1
Relations with Countries
outside the EU
EU Regional Policy: method and evaluation.
Presentation for officials in South Africa14 September 2011
Unit for Communication, Information and Relations with Third Countries
Directorate-General for Regional Policy
European Commission
2
What is Regional Policy?
• A) The way the EU helps poorer regions catch up (<75% average GDP)
• B) Help for economically damaged regions to restructure
• C) Part of Cohesion Policy which has €347 billion for 2007-2013, say €50 billion per year (including Social Fund, Cohesion Fund…)
• D) Not just a budget but a tried and tested method
3
A Method based on what works (1)• Made to measure strategies: not imposed
upon but adapted to the specific characteristics and needs of the region in question.
• Multi level governance: a wide range of organisations involved at all levels of programme design and management. State and regional governments, economic and social partners, representatives of civil society.
• Local centres: a polycentric approach maximising the potential of small and medium settlements in local economic development.
4
A method based on what works (2)• Stable financing and programming: long term
financial perspectives avoid the risk of rushing to make hand-outs simply to ensure expenditure
• Local economic development: most private sector jobs in Europe are in micro, small or medium sized enterprises. Targeting them lays the basis for future growth.
• Institutional support: strong formal institutions and informal systems to supply, renew and encourage retention of informed and expert personnel.
5
A Method based on what works (3)• Cross border co-operation (cross frontier,
trans national, interregional): enhances the sense of ‘Europe’, fosters trust and can develop reconciliation.
• Ownership: communities are encouraged to feel that they have a genuine stake in projects if they are not imposed from the top down but derive from participative, multi-level authorities and involve a degree of co-financing.
6
Why have a Cohesion Policy? (1)
It is in the Treaty of Rome, and all later versions: To promote economic social (and, as of November, territorial) cohesion by reducing:
• disparities in the level of development between the regions
• the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas
7
Why have a Cohesion Policy? (2)
Leaving disparities in place would compromise
a) the Single Market and b) Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)
Both need an adjustment mechanism. We have Lisbon Strategy for Growth and
Jobs
But it needs the Cohesion Policy tofunction properly
8
The challenges: wide disparities
•Overall GDP per head
(EU=100)
• Inner London 334.2%
(But it is not NUTS 2)
• Severozapaden 25%
9
The challenges:social exclusion and poverty
• Poverty has a regional dimension
• It is high in less developed regions, such as those in the southern and eastern regions
• It is also a problem within highly developed regions, such as London, Brussels and Vienna
10
Competitiveness: GDP growth rates compared
Population(millions)
1995-2005 % per annum
2000-2005% per annum
US 299.8 3.3 2.5
Brazil 186.8 2.4 2.7
Russia 142.0 3.9 6.1
India 1134.4 6.2 6.7
China 1312.9 9.0 9.4
EU 491.9 2.3 1.7
11Index EU-25 = 100
Convergence objective
(Regions > 75% in EU-25)
Convergence objective
statistically affected regions
Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective
Phasing-in regions, ‘naturally’ above 75%
Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective
Geographical eligibility for Structural Funds support 2007-13
12
18/02/2004EN
1212
How does it work? How does the Commission choose projects?(It doesn’t…)“Shared” responsibility between the European Commission and Member State authorities
Commission determines the priorities, negotiates and approves the strategies and operational programmes proposed by the Member States, and allocates resources
Member States are responsible for designing operational programmes, implementing them (decentralising where possible) and monitoring
Economic and social partners as well as civil society bodies (environment, equal opportunities, sport etc.) participate in design programming and management.
Commission is involved in programme monitoring, commits and pays out approved expenditure and verifies the control systems
13
18/02/2004EN
1313
Fully decentralised management of funds
For each of the 458 operational programme, the Member State appoints:
A managing authority (a national, regional or local public authority or public/private body to oversee the operational programme, and a monitoring committee to run it);
A certification body (a national, regional or local public authority or body to certify the statement of expenditure and the payment applications before their transmission to the Commission);
An auditing body (a national, regional or local public authority or body for each operational programme to oversee the efficient running of the management and monitoring system)
Automatic decommitment (N+2 or N+ 3) If you don’t use it, you lose it (two or three years after project commitment)
14
What has Cohesion Policy achieved?• Much higher growth where active than elsewhere• Improved connectivity, road (2000) and rail (4000km)• Significant involvement of enterprise and civil society• Major improvements in local administration• Cross border co-operation a motor for reconciliation in
the Balkans, Northern Ireland and elsewhere• Major re-orientation towards innovation and research
for 2007-13 (growth, jobs, Lisbon)• Significant improvements to the environment• More than a million jobs• Revolutionary move to flexible credit, recycling funds
15
Some lessons from the last 20 years (1)
1) Needs an objective, non-political method for raising and allocating resources, based on impeccable statistics
2) Combining co-financing and partnership encourages ownership. All programmes bring in between 15 and 50% of cost from outside public or private sources: often more.
3) Vital to dissociate overall legal framework from individual project decisions (best devolved to managing authorities)
16
Some lessons from the last 20 years (2)
4 Importance of Conditionality: respect for competition and environmental rules, equality of opportunity, partnership and democracy (also financial sanctions)
5 Crucial to have adequate formal and informal institutional capacities to manage programmes
6 Cross border co-operation is vital to promote understanding and exchange experience. Old enmities must be set aside.
17
Some lessons from the last 20 years7 Good to combine grants with some form of
flexible credit (recycles funds...)8 Monitoring and evaluation essential, requiring
expertise and rigorous indicators9 Transparency, communication, exchange of
experience10 MOST OF ALLLong term strategic vision of the objectives to be
attained: sectorally (eg transport) and/or geographically
18
The design of ex post evaluation 2000-2006
Question of the evaluation: • What has been achieved in terms of reducing
disparities (e.g. as GDP per capita)? and
• in specific policy fields?
Evaluation design:• Thematic approach - methods and evaluation teams
adapted to themes
• Evaluation effort has been substantially stepped up in scale and resources. Academic community involved.
→ Change in comparison to earlier work
19
Impact of Cohesion Impact of Cohesion Policy Policy
2000 - 2006
Management and
implementation systems
Data BlockData Block• Data indicators ‘06• Major projects • Geographic distrib.
Modelling BlockModelling Block
• Hermin • Quest• Transtools
Thematic BlockThematic Block • Enterprise support• Environment and Climate Change• Transport
• Structural change and globalization
• Gender and Demography• Rural Development
Community InitiativesInterreg III & Urban
Cohesion Fund Transport & environment
20
• Growth higher in Objective 1 regions in nearly all countries
• EU 25: regional disparities narrowed
• EU 15: narrowed in most EU15 countries (exception GR)
• EU 10: regional disparities widened (high growth capitals!)
• In Objective 1 in EU15, 2% growth in GDP pc, 1.4% in non-assisted regions
Observations for growth and regional disparities
21
Not possible to judge success of policy by observation of statistics – other factors at work!
• Approach adopted:– Was scale of funding big enough to make a difference?– Was it targeted at relevant factors?– Do macroeconomic models indicate positive effect on growth?– Was growth performance better in assisted regions?– Is there concrete evidence of positive results?
• Answers to all questions positive:– Funding significant especially in Obj 1 regions
• 2-3% of total fixed investment in Obj 1 regions• +1% of GDP pa in GR and PT
– Targeted at drivers of growth identified by theory, e.g. Enterprise investment & Infrastructure
Economic Cohesion
22
Cumulative net effect of cohesion policy on GDP (model: QUEST)Percentage difference in GDP in end year as result of policy.For approximate annual value divide by number of years.
All funds, Cohesion Fund included. Priority on Objective 1.
2000-09 2000-15
EU 25 0.7 2.4
EU 10 3.7 10.2
EU 15 0.5 1.9
23
24
Enterprise Support WP 6a, b, c
• Member States report creation of over 1 million jobs by enterprise support.
Test of new evaluation methods in E. Germany:• Higher investment per worker -
€8,000 grant leads to €11,000 - €12,000 extra investment
Estimate by counterfactual methods and regression.
25
Policy Questions…
• Should ERDF finance aid to large enterprises?
• Need for more evidence on effectiveness of support to enterprises
• What are the correct measures/indicators?• Jobs safeguarded (now generally regarded as
inappropriate – policies of the 1990s)• New jobs created (but are we always trying to
create jobs directly and immediately?)• Increased productivity (with longer term job
creation)
26
TransportWP5a
• ERDF co-financed 13% of all new high speed rail lines & 24% of the extension of motorways
• ERDF co-financed 26% of 7,734 km of motorway completed in EU15 and upgrading of 3,000 km of railway lines
• TRANSTOOLS: failed attempt to model effect on GDP, environment. New model needed?
• Questions on high-speed railways, support for ports, roads in EU15. Insufficient attention for public transport, cross-border projects.
27
• A third of ERDF in Objective 1 and 36% in Objective 2 was aimed at social objectives plus territorial balance rather than economic growth
• Mainly environmental infrastructure and ‘planning and rehabilitation’
– increase in households in deprived regions connected to supply of clean drinking water (+14 million inhabitants) or main drainage (+20 million inhabitants)
– renovation and regeneration of villages, inner city areas, old industrial sites, heritage sites
Social and Territorial CohesionWP5b
28
Social and Territorial Cohesion (2)
• Improvement in quality of life + territorial balance, but no indicators to measure this
• Limited effect on growth but strengthened conditions for sustainable development by reducing social + territorial disparities
Policy conclusion• Achievements of Cohesion policy go beyond
economic growth: multiple objectives• Need to spell out clearer case for ERDF financing
and link to regional development
29
URBAN II programme
• Relatively limited scale (70 programmes, average €10m)
• Method more important than outputs (perceived results)• Environmental, leisure, image improved.• Inclusive partnership approach: relation with other
programmes• BUT:3.2million m² of new green space, 10, 712m² new
water collectors, 264 security projects on fear of crime, 443 new childcare places, 964 cultural events,43,000 training places for business, 23 commercial centres and stores renewed, 5984 business support interventions
30
• In Objective 2 regions, small scale of funding – under EUR 40 per head a year
• Contrasts with large scale and long-lasting problems in many regions targeted
• Objective 2 in many cases acted as a catalyst for development of a long-term strategy for restructuring
• Effectiveness reflected in growth performance – rate achieved at worst no lower than in regions with fewer problems
Particular case of Objective 2WP4
31
• Vision and commitment of regional policy makers more important than specialisation pattern
• Objective 2 and regional strategies need to be aligned
• More exchange of experience across MS is needed
• Evidence needed – how funding used plus effects
• Competitiveness only objective?
Implications for future Objective 2
32
• EU10 countries had only short time to implement programmes plus limited experience.
• Fears of absorption difficulties not realised.
• Delivery system had significant effects on effectiveness of policies + spill-overs into domestic policy areas
• But weaknesses:– main focus on processes + financial control, not
on results of programmes and effectiveness– evaluations not adequately supported by
indicators
Management and implementation WP11
33
• Multiplicity of goals – social, environmental, economic– Needs to be recognised in design, implementation
and evaluation– Priority attached to different objectives should be
made clear when programmes determined – Indicators needed so as progress can be monitored
• Concentration of funding in each region– On limited number of policy areas and measures to
ensure critical mass – does not mean concentrating on one objective
– Policy measures cannot be specified a priori - should be in line with needs of region
– Whatever choice – needs to be justified in light of EU strategies
Implications for Future Policy
34
A Summary
• Evaluation demonstrates contribution of ERDF to reduction of disparities.
• EU25 as a whole wins with cohesion policy.
• We have more knowledge about what policy has delivered in main policy fields (transport, environment, enterprise support).
• We can demonstrate that policy delivers more than growth: a better environment and social benefits.
• We know much better how to evaluate.
• We have many more questions to answer!
35
Athens Metro, Syntagma square
Major contribution to reducing
pollution
Major contribution to reducing
pollution
36
Holland: Phileas, gas, electric guided bus, Eindhoven
37
Micro-chip for latest GSMs, Denmark
Innovation inspired projects
38
18/02/2004EN
3838
18/02/2004EN
3838
Some Examples of projectsSome Examples of projects
Clean water in RomaniaClean water in Romania
39
18/02/2004EN
3939
18/02/2004EN
3939
Some Examples of projectsSome Examples of projects
Far away foods
Far away foods
40
Some Examples of projects
41
42
18/02/2004EN
4242
18/02/2004EN
4242
Child care;
Mullingar
Child care;
Mullingar
43
18/02/2004EN
4343
18/02/2004EN
4343
PuzzlePuzzle
44
Future of regional policy: political context
• Lisbon Treaty
– Territorial cohesion
– Co-decision
• Europe 2020
– More thematic approach, more focused, more
coherent
– Structural reforms
• Reform of economic governance
– Budgetary/fiscal constraints and risks
45
EU 2020 – new framework for growth
3 thematic priorities: smart, sustainable, inclusive growth5 EU headline targets – translated into national ones• Employment rate, R&D investment, climate change, renewable
energy and energy efficiency, education and social inclusion/poverty
7 flagship initiatives – EU & national action• Innovation Union, Youth on the Move, Agenda for New Skills and
Jobs, Platform against poverty, Industrial Policy, Resource efficient Europe, Digital Agenda
Mobilising existing EU instruments:• Single market • External dimension• Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)• EU and national budgets & new financing instruments
46
.
The Economy
Trade levelTrade growthTrade breadthTrade dependency
Culture and Values
Organizations
IntergovernmentalSingle-purposeGeneral-purpose
CivilCities
Strong
Significant
Weak
East
NB NS PE NL
Atlantica
QC
Quebec
ON
Great Lakes -
Heartland
AB SK MB
Prairies -Great Plains
BC AB
West
Cross-Border Regional Links Canada/US
47
What does this mean?
• Regional growth and prosperity increasingly connected to regional cross-border dynamics
• Key questions at the regional-level:
– Are regional industries that are integrated across borders more vulnerable or more resilient to global events?
– Because of the global crisis, will regional cross-border value chains and arrangements be reshaped?
– How?
48
• Current federal instruments and institutional arrangements geared to uniformity and consistency
• However, “one size may not fit all”
• Coherence over consistency
• Implications for Canada?
What does this meanfor Regional Governance?
49
Some lessons from the last 20 years (1)
1) Needs an objective, non-political method for raising and allocating resources. Exclusive or inclusive approach to beneficiaries? (EU now inclusive)
2) Combining co-financing and partnership encourages ownership. All programmes bring in between 15 and 50% or more of cost from outside public or private sources: often more.
3) Vital to dissociate overall legal framework from individual project decisions (best devolved to managing authorities)
50
Some lessons from the last 20 years (2)
4 Importance of Conditionality: respect for competition and environmental rules, equality of opportunity, partnership and democracy (also financial sanctions)
5 Crucial to have adequate formal and informal institutional capacities to manage programmes
6 Cross border co-operation is vital to promote understanding and exchange experience. Old enmities must be set aside.
51
Concentration on the Lisbon Strategy
What is the Lisbon Strategy ?Originally adopted March 2000, updated 2001 and
2005
Aims to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world…
The 2005 update created the ‘growth and jobs agenda’; two
quantitative targets: – Employment rate of 70% by 2010– R&D 3% of GDP by 2010
Since 2005, reinforced governance: – Detailed annual reporting– Peer pressure
52
Community Strategic Guidelines
(1)
Integrated Guidelines
National Strategies (NSRFs - 27)
National Reform Programmes
National and regional
programmes (455)
Annual Progress Report
COHESION POLICY LISBON AGENDA
Concentration on the Lisbon Strategy
Procedural aspects
53
Financial Instruments for Cohesion Policy 2007-13 (1)
COHESION FUND (€70 billion)• Eligibility at national level (Member States
with a Gross National Income per head of less than 90% of theEU-average)
• Trans-European Transport Networks (TENs) projects and environmental projects
EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
(€196 billion) • Eligibility at regional level • Supports physical investment programmes
54
Financial Instruments for Cohesion Policy 2007-13 (2)
EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND (€76 billion)• Supports national programmes and human
capital investment programmes
INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE (€5 billion) • Regional development projects and
capacity building in the fields of transport, environment and economic development
55
Concepts
• Redistribution• Restructuring• Investment not subsidies• Subsidiarity not top down (generally)• Wide partnership• Geographical balance/catching
up/’reducing disparities’• Regions: sub national, self governing
‘NUTS’ 2
56
What is new (for 2007-2013)?
• Re-orientation: away from concentrating on weak spots towards building up potential all areas
• Innovation, research, ICT, knowledge society (Lisbon strategy)
• Revolutionary: flexible credit/micro credit- recycling the funds available.
57
18/02/2004EN
5757
Organised by objectivesOrganised by objectivesFinancial concentration on Financial concentration on poorest regionspoorest regions
• Convergence (like old Obj 1: greater scope) 81.9%
• Competitiveness (old Obj 2&3, tie to Lisbon) 15.7%
• Territorial co-operation (former INTERREG programme and RFEC networks to test ideas) 2.4%
58
18/02/2004EN
5858
18/02/2004EN
5858
Why should contributing regions Why should contributing regions keep pouring money into the keep pouring money into the
other regions? (PIGS, Club Med, other regions? (PIGS, Club Med, The Garlic Belt, Mañana The Garlic Belt, Mañana
republics…) republics…) • We are not pouring we are investing. For
all investments there are returns• As poorer regions catch up they buy more
goods• Many building and supply contracts come
back to contributing regions (35% PO, 42% HE)
• Solidarity is vital, especially now.