Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Spain The amount of EU funding going to Objective 1 regions in Spain over the 2000-2006 programming period was only slightly less than in Portugal or Greece in relation to the GDP of the regions concerned – just under 1% a year. Although their estimates of the scale differ, both macroeconomic models indicate that, together with the Objective 2 funding, this should have had a significant effect on economic growth. In practice, GDP per head in Spain converged markedly towards the EU average over the period. At the same time, disparities in GDP per head narrowed as growth was higher, on average, in the Objective 1 regions than in the rest of the country. This contrasts with the experience in the previous period when disparities widened. Much of the growth concerned stemmed from increased employment rather than increases in productivity, which remained almost unchanged over the period. This pattern of growth was much the same across regions. To some extent, it reflects the composition of growth which was heavily dependent on construction, partly due to the expansion of public investment in infrastructure, fuelled in turn by the Structural Funds. Much of the investment went into rectifying deficiencies in the transport network, which had been a priority in the preceding programming period. The result was: • an improvement in both links between regions and within them, leading to reductions in journey times and increased accessibility; • progress in completing the Trans-European Networks; • the construction of connections between these and regional networks; • modernisation of the railways and the construction of high-speed rail lines, coupled with the expansion of port facilities. The ERDF, in conjunction with the Cohesion Fund, also contributed to investment in environmental infrastructure, in extending mains water supply, in particular. This resulted in an expansion of water reserves and reduced pressure on groundwater supplies as well as an increase in the number of people connected to water mains, with benefits to agriculture and tourism in addition to people living in the regions concerned. In addition, EU funding supported investment in wastewater treatment plants and the extension of main drainage. The number of such plants is estimated to have almost doubled over the period (from 1,326 to around 2,500), while, in 2006, some 98% of the population in Objective 1 regions was connected to main drainage as opposed to 79% in 1999. The investment not only added to water reserves and reduced pollution, so improving the quality of life in these regions, especially in the more rural parts, but by so doing it strengthened their economies, dependent to a large extent on agriculture and tourism, as well as increasing the sustainability of development. In general, according to evaluations, in addition to adding significantly to the financial resources available for both regional and local development, EU intervention has been largely responsible for the ‘modernisation’ of regional policy, by highlighting the importance of the business environment, RTDI, human resource development and protecting and improving the natural environment. All regions formulated their own RTDI plans, in some cases for the first time, during the programming period and carried out evaluations of regional policy prior to establishing new plans. 124
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report Structural Fund support has also resulted in important national programmes being initiated which, it is considered, would otherwise not have been undertaken. These include: • Programa AGUA (2004-2008), for improving the management of water reserves, • Plan AVANZ@ (2005-2010), for reducing the digital divide between Spain and the rest of the EU; • Torres Quevedo, for supporting research and technology in SMEs. Moreover, there have also been wider consequences of EU support: • the funding provided under cohesion policy helped attract foreign investment which increased from 11% of total investment in 1998 to an average of almost 18% by the end of the period in Objective 1 regions; • multi-annual programming brought a more stable policy environment, encouraging longer-term planning in Spanish regions and reducing the effects of political changes on policy; • the requirement for partnership resulted in a wider range of organisations becoming involved in development projects; • the management model of Community policies, based on strategic planning and continuous monitoring and evaluation, has permeated into national policy-making resulting in a more effective use of public resources. Italy The finance from the Structural Funds in support of the Southern Italian Objective 1 regions was less than for the countries considered above primarily because they were not covered by the Cohesion Fund. Finance from the ERDF was also less in relation to GDP, though only slightly smaller than in Spain (0.8%). The macroeconomic model estimates indicate that this funding is likely to have added significantly to their growth over the programming period. In fact, GDP per head increased by more in the regions concerned than in the rest of the country between 2000 and 2006, though the difference was marginal and the rate of growth in both the North and South of Italy was much below the EU average, at only around 1% a year. This suggests, first, that economic growth in the Objective 1 regions would have been close to zero without support of EU funding; secondly, that the national context over the period was not conducive to their economic development. This is all the more the case since government investment was reduced over the period, along with the transfers to the Southern regions as part of a policy of increased regional autonomy. Consequently, a major effect of EU funding in Objective 1 regions was to compensate, at least to some extent, for the reduction in national support and so avoid a widening of disparities with the rest of Italy. However, it had only limited success in tackling the wide-ranging factors at the root of their lagging development. Nevertheless, it did help in the pursuit of the two main aims of policy –to increase regional attractiveness through investment in infrastructure and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of public administration through institution building. EU funding, and more importantly the requirement for programming which went with it, also obliged national authorities to focus their attention on the drivers of development. Before 2000, there was no ICT or RTDI strategy in Objective 1 regions and cohesion policy forced the authorities to define these explicitly. In practice, the ERDF and the co-financing that went with it 125
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:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
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: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 176:
Consult this website for further in
show all

Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?