How does cohesion policy support rural development Expost

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: 4 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: 4 Elaboration of an urban-rural typology of regions 4 Developing a “conceptual model” depicting how “ERDF programs” bring about effects in rural areas 4 Developing a typology of projects 4 Analysis of 5 selected Member States - (France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden) – based on Study on Regional Expenditures 4 Analysis of 5 regional case studies: Centre (FR), Saxony (DE), Świętokrzyskie (PL), Andalusia (ES) and South Sweden (SE) 4 Developing policy recommendations for the future contribution of the ERDF to rural development

Typology NUTS 3 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 4 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 4 Support of strong regions (DE, ES) 4 Support of weak regions (FR, SE)

High variety of support for project types 4 Project types with “urban focus”: critical mass in terms of economic activity required: - Projects fostering business development - R&D projects 4 Project types with “rural focus”: - transport infrastructure (rural road systems, strengthening accessibility from “outside”) - investment in environmental infrastructure (waste, sewerage, …) 4 Project types with different approaches in the MS: - social infrastructure (rural focus O 2 Spain, O 1 France) - strengthen rural initiatives (rural focus O 1 Spain, O 2 Germany) 4 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: 4 “Demand driven approach” : - without regional /local institutional support structure -> ERDF focusing on strong (urban) regions: knowledge + capacity for successful applications available 4 “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 4 For project applicants: not always clear which fund for which project 4 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 4 The ERDF invested significantly in rural areas in the five selected Member States 4 The ERDF supported weak regions independently of their rural, intermediate or urban character 4 The ERDF had the flexibility to respond to the different needs of the regions 4 The ERDF supported both endogenous and exogenous development strands 4 Some intervention types had a strong urban focus, others a strong rural focus 4 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 4 Rurality can not purely be pictured by a set of indicators cultural concept behind it 4 whether a territory counts as urban or rural depends strongly on the national context and the scale 4 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 4 policy should continue to target “weak” areas regardless of their rural or urban character 4 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. NUTS 3) in Europe 4 Commission: same definitions and criteria of structural weakness (economic, social, and environmental) across different funds 4 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: 4 mono-funded: “sectoral” projects (e. g. road, rail infrastructure ) 4 co-operation between funds: when project combines different sectors Administrative procedures, controlling prerequisites: 4 the smaller the single support, the more likely trade off between benefits achieved and administrative burden of obtaining funding 4 classification of measures to differentiate in terms of administrative procedures Number of (potential) project promoters: 4 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 4 Large scale infrastructure (i. e. road, rail and telecoms): delivered centrally at national level - regional feedback 4 Various economic sectors involved: co-ordination of different funding sources - strategic goals coordinated regionally - delivery and administration local, close to beneficiaries. 4 Interventions improving the institutional framework (i. e. education, local initiatives) + support of business units: - central (national) coordination of funding programs - local decision making 4 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: 4 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 4 Success of policy for the European taxpayer: aggregated result at EU level - evaluations that provide assessment of the policy as a whole

Thank you!