1501 Results
Filter
Skip to the results
Back
Clear All

Sort

Sort by Recently Added

Filter

Categories

View Types

Tags

Show All...

2014 / 2020
Chart
This dataset provides information on expected achievements (targets) set for selected common indicators defined for the each of the specific ESI funds and the decided (forecasts from selected projects) and implemented values.
The reference date for the annual reporting of progress by the programmes achievements is the end of each calendar year.
This dataset was extracted on **12 December 2017** and contains:
- Time series of the cumulative amounts reported annually for decided and implemented values (i.e. 2016 values include the 2015 values);
- To avoid double counting, the cumulative values from different years **should NOT be aggregated**;
- Allows comparison of the targets year on year (targets change with reallocation of financial resources);
- Allows comparison of decided (forecast) and implemented values with the targets set (allowing users to calculate the % rate of progress);
- For ESF / YEI only the implemented values are reported (no decided (forecast) values) and targets were not obligatory in each case.
For more information on the common indicator definitions used by each fund please go to the "Related Information" sections at the bottom of the fund specific pages.
Tags No tags assigned
Created
October 25 2019
Views
72

2014 / 2020
Chart
This dataset provides information on expected achievements (targets) set for selected common indicators defined for the each of the specific ESI funds and the decided (forecasts from selected projects) and implemented values.
The reference date for the annual reporting of progress by the programmes achievements is the end of each calendar year.
This dataset was extracted on **12 December 2017** and contains:
- Time series of the cumulative amounts reported annually for decided and implemented values (i.e. 2016 values include the 2015 values);
- To avoid double counting, the cumulative values from different years **should NOT be aggregated**;
- Allows comparison of the targets year on year (targets change with reallocation of financial resources);
- Allows comparison of decided (forecast) and implemented values with the targets set (allowing users to calculate the % rate of progress);
- For ESF / YEI only the implemented values are reported (no decided (forecast) values) and targets were not obligatory in each case.
For more information on the common indicator definitions used by each fund please go to the "Related Information" sections at the bottom of the fund specific pages.
Tags No tags assigned
Created
October 25 2019
Views
121

2014 / 2020
Chart
This file contains categorisation data from the ERDF/ESF/Cohesion Fund programmes and in particular it compares **PLANNED AMOUNTS TO IMPLEMENTED INVESTMENTS**.
The data will be updated regularly to reflect updated information transmitted.
*NEW* CLIMATE AND BIODIVERSITY TRACKING: In December 2018 the calculation of amounts planned, decided and spend on categorisation codes (weighted 100% and 40%) for climate tracking and biodiversity tracking were added to the dataset to allow full transparency on how investment under these tracking systems are progressing. Specially designed charts providing visualisations on these tracking systems are linked to the dataset below.
*NEW* OPERATIONS (projects) SELECTED: Also in December 2018 the number of operations (projects) linked to each categorisation value reported by priority axis is reflected in the dataset. In many cases programmes provide detailed categorisation information, reporting more than one intervention field code for a specific operation. While leading to more detailed thematic information it leads to multiple reporting of some operations.
TIMING AND FREQUENCY: The categorisation system implementation values are reported once a year by the 350+ programmes at end January. It is then published in this dataset towards the end of February. Thereafter the data is updated regularly to reflect the updated information transmitted by the programmes.
This dataset currently contains data to end-2016 and end- 2017. As the data is cumulative the **ANNUAL VALUES SHOULD NOT BE AGGREGATED *** but may be compared to see progress.
STRUCTURE OF DATASET: The planned data is provided in tables one for each priority axis (investment pillar) of each programme. The categorisation systems is defined in Implementing Regulation 215/2014 with 8 dimensions in total - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0215.
These dimension represent different ways of categorising the nature of the EU support (i.e. the intervention (activity) field, the form of finance, the territorial context, etc.).
In the programme documents only four4 dimensions were encoded for ERDF/ Cohesion Fund while five5 dimensions were encoded for ESF and can be found in the dataset. Data on three3 other dimensions is only provided in the implementation reports - Location, Economic Dimension, ERDF/CF Thematic Objective - and therefore there is no planned amount to compare.
In analysing the content of the dataset **THE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE ANALYSED SEPARATELY AS OTHERWISE DOUBLE COUNTING OF FINANCIAL AMOUNTS WILL OCCUR**.
This information note provides more detail on the categorisation system 2014-2020: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_categorisation_climate_en.pdf
ANALYSING THEMATIC CONTENT AND PROGRESS: A second dataset found here - https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/EU-Level/ESIF-2014-2020-Categorisation-Crosscutting-Themes-/xns4-t7ym - provides a lookup table for understanding how the Commission uses the intervention field codes to look at cross cutting issues such as investments in "innovation", "enterprise support", etc. That "lookup" dataset also has the "climate change tracking" and "biodiversity tracking" weightings.
Tags No tags assigned
Created
October 22 2019
Views
66

Other
Chart
This report is part of a series of studies that examines Europeans' awareness of and attitudes towards EU Regional Policy. It is based on 4 previous surveys (2017, 2015, 2013, 2010).
Tags No tags assigned
Created
October 22 2019
Views
131

Other
Chart
This report is part of a series of studies that examines Europeans' awareness of and attitudes towards EU Regional Policy.
Respondents were asked about the domains that should be targeted for investment They were asked whether they think each of 11 domains are more or less important for their city or region . All but one of the domains are mentioned among the more important for their city or region by at least a relative majority of respondents.
More than nine in ten respondents (91%) consider education, health or social infrastructures one of the more important domains for investment for their city or region, followed by the environment (90%) and renewable and clean energy (87%). At least eight in ten respondents also mention support for small and medium-sized businesses (81%) and research and innovation (80%) are more important.
Smaller majorities mention the other investment domains. At least three quarters of respondents say investment in vocational training (78%) and transport facilities (75%) are the more important, while over six in ten identify energy networks (63%) and just under six in ten say tourism and culture (57%).
Finally, just over half the respondents say that broadband Internet access (51%) is one of the more important domains for investment for their city or region, while just under half say the same about investment in the reception and integration of migrants and refugees (48%).
Tags No tags assigned
Created
October 22 2019
Views
92

Other
Chart
This report is part of a series of studies that examines Europeans' awareness of and attitudes towards EU Regional Policy. It is based on 4 previous surveys (2017, 2015, 2013, 2010).
Tags No tags assigned
Created
October 22 2019
Views
111

Other
Story
This Eurobarometer is part of a series of studies that examines Europeans’ awareness of and attitudes towards EU Regional Policy.
Tags eurobarometer awareness perceptions eu regional policy
Created
October 21 2019
Views
6,667

Other: Eurobarometer
Dataset
This report is part of a series of studies that examines Europeans' awareness of and attitudes towards EU Regional Policy.
Respondents were asked about the domains that should be targeted for investment They were asked whether they think each of 11 domains are more or less important for their city or region . All but one of the domains are mentioned among the more important for their city or region by at least a relative majority of respondents.
More than nine in ten respondents (91%) consider education, health or social infrastructures one of the more important domains for investment for their city or region, followed by the environment (90%) and renewable and clean energy (87%). At least eight in ten respondents also mention support for small and medium-sized businesses (81%) and research and innovation (80%) are more important.
Smaller majorities mention the other investment domains. At least three quarters of respondents say investment in vocational training (78%) and transport facilities (75%) are the more important, while over six in ten identify energy networks (63%) and just under six in ten say tourism and culture (57%).
Finally, just over half the respondents say that broadband Internet access (51%) is one of the more important domains for investment for their city or region, while just under half say the same about investment in the reception and integration of migrants and refugees (48%).
Tags eurobarometer priorities eu regional policy
API Docs
Created
October 21 2019
Views
372

2014 / 2020
Chart
This file contains categorisation data from the ERDF/ESF/Cohesion Fund programmes and in particular it compares **PLANNED AMOUNTS TO IMPLEMENTED INVESTMENTS**.
The data will be updated regularly to reflect updated information transmitted.
*NEW* CLIMATE AND BIODIVERSITY TRACKING: In December 2018 the calculation of amounts planned, decided and spend on categorisation codes (weighted 100% and 40%) for climate tracking and biodiversity tracking were added to the dataset to allow full transparency on how investment under these tracking systems are progressing. Specially designed charts providing visualisations on these tracking systems are linked to the dataset below.
*NEW* OPERATIONS (projects) SELECTED: Also in December 2018 the number of operations (projects) linked to each categorisation value reported by priority axis is reflected in the dataset. In many cases programmes provide detailed categorisation information, reporting more than one intervention field code for a specific operation. While leading to more detailed thematic information it leads to multiple reporting of some operations.
TIMING AND FREQUENCY: The categorisation system implementation values are reported once a year by the 350+ programmes at end January. It is then published in this dataset towards the end of February. Thereafter the data is updated regularly to reflect the updated information transmitted by the programmes.
This dataset currently contains data to end-2016 and end- 2017. As the data is cumulative the **ANNUAL VALUES SHOULD NOT BE AGGREGATED *** but may be compared to see progress.
STRUCTURE OF DATASET: The planned data is provided in tables one for each priority axis (investment pillar) of each programme. The categorisation systems is defined in Implementing Regulation 215/2014 with 8 dimensions in total - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0215.
These dimension represent different ways of categorising the nature of the EU support (i.e. the intervention (activity) field, the form of finance, the territorial context, etc.).
In the programme documents only four4 dimensions were encoded for ERDF/ Cohesion Fund while five5 dimensions were encoded for ESF and can be found in the dataset. Data on three3 other dimensions is only provided in the implementation reports - Location, Economic Dimension, ERDF/CF Thematic Objective - and therefore there is no planned amount to compare.
In analysing the content of the dataset **THE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE ANALYSED SEPARATELY AS OTHERWISE DOUBLE COUNTING OF FINANCIAL AMOUNTS WILL OCCUR**.
This information note provides more detail on the categorisation system 2014-2020: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_categorisation_climate_en.pdf
ANALYSING THEMATIC CONTENT AND PROGRESS: A second dataset found here - https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/EU-Level/ESIF-2014-2020-Categorisation-Crosscutting-Themes-/xns4-t7ym - provides a lookup table for understanding how the Commission uses the intervention field codes to look at cross cutting issues such as investments in "innovation", "enterprise support", etc. That "lookup" dataset also has the "climate change tracking" and "biodiversity tracking" weightings.
Tags No tags assigned
Created
October 20 2019
Views
101

Other
Chart
This report is part of a series of studies that examines Europeans' awareness of and attitudes towards EU Regional Policy. It is based on 4 previous surveys (2017, 2015, 2013, 2010).
Tags No tags assigned
Created
October 17 2019
Views
104