Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report In sum, in both the EU15 and EU10, Objective 1 funding was deployed in different ways in rural areas across Member States, suggesting that if there was a rural development strategy, it was not a common one. The extent of differences across countries in the division of Objective 2 funding in rural areas was equally wide. Nevertheless, there were more common features than in Objective 1 regions, with more spending on environmental infrastructure and tourism in particular in rural areas than elsewhere. The share of funding going to enterprise support, however, varied across countries, being relatively large in France, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the UK, but not in Germany, Italy, Austria or Spain. In both Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions, enterprise support accounted for a larger share of funding in remote rural areas than in those close to a city, so that there was more emphasis put on the development of economic activity in the former than the latter, where the nearby city might be a source of income and jobs. The relatively dispersed nature of the financial support provided by the ERDF in rural areas contrasted with the concentration of the EAGGF on agriculture in such areas, though as indicated above, the areas concerned do not necessarily coincide. 3.8.6 What were the effects of ERDF support in rural areas? The case studies carried out as part of the evaluation, together with more detailed examination of the expenditure financed by the ERDF, suggests that the relatively large amount of support for investment in transport – especially in Greece, Spain and Ireland – mainly went on improving the rural road network and linkages between towns in the areas as well as with towns and cities in neighbouring regions. Accordingly, it led to an increase in accessibility and helped to make it easier for people to live in rural areas and work elsewhere or take advantage of the amenities in larger cities outside the area. Equally, the investment in improvements in water supply and wastewater treatment helped to improve living conditions in the areas concerned. Both sets of action are likely to have contributed to achieving more balanced territorial development as well as strengthening social cohesion, whatever the effects on economic growth. This applies as well to the support going to local communities over the period, such as on: • the rehabilitation of rural villages in a number of areas across the EU; • the restoration of historical buildings and monuments in rural towns in Italy co-financed under both Objective 1 and Objective 2; • support for social infrastructure in rural areas in Portugal, in particular, and to a lesser extent in Greece; • support for social infrastructure in the form, for example, of childcare centres and catering facilities in the Centre region of France; • the support to social infrastructure in the EU10 countries in rural areas, especially in Estonia, where over 40% of the ERDF in remote rural areas was allocated to this, though also in Lithuania, where the proportion was over 20%, and Poland, where the figure was smaller (just over 9%) but still significantly larger than in more urban areas. 3.8.7 Issues to arise from the evaluation As indicated above, in many rural areas, a significant part of ERDF co-financing went to local development projects, the main outcome of which – if not necessarily the expressed purpose – 105
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:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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?