EU consultation
8 submissions from 8 organizations told the European Commission what they think about this file. Here is what each of them said, in their own words.
The Commission lists 91 submissions on this file. Shown here: the 8 from organizations. Not shown, by design: submissions from private individuals, which we never publish, and anything filed since our last weekly refresh.
1 submissions from industry — companies and their trade associations — against 3 from civil society: NGOs, consumer organizations, environmental groups and trade unions.
Groupings use the respondent type each organization selected when filing. Counting submissions, not organizations — a body that filed twice is counted twice.
The file, right now
The consultation closed on 12 Apr 2023 — it ran from 18 Jan 2023.
How it got here
Also on the Commission’s pipeline for this file, with no date recorded: Initiative planned, Evl.
Showing 8 of 8 submissions.
The FICM welcomes the European Commission’s assessment of the achievements of the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund 2014-2020. We therefore ask the European Commission to consider this contribution as the point of view of the consumer and the end user.
Filed in French · English published by the European Commission
The West Finnish regions of Central Finland, Satakunta, Ostrobothnia, South Ostrobothnia and Tampere Region are happy to have the opportunity to provide a short evaluation for the cohesion policy period 2014– 2020. We hope that the input will be taken into consideration and found useful when developing the regional policies and, more specifically, European Regional Development Fund (later ERDF) post 2027.
>>Challenges: GISAD welcomes the ex-post evaluation of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund. As GISAD itself did not participate in the funds, only indications can be given which should be taken into account in the evaluation in the context of the future orientation. The COVID-19 pandemic is forcing many companies and regional policy to rethink.
· · filed 9 Feb 2022 · source
The German Trade Union Confederation welcomes the possibility of a consulate on the ERDF for the 2014-2020 funding period. The DGB has been involved in the planning, design and implementation of operational programmes in numerous monitoring committees at federal, regional and regional level.
Filed in German · English published by the European Commission
· · filed 7 Feb 2022 · source
Masaryk University (Brno, Czech Republic) welcomes the opportunity to express its comments on the implementation of ERDF and CF. For Masaryk University, it is essential to practically enable and emphasize synergies between ERDF and other EU instruments supporting R&D (Horizon Europe) as well as reducing the administrative burden connected with these synergies.
Since Sweden’s accession in 1995, the regions of north Sweden have gradually left compensatory aid policy behind them in favor of more strategic investment policies with clearer development objectives. Regional development have changed from a broad distribution of resources to more concentrated attempts to transform structures and create better preconditions for growth.
Despite specific provisions targeting islands in EU policies, and in particular in Cohesion Policy regulations, INSULEUR has observed that a consistent and particular attention to insularity as enshrined in Article 174, is missing in Cohesion Policy and therefore from its delivery instruments (ERDF, CF).
· · filed 14 Jan 2022 · source
In 2018, Housing Europe has put together a unique study that provides with an overview of the implementation of the 2014-2020 European Structural and Investment Funds on the affordable housing sector. This mid-term analysis covers a number of fields ranging from the overall allocation to concrete issues public, cooperative and social housing providers face during the implementation, the potential combination with…
Method. Every quote is verbatim from the organization’s own submission to the European Commission, trimmed to its opening passage and never summarized by a model. Where a submission was filed in another EU language we show the English text the European Commission publishes alongside it, labeled on the quote; the original is one click away at the source. Groupings use the respondent type the organization itself selected when filing. We deliberately do not label anyone “supportive” or “opposed” — you read what they wrote and draw your own conclusion. Organizations only, never individuals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU; the European Commission is not liable for this reuse.