Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 twice the average in non-assisted regions. While it is hard to disentangle the influence of Objective 2 funding from other factors, especially given its relatively small scale, there are indications that programmes contributed to the modernisation of industry, including of tourism, by helping to fund business premises, advisory services, research and technology centres, the expansion of broadband networks and improvements in the environment as well as by encouraging the development of clusters. Accordingly, support was associated with a restructuring of regional economies away from low value-added sectors to more advanced activities. In addition, the measures supported led to more integrated and innovative regional policies and increased participation in programmes at local and regional level. Nevertheless, the evidence also is that, as regards innovation, the ambitious objectives were not fully achieved. In particular: • cooperation between businesses and research centres lagged behind expectations because of a lack of suitable projects; • the venture capital funds set up financed only a small number of projects; • fewer innovation networks were created than planned. It was reported, in addition, that experience over the period suggested that the potential for the development of research and technology infrastructure in structurally weak regions is limited by the low potential to absorb innovation-oriented projects. Belgium In Belgium, the ERDF under Objective 2 financed expenditure amounting to around EUR 340 million up to the end of 2008, with only 16% of the population outside of Objective 1 regions living in the areas assisted. Only in three NUTS 2 regions – Limburg in Flemish speaking part of the country and Liege and Namur in the French-speaking part – did funding cover more than 20% of the population. The areas in which funding was concentrated were either centres of heavy industry in the past or rural areas. In all three regions, funding was divided mainly between business support, cleaning up old industrial sites in order to make them more attractive to investors and support for tourism and cultural activities. In Limburg, the policy had some success in helping to develop sectors of activity in which the region had an actual or potential comparative advantage in terms of local expertise, such as, in particular, the automotive and transport equipment industry, logistics, ICT and new media activities. In the other two regions, the policy was less successful in bringing about restructuring. In the Liege region, especially, investment grants did not produce the expected effects in terms of the diversification of the economy or stimulating the development of high tech activities. In rural areas, this was reported to be because of the low density of business services. Equally, in some areas, a large proportion of grants went to large rather small enterprises and were associated with significant deadweight effects, while relatively few projects involved collaboration between firms, so that the potential gains from clustering, which were a key part of policy, were not realised. 150
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report Finland In Finland, expenditure under Objective 2 amounted to just under over EUR 400 million up to the end of 2008 and went to areas in which some 40% of the population outside of Objective 1 regions lived. The focus of support was similar to that in Objective 1 regions, much of it going to stimulate diversification and innovation in the business sector. As in Objective 1 regions, the policy was more successful in achieving its aims in larger urban areas with centres of higher education and research, which were best equipped to benefit from the significant support to R&D and other innovation activities. While in these areas, there tended to be several R&D and business development organisations capable of taking initiatives, obtaining funding and organising projects, this was not the case in rural areas. According to evaluations, in the case of RDTI in particular, the funding received from the ERDF was vital for projects to have been undertaken. Funding also went to improving the local environment in many of the areas assisted. Support for various measures of urban regeneration, involving partnership between local authorities and local organisations on the ground, for local public services and for social infrastructure helped to make the areas concerned more attractive places for people to live and for firms to locate. Such measures contributed to the growth of tourism as well as to the development of businesses in other sectors. Sweden In Sweden, Objective 2-financed expenditure over the period amounted to around EUR 370 million up to the end of 2008 and went to areas where only around 18% of the population outside of Objective 1 regions lived. The division of funding between broad policy areas was similar to that in Finland – or indeed in Objective 1 regions – with much of it going to support of SMEs, improvement of the environment and the development of tourism. Although population continued to decline in the rural areas assisted, the growth of GDP per head over the period was slightly higher than in non-assisted regions and, according to evaluations, the policies followed have helped to adapt the development path to the requirements of global competition. In particular, they contributed to a substantial increase in expenditure on R&D (to an average of 4.6% of GDP in the regions receiving most support), to the development of advanced services and to the establishment of scientific and cultural exchanges. Denmark In Denmark, Objective 2 funding amounted to only some EUR 125 million up to end-2008 and only just over 12% of the population lived in areas receiving support. Funding was split mainly between three policy areas – support of SMEs, of RTDI and of tourism. According to evaluations, funding acted as a catalyst to generate more financial assistance and improved the conditions for business in the areas concerned. The availability of business services was increased, networking and cooperation between companies was strengthened (in the form, for example, of joint marketing initiatives, especially in tourism) and better possibilities for the transfer of knowledge were established. The more favourable business environment created in the areas assisted, together with the establishment of advisory services, led to a higher survival rate of small businesses. Evaluations indicate that in the case of funding to support businesses: 151
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:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103: 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?