Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Table 1.10 Division of ERDF in Objective 1 NUTS 3 regions in the EU15 by region type and division of population, 2000-2006 Funding Population EUR million % Total % Country % Total in Obj 1 BE Urban 380 89 85 82 Intermed, near a city 47 11 12 18 DE Urban 4652 38 57 42 Intermed, near a city 4783 39 29 37 Rural, near a city 2742 23 13 22 IE Urban 516 27 28 28 Rural, near a city 798 41 44 44 Rural, remote 633 33 28 28 GR Urban 4570 30 36 36 Intermed, near a city 3450 23 24 24 Intermed, remote 622 4 3 3 Rural, near a city 768 5 6 6 Rural, remote 5742 38 31 31 ES Urban 4501 18 45 22 Intermed, near a city 13271 52 38 52 Intermed, remote 1851 7 4 7 Rural, near a city 2780 11 8 10 Rural, remote 2956 12 6 9 FR Urban 1584 64 30 80 Intermed, near a city 582 24 54 12 Rural, near a city 237 10 13 4 Rural, remote 63 3 4 3 IT Urban 5148 32 54 38 Intermed, near a city 7215 45 34 43 Intermed, remote 723 5 3 5 Rural, near a city 1950 12 7 9 Rural, remote 882 6 3 6 NL Intermed, near a city 82 100 16 100 AT Rural, near a city 182 100 35 100 PT Urban 5103 39 52 52 Intermed, near a city 4298 32 27 27 Rural, near a city 736 6 6 6 Rural, remote 3094 23 15 15 FI Rural, near a city 184 37 34 57 Rural, remote 315 63 20 43 SE Urban 7 1 21 37 Intermed, near a city 0 0 30 30 Rural, near a city 146 30 30 10 Rural, remote 337 69 20 23 UK Urban 2795 70 70 62 Intermed, near a city 439 11 27 18 Intermed, remote 349 9 1 9 Rural, near a city 226 6 1 7 Rural, remote 161 4 1 5 EU15 Urban 29200 32 51 39 Intermed, near a city 34236 37 33 34 Intermed, remote 3529 4 1 3 Rural, near a city 10784 12 10 13 Rural, remote 14150 15 5 11 Source: Based on database of commitments up to end-2006 by NUTS 3 region constructed by SWECO for DG Regio Such a concentration was particularly evident in regions remote from a city, which tend to be peripheral. These regions accounted for under 5% of the EU15 population but received just over 15% of ERDF support, over three times as much. Regions which were rural but closer to a large town or city also received a larger share of ERDF funding (almost 12%) than their share of population (10%), but the difference between the two was much smaller. 34
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report More significantly, the share of Objective 1 funding going to remote rural areas was also greater than the share of population living in Objective 1 regions (15% as opposed to 11%). This means that within Objective 1 regions there was equally a relatively concentration of support on these areas. This was not the case for rural areas close to a large town or city, where the share of support was slightly smaller than their share of population. This pattern was common to nearly all EU15 countries. It was particularly evident in Finland and Sweden, where the funding was channelled to sparsely populated regions and where it was concentrated on the most ‘rural’ areas within these regions. It was also evident in Portugal. It was not evident in Italy, while in the UK, funding was concentrated in urban rather than rural areas, reflecting perhaps the greater problems in the former than the latter. 1.3.2 Objective 1 regions in the EU10 In the EU10, where nearly all regions were eligible for Objective 1 support, there was in general less concentration of funding in rural areas. Of the total of EUR 9 billion of ERDF funding, around a third went to rural areas, only marginally more than their share of population (Table 1.11). Only in Hungary did a significantly larger share of the ERDF go to remote rural areas than their share of population. In Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and, to a lesser extent, Slovenia, the share was smaller, in Estonia, much the same (in the other countries, there are no remote rural areas). If account is also taken of rural areas close to a city, the position is: • in Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Hungary, there was a relative concentration of Objective 1 funding on rural areas, if only comparatively small in the last three countries. • in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, funding was concentrated in predominantly urban rather than rural areas, despite the expressed policy aim of pursuing balanced growth; • in Estonia, there was a balanced distribution of funding between rural and urban areas. The above figures, however, need to be interpreted with care. As argued elsewhere in this report, the fact that expenditure takes place in a particular area does not mean that its effects are confined to the area concerned. This is especially so in the case of NUTS 3 regions which tend to be relatively small in spatial terms and where, accordingly, any investment supported might bring significant benefits to those living in neighbouring regions. A stimulus to economic activity, therefore, can mean more jobs for those commuting from other regions as well as for those living in the region itself. Indeed, those living in a rural area might gain more from investment outside the area than from investment inside, particularly if business conditions are more favourable in the former area. This argument, however, tends to hold more for rural areas close to a city than those which are remote, where it more difficult to reach a sizable centre of economic activity or population. At the same time, it should also be bone in mind that the figures relate only to the ERDF rather than to the Structural Funds as a whole, and it may be that support from the other Funds was allocated across types of region in a different way. For example, it might be that support to rural areas was concentrated on education and training in order to improve the skills of the work force rather than on infrastructure or enterprise support. 35
Page 1: Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 86 and 87:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?