  transport, 
increased  sustainable  urban 
engineering 
transport 
capacity, 
of 
information, etc.) 
GHG  emissions  from  urban 
and 
public 
implemented 
carbon 
measures in urban areas 
Implemented 
low-carbon 
measures and investments in 
all  types  of  territories,  in 
in  urban  areas, 
particular 
represented 
in 
either 
quantitative  or  qualitative 
terms 
Preventive 
measures 
undertaken  and  reduced  risk 
or  
(in 
terms), 
qualitative 
e.g. 
infrastructure, 
constructed 
of 
capacity 
the 
infrastructure, 
risk-exposed 
population/area,  number  of 
rescue  service  units  in  the 
risk 
system, 
joint 
management; 
emergency 
response 
systems, 
transboundary 
cooperation, etc. 

quantitative 

joint 

79 

73 

63 

50 

51 

44 

63 

56 

43 

41 

34 

30 

06 

6b 

Investing  in  the  water  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Union's 
environmental  acquis  and  to  address  needs,  identified  by  the  Member 
States, for investment that goes beyond those requirements 

06 

6b 

Investing  in  the  water  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Union's 
environmental  acquis  and  to  address  needs,  identified  by  the  Member 
States, for investment that goes beyond those requirements 

Wastewater services  Level 

of 

wastewater 
(sewerage  and  wastewater 
treatment)  services  -  either 
in  qualitative  or  quantitative 
terms. 

Water supply service  Level 

of  water 
- 

supply 
services. 
in 
qualitative  or  quantitative 
terms. 

either 

218 

 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Investment priority 

Expected results 

References  Programmes 

TO 

06 

6c 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and  cultural 
heritage 

Opportunities 
growth 

for 

- 

of 

either 

terms, 

region, 

number 

in  qualitative 

Opportunities  for  growth  and 
cohesion  due  to  preserved 
natural and cultural heritage: 
or 
either 
e.g. 
quantitative 
increase  in  employment  or 
earnings,  social  cohesion, 
improved  attractiveness  of 
increase 
the 
in 
tourism 
investments  and 
of 
products, 
visitors/participants,  better 
management, etc. 
cultural 
Status 
the 
heritage 
in 
qualitative  or  quantitative 
terms, 
of 
permits 
intervene  on 
cultural  heritage,  number  of 
managed cultural heritage 
natural 
Status 
heritage 
in 
qualitative  or  quantitative 
terms, 
e.g.  new  green 
infrastructure,  development 
of  tools  to  preserve  the 
heritage, 
natural 
improvement 
of 
environmental  management 
capacities, etc. 
biodiversity, 
Conserved 
and/or restored ecosystems - 
either 
or 
quantitative terms 

e.g.  number 
to 

in  qualitative 

either 

the 

of 

- 

- 

either 

2000 
in 
network 
qualitative  or  quantitative 
terms 
Level  of  green  infrastructure 
-  either 
in  qualitative  or 
quantitative terms 

125 

106 

103 

84 

93 

76 

85 

44 

38 

75 

39 

35 

06 

6c 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and  cultural 
heritage 

Cultural heritage 

06 

6c 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and  cultural 
heritage 

Natural heritage 

06 

6d 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting  ecosystem 
services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure 

Biodiversity status 

06 

6d 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting  ecosystem 
services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure 

Natura 2000 status  Developed  Natura 

06 

6d 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting  ecosystem 
services, including through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure 

Green  infrastructure 
level 

219 

 
TO 

06 

6e 

Taking  action  to  improve  the  urban  environment,  to  revitalise  cities, 
regenerate  and  decontaminate  brownfield  sites  (including  conversion 
areas), reduce air pollution and promote noise-reduction measures 

Sustainable 
development 

urban 

Investment priority 

Expected results 

References  Programmes 

08 

8i 

Access  to  employment  for  job-seekers  and  inactive  people,  including  the 
long-term  unemployed  and  people  far  from  the  labour  market,  also 
through local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility 

08 

8iii 

Self-employment,  entrepreneurship  and  business  creation 
innovative micro, small and medium sized enterprises 

including 

Employment (STR) 

New enterprises/jobs  Number  of  new  enterprises/ 
/ 
from 

jobs  established 
/  moved 

08 

8v 

Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change 

Qualification 

09 

9a 

09 

9a 

Investing in health and social infrastructure which contributes to national, 
regional  and  local  development,  reducing  inequalities  in  terms  of  health 
status,  promoting  social  inclusion  through  improved  access  to  social, 
cultural  and  recreational  services  and  the  transition  from  institutional  to 
community-based services 

Investing in health and social infrastructure which contributes to national, 
regional  and  local  development,  reducing  inequalities  in  terms  of  health 
status,  promoting  social  inclusion  through  improved  access  to  social, 
cultural  and  recreational  services  and  the  transition  from  institutional  to 
community-based services 

09 

9b 

Providing  support  for  physical,  economic  and  social  regeneration  of 
deprived communities in urban and rural areas 

Access 
social services 

to  care  / 

Improved  access  to 
health services 

Number 
people 
of 
representing  marginalised 
groups with improved access 
to health services 

Disadvantage groups  Number  of  people 

09 

9b 

Providing  support  for  physical,  economic  and  social  regeneration  of 
deprived communities in urban and rural areas 

Improving  economic 
and social situation 

09 

9b 

Providing  support  for  physical,  economic  and  social  regeneration  of 
deprived communities in urban and rural areas 

Reduced 
concentration 
poverty 

of 

220 

Sustainable  and  integrated 
development, 
urban 
including  measures 
and 
investments for improvement 
the  social,  economic, 
of 
environmental  and  physical 
conditions in urban areas 
participants  in  employment, 
including 
self-employment, 
upon leaving 

new 
survived 
informal to formal sector 
participants 
qualification upon leaving 
Number of people using care 
services 

gaining 

a 

from 
disadvantage  groups  whose 
situation  is  better,  improved 
situation  in  terms  of  social 
integration, 
housing, 
education etc 
Improving  economic,  social 
and  demographic  situation, 
quality  of  life  and  activity,  , 
in 
infrastructure 
disadvantaged 
areas, 
attractiveness 
Reduced  number  of  people 
poverty 
living 
(measured  by  number  of 
receiver of social benefits) in 
the integrated areas 

the 

in 

42 

35 

33 

39 

34 

72 

27 

35 

25 

58 

54 

48 

52 

36 

37 

28 

36 

32 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Investment priority 

Expected results 

References  Programmes 

TO 

09 

9i 

Active  inclusion,  including  with  a  view  to  promoting  equal  opportunities 
and active participation, and improving employability 

Employment (STR) 

09 

9iv 

Enhancing  access  to  affordable,  sustainable  and  high-  quality  services, 
including health care and social services of general interest 

10 

10a  Developing education and training infrastructure 

of 
social 

to 

Improvement 
access 
services 
Education 
infrastructure 

10 

10a  Developing education and training infrastructure 

Improved  access  to 
education 

10 

10a  Developing education and training infrastructure 

Improved results 

10 

10i 

Reducing and preventing early school-leaving and promoting equal access 
to  good  quality  early-childhood,  primary  and  secondary  education 
including  formal,  non-formal  and  informal  learning  pathways  for  reinte 
grating into education and training 

Improved 
outcomes 

learning 

  of 

social/ 

participants  in  employment, 
including 
self-employment, 
upon leaving 
Number  of  people  benefiting 
care 
with  better 
services 
Capacity 
  supported  
childcare,  education and LLL  
infrastructure, 
improved 
infrastructure, 
educational 
improved 
of 
number 
establishment; 
Improved 
technical  equipment  in  ICT 
language  classrooms, 
and 
improved 
of 
safety 
educational infrastructure 
Improved  access  to  different 
levels of education, including 
vocational 
pre-school, 
education, 
different 
groups, e.g. females 
Improved  results  of  different 
stages of education, in terms 
of  qualifications  (percentage 
of VET students passing final 
exams)  and  labour  market 
(employment  of  graduates), 
improved  level  of  education 
of  the  population,  decreased 
level of drop-out 
Number 
achieving  better 
outcomes 

students 
learning 

LLL, 

of 

10 

10iii  Enhancing  equal  access  to  lifelong  learning  for  all  age  groups  in  formal, 
non-formal  and  informal  settings,  upgrading  the  knowledge,  skills  and 
competences  of  the  workforce,  and  promoting  flexible  learning  pathways 
including through career guidance and validation of acquired competences 

Improved 
competences 

of 

Number 
adult  with 
improved  and  competences, 
basic, vocational etc. 

221 

35 

44 

51 

30 

30 

41 

38 

32 

32 

23 

34 

28 

54 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Specific objectives frequently defined 

Those specific objectives used the most frequently (accounting for 50% of the references) are as follows: 

TO 

01 

1a 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

Investment priority 

Expected specific objectives 

References  Programmes 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and 
capacities  to  develop R&I  excellence,  and  promoting centres  of 
competence, in particular those of European interest 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development 
centres and the higher education sector, in particular promoting 
investment  in  product  and  service  development,  technology 
transfer,  social 
innovation,  eco-innovation,  public  service 
applications, demand stimulation, networking, clusters and open 
innovation 
through  smart  specialisation,  and  supporting 
technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product 
validation actions, advanced manufacturing capabilities and first 
production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and 
diffusion of general purpose technologies 
Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development 
centres and the higher education sector, in particular promoting 
investment  in  product  and  service  development,  technology 
transfer,  social 
innovation,  eco-innovation,  public  service 
applications, demand stimulation, networking, clusters and open 
through  smart  specialisation,  and  supporting 
innovation 
technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product 
validation actions, advanced manufacturing capabilities and first 
production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and 
diffusion of general purpose technologies 
Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development 
centres and the higher education sector, in particular promoting 
investment  in  product  and  service  development,  technology 
transfer,  social 
innovation,  eco-innovation,  public  service 
applications, demand stimulation, networking, clusters and open 
through  smart  specialisation,  and  supporting 
innovation 
technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product 
validation actions, advanced manufacturing capabilities and first 
production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and 
diffusion of general purpose technologies 

More 
innovation centres 

laboratories 

and 

Strengthening 
infrastructures 

public 

R&D 

96 

89 

More R+D in enterprises 

Can  also  apply  to  SMEs  and 
large  firms  separately  so  may 
be different SO, Actions, etc 

120 

100 

More 
knowledge-sector links 

researcher-

Can  also  apply  to  SMEs  and 
large  firms  separately  so  may 
be  different  SO,  Actions,  etc., 
include labour market 

93 

70 

Better 
facilities links 

SME-research 

May  also  include  innovation  in 
complementary 
and 
SMEs 
schemes for big firms 

56 

52 

222 

 
 
TO 

01 

1b 

02 

2a 

02 

2b 

02 

2c 

02 

2c 

03 

3a 

03 

3a 

03 

3b 

03 

3c 

03 

3d 

03 

3d 

THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Investment priority 

Expected specific objectives 

References  Programmes 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development 
centres and the higher education sector, in particular promoting 
investment  in  product  and  service  development,  technology 
innovation,  eco-innovation,  public  service 
transfer,  social 
applications, demand stimulation, networking, clusters and open 
innovation 
through  smart  specialisation,  and  supporting 
technological  and  applied  research,  pilot  lines,  early  product 
validation actions, advanced manufacturing capabilities and first 
production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and 
diffusion of general purpose technologies 
Extending broadband deployment and the roll out of high speed 
networks and supporting the adoption of emerging technologies 
and networks for the digital economy 

Strengthen 
competitiveness 

international 

then 

If it can be the same words as 
1a1, 
"Strengthening 
public  R&D  infrastructure";  if 
not 
"Strengthening 
regional competitiveness" 

then 

More  broadband  &  better 
ITC systems 

Faster  and  greater  capacity, 
lower cost 

Promoting 
innovative SMEs growth 

higher 

Business 
infrastructure 

support, 

Developing  ICT  products  and  services,  e-commerce,  and 
enhancing demand for ICT 
Strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-
inclusion, e-culture and e-health 

More  SME  developed  ICT 
products/services 
Better 
government ICT use 

sub-national 

Strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-
inclusion, e-culture and e-health 
Promoting  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  by  facilitating  the 
economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of 
new firms, including through business incubators 

Promoting  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  by  facilitating  the 
economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of 
new firms, including through business incubators 

Developing and implementing new business models for SMEs, in 
particular with regard to internationalisation 

Supporting  the  creation  and  the  extension  of  advanced 
capacities for products and service development 

More efficient e-data SME-
govt exchange 
Raising  new 
firms birth rate 

innovative 

Increasing 
internationalisation 
SMEs 
More  SME  R&D 
intelligence capacity 

by 

and 

Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional,  national 
and  international  markets,  and  to  engage  in  innovation 
processes 

Faster  SME 
info-based growth 

innovation, 

Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional,  national 
and  international  markets,  and  to  engage  in  innovation 
processes 

Facilitating 
internationalisation 
SMEs 

of 

223 

Business and finance support 

Examples  could 
developments 
health remotely, 
and of citizens 

IT 
include 
in  delivering 

Raising  the  rates  of  formation 
of  new  innovative  firms  and 
university start-ups 

innovation,  human 
internationalisation, 

   Opening  branches  outwith 
the  home  market,  franchising 
etc 
 finance, 
capital, 
etc 
 Finance and business support. 
to  ERDF3.b,c  May 
Similar 
mention  ‘gazelles’ or  high  tech 
firms 
Facilitating  internationalisation 
of  SMEs,  i.e.  entering  new, 
foreign markets 

54 

45 

73 

37 

107 

37 

87 

58 

40 

58 

65 

38 

67 

34 

88 

31 

79 

55 

33 

51 

59 

37 

 
Investment priority 

Expected specific objectives 

References  Programmes 

Promoting  the  production  and  distribution  of  energy  derived 
from renewable sources 

Increased 
production-renewables 

energy 

TO 

04 

4a 

04 

4b 

04 

4c 

04 

4c 

04 

4e 

04 

4e 

04 

4e 

05 

5b 

Promoting  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  use  in 
enterprises 
Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and 
renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in 
public buildings, and in the housing sector 
Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and 
renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in 
public buildings, and in the housing sector 

Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in 
particular 
the  promotion  of 
sustainable  multimodal  urban  mobility  and  mitigation-relevant 
adaptation measures 

for  urban  areas, 

including 

including 

for  urban  areas, 

Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in 
particular 
the  promotion  of 
sustainable  multimodal  urban  mobility  and  mitigation-relevant 
adaptation measures 
Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in 
the  promotion  of 
particular 
sustainable  multimodal  urban  mobility  and  mitigation-relevant 
adaptation measures 
Promoting  investment  to  address  specific  risks,  ensuring 
disaster 
resilience  and  developing  disaster  management 
systems 

for  urban  areas, 

including 

06 

6c 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and 
cultural heritage 

Increased 
efficiency -enterprises 
Increased 
efficiency- public 

energy 

energy 

Increased 
efficiency 

energy 

Implemented 
measures 

low-carbon 

Sustainable  urban  public 
transport 

in 

the 

  the  energy 

Increase in the share of energy 
produced 
renewable 
from 
sources - form SMEs and large 
enterprises 
in 
Increase 
efficiency  of the enterprises 
Increase 
energy 
efficiency  of  public  buildings/ 
infrastructure 
Renovation  of  public  and 
residential  building,  including 
in 
social  housing,  decrease 
energy 
in 
consumption 
buildings, street lighting 
Increase  in  the  implemented 
low-carbon  measures  in  urban 
of 
areas, 
emissions, 
energy 
consumption,  increase  in  the 
renewable  energy, 
use  of 
development  of  green  cities 
schemes,    sustainable  urban 
neighbourhoods, 
sustainable 
multimodal  mobility,  reduction 
of trucks traffic in towns, etc. 
Increase 
urban 
including 
undergorund transport 

in  the  sustainable 
transport, 
public 
the 

reduction 

increase 

incl. 

less 

in 

Enhanced security 

Decreased GHG emissions  Decrease in the emissions from 
transport,  heating  systems, 
low-carbon 
measures 
implemented in urban areas 
e.g.  floods,  better  equipped 
rescue 
and 
to  cope  with 
preparedness 
natural  disasters,  rehabilitated 
infrastructure 
(including 
mining 
infrastructure), 
environmental  rehabilitation  of 
industrial areas, etc. 
Increase  in  the  status  of  the 
natural and cultural heritage 

Improved 
cultural heritage 

  natural  and 

services 

224 

48 

71 

71 

48 

47 

69 

66 

42 

41 

37 

40 

38 

32 

37 

30 

30 

69 

64 

 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Investment priority 

Expected specific objectives 

References  Programmes 

TO 

06 

6c 

06 

6c 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and 
cultural heritage 
Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and 
cultural heritage 

Created    opportunities  for 
growth 

Improved cultural heritage  Increase  in  the  status  of  the 

06 

6d 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting 
ecosystem  services,  including  through  Natura  2000,  and  green 
infrastructure 

Improved  protection  of 
biodiversity 

06 

6e 

Taking  action  to  improve  the  urban  environment,  to  revitalise 
cities, regenerate and decontaminate brownfield sites (including 
conversion  areas),  reduce  air  pollution  and  promote  noise-
reduction measures 

Improved 
environment 

urban 

08 

8v 

Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change  Adaptability of workers 

09 

9a 

09 

9a 

09 

9b 

Investing in health and social infrastructure which contributes to 
national,  regional  and  local  development,  reducing  inequalities 
in  terms  of  health  status,  promoting  social  inclusion  through 
improved access to social, cultural and recreational services and 
the transition from institutional to community-based services 
Investing in health and social infrastructure which contributes to 
national,  regional  and  local  development,  reducing  inequalities 
in  terms  of  health  status,  promoting  social  inclusion  through 
improved access to social, cultural and recreational services and 
the transition from institutional to community-based services 
Providing support for physical, economic and social regeneration 
of deprived communities in urban and rural areas 

Improved access to health 
services 

Improved  access  to  social 
services 

Reduce  concentration  of 
poverty 

225 

of 

protection 

of 
preserved 
  natural 

cultural heritage 
Created  new  opportunities  for 
growth  derived  from  natural 
and/or  cultural  heritage,  e.g. 
increased 
attractiveness,  
developed 
sustainable/diversified tourism, 
increased  economic  and  social 
benefits from tourism, etc. 
Improved 
biodiversity, 
biodiversity  and 
environment, 
coordinated/integrated 
natural 
management 
territories,  including  through 
sustainable 
urban 
development,  preserved  green 
and blue zones, etc. 
the 
Improvement 
environmental  status  of  urban 
areas,  e.g.  air  quality,  noise 
levels, traffic disturbance, land 
use, 
increased  number  of 
integrated  urban  regeneration 
initiatives, etc. 
Improved 
workers 
Improved  access 
to  health 
services,  adapting  health  care 
system 
demographic 
changes 

adaptability 

to 

of 

of 

Improved  access 
(care 
services 
services 
deprivation) 

against 

to  social 
services, 
child 

the 

spatial 
Reduce 
in 
concentration  of  poverty 
urban 
areas 
Improve  social  situation  on 
revitalised territories 

rural 

and 

50 

49 

42 

47 

67 

63 

46 

41 

39 

46 

32 

44 

43 

36 

44 

42 

 
 
 
TO 

09 

9b 

Providing support for physical, economic and social regeneration 
of deprived communities in urban and rural areas 

Integration 
disadvantaged groups 

of 

Investment priority 

Expected specific objectives 

References  Programmes 

43 

36 

39 

30 

25 

27 

34 

30 

33 

24 

49 

35 

the 

Improve 
integration  of 
disadvantaged groups  in  work, 
education 
the 
and 
community 
Reduced 
exclusion 

social 

risk 

of 

in 

for 

and 

conditions 

Improved  education,  higher 
education 
VET 
infrastructure; 
Improved 
education and training 
Improving  equal  access 
to 
education in terms of territorial 
disparities  and  non-segregated 
education, improving access to 
education 
Improving 
of 
learning  system  in  terms  of 
learning 
outcomes  
Improving  learning  outcomes 
of students lagging behind 
Improving 
connections 
between  VET  and  the  labour 
market 
Increased  employment  of  VET 
graduates  
Improving 
adults, 

competences  of 

effectiveness 

09 

9i 

10 

10a 

Active  inclusion,  including  with  a  view  to  promoting  equal 
opportunities  and  active  participation,  and 
improving 
employability 
Developing education and training infrastructure 

Reduced 
exclusion 

risk  of  social 

Improved  edu  and  VET 
infrastructure 

10 

10a 

Developing education and training infrastructure 

Improving equal access to 
education 

10 

10i 

10 

10iv 

Reducing  and  preventing  early  school-leaving  and  promoting 
equal  access  to  good  quality  early-childhood,  primary  and 
secondary  education  including  formal,  non-formal  and  informal 
learning pathways for reinte grating into education and training 

Effectiveness  of  learning 
systems 

Improving  the  labour  market  relevance  of  education  and 
training  systems,  facilitating  the  transition  from  education  to 
work,  and  strengthening  vocational  education  and  training 
systems  and  their  quality,  including  through  mechanisms  for 
skills anticipation, adaptation of curricula and the establishment 
and  development  of  work-based  learning  systems,  including 
dual learning systems and apprenticeship schemes 

Connections - VET and the 
labour market 

226 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Actions frequently defined 

Those actions used the most frequently (accounting for 50% of the references) are as follows: 

TO 

01 

1a 

01 

1a 

01 

1a 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

Investment priority 

Expected actions 

References  Programmes 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and 
capacities to develop R&I excellence, and promoting centres 
of competence, in particular those of European interest 

Strengthening 
infrastructure 

RTD 

Including innovative fieldwork and trials 

127 

124 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and 
capacities to develop R&I excellence, and promoting centres 
of competence, in particular those of European interest 

Promoting 
national 
cooperation 

trans-
R&D 

Funded  support  for  research  centres’ 
participation 
in  advanced  technology 
supply chains 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and 
capacities to develop R&I excellence, and promoting centres 
of competence, in particular those of European interest 

Supporting  knowledge 
transfer partnerships 

Example  of  match-funding 
investment 

for  R&D 

51 

41 

49 

40 

early 

product 

actions, 

validation 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development 
centres  and  the  higher  education  sector,  in  particular 
promoting  investment  in  product  and  service  development, 
technology transfer, social innovation, eco-innovation, public 
service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters  and  open  innovation  through  smart  specialisation, 
and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research,  pilot 
lines, 
advanced 
manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular 
in key enabling technologies and diffusion of general purpose 
technologies 
Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development 
centres  and  the  higher  education  sector,  in  particular 
promoting  investment  in  product  and  service  development, 
technology transfer, social innovation, eco-innovation, public 
service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters  and  open  innovation  through  smart  specialisation, 
and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research,  pilot 
lines, 
advanced 
manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular 
in key enabling technologies and diffusion of general purpose 
technologies 

validation 

actions, 

product 

early 

Assistance  to  R+I  in 
SMEs 

Assistance to R+I in SMEs 

158 

146 

Networking 
SMEs and universities 

between 

Promoting SME-researcher co-operation 

158 

152 

227 

 
TO 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

02 

2a 

02 

2b 

02 

2c 

Investment priority 

Expected actions 

References  Programmes 

early 

product 

actions, 

validation 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development 
centres  and  the  higher  education  sector,  in  particular 
promoting  investment  in  product  and  service  development, 
technology transfer, social innovation, eco-innovation, public 
service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters  and  open  innovation  through  smart  specialisation, 
and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research,  pilot 
lines, 
advanced 
manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular 
in key enabling technologies and diffusion of general purpose 
technologies 
Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development 
centres  and  the  higher  education  sector,  in  particular 
promoting  investment  in  product  and  service  development, 
technology transfer, social innovation, eco-innovation, public 
service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters  and  open  innovation  through  smart  specialisation, 
and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research,  pilot 
lines, 
advanced 
manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular 
in key enabling technologies and diffusion of general purpose 
technologies 
Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development 
centres  and  the  higher  education  sector,  in  particular 
promoting  investment  in  product  and  service  development, 
technology transfer, social innovation, eco-innovation, public 
service  applications,  demand  stimulation,  networking, 
clusters  and  open  innovation  through  smart  specialisation, 
and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research,  pilot 
lines, 
advanced 
manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular 
in key enabling technologies and diffusion of general purpose 
technologies 
Extending  broadband  deployment  and  the  roll  out  of  high 
speed  networks  and  supporting  the  adoption  of  emerging 
technologies and networks for the digital economy 

validation 

validation 

actions, 

actions, 

product 

product 

early 

early 

Establishing  innovation 
centres 

Establishing,  investing  and  new  ways  of 
working 

79 

76 

Promoting  researcher-
company networking 

Assistance  to  R+I  in 
large firms 

Addressing  bottlenecks  to  innovation 
and  increasing  investment  in  business 
collaboration 
R&D 
between public and private actors. 

through 

close 

68 

65 

Grants 
loans 
companies for dedicated R&D spend 

subsidised 

and 

to 

51 

48 

Investment  in  ITC  and 
broadband systems 

Investment 
systems 

in 

ITC  and  broadband 

75 

72 

Developing  ICT  products  and  services,  e-commerce,  and 
enhancing demand for ICT 
Strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, 
e-inclusion, e-culture and e-health 

Product  and  process 
development  by SMEs 
local govt and agencies 
ICT applications 

e-product  &  e-process  development 
support 
Including  e-health,  e-education,  e-
administration 

44 

125 

42 

117 

228 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Investment priority 

Expected actions 

References  Programmes 

TO 

03 

3a 

03 

3a 

03 

3c 

03 

3d 

04 

4b 

Promoting  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  by  facilitating  the 
economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation 
of new firms, including through business incubators 

Innovative 
businesses 
development 

Promoting  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  by  facilitating  the 
economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation 
of new firms, including through business incubators 

Serviced 
incubators 

new 

business 

Supporting  the  creation  and  the  extension  of  advanced 
capacities for products and service development 
Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional, 
national  and  international  markets,  and  to  engage  in 
innovation processes 
Promoting  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  use  in 
enterprises 

higher 

on 

Advice 
standards & quality 
Development 
for high growth SMEs 

support 

Energy 
SMEs 

efficiency 

- 

04 

4b 

Promoting  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  use  in 
enterprises 

Energy efficiency -large 
enterprises 

04 

4b 

Promoting  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  use  in 
enterprises 

Renewable energy use-
SMEs 

Energy 
public building 

efficiency 

- 

Energy 
residential buildings 

efficiency-

Energy efficiency-public 
infrastructure 

04 

4c 

04 

4c 

04 

4c 

04 

4c 

04 

4c 

04 

4e 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management 
and  renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including 
in public buildings, and in the housing sector 
Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management 
and  renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including 
in public buildings, and in the housing sector 
Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management 
and  renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including 
in public buildings, and in the housing sector 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management 
and  renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including 
in public buildings, and in the housing sector 
Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management 
and  renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including 
in public buildings, and in the housing sector 
Promoting low-carbon strategies for all types of territories, in 
particular  for  urban  areas,  including  the  promotion  of 
sustainable  multimodal  urban  mobility  and  mitigation-
relevant adaptation measures 

Include  range  of  services,  advice  and 
help 
finance, 
specialist assistance, labour market etc. 

property, 

securing 

Examples  include  business  innovation 
centres,  science  and  technology  parks, 
incubators, spin-offs. boot camps 

Advice,guidance  support  for  SMEs  on 
attaining  higher standards and quality 
Advisory services 

for 

introduction 

Investments 
for  development  and 
improvement  of  energy  efficiency  in 
SMEs. 
for  development  and 
Investments 
improvement  of  energy  efficiency  in 
large enterprises. 
Investments 
and 
improvement  of  renewable  energy  use 
in SMEs. 
Investments  in  energy  efficiency  and 
smart  energy  management  in  public 
buildings. 
Investments  in  energy  efficiency  and 
smart energy management in residential 
buildings. 
Investments  in  energy  efficiency  and 
smart  energy  management  in  public 
infrastructure, including public lighting 

131 

127 

80 

79 

51 

118 

86 

51 

39 

49 

112 

85 

51 

39 

137 

128 

97 

79 

59 

43 

92 

73 

58 

42 

Renewable energy  use 
- public building 

Investments in renewable energy use in 
public buildings. 

Renewable 
residential buildings 

energy-

Investment  in  renewable  energy  use  in 
residential buildings 

Sustainable 
transport 

urban 

Sustainable urban transport 

115 

104 

229 

 
Investment priority 

Expected actions 

References  Programmes 

Promoting low-carbon strategies for all types of territories, in 
particular  for  urban  areas,  including  the  promotion  of 
sustainable  multimodal  urban  mobility  and  mitigation-
relevant adaptation measures 

Low-carbon strategies  Development  and 

TO 

04 

4e 

06 

6b 

06 

6b 

06 

6c 

06 

6c 

06 

6c 

05 

5b 

Promoting  investment  to  address  specific  risks,  ensuring 
disaster  resilience  and  developing  disaster  management 
systems 

Risk 
investments 

prevention 

Wastewater 

Investing  in  the  water  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
the  Union's  environmental  acquis  and  to  address  needs, 
identified  by  the  Member  States,  for  investment  that  goes 
beyond those requirements 
Investing  in  the  water  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
the  Union's  environmental  acquis  and  to  address  needs, 
identified  by  the  Member  States,  for  investment  that  goes 
beyond those requirements 
Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural 
and cultural heritage 

Cultural heritage 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural 
and cultural heritage 
Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural 
and cultural heritage 

Natural heritage 

Natural  and  cultural 
heritage 

06 

6d 

Protecting  and restoring biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting 
ecosystem  services,  including  through  Natura  2000,  and 
green infrastructure 

Biodiversity 
ecosystems 

and 

refine 

implementation  of 
law-carbon  strategies  in  urban  areas, 
including  climate  protecting  strategies; 
implementation  of  combined  mitigation 
and adaptation solutions to demonstrate 
feasibility  and 
regional 
to 
development plans for the future. 
Investments for risk prevention systems 
and 
and 
equipment,  including  risks  from  flood, 
fire, earthquake, former mining activitis, 
hydrogeology risks, etc. 
Investments  for  wastewater  treatment, 
including  wastewater 
infrastructure, 
transfer of best practices, etc. 

infrastructure 

actions, 

for 

Investments 
including 
infratsructures 
Investments  for natural heritage 

improvement 

cultural  heritage, 
cultural 

of 

cultural 

heritage, 

Investments  for  development  of  natural 
and 
including 
promotion  of  natural  and  cultural 
heritage  values,  development  and 
rehabilitation  of  green  infrastructure, 
etc.  for  social,  cultural,  educational  and 
other community purposes. 
Investments  for  observing,  preserving 
and 
and 
ecosystems,  environmental  restoration, 
including  costal  protection,  removal  of 
invasive 
of 
reserves and biodiversity corridors, etc. 

rehabilitation 

biodiversity 

improving 

species, 

Water supply 

Investments for efficient water supply 

06 

6d 

06 

6d 

Protecting  and restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting 
ecosystem  services,  including  through  Natura  2000,  and 
green infrastructure 
Protecting  and restoring biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting 
ecosystem  services,  including  through  Natura  2000,  and 

Natura 2000 

Investments for  Natura 2000 network 

Green infrastructure 

Investments in “green infrastructure” 

230 

78 

71 

65 

63 

50 

47 

49 

44 

114 

108 

84 

42 

79 

42 

102 

97 

58 

46 

56 

45 

 
 
TO 

Investment priority 

Expected actions 

References  Programmes 

THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

green infrastructure 

06 

6d 

Protecting  and restoring biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting 
ecosystem  services,  including  through  Natura  2000,  and 
green infrastructure 

Capacity  building  and 
soft measures 

06 

6e 

Taking  action  to  improve  the  urban  environment,  to 
revitalise  cities,  regenerate  and  decontaminate  brownfield 
sites  (including  conversion  areas),  reduce  air  pollution  and 
promote noise-reduction measures 

Urban environment 

06 

6e 

07 

7b 

08 

8iii 

Taking  action  to  improve  the  urban  environment,  to 
revitalise  cities,  regenerate  and  decontaminate  brownfield 
sites  (including  conversion  areas),  reduce  air  pollution  and 
promote noise-reduction measures 

Enhancing  regional  mobility  by  connecting  secondary  and 
tertiary  nodes  to  TEN-T  infrastructure,  including  multimodal 
nodes 
Self-employment,  entrepreneurship  and  business  creation 
including 
innovative  micro,  small  and  medium  sized 
enterprises 

Brownfield sites 

New roads 

Building  new  regional  roads  connecting 
to TEN-T 

support  to  start  and 
develop businesses 

08 

8v 

Adaptation  of  workers,  enterprises  and  entrepreneurs  to 
change 

Adaptation of workers 

08 

8v 

09 

9a 

in  health  and  social 

Adaptation  of  workers,  enterprises  and  entrepreneurs  to 
change 
infrastructure  which 
Investing 
contributes  to  national,  regional  and  local  development, 
reducing  inequalities  in  terms  of  health  status,  promoting 
social  inclusion  through  improved  access  to  social,  cultural 
and recreational services and the transition from institutional 
to community-based services 

Support  for  enterprises 
facing changes 
Investment 
services 

in  health 

231 

mapping, 

mainstreaming 
adequate 

Development  of 
strategic  planning 
documents 
the 
framework 
investments, 
conditions,  capacity  building,  awareness 
raising, 
knowledge 
management  systems,  best  practices 
sharing,  studies,  open  databases,  joint 
education, etc. 
improving 
urban 
Investments 
for 
environment  and 
integrated  urban 
development,  reduction  of  air  pollution 
and 
noise-reduction 
of 
measures, incentive schemes for cleaner 
transport,  development  of  clean  public 
transport infrastructure, etc. 
Investments 
and 
decontamination  of  brownfield  sites, 
development  through  promoting  new 
incubators on brownfield sites, etc. 

regeneration 

promotion 

for 

coaching, 

education, 

Support  for  unemployment  and  inactive 
to  start  and  develop  new  business, 
including 
personalised 
assistance etd. 
Training, 
for 
workers  in  the  context  of  needs  of  the 
enterprise,  e.g  new  technologies  and 
ICT 
Support  for  enterprises  facing  changes: 
advice, coaching, training, 
Investment in health services 

coaching 

42 

39 

64 

58 

40 

35 

45 

45 

42 

42 

69 

44 

44 

41 

40 

65 

 
Investment priority 

Expected actions 

References  Programmes 

Investment 
and care services 

in  social 

Investment in social and care services to 
improve  access  to  social  services  for 
marginalised groups 

63 

60 

TO 

09 

9a 

09 

9b 

09 

9i 

09 

9iv 

in  health  and  social 

Investing 
infrastructure  which 
contributes  to  national,  regional  and  local  development, 
reducing  inequalities  in  terms  of  health  status,  promoting 
social  inclusion  through  improved  access  to  social,  cultural 
and recreational services and the transition from institutional 
to community-based services 
Providing  support 
for  physical,  economic  and  social 
regeneration  of  deprived  communities  in  urban  and  rural 
areas 

Physical  and  economic 
regeneration 

Active  inclusion,  including  with  a  view  to  promoting  equal 
opportunities  and  active  participation,  and 
improving 
employability 

Social  integration  and 
employability 

Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high- quality 
services, including health care and social services of general 
interest 

Improvement  of  access 
to social services 

10 

10a  Developing education and training infrastructure 

10 

10iii  Enhancing equal access to lifelong learning for all age groups 
in  formal,  non-formal  and  informal  settings,  upgrading  the 
knowledge,  skills  and  competences  of  the  workforce,  and 
promoting  flexible  learning  pathways  including  through 
career guidance and validation of acquired competences 

Investments 
in 
education  and  training 
infrastructure 

Upgrading 
and key competences 

the  skills 

232 

Support  for  the  physical  and  economic 
regeneration of deprived urban and rural 
communities 

Integrated  pathways  combining  various 
forms  of  social  integration,  education 
and employability measures 

to 

affordable, 
Enhanced 
access 
sustainable  and  high-quality 
social 
services  such  as  employment  and 
training  services,  services 
the 
homeless,  out  of  school  care,  childcare 
and 
services; 
improvement  of  systems  of  social 
services 
Investment  in  education  and  training 
infrastructure, 
pre-school, 
primary and secondary. 

long-term 

including 

care 

for 

Support  for  upgrading  skills  and  key 
competences  of  the  adult  population, 
including  migrants  and  other  groups, 
and  creating  new  opportunities 
to 
capitalise on the knowledge and skills of 
older adults; 

62 

50 

42 

71 

46 

58 

50 

40 

67 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Principles of project selection frequently defined 

Those principles of project selection used the most frequently (accounting for 50% of the references) are as follows: 

Investment priority 

Expected selection principles 

References  Programmes 

infrastructure  and 
Enhancing  research  and 
capacities  to  develop  R&I  excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of 
competence, in particular those of European interest 

innovation  (R&I) 

2020 
Horizon 
restricted  call  for 
support 

High  technology  research  centres 
support 

Enhancing  research  and 
infrastructure  and 
capacities  to  develop  R&I  excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of 
competence, in particular those of European interest 

innovation  (R&I) 

Macro 
contribution 

regional 

Project  contribution 
Regional Strategy 

to  wider 

Enhancing  research  and 
infrastructure  and 
capacities  to  develop  R&I  excellence,  and  promoting  centres  of 
competence, in particular those of European interest 

innovation  (R&I) 

State 
procedures 

planning 

Project  planning,    implementing 
smart specialisation strategy 

144 

67 

40 

127 

88 

37 

27 

91 

Promoting 
researcher-
company 
networking 

bottlenecks 
and 

Addressing 
innovation 
investment 
close 
through 
between 
public 
actors, including cross border 

to 
increasing 
in  business  R&D 
collaboration 
and  private 

TO 

01 

1a 

01 

1a 

01 

1a 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres 
and the higher education sector, in particular promoting investment 
in  product  and  service  development,  technology  transfer,  social 
innovation,  eco-innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand 
stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart 
specialisation,  and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research, 
pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced manufacturing 
capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling 
technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres 
and the higher education sector, in particular promoting investment 
in  product  and  service  development,  technology  transfer,  social 
innovation,  eco-innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand 
stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart 
specialisation,  and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research, 
pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced manufacturing 
capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling 
technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies 

Open 
smes 

call 

for 

Wider  benefits  to  region  and 
partners 

126 

55 

233 

 
TO 

01 

1b 

01 

1b 

Investment priority 

Expected selection principles 

References  Programmes 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres 
and the higher education sector, in particular promoting investment 
in  product  and  service  development,  technology  transfer,  social 
innovation,  eco-innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand 
stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart 
specialisation,  and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research, 
pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced manufacturing 
capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling 
technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies 

Promoting  business  investment  in  R&I,  developing  links  and 
synergies  between  enterprises,  research  and  development  centres 
and the higher education sector, in particular promoting investment 
in  product  and  service  development,  technology  transfer,  social 
innovation,  eco-innovation,  public  service  applications,  demand 
stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart 
specialisation,  and  supporting  technological  and  applied  research, 
pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced manufacturing 
capabilities  and  first  production,  in  particular  in  key  enabling 
technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies 

call 

for 
Open 
entry 
to 
innovation centre 

Open  call  for  entry  to  innovation 
centre and networks 

76 

60 

Meeting 
horizontal criteria 

Projects  that  promote  horizontal 
criteria as tools for growth 

53 

46 

02 

2a 

Extending  broadband  deployment  and  the  roll  out  of  high  speed 
networks and supporting the adoption of emerging technologies and 
networks for the digital economy 

call 

Open 
improve 
broadband 
capacity 

to 

Open  call  to  improve  broadband 
capacity 

31 

30 

02 

2b 

Developing ICT products  and  services,  e-commerce,  and  enhancing 
demand for ICT 

02 

2c 

Strengthening  ICT  applications  for  e-government,  e-learning,  e-
inclusion, e-culture and e-health 

Open  Call 
projects 
impacts 

for 
wider 

call 

Open 
for 
SMEs  to  access 
ICT services 

Open  call  for  SMEs  to  access  ICT 
services 

Contracting, human capital effects 

30 

02 

2c 

03 

3a 

Strengthening  ICT  applications  for  e-government,  e-learning,  e-
inclusion, e-culture and e-health 

Explicit 
horizontal criteria 

As tools for growth 

Promoting  entrepreneurship, 
the 
economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new 

in  particular  by 

facilitating 

to 

Open to innovative entrepreneurs 

Open 
innovative 

234 

26 

73 

22 

61 

105 

26 

64 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

TO 

Investment priority 

Expected selection principles 

References  Programmes 

firms, including through business incubators 

entrepreneurs 

03 

3a 

03 

3a 

the 
Promoting  entrepreneurship, 
economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new 
firms, including through business incubators 

in  particular  by 

facilitating 

Promoting  entrepreneurship, 
the 
economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new 
firms, including through business incubators 

in  particular  by 

facilitating 

03 

3b 

Developing  and  implementing  new  business  models  for  SMEs,  in 
particular with regard to internationalisation 

03 

3d 

Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional,  national  and 
international markets, and to engage in innovation processes 

03 

3d 

Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional,  national  and 
international markets, and to engage in innovation processes 

Impact 
employment 

on 

Impact on employment by area or 
group 

to 

Incubators 
support  
innovative SMEs 

Incubators  to  support    innovative 
SMEs and to firms or areas 

Open  to  SMEs  to 
develop 
their 
activities 

Internationalisation, 
trade 
missions,  innovation,  and  other 
networks 

Open  to  SMEs  to 
use  high  growth 
services 

Open to SMEs to use high growth 
services  may  be  sector  or  area 
specific 

04 

4a 

04 

4a 

Promoting  the  production  and  distribution  of  energy  derived  from 
renewable sources 

Promoting  the  production  and  distribution  of  energy  derived  from 
renewable sources 

Open call 

04 

4a 

Promoting  the  production  and  distribution  of  energy  derived  from 
renewable sources 

Strategy 

Promoting 
strategies 
different levels 

on 

Impact oriented 

S3, 
regional 
strategies,  Europe 
2020 etc 

Impact 
competitiveness, etc. 

on 

employment, 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting  to  a  national,  regional  or 
local strategy 

04 

4a 

Promoting  the  production  and  distribution  of  energy  derived  from 
renewable sources 

Open 
according 
strategy 

call 
to  a 

Open  call  according  to  sectoral  or 
reagional strategy 

04 

4b 

Promoting  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  use 
enterprises 

in 

Open call 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

235 

29 

27 

29 

54 

25 

44 

37 

29 

26 

50 

19 

25 

23 

51 

24 

20 

37 

29 

20 

49 

 
Investment priority 

Expected selection principles 

References  Programmes 

TO 

04 

4b 

04 

4c 

04 

4c 

04 

4c 

04 

4e 

04 

4e 

Promoting  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  use 
enterprises 

in 

First 
served 

in 

first 

based 
on 
permanently open call 

project  merit, 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and 
renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public 
buildings, and in the housing sector 

Strategy 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting  to  a  national,  regional  or 
local strategy or plan 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and 
renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public 
buildings, and in the housing sector 

Result oriented 

Result oriented 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and 
renewable  energy  use  in  public  infrastructure,  including  in  public 
buildings, and in the housing sector 

Open call 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in 
particular  for  urban  areas,  including  the  promotion  of  sustainable 
multimodal  urban  mobility  and  mitigation-relevant  adaptation 
measures 

Strategy 

Promoting  low-carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in 
particular  for  urban  areas,  including  the  promotion  of  sustainable 
multimodal  urban  mobility  and  mitigation-relevant  adaptation 
measures 

Open call 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting  to  a  national,  regional  or 
local  strategy,  consistency  with 
policy context 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

05 

5a 

Supporting  investment  for  adaptation  to  climate  change,  including 
ecosystem-based approaches 

Strategy oriented  Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting 
international, 
an 
national, regional or local strategy 
or plan 

to 

05 

5b 

Promoting  investment  to  address  specific  risks,  ensuring  disaster 
resilience and developing disaster management systems 

Strategy 

05 

5b 

Promoting  investment  to  address  specific  risks,  ensuring  disaster 
resilience and developing disaster management systems 

Open call 

06 

6b 

Investing  in  the  water  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
Union's environmental acquis and to address needs, identified by the 
those 
Member  States, 

that  goes  beyond 

investment 

for 

Strategy 

236 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting  to  a  national,  regional  or 
local strategy 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting  to  a  national,  regional  or 
local strategy 

23 

217 

211 

65 

59 

7 

74 

49 

63 

54 

45 

40 

24 

11 

34 

29 

26 

32 

29 

26 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

TO 

Investment priority 

Expected selection principles 

References  Programmes 

requirements 

06 

6c 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and 
cultural heritage 

Open call 

06 

6c 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and 
cultural heritage 

Strategy 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting to a cross-border, national, 
regional or local strategy or plan 

06 

6c 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and 
cultural heritage 

Result oriented 

Result  oriented,  including  durable 
results, Programme results, etc. 

06 

6c 

Conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and 
cultural heritage 

Horizontal 
criteria 

Contribution 
sustainable 
to 
development,  non  discriminating 
and/or equal opportunity 

06 

6d 

06 

6d 

06 

6e 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting 
ecosystem  services,  including  through  Natura  2000,  and  green 
infrastructure 

Strategy 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting  to  a  national,  regional  or 
local strategy 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting 
ecosystem  services,  including  through  Natura  2000,  and  green 
infrastructure 

Open call 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

Taking action to improve the urban environment, to revitalise cities, 
regenerate and decontaminate brownfield sites (including conversion 
areas), reduce air pollution and promote noise-reduction measures 

Strategy 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting  to  a  national,  regional  or 
local strategy 

07 

7b 

Enhancing  regional  mobility  by  connecting  secondary  and  tertiary 
nodes to TEN-T infrastructure, including multimodal nodes 

08 

8i 

Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including 
the  long-term  unemployed  and  people  far  from  the  labour  market, 
also  through  local  employment  initiatives  and  support  for  labour 
mobility 

Compliance  with 
infrastr.  plans  & 
pol. 

Open call 

Compliance  with 
plans & policies 

infrastructure 

institutions 

All 
delivering 
employment  services  entailed/ 
open call with or without deadline 

64 

52 

26 

25 

45 

44 

27 

32 

26 

62 

52 

25 

25 

40 

44 

24 

31 

25 

237 

 
Investment priority 

Expected selection principles 

References  Programmes 

TO 

09 

9a 

09 

9a 

Investing  in  health  and  social  infrastructure  which  contributes  to 
national,  regional  and  local  development,  reducing  inequalities  in 
terms of health status, promoting social inclusion through improved 
access to social, cultural and recreational services and the transition 
from institutional to community-based services 

Strategy 

Investing  in  health  and  social  infrastructure  which  contributes  to 
national,  regional  and  local  development,  reducing  inequalities  in 
terms of health status, promoting social inclusion through improved 
access to social, cultural and recreational services and the transition 
from institutional to community-based services 

Open call 

09 

9b 

Providing  support  for  physical,  economic  and  social  regeneration  of 
deprived communities in urban and rural areas 

Strategy 

09 

9b 

Providing  support  for  physical,  economic  and  social  regeneration  of 
deprived communities in urban and rural areas 

Open call 

09 

9i 

inclusion, 

Active 
opportunities and active participation, and improving employability 

including  with  a  view  to  promoting  equal 

Open call 

09 

9iv 

Enhancing  access  to  affordable,  sustainable  and  high-  quality 
services, including health care and social services of general interest 

Open call 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting  to  a  national,  regional  or 
local  strategy related  to  health  or 
social services 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
fitting  to  a  national,  regional  or 
local  strategy related  to  health  or 
social services 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
call, 
open 
competition  with 
according to defined criteria 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

Selection  of  operations  based  on 
competition  with 
call, 
open 
according to defined criteria 

35 

32 

29 

28 

38 

36 

37 

25 

25 

27 

22 

35 

23 

24 

27 

22 

10 

10a 

Developing education and training infrastructure 

Open call 

Open call for schools 

Reducing  and  preventing  early  school-leaving  and  promoting  equal 
access  to  good  quality  early-childhood,  primary  and  secondary 
education  including  formal,  non-formal  and  informal  learning 
pathways for reinte grating into education and training 

Open call 

Open call for schools 

10 

10i 

10 

10iii 

Enhancing  equal  access  to  lifelong  learning  for  all  age  groups  in 
formal, non-formal and informal settings, upgrading the knowledge, 
skills  and  competences  of  the  workforce,  and  promoting  flexible 
learning pathways including through career guidance and validation 
of acquired competences 

Cooperation  and 
social innovation 

238 

Open call for all institutions 

45 

39 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Factors influencing the outcome of negotiations 

The  programming  process  led  to  a  significant  change  in  the  initial  position  of  the  two-
thirds of the programmes in defining specific objectives, selecting main actions and using 
result indicators. 

The  biggest  influencing  factors  were  the  formal  comments  from  and  the  informal  dialog 
with the Commission. These exchanges with the Commission mostly lead to compromise 
solution. Ex ante evaluation also contributed to changes regarding specific objectives and 
result indicators,  while  selection  of  actions  was  rather  influenced  by  the  domestic  legal, 
institutional or methodological context and partners. 

Figure 149 - Factors influencing the choice of objectives 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

28% 

26% 

26% 

46% 

34% 

11% 

19% 

21% 

0%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Figure 150 - Factors influencing the selection of actions 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

44% 

38% 

25% 

18% 

13% 

13% 

17% 

30% 

0%

5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

239 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 151 - Factors influencing the use of result indicators 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

17% 

48% 

40% 

34% 

EC Comments

7% 

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

27% 

26% 

20% 

0%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

The challenges faced when establishing the intervention logic 

Identifying  result  indicators  seems  to  be  the  major  challenge  in  establishing  the 
intervention  logic,  as  almost  40%  of  the  MAs  indicated.  Apparently,  understanding  and 
adapting  to  the  result-orientation  of  the  new  regulations  was  in  itself  a  major  issue  for 
many  programmes,  and  the  change  of  approach  manifested  in  the  indicator  definition 
process. 

Figure 152 - Survey: Challenges of establishing the intervention logic 

Identifying result indicators

39% 

Understanding the concept and making it
understood

25% 

Other answers

Forge an agreement on the specific objective

14% 

12% 

Forge an agreement on the guiding principles of
selection

9% 

Forge an agreement on the specific actions

Accepting that specific answers are to be defined

7% 

5% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

240 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.9  ANNEX TO NP9 – CLLD 

Figure 153 - Factors influencing negotiations – use of CLLDs 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

1% 

13% 

9% 

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

3% 

3% 

6% 

6% 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

12% 

(percentage of MA’s indicating that a given factor had an impact) 

Figure 154 – Impact of exchanges with EC on use of CLLDs 

13% 

20% 

8% 

59% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

241 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 155 - Survey Q 9.1 Why did you choose the use of CLLD in implementing 
integrated approaches? 

Good tool to involve local entities in designing local
development strategies and selecting projects.

Good previous experiences with existing Local
Action Groups

Other answers

Participative, multi-stakeholder approach allowing
for new ideas.

Flexible tool (CLLD is can be used to achieve any
goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy)

41% 

41% 

27% 

27% 

23% 

Tool tailored to local needs and partnerships

14% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Principles & methods for selecting territories and LAGs for CLLD 

Figure  156  provides  and  overview  of  the  principles  according  to  which  territories  to  use 
CLLD are selected. The scale used is the following: 

Figure 156 - Principles for selecting territories for using CLLD 

List element (CLLDTSEL) 

Narrative 

Areas with multiple challenges 

Preference  to  support  areas  with  multiple  challenges  and  defined  through 
specific  criteria  such  as  size  (population);  urban/rural;  funding  source  or 
approach etc. 

Existing LAGs preferred 

Preference to select areas with pre-existing Local Action Groups 

Backward areas 

Preference to support areas with persistent socio-economic challenges 

(The  code  was  multiple  choice,  so  more  than  1  option  could  be  selected  when  coding  each  programming 
document). 

According to programme data, Member States prefer to apply CLLD to territories with 
multiple  challenges  and  those  having  former  experience  –  rather  than  to  backward 
areas.  

242 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 157 - Principles for selecting territories for using CLLD (OP/ETC) 

Areas with multiple challenges

Existing LAGs preferred

Backward areas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

(frequency, expressed as % of the number of programmes where the use of CLLD is indicated) 

As  to  the  selection  of  strategies  and  local  action  groups  the  scale  used  for  the  analysis 
was this: 

Figure 158 - Principles for selecting strategies and local action groups 

List element  (CLLDLAGSEL) 

Narrative 

Type of selection 

Open competitive calls (whether or not) 

Open competitive calls 

The basis (criteria) for selection 

Strategy-based  

Selection  based  on  compliance  with  existing  national  and 
regional strategies 

Synergy with other funding  

Selection based on expected synergies with other ESI funding 

Challenge-based  

Result-based  

Selection  based  on  the  size  and  nature  of  the  challenges 
targeted by the CLLD strategy 

Selection  based  on  the  targeted  results  of  the  CLLD  strategy 
and/or previous interventions 

Note: Between the two categories and within the categories as well multiple choice was 
permitted.  Nevertheless,  figures  on  choices  show,  that  neither  in  the  case  of  type  of 
selection,  nor  for  the  basis  (criteria)  for  selection,  and  not  even  between  the  two 
categories,  despite  the  fact  that  choice  was  multiple,  the  possibility  to  check  more 
options was practically not utilised. 

As shown in Figure 159, selection of CLLD-s is mostly performed on a competitive basis 
by open calls. 

Figure 159 – Type of selection of CLLD (OP/ETC) 

Open calls

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

(frequency, expressed as % of the number of programmes where the use of CLLD is indicated) 

As  concerns  the  basis  (criteria)  for  selection  of  strategies  and  local  action  groups, 
synergy  with  other  sources  of  funding  and  compliance  with  existing  national  and 
regional strategies are the principles most often applied. 

243 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 160 – Basis (criteria) for selection of strategies and local action groups 
(OP/ETC) 

Synergy with other funding

Strategy-based

Result-based

Challenge-based

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

(frequency, expressed as % of the number of programmes where the use of CLLD is indicated) 

244 

 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.10 

ANNEX TO NP10 – INTEGRATED TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS (ITI) 

Figure 161 – Type of selection of ITI (OP/ETC) 

Competitive selection
Strategy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

(frequency, expressed as % of the number of programmes where the use of ITI is indicated, multiple choice) 

Figure 162 - Competent institution to select ITI (OP/ETC) 

Region selects

Government decides

MA selects

Region ang government decide togehter

(frequency, expressed as % of the number of programmes where the use of ITI is indicated, multiple choice) 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

The categories used for this part of the analysis are as follows:  

Figure 163 - Way of selection of ITIs (ITIHOW) 

List element (ITIHOW) 

Narrative 

Type of selection 

Competitive selection (whether or not) 

Competitive  selection  of    territories  /  development  strategies  for 
ESI support 

Strategy (whether or not) 

Competent institution to select 

Decided  on  the  basis  of  a  strategic  document  adopted  at  the 
appropriate devolved level and recognised in the approved OP 

Government decides 

Designation by government/line ministry 

MA selects 

Region selects 

Designation by Managing Authority 

Designation  by  designated  authority: 
devolved administrations, different from MA 

region;  city-region; 

Note: Between the two categories and within the categories as well multiple choices were 
permitted.  Nevertheless,  figures  on  choices  show,  that  in  the  case  of  competent 
institutions performing selection, despite the fact that choice was multiple, the possibility 
to check more options was practically not utilised.  

245 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 164 - Survey Q 10.3B Which kind of difficulties did you meet in 
implementing integrated approaches with the use of ITI instrument? 

Difficulties in the elaboration of high quality ITI
strategies

Difficulties in defining principles for the selection,
approval and funding of ITIs

Difficulties in taking strategic choices defining the
role, objectives of ITIs

Difficulties in the specification of geographical
areas and/or challenges to be tackled with the…

Role and responsabilities of ITI in implementation

14% 

46% 

46% 

36% 

25% 

Other answers

4% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Figure 165 - Survey Q 10.2 Why did you not choose ITI? 

44% 

Mechanism not relevant for the thematic objectives
targeted by the OP.

The use of ITI is too complicated

Uncertainty about the application of the new rules
/ insufficient guidance available

Insufficient practical experience available to make
a well-founded decision

Insufficient capacity to manage ITI

Inappropriate tool to address identified specific
territorial challenges

Not appropriate to the nature of the programme
(generally ETC)

Other answers

The use of ITI could impede the effective delivery
of other sectoral/regional strategies

No willingness to delegate functions (or power)

The use of ITI is too slow for addressing urgent
territorial challenges

19% 

18% 

16% 

13% 

11% 

9% 

8% 

7% 

4% 

3% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

246 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 166 - Survey Q 10.4 Are there any capacity building and support 
measures envisaged to help the application of ITI? 

Information and guidance

51% 

Training actions for local stakeholders

Covering costs related the preparation of local
strategies and plans

Other answers

26% 

26% 

25% 

Administrative costs of organisations applying for
support under ITI

Advisory services funded by the state to
prospective ITIs

19% 

13% 

Support for small pilot projects

4% 

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 167 - Factors influencing negotiations – use of ITIs 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

2% 

EC Guidance

Regulation

6% 

8% 

9% 

17% 

13% 

12% 

15% 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

247 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 168 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the use of ITIs 

19% 

42% 

30% 

9% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

Coordination arrangements used for different funds and OPs 

Figure  169  shows  the  distribution  of  co-ordination  mechanisms  to  be  used  to 
implement  ITI.  The  code  list  (categories)  used  for  this  analysis  is  the  same  as  the  list 
presented in Chapter 3.8. 

The  results  themselves  from  the  analysis  are  also  similar  to  those  –  regarding  co-
ordination  methods  –  under  provision  8,  and  under  provision  15.  It  is  mainly 
programming  (“synergetic  use  of  funds”,  and  a  “clear  demarcation  during  planning  and 
programming”)  that  Member  States  want  to  rely  on.  Then  comes  the  use  of  a  co-
ordination  body  (in the  sense  of  Art.  123  (8)),  as  well  as  different  (strategic-political  or 
technical-managerial) co-operation committees.  

248 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 169 - Co-ordination arrangements between ESI Funds and managing 
authorities needed to carry out ITIs (PA, OP/ETC) 

Clear demarcation

Synergetic use of funds

Use of co-ordination body

Strategic and political co-ordination

Technical-level co-ordination

Cross-participation of MAs

Integrated implementation bodies

Co-op. in monitoring, evaluation, control, audit

Selection criteria reward synergies

Joint information activities

Regular “cross-border” consultations 

Common monitoring committee

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

PA

PRG

249 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.11 

ANNEX TO NP11 – SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT (SUD)  

Figure 170 - Type of urban territories in which SUD will be used (PA, OP/ETC) 

City

Metropolitan

City-region

District

Peri-urban

37% 

37% 

26% 

12% 

22% 

16% 

15% 
14% 

70% 

74% 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

PA

OP

(frequency, expressed as % of the number of Member States / programmes concerned. Multiple choices 
possible in each Member State/programme) 

With  respect  to  the  types  of  urban  territories,  where  SUD  is  to  be  employed,  the  scale 
used for the analysis was this:  

List element (SUDTYPE) 

Narrative 

City 

Metropolitan 

District 

Peri-urban 

City-region 

Entire city or town 

Metropolitan area (a pivotal metropolis with its expansive circle of 
suburbs) 
District (the zones, quarters of a city) 

The urban-rural linkage around a city 

City-region (an area comprising a network of several cities each other) 

250 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 171 - SUD allocations per member state (absolute terms) 

Poland
Italy
Romania
Czech Republic
Hungary
Spain
Germany
France
Portugal
Bulgaria
Greece
Slovakia
United Kingdom
Croatia
Latvia
Lithuania
Belgium
Slovenia
Estonia
Cyprus
Sweden
Netherlands
Ireland
Finland
Austria
Malta
Denmark
Luxemburg

ERDF

ESF

0

1E+09

2E+09

3E+09

4E+09

251 

 
 
 
Figure 172 – Delivery modes of SUD (%)105 

SUD - ITI

SUD - spec.
OP

SUD - spec.
PAX

Poland

Italy

Czech Republic

Lithuania

Spain

Romania

Hungary
Portugal

Germany

France

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Greece

United Kingdom

Croatia

Latvia

Finland

Belgium

Slovenia

Estonia
Cyprus

Sweden

Netherlands

Ireland

Austria

Malta

Danmark

Luxemburg

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

(as percentage of the total cohesion policy allocation of each country) 

105  Distribution  by  delivery  mode  can  only  be  calculated  from  Table  10  of  OPs  (and  Table  9  for  ETC 
programmes). However, the comparison of those data with data encoded in Table 20 of OPs (and Table 19 of 
ETC programmes) demonstrates inconsistent encoding practices in some Member States. For example:  

PL, CZ, LT, GR, FI uses exclusively ITI for Article 7. 
ES, PT use exclusively priority axis for Article 7. 

‒ 
‒ 
‒  SE also uses a priority axis under the South Sweden OP for SUD which is not indicated in the graph. 

252 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 173 - Survey Q 11.1 Are the required integrated urban development 
strategies in place? 

9.84% 

19.67% 

36.07% 

34.43% 

Elaborated and under
consultation (approval)

Elaboration has started

Strategies are under
implementation

Elaborated and approved

Figure 174 - Survey Q 11.3 Provision of institution building measures, or other 
support to urban authorities 

39% 

61% 

Yes

No

253 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 175 - Factors influencing negotiations – approach to sustainable urban 
development 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

19% 

19% 

21% 

11% 

13% 

4% 

10% 

16% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Figure 176 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the approach to sustainable urban 
development 

11% 

40% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

33% 

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

16% 

There was no major difference in
opinion

254 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.12  ANNEX  TO  NP12  –  TERRITORIAL  COOPERATION  AND  MACRO-REGIONAL 

STRATEGIES 

Figure  177  provides  a  detailed  picture  regarding  which  elements  of  macro-regional 
strategies  programmes  refer  to,  and  how  often  they  do  so.  (The  same  methodological 
note as for Figure 83 applies.) 

Figure 177 - Referrals to Macro-strategies in Programmes106 

Strategy / Pillar / Priority 

No. or referrals 

EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region 
(EUSBSR) 

P1 - Sea 

Agriculture 

Biodiversity 

Hazards 

Nutritient 

Safety 

Secure 

Shipping 

P2 - Prosperity 

Culture 

Education 

Health 

Innovation 

Internal market 

SME 

Tourism 

P3 - Connectivity 

Crime 

Energy 

Transport 

EU  Strategy 
(EUSALP) 

for  the  Alpine  Region 

P1 - Sust. Growth 

Employment 

R&D 

Support for enterprises 

291 

76 

9 

15 

9 

17 

8 

8 

10 

149 

19 

18 

9 

36 

13 

33 

21 

66 

2 

27 

37 

77 

30 

9 

9 

12 

106  The  statistics  present  references  contained  by  Programmes  to  macro-regional  strategies’  priorities, 
aggregated to pillar and strategy level. 

255 

 
 
                                           
Strategy / Pillar / Priority 

No. or referrals 

P2 - Connectivity 

Connected society 

Sustainable accessibility 

Transport systems 

P3 - Sustainability 

Alpine risk management 

Natural and cultural resources 

World-class Alpine Region 

EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region 
(EUSDR) 

P1 - Connectivity 

Culture and tourism 

Mobility Rail-Road-Air 

Mobility Waterways 

Sustainable Energy 

P2 - Environment 

Biodiversity 

Environmental risks 

Water quality 

P3 - Prosperity 

Competitiveness 

Knowledge society 

People and skills 

P4 - Strengthen region 

Capacity and cooperation 

Security 

EU  Strategy  for  the  Adriatic  and  Ionian 
Region (EUSAIR) 

P1 - Blue Growth 

Blue technologies 

Fisheries 

Maritime 

P2 - Connectivity 

Energy networks 

Intermodal 

Maritime transport 

P3 - Sustainability 

Tourism management 

Tourism offer 

256 

22 

6 

8 

8 

25 

6 

15 

4 

167 

47 

17 

12 

8 

10 

52 

20 

18 

14 

50 

14 

14 

22 

18 

15 

3 

79 

22 

11 

3 

8 

20 

5 

8 

7 

19 

8 

11 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Strategy / Pillar / Priority 

No. or referrals 

P4 – Environment 

Marine environment 

Terrestrial habitats 

Total 

18 

10 

8 

614 

Figure 178 - Factors influencing negotiations – way of co-ordinating with 
transnational actions, ETC programmes and the relevant macro-regional 
strategy 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

3% 

EC Guidance

Regulation

13% 

13% 

6% 

9% 

7% 

17% 

17% 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Figure 179 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the way of co-ordinating with 
transnational actions, ETC programmes and the relevant macro-regional 
strategy 

3% 

16% 

7% 

74% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

257 

 
 
 
 
 
The  investment  priorities  most  frequently  mentioned  in  Programmes  with 
beneficiaries in at least one other Member States are: 

Investment Priority 
Promoting  business 
links  and  synergies  between 
enterprises, research and development centres and the higher education sector (…) – 
Art 5.1(b), ERDF reg. 

in  R&I,  developing 

investment 

Enhancing  research  and  innovation  (R&I)  infrastructure  and  capacities  to  develop  R&I 
excellence, and promoting centres of competence, (…) – Art 5.1(a), ERDF reg. 

Promoting entrepreneurship, (…) – Art 5.3(a), ERDF reg. 

Supporting  the  capacity  of  SMEs  to  grown  in  regional,  national  and  international 
markets, and to engage in innovation processes, (…) – Art 5.3(d), ERDF reg. 

Developing  and  implementing  new  business  models  for  SMEs,  in  particular  with  regard  to 
internationalisation – Art 5.3(b), ERDF reg. 

Promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in enterprises 

Conserving, protecting, promoting and developing natural and cultural heritage – Art 5.4(b), 
ERDF reg. 

Promoting low-carbon strategies for all types of territories, in particular for urban areas, (…)  – 
Art 5.4(e), ERDF reg. 

Supporting  energy  efficiency,  smart  energy  management  and  renewable  energy  use  in 
public infrastructure, (…) – Art 5.4(c), ERDF reg. 

Protecting  and  restoring  biodiversity  and  soil  and  promoting  ecosystem  services,  including 
through Natura 2000, and green infrastructure – Art 5.6(d), ERDF reg. 

Promoting  the  production  and  distribution  of  energy  derived  from  renewable  sources  –  Art 
5.4(a), ERDF reg. 

Supporting  the  creation  and  the  extension  of  advanced  capacities  for  products  and  service 
development – Art 5.3(c), ERDF reg. 

Frequency 

54% 

41% 

36% 

33% 

31% 

28% 

26% 

21% 

18% 

15% 

15% 

15% 

(frequency as % of the total number of programming documents comprising reference to Priority areas for co-
operation) 

Note: For this list, the list of IPs has been taken as is in the regulations. IPs with identical 
content under different funds have been treated as separate categories. 

258 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.13  ANNEX TO NP13 – POVERTY, SOCIAL EXCLUSION 

Figure 180 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the approach to map and combat 
poverty 

3% 

22% 

66% 

9% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

Figure 181 - Factors influencing negotiations – approach to map and combat 
poverty  

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

3% 

EC Guidance

Regulation

13% 

13% 

6% 

9% 

7% 

17% 

17% 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

259 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 182 - Survey Q 13.1 Were there particular difficulties in implementing 
integrated approaches to territorial development? 

Data availability

None

44% 

40% 

Sensitiveness of the assessment

14% 

Other answers

7% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Figure 183 - Survey Q 13.2A Have you considered institution building measures, 
or other support to beneficiaries/ stakeholders concerned? 

43% 

57% 

Yes

No

260 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 184 - Survey Q 13.2B What kind of institution building measures, or 
other support to beneficiaries/ stakeholders concerned have you considered? 

75% 

59% 

50% 

41% 

Information and guidance

Training actions for local stakeholders

Animation, exchanges between stakeholders

Preparation and implementation of co-operation
activities

Studies for the area concerned

Administrative costs of organisations applying for
support

Advisory services funded by the state to
prospective applicants

Support for small pilot projects

Covering costs related the preparation of Local
Strategies

28% 

25% 

22% 

19% 

16% 

Operational costs implementing the strategy

9% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

261 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.14  ANNEX TO NP 15 - COORDINATION BETWEEN THE ESI FUNDS AND OTHER 

UNION AND NATIONAL FUNDING INSTRUMENTS AND WITH THE EIB 

Areas where a co-ordinated use of funds is foreseen 

Figure 185 shows, according to the content of Partnership Agreements 

  what cohesion policy funds (ERDF, ESF, CF) Member States wish to use together, 

- in a co-ordinated manner – with  

  what types funds (ESI Funds, other EU resources, National Funds, or the EIB).  

Data are arranged according to the number of times that each combination of funds 
is  mentioned  by  the  Member  States  in  their  Partnership  Agreements,  listed  by  fund 
types.  

Figure 185 - Co-ordination of ESI Funds with other fund TYPES – as stated in 
PAs  

569 

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

268 

243 

228 

194 

107 

108 

114 

36 

12 

48 

10 

13 

CF

34 

ERDF

87 

78 

5 

24 

ESF

71 

27 

TOTAL

EIB

ESIF

National Funds

Other EU

TOTAL

(Frequency of fund combinations being mentioned in PAs) 

As  the  figure  shows,  the  co-ordination  of  ESI  Funds  is  most  often  planned  by  Member 
States  with  the  other  ESI  Funds,  followed  by  (non-ESIF)  union  instruments  and  to  a 
lesser extent with national funds. The pattern is similar for the CF, ERDF and ESF as well.  

Posing the same question at OP level, results are the same: the need to co-ordinate is 
most  often  mentioned  with  respect  to  other  ESI  Funds,  then  other  EU  instruments, 
followed by national funds, and the EIB being mentioned almost exclusively with respect 
to the ERDF.  

262 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 186 - Co-ordination of ESI Funds with other fund TYPES – in Programmes 

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

676 

865 

248 

230 

9 

13 

8 

12 

82 

42 

116 

62 

52 

25 

8 

323 

294 

147 

149 

99 

CF

ERDF

ESF

TOTAL

EIB

ESI Funds

National Funds

Other EU

TOTAL

(Frequency of fund combinations being mentioned in programmes) 

Co-ordination arrangements by fund 

Figure 187 - Use of co-ordination arrangements by Funds, as indicated in PAs107 

Coordination arrangement 

CF 

ERDF 

ESF 

AVERAGE 

Synergetic use of funds 

Clear demarcation 

Use of co-ordination body 

Strategic and political co-ordination 

Technical-level co-ordination 

Common monitoring committee 

Co-op. in monitoring, evaluation, control, audit 

Cross-participation of MAs 

Integrated implementation bodies 

Regular “cross-border” consultations 

Joint information activities 

Selection criteria reward synergies 

Unspecified arrangement 

19% 

14% 

16% 

12% 

10% 

9% 

5% 

5% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

0% 

3% 

17% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

10% 

6% 

7% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

3% 

TOTAL 
(number of Member States referring to a given arrangement, for a specific fund,  in PAs) 

100% 

100% 

18% 

14% 

14% 

15% 

13% 

5% 

6% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

1% 

0% 

3% 

18% 

14% 

14% 

13% 

11% 

6% 

6% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

3% 

100% 

100% 

107  The  legend  is  explained  above  with  respect  to  Figure  99.  The  “Average”  column  shows  the  unweighted 
average of the figures for each fund. Percentages express the frequency of arrangements for the specific fund 
vs. the total number of co-ordination needs (arrangements) registered. 

263 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
A statistical analysis of programme level data showed that while patterns are similar for 
all  three  funds  –  e.g.  as  regards  the  generally  high  importance  of  programming,  or  the 
use  of  a  co-ordination  body,  etc.  –  statistical  analysis  reveals  some  differences 
(significant  correlations)  with  respect  to  the  approaches  to  co-ordination.  According  to 
the data:  

  ERDF programmes are more likely than others to  

‒  use  “cross-participation  of  MAs  in  decision-making  –  i.e.  involve 

other MAs in project selection; 

‒  co-operate  with  other  programmes  in  monitoring,  evaluations, 

control and audit. 

  Cohesion Fund programmes,  

‒ 

the  co-ordination  body  in the  sense  of  Art.  123  (8)  is  seen  to  play 
an important role.  

‒  Regular cross-border consultations are also frequently mentioned.  

  For  the  ESF,  the  importance  of  coordination  in  programming  is  relatively 

high, even higher than for other funds.  

Co-ordination arrangements by Member State 

The  use  of  different  co-ordination  methods  by  Member  State  is  shown  in  Figure  188 
below.  

As it can be seen from the table, most Member States indicate that programming has a 
key  role  in  the  co-ordination  of  funds,  either  “actively”,  through  a  synergetic  use  of 
funds,  or  “passively”  i.e.  through  clear  demarcations,  minimising  the  need  for  co-
ordination.  The  other  type  of  most  frequently  used  co-ordination  arrangements  are, 
again,  committees  –  at  strategic-political  levels  (including  committees  between  the 
government and regions – as well as technical level (e.g. between MAs). 

264 

 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 188 - Use of co-ordination arrangements by Member States (based on PAs) 

Clear 
demarcatio
n 

Common 
monitorin
g 
committe
e 

Co-op. 
in 
monit., 
eval, 
control
, audit 

Cross-
participatio
n of MAs 

Integrated 
implementatio
n bodies 

Joint 
informatio
n activities 

Regular 
“cross-
border” 
consultation
s 

Selectio
n riteria 
reward 
synergie
s 

Strategic 
&political 
co-
ordinatio
n 

Synergeti
c use of 
funds 

Technical
-level co-
ordinatio
n 

Unspecified 
arrangemen
t 

Use of 
co-
ordinatio
n body 

TOTA
L 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech 
R. 
Denmar
k 
Estonia 

Finland 

France 

German
y 
Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Lithuani
a 
Luxemb. 

Malta 

Netherl. 

Poland 

Portugal 

Roman. 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

TOTAL 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

19 

11 

11 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

10 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

8 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

20 

24 

18 

X 

X 

X 

X 

4 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

3 

7 

5 

7 

5 

8 

9 

6 

1 

9 

1 

7 

6 

8 

2 

8 

5 

7 

3 

8 

8 

4 

4 

5 

7 

13 

4 

20 

160 

X 

X 

X 

X 

4 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

5 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

6 

265 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Arrangements helping beneficiaries to access funds in a co-ordinated way 

In  the  programming  documents  21  Member  States  have  provided  specific  data  on  how 
they  intended  to  support  beneficiaries  to  access  different  types  of  funding  sources. 108 
(See Figure 189 below). 

Figure 189 - Support beneficiaries in the co-ordinated use of funds, by Member 
States 

Guidance 

Info. & 
training 

Planning 
documents 

TOTAL 

Contact 
points 
X 

E-
government 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech R. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Sweden 

UK 

TOTAL 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

14 

14 

15 

X 

X 

X 

X 

4 

X 

X 

X 

X 

4 

3 

1 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

2 

4 

3 

3 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

3 

3 

1 

5 

1 

51 

As it can be seen from the data, Member States, quite uniformly, plan to provide help to 
beneficiaries mainly through 

  Specific guidance documents for beneficiaries; 
  Dedicated  contact  points  and  one-stop-shop  information  services  to 

beneficiaries; 

  As well as e-government solutions (web-pages, etc.). 

Those Member States that included information into their PAs, indicated – on average – 
at least 2 measures (methods) that they intended to use. 

108 The countries that did not include such information into their PAs were AT, DE, IT, LT, PL, SI, ES 

266 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

The negotiation process regarding the co-ordination of funds 

As shown in Figure 190, managing authorities did not perceive the question of funds co-
ordination as particularly contested. In three quarters of the cases there were no major 
differences  in  approach  between  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission.  Where  there 
were initial differences, compromise solutions were found. 

Figure 190 – Impact of exchanges with EC on co-ordinating ESIF 

3% 

18% 

6% 

73% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

Again,  the  results  are  very  similar  with  respect  to  the  co-ordination  of  ESI  Funds  vs. 
other policies and instruments at EU and national level. 

Figure 191 - Impact of exchanges with EC - coordinating ESIF vs. other funds 

3% 

20% 

4% 

73% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

As  Figure  192  shows  –  based  on  the  first  horizontal  survey  question  -  managing 
authorities  indicated  that  the  content  of  programming  documents  regarding  the  co-
ordination among ESI funds was shaped, quite unsurprisingly, 

  by the national legal and institutional context on the one hand; and 
  by the regulations on the other. 

267 

 
 
  
 
 
 
In  addition  Member  States  took  account  of  the  opinion  and  proposals  of  partners.  The 
informal dialogue with the EC was also considered important by the MAs. 

Figure 192 - Factors influencing negotiations – co-ordination of ESIF  

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

7% 

16% 

18% 

14% 

5% 

11% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25% 

23% 

25%

Almost  exactly  the  same  results  were  produced  for  the  co-ordination  of  ESI  Funds  with 
other policies and instruments.  

Figure 193 - Factors influencing negotiations – ESIF vs. other policies 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

5% 

5% 

15% 

18% 

17% 

13% 

13% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

19% 

20%

268 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.15 

ANNEX TO NP 16 – ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY 

Figure 194 - Impact of exchanges with the Commission on admin. capacity 

4% 

21% 

62% 

13% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

Figure 195 - Factors influencing Member States' choices on admin. capacity 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

18% 

12% 

15% 

11% 

10% 

7% 

7% 

8% 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

269 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.16 

ANNEX TO NP 17 – REDUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN  

Based  on  responses  to  the  survey  question  –  apart  from  the  national  legal  and 
institutional  context  –  it  was  partners  opinion  that  most  influenced  Member  States 
positions regarding plans to reduce the administrative burden. Partnership has been used 
a  lot  in  this  area,  even  as  compared  with  other  new  provisions  –  which  are  both 
understandable and noteworthy.  

Figure 196 - Factors influencing the outcome of negotiations on admin. burden 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

28% 

30% 

9% 

11% 

8% 

7% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

17% 

22% 

As to the impact of exchanges with the Commission, the reduction of the administrative 
burden seems to have been an area with a lot of consensus, and little disagreement.  

Figure 197 - The influence of exchanges with the Commission on admin. burden 

1% 

26% 

3% 

70% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

270 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.17 

ANNEX TO NP 18 – HORIZONTAL PRINCIPLES 

Figure 198 - Factors influencing negotiations on horizontal principles 

Partners' Opinion

Ex-Ante Ev.

National Context

Informal Dialogue

EC Comments

EC Position

EC Guidance

Regulation

21% 

20% 

11% 

13% 

9% 

11% 

18% 

26% 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Figure 199 - The outcome of negotiations on horizontal principles 

3% 

19% 

9% 

69% 

The dialogue led the Commission 
to accept the MS’s position 

The dialogue led to a compromise
solution

The dialogue led to a significant
change in MS position

There was no major difference in
opinion

271 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.18 

ANNEX TO NP 19 – E-COHESION 

To some extent, coding results could also be used to make an estimation whether or not 
each  member  state  fulfils  the  regulatory  requirement  of  122  (3)  CPR  (i.e.  on-line 
exchange  of  data  by  end  of  2015)109.  One  way  to  do  that  would  be  to  assume  that  e-
service levels of  

 
 

(3) - Two-way interaction: processing of forms, incl. authentication  
(4) – Transaction: case handling 

are  those  that  allow  for  a  full  electronic  exchange  of  information  and  e-administration 
between authorities and beneficiaries (at the relevant stages of the programme cycle).  

Based  on  this  logic,  and  the  data  from  the  Partnership  Agreements,  Belgium,  Finland, 
Italy, Slovenia and Spain would already have e-service levels that comply with regulatory 
requirements.  As  to  future  planned  levels,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Hungary, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg and Slovakia could also be added to the list. Poland and Sweden 
seem  very  close  to  the  objective.  During  the  interviews,  France  and  Germany  also 
reported readiness for e-cohesion. 

Figure 200 – Average E-service levels per Member State (based on PA) 

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Lithuania

Luxemburg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

E-services now

E-services planned

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

109 Art. 122 (3) CPR, first subparagraph: „Member States shall ensure that no later than 31 December 2015, all 
exchanges  of  information  between  beneficiaries  and  a  managing  authority,  a  certifying  authority,  an  audit 
authority and intermediate bodies can be carried out by means of electronic data exchange systems.”  

272 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Again, it needs to be stressed that PAs are not complete, and do not give a specific, fully 
detailed  and  comparable  account  on  e-service  levels.  Therefore,  data  should  be 
interpreted  cautiously.  The  above  analysis  regarding  the  fulfilment  of  the  specific  e-
cohesion  requirement  cannot  be  more  than  an  approximation.  As  described  in  Section 
3.19.4,  Member  States  were  generally  supportive  of  the  new  provisions  regarding  e-
cohesion, while some of them also mentioned difficulties.   

A  summary  of  data  analysing  Member  States’  planned  e-cohesion  upgrades  from  the 
point of view of the criteria of the Commission’s e-cohesion guidelines is provided in the 
table below. Data in PAs were specific enough to fill this table for only 7  Member States 
(such a breakdown of data was not specifically required by the PA Guidelines).  

Figure 201 - Actions for e-cohesion as indicated in PAs. 

Availabil
ity  

Benef. 
access 

Coverag
e 

Data 
protecti
on 

Links 

Only 
once 

Paper 
trail 

Retentio
n 

Croatia 
Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

Slovakia 

Sweden 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

273 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
4.19 

LIST OF PROGRAMMES ANALYSED 

CCI 

CCI_TITLE_EN 

2014AT16RFOP001 

Investments in Growth and Employment Austria 2014-2020 - Operational Programme 
for the use of the ERDF funds 

2014BE16RFOP001 

OP Brussels Capital Region 

2014BE16RFOP002 

OP Flanders 

2014BE16RFOP003 

OP Wallonia 

2014BG05M2OP001 

Operational Programme Science and Education for Smart Growth  

2014BG16M1OP001 

Operational programme “Transport and transport infrastructure” 

2014BG16M1OP002 

Operational programme “Environment” 

2014BG16RFOP001 

Operational programme “Regions in Growth” 

2014BG16RFOP002 

Operational programme “Innovations and Competitiveness” 

2015BG16RFSM001 

Operational Programme under the SME Initiative 

2014CY16M1OP001 

Competitiveness and sustainable development 

2014CZ05M2OP001 

OP Research, Development and Education 

2014CZ16CFTA001 

Technical assistance 

2014CZ16M1OP001 

Transport 

2014CZ16M1OP002 

Environment  

2014CZ16M2OP001 

OP Prague – Growth Pole 

2014CZ16RFOP001 

Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness 

2014CZ16RFOP002 

Integrated Regional Operational Programme 

2014DE16M2OP001 

OP Niedersachsen ERDF/ESF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP001 

OP Baden-Württemberg ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP002 

OP Bayern ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP003 

OP Berlin  ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP004 

OP Brandenburg  ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP005 

OP Bremen  ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP006 

OP Hamburg  ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP007 

OP Hessen  ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP008 

OP Mecklenburg-Vorpommern  ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP009 

OP Nordrhein-Westfalen  ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP010 

OP Rheinland-Pfalz  ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP011 

OP Saarland  ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP012 

OP Sachsen ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP013 

OP Sachsen-Anhalt ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP014 

OP Schleswig-Holstein ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DE16RFOP015 

OP Thüringen ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DK16RFOP001 

Innovation  and  Sustainable  Growth  in  Businesses.  National  Programme  for  the 
European Regional Fund – 2014-2020 

2014EE16M3OP001 

Operational Programme for cohesion policy Funding 2014-2020 

2014ES16RFOP001 

Smart growth ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP002 

Sustainable growth ERDF 2014-20 OP  

2014ES16RFOP003 

Andalucía ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP004 

Aragón ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP005 

Asturias ERDF 2014-20 OP 

274 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

2014ES16RFOP006 

Baleares ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP007 

Canary Islands ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP008 

Cantabria ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP009 

Castilla y León ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP010 

Castilla-La Mancha ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP011 

Cataluña ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP012 

Ceuta ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP013 

Comunidad Valenciana ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP014 

Extremadura ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP015 

Galicia ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP016 

La Rioja ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP017 

Madrid ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP018 

Melilla ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP019 

Murcia ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP020 

Navarra ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFOP021 

País Vasco ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014ES16RFSM001 

SME Initiative ERDF 2014-20 OP 

2014FI05M2OP001 

Entrepreneurship and skills, Åland Structural Fund Programme 2014-2020 

2014FI16M2OP001 

Sustainable growth and jobs 2014-2020 - Structural Funds Programme of Finland 

2014FR05M0OP001 

Operational Programme ERDF-ESF ile-de-France et Seine 2014-2020 

2014FR05M2OP001 

Operational Programme ERDF-ESF Guadeloupe et St Martin Etat 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP001 

Regional programme Aquitaine 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP002 

Regional programme Auvergne 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP003 

Regional programme Centre 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP004 

Regional programme Champagne-Ardenne 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP005 

Regional programme Haute-Normandie 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP006 

Regional programme Languedoc-Roussillon 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP007 

Regional programme Midi-Pyrénées et Garonne 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP008 

Regional programme Picardie 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP009 

Regional programme Guadeloupe Conseil Régional 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP011 

Regional programme Martinique Conseil Régional 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP012 

Regional programme Nord-Pas de Calais 2014-2020 

2014FR16M0OP013 

Regional programme Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP001 

Regional programme Basse-Normandie 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP002 

Regional programme Bourgogne 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP003 

Regional programme Bretagne 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP004 

Regional programme Corse 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP005 

Regional programme Franche-Comté et Jura 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP006 

Regional programme Limousin 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP007 

Regional programme Lorraine et Vosges 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP008 

Regional programme Pays de la Loire 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP009 

Regional programme Poitou Charentes 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP010 

Regional programme Rhône Alpes 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP011 

Regional programme Guyane Conseil Régional 2014-2020 

2014FR16M2OP012 

Regional programme Mayotte 2014-2020 

275 

 
2014FR16M2TA001 

National technical assistance programme 2014-2020 

2014FR16RFOP001 

Interregional programme Alpes 2014-2020 

2014FR16RFOP002 

Interregional programme Loire 2014-2020 

2014FR16RFOP003 

Interregional programme Massif Central 2014-2020 

2014FR16RFOP004 

Interregional programme Pyrénées 2014-2020 

2014FR16RFOP005 

Interregional programme Rhône 2014-2020 

2014FR16RFOP006 

Interregional programme Alsace 2014-2020 

2014FR16RFOP007 

Interregional programme Réunion Conseil Régional 2014-2020 

2014GR05M2OP001 

Reform of the Public Sector 

2014GR16M1OP001 

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OP 

2014GR16M2OP001 

 COMPETITIVENESS, ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION OP 

2014GR16M2OP002 

 CENTRAL MACEDONIA OP 

2014GR16M2OP003 

THESSALY OP 

2014GR16M2OP004 

 EPIRUS OP 

2014GR16M2OP005  WESTERN GREECE OP 

2014GR16M2OP006  WESTERN MACEDONIA OP 

2014GR16M2OP007 

CONTINENTAL GREECE OP 

2014GR16M2OP008 

PELOPONNESUS OP 

2014GR16M2OP009 

IONIAN ISLANDS OP 

2014GR16M2OP010 

NORTH AEGEAN OP 

2014GR16M2OP011 

CRETE OP 

2014GR16M2OP012 

ATTICA OP 

2014GR16M2OP013 

SOUTH AEGEAN OP 

2014GR16M2OP014 

EASTERN  MACEDONIA-THRACE OP 

2014GR16M3TA001 

Technical Assistance Programme 

2014HR16M1OP001 

Competitiveness and Cohesion OP 

2014HU05M2OP001 

Human Resources Development Operational Programme 

2014HU05M3OP001 

Public Administration and Civil Service Development OP 

2014HU16M0OP001 

Economic Development and Innovation Operational Programme 

2014HU16M1OP001 

Environmental and Energy Efficiency OP 

2014HU16M1OP003 

Integrated Transport OP 

2014HU16M2OP001 

Territorial and settlement development OP 

2014HU16M2OP002 

Competitive Central-Hungary OP 

2014IE16RFOP001 

Border, Midland and Western Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 

2014IE16RFOP002 

Southern & Eastern Regional Operational Programme 

2014IT05M2OP001 

National Operational Programme on Education 

2014IT05M2OP002 

National  Operational  Programme  on  Governance,  networks,  special  projects  and 
technical assistance 

2014IT16M2OP001 

ROP Molise ERDF ESF 

2014IT16M2OP002 

ROP Puglia ERDF ESF 

2014IT16M2OP003 

National Operational Programme on Legality 

2014IT16M2OP004 

National Operational Programme on Metropolitan Cities 

2014IT16M2OP005 

National Operational Programme on Research and Innovation 

2014IT16M2OP006 

ROP Calabria ERDF ESF 

2014IT16RFOP001 

National Operational Programme on Culture 

276 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

2014IT16RFOP002 

National Operational Programme on Infrastructures and Networks 

2014IT16RFOP003 

National Operational Programme on Enterprises and Competitiveness 

2014IT16RFOP004 

ROP Abruzzo ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP005 

ROP PA Bolzano ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP007 

ROP Campania ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP008 

ROP Emilia Romagna ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP009 

ROP Friuli Venezia Giulia ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP010 

ROP Lazio ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP011 

ROP Liguria ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP012 

ROP Lombardia ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP013 

ROP Marche ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP014 

ROP Piemonte ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP015 

ROP Sardegna ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP016 

ROP Sicilia ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP017 

ROP Toscana ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP018 

ROP PA Trento ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP019 

ROP Umbria ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP020 

ROP Valle d'Aosta ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP021 

ROP Veneto ERDF 

2014IT16RFOP022 

ROP Basilicata ERDF 

2014LT16MAOP001 

Operational Programme for EU Structural Funds Investments for 2014-2020 

2014LU16RFOP001 

Operational Programme ERDF Luxembourg 2014-2020 

2014LV16MAOP001 

Growth and Employment 

2014MT16M1OP001 

Fostering a competitive and sustainable economy to meet our challenges  

2014MT16RFSM001 

Stimulate private sector investment for economic growth 

2014NL16RFOP001 

OP North Netherlands ERDF 2014-2020 

2014NL16RFOP002 

OP West Netherlands ERDF 2014-2020 

2014NL16RFOP003 

OP South Netherlands ERDF 2014-2020 

2014NL16RFOP004 

OP East Netherlands ERDF 2014-2020 

2014PL16CFTA001 

OP Technical Assistance 

2014PL16M1OP001 

OP Infrastructure and Environment 

2014PL16M2OP001 

2014PL16M2OP002 

ROP 1 Regional Operational Programme for Dolnośląskie Voivodeship 2014-2020 
ROP  2  Regional  Operational  Programme  for  Kujawsko-Pomorskie  Voivodeship  2014-
2020 

2014PL16M2OP003 

ROP 3 Regional Operational Programme for Lubelskie Voivodeship 2014-2020 

2014PL16M2OP004 

ROP 4 Regional Operational Programme for Lubuskie Voivodeship 2014-2020 

2014PL16M2OP005 

ROP 5 Regional Operational Programme for Łódzkie Voivodeship 2014-2020 

2014PL16M2OP006 

ROP 6 Regional Operational Programme for Małopolskie Voivodeship 2014-2020 

2014PL16M2OP007 

ROP 7 Regional Operational Programme for Mazowieckie Voivodeship 2014-2020 

2014PL16M2OP008 

ROP 8 Regional Operational Programme for Opolskie Voivodeship 

2014PL16M2OP009 

ROP 9 Regional Operational Programme for Podkarpackie Voivodeship 

2014PL16M2OP010 

ROP 10 Regional Operational Programme for Podlaskie Voivodeship 

2014PL16M2OP011 

ROP 11 Regional Operational Programme for Pomorskie Voivodeship 

2014PL16M2OP012 

ROP 12 Regional Operational Programme for Śląskie Voivodeship 

2014PL16M2OP013 

ROP 13 Regional Operational Programme for Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship 

277 

 
2014PL16M2OP014 

ROP 14 Regional Operational Programme for Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship 

2014PL16M2OP015 

ROP 15 Regional Operational Programme for Wielkopolskie Voivodeship 

2014PL16M2OP016 

ROP 16 Regional Operational Programme for Zachodniopomorskie Voivodeship 

2014PL16RFOP001 

OP Smart growth 

2014PL16RFOP002 

OP Digital Poland 

2014PL16RFOP003 

OP Development of Eastern Poland 

2014PT16CFOP001 

Sustainability and Resource Use Efficiency OP 

2014PT16M2OP001 

Regional OP Norte 

2014PT16M2OP002 

Regional OP Centro 

2014PT16M2OP003 

Regional OP Alentejo 

2014PT16M2OP004 

Regional OP Azores (Autonomous Region) 

2014PT16M2OP005 

Regional OP Lisboa 

2014PT16M2OP006 

Regional OP Madeira (Autonomous Region) 

2014PT16M2OP007 

Regional OP Algarve 

2014PT16M3OP001 

Competitiveness and Internationalisation OP 

2014PT16RFTA001 

OP Technical Assistance 

2014RO16M1OP001 

Large Infrastructure Operational Programme 

2014RO16RFOP001 

Competitiveness Operational Programme 

2014RO16RFOP002 

Regional Operational Programme 

2014RO16RFTA001 

2014SE16M2OP001 

Technical Assistance Operational Programme 
Community-led local development programme with support from ERDF and ESF 2014-
2020 

2014SE16RFOP001 

South Sweden 

2014SE16RFOP002 

Småland and islands 

2014SE16RFOP003  West Sweden 

2014SE16RFOP004 

East-Central Sweden 

2014SE16RFOP005 

Stockholm 

2014SE16RFOP006 

North-Central Sweden 

2014SE16RFOP007 

Central Norrland 

2014SE16RFOP008 

Upper Norrland 

2014SE16RFOP009 

National regional fund programme for investments in growth and jobs 2014-2020 

2014SI16MAOP001 

Operational Programme for the Implementation of the EU cohesion policy in the period 
2014 – 2020 

2014SK05M0OP001 

Operational Programme Human Resources 

2014SK16M1OP001 

Integrated Infrastructure 

2014SK16M1OP002 

Quality of Environment 

2014SK16RFOP001 

Research and Innovation 

2014SK16RFOP002 

Integrated Regional Operational Programme 

2014SK16RFTA001 

Technical Assistance 

2014TC16M4TN001 

Mediterranean 

2014TC16M4TN002 

Adriatic-Ionian 

2014TC16M4TN003 

Balkan-Mediterranean 

2014TC16M5TN001 

Baltic Sea 

2014TC16M6TN001 

Danube 

2014TC16RFCB001 

Interreg V-A - Belgium-Germany-The Netherlands (Euregio Meuse-Rhin/Euregio Maas-
Rijn/Euregio Maas-Rhein) 

278 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

2014TC16RFCB002 

Interreg V-A - Austria-Czech Republic 

2014TC16RFCB003 

Interreg V-A - Slovakia-Austria 

2014TC16RFCB004 

Interreg V-A - Austria–Germany/Bavaria (Bayern–Österreich) 

2014TC16RFCB005 

Interreg V-A - Spain-Portugal (POCTEP) 

2014TC16RFCB006 

Interreg V-A - Spain-France-Andorra (POCTEFA) 

2014TC16RFCB007 

Interreg V-A - Spain-Portugal (Madeira-Açores-Canarias (MAC)) 

2014TC16RFCB008 

Interreg V-A - Hungary-Croatia 

2014TC16RFCB009 

Interreg V-A - Germany/Bavaria-Czech Republic 

2014TC16RFCB010 

Interreg V-A - Austria-Hungary 

2014TC16RFCB011 

Interreg V-A - Germany/Brandenburg-Poland 

2014TC16RFCB012 

Interreg V-A - Poland-Slovakia 

2014TC16RFCB013 

Interreg V-A - Poland-Denmark-Germany-Lithuania-Sweden (South Baltic) 

2014TC16RFCB014 

Interreg V-A - Finland-Estonia-Latvia-Sweden (Central Baltic) 

2014TC16RFCB015 

Interreg V-A - Slovakia-Hungary 

2014TC16RFCB016 

Interreg V-A - Sweden-Norway 

2014TC16RFCB017 

Interreg V-A - Germany/Saxony-Czech Republic 

2014TC16RFCB018 

Interreg V-A - Poland-Germany/Saxony 

2014TC16RFCB019 

Interreg V-A - Germany/Mecklenburg-Vorpommern-Brandenburg-Poland 

2014TC16RFCB020 

Interreg V-A - Greece-Italy 

2014TC16RFCB021 

Interreg V-A - Romania-Bulgaria 

2014TC16RFCB022 

Interreg V-A - Greece-Bulgaria 

2014TC16RFCB023 

2014TC16RFCB024 

Interreg V-A - Germany-The Netherlands (Deutschland-Nederland) 
Interreg  V-A  -  Germany-Austria-Switzerland-Liechtenstein  (Alpenrhein-Bodensee-
Hochrhein) 

2014TC16RFCB025 

Interreg V-A - Czech Republic-Poland 

2014TC16RFCB026 

Interreg V-A - Sweden-Denmark-Norway (Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak) 

2014TC16RFCB027 

Interreg V-A - Latvia-Lithuania 

2014TC16RFCB028 

Interreg V-A - Sweden-Finland-Norway (Botnia-Atlantica) 

2014TC16RFCB029 

Interreg V-A - Slovenia-Croatia 

2014TC16RFCB030 

Interreg V-A - Slovakia-Czech Republic 

2014TC16RFCB031 

Interreg V-A - Lithuania-Poland 

2014TC16RFCB032 

Interreg V-A - Sweden-Finland-Norway (Nord) 

2014TC16RFCB033 

Interreg V-A - Italy-France (Maritime) 

2014TC16RFCB034 

Interreg V-A - France-Italy (ALCOTRA) 

2014TC16RFCB035 

Interreg V-A - Italy-Switzerland 

2014TC16RFCB036 

Interreg V-A - Italy-Slovenia 

2014TC16RFCB037 

Interreg V-A - Italy-Malta 

2014TC16RFCB038 

Interreg V-A - France-Belgium-The Netherlands-United Kingdom (Les Deux Mers/Two 
seas/Twee Zeeën) 

2014TC16RFCB039 

Interreg V-A - France-Germany-Switzerland (Rhin supérieur/Oberrhein) 

2014TC16RFCB040 

Interreg V-A - France-United Kingdom (Manche/Channel) 

2014TC16RFCB041 

Interreg V-A - France-Switzerland 

2014TC16RFCB043 

Interreg V-A - France (Saint Martin-Sint Maarten) 

2014TC16RFCB044 

Interreg V-A - Belgium-France (France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen) 

2014TC16RFCB045 

Interreg V-A - France-Belgium-Germany-Luxembourg (Grande Région/Großregion) 

2014TC16RFCB046 

Interreg V-A - Belgium-The Netherlands (Vlaanderen-Nederland) 

279 

 
2014TC16RFCB047 

Interreg V-A - United Kingdom-Ireland (Ireland-Northern Ireland-Scotland) 

2014TC16RFCB048 

Interreg V-A - United Kingdom-Ireland (Ireland-Wales) 

2014TC16RFCB049 

Interreg V-A - Romania-Hungary 

2014TC16RFCB050 

Interreg V-A - Estonia-Latvia 

2014TC16RFCB051 

Interreg V-A - France (Mayotte-Comores-Madagascar) 

2014TC16RFCB052 

Interreg V-A - Italy-Austria 

2014TC16RFCB053 

Interreg V-A - Slovenia-Hungary 

2014TC16RFCB054 

Interreg V-A - Slovenia-Austria 

2014TC16RFCB055 

Interreg V-A - Greece-Cyprus 

2014TC16RFCB056 

Interreg V-A - Germany-Denmark 

2014TC16RFIR001 

INTERREG EUROPE 

2014TC16RFIR002 

INTERACT 

2014TC16RFIR003 

URBACT 

2014TC16RFIR004 

ESPON 

2014TC16RFPC001 

Ireland-United Kingdom (PEACE) 

2014TC16RFTN001 

Alpine Space 

2014TC16RFTN002 

Atlantic Area 

2014TC16RFTN003 

Central Europe 

2014TC16RFTN004 

Northern Periphery and Arctic 

2014TC16RFTN005 

North Sea 

2014TC16RFTN006 

North West Europe 

2014TC16RFTN007 

South West Europe 

2014TC16RFTN008 

Caribbean Area 

2014TC16RFTN009 

Indian Ocean Area 

2014TC16RFTN010 

Amazonia 

2014UK16RFOP001 

United Kingdom - ERDF England 

2014UK16RFOP002 

United Kingdom - ERDF Gibraltar 

2014UK16RFOP003 

United Kingdom - ERDF Northern Ireland 

2014UK16RFOP004 

United Kingdom - ERDF Scotland 

2014UK16RFOP005 

United Kingdom - ERDF West Wales and The Valleys 

2014UK16RFOP006 

United Kingdom - ERDF East Wales 

280 

 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.20 

RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY  

The survey – under which 292 questionnaires were sent, in the relevant EU languages, 
to  all  managing  authorities  in  charge  of  the  programmes  covered  by  the  study  –  has 
been closed and evaluated, on the basis of 149 fully completed responses as detailed in 
Figure 202 (51% of the sample).  

The  contractor  has  carried  out  all  measures  to  contact  managing  authorities  invited  to 
participate in the survey, as planned in the agreed methodology.  

The incoming results were sufficient to conduct an analysis.  

Figure 202 - Survey status at closure, at the end of August 2015  

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

54 

89 

149 

l

a
t
o
T

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
G

R
H

U I
E
H

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

C
T

K
U

Survey completed

Opened but not completed

No response by MA

281 

 
 
 
 
4.21 

LIST OF INTERVIEWS 

CCI 

Me
mbe
r 
Stat
es 

EU 

2014AT16M8PA001 

AT 

CCI_TITLE_EN 

Counterparts 

Status 

Officials  from  DG Regio  and  DG 
functional  units 
Employment; 
and geographical units 

Completed 
though focus 
groups 

and 

Michael 

W. 
MMag. 
Mag. 
BAUMGARTNER 
MAIER 
Andreas 
'Team 
in 
Both  work 
Regional  Economy,  Working 
Group 
Cross-Border 
Cooperation'  at  the  Austrian 
Conference on Spatial Planning 

the 

Completed 

2014BE16M8PA001 

BE 

2014BG05M9OP001  BG 

Operational 
“Human 
Development” 

programme 
Research 

2014BG16M8PA001  BG 

2014CY16M8PA001  CY 

2014CZ16M8PA001  CZ 

2014DE16M8PA001  DE 

2014DE16RFOP012  DE  OP Sachsen ERDF 2014-2020 

2014DK16M8PA001  DK 

2014EE16M8PA001 

EE 

2014ES16M8PA001 

ES 

2014ES16RFOP007 

ES  Canary Islands 

2014ES16RFSM001 

ES  SME Initiative ERDF 2014-20 OP 

282 

Mr  Christophe  Mazza  –  Cabinet 
of  the  Minister-President  of  the 
Wallonia region 

Completed 

Mrs.  Koleshanska  –  Director  of 
the MA 

Completed 

Peter Mihaylov, Project manager 
in  CCU,  responsible  for  the  PA 
development 

Completed 

Member States Anthi Philippidou 
and  Mr.  Charis  Soteriou, 
for 
Directorate 
European 
Programmes, 
Coordination and Development 

General 

Not available 
(but focus 
group with DG 
Regio geo 
unit) 

Danek, 

he 
Mr.  Miroslav 
participated  on  preparation  of 
the current programming period 
at  the  National  Coordination 
Unit 
Member  States  Karin  Scheffel 
and  Member  States  Ulrik 
Schreckenberger 

Completed 

Completed 

Andrea  Decker,  Sächsisches 
Staatsministerium 
für 
Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Verkehr - 
Referat  55  Verwaltungsbehörde 
Sachsen für den EFRE 

Not available 
(but focus 
group with DG 
Regio geo 
unit) 

Susanne  Kirkegaard  Brodersen, 
Head  of  Unit,  Danish  ERDF  and 
ESF programmes 

Muñoz 

Programming 

Mrs  Kadri  Tali,  Advisor,  State 
Budget  Department,  Ministry  of 
Finance 
Jorge  García  Reig  and  María 
Martínez- 
José 
Subdirectorate  of  Community 
Funds 
and 
Evaluation,  Ministry  of  Finance 
and Public Administration 
- 
Cabrera 
Montserrat 
Directorate  General  of  Planning 
and  Budget  of  the  Canarian 
Government 
Francisco 
- 
Subdirectorate  of  Community 
Funds 
and 
Evaluation,  Ministry  of  Finance 
and Public Administration 

Programming 

Tovar 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

CCI 

Me
mbe
r 
Stat
es 

2014FI16M8PA001 

FI 

CCI_TITLE_EN 

Counterparts 

Status 

Member 
Osenius, 
States 
Minsitry of Labour and Economic 
Development 

Completed 

2014FR16M2OP012 

FR 

Regional  programme  Mayotte 
2014-2020 

Bertrand Brohon 

Completed 

2014FR16M8PA001 

FR 

Florence  Clermont  Brouillet  the 
responsible  for  Europe  at  CGET 
(ex Datar) 

2014GR16M2OP001  GR 

COMPETITIVENESS, 
ENTREPRENEURSHIP 
INNOVATION OP 

AND 

Member States Aggeliki FETSI 

Completed 

Not available 
(but focus 
group with DG 
Regio geo 
unit) 

2014GR16M8PA001  GR 

Mr Dimitrios IAKOVIDIS 

Completed 

States 

Member 
Helga 
Bubanović,  Assistant  Minister, 
Ministry 
Regional 
of 
Development  and  EU  Funds 
accompanied by  Member  States 
of 
Ivana 
Department, 
Member 
States Iva Šeler 

Nagy, 

Head 

and 

Rákossy  Balázs,  Minister  of 
State  for  the  Utilisation  of  EU 
Funding 

of 

Moylan 

BMW 
Kieran 
It  was 
Managing  Authority. 
impossible  to  date  to  set  up  an 
interview  with  Coordinating 
Body 
in  Ministry  of  Public 
Expenditure  and  this  was  the 
suggested route to take. 
Mr  Donato  Vincenzo  Head  of 
Ministry  of  Italian  Council  with 
EU 
and  
relation 
Mrs  Federica    Busillo  head  of 
Partnerships Agreement 
Mrs. 
Loreta  Maskaliovienė, 
Director  of  the  EU  assistance 
management 
department, 
Ministry  of  Finance  (Managing 
Authority) 
Mr. Aurimas Antanaitis, Head of 
the  EU  cohesion  policy  division, 
EU 
assistance  management 
department,  Ministry  of  Finance 
(Managing Authority) 
Mrs. 
Loreta  Maskaliovienė, 
Director  of  the  EU  assistance 
management 
department, 
Ministry  of  Finance  (Managing 
Authority) 
Mr. Aurimas Antanaitis, Head of 
the  EU  cohesion  policy  division, 
EU 
assistance  management 
department,  Ministry  of  Finance 
(Managing Authority) 

Completed 

Declined 
(but focus 
group with DG 
Regio geo 
unit) 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

2014HR16M8PA001  HR 

2014HU16M8PA001  HU 

2014IE16M8PA001 

IE 

2014IT16M8PA001 

IT 

2014LT16M8PA001 

LT 

2014LT16MAOP001 

LT 

Operational  Programme  for  EU 
Structural  Funds  Investments 
for 2014-2020 

283 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CCI 

Me
mbe
r 
Stat
es 

2014LU16M8PA001 

LU 

CCI_TITLE_EN 

Counterparts 

Status 

2014LV16M8PA001 

L
V 

2014MT16M8PA001  MT 

2014NL16M8PA001  NL 

2014PL16M2OP002 

PL 

ROP  2  Regional  Operational 
Programme 
Kujawsko-
for 
Pomorskie  Voivodeship  2014-
2020 

2014PL16M8PA001 

PL 

2014PT16M8PA001 

PT 

2014RO16M8PA001  RO 

2014SE16M8PA001 

SE 

2014SI16M8PA001 

SI 

2014SK16M8PA001 

S
K 

2014TC16M5TN001 

TC  Baltic Sea 

2014TC16RFCB024 

TC 

Interreg  V-A 
Austria-Switzerland-
Liechtenstein 
Bodensee-Hochrhein) 

-  Germany-

(Alpenrhein-

Mr  Romain  Weisen  –  Regional 
the 
Policy  Directorate 
Ministry 
of 
Luxemburg 

of 
Economy 

of 

Mr.  Edgars  Šadris,  Head  of  ESI 
Funds  Strategy  Department, 
Ministry of Finance (MA) 

Dr  Sperati  Vanessa  of  Ministry 
of  University  and  Research  -
Research  Office  VII  -  PON 
National Research Programme 

Mr  van  Raak,  Programme 
Manager,  Managing  Authority 
ERDF Program Opportunities for 
West Netherlands 
Barbara  Jesionowska,  Deputy 
Head of Department of Regional 
Development,  Marshal  Office  of 
Kujawsko-Pomorskie 
Viovodship, Toruń 
Agnieszka  Dawydzik,  Head  of 
Depertment  for  Strategy  and 
Policy 
Development 
of 
Coordination, 
Infrastructure 
and 
Developmernt, Warsaw 
Mr.  Duarte  Rodrigues,  member 
of  the  board  of  the  Agency  for 
Development and Cohesion, the 
institution  which  coordinates 
elaboration  and  negotiation  of 
PA and OPs for 2014-20 

Ministry 

Mrs  Mihaela  Toader,  Director  of 
the  Analysis,  Programming  and 
Evaluation  Department  within 
the Ministry of European Funds 

Mr Daniel Karlsson and  Member 
States  Anna  Larsson  at  the 
Ministry  of  Enterprise  and 
Innovation 
Natasa  Kobe  Logonder,  Head  of 
the 
for 
Department 
Development Policy Department 
the 
for  Development  Policy, 
for 
Government 
Development 
and  European 
cohesion policy 

Office 

Mr  Lubos  Littera  Director  of 
cohesion  policy  Department  of 
Central Co-ordination Authority 

of 

KADRI 
Member 
States 
JUSHKIN,  Ministry 
the 
Interior  Regional  Development 
Department 
Christoph  Dubenbostel,  MA 
Regional 
Person, 
Contact 
Government 
Baden-
of 
Wuerttemberg 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 

Declined 

2014TC16RFCB039 

Interreg V-A - France-Germany-
Switzerland 
(Rhin 
supérieur/Oberrhein) 

T
C 

Mr Thomas Koehler – MA of the 
TC OP – Region of Alsace 

Completed 

284 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

CCI 

Me
mbe
r 
Stat
es 

CCI_TITLE_EN 

Counterparts 

Status 

2014TC16RFIR003 

TC  URBACT 

2014TC16RFTN003 

TC  Central Europe 

2014UK16M8PA001  UK 

Raphael LeMehauté, Head of the 
Managing Authority 

Completed 

Luca  Ferrarese,  Head  of  Joint 
Secretariat 

Completed 

Tim  Goodship, 
Reform Directorate 

  European 

Completed 

285 

 
 
 
 
4.22 

ABBREVIATIONS 

Abbreviation 

Explanation 

Art. 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CF 

CLLD 

CP 

CPR 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DG 

DG EMPLOI 

DG REGIO 

DK 

EAFRD 

EC 

EE 

EL 

ERDF 

ES 

ESF 

Article 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cohesion Fund 

community-led local development 

Co-operation Programme 

“Common Provisions” Regulation (of the EP and the Council 1303/2014)  

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Germany 

Directorate General 

Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy 

Denmark 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Commission 

Estonia 

Greece 

European Regional Development Fund 

Spain 

European Social Fund 

ESI Funds / ESIF 

European structural and investment funds 

ETC 

ETC 

EU 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IGJ 

IP 

IT 

ITI 

European Territorial Co-operation 

European Territorial Co-operation 

European Union 

Finland 

France 

Human resources 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Investment for growth and jobs (goal) 

Investment Priority 

Italy 

integrated territorial investment 

286 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Abbreviation 

Explanation 

LT 

LU 

LV 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Member States 

Member State(s) 

Member States 

Member State 

MT 

NL 

NSRF 

OP 

PA 

PAX 

PL 

PRG 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

SUD 

TA 

TO 

UK 

YEI 

Malta 

The Netherlands 

National Strategic Reference Framework (2007-2013) 

Operational Programme 

Partnership Agreement 

Priority axis 

Poland 

Programme(s) 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Sustainable Urban Development 

Technical assistance 

Thematic Objective 

United Kingdom 

Youth Employment Initiative 

287 

 
 
4.23 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 - Factors influencing the outcome of programming (overall) ..........................25 

Figure 2 - Significance of negotiation factors by policy area (summary) .......................27 

Figure  3  -  Significance  of  the  informal  dialogue  with  the  EC  vs.  the  opinion  of  domestic 
partners .......................................................................................................28 

Figure 4 - Impact of exchanges with the Commission ................................................29 

Figure 5 - Explicit references to types of strategic documents in programming documents
 ...................................................................................................................32 

Figure  6  –  References  in  Partnership  Agreements  and  Programmes  to  other  strategy 
documents ....................................................................................................33 

Figure 7 - Survey Q 1.1 Definition of programme objectives (strategy) started with ... ..33 

Figure 8 - Survey Q 1.3 References to Europe 2020 headline targets and Country-Specific 
Recommendations was ...................................................................................34 

Figure 9 – References in PAs and Programmes to Europe 2020 targets ........................35 

Figure 10 - Transfers between categories of regions .................................................37 

Figure 11 - Survey Q 1.2 Programme was prepared … ...............................................38 

Figure  12  -  Factors  influencing  strategic  programming  –  Consideration  of  Europe  2020 
headline targets .............................................................................................38 

Figure  13  –  Impact  of  exchanges  with  EC  on  consideration  of  Europe  2020  headline 
targets and Country-Specific Recommendations in the programme strategy ..........39 

Figure  14:  Financial  allocations  in  Operational  and  Co-operation  Programmes,  excluding 
technical assistance priority axes (EUR million) ..................................................42 

Figure  15  -  Financial  allocations  of  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  in 
Partnership Agreements by thematic objectives (cumulated, EUR bn) ...................43 

Figure 16 - financial allocations of cohesion policy Funds in operational and co-operation 
programmes by thematic objectives (cumulated, EUR bn) ...................................43 

Figure 17 – IPs most frequently used ......................................................................45 

Figure 18 – Correspondence table of main results and thematic objectives ..................48 

Figure 19 - Priority axes - breakdown by structure ....................................................53 

Figure 20 – Thematic objectives contributed to in complex priorities ...........................54 

Figure 22 – Justifications given for programming multiobjective axes by funds .............56 

Figure  23  -  Survey  Q  3.2  When  considering  the  use  of  complex  priorities,  have  the 
options of using ITIs, CLLDs, JAPs been considered? ..........................................57 

Figure 24 - Factors influencing negotiations – The main results sought for each ESI Fund
 ...................................................................................................................58 

Figure 25 - Impact of exchanges with the Commission - use of combination axes .........58 

Figure 26 - Most frequent results ............................................................................62 

288 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 27 - Most frequent specific objectives ............................................................64 

Figure 28 - Most frequent actions ...........................................................................66 

Figure  29  –  Quality  assessment  of  description  of  the  main  types  of  actions  in  the 
programmes .................................................................................................67 

Figure 30 - Most frequent project selection principles ................................................68 

Figure  31  –  Quality  assessment  of  the  description  of  the  guiding  principles  of  project 
selection in the programmes ...........................................................................69 

Figure 32 - process of defining specific objectives, result orientation ...........................69 

Figure 33 - Exchanges with the Commission – impact on the choice of objectives .........70 

Figure 34 - Exchanges with the Commission – impact on the selection of actions ..........70 

Figure 35 - Exchanges with the Commission – impact on the use of result indicators ....70 

Figure 36 – Financial instruments 2007-2013 vs. 2014-2020 .....................................73 

Figure 37 - Support through financial instruments ....................................................74 

Figure 38 - justifications for using financial instruments ............................................75 

Figure 39 - Survey Q 5.1 - What are expectations to use financial instruments? ...........76 

Figure 40 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the use of financial instruments ...............77 

Figure 41 - Planned use of major projects by country ................................................80 

Figure 42 – (IPs with) major projects in thematic objectives ......................................81 

Figure 43 - (IPs with) phased major projects in thematic objectives ............................81 

Figure 44 - Co-financing rates in operational and co-operation programmes ................84 

Figure 45 - Reasons for modulation (number of programmes) ....................................85 

Figure 46 - Types of territory identified in the analysis (PA, OP/ETC) ...........................87 

Figure 47 - Types of territories targeted by integrated approaches in ETC programmes .88 

Figure 48 – Relation between type of territory and territorial tools ..............................89 

Figure 49 - Territorial challenges (external) identified by Member States (PA, OP/ETC) .89 

Figure  50  -  Territorial  needs  (internal)  identified  by  Member  States  (PA,  OP/ETC 
programmes) ................................................................................................90 

Figure 50 – Relation between type of territory and external trends (OP/ETC programmes)
 ...................................................................................................................91 

Figure 51 – Relation between type of territory and needs (OP/ETC programmes) ..........92 

Figure  52  –  Relation  between  external  trends  and  Thematic  Objectives  (OP/ETC 
programmes) ................................................................................................92 

Figure 53 – Relation between needs and Thematic Objectives (OP/ETC programmes) ...93 

Figure  55  –  Relation  between  external  challenges  and  needs  and  territorial  instruments 
(OP/ETC programmes) ...................................................................................94 

Figure  56  -  Coordination  arrangements  across  different  territorial  levels  (PA,  OP/ETC 
programmes) ................................................................................................95 

289 

 
Figure 57 - Survey Q 8.1 Difficulties in identifying territorial challenges .......................97 

Figure 58 – Survey Q 8.2 The role of a territorial approach ........................................97 

Figure 59 – Survey Q 8.3 Ways to perform specific territorial analyses ........................98 

Figure 60 - Local needs to be addressed using a CLLD approach (PA) ........................ 101 

Figure 61 - Types of Territories where CLLD is to be used (PA, OP/ETC) .................... 102 

Figure 62 - CLLD resources (OP/ETC) – EUR .......................................................... 102 

Figure 63 - CLLD resources (OP/ETC) – % of total ERDF allocation............................ 103 

Figure 64 - Distribution and share of CLLD allocations ............................................. 103 

Figure  65  –  How  the  integrated  approach  will  be  achieved  at  the  local  level 
(coordination), (PA) ..................................................................................... 104 

Figure  66  –  Measures  planned  for  the  preparation  and  support  of  CLLDs  and  LAGs  (PA)
 ................................................................................................................. 105 

Figure 67 - Survey Q 9.3 Did you meet particular difficulties in implementing integrated 
approaches with the use of CLLD? .................................................................. 106 

Figure 68 - Survey Q 9.2 Why did you choose NOT to use CLLD (beyond LEADER)? .... 106 

Figure 69 - Types of territories where ITI is to be used (PA, OP/ETC) ........................ 110 

Figure 70 - Distribution of ITI allocations ............................................................... 111 

Figure 71 - ITI allocations in absolute terms .......................................................... 111 

Figure 72 - ITI and SUD resources as % of cohesion policy allocations ...................... 112 

Figure 73 - Implementation of ITI and delegation of functions to the local level (PA) ... 113 

Figure 74 - Survey Q 10.1 Why did you choose to use ITI? ...................................... 114 

Figure 75 – Type of selection of SUD (PA, OP/ETC) ................................................. 117 

Figure 76 - Competent institution to select SUD (PA, OP/ETC) .................................. 117 

Figure 77 – Share of SUD allocations per Member State (in relative terms)  ............... 118 

Figure 78 – ERDF SUD allocations per member state (%) ........................................ 119 

Figure 79 - Estimated distribution of SUD funds among thematic objectives ............... 120 

Figure 80 - Tasks delegated to urban authorities (OP/ETC) ...................................... 121 

Figure  81  -  Survey  Q  11.2B  -  Which  kind  of  difficulties  did  you  meet  in  implementing 
integrated approaches with the use of the SUD instrument? .............................. 122 

Figure 82 - Priority areas for co-operation in terms of Thematic Objectives (PA) ......... 125 

Figure 83 - Key Priorities linked to pillars of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies .. 127 

Figure 84 - Contribution to macro-strategies, in ETC programmes ............................ 127 

Figure 85 - Actions with beneficiaries in at least one other Member State, by TO (OP/ETC)
 ................................................................................................................. 128 

Figure 86 - Co-ordination arrangements of co-operation (OP/CP).............................. 129 

Figure 87 – Types of territories affected by poverty (PA/OP) .................................... 133 

290 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 88 – Types of development needs characterising  regions affected by poverty (PA, 
OP/ETC) ..................................................................................................... 134 

Figure 89 – Vulnerable groups at risk of social exclusion (PA/OP) ............................. 135 

Figure 90 – Needs of vulnerable (PA, OP) .............................................................. 135 

Figure 91 – Distribution of ESF funding on relevant IPs (OP) .................................... 136 

Figure 92 - Actions for territories affected by poverty and vulnerable groups by TO (PA)
 ................................................................................................................. 137 

Figure 93 - Types of regions with permanent handicaps (PA, OP/ETC) ....................... 140 

Figure 94 - Types of needs identified in regions with permanent handicaps (PA,OP) .... 141 

Figure 95 – Actions planned in regions with permanent handicaps by TO (PA, OP) ...... 142 

Figure  96.:  Were  there  particular  difficulties  in  programming  the  use  of  ESI  Funds  to 
address demographic or specific territorial handicaps? ...................................... 142 

Figure 97 - Co-ordination needs by fund (measured at Programme level) .................. 145 

Figure 98 - Combination of ESI Funds with other funding sources (as in PA) .............. 146 

Figure 99 - Use of co-ordination arrangements by Member States ............................ 148 

Figure 100 - Did co-ordination mechanisms improve vis-à-vis the previous programming 
period? ....................................................................................................... 149 

Figure 101 - Capacity needs (problems) at the level of authorities (scale) ................. 153 

Figure 102 - Capacity development needs of the authorities in PAs ........................... 153 

Figure 103 - Capacity building actions for authorities in PAs, by area ........................ 154 

Figure  104  -  Capacity  building  for  authorities  in  PAs,  by  stages  of  the  programme  cycle
 ................................................................................................................. 155 

Figure 105 - Capacity development needs and actions for beneficiaries (stages) ......... 157 

Figure 106 - Types of actions to help beneficiaries strengthen capacities ................... 157 

Figure 107 – Quality of capacity building plans according to MAs .............................. 159 

Figure 108 - Quality of capacity building action plans .............................................. 160 

Figure 109 - Sources of the administrative burden in PAs and Programmes................ 162 

Figure 110 – Using TA to reduce the administrative burden ..................................... 164 

Figure 111 - Timing of actions to reduce the administrative burden .......................... 165 

Figure 112 - Targeting measures reducing the administrative burden ........................ 165 

Figure 113 - The method of assessing the administrative burden .............................. 166 

Figure 114 - Expected success of measures to reduce the administrative burden ........ 167 

Figure 115 – Horizontal priorities to be promoted – PA and programmes ................... 169 

Figure 116 - Types of horizontal priorities .............................................................. 169 

Figure 117 - Non-discrimination: Target Groups in PA and programmes .................... 170 

Figure 118 – Methods to promote horizontal principles in PAs and Programmes .......... 171 

291 

 
Figure 119 – Actions to achieve mainstreaming ...................................................... 172 

Figure 120 - Types of mainstreaming in PAs and programmes .................................. 172 

Figure 121 – The use of mainstreaming in the context of horizontal principles ............ 173 

Figure 122 –Specific actions by thematic objective as planned in programmes ........... 174 

Figure 123 - Specific actions for the promotion of horizontal priorities, by IP .............. 174 

Figure 123 – Regulatory improvements by area ...................................................... 175 

Figure 124 – Strengthening the management of hor. principles ................................ 176 

Figure 125 - Improvement of mechanisms to promote horizontal principles ............... 176 

Figure 127 – Scale for assessing E-service levels .................................................... 179 

Figure 128 - Code IT Stages ................................................................................ 179 

Figure 129 - E-cohesion according to current and planned e-services ........................ 180 

Figure 130 - Categorisation of actions for e-cohesion .............................................. 180 

Figure 131 - Overall Findings and Conclusions ........................................................ 183 

Figure 132 - Strengths and weaknesses in applying the new regulatory provisions ..... 189 

Figure 133 – Example: χ2 Test of correlations between codes .................................. 198 

Figure 134 – Example: graphical presentation of the χ2 test .................................... 199 

Figure 135 - Criteria used in statistical analysis ...................................................... 199 

Figure  136  –Selection  of  Thematic  Objectives  in  Partnership  Agreements    Number  of 
to  Europe  2020  &  Country-Specific 
selections  with  explicit 
Recommendation – versus total number of TO selections .................................. 201 

references 

Figure  137  –Selection  of  Thematic  Objectives  in  Partnership  Agreements  Budgets  of 
Partnership  Agreements  with  explicit  references  to  Europe  2020  &  Country-Specific 
Recommendation – versus the total budgets of Partnership Agreements ............. 201 

Figure 138 – Selection of Thematic objectives in Programmes Number of selections with 
explicit references to Europe 2020 & Country-Specific Recommendation – versus the 
total number of TO selections ........................................................................ 202 

Figure  139  –  Selection  of  Thematic  objectives  in  Programmes  Budgets  of  programmes 
with  explicit  references  to  Europe  2020  &  Country-Specific  Recommendation  – 
versus the total budgets of the programmes ................................................... 202 

Figure 140 – Main results expected by TO in Partnership Agreements ....................... 203 

Figure 141 - Main results and thematic objectives .................................................. 204 

Figure  142  -  Graph  -  financial  allocations  of  European  Territorial  Co-operation    by 
thematic objectives ...................................................................................... 206 

Figure 143 - Allocations to less developed regions .................................................. 206 

Figure 144 - Allocations to Transition Regions ........................................................ 206 

Figure 145 - Allocations to more developed regions ................................................ 207 

Figure 146 - Allocations to outermost and Northernmost regions .............................. 207 

Figure 147 - Factors influencing negotiations – Selection of thematic objectives ......... 213 

292 

 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Figure 148 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the selection of thematic objectives ..... 214 

Figure 149 - Factors influencing the choice of objectives.......................................... 239 

Figure 150 - Factors influencing the selection of actions .......................................... 239 

Figure 151 - Factors influencing the use of result indicators ..................................... 240 

Figure 152 - Survey: Challenges of establishing the intervention logic ....................... 240 

Figure 153 - Factors influencing negotiations – use of CLLDs .................................... 241 

Figure 154 – Impact of exchanges with EC on use of CLLDs ..................................... 241 

Figure  155  -  Survey  Q  9.1  Why  did  you  choose  the  use  of  CLLD  in  implementing 
integrated approaches? ................................................................................ 242 

Figure 156 - Principles for selecting territories for using CLLD .................................. 242 

Figure 157 - Principles for selecting territories for using CLLD (OP/ETC) .................... 243 

Figure 158 - Principles for selecting strategies and local action groups ...................... 243 

Figure 159 – Type of selection of CLLD (OP/ETC) .................................................... 243 

Figure 160 – Basis (criteria) for selection of strategies and local action groups (OP/ETC)
 ................................................................................................................. 244 

Figure 161 – Type of selection of ITI (OP/ETC) ....................................................... 245 

Figure 162 - Competent institution to select ITI (OP/ETC)........................................ 245 

Figure 163 - Way of selection of ITIs (ITIHOW) ...................................................... 245 

Figure  164  -  Survey  Q  10.3B  Which  kind  of  difficulties  did  you  meet  in  implementing 
integrated approaches with the use of ITI instrument? ..................................... 246 

Figure 165 - Survey Q 10.2 Why did you not choose ITI? ........................................ 246 

Figure  166  -  Survey  Q  10.4  Are  there  any  capacity  building  and  support  measures 
envisaged to help the application of ITI? ......................................................... 247 

Figure 167 - Factors influencing negotiations – use of ITIs ....................................... 247 

Figure 168 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the use of ITIs ................................... 248 

Figure  169  -  Co-ordination  arrangements  between  ESI  Funds  and  managing  authorities 
needed to carry out ITIs (PA, OP/ETC) ............................................................ 249 

Figure 170 - Type of urban territories in which SUD will be used (PA, OP/ETC) ........... 250 

Figure 171 - SUD allocations per member state (absolute terms) ............................. 251 

Figure 172 – Delivery modes of SUD (%) .............................................................. 252 

Figure 173 - Survey Q 11.1 Are the required integrated urban development strategies in 
place? ........................................................................................................ 253 

Figure 174 - Survey Q 11.3 Provision of institution building measures, or other support to 
urban authorities ......................................................................................... 253 

Figure  175  -  Factors  influencing  negotiations  –  approach  to  sustainable  urban 
development ............................................................................................... 254 

Figure  176  –  Impact  of  exchanges  with  EC  on  the  approach  to  sustainable  urban 
development ............................................................................................... 254 

293 

 
Figure 177 - Referrals to Macro-strategies in Programmes ....................................... 255 

Figure  178  -  Factors  influencing  negotiations  –  way  of  co-ordinating  with  transnational 
actions, ETC programmes and the relevant macro-regional strategy ................... 257 

Figure 179 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the way of co-ordinating with transnational 
actions, ETC programmes and the relevant macro-regional strategy ................... 257 

Figure 180 – Impact of exchanges with EC on the approach to map and combat poverty
 ................................................................................................................. 259 

Figure 181 - Factors influencing negotiations – approach to map and combat poverty . 259 

Figure 182 - Survey Q 13.1 Were there particular difficulties in implementing integrated 
approaches to territorial development? ........................................................... 260 

Figure 183 - Survey Q 13.2A Have you considered institution building measures, or other 
support to beneficiaries/ stakeholders concerned? ............................................ 260 

Figure 184 - Survey Q 13.2B What kind of institution building measures, or other support 
to beneficiaries/ stakeholders concerned have you considered? ......................... 261 

Figure 185 - Co-ordination of ESI Funds with other fund TYPES – as stated in PAs ...... 262 

Figure 186 - Co-ordination of ESI Funds with other fund TYPES – in Programmes ....... 263 

Figure 187 - Use of co-ordination arrangements by Funds, as indicated in PAs ........... 263 

Figure 188 - Use of co-ordination arrangements by Member States (based on PAs) .... 265 

Figure  189  -  Support  beneficiaries  in  the  co-ordinated  use  of  funds,  by  Member  States
 ................................................................................................................. 266 

Figure 190 – Impact of exchanges with EC on co-ordinating ESIF ............................. 267 

Figure 191 - Impact of exchanges with EC - coordinating ESIF vs. other funds ........... 267 

Figure 192 - Factors influencing negotiations – co-ordination of ESIF ........................ 268 

Figure 193 - Factors influencing negotiations – ESIF vs. other policies ....................... 268 

Figure 194 - Impact of exchanges with the Commission on admin. capacity ............... 269 

Figure 195 - Factors influencing Member States' choices on admin. capacity .............. 269 

Figure 196 - Factors influencing the outcome of negotiations on admin. burden ......... 270 

Figure 197 - The influence of exchanges with the Commission on admin. burden ........ 270 

Figure 198 - Factors influencing negotiations on horizontal principles ........................ 271 

Figure 199 - The outcome of negotiations on horizontal principles ............................ 271 

Figure 200 – Average E-service levels per Member State (based on PA) .................... 272 

Figure 201 - Actions for e-cohesion as indicated in PAs. .......................................... 273 

Figure 202 - Survey status at closure, at the end of August 2015 ............................. 281 

294 

 
 
 
 
THE USE OF NEW PROVISIONS DURING THE PROGRAMMING PHASE 
OF THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

4.24 

LITERATURE 

Casavola,  P.  (2009,  1).  Operational  rules  and  results  in  cohesion  policy 
programmes:  Analysis  and  proposals  for  conditionalities.  Report  Working 
Paper. 
Inforegio: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/policy/future/pdf/2_casavola_
final-formatted.pdf 

Retrieved 

from 

European  Commission  .  (2014,  March  24).  Implementation  Guidance  on  e-

Cohesion (Version 2). Brussels: DG Regional and Urban Policy . 

European  Commission.  (2010,  6  17).  Communication  from  the  Commission. 
Europe  2020.  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth. 
Retrieved 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF 

Europe 

2020: 

from 

European Commission. (2014, 3). Financial Instruments in cohesion policy 2014-
Inforegio: 

2020.  Factsheets  on  cohesion  policy.  Retrieved 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/fina
ncial_instruments_en.pdf 

from 

European  Commission.  (2014,  7  2).  Financial  instruments  in  ESIF  programmes 
2014-2020:  A  short  reference  guide  for  Managing  Authorities.  Retrieved 
from 
Inforegio: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/thefunds/fin_inst/pdf/fi_esif_
2014_2020.pdf 

European Commission. (2014, 7 23). Investment for Growth and Jobs. Promoting 
development  and  good  governance  in  EU  regions  and  cities.  Sixth  Report 
on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. (L. Dijkstra, Ed.) Retrieved 8 
Inforegio: 
30, 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesi
on6/6cr_en.pdf 

2014, 

from 

European Commission. (2014, 7 23). Investment for jobs and growth. Promoting 
development  and  good  governance  in  EU  regions  and  cities.  Sixth  report 
on  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion.  (L.  Dijkstra,  Ed.)  Retrieved 
from 
Inforegio: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesi
on6/6cr_en.pdf 

European  Council.  (2006,  7  11).  Council  regulation  1083/2006  laying  down 
general  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the 
European  Social  Fund  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  repealing  Regulation 
(EC) No 1260/1999. Retrieved from EUR-Lex. 

European  Union.  (2009).  Treaty  on  European  Union.  Council  of  the  European 

Union. 

RGL  Forensys,  Faber  Maunsell/Aecom  and  Frontier  Economics.  (2009,  10  25). 
Efficiency:  Unit  costs  of  major  projects.  Work  Package  10,  Ex  post 
evaluation  of  cohesion  policy  programmes  2000-2006,  Final  report. 
Inforegio: 
from 
Retrieved 

295 

 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expo
st2006/wp10_final_report.pdf 

The European Parliament and the Council. (2013, 12 17). Regulation 1303/2013 
laying  down  common  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development 
Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund,  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the  European 
Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  the  European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries  Fund.  Retrieved  from  EUR-Lex:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN 

the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  (2013,  12  17).  Regulation  on  specific 
provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund 
to the European territorial cooperation goal. Retrieved from EUR-Lex. 

296 

 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
N
-
0
4
-
1
6
-
6
4
2
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

  doi: 10.2776/578179