Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Synthesis Report
regions, for just 10%. In both cases, population had been declining for some years before the
beginning of the programming period.
ERDF funding amounted on average to just over 0.3% of the GDP of the regions concerned in
Finland and just over 0.25% in the Swedish regions.
GDP per head in the regions in both countries is below the national average, though whereas in
Sweden, it was only 8% below in 2006, in Finland, it was 21% below. In both cases, growth of GDP
per head over the period was above the national average, whereas it has been significantly below
the national average in the preceding 5 years. In both cases, population continued to decline over
the period, but in the Swedish regions at a declining rate.
In both cases too, there were growing disparities within the regions, with a widening gap between
the few urban centres and more rural and remote areas.
The development strategy co-financed by the Structural Funds was similar in the two countries:
• in Finland, to strengthen the competitiveness of local businesses through supporting
innovation, investment in human capital and the local environment, as well as to provide
public services on an equal basis across the country in pursuit of regional balance;
• in Sweden, to develop local industry through a knowledge-based growth strategy.
In Finland, support was mainly confined to well-managed and profitable SMEs. The evidence
suggests that over 80% of the firms receiving investment grants grew as a result and new jobs
were generated in about half. The aim, however, was not to expand output and create jobs
directly but to do so indirectly and in a sustained way by increasing competitiveness and
productivity. The evaluation evidence is that support for R&D achieved this in most cases and that
R&D projects carried out jointly with research centres and large enterprises were a means for
SMEs to have access to research without incurring excessive costs.
In practice, support for R&D activities in SMEs and in research centres in both Finland and Sweden
contributed to raising the expenditure on R&D in Objective 1 regions in relation to GDP to well
above the level in most other regions of the EU. According to Eurostat data:
• in Pohjois-Suomi, R&D expenditure amounted to 4.8% of GDP in 2006 as against a
national average of 3.5% and an EU average of 1.9%;
• in Övre Norrland, it amounted to 4.5% of GDP in 2006 as compared with a national
average of 3.6% and a figure of just 2.5% in 2000.
In Sweden as well as Finland, the evaluations carried out concluded that structural intervention in
Objective 1 regions had succeeded not only in improving the competitiveness of SMEs but in
increasing cooperation between them, including those in rural areas. It also strengthened local
partnership and the willingness of people and organisations to work together and to adapt to
structural change (see Box on forestry in Sweden).
The decline in agriculture and forestry and the traditional industries based on the latter, together
with an ageing and declining population, has made it difficult to narrow the gap between the
more remote rural areas and the rest of the country. Nevertheless, EU funding and the projects
supported helped to prevent it from widening, as well as creating the potential for altering the
trends over the longer-term.
133