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

2. 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 between individuals and organisations
Many replies from National and regional public authorities and NGOs …

3. 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

4. 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 …

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 …

8. 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

9. Perceived importance of different (specified) challenges

10. 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

11. Perceived success in addressing different challenges

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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 …

15. Extent of success versus importance of challenges

16. Perceived added-value of Funds/programmes

17. 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

18. Main obstacles to achievement of objectives

19. 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

20. Steps to simplify and reduce administrative burden

21. 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’

22. Thank you for your attention!