Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

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