Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 • the growing emphasis on the sustainability of development in the context of global warming and the mounting concerns with safeguarding the environment; • the ageing of the population, the implications of which became more apparent as the period went on, and the increase in migration which affected many regions, both those experiencing high levels of inflow and those experiencing significant outflows. All of these issues, which were not a prominent part of the policy agenda when the programmes for the period were initially formulated, were covered explicitly in the evaluation. The aim was, in part, to check the extent to which programmes were flexible enough to respond to a changing context and new challenges, as well as assessing the measures taken themselves. EU15 VERSUS EU10 AND OBJECTIVE 1 VERSUS OBJECTIVE 2 REGIONS A distinction was made throughout the evaluation between the operation of cohesion policy in EU15 regions and that in the regions of the EU10 (the Member States which entered the Union in May 2004). This is because the period over which financial support from the ERDF was provided was much shorter for the latter, beginning only with their entry into the EU. They, accordingly, had much less time than regions in the EU15 to make use of the funding, which means that what can be expected to have been achieved is also much less. It is equally the case that GDP per head in most regions was much further below the EU average than that in the least prosperous EU15 regions. The problems of economic development which cohesion policy needed to tackle were, therefore, bigger in scale and more wide-ranging than in the EU15. An equally important distinction was also made between regions supported under Objective 1 and those supported under Objective 2 (for all eligible areas, see map at the end of this section). The latter were predominantly in the EU15. Only three regions, Cyprus, Praha and Bratislava, in the EU10 did not qualify for Objective 1 support and were assisted under Objective 2. The separation of the two groups of regions is because of differences in the scale and, in many cases, the nature of problems faced and because of the size of funding involved was much smaller in the case of Objective 2 than Objective 1. Regions receiving Objective 1 support were those with GDP per head below 75% of the EU average at the time eligibility for funding for the 2000-2006 period was determined. Those in the EU15 can be divided into two broad groups. The first group consists of regions, mostly in the Southern Member States, in which economic development was lagging behind. The main focus of policy was, accordingly, on extending and improving their endowment of infrastructure of various kinds so as to help create the conditions for sustained growth. The second group contains regions in other parts of the EU15 with mixed characteristics. It includes those where development had occurred in the past but which were left with declining industries, in much the same way as many Objective 2 regions but to a larger extent. It also includes very sparsely populated regions in the northern and central parts of Finland and Sweden, where the concern was to help to establish competitive businesses partly in order to maintain population. There are equally important differences between Objective 1 regions which were surrounded by other Objective 1 regions, such as those in the south for the most part – in the extreme, where all the regions in a country were Objective 1, as in Greece and Portugal – and those which were located in the midst of stronger regional economies, such as those in Belgium, Austria or the UK. Nevertheless, the Objective 1 regions share one important feature. They are all defined at the NUTS 2 level which means that their boundaries are readily identifiable and a set of regional statistics exist which can be used to examine developments over the programming period. The 12
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report regions assisted under Objective 2, on the other hand, were, in general, much smaller – in most cases areas (or zones) within NUTS 3 regions – and more diverse in terms of their characteristics and the problems they faced. They comprised three relatively distinct types of region which had been separately targeted in the preceding programming period: • those hit by the decline of traditional industries; • rural areas with economic problems; • coastal areas dependent on fishing. The diversity of Objective 2 regions adds to the difficulty of assessing the effect of the support given. This is reinforced by the small size of the areas assisted and the fact that, in most cases, they do not coincide with statistical boundaries, which means that there is no set of consistent data available to examine developments. Although estimates can be made from the data for NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 regions on the growth of GDP per head and of employment, the results obtained are essentially based on the assumption that the performance in these terms in the areas assisted is reflected in the performance of the regions as a whole. This assumption is difficult to verify. Given the lack of data, relatively small scale of Objective 2 funding and the size of the areas targeted, case studies are an even more vital part of the evaluation than for Objective 1. OUTLINE OF REPORT Chapter 1: The nature of cohesion policy over the 2000-2006 period The report begins, in Chapter 1, by considering the nature of cohesion policy over the 2000- 2006 period – what the aims of the policy were and how they evolved over the period as underlying circumstances changed and new issues emerged. It indicates the scale of the finance made available under the ERDF and the other Structural Funds, as well as national government co-financing and the private sector contribution, and how it was divided between Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions. It also considers the division of funding between policy areas in different Member States and how far funding was targeted on the main drivers of development identified by economic theory and was consistent with the recommendations of international organisations. In addition, it examines the way that funding was allocated across different types of region - urban, rural or intermediate – at the NUTS 3 level and the division in each type of region between policy areas to see how this was affected by the type of region concerned. Chapter 2: Economic developments over the 2000-2006 period Chapter 2 reviews economic developments over the period 2000-2006, beginning with the macroeconomic context in which cohesion policy was implemented, before examining growth of GDP per head and employment in regions receiving Structural Fund support as compared with non-assisted regions. The macroeconomic context here includes the overall growth in GDP, the fiscal policy pursued over the period and the scale of government investment, all of which are likely to have affected developments at regional level It also includes the process of globalisation and EU enlargement both of which had an effect on the policies followed at regional level. Regional economic developments are analysed at both the EU level, differentiating developments in the EU15 from those in the EU10, and at national level, since cohesion policy is about reducing 13
Page 1: Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 64 and 65:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176:
Consult this website for further in
show all

Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?