Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Table 3.5 Public funding sources of investment in transport, 2000-2006 National Govt ERDF Cohesion Fund EUR million Total public EIB National Govt ERDF Cohesion Fund % Total BE 4,699 27 4,726 516 99.4 0.6 10.9 0.2402 DK 8,271 3 8,274 1,705 100.0 0.0 20.6 0.61 DE 147,326 2,953 150,279 4,080 98.0 2.0 2.7 0.98 IE 15,335 1,096 294 16,725 681 91.7 6.6 1.8 4.1 1.71 GR 6,583 4,185 1,490 12,258 4,286 53.7 34.1 12.2 35.0 1.02 ES 83,968 9,523 4,814 98,305 15,403 85.4 9.7 4.9 15.7 1.77 FR 109,481 774 110,254 5,934 99.3 0.7 5.4 0.98 IT 134,071 2,652 136,722 7,638 98.1 1.9 5.6 1.46 LU 1,024 2 1,026 386 99.8 0.2 37.6 0.55 NL 74,155 96 74,251 624 99.9 0.1 0.8 2.21 AT 13,894 3 13,897 871 100.0 0.0 6.3 0.87 PT 4,903 2,592 1,635 9,130 5,987 53.7 28.4 17.9 65.6 0.94 FI 15,422 23 15,445 410 99.9 0.1 2.7 1.49 SE 13,304 63 13,367 1,277 99.5 0.5 9.6 0.68 UK 158,182 416 158,599 4,259 99.7 0.3 2.7 1.30 EU15 790,618 24,408 8,233 823,258 54,057 96.0 3.0 1.0 6.6 1.21 CZ 9,371 95 546 10,012 2,039 93.6 0.9 5.5 20.4 3.63 EE 414 20 213 647.6 8 63.9 3.1 32.9 1.2 2.08 CY 1,073 - 25 1,098 84 97.7 2.3 7.7 2.95 LV 439 56 353 848 52 51.8 6.6 41.6 6.1 2.30 LT 727 82 126 935 75 77.8 8.8 13.5 8.0 1.62 HU 63 145 724 976 1,516 6.5 14.9 74.2 155.3 0.41 MT 229 4 9 243 94.2 1.6 3.7 0.0 1.86 PL 11,046 539 2,694 14,279 2,389 77.4 3.8 18.9 16.7 2.17 SI n.a. 4 122 n.a. 829 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. SK 3,036 100 381 3,523 275 86.2 2.8 10.8 7.8 3.30 EU10 26,398 1,041 5,071 32,562 7,267 81.1 3.2 15.6 22.3 2.24 EU25 817,016 25,449 13,304 855,819 61,324 95.5 3.0 1.6 7.2 1.23 Note: Data up to the end of 2006. All data are in current price terms. Data for Belgium cover only one region. Data for Hungary and Lithuania relate only to the period from 2004 Data for Greece for National Government expenditure is estimated (to be the same in relation to ERDF+Cohesion Fund as in Portugal) Source: Ex post Evaluation, Work Package 5a, Transport, Final Report, p.44 The ERDF was even more important in Greece and Portugal, in the former accounting for an estimated third of investment in transport over the period and in Portugal for around 28%. In both countries, the Cohesion Fund was also a significant source of finance, adding a further 12% in the former and 18% in the latter, so that together, EU funding was responsible for almost half of total investment between 2000 and 2006. In Spain, where the ERDF provided the largest amount of finance for transport in absolute terms, it accounted for close to 10% of the overall investment funded from public sources and for around 20% of the investment in Objective 1 regions. EIB Total as % GDP 80
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report In the other two countries where large-scale finance for transport was provided by the ERDF, it is estimated to have accounted for around 11-12% of investment in the Eastern Länder in Germany and around 9-10% of investment in the South of Italy 29 . Elsewhere, the ERDF was less important as a source of finance, though it was still responsible for almost 7% of total investment funded from public sources in Ireland over the period. In all these countries, it should be noted that the contribution of the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund to transport investment was still less than loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB), which added just under 7% to overall funding and probably a much larger proportion to funding in Objective 1 regions. The contribution of the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund helped to increase investment in transport to relatively high levels relative to GDP in both Spain and Ireland (to around 1.7-1.8% of GDP), more than in any other EU15 country apart from the Netherlands. EU funding added much more to investment in Greece and Portugal, though it still left overall spending on transport relative to GDP much less than in the UK or Finland and less than half that in the Netherlands. In the EU10, investment in transport financed from public sources was almost twice as high in relation to GDP over the 2000-2006 period as in the EU15 (around 2.2% of GDP). It was particularly high in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, amounting to over 3% of GDP. In Hungary, on the other hand, investment in transport is estimated to have been lower than anywhere in the EU25 apart from Belgium, most of this coming from the Cohesion Fund. The ERDF made a slightly smaller contribution to investment in transport in these countries than in the EU15. While it accounted for only just over 3% of total investment over the period, given the fact that it was operational only from May 2004, it was probably responsible for closer to 10% of the investment carried out from then until the end of 2006. The ERDF was particularly important in Latvia and Lithuania, as well as in Hungary, accounting for perhaps 15-20% of investment over the last two years of the period. It was also relatively important in Poland, accounting for perhaps close to 10% of investment over the latter period. In all three cases the Cohesion Fund added considerably to this. The Cohesion Fund generally was much more important as a source of funding in EU10 countries, accounting for almost 16% of the total investment over the period 2000-2006 and probably over a third of the total carried out over the last two years of the period. Loans from the EIB, however, were again larger in scale than funding from the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, adding around 22% to total public funding. 3.4.3 What was the funding spent on? A large part of the finance from the ERDF allocated to transport over the programming period went on roads. In Objective 1 regions in the EU15, some 14% went on motorways and another 44% went on other roads, making almost 60% altogether (Table 3.6 – some 2% of expenditure was unclassified, much of it probably going on roads; it should be noted that the figures in the table relate to the total allocation of the ERDF to transport for the 2000-2006 programming period; the figures are, therefore, larger than in the previous table which relate to expenditure over the period 2000-2006 only). 29 These estimates as well as that for Spain are based on the same assumption as for the EU15 as a whole. 81
Page 1:
Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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?