Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
Cooperation in the forestry industry in Mellersta Norrland
Forestry is of major importance in the region and much of the ERDF funding went to supporting the
industry. An example is the SÅGAB trade association which acted as a coordinator for projects to
improve the market potential of the small and medium sized sawmills in the region. The result was
the creation of a website bringing sellers and buyers of wood together, which has led to extensive
networks being established between sawmills as well as with local authorities. Although the
financial support provided under Objective 1 was relatively small, the results have been substantial
for small firms in the industry.
In both countries, the funding received was reported to have been key to projects being carried
out, with many unlikely to have been undertaken either at all or on the same scale. In the
evaluation report for Södra (Mellersta Norrland), for example, it is explicitly stated that ‘the
contribution from the EU and the Structural Funds is very important for actually being able to
realise ideas through different initiatives.’
In addition, cohesion policy led to improvements in policy-making and the increased local
involvement in the development strategy. According to evaluations, in Finland:
• the programme based approach has increased the openness and efficiency of regional
policy and given more powers to the regional level;
• EU-type systems of monitoring and evaluation have become a standard tool in national
regional development programmes.
In Sweden:
• EU funding has resulted in improved organisational skills in administrative units in the
regions, with consequent improvements in the selection and control of projects.
Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands
There was a single region receiving support under Objective 1 in each of Austria, Belgium and the
Netherlands over the period 2000-2006. Burgenland in Austria was eligible for full funding,
Hainaut in Belgium and Flevoland in the Netherlands for phasing-out support. The amount of
funding going to Burgenland was, therefore, larger than in the other two, representing around
0.5% of its GDP. For Hainaut, it was only around half as large and for Flevoland, less than a third
as a large.
Both Burgenland and Flevoland are relatively small regions in terms of population – just under
300,000 at the beginning of the period in the first case and just over this in the second, only 2-
3% of their respective country’s total – though Flevoland is growing rapidly (by around 2.5% a year
over the programming period). Hainaut is much bigger, with a population of around 1.3 million,
almost 13% of the population of Belgium.
The regions are very different in terms of their characteristics – Burgenland is predominantly a
rural region, Hainaut, an old industrial coal mining and steel-making region, with many people
living in or around Charleroi or in other urban areas, Flevoland, a relatively new region largely
reclaimed from the sea and close to Amsterdam and other centres of economic activity. All three,
however, have one feature in common: all have substantial outward commuting to neighbouring
regions, Flevoland most especially. This serves to reduce their GDP per head significantly since
many people contribute to the GDP of other regions rather than to that of the region in which
they live. GDP per head, therefore, does not reflect income levels which are much higher in all
three cases.
134