COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)
Date: 2018-05-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, European Social Fund, access to education, dismissal, employment aid, globalisation, job access, organisation of health care, reintegration into working life, social integration

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.5.2018  SWD(2018) 289 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+)  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)  {COM(2018) 380 final} - {COM(2018) 382 final}  - {SEC(2018) 273 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ................................... 3 

1.1 Scope and context ................................................................................................ 3 
1.2  Lessons  learned  from  previous  programmes  and  related  mid-term 

evaluations ........................................................................................................ 5 

2.   THE OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 8 

2.1 Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF ............................................ 8 
2.2 Objectives of the programmes under the next MFF ...................................... 23 

3. 

 PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES ........................................... 25 

4.   DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING ....................... 31 

5.   HOW  WILL 

PERFORMANCE  BE  MONITORED  AND 

EVALUATED? ........................................................................................................ 42 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 46 

1.  LEAD DG(S), DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES ................................... 46 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING ............................................................................ 46 

3.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB ............................................................................. 46 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ............................................................... 49 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 58 

ANNEX 3: EVALUATION RESULTS ............................................................................ 70 

ANNEX  4:  SYNERGIES  AND  COHERENCE  BETWEEN  THE  ESF+  AND 

OTHER FUNDS INVESTING IN HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT ........... 83 

ANNEX  5  PROGRAMME  SPECIFIC  ANNEX  ON  THE  HEALTH 

PROGRAMME ......................................................................................................... 86 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ESF 

YEI 

FEAD 

EGF  

EaSI 

EIF 

EIB 

EURES 

ESI Funds 

CSR 

OP 

SCO 

FI 

ALMP 

MA 

Rhomolo 

JAP 

CLLD 

QFR 

OPC 

European Social Fund 

Youth Employment Initiative 

Fund for European Aid to the most Deprived 

European Globalisation Adjustment Fund 

Employment and Social Innovation programme 

European Investment Fund 

European Investment Bank 

European Employment Services 

European structural and investment funds 

country specific recommendation 

operational programme 

simplified cost options 

financial instruments 

active labour market policies 

managing authorities 

regional  holistic  model 
spatial 
computable  general  equilibrium  model  for  EU  regions 
and sectors) 

(JRC  dynamic 

joint action plans 

community-led local development 

EU  quality  framework  for  anticipation  of  change  and 
restructuring 

open public consultation 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual 
Financial  Framework  (MFF)  for  2021-2027.1 The  Commission  proposed  that  over  this 
period, the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) will have a budget of EUR 101.2 billion 
(in  current  prices),  while  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  will  remain 
outside of the MFF with a ceiling of EUR 1.578 billion (in current prices). This impact 
assessment report reflects the decisions of the MFF proposals and focuses on the changes 
and policy choices which are specific to the two funds. 

1.1 Scope and context 

Europe's  relevance  and  success  in  the  next  decades  will  be  determined  by  its  ability  to 
remain  competitive  in  the  global  economy  and  ensure  high  levels  of  employment, 
education and training, health, social inclusion and active participation in society.  

Making  Europe  competitive,  cohesive  and  resilient  in  the  future  means  investing  in  its 
people  now:  in  their  education  and  training,  in  their  skills,  in  their  creativity,  their 
potential to create businesses and to innovate, and in their health. It means ensuring that 
everyone in the EU has opportunities to prosper, play an active role in society and shape 
the  future  of  a  Europe  of  democracy,  solidarity  and  inclusion.  The  EU’s  capacity  to 
respond  to  current  and  future  challenges,  including  those  stemming  from  technological 
development,  will  depend  on  the  quality  and  the  scale  of  intervention  strategies  that 
invest in people. 

In March 2017, leaders from 27 EU Member States and EU institutions signed up to the 
Rome Agenda2 pledging to work towards a social Europe:  

‘a  Union  which,  based  on  sustainable  growth,  promotes  economic  and  social 
progress  as  well  as  cohesion  and  convergence  […]  a  Union  which  fights 
unemployment,  discrimination,  social  exclusion  and  poverty;  a  Union  where 
young people receive the best education and training and can study and find jobs 
across the continent.’3 

As  underlined  in  the  white  paper  on  The  future  of  Europe4 and  its  five  accompanying 
‘reflection  papers’,  the  EU’s  ability  to  provide  solutions  to  the  challenges  faced  by 
European economies and societies has been called into question.  

At the Gothenburg Social Summit (November 2017), EU Member States and institutions 
adopted the European Pillar of Social Rights5 as a key policy response to this concern. 
The  Pillar  strives  to  reaffirm  and  further  strengthen  relevant  rights  and  principles  in 

1 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/democratic-change/future-europe/eu-budget-future_en  
2 The  Rome  Agenda  is  a  list  of  actions  agreed  upon  by  the  EU-27  heads  of  state  and  the  EU  institutions,  on  the 
occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaties, in March 2017. 
3 See also Commission Communication on “A new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European Union 
that  delivers  efficiently  on  its  priorities  post-20203”,  February  2018:  “The  EU  budget  will  need  to  deliver  on  the 
promises made by Leaders at the Gothenburg Social Summit. This means further developing the social dimension of 
the Union, including through the full implementation  of  the  European Pillar  of Social  Rights,  and  supporting  young 
people  and  the  mobility  of  European  citizens.  Adequate  resources  will  be  required  to  improve  employment 
opportunities and address the skills challenges, including those linked to digitisation.” 
4 European  Commission,  white  paper  on  The  future  of  Europe:  reflections  and  scenarios  for  the  EU-27  by  2025 
(COM(2017)2025) 
5

 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/deeper-and-fairer-economic-and-monetary-union/european-pillar-social-

rights_en 

3 

 
 
 
                                                                 
support of equal opportunities and access to the labour market, fair working conditions, 
social protection and greater social inclusion. It underlines people’s right to quality and 
inclusive  education,  training  and  life-long  learning  so  they  can  maintain  and  acquire 
skills  that  enable  them  to  participate  fully  in  society  and  to  successfully  manage 
transitions  in  the  labour  market,  also  in  line  with  the  United  Nations  sustainable 
development goals.6 

Policy  efforts  of  this  magnitude  require  meaningful  investment  at  EU  level.  The 
Commission’s April 2017 Communication on the Pillar underlined that it ‘will [...] be a 
reference for the design of the post-2020 EU financial programming period’.7 
In  addition,  the  Skills  Agenda  for  Europe8 highlights  the  importance  of  investing  in 
upskilling and  re-skilling  as,  in  a  fast-changing global  economy,  skills are  a  key  driver 
for competitiveness and innovation. The December 2017 European Council conclusions  
further highlighted the importance of the social and educational dimension of EU policies 
‘in bringing Europeans together and building a common future’.  
In its June 2017 Resolution9 on building blocks for the EU’s cohesion policy post-2020, 
the  European  Parliament  notes  that  cohesion  policy  is  very  effective  and  calls  on  the 
Commission  to  present  a  comprehensive  legislative  proposal  for  a  strong  and  effective 
cohesion policy post-2020 with an adequate budget for combating unemployment, caring 
for  the  vulnerable  and  marginalised,  addressing  growing  inequalities  and  building 
solidarity through co-investments in education and training. In its Opinion For a strong 
and  effective  European  cohesion  policy  beyond  2020,10 the European Committee  of the 
Regions  points  out  that  ‘the  policy  for  strengthening  economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion  is  one  of  the  most  important  and  comprehensive  EU  policies,  making  a 
significant  contribution  in  terms  of  solidarity  to  strengthening  the  EU  as  a  whole,  and 
considerably strengthens the European added value that is tangible for each EU citizen’. 
It calls for cohesion policy to be made more flexible in the next funding period.  

In  its  Opinion  on  The  effectiveness  of  ESF  and  FEAD  funding  as  part  of  civil  society 
efforts  to  tackle  poverty  and  social  exclusion  under  the  Europe  2020  strategy, 11 the 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  calls  for  ‘the  creation  in  the  next  financial 
perspective of an integrated European fund to combat poverty and social exclusion, based 
on experience to date of the implementation of the FEAD and the ESF'. 

This impact assessment, which is part of the proposals for the next multi-annual financial 
framework (MFF) builds on the above policy framework. It covers the following funds12:  

- 

- 
- 

the European Social Fund (ESF – one of the European structural and investment 
funds (ESI funds)) and Youth Employment Initiative (YEI); 
the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD); 
the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF);  

6 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ 
7  Commission  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of  the  Regions on  Establishing a  European  Pillar  of  Social Rights  (COM/2017/0250 
final). 
8 The  Skills  Agenda  for  Europe,  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  10  June  2016,  launched  10  actions  (including  the 
Blueprint for Sectoral Cooperation on Skills and the Digital Skills and Jobs Coalition) to make the right training, skills 
and support available to people in the EU; http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1223 
9 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2017-0254&language=EN  
10 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions (11-12 May 2017). 
11 Opinion SOC/537 (OJ C 173, 31.5.2017, p. 15–19). 
12 For more detail, see section 2.1.1.  

4 

 
 
                                                                 
- 
- 

the EU Health Programme13, and 
the Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) programme 

These funds are key in delivering on the European Pillar of Social Rights and the social 
and employment priorities endorsed by the European economic governance process. This 
impact assessment covers them all, as they complement each other in contributing to the 
same policy objective, and presents them jointly or according to their specific properties, 
as appropriate.   

This impact assessment concerns the following initiative: 

  merging  the  ESF,  YEI,  FEAD,  EaSI  and  EU  Health  programme  into  one 
fund  (ESF+)  with  a  single  Regulation,  but  two  separate  management 
strands: 

o  shared management (covering  the former ESF, YEI and FEAD); and 
o  (in)/direct  management  (covering  the  former  EaSI    and  EU  Health 

programme and part of the ESF); and 

  keeping the EGF as a separate fund. 

The reasoning behind this initiative is set out in the following sections. 

The  impact  assessment  also  examines  synergies  and  complementarities  with  the 
following other funds under preparation in the context of the next MFF:  

  other  ESI  Funds,  including:  the  European  Regional  and  Development  Fund 
(ERDF),  the  Cohesion  Fund  (CF),  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF);  

  Erasmus;   
 
 
 

the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF); 
the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon Europe); 
the European Fund for Structural Investments (EFSI), the Reform Delivery Tool 
(RDT) and the Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP). 

The  impact  assessment  fulfils  the  requirements  for  ex-ante  evaluation  of  the  Financial 
Regulation and Better Regulation package. 

1.2 Lessons learned from previous programmes and related mid-term evaluations 

1.2.1   Key findings from evaluations 
Evaluations  of  current14 and  previous  programming  periods15 and  related  studies16 all 
confirm  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  EU  added  value  and  coherence  of  the 
funds covered by this impact assessment17. Member States have invested in policy areas, 

13 See Annex 5 for more information on the EU Health programme. 

14 Mid-term evaluations of FEAD, EGF and EaSI for the 2014-2020 programming period. 
15  In  particular,  the  Commission’s  staff  working  document  on  the  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  2007-2013  ESF 
programmes (SWD(2016) 452 final, 12.12.2016), and its Ex-post evaluation of the EGF 2007-2013, August 2015. 
16 See Annex 1. 
17 Detailed lessons learned by fund are set out in Annex 3. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                                 
target  groups  and  reforms  in  a  way  that  would  not  have  been  possible  with  national 
funding only. In particular:  

 

 

the  2000-2006 18  and  2007-2013 19  ESF  ex-post  evaluations  recognise  ESF 
investments  as  relevant,  efficient  and  effective.  The  ESF's  alignment  with  EU 
policies and priorities under the Lisbon Strategy and the Europe 2020 strategy for 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth was strengthened over time. At the same 
time, being one of the structural funds, the ESF contributes to the Treaty's goals 
of  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion  through  increased  concentration  of 
resources. For example, the ESF (with the associated national funding) accounts 
for 70 % of active measures in 11 Member States.20 
through  its  support  for  young  people  not  in  employment,  education  or  training 
(NEETs)  in  specific  EU  regions,  the  YEI  raised  the  visibility  of  youth 
employment policies, but also brought about a shift in policy-making in a number 
of  Member  States  by  supporting  the  setting-up  and  implementation  of  youth 
guarantee schemes;21  

 

  preliminary results of the FEAD mid-term evaluation22, including feedback from 
stakeholders,23 indicate that the food, material aid and social inclusion operations 
that it has supported make a difference to the most deprived, including those who 
might  otherwise  be  left  out  of  mainstream  social  assistance  or  who  need 
immediate support; 
the results of the mid-term evaluation of the EGF24 shows that it offers dismissed 
workers a unique combination of tailored measures that lead to more sustainable 
results,  increase  the  self-esteem  of  beneficiaries,  who  finally  have  a  more 
proactive approach to job seeking, and improve their employability; and  
the mid-term evaluation of the EaSI25 shows that its objectives are still relevant, 
in  particular  in  a  challenging  socio-economic  context  characterised  by  the 
aftermath of the financial and economic crisis and that it was effective in reaching 
the relevant stakeholders, generating outcomes and achieving its objectives.  

 

However,  evaluations  and  studies26 also  provide  evidence  of  a  number  of  challenges, 
mostly  regarding  the  need  for  greater  coherence  and  synergy,  flexibility  and  policy 

18 http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16861&langId=en.  
19 Ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013 ESF programmes (SWD(2016) 452 final, 12.12.2016) 
20 Ibid  
21  The  Youth  Guarantee  and  Youth  Employment  Initiative  three  years  on,  European  Commission  (2016), 
(COM/2016/0646 final). 
22 Based on the contractor’s FEAD draft final report of the mid-term evaluation, status March 2018. The evaluation is 
expected to be finalised in the fourth quarter of 2018. 
23
the  open  public  consultation 

the  FEAD  mid-term  evaluation 

(January  2018); 

 Report  on 

for 

https://publications.europa.eu/s/fo2y  
24 Report  from  the  Commission  on  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  (EGF) 
(COM(2018)297  final,  16.5.2018),  and  accompanying  Commission  staff  working  document  on  the  mid-term 
evaluation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) (SWD(2018)192 final, 16.5.2018) 
25 The mid-term evaluation of the European Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (report to be published 
in May 2018 on http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1081). 
26 In  particular,  see    the  following  Commission  documents:  Study  to  support  the  work  on  the  impact  assessment  of 
human capital investments (ongoing); Study on the assessment of the adequacy of the ESF's design to support human 
capital policies (2017) [not yet published]; Study on the analysis of the first results of the implementation of the YEI 
and 
(2016), 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7931;  Support  of  ESI  Funds  to  the  implementation 
of  the  Country  Specific  Recommendations  and  to  Structural  Reforms  in  Member  States(ongoing),  Assessment  of 
Administrative Costs  and Burdens  in  the  ESI  Funds  (2016),  Synthesis report  ex-post evaluation  the ESF  2007-2013, 

Employment 

Actions 

related 

Youth 

ESF 

6 

 
 
 
                                                                 
 
alignment,  performance  and  results  orientation,  and  simplification.  In  particular  the 
funding  landscape  and,  to  a  greater  or  lesser  degree,  the  implementation  of  the  funds, 
need  to  be  simplified.  The  areas  to  be  addressed  are  summarised  in  section  2.1.2  and 
described in more detail in Annexes 2 and 3.  

1.2.2 Key messages from stakeholders   
The  messages  from  stakeholders 27  (consulted  mainly  through  the  open  public 
consultation  (OPC),  conferences,  focus  groups,  interviews  and  questionnaires  in  the 
framework  of  preparations  for  arrangements  post-2020)  broadly  confirm  the  findings 
from  the  evaluations.28 Stakeholder  consultation  results  demonstrate  the  perceived  high 
added-value of the concerned EU Funds. Around 76% of the OPC respondents supported 
the  view  that  the  current  programmes/funds  add  value  to  a  large  or  fairly  large  extent 
compared to what Member States could achieve at national, regional and/or local levels. 
Continued European action through investment in a ‘social Europe’ is key to the effective 
implementation  of  EU  social  and  employment  policy  (the  key  policy  challenges 
identified in the OPC), in particular the European Pillar of Social Rights and the Skills 
Agenda.  

In  terms  of  priorities  for  investment,  it  is  essential  to  anticipate  skills  needs  in  a  fast-
evolving world of work, including digital skills. Moreover, measures should continue to 
support young people and target the most disadvantaged in the labour market and society 
at  large,  in  particular  migrants,  people  with  disabilities,  low-skilled  and  long-term 
unemployed people:  to this  end  it is key to  continue and reinforce  investment in  social 
inclusion. The links between policy and funding can and should be strengthened (through 
ex-ante  conditionalities,  the  link  with  European  Semester  process,  allocation  method 
including  social  indicators  in  addition  to  GDP);  and  results-based  approaches  are 
welcomed,  although  they  should  be  developed  mindfully  of  potential  risks.  It  was  also 
stressed  that  respect  for  fundamental  rights  should  be  ensured  in  the  funds’ 
implementation.  

Concerning  the  Funds’  management,  future  proposals  and  rules  should  represent  ‘an 
evolution  and  not  a  revolution’ 29  and  should  simplify  management  at  all  levels  (in 
particular, through simplified cost options, simplifying audit and control and monitoring 
requirements).  In  addition  to  simplification  efforts,  technical  assistance  and  capacity-
building  is  important  for  the  funds’  effective  implementation.  In  relation  to  this,  the 
partnership principle needs to be strengthened, ensuring a more meaningful involvement 

for 

European 

Programme 

Employment 

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16810&langId=en;    Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  Activities  of  the  European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund  in  2015  And  2016, 
COM(2017)  636  final,    http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=18493&langId=en,  The  mid-term  evaluation  of 
on 
and 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1081). 
27 For more detail, see Annex 2 (Synopsis report). 
28 The ESF Committee’s  24th October 2017 opinion on the future of the highlights the essential European added value 
of the ESF and its crucial role as a fund targeting people and supporting Member States in addressing main challenges 
in  the  area  of  human  capital  development.    In  particular,  the  Committee  underlined  the  need  to  implement  the 
recommendations of the high level group on simplification and for the Commission to propose an adequate financial 
envelope in view of pressing challenges such as migration, inequality, poverty and the need for new forms of education 
and upskilling.  
29 See, for example, the position paper from Germany’s federal ESF MA: The ESF as of 2021 - for a new Lean Fund 
Management. 

Innovation 

published 

Social 

(to 

be 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                              
of civil society and according to some, the Commission. Furthermore, the synergies and 
complementarities  between  funds  should  be  enhanced,  while  preserving  and  increasing 
the funds’ flexibility.  

2.  

THE OBJECTIVES  

2.1 Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF  

2.1.1.   Key features of ongoing programmes 

In setting out the challenges for the programming period 2021-2027 a baseline scenario 
will  have  to  reflect  a  decrease  of  the  future  MFF  allocations  following  the  UK’s 
withdrawal  with  an  unchanged  policy.  For  the  funds  under  consideration  the 
consequences of Brexit would mean that we would still cater for all Member States and 
all  objectives,  but  Member  States  might  have  to  set  priorities  to  the  detriment  of  some 
groups  or  objectives.  Overall  the  results  and  impact  of  the  funds  would  therefore  be 
reduced in terms of financial volume but also number of projects and persons supported. 
However the lower level of budget and the risks it entails can be mitigated both by higher 
national  co-financing  rates  and  by  limiting  the  scope  of  ESF  support  in  the  field  of 
general public administration reform (see section 2.2). 

2.1.1.1 ESF and YEI 

The ESF is the EU’s main instrument for investing in people since the Treaty of Rome. It 
finances  actions  contributing  to  employment,  social  inclusion,  education,  training  and 
administrative  capacity  reforms.  Together  with  the  YEI,  it  supports  NEETs  in  regions 
with high youth unemployment.  

The  ESF  and  YEI  are  implemented  under  shared  management.  Funding  envelopes  are 
established per Member State and category of region for the whole programming period 
based  on  criteria  mainly  reflecting  regional  GDP.  Different  co-financing  rates  apply 
depending on the category of region.  

The  YEI  is  implemented  according  to  the  ESF  rules  and  supported  both  through  ESF 
allocations  and  a  separate  budget  line.  It  is  subject  to  some  specific  programming, 
financial management, monitoring and reporting requirements. 

The total ESF budget for 2014-2020 is EUR 121 billion, of which EUR 84 billion is EU 
funded and  the rest is co-financed from national budgets. The additional YEI budget is 
around EUR 10 billion, of which EUR 8.8 billion is EU funded.30 The ESF and the YEI 
are expected to benefit 56 million participants31 in the current period.  

Impacts 

30 The YEI specific allocation needs to be matched by at least the same amount of ESF money which requires national 
co-financing. On the figures see open data platform: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ 
31 Participations may include individuals taking part in ESF operations multiple times as well as indirect participants, at 
the same time measured results often exclude "soft" results such as change in attitude. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
The  2007-2013  ESF  ex-post  evaluation  allowed  calculating  minimum  success  rates  of 
ESF  interventions  (share  of  participations  with  recorded  positive  results  such  as 
qualification  or  employmenti)  by  theme:  they  reached  46%  for  education  and  training, 
38%  for  access  to  employment,  and  52%  for  social  inclusion.  These  ratios  include 
employment and qualification gained and soft outcomes (such as increased chances in the 
labour  market)  and  show  the  significant  impact  of  the  ESF  on  participants’  long  term 
prospects and careers. 

ESF and YEI investments are the main EU level support to structural reforms in Member 
States  especially  in  areas  related  to  reform  of  public  employment  services,  activation 
measures,  the  development  of  individualised  integrated  pathways  for  employment,  the 
set-up  and  implementation  of  dual  vocational  education  and  training,  apprenticeship 
measures  or  investment  in  (child)care  aimed  at  increasing  women  participation  in  the 
labour market. 

ESF and YEI support to structural reforms 

In Spain the implementation of the ‘active inclusion strategy and individualised integration pathways’ is 
supported in line with the CSR. The aim is to mainstream the implementation of individualised integration 
pathways.  Several  structural  reforms  have  been  adopted  in  this  line,  bearing  in  mind  the  distribution  of 
competences between regions and central government. In the context of the economic and financial crisis, 
ESF  investment  in  this  area  was  instrumental  to  continue  the  undertaken  reform  effort  with  a  EUR  1.2 
billion  effort  across  2014-2020,  targeting  a  wide  variety  of  vulnerable  groups.  Similarly,  the  ESF  is 
currently investing resources in the support of the ‘apprenticeship contract’ both in training programmes 
and  alleviating  companies’  social  security  contributions.  The  apprenticeship  contract  is  also  one  of  the 
offers under the Spanish youth guarantee, especially aimed to young people without previous qualification 
or with very low overall qualification.  

In  the Czech  Republic,  in  line with  the 2014  CSR recommending  to  concentrate  adequate  resources  to 
measures  that  considerably  increase  the  availability  of  affordable  and  quality  childcare  facilities  and 
services (with a focus on children up to the age of three), the ESF (together with the ERDF) provided a 
considerable  boost  to  the  allocation  for  childcare  facilities  (approximately  EUR  220  million  across  all 
Czech ESF and ERDF programmes, i.e. almost tripling). The demand for services on the ground has since 
been confirmed by a significant interest of applicants. Legislative changes were introduced to enlarge the 
requirements for opening a pre-school education entity and enable employers to establish kindergartens. 
So far, more than 9000 kindergarten places have been created. 

In Italy, the national programme ‘inclusione sociale’ (with a total budget of EUR 1.32 billion) is entirely 
dedicated  to  supporting  the  reform  of  social  policies  in  the  country,  with  the  aim  of  an  effective  fight 
against  poverty.  In  fact,  the  legislative  framework  on  social  policies,  defined  in  2000,  was  never  fully 
implemented because of lacks of funds and governance issues. The allocation of ESF funding to the fight 
against poverty through this programme was crucial in revamping the governance of social policies and it 
acted  as  a  catalyser  for  the  introduction  of  the  so-far  absent  minimum  income  scheme  (reddito  di 
inclusione). This was fully in line with the European Semester recommendations to Italy.  

The  macro-economic  effects  of  current  investments  under  the  2014-2020  ESF,  as 
estimated  using  the  Joint  Research  Centre's  Rhomolo  model,  suggests  a  permanent 
positive  effect  on  aggregate  EU  28  GDP.  It  is  estimated  that  this  will  reach  0.1  % 
(roughly EUR 13 billion) in 2024 and 0.15 % (roughly EUR 25 billion) by 2030.  

The GDP effect of ESF  investments is  much  greater  in  regions that  are lagging  behind 
economically (see map below). By 2023, the model estimate annual GDP increases of up 
to  about  0.4  %  in  these  regions,  0.14  %  in  transition  regions  and  0.07  %  in  more 
developed  regions.  Finally,  among  the  main  themes  covered  by  the  ESF,  the  thematic 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
objective  on  promoting  sustainable  and  quality  employment  contributes  most  to  total 
GDP increases, followed by the objective on investing in education and training.32  

Figure 1: GDP effect of ESF investments at regional level, Rhomolo simulations, JRC 

Rhomolo  simulations33 indicate  that  the  current  programming  period  will  see  a  gradual 
annual employment increase of up to 0.05 % (in 2020) relative to the baseline year. The 
model is not accounting for the non-tangible effects of the support, such as reducing the 
social  exclusion  of  disadvantaged  groups.  Finally,  the  model's  estimations  indicate  that 
no  long-run  trade-off  exists  between  social-oriented  ESF  investments  and  general 
economic  benefits.  Indeed,  they  confirm  the  important  role  that  human  capital 
investments  have  as  a  key  growth  factor  for  the  European  economy.  The  direct  and 
indirect  effects  of  ESF  investment  generate  positive  economic  outcome  via  a 
combination of long-lasting effects on labour productivity / skill enhancement and short-
term  positive  demand  side  effects  (e.g.  by  promoting  entrepreneurship  and  boosting 
business creation). 

Figure 2: Impact on GDP of ESF investments per thematic objective, Rhomolo 
simulations, JRC34 

32 Source: JRC, simulations based on the Rhomolo model (February 2018). Rhomolo is the spatial computable general 
equilibrium model of the European Commission focusing on EU regions. It has been developed and maintained by the 
regional  economic  modelling  team  at  the  Directorate-General  Joint  Research  Centre  (DG  JRC)  in  cooperation  with 
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO). It is used for policy impact assessment and provides 
sector-, region- and time-specific simulations to support to EU policy making on investments and reforms covering a 
wide array of policies. 
33 February 2018 
34 Thematic objectives (TO) correspond to the following policy areas: TO 8 - employment; TO 9- social inclusion, TO 
10-education and training 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Figure  :  Impact on GDP per  Thematic Objective (TO) 
 (% deviation from baseline year) 

0,18

0,16

0,14

0,12

0,1

0,08

0,06

0,04

0,02

0

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

1
2
0
2

2
2
0
2

3
2
0
2

4
2
0
2

5
2
0
2

6
2
0
2

7
2
0
2

8
2
0
2

9
2
0
2

0
3
0
2

TO8

TO9

TO10

TOTAL

The  Commission’s  Seventh  report  on  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion 35 
concludes  that  cohesion  interventions  generate  spill-over  effects  in  Member  States  and 
regions  other  than  those  in  which  it  is  implemented.  Programmes  in  non-cohesion 
countries tend to increase exports to cohesion countries.36 

The  resource  allocation  for  the  next  programming  period  should  reflect  the  higher 
political  expectations  for  the  future  of  social  Europe  and  the  future  extension  of  the 
ESF’s  scope  to  underpin  the  implementation  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights 
(including in the fields of migrant integration and basic digital skills).  

2.1.1.2 FEAD 

The  FEAD  aims  to  alleviate  the  worst  forms  of  poverty  in  the  EU,  such  as  food 
deprivation,  homelessness  and  child  poverty.  It 
implemented  under  shared 
management, with simplified rules and reduced administrative requirements as compared 
with the ESF. The FEAD allocation for 2014-2020 amounts to almost EUR 3.8 billion. 
The  programme  statement37 indicates  that  FEAD  aid  is  expected  to  reach  15  million 
people a year. With 15.92 million persons benefiting in 2016, this target has already been 
reached.38  

is 

35 European Commission (2017): http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/cohesion-report/ 
36 Other evaluations show that ESF intervention has a positive impact on growth. For example, an evaluation of Spain's 
2007-2013  OP  for  the  fight  against  discrimination36 (focusing  on  the  social  inclusion  priority)  sheds  light  on  the 
economic benefits of the ESF. It concludes that OP activities contributed to the dynamism of the Spanish economy and 
that, for every euro invested, production increased by €1.38, while €0.91 was recovered in terms of fiscal returns. The 
activities  led  to  the  recovery  of  €39  million  annually  in  taxes  and  social  security  contributions,  thus  producing  €9 
million in savings by substituting social support with employment posts. A total of 19.673 jobs were created, of which 
5.167 were direct employment posts. 
37 Draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018, May 2017 (COM(2017) 400)  
38 FEAD mid-term evaluation 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
FEAD  is  a  relatively  small  fund  and  is  delivered  through  two  different  types  of 
operational  programmes  (type  I  on  food/  material  assistance  and  type  II  on  social 
inclusion measures). It is difficult to draw conclusive comparisons as regards the fund's 
impact  due  to  the  different  contexts  and  types  of  support.  However,  there  are  notable 
direct  benefits  of  FEAD  in  view  of  its  size  (1%  of  the  EU  budget  for  cohesion  policy 
addressed  15  million  people  in  2016).  There  are  also  significant  indirect  benefits  that 
cannot  be  expressed  in  monetary  terms      (improved  cohesion,  solidarity,  prevention  of 
humanitarian  crises,  leverage  effects  of  volunteering  and  commitment  by  and  capacity 
building of civil society organisations). Respondents to the public consultation conducted 
in the framework of the mid-term evaluation overwhelmingly agree that FEAD makes a 
difference for the lives of the most deprived (93%), reaching the intended target groups, 
especially  children  at  risk  of  poverty  (79%).  The  EU  added  value  was  assessed  and 
confirmed  notably  through  the  open  public  consultation  and  the  focus  groups  and  case 
studies, for instance the Fund’s leverage effect and increase in partners’ capacity (please 
see Annex 2 and 3). 

2.1.1.3 EGF 

The EGF expresses the European Union solidarity by supporting people made redundant 
in the course of very large scale restructuring events (more than 500 displaced workers) 
with  the  aim  of  helping  those  workers  reintegrate  into  the  job  market  as  quickly  as 
possible.  The  Fund  currently  only  offers  assistance  in  the  aftermath  of  restructuring 
events which have been caused by major structural changes in world trade patterns due to 
globalisation or the financial and economic crisis. The EGF has been designed to tackle 
the  employment  and  social  challenges  of  structural  change,  helping  displaced  workers 
which are the beneficiaries of EGF assistance. 

Given  its  purpose,  which  is  to  provide  quick  support  in  situations  of  urgency  and 
unexpected circumstances, the EGF is one of the flexible and special instruments outside 
the budgetary ceilings of the MFF. The EGF thus does not have an annual budget that it 
is expected to spend, but additional funding up to a pre-defined maximum annual ceiling 
that may be mobilised if needed. The maximum annual amount during 2014-2020 is set 
at  EUR  150  million  (in  2011  prices).  EGF  assistance  is  provided  through  shared 
management.  

Since the EGF’s start, the number of cases has been highly cyclical, responding with an 
evident delay to economic developments. In 2007-2013, 112 EGF cases targeted 105.000 
beneficiaries  with  a  total  amount  of  EUR  479  million.  Since  2014  until today  43 cases 
have  been  approved  targeting  42.000  beneficiaries  with  a  total  amount  of  EUR  132 
million. 

In  addition  to  the  current  average  re-employment  rate  of  65%  there  is  empirical 
evidence 39  of  positive  indirect  effects  of  the  EGF,  as  each  additional  job  created 
influences positively other sectors. The dimension of these indirect impacts varies across 
case studies, ranging from a minimum of 20% up to 50% of the total jobs generated. 

If the EGF invested comparable amounts in the post-2020 period, it would be expected to 
deliver broadly similar results and have similar direct and indirect impacts. It should be 

39 On-going study with JRC.  

12 

 
 
 
                                                                 
noted, however, that the incidence of very large-scale restructuring cases (involving more 
than 500 redundancies) has been considerably less over the past decade.40 

Nowadays'  globalised  world  is  characterised  by  an  ever  increasing  interconnectedness 
and interdependence of world markets. Paradoxically, due to these most recent trends in 
globalisation41, an unchanged EGF would probably see fewer applications and uptake. 

2.1.1.4 EaSI 

The  EaSI  is  a  funding  instrument  designed  to  promote  a  high  level  of  quality  and 
sustainable employment, guaranteeing adequate and decent social protection, combating 
social  exclusion  and  poverty,  and  improving  working  conditions. 42  Its  activities  are 
mainly  implemented  under direct management through calls for proposals and  calls for 
tenders. The EaSI actions related to microfinance and social entrepreneurship (including 
inter  alia  the  EaSI  Guarantee  Instrument  and  the  EaSI  Capacity  Building  Investments 
Window)  are  implemented  by  the  Commission  indirectly  by  entrusting  budget 
implementation tasks to European Investment Fund (EIF).43  

The  EaSI  financial  envelope  2014-2020  amounts  to  EUR  919  million.  The  EaSI 
Regulation specifies an indicative budget allocation per axis and indicative breakdowns 
of allocations between the sections within each axis.44  

If the programme's budget is not increased in the future, the programme baseline would 
provide the same results as today. For example, in seven years, EaSI would award around 
400  projects  under  the  various  thematic  calls  for  proposals  of  the  three  axes,  support 
capacity  building  for  20  EU-level  NGO  networks  per  year  and  fund  analytical  outputs 
allowing cross country comparisons. The EURES job mobility portal would continue to 
attract 0.7 million visitors a month and to post around 1 million vacancies per year, while 
around 3.5 % of people contacting EURES would find a job as a direct result. However, 
it should be noted that the current budget does not reflect the ambition and wide thematic 
scope of EaSI.  

2.1.2.   Main challenges and problems 

2.1.2.1  

Employment, education, skills and social challenges  

40 Among  those  cases  registered  by  Eurofound's  European  Restructuring  Monitor,  the  proportion  of  such  cases  has 
fallen from 20-25 % (2007-2009) to around 15 % currently. Despite the cyclical character of restructuring events, the 
decreasing  proportion  of  large-scale  event  seems  to  be  a  trend.  This  does  not  mean  that  restructuring  is  a  vanishing 
phenomenon, but that the relative proportion of very large scale cases is decreasing. It should also be noted that very 
large enterprises are far less common in some Member States than others. This does not necessarily mean, however, 
that these Member States are less affected by restructuring, as restructuring events in smaller enterprises can also have 
economically significant impacts on the regions concerned, especially in less densely populated regions. 
41 Please see EGF mid-term evaluation (COM(2018)297 final,16.5.2018 and SWD(2018)192 final, 16.5.2018) for an 
extensive analysis of recent trends in globalisation. 
42 EaSI is composed of three axes: PROGRESS, EURES and the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis. 
43 http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/microfinance/easi/easi-guarantee-instrument/index.htm 
44 The Commission has until the end of the programme implementation to reach the minimum amounts. Where socio-
economic developments or findings in the mid-term evaluation so require, the Regulation allows 5-10 % re-allocation 
of  funds  between  axes and  individual  thematic  sections.  However, the first two years of implementation  showed  the 
rigidity  of  the  current  EaSI  framework  in  terms  of  the  proportion  of  funding  allocated  to  each  axis  and  thematic 
section. This also affects the planning of activities for emerging (e.g. refugee crisis) and ad hoc needs.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
The  EU  is  now  on  a  growth  path  after  an  economic  and  social crisis that  has  left  deep 
scars  on  the  economic  and  social  fabric.  To  ensure  the  sustainability  of  growth  and  to 
remain  competitive,  European  societies  need  to  anticipate  labour  market  changes  and 
people  have  to  gain  the  right  skills  for  today’s  and  tomorrow’s  job  market.  Constantly 
evolving  technology,  productivity  and  globalisation  paradigms  require  constant 
upskilling  and  reskilling  of  the  workforce  to  face  the  new  digital  and  automation 
challenges  and  the  changes  in  skills  requirements  due  to  the  low-carbon  and  climate 
resilient  transition. 45  This  will  trigger  fundamental  transformation  across  the  entire 
economy  and  a  wide  range  of  sectors.  For  example,  the  number  of  jobs  in  the 
environmental  goods  and  services  sector  in  the  EU  increased  by  around  50%  between 
2000 and 2014.46  

The  current  and  future  trends  related  to  demography,  migration,  technological  change, 
work organisation and labour market will have a tremendous impact on  education  and 
training  systems  and  skills  needs.  The  number  of  entrants  in  initial  education  and 
training is already on the decrease. This decrease could be balanced, at least in the short 
to  mid-  term,  by  more  investments  into  retaining  children  in  school  and  up-  and  re-
skilling  of  adult  working  population  in  order  to  respond  to  the  rapidly  evolving  skills 
requirements, also linked to new technologies.  For instance, it is considered that across 
the OECD countries almost 14 % of existing jobs are highly automatable (i.e., probability 
of automation of over 70 %) and 60 % of jobs face a moderate level of automation.47 In 
addition, the education and training systems face a challenge of ensuring inclusion of an 
increasingly  heterogeneous  group  of  learners  into  society  and  the  labour  market, 
including low-skilled adults (also in the context of increased migration flows). However, 
access  to  quality  education,  training  and  life-long  learning  opportunities across the 
EU  is  still  unequal.  Today,  70  million  Europeans  lack  adequate  reading  and  writing 
skills, and even more have poor numeracy and digital skills, which puts them at risk of 
unemployment, poverty and social exclusion and also severely limits the competitiveness 
of  the  EU  economy  as  a  whole.  Less  developed  areas  require  specific  attention  with 
regard to human capital and skills development.48  

The  latest  employment  and  social  trends  are  encouraging49:  a  record  number  of  people 
(236  million)  are  now  in  employment,  about  10  million  jobs  have  been  created  since 
2013 and labour market participation has been increasing steadily, reaching 73% in 2016. 
However,  disparities  and  divergence  across  Member  States  remain  significant  with 
unemployment rates and indicators pointing to substantial slack in some labour markets 
while tightening is evident in others. Unemployment (18 million people in January 2018) 
and long-term unemployment remain among the most important challenges and, despite 
improvements, too many young people still struggle to find a (quality) job.50 Although it 
has decreased – from a peak of 24% in January 2013 to 15.6% in March 2018 – the youth 

45 See  the  Commission's  white  paper  on  The  future  of  Europe,  reflection  paper  on  Harnessing  Globalisation  and 
reflection paper on The social dimension of Europe. 
46 Employment Statistics on the Environmental Goods and Services Sector, Eurostat 
47 Nedelkoska,  L.  and  G.  Quintini  (2018),  “Automation,  skills  use  and  training”,  OECD  Social,  Employment  and 
Migration Working Papers, No. 202, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/2e2f4eea-en 
48 Communication  Strengthening  Innovation  in  Europe's  Regions:  Strategies  for  resilient,  inclusive  and  sustainable 

growth, COM(2017)376 

49 Employment and social developments in Europe (ESDE), European Commission (June 2017) 
50 Ibid. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
unemployment rate is still high in the EU -  more than double the overall unemployment 
rate (15.6% compared with 7.1% in March 2018). The NEET rate (age group 15-29) is 
also still very high, at 13.4% in 2017. 

While the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion fell by 4.8 million 
between  2012  and  2015,51 the  fact  that  118  million  people  were  still  at  risk  in  2016 
means  that  social  inequalities  remain  an  important  concern.  Based  on  latest  Eurostat 
figures  nearly  half  of  the  unemployed  people  aged  16-64  were  at  risk  of  poverty  after 
social transfers. In other words, the risk of monetary poverty was five times greater for 
the  unemployed  than  for  those  in  employment.52 Income  inequality  started  to  decline 
slowly  in  2016,  having  risen  in  the  aftermath  of  the  crisis.  This  reflects  improved 
economic  and  labour  market  conditions.  Nonetheless,  there  are  considerable  variations 
across countries: poverty and social exclusion are growing in some areas, such as EU15 
cities while in EU13 34% of rural population is at risk of poverty (higher in rural areas 
than in urban areas). The risk of poverty and social exclusion also affects certain minority 
groups disproportionately.53 

Migrants are one of the groups disproportionately affected. The larger number of third-
country  nationals  migrating  to  the  EU  since  2014,  in  particular  refugees  (1.7  million 
third-country nationals have been granted international or subsidiary protection between 
2014 and 2017), and the very unfavourable outcomes of third-country nationals in terms 
of  employment  compared  with  EU  citizens  means  that  more  investment  in  migrant 
integration  is  needed.54 In  addition,  long-term  demographic  trends  (less  working-age 
population,  more  senior  workers  and  changing  family  structures)  profoundly  affect 
societies and the world of work by limiting the resources available for distribution across 
generations.55 This  requires  tailor  made  labour  market  integration  policies  addressing  a 
diversified  workforce, 
to  promote  gender  equality,  equal 
opportunities and combat discrimination. Health systems also need to adapt  to be more 
accessible for all, more effective and resilient in time of demographical challenge. High 
quality  and  inclusive  health  systems  are  important  to  reduce  socio-economic  gaps 
between  Member  States,  to  lead  to  upward  economic  convergence  and  to  ensure  a 
healthy workforce in an ageing Europe. 

including  measures 

Territorial  specificities  are  also  a  key  challenge  for  the  future.56 The  Seventh  Cohesion 
report underlines the challenges faced by certain territories, such as rural areas.57 As an 
example GDP per head in rural areas in EU15 is 72 % of urban ones and only 42 % in 
case of EU13. The outermost regions58 also face a number of issues:  GDP per capita is 
much  lower  than  the  EU  average,  unemployment  is  critically  high,  particularly  in  the 
young population (with a rate above 40% in all outermost regions). There is also a high 
dependence on sectors such as public administration or social services. In its strategy for 

51 Ibid. 
52 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20180226-1 
53 Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, European Commission (2017) 
54 Ibid (Chapter 2 Social Cohesion, p.54-94). 
55 Ibid 
56 Respondents to the open public consultation on ‘EU funds in the area of Cohesion’ ranked as ‘rather important’ or 
‘very important’ the policy areas: ‘reduce regional disparities’ (94%), ‘reduce unemployment, promote quality jobs and 
labour mobility’ (92%) and ‘promote social inclusion and combat poverty (91%)’. 
57 Article 174 TFEU targets rural areas.  
58 Article  349  TFEU  acknowledges  the  special  characteristics  of  the  outermost  regions  and  affords  them  a  special 
status. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
the  outermost  regions  (October  201759),  the  Commission  committed  to support  people 
from  these  regions  to  foster  their  employability  and  to  adapt  their  skills  to  new 
production  systems  and  technologies  through  the  ESI  Funds.  This  also  shows  that  the 
quality of  governance varies substantially in  Europe, resulting in  unbalanced efforts  to 
reform employment, education and training and social systems.60  

2.1.2.2 Cross-cutting MFF and fund-specific challenges 

Despite  their  proven  EU  added  value  (see  section  3),  evaluations  and  stakeholder 
consultations  have  identified  a  number  of  challenges  faced  by  EU  funds  investing  in 
people. These challenges can mostly be grouped along the cross-cutting objectives of the 
new  MFF 
focus  on  performance,  and 
simplification), as presented below. 

(coherence  and  synergies, 

flexibility, 

2.1.2.2.1 Limited interaction and alignment between funds  
Studies 61  highlight  a  diversity  of  rules  and  limited  synergies  between  EU  funds 
investing in human capital development, weakening their potential impact, visibility and 
accessibility to beneficiaries and citizens.  

While the funds are designed to complement each other, their substantial diversity leads 
to inefficiencies. The divergent rules and requirements explain this limited coherence and 
lack of coordination between similar interventions supported by different funds (national 
authorities  designing  and  managing  programmes  and  projects  under  the  various  funds 
often operate in silos). Also, overlaps have been identified as regards target groups and 
specific actions. 

In theory, the FEAD and ESF complement each other. Programmes under FEAD provide 
support for the most vulnerable with material aid (e.g. food, clothing). Action under the 
ESF  focuses  on  more  complex  social  support  and  professional  activation,  and  can 
represent  the  next  step  into  bringing  a  sustainable  end  to  poverty.62 However,  in  the 
current  regulatory  context  FEAD  and  ESF  projects  are  often  managed  separately  and 
based  on  different  project requirements (while in  theory they  could  be  managed  by  the 
same  authority).  As  a  result,  interventions  for  each  fund  are  also  planned  separately, 
sometimes  in  the  absence  of  a  strategic  policy  approach.  According  to  FEAD  project 
managers,  this  sometimes  stands  in  the  way  of  a  seamless  transition  by  vulnerable 
participants from FEAD to ESF projects.63 The link between material assistance support 
(supported  by  FEAD)  and  comprehensive  social  support  and  professional  activation 
(supported by ESF) is under-utilised as a result.64 This is especially an issue for Member 
States  in  which  the  FEAD  programme  size  is  so  marginal  that  it  restricts  programme 

59 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/communications/2017/un-partenariat-privilegie-
renouvele-et-renforce-avec-les-regions-ultraperipheriques 
60 Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, European Commission (2017) 
61  See  DG  EMPL's  studies  (to  be  published):  on  the  adequacy  of  the  ESF’s  design  to  support  human  capital 
development policies and to support the work on the impact assessment of investments in human capital development 
62 European  Union  (2015)  FEAD:  breaking  the  vicious  circle  of  poverty  and  deprivation,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union (Luxemburg 2015) 
63 From the third meeting of the FEAD network (7 November 2016). 
64 One exception is a recent Italian call for proposals for 2016-2019 which combines ESF and FEAD funding in joint 
projects.  However,  such  joint  projects  are  difficult  to  set  up  within  the  current  funding  architecture  and  depend  on 
arrangements at national level. Stakeholders explain that the difference in the requirements for projects, monitoring on 
and evaluation are the reason that truly collaborative projects are scarce.  

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
coverage.  In  all  network  meetings  in  2016  FEAD  stakeholders  underlined  the  need  for 
better coordination between FEAD and ESF projects, as needs in the FEAD context are 
not  always  addressed  by  relevant  programmes  (e.g.  under  the  ESF),  particularly  when 
different authorities are responsible for managing the funds.65  

The  YEI  and  ESF  have  a  lot  in  common  when  it  comes  to  implementation:  the  same 
managing authorities (MAs) are responsible, mainstream ESF and YEI projects are often 
combined  in  a  single  programme  and  overall,  despite  some  additional  requirements  for 
the  YEI,  the  same  rules  apply.66   Nevertheless,  while  there  are  no  signs  of  problematic 
overlaps 67,  certain  specific  features  of  the  YEI’s  scope  and  implementation  entail  a 
significant  administrative  burden.  As  regards  scope,  MAs  and  beneficiaries  find  that 
limiting YEI support to interventions directly for people (while the ESF can also support 
structures)  is  overly  restrictive.  On  implementation,  the  main  issues  concern  the 
requirement  to  programme  specific  YEI  allocations  by identifying  ESF matching  funds 
(originating from different categories of region) which results in a complex exercise for 
authorities. The definition of the YEI target group at national level – exclusively NEETs 
who  reside  in  the  eligible  regions  –  has  also  posed  difficulties  for  the  managing 
authorities. 

As  regards  interaction  between  the ESF  and  EaSI,  although  the  regulations  provide  for 
the upscaling of successfully tested social innovations, there is to date no evidence of this 
happening in practice. The mid-term evaluation of the EaSI programme indicated that its 
impact is partially hampered by the lack of specific mechanisms to encourage effective 
cooperation  with  the  ESF.  Moreover,  the  complexity  of  the  ESF  management  and 
delivery system and the lack of a dedicated budget discourage potential candidates from 
applying  to  upscale  successful  ‘social  innovations’  under  ESF.  This  results  in  very 
limited  use  of  the  ESF  to  apply  and  upscale  the  results  of  the  social  experimentation 
carried  out  under  EaSI. 68  In  addition,  the  Microfinance/social  entrepreneurship  axis 
shows some limited complementarities with ESF actions.69 

In  case  of  economic  restructuring,  it  is  the  EGF’s  role  to  offer  reactive  assistance  to 
workers displaced in unexpected larger scale restructuring events that have a significant 
impact  on  the  local  economy.  This  assistance  shall  complement  the  more  preventive 
assistance offered by the ESF. Despite design differences between the EGF and the ESF, 
there is evidence that the latter has been sometimes used for EGF-type measures. This is 
because  of  the  long  procedures  for  mobilising  the  EGF,  especially  in  the  2007-2013 
funding  period,  and  due  to  the  ESF’s  more  favourable  co-financing  rates  in  less 
developed regions, which created unintended competition between the funds.70 There is 
thus scope for better aligning the EGF and the ESF. Furthermore, it was not possible to 
observe an integrated approach to the use of the two funds in major restructuring events. 

65 Study  on  the  adequacy  of  the  ESF’s  design  to  support  human  capital  development  policies,  DG  EMPL  (to  be 
published). 
66 For  YEI  interventions,  MAs  are  required  to  report  on  additional  common  indicators  in  Annex  II  to  the  ESF 
Regulation. However, they should also report on the ‘regular’ ESF common indicators in Annex I.  
67  The  Youth  Guarantee  and  Youth  Employment  Initiative  three  years  on,  Commission  staff  working  document 
(SWD(2016)323 final).  
68 The ongoing ESF thematic study on social innovation confirms the limited uptake 
69 For  instance,  as  regards  the  EaSI  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis,  the  EU-level  support  aims  to  foster 
systemic developments in a nascent social investment market, which goes beyond the labour market integration goals 
pursued by the ESF. 
70 European Court of Auditors (2013), Special report no 7: Has the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund delivered 
EU added value in reintegrating redundant workers?, p. 13. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                                 
In  such  contexts,  Member  States  do  not  currently  design  strategic  human  capital 
investment packages into which they could integrate EGF and other types of national or 
European funding, thus missing out on potential synergy effects. 

Lastly,  despite  the  provisions  for  a  common  strategic  framework  for  2014-2020  in  the 
Common Provisions Regulation which called for more synergies between ESI Funds and 
other EU funds (e.g. between the ESF and Erasmus+)71, these have been very limited to 
date and practical cooperation between funds investing in people is very sporadic.72  

2.1.2.2.2  Funding  framework  not  fully  aligned  with  EU  policy  priorities  and/or 
social policy needs; rigidities in implementation 

Current  programming  under  the  ESF  has  already  shown  a  high  degree  of  policy 
alignment, in particular as regards priorities set in the country specific recommendations 
(CSRs)  under  the  European  Semester  process,  including  through  the  system  of  ex-ante 
conditionalities which facilitated efficient investments. It has also proven to be flexible in 
adjusting  to  emergency  situations  such  as  the  economic  and  financial  crisis  and  the 
migration  crisis.73 However,  the  economic  governance  cycle  and  new  EU  level  policy 
initiatives are not always fully aligned with the funding frameworks especially as regards 
the ESF.  

While  the  funds  have  been  closely  aligned  with  policy  priorities  in  the  2014-2020 
programming  period,  a  recent  study74 on  the  mapping  of  CSRs  highlights  that  there  is 
scope for closer alignment between the Semester process and ESI Funds implementation 
on the ground. For instance, CSRs are often formulated broadly, without implementation 
targets  and  milestones  and  the  contribution  of  the  ESI  Funds  through  the  operational 
programmes  (OPs)  is  not  systematically  monitored.  In  addition,  while  ex-ante 
conditionalities  have  proven  to  be  an  efficient  way  of  supporting  policy  reforms  at  the 
beginning  of  the  programming  period, 75 they  have  not  always  been  fully  taken  into 
account in programme implementation (e.g. in selection criteria and calls for proposals).  

Various rules applying to the funds’ design limit their ability to respond most effectively 
to employment, educational and social needs. The allocation of funding envelopes for the 
ESF  is  not  directly  linked  to  the  policies  it  supports,  but  based  mainly  on  the  regional 
GDP methodology for structural funds. As a result, the ESF lacks sufficient resources to 
address specific target groups in higher-income regions and is restricted in the support it 
can  give  to  metropolitan  hubs  in  order  to  develop  lower  income  regions.  Also,  strict 
territorial  rules  on  implementation  limit  the  funds’  ability  to  foster  mobility,  as 

71 For  example,  Member  States  were  encouraged  to  'use  ESI  funds  to  mainstream  tools  and  methods  developed  and 
tested successfully under Erasmus+ in order to maximise the social and economic impact of investment in people and, 
inter alia give impetus to youth initiatives and citizens actions'. 
72 Study on the coordination and harmonisation of ESI funds and other EU instruments, DG REGIO (to be published) 
73 Ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013 ESF Programmes, Commission staff working document (SWD(2016)452 final, 
12.12.2016). 
74 Study on the support of ESI funds to the implementation of the Country Specific Recommendations and to structural 
reforms in Member States, European Commission (2018) – under finalisation. 
75  Study  on  ex-ante  conditionalities  in  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESI  funds),  European 
Commission  (2017):  http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/studies/2017/the-value-added-of-
ex-ante-conditionalities-in-the-european-structural-and-investment-funds-esi-funds 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
programmes cannot (as a rule) support intervention beyond the borders of the region in 
question.76  

As  regards  flexibility,  the  structure  of  the  ESF  does  not  allow  programmes  to  adjust 
swiftly  to  changing  priorities.  The  long-term  nature  of  funding,  and  the  need  to  set 
intervention  targets  and  content  in  advance  mean  that  it  is  difficult  to  revise  these 
subsequently,  where  necessary.  In  addition,  long  and  heavy  adoption  and  amendment 
procedures make programmes relatively rigid. 

Concerning transnational cooperation under the ESF, its current design is not conducive 
to  the  general  dissemination  and  mainstreaming  of  successful  policy  interventions  or 
work  on  common  issues.  In  2014-2020,  Member  States  have  made  limited  use  of  the 
transnational  approach  option,  despite  the  provision  by  the  Commission  of  an 
implementation framework in the form of a transnational platform supported by the EC’s 
technical  assistance  budget. 77 This  fact  has  been  criticised  by  stakeholders  as  a  lost 
opportunity for transferring solutions across borders. Underlying drivers include a lack of 
coordination in terms of common themes and the time needed to launch coordinated calls 
for  projects.  Effective  learning  requires  indeed  evidence-based  understanding  of  what 
works  and  how,  what  does  not  work  and  why,  and  of  the  enabling  and  impeding 
conditions and national specificities. This requires professional facilitators and financial 
resources to validate the transferability potential and adapting the beneficial solution to 
other  regional  or  sectoral  contexts.  This  role  cannot  easily  be  pursued  at  the  national 
level, as the evidence has largely demonstrated. 

Despite  important  improvements  in  the  legislative  framework  for  the  2014-2020  ESI 
funds78 as regards the partnership principle, mobilising partners across a broad range of 
countries and programmes is still a challenge, especially in the implementation phase.79 
The  massive  changes  in  society  that  lie  ahead  are  expected  to  strengthen  the  need  for 
partnership in order to build ownership and acceptance of reforms on the ground.  

In  FEAD,  restrictions  as  to  the  types  of  intervention  that  can  be  financed  reduce  the 
sustainability of food aid and material support, in particular due to the lack of resources 
to support accompanying measures in order to achieve long-term poverty alleviation and 
social inclusion.80  

The current funding structure for the EaSI - with relatively rigid allocation between and 
within  axes  –  makes  it  difficult  to  adjust  swiftly  and  efficiently  to  emerging  priorities. 
Although this issue was considered in the context of the ‘Omnibus’ Regulation81, greater 
flexibility  would  ensure  more  room  for  manoeuvre  in  the  transfer  of  budgets  between 
axes where needed.  

76 Study on the assessment of the adequacy of the ESF to support human capital development policies, DG EMPL (to 
be published) 
77 Ibid 
78 Article 5 of the Common Provision Regulation requires each ESI fund programme to organise a partnership at all 
programming  stages  and  at  all  levels    A  European  code  of  conduct  on  partnership  has  been  produced  to  support 
Member States in ensuring that all partners are involved at all stages in the implementation of partnership agreements 
and programmes 
79 Study  on  the  implementation  of  the  partnership  principle  and  multi-level  governance  during  the  2014-2020  ESI 
funds, European Commission (July 2016) 
80 FEAD mid-term evaluation (interim report), VC/2016/0664. 
81 ‘Omnibus’ Regulation, status March 2018: agreed by the co-legislators but still undergoing revision by the lawyer-
linguists, planned adoption June 2018 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
The EGF eligibility criteria of funding require that it be used in response to redundancies 
due to globalisation or the financial and economic crisis.  As a result the EGF currently 
does not cover other major economic developments. Workers made redundant for other 
reasons, e.g. automation or robotisation, face very similar challenges but cannot currently 
benefit  from  support.82 Furthermore,  in  a  globalised  world,  all  these  developments  go 
hand  in  hand  and  reinforce  each  other,  so  that  it  is  increasingly  hard  and  artificial  to 
single out a specific reason that triggered a restructuring event.  

2.1.2.2.3 Complex requirements and high costs in management and delivery   

The  conclusions  of  the  high-level  group  on  simplification 83  and  relevant  studies 84 
acknowledge  the  progress  made  in  terms  of  simplifying  the  ESF.  Nevertheless  ESF 
management and delivery remain complex for a number of reasons:  

  different  rules  with  funds  addressing  the  same  policy  objectives,  making  it 

difficult to establish synergies; 

 

  detailed and complex regulations and guidelines; 
  complex  programming  arrangements  –  excessively  detailed  partnership 
agreements and programmes85 resulting in burdensome adoption and amendment 
processes and complex  management of multi-fund programmes;86 
the application of strict territorial rules to the ESF (e.g. division by categories of 
NUTS2 regions and the associated funding allocation and implementation rules); 
  disproportionate regulatory and audit arrangements (e.g. well-functioning systems 
are  subject  to  the  same  management  and  control  systems  as  other  less  effective  
systems and 'double checks'); 
requirements  linked  to  ex-ante  conditionalities,  including  numerous  assessment 
criteria  and  duplication  of  their  assessment  in  the  partnership  agreement  and 
programmes; 
institutional  arrangements  -  cumbersome  process  for  the  designation  of  the 
authorities in particular due to the required IT structures; 

 

 

  burdensome  monitoring  due  to  complex  data-collection  requirements  and  the 
limited use of administrative registers for the collection of participants' data; and 
the  administrative  burden  of  a  system  that  relies  mainly  on  real  costs,  and  the 
associated documentation and archiving requirements. 

 

These  views  were  confirmed  also  by  the  public  consultation:  complex  procedures  and 
heavy  audit  and  control  requirements  were  seen  as  the  most  important  obstacles  that 
prevented the current programmes/funds from successfully achieving their objectives. 

82 This is particularly relevant for Member States that accessed recently on which the impact of globalisation has not 
been  so  negative–  rather,  they  have  attracted  jobs  from  elsewhere.  Very  few  restructuring  events  in  these  Member 
States have fallen within the scope of the EGF in 2014-2020. 
83 High Level Group on monitoring simplification for beneficiaries of the ESI funds (set up by the Commission in July 
2015) 
84 Study on the use of new provisions on simplification during the early implementation phase of ESI funds, European 
Commission  (September  2017);  study  on  the  assessment  of  the  adequacy  of  the  ESF  to  support  human  capital 
development policies, DG EMPL (to be published).  
85 For 2014-2020 a total of 187 OPS have been set up for the ESF. 
86 In particular, programmes that combine ESF funding with the ERDF were slower to get off the ground, in particular 
as  regards  the  ESF  component:  after  the  first  three  years,  70  ESF/ERDF  programmes  report  average  eligible 
expenditures of 3%,  while the 78  single  fund ESF  programmes  reported an  average  of  8%  (study  to  the support  the 
impact assessment of human capital investments, DG EMPL (ongoing)). 

20 

 
 
  
                                                                 
In  some  cases,  the  burden  arises  from  the  Member  States'  own  regulations  and 
requirements  (gold-plating).  In  addition,  the  uptake  of  simplification  measures,  such  as 
joint action plans (JAPs) or the many types of voluntary simplified cost option (SCO) has 
been slower than was hoped for, as Member States prefer stability and legal and financial 
certainty.87  

In  combination  with  the  current  ‘n+3’  rule  for de-commitment88,  these  factors  result  in 
delays to the start of programme implementation at the beginning of the funding cycle.  

For  FEAD,  stakeholders  at  all  levels  recognise  that  the  requirements  in  the  basic  EU 
Regulation  are  lighter  than  those  for  other  shared  management  funds  (especially  the 
ESF). They argue that the administrative burden stems mostly from national regulations 
and  requirements,  which  relate,  inter  alia,  to:  recording  data/information  on  operations 
and  end-recipients  for  monitoring  purposes;  bulky  documentation  for  procedures  and 
instructions; and excessive procedures for the certification of end-recipients.  

For EaSI, stakeholders indicate that administrative requirements under direct and indirect 
management are much simpler than under shared management. The challenges in direct 
and indirect management include the need for continuous improvement of the application 
and project selection and implementation procedures. 

As regards EGF, the extensive documentation required to apply for support contributes to 
a long approval process. The most difficult part to document is the reasoned analysis of 
the  cause  that  triggered  the  restructuring  event  (globalisation  or  crisis).  Member  States 
submit  applications  to  the  Commission,  which  makes  a  proposal  to  the  budgetary 
authority  for  the  mobilisation  of  funds.  The  budgetary  authority  then  takes  the  actual 
decision.  In  2007-2013,  the  process  took  around  300  days  on  average. 89  Despite 
substantially shorter timing and stricter deadlines for the Commission and Member States 
in 2014-2020, which brought the average down to 200 days,90 this is still regarded as far 
too  long  for  an  emergency  response  instrument.  The  Reflection  Paper  on  Harnessing 
Globalisation argues that consideration should be given to making the instrument  more 
operational, in order to ensure a faster deployment in response to a major restructuring 
event. 

2.1.2.2.4 Performance and results orientation  

All funds have made considerable steps to improve their focus on (measurable) results. 
Nevertheless, one has yet to see a full paradigm shift in this respect.  

For  the  ESF,  results-orientation  improved  in  2014-2020  through  a  clearer  programme 
intervention logic, including specific objectives and quantified targets with baselines. In 
addition,  systematic  impact  evaluations  have  been  required.  Thanks  to  the  continued 
promotion of counterfactual methods for quantifying net effects, MAs have made  more 
use of such methods, but this could still be increased. Payments are still largely based on 

87 See section 2.1.2.2.4 for more details. 
88 The  ‘n+3’  rule  means  that  payment  claims  by  Member  Stats  should  be  submitted  in  the  3  years  following  the 
budgetary commitment.  
89 Ex-post evaluation of EGF 2007-2013, European Commission (2015). 
90 SWD on EGF mid-term evaluation (SWD(2018)192 final, 16.5.2018) 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
financial  inputs/costs  rather  than  on  results,  as  uptake  of  SCOs  based  on  results91 has 
been  slow.  Programme  performance  is  still  principally  assessed  on  the  basis  of 
absorption of funds, and only secondarily on the basis of contribution to objectives and 
results  achieved.  This  ‘input  orientation’  is  the  direct  consequence  of  having  to  meet 
financial implementation target, which remains a precondition for the release of allocated 
budgets to the performance reserve. The regulatory framework has led MAs to prioritise 
absorption  and  the  approval  of  projects  over  achieving  the  best  possible  results  in 
addressing European priorities.92 This aspect has also been visible in the context of YEI 
implementation  whereby  the  frontloading  of  funding  and  the  political  imperative  to 
absorb  YEI  funding  fast  has  often  led  to  prioritising  the  easy-to-reach  NEETs  over 
groups requiring more tailored policy interventions.93 
The  JAP  approach  was  introduced  for  the  2014-202094 period.  JAPs  enable  Member 
States to implement parts of one or more programmes using a results-oriented approach 
with a predefined goal. Focus on results is ensured through a coherent intervention logic 
and  the  reimbursement  of  expenditure  through  SCOs  only  when  the  defined  output  or 
result  indicators  are  achieved.  However,  Member  States  and  regions  have  in  general 
chosen  not  to  implement  JAPs.95 The  reasons  for  low  uptake  include:  concerns  over 
introducing a new layer of programming; risk aversion; an overly complicated adoption 
procedure;  the  difficulty  of  determining  output  and  results  indicators  to  which  to  link 
disbursements based on unit costs or lump sums; and the fact that Member States see the 
option  of  using  Article  14(1)  of  the  ESF  Regulation 96  as  more  efficient  for  setting 
simplified costs linked to a single operation.   

For FEAD, proportionate monitoring and evaluation have been put in place in line with 
the requirement to respect the dignity of the most deprived. For the food support / basic 
material assistance strand this has resulted in the absence of fixed baselines and targets in 
the programme. For this strand, it seems that some common output indicators, notably on 
the  type  of  food,  are  not  relevant  for  the  budget  authorities.  The  potential  of  different 
types of support to address specific target groups depends on: the thorough identification 
of 
the 
cooperation/networking between stakeholders involved in the distribution and delivery of 
assistance.  The  intangible  results  of  FEAD  (improved  cooperation,  partnership  and 
networking, empowerment, awareness-raising, capacity building) are also important and 
highly valued by programme stakeholders.  

local  delivery  organisations;  and 

the  group's  needs; 

the  capacity  of 

For EaSI, a comprehensive performance framework has been successfully set up at EU 
level,  with  regular  monitoring  of  the  programme  implementation  and  evaluations.  The 
monitoring  system  consists  of  a logical  framework  explaining  how  EaSI  is  expected  to 

91 Based  on  Article  14(1)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 1304/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 
December 2013 on the European Social Fund (OJ L 346, 20.12.2013, p.470). 
92 Study to support the work on the impact assessment of human capital investments, DG EMPL (ongoing). 
93 This  has  been  observed,  inter  alia,  by  the  ECA  in  the  context  of  its  Special  Report  5/2017  on  youth  employment 
policies  and  the  implementation  of  YEI  which  analysed  the  first  phase  of  YEI  implementation  in  several  eligible 
Member States. https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41096  
94 Chapter 3 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
laying  down  common  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund,  the 
Cohesion  Fund,  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries 
Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.320) 
95 With the exception of Poland, which submitted a proposal for a pilot JAP in January 2018.  
96 The  Commission  was  empowered  to  adopt  unit  costs  or  lump  sums  with  when  reimbursing  ESF  expenditure  to 
Member States.  

22 

 
 
                                                                 
achieve  results  and  impacts  by  laying  out  in  detail  the  whole  process  from  inputs  to 
outputs, and outcomes. It also involves a set of key performance indicators, a system for 
gathering  and  storing  information  and  a  methodology  for  analysing  and  disseminating 
information about EaSI-funded projects and organisations. Provisions for the programme 
mid-term evaluation and ex-post evaluation are also planned in the EaSI Regulation. 

For the EGF, the current monitoring and evaluation arrangements are basic. In the final 
report,  Member  States  have  to  state  the  type  of  action  and  main  outcomes,  the 
characteristics  of  the  targeted  beneficiaries  and  their  employment  status.  There  are  no 
common indicators to measure output and results. Similarly, no targets are set at the time 
of the application. Therefore performance cannot be assessed against planned outcomes. 

2.2 Objectives of the programmes under the next MFF 

2.2.1 Policy / general objective (for all funds) 
In  light  of  the  challenges  outlined  above,  the  policy  objective97 of  the  proposal  is  to 
contribute  to  a  more  Social  Europe,  implementing  the  European  Pillar  of  Social 
Rights.98 The initiative therefore makes the link between the missions of the ESF+ and 
the clusters and principles of the Pillar by contributing to:  equal opportunities and access 
to the labour market (including quality and inclusive education and training systems), fair 
working  conditions  and  social  protection  and  inclusion.  It  will  also  contribute  to  the 
employment  guidelines  and  to  the  overall  objective  of  smart,  inclusive  and  sustainable 
growth  beyond  2020  (UN’s  sustainable  development  goals)99 and  upward  convergence. 
The initiative will thereby contribute to improving employment opportunities, raising the 
standard  of  living  and  increasing  labour  mobility  and  economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion  as set out  in  the Treaty  on the Functioning  of the European Union (TFEU)100 
and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Finally, the initiative aims at enabling actions 
that  are  relevant,  efficient,  effective  and  coherent  and  brings  maximum  added  value  in 
delivering the objective of a more Social Europe.  

2.2.2 Specific objectives  

The above policy objective is translated into specific objectives, including by means of 
structural reforms and administrative capacity building. These objectives are based on the 
challenges identified in section 2.1.2:  

1.  investing  in  education,  training  and  lifelong  learning:  enhancing  equal 
access to all levels of high quality and inclusive education and training systems, 
tackling early school leaving, increasing educational attainment and skills levels, 
facilitating transitions from education and training to work in particular through 
vocational  education  and  training  (VET)  and  flexible  up-  and  re-skilling 
opportunities.  It  also  includes  increasing  the  labour  market  relevance  of 
education,  training  and  lifelong  learning  through  anticipation  of  skills  needs, 

97 The terminology ‘policy objective’ is based on the current wording agreed in the framework of the future Common 
Provisions Regulation and corresponds to a general objective. 
98

 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/deeper-and-fairer-economic-and-monetary-union/european-pillar-social-

rights_en 
99 http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ 
100 Articles 162 and 174 TFEU 

23 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                                 
work-based  learning,  transparency  and  recognition  of  qualifications,  formal  and 
non-formal learning and investments in basic skills and in particular basic digital 
skills. 

2. enhancing the effectiveness of labour markets and promoting equal access 
to  quality  employment,  in  line  with  the  employment  guidelines  of  the  EU:  in 
particular  by  improving  access  to  employment  and  labour  mobility  and  active 
labour  market  measures,  ensuring  fair  working  conditions,  modernising  labour 
market  institutions  including  support  for  public  employment  services  (PES), 
introducing  new  forms  of  work,    improving  work-life  balance  and  reducing 
gender  gaps  in  employment,  addressing  health  risks  including  those  relating  to 
changing forms of work and helping to increase the capacity of social partners to 
promote social dialogue.   

3.  fostering  social  inclusion  and  tackling  poverty:  this  includes  promoting 
active inclusion and equal opportunities, especially for underrepresented groups, 
ensuring  social  protection  including  through  accessible  and  good  quality  social, 
health  and  care  services  and  systems,  addressing  health  inequalities,  promoting 
the rights of the child,  the social integration of people at risk of, or in, poverty 
and  social  exclusion  and  providing  basic  material  assistance  (including  food)  to 
the  most  deprived.  This  also  involves  supporting  the  long-term  integration  of 
migrants,  inter  alia  through  social  inclusion  measures  and  basic  material 
assistance. 

4.  demonstrating  solidarity  with  displaced  workers  and  self-employed 
persons  whose  activity  has  ceased  in  the  course  of  unexpected  major 
restructuring events with tailor-made support for individuals. 

These  objectives  represent  a  continuity  of  the  current  objectives  of  the  funds  under 
consideration.  The  ESF+,  including  its  directly  managed  strands,  will  address  the 
objectives 1 to 3 which have an anticipatory dimension and a focus on  ex ante support. 
The EGF will address objective 4 (ex post support). All objectives will be addressed in 
the programme structure and priorities (see section 3). 

2.2.3. Cross-cutting MFF and fund-specific objectives 

The  following  cross-cutting  MFF  objectives  will  be  addressed  through  the  delivery 
mechanisms (see section 4): 

  enhancing  coherence  and  synergies  between  complementary  funds  -  the 
initiative  should  develop  more  shared  approaches  to  programming  and 
implementation  so  as  to  pool  available  resources  to  support  integrated 
investments in people and to avoid overlaps. This involves a two-fold approach:  
  streamlining  the  rules  applying  to  European  funds  implemented  in  similar 

 

modes (shared or direct management); and 
increasing synergy, coherence and complementarities between funds investing 
in people; 

  flexibility  and  policy  alignment  –    this  will  involve  making  funds  more 
responsive  and  strengthening  the  link  to  economic  governance  and  EU-level 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
priorities. The funds should be better able to adjust to changing circumstances and 
policy priorities and to provide greater support to policy and system reforms;   

  simplification  of  fund  programming  and  management  thus  reducing  the 

administrative burden for authorities and beneficiaries; and 

  performance-  and  results-orientation  to  improve  effectiveness  and  the  way 

programme results and impacts are captured and assessed.  

3. 

 PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES 

Articles 46, 149, 153, 162 to 166 and 174 to 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European  Union  (TFEU)  form  the  legal  framework  of  the  legal  acts  covered  by  this 
impact  assessment.  Titles  IX  (employment)  and  X  (social  policy)  TFEU  provide  the 
present  and  future  fund's  legal  and  policy  backbone.  The  ESF  is  established  by  Article 
162 of the TFEU. The proposal for the ESF part of the Regulation is based on Article 164 
TFEU.  The  legal  basis  for  the  EU  Health  Programme  is  Article  168  TFEU.  Article 
168(5) is the basis for the part of the regulation on the EU Health Programme. The legal 
bases for EaSI are Article 46(d), Article 149, Article 153(2)(a) and the third paragraph of 
Article 175 TFEU. 

In the areas of social and employment policy, the EU has either shared competence with 
Member States (Article 4 TFEU) or competence to lay down arrangements within which 
they  must  coordinate  their  action  (Article  5  TFEU).  The  reflections  in  this  impact 
assessment will not change the general division of competencies between the EU and the 
Member  States,  or  between  the  Member  States  and  sub-national  administrative  and 
political entities. Funds under shared management are underpinned by, and have a strong 
focus on subsidiarity and proportionality, whereby the Commission delegates strategic 
programming and implementation tasks to the most appropriate level, i.e. Member States 
and regions.  

Funding will concentrate on the priorities where Member State action supported  by the 
funds delivers the most EU added value, in particular:101 

 

implementing  EU  policies  and  priorities  –  while  the  funds  cannot  work  as  an 
automatic  stabiliser,  evidence  shows  that  they  have  added  value  in  funding  active 
labour market measures (added value of ESF spending has been close to 1:3  i.e. one 
euro has triggered close to three euros of social investment at national level)102. There 
is ample evidence that EU policies supported by the ESF (e.g. gender equality) would 
not  have  been  implemented  or  would  have  been  realised  to  a  significantly  lesser 
extent had it not been for EU investment; 

  promoting best practice and cooperation - the ESF and EaSI in particular stimulate 
the  promotion  of  best  practices  in  all  participating  countries103 so  that  EU  citizens 

101 For more details, see Annex 3 
102 Ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013 ESF programmes, Commission staff working document (SWD(2016)452 final, 
12.12.2016) 
103 The EaSI programme is also open to non-EU (EFTA/EEA, candidate and potential candidate countries). Under the 
Overseas Association Decision, the overseas countries and territories (e.g. Greenland) can participate in conferences, 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
 
benefit  from  improved  policy-making  and  implementation  capacity.  Transnational 
cooperation  under  the  ESF  and  the  mutual  learning/peer  reviews  organised  under 
EaSI  allow  participating  countries  to  learn  from  each  other  and  exchange  good 
practice, thus helping them to develop more effective employment and social policies 
and improve the delivery of reforms in the policy fields in question. The EU Health 
programme  supports  the  improvement  of  public  health,  preventing  and  managing 
diseases,  mitigating  sources  of  danger  to  human  health,  including  by  harmonising 
relevant legislation and focuses on improving the health of EU citizens and reducing 
health inequalities, encouraging innovation in health and increasing the sustainability 
of  health  systems  and  defending  the  EU  against  cross-border  health  threats.  These 
activities will be stepped up in future;  

  promoting  EU  values  -  EU  added  value  is  also  about  the promotion  of  EU  values 
and respect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to the Commission 
Communication on the post 2020 MFF104, the respect of EU fundamental values is an 
essential precondition for sound financial management and effective EU funding for 
all  future  MFF  funding  programmes.  Results  from  the  open  public  consultation 
indicate  that  funds  such  as  the  ESF,  FEAD,  EGF  and  EaSI  promote  equality  and 
social justice as key factors for sustainable peace and democracy.  

3.1   The ESF+ 

The  main  reason  for  merging  the  funds  (ESF,  YEI,  FEAD,  EaSI  and  EU  Health 
programme)  is  to  streamline  and  simplify  the  funding  landscape,  to  ensure  synergies 
through  integrated  funding  approaches  in  line  with  the  policies  supported  and  to 
demonstrate  visibly  that  the  Union  invests  in  its  people  (a  Europe  that  empowers). 
Consequently,  the  merging  of  the  Funds  is  also  expected  to  reduce  the  administrative 
burden linked to the management of different funds. The ESF+ is also largely ensuring 
continuity  of  all  well  performing  requirements  as  Member  States  have  invested 
significantly in 2014-2020 to set up new systems.  

The merger is based both on the results of evaluations and on stakeholder consultations. 
In  the  view  of  managing  authorities,  a  broad  integration  of  funds  would  improve  their 
capacities  to  streamline  their  strategic  intervention  across  the  social  policy  scope.  This 
would enhance their flexibility in planning interventions, and facilitate the delivery of the 
principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights. Beneficiaries also confirm that there is 
still untapped potential to strengthen synergies between programmes and projects funded. 

Scope of the ESF+ 

As highlighted in section 2, employment, social, education and training investment needs 
can be very broad.  Accordingly, and in line with the identified objectives, the thematic 
scope of the ESF+ requires to  – as today - remain broad, since it has to be sufficiently 

seminars and meetings). As regards the participation of individuals from other countries in meetings, conferences, peer 
reviews,  etc…  the  current  EaSI  Regulation  provides  (Article  18(4))  that  the  Commission  may  cooperate  with  other 
countries that are not participating in the programme. Representatives of such countries may attend events of mutual 
interest  (e.g.  conferences,  workshops  and  seminars)  that  take  place  participating  countries  and  the  cost  of  their 
attendance may be covered by the EaSI programme. 
104 A new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities 
post-2020 , COM(2018)98 final   

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                              
flexible to respond to evolving country-specific challenges (identified in particular under 
the European Semester). In  view of the principle of subsidiarity, the ESF+ will, in line 
with the relevant principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights, continue: to improve 
access  to  and  the  quality  of  education,  training  and  lifelong  learning;  to  enhance  the 
effectiveness of labour markets and promote equal access to quality employment;  and  to 
further support social inclusion and tackle poverty.   

The  ESF+,  by  integrating  the  current  FEAD,  EaSI,  and  EU  Health  programmes105 will 
also  provide  support  to  the  most  deprived  through  food  and  basic  material  assistance, 
including  accompanying  measures  and  support  social  protection,  health  and  healthcare 
(aggregating the scope of the different funds but not adding new areas). However, in line 
with  the  baseline  scenario  of  budgetary  reduction  following  Brexit,  the  ESF+  will  not 
support  broad  administrative  reforms  in  the  areas  that  are  not  of  its  policy  competence 
(such as for example the judiciary or e-government solutions). As a result, the ESF+ will 
(only) support the parts of the Pillar which fall under its scope: Art 1. Education, training 
and life-long learning; Art 2 and 9 Gender equality and work-life balance; Art 3 and 17 
Equal  opportunities  &  Inclusion  of  people  with  disabilities;  Art  4,  5  and  10  Active 
support to employment; Art 11 childcare and support to children; Art 16, 18, 19 and 20 
Health care and Long-term care and access to essential services. 

Programme structure of the ESF+ 
As stated in the introduction, the ESF, YEI, FEAD, EaSI and EU Health programme will 
be merged in a single Fund, the ESF+. Therefore, the ESF+ Regulation will replace the 
current ESF, FEAD, EaSI and EU Health programme regulations and will have multiple 
legal bases.  

Support  for  the  identified  objectives  will  be  provided  through  shared  and  (in)direct 
management using various instruments (including grant support, technical assistance and 
other 
labour  mobility, 
to 
transnationality, capacity building, and microfinance and social entrepreneurship.  

supporting  measures) 

innovation, 

relating 

social 

Figure 3: the structure of the ESF+ 

105 The YEI is already a part of the cuurent ESF Regulation (EU) No. 1304/2013 and is also integrated in the ESF+. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Beside general provisions applicable to all components of the ESF+, the regulation will 
establish: 

  common  rules  for  all  shared  management  components  (support  addressing 
material deprivation), also providing derogations for ex-FEAD type of operations. 
This is justified by two main reasons: operations for basic material assistance are 
simpler and standardised and stakeholders have called for keeping this approach 
and  not  imposing  more  demanding  ESF  rules  (e.g.  for  reporting  of  indicators’ 
data, audit trail). 
rules for (in)direct management (ex-EaSI and EU Health programme and specific 
ex-ESF parts, e.g. transnationality actions) .  

 

Prioritisation 

The  future  ESF+  Regulation  will  ensure  that  resources  are  concentrated  on  the  key 
challenges identified (see section 2): 106  

  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  and  European  Semester:  building  on  the 
objectives  described  in  section  2,  much  of  the  ESF+  should  be  focused  on  the 
priorities and actions set out in the European Pillar of Social Rights, as well as the 
employment  guidelines. 107  As  the  Pillar  will  be  the  main  compass  in  the 
formulating  of  country  specific  recommendations  and  key  challenges  identified 
within  the  European  Semester,  Member  States  are  expected  to  concentrate  an 
adequate  amount  of  shared  management  funds  under  the  ESF+  for  their 
implementation.  Programming  arrangements  for  the  ESF+  would  also  be 
designed  with  a  view  to  clearly  identifiable  financial  allocations  to  the  key 

106 In line with the overall approach taken in the next MFF, the ESF will ensure that it fulfils the potential to accelerate 
the low-carbon and climate resilient transition, and that it does not invest in activities that are incompatible with the 
related  EU  policy.  Climate  change  tracking  will  continue  in  the  future  ESF+,  keeping  in  mind  the  objective  of  the 
Funds.  
107 Taking also into account the Skills Agenda for Europe 

28 

 
 
 
   
 
                                                                 
reforms and challenges as set out in country-specific recommendations and more 
broadly in the context of the European Semester. 

  Youth  employment:  to  ensure  that  sufficient  efforts  are  made  in  the  post-2020 
programming period (as is currently the case with the YEI), Member States with a 
NEET rate above a given threshold will be required to dedicate a set proportion of 
their  shared  management  strand  of  ESF+  allocations  to  targeted  action  and 
structural  reforms  to  support  youth  employment  and  school-to-work  transition, 
giving priority to long-term unemployed and inactive young people. This would 
ensure  that  Member  States  facing  challenges  in  this  policy  area  programme  an 
adequate  share  of  ESF  resources  to  support  vulnerable  young  people  who  need 
assistance.  Stakeholders  and  the  European  Parliament  are  very  keen  to  see  a 
dedicated budget for youth employment being maintained post-2020 and action in 
this  area  building  on  the  lessons  learned  from  the  YEI.  This  also  reflects  the 
policy direction of the Youth Guarantee schemes that the Commission is working 
with  Member  States  to  promote,  and  is  based  on  the  recommendations  of  the 
European  Court  of  Auditors  to  enhance  the  focus  on  outreach  measures  to  the 
vulnerable young NEETs and improve the quality of services and job offers. 
  Social  inclusion:  at  least  25%  of  the  ESF+  will  be  allocated  to  fostering  social 
inclusion108 to ensure that the social dimension of Europe as set out in the Pillar is 
duly put forward and that a minimum amount of resources is targeting those most 
in need. This will include promoting the social integration of people at risk of, or 
in,  poverty  and  social  exclusion  and  tackling  material  deprivation  through  food 
and/or basic material assistance for the most deprived (ex-FEAD). For the latter, 
Member States should allocate a minimum amount to this priority.  

Under the (in)direct management strand (ex-EaSI and EU Health programmes and some 
ex-ESF parts), the ESF+ will include a series of improvements, including a sharper focus 
on  disadvantaged  groups  and  gender  equality,  greater  budgetary  flexibility  and  better 
integration  between  the  current  activities.  The  complementarities  between  social 
experimentation,  analytical  work,  capacity-building,  transnational  activities  and  greater 
upscaling/deployment  at  national  level  will  become  clearer  within  the  simplified  ESF+ 
structure.  

3.2   EGF  

Primarily,  the  EGF  will  continue  to  support  the  principles  of  the  European  Pillar  of 
Social  Rights  of  equal  opportunities  and  access  to  the  labour  market  by  co-financing 
measures that help improve the employability of workers made redundant in the course 
of large-scale restructuring events.109 The programme will be structured so as to address 
the  general  objective  set  out  in  section  2:  to  focus  on  reactive  assistance  for  workers 
displaced in the course of unexpected major restructuring events that have a significant 
impact  on  the  labour  market  (ex  post  support).  The  EGF  will  continue  to  complement 
assistance  offered  by  the  structural  funds,  particularly  anticipative  measures  as  those 

108 In 2014-2020, Member States had to allocate at least 20 % to social inclusion and evidence shows that they even 
went beyond that (the actual proportion is almost 25 %) 
109 Under  a  derogation  clause,  the  EGF  offers  in  2014-2020  assistance  to  NEETs  in  regions  affected  by  a  major 
restructuring event. The EGF post-2020 will not be used to offer assistance to NEETs anymore, as this help can more 
comprehensively be offered by the ESF+. 

29 

 
 
  
 
                                                                 
offered  by  the  ESF+,  or  assistance  for  companies  or  regions  offered  by  the  ERDF.  In 
order to reflect the trend towards fewer very large-scale events (more than 500 displaced 
workers), and considering that larger scale events (more than 250 displaced workers) also 
pose  a  significant  burden  especially  on  the  labour  markets  in  remote  or  less  densely 
populated  areas,  the  activation  threshold  will  be  lowered  from  500  to  250  workers 
displaced within the reference period. 

Taking  into  account  the way  globalisation  is  evolving,  defining  globalisation  purely  by 
offshoring or changes in trade flows does not seem to be sufficient anymore. In order to 
cater for other globalisation-related challenges such as trade disputes, the transition to a 
low  carbon  economy,  or 
technology-driven  challenges  of  digitisation  and 
robotisation,  the  scope  of  the  EGF  will  be  broadened.  Considering  the  interplay  and 
mutual  effects  of  open  trade,  technological  change  or  other  factors  and  that  it  is 
increasingly difficult to conceptually separate and single out a specific factor that caused 
job losses, the mobilisation of the EGF shall in the future only be based on the significant 
impact of a restructuring event, defined by the above mentioned activation threshold of 
250 displaced workers.

110 

the 

It is acknowledged that the widened scope of the fund and the lower thresholds are likely 
to  lead  to  more  applications.  However,  experience  has  shown  that  Member  States  only 
request its mobilisation in true emergency situations. Even though the threshold currently 
is 500 displaced workers, applications range widely, from 108 to 6120 workers who lost 
their  jobs  within  the  reference  period.111 In  order  to  mitigate  the  risks  of  a  potentially 
higher  number  of  EGF  applications,  the  EGF  will  operate  under  a  higher  annual 
maximum amount of EUR 225 million112 and the reference period will also be shortened 
from nine to six months (in the framework of sectoral applications). 

As an emergency relief fund, the EGF shall remain outside the budgetary ceilings of the 
MFF.  Emergency  funds  are  not  expected  to  absorb  a  specific  budget.  Being  inside  the 
MFF  would  therefore  mean  the  contrary,  having  a  specific  budget  that  the  fund  is 
supposed  to  spend,  which  would  turn  it  into  a  tool  of  regular  restructuring  assistance. 
However,  being  outside  the  MFF  currently  implies  a  lengthy  mobilisation  procedure 
which counteracts  its  function  as  an emergency  relief fund.  Therefore, the  mobilisation 
procedure will be sped-up and streamlined (see chapter 4.3 below). 

To  reflect  the  overall  challenges,  improving  the  levels  of  basic  skills  and  in  particular 
digital  skills  will  be  a  mandatory  cross-cutting  element  of  any  package  of  personalised 
services offered. The level of training should be adapted to the qualifications and needs 
of the beneficiary. EGF intervention is much more likely to be successful if the package 
of measures is integrated into a tailor-made reconversion response for the affected region. 
This  will  involve  closer  alignment  with  the  EU  Quality  framework  for  anticipating 

110 It  should  be  noted  here  that  the  current  EGF  is  not  supporting  workers  displaced  in  the  course  of  restructuring 
events that led to intra-EU offshoring. As all major restructuring events will be eligible post-2020, such a distinction 
will not be made anymore. 
111 The  threshold  was  initially  1000  displaced  jobs  in  the  2007-2013  funding  period.  The  lower  threshold  of  500 
displaced  jobs  did  not  create  a  big  increase  in  applications  in  the  2014-2020  funding  period.  However,  several 
applications used the exceptional circumstance clause, basing an application on a lower number of dismissed workers, 
as these dismissals had a significant impact on the region concerned. 
112 The up-take of an emergency relief fund depends on the number of emergencies, which are hard to predict. Should a 
severe economic downturn lead to a full uptake, possible consequences would need to be discussed at the time of the 
MFF review. 

30 

 
 
                                                                 
change  and  restructuring  (QFR), 113 especially  as  regards  the  employment  and  social 
dimensions of structural change.  

As in the past, no prioritisation is proposed as regards the geographical scope of the fund. 
Thematic priorities cannot be set, since by definition the EGF responds to emergencies in 
the form of unexpected restructuring events. 

4.  

DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING 

This section will assess the effectiveness of the proposed measures in delivering on the 
cross-cutting  MFF  and  fund  specific  objectives  (see  section  2.2.3)  and  present  possible 
alternatives.  

4.1   Coherence and synergies  

4.1.1   Coherence and synergies within the ESF+ 

As described in section 3.1 the ESF+ Regulation will provide for two strands:  

  a  shared  management  strand  with  common  rules  with  other  funds  under  shared 
for 

(Common  Provisions  Regulation),  keeping  derogations 

management 
simplified rules for ex-FEAD-type activities; and 

  a  direct  and  indirect  management  strand  (outside  the  Common  Provisions 

Regulation). 

The  ESF+  Regulation  will  complement  the  future  Common  Provisions  Regulation  and 
bring the programming, management and implementation mechanisms of the ESF, YEI 
and  FEAD  closer  while  responding  better  to  the  needs  and  objectives  of  the  policies  it 
supports.   

Merging  the  ESF,  YEI,  FEAD,  EaSI  and  EU  Health  programme  is  expected  to  have  a 
large positive impact on the  coherence  and  synergies between interventions supported 
under the different funds as the ESF+ will:  

 

fully integrate the measures dedicated to supporting NEETs (ex-YEI) - the ESF+ 
will continue to support the implementation of the Council Recommendation on 
the  youth  guarantee  in  the  Member  States.  However,  whereas  the  scope  of  the 
YEI  was  seen  as  limiting,  as  it  did  not  allow  for  support  for  the  structural 
measures  and  reforms  required  to  implement  youth  policies  properly,  it  will  be 
possible to invest ESF+ resources in reforms and structures. YEI operations will 
also  be  better  integrated  under  the  ESF+  thanks  to  the  simplification  of  the 
currently complex programming and reporting approach;  

  provide  more  ways  of  linking  basic  material  assistance  (ex-FEAD)  with 
additional  support  for  social  inclusion  -  by  incorporating  the  former  FEAD,  the 
ESF+ will allow ensuring the transition from social inclusion activities supported 

113 Quality Framework for anticipation of change and restructuring (QFR): the QFR aims to contribute to companies' 
long-term competitiveness and considers the broader industrial and social impact of restructuring on cities and regions 
affected. It stresses the role of industrial and regional policies in anticipating the adjustment to structural change. The 
QFR calls for an integrated approach in anticipating and managing the adjustment to structural change by making full 
use of EU structural funds and of the EGF in the regions affected. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
though  the  ex-FEAD  to  active  measures  aiming  at  supporting  the  integration  in 
the labour market (while maintaining simpler provisions, in particular as regards 
monitoring,  reporting,  audit  and  control  for  food  and  basic  material  assistance 
interventions).  It will provide a more effective response to poverty given that a 
job is one of the key means to get people out of poverty;  

  provide direct links for the testing and upscaling of innovative solutions to social 

challenges:  

- 

-  as  a  cross-cutting  principle  in  the  shared  management  strand,  the  ESF+ 
will  support  social  innovation  aimed  at  re-designing  and  re-engineering 
delivery  mechanisms  for  employment,  education,  social  inclusion  and 
support  to  the  most  deprived 114.  This  will  also  be  ensured  through  a 
strengthened bottom-up approach based on partnerships involving public 
authorities,  the  private  sector  and  civil  society  (such  as  community-led 
local development);  
the  direct  management  strand  for  social  experimentation  (small-scale 
testing of new policy approaches) will continue and serve as a basis for 
social  innovation/upscaling  activities  under  shared  management.  The 
transfer or upscaling in the same country and across borders of successful 
transnational 
innovations  will  be  promoted 
partnerships,  mutual  learning,  methodological/technical  support  for 
stakeholders and the creation of an appropriate information management 
system;  
the currently underperforming set-up for transnational cooperation under 
shared  management  will  be  replaced  by  an  EU  level  framework  for 
transnational initiatives including: support for transnational partnerships, 
validation  of  the  transferability  of  solutions,  mutual  learning  and 
capacity-building for stakeholders, under direct/indirect management. 
the  future  ESF+  Health  component  will  further  support  Member  States' 
efforts to collaborate in order to foster joint cooperation and to implement 
best practices. 

through  support  for 

- 

- 

Investment in human capital and skills development should also raise the innovation and 
employment  potential  of  the  whole  EU,  building  on  Member  States’  and  regions’ 
competitive advantages in line with their smart specialisation strategies.115 

The  merger  of  the  funds  is  expected  to  have  positive  implications  as  regards  the  other 
cross-cutting  and  fund-specific  MFF  objectives,  i.e.  flexibility,  simplification  and 
performance- and results-orientation. Having a single fund will give Member States and 
the  Commission  more  flexibility  in  spending  EU  funding  across  thematic  areas  and 
shifting  budgets  where  needed,  which  in  turn  will  help  them  address  changing  social 
needs and improve alignment with EU policy priorities.116  

Integrating  the  funds  should  also  reduce  the  administrative  costs  of  managing  the 
programmes117 with:  

114 Study to support the impact assessment of human capital investments, DG EMPL (ongoing) 
115  Strengthening  Innovation  in  Europe's  Regions:  Strategies  for  resilient,  inclusive  and  sustainable  growth, 
COM(2017)376. 
116 Study to support the impact assessment of human capital investments, DG EMPL (ongoing) 
117 Ibid: “It was estimated that in Sweden the combination of the merger of the funds with a number of simplification 
measures would have a potential of saving 40-50% of administrative costs for FEAD”  

32 

 
 
 
                                                                 
 

fewer programming documents, e.g. support for basic and material assistance (ex-
FEAD) will be integrated in the programmes under a dedicated priority axis, with 
simpler rules;  

  no need for separate managing authorities and monitoring committees; and  
  while the ESF Committee will remain but with extended tasks to cover new areas 
of the ESF+ Regulation, the current comitology committee under FEAD will be 
taken  up  by  the  common  comitology  committee  set  up  by  the  future  Common 
Provisions  Regulation.  Only  for  the  ex-EaSI  and  EU  Health  programme  parts  a 
separate comitology committee might have to be set up.  

By  introducing  streamlined  programming  and  implementation  rules,  the  ESF+  is  also 
expected  to  reduce  the  administrative  costs  of  beneficiaries  who  are  currently  tapping 
into different funds. For example, the specific rules on matching funds from the former 
YEI budget line and the ESF will be dropped, thereby alleviating administrative burden.  

Lastly,  the  merger  of  the  funds  is  expected  to  reinforce  results-orientation  logic,  in 
particular  by  making  financing  subject  to  compliance  with  conditions  (see  sections  4.3 
and 4.4).118 

Risks and mitigating measures 

Merging the funds bears risks in terms of administrative burden for some of the current 
funds.    The  risk  of  applying  the  more  complex  ESI  funds  rules  to  ex-FEAD-type 
interventions, in particular under programmes for food and basic material assistance, will 
be  mitigated  by  programming  within  a  specific  priority  axis  and  keeping  specific 
simplified requirements in the ESF+ Regulation, e.g. simpler programming, monitoring 
and  reporting,  audit  and  control  (see  section  4.4).  Stakeholders  noted  that  integrating 
EaSI  in  the  ESF+  could  be  risky  in  terms  of  effectiveness  (e.g.  less  room  for 
experimentation)  and  efficiency  (risk  that  the  heavy  administrative  procedures  of  ESF 
would be imposed on EaSI).119  In mitigation, a specific strand in the ESF+ Regulation 
will provide support inter alia experimentation through directly and indirectly managed 
activities complementing the shared management strand.  

Other  options  have  been  considered,  but  have  been  discarded  for  the  reasons  outlined 
below: 

  merging  the  ESF,  YEI,  FEAD,  EaSI,  EU  Health  programme  and  EGF  -  this 
would  only  result  in  an  artificial  reduction  in  the  number  of  funds.  The  EGF's 
very  specific  objectives,  high  political  visibility  and  budgetary  flexibility  would 
be  lost  if  it  were  to  be  merged  with  the  ESF+.  This  has  been  confirmed  by 
stakeholders in the framework of the consultation process120;  

  merging the funds under shared management (i.e. excluding the EaSI and the EU 
Health programme, but including the EGF) – again, this would mean sacrificing 
the  EGF's    high  visibility  as  an  EU-level  emergency  instrument  to  cushion  the 
adverse side effects of globalisation. The potential flexibility and synergies to be 
gained from merging EaSI within the ESF+ would also be lost; 

118 Ibid 
119 Ibid 
120 See study to support the impact assessment of human capital investments, DG EMPL (ongoing): “The integration of 
EGF  in  framework  of  other  DG  EMPL  funds  was  generally  not  deemed  desirable  by  the  different  stakeholders 
involved in the management of EGF.” 

33 

 
 
                                                                 
  keeping  the  FEAD  as  a  separate  fund,  but  merging  the  two  types  of  FEAD 
programmes (material assistance and social inclusion) - this would allow for more 
synergies  between  the  basic  material  assistance  types  of  support  and  social 
inclusion measures while  keeping the current implementation rules. However, it 
would  not  ensure  adequate  demarcation  vis-à-vis  ESF-type  social  inclusion 
measures;   

  merging  all  ESI  funds  -  this  would  impair  policy  delivery,  as  it  would  not  be 
possible to adapt implementation rules to the specific requirements of the policies 
supported. Also it would not increase synergies and coherence with other human 
capital funds; and 

4.1.2 Coherence and synergies between the ESF+ and other funds 

Coordination  should  continue  on  the  ground,  with  all  funds  investing  in  human  capital 
development.  Evidence  shows  that  an  important  factor  in  effective  integration  is 
assembling the right territorial actors at project level. 

ESF+ and EGF 

The ESF+ and EGF will continue to complement each other, as the former will continue 
to function as a preventive and anticipatory fund, while the latter will remain a reactive 
emergency Fund outside the MFF. The ESF+ will for example complement the EGF by 
proactively  supporting  adequate  measures  in  areas  that  are  at  risk  due  to  foreseeable 
economic  challenges.  To  increase  coherence  and  synergies  with  the  ESF+,  a  clear 
demarcation line will  be established by removing  the NEETs as  a specific target  group 
for the EGF. In addition, because more favourable co-financing rates have sometimes led 
Member States to use the ESF for EGF-type of measures, the EGF co-financing rate will 
be aligned with the ESF+ rate in the Member State concerned. 

The initiative also aims at improving synergies and coherence between ESF+ and other 
funds investing in human capital development. For example, one stop shops in Member 
States  should  be  considered  to  ensure  coordination  of  funds  on  the  ground  and  offer  a 
unique  access  information  point  for  potential  beneficiaries  on  which  Member  States 
would be required to publish all their calls (e.g. via a single digital portal).   

ESF+ and ERDF (and other ESI funds) 

The  ESF+  will  continue  to  be  part  of  cohesion  policy  and  be  mainly  regulated  by  the 
Common  Provisions  Regulation  with  other  shared  management  funds.  As  such  same 
rules of management, programming, monitoring, auditing, etc. will apply. Programmes in 
Member  States  can  continue  to  integrate  ERDF  and  ESF  funding  (multi-fund 
programmes). Also, the same allocation methodology will apply to ERDF and the ESF. 
This  will  ensure  that  ESF+  and  ESI  funds,  in  particular  the  ERDF,  continue  to  be 
implemented in a complementary manner. 

ESF+ and Erasmus121  

121 Under the 2014-2020 period, the programme is referred to as “Erasmus+” however in the future it is proposed to 
name the programme “Erasmus”. Naming is referred to accordingly throughout the text.  

34 

 
 
 
                                                                 
The  ESF  and  Erasmus+  are  active  in  similar  fields,  notably  as  regards  the  support  to 
skills, upskilling, digital competences, etc. In the current period, some Member States use 
the  two  instruments  in  a  complementary  manner  in  order  to  reinforce  actions  where 
relevant, for instance by scaling up Erasmus+ measures through the ESF. However, such 
examples  are  rather  exceptional.  A  specific  element  of  Erasmus+  where  demand  for 
exchanges  tends  to  be  unsatisfied  is  VET  mobility,  including  for  apprenticeships/dual 
learning  programmes.  For  the  future,  the  respective  legal  bases  could  include  further 
provisions  to  this  purpose,  to  be  set  out  in  detail  in  work  programmes  and  programme 
guides  (e.g.  through  better  articulated  mechanisms  to  promote  upscaling  of  Erasmus 
actions  and  policy  experimentation  through  the  ESF+  and  vice  versa,  and  enhance 
participation of Erasmus national agencies in the design of relevant ESF+ actions). 

More  details  of  complementarities  and  synergies  between  the  ESF+  and  specific  funds 
are presented in Annex 4. 

4.2  

Flexibility and alignment with policy priorities  

4.2.1.   ESF+ 

Strengthening  the  link  between  funding  and  the  economic  governance  cycle  (a  great 
achievement  in  the  2014-2020  period)  is  expected  to  improve  alignment  with  policy 
priorities and flexibility to respond to emerging challenges. Some legislative changes to 
the economic governance framework would be required, e.g. adapting the calendar and 
changing the legal status of the country reports and national reform programmes. 
In light of the above, two alternative scenarios122 are considered: 

1. A baseline scenario: with the Semester process in its current form, ESF+ investments 
could still be aligned, as at present, with annual CSRs but with the limitation that CSRs 
would be very general and not well fitted to programming purposes. We can expect the 
ESF+  contribution  to  remain  significant  in  countries  and  for  policy  areas  combining  a 
stronger linkage between CSRs and programme objectives and more intensive ESI funds 
funding.123 In  this  scenario,  the  legal  framework  for  ESF+  programming  would  not  be 
fundamentally modified with regard to the traceability of CSR related allocations, as the 
CSRs  would  continue  to  be  adopted  annually  and  therefore  be  reflected  in  ad  hoc 
programme  amendments,  where  relevant,  adding  significantly  to  the  administrative 
burden.     

2.  A  strengthened  alignment  between  the  European  Semester  process  and  the  funds' 
investment cycles would simplify programming and reporting. Before the programming 
cycle starts, challenges falling within the scope of the ESF+ identified in CSRs adopted 
in  accordance  with  Article  121(2)  and  Article  148(4)  TFEU  and  in  the  European 
Semester,  and  accompanied  by  a  set  of  investment-related  guidance  issued  for  each 
Member  State,  would  trigger  programming.  The  investment-related  guidance  would  be 
linked  with  specific  funding  for  the  initial  years  of  implementation  (only  part  of  the 
national  allocation  would  be  programmed).  Following  a  mid-way  review  of  challenges 

122 The changes to the European Semester process fall outside the scope of this impact assessment, so only the potential 
implications as regards ESF+ programming are discussed here.  
123 Study  on  the  support  of  ESI  funds  to  the  implementation  of  the  Country  Specific  Recommendations  and  to 
structural reforms in Member States, European Commission (2018) – under finalisation. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
identified  in  the  context  of  the  European  Semester,  accompanied  by  a  second  round  of 
investment-related  guidance,  the  programmes  would  be  adjusted  (and  the  remainder  of 
the  budget  allocated)  for  the  second  phase  of  the  programming  period.  This  measure 
would  ensure  that  emerging  new  needs  could  be  more  easily  taken  into  account  by  the 
Fund without distorting the long-term nature of structural funds. In order to mitigate the 
additional  administrative  burden  relating  to  the  review,  this  would  replace  the  current 
FEAD mid-term evaluation and ESF progress report. 

Further  elements  expected  to  increase  policy  alignment  and  flexibility  of  the  ESF+ 
include:  
 

‘enabling conditions’ (ex-ante conditionalities): based on the positive assessment 
124 for 2014-2020 period, these will be maintained but compliance will be ensured 
throughout the programming period and if new objectives are introduced during 
the  programming  period,  the  relevant  enabling  condition  will  apply  (continuous 
conditionality). In order to mitigate the potential additional administrative burden, 
the  Commission's  assessment  of    fulfilment  will  have  to  be  reflected  in  the 
country reports and CSRs (one combined assessment exercise, instead of two in 
parallel);  

  allocation methodology: more attention will be given to policy-relevant indicators 
in the financial allocation methodology, which will be common to the ERDF and 
ESF+ (the latter will continue to benefit from a pre-determined minimum share). 
Per capita GDP will remain a key factor in the allocation formula, but additional 
criteria  based  on  a  number  of  social  indicators  will  be  given  greater  weight.  In 
addition,  to  strengthen  ownership  and  improve  the  quality  of  investment,  it  is 
proposed  that  national  co-financing  be  increased  (while  keeping  the  possibility 
for  100  %  EU  funding  in  some  exceptional  cases).  Given  the  nature  of  ESF+ 
projects, a reasonable co-financing threshold should be ensured;  

  more flexible territorial rules: over the current period, the plethora of programmes 
at levels of governance that are not necessarily responsible for employment and 
social policies has led to a mismatch between resource allocation and potential for 
relevant  policy  support.  While  the  ESF+  will  share  common  rules  with  the  ESI 
funds  and  contribute  equally  to  cohesion,  it  will  be  subject  to  more  flexible 
application  of  the  territorial  rules.  This  should  ensure  better  targeting  on 
populations with higher needs, no matter where they live, being it in cities or rural 
areas. It will also allow for funding to be more closely aligned with policy, while 
giving Member States some flexibility in the way they allocate and implement it 
(national or regional level). 

In  addition,  the  partnership  principle  will  be  stressed  by  ensuring  the  balanced 
representation of all stakeholders in the monitoring committees, meaningful consultation 
with  them  on  all  aspects  of  ESF+  implementation  and  more  resources  to  support  their 
capacity-building.  Technical  assistance  from  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States 
should  be  used  for  this  purpose,  together  with  relevant  ex-EaSI  resources  that  are 
available  (e.g.  grants  supporting  EU-level  NGOs  involved  in  the  implementation  of 
social policies).   

124 Study  on  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  in  relation  to  the  ex-ante  conditionalities  during  the  programming 
phase 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/how/studies_integration/impl_exante_esif_report_en.pdf  

Commission 

European 

funds, 

(July 

ESI 

the 

of 

2016);         

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
The following scenarios were discarded:  

  devoting all ESF+ allocations to following up the CSRs – while this would result 
in strong alignment, it would not allow for support to be given to additional key 
policy  priorities  and  recommendations  potentially  not  covered  under  the 
European  Semester.  Given  the  limited  scope  of  the  CSRs,  there  is  no  guarantee 
that they will take full account of employment and social issues; and 

  an  annual  re-programming  cycle  –  while  this  would  allow  for  an  annual 
alignment  of  funding  with  the  relevant  CSRs,  the  uncertainty  about  funding 
priorities  and 
to  programming  and 
implementation  would  prevent  adequate  support  being  given  to  medium-term 
policy action and reforms 

the  administrative  burden 

linked 

4.3  

Simplification 

This section builds on the recommendations of the high-level group on the simplification 
of post-2020 ESI funds125, the new ‘Omnibus’ Regulation126, the MFF mid-term review, 
relevant studies127 and stakeholders' positions and calls for continuity.  

Given the objectives and activities to be financed and the need to reflect country-specific 
needs and challenges, shared management is considered still to be the most appropriate 
management mode for most actions (in line with the principle of subsidiarity and shared 
competences)  except 
is  necessary  and/or 
those  where  EU-level  coordination 
implementation  requires  specific/technical  expertise  and  for  which  direct  or  indirect 
management  is  relevant.  For  the  EGF  in  particular,  shared  management  allows  for  the 
management of personalised packages of assistance for displaced workers which would 
be impossible under direct management.  

4.3.1   ESF+ 

Shared management strand 

Different  forms  of  simplification  have  been  explored  for  post-2020  to  address  the  key 
sources of complexity identified in section 2.1. Some measures fall beyond the scope of 
the  fund-specific  regulations  covered  in  this  impact  assessment  and  will  therefore  be 
reflected  in  the  future  Financial  Regulation  and  Common  Provisions  Regulation.  The 
combination  of  all  these  simplification  measures  and  a  gradual  shift  to  a  possible  'n+2' 
rule  for  de-commitment128 is  expected  to  contribute  to  a  swifter  implementation  of  the 
funds.  

The simplification measures include: 

125 High-level group on monitoring simplification for beneficiaries of the ESI funds (set up by the Commission in July 
2015) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/how/improving-investment/high-level-group-simplification/ 
126 ’Omnibus’ Regulation revising the CPR and ESF Regulation, status March 2018: agreed by the co-legislators but 
still undergoing revision by the lawyer-linguists, planned adoption June 2018 
127 Study on the use of new provisions on simplification during the early implementation phase of ESI funds, European 
Commission (September 2017) 
128 The  ‘n+2’  rule  means  that  payment  claims  by  Member  Stats  should  be  submitted  in  the  2  years  following  the 
budgetary commitment. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
  streamlined  common  rules  for  funds  under  shared  management  and  closer 
alignment  of  fund-specific  rules  for  the  ESF,  YEI  and  FEAD  (still  allowing  for 
simpler  provisions  for  ex-FEAD-type  interventions  such  as  monitoring,  in 
particular in the context of food and basic material assistance); 

  dropping unnecessary and unjustified provisions from the regulations and seeking 

to cut the number of guidelines; 

  simplified  programming  arrangements  -  simplified  and  concise  strategic 
documents (ex-partnership agreements) and programmes and limited derogations 
to establish multi-fund programmes; 

  more  flexible  application  of  territorial  rules  for  the  ESF+  in  the  allocation  and 

implementation mechanisms ; 

  streamlining the ex-ante conditionalities (future ‘enabling conditions’)  - keeping 
the  system  but  reducing  their  number,  clarifying  the  criteria  for  assessing 
fulfilment and restricting assessment to the relevant policy level; 

  continuation of the existing system of authorities, IT structures and management 

and control systems; 

  streamlined  programme  reporting  and  monitoring:  e.g.  using  administrative 
registers for data collection where possible, no specific requirements for reporting 
on ex-YEI-type operations;  
increased use of SCOs and payments based on conditions, e.g. by: 

 

o  providing additional off-the-shelf SCOs for Member States, thus reducing 

the need to develop own methodologies;  

o  making SCOs the default form of reimbursement; and 
o  continuous training and support for MAs;  

  proportionate  audit  and  control  requirements,  in  particular  through  the  single 

audit rule introduced in the new Financial Regulation. 

The use of SCOs will be further strengthened in the ESF+ as they are considered to have 
a  number  of  advantages:  they  are  expected  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for 
national  authorities  and  beneficiaries129,  are  less  error-prone  than  real  costs  (i.e.  they 
reduce the ‘error rate’)130 and can ensure a focus on outputs and results rather than inputs 
and processes.131 The use of real costs should be possible only on a case-by-case where 
justified. Administrative (control and audit) burden can effectively be reduced by moving 
away from a system of reimbursement based on actual incurred expenditure towards one 
system based on SCOs; this would have a significant impact on the assurance provided 
and could be among the criteria to apply when deciding upon single audit. In particular, 
using pre-defined unit costs or lump sums (off-the-shelf SCOs) would further maximise 
the benefits of SCOs.   

129 The study on the use of new provisions on simplification during the early implementation phase of ESI Funds found 
that, based on current use of simplified costs in the ESF, national authorities' administrative costs would fall by 1.9 % 
compared with the costs for the 2007-2013 period, while the administrative burden for beneficiaries would be reduced by 
6 %.  
130 See section 6.12 of the European Court of Auditors 2016 annual report: 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41732  
131
on 

simplification  when 

on  SCOs: 

concluding 

recognised 

high-level 

group 

 As 

the 

by 

https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/hlg_15_0012_00_conclusions_and_recommendations_on_simplified
_costs_options_final_1.pdf  

38 

 
 
 
                                                                 
In line with the new form of financing based on the fulfilment of conditions, as provided 
for in the ‘Omnibus’ Regulation132, the ESF + will seek to simplify whole programmes or 
funding areas (so called ‘priority axes’) of programmes by linking reimbursement for the 
funding area to achievement of the targets set in it. This would mean moving away from 
reimbursement  for  individual  measures  to  a  performance-orientated  approach  with 
reimbursement dependent on achieving the objectives of the entire funding area (see also 
section 4.4). It would extend the approach taken with the 2014-2020 JAPs further while 
tackling  existing  weaknesses  and  ensuring  a  more  consistent  mechanism  for 
reimbursement of costs at the level of programmes.  The approach of reimbursing costs 
based on the achievement of pre-defined results would be optional and would likely be 
more  suited  to  the  context  of  some  programmes  than  others,  for  example,  programmes  
consisting of typified and easily measurable activities.   

In the field of audit and control, proportionality will be a cross-cutting principle at each 
level,  without  neglecting  the  focus  on  the  assurance  derived  from  the  systems  (i.e. 
proportionality  cannot  be  at  the  expense  of  assurance).  Full  use  should  be  made  of  the 
possibility  of  distinguishing  between  beneficiaries  as  regards  the  need  for  in-depth 
administrative  verifications.  Other  criteria  may  be  used  to  limit  the  administrative 
burden, in particular aligning management and control systems with the national systems 
in  cases  where  the  national  co-financing  rate  is  at  least  50%.  Another  simplification 
measure  would  be  to  set  out  the criteria  qualifying  a  programme  and  its  authorities for 
application of a genuine single audit system. These need to be reasonable and achievable 
by  every  programme  authority,  they  could  include:  the  historical  performance  of  the 
programme;  the  implementation  of  SCOs;  strong  ethical  culture  and  integrity  in  the 
administration; and stable staffing and organisational arrangements for management and 
control.  The  benefit  would  be  a  reduced  audit  burden  for  programme  authorities  and 
beneficiaries, as audit activities would not be duplicated. 

With  more  demanding  social  challenges  and,  at  the  same  time,  pressure  on  public 
budgets,  there  is  a  growing  need  for  more  efficient  and  effective  public  policies. 
Financial Instruments (FIs) represent a resource-efficient way to scale up the delivery of 
the funds and therefore could boost the potential of implementing employment and social 
policies.  However,  FIs  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  panacea  or  as  an  alternative  to  ESF 
grants, due to the specific nature of ESF activities (small projects, difficult target groups, 
limited  or  no  direct  financial  return  on  investment,  etc.  –  all  of  which  limit  the  use  of 
FIs). Since FIs are by definition suitable for financially viable projects, i.e. those which 
are expected to generate enough income or savings to pay back the support received, they 
must complement grants, rather than simply replacing them. To preserve the involvement 
from employers and industry attention should be paid to the funding level for supported 
activities.  The  ESF+  will  continue  to  do  this  by  providing  support  for  investments  in 
various  forms:  loans,  guarantees,  equity  and  other  risk-bearing  mechanisms,  possibly 
combined  with  interest-rate  subsidies  or  guarantee-fee  subsidies  within  the  same 
operation.  In  order  to  allow  for  flexibility,  a  new  possibility  is  foreseen  for  the 
implementation of financial instruments under the future regulation, i.e. the contribution 
to  the  InvestEU  initiative.  However,  the  managing  authorities  will  keep  the  option 
of implementing financial instruments on their own as previously.  

132 ‘Omnibus’  regulation  revising  the  CPR  and  ESF  Regulation,  status  March  2018:  agreed  by  the  co-legislators  but 
still undergoing revision by the lawyer-linguists, planned adoption June 2018. 

39 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Targeted  stakeholder  consultations  give  evidence  of  important  potential  of  the 
simplification  measures  to  reduce  administrative  cost  and  burden. 133  The  result  of 
surveys  carried  out  show  that  management  authorities  expect  positive  impacts  in 
particular  from  the  continuity  of  the  national  authorities  designated  under  the  current 
programming  period,  as  well  as  from  simplification  of  monitoring  data  collection  and 
reporting.  Beneficiaries  assessed  that  particularly  the  implementation  of  reduced 
monitoring  requirements  and  the  single  audit  principle  are  likely  to  decrease 
administrative costs.134  

Direct and indirect management strand 

In  future,  direct  and  indirect  management  types  of  activity  will  be  financed  under  a 
dedicated  strand  of  the ESF+  Regulation.  All  direct  and indirect  management  activities 
will benefit from common delivery mechanisms and a simplified monitoring system (see 
section 5).  

the  administrative  processes 

selection, 
In  addition, 
implementation)  under  (in)direct  management  can  be  further  improved  by  reducing  the 
volume of paper documents in the applications, establishing an effective critical mass for 
projects/amounts, and extending project duration where necessary in order to obtain the 
expected results and measure the impacts. 

(application,  evaluation, 

4.3.2 EGF 

(In)direct  management  is  not  considered  a  viable  option  for  the  EGF,  so  it  will  remain 
under  shared  management.  Experience  has  shown  that  a  tailor-made  package  of 
personalised  services  needs  to  be  designed  by  the  authority  closest  to  the  citizens. 
Depending on the Member State and the type of restructuring event, this would usually 
be  a  local,  regional  or  national  authority.  The  implementation  tasks  will  therefore  be 
delegated to the Member State authorities. EU intervention is needed due to the scale of 
the  impact  of  the  redundancies,  but  in  line  with  the  subsidiarity  principle  it  will  be 
limited  to  what  is  necessary  to  fulfil  the  objectives  of  showing  Union  solidarity  with 
displaced workers. 

However,  in  order  to  speed  up  mobilisation,  the  Commission  proposes  a  simpler 
decision-making procedure. Member States currently regard the background analysis as 
one of the biggest hurdle in applying for EGF assistance. Due to the extended scope of 
the EGF to cover different kinds of restructuring events (see section 3.2), the requirement 
for  a  reasoned  analysis  of  what  triggered  the  restructuring  event  will  be  dropped. 
Applications will be based on the 'significant impact' only (defined as 250 workers being 
made  redundant  in  the  reference  period).  This  simplification  would  shorten  the 
application  process  for  both  the  Member  State  and  the  Commission  (the  Commission 
proposal to mobilise EGF could be shorter or even replaced by standardised documents). 
An  easier  and  thus  shorter  application  process  and  a  wider  scope  would  mean  that  the 
biggest  barriers  had  been  removed  and  Member  States  would  thus  be  more  likely  to 
apply  for  EGF  assistance.  In  order  to  mobilise  EGF  even  more  quickly,  the  approval 
process  could  be  streamlined.  Currently,  the  Commission  analyses  applications  and 

133 See study to support the impact assessment of human capital investments, DG EMPL (ongoing)  
134 Ibid 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
submits extensive proposals for EGF mobilisation to the budgetary authority (in all EU 
languages).  It  presents  proposals  in  the  relevant  European  Parliament  and  Council 
working  groups,  and  the  Parliament  and  Council  take  a  vote.  If  mobilisation  is  to  be 
based  purely  on  formal  requirements  (250  redundancies)  extensive  proposals  and 
discussions  of  cases  in  the  Parliament  and  Council  seem  no  longer  relevant.  The 
budgetary authority could make part of the possible ceiling directly available in a lump-
sum payment to the Commission and delegate the right to mobilise the EGF on its behalf 
(e.g.  20 %).  

The above procedure would mean  that  the same results could  be achieved in  less time, 
making  the  fund  more  efficient.  Faster  delivery  would  also  underline  the  emergency 
character of the fund and make it more effective. 

4.4  

Performance and results orientation 

The  findings  of  the  high-level  group  on  ESI  funds  simplification  and  the  various 
contributions from stakeholders and practitioners indicate that the focus of interventions 
should be shifted from spending to actual results. 

Given the challenges identified in section 2.2 and the associated objectives, the intention 
for  the  next  programming  period  is  to  embed  an  intervention  logic  not  only  in  the 
programming  of  a  priority  axis,  but  also  in  terms  of  the  Commission  reimbursing 
amounts  on  the  basis  of  outputs/results  achieved.  As  mentioned  in  section  4.3  this 
develops  the  JAP  results-orientation  logic  and  applies  it  in  a  simplified  form  and  more 
widely. Programming and the reimbursement of expenditure will have to be based solely 
on negotiated outputs and/or results ('payments based on conditions').  

The  reasons  such  an  option  would  be  appealing,  as  compared  with  JAPs  in  2014-2020 
are that: 

  the logic of linking funding to the achievement of outputs/results would extend to 
all operations under a  priority axis and not just one operation, thus reducing the 
complexity of programming as well as monitoring and control;  

  the amounts to be reimbursed would not have to be linked to  real costs, thereby 

simplifying how they are set; and 

  as the targets for outputs and/or results, and the associated amounts, would be set 
during  the  programming  phase,  they  would  not  be  seen  as  representing  an 
additional  layer of programming but  will  ensure that  sufficient time is  available 
for actual implementation of the operations.   

This  voluntary  approach  for  Member  States  would  shift  the  logic  away  from 
reimbursement  by  real  costs  or  input-driven  SCOs  (which  still  involve  significant 
administrative  burden  in  justifying  the  activities)  and  would  simplify  programming. 
Compared to 2014-2020, the emphasis is to integrate such an instrument already during 
the programming phase into a programme and give Member States thus the opportunity 
to cover a significant part or the whole programme with such an instrument.  

To  remove  the  focus  on  inputs  in  the  performance  framework  (meeting  financial 
implementation  targets,  regardless  of  results  to  be  achieved),  it  is  proposed  that  the 
requirements  linked  to  the  performance  reserve  be  abolished.  Programme  performance 
should be measured by meaningful output and result indicators set by Member States and 
not by input indicators that measure financial implementation. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Changes to the monitoring systems for both ESF+ and EGF (see section 5) will further 
enhance result-orientation. 

5.  

HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?  

The  Commission’s  better  regulation  guidelines 135  offer  a  framework  for  the  general 
design and implementation of monitoring and evaluation systems. 

5.1   ESF+  

Shared management strand 

The  recommendations  from  the  evaluation  of  the  ESF  2007-2013  concerning  the 
monitoring and evaluation system  were  addressed notably by introducing for the 2014-
2020 programming period a set of common indicators together with detailed definitions 
and guidance for data collection; and by requirements for Member States to set targets, to 
report  comprehensively  on  the  indicators,  to  establish  evaluation  plans,  and  carry  out 
impact  evaluations.  The  double-counting  of  outputs  was  addressed,  leading  to  a  more 
reliable reporting on actual ESF achievements. The post-2020 monitoring and evaluation 
system  will build  on  the  current  programming  period,  which  has  introduced  substantial 
improvements  to  monitoring  and  evaluating  performance  of  ESF,  as  compared  to  the 
previous  programming  period,  and  will  rely  on  a  similar,  yet  simplified  system  for  ex-
FEAD-type interventions.  

The performance of the shared management strand of the ESF+ will be measured through 
common  and  programme-specific  output  and  result  indicators.  Success  will  continue 
being assessed through the comparison of the achievements with the targets (achievement 
ratio) as well as the comparison of the results with the outputs (success rate). The main 
result  indicators  are  related  to  the  number  of  ESF+  participants  who  receive  basic 
material assistance, engage in job-search, gain a qualification and/or find a job as a result 
of support. Targets for outputs and results will continue being set by Member States for 
each programme. The targets' reliability is expected to increase as they can be calculated 
based on current common indicator achievements.  

The  most  noticeable  improvement  in  the  current  programming  period,  comparable 
common indicators based on common definitions, has required huge investments in data 
collection  and  processing.  It  is  essential  that  the  existing,  monitoring  and  information 
systems  remain  in  place;  only  changes  that  reduce  the  burden  of  data  collection  and 
processing  while  increasing  the  relevance  for  management  purposes  are  envisaged. 
Common output indicators will be reduced to the most relevant target groups of the ESF+ 
(e.g.  number  of  inactive,  unemployed,  people  not  in  education  or  training,  young  and 
elderly, low-skilled participants) and allow to calculate the planned achievements of the 
fund  at  EU  level.  Sensitive  indicators  with  little  relevance  or  complex  definitions,  e.g. 
'other disadvantaged' will be dropped.  Sensitive data may be collected through informed 

135

 Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  SWD(2017)350:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-

guidelines.pdf 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
 
estimates  (based  on  current  practice  for  the  FEAD),  thereby  avoiding  the  need  to  put 
difficult questions to difficult-to-reach participants. This will reduce the deterrent effect 
of having to answer sensitive questions and will simplify data collection. Where possible, 
definitions  for  common  indicators  will  be  reviewed  to  foster  a  wider  use  of  available 
administrative registers for all types of data. Common indicators that are not applicable 
from the outset (e.g. employment in the case of pupils in primary schools) will no longer 
need to be collected. The number of common result indicators will also be streamlined, 
notably by merging ESF and YEI indicators.  

The  abolition  of  the  performance  reserve  is  expected  to  reduce  the  number  of 
programme-specific indicators significantly, thereby simplifying collection and reporting.  

Like  data  collection,  reporting  mechanisms  will  also  build  on  the  current  system, 
including electronic data transmission, automatic validation rules, web-service and open 
data.  The  burden  will  decrease  as  fewer  indicators,  both  common  and  programme 
specific will be reported. Moreover, the structured reporting of quantitative data will be 
simpler, as the current approval mechanism will be replaced by feedback on data quality 
and  only  quality  data  will  be  published.  As  a  result,  it  will  also  allow  obtaining  more 
timely information about achievements.  

Evaluation  will  remain  the  shared  responsibility  of  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission. Ex ante and interim evaluations will be carried out by Member States and 
the ex post evaluation of the fund by the Commission with the support of Member States. 
The Commission may also carry out at its own initiative further evaluations of the ESF+. 
The  current  comprehensive  requirement  on  impact  evaluations  is  maintained  and  the 
reporting  of  evaluation  findings  will  be  more  structured.  That  will  facilitate  the  meta-
analysis of available evidence, facilitating the preparation of the next MFF as well as the 
mid-term review of the programmes.   

Impact evaluations of all priorities of all programmes will be required for the assessment 
and quantification, where possible, of the impacts of the fund, as it is already the case for 
the  current  ESF.  Reporting  could  be  more  structured,  so  that  it  will  be  easier  to 
summarise and disseminate results by using for instance the evaluation criteria as defined 
in  the  better  regulation guidelines. Also,  support  for  the  quantification of  net  effects  of 
results  through  counterfactual  impact  evaluations  will  continue.  As  counterfactual 
evaluation  is  heavily  reliant  on  data  on  comparable  non-participants,  MAs'  and 
contractors'  access  to  administrative  registers  will  be  facilitated  while  complying  with 
data  protection  rules.  Likewise, 
the  ex-ante  evaluation  or  under  ex-ante 
conditionalities, MAs will be required to investigate what data registers could be used for 
monitoring and evaluation purposes and to secure access to them from the onset. The use 
of  macro-economic  models  for  quantifying  high-level  impacts,  e.g.  on  the  employment 
rate, will be improved by structured data about ESF+ investments on NUTS2-level. Last 
but not least, the ex-ante evaluation carried out by Member States should gauge levels of 
gold-plating,  in  particular  as  regards  monitoring  and  how  they  could  be  reduced  in  the 
next programming period.  

in 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  requirements  for  ex-FEAD-types  of  operations  such  as  food 
and  material  aid,  will  remain  separate  and  simpler  than  for  the  rest  of  the  ESF+.  This 
reflects  the  intervention  logic  of  basic  material  assistance  targeting  the  most  deprived 
people. It is essential that the current core elements of flexibility (e.g. informed estimates 
by the partner organisation) are preserved in the future. Monitoring of performance will 
be improved by setting baselines, and adding a  few indicators  on  access to  services, to 
reflect the extension of scope of assistance. The potential additional burden of these new 
requirements  will  be  offset  by  the  simplification  of  common  output  indicators  (such  as 

43 

 
 
 
food type provided). It is also envisaged to slightly expand the questions of the structured 
surveys  for  end-recipients  with  additional  input  from  partner  organizations  involved, 
which is already the current practice in Member States. 

Direct and indirect management strand 

The  performance  framework  will  be  updated  building  on  relevant  parts  of  the  former 
EaSI performance framework.  
The  monitoring  system  will  include  qualitative  and  quantitative  performance  indicators 
and  ensure  that  data  for  monitoring  the  implementation  and  results  of  the  direct  and 
indirect management strand are collected efficiently, effectively and timely.  
Evaluations  of  the  direct  and  indirect  management  strand  will  be  carried  out  in  a 
sufficiently timely manner to feed into different decision-making processes.   

5.2 EGF 

Monitoring the performance of EGF will be strengthened by introducing provisions for a 
common  monitoring  system  with  output  and  result  indicators  in  the  EGF  Regulation. 
Success  will  mainly  be measured through re-employment rates,  i.e.  the share of people 
who found a job after having received EGF assistance. 

Based  on  the  lessons  learned,  it  is  proposed  that  Member  States  should  be  required  to 
include  the  delivery  of  common  output  and  result  indicators  in  their  contracts  with  the 
implementing  bodies.  The  requirements  currently  introduced  in  the  EGF  Financing 
decisions  will  be  incorporated  in  the  EGF  Regulation,  meaning  to  deliver  data  on  the 
employment status of beneficiaries when the respective Member State submits the final 
report  and  a  year  later.  This  also  includes  information  on  the  type  and  quality  of 
the  beneficiaries' 
employment  (e.g.  permanent/non-permanent)  and  changes 
employability at the end of the operations (e.g. qualifications gained). The data will need 
to be collected based on surveys and PES data. This will enable assessment of the extent 
to  which  the  assistance  helped  to  improve  beneficiaries’  employability  and  helped 
changing their employment status, in order to see whether the fund functions effectively.  

in 

Given the findings of previous evaluations and Court  of Auditors  reports, case specific 
target  setting  will  be  introduced.  These  will  need  to  take  into  account  the  specific 
characteristics of a case and the extent to which past cases are comparable. The targets 
should  refer  to  beneficiaries'  re-integration  rates.  The  Regulation  will  specify  the  exact 
requirements regarding survey data and indicators to be provided, while Member States 
will  propose  case  specific  targets  for  approval  by  the  Commission,  in  the  application 
phase.  These  are  necessary  for reporting  and evaluation  purposes,  but  are  not  bound  to 
sanction  mechanisms  or  result  based  payments.  Emergency  situations  can  be 
characterised  by  the  fact  that  they  occur  unexpectedly,  in  often  quickly  changing 
unpredictable  environments.  Result  based  payments  would  only  be  fair  if  the  results 
could directly be attributed to the assistance granted and would not be heavily dependent 
on  external  factors  as  well.  In  the  final  reports,  however,  Member  States  will  need  to 
provide a reasoned analysis to what extent the targets have been reached 

The EGF mid-term evaluation showed that future evaluations should be scheduled so as 
to  ensure  that  enough  data  are  available.  Therefore,  in  line  with  the  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines, the timing of mid-term and final evaluations will in future be better aligned 
with the implementation cycle. For the EGF, this will mean that a mid-term evaluation is 
to be completed by 30 June 2025, and an ex-post evaluation by 31 December 2029. 

44 

 
 
 
 
45 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  Lead DG(s), Decide Planning/CWP references  

LEAD DG: DG EMPL 

No DeCIDE planning as instructed by SG 

CWP  reference:  An  agenda  for  a  more  united,  stronger  and  more  democratic  Europe, 
Commission Work Programme 2018, COM(2017)650 final (24.10.2017), Annex I, new 
initiative n°2 ‘multi-annual financial framework’: Comprehensive proposal for the future 
Multi-annual  Financial  Framework  beyond  2020  (Q2  2018)  followed  by  proposals  for 
the  next  generation  of  programmes  and  new  own  resources  (legislative,  incl.  impact 
assessment, Art. 311 TFEU plus sectoral bases, Q2 2018)  

2.  Organisation and timing  

Inter-service steering group led by SG on the upcoming MFF proposals in the area 
of human capital development.  
1st meeting: 27 February 2018 
2nd meeting: 20 March 2018  
3rd meeting: 2 May 2018 
4th meeting: 16 May 2018 

Participating  DGs:  SJ,  EPSC,  ECFIN,  GROW,  EMPL,  AGRI,  MOVE,  CNCET,  JRC, 
REGIO,  EAC,  HOME,  JUST,  TRADE,  ESTAT,  DIGIT,  BUDG,  MARE,  ENER, 
CLIMA 

Inter-service  steering  group  co-chaired  by  SG  and  EMPL  on  the  study  to  support 
the DG EMPL impact assessment 
1st meeting: 29 May 2017 
2nd meeting: 6 December 2017 
3rd meeting: 23 January 2018 
4th meeting: 22 February 2018 
5th meeting: 20 March 2018  

Participating DGs: SG, EMPL, MARE, JUST, ECFIN, BUDG, GROW, REGIO, AGRI, 
SANTE, EAC, HOME, JRC, SRSS, CNECT 

3.  Consultation of the RSB  

An informal upstream meeting was held on 24th January 2018 with RSB representatives 
and the participation of SG, DG BUDG and JRC. During this discussion Board members 
and representatives of the horizontal Services provided early feedback and advice on the 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
basis of the inception impact assessment (scoping paper). Board members' feedback did 
not prejudge in any way the subsequent formal deliberations of the RSB. 

The  RSB  hearing  took  place  on  the  25  April  2018,  the  IA  received  a  positive  opinion 
with the following reservations: 

Main RSB considerations 

IA report modifications 

(1)  The  policy  prioritisation  of  actions  is 
not  clear,  in  particular  in  relation  to  the 
European Pillar of Social Rights, as well as 
to  accommodate  potential  reductions  of 
funding. 

(2)  The  rationale  and  future  use  of  the 
European  Globalisation  Adjustment  Fund 
are not sufficiently explained. 

The  text  clarifies  a  potential  reduction  of 
funding would be addressed by limiting the 
the  area  of 
scope  of 
administrative reform and by increasing the 
national co-financing rates (section 2.1.1). 

the  ESF+ 

in 

The explanation of the rationale of the EGF 
has  been  improved  in  chapter  2.1.1.3, 
especially  by  adding  info  on  its  character 
as  an emergency  response  instrument. The 
info on the future use of the EGF in chapter 
3.2 has been improved by adding extensive 
info  on  the  rationale  for  the  proposed 
future  changes,  especially  the  broadened 
scope and the lower threshold.  

report  does  not  sufficiently 
(3)  The 
demonstrate 
the  monitoring  and 
evaluation system is robust and will deliver 
the necessary information in a timely way. 

that 

Additional  information  on  the  monitoring 
and evaluation system has been inserted in 
Section 5. 

Further  considerations  and  adjustment 
requirements 

lessons 

(1)  The 
learned  should  more 
comprehensively build on the main general 
and  fund-specific  challenges  identified  in 
the  published  evaluations  and  preliminary 
evaluations results. 

and 
identified 

preliminary 
evaluations, 
Published 
stakeholder 
evaluation 
results 
consultations  have 
specific 
challenges  to  each  of  the  funds.  When 
analysing them, it appeared that they could 
be  grouped  in  to  the  four  overall  MFF 
challenges,  i.e.  interaction  and  synergies 
between  fund,  alignment  to  policies  and 
flexibility,  simplification  and  performance 
and  result  orientation.  The  cross  cutting 
MFF challenges find therefore a translation 
for each fund (Section 2.1.2.2).   

(2)  Clarify  the  main  rational  for  merging 
the  funds  and  the  risks  associated  to  the 
merge. 

Additional  explanation  has  been  included 
in order to explain the reasons for merging 
the relevant funds together and for keeping 

47 

 
 
 
 
the EGF out of this new fund. In addition, 
the  main  risk  raised  by  stakeholders  that 
the  merged  fund  would 
the 
administrative  burden  is  mitigated  as  ex-
FEAD  and  EaSI  type  of  measures  will 
remain  subject  to  simpler  rules  (Section 
4.1.1).  

increase 

(3)  The  baseline  of  the  ESF+  programme 
needs to reflect the impact of Brexit. 

Baseline  following  Brexit  inserted  in  the 
text under section 2.1.1. 

on 

transparent 

(4)  Be  more 
the 
prioritisation  of  the  ESF+.  Clarify  the  key 
changes  in  the  policy  priorities  of  the 
ESF+,  including  as  regards  the  link  to  the 
European Pillar of Social Rights. Explain if 
and how the ESF+ will cover all or some of 
the  different  domains  on  the  Pillar.  Better 
explain  the  link  between  the  structural 
reforms  and 
the  European  Semester 
Process. 

It was clarified in the text of the report that 
the  merged  fund  will  not  as  such  change 
the  priorities  of  the  funding  instrument, 
which  results  to  be  an  aggregation  of  the 
previously  partly  overlapping  policy 
priorities of the different funds. The ESF+ 
will  support  the  policy  priorities  of  the 
European Pillar of Social Rights which are 
part  of  its  scope.  The  text  further  clarifies 
which  Pillar  rights  and  principles  will  fall 
under the scope of the ESF+. The question 
of prioritisation is clarified on pages 30-31. 

(5) Clarify whether and to  what extent the 
ESF+  will  address  public  administration 
reform.  Refer  to  possible  future  support 
from  other  funding  programmes  (e.g. 
SRSP)  

The  text  clarifies  the  scope  of  the  ESF+ 
regarding  public  administration  reform  to 
the extent possible given that at the time of 
writing  this  IA,  the  scope  of  the  future 
SRSP is not yet known. 

(6) Identify the key changes in the delivery 
mechanisms of the ESF+ 

The  changes  proposed  in  the  delivery 
mechanisms  address  different  issues  and 
are therefore of different nature. In terms of 
programming  for  example  a  key  change  is 
to  align the funding and  policy process by 
streamlining  the  programming  documents. 
In  terms  of  implementation,  a  key  change 
is  to  apply  in  a  more  flexible  way  the 
territorial  rules  for 
to 
introduce 
conditionalities 
(Section 4).  

the  ESF  and 

continuous 

(7)  Strengthen  the  rationale  for  the  EGF’s 
revision. 

(8)  Clarify  the  coherence  between  the 
ESF+ and ERDF and Erasmus 

See Main considerations, point 2.  

Aspects  of  coherence  between  the  ESF+ 
and  ERDF  and  Erasmus  programme  have 
been  included  in  the  main  body  of  the 
report.  Additional  information  is  provided 
in annex 4. 

(9) Explain how the monitoring system will 
address  the  criticisms  voiced  during  the 
2007-2013 period. The evaluation planning 

On  monitoring  and  evaluation,  see  Main 
considerations,  point  3.  The  views  of 
stakeholders  are  summarised  in  the  main 

48 

 
 
should  include  an  interim  evaluation  of 
each  fund.  Explain  how  the  stakeholders 
views were taken into account 

body  of  the  report  (section  1.2.2)  and  are 
more  detailed  in  annex  2,  see  in  particular 
Section 
how 
stakeholder views were taken into account. 

6.2  which 

explains 

4.  Evidence, sources and quality  

The  Commission  services  have  contracted  a  number  of  studies  to  inform  the  Impact 
Assessment and the legislative- making process (please see the list below). In addition, a 
contractor  has  specifically  conducted  a  literature  review  of  relevant  sources  which  has 
fed into the Impact Assessment (first in the list of sources).   

49 

 
 
 
 
Name of the study 

Description 

Study to support the DG EMPL 
Impact assessment (FGB) 

Study  on  the  assessment  of  the 
adequacy  of the ESF's  design to 
support human capital policies 

The  study  aims  to  feed  into  the  Commission's  assessment  of  the  benefits  of  the 
Union's expenditure in human capital, into the establishment of a strong intervention 
logic  narrative  for  future  investment  in  human  capital  and  in  the  assessment  of  the 
impacts  of  possible  scenarios  for  the  future.  The  study  also  supports  the  associated 
consultation work by the Commission. 

This study expands and solidifies the evidence base and provides suggestions for the 
future  development  of  a  post-2020  ESF.  The  project  evolved  from  assessing  the 
strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  ESF  into  a  more  detailed  assessment  of  the  ESF’s 
main  challenges.  By  departing  from  the  existing  challenges,  the  study  provides  a 
detailed  empirical  base  as  input  for  the  identification  of  policy  options.  The  policy 
options defined throughout the study can be structured along three broad dimensions: 
(1)  revising  existing  architecture  of  funds  investing  in  human  capital;  (2) 
strengthening  the  link  of  ESF  programming  to  EU  priorities;  (3)  taking  additional 
steps  to  support  simplification  of  ESF.  Key  challenges  are  defined  for  each  of  the 
three dimensions, which are then explicitly linked to possible policy alternatives. The 
list  of  suggested  options  is  not  exhaustive  and  political  considerations  may  lead  to 
other options. 

Links 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Study on the analysis of the first 
results  of  the  implementation  of 
the  YEI  and  related  ESF  youth 
employment actions  

The Youth  Employment  Initiative (YEI) launched in  2013 provides  funding  of €6.4 
billion to support youth employment by targeting young people aged below 25 years 
(or  below  29  in  some  Member  States)  who  are  not  in  employment,  education  or 
training and who reside in the regions of the European Union particularly affected by 
unemployment.  This  study  provides  an  overview  of  the  implementation  progress  of 

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?
catId=738&langId=en&pubId=793
1       

50 

 
 
 
 
 
the  YEI  from  September  2013  to  the  end  of  November  2015  across  the  20  eligible 
Member States. It also includes an in-depth analysis for a sample of countries and key 
points from the national evaluations. 

Analysis  of  the  outcome  of  the 
negotiations 
the 
concerning 
and 
Partnership  Agreements 
ESF  Operational  Programmes, 
for 
the  programming  period 
2014-2020 

The aim of the study was to provide an evidence-based review of EU Member States’ 
strategic  choices  related  to  the  programming  of  the  European  Social  Fund  for  the 
2014-2020 period. It consisted in a mapping of the content of Partnership Agreements 
and ESF Operational Programmes, including ESF multi-fund OPs, and analysing the 
extent  to  which  the  main  innovations  introduced  by  the  ESF  Regulation  and  the 
relevant CPR have been integrated in the programming documents, with a particular 
focus on the provisions concerning strategic programming and result orientation. 

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServl
et?docId=16970&langId=en   

The  study’s  objective  is  to  assess  to  which  extent  the  ESI  Funds,  and  especially 
Structural  funds,  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  structural  reforms  by  Member 
States,  in  particular  those  which  were  put  forward  in  the  Country  Specific 
Recommendations (CSRs).    

Study  on  linkage  with  Country 
Specific  Recommendations  and 
supporting structural reforms 

ESF  Performance  and  Thematic 
Reports 2014-2015 

Study  on  the  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation Systems of the ESF 

Ex post evaluation of the EGF 

Mid-term  evaluations  of 
EaSI programme 

the 

Mid-term  evaluations  of 

the 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServl
et?docId=14371&langId    

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

51 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
FEAD 

Mid-term evaluation of the EGF 

Analysing the current state of the EU's economic, social and territorial cohesion, the 
Cohesion  Report  covers  all  EU  territories.  Europe's  economy  is  bouncing  back  but 
disparities persist between and within our Member States.  

COM(2018)  297  final,  16.5.2018 
and SWD(2018)192 final, 16.5.2018 

7th  report  on  economic,  social 
and 
cohesion. 
European Commission 

territorial 

Public investment in the EU is still below pre-crisis levels, while regions and Member 
States  need  to  invest  more  to  respond  to  today’s  challenges  such  as  the  digital 
revolution,  globalisation,  demographic  change,  social  cohesion  and  economic 
convergence. 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
sources/docoffic/official/reports/coh
esion7/7cr.pdf  

European Commission Synthesis 
report  ex-post  evaluation  ESF 
2007-2013. 

The  Report  suggests  an  EU-wide  policy  serving  three  main  purposes:  harnessing 
globalisation, leaving no one behind and supporting structural reforms. 
Main lessons included the following (which have already been partly included in the 
2014-2020  reform):  The  ESF  should  continue  to  be  closely  aligned  with  EU  and 
national  policy  priorities,  as  well  as  those  of  the  European  Semester.  It  should 
maintain  its  flexibility  to  adjust  to  emerging  needs,  ensuring  good  coverage  of 
disadvantaged  groups  –  focusing  both  on  young  and  older  people.  More  tailored 
training  activities  to  the  needs  of  stakeholders  would  be  an  improvement.  The  ESF 
should be even more result-oriented by defining, for example, robust objectives and 
targets  and  by  strengthening  monitoring  and  evaluation  systems.  In  order  to  reduce 
the  administrative  burden  of  the  fund  management,  further  simplification  should  be 
developed and implemented while the Member states administrative capacity should 
be further enhanced. 

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServl
et?docId=16810&langId=en  

52 

 
 
 
during 

Study  on 
provisions 
programming  phase  of 
Structural 
European 
Investment (ESI) Funds 

the  use  of  new 
the 
the 
and 

Study  on  the  implementation  of 
the  provisions  in  relation  to  the 
ex-ante  conditionalities  during 
the  programming  phase  of  the 
and 
Structural 
European 
Investment (ESI) Funds; 

The analysis covered the 28 Partnership Agreements and of 292 operational and co-
operation programmes for the 2014-2020 period financed by the European Regional 
Development  Fund,  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  the  European  Social  Fund.  It  was 
completed with a survey of managing authorities and interviews at European, national 
and  regional  levels.  It  revealed  that  the  new  regulatory  framework  has  significantly 
altered  the  Member  States’  approach  to  programming.  The  new  provisions  required 
programmers  to  link  strategic  thinking  and  result-based  management,  and  relate 
strategic thinking with the objectives and the means of the Europe 2020 strategy.  

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

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

The  study  reviews  the  implementation  of  the  ex-ante  conditionalities  that  were 
introduced in the Regulations of the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment 
Funds  and  were  assessed  through  the  Partnership  Agreements  and  Operational 
Programmes  developed  to  deliver  those  funds.  The  research  findings  highlight  the 
value  of  ex-ante  conditionalities,  in  encouraging  the  fulfilment  of  EU  regulatory 
requirements  faster  than  might  have  been  the  case  in  their  absence  and  reinforcing 
effectiveness  through  associated  strategies  in  the  policy  areas  supported  by  ESI 
Funds.  The  process  has  also  allowed  the  Commission  to  engage  in  a  dialogue  with 

53 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
sources/policy/how/studies_integrati
on/new_provision_progr_esif_repor
t_en.pdf  

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
sources/policy/how/studies_integrati
on/impl_exante_esif_report_en.pdf  

 
 
Study  on  the  implementation  of 
the  provisions  in  relation  to  the 
performance  framework  during 
the  programming  phase  of  the 
and 
Structural 
European 
Investment (ESI) Funds 

Member  States,  resulting  in  an  improved  understanding  of  the  situation  in  the 
Member  States.  However,  in  some  of  the  ‘older’  EU-15  Member  States,  the  added 
value  was  perceived  to  be  limited  and  the  process  of  assuring  the  conditionalities 
attracted some criticism for being disproportionate to the benefits. Timing, costs and 
the  extent  of  actions  required  to  fulfil  some  of  the  conditionalities  have  generally 
exceeded  the  original  estimates  or  required  more  resources  than  was  envisaged,  by 
both the Commission and Member States.  

The  performance  framework  (PF)  and  performance  reserve  have  been  included  as 
compulsory  elements  in  programmes  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period  of  the 
European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in order to ensure that programmes 
are  kept  on  track  to  achieve  their  objectives  and  that  progress  can  be  adequately 
measured.  This  report  provides  a  synthesis  covering  the  manner  in  which  the 
provisions  relating  to  the  PF  and  the  performance  reserve  are  reflected  in  all 
Partnership Agreements (PA), operational programmes (OP) under the Investment for 
Growth and Jobs Goal (IGJ) financed by the European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF), including multi-fund programmes co-financed 
by the European Social Fund (ESF), and the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) 
programmes  financed  by  the  ERDF.  The  study  is  based  on  60  interviews,  desk 
research and additional information provided, a focus group with representatives from 
the European Commission and a web-survey. This final report analyses and assesses 
the processes for the establishment of the PF, how PFs have been designed (i.e. the 
indicators  used  for  milestones  and  targets),  the  establishment  of  the  performance 
reserve,  and  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  PF  and  performance  reserve.  The 
findings show that the PF is overall helpful in focussing programmes and contributing 
to  a results-oriented approach. However, while there are clear benefits  from the PF, 
there are also a number of caveats and challenges emerging from the analysis. 

54 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
sources/policy/how/studies_integrati
on/impl_pf_esif_report_en.pdf  

 
 
Study  on  the  implementation  of 
the  partnership  principle  and 
multi-level  governance  during 
the  programming  phase  of  the 
and 
Structural 
European 
Investment (ESI) Funds 

In  the  legislative  framework  for  the  2014-2020  ESI  Funds  the  partnership  principle 
has been strengthened. Article 5 of the Common Provision Regulation (CPR) makes it 
compulsory  for  each  ESI  Fund  programme  to  organise  a  partnership  at  all 
programming  stages  and  at  all  levels.  A  European  Code  of  Conduct  on  Partnership 
(CoC)  has  been  set  up  to  support  Member  States  to  ensure  that  all  partners  are 
involved  at  all  stages  in  the  implementation  of  Partnership  Agreements  and 
programmes. Even though the partnership principle is not new for the 2014-2020 ESI 
Funds,  more  importance  has  been  given  to  stakeholder  involvement  and  influence. 
The aim of this study is to review the establishment of the partnership principle and 
the application of the CoC in the Partnership Agreements and programmes financed 
by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF), 
including  European  Territorial  Cooperation  (ETC)  programmes  and  multi-fund 
programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF). The study analyses data 
collected by document analysis, web-survey and interviews. 

The  partnership  principle  has  been  satisfactorily  respected  in  a  wide  range  of 
countries and programmes. However, there are still challenges across a broad range of 
countries  concerning  the  mobilisation  of  partners.  Generally  the  modified  legal 
framework  was  perceived  as  positive  as  it  increased  awareness  and  visibility  of  the 
partnership  principle.  The  level  of  stakeholder  involvement  has  improved  since  the 
2007-2013  programming  period,  although  there  are  sometimes  differences  between 
the  content  of  the  programming  documents  and  the  perception  of  stakeholders. 
Overall,  the  partnership  principle  adds  value  to  the  implementation  of  European 
public policies.  

55 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
sources/policy/how/studies_integrati
on/impl_partner_report_en.pdf  

 
 
 
In order to reduce the administrative burden, respect the principle of proportionality, 
ensure  sound  financial  management,  and  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the 
European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds both for the Member States and the 
beneficiaries, the Common Provisions Regulation establishes a set of thresholds and 
limits on administrative requirements for operations benefitting from ESI Funds. 

Modelling  the  impact  of  these  new  thresholds  at  the  level  of  the  operations  with 
existing  data  was  problematic  as  data  was  only  available  at  an  aggregate  level. 
Therefore, the European Commission initiated this study to establish a database and 
subsequently  analyse  operation-level  data  from  Operational  Programmes  supported 
by the ERDF and CF under the 2007-2013 programming period. Where possible, data 
that could not be collected was estimated. 

The assembled database was then used to analyse the distribution of operations, both 
in terms of the number of operations and their total cost, around six thresholds. This 
analysis  was  also  applied  to  show  the  impact  based  on  other  criteria,  including 
category  of  region,  priority theme,  territorial  dimension, and for individual Member 
States.  Finally,  sensitivity  analyses  were  conducted  to  analyse  the  impact  that  any 
potential changes in the thresholds would have on these parameters. 

Study on setting up a database to 
assess  impacts  and  effects  of 
certain  thresholds  and  limits  in 
the ESI Funds regulation 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
sources/policy/how/studies_integrati
on/setting_db_report_en.pdf 

the  use  of  new 
Study  on 
provisions 
simplification 
on 
during  the  early  implementation 
phase of ESI Funds 

The  study  reviews  whether  21  selected  simplification  measures  generated  the 
expected reductions. While previous studies addressed only single funds, this study, 
for the first time collected comparable figures on administrative costs and burden for 
all five ESI Funds. 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
en/information/publications/studies/
2017/use-of-new-provisions-on-
simplification-during-the-early-
implementation-phase-of-esif  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study  on  a  new  assessment  of 
administrative costs and burdens 
in the ESI Funds 

Study  on  alternative  delivery 
modes 

Feasibility study on performance 
based  budget  support  including 
legal set-up 

coordination 

Study  on 
and 
harmonisation  of  the  ESI  funds 
and other EU instruments 

Study  on  improving  the  take  up 
and  effectiveness  of  financial 
instruments 

Study on the extent to which and 
how  Member  States  used  the 
ESF  and 
the 
programming periods 2007-2013 
and  2014-2020  to  support  their 
justice system.  

the  ERDF 

in 

the 

Evaluation 
EU 
of 
Framework for NRIS up to 2020 
(covers the use of ESI Funds for 
Roma inclusion) 

57 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

Following the Better Regulation Guidelines (Tool #55), this Annex summarises the DG 
EMPL consultation activities and their results. 

1   Objective of the consultation strategy 

The overall aim of DG EMPL’s consultation was to: 

  Gather input from the stakeholders of the five funding instruments subject to this 
Impact Assessment on the design and priorities for post-2020 EU investments in 
social and employment policies.  

  Feed the stakeholders’ input into the drafting of the legislative proposal and the 

Impact Assessment accompanying it. 

2  

Identified stakeholders 

The  consultation  was  based  on  a  stakeholders  mapping,  which  covers  the  main  EU 
organisations and institutions working in the field of social and employment policy and 
relevant investment – public authorities at all levels of government, social partners, civil 
society organisations, funding beneficiaries and end-users. 

A variety of stakeholders were reached in the consultation: members of the ESF, FEAD 
and  EaSI  Committee,  EGF  contact  persons,  EU-level  platforms,  networks  and 
associations,  representatives  of  for-profit  and  not-for-profit 
including 
employers'  organisations,  SME  organisations,  trade  unions,  civil  society  organisations, 
national-level  organisations  or  associations  representing  for-profit  and  not-for-profit 
interests;  public  authorities  at  EU  level,  public  authorities  at  the  national/regional/local 
levels (Managing Authorities, Intermediary Bodies, Audit authorities, beneficiaries) and 
finally consultancies, research organisations and academia. Finally, the four open public 
consultations136 aimed to reach citizens across the EU.   

interests, 

3   Consultation methods and tools 

The stakeholder consultation involved a variety of methods and tools in order to ensure 
that a sufficient variety and number of stakeholders would be reached, and that opinions 
would be crosschecked.  

 The  consultation  activities  included:  Open  Public  Consultations  (OPC),  stakeholder 
conferences and meetings, focus groups, interviews, targeted online consultation, analysis 
of position papers.  

3.1. Open Public Consultation  

The  aim  of  the  web-based  public  consultations  was  to  gather  feedback  from  a  broad 
range  of  stakeholders  in  all  EU  languages.  It  was  based  on  both  closed  and  open 
questions  on  the  policy  challenges,  subsidiarity,  objectives  of  the  programmes  and 

136  DG  EMPL  funds  were  included  in  the  following  four  clusters:  cohesion;  migration;  values  and  mobility; 
investment, research & innovation, SMEs & single market. 

58 

 
 
                                                                 
obstacles  to  reach  them,  simplification  and  synergy  between  the  programmes.  In 
addition,  stakeholders  could  submit  their  position  papers  on  the  EU  investment 
instruments post 2020.  

Furthermore, the impact assessment takes into account feedback from OPCs on the ESF 
2007-2013 ex- post evaluation as well as the FEAD and EGF mid-term evaluations137.     

3.2.Stakeholder conferences and meetings 

The  conferences  and  meetings  aimed  to  gather  contributions  from  a  number  of 
stakeholders through direct interaction. 

A  first  stakeholder  conference  in  Malta  opened  the  discussions  on  the  ESF  post-2020. 
Building on these, in cooperation with the Bulgarian Presidency DG EMPL organised a 
second  stakeholder  conference  ‘Investing  in  People:  the  Way  Forward”  on  15-16 
February 2018 that brought together more than 350 stakeholders of all 5 Funds under DG 
EMPL’s  responsibility,  including  policymakers  from  across  the  EU,  social  partners, 
academia, civil society and business organisations. Participants took part in 8 workshops 
discussing  key  topics  for  the  funds  post-2020. 138  Furthermore,  participants  actively 
engaged  in  the  panel  discussions  on the  future  EU  investment  in  people  by  asking 251 
questions and submitting 509 votes to polls through the Sli.do tool during the conference.    

The proposals for investing in people post-2020 were also discussed with committees and 
groups  involved  in  the  fund  management/coordination  (e.g.  EaSI  /  ESF  /  FEAD 
committee  members,  members  of  EURES  coordination  group,  EGF  Contact  Persons) 
including public authorities, social partners, and civil society organisations.  

3.3. Focus groups  

Two  focus  groups  of  20-25  participants  were  organised  in  the  framework  of  the  study 
supporting  DG  EMPL’s  impact  assessment.  Each  focus  group  involved  20-25 
participants, mainly stakeholders of the 5 Funds.  

3.4. Targeted online consultation  

Two questionnaires were designed for the purpose of the study supporting DG EMPL’s IA: 
one  targeting  managing  authorities  and  other  stakeholders  involved  in  the  funds’ 
management and the other targeting beneficiaries and end-users’.  

3.5. Analysis of position papers  

Stakeholders  expressed  their  views  on  the  5  Funds  post-2020  by  submitting  more  than 
700 position papers.  

8 Member States formally or informally submitted views on the EGF post-2020.  

137http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=699&consultId=24&visib=0&furtherConsult=yes&path=cms
&preview=cHJldkVtcGxQb3J0YWwhMjAxMjAyMTVwcmV2aWV3 
138 Investing in policy reforms; Pathways to employment; Synergies between EMPL funds; Social inclusion, Learning 
and working beyond borders; New ways of work; Education and skills; Performance, results and partnership. 

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
4   Data processing and analysis 

External  experts  helped  process  and  analyse  the  data.  A  consortium  led  by  the 
Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini analysed the results from the focus groups, conference, 
interviews  and  targeted  consultation  as  part  of  the  study  supporting  the  drafting  of  the 
Impact Assessment (ongoing).  

The results of the OPC on cohesion were analysed by external experts in Applica.   

5   Results  

5.1 Open Public Consultation 

5.1.1. Cluster on Cohesion  

The  OPC  on  Cohesion  policy  gathered  4395  responses,  of  which  2426  from 
organisations  and  1969  from  individuals.  After  ‘cleaning’  the  responses, 139  the 
questionnaires were reduced to 3,958. Responses were submitted by a similar number of 
individuals (47%) and organisations (53%). There is a significant overlap between those 
with experience of the different funds subject to the OPC; 57% of respondents reported 
experience of the ESF, 7% of the FEAD, 9% of the EaSI and 2% of the EGF. Regional 
and local authorities represent the largest type of organisation replying (18%); followed 
by  NGOs  (8%),  and  national  public  authorities  (4%),  and  the  rest  each  2-3%. 
Importantly, micro and small enterprises made up over two-thirds of ‘private companies’ 
replying  (which  implies  that  medium-sized  and  large  companies  are  disproportionately 
represented) and universities 65% of the ‘research and academia’ category. 

Responses  to  the  consultation  were  submitted  from  all  the  Member  States,  though  the 
number from each differed markedly. The largest number of responses came from Italy 
(21%), followed by Poland (14%) – i.e. the two together accounting for over a third of 
the total replies received. France, Germany and Spain accounted for just under a quarter. 
To some extent, the number of responses appears to be related to the amount of Cohesion 
policy funds received. 

The majority of respondents (78.9%) report that the Funds subject to this IA add value 
compared to what Member States could achieve without EU funding to a large extent 
(47.5%)  or  to  a  fairly  large  extent  (31.4%).  The  added  value  of  the  funds  is  linked  to 
promoting  effective  and  efficient  public  investment;  knowledge  exchange  between 
countries  and  regions;  contribution  to  social  integration  and  a  more  inclusive  Europe; 
support given to policy experimentation and innovation; reducing regional disparities and 
facilitating  convergence;  and  leverage  effect  of  cohesion  policy  on  public  and  private 
investment. Respondents from Austria, Croatia, Italy and Romania had the least positive 
opinion  of  the  added-value  of  Cohesion  policy,  while  respondents  from  Denmark, 
Finland,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  the  UK  had  the  most  positive 
opinion  

139 Around 10% of replies were identified as being part of a campaign. 

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
A high priority was assigned to all of the policy challenges, but above all were: ‘Reduce 
regional  disparities’  (94%  of  all  those  replying),  ‘Reduce  unemployment,  promote 
quality  jobs  and  labour  mobility’  (92%)  and  ‘Promote  social  inclusion  and  combat 
poverty’  (91%).  Importantly,  there  is  very  little  difference  in  the  relative  importance 
attached to the different challenges between respondents according to their experience of 
the different funds or country. Additional challenges identified include security, cultural 
heritage, demographic change, combating corruption and migration (although only 1% or 
less of respondents identified them).  

According  to  respondents,  the  most  successfully  addressed  challenges  are  ‘Research 
and innovation’ and ‘Territorial cooperation’, followed by ‘Economic growth’, ‘Regional 
disparities’  and  ‘Education  and  training’  ,  while  the  less  successfully  addressed 
challenges  remain  ‘Globalisation’,  ‘The  quality  of  institutions’  and  ‘Sound  economic 
governance and reforms’. Complex procedures are seen as the most important  obstacle 
to  funds  successfully  achieving  their  objectives,  86%  of  respondents  agreeing  to  a 
large or a fairly large extent. The next most important obstacles are the heavy audit and 
control procedures (68% agreeing to a large extent or a fairly large extent that this is an 
obstacle);  lack  of  flexibility  to  react  to  unforeseen  circumstances  (60%  agreeing  to  a 
large  extent  or  to  a  fairly  large  extent  that  this  obstructs  policy).  Furthermore,  57% 
agreed  to  a  large  extent  or  to  fairly  large  extent  that  the  difficulty  of  ensuring  the 
sustainability of projects was an obstacle to the funds achieving their objectives and 52% 
that insufficient administrative capacity was an obstacle. On the other hand, the difficulty 
of  ensuring the  financial  sustainability  of  projects  is  viewed as  being  a more  important 
obstacle than heavy audit and control requirements by respondents with experience of the 
FEAD and EaSI, and delays in payment and the insufficient involvement of civil society 
as  being  at  least  as  important.  Individuals  and  private  enterprises,  however,  perceive 
complex  procedures  and  control  requirements  as  obstacles  more  than  average,  while 
regional  and  local  authorities  also  regard  the  lack  of  flexibility  to  react  to  unforeseen 
circumstances as being important. For academia and research institutes as well as NGOs, 
the  difficulty  of  ensuring  the  financial  sustainability  of  projects  is  a  more  important 
obstacle than for other types of organisation. Additional obstacles identified in the OPC 
are: corruption and a lack of transparency in managing the Funds, a lack of strategy and 
priority setting in their allocation and a lack of integration of the Funds. 

The  most  frequent  responses  to  what  would  help  to  simplify  and  reduce 
administrative  burdens  for  the  ESF  were: ‘Fewer, clearer, shorter rules’, 93% of the 
respondents indicating that this would help to simplify and reduce administrative burdens 
to a large or to a fairly large extent; ‘Alignment of rules between EU funds, with 80.6%; 
‘more  flexibility  of  activity  once  funding  is  eligible’  and  ‘More  flexibility  of  resource 
allocation’ (78%); ‘More effective stakeholders’ involvement’ (72.6%); simplifying ex-
ante  conditionalities  (65.6%).  Merging  funds  was  identified  as  the  surest  way  to 
strengthen  synergies  and  avoid  duplication  and  overlaps  –  as  long  as  it  contributes  to 
simplification. The least frequent  choice, interestingly,  was ‘More freedom for national 
authorities to set rules’, which over half of respondents thought would help to simplify 
and  reduce  burden  only  to  some  extent  or  not  at  all.  Although  the  above  concerns  the 
ESF, there are few significant differences in the average values calculated for each of the 
steps when respondents are divided according to their experience of the different funds. 
The  main  difference  seems  to  be  that  respondents  with  experience  in  FEAD  and  EaSI 

61 

 
 
 
regard  the  ‘involvement  of  stakeholders’,  as  more  important  in  achieving  more 
simplification and a less heavy administrative burden. Indeed, NGOs and ‘Churches and 
religious  communities’  consider  ‘stakeholder  involvement’  to  be  a  more  important step 
towards simplifying and reducing administrative burdens than other organisations, while 
‘Regional and local authorities’ give more importance to ‘alignment of rules between EU 
funds’ than others. The main additional simplification measures listed were ‘coordination 
among  actors’,  ‘improved  administrative  capacity’,  ‘changes  in  the  system  of  controls’ 
and ‘more flexibility in the managements of the funds’. 

As  regards  EaSI,  stakeholders  provided  several  strengths  of  the  programme.  The 
transnational development and implementation aspect represents a very high added value 
as  this  cannot  be  achieved  at  national,  regional  or  local  level.  Respondents  highlighted 
that  EaSI  funds  made  it  possible to  test  innovative  devices at  cross-border  level  and  to 
create a field of cooperation and dialogue between different types of actors. In addition to 
that, EaSI has been mentioned as one of the backbones for implementing the European 
Pillar  of  Social  Rights  and  an  essential  tool  for  specific  achievements,  such  as 
transforming  and  computerising  social  services  etc.  Several  stakeholders  advocated  for 
alignment or merging of funds, linking ESF and EaSI through a common framework or 
having one social fund after 2020. 

5.1.2. Cluster on migration 

The OPC on  migration gathered 350  responses, of  which 185 come  from organisations 
and 165 from individuals. Similarly to the respondents on cohesion policy, the majority 
(57%)  of  participants  working  with  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(including  the  ESF)  believe  that  EU  funding  in  the  area  of  migration  add  value 
compared  to  what  Member  States  could  achieve  without  EU  funding  to  a  large  extent 
(23.7%) or to a fairly large extent (33.3%). For example, ‘’ESF measures such as social 
inclusion,  training  and  education  are  also  available  to  help  people  becoming 
independent  in  managing  their  accommodation  and  budget’’,  ‘’the  ESF  and  the  ERDF 
have  strengthened  interdepartmental  cooperation  contributing  to  the  integration  of 
recently arrived migrants’’ and ‘’ESF-funded organisations achieve independence from 
local, regional and national political actors and agendas and can thus operate as fully-
fledged  civil  society  agents’’.  The  main  policy  challenges  that  the  Funds  in  this  area 
should  address  are  supporting  Member  States’  work  to  accept  and  integrate  migrants; 
meeting the reception needs of asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants; and ensuring 
solidarity  with  Member  States  facing  the  greatest  migration  pressure.  However 
respondents see the main obstacles which prevent the funds from successfully achieving 
their  objectives,  the  complexity  of  rules  and  high  administrative  burden,  the  lack  of 
flexibility  to  respond  to  changing  circumstances  and  difficulty  in  combining  EU  and 
national/regional interventions. The main measures selected by respondents for reducing 
beneficiaries’ administrative burden are clearer rules and simplified procedures, simpler 
access to funding, wider scope for interventions able to be funded.  

5.1.3  Cluster  on  'investment,  research  &  innovation'  and  'values  and  mobility' 
(EaSI relevant) 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The 127 respondents having experience of the EaSI in the OPC on ' investment, research 
& innovation, SMEs and single market’ suggest that the microfinance fund of EaSI could 
be transferred to other instruments that promote entrepreneurship (loan, guarantee) as a 
separate social strand/priority.  

The 90 respondents who had experience with 'mobility' related EaSI actions noted that a 
future umbrella fund for human capital should maintain the direct management of EaSI 
as  it  is  the  only  way  to  ensure  that  EURES  border  partnerships  can  continue  to 
implement cross-border activities.  

5.1.4 Open public consultation (OPC) on the FEAD mid-term evaluation 

The  OPC  conducted  in  the  framework  of  FEAD  mid-term  evaluation  points  to  a broad 
agreement  (93%)  that  supported  activities  make  a  difference  to  the  most  deprived, 
reaching the target groups (76%) and especially children at risk of poverty (79% OP I). 
The large number of responses to the OPC points to the relatively high visibility of the 
fund. These results were confirmed also by other fora such as focus groups conducted in 
the framework  of  mid-term evaluation that  stressed  necessity of  maintaining the fund’s 
flexibility and established delivery networks. 

5.1.5. Open public consultation on the EaSI mid-term evaluation  

EaSI's  EU  added  value  is  widely  acknowledged  by  respondents.  It  is  considered  that, 
while the main responsibility for developing labour market and social policies lies with 
the Member States, the EU brings added value to their actions by acting as a catalyst and 
facilitator  to  trigger  national  reforms  in  support  of  the  EU  common  objectives  and 
priorities  laid  down  in  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  Efficiency  could  be  improved  by 
allocating the financial resources more equitably and coherently between and within the 
three axes.  

5.2. Focus groups 

Participants suggested that the limited evidence on indirect and multiplier effects leads to 
an  underestimation  of  Funds’  European  Added  Value,  which  is  in  fact  significant. 
Investment action at EU level contributing to upward social convergence is necessary for 
the well-functioning of the Single Market, and results in welfare system savings. Further 
alignment between EU policy and funding would increase the EAV. It is believed that 
without  alignment,  certain  targets  groups  are  at  risk  of  not  being  targeted  for  political 
reasons (e.g. migrants, LGTB, Roma, people with disabilities). Participants stressed that 
social inclusion should not be neglected at the expense of employment measures.  
In this regard, the current use of ex-ante conditionalities, while important, was seen as 
sufficient or even too high and it was suggested to limit their use to fund-specific issues. 
Ex-ante  conditionalities  of  a  more  general  nature  raise  questions  of  subsidiarity.  It was 
also  stated  that  ex-ante  conditionalities  should  be  improved  by  having  more  time  for 
production and implementation (‘rolling ex-ante conditionalities’) and more stakeholder 
involvement,  so  that  they  do  not  remain  a  box-ticking  exercise.  Further  on  aligning 
policy  and  funding,  strengthening  the  link  between  the  funds  and  the  European 
Semester requires paying greater attention to CSRs’ impact on social goals (e.g. need for 
accompanying social impact assessment).  Regarding allocation, it was stated that GDP 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
has its limitations as an indicator for poverty as a rich country can still have ‘pockets of 
poverty’.  Adding  social  indicators  could  help  increase  the  focus  on  social  policy 
objectives. 

Simplification  was  a  main  concern  for  ESF  stakeholders.  It  was  stressed  that 
administrative  burden  risks  emphasising  compliance  rather  than  results.  Simplifications 
in the area of audit and control are likely to generate to largest impacts on the reduction 
of this burden, especially for the ESF. There was support for the single audit principle. 
Monitoring requirements are seen as disproportionate to what they intend to measure. A 
lack of flexibility in programming hampers Funds’ ability to address new needs if these 
are  emerging.  More  flexibility  of  programming  would  be  particular  important  for 
objectives  setting,  types  of  interventions  as  well  as  the  adjustment  of  indicators’  and 
targets. Simplified cost options were reported to work well. 
While the need for some change is recognised, continuity is preferred (“evolution, not 
revolution”),  e.g.  the  start  of  the  next  programming  period  should  not  require  a 
recertification  and  re-designation  of  the  relevant  national  authorities, if there is no 
clear reason to do so. The many changes introduced with the current programming period 
resulted in serious delays in implementation.  
Payments  based  on  results  would  be  an  incentive  to  ensure  participation  and 
completing  activities.  But  this  may  entail  the  risk  of  fraud,  with  beneficiaries  inflating 
costs  and/or  exaggerating  results.  There  needs  to  be  a  guarantee  that  human  rights  are 
respected when implementing the Funds. It was believed that this can be addressed by a 
stronger Commission role in the monitoring committees. 
Continued technical assistance can help MA to develop and manage activities for new 
or  problematic  target  groups  (e.g.  NEETs,  migrants).  In  the  case  of  EaSI,  the  lack  of 
technical  assistance  and/or  of  an  online  platform  is  considered  a  problem  for 
implementation and increasing the administrative burden.  
Accessibility for smaller organisations, in particular civil society organisations, was 
seen as another key issue that requires technical assistance. For them late payments and 
the 20% co-financing requirement may also constitute a problem. What is more, although 
the partnership principle between civil societies and national/regional/local authorities 
is  established,  a  number  of  civil  society  organisations  currently  cannot  take  part  in 
the  monitoring  due  to  lack  of  resources.  Capacity  building  should  be  provided  to 
address this.  
The  question  of  synergies  and  possible  integration  between  EMPL  Funds  was 
particularly  important  for  EGF,  FEAD  and  EaSI  stakeholders.  Participants’  preferred 
option  was  the  partial  integration  of  shared  management  funds.  Regardless  of  the 
chosen option, however, it was stressed that eligibility criteria between the EMPL funds 
should  be  further  harmonised.  Participants  also  advocated  for  more  exchange  and 
mainstreaming of cooperation, mutual learning and innovative actions.  
Participants  stressed  the  importance  of  keeping  a  clear  delineation  for  beneficiaries 
between ESF and EGF (for emergencies). Overall participants were in favour of keeping 
the EGF as a separate fund outside of the MFF in order to preserve the Fund’s flexibility. 
Arguments against it were that including the EGF in the MFF might create continuity of 
availability and would avoid the process of going through EP and Council, saving time.  

64 

 
 
 
A  possible  integration  of  ESF  and  EaSI  would  help  realise  synergies  between  EaSI's 
innovation  and  ESF's  upscaling  measures,  which  are  in  practice  difficult  to  combine, 
partly  due  to  different  eligibility  criteria  and  durations.  A  possible  integration  of  EaSI 
should preserve the direct management mode (simpler rules, more flexible, easier to align 
with EU policy priorities, easier for civil society organisations to preserve their autonomy 
and independence).  
Simpler FEAD rules should be preserved if the FEAD is integrated in the ESF+. FEAD 
target groups should be included in ESF due to the 20% rule, but there were doubts that 
the ESF takes social inclusion seriously. 

5.2.  Conference  'Investing  in  People  –  the  Way  Forward’,  including  plenary 

discussions and 8 workshops140 

The  proclamation  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  together  with  the  European 
Social Summit have increased stakeholders’ expectations for Social Europe. Despite 
socio-economic  improvements  across  the  EU  after  the  crisis,  challenges  such  as 
persistent  inequalities,  youth  unemployment,  people  at  risk  of  poverty  and  social 
exclusion, digitisation and ageing remain. EU investment is crucial for implementing 
EU  policy  initiatives aiming to address these challenges: the European Pillar of Social 
Rights, the Skills Agenda, the Youth Guarantee.  
A big part of the discussion concerned the scope of support and priorities for investment. 
There was a call for not reducing the Funds’ scope, as serious socio-economic issues 
are  not  yet  tackled  -  poverty,  inequality  and  discrimination,  migration,  digitisation, 
skills shortages, rising of right wing and extremism. Participants all acknowledged the 5 
Funds’  European  added  value  in  tackling  these,  as  it  was  appreciated  that  without  EU 
funds,  some  important  social  and  employment  policies  would  not  be  implemented. 
However,  it  was  stressed  that  the  Funds  should  support  long-term  solutions  –  as  they 
bring  the  highest  value  added  compared  to  standard  national-level  solutions.  While  a 
strategic vision in programming was promoted, it should also allow more flexibility to 
respond  to  emerging  needs,  e.g.  to  reserve  to  face  emergencies  or  for  anticipation  of 
needs to avoid excessive reprogramming.  
Social Platform and other social networks' representatives put emphasis on ring-fencing 
the  social  budget,  supporting  social  inclusion  beyond  the  labour  market  logic  to 
target  services  and  better  access  for  smaller  NGOs.  In  particular,  investment  in 
deinstitutionalisation  (e.g.  quality  family  support  services,  inclusive  mainstream 
services,  community-based  services,  prevention  and  capacity-building  of  professionals) 
should  continue  and  ensure  adequate  coverage  of  Member  States  based  on  need  for 
support for DI, not on GDP. EU funding should not support any action that contributes to 
segregation or to social exclusion in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 
and the UN Convention for the Rights of People with Disabilities. 

140 Workshop (WS) 1 Investment in policy reforms: EAV and linking funds and Semester; WS2 Pathways to 
employment; WS3 Social inclusion; WS4 Synergies and complementarities; WS5 Working beyond borders; WS6 New 
Ways of Work and Work-Life balance; WS7 Education and skills; WS8 Partnership for results. 

65 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
In  terms  of  target  groups,  there  was  agreement  to  focus  on  disadvantaged 
participants,  although  not  only.  Support  for  disadvantaged  groups  is  perceived 
important for the EU budget’s added value (e.g. people with disabilities, low skilled 
workers,  Roma).  Investing  in  youth  should  remain  a  top  EU  investment  priority,  as 
today’s  youth  remains  in  a  precarious  situation.  ESF  should  invest  in  upskilling, 
including  of  low-skilled people, as well as to  prepare specialists in  job profiles that do 
not yet exist but are needed. Programmes should focus on people, by developing person-
centered, integrated and life-cycle approaches. There should be a focus on preventive 
measures (not only on reactive) and quality of jobs (not just number).  
On  the  Funds’  delivery, a  main topic was  simplification.  Concrete proposals were  to 
develop  the  use  of  simplified  cost  options;  to  introduce  one  online  search  portal  to 
improve  access  to  information  about  project  calls  and  results  for  all  funds,  including 
national funds (one-stop shop). In this regard, results-based approaches were endorsed, 
albeit with some reservations such as risk of cherry picking and creaming of participants. 
A proposed mechanism to reduce this risk was a ‘risk allowance’. It is also believed that 
a culture built on results for beneficiaries might create an atmosphere where partnerships 
works better. Finally, results-based orientation should be accompanied by a reduction in 
the weight of audit.  

funding 

to  earmark 

Related to simplification, the capacity building of smaller potential beneficiaries (civil 
society  or  small  municipalities)  most  in  need  but  without  the  capacity  to  respond  to 
calls for proposals should be supported in order to increase their participation. 
On policy alignment, the mismatch between 7 year programming period and the annual 
CSRs in the European Semester should be addressed, e.g. by a longer roll-out period for 
implementing  CSRs.  A  proposal  was  made 
to  CSR 
implementation in the different priority axes. Moreover, CSRs should specify how the 
funds should contribute to their implementation, and should allow for quantification and 
monitoring.  
There was a very clear message that ex-ante conditionalities were targeted, efficient and 
sustainable (e.g. in deinstitutionalisation) and should be preserved. However in order to 
increase their effectiveness, they should be monitored, followed up rather than remaining 
a  one-off  exercise  and  should  apply  across  EU  finding  instruments  and  across  all  EU 
Member States. The ESF should remain a part of Cohesion  Policy. However there is a 
need to include social indicators alongside GDP, to make sure that funds go where they 
are needed (e.g. to reach migrants in urban areas that have high GDP). 
Synergies  and  complementarities  should  go  together  with  simplification  and  should 
help  to  mainstream  innovative  projects.  The  EU  should  also  foster  a  culture  for 
synergies, i.e. a culture of working together in a spirit of cooperation. Interventions need 
to  be  designed  bearing  complementarity  in  mind  from  the  very  start.  Aligning  the 
monitoring  requirements  between  the  funds  would  also  help.  A  future  ESF+  merging 
several  funds  should  preserve  the  smaller  funds’  flexibility  (particularly  stressed  for 
EGF).  Concerns  were  raised  that  bringing  together  Funds  with  different  management 
modes could create more complications than simplifications.  
Monitoring  and  evaluation  should  pay  greater  attention  to  qualitative  as  opposed  to 
quantitative  data,  and  should  develop  a  common  methodology  to  measure  impact  and 
dimensions that go beyond labour market integration (e.g. intermediate steps, especially 
for  people  at  risk  of  poverty  and  social  exclusion).  It  was  reminded  that  the  difference 

66 

 
 
between failure and success is not clear-cut and the monitoring should move away from 
ticking boxes to looking at actual outcomes (instead of numbers).  
The  importance  of  improving  partnerships  through  involvement  of  beneficiaries, 
notably NGOs in the management of the funds was a key issue in  the discussions. The 
European  Code  of  Conduct  on  Partnership was an important element in this period, 
but its implementation should be improved in the next period, e.g. by making it into an 
ex-ante conditionality for the next programming period, and with a stronger emphasis on 
the  involvement  of  civil  society  end-users  of  the  Funds.  In  addition,  the  European 
Commission  and  civil  society  need  to  have  a  stronger  role  in  the  monitoring 
committees. Local communities and the grass-roots should be more closely involved in 
the implementation and monitoring of EU funding.  
Improving  transnationality  was  a  prominent  question  in  the  discussions.  It  should  be 
improved  and  used  not  only  to  share  ideas  between  countries,  but  also  to  develop  new 
approaches together. 
Consensus for ring fencing in the next programming period for transnationality and for 
social  innovation, which would require all Member States to have transnationality and 
SI.  The  two  elements  should  however  be  dissociated.  On  social  innovation,  it  is 
important  to  use  the  ESF’s  potential  in  more  risky  innovative  interventions,  and  to 
mainstream social innovation in order to ensure interventions’ sustainability. In addition, 
stakeholders pleaded for the return of a simplified version of the EQUAL programme 
(discontinued  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period)  with  more  flexible  rules  and 
funding of integrated services.  
Last  but  not  least,  the  outcome  of  investments  is  not  always  in  line  with  applicable 
human rights law (e.g. UN CRC, CRPD and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). A 
rights-based approach should be streamlined in the Regulation. There is a need for an 
easily accessible complaints mechanism to flag Funds misuse. Moreover, the respect of 
quality  standards  should  be  embedded  in  the  Regulations  to  avoid  funding  activities 
that  go  against  EU  standards.  To  this  end  more  investment  in  training  Managing 
Authorities at all levels of respect for human rights. 

5.4. Position papers  

Overall, stakeholders express a strong wish for the cohesion funds to continue in the next 
MFF.  Administrative  simplification  is  also  broadly  welcomed.  From  the  national 
perspective, aspect of trust linked to simplification of audit and control was highlighted. 
Positions of social partners favour simplification in order to increase the accessibility of 
funding to smaller organisations or regions which could increase the impact of the funds. 
CSOs  suggest  that  funds  allocation  is  based  not  only  on  GDP,  but  includes  other 
indicators  (e.g.  social,  demographic).    The  national  and  regional  authorities  and  social 
partners  welcome  the  use  of  financial  instruments  whilst  underlying  that  the  grants 
should  remain  the  main  source  of  funding.  Social  partners  advocate  for  strengthening 
partnerships.  Suggestions  include  the  introduction  of  a  new  ex-ante  conditionality  to 
guarantee the efficient implementation of the European code of conduct on partnership or 
to review it to include a clear definition of the partnership principle and a legally binding 
provision  on  its  implementation.  Ex-ante  conditionalities  are  generally  considered  to 
improve  the  programme  preparation  and  implementation,  but  they  should  be  more 
targeted. The policy papers show a high interest in improving the links between cohesion 

67 

 
 
 
policy  and  the  European  Semester,  or  reforms  more  generally.  The  outermost  regions 
called for a  robust implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights in their area 
including  the  implementation  of  a  specific  allocation  to  cover  their  additional  costs 
(based on article 349 of the TFEU). 

6  

Inclusion of stakeholder consultation results in the draft legal proposal  

6.1 ESF 

The ESF+ Regulation complements the Common Provisions Regulation, which includes 
most of the rules on the delivery system of these funds. The  main proposals addressing 
stakeholders’ feedback are outlined below: 

 

  Following stakeholders’ recommendations, the ESF, YEI, FEAD and EaSI are 
merged  into  one  Fund  (the  ESF+)  in  order  to  enhance  synergies  and 
complementarities,  as  well  as  to  simplify  access  to  and  management  of 
funding. The CPR will include provisions so as to allow for synergies with other 
funds  and  Union  instruments.  From  the  ESF+  side  it  will  be  possible  to  benefit 
from synergies with especially Erasmus and Horizon Europe.  
In  order to ensure the effective implementation of the European Pillar of Social 
Rights  demanded  by  stakeholders,  the  scope  of  support  of  ESF+  is  translated 
into a number of specific objectives (former investment priorities)  aligned  with 
the  Pillar.  In  line  with  stakeholder  recommendations  that  the  social  inclusion 
dimension  of  the  ESF+  is  strengthened  (in  relation  to  the  employment 
dimension),  the  integration  of  the  FEAD  allows  for  easier  combination  of 
provisions  of  food/material  assistance  with  support  for  social  inclusion. 
Moreover,  ESF+  resources  are  earmarked  (at  least  25%)  to  promote  social 
inclusion and tackle poverty. This responds to the need to ensure that the social 
dimension of Europe and that a minimum amount of resources are targeting those 
most  in  need.  Following  stakeholders’  feedback,  the  ESF+  Regulation  proposes 
that  Member  States  meeting  certain  criteria  allocate  a  minimum  amount  of 
resources  to  the  policy  challenges  of  youth  unemployment  and  assistance  to 
the most deprived.  
In order to address the need for simplification and focus on the achievement of 
results, the ESF+ Regulation will include simplified cost options for reimbursing 
Member States in the area of education. In addition, it will also make use of the 
option provided for in the new Financial Regulation to reimburse Member States 
on  the  basis  of  the  achievement  of  results/conditions.    Furthermore,  monitoring 
and reporting requirements will be reduced, and data collection requirements will 
be simplified. 

 

  Stronger  alignment  with  European  semester  process  is  sought.  EMPL 
proposes  that  the  future  Common  Provisions  Regulation  (applicable  to  other 
shared management funds) and ESF+ Regulation require that the programming is 
streamlined with the European semester.  

6.2 EGF 

The broadened scope of the EGF: EGF Contact Persons and other stakeholders criticized 
that  no  other  developments  such  as  digitisation,  for  example,  are  eligible,  even  though 

68 

 
 
 
displaced workers face very similar challenges. It was also criticized that it is extremely 
hard, often near-impossible, to single out the specific reason that triggered a restructuring 
event.  A  lower  threshold  of  250  displaced  workers:  especially  stakeholders  from  small 
Member States, and those from Member States with less densely populated areas, called 
for  a  lower  threshold.  Very  large  enterprises  simply  do  not  exist  in  many  regions,  but 
restructuring events involving a smaller number of redundancies have a very significant 
impact in those regions.  

An EGF co-financing rate aligned with the ESF co-financing rate: especially stakeholders 
from regions with  more favourable co-financing rates in  the ESF criticized  that despite 
the different design of the funds, the ESF might be used for EGF-type of measures due to 
the  more  favourable  co-financing  rates.  Therefore,  in  the  future,  the  EGF  co-financing 
rate  shall  be  aligned  with  the  respective  ESF+  co-financing  rate  in  the  Member  State 
concerned. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3: Evaluation results 

1. The European Social Fund (ESF)  and Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) 

Strengths  
The  2000-2006141 and  2007-2013  ESF  ex-post  evaluation142 recognises  ESF  investment 
as  relevant,  efficient  and  effective.  In  particular,  the  ESF's  alignment  with  EU  policies 
and  priorities  under  the  Lisbon  Strategy  and  the  Europe  2020  strategy  for  smart, 
sustainable and inclusive growth was strengthened in 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 and this 
has meant that resources were concentrated on relevant policy priorities.  

As one of the structural funds, the ESF directly contributes to cohesion policy's goals of 
economic, social and territorial cohesion by increasing the concentration of resources and 
maintaining different co-financing rates for Member States. 

The  fund  was  effective  in  reaching  a  significant  number  of  EU  citizens,  in  particular 
those most in need of support (such as the low-skilled and unemployed). This was due to 
the fact that the ESF provided significant financial resources to address employment and 
social  challenges  in  Member  States  (volume  effects)  and  broadened  existing  action  by 
supporting policy areas or groups that would not have otherwise received support (scope 
effects).  Furthermore,  The  ESF  has  supported  local/regional  innovations  that  are  then 
mainstreamed  at  national  level  and  for  the  introduction  of  new  ways  in  which  various 
stakeholders can work together (role effects).143  

Thus, the ESF's socio-economic impacts can be summarised as:  

  at the micro level: large number of people participating in ESF activities, gaining 
employment, qualifications, skills and competences (including ‘softer’ skills such 
as behavioural changes). For example, at least 9.4 million Europeans found a job 
and  8.7  million  people  gained  a  qualification  or  certificate  between  2007  and 
2014 thanks to ESF support.144  

  at  the  meso  level:  modernising,  strengthening  and  widening  the  scope  of  public 
services  such  as  active  labour  market  policies  but  also  education,  judiciary  and 
general administration.  

  at the macro level: effects on GDP and productivity, employment, unemployment 
and participation, early school leaving rates. While at macro level it is difficult to 
prove  causality,  the  evidence  allows  to  conclude  that  the  ESF  did  contribute  to 
strengthen economic and social cohesion.  

141 http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16861&langId=en.  
142 Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  2007-2013  ESF  Programmes,  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD(2016)452 
final, 12.12.2016) 
143 Ibid  
144 Ibid  

70 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
The ESF also played a significant role in mitigating the negative effects of the economic 
crisis (notably in 'convergence' regions) and responded effectively to emerging social and 
employment challenges.145 

Achieving  for  the  first  time  an  earmarked  minimum  share  of  ESF  within  the  cohesion 
policy budget heading for the programming period 2014-2020 ensured that at least 23.1% 
of cohesion policy is dedicated to investing in people. This share has been exceeded as 
the  ESF  corresponds  to  24.8%  of  cohesion  policy  funding  programmed  by  Member 
States. Moreover, Member States had to invest at least 20% of ESF resources for social 
inclusion.  This  requirement  has  also  been  exceeded  since  Member  States  have 
programmed 25.6% of ESF resources for measures linked to social inclusion. 

Furthermore,  the  current  requirement  to  focus  on  a  limited  number  of  investment 
priorities, including specific objectives for which result indicators are defined in advance, 
has increased the targeting of investment. 

The  introduction  of  thematic  and  general  ex-ante  conditionalities  in  2014-2020 
contributed  to creating the necessary structures for effective implementation of the ESF 
programmes  and  initiated  reforms  and  changes  in  a  number  of  Member  States  that 
otherwise would not have happened (like for example in the case of modernising the PES 
or with regard to the DI process).146   

Furthermore,  making  the  partnership  principle  mandatory  in  order  to  enhance  the 
involvement and capacity of all actors, being from the public or private sector, NGOs or 
social  partners,  to  work  together  has  strengthened  the  implementation  of  the  ESF 
programmes. 

Ex-post  evaluations  show  that  overall  the  largest  importance  of  ESF  may  be  seen  in 
contributing  towards  active  labour  market  policies,  helping  to  support  provision  of 
services by labour market institutions such as public employment services that help large 
number of unemployed or those at risk of unemployment to gain a job (or a better job). 
Evidence points that for these activities to be successful they need to incorporate know 
how  of  institutions  working  with  target  groups  by  providing  support  adapted  to  the 
personal situations combining work based learning, wage incentives and other measures. 
Respondents to the public consultation conducted in the framework of the 2007-2013 ex-
post  evaluation  identify  that  unemployed  (68%),  long  term  unemployed  (57%)  along 
with  the  young  people  (66%)  are  the  target  groups  that  would  have  not  received 
assistance in the absence of ESF or would be covered to a lesser degree, confirming the 
perceived importance of interventions in this field.  

In addition to the mainstream access to employment measures, interventions in the social 
inclusion field are often set with the objective of inclusion in the labour market. As such 
operations most often target persons at a greater distance from the labour market, facing 
multiple  challenges  and  requiring  more  systemic  and  coordinated  pathway  approaches 
with follow-up activities.  

145  Ibid 
146 Study  on  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  in  relation  to  the  ex-ante  conditionalities  during  the  programming 
phase of the ESI funds, European Commission (July 2016); 

71 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Education,  training  and  institutional  capacity  interventions  are  more  important  for 
convergence regions. The ESF helped a large variety of operations in the education and 
training field, starting from early childhood education continuing to schools, vocational 
education, research and lifelong learning activities. Stakeholders responding to the 2007-
2013  pubic  consultation  saw  obtaining  a  qualification  as  a  main  benefit  for  ESF 
participants. Investment in education and training often take long time to materialize thus 
necessitating  an  extensive  coordination  among  stakeholders  to  ensure  a  continuously 
relevant offer. Evaluations also demonstrate that improved health is one of the effects of 
interventions  co-financed  by  ESF.  These  effects  have  been  both  direct,  especially  in 
investments  supporting  access  to  high  quality  services  or  support  to  more  vulnerable 
groups facing health challenges, and indirect, when support primarily fostering different 
objectives produced spill over effects.  

Support  to  institutional  capacity  building  and  public  administration  reforms  is  seen  as 
especially  important  given  the  overarching  role  of  good  governance  for  achieving 
convergence.  ESF  interventions  in  2007-2013  helped  to  fund  reforms  in  areas  such  as 
healthcare,  judiciary,  better  policy  decision-making  and  e-governance.  However, 
continued support and political commitment to change is critical for actions in this area 
given their multiannual character.   

The  ESF  has  provided  a  critical  mass  of  funding  for  policy  reforms  in  a  number  of 
Member States by modernising, strengthening and widening the scope of public services 
implementing  active  labour  market  policies  but  also  education,  judiciary  and  general 
administration. 147 Good  governance  is  in  particular  seen  as  having  a  critical  role  in 
ensuring economic and social convergence148 of lagging regions. The ESF is for example 
instrumental  in  helping  to  reduce  administrative  burdens  and  costs  for  citizens  and 
businesses,  reducing  the  length  of  judicial  proceedings  and  making  services  more 
accessible.149    

Available data from the 2014-2020 period show that significant progress was lately made 
in the field of financial instruments, with the number of financial instruments financed by 
the  ESF  increased  at  the  end  of  2016  from  7  to  23,  and  an  OP  amount  committed  to 
financial instruments of EUR 418 million (compared to EUR 282 million as of the end of 
2015). In 2014-2020, an improved regulatory framework and extended support activities 
provided ground for a limited but real increase in the role that FIs can play for achieving 
the goals of the ESF, with the objective to increase the use of FIs under the ESF in terms 
of budget, territorial coverage and types of investment. 

Weaknesses 

147 Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  2007-2013  ESF  Programmes,  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD(2016)452 
final, 12.12.2016) 
148 Sixth report on economic, social and territorial convergence, European Commission (2014) 
149 Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  2007-2013  ESF  Programmes,  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD(2016)452 
final, 12.12.2016) 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Evaluations  and  stakeholder  consultations  have  also  highlighted  key  lessons  for 
improvements in the ESF and thus, for increasing its added value. They are summarised 
below. 

Policy  alignment:  while  the  Fund's  link  to  EU  level  policy  priorities  and  economic 
governance  in  the  context  of  the  European  Semester  has  improved  significantly  in  the 
2014-2020  programming  period150,  it  is  not  yet  optimal.  Evidence  shows  that  country-
specific recommendations (CSRs), proposed by the Commission as part of the European 
Semester  in  2012-2015,  as  well  as  other  structural  challenges  identified  in  the 
Commission country reports and in the memoranda of understanding were taken up in the 
ESF's  programming,  and  that  the  Fund  contributes  to  implementing  these  reforms. 
However rules linked to the allocation mechanism and the territorial implementation of 
the  ESF  hamper  a  coherent  alignment  with  the  policies  supported.  Past  programming 
periods  have  shown  that  flexibility,  which  is  a  main  element  to  ensure  the  Fund's 
alignment  with  changing  policy  priorities  (e.g.  in  reprogramming),  has  proven 
insufficient.  In  particular,  the  amendment  process  of  programmes  results  to  be  very 
burdensome.  

Programming: evidence showed that in 2007-2013 the OP architecture was defined too 
broadly  and  the  output  and  result  indicators  were  not  always  clearly  aligned  with  the 
strategic objectives in the priority axes. In 2014-2020 result orientation was strengthened 
but the performance framework introduced in the current programming period has so far 
not  proved  to  be  a  sufficient  performance  incentive  for  Member  States.  Furthermore, 
programming  requirements  have  been  criticised  for  being  excessively  administratively 
burdensome.151 

Target groups: over the 2007-2013 programming period the share of the disadvantaged 
participants  among  all  participants  decreased,  while  the  share  of  young  and  older 
remained  stable  (despite  special  initiatives  such  as  youth  action  teams  and  challenges 
posed  by  aging  society).  These  trends  suggest  that  without  reinforced  focus  on 
disadvantaged, young and older people and gender balance the fund cannot be successful 
in  reaching  key  target  groups.  The  method  of  earmarking  a  certain  percentage  for 
disadvantaged groups (at least 20% of expenditure for social inclusion activates over the 
2014-2020 period) thus preserves their continued coverage.   

Programme implementation: studies show that despite some progress ESF management 
and delivery remains too complex and the shift from a logic based on inputs towards one 
based  on  results,  while  it  has  improved  in  2014-2020,  has  not  fully  taken  place. 
Reimbursement based on real costs, territorial principles, designation of authorities, the 
programming  architecture,  including  multi-fund  programmes,  and  audit  rules  have 
contributed to  this  complexity.152 These  complex implementation  rules ultimately result 
in  delays  in  the  starting  of  the  implementation  of  programmes.  Although  progressive 

150 Study  on  the  support  of  ESI  Funds  to  the  implementation  of  the  Country  Specific  Recommendations  and  to 
structural reforms in Member States. 
151 Final  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  the  High  Level  Group  on  Simplification  for  post  2020,  pp.12-13, 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/newsroom/pdf/simplification_proposals.pdf.  
152 Ibid 

73 

 
 
 
                                                                 
simplification  measures  were  introduced  in  2007-2013,  the  overall  level  of  uptake 
remains  low.  The  mandatory  use  of  simplified  cost  options  (SCOs)  for  projects  up  to 
EUR 50 000 (Article 14 of the ESF Regulation) in 2014-2020 has proved to be a step in 
the  right  direction.  However  insufficient  legal  certainty  is  a  main  cause  of  Managing 
Authorities'  concerns  that  prevent  the  widespread  adoption  of  SCOs.  In  addition, 
concerns arise from potential multiple audits. 153 Finally, evaluations  underline the need 
for capacity building, training and mentoring of implementing bodies (particularly among 
stakeholders new to the ESF) especially as new rules are introduced.  

Framework for monitoring and evaluation: lessons from 2007-2013 programming period 
advise  to  develop  more  robust  definition  of  the  objectives  for  the  various  priorities 
supported  by  clear  and  measurable  baselines,  milestones  and  targets.    Some  of  these 
lessons  have  been  taken  already  on  board  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period. 
Notably,  the  use  of  common  indicators  has  been  expanded  in  order  to  improve  (1)  the 
monitoring of progress on outputs and results after the interventions, (2) the evaluation of 
the latter's effectiveness and sustainability (long-term results/impact) and (3) aggregation 
data at EU level.  

The specific objectives are more clearly linked to output and result indicators capturing 
the anticipated change (intervention logic). Results targets and milestones in the OPs are 
defined  in  relation  to  baseline  values.  Member  States  should  present  periodically 
progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  programme  and  its  contribution  to 
implementing the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.154 

A  specific  evaluation  framework  is  required  for  disadvantaged  groups  with  multiple 
problems. The traditional approach probably underestimates the total benefits to society 
resulting from the measures. There is a need for capturing ‘soft’ results. The latter were 
not  considered  in  the  common  monitoring  framework  for  2014-2020,  but  the 
Commission should encourage Member States to use them, in particular for the purpose 
of impact evaluations. 

Social  innovation:  The  ongoing  ESF  thematic  study  on  social  innovation  finds  that  the 
uptake of social experimentation promoted by EaSI has been limited. Member Sates have 
allocated less than EUR 1 billion to social innovation, although most plan or implement 
actions  relevant  to  social  innovation.  The  study  also  reveals  a  need  for  more  financial 
resources  dedicated  to  social  innovation,  together  with  enhanced  capacity  building  and 
simpler administrative procedures. 

The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) 

Strengths 

Alongside ESF-funded actions to support youth employment, the funding under the YEI 
has provided important policy and funding implementation lessons in particular through 
its  targeted  focus  on  policy  level.  Through  its  support  to  young  people  not  in 

153 Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  2007-2013  ESF  Programmes,  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD(2016)452 
final, 12.12.2016), Section 6.3. 
154 Article 50(5) Common Provisions Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 

74 

 
 
                                                                 
employment, education or training (NEETs) in specific EU regions the YEI has increased 
both the visibility of youth employment policies but has also acted as a driver for policy 
reforms in a number of Member States in the context of the set-up and implementation of 
youth  guarantee  schemes.  Member  States  report  that  the  Initiative  is  of  critical 
importance  for  the  coverage  and  design  of  employment  policy  in  their  country. 
Expanding  the  ESF's  scope,  the  YEI  supports  youth  through  more  targeted  and  tailor-
made  actions,  including  employment  pathways  based  on  an  individual  assessment. 
Thanks  to  the  YEI,  in  2017,  at  least  1.7  million  young  people  have  participated  in 
projects  that  boost  their  skills  or  allow  them  to  have  a  working  experience.155 What  is 
more,  the  Commission  has  provided  guidance  to  Member  States  urging  them  to  design 
measures that are tailored to the needs of the different groups of population targeted by 
the YEI.156 Indeed, the YEI has stimulated public authorities to be more innovative and 
to  put  the  focus  increasingly  on  ensuring  individualised  approaches  as  regards  youth 
employment  measures.157 In  addition,  the  common  result  indicators  for  the  YEI  have 
been instrumental in demonstrating the aggregated achievements of the funding provided 
for the target group and have been widely praised for enabling a concrete and direct link 
between funding and results.  

Weaknesses 

The  main  challenges  for  the  YEI  refer  to  its  peculiar  financial  management  modalities 
(being funded from two funding sources  – the YEI and ESF allocations) as well as the 
additional  reporting  requirements  for  YEI  (common  indicators  ESF  +  YEI  result 
indicators). These elements and in particular reporting requirements have been perceived 
by beneficiaries and implementing authorities as increasing the administrative burden.158  
In  addition,  the  definition  at  national  level  of  the  NEET  target  group  has  posed 
difficulties  in  a  number  of  Member  States  in  view  of  audit  requirements.  Due  to  the 
overall programming requirements stemming from the rules applicable to the ESIF, YEI 
implementation  could  not  start  as  swiftly  as  desired.  YEI  has  been  more  successful  in 
supporting better educated and short-term unemployed young people and less effective in 
targeting the inactive NEETs.159 It has been noted that additional efforts should be made 
for  youth  employment  actions  to  support  young  people  that  are  furthest  away  from 
education, training and employment as well as to increase the overall quality of the job 
and training offers funded by the YEI in the context of youth guarantee schemes.160  

2. FEAD 

155 Seventh  Report  on  Economic,  Social  and  Territorial  Cohesion,  European  Commission 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/cohesion-report/ 
156 http://ec.europa.eu/esf/BlobServlet?docId=457&langId=en  
157 European Parliament, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Report on the implementation of the Youth 
Employment Initiative in the Member States (2017/2039(INI)) 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2017-
0406+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.  
158 Study supporting the impact assessment of human capital investments, European Commission (ongoing). 
159 The Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative three years on, European Commission (2016), 

(2017),    

SWD(2016) 323 final 

160 European  Court  of  Auditors  (2017),  Special  report  No  5/2017: Youth  unemployment  –  have  EU  policies  made  a 
difference? , available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41096.  

75 

 
 
 
                                                                 
Strengths  

Preliminary  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  FEAD,  including  results  of 
stakeholder  consultations161,  indicate  that  the  supported  food,  material  aid  and  social 
inclusion  measures  make  a  difference  to  the  most  deprived,  including  those  who 
otherwise  may  be  left  out  by  mainstream  social  assistance  or  who  need  immediate 
support  With  reference  to  national  schemes  it  plays  both  a  complementary  and 
supporting role, most notably by filling “social assistance gaps”, e.g. in in those Member 
States that do not have national non-financial assistance programmes or where these do 
not  cover  the  full  spectre  of  most  deprived.  This  is  especially  true  of  families  with 
children,  homeless  people  and  people  who  are  not  reached  by  public  services  such  as 
undocumented  migrants,  to  whom  FEAD  provides  information  about  key  services.  For 
the older generation with minimum levels of income and who do not have access to the 
labour market, also FEAD helps find solutions. 

FEAD  entails  certain  flexibility  to  adapt  to  the  changing  needs  and  emergencies  by 
introducing  changes  to  the  delivery  modes,  the  content  of  the  aid  and  the  targeting.  In 
addition,  FEAD  OPs  have  proved  relatively  flexible  with  regards  to  types  of  food  and 
items distributed, adapting them in response to feedback from end recipients.  

In addition to food and material assistance, FEAD offers a full range of services for the 
most  deprived  through  the  provision  of  accompanying  measures  that  represent  an 
important  step  towards  poverty  reduction,  notably  if  end  recipients  use  them  to  access 
social services and get further support that can lift them out of poverty. 

The fact that a common Managing Authority MA to the ESF and FEAD programmes has 
been established in some Member States positively facilitates coordination between ESF 
and FEAD and prevents situations of double funding.  

Evidence  points  to  the  importance  of  partnerships  and  knowledge  sharing  both  among 
institutions, partner organisations and social services, as well as across different partner 
organisations.  The  FEAD  Network162 launched  in  September  2016  plays  an  important 
role in supporting mutual learning at EU level, through networking and dissemination of 
good practices in the area of non-financial assistance to the most deprived persons. 

Weaknesses 

A number of difficulties in  the implementation of FEAD are associated either with the 
EU  regulatory  framework  and  its  interpretation  or  with  national  requirements,  namely  
delays in the start-up phase of the programme and administrative obstacles mostly linked 
to  national  procurement  policies  and  to  additional  requirements  such  as  inter  alia 
recording  data/information  on  operations  and  end  recipients  for  monitoring  purposes, 
lengthy  documentation  procedures  and  instructions  and  excessive  procedures  for  the 
certification of end recipients. 

161  Report  on  the  Open  public  consultation  for  the  FEAD  mid-term  evaluation,  January  2018  available  at 
https://publications.europa.eu/s/fo2y  
162 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1207&langId=en 

76 

 
 
 
                                                                 
Similarly,  defining  a  too  narrow  and  restrictive  list  of  eligibility  criteria  for  the  end-
beneficiaries creates burden on the partner organizations, excludes those who do not have 
access to the social system and does not permit prompt responses to emergencies.  

A  unique  feature  of  FEAD  relies  on  its  delivery  mode  through  partner  organisations. 
However, these organizations are mostly NGOs based on volunteers who often lack the 
capacity to cope with the administrative burden that FEAD's implementation entails and 
this may result in serious delays in the introduction of payment claims to the Commission 
and hence to loss of resources. 

Stakeholders state that food and material aid through FEAD alone is not sufficient to lift 
end recipients out of poverty. Conversely, it was noted that Member States implementing 
only  social  inclusion  activities  under  FEAD  see  a  need  to  also  deliver  material  aid  in 
order  to  alleviate  immediate  needs  of  the  end  recipients.  This  is  not  however  possible 
under the current OP differentiation. The absence of interaction between FEAD and ESF 
does  not  allow  complementing  the  tangible  aid  provided  to  the  most  deprived  through 
FEAD  with  social  support  and  professional  activation  through  ESF  in  order  to 
sustainably end the poverty situation.  

3. EGF 

The EGF had been subject to several evaluations and studies, the most recent being the 
ex-post evaluation  of the EGF 2007-2013, a European Court  of Auditors special report 
on  the  EU  value  added  of  the  EGF  2007-2013,  the  European  Parliament’s  European 
Implementation  Assessment  of  the  EGF  2007-2014  and  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the 
EGF 2014-2020.163  

The  reports  on  the  former  programming  period  confirmed  the  EU  value  added  of  the 
EGF  by  delivering  assistance  to  the  most  vulnerable  dismissed  workers  which  they 
otherwise  would  not  have  received,  and  resulting  in  re-integration  rates  higher  than 
identified comparators. Some recommendations have been made, most of which had been 
incorporated into the design of the EGF 2014-2020.  

Furthermore,  the  EGF  mid-term  evaluation  2014-2020  was finalised  on  16.5.2018. The 
stakeholder consultations carried out comprised internet-based open public consultations, 
the  organisation  of  a  networking  seminar  with  EGF  stakeholders,  and  of  targeted 
consultations  (interviews  with  EGF-Team,  national  Contact  Persons,  delivery  partners, 
beneficiaries). 

Due to the limited number of cases approved and implemented since 2014, the results of 
the evaluation still have to be taken with caution. 

Strengths 

163 The EGF mid-term evaluation was subject to scrutiny by the RSB. The RSB has issued a negative opinion on the 
draft SWD. The RSB's comments have been taken into account to the extent possible (see Annex I of the SWD on the 
EGF mid-term evaluation, SWD(2018)192 final, 16.5.2018).  

77 

 
 
 
                                                                 
The  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  show  that  the  EGF  generated  EU  added  value. 
This is particularly true in terms of its volume effects, meaning that EGF assistance not 
only increases the number and variety of services offered, but also their level of intensity. 
EGF measures are always offered on top of regular national measures and/or intensifying 
them.  No  displacement  effects  were  observed  at  case  level.  The  help  offered  would 
otherwise  not  have  been  available.  This  is  a  clear  sign  of  the  complementarity  and 
additionality of EGF measures. 

The  unique  combination  of  tailored  measures  that  EGF  offered  to  beneficiaries  led  to 
more sustainable  results, beneficiaries  increased self-esteem and as  a  result had a  more 
proactive  approach  in  job  seeking.  In  addition,  beneficiaries  focused  on  transversal 
knowledge, skills and competences that are relevant to a broad range of occupations and 
sectors  (i.e.  language  skills  or  digital  competences).  Therefore,  its  employability 
improved significantly.  

Concerning  the  NEETs  derogation  no  conclusive  judgement  seems  possible.  Even 
though not all Member States eligible made use of the derogation, evidence shows that 
wherever  it  has  been  used,  the  help  has  been  picked  up  to  a  very  high  degree  by  the 
young  people  targeted,  a  type  of  help  they  would  otherwise  not  have  received.  The 
inclusion of NEETs generated process effects by creating entirely new partnerships with 
partners  that  worked  more  closely  with  young  people  and  consequently  influencing  on 
national policy choices. 

On an institutional level, the use of EGF assistance fosters the development of a general 
delivery mechanism of restructuring assistance in Member States with little experience in 
dealing with mass redundancies. In Member States that can already build on a wealth of 
experience and delivery mechanisms in place, the EGF serves as a tool to test innovative 
measures, which could later be incorporated into regular assistance. 

Weaknesses 

The mobilisation of assistance offered to workers made redundant can either be justified 
by  showing  that  redundancies  occurred  as  a  consequence  of  ‘globalisation’  or  the 
‘financial  and  economic  crisis’.  However,  neither  of  the  two  terms  has  been  clearly 
defined in the EGF Regulation. Evidence shows that Member States are often ambivalent 
as whether to submit an application under one criterion or the other, and then choose the 
one  they  can  substantiate  best.  In  general,  the  lack  of  definitions  can  be  perceived  as 
offering certain flexibility, but also as leaving grey areas of uncertainty. Finding the right 
evidence to justify a case is a major challenge and frequently keeps Member States from 
applying. 

Even  though  smaller  redundancy  cases  could  be  eligible  under  a  derogation  clause, 
Member  States  are  not  certain  how  to  show  that  redundancies  are  likely  to  have  a 
significant  impact,  as  this  impact  is  also  not  further  defined  by  the  Regulation. 
the  application  and 
Institutional  and  financial  capacity  problems  during  both 
implementation  phases  are  a  further  obstacle  Member  States  face  when  deciding  on  a 
possible application. 

As  for  the  efficiency  of  the  assistance  mobilised,  the  length  of  procedures  during  the 
decision-making process has been criticised. This does not only relate to the application 
stage, but  also to  the actual  mobilisation of funds. As the EGF is  operating outside the 

78 

 
 
MFF  ceilings,  a  full  budgetary  procedure,  involving  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council,  is  needed  in  order  to  mobilise  the  funds  for  EGF  assistance. All  stages  of  the 
application  and  mobilisation  procedure  would  therefore  require  streamlining.  More 
efforts are needed to ensure the coherence of funding. On the one hand, no overlaps with 
other  EU  or  national  funding  could  be  identified  at  case  level.  On  the  other  hand,  an 
integrated  approach  could  at  best  be  observed  in  the  interplay  of  national  funding  and 
EGF. No integrated approach to EGF and other EU funding was observed at case level. 
At  instrumental  level,  no  direct  overlap  in  the  design  of  the  instruments  could  be 
identified, but there is evidence of an overlapping use of the instruments, e.g. the use of 
ESF for short-term relief measures that are targeted by EGF (in a few Member States, in 
particular  those  with  absorption  problems  regarding  the  ESF,  a  short-term  re-
programming  of  the  ESF  was  possible). In  general,  the  use  of  the  EGF  could  be  better 
coordinated  with  the  recommendations  set  out  in  the  EU  Quality  Framework  for 
anticipation  of  change  and  restructuring  (QFR).As  for  the  relevance  of  EGF  funding, 
particularly  those  stakeholders  with  experience  in  the  delivery  of  EGF  measures 
questioned whether the EGF was the right channel to deliver assistance to NEETs. To a 
far  smaller  but  still  significant  degree,  the  crisis  criterion  was  regarded  as  not  relevant 
anymore.  In  the  light  of  changes  in  how  globalisation  works,  the  increasing 
interconnectedness  of  world  economies  and  increasing  development  of  global  value 
chains are likely to further increase the relevance of the globalisation criterion, but will 
also  make  it  harder  to  substantiate  it.  Considering  the  difficulties  in  evidencing 
applications,  it  is  clear  that  the  EGF  could  be  mobilised  far  quicker  if  the  background 
analyses  currently  required  to  argue  for  either  the  globalisation  or  the  crisis  criterion 
wasn’t  necessary  (which  would  be  the  case  if  all  major  restructuring  events  were 
eligible).  The  EGF  would  then  correspond  better  to  its  function  as  an  emergency  relief 
instrument.  Several  needs  that  arise  through  other  recent  economic  developments,  for 
example structural changes due to automation, are currently not covered. 

4. EaSI 
This  section  takes  stock  of  the  programme's  mid-term  evaluation  and  stakeholder 
consultations’ key findings across its strengths and weaknesses. 
Strengths 
The  mid-term  evaluation  shows  EaSI  original  rationale  -  its  general  and  specific 
objectives  -  are  still  pertinent  in  particular  in  light  of  the  current  challenging  socio-
economic  context  characterised  by  the  aftermath  of  the  financial  and  economic  crisis, 
with positive but slow recovery. The programme's objectives are also highly relevant in 
light  of  the  recent  political  events  likely  to  impact  the  EU  in  the  coming  years.  For 
instance, with a large influx of migrants, the share of vulnerable people has significantly 
increased, making the successful integration of these persons one of the highest priorities 
across the EU in the next couple of years and an important challenge for the society. 
The  evaluation  presents  evidence  that  -  in  2014-2016  -  the  EaSI  programme  was 
generally  effective  in  reaching  the  relevant  stakeholders,  generating  outcomes  and 
achieving its objectives.  
EaSI  was  efficient  and  effective  in  contributing  to  raise  awareness  about  EU  policy 
inputs in the area of social inclusion and poverty reduction, to an improved perception of 
the  cross-border  potentials  for  employment,  to  a  rapid  testing  and  implementation  of 

79 

 
 
 
innovative  measures,  to  an  increased  access  to  microfinance  loans  and  support  for 
through  dissemination  of 
entrepreneurship.  EaSI  also  facilitated  policy  change 
comparative and analytical knowledge, exchange and building capacity, mutual learning 
and  dialogue,  helping  therefore  different  stakeholders  to  influence  the  formulation  and 
implementation of socio-economic policies in the programme's participating countries.  
Regarding  the  programme's  internal  coherence,  the  evaluation  findings  showed  that  a 
series  of  policy  evidence,  information  sharing  and  mutual  learning  activities  funded 
under  PROGRESS  axis  complement  the  two  other  axes  and  contribute  to  their 
effectiveness. 
Regarding external coherence  with other  EU programmes,  the evaluation indicated that 
EaSI  is  mostly  coherent  with  ESF.  As  regards  the  EaSI  axes,  PROGRESS  shows  also 
complementarity  with  other  EU  programmes  such  as  Erasmus+,  Horizon  2020  and 
COSME  in  terms  of  specific  objectives,  activities  and  beneficiaries.  Complementarity 
between  EURES  and  the  European  Territorial  Co-operation  programme  (Interreg)  was 
also  found.  The  Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  is  also  coherent  and 
complementary  with  other  microfinance  instruments  at  the  EU-level,  which  either 
support  SMEs  (like  the  COSME  financial  guarantee)  or  companies  up  to  large  caps 
(InnovFin) and offer larger financing amounts (InnovFin and COSME). In addition, the 
Microfinance/Social  Entrepreneurship  axis  ensures  a  wide  geographic  coverage  across 
EU Member States and other participating countries. 
The EaSI programme produced demonstrable EU added value compared to national and 
regional level support in terms of scope and scale.   
Another  added  value  of  EaSI  comes  from  its  transnational  dimension,  with  few  other 
equivalents in the programme's participating countries in terms of scale and scope. The 
evidence gathered reveals that EaSI is able to support cross-border projects with a larger 
scope  compared  to  what  is  possible  at  national  level;  indeed,  no  other  programme 
integrates  building  cooperation  links  across  borders,  while  delivering  services  and 
information to facilitate mobility. Also, EaSI contributes to build EU-level networks and 
produces comparative analysis that are not prioritised at other governance levels, such as 
multi-country  databases,  studies,  statistics,  social  policy  experimentations,  capacity 
building and mutual learning activities. Moreover, EaSI appears to fill a clear gap in the 
supply of microfinance loans and support to social entrepreneurship in the programme's 
participating  countries.  Overall,  the  work  carried  out  under  EaSI  programme  extends 
beyond the management of the financial instruments and impulses a variety of measures 
to  develop  an  eco-system  for  social  finance  markets,  for  example  through  grants  to 
develop both the supply and demand side of social enterprise  finance, but  also through 
technical assistance and non-financial initiatives such as the 'Code of Good Conduct for 
microcredit provision', which helps to raise standards in the microfinance sector. 

Overall, no major overlaps between the objectives of EaSI and the objectives of national 
or EU-level instruments/programmes were identified during the mid-term evaluation. In 
particular  the  open  public  consultation  highlights  a  significant  consensus  among 
stakeholders  on  the  importance  to  maintain  each  type  of  instruments  at  EU  level  even 
where  minor overlaps are identified with  the  national  programmes.  The evaluation also 
shows that the EaSI programme’s added value compared to what could be achieved by 
Member States at national, regional and local levels is undeniable.  

80 

 
 
(like 

comparative 

analytical  knowledge 

EaSI appears as unique as not the single EU-level programme that integrates the access 
studies,  databases, 
to  high-quality 
methodologies),  the  exchange  of  good  practices  and  mutual  learning  activities,  social 
policy  innovations  testing,  a  overall  better  job  matching  and  placement  thanks  to  the 
combined effect of the online platform matching capabilities (the EURES job portal) and 
the roll out of targeted placement services for respectively young workers (e.g. the 'Your 
first EURES Job' scheme) and frontier workers under the cross-border partnerships, the 
support provided to social enterprises as well the provision of loans to microenterprises, 
in  particular  those  employing  vulnerable  groups.  EaSI  support  also  fulfilled  a  vital 
function  by  facilitating  the  EU-level  ONGs  networking  and  the  team  building  of 
stakeholders across the programme's participating countries.  
Such  findings  converge  towards  suggesting  that  thanks  to  the  EaSI  programme,  more 
relevant  projects  were  supported  compared  to  what  was  possible  only  through  the 
national or other EU funding. 

One  central  approach  being  promoted  in  the  current  EaSI  programme  is  social  policy 
experimentation, considered as a pilot to test proposed changes to social policies or new 
reforms. Very often government programmes in the field of social policy suffer from a 
lack  of  robust  evidence  on  what  works  and  what  does  not  work.  Social  policy 
experimentations help avoiding costs of launching untested programs that may fail, serve 
as source of inspiration for policymakers finding comprehensive responses to particular 
social  problems  and  support  policy  decisions  resulting  in  policies  being  adopted  that 
otherwise  would  not  be.  Subsequently,  the  successful  innovations  tested  under  EaSI 
could be up-scaled or mainstreamed by either national or EU funding.  

Weaknesses 
Despite its continuing relevance, more could be done to improve the EaSI relevance and 
impacts in the next programming period. Several areas for improvement of programme's 
effectiveness were identified across the axes.  
The  PROGRESS  axis  should  improve  the  efforts  on  the  delivery  of  social  policy 
experimentations by revising the procedures for evaluation and selection of projects and 
by creating the conditions for their scaling up. Moreover, the issue of co-financing has to 
be clarified, as it is not always clear for applicants to calls for proposals whether it should 
be in labour costs or in actual monetary value.  
For  EURES,  considering  a  longer  implementation  period  (minimum  two  years) 
combined  with  measures  for  reducing  the  administrative  burden  related  to  the  call 
management  might  enable  stakeholders  to  properly  develop,  implement,  measure  the 
effectiveness and ensure the sustainability of projects.  
Regarding the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship axis, the overwhelming demand for 
the  EaSI  guarantee  instrument  has  put  pressure  on  its  budget.  As  two-third  of  the 
allocated amount for the instrument were used already after one year, the EaSI third axis 
will run out of funds before 2020, suggesting that its initial allocated budget is too small. 
Introducing  more  flexibility  in  the  resource  allocation  across  the  axes  (instead  of  the 
current indicative percentages) would allow more room for manoeuver in the transfer of 
budgets  between  axes  when  needed.  This  greater  flexibility  in  terms  of  resource 
allocation would be beneficial in particular for the Microfinance/Social Entrepreneurship 

81 

 
 
 
axis strong demand. Indeed, the evaluation pointed out that the consequence of instituting 
indicative percentages for each axis was that budgets cannot be easily moved to the axis 
with  the  higher  demand  (and,  thus,  ensuring  a  faster  deployment  of  funds).    Overall,  a 
more flexible re-allocation between the three axes should be enabled in order to minimize 
discrepancies between planned and actual commitments, and ensure an optimal transfer 
of budgets between axes according to needs. 
The  aim  of  regrouping  the  three  axes  under  one  umbrella  programme  was  to  achieve 
greater  policy  coherence,  and  more  effective  delivery  and  management.  The  different 
data collected - in particular through the stakeholders' consultation, beneficiaries survey 
and interviews - suggest that, despite the efforts to reinforce synergies between the three 
axes - they operate rather independently. A stronger focus on the potential benefits that 
could  emerge  from  a  coherent  programme's  structure  promoting  interdisciplinary 
solutions to multiple challenges should be put. The mid-term evaluation shows that the 
ambitions  and  wide  thematic  scope  of  the  EaSI  programme  exceed  what  the  budget 
allows  for.  The  current  funding  structure  of  EaSI  -  with  a  relatively  rigid  allocation 
between and within axes - lacks flexibility to adjust swiftly and efficiently to emerging 
priorities. Although this recommendation was already being considered in the context of 
the ’Omnibus’ Regulation in 2017, more flexibility - even a total flexibility between axes 
- would permit more room for manoeuver in the transfer of budgets between axes when 
needed. The axes as such and indicative minimum shares per axis/thematic section within 
each axis will not be applied within ESF+. This will allow an optimal transfer of budgets 
between  the  priorities  according  to  the  needs,  as  well  as  reinforce  synergies  between 
activities. 

Despite the complementarities between EaSI and other EU-level instruments (see section 
on  "Strengths"  above),  further  coherence  is  hampered  by  the  different  interventions 
logics  and  rules  governing  these  funds.  Specific  mechanisms  should  be  put  in  place  in 
order  to  facilitate  the  synergies  between  different  EU  funds,  for  instance  a  mechanism 
permitting  the  scaling  up  or  multiplication  of  the  social  experimentations  tested  under 
EaSI within ESF funding. Thus, recognising that the co-existence of different rule-books 
(Financial Regulation for financial instruments on one hand, and the Common Provisions 
Regulations for shared management funds on the other hand) makes it challenging to tap 
into  complementarities  between  different  funds.  A  streamlining  of  rules  could  help  to 
maximise the potential of such complementarities and synergies.  
Continuous  efforts  are  necessary  mainly  in  terms  of  communication  on  EaSI  activities 
and  dissemination  of  its  results.  Indeed,  stakeholders  are  eager  to  receive  further 
information  and  feel  that  through  a  better  dissemination  they  could  gain  great  benefit 
through,  in  particular,  country  specific  examples  and  good  practices,  updated  websites 
and  databases,  expanding  the  languages  for  communication  and  making  the  contents 
more accessible to a broad audience.  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Synergies and coherence between the ESF+ and 
other Funds investing in human capital development 

ESF+  and  ERDF:  as  the  ESF+  and  ERDF  share  the  objective  of  economic  and  social 
cohesion,  coordination  between  them  on  the  basis  of  common  rules  for  shared 
management funds in certain areas such as programming and financial management (in 
the  future  Common  Provisions  Regulation)  will  remain  key 
the  pos-2020 
programming  period.  There  is  significant  scope  for  taking  further  the  simplification 
mechanisms  in  the  new  'Omnibus'  Regulation 164   and  building  on  lessons  learned  as 
regards incentivising the results-orientation of ESI Funds in general. ESF+ programmes 
should  be  in  principle  mono-fund  programmes  (to  address  the  shortcomings  of  multi-
fund  programming  that  have  been  identified165)  and  Member  States  will  be  able  to  use 
multi-fund  programmes  only  where  justified.  Common  rules  should  continue  to  allow 
investments combining complementary aspects such as investment in people (ESF+) and 
in social infrastructure (ERDF).  

in 

ESF+  and  Erasmus:  the  aims  of  today's  ESF  have  much  more  in  common  with  the 
objectives of other funds investing in people, such as Erasmus+, than those of the ERDF 
and  the  Cohesion  Fun.  While  it  is  possible  now  to  use  ESF  and  Erasmus+  in  a 
complementary  manner,  some  aspects  (such  as  their  management  modes)  are  not 
conducive to coordinated responses unless specific mechanisms are put in place. Various 
operational  arrangements  will  be  put  forward.  The  ESF+  and  Erasmus  regulations  will 
include  suitable  provisions,  to  be  worked  out  in  detail  in  work  programmes  and 
programme  guides.  The  following  measures  could  be  envisaged:  the  participation  of 
Erasmus national agencies in the design of relevant ESF+ actions. This could result in the 
upscaling  of  successful  Erasmus  cooperation  projects,  just  as  social  experimentation 
under  EaSI  (and  other  human  capital  funds)  could  be  mainstreamed  into  shared 
management activities. The establishment of SCOs (at EU or national level) would make 
it easier for Member States to top up Erasmus measures, e.g. to make Erasmus mobility 
more  inclusive  and  accessible  to  learners  from  low-income  families,  Member  States 
could programme a top-up of Erasmus mobility by an additional amount/rate applicable 
to a specific country. In addition, Erasmus national agencies could where relevant play a 
role as  grant  beneficiaries in  the implementation of transnational  cooperation under the 
ESF+.  To  boost  investment  in  European  University  Networks,  ESF+  could  be  used  to 
provide additional support to universities which are partners of such networks or to VET 
centres for excellence financed under Erasmus.  

ESF+ and AMIF: the longer-term integration of migrants will continue to be supported 
under  the  ESF+,  while  the  AMIF  will  cover  short-term  needs.  A  common  set  of  rules 
applying  to  all  shared  management  funds  will  help  to  increase  synergies  between  the 
AMIF  and  ESF+,  especially  as  regards  programming,  implementation,  monitoring  and 
control. SCOs will be developed under the ESF+ to finance measures targeting migrants. 

164 ‘Omnibus’ Regulation, status March 2018: agreed by the co-legislators but still undergoing revision by the lawyer-
linguists, planned adoption June 2018 
165 See study to support the impact assessment of human capital investments, DG EMPL, ongoing 

83 

 
 
                                                                 
Eligibility  rules  should  not  change  substantially,  so  individuals  would  be  eligible  for 
ESF+ measures under the same terms as any other participants, provided this is legally 
allowed by the Member States. . 

ESF+  and  InvestEU  Fund:  part  of  the  EaSI  programme  (the  FI  under  the  EaSI 
microfinance and social entrepreneurship axis) will be grouped with other FIs under the 
InvestEU  Fund 166  while  the  current  activities  relating  to  the  EURES  portal  will  be 
transferred  to  the  European  Labour  Agency  (the  future  DG  EMPL  agency).  ESF+  will 
continue  to  support  the  development  of  social  enterprise  finance  and  microfinance 
markets with complementary activities, such as: capacity-building for microfinance and 
social enterprise finance providers including through technical assistance, upholding high 
ethical  lending  standards  such  as  the  European  Code  of  Good  Conduct  for  microcredit 
provision,  and  providing  grant  support  to  build  up  the  nascent  market  ecosystem, 
including  through  blending.  This  involves  combing  grants  from  both  shared  and 
(in)direct ESF+ strands with  financial instruments  from the InvestEU Fund, in  order to 
reduce transaction costs and support non-financial or business development services for 
entrepreneurs,  including  vulnerable  groups.  The  EU-level  market  development  efforts 
and FIs should also be reinforced by the FIs implemented under shared management.  

ESF+ and  Horizon  Europe:  As the  main EU instrument for investing in  human capital 
and  skills,  the  ESF+  will  continue  to  make  an  important  contribution  to  human  capital 
development  in  research  and  innovation  (R&I).  On  the  one  hand,  the  future  ESF+  can 
upscale  the  implementation  and  adaption  to  local  needs  of  innovative  curricula  for 
education  and  training  programmes  and  new  innovative  delivery  modes  (such  as  e-
learning and blended learning) with high labour-market relevance. On the other hand, as 
the  ESF+  can  support  the  capacity-building  and  career  development  of  teachers  and 
researchers, it could finance holders of FP seal of excellence awards167 whom the FP has 
not been able to support (due to a lack of sufficient funding). While it is already possible 
in  the  current  programming  period  to  use  ESF  and  Horizon  Europe-MSCA 168  in  a 
complementary  manner,  the  ESF+  and  Horizon  Europe-MSC  regulations  could  further 
facilitate  synergies  and  complementarities  on  the  ground  through  adequate  operational 
modalities. 

ESF+  and  the  Digital  Europe  Programme:  The  advanced  skills  part  of  the  Digital 
Europe Programme complements the ESF+'s wide approach to digital skills, which starts 
from basic skills but can cover other skills levels as well. The Digital Europe Programme 
will have a strong focus on advanced digital skills needed for the deployment of cutting-
edge technologies such as artificial intelligence or high-performance computing. 

ESF+ and the future Reform Support Programme (including financial support instrument 
for reforms): The RSP will be implemented through direct management upon a voluntary 
reform commitment by Member States. The Commission will disburse funding based on 

166 https://europa.eu/investeu/home_en 
167 The  Seal  of  Excellence  is  currently  awarded  to  above-quality  threshold,  unfunded  proposals  who  applied  to  the 
SME  Instrument,  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  actions  (MSCA)  Individual  Fellowships  or  Teaming  under  the  Horizon 
2020 programme. 
168 Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA) 

84 

 
 
                                                                 
completion of reform. This instrument will be complementary to the existing instruments 
which link ESIF with the European Semester and country-specific recommendations.  

Other funds under shared management:  

As common rules for the funds under shared management will be applicable not only to 
the  ESF+  and  ERDF  but  also  other  funds  (such  as  AMIF  and  EMFF),  the  legislative 
framework will be streamlined.  As regards the EAFRD, to ensure the achievement of the 
objectives  defined  under  article  174  of  the  Treaty169 it  will  continue  to  support  social 
inclusion,  poverty 
in 
reduction  and  economic  development 
complementarity with the ESF+. 

rural  areas, 

in 

169 Article  174  TFEU  refers  to  reducing  disparities  between  the  levels  of  development  of  various  regions,  with  a 
particular attention, among others, to rural areas 

85 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                                 
Annex 5 Programme specific annex on the Health programme 

Glossary  

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AMR 

AWP 

Antimicrobial Resistance 

Annual Work Programmes 

CHAFEA   

Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency 

CNCT 

COMP 

Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology 

Directorate-General for Competition 

DG Home   

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs 

DG RTD   

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

DIGIT 

ECDC 

EFSA 

EMA    

ESTAT   

EU   

FISMA   

GNI   

GROW   

JUST 

MAP     

Directorate-General for Informatics 

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control 

European Food Safety Authority 

European Medicines Agency 

Eurostat 

European Union 

Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital 
Markets Union   

Gross national income 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and 
SMEs 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

Multi-Annual Planning 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
MS    

OECD 

Member States 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

R&D       

Research and development 

SANTE 

SoHO   

SRSS    

TFEU    

UN 

Directorate General for Health and Food Safety 

Substances of Human Origin 

Structural Reform Support Service 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

United Nations 

WHO     

World Health Organization 

Budget line 

eHealth 

A  Budget  line  is  a  graphical  representation  of  all  possible  combinations  of 
two goods which can be purchased with given income and prices, such that 
the cost of each of these combinations is equal to the money income of the 
consumer. 

Digital  health  and  care  is  the  collective  term  used  to  refer  to  tools  and 
services  that  use  information  and  communication  technologies  (ICTs)  that 
can  improve  prevention,  diagnosis,  treatment,  monitoring  and  management 
of  health  and  lifestyle.  Digital  health  and  care  has  the  potential  to  improve 
access to care, quality of care, and increase the efficiency of the health sector. 

eHealth Network 

The  eHealth  Network  is  a  voluntary  network,  set  up  under  article  14  of 
Directive  2011/24/EU.  It  provides  a  platform  of  Member  States'  competent 
authorities  dealing  with  eHealth.  The  Joint  Action  supporting  the  eHealth 
Network (JAseHN) provides scientific and technical support to the Network. 

European Cancer Information 
System (ECIS) 

ECIS  provides  the  latest  information  on  indicators  that  quantify  cancer-
burden across Europe. It permits the exploration of geographical patterns and 
temporal  trends  of  incidence,  mortality  and  survival  data  across  Europe  for 
the major cancer entities.  The purpose of the web-application is to support 
research as well as public-health decision-making in the field of cancer and 
to serve as a point of reference and information for European citizens. 

European Innovation 
Partnership on Active and 
Healthy Ageing 

The European Innovation Partnership in Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on 
AHA)  is  an  initiative  launched  by  the  European  Commission  to  foster 
innovation  and  digital  transformation  in  the  field  of  active  and  healthy 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ageing. 

European Pharmacopoeia 

The  European  Pharmacopoeia  (Ph.  Eur.)  is  Europe’s  legal  and  scientific 
benchmark for pharmacopoeial standards which contribute to delivering high 
quality  medicines  in  Europe  and  beyond.  The  Ph.  Eur.  is  applicable  in  38 
European countries and used in over 100 countries worldwide. 

European  Reference  Network 
for rare disease 

The  European  Reference  Networks  (ERNs)  are  virtual  networks  involving 
healthcare  providers  across  Europe.  They  aim  to  facilitate  discussion  on 
complex  or  rare  diseases  and  conditions  that  require  highly  specialised 
treatment, and concentrated knowledge and resources.  

Health Technology 
Assessments 

Health  technology  assessment  (HTA)  is  a  multidisciplinary  process  that 
summarises  information  about  the  medical,  social,  economic  and  ethical 
issues related to the use of a health technology in a systematic, transparent, 
unbiased,  robust  manner.  Its  aim  is  to  inform  the  formulation  of  safe, 
effective,  health  policies  that  are  patient  focused  and  seek  to  achieve  best 
value. (EUnetHTA) 

National Focal Points 

The  National  Focal  Points  (NFP)  are  the  national  experts  for  the  Health 
Programme 
states  and  participating  countries.  NFP 
representatives are appointed by their national health ministries. (CHAFEA) 

in  member 

One Health Approach 

One  Health:  is  a  term  used  to  describe  a  principle  which  recognises  that 
human  and  animal  health  are  interconnected,  that  diseases  are  transmitted 
from humans to animals and vice versa and must therefore be tackled in both. 
The  One  Health  approach  also  encompasses  the  environment,  another  link 
between humans and animals and likewise a potential source of new resistant 
microorganisms. This term is globally recognised, having been widely used 
in the EU and in the 2016 United Nations Political Declaration on AMR. 

Scientific Committees set up 
in accordance with 
Commission Decision 
2008/721/EC 

2008/721/EC: Commission Decision of 5 August 2008 setting up an advisory 
structure  of  Scientific  Committees  and  experts  in  the  field  of  consumer 
the  environment  and  repealing  Decision 
safety,  public  health  and 
2004/210/EC  

(Seven) EU added value 
criteria 

The EU’s supporting competence in public health means that action can only 
be justified  if it  adds  value  above and beyond  what  the  Member  States  and 
other actors could achieve on their own. 

The  seven  EU  added  value  criteria  are  enshrined  in  the  Regulation  (EU) 
282/2014 establishing the 3rd Health programme (2014-2020) 

State of Health in Europe 
cycle 

The  State  of  Health  in  the  EU  is  a  two-year  initiative  undertaken  by  the 
European  Commission  that  provides  policy  makers,  interest  groups,  and 
health  practitioners  with  factual,  comparative  data  and  insights  into  health 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  health  systems  in  EU  countries.  The  cycle  is  developed  in  cooperation 
with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 
and the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. 

The  3rd  Health  programme 
(2014-2020) 

The Third EU Health Programme (2014-2020) is the main instrument that the 
Commission uses to implement the EU Health Strategy. Annual work plans 
of  the  Programme  set  out  priority  areas  and  the  criteria  for  its  funding 
actions. 

1. Introduction: Political and legal context 

1.1 Scope and context 

Health  is  a  strategic  component  of  growth  for  the  Internal  Market  and  an  invaluable 
resource  for  the  society.  The  Treaty  of  Lisbon  has  enhanced  the  importance  of  health 
policy, stipulating that “a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the 
definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities” (Article 168 of 
TFEU). The EU has an important role to play in improving public health, preventing and 
managing  diseases,  mitigating  sources  of  danger  to  human  health,  including  by 
harmonising  legislation  on  tobacco,  medicinal  products,  medical  devices,  substances  of 
human origin and patients' rights in cross-border healthcare, areas where health policies 
are directly linked with the Internal Market (Article 114 of TFEU).  

More generally, the Treaty's health objectives are to be achieved through action intended 
to support Member States' policies and to foster cooperation and integrated work, since 
the primary responsibility for health protection and, in particular, for the operation of the 
healthcare systems continues to lie with the Member States.  

National authorities acknowledge more and more the need to cooperate, use expertise and 
mutualise resources to respond to the cross-border and global dimension of health issues 
and also to fully develop and benefit from opportunities offered by the digital market, the 
rapid  development of health  technologies,  the sharing  and implementation of evidence-
based best practices for achieving a "high level of human health protection", and aim to 
ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.  

The  EU  has  successfully  implemented  a  comprehensive  health  policy,  through  the  3rd 
Health programme (2014-2020) by bringing together relevant stakeholders and Member 
States  authorities  to  work  on  prioritised  health  issues.  Through  the  Health  Programme, 
the  EU  helps  Member  States  to  develop  their  initiatives  at  EU  level  for  more  cost-
effective  solutions  to  common  health  concerns,  e.g.  the  establishment  of  European 
Reference  Networks  for  rare  diseases,  the  effective  response  to  cross-border  health 
threats  as  in  the  case  of  Ebola  and  Zika  viruses  outbreaks,  the  cancer  screening 
guidelines, the joint Health Technology Assessments, etc. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.2 Lessons learned from previous programmes 

The mid-term evaluation of the 3rd Health Programme170 concluded that the Programme 
has  overall  valid  and  appropriate  objectives  in  place  leading  to  actions  which  are 
relatively focused and generate EU added value while accommodating existing needs and 
challenges. The 3rd Health Programme, currently running will end in 2020. 

Compared with previous health programmes, the 23 thematic priorities of the 3rd Health 
Programme  are  a  positive  development  and  facilitate  synergies  and  coherent  action. 
However, these could still be streamlined and focused even more. The structure in place 
has supported relevant actions, especially in fields where there is legislative clarity and/or 
a clear cross-border dimension. In non-legislative areas where action can be more open-
ended or broadly defined, there is a danger of those actions being less focused. 

The  Annual  Work  Programmes  (AWP)  and  Multi-Annual  Planning  (MAP)  processes 
implementing the 3rd Health Programme work well. The MAP in particular has enabled a 
more  strategic  approach  to  medium-term  planning.  The  AWP  process  is  already  clear, 
well-defined and impartial but to avoid confusion and ensure greater buy-in, the process 
needs to be better explained to stakeholders. 

The  mid-term  evaluation  shows  that  the  exceptional  utility  criteria 171  for  attracting 
participation from low gross national income (GNI) countries have not been sufficiently 
effective  so  far.  However,  despite  the  difficult  economic  context  and  the  significant 
barrier of assuring the remaining co-financing, the programme is still attracting a similar 
level of participation from low GNI countries as in the previous programme. Additional 
improvements are needed, since securing co-funding is only one part of the explanation 
for lower participation. 

The  3rd  Health  Programme  has  already  delivered  significant  progress  by,  for  instance, 
establishing  European  Reference  Networks,  adopting  new  legislation  on  Health 
Technology  Assessment,  and  by  supporting  capacity  building  of  Member  States  to 
respond  to  outbreaks  and  continuous  updating  of  skills  to  take  into  account  emergent 
issues such as the migrant crisis.  

The allocation of resources in the 3rd Health Programme has been found to  be efficient 
overall  and  the  programme  management  has  been  mostly  effective  and  has  improved 
since the previous 2nd Health Programme 2008-2013. For instance, new indicators are in 
place for monitoring the health programme and its specific actions. 

Nevertheless,  there  are  inefficiencies  and  inadequacies  with  the  monitoring  of 
implementation  data,  which  holds  back  the  ability  of  programme  managers  to  keep  an 

170 See at https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/programme/2014-2020/midterm_evaluation_en 
171 This allows for exceptional co-funding up to 80% to all participants in the action under specific criteria mentioned 
in the legal basis (Regulation (EC) N° 282/2014 , Article 7 (3) and in the Annual Work Programmes. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
up-to-date  overview  of  the  programme's  achievements.  This  will  be  appropriately 
addressed.  While  significant  strides  have  been  made  to  ramp  up  dissemination,  going 
forward and delivering progress in this area must be prioritised. 

Furthermore  the  ongoing  health  programme  has  already  been  increasing  its  ability  to 
target  important  health  needs  where  it  can  add  value  (e.g.  antimicrobial  resistance,  e-
health,  accreditation  schemes  for  breast  cancer  screening,  etc.).  The  fact  that  the  seven 
EU  added  value  criteria  are  written  into  the  regulation  and  are  built  into  the  proposal 
evaluation  process  are  positive  achievements  allowing  potential  beneficiaries  to 
appropriately  consider  EU  added  value  when  preparing  their  proposals  and  in  turn,  for 
assessment  panels  to  take  it  into  account  as  part  of  the  decision  to  award  funding. 
However,  there  is  scope  to  streamline  the  added-value  criteria  to  focus  on  three  key 
areas:  addressing  cross-border  health  threats;  improving  economies  of  scale;  and 
fostering the exchange and implementation of best practices. This will make it easier to 
provide  clear  guidance  of  what  the  criteria  mean  and  make  it  easier  for  them  to  be 
addressed more effectively. 

The  3rd  Health  Programme  has  been  found  by  the  mid-term  evaluation  to  be  internally 
coherent,  in  part  due  to  the  revised  structure  of  the  programme.  However,  where  the 
definition of action remains broad and ambitious, results are, harder to achieve. The 3rd 
Health Programme is also coherent with the Commission’s policy priorities and has been 
shown to be an effective tool to respond to evolving needs. 

Stakeholders  participated  in  the  mid-term  evaluation  through  various  consultations172, 
including  an  open  public  consultation  which  covered  aspects  relating  to  the  relevance, 
added  value,  efficiency,  effectiveness,  and  coherence  of  the  programme.  This 
consultation  engaged  institutional  stakeholders,  notably  the  Programme  Committee 
members and National Focal Points and grant beneficiaries. The stakeholders involved in 
the  funded  activities,  especially  non-governmental  organisations,  public  health 
authorities, academic and research organisations, international organisations, professional 
associations, private companies  and individual persons  were also consulted through the 
open  public  consultation.  In  addition,  targeted  on-line  consultations  with  public  health 
experts  and  e-surveys  with  National  Focal  Points  and  Programme  Committee  members 
were  conducted  as  part  of  the  external  evaluation  study.  These  were  complemented  by 
targeted  interviews  of  Commission  and  International  Health  Organisation  officers,  and 
grant recipients (beneficiaries), mainly project leaders and coordinators of actions funded 
under the Programme.  

In  the  open  public  consultation  Member  States  and  EU  stakeholders  have  declared  an 
overwhelming support for EU health policies confirming that the cooperation in the area 
of  health  is  essential  and  should  be  maintained  (70%).  The  EU  should  continue 

172 The results of the consultation activities are presented in the Annex V of the SWD (2017) 331 final of 11.10.2017) 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
supporting  important  health-related  challenges  facing  EU  citizens,  governments  and 
health systems reflected in the formulation of the Programme’s objectives.173 

2. The objectives 

2.1 Challenges for the programmes of the next MFF  

The current Health Programme (2014-2020) is the third programme of EU action in the 
field  of health,  established by Regulation  (EU) N° 282/2014174.  With a budget of EUR 
449.4  million  over  seven  years,  it  is  the  Commission's  main  financial  instrument  to 
underpin and support EU health policy development. Designed to help inter alia Member 
States in investing in health, the programme contributes to the Europe 2020 objective of 
smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth.  The  ongoing  programme  aims  to  complement, 
support and add value to the Member States policies, in terms of improving the health of 
EU citizens and reducing health inequalities. The specific objectives and their financial 
envelopes for the period 2014-2016 are the following:  

1.  promote  health  and  healthy  living  and  prevent  diseases  (€54.1  million;  from 
which (€16.8 million in 2014, €12.7 million in 2015 and €24.6 million 2016);  
2.  protect  Europeans  from  serious  cross-border  health  threats  (€11.1  million;  from 

which €5.3 million 2014, €1.4 million in 2015 and €4.4 million 2016);  

3.  contribute to innovative, efficient and sustainable health systems (€52.1 million; 
from which €17.6 million in 2014, €25.2 million in 2015 and €9.3 million 2016); 
and  

4.  facilitate access to better and safer healthcare for Europeans (€31.3 million; from 
which  €10.5  million  in  2014,  €6.2  million  in  2015  and  €14.6  million  2016); 
horizontal activities (€17.3 million; from which €3.7 million in 2014, €10 million 
in 2015 and €3.6 million 2016). 
A  total  budget  of  €100  million  remains  to  be  spent  until  the  end  of  the  current 
financial EU framework. 

These four objectives are currently served by 23 thematic priorities, listed in Annex I to 
Regulation (EC) N° 282/2014:  

Objective  1:  Promote  health,  prevent  disease  and 
environments for healthy lifestyles 

foster  supportive 

1.1.Risk factors such as use of tobacco and passive smoking, harmful use of 

alcohol, unhealthy dietary habits and physical inactivity 

1.2.Drugs-related health damage, including information and prevention 
1.3.HIV / AIDS, tuberculosis and hepatitis  

173

 The 

results 

the 
https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/consultations/midterm_evaluation_en 
174 OJ L86 of 21.3.2014, p. 1-13. 

Public 

Open 

of 

Consultation 

are 

publicly 

available 

on: 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
1.4.Chronic diseases including cancer, age-related diseases and 

neurodegenerative diseases  

1.5.Tobacco legislation  
1.6.Health information and knowledge system to contribute to evidence-based 

decision making  

Objective 2: Protect Union citizens from serious cross border health threats 

2.1.Risk assessment additional capacities for scientific expertise 
2.2.Capacity building against health threats in MS, including, where appropriate, 

cooperation with neighbouring countries 

2.3.Implementation of Union legislation on communicable diseases and other 

health threats, including those caused by biological, and chemical incidents, 
environment and climate change  

2.4.Health information and knowledge system to contribute to evidence-based 

decision-making  

Objective 3: Contribute to innovative, efficient and sustainable health systems 

3.1.Support voluntary cooperation among MS on HTA  
3.2.Innovation and e-health  
3.3.Health workforce forecasting and planning 
3.4.Setting up a mechanism for pooling expertise at Union level  
3.5.European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing  
3.6.Implementation of Union legislation in the field of medical devices, medicinal 

products and cross-border healthcare  

3.7.Health information and knowledge system including support to the Scientific 
Committees set up in accordance with Commission Decision 2008/721/EC 

Objective 4: Facilitate access to better and safer healthcare for Union citizens  

4.1.Establishment of a system of European reference networks  
4.2.Effectively help patients affected by rare diseases  
4.3.Strengthen collaboration on patient safety and quality of healthcare 
4.4.Measures to prevent Antimicrobial resistance and control healthcare-

associated infections  

4.5.Implementation of Union legislation in field of tissues and cells, blood, 

organs,  

4.6.Health information and knowledge system to contribute to evidence-based 

decision making  

The  main  challenges  to  be  addressed  by  the  future  4th  Health  Programme  [2021-2027] 
stem from the mid-term evaluation and  from the need identified  therein to  better  direct 
funding towards actions that show the greatest potential to generate visible impacts and 
produce  concrete  results  in  addressing  cross-border  health  threats,  improving 
economies  of  scale,  and  fostering  the  exchange  and  implementation  of  best 
practices.   

The actions that have proven to deliver highest added value and on which the next health 
programme should concentrate its resources are supporting activities such as: 

o 

the establishment and operation of European Reference Networks (ERNs),  

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
o 

the "State of Health in Europe" cycle,  

o 
o  work  on  EU  cancer  information  system  including  the  cancer  registries  (which 
provide information  on treatments and outcomes),  and more generally data and 
information  collection,  use  of  big  data  and  real  world  data,  to  inform  EU  and 
Member States' health related policy action,  
technical assistance to Member States aimed at enabling health systems reforms 
in key areas such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and eHealth,    
the  development  of  common  methodologies  and  tools  for  integrated  work  (e.g. 
for the new HTA framework)) and the deployment of capacity building actions 
(e.g.  the  development  of  HTA  capacity  in  Member  States  lacking  this  at  the 
moment).  

o 

o  AMR  Action  Plan  promotes  collaboration  with  different  national  authorities  in 
order  to  reach  the  outlined  objectives  from  a  one  health  perspective  and  in 
support of Member States' national action plans. 

The upcoming regulation on health technology assessment will imply additional funding 
requirements175.  
On the basis of the above considerations a review of the existing needs in the health area, 
conducted  with  the  support  of  an  external  contractor  and  based  on  the  mid-term 
evaluation  results,  has  identified  the  necessity  to  focus  EU  action  on  the  following 
problems: 

o  cross  border  health  threats  that  are  not  stopped  at  the  EU  external  frontiers  and 
could  be  easily  spread  across  borders  and  require  coherent  collective  response 
without blocking the free movement of persons and goods in the EU;  

o  decision-makers need robust, comparable and timely health data, information, and 
expertise,  to  effectively  tackle  health  policy  challenges,  to  conduct  structural 
reforms and improve accessibility, effectiveness and resilience of health systems  
while making strategic, long-term investments into them;  

o  effective rule making and enforcement action are needed to secure high standards 
of quality safety and efficacy for specific products improving or impacting health; 
this  includes  the  need  to  support  integrated  work  on  Health  Technology 
Assessment;     
the specificity of rare diseases requires cooperation across Member States to pool 
knowledge  and  expertise,  increase  access  of  patients  to  specialised  centres  and 
provide increased opportunities to R&D; the model of ERNs could be expanded 
to cover also other non-communicable diseases. 

o 

The  above  needs  were  translated  in  a  refined  intervention  logic  for  the  new  Health 
Programme with a better definition of problems and objectives, conducive to a reduced 
and  streamlined  number  of  thematic  areas  of  action  (to  replace  the  current  23  thematic 
priorities of the on-going 3rd Health Programme)176.  

175 Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  health  technology  assessment  and 
amending Directive 2011/24/EU  
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/technology_assessment/docs/com2018_51_en.pdf  
176 See above in pp. 9-10. Or See in Annex I of the Regulation (EC) N° 282/2014. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
The revised intervention logic addresses a number of further challenges identified by the 
mid-term  programme  evaluation,  including  the  need  to  improve  the  monitoring 
arrangements 
to  clearly 
communicate on its expected EU added value.  

the  establishment  of  relevant 

indicators  and 

through 

The  cross-cutting  objectives  of  the  post-2020  multi-annual  financial  framework  – 
flexibility,  performance,  coherence  and  synergies,  and  simplification  –  will  also  be 
addressed, as appropriate.  

Flexibility is particularly important in relation to the management of cross-border health 
threats, as past experience with the Zika and Ebola crises has demonstrated. In practical 
terms, more flexibility is necessary in particular to define the category of costs eligible 
for EU funding (e.g. the purchase of goods such as vaccines or protective equipment); the 
geographical scope shall be expanded to allow countering severe crises that occur outside 
the EU and threaten the lives of EU citizens. Such flexibility would allow to undertake 
interventions  (contingency  measures)  in  all  countries  where  such  intervention  is 
considered  in  the  interest  of  the  EU  (e.g.  South  American  and  African  countries  in  the 
case of the Zika and Ebola outbreaks mentioned above). 

Past  experience  has  demonstrated  that  the  budget  for  crisis  preparedness  and 
management may be insufficient in case of severe threats (e.g. in 2009, responding to the 
influenza crisis required the provision of an additional €4 million, made available by the 
European Parliament through a Preparatory Action on an EU Rapid Response Capability, 
and  in  2015-2016  funds  had  to  be  redeployed  from  other  actions  of  the  3rd  Health 
Programme  to  contribute  to  the  EU  response  to  health  related  risks  of  the  migrants' 
crisis).  For  this  reason  and  in  addition  to  what  will  be  already  covered  by  the  Health 
Programme, access to the Emergency Reserve Fund is necessary to allow the programme 
to effectively respond to potential serious health crisis in future.  

Direct  access  to  the  Emergency  Reserve  Fund  is  required  e.g.  to  purchase  medical 
counter  measures  and  allow  the  deployment  of  emergency  support  in  case  of 
unpredictable  major  epidemics  or  other  crisis  with  a  potential  cross  border  impact  on 
public health.  

Rule-making, 
standard setting and 
enforcement at EU 
institutions level 
ensure effective rule 
making, enforcement 
and high standards of 
quality safety and 
efficacy for specific 
products improving or 
impacting health 

Health as a resources 
for the society  and 
the internal market 

new health threats that 
easily spread across 
borders & require 
collective and coherent 
response 

Challenges 

Empowerment of 
citizens, consumers 
and businesses 

Programme/line 
Health Programme 

the specificity of rare 
diseases requires 
cooperation across 
Member States to pool 
knowledge and 
expertise, increase 
access of patients to 
specialised centres and 
provide increased 
opportunities to R&D; 
the model of ERNs 
could be expanded to 
cover also other non-
communicable diseases 

Administrative 
cooperation and 
integration among 
Member States 
decision-makers need 
robust, comparable and 
timely health data, 
information, and 
expertise, to effectively 
tackle health policy 
challenges to conduct 
structural reforms to 
improve accessibility, 
effectiveness and 
resilience and to make 
strategic, long-term 
investments in the health 
systems 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2 Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF 

The general objective of the future Health Programme is to complement support and add 
value  to  Member  States  policies  to  improve  EU  citizens'  health;  to  implement  and 
enforce legislation governing the placing on the market and use of health products in the 
EU, and patients' rights to cross-border healthcare.  

In response to the mid-term evaluation177 of the 3rd Health programme and to an ongoing 
study178 findings, the challenges and needs identified will be addressed by the following 
updated specific objectives:  

1.  Prepare  for  and  counter  health 179  crises  –  strengthen  crisis-preparedness, 
management  and  response  to  protect  citizens  in  the  EU  against  cross-border  health 
threats. 

2.  Empower  health  systems  with  emphasis  on  their  digital  transformation  – 
empower  Member  States  with  data,  information  and  knowledge  for  better  decision-
making  providing  tailored  support,  including  technical  assistance,  to  design  and 
implement  reforms  for  improving  accessibility  effectiveness  and  resilience  of  the 
health systems, and to support the digital single market.  

3.  Support  EU  health  legislation  –  support  the  free  circulation  of  products  by 
developing,  implementing  and  monitoring  health  legislation,  while  upholding 
citizens' rights to access cross-border healthcare. 

4.  Support  integrated  work  –  support  Member  States'  efforts,  pooling  resources  and 
fostering  joint  cooperation  and  implementation  of  best  practices,  e.g.  through  the 
ERNs. 

A  reduced  number  of  15  thematic  areas  of  action  with  higher  EU-added  value  will  be 
proposed to reach the above-listed objectives while reinforcing some areas of action e.g. 
by  increasing  their  outputs  and  further  consolidating  the  critical  mass  of  projects,  as 
necessary. Monitoring  arrangements  including  a  monitoring  plan  and  indicators  will  be 
established  for  overall  objectives  and  for  each  area,  respectively.  Delivery  of  the 
programme's  objectives  will  be  assessed  using  the  following  evaluation  criteria:  (i)  the 
continued  relevance  of  all  specific  objectives  and  thematic  areas  of  action,  namely  the 
direct relationship between the actions and the necessity to solve the problems and meet 
the needs while reaching the general objective; (ii) the effectiveness of the implemented 
health  measures  in  achieving  the  general  and  specific  objectives,  also  in  light  of  the 
progress measured through the improved monitoring system to be put in place; (iii) the 
efficiency  in  the  use  of  the  financial  resources  spent  under  the  health  budget  and  their 
consistency  with  the  results  achieved;  (iv)  the  coherence  of  the  measures  implemented 

177 Commission Report COM(2017) 586 final and Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 331 final of 11. 10. 2017. All 
evaluations reports including the external study are available on https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/programme/2014-
2020/midterm_evaluation_en 
178 Data-gathering  study  on  the  common  financial  framework  for  the  management  of  expenditure  under  Regulation 
282/2014 
179 This has to be understood as every potential crisis with a health dimension. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
within  the  Health  Programme,  both  internally  and  with  other  EU  interventions;  (v)  the 
EU added value created through measures receiving technical and financial support under 
this programme. 

3. Programme structure and priorities 

In  respect  of  achieving  the  programme  objectives,  15  areas  of  action  with  higher  EU-
added  value  were  identified,  streamlined  and  ranked  from  high  to  medium  priority  as 
follows:  

1. Strengthen  crisis-preparedness,  management  and  response  in  the  EU  to  protect 
citizens against cross-border health threats. 

1.1.  Capacity-building  measures  for  crisis  preparedness,  management  and 
response (high) 
1.2. Respond to cross-border health threats during crisis (high) 
1.3. Support laboratory capacity (high) 

2. 

3. 

Empower health systems with emphasis on their digital transformation  
2.1. Support the digital transformation of health and care (high) 
2.2.  Support  the  development  of  a  sustainable  EU  health  information  system 
(medium) 
2.3  Support  the  national  reform  processes  for  more  effective,  accessible  and 
resilient health systems (medium) 

Support EU health legislation 
3.1. Manage, maintain and implement the legislation on medical devices (high) 
3.2. Support the implementation of Union legislation on medicinal products and 
on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (high)  
3.3. Monitor and support Member States in their implementation of legislation in 
the area of substances of human origin (SoHO) (high) 
3.4. Support the implementation of tobacco legislation (high) 
3.5. Support the implementation of Union legislation in the area of cross-border 
healthcare (high) 
3.6. Support to the Commission' scientific committees on "Consumer Safety" and 
on "Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks" (high) 

Support  integrated  work  (e.g.  ERNs,  HTA  and  implementation  of  best 

4. 
practices) 

4.1. Continue support for the European Reference Networks (ERNs) (high) 
4.2. Support the development of cooperation on Health Technology  Assessment 
(HTA) in preparation of new harmonised rules (medium) 
4.3. Support the implementation of best practices to support structural innovation 
(medium) 

Among the above mentioned areas of action some result from legal obligations and from 
the necessity to ensure that health legislation is properly implemented and enforced and 
remains  fit  for  purpose  (see  objective  3).  Actions  under  objective  1  cover  crisis 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
preparedness  and  management;  their  necessity  is  undisputed  and  their  implementation 
critical  for  ensuring  the  good  functioning  of  the  Internal  Market;  in  case  of  severe 
outbreaks  and  crises  the  necessary  measures  must  be  taken  and  resources  made 
immediately available by the programme or  through access to  the [Emergency  Reserve 
Fund].  

The areas of action under objectives 2 and 4, have been assessed as delivering promising 
outcomes  in  the  ongoing  Health  Programme  (e.g.  the  European  Cancer  Information 
System; the European Reference Networks) and should be pursued and will be expanded 
in the future Programme absorbing all available budget, allowing long term benefits to be 
fully deployed, and rolled out to other areas. Some such areas of action are also linked to 
important  Commission  initiatives  such  as  the  digitalisation  of  health  and  care,  or  the 
support for structural reforms and innovation discussed at the level of the EU semester. 
Integrated work on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) – as "piloted" through a series 
of  Joint  Actions  in  past  and  current  programming  periods,  and  provided  in  the  recent 
HTA proposal adopted by the Commission180 – and on implementation of best practices 
(selected  from  the  vast  repository  built  through  previous  programmes 181 )  are  also 
expected to deliver significant benefits in terms of EU added valued.  

Instrumental  to  the  pursuit  of  the  objectives  above  is  the  work  of  a  number  of  expert 
groups  such  as  the  Expert  Panel  on  Health  and  other  fora,  which  brings  health 
stakeholders  together  ensure  close  links  to  support  the  EU  health  policy  making  the 
Member States,  fast  access to country-specific knowledge, two-way sharing of relevant 
information  and,  most  importantly,  faster  pathways  for  implementation    as  well  as  the 
independent  opinions  of  the  Scientific  Committees  on  consumer  safety,  on  health  and 
environmental risks and on emerging and newly identified health risks.  

There  is  a  critical  mass  of  funded  projects  for  each  area  of  action  to  ensure  that  the 
programme  will  work  effectively  [and  efficiently]  for  crisis  preparedness  and 
management,  health  systems'  improvement  and  digitalisation,  respect  of  health  legal 
obligations, and further integrated work with the Member States. The 15 thematic areas 
of action are prioritised based on their EU-added value building on and consolidating the 
outcomes of the previous health programmes, mainly the 3rd Health Programme. 

Concerning  subsidiarity  and  proportionality,  the  mid-term  review  of  the  current 
programme  concluded  that  most  actions  deliver  useful  outcomes  with  high  EU-added 
value. This conclusion will be a fortiori applicable to the new programme, whose more 
focused and EU added value oriented intervention logic will allow to concentrate action 
in  areas  where  Member  States  acting  in  isolation  cannot  achieve  the  results  of  action 
funded at EU level. 

180 COM(2018) 51 final  of 31.01.2018, see at 
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/technology_assessment/docs/com2018_51final_en.pdf 
181 DG SANTE is in the process of establishing a best practices portal that will allow to make available these and other best practices 
to interested users and in particular for purposes of implementation with the help of the Steering Group on Promotion and Prevention.  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
In  particular,  the  cooperation  at  EU  level  and  coordination  of  preparedness  plans  and 
responses  to  health  threats  is  one  of  the  strongest  and  best-known  aspects  of  the 
programme’s  EU-added  value.  Activities  to  support  capacity  building  against  health 
threats  have  helped  to  improve  Member  States  preparedness  plans  and  provided  for 
sharing  knowledge  and  expertise  and  develop  coherent  approaches 
tackle 
appropriately cross-border health threats, enabling the EU to speak with one voice to the 
wider international community. The 3rd Health Programme also helped Member States to 
increase  their  capacities  in  various  areas,  pooling  knowledge,  expertise  and  resources 
across the EU to increase citizens' access to high quality healthcare and to contribute to 
the reduction of health inequalities both within and between EU Member States. 

to 

The  24  European  Reference  Networks  on  rare  diseases,  the  collaboration  between  EU 
Health Technology Assessment bodies, the support given to the eHealth Network are all 
illustrations of how targeted EU funding can efficiently mobilise important resources at 
Member States level in those areas, and lead to lasting added value, beyond the specific 
activity. Cooperating, using and sharing knowledge is another thematic area were action 
has  high  EU-added  value  because  the  collection  and  analysis  of  comparable  data 
depicting the situation of health in each of the EU-28 Member States (country-profiles) 
contribute  to  an  enhanced  political  dialogue  and  informed  decision  making  for  health 
policies. 

Last but not least, the exchange and implementation of best practice for promoting health 
and  preventing  diseases  have  also  a  high  EU-added  value,  as  they  can  help  Member 
States  in  making  their  health  systems  more  resilient  to  challenges  resulting  from 
demographic changes and the new burdens they create.  

The  Treaty  of  Lisbon  has  enhanced  the  importance  of  health  policy,  stipulating  that  "a 
high  level  of  human  health  protection  shall  be  ensured  in  the  definition  and 
implementation of all Community policies and activities" (Article 168 of TFEU). The EU 
has  an  important  role  to  play  in  improving  public  health,  preventing  and  managing 
diseases,  mitigating  sources  of  danger  to  human  health,  including  by  harmonising 
legislation  on  tobacco,  medicinal  products,  medical  devices,  patients'  rights  in  cross-
border  healthcare,  areas  where  health  regulations  are  directly  linked  with  the  Internal 
Market (Article 114 of TFEU). 

4. Delivery mechanisms of the intended funding 

As  for  the  current  health  programme,  the  future  one  will  be  implemented  in  direct 
management  mode  with  an  important  part  of  its  implementation  entrusted  to  the 
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA); the remaining 
part  will  be  carried  out  by  Commission  services.  The  programme  will  provide  funding 
(e.g.  grants,  public  procurement,  prizes),  and  be  complemented,  where  appropriate,  by 
new  mechanisms  (e.g.  lump  sums,  unit  costs,  flat  rates)  aiming  to  achieve  programme 
specific objectives, in particular simplification and reduced cost of controls.  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The programme will be open to the [participation][involvement] of third countries when 
this is necessary to counter cross-border health threats and prevent their spread within the 
EU. 
The  implementation  of  previous  Health  Programmes  has  shown  that  in  some 
circumstances (e.g. below certain levels of EU co-funding or co-funding per beneficiary) 
the  management  of  grants  may  entail  inadequately  high  administrative  costs  for  the 
Commission  services  and for the beneficiary entities. Moreover, depending  on the type 
(and accounting practices) of the beneficiaries, the complex grant management rules and 
procedures may increase the risk of irregularities from the side of these beneficiaries and 
consequently the errors for the programme. To streamline the administrative procedures 
and reduce the risk of errors and irregularities, simplified forms of grants, such as lump 
sums, unit costs and flat rates will be used (e.g. for operating grants to non-governmental 
organisations and ERNs). 

Public  procurement procedures are used for the acquisition of services, tools, studies to 
support the implementation of legislation. Where appropriate, they may also be launched 
to  purchase  goods  such  as  medical  counter  measures  and  equipment  in  case  of  health 
crisis  in  order  to  complement  Member  States  capacities  in  crisis  management  and 
response, as well as joint financing of rare diseases therapies in support of the ERNs. 

As in previous programmes, other instruments easy to manage in terms of administrative 
costs, will also be used: prizes (e.g. EU Health Award), membership fees, reimbursement 
of  expert  or  auditor  mission  costs,  administrative  agreements  (e.g.  with  the  Joint 
Research  Centre)  and  cross  sub-delegation  (e.g.  to  EUROSTAT  for  data  collection  on 
health-related topics).  

The toolkit of delivery mechanisms is flexible enough to allow funding in a proportionate 
manner and adjusted to the objectives being pursued. It also offers important potential for 
economies of scope and economies of scale, which enhance the overall effectiveness and 
efficiency of EU funding. For example, the grants for joint actions can be used in case of 
pan-European  collaboration  at  a  technical  and  political  level  when  the  political 
momentum  is  sufficient  for  results  to  be  applied  in  practice.  They  help  address  health 
issues when critical mass is needed with the potential for identifying best practices. As 
such,  they  do  not  go  beyond  what  is  needed  and  they  complement  the  Member  States 
policies  through,  for  example,  the  up-take  of  identified  best  practices.  Likewise,  the 
grants  for  projects  involve  different  organisations  in  several  Member  States,  joining 
forces to perform tasks on a common set of challenges with a trans-national dimension 
which cannot be effectively addressed in other organisational/institutional settings. 

Grants  agreements  show  from  past  experience  that  the  risks  of  errors  and  irregularities 
can be further reduced through information sessions for applicants where these mitigation 
measures will contain management rules, audits and on-the-spot checks. 

The evaluation of past programmes also showed insufficient participation of beneficiaries 
from  low  per-inhabitant  GNI  countries  (below  90%  of  the  EU  average  per-inhabitant 
GNI). To facilitate participation of these beneficiaries, "an exceptional utility"  criterion 
has  been  implemented  and  will  continue  to  be  used  enabling  the  increase  of  maximum 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU  co-funding  rates  from  60%  to  80%  of  eligible  costs  for  beneficiaries  established  in 
low per-inhabitant GNI countries182. 

Finally,  concerning  the  direct  grants,  this  funding  mechanism  enables  to  tap  into  the 
unique knowhow of other intergovernmental organisations, such as the OECD, the WHO 
or the Council of Europe work on European Pharmacopeia, for the purposes of serving 
the  health  programmes  objectives.  One  example  is  the  case  of  the  development  of  a 
common health information system (including the EU, OECD and the WHO) with data 
and indicators validated and collected routinely across  Member States while  seeking to 
ensure systematically the visibility of EU participation and co-funding.  

For  effective  and  EU  swift  reaction  to  unforeseen  developments,  notably  in  case  of 
severe  outbreaks  and  health  crises,  the  necessary  measures  for  crisis  management  and 
emergency response will be funded through an access to the Emergency Reserve Fund of 
the Multiannual Financial Framework. 

5. How will performance be monitored and evaluated? 

Building  on  existing  processes  and  tools  developed  in  the  3rd  Health  Programme,  the 
Commission is developing a monitoring approach and will put in place all arrangements 
to follow Programme implementation and performance in delivering the results of actions 
in  respect  to  their  corresponding  objectives.  To  that  end,  proportionate  reporting 
requirements  will  be  requested  from  recipients  of  EU  funds  and  from  the  Programme's 
National  Focal  Points,  supplemented  by  additional  data  collected  in  an  efficient  and 
timely  manner  from  other  sources  (e.g.  Eurostat,  other  relevant  Commission  services, 
Member States authorities, targeted surveys). This will enable to collect the required data 
and  information  at  different  points  in  time  using  a  set  of  indicators  as  input  to  the 
evaluation of the Programme performance. 

Performance monitoring 
The  Programme  supports  and  complements  Member  States  action  in  health  and 
healthcare  and  its  success  depends  on  complementarity  to  and  compatibility  with 
Member States' health national plans and strategies. Impacts on the health of population 
cannot  be  directly  attributable  to  the  only  Health  Programme  for  the  reason  mentioned 
above,  moreover  long  years  are  necessary  in  the  scale  of  a  human  life  and  this  is  not 
suitable for a seven years Programme. However the Programme creates leverage effects 
and is decisive for changes and improvements in the national health policies.  

The  State  of  Health  in  the  EU183,  a  bi-annual  cycle  of  collection  and  analysis  of  data 
describing  the  health  country  profiles  and  identifying  the  specific  needs  of  Member 

182 The conditions are defined in Article 7.3 of the Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 of the EP and the Council of 11 
March 2014 on the establishment of a third Programme for the Union's action in the field of health (2014-2020) 
183 https://ec.europa.eu/health/state/summary_en 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
 
States,  will  be  used  as  basis  for  evaluating  how  they  are  participating  in  the  Health 
Programme and how they are making use of the financial support for their concrete needs 
to improve their public health capacity and reform their health systems.  

A  first  step  into  measuring  performance  is  to  clearly  communicate  the  targets  of  each 
Programme  objective  ideally  already  in  the  legal  basis  and  inform  Member  States  and 
potential applicants. Only actions contributing to those targets should be retained in the 
adoption of the Annual Work Programmes, and the applicants should be able to justify 
how their proposals add value to these targets and on which basis their we can consider 
that their actions has succeeded or failed. This is important for avoiding past experiences 
where Programme evaluations have demonstrated that the Programme has had financed a 
series  of  individual  successful  actions  but  it  was  not  possible  to  conclude  if  the 
Programme has achieved its own objectives.  

Objective 1: Prepare for and counter health crises 
The target here is:  

  effective deployment resources ( more than 90% of resources deployed), 

in the event of severe health crises  

Objective 2: Empower health systems with emphasis on their digital transformation 
The target is:  

  successful  synergies  with  other  EU  funds  and  programmes  enabling  to 
reach  sustainable  transformations  and  reforms,  while  health  systems 
continue to deliver high quality of health services and health outcomes.  

Objective 3: Support EU health legislation 
The target is:  

  a  high  degree  of  transposition  and  implementation  of  EU  health 
legal  systems  measured  by  regular 

the  national 

into 

legislation 
evaluations 

Objective 4: Support integrated work 
The target is:  

  an increased engagement of Member States in integrated work measured 
with an indicator resulting from the aggregation of indicators at thematic 
area of action level. 

In the case of HTA, this will be translated by the fact that all Member States can make 
their  citizens  benefit  from  medicines  and  therapies  by  accessing/  using  qualitative 
Technology Assessments jointly prepared at EU level with minimum cost (economies of 
scale);  

In  the  case  of  ERNs,  this  will  be  translated  by  the  fact  that  rare  diseases  patients 
independently of where they are living in the EU can have access to rapid diagnosis and 
treatment;  

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  the  case  of  implementation  of  best  practices,  citizens  can  benefit  from  improved 
national  health  programmes  that  have  integrated  the  best  available  scientific  evidence. 
This will result in the long term to economies for the health systems and in longevity and 
healthier life years for the individuals.  

Currently,  the  Commission  is  working  with  the  help  of  external  contractors  to  find  the 
most appropriate (quantifiable if possible) indicators at the level of operational thematic 
areas for an improved monitoring system (see table below). This system, managed by the 
Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA), will ensure the 
follow up of the implementation of the co-funded actions and support the monitoring of 
the  Programme  as  a  whole.  A  measure  of  success  of  the  entire  programme  could  be 
represented by the capability to create synergies with other EU programmes; appropriate 
indicators will be developed. 

An overall indicator "Integrated work engagement strength" based on the aggregation of 
the  indicators  measuring  the  thematic  areas  of  action  under  the  specific  objective 
"Support integrated work" is suggested for measuring the health dimension of the Single 
Market Programme. 

Monitoring arrangements 
The Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA) will ensure 
continuous monitoring of the Programme.  

The  CORDA  system  implemented  by  the  Common  Support  Centre  will  centralise  the 
results collected for all actions monitored through the use of the Horizon 2020 IT tools. It 
will be the key source of information for the evaluations of the future Programme and for 
the  provision  of  policy  feedback  on  the  attainment  of  the  Programme  objectives  and 
priorities, the types of actions and types of organisations co-funded. Additional data, for 
actions  still  remaining  outside  the  Horizon  2020,  including  through  forthcoming 
eProcurement IT tools will be incorporated in a single dashboard, enabling close to real-
time monitoring and reporting. 

This  comprehensive  Programme  monitoring  will  ensure  early  detection  of  risks  and 
possible deviations from target and timely adjustments, mitigation and corrective actions. 
Further  information  will  be  gathered  through  data  collected  (e.g.  statistics,  surveys, 
specific studies/reports) at less frequent rate from other sources among which, Eurostat, 
the Joint Research Centre (JRC), other Commission Services, Member States authorities, 
Committees of Member States’ Representatives, the National Contact Points (NCPs). 

Concerning  the  preparation  and  countering  of  health  crises  and  the  support  to  EU 
legislation  objectives,  the  main  outcomes  and  impacts  (preparedness  plans,  deployment 
of resources in case of health crises including availability of countermeasures, degree of 
national transposition of EU legislation) will be compiled by the responsible Commission 
services, on the basis  of information  received from Member States’ authorities or  from 
Members States’ Representatives in relevant Committees.  

The  WHO  monitoring  process 
implementation  of 
International  Health  Regulations  (IHR)  core  capacities  (e.g.,  legislation  and  policy, 

the  assessment  of 

involves 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
coordination, surveillance, response, preparedness, risk and crisis communication, human 
resources, laboratory, events at points of entry), through a checklist of indicators using a 
composite measure based on capability indicators.  

Programme evaluation and other reporting obligations 
Every  year,  an  analysis  of  progress  on  key  dimensions  of  the  Programme  management 
and  implementation  will  be  published  by  the  Commission  services  in  the  form  of  an 
annual  implementation  report  which  will  be  communicated  to  the  European  Parliament 
and the Council.  

The Programme performance will be assessed through a mid-term review evaluation (4 
years  after  the  start  of  the  Programme  implementation)  carried  out  by  external  and 
independent contractors with a focus on the implementation that far and actions' outputs 
or  immediate  results,  progress  towards  the  objectives  of  the  Programme  and 
recommendations for possible adjustments and improvements. 
The  period  of  four  years  is  the  minimum  duration  necessary  before  communicating  on 
the mid-term review, as the majority of the funded actions have a three years period life 
and at least 10 months are necessary for an external evaluation study to assess the first 
actions funded by the Programme.  
A final, ex-post evaluation will be conducted by independent external contractors, at the 
end of the Programme to review its performance and final results as well as to assess its 
outcomes and longer-term impact.  

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific Objective 
& Actions 

Indicator 

Definition 

1. Prepare for and 
counter health  
crises184 

Quality of EU response to future 
health crises -improvement 

Assessment of the quality of EU 
response to future health crises, and in 
particular, in terms of observed 
improvement in comparison with 
previous crises 

Health Programme 
Type of 
the  
indicator 
(quantita
tive or 
qualitati
ve 
Qualitati
ve 

a. Quality & completeness of 
national preparedness plans 

1.1 Capacity-
building measures 
for crisis 
preparedness, 
management and 
response 

b. Level of uptake of tools by 
professionals/practitioners 

Availability, quality and completeness 
of preparedness plans and extent to 
which Member States have put them in 
place to counter future health threats, as 
shown by the transmission of these plans 
to the Health Security Committee and 
their subsequent analysis by the 
Commission 
Adoption and implementation by 
professionals and practitioners in 
Member States of tools developed 

184 This has to be understood as every potential crisis with a health dimension. 

Quantitat
ive/qualit
ative 

Quantitat
ive/qualit
ative / 

Assessment 
by 
Commissio

Annual/per
manent 

105 

Source of 
data 

Frequency 
of 
measurem
ent 

Baseline 

Target 

(by end of the Programme) 

Depends on 
occurrence 
of severe 
health 
crises 

Annual 

Evaluation/
assessment 
reports 
prepared by 
the 
Commissio
n and by 
EU other 
institutions 
or by 
relevant 
Internationa
l 
Organisatio
ns, drawing 
lessons 
from 
previous 
crises 
Commissio
n/DG 
SANTE/He
alth 
Security 
Committee 
(HSC) 

Situation 
during the 
Ebola crisis: 
EU 
responsemech
anisms 
demonstrated 
added value, 
but lessons 
learnt from 
experience 
and capacity 
gaps were 
also 
highlighted 

Situation in 
year 2020, as 
regard quality 
and 
completeness 
of national 
preparedness 
plans 
Situation in 
year 2020 

Improvement in the management of 
future cross-border health crises in 
comparison with previous occurrences 

90% of Member States reporting full 
compliance with the International 
Health Regulations, through annual 
reporting to WHO 

Good to very good level by all MS 
Specific target will depend upon the 
severity of case/issue/outbreak 

 
 
 
                                                                 
1.2 Response to 
cross-border health 
threats during crisis 

a. Availability of vaccines and 
countermeasures during crises 

1.3. Support 
laboratory capacity 

a. EULabCap index  

during capacity building and other 
knowledge sharing exercises (e.g. 
percentage of messages of those 
supposed to be transmitted through the 
Early Warning and Response System – 
EWRS) 
Level of availability in terms of quantity 
and quality of vaccines and other 
medical countermeasures to be used 
during disease outbreaks and crises with 
health dimension obtained through joint 
procurement or any other mechanism 
supported by the Health Programme  
EULabCap index is an aggregated index 
resulting from the annual survey carried 
out by the European Centre for Disease 
Prevention and Control – ECDC. The 
aggregated index provides a robust EU-
wide assessment of collective laboratory 
capacity 

Number 
– on a 
scale of 
0-10 

level 

n/DG 
SANTE/HS
C 

number 

Commissio
n/DG 
SANTE 

Annual/per
manent 

b. Number of laboratories 
participating in Joint Actions 

Number of laboratories participating in 
Joint Actions launched by the 
Programme with the  aim to support 
laboratory capacity 

Quantitat
ive 
(number) 

2. Empower health  Decrease in the costs related to 

EU-wide assessment of the decrease of 

number 

106 

addressed (e.g. Ebola, Infuenza) 

Availability across EU of 3 additional 
vaccines/countermeasures at end of the 
Programme 

Regular increase of the aggregated 
EULabCap index 

expanding the involvement of relevant 
laboratories across the EU – 10 new 
members by 2028 covering most 
Member States + relevant partner 
countries 

Situation in 
2020: number 
of available 
medical 
countermeasu
res 

In 2015, the 
EULabCap 
aggregate 
index for 
EU/EEA was 
7.5 on a scale 
of 0-10 

37 associated 
/ 
collaborating 
partners from 
25 European 
countries are 
participating 
in EMERGE 
Joint Action 

Situation in 

Reduction, at the end of the Programme, 

Annual 

The 
EULabCap 
survey 
methodolog
y 
developed 
by the 
European 
Centre for 
Disease 
Prevention 
and Control 
- ECDC – 
Annual 
EULabCap 
Report 
released by 
ECDC 
Beneficiari
es of the 
grant 
agreements 
concluded 
in the 
context of 
the Joint 
Actions to 
support 
laboratory 
capacity 
Comprehen multiannual 

Annual 

 
 
 
systems with 
emphasis on their 
digital 
transformation 

management of information, 
resulting from increased digital 
transformation of health systems 

the costs of management of information, 
linked with increased digital 
transformation of health systems 

2.1 Support the 
digital 
transformation of 
health and care 

Number of eHealth solutions or 
tools up-taken and implemented 
in Member States’ health systems  

Number of eHealth solutions or tools 
up-taken and implemented in Member 
States’ health systems per million euros 
invested from the Health Programme’s 
budget 

number 

Health networks sustainability 

2.2 Support the 
development of a 
sustainable EU 
health information 
system 

Depending on their needs and priorities, 
the sustainability of current and future 
networks on health information is 
defined in this context by their ability to 
continue their operations after the end of 
co-funding from the Health programme 
budget; 

qualitativ
e 

2.3 Support the 
national reform 

Number of health-related 
recommendations coming from 

Number of health-related 
recommendations coming from the EU 

number 

107 

sive study 
to be 
carried out 
by Joint 
Research 
Centre – 
JRC, with a 
view to 
assessing, 
among 
others, the 
reduction 
of costs of 
managemen
t of the 
information
, resulting 
from 
increased 
digitisation 
of health 
systems 
Member 
States, 
National 
contact 
points – 
NCPs, 
surveys 
Ad hoc 
report or 
survey 
carried out 
by 
Commissio
n Services 
or by an 
external 
organisatio
n acting on 
behalf of 
Commissio
n services 
EU 
Semester 

by 20% of information management 
costs as compared to baseline 

2020: 
estimate of 
costs of 
information 
management 
by health 
systems, 
derived from 
the planned 
Study 

Annual/per
manent 

Situation in 
2020 

At least 1 case of eHealth solution or 
tool up-taken and implemented per 
million euros invested from the Health 
Programme, over the duration of the 
Programme 2021-2028 

At the end 
of the 
Programme 

situation in 
2020 

Sustainability of health information 
networks at end of the Programme, by 
2028 

Annual 

In 2017, EU 
Semester 

At least one country-specific 
recommendation relating to health 

 
 
 
 
processes for more 
effective, accessible 
and resilient health 
systems 

the EU Semester process that are 
successfully addressed, with the 
support of the Health Programme 
(or of the ESF+ Programme) 

Semester process that are successfully 
addressed, with the support of the 
Health Programme (or of the ESF+ 
Programme) 

3. Support EU 
health legislation 

Degree of transposition of EU 
health legislation into the national 
legal systems measured by regular 
evaluations 

Degree of transposition of legislation 
into national laws/regulations and legal 
systems. The degree of transposition is 
measured among others by regular 
reports, some of which are foreseen in 
the concerned legal acts. 

qualitativ
e 

3.1. Manage, 
maintain and 
implement the 
legislation on 
medical devices 

Percentage of Member States 
which have implemented the EU 
legislation in the field of medical 
devices in their national legal 
system 

Percentage of Member States which 
have implemented the EU legislation in 
the field of medical devices in their 
national legal system, as reported by 
successive evaluation reports 

percentag
e 

number 

a. Number of projects by the 
Biological Standardisation 
Programme (BSP) for the quality 
control of biologicals 

3.2. Support the 
implementation of 
Union legislation on 
medicinal products 
and on Health 
Technology 
Assessment 

b. Number of Regulatory 
Members from Member States 
joining the ICH 

Number of projects by the Biological 
Standardisation Programme (BSP) for 
the quality control of biologicals. The 
activities by biological standardisation 
program ensure the independence of 
tests on biologicals, allows comparison 
of tests, ensures high quality biologicals 
and aims to reduce animal testing in the 
EU.  
Number of Regulatory Members from 
the Member States joining the ICH and 
implementing its guidelines  

185 To be confirmed by the responsible operational unit 

Process, 
Commissio
n services 

Commissio
n/MS 
authorities/
Evaluation 
reports 

Commissio
n/MS 
authorities/
Evaluation 
reports 

Commissio
n/MS 
authorities/
Evaluation 
reports 

country-
specific 
recommendati
ons related to 
health 
systems were 
issued to nine 
Member 
States 
Situation in 
2020, as will 
have been 
assessed by 
the 
Commission 
and Member 
States 
Situation in 
2020, as will 
have been 
assessed by 
the 
Commission 
and Member 
States 
118 projects 
finalized 
since its 
inception, 4 
in 2016 

Frequency 
in 
accordance 
with the 
provisions 
in the 
relevant 
legal acts 
Same as the 
frequency 
provided 
for in the 
legal act 

Annual 

systems successfully addressed, with 
support of the Health Programme (or of 
the ESF+ Programme)185 

High degree of transposition by all 
Member States 

90% of Member States having 
implemented the EU legislation in the 
field of  medical devices at the end of 
the Programme 

Around 4 BSP projects concluded 
annually  

number 

Commissio
n/MS 

Annual 

Situation in 
2020, as 
provided by 
Commission 

Regulatory Members from 14 additional 
Member States joining the ICH and 
implementing its guidelines at the end of 
the Programme 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
authorities 

Percentage of Member States 
which have implemented the EU 
legislation in the field of 
substances of human origin 
(SoHO) in their national legal 
system 

Percentage of Member States which 
have implemented the EU legislation in 
the field of substances of human origin 
(SoHO) in their national legal system, as 
reported by successive evaluation 
reports 

percentag
e 

Commissio
n/MS 
authorities/
Evaluation 
reports  

Same as the 
frequency 
provided 
for in the 
legal act 

Percentage of Member States 
which have implemented the EU 
legislation in the field of tobacco 
in their national legal system 

Percentage of Member States which 
have implemented the EU legislation in 
the field of tobacco in their national 
legal system, as reported by successive 
evaluation reports 

3.5. Support the 
implementation of 
Union legislation in 
the area of cross-
border healthcare 

Percentage of Member States 
which have implemented the EU 
legislation in the field of cross-
border healthcare in their national 
legal system 

Percentage of Member States which 
have implemented the EU legislation in 
the field of cross-border healthcare in 
their national legal system, as reported 
by successive evaluation reports 

percentag
e 

percentag
e 

Commissio
n/Member 
States 
Authorities  

Same as the 
frequency 
provided 
for in the 
legal act 

Commissio
n/MS 
authorities/
Evaluation 
reports 

Annual or 
at least at 
frequency 
provided 
for in 
relevant 
legal act 
Annual 

Number of scientific opinions 
issued and approved 

Number of scientific opinions issued 
and approved by the Commission’s 
scientific committees 

number 

Commissio
n 

3.3. Monitor and 
support Member 
States in their 
implementation of 
legislation in the 
area of substances 
of human origin 
(SoHO) 
3.4. Support the 
implementation of 
tobacco legislation 

3.6. Support to the 
Commission' 
scientific 
committees on 
"Consumer Safety" 
and on "Health, 
Environmental and 
Emerging Risks"  
4. Support 
integrated work 

services’ 
evaluation 

Year 2020 

Situation in 
2020, as 
provided by 
Commission 
services’ 
evaluation  
Situation in 
2020, as 
provided by 
Commission 
services’ 
evaluation 

30 opinions 
finalized 
since 2016 

90% of Member States having 
implemented the EU legislation in the 
field of substances of human origin 
(SoHO) at the end of the Programme  

90% of Member States having 
implemented the EU legislation in the 
field of tobacco at the end of the 
Programme  

90% of Member States having 
implemented the EU legislation in the 
field of cross-border healthcare at the 
end of the Programme 

Continuous number of opinions in line 
with recent values: 10/year, (if the 
average number of issues arising in a 
given year is higher than 10) or all 
arising issues receiving a scientific 
opinion, in case their average annual 
number is less than 10. 

Strength of integrated work 
engagement  

The Strength of integrated work 
engagement indicator will be based on 
an equal weighting aggregation of the 
indicators of the 3 operational priorities 
below186: ERNs, HTA, and 
Implementation of Best Practices 

number 

Commissio
n/DG 
SANTE/C
HAFEA 

Annual 

Situation in 
2020 

Increase of the composite indicator by 
20% at the end of the Programme 

186

 The detailed aggregation methodology for defining the composite indicator from the indicators requires further information and data analysis in order to be finalised 

109 

 
 
 
                                                                 
4.1.ERNs 

Number of patients supported by 
ERNs  

Number of patients which were 
diagnosed and treated by ERN networks 

number 

4.2.HTA. 

a. Transitional period. 
coordination level 

Number of Member States which have 
joined the Coordination Group as 
members in the transitional period. 

percentag
e 

b. Number of joint clinical 
assessments on medicinal 
products and on medical devices 

Number of clinical assessments  jointly 
carried out 

number 

4.3.Implemenation 
of best practices 

a. Number of best practices 
transferred per million of € 
invested 

Number of best practices transferred to 
Member States (receiving MS) per 
million of € invested from the Health 
Programme 

number 

b. Percentage of EU population of 
the geographical territory in 
which each best practice is 
transferred 

Reduction of the difference 
between the 5 best performing 
Member States (MS) in terms of 
Mortality rate and the 5 worst 
performing MS  

Percentage of EU population of the 
geographical territory in which each best 
practice is transferred 

percentag
e 

Reduction of the difference between the 
5 best performing Member States (MS) 
in terms of Mortality rate and the 5 
worst performing MS 

Quantitat
ive 

Overall 
Programme 
Indicator 

Commissio
n/DG 
SANTE/C
HAFEA 

Commissio
n/DG 
SANTE/N
CPs 

Commissio
n/DG 
SANTE/N
CPs 

Commissio
n/DG 
SANTE/N
CPs/ad hoc 
survey 

Commissio
n/DG 
SANTE/N
CPs/ad hoc 
survey 
Commissio
n/Member 
States/Healt
h Security 
Committee 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Frequency 
of available 
data in 
Eurostat’s 
Database 

Number of 
patients that 
made 
consultations 
in ERNs by 
2020 
Situation in 
2020, as 
provided by 
Commission 
services’ 
evaluation 
Situation in 
2020, as 
provided by 
Commission 
services’ 
evaluation 
Situation in 
year 2020, as 
provided by 
estimations 
relating to the 
4th Health 
programme 
No baseline 
available 

Early in its development, target to be 
established in 2020 

Increase by 20%187 

50 HTA 

na188 

Maximizing the percentage of EU 
population of the geographical territory 
in which each best practice is 
transferred, with a target of at least 5% 

Situation in 
2020 

Reduction of observed inequality by 
20% 

187 To be confirmed by responsible operational unit: applicable only before the adoption of HTA legislation. Once HTA legislation is adopted, the relevant indicator will be addressed under the Support to EU health legislation specific objective 
188

 Due to lack of experience, the target will be set up in 2020, when more information and data become available 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Sub-Annex 1: Evidence, sources and quality 

The  systems  put  into  place  for  the  monitoring  and  management  of  previous  health 
programmes enabled to efficiently collect data on various aspects of the implementation, 
including  the  type  of  actions,  the  types  of  beneficiary  organisations, amount  of  EU co-
funding.  
Information  and  evidence  from  programme  monitoring  and  management  include 
deliverables and assessment of results at action level, enabling to measure the success of 
each funded action and its contribution to the overall objectives of the programmes.  
The deliverables and results at action level feed into the dissemination plan at programme 
level and provide the opportunity to extract and present showcases of success showcases 
from  which  broader  lessons  can  be  drawn,  as  feedback  and  input  to  future 
actions/programmes. 

The  mid-term  and  final  (ex-post)  evaluations  of  the  previous  programme  conducted  by 
external independent contractors/organisations provided reliable evidence and necessary 
input to the preparation of the impact assessment of the subsequent Programme. 
In this respect, the present impact assessment builds on evidence gathered from the mid-
term evaluation of the 3rd Health Programme (2014-2020), carried out in 2017 (link to be 
added)  and  from  of  final  (ex-post)  evaluation  of  2nd  Health  Programme  (2008-2013) 
issued in 2016. 

The robustness and quality of information derived from Programme monitoring and from 
mid-term and final evaluations has been assured by cross-checking with complementary 
evidence  from  independent  other  evaluations  or  audits  of  specific  components  of  the 
Programme, such as the special report issued in 2016 by the European Court of Auditors 
on cross-border threats to health in the EU and the Commission report to the European 
Parliament and to Council on the implementation of Decision No 1082/2013/EU.  
Robustness and quality can also be increased by taking into account reports and opinions 
delivered  by  other  EU  institutions  (e.g.  Council  Recommendations  on  Vaccination,  on 
AMR,  and  on  lessons  learned  from  the  Ebola  and  Zika  crises;  European  Parliament 
Resolutions on health-related issues and on specific aspects of the Health Programme).  
In  addition  to  opinion  of  the  Members  of  the  3rd  Health  Programme  Committee,  the 
impact  assessment  took  into  account  the  opinion  of  Scientific  Committees  and  advice 
from experts groups at EU-level (Expert Panel on Effective Ways of Investing in Health; 
Expert  Groups  represented  in  the  EU  Health  Policy  Platform)  or  in  international 
organisations (cooperation with WHO, on the implementation of IHR and with OECD on 
health information and State of Health in the EU cycle). 

At Commission level, the impact assessment included by up-to-date evidence from new 
policy  developments  and  opportunities  of  synergies  offered  such  developments  (e.g. 
Action  Plan  on  AMR,  Digital  Single  Market  Communication,  and  Communication  on 
Vaccination, under-preparation). 

Finally, in order to close remaining information gaps, the Commission launched a study 
on gathering with a view to analysing the impacts of possible actions in the future Health 
Programme and to proposing a programme monitoring and evaluation framework. 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation  

In addition to the IMP public consultation launched during the 1st quarter of 2018, open 
consultations  were  carried  in  the  context  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  3rd  Health 
Programme.  Stakeholders  participated  in  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  3rd  Health 
Programme through these consultations189, including an open public consultation which 
covered  aspects  relating  to  the  relevance,  added  value,  efficiency,  effectiveness,  and 
coherence  of  the  programme.  This  served,  notably,  as  input  to  the  preparation  of  the 
impact assessment of the Health Programme post 2020. 

The  consultations,  carried  out  from  November  2016  to  February  2017,  engaged 
institutional  stakeholders,  notably  the  Programme  Committee  members  and  National 
Focal Points and grant beneficiaries. The stakeholders involved in the funded activities, 
especially  non-governmental  organisations,  public  health  authorities,  academic  and 
research  organisations,  international  organisations,  professional  associations,  private 
companies  and  individual  persons  were  also  consulted  through  the  open  public 
consultation.  

In addition, targeted on-line consultations with public health experts and e-surveys with 
National Focal Points and Programme Committee members were conducted as part of the 
external  evaluation  study.  These  were  complemented  by  targeted  interviews  of 
Commission  and  International  Health  Organisation  officers,  and  grant  recipients 
(beneficiaries),  mainly  project  leaders  and  coordinators  of  actions  funded  under  the 
Programme.  

In  the  open  public  consultation  Member  States  and  EU  stakeholders  provided  an 
overwhelming support for EU health policies confirming that the cooperation in the area 
of health is essential and should be maintained (70%).  
The  EU  should  continue  supporting  important  health-related  challenges  facing  EU 
citizens,  governments  and  health  systems  reflected 
the 
Programme’s objectives.190 

the  formulation  of 

in 

189 The results of the consultation activities are presented in the Annex V of the SWD (2017) 331 final of 11.10.2017 
190

are 

publicly 

available 

on: 

 The 

the 
https://ec.europa.eu/health/funding/consultations/midterm_evaluation_en 

results 

Public 

Consultation 

Open 

of 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                 
 
 
Sub-Annex 3: Evaluation results 

The programme evaluations carried out are as follows: 
Mid-term Evaluation of the third Health Programme (2014 – 2020)191 released in 2017 
Report on the implementation of Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross-border threats to health192 
Ex-post Evaluation of the second Health Programme (2008 – 2013)193 released in 2016 
Mid-term  Evaluation  of  the  second  Health  Programme  (2008  –  2013)194 released  in 
2011 
Ex-post evaluation of the (first) Public Health Programme (PHP) 2003-2008195 released 
in 2011 
Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  (first)  Public  Health  Programme  (PHP)  2003-2008 196 , 
released in 2007  

191 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/programme/docs/2014-2020_evaluation_study_en.pdf 
192https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/preparedness_response/docs/report_decision_serious_crossborder_threat
s_22102013_en.pdf 
193 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/programme/docs/ex-post_ev-hp-2008-13_final-report.pdf 
194 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/programme/docs/mthp_final_report_oct2011_en.pdf 
195 https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/programme/docs/ex_post_evaluation_en.pdf 
196 http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_programme/documents/evaluation/php_evaluation_en.pdf 

113