Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 The division of funding between different types of project varied just as much if not more than in the EU15. Overall some 36% of the ERDF directed to the environment went on infrastructure projects to extend access to clean drinking water and on waste and wastewater disposal and treatment, around 31% went on cleaning up polluted areas and maintaining the cultural heritage, while the rest was spread across other areas, such as developing renewable energy sources and combating air pollution. Infrastructure investment accounted for a particularly large proportion of environmental expenditure in Slovakia (64%), Latvia (60%) and to a lesser extent in Malta (54%), while the cleaning up of polluted areas was more important in Hungary (absorbing 55% of the ERDF going to environmental projects), Slovenia (50%) and Estonia (48%). In both Latvia and Lithuania, in stark contrast to the other countries, 40% or more of the ERDF in this area went to projects for improving energy efficiency. In Objective 2 regions in the EU15, 22% of the ERDF support provided went, on average, to environmental projects (Table 3.10). The proportion varied from 52% in Luxembourg and 31-32% in Italy and the Netherlands (where Objective 1 spending in this area was equally relatively high) to only around 9% in Sweden (where Objective 1 spending in this area was also relatively low) and 7% in Denmark. In contrast to Objective 1 regions, relatively little of the ERDF going to this broad area went on supporting investment in environmental infrastructure (only around 20% of the total), reflecting the generally more developed nature of the regions assisted, though in Spain, a relatively large proportion of funding went on such support (43%). Most of the funding in most countries (around two-thirds overall) went on cleaning up polluted areas and maintaining the cultural heritage, though the last was important only in Spain and Italy. In the Netherlands and the UK, over 90% of the expenditure funded by the ERDF on environmental projects, was directed to this area together with preserving the natural landscape, while in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden, it was over 75%. In Austria and Finland, on the other hand, a significant proportion of funding (52% and 44%, respectively) went on supporting the adoption of environmentally-friendly technology by SMEs. These were the only two countries in which this was the case and where, accordingly, where the ERDF was used for potentially commercial purposes, to the extent that such technology could offer the firms concerned a competitive edge (see below), as well as, of course, reducing the pollution or emissions they caused (and therefore, the social costs of their operations). In the three EU10 regions receiving funding under Objective 2, a relatively large proportion of this went on environmental projects in both Praha and Bratislava (43% in the former, some 3 percentage points less than initially planned, and 35% in the latter, 4 percentage points more than planned). In both, all, or nearly all, of the funding went to cleaning up polluted or rundown areas, predominantly parts of the two cities. In Cyprus, on the other hand, relatively little funding was allocated to environmental projects (11%), most of it to supporting the adoption of environmentally-friendly technology in SMEs (70%). 94
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report Table 3.8 Expenditure on the environment financed by the ERDF by field of intervention in Objective 1 regions in the EU15, 2000-2006 % Environmental expenditure financed by ERDF BE DE IE EL ES FR IT NL AT PT FI SE UK EU15 Maintaining woodlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Preserving landscape, forests 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.0 3.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 Environ-friendly tech (large firms) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.4 1.7 0.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.5 Environ-friendly technology (SMEs) 0.0 9.0 0.0 5.2 0.3 0.5 5.2 6.6 13.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 9.3 4.0 Renewable energy sources 4.2 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.8 2.7 1.8 0.4 51.2 1.2 50.0 0.0 2.0 1.1 Energy efficiency 6.3 0.0 4.1 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.7 Environmental infrastructure 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.1 21.7 11.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 48.9 0.0 7.8 Air 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Noise 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Urban and industrial waste 6.8 7.0 32.3 11.8 3.0 10.1 7.8 0.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 6.2 Drinking water (incl. distrib) 9.2 7.4 27.3 10.6 17.3 31.6 15.9 0.0 35.7 9.9 0.0 0.0 9.8 13.5 Sewerage and purification 8.2 34.1 36.2 11.8 20.0 10.4 22.9 0.4 0.0 16.7 50.0 0.0 5.8 20.3 Planning and rehabilitation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 51.1 5.1 1.0 Rehabilitation of industrial sites 65.3 12.7 0.0 2.0 0.6 2.6 1.3 11.8 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 40.4 5.6 Rehabilitation of urban areas 0.0 22.8 0.0 16.3 6.1 23.5 14.8 74.0 0.0 34.4 0.0 0.0 19.9 17.3 Protecting, improving natural environ 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.6 23.6 1.9 8.9 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 Maintaining, restoring culturl heritage 0.0 0.6 0.0 32.4 5.6 0.7 10.5 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 Total environment as % Total expend 11.2 23.0 11.2 17.5 19.1 24.2 21.3 36.7 6.4 20.9 3.5 1.3 19.6 19.8 Note: Expenditure as at end-2008 Source: Estimates based on DG Regio data 95
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:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
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?