Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 was to improve living standards and the quality of life in the local areas concerned. While this may well have contributed to strengthening social cohesion as well as territorial balance by encouraging people to live in such areas, it raises a question over the extent to which such ‘bottom-up’ actions need to be coordinated within an overall development strategy. In the Centre region of France, for example, as the case study revealed, funding was distributed to local communities to do more or less as they wished, leading to some duplication of projects. It also raises a broader question over the role of regional authorities across the EU in the design and implementation of cohesion policy, given that in many countries, such authorities are essentially administrative arms of central government and the next political level down from central government are local authorities. A related point is that while the emphasis of cohesion policy has tended historically to be on economic development – to enable all regions to develop their economic potential – economic development is not necessarily a suitable or appropriate aim for all regions and still less for all areas within regions, Accordingly, not only is it the case that development should be consistent with preserving the natural assets of a region but that in some areas this may mean little or no economic development at all, or at least one which is confined to particular activities. This need not mean depopulation so long as there is a sustainable source of income for the people concerned. In both the Sachsen region of Germany and the Świętokrzyskie region of Poland, therefore, the support given to enterprises in neighbouring urban areas benefited those living in rural areas by providing employment for them, even if not locally. As the evaluation – and the above review of the division of funding – also emphasises, there is far from being a single development strategy which fits all rural areas. Such areas are no different from other types of area in terms of their wide range of different circumstances, resource endowments of various kinds, levels of economic development and political priorities, all of which affect the most appropriate strategy to pursue. A further point to emerge is that although there were two other EU sources of funding for rural areas in addition to the ERDF, there was a reasonable degree of coordination between its activities and those of the EAGGF and ESF. The relatively narrow focus of the EAGGF on supporting the agricultural sector and closely related activities and that of the ESF on supporting education and training made it clear for the most part which fund was the relevant one for financing any particular project or measure. Nevertheless, there is scope for potential conflict, or lack of coordination, between the ERDF and the EAGGF, in particular. This is because the ERDF is primarily focused on restructuring so far as the economic development of rural areas is concerned, which implies diversification of activities away from agriculture, whereas the EAGGF is focused on attempting to increase the competitiveness of the sector and the scope of its activities. It is not clear, therefore, that the two Funds share the same strategic vision of development, which is essential not only to avoid potential conflict between the measures implemented but also to ensure that the policy itself is as effective as possible in pursuing the vision concerned. 3.9 GENDER EQUALITY AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE Two related horizontal issues were also covered by the evaluation. The first, equal opportunities, was included in the cohesion policy guidelines as a priority which was to be explicitly taken into account in the design and implementation of projects co-financed by the Structural Funds over the period. The second, demographic change, was not an explicit cross-cutting issue as such but it became a more pressing challenge over the period. The growing number of people beyond retirement age focused attention on the importance of future growth to provide income support 106
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report and on the implications for social services and communal amenities as well as on the potential consequences for patterns of consumption. At the same time, the significant migration flows both from developing countries outside the Union and from East to West inside the Union gave rise to concerns about integration and pressure on infrastructure (on housing, schools and so on), on the one hand, and about the loss of skilled and educated labour in the regions left behind, on the other. The main interest as regards the first issue was to examine the extent to which the pursuit of gender equality was incorporated in development plans, and the form which projects took over the period, as well as the effect it had on outcomes. The concern was to see whether regulations were respected and the way in which gender equality was actually taken into account. The interest as regards the second was to consider how far an issue which emerged over the period as having important effects on regions, both actual and prospective, was reflected in the way that the ERDF was deployed. The concern was, therefore, to see whether the allocation of funding was modified as the period went on and the implications of demographic trends became more apparent. The more general interest was in see how flexible systems for managing funding were in responding to a new challenge. 3.9.1 How could the use of the ERDF have responded to gender and demographic issues? While gender equality and demographic change are separate issues, they are, in practice, closely related. Ensuring that women and men have equal opportunity to access a good education, get a decent job or pursue a fulfilling career is a goal in its own right and essential to securing a just and equitable society, but it is also important for economic reasons. Not only does it add to the work force but it also tends to increase the skills available and, accordingly, helps to raise the rate of growth and improve competitiveness. As such, it is potentially important to counter the effect of demographic trends. Moreover, as the evaluation revealed, the measures which improve the situation of women are also a means of responding to demographic change, in the form of an ageing society or increased numbers of migrants. Although the issue of gender equality is more relevant for the ESF, which is concerned, in particular, with supporting education and training as well as employment and, therefore, with the areas in which equal opportunities are particularly important, the uses to which the ERDF is put can also have a gender dimension. They can equally affect the situation of older people or migrants. This can happen either directly, i.e. with projects being designed or adapted specifically with particular social groups in mind, or indirectly, as the side-effect of projects with a different main purpose. The policy areas in which the projects undertaken could have the most direct effect are: • the enterprise environment, where the support given to firms included in some regions measures to assist women entrepreneurs, but could also include support for older people or migrants to set up businesses; • social infrastructure, such as, in particular, childcare facilities, community centres, healthcare and social services (see the Box on Castilla y Leon for an example); • planning and rehabilitation, such as the renovation of rural villages or the regeneration of rundown urban centres, which can improve living conditions in the areas concerned, with particular benefit to migrant groups or the elderly who represent a large part of the population living in such areas. 107
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:
Page 58 and 59: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?