Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Table 1.8 Allocation of ERDF in Objective 1 regions in the EU10 by policy area, 2000-2006 % ERDF allocated in each country CZ EE LV LT HU MT PL SI SK EU10 EU25 Total 1.Agriculture and fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.2 Fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total 2.Enterprise Environment 25.5 23.8 40.9 16.9 25.6 2.2 18.9 36.7 3.4 20.6 25.8 2.1 Assisting large businesses 3.3 1.0 11.0 3.3 2.4 0.0 2.8 5.7 1.1 3.0 4.3 2.2 Assisting SMEs+craft sector 20.4 8.4 24.7 7.2 15.3 2.2 11.6 19.9 1.6 12.6 14.3 2.3 RTDI 1.8 14.3 5.2 6.4 8.0 0.0 4.5 11.1 0.8 5.0 7.3 Total 3.Human Resources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.1 Labour market policy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.2 Social inclusion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 Education and training 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Total 4.Transport and telecoms 31.3 17.1 29.9 33.3 29.9 27.9 53.9 13.9 44.2 43.7 37.6 4.1 Transport 26.8 14.2 24.5 24.4 22.2 26.5 43.3 5.4 42.3 35.3 32.0 4.2 Telecommunications and IS 4.5 2.9 5.3 8.9 7.6 1.4 10.5 8.5 1.8 8.4 5.5 Total 5.Environment and energy 14.2 3.7 12.9 11.4 6.4 41.7 10.2 10.8 16.8 10.7 11.6 5.1 Energy infrastructure 2.8 2.3 5.2 10.3 1.4 0.4 2.2 5.4 0.8 2.7 1.4 5.2 Environmental infrastructure 11.4 1.4 7.7 1.1 5.0 41.3 8.0 5.4 16.0 7.9 10.2 Total 6.Territorial policy 25.8 49.1 12.4 35.7 33.5 22.9 15.1 33.3 22.2 21.5 21.1 6.1 Tourism 11.8 9.8 2.6 14.7 6.5 10.7 4.8 27.8 5.8 6.9 4.9 6.2 Planning and rehabilitation 9.0 3.6 0.0 2.0 8.6 5.9 5.5 5.4 1.6 5.5 9.0 6.3 Social infrastructure 4.9 35.7 9.8 16.6 18.0 6.2 4.8 0.0 10.1 8.7 6.3 6.4 Development of rural areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.5 0.9 7.Technical assistance 3.2 6.3 3.9 2.7 4.2 5.3 2.0 5.3 13.3 3.4 2.1 Total Objective 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Calculations based on DG Regio data 30
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report Territorial policy, comprising a mix of different types of measure, including support for the development of rural areas, planning and rehabilitation (the clean-up and renovation of urban and rural areas), social infrastructure and tourism, accounted for 21% in the EU15 and as much as 36% in Portugal. Agriculture and fisheries (mostly agriculture) and the Environment and energy (mostly the former), each accounted for 7.5% of funding. The three general messages which are reflected in the division of Objective 1 funding are: • first, that it varied markedly between regions, which in turn reflects differences in relative priorities and the most pressing needs. • secondly, that funding tended to be relatively widely dispersed across policy areas in individual regions; • thirdly, that a significant proportion of funding in many cases went to policy areas not directly connected to economic development – to territorial policy and environmental infrastructure, especially. 1.2.2 Objective 1 funding in the EU10 In Objective 1 regions in the EU10 countries, the average division of ERDF support over the (shorter) period was similar to that in the EU15, except more went to Transport and telecommunications (44%) and less to Enterprise support (21%) (Table 1.8). An almost identical share of funding as in the EU15 went to Territorial policy and Environmental infrastructure, these two together accounting for almost a third of the total on average, and much more in Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia and, most especially, Estonia. In the last, some 35% of total ERDF financing was assigned to Social infrastructure. In the EU10 as in the EU15, therefore, funding was distributed over a large number of policy areas, including those not closely linked to economic development per se. 1.2.3 Objective 2 funding The main difference in the allocation of Objective 2 funding between policy areas from that of Objective 1 was the higher priority attached to Enterprise support (which accounted for 48% of the total ERDF in the EU15) and Territorial policy (31%) and the correspondingly lower priority attached to Transport and telecommunications (11%) (Table 1.9). In 6 countries, over half of funding went to Enterprise support, while in three (France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands), over 40% of funding went to Territorial policy, mainly to Planning and rehabilitation and Tourism, and in a fourth (Italy), the proportion was over a third. As in the case of Objective 1, therefore, Objective 2 funding differed across the EU according to the relative priority attached to the different policy areas and while there was some relative concentration on one or two broad areas, funding was fairly widely dispersed. Moreover, more than in the case of Objective 1, a significant part of funding was directed at policy areas which had more to do with social cohesion and territorial balance than economic growth. 31
Page 1: Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 82 and 83:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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?