Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006
5.2.2 The need for concentration of expenditure
As the report makes clear, funding over the 2000-2006 period under both Objective 1 and
Objective 2 was in virtually all cases dispersed over a wide range of policy areas and measures.
• There is a strong case for concentrating funding in particular regions on a limited number
of objectives in order to try to ensure that they have a tangible impact and achieve critical
mass. This does not necessarily mean concentrating, in each case, solely on one of the
multiple objectives of cohesion policy or neglecting complementarities between policy
areas. But it does mean reducing the number of measures funded substantially.
• The objectives and the corresponding measured concerned cannot be specified a priori,
since they should be in line with the needs of the regions in question and their priorities;
these differ between regions because of their different characteristics, patterns of
development and areas of potential comparative advantage.
• It should be up to regions to decide, within the constraints indicated below, on the
objectives and measures on which to concentrate funding, since they are in the best
position to determine the areas in which it would have the greatest effect.
• This choice should not be imposed externally but at the same time, it has to take account
of, and be coherent with, the national strategy being pursued as well as with any
commonly agreed EU-level strategy. Equally, where relevant (such as in relation to
transport networks), it needs to be in line with the policy being followed in neighbouring
regions, which implies a degree of central coordination.
• Whichever objectives and measures are chosen on which to concentrate funding, the
choice needs to be justified and subject to open debate. It also needs to be subject to
detailed and informed negotiations with the European Commission, which has not only to
consider the rationale for the action being proposed but also to ensure a suitable
concentration of funding, to act as a buffer against the strong tendency for ‘policy creep’
to occur as programmes are determined.
5.2.3 The spatial dimension of policy focus
This report has highlighted the lack of correspondence in many cases between NUTS 2 regions,
which tend to be the focus of cohesion policy so far as the ERDF is concerned, and both
administrative and functional, or economic, regions. It has also highlighted the interdependencies
between regions. Both have implications for the formulation of policy and the assessment of the
results.
• Policy needs to be determined, or at least coordinated, at an appropriate spatial level,
which varies between policy areas, spanning regions and sometimes countries in some
cases (transport networks, for example) and being confined to small areas in others (such
as urban regeneration).
• Although there is a strong case for focusing cohesion policy on administrative regions,
which is not the case in many Member States at present, the fact that the statistical
system is built largely around NUTS 2 regions means that these have to remain at the
centre of cohesion policy at EU level.
• Explicit account needs to be taken of the impact of commuting on GDP per head in NUTS
2 regions, in cases where the flows are significant, when designing policies and assessing
them.
164