Presentation on theme: "No 2007.CE.16.0.AT.041 The Potential for regional Policy Instruments, 2007- 2013, to contribute to the Lisbon and Göteborg objectives for growth, jobs."— Presentation transcript:
No 2007.CE.16.0.AT.041 The Potential for regional Policy Instruments, 2007- 2013, to contribute to the Lisbon and Göteborg objectives for growth, jobs and sustainable development Final Report Results for DG REGIO – Evaluation Network Lisa Van Well, Nordregio 3 April 2009
Objective of project Evaluation of the potential for Regional Policy Instruments, 2007-2013, to contribute to the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives for growth, jobs and sustainable development. Analysis of 246 Operational Programmes 27 NRP, NSDS and NSRF Representative sample of 74 ex antes (ca. 25%) 27 National Reports
LisGo hypotheses – assessing potential Effectiveness comes from translating strategy into real policy commitments at national and regional level- Priorities and themes reflect the needs and challenges of regions Strategic coherence of the results of the programming processes important: ex ante evaluations, SEA, negotiations with the Commission Lisbon Strategy is more short-term, Gothenburg is longer-term commitments- can they be reconciled in Cohesion policy? Overarching concept of sustainable development. Also examination of territorial cohesion definitions.
Significant potential exists: Facilitating innovation, promoting entrepreneurship, improved R&TD, improving transport infrastructure, synergies between environmental protection and growth This potential varies between MS, depending on OP strategies, but also stage of development, size, economic potential, political priorities and scale of Cohesion policy relative to domestic policy Lisbon agenda has had a stronger influence on Cohesion policy instruments than Gothenburg – but opportunities to make greater progress in linking the two agendas in OPs
Priorities (National Documents) NSRF and NRP are highly complementary (all MS): both influenced by CSG NSRF and NSDS are less complementary. NSDS not as uniform as NRP. EU-12 address a greater number of themes Very few cross-over themes between NRP and NSDS. Climate change mitigation and adaptation, renewable energy are the exceptions.
Priorities (OPs) Competitiveness OPs: Innovation, entrepreneurship, R&D expenditure, ICT usage and accessibility, renewable energy Convergence OPs: ICT usage and accessibility, entrepreneurship, innovation support, transport accessibility, R&D expenditure, energy use and intensity In line with Community Strategic Guidelines and highly correlated with expenditure data. Other strategic priorities in about 10% of programmes: Tourism and sustainable urban development
ERDF Earmarking Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Latvia and the Czech Republic all commit at least 50% of their ERDF and CF funding to the earmarked categories, showing their commitment to Lisbon. Countries that commit less to Lisbon earmarked objectives focus on the non-Lisbon environmental protection and risk prevention categories (Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Malta, Lithuania, Hungary and Cyprus with around 20-30%), relevant to Gothenburg.
Indicators in the OPs Some confusion between use of result and output indicators in programmes Reduction of CO 2 emissions (more extensively used in Competitiveness OPs) approached not only as result (ie within energy priorities), but also impact indicator (within transport and environment priorities) OPs better at developing systems for monitoring Lisbon objectives than Gothenburg objectives
Only those programmes where targets were specified in comparable terms Average no. core indicators per OP: 10: (RCE OPs: 12, CONV OPs: 7)
Results of programming processes Ex ante evaluations: were influential in moving the OPs in the direction of Lisbon/Gothenburg, the negotiations with Commission and the SEAs were to some degree even more influential Ex ante evaluations should be more responsive to disparities gaps and potentials for development at regional level. More focus on social and economic disparities in Competitiveness OPs and on territorial disparities in Convergence OPs
Overarching goal: Sustainable Development All programmes focus on sustainable development, although Gothenburg goals not operationalised very precisely One-third of programmes have integrated three-pillar approach. De facto emphasis on economic dimension (especially in Convergence OPs) Few explicit trade-offs between SD, jobs and growth (mainly in transport OPs), but several synergies in renewable energy and clean transport strategies
Territorial Cohesion Not a Lisbon or Gothenburg goal but explicitly addressed in 2/3 of all OPs, with a wide variation of definitions. Must be clarified if to be used in Cohesion Policy. Convergence OPs – reduction in regional and spatial imbalances or objective in exploiting regional potential. Competitiveness OPs - opportunities for inter- and intra-regional cooperation horizontal priority to promote coherence between EU policies with a territorial impact.
Conceptualisations of Territorial Cohesion in OPs
The Road to Lisbon and Gothenburg The destination is the same for all regions/ programmes - Growth, Jobs, Sustainable Development… … but different starting points (challenges and economic preconditions) … … and countries at different points on the road due to varying strategies for using Cohesion Policy. All focusing on innovation, R&D (RCE and Conv) and accessibility (Conv), but in addition on…
Strengthening the links between Lisbon and Gothenburg Increasing productivity hence and growth and competitiveness by more efficiently exploiting material inputs Stimulating greater research and innovation in technologies and approaches to generating and conserving energy Improving the health and well being of the workforce and hence its productivity by improving the quantity and quality of employment Conserving and enhancing the environment to improve quality of life and well being and make places more attractive
Potential to contribute to Lisbon and Gothenburg Many roads to growth, jobs and sustainable development in OPs Bottlenecks occur when strategies dont match up with regional needs or EU objectives: getting the policy mix right Cohesion Policy cant do it all. Need to complement and coordinate with national, federal, regional and local strategies for regional development
Final Messages Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives successfully transferred from EU-level to national and regional levels in all MS- more so Lisbon and Gothenburg Regional policy instruments are coordinated in national policy Synergies between Lisbon and Gothenburg developed in strategies for renewable energy/clean transport, example of win-win approach Lisbon/Gothenburg are still important even in times of global recession.