Download Objective

How does cohesion policy support rural development
Ex-post evaluation of ERDF support to
rural development: Key findings
(Objective 1 and 2)
2009-10-01
Erich Dallhammer, OIR
Objective and Methodology
Objective:
 to assess the nature and importance of the contribution of the
ERDF to the development of rural areas within Cohesion Policy in
the 2000–06 program period
Methodology:
 Elaboration of an urban-rural typology of regions
 Developing a “conceptual model” depicting how “ERDF programs”
bring about effects in rural areas
 Developing a typology of projects
 Analysis of 5 selected Member States - (France, Germany, Poland,
Spain, Sweden) – based on Study on Regional Expenditures
 Analysis of 5 regional case studies: Centre (FR), Saxony (DE),
Świętokrzyskie (PL), Andalusia (ES) and South Sweden (SE)
 Developing policy recommendations for the future contribution of
the ERDF to rural development
Typology
NUTS3
level
based on OECD density criteria
+ population development
Objective 1 ERDF expenditures/head (5 MS)
Expenditures: 28% in rural, 20% in urban, 52% in intermediate regions
Population: 18% in rural, 36% in urban, 46% in intermediate regions
 Expenditures / head:
support for especially weak areas with population decline
Objective 2 ERDF expenditures/head (4 MS)
Expenditures: 24% in rural, 35% in urban, 41% in intermediate regions
Population: 18% in rural, 36% in urban, 46% in intermediate regions
Expenditures / head: 2 strategies
 Support of strong regions (DE, ES)
 Support of weak regions (FR, SE)
Types of projects funded by ERDF Objective 1 2000 - 2006
in DE, ES, FR, PL, SE
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
agriculture, forestry, fisheries
0.1%
investments into business units
20.7%
11.0%
support R&D
education and training
3.6%
services fostering entrepreneurship
0.0%
labour market
0.0%
transport infrastructure
Telecommunication infrastructure
energy infrastructure
projects strengthening regional initiatives
30.9%
1.7%
0.3%
0.3%
environmental measures
11.5%
Land improvement
Source:
Study on regional
Expenditures 2008
social infrastructure
tech. Assistance
35% 40%
16.0%
3.1%
0.7%
High variety of support for project types
 Project types with “urban focus”:
critical mass in terms of economic activity required:
- Projects fostering business development
- R&D projects
 Project types with “rural focus”:
- transport infrastructure (rural road systems,
strengthening accessibility from “outside”)
- investment in environmental infrastructure (waste, sewerage, …)
 Project types with different approaches in the MS:
- social infrastructure (rural focus O2 Spain, O1 France)
- strengthen rural initiatives (rural focus O1 Spain, O2 Germany)
 The variety of interventions shows high flexibility of the ERDF:
Within the programming and funding framework, appropriate measures
can be developed to meet the specific needs of regions.
The relevance of the institutional setting
Institutional setting has a high importance for the population's
perception of the amount of support they received from the EU
Different approaches:
 “Demand driven approach” :
- without regional /local institutional support structure
-> ERDF focusing on strong (urban) regions:
knowledge + capacity for successful applications available
 “Supporting approach”:
- Centre (crafts sector): support for applicants at local level
- Saxony: transport infrastructure in line with
Spatial Development Plan
-> ERDF stronger in weak (rural) regions
location of decision-making on allocation of funds decides
whether it is perceived as near or far from local population
The relation between ERDF – ESF – EAGGF
“division of labour” between the ERDF, ESF, EAGGF
according to programming documents (axes/priorities or measures)
• ERDF: creation of new economic activity in rural areas
•
•
(direct support to enterprises - SME, R&D projects)
+ improvement of Infrastructure (transport, environment, training)
EAGGF: target group of farmers + actors closely linked to it
ESF: person-related measures
(training, qualification, support for employment or services, etc.)
(need for) co-ordination
 For project applicants: not always clear which fund for which project
 Initiatives to for a better co-operation between funds: e.g.
- France: LAGs implemented the Contrat de Plan Etat Région
- Swedish regional policy: no separate strand focusing on rural areas
Conclusions
 The ERDF invested significantly in rural areas in the five
selected Member States
 The ERDF supported weak regions independently of their rural,
intermediate or urban character
 The ERDF had the flexibility to respond to the different needs of
the regions
 The ERDF supported both endogenous and exogenous
development strands
 Some intervention types had a strong urban focus, others a
strong rural focus
 The delivery mechanisms are important for bringing ERDF
support to the people
1. No “one size fits all” typology to
differentiate between rural and urban area
 Rurality can not purely be pictured by a set of indicators cultural concept behind it
 whether a territory counts as urban or rural depends strongly on
the national context and the scale
 It is very difficult to distinguish ‘‘pure’’ rural areas
- regions range on a scale between ‘‘urbanity’’ and rurality’’
Conclusion:
• The use of urban-rural typologies cannot be recommended for
the evaluation of ERDF effects
• If a comparative assessment of policy effects between the
ERDF and the EAGGF is intended, a breakdown of these
effects in the same territorial context (i.e. rural areas) is needed.
• The Commission should reflect on the necessity of establishing
commonly accepted and useful typologies
2. Stick to the existing approach: support
weak areas, not rural or urban ones
 policy should continue to target “weak” areas
regardless of their rural or urban character
 definition of “weak”:
go beyond GDP/capita – define few, but effective criteria
(economic performance, quality of life, accessibility)
applied at the same regional scale (e.g. NUTS3) in Europe
 Commission:
same definitions and criteria of structural weakness
(economic, social, and environmental) across different funds
 Member States:
- use the pre-defined criteria to delimitate areas eligible for
support of Cohesion Policy
- different size according to different territorial patterns and
governance structures - the scale of the regions can differ
from Member State to Member State.
3. Diversify policy delivery mechanisms
according to the character of the measure
Distribution between the funding sources:
 mono-funded: “sectoral” projects (e.g. road, rail infrastructure )
 co-operation between funds:
when project combines different sectors
Administrative procedures, controlling prerequisites:
 the smaller the single support, the more likely trade off between
benefits achieved and administrative burden of obtaining funding
 classification of measures to differentiate in terms of
administrative procedures
Number of (potential) project promoters:
 the higher the number of beneficiaries – especially located in
rural area - the more decentralized delivery mechanisms
3. Diversify policy delivery mechanisms
according to the character of the measure
 Large scale infrastructure (i.e. road, rail and telecoms):
delivered centrally at national level - regional feedback
 Various economic sectors involved:
co-ordination of different funding sources
- strategic goals coordinated regionally
- delivery and administration local, close to beneficiaries.
 Interventions improving the institutional framework
(i.e. education, local initiatives) + support of business units:
- central (national) coordination of funding programs
- local decision making
 The Commission should
- coordinate programs by insisting on cross-sectoral strategic
frameworks in the Member States.
- one strategic framework program in each programming
area, embracing all aspects of territorial development
4. Use a common analytical framework
(including evaluation)
Differentiated delivery mechanisms require adaptation of the
analytical framework for measuring “success” or “failure” of an
ERDF intervention.
Two target groups for measuring success:
 Success of policy for the citizens in a region:
- feedback loops at regional level
- evaluations of the extent to which policy has contributed to
quality of life
 Success of policy for the European taxpayer:
aggregated result at EU level
- evaluations that provide assessment of the policy as a whole
Thank you!