Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 in Objective 1 regions. In regions receiving phasing-out support under Objective 2, the amount involved was considerably less – only around EUR 8 a year 50 . This scale of support has to be assessed in relation to the problems confronting the areas concerned and the aims which were set for the funding to achieve. • In many cases, the areas were reliant in the past on traditional industry and had been seeking to diversify into other activities for many years before 2000. As is evident from the case study evidence collected, it typically takes decades of concerted policy effort rather than years to bring about a fundamental change in areas of specialisation. • Nevertheless, significant achievements were recorded in many Objective 2 areas. In these cases, ERDF support acted both as a catalyst to stimulate the formulation of a long-term strategy for restructuring and for developing new growth activities and as a means of levering larger amounts of funding • The 7-year programming period, therefore, gave both an opportunity to plan ahead and an incentive to do so, while the relatively small amount of funding helped to focus attention on the most effective ways of deploying this. Moreover, the provision of EU funding lent credence to the strategy being followed and encouraged others to invest in it. • The effectiveness of funding is reflected in the fact that, despite their economic problems, growth of GDP per head in the regions concerned was either higher or not significantly lower than in non-assisted regions. According to evaluations, funding both boosted growth and helped to improve the potential for future growth. • Objective 2 funding also helped to further social cohesion and territorial balance especially at the local level. Partly as a result of the small areas on which funding was concentrated and the limited amount involved, much of it went to environmental and community projects which increased the attractiveness of areas as places in which to live. • Funding also led to greater local involvement in the development of the local area as well as raising awareness of the potential for locally-based action. In sum, Objective 2 produced positive results in a number of different policy areas across the EU which in many cases far outweighed the relatively small scale of funding made available. A number of evaluations, however, pointed to the pitfalls of the spatial concentration of Objective 2 funding on small areas. In many cases, the most effective way of helping the areas to develop was to stimulate the growth of economic activity in neighbouring areas where businesses were already concentrated. These, however, were not designated as problem areas and so were not eligible for support. 5.1.7 The management and implementation system The system which Member States and regions are required to put in place for managing and implementing cohesion policy and for receiving financial aid from the Structural Funds is intended to ensure that the policy implemented is effective. Although the system was already in place in EU15 Member States before the beginning of the 2000-2006 programming period, according to the evaluation, it, nevertheless, had important positive effects over the programming period. 50 See Table 2.3 in Chapter 2 above which shows the support provided by the ERDF in relation to GDP. Overall the level of support in areas assisted under Objective 2 was less than 20% of that in Objective 1 regions in the EU15. 160
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report These include, in particular, spill-overs into other policy areas of the key principles involved – programming over a medium-to-long time horizon, partnership (involving stakeholders in the design and implementation of policy), transparency, monitoring and evaluation. The spill-overs tended to be greatest where commitment to increasing the effectiveness of policies was strongest among decision makers and where the scale of funding was large in relation to national budgets. Nevertheless, while the programming principle was firmly established, infrastructure projects, particularly for the environment though also for transport, were in many cases, not adequately integrated into an overall regional development strategy. The result was that they were less effective than they might have been in furthering the strategy concerned and in pursuing more than one objective at the same time. A particular challenge is posed by the typically long duration of infrastructure projects, especially those for transport, which often extend beyond the time span of a single programming period. This, in many cases, is combined with long lead times because of the need for careful design of the project, obtaining planning approval, purchasing the land required and so on, as well as with a high level of uncertainty about the costs involved at various stages of the project. In addition, the bureaucratic procedures surrounding such projects, which vary markedly between countries in their complexity and the time needed to complete them, add a further element of uncertainty and potential delay. The resulting difficulty in determining the expenditure profile of large-scale infrastructure projects led in a number of countries to funding being concentrated on smaller projects where commitments could more easily be translated into spending within a reasonable period of time, with less risk of infringing the n+2 rule (see below). These projects, however, tended to be less important for development. In certain cases, funding was shifted to projects which had already been completed, or were in the process of so being, and had been financed from other sources. Accordingly, while the funding provided was spent in the same broad policy area as initially planned, it was not spent on new investment as such. The key issue this raises is whether the strategy initially agreed, and on which the funding provided was predicated, was implemented in practice. This question could not be answered during the evaluation. A related feature to emerge from the evaluation was the tendency in a number of countries for expenditure to have built up only slowly over the programming period and to have been concentrated at the very end of the time allowed for spending to take place – in the years 2006- 2008. This might reflect a particularly careful selection of projects to fund or, alternatively, excessively long administrative procedures, implying significant costs to those undertaking the projects. It also raises a question about the criteria applied to selecting projects towards the end of the period when a large proportion of the funds have to be spent relatively quickly. It equally implies an adverse effect on the implementation of programmes in the following programming period, given the likely preoccupation of the authorities with spending the remaining funding from the previous period. Indeed, the evidence is that a number of Member States have effectively shifted the programming period by two years, so that spending the funds available does not really begin seriously until two years have already elapsed. 161
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:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113: 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?