State of play and future challenges of the European Social Fund in promoting social cohesion in Europe’s cities and regions.
Date: 2018-04-26
Institutions: Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy and EU Budget
Subjects: European Social Fund, economic and social cohesion, economic recession, education policy, employment policy, regional policy, social integration, unemployment

Commission for
 Territorial Cohesion Policy
 and EU Budget

R
E
T
O
C

State of play and future challenges
of the European Social Fund
in promoting social cohesion
in Europe’s cities and regions

© European Union, 2018 
Partial reproduction is permitted, provided that the source is explicitly mentioned. 

More information on the European Union and the Committee of the Regions is available online at 
http://www.europa.eu and http://www.cor.europa.eu respectively. 

Catalogue number: QG-02-18-524-EN-N; ISBN: 978-92-895-0955-8; doi:10.2863/267234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was written by François Levarlet and Dea Hrelja (t33 Srl) 
with the collaboration of Mike Beke, Roland Blomeyer, George Maridis, 
Elsa Perreau, Margarita Sanz (Blomeyer & Sanz), Caroline Chandler 
and Stephan Kreutzer (CSES). 

It does not represent the official views of the European Committee of 
the Regions. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 
List of abbreviations 

Executive summary 

1 

2 

Introduction 

State of play of the role of the esf in fostering social cohesion at local 
and regional level 
2.1  Employment 
2.2  Social inclusion 

2.2.1  Current data and trends on the local and regional level 
2.2.2  Contribution of ESF 
2.2.3  Synergies with other funds 
2.3  Education and vocational training 

2.3.1  Current data and trends on the local and regional level 
2.3.2  Contribution of ESF 
2.3.3  Synergies with other funds 
2.4  The European added value of ESF 
2.5  State of play of ESF in six selected programmes 

3  Use of the place-based approach to address social challenges 

3.1  Place-based approach in programme strategies 
3.2  The involvement of stakeholders in programme partnerships 
3.3  The use of integrated policy tools in implementing the place-

based approach 

I 

1 

7 

9 
10 
16 
16 
20 
20 
22 
22 
24 
25 
26 
27 

33 
33 
35 

35 

4  Lessons learned from esf implementation 

41 
4.1  Overview of ESF-funded activities to support capacity building 
41 
4.2  Lessons learned from ESF support to capacity building activities  43 
4.3  Lessons learned regarding synergies and integration of EU funds  45 
4.4  Lessons learned on administrative simplification 
47 
4.5  Overview of lessons learned in the current programming period 

in six selected ESF programmes 

5 

Future challenges for esf intervention 
5.1  Demographic change 

5.1.1  An ageing population 
5.1.2  Urban-rural divide 
5.1.3  Remote and sparsely populated areas 

49 

51 
51 
51 
52 
54 

 
5.1.4  The impact of migration on demographic change 

5.2  Social exclusion and migration 
5.3  Labour market changes 

5.3.1  Automation, skills shortage and mismatch 
5.3.2  Rise of the platform economy 

5.4  Linking the ESF closer to the European Semester and the 

54 
56 
57 
57 
59 

European Pillar of Social Rights 
59 
5.4.1  Aligning  ESF  interventions  to  the  Employment  Guidelines 
59 
61 
62 

5.4.2  The European Pillar of Social Rights 
5.5  Future challenges for ESF in selected EU regions 

and to social aspects of the European Semester 

6  Conclusions and recommendations 

7  Annexes (list of case studies and interviews) 

8  References and websites 

65 

71 

73 

 
 
List of abbreviations 

AMIF 
CEMR 
CF 
CLLD 
CoR  
CPMR 
CPR 
CSF 
CSR 
DG 
EC 
EAFRD 
EMFF 
EPRS 
ERDF 
ESF 
ESI  
EU 
FEAD 
IP 
ITI 
LRA 
MA 
MS 
NEET 
OP 
SCO 
TO 
YEI 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 
Council of European Municipalities and Regions  
Cohesion Fund 
Community-Led Local Development 
European Committee of the Regions  
Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions 
Common Provision Regulation 
Common Strategic Framework 
Country Specific Recommendations 
Directorate-General (of the European Commission) 
European Commission 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development  
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
European Parliamentary Research Service 
European Regional Development Fund 
European Social Fund 
European Structural and Investment 
European Union 
Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived 
Investment Priority 
Integrated Territorial Investment 
Local and Regional Authority 
Managing Authority 
Member State 
Not in Education Employment Training 
Operational Programme 
Simplified Cost Options 
Thematic Objective 
Youth Employment Initiative 

i 

 
 
Executive summary 

The  economic  and  financial  crisis  that  started  in  2008  was  at  the  root  of  a 
dramatic  increase  in  unemployment  and  social  exclusion,  thus  challenging 
ESF  interventions  in  the  2007-2013  period,  but  also  bringing  significant 
changes  to  how  social  cohesion  is  addressed  in  the  current  programming 
period.  Although  the  economic  recession  seems  to  be  coming  to  an  end  in 
most  of  the  EU,  important  territorial  differences  persist  across  and  within 
Member States, aggravated by new challenges that risk hindering territorial 
and social cohesion in the near future.  

The  role  of  the  ESF  in  tackling  current  and  future  challenges  cannot 
therefore be analysed without taking into account the trends and impacts of 
social  issues  at  local  and  regional  levels.  This  report  seeks  to  provide  an 
overview  of  ESF  at  local  and  regional  levels  by  considering  the  following 
aspects:  the  current  state  of  play,  lessons  learned  and  future  challenges, 
while  also  proposing  recommendations  for  the  next  programming  period. 
The  information  is  enriched  by  case  studies  focusing  on  the  direct 
experience  of  six  ESF  Managing  Authorities  in  Cyprus,  Germany,  the 
Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. 

The  report  starts  by  looking  into  statistical  data  on  the  state  of  play  of 
employment,  social inclusion and  education  at  the  local and  regional  level, 
as  well  as  the  related  ESF  interventions  through  TO  8,  9  and  10  and  their 
synergies with other funds. 

a)  Employment 

  A  heterogeneous  regional  picture  of  the  change  in  employment  rates 
2006-2016 can be observed in most Member States. In general, the more 
developed regions are currently closest to the Europe 2020 target, but the 
progress  of  less  developed  regions  was  quicker  up  until  2015.  The  rate 
stagnated  in  transition  regions  and  if  these  trends  persist,  these  regions 
could  be  surpassed  by  less  developed  regions  by  2020.  Rural  areas  are 
furthest from meeting the targets. 

  The Strategic Report 2017 on the implementation of ESI funds states that 
EUR 17.4 billion had been committed to employment by the end of 2016, 
representing  31%  of  available  support.  Italy  and  Spain  are  the  Member 
States with the highest ESF allocation (in absolute terms). 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b)  Social inclusion 

  The  number  of  people  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  in  the  EU 
increased  following  the  onset  of  the  economic  recession.  Despite  an 
overall decrease since then, 25% of people in the EU are still at risk, with 
large  differences  across  and  within  Member  States.  In  the  EU13,  the 
proportion of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion is considerably 
larger in rural areas (34%) than in cities (20%). In the EU15, the pattern 
is the opposite. 

  The  latest  data  on  use  of  the  ESI  fund  budget  for  TO  9  show  that  ESF 
covers 47.5% of the EU budget planned for this objective, with the ERDF 
and EAFRD covering the other half. The ERDF interventions contribute 
to  social  inclusion  through  support  to  job  creation,  renovation  of 
infrastructure and the requalification of urban areas. 

c)  Education and training 

  Vocational education is increasingly considered as key to lowering youth 
unemployment rates and facilitating the transition of young people from 
education into work or the labour market. Particularly high participation 
is seen in a cluster of regions in Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia and 
the Czech Republic, also due to a more positive perception of vocational 
education and training. 

  There is a relatively high concentration of tertiary educational attainment 

in capital city regions. 

  Investments in TO 10 reached  EUR 14.6 billion in 2016, with a project 
selection rate close to 30%. Despite a relatively low project selection rate 
for  life-long  learning  activities,  about  700  000  persons  are  being  given 
the opportunity to upgrade their skills. 

The  section  ends  with  an  overview  of  the  assessed  European  Added  Value 
(EAV)  of  ESF  in  the  previous  programming  period,  with  insights  into  the 
current assessment of EAV through the direct experience of the six selected 
case studies. 

In  section  3,  the  report  aims  to  review  and  analyse  the  two  definitions  of 
‘place-based  approach’  in  cohesion  policy.  The  section  firstly  analyses  the 
place-based approach by considering how the needs identified at the regional 
and local level have  been addressed by the programme strategies and  what 
arrangements have been made at programme level to ensure the participation 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  regional  and  local  stakeholders  in  programme  implementation.  The 
section  also  outlines  examples  of  place-based  approach  within  ESF 
interventions defined as the use of integrated tools (e.g. ITIs, CLLD) while 
also reporting its challenges and barriers, such as: 

  the  complexity  of  planning  and  programming,  implying  additional 
burdens  and  costs  for  local  authorities  and  stakeholders,  especially  in 
local  authorities  with  a  weak  administrative  capacity  and  a  lack  of 
capacity to adequately design integrated tools;  

  the  complexity  of 

the  difficult 
coordination  among  different  levels  of  governance,  funds,  delivery 
mechanisms, needs and groups of people involved; 

implementation,  stemming  from 

  specific  requests  from  LRAs  for  simplification  of  procedures  and  rules 
and  direct  access  to  funds  to  implement  specific  actions  for  immigrant 
and refugee inclusion; 

  the risk of perceiving integrated tools more as an additional burden to the 
programming  process  than  as  an  instrument  enabling  better-integrated 
territorial development. 

In  section  4,  the  report  focuses  on  the  lessons  learned  from  the 
implementation of ESF in the previous and current programming periods in 
terms of capacity building, synergies and integration of funds, programming 
and administrative simplification. The following aspects have arisen: 

  lower effectiveness of capacity buildings in weaker (smaller) LRAs; 

  country-specific recommendations for capacity building in the European 
Semester  often  perceived  as  targeting  only  national  structural  issues 
rather than providing input for specific local and regional interventions; 

  overall  dissatisfaction  with  the  general  design  of  2014-2020  OPs, 
considered  too  rigid  and  detailed;  but  satisfaction  when  it  comes  to 
simplification measures introduced in ESF 2014-2020; 

  management  of  OPs  at  the  national  level  that  may  impede  necessary 
flexibility at the regional level to adapt the funds to the local challenges; 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  improvement  in  coordination  and  synergies  between  funds  compared 
regulatory  and 

the  2007-2013  programming  period,  but 

with 
administrative challenges persist. 

Moving  to  section  5,  the  report  tackles  the  issue  of  future  challenges  for 
social cohesion and ESF intervention. The main challenges identified are: 

•  demographic  change  –  ageing,  urbanisation  and  isolation  of  rural  and 

remote areas; 

•  social  exclusion  of  disadvantaged  groups  of  people  (e.g.  long-term 

unemployed, youth); 

•  integration of migrants; 

  fast labour market changes and their link to skills shortage and mismatch 

and the rise of the platform economy. 

In  addition,  the  section  outlines  the  challenges  related  to  the  future  of  the 
ESF, with special regard to the current debate on the deeper integration and 
coordination between the ESF, and ESI funds in general, and the European 
Semester process and the necessary synergies to deliver the European Pillar 
of Social rights.  

Finally,  the  report  outlines  conclusions  and  recommendations  based  on  the 
interviewed  Managing 
findings  and 
Authorities. These include: 

the  feedback  provided  by 

the 

  enhancing coordination between the EU, national, the regional and local 
levels  to  allow  achievement  of  the  ESF  objectives,  given  that  the 
addressed issues have a strong local dimension and that competencies are 
shared among all these levels in relation to the ESF scope of intervention; 

  linking  the  ESI  funds,  including  the ESF,  more  closely  to  the  European 
Semester  process  and  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  rights  through  a 
deeper integration of planning and implementation;  

  increasing capacity in LRAs to include the regional and local level in the 

implementation of CSRs; 

  increasing  flexibility  in  reprogramming  and  shortening  the  duration  of 
OPs  to  allow  adaptation  to  an  ever-changing  social  and  political 
landscape at the local level; 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  simplifying  planning  documents  (partnership  agreements,  operational 
programmes  and  implementation  frameworks),  so  as  to  make  the  ESF 
more manageable for LRAs;  

  increasing  and  improving  cooperation  and  participation  among  the 
stakeholders  involved  in  ESF  programming  and  implementation  at  all 
levels of government and among Member States to increase the exchange 
of  good  practices  and  ensure  that  the  diversity  of  interests  and  needs  is 
covered; 

  providing more guidance from the EC on the use of SCOs; 

  connecting  the  various  information  sources  and  establishing  a  database 
with indicators and results within the administration at various levels; 

  increasing local discretion with regard to spending choices, local powers 
for strategic planning and development, and devolved funding at the city 
and regional levels (in promoting a decentralised approach). 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
1  Introduction  

Objective of the study 

The CoR, in preparing its position on legislative proposals on the future of 
cohesion  policy,  needs  more  in-depth  investigation  of  the  state  of  play, 
results  and  challenges  of  the  European  Social  Fund  in  promoting  social 
cohesion in Europe’s cities and regions. The topics analysed cover the scope 
and objectives of the ESF as defined in the regulations and in relation to the 
specific strategies for social cohesion developed in each EU MS.  

Methodology 

First, to deliver a clear picture of the situation and feed the most recent data 
on the relevant topics into the analysis, data collection has been undertaken 
through a literature review covering the issues at stake. In the second step, a 
selected  number  of  case  studies  and  interviews  have  been  conducted  to 
reinforce the analysis performed in the previous stages with more qualitative 
information. Data analysis and reporting, according to the timing specified in 
the Terms of reference, conclude the whole process.  

Geographic coverage  

The study covers the whole territory of the EU. Case studies at the local and 
regional  level  have  been  conducted  in  six  Member  States,  i.e.  Cyprus, 
Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom.  The 
underlying methodology for this selection is based on geographical balance 
and an attempt to cover both the regional ESF programmes (e.g. Castilla La 
Mancha in Spain) and the national ones (e.g. Cyprus, the Netherlands), while 
also taking into account the size of ESF contribution, thus including Poland 
as the Member State receiving the highest contribution. The complete list of 
case studies and interviews is reported in Annex 7.  

Structure of the study 

Section  2  reports  the  state  of  play  of  ESF  implementation  in  the  last  two 
programming periods, while section 3 illustrates the state of implementation 
of  place-based  approaches.  Section  4  analyses  the  lessons  learned  and 
section  5  discusses  the  challenges  over  the  next  programming  period. 
Section 6 completes the study, with conclusions and recommendations.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note that the information available on the state of play of ESF programmes 
in the current programming period 2014-2020 is still limited. This is linked 
to  delays  in  the  approval  of  some  programmes,  issues  related  to  the  time 
required for the finalisation of complex administrative arrangements needed 
for  programme  implementation  in  certain  Member  States  and  regions,  and 
the time for programme monitoring and reporting. Recent data are provided 
through the case studies. 

8 

 
 
2  State  of  play  of  the  role  of  the  ESF  in 
fostering  social  cohesion  at  local  and 
regional level 

The 2007-2013 programming period proved to be extremely challenging for 
the  implementation  of  ESF  programmes  across  the  EU.  Although  it  was 
launched at a time of overall employment growth across most of the EU with 
an employment rate peaking at 70.3% in 2008, plans for the ESF 2007-2013 
were  heavily  compromised  by  the  financial  crisis,  at  the  root  of  dramatic 
increases  in  unemployment  and  social  exclusion.  In  addition,  the  global 
recession forced several Member States to significantly reduce their public-
sector  expenditure,  raising  problems  in  terms  of  co-financing  for  the  ESF. 
Many  ESF-funded  interventions  focused  on  employment  and  were  much 
harder  to  achieve  in  a  depressed  labour  market.  However,  the  ESF  2007-
2013 final synthesis report published by the European Commission in 2017 
underlines the importance of ESF to support national and EU economic and 
social policy priorities. As outlined in EC Regulation 1081/2006 on the ESF, 
priorities  and  programming  were  aligned  with  the  European  Employment 
Guidelines  and  contributed  to  the  achievement  of  the  EU  targets.  The 
programming  of  ESF  2007-2013  also  reflected  the  specific  challenges 
identified  for 
the  Country  Specific 
Recommendations (CSR), with all clusters of interventions linked to at least 
one of the CSR key challenges. The total allocation for the ESF 2007-2013 
was  EUR  115.6  billion,  of  which  EUR  76.8  billion  came  from  the  EU 
budget,  EUR  35.1  billion  from  national  public  contributions  and  EUR  3.7 
billion from private funds. More than 90% of the budget was allocated to the 
three main ESF investment priorities: human capital and adaptability (46%), 
access to employment (34%) and social inclusion (14%). 

individual  Member  States  by 

To  tackle  the  socio-economic  difficulties  brought  about  by  the  crisis,  a 
minimum share of 23.1% of the Structural Funds budget was introduced for 
ESF  in  the  current  2014-2020  programming  period.  Currently  ESF  has  a 
24.8%  share  of  the  Structural  Funds  budget  with  18  Member  States 
allocating  additional  funds  to  the  ESF  beyond  the  minimum  share.  These 
measures effectively reversed the gradual decline of the ESF share over the 
past 25 years.  

Of  the  total  ESF  budget  of  EUR  86  billion,  over  EUR  75  billion  go  to 
supporting  sustainable  and  quality  employment,  social  inclusion  and 
investment in education and training, corresponding respectively to thematic 
objectives 8, 9 and  10 as outlined in article 9 of the Regulation 1303/2013 

9 

 
 
 
(Common  Provision  Regulation).  The  majority  of  funding  is  allocated  to 
employment  and  education  objectives,  with  25%  going  to  social  inclusion. 
Nevertheless,  the  achievement  of  these  objectives  within  the  EU  remains 
critical, with important territorial differences at the local and regional level.  

The  current  programming  period  has  seen  a  certain  degree  of 
'decentralisation'  of  ESF  management  in  favour  of  regions,  with  a  total  of 
125 regional ESF operational programmes implemented across the EU (and 
62 national programmes).  

2.1  Employment 

2.1.1.  Current data and trends on the local and regional level 

The  aftermath  of  the  financial  and  economic  crisis  was  evident:  the 
employment  rate  fell  constantly  from  2009  to  2013,  when  it  stabilised  at 
68.4%.  The  EU28  labour  market  started  strengthening  towards  the  end  of 
2013,  with  this  pattern  confirmed  in  2014  and  2015.  The  employment  rate 
was  71.1%  in  2016,  surpassing  for  the  first  time  its  pre-crisis  level  from 
eight years earlier. An average annual growth of almost one percentage point 
in each of the coming four years would be needed to achieve the 75% target 
set by Europe 2020. 

Looking  at  Figure  1  below,  significant  disparities  among  regions  can  be 
observed  with  regard  to  levels  of  employment.  In  approximately  39%  of 
NUTS 2 regions (108 out of 276), the latest data show an employment rate 
(among  those  aged  20–64)  equal  to  or  above  the  Europe  2020  target.  A 
majority  of  regions  in  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Germany,  the 
Netherlands,  Austria,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom  had  employment 
rates  above  75%  in  2016,  as  did  Estonia  and  Lithuania.  The  lowest 
employment rates were recorded in the French outermost regions and in the 
EU Member States most affected by the sovereign debt crisis, in particular 
Greece,  Spain  and  Italy,  with  the  last  two  showing  a  broad  north–south 
divide. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 
NUTS 2 regions, 2016 

1.  Employment 

rate,  persons 

aged 

20-64,  by 

Source: Eurostat 

11 

 
 
 
 
Employment rates increased in a majority of EU regions between 2006 and 
2016  (see  Figure  2  below).  While  national  patterns  in  the  change  of 
employment rates 2006-2016 can be observed in most EU Member States, a 
more heterogeneous regional picture can be observed at the regional level in 
a number of multi-regional Member States, as the patterns vary consistently 
between  types  of  region.  According  to  the  Seventh  Cohesion  Report,  the 
average  employment  rate  in  more  developed  regions1  was  74.2%  in  2016, 
quite  close  to  the  75%  target,  while  it  was  capped  at  65%  in  the  less 
developed regions2. 

The highest increase in the employment rate between 2006 and 2016 among 
all  EU  regions  was  in  Dolnoslaskie  in  Poland,  where  it  increased  by  12.5 
percentage  points.  Among  all  EU28  regions  where  the  drop  exceeded  4.0 
percentage  points,  20  were  in  Greece  and  Spain.  In  general,  the  more 
developed  regions  are  currently  closest  to  the  Europe  2020  target,  but  the 
progress  of  less  developed  regions  was  more  rapid  up  until  2015.  This 
quicker increase shows that the divergence between less and more developed 
regions  has  at  least  started  to  narrow  again  in  recent  years.  The  rate 
stagnated in transition regions and if these trends persist, these regions could 
be  surpassed  by  less  developed  regions  by  2020.  Rural  areas  are  furthest 
from  meeting  the  targets  but  made  more  progress  than  urban  areas  up  to 
2015. 

1 Per capita GDP is more than 90% of the EU average, according to Article 90(2) of Reg. 1303/2013. 
2 Per capita GDP is less than 75% of the EU average, according to Article 90(2) of Reg. 1303/2013. 

12 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 2. Change in the employment rate (%), persons aged 20-64, 
by NUTS 2 regions, 2006-2016 

Source: Eurostat 

With regard to gender, male employment rates were higher than female rates 
in  all  but  two  regions  of  the  EU,  highlighting  a  significant,  though 
narrowing, gender gap in the EU28. The three largest gender imbalances in 
EU regions, with employment rates for women only just over half the rates 
for  men,  were  observed  in  the  three  southern  Italian  regions  of  Campania, 
Puglia  and  Sicily.  Gender  differences  in  the  employment  rate  occur  for 
various reasons, but the burden of family responsibilities, such as maternity 

13 

 
 
and childcare, is frequently identified as the main reason for lower levels of 
employment among women. 

Moving  to  the  link  between  employment  and  age,  youth  employment  has 
been  one  of  the  key  challenges  for  the  EU  in  recent  years.  While  data  are 
available  only  at  national  level,  they  portray  slight  improvements  in  2017 
compared with the previous year, with still very deep differences among and 
within Member States. In December 2017, the youth unemployment rate was 
16.1% in the EU28 and 17.9% in the euro area, compared with 18.0% and 
20.3%  respectively  in  December  2016.  The  lowest  rates  were  observed  in 
the Czech Republic (4.9%), Germany (6.6%) and Estonia (6.8%), while the 
highest  were  recorded  in  Greece  (40.8%  in  October  2017),  Spain  (36.8%) 
and Italy (32.2%). 

2.1.2.  Contribution of ESF 

To  counter  the  negative  effect  of  the  crisis  and  austerity  measures, 
particularly  in  Member  States  with  more  evident  financial  difficulties,  the 
EU’s financial contribution to ESF in 2007-2013 was raised by EUR 641.5 
million above the first ESF allocation planned for the programming period. 
Flexibility  in  programming  was  also  facilitated  by  the  European  Economic 
Recovery Plan in 2008, allowing a quick reaction of ESF to the immediate 
challenges  created  by  the  crisis  by  increasing  its  focus  on  fighting 
unemployment. By the end of 2014, at least 9.4 million European residents 
had  found  a  job  with  ESF  support.  The  fund  helped  up  to  30  million 
unemployed  beneficiaries.  Female  participation  represented  51.4%  of  the 
total of 98.7 million participations. 

With  regard  to  ESF  2014-2020,  interventions  on  thematic  objective  8  –  
‘sustainable and quality employment and support to labour mobility’ – focus 
on  groups  of  people  needing  support  through  actions  such  as  ‘opening 
pathways  to  work’  (counselling,  training,  fostering  entrepreneurship), 
‘creating  chances  for  youth’  (apprenticeship,  mobility,  vocational  training), 
‘boosting  business’  (encouraging  innovative  ways  of  working)  and  ‘caring 
for  careers’  (career  management,  active  ageing,  modernisation  of  labour 
market institutions…). 

Currently,  regarding  projects  on  thematic  objective  8,  the  Strategic  Report 
2017 on the implementation of ESI funds3 states that EUR 17.4 billion had 
been committed by the end of 2016, representing 31% of available support. 

3 COM (2017) 755 final. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Italy  and  Spain  are  the  Member  States  with  the  highest  ESF  allocation  (in 
absolute terms). Interventions aimed to increase access to the labour market 
are  reaching  4.2  million  unemployed  and  2.1  million  inactive  individuals. 
Significant progress has been made in selecting projects to increase access to 
employment  for  job seekers  and  inactive people (34% of  projects  selected) 
and  support  self-employment  and  entrepreneurship  (31%  of  projects 
selected).  However,  the  selection  rate  for  projects  on  the  modernisation  of 
labour market institutions is lagging behind at 15%. 

On  the  regional  and  local  level,  some  researchers  have  been  critical 
regarding  the  fulfilment  of  the  ESF  employment  objective.  As  also 
mentioned  by  the  EPRS  briefing  on  the  ESF4,  a  recent  study  on 
implementation of the ESF in the Czech Republic and Slovakia5 concluded 
that the territories with the highest rate of unemployment do not benefit from 
the highest allocations, the support being higher for regions hosting national 
authorities. 

2.1.3.  Synergies with other funds 

The surge in youth unemployment and the high number of NEETS (‘not in 
education, employment or training’) under 25 are issues the EU addressed in 
2013  with  the  introduction  of  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative  (YEI),  a 
separate  financial  instrument  established  within  the  framework  of  the  ESF, 
with  the  aim  of  providing  financial  support  for  the  creation  of  youth 
employment  in  the  regions  most  affected  by  this  phenomenon.  The  YEI 
targets  NUTS  2  regions  with  a  level  of  youth  unemployment  above  25%. 
Using  the  flexibility  instruments  available  in  the  2014-2020  Multiannual 
Financial Framework, the YEI was launched with a EUR 6.4 billion budget, 
with  half  the  financing  coming  from  a  dedicated  budget  line  and  the  other 
half from ESF contributions. According to the official data presented at the 
EPSCO (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council) 
meeting of 7 March 2016, the number of participants in YEI actions was 1.4 
million,  with  Italy,  Spain  and  Portugal  having  the  highest  share  of 
beneficiaries,  although  YEI  management  authorities  suffered  from  delays 
caused  by  late  adoption  of  operational  programmes,  insufficient  guidance, 
excessive reporting and cumbersome administrative requirements. 

4 EPRS Briefing, How the EU budget is spent – European Social Fund, February 2017. 
5 Janíček, P & Vaigel, R 2016, ‘European Social Fund investments in the Czech Republic and Slovakia’, 
International  Journal  of  Public  Administration,  Management  and  Economic  Development,  vol.  1,  no.  1, 
pp. 19-28. 

15 

 
 
 
                                           
 
The latest data6 on the use of the ESI fund budget for TO8 shows that ESF 
and the YEI cover the vast majority of the budget planned for this objective, 
with  help  from  the  ERDF  (including  Interreg)  and  EAFRD.  Interreg 
programmes  in  particular  are  engaged  with  cross-border  labour  mobility 
projects (approximately 235 000 people involved).  

Figure 3. EU budget by theme: Sustainable and quality employment 

Source: Open Data Portal (2018) 

2.2  Social inclusion 

2.2.1 Current data and trends on the local and regional level 

Even in parts of the EU where the employment rate is increasing, a part of 
the population finds itself without adequate resources to live. Inequality and 
poverty, including in-work poverty, are on the rise. People considered at risk 
of poverty are identified as being in at least one of the following conditions: 

 

 

 

at risk of poverty after social transfers (income poverty); 
severely materially deprived or; 
living in households with very low work intensity. 

The  number  of  people  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  in  the  EU  has 
increased  since  the  onset  of  the  economic  recession  (from  114.5  million 
people  at  risk  in  the  EU27  in  2009  to  123.9  million  people  in  2012,  the 
highest  peak).  Despite  an  overall  decrease  since  then,  there  is  still  a  25% 

6 Open Data Portal, 25 January 2018. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
share  of  people  at  risk  in  the  EU,  and  large  differences  are  visible  across 
Member  States,  which  remains  as  a  key  challenge,  especially  in  the  Baltic 
and southern Member States. In the EU13, the proportion of people at risk of 
poverty or social exclusion is considerably larger in rural areas (34%) than in 
cities  (20%).  In  the  EU15,  the  pattern  is  the opposite,  the proportion being 
larger  in  cities  (24%)  than  in  rural  areas  (21%),  though  the  difference  is 
much smaller. Between 2008 and 2015, the proportion fell in all areas in the 
EU13, and the difference between cities and rural areas is narrowing. In the 
EU15,  the  proportion  fell  only  in  rural  areas  while  it  increased  in  cities, 
towns and suburbs. 

High  unemployment  (particularly  long-term  unemployment)  potentially 
leads  to  a  wide  range  of  social  problems,  most  directly  poverty  and  social 
exclusion.  According  to  the  Seventh  Cohesion  Report,  the  unemployment 
rate across the EU has fallen from a peak of 10.9% in 2013 to 8.6% in 2016 
and 7.7% in 2017, still above the 7% reported in 2008 before the financial 
crisis.  However,  between  2008  and  2016,  unemployment  increased  in 
several EU regions at the same time as employment rates went up, meaning 
that  the  rate  of  job  creation  did  not  keep  up  with  the  growth  in  the  labour 
force. While in some northern and eastern regions of the EU rates decreased 
significantly  and  at  times  reached  lower  levels  than  before  the  crisis,  in  a 
number  of  regions  of  the  southern  Member  States  rates  were  up  to  10 
percentage points higher than in 2008. The changes in unemployment rates 
in  NUTS2  regions  are  visible  in  Figure  4  below.  In  several  regions  in 
Greece, Italy and Spain and in the French outermost regions, rates were still 
over 20%. Youth unemployment remains of particular concern. The highest 
unemployment rates were concentrated in Greek, Spanish, French and Italian 
regions,  while  the  lowest  rates  were  predominantly  recorded  in  German 
regions. The most dispersed regional unemployment rates7 were observed in 
Belgium, Italy, Austria, France and Hungary. Of all the groups examined by 
Eurostat,  unemployed  individuals  and  single  parents  with  one  or  more 
dependent  children  faced  the  highest  risk  of  poverty  across  all  three 
dimensions. 

7  The  dispersion  of  unemployment  rates  is  an  indicator  measuring  the  spread  of  regional  unemployment 
rates in relation to the national rate. 

17 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure  4.  Change  in  unemployment  rate  by  NUTS  2 
regions, 2008-2016 

Source: Eurostat 

Income convergence in the EU has been recently described as ‘a tale of two 
speeds’8. While overall income convergence has taken place over the last 15 
years at both regional and country level, both in terms of higher GDP growth 
of the poorest regions as well as diminishing differences in GDP per capita, 

8 Income Convergence in the EU: A tale of two speeds, CEPS report, January 2018. 

18 

 
 
                                           
detailed  data  suggest  large  patterns  of  internal  divergence.  In  particular, 
patterns at the regional level differ substantially from those aggregated at the 
national level in Central and Eastern Europe, where the convergence process 
is  accelerating  in  capital  regions  while  the  rest  of  the  country  lags  behind. 
During  the  period  2010-15,  convergence  at  the  level  of  Member  State  has 
been  stronger  than  at  the  regional  level.  The  same  trend  is  apparent  when 
considering  geographical  clusters  of  countries:  Southern  Europe  is  more 
uniform  and  exhibits  a  lower  variation  compared  with  North-Western  and 
Central-Eastern Europe (see Figure 5 below), both at the level of countries 
and regions. This implies that national averages of EU countries mask large 
regional  differences.  In  fact,  in  several  countries,  the  exceptional  growth 
performance of capital regions (e.g. Bucharest and Bratislava) drives up the 
national average and masks very poor growth in other regions. 

Figure 5. Beta-convergence in EU Member States vs. EU regions, 
by cluster of countries 

Source: CEPS (2018) 

19 

 
 
 
2.2.2 Contribution of ESF  

In  the  2007–2013  period,  14%  of  total  ESF  co-financed  investment  was 
allocated to social inclusion measures, which helped Member States to better 
support  those  most  severely  hit  by  the  crisis.  In  the  2014–2020  period,  the 
ESF provides support to measures to help groups that face discrimination in 
the  labour  market.  These  include,  in  particular,  migrants  and  ethnic 
minorities (e.g. Roma). ESF-supported measures are aimed at combating all 
forms of discrimination and at breaking down the various barriers to finding 
employment and becoming integrated into society. 

The  current  ESF  Regulation  1304/2013  stipulates  (Article  4)  that  at  least 
20% of the total ESF resources in each Member State must be allocated to 
the  thematic  objective  'Promoting  social  inclusion,  combating  poverty  and 
any  discrimination',  whereas  allocations  are  not  quantified  for  the  other 
thematic  objectives.  According  to  the  most  recent  data  published,  social 
inclusion had a strong acceleration of project selection, reaching EUR 16.5 
billion  (26%)  in  2016  with  measures  to  support  active  inclusion  playing  a 
key  role  in  supporting  vulnerable  groups  and  bringing  them  closer  to  the 
labour market. However, there are concerns about the delay in implementing 
measures  for  the  socio-economic  integration  of  marginalised  communities 
and social inclusion in deprived urban areas in general. In fact, based on the 
synthesis of all 2016 Annual Implementation Reports, the highest absorption 
is  found  for  the  largest  priorities  in  terms  of  funding,  which  are  ‘active 
inclusion’  and  ‘access  to  affordable,  sustainable  and  high-quality  services’, 
while  no  amounts  were  contracted  by  the  end  of  2016  by  beneficiaries  for 
‘integration of marginalised communities’.9 

2.2.3 Synergies with other funds 

The  latest  data10  on  the  utilisation  of  the  ESI  fund  budget  for  TO  9  shows 
that  ESF  only  covers  47.5%  (approximately  EUR  31  billion)  of  the  EU 
budget planned for this objective, with the ERDF and EAFRD covering the 
other half. 

Of  all  the  funds,  ESF  is  the  single  largest  investor  in  social  inclusion, 
although the ERDF interventions contribute significantly through support to 
job  creation  (e.g.  start-ups  and  SMEs),  renovation  of  infrastructure  (e.g. 
housing,  schools,  hospitals)  and  the  requalification  of  urban  areas.  TO  9  is 

9 European Commission (2016), Synthesis Report of ESF 2016 Annual Implementation Reports. 
10 Open Data Portal, 25 January 2018. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
the  most  used  in  combined  ERDF  and  ESF  programmes  (24%  of  total 
combinations).  The  integrated  use  of  TOs  often  addresses  different  aspects 
of sustainable urban development where different TOs are usually combined 
with TO 9. 

The  new  provisions  in  the  2014-2020  regulations  for  enhancing  the 
integrated  use  of  ESI  Funds  are  particularly  important  in  addressing  the 
territorial  dimension  of  poverty.  The  integration  of  marginalised  groups 
requires  multidimensional  approaches  supported  from  different  ESI  Funds. 
In deprived urban areas, ESF actions aimed at promoting the social inclusion 
of  marginalised  groups  should  be  accompanied  by  physical  and  economic 
regeneration  activities  supported  by  the  ERDF.  In  rural  areas,  EARDF 
support  may  also  be  used  to  promote  social  inclusion,  particularly  through 
community-led local development (‘LEADER’).11 

Looking at the ESI Funds regulatory framework 2014-2020, social inclusion 
is  also  indirectly  addressed  in  TOs  8  and  10  (employment  and  education). 
Furthermore,  social 
through  horizontal 
principles  –  related  to  gender  equality,  accessibility  for  people  with 
disabilities and social issues related to demographic changes  – and as such 
could be integrated into all eleven TOs. 

is  also  considered 

inclusion 

Figure 6. EU budget by theme: social inclusion 

Source: Open Data Portal (2018) 

Looking  at  the  whole  range  of  Union  Instruments,  a  sample  of  operational 
programmes  tackling  social  inclusion  analysed  in  the  recent  EP  study 

11  European  Commission  (2016),  The  use  of  new  provisions  during  the  programming  phase  of  the 
European structural and investment funds. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
“Integrated use of ESI funds to address social challenges”12 showed how the 
Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  (AMIF),  the  Fund  for  European 
Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) and Horizon 2020 account for half of the 
synergies  mentioned  in  ESI  fund  programmes  with  regard  to  social 
inclusion. 

The  ESF  and  multi-fund  programmes  frequently  mention  synergies  and 
complementarities  with  Union  Instruments  to  tackle  social  challenges, 
especially AMIF, which targets migrants and refugees, e.g.: 

  ESF programmes in Germany such as the ‘Operational programme 
of  the  Federal  Government  for  the  European  Social  Fund  in  the 
funding  period  2014–2020’  and  ‘Operational  programme  Efficient 
Human 
and 
complementarities with AMIF, FEAD and ERASMUS+. 

2014–2020’ 

Resources 

synergies 

plan 

  Multi-fund  programmes  quote  synergies  and  complementarities 
with AMIF and FEAD for social purposes, such as the OP Central 
in  Greece  and  ‘Human  Resource  Development 
Macedonia 
Operational Programme’ in Hungary. 

At the third FEAD Network meeting in November 2016, the actors involved 
reflected  on  the  needed  synergies  between  FEAD  and  ESF  and  suggested, 
among  other  things:  deeper  cooperation  between  Managing  Authorities; 
common  strategies  to  avoid  the  potential  overlap  of  initiatives;  the 
involvement  of  the  local  community  and  regular  consultation  with  local 
actors  to  create  trusting  and  collaborative  partnerships;  a  much  higher 
harmonisation of FEAD and ESF regulations; more integrated management 
at  national  and  regional  level;  regular  dialogue  between  stakeholders  at  all 
levels (including end recipients). 

2.3   Education and vocational training 

2.3.1 Current data and trends on the local and regional level 

Vocational  education  is  increasingly  considered  as  key  to  lowering 
unemployment  rates  by  facilitating  the  transition  of  young  people  from 
education  into  the  labour  market  and  increasing  labour  market  access 
opportunities  for  low-skilled  individuals.  The  share  of  upper  secondary 

12 European Parliament (2017), Integrated use of ESI funds to address social challenges. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
in  vocational  education  programmes  varied 
students  participating 
considerably across the EU Member States in 2016, with a particularly high 
participation  in  a  cluster  of  regions  in  Croatia,  Slovenia,  Austria,  Slovakia 
and the Czech Republic. Some of the differences in the level of participation 
can  be  attributed  to  perceptions  concerning  vocational  education  and 
training: in countries including the Czech Republic and Austria, vocational 
education  and  training  is  largely  considered  an  effective  step  to  facilitate 
access to the labour market, whereas in some other Member States it has a 
much  less  positive  societal  perception.  Vocational  education  programmes 
had the lowest shares recorded for the two Irish NUTS level 2 regions and 
for  Scotland,  followed  by  the  island-regions  of  Malta  and  Cyprus  and  the 
capital city region of Hungary13. 

Considerable  disparities  also  remain  in  the  share  of  early  leavers14  both 
between and within EU28 regions. Several large Member States in southern 
and  western  Europe  recorded  shares  above  the  EU  benchmark,  namely, 
Germany  (10.2%),  the  United  Kingdom  (11.2%),  Italy  (13.8%)  and  Spain 
(19.0%). The highest share of early leavers from education and training was 
recorded in Malta (19.6%), while the lowest share was recorded in Croatia 
(2.8%).  Many  of  the  EU  regions  with  the  highest  shares  of  early  leavers 
from  education  and  training  were  characterised  as  being  relatively  remote 
and/or sparsely populated and it may be the case that students living in these 
regions  leave  home  to  follow  a  particular  specialisation,  while  those  who 
remain  have  fewer  opportunities  for  upper  secondary  or  tertiary  education. 
Some  of  the  largest  ranges  between  the  highest  and  lowest  shares  of  early 
leavers  across  the  different  regions  of  a  single  EU  Member  State  were 
observed in France and Spain.  

The share  of young people (aged 18–24) in the EU28 who were neither in 
employment  nor  in  education  or  training  (NEETs),  in  relation  to  the 
population of the same age, was 15.2% in 2016. One of the key determinants 
explaining differences in NEET rates is low educational attainment. Regions 
characterised  by  relatively  high  rates  of  early  leavers  from  education  and 
training and relatively low rates of vocational training are expected to show 
high NEET rates. An analysis across the EU Member States shows that the 
highest  proportion  of  NEETs  in  2016  was  recorded  in  Italy  (26.0%).  By 
contrast,  the  proportion  of  young  people  who  were  neither  in  employment 
nor  in  education  or  training  was  as  low  as  6.1%  in  the  Netherlands.  The 
highest  rates  tended  to  be  located  in  southern,  eastern  or  overseas  regions, 

13 Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2017. 
14 The EU defines early school leavers as people aged 18-24 who have only lower secondary education or 
less and are no longer in education or training. 

23 

 
 
                                           
often corresponding to rural, peripheral or outermost regions. In western EU 
Member States, there were sometimes relatively high NEET rates located in 
urban areas characterised by a traditional specialisation in heavy industry.  

In total, 16 of the 35 regions in the EU where the share of young people with 
a  tertiary  education  attainment15  reached  at  least  50%  were  capital  city 
regions, where a wider range of opportunities is usually available for higher 
education. Consequently, many of them attract people seeking to undertake 
tertiary  education.  Generally,  capital  city  regions  also  reported  relatively 
high  employment  rates  for  recent  graduates  in  2016,  with  these  regions 
recording  the  highest  rates  in  six  of  the  22  multi-regional  EU  Member 
States.  This  is  also  because  educational  qualifications  are  still  the  best 
insurance  against  unemployment.  According  to  2014  Eurostat  data  on 
unemployment  rates  by  level  of  educational  attainment,  the  unemployment 
rate  was  18.2%  higher  for  those  who  attained  at  most  a  lower  secondary 
education than for those with a tertiary education qualification (6.6%). The 
attraction of capital city regions has, however, the potential to create labour 
market  imbalances  (i.e.  ratio  between  labour  supply  and  demand)  whereby 
an  increasing  share  of  graduates  move  to  capital  cities  in  search  of  work. 
These patterns may be of particular concern in EU Member States  that are 
characterised  by  a  pattern  of  economic  development  where  a  large  part  of 
the national economy is concentrated in the capital city and its surrounding 
regions.  

2.3.2 Contribution of ESF 

'Investing  in  education,  training  and  vocational  training  for  skills  and  life-
long learning' is one of the ESF thematic objectives (TO 10 according to art. 
9  CPR)  stipulated  in  article  3  of  the  ESF  regulation  1304/2013,  and  the 
second by share of ESF budget with a total of EUR 27.1 billion. Within the 
scope of  this  objective,  the ESF  helps  Member  States  to  improve  the basic 
skills  of  low-qualified  individuals  and  assist  workers  to  increase  their  skill 
levels  and  the  unemployed  to  get  back  into  work.  To  this  end,  the  ESF 
provides  support  across  the  entire  education  cycle  from  early  childhood 
schooling  to  vocational  training  and  life-long  learning.  Italy,  Poland  and 
Portugal have the three highest ESF allocations for investments in education 
and training in absolute terms. 

Investments  in  TO  10  reached  EUR  14.6  billion  in  2016,  with  a  project 
selection rate close to 30%. Despite a relatively low project selection rate for 

15 The tertiary educational attainment indicator is defined as the share of the population aged 30–34 who 
have successfully completed a tertiary education programme. 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                           
life-long  learning  activities,  about  700  000  persons  are  being  given  the 
opportunity to upgrade their skills and secure their career paths.  

2.3.3 Synergies with other funds 

The  latest  data16  on  the  utilisation  of  the  ESI  fund  budget  for  TO  10 
(education  and  vocational  training)  shows  that  ESF  covers  almost  80%  of 
the  EU  budget  planned  for  this  objective  (approximately  EUR  39  billion), 
with  the  ERDF  covering  most  of  the  remaining  interventions,  focused  on 
adding capacity to childcare or education infrastructure. 

With regard to Union instruments, the Erasmus+ programme guide explicitly 
mentions  synergies  with  ESI  funds  on  several  levels,  e.g.  within  the 
framework  of  the  key  actions  ‘Collaborative  Partnerships’  and  ‘Support  to 
Policy Reform’.  

Figure 7. EU budget by theme: education and vocational training. 

Source: Open Data Portal 

16 Open Data Portal, 25 January 2018. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
2.4  The European added value of ESF 

The information provided in the paragraphs above exemplifies well how the 
ESF,  along  with  the  other  ESI  funds,  emerged  as  a  necessary  support  to 
stability  and  growth  in  the  aftermath  of  the  economic  and  financial  crisis, 
particularly to fill the shortcomings of national budgets that had come under 
strain.  More  recently,  the  ESF  helped  tackle  the  refugee  crisis  through 
targeted  integration  actions.  The  EC  communication  ‘A  new,  modern 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  for  a  European  Union  that  delivers 
efficiently  on  its  priorities  post-2020’  addresses  the  added  value  of  the  EU 
budget with this comment: “Pooling resources at European level can deliver 
results that spending at national level cannot.”17 

Looking into the 2007-2013 report on the main achievements of the ESF, the 
added value was measured through four dimensions: volume, scope, role and 
process  effects.18  The  data  provided  confirm  positive  effects  in  all 
dimensions.  Volume  effects  were  observed  in  most  Member  States  by 
increasing  and  complementing  mainstream  employment  and 
training 
provisions and boosting support for priority groups. ESF also broadened the 
national  actions  (scope  effects)  in  tackling  gender  equality,  integrating 
minorities  such  as  the  Roma  and  enhancing  the  quality  and  intensity  of 
public  services.  Important  role  effects  were  observed  with  regard  to 
community-based  social  services  supported  by  the  ESF,  which  were 
recognised  as  effective  models  for  social  service  delivery  and  taken  up  by 
the national social assistance agency (e.g. in Bulgaria). Finally, the ESF was 
reported  to  influence  the  improvement  of  public  administration  (process 
effects)  by  creating  more  ‘client-centred’  and  accessible  services  (e.g.  for 
social  inclusion),  encouraging  greater  use  of  monitoring  and  evaluation, 
strengthening partnerships and increasing focus on equality.  

17 COM (2018), 98 final. 
18 Volume effects – ESF funding adds to existing actions, either by supporting national action in general or 
specific areas of national policy; Scope effects – ESF action broadens existing action by supporting groups 
or policy areas that would not otherwise receive support; Role effects – ESF action supports local/regional 
innovations that are taken up at national level or national innovative actions that are then ‘mainstreamed’; 
Process  effects  –  ESF  action  influences  member  state  administrations  and  organisations  involved  in  the 
programmes. 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                           
2.5  State of play of ESF in six selected programmes 
POLAND 

In 2007-2013, only one ESF financed OP  was implemented in Poland  – the 
OP  ‘Human  Capital’.  With  the  EU  allocation  of  EUR  9.7  bn.,  it  was  the 
largest ESF programme in the EU in 2007-2013. 

In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  ESF  2014-2020  resources  in  Poland 
are  implemented  through  the  ESF  mono-fund  national  OP  ‘Knowledge 
Education  Development’  and  16  regional  multi-fund  (i.e.  ERDF  and  ESF) 
OPs, in which the ESF accounts for EUR 8.7 bn. ROPs support such areas as 
regional 
job  search,  education,  skills  and 
competences, social inclusion and technical assistance. 

labour  markets,  active 

ESF state of play at the local and regional level: Warmińsko-Mazurskie  

According to national analyses, Warmińsko-Mazurskie benefited most and is 
estimated  to  have  had  the  highest  impact  from  the  implementation  of  ESF 
projects  in  2007-2013  interventions  in  the  areas  of  the  labour  market  and 
education. In 2004, at the time of EU entry, the region was characterized by a 
51.1%  employment  rate  for  people  aged  20-64,  while  in  2016,  the  value  of 
this indicator was already 63.4%. It is estimated that one fourth of the growth 
recorded during this period was the  result of the impact of EU funds. The 
region  still  has  the  highest  unemployment  rate  in  Poland.  It  is  also  a 
depopulating  region  with  a  high  negative  migration  balance.  The  region  is 
characterized  by  a  high  risk  of  relative  poverty,  which  increased  up  until 
2016. However, it is estimated that investments co-financed under Cohesion 
Policy  allowed  for  a  reduction  of  the  unemployment  rate  in  this  region  by 
about 3 percentage points. In the current programming period, the region is 
implementing  its  own  ROP  Warmińsko-Mazurskie  2014-2020  with  an 
allocation of EUR 1.7 bn., including the ESF portion of EUR 486.1 mil. From 
the  moment  of  launching  the  programme  to  January  2018  the  co-financing 
agreements  signed  with 
to 
approximately  41%  of  the  ESF  allocation  of  the  programme.  The  positive 
effect of ESF is visible in creating new jobs, improving the qualifications of 
employees  and  their  better  adaptation  to  the  changing  conditions  on  the 
labour  market.  In  2016,  the  number  of  jobs  created  in  Warmińsko-
Mazurskie  as  a  result  of  investments  co-financed  from  the  EU  budget  is 
estimated at 27 000.  

the  beneficiaries  for 

the  ESF  amount 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
THE NETHERLANDS 

The  ESF  is  implemented  on  the  national  level  in  the  Netherlands  by  the 
Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. Two themes are prioritized:  

1) active inclusion 
2) active and healthy ageing 

Main results on active inclusion between 2014 and 2016: 

  153 960 persons participated in 72 projects and 35% of the targets were met 

in 2016. 

  For the municipal projects, youth is the main target group (42% in 2016). 
A large group of people on welfare longer than 6 months was reached with 
the  ESF  (53%  of  participants  in  2016).  The  remaining  target  groups  are 
underrepresented. 

  A  relevant  development  is  the  inclusion  of  refugees  under  the  target 
groups. Before 2016, individuals in this group were only eligible when they 
also  fell  under  the  auspices  of  other  target  groups.  At  the  request  of 
municipalities  that  were  looking  for  ways  to  support  refugees,  this  group 
now  has  a  separate  status.  As  a  result,  the  participation  of  this  group 
increased significantly from 2014-2015 to 2016. 

  The  2016  assessment  of  the  ESF  programme  highlights  that  ESF  active 
inclusion  contributed  to  volume-effects,  meaning  more  room  for  working 
with  people  who  are  distanced  from  the  labour  market.  The  ESF  also 
contributed to the use of more instruments to guide people in this process. 
  Quality-effects have been identified, such as the possibility to deliver more 

intensive and tailor-made guidance. 

  There  is  a  certain  focus  on  sectors  aiming  to  invest  in  sustainable 
employment.  Private  sector  interest  groups  that  pool  resources  through 
foundations  and  associations  can  use  these  funds  to  deepen  activities  on 
sustainable  employability.  The  aim  would  be  to  ensure  that  the  effects  of 
these activities spill over into the economic sector as a whole. 

  Increased cooperation among regions and municipalities, in particular on 

labour market integration. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
SPAIN - Castilla la Mancha  

The  regional  ESF  OP  2014-2020  aims  to  address  the  following  challenges 
and needs:  

  reducing unemployment and increasing activity; 
  supporting entrepreneurship and self-employment; 
  increasing human capital and improving their capacities; 
  supporting  people  and  geographical  areas  at  higher  risk  of 

discrimination or social exclusion.  

The expected impact is to: 

  increase  employment  opportunities  amongst  the  most  disadvantaged 
groups,  stimulate  and  increase  entrepreneurship,  as  well  as  increase  the 
labour market participation of women in those sectors with a low female 
representation; 

  improve the employability of those further away from the labour market 
through  integrated  pathways  for  social  and  labour  integration  and  by 
promoting employment measures as the means to combat social exclusion; 
  reduce  the  levels  of  early  school  leaving  through  personalized  support 
and projects in specialized centres to motivate and encourage pupils at risk 
as  well  as  increase  the  quality  of  and  participation  level  in  vocational 
training.  

GERMANY – Berlin 

The OP for Berlin envisages an ESF funding of EUR 215.1 million over the 
2014-2020 period. Overall, the ESF Berlin Managing Authority identifies two 
main target groups for ESF intervention: 

  Young people: conventionally this has been a focus in Germany for ESF 
funding, whereas support to the elderly is somewhat underrepresented 
compared  with  what  the  EC  might  view  as  appropriate.  The  focus  on 
young  people  in  Berlin  can  be  justified  by  the  fact  that  there  is  a 
particularly high rate of early school leavers (approx. 15%).  

  Long-term  unemployed:  whereas  overall  unemployment  is  shrinking  in 
Berlin  as  in  Germany  overall,  the  number  of  long-term  unemployed 
people  is  not  decreasing  as  fast.  As  a  result,  their  share  of  the  total 
number of unemployed people is increasing. 

In Berlin, there are many people with a combination of challenges including 
long-term  unemployment,  drug  addiction,  long-term  illness,  etc.,  which 
prevent their successful integration into the job market. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UK – Greater Birmingham and Solihull 

The ESF in England is managed centrally by the Department for Work and 
Pensions. For the 2014-2020 period, ESF funding in England is dedicated to 
achieving objectives 8, 9 and 10 of the ESIFs. 

According  to  the  2014-2020  OP,  three  priority  axes  have  been  chosen  for 
England,  which  aim  to  incorporate  and  build  on  the  European  thematic 
objectives.  These  are:  inclusive  labour  market,  skills  for  growth  and 
technical  assistance.  There  is  a  distinct  focus  on  initiatives  to  increase  the 
employment rate, particularly with regard to those who are at a disadvantage 
in  the  labour  market  (e.g.  long-term  unemployed,  people  with  disabilities, 
women returning to work, low-skilled workers etc.). Overcoming high levels 
of youth unemployment is identified as a focal point for EU funding in the 
2014-2020  ESF  OP  England.  There  is  evidence  of  a  reduction  in 
unemployment levels over the current programming period. 

ESIF  funding  is  notionally  allocated  at  the  regional  level  to  39  Local 
Enterprise  Partnerships  (LEPs),  made  up  of  representatives  from  local 
governments and industrial partners. These bodies provide co-financing from 
national  government.  The  role  of  the  LEPs  is  to  work  with  the  national 
bodies to identify local needs and establish local priorities for support from 
ESF.  This  approach  means  that  the  LEPs  do  not  need  to  secure  substantial 
co-financing  from  local  sources  and  ensures  that  ESF  activities  are  very 
closely aligned with national provisions. 

For  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  the  Greater  Birmingham  and 
Solihull LEP (GBSLEP) chose to opt out of the system described above and 
to maintain control over their own funding allocation. The LEP has been 
allocated  £110  million  from  the  ESF  (divided  equally  between  Promoting 
Employment  and  Mobility;  Promoting  Social  Inclusion  and  Employability; 
and Skills for Growth and Entrepreneurship) and a further £19 million from 
the YEI specifically. Fourteen public calls have been launched by GBSLEP 
for  ESF  funded  projects,  focusing  principally  on  access  to  employment 
(with special attention paid to jobseekers, economically inactive individuals 
and  NEETS)  and  learning  and  skills,  with  one  project  also  dedicated  to 
active social inclusion. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
CYPRUS 

The ESF  2007-2013  OP  ‘Human  Capital  and  Social Inclusion’  was  marked 
by the effects of the financial crisis and recession. In the years between 2008 
and 2013 the employment rate fell from 71% to 62% and the NEET rate for 
young  people  rose  from  9%  to  21%,  identifying  two  emerging  vulnerable 
groups:  the  unemployed  and  young  people  entering  the  labour  market.  The 
challenge was addressed through the creation of  training opportunities for 
low-skilled  workers, 
young  people, 
the 
increasing 
unemployed  and  other  disadvantaged  groups  and 
participation of women in training and the labour market. 

learning  for 

increasing 

lifelong 

The  2014-2020  ESF  OP  “Employment,  Human  Resources  and  Social 
Cohesion” has a total budget of EUR 173 million. In 2017 Cyprus received 
an  additional  EUR  33.6  million  (11.3  million  from  the  ESF)  to  contribute 
towards social cohesion. 

The  Operational  Programme  has  been  designed  to  encourage  social 
cohesion under three priority axes (Improving the Employment Potential of 
Human Capital, Supporting the Employment of Youth under 29 years old and 
easing  their  entry  into  the  Labour  Market,  Fighting  Poverty  and  Social 
Exclusion).  The  main  tool  used  to  combat  these  issues  is  encouraging  the 
creation  of  jobs  and  internships  through  financial  incentives  for 
employers.  Part  of  the  training  was  designed  to  match  the  changing 
demand of the labour market in the country by investing in sectors such as 
the hotel industry. 

However,  overall  22.1%  of  those  that  started  their  contract  left  before 
completing it. This could be due to a lack of capacity to move around the 
island,  as  the  territorial  focus  of  the  programmes  was  not  based  on  small 
localities  but  on  the  country  as  a  whole,  which  has  a  single  managing 
authority. 

Additionally, one million euros were allocated in the EURES network (EaSI) 
to  improve  private  job-seeking  services  in  order  to  reduce  frictions  and 
increase efficiency and transparency in the labour market.  
Education 

An effort is made to certify lifelong learning and skills based on experience. 
This provides considerable benefits, such as increased labour market mobility 
within  the  country,  but  also  within  the  EU.  This  form  of  certification 
contributes to social cohesion, preventing the isolation of certain workers and 
facilitating the transfer of skills to other professions. These certifications are 
designed to add to the European Qualification Framework. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3  Use  of  the  place-based  approach  to 

address social challenges 

The  place-based  approach  requires  that  development  issues  be  addressed 
based on the needs expressed at local level by different groups of people and 
considering  the  context  of  intervention19.  Place-based  approaches  assume 
that  territorial  contexts  in  the  EU28  are  very  diverse,  including  urban  and 
rural areas, remote areas with handicaps, sparsely populated areas, outermost 
regions  and  other  regions  with  territorial  specificities  (e.g.  maritime  or 
mountainous regions), each with specific development paths, different needs 
and decision-making processes. 

The  place-based  approach  promoted  by  the  cohesion  policy  in  the  current 
programming  period  has  been  addressed  at  different  levels  of  governance, 
using different instruments of implementation.  

For the ESF, the place-based approach can be analysed first considering how 
the  needs  identified  in  the  regions  have  been  addressed  by  the  programme 
strategies  and  what  arrangements  have  been  taken  at  programme  level  to 
ensure  the  participation  of  regional  and  local  stakeholders  in  programme 
implementation.  The  participation  of  regional  stakeholders  is  supposed  to 
guarantee  the  representativeness  of  territorial  needs  and  provide  strong 
support to the strategy approved by programme authorities. 

In  addition,  how the  place-based  approach  has  been  adopted  in  the various 
ESF programmes can also be analysed by exploring the way in which ESF 
programmes  use  integrated  instruments  such  as  CLLD,  ITI  and  sustainable 
planning to meet the social needs expressed at the territorial level. 

3.1  Place-based approach in programme strategies 

The 28 Partnership agreements (PAs), defined at national level, highlighted 
their specific territorial needs and challenges in terms of social cohesion in 
sections  1.1  and  3,  providing  information  on  the  issues  to  be  addressed  at 
territorial  level,  particularly  for  those  areas  most  affected  by  poverty, 
discrimination and social exclusion. 

19  As  defined  in  the  Barca  report  (2009),  “a  place-based  policy  is  a  long-term  strategy  aimed  at  tackling 
persistent under-utilisation of potential and reducing persistent social exclusion in specific places through 
external interventions and multilevel governance. It promotes the supply of integrated goods and services 
tailored to contexts, and it triggers institutional changes.” 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
In  France,  for  example,  the  PA  was  used  to  introduce  more  coherence 
between  the  different  levels  of  governance  from  the  local  to  the  national 
level.  In  Italy  the  PA  examines  regional  social  and  economic  disparities  in 
terms  of  needs  and  growth  potentials,  distinguishing  between  inner  areas, 
urban and rural areas20. 

Needs are analysed in specific sections of the programme template (section 
1.1,  sections  4  and  5),  covering  all  the  TOs  selected  by  the  programme 
strategy, using available statistics at national/regional levels. In the 125 ESF 
regional  programmes  approved  in  the  current  programming  periods  (of 
which 92 are multi-funds), needs clearly refer to territorial needs and issues 
are identified at regional levels, mainly referring to TOs 8, 9 and 10.  

As  reported  by  the  Altus  study  for  the  EC21,  the  most  frequent  types  of 
territory  affected  by  poverty  identified  in  the  PAs  and  OPs  are  those  with 
socially  marginalised  communities,  urban  and  rural  areas,  and  areas  with 
permanent  geographical  and  demographic  handicaps  (see  figure  below).  In 
total, 16 PAs and OPs from 19 MS declared territories affected by poverty. 

Figure  8.  Type  of  territories  affected  by  poverty  (in  2014-20  PAs  and 
OPs) 

(as % of the total number of programming documents) 
Source: European commission, 2016 

How  needs  have  been  analysed  concretely  and  the  degree  of  consistency 
between  the  needs  and  priorities  chosen  is  very  specific  to  each  ESF 

20  European  Parliament  (2015),  Review  of  the  Adopted  Partnership  Agreements,  study  of  the  REGI 
Committee. 
21  European  Commission  (2016),  The  use  of  New  Provisions  During  the  Programming  Phase  of  the 
European Structural and Investment Funds. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
programme  and  territorial  context.  There  are  few  analyses  at  EU  level  on 
how  the  186  ESF  programmes  performed  their  needs  analysis  and  to  what 
extent  the  programme  strategies  rely  on  an  effective  place-based  approach. 
However,  in  the  previously  mentioned  study  covering  all  the  ESI  Funds 
(including ESF), it is reported that only 28 OPs performed a full analysis of 
needs of vulnerable groups and fewer than half of the PAs comprise concrete 
actions for poor regions or vulnerable groups. 

3.2  The  involvement  of  stakeholders  in  programme 

partnerships 

The involvement of local stakeholders in the programme partnerships is also 
a  signal  of  the  extent  to  which  local  and  territorial  needs  are  taken  into 
account  by  the programmes.  Social  stakeholders  have  been  involved  in the 
programmes  as  partners,  according  to  article  5  of  the  CPR  related  to 
“partnership  and  multi-level  governance”,  both  in  the  programming  phase, 
i.e.  participating  in  the  discussions  on  the  programme  priorities,  and  in  the 
implementation phase through direct participation in decisions in monitoring 
committees. As it emerged from the analysis of the 28 PAs22, the principle of 
partnership  (Art.  5  of  the  CPR)  has  been  implemented  with  the  active 
participation  of  local  social  partners  as  well  as  of  civil  society.  The 
participation of stakeholders is well documented in general both at PA and 
OP  levels.  In  addition,  as  mentioned  in  the  programme  strategies,  the 
involvement  of  various  types  of  stakeholders,  such  as  civil  society 
representatives,  NGOs,  economic  and  social  partners  is  planned  in  the 
implementation  phases,  some  of  them  taking  part  in  the  decision-making 
process as members of monitoring committees. 

3.3  The  use  of  integrated  policy  tools  in  implementing 

the place-based approach 

integrated  policy 

In  the  current  programming  period,  the  place-based  approach  is  pursued 
through  a  better  synergy  and 
using 
complementarity  between  funds  (including  ESI  funds)  and  policies 
implemented  at  EU,  national  and  regional  levels23.  In  the  2014-2020 
programming period, integrated tools supporting employment (TO 8), social 
inclusion (TO 9) and education (TO 10) interventions at  the local level are 

tools  and 

22 European Parliament (2015), Review of the Adopted Partnership Agreements. 
23See the Common Strategic Framework, annex 1 of the CPR. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
mainly  Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), Integrated Territorial 
Investments (ITI) and urban sustainable development plans. They are often 
multi-funds,  i.e.  combining  financial  resources  from  ESF,  ERDF  and 
EAFRD in rural areas. 

CLLD is an instrument designed to strengthen stakeholder participation and 
also  involve  citizens  in  local  development  strategies24.  The  CLLD  is  by 
essence  bottom-up,  i.e.  centred  on  local  needs  and  led  by  local  actions 
groups made up of representatives of public and private interests in the area. 
The  CLLD  has  been  tested  for  years  in  the  framework  of  EAFRD 
programmes,  through  the  LEADER  approach  before  being  extended  on  a 
voluntary  basis  to  all  ESIF  in  the  current  programming  period.  CLLD  has 
three main components: 

  Local  action  groups.  They  are  made  up  of  local  private  and  public 
representatives  such  as  entrepreneurs  and  their  associations,  local 
authorities,  neighbourhood  or  rural  associations,  groups  of  citizens 
(such  as  minorities,  senior  citizens,  women/men,  youth,  etc.), 
community  and  voluntary  organisations,  etc.  One  of  their  tasks  is  to 
engage  in  dialogue,  from  an  early  stage,  with  the  relevant  managing 
authorities to agree on needs and concerns to be taken into account in 
the programme design. 

  Local development strategies. They need to show coherence with the 
ESI Fund programmes supporting them. The strategies define the area 
and  the  population  targeted.  A  SWOT  analysis  describes  the 
objectives and innovative features of the strategy. The strategy should 
also include an action plan to verify how the objectives are translated 
into concrete projects. 

  Area  and  population  coverage.  The  local  action  groups  define  the 
area and the population  that the strategy  is intended  to cover, in line 
with criteria in Article 33(6) of the CPR. 

ITI  are  aimed  at  implementing  territorial  strategies  that  allow  Member 
States  to  combine  investments  from  several  priority  axes  of  one  or  more 
Operational Programmes. Interventions from ITI are multi-dimensional and 
cross-sectoral by nature. 

24 Article 33 of the CPR; art 12. ESF Regulation 1304/2013. See also European Commission (June 2014), 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  –  Guidance  for  Member  States  and  Programme  Authorities.  
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_clld_local_actors.pdf 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Key elements of ITI are25: 

  A  designated  territory  and  an  integrated  territorial  development 
strategy. Important in ITI implementation is to define a geographical 
area with specific features. Once delineated, the investment can tackle 
any  territorial  feature  ranging  from  specific  urban  neighbourhoods 
with  multiple  deprivations  to  urban,  metropolitan,  urban-rural,  sub-
regional or inter-regional levels. 

  A package of actions to be implemented. Although not compulsory, 
when  employing  ITI,  it  is  advisable  to  combine  contributions  from 
different  funds  (ERDF,  ESF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund,  optionally 
complemented  with  support  from  EAFRD  and  EMFF).  The  ‘actions 
implemented through the investment shall contribute to the TOs of the 
relevant  priority  axes  of  the  participating  Operational  Programme(s), 
as  well  as  the  development  objectives  of  the  ‘territorial  strategy’. 
Grants  and,  when  appropriate,  financial  instruments  can  deliver 
support to the package of actions. 

  Governance  arrangements  to  manage  the  ITI.  Final  responsibility 
for  implementing  and  managing  the  ITI  lies  in  the  hands  of  the 
managing  authority.  It  can,  in  turn,  delegate  implementation  and 
management  tasks  to  intermediate  bodies  including  local  authorities, 
regional  development  bodies  or  non-governmental  organisations 
operating at the local level. 

Urban sustainable development plans (USDP)26 can be supported by ESF 
and  ERDF  in  developing  actions  and  plans  addressing  key  social  issues 
affecting urban areas and their rural surroundings. Cities or urban bodies are 
designed  as  intermediated  bodies  to  implement  USDP  and  related  actions. 
To  date,  more  than  3  800  urban  and  territorial  strategies  have  beneficiated 
from  EU  support,  many  of  them  with  interventions  addressing  social 
cohesion  issues.  In  total,  900  integrated  sustainable  urban  development 
strategies  have  been  adopted,  financed  mainly  by  ERDF  and  ESF  with  a 
national  contribution  in  some  cases,  while  13  Member  States  adopted  the 
new ITI instrument for a total of 150 different territorial strategies27.  

25 Article 36(1) of the CPR.; art 12. ESF regulation 1304/2013. EU guidance: 
 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/iti_en.pdf  
26 Art 12. ESF regulation 1304/2013 and article 7 ERDF regulation 1301/2013.  
27  Source:  strategic  report  2017  on  the  implementation  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
and 7th report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
It  is  worth  noting  that  other  tools  for  territorial  development  not  directly 
supported  by  ESF  have  been  put  in  place  during  the  current  programming 
period,  such  as  the  Urban  agenda  or  the  Urban  Innovative  Actions,  also 
covering social cohesion issues to a large extent.  

It is still difficult to draw lessons on the efficiency of the use of integrated 
tools as operational instruments for a place-based approach in the 2014-2020 
programming  period. More experience  needs  to  be  gained  by  LRAs  on  the 
ground  before  a  complete  evaluation  of  these  delivery  mechanisms  can  be 
made.    However,  general  guidance  on  how  to  improve  efficiency  in 
implementing  place-based  approaches  is  already  available.  As  it  emerges 
from  the  2015  European  Commission  study  ‘Territorial  Agenda  put  in 
practice’, key success elements for a place-based approach are the following: 

  gaining  a  clear  recognition  of  local  assets,  potential  and  skills  and 
gathering  stakeholders’  opinions  to  achieve  consensus  on  a  shared 
vision; 

  addressing  multifaceted  needs 

challenges 
concerning  poverty  and  social  exclusion,  integrating  activities  and 
avoiding conflict;  

and  development 

  promoting open governance, i.e. a multi-level governance, bottom-up 
approach  with  a  clear  and  transparent  definition  of  rules  for  citizens 
and stakeholder participation; 

  identifying a strong leadership and ownership (e.g. entrusted authority 

or a dedicated partnership); 

  developing  capacity  in  experimenting  with  new  and  innovative 
solutions to deal with emerging needs and promote adequate learning 
to adjust to changes. 

However,  as  it  emerged  from  recently  published  studies  in  the  field28,  the 
place-based approach can also add complexity to the process of planning and 
programming, i.e. a new source of burdens and costs for local authorities and 
stakeholders (e.g. requirement of local plans for urban authorities in the case 
of  ITI,  or  Local  Action  Plans  for  CLLD).  There  is  a  risk  of  perceiving 
integrated tools more as an additional burden than as an instrument enabling 
better-integrated  territorial  development,  especially  for  LRAs  with  a  weak 
administrative  capacity.  This  is  the  reason  why  LRAs,  particularly  with 
regard to the municipal level, called for greater simplification of procedures 
and rules, and a direct access to funds to implement social inclusion policies 
more efficiently at the local level. 

28  See  chapter  4  “Research  for  REGI  Committee  –  Integrated  use  of  ESI  funds  to  address  social 
challenges”, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels, 2017. 

38 

 
 
 
                                           
Examples  of  the  use  of  integrated  tools  related  to  demographic  changes, 
skills shortage, integration and social inclusion are provided below. 

THE NETHERLANDS 

ITI  ‘House  of  Skills’  in  the  city  of  Amsterdam  is  a  project  based  on  the  rapid 
changes on the labour market for lower and middle working-class segments. The 
rationale  behind  the  initiative  is  that  jobs  are  no  longer  for  life.  Sustainable 
employability on regional markets is under pressure due to increasing digitalisation, 
technological  developments  and  globalisation.  This  drives  the  House  of  Skills 
project  to  facilitate  inter-sectoral  mobility  and  to  continue  motivating  people  to 
invest  in  human  resources  and  in  their  individual  sustainability  on  the  labour 
market.  It  includes  measures  such  as  skills  assessments,  educational  programmes 
and new forms of matching employers, unions, government bodies and educational 
partners to collaborate on innovation. 

SPAIN – Castilla la Mancha 

Initially, the ESF OP 2014-2020 did not adopt any place-based approach. However, 
the regional government has initiated a revision of the ERDF and ESF OPs 2014-
2020,  which  will  include  an  ITI  targeting  rural  areas  particularly  affected  by  low 
levels  of  population  density  and  higher  levels  of  poverty  and  exclusion.  It  will 
focus  on  five  priority  zones  that  have  been  chosen  because  of  their  high 
unemployment  rates,  their  relative  remoteness  and  their  socio-economic  decline. 
Moreover, they also include mountains and zones that feature difficult accessibility. 

CYPRUS 

ITI and CLLD have not been used as part of the ESF action in the country. There 
are  urban  areas  where  unemployment,  the  immigrant  presence  and  the  risk  of 
poverty or social exclusion are eminent, but there is insufficient data available to 
identify and target these areas. 

GERMANY – Berlin 

CLLD  and  ITI  do  not  play  an  important  role  in  ESF  implementation  in  Berlin, 
where  there  are  a  number  of  ‘job  points’  or  user-friendly  job  centres  in 
disadvantaged districts of the city that complement the work of official employment 
agencies  by  assisting  unemployed  people  and  those  wishing  to  change  jobs.  The 
aim is to create trust by assisting unemployed people without the looming threat of 
sanctions if they don’t accept work offered by the employment agencies. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4  Lessons 

learned 

from 

ESF 

implementation 

4.1  Overview  of  ESF-funded  activities  to  support 

capacity building 

it  was  understood 

Strengthening  institutional  capacity  building  was  first  introduced  as  a 
priority in the ESF programming period 2007-2013. The concept of capacity 
building  was  adopted  because 
that  effective 
implementation  of  EU  legislation,  policy  and  programmes  required  an 
appropriate administrative framework and adapted judicial structures29. One 
of  the  features  of  the  territorial  dimension  of  the  ESF  is  to  improve 
cooperation  with  other  funds.  According 
the  Commissioner  for 
Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion30, the territorial dimension of the 
ESF  stems  from  its  Treaty  base  and  its  core  objectives  of  improving 
employment and the standard of living, and to contribute to economic, social 
and territorial cohesion. The territorial aspect for cohesion was introduced as 
a  priority  by  the  Lisbon  strategy,  even  though  the  ESF  was  already 
contributing indirectly to territorial cohesion. The territorial dimension was 
meant  to  better  tailor  the  funding  to  the  specific  characteristics  of  the 
regions, in terms of resources, human capital, social cohesion, demography, 
etc.31  Because  managing  the  ESF  at  the  local  level  requires  capacity,  it  is 
important  to  have  capacity  building  activities  at  the  local  level,  to  foster 
good governance with a bottom-up approach. 

to 

In  the  programming  period  2007-2013,  14  Member  States  implemented 
activities  related  to  capacity  building  in  their  OP,  using  a  budget  of  about 
EUR  2  billion,  which  accounts  for  2.1%  of  available  ESF  funding32.  Four 
MS33 operated an OP dedicated exclusively to institutional capacity building, 
and other MS34 had at least one Priority Axis (PA) dedicated to institutional 
capacity building in their OPs. 21 OPs were related to institutional capacity 
building. According to the 2007-2013 ex-post thematic evaluation, the main 

29  Metis  GmbH  (2016)  2007-2013  Ex-post  Evaluation  Synthesis  Thematic  EU  Synthesis  Report: 
Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity,  for  the  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  Employment, 
Social Affairs and Inclusion 
30  ‘Territorial  dimension  of  the  European  Social  Fund’,  Speech  of  László  Andor,  Commissioner  for 
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion on 29 September 2011, Presidency Conference on the territorial 
dimension of the European Social Fund, Warsaw.  
31 Ibid. 
32 European Commission (2017) Discussion paper: ESF support to administrative modernisation 
33 BG, GR, HU, RO 
34 IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK, UK, CZ 

41 

 
 
 
                                           
areas of support included: efficient and effective management, simplification 
of  regulatory  systems,  improving  business  environment,  e-government, 
justice  reforms,  and  anti-corruption  policies.  About  70%  of  activities 
focused  on  structures  and  processes.  The  evaluation  includes  1.4  million 
participants  and  95  000  organisations  involved  (public  institutions,  social 
partners and NGOs)35. 

In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  strengthening  institutional  capacity 
became  a  thematic  priority  for  the  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds  (ESIF)  in  the  form  of  TO  11:  ‘enhancing  institutional  capacity  of 
public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration’36. 18 
Member  States  are  eligible  for  support  under  TO11,  of  which  1737  receive 
support for the programming period 2014-2020 with a budget of about EUR 
6.4 billion, of which EUR 4.7 billion will be provided by the ESF38. There 
are  54  OPs  related  to  capacity  building  for  this  period,  most  of  which  are 
national OPs. Generally, capacity building for the ESF can target two types 
of stakeholders: the Managing Authority, and social and economic partners. 
Capacity building has three main dimensions: structures and processes (e.g. 
(e.g.  addressing 
coordination  and  partnerships),  human 
competence gaps, employee engagement) and systems and tools (e.g. use of 
ICT)39. On the webpage of the EC dedicated to the ESF, the activities related 
to institutional capacity building are subdivided into two categories:40 

resources 

  more  effective  institutions:  boosting  the  quality  of  a  broad  range  of 
services available to citizens, workers and job-seekers in their towns, 
cities and regions; 

  partnerships for progress: helping public authorities and stakeholders 
such  as  NGOs  to  work  together,  design  and  deliver  successful 
programmes.  

35 European Commission (2017) Discussion paper: ESF support to administrative modernisation. 
36 Regulation EU 13/2013. 
37 IT, RO, HU, GR, SK, BG, PT, HR, PL, LT, CZ, EE, SI, FR, LV, MT, CY. 
38 Open data portal for the ESIF: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/themes/11 accessed 24/01/2018. 
39  Metis  GmbH  (2016)  2007-2013  Ex-post  Evaluation  Synthesis  Thematic  EU  Synthesis  Report: 
Strengthening  Institutional  Capacity,  for  the  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  Employment, 
Social Affairs and Inclusion. 
40http://ec.europa.eu/esf/home.jsp accessed 24/01/2018. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
4.2  Lessons  learned  from  ESF  support  to  capacity 

building activities 

Looking  at  the  implementation  of  capacity  building  activities  during  the 
programming  periods  2007-2013  and  2014-2020,  the  main  areas  of  focus 
relate  to  the  Country  Specific  Recommendations  (CSR),  the  potential 
capacity  trap41  in  some  regions,  the  multitude  of  instruments  active  in 
capacity building, the difficulty to measure achievements under TO 11, and 
the involvement of local actors. 

During  the  European  Semester,  the  EC  formulates  CSR.  CSR  related  to 
institutional  capacity  building  can  be  quite  broad,  involving  advice  to 
improve  the  effectiveness  of  public  administration  in  general,  or  it  can 
recommend focusing on a specific aspect such as reform of the judiciary. In 
the 2007-2013 period, all countries that had a dedicated priority on capacity 
building  were  targets  for  CSR  related  to  institutional  capacity  building. 
Between  2012  and  2015,  20  MSs  received  CSR  in  the  area  of  public 
administration42.  CSR  are  rather  general  and  do  not  specifically  target  the 
regional  or  local  level.  In  a  2017  study,  the  Conference  of  Peripheral  and 
Maritime  Regions  (CPRM)  recognised  that  ‘many  CSR  touch  on  areas  of 
intervention  related  to  the  ESF’  and  that  ‘deep  structural  issues  across 
Member  States  need  to  be  addressed  while  maintaining  a  genuine  and 
substantive  territorial  dimension’43.  It  recommends  clear  coordination 
between the national, regional and local levels to enable the achievement of 
the ESF objectives, which address issues that have a strong local dimension. 
The evaluation of the 2007-2013 ESF activities for capacity building found 
that  in  the  Czech  Republic,  the  ESF  programme  on  capacity  building 
addressed almost all the CSR recommendations44. 

The  evaluation  of  the  ESF  2007-2013  found  the  implementation  rate  in 
capacity building activities to be lower than for the overall ESF (respectively 
69.3% and 79.3%) with important variations between countries. One of the 
explanations  for  this  is  the  low  capacity  of  administrations  to  implement 
projects,  resulting  in  a  low  capacity  trap  where  the  lack  of  an  adequate 
administrative  framework  prevents  the  introduction  of  reforms  or  the 
building of  capacity.  Several  studies45  highlight  the  fact  that administrative 

41  A  situation  where  weak  administrative  capacity  hinders  the  implementation  of  capacity  building 
measures. 
42 European Commission (2017) Discussion paper: ESF support to administrative modernisation. 
43 CPMR (2017) The European Social Fund 2014-2020 & the Youth Employment Initiative: the experience 
of CPMR Member Regions, p6. 
44Metis GmbH (2016), p16. 
45 See Metis (2011, 2016) and Ecorys (2011). 

43 

 
 
 
                                           
and institutional capacity building activities necessarily take different forms 
depending on the context in which they take place. The political context is of 
particular importance. The evaluation of the ESF 2007-2013 concludes that 
the  key  success  factors  are  an  enabling  institutional  and  political  context, 
motivation  of  the  targeted  stakeholders  and  at  least  a  minimum  level  of 
existing capacity of beneficiaries. 

Several  instruments  and  funds  provide  support  directly  or  indirectly  for 
institutional  capacity  building  and  administrative  reforms.  An  EC  study 
mentions the Structural Reform Support Programme, the Connecting Europe 
Facility  (on  digital  support)  the  ISA2  programme  (supporting  digital 
solutions  for  public  services),  Horizon  2020  (supporting  public  sector 
innovation),  the  Justice  Programme  (supporting  judicial  cooperation),  the 
Hercule  III  Programme  (supporting  the  fight  against  fraud),  etc.  Indeed, 
many  programmes  touch  on  the  issue  of  institutional  capacity  building.  A 
study  of  the  European  Parliament  on  EU  support  to  public  sector  reforms 
states  that  the  number  of  instruments  creates  confusion  and  the  coherence 
and complementarity among instruments is not always clear46. 

The  objectives  of  TO  11  are  quite  broad  and  they  lack  clear  indicators  for 
success at the European level, which results in the fact that it is complicated 
to  aggregate  results,  if  it  is  even  possible  to  measure  them.  TO  11  also 
supports  long-term  objectives,  and  activities  may  not  produce  results 
immediately  or  even  within  the  programming  period,  which  adds  to  the 
difficulty of measuring results47. 

Regarding  the  involvement  of  stakeholders,  the  evaluation  of  capacity 
building  activities  in  the  2007-2013  ESF  found  that  targets  are  mainly 
located  at  the  national  level  (70%),  even  though  a  number  of  actions  also 
target  the  local  (41%)  and/or  regional  level  (53%).  In  many  instances,  the 
OP  targets  both  local/  regional,  and  national  administration.  This  was  the 
case  of  the  State  Reform  OP  in  Romania  for  the  period  2007-2013,  which 
aimed  at  reducing  the  development  gap  between  local  and  central  public 
administrations48.  Public  entities  are  the  main  beneficiaries  of  capacity 
building  activities  (85%)  and  social  NGOs  and  other  social  partners  are 
targeted  by  about  a  quarter  of  the  activities49.  In  terms  of  addressing  the 
objectives  of  the  ESF,  a  2017  CPMR  study  notes  that  its  member  regions 
have a positive experience with the 2014-2020 ESF programmes so far. The 

46  Asatryan  et  al.  (2016)  Public  sector  reform:  How  the  EU  budget  is  used  to  encourage  it,  for  the 
Committee on Budgets of the European Parliament.  
47  European Commission (2017) Discussion paper: ESF support to administrative modernisation. 
48 Metis GmbH (2016) p15. 
49 Metis GmbH (2016) p17. 

44 

 
 
 
                                           
regions  that  have  a  less  positive  experience  mentioned  a  lack  of 
understanding  of  the  regional  context  in  the  national  programme,  hence 
highlighting  the  importance  of  the  territorial  aspect  of  the  ESF.  The  study 
notes  that  ‘52%  of  respondents  agreed  that  the  ESF  had  contributed  to  a 
sense that their region is “less peripheral". A further 41% were undecided on 
the  matter,  but  only  7%  felt  negatively’50.  The  CPMR  study  recommends 
that  the  ESF  OPs  should  be  managed  at  the  regional  level,  or  at  least  that 
local-level involvement should be strengthened in the management, because 
local actors are best placed to know the social and economic challenges and 
needs of their region.  

Finally, one unexpected effect of capacity building activities in general is the 
inflation  of  reform  costs51.  This  means  that  the  implementation  of  some 
administrative  reforms  may  not  require  money,  but  the  fact  that  funding  is 
available ends up making them costly, while their a priori cost is zero. 

4.3  Lessons learned regarding synergies and integration 

of EU funds 

The  evaluation  of 
the  previous  programming  period  2007-2013 
recommended  paying  more  attention  to  coordination  between  programmes. 
The  different  regulatory  frameworks  of  the  various  EU  funds  and 
instruments  created  some  complexity  and  implementation  arrangements 
were fragmented. In the end, there are few examples of synergistic working 
in the programming period 2007-2013. 

As a study commissioned by the European Parliament on synergies between 
ESI  Funds  and  EU  instruments  notes:  ‘Achieving  synergies  relies  on  the 
quality  and  alignment  of  strategic  frameworks.  This  starts  in  the  drafting 
process  with  the  involvement  of  stakeholders  from  different  funds  and 
instruments  and  in  setting  out  frameworks  that  identify  strategic  priorities 
from a medium to long-term perspective and investment plans not only from 
ESIF,  but  from  all  relevant  funding  sources’52.  The  same  study  highlights 
that  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  EC  is  to  align  the  objectives  of  the  ESIF 
with those of the Europe 2020 strategy for the current programming period. 
The  2013  reform  of  the  Cohesion  Policy  aimed  at  increasing  strategic 
coherence in EU funding, so that synergies between ESI funds and other EU 

50 CPMR (2017) The European Social Fund 2014-2020 & the Youth Employment Initiative: the experience 
of CPMR Member Regions. 
51 European Commission (2017) Discussion paper: ESF support to administrative modernisation. 
52Ferry M., Kah S., Bachtler J. (2016) p47. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
funds  are  fully  exploited.  There  is  a  push  for  more  synergistic  working 
between EU funds and instruments in the design and implementation of the 
initiatives. 

In general, there is greater alignment of the Ops’ objectives and the Europe 
2020 strategy. The introduction of the Common Strategic Framework for the 
five  ESI  Funds  in  the  programming  period  2014-2020  played  a  big  role  in 
aligning  the  strategies,  including  alignment  of  the  Partnership  Agreements 
with the CSR of the European Semester. However, the strategic framework 
does not necessarily allow for full exploitation of the potential synergies and 
a number of challenges remain. 

Firstly,  only  a  limited  amount  of  information  is  available  on  the  specific 
mechanisms  for  coordination  between  the  ESF  and  other  EU  funds  and 
instruments. The study on synergies between ESIF and other EU funds finds 
that  ‘Arrangements  for  complementarities  at  the  level  of  operations, 
including  possibilities  for  complementary  support  from  multiple  funding 
sources  within  one  operation,  are  only  mentioned  in  a  limited  number  of 
PAs53. 

to  create  coherence  and  exploit  synergies.  However, 

Moreover,  a  study  of  the  Conference  of  Peripheral  and  Maritime  Regions 
(CPMR) observes that exploring synergies and aligning the strategies require 
coordination  between  the  national,  regional  and  local  levels,  as  the  ESI 
Funds  aim  to  address  challenges  that  are  essentially  local.  The  study  notes 
that the responsibilities need to be clearly defined to avoid confusion and to 
the 
be  able 
responsibilities  for  the  various  ESIF  instruments  lie  with  different  EC 
services (EMPL for the ESF, REGIO for the ERDF, AGRI for the EAFRD, 
etc.).  Other  EU  funds  are  also  managed  by  different  services.  The  result  is 
that MSs need to deal with many different EC services and sometimes have 
separate services dealing with separate funds, which logically requires more 
coordination to create coherence than if the management were centralised in 
one  service.  The  results  of  the  CPMR  survey  suggest  that  some  MAs  feel 
that  multi-fund  operations  are  too  complex  and  recommend  that  the  EC 
should provide further guidance in this area. It notes a need to streamline the 
processes so that regions and programmes can benefit from synergies and a 
more cost-effective approach54. 

Exploring  the  synergies  can  take  different  forms.  For  example,  in  Spain, 
cooperation between unit managers of various ESI Funds allow for synergies 

53 Ferry M., Kah S., Bachtler J. (2016), p. 54. 
54 CPMR (2017) p7. 

46 

 
 
 
 
                                           
to  be  exploited  between  the  ESF  and  the  EU  Programme  for  Employment 
and Social Innovation (EaSI).55 However, exploiting the synergies is not yet 
the norm in ESIF implementation. 

4.4  Lessons learned on administrative simplification 

Administrative simplification has been on the agenda since the 1980s and is 
still an on-going debate regarding the  cohesion policy56. The EC document 
on  ‘Simplifying  Cohesion  Policy  for  2014-2020’  lists  the  following 
proposals for simplification: 

  harmonisation of the rules between ESI Funds;  
  more  flexibility:  option  of  multi-fund  programmes  and  monitoring 

committees, more varied options for financial instruments, etc.; 

  increased proportionality in the controls and audit intensity; 
  increased legal certainty through clearer rules; 
  more efficient delivery and lighter reporting; 
  reduced  administrative  burden  for  beneficiaries  (increased  use  of 

SCOs); 

  a move towards results-based management with the Joint Action Plan; 
  e-cohesion; 
  simplification  of 

the  European  Territorial  Co-operation  and 

Simplification of the European Social Fund.  

Several studies published in 2015, 2016 and 2017 find that there have been 
improvements  with  the  introduction  of  the  new  measures  in  the  2014-2020 
programming period. However, several challenges remain to be addressed. 

A European Policies Research Centre paper based on feedback from regional 
members  of  the  IQ-Net  observe  that  the  main  concerns  of  regions  are  ‘the 
continued  lack  of  legal  certainty  on  key  issues,  the  heavy  administrative 
burden  of  EU  cohesion  policy  (…),  and  flexibility  measures,  which  (…) 
often  do  not  lead  to  simplification’57.  The  more  specific  concerns  are  ‘the 
need  for  more  coordination  and  proportionality  in  financial  control  and 
audit,  and  simplified  cost  options,  which  bring  benefits  but  are  seen  as 
burdensome  to  implement  and  are  associated  with  concerns  over  legal 

55 Ferry M., Kah S., Bachtler J. (2016). 
56  European  Policies  Research  Centre,  University  of  Strathclyde  (2010)  Review  and  Assessment  of 
Simplification measures in Cohesion policy 2007-2013, Brussels: European Parliament. 
57  Davies  S  (2015)  ‘Is  simplification  simply  a  fiction?’  IQ-Net  Thematic  Paper  37(2),  European  Policies 
Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. p10. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
certainty and audit’58. The concerns on SCOs and the lack of legal certainty 
were already highlighted in previous European Parliament studies59. A study 
from  the  Conference  of  the  Peripheral  and  Maritime  Regions  based  on  a 
survey of their members has similar findings regarding SCOs. Most of their 
respondents  are  satisfied  with  SCOs.  However,  MAs  sometimes  find  it 
complicated  to  make  their  own  calculations  and  may  prefer  to  use  SCOs 
based on their own calculations when the risk of error is low. The concerns 
on  the control  requirements  are also  confirmed  by  the CPMR  survey  of  its 
members60 and the position paper of the Council of European Municipalities 
and  Regions  (CEMR)61.  The  CPMR  study  recommends  keeping  the  audit 
and  administrative  control  requirements  proportionate  to  the  size  of  the 
project. It suggests that forms and audit requirements could be streamlined. 
For  example,  some  managing  authorities  suggest  that  audit  coordination 
should be strengthened so that audit is performed easily and not duplicated. 

IQ-Net  partners  also  note  that  certain  measures  in  the  2014-2020 
programming  period  tend  to  increase  complexity,  including  ‘the  process  of 
designating  managing  and  certifying  authorities,  the  range  of  measures 
associated  with  impact  and  results  (including  ex-ante  conditionalities, 
the 
thematic  objectives/concentration, 
performance  framework)’62.  The  study  also  notes  that  ‘there  is  scepticism 
over the usefulness of Joint Action Plans, Integrated Territorial Investments 
and  Community-Led  Local  Development’63  because  they  add  to  the 
administrative  burden  with  additional  requirements  and  regulations.  The 
position  paper  from  CPMR  also  notes  that  the  guidance  was  not  always 
prepared by the EC in a timely manner. The partners also point out that the 
language of the guidance (usually English) is a complicating factor for many 
MAs. 

evaluation, 

indicators, 

and 

The CPMR study finds that the management of OP at the national level may 
impede necessary flexibility at the regional level to adapt the funds to local 
challenges.  It  recommends  more  flexibility  for  regional  administrations, 
which could lead to efficiencies and cost saving in the ESF implementation. 
It  notes  for  example  that  ‘specific  issues  confirmed  the  need  for  a  more 
territorial  approach  tailored  to  the  specific  needs  of  the  region’64  and  that 
decisions  on  the  funds  should  therefore  be  taken  at  the  regional  or  local 

58 Davies S (2015) p10. 
59 Blomeyer & Sanz (2016), Research for REGI Committee – Simplified Cost Options in practice, Brussels: 
European Parliament. 
60 CPMR (2017). 
61 CEMR (2016). 
62 Davies S (2015) p10. 
63 Davies S (2015) p3. 
64 CPMR (2017) p4 

48 

 
 
                                           
level.  This  could  contribute  to  better  targeting  at  the  local  level  and 
addressing  the  relevant  challenges.  Further  simplification  is  needed, 
according to the CPMR and the level of administration needs to be close to 
where the impact is expected. 

In general, studies based on feedback from national and regional MAs over 
the  past  three  years  suggest  that  there  is  a  need  to  go  further  to  simplify 
requirements  for  Managing  Authorities  and  Implementing  Bodies.  There  is 
also  a  need  to  be  careful,  as  they  report  that  some  of  the  tools  designed  to 
enhance better spending actually contribute to increased complexity. 

4.5  Overview  of 

lessons 
programming  period 
programmes 

  THE NETHERLANDS 

learned 
in 

six 

in 

the  current 
selected  ESF 

On active inclusion, synergies have mostly  been identified between the ESF-funded and 
existing national activities. ESF funds together with existing policy measures can increase 
the  number  of  people  supported,  intensify  existing  support,  allow  for  the  use  of  new 
instruments,  and  give  impetus  to  cooperation  between  labour  market  regions.  The  MA 
feedback  points to the use  of a decentralised  approach with ESF  funds. This  means that 
the beneficiaries are those who establish priorities in relation to ESF expenditure. The MA 
does provide for a framework on priorities; however, beneficiaries can use the funds for 
the  challenges  that  are  most  prevalent  in  their  area.  As  a  result,  there  are  differences 
between regions (e.g. in rural and urban areas). The administrative requirements for ESF 
management are particularly emphasised as a challenging area. In fact, as a result, the MA 
recommends that beneficiaries implement activities that are simple to justify vis-à-vis the 
ESF requirements. This reduces the chance that post-date activities are deemed ineligible. 
The downside of this is that new activities, which might be beneficial to social cohesion, 
are not implemented through the ESF.  

GERMANY – Berlin 

Berlin  had  expected  a  more  drastic  reduction  of  its  allocation  in  the  current  period  – 
keeping  in  mind  that  funding  went  down  from  EUR  340  million  in  2007-2013  to  EUR 
215million in 2014-2020. As a consequence, the Senate focused on spending all the funds 
from  the  2007-13  period  and  only  began  allocating  new  funds  to  projects  for  the  2014-
2020 period in 2016. 

CYPRUS 

More  synergies  between  the  different  ESIF  bodies  should  be  encouraged.  The  current 
complex  rules  and  regulation  system  complicates  the  execution  and  logistical  side  of 
different  Ops,  decreasing  their  efficiency.  Individual  regions  (or  country-regions  like 
Cyprus) would greatly benefit from a simplified common set of guidelines from ESIF to 
add flexibility to the OPs implementation. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
POLAND – Warminsko-Mazurskie 

Positive aspects of ESF 2014-2020 implementation: 
 
  electronic  monitoring  and  exchange  of  information  with  applicants  via  IT 

introduction of SCOs; 

systems; 

  procedural and operational simplifications at the implementation stage. 

Negative aspects:  

  a  vertical  approach  to  ESF  planning  in  isolation  from  regional  conditions  and 

 

needs (i.e. central planning at the EU level, implementation in regions);  
lack  of  systemic  cooperation  with  and  among  local  social  welfare  institutions, 
labour market institutions and non-governmental organisations operating locally;  
level,  which  hinders 
implementation and forces the continuous adaptation of the documentation to the 
amended provisions. 

to  guidelines  at 

the  national 

  frequent  changes 

UK – Greater Birmingham and Solihull 

One  of  the  difficulties  identified  both  at  programme  and  project  levels  regards 
spending  the  available  budget  within  the  period  of  eligibility.  This  issue  is 
compounded by administrative difficulties, such as the need to check the eligibility 
of  many  types  of  beneficiaries  with  the  Department  for  Work  and  Pensions.  The 
EU-UK  transition  agreement  has  now  allowed  for  these  timescales  with  regard  to 
ESF funds to be lengthened slightly. Further lessons learned include the importance 
of  collaboration  between  agencies  and  definitional  issues,  related  to  the  fact  that 
NEET is very specific and may rule out those who could otherwise have benefited 
from the support available. 

SPAIN – Castilla La Mancha 

The  evaluation  of 
the  2014-2020  programme  up  until  2016  observes 
complementarity with the national OP, government and EU strategies. Round tables 
on  various  ESF-related 
themes  among  managers  of  different  programmes 
contributed  to  the  alignment  of  the  objectives  and  the  overall  coherence  of  public 
funding.  Both  ESF  and  EFRD  OPs  have  been  designed  together  in  Castilla  la 
two 
Mancha  with 
programmes. Both OPs aim to address the challenges in Castilla la Mancha and are 
designed to address the same issues from different angles in a complementary way. 
The OP is also coordinated with: 

the  objective  of  finding  complementarity  between 

the 

 

the  EAFRD  especially 
entrepreneurship in rural/agricultural sectors; 

regarding 

the  activities 

that  aim 

to  support 

  the EMFF, especially regarding capacity building and training in the aquaculture 

sector. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  Future challenges for ESF intervention 

According  to  the  White  Paper  on  the  Future  of  Europe,  the  EU  is  ‘ageing 
fast  and  life  expectancy  is  reaching  unprecedented  levels  [...]  New  family 
structures,  a  changing  population,  urbanisation  and  more  diverse  working 
lives  are  affecting  the  way  social  cohesion  is  built.  In  the  space  of  a 
generation,  the  average  European  worker  has  gone  from  having  a  job  for 
life to having more than ten in a career. There are more women in work than 
ever  before  but  achieving  real  gender  equality  will  mean  breaking  down 
persisting  barriers.  At  a  time  when  Europe’s  working  age  population  is 
shrinking, it needs to mobilise the full potential of its talents.’ 

The ability to face and adapt to these trends is at the centre of the debate on 
the future of the EU and on the nature and role of cohesion policy after 2020. 
Ageing,  urbanisation,  social  inclusion  and  skills  shortage,  among  other 
issues,  have  a  strong  social  and  territorial  dimension,  thus  representing  a 
challenge  and  an  opportunity  for  ESI  funds,  and  ESF  in  particular,  beyond 
2020. ESF-driven actions, such as those related to health and social care and 
education  and  lifelong  learning,  can  play  a  crucial  role  in  addressing  these 
challenges at local and regional level. 

5.1  Demographic change 

5.1.1 An ageing population  

The  core  long-term  structural  demographic  change  in  Europe  is  the  ageing 
population.  The  EPRS  Global  trends  2035  report  states  that  the  decline  of 
the  working-age  population  and  the  costs  associated  with  an  ageing 
population  are  expected  to  reduce  growth  rates  by  0.2%,  counterbalanced 
only  by  labour productivity  growth  driven  by  technological innovation and 
automation.  This  will  entail  efforts  to  extend  working  lives  and  to  boost 
labour force participation, especially in countries where total GDP will fall 
because of low fertility rates. At  the regional level, the trend of population 
ageing  largely  depends  on  the  capacity  to  attract  the  younger  working-age 
population.  Seeking  to  improve  work-life  balance,  promote  teleworking, 
attracting independent professionals and  improving working conditions can 
also  help  to  attract  the  working-age  population  and  ensure  that  their 
production capacity  is  fully  utilised. In  addition,  active ageing  and  lifelong 
learning can contribute to social inclusion in an ageing population, thereby 
reducing the need for public measures at the national level to compensate for 
isolation.  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Nevertheless, as highlighted in the CoR study on the impact of demographic 
change  on  European  regions65,  ageing  could  also  bring  development 
opportunities  for  LRAs.  These  include,  for  instance,  the  economic 
opportunities  brought  by  expenditure  related  to  population  ageing  and  the 
needs  of  citizens  over  the  age  of  50  (the  so  called  ‘silver  economy’).  In 
addition,  alternative  forms  of  production  of  services,  such  as  volunteering 
and civic service, could help to organise a more inclusive economy. 

5.1.2 Urban-rural divide 

Eurostat  projects  that  the  rural  population  in  Europe  will  fall  by  8  million 
people  by  2050,  while  the  urban  population  will  rise  by  24  million.  As 
population and economic growth is increasingly concentrated in cities, there 
will  be  an  increasing  divide  between  rural  and  urban  areas.  Due  to  the 
‘capital region effect’, populations continue to expand in and around many 
capital cities that exert a ‘pull effect’ on internal and international migrants 
due to education and/or employment opportunities. Beyond capital cities, the 
majority  of  urban  regions  also  continue  to  report  population  growth,  while 
the  number  of  inhabitants  of  many  peripheral,  rural  and  post-industrial 
regions declines. One key challenge will thus be to ensure that the needs of 
the  people  living  in  areas  of  declining  population  are  not  overlooked,  but 
also to possibly implement policies aiming to reduce this trend. 

There  are  also  wide-ranging  differences  in  demographic  trends  among  EU 
regions. The available Eurostat data at NUTS2 and NUTS3 levels between 
2000 and 2014 reveal an overall demographic decline across large parts of 
Eastern  Europe,  particularly  in  the  Baltic  States.  In  most  of  these  areas, 
pockets  of  demographic  growth  can  be  observed  around  capital  and 
metropolitan  cities.  Western  European  regions  experience  a  more  limited 
demographic decline observable at the regional level, mostly concentrated in 
southern  Italy,  western  Spain,  interior  regions  of  France  and  northern 
Scandinavia.  Within  Member  States,  opposing  trends  in  metropolitan  and 
rural  areas  have  sharpened.  In  addition,  movements  have  predominantly 
been  from  the  EU13  to  the  EU15.  By  observing  demographic  changes 
before and after the start of the economic and financial crisis, it is clear that 
the  economic  recession  has  polarised  these  trends.  This  implies  that  low 
growth rates tend to accentuate population shrinkage at the regional level.  
Eurostat  also  provides  statistical  data  on  these  trends  at  the  regional  level, 
revealing  that  in  a  small  majority  of  the  EU  Member  States,  the  highest 

65 Committee of the Regions (2016), The impact of demographic change on European Regions, European 
Union. 

52 

 
 
 
                                           
proportion of  people  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social exclusion  was recorded  in 
rural areas. There is, however, a marked geographical split. On the one hand, 
the  highest  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  is  usually  recorded  within 
rural  populations  in  many  EU13  regions;  conversely,  this  risk  was  usually 
recorded for people living in cities in the EU15 Member States.  

Figure  9.  Share  of  population  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  by 
degree of urbanisation, 2015 

People  living  in  rural  areas  are  also  generally  more  inclined  to  leave 
education  or  training  early  or  to  be  ‘neither  in  employment  nor  in  further 
education  or  training’  (NEET),  but  in  line  with  the  data  mentioned  above, 
there  is  a  marked  geographical  split  between  the  EU15  and  EU13.  Rural 
areas  tend  to  record  high  NEETs  rates  in  most  of  the  eastern  and  southern 
EU Member States. By contrast, NEETs rates are generally at a lower level 
in  most  rural  areas  of  the  western  Member  States.  This  divide  and  the 
opposite  trends  in  eastern  and  western  Europe  can  also  be  seen  in 
employment  rates.  Several  northern  and  western  Member  States  were 
characterised by higher employment rates in rural areas, while  employment 
rates  for  rural  areas  in  eastern  countries,  such  as  Bulgaria  and  Lithuania, 
were significantly lower than those recorded for cities. 

However,  a  2016  EPRS  briefing  on  the  rural-urban  divide  deems  the 
traditional  rural-urban  dichotomy  less  and  less  relevant  from  a  territorial 
development  perspective.  Traditional  geographic  definitions  are  surpassed 
by  the  reality  of  areas  connected  by  a  range  of  complex  socio-economic 
linkages.  Both 
that  can  be  used 
complementarily.  The  policy  framework  for  2014-2020  supports  this  by 
offering better coordination of structural funds as well as new tools fostering 
integrated  strategies,  putting  even  greater  emphasis  on  rural-urban 

types  of  regions  have  resources 

53 

 
 
 
 
interaction and allowing Member States to invest in mixed areas in a more 
targeted  way.  The  success  in  the  implementation  of  these  integrated 
instruments  will  therefore  be  of  key  importance  to  bridge  the  urban-rural 
socio-economic divide in the future. 

5.1.3 Remote and sparsely populated areas 

A further issue being discussed in the EU’s national and regional institutions 
is  support  for  remote  and  sparsely  populated  areas  within  the  cohesion 
policy  framework.  The  challenges  faced  by  these  regions  are  closely 
intertwined  with  demographic  change.  Various  studies  suggest  that  the 
economies of remote and sparsely populated regions tend to grow at a much 
slower pace than the EU average and that these regions suffer from structural 
problems that present important obstacles, such as low birth rates and a lack 
of  transport  connections,  job  opportunities  and  adequate  social  services. 
Structural funds offer ways to tackle these challenges, but their use has been 
limited  in  some  Member  States.  A  move  towards  a  clearer  commitment  to 
overcoming  these  challenges  in  EU  funding  programmes  could  help  to 
address these problems. The fact that certain sparsely populated and remote 
regions possess fragile and small economies can lead to significant losses in 
their  human  capital  and  to  a  lack  of  expertise  in  emerging  fields,  such  as 
ICT.  According  to  Eurostat  statistics,  the  share  of  early  leavers  is  often 
relatively high in peripheral and remote areas and those who want to pursue 
specialised education away from home place a considerable financial burden 
on 
that 
contribute to professional diversification are not always easily accessible in 
remote and sparsely populated regions. 

their  families.  Furthermore, 

learning  opportunities 

life-long 

5.1.4 The impact of migration on demographic change 

Migration  has  overtaken  natural  population  growth  as  the  main  source  of 
overall population growth. In the 1960s, natural growth added more than 3 
million  people  a year  to  the  EU-28  population.  In the 2000s,  it  added only 
350 000. In 2015, for the first time, there was a natural reduction in the EU 
population while migration increased population in the EU by 1.8 million, a 
number not including asylum seekers who arrived in the same year. In 2016, 
10.7%  of the EU population were  born  abroad, either  outside the EU or  in 
another  Member  State,  an  increase  of  0.7  of  a  percentage  point  compared 
with  2011.  The  increase  of  the  foreign-born  population  was  2  percentage 
points  or  more  in  Luxembourg,  Finland  and  Sweden,  while  the  opposite 

54 

 
 
 
 
trend  (2  p.p.  decline)  was  observed  in  Cyprus  and  Slovenia  because  of 
outward migration.66  

Figure 10. Total population change in NUTS 3 regions, 2005-2015. 

Source: Eurostat 

66 European Commission (2017), Seventh Cohesion Report. 

55 

 
 
 
 
                                           
5.2  Social exclusion and migration 

The  refugee  crisis  saw  a  record  1.2  million  people  coming  to  Europe  in 
2015, leading to a strong debate about solidarity and responsibilities among 
the  Member  States.  The  Seventh  Cohesion  report  states  that  ‘ensuring  that 
all refugees or migrants legally residing in the EU are effectively integrated 
is important for cohesion and future prosperity’. Key actions that the EU will 
have  to  take  to  tackle  this  phenomenon  include  skills  development, 
integration  into  the  job  market,  as  well  as  the  fight  against  discrimination. 
The challenge will be more burdensome for cities in the EU15 where most 
of the migrant communities settle and  where the risk of poverty and social 
exclusion is already higher than the EU average even in the most developed 
areas of the EU. 

Policy challenges related to social exclusion and integration of migrants are 
particularly  difficult  because  they  encompass  a  wide  range  of  aspects, 
including: 

  the  multidimensionality  of 
issues  related 

and  poverty, 
social 
encompassing 
income  redistribution  between 
to 
population groups, the supply of basic services and public goods at an 
affordable price, and employment for all;  

exclusion 

  the variety and overlap of vulnerable groups (women, youth and older 

population, unemployed, early school leavers, migrants etc.); 

  the reasons for social exclusion, such as lack of labour market access, 
social  protection,  lifelong  learning  schemes,  quality  of  health  and 
housing,  income  distribution,  supply  of  basic  services,  personal 
support for migrants and poor people;  

  the  different  kinds  of  support  and  active  labour  market  intervention 
that  migrants  and  non-migrants  need  (e.g.  education,  vocational 
training, language courses, etc.). 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In addition, the socio-economic context has dramatically changed due to the 
financial  and  economic  crisis,  with  increased  economic  insecurity  and 
disparities  within  and  across  Member  States,  aggravated  by  the  recent 
migrant  and  refugee  crisis.  Member  States  and  regions  are  not  equally 
affected  by  migration.  Member  States  such  as  Germany  are  primary 
destination countries, while others, such as Greece and Italy, are entry points 
for migrants moving to other Member States. This requires different kinds of 
interventions  and  an  increased  flexibility  in  the  types  of  action  undertaken 
by individual Member States or regions. 

These challenges pose a problem also in terms of adequate capacity of local 
authorities and  stakeholders  to address  the issues  within  a reasonable  time. 
Inadequate  capacity  can  be  due  to  a  lack  of  policy  guidance  or  specific 
recommendations  for  integration,  weak  organisational  capacity  in  local 
institutions,  lack  of  financing  to  support  social  integration  and  inadequate 
infrastructure.  As  urban  areas  attract  most  of  the  internal  and  external 
migrants, especially in the EU’s largest cities, local authorities in urban areas 
face  specific  challenges  when  dealing  with  social  inclusion  and  the 
integration of migrants. 

5.3  Labour market changes 

5.3.1 Automation, skills shortage and mismatch 

The EC Communication ‘A  New Skills Agenda for Europe’ was published 
in June 2016, focusing on increasing the EU’s workforce employability and 
responding to changes in labour market requirements by taking into account 
the  existence  of  skills  gaps  and  mismatches  across  the  EU  and  within 
Member States. Tackling skills shortage will therefore be a policy priority to 
reduce  poverty,  youth  unemployment  and  social  exclusion.  This  effort 
entails a need to deeply rethink education and lifelong learning systems. As 
outlined in the EPRS Global Trends  2035 report, employment growth over 
the next decade will be driven by jobs requiring greater preparation through 
in-employment training and formal education. 

In addition, it is suggested that the fast and disruptive technological change 
we  are  experiencing  through  the  ‘fourth  industrial  revolution’  (known  as 
Industry  4.0)  is  likely  to  fuel  income  inequality.  According  to  the  World 
Economic Forum, all the major global economies could face a near future of 
mass  unemployment  for  some  categories  of  low-  or  unskilled  workers. 
Automation and artificial intelligence not only risk displacing some specific 
types of jobs but could lead to an overall decline in employment, including 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
for  cognitive  tasks  until  recently  considered  non-automatable.  Differences 
among  Member  States  in  the  share  of  workers  at  high  risk  of  substitution 
reflect  differences  in  industry  specialisations  and,  to  some  extent,  in  how 
work is organised. Countries or regions specialised in jobs that rely less on 
human interaction are at higher risk of automation because jobs that involve 
a  high  level  of  human  interaction  are  less  likely  to  be  substituted  entirely. 
Workers  with  a  lower  level  of  education  are  at  the  highest  risk  of 
displacement.  40%  of  workers  with  a  lower  secondary  degree  are  in  jobs 
with a high risk of job automation, compared with less than 5% of workers 
who  hold  a  tertiary  degree.  Thus,  automation  could  reinforce  existing 
disadvantages faced by certain types of workers.67 

In  order  to  prevent  or  contain  this  trend,  the  EU  institutions  and  Member 
States  will  have  to  play  a  role  to  enable  a  rapid  adaptation  to  new  skills 
needs,  in  which  education  and  training  reforms  will  be  critical.  All  these 
aspects  are  relevant  at  the  regional  and  local  levels.  While  most  of  the 
information on skills is available only at the national level, there is evidence 
of  heterogeneous  educational  attainment  and  a  different  perception  of  the 
importance  of  vocational  education  and  training  at  NUTS2  and  3  levels. 
Differences in these aspects occur between and within individual countries, 
affecting the future supply and demand of skills (skills gap and mismatch), 
with potential socio-economic repercussions at the territorial level. 

The  CoR  study  on  the  New  Skills  agenda68  confirms  that  this  complex 
situation  requires  LRAs  to  respond  to  some  key  challenges  by  uptaking 
diverse  initiatives  and  solutions,  such  as  improving  the  effectiveness  and 
reputation  of  VET  to  address  skills  gaps  and  mismatches  and  promoting  a 
more structured linking of education delivery within firms. 

Furthermore,  as  suggested  by  the  Seventh  Cohesion  Report,  fostering 
initiatives  on  industrial  modernisation  through  smart  specialisation  in 
regions  and  cities  will  help  build  regional  and  local  capacity  for 
transformation.  In 
in  providing 
complementary  support  to  EU  regions  for  the  acquisition  of  higher-level 
skills in smart specialisation sectors will be essential.  

the  role  of 

this  sense, 

the  ESF 

67  OECD  (2016),  Automation  and  Independent  Work  in  a  Digital  Economy,  Policy  brief  on  the  future  of 
work. 
68 Committee of the Regions (2016), A new skills agenda for Europe, European Union. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
5.3.2 Rise of the platform economy 

The  fast  pace  with  which  the  labour  market  is  changing  is  also  strongly 
linked  to  the  risk  of  job  insecurity  as  a  consequence  of  work  volatility, 
representing one of the biggest challenges for younger generations. The rise 
of  the  platform,  or  ‘gig’69,  economy,  in  particular,  raises  very  serious 
questions regarding the status and social protection of workers. According to 
a recent  study  by  the  European  Parliament70, job  and  income  insecurity, as 
well as underemployment, are perceived as key problems for those working 
in  the  platform  economy.  Workers  who  fall  into  the  grey  area  between 
worker  and  self-employed  status  also  face  challenges;  they  could  end  up 
with none of the benefits of self-employment, in terms of control, and all the 
problems of income insecurity. 

5.4  Linking  the  ESF  closer  to  the  European  Semester 

and the European Pillar of Social Rights 

5.4.1 Aligning  ESF  interventions  to  the  Employment  Guidelines 

and to social aspects of the European Semester 

There  is  increased  focus  on  the  alignment  of  Structural  funds  to  the 
development  of  EU  policy,  also  considering  how  they  add  value  to  EU 
policies implemented in the single Member States. In particular, the role of 
policy reforms in the fields of action of ESI funds is essential for the quality 
and sustainability of EU investments. 

The Commission’s starting point for discussions with Member States on the 
funding  priorities  for  2014-2020  partnership  agreements  and  programmes 
was rooted in the relevant country-specific recommendations (CSR) made in 
the context of the European Semester process, the Europe 2020 targets and 
the socio-economic analysis at Member State and regional levels. According 
to the Seventh Cohesion Report, more than two-thirds of the CSR adopted in 
2014 were relevant for cohesion policy investment and have been taken into 
account in Member States’ programme priorities. CSR in the following years 
were expected to trigger, where relevant, ESIF programme adjustments. This 

69A labour market characterised by the prevalence of short-term contracts or freelance work as opposed to 
permanent jobs. 
70  European  Parliament,  2017,  The  social  protection  of  workers  in  the  platform  economy,  Directorate-
General for Internal Policies. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
exemplifies  the  efforts  towards  stronger  links  between  ESI  funds  and  the 
European Semester process71. 

According to the 2017 strategic report on the implementation of ESI funds72, 
“the policy areas targeted by the European Semester are substantially in line 
with  those  covered  by  the  ESI  funds:  60  %  of  the  structural  challenges 
relevant  to  the  ESI  Funds  are  addressed  by  the  programmes”.  Significant 
labour  market  reforms  have  been  adopted  in  recent  years,  particularly  in 
Member  States  most  heavily  affected  by  the  crisis.  These  reforms  have 
helped  to  increase  the  adjustment  capacity  of  their  economies,  restore 
competitiveness and increase employment. 

As  part  of  the  European  Semester  instruments,  the  Guidelines  for  the 
Employment Policies of Member States are part of the Integrated Guidelines 
for  Implementing  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  Member  States  should  take 
these  guidelines  into  account  in  their  employment  policies  and  reform 
programmes. As the ESF is fully aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy and 
its  headline  targets,  it  should  support  the  policies  pursued  by  the  Member 
States under the Guidelines and the CSR73. In order to ensure a clearer link 
with 
the  Guidelines  on 
Employment,  thematic  concentration  is  important  to  demonstrate  added 
value  and  to  guarantee  the  consolidation  of  outputs  and  results  at  the 
European level.74 The draft Joint Employment Report 2018 affirms how the 
ESF is one of the key EU instruments to address the challenges identified in 
the CSR. The ESF operational programmes adopted in 2014 and 2015 have 
been designed in a way that ensures their closer alignment with the CSR.  

the  European  Employment  Strategy  and 

However,  the  current  debate  around  the  future  of  ESF  calls  for  a  much 
stronger coordination between Employment Guidelines, and more generally 
the European Semester process, and the future ESF programmes after 2020. 
Most of the present obstacles and limitations to full coordination concern the 
different  timing  (e.g.  between  annual  CSR  and  multiannual  ESI  Funds 
planning) and the insufficient flexibility of programming documents on both 
sides  to  adapt  to  new  challenges  in  an  ever-changing  socio-economic 
landscape.  In  this  sense,  there  is  emphasis  on  moving  towards  more 
simplified and more strategic, rather than operational, ESF programmes that 
allow  a  faster  adaptation  to  new  challenges  on  the  ground  and  a  prompt 
reaction  to  reform  requests  on  the  other.  The  latter  entails  a  need  for 

71 COM (2015) 639 final. 
72 COM (2017) 755. 
73Article 2(2) of Regulation 1304/2013 on the European Social Fund. 
74 European Commission (2014), Promoting Inclusive Growth, ESF thematic Paper. 

60 

 
 
 
                                           
increased  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  ESF  programmes  to  ensure 
accountability and assessment of progress made towards the implementation 
of  the  guidelines  and  CSR.  The  successful  adaptation  to  new  social 
challenges,  on  the  other  hand,  depends  on  the  possibility  of  the  ESF  to 
remain an integral part of regional cohesion policy in order to tackle social 
issues taking into account territorial specificities and to be able to integrate 
its efforts with measures financed through other ESI funds. 

5.4.2 The European Pillar of Social Rights 

The EC communication ‘Establishing the European Pillar of Social Rights’75 
states that “EU funds, in particular the European Social Fund, will support 
the  implementation  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights”.  The  Pillar 
seeks to react to social challenges in order to narrow social inequalities and 
ensure upward social convergence. The rights and principles enshrined in the 
Pillar aim to further strengthen support for equal opportunities and access to 
the labour market, fair working conditions and social protection, as well as 
social  inclusion.  It  also  highlights  the  right  to  quality  and  inclusive 
education,  training  and  life-long  learning.  The  European  Pillar  of  Social 
Rights is accompanied by a ‘Social Scoreboard’ that monitors and assesses 
progress  of  the  implementation  of  the  Pillar  by  tracking  trends  and 
performances  across  EU  countries  in  12  areas.  The  Social  Scoreboard  will 
feed  into  the  European  Semester  of  economic  policy  coordination.  It  is 
structured  around  three  dimensions:  "Equal  opportunities  and  access  to  the 
labour market", "Dynamic labour markets and fair working conditions" and 
"Public  support  /  Social  protection  and  inclusion",  each  with  a  set  of 
indicators to measure progress. These dimensions will need to be supported 
through  a stronger  alignment  of  the  future  ESF  programmes  (including  the 
use of a common set of indicators beyond GDP) and through the integrated 
use of ESI funds that reflect specific social issues at the local level. How the 
Pillar  and  ESF,  and  ESI  funds  more  broadly,  will  be  integrated  and 
coordinated  in  the  next  programming  period  will  be  crucial  to  make  it 
possible  to  translate EU-level  social policy  objectives  into  concrete actions 
at national and regional levels.  

75 COM (2017) 250 final. 

61 

 
 
                                           
5.5  Future challenges for ESF in selected EU regions 

POLAND – Warminsko Mazurskie 

One  of  the  key  challenges  pointed  out  is  the  integration  of  migrants,  which  in  the  Polish 
case  is  especially  related  to  a  large  number  of  migrants  from  Ukraine  (i.e.  depending  on 
sources,  estimated  as  high  as  2  million  people).  In  this  context  a  comprehensive  migration 
policy needs to be developed. 

CYPRUS 

According to the Cypriot Managing Authority, the most important challenges after 2020 will 
revolve around adapting to labour market changes and the integration of vulnerable social 
groups, mainly migrants but also the youth entering the labour market, pensioners and the 
people with disabilities. 

GERMANY – Berlin 

According to the Managing Authority in Berlin, the priorities post-2020 will be related to: 

long-term unemployment; 
integration of young people into the job market; 

 
 
  demographic  change  related  to  ageing,  with  the  risk  that  older  people  losing  their  jobs 

will not find a suitable alternative before retirement; 

  migration  itself,  which  causes  problems  when  migrants  flock  to  neighbourhoods  that 
already have a high level of migrants and a cumulation of specific social challenges;  
  homelessness:  it  is  estimated  that  more  than  50%  of  homeless  people  in  Berlin  are 
originally from Eastern European EU Member States. There is a concern that this trend 
adds to existing social issues. 

A reduction of ESF funds in Berlin in the next programming period is expected, meaning that 
there will be increased competition among beneficiary groups for limited funds. In addition, a 
reduction  in  the  number  of  people  of  working  age  by  2030  may  lead  to  a  lack  of  skilled 
people to fill open positions. 

Potential solutions identified include the qualification of low-skilled people to integrate them 
into the job market.  

THE NETHERLANDS 

The  main  challenges  for  the  next  programming  period  are  likely  to  be  aligned  with  those 
addressed  in  the  current  period.  The  2014-2020  OP  signals  that  the  main  challenge  in  the 
Netherlands is demographic change (ageing). Maintaining welfare levels would require an 
increase  in  labour  participation.  Emphasis  is  therefore  placed  on  improving  employment 
opportunities, re-integration of the unemployed and ensuring a convergence of supply and 
demand. This would require support for marginalized groups, or those distant from the labour 
market. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UK – Greater Birmingham and Solihull 

The major challenge within the UK context for the next funding period is the 
current  uncertainty  surrounding  the  British  departure  from  the  European 
Union  in  March  2019  and  what  this  will  mean  in  terms  of  future 
engagement  with  the  various  European  funding  programmes.  The  EU-UK 
agreement in December 2017 for a transition period means that any funding 
committed  in  the  current  funding  period  can  be  expected  to  be  managed  in 
the usual way. However, there are fears that allocations may not be made in 
time  for  the  funding  to  be  distributed  before  the  UK  officially  leaves  the 
European Union. 

For  the  next  programming  period,  the  Government  has  proposed  a  ‘United 
Kingdom  Shared  Prosperity  Fund’,  specifically  designed 
to  reduce 
inequalities between communities across the UK. The Fund will help deliver 
sustainable,  inclusive  growth  based  on  a  modern  industrial  strategy.  The 
Government  has  committed  to  consulting  widely  on  the  design  of  the  fund, 
including with local authorities, businesses and public bodies. A key question 
for LEPs, local authorities and other local stakeholders will thus be the extent 
to which such funding will be decentralised. 

Funding  post-2020  is  of  particular  concern  for  areas  such  as  Greater 
Birmingham, which receives a significant level of funding from the ESF and 
the ERDF respectively. Any funding shortfall is expected to be made up by a 
combination  of  funding  received  from  the  planned  Shared  Prosperity  Fund 
and by attracting private sector investment. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
6  Conclusions and recommendations 

The  report  has  highlighted  several  aspects  of  ESF  interventions  and  their 
outcomes  and  effects  at  the  local  and  regional  levels  in  the  previous  and 
current  programming  period,  while  also  providing  insights  on  future 
challenges and reflections on lessons learned to help the future planning of 
ESF beyond 2020.  

A clear turning point for social cohesion in the EU and the way it should be 
addressed is the economic and financial crisis that started in 2008. The rapid 
fall  in  economic  growth  and  the  depression  of  the  labour  market  have 
created  a  domino  effect  that  has  severely  affected  socio-economic  patterns 
linked  to  employment  and  social  inclusion,  while  also  hindering  capacity 
building  efforts  at  all  levels  of  government.  The  implementation  of 
Structural Funds in 2007-2013 was deeply affected by these events,  calling 
for revisions to adapt to these new challenges.  

The vital role of ESF in addressing these difficulties led to the  introduction 
of a minimum share of 23.1% of the Structural Funds budget to ESF in  the 
current  2014-2020  programming  period,  effectively  reversing  its  gradually 
decreasing share over the past 25 years. Of the total ESF 2014-2020 budget 
of  €86  billion,  over  €75  billion  supports  sustainable  and  quality 
employment,  social  inclusion  and  investment  in  education  and  training 
corresponding respectively to thematic objectives 8, 9 and 10 (under art. 9 of 
the  CPR).  The  remaining  budget  is  used  to  address  capacity  building 
(thematic objective 11). 

The overview  of  the  ESF  state  of  play  and  the first-hand  experiences  from 
the six selected operational programmes have helped to provide evidence on 
the  existing  disparities  across  EU  regions  in  terms  of  employment,  social 
inclusion and education, but also on the role and European Added Value76 of 
ESF in fostering cohesion at the local and regional levels.  

A clear cross-cutting issue emerging from recent statistical data on NUTS2 
level  is  a  geographical  split  within  countries  in  terms  of  socio-economic 
disparities:  employment  rates,  income  and  educational  attainment  are 
predominantly higher in cities  and urban areas, which seem to have a ‘pull 
effect’ associated with higher employment and education opportunities. This 
pattern  may  be  of  particular  concern  for  two  reasons:  in  a  number  of 
Member  States,  especially  in  the  EU13,  characterised  by  economic 

76 As defined in the Paper on the future of EU finances, European Commission, 2017. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
development  largely  concentrated  in  the  capital  city  and  its  surrounding 
regions,  this  trend  leads  to  growing  inequality  and  demographic  disparities 
to  the  detriment  of  rural  areas;  conversely,  an  increasing  internal  and 
international migration towards urban areas and capital cities, particularly in 
the EU15, risks increasing social exclusion of already disadvantaged groups, 
while also creating labour market imbalances. 

The Member State where the European Added Value of ESF has been most 
visible is Poland, which has also received the highest share of ESF funding 
in the previous and current programming period. The ex-post evaluation of 
the 2007-2013 national OP and an assessment of the current regional OP in 
Warmińsko-Mazurskie  have  shown  that  ESF  interventions  have  had  a 
quantifiable impact in tackling both national and region-specific issues such 
as high unemployment rates, demographic decline and poverty.  

According to a number of case studies, targeting socio-economic issues such 
as  employment  and  the  integration  of  migrants  through  ESF  has  produced 
‘volume  and  quality  effects’  also  in  EU15  Member  States,  meaning  that 
more people (volume) could be reached and more intensive and tailor-made 
support  (quality)  could  be  provided  thanks  to  ESF,  compared  with  what 
could have been done with regional or national instruments, confirming the 
added value of the fund.  

The support provided by ESF in capacity building has been more tangible in 
Member States most affected by the financial crisis, such as Cyprus, where 
the  presence  of  EU  funding  has  helped  to  counterbalance  the  heavy 
reduction in public expenditure. 

The place-based approach requires addressing development issues based on 
the  needs  expressed  at  local  level  by  different  groups  of  people  and 
considering  the  context  of  intervention.  For  the  ESF,  the  place-based 
approach  can  be  analysed  first  considering  how  the  needs  identified  in  the 
regions have been addressed by the programme strategies and what are the 
arrangements  taken  at  programme  level  to  ensure  the  participation  of 
regional and local stakeholders in programme implementation.  

As  it  emerged  from  a  2015  analysis  of  the  28  Partnership  agreements,  the 
specific  territorial  needs  and  challenges  in  terms  of  social  cohesion  have 
been highlighted  in sections 1.1 and 3, providing information on the issues 
to be addressed at territorial level particularly for those areas most affected 
by poverty, discrimination and social exclusion. The principle of partnership 
(Art.  5  of  the  CPR)  has  been  implemented  with  the  active  participation  of 
local social partners as well as of civil society. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
In addition, the introduction of the ‘place-based approach’ in the 2014-2020 
regulatory  framework  of  ESI  funds  has  proven  to  be  useful  in  enabling  an 
integrated use of structural funds and more targeted interventions in specific 
areas. The experiences with ITI in the city of Amsterdam and the region of 
Castilla  la  Mancha  in  Spain  provide  an  example  of  the  opportunities  this 
innovative tool can provide.  

At the same time, improvements are encouraged to simplify the planning and 
implementation of integrated tools in LRAs with lower capacity where these 
instruments risk being perceived as an additional burden. This is the reason 
why  LRAs,  with  particular  regard  to  the  municipal  level,  call  for  a  greater 
simplification  of  procedures  and  rules  and  a  direct  access  to  funds  to 
implement social inclusion policies more efficiently at the local level. 

The  lessons  learned  from  the  previous  and  current  programming  periods 
concern  ESF  support  to  capacity  building,  the synergies  and  integrated  use 
of ESF with other funds and the impact of administrative simplification.  

The evaluation of ESF 2007-2013 found the implementation rate in capacity 
building  activities  to  be  lower  than  for  the  overall  ESF,  with  important 
differences  among  Member  States.  This  has  proven  to  be  of  more  concern 
for geographically smaller or poorer LRAs, also due to national bodies being 
the main beneficiaries of capacity building activities in many Member States 
and  the  main  addressees  of  country-specific  recommendations  (CSR).  This 
lack of translation of the European Semester recommendations at local and 
regional levels is often considered as an obstacle to implementing necessary 
institutional reforms at all levels of government. 

The  evaluation  of  the  ESF  2007-2013  also  recommended  paying  more 
attention  to  coordination  between  types  of  programmes  (e.g.  direct 
management  and  shared  management  funds).  There  was  some  evidence  of 
synergies  between  the  ESF  and,  for  example,  the  ERDF  or  the  Youth 
Employment  Initiative,  within  the  current  programming  period,  which  is 
ensured  through  coordination  between  responsible  national  and  regional 
authorities. Another fund mentioned as linked to the ESF in Germany is the 
Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived  (FEAD).  Nonetheless,  the 
different  regulatory  frameworks  of  the  various  EU  funds  and  instruments 
created some complexity  in coordination. The introduction of the Common 
Strategic  Framework  for  the  five  ESI  Funds  in  the  programming  period 
2014-2020 enabled greater alignment of the OPs objectives and the Europe 
2020  strategy.  The  case  studies  show  clear  complementarity  between  ESF 
and national funding (e.g. in the UK and the Netherlands) although there is 

67 

 
 
 
 
also  some  evidence  of  the  ESF  being  used  to  fill  the  ‘gaps’  created  by  a 
reduction in national funding following the financial crisis of 2008. 

led 

to  some 

the  new  simplification  measures 

Several  studies  published  in  2015,  2016  and  2017  conclude  that  the 
introduction  of 
the  2014-2020 
in 
programming  period 
improvements.  However,  several 
challenges persist. A European Policies Research Centre paper observes that 
the  main  concerns  of  regions  are  still  related  to  the  heavy  administrative 
burden of EU cohesion policy, which often does not lead to simplification. A 
regional  authority  in  Germany  interviewed  for  this  study  stated  that  the 
‘rigid’  structure  of  the  ESF  makes  it  difficult  to  adapt  programming  to 
political priorities, which can change over a seven-year-period. The 7-year-
programing period was  also viewed  as  problematic since it  does not match 
the political cycle of elections taking place every four years. This makes it 
difficult  to  hold  political  leaders  accountable  for  any  decisions  taken  with 
regard to ESF funding by their predecessors. 

Finally,  the  report  presented  the  issue  of  future  challenges  for  social 
cohesion  and  ESF  intervention.  The  ageing  population  is  one  of  the  long-
term  structural  demographic  changes  in  Europe,  resulting  in  the  decline  of 
the working-age population and  the associated  costs, which will negatively 
impact growth and increase inequality. This demographic trend is followed 
by a territorial one, with growing urbanisation, widening the socio-economic 
divide  between  rural  and  urban  areas  and  by  the  challenge  presented  by 
remote and sparsely populated areas. 

A further challenge is represented by social exclusion, also in relation to the 
recent  migrant  crisis.  Integration  efforts  will  mostly  fall  on  cities  in  the 
EU15,  where  most  of  migrant  communities  settle  and  where  the  risk  of 
poverty  and  social  exclusion,  in  general,  is  already  higher  than  the  EU 
average. This entails a greater need to adapt policies and actions, but also to 
create  synergies  and  exchange  of  best  practices  among  EU  cities  to  better 
target  both  social  inclusion  and  integration.  ESI  funds,  and  the  ESF  in 
particular,  can  therefore  provide  the  appropriate  regulatory  and  policy 
framework and bring added value to such actions.  

The  risk  of  social  exclusion  is  also  strongly  linked  to  the  issue  of  skills 
shortage and mismatch. The increase in automation and the widening skills 
gap  this  creates  for  those  entering  the  job  market  is  an  area  of  increasing 
importance  to  all  Member  States,  and  one  which  the  ESF  is  specifically 
being  used  to  target  through  vocational  and  digital  training  aimed  at  under 
25s, particularly NEETs. The fast pace with which the labour market and the 
required  skills  are  changing  represents  one  of  the  biggest  challenges  for 

68 

  
 
 
 
younger generations and low-skilled adults. Tackling skills shortage should 
therefore  be  a  policy  priority  in  order  to  reduce  poverty  and  youth 
unemployment.  This  effort  entails  a  need  to  deeply  rethink  education  and 
lifelong  learning  systems  and  to  better  connect  them  with  labour  market 
needs,  especially  at  the  local  and  regional  levels,  making  them  more 
adaptable to an ever-changing landscape.  

This is relevant at the regional and local levels: there is statistical evidence 
of heterogeneous educational attainment, different perceptions of vocational 
education and training at NUTS2 and 3 levels. Differences in these aspects 
occur  between  and  within  individual  countries,  affecting  the  future  supply 
and  demand  of  skills  (skills  gap  and  mismatch)  with  potential  socio-
economic  repercussions  at  the  territorial  level.  ESF  actions  to  improve 
education  and  training  and  their  link  to  the  labour  market  at  the  local  and 
regional level, as well as lifelong learning, will play a key role in addressing 
this challenge.  

At the same time, there has been an increase in job insecurity and grey areas 
related  to  workers’  status  linked  to  the  rise  of  the  platform  economy. 
According  to  a  recent  EP  study,  insecurity  of  job  and  income,  as  well  as 
underemployment,  are  perceived  as  key  problems  for  those  working  in  the 
platform economy. 

In  order  to  adapt  to  these  new  challenges  and  the  ever-changing  socio-
economic  context,  the  current  debate  around  the  future  of  ESF  calls  for  a 
much  stronger  coordination  between  the  European  Semester  process,  in 
particular  the  employment  guidelines  and  CSR  and  the  ESF  programmes 
after  2020.  Most  of  the  present  obstacles  against  full  coordination  concern 
the different timing (e.g. between annual CSRs and multiannual ESI Funds 
planning) and the insufficient flexibility of programming documents on both 
sides.  

The successful adaptation to new social challenges will also depend on the 
possibility of the ESF to remain an integral part of regional cohesion policy 
in  order  to  tackle  social  issues,  taking  into  account  territorial  specificities 
and to be able to integrate ESF efforts with measures financed through other 
ESI funds. 

The recently adopted European Pillar of Social Rights seeks to react to these 
challenges  in  order  to  narrow  social  inequalities  and  ensure  upward  social 
convergence. These principles will need to be supported by concrete actions 
through  a  stronger  alignment  of  the  ESF  interventions  at  the  national  and 
regional levels and through the integrated use of ESI funds at the local level. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
How the Pillar and ESF, and ESI funds more broadly, will be integrated and 
coordinated in the next programming period will be crucial to allow for the 
translation  of  EU-level  social  policy  objectives  into  concrete  actions  at  the 
national and regional level. 

A  further  issue  concerning  the  ESF  after  2020  is  linked  to  the  impact  and 
long-term  implications  of  the  United  Kingdom’s  departure  from  the 
European  Union.  As  the  UK-based  case  study  has  shown,  the  longer-term 
impact of Britain’s departure on EU funding levels is an area that cannot be 
overlooked when dealing with social cohesion and interventions after 2020. 

Recommendations based on findings and case studies: 

  Enhance  coordination  between  the  EU,  national,  the  regional  and  local 
levels  to  allow  achievement  of  the  ESF  objectives,  given  that  the 
addressed issues have a strong local dimension and that competencies are 
shared among all these levels in relation to the ESF scope of intervention; 
  Link the ESI funds, including the ESF, closer to the European Semester 
process  and  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  rights  through  a  deeper 
integration of planning and implementation;  

  Increase  capacity  in  LRAs  to  include  the regional  and  local  level  in  the 

implementation of CSR; 

  Increase flexibility and shorten duration of OPs to allow adaptation to an 

ever-changing social and political landscape; 

  Simplify  planning  documents  (partnership  agreements,  operational 

programmes);  

  Connect  the  various  information  sources  and  establish  a  database  with 
indicators relevant for social issues and results within the administration 
at various levels; 

  Increase  and 

improve  cooperation  and  participation  among 

the 
stakeholders  involved  in  ESF  programming  and  implementation  at  all 
levels of government and among Member States to increase exchange of 
good practices; 

  Increase guidance from the EC on the use of SCOs at all levels; 
  Increase local discretion with regard to spending choices to better adapt 
to  territorial  specificities,  challenges  and  resources,  local  powers  for 
strategic planning and development. 

70 

 
 
 
7  Annexes  (list  of  Case  studies  and 

interviews) 

Member State  LRA 

Cyprus 

National level 

Germany 

State of 
Berlin 

The Netherlands  National level 

Poland 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

Managing 
Authority 
Directorate-
General for 
European 
programmes, 
coordination and 
development 
Senate Department 
for Economics, 
energy and public 
enterprises 

Agentschap SZW 

Warminsko-
Mazurskie 
Voivodeship Board 

Ministry of 
Employment and 
Social Security – 
ESF management 
unit 
Department for 
Work and 
Pensions, ESF 
Division – West 
Midlands 

Operational 
Programme 

CCI: 
2014CY05M9OP001 
‘Employment, Human 
Capital and Social 
Cohesion’ 

CCI: 
2014DE05SFOP005 
‘ESF Berlin 2014-
2020’ 
CCI: 
2014NL05SFOP001 
‘ESF Netherlands 
2014-2020’ 
CCI: 
2014PL16M2OP014 
‘ERDF-ESF regional 
OP Warminsko-
Mazurskie 2014-2020’ 

Warminsko-
Mazurskie 
Voivodeship 

Autonomous 
Community 
of Castilla la 
Mancha  

CCI: 
2014ES05SFOP015 
‘ESF Castilla la 
Mancha 2014-2020’ 

Greater 
Birmingham 
and Solihull 

CCI: 
2014UK05M9OP001 
‘ESF England 2014-
2020’ 

71 

 
 
8  References and websiteS  

Main websites of European institutions and organizations.  

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=33 

European Parliament: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/20150201PVL00031/Europ
ean-Parliamentary-Research-Service 

European Committee of the Regions: 
http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/Pages/index.aspx# 

European Court of Auditors: 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ecadefault.aspx 

Eurostat (statistics explained):  http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat  

Eurocities: http://www.eurocities.eu/ 

CPMR: http://cpmr.org/  

References by theme 

General on ESIF and regional data: 

  European  Commission  (2015),  Investing 

jobs  and  growth  - 
maximising  the  contribution  of  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds, COM (2015) 639 final 

in 

  European  Commission  (2016),  The  use  of  new  provisions  during  the 
Programming Phase of the European Structural and Investment Funds 

  European  Commission  (2016),  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds  2014-2020:  2016  Summary  Report  of  the  programme  annual 
implementation  reports  covering  implementation  in  2014-2015,  COM 
(2016) 812 final 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  European  Commission 

the 
(2017),  Strategic 
implementation of the European Structural and Investment Funds, COM 
(2017) 755 final 

report  2017  on 

  European Commission (2017), Seventh Cohesion Report 

  European  Parliament  (2015),  Review  of  the  Adopted  Partnership 

Agreements, study of the REGI Committee 

  Eurostat  (2017),  Smarter,  greener,  more  inclusive  –  indicators  to 

support the Europe 2020 targets, European Union 

  Eurostat (2017), Eurostat regional yearbook 2017, European Union 

European Social Fund and YEI: 

  European  Commission  (2014),  Final  synthesis  report:  main  ESF 

achievements 2007-2013 

  European  Parliament  (2017),  How  the  EU  budget  is  spent  –  The 

European Social Fund, European Parliament Research Service 

  European  Parliament  (2016),  Assessment  of  the  Youth  Employment 
Initiative, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department D 
– Budgetary Affairs 

  European  Commission 
implementation reports 

(2017),  Synthesis  of  2016  ESF  Annual 

  European  Commission  (2014),  Promoting  Inclusive  Growth,  ESF 

thematic Paper 

Labour market: 

  Committee  of  the  Regions  (2016),  Labour  mobility  and  Local  and 
Regional Authorities: benefits, challenges and solutions, European Union 

  Committee  of  the  Regions  (2016),  A  new  skills  agenda  for  Europe, 

European Union 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  EUROCITIES  (2015),  Promoting  an  inclusive  labour  market  at  local 

level: social investment in cities, Brussels 

  European  Parliament  (2016),  Labour  Market  Integration  of  Refugees, 
Briefing by Susanne Kraatz and  Boris Marschall, Policy Department A: 
Economy and Scientific Policy 

  CEPS (2018), Income Convergence in the EU: A tale of two speeds 

  OECD (2016), Automation and Independent Work in a Digital Economy, 

Policy brief on the future of work 

  European Commission (2017), Establishing a European Pillar of Social 

Rights, COM (2017) 250 final 

Demographic change: 

  Committee of the Regions (2016), The impact of demographic change on 

European Regions, European Union 

  European  Parliament  (2017),  Demographic  outlook  in  the  European 

Union 2017, European Parliament Research Service 

  European  Parliament  (2017),  Global  trends  2035,  European  Parliament 

Research Service 

Migration: 

  European  Commission  (2016),  A  European  Agenda  on  Migration,  State 

of Play: January 2016. 

  European  Parliament  (2015),  Report  on  refugees:  social  inclusion  and 
integration  into  the  labour  market,  Committee  on  Employment  and 
Social Affairs, Rapporteur: Brando Benifei 

  European  Parliament  (2016),  Labour  Market  Integration  of  Refugees: 
Strategies  and  good  practices,  Study  for  the  EMPL  Committee, 
Directorate  General  for  Internal  Policies,  Policy  Department  A: 
Economic and Scientific Policy. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Social inclusion: 

  European  Parliament  (2015),  Wage  and  Income  Inequality  in  the 
European Union, by Kraatz S., Schmid-Drüner M., by Dreger C., Lòpez-
Bazo E., Ramos R., Royuela V., Suriñach K., under the responsibility of 
Verbeken  D.,  Policy  Department  A:  Economy  and  Scientific  Policy. 
Study  for  the  European  Parliament's  Committee  on  Employment  and 
Social Affairs 

  European  Parliament  (2017),  Integrated  use  of  ESI  Funds  to  address 
social  challenges,  REGI  committee,  Directorate  General  for  Internal 
Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies 

Beyond 2020 (LRAs challenges): 

  Committee of the Regions (2017),  Key challenges and opportunities for 

Cities and Regions and MFF post 2020, European Union 

  European Commission (2017), White Paper on the Future of Europe 

  European  Commission  (2017),  Reflection  paper  on  the  Future  of  EU 

finances 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EN

ISBN 978-92-895-0955-8
doi:10.2863/267234

QG-02-18-524-EN-N

Created in 1994 following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, 
the European Committee of  the Regions is the EU's assembly of 350 regional and
 local representatives from all 28 Member States, representing over 507 million Europeans.

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 101   |   1040 Bruxelles/Brussel   |   BELGIQUE/BELGIË   |   Tel. +32 22822211
www.cor.europa.eu   |         @EU_CoR   |         /european.committee.of.the.regions
     /european-committee-of-the-regions