Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report GDP per head in both Burgenland and Flevoland increased by more than the national average over the period (by around 0.5% or so), even after adjusting for the effect of commuting, while in Hainaut, it rose by slightly less. This, however, was an improvement over the preceding period when the gap in GDP per head between the region and the rest of the country widened appreciably. In all three regions, especially in Burgenland and Hainaut, a central aim was to expand business activity, in Flevoland, to encourage people to work in the region rather than outside, in Burgenland and Hainaut, to replace the jobs being lost in declining sectors. The measures involved were similar but the focus differed slightly. In Burgenland, funding was given to a broad mix of measures aimed at supporting business start-ups, the construction of new industrial sites and the expansion of business parks, the provision of risk capital to SMEs, R&D projects and the development of technology and research centres. In Hainaut, the focus was on creating ‘hubs of competitiveness’ by supporting a limited number of sectors (aerospace, the agri-food industry, logistics and mechanical engineering) through direct support of SMEs, centres of technology and research and links between the two. The aim was to develop sufficient critical mass for the businesses concerned to be able to compete on world markets. Among the achievements were: • an increase in the number of business establishments by 4,400 by mid-2005 in Flevoland, implying that the target of 5,500 over the programming period would be met; • support for around 1,600 business start-ups in Burgenland as against a target of 700. In all three regions, EU funding also went to supporting tourism and renovating and regenerating both urban areas and rural villages. In Burgenland, this was part of an attempt to ensure a more balanced pattern of development between the North of the region, which is close to Vienna, and the South and Centre. By the end of 2006, the number of beds in the higher quality end of the tourist industry had been increased by 2,500, 500 more than the target, through support directed at spa locations in the South and Centre. However, in all three regions difficulties were encountered in pursuit of the development strategies, especially as regards stimulating the growth of SMEs in problem regions in more technologically advanced activities: • in Burgenland, evaluations reported the problems of developing of research centres in structurally weak regions, where the potential to initiate innovation-oriented projects is limited; • in Hainaut, because of the limited take-up, only 15% of risk capital was, in practice, allocated to innovation activities, while wholesaling, retailing, restaurants and hotels together accounted for 70% of the funds made available; • in Hainaut again, despite the aim of increasing the capacity of SMEs to absorb new technology, according to the updated mid-term evaluation, the main recipients of R&D support were not small but large enterprises, which to a large extent would probably have undertaken the expenditure concerned anyway. In Flevoland, where there was less emphasis on RTDI, funding stimulated the creation of new businesses and led to growth in local employment, so contributing to more balanced development. 135
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:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87: 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?