This chapter proposes a practical beneficiary capacity-building framework for managing authorities. The framework covers four pillars: 1) people and organisation for beneficiary capacity building 2) beneficiary capacity needs analysis; 3) technical support and communication; and 4) engagement with other actors to build beneficiary capacity. Managing authorities have been supporting beneficiaries in various ways, but face several challenges across these four pillars. The chapter proposes concrete ways to help managing authorities make beneficiary capacity building more strategic and effective.
Building Beneficiary Capacity under EU Cohesion Policy
A Framework for Action for Managing Authorities
Abstract
Managing authorities across the European Union (EU) employ a range of tools to support beneficiaries – from help desks and comprehensive manuals to introductory seminars, tutorial videos and one-on-one consultations or coaching. While there is no single definition of beneficiary capacity building, helping beneficiaries build their capacity to invest Cohesion Policy funds efficiently is a crucial function of managing authorities. However, the approach to beneficiary capacity building will vary from one managing authority to another. Often, the support it provides, while appreciated by beneficiaries, is not systematically planned or delivered. Rather, it is frequently viewed more as a necessary step in programme implementation than as a focused effort to improve programme – or investment – outcomes in the medium and long term.
Managing authorities guide beneficiaries through the complex administrative and procedural requirements of Cohesion Policy programmes. Indeed, nearly half of the respondents to the European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys (Chapter 1) reported relying solely on managing authorities for help and direction. The assistance offered by managing authorities becomes even more vital for organisations without access to alternative resources, such as enterprise support agencies or associations, associations or networks of municipalities, expert advisors and consultants. Yet managing authorities cannot be expected to solve every capacity issue facing beneficiaries – nor should they do so in isolation, as supporting beneficiaries effectively requires contributions from a broader institutional ecosystem. While managing authorities cannot hold the beneficiaries' hands through every step of the project cycle, they are well-placed to provide the necessary tools and guidance that empower beneficiaries to build their own capacities. They can also engage with other actors to support beneficiaries jointly. Ideally, the relationship between managing authorities and beneficiaries – and potentially other stakeholders – grows into a partnership, a collaborative process where they learn from and adapt to each other.
Constructing this partnership is far from easy, and managing authorities themselves need support to succeed. They often grapple with the same challenges as beneficiaries, such as frequent changes in rules and regulations. A managing authority must first manage these changes internally before effectively guiding others. Furthermore, the range of capacities and needs among beneficiaries within a single programme can vary widely. Providing support mechanisms to meet these diverse needs requires significant flexibility, and can be resource- and time-intensive. It also requires managing authorities to build institutional intelligence – the ability to map beneficiary profiles from the start of a programme, assess evolving needs and target support accordingly.
Drawing directly from the lessons of the pilot project (Box 1.1 in Chapter 1), this chapter presents a beneficiary capacity-building framework for managing authorities. Following this framework, the rest of the chapter explores specific challenges encountered by the pilot managing authorities when identifying concrete, practicable actions to address these difficulties. Complementing the report, the Managing Authority Toolkit for Beneficiary Capacity Building under EU Cohesion Policy 1 (OECD, 2025[1]) offers more detailed steps and ideas to help managing authorities develop concrete actions in this regard.
The pilot project revealed four areas of attention representing the pillars of the beneficiary capacity-building framework for managing authorities (Table 3.1). The framework intends to support managing authorities throughout the European Union – and beyond – in assessing their beneficiary capacity-building approaches. It also aims to offer inspiration on how to transition from a reactive, ad hoc approach to beneficiary capacity building to a proactive and partnership-based approach. The framework captures the characteristics of beneficiary capacity-building approaches as practised by the pilot managing authorities. It illustrates a strategic and proactive scenario managing authorities could adopt to enhance beneficiary capacity building. Recognising that EU Cohesion Policy may undergo transformative changes in the coming years, this framework is grounded in core principles of beneficiary capacity building and remains flexible and adaptable regardless of future contexts. The framework covers four pillars:
1. People and organisation for beneficiary capacity building: this pillar focuses on the managing authority’s readiness to support beneficiaries. It involves developing the skills and abilities of its staff dedicated to beneficiary capacity building, and optimising the managing authority's internal organisation (or with its immediate operational structure, such as with intermediate bodies) to ensure effective delivery of beneficiary capacity-building measures.
2. Beneficiary capacity needs analysis: this pillar is about the managing authority's process for identifying and understanding beneficiary capacity needs. It involves actively gathering information and feedback from beneficiaries, conducting thorough analysis of their capacity gaps, and generating useful insights to design tailored support measures and programme approaches.
3. Technical support and communication with beneficiaries: this pillar covers the specific tools and channels used by the managing authority to guide and communicate with beneficiaries. It involves developing and making available user-friendly tools, and establishing clear, reliable communication methods to help beneficiaries navigate the process of accessing EU funds and manage their projects from start to finish.
4. Engagement with external actors to build beneficiary capacity: this pillar highlights the managing authority's role in working with entities outside the management and control system2. It involves building partnerships and engaging with external organisations to leverage their expertise, resources and networks, extending and enriching the support available to beneficiaries.
Many managing authorities are likely situated in the middle of the spectrum, reflecting the ongoing and iterative nature of beneficiary capacity building. Managing authorities are encouraged to use this framework as a guide to help shape their beneficiary capacity-building approach and use the Managing Authority Toolkit for Beneficiary Capacity Building under EU Cohesion Policy (OECD, 2025[1]) to develop a detailed implementation plan.
The following sections explore these pillars in two parts. The first part outlines current practices and challenges observed among the pilot managing authorities, along with key recommendations; the second offers concrete action ideas, drawn from the pilot project and other research, which managing authorities can adopt to put the recommendations into practice.
Successful beneficiary capacity building starts with a skilled and motivated workforce within the managing authority – and sometimes also within intermediate bodies. This workforce must possess a good mix of competencies, including technical knowledge and sector-specific expertise, as well as the skills to communicate and work with beneficiaries. The development of workforce capability is shaped by managing authorities’ organisational structures, processes and procedures. In particular, flexible and efficient internal processes enable managing authorities to adapt to beneficiaries’ emerging needs and operate effectively.
Key organisational processes, such as strategy-setting, co-ordination decision-making and reporting, shape the effectiveness of managing authorities and intermediate bodies in supporting beneficiaries. When these processes are overly bureaucratic or legalistic, they can slow down decision-making and hinder innovation in the ways in which managing authorities and intermediate bodies offer support. Conversely, weak oversight of workforce development or poorly co-ordinated capacity-building mechanisms can reduce the overall impact of beneficiary capacity building, as well as managing authorities’ relationships with beneficiaries. This is why aligning organisational structures with workforce development is essential for effective beneficiary capacity building.
Achieving this alignment is not straightforward, however. Many managing authorities operate within the constraints of public-sector rules which dictate such aspects as headcount limits, pay bands, organisational structures and recruitment procedures, as well as Cohesion Policy regulations. These limitations often influence how managing authorities function – and, by extension, the level of support they can provide to beneficiaries. Ultimately, there exists a direct link between the capability of managing authorities – both in terms of their workforce and internal structures – and their ability to carry out effectively their beneficiary support responsibilities.
While managing authorities are expected to support beneficiaries, it up to the individual managing authorities to define the scope and nature of this support. As a result, ensuring effective beneficiary capacity building depends on two factors: first, managing authorities must strengthen their own internal capacity by improving workforce development; second, managing authorities need a clear vision of beneficiary capacity-building support, as well as a range of tools and approaches to provide it.
Existing practices and challenges: Ad hoc and fragmented organisation of beneficiary support activities
All six pilot managing authorities identified several recurring challenges relating to workforce development and organisational structures. Recurring themes related to how managing authorities support beneficiaries included unclear role definitions for beneficiary support, fragmented knowledge management, inconsistent information dissemination, workforce capacity gaps, a lack of dedicated training and resource constraints.
Most managing authorities set up beneficiary support mechanisms, but these are mostly reactive and lack strategic clarity
Since the 2014-20 programming period, the responsibilities of managing authorities towards beneficiaries have been made explicit in European Commission regulations (Chapter 2). Most pilot managing authorities have set up a dedicated communication or support unit related to beneficiary capacity building for the 2021-27 programming period. For example, the Managing Authority of Programme Sustentável 2030 in Portugal has a legal support unit that provides formal and legal replies to beneficiaries when they face financial penalties. The Managing Authority of Corsica ERDF-ESF+ Regional Programme in France, for its part, has created a Projects Engineering and Legal Support Department. Communication units and help desks are also common practices among pilot managing authorities.
However, a recurring challenge in the implementation of EU Cohesion Policy is the tendency of managing authorities to provide support to beneficiaries on a reactive or ad hoc basis. While this flexibility can be helpful in addressing urgent challenges, it can result in uneven access to the guidance provided by the managing authorities, and inconsistent levels of assistance across beneficiaries and programmes. The result is that beneficiaries with less administrative capacity or experience with navigating EU funding frameworks may struggle to comply with complex requirements.
This reactive – as opposed to proactive – mode of engagement often stems from a broader lack of clarity within managing authorities’ governance structures: when it comes to supporting beneficiaries, who should do what – and how – is often not made explicit. Managing authorities do not always clearly define the type, timing and delivery method of assistance to beneficiaries across the programme lifecycle, from project design to implementation and reporting. Experience from the six pilot managing authorities suggests that without this type of framework, interventions to support beneficiaries are driven more by short-term pressures (e.g. answering technical questions from beneficiaries) than long-term goals (e.g. helping beneficiaries become more autonomous), reducing the overall effectiveness and efficiency of beneficiary support. This can lead to a duplication of efforts, fragmented initiatives and missed opportunities for sustained capacity building, particularly in less-developed regions or among smaller beneficiary organisations.
Another recurring issue is the limited administrative capacity within many managing authorities (OECD, 2020[2]). Staff shortages, high turnover, time constraints and inadequate resourcing frequently leave them under pressure, particularly during periods of intense programme activity such as calls for proposals, project evaluations or closure phases. Many managing authorities find themselves in reactive mode, essentially “firefighting” to mobilise the necessary internal resources to support beneficiaries. Although a certain degree of reactiveness is understandable, a default reactive mode makes it difficult to engage strategically with beneficiaries or promote innovation in project design and delivery. These capacity constraints are especially evident when managing authorities are expected to take on expanded responsibilities, such as reprogramming to support new and evolving cross-cutting priorities.
One pilot managing authority, for example, struggles to recruit enough qualified staff (an issue also experienced by the broader public sector in that country), affecting the effectiveness of beneficiary support. The action plan developed by this managing authority calls for a more structured approach to addressing skill gaps, enhancing recruitment and internal mobility, and nurturing an attractive working environment. A competitive employer value proposition could help attract and retain skilled professionals, ensuring long-term organisational sustainability. Another managing authority struggles to make its capacity-building model more explicit and strategic. Staff from that managing authority recognise a need to formalise a structured model for beneficiary engagement, introduce proactive diagnostics of capacity needs and redefine the managing authority’s role as an organisational coach. Such an approach would provide greater clarity and efficiency in programme implementation. Gathering and exchanging good practices among other managing authorities would also be useful.
It is necessary to clarify responsibilities for beneficiary capacity building within the managing authorities, and better co-ordinate with other actors in the management and control system
Effective beneficiary capacity building relies on the existence of clear governance structures within the managing authorities to guide beneficiary support, and well-defined roles for all staff and teams involved in programme implementation. As mentioned above, in practice, many managing authorities struggle with internal ambiguity and fragmented responsibilities in beneficiary support. For example staff within some managing authorities often operate within siloed units (e.g. programming, appraisal, communication), while other managing authorities have teams with overlapping or poorly articulated mandates for beneficiary capacity building. This can lead to inefficiencies and delays in decision-making. The lack of internal coherence can confuse beneficiaries, as they may receive contradictory advice or experience prolonged response times when attempting to navigate administrative processes.
This is why it is so important to develop effective co-ordination mechanisms within the managing authority and with other important actors that work with beneficiaries. For example, in Poland, the Managing Authority of Technical Assistance Programme for European Funds works with regional programme managing authorities to support local government beneficiaries. The Joint Secretariat/Managing Authority of the Danube Region Programme works with national contact points and first-level controllers across the countries involved. The Managing Authority of Corsica ERDF-ESF+ Regional Programme in France works with intermediate bodies (“services instructeurs”) to support beneficiary applications and appraise projects.
In practice, unclear divisions of responsibility and limited engagement between the managing authorities and other management and control system actors can create inefficiencies in beneficiary support. In addition, these intermediate actors’ roles and activities are not always sufficiently integrated into the managing authority’s consideration of beneficiary capacity-building: communication between the managing authority and intermediate actors regarding beneficiary capacity building may lack regularity or one-way, or the discussions and exchanges may be insufficient. To overcome these challenges, improved co-ordination between internal staff and external actors, along with investment in upskilling and targeted recruitment to strengthen internal capacity, would be valuable.
Transnational programmes that involve intermediate actors also face co-ordination challenges when working across different countries. These actors, operating under different national mandates and structures, can provide inconsistent information, leading to confusion among beneficiaries. The absence of a unified approach reduces the effectiveness of programme implementation and limits the potential benefits of collaboration. Achieving greater standardisation in information sharing and role clarification across the network of intermediate actors is essential.
Expertise exists, but it is dispersed across managing authority teams without clear knowledge-sharing mechanisms
Managing authorities sometimes find it difficult to support beneficiaries on new thematic priorities or principles, like the New European Bauhaus or “do no significant harm”, because they themselves lack the thematic expertise. A common frustration among the pilot managing authorities was the need to support beneficiaries in new thematic areas, even though their staff themselves were learning “on the go”. As managing authorities broaden their role, it will be essential to establish systems that integrate the right expertise into the organisation, supporting effective delivery across all areas. This is particularly important as managing authorities adjust their programme priorities in response to the European Commission’s 2025 mid-term review (European Commission, 2025[3]). Given the new set of priorities proposed by the European Commission, some managing authorities may take on new investment priorities for which they may not necessarily have sufficient expertise. In such cases, a learning-needs assessment can help identify knowledge gaps and ensure that funding for capacity-building initiatives is appropriately allocated to areas that will have real impact. Furthermore, improving dialogue between beneficiaries and the managing authority can help ensure that training programmes evolve in line with changing needs, and that training content and messaging remain closely aligned to evolving project realities.
A second challenge is that thematic and specialised knowledge within the managing authority is not always centralised or systematically co-ordinated: knowledge tends to reside within individual units or specific staff members, often informally and without documentation. Consolidating and structuring knowledge can be especially challenging for large managing authorities with several units and teams. There were cases in the pilot project where knowledge and expertise were dispersed across different programme areas, without a clear mechanism for knowledge sharing. This fragmentation impedes organisational learning and limits the managing authority’s ability to enhance beneficiary support systematically. A more structured approach to knowledge management, including by establishing designated centres of expertise and communities of practice, would help resolve this issue.
What can be done to achieve structured and strategic people and organisation management for beneficiary support?
Managing authorities of EU Cohesion Policy funding should adopt a proactive, structured approach to beneficiary support, underpinned by a clear strategic framework that anticipates beneficiary needs and aligns with long-term capacity-building objectives. This involves establishing clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and promoting effective co-ordination and collaboration among internal teams and external stakeholders. To ensure continuity and institutional learning, managing authorities should also implement centralised, well-organised knowledge-management systems that enable seamless information sharing across all levels.
Proactive and structured beneficiary support with a clear strategic framework that anticipates needs and aligns with long-term capacity-building goals
Effective beneficiary support requires more than ad hoc troubleshooting: it needs to be embedded in a clear strategic framework that reflects the diversity of beneficiary needs and the complexity of programme implementation. A strong starting point is a systematic mapping of capacity gaps and recurring challenges among beneficiaries, managing authorities and intermediate bodies. This mapping can be informed by data from previous programming periods, stakeholder consultations and ongoing monitoring. It enables managing authorities to move from reactive problem solving to addressing root causes, such as difficulties with procurement procedures, state aid compliance or project reporting.
Although there is no one-size-fits-all model, support could be differentiated based on beneficiary profiles – such as municipalities, civil society organisations (CSOs), and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – and/or their level of experience with EU funding. Tailoring support packages allows managing authorities to offer more targeted interventions, such as consultations with specialist staff, guided access to technical tools or mentoring for newer beneficiaries (see Pillar 3 below for more analysis on tailoring beneficiary support). Criteria for access could also include a “readiness” assessment, where more intensive support from the managing authority is contingent on beneficiaries completing preparatory steps. Such an assessment should be light – comprising, for example, e-learning courses to ensure a common baseline before providing more intensive support – rather than creating another layer of administrative burden. This could ensure that resources are used efficiently and that beneficiaries are empowered through a clear progression model.
A comprehensive offer of support might include standardised guidance materials, thematic workshops, peer-learning opportunities and digital help desks – all designed to provide continuous, adaptive support throughout the project lifecycle. Structured feedback mechanisms, such as surveys or online user groups, can help align expectations, improve communication and ensure that support remains responsive to evolving needs. By embedding this kind of proactive and inclusive support model within a broader strategy, managing authorities can enhance project quality, reduce administrative errors and promote a more equitable distribution of funding across beneficiary types.
Proactive beneficiary support also includes building in time to reflect on future workforce needs within the managing authority to allow it to offer consistent and tailored support. Many managing authorities face persistent challenges in mobilising resources – especially time – for beneficiary capacity building. Workforce planning and workforce capacity development can ensure that enough staff are available, endowed with the right skills and capabilities to meet the demand for a sustained capacity-building programme. This includes conducting regular capacity assessments of the managing authority’s workforce, forecasting future workload demands and ensuring that human resources are aligned with programme priorities. Investing in stable staffing structures, ongoing training and career development can help build a more resilient managing authority workforce.
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities, supported by strong co-ordination and collaboration mechanisms within the management and control system
Effective co-ordination of a wide range of actors within managing authorities and across the broader monitoring and control system underpins effective beneficiary support. However, unclear roles, fragmented responsibilities and siloed ways of working can affect the consistency and timeliness of the guidance provided to beneficiaries. This can lead to confusion, duplicated efforts and inconsistent interpretations of rules, ultimately making it harder for beneficiaries to navigate the system.
To address this issue, managing authorities can invest in strengthening both internal organisation and external collaboration. This begins with clarifying roles and workflows within the managing authority itself, for example by reviewing organisational charts, defining clear areas of responsibility and mapping interdependencies across the teams that support beneficiaries. Many public administrations across the European Union and OECD have established cross-functional working groups to enhance co-ordination on horizontal themes or complex implementation areas. For example, Canada provides an online training course3 to help public service organisations assess their team's readiness for cross-functional collaboration (Government of Canada, 2022[4]) Capacity-building activities should also be designed to support this more integrated way of working. Beyond technical training, staff in managing authorities need help in building a shared understanding of expectations for beneficiary support, and how this contributes to beneficiary (and programme) success. Joint training sessions, co-designed guidance documents and regular co-ordination meetings can promote a culture of collaboration and build trust among participating actors. Such co-ordination and collaboration can also reduce fragmentation and ensure that both internal and external stakeholders deliver coherent, aligned support. By creating clear structures and nurturing relationships across the programme implementation cycle, managing authorities can strengthen their collective ability to guide beneficiaries effectively and consistently.
Centralised and well-organised knowledge management systems, promoting institutional learning and seamless information sharing across teams.
A common challenge for managing authorities is the fragmentation of knowledge across units, teams and individual staff. Expertise tends to accumulate informally and remain siloed, making it difficult to capitalise on past experiences or provide consistent guidance to beneficiaries. The absence of a structured approach to knowledge management within many managing authorities limits institutional memory, reduces efficiency, and increases the risk of conflicting interpretations of rules and procedures.
Accordingly, managing authorities should prioritise developing centralised, accessible knowledge management systems serving both internal staff and external partners. Because many beneficiaries often do not read the detailed but often dull manuals, the challenge is not necessarily to increase the volume of information but to improve its relevance, specificity and accessibility (see Pillar 3 below). This can take the form of digital repositories, shared guidance libraries, searchable questions and answers, or more dynamic and evolving platforms (e.g. internal wikis). Centralised knowledge management systems also require establishing clear processes for curating, updating and disseminating knowledge, ensuring that information remains relevant and user-friendly. Regular internal learning sessions, cross-team peer exchanges and communities of practice can further embed a culture of learning and co-operation. With structured knowledge sharing in place, managing authorities are better positioned to provide consistent, high-quality support, while also building a more adaptive and resilient organisation.
As mentioned above, workforce planning and capacity development (e.g. through regular assessment) can also help build a more resilient and knowledgeable workforce. In parallel, exploring partnerships with other institutions, regional networks or technical assistance providers can offer flexible yet co-ordinated ways to expand capacity without fragmenting operations. By addressing internal resource challenges proactively, managing authorities will be better positioned to manage complexity, support beneficiaries more effectively and deliver on the broader goals of Cohesion Policy.
A precise and comprehensive grasp of beneficiary capacity needs yields numerous benefits. It helps the managing authority organise its support services more strategically (supporting Pillar 1), and ensures that the managing authority's technical support and communication are accurately tailored to the specific knowledge gaps and preferred learning styles of its beneficiaries (supporting Pillar 3). Furthermore, identifying capacity gaps within beneficiary groups clarifies whether issues are programme- or country/region-specific, or pertinent to specific types of beneficiaries (e.g. local governments, SMEs, CSOs). This insight is crucial to determining who needs to be engaged in beneficiary capacity building (Pillar 4). Finally, understanding beneficiary needs, especially in the programme design stage, helps reduce mismatches between investment priorities and on-the-ground capacity. This can promote stronger programme design and more successful calls for proposals, contributing to the programme’s overall effectiveness.
While Chapter 2 discusses the enabling conditions for managing authorities to develop and integrate beneficiary capacity insights into programme design, Pillar 2 in this chapter zooms into practical obstacles and solutions to analysing beneficiary capacity needs, and applying the results to the design of beneficiary capacity-building activities.
Existing practices and challenges: Information is gathered but not analysed and used in a structured, comprehensive way
The six pilot managing authorities exchange with their beneficiaries daily but tend to understand beneficiary needs in an intuitive, ad hoc fashion. Systematic, regular, quantitative and qualitative analysis of beneficiary capacity needs is missing or limited. Dialogue with beneficiaries exists but is often not designed to understand their capacity needs or preferred form of support. Even when managing authorities identify beneficiaries’ capacity needs, there tends to be a strong focus on administrative compliance challenges, with limited or no focus on their strategic and technical needs (e.g. how to better design projects, strengthen partnerships and maximise project impact). Managing authorities also face extra difficulties in engaging with and understanding the needs of new beneficiaries, or those beyond the usual suspects.
Managing authorities understand beneficiary needs in a fragmented and informal fashion
Managing authorities usually gain insight into their beneficiaries' needs through routine interactions. Activities such as reviewing fund applications, addressing beneficiary inquiries and requesting reports naturally expose managing authorities to the everyday challenges facing beneficiaries. Consequently, when managing authorities develop beneficiary support measures, they are likely to rely on the fragments of information gathered by their staff through daily interaction with beneficiaries. Most pilot managing authorities do not, however, systematically consolidate, analyse or use this information as input to their beneficiary capacity-building efforts. This is particularly evident among managing authorities that work with a small or stable pool of recurring beneficiaries, where regular contact creates an impression that deeper analysis or structured feedback mechanisms are unnecessary. Periodical beneficiary capacity needs analyses or regular updates to the beneficiary database remain the exception rather than the norm.
This rather informal and reactive approach has three implications. First, capacity-building efforts frequently target the short term. Managing authorities and beneficiaries tend to focus on technical, in-the-moment problems and to seek immediate solutions, rather than address structural issues and develop potentially longer-term solutions. Concretely, this can be the difference between explaining a specific legal requirement to a beneficiary, versus helping beneficiaries access legal expertise to better understand and comply with legal requirements in project design or implementation. While offering immediate support is extremely important, it can be ephemeral – helping only one beneficiary at a specific point in time, without necessarily producing a long-term impact. This needs to be balanced with providing support that builds and embeds capacity within beneficiary organisations or among a group of beneficiaries. To do so, managing authorities need a comprehensive picture of their beneficiaries’ capacity needs. Identifying the mechanisms that managing authority staff can use to capture and utilise the information exchanged with beneficiaries – especially in daily conversations – is an important way to generate capacity-building initiatives with a longer-term impact. Currently, however, use of such mechanisms is limited.
Second, relying on ad hoc, fragmented information and informal beneficiary feedback risks creating selection bias in programme implementation. For example, if managing authorities tailor training to the questions they receive most frequently, they will naturally prioritise the needs of the most vocal beneficiaries and most-cited investment areas, while neglecting less assertive participants and less-mentioned topics. Over time, an uneven focus undermines comprehensive capacity building encompassing all beneficiary types.
Third, without systematic tracking of beneficiary profiles and their capacity needs, managing authorities cannot capture progress in building beneficiary capacity levels or determine whether new needs are arising. Such information helps managing authorities ensure beneficiary capacity-building measures are up-to-date and effective over time.
Even when managing authorities actively collect information on beneficiary capacity, for example through surveys or focus groups, analysing and using this information remains challenging. One major hurdle identified by pilot managing authorities is knowing how to analyse the information so that it can be used to target support – for example, deciding whether to develop manuals tailored to different beneficiary profiles (i.e. public vs. private sector; small vs. large; new vs. experienced) and determining how they can prioritise or sequence support for beneficiaries facing multiple challenges. Managing authorities need strong analytical and strategic planning skills to collect pertinent information on beneficiary capacity needs and make the most of the information to enhance the effectiveness of beneficiary capacity building.
When managing authorities assess beneficiary needs, they often focus on beneficiaries’ capacity for administrative compliance, at the expense of their strategic and technical capacity needs. These needs include improving project design and implementation (e.g. procuring available green technology in construction, building in expert review processes); identifying project partners; and capturing and disseminating project outcomes and impact (e.g. adopting new indicators and visualisation). In the pilot project, some of the managing authorities were aware of this gap. However, the operational pressures associated with managing the programme – from appraising projects to monitoring compliance – could crowd out deeper strategic discussions with beneficiaries. From the beneficiaries’ perspective, they may not realise that managing authorities can be a source of strategic and technical advice; rather, they may view them solely as fund administrators or control bodies.
Intermediate actors (e.g. intermediate bodies, consultants) sometimes play a role in reinforcing the compliance focus. In the pilot project, the beneficiaries of one programme considered the managing authority to be responsible only for programme-level decisions, and intermediate bodies to be the key actors in helping them apply for projects. Yet the intermediate bodies in this particular programme do not have the mandate or the incentive to help beneficiaries build strategic, long-term project design capacity. In such cases, it is particularly difficult for the managing authority to get close to beneficiaries and build a strategic partnership.
Creating a dedicated space for strategic dialogue and technical discussion – with beneficiaries and sometimes intermediate bodies – could help shift the perception that the managing authority is only there to control the disbursement and use of funds. Generating such a shift could strengthen the managing authority-beneficiary partnership.
Limited dialogue dedicated to understanding beneficiary capacity needs and exploring solutions
Speaking directly with beneficiaries is the most straightforward way to understand their needs. Many managing authorities convene workshops, webinars and meetings with beneficiaries. These events vary widely in terms of when they occur in the programme cycle, their frequency and format. For example, the Managing Authority of Emilia-Romagna ERDF Regional Programme in Italy and the Managing Authority of North-East Regional Programme in Romania organise “entrepreneurial discovery processes” and thematic table discussions for specific investment areas; the Joint Secretariat/Managing Authority of the Danube Regional Programme organises lead partner seminars and thematic webinars for each call; and the Managing Authority of Corsica ERDF-ESF+ Regional Programme in France organises an outreach activity, “L’Europe dans les territoires” (“Europe in the territories”), to share general information about the regional programme.
While those are very valuable, a dedicated space or time for beneficiaries to openly discuss areas or concepts with which they struggle, and identify ways to address these, would also be valuable. However, creating such a space is not yet a common practice among managing authorities. During the pilot project, beneficiaries welcomed the focus group meetings and workshops, which centred on their capacity needs and created a space to explore solutions in a dialogue with peers, the managing authority and other stakeholders (see the detailed project methodology in Annex A). Creating opportunities for open discussion on beneficiary capacity needs allows beneficiaries to feel heard, share their needs constructively and learn how to co-design capacity-building measures. OECD studies on regional development demonstrates that co-designed capacity-building or participatory mechanisms could help improve trust and accountability among stakeholders (OECD, 2024[5]). One example of such a dialogue comes from the Danish Business Authority – the Managing Authority of the Programme “Smart Green and Digital Transition of Enterprises” and Programme “Green technologies and skills”, and the secretariat for the Danish Board of Business Development – which supported an interview of 100 beneficiaries to understand their journey from application to implementation. The outcomes of the discussion were used to improve and optimise processes for beneficiaries of the EU structural funds (Danish Board of Business Development, 2025[6]).
For maximum effectiveness, managing authorities should consider designing a clear objective and agenda for these meetings or events (e.g. stating the expected outcomes from the discussions, what beneficiaries are expected to share, and what they can gain by participating); carefully facilitating the discussions (e.g. giving the floor to different beneficiaries to speak, ensuring participants feel comfortable sharing); and providing follow-up and feedback so that beneficiaries see the value of participating.
Discussions between the managing authority and beneficiaries often require technical expertise, for example regarding the project pipelines and investment needed to support social innovation; how a call is designed, and its selection criteria; and the primary procurement challenges and potential solutions. Yet managing authorities often struggle to reach and mobilise the “right” people in the beneficiary organisations. On the one hand, larger entities may have so many specialists that managing authorities cannot easily find the relevant experts. One pilot managing authority also felt that in large beneficiary organisations, different teams (e.g. engineering, project management, legal) do not communicate with each other, resulting in inconsistent information or feedback, and making communication difficult. On the other hand, new or small beneficiaries may lack staff who have insight into these requirements and can actively participate in the discussions. Without the “right” people around the table, managing authorities often feel the dialogue with beneficiaries is ineffective and does not help them understand where the real problems lie.
Identifying and engaging new beneficiaries and unfamiliar actors can be challenging for managing authorities
Managing authorities often find it more difficult to identify and engage organisations that have never participated in their programmes than to work with familiar partners. While established beneficiaries already know the process and may maintain ongoing relationships with managing authorities, the pool of potential newcomers is vast, undefined and often invisible. These organisations may also not be able to anticipate or articulate clearly their capacity gaps related to EU funds or programme implementation. Managing authorities may also find it harder to gauge their investment needs on the one hand, and their capacity needs on the other. However, if managing authorities do not invest in expanding their beneficiary pool, resources risk being limited to a small circle, not reaching the actors most in need.
When setting out to expand the beneficiary pool, the first difficulty for managing authorities is reaching new beneficiaries and engaging them in dialogue to understand their needs. First, many prospective applicants may not know that funding exists for their sector or region (Hansum, 2025[7]). Second, negative perceptions about EU funds and programmes – related to bureaucratic complexity and heavy compliance burdens – deter organisations from even considering applying. Third, scouting beneficiaries in new fields requires significant time and effort from a managing authority before a single application arrives. Co-financing capacity can be another factor, as some prospective beneficiaries may not be able to co-finance projects and therefore do not participate in the programme. Managing authorities need to develop dedicated outreach mechanisms (e.g. designing more newcomer-friendly communication materials, demystifying EU funding processes, developing special mechanisms to support co-financing for small entities) to address new beneficiaries’ specific problems.
Managing authorities that take on new investment areas (e.g. critical technologies in large enterprises) will likely face a learning curve to understand the sector or industry and identify experts, networks and relevant actors in the new domains, which also takes time and resources. When managing authorities re-programme (e.g. through mid-term reviews) or prepare for future programming periods (e.g. for eastern border regions that invest in security and defence), they need to anticipate potential changes in the beneficiary pool and their needs. Rapid stakeholder-mapping exercises identifying relevant sectors, professional networks and geographic clusters can be a starting point, followed by more in-depth analyses once managing authorities identify their target groups.
The second difficulty when assessing beneficiary needs is engaging unfamiliar actors. These actors are not necessarily new to the programme, but do not actively engage with the managing authorities and share their perspectives. This is a common issue in programmes with many beneficiaries, as it is more difficult for managing authorities to keep track and mobilise a large number of actors. Yet not gathering their perspectives risks shaping programmes or calls around the priorities of well-connected actors, limiting the ability or interest of others to participate. Estimates based on the results of the pilot project’s beneficiary surveys (Chapter 1) shows that newcomers, beneficiaries with small projects (below EUR 250 000) and non-public beneficiaries are less likely to report having been consulted by the managing authorities during the programme cycle (Figure 3.1 and Annex 1.A). These beneficiaries may lack the confidence, experience, knowledge or resources to engage in formal settings, and may therefore remain silent about their real challenges. They may sometimes simply be (unintentionally) overlooked by managing authorities. Top-down priorities that do not sufficiently account for the diverse needs and capacities of potential beneficiaries could also contribute to this engagement gap (OECD, 2020[2]). Securing active engagement with less-vocal beneficiaries may require dedicated outreach activities and resources from the managing authorities. Yet it is vital to ensure that the programme reaches and benefits those actors most in need, rather than focusing on the most visible and active.
% of surveyed beneficiaries reported being consulted by the managing authority at least at one stage during the programme cycle (programme design, call design, monitoring and evaluation, procedure design, etc.)
Note: National public (88), Subnational public (555), Non-public (415); Beneficiaries with large projects (109), Medium (138), Small (309); Beneficiaries with experience (760), newcomers (234).
Source: European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys.
What can be done to undertake a systematic and bottom-up beneficiary needs analysis?
Managing authorities should conduct more comprehensive, systematic and regular analysis of their beneficiaries to generate evidence they can use to plan and design beneficiary capacity-building measures. One way is to engage beneficiaries in a dedicated dialogue exposing their capacity needs and constraints, and to jointly explore solutions. For this to be successful, managing authorities need to identify and engage the right persons in the beneficiary organisation through well-designed and facilitated discussions. In particular, targeted engagement efforts are needed for newcomers, prospective beneficiaries and unfamiliar actors.
Analysing beneficiary capacity needs and using the results to design beneficiary support measures
There exists ample space for managing authorities to transform the information they gather from their beneficiaries into evidence of capacity needs, and then use this evidence to shape their beneficiary capacity-building strategy and activities. This will generally involve moving beyond informal observations to systematically collecting and analysing evidence. Managing authorities without an overview of their beneficiary pool can first set the evidence base through beneficiary mapping and profiling, creating a simple database to capture each beneficiary’s key characteristics (e.g. institutional size, experience with the programme). Those that have already collected basic information on beneficiary needs could develop deeper, more targeted and systematic analysis, whose results will serve for example to design a series of trainings on project design or identify the blockages faced by certain groups of beneficiaries.
Building analytical capacity to better identify and understand beneficiary needs and design effective support measures is a gradual process. Rather than seeking a perfect method from the outset, managing authorities can start simple – collecting easily accessible data on basic characteristics such as organisation type and sector(s) of activity, and assessing to what extent the challenges confronting beneficiaries differ across groups. Managing authorities can “test” these findings through some easy-to-adapt support measures (e.g. adding a section in the guidance targeting a group of beneficiaries with specific difficulties). As they gradually gather more information and build their analytical capacity, they can refine their analysis to develop a deeper understanding of their beneficiaries. Over time, for example, a managing authority could gradually conduct more sophisticated analyses, such as factorial analysis4, to identify priority areas and more targeted measures for beneficiary capacity building.
To begin, managing authorities can consider the following factors when analysing beneficiary capacity needs:
The intervention goal: the managing authority should determine why it is gathering the information – for example, to derive an overview of its beneficiary pool, attract certain types of beneficiaries or design a training series.
The actual nature and extent of beneficiary diversity: the managing authority should determine whether the beneficiary pool mostly varies across project size, types or sectors. It can focus on basic features first, which can become more specific and targeted over time (e.g. beneficiaries’ experience level, internal thematic expertise).
Data availability: some data, such as beneficiary organisation type and project size, might be easier to obtain than the others, such as beneficiary organisation size or experience with Cohesion Policy funds. Data availability may also vary across countries and regions.
The capacity to act: the managing authority should determine to what extent it can mobilise sufficient sectoral expertise and resources to address sector-specific challenges or whether it has sufficient staff to cover all the small beneficiaries/projects.
To help beneficiaries understand their expected tasks and identify their own capacity needs, managing authorities could, for example, create a “beneficiary journey” with a capacity checklist. Such a list should present information in clear, accessible language, avoiding excessive detail and technical jargon and ensuring it is accessible, especially for newcomers. The Swedish platform Eufonder.se provides an example5: The section “This is how it works” outlines the six-step application process for EU funds (Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, n.d.[8]).
When applicable, managing authorities can also collaborate with intermediate bodies, other managing authorities and/or the national co-ordination body to undertake these actions. This could involve jointly developing and distributing questionnaires to identify common needs and gaps across programmes in a specific country. It could also entail jointly designing a template for the beneficiary journey and beneficiary checklist, with individual managing authorities adapting it to their own programme and beneficiary pool. Managing authorities could also tap into insights from existing data and analyses on specific beneficiary groups conducted by other actors (e.g. analysis on local public administration capacity by national associations of municipalities, or analysis on SMEs conducted by chambers of commerce) when available.
Developing high-quality dialogue to tap into beneficiaries’ insights on their capacity needs and explore concrete solutions
Managing authorities should also create opportunities for strategic dialogue and technical discussion to address beneficiary capacity gaps beyond administrative compliance. Introducing specific sessions to discuss capacity gaps in already scheduled meetings and/or discussions with beneficiaries could be a first step, especially for managing authorities which frequently engage with their beneficiaries. One idea is to add a “beneficiary capacity clinic” as a breakout or back-to-back session in relevant meetings. The intention is to create a structured time for beneficiaries to articulate their needs and co-design solutions – but not to overburden them or add to meeting fatigue.
Managing authorities need to design and organise such dialogue carefully so that it is constructive and engaging. Such discussions are not for beneficiaries to gather and “complain”. Rather, they should have a clear agenda and objectives, with carefully designed questions to help beneficiaries share the concrete problems they face and support they expect, jointly exploring solutions with the managing authorities. This dialogue can also be an opportunity for beneficiaries to exchange with peers and learn problem solving and management techniques from each other. Moreover, it is important to create opportunities that allow beneficiaries with different levels of expertise and knowledge to share their perspectives and identify issues they would like to discuss, rather than always starting from an issue chosen by the managing authority.
Managing authorities can apply several techniques when engaging beneficiaries in dialogue and seeking their inputs regarding their realities and needs:
They can publish an annual engagement plan and calendar with potential dates, formats and topics so that beneficiaries can anticipate and plan their participation.
They can follow guidelines to design the dialogue with beneficiaries. These can include how to select attendees to ensure relevant and inclusive participation, structure the agenda to maintain the focus and interest of beneficiaries, and design concrete questions for discussions that lead to actionable outcomes. The OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes presents a ten-step path for planning and implementing a citizen participation process, which managing authorities can also apply to design their dialogue with beneficiaries (OECD, 2022[9]). Managing authorities can test these guidelines in a few discussions and refine them based on feedback and tracking. The pilot project beneficiary surveys showed that over one-third of the surveyed beneficiaries indicated that having clearer and more concrete guidance on the type of inputs and feedback expected from them will motivate them to engage with the managing authorities.
Managing authorities that clearly define what will be discussed and who should participate (in terms of functions/expertise within the beneficiary organisation) when inviting beneficiaries to a discussion, as opposed to sending invitations to a broad mailing list, can generate more targeted dialogue and outcomes. Those with sufficient capacity or with a small pool of beneficiaries can also collect the organigrammes of beneficiary organisations. Building a relationship with contacts in specific functions (project managers, legal advisors, accountants) through daily exchange and feedback will help them better understand and document their constraints and preferred forms of engagement.
Finally, managing authorities can create cross-functional events to help individuals with different functions among the beneficiary organisations understand each other’s perspective, for example by bringing engineers and legal experts together to discuss procurement issues. For small and new beneficiaries, more preparation (e.g. a pre-meeting note) or more informal exchange could lower barriers to their participation.
Actively finding and engaging prospective beneficiaries and less-visible actors
Various factors – low awareness of the programme, perceived red tape, low co-financing capacity, etc. – explain why new beneficiaries do not participate in Cohesion Policy programmes. To reach potential new beneficiaries and increase the beneficiary pool, it is important for managing authorities to first investigate the main reasons or problems preventing potential beneficiaries from applying. Once they have identified the “why”, they can develop targeted outreach activities, or even convene a task force to address these issues and better equip themselves to engage with new beneficiaries. To debunk common misconceptions surrounding the EU programme process, for example, managing authorities can develop and disseminate a clear programme roadmap targeted to beneficiaries, illustrating the main tasks and milestones in programme participation. This can help newcomers and less-experienced beneficiaries better understand what involvement with the programme looks like. To raise awareness, managing authorities can develop and implement a public relation strategy for the programme or specific sectors. Offering accessible, plain language information and guidance materials can also lower the barriers to entry for newcomers (Pillar 3). The initial aim of these outreach efforts is to help newcomers understand the logic behind the programme design and see “what is in it for them”. The longer-term aim is to be able to count them as active beneficiaries.
The above recommendations also apply to engaging beneficiaries who are not new but are not actively engaged with the managing authorities, perhaps by organising focus group meetings to understand the reasons for the low level of engagement and how best to address constraints. For example, many small entities may find it difficult to travel to in-person meetings; more online sessions, or some sessions outside business hours, could be help engage them in sharing their capacity needs. Managing authorities can also establish explicit inclusion mechanisms, such as inviting less-visible actors to all relevant meetings and structuring an agenda item around their interests or concerns, giving them dedicated time to share. They could also partner with groupings of these beneficiaries (e.g. SME networks, business federations, municipal associations) to amplify their voices and use informal formats – such as peer circles or online fora – to lower the participation barrier.
The results of the beneficiary surveys presented in Chapter 1 show gaps in beneficiaries’ awareness and understanding of procedures, as well as their ability to design and implement projects. Survey respondents often cited understanding call criteria, conducting pre-project analysis and managing evolving regulatory requirements as top obstacles to accessing and using funds. These results point to a need for managing authorities to improve both the communication they use to keep beneficiaries aware and informed, and the technical support they provide to help them design and implement their projects.
At the heart of these challenges is the fact that EU funding processes are complicated. Beneficiaries are met with a thicket of rules coming from different institutions (including regulations from both national governments and the European Union), covering areas as varied as human resource management, procurement and financial management (Ciffolilli and Pompili, 2024[10]). Beneficiaries and managing authorities often struggle with unclear or frequently changing regulations at the EU or national level, which can affect call-selection criteria and procurement practices in project implementation (OECD, 2020[2]). Managing the regulatory complexity and uncertainty throughout the project life cycle, from application to implementation and reporting, can be very demanding for beneficiaries.
Building beneficiary capacity – especially administrative capacity – goes hand in hand with simplification (European Commission, 2021[11]). The European Commission has already rolled out 80 simplification measures in its Cohesion Policy 2021-27 programming period. The efforts of managing authorities to build the capacity of their beneficiaries complement the Commission’s simplification measures by making it easier for beneficiaries to access, understand and apply the rules.
This section explores how managing authorities can improve the effectiveness of the communication and technical support they provide to beneficiaries. Managing authorities already use a range of related tools to assist beneficiaries during project preparation and implementation. However, several common challenges limit the impact of these efforts, including a lack of targeting and materials that are difficult to understand or use in practice. Addressing these issues can be a question of doing more, for example by increasing communication at inflection points in the project cycle. More often, however, it is a question of doing better – improving the quality, timing and accessibility of support so that it is of the greatest use to beneficiaries.
Existing practices and challenges: Gaps in awareness, targeting and clarity
The six pilot managing authorities already use a wide range of technical support and communication tools to support beneficiaries – ranging from mass email updates to customised one-on-one support. However, this support often fails to reach the right beneficiaries at the right time, or in a format they can easily use. An approach that better aligns with beneficiary needs would combine different types of tools to reach beneficiaries effectively, adapt to their needs at different stages of the project cycle, and balance broad information and personalised assistance.
Managing authorities use a wide range of tools to support and communicate with beneficiaries (Table 3.2). These tools have distinct characteristics that shape how and when they are most effective. Some are one-way tools (such as websites and written guidance) designed to broadcast information, while others are two-way (such as training sessions or one-on-one support) allowing dialogue and direct engagement. While one-way tools are effective for raising awareness among a large audience, they may not be sufficient to address specific beneficiary questions or challenges. Similarly, the tools differ in their reach – some are designed to reach a broad audience, while others (like one-on-one support) targeted smaller groups or individual beneficiaries. The tools also vary in their responsiveness to beneficiary needs. Some, like one-on-one coaching or help desks, can be highly responsive and adapt to specific questions or issues in real time. Others, such as written guidance materials, are only updated periodically and may not always keep pace with changing regulations or emerging beneficiary needs. Such materials are valuable for reference, but must be kept up-to-date and complemented by more responsive tools to ensure that support is keeping pace with changing requirements and needs. Managing authorities must determine the right mix of these tools, based on beneficiary needs and the programme context.
Source: OECD elaboration based on the pilot project and (OECD, 2020[2]; Ciffolilli and Pompili, 2024[10]).
Results from the pilot project’s beneficiary surveys demonstrate the need to improve both the awareness and effectiveness of managing authorities’ technical support measures (Figure 3.2). Some tools – like programme websites – benefit from a high awareness and perception of effectiveness among beneficiaries. Awareness of other tools – such as guidelines and manuals (including technical manuals), beneficiary brochures, online libraries of good practice and video tutorials – is relatively high, but perception of their effectiveness is relatively low. Some tools – trainings, meetings, help desks, online question and answer sessions – show low levels of both awareness and perceived effectiveness. These findings reinforce the analysis in Table 3.2, which suggests that more interactive forms of support are particularly vulnerable to variations in accessibility and quality. They also indicate where managing authorities may need to focus their efforts – whether on increasing visibility, enhancing quality, or both – depending on the specific support measure.
Note: The figure shows surveyed beneficiaries’ perceptions of the specific measures of the programme in which they participate, rather than their views on general support formats (websites, guidelines, meetings). The sample size varies across different measures. For example, programme websites are employed by all 6 pilot managing authorities, and thus the total sample is 1058. Guidelines and manuals are used by five out of six managing authorities, so the sample only covers beneficiaries from the five surveys.
Source: European Commission-OECD pilot project beneficiary surveys.
Common challenges limit the effectiveness of the communication and technical support tools used by the pilot managing authorities. First, one-size-fits-all approaches do not always meet the needs of a diverse beneficiary pool, and many beneficiaries remain unaware of support resources that could help them. Timing also matters: support must be offered at the right moment in the project cycle, and kept up-to-date to take into account changing rules and requirements. Finally, even when support materials are available, they are not always user-friendly or actionable. Without clear, practical and well-timed support, beneficiaries may struggle to apply the technical and communication support offered by managing authorities.
One size does not fit all
Managing authorities can target communications and technical support materials to the beneficiaries that will be using them – a particularly important point for those with a diverse set of beneficiaries. Several pilot managing authorities highlighted the need to differentiate communication based on beneficiary type – for example, materials tailored to experienced vs. new beneficiaries, private vs. public beneficiaries, or large vs. small beneficiaries. One managing authority described the large difference in support needs between small municipalities, where “people do 50 things at the same time” and often lack core project management skills, and larger beneficiaries with specialised teams. While managing authorities recognise that tailoring support could result in better capacity building for a range of beneficiaries, their communications, guidance and training tend to be the same. Without more tailoring, beneficiaries may be overwhelmed by irrelevant details or miss information that is particularly important to them. At the same time, it is important to note that developing more tailored materials takes time and resources that managing authorities do not always have. As one noted, “it requires a lot of time to customise solutions,” particularly when supporting a wide variety of beneficiaries with very different geographic and institutional characteristics.
Low awareness and poor timing sometimes undermine support
Many beneficiaries remain unaware of existing support tools and services. The pilot project beneficiary surveys asked beneficiaries to assess the effectiveness of the support measures provided by their managing authority. Many beneficiaries were not aware of the measures at all. The data from the surveys, shown in Figure 3.2, suggest that the managing authorities have beneficiaries that are not tapping into the resources intended to help them – not because the resources do not exist, but because they do not know they exist.
Managing authorities recognise that support must come at the right time for beneficiaries to benefit from it. Some managing authorities focus on sharing information and providing support at key junctures, like calls for proposals. Even if they do not always do it, managing authorities generally recognise the importance of regular contact throughout the programme cycle, pointing to proactive communication and support as a way to prevent potential difficulties before they arise. This proactive approach, however, is complicated by the fast-moving nature of the policy environment itself. Changes in rules at both EU and national levels can happen rapidly, creating pressure on managing authorities to keep their own technical guidance up-to-date and relevant. As previous analysis highlighted, managing authorities must be able to “manage such change before they can effectively help others” (OECD, 2020[2]). There is a double time pressure, then: managing authorities must provide timely support, but must be ready to adapt it quickly as circumstances change.
Lack of user-friendliness
Technical support and communication materials are often not user-friendly. It starts with language: in several pilot programmes, beneficiaries consider the language used by managing authorities in guidance materials to be too technical. This can make it hard for beneficiaries – especially newcomers or small beneficiaries – to understand the materials. For example, one managing authority noted that even when manuals are provided, beneficiaries “struggle with operationalising them,” attributing this in part to dense, hard-to-understand language. User-friendliness is not just about clarity, but also about practicality: the beneficiaries of some managing authorities asked for more actionable guidance, not just on what the rules are, but also how to apply them in practice. This shows that it is not enough for support materials to be complete and accurate, they must also be easy to understand and practicable for beneficiaries to make full use of them.
Limited visibility on what works
The pilot managing authorities tend to lack mechanisms for tracking the effectiveness of their communication and technical support measures. Pillars 1 and 2 identified another expression of the same challenge, namely, that managing authorities do not always make evidence-based decisions on beneficiary capacity building. Most of the pilot managing authorities rely heavily on one-way information flows, such as written guidance materials, that do not naturally encourage feedback from recipients on what is working and what is not. Even two-way technical support methods, such as training and one-on-one support, could benefit from a periodic effectiveness check where managing authorities ask beneficiaries if these offerings are meeting their needs. Without these mechanisms to track their effectiveness, communication and technical support measures risk not being aligned with beneficiaries’ needs. Beyond the potential impact on beneficiaries (confusion, mistakes), this may increase the burden of managing authorities or other support actors (e.g. intermediate bodies) for providing technical support. If a guidance document is unclear, for example, beneficiaries may compensate by asking for more resource-intensive one-on-one support.
What can be done to deliver effective technical support and beneficiary-friendly communication?
This section outlines ways for managing authorities to strengthen their communication and technical support. Managing authorities should aim to combine a variety of communication and technical support tools, adjusting the mix to meet both the needs of their beneficiaries and the resources available to the managing authority. There exist opportunities to improve the quality and accessibility of support materials. Ensuring that materials remain relevant and useful over time means keeping them up-to-date, promoting them throughout the project cycle and regularly checking with beneficiaries whether they are working as intended. Taken together, the adjustments made by managing authorities to their communication and technical support should aim to ensure that beneficiaries get the right support, at the right time, in a format they can use.
Using the right mix of communication and technical support tools
The previous section shows that each category of tools used by managing authorities has its own benefits and limitations. Achieving a good mix – including one-way and two-way communication tools – means making full use of a range of tools to meet different needs and avoiding over-reliance on one type, particularly if it leaves some beneficiaries without the support they need. For example, communication channels like websites, newsletters and information sessions are very common and often represent the primary form of outreach. This is especially true during the application phase, where managing authorities primarily rely on their websites (European Commission, 2023[12]). However, reliance on general information sharing leaves a gap when it comes to providing the more personalised support that beneficiaries need to apply specific rules to their projects. This differs by beneficiary, too: some will need more support – small municipalities were one example shared by managing authorities.
While managing authorities should aim for a mix of communication and technical support tools tailored to the needs of their beneficiaries, the right mix is also one that works for the managing authority itself. This requires the managing authority to consider which tools are the easiest to implement within its unique context. The realm of possibility may be limited by budgets or the quirks of their beneficiary pool. For example, in places like Corsica (France) – with 342 communes, many of which are scattered across remote, mountainous areas – face-to-face support is inherently challenging, and the managing authority must rely more on digital tools. Meanwhile, in programmes with smaller and less-diverse beneficiary pools, more individualised “coaching”-style engagement might be feasible. Ultimately, the right mix of support tools will be one that meets the managing authority’s objectives for its communication and technical support, while balancing the needs of beneficiaries and its own capacity to deliver.
Making communications and technical support high quality
Three characteristics of high-quality communication and technical support stand out from interviews and workshops with the managing authorities. First, high-quality support is practical. This means going beyond presenting the rules and procedures to beneficiaries, providing them instead with support materials that are concrete, specific and usable so that they can apply more easily the support they receive to their own real-world cases. Second, high-quality support is targeted. This means customising it to better serve different groups of beneficiaries – of different sizes, experience levels, sectors, etc. – so that they receive the guidance most relevant to them. Finally, high-quality support is easy to use and understand. This means ensuring materials are simple to navigate, written in clear language and presented so that beneficiaries can quickly find, grasp and apply the information they need, even if they are busy or non-specialists. Support materials that are cumbersome risk being misunderstood or simply ignored. To make support materials practical, targeted and easy to use/understand, managing authorities can:
Present information in visual formats and/or making guidance interactive: checklists, infographics and step-by-step visuals can make materials more approachable and easier to navigate. Managing authorities can also use flow diagrams and “decision-tree” navigation tools to guide beneficiaries to the right resources based on their specific issue. This helps address an “upstream” problem of beneficiaries “not knowing what they do not know”.
Provide real examples and case studies – of both successes and instances where beneficiaries have fallen short – to help beneficiaries learn from the experiences of their peers: some managing authorities are already using this approach. For instance, the Managing Authority of Programme Technical Assistance for European Funds in Poland provides examples of good practice and bad practice to help beneficiaries navigate the tender procedure, a historically challenging area for them.
Target training to specific audiences: this entails designing the training content based on specific audiences (project managers, engineers, accountants) and making sure those audiences participate.
Use simple, clear language, avoiding jargon wherever possible: managing authorities can adapt their own simple language guidelines from those used in various EU Member State governments. For example, they can draw inspiration from public-sector plain language initiatives in the Netherlands and Sweden (Gebruiker Centraal, n.d.[13]; Institutet för språk och folkminnen, n.d.[14]).
Develop a “public library” of resources for beneficiaries: compiling them all in a single place that is easily accessible and navigable will help beneficiaries access the information they need, when they need it.
Keeping technical support resources top-of-mind and up-to-date
Beneficiaries cannot use tools they do not know about or cannot find. The data point to an issue of low awareness of these tools, even when they are in place. Building the visibility of support tools– and ensuring they are actively maintained – is essential to ensuring they are used. This is important at all stages of the project cycle, beginning with the release of the call (if not before, when designing the call itself, as discussed in Pillar 2). Investing in ensuring that all potential applicants can use the support provided from the earliest stages pays off: a European Commission analysis found that the availability of technical assistance during the application phase reduces complaints and legal appeals by helping applicants avoid mistakes and misunderstandings from the outset (European Commission, 2023[12]). To keep support updated and visible throughout the project cycle, managing authorities can, for example:
Build in processes to update technical support materials regularly: this could include scheduling annual reviews of all support materials to ensure that any regulatory changes have been included.
Promote relevant resources in each stage of the project cycle, with particular attention to boosting visibility right before and during major project milestones (e.g. before calls close and during reporting periods): managing authorities can make materials more visible by placing links where potential and actual beneficiaries are already looking, highlighting "featured resources" on their website’s homepage during application and reporting periods, or including links or QR codes in call launch announcements, newsletters, information sessions, etc.
Build in checks to ensure that communication and technical materials are still working
Gathering regular feedback helps the managing authority identify what is working, what is unclear, and where further support is needed. Ongoing feedback, collected right after a beneficiary takes advantage of a resource, can help the managing authority quickly catch problems or confusion with the resources as they arise. Periodic feedback, collected at certain points throughout the project cycle, gives a broader view of how well the support is working. Together, these kinds of checks will help the managing authority ensure that technical support and communication materials remain useful over time. Managing authorities can:
Collect feedback after trainings and beneficiaries’ interactions with communication and technical support materials: this could include short post-training surveys or pop-up questions on webpages containing guidance asking users, “Was this helpful?” and “If not, why?”.
Introduce periodic checks of beneficiary satisfaction with technical support and communication: this could consist in asking a sample of beneficiaries at different stages of the project cycle whether the available materials helped them understand and complete certain tasks.
Strengthening beneficiary capacity building involves many actors beyond the management and control system (e.g. managing authorities, intermediate bodies). These external actors range from policy makers in line ministries who set the overarching strategies guiding programme design, to the local communities and citizens who directly experience project outcomes. Engaging with them is valuable, because the challenges and constraints facing beneficiaries cannot always be fully resolved by a managing authority alone. For example, managing authorities can – and do – offer guidance and tools to help beneficiaries navigate complex or changing procurement rules. Yet for beneficiaries to effectively undertake a procurement process, the national procurement body may need to develop clearer rules and stable legislation. Engaging these additional stakeholders is essential to tackle underlying systemic issues, rather than merely alleviate their symptoms.
Furthermore, effective collaboration with a broad set of stakeholders can limit a duplication of efforts, and ensures clarity and consistency in the support provided to beneficiaries. The pilot project revealed that managing authorities are far from the sole providers of beneficiary support; many other entities offer guidance and assistance, often from varying perspectives and interests. In Emilia-Romagna (Italy), for example, municipal associations, SME networks and business federations all provide different forms of support to Cohesion Policy programme beneficiaries. In Poland, the Institute of Urban and Regional Development and the Association of Polish Cities develop research, provide advisory support and facilitate exchanges among municipalities – covering the target beneficiaries of the Programme Technical Assistance for European Funds. Beyond the pilot programme, in other countries such as Croatia, regional development agencies also play a role in supporting beneficiaries in applying for Cohesion Policy funds. Without co-ordination – led by managing authorities, the national co-ordination body or other actors – the support provided by various actors can overwhelm or confuse beneficiaries, owing to conflicting messages or redundant information. Better co-ordination and collaboration among these stakeholders not only enhances their effectiveness, but also optimises the support they can offer.
Existing practices and challenges: Limited mechanisms and incentives actively engage external stakeholders
Generating a comprehensive mapping of the external actors that should be engaged in building beneficiary capacity is not yet common practice among the six pilot managing authorities. Even when managing authorities know who should be engaged, they usually work on an ad hoc, bilateral basis to troubleshoot problems, rather than engaging in long-term collaboration to build beneficiary capacity. This absence of a more collaborative approach is predicated on the lack of incentives for these external actors to participate in and co-ordinate with the managing authority’s beneficiary capacity-building measures, as well as difficulties in identifying clear responsibilities and finding an effective way for managing authorities, beneficiaries and external actors to co-operate.
Managing authorities lack a comprehensive overview regarding which external actors should be engaged in beneficiary capacity building
While most pilot managing authorities recognise the importance of working with external actors when supporting beneficiaries, few have developed a clear picture of who needs to be engaged, when, and how. Table 3.3 presents five categories of external stakeholders and the roles they can play in beneficiary capacity building. Instead of an exhaustive list, it provides a framework to help managing authorities develop a stakeholder mapping for beneficiary capacity building. Without this basic understanding of the various actors, managing authorities’ efforts to engage with external stakeholders may fall short because they are not working with the right stakeholders at the right time, or lack clear objectives in working with them.
The lack of a comprehensive picture of external stakeholders is partly related to managing authorities often working with these actors bilaterally and ad hoc (i.e. project by project, problem by problem), rather than working together in a long-term partnership to address structural capacity gaps of beneficiaries. For example, when a project is delayed due to missing documents or approvals from certain external actors, either the beneficiary itself will need to contact the relevant body for the documents or it will ask the managing authority to help obtain what is necessary. Likewise, some beneficiaries may turn to advisory professionals for help in addressing specific requirements (e.g. developing feasibility studies or a cost-benefit analysis for a project), while managing authorities may help other beneficiaries find one. Managing authorities and beneficiaries tend to address immediate tasks and lose sight of how to streamline these interactions (e.g. by consolidating a list of challenges faced by beneficiaries and systematically discussing them with the procurement office), engage a wider audience to solve problems (e.g. by engaging both the audit authority and a school of public administration to design targeted trainings for local government beneficiaries), or simply share information with more beneficiaries who may encounter similar issues. A platform or mechanism that unites these actors around common beneficiary challenges and jointly explores practical solutions remains uncommon. A more stable co-ordination mechanism could help managing authorities optimise time and resources when working with external actors, especially in the long run.
Working with external actors in beneficiary capacity building is tricky
Bringing together a wide range of external stakeholders to effectively support beneficiary capacity building is challenging and complex. It requires clearly identifying who should participate, when and at what stage; their roles and responsibilities; and through which mechanism(s). Managing authorities find it challenging to engage with external actors, especially when these actors have no institutional mandate to build beneficiary capacity. This is often the case with actors with oversight of the broader public administration and investment framework, since their responsibilities extend beyond Cohesion Policy (Table 3.3). Effectively engaging these actors can be especially challenging when Cohesion Policy funding contributes only a small proportion of total public investments. To overcome this and enhance the likelihood of meaningful stakeholder participation, managing authorities must communicate how beneficiary capacity-building initiatives align with and support broader organisational and development goals.
Another engagement challenge stems from institutional relationships and protocols that limit direct lines of contact between the managing authority and the external stakeholder. This can owe to the hierarchical nature of some public administrations – especially for managing authorities responsible for national programmes. For example, a managing authority located within a line ministry may be unable (or not permitted) to directly contact the ministry’s procurement office or the Ministry of Finance to solve a technical issue in order to help beneficiaries. A regional managing authority may need support from the national co-ordination body or another national public body, but can only access such assistance through a larger or higher-level entity, such as an association of regional governments or a network of regional managing authorities. While it is often not impossible, it takes significant time for the managing authorities to achieve such engagement, which also often involves high transaction costs.
Furthermore, beneficiaries may face “outreach” challenges that managing authorities may struggle to address directly. Some beneficiaries in the pilot project highlighted difficulties in communicating their project rationales to their “end beneficiaries” (Table 3.3). Others reported difficulties in disseminating project results to their stakeholders, limiting their ability to generate more impact and build partnerships. In practical terms, this could occur when a local government beneficiary fails to explain to the local community the value of a school renovation project, or a university beneficiary develops an innovative technology but struggles to find SMEs to adopt it. In other scenarios, beneficiaries may lack the motivation to engage in outreach efforts. One pilot managing authority observed that some beneficiaries – particularly SMEs – only focus on completing their projects, and show no interest in sharing their outcomes with communities or collaborating with experts to explore innovative technologies and refine project ideas. Addressing these engagement gaps – whether due to limited capacity or motivation – is ultimately the beneficiary’s responsibility: managing authorities are not in the position to work directly with downstream actors in individual projects (e.g. actors involved in project delivery or associated with project outcomes, as depicted in Table 3.3). However, if such challenges are not addressed, a programme risks not yielding the expected results.
Specifically, some managing authorities expressed reservations about integrating consulting companies more systematically into beneficiary capacity-building efforts, given the different incentive structures at play and potential conflicts of interest. Many consulting companies help beneficiaries with call applications, but the longer-term impact on the beneficiary’s overall capacity can be hard to measure (see the analysis on the use of consultants in Chapter 1). Managing authorities could provide beneficiaries with guidance and tips on selecting and working with consultants more strategically, including ensuring that consultants provide quality work and not using consultants as a substitute for building in-house capacity. In that respect, placing some parameters or expectations on when and how consultants are involved in the project cycle could be helpful. For example, managing authorities could make it clear that beneficiaries themselves are expected to participate in discussions about programme and call design, not just the consultants.
What can be done to build more expansive and collaborative partnerships for beneficiary capacity building?
Managing authorities wishing to work with external actors to build beneficiary capacity could begin with comprehensive stakeholder mapping, subsequently establishing or initiating co-ordination and communication platforms. They can also provide innovative guidance, tools and incentives to help beneficiaries engage with their own stakeholders when designing and delivering projects.
Developing a comprehensive stakeholder mapping and a strategy to engage with different external stakeholders
Stakeholder mapping is a first step in developing a more inclusive and expansive model for beneficiary capacity building. Managing authorities can cover the following elements in the mapping exercise:
1. Develop a list of main external stakeholders involved in beneficiary capacity building, define their roles and potential contributions in beneficiary capacity building, as well as articulate “why” they should engage with managing authorities and beneficiaries: the last element is to demonstrate how working with the managing authorities on beneficiary support can also benefit their organisations.
2. Identify the existing interaction between these external actors and beneficiaries, how their activities support or constrain beneficiary capacity development: this element can help managing authorities explore synergies and avoid duplication of efforts when supporting beneficiaries.
3. Design targeted engagement measures: this includes potential institutional pathways for engaging with external actors (i.e. through a specific hierarchy or co-ordination platform), the most pertinent interlocutor in the institution, at which stages this should happen in the programme cycle, which meetings and discussions should occur, and how often.
The results of Point 1 above can also be translated into a publicly available list indicating all the support services beneficiaries can access. This can be a simple list, a virtual one-stop-shop or a resource library capturing the available assistance to beneficiaries offered by different actors (Pillar 3 above). This helps beneficiaries navigate all the available types of assistance and managing authorities keep track of the existing services. Managing authorities can invite external actors to submit their services and tools to keep the list updated. The Sportello Imprese “business desk” developed by the Managing Authority of Emilia-Romagna ERDF Regional Programme in Italy is one example.
Establishing – or initiating – co-ordination and communication platforms for beneficiary capacity building
Managing authorities can establish co-ordination and communication platforms, such as thematic working groups, regular fora or task forces, to improve external stakeholder collaboration in beneficiary capacity building. These platforms promote open communication, reduce duplication of efforts and allow stakeholders to address beneficiary challenges jointly. They can be structured in different ways. For example, a platform focusing on specific beneficiary challenges could take the form of a working group convened to tackle project monitoring and evaluation gaps; the working group could comprise monitoring and evaluation experts, statistical office representatives and beneficiary representatives. Another possibility is to organise it around a specific theme, such as a network focusing on building beneficiary capacity in water resilience projects, which would involve beneficiaries, water regulatory bodies, companies in relevant sectors and researchers on water resilience. Managing authorities can also establish an “umbrella” forum for beneficiary capacity building, with different subgroups or networks focusing on different issues. An alternative is identifying focal points and establishing long-term, institutionalised contact with external organisations. This approach is more suitable when most programme beneficiaries engage with several external organisations.
Managing authorities may not always be in the position to create a co-ordination platform for all relevant actors. They can, however, actively participate in relevant discussions and exert influence or nudge processes in a direction that can be helpful to beneficiaries. This is why it is important for managing authorities to gather beneficiary needs and insights as evidence (Pillar 2 above): it can help them form well-informed opinions and position them as credible partners in discussions on reforms that will affect beneficiaries.
Developing guidance, tools and incentives to help beneficiaries engage with their stakeholders
As analysed above, working with external stakeholders involved in beneficiaries’ project delivery (such as consultants hired by beneficiaries or the end users of project outcomes) is tricky. While managing authorities cannot work directly with them, they can provide guidance, tools and incentives to help beneficiaries better engage with these actors:
1. They can help beneficiaries use advisory and consultancy services strategically. Managing authorities can proactively provide them with guidance – for example, a list of key considerations in selecting support services, “dos and don’ts” when using consultant support, or good practices in developing terms of reference for consultants. This list could be tailored to different beneficiary profiles (e.g. local governments, SMEs). This guidance can help beneficiary organisations identify the most appropriate support channels, ensuring efficient and effective use of resources and maximising project outcomes.
2. They can provide incentives for beneficiaries to engage with their stakeholders to enhance project outcomes and impact. For example, managing authorities can develop specific calls or criteria that award additional points or benefits for projects requiring meaningful exchange or collaboration with industry experts, research institutions or professional bodies. This is, to some extent, nudging beneficiaries to “move beyond their comfort zones” and explore opportunities with other external actors. Managing authorities can also give visibility to beneficiaries that successfully engage with their stakeholders, for example by featuring their projects and good practices on the programme website. The Managing Authority of the North-East Regional Programme in Romania conducts interviews with beneficiaries and other programme stakeholders to produce testimonials and videos showcasing their initiatives.
3. They can introduce platforms and tools, such as citizen-engagement guidebooks, a set of good practices, and organised dialogues or peer-exchange events among beneficiaries (see Pillar 3). For example, managing authorities can develop a “community engagement toolkit” for local government beneficiaries to better communicate their projects to local communities. In one pilot programme, beneficiaries called for transforming the IT system from a mere reporting and compliance tool into one that generates results of interest to beneficiaries. This means making more data and project results available through the IT system (e.g. through an achievement dashboard) so that beneficiaries can easily develop a “success story” to share with their stakeholders. In addition, managing authorities can expand peer-to-peer exchange networks to downstream project implementors, end users and other key sectoral and territorial partners. Managing authorities and beneficiaries could also organise networking opportunities, so that beneficiaries are not just participants but also active organisers. This can help increase programme and project visibility, build stronger partnerships with beneficiaries and create partnerships among beneficiary peers.
References
[10] Ciffolilli, A. and M. Pompili (2024), Research for REGI Committee – Absorption rates of Cohesion Policy funds, European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/747284/IPOL_STU%282023%29747284_EN.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[6] Danish Board of Business Development (2025), Brugerrejseanalyse - barrierer i det decentrale, Erhvervsstyrelsen, https://erhvervsfremmebestyrelsen.dk/sites/default/files/2025-05/Brugerrejseanalyse.pdf.
[3] European Commission (2025), A modernised cohesion policy to boost the EU’s strategic priorities, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_929.
[12] European Commission (2023), Towards simplification Analysis of selection of operations, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/reports/selection-operations/analysis-selection-operations.pdf.
[11] European Commission (2021), New Cohesion Policy, https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/2021-2027_en.
[13] Gebruiker Centraal (n.d.), From Direct Duidelijk to clear government communication (Van Direct Duidelijk naar duidelijke overheidscommunicatie), https://www.gebruikercentraal.nl/meedoen/netwerk-direct-duidelijk/duidelijke-overheidscommunicatie/.
[4] Government of Canada (2022), Cultivating Cross-Functional Team Collaboration (TRN136) - Canada School of Public Service, https://catalogue.csps-efpc.gc.ca/product?catalog=TRN136&cm_locale=en.
[7] Hansum, R. (2025), “‘Why organizations leave money on the table: explaining non-demand for EU funds’”, Regional & Federal Studies, pp. 1-27, https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2025.2485052.
[14] Institutet för språk och folkminnen (n.d.), Plain language (Klarspråk), https://www.isof.se/svenska-spraket/klarsprak/om-klarsprak/klarsprak.
[1] OECD (2025), Managing Authority Toolkit for Beneficiary Capacity Building under EU Cohesion Policy, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/support-materials/2025/06/building-beneficiary-capacity-under-eu-cohesion-policy_ed3f6463/managing-authority-toolkit.pdf.
[5] OECD (2024), Rethinking Regional Attractiveness in the Region of Eastern Macedonia - Thrace in Greece, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/programmes/cfe/rethinking-regional-attractiveness/rethinking-regional-attractiveness-in-eastern-macedonia-thrace.pdf.
[9] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[2] OECD (2020), Strengthening Governance of EU Funds under Cohesion Policy: Administrative Capacity Building Roadmaps, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9b71c8d8-en.
[8] Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (n.d.), This is how it works (Så här går det till), https://eufonder.se/eufonder/sahargardettill.6110.html (accessed on 15 May 2025).
← 1. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/support-materials/2025/06/building-beneficiary-capacity-under-eu-cohesion-policy_ed3f6463/managing-authority-toolkit.pdf.
← 2. The management and control system includes the managing authority, certifying and payment function, intermediate body(ies), and beneficiaries.
← 4. Factorial analysis refers to identifying which factors contribute most to the challenges faced by beneficiaries, such as project size, organisation size, access to expertise or the level of complexity of specific procedures.