1. Evaluation network meeting Brussels, September 22, 2009
Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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 ?