EUSurvey - Survey

(/eusurvey/home/welcome/runner)

pagina 1 van 7

All public surveys (/eusurvey/home/publicsurveys/runner)

Skip to Main Content

Login (/eusurvey/auth/login/runner) | Help

| Language

Views

Public Consultation on EU funds in the area of Cohesion

Standard

Fields marked with * are mandatory.

Languages
[EN] English

Introduction

Contact

Read the introduction
(http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/newsroom/pdf/public_consultation_cohesion_en.pdf)

Dana.DJOUDJEV@e
eu
(mailto:Dana.DJOUDJ
europa.eu)

Guidance
• Are you replying as a as an individual in your personal capacity? If so, please tick the first option under question 1. You
will then be invited to enter your personal details and then led directly to questions 27 to 40 which relate to EU funds in the
area of cohesion.
• Are you replying as an entity or in your professional capacity? If so, please tick the second option under question 1. You
will then be invited to enter your personal details as well as information on the entity of behalf of which you are replying and
then then led directly to questions 27 – 40 which relate to EU funds in the area of cohesion.
• In both cases, you may skip the non-mandatory questions and upload a document (1 MB max) under point 41 and
enter any other comment under point 42. Please do not include any personal data in documents submitted in the context of
the consultation if you opt for anonymous publication. It is important to read the specific privacy statement for information on
how your personal data and contribution will be dealt with.

Download PDF versio
Save as Draft

Last saved on
28/02/2018 09:29:21

About you

* 1 You are replying
as an individual in your personal capacity
in your professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation




* 8 Respondent's first name

* 9 Respondent's last name

* 10 Respondent's professional email address

* 11 Name of the organisation
Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (coordinated Dutch Government position)

* 12 Postal address of the organisation
Parnassusplein 5
2511 VX Den Haag
The Netherlands

* 13 Type of organisation
Please select the answer option that fits best.

Private enterprise
Professional consultancy, law firm, self-employed consultant
Trade, business or professional association
Non-governmental organisation, platform or network

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/17c034bf-d01b-4724-bd3a-ef629b1b35cd?draftid... 28-2-2018

EUSurvey - Survey

(/eusurvey/home/welcome/runner)

pagina 2 van 7

All public surveys (/eusurvey/home/publicsurveys/runner)

Regional or local authority (public or mixed)
International or national public authority
Other



Login (/eusurvey/auth/login/runner) | Help

* 21 Please specify the type of organisation.
Intergovernmental organisation
EU institution, body or agency
National parliament
National government
National public authority or agency

* 22 Is your organisation included in the Transparency Register?

| Language









If your organisation is not registered, we invite you to register here
(https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/ri/registering.do?locale=en), although it is not compulsory to be registered to reply
to this consultation. Why a transparency register (http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/staticPage/displayStaticPage.do?
locale=en&reference=WHY_TRANSPARENCY_REGISTER)?

Yes
No
Not applicable

* 24 Country of organisation's headquarters
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Other

* 26 Your contribution,









Note that, whatever option chosen, your answers may be subject to a request for public access to documents under Regulation (EC)
N°1049/2001 (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/PDF/r1049_en.pdf)
can be published with your organisation's information (I consent the publication of all information in my contribution in whole or in part including the
name of my organisation, and I declare that nothing within my response is unlawful or would infringe the rights of any third party in a manner that would prevent publication)

can be published provided that your organisation remains anonymous (I consent to the publication of any information in my contribution in
whole or in part (which may include quotes or opinions I express) provided that it is done anonymously. I declare that nothing within my response is unlawful or would infringe the



rights of any third party in a manner that would prevent the publication.

EU Funds in the area of cohesion

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/17c034bf-d01b-4724-bd3a-ef629b1b35cd?draftid... 28-2-2018

EUSurvey - Survey

pagina 3 van 7

(/eusurvey/home/welcome/runner)

All public surveys (/eusurvey/home/publicsurveys/runner)



one or more of the following funds and programmes

Login (/eusurvey/auth/login/runner) | Help

at most 6 choice(s)
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
The Cohesion Fund (CF)
The European Social Fund (ESF)

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF)

The Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD)

Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI)


| Language





28 Please let us know to which of the following one or more topics your replies will refer
at most 3 choice(s)
Economic and sustainable development
Employment, skills and education

Social inclusion




29 The Commission has preliminarily identified a number of policy challenges which programmes/funds under the policy area of
cohesion could address. How important are these policy challenges in your view?
Very
important

Rather
important

Neither
important nor
unimportant

Rather not
important

Not
important
at all

No
opinion

a. Promote economic growth in the EU
as a whole
b. Reduce regional disparities and
underdevelopment of certain EU
regions
c. Address the adverse side-effects of
globalisation
d. Reduce unemployment, promote
quality jobs and support labour mobility
e. Promote social inclusion and
combat poverty
f. Promote common values (e.g. rule of
law, fundamental rights, equality and
non-discrimination)
g. Facilitate transition to low carbon
and circular economy, ensure
environmental protection and resilience
to disasters and climate change
h. Foster research and innovation
across the EU
i. Facilitate transition to digital
economy and society
j. Promote sustainable transport and
mobility
k. Promote territorial cooperation
(interregional, cross-border,
transnational)
l. Support education and training for
skills and life-long learning
m. Improve quality of institutions and
administrative capacity
n. Promote sound economic
governance and the implementation of
reforms
o. Other (please give degree of
importance here and fill in question 30
below)

30 If you selected 'Other' in the above question, please specify it here:

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/17c034bf-d01b-4724-bd3a-ef629b1b35cd?draftid... 28-2-2018

EUSurvey - Survey

(/eusurvey/home/welcome/runner)

pagina 4 van 7

All public surveys (/eusurvey/home/publicsurveys/runner)

Labour market integration and social inclusion of asylum status holders

Login (/eusurvey/auth/login/runner) | Help

| Language

31 To what extent do the current programmes/funds successfully address these challenges?
To a
large
extent

To a fairly
large extent

To some
extent only

Not
at all

No
opinion

a. Promote economic growth in the EU as a whole
b. Reduce regional disparities and underdevelopment of
certain EU regions
c. Address the adverse side-effects of globalisation
d. Reduce unemployment, promote quality jobs and support
labour mobility
e. Promote social inclusion and combat poverty
f. Promote common values (e.g. rule of law, fundamental
rights, equality and non-discrimination)
g. Facilitate transition to low carbon and circular economy,
ensure environmental protection and resilience to disasters
and climate change
h. Foster research and innovation across the EU
i. Facilitate transition to digital economy and society
j. Promote sustainable transport and mobility
k. Promote territorial cooperation (interregional, cross-border,
transnational)
l. Support education and training for skills and life-long
learning
m. Improve quality of institutions and administrative capacity
n. Promote sound economic governance and the
implementation of reforms
o. Other (please give degree of importance here and fill in
question 32 below)

32 If you selected 'Other' in the above question, please specify it here:
200 character(s) maximum
Labour market integration and social inclusion of asylum status holders

33 To what extent do the current programmes/funds add value, compared to what Member States could achieve at national,
regional and/or local levels without EU funds?
To a large extent
To a fairly large extent
To some extent only
Not at all
Don't know





34 Please explain how the current programmes/funds can add value compared to what Member States could achieve at national,
regional and/or local levels
1500 character(s) maximum
Please clearly indicate to which policies, programmes and funds your answers refer.

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/17c034bf-d01b-4724-bd3a-ef629b1b35cd?draftid... 28-2-2018

EUSurvey - Survey

(/eusurvey/home/welcome/runner)

pagina 5 van 7

All public surveys (/eusurvey/home/publicsurveys/runner)

Not everyone reaps the benefits of the internal market (yet). Therefore, Europe needs to
protect against the negative side effects and consequences of the internal market and
globalisation. This is what the Netherlands does with the current ESF and EGF
programmes by focussing on labour market integration of the most vulnerable groups
(ESF) and people threatened by job loss due to globalisation (EGF). Differences in
economic and social perspectives between groups in society and between regions and/
or member states can cause tensions and can reduce support for European cooperation.
These European challenges need also to be addressed at a European level. Integration
of asylum status holders and youth unemployment are examples of these European
challenges. Moreover, the social funds can contribute to the implementation of the
European pillar of social rights.
Added-value also occurs as in the current programming there is a clear link between the
funds and the necessary structural reforms (related to the European semester process).
The implementation of the 2015 labour market reform (Participatiewet) is supported
through the ESF.This added-value should be further increased in future programming by
strengthening the link between ESI funds and structural reforms.

Login (/eusurvey/auth/login/runner) | Help

| Language

35 Is there a need to modify or add to the objectives of the programmes/funds in this policy area? If yes, which changes would be
necessary or desirable?
1500 character(s) maximum
Please clearly indicate to which policies, programmes and funds your answers refer.

Effectiveness can be increased by enhancing focus of the funds. With regard to the social
funds a strong focus on labour market participation and social inclusion of vulnerable
groups through investments in human capital is desirable, this includes asylum status
holders. An instrument for the EU to invest in people will increase the visibility of the EU
and subsequently the understanding of what the EU can do for its citizens.
A stronger link with structural reforms is furthermore desirable. Social funds can be used
in accompanying structural reforms through focused projects in the area of labour market
participation and vulnerable groups (human capital).

36 To what extent do you consider the following as obstacles which prevent the current programmes/funds from successfully
achieving their objectives?
To a large
extent

To a fairly
large extent

To some
extent only

Not
at all

No
opinion

a. Complex procedures leading to high administrative
burden and delays
b. Heavy audit and control requirements
c. Available funding does not address the real challenges
d. Insufficient administrative capacity to manage
programmes
e. Insufficient information about funding and selection
process
f. Lack of flexibility to react to unforeseen circumstances
g. Difficulty of combining EU action with other public
interventions
h. Insufficient synergies between the EU
programmes/funds
i. Difficulty to ensure the sustainability of projects when the
financing period ends
j. Insufficient use of financial instruments
k. Co-financing rates
l. Late disbursement of funds / delays in payments to
beneficiaries
m. Insufficient linkages of the Funds with the EU economic
governance and the implementation of structural reforms
n. Legal uncertainty

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/17c034bf-d01b-4724-bd3a-ef629b1b35cd?draftid... 28-2-2018

EUSurvey - Survey

(/eusurvey/home/welcome/runner)
ownership

pagina 6 van 7

All public surveys (/eusurvey/home/publicsurveys/runner)
Login (/eusurvey/auth/login/runner) | Help

p. Insufficient involvement of civil society in design and
implementation

| Language

q. Other (please specify below)

37 If you selected 'Other' in the above question, please specify it here:
1000 character(s) maximum

38 To what extent would these steps help to further simplify and reduce administrative burdens for beneficiaries under current
programmes/funds?
To a large
extent

To a fairly
large extent

To some
extent only

Not at
all

No
opinion

a. Alignment of rules between EU funds
b. Fewer, clearer, shorter rules
c. More freedom for national authorities to set rules
d. More flexibility of activity once funding is eligible
e. More flexibility of resource allocation to respond to
unexpected needs
f. Simplify the ex-ante conditionalities
g. More effective stakeholders' involvement in the
programming, implementation and evaluation
h. Other (please specify below)

39 If you selected 'Other' in the above question, please specify it here:
1000 character(s) maximum

40 How could synergies among programmes/funds in this area be further strengthened to avoid possible overlaps/duplication? For
example, would you consider grouping/merging some programmes/funds?
1500 character(s) maximum
Please clearly indicate to which policies, programmes and funds your answers refer.

The social funds (ESF, EGF, FEAD, YEI, Easi) can be merged into one fund for
investments in human capital. This increased focus on human capital enhances EU
visibility for citizens and a combined fund prevents overlap and increases efficiency.
Synergies should not be seen as a goal as such, but more as a means/an instrument to
achieve a more efficiënt and strategic use of funds.

Document upload and final comments

41 Please feel free to upload a concise document, such as a position paper. The maximum file size is 1MB.
Please note that the uploaded document will be published alongside your response to the questionnaire which is the essential input
to this public consultation. The document is optional and serves as additional background reading to better understand your
position.
Select file to upload

42 If you wish to add further information — within the scope of this questionnaire — please feel free to do so here.
1500 character(s) maximum

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/17c034bf-d01b-4724-bd3a-ef629b1b35cd?draftid... 28-2-2018

EUSurvey - Survey

(/eusurvey/home/welcome/runner)

pagina 7 van 7

All public surveys (/eusurvey/home/publicsurveys/runner)

The answers presented in this questionnaire do only entail the social funds indicated in question
27. As seperate questionnaire is filled out regarding the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF). In reference to 36-k: national co-financing rates are often
too low. This results in insufficient political commitment and lacks an incentive to
optimise spending of structural funds. To create more ownership, national co-financing
rates should be increased.

Login (/eusurvey/auth/login/runner) | Help

| Language

Above answers are without prejudice to the overall position of the Netherlands on the
MFF. The Netherlands advocates a future proof, flexible and financially sustainable
budget; modernization should go hand in hand with increasing effectiveness and
efficiency. Focus should be on those areas where EU timely and adequate response
creates added value. Individual programmes and objectives should support this overall
objective and allow for an integrated evaluation of the future MFF.

Submit

EUSurvey is supported by the European Commission's ISA
FAQ (/eusurvey/home/helpparticipants) | Support (/eusurvey/home/support/runner)
programme (http://ec.europa.eu/isa), which promotes interoperability solutions for European public administrations.

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/17c034bf-d01b-4724-bd3a-ef629b1b35cd?draftid... 28-2-2018