Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 as well as, of course, between regions receiving assistance under Objective 1 and those in receipt under Objective 2. Overall, the ERDF allocated to regions in the EU15 receiving Objective 1 support amounted to 0.7% of GDP, on average, over the period, while for those in receipt of Objective 2 support – counting only the areas eligible for funding – it amounted to 0.15% of GDP. Both figures may seem relatively small, but it implies that, in Objective 1 regions, if account is taken of the fact that not all of the funding went to capital formation – i.e. some took the form of capital transfers to support enterprises – the funds received contributed around 2-3% to total fixed investment and around 15% to government investment 9 . Assuming the additionality requirement was respected, this means that the ERDF increased investment by this amount in the regions concerned. What it is not possible to do from published data, as noted below, is to relate the funds made available under cohesion policy to the overall expenditure on regional development which occurred across the EU over the period. The lack of this essential information means that it is necessary to rely on these kinds of broad estimate to indicate the size of the contribution made by the ERDF to development expenditure. In Objective 2 regions, the support was much less, though still not negligible, amounting perhaps to around 3% or so of government investment in the regions receiving funding. The scale of funding in relation to GDP varied markedly across Member States in the EU15, reflecting the account taken of their relative prosperity when deciding the amount they should receive. The scale also varied in relation to investment, reflecting not only the overall amount of support but also the differing ways in which this was used in the different regions, and, in particular, how much was allocated to enterprise support as opposed to the development of infrastructure of various kinds. In the case of Objective 1 regions, the amount of funding received in relative terms was largest in Portugal and Greece, the countries with the lowest levels of GDP per head, averaging around 1.3- 1.4% of GDP in both cases (Table 1.4), which implies that it contributed around 25-30% or more to government fixed investment in the regions in these countries. In the Objective 1 regions in Spain, taken together, it amounted to around 0.9% of GDP, in those in Italy – all in the south of the country – it amounted to 0.8% and in those in France, which were mainly the DOMs (Nord Pas de Calais and Corse receiving phasing-out support), it averaged 0.7% (though over 1% in the DOMs if taken separately). Elsewhere, the scale of support relative to GDP was less, ranging from 0.5% in Burgenland, the one Austrian region receiving Objective 1 funding, to 0.2% in the two phasing-out regions in Ireland and slightly less in Flevoland, the one phasing-out region in the Netherlands. In Objective 2 regions in the EU15, there was not the same variation at all. In all Member States, funding under Objective 2 amounted to around 0.15% of GDP in the areas receiving support over the period, the only exceptions being Denmark and Luxembourg, where it was only half this. In the EU10 countries, in which funding was provided for a much shorter period, just over half of the ERDF allocated (52%) went to Poland, 15% to Hungary and just over 10% to the Czech Republic. Virtually all of the funding was to Objective 1 regions (EUR 9.2 billion in total), all but 9 There are no data at EU level for government fixed investment by region, but at the national level, this amounted to 3-4% of GDP over the period in the southern Member States though less in most other EU15 countries – less than 2% of GDP in Germany and the UK. 24
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report three of the NUTS 2 regions in the EU10 being eligible for support under this head, as noted above. In total, funding in Objective 1 regions in the EU10 amounted to some 0.65% of GDP over the period from May 2004 to the end of 2006. The variation between countries, however, was wider than in the EU15, ranging from around 1% of GDP in Latvia and Lithuania and around 0.7-0.8% in Poland, Estonia and Slovakia to under 0.2% in Slovenia, the differences again reflecting the GDP per head of the countries concerned. In the three Objective 2 regions in the EU10, funding varied from 0.24% of GDP in Cyprus to 0.46% in Bratislava with Praha midway between. The scale of support in these regions was, therefore, larger relative to their GDP than in Objective 2 regions in the EU15 and closer to the scale in Objective 1 regions – indeed, in the Czech Republic, there was only a difference of 0.1% of GDP between the support provided to Objective 1 regions and that provided to the areas in Praha receiving Objective 2 funding. Table 1.4 Allocation of ERDF in relation to GDP in regions eligible, 2000-2006 % GDP ERDF Allocation Objective 1 Objective 2 AT 0.50 0.17 BE 0.27 0.15 DE 0.47 0.14 DK 0.08 ES 0.93 0.16 FI 0.31 0.12 FR 0.71 0.16 GR 1.25 IE 0.20 IT 0.78 0.19 LU 0.08 NL 0.15 0.14 PT 1.36 SE 0.26 0.14 UK 0.38 0.14 EU15 0.73 0.15 CY 0.24 CZ 0.44 0.35 EE 0.75 HU 0.52 LT 1.01 LV 1.04 MT 0.36 PL 0.75 SI 0.17 SK 0.73 0.46 EU10 0.65 0.35 EU25 0.72 0.15 Note: In the case of Objective 1, the regions covered relate to the NUTS 2 regions receiving support. In the case of Objective 2, they relate only to the areas eligible for funding. Source: Calculations beased on DG Regio and Eurostat data. 25
Page 1: Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 76 and 77:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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?