KNOWING. Opinion poll of potential European structural funds beneficiaries. Report. european programmes. May 2011 Edition

Transcription

1 avec Opinion poll of potential European structural funds beneficiaries urop Act KNOWING european programmes Report May 2011 Edition Ministère de l Agriculture, de l Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l Aménagement du Territoire Ministère du Travail, de l Emploi et de la Santé Ministère de l Intérieur, de l Outre-Mer, des Collectivités Territoriales et de l Immigration Délégation interministérielle à l Aménagement du Territoire et à l Attractivité Régionale Délégation Générale à l Emploi et à la Formation Professionnelle Délégation Générale à l Outre-Mer This document is co-financed by the European Union as part of the Europ Act programme Europe supports France with the European regional development fund.

2 Part I : Methodology This document presents the results of a survey conducted by the opinion poll institute Ifop. It is fully compliant with the scientific and ethical principles of opinion polling. The findings reflect the state of opinion at the time it was conducted and do not constitute a prediction. No total or partial release may be done without Ifop s prior written agreement 1. Study conducted by Ifop on behalf of: Sample Collection method DATAR Sample of 5206 people working in Metropolitan France and France s Overseas Departments, with breakdown as follows: directors of very small, small and medium-sized companies with under 250 employees elected officials (City governments and EPCIs (Public Inter-communal Cooperation Institutions) directors of associations involved in a social and inclusive economy, in the area of job entry and training directors/ managers of financial affairs, working in a laboratory or centre - 89 directors/ managers of financial affairs or project manager/ coordinator working in a competitiveness cluster Professional sample weighted according to the criteria of company size and line of business, after stratification by region. The interviews were conducted by telephone at the respondents place of work. Field dates 30 March 2 May, 2011 Comment: In order to provide statistically accurate results for each region, 200 interviews were conducted in each of France s 22 metropolitan regions as well as in the four Overseas Departments (French Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe and Reunion) falling within the scope of the survey. Part I : Methodology page 2 Part II : Main findings CONTENTS A. The European Union is viewed in a positive light and its actions are known, although the level of information is found to be insufficient page 3 B. European funds are unfamiliar, with an awareness level perceived as unsatisfactory page 5 C. Applications for European funding remain limited despite excellent success rates page 7 D. Information on European funds is found to be insufficient, while expectations are high page 9 Conclusion page 11 1 Ifop for Datar. Opinion poll of potential European structural funds beneficiaries April-May

3 Part II : Main findings A. The European Union is viewed in a positive light and its actions are known, although the level of information is found to be insufficient The European Union has an excellent image among potential European structural fund beneficiaries: 81% rate it as a good thing. However, opinions differ by type of recipient. While directors of very small, small and medium-sized businesses appear to be the least enthusiastic with regard to the European Union (74% positive ratings), other directors are practically unanimous in reporting their positive view of this institution. This is true for directors of competitiveness clusters (97% positive ratings, with 55% of these reporting that the Union is a very good thing ), of laboratories (91%) and of associations (87%), as well as for local elected officials (89%). Among those directors expressing a particularly strong pro-european sentiment, the most positive ratings come from the Alsace region (87%) and France s Overseas Departments (86% and even 89% for French Guiana). This group also include directors of small and medium-sized businesses with 50 to 250 employees (89) and elected officials of Public Inter-communal Cooperation Institutions (EPCIs, 91%). It is noteworthy that experience working with European structural funds appears to contribute to respondents positive image of the institution: 87% of respondents are familiar with ERDF funds and 86% of those familiar with the ESF report a positive opinion, as do 90% who have previously applied for European funds. Despite their positive image of the European Union, more than two of every three interviewees (68%) complain about a lack of information on EU-supported initiatives. This feeling is particularly strong among directors of very small, small and medium-sized businesses: 79% report that they are poorly informed about initiatives eligible for European subsidies. A majority of local elected officials (56%) and of directors of associations (57%) and laboratories (52%) make the same observation. Only a majority of competitiveness cluster directors are satisfied with their level of information on Union-supported initiatives: 62% self-report as well informed. 3

4 Men appear more aware of EU financial assistance than women (78% compared with 70%). The same observation applies to the oldest respondents (78% of people aged 50 and above compared with 68% of those aged under 35), as well as to those working in Corsica (80%) or in France s Overseas Departments (87% and 91% for Martinique). It is noteworthy that, unsurprisingly, intercommunal officials (97%) and those who have already applied for European funds (96%) report a near-perfect awareness rate. Conversely, this awareness of European initiatives appears particularly low among interviewees living in the Ile-de-France region (37% have never heard of European financial assistance), Upper Normandy (33%) and Picardy (32%), as well as among directors of construction companies (42%). The perception of being informed appears proportional to the director or elected official s age: satisfaction with their level of information ranges from 26% among people aged under 35 to 37% among those aged 50 and above. EPCI directors (56%) and interviewees working in France s Alsace (44%), Limousin (39%) and Franche-Comté (38%) regions, along with those who have applied for European funds (58) are among those who self-report as relatively well informed. However, an information gap appears to be particularly significant in southeastern France, whether in Corsica (76% negative ratings on respondents level of information) or in the Rhône-Alpes (74%) or the Provence-Alpes-Côte d Azur (73%) regions. Despite this perception of an insufficient level of information, three quarters of those interviewed (75%) report that they have received information on financial support provided by the European Union in support of one or several local projects. Almost all competitiveness cluster directors (97%) have already heard of such funding provided by Brussels in support of regional projects (92% have even heard about such funding several times ). Directors of laboratories (91%), of associations (86%) and local elected officials (86%) report excellent rates of awareness of these initiatives. Directors of very small, small and medium-sized businesses are evidently among the least informed and report the lowest level of awareness of regional support provided by the European Union (65%). 4

5 B. European funds are unfamiliar, with an awareness level perceived as unsatisfactory Structural funds, the ERDF and the ESF, show disappointing awareness rates among potential beneficiaries of European funding (54% and 46% of interviewees respectively report awareness of them). Not surprisingly, those directly targeted by these funds report a higher level of awareness: nearly nine out of ten elected officials (89%) and 73% of laboratory directors report awareness of the European Regional Development Fund, while 83% of association directors have already heard of the European Social Fund. Competitiveness cluster directors also have a particularly high awareness of the existence of these two funds (96% are familiar with the ERDF and 79% with the ESF). Conversely, less than a third of directors of very small, small and medium-sized companies report familiarity with the ERDF (33%) or the ESF (31%). The ERDF awareness rate is appreciably higher among men (56% compared with 52% for women) and among the oldest respondents (61% of interviewees aged 50 and above compared with 43% of those aged 35 and below). In addition to elected EPCI representatives (98%), ERDF awareness appears particularly high among directors in the Alsace (60%), Limousin (63%) and Pays de la Loire (60%) regions and the Overseas Departments (65%, and notably 72% for Guadeloupe and 73% for French Guiana) as well as among interviewees from rural communities (61%). 72% 58% 64% 49% 73% 54% 50% 47% ERDF/ ESF awareness rate 54% 45% 49% 46% 40% 55% 42% 38% 53% 57% 48% 34% 48% 49% 43% 43% 60% 47% 55% 42% 56% 50% 49% 41% 56% 50% 52% 42% 63% 53% 59% 46% 53% 47% 51% 46% Awareness of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Awareness of the European Social Fund (ESF) 48% 42% 50% 39% 60% 50% 43% 32% Finally, a large majority of those who have already applied for European funds report awareness of this European programme (89%). However, although they are among the priority targets of this regional development fund, company directors report a rather low awareness rate: 33% among directors of very small companies and 41% for directors of small and medium-sized businesses. Concerning awareness of the ESF, women were found to be better informed (51% compared with 42% for men). Respondents working in the Limousin region (53%) and in France s Overseas Departments (52%), along with those who have previously applied for European financing (70%) appear, as for awareness of the regional development fund, better informed than the rest of the population polled. A significant information gap has been found for residents of Corsica (68% report no knowledge of the ESF) and Ile-de-France (66%), those working in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d Azur region (61%) and residents of Picardy (60%). In line with the strong proportion of interviewees reporting themselves as ill-informed about European Union initiatives, a majority of interviewees find their level of information concerning structural funds to be insufficient (61% for the ESF and 51% for the ERDF). Directors of very small, small and medium-sized companies were the most likely to rate their level of information as poor (68% for the ERDF and 78% for the ESF). Conversely, a majority of competitiveness cluster directors rate their information on these funds as satisfactory (72% positive ratings for the ERDF and 59% for the ESF). To a lesser extent, the same is true for association directors (50% for the ERDF and 61% for the ESF). A stronger perception of awareness is noted for the ERDF than for the ESF among laboratory directors (61% and 38% respectively) as well as for local elected officials (59% and 43% respectively). The proportion of individuals self-reporting as well informed on the ERDF is strong among those working in the Limousin and the Poitou-Charentes regions (59%), as well as in Aquitaine, Auvergne and Lorraine (57% in these three regions). However, satisfaction rates are markedly lower among interviewees working in Ile-de-France (33%), Picardy (36%) and Corsica (35%). With regard to the ESF, the respondents with the highest satisfaction rates as to their level of information come from the Franche-Comté (41%), Lorraine (48%) and Nord-Pas de Calais (48%) regions. Those reporting a lower satisfaction rate reside in the Languedoc-Roussillon (25%), Ile-de-France (32%), Pays de la Loire (33%), Poitou-Charentes (32%) and Centre (32%) regions. 5

6 On all aspects pertaining to European structural funds, a majority of interviewees report a lack of information. The topics on which the information received is rated most incomplete are related to time frames for the allocation process (72% of those polled self-report as poorly informed, and 32% even report being very poorly informed ) and to the approximate amount of funding granted (72% and 31% very poorly informed ). More than six out of ten directors and elected officials complain of an information gap concerning how the subsidies are allocated (65%), the type of projects financed (63%), the application process (63) as well as the people to contact (62%). Finally, the operations that have already received European assistance in the region constitute the aspect with the highest satisfaction rate (57%). In detail, satisfaction with regard to level of information varies widely depending on the type of professional environment in which the respondent works. Some report themselves to be well-informed overall on European funds. - The same observations are valid for local elected officials, and proportions are similar. The amount of funding and the time frame for the allocation process are not explained clearly enough for 68% and 65% of these respondents respectively. It is noteworthy that, except for operations that have already received funding in their region (aspect for which 51% of elected officials report feeling well-informed), ratings are negative for all other items (between 55% and 58%). Finally, directors of companies with under 250 employees were found to be the least well informed on all of the aspects studied. While a non-negligible proportion (43%) is satisfied with the information supplied on the European funding allocated in the region, no more than one person in four reports satisfaction (23% for information on the type of project finance) as concerns the other aspects under consideration. It should be noted that an extremely small proportion reports having sufficient information on the amount of funding allocated (17%) and on the time frames for the allocation process (14%). - A majority of competitiveness cluster directors report that they are satisfied with their information on all aspects of the European funds in the survey, particularly concerning the people or institutions to contact (70% satisfaction rate). The only information gaps pertain to the approximate amount of funding (50%) and the time frames for the allocation process (49%). - Laboratory directors also report satisfaction with their level of information concerning the types of projects financed (57%) and the people and institutions to contact (57%). As for competitiveness cluster directors, the areas in which more information is needed pertain to the approximate amount of funding (49%) and the time frames for the allocation process (41%). Other respondents report more reservations as to their level of information. - A narrow majority of association directors report their level of information as insufficient. Once again, the amount of funding (67% poorly informed ) is the aspect for which information is considered the most lacking. The perception of being poorly informed on the other aspects varies between 52% and 54%. 6

7 The main reasons invoked to justify not applying for funding involve not being entitled to receive funds, with respondents not considering their organisation eligible (34%) or not having an ongoing project (30%) or one that can be financed (26%). Another common reason is a lack of information, which seems to have worked against the interests of a large number of those interviewed: 32% report not knowing about these funds and 26% do not know whom to contact. A procedure viewed as too long and complex has dissuaded a number of those polled, with the complexity of the process being an obstacle for 21%, as is an excessive amount of formalities (14%). Finally, some directors mention the fact that they are not accustomed to putting together an application for European funding: 17% report that applying for funding is not part of their culture, 15% report not having considered it and, for 12% of directors polled, no application has been made because there is no one in their organisation to perform the process. C. Applications for European funding remain limited despite excellent success rates Unsurprisingly, given the awareness and perceived levels of information on European structural funds, only a quarter of those polled (25%) have applied to receive European Union financing. However, significant disparities can be observed by type of organisation polled. Competitiveness clusters are the type of organisation that most regularly applies for European financing: 67% of those polled have already submitted one application and slightly under one in two (49%) have even submitted several. Half of responding laboratory and association directors and finance managers report having already applied to receive this type of financing (49% and 48% respectively) and approximately one third have already applied several times (36% and 32% respectively). A similar proportion of elected officials have applied for European funding (46%, and one in four interviewees have applied several times). Finally, lagging far behind, only 7% of heads of very small, small and medium-sized companies have already applied for European Union subsidies. Intercommunal elected officials were found to have submitted the most applications for European financing (77%, and 57% have applied several times). It should be noted that people working in a rural area apply more frequently for European Union funds than do their urban peers (27%, compared with 19%). Among company directors, while the proportions are low, heads of small and medium-sized companies were found to be more likely than heads of very small companies to apply for European financing (16% versus 6%). The main reasons reported vary by type of organisation polled: - Heads of companies with under 250 employees explain that their failure to apply is mainly due to a lack of information: 39% are unaware of the existence of these funds, a proportion that is particularly high in the construction industry (43%) and in trade (42%), as well as for heads of small and medium-sized companies (42% versus 38% for very small companies). After these are the reasons stemming from a lack of knowledge of the potential targets for European subsidies: a third of directors of very small, small and medium-sized businesses report that they are not eligible (31%), that they do not have an ongoing project (30%) or one that could receive funding (22%). This proves that applying to European institutions has not become a habit among companies of modest size; 22% cite the fact that applying for subsidies is not part of their culture and 17% have not considered it. The red tape involved in the procedure is only an obstacle for a small proportion of these respondents: 19% report that the process is too complex and 12% and excessive number of formalities. - The communities that have not applied mostly justify this decision through the belief that they are not entitled to request European funding, either because the elected officials believe that their organisation is not eligible (47% and 53% for EPCIs), because their projects fall outside the scope of these subsidies (44%) or because of a lack of projects (36%). 7

8 While the other reasons are put forward on an appreciably less frequent basis, it should be noted that a quarter of respondents do not know to whom to submit the application (26%) and that one in five elected officials is put off by the complexity of the application process (20%). - Association directors report that funding was not applied for due to an unclear and unfamiliar procedure: a third of these respondents do not know whom to contact (35%), or are put off by the complexity of the process (33%) or the amount of formalities involved (30%). To a lesser extent, unfamiliarity with these funds (23%), a lack of projects apparently in line with the criteria (22%) or not having any ongoing projects (19%) also constitute obstacles to applying for funds. It should finally be noted that not having anyone in charge of applying for European funding is a problem put forward by 17% of participating association directors. - Long and complex procedures along with a lack of information are cited by laboratory directors who have not applied for European Union funding. Besides not believing themselves to be eligible (36%), the dissuasive factors for the laboratory directors polled combine a lack of information with fear of a highly time-consuming and involving application process: 29% are put off by the complexity of the process and 23% complain of too much red tape. The lack of information cited by one quarter (24%) of directors means that they are unaware of the existence of structural funds, do not know whom to contact or do not know if their projects can be financed. They are above average in citing the complexity of the application process (29%), an excessive amount of formalities (23%), and not having a person in charge of putting together the application (19%). - For a third of competitiveness cluster directors, the difficulties related to the procedure stem from their failure to apply, whether the procedure is considered to be complex (34%) or to involve too much red tape (31%). Not having a project entitled to funding is mentioned by 34% of participating directors. Nonetheless, once submitted, an immense majority (80%) of applications for structural funds are granted. The success rate is even as high as 90% for competitiveness clusters. While the results are excellent for laboratories (86%), associations (84%) and communities (81%), only 58% of applications submitted by very small, small and mediumsized businesses result in a subsidy. Organisations reporting the best success rates include EPCIs (91%), very small, small and medium sized businesses in the industrial sector (88%), and small and medium-sized businesses with 50 to 250 employees (88%). It should also be noted that, whatever the target, region, industry or size of the applicant company, at least one of every two applications results in the allocation of European financing. In light of these highly satisfactory success rates, more than nine in ten respondents (90%) report that they are willing to recommend to other organisations to apply for structural funds. Those most inclined to recommend applying for European funds are communities (97% and 99% for EPCIs) and directors of laboratories (91%) and competitiveness clusters (88%). With slightly lower recommendation rates, the directors of very small, small and medium-sized businesses (83) and of associations (80%) seem to have more reservations, probably due to the number of applications submitted by the company heads that did not meet with the expected success. 8

9 D. Information on European funds is found to be insufficient, while expectations are high While overall, a clear majority of potential European structural fund beneficiaries report not having encountered information related to these funds over the past year (59%), this overall figure does however hide some significant variations by type of organisation: a majority (71%) of heads of companies with under 250 employees have not heard any information about the European funds over the past twelve months. A large proportion of directors of other organisations report having been exposed to such information: 73% of competitiveness cluster directors, 58% of elected officials (71% of those working as part of an EPCI) and 53% of laboratory and association directors. The information received over the past twelve months was primarily related to the awarding of European subsidies, whether to projects (58% of information cited) or to individuals (31%). Among the subjects on which directors and elected officials report being the most poorly informed, the people to contact and the approximate amount of funding were cited by one in four interviewees (27% and 26% respectively). How the funding is awarded (mentioned by 26% of respondents) and the application process (22%) were topics mentioned by a non-negligible proportion of individuals. Explanations pertaining to the time frames for allocations were only put forward by 10% of the directors and elected officials polled. A few differences appear in the type of information received depending on the type of organisation being studied: - An above-average percentage of competitiveness cluster directors report having received information on examples of projects financed (65%) and on the people and organisations to contact (46%), as well as on how projects are granted financing (37%) and on the application process (31%). - Laboratory directors appear to have received an above-average amount of information on the people or organisations to contact (41%); how funding is awarded (32%) and the application process (33%). - People running associations as well as local government officials also report higher-than-average levels of information on the same topics: the people and organisations to contact (335), how funding is awarded (33% and 34% respectively) and the application process (29% and 27% respectively). - Heads of very small, small and medium-sized businesses report having received a lower-than-average amount of information on all aspects pertaining to the allocation of the subsidy, with the noteworthy exception of people who have received funding (37%, compared with an average of 31%). Interviewees report the sources of this information to be mainly located in France. A majority of respondents cite a local authority (57%) and 43% identify the source of this information as the French State or one of its organisations. The European Union is only identified by a third of those polled (36%) as the source of the information received. Finally, an appreciably lower proportion identifies the source of this information as being rural communities (17%) or a professional labour union (7%). In detail, nearly two thirds of directors of competitiveness clusters (68%), laboratories (63%) and associations (64%) report receiving their information on European structural funds from their local authorities. The French State is also identified as a major source of information for 52% of competitiveness cluster directors, 49% of laboratory directors and 47% of association heads. Rural communities and professional labour unions are more frequently mentioned by directors of very small, small and medium-sized businesses (27% and 10% respectively) than by any other organisation. Concerning the sources of information on European funds, the traditional media and professional contacts constitute the main vectors by which those polled were made aware of these funds. Media outlets include regional or national print media (cited by 29% of those polled), the Internet (22%), specialised professional publications (20%), television (19%) and radio (10%). Professional contacts refer to meetings (27%), acquaintances and contacts (21%), or professional advisers (9%). One person in five reports having received information by seeing a sign or plaque about a previously financed project (21%), while other sources of information are less frequently cited: 15% of those polled were informed by letter, (13%), looking at a poster (7%) or participating in an exhibition (3%). 9

10 Noteworthy differences appear when the results are analysed by type of organisation: - Directors of very small, small and medium-sized companies get most of their information from the traditional media: mainly regional and national print media (40%), but also television (35%) and radio. An above-average proportion of company directors cite signs or plaques on a previously financed project (25% and 31% for companies in the construction industry). - Professional contacts appear as the main channels of information for local elected officials: meetings (36%), specialised professional publications such as La Gazette des communes (25%) and mail (26%) are of particular importance. It should be noted that a quarter of participating elected officials (25%) get fund-related information from the regional print media or the Internet. - Association directors report that the majority of their information comes from professional contacts and the media. Meetings are mentioned by 40% and contacts and acquaintances by 23%. The Internet (27%) and the national and regional print media (24%) are also frequently cited vectors of information. - Directors of competitiveness clusters and laboratories are more likely than average to get their information from internal and professional contacts. Once more, meetings are reported as the main vector of information, for laboratory heads (34%) and for competitiveness cluster directors (55%) alike. Their network is used to get information on European funds for 26% and 31% respectively of the directors of these two types of organisation. Likewise, these directors report a higher than average use of the Internet (28%) or (37% for laboratories and 32% for competitiveness clusters). Finally, it should be noted that one in five competitiveness cluster directors (20%) reports using the services of a professional adviser, which could likely explain the high success rates observed. A real demand for additional information on structural funds is reported by the potential recipient of this funding: nearly three quarters of the directors and elected officials polled report a desire to receive more information (72%). This demand is observed to be particularly strong among local elected officials (84%) and heads of associations (78%). A lesser, but still considerable proportion of directors of competitiveness clusters (69%), laboratories (67%) and businesses with under 250 employees (66%) report the same demands. The aspects of information on European fund in highest demand are mainly related to the scope of this funding as well as specifications on the allocation procedure. The type of projects financed (52%), how the funds are allocated (39%) and the people or organisations to contact (35%) are the most frequently mentioned categories. Following behind, the demand for additional information pertains to the application process (25%) and examples of projects or beneficiaries that have already received funding (20%). Finally, to a lesser extent, the approximate amount of funding granted (10%), along with sources of information (6) and the time frame for allocation (6%) are reported as information with which these organisation heads appear satisfied. In detail, heads of competitiveness clusters have been found to be particularly solicitous of information on how the funds are allocated (46) and on the types of projects financed (56%). The same is true of laboratory (60%) and association directors (57%) and of local elected officials (55%). 10

11 Conclusion This study conducted by Ifop on behalf of Datar and its national and regional partners provides several findings on directors and elected officials perceptions and expectations concerning the European structural funds for which their organisations are eligible. While the directors of organisations eligible for European funding report a positive opinion of the European Union, whether concerning the EU s image or the recommendations they are willing to make to their peers to apply for financing, their awareness of the European initiatives for which they are eligible has been found to be superficial and can be attributed to a lack of information. This observation applies to the directors of very small, small and medium-sized businesses in particular: these participants were the most critical as to their level of information and only a minority were even aware of the existence of European funds. As a result, very few of them (fewer than one in ten) have previously applied for a subsidy. The heads of other organisations (laboratories, associations, local communities, and competitiveness clusters in particular) appear more fully integrated into the regional and social development-related funding process. Despite excellent success rates, applications for funding are far from being systematic or even common practices. Those polled mainly attribute this fact to administrative red tape and a lack of familiarity with the requirements and the procedures, which constitute major obstacles. Expectations with regard to additional information were found to be particularly strong, concerning both the designated targets of the structural funds and a clear explanation of the procedures involved in submitting an application. 11

12 This document summarises the findings of a poll conducted by IFOP on behalf of Datar in May, 2011, on potential structural fund beneficiaries directors of small and medium-sized businesses, local elected officials, heads of associations, directors of research centres and competitiveness clusters to determine their level of information on the funds and the procedures involved. This study was conducted as part of the interministerial communication plan on European funds, coordinated by Datar and involving all of the ministries involved in the management of European funds: the French ministries in charge of employment, rural development and agriculture, Overseas departments and territories and the ministry of the Interior. The results show that, while nearly half of those polled were unfamiliar with European funds (two thirds for company directors), and a good majority report being poorly informed, the success rate for applications for European funding is very high (approximately 80%) and nearly 90% of those who have applied are highly satisfied and would recommend to their peers to do likewise. These few figures clearly demonstrate all of the room that continues to exist to provide information to potential structural fund beneficiaries, all the work that remains to be done to circulate the information, approach companies and their groupings, communicate with elected officials at all levels, and more. The detailed results, available as a whole or by region, can be supplied upon request. Contacts: KNOWING European programmes is a collection initiated by the Europ Act European technical support and coordination programme. This collection is designed to provide the stakeholders of the European cohesion policy in France with elements to reflect upon with a view to reinforcing and improving the monitoring and steering of European programmes. It includes several types of support such as survey summaries, analytical tools and conceptual frameworks. Bertrand MILLET bertrand.millet@datar.gouv.fr Christophe GARNIER christophe.garnier@emploi.gouv.fr Layout : Indie September 2011