1

Cohesion Policy

2007 - 13

JOSE LUIS CALVO DE CELIS

DG REGIO EVALUATION UNIT

Evaluation network meeting Brussels February 25th 2010

Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by

the European Fund for Regional Development (Objective 1 and 2)

Work Package 4

“Structural Change and Globalisation”

2

Cohesion Policy

2007 - 13

SUBJECT

to assess the impact of Objective 2 programmes (2000-2006) supporting regional structural change and enabling adaptation to globalisation

SCOPE

Objective 2 (2000-2006) focusing particularly on selected programmes financed totally or in their majority by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The regional level of analysis is NUTS 2 level.

3

Cohesion Policy

2007 - 13

The evaluation research tools were:

1.- A broad statistical analysis of all Objective 2 regions

2.- 12 case studies of Objective 2 programmes co-funded by

the ERDF regions in the EU15, selected as representative of different clusters of Objective 2 regions were :

• Basque country (ES)

• Bayern (DE)

• Brittany (FR)

• North East of England (UK)

• North Netherlands (NL)

• North Rhine-Westphalia (DE)

• North West England (UK)

• Rhône-Alpes (FR)

• Southern Finland (FI)

• Styria (AT)

• Tuscany (IT)

• Västra Programme (SE)

4

Cohesion Policy

2007 - 13

POLICY RESPONSES

Focus on R&D innovation and

internationalisation

Focus on employment creation and safeguarding

Focus on balanced territorial

development

North Rhine-Westphalia Southern Finland Västra Programme North Netherlands StyriaTuscany Basque country

BrittanyNorth East England North West England

Bayern Rhône-Alpes

5

Cohesion Policy

2007 - 13

Positive evidence of success:

Styria, Tuscany, Basque country

Mixed evidence of success:

Bayern North East England, North West England,

North Netherlands, North Rhine-Westphalia, Southern Finland Västra

Limited evidence of success:

Brittany and Rhône-Alpes

WERE ERDF FUNDED MEASURES RELEVANT FOR TACKLING STRUCTURAL CHANGE AND

GLOBALISATION EFFECTIVE OR NOT?

6

Cohesion Policy

2007 - 13

1. Focus strategic policy response and early awareness of policy

makers enabled regions to effectively and promptly react to

structural change

2. Objective 2 interventions aligned with a broader regional strategy

were more effective

CONCLUSIONS (I)

Success factors behind the contribution of Obj. 2 programmes

to support structural change and globalisation

7

Cohesion Policy

2007 - 13

3. The commitment and vision of the regional planners, rather than

a specific regional specialisation or structural pattern of growth,

determines policy responses and its effectiveness

4. There is a need for differentiated strategies to achieve innovation-

driven structural change

5. ERDF had a positive effect on policy learning about tackling

structural change and globalisation

CONCLUSIONS (II)

Success factors behind the contribution of Obj. 2 programmes

to support structural change and globalisation

8

Cohesion Policy

2007 - 13

Active acknowledgment and strategic anticipation of structural

change should be put in place by regional policy makers

In order to overcome the limited scale of funding, ERDF strategies

should be aligned with the wider regional policy objectives and

embedded in a longer term policy effort

The Commission is strongly encouraged to strengthen its role of

partner in strategic planning, and take a more active role in terms of

policy thinking with the regional authorities

RECOMMENDATIONS for ERDF interventions