Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 3.6.4 The effects of ERDF intervention The main tangible result of the funding provided under cohesion policy over the period as regards the environment was to increase the number of households connected to main drainage and wastewater treatment systems as well as to clean drinking water. This was in Objective 1 regions in particular, though also in a number of Objective 2 regions in Spain and Italy. Accordingly, the funding helped the Member States concerned move closer to compliance with the EU Directives. One effect of this was to take the pressure off underground aquifers in a number of regions, so contributing to the preservation of water reserves and, accordingly, increasing the sustainability of economic development. A further effect was to improve the quality of life in the areas concerned. Since these are predominantly rural areas, this helped to further territorial cohesion by evening up living conditions in urban and rural areas, so potentially contributing to more balanced development of the two and perhaps slowing down, or even halting, the flow of population from the former to the latter. How much of this was a result of ERDF intervention as opposed to support from the Cohesion Fund, however, is hard to tell since the two helped to finance projects in the same area, though according to the case studies, the two worked in reasonable harmony and tended to complement each other. In Portugal, for example, the Cohesion Fund was mainly used to finance ‘upstream’ facilities, the ERDF, ‘downstream’ ones, the connection to final consumers in particular. Whatever the division of responsibility between the two, an additional 14 million people were connected to mains water supply over the period, almost all of them in Objective 1 regions. The largest effect was in Spain, where as noted above a significant amount of the ERDF was deployed for this purpose, with some 10.8 million people being connected. In Ireland, an additional 770,000 were connected, and on a smaller, though still significant, scale, in Kentriki Makedonia, some 8% of the population were connected between 2004 and 2008, bringing those connected to 95% of the total in the region. In Valencia, where a major aim was to relieve pressure on aquifers by reducing reliance on wells, water reserves were expanded though the construction of desalination plants, while some 405 kms of pipeline were completed to distribute water to final consumers. In addition, wastewater treatment plants were constructed to supply water to agriculture and irrigation channels were modernised to reduce leakages and improve the efficiency of the process. The number of additional people connected to main drainage over the period across the EU was even larger: an estimated 20.5 million, again predominantly in Objective 1 regions, most of them in Spain (7.2 million) and Italy (7.4 million), though significant numbers as well in Ireland (almost 3 million, so increasing the proportion of the population covered from 25% to 90%), Germany (1.2 million) and Portugal (770,000). In the Norte region alone, the proportion of the population connected increased from 58% in 2000 to 78% in 2007, while the proportion covered by wastewater treatment plants rose from 43% to 58% between these two years. In Kentriki Makedonia, the proportion connected to such plants increased from 52% to 60% (though this was still short of the government target of 75%). At the same time, the effect of this was to remove sewage from highly polluted areas around the coast, especially in or close to large towns and cities. In addition, in the Podkarpackie region of Poland, the proportion of people connected to main drainage in rural areas rose from 23% in 2003 to 31% in 2007, the ERDF being responsible for around 50% of the investment involved. In general, it is difficult to assess the effect of this investment on pollution, the quality of water in rivers and lakes or public health, since for the most part the data do not exist and if they did, it is hard to draw a direct link between the projects undertaken and improvements in these factors. 98
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report A much smaller proportion of ERDF support across the EU went to waste management in the EU15 (only around 6% of the funding for environmental projects), though more in the EU10 (around 22%). Most of the funding went to waste management rather than prevention or recycling, taking the form of support for selective waste collection, new waste treatment facilities and new landfill sites allied to the closure of unauthorised sites, which in Spain, amounted to some 414 over the period and in Greece to 217, while in Brandenburg in Germany, the ERDF secured the closure of 60% of old sites. So far as other areas of intervention are concerned, in West Wales and the Valleys, most of the finance from the ERDF allocated to environmental measures went to support for cleaning up and renovating old industrial sites left behind by the closure of mines, metal works and so on, together with the regeneration of rundown urban areas. (This was also the case in the other UK Objective 1 regions, these two areas together accounting for around 60% of the funding over the period.) The projects co-financed led to the improvement of 940 hectares of derelict and contaminated land and the rehabilitation of further 41 hectares (including the Felinfach development site and urban areas in towns such as Merthyr Tydfil). In this region, a significant amount of funding (almost a third of the total going to environmental projects) also went to stimulating the adoption of environmentally-friendly technology in SMEs, much of it on encouraging the use of renewable energy. In South Finland, which received Objective 2 funding over the period, the finance was used for more strategic purposes, as ‘seed money’ for assisting the creation of new businesses in environmental technology and to support feasibility studies and pilot projects in the same area. The result was a significant expansion of environment-related business activity over the period, especially in clusters such as in Lahti but also in Kymenlaakso where the establishment of eco-parks have attracted SMEs specialising in these activities. This has been accompanied by increased awareness of environmental issues and research into these, coupled with greater cooperation within the sector. 3.6.5 Issues to emerge A number of issues emerged from the case studies which are of wider relevance for cohesion policy. The first set of issues concerns the sustainability of the investment undertaken with ERDF support, especially in the EU10 countries. In Podkarpackie in Poland, a conclusion from the study was that many of the water treatment facilities constructed were both more sophisticated and larger in terms of capacity than were needed. This was partly a consequence of overestimating the population which would be connected to the facility in a context of considerable outward migration. It was also a consequence of over-estimating the number of people prepared to pay for the service provided. At the same time, however, it raises questions about the amount of consideration given to the cost effectiveness of the investment when deciding on the plant to be constructed and the degree of incentive which exists in the funding system to ensure value for money. The longer-term problem created is that of covering the costs of operating and maintaining the facility put in place. The second broad issue concerns the spatial concentration of intervention which was a feature of Objective 2 in the 2000-2006 period. In South Finland, for example, this concentration led to the focus of policy on support for innovation in SMEs, since the main environmental problem for the region, both during the period and since, is the pollution of the Baltic Sea, the source of which lies outside the region, in this case in the wastewater and pollutants released into the sea from Russia. Although it can be argued that the spatial concentration of funding led to tangible results in the form of the development of the environmental technology industry, the general point is that environmental problems very often emanate from outside a region, especially if narrowly 99
Page 1:
Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176:
Consult this website for further in
show all

Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?