Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
In a number of the regions receiving assistance, according to evaluations, there was evidence of
the restructuring of economies, in the form of a larger decline than elsewhere in the share of
industry and a bigger rise in the share of business services and high tech activities. In the East of
Scotland, for example, a bio-technology cluster was developed with the aid of EU funding around
life science research institutes in Dundee, while funding supported the concentration of the
electronics industry in West Lothian.
Table 4.4 ERDF-financed expenditure under Objective 2 in relation to population and GDP, 2000-
2006
ERDF
expenditure
(EUR million)
Obj2 popn as %
non-Obj1 popn
ERDF allocation
as % non-Obj1
GDP
ERDF allocation as
% of GDP in Obj 2
areas
AT 623.8 29.8 0.04 0.15
BE 342.1 16.3 0.02 0.13
DE 2,908.9 18.9 0.02 0.12
DK 125.1 12.5 0.01 0.07
ES 2,070.1 52.1 0.07 0.13
FI 392.6 40.7 0.04 0.11
FR 5,129.8 35.6 0.05 0.15
IT 2,464.5 22.3 0.03 0.17
LU 40.4 25.6 0.02 0.08
NL 685.2 18.5 0.02 0.11
SE 368.4 17.6 0.02 0.14
UK 3,785.7 31.0 0.03 0.12
EU 15 18,936.8 27.4 0.03 0.13
CY 22.5 28.7 0.06 0.20
CZ 54.0 31.2 0.08 0.27
SK 31.6 29.6 0.11 0.39
EU 10 108.0 30.1 0.08 0.27
EU 25 19,044.8 27.5 0.03 0.13
Note: The figures include Objective 2 phasing-out support. These figures,
however, have been weighted by the average amount of funding received per head
of population in relation to the amount received in areas fully eligible for Objective
2 so as to be more comparable. On average, funding per head in phasing out areas
was only around 20% of that in fully eligible areas.
The figures relate to expenditure up to end-2008
Source: Calculations based on DG Regio data.
Germany
In Germany, Objective 2 funding amounted to some EUR 3.2 billion up to end-2008 and went to
areas located in all of the 11 Länder (NUTS 1 regions) in the Western part of Germany. Around
19% of the population in the Western part of the country (i.e. outside of Objective 1 regions) lived
in such areas, though the size of the areas concerned varied markedly in terms of population,
and, therefore, of the scale of the support provided. All of the areas were experiencing problems
either of industrial decline or of lagging development because of their rural nature. As in the UK,
a large part of funding went to support SMEs and the rehabilitation of polluted or rundown areas.
EU funding supplemented the support available under the Joint Task and enabled additional
measures to be undertaken, such as in respect of RTDI, the environment and tourism, for
example:
146