COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strategic report 2017 on the implementation of the European Structural and Investment Funds
Date: 2017-12-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EAFRD, EU employment policy, European Investment Fund, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, economic recovery, investment policy, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.12.2017  SWD(2017) 452 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strategic report 2017 on the implementation of the European Structural and Investment Funds {COM(2017) 755 final}  
 
 
STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

ACCOMPANYING THE 2017 STRATEGIC REPORT 

ON THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS 

Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 

PART 1: IMPLEMENTATION OF ESIF PROGRAMMES 2014-2020 ..................... 5 

2.  OVERVIEW NARRATIVE ON IMPLEMENTATION ............................................ 5 

Box 1: Overview of support to enterprises across ESI Funds .................................. 5 

3.  R&I, 

ICT  AND  SME  COMPETITIVENESS: 

IMPLEMENTATION 

NARRATIVE ON PROGRESS .................................................................................. 6 

3.1.  Research, technological development and innovation ...................................... 6 

3.2. 

ICT access and exploitation .............................................................................. 8 

3.3. 

Improving SME competitiveness ...................................................................... 9 

Box 2: Implementation of Financial Instruments under the ESI Funds ................ 9 

4.  EMPLOYMENT, 

SOCIAL 

INCLUSION 

AND 

EDUCATION: 

IMPLEMENTATION NARRATIVE ON PROGRESS ........................................... 11 

4.1.  Employment .................................................................................................... 12 

Box 3: ESF Support to the Work-Life Balance Initiative ...................................... 13 

Box 4: Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) ............................................................. 14 

4.2.  Social inclusion ............................................................................................... 15 

Box 5: Integrated urban development ..................................................................... 18 

4.3.  Education ......................................................................................................... 18 

Box 6: ESF Support to the New Skills Agenda ....................................................... 20 

5.  LOW  CARBON  ECONOMY,  CLIMATE  CHANGE,  ENVIRONMENT  AND 
IMPLEMENTATION 

TRANSPORT  AND 
ENERGY  NETWORKS: 
NARRATIVE ON PROGRESS ................................................................................ 22 

Box 7: Mainstreaming of climate action into ESIF 2014-2020: ............................ 22 

5.1.  Low carbon economy ...................................................................................... 22 

5.2.  Climate action and risk prevention .................................................................. 23 

5.3.  Environment and resources efficiency ............................................................ 24 

1 

 
 
Box 8: Progress in investment in major projects .................................................... 26 

5.4.  Strategic networks ........................................................................................... 27 

6.  STRENGTHENING 

PUBLIC  ADMINISTRATION: 
PROGRESS ............................................................................................................... 28 

INSTITUTIONAL  CAPACITY  AND  EFFICIENT 
IMPLEMENTATION  NARRATIVE  ON 

PART 2: THE EVALUATION OF ESIF PROGRAMMES ............................................ 29 

7.  EVALUATION OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 29 

8.  ERDF AND COHESION FUND .............................................................................. 30 

8.1.  Update on evaluation plans 2014-2020 ........................................................... 30 

8.2.  Synthesis of evaluation work completed by the Member States ..................... 32 

8.2.1.  Synthesis of ERDF/CF evaluation by theme ..................................... 33 

8.2.2.  Synthesis of the quality of the evaluations undertaken ..................... 37 

8.3.  Synthesis of ERDF/CF evaluation work by the Commission ......................... 38 

9.  ESF AND YEI ........................................................................................................... 39 

9.1.  Update on evaluation plans 2014-2020 ........................................................ 39 

9.2.  Synthesis of ESF/YEI evaluations completed by the Member States ....... 43 

9.2.1.  Evaluations of the Youth Employment Initiative ......................... 44 

9.2.2.  Evaluations of the ESF .................................................................... 45 

9.3.  Synthesis of ESF evaluation work by the Commission .................................. 46 

10.  EAFRD 

-  EUROPEAN  AGRICULTURAL  FUND  FOR  RURAL 

DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 47 

10.1.  Period 2014-2020 ............................................................................................ 47 

10.1.1.  Progress in implementing evaluation plan ........................................ 47 

10.1.2.  The  progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  2014-2020 

rural development programmes ......................................................... 50 

10.2.  Ex-post evaluations 2007-2013 ....................................................................... 52 

11.  EMFF - EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND ................................ 53 

11.1.  Period 2014-2020 ............................................................................................ 53 

11.2.  Period 2007-2013 ............................................................................................ 56 

ANNEX  1:  EAFRD:  PROGRESS  TOWARDS    ACHIEVING  OBJECTIVES  2014-

2020  SUMMARY BY UNION PRIORITY ............................................................ 58 

Priority 1: Knowledge Transfer and Innovation .................................................. 58 

Priority 2: Farm Viability and Competitiveness .................................................. 59 

2 

 
 
Priority 3: Food Chain Organisation and Risk Management ............................. 60 

Priority 4: Restoring, Preserving and Enhancing Ecosystems ........................... 61 

Priority 5: Resource-efficient, climate-resilient Economy ................................... 61 

Priority 6: Social Inclusion and Economic Development .................................... 63 

3 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This Staff Working Document accompanies the Strategic Report 2017 on the implementation 
of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds.  It  provides  a  complementary  descriptive 
narrative  on  the  implementation  of  the  2014-2020  ESI  Funds'  programmes  and  of  the 
evaluation work conducted in order to assess the impact of the programmes. 

PART I, as a complement to the synthesis provided in the 2017 Strategic report, presents a 
more  detailed  narrative  on  the  key  financial  and  indicator  values  provided  by  national  and 
regional  programmes  covering  the  period  to  the  end  of  December  2016  (unless  stated 
otherwise).  It  has  been  drawn  up  based  on  the  data  available  to  the  Commission  as  at  6 
November 2017, as notified by the more than 530 programmes. 

To  coincide  with  the  adoption  of  the  2017  Strategic  Report  the  ESI  Funds  Open  Data 
Platform1 has been updated to show in detail the following information:  

  Indicator  values  on  implementation,  notified  by  the  Programmes:  There  may  be 
some variations between the values in this document and the values on the Open Data 
platform.  This is because the 6 November values included preliminary values not yet 
finalised.  A  number  of  the  programmes  were  still  replying  to  queries  raised  by  the 
Commission  and  were  correcting  and  completing  the  values,  with  impacts  on  the 
aggregate values. The Commission intends to update the Open Data Platform monthly 
from  2018  with  any  final  corrections  made  by  the  ESI  Funds'  programmes  to  their 
2016 Annual Implementation reports. 

  Financial  data  reported  under  ERDF,  ESF,  Cohesion  Fund  and  EAFRD 
programmes to the end of Autumn 2017: These data are refreshed regularly to take 
account  of  any  corrections  transmitted  by  the  Member  States.  The  next transmission 
will  be  made  by  31  January  2018  covering  financial  data  to  the  end  of  2017.  The 
Commission services intend to publish those data by early March 2018. 

  The  Open  Data  Platform  provides  access  to  the  detailed  data  notified  to  the 
Commission  and  aggregation  and  visualisations  of  the  data  described  in  the  2017 
Strategic report (and in this document) at all levels of funding as follows:  

o  At EU level;  
o  By thematic objective; 
o  By country and programme level; 
o  By Fund. 

PART II presents a synthesis of the evaluation work that has been undertaken by the Member 
States and the Commission services. 

1   https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/  

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
PART 1: IMPLEMENTATION OF ESI FUND PROGRAMMES 2014-2020 

2.  OVERVIEW NARRATIVE ON IMPLEMENTATION 

The  volume  of  planned  investments  and  expected  achievements  from  the  ESI  Funds  were 
presented  in  the  December  2015  Article  16  report  summarising  the  adoption  of  the 
programmes2.  The  2017  Strategic  Report  has  already  provided  an  overview  in  terms  of  the 
financial volume of the projects selected and progress in contracting and delivering common 
outputs  and  results  drawing  on  the  contents  of  the  more  than  530  programme  annual 
implementation  reports to the end  of 2016 as  well as  summarising the Member States  2017 
progress reports. 

The  sections  below  provides  a  more  detailed  narrative  on  progress  by  thematic  objective  in 
implementing the programmes in the period 2014-2016 in terms of the financial volume and 
rate of project selection reported in the programmes’ annual implementation reports received 
in  June  2017.  In  relation  to  the  physical  achievements  the  Commission  services  compare 
below the reported contribution expected from the selected projects and implemented values 
reported under the common indicators for each fund (where available). Specific examples of 
projects  –  large  and  small  -  already  supported  and  delivering  direct  benefits  to  citizens  and 
enterprises are also provided. 

As noted in the Strategic report, it is too early to provide an assessment of expected impacts 
(policy results), which will only be possible after evaluation (see Part II). 

Box 1: Overview of support to enterprises across ESI Funds 

Support to enterprises - including farm and fishing enterprises - is planned mainly under the dedicated thematic 
objective to improve SME competitiveness but also, under the research and innovation, digital economy and the 
low carbon economy themes. All ESI Funds target enterprise support. Progress in supporting enterprises by end-
2016 has accelerated as reported in the annual reports received in June 2017. 

- 

- 

A total of 793 500 firms are targeted by selected operations by end 2016. That represents 39% of the target 
of 2 million firms to be supported by the end of the period. 

Almost half of those targeted – 330 000 enterprises - have already fully benefitted from support. 

Table 1 provides a detailed overview by fund of the total number of enterprises planned and so far targeted. The 
following sections detail how the support to enterprises is being delivered under the different relevant thematic 
objectives. 

2   COM(2015) 639 final. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
Table 1: Overview of progress in implementing ESI Funds support to enterprises to the 
end of 2016 (as at 6 November 2017) 

Fund 

Indicator 

Target 

Decided  by 
end of 2016 

% 
decided 

Implemented 
by end 2016 

% 
implemented  

ERDF 

Enterprises 
supported 

EAFRD 

Investments 
in 
physical  assets  in 
farm holdings 

1 097 000 

452 600 

41% 

84 600 

8% 

332 500 

79 400 

24% 

36 300 

EAFRD  Young farmers 

178 400 

59 450 

33% 

11 300 

ESF 

EMFF 

Micro,  small  and 
medium-sized 
(social) enterprises 
Operations 
supporting SMEs3 
Total 

377 600 

197 500 

52% 

197 500 

64 500 

4 540 

2 050 000 

793 490 

7% 

39% 

750 

330 450 

11% 

6% 

52% 

1% 

16% 

3.  R&I,  ICT  AND  SME  COMPETITIVENESS:  IMPLEMENTATION  NARRATIVE 

ON PROGRESS  

About EUR 181.4 billion in total investments are planned in these areas in 2014-2020 mainly 
from  the  ERDF  and  the  EAFRD.  At  the  end  of  2016,  projects  worth  an  estimated  EUR  51 
billion  had  been  selected4,  representing  28%  of  the  planned  total  allocation  (a  fourfold 
increase from the 7% selected at the end of 2015). 

Three thematic objectives provide the programming structure for the ESI Funds in this area as 
set out below. 

3.1.  Research, technological development and innovation  

An estimated EUR 16.8 billion has been allocated to specific research and innovation projects 
under the ERDF and EAFRD programmes to the end of 2016, representing 26% of the EUR 
65.8 billion planned – a sharp increase from 6% at end 2015. 

Several  common  ERDF  indicators  of  research  investment  are  showing  encouraging  trends 
with  26%  of  the  budget  allocated  by  end  2016:  7 900  new  researchers  are  supported  by 
selected  research  operations  (27%  of  the  target);  20 600  researchers  will  benefit  from  new 
RTD infrastructures (29% of target). 

In  terms  of  promoting  RTD  and  innovation  in  enterprises  and  cooperation  with  research 
institutes,  67 000  firms  were  targeted  by  selected  ERDF  schemes  by  the  end  of  2016  (over 
50% of the target). Given the initial slow rate of selection of projects for support before 2016 

3   Data taken by the Commission from INFOSYS, the  common monitoring and reporting tool for the EMFF 

(indicators not reflected on the ESIF as of December 2017). 

4   This figure includes an estimated share of the investments selected under multi-thematic objective priority 

axes related to this thematic objective. 

6 

 
 
  
                                                 
it is not a surprise that support to only 4 800 firms was completed by the end of 2016.  The 
completion of support should now being rising during 2017.  

Amongst  the  two  main  forms  of  support  19 400  firms  are  targeted  with  grant  support  for 
innovation  (32%  of  target)  and  25 900  firms  are  targeted  for  innovation  advice  (62%  of 
target). It is also very encouraging that selected innovation projects forecast 18 250 jobs to be 
directly created in firms (40% of the target), while 23 000 firms are targeted by cooperation 
with  research  institutes  (32%  of  target).  Finally  under  the  indicators  “new  to  the  market 
products”  8 150  new  products  are  being  already  targeted  (53%  of  the  target).  While 
implemented  values  are  still  very  modest  these  indicators  will  be  closely  watched  in  future 
reports  to  see  if  demand  will  actually  outperform  the  targets  set  as  economic  conditions 
appear to be changing. 

Projects  supported  by  EAFRD  aim  to  foster  innovative  solutions  for  competitive  and 
sustainable  farm  and  forestry  sectors  by  enhancing  economic  resilience  supporting 
investments,  and  fostering  knowledge-building,  co-operation,  and  innovation.  By  the  end  of 
2016, the value granted to selected projects amounted to 3.2 billion euro. In the area of R&I, 
the  European  Innovation  Partnership  for  agriculture  is  becoming  an  effective  vehicle  for 
innovation, bringing farmers, researchers, advisors and businesses together in more than 3 000 
practical  innovation  projects.  These  projects  hold  an  important  potential  for  creating 
innovative  solutions  that  will  make  farming  smarter,  more  efficient  and  more  sustainable. 
They cover a wide range of themes, from water and soil management to control of pests and 
diseases,  from  food  quality  to  fertilisation  and  nutrients  efficiency,  fitting  well  into  the 
European and global agenda for sustainability. The results of these projects are pooled in our 
EIP-AGRI  platform,  providing  many  new  ideas  and  inspiration  for  the  farming  community. 
By the end of 2016, 350 interactive innovation projects were launched, which represents 11% 
of the envisaged target value. 

The  EMFF  aims  to  stimulate  innovation  in  fisheries,  developing  or  introducing  new  or 
substantially improved products and equipment, new or improved processes and techniques, 
and  new  or  improved  management  and  organisation  systems,  including  at  the  level  of 
processing and marketing. EMFF is an important instrument to support innovation linked to 
the conservation of marine biological resources. The EMFF contributes with EUR 353 million 
to  initiate  innovation  and innovative technology in  fisheries and aquaculture sector.  By the 
end of 2016 the MAs have selected 50 operations supporting innovation and new technologies 
with an EMFF contribution of around EUR 19.8 million. 

Project Examples 

 

 

 

In Germany, the EU is investing EUR 2.5 million in a research project looking to enable dementia patients 
to live independently at home for as long as possible through a safety system relying largely on imaging 
sensors. Today as many as 1.6 million Germans have dementia and this number is set to reach 3 million by 
2050. The project aims to provide one response to improve quality of life for people with dementia while 
life expectancy rises. 

In  the university  city  of  Coimbra,  Portugal,  the  TecBIS project  has  set  up a  specialised  infrastructure  to 
foster  innovation  and  help  tech-based  companies  during  the  vital  post-incubation  phase.  Through  the 
project,  Coimbra  consolidates  its  position  as  a  recognised  innovation  centre  with  strong  bonds  linking 
research, technology and industry in the region. The ERDF co-finances the total cost of over EUR 8 million 
with investment of EUR 7 million. 

The  SRIP  project  -  Support  for  Strategic  Development  and  Innovation  Partnerships  –  represent  a  new 
governance model of public support for RDI activities in Slovenia, with investment of EUR 10 million of 

7 

 
 
EU  and  national  funds.  More  efficient  and  knowledge-based  investment  into  RDI  is  the  objective  by 
entrusting  the  governance  of  Smart  Specialization  to  businesses,  research  institutions  and  NGOs 
stakeholders. With over 500 stakeholders already involved, the project will allow future public investments 
in RDI to be directed towards real needs and opportunities for growth and higher competitiveness. 

The  project  Sohjoa  in  Finland  is  introducing  autonomous  small  electric  buses  in  Helsinki,  Espoo  and 
Tampere as part of a pilot innovation. The small buses have the potential to deliver mobility as a service 
over the last mile, to reduce operating costs, to lower overall emissions and to offer better service to the 
customer. The project tests and develops new technologies to provide digital public services to citizens. The 
cost of the pilot is EUR 560 000 with ERDF support of EUR 375 000. 

A group of young farmers in France have started an initiative to collect and share low-tech farm solutions. 
This  has  now  become  a  digital  open  platform  for  disseminating  innovative  ideas  in  the  form  of  detailed 
articles  and  technical  tutorials.  It  has  gathered  more  50  plans  for  innovative  low-tech  agro-ecological 
farming practices. The project costs €0.6 million out of which EAFRD provides 40% financing. 

 

 

3.2.  ICT access and exploitation 

An  estimated  EUR  3.9  billion  has  been  allocated  by  the  end  of  2016  to  digital  economy 
projects under the ERDF and EAFRD programmes to the end of 2016, representing 19% of 
the EUR 20.7 billion planned4. This is a significant increase from only 4% selected at the end 
of 2015 with more than 5 700 project now supported. While project selection in this thematic 
area was still lagging at the end of 2016 (compared to the overall average of selection of 28%) 
the  latest  data  from  the  ERDF  programmes  to  the  end  of  September  2017  shows  a  further 
catching up with the overall average across all themes. 

Within  the  ERDF  programmes  supporting  broadband  investment,  under  the  national 
broadband  plans  required  by  the  relevant  ex  ante  conditionality,  the  main  indicator  of 
population  covered  by  30  megabytes  has  now  begun  to  see  selection  activity  with  915 000 
citizens (6% of the target) now targeted by selected projects (mainly in FR, GR, HR, HU, IT, 
LV, SK and UK). 

The other main activities supported include e-government actions and e-commerce in SMEs.  
In the area of e-government the main actions in reforming delivery of public services and e-
procurement  are  showing  selection  rates  of  20%  (no  common  indicators  was  defined).    E-
commerce  actions  in  SMEs  are  lagging  somewhat  at  14%  of  the  planned  investments  with 
5 000 SMEs so far targeted for support (out of the intended target of 78 000). 

Overcoming  the  digital  divide  between  rural  and  urban  areas  and  developing  the  potential 
offered  by  connectivity  and  digitisation  of  rural  areas  is  among  the  priorities  addressed  in 
Rural Development Programmes (RDP).  Support under the EAFRD aims to improve access 
to  ICT  services  and  infrastructure  for  18  million  rural  citizens.  This  is  done  through  4  400 
investment projects. So far, 36% of funds earmarked for improving ICT services in rural areas 
have  been  allocated  to  projects  and  1  268  000  rural  residents  (6%  of  the  respective  target 
value) are already benefiting from improved services. 

Project Examples: 

 

The Croatian "e-Schools project" will increase information and communication technology (ICT) use in the 
schools systems by providing ICT equipment and educational tools for schools and teachers. Following a 
pilot scheme to end in 2018, total EU investments of EUR 25.5 million ERDF and EUR 8.5 million ESF will 
enhance  teachers'  professional  development,  improve  the  quality  of  education  in  700  primary  and 
secondary schools (50% of all schools) and increase students' employability. (Project fiche) 

8 

 
 
 

A rural "web school" for digital transition supported by EAFRD in the Dordogne, France, provides local 
businesses with the tools to better organise their work and market their services and products. Personalised 
reports were delivered to 120 small rural businesses giving a comprehensive analysis of their digital status, 
including  recommendations  for  digital  business  development  in  organising  work,  communication  and 
marketing. EAFRD support amounted to EUR 30 000 out of a total budget of EUR 62 000. 

3.3.  Improving SME competitiveness 

An  estimated  EUR  29.6  billion  has  been  allocated  to  improve  the  competiveness  of  SMEs 
projects under the ERDF, EAFRD and EMFF programmes to the end of 2016, representing 
31% of the EUR 95 billion planned4. This represents a threefold increase compared to the 9% 
selected at the end of 2015. 

ERDF financing was granted to projects supporting 322 000 SMEs (40% of target). Amongst 
those decided projects  

-  157 000  of  those  companies  will  be  supported  with  advice  and  counselling  (42%  of 

target);  

-  75 000 are targeted by financial instruments (42% of target) with already 33 400 firms 

already having received complete support;  

-  68 000 start-ups are forecasted (49% of target) with 16 800 already completed.  

-  By the end of 2016 131 400 jobs were expected to be directly created in the supported 

firms (38% of target). 

Comparing  the  decided allocations with  the  indicator  forecasts  and targets,  it  appears  that  a 
significant  number  of  programmes  may  exceed  the  targets  linked  to  outputs  from  business 
support activities. This is likely to result from a combination of 1) cautious target setting at 
the  beginning  of  the  period  (linked  to  the  experience  of  the  post-2008  economic  crisis  and 
subsequent slow  recovery)  and  2)  the  inherent difficulties of  predicting  business  demand  of 
public support programmes over such a long time period (i.e. until 2023). These trends will be 
closely followed with the next reporting cycle. 

Box 2: Implementation of Financial Instruments under the ESI Funds 

Under  the  ESI  Funds,  increasing  the  use  and  improving  the  effectiveness  of  support  delivered  using  financial 
instruments  has  been  a  particular  priority  in  the  preparation,  and  now  the  implementation,  of  the  2014-2020 
programmes. The annual "summaries of data on the implementation of financial instruments", as reported by the 
programmes, is being made publicly available separately5.  In terms of the thematic objective, the main use of 
financial instruments occurs in support of the competitiveness of SMEs, followed by the low carbon economy 
and innovation and research thematic objectives. 

To  coincide  with  this  year's  annual  summary  of  data,  a  dataset  has  been  published  on  the  ESIF  Open  Data 
platform6  presenting  key  financial  information  on  the  implementation  of  each  of  the  specific  financial 
instruments approved by the programmes by the end of 2016. That dataset will continue to be updated with any 
corrections made by the programmes. 

5   The summary will be available on http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/financial-instruments/  
6   Financial instrument datasets on the ESIF ODP: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/browse  

9 

 
 
                                                 
The  EAFRD  supports  solutions  to  encourage  entrepreneurship  and  employment  in  farming 
and rural businesses and improve their economic viability and resilience. By the end of 2016, 

  more than 36 000 farm holdings received investment support to facilitate restructuring 
and modernisation and achieve productivity gains (11% of the target) and more than 
34%  of  the  budget  allocated  to  start  up  aid  and  support  for  investment  in  non-
agriculture activities in rural areas was committed.  

  11 700 young farmers who bring new energy and have the potential to exploit the full 
benefits  of  technology  in  terms  of  increased  productivity  and  sustainability  received 
support for setting up.  

  63 500 farm holdings received support in the form of risk management tools to reduce 

the uncertainty about the future that can compromise farmers' competitiveness.  

  Around 50 000 farm holdings were helped to participate in quality schemes.  

The  EMFF  supports  operations  with  a  total  investment  of  EUR  370  million  to  enhance  the 
competitiveness of SMEs and of the fisheries and aquaculture sector, SMEs make up 98 % of 
the  enterprises  in  the  fisheries  sector  supported  by  EMFF.  By  the  end  of  2016  MAs  have 
selected  operations  with  an  EMFF  contribution  of  EUR  135.9  million.  The  fisheries  and 
aquaculture sector has a high rate of macro, small and medium sized enterprises. The majority 
of  operations  supported  by  the  EMFF  are  addressing  directly  and  indirectly  SMEs,  single 
fishermen, production organisations and aquaculture farms.  Out of the 6428 selected EMFF 
operations 4540 address SMEs or private persons. 

Project Examples: 

 

 

 

 

In Greece, an Equity Fund of Funds was set up in December 2016 to boost entrepreneurship by unlocking 
equity  potential.  Its  main  objective  is  to  attract  private  funding  for  a  range  of  investments  ranging  from 
start-ups  to  mature  growth  companies.  It  will  also  support  technology  transfer  funds  and  kick-start 
investments into accelerator funds. Some EUR 200 million from ESI Funds combined with EUR 60 million 
from the EIF and EFSI are managed by EIF to support innovation and business opportunities. 

In Latvia, a company used EAFRD funding to set up the commercial production process for a new healthy 
diet food. The project included the purchase and installation of the new production and supply lines, the 
creation of new jobs and conclusion of distribution agreements with 19 other companies. EAFRD support 
amounted to EUR 24 990 out of the total budget of EUR 165 000. 

The project "Visit Arctic Europe" is an Interreg project supporting cooperation between SMEs in Finnish 
and  Swedish  Lapland,  Northern  Norway  and  Sápmi  (the  region  of  the  Sami  population).  Through 
networking,  development  and  marketing  efforts,  the  project  aims  to  increase  the  level  of  business 
collaboration  across  borders  by  developing  new  and  innovative  cross-border  tourism  concepts  for 
distribution in selected markets.  

innovative  EMFF  project 

An 
the  expansion,  commercialisation  and 
internationalisation  of  whelk  (sea  snail)  fishing.    There  are  large  deposits  of  whelks  in  Danish  waters 
where salinity is sufficiently high. The whelk fishery started from zero in 2016 and is expected to generate a 
turnover of EUR 1.4-2 million in 2017. The project supports secure sales of whelks at a fixed price with 
sales in countries such as South Korea, China and Vietnam.  

in  Denmark  supports 

10 

 
 
4.  EMPLOYMENT, 

SOCIAL 
IMPLEMENTATION NARRATIVE ON PROGRESS  

INCLUSION 

AND 

EDUCATION: 

Over  EUR  168  billion  in  support  is  planned  in  this  area,  particularly  from  the  ESF,  with 
ERDF,  EAFRD  and  EMFF  also  investing.  At  the  end  of  2016,  projects  amounting  to  an 
estimated EUR 48 billion were selected, representing 29 % of the planned total allocation (an 
increase of more that twofold compared to the 12% rate of selection at the end of 2015). 

In aggregate terms the ESF and YEI programmes have already delivered support to: 

  7.8 million participants7, including 4.2 million unemployed and 2.1 million inactive; 

  1.6 million participants were long term unemployed; 

  Amongst  those  participants  787 000  were  in  employment  following  an  ESF  or  YEI 
operation, 820 000 had gained a qualification upon leaving an ESF or YEI operation; 

  276 000 participants were in education or training thanks to ESF or YEI support; 

  458 000  disadvantaged  participants,  including  people  with  a  migrant  background,  in 
ESF  or  YEI-funded  operations  were  engaged  in  job  searching,  education/training, 
gained a qualification or were in employment, including self-employment. 

Figure 1 Relative share (%) of (fe)male participation across Member States over 2014-
2016 (ESF and YEI) 

Source: Synthesis Report of ESF 2016 Annual Implementation Reports, Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini for the Commission, 
Based on AIR data 

7   One  individual  may  participate  in  several  ESF  funded  operations  and  therefore  'participants'  should  be 

understood as participations. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
The number of women and men supported under ESF and YEI support is almost equal at EU 
level, despite some differences between Member States. Women are however overrepresented 
in certain groups, for example in participants who live in a single adult household (70%) and 
in participants with tertiary education (64%). 

The distribution of the participants according to the form of labour market, social inclusion or 
training or education support is further detailed below.  

4.1.  Employment 

The  socioeconomic  context  in  the  EU  has  improved  since  the  start  of  the  current 
programming  period.  The  increase  of  GDP  at  EU  level  and  the  decrease  of  unemployment 
rates  evidence  this.  However,  the  unemployment  rate  in  the  EU  was  still  at  7.8%  in  May 
2017.  Progress  towards  the  Europe  2020  employment  target  is  stable  but  slow  and  some 
Member  States  might  not  be  able to  meet  their  national  targets  by  2020  (see  figure  below). 
Investing in human capital is paramount to stimulate growth and employment.  

An  estimated  EUR  17.7  billion  has  been  allocated  to  sustainable  and  quality  employment 
projects4 predominantly from the ESF and Youth Employment Initiative to the end of 2016, 
representing 31% of the EUR 56.4 billion planned. By the end of 2016 under this objective: 

-  4.1 million participants have been supported  
-  284 000 participants have gained a qualification 
-  551 000 participants were in employment, including self-employment 

Figure 2: Headline target national Employment (20-64 years old) - 2016 – distance from 
national target (%) 

Source: Eurostat (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/europe-2020-indicators)  

The ESF under this objective has supported primarily people who are not in the labour market 
providing  them  with  the  opportunity  to  find  a  job.  Indeed,  84%  of  participants  were 
unemployed or inactive. Around 666 000 employed participants have also been supported by 
upskilling  or  reskilling  measures  to  improve  their  job  opportunities  and  adapt  to  labour 
market changes. 

Figure 3 

12 

 
 
 
Source: Synthesis Report of ESF 2016 Annual Implementation Reports, Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini for the Commission, 
Based on AIR data 

51% of all ESF and YEI participants have been supported under the employment objective for 
the period 2014-2020. This can be explained by several factors: 

-  The  frontloading  of  YEI  resources,  which  encouraged  Member  States  to  start  with 

operations as early as possible;  

-  The  scope  of  the  investment  priorities  (IPs):  the  majority  of  the  IPs  under  this 

objective focuses on supporting people; 

-  The fact that employment measures are the core of ESF activities. 

The  low  share  of  participants  under  some  Investment  Priorities  (IPs)  should  however  be 
analysed carefully. Indeed it does not necessarily mean that activities have not started under 
these IPs. A relatively small number of Member States (6) have, for example, selected the IP 
on 'active and healthy ageing'. Moreover, some IPs such as 'modernisation of labour market 
institutions'  focus  on  support  to  structures  and  are,  therefore,  not  represented  in  the  figure 
above. The project selection rates for these two IPs are respectively 16% and 15%, which is 
below the EU average but shows that projects are underway.  

Figure 4 

Box 3: ESF Support to the Work-Life Balance Initiative 

The ESF also contributed to support actions in line with the Work-Life Balance Initiative. Under the dedicated 
investment priority 165 000 participants have been supported by end 2016. Measures under this priority include 
the provision of quality childcare, individual guidance for women, vocational training, arrangement at the work 
place to reconcile work and private life, development of tools and instruments, awareness raising programmes 
for employers, change management in organisations, and financial incentives. Actions for work-life balance are 
also mainstreamed under other investment priorities.  

13 

 
 
 
 
EAFRD  support  encourages  employment  inside  and  outside  agriculture,  promotes  social 
inclusion, and fosters lifelong learning and vocational training in agriculture and forestry. By 
the end of 2016, over 50 million EUR were spent to address these priorities. 

The EMFF contributes with EUR 49.5 million to thematic objective 8. By the end of 2016 the 
MAs  have  selected  34  operations  supporting  the  promotion  of  human  capital  and  social 
dialogue  -  training,  networking  and  social  dialogue  with  an  EMFF  contribution  of  around 
EUR 4.2 million (excluding CLLD actions). 

Project examples: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In  Germany,  the  ESF  Förderprogramm  IQ  helps  people  with  a  migration  background  to  get  full 
recognition  of  their  qualifications  obtained  abroad  and  to  acquire  an  employment  position  adequate  to 
their  education.  Activities  include  the  extension  of  counselling  structures,  qualification  measures  in 
recognised  professions,  adaptation  qualifications  in  the  field  of  dual  VET  and  bridging  measures  for 
academics; preparation for the related formal exam in case of non-recognition. 

In  France,  the  Business  incubator  "A  petits  pas"  in  Hauts-de-France  region  is  devoted  to  sustainably 
boosting  employment  in  rural  areas  by  supporting  project  promoters.  They  receive  enhanced  support  as 
well  as  a  support  of  legal  specialists,  accountants,  consultants  in  communication  or  in  personal 
development. In doing so, they creators can test and secure their project for three years. Since 2013, the 
ESF project has welcomed 51 project promoters. 

In Malta an ESF project focuses on both the people currently not in employment or training (NEET) as well 
as on those at risk of becoming NEETs or young unemployed through a mix of interventions tailor-made for 
the specific cohorts. Additional initiatives are embedded in YG2.0 to facilitate the transition from education 
to employment. In 2017, various activities were implemented including the NEET activation scheme, the IT 
level 2 and ECDL courses for ALP students, preventative actions; and a work exposure scheme. In total 1 
782 persons under the age of 25 have been supported under various activities (977 men and 805 women) by 
October 2017. 

In Poland, the project 'in the courtyard of a career' increases the employability of young people, including 
disabled, who do not participate in education or training. The ESF project was developed having in mind 
the  young  inhabitants  of  mountain  and  sub-mountainous  areas,  mainly  from  Podhale  in  the  Malopolska 
region. The participants are offered various forms of support:  individual advisory support in building an 
educational-occupational development path, occupational training and internships. 

In  Finland,  one  NGO  is  using  EAFRD  funding  to  develop  activities  for  and  a  network  of  nature-based 
service providers. EAFRD funding for "GreenCareLab" was used to mentor new businesses with more than 
100 'Green Care' service providers participating in its activities during the first year. Dozens of business 
start-ups participated in the platform to test and develop business ideas and services. Four thematic groups 
for animal, farm, garden and nature-related 'Green Care' services were launched. (Project Fiche) 

Improving  the  incomes  of  coastal  fishermen  in  Bornholm,  Denmark  is  being  addressed  by  a  project 
supporting direct marketing events and encouraging local demand. The project is expected to increase the 
share of catch through direct sales or sales to local processing companies with the objective of improving 
fishermen’s incomes, local consumption, job creation and boosting coastal fishing in general. 

Box 4: Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) 

By  end  2016,  the  number  of  young  NEET  people  that  have  participated  in  YEI-supported  projects  that  boost 
their  skills  or  allow  them  to  have  a  working  experience  tripled  compared  to  end  2015.  Among  them,  707,000 
unemployed and inactive participants not in education or training have completed a YEI-funded intervention. 
Of  these,  345,000  unemployed  and  inactive  participants  not  in  education  or  training  have  moved  into 
education/training, or gained a qualification, or are in employment (including self-employment), upon leaving 
the  intervention.  This  points  to  an  average  of  49%  of  positive  outcomes  immediately  after  the  end  of  the 
operation and thus demonstrates that the actions financed by the YEI are achieving results. 

14 

 
 
 
To date, over 70% of the total financial resources under the Youth Employment Initiative have been allocated to 
selected projects across the eligible Member States and regions. The assessment of many Member States is that 
the Youth Employment Initiative is having significant impact on the coverage and design of employment policy 
in their country.  

As  regards  coverage,  Italy  and  Spain  that  still  face  high  youth  unemployment  have  mobilised  a  significant 
number of young people not in education or training (NEETs) through YEI actions. Concerning policy reform, 
following  the  first  YEI  evaluations,  Slovakia  shifted  the  focus  from  public  works  schemes  for  young  people 
towards more effective measures such as increased provision of professional training. In Italy, a counter-factual 
evaluation showed that new innovative policies largely supported by the YEI increased the occupational chances 
of young people by 7.8 percentage points, despite significant regional differences. In Portugal, YEI co-financed 
entrepreneurship  programmes  proved  more  successful  than  higher  education  measures,  while  Greece  has 
identified the need to review its voucher system for youth employment and training. 

In  terms of  outreach  and  impact,  Portugal  has  reported  that over  half  of  NEETs  targeted  by  the  YEI  did  not 
have  a  higher  education  diploma  and  a  majority  were  supported  before  becoming  long  term  unemployed.  In 
Poland, 62% of YEI participants received an employment offer, training, or education, with an overall high level 
of participants' satisfaction.  

As main implementation challenges, Member States point to difficulties in reaching inactive NEETs and those 
not  registered  with  the  Public  Employment  Services  and  in  'keeping'  these  young  people  engaged  in  YEI 
measures  (e.g. Romania, Croatia, Belgium, Cyprus). Member States also highlight the challenge linked to the 
late launch of YEI implementation arrangements and procedural delays (e.g. Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, 
and Lithuania). Some Member States also note that the overall improvement in the youth employment situation 
also impacts on initial programming by reducing the overall target group (Ireland, Latvia, and Lithuania).  

By  September  2017  preliminary  information  from  Member  States  to  the  Commission  show  that  the  YEI  had 
supported approximately 1.7 million young NEETs. 

YEI Project examples:  

 

 

In  Portugal  the  Programme  RETOMAR  promotes  the  return  to  education  and  training  in  the  context  of 
higher education of young NEETs who have previously dropped out of training, study programmes or wish 
start a different academic path. The objective is to combat early school leaving in higher education, taking 
into account criteria of social inclusion and employability. Scholarships are given each year to students to 
motivate them to complete their studies and to prepare for labour market demands. 196 beneficiaries were 
reached during the academic year of 2024-2015 and 250 were reached in 2015-2016. 

In Italy the project Crescere in Digitale, implemented under the National Youth Employment Initiative with 
public  and  private  partners  (the  Italian  Chambers  of  Commerce  and  Google),  offers  training  and 
traineeships for young people to support businesses in the digital economy. The programme offers 50-hours 
of free online training to young people are registered under the Youth Guarantee Programme, an online 
test where graduates are selected for a traineeship, local job matching to match graduates with SMEs and 
a 6 months paid traineeship for each of the selected young people. 

4.2.  Social inclusion 

Building  a  more  inclusive  and  fairer  European  Union  is  one  of  President  Juncker's  key 
priorities, which has been translated in the proposal for a European Pillar for Social Rights8. 
This  proposal  strives  to  reaffirm  and  further  strengthen  relevant  rights  and  principles  in 
support of equal opportunities and access to the labour market, ensure fair working conditions 
and social protection, as well as enhance social inclusion.  

8   A reference framework to screen the employment and social performance of participating Member States, 
the European Pillar of Social Rights sets out 20 key principles to support fair and well-functioning labour 
markets and welfare systems.  

15 

 
 
                                                 
Despite  improvements  in  terms  of  growth  and  employment  rates  in  the  EU,  the  number  of 
people at risk of poverty and social exclusion remains high. Some Member States are facing 
challenges to reach their national poverty target (see figure below). The ESF, with more than 
25% allocated to social inclusion for 2014-2020, should play a key role in supporting fair and 
well-functioning labour markets. 

An estimated EUR 16.4 billion has been  allocated to  projects  addressing social inclusion to 
the end of 2016, representing 26% of the EUR 62.7 billion planned4 predominantly funded by 
ESF programmes, with ERDF support to health and social infrastructures. 

By end 2016 under this objective: 

  1.7 million participants have been supported under this objective by ESF; 
  Between 44 and 94% of participants came from a disadvantaged background. 

Figure 5: Distance to national poverty reduction target (2015, in thousands)9 

Source: Eurostat (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/europe-2020-indicators)  

Thanks  to  ESF  support  77 000  participants  gained  a  qualification  and  188 000  participants 
were in employment, including self-employment. Out of 464 000 inactive participants, 90 000 
engaged in job-searching. Even though results to date seem rather low it can be explained by 
two main factors. The first one, which also applies to other objectives, is that results are only 
measured once ESF support has ended. For people being out of the labour market operations 
can  last  longer,  which  delays  results.  The  second  one,  also  applying  to  other  thematic 
objectives  as  well,  is  the  length  of  data  validation  delaying  the  reporting  of  positive 
achievements. Indeed, altogether, more than half of the investment priorities have not reported 
any achievements by far. 

The  ESF  also  pays  particular  attention  to  people  with  disabilities.  Non-discrimination  and 
accessibility are horizontal principles under the ESI Funds. Across all objectives, the ESF has 
supported 634 000 participants with disabilities.  

9   Limited data (about half of Member States) available for 2016 at the time of drafting this report.  

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
Under the social inclusion objective, the relatively high share of participants (22%) depends 
almost  exclusively  from  actions  under  the  active  inclusion  investment  priority  (IP). 
Investments under the other priorities have started but show important discrepancies between 
the  IPs.  Project  selection  rates  per  IP  range  from  38%  for  social  inclusion  to  2%  for 
community-led  local  development  (CLLD).  Activities  for  the  socio-economic  integration  of 
marginalised communities such as Roma are also lagging behind. 

Figure 6 

Source: Synthesis Report of ESF 2016 Annual Implementation Reports, Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini for the Commission, 
Based on AIR data 

Figure 7 

The ERDF complements ESF programmes in this area through support to various social and 
health investments, in particular through integrated development strategies for deprived urban 
areas.  ERDF  projects,  linked  to  health  systems  reforms,  are  now  supporting  health  services 
and infrastructure improvements that target 11.5 million citizens (28% of the target) with 20% 
of the budget for health infrastructure allocated to projects.  In urban areas a population of 3.9 
million  will  benefit  from  integrated  social  inclusion  strategies  (30%  of  the  target)  including 
building  and  housing  renovations  and  improvements  to  urban  spaces  to  improve  quality  of 
life.  

In  rural  areas,  EAFRD  supports  local  development  strategies  promoting  social  inclusion, 
reducing  poverty  and  fostering  economic  development  within  the  LEADER  approach.  To 
date, 47% of people living in rural areas (representing about 90% of the target) are under the 

17 

 
 
 
 
umbrella  of  over  2 000  local  development  strategies  implemented  by  Local  Action  Groups 
(LAGs) that benefited from 21% of the available public funds. 

Project examples: 

 

 

 

 

 

In Bulgaria, an ESF project on "Independent living" supports vulnerable groups (old people and disabled 
of all ages) providing them with integrated social and health services in all 28 regions of the country. The 
service  includes  access  to  social  and  health  care  facilities,  to  specialised  vehicle,  to  professional 
psychological counselling and to rehabilitation procedures. 23 954 old people and persons with permanent 
disabilities and inability to self-service have been supported by the end of 2016.  

In Denmark, the project RUMMELIG IMIDT creates job openings for citizens on the margin of the labour 
market in the Central Denmark Region. This is done mainly by the development of innovative integration 
processes,  the  creation  of  social-economic  businesses  and  strengthening  the  involvement  of  the  social 
partners, companies and municipalities in social inclusion. Job openings for the target group are identified 
by reconciling municipalities' cross-sector competencies, resources and knowledge. 

In Poland, ESI Funds have combined with EFSI to support the modernisation and extension of the Rydygier 
Regional  General  Hospital  in  Torun  equipping  it  with  new  wards  for  infectious  diseases,  psychiatry, 
invasive cardiology, surgery, a new emergency department, four bed wards with 318 new beds and a new 
hospital pharmacy. The project, costing EUR 165 million (EUR 40 Million from the ERDF) will make the 
hospital the most modern in Poland. 

In  Italy,  the  ERDF  invests  EUR  25  million  in  a  major  urban  regeneration  project  in  the  city  of  Milan.  
Twelve  buildings  and  400  residential  units  will  be  demolished  and  reconstructed  in  the  district  of 
Lorenteggio, which is affected by socio-economic and physical degradation. These resources combine with 
investments  from  Region  Lombardia  and  the  City  of  Milan  to  improve  local  services  and  refurbish  the 
district.  Complementary  ESF  measures  in  cultural  mediation,  support  to  disadvantaged  families,  and 
preparation for new job opportunities will accompany the physical regeneration. 

In  Sweden,  a  group  of  small  enterprises  used  EAFRD  funding  to  establish  a  Work  Integrated  Social 
Enterprise which helps migrants learn about entrepreneurship through practical work and supports them 
to  develop  their  business  ideas.  Participants  attend  workshops  on  business  and  food,  get  hands  on 
experience  by  working  at  an  organic  shop  and  participate  in  study  visits.  EAFRD  support  amounted  to 
EUR 28 000 out of the total budget of EUR 60 000. 

Box 5: Integrated urban development 

Integrated urban development strategies are being developed and implemented across thematic objectives with a 
view  to  support  investment  in  policy  responses  that  are  adapted  to  the  different  urban  contexts  found  across 
Europe.  The  following  elements  give  a  cross  thematic  overview  of  the  progress  reported  by  the  ERDF 
programmes under urban development: 

 

A population of 13.6 million (33% of the target) will benefit from selected integrated strategies (mainly so 
far  in  DE,  FR,  IE  and  SK)  addressing  mainly  low  carbon,  environmentally  sustainable  and  socially 
inclusive urban development; 

  More than 538 hectares of urban open space (18% of the target) is being renovated (mainly so far in BG, 
DE, LT, PL and PT) to improve quality of life and security in urban areas, mainly under social inclusion 
and environmental sustainability themes;  

 

364 000 square metres of urban buildings (16% of the target) are being renovated mainly so far in BE, BG, 
DE, HU and PT with a view to contribution to social inclusion objectives. 

4.3.  Education 

Reducing early school leaving below 10% and reaching 40% of 30-34 year-olds with tertiary 
education  are  two  of  the  Europe  2020  targets.  Despite  some  significant  progress  some 
Member  States  are  at  risk  of  not  meeting  their  national  target  by  2020  (see  the  two  figures 

18 

 
 
 
below). Investing in people's education and training to ensure they are equipped for the labour 
market is at the heart of this objective. 

Figure  8:  Headline  target  Early  School  Leaving  –  distance  from  national  target  (in 
percentage points) 

Source: Eurostat (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/europe-2020-indicators) 
Note: the UK has not set a national target. 

Figure 9: Headline target tertiary education attainment (30-34 year old) 2016 – distance 
from national target (in percentage points)  

Source: Eurostat (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/europe-2020-indicators) 
Note: the UK has not set a national target; DE's national target includes post-secondary non-tertiary (ISCED 4) graduates, 
who however are not included in the attainment rate measured for 2016; LU set the highest national target in the EU (66%), 
also  reflecting  the  high  share  of  tertiary  educated  people  in  its  young  population,  regardless  of  their  place  of  study  (its 
attainment rate in 2016 neared 55%). 

In its Communication of June 2016 for a  'New Skills Agenda for Europe'10 the Commission 
highlighted  that  'skills  are  a  pathway  to  employability  and  prosperity.  With  the  right  skills, 
people  are  equipped  for  good-quality  jobs  and  can  fulfil  their  potential  as  confident,  active 
citizens.'  

10   COM(2016) 381 final.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
With  an  ever-changing  labour  market  people  need  to  have  the  opportunity  to  train  and 
improve  their  skills  throughout  their  lives.  The  ESF  supports  people  from  childhood 
education to life-long learning. 

An  estimated  EUR  14.6  billion  has  been  allocated  to  projects  addressing  education  and 
vocational  training  to  the  end  of  2016,  representing  30%  of  the  EUR  49.2  billion  planned, 
predominantly funded by ESF programmes, with ERDF support to education infrastructures. 

By end 2016, under this objective: 

-  1.9 million participants have been supported under this objective by ESF 
-  out of which  

o  60% of participants were under 25 and 6% were above 54 
o  522 000 were disadvantaged participants, e.g. migrants, minorities or people 

with disability 

-  410 000 participants have gained a qualification, 
-  122 000 participants were in education or training and 
-  48 000 participants were in employment, including self-employment following 

support 

Box 6: ESF Support to the New Skills Agenda 

In  line  with  the  New  Skills  Agenda  for  Europe  the  ESF  plays  a  key  role  in  supporting  low-skilled  people  in 
Europe.  

By end 2016, across all objectives, the ESF and the YEI have supported 3.4 million people with lower than upper 
secondary  education  attainment.  Under  the  education  objective  in  particular  1.1  million  low-qualified 
participants have been supported, which corresponds to 57% of all participants. 

This shows that the ESF manages to reach those most in need of support and plays a key role in supporting the 
73 million low-qualified people in the EU. 

Figure 10 

Note:  Investment  Priority  Early-school  leaving:  Reducing  and  preventing  early  school-leaving  and  promoting 
equal access to good quality early-childhood, primary and secondary education. 

The share of participants under the education objective is more evenly distributed. It shows 
progress in all the areas. This is confirmed by the project selection rates below. 

20 

 
 
 
 
Figure 11 

The  ERDF  complements  ESF  programmes  in  this  area  through  support  to  various 
investments,  for  example,  in  different  school  infrastructures  and  equipment.  Education 
infrastructure  improvements  already  selected  will  benefit  4.4  million  students  (66%  of  the 
target).  

Project examples: 

 

 

 

In Finland an ESF project is creating a new concept for maritime, port and logistics training to increase 
the responsiveness to labour market demand, quality and relevance of adult education. Two themes have 
been selected for pilot training in the development stage: training of container crane drivers and training 
for oil spill control. The project is co-funded by the ERDF project SCAROIL Simulators, which finances the 
purchase of equipment. 

In  Slovenia,  the  ESF  project  called  'We  include  and  activate'  spurs  social  activation  of  target  groups 
through integration in cultural actions. It connects 2 groups of people – those who are stigmatised on one 
side (vulnerable groups: people with mental health disorders and mental disabilities, people serving prison 
sentences  scheduled  for  release,  and  people  participating  in  drug  rehabilitation  programmes)  and  those 
who  have  experience  working  with  vulnerable  groups  and  are  at  the  same  time  experts  in  fields  such  as 
literature, art, creative writing, digital literacy, public speaking, etc. The objective is to equip vulnerable 
people  with  specific  knowledge  to  bring  them  closer  to  the  labour  market  and  reduce  the  risk  of  social 
exclusion. It is expected that 200 participants will be included by end 2019. 

In the small town of Pölva in Estonia the ERDF supported the construction of a public secondary school 
building  which  is  almost  completely  energy  neutral.    The  school  was  conceived  as  a  demonstration  of 
energy and resource efficiency combining innovation with education. For instance, it uses environmentally 
friendly furniture and is fully accessible for people with physically disabilities.  The school hosts up to 272 
students  and  teachers  and  cost  EUR  5.7  million  of  which  the  ERDF  financed  EUR  4.9  million.  (Project 
Fiche) 

 

In Italy the National Education programme has allocated 31% of ERDF funding and selected projects that 
will deliver infrastructure improvements for 4 million students (47% of the programme target). 

21 

 
 
 
 
5.  LOW  CARBON  ECONOMY,  CLIMATE  CHANGE,  ENVIRONMENT  AND 
TRANSPORT AND ENERGY NETWORKS: IMPLEMENTATION NARRATIVE 
ON PROGRESS  

More  than  EUR  262  billion  in  investment  is  planned  into  the  areas  addressing  sustainable 
development from the ERDF, Cohesion Fund, EAFRD and EMFF11. At the end of 2016, an 
estimated EUR 73 billion was already allocated to specific projects, representing around 28% 
of the total amount (an increase of threefold in selection compared to the 9% selected at the 
end of 2015) across all funds that directly contribute. 

Box 7: Mainstreaming of climate action into ESIF 2014-2020: 
In  the  context  of  the  2014-2020  Multi  annual  Financial  Framework  political  commitments  were  made12  to 
increase the proportion of climate related expenditure to at least 20 % across the EU budget over the period, 
with contributions from different policy fields.  Through the legislation governing the ESI Funds methodologies 
for  the  tracking  of  climate  related  expenditure  were  laid  down13.  During  programme  preparation  thematic 
concentration requirements and discussions on the needs and financial allocations led to important allocations 
to climate action under the different ESI Funds contributing substantially to the EU budget objective.  

The  2017  Strategic  Report  recalls  the  planned  amounts  allocated  by  fund  to  climate  action  (Annex 3  of  that 
document) and compares the relative progress in project selection of climate relevant actions with the average 
rates of project selection. From that data the rate of allocation to climate actions under the EAFRD, ESF/YEI 
and  Cohesion  Fund  is  keeping  pace  or  ahead  of  the  overall  average  rate  of  selection.  On  the  other  hand  the 
selection  of  climate  related  actions  under  the  ERDF  and  EMFF  programmes  are  lower  than  the  respective 
average rates of selection for those funds. Within each fund the rates of selection also vary by country. It should 
be borne in mind that the objective is to achieve the required investments by the end of the period (i.e. there are 
no  thematic  targets  year  to  year).  Through  the  annual  monitoring  arrangement  the  implementation  of  climate 
related investments will continue to the tracked and reported in detail through the ESIF Open Data Platform.  

5.1.  Low carbon economy 

An estimated EUR 13.3 billion has been allocated to projects addressing low carbon economy 
objectives under the ERDF, EAFRD and EMFF programmes to the end of 2016, representing 
21% of the EUR 64.1 billion planned4. While that rate of selection is lower than the overall 
average,  it  shows  a  sharp  improvement  and  a  "catching-up"  since  the  rate  of  4%  selection 
reported for the end of 2015. 

Energy  efficiency  improvement  in  enterprises  is  an  objectives  pursued  in  this  field  by  the 
ERDF. Of the target of 57 000 firms to be supported by the ERDF investment (mainly in the 
UK)  the  programmes  have  reported  that  selected  operations  are  already  targeting  54 000 
enterprises (95% of the target). 

In relation to progress with other sustainable energy indicators, the programmes have reported 
the selection of projects planning to 2 600 megawatt of renewable energy  capacity (34% of 
target); 148 600 houses with improved energy efficiency performance (16% of target) and 655 

11   The  ESF  contributes  to  sustainable  development  objectives,  i.e,  green  skills,  through  the  secondary 

objectives of support under thematic objective 8 and 10 in particular. 

12   European Council Conclusions of 1-8 February 2013 (ref. EUCO 37/13) and the Commission's proposal for 

MFF 2014-2020 - COM(2011) 500 final. 

13   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 215/2014 (OJ L 69, 8.3.2014, p. 65). 

22 

 
 
                                                 
gigawatt / hours of energy savings in public buildings due to efficiency renovations (13% of 
the target). 

In rural areas, EAFRD supports the production of renewable energy and carbon conservation 
and sequestration in agriculture and forestry. Support under the EAFRD includes investment 
measures, land management measures, as well as knowledge transfer and advice. By the end 
of 206, 41% of the actions aiming at carbon sequestration and conservation in agricultural and 
forest  land  were  completed,  which  represents  a  level  of  achievement  of  7.5%  of  the 
corresponding  target.  4.6%  of  the  projects  in  the  area  of  renewable  energy,  for  which  the 
target is EUR 2.7 billion were approved. 

The EMFF supports actions to mitigate the effects of climate change and improve the energy 
efficiency of fishing vessels by modernisation and replacement of main and ancillary engines, 
prioritising small–scale coastal. It also supports investments in equipment aimed at reducing 
the emission of pollutants or greenhouse gases and increasing the energy efficiency of fishing 
vessels.  The  EMFF  aims  to  support  4  270  projects  related  to  energy  efficiency  and  climate 
change  with  a  total  investment  of  EUR  117  million  between  2014  and 2020.  By  the  end  of 
2016  the  MAs  have  selected  48  operations  supporting  energy  efficiency  with  an  EMFF 
contribution of around EUR 438 000.  

Project Examples: 

 

 

 

Public  lighting  causes  around  six  percent  of  global  CO2  emissions  with  conventional  lighting  needing 
replacement by energy efficient solutions. The Interreg "Dynamic Light" project supports city authorities to 
develop strategic plans for low carbon public lighting and is testing new approaches. The project partners 
are from AT, CZ, DE, HR, IT, PL and SI, with a project budget of EUR 3.5 million (2.9 million from the 
ERDF). (Project website) 

The  second  phase  of  the  energy  interconnection  of  the  Cyclades  Islands,  linking  to  the  Greek  national 
transmission system, is a strategic investment to improve the security of supply for the islands, and tap the 
potential  of  local  renewable  energy  sources.  It  will  help  the  replacement  of  high-cost,  environmental 
harmful thermal plants or generators now used on the islands.  

The  "H2-Share"  project  aims  to  build  and  demonstrate  a  27  ton  hydrogen  fuelled  truck  with  a  mobile 
hydrogen (H2) refueller. It will support the development of a market for low-carbon heavy-duty vehicles, 
run on hydrogen (H2) and demonstrate the readiness of hydrogen technology for heavy-duty applications 
in real life conditions. The total budget of this Interreg project, implemented by partners in BE, DE and NL, 
is EUR 3.5 million (EUR 1.7 million of ERDF). (Project website)  

5.2.  Climate action and risk prevention 

An estimated EUR 16 billion has been allocated to address climate resilience and disaster risk 
prevention mainly  under  the  ERDF,  Cohesion  Fund  and  EAFRD  programmes  to  the  end  of 
2016, representing 39% of the EUR 41.2 billion planned4. 

Of  the  available  EU  indicators,  two  in  particular  capture  the  main  ERDF  investments  now 
taking  place to  reduce  climate related risks. By the end of 2016 a population  of 4.6 million 
was targeted to benefit from flood protection measures (35% of the target) while 2.9 million 
were targeted by forest fire protection measures (30% of target).  

In rural areas, EAFRD supports the production of renewable energy and carbon conservation 
and sequestration in agriculture and forestry. Support under the EAFRD includes investment 
measures,  land  management  measures,  as  well  as  knowledge  transfer  and  advice.  Actions 

23 

 
 
targeting  carbon  sequestration  and  conservation  in  agricultural  and  forest  land,  which  were 
completed by end-2016, represent a level of achievement of 7.5% of the corresponding target. 
4.6% of the projects in the area of renewable energy, for which the target is EUR 2.7 billion 
were approved. 

Project examples:  

 

 

 

 

In Hungary, flood prevention is of the utmost importance given the country's geographical location.  The 
Tisza-Túr  reservoir,  along  the  Tisza  river,  a  major  Danube  tributary,  is  proposed  for  financial  support 
from the Cohesion Fund for a project to directly protect 130 000 people from the risk of floods and reduce 
the negative impact of climate change. The total cost of investment is EUR 88 million.  

In  Spain,  EAFRD  support  is  used  to  promote  renewable  energy  and  management  plans  covering  energy 
management,  forest  management  and  biomass  and  climate  change.  Activities  include  promoting  the 
benefits of using energy plans, developing software that allows small enterprises to monitor and optimise 
energy use, organising courses on biomass boilers and carrying out studies and pilot projects.  The energy 
management agreed so far will bring about €250 000 in cost savings. Total budget of the first phase project 
is €466 000 with the EAFRD providing €200 000. 

The Interreg project DiveSMART focuses on improving cross border disaster preparedness in the event of a 
marine incident that places large numbers of people at risk in the Baltic Sea. The partners from FI, PL, SE, 
DK, LV, LT and EE are engaged in joint training, mapping resources and drawing up common guidelines. 
The ERDF is provides more that 75% of the EUR 2.2 million being invested. (Project fiche)  

In Spain, a large integrated marine conservation project has been set up with the support of LIFE, EMFF, 
ESF  and  national  resources.  The  main  objective  of  the  INTEMARES  project  is  the  innovative  and 
integrated  management  of  Natura  2000  marine  areas,  with  the  active  participation  of  the  sectors 
concerned. The aims include improving the level of knowledge, ensuring maintenance of good conservation 
and  surveillance,  capacity  building,  increasing  opportunities  for  employment  in  the  Blue  Economy  and 
promoting adaptation to climate change. 

5.3.  Environment and resources efficiency  

An  estimated  EUR  25.6  billion  has  been  allocated  to  projects  under  the  themes  of 
environmental protection and resource efficiency under the ERDF, Cohesion  Fund, EAFRD 
and  EMFF  programmes  to  the  end  of  2016,  representing  31%  of  the  EUR  85.5  billion 
planned4. 

Under  the  programmes  supported  with  ERDF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  a  number  of  key 
indicators capture the bulk of planned investments:  

  3.5 million citizens will benefit from improved drinking water supply (28% of target); 
  The  waste  water  of  5.4  million  citizens  will  see  improved  treatment  reducing 

environmental impact (32% of the target); 

  1.3 million hectares of habitat are now targeted with conservation measures (20% of 

the target);  

  The  urban  environment  is  also  the  subject  of  important  investments:  4.2  million 
citizens  are  covered  by  sustainable  integrated  urban  strategies  (38  %  of  target);  400 
hectares of urban space are targeted to improve the quality of life and security (23% of 
target). 

Under other indicators, project selection still has to accelerate to deliver expected benefits (i.e. 
only 184 000 tonnes of waste recycling capacity per year is so far selected for support - 3% of 
the target expected, with progress reported in GR, PT, RO and SK only). 

24 

 
 
In  rural  areas,  the  EAFRD  is  the  main  funding  tool  for  environment  and  climate  action.  It 
provides  support  for  preserving  and  enhancing  biodiversity,  improving  water  and  soil 
management, reducing greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from agricultural production. 
A  minimum  of  30  %  of  each  rural  development  programme  is  earmarked  for  actions 
benefiting the environment and climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, the actual 
amounts  which  Member  States  have  programmed  in  this  area  exceed  this  minimum  by  far, 
with  an  EU  average  of  57.6  %  having  been  allocated  to  environment  and  climate  related 
measures.   

According to the Member States' reports on output  indicators, EAFRD  has  so far supported 
23.5  million  hectares  of  agricultural  land  to  improve  biodiversity  (75%  of  the  target). 
Altogether 20%  of the total  agricultural land is covered by climate and environment related 
actions.  Moreover,  17%  of  EU  farm  land  is  envisaged  to  come  under  management 
requirements  for  biodiversity,  15%  of  the  farm  land  should  be  subject  to  better  soil 
management  and  15%  for  better  water  management.  This  far,  23.5  million  hectares  of 
agricultural land are receiving support to improve biodiversity (75% of the target); and 25% 
of funds dedicated to improving the efficiency of water use in irrigation have been allocated 
and already completed on 14% of targeted land area. Significant progress has also been made 
with  respect  to  achieving  the  target  of  covering  3%  of  agricultural  land  with  management 
contracts  aiming  to  reduce  greenhouse  gas  and  ammonia  emissions:  more  than  1%  of  land 
(i.e.  a  third  of  the  target)  is  already  covered.  Similarly,  good  progress  towards  the  target  of 
0.7%  of  live-stock  being  subject  to  investments  helping  to  reduce  greenhouse  gas  and 
ammonia emissions has been made with a completion rate of 11%. 

The  policy  framework  of  the  EMFF  is  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  which  aims  to  ensure 
that  fishing  and  aquaculture  are  environmentally,  economically  and  socially  sustainable  and 
that  they  provide  a  source  of  healthy  food  for  EU  citizen.  The  EMFF  contributes  to  the 
achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  CFP.  Particular  focus  is  made  on  the  protection  of  the 
marine environment, in particular its biodiversity and marine protected areas such as Natura 
2000 sites, and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources and to further define the 
boundaries  of  the  sustainability  of  human  activities  that  have  an  impact  on  the  marine 
environment,  in  accordance  with  the  objectives  of  achieving  and  maintaining  a  good 
environmental  status  as  required  by  Directive  2008/56/EC14.  The  EMFF  contributes  with 
EUR 766.5 million EMFF to sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. By the end of 2016, 2 200 
projects were selected with an EMFF contribution of EUR 82.9 million. 

Project Examples: 

 

In the Trenčín and Nitra regions of Slovakia, the upgrading of three waste-water treatment plants, a new 
sewage collection system and 47 pumping stations are being built to ensure that treatment systems comply 
with EU requirements for urban waste-water treatment. These works are part funded by the Cohesion Fund 
with EUR 47 million. They are part of the second phase of the upgrading to improve environmental quality 
and to connect a population of 100 000 to compliant treatment by 2022. (Project Fiche)Europe faces real 
challenges in managing an estimated 3 million polluted brownfield sites. GreenerSites is an international 
partnership  to  develop  nine  regional  action  plans  and  test  11  innovative  solutions  to  clean  up  and 
regenerate industrial areas. Project partners come from DE, HR, IT, PL and SI. The total budget is EUR 
3.89 million (EUR 3.1 million of ERDF). (Project website) 

14   The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19). 

25 

 
 
                                                 
 

 

 

Farmers  in  Auvergne,  France,  used  EAFRD  support  to  preserve  823  hectares  of  peatland  and  wet 
meadows  in  two  Natura  2000  areas  used  for  grazing.  The  project  combines  different  measures  to 
implement agro-environmental climate measures for more sustainable farming practices. EAFRD support 
allowed extensive breeding practice that favours maintenance of biodiversity. (Project fiche) 

In  Portugal,  a  wine  and  olive  oil  producer  applied  an  integrated  management  plan,  guided  by  social, 
environmental  and  economic  sustainability  objectives,  to  improve  resource  efficiency.  The  action  plan 
involved a geological study of the plots, redefining the irrigation plans and installing irrigation monitoring 
and  controlling  equipment. The project  resulted  in  the  12.7%  decrease  of  water consumption  of between 
2015 and 2016. EAFRD support amounted to EUR 29 000 out of the total budget of EUR 34 400. 

The SWELL Project - Shared Waters Enhancement and Loughs Legacy – aims to improve the water quality 
status  of  Carlingford  Lough  and  Lough  Foyle.  It  brings  together  key  state-owned  water  companies  from 
Northern Ireland and Ireland for the first time to conduct a detailed joint investigation into the causes of 
water pollution in the Loughs and ways to prevent it. The INTERREG VA Programme Ireland-NI-Scotland 
is financing the project with ERDF of EUR 2.8 million  

Box 8: Progress in investment in major projects 

Under  the  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund,  major  projects  are  cornerstones  of  the  ESI  Funds'  contribution  to 
implementing  European  policies,  mainly  in  transport  and  the  environment  but  also  in  the  areas  of  research, 
productive investments, low carbon economy and energy. Over 600 major projects are identified for 2014-2020 
and intensive work on their preparation and implementation continues15, also with the vital support of technical 
assistance initiatives such as JASPERS16 

Among the over 600 major projects identified the majority relate to transport infrastructures. However, 15 will 
be directly targeted on addressing climate change related risks such as flood and risk prevention and 11 will be 
in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. In a pioneering innovation for 2014-2020, all major projects 
need to demonstrate consistency with climate change related objectives. That includes taking account of climate 
adaptation and mitigation considerations, disaster resilience, resilience to current and future climate variability 
and information on whether climate change related expenditure was integrated in the project costs. These issues 
must be addressed in all projects even if  their primary objective  is not climate change related (e.g. transport, 
RTDI, broadband, health and energy projects must all be ‘climate vetted”). 

The Commission is now publishing details of the list of planned and the approved major projects on the ESIF 
Open Data Platform and is regularly updating that list to reflect progress in the preparation and approval of 
this pipeline of key strategic projects17.  By October 2017 the Commission had received 168 major projects (see 
Figure 10 below) representing a total cost of EUR 37.6 billion of which projects – with an EU co-financing of 
over  EUR  12  billion  –  had  been  approved.  The  major  projects  submitted  included  91  projects  that  represent 
follow  on  phases  of  projects  already  started  during  the  2007-2013  period  (such  as  the  three  Extreme  Light 
Infrastructure  projects).  The  2017  Strategic  Report  highlights  that  further  mobilisation  is  needed  to  speed  up 
investment  on the  ground.  Comparing  the programme  lists with  the  submitted  list,  that message  is relevant  in 
particular  for  major  projects  expected  to  contribute  directly  or  indirectly  to  climate  action  in  fields  such  as 
railway investment, and low carbon economy.  

15   http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/major/  
16   http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/special-support-instruments/jaspers/  

http://jaspers.eib.org/  

17   https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/EU-Level/ESIF-2014-2020-ERDF-CF-Major-Projects/sjs4-8wgj  

26 

 
 
                                                 
Figure  10:  Progress  in  the  submission  of  the  ERDF/  CF  major  project  listed  in  the 
programmes 

Source:  ESIF  Open  Data  (as  at  15/9/2017)  -  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/EU-Level/ESIF-2014-2020-ERDF-CF-
Major-Projects/sjs4-8wgj 

5.4.  Strategic networks 

An  estimated  EUR  16.6  billion  has  been  allocated  to  network  infrastructure  projects  in 
transport  and  energy  under  the  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund  programmes  to  the  end  of  2016, 
representing 31% of the EUR 71.4 billion planned4. 

In relation to rail related investments the principal objective is the reconstruction of important 
part  of  the  existing  networks.  The  already  selected  projects  will  modernise  nearly  989 
kilometres of railway (14% of the target) mainly in HU, LT, PL and SE. Within the selected 
projects, more than 687 km of TEN-T railway lines will be reconstructed (15% of the TEN-T 
rail target) so far mainly in HU, LT, PL.  

In  relation  to  improving  accessibility  across  the  European,  national  and  regional  road 
networks, over 1 970 km of road will be reconstructed under already selected projects (20% 
of the target), of which more than 550 km are  part of the road TEN-T network (67% of the 
target). The largest values linked to selected projects mainly occur in BG, CZ, GR, LT, LT, 
PL and SK. An important volume of new roads are also planned, essentially in less developed 
regions,  with  1  200  km  already  selected  (39%  of  target)  including  850  km  of  new  TEN-T 
roads and motorways (42% of target). 

Project Examples: 

 

 

EU  funding  is  supporting  a  first  project  stage  to  install  and  test  the  Global  System  for  Mobile 
Communications  –  Railway  (GSM-R)  on  935  km  of  track  on  Hungary's  railways.  The  Cohesion  Fund 
contributes EUR 51.6 million for this stage. The overall project aims to improve communication between 
trains  and  control  centres  on  to  ensure  implementation  of  GSM-R  on  3  064  km  of  Hungarian  TEN-T 
railway. (Project Fiche) 

In Eastern Slovenia, the Cohesion Fund is investing over EUR 63 million to support the building of 14 km 
of  new  motorway  from  Draženci  to  the  international  border  crossing  at  Gruškovje  and  13  km  ancillary 
local  roads.  As  part  of  the  EU’s  TEN-T  network  Baltic-Adriatic  corridor  investment  this  section  of 
motorway will improve connectivity on the E59 between Slovenia, Croatia and Austria, leading to reduced 
congestion and travel times, less pollution and reduced accidents. (Project Fiche) 

27 

 
 
 
6.  STRENGTHENING  INSTITUTIONAL  CAPACITY  AND  EFFICIENT  PUBLIC 
ADMINISTRATION: IMPLEMENTATION NARRATIVE ON PROGRESS  

An  estimated  EUR  1.9  billion  has  been  allocated  to  123  projects  addressing  institutional 
capacity and reforms to the end of 2016, representing 29% of the EUR 6.5 billion planned4, 
predominantly  funded  by  ESF  programmes  (with  ERDF  support  also  in  EE,  IT,  RO  and  in 
Interreg  programmes).  The  projects  selected  are  so  far  are  found  mainly  in  IT,  GR  and 
Interreg.  

The  301  projects  selected  target  public  administrations  or  public  services  under  ESF  with 
support  to  training,  exchange  of  good  practices,  study  visits,  reorganising  offices,  ICT 
diffusion, outsourcing and integrating salaries. Some 70 000 employees have been supported 
under  this  objective  by  ESF.  33  projects  for  capacity  building  of  social  partners  have  been 
selected in 4 Member States (BG, EE, PL, SI).  

Project Examples: 

 

 

 

In  Greece,  human  resources  are  reinforced  by  the  ESF  in  the  public  administration  by  upgrading  basic 
horizontal  skills  and  facilitating  a  permanent  mobility  scheme  through  continuous  vocational  training  in 
order to better meet the needs of both the public administration and the citizens. 140,000 participations are 
foreseen throughout the programming period. 

In Cyprus, the ESF supports the new Service for the management and payment of the Guaranteed Minimum 
Income  in  the  context  of  the  new  social  policy  and  the  reform  of  the  social  welfare  system.    The  action 
relates to the strengthening of the administrative capacity of the Welfare Benefits Management Service in 
terms  of  staff,  training,  IT,  accounting,  control  and  technical  support  with  a  view  to  quicker  and  more 
efficient services. 

In  Poland  the  Public  Services  Monitoring  System  (System  Monitorowania  Usług  Publicznych  -  SMUP)” 
aims to create a publicly accessible database containing information on the quantity, quality, availability 
and  cost-effectiveness  of  public  services  provided  by  local  government  units.  The  SMUP  will  collect 
integrated  data  allowing  for  an  overall  analysis  of  the  situation  in  terms  of  the  provision  of  a  selected 
service or group of services in a given local government unit and against a background of a comparable 
group  of  local  government  units.  It  can  thus  become  an  effective  service  management  tool  based  on 
benchmarking mechanisms and the identification and use of good practices. 

28 

 
 
 
PART 2: THE EVALUATION OF ESIF PROGRAMMES 

7.  EVALUATION OVERVIEW 

For 2014-2020 a stronger emphasis is placed on the need to evaluate the effects of the policies 
co-financed  through  the  ESI  Fund  programmes.  The  programmes  define  objectives  that  are 
specific  and  articulate  the  change  sought  by  the  investments.  Evaluations  are  essential  for 
confirming  whether  those  changes  take  place  and  whether  the  contributions  made  by  the 
programmes contribute to their specific objectives. 

It was clear from the summary of evaluation plans presented in December 201618 that the bulk 
of the national and regional evaluations to be conducted on the 2014-2020 programmes would 
take several years still to bring conclusions.  As implementation on the ground is now under 
way there will be time lags until the impacts of those investments can be properly evaluated. 
In  particular,  the  evaluation  at  EU  level  to  assess  overall  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  EU 
added value of the ESIF investments will mainly be conducted at the end of the programming 
period (drawing on national evaluations) and ex post. 

On the other hand, both the Commission and many Member States have in the last 12 months 
delivered ex post evaluations of the 2007-2013 programmes (the ex-post synthesis on the rural 
development  programmes  2007-2013  will  be  finalised  by  the  end  of  2017).  That  work 
provides important insights into the contribution to policy objectives made by the 2007-2013 
programmes  while  also  demonstrating  the  time  lags  that  are  typically  involved  in  assessing 
complex multi annual investments. 

In the sections that follow the following elements are provided for each of the ESI Funds:  

  An update on the planned evaluations expected of the period 2014-2020; 

  An update and synthesis of the evaluations concluded by the Member States and the 

Commission. 

18   SWD(2016) 447 final -  

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/strategic-report/swd_esif_annual_summary_2016_en.pdf 

29 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
8.  ERDF AND COHESION FUND 

8.1.  Update on evaluation plans 2014-2020 

Based  on  regulatory  requirements,  all  the  operational  programmes  must  submit  to  their 
monitoring committees an evaluation plan within one year from adoption. All ERDF/CF and 
multi-fund  operational  programmes  have  met  the  deadline  (with  one  exception  the  Italian 
Research and Innovation Operational Programme, which was submitted with a slight delay). 
By 31 August 2017, four evaluation plans were updated and submitted for further review.  

It  is  now  possible  to  have  a  complete  picture  of  the  characteristics  of  the  plans  and  the 
foreseen evaluations. The majority of the evaluations foreseen will assess the effectiveness of 
the programmes (figure below).  

Figure 12 Breakdown of planned evaluation by type 

Impact-oriented 

Impact and procedure/implementation and/or monitoring/progress-oriented 

Procedure/implementation-oriented 

Monitoring/progress-oriented 

Procedure/implementation and monitoring/progress-oriented 

Other 

Total 

ERDF+CF  multi-Fund 

Total 

nb  % 

nb  % 

Nb  % 

294 

184 

120 

91 

30 

46 

38 

24 

16 

12 

4 

6 

344 

150 

107 

84 

36 

19 

47 

20 

14 

11 

5 

3 

638 

334 

227 

175 

66 

65 

43 

22 

15 

12 

4 

4 

765  100  740  100  1,505  100 

Nonetheless,  for  the  next  two  years  the  focus  will  still  be  on  the  assessments  of 
implementation and monitoring progress (figure below). 

Figure 13 Differences in the timing of planned evaluations by type 

30 

 
 
  
  
 
 
It  cannot  be  excluded  that  the  future  revisions  of  the  evaluation  plans  foresee  the 
concentration  of  the  number  of  evaluation,  through  cross  programme  evaluations  or  cross 
thematic evaluations. 

In line with the synthesis presented in 201619, each evaluation plan has been rated in terms of 
their completeness and their coherence and appropriateness. Ratings have been applied to the 
main  focus  areas  that  need  to  be  covered  by  the  plans:  1  -  Management  and  planning,  2  - 
Responsibility  and  coordination,  3  -  Design  and  methods,  4  -  Data  availability  and  data 
systems, 5 - Skills and expertise, 6 - Use and communication. The ratings range from ‘4’ very 
complete/very  appropriate  and  coherent  (i.e.  very  little  room  for  improvement)  to  ‘1’  very 
incomplete/very  inappropriate  and  lacking  coherence  (considerable  room  for  improvement). 
The figure below shows the average ratings in each focus area as well the average rating for 
the plans as a whole (each area being weighted equally). 

Figure 14 Overall characteristics of ERDF/CF and multi fund evaluation plans 

In general, the overall assessment confirms the trend identified last year: the plans tend to be 
relatively  complete  and  coherent  with  regard  to  the  division  of  responsibilities  and 
coordination,  the  use  to  be  made  of  evaluation  findings  and  the  communication  of  these  as 
well  as  management  and  planning  and,  slightly  less  so  as  regards  the  skills  and  expertise 
available. The elements related to the design of evaluations, the methods to be used and the 
data  requirements  are  still  on  average  weaker  and  indicate  the  areas  in  which  the  future 
revisions of the evaluation plans should concentrate.  

19   See footnote 17. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
The evaluation plans are expected to be “living documents” that accompany the development 
of the programmes and it has been recommended that "the monitoring committee reviews the 
implementation of the evaluation plan at least once a year"20. 

8.2.  Synthesis of evaluation work completed by the Member States 

The  national  and  regional  programmes  devoted  considerable  attention  to  the  topic  of 
evaluation.  The  majority  of  the  evaluations  identified  since  January  2015  are  ex-post 
evaluations of the 2007-2013 programming period.  

the  2014-2020  period,  65  of 

Concerning 
identified  are 
process/implementation  oriented.  The  remaining  26  look  mostly  at  the  progress  of  the 
programmes and do not yet allow the assessment of the contribution of the programmes to the 
expected  results.  For  this  reason,  the  following  paragraphs  will  dwell  mostly  on  the  2007-
2013 evaluations. As indicated previously in figure 13, it is expected that evaluation evidence 
from the programmes on the 2014-2020 programming period will arrive starting in 2018. 

the  91  evaluations 

Table  2:  Evaluations  published  since  January  2015  on  Cohesion  policy  interventions; 
breakdown by programming period 

2007-2013 

2014-2020 

Total 

  ERDF+CF 

Multi-Fund 

Total 

139 

63 

202 

24 

28 

52 

163 

91 

254 

The evaluation effort is concentrated in some Member States. In particular, Poland (93), Spain 
(56), Hungary (16), Lithuania (11), Romania (12), UK (11), Italy (9), Slovakia (9) and Czech 
Republic (8) make up almost 90% of all evaluations identified.  

Figure 15: Evaluations published since January 2015 by Member State 

20   Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy - Guidance Document on Evaluation Plans: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2014/working/evaluation_plan_guidance_en.pdf  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Although an attempt has been made to identify so far as possible the main common features 
of the evaluations reviewed and to bring the key messages out which are relevant in each of 
the four broad policy areas, the specific nature of the initiatives evaluated and the variety in 
evaluation  approaches  make  it  difficult  to  do  this  at  present  since  most  of  the  planned 
evaluations  are  still  to  come.  However,  as  more  evidence  becomes  available  in  the  coming 
years, the  summary  is  likely  to  become  more  consistent  and  to  the  point.  Such  a  review,  in 
other  words,  is  an  ongoing  task  and  an  update  will  be  carried  out  as  new  evaluations  are 
published. 

8.2.1.  Synthesis of ERDF/Cohesion Fund evaluation by theme 

R&D and innovation (TO1) is one to the thematic objectives which has most often been the 
subject of evaluation up to now. Three among these used counterfactual methods.  

  The evaluation of the Lombardia regional OP 2007-2013 found evidence of a positive 
and statistically significant effect of R&D support  on the survival  rate of enterprises 
and employment, in particular for micro and small enterprises.  

  The  evaluation  of  the  Competitiveness  and  Economic  Growth  OP  2007-2013  in 
Slovakia found that support for R&D and innovation had a positive impact on the net-
added-value of the firms receiving funding and to a lesser extent on their employment, 
though there was a negligible effect on their net revenue.  

  The evaluation of the Inno-vouchers co-funded by the ERDF in the 2007-2013 period 
in  Lithuania  concluded  that  the  vouchers  were  effective  tools  for  promoting 
cooperation between SMEs and public research organisations but they did not help to 
increase R&D expenditure in SMEs per se and they had no effect on productivity and 
competitiveness.  

  Using  a  mix  of  quantitative  and  qualitative  methods,  the  evaluation  of  the  effects  of 
R&D support for 2007-2013 going to firms in Toscana found that it helped enterprises 
to  enter new  markets or  to strengthen their position on the markets where they were 
already active.  

  Other  evaluations  reviewed  assessed  the  effects  of  supporting  cooperation  between 
enterprises and university research centres. For example, the evaluation undertaken in 
Wales  of  the  ASTUTE  project  co-financed  by  the  ERDF  in  2007-2013  period, 
providing support to the aerospace, automotive and high technology industries, found 
that  the  project  was  successful  in  establishing  a  network  of  external  support 
organisations.  Support  of  High  Performance  Computing  also  in  Wales  in  2007-2013 
period was also found to have helped to establish cooperation between universities and 
enterprises.  

A few evaluations focussed on the different forms of finance to support R&D and innovation 
and to identify those which are most efficient.  

  The  evaluation  of  the  interventions  supported  by  the  Economic  Development  OP 
2007-2013  in  Hungary,  for  instance,  assessed  the  effects  of  refundable  and  non-
refundable  support  for  research  and  innovation  in  enterprises  and  suggests  that  both 

33 

 
 
had  a  positive  effect  on  employment  and  investment  but  not  on  profits  and 
productivity except when very large amounts of support were involved.  

  The  evaluation  of  the  Lomardia  OP  2007-2013  concluded  that  the  financial 
instruments  set  up  to  support  RDI  investment  had  a  larger  leverage  effect  than  non-
refundable  grants.  They  were  more  efficient  than  grants  in  supporting  technological 
development and competitiveness. 

Most of the evaluations that relate to the broad policy area of research and innovation were 
not  only  concerned  with  the  effects  on  R&D  activities  as  such  but  also  with  the  effects  on 
SME  competitiveness  (TO3).  The  main  findings  of  the  evaluations  reviewed  are  listed 
below.  

  The evaluation of the Invest NI Design Service project which was carried out between 
2008  and  2014  in  Northern  Ireland  found  that  it  produced  a  positive  return  on 
investment and that there was only limited deadweight. 

  The evaluation of the ‘Supporting innovation centres’ project funded by the Innovative 
Economy  2007-2013  OP  in  Poland,  and  aimed  at  tacking  the  lack  of  innovation 
centres  in  the  country,  concluded  that  the  technological  parks  that  were  supported 
helped  not  only  to  improve  research  infrastructure  but  through  the  business  and 
technology incubators set up led to start-ups being created. 

  The interventions supported by the ERDF in Wallonia in the 2007-2013 period helped 
to increase the visibility and reputation of the research centres of the region according 
to an evaluation reviewed. This also found that 53% of enterprises receiving support 
experienced  an  increase  in  turnover  but  that  deadweight  was  relatively  large  in  that 
only 14% of the research projects would not have been carried out without the support 
of the ERDF.  

  An evaluation assessing the measures implemented by Enterprise Estonia to improve 
the  business  environment  and  support  enterprises  and  start-ups  in  the  2007-2013 
period found that the firms supported performed better on average than non-supported 
ones in most of the areas covered by the evaluation. But it also found that deadweight 
in some areas was relatively large and this needed to be tackled in the future.  

  An evaluation of 14 projects undertaken as part of the growth forum in the Midtjylland 
region of Denmark, co-financed by the ERDF and ESF in 2017-2013, found that there 
was  an  increase  in  employment  and  revenue  in  the  enterprises  that  participated.  It 
estimated  that  overall  the  projects  created  18,000  new  jobs.  Positive  effects  on  job 
creation were also found by an evaluation of the 45 projects supported by the ERDF in 
Syddanmark (Southern Denmark region) in the same period. 

  An evaluation assessing the effects of support provided in 2007-2013 to investment in 
business  infrastructure  and  industrial  parks  in  Hungary,  mainly  in  Northern  and 
Southern Great Plain regions, concluded that the interventions were generally effective 
in  increasing  employment  and  turnover  in  enterprises  though  there  were  large 
differences in the extent of the increase between regions. 

34 

 
 
  A  few  of  the  evaluations  reviewed  were  more  specifically  concerned  with  assessing 
financial  instruments  (FI).  An  evaluation  on  the  use  of  FIs  to  support  SMEs  in 
Hungary concluded that they led to the growth of a significant venture capital sector in 
the  country.  At  the  same  time,  the  evaluation  pointed  to  the  fact  that  EU  supported 
instruments  (JEREMIE)  and  similar  instruments  funded  by  domestic  sources 
overlapped to some extent. It also highlighted the need for public officials be trained 
to manage FIs efficiently and for more effective information to be provided to firms 
on the funding available. 

  Another  Hungarian  evaluation  assessed  the  Venture  Capital  schemes  funded  in  the 
2007-2013  period  by  four  Jeremie  programmes  as  well  as  the  Széchenyi  Capital 
Investment  Fund  (SZTA)  implemented  by  the  Economic  Development  OP  and  the 
regional OPs. It found that the different investment strategies were consistent with the 
objectives  pursued  and  that  all  programmes  on  average  had  positive  effects  on  the 
turnover of enterprises after 2-3 years. There was also an institutional learning effect 
from the support in that it helped a group of institutions and entrepreneurs to develop 
in the area and the Venture Capital market in the country to consolidate. 

Only a few evaluations reviewed focussed on ICT (TO2).  

  The evaluation of the broadband project in Wales (Superfast Cymru) co-financed by 
the  ERDF  in  2007-2013,  found  that  the  project  had  positive  economic,  social  and 
environmental effects. It estimated that for each EUR of public money invested, EUR 
6.70 of net economic benefits were generated, that 1,050 jobs will be created by 2024 
and that CO2 emissions will be reduced by 33 kilo-tonnes a year.  

  A  Polish  evaluation  of  the  measures  implemented  by  the  Innovative  Economy  OP 
2007-2013,  aimed  at  improving  e-systems  for  government  and  creating  ICT 
infrastructure,  found  that  they  helped  to  improve  services  and  public  administration 
but  that  the  effects  as  regards  the  business  sector  were  modest.  Another  Polish 
evaluation  of  the  impact  of  EU  co-financed  programmes  on  the  development  of  the 
information  society  in  Poland  concluded  that  they  helped  to  develop  internet  access 
and improve ICT skills. It also, however, drew attention to a number of deficiencies in 
the way the programme was implemented, such as a lack of coordination at the central 
level  and  the  need  to  better  target  measures  to  develop  e-skills  and  promote  e-
inclusion.  In  addition,  e-entrepreneurship  measures  could  have  been  complemented 
with training. 

Only a relatively small number of evaluations reviewed activities focused on the shift towards 
a  low-carbon  economy  (TO4).  Those  assessing  interventions  to  support  this  broad  policy 
area  mainly  focused  on  investment  in  renewable  energy  and  energy  efficiency.  The  main 
findings are set out below: 

  The evaluation of the Environment and Energy OP 2007-2013 in Hungary supporting 
renewable energy and energy efficiency measures found that most projects concerned 
the  modernisation  of  buildings,  nearly  two  thirds  of  them  implemented  by  local 
authorities  and  the  rest  by  private  enterprises.  It  highlighted  that  SMEs  lacked 
professional  support  for  project  preparation  and  implementation,  especially  in  less 
developed regions and that projects were not sufficiently sustainable.  

35 

 
 
  The  evaluation  of  the  regional  ERDF  OP  Lombardia  2007-2013  concluded  that  the 
projects supported helped to improve safety at facilities and ensured more accessibility 
of urban spaces as a result of the renewal of lighting systems.  

  The  evaluation  of  the  regional  ERDF  Toscana  OP  2007-2013  found  that  reduced 
access  to  credit  as  a  consequence  of  the  economic  and  financial  crisis  was  a  strong 
limiting factor for enterprise to participate in energy efficiency projects.  

  A horizontal evaluation undertaken in Poland to assess progress in shifting towards a 
low-carbon economy indicated that over the period 2009-2015 there was an increase 
of 28% in the share of electricity from renewable sources and of 10% in the share of 
renewables in gross final energy consumption in heating and cooling.  

Another  evaluation  reviewed  on  environmental  protection  and  preservation  (TO6) 
assessed  the  impact  of  projects,  supported  by  the  Infrastructure  and  Environment  OP  2007-
2013, to protect the Polish sea coasts which are subject to erosion. The evaluation concluded 
that the projects have helped to stabilise the shoreline and to reduce the risk of floods, while 
indirectly supporting tourism. 

For transport (TO7), the evaluations reviewed were mainly on infrastructure projects in the 
EU12 Member States in the 2007-2013 period. They found little evidence of impact since the 
effects  needed  time  to  materialise. A  number  of  issues,  however,  were  identified  as  regards 
project  selection  and  management.  These  related  to  the  burden  involved  in  preparing 
applications for funding which is seen as disproportionate and the excessive weight given to 
the price in project selection. Some evaluations also highlighted the fact that, due to the crisis, 
prices fell and many projects were therefore completed at lower cost than originally planned.  

A  Hungarian  evaluation  assessed  the  effects  on  social  inclusion  and  poverty  reduction  of 
integrated  urban  development  plans  that  were  implemented  by  the  7  regional  OPs  in  2007-
2013  (TO9).  It  indicated  that  77  social  urban  renewal  projects  were  carried  out  and  living 
conditions and access to public services were improved as a result, but it failed to identify any 
significant  impact  on  employment  or  social  conditions.  It  found  that  the  partnerships  put  in 
place  to  develop  and  implement  the  plans  involved  officials  from  municipalities  as  well  as 
local stakeholders were not permanent but created ad hoc. The evaluation pointed to the need 
for more integrated development strategies among these and for more account to be taken of 
the specific needs of the communities concerned and the local business sector.  

In  addition,  a  number  of  recommendations  were  made  to  improve  the  management  of 
transport for the 2014-2020 programming period: 

  continue  the  reconstruction  of  the  rail  network  and  develop  alternative  modes  of 

transport; 

 

link transport infrastructure more closely to the needs of economic development in the 
areas involved; 

 

reduce operating costs to improve the financial sustainability of public transport; 

  develop more intelligent transport systems; 

36 

 
 
 

take careful account of the need for maintenance of infrastructure and vehicle needs in 
project planning; 

  pay due attention to the sustainability, competitiveness and energy efficiency of public 

transport. 

8.2.2.  Synthesis of the quality of the evaluations undertaken 

8.2.2.1.  Clarity and suitability of the evaluation design 

In  general,  the  structure  of  evaluation  reports  included  the  main  elements  required,  in 
particular,  the  purpose  of  the  evaluation  and  the  research  questions,  the  methods  and  data 
used, the results obtained and the policy implications.  

The majority of the evaluations reviewed set out the research questions and where they were 
not spelled out, the purpose was usually made clear. Nevertheless, in some cases, the research 
questions were not listed and the purpose of the evaluation was specified only in broad terms, 
which made it difficult to assess whether the methods applied were suitable.  

In some cases, the research questions were not in line with the purpose of the evaluation (or 
only partly), particularly in respect of evaluations aimed at assessing impact. In some cases, 
the questions had more to do with implementation issues than with the effects produced.  

8.2.2.2.  Appropriateness  of  techniques  applied  and  use  of  mixed 

methods 

In  the  majority  of  cases,  the  evaluations  reviewed  mainly  used  qualitative  and  quantitative 
methods  based  on  desk  research,  interviews  and  focus  groups  and  to  a  lesser  extent  case 
studies, combined with analysis of primary data from surveys and of monitoring and official 
statistical  data,  where  available.  There  was,  therefore,  a  prevalence  of  simple  evaluation 
methods, which in principle may be suitable for the questions asked but when applied alone 
do  not  in  many  cases  produce  robust  results.  The  application  of  more  complex  methods 
together with the principle of triangulation was limited. One of reasons for this seems to be 
related  to  the  lack  of  reliable  and  complete  data,  as  highlighted  in  many  cases  by  the 
evaluators themselves.  

Nevertheless, even where quantitative data were scarce, it would have been worth considering 
the  use  of  other  methods,  such  as  theory-based  ones,  possibly  combined  with  detailed  case 
studies, to obtain a better understanding of the effects of the measures examined (in terms of 
intervention logic and the mechanisms by which interventions were supposed to achieve their 
objectives).  

For  some  policy  areas,  the  lack  of  data  was  a  particular  concern,  such  as  in  the  case  of 
transport, environmental infrastructure, renewable energy and energy efficiency. In addition, 
given that the effects of investment in these areas are often only measureable with a delay, the 
estimated results may in some cases be very different from the actual ones. A more intensive 
use of cost-benefit analysis and benchmarking techniques might, nevertheless, have helped to 
produce more useful evidence.  

37 

 
 
In general, the use of theory-based, counterfactual and cost benefit analysis was limited and 
concerned  to  a  large  extent  ex  post  evaluations  carried  out  on  the  2007-2013  programming 
period. These methods were combined, in many cases, with other qualitative and quantitative 
methods. 

8.2.2.3.  Data quality 

As noted above, the lack of data represented a major limitation for many of the evaluations 
reviewed. Limitations were also encountered for those interventions which were implemented 
across  an  entire  country,  essentially  because  of  a  lack  of  homogenous  data  for  the  regions, 
measures or OPs covered.  

In some cases, the evaluation results were based on surveys where the response rate was too 
low for robust conclusions and which made it difficult to generalise the findings.  

Interviews remain one of the main data sources for qualitative methods but the reliability of 
the  responses  is  an  inherent  concern  since  they  are  liable  to  be  biased  by  their  subjective 
nature.  In  some  cases,  the  preparation  of  well-structured  interviews  or  holding  multiple 
interviews with different actors helped to reduce the importance of this factor.  

In  other  cases,  detailed  information  on  the  way  data  were  analysed  was  not  included  in  the 
report or annexes (or sometimes, even if provided, annexes were not available for assessment) 
and this made it difficult to assess whether and to what extent data were suitably processed 
and/or adjusted.  

8.2.2.4.  Validity of findings and of conclusions  

Overall, there were no major shortcomings in the evaluations reviewed so far as regards the 
conclusions  and  policy  implications  and  the  way  that  they  followed  from  the  results  of  the 
analysis. In a number of cases, however, they could have been presented in a clearer and more 
coherent way to help readers to assess them more easily and to see how they were linked to 
the foregoing evaluation.  

In many cases, reference was made to the external factors which were at play and which could 
have affected the outcome of the intervention being examined, but there was often no detailed 
consideration of their effects.  

8.3.  Synthesis of ERDF/Cohesion Fund evaluation work by the Commission 

The ERDF  and Cohesion fund 2007-2013 ex post evaluation was  finalised in late 2016 and 
was extensively presented21 at the time.   

Following  completion  of  the  2007-2013  ex  post,  the  Commission  launched  a  major 
communication effort on the results of the Policy on the ground.  This included the production 

21   The  summary  and  full  details  of  the  ERDF/CF  2007-2013  ex  post  evaluation  package  is  available  on 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/ec/2007-2013/  

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
of  short  Member  State  specific  videos,  showing  key  achievements  of  the  policy  in  each 
Member State.  In order to provide the latest available information, the content was elaborated 
to  refer  to  preliminary  figures  from  the  2007-2013  closure  reports  received  in  late  March 
2017. 

include 

Also  in  2017,  the  Commission  launched  an  evaluation  to  complement  previous  ex-post 
evaluations. The objective of the latest evaluation of major projects, supported by ERDF and 
the  Cohesion  Fund  between  2000 and  2013,  is  to  analyse  the  long  term  contribution  (direct 
and  indirect,  as  expected  and  unexpected)  of  major  investment  projects  on  economic  and 
environmental development, quality of life and well-being of citizens. The policy areas to be 
evaluated 
information  and  communication 
infrastructure  and  research  reflecting  the  importance  of  major  projects  as  an  instrument  in 
those areas in two programming periods (2000-2006 and 2007-2013).  The first study under 
the contract is a one-year study (signed on 15 May 2017) focused on 10 ERDF or Cohesion 
Fund transport projects. This overall contract may be renewed up to three times by 12 months 
provided the Commission is satisfied by the quality of work delivered. The policy areas to be 
covered by the subsequent 12 months contracts will be: Environment (2018); Energy (2019); 
Information society and Research and development infrastructure (2020). 

transport,  environment,  energy, 

During  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  the  main  evaluation  work  undertaken  by  the 
Commission will relate to the accumulation of evidence from Member States' evaluations.  To 
this  end,  the  Commission  has  launched  an  "Evaluation  Helpdesk"  contract  (ERDF/CF  and 
ESF)  to  identify  and  synthesise,  among  other  tasks,  the  evaluations  carried  out  by  MS.  
Within  its  annual  reports,  the  helpdesk  provides  an  overall  synthesis  of  the  quality  and  the 
findings of the evaluations reviewed, organized by thematic objective and investment priority 
where possible.  That report feeds the Commission's annual summary report and synthesis (set 
out for 2017 in this document). 

To provide support to the Member States, the Commission, through the Evaluation Helpdesk,  
organises evaluation training for the Member States through "summer schools" for managing 
authorities  and  others  involved  in  the  evaluation  of  programmes.    The  first  such  training  in 
2016  focused  on  the  design  of  evaluations  and  the  development  of  good  quality  terms  of 
reference.  The  second  event  in  2017  focussed  on  theory-based  impact  evaluation.  These 
trainings  are  practice-oriented  and  interactive  in  nature,  providing  valuable  occasions  to 
discuss evaluation issues and exchange of experience. 

9.  ESF AND YEI 

9.1.  Update on evaluation plans 2014-2020 

By  30  June  2016,  128  ESF  (including  multi-fund)  Evaluation  Plans  were  submitted  to  the 
monitoring committees for assessment and approval, corresponding to three-fourth of the ESF 
resources22.  By  August  2017,  evaluation  plans  have  been  submitted  for  all  OPs. 
Consequently, the total number of plans for ESF OPs, has increased to 183. 

22   See footnote 17. 

39 

 
 
                                                 
Table 3- Breakdown of the evaluation plans by Fund (number) 

Cumulative number of evaluation plans 

ESF + YEI 

Multi-fund 

Total 

82 

101 

183 

Note: Evaluation plans covering ERDF OPs and ESF OPs are considered in the table as multi-Fund plans. 

The  total  number  of  ESF  programmes  (187)  compared  to  the  number  of  evaluation  plans 
involving ESF (183) implies the common pattern has been one plan covering not more than 
one ESF OP. This is in contrast to the relatively high number of plans covering more than one 
fund. 

Because  of  the  required  approval  by  Monitoring  Committees  of  all  evaluation  plans  within 
one year after the adoption of the operational programme and the subdued start of programme 
implementation,  many  elements  of  the  originally  submitted  plans  have  been  complemented 
and  updated.  This  has  also  allowed  further  specifying  the  plans.  Consequently,  this  second 
phase of planning has come with an improvement in the quality of the plans, in particular of 
the  updated  plans.  In  the  assessment  of  the  Evaluation  Helpdesk,  a  service  run  by  the 
European Commission to assess evaluation plans and monitor evaluations, the average quality 
of  the  15  revised  evaluation  plans  has  improved  by  0.5  to  2.9  on  a  scale  of  4.  At  the  same 
time, the average score of all evaluation plans is 2.6. 

In line with the main findings of the previous year, the evaluation plans tend to be relatively 
complete and coherent with regard to the division of responsibilities and coordination, the use 
to be made of evaluation findings and the communication of these as well as management and 
planning and, slightly less so as regards the skills and expertise available. The main areas of 
weakness  concern  the  design  of  evaluations,  the  methods  to  be  used  and  the  data 
requirements.  Aspects  where  weaknesses  are  most  common  as  regards  evaluation  design, 
selection of methods and data are failure to: 

  use  existing  evidence  from  past  evaluations  and  research  to  identify  main  gaps  in 

knowledge about effect of programmes and measures supported; 

  set  out  for  each  evaluation,  key  evaluation  questions  to  be  investigated  and  justify 

why; and to limit the number of questions; 
identify most appropriate approaches or methods to address each evaluation question 
and to provide the rationale for choice; 
identify the data required in enough detail to be able to define data sources and check 
availability; as well as 
formulate a timely plan to fill gaps in data and correct deficiencies. 

 

 

 

With the completion of evaluation planning and the evidence gained from the analysis of the 
plans, efforts have to focus, on the one hand, on the improvement of the plans. The evaluation 
plan  is  "a  strategic  document  which  will  accompany  the  programme  throughout  its  life  and 

40 

 
 
 
support  its  result  orientation".  Therefore  it  has  been  recommended  that  "the  monitoring 
committee  reviews  the  implementation  of  the  evaluation  plan  at  least  once  a  year"23.  The 
areas  for  improvement  as  identified  in  the  assessment  will  be  important  references  for  the 
reviews. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  attention  has  to  shift  towards  the  implementation  of  the  plans,  in 
particular  the  quality  of  the  evaluations.  Indeed,  out  of  the  planned  ESF  evaluations  for  the 
10-year  period  of  2014-2023,  almost  40  percent  is  planned  to  be  carried  out  in  the 
forthcoming 3 years. 

Figure 16 – Scheduled completion date of planned evaluations (number of evaluations – 
left scale, cumulative number – right scale) 

Understandably,  procedure/implementation  and/or  monitoring/progress-oriented  evaluations 
are  expected  to  peak  in  the  coming  years  in  particular;  whereas  the  majority  of  impact 
later 
oriented  evaluations  are  planned 
implementation  of  the  methodologically  more  complex  impact  evaluation  provides  some 
opportunities for additional preparations to be able to carry out good quality evaluations. 

implementation.  The 

later  years  of 

the 

to 

23   Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy - Guidance Document on Evaluation Plans: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2014/working/evaluation_plan_guidance_en.pdf  

41 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  17  –  Scheduled  completion  date  of  planned  evaluations  by  type  (number  of 
evaluations – left scale, cumulative number – right scale) 

In addition to the scheduling of the planned evaluations, their thematic distribution has to be 
considered  too.  As  shown  last  year  (SWD(2016)  447),  the  thematic  coverage  of  the 
evaluations was supposed to be broadly in line with the financial distribution of the thematic 
objectives, i.e. 34% of the planned evaluations will address 'promoting sustainable and quality 
employment  and  supporting  labour  mobility'  (TO  8)  and  10%  will  deal  with  'enhancing 
institutional  capacity  of  public  authorities  and  stakeholders  and  efficient  public 
administration' (TO 11). However, with the adoption of the final set of plans, the distribution 
has  changed  in  favour  of  the  social  inclusion  thematic  objective  (TO  9).  Social  inclusion 
evaluations  are  especially  numerous  in  the  multi-fund  programmes,  in  which  ERDF  invests 
heavily in social infrastructure. 

Table 4 – Distribution of planned evaluations by thematic objective and fund 

ESF+YEI 

Multi-fund 

Total 

Budget 

Number  Share (%)  Number  Share (%)  Number  Share (%) 

Share (%) 

TO8 

TO9 

TO10 

TO11 

93 

54 

54 

32 

40 

23 

23 

14 

Total 

233 

100 

178 

246 

162 

49 

635 

28 

39 

26 

8 

100 

271 

300 

216 

81 

868 

31 

35 

25 

9 

39 

25 

32 

4 

100 

100 

These plans at national and regional levels have to be contrasted with the thematic needs of 
the ESF. In particular, evaluation has to provide evidence how the ESF is contributing to the 
implementation  of  the  new  policy  initiatives,  each  of  which  can  be  associated  with  specific 
thematic  objectives  and  investment  priorities,  such  as  the  Work  Life  Balance  package  (IP 

42 

 
 
 
  
  
 
8.iv), the European Pillar of Social Rights (IP 9.i and 9.iv), the New Skills Agenda (TO 10). 
DG EMPL is going to map the evidence coming from the evaluations in the important policy 
areas,  synthesise  evaluation  results  and  carry  out  meta-evaluations  where  necessary.  A 
complementary  tool  in  the  monitoring  of  evaluation  results  is  going  to  be  the  voluntary 
template for the reporting of evaluation results to be integrated in the AIR module. In addition 
to synthesis and meta-evaluation, DG EMPL also intends to gather evidence about impacts of 
the  operations  directly  from  implementation  with  its  feasibility  and  pilot  study.  This  study 
aims at, on the one hand, testing the applicability of the counterfactual method on the basis of 
datasets available in the authorities carrying out the programmes and in other administrative 
bodies.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  going  to  evaluate  the  sustainability  of  the  selected  ESF 
operations through a comparable set of measurements.   

In addition to ensuring a thematic balance, the reliability of the findings is also essential for 
catering  the  necessary  input  to  policy  decision  makers.  With  a  view  to  improving  the 
evaluation culture in the authorities responsible for the management of the ESF, DG EMPL 
(jointly  with  DG  REGIO)  has  continued  the  peer  reviewing  of  national  or  regional 
evaluations.  The  reviews,  with  a  focus  on  impact  evaluations,  aim  at  identifying  good 
practices  to  be  showcased  and  disseminated.  At  the  same  time,  the  discussion  between  the 
reviewers,  the  authorities  and  the  evaluators  induce  direct learning.  The  main  findings  have 
been presented to the ESF Evaluation Partners. 

In  addition  to  fostering  evaluation  culture  through  the  peer  reviews,  particular  attention  has 
been devoted to ESF counterfactual impact evaluations (CIEs) since 2013. The capacities of 
the  national  authorities  to  carry  out  quality  CIEs  have  been  supported  by  the  Center  for 
Research  on  Impact  Evaluation  (CRIE),  which  is  part  of  the  Joint  Research  Center.  CRIE 
supported  four  Managing  Authorities24  to  get  their  data  ready  for  future  CIE.  Four  further 
Managing  Authorities  that  already  have  suitable  data25  are  being  assisted  to  carry  out  CIE. 
CRIE  has  fostered  the  use  of  CIE  by  developing  guidance  materials  (including  video 
tutorials),  organising  seminars,  facilitating  sharing  of  experience  through  meetings  and  web 
platform  and  by  providing  customised  support  to  the  Managing  Authorities.  CRIE  is  also 
maintaining an archive of CIEs on ESF type interventions accessible to users in the Member 
States, research community and other stakeholders. 

9.2.  Synthesis of ESF/YEI evaluations completed by the Member States  

The  majority  of  evaluations  on  employment  carried  out  by  Member  States  were  essentially 
concerned with the effectiveness of the interventions co-financed by the ESF over the period 
2007-2013.  Some  evaluations  also  dealt  with  the  efficiency  and  impact  of  the  programmes. 
The  ESF  ex  post  evaluation  found  that  in  many  cases,  the  evaluation  objectives  were  so 
broadly defined or too many, that the impact analysis failed to provide useful insights. 

24   Human Capital interventions for young NEETs  employment in Romania; Supporting institutions threatened 
with early school leaving in Hungary; Work Experience for Young people in Italy –Basilicata;  Higher 
education scholarships and advanced training in Portugal. 

25   Youth Guarantee in Hungary; Work for Youth in Belgium; Youth Guarantee Vocational Training 

Programme in Latvia; Work Experience for Graduates in Italy-Umbria. 

43 

 
 
                                                 
As regards the appropriateness of techniques applied in the majority of cases, the evaluations 
mainly  used  qualitative  and  quantitative  methods  based  on  desk  research,  interviews  and 
focus groups and to lesser extent case studies, combined with analysis of primary data from 
surveys  and  of  monitoring  and  official  statistical  data,  where  available.  There  was  a 
prevalence of simple evaluation methods, which in principle may be suitable for the questions 
asked but when applied alone do not in many cases produce robust results. The application of 
more  complex  methods  together  with  the  principle  of  triangulation  was  limited.  One  of 
reasons for this seems to be related to the lack of reliable and complete data, as highlighted in 
many cases by the evaluators themselves. 

the  2007-2013  programming  period, 

During 
the  first  evaluations  which  employed 
counterfactual  methods  were  carried  out  by  Member  States,  notably  thanks  to  the efforts  of 
the  Commission  to  promote  the  use  of  this  method.  Six  of  them  present  particular  interest. 
They were concerned with public employment measures for job-seekers and people that were 
inactive  including  young  people,  long-term  unemployed  and  those  that  were  far  from  the 
labour market and initiatives to stimulate entrepreneurship (TO 8.i-8.ii-8.iii). 

The  counterfactual  evaluations  showed  positive  impact  in  the  cases  of  the  "Bürgerarbeit" 
programme,  co-funded  by  the  federal  ESF  OP  in  Germany,  the  "JobBridge"  project  co-
financed  by  the  ESF  in  Ireland  and  in  two  cases  in  the  UK  namely  the  "ESF  Jobs  Growth 
Wales"  and  the  "Redundancy  Action  Scheme"  (ReAct  phase  I  and  II)  programme.  In 
general,  the  programmes  have  been  successful  in  improving  the  employability  of  the 
unemployed by giving them various kinds of activation support. However, in the case of the 
evaluation of the measures supported by the Competitiveness and Economic Growth OP in 
Slovakia in 2007-2013, it was observed that ESF support had a negative effect on the income 
of  participants  and  reduced  the  likelihood  of  them  finding  a  job,  though  this  seemed  to 
disappear after 24 months. The picture was also quite mixed in cases like the counterfactual 
evaluation  of  the  regional  Sardinia  ESF  OP  2007-2013,  comprising  active  labour  market 
measures  for  young  people  not  employed  and  those  receiving  social  support  as  well  as  a 
voucher scheme for work experience, as results varied according to the age of participants and 
those still in employment 12 months after the training tended to be in low quality jobs. 

The evaluations from Member States were used by the Commission to the extent possible in 
the framework of its ex-post evaluation. 

9.2.1.  Evaluations of the Youth Employment Initiative  

The  majority  of  the  evaluations  carried  out  by  Member  States  related  to  the  YEI.  This  was 
anticipated  since  there  was  an  explicit  regulatory  requirement  according  to  which  the  first 
evaluation of YEI had to be completed by December 2015 by Member States. Despite the fact 
that YEI implementation was frontloaded, delays (mostly in designation and setting up of IT 
systems)  have  been  reported  which  in  turn  affected  the  availability  of  evidence  for  the 
evaluations.  In  the  cases  that  there  was  not  sufficient  data  on  the  effectiveness  of  the 
supported YEI measures, the YEI evaluations focused rather on the implementation process 
providing recommendations for assuring effective and efficient interventions. 

The process-oriented evaluations concluded that YEI interventions generally provided support 
to  those areas that are in greatest  need  such  as the long-term unemployed,  the inactive, and 
discouraged  young  people  and  were  expected  to  deliver  a  significant  positive  impact.  More 

44 

 
 
specifically, positive outcomes have been reported, like in the case of Cyprus and Bulgaria, 
with 45% of participants being in employment after leaving the intervention. In France, it was 
concluded that the exit rate of participants was higher than expected. The evaluation in Italy 
showed  that  around  35%  of  the  young  who  have  completed  the  interventions  are  now  in 
employment. 

Another  conclusion  of  several  YEI  evaluations  was  that  the  most  effective  interventions 
differed  per  specific  target  group;  i.e.  training,  and  guidance  were  considered  as  the  most 
training  for  entrepreneurship  and 
interventions  considered 
effective.  Less  effective 
apprenticeship places as it turned out in the cases of Romania, Lithuania, and Italy. 

The YEI also contributed to the launch of innovative actions such as the integrated training-
accompaniment  actions  managed  by  the  VDAB  in  Belgium).  Overall,  the  best  results  were 
experienced  where  project  partners  and  stakeholders  like  the  Public  Employment  services, 
schools, and municipalities cooperate. 

Some  evaluations  reported  on  differentiated  regional  approaches  while  implementing  YEI 
interventions  across  regions,  due  to  the  regional  set  up  of  administration.  For  instance,  the 
evaluation in Lithuania pointed to the fact that the selection criteria for YEI support are not 
homogeneous  across  municipalities.  This  was  considered  that  might  hinder  participation  of 
NEETs with the same characteristics in different municipalities. Similarly,  the evaluation in 
Italy  pointed  on  heterogeneity  in  the  average  effort  of  Public  Employment  services  among 
regions  in  terms  of  taking  on  responsibility  for  beneficiaries  while  the  evaluation  in  France 
pointed  to  the  fact  that  the  decentralisation  of  the  management  was  administratively  more 
demanding. 

A specific challenge identified was the difficulty of approaching the NEETs, especially those 
belonging  to  the  most  vulnerable  groups.  Moreover,  NEETS  seemed  to  be  a  very 
heterogeneous target group and each target group needs another combination of interventions 
when considering the labour market needs. The evaluation in Bulgaria recommended that the 
interventions should be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that the interventions address 
the  needs  of  the  different  target  groups.  Moreover,  it  was  indicated that  some  target  groups 
should be better addressed, like early school leavers and people with lower qualifications. The 
evaluations  in  Italy,  France  and  Romania  pointed  to  improvements  to  be  made  in  the 
governance of YEI, improving the alignment between national and regional policies in.Italy, 
increase  employers’  participation  in  Romania  and  Public  Employment  services  in  both 
countries. 

9.2.2.  Evaluations of the ESF  

Beyond YEI, few evaluations were carried out by Member States relating to ESF in 2016 (see 
below).  This  was  expected  given  that  the  largest  share  of  evaluations  is  planned  for  the 
coming years. 

In  the  case  of  Lithuania,  the  evaluation  concluded  that  there  was  a  positive  effect  on  job 
placement of participants from training on the job and on youth volunteer work (although not 
being statistically significant). Overall,  employment  measures that were closer to  the labour 
market  were,  on  average,  more  successful  in  getting  the  unemployed  into  work  in  the  short 
term, than those that required the development of general skills and competences. 

45 

 
 
Similarly,  a  Dutch  evaluation  reported  that  the  provision  of  the  scheme  was  efficient,  since 
the  clear  majority  of  participating  organisations  would  otherwise  have  not  implemented  the 
project, or would downsize the scale and size of the project. The ESF succeeded in reaching a 
wide variety of small, medium and large enterprises in all sectors. Another evaluation in the 
Netherlands concluded that the financial progress made was considered positive and the first 
results  showed  that  20%  of  participants  in  the  first  two  years  of  the  programme  were  still 
employed  at  the  end  of  the  interventions.  The  most  effective  interventions  in  meeting  the 
needs  of  employers,  and  so  favouring  integration  into  the  labour  market,  turned  out  to  be 
those featuring a mix of instruments. 

A  Polish  evaluation  at  regional  level  showed  that  the  division  of  tasks  and  responsibilities 
between  the  Managing  Authority,  the  Intermediate  Bodies  and  the  certifying  authority  was 
appropriate ensuring an efficient implementation of the OP. Nevertheless, in terms of human 
capital, the lack of an incentive scheme and insufficient wages for the employees involved in 
the management and implementation of the OP was highlighted. 

The evaluation of the project supporting unemployed or single parents in the United Kingdom 
reported  positive  outcomes  on  the  way  policy  operates..  The  flexible,  person-led  approach 
was  welcomed  by  all  stakeholders  and  participants.  However,  the  foreseen  employment 
outcomes were challenging particularly in rural areas which suffer from poor infrastructure. 

In Germany, two evaluations were carried out with the first one concluding that targets were 
not achieved for 2016, and that the process of recruiting enterprises for the consultation was 
underestimated  in  terms  of  the  high  costs  incurred  and  the  time  required.  The  evaluation 
recommended  revising  the  indicator  system  and  setting  more  realistic  targets  for  the 
remaining  period  and  improving  the  overall  cooperation  process.  The  second  evaluation  on 
women and careers provided a positive assessment of the counselling activities, as well as the 
data quality. 

Finally,  a  feasibility  study  was  conducted  in  the  Netherlands  showing  that  a  quasi-
experimental  evaluation  only  seems  meaningful  for  measures  co-financed  by  ESF  targeting 
the disabled. 

9.3.  Synthesis of ESF evaluation work by the Commission 

Evaluation work by the Commission in the last 12 months has focussed on the competition of 
the  ESF  Ex  post  evaluation  and  supporting  the  planning  of  evaluation  for  the  2014-2020 
period. 

A 2016 staff working document26 presented the main findings of the ex post evaluation27 of 
the European Social Fund operational programmes for the 2007-2013 programming period. 

The  main task for the Commission  for 2014-2020 in relation to  evaluation is  to  support the 
implementation  of  the  evaluation  planes  of  each  programme,  the  synthesis  of  the  findings 

26   SWD(2016) 452 final. 
27   Full details of the ESF Ex post evaluation are available on  
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=701&langId=en  

46 

 
 
                                                 
 
when they become available and to support the programmes. This is being carried out through 
the Evaluation Helpdesk, a joint contract covering ESF/YEI programmes as well as ERDF/CF 
programmes. See section 8.3 above for further details. 

10.  EAFRD - EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL FUND FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

10.1.  Period 2014-2020 

10.1.1.  Progress in implementing evaluation plan 

RDP  evaluation  concepts  have  been  fine-tuned,  including  the  revision  of  timing  as  well  as 
modifications  of  evaluation  criteria  and  methodologies.  In  total,  49  modifications  of 
evaluation plans (EPs) were mentioned in 22 annual implementation reports (AIRs) submitted 
in  2017  by  seven  Member  States  (MS),  namely  in  Estonia,  Finland  (1  RDP),  France  (7), 
Germany  (3),  Italy  (8), Spain  (1)  and  the  UK  (1).  In  more  than  half  of these  EPs,  only  one 
sub-section was modified. Modifications concentrate on the following areas: 

  Changes/updates in the evaluation timeline, e.g. due to delays in the implementation 

of the programme; 

  Update/ change of units, procedural changes, additional human resources; 
  Updates of judgement criteria, indicators, development of a detailed evaluation 

concept; 

  Selection and contracting of RDP evaluators. 

The  merging  of  the  French  regions  Basse-Normandie  and  Haute-Normandie  resulted  in  the 
creation of a common EP. 

The number of reported evaluation activities has doubled compared to the previous reporting 
period. The main progress concerns activities in relation to the planning and preparation phase 
of evaluations. A total number of 374 evaluation activities were reported in 105 of the AIRs 
submitted in 2017. Compared to the activities reported in the AIR submitted in 2016 this is 
more than double. The number of evaluation activities by Member States is illustrated in the 
figure below and can be described as follows: 

  The reported evaluation activities mainly concern the planning and the preparation of 
evaluations. With regard to these two phases, 205 activities were reported in 2017, 
including the preparation of Terms of Reference and tendering procedures, as well as 
the set-up of administrative arrangements etc.; 

  48 activities are related to the structuring phase, e.g. the review of evaluation 

questions and indicators and the development of an evaluation approach and methods; 
  89 evaluation-related activities concern the implementation phase and 32 activities the 
dissemination phase, representing together one third of the total number of evaluation 
activities. This is significantly more than in the AIR in 2016, where only one out of 
seven activities was related to these two phases. Evaluation topics include cross-
priority topics, RD priority 4 and RD priority 5. 

47 

 
 
34  of  the  374  evaluation  activities  are  related  to  the  ex-post  evaluation.  Reasons  for  not 
reporting  evaluation  activities  include  delays  in  the  implementation,  delayed  tendering 
procedure for the selection of evaluators or insufficient implementation data.  

Figure 18: Evaluation activities by Member States and phase 

Source: Screening of AIRs submitted in 2017 (Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development, 2017) 

Managing Authorities have considerably progressed in contracting independent evaluators for 
carrying  out  evaluation  activities.    Almost  80%  of  the  AIRs  submitted  in  2017  provide 
information about contracting evaluators. In some RDPs this information is not available yet, 
as  e.g.  in  IT-Puglia  and  PT-Acores,  where  the  tendering  procedure  for  the  selection  of 
evaluators was opened only in 2017. 

Reported monitoring and data management is in many programme areas still in the phase of 
setting up and adaption of the monitoring systems. Data management activities were reported 
in  109  of  the  AIRs,  most  of  which  concern  the  setting-up  of  the  monitoring  system  and 
ensuring  data  provision  and  collection.  13%  of  the  reported  activities  are  related  to  the 
collection of data. 

Difficulties  in  relation  to  data  management  refer  to  monitoring  problems  such  as  related  to 
indicators calculations, the lack of definitions, baselines, target values, and difficulties in the 
reliability of calculations as resulting from lacking data. 

48 

 
 
 
of 

data 

Table 5: EAFRD reported activities related to data management 
Type 
management activity 
Set  up  of  the  monitoring 
system (in administrative 
and technical terms) 

Number 

Share 

35% 

98 

Information provided in the AIRs 

Screening 
information 
providers 

data 

and 
sources/ 

26 

9% 

Ensuring data provision 

81 

29% 

of 

Collection 
(beneficiaries, 
beneficiaries) 

37 

data 
non-

13% 

Arrangements to fill data 
gaps 

13 

5% 

Quality 
collected data 

control 

of 

13 

5% 

of 

Management 
protection issues 
Other 

data 

4 

9 

1% 

3% 

of  main 

and 
information 

Adaption  and  fine-tuning  of  the  monitoring  system 
the  operations 
and  applications;  definition  of 
database;  Contracting  of 
IT  services;  national 
working  group  /  steering  group  on  monitoring  and 
data collection;  
availability; 
Assessment  of  data  needs 
Description 
sources; 
Identification  of  supplementary  data  to  be  provided; 
Linking sources, methods and activities 
Agreements with data providers; Description of how 
specific  data  (e.g.  farmland  bird  index);  guidelines 
including  definition  of  process  and  tasks  of  actors; 
training 
Elimination  of  shortcomings  in  the  data  acquisition; 
Retrieving  of  data;  data  collection  methods  (e.g. 
survey);  development  of  data  collection  and 
management 
implementation  of  new 
dashboards;  
Identification 
monitoring 
incorporation of new indicators; signed agreements 
Plausibility  checks  by 
technical  departments; 
meetings between evaluators and PA; agreement with 
data provider to collect data on land characteristics of 
the farms 
Signed agreements between involved actors;  

other 
evaluation  working 

sources; 
group; 

information 

of 
and 

systems; 

Presentations, 
development; 
methodological 
Guidelines,  working  group  on  new  processes  to 
improve data collection;  

 Total number of data 
management activities 
reported 
Source: Screening of AIRs submitted in 2017 (Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development, 2017) 

 100% 

281 

The number of completed evaluations increased significantly, indicating major progress in the 
implementation  of  EPs.  Specific  topics  of  evaluation  studies  concern  mainly  RD  Priority  4, 
cross  priority  topics  and  priority  2.  While  a  number  of  150  completed  evaluations  (AIR  in 
2016: 66) was listed in 64 AIRs, about one third concern ex-post evaluations of the previous 
programming period 2007-2013. 

16  evaluations  concern  specifically  RD  Priority  4  (ecosystems).  Saxony  (DE)  carried  out 
several  studies  related 
to  LEADER/LAG  and  LDs  and  Spain  conducted  several 
methodological studies on the calculation of indicators. Several studies and evaluations were 
completed referring to RD Priority 2 (economic impact), with some focus on specific sectors. 
In Germany, an evaluation was completed, comparing four German RDPs on aspects such as 
finances, support measures, target groups and implementation. Reports with a methodological 
focus include the assessment of the M&E system and the provision of methodological support 
on  e.g.  how  to  calculate  result  indicators.  107  of  the  completed  evaluations  were  published 
online. 

49 

 
 
 
Figure 19: Evaluation topics of the completed evaluations listed in the AIRs submitted in 
2017 

Source: Screening of AIRs submitted in 2017 (Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development, 2017) 

Evaluation-related  communication  activities  tripled  in  number  compared  to  the  previous 
reporting  period  and  reached  more  than  800,000  stakeholders.  280  evaluation-related 
communication  activities  were  reported,  of  which  the  main  communication  channels  were 
multi-events (e.g. conference, seminars, workshops, excursion) (98 activities) and the website 
(52).  Regarding  the  specific  evaluation  topics,  the  majority  of  the  communication  activities 
refer  to  cross-priority  topics  and  CLLD/LEADER.  Other  activities  are  not  focussing  on 
specific evaluation topic (e.g. presentation of the MC, status meetings, conferences, etc.). 45 
of  the  communication  activities  are  related  to  the  programming  period  2007-2013,  which 
includes press releases and the dissemination of the ex-post evaluation. 

In  total,  856,902  stakeholders  were  reached,  mainly  through  website  visits  and  the 
participation in meetings, workshops, etc. The number of stakeholders reached through online 
channels is reported to be difficult to monitor and therefore most likely underestimated.  

10.1.2.  The  progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  2014-2020  rural 

development programmes  

This  section  describes  progress  in  implementing  RDPs  as  derived  from  21  common 
evaluation questions (CEQ) included in chapter 7 of the enhanced AIRs submitted by 30 June 
2017. 

The majority of the RDPs have systematically dealt with evaluations even at an early stage of 
programme  implementation.  Managing  Authorities  took  the  opportunity  to  address  the 
common evaluation questions (CEQ). For example, in 90% of all cases, the important focus 
areas 2A (economic performance) and the financially significant priority 4 (ecosystems) were 
addressed.  Only  a  small  share  of  Managing  Authorities  did  not  treat  the  CEQs  although 
operations were completed in the reporting period in the respective focus area. 

50 

 
 
 
Achievements  are  consistently  reported,  though  with  various  degrees  of  detail.  Some  of  the 
RDPs  also  report  on  concrete  achievements.  A  high  proportion  of  Managing  Authorities 
reported  achievements  in  relation  to  focus  area  2A  (economic  performance),  6B  (local 
development)  and  in  the  P4  (ecosystems).  Some  of  the  achievements  are  based  on  ex-post 
evaluation  findings  of  the  2007-2013  period  which  were  extrapolated  to  the  current 
programmes. 

The evidence-base for RDP achievements, expressed in quantified common result indicators, 
varies across programmes and focus areas and does not necessarily correlate with the level of 
uptake. The quantification of common result indicators varies by focus area. A high degree of 
quantification  was  achieved  for  focus  areas  2A  (economic  performance),  4A  (biodiversity), 
4B  (water  management),  4C  (soil  management)  and  6B  (local  development).  As  regards 
priority  5  (resource  efficiency)  and  focus  areas  3B  (risk  prevention)  and  6C  (ICT), 
quantification  remains  limited.  Complementary  result  indicators  (such  as  R2  labour 
productivity) could only be quantified in a few cases.  

Table 6: Level of financial absorption and treatment of CEQs (basis n=115 RDP) 

Priority 

P1 

P2 

P3 

Focus area 

1A 

1B  1C 

2A 

2B 

3A 

3B 

P4 
4A, 4B, 
4C 

P5 

P6 

5A 

5B 

5C 

5D 

5E 

6A 

6B 

6C 

Share of 
RDPs with 
realised 
expenditures 
in %  
Share of 
RDPs which 
treated the 
CEQs in %  
Number of 
RDPs  which 
did not treat 
the CEQ 
despite of 
realised 
expenditures 
in % 
Share of 
RDPs which 
reported 
achievements 
in % (sub-
section 6) 

Share of 
RDPs which 
quantified 
common 
result 
indicators in 
% (value>0) 

38 

81 

56 

60 

21 

89 

21 

19 

25 

23 

52 

27 

57 

7 

74 

69  59 

90 

73 

75 

40 

90 

42 

49 

62 

58 

68 

57 

82 

36 

4 

4 

2 

8 

5 

49 

35  33 

90 

50 

48 

23 

T1 32 

T2 
13 

T3 
23 

T4 
62 
R2 
13 

T5 
42 

T6 
19 

T7 7 

1 (4A),  
3 (4B),  
3 (4C) 

70 (4A), 
63 (4B), 
63 (4C) 

T8 26 
T9 70 
T10 60 
T11 14 
T12 57 
T13 15 

4 

0 

0 

1 

7 

4 

5 

2 

26 

28 

40 

36 

48 

35 

55 

20 

R13 
3 
T14 
15 

R14 
2 
T15 
12 

R15 
9 
R16 
18 

R18 
10 
R19 
9 
T17 
7 
T18 
20 

T19 
37 

T20 
17 

T21 
47 
T22 
23 
T23 
20 

T24 
4 

Source: HD screening of AIRs, extract of SFC 2014 database 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 20: Share of RDPs that evaluated the focus areas and reported achievements 

Source: HD screening of AIRs, extract of SFC 2014 database 

The following section provides information on the achievements measured by common output 
and  result  indicators  and  examples  of  achievements  demonstrated  for  RDPs  with  a  high 
output rate (high outputs are the precondition for effects), as reported in the AIRs submitted 
by the end of June 2017.  

Aggregated  information  on  the  achievements  is  presented  for  each  of  the  six  Rural 
Development  priorities  in  the  Annex.  The  six  priorities  are  further  elaborated  through  18 
Focus Areas (FA) – jointly providing the basis for rolling out support under the EAFRD. 

10.2.  Ex-post evaluations 2007-2013 

Member States submitted to the Commission the ex-post evaluation reports of the 2007-2013 
rural  development  programmes  by  31  December  2016.  As  set  out  in  Article  87  of  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/2005  supporting  the  EAFRD28,  supplemented  by  Article  18(2)  of 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/201429, a summary of the ex post evaluations 
is currently ongoing under the responsibility of the Commission and will be completed by the 
end of 2017.  

28   OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1. 
29   OJ L 227, 31.7.2014, p. 1. 

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
11.  EMFF - EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND  

11.1.  Period 2014-2020 

EMFF programmes are at a very early stage of implementation and therefore only a limited 
number of evaluations took place. Nine Member States reported some evaluation activities in 
the  AIR  submitted  2017  (CY,  CZ,  DK,  FI,  HU,  LV,  PT,  RO,  SK).  The  activities  include 
mainly the formation of an evaluation steering committee. But some Member States (CZ, FI, 
LV) have reported the start of evaluations such as process evaluations (i.e. in CZ) or sector 
analyses (e.g. in FI). Most of the Member States plan to start  evaluation in late 2017 or the 
beginning of 2018.  

The  Commission  has  prepared  an  EMFF  evaluation  working  paper  which  should  support 
Member States with their evaluation process in order to address a demand from the Member 
States and programmes. The working paper and the toolbox are available on-line: 

  Working paper on EMFF evaluation and toolbox 

The  Commission  also  issued  working  papers  to  guide  the  managing  authorities  on  the 
indicators  system  (definitions  and  operationalisation  of  indicators)  and  to  facilitate  the 
implementation of the Infosys regulations. Both documents are on-line here: 

  Working Paper on definitions of common indicators 
  Working paper EMFF Article 97(1)(a)-reporting data requirements 

These 
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/fame_en  

other  materials 

and 

are 

available 

on 

the 

FAME 

website 

The following sections outline the EMFF evaluation plans and their different components. 

Evaluation plan 

Regulation  (EU)  No  508/2014  on  the  EMFF30  underlines  in  Article  18  “Content  of  the 
operational programme” that the Operational Programmes  (OP) will contain “the evaluation 
requirements  and  the  evaluation  plan  referred  to  in  Article  56  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1303/201331 and actions to be taken to address identified needs”. The evaluation plans are the 
Chapter  10  of  the  OPs.  Annex I  of  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
771/201432 provides the structure and minimum contents of the evaluation plans in section 10. 

All programmes have fulfilled the formal obligation of drafting an evaluation plan as part of 
the programme. They have followed the guidelines of the OP template and the requirements 
of Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 508/2014. 

30   OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1. 
31   OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320. 
32   OJ L 209, 16.7.2014, p. 20. 

53 

 
 
                                                 
The  evaluation  framework  of  the  EMFF  is  facing  some  specific  constraints  in  the  period 
2014-2020, which set the Fund apart from the other ESIF. In a nutshell these are: 

  The  EMFF  regulatory  framework  was  finalised  with  some  delay,  hence  leaving  less 
time for the drafting of the programmes compared to the other ESIF (ERDF/ESF have 
more time to finalise the EP); 

  The  EMFF  has  introduced  a  new  approach  focusing  on  the  establishment  of  a 
functioning  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  System  (CMES)  with  a  set  of 
common  indicators  and  emphasis  on  results.  This  new  CMES  has  required  the 
attention  of  the  MAs  in  getting  the  OP  intervention  logic  and  the  indicators  set 
running, so less attention was given to the evaluation plan; 

  The  EMFF  Programmes  have  a  rather  limited  budget  (at  least  in  comparison  to  the 
other ESIF), hence evaluation approaches must be proportionate to the TA resources. 
Elaborated  impact  evaluation  and  counterfactual  designs  will  be  beyond  means; 
instead a sound theory based evaluation (TBE) approach should be adequate.  

Most plans were fairly detailed in this part. They focused on “pragmatic” short-term strategies 
(e.g.  measuring  performance  and  preparing  the  AIR).  The  most  popular  types  were  on 
“supporting  evaluation  activities  in  general”,  “measuring  performance”,  “assessing  effects” 
and “preparing data”.  

This  is  also  evident  by  cross  checking  with  the  addressed  evaluation  criteria;  practically  all 
plans (25) mention effectiveness and efficiency33. Relevance and impact are also mentioned 
but less often (8 and 16 times respectively).  

Not  surprisingly  ES  (which  has  the  largest  OP  budget  and  regional  settings)  addresses  the 
most evaluation criteria, including coherence and community added value. 

However  the  objectives  were  not  always  supported  with  detailed  activities,  e.g.  related  to 
effects assessment. Instead the general impression was that the EPs were rather conservative 
and conventional, yet “fit for purpose” in the formulation of their objectives.  

Governance settings 

The governance settings related to monitoring and evaluation tasks described in the plans are 
also straightforward; the MA and MC combination is the mainstay. There are  only two cases 
in  which  the  MA  is  not  responsible;  in  FI  (Natural  Resources  Institute  Finland)  and  in  EL 
(where the OP is managed by a form of sub-MA, which has all the MA functions but not the 
status of an MA, yet it is not constituted as an Intermediate Body (IB)). 

Partner  and  stakeholder  involvement  is  also  mentioned.  In  12  cases  there  is  an  evaluation 
steering group either on an ad-hoc basis or in the form of an inter-ministerial body or critical 
reviewer. Also mentioned are; ad-hoc working groups, national coordination bodies, FLAGs, 
evaluators, the European Commission etc.  

Evaluation tasks, methods, activities and topics 

33   FI  and  FR  don't  refer  to  these  criteria,  but  this  is  probably  due  to  wording  specificities  and  English 

translation rather than intention. 

54 

 
 
                                                 
These two sections (tasks/methods/activities and topics) were indeed the poorest in the EPs; 
they were hardly any references to them in most OPs. 

The  most  “popular”  methods  were  simple  performance/target  comparison  (26  cases)  and 
review of the intervention logic (and a simple Theory Based Evaluation approach) in 12 cases. 
The validation of the result indicators was also mentioned 8 times. In average 3 methods were 
mentioned, however many referred only to one, namely performance/target comparison. Other 
methods  mentioned  quite  frequently  under  the  caption  “other”  were;  ad-hoc  workshops, 
consultations  with  stakeholders,  brainstorming  sessions  etc.  This  could  be  interpreted  as  a 
preference for qualitative approaches.  

Not many Member States outlined the evaluation topics they wanted to focus upon; although 
10 Member States did not even mention any thematic focus. 

There  was  some  correlation  between  budget  and  number  of  topics  mentioned;  simply 
speaking the larger the budget the more topics were mentioned.  

economic 

effects  of  EMFF 

The most popular topic was the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) implementation followed by 
the 
environmental 
impacts/sustainability. No Member States mentioned the “control and enforcement” and “data 
collection”. It would be interesting to examine what are the reasons for that; are these topics 
considered  to  be  “alien  bodies”  to  be  evaluated  by  somebody  else  or  are  they  somehow 
considered a routine “job”? 

support  on 

enterprises 

and 

In  the  case  of  land  locked  countries  (AT,  CZ,  HU,  SK),  the  focus  was  obviously  on 
aquaculture, economic and environmental effects and the viability of enterprises. 

Data and information strategy 

Overall  this  was  the  best  developed  part  of  the  EPs.  The  programmes  obviously  rely  on 
monitoring data in Article 97(1) of the “Infosys” Regulation (EU) No 508/2014  (mentioned 
24  times),  the  application  forms  (mentioned  21  times)  and  official  databases (mentioned  20 
times). This also explains the “negligence” of advanced evaluation topics and the focus on a 
functioning monitoring system for efficient performance/target comparisons.  

Less  frequently  EPs  refer  to  surveys,  contributions  of  research  institutes,  scientific 
publications,  Article  77  outputs  from  data  collection  operations  and  data  from  local 
authorities.  The  use  of  these  measures  appears  to  happen  on  an  ad-hoc  basis.  If  the  main 
sources  mentioned  above  (e.g.  Infosys,  application  forms  etc.)  fail,  there  is  no  specific 
process, pattern or motive for choosing an alternative e.g. for the purpose of triangulation.  

The  overall  impression  is  that  the  MAs  feel  confident  in  this  field;  however  they  have  an 
administrative  approach.  There  is  no  awareness  of  the  need  to  have  a  robust  system  and 
specific  audits  will  take  place  to  assess  the  functioning  of  the  monitoring  system,  inter  alia 
due to the importance of the Performance Framework. 

Resources, timelines, communication 

Overall the description of resources available for evaluation was very thin; most Programmes 
provided only imprecise qualitative information.  

55 

 
 
Only DK, IE, LT, LV, PT and SI made quantitative statements on personnel (values between 
1 and 5 persons; it was assumed that they refer always to FTE positions). 

Only  BG,  CY,  CZ,  FR,  IT  and  SI  indicated  financial  resources;  although  these  are  rough 
assumptions rather than calculations (with the exception of SI).  

Timelines were also very basic. Exceptions were BE, CY, CZ, HR, LV, NL and PL where a 
logical sequence of  activities was evident. DE, DK, EE, EL, IE and SE provided basic but 
sound  baselines.  All  the  other  Member  States  mainly  referred  to  important  evaluation 
milestones (i.e. AIR 2017, AIR 2019, ex-post) with little other information whatsoever.  

Communication was also superficially described. 26 out of 27 EPs mention the MA website 
explicitly, while seven EPs intend to use the FLAGs as message carriers.  

Those EPs where communication was embedded in the OP communication plan had a good 
description  of  the  communication  activities.  Others  which  aim  to  create  an  additional 
information channel were less precise and targeted. They usually mentioned the MC, the AIR 
and  MA  reports  to  the  COM  or  national  bodies,  newsletters  and  press  releases,  working 
groups,  seminars  etc.  In  general  one-way  communication  prevailed;  participative  tools  were 
also  mentioned  (workshops,  seminars)  but  in  those  cases  communication  was  a  by-product 
rather than the focus. An exception to the overall approach is EE, where the web was used in 
a more interactive way (utilising a blog and linking content to related sites).  

CLLD and horizontal issues 

Information  on  CLLD  evaluation  is  also  very  limited;  most  Programmes  consider  the  topic 
exhausted under Chapter 5. All those Programmes that activate UP 4 mainly discuss that they 
are  planning  to  gather  information  on  operations  from  FLAG  level,  while  14  of  them  also 
mention support to FLAGs to set-up M&E systems locally. How this is going to be done is 
not described however. 10 of the EPs mention self-assessment. 

Horizontal  issues  are  mentioned  by  all  EPs  either  in  some  detail,  or  more  often  through 
referring  to  Chapter  9  of  the  OP.  Only  a  few  mention  more  than  equal  opportunities, 
environmental sustainability and climate change; 10 refer specifically to resource efficiency, 5 
to  innovation  and  5  other  topics  (mainly  disaster  resilience  and  risk  prevention  and 
management  and  in  one  case  the  MSFD).  In  most  cases  the  section  on  horizontal  issues 
appears to  be generic;  exceptions are FR, IE and MT which offer very detailed and EMFF-
relevant considerations.  

11.2.  Period 2007-2013 

The ex-post evaluation of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) was undertaken in 2016 by an 
external  contractor  and  is  available  on  the  EU  Bookstore34.  A  Staff  Working  Document35 
presenting the main outcome of the evaluation was published in July 2017. 

34   https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f0ab224d-f34c-11e6-8a35-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

35   SWD(2017) 274 final. 

56 

 
 
                                                 
The EFF was launched in 2007 at the onset of the global economic crisis. The ensuing decline 
in  demand  for  fisheries  products  and  drop  in  prices,  as  well  as  reduced  access  to  private 
financing  put  the  sector  under  high  economic  pressure.  Despite  this  difficult  situation,  the 
following results were achieved: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  EFF  contributed  to  reducing  overcapacity  in  many  fleets,  although  imbalances 
still exist between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. 

Competitiveness  of  the  fleet  was  enhanced,  through  modernisation  and,  most 
importantly, support for changing fishing gears and methods. Ports and landing sites 
were  improved,  and  investments  in  marketing  and  processing  of  fish  increased  its 
added value. 

For small scale coastal fisheries, EFF funds were made available for the management 
of  fishing  areas,  the  reduction  of  fishing  effort,  the  organisation  of  production  and 
innovation.  However  uptake  of  this  measure  was  low  as  it  was  unfocused  and 
competing with other measures encompassing all fleet segments. 

The  contribution  of  the  EFF  to  broader  conservation  objectives  needs  to  be 
strengthened  

Due to lack of strategic orientation, EFF funds devoted to aquaculture had a marginal 
impact on EU aquaculture, whose production increased but at a slower pace than the 
global  production.  The  EFF  however  contributed  to  the  economic  resilience  of  the 
beneficiaries, especially in the shellfish sector.  

The EFF contributed to maintain and create some 10,000 jobs across the board in the 
processing and marketing sectors. 
Support  provided  by  the  EFF  for  the  local  development  of  fishing  depending 
communities  was  a  considerable  success  despite  a  slow  start.  It  allowed  to  maintain 
and  create  a  large  amount  of  jobs  and  tangibly  improved  the  quality  of  life  in  these 
areas. It had however weak complementarities and synergies with other funds (such as 
LEADER)  

Several  shortcomings  identified  for  the  EFF  were  addressed  by  the  EMFF  (European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund) which succeeded it for the 2014-2020 period. 

57 

 
 
ANNEX  

EAFRD: PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES 2014-2020  
SUMMARY BY UNION PRIORITY 

Priority 1: Knowledge Transfer and Innovation  

Focus  

Under this priority the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs)  

  provide stakeholders with a flexible package of soft measures related to advice, 

training, cooperation and knowledge transfer (FA 1A); 

  support cooperation among rural development stakeholders and researchers in order to 

 

boost innovation in rural sectors (FA 1B), and  
foster lifelong learning and vocational training in the agricultural and forestry sectors 
(FA 1C). 

Achievements 

Around 10 % of RDPs (11) report on actions/operations supported (O3) in priority 1. 

In a limited number of RDPs, it was possible to underpin achievements by quantitative data. 
The  common  result  indicators  (T1,  T2,  T3)  were  calculated  in  only  37,  15  and  27 
programmes. 

In a number of RDPs, the implementation of cooperation projects has started. Some problems 
have  been  reported  concerning  the  implementation  of  projects  (550  in  total,  T2)  under  the 
cooperation  measure  related  to  P1  (EU-28  target  15 235).  PT  Mainland  shows  a  very  high 
number of cooperation projects. 

In  a  few  cases,  RDPs  helped  to  establish  and  support  operational  groups  for  innovation 
partnerships (74, O16) almost all in the single RDP PT Mainland (EU-28 target: 3 175) 

Around 220 000 participants (T3) were trained in 27 RDPs under P1 (FA 1C), a major part of 
it in BE Flanders (EU-28 target: 3 869 763). 

DK,  which  is  more  advanced  (T1),  reports  on  significant  contributions  to  innovation, 
cooperation and knowledge transfer in rural areas. 

The  following  results  were  mentioned  more  frequently  (frequency  of  major/medium 
achievements  in  relation  to  the  judgement  criteria)  and  show  interesting  aspects  of  the 
implementation: 

  A variety of partners is involved in the EIP operational groups; 
  The transfer of innovation to the final beneficiaries contributes to the development of 

innovation within farms / enterprises; 

  Cooperation projects are innovative and based on developed knowledge; 
  Cooperation operations between agriculture, food production and forestry and research 

and innovation for the purpose of improved environmental management and 
performance have been implemented; 

58 

 
 
  Long term collaboration between agriculture, food production and forestry entities and 

institutions for research and innovation has been established; 

  The number of rural people who have finalised lifelong learning and vocational 

training in the agriculture and forestry sectors has increased. 

Priority 2: Farm Viability and Competitiveness  

Focus  

Under this priority, the RDPs: 

  provide farmers with a flexible package of investment measures backed up by advice, 
training, cooperation and knowledge transfer (FA 2A). This helps farms to overcome 
major structural problems, invest in farm equipment and technology, which improves 
their economic viability; and add value by investing in processing, marketing and 
product development: 

  support young farmers with start-up aid and investments together with advice, 

training, cooperation and knowledge transfer (FA 2B) to encourage a generational 
change and innovative ventures in the agricultural sector. 

Achievements 

Around  30 000  agricultural  holdings  were  supported  to  increase  farm  performance  through 
modernisation and restructuring (O4, FA 2A) (EU-28 target: 333 242). 

In a limited number of RDPs, it was possible to underpin achievements with quantitative data. 
The  common  result  indicators  (T4  and  T5)  were  calculated  in  71  and  48  programmes 
respectively. 

In  a  few  cases  (15),  it  was  even  possible  to  quantify  the  change  in  labour  productivity  on 
supported farms (R2), mainly based on gross effects. 

In  some  cases,  (e.g.  EE,  SK,  ES  –  La  Rioja)  various  effects  of  investment  support  were 
described in a quantitative and qualitative way.  

Both  positive  and  negative  effects  were  found.  For  example,  supported  investments 
contributed to enhanced competitiveness through the increase of agriculture production, GVA 
and improvement of market participation. In some cases, investments had negative effects on 
capital profitability.  

These  findings  are,  however,  often  not  statistically  significant  achievement  due  to  limited 
number of completed activities. 

Under priority 2, focus area 2B around 6 800 young farmers were supported to increase their 
skills and ease the entry into the agricultural sector (O4, FA 2B) (target: 175 777).  

For some RDPs, it was possible to assess early effects. In one case, in which a high number of 
young  farmers  was  supported  (FR-Rhône-Alpes),  it  was  demonstrated  that  the  RDP 
contributed to generational renewal. 

59 

 
 
The  following  (non-representative)  findings  were  mentioned  more  frequently  (frequency  of 
major/medium  achievements  in  relation  to  the  judgement  criteria)  and  show  interesting 
aspects of the implementation: 

  The agricultural output per annual working unit of supported agricultural holdings has 

increased; 

  Farms were modernized; 
  Farms were restructured; 
  Adequately skilled farmers entered into the agricultural sector; 
  The share of adequately skilled young farmers in the agricultural sector increased. 

Priority 3: Food Chain Organisation and Risk Management  

Focus  

Under this priority, the RDPs: 

  offer a combination of measures to improve the competitiveness of primary producers 

by better integrating them into the agri-food chain (FA 3A); 

  help farms to prevent and manage various risks and to restore agricultural production 

damaged by natural disasters (FA 3B). 

Achievements 

Altogether  115 000  agricultural  holdings  received  support  in  limited  number  of  RDPs  for 
participating  in  quality  schemes,  local  markets,  and  short  supply  circuits,  and  producer 
groups/organisations  (O4,  FA  3A)  (EU-28  target  296 810).  The  numbers  are  exceptionally 
high in Bayern and Austria. 

Under  focus  area  3B,  around  4,000  agricultural  holdings  participated  in  risk  management 
schemes  (EU-28  target:  644 487)  provided  in  a  very  limited  number  of  RDPs  (4  RDPs  PT, 
LV). 

In a limited number of RDPs, it was possible to underpin achievements with quantitative data. 
The common result indicators (T6 and T7) were calculated in 22 and 8 programmes. 

The  RDP  with  the  highest  number  of  supported  holdings  (PT  Continente)  states  that  the 
support provided has been positively perceived, which shows a positive contribution from the 
RDP in encouraging farmers to engage in insurance premiums for risk management in farms. 

The  following  results  were  mentioned  more  frequently  (frequency  of  major/medium 
achievements  in  relation  to  the  judgement  criteria)  and  show  interesting  aspects  of  the 
implementation. These results are, however, not representative (anecdotal evidence): 
 
Implementation of quality schemes by primary producers has increased; 
  The added value of agricultural products of primary producers has increased; 
  Participation of farms in risk prevention and management schemes has increased. 

60 

 
 
Priority 4: Restoring, Preserving and Enhancing Ecosystems  

Focus  

Under this priority RDPs aim to: 

 

restore, preserve and enhance biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 areas, and in 
areas facing natural or other specific constraints, and high nature value farming, as 
well as the state of European landscapes (FA 4A); 
improving water management, including fertiliser and pesticide management (FA 4B); 

 
  preventing soil erosion and improving soil management (FA 4C). 

In a number of RDPs (e.g. in FR, DE, IT, AT, UK) large funds were allocated to Priority 4. 
From the set of applied measures, two are particularly prominent: Agri-environment-climate 
(AEC)  payments  granted  to  farmers  and  land-managers  (M10),  and  payment  schemes  areas 
facing specific constraints (M13). A third important measure supports organic farming (M11). 

In the integrated focus areas 4A, 4B and 4C, 89% of the RDPs realized expenditures. 

Targets are area-based and aim at managing an increasing share of agricultural land and forest 
to support biodiversity, water management and/or prevent soil erosion. 

Achievements 

For  74%  of  the  RDPs  (85  out  of  115)  reports  referred  to  achieved  management  contracts 
related  to  agricultural  land  (T9,  T10,  T12),  demonstrating  in  the  three  focus  area  that  the 
measure  has  already  been  widely  implemented.  The  results  obtained,  however,  are  highly 
diverse. 

With  respect  of  forest  land,  the  implementation  only  started.  For  28%  of  the  RDPs  (32) 
reports  refer  to  achievements  related  to  management  contracts  (T8,  T11,  T13)  in  the  three 
focus areas. 

The  following  results  were  mentioned  more  frequently  (frequency  of  major/medium 
achievements  in  relation  to  the  judgement  criteria)  and  show  interesting  aspects  of  the 
implementation: 

  Biodiversity on contracted land has been restored, preserved and enhanced; 
  Water quality has improved; 
  Soil management has improved; 
  Soil erosion has been prevented; 

Priority 5: Resource-efficient, climate-resilient Economy  

Focus  

Under this priority the RDPs offer a wide range of objectives aiming 

 

 

to increase the efficiency of water use by agriculture, mainly through physical 
investments in more efficient irrigation systems (FA 5A) 
to increase efficiency in energy use in agriculture and food processing mainly through 
physical investments in, for example, new or upgraded of machinery (FA 5B) 

61 

 
 
 

 

 

to facilitate the supply and use of renewable sources of energy, by-products, wastes 
and residues, and other non-food raw materials for the purpose of the bio-economy 
(FA 5C) 
to reduce greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from agriculture through various 
measures (FA 5D) 
to foster carbon conservation and sequestration in agriculture and forestry in many 
ways (FA 5E) 

Complementary measures include knowledge transfer, training, advice, and cooperation. 

Achievements 

Around 60% of the RDPs (74 in total corresponding to 64% of all RDPs) reports referred to 
results with respect to one or more common target indicators (T14, T15, T16, T17, T18, 19), 
including witching to more efficient irrigation systems, investments in energy efficiency and 
energy  production,  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas  and  ammonia  emissions,  land  under 
management to foster carbon conservation and sequestration.  

The level of achievements is, however, very different from RDP to RDP. For example: 

 

the percentage land switching to more efficient irrigation system ranges from 61.4% in 
Romania to 0.16% in Greece (T14, FA 5A); 

  18  RDPs  report  investments  for  energy  efficiency  which  make  up  for  93.6  million 

EUR, around 3% of the target value (T15, FA 5B);  

  26  RDPs  report  investments  in  renewable  energy  production  which  total  to  around 
59 million EUR and which represents around 2% of the target value (T16, FA 5C); 
  7 RDPs report investments in live-stock management in view of reducing GHG and/or 

ammonia emissions (T17, FA 5D); 

  25  RDPs  report  results  on  agricultural  land  under  management  contracts  targeting 
reduction  of  GHG  and/or  ammonia  emissions.  The  largest  areas  affected  are  in  UK-
Scotland, RO, IE and DE – Bayern (T18, FA 5D);  

  46  RDPs  report  results  on  agricultural  and  forest  land  under  management  contracts 
contributing to carbon sequestration and conservation (T19, FA 5E). Most of the area 
concerned is in UK – Scotland, DK and ES – Asturias.  

For  only  a  very  limited  number  of  RDP  (21in  total  or  18%),  quantification  was  carried  out 
concerning  one  or  more  complementary  result  indicator,  mainly  on  basis  of  gross  effects 
(R13, R14, R15, R18, R19).  

For  only  10  RDP,  it  was  possible  to  demonstrate  (by  the  end  of  2016)  the  amount  of 
renewable  energy  produced  from  supported  projects  (R15,  FA  5C).  In  12  RDPs  reduced 
emissions of methane and nitrous oxide were achieved (R18, FA 5D).  

The  following  results  were  mentioned  more  frequently  (frequency  of  stated  major/medium 
achievements  in  relation  to  the  judgement  criteria)  and  show  interesting  aspects  of  the 
implementation.  

  Efficiency in water use by agriculture has increased 
  Efficiency of energy use in agriculture and food processing has increased 
  Supply and use of renewable energy has increased 
  Greenhouse and ammonia emissions from agriculture have been reduced 

62 

 
 
  Agricultural and forestry land under enhanced management contract contributing to 

carbon sequestration has been enlarged 

  Agricultural and forestry land under enhanced management contract contributing to 

carbon sequestration has been enlarged 

  Carbon conservation and sequestration in agriculture and forestry has increased 

Priority 6: Social Inclusion and Economic Development  

Focus  

Under this priority the RDPs offer a wide range of measures aiming to: 

 

 

facilitate economic diversification and the creation and development of small and 
medium sized enterprises as well as job creation. This is supported mainly through 
business start-up aid for non-agricultural activities in rural areas and investments in 
the creation and development of non-agricultural activities (FA 6A); 
foster local development in rural areas most prominently through CLLD/LEADER 
and investments for basic services and village renewal. This is complemented by a 
small number of other measures such as support for cooperation (FA 6B); 
  enhance the accessibility, use and quality of information and communication 
technologies (ICT) in rural areas through support of broadband infrastructure, 
provision of access to broadband, public e-government solutions (FA 6C). 

Achievements 

In the field of economic diversification (FA 6A), first projects were implemented. In 10 RDP, 
altogether 400 holdings received support for investment in non-agricultural activities in rural 
areas  (O4,  FA  6A)  (EU-28  target:  54,552).  Around  1 500  Jobs  were  created/planned  in 
supported projects in rural areas (T20, FA 6A) (EU-28 target: 73  338). 

As regards local development (FA 6B), the LEADER measure has already started very well in 
some programmes. In 22 RDPs, around 1 100 Local Action Groups were selected in order to 
implement  CLLD/LEADER  operations  (O19,  FA  6B),  which  is  already  73%  of  the  target 
value (EU-28 target: 2 515). Particularly high numbers were achieved in in RO and PL. 

Around  1 300  CLLD/Leader  projects  have  been  supported  in  11  RDPs  (O20,  FA  6B). 
LEADER projects lead to job creation, however, the reported numbers need further validation 
(T23, focus area 6B). 

For  27  RDPs,  reports  refer  to  improved  services/infrastructures  which  benefit  the  rural 
population (T22, FA 6B). 

In focus area 6C (information and communication technologies), hardly any projects could be 
completed  by  the  end  of  2016.  ES  –  Islas  Baleares  reports  supporting  9  operations  (O3)  to 
enhance  the  accessibility,  use  and  quality  of  information  and  communication  technologies 
(ICT) in rural areas (EU-28 target: 4 366). 

The  following  results  were  mentioned  more  frequently  (frequency  of  stated  major/medium 
achievements  in  relation  to  the  judgement  criteria)  and  show  interesting  aspects  of  the 
implementation.  

63 

 
 
  Small enterprises diversified their economic activity 
  Access to services and local infrastructure improved in rural areas 
  Rural territory and population covered by LAGs increased 
  Rural people participated in local actions 
  Employment opportunities were created via local development strategies 
  Access of rural households to ICT increased. 

64