Cohesion Fund including former ISPA 2000 2006 ex

Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) 2000 -2006 ex post evaluation Jurate Vaznelyte, Adam Abdulwahab Evaluation Network Meeting Brussels, April 14 th 2011 1

Evaluation structure and timing WP A: Contribution to EU transport and environment policies. Contract awarded to RGL Forensics /AECOM (UK). Work started in January 2010, to be completed in July 2011. WP B: Cost benefit analysis of selected transport projects. Contract awarded to Frontier Economics (UK). Work started in January 2010. Final report expected in May 2011. WP C: Cost benefit analysis of selected environment projects. Contract awarded to COWI (DK). Work started in January 2010. Final report expected in May 2011. WP D: Management and Implemenation Contract to be awarded within 2011. Study should be completed within 5 months. WP E: Drawing conclusions and recommendations. Internal work of the Evaluation unit 2

WP A: Contribution to EU transport and environment policies (1) • Cohesion Fund (CF) co-financed 1, 139 projects and allocated 34 million euro during the 2000 -2006 period. • On average, CF contributed 11% of the total investment needs of each of the beneficiary countries. • For EU 4 countries, on average, CF funding equals to 0. 21% of their GDP (ranges from 0. 07% in Ireland to 0. 3% in Portugal) • For EU 10 countries, CF as a proportion to GDP ranges from 0. 12% in Cyprus to 0. 66% in Bulgaria (on average 0. 36 % of GDP) 3

WP A: Contribution to EU transport and environment policies (2) • Transport sector: – CF co-financed 1, 281 km of new roads and 3, 176 km of reconstructed roads (4, 457 km roads (new and reconstructed) in total) – CF co-financed 2, 010 km of new rail and 3, 840 km of reconstructed rail (5, 350 km rail (new and reconstructed) in total) • Environment sector: – 17. 2 million additional people were served by water supply projects – 18. 9 million additional population were served by waste water projects 4

WP B: Cost benefit analysis of selected 10 transport projects (1) • • • 1. M 1 motorway – Ireland 2. Agiou Konstantinou bypass – Greece 3. Railway line Thriassio-Pedio- Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece 4. Levante – Francia motorway - Spain 5. High-speed rail line Madrid- Barcelona-French border – Spain 6. Modernisation of the Algarve rail line - Portugal 7. IXB Transport Corridor – Lithuania 8. Construction of A 2 Motorway – Poland 9. Eastern Section of the M 0 Budapest Ring Road between National Road 4 and M 3 – Hungary • 10. Modernisation of the railway line Senkevice-Cifer and stations Raca-Trnava – Slovak Republic 5

WP B: Cost benefit analysis of selected 10 transport projects (2) • All projects delivered value for money. • Some questions about the utilisation rates (e. g. A 23 motorway in Spain exhibits a utilisation rate of 5%, while M 1 motorway in Ireland around 100%) • The Cohesion Fund contribution was needed to unlock the economic benefits of these projects. • Benefits from these projects come from 8 categories (travel time saving, vehicle operating cost, safety improvements, carbon emission, air and noise reduction ad other). • It was difficult to establish a direct causal link between the transport infrastructure investments and the wider socioeconomic impacts (especially relevant for GDP). 6

WP B – some qualitative findings (3) • Wider impacts are an important source of costs and benefits, but infrastructure impacts on (local) economy are difficult to measure. • Ex ante CBA is one among many factors considered in the decision making process. • Ex ante vs. ex post comparisons require historical memory and common model. • Ex post evaluation helps to improve the ex ante analysis (demand modeling, risk analysis) and adds transparency to the ex ante analysis 7

WP C: Cost benefit analysis of selected 10 environment projects (1) • 4 solid waste and 6 water/wastewater projects • Delay of implementation: more of an up-date of ex ante CBA than actual ex post – Limited information on operation – Non-technical results are not yet observable • Monitoring and data on before/after situation is problematic • Technical solutions are generally OK 8

WP C: revision of ex ante CBAs (2) • Legal compliance is the main driver of investments • CBA is focused on the “administrative” project – “Ticking the box” approach, not integrated into decision-making processes – Quality to be improved – Individual project components are not valued individually – Missing the “big picture” (total river basin, synergies among projects) 9

WP C: lessons learnt (3) • CBA helps decisions if: – Carried out early in the process – Process seems to be more important than the values attached to costs & benefits – Roles of financial and economic analysis are clear and distinguished • Carrying out ex post CBAs: – More useful if ex ante CBA is of good quality – Benefits can be best identified by examining individual components – Wider benefits are important but difficult to quantify 10

Thank you for your attention http: //ec. europa. eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/rado_en. htm 11