• 2.2

Structural and rural funds

In this chapter we present the main European funds under shared management, that is, whose management is shared between EU (EU), national (member states) and regional institutions. After a general introduction, we will devote specific analysis to each of these funds: ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, ESF+, EAGF, EAFRD and EMFF.

The Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 are instead devoted to specific, national, local and interregional programming of Structural and Rural Funds.

Characteristics of Structural Funds (shared management funding)

Structural Funds are used to finance projects and interventions in European regions. They do not replace national and regional actions and funding, but partner with them to improve their results, in the more general view of the Union’s objectives. Their main characteristic is that they particularly fully and fully involve national and regional actors in their management and use:

  • The amount made available through the Structural Funds is the sum of a contribution from the EU budget and a contribution from the budget of the individual member country benefiting from it;

  • Programmatic and operational lines are declined, implemented and monitored through a collective consultation process involving not only community institutions but also national, regional and local governments, as well as social partners and civil society organizations, to best reflect local and regional needs and priorities;

  • The Operational Programs, which are the end point of the programming phase of the Structural Funds, have specific value at the national and regional levels (so-called PR and NP, regional and national programs related to ERDF and ESF+; and PSP and CSR, CAP strategic program and its regional complements for EAGF and EAFRD);

  • The management of Structural Funds (including the definition, publication and awarding of calls for proposals, monitoring of projects, disbursement of grants, etc.) is not the responsibility of the European Commission but of Managing Authorities operating at the national and regional level: this is why Structural Funds are also referred to as “indirectly” managed funding.

The structure and mode of operation of the Structural Funds have some features that can make it easier to submit a project and its subsequent implementation:

  • They ensure greater proximity between the managing authorities of calls and grants and their final beneficiaries;

  • They propose types of interventions that are particularly close to the needs of area actors and allow them to more easily find information and dialogue with the Managing Authority;

  • They allow operational management of the process in their own language (proposal submission and project management in Italian) and require the creation of simpler, local partnerships.

As clarified below, the notion of “Structural Funds” does not (strictly) include all the funds discussed in this section.

We list in an outline all the funds covered in this section, with their allocations at the European level and for Italy (figures are in billions of euros).

Fund name

Acronym

Allocation

for the EU

Allocation for Italy

Total

Contr. EU

Contr. Naz.

European Regional Development Fund

ERDF

226,05

45,09

26,57

18,52

Cohesion Fund

FC

48,03

0

0

0

European Social Fund “plus”

ESF+

99,26

28,34

14,58

13,76

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EAFRD

95,51

9,09 + 16,01*

n.d.

n.d.

European agricultural guarantee fund

FEAGA

291,09

20,97**

n.d.

n.d.

European fund for maritime affairs, fisheries and aquaculture

FEAMPA

6,11

0,99

0,52

0,47

Editor’s note: Data are expressed in billions of euros. Data are taken from the draft partnership agreement dated Dec. 16, 2021, the EAFRD resource analysis for the 2021-2022 biennium, and the draft fisheries operational program dated Sept. 20, 2021. National data for EAFRD (*) refer to the two periods 2021-2022 and 2023-2027. National figures for EAGF (**) refer to the period 2023-2027. Data do not include the additional allocation resulting from Next Generation EU.

Each of the indicated funds has its own particular management methods:

  • The ERDF finances Regional Operational Programs (ERDF ROPs, one for each region), National Operational Programs (sectoral NOPs, many of them co-financed by the ESF+) and the Territorial Cooperation Programs;

  • TheESF+ finances Regional Operational Programs (ESF ROPs, one for each region) and National Operational Programs (sectoral NOPs, many of which are co-financed by the ERDF);

  • The EAFRD funds a national CAP Strategic Plan (SPP), detailed in regional Rural Development Complements (RDPs) and the National Rural Network (NRN);

  • EAGF finances specific schemes for agricultural producer support and price support for agricultural markets (also part of PSP and CSR programming);

  • FEAMPA funds a specific National Operational Program, the FEAMPA Operational Program.

Distinction between different management modes 1

In this Guide we refer to indirect and concurrent management by treating them almost as synonyms. It is useful to remember that:

  • The term “concurrent management” is the correct one to denote the mode of implementation covered in this chapter, in which the management of the funds is shared between national and regional institutions (which are its most direct interface with the beneficiaries) and the European Commission (which retains a responsibility and role in terms of programming, monitoring, evaluation and proper use of the funds);

  • The term “indirect management,” on the other hand, refers to cases (most common in the humanitarian aid and development cooperation sector) where program management is delegated to third-country authorities, international organizations or other bodies.

However, in current parlance, the notion of “indirect management” is sometimes associated with the Structural Funds: by symmetry, analogy and contrast to the “direct management” of large community programs. We have therefore kept references to “indirect management” in parallel with (and as a counterpart to) “shared management,” with the aim of more clearly emphasizing the distinction between these two broad categories of funds and programs.

Furthermore, for clarity of exposition, our Guide associates Structural and Rural Funds with predominantly indirect (i.e., shared) management; and community programs with predominantly direct management.

However, it is useful to remember that:

  • The funds and programs described in this chapter are not the only ones to be managed in a concurrent mode, but they are certainly the best known, the most financially significant, and the ones in which the greatest efforts (in terms of programming, management, and co-financing) are expended by national and regional authorities;

  • It is possible to find elements of shared management within community programs; and some (small) components of the Structural Funds can be managed in direct mode. Each fund and each program may actually involve a mix of management modes.

Distinction between different categories of funds and policies 2

More than half of EU funds are disbursed through the European Structural and Investment Funds, also referred to more simply as “Structural Funds” or “EIS funds.” These funds are jointly managed by the European Commission and the national and regional authorities of the various EU countries. There are five identifiable Structural Funds: the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund (ERDF and CF), the European Social Fund(ESF+), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development(EAFRD) and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund(EMFF).

In general terms, the Structural Funds finance cohesion policy, which is the EU’s regional policy. The variety and extent of the EU means that there is considerable diversity in geography, culture, history and economic and social development between and within states. Hence the need for a policy aimed at narrowing the gap between European regions in order to achieve balanced economic, social and territorial development in all countries and regions of the Union. This policy is precisely called regional policy or cohesion policy.

Cohesion policy, Structural Funds, and rural development funds represent related conceptual categories and have similar characteristics, chief among them being the proximity between Managing Authorities and beneficiaries and the territorial orientation.

However, the match between these funds and these policies is not total. The implementation of cohesion policy is indeed the responsibility of the Structural Funds, but not all and not only. The Structural Funds and cohesion policy intersect with other important policies of the Union, such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the Maritime and Fisheries Policy:

  • Cohesion policy is implemented through the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund (ERDF and CF), the European Social Fund ( ESF+ ) and the Just Transition Fund (JTF);

  • The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development ( EAFRD ) and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund ( EAGF ), on the other hand, are the two financing funds of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP);

  • The European Fund for Maritime Affairs, Fisheries and Aquaculture ( FEAMPA ) is an expression of the EU’s maritime and fisheries policy.

In short, the funds discussed in this section have common characteristics, but also important particularities of their own from an operational (fund management, type of funding, etc.) and strategic (EU policy to which they refer) point of view. We summarize the relationship between funds and policies below. The specifics of each fund and their relationship to related policies are discussed in the individual chapters of this section.

ERDF

FC

ESF+

EAFRD

FEAGA

FEAMPA

JTF
Structural Funds

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓
Cohesion Policy

✓

✓

✓

✓
Common Agricultural Policy

✓

✓
Maritime and fisheries policy

✓

The objectives of the 2021-2027 programming 3

Cohesion Policy 2021-2027 and the funds that refer to it pursue five objectives. Compared to the eleven objectives set out in the 2014-2020 programming, this new organization allows for a greater focus on the most relevant issues. The objectives are:

  1. A more competitive and smarter Europe (ERDF priority);

  2. A greener, low-carbon Europe (ERDF and CF priorities);

  3. A more connected Europe with better mobility (CF priority);

  4. A more social and more inclusive Europe (ESF+ priority);

  5. A Europe closer to citizens and to the sustainable and integrated development of territories.

The association between goals and funds is to be seen as a strategic priority, but it is not exclusive in nature.

In addition to the five objectives mentioned for cohesion policy, there are two specific objectives related to territorial cooperation programs:

  1. Better governance of cooperation;

  2. A safer and more secure Europe.

The common agricultural policy (CAP, with the rural funds that refer to it) went through a transitional phase: for the period 2021-2022, six key priorities were provisionally applied, which in turn were divided into eighteen “focus areas”; with the period 2023-2027, a “new CAP” came into effect, pursuing nine specific objectives. The objectives of the transitional phase and the final phase are mutually consistent, but obviously different. Along with them, national and regional rural fund programming has also changed and been adjusted. For details of the objectives pursued by rural funds, please refer to the section on the EAFRD.

FEAMPA, the flagship fund for EU maritime and fisheries policy, has ten objectives of its own. Initially linked to the Common Agricultural Policy, and with similar objectives (market stability, safeguarding producers and supplies, etc.), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and Maritime Affairs Policy took on a structure of its own over time. For details of the objectives pursued by FEAMPA, please refer to the related section .

Other features of the 2021-2027 programming 4

In addition to the above objectives, the 2021-2027 programming of the Structural and Rural Funds has some special features that mark a change from previous programming periods. These characteristics are of general value, for the whole of the European Union, and have an impact on individual national programming accordingly.

The cohesion policy presents a distinction between three types of regions, similar to that implemented in the previous programming period, although with some differences in the criteria applied. Each type of region is given separate treatment in terms of co-financing provided and thematic concentration (mandatory) in resource allocation:

  • More developed regions (GDP per capita above 100% of EU average): co-financing 40-50%, concentration of resources 85% Objective 1+2 and 30% Objective 2;

  • Transition regions (GDP per capita between 75% and 100% of EU average): co-financing 60-70%, concentration of resources 40% Objective 1 and 30% Objective 2;

  • Less developed regions (GDP per capita less than 75% of EU average): co-financing 85%, concentration of resources 25% Objective 1 and 30% Objective 2.

Also under cohesion policy, several measures have been implemented to simplify and make access to funds more effective and flexible. In particular, a single regulation for as many as eight funds (managed in whole or in part in indirect, i.e., shared mode): ERDF and Cohesion Fund, ESF+ , Fair Transition Fund, FEAMPA, Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. , Homeland Security Fund e Border and Visa Management Facility. . In addition, rules have been simplified regarding the processes of funding, reporting, control, approval and audit.

As in the previous programming period, there are two useful tools for staying up-to-date on the progress, achievements and use of Structural Funds in Europe, Italy and your region:

  • The CohesionData platform (for information at the European level, but with a good level of detail: regional, thematic, by fund and by operational program);

  • The OpenCoesione platform (for information at the Italian level, with a very high level of detail: regional, thematic, by fund, by operational program, by intervention, and by beneficiary).

Regarding the common agricultural policy, as mentioned above, the current regulation provides for a transitional phase of CAP and EAFRD management for the years 2021 and 2022, and the operational launch of a “new CAP” starting in 2023. The “new CAP” specifically provides for the focus on nine key objectives and the processing of CAP national strategic plans, to integrate income support measures, market measures and rural development into one strategic vision (in line with the above nine objectives and the typicalities and needs of each country).

The “new CAP” thus seems to be leading toward greater parallelism between rural and structural funds, insofar as national plans for the overall management of the funds are provided for both (the CAP national strategic plans on the one hand, the partnership agreements on the other) and EAGF grants are made part of a common strategic plan.

Among the innovations common to all indirectly (or shared) managed funds are two particularly noticeable ones:

  • The pursuit of more coherent “green,” “zero-emission,” “digital,” and “social” efforts-these are major EU priorities that emerge clearly among the objectives of all programming in this seven-year period;

  • The role of the Recovery Instrument (also referred to as “Recovery Instrument,” “Recovery Package,” “NextGenerationEU,” or “NGEU”) in strengthening, with additional financial contributions, the scope and impact of existing structural and rural funds, as well as some directly managed funds, with the aim of responding to the pandemic-induced crisis in the various EU policy areas.