Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 The authors responsible for the studies carried out under the various Work Packages are listed above, together with the experts who, in each case, gave advice and guidance throughout the course of the studies. The approach adopted in each of the Work Packages was in most cases similar. It was to begin by setting out the rationale for policy intervention in the area concerned, or as regards the issue being examined, in the light of economic theory. This was followed by an overview of developments across the EU in the policy area in question and of the policy measures and projects supported by the ERDF, together with an examination of the outputs produced and the results of these on the basis of available data. Case studies of development in selected regions across the EU, which had received funding under either Objective 1 or Objective 2, were then carried out in order to examine in more detail the way the funding was used, the problems encountered and the effects of the projects supported. The case studies covered regions with differing characteristics, with different needs and priorities, in different parts of the EU and at different stages of economic development. They were, therefore, intended to gain an insight into the achievements of policy in different contexts and their specific contribution to furthering cohesion policy goals. Altogether 72 regional case studies at either the NUTS 1 or NUTS 2 level were carried out in the different Work Packages (see Annex for a list of the case study regions), 12 regions were included in more than one Work Package. While there are inherent difficulties in drawing general conclusions from case studies because of their selective nature, they are the only viable way of finding out what the effects of policy were in practice and what kind of impact they had on the development of the region concerned. In short, they provide concrete evidence of policy achievements and essential support for more general analysis of developments in the regions assisted by the ERDF. It should be stressed that the present report is not a summary of the various Work Packages and other studies which have undertaken for the evaluation. Instead, it is a synthesis of the findings which attempts to draw out the main points which emerged from each of them and from examining all the material compiled as a whole. THE CHALLENGES OF THE EVALUATION The context in which cohesion policy was implemented, the often small scale of the funding in relation to the forces it was intended to counteract and the many other factors at work mean that it is unrealistic in most cases to expect to be able to trace a direct link between policy and regional developments. This is all the more so in view of the often lengthy time lags involved between measures being implemented and having a discernible effect on developments. The difficulty of tracing an effect is compounded by the long time lags in relevant data becoming available to examine the link in question. A stark illustration of this that data on regional GDP per head, which are central to assessing the impact of policy on the development of assisted regions, were available only up to 2006 when the evaluation was carried out. This is two years before expenditure co-financed by the fund was due to be completed (under the n+2 rule) and three years before the actual completion date, which was extended as part of the measures for combating the recession. There was also a lack, in many cases, of a clear indication in concrete terms of the objectives of the policy implemented in a form which would enable the success or failure of the measures taken to be properly assessed. Often the aims of the policy were expressed in terms so general (e.g. an improvement in regional competitiveness) to make it difficult, if not impossible, to judge 10
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report after the event whether they were achieved or not. Though quantitative targets were often set and an indicator system established, as required by the Structural Fund regulations, in many cases neither were linked in a meaningful way to ultimate policy objectives. Where targets were set, they were often not taken seriously in the sense of being carefully determined in relation to the funding made available and what it could plausibly achieve. Accordingly, they were either attained far too easily – in a few cases, in the first few months of the programme being initiated – and, therefore, represented no challenge at all, or were unattainable given the funds deployed. In most cases, they did not play a central role either in the design or in the monitoring of policy and rarely featured in the policy debate. No authorities were held accountable for not meeting the targets set and few questions were asked when the targets were easily achieved. In consequence, whether the targets were achieved or not cannot be taken as evidence of success or failure of the measures implemented and they are generally of limited relevance for the evaluation. Though systems for monitoring expenditure were established over the period in all Member States together with a set of indicators for assessing the outcome of spending, they were not a central part of the decision-making process. Nevertheless, numerous evaluations have been carried out across the EU which have made use of the systems established to assess particular programmes. Though many focused narrowly on issues of financial implementation, a number examined the achievements of policy and are drawn upon here. Moreover, quantitative indicators do say something about the achievements of the programmes carried out even if far from everything. They at least provide evidence that the projects supported had tangible outputs and produced results which, according to economic theory, can be expected to have contributed to regional development and the pursuit of the wider objectives of cohesion policy. These wider objectives complicate the evaluation exercise. Policy was concerned with social and territorial objectives as well as economic ones. These objectives, however, are even less tangible than the economic aims of policy and tend to pose even greater problems of measuring outcomes. Issues such as the quality of life or territorial balance are less susceptible to quantification than economic growth and as yet few indicators exist which can be used to judge whether they are improving or worsening. Nevertheless, they need to feature in the evaluation as much as the more tangible outcomes. CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES AND NEW ISSUES The evaluation needs equally to take account of the changes in underlying circumstances which occurred over the period which inevitably affected the focus of programmes in the various policy areas. The context in which cohesion policy was initially determined was, therefore, very different in certain aspects from that which prevailed at the end of the programming period. New issues arose during the period, or existing issues became more pressing, which posed new challenges for regional development and, accordingly, for cohesion policy. Prominent examples include: • the continuing process of globalisation, which altered the environment in which firms were operating, by putting increased pressure on those seeking to compete in terms of low labour costs and opening up opportunities for the relocation of labour-intensive activities to low wage countries; 11
Page 1: Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 62 and 63:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
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?