Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)382 - European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)382 - European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)382  |
| date | 30-05-2018 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Europe is at a crucial point in time where its relevance and success in the decades to come 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, skills, creativity, potential to create businesses and to innovate, and in their health.
Furthermore, a number of challenges remain significant. Despite improvements, tackling unemployment and persistently high rates of poverty remains a priority throughout the EU. Social and employment issues are a primary concern of European citizens, and an area where more is expected from the Union. Additional challenges that the Union faces are related to:
·shortfalls in skill levels,
·under-performance in active labour market policy and education systems,
·challenges arising from new technology such as automation and the related new forms of work,
·social exclusion of marginalised groups including Roma and migrants,
·and low labour mobility.
There is a need both for policy initiatives and for targeted supporting actions to address these challenges.
As a response to the call from our citizens to enhance the social dimension of the Union, on 17 November 2017 the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission jointly proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights. It is now important that the European institutions and the Member States work together to deliver on the principles and rights enshrined in the Pillar.
On 2 May 2018, the Commission adopted a proposal for the next multi-annual financial framework for 2021-2027 1 . The proposal reflects the current social and economic context and provides a concrete response to the call from the European public for a more social Europe and for greater investment in people in the European Union.
In this context, this proposal includes the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) as the EU’s main instrument to invest in people and to implement the European Pillar of Social Rights. The ESF+ merges the following funds and programmes:
–the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI);
–the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD);
–the Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) programme and
–the Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health (the Health Programme).
The aim of merging the above funds is threefold:
–To enhance coherence and synergies between complimentary EU instruments which provide important support to people and which aim to improve their standards of living, by developing more integrated approaches to programming and implementation.
–To increase flexibility and to allow the funds to be more responsive to the challenges identified in the economic governance cycle and to EU-level priorities.
–To allow simplification of fund programming and management thus reducing the administrative burden for authorities and beneficiaries.
Therefore, the ESF+ will help build an empowering social Europe and contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion in accordance with Article 174 TFEU, which is a necessary condition for the proper functioning of the EU as a stable and viable economic and political union.
This overall proposal provides for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and is presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the notification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by the European Council on 29 March 2017.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The ESF+ supports policies and priorities which aim to help create full employment, enhance quality and productivity at work, increase the geographical and occupational mobility of workers within the Union, improve education and training systems, and promote social inclusion and health.
The overarching policy objective of the ESF+ Regulation is help create a more performing and resilient ‘Social Europe’ and implement the European Pillar of Social Rights, as well as the social and employment priorities endorsed by the European economic governance process. The ESF+ will contribute to implementing the Integrated Guidelines adopted in accordance with Articles 121 and 148 i of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the relevant country-specific recommendations adopted in the context of the European semester, and feed into the overall objective of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth beyond 2030 (the UN’s sustainable development goals 2 ) and upward convergence. Furthermore, the ESF+ will help to improve employment opportunities, raise the standard of living and health, and help increase labour mobility and economic, social and territorial cohesion as set out in the TFEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The ESF+ also aims to contribute to the Skills Agenda for Europe and the integration of third country nationals.
Setting a minimum share and amounts for the ESF+ under shared management as one of the Structural Funds will ensure that the EU’s priorities described above are adequately reflected in the volume of investment that directly target European citizens.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The ESF+ aims to improve synergies and coherence with other funds investing in human capital development. The ESF+ should in particular ensure complementarities and synergies with the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), the Erasmus Programme and the European Solidarity Corps, the Asylum and Migration Fund (AMIF), as well as with the Horizon Europe Programme and the Digital Europe Programme, the Reform Support Programme, including the Reform Delivery Tool.
The ESF+ and EGF will continue to complement each other, as the ESF+ will continue to support preventive and anticipatory measures, while the EGF will remain a reactive emergency fund outside the MFF.
The ESF+ and Erasmus are active in similar fields, notably helping people gain new skills, upskilling to answer the need of industrial sectors 3 , improving digital competences and quality of education and training. Cooperation between the ESF+ and Erasmus will therefore be enhanced. The exact nature of the cooperation will be further detailed in the work programmes and programme guides for ESF+ and Erasmus, thus allowing for effective and efficient synergies.
The ESF+ will also continue to support the mid and long-term integration of third country nationals in complementarity to the AMF, which will cover short-term needs.
The shared management strand of the ESF+ will continue to be part of cohesion policy and it will mainly be regulated by the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR). As such, the same rules on management, programming, monitoring, auditing, etc. will apply as for most of the other Funds under shared management. Programmes in Member States can continue to combine European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) funding and ESF+ funding through multi-fund programmes.
For the Health strand, an adequate governance structure will provide strategic guidelines and technical opinions on measures to support and implement the strand. It will also help in coordinating complementary support lines of the research, digital market, regional and cohesion funds, and others.
The Commission proposal for the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework set a more ambitious goal for climate mainstreaming across all EU programmes, with an overall target of 25% of EU expenditure contributing to climate objectives. The contribution of this programme to the achievement of this overall target will be tracked through an EU climate marker system at an appropriate level of disaggregation, including the use of more precise methodologies where these are available. The Commission will continue to present the information annually in terms of commitment appropriations in the context of the annual draft budget.
To support the full utilisation of the potential of the programme to contribute to climate objectives, the Commission will seek to identify relevant actions throughout the programme preparation, implementation, review and evaluation processes.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
Titles IX (Employment), X (Social policy) and XIV (Public health) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular, Articles 46, 149, 153, 162 to 166, 168, 174, 175 and 349 of TFEU, provide the legal framework for the measures covered by this proposal.
The ESF+ has three strands. The first strand, implemented under shared management, covers the (ex-) ESF, which is based on Articles 162 and 164 TFEU and basic material assistance to the most deprived people, under Article 175(3) TFEU. The second strand, implemented under direct and indirect management, covers actions promoting employment and social innovation (EaSI), based on Article 175(3) TFEU. The third strand, implemented under direct management, concerns incentive measures designed to protect and improve human health under Article 168 TFEU.
This proposal defines the general objectives of the ESF+ and the scope of support, which is translated into specific objectives. It lays down common provisions, applicable to the three strands, and specific provisions for each strand.
Additionally, the Commission adopted on 29 May 2018 a proposal for a Common Provisions Regulation in order to improve the coordination and harmonise the implementation of support under shared management, with the main aim of simplifying policy delivery. The ESF+ strand under shared management is covered by these common provisions.
The different Funds in shared management pursue complementary objectives and share the same management mode, therefore Regulation (EU) No [Regulation laying down Common Provisions] sets out a series of common general objectives and general principles such as partnership and multi-level governance. That Regulation also contains the common elements of strategic planning and programming, including provisions on the Partnership Agreement to be concluded with each Member State, and sets out a common approach to the performance orientation of the Funds. Accordingly, it includes enabling conditions, performance review and arrangements for monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Common provisions are also set out with regard to eligibility rules, and special arrangements are defined for financial instruments, the use of the InvestEU Fund, community-led local development and financial management. Some management and control arrangements are also common to all Funds.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
In the areas of social and employment policy and public health, the EU has either shared competence with Member States (Article 4 TFEU), competence to lay down arrangements within which they must coordinate their action (Article 5 TFEU) or competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States (Article 6 TFEU).
The ESF+ under shared management strand is underpinned by the subsidiarity principle. Under shared management, the Commission delegates strategic programming and implementation tasks to the EU Member States and regions. It also limits EU action to what is necessary to achieve its objectives as laid down in the Treaties. Shared management aims to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that EU-level action is justified in light of the possibilities and specificities at national, regional or local level. Shared management brings Europe closer to its citizens and connects local needs with European objectives. 4 Moreover, it increases ownership of EU objectives, as Member States and the Commission share decision-making power and responsibility.
The subsidiarity principle also underpins the two strands under direct and indirect management. The EaSI strand will focus on projects with an innovative dimension in which there is clear EU added value, meaning that EU action is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level to reach critical mass and reduce administrative burden. The Health strand recognises the EU dimension of health and complements and supports Member States health policies while respecting their competence in the area, in line with Article 168 TFEU.
• Proportionality
In accordance with the principle of proportionality, this proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its goals. The principle of proportionality has guided the Commission's proposal because it proposes further simplification in line with the recommendations of the High Level Group on monitoring simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds. 5 The proposal is proportional as it has unified and consolidated rules and merges the Funds, therefore reducing the burden on stakeholders. The administrative burden on the Union and on the national authorities has been limited to what is necessary for the Commission to exercise its responsibility for implementing the Union budget.
• Choice of the instrument
The choice of instrument is a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council to establish the European Social Fund Plus.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
–The European Social Fund (ESF)
Strengths: The 2000-2006 6 and 2007-2013 ESF ex-post evaluations 7 recognise ESF investment as relevant, efficient and effective. The Fund was effective in reaching a significant number of EU citizens, in particular those most in need of support. This was because the ESF provided significant financial resources to address employment and social challenges in Member States and broadened existing action by supporting policy areas or groups that would not otherwise have received support. Furthermore, the ESF has supported local/regional innovations that are then mainstreamed at national level. In 2014-2020, the intervention logics of the programmes have become more robust with clearer specific objectives, more standardised indicator definitions and sounder baselines and targets.
Weaknesses:
–Policy alignment: while the Fund's link to the European Semester improved significantly in the 2014-2020 programming period 8 , it is not yet optimal.
–Programming: evidence showed that in 2014-2020 result orientation was strengthened but the performance framework has not proved to be a sufficient incentive for Member States. Programming requirements have been criticised for being administratively burdensome. 9
–Programme implementation: studies show that, despite some progress, ESF management and delivery remains too complex. Despite improvements in 2014-2020 the shift from a logic based on inputs towards one based on results has not fully taken place.
–The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI)
Strengths: The YEI has increased the visibility of youth employment policies and has driven 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 YEI is of critical importance for the coverage and design of employment policy in their country.
Weaknesses: The main challenges relate to its financial management (being funded from two funding sources – the YEI specific allocation and the ESF) and the additional reporting requirements. These elements have been perceived by beneficiaries and implementing authorities as increasing the administrative burden. 10
–The Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD)
Strengths: Preliminary results of the mid-term evaluation of the FEAD, including results of stakeholder consultations 11 , indicate that the food, material aid and social inclusion measures it supports make a difference to the most deprived people in society, including those who otherwise may be left out by mainstream social assistance or who need immediate support.
Weaknesses: The EU regulatory framework and its interpretation or national requirements can lead to difficulties in implementing the Fund. Difficulties include delays in the start-up phase of the programme and administrative obstacles mostly linked to national procurement policies and to additional requirements such as recording data/information on operations and end recipients for monitoring purposes and excessive and lengthy procedures.
–The Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) programme
Strengths: The mid-term evaluation shows that in 2014-2016 the EaSI programme was efficient and effective in helping to raise awareness about EU policy inputs in the area of social inclusion and poverty reduction. The evaluation also showed that the EaSI programme improved perception of the cross-border potential for employment and contributed to a rapid testing and implementation of innovative measures and increased access to microfinance loans and support for entrepreneurship. EaSI also facilitated policy change by disseminating comparative and analytical knowledge, building capacity, mutual learning and dialogue, and by helping different stakeholders to influence the formulation and implementation of socio-economic policies.
Weaknesses: More could be done to improve the relevance and impact of EaSI. The PROGRESS axis should improve the efforts to deliver social policy experimentations by revising the procedures for evaluating and selecting projects and by creating the conditions for scaling them up. For EURES, a longer implementation period combined with measures for reducing the administrative burden may enable stakeholders to properly develop, implement, measure the effectiveness and ensure the sustainability of projects.
–The Health Programme
Strengths: The mid-term evaluation confirmed the EU added value of actions, notably in the form of increased capacity in the Member States to address cross border health threats, of technical guidelines and recommendations for cancer, HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis prevention, of additional support for EU health legislation on medicinal products and medical devices, as well as the eHealth Network activities and Health Technology Assessment. The evaluation also recognised the added value of tools to control healthcare-associated infections and to step up coordinated efforts to fight against antimicrobial resistance, and of the extensive groundwork pursued through Joint Actions to identify and transfer best practices for the prevention and management of diseases. It also recognised the positive contribution of actions to increase the interoperable and standardised cross-border exchange of health data, and of those efforts to set up EU-wide digital infrastructures for that purpose.
Weaknesses: In non-legislative areas where actions can be more open-ended or broadly defined, the mid-term evaluation revealed that there is a danger of those actions being less focused. 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. There were also some inefficiencies and inadequacies with the monitoring of implementation data, which can make it harder for programme managers to keep an up-to-date overview of the programme's achievements.
• Stakeholder consultations
The stakeholder consultations were 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 as well as citizens across the EU. The stakeholder consultation used a variety of methods and tools to reach a sufficient variety and number of stakeholders, and to cross check opinions. The consultation activities included several Open Public Consultations performed as part of the MFF, the ex-post evaluation of the ESF, the FEAD mid-term evaluation and the EaSI mid-term evaluation. The consultation also involved stakeholder conferences and meetings, focus groups, interviews, targeted online consultation and analysis of position papers. More information on the stakeholder consultations is available in the Impact Assessment.
The main conclusions from the stakeholder consultations were:
–The added value of the funds is linked to promoting effective and efficient public investment, streamlining the exchange of knowledge between countries and regions, improving social integration and creating a more inclusive Europe, supporting policy experimentation and innovation, reducing regional disparities and facilitating convergence. The funds also add value through the leverage effect of cohesion policy on public and private investment.
–Complex procedures are seen as the most important obstacle to funds successfully achieving their objectives.
–There was a call to simplify and reduce the administrative burden on beneficiaries including less burdensome requirements on collecting data from participants.
–There is a need to strengthen the social dimension.
–The rules for the various EU funds should be aligned.
–There was a call to strengthen synergies and avoid duplication and overlaps between EU instruments. Merging funds was identified as the best way to achieve this goal, provided that merging also helps to simplify the EU instruments.
–The policy papers show considerable interest in improving the links between the funds and the European Semester.
–Current public health issues can only be effectively dealt with through collaboration at EU level. There is an added value in the EU addressing common challenges such as health inequalities, migration, an ageing population, patient safety, high quality health care, tackling health threats including non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance.
The main proposals addressing stakeholders’ feedback are outlined below:
–To enhance synergies and avoid overlaps between funding instruments investing in people and their needs, the ESF, YEI, FEAD, EaSI and the Health Programme will be merged into one Fund (the ESF+). This will make it easier for beneficiaries to access funding, help them combine different types of measures, and simplify the management of funding.
–To respond to the call for strengthening the social dimension:
·The scope of support for ESF+ is aligned with the European Pillar of Social Rights. Merging different instruments under the ESF+ will make it possible to pool resources for the implementation of the principles of the Pillar.
·The social inclusion dimension of the ESF+ will be strengthened by integrating the FEAD and the ESF. This allows for an easier combination of provisions of food/material assistance with support for social inclusion and active measures.
·At least 25 % of national ESF+ resources will be earmarked for promoting social inclusion and tackling poverty. Moreover, Member States will have to allocate at least 2% of their ESF+ resources for measures targeting the most deprived. This ensures that a minimum amount of resources target those most in need.
–In order to simplify the implementation of the ESF+, reduce the administrative burden on beneficiaries and shift the focus to the achievement of results, several provisions are introduced in the CPR. However, the ESF+ Regulation also provides formeasures to tackle material deprivation in order to address the stakeholders’ request to maintain lighter requirements for this type of assistance and simplified data collection and monitoring and reporting requirements.
–To ensure stronger alignment with the European Semester process an adequate amount of resources from national ESF+ resources will be allocated to implementing challenges identified in the European Semester process.
• Collection and use of expertise
The Commission has based its decisions on expertise collected through a number of studies as well as on Member States’ reports on the implementation of the ESF. The studies used a range of methods including literature reviews, targeted surveys, interviews, focus groups, and economic modelling. The reports and studies are listed in the impact assessment. The ESF+ proposal has taken into account recommendations from the studies by enhancing synergies and complementarities between the funds, strengthening the link with EU policy priorities while increasing flexibility, and by including a number of measures to reduce administrative burden, such as enhanced simplified cost options and simplified monitoring and reporting requirements.
• Impact assessment
This proposal is supported by an impact assessment. The Regulatory Scrutiny Board hearing took place on the 25 April 2018, where the impact assessment received a positive opinion with reservation 12 . The table below outlines the main comments received and how the impact assessment was amended to reflect these.
| Main Regulatory Scrutiny Board considerations | Impact assessment 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. | The text clarifies a potential reduction of funding would be addressed by limiting the scope of the ESF+ in the area of administrative reform and by increasing the national co-financing rates. |
| (3) The report does not sufficiently demonstrate that the monitoring and evaluation system is robust and will deliver the necessary information in a timely way. | Additional information on the monitoring and evaluation system has been inserted in Section 5. |
| Further considerations and adjustment requirements | |
| (1) The lessons learned should more comprehensively build on the main general and fund-specific challenges identified in the published evaluations and preliminary evaluations results. | Published evaluations, preliminary evaluation results and stakeholder consultations have identified 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 funds, 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 rationale 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 the EGF out of this new fund. In addition, the main risk raised by stakeholders that the merged fund would increase the administrative burden is mitigated as ex-FEAD and EaSI type of measures will remain subject to simpler rules (Section 4.1.1). |
| (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. |
| (4) Be more transparent on 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. Structural Reform Support Programme) | The text clarifies the scope of the ESF+ regarding public administration reform to the extent possible given that at the time of writing this impact assessment, the scope of the future Reform Support Programme 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 the ESF and to introduce continuous conditionalities (Section 4). |
| (8) Clarify the coherence between the ESF+ and ERDF and Erasmus + | 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 should include an interim evaluation of each fund. Explain how the stakeholders views were taken into account | On monitoring and evaluation, see Main considerations, point 3. The views of stakeholders are summarised in the main body of the report (section 1.2.2) and are more detailed in annex 2, see in particular Section 6.2 which explains how stakeholder views were taken into account. |
The impact assessment assessed the best way to maximise the support provided at EU level and how to improve synergies between different instruments, in particular, with the aim of better delivering on the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights. The options assessed were the following:
Contents
- Option 1: merging the ESF, YEI, FEAD, EaSI, EU Health programme.
- Option 2: merging the ESF, YEI, FEAD, EaSI, EU Health programme and EGF
- Option 3: merging the funds under shared management (i.e. excluding the EaSI and the EU Health programme, but including the EGF)
- Option 4: keeping the FEAD as a separate fund, but merging material assistance and social inclusion under the FEAD programmes.
- Option 5: merging all ESI Funds
- Chapter I: Common provisions on programming (under shared management)
- Chapter I: specific rules for the Employment and Social Innovation strand
- Chapter II: specific provisions applicable to the Health strand
- Chapter III: Common rules applicable to the Employment and Social Innovation and the Health strands
- Annexes
–This was the preferred option based both on the results of evaluations and on the stakeholder consultations. In the view of managing authorities, broadly integrating the funds would help streamline their strategic interventions across all areas of social policy. This would enhance flexibility when planning interventions, and facilitate the delivery of the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights. Beneficiaries confirmed that there is still untapped potential for strengthening synergies between programmes and the projects funded.
–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+. Stakeholders confirmed this during the consultation process 13 .
Option 3: merging the funds under shared management (i.e. excluding the EaSI and the EU Health programme, but including the EGF)
–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 be lost.
Option 4: keeping the FEAD as a separate fund, but merging material assistance and social inclusion under the FEAD programmes.
–This would allow for more synergies between the types of support for basic material assistance and social inclusion measures while keeping the current implementation rules. It would not however ensure adequate demarcation vis-à-vis ESF-type social inclusion measures.
–This would impair policy delivery, as it would not be possible to adapt implementation rules to the specific requirements of the policies supported. It would not increase synergies and coherence with other human capital funds.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
The Common Provision Regulation (common to many shared management policy areas) will ensure simplification of the shared management strand of the Fund through the use of common and simplified rules regarding programming, monitoring and evaluation arrangements, management and control, information and communication and financial management. There will be provisions facilitating the use of the simplified cost options, as well as the new option to use financing not linked to costs. The audit approach will be streamlined to focus more on risk-based audit sampling and to respect the 'single audit' principle. The tasks and responsibilities of different bodies in the management and control system are set out in a clearer way .There will also be increased flexibility, as only the first 5 years will be programmed initially. Allocations for the last 2 years will be made based on a substantial and in-depth mid-term review leading to corresponding reprogramming in 2025. The content of programmes will be more streamlined and strategic.
• Fundamental rights
The ESF+ Regulation ensures the respect of fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Member States must apply this Regulation in a manner consistent with these rights and principles.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The total budget allocated for the ESF+ amounts to EUR 101 billion (in current prices) for the 2021-2027 period, of which EUR 100 billion for the ESF+ strand under shared management. The financial envelope for the direct management strands of the ESF+ shall be EUR 1 174 million in current prices, of which EUR 761 million for Employment and Social Innovation and EUR 413 million for Health.
Details on financial and staffing needs can be found in the ESF+ Legislative Financial Statements
This proposal establishes a minimum amount for the ESF+ in order to ensure an appropriate amount of funding for investments in people in the Union.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
Under shared management, targets for common output and result indicators, and if necessary, for programme specific output and result indicators, will be defined at programme level. The Member States authorities will electronically transmit data on output and result indicators to the Commission six times a year. Their consistency will be checked. The reliability of the system for collecting, recording and storing data for monitoring, evaluation, financial management and verification will be audited. In order to simplify data collection and minimise the burden on participants and beneficiaries, the authorities will be enabled, as much as possible, to collect monitoring data from existing administrative registers. Sensitive data will not be collected directly from the participants and rely on registers or informed estimations.
Evaluation will remain the shared responsibility of the Member States and the Commission. In addition to evaluations carried out by Member States, the Commission will carry out a midterm and a retrospective evaluation of the ESF+ strand under shared management with the support of the Member States.
Under direct and indirect management, performance frameworks will be developed building on the relevant practices of the former EaSI and Health frameworks to ensure that data are collected efficiently, effectively and on time. The Commission will evaluate the direct and indirect management strands such that this will feed into different decision-making processes.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Much of the delivery and implementation of the ESF+ strand under shared management is covered by the CPR. The main elements of the Regulation should therefore be read in conjunction with the CPR.
The ESF+ Regulation has the following structure:
Part I – General provisions (applicable to all strands)
This part includes the subject matter, definitions, general objectives and methods of implementation and the specific objectives. It also includes provisions on the principles of gender equality, equal opportunities and non-discrimination which the Commission and the Member States must respect when implementing the ESF+. This part is applicable to all strands of the ESF+. The specific objectives to be supported by the ESF+ are based on the principles set out in the European Pillar of Social Rights.
Part II – Implementation under the ESF+ strand under shared management
This part sets out provisions which are applicable to the strand under shared management, which includes the ex-ESF, ex-YEI and ex-FEAD. These provisions are complementary to the rules set out in the CPR.
This chapter details the consistency and thematic concentration of the ESF+ strand under shared management. In particular, it provides for:
–Provisions strengthening alignment with the European Semester – to strengthen the link with the European Semester, the proposal includes a new provision that if a Member State has a relevant country-specific recommendation (CSR), it should allocate an appropriate amount of its resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management to this.
–Thematic concentration requirements:
Tackling poverty and promoting social inclusion: social inequalities remain a major concern. Therefore, at least 25% of the resources of the ESF+ strand under shared management will be allocated to fostering social inclusion to ensure that the social dimension of Europe as set out in the European Pillar of Social Rights is duly put forward and that a minimum amount of resources targets those most in need. Moreover, it is appropriate that Member States allocate a minimum amount of resources to measures addressing material deprivation.
Improving employment opportunities for young people: although youth unemployment in the EU has decreased – from a peak of 24% in January 2013 to 15.6% in March 2018 – it is still high - more than double the overall unemployment rate (15.9% compared with 7.1% in February 2018). Notably, in all outermost regions, 40% of young people are unemployed. The rate of young people who are not in employment, education or training (NEET) was also still very high, at 13.4% in 2017. Therefore, Member States with a NEET rate (age group 15 – 29) above a given threshold should allocate 10% of their ESF+ resources of the ESF+ strand shared management to targeted actions and structural reforms to support young people. In the case of outermost regions with a NEET rate above the threshold, the allocation is increased to 15%.
Chapter II: General support of the ESF+ strand under shared management
This chapter applies to all support provided by the ESF+ strand under shared management except the support addressing material deprivation. It sets out rules on eligibility and monitoring, which complement the CPR.
There is also a provision on ‘innovative actions’, which encourages Member States to support social innovation and social experimentation, which strengthen bottom-up approaches based on partnerships.
Chapter III: ESF+ support for addressing material deprivation
Chapter III focuses solely on the ex-FEAD material assistance. This is justified by the fact that these types of operations have lower thresholds for participation and thus are less administratively burdensome. Stakeholders have called for keeping this approach and not imposing more demanding ESF rules (e.g. for reporting data on indicators, or rules on the audit trail). This chapter outlines the principles for support, the rules on reporting, eligibility, the indicators and audit.
Part III – Implementation under direct and indirect management
This chapter focuses on the direct and indirect management strand related to the Employment and Social Innovation strand. It includes provisions on operational objectives, eligible actions and eligible entities.
This chapter focuses on the direct management strand related to the Health strand. It includes provisions on operational objectives, eligible actions and entities, and governance.
Chapter III: Common rules applicable to the Employment and Social Innovation and the Health strands
This chapter focuses on the rules applicable to both of the direct management strands: associated third countries, forms of EU funding and methods of implementation, work programme, monitoring and reporting,evaluation,protection of the financial interests of the Union, audits, information and communication and publicity.
Part IV – Final provisions
Part IV outlines the provisions applicable to all: exercise of the delegation, the Committee Procedure for the ESF+ under shared management, the Committee under Article 163 TFEU, the transitional provisions and the date of entry into force.
–Annex I – Common indicators for the general support of the ESF+ strand under shared management
–Annex II - Common indicators for ESF+ support for addressing material deprivation
–Annex III – Indicators for the Health strand