Evaluation network meeting Brussels, September 22, 2009 Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (Objective 1 and 2) Work Package 9 “Rural development” Evaluation network meeting Brussels, September 22, 2009

Subject: Assess the nature and importance of the contribution of the ERDF to the development of rural areas in the 2000–06 programme period. Scope: - 5 Member States: France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Spain - 5 regions: Centre, Saxony, Świętokrzyskie, Andalusia, South Sweden

Main tasks Typology of rural areas in the EU Literature review, analysis of rural socio-economic trends in the 90s Collect evidence of the role of ERDF in rural areas in 5 Member States and calculate the share of expenditure they receive 5 regional case studies: respective roles of ERDF/EAGGF/ESF and complementarities

Methodology constraints (1) OECD: the only internationally used definition of rural areas, based on population density, not on functional links or land use A EU definition fitted for all cases would compete with how national policies qualify areas as “rural” “Rurality” is also a local and cultural concept

Methodology constraints (2) Rural development draws on different regional development theories Lack of rural data: the ERDF did not specifically targeted rural development Need to go to the NUTS3 level to identify expenditure related to rural areas in regional case studies. Rare “pure” rural areas at NUTS 3 level Data on commuting not available at NUTS3 level

Methodology constraints (3) Chosen typology: based on population density and demographic trend (attractiveness) Chosen hypotheses for ERDF support effects: - infrastructures entails better accessibility - Business, entrepreneurship, R&D, networks entails dynamism and innovation - use of regional resources entails regional growth and quality of life - regional governance entails endogenous development and self confidence

Main findings (1) Important contribution of ERDF to rural areas: - 28% in Objective 1 (focus on the weakest) - 24% in Objective 2 Focus on transport, telecommunications and environment infrastructures Support to business and R&D but in a lower proportion than in urban areas Less support to social infrastructures, rural initiatives and governance

Main findings (2) Division of tasks between the funds: clear demarcation at strategic level, less clear at project level In some Member States common programming framework (France, Sweden) or explicit complementarities (Poland) and common instruments for implementing the different funds at regional level Lack of visibility of ERDF in rural areas linked to lack of rural policy objective, of a locally managed fund, of adequate information provided to project holders

Main recommendations (1) Do not design rural typology without clearly spelling out the purpose and the chosen methodology Cohesion policy should continue to target “weak” areas regardless of their rural or urban character Member States should delimitate those weak areas according to their different institutional settings

Main recommendations (2) One strategic framework programme in each programming area embracing all sectors and all aspects of territorial development Different delivery mechanisms for different type of measures, get closer to the citizens Two perspectives for the evaluation work: - success of the policy for the citizens in a region/area (quality of life, employment, attractiveness…) - success of the policy for the European tax-payer (needs for aggregated results)

Conclusion An exploratory evaluation more difficult than anticipated, based on expenditure and qualitative evidence policy issues raised: Effectiveness of integrated approach for all type of territory, including rural, however lack of visibility and strategic framework including regional and rural development. Better governance and local empowerment still needed: how to reconcile the need for European monitoring with the need for ownership of the policy ?