UK Task 2 Final report 2012 - European Commission · UK, Final Page 2 of 58 Contents ... EEN2012 Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy UK, Final Page 6 of 58 unemployment

Expert evaluation network

delivering policy analysis on the

performance of Cohesion policy 2007-2013

Year 2 – 2012

Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of

Cohesion policy

United Kingdom

Version: Final

Peter Tyler

St Catharine’s College, University of Cambridge and

Cambridge Economic Associates

A report to the European Commission

Directorate-General Regional Policy

ISMERI EUROPA

EEN2012 Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy

UK, Final Page 2 of 58

Contents

Executive summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. The socio-economic context ............................................................................................................................... 5

2. The regional development policy pursued, the EU contribution to this and policy

achievements over the period ........................................................................................................................... 7

The regional development policy pursued ............................................................................................................ 7

Policy implementation ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Achievements of the programmes so far ............................................................................................................. 16

3. Effects of intervention ........................................................................................................................................ 26

4. Evaluations and good practice in evaluation ............................................................................................ 27

5. Further Remarks - New challenges for policy .......................................................................................... 38

References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40

Interviews ......................................................................................................................................................................... 41

Annex 1 - Evaluation grid for examples of good practice in evaluation ................................................. 43

Annex 2 - Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. 45

List of abbreviations

• AIR Annual Implementation Report

• DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government

• FEI Financial Engineering Instrument

• LEP Local Enterprise Partnerships

• LUPS Lowlands and Uplands Scotland

• OP Operational Programme

• PMC Programme Monitoring Committee

• RDA Regional Development Agency

• RGF Regional Growth Fund

• RME Research, Monitoring and Evaluation

• VCLF Venture Capital and Loan Funds

• WEFO Welsh European Funding Office



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The impact of the recession continues to be felt most in those regions that have the highest

unemployment rate. The regions that were formerly heavily industrialised are the most exposed

to the adverse effects. Early signs of recovery are apparent in the more prosperous regions and

thus those parts of the United Kingdom that have the greatest access to economic opportunity.

The weaker regions are heavily exposed to job losses from cut-backs in public expenditure that

still have some considerable way to go. Younger workers are particularly disadvantaged. The

effects of the recession continue to constrain achievement and constraints on public

expenditure impeded the availability to match fund. Overall the economic climate in which

ERDF is being delivered continues to be very challenging, but the contribution that it is making

to the economic restructuring of some of the United Kingdom’s weakest areas remains

significant.

There have been changes to the shape and form of government regional policy. In England the

Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were abolished and there has been a move to a local

growth agenda. This has been reflected in new policy initiatives that include Enterprise Zones,

the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) across England and reforms to the land-use

planning system. The LEPs are just beginning to develop their capacity to stimulate enterprise

at the local level and HM Government has thus not assigned them responsibility for managing

ERDF at the present time. The regional delivery model in the Devolved Administrations of

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland established by the previous government has been less

affected.

The broad priorities of the programmes remain intact and are being implemented much as

originally planned but being affected by the impact of the recession. Programmes that devote a

large proportion of their expenditure to funding enterprise support (some 69% overall) are

clearly going to have to work harder in severe recessions. This has been confirmed in a number

of recent interim Mid-Term evaluations. The latest of these has been for Northern Ireland and

the London Competiveness region. The programme has been able to respond to the needs of

business during recessionary times and the lack of funding from conventional funders. It has

been less able to respond to the problems of particular disadvantaged groups in the labour

market, including the young, because it is overwhelming a programme committed to the

creation and support of enterprise, innovation and support for key transformative

infrastructure.

• The evidence as at June 2012 is that for the United Kingdom as a whole the total amount

of ERDF contracted is now at 75.3% of the total with just over 40% having been actually

paid out. There is, however, significant variation across regions. In Wales the amount

contracted is around 93% overall, whilst it is just over 54% in Northern Ireland. The

amount paid out to projects is greatest in Scotland but around 30-40% in many regions.

• It remains difficult to establish the achievements of the Programme because the

evidence from the monitoring system is of variable quality and in some cases probably

under-representing achievement on the ground. At the present time gross job creation

effects over the period 2007-2011 have been assessed at just over 9,500 in the

Convergence regions (part of Scotland, part of Wales and part of the South West) and



34,000 in the Competiveness regions. This is 18% and 29% of the overall programme

target respectively. There is clearly some way to go in both the Convergence and

Competiveness regions before the required programme job targets are reached. Outputs

tend to lag expenditure and it is expected that the output streams will build over the

next two years. Evidence from the Annual Implementation Reports (AIRs) show a very

significant amount of investment supported by ERDF in infrastructure projects that will

significantly enhance the competitiveness of the regions assisted.

• In the Convergence regions the number of new start-ups is estimated at 1,200, around

24% of the overall programme target. In the Competitiveness regions some 11,600 new

businesses are estimated to have been supported and this is around 54% of programme

target. It was stated in the 2011 Country Report that there was an urgent need for

evaluation to assess the net impact of the programme on the key outcomes that matter

and that it was highly desirable to assess achievement at an overall country level. It is

thus good news that HM Government has now moved to commission a national

evaluation in England and that Wales has recently also commissioned research that has

assessed the impact of ERDF support on business development.



1. THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Main points from previous country reports:

• The two Convergence regions in the United Kingdom are Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

and West Wales and the Valleys. Both experienced a more severe economic output

contraction relative to the EU average in the period since the beginning of the Credit

Crisis in 2007. The evidence was that West Wales and the Valleys with its industrial

legacy were continuing to find it more difficult to restructure relative to the more rural

area of Cornwall. Both Cornwall and West Wales were particularly vulnerable to cut-

backs in public expenditure;

• The Highlands and Islands is the only Phasing-Out region in the United Kingdom but its

growth of GDP per head over 2007-8 was actually better than the UK at 1.4% compared

to -0.7% for the UK;

• It was remarked that it was difficult to provide a concise summary of the baseline

position for the Competitiveness areas since there is a very large number of them and

regional development policy in the UK covers the whole of the country and not just

lagging regions. All regions were seeking to restructure away from an industrial past

and the main difference between them was the difficulties that they faced in doing this.

Two of the regions facing the most difficult problems are the West Midlands and

Merseyside since they have both suffered severely from deindustrialisation. They have

suffered badly from the effects of recession.

• The period since the financial crisis had been particularly difficult for the United

Kingdom. After declining more than other parts of the EU in the early part of the

recession the UK had continued to recover more slowly. Moreover, reductions in public

sector employment as a result of austerity measures were affecting the regions that

already had relatively high levels of unemployment before the recession.

The more recent evidence now available points to economic problems continuing in the

Convergence regions of West Wales and the Valleys and Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

experiencing a reduction in GDP per head of 4.6% and 5.5% respectively over the period 2008-9

(compared with a EU27 reduction of 4.5%. GDP per head by 2009 was over 30% below the

EU27 average in the British Convergence regions. Unemployment continues to remain a more

significant problem in West Wales and the Valleys at nearly 10% in 2011 compared to the EU 27

average of 9.6% in that year. An unemployment rate of 6.2% in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

in 2011 was actually an improvement on the previous year whilst the EU27 had recorded no

change. Both Convergence regions have a relatively adverse economic structure at the present

time with a greater proportion of their employment in public services than the EU27 average

with continuing retrenchment in public expenditure. As remarked last year, the volume of their

expenditure on R&D continues to be well below the EU27 average and in the case of Cornwall

and the Isles of Scilly seriously so.

The Highlands and Islands is a predominantly remote rural region. The more recent data

indicates that it has tended to experience a slower reduction in its GDP per head compared to

the EU27 average over the period 2008-9 (-2.2% compared to -4.5%). Its relative decline in

growth was substantially less than the UK average decline of 5.5%. Partly as a consequence, its



unemployment rate at 6.9% in 2011 compared very favourably with that of the UK and the

EU27 at 8% and 9.6% respectively. On a more negative note its R&D expenditure as a

percentage of its GDP has declined further to only 0.8% compared to the UK average of 1.9%,

itself slightly below the EU27 average.

There are a large number of Competiveness and Employment regions and they are quite diverse

in the economic restructuring that they are experiencing and the impact that recession is having

on them. In general, the older urban areas have continued to undergo some deindustrialisation,

although the rate has now attenuated significantly. Their unemployment rates have in general

increased relatively to both the EU27 and UK average. The economic difficulties facing these

regions is illustrated by the West Midlands where there was a decline in GDP per head of 6.3%

over the period 2008-2009 compared to the EU 27 position of -4.5% and a UK decline of 5.5%.

The decline in productivity at -3.5% compares to the EU average of -3.4% and a national decline

of -2.7%. The Merseyside region also provides another indication of the challenges faced by the

older former heavily industrialised areas with a reduction in productivity growth of -4.2% over

the period 2008-9 compared with -3.4% and 2.4% in the EU27 and UK respectively.

Unemployment increased to 10% in 2011 compared with the EU and country averages of 9.6%

and 8.0% respectively. Merseyside is also a region which is heavily exposed to reductions in

public expenditure with some 43% of its employment base in the public sector in 2009.

Overall the impact of the recession continues to be felt the more intensively in the weakest

regions. Those regions which were formerly heavily industrialised suffer the most. Early signs

of economic recovery are apparent in the more prosperous regions and those with better access

to economic opportunity. It should also be emphasised that job losses arising from

retrenchment by the public sector as a result of cuts to public expenditure still have some way

to go and the impact of these are again the more severe in the economically weakest regions.

Macroeconomic factors

In the 2011 Country Report it was emphasised that the UK Government believed that those

parts of the United Kingdom that were growing the most slowly required a stable

macroeconomy if they were to grow more quickly and if regional rebalancing was to occur.

However, the period since the credit crunch has been particularly difficult for the United

Kingdom because it experienced a relatively greater slow-down than the EU27 average in its

rate of economic growth and a slower rate of economic recovery (Table 1). Unfortunately the

evidence suggests that the UK has continued to find it difficult to shake this adverse position off.

Moreover, the scope for the United Kingdom to enhance its relative economic performance

compared to the EU27 average has been constrained by relatively higher inflation, a worsening

public sector balance (as a % of GDP) and a deteriorating external balance compared to the

average EU27 position. There is evidence that fiscal re-balancing and attempts to reduce public

sector employment are affecting the economically weaker parts of the United Kingdom more

adversely and that unemployment, particularly amongst the young, is becoming an entrenched

problem. The evidence from research undertaken by the European Commission reported in the

2011 Report that showed that the recession was tending to be felt the most in those regions

already with relatively high levels of unemployment before the recession (Bubbico and Dijkstra,

2011) continues to be appropriate. The economic climate in which ERDF is being delivered

continues to be very challenging.



Table 1 - GDP per head growth rate (% pa)

EU 27 UK Convergence Phasing out Competitiveness

2000-2006 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.8

2006-2007 2.6 2.1 0.9 3.5 2.2

2007-2008 0.1 -0.7 -1.7 -0.2 -1.8

2008-2009 -4.5 -5.5 -4.8 -2.2 -4.6

2. THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY PURSUED, THE EU CONTRIBUTION TO THIS AND

POLICY ACHIEVEMENTS OVER THE PERIOD

THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY PURSUED

Main points from previous country report:

• The broad underlying priorities that under-pin development policies in the regions

eligible for support under the Convergence and Competiveness Objectives reflect an

emphasis on improving competiveness by supporting measures to stimulate enterprise

and innovation and improve the skill base. Throughout this Report we refer to progress

according to the four countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At the

outset of the programme each region decided the amount of its ERDF allocated to each

priority, the matched funding required and, where appropriate, the geography of

support provided. The allocation of Cohesion policy funding across the United Kingdom

(and associated matched-funding) broadly reflects the nature of the competiveness

problem and ERDF funding is being used alongside other sources of regional

development funding as appropriate.

• As the evidence in the Annex Tables shows, in the Convergence regions over two fifths of

the funding allocated has been to encourage enterprise, particularly in the areas of RTDI

and innovation. A further fifth has sought to build the competiveness of place through

investment in transport. Just over a fifth has been allocated to territorial development

around 13% to investment to enhance the environment and energy provision. In the

Competiveness and Employment regions nearly 69% of all funds are allocated to

improve the enterprise environment with a strong focus on support for innovation in

SMEs (33.6%) and RTDI and linked activities (22.5%).

• The Cross Border Cooperation Objective one region is concerned to build a more

prosperous region by actions to stimulate enterprise and promote tourism. Priority two

is seeking to improve access to services in order to improve quality of life and the focus

is on investment in infrastructure and encouraging collaboration.

Changes in the policy context

It was reported in the 2011 Country Report that during 2010 the newly elected Coalition

Government announced radical change to regional development policy in England, although the

position in the Devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remained

broadly the same.

In England the nine RDAs which held responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of

Cohesion policy were abolished in March 2012 and economic development policy reformed to

reflect the Localism Agenda as discussed in the Local Growth White Paper (BIS, 2010a).



The Local Growth agenda sets out an approach to re-balancing the UK economy and achieving

sustainable growth and it emphasises shifting power to local communities and businesses,

increasing confidence to invest and tackling barriers to local growth that the market will not

address without such intervention. In October 2010 the Department of Business, Innovation and

Skills published a White Paper which outlined plans for local authorities in England to submit

proposals to establish LEPs and 38 have now been established across England (BIS, 2010). A

Map is provided in the Annex Figure A. It is confusing and not particularly helpful that some

LEPs have over-lapping boundaries. The LEPs have the objective of working with Government

and others to support enterprise, innovation, and business relevant investment at the local

level. Their agenda is thus aligned with the broad objectives of the ERDF programme in England.

They have spent the last year setting-up and developing their local strategies. There are

currently no plans to assign responsibility for managing Cohesion policy to them. The relevant

staff from the RDAs has been re-assigned to the central government Department for

Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to provide the necessary local ERDF Secretariat.

In the White Paper the Government also outlined plans to create a Regional Growth Fund (RGF)

(BIS, 2010) designed to support initiatives at the local level that would help to stimulate growth

and create jobs. The funds are available through a competitive bidding process to which LEPs,

business and other interested parties can respond. There have now been three such rounds of

bidding and EUR 3,300 million of funds are available over three years. This level of funding

represents a significant reduction relative to the funds that had been available from the Single

Programme that underpinned the activities of the RDAs. The amount of matched-funding

available to support Cohesion policy is thus much less. Support from the RGF for ERDF projects

has not been significant at the present time. The Annex Figures B and C outline how RGF is

being allocated across England.

There have been other developments that have influenced the local economic environment in

which ERDF is being used. In the March 2011 Budget, the UK government announced the

creation of 24 enterprise zones in England that were to be managed at the local level by the

relevant LEPs and others. The enterprise zones are designed to encourage the creation of new

businesses and jobs through the use of financial incentives and reduced planning restrictions.

Annex Figure A shows where the enterprise zones are located.

In November 2011 HM Government also launched the Growing Places Fund to provide LEPs

with funding with which to overcome infrastructure constraints impeding local economic

development. The emphasis is on encouraging a flexible approach to meeting local needs.

Funding has been assigned according to a nationally agreed local authority grant allocations and

with a relatively short term horizon that limits the collaborative use that can be made with

ERDF projects at the present time. Funding is relatively modest for any individual LEP but there

is the potential in the future to use the funding to unlock land for exploitation by ERDF funded

projects and if funds can be recycled it could provide additional match opportunities for the

2014/2020 ERDF Programme (DCLG, 2012).

Other changes that are of relevance include changes to local business support policy. These

changes relate to the Business Link Service and the effects of the abolition of the RDAs in

England as they affect the delivery of a number of national business support programmes that

had been used alongside ERDF projects and which now had to be found a new institutional



home. These included the Grant for Research and Development programme, but also Knowledge

Transfer Partnerships, Innovation Vouchers and Innovation Advice and Guidance. To a lesser

extent the Small Business Research Initiative and Collaborative R&D were also affected,

although their delivery was coordinated by the Technology Strategy Board and not the RDAs.

The outcome has been that the Department of Business Innovation and Skills in England has

now secured providers for a Manufacturing Advisory Service and Business Coaching for Growth

scheme and arrangements to secure some ERDF support to enhance these programmes in ERDF

supported areas. A further change to the policy environment in which ERDF is being used has

been the announcement by HM Government that from April 2011 the Technology Strategy

Board would assume responsibility for the delivery of innovation related business assistance

programmes. Also, in 2011 HM Government announced that around EUR 240 million would be

invested in a network of Technology and Innovation Centres that are overseen by the

Technology Strategy Board. These developments are of great importance for the delivery of the

ERDF programmes in England because much of it is being used to assist innovation and related

business development.

Finally, in describing the new policy environment in which ERDF is now operating it is

necessary to refer to changes that HM Government has made, and continues to make, to local

planning. In March 2012 the DCLG issued its new National Planning Policy Framework that

establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development (DCLG, 2012).

Changes in priorities during the year

Shifts in priorities and/or the allocation of EU funding

The factors that have influenced the deployment of ERDF Cohesion policy over the last year are

the same as reported for the year before. The effects of the recession continue to constrain

achievement and constraints on public expenditure impede the ability to match-fund. It is too

early to judge whether the ERDF has been able to offset the consequences of fiscal

consolidation.

Also, in England there has been considerable change to the overall regional development policy

environment and it is taking time for new structures to be put in place. There remain many

unknowns, particularly in relation to the shape and form of the activity that will be undertaken

by LEP. The policy environment in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has changed much less

than in England over the last year. The Devolved Administrations have continued to use

Cohesion policy to help their weakest regions cope with the impact of recession.

It does appear that Managing Authorities have been using the ERDF to support businesses to

counteract the reluctance to lend by the conventional banking sector. Thus, in Scotland this has

led to the use of a Scottish Investment Bank Loan Fund specifically designed to help SMEs

experiencing problems from RBS and HBOS in the light of the Credit Crisis. Also, as mentioned in

the Task One Policy Paper 2012 for the United Kingdom on Financial Engineering Instruments

(FEIs), finance also remains extremely tight for traditional urban regeneration projects. There is

less evidence that ERDF is being used to address youth unemployment directly because the

ERDF programme across the United Kingdom is focused very heavily on business support,

innovation and transformational infrastructure structure projects. However, in Scotland the

Operational Programmes (OPs) are assessing whether any remaining under spend can be



targeted to assist youth employment where this would be possible (it has been argued that

legislation does allow some flexibility in using ERDF in this respect). A paper went to the

Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) in early 2012.

Convergence regions

The United Kingdom has two Convergence regions and a Phasing-Out region. Overall, there has

not been any fundamental change in the priorities that are the focus of ERDF. As reported last

year, the emphasis has continued to be to use ERDF to help to combat the effects of the ongoing

recession. Thus, in the Highlands and Islands Phasing-out region it is argued that “European

funds played a critical role in our Economic Recovery Plan, supporting capital expenditure,

improving business support and up-skilling individuals. By 2013, the current Structural Funds

programmes will have secured training and improved skills for 135,000 individuals; and will

have delivered 30,000 new jobs (Government Economic Strategy). Tacking action to address

youth unemployment is considered to be an important part of this.

In West Wales and the Valleys Convergence region there has not been any fundamental change

to the priorities of the programme. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Convergence region it is

stated that the economic situation has meant that ERDF has become even more significant as a

source of regeneration funding to help improve the resilience of the regional economy.

Competitiveness and employment

The United Kingdom has thirteen Competitiveness and Employment regions. There has been

only small changes to the priorities established across the 13 Managing Authorities with EUR 11

million being switched from the policy area of enterprise environment and in particular RTDI

and linked activities to human resources within the ERDF budget. Some EUR 47 million has also

been switched within the enterprise environment priority from support for innovation policy to

other investments but it has not been possible to identify which Managing Authority has been

responsible for these changes from the AIRs.

In the Lowlands and Uplands during 2011 all remaining funds were prioritised in support of

low carbon projects using the Scottish Low Carbon Fund. In the Lowlands and Uplands

Competiveness region during 2011 connection to high-speed broadband was identified as a key

intervention to assist rural businesses to remain competitive. As a result, the Managing

Authority requested a change to the OP which would extend the scope of existing eligibility

criteria to include support for rural broadband connectivity for rural SMEs.

In the Northern Ireland Competitiveness region programme priorities have remained as

previously.

In England, the South East Competitiveness region the broad programme priorities have

remained the same and similarly in the East of England Competitiveness programme with its

core focus on the promotion of a low carbon economy. This is also the position in the London

Competitiveness region where extensive use is being made of FEIs to promote business

development relating to the environment and waste management. The Fund has recently made

its first two investments.



In the North East, North West region, the Yorkshire Humber and East Wales the priorities have

remained the same. No change has been reported for the East Midlands Competitiveness, the

South West Competitiveness regions or the Gibraltar Competitiveness region.

Cross Border Cooperation

The Northern Ireland, Border region of Ireland and Western Scotland Interreg programme has

not experienced any fundamental change in priority.

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION1


• In some regions ERDF was felt to be making an important contribution to offsetting the

effects of the recession but problems were being experienced in some cases with ERDF

contracts being delayed due to difficulties in securing matched funding and take-up

being constrained by the recession on the overall business environment;

• In the Cross-Border Cooperation regions commitments in relation to allocation were

highest in the areas of environment and energy and territorial development. The

majority of the funds devoted to the provision of social infrastructure had been

committed by the end of March 2010.

• Evidence on the amount of ERDF actually contracted across the United Kingdom showed

that by March 2011 62.5% of all ERDF had been contracted and this had increased from

40.4% in March 2010. There was considerable variation by region across the United

Kingdom. In terms of funding actually paid out this was nearly 27% by end March 2011

for the United Kingdom as a whole and this compared with 15% by the end of March

2010.

Overall implementation of the Programme

• The evidence as at June 2012 is that for the United Kingdom as a whole the total amount

of ERDF contracted is now at 75.3% of the total with just over 40% having been actually

paid out. There is, however, significant variation across regions. In Wales the amount

contracted is some 93% overall, whilst it is just over 54% in Northern Ireland. The

amount paid out to projects is greatest in Scotland but between 30-40% in many

regions.

1 The indicators used in this section come from the AIR for 2011, which relate to the situation up to the

end of 2011. A more up-to-date view of the aggregate position (though not of the situation in the different

policy areas) is presented in the Synthesis Report for 2012 of the Expert evaluation network delivering

policy analysis on the performance of Cohesion policy 2007-2013 which is based on data for payments

from the ERDF and Cohesion Fund up to the end of 2012, i.e. after the present report was completed.



Recent Progress

Allocation and commitment by main policy area

Convergence regions

Policy area

Annex Table A shows financial allocation and commitment by main policy area for the

Convergence regions in the United Kingdom. Commitments made in relation to allocation by the

end of 2011 for the Convergence objective overall was 85.0% (71.8% by end-2010) but the

commitment rate varied by policy areas. It was 101.4% (83.6% by end-2010) for support for the

enterprise environment and also support for innovation in SMEs (104%). For Transport it was

58.4% (55.2% by end-2010) although almost all funds for investment in road investment had

been totally committed (98.4%) and 75.3% of that for rail (compared with 61.6% in 2010).

Implementation for environment and energy projects was around 65.5% (38.9% by end-2010)

and thus there was some way to go. The commitment rate by end-2011 was 95.1% for

territorial development (88.4% by end-2010).

Individual regions

In the Highlands and Islands Phasing Out region it is argued that with the Programme now fully

committed a number of the targets have been met in full, or in some cases, exceeded. Strong

achievement against several of the business support indicators is reported. This is believed to

be possibly related to businesses seeking support as a result of the recession. Slower progress

against indicators related to R&D is recorded due to the lead-times involved before possible

realisation. Many Community Planning Partnerships projects have experienced some delay in

delivery. The implementation rate was 39% by the end of 2011 and this compares with 20% by

the end of 2010.

In the Convergence region of West Wales and the Valleys the AIR indicates that there had been

good progress in providing project investment to support business, committing ERDF to

regeneration communities and providing improvements to the environment and the sustainable

transport. However, the impact of the unfavourable labour market conditions and weak

business confidence on implementation are recognised. The AIR indicates that the targets for

the following indicators are expected to be met by the end of the programming period. The

implementation rate was 30.3% by the end of 2011 and this compares with 19.2% by the end of

2010.

In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly the AIR reports that a number of funding issues have had to be

addressed and there have been some discussions with the European Union on whether the

programme intervention rate could be raised from 68% by reducing the level of match funding

required, although this is seen to be a last resort. The overall implementation rate was 26.6%

and this compares with 12.6% by the end of 2010.

The aim of priority one is to enable Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly to compete as a centre for

creativity, innovation and R&D, but outputs are forecast to be relatively low at the present time.

Priority two is seeking to restructure the economy but it is recognised that the economic climate

has ‘had an effect on the gestation period for businesses to start realising in GVA terms the

benefits of the interventions. Businesses are also understandably cautious about taking on new



staff during this time’ (AIR). The priority has now contracted nearly 70% of the business assist

targets and as a subset of this, over 90% of the target for new businesses assisted. Under

priority three the emphasis is on ensuring new investment in a number of significant

transformational infrastructure projects and this is seen as of critical importance. The AIR

indicates that by the end of 2011 the value of the investments made in priority axis 3 slightly

exceeded the priority allocation. Progress on priority axis four unlocking the economic potential

of place was only able to move slowly during 2010 as a result of the combined effects of the

recession, the general election and the comprehensive spending review.

Competitiveness and Employment regions

Policy area

Annex Table Aa shows financial allocation and commitment by main policy area for the

Competitiveness and Employment regions in the United Kingdom. Total commitments in

relation to allocation were 64.8% in 2011 and this had increased from 44.7% by end 2010.

There was substantial variation across main policy area with the highest commitment in

relation to allocation being for human resources by end 2011 (up from 58.1% the end of 2010).

Environment and energy had increased to 66.3% from 32.0% at the end of 2010. Enterprise

environment was at 63.2% compared to 47.5% at the end of 2010. Territorial development was

78.2% compared with 45.6% at the end of 2010. In the case of Transport, the commitment rate

by end 2011 was at 89.2% compared to 25.5% by end 2010.

Region

The largest share of funds in the Lowlands and Uplands Competiveness region has been

allocated to stimulating the enterprise environment (68.9%). And within this broad policy area

particular attention has been given to RTDI and linked activities (at 22.8%) and support for

innovation in SMEs (at 34.9%). The implementation rate showing commitments made in

relation to allocation by the end of 2011 for the programme overall was nearly 30% and this

compares with 15% by the end of 2010. Under priority two, enterprise growth, the AIR reports

excellent interest. A large part of the funding has gone to ‘five risk capital funds that are

addressing market failure in the supply of growth capital and debt finance for SMEs in the

Programme Area’. Under the priority three of urban regeneration there was continued progress

throughout 2011 in implementing a JESSICA initiative (Progress on ERDF for FEIs was provided

in the Task One Policy Paper 2012). By way of contrast there has been a relatively low level of

interest in the rural economic development priority. In 2011 the Managing Authority with key

stakeholders undertook a study to understand more about problems with absorption. It

concluded that a factor was the relatively narrow scope of the priority.

In the South East Competiveness region the AIR indicates that implementation continued as

planned through 2011 but finding matched funding remained a problem. In the Northern

Ireland Competiveness region the adverse economic conditions continue to constrain progress.

The implementation rate was 25.1% up from 9.7% by the end of 2010.

In the East of England Competiveness region it is reported that projects continued to report that

the economic climate was considerably delaying or jeopardising the completion of projects. In

addition several projects encountered match funding and other difficulties. The implementation

rate by the end of 2011 was 26.7% and this had increased from 8.9% the end of 2010.



In the North East Competitiveness region evidence from a recent Mid Term Evaluation that

reported in early 2011 ‘confirmed that the strategy set out in the OP - which aimed to promote

long term transformational and structural economic change through investment in support of

innovation, productivity, business growth and enterprise promotion - remained relevant and

appropriate to the needs of local partners, the two2 LEPs established in 2011 and to the wider

North East Programme area’s economic agenda’ (AIR). However, the AIR highlights that

relatively strong total cumulative spend figures at the end of 2011 is heavily affected by the

‘front loading of ERDF investment into the two FEIs established through the Programme in

2009/2010 (the North East JEREMIE funds in particular and the Creative Content Co-

investment Fund). This Performance over 2011, and beyond, must therefore continue to take

account of ongoing challenges such as a weakening project pipeline, concerns amongst Partners

over future sources of match funding and the risk of the ‘flatlining’ of contractual commitments

over 2011’ (AIR). The Task One Policy Paper 2012 considered some of these issues in more

depth but the North East is similar in this respect to some of the other Competiveness regions.

The overall implementation rate was 39.9% compared with 21.1% at the end of 2010.

The Interim Evaluation also identified that the availability of sources of match funding eligible

for use against ERDF had been a factor influencing the implementation of ERDF and the AIR

indicates that ‘in 2011, in response to these challenges, Programme strategy and governance

structures have pro-actively sought to mitigate the issues identified above and respond in a

constructive fashion wherever possible to align programme activity with new and emerging

instruments such as RGF, Growing Places Fund, Enterprise Zones and the establishment of two

LEPs in the programme area’.

In the Yorkshire Humberside Competiveness region the evidence from the Mid-term evaluation

indicates that ‘projects do not expect to achieve contracted result targets, largely because of the

adverse changes in the economic environment since the targets were set. Achievement of

results is estimated to be as much as 20-30% below the contracted figures. Projects have cited

over-ambitious initial targets, impact of the recession and the inherent lag in achieving results

from innovation projects as key constraints. The continuing poor economic conditions in

Yorkshire and The Humber, effects of the slowdown in activity following the recession, and

budgetary and policy implications are directly impacting upon progress towards output/results

targets’ (AIR). The overall implementation rate was 36% and this compares with 15.6% by the

end of 2010.

In the South West Competitive region it is reported that: ‘Overall there has been a significant

increase in the rate of target achievement during 2011. This is mostly due to a large number of

investments being substantially underway in 2011. The volume of projects that have completed

their setting up phase and have made material headway in delivering their projects has risen

and this is reflected in the output and result figures’. The overall implementation rate was

25.6% by the end of 2011 and this compares with 9.0% by the end of 2010.

Cross Border Co-operation programme

Annex Table Ab shows financial allocation and commitment by main policy area for the Cross-

Border Cooperation regions in the United Kingdom. By the end of 2011 the overall

2 NB that the North Eastern and Tees Valley LEP areas are consistent with the Programme area.



implementation rate was 26% (and the commitment rate was 63% - see Excel Table4 cbc) but

implementation had been greatest under the second priority that involved infrastructure

development and collaboration. Commitment under the first priority which seeks to stimulate

enterprise and tourist development has been very weak.

Total amount of certified eligible expenditure paid by beneficiaries by 2011 by region

and priority axis

Convergence

Evidence on the allocation and certified eligible expenditure paid by beneficiaries up until the

end of 2011 is available in the 2011 AIRs. Annex Table B shows this and an overall

implementation rate at that time. The Highlands and Islands Convergence region had an

implementation rate of nearly 39% with over 71% of allocation being committed under the

priority designed to enhance the key drivers of sustainable growth. In West Wales and the

Valleys the overall implementation rate was 30% and was greatest under the improving

business competitiveness priority at 54%. In the Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Convergence

region the overall implementation rate was just over 26% with most progress having being

made under innovation R&D.

Competitiveness

Across the Competiveness regions there was considerable variation in implementation as at

2011. In the Lowlands and Uplands Competitiveness region the implementation rate overall

was nearly 30% with progress greatest under the priority of R&D at some 38%. In the South

East England Competitiveness region the overall implementation rate was only about 25% and

the PMC was seeking to increase it. In the Northern Ireland Competitiveness region the overall

implementation rate was also around 26% although higher under the enterprise and

entrepreneurship priority at 35%. The East of England Competitiveness region had an overall

implementation rate of nearly 27% with again the most success under the stimulating

enterprise priority that had risen over 41% by the end of 2011. The North East of England

Competitiveness region had quite a high implementation rate at nearly 40% but, as with some

of the other regions, a significant amount of funds had been committed to FEIs. In the London

Competitiveness region implementation was nearly 45% but there is again a heavy use of a FEI.

In the West Midlands Competitiveness region the implementation rate was only around 26%

with the most success in committing funds under the stimulating enterprise environment.

The implementation rate in the North West Competitiveness region was nearly 40% with the

creating the conditions for sustainable growth recording the highest level at 49%. The Yorkshire

and Humber region implementation rate overall was 36% with substantial implementation

progress under the priority of economic infrastructure for a competitive economy at 67%. The

East Midlands region had an implementation rate of 28% with the innovation and business

practice priority having committed 39% of its allocation. In the East Wales Competitiveness

region the implementation rate was 35% with 100% of eligible allocation being committed

under business competiveness and growth. In the South West Competitiveness region the

implementation rate was around 26% and greatest under the enterprise and growth priority.



Amounts contracted and amounts paid as at June 2012

A more up-to date picture of how much of the ERDF has been contracted across the United

Kingdom is shown in Annex Table C. It shows that for the whole of the United Kingdom by June

2012 some 75.3% of all ERDF in the United Kingdom had been contracted and this had

increased from 62.5% and 40.4% in March 2011 and March 2010 respectively. The highest level

of contracted funds was in Wales and particularly West Wales, followed by Scotland at nearly

88%. The lowest level was in Northern Ireland at 54%. There was considerable variation across

the English regions with the lowest in the South East at 55% and the highest in Cornwall and the

Isles of Scilly at nearly 80%.

Annex Table C shows how much of the funding had actually been paid out by the end of 2012.

This was nearly 41% by June 2012 up from 27% and 15% for 2011 and 2010 respectively. The

regions which had paid out the highest proportion by that time were London at 57% (compared

to 43.2% by the end of March 2011) and the North East at nearly 51% (compared with 35% by

end of March 2011). The lowest amount paid to projects to June 2012 was in the West Midlands

and West Wales and the Valleys at around 32%.

ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PROGRAMMES SO FAR


• Much was being achieved with some early indications of outputs and results emerging in

relation to enterprise, innovation and job creation. However, a thorough analysis was

constrained by the overall quality of the data available. Some 43% of ERDF in the

Convergence regions overall was allocated to support the enterprise environment and

the proportion was higher in the Competitiveness regions at 69%. The majority of

relevant indicators on the output monitoring system related to some aspect of

enterprise and job creation and so attention in the 2011 Country Report focused on

these. It was emphasised that it was not possible to provide this information precisely

by policy area since the information was recorded by priority axis for each OP and this

varied by OP in the precise Policy area covered. It was also made clear that the figures

could only be presented at a relatively high level of aggregation and where provisional.

• The 2011 Country Report stated that as a very broad guide in the Convergence regions

around 10-15% of the target gross jobs had been met. The position was argued to be

better for business assistance and support where there were relatively higher levels of

achievement in relation to target set for the end of the programming period at around

27%.

• In the Competitiveness regions gross jobs created and safeguarded were around 15-

20% of target set for the end of the programming period. There were considerable

variations across the business indicators but the number of businesses assisted to

improve their performance was 35% of target set for the end of the programming

period.

• There was also evidence of outputs and results reflecting improvements to

infrastructure and the physical environment of the assisted regions but it was more

difficult to gauge precisely by indicator.



• In the Cross Border regions the output position was very unclear since there was no

indicator information available from the database due to technical difficulties.

This section considers the available evidence on achievements so far drawing on the Core

Indicators information on outputs, results and impacts provided in the AIRs. It has been

mentioned in both the 2010 and 2011 Country Reports that this data is not easy to interpret is

of variable quality. This year an extensive and laborious analysis of the data contained in each of

the AIR was necessary because the Core Indicators information provided for the Programme as

a whole only covered one of the Convergence regions and eight of the Competiveness regions.

The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1 but are again difficult to interpret and

simply do not look very plausible in places.

• It is to be remembered that ERDF in the United Kingdom in the Convergence regions and

Competiveness regions is being heavily allocated to improving the environment for

business, stimulating innovation and R&D and creating jobs. Expenditure in other areas

particularly relating to infrastructure support is far less although there are substantial

funds being devoted to urban and rural regeneration. In terms of the effect of the

programme by the end of 2011 on the stimulation of enterprise there were some

encouraging outputs in terms of the number of businesses that had been assisted,

although as indicated in Tables 2 and 3, in some cases there is a considerable way to go

before the overall programme targets are met. It clearly takes time for projects to build

and deliver their outputs particularly in the current economic climate of recession. Jobs

created and safeguarded whilst not insignificant, are relatively limited at the present

time, and are very small in relation to benchmarks. In the Convergence regions (part of

Scotland, part of Wales and part of the South West) gross job creation is placed at 9,500

jobs over the period 2007-2011, around 18% of the target set for the end of the

programming period. To put this into some sort of perspective, over the quarter

February to April 2012 total employment in Scotland, Wales, the South West increased

by 8,000, 26,000 and 34,000 respectively. New start-ups supported are estimated to be

around 1,200 over the period 2007-2011. To provide some comparison new company

registrations in the manufacturing sector in Scotland, Wales and the South West taken

together increased by 1,870 in 2007.

In the Competiveness regions3 (Rest of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and those regions in

England other than that part of Cornwall that is a Convergence region) jobs created are

estimated at nearly 34,000 over 2007-2011, around 27% of the target set for the end of the

programming period. To put this in perspective, in the quarter February to April 2012 total

employment in the rest of the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) increased by

161,000. Some 11,600 new businesses are estimated to have been supported over 2007-2011

and this is around 54% of target set for the end of the programming. To provide some

comparison, new company registrations in manufacturing in England (minus the South West),

but including Northern Ireland, increased by 8,210 in 2007.

It should be recognised that the programme targets for both the convergence and

Competiveness regions were set at a time when economic conditions were remarkably more

3 The jobs created figure of 34,000 over 2007-2011 is that for all regions that are in Competiveness and

Employment regions in the United Kingdom.



robust than they are now and it is not yet clear how much downward revision may be necessary

in the targets. A faster rate of recovery than is currently occurring would help things

considerably.

The evidence presented in Tables 2 and 3 is gross and does not reflect the additionality of the

programme overall. Effects on physical indicators are, in general, very small.

• It is likely that ERDF projects will increase the amount of innovation being undertaken

in the assisted regions. The evidence in the AIRs is that a number of relevant capital

projects are being supported that are considered additional relative to the non-ERDF

position. Also, there have been seven Mid-Term Reviews confirming positive impacts on

assisted companies and some evaluations of ERDF supported venture capital funds that

indicate positive outcomes. However, it should be emphasised that there is little by way

of impact evaluation evidence available at the present time and overall conclusions are

not possible until this is available.

• In some regions the ERDF is also assisting tourism and improving transport links.

However, since there is so little evidence on the net impacts of policies it is not possible

to be clear about the effect of ERDF on the final outcomes that matter and how they

compare in relation to the problems that they are addressing. The best way forward

given the absence of good quality monitoring data and an absence of final impact

evaluations is to review progress on an area by area basis drawing on the evidence

contained in the AIRs and it is to this which we now turn. Wherever possible this

analysis draws on relevant baseline information although this is often quite limited.

Table 2 – Main physical indicators and achievements – Convergence objective

Policy area Main indicators Outcomes and results – end-2011

(% of final target).

Enterprise support and RTDI including ICT

No. cooperation project

enterprises-research

institutions

No. start-ups supported

319 (62.1%)

1,219 (24.4%)

Increase access to finance by SMEs Investment induced (EUR

million) 101 (75%)

Human Resources (ERDF only)

Jobs created core

indicator 1

Jobs created Core

indicator 9. (gross FTE)

9,471 (17.8%)

6,495 (59%)

Transport - -

Environment and energy

No. renewable energy

projects

Additional capacity of

renewable energy prod

(MW)

Reduction greenhouse

emissions (in CO2

equivalents, kiloton per

annum)

No. people benefiting from

flood protection measures

4 (16%)

270 (0.1%)

15 (15%)

2,207 (110.4%)

Territorial development (urban areas, tourism,

rural development, cultural heritage, health,

public security, local development)

No. projects ensuring

sustainability & improving

the attractiveness of

towns & cities

22 (73.3%)

Source: 2011 AIRs



Table 3 – Main physical indicators and achievements – Competiveness and Employment

objective

Policy area Main indicators

Outcomes and results– end-2011

(physical outcomes plus brief note

on what has been achieved)

Enterprise support and RTDI including ICT

No. cooperation project

enterprises-research

institutions

No. RTD projects

No. start-ups supported

No. information society

projects

969 (26.1%)

1,130 (102.7%)

11,549 (53.6%)

12 (12.4%)

Increase access to finance by SMEs

No. direct investment aid

projects to SME

Investment induced (EUR

million

447 (51.7%)

738 (28.9%)

Human Resources (ERDF only)

No. jobs created

No. research jobs created

No. jobs created (FTE)

No. jobs created in

tourism

33,803 (29.1%)

2,280 (80.6%)

8,745 (35.6%)

37 (74%)

Youth unemployment (ERDF only)

Transport - -

Environment and energy

Additional capacity of

renewable energy prod.

(MW).

Area rehabilitated (sq.

km.)

140 (1.2%)

12 (240%)

Territorial development (urban areas, tourism,

rural development, cultural heritage, health,

public security, local development)

No. tourism projects 43 (12.2)

Source: 2011 AIRs

The position in individual regions

Convergence regions

The Highlands and Islands Phasing-Out programme is funded at EUR 291 million of which over

72% is committed to enhancing business competiveness and enhancing the drivers of

sustainable growth. The programme has made significant progress in supporting business. It is

thought this is reflective of business in the region seeking support in what is proving to be an

enduring recessionary period. The number of individuals and enterprises receiving advice and

consultancy support is 140% above the original target set for the end of the programming

period. The number that has received financial support is 200% above the programme target

set for the end of the programming period. The number of actual gross jobs created is around

900. This is around a quarter of the way to the overall programme target of 4,700. The targets

were established at a time of more robust economic activity. Given the emphasis in the OP on

expanding the number and diversity of enterprises in the region this is clearly an important

contribution. However, slower progress is reported in stimulating R&D.

Four renewable energy research projects have been supported and progress is at 40% of target.

The renewable energy sector has required support in capital facilities to support tidal, wave and

wind energy development with an example being the Stromness Harbour Renewable



infrastructure. ERDF is being used to develop and support the Outer Hebrides Hydrogen

infrastructure. Eight transport projects have been supported and this is around 50% of the

overall target. An example is the A859 and A865 Spinal Route Improvements affecting the Isles

of Harris, North and South Uist. Slower achievement is reported in delivering community

programmes.

In the West Wales Convergence some EUR 2,200 million is being committed in the programme.

There is a strong emphasis on stimulating enterprise, building the contribution that the

knowledge economy can make to stimulating new job opportunities and creating an attractive

business environment and 56% of funding addresses these areas with a further 32% seeking to

modernise the infrastructure base of the region. The available evidence indicates that by 2011

some 6,300 enterprises had been assisted, over 1,200 enterprises created and over 7,000 gross

jobs. These indicators show that the most of the programme indicator targets are on track to be

attained and perhaps even exceeded in some cases. It is expected that jobs accommodated,

created, premises created or refurbished and gross passenger kilometres on public transport

are in this category. The programme is seen as being more constrained in securing its targets for

investment in new products by business and waste reduced or recycled. It is hoped that the

JESSICA initiative might improve investment levels although, as discussed in the Task One

Policy Paper 2012 on FEIs, many of these FEIs have substantial levels of funds in them that at

the present time are not committed. Clearly, the present recession is not helping the attainment

of targets. The difficulties experienced in securing the waste targets is felt in part to reflect the

impact of previous funding for West Wales and the Valleys from the Objective One programme

because these funds were able to help to complete much of the required large scale waste

infrastructure.

Overall, much has been achieved particularly in relation to business support, enterprise creation

and gross job creation. Most recently the Welsh Government has been able to undertake some

important evaluation research to assess how much of the gross job achievements from ERDF

can be considered additional in the sense that they would not otherwise of been there. This

evidence points to a relatively high level of displacement and relatively modest net job creation

of around 245 new jobs created and around 350-430 jobs safeguarded for around 700

businesses examined across both ERDF programmes in Wales. At the present time the

contribution to job creation is relatively modest.

In the Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Convergence programme EUR 670 million is broadly split

equally between investment in innovation/R&D/enterprise investment and infrastructure

investment designed to enhance based investment. By 2011 the implementation rate (i.e.

amount of certified eligible expenditure paid to beneficiaries as a proportion of total funding of

the OP (union and national) was around 26% but more recent information for 2012 suggests

that this is now more like 43%. Over 2,500 businesses have been supported and this is nearly

40% of the overall programme target. Progress in supporting innovation centres has been slow

in relation to programme target but is forecast to improve. Gross new jobs created up to 2011

by the programme are 990 and looks weak against the overall end of programme target of

15,400.

It is anticipated that benefits will begin to increase substantially when new facilities funded by

ERDF become available. As remarked in last year’s report activity under the transformational



infrastructure priority the objective has been to improve connectivity between businesses and

thus enhance market engagement and these benefits will take some time to come through.

Competitiveness regions

The Lowlands and Uplands Competitiveness region has EUR 910 million of which 60% is

committed to research and innovation and enterprise and growth. Around a quarter is being

used for urban regeneration and a smaller amount to assist with rural development. As at 2011

implementation of funding was at around 27% overall but by 2012 amounts actually paid to

projects was approaching 50%. In 2011 the highest level of eligible expenditure had been in

research and innovation activity with a 38% implementation rate and enterprise and growth

with a 36% implementation rate.

It has proven difficult to establish the overall results and impacts for this region as at 2011 but

across priorities there is a target to create some 25,600 jobs. By 2011 it is indicated that just

over 16,000 gross jobs had been created just over 12,000 of these being as a result of actions

under priority two designed to encourage enterprise and stimulate growth. This was close to

the overall desired target under this priority of 13,600.

Support to business has been a prominent feature of the programme and thus under priority

two nearly 8,800 new business starts are recorded which is around 60% of the target. The

urban regeneration priority had supported over 1,100 businesses which was around the target

number for the programme and over 5,900 rural businesses had been supported. This was over

three times more than the expected target. Clearly, a substantial amount of business support but

often representing relatively small levels of commitment and it is difficult to interpret how

many of the gross jobs created for the programme as a whole to-date are additional in the sense

that they would not otherwise of been there. More robust commentary on the overall impact of

the programme on beneficiaries and the programme as a whole in terms of both jobs and

enterprise creation must await the results of a proper impact evaluation.

The main focus of the South East England Competitiveness programme has a small amount of

funds (EUR 47 million) to promote sustainable production and consumption. Certified eligible

expenditure was running at around 25% of the programme total in 2011 but that the amount

actually paid out to projects is now approaching nearly 40% by June 2012. By 2011 just over

3,000 businesses had been involved in the programme that was some 50% above the target.

Around 2,700 businesses had been assisted to improve their performance which was well above

the target of 750. Nearly 1,200 businesses were identified as having improved their

performance which was at target and gross jobs created were at 200, close to the target of 180.

Net additional employment was placed at just over 161 jobs, higher than the target of 110. On

the environmental side the reduction in the growth of CO2 emissions was just over 5,700 tonnes,

well short of the target of 85,000 tonnes.

In the Northern Ireland Competiveness region the programme is funded at EUR 614 million and

is focusing heavily on sustainable competiveness and innovation and around 20% of certified

eligible expenditure had been paid by 2011. Around a third of the programme was committed to

sustainable enterprise and entrepreneurship and this had an implementation rate of 35% by

2011. A relatively small amount of the programme at around 12% was focused on improving

accessibility and enhancing the environment and this had a very low implementation rate by



2011 at around 13%. Overall, more recent evidence indicates that the amount actually paid out

to projects is around a third of the total funding in the programme. Against this backdrop of

funding commitment actual impact at the present time can only be expected to be relatively

modest. Monitoring information suggests that around a 900 RTD projects have been assisted

and this is close to the programme target of 1,000 overall. Given the relatively low rate of

funding implementation these figures suggest that either the targets were set far too low or the

output estimates are too optimistic. Some 2,190 research jobs have been created and thus well

above the target of 1,238. Some 410 SMEs have been assisted relative to the programme target

of 835. Around 130 start-ups have been supported compared to the target of 285. Gross

equivalent full time equivalent created are placed at around 5,100 compared to a target of

11,300. Induced SME investment is EUR 729 million compared to a target of EUR 1,740 million

The East of England Competitiveness programme is funded at EUR 275 million and had an

implementation rate of around 27% by 2011 but more recent evidence points to around 36% of

the available funds having been paid to projects by June 2012. The focus of the programme is on

promoting innovation and knowledge transfer, stimulating business enterprise and ensuring

sustainable development and production and programme funding is split approximately equally

across these three priorities with implementation having been highest under the stimulating the

business environment priority by 2011. Overall, the programme is based on promoting an

environmentally sustainable and friendly green region. In relation to achievement based on core

indicators the evidence points to nearly 400 jobs created by end 2011 compared to the target of

2,560, 4 start-ups supported, compared to a target of nearly 300 and a modest level of

investment induced at EUR 12 million compared to a target of EUR 88.6 million. The overall

conclusion on regional impact must be much as last year, namely that the programme has

successfully raised awareness amongst the SME base of the importance of sustainability and low

carbon issues with some very high profile projects being supported.

In the North East Competitiveness programme EUR 751 million is being used to enhance

innovation and encourage business growth and enterprise in a region that is experiencing some

of the most severe problems of economic adjustment. As at 2011 implementation of the

programme funds overall was around 40% but by the end of June 2012 about 50% of the funds

have been paid out to projects. The programme is making extensive use of FEIs and this area

was discussed at length in the Task One Policy Paper 2012 on FEIs produced earlier this year.

Overall, the evidence available on the position as at the end of 2011 is that 4,940 jobs are

thought to have been created (against a target of 10,185). Some 2,500 start-ups have been

supported (against target of just over 6,000). Induced investment is very small at the present

time.

A central issue has to be how many of the gross jobs created can be regarded as net additional

and thus contributing to the urgent need for more jobs in the region at the present time. Precise

information on this will not be able until an impact evaluation is undertaken. The assistance

given to business and the creation of new start-ups is clearly of great importance to the region

at the present time given the economic challenges that it is currently facing.

The London Competitiveness programme is funded at EUR 383 million and there is a strong

focus on business innovation and research promoting eco-efficiency, priority two on access to

new markets and access to finance and priority three on sustainable places for business. The



overall implementation rate was around 45% by 2011. By mid June 2012 over 57% of funds had

been paid to projects. As discussed in the Task One Policy Paper 2012 on FEIs produced earlier

this year the London programme has a significant involvement in this area in the form of the

London Green Fund. The evidence was that some 6,100 businesses had been assisted by 2011

against a target of just over 15,000 and a baseline of 674,615. There are significant outputs for

businesses engaged in collaboration networks particularly in relation to the knowledge base

and much has been achieved in seeking to get businesses to improve their management

approaches to be more environmental aware. Jobs created were assessed at 450 by 2011

against a target of just over 4,000 and a baseline of 3.9 million. The number of jobs safeguarded

was estimated to be just over 700 compared to a target of 5,200. The number of businesses

identified as having improved performance was 1,750 against a target of 4,500.

The West Midlands Competiveness programme is funded at EUR 800 million and focuses

heavily on promoting innovation and R&D and stimulating enterprise development. The rest of

the funding is concerned to help create urban development. By 2011 implementation was

around 25% of the total funds available but by mid June 2012 the amount of funds paid to

project was around 31%. In terms of core indicators some 56% of the gross jobs target has been

met at just over 5,800 jobs. The number of jobs safeguarded is 2,270 against a target of 1,125 so

this is well ahead. The number of start-ups supported was 1,149 against a target of 2,489.

Around 8,300 businesses had received assistance to improve their performance with a final

programme target of just over 22,000. There has also been considerable progress in creating

and attracting new businesses to the region and it is estimated that at nearly 1,500 this is well

on the way to the target of approximately 2,500. Overall, by 2011 a number of the relevant

business indicators had managed to exceed their original targets.

The North West Competitiveness programme is funded at EUR 1,500 million. The first full year

of programme operation was 2009 and slightly over half of ERDF is allocated to stimulating

enterprise and exploiting innovation and knowledge. A further 21% is designed to create the

conditions for sustainable growth (priority three) and another 21% with growing and accessing

employment (priority four). As at the end of 2011 the overall implementation rate was nearly

40% and was highest in priority three. By mid June 2012 just over half of all funds had been

paid out to projects. The region had an extensive presence in FEIs and this was discussed in the

Task One Policy Paper 2012 produced earlier this year.

This is a region with some 251,000 businesses, over 2.9 million employees and a GVA of EUR

149,000 million. As at 2011 the programme is indicated to have provided assistance to nearly

10,800 businesses against a target of just over 25,000. Support to business start-ups was 2,100

against a target of nearly 5,800. Total gross job creation was placed at 8,285 against a target of

48,400. The number of gross jobs safeguarded was 4,285 against a target of 15,800. Some 4,490

businesses had been created exceeding the target of 3,920. The AIR indicates that output targets

are lagging somewhat because the two significant FEIs in the region have suffered some delays

and thus investments have not yet been made. The economic climates and budget cuts have

meant that a number of projects have had to be re-scoped and there was some under-recording

of projects in the Project Management System.

The Yorkshire Humber Competitiveness programme is resourced at EUR 1,200 million and over

60% of the funds are committed to promoting innovation, R&D and the stimulation of



enterprise. Around 20% seeks to encourage sustainable communities and a further 15% is

devoting to improving the economic infrastructure of the economy. By the end of 2011 the

implementation rate was around 36% but my mid 2012 the amount actually paid to projects

was some nearly 39%. The AIR shows that 689 businesses had been assisted against a target of

nearly 17,000. Around 500 new businesses had been created compared to a target of just over

4,000. Gross jobs safeguarded was placed at 5,800 compared to a target of 14,100. A Mid-Term

evaluation was completed in the second part of 2011. On the positive side it was indicated that

several major projects are on schedule to be delivered. However, the level of outputs reported

was low and this was argued to reflect ‘continued difficult economic conditions constraining the

ability of partners and employers to deliver job creation and growth at the pace envisaged when

the OP was developed, the changing fiscal and institutional landscape, with the loss or reduction

of key delivery vehicles and their funding streams that were anticipated to play a significant role

in the delivery of the OP (for example the Business Link Network) and the lag between project

activity and outputs being verified by sponsors’ (AIR, 2011). The AIR also reported that a

number of issues affecting outputs and results including the severe economic conditions, the

loss of major project delivery mechanism, new or upgraded floorspace progress has been

adversely impacted by reporting lags and GVA is heavily affected by current economic

conditions.

In assessing impact in the Yorkshire Humberside region overall it is important to mention the

strategic long-term capacity building nature of projects supported which, as mentioned

previously, include support for a Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing research centre (EUR 20.6

million) and support for broadband infrastructure (EUR 34.3 million). Other success in

promoting innovation and R&D include investment in the region’s Advanced Materials Centre

and support for the Green, Renewables and Environmental Associated project.

The East Midlands Competitiveness programme promotes innovation and sustainable business

practice and enterprise activity. It is deploying a total ERDF programme of EUR 537 million and

all of this is focused on innovation and sustainable enterprise based activity. By the end of 2011

the overall implementation rate was just over 28% and the most significant under the

innovation and sustainable business practice priority at nearly 39%. By the end of June 2012

just over 35% of funds had been paid to projects. This is another example of a region that has a

significance presence in FEIs with a JESSICA Urban Development Fund with some EUR 11.9

million ERDF and this was discussed in the Task One Policy Paper 2012. As at the end of 2011

the number of businesses assisted to improve performance was 6,700 and this was 72% of the

target of 9,300. EUR 32 million of public and private investment had been levered but was

relatively small and only 15% of the target for the programme of EUR 216 million. The amount

of brownfield land reclaimed was 28% of the target which is 17.

Job creation was identified as being 2,282 and this was nearly 27% of the programme target by

the end of 2011 which was 8,600. The number of businesses had had improved their

performance was around 9% of the target of 7,200 and the GVA resulting from these

improvements was estimated at EUR 23.8 million which was 9% of the target for the

programme of EUR 263 million. The number of new businesses created and new businesses

attracted to the region was 12% of the target of 2,000. Encouragingly, some 600 graduates had

been placed in SMEs which was 16% of the target for the programme.



In the South West Competitiveness region there is funding of EUR 249 million. Priority one is

focusing on innovation and knowledge, priority two on enterprise and growth and priority

three on urban enterprise. Strategically important investment includes the National Composites

Centre, two specialist business technology centres and the first round of innovation regional

networks (iNETs). By the end of 2011 the overall implementation rate was nearly 26% and

highest under the urban enterprise priority at 38%. By end June 2012 37% of funds had been

paid to projects. As at the end of 2011 the number of businesses that had been assisted to

improve their performance was 4,451 and this was 40% of the overall programme target of

11,000. The number of individuals assisted to start a business was around 1,870 and this was

well over the target of 900. Gross jobs created were estimated to be 730 and this was 8% of the

programme target of 9,000 jobs. Jobs safeguarded were 177 and this was only 4% of the

programme target of 4,000. More encouragingly the number of businesses started was

estimated at 295 and this was 49% of the target of 600.

In the East Wales Competitiveness programme nearly EUR 160 million is being used to heavily

to encourage innovation and knowledge for growth with nearly 45% of total funding. A further

20% is addressing business competiveness, a further 20% tackling climate change issues and

15% devoted to a range of regeneration issues. By the end of 2011 the implementation rate was

35% and the highest under the business growth and competiveness priority at 100%. By the

end of June 2012 34% of funds had been actually paid to projects.

Gross job creation was 2,835 by the end of 2011 and this was 53% of the programme target. Job

attainments have to be considered against a baseline figure of 540,000 workplace based jobs in

the region in 2005. Enterprises created were estimated to be 686 by the end of 2011 and this

was 35% above the programme target and has to be considered against a baseline figure of

2,640 businesses registering for VAT in the region in 2005. Enterprise creation is thus quite

significant in relation to this figure. Enterprises assisted were estimated to be 1,056 and this

was 60% of the programme target. The baseline figure indicates 69,700 businesses active in the

region in 2003. Induced investment was placed at around EUR 29 million and this compares

with the target of EUR 138 million and a EUR 277 million R&D spend in the whole of Wales in

2005.

In the Gibraltar Competitiveness region there is EUR 6 million being used to ensure sustainable

economic development, innovation and entrepreneurship. SME job creation/safeguarded is

estimated at 148 compared to the target of 200 and compares well with a baseline of 2,250

SMEs in 2005 in the region. A number of ICT related benefits of relevance to business

competiveness have been secured. Also, a very significant number of new employees are argued

to have been assisted into the labour market.

The Objective Three Inter-Region has EUR 256 million. Priority one is concerned to ensure co-

operation for a more prosperous cross border region and some EUR 40 million has been

committed by the end of 2011 representing an implementation rate of nearly 60%. Priority two

is encouraging cooperation for a more sustainable cross-border region and the implementation

rate was nearly 76% by the end of 2011. The available evidence did not state how much of the

funds had actually been paid out to projects as at end June 2012. The output, result and impact

indicators are rather fragmented and it is difficult to be clear what the precise position is at the



present time. The available evidence suggests that the number of businesses assisted is

expected to surpass the programme targets.

3. EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION


• On balance the broad body of evidence was that by the end of the 2010 operating period

it was still too soon to expect significant impacts on the main outcome indicators. By the

end of March 2011 the amount of funds paid out was only 27% across of the total funds

available. The output monitoring data shows a substantial increase relative to 2009 in

the outputs being delivered, particularly in relation to gross jobs and enterprise.

However, many are still well behind target. Throughout 2010 progress was constrained

by the adverse economic climate and problems of securing matched funding for projects.

• Whilst it is not plausible to suggest that the programme could have brought about

significant change in the economies of the regions concerned by the end of 2010 there

were many examples in both the Convergence and Competitiveness regions of projects

that are building the longer term capacity of regions to withstand the key challenges

arising from economic, environmental and demographic change and we examine some

of these further below.

The most recent evidence presented in this Report indicates that for the whole of the United

Kingdom by June 2012 some 75.3% of all ERDF in the United Kingdom had been contracted and

this had increased from 62.5% and 40.4% in March 2011 and March 2010 respectively. Funds

paid out were nearly 41% by June 2012 up from 27% and 15% for 2011 and 2010 respectively.

The total matched funding of the ERDF in the United Kingdom is EUR 10,800 million available

under the 2007-2013 ERDF programme. In the United Kingdom some EUR 8,200 million has

been contracted and EUR 4,200 million actually spent in the regions being assisted. These are

substantial sums. There is not any overall final evaluation evidence available at the present time

and so it is not possible to say what has been the overall impact on those regions that have been

assisted.

There is much evidence to suggest that in the worst recession for over eighty years that ERDF

has enabled the momentum of economic regeneration to be maintained in the more

disadvantaged regions across the United Kingdom. The AIRs indicate that ERDF projects are

building much by way of capacity by supporting R&D and innovation. A very significant part of

the SME base is receiving some form of assistance and advice and at a time of tight finance

valuable gains are being made.

Since evidence on final impacts is in short supply it is not possible at the present time to assess

the additional effect of ERDF on the outcomes that matter in regional development. Moreover, it

will take time for some of the required impacts to emerge, particularly where funds have helped

with capital investment. It is also the case, as discussed in the Task One Policy Paper 2012 on

FEIs that around 10% of ERDF has been allocated to FEIs. At the present time draw-down on

these funds has been relatively limited. It is hoped that impact evaluations scheduled for

England and Wales over the coming year will help to confirm the gains made.



4. EVALUATIONS AND GOOD PRACTICE IN EVALUATION

This section begins by listing the evaluations that have been identified in the 2010 and 2011

Country Reports. It then discusses new evaluation findings that have emerged from evaluation

research undertaken over the last year and concludes by outlining the main features of the

strategy which is now in place for evaluating the effects of intervention co-financed by the ERDF

and Cohesion Fund and the extent to which this is integrated into policy-making.

Evaluations identified in previous reports

The following evaluations are relevant:

Advantage West Midlands (2011). Mid-Term Evaluation.

EEDA (2010). East of England ERD Competitiveness Programme Interim Evaluation. Regeneris

Consulting.

EMDA (2010). East Midlands ERDF Competitiveness Programme, 2007-13.

One North East (2011). North East ERDF Operational Programme 2007-13: Mid-term

Evaluation.

NWDA (2010). Interim Evaluation of the North West ERDF Operational Programme (2007-13).

Scottish Government (2011). Contribution made by European structural funds to Community

Planning Partnerships4.

SWERDA (2010a). Feasibility Study: Evaluation of ESF and ERDF in Cornwall and the Isles of

Scilly. Ecotec.

SWERDA (2010b). Programme Review of European Regional Development Fund in the South

West-Convergence Programme. SQW Consulting.

SWERDA (2010c). Programme Review of European Regional Development Fund in the South

West-Competitiveness and Employment Programme. SQW Consulting.

Yorkshire Forward (2011). Yorkshire and Humber ERDF Operational Programme 2007-13: Mid

Term Impact Evaluation.

WEFO (2005). Mid-term Evaluation Update for the Objective One Programme in Wales.

Economic Development and European Services.

WEFO (2011). The Effectiveness of Implementation in the 2007-13 Structural Funds

Programming Period.

Evaluations of specific aspects of OPs

DTZ (2010). A Feasibility Study of Methodological Approaches to Undertake Impact Evaluation

of 2007-2013 Structural Funds Programme in Wales.

4 http://www.esep.co.uk/assets/files/PMC0903/LUPS-09-03-04%20-

%20Annex%203(iii)%20CPP%20Overview%20Report.pdf



Scottish Executive (2007). Evaluation of ERDF supported venture capital and loan funds in

Scotland and the Scottish Co-Investment Fund. Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services.

Scottish Executive Social Research.

Scottish Enterprise (2008). Evaluation of the Scottish Co-Investment Fund: A Report to Scottish

Enterprise. Keith Hayton, Graham Thom, Vincent Percy, Chris Boyd and Kathleen Latimer.

Scottish Enterprise (2008). Scottish Venture Fund: Economic Impact Assessment. Final Report

to Scottish Enterprise. Malcolm Watson Consulting.

Scottish Government. Evaluation Smart: Scotland. 2009.

WEFO (2010). ERDF Business Survey. Oldbell3.

New evaluation findings that have emerged

London

During 2012 an Interim Programme Assessment was commissioned by the European

Management Unit at the Greater London Authority. The evaluation team interviewed 20

strategic consultees, reviewed 20 projects supported by the Programme, and undertook a

detailed analysis of Programme data and background information about the Programme and

reviewed policy changes and socio-economic data that could affect the Programme (Regeneris

Consulting, 2012). The evaluation finds that the London Programme is effective in its strategic

orientation and implementation and delivery is progressing largely as planned. It is making

strong progress in committing funds and reasonable progress in achieving its targets. There has

been strong programme management. The evaluation identifies a number of lessons and

examples of Good Practice that are relevant for 2014-20.

England. Thematic Review Relating to FEI

In the Task One Policy Paper on FEIs undertaken earlier in 2012 an evaluation study of ERDF

Funded Venture Capital and Loan Funds (VCLFs) in England and Wales was reported. Its

objectives were to consider Venture Capital Loan Funds and the models and approaches they

adopt to ascertain whether they were appropriate for the use being made of them. The

evaluation also examined their financial performance in relation to their targets and assessed

the evidence on their effectiveness and whether they were representing Value for Money.

Wales

The Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO) commissioned an ERDF Business Survey in 2011

and it reported in 2012. The objective of the survey work has been to monitor the effectiveness

of the ERDF Enterprise, Business Finance, R&D and Innovation areas of the Programmes and to

evaluate outcomes for ERDF assisted businesses in terms of job creation, productivity,

profitability and value of exports. Some 778 business interviews have been undertaken that had

received ERDF assistance. The study also sought to pilot statistical matching of ERDF assisted

businesses to a matched sample from other datasets. However, WEFO have found that this is

proving to be more challenging for businesses than for individuals, due to the small size of

ERDF-assisted businesses. WEFO is working with the contractors to explore these issues

further, with a view to developing a pragmatic and robust methodology for evaluating the

impact of ERDF support for businesses. A number of findings have emerged that are

summarised in the Table 4 below.



Northern Ireland

A Mid-Term evaluation has just been completed in Northern Ireland for the Competiveness

programme. It has contains a wide-ranging review of the current position in relation to

priorities and likely absorption of funds in the light of the recession and make suggestions as to

how these may be addressed. It also states the targets for some of the core indicators need to be

revised and a revised set of indicators is proposed. A number of other recommendations

relating to training and monitoring procedures are also made.



Table 4 - Summary of evaluations.

Title and date of

completion

Policy

area and

scope (*)

Main objectives (*) Method Used (*) Main findings Full reference or link to

publication

London ERDF

2007-13

Programme

9. Mid-

Term

2. To assess the extent to

which the original

programme strategy

remains relevant.

To assess the progress that

the programme is making.

To assess the quality and

effectiveness of the

Programme’s

implementation.

To assess Best Practice for

possible 2014-2020

3,2

Programme is considered to remain relevant with its

strategy containing sufficient flexibility to accommodate to

significant change;

implementation and delivery has largely progressed as

planned;

Programme is making strong progress in committing fund

and reasonable progress in achieving programme targets;

Strong programme management has been provided;

A number of Good Practice lessons has emerged described

in the Report.

Not released yet.

ERDF Business

Survey

2. Impact

Assessme

ntt

3. To assess the


enterprise, business finance

and R&D/innovation areas

of the ERDF programme in

Wales with a view to the

survey providing useful

information on the

outcomes achieved to-date

by the businesses assisted

and financially supported

by ERDF projects and make

recommendations.

The ERDF Business Survey

assessed the outcomes for

businesses assisted by the

ERDF Programmes via

telephone interviews with

778 ERDF assisted

businesses. It also

investigated the scope to

use micro business

databases to investigate net

impact on key business

outcomes.

3,1

Amongst surveyed businesses, half of those who had

received help with forming collaborative relationships had

gone onto consolidate these, with the vast majority

reporting that these relationships were important to their

business strategy.

Very few respondents viewed the ERDF assistance as

critical to the continued existence of their business,

indicating that businesses are not dependent upon ERDF

and that the Programmes are not interfering with churn in

business survival.

Respondents identified positive changes in their business

but the extent to which they attributed these changes to the

assistance of ERDF was more limited.

After allowing for deadweight, displacement and multiplier

effects, it is estimated from the survey evidence that 305

net new jobs resulted from ERDF support amongst

surveyed businesses (this works out as net as a proportion

of gross as 84% which compares quite well with other

estimates).

It is estimated that there were 390 net safeguarded jobs

(once deadweight, displacement and multiplier effects are

taken into account) across the 778 surveyed companies.

Overall, amongst surveyed businesses, for every job that

was created, approximately 1.3 jobs were also safeguarded.

Source: European Regional Development Fund Business

http://wefo.wales.gov.uk/public

ations/publications/monitoring

evaluation/researchreports/65

57208/?lang=en



Title and date of

completion

Policy

area and

scope (*)


publication

Survey, WEFO, 2012

Mid-Term

Evaluation of the

European

Sustainable

Competiveness

Programme for

Northern Ireland

2007-2013.

9. Mid-

Term

2. Provide the PMC with

information on the

performance of the

programme to-date and

consider whether any

changes are necessary to

further improve the impact

of the programme during

the second half of

implementation

3.1.

Identifies some significant progress towards achieving the

core indicators of the Programme. Makes a serious of

recommendations as to how the original set of Programme

indicators might be revised to more accurately reflect the

way in which funds are now being committed.

http://www.eucompni.gov.uk/r

esources/publications/

mid-term-evaluation-of-the-

European-sustainable-

competitiveness-programme-

for-northern-ireland-2007-2013

-final-report-august-2011

Study of ERDF

Funded VCLFs in

England and Wales

2.

3. Evaluation of ERDF

Venture Capital Loan Funds

in order to Consider VCLFs

models and approaches and

ascertains whether they

were still fit for purpose. To

assess financial

performance of VCLFs

against targets. To assess


management and

governance of the VCLFs;

assess emerging outcomes

and impacts achieved by

VCLFs and whether they

represented Value for

Money.

3,1

This study undertook an in-depth review of ten funds.

Included a mapping of VCLFs which had received approval,

consultations with an extensive range of stakeholders, in-

depth review of ten funds and a survey of SME investees

(333 completed interviews). Amongst its conclusions it

commented that ‘there has been a common under-

estimation of the time and complexity of establishing

VCLFs-. The delay in establishment has been reflected in

slow initial progress with investments amongst most

funds’. Another important observation was ‘The VCLFs are

securing the anticipated outputs and impacts, although if

judged solely on the basis of unit costs for additional job

creation and turnover the VCLFs appear a relatively

expensive (even allowing for the expected legacy returns)

means of securing regeneration impacts. However, the

funds should not be judged solely on this basis-they also

generate a range of wider business and regional economic

benefits which are harder to quantify’.

http://www.onenorth

eastlegacy.co.uk/file.aspx?id=52

NWDA (2010).

Interim Evaluation

of the North West

ERDF OP (2007-

13).

9.

Interim-

Mid-term

2. Whether the programme

strategy remains relevant,

assessment initial progress,

degree to which cross

cutting themes are

influencing project design

and implementation, the

quality and effectiveness of

programme

implementation and

3,1.

Clear risks that the Programme may not meet its key

output and results targets, particularly for jobs and

businesses assisted and this will affect the overall

achievement of key programme targets (net additional GVA

and net additional jobs). Problems arising from availability

of matched

Not published. Contact source is

ERDF Secretariat in North West.



Title and date of

completion

Policy

area and

scope (*)


publication

management

Yorkshire Forward

(2011). Yorkshire

and Humber ERDF

OP 2007-13: Mid

Term Impact

Evaluation.

9. Mid-

Term

2. Stocktake of progress on

spending, outputs and

results, Assessment of likely

future impacts, advice on

governance and

management structures.

3,1.

Programme has achieved a lot in a difficult economic

climate having committed 67% of full programme, achieved

several major investments including VCLF fund, nuclear

research facilities bad broadband infrastructure, successful

engaged a wide variety of partners, small but significant

progress with cross-cutting themes.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-

office.gov.uk/government/uplo

ads/system/uploads/attachmen

t_data/file/11697/2144939.pdf

North East ERDF

OP 2007-13.

(2011).

9. Multi-

area. Mid-

Term

2.

Questions investigated

were whether policy

priorities remain fit for

purpose, progress in

securing targets,

programme management

and early impact

3.1.

Good progress made on spend and commitments by early

part 2010. North East first region to approve a JEREMIE

FEI.

OP Strategy remains relevant and appropriate to the

economic development needs of the region. Programme

faces significant challenge in meeting targets in light of

economic climate and matched funding difficulties. More

alignment of the new Regional Growth Fund with the

requirements of ERDF is needed.

https://www.gov.uk/governme

nt/uploads/system/uploads/att

achment_data/file/11120/Nort

h_East_ERDF_Operational_Progr

amme_2007-

13_MidTerm_Evaluation.pdf

Evaluation of

ERDF Supported

Venture Capital

and Loan Funds in

Scotland and the

Scottish Co-

Investment Fund.

2008.

2.

Enterpris

e

Support.

3. 3.1.

Research confirms that the ERDF assisted VCLFs were

addressing the required market failures. They played a

relatively small part in the Scottish market overall. The self-

sustainability of the funds was assessed. Recommendations

are made as to where future funding should be directed.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Pu

blications/2008/01/14152823/

0

Scottish Venture

Fund. Economic

Impact

Assessment. 2008.

2.

Enterpris

e Support

3. 3.1

Evidence from a review of the risk capital market suggests

that the Scottish Venture Fund is having a positive effect in

facilitating the an increase in the number of deals and

levels of risk capital investment in the target range

identified in the relevant Board papers.

Scottish Enterprise. Scottish

Venture Fund. Economic Impact

Assessment. Final Report to

Scottish enterprise. October

2008. Malcolm Watson

consulting.

[email protected]

Mid-Term

Evaluation Update

for the Objective 1

Programme in

Wales (2001-

2006). 2005.

9. Multi-

Area Mid-

Term

2. 3.1.

Good progress in achieving the key activity and results

targets in all six Priorities of the programme. By the end of

the programme it was estimated that somewhere in the

range of between 26,000-45,000 net additional new jobs

would have been created.

Evaluation of the

Scottish-Co-2. 3. 3.1.

Co-Investment Fund attaining its objectives. The ‘model’

being adopted which placed the private sector in the lead

http://www.evaluationsonline.o

rg.uk/evaluations/Browse.do?ui



Title and date of

completion

Policy

area and

scope (*)


publication

Investment Fund.

2008.

was appreciated. Fund was having a positive impact was

having a positive impact on the SMEs assisted and the

wider Scottish economy. However, the market failure

rationale for the Fund was poorly articulated.

=browse&action=show&id=32&

taxonomy=INV

The Effectiveness

of Implementation

in the 2007-2013

Structural

Programming

Period. Welsh

European Funding

Office. 2011

8. 1. 4.

Strategic Frameworks were found to be useful in assisting

staff to assess individual projects for eligibility and

strategic fit but had a more limited role in the post approval

stage. A number of issues emerged in relation to

procurement, cross cutting-themes and communications.



evaluation/researchreports/pro

grammeimplementation/?lang=

en

A Feasibility Study

of Methodological

Approaches to

Undertake Impact

Evaluation of

2007-2013

structural

Programmes in

Wales. 2010.

9. 3. 4.

Reached a number of conclusions as to the best approaches

with which to estimate net impact analysis. Identified data-

sets that can be used to construct control groups for

matched comparison or ‘difference in difference’ analysis.



evaluation/researchreports/fea

sibility%20study/?lang=en

Evaluation Smart.

Scottish

Government. 2009.

2. 3. 3,1.

In terms of employment supported projects estimated to

have generated over 1,788 FTE additional jobs and £674

million (approx. EUR 826.5 million)5 additionalGVA.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Re

source/Doc/286239/0087163.p

df

Programme

Review of

European Regional

development Fund

in the South West

Competiveness

and Employment

Programme. 2010.

9. 2. 3.1. A review of programme objectives in the light of

achievement and economic context.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?u

rl=http://economy.swo.org.uk/

EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd%

3FAssetID%3D51428%26type

%3DF

Programme

Review of

European Regional

development Fund

in the South West

9. 2. 3.1. A review of programme objectives in the light of

achievement and economic context.

https://democracy.cornwall.gov

.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=1

9849

5 EUR 1 = £ 0.8155, exchange rate as of 9 January 2013.



Title and date of

completion

Policy

area and

scope (*)


publication

Convergence

Programme. 2010.

Contribution made

by European

Structural Funds

to Community

Planning

partnerships.

2011.

2. 2. 3.1.

Overall the Community Planning Partnerships were on

track with respect to the number of participants but the

economic circumstances were constraining the extent to

which individuals were moving into employment.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Re

source/Doc/919/0115839.pdf

Evaluation of ESF

and ERDF in

Cornwall and the

Isles of Scilly

Feasibility Study.

2010.

9. 1. 4. An evaluation plan was developed.


rl=http://economy.swo.org.uk/

EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd%

3FassetID%3D51429%26type%

3DFull%26servicetype%3DAtta

chment&rct=j&sa=U&ei=8djAU

PegCtSGhQeZ_YCIDQ&ved=0CB

UQFjAA&q=Evaluation+of+ESF+

and+ERDF+in+Cornwall+Ecotec

&usg=AFQjCNHyRqTLcQtomg5o

qxZJPTl0f5gUAw

Yorkshire and

Humber ERDF OP

2007-2013. Mid

Term

9. 2. 3.1. A review of progress in achieving key targets at the mid-

term stage.

Yorkshire and Humber ERDF OP

2007-13: Mid-Term Impact

Evaluation. Available from

Regeneris Consulting.

(www.regeneris.co.uk)

Interim and Post

Project Evaluation

of Crescent Capital

Fund.

Northern Ireland.

2009

2. 3. 3.1.

The Fund had clearly met a need in the early stage market,

both regarding the provision of funding and non-financial

support.

FGS. McClure Watters. Northern

Ireland.

EEDA. East of

England ERDF.

Competiveness

Programme

Interim

Evaluation. 2010.

9. 2. 3.1.

Provides an overview of the general progress of the

programme, whether it remains appropriate in changed

economic circumstances and its achievements to-date.

Not yet published.

EMDA. East

Midlands ERDF 9. 2. 3.1.


programme, whether it remains appropriate in changed Not published yet.



Title and date of

completion

Policy

area and

scope (*)


publication

Competiveness

Programme. 2007-

13. Mid-Term.


West Midlands

ERDF Interim

Evaluation. 2011.

Mid-Term.

9. 2. 3.1.

The report presents the findings of the Interim Programme

Performance Evaluation which is

the mid-term assessment of the first three years (to the end

of May 2011) of delivering the ERDF Programme in the

West Midlands. The evaluation has addressed questions

around the Programme’s continued relevance, the

consistency of the OP,

performance to date and recommendations for improving

its future delivery in the context of a different operational

environment.


rl=https://assets.digital.cabinet-

office.gov.uk/government/uplo

ads/system/uploads/attachmen

t_data/file/11628/2064831.pdf

&rct=j&sa=U&ei=4iXGUO6DAa

Ww0QWpi4GwDg&ved=0CBUQ

FjAA&q=West+Midlands+ERDF

+Interim+Evaluation.+2011.+Mi

d-

Term.&usg=AFQjCNFbNqGssuJI

yoUCb9V_-wC7EpTjcg

SEEDA Interim

Evaluation.


programme, whether it remains appropriate in changed


Not published yet.

Note: (*) Legend:

Policy area and scope: 1. RTDI; 2. Enterprise support and ICT; 3. Human Resources (ERDF only; 4. Transport; 5. Environment; 6. Energy; 7. Territorial development

(urban areas, tourism, rural development, cultural heritage, health, public security, local development); 8. Capacity and institution building; 9. Multi-area (e.g.

evaluations of programmes, mid-term evaluations); 10. Transversal aspects (e.g. gender or equal opportunities, sustainable development, employment)

Main objective and focus: 1. assess the arrangements and procedures for managing or administering programmes; 2. support monitoring, or check the progress made

in implementing programmes, such as many mid-term evaluations; 3. assess the outcome or effects of programmes in terms of the results achieved and their

contribution to attaining socio-economic policy objectives

Method used: 1. Counterfactual; 2. Cost-benefit analysis; 3. Other quantitative; 4. Qualitative



Future strategy and integration into policy making

• In the 2011 Country Report it was emphasised that it would continue to be very difficult

to gauge what has been the effect of Cohesion policy in England unless a national impact

evaluation was commissioned. It is pleasing to reveal that at the time of writing this

Report that the DCLG as the Managing Authority for ERDF in England in August 2012

has issued an Invitation to Tender which seeks to provide an analytical programme for

ERDF that will help to ensure interventions support outcomes for economic growth. The

Analytical Programme for the European Development Fund in England seeks to:

• Provide an assessment of the economic impacts of the current ERDF round of 2007-

2013 and provide an economic evaluation of what types of funding interventions

have worked and which factors have been critical for success. This will shape the

priorities for ERDF over 2014-2020;

• Prepare for the next round of ERDF over 2014-2020 by identifying what types of

interventions across a range of policy areas, have worked to support the objectives

of local economic growth and what variables contribute to successful local economic

development;

• Prepare for the next round of ERDF over 2014-2020 by demonstrating an

understanding of decentralisation and local incentives and how this can help design

more effective interventions for local economic growth and contribute to national

economic growth.

• The requirement is to establish the net additional impact of the programme on

outcomes that feature in the programme and which are thus linked to competiveness

and jobs. Thus, these relate to jobs, earnings, enterprise and innovation. In assessing the

net additional outcomes it will be necessary in the study to consider deadweight,

displacement and leakage. It is also essential that the research should consider how

economic disparities across regions are influenced by people and place related factors

and the scope for policy interventions to affect these. It is also anticipated that the

research should seek to understand more about the way in which policy interventions

funded by ERDF and other sources can be delivered in a devolved manner and the issues

that affect how this is achieved in order to secure the maximum benefits to those on

whom policy is focused.

• It is anticipated that the research will consider a variety of different methodologies and

data sources with which to identify the additional impact that the ERDF supported

policy interventions have been able to secure. The research will be undertaken over the

period October 2012 to March 2013 with final reports by the end of March. A number of

outputs are required that include an Interim Evaluation Report and a Final Evaluation

Report.

In individual regions

In the South West region the AIRs for both the Convergence and Competiveness regions report

that a dedicated Evaluation Policy group is currently assessing options and considering what

use might be made of the national level evaluation being commissioned by the DCLG as the

Managing Agent for ERDF in England. The AIR states that this work will feed into discussions

shaping the 2014-2020 programmes. In the East region the AIR states that ‘No further



programme evaluations were undertaken in 2011. As a result of the transition to DCLG in July

2011 and the uncertainty surrounding standardisation of evaluation processes, a decision was

taken by the Local Management Committee in October to postpone the scheduled mid-term

review until clarification of the standardised process was provided in 2012’.

The East Midland region reports that during 2012 it intends to undertake an impact assessment

of the ERDF Competitiveness Programme. This will involve:

• Regular meetings with the Programme Delivery Team;

• Analysis of progress reports, monitoring data and project-level evaluation evidence;

• A broad e-survey with project managers;

• In-depth consultations with partners (x20) and project managers (x20);

• A telephone survey with programme beneficiaries (c.600);

• Analysis of impacts achieved to date, future anticipated impacts and the sustainability of

impacts;

• A workshop to calibrate findings; and

• Production of a final report.

Wales

It was reported last year that evaluation in West Wales and the Valleys Convergence region and

the East Wales Competitiveness region is overseen by an Evaluation Advisory Group set up in

2008 to oversee the evaluation activity commissioned and undertaken by WEFO and to provide

technical advice to WEFO’s Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) Team. In February

2010, WEFO produced the Evaluation Implementation Plan 2010 which detailed the evaluation

activity that was currently underway or planned to support the management of the 2007-2013

Programmes. The WEFO RME Team is responsible for implementation of the Plan. The Plan

updates the 2009-2010 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.

Scotland

The Highlands and Islands Phasing Out region relates to a Monitoring and Evaluation Group.

The group brings together officials from the Scottish Government (both policy and analytical

services) with representatives of partner organisations (the two economic development bodies

in Scotland, several from local government, and the two IABs). The group provides advice on

evaluation of the European Structural Funds in Scotland. Its remit covers both ESF and ERDF

and geographically it covers both the LUPS and the Highland & Islands. The members are also a

valuable source of advice between meetings. The AIR describes the main purpose of the Group

to be to identify the additionality associated with European funding with an emphasis on

understanding the effectiveness of delivery mechanisms introduced in the 2007-2013

programme and looking for lessons for the next programme. Thus the interest in the study of

Community Planning Partnerships which has now been completed and the one on Strategic

Delivery Bodies that is now in preparation. The forward evaluation plan is that evaluation work

is commissioned by larger projects, such as Scottish Enterprise and the Community Planning

Partnerships.



Northern Ireland

The Managing Authority has moved to implement the findings and recommendations of the

Mid-Term Evaluation Report (31 August 2011) but has no plans to undertake further formal

Evaluation until post Programme completion.

5. FURTHER REMARKS - NEW CHALLENGES FOR POLICY


• The UK economy has continued to be in recession and this has reduced the willingness

of business to invest. The actual and perceived impact of austerity measures has added

to this. Moreover, reductions in public expenditure have led to problems of finding

appropriate match-funding. There has also been significant change to the policy

environment in which Cohesion policy in England operates. The abolition of the RDAs

has been part of a move to deliver economic development policy at a more local level

than that of broad regions in England, although the Devolved Administrations of

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland remain unaffected. The arrival of LEPs, a revival of

interest in the use of fiscal incentives and relaxation of planning restrictions on

economic development and a number of quite significant changes to the business

support framework are all having an influence.

• Although much of the available ERDF Cohesion policy has been committed by the end of

March 2011 only about one third of it has actually been paid out, there was considerable

variation in progress across regions and rather hesitant progress outputs that would

take time for impacts on core outcomes that matter for regional development.

• A number of Mid-Term Evaluations had been undertaken that confirm that the broad

direction of the OPs in both the Convergence and Competitiveness regions remained

sound but there was an urgent need for more understanding of what impact ERDF was

having on improving the relative competiveness of the regions concerned. It was argued

that there were strong arguments for a national evaluation of ERDF Cohesion policy in

the United Kingdom because the existing evidence base was too fragmented and it was

thus not possible to produce a coherent picture of overall impact and learn lessons as to

what was working well and why.

The main factors constraining the progress of the programme identified in the 2011 Country

Report are still valid.

The evidence summarised in the 2012 Country Report is consistent with the 2011 findings. The

UK is still in recession and the less prosperous regions continue to bear the brunt of it. Public

sector retrenchment is still in an early stage and it is expected that further negative employment

impacts will appear in most regions but particularly those least able to resist them. Against this

back-drop the boost that ERDF is giving to competiveness, innovation and enterprise in the

targeted regions is very valuable. However, it remains frustrating that the output monitoring

system is of such variable quality and as such it remains difficult to gauge progress both in

individual regions and also in assessing the benefits for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is

pleasing to report that an impact evaluation is to be undertaken shortly in England and also that

solid progress is being made on assessing the business related impacts of ERDF in Wales.



This Task Two Country Report should be considered alongside the Task One Policy Paper

produced earlier in 2012 that focused specifically on FEIs funded by the ERDF. In the Task One

Policy Paper mention was made of the need to secure more coordination between Managing

Authorities in establishing FEIs particularly in order to share expertise in appraising likely

market demand. It was also reported that the ability to absorb funds is being affected by a very

challenging macroeconomic climate. Despite much enthusiasm to develop and implement FEIs

at the present time there is little evaluation evidence on their impact they have on the final

outcomes that matter for regional development and thus an urgent need for more evaluation

and research. This is particularly the case when it comes to comparing the relative merits of

FEIs to conventional grant based regimes.



REFERENCES

Nation-wide evaluations across OPs

Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Impact of RDA Spending-National

Report. Volume 1. Main Report. March, 2009.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2006). Good Practice Guide for English

ERDF and ESF Programmes 2007-2013. Final Report.

Evaluations of specific OPs

DETI. Mid-Term Evaluation of the European Sustainable Competiveness Programme for

Northern Ireland 2007-2013. Final Report.

EEDA (2010). East of England ERD Competitiveness Programme Interim Evaluation. Regeneris

Consulting.

EMDA (2010). East Midlands ERDF Competitiveness Programme, 2007-13.

EPMU at the Greater London Authority. London ERDF 2007-13 Programme.

One North East (2011). North East ERDF Operational Programme 2007-13: Mid-term

Evaluation.

NWDA (2010). Interim Evaluation of the North West ERDF Operational Programme (2007-13).

Scottish Government (2011). Contribution made by European structural funds to Community

Planning Partnerships. http://www.esep.co.uk/assets/files/PMC0903/LUPS-09-03-04%20-

%20Annex%203(iii)%20CPP%20Overview%20Report.pdf

SWERDA (2010a). Feasibility Study: Evaluation of ESF and ERDF in Cornwall and the Isles of

Scilly. Ecotec.

SWERDA (2010b). Programme Review of European Regional Development Fund in the South

West-Convergence Programme. SQW Consulting.

SWERDA (2010c). Programme Review of European Regional Development Fund in the South

West-Competitiveness and Employment Programme. SQW Consulting.

Yorkshire Forward (2011). Yorkshire and Humber ERDF Operational Programme 2007-13: Mid

Term Impact Evaluation.

WEFO (2005). Mid-term Evaluation Update for the Objective One Programme in Wales.

Economic Development and European Services.

WEFO (2011). The Effectiveness of Implementation in the 2007-13 Structural Funds

Programming Period.

Evaluations of specific aspects of operational programmes

DTZ (2010). A Feasibility Study of Methodological Approaches to Undertake Impact Evaluation

of 2007-2013 Structural Funds Programme in Wales.

Scottish Enterprise (2008). Evaluation of the Scottish Co-Investment Fund: A Report to Scottish

Enterprise. Keith Hayton, Graham Thom, Vincent Percy, Chris Boyd and Kathleen Latimer.



Scottish Enterprise (2008). Scottish Venture Fund: Economic Impact Assessment. Final Report

to Scottish Enterprise. Malcolm Watson Consulting.

Scottish Executive (2007). Evaluation of ERDF supported venture capital and loan funds in

Scotland and the Scottish Co-Investment Fund. Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services.

Scottish Executive Social Research.

Scottish Government. Evaluation Smart: Scotland. 2009.

WEFO (2010). ERDF Business Survey. Oldbell3.

Other relevant research studies and impact assessments carried out in the Member State

Business, Innovation and Skills (2009). Research to Improve the Assessment of Additionality.

Occasional Paper No 1.

Other references

Bubbico, R.L and Dijkstra, L (2011). Unemployment Rates in European regions, 2010. Short Note

03/2011. Regio.c.3 (2011) 936361.

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (2010) Local Growth: Realising Every Place’s

Potential, White Paper Cm 7961, TSO, Belfast.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). Growing Places Fund. London.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy

Framework. London.

INTERVIEWS

Because of the devolved nature of the governance and delivery arrangements adopted in the

United Kingdom it has been necessary to hold discussions with a number of policy officers from

across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am most grateful for assistance from:

Sue Baxter, BIS, London.

Nuala Crossin, European Programmes, Department of Enterprise, Trade & Investment

Netherleigh, Northern Ireland.

Iain Derrick, Evaluation Team, North East, DCLG.

Nick French, EU Funding and Industrial Policy, Local Growth Directorate, Department for

Business, Innovation and Skills.

Richard Gill, South West, DCLG.

Maeve Hamilton. European Programmes. Department of Enterprise, Trade & Investment,


Kathryn Helliwell. Research, Monitoring and Evaluation. Welsh European Funding Office.

Welsh Assembly Government.

Stephen Moore, European Programmes, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment,




Ian Morrison, European Programmes, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment,


David Malpass, Head ERDF Programme Delivery, DCLG.

David Morrall, East, DCLG.

Sue Price. Head of Programme Management (ERDF), Welsh European Funding Office.

Stuart Scott, Evaluation Team. London Development Agency.

David Souter, ERDF Programmes. Scottish Executive

Nic Suggit. Policy and Programmes Manager ERDF England. European Policy and Programmes,

CLG. London.

Gareth Ward, EU Funding and Industrial Policy, Local Growth Directorate, Department for

Business, Innovation and Skills.

Gary White, European Structural Funds, Department of Communities and Local Government.



ANNEX 1 - EVALUATION GRID FOR EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE IN EVALUATION

Evaluation Grid A - European Regional Development Fund Business Survey.

BASIC INFORMATION

Country: United Kingdom

Policy area: Enterprise support

Title of evaluation and full reference: European Regional Development Fund Business Survey. WEFO, 2012.

Intervention period covered : 2007-2013.

Timing of the evaluation: 2012

Budget: EUR Not known

Evaluator: External evaluator.

Method: Survey based counterfactual analysis and also feasibility study of matched company econometric modelling.

Main objectives and main findings:

The ERDF Business Survey assessed outcomes for businesses assisted by the ERDF Programmes via telephone

interviews with 778 ERDF Assisted businesses across Wales. The study makes a number of recommendations of use

for developing future rounds of programme support.

Appraisal:

It represents an important step forward in considering how the impact of ERDF business support can be established

and investigates the benefits and limitations of conventional survey based approaches compared to econometric

control group research using establishment databases.

CHECK LIST

Score each item listed below from 0 to 2 as follows:

0: No; 1: Yes, but not fully; 2: Yes

Report

Are the objectives, methods and findings of the evaluation clearly set out? 2

Are the findings and recommendations clearly supported by the analysis? 2

Are the methods used suitable given the objectives of the valuation and have they been well applied? 2

Are the quantitative and qualitative data used reliable and suitable for the purpose of the evaluation? 2

Are the potential effects of other factors (e.g. the economic situation) on the outcome fully taken into

account? 2

Is a serious attempt made to distinguish the effects of the intervention from these other factors? 2



Evaluation Grid B - London ERDF 2007-13 Programme Interim Evaluation.

BASIC INFORMATION

Country: United Kingdom

Policy area: Interim Programme Evaluation.

Title of evaluation and full reference: London ERDF 2007-13 Programme Interim Evaluation.

Intervention period covered : 2007-2013.

Timing of the evaluation:

Budget : Not known suspect £EUR 62.1

Evaluator: External evaluator

Method:

Interviews with strategic consultees, a review of 20 projects supported by the programme, a detailed analysis of

Programme data and background information about the programme and a review of policy changes and socio-

economic data impacting on the programme.

Main objectives and main findings:

To assess whether the programme strategy and focus remained fit-for-purpose against a rapidly changing socio-

economic and policy context. Assess progress programme making towards its objectives including the relationship

and coherence of the Programme priority axis. Progress in committing funds in relation to outputs and results, the

quality and effectiveness of programme implementation and management. Developing Good Practice for future

rounds.

Appraisal:

A comprehensive and systematic approach to Interim Evaluation drawing using surveys and making effective use of

baseline data.

CHECK LIST

Score each item listed below from 0 to 2 as follows:

0: No; 1: Yes, but not fully; 2: Yes

Report

Are the objectives, methods and findings of the evaluation clearly set out? 2

Are the findings and recommendations clearly supported by the analysis? 2

Are the methods used suitable given the objectives of the valuation and have they been well applied? 2

Are the quantitative and qualitative data used reliable and suitable for the purpose of the evaluation? 2

Are the potential effects of other factors (e.g. the economic situation) on the outcome fully taken into

account? 2

Is a serious attempt made to distinguish the effects of the intervention from these other factors? 2



ANNEX 2 - TABLES

See Excel file for Tables 1-4

Table 1 – Regional disparities and trends

Table 2 – Macro-economic developments

Table 3 - Financial allocation by main policy area

Table 3 CBC - Financial allocation by main policy area – Cross-Border Cooperation

Table 4 - Commitments by main policy area (by end-2011)

Table 4 CBC - Commitments by main policy area (by end-2011) – Cross-Border Cooperation

Annex Table A- Financial allocation and commitments by main policy area – Convergence

objective

Allocation of ERDF and Cohesion Fund 2011 Commitments/

Allocation

% (end-2011) EUR million % of total Objective

1. Enterprise environment 787.1 43.0 101.4

1.1 RTDI and linked activities 340.0 18.6 104.0

1.2 Support for innovation in SMEs 330.5 18.1 105.0

1.3 Other investment in firms 67.8 3.7 93.6

1.4 ICT and related services 48.8 2.7 70.1

2. Human resources 17.0 0.9

2.1 Education and training 7.0 0.4

2.2 Labour market policies 10.0 0.5

3. Transport 364.9 19.9 58.4

3.1 Road 113.8 6.2 98.4

3.2 Rail 86.9 4.7 75.3

3.3 Other 164.2 9.0 21.8

4. Environment and energy 243.9 13.3 65.5

4.1 Energy infrastructure 111.3 6.1 73.7

4.2 Environmental infrastructure 132.7 7.2 58.6

5. Territorial development 382.7 20.9 95.1

5.1 Tourism and culture 90.2 4.9 97.4

5.2 Planning and rehabilitation 189.6 10.4 90.7

5.3 Social infrastructure 102.9 5.6 101.0

5.4 Other

6. Technical assistance 34.7 1.9 61.5

Total Objective 1830.3 100.0 85.0

Source: DG Regio



Annex Table Aa - Financial allocation and commitments by main policy area –

Competitiveness and employment objective.

Allocation of ERDF and Cohesion Fund 2011 Commitments/

Allocation

% (end-2011) EUR million % of total Objective

1. Enterprise environment 2,458.5 68.6 63.2

1.1 RTDI and linked activities 806.0 22.5 46.6

1.2 Support for innovation in SMEs 1,206.4 33.6 51.2

1.3 Other investment in firms 412.1 11.5 134.3

1.4 ICT and related services 34.0 0.9 20.9

2. Human resources 148.2 4.1 74.4

2.1 Education and

training 29.3 0.8

187.5

2.2 Labour market policies 118.9 3.3 46.5

3. Transport 15.9 0.4 89.2

3.1 Road 5.9 0.2 43.8

3.2 Rail

3.3 Other 10.1 0.3 115.6

4. Environment and energy 476.1 13.3 66.3

4.1 Energy infrastructure 201.9 5.6 80.3

4.2 Environmental infrastructure 274.2 7.6 56.1

5. Territorial development 362.8 10.1 78.2

5.1 Tourism and culture 64.4 1.8 133.9

5.2 Planning and rehabilitation 247.2 6.9 62.9

5.3 Social infrastructure 51.2 1.4 82.0

5.4 Other

6. Technical assistance 124.1 3.5 38.5

Total Objective 3,585.7 100.0 64.8

Source: DG Regio



Annex Table Ab - Financial allocation and commitments by main policy area -Cross-

border cooperation

Allocation of EU Programme for

Cross Border Territorial

Cooperation (INTERREG IV)

2007-2013 - Northern Ireland, the

Border Region of Ireland and the

West Coast of Scotland

Commitment of EU Programme for

Cross Border Territorial

Cooperation (INTERREG IV) 2007-

2013 - Northern Ireland, the Border

Region of Ireland and the West

Coast of Scotland

Commitments/

Allocation

EUR million % of total

Objective EUR million

% of total

Objective %

1. Enterprise

environment 53 27.6 19.1 15.7 36.0

1.1 RTDI and linked

activities 23 12.0 4.6 3.8 19.9

1.2 Support for

innovation in SMEs 30 15.6 14.5 12.0 48.4

1.3 Other investment

in firms

1.4 ICT and related

services

2. Human resources

2.1 Education and

training

2.2 Labour market

policies

3. Transport 7.5 3.9 3.7 3.1 49.9

3.1 Road 7.5 3.9 3.7 3.1 49.9

3.2 Rail

3.3 Other

4. Environment and

energy 22.5 11.7 19.7 16.2 87.7

4.1 Energy

infrastructure 7.5 3.9 5.8 4.8 77.6

4.2 Environmental

infrastructure 15 7.8 13.9 11.5 92.8

5. Territorial

development 78.7 41.0 61.2 50.4 77.8

5.1 Tourism and

culture 22.5 11.7 10.6 8.8 47.3

5.2 Planning and

rehabilitation 7.5 3.9 8.3 6.8 110.0

5.3 Social

infrastructure 48.7 25.4 42.3 34.8 86.9

5.4 Other

6. Technical

assistance 30.3 15.8 17.7 14.6 58.3

Total Objective 192.0 100.0 121.4 100.0 63.2

Source: DG Regio



Annex Table B - Certified eligible expenditure 2011 by region and priority

Certified eligible expenditure 2011

Priority Code

Total funding of the OP

(Union and national)

(EUR million)

Priority as a proportion of

Total Funding in

Programme

%

Implementati

on rate (%)

Highlands and Islands of Scotland ERDF Convergence Programme

Enhancing business competitiveness,

commercialisation and innovation. 118.8 40.8 27.2

Enhancing key drivers of sustainable

growth. 92.1 31.6 71.1

Enhancing peripheral and fragile

communities. 73.1 25.1 18.0

Technical assistance 7.3 2.5 34.6

CCI Sub-total 291.3 100.0 38.9

West Wales and the Valleys ERDF Convergence Programme

Building the knowledge based economy. 558.6 25.7 17.5

Improving business competiveness. 274.9 12.6 54.1

Delivering strategic infrastructure for a

modern economy. 697.6 32.1 36.2

Creating an attractive business

environment. 386.3 17.8 23.1

Building sustainable communities 238.2 10.9 27.7

Technical assistance. 20.1 0.9 31.7

CCI Sub-total 2,175.6 100.0 30.3

Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Convergence Programme

Innovation and research and

development. 140.0 20.9 43.6

Enterprise and investment. 184.5 27.6 17.7

Transformational infrastructure. 157.5 23.5 33.3

Unlocking the economic potential of

place. 163.4 24.4 16.5


CCI Sub-total 669.4 100.0 26.6

Lowlands and Uplands of Scotland ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Research and innovation. 247.0 27.1 38.4

Enterprise and growth. 305.5 33.6 36.1

Urban regeneration. 211.5 23.2 22.7

Rural development. 127.8 14.0 9.0


CCI Sub-total 909.8 100.0 29.6

South East England ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Promoting sustainable production and

consumption 45.5 96.0 26.2

Technical assistance 1.9 4.0 0.0

CCI Sub-total 47.4 100.0 25.1

Northern Ireland ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Sustainable ccompetitiveness and

innovation. 320.0 52.1 20.6

Sustainable enterprise and

entrepreneurship 210.0 34.2 35.0

Improving accessibility and protecting 76.0 12.4 28.7




Priority Code



(EUR million)


Total Funding in

Programme

%

Implementati

on rate (%)

and enhancing the environment.


CCI Sub-total 613.7 100.0 26.4

East of England ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Promoting innovation and knowledge

transfer with the intention of improving

productivity.

93.2 33.9 15.2

Stimulating enterprise and supporting

successful business by overcoming

barriers to business creation and

expansion.

81.6 29.6 41.6

Ensuring sustainable development,

production and consumption. 91.6 33.3 24.6


CCI Sub-total 275.3 100.0 26.7

North East England ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Enhancing and exploiting innovation. 398.2 53.0 47.1

Business growth and enterprise.2 323.1 43.0 33.3

Technical assistance.3 30.1 4.0 15.6

CCI Sub-total 751.4 100.0 39.9

London England ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Business innovation and research

promoting eco-efficiency1 100.0 26.1 24.9

Access to new markets and access to

finance2 103.7 27.1 20.2

Sustainable places for business3 164.2 42.9 75.3

4technical support 14.6 3.8 16.0

CCI Sub-total 382.5 100.0 44.9

West Midlands England ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Promoting innovation and research and

development 290.0 36.2 24.8

2Stimulating enterprise development. 270.0 33.8 45.2

Sustainable urban development. 204.0 25.5 3.0

Developing inter-regional activity 12.0 1.5 11.6

Technical support. 23.8 3.0 27.6

CCI Sub-total 799.8 100.0 26.0

North West England ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Stimulating enterprise and supporting

growth in markets 409.8 27.1 41.8

Exploiting innovation and knowledge. 409.8 27.1 34.0

Creating the conditions for sustainable

growth. 313.2 20.7 49.0

Growing and accessing employment. 318.3 21.1 40.0


CCI Sub-total 1,511.5 100.0 39.6

Yorkshire and Humberside England ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Promoting innovation and research and 197.1 16.9 30.6




Priority Code



(EUR million)


Total Funding in

Programme

%

Implementati

on rate (%)

development.

Stimulating and supporting successful

enterprise. 514.0 44.0 30.3

Sustainable communities. 228.6 19.6 33.4

Economic infrastructure for a

competitive economy. 180.8 15.5 67.1


CCI Sub-total 1,167.2 100.0 36.0

East Midlands England ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Innovation and sustainable business

practice. 288.6 53.7 38.9

Sustainable economic and enterprise

activity. 226.9 42.3 15.8

Technical assistance. 21.5 16.5

CCI Sub-total 537.0 100.0 28.2

South West England ERDF Regional

Competitiveness and Employment

Programme

0.0

Innovation and knowledge. 90.0 36.1 22.4

Enterprise and growth. 90.0 36.1 38.3

Urban enterprise. 60.0 24.1 12.0


CCI Sub-total 249.3 100.0 25.6

East Wales ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment Programme

Knowledge and innovation for growth. 71.3 44.6 23.1

Business com0petiveness and growth.2 31.2 19.5 100.0

Tackling climate change. 31.2 19.5 12.7

Regeneration for growth. 23.6 14.8 16.7


CCI Sub-total 159.9 100.0 35.0

Cross Border Territorial Cooperation (INTERREG IV) 2007-2013 - Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and

the West Coast of Scotland

Co-operation for a more prosperous

cross border region 100.7 39.3 10.3

Co-operation 140.0 54.6 36.6

Technical Assistance 15.4 6.0 29.3

CCI Sub-total 256.3 100.0 25.8



Annex Table C - ERDF Programmes 2007-2013: Implementation and progress towards

the 2011 N+2 expenditure target

Total ERDF

allocation 2007-

2013

Structural

Funds

N+2

expend-

iture

target for

2012`

Amount

contracte

d to 2010

(% of

total

ERDF

allocation

in (1))

Amount

contracte

d to 2011

(% of

total

ERDF

allocation

in (1))

Amount

contract-

ed to

2012 (%

of total

ERDF

allocation

in (1))

Amount

paid to

projects

to 2010

(% of

total

allocation

in (1))

Amount

paid to

projects

to 2011

(% of

total

allocation

in (1))

Amount

paid to

projects

to June

2012 (%

of total

allocation

in (1))

EUR

million

(1)

% of

total

UK

(2)

EUR

million

(3)

%

(4)

%

(5)

%

(6)

%

(7)

%

(8)

%

(9)

England

North

West 755.8 14.0 379.3 55.9 67.3 73.6 30.3 39.9 50.9

Yorksh

ire &

Humbe

r

583.6 10.8 300.3 29.5 45.3 59.7 11.5 22.8 38.5

North

East 375.7 6.9 154.8 42.5 62.4 70.5 20.0 35.2 50.9

East

Midlan

ds

268.5 5.0 110.7 30.7 49.7 58.0 10.0 26.3 37.3

West

Midlan

ds

399.9 7.4 164.8 27.0 43.1 62.8 9.4 22.7 31.6

East of

Englan

d

111.0 2.0 45.7 17.3 47.4 74.6 7.1 12.0 35.5

Londo

n 181.9 3.4 75.0 51.2 72.5 74.8 29.5 43.2 57.2

South

East 23.7 0.4 9.8 29.6 51.2 55.1 8.1 20.4 38.8

South

West

Comp

124.7 2.3 51.4 13.7 53.5 62.3 7.3 20.0 37.4

Cornw

all &

Isles of

Scilly

458.1 8.5 188.8 13.8 68.3 79.8 12.0 27.5 43.6

Total

Englan

d

3,282.7 60.6 1480.6 34.9 57.6 68.6 17.2 29.7 43.4

Wales

West

Wales

and the

Valleys

1,250.4 23.1 515.3 49.0 75.2 93.3 9.5 20.8 32.2

Rest of

Wales 72.5 1.3 29.9 53.2 63.2 89.0 18.8 25.6 34.1

Total

Wales 1,322.8 24.4 545.2 49.3 74.6 93.0 10.0 21.1 32.3

Scotland

Highla

nds &

Islands

121.9 2.3 71.6 46.0 71.8 88.8 9.4 28.0 47.6

Lowla

nds &

Upland

s

376.0 6.9 155.0 42.8 74.4 87.4 8.2 33.1 47.9



Total ERDF

allocation 2007-

2013

Structural

Funds

N+2

expend-

iture

target for

2012`

Amount

contracte

d to 2010

(% of

total

ERDF

allocation

in (1))

Amount

contracte

d to 2011

(% of

total

ERDF

allocation

in (1))

Amount

contract-

ed to

2012 (%

of total

ERDF

allocation

in (1))

Amount

paid to

projects

to 2010

(% of

total

allocation

in (1))

Amount

paid to

projects

to 2011

(% of

total

allocation

in (1))

Amount

paid to

projects

to June

2012 (%

of total

allocation

in (1))

EUR

million

(1)

% of

total

UK

(2)

EUR

million

(3)

%

(4)

%

(5)

%

(6)

%

(7)

%

(8)

%

(9)

Total

Scotlan

d

497.8 9.2 226.5 43.6 73.8 87.7 8.5 31.8 47.8

Northe

rn

Ireland

306.8 5.7 126.5 28.8 45.3 54.1 11.6 17.2 33.3

Gibralt

ar 5.8 0.1 2.4 20.4 38.2 0.0 13.9 24.2 0.0

Total

UK 5,416.0 100 2381.1 40.4 62.5 75.3 15.0 27.1 40.5

# The euro value of the programme and its N+2 target (less the 7.5% advance) converted into sterling using

the latest £/euro exchange rate.



Annex Table D - Broad policy areas and correspondence with fields of intervention (FOI)

Policy area Code Priority themes

1. Enterprise

environment

RTDI and

linked

activities

01 R&TD activities in research centres

02 R&TD infrastructure and centres of competence in a specific technology

05 Advanced support services for firms and groups of firms

07 Investment in firms directly linked to research and innovation (...)

74 Developing human potential in the field of research and innovation, in

particular through post-graduate studies ...

Innovation

support for

SMEs

03 Technology transfer and improvement of cooperation networks ...

04 Assistance to R&TD, particularly in SMEs (including access to R&TD

services in research centres)

06 Assistance to SMEs for the promotion of environmentally-friendly

products and production processes (...)

09 Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and

entrepreneurship in SMEs

14 Services and applications for SMEs (e-commerce, education and

training, networking, etc.)

15 Other measures for improving access to and efficient use of ICT by

SMEs

ICT and

related

services

11 Information and communication technologies (...)

12 Information and communication technologies (TEN-ICT)

13 Services and applications for citizens (e-health, e-government, e-

learning, e-inclusion, etc.)

Other

investment in

firms

08 Other investment in firms

2. Human

resources

Education

and training

62 Development of life-long learning systems and strategies in firms;

training and services for employees ...

63 Design and dissemination of innovative and more productive ways of

organising work

64 Development of special services for employment, training and support

in connection with restructuring of sectors ...

72 Design, introduction and implementing of reforms in education and

training systems ...

73 Measures to increase participation in education and training

throughout the life-cycle ...

Labour

market

policies

65 Modernisation and strengthening labour market institutions

66 Implementing active and preventive measures on the labour market

67 Measures encouraging active ageing and prolonging working lives

68 Support for self-employment and business start-up

69 Measures to improve access to employment and increase sustainable

participation and progress of women ...

70 Specific action to increase migrants' participation in employment ...

71 Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for

disadvantaged people ...




80 Promoting the partnerships, pacts and initiatives through the

networking of relevant stakeholders

3. Transport Rail 16 Railways

17 Railways (TEN-T)

18 Mobile rail assets

19 Mobile rail assets (TEN-T)

Road 20 Motorways

21 Motorways (TEN-T)

22 National roads

23 Regional/local roads

Other

transport

24 Cycle tracks

25 Urban transport

26 Multimodal transport

27 Multimodal transport (TEN-T)

28 Intelligent transport systems

29 Airports

30 Ports

31 Inland waterways (regional and local)

32 Inland waterways (TEN-T)

4. Environment

and energy

Energy

infrastructur

e

33 Electricity

34 Electricity (TEN-E)

35 Natural gas

36 Natural gas (TEN-E)

37 Petroleum products

38 Petroleum products (TEN-E)

39 Renewable energy: wind

40 Renewable energy: solar

41 Renewable energy: biomass

42 Renewable energy: hydroelectric, geothermal and other

43 Energy efficiency, co-generation, energy management

Environment

and risk

prevention

44 Management of household and industrial waste

45 Management and distribution of water (drink water)

46 Water treatment (waste water)

47 Air quality

48 Integrated prevention and pollution control

49 Mitigation and adaption to climate change

50 Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land

51 Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection (including Natura

2000)

52 Promotion of clean urban transport

53 Risk prevention (...)

54 Other measures to preserve the environment and prevent risks

5. Territorial

development

Social

Infrastructur

e

10 Telephone infrastructure (including broadband networks)

75 Education infrastructure

76 Health infrastructure

77 Childcare infrastructure




78 Housing infrastructure

79 Other social infrastructure

Tourism and

culture

55 Promotion of natural assets

56 Protection and development of natural heritage

57 Other assistance to improve tourist services

58 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage

59 Development of cultural infrastructure

60 Other assistance to improve cultural services

Planning and

rehabilitation

61 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration

Other 82 Compensation of any additional costs due to accessibility deficit and

territorial fragmentation

83 Specific action addressed to compensate additional costs due to size

market factors

6. Technical assistance 84 Support to compensate additional costs due to climate conditions and

relief difficulties

81 Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design,

monitoring and evaluation ...

85 Preparation, implementation, monitoring and inspection

86 Evaluation and studies; information and communication



Annex Figure A – Local Enterprise Partnerships and Enterprise Zones



Annex Figure B – Regional Growth Fund (Round 1)



Annex Figure B – Regional Growth Fund (Round 2)

Documents

UK Task 2 Final report 2012 - European Commission · UK, Final Page 2 of 58 Contents ... EEN2012 Task 2: Country Report on Achievements of Cohesion policy UK, Final Page 6 of 58 unemployment