Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 programmes implemented tended to favour the more developed regions where there was less risk of budgets not being spent. Nevertheless, despite the difficulties of absorption, which applied most to business support, it was still the case in Hungary that EU funding helped to reduce differences in the endowment of physical infrastructure, through construction of motorways in the lagging regions. In the Czech Republic, the ERDF financed improvements in infrastructure in regions outside Praha, the expansion of industrial zones, science and technology parks and innovation centres and the cultivation of the business environment. This served to increase the attractiveness of the regions concerned to foreign investors, so contributing to the marked increase in FDI going to regions other than Praha over the period. In the Czech Republic, therefore, the Structural Funds over the period 2004-2006 contributed to stabilising the disparity between the capital city region and others, which had widened appreciably in earlier years. The development policies supported The main programmes financed by the ERDF, as noted above, were support both to businesses, especially SMEs, aimed at strengthening their competitiveness, and to investment in infrastructure, especially in transport networks, aimed at alleviating the constraints on growth as well as at improving the environment. SME support Support for SMEs was a common feature in all the countries, for example: • in Poland, the main achievement in respect of business support was the establishment of services for SMEs, to provide technical information and advice as well as loans and credit guarantees; • in the Czech Republic, support of SMEs to encourage them to innovate resulted in the value-added of the firms assisted increasing by over 30% as against a target of 10%; in addition some 38% of business start-ups supported were run by women as against a target of 25%; • in Slovenia, support was mainly focussed on the creation of networks of technology and centres of excellence and on promoting links between these and businesses; up to the end of 2007, 28 centres were established to act as intermediaries between business and research and of these, 10 were centres of excellence. At the same time, the aims set of assisting SMEs, especially in the weakest regions, and increasing the extent of innovation in businesses were not always achieved: • in Hungary, most of the additional value-added generated by enterprise support -some three-quarters of the total increase – was in the strongest region, Közép-Magyarország; moreover, according to independent evaluation, in the case of support for the larger companies, typically competing in international markets, the deadweight loss was close to 90%, while on specific programmes supporting SMEs, the crowding-out effect was estimated to be close to 50% and the deadweight loss, around 80%; • in Lithuania, the aim of strengthening links between business and the research community had limited success, partly because of the large-scale emigration of scientists and other highly qualified people over the transition period and especially after accession to the EU. 138
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report Investment in transport The transport system in all the mainland EU10 countries was in a poor state of repair and in need of modernisation when the transition began and was, accordingly, a focus for EU funding in many of the countries: • in Poland, particular importance was attached to tackling the outdated and worn out transport network, inherited from the communist years. However, funding was excessively dispersed and there was an evident propensity to support small projects of local importance, which were considered unlikely to improve the transport system as a whole significantly; • in the Czech Republic, ERDF support was concentrated on improving regional road networks and the development of public transport; given the substantial need to upgrade existing transport links and establish new ones, there was no problem absorbing the funds allocated; • in Slovakia, most of the funding for transport infrastructure went on financing the reconstruction and electrification of selected railway lines and the repair of existing roads as well as the construction of a few new ones. As a result, a start was made on improving the rail network, modernising stations, upgrading inter-regional lines and increasing the speed of service as well safety and reliability. At the same time, the focus on railways served to reduce the environmental impact of transport; • in Lithuania, a large number of projects were initiated, aimed as improving traffic conditions, linking up local road networks with the main transport routes and renewing railway lines. While most of investment went into improving existing roads rather than constructing new ones, it also went into building a by-pass in Vilnius around the old city, which has reduced traffic jams, road accidents and pollution. Environmental investment Protection of the environment had also been largely neglected during the communist era and projects were undertaken in a number of the countries with a view to both cleaning up the environment and safeguarding it against further damage: • in Slovakia, the Structural Funds were used to co-finance investment in environmental infrastructure to tackle the legacy of decades of damage caused by heavy industry and other factors, which could not have taken place on the same scale without EU support; • in Lithuania, support was aimed at improving the quality of drinking water, cleaning up contaminated sites, protecting vulnerable areas, strengthening the monitoring of environmental indicators and cleaning up the Baltic Sea coastline as well as modernising electricity and natural gas distribution networks. As a result, both energy losses and pollution were reduced, CO2 emissions, for example, being cut by 2.5%. • in Malta, where, though the history was different, the environment had also tended to be neglected, cohesion policy and EU influence encouraged a shift of public investment towards environmental measures and increased awareness of the issues involved; funding was, therefore, used to support the adoption of a less ‘invasive’, more sustainable model of tourism. 139
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:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91: 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?