Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 most extreme example being in Austria, where around 80% of Objective 2 funding went to rural areas, which accounted for only 44% of the population. Within Objective 2 regions, the allocation of funding between different types of area was broadly in line with population in most countries, so that – after adjusting for phasing out areas – there was only limited variation in the funding per head across areas. 1.3.4 Division of expenditure by type of area in Objective 1 regions In practice, the division of Objective 1 funding did not tend to vary much between policy areas in the different types of region, at least at the EU15 level. The main difference was that a larger share of funding went to RTDI in urban areas than elsewhere, while a larger share went to transport in rural areas, especially in those remote from a city (Table 1.13). The relative concentration of RTDI in urban areas was common across countries, with the sole exception of the UK and to a lesser extent Sweden. Except for RTDI, however, there were few systematic differences in the allocation of expenditure between types of region. There was, therefore, no common mix of policy measures which was applied to urban or rural areas over the period across Member States and, accordingly, no common strategy for the development of each type of region. This might reflect differences in expenditure needs in particular types of region between countries or differences in the strategy for responding to those needs as well as in the priority attached to taking action in the different policy areas. For example, in Spain and the UK, a much larger share of funding went to planning and rehabilitation in urban areas than in other types, in Italy and Portugal, a relatively large share went to this policy area in rural areas, especially remote ones, rather than in urban areas. Nevertheless, a widespread feature which does emerge is that, except in Greece and Spain, a larger share of funding was devoted to enterprise support in rural areas remote from a city than in those close to a city. This could reflect the greater need to sustain economic activity in the former in order to maintain population, whereas, as noted above, in areas close to a city, there is a greater possibility of commuting and, therefore, more reliance on the economic activity and jobs which are present there. There were also no big differences across the EU10 countries in the division of funding in different types of region (Table 1.14). As in the EU15, apart from the share of funding for RTDI in urban areas being larger than elsewhere, there were no systematic differences in the allocation of expenditure. 1.3.5 Division of expenditure by type of area in Objective 2 regions There were more systematic differences in the division of ERDF financing between the different types of area in Objective 2 regions (Table 1.15). In particular: • as in Objective 1 regions, but even more, so much larger share of funding went to RDTI in urban areas than others; • as a counterpart, a much larger share of funding went to support of tourism in rural areas than elsewhere; • a larger share of funding was allocated to planning and rehabilitation in urban areas than other; • a larger share of funding in rural than other areas went to environmental infrastructure. 38
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report Table 1.13 Division of ERDF in Objective 1 NUTS 3 regions by region type in the EU15 by policy area, 2000-2006 Agriculture and forestry Development of rural Fisheries Aid to firms Tourism RTDI Human resources Transport Telecoms Energy Environmental infra- Planning and Social infrastructure % total expenditure Total BE Urban 51.1 9.7 24.5 0.4 1.2 1.1 11.5 0.4 88.9 Intermed, near a 45.7 17.7 22.4 0.8 2.0 1.5 9.3 0.6 11.1 DE Urban 0.2 0.1 20.2 1.8 32.2 4.7 24.7 2.0 0.1 5.2 7.0 1.6 38.2 Intermed, near a 0.3 0.0 28.4 2.8 9.8 2.8 26.3 2.0 0.2 18.7 8.6 0.1 39.3 Rural, near a city 1.2 0.0 34.9 4.8 10.6 1.4 27.3 1.6 0.7 10.0 6.9 0.7 22.5 IE Urban 1.2 3.4 1.8 13.0 3.9 59.3 3.7 0.8 8.6 3.8 0.5 26.5 Rural, near a city 1.4 3.7 2.1 11.6 3.8 56.8 4.4 1.1 8.6 3.3 3.1 41.0 Rural, remote 1.6 4.0 2.5 10.2 3.6 54.3 5.2 1.5 8.6 2.8 5.6 32.5 GR Urban 0.1 8.1 1.1 2.6 1.7 44.4 15.9 1.7 3.1 10.0 8.6 2.6 30.2 Intermed, near a 0.1 0.7 12.7 2.8 2.6 1.5 42.4 7.7 0.5 4.9 11.4 9.5 3.4 22.8 Intermed, remote 1.3 7.6 11.5 1.2 1.5 23.1 9.2 0.7 12.8 13.8 15.6 1.6 4.1 Rural, near a city 1.6 13.0 5.4 0.5 1.0 39.1 6.9 1.0 13.0 6.3 8.0 4.3 5.1 Rural, remote 0.0 1.0 11.4 4.8 0.5 1.0 44.6 7.6 1.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 3.2 37.9 ES Urban 0.1 14.8 0.4 14.7 3.4 19.4 1.2 0.2 11.1 30.8 3.6 0.3 17.7 Intermed, near a cit 0.1 14.3 0.3 8.9 3.3 35.0 0.8 0.1 11.6 20.3 4.8 0.3 52.3 Intermed, remote 0.1 10.4 0.2 9.5 1.6 33.3 1.7 0.5 13.7 21.8 6.9 0.2 7.3 Rural, near a city 0.3 18.3 0.3 6.2 3.6 34.8 0.5 0.3 10.3 20.5 4.6 0.2 11.0 Rural, remote 0.4 10.5 0.2 7.6 4.6 38.2 0.5 0.1 13.5 21.3 2.8 0.2 11.7 FR Urban 0.0 3.5 0.1 11.0 10.7 4.6 7.9 20.2 2.2 2.2 14.8 15.5 6.1 1.2 64.2 Intermed, near a 3.5 11.5 10.4 1.1 16.5 28.1 2.5 1.6 9.5 4.3 9.3 1.7 23.6 Rural, near a city 5.5 1.5 1.2 31.3 28.9 0.5 0.9 10.3 7.9 7.9 4.2 9.6 Rural, remote 3.3 7.9 7.9 2.7 20.2 5.7 1.3 36.8 0.7 13.6 2.6 IT Urban 25.3 5.3 11.7 28.5 4.0 1.3 8.9 10.1 1.7 3.0 32.3 Intermed, near a cit 30.7 7.2 5.5 24.3 3.5 2.0 8.8 14.4 1.6 2.1 45.3 Intermed, remote 30.8 6.7 0.5 27.0 1.5 2.6 10.0 17.4 1.8 1.6 4.5 Rural, near a city 31.1 7.4 4.3 16.1 10.1 0.5 12.5 12.8 3.1 2.1 12.3 Rural, remote 37.1 6.5 1.0 12.8 2.3 0.6 14.4 20.9 3.1 1.4 5.5 NL Intermed, near a 7.9 20.3 15.1 7.0 18.6 6.3 20.0 2.1 2.8 100.0 AT Rural, near a city 58.0 28.7 4.2 1.5 3.1 3.0 1.5 100.0 PT Urban 0.1 0.1 26.0 3.3 9.2 1.0 26.5 5.6 3.5 4.5 8.5 10.5 1.3 38.6 Intermed, near a cit 0.2 1.1 0.1 25.1 2.6 4.6 1.2 22.5 4.7 2.9 6.5 11.4 16.3 0.8 32.5 Rural, near a city 0.8 0.1 17.2 3.6 3.9 0.2 27.7 4.2 3.5 5.1 17.4 13.9 2.6 5.6 Rural, remote 0.1 6.3 0.0 23.1 3.1 2.6 0.1 21.3 2.8 6.0 5.4 13.5 14.5 1.3 23.4 FI Rural, near a city 3.4 46.2 28.6 7.2 8.9 3.7 0.3 1.7 36.8 Rural, remote 4.4 44.5 23.6 10.7 9.8 3.2 1.6 2.1 63.2 SE Urban 5.8 71.3 1.1 21.8 1.3 Intermed, near a cit 100.0 0.0 Rural, near a city 4.8 0.2 42.8 9.5 21.4 9.6 9.6 2.1 29.8 Rural, remote 0.0 1.6 40.1 19.4 18.4 6.2 10.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 2.3 68.9 UK Urban 0.2 28.5 8.2 10.4 7.7 9.3 5.4 0.7 0.8 23.8 2.6 2.5 70.4 Intermed, near a cit 1.0 30.6 10.2 10.2 8.0 17.1 5.0 0.2 1.3 9.9 3.6 2.9 11.0 Intermed, remote 0.1 44.2 9.0 26.9 0.1 9.1 2.7 0.7 0.8 2.3 1.8 2.5 8.8 Rural, near a city 1.9 23.7 9.7 3.1 16.7 12.7 2.3 0.1 16.7 4.6 3.4 5.1 5.7 Rural, remote 35.2 6.0 5.3 1.0 28.0 6.8 3.4 3.0 2.0 6.9 2.4 4.1 EU15 Urban 0.0 0.3 0.1 19.8 3.5 13.3 2.9 26.6 5.4 1.4 6.4 13.9 4.6 1.8 31.8 Intermed, near a 0.1 0.3 0.1 21.2 3.0 7.0 2.4 30.3 2.8 0.9 10.5 15.0 5.4 1.1 37.3 Intermed, remote 0.1 0.2 17.3 4.4 7.9 1.1 27.9 3.1 1.0 11.6 17.6 6.9 1.0 3.8 Rural, near a city 0.4 0.2 0.2 24.7 4.3 7.2 2.7 29.0 3.8 0.8 10.1 11.5 3.5 1.6 11.7 Rural, remote 0.0 1.5 0.5 16.7 3.7 3.9 1.5 34.6 4.8 2.0 8.8 12.2 7.5 2.1 15.4 Source: Based on database of commitments up to end-2006 by NUTS 3 region constructed by SWECO for DG Regio Technical assistance 39
Page 1: Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 90 and 91:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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?