State of play of OP negotiations and OP implementation ESF Technical Working Group Riga, 1 June 2015

I. Overview of planned OPs Total number of OPs supported by the ESF: 187 (2007-2013: 117) 95 mono-fund OPs, including 2 dedicated YEI OPs (FR and IT) 92 multi-fund OPs All OPs submitted (including 34 OPs with YEI)

II. Statistics on adoption of OPs (28/05/15) Number of ESF supported OPs adopted: By 28.05.2015: 152 - out of which 33 OPs supported by the YEI  2 OPs have been adopted following the MFF revision Number of ESF supported OPs to be adopted: 35 out of which 1 OP supported by the YEI (CZ, HU, IT, ES, SE, UK)

Austria 1 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 3 2 Croatia Cyprus Czech Rep. MEMBER STATE Total number of OPs Adopted by end of 2014 Carry-over (all adopted) To be adopted after MFF amendment Austria 1 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 3 2 Croatia Cyprus Czech Rep. 3 (2 adopted) Denmark Estonia Finland France 33 Germany 17 16 Greece Hungary 5 Ireland

Italy 29 20 1 8 Latvia Lithuania Luxemburg Malta Netherlands Poland 17 MEMBER STATE Total number of OPs Adopted by end of 2014 Carry-over (all adopted) To be adopted after MFF amendment Italy 29 20 1 8 Latvia Lithuania Luxemburg Malta Netherlands Poland 17 9 Portugal 10 Romania 2 Slovakia Slovenia Spain 23 22 Sweden United Kingdom 6 4

III. Next step: OP Implementation: selection criteria and methodology for the selection of operations Feature of 2014-2020: focus on challenges identified by relevant country-specific recommendations (CSRs): at the programming and implementation stages:  Article 18 CPR and Article 4(1) ESF Regulation Programming stage: Selection of the appropriate investment priority Definition of a specific objective that addresses the CSR Inclusion of the relevant output indicator in the performance framework Both Art. 18 CPR and Art. 4(1) ESF Regulation require that the support as well as the interventions and actions are concentrated on and coherent with the country-specific recommendations. These provisions therefore do not only apply at the programming stage. Also during the implementation of the programme it should thus be ensured that the support goes to the operations that contribute best to addressing the challenges identified by the relevant CSRs. EXTRACTS CPR AND ESF REGULATION Article 18 CPR Member States shall concentrate support, in accordance with the Fund-specific rules, on interventions that bring the greatest added value in relation to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth taking into account the key territorial challenges of the various types of territories in line with the CSF, the challenges identified in the National Reform Programmes, where appropriate, and relevant country- specific recommendations under Article 121(2) TFEU and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under Article 148(4) TFEU. Provisions on thematic concentration under the Fund- specific rules shall not apply to technical assistance. Article 4(1) ESF Regulation  Member States shall ensure that the strategy and actions set out in their operational programmes are consistent with, and respond to, the challenges identified in their national reform programmes, as well as, where relevant, in their other national strategies that aim to fight unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, and also in the relevant Council recommendations adopted in accordance with Article 148(4) TFEU, in order to contribute to achieving the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy on employment, education and poverty reduction.

III. Selection criteria + methodology for the selection of operations (2) Will focus on CSRs during OP implementation automatically follow from the OP or is more required ? Possible risks Selection of more than one investment priority to address the CSR challenge Specific objectives are much broader than the CSR Relevant output indicators not included in the performance framework (PF)  no suspension of interim payments/financial corrections linked to these indicators

III. Selection criteria + methodology for the selection of operations (3) EXAMPLE: CSR to improve the employment rate of older workers, including by improving their employability Possible risks MS does not select the IP on active and healthy ageing, but the IP on access to employment and the LLL IP. For these IPs the specific objectives are not limited to older workers, but also include e.g. LTU, low-skilled, … Whilst there are targets for output and result indicators on older workers, there is no output indicator on older workers included in the PF

III. Selection criteria + methodology for the selection of operations (4) How to address these risks ? Call for proposals: is to address CSR on older workers and operations should target older workers Corresponding selection criteria: select operations that contribute to improving the employment rate of older workers and improving their employability  older workers should be a target group to which priority is given.

III. Selection criteria + methodology for the selection of operations (5) EXAMPLE of (draft) selection criteria of an ESF OP – based on information provided by MA: Selection criteria: gateway criteria and quality criteria Gateway criteria: set minimum eligibility requirements (admissibility). For example: Applicant must be eligible for funding Actions must be eligible for funding Operation must contribute to the needs/opportunities in call for proposals and achievement of the specific objective, output & results of the relevant priority axis

III. Selection criteria + methodology for the selection of operations (6) Quality criteria (with sub-criteria): example Strategic fit (max score 28): most relevant for addressing CSR, but only represents 22% of the max score Value for money (max score 14) Management and control (max score 21) - (Art. 125(3)(d) CPR: gateway criterion?) Deliverability (max score 21) Compliance: procurement, State aid, publicity, horizontal principles, ... (max score 42) (Art. 125(3)(a) and (e) CPR: gateway criterion?) Maximum score = 126 Minimum score = 56 and for some sub-criteria a minimum score is required

III. Selection criteria + methodology for the selection of operations (7) Strategic fit and need for minimum score - Example Operation contributes to the needs/opportunities identified in the calls for proposals: min. score needed Operation represents an appropriate means of delivering the relevant SO, outputs and results of the relevant priority axis: min. score needed Operation is aligned to the local growth needs set out in the local ESI Funds strategies: example requires min. score Operation adds value to and does not duplicate existing national provision and does not conflict with national policy

III. Selection criteria + methodology for the selection of operations (8) Preliminary conclusion – for your views Calls for proposals will need to address all elements of the specific objective (relevant in case the specific objectives are broader than the CSR). Distinction between gateway and quality criteria: real quality criteria to be used for ranking the operations that meet the minimum requirements ('admissible applications') Strategic fit selection criteria: should represent an adequate share of the max score

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND GRATEFUL FOR YOUR VIEWS!