Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Whatever the policy followed, there was at least an implicit recognition in most cases that
development in rural areas was not the same as development in more urban area and that it was
important to preserve the rural nature of the area concerned when formulating policy. A further
point to note is that the maintenance of population in rural areas need not imply a need to
stimulate economic development there, though it does imply that the people in the areas need to
have access to sufficient income to be able to live there.
In view of this, a further distinction can usefully be made between rural areas which are
reasonably close to a sizeable town or city and those which are further away (see Chapter 1
above). This can be expected to affect both their development prospects and their ability to retain
population, on the one hand, and the extent to which they need to develop a more independent
economic strategy, on the other. Cities which are within commuting distance, accordingly,
provide a potential source of employment and income to help sustain population in the area
concerned.
3.8.4 What was the scale of support for rural areas from the ERDF?
As indicated in Chapter 1 above, around 27% of total ERDF support under Objective 1 in the EU15
(around EUR 25 billion) went to rural areas over the 2000-2006 period. Moreover, there was a
relative concentration of financing in rural areas within Objective 1 regions in the EU15, especially
in those remote from a city, which tended to be peripheral, The amount of funding per head of
population in these areas was around 40% larger than in other areas in Objective 1 regions. This
relative concentration was evident in nearly all EU15 countries, especially in Finland and Sweden,
though it was not the case in Italy or the UK,
In the EU10, only in Hungary was funding per head significantly larger in remote rural areas than
in other types. In Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, funding per head was smaller than elsewhere.
Taking account of areas close to a city as well, funding per head was also relatively large in rural
areas in Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic as well as Hungary, In Poland, Latvia and
Lithuania, it remained smaller than in other regions.
Around 21% of Objective 2 funding (around EUR 4.6) went to rural areas in the EU15 countries. As
in Objective 1 regions, this was significantly more than their share of population – well over twice
as large in the case of remote rural areas and around 1.6 times as large in those close to a city –
indicating a relative concentration of funding in rural areas. This was the case in all Member
States.
3.8.5 What was the funding spent on?
As also indicated in Chapter 1, the division of funding between policy areas in rural parts of
Objective 1 regions differed markedly across countries in the EU15. Moreover, there was no
systematic difference in the division of funding between rural areas and others, except that a
smaller share went to RTDI than in urban areas. Accordingly, in most countries, the division of
funding in rural areas broadly reflected that in other areas while not being precisely the same. In
Greece, Spain and Ireland, a relatively large share went on improving transport networks, in
Finland and Sweden, on enterprise support. In other countries, there was a more even distribution
across policy areas. Very little of the ERDF was spent on the development of rural areas as such
(under 2% of total funding) in any regions.
Much the same was the case in the EU10 Member States, with the division of funding in rural
areas broadly reflecting that in other parts of the country.
104