Monitoring | 2014 Support Materials MS

This possibility is allowed only for a sub-set of sections with minor information or those who have no structural correspondence - which remain mandatory.

Thus it is the normal behaviour if you find the 'table' button in some of the text boxes and in others no:

Normally when creating the EAFRD AIR the system will automatically attach a Financial Annex, but for 2018 AIR (to be submitted in 2019) created before the 24.04.2019 the Annex was not automatically attached. You can attach the Financial Annex manually via section 1a:

There is no template available for the import of the data into the different tables in Section 11. The easiest is to:

1. Use the Export button to Export the table as Excel
2. Fill or modify the values in the 4 columns and save the file
3. Import the modified Excel file in SFC2014

Note that:

• 1st column is the indicator code
• 2nd column is the indicator value
• 3rd column is the additional focus area (if any created by the MS)
• 4th is the 'out of which EURI' for the indicator value

In Table B2.2, the data monitored are from LEADER, therefore the value in terms of jobs created is the data from the LEADER T23. It is associated to the Focus Area 6A because the target indicator of 6A is also in jobs created.

The value in Table B2.2 for the indicator T20 under M19, 6A is calculated by the system once the relevant cells are filled for indicator T23 in Table D :

The Implementation Report & Accounts versions for AMIF/ISF cannot be completely deleted anymore, so the permissions on the delete action were removed and the link ‘Delete’ will not appear among your options.

In case you need to delete the whole IR or Accounts, you will have to ask your Desk-Officer who will analyse case by case and if they confirm, we will temporarily grant the delete action to you.

The Implementation Report & Accounts versions for AMIF/ISF cannot be completely deleted anymore, so the permissions on the delete action were removed and the link ‘Delete’ will not appear among your options.

In case you need to delete the whole IR or Accounts, you will have to ask your Desk-Officer who will analyse case by case and if they confirm, we will temporarily grant the delete action to you.

IPA-CB programmes should submit the Implementation Report (IPA-CB) for 2016 as PDF documents, via the Programming -> Cooperation Programme (IPA-CB) menu, and using the "Other MS document" type in the 'Documents' section.

IPA-CB programmes should submit the Implementation Report (IPA-CB) for 2016 as PDF documents, via the Programming -> Cooperation Programme (IPA-CB) menu, and using the "Other MS document" type in the 'Documents' section.

The removal of the option to upload the 'Other MS Document' type in the Implementation Report (IGJ, ETC & EMFF) was requested by DG EMPL and REGIO, and implemented in March 2016.

Information should be included in the Report itself as Structured data (via the tables or text-boxes).

If additional information is requested by your Desk Officer at the Commission, the sent version should be returned for modification by the EC in order for you to modify the information in the Structured data.

The removal of the option to upload the 'Other MS Document' type in the Implementation Report (IGJ, ETC & EMFF) was requested by DG EMPL and REGIO, and implemented in March 2016.

Information should be included in the Report itself as Structured data (via the tables or text-boxes).

If additional information is requested by your Desk Officer at the Commission, the sent version should be returned for modification by the EC in order for you to modify the information in the Structured data.

The removal of the option to upload the 'Other MS Document' type in the Implementation Report (IGJ, ETC & EMFF) was requested by DG EMPL and REGIO, and implemented in March 2016.

Information should be included in the Report itself as Structured data (via the tables or text-boxes).

If additional information is requested by your Desk Officer at the Commission, the sent version should be returned for modification by the EC in order for you to modify the information in the Structured data.

The Implementation Report (IR) cannot be submitted before having been approved by the Monitoring Committee. For this reason the approval date is mandatory in the first version of the IR.

The Implementation Report (IR) cannot be submitted before having been approved by the Monitoring Committee. For this reason the approval date is mandatory in the first version of the IR.

The Implementation Report (IR) cannot be submitted before having been approved by the Monitoring Committee. For this reason the approval date is mandatory in the first version of the IR.

If the Commission has returned your Implementation Report for modification or has set it as 'Non-Admissible' you must first select the link 'Create a New Version'

The new version is an editable copy of the previous version.

If the Commission has returned your Implementation Report for modification or has set it as 'Non-Admissible' you must first select the link 'Create a New Version'

The new version is an editable copy of the previous version.

If the Commission has returned your Implementation Report for modification or has set it as 'Non-Admissible' you must first select the link 'Create a New Version'

The new version is an editable copy of the previous version.

If the Commission has returned your Implementation Report for modification or has set it as 'Non-Admissible' you must first select the link 'Create a New Version'

The new version is an editable copy of the previous version.

If the Commission has returned your Implementation Report for modification or has set it as 'Non-Admissible' you must first select the link 'Create a New Version'

The new version is an editable copy of the previous version.

As from release version 2.18.5 onwards the following changes are implemented in the AIR 2018:

• Changes in the Financial Instruments section :

1. New elements under FOF, SF/FoF, SF & MA: 7.3, 37.3, 38.1.A & 38.2A.
2. New elements under Equity, Guarantee & Loan: 38.3A.
3. Modified element descriptions: 7.2, 10, III, 11.1, VII, 37, 37.1 & 40.
4. Changed Reference Data:

- Implementation Arrangement Type: c changed and renamed to d, new c and changed b

- Implementation Body Type: changed b4

- Implementation Body Selection Procedure: new 6

• Evaluation tables added for section 4 & 12.1

• Modified validation rules: 2.63, 2.64 and 2.67

• New validation rules: 2.107 - 2.175

The attached files indicate the changes between AIR 2018 and 2017.

SFC2014_AIR_2018_IGJ_ETC_SFC_IRVER_FI_PROD.xls shows the elements for each product type. (the green ones were added in the AIR 2018)

SFC2014_AIR_2018_IGJ_ETC_SFC_IRVER_FI.xls shows the elements for each FI type . (the green ones were added in the AIR 2018)

The Omnibus regulation has been approved & adopted on 29/12/2017 and applies since 01/01/2018. Member States are therefore released from the obligation to comply with Article 66.1.b of Regulation 1305/2013.

Creation of a new BAIDP is no longer possible (last one is BAIDP2017S1) and this module has been closed for encoding in SFC2014. Early Warning notifications have been also disabled.

The records in Table 1 are automatically created from Table 3 of the linked programme at creation time (from Table 10 for TA Priority Axes/Specific Objectives). If the authorities have defined the indicator as a qualitative indicator in the programme the achievement values are also qualitative.

When the indicator is a qualitative indicator you need to provide a value for "2019 qualitative" and "2018 qualitative" in Table 1 of the AIR. The total fields will not be editable.

For a quantitative indicator you need to provide a value for "Total 2019" and "Total 2018". The qualitative fields will not be editable.

The records in Table 1 are automatically created from Table 3 of the linked programme at creation time (from Table 10 for TA Priority Axes/Specific Objectives). If the authorities have defined the indicator as a qualitative indicator in the programme the achievement values are also qualitative.

When the indicator is a qualitative indicator you need to provide a value for "2019 qualitative" and "2018 qualitative" in Table 1 of the AIR. The total fields will not be editable.

For a quantitative indicator you need to provide a value for "Total 2019" and "Total 2018". The qualitative fields will not be editable.

The records in Table 1 are automatically created from Table 3 of the linked programme at creation time (from Table 10 for TA Priority Axes/Specific Objectives). If the authorities have defined the indicator as a qualitative indicator in the programme the achievement values are also qualitative.

When the indicator is a qualitative indicator you need to provide a value for "2019 qualitative" and "2018 qualitative" in Table 1 of the AIR. The total fields will not be editable.

For a quantitative indicator you need to provide a value for "Total 2019" and "Total 2018". The qualitative fields will not be editable.

In case the measurement unit of both the indicator and its target is numerical, SFC2014 automatically calculates the achievement ratio by dividing the cumulative value with the target.

In case the indicator or the target is expressed in percentages,

• for the common result indicators, the common reference output indicator is already stored in SFC (it was encoded in the OP), and so SFC calculates the achievement ratio automatically;
• for the programme specific result indicators, for these result indicators, the achievement ratio can be calculated by SFC automatically only in case the MS, when filling in the AIR template, encodes the reference output indicator (selects it from a scroll-down menu). Achievement Ratio can be calculated without output indicator reference when both "measurement unit" and "measurement unit for baseline and target" are "Number".

  When the Achievement Ratio cannot be calculated it will be left blank.

Thus the achievement ratio is calculated by the system when possible. The MS can never provide a calculation ratio.

In case the measurement unit of both the indicator and its target is numerical, SFC2014 automatically calculates the achievement ratio by dividing the cumulative value with the target.

In case the indicator or the target is expressed in percentages,

• for the common result indicators, the common reference output indicator is already stored in SFC (it was encoded in the OP), and so SFC calculates the achievement ratio automatically;
• for the programme specific result indicators, for these result indicators, the achievement ratio can be calculated by SFC automatically only in case the MS, when filling in the AIR template, encodes the reference output indicator (selects it from a scroll-down menu). Achievement Ratio can be calculated without output indicator reference when both "measurement unit" and "measurement unit for baseline and target" are "Number".

  When the Achievement Ratio cannot be calculated it will be left blank.

Thus the achievement ratio is calculated by the system when possible. The MS can never provide a calculation ratio.

In case the measurement unit of both the indicator and its target is numerical, SFC2014 automatically calculates the achievement ratio by dividing the cumulative value with the target.

In case the indicator or the target is expressed in percentages,

• for the common result indicators, the common reference output indicator is already stored in SFC (it was encoded in the OP), and so SFC calculates the achievement ratio automatically;
• for the programme specific result indicators, for these result indicators, the achievement ratio can be calculated by SFC automatically only in case the MS, when filling in the AIR template, encodes the reference output indicator (selects it from a scroll-down menu). Achievement Ratio can be calculated without output indicator reference when both "measurement unit" and "measurement unit for baseline and target" are "Number".

  When the Achievement Ratio cannot be calculated it will be left blank.

Thus the achievement ratio is calculated by the system when possible. The MS can never provide a calculation ratio.

In 2016 Table 5 was not editable because it was required for 2017.

The reports to be submitted in 2017 and 2019 have a deadline of 30^th June.

The following new elements will be added to the Implementation Report in March 2017:

• Macro regional strategies structured elements

• Additional columns 13 and 14 in Table 6

• Table 5 Performance Framework

• Additional validation rules

Table 6 is not editable and it is shown as they exist in Table 1 of the Financial Data submission of 31/01/Reporting Year+1.

The column “Total eligible expenditure incurred by beneficiaries and paid by 31/12/2018 and certified to the Commission” is only displayed in AIR2018. Its value comes from the “2018 CUM TOTAL” value of the Financial Indicators for each Priority Axis, Fund and Category of Region in Table 5.

The Performance Framework is defined in the programme on non-Technical Assistance priority axes only, it does not contain TA priority axes. Therefore, in the AIR, the fields for Priority axes for technical assistance (TA) will show no value. 

Table 6 is not editable and it is shown as they exist in Table 1 of the Financial Data submission of 31/01/Reporting Year+1.

The column “Total eligible expenditure incurred by beneficiaries and paid by 31/12/2018 and certified to the Commission” is only displayed in AIR2018. Its value comes from the “2018 CUM TOTAL” value of the Financial Indicators for each Priority Axis, Fund and Category of Region in Table 5.

The Performance Framework is defined in the programme on non-Technical Assistance priority axes only, it does not contain TA priority axes. Therefore, in the AIR, the fields for Priority axes for technical assistance (TA) will show no value. 

The Categorisation sheet is no longer available for upload to the Annual Implementation Report IGJ. This information is now taken directly from the Categorisation part of the last Financial Data sent to the Commission and displayed in the Implementation Report (IR).

If this information needs to be updated, you must create or create a new version of the Financial Data and send it to the EC.

Once you sent the new version it will be updated in your IR (the table is shown as it exist in Table 1 of the Financial Data submitted for 31/01/Reporting Year + 1. This means that for the Implementation Report 2017, the 201801 Financial Data is shown).

When you have no data to enter in the Implementation report (IR), for ESF and YEI you have to enter at least 0 (in line with Article 5 of the ESF Regulation). For the other Implementation Reports for other funds you can leave them blank if you have no data to report.

 For tables 8, 9 & 10 the tables need to be filled out with ‘0’ even if this value is due to the fact that the corresponding provisions wasn't used in the regulatory framework. The Commission cannot check whether these provisions were applied or not, as this information is not part of the Operational Programme. However, if there are 0 values in the financial tables on the number of selected operations, it can be concluded that the blanks in tables 8-10 can only mean a 0 value. 

 With regard to table 11, as the use of flexibility under the YEI has to be indicated in the Operational Programme, a blank is possible in the following two situations: (1) when there's no support from the YEI or (2) when the Operational Programme did not make use of the provision for using 10% in non-eligible regions.  

 To sum up, the rule is that unless it is clear from the Annual Implementation Report that the blank spaces can only mean a '0' (e.g. case of not receiving support from the YEI, for table 11) then the Annual Implementation Report is inadmissible when spaces are left in blank. The reason for this is the impossibility to interpret the meaning of a 'blank space' on the basis of the information available in the Annual Implementation Report and Operational Programme.

This information is taken directly from the Categorisation part of the last Financial Data sent to the Commission and displayed in the Implementation Report (IR).

If this information needs to be updated, you must create or create a new version of the Financial Data and send it to the EC.

Once you sent the new version it will be updated in your IR (the table is shown as it exist in Table 1 and Table 2 of the Financial Data submitted for 31/01/Reporting Year + 1. This means that for the Implementation Report 2016, the 201701 Financial Data is shown).

In SFC2014 the name of the financial instrument is used as an identifier and each name can be used only once. If a financial instrument covers more than one Priority Axis, and in order to provide the data for all contributions to the financial instrument, the appreciation of the priority axis should be added under different names, for example,  Investment Holding PA1,  Investment Holding PA2, … in the IR (section 8)   

When the Commission reports on the financial instruments the different contributions to the fund of fund/financial instrument will be merged. The Commission will make changes to the programme to allow instruments from different priority axes and Operational Programmes to have the same name. 

In SFC2014 the name of the financial instrument is used as an identifier and each name can be used only once. If a financial instrument covers more than one Priority Axis, and in order to provide the data for all contributions to the financial instrument, the appreciation of the priority axis should be added under different names, for example,  Investment Holding PA1,  Investment Holding PA2, … in the IR (section 8)   

When the Commission reports on the financial instruments the different contributions to the fund of fund/financial instrument will be merged. The Commission will make changes to the programme to allow instruments from different priority axes and Operational Programmes to have the same name. 

The Financial Instruments (FI) section is now available within Section 8 of the Implementation Report (IGJ), Section 7 of the Implementation Report (ETC) and Section 10 of the Implementation Report (EMFF). For step-by-step instructions on completing this section you can refer to the relevant Impelmentation Report quick guide.

The FI section is mandatory for those Programmes which have started setting-up financial instruments. If no financial instruments are foreseen or the set-up has not started yet, the section does not need to be filled out.

In SFC2014 the name of the financial instrument is used as an identifier and each name can be used only once. If a financial instrument covers more than one Priority Axis, and in order to provide the data for all contributions to the financial instrument, the appreciation of the priority axis should be added under different names, for example,  Investment Holding PA1,  Investment Holding PA2, … in the IR (section 8)   

When the Commission reports on the financial instruments the different contributions to the fund of fund/financial instrument will be merged. The Commission will make changes to the programme to allow instruments from different priority axes and Operational Programmes to have the same name. 

The Financial Instruments (FI) section is now available within Section 8 of the Implementation Report (IGJ), Section 7 of the Implementation Report (ETC) and Section 10 of the Implementation Report (EMFF). For step-by-step instructions on completing this section you can refer to the relevant Impelmentation Report quick guide.

The FI section is mandatory for those Programmes which have started setting-up financial instruments. If no financial instruments are foreseen or the set-up has not started yet, the section does not need to be filled out.

The Financial Instruments (FI) section is now available within Section 8 of the Implementation Report (IGJ), Section 7 of the Implementation Report (ETC) and Section 10 of the Implementation Report (EMFF). For step-by-step instructions on completing this section you can refer to the relevant Impelmentation Report quick guide.

The FI section is mandatory for those Programmes which have started setting-up financial instruments. If no financial instruments are foreseen or the set-up has not started yet, the section does not need to be filled out.

Section 15 is never in the report as it only refers to extra columns to be foreseen in Table 6. So, if you look in Table 6 you will see for the FIR this extra column (14) “Total eligible expenditure incurred by beneficiaries and paid by 31/12/2023 and certified to the Commission” .

It is only displayed in the FIR and its value comes from the “2023 CUM TOTAL” value of the Financial Indicators for each Priority Axis, Fund and Category of Region in Table 5.

There is NO Section 15 as such in the AIR.

There is NO Section 15 as such in the AIR.

To create and update the PRR PA you must have MS Authority with Update access (MSAU) for ERDF+CF+ESF+EMFF+EAFRD+YEI.

To send it, it is a must to have the role MS Authority with Send access (MSAS) ERDF+CF+ESF+EMFF+EAFRD+YEI.

If you want just to consult it, then it is ok to have the roles of MS Managing Authority or MS Audit Authority.

No. The YEI longer-term result indicators are to be recorded 6 months after having left the YEI operation, and they capture only positive results. By contrast, the YG “follow-up” indicators cover both positive and negative outcomes (i.e. participants who are still unemployed and inactive have to be reported as well as those in employment or education/training). In addition, YG follow-up indicators are to be collected 6, 12 and 18 months after the exit.

No. In YG monitoring each start is counted, irrespective of the number of times the same participant has been through the service phase. For YEI monitoring (as with the general ESF monitoring) individuals are counted only once per operation (by updating their existing participation record on re-entry).

Generally, YEI operations support the provision of actual offers. Therefore the exit and entry dates for YG service phase and YEI do not coincide.

Generally, YEI operations support the provision of actual offers. Therefore the exit and entry dates for YG service phase and YEI do not coincide.

No, for either result or output indicators, targets and baselines (where applicable) may be presented broken down by gender in the OP, but this is not a requirement and they can also be expressed only as a total. Note however, that data on all common indicators for participants have to be reported broken down by gender in the AIR (in addition to the total value). Programme-specific indicators data may also be reported broken down by gender, but this is not a formal requirement.

For the collection of the common longer-term result indicators, there are two waves of reporting, and distinct samples with non-overlapping participants should be drawn.

• The first wave (to be reported in the AIR due by 30 June 2019) should cover participants who left operations up to mid-2018. For this wave, sampling might not be possible until end-2018.
• The second wave (for indicators to be included in the final report in 2025) should cover participants who left operations between mid-2018 and 31st December 2023. For this wave, collection might not be possible until mid-2024.

For the two common output indicators "homeless or affected by housing exclusion” and “from rural areas" data shall also be collected based on a representative sample of participants (although collecting and reporting on the full population is certainly considered as representative sampling). These indicators are to be reported only once in the AIR to be submitted in 2017 and the full population to draw the representative sample for the data collection of such indicators must include all participants benefitting from ESF support entering operations up to end-2016. The sampling might not be possible until end 2016.

Note that the YEI longer-term result indicators are to be reported annually and thus representative samples shall be drawn each year. Samples for YEI longer-term result indicators should include participants that left operations 6 months before the reported year ends (i.e. for the AIR to be submitted in 2017, the sample of participants should include participants leaving ESF operations between mid-2015 and mid-2016).

See section 3.1.3 and the summary table on the reporting schedule in section 3.5 of the EC guidance on monitoring and evaluation.

Representative samples are randomly selected at the level of investment priority to reflect the socio-economic characteristics (variables) of the participants as captured by the common output indicators covering personal non-sensitive data: gender, employment status, age, educational attainment and household situation. Representative samples have to be established per investment priority, category of region (not for YEI), and gender.

The “grand total of participants” covers all supported participants, including those for whom the common output indicators covering personal non-sensitive data could not be collected or are incomplete.

In order to be included in the aggregates for reporting indicators and for drawing representative samples, records have to be complete for all non-sensitive personal data (gender, employment status, age, education level, and household situation) excluding homelessness and from rural areas. Incomplete records should be included only in the grand total of participants figure.

In order to decide which output and result indicators are relevant, the objective of each operation should be taken into account. If the objective of the operation is to help unemployed people start their own business, then the following common indicators are relevant:

• Common output indicator: unemployed, including long-term unemployed (all people participating in the operation should be counted);
• Common immediate result indicator: participants in employment, including self-employment upon leaving (all participants who are effectively working in their start-ups upon leaving the operation should be counted);
• Common longer-term result indicator: participants in employment, including self-employment, six months after leaving (people whose business is still running 6 months after leaving should be counted).

If the objective of the operation is to support the creation of SMEs, additional programme-specific indicators should be established. Below are some examples of output and result indicators for an operation aiming to help unemployed persons to move into employment by setting-up their own business

• Output indicator: “unemployed wishing to start their own business”
• Result indicators (immediate): “unemployed who benefitted from start-up counselling and are self-employed upon leaving”
• Result indicator (longer-term): “unemployed who benefitted from start-up counselling and are self-employed 6m after leaving”.

Usually, beneficiaries initiate or initiate and implement an operation that supports a number of individuals or entities fulfilling certain criteria (target group).

Note that there is a difference between a “beneficiary” and an entity “benefitting from support”:

• A beneficiary is defined as a “Public or private body (…) responsible for initiating or both initiating and implementing operations …” (Article 2(10) of the Common Provision Regulation (1303/2013)).
• An entity benefitting from support is one that receives services or other support paid for (in full or in part) by the ESF which is designed to fulfil the objectives of an operation that targets entities rather than individuals. This is equivalent to the requirement for participants to be persons who benefit directly from ESF support that incurs expenditure.

In order to be counted under the indicator “Number of micro, small and medium sized enterprises supported”, SMEs should, in the same way as for participants, benefit directly from ESF support that incurs expenditure. This does not mean that enterprises have to receive money directly, as they may also benefit from services paid for by the ESF without any money passing through the enterprise. See below some examples:

a) SMEs implementing an operation (fully or partially) without being supported by it:

• The PES, acting as a beneficiary, contracts an SME to provide management training courses to women aimed at helping them confront barriers to promotion in a male-dominated industry.
• The SME is delivering the services offered by the operation and is paid for this out of ESF funds. It is involved in implementing the operation and is not benefitting from support. It should not be recorded under the indicator “Number of micro, small and medium sized enterprises supported”.
• Women benefitting from training should be counted as participants.
• The project should be recorded as a…

No. It is not necessary to keep the previously recorded result data for participants that re-join the same operation. Only data associated with the initial entry and final exit date are required. Note however, that the system should ensure that any reported indicators including data for a first result are updated accordingly and that the revised results are transmitted to the Commission through the SFC. 

Indicators marked with two asterisks in Annex I of the ESF regulation are those for which information to be collected is considered as sensitive, according to Art. 8 of the 95/46/EC directive.These are the following common output indicators:

• "migrants, participants with a foreign background, minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma);
• “participants with disabilities”;
• “other disadvantaged”.

As well as the immediate and longer-term result indicators:

• “disadvantaged participants engaged in job searching, education/training, gaining a qualification, in employment, including self-employment, upon leaving”; and
• “disadvantaged participants in employment, including self-employment, six months after leaving”.

Both the immediate and longer-term result indicators on disadvantaged (“disadvantaged participants engaged in job searching, education/training, gaining a qualification, in employment, including self-employment, upon leaving”, and “disadvantaged participants in employment, including self-employment, six months after leaving”) should only include participants who have been recorded in at least one of the following common output indicators (note that people may cumulate several disadvantages:

• participants who live in jobless households;
• participants who live in a single adult household with dependent children;
• migrants, people with a foreign background, minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma);
• participants with disabilities; or
• other disadvantaged.

For participants that at the start date (when joining an ESF operation) are neither unemployed nor inactive (i.e. they are in employment) the immediate result indicators “participants in education and training” and “participants gaining a qualification” can apply. Any person counted in one or both of these indicators and who was also disadvantaged (living in a jobless household, single parent, migrant/minority, disabled or other disadvantaged) would also be counted under the immediate result indicator “disadvantaged participants engaged in job searching, education/training, gaining a qualification, in employment, including self-employment”.

For the purpose of reporting common output indicators it is enough to record the educational level of participants as falling in one of the three categories required for indicators (ISCED 1-2, ISCED 3-4 and ISCED 5-8). However, it may be useful to maintain in the monitoring system information on the specific ISCED level of the participant, for example, to support the use of programme-specific indicators based on particular education levels or for evaluation purposes (see section 5.5.1 of the Annex D of the EC guidance for further details).

The common output indicator “above 54 years” does not cover participants aged 54, it only includes persons who are 55 or older when joining the operation. Please note that it is recommended that the full date of birth (day/ month/year) is recorded in order to calculate the age of the participants. Moreover, in order to check the completeness of the data it may be useful to have participants recorded in one of the three age categories (below 25 years old; 25-54 years old; above 54 years old).

Participants living in a rural area should be counted as “other disadvantaged” only when the area in which they reside is recognised nationally as disadvantaged. This means that in 2017 a person may be reported as homeless or from a rural area (or even both) and as other disadvantaged at the same time. Note that it should be ensured that the same criteria and definitions are applied across all ESF programmes in the country. Thus, a clear definition and appropriate guidance should be provided to all organisations in charge of data collection (e.g. project promoters or beneficiaries) in order to ensure consistency of data (see section 4.3 section of Annex D of the EC guidance on monitoring and evaluation).

The common output indicator on participants living in rural areas refers to the situation of participants at the date they start the operation. The fact that a participant relocates to another area (rural or not) during an operation is not relevant to this indicator and does not have to be recorded for monitoring purposes (see page 61 of Annex D of the Practical guidance, which has a specific note on this).

The common output indicator “employed, including self-employed” and the result indicators relating to “participants in employment” do not include any requirement in terms of the minimum number of hours. The definition of employment used for the common indicators is taken from the EU Labour Force Survey which refers to “any work for pay or profit during the reference week, even for as little as one hour”. As a consequence, all jobs which are in line with the definition provided in the EC guidance document on monitoring and evaluation (Annex C1) should be recorded.

The groups to be covered under the indicator “Other disadvantaged” are established by a combination of common and national definitions.

Two groups should be considered:

• Persons with an education level of ISCED level 0 (i.e. persons who have not completed ISCED level 1 and who are beyond the customary exit age of ISCED level 1) should always be counted under “other disadvantaged”;
• It is recommended that persons who are homeless or affected by housing exclusion are counted under “other disadvantaged” (provided the data are collected for the full population of participants and for all years).

Any other groups to be counted as “other disadvantaged” should be established according to national definitions and might include groups such as ex-offenders or drug addicts. Persons living in rural areas may be included as a category of “other disadvantaged” but only when the area in which they reside is recognised nationally as disadvantaged (and if the data are collected for all participants and all years). For this purpose, the national definition of disadvantaged rural areas might use units which are different from those in the DEGURBA classification required for the common indicator on that topic.

The categories of disadvantage adopted for the indicator should not overlap with categories of disadvantage covered by any of the common output indicators that are to be reported on an annual basis (i.e. all common output indicators except those dealing with “homeless or affected by housing exclusion” and “from rural areas” which are to be collected only once in 2017). Persons experiencing disadvantages relating to gender, employment status, age or educational achievement of at least ISCED level 1 should not, therefore, be counted as “other disadvantaged”.

It is strongly recommended to provide project promoters or bodies responsible for primary data collection with a list of the groups to be included in this category as…

There is no difference between “regular” and innovative projects in terms of monitoring. Common indicators have to be reported for all projects under all investment priorities.  Where the common indicators are not directly relevant to the objectives of the programme, then programme-specific indicators should be developed. Examples of programme-specific indicators to monitor progress in terms of innovation could be:

• number of projects dedicated at promoting social innovation  (output indicator – project related);
• number of innovative enterprises supported (output indicator – entity related);
• number of entities supported to introduce innovative forms of work organisation, including family friendly working time arrangements (output indicator – entity related);
• number of supported entities that have introduced innovative forms of work organisation, including family friendly working time arrangements (result indicator – entity related).

Yes. SFC allows to retroactively update monitoring data in case of changes in participation records or to correct errors in recording for already submitted AIRs. Further clarifications on what constitutes an update or a correction of reported data are included in an explanatory note submitted by the Commission to the ESF Technical Working Group to its meeting on 24-25 March 2015.

Yes. SFC allows to retroactively update monitoring data in case of changes in participation records or to correct errors in recording for already submitted AIRs. Further clarifications on what constitutes an update or a correction of reported data are included in an explanatory note submitted by the Commission to the ESF Technical Working Group to its meeting on 24-25 March 2015.

The design of monitoring systems and the methods used to transfer data between beneficiaries and managing authorities are not prescribed. Nevertheless, there are some minimum requirements in terms of the need to store micro-data for all participants, the annual reporting schedule, and the need to ensure quality of data (see section 2 in Annex D of the EG guidance on monitoring and evaluation).

In terms of transferring cumulative data between beneficiaries and managing authorities then whether or not this is a reasonable approach depends on what is transferred. If a full set of micro-data covering all participants to date is transferred then there should be no problem as the managing authority can prepare data for annual reporting purposes based on the start/end dates associated with each participation record and perform checks to identify any revisions to previously reported data and ensure the appropriate treatment. If only cumulative aggregates are provided then, in theory, annual figures can be derived each year by subtracting the values sent in previous years but there is then no obvious way to check for revisions. Unless suitable procedures are put in place to ensure that any revisions to previously reported data are appropriately identified and treated then this approach is unlikely to satisfy basic requirements for data quality. 

Values for all common (output and result) indicators have to be reported for all chosen investment priorities (IP). Zero values may be reported if no relevant value was recorded under that indicator in the IP concerned (for example, there may be zero participants below 25 years of age for operations funded under the investment priority on active and healthy ageing).

Only aggregated data for each of the common indicators and any additional programme-specific indicators should be entered to SFC. All indicator values to be reported are aggregates for the period (year). Data should be aggregated at the level of investment priority, and all indicators related to participants must be broken down by gender (i.e. include separate values for men and for women) and by category of region (the latter does not apply to YEI operations).

The monitoring system should have automated procedures for calculating the necessary aggregates from the micro-data. The total number of participants in each year does not need to be reported as a separate value: it will be automatically calculated as a sum of three common output indicators “Employed”, “Unemployed” and “Inactive”. Note that this is the only combination of output indicators that can be used to derive total participants.

Data should be reported for completed and partially implemented operations alike. In cases where an operation is on-going at the end of a year this means that numbers of participants covered by immediate result indicators may not match those covered by output indicators, because some of the participants that contribute to the output indicators are still actively participating in the operation and do not yet have an associated result.

See section 3.4.4 (Data protection) in EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation and section 4.6 (…

Yes, the use of registers is recommended since it avoids collecting again information that already exists. For the use of existing register(s) to maintain micro-data for ESF purposes, the following questions should be considered:

• Will it cover all participants? If not, how/where will you store the micro-data for participants who are not covered? How will this be merged with the data in the register when compiling indicators or developing representative samples?
• For which of the common indicators does the register include the required information? Are the relevant variables recorded in a way that is consistent with the definitions? If not, how to deal with the gaps/differences?
• Will data be maintained in the register for long enough (ESF monitoring /evaluation/ audit)?
• Are adequate procedures/agreements in place to ensure that any requests for detailed information are fulfilled comprehensively and in a timely manner?
• Is the information up-to-date? 

The requirement to collect and store individual participant data is laid down in Art. 125(2)(d) of the CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013) dealing with functions of the managing authority. Member States should adapt their systems, if needed, in order to comply with it. In addition, the annexes to the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) state clearly that the data processing arrangements put in place by Member States must be in line with the provisions of Directive 95/46 of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data, in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof.

Further to Art. 6(1)(e) of the above mentioned directive, the personal data must be "kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed". The purposes are set out in the above mentioned articles and annexes of the CPR and the ESF Regulation. In addition, the duration of data retention is also influenced by the evaluations conducted by the Member States and the Commission. For example, impact evaluations often use counterfactual methods with control or comparison groups, which require information on the situation of the participants throughout the implementation period. To this end, data on individual participants are needed

There is no formal requirement to collect an existing personal identification number. However, the possibility to uniquely identify each individual in the micro-data is a minimum requirement for monitoring systems (e.g. to ensure that all participants can be re-contacted at a later date in case they are selected as part of a representative sample). As a result, it is recommended that an existing personal identifier, such as the social insurance number, is used since this is:

a. normally straightforward to collect, and

b. can be used to extract relevant data from other administrative registers and thereby reduce the burden of data collection.

However, this is not obligatory and in some cases might conflict with data protection legislation. It is also possible that a unique personal identifier is generated by the monitoring system specifically for the purposes of ESF monitoring. In this case evidence of a robust methodology would be needed for audit purposes.

The monitoring system must be set up in a way that it permits the managing authorities to perform the tasks related to monitoring and evaluation as set out in Art. 56 CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013) and Articles 5 and 19(4) and (6), Annex I and II of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013). This implies that all participant records should include some sort of unique personal identifier that allow an individual to be traced and re-contacted (in case they are selected for a representative sample), as well as the operation identifier and dates of starting and leaving the operation.  Personal identifiers can be used to link ESF monitoring data with records from national registers, but this is not a requirement.

Yes. The structure of the monitoring system is not prescribed.  Although the CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013) requires Member States to collect and store detailed data about each participant (i.e. to maintain micro-data) there is no specific requirement for the data to be stored all together in one place or at any particular organisational level. So, as long as the monitoring system as a whole fulfils the minimum requirements for monitoring and evaluation then the design is up to Member States (see section 2.2 in Annex D of the EC guidance). In this respect, it is necessary that the system can link participation records with IDs and personal contact details in order to:

• provide evidence that  each of the aggregate figures reported (at IP level) as indicator values in AIRs relate to identifiable individuals who have the relevant characteristics and who actually received support from the relevant operations;
• allow for representative sampling  (full data-set necessary);
• provide contact for follow-up surveys (longer-term result indicators).

All participant records should include, as a minimum: an operation identifier (a code that links a participant to a specific operation); some sort of unique personal identifier that allows an individual to be traced and re-contacted (if selected for a representative sample); dates of starting and leaving an operation. As far as the data for the representative sample are concerned, personal data do not need to be asked again: the information collected for output indicators should always be used as the reference point for both immediate and longer-term result indicators.

Data for (common) indicators on participants capture only persons that benefit directly from ESF support. As a rule, it is not required to report on common output indicators for TA operations. However, if a TA project includes specific objectives that involve the provision of personalised support (e.g. training) to specific individuals then these persons may be counted as participants. This includes people involved in the audit, IT system, evaluations etc. provided they are targeted by the specific objective of the TA operation and they benefit directly from support. 

Values for all common output indicators should be reported for all investment priorities chosen, excluding technical assistance priority axes.

Reporting result indicators is generally not required. However, where the Union contribution to the priority axis or axes concerning TA in an Operational Programme exceeds EUR 15 million, result indicators will have to be reported where objectively justified given the content of the actions.

Note that according to Article 96(2)(c)(iv) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, for each priority axis concerning technical assistance, the Operational Programme shall set out “the output indicators which are expected to contribute to the results”. It is thus a legal obligation to set and report output indicators and corresponding values (either programme-specific output indicators or common output indicators).

Member States can use the common indicators when relevant or define their own (output and result) programme-specific indicators which better reflect the interventions covering TA (see section on Technical assistance in Annex D of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation).

Values for all common indicators listed in Annex I and Annex II of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) have to be reported for all investment priorities chosen, including any focusing on institutional aspects.

The common indicators on participants capture only participants benefitting directly from the ESF support. In case there are no relevant participants zero values should be reported.

Where the common output indicators do not reflect the outputs of the investment priority –as in the case of institutional/administrative reform- programme-specific indicators should be developed. Separate guidance is provided on the types of indicators that might be established: see Guidance Document on Indicators of Public Administration Capacity Building for guidelines in this respect.

Note that it is the responsibility of the Member State to develop programme-specific indicators in all areas of the programme where they see the need for.  Indicators can – but do not have to - be very specific in order to highlight certain aspects of the ESF support which are of particular importance for the Member States/regions.

The managing authority is free to set objectives for rural areas or other regions using the classification that most suits its objectives, provided the reporting requirements laid down in the Regulations are fulfilled.  As mentioned in the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation, “Recording of participants is not done based on the participants’ place of residence or employment, but based on the location where the operation takes place. The only exception to this provision is the common output indicator “from rural areas”, where the data is always recorded based on the participant’s place of residence”. Like all other common output indicators, the common output indicator “from rural areas” (which is indeed defined as category 3 of the DEGURBA classification) is not linked to specific activities, but has to be reported at the level of the investment priority. As a minimum requirement, data for this indicator have to be reported in the AIR due in 2017 based on a representative sample of participants within each investment priority.

The four month time period of the Youth Guarantee cannot be linked to the ESF. This type of time lapse would not necessarily be monitored through the ESF.

An "intervention" as understood for the YEI indicators cannot automatically be linked with the four month period set by the Youth Guarantee (YG) Recommendation for providing a young person with an offer. The indicator refers to the support a person receives through YEI, e.g. a training course. The support can cover activation measures (the so called YG Service), measures which could qualify as a Youth Guarantee offer and/or other types of measures. The ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) does not stipulate a minimum or maximum duration of an intervention or at which point after leaving formal education or becoming unemployed the person should receive or is even entitled to the support (in the sense of YEI support).

No. The intention of these indicators is to measure the fact of completing the YEI intervention; therefore, drop-outs are not included. If a person drops-out because s/he finds a job, this person will be reported under the YEI result indicator relating to participants in employment.

The starting date of the intervention for YEI monitoring is the date when the participant begins activities within a YEI-funded operation. This may be some time after the initial registration date.

Immediate result indicators refer to the situation of each individual participant “upon leaving” the operation, which is the date of exit from the operation (i.e. the last date on which the person was participating in an operation) or up to four weeks after that date. The date of exit may vary for each participant and cannot automatically be taken to be the end of the operation or the envisaged end date of the intervention for this participant. The exit date should be treated as an individual observation that varies between participants. In all cases the exit date of each participant needs to be recorded (whether it coincides or not with the end date of the operation). For further clarification see examples in section 4 of Annex D of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation.

Note that there is a difference between "complete the YEI supported intervention" and "upon leaving". The completion of attendance is linked to the participant’s individual duration of stay in the operation and not to the duration of the operation or project overall. E.g. an operation runs for two years and during this time runs the same course four times. The project/operation will be completed once all four courses are done. A person will only plan to participate in one of the four courses and not in all four. Hence the completion date with regard to the participant cannot be linked to the completion date of the operation or project. So the completion in this case would be when the person completed the one course as initially scheduled. Therefore the word “intervention” has been chosen and not operation or project for this type of indicator.

Yes. Results should only be collected once a participant has completely left an operation.

The YEI is to be included in the performance framework as it has not been excluded from it in Article 22 (1) CPR. As set out in Art. 4(1) of the Commission Implementing Regulation on the Performance framework (Regulation (EU) No 215/2014):

“The bodies preparing programmes shall record information on the methodologies and criteria applied to select indicators for the performance framework to ensure that corresponding milestones and targets comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 3 of Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 for all programmes and priorities supported by the ESI Funds, as well as the specific allocation to the Youth Employment Initiative ('YEI') as referred to in Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, subject to the exceptions set out in paragraph 1 of Annex II of that Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.”.

The resources for the YEI are, however, excluded for the purpose of calculating the performance reserve (Art. 20 of the Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013). For the YEI the milestones set for 2018 correspond in value to the target for 2023 as the YEI is frontloaded (the YEI specific allocation is committed in 2014 and 2015).

The ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) stipulates that the YEI should support “young persons not in employment, education or training (NEET), who are unemployed or inactive. Persons considered as registered unemployed according to national definitions are always included (even if they do not fulfil all three of these criteria). Although registration in the employment service is not an absolute precondition for considering a participant as unemployed in general, for YEI participants registration to the employment service is required. As stated in a note* circulated to Managing Authorities, “as a first step each potential YEI participant (whether unemployed or inactive) should be registered at the Public Employment Service (PES) or equivalent body, including e.g. private providers acting on behalf of the PES and performing individual profiling and placement activities for the unemployed”.

*Clarifications by the Commission services following the YEI Seminar on 11 July 2014 – note circulated to all Managing Authorities on 4 August 2014.

All result indicators (common and YEI, immediate and longer-term) measure changes in the situation of participants compared to their situation before joining an ESF funded operation. It may help to consider the chronological steps of a young person taking part in a YEI intervention:

1. Young person becomes unemployed.

2. Young person benefits from YEI supported intervention for a fixed period and completes the planned activities: job placement/training/scholarship/counselling/other. This person would be recorded under the immediate result indicator “unemployed participants who complete the YEI supported intervention”.

3. When the YEI support ends (after the fixed time period mentioned in step 2 above has elapsed), this person:

1. is again unemployed;

2. finds a new job/training/other opportunity; or

3. gets an offer for employment/training.

Options b) and c) would be recorded under YEI immediate result indicators “unemployed participants who are in education/training, […] upon leaving” or “unemployed participants who receive an offer of employment [….] upon leaving”. Note that it is possible for the same participant to experience b) and c) simultaneously and thus both results are recorded.

For practical guidance and examples on recording YEI result indicators see section 5.9 of Annex D of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation.

Yes. All three YEI immediate result indicators are possible results for one and the same person within the same operation. However, it is important to stick to the requirement that the result indicators for "participant who receive an offer ..." and for "participant in education/training ..." only refer to results that materialise "upon leaving" the operation, or within four weeks of that date, and not later.

For practical guidance and examples on recording YEI result indicators see section 5.9 of Annex D of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation.

The common YEI indicators capturing offers do not contain any reference to quality. So, all offers which are in line with the definition of an offer (see Annex C2 of the EC guidance) should be recorded. The assessment of the quality of offers is a subject for evaluation. Please see the guidance on YEI evaluation.

Data for all indicators have to be collected and reported for each operation separately. Therefore, data for output and result indicators should be collected and entered for operation A and for operation B separately. 

Yes. Information for the YEI immediate and longer-term result indicators (listed under Annex II of the ESF regulation) should be collected. This information concerns the following:

• completion of the intervention upon leaving
• receipt of an offer upon leaving
• educational situation six months after leaving (only for representative samples)
• participants in self-employment (only for representative samples)

Note that more detailed information about the types of education/training programme will be required for particular YEI immediate and longer-term indicators, as they refer specifically to “continued education, training programmes leading to a qualification, an apprenticeship or a traineeship”, and not to any form of formalised education/training.

There are no specific output indicators for YEI monitoring, only YEI specific result indicators. The output indicators required are the common output indicators listed under Annex I of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013), which apply to all ESF supported operations, including the YEI.

The ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) sets out the following requirements for YEI reporting (Art. 19(3)):  Indicator data transmitted shall relate to values for the indicators set out in Annexes I and II to this Regulation and, where applicable, to programme specific indicators. In other words, investments benefitting from YEI funding should report all common indicators listed under Annex I and all YEI indicators listed under Annex II.

Note that the reporting schedule for YEI operations differs from that of regular operations: all YEI indicators have to be reported annually already as from 2015. Representative samples of participants in YEI funded operations need to be selected in order to report on YEI longer-term result indicators on an annual basis (rather than just twice as for the ESF common indicators under Annex I).

For more information, see section 3.1.4 of the EC Guidance on Monitoring and Evaluation "Specific provisions for Common YEI indicators".

If an intervention has a target group that is multidimensional (and so are the corresponding target values for the result indicators), appropriate programme-specific result indicators should be set. In this case, the column “common output indicator used as basis for target setting” would indeed remain empty (N/a) and the basis should be specified in the name of the indicator.

For example, in an investment priority related to supporting young people, the common output indicator "below 25 years of age" might not really be relevant as only this age group is involved. Instead, it would be more relevant to assess the educational attainment level of participants at the entry into the ESF operation. In this case, where participants with a wide range of educational attainment can participate and expectations for success are very diverse, it is indeed recommended to breakdown the result indicator by educational attainment to avoid the creaming effect and misleading results.

Note that the target value can be expressed either in absolute terms (number of participants) or as a percentage (proportion out of total target group with the result measured by the result indicator).

The SFC has a drop-down menu that filters automatically the common output indicators to be used as basis. The general rules for the drop-down menu are as follows:

i) Only common output indicators which are relevant to the common result indicator are displayed. For example, this excludes:

• "employed" for the result indicators addressing unemployed/inactive
• "unemployed" and "inactive" for the result indicator related to improved labour market situation
• "below 25 years of age" for the result indicator targeting people aged over 54.

ii) Only one common output indicator can be selected for each common result indicator (for instance, selecting both "unemployed" and "inactive" is not possible). This implies that if you want to set a result indicator that takes as reference population both unemployed and inactive participants you should set up a new programme-specific result indicator.

iii) No common output indicator can be related to the common result indicators related to disadvantaged people.

No. Target values for result indicators do not need to be set in reference to all output indicators, only to the relevant ones depending on the main target group. The output indicators used as reference should reflect the main target group in the investment priority concerned. Note that some restrictions apply regarding to which common output indicators can be selected for each result indicator.

Targets for common result indicators shall be set in function of the data reported for common output indicators. In accordance with the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation based on the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2014 which includes the model for operational programmes (see table 4), it is not possible to set a target for a common result indicator without choosing a common output indicator as reference (this in SFC means that the field is mandatory).

Alternatively, result indicators can be specified as "programme-specific indicators", in order, for example, to link to more than one common output indicator. In that case the field on common output indicators used as basis is not obligatory.

For the performance framework, milestones and targets should be set at the level of priority axis based on indicators which are a subset of already selected programme indicators (see Guidance fiche performance framework review and reserve in 2014-2020, p. 6). 

No. Baseline values are not to be included into the target value.

Indeed, each indicator and each target shall be broken down by category of region (with the exception of YEI indicators). Hence the data sets submitted for each indicator cover only one single category of region (i.e. common indicators must be reported broken down by category of region).

Following a learning seminar organised in 2013 by the EC, two background papers present methodologies for setting and adjusting quantified cumulative targets related to employment and social inclusion (“ESF performance target setting and adjusting in social inclusion” and “Setting and adjusting targets for ESF Operational Programmes”), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=67&langId=en&newsId=8174  

No. It is not necessary to set targets for all indicators. As noted in the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation, quantified targets “shall be set for a limited number of common and or programme-specific indicators at the level of investment priority and category of region. Limited means in this context that not all indicators need to be linked with a target value”. The only exceptions are the YEI result indicators (both immediate and longer-term) all of which are required to have associated targets.

In general, it is up to managing authorities to select the indicators against which to set targets, based on their relevance to the objectives of the programme. If programme-specific indicators are used, it is possible that targets are applied only to these and not to any of the common output or result indicators.

No. The indicators have to be reported on the basis of samples that are representative of all participants benefitting from ESF support up to end-2016. Selective reporting is not acceptable.

Yes. Collection and reporting on the basis of a representative sample is a “shall” provision for common output indicators on homelessness and rural areas as well as for longer-term result indicators (Annex I of the ESF Regulation). However, collecting and reporting on the full population is certainly considered as representative sampling.

No. Beneficiaries or intermediate bodies may collect the data and might assist in drawing the sample. However, since it is important to consider factors with precise statistical meaning when a sample is drawn (size, representativeness, quality, etc.), it is strongly advised to consult an appropriate expert (internal or external), who can design and document this process accordingly. 

The indicators for which data can be collected only for a representative sample are:

• Output indicator "homeless or affected by housing exclusion"
• Output indicator "from rural areas"
• All longer-term result indicators listed in Annex I and Annex II of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013)

Refer to section 3.5 of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation (Reporting) for further details on reporting of these indicators.

As mentioned in section 3.4.2 of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation, ensuring representativeness also for the regional dimension of the output indicators is considered as a good practice, but it is not a requirement. Regional representativeness could be achieved by establishing the sample one NUTS level lower than the level of the programme area (i.e. category of region). For instance, in the case of an Operational Programme at NUTS 2 level the sample would have the same distribution by NUTS 3 region as observed amongst all participants (see also section 4.4.1 of Annex D). 

Yes. Samples for longer-term result indicators (and indicators on rural and homelessness for the AIR to be submitted in 2017) have to be fully representative of the total population of participants at the level of the investment priority, and regarding employment status, age group, educational attainment and household situation.  There is no exception to this. All individuals counted as participants must be included in the population from which samples are drawn.

No. Even though Art. 50(2) of the CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013) states that “data transmitted shall relate to values for fully implemented operation and also, where possible, having regard to the stage of implementation, for selected operations", Art. 5 (3) of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) derogates from it and states that “data transmitted for output and result indicators shall relate to values for partially or fully implemented operations". Thus, the data being reported do not necessarily have to come from fully implemented operations but can come from operations which are still on-going. Example: an operation runs for 2 years. The first year, 100 people participate in the training offered in the context of this operation and the second year 500 people participate. In year 1, the managing authority can report 100 people entering and in year 2 they can report 500 people entering. They do not need to wait for year 2 (when the operation is fully implemented) to report the total of 600.

Note that the data for each indicator collected from partially and fully implemented operations shall be reported in one single data set, i.e. data stemming from fully implemented operations do not need to be reported separately from data stemming from partially implemented operations. In case the monitoring system includes operations that are only partially implemented, the system should be able to identify those participation records which stem from partially and which stem from fully implemented operations.

For further guidance see section 3 and Annex D (section 2.3.2) of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation.

No. All common indicators should cover all persons supported under the investment priority that fulfil the relevant definitions. The common output indicator "above 54 years of age" should therefore cover all supported persons who are above 54 years old irrespective of their employment status. Selective reporting is not permissible.

If you need to monitor the specific target group more closely, then the common output indicator “above 54 years of age who are unemployed, including long-term unemployed, or inactive not in education or training indicator” will exclude those (aged over 54) who are employed. If this is still not precise enough for effective monitoring of the specific target group then you could establish a programme-specific output indicator for participants who are "above 54 years of age and unemployed ".

Note that such a programme-specific indicator would not require the collection of additional data; it could be generated by cross-tabulating the data from the relevant common indicators ("unemployed, including LTU" and "above 54 years"). 

Common immediate result indicators listed in Annex I of the ESF Regulation are five separate indicators and the results are not mutually exclusive, i.e. if more than one result apply to an individual participant, then all relevant results should be recorded. For example, participants may gain a qualification during the ESF supported operation and then find a job on leaving and should then be counted under both of the relevant result indicators. Further explanation of each of the four indicators can be found in Annex C1 and D of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation.

No. Values for all common indicators listed in Annex I and Annex II of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013), as well as all programme-specific indicators have to be reported for all investment priorities chosen. Zero values should be reported in case no value was recorded under that indicator in the investment priority concerned. Note that every reported participation record should include data for each of the common output indicators covering at least personal non-sensitive data (i.e. employment status, age, education, gender and household situation). In case of any missing non-sensitive data then the participation record should be considered incomplete and should not be reported in the indicators data (only in the grand total of participants).

Yes. All indicators on participants should be broken down by gender

The obligation to collect and store data on individual participants in operations (micro data) applies to all personal data including those dealing with special categories of data according to Article 8 of Directive 95/46/EC (i.e. sensitive data). Zero values may be reported in the case that no relevant value could be recorded under that indicator in the investment priority concerned. There is no derogation in this sense foreseen in the CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013). 

Values for all common immediate result indicators, which cover all participants, should be reported annually in the AIR. The common longer-term result indicators, which cover only a representative sample of participants, have to be reported only twice: in the 2018 AIR (to be submitted in 2019) and the final report (to be submitted in 2025).

The requirements for YEI result indicators are different in that both immediate and longer-term results are to be reported annually.

Technical assistance priorities are not required to report on common indicators.

In most cases yes. Programme specific indicators dealing with outputs and immediate results are to be collected on an ongoing basis and reported annually in the AIRs. However, it is also possible to establish programme-specific longer-term result indicators for which the data collection method and frequency of reporting will be determined on a case by case basis. 

No. Programme-specific indicators cannot replace the common indicators; the reporting of all common indicators is a basic/fundamental reporting requirement for the 2014-2020 programming period. The objectives set out in the performance framework can be related both to the common and programme-specific indicators. This, however, does not rule out that some of these indicators have the value 0.

Note that the EC encourages the use of common indicators for the development of programme-specific indicators (possibly through combinations of one-dimensional common output indicators, for example, young and low levels of education), since this would reduce the data collection burden and increase the consistency of reporting.

No. The support is provided to the individual and not to the SME.

Yes, provided that specific SMEs benefit directly from the support. For example, a programme that supports the development of guidance material for SMEs wanting to implement organisational change does not target individual SMEs and those that subsequently access and use the material produced benefit only indirectly from the support. On the other hand, if the programme finances the costs of providing expert advice to specific SMEs that apply for assistance then they benefit directly from the support and should be counted.

All common output indicators refer to the situation of participants or entities before the ESF support starts. If the SME has been legally founded before the start of the support and the support is used to somehow help the business through the start-up phase then it may be counted in the indicator on “number of supported micro, small and medium-sized enterprises”. Individuals benefitting from business counselling, mentoring, training or similar support would also be counted as participants. However, if the SME is legally founded during the support period or afterwards as a result of the support provided then it should not be counted in the output indicator and only the individuals benefitting from support would be counted as participants.

In the case of programmes designed to support the creation of SMEs, programme-specific indicators might be established. Here, a result indicator that aims to count the number of SMEs created through ESF support must be linked to a relevant output indicator based on an equivalent observation unit, for example the number of business plans treated and not the number of persons supported.

The indicator on number of supported SMEs refers only to enterprises that benefit directly from support financed by the ESF (which typically excludes SMEs being beneficiaries in the sense of Art. 2 of the CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)). Thus, only SMEs that benefit from the training/consultancy services are to be counted under the indicator. Service providers (external consultants or training providers) should not be counted, as they are receiving payment for services as a routine part of their business and not benefiting from ESF support.

No. Enterprises to be counted have to benefit directly from support but do not necessarily have to receive money directly; they may also benefit from services paid for by ESF but without any money passing through the enterprise. For example, ESF funds may be used to support the training of employees in an enterprise but the payment could go directly to the training company.

The common output indicator on the “number of supported micro, small and medium-sized enterprises” asks only for the total number of SMEs supported.  No breakdown by size of enterprise is required and it is therefore not necessary to distinguish between micro, small and medium-sized companies. Enterprises should not be counted more than once for the same indicator.

However, in the case that programme-specific indicator(s) related to enterprises are planned some breakdown by size might be relevant and in this case it is recommended that mutually exclusive categories are applied. A possible breakdown could be defined as follows:

• Micro: enterprises which employ fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million.
• Small: Enterprises which employ fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million, excluding enterprises that qualify as micro-enterprises.
• Medium-sized: enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million, excluding enterprises that qualify as micro-enterprises and small enterprises.

Further guidance on definitions of SMEs is offered by DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs at:

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendly-environment/sme-definition/index_en.htm

The only formal requirement is to store information on characteristics needed to complete the common output and any programme-specific indicators for all individual entities supported. However, it should always be possible to demonstrate that reported numbers of supported entities correspond to identifiable organisations that have received support and (if necessary) follow-up entities. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain some basic identifying information about each entity (e.g. organisation name/address or company number). Entities record should have as a minimum: entity identifier, start and leaving dates, data for indicators, operation identifier. 

No. In the same way as for participants, monitoring data should cover only entities that benefit directly from ESF support.  In the EC guidance it is noted that “Outputs are measured at the level of supported people, supported entities …” and “Result indicators capture the expected effects on participants or entities brought about by an operation”. As a guiding principle the selection of the most appropriate programme-specific indicator(s) depends on the specific intervention logic, on the nature of the actions and on who concretely benefits from the actions.

For example, ESF support funds the development (but not the implementation) of new guidelines aimed at improving the functioning of third sector organisations. A government department gets ESF funding and subcontracts the development to a specialist organisation. The government department is supported directly and should be counted.  However, the subcontracted company is simply being paid to provide a service and is not supported (thus, not to be counted).

After completion of the project, the guidelines are implemented by a number of organisations; this occurs later as a result of the standard being required by law, and is not a direct result of the ESF support but of the legislation. Therefore has no relevance to monitoring and the organisations that will implement the guidelines benefit indirectly and are not counted as supported entity.

In the case that the ESF also contributed to the cost of implementation of the new guidelines, these organisations would be directly supported and they should be counted accordingly.

Yes, a participant may be counted for more than one result indicator. In particular, one or both of the immediate result indicators related to “gaining a qualification on leaving” and “in education/training on leaving” may be combined with an immediate result indicator measuring a change in the labour market situation - either “inactive participants engaged in job searching upon leaving” or “participants in employment, including self-employment,  upon leaving”, but not both.

Indicators related to a change in labour market situation are mutually exclusive at each observation point (on leaving or six months later), but not between points, and cannot be combined. For example, the immediate result indicator “inactive, engaged in job searching upon leaving” is intended to measure the transition from inactivity to unemployment, with the definition of “engaged in job-searching” referring to the definition of “unemployed” used for output indicators, which qualifies that persons concerned should be out of work (on leaving). This indicator therefore cannot be combined with the indicator for “in employment, including self-employment, upon leaving”. If a participant who was inactive on joining subsequently takes up a part-time job and at the same time is seeking a full-time job they would be counted only as being in employment and not as newly engaged in job-searching (because they are not out of work).

For the longer-term results the indicator on “participants in employment, including self-employment, six months after leaving” cannot be combined with “participants with an improved labour market situation six months after leaving” because they cover different reference populations – respectively those who were unemployed or inactive on joining and those who were employed on joining (see Annex B in the EC guidance document).

Indicators…

Results for a participation record (i.e. a participant) should be reported after the person leaves an operation.  If the pathway is one single operation that consists of several projects (stages), then only one result can be reported, namely when the person leaves the operation at the end of the pathway. If a pathway is spread over several separate operations, then both outputs and results for each operation are to be reported separately.

In the case that a person leaves and re-enters the same operation more than once there should be only one participation record with the output indicators referring to the situation on first entry and the result indicators to the situation after the last exit and six months after that date.

For more guidance on this question, see the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation (Section 3.1 under Reporting and Annex D section 4.1 "Participants and participation records: some basic rules).

No. Data on common indicators have to be collected and recorded for every participant - including the ones who leave the operation early.  Note that the leaving date (and therefore the point to which immediate and longer-term result indicators should apply) is always the date that the participant leaves the operation and not the planned exit date.

No. Apart from the breakdown by gender and category of region that is required for all common indicators no further breakdown is required. Only aggregate figures need to be transferred to the EC via the SFC2014.

No. Eligibility for support is not linked to monitoring and does not require a complete set of data for participants. If a person is not prepared to reveal a complete set of data he can still be supported. There are only two preconditions for someone to get supported:

• they fulfil the eligibility criteria; and
• the managing authority can document the fulfilment of the eligibility criteria of the respective operation/project (e.g. a certain employment status).

Hence, an incomplete set of data does not affect the participant’s eligibility to the support in general.

Individuals for which non-sensitive personal data (gender, employment status, age, educational attainment and household situation) are incomplete should be reported in the grand total of participants. The grand total number of supported participants (which is at least equal or higher than the total number of participants) should be reported in the framework of the AIRs (see section 3.1.1 of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation and section 4.7.1 in Annex D).

The obligation to collect and store data on individual participants in operations (micro-data) applies to all personal information required for the common indicators, including those dealing with special categories of personal data according to Article 8 of Directive 95/46/EC (i.e. sensitive data). There is no derogation in this sense in the CPR (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013). It is recommended that managing authorities liaise and discuss with national data protection supervisors/authorities in order to set up the provisions and framework for successful and timely data collection of all required monitoring data.

In addition, a managing authority may decide to establish a system based on consent through which participants can refuse to provide personal information on variables dealing with special categories of personal data (i.e. sensitive data) that are required for indicators marked with “**” in Annex I of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) (i.e. those related to migrants, participants with a foreign background, minorities, disability, and other disadvantaged). In these cases participation records may be left without personal sensitive information, but there should be documented evidence of the attempt of collection.

No. The obligation to collect and store data on individual participants in operations (micro-data) also covers sensitive personal data; there is no derogation in this sense foreseen in the regulations (Regulation (EU) No. 1303/2013 and Regulation (EU) No. 1304/2013). Estimates based on the opinion of project providers will not be accepted.

A change from employed to self-employed does not necessarily imply an improvement in the labour market situation of the individual concerned according to the definition of the indicator. For each case, all criteria set out in the definition should be checked irrespective of whether the participant is employed or self-employed. 

No. The definition of improved situation on the labour market is limited to the following criteria (provided in Annex C1 of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation):

“Persons who are employed when entering ESF support and who, following the support, transited from precarious to stable employment, and/or from underemployment to full employment, and/or have moved to a job requiring higher competences/skills/ qualifications, entailing more responsibilities, and/or received a promotion 6 months after leaving the ESF operation”.

Thus, participants who better meet the requirements of the labour market or increase their salary, but have not experienced any change in position, hours worked or range of activity, are not to be counted as “participants with an improved labour market situation six months after leaving”. If you want to monitor the change in meeting the requirements of the labour market it is suggested to set up programme-specific indicators to do so.

If the Managing Authority allows for it, the organisation responsible for the qualification (e.g. the training provider) can certify the corresponding change in the competence of participants.

There are no specific requirements in relation to the “competent body”. The competent body could be the institution delivering the qualification or the national body entrusted with the formal examination. 

The indicator on “participants gaining a qualification on leaving” uses the EQF definition of a qualification which requires that training outcomes are formally assessed according to “given standards”. However, there is no specific requirement to link these standards to EQF levels. Standards should be defined in relation to specific training courses and may be applied on a national, Operational Programme and/or project level. Programme-specific indicators can be elaborated using EQF levels if required. 

According to the European Qualifications Framework definition, a qualification is “a formal outcome of an assessment and validation process which is obtained when a competent body determines that an individual has achieved learning outcomes to given standards”.  

The main criterion is that the participants in an ESF operation need to pass a formal examination which attests the knowledge, skills and competence acquired on completion of the learning process. Participants who are given simple attendance certificates at the end of a course should not be counted in the indicator “Participants gaining a qualification upon leaving”. It is recommended to define "qualification" in the national context on national, Operational Programme and/or project level. 

All common result indicators (immediate and longer-term) measure changes in the situation of participants compared to their situation before starting on an ESF operation. In the case that a participant continues in training after the end of a period of ESF supported training then whether or not they should be counted under the immediate result indicator "participants in education/training upon leaving" depends on whether they were in education or training before starting on the ESF supported part of their training. Only participants who were not in education or training before starting the ESF supported training should be counted. See definitions and further guidance Annex C1 and Annex D of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation.

Participants who have not successfully completed ISCED level 1 should be treated in different ways depending on their age in relation to the customary exit age for ISCED level 1 (nationally defined but typically 10-12 years old):

• Those who are below the customary exit age should be considered as if ISCED level 1, and therefore recorded under the indicator for ISCED levels 1 and 2.
• Those who are above the customary exit age should be considered as ISCED level 0 and be recorded as “Other disadvantaged” and not counted in any of the educational attainment indicators (see Annex C1 and section 5.6.4  of Annex D of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation).

No. Only the aggregate figures for the indicator (i.e. total broken down by gender and category of region) are required to be reported in the AIR. However, it is recommended to maintain information in the monitoring system that identifies the relevant category (or categories) of disadvantage that applies to each participant that is considered as “other disadvantaged”. This would in fact be imperative in the case that programme-specific indicators are established in respect of particular groups addressed by the programme.

In the case of multiple interventions that are considered to provide direct support it is necessary to ensure that participants are counted only once per operation. An individual benefiting from support provided by different interventions which are funded by the same operation should only be counted once (for each indicator). The start date (which is the reference for the common output indicators) is the date on which the person started the first intervention and the leaving date (which is the reference for the common result indicators) is the date on which the person left the last intervention. If the interventions are part of different operations, the same individual should be counted under each operation separately (see section 4.1.3 in Annex D of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation).

Output indicators should cover persons benefitting directly from the ESF support under the respective investment priority. Events that aim to contribute to programme functioning rather than to develop human capacity do not benefit individuals directly, but the programme as a whole. Also, the expenditure (cost of the meeting) is not earmarked to support individuals, but to support the programme. Hence the people attending the event should not be considered as participants.

Participants need to be defined on the basis of the objective of the operation and how it is targeted. Output indicators should cover persons benefitting directly from the ESF support under the respective investment priority. Therefore, depending on the objective of the operation students or teachers/counsellors might be counted as participants, but this can only be ascertained on a case by case basis:

• Case 1: Operation provides training to career guidance counsellors in order to improve, expand (or create) career guidance services in schools. The service is then open to all students on demand. This is capacity building, individual students are not targeted.
  • Counsellors should be counted, students should not.

• Case 2:Operation aims to improve school-to-work transition of students with a migrant background living in a deprived area. Counsellors are trained to deal with the specific barriers faced by this group and there is a target to provide assistance to a particular number or proportion of the affected students in the area and expenditure is allocated accordingly. Students are selected individually on the basis of their disadvantaged situation and expenditure is earmarked accordingly.
  • Students should be counted as participants, but not the counsellors as they are not the target group and no results at individual level are expected for them.

According to the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation (section 3.1): “Only those persons who can be identified and asked for their personal data (i.e. gender, employment status, age, educational attainment, household situation) and for whom specific expenditure is earmarked shall be reported as one participant.”

The completeness requirement combined with the earmarked expenditure requirement means that persons participating in open-door events or benefitting from un-personalised e-services should not be counted as participants.  Therefore, data collection should be limited to targeted support that is designed to directly benefit selected identifiable individuals (i.e. offered to a defined target group, excluding interventions for the general public and “open door” events).

Outputs and results for operations mainly consisting of this type of activities could be measured through the use of programme-specific indicators such as: number of events, number of hits on web-pages, registered users, feedback questionnaires, etc.

Yes. Reporting on the full set of common indicators listed in Annex I of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) is required for all IPs supported by the ESF  (see also section 3.1 of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation). The only exception relates to Technical Assistance priority axes.

However, not all data have to be collected by asking participants. Where possible, the use of already available administrative data is recommended so as to minimise administrative burden. For operations targeting particular groups for which it is clear and certain that all participants have specific characteristics (e.g. employed), participation records in the monitoring database can be completed without asking the participant (e.g. auto-filled fields). Any such treatment should be documented and justified.

Fields recording irrelevant data should be completed with “0” (see definitions in Annex C and the “reference population” for each of the result indicators in Annex B of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation). For example, the immediate result indicator dealing with participants engaged in job-searching on leaving refers only to participants who were inactive on joining. Data for this indicator do not need to be collected directly from participants who were employed or unemployed on joining and the fields recording these results can be completed with 0.

Note that it is not possible to report values for indicators as “not applicable”. Each participant must count either 1 or 0 towards each of the non-sensitive indicators (although for indicators on personal sensitive data, “non-response” values can be recorded).

Finally, in addition to the obligatory common indicators, Member States may also elaborate programme-specific (output and result) indicators which can…

For output indicators, information about personal characteristics of participants (gender, age, level of education, household situation, and information about possible disadvantages such as disability) should be collected only once and should reflect the situation on the date that they enter an operation (i.e. on the first day that participants take part in ESF supported operation). At the same time, it is required to collect information about their current (i.e. when entering the operation) labour market status and, for those who are inactive, whether they are currently in education or training. This information may be collected at some point before the start date (e.g. on registration) but any variables which might change (e.g. employment situation, household situation) should be verified on the start date.  

Subsequently, only changes regarding the labour market and the educational situation of the participants should be monitored (e.g. whether they found a job or started seeking for one, whether they have gained any qualifications as a result of the operation, and whether or not they are in education or training). For YEI supported operations it is also required to record whether the participants completed the intervention (planned activities) or not and whether they received an offer. This information has to be collected for each participant when leaving an operation (i.e. on the exit date or within 4 weeks of that point).

The above represents two sets of information to be collected for every participant – one when entering the operation and one when leaving. The numbers of participants in each situation are aggregated on an annual basis at the level of investment priority to produce the indicator values that should be reported in each AIR.

Additionally, for representative samples of participants, a further set of observations describing their labour market and educational situation six months after leaving has to be…

For monitoring purposes there is no flexibility as regards the completeness requirement. In order for a participant to be counted, information should be complete for all non-sensitive personal variables: gender, employment status, age, level of education and household situation.

The only variables that can be incomplete are those dealing with special categories of personal data (i.e. sensitive data) that are required for indicators marked with “**” in Annex I of the ESF Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013) (i.e. those related to migrants, participants with a foreign background, minorities, participants with disabilities, and other disadvantaged). For these variables, if the participant refuses to provide the information then it can be left empty but the managing authority should maintain documentary evidence that they have attempted to collect the information (see section 5.6 in Annex D of the EC Guidance document).

No. The common definitions are in place in order to ensure consistency in the data provided by all Member States. The DEGURBA (DEGree of URBAnisation) classification should therefore be used for the indicator on participants “from rural areas”.
The monitoring system needs to collect information on the place of residence of the participant. This should then be matched with the LAU2 codes used in the DEGURBA dataset published by Eurostat to determine if the participant is living in a rural area.
The DEGURBA classification establishes three categories of area:

• (Code 1) Densely populated area (cities or large urban area)
• (Code 2) Intermediate density area (towns and suburbs or small urban area)
• (Code 3) Thinly populated area (rural areas).

The common output indicator “from rural areas” should record participants residing in areas classified in the Eurostat DEGURBA data as 3 –Thinly populated area.
You can find information about the DEGURBA classification at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/miscellaneous/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_DEGURBA.

For common indicators, national definitions can only be used for the following four output indicators:

• migrants, participants with a foreign background, minorities (including marginalised communities such as the Roma),
• participants with disabilities,
• homeless or affected by housing exclusion,
• other disadvantaged.

For all other indicators, the definitions in Annex C1 of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation are to be applied.

The definition of the indicator on “number of supported micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (including cooperative enterprises, enterprises of the social economy)” includes a general definition of an enterprise "An enterprise is considered to be any entity engaged in an economic activity, irrespective of its legal form". The common indicator therefore covers all SMEs that benefit from direct support irrespective of their legal form and no breakdown is required. If a Member State wishes to establish a programme-specific indicator that distinguishes enterprises of particular legal forms, such as cooperatives, then a definition based on the relevant national legislation should be used.

The common output and result indicators for ESF investments and the result indicators for the YEI are listed in Annex I and Annex II respectively of the ESF Regulation (1304/2013). Definitions for these indicators are then given in Annexes C1 and C2 of the EC Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation.

Operations should be defined in a way that they contribute to the objectives of the operational programme and, in particular, to the specific objectives of the investment priority (IP) under which the operation is implemented. Indicator monitoring data should be in line with the specific objectives of the IP and should be able to capture the achievement of results. The  target groups and the type of intervention/action should be taken into consideration for defining operations. If too many projects are combined in a single operation, it might be difficult to capture the changes in the participant’s situation as a result of support. If operations are designed so they consist in small projects/activities, implementation might become too complex and "results" might become irrelevant.

In addition, the administrative burden and the reporting complexity should also be considered. If the design of an action results in many small operations, the administrative burden of reporting will be substantially increased (see next section). On the other hand, one single operation comprising many projects will have to be reported only by one beneficiary. This might end up being too complex and difficult to break down for the audit trail.

When an object is returned by the Commission in SFC2014 it will display as 'Current node' -> 'European Commission'. This is because the version that has been returned is no longer editable by the Member state and they must create a new version of the object in order to edit the information.

The Sending of information by a Member State to the Commission should be electronically signed in accordance with Directive 1999/93/EC.

Sending of the different objects is generating a snapshot document and after the sending an acknowledge
document is generated by the European Commission.

This acknowledge document is signed but the Member State was not signing the snapshot document. The EU Login now provides a functionality of signing without forcing the user to have a certificate. The action to sign will only be triggered when sending to the European Commission:

(1) Enter your SFC2014 Password

(2) Click on the 'Sign' button

The Signature is…

• When data is sent to the Commission, the sender receives an automatic notification from SFC2014
• On the search screen list of Programmes, Payment Applications etc, and in the 'General' section of the object under 'version information', check that the "current node" column is "Commission" and the "status" is "sent".
• In each object (excluding Standalone/referring documents) a snapshot document is added to the 'associated documents' section of the object.
• For single documents, check that the "sent date" is not empty.

- The Object has been sent to the Commission already which means you cannot delete it anymore.

- The Object has not been sent to the Commission yet but it contains a document of type 'Other MS document' which has already been sent to the Commission. In this case you cannot delete the Object anymore.

SFC2014 enforces the "four-eyes" principle, which means that the user who last validated the Object cannot submit it. Two different users are required; one to validate and another to send.

According to Article 3(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 184/2014, “any transmission of information to the Commission shall be verified and submitted by a person other than the person who entered the data for that transmission. This separation of tasks shall be supported by SFC2014 or by Member State’s management and control information systems connected automatically with SFC2014.”

The text boxes provided in SFC2014 follow the official templates. The limits are defined by the Commission implementing act and cannot be extended.

You can provide additional information in other documents which may help the Commission in its assessment of the programme by adding an 'Other Member State document' type in the document section. However, according to article 2(2) of Commission implementing regulation 184/2014 you cannot make references to this in the programme and the additional information will not form part of the programme covered by the Commission decision.

Article 2

Content of electronic data exchange system

1. The electronic data exchange system (hereinafter referred to as ‘SFC2014’) shall contain at least information specified in the models, formats and templates established in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013, Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 3 ) and the future Union legal act establishing the conditions for the financial support for maritime and fisheries policy for the programming period 2014-2020 (the ‘EMFF Regulation’).

2. The information provided in the electronic forms embedded in SFC2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘structured data’) may not be replaced by non-structured data, including the use of hyperlinks or other types of non-structured data such as attachment of documents or images. Where a Member State transmits the same information in the form of structured data and non-structured data, the structured data shall be used in case of inconsistencies.

If you want to have a list like this in the free text editor:

1.    aaaa

2.    bbb

3.    ccc

o    ccc.111

o    ccc.222

4.    ddd

5.    eee

6.    fff

You have to follow these steps:

First start with the list without formatting:

aaaa

aaaa.1111

bbbb

Then you mark and number all of them (false) :

1.    aaaa

2.    aaaa.1111

3.    bbbb

Then you indent the one(s) in the middle ( false) :

1.    aaaa

1.    aaaa.1111

2.    bbbb

Then you change numbering to bullets (false) :

1.    aaaa

o    aaaa.1111

2.    bbbb

The alternative is to edit first in a Word document and copy/paste from there.

The size limit per file is 500MB.

There is no limit on the number of files or the total size of all files in an object.

The following file extensions are allowed:

“.7z”, “.bmp”, “.csv”, “.docx”, “.jpeg”, “.jpg”, “.msg”, “.ods”, “.odt”, “.odp”, “.odg”, “.odc”, “.odf”, “.odi”, “.odm”, “.ott”, “.ots”, “.otp”, “.otg”, “.pdf”, “.png”, “.pptx”, “.rar”, “.rtf”, “.tif”, “.tiff”, “.txt”, “.xlsb”, “.xlsx”, “.zip”, “.gif”, “.eml”

The content of a programme can be seen by an EC user even before it is submitted to the Commission. This is to help the Member States during the amendments process.

Documents can only be consulted when they are sent. This is because documents do not have a full workflow as is the case for the structured data and their content is unknown and could contain sensible data which the Member State doesn't want the Commission to know before it is officially submitted.

Therefore, the "Other MS document" type and the "Informal Commission's Observations" document type were foreseen, so that the Member States could send whatever they want to send during the amendment process on an informal basis and the Commission could send them their observations already before the official submission.

Unfortunately this is a problem in the Microsoft Edge browser, not in SFC2014.

The browser doesn't recognize it's a .pdf file. As a workaround you should save the file and give it the name and extension as indicated on the screen, then you will be able to open it in your downloads folder.

The acknowledgement of receipt is signed with an electronic certificate guaranteeing the date and time of the signature as well as the integrity of this document. The certificate used to sign this document is held by the European Commission and can be verified by the corresponding public key.

The first step to validate the signature is to install the certificate in Acrobat.

(This step is only necessary once per machine)

• First download the SFC certificate file named CertExchangeSFCRootCA.FDF.
• Decompress the zip file and store the certificate on your computer.
• Open Acrobat.
• Go to File > Open and select the certificate from your computer.
• A pop up will be displayed. Click "Set Contact Trust…":

• On the next screen specify that this is a trusted root certificate by checking the option "Use this certificate as a trusted root" and click OK.

• A confirmation message will confirm the import. Click OK and close Acrobat.

Once a document has been sent (there is a date visible in the 'sent date' column) it cannot be deleted.

However, if you are the sender of the document you may choose to 'hide' a sent document so that it is no longer visible within your programme by following the steps below:

1. In the Documents section of your OP (1) select the document from the list (2) and click the Edit button (3):

2. In the Document Details pop-up select the document you wish to hide (1)…

If a Commission user cannot see the other documents you uploaded, this is because these are type 'Other Member State Document' and are sent independently (as you can see below there is no 'sent date') of the Object (PA, OP, RDP IR etc.).

The following steps should be taken for each document in order for them to be sent to the EC:

Select the document to be sent (1) and click on the edit button (2):

Click on the Update &Send link to send the document to the EC: