How does cohesion policy support rural development Ex-post evaluation of ERDF support to rural development: Key findings (Objective 1 and 2) Erich Dallhammer, OIR

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

Typology NUTS3 level based on OECD density criteria + population development

Objective 1 ERDF expenditures/head (5 MS)  Expenditures / head: support for especially weak areas with population decline Expenditures: 28% in rural, 20% in urban, 52% in intermediate regions Population: 18% in rural, 36% in urban, 46% in intermediate regions

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  Support of strong regions (DE, ES)  Support of weak regions (FR, SE)

High variety of support for project types  Project types with “urban focus”: critical mass in terms of economic activity required: - Projects fostering business development - R&D projects  Project types with “rural focus”: - transport infrastructure (rural road systems, strengthening accessibility from “outside”) - investment in environmental infrastructure (waste, sewerage, …)  Project types with different approaches in the MS: - social infrastructure (rural focus O2 Spain, O1 France) - strengthen rural initiatives (rural focus O1 Spain, O2 Germany)  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:  “Demand driven approach” : - without regional /local institutional support structure -> ERDF focusing on strong (urban) regions: knowledge + capacity for successful applications available  “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  For project applicants: not always clear which fund for which project  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  The ERDF invested significantly in rural areas in the five selected Member States  The ERDF supported weak regions independently of their rural, intermediate or urban character  The ERDF had the flexibility to respond to the different needs of the regions  The ERDF supported both endogenous and exogenous development strands  Some intervention types had a strong urban focus, others a strong rural focus  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  Rurality can not purely be pictured by a set of indicators - cultural concept behind it  whether a territory counts as urban or rural depends strongly on the national context and the scale  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  policy should continue to target “weak” areas regardless of their rural or urban character  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. NUTS3) in Europe  Commission: same definitions and criteria of structural weakness (economic, social, and environmental) across different funds  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:  mono-funded: “sectoral” projects (e.g. road, rail infrastructure )  co-operation between funds: when project combines different sectors Administrative procedures, controlling prerequisites:  the smaller the single support, the more likely trade off between benefits achieved and administrative burden of obtaining funding  classification of measures to differentiate in terms of administrative procedures Number of (potential) project promoters:  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  Large scale infrastructure (i.e. road, rail and telecoms): delivered centrally at national level - regional feedback  Various economic sectors involved: co-ordination of different funding sources - strategic goals coordinated regionally - delivery and administration local, close to beneficiaries.  Interventions improving the institutional framework (i.e. education, local initiatives) + support of business units: - central (national) coordination of funding programs - local decision making  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:  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  Success of policy for the European taxpayer: aggregated result at EU level - evaluations that provide assessment of the policy as a whole

Thank you!