Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Table 1.11 Division of ERDF in Objective 1 regions by type of region and division of population in the EU10, 2004-2006 Funding Population EUR million % Total % Country % Total in Obj 1 CZ Intermed, near a city 854 93 84 94 Rural, near a city 59 6 5 6 EE Urban 25 11 13 13 Intermed, near a city 146 63 64 64 Intermed, remote 38 16 12 12 Rural, remote 24 10 11 11 LV Urban 145 38 32 32 Intermed, near a city 52 14 16 16 Intermed, remote 63 17 13 13 Rural, near a city 88 23 28 28 Rural, remote 34 9 11 11 LT Urban 306 52 25 25 Intermed, near a city 188 32 50 50 Intermed, remote 14 2 5 5 Rural, near a city 40 7 11 11 Rural, remote 36 6 9 9 HU Urban 181 15 17 17 Intermed, near a city 544 44 42 42 Rural, near a city 230 19 22 22 Rural, remote 285 23 20 20 MT Urban 47 100 100 100 PL Urban 1388 28 22 22 Intermed, near a city 1745 35 39 39 Rural, near a city 1751 35 35 35 Rural, remote 89 2 4 4 SI Intermed, near a city 42 31 37 37 Intermed, remote 9 6 5 5 Rural, near a city 81 60 54 54 Rural, remote 4 3 4 4 SK Intermed, near a city 340 59 63 71 Rural, near a city 234 41 25 29 EU10 Urban 2097 23 19 17 Intermed, near a city 3904 43 48 49 Intermed, remote 124 1 1 1 Rural, near a city 2484 27 27 28 Rural, remote 473 5 6 6 EU25 Urban 31298 31 46 30 Intermed, near a city 38140 38 36 40 Intermed, remote 3653 4 1 2 Rural, near a city 13265 13 13 19 Rural, remote 14624 14 5 9 Source: Based on database of commitments up to end-2006 by NUTS 3 region constructed by SWECO for DG Regio 1.3.3 Objective 2 regions Around 21% of Objective 2 funding went to rural areas in EU15 countries (around EUR 4.6 billion overall). Of this, some EUR 1.3 billion, or just under 6% of the total, went to rural areas remote from a city (Table 1.12). This, however, is well over twice the proportion of the population living in these areas (2.5%) if the population living in Objective 1 regions is excluded – i.e. if the comparison is confined to regions potentially eligible for support under Objective 2. The proportion of funding going to rural areas close to a city (15%) was also significantly larger than their share of population (9%). 36
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report Table 1.12 Division of ERDF in Objective 2 regions by region type and division of population Funding Population EUR million % Total % Country excl Obj 1 % Total in Obj 2 BE Urban 338 81 85 77 Intermediate 14 3 11 10 Rural near a city 65 16 4 14 DK Intermediate 27 19 32 15 Rural near a city 64 46 18 47 Rural remote 50 36 21 38 DE Urban 1888 58 61 53 Intermediate 759 23 28 26 Rural near a city 575 18 11 19 Rural remote 29 1 0 1 ES Urban 1778 70 77 73 Intermediate 614 24 19 22 Rural near a city 116 5 3 4 Rural remote* 46 2 1 1 FR Urban 662 12 25 11 Intermediate 3427 60 57 59 Rural near a city 1163 20 14 22 Rural remote 451 8 4 8 IT Urban 1263 46 62 46 Intermediate 935 34 31 38 Rural near a city 321 12 6 13 Rural remote 202 7 1 3 LU Intermediate* 44 100 100 100 NL Urban 328 38 85 60 Intermediate 455 53 14 34 Rural close to a city 75 9 1 6 AT Urban 22 3 24 4 Intermediate 116 16 32 14 Rural near a city 378 54 33 54 Rural remote 190 27 11 27 FI Urban* 1 0 37 0 Intermediate 34 8 30 20 Rural near a city 242 59 24 60 Rural remote 135 33 10 19 SE Urban* 2 1 Intermediate 60 16 30 16 Rural near a city 159 41 54 42 Rural remote 165 43 16 42 UK Urban 3367 74 71 73 Intermediate 1049 23 29 25 Rural near a city 111 2 1 2 EU15 Rural remote 9704 45 56 44 Urban 7499 35 33 35 Intermediate 3264 15 9 16 Rural near a city 1254 6 2 5 CZ Urban 71 100 100 100 CY Intermediate 28 100 100 100 SK Urban 37 100 100 100 Note: Objective 2 includes Objective 2 phasing out regions. The population in these has been weighted by funding received per head, which in most cases was substantially smaller than in non-phasing out regions, in order to improve comparability between the two types of region. Source: Based on database of commitments up to end-2006 by NUTS 3 region constructed by SWECO for DG Regio Accordingly, Objective 2 funding was relatively concentrated in rural areas across the EU15, implying that these areas were regarded as the most problematic outside of Objective 1 and, therefore, most in need of support. This was the case in all Member States without exception, the 37
Page 1: Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 88 and 89:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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?