Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 In addition, a similar amount of funding from the ERDF went to RTDI intended to assist the development of specialist research centres across the country as well as the adoption of new technology by SMEs. This, however, was less effective in the BMW region than in the SE because of the more limited ability of the centres and firms concerned to absorb the funding. Although there was no apparent narrowing of the disparity between the two regions between 2000 and 2006 as a result of these various measures, their effect may have been to prevent a further widening. At the same time, it is difficult to say whether regional development became more balanced over the period in terms not only of the difference between the two regions but equally importantly of those between urban and rural areas within the two regions. This was a major objective of development policy but no coherent set of indicators were devised to monitor progress in this respect. The main effects of cohesion policy, however, were arguably: • to focus attention on the widening disparity between Dublin and the rest of the country and the concentration of economic growth in the former, which was unsustainable in the long-term, and so to encourage the adoption of a regional rather than a national strategy; • to contribute to the development and expansion of multi-annual programming, the more extensive adoption of a partnership approach at national and local level and to more monitoring and evaluation of programmes.. UK The UK was a net contributor to the funding of cohesion policy over the 2000-2006 period. Nevertheless, the four regions eligible for full funding under Objective 1 (Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly and West Wales and the Valleys) and the two eligible for phasing-out funding (Highlands and Islands in Scotland and Northern Ireland) between them received an amount from the ERDF equivalent to around 0.4% of their GDP. Moreover, these regions together accounted for just under 12% of UK population, not so much less than Objective 1 regions in Germany (around 18%). Nevertheless, the amount of EU funding received was small in relation to that from the national government, though the ERDF was involved in a number of high profile projects, as indicated below. The rate of growth of GDP per head of all 6 of regions assisted exceeded that of the non-assisted regions in the UK over the period (on average by 0.7% a year). In all the regions, the main focus of development policy, to which the ERDF contributed, was on strengthening business competitiveness which was achieved through: • supporting SMEs, both directly and indirectly through the provision of advice, services and access to finance, to assist them to modernise and diversify (by end- 2006, over 70,000 SMEs had received assistance); • improving transport networks, such as by converting Newquay airport in Cornwall from military to civilian use and by completing the Liverpool South Parkway Interchange in Merseyside, which provides fast links to Liverpool John Lennon Airport as well as access to up to 11,000 planned jobs in the vicinity; • improving telecommunications, including the provision of broadband to the whole of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly; 130
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report • regenerating urban areas, such as in market towns in Cornwall or the Sheffield city centre in South Yorkshire. Most of the projects concerned were conceived to bring about long-term changes in the underlying economic structure and social capital of problem regions, so that the full effect will not become evident for some years. In addition, the environmental implications of projects were explicitly taken into account in all programmes. Those for business support, for example, were encouraged to include measures to improve resource efficiency and waste management, while some programmes established Environmental Advisory Groups and others nominated “Environmental Champions” to be among those involved in project delivery. Moreover, there are a number of examples of mobilising local involvement in projects, both to make use of and develop local know-how and capacity for action. Examples include: • the formation of Local Strategic Partnerships, such as in the Sheffield City Centre regeneration programme in South Yorkshire or between the University of the Highlands and Islands and private sector organisations in the region; • the assistance provided to 11,419 community groups in West Wales and the Valleys to engage in projects aimed at the regeneration of deprived areas; • the financial support to community-based groups in the Highlands and Islands region to increase both the quality and scale of programmes, through the recruitment of skilled staff, and to enable them to attract additional matching funding. According to the UK Government, the Structural Funds have been an important source of additional funding for local authorities, universities and the third sector. They have also: • made it possible to plan economic development over a longer time-frame than most other funding sources allow; • encouraged the direct involvement of a wide range of partner organisations; • brought enhanced transparency, co-operation and co-ordination in the design and delivery of regional development policy, and better quality intervention as a result. France In France, the only regions receiving full Objective 1 funding over the 2000-2006 period were the four DOMs (the Overseas Departments) – Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyane and Réunion – though Corse and parts of Nord Pas de Calais were in receipt of phasing-out support. While the latter two regions received only a relatively small amount of funding, support for the four DOMs amounted to around 1% of their GDP. Together, however, they account for under 3% of the population of France. Their average GDP per head was only just over 60% of the EU25 average in 2000 and over 40% below the average for France, with the least prosperous region, Guyane, having a level only 50% of the EU average and the most prosperous Martinique, one of 70% of the average. Between 2000 and 2006, their GDP per head, on average, increased by more than in the rest of France, though by less in Guyane. Structural Fund support almost certainly contributed to the catching up in the three DOMs where this occurred. Guyane is also the region with the smallest population (around 166,000 at the beginning of the period), but the one which grew most rapidly over the period (by 4% a year, so that by 2006). 131
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:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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?