Public consultation on cohesion policy Summary of replies to questionnaire ESF Technical Working Group 18 April 2018

Consultation details Consultation covered ‘EU funds in area of Cohesion’ and ran from 10 January to 9 March this year Took form of online questionnaire with multiple-choice questions plus open questions for respondents to express views more freely - plus possibility of attaching position paper Presentation today will focus on replies to multiple choice questions In all, 4,395 questionnaires completed, 10% identified as part of ‘campaigns’ – treated separately, one from each included in responses analysed Laves 3,958 replies, split 47-53 between individuals and organisations Many replies from National and regional public authorities and NGOs …

Division of replies by type of respondent   No. % Individuals 1,851 47 Organisations 2,107 53 Regional/local authority 718 18 NGO, platform, network 326 8 International/national public authority 164 4 Trade, business, professional association 130 3 Private enterprise 128 Research/academia 118 Professional consultant, law firm 108 Church, religious community 65 2 Other 350 9 Total 3,958 100

Replies by country Responses from all EU Member States plus some other countries But wide variation in number from each Largest number from Italy and Poland, smallest from Cyprus and Malta Replies not systematically in line with country size or amount of funding received …

Division of replies by country - and by EU population and CP funding   No. % Total % EU % EU Popn % CP Funding Italy 859 21.4 21.9 11.8 9.4 Poland 544 13.7 14.1 7.4 22.2 France 364 9.2 9.3 13.1 4.5 Germany 286 7.2 7.3 16.1 5.5 Spain 250 6.3 6.4 9.1 8.2 Belgium 221 5.6 2.2 0.7 Latvia 208 5.3 5.4 0.4 1.3 Czech Rep. 134 3.4 3.5 2.1 Romania 125 3.2 3.8 6.6 Finland 105 2.7 1.1 Bulgaria 103 2.6 1.4 Netherlands 99 2.5 3.3 Hungary 95 2.4 1.9 Portugal 84 2 6.1 Greece 64 1.6 4.4

Division of replies by country - and by EU population and CP funding   No. % Total % EU % EU Popn % CP Funding Slovakia 60 1.5 0.9 0.4 Sweden 57 1.4 2.0 0.6 Austria 56 1.7 Croatia 47 1.2 0.8 2.5 Slovenia 35 1.6 1.1 4.0 UK 33 12.9 3.4 Denmark 18 0.5 0.2 Ireland 15 0.3 Lithuania 11 Luxembourg 10 0.1 0.0 Estonia 8 1.0 Cyprus 5 Malta Other

Experience of different ‘Cohesion policy’ Funds Largest share of responses from those with experience of ERDF and/or Cohesion Fund (CF) Relatively few responses from those with experience of European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) and European Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) Large number of responses from those with experience of more than one Fund – especially of ERDF/CF and ESF – i.e. large overlap …

Division of replies by experience of Funds/programmes % ERDF-CF 2,919 46.5 73.7 ESF 2,262 36.0 57.2 FEAD 343 5.5 8.7 EGF 85 1.4 2.1 EaSI 287 4.6 7.3 No reply 385 6.1 9.7 Total 6,281 100 158.7

Perceived importance of different (specified) challenges

Perceived importance of different challenges Little difference between those with experience of ERDF/CF and ESF+other social funds But those with experience of FEAD and EaSI gave more importance to promoting social inclusion and increasing admin capacity. Those with experience of EGF to addressing side-effects of globalisation Little difference between countries - despite differences in circumstances – suggests respondents tended to take EU-wide perspective Some tendency for respondents to highlight challenges which relate to area of specific interest – e.g. ‘Churches’ and NGOs reducing poverty and unemployment, Regional authorities’, territorial cohesion and reducing regional disparities Other challenges identified: security, cultural heritage, demographic change, corruption and migration – but for each, only 1% of respondents or less referred to them

Perceived success in addressing different challenges

Perceived success of cohesion policy in addressing challenges Response to challenges at which policy not directly targeted regarded as less successful - ‘addressing side-effects of globalisation’ and ‘promoting sound economic governance and reforms’ More with experience of ERDF/CF considered policy as successful in addressing most of challenges than ESF respondents Most challenges, ERDF/CF more directly concerned with – two which more ESF respondents considered policy successful ‘combating poverty’ and ‘reducing unemployment’, those which ESF targeted at Implication - those with experience of a fund, more likely to have favourable view of its success Those with FEAD experience considered policy more successful in promoting social inclusion than others Those with EGF experience considered policy more successful in reducing regional disparities and supporting education and training

Perceived success of cohesion policy in addressing challenges Differences in national perceptions - least favourable view in Italy, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria Most favourable view in Luxembourg, Finland, Sweden and Romania No tendency for opinions to vary with amount of funding received. But opinions about relative success of policy in addressing different challenges similar Regional authorities and International and national authorities – 2 main direct recipients of funding have most favourable view of policy’s success Professional consultants and Research and academia respondents consider combating poverty as among challenges least successfully addressed

Success of policy versus importance of challenges For all challenges, fewer respondents considered policy as successfully addressing them than considered them important But some tendency for policy to be considered more successful in addressing challenges considered more important And even more as least successful in addressing challenges seen as least important …

Extent of success versus importance of challenges

Perceived added-value of Funds/programmes

Perceived added-value of EU Funds/programmes Views of those with experience of different Funds similar but slightly more ERDF/CF respondents considered they add value than ESF ones Those with experience of EGF and EaSI more positive view than others, FEAD respondents less positive one Enterprises, consultancies and churches less positive view than others, public authorities, more positive one – in line with view of policy success Respondents from Denmark, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the UK, Greece, Poland and Slovenia, most positive view of added-value Respondents from Austria, Croatia, Romania and Italy least positive view (though still majority had positive view) In Romania, lack of consistency with view of extent of success of policy

Main obstacles to achievement of objectives

Main obstacles to achievement of objectives Not much difference between respondents with ERDF experience and ESF experience - except latter attach slightly more importance to obstacles, especially difficulty of ensuring project sustainability This particularly so for those with experience of FEAD and EaSI, along with payment delays, insufficient management capacity and civil society involvement View of different types of organisation similar, except ‘churches’ - insufficient involvement of civil society main obstacle Other obstacles mentioned: corruption and lack of transparency in Fund management lack of strategy and priority setting in Fund allocation lack of integration of Funds

Steps to simplify and reduce administrative burden

Steps to simplify and reduce administrative burden Little difference in views between those with experience of ERDF and ESF Main difference – ERDF respondents give more weight to aligning rules between Funds, ESF on more effective involvement of stakeholders Latter especially so for those with FEAD and EaSI experience Respondents from all types of organisation considered ‘fewer, clearer and shorter rules’ to be main step Equally all of them regarded giving more freedom to national authorities to set rules as least important step Most often mentioned other steps not so different - ‘simplification of rules’ and ‘harmonisation of rules’, but also: ‘coordination among actors’ ‘improved administrative capacity’ ‘changes in system of controls’

Thank you for your attention!