Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

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