The Vienna Institute for ISMERI EUROPA International Economic Studies
Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000-2006 financed by the European Regional Development Fund in Objective 1 and 2 regions
Work package 1: Coordination, analysis and synthesis
Task 4: Development and achievements in Member States
GERMANY
WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
TABLE OF CONTENT
PREFACE ...... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3
MAP OF GERMANY - OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS...... 5
1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT ...... 6
2 MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY ...... 7
3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS ... 8
4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS ...... 12
5 FORMS OF INTERVENTION IN THE DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS ...... 16
6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION...... 20
7 GLOBAL EFFECTS ...... 22
8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION...... 23
9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE...... 24
REFERENCES...... 25
TABLES ...... 26
ANNEX 1: TARGETS AND PRIORITIES IN LÄNDER RECEIVING OBJECTIVE 1 FUNDING...... 27
ANNEX 2: TARGETS AND PRIORITIES IN LÄNDER RECEIVING OBJECTIVE 2 FUNDING...... 29
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND FOI CATEGORIES ...... 32
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 1 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
PREFACE
This report is intended to summarise the main aspects of regional disparities, the changes in these which occurred over the 2000-2006 programming period and the principal features of regional development policy over this period in terms of the objectives, the way that it was implemented and the contribution of the Structural Funds. It also reviews the evidence on the effects of policy as regards both the direct results of expenditure in the different policy areas and the wider impact on development as such.
It is based on three primary sources of information. The statistical data on regional and national developments over the period so far as possible come from Eurostat in order to ensure comparability with other studies carried out at EU level as well as with the other national reports produced as part of the ex post exercise.
The data on the allocation of funding and expenditure come from the INFOVIEW database maintained by DG REGIO, which itself is based on regular information from the Member States on the allocation of funding and the payments made.
Information on policy objectives, on the results of expenditure and the wider effects of this and on the procedures adopted as regards the implementation of policy comes from various programming documents and national evaluation reports as well as from impact studies which have been carried out on the actual or intended effects of programmes.
The reports, therefore, are based on existing information – or more precisely, the information available at the time they were prepared (around mid-2008) – and no new evaluation has been undertaken for purposes of preparing the report.
The report has been prepared by the Applica-Ismeri Europa- wiiw Consortium, which is coordinating the work on the ex post evaluation of ERDF expenditure in Objective 1 and 2 regions, working closely with a national expert who was responsible for interpreting the quantitative data and the other information indicated above.1 Although the contents of the report have been checked with officials in DG REGIO and with the national authorities, responsibility for any errors in the factual information presented or its interpretation rests with the authors and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DG REGIO or the national authorities.
1 This report was produced with the assistance of Frank Wefering and Georg Werdermann, Rupprecht Consult and Oliver Schwab, IfS Institut für Stadtforschung und Strukturpolitik GmbH
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 2 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Regional disparities in Germany are still characterised by an East-West divide. Average GDP per head in the Objective 1 regions in the east of the country was some 21% below the EU average in 2006 (the latest year for which data are available) while in the country it was 12% above the average. So far as Objective 2 regions in the western part of Germany are concerned, these are of two main kinds - urban regions suffering from industrial decline and rural regions in peripheral parts of the country. Their features vary accordingly.
The macroeconomic context during the period 2000-2006, when growth of GDP was below that in the rest of the EU, was in general not favourable to regional development and the catching up of lagging regions.
The backbone of German regional policy is the so called Joint Task2, which is managed jointly by the Federal Government and the Länder governments and partly co-financed by the Structural Funds. At Länder level, Structural Fund support covered a wider policy area combining the core elements of the Joint Task (investment in enterprises and business- related infrastructure) with additional measures, such as support for R&D and assistance for tourist projects.
In Objective 1 regions the largest item of funding was support for the Enterprise environment, followed by Human resources, Territorial policy, Transport and the Environment and energy.
In Objective 2 regions, the concentration of Structural Fund support on the Enterprise environment was even greater, with nearly half of the funds being spent in this policy area, while over a quarter of funding went to Territorial policy.
The effects of the support on regional development are uncertain since as yet few evaluations have been completed. While estimates suggest that substantial numbers of jobs have been created or maintained in both Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions, it is difficult to assess the reliability of these figures and the extent to which they represent net additional jobs. Nevertheless, it is evident that Structural Fund intervention made a significant contribution to the development of the enterprise environment, human resources and infrastructure.
The implementation of EU funding made use of the procedures and the administrative structure already in place and, as a result, encountered only minor problems.
2 Gemeinschaftsaufgabe "Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur"
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 3 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
EU funding added to the finance available for regional development programmes, a significant part of the additional amount going on support of R&D. It also encouraged different government departments to combine over the development of policy and led to more systematic control over programmes as well as progress in monitoring and evaluation.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 4 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
MAP OF GERMANY - OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 5 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
All of the new Länder3 in Germany received Structural Fund support under Objective 1 between 2000 and 2006, with East Berlin receiving phasing-out support. Objective 2 support went to regions located in various parts of the 11 ‘old’ Länder.
The new Länder have been undergoing fundamental structural change since German unification in 1990. Their economic convergence towards levels in the rest of the country, however, while initially rapid, has slowed appreciably since the mid-1990s. Disparities between Objective 1 regions and the rest of the country remain wide. In 2006, their GDP per head was, on average only two-thirds of that of the western regions and unemployment in 2006 was twice as high (17% as against around just over 8%) (Table1).
Accordingly, GDP per head in Objective 1 regions was 21% below the EU-25 average towards the end of the programming period (in 2006), the same as it had been at the beginning. In Objective 2 regions – those where over 20% of the population lived in areas receiving EU support - GDP per head was only 2% above the EU average in 2006, well below what it had been at the start of the period (9% above in 1999). Among the regions concerned, however, GDP per head ranged from 51% above the EU average in Bremen to 19% below in Lüneburg, in both cases the figures being heavily affected by commuting (inward in the former, outward in the latter). In all the regions apart from Saarland and Kassel – where the level remained much the same – GDP per head declined relative to the EU average, though not necessarily relative to the average in the rest of the country, which also experienced a relative decline.
Unemployment also varied widely among Objective 2 regions, ranging from 7% in Oberpfalz in 2006 to almost 19% in Berlin. In all the regions, except for Kassel, where it was unchanged, the rate rose over the period, and by more on average than in the rest of the country.
The factors underlying the disparity between the western and eastern part of Germany include:
• a much lower level of productivity in the new Länder than the rest of the country (around 25% less) even if much less so than in early 1990s, and smaller firms;
3 The “new Länder’, which are NUTS 1 regions, are Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen and Thüringen. Berlin is also included among the new Länder here, unless explicitly stated otherwise, even though only the east of the city was part of the former East Germany.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 6 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
• a lower level of R&D expenditure;
• much less emphasis on exporting.
Significant ongoing migration from the east to the west and a continuing deficit in infrastructure endowment despite considerable efforts to reduce this also contribute to the weak performance.
It is equally the case that all of the eastern Länder experienced a substantial reduction in fixed capital formation over the period, reflecting a cutback in public investment, with expenditure declining, on average, from 29% of GDP at the beginning of the period to 23% towards the end.
Nevertheless, it is somewhat misleading to generalise. There are some differences in the prevailing situation and the developments which occurred over the programming period across the eastern Länder: GDP per head was some 16% higher in Dresden than in Brandenburg Nordost in 2006 and growth over the period was almost twice as fast. Internal disparities within the eastern part of Germany – with the most prosperous regions in the South and the weakest in the North – therefore, also need to be taken into account, as does the fact that there are also poorly performing regions in the western part of the country.
It is difficult to draw a coherent picture of Objective 2 regions though, in general, they are all experiencing structural change, with agriculture and public administration, education and health, on average, accounting for a larger share of employment than elsewhere and business and financial services a smaller share. They include, however, different types of regions, ranging from highly urbanised ones suffering from the decline of traditional industries, such as Bremen or Berlin as well as Saarland, to rural regions, suffering from both a weak economic structure and a peripheral location.
2 MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY
Economic growth in Germany has been slow since the mid-1990s, declining to only 0.3% a year between 2001 and 2004 (Table 2). This inevitably had an adverse effect on the growth of lagging regional economies, with investment tending to be limited and the slow growth elsewhere inevitably limiting their scope for development.
While inflation remained low throughout the period (averaging 1.6% a year), Germany failed on a number of occasions to comply with the EU convergence criteria and to respect the growth and stability pact (for the Federal budget deficit to remain below 3% of GDP and public debt below 60% of GDP). This failure, however, seems as much due to the low rate of growth as to an expansionary fiscal policy. Indeed, over the period, General Government
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 7 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany expenditure declined significantly relative to GDP (from 48.1% to 45.4%) and continued to decline in 2007 and 2008, while public investment declined as a proportion of expenditure (from 4% to only 3%), much lower than in the EU as a whole (over 5%). The implication is that the national resources allocated to regional development declined substantially, which is supported by the marked reduction in capital formation in Objective 1 regions noted above.
As a response to the economic and social situation in the country, in 2003, the German Government implemented the Agenda 2010 programme – a package of reform measures aimed at boosting the economy and reducing unemployment. The reform was largely unpopular with the German people mainly because of the radical changes to the social protection system and to unemployment benefits and pensions, in particular, as well as to health care which it included. In the years immediately following Agenda 2010, unemployment figures continued to increase and it was only after 2005 that they began to decline.
In sum, regional policy in Germany during the 2000-2006 programming period was adversely affected by the macroeconomic situation and the restraints on public expenditure as well as by the effects of the Agenda 2010 reform measures.
3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS
The backbone of regional development policy in Germany is the Gemeinschaftsaufgabe, which literally means ‘Joint Task’ and which is aimed at improving the structure of regional economies. Under German federalism, which is based on a separation of functions and responsibilities between the Länder and the Federal Government, the Joint Task is one of the few areas, where the two work together in formulating and implementing policy.
As compared with Structural Fund programmes, the Joint Task is narrower in scope, focusing on public subsidies to enterprises for investment and on various kinds of infrastructure (industrial estates, transport networks and tourist facilities, in particular). Since the 1990s, the Joint Task has been modified to some extent, partly as a result of pressure from EU cohesion policy, to encompass specific regional development strategies and the concepts of clustering and networking.
After German unification, ERDF intervention in the eastern part of Germany was linked exclusively with the Joint Task. In the 1994-1999 programming period, however, a process of decoupling the two had already begun. While the Joint Task is an important measure, it is not the only means of supporting regional development. ERDF programmes incorporated
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 8 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany other kinds of measures apart from the Joint Task: These included support for RTDI, targeted at stimulating research, the development of infrastructure to diffuse the results and assistance to firms to innovate. They also included new measures to support business creation, to assist existing companies to export and to encourage networking.
In general, the ERDF gave the Länder the opportunity to formulate a comprehensive package of measures for economic development around the Joint Task which remained the reference point for regional development policies in Germany.
The approach adopted in the different Länder – which, it should be noted are NUTS 1 regions rather than NUTS 2 regions, the general focus of Structural Fund support in other parts of the EU - has tended to be to formulate partial strategies for, say, RTDI, transport or urban development, with operational programmes binding these strategies together within a coherent framework.
Throughout the programming period, moreover, there was a trend towards a stronger focus on clusters and growth poles. In some Länder, this was reflected in the concentration of support on specific sectors of activity or on major cities. For instance, in Berlin, clusters considered important for development were singled out for funding and in Brandenburg, regional development policy was centred on specific growth poles. The same kind of policy was evident, to varying extents in most other regions, though it was not necessarily accorded the highest strategic importance.
This general background applies to both Objective 1 and 2 regions, which are considered separately below. The focus is on regional development measures supported by the Structural Funds, which, it should be emphasised, cover only part of regional policy.
3.1 OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS
The main aim of policy in the 2000-2006 programming period was to continue the process of convergence of the eastern Länder towards the level of economic prosperity prevailing in the western part of the country which started after unification. The primary objective was to improve their competitiveness, which according to the Community Support Framework (CSF), implied achieving sustainable economic growth and higher employment. Five areas of intervention were identified as priorities (see also Annex):
1. Business competitiveness 2. Improvements in infrastructure 3. Reduction of environmental damage and environment-friendly regional development 4. Strengthening of labour force potential 5. Improvement of the economic situation in agriculture and fisheries.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 9 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
The first three of these strategic priorities were pursued through ERDF support, the fourth mainly with ESF assistance, the last through use of the EAGGF. In additional, the CSF included two horizontal aims: to introduce and extend gender mainstreaming and to adopt a sustainable and integrated environmental approach to development. The six Operational Programmes at Länder level followed the structure of the CSF and defined three objectives for the ERDF, one for each of the first three CSF priorities (an additional programme at Federal level was focused on transport infrastructure).
The allocation of financial resources was in line with the strategic priorities: The largest share of public funding (27%) went to the Enterprise environment followed by Human resources (26%) (Table 3). Around a quarter of funding was allocated to Transport (18%) and Environment and energy (6%), which together covered most of the investment in infrastructure. Expenditure on Rural areas (Priority 5 above) was divided between support for agriculture and fisheries (3%) and, to a larger extent, the development of the areas as such (11%).
The principal aims of expenditure in these different areas (as shown in the following table) indicate that the CSF and the Operational Programmes followed a broad strategic approach, under which almost every element can be considered as contributing to the ultimate objective of growth and higher employment. At the same time, there is a question mark over the weight accorded to traditional environmental infrastructure as compared with other more innovative uses of resources.
Agriculture, fisheries - improve competitiveness of agriculture - create alternative employment opportunities in rural areas - pursue an integrated rural development policy Enterprise environment - improve competitiveness by direct support for investment - strengthen R&D - strengthen the information society Human resources - improve preventive and active approaches - improve lifelong learning - improve adaptability Transport and - improve transport infrastructure telecommunication Environment and energy - improve waste water treatment - reduce emissions Territorial policies - improve tourist facilities - improve the urban environment See Annex for the main aims of expenditure in each of the Eastern Länder.
Apart from the obvious concentration of particular programmes on particular types of region (i.e. the concentration of rural development on agrarian regions and of R&D expenditure on urban areas), there was no explicit strategy to allocate funds to the Objective 1 regions with
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 10 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany the most serious problems. The way that funding was allocated between regions differed as regards demand-driven investment (e.g. support to business) and supply-driven investment (e.g. the construction of new roads).
In general, expenditure in the various policy areas at the end of 2008 was close to the amounts allocated, with in most cases budgets being spent, or almost spent, by this time (with another year to go before expenditure can no longer be committed under the n+2 rule) (see Table 4).
3.2 OBJECTIVE 2 REGIONS
The support from the Structural Funds to Objective 2 regions in Germany amounted to around EUR 3.8 billion over the programming period, only a fraction of the amount going to Objective 1 regions (EUR 21.5 billion). Objective 2 areas are located in all of the 11 West German Länder, though the size of the area supported varies considerably.
Objective 2 programmes are not formulated under a strategic framework like the CSF and, accordingly, show a wider variation in strategic orientation. Whilst most of the programmes were focused on growth, competitiveness and employment, others put more emphasis on balanced development (e.g. Baden-Württemberg), structural change (e.g. Berlin) or specific areas (e.g. Hamburg).
Given this variation in strategic orientation, the programmes also vary in terms of their priorities and immediate targets. There are, however, a number of strategic objectives that are part of nearly all Objective 2 programmes – support to enterprises, business start-ups, innovation and infrastructure related to innovation and economic development. Other objectives are present only in some programmes – rural development, urban development, development of tourism and improvement of the environment.
Given this range of priorities and regional types, it is difficult to assess the correspondence between the division of expenditure and stated objectives. Taking all German Objective 2 programmes together, the largest share of expenditure was allocated to the Enterprise environment (some 47%)4 and the next largest to Territorial policy (32%), these two policy areas, therefore, accounting for 80% of the total budget. Almost a third of total expenditure went on assistance to SMEs, included under the Enterprise environment head. The remaining policy areas accounted for only a small part of the budget - Human resources (11%),
4 This proportion, however, amounted, for example, to 56% in Bayern but only 9% in Hessen, though in the latter, 32% went to ’enterprise support’ and 22% to the development of land for business premises within the ‘development of business-related infrastructure’ programme. In Niedersachsen, some 70% of ERDF support went to businesses and business-related intervention.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 11 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
Transport and communications (4%) and Environment and energy (3%). As compared with Objective 1 programmes, funding was, therefore, concentrated much more on support to enterprises as well as on tourism.
Despite the difference in the budget allocation, the specific objectives in the different policy areas were in most cases similar to those in Objective 1 regions (see Annex for details in each Objective 2 region). The detailed aims, however, differed in some cases:
• specific approaches to urban development (often inspired by the URBAN initiative approach and based on integrated development strategies)
• sector specific objectives (e.g. services in Bremen, structural change away from reliance on coal and steel in Saarland)
• a new strategic focus on developing indigenous potential (Lower Saxony) or sustainability (Rheinland-Pfalz).
At the same time, it is difficult once again to assess how far efforts were concentrated in the areas with the most serious problems, though most Objective 2 programmes contained some elements which were focussed explicitly on specific areas or sectors.
As in the case of Objective 1 programmes, expenditure on Objective 2 programmes at the end of 2008 was close to the amounts allocated in most policy areas, with the lowest level of spending in relation to the initial budget being on planning and rehabilitation (85%) and energy infrastructure (82%) apart from social infrastructure for which the budget was very small.
4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS
The effects of intervention in Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions are difficult to identify. The situation differs between the two groups of regions:
• In Objective 1 regions, the evaluations carried out at CSF level provide some coherent information across the different programmes, though compiling this information is hindered by the fact that no ex-ante coordination of the evaluations took place to define a common set of indicators and of relevant data. It should also be noted that the update of the mid-term evaluation related to the situation as at the end of 2004.
• In Objective 2 regions, no analysis has been carried out at a level above the individual programmes.
In view of the above, the following analysis is based mainly on:
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 12 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
• the update of the mid-term evaluation of the CSF
• the data available on quantitative indicators of the results of expenditure5
Objective 1 and 2 programmes are considered separately.
4.1 OBJECTIVE 1
Four policy areas, the Enterprise environment (31%), Human resources (23%), Transport and telecommunications (21%) and Territorial policy (16%), accounted for over 90% of the public funding going to Objective 1 regions. These are considered in turn below. According to the indicators, around 212,700 jobs were either created or maintained in Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Thuringia as a result of this funding, though this figure relates to gross rather than net jobs (i.e. it takes no account of the extent to which the jobs concerned displaced others or would have been created anyway without funding) and accordingly overstates (by an unknown amount) the effect on employment of the measures supported.
Enterprise Environment
The focus of funding was on two priorities6, strengthening the business potential of SMEs and supporting RTDI and the development of the Information Society. As regards the former, according to the update of the mid-term evaluation, between 2000 and 2004, expenditure amounted to some EUR 16.8 billion and an estimated 278,350 jobs were created or maintained as a result (though again this is a gross rather than net figure). At the same time, some 8,460 SMEs in Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Sachsen received support, mainly in the form of investment subsidies but also assistance for vocational training. In addition, support was given to 1,022 business start-ups in Berlin, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern7.
Funding in support of research and innovation amounted to almost EUR 1.8 billion at the end of 2004, while around EUR 153 million went to the development of the Information Society. In total, some 2,065 projects were funded in Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saxony.
In addition, the ERDF contributed to the development of R&D infrastructure:
5 These were compiled under Work Package 2 of the present ex-post evaluation.
6 The third priority in this policy area, assistance to large business organisations, was allocated only a small amount of funding.
7 Both figures come from the database compiled under Work Package 2.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 13 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
• in Thüringen, support going to improving telecommunications in universities and research institutes and research equipment;
• in Sachsen, the emphasis being on the development of institutes of applied research (the so called Fraunhofer-institutes), creating 46,000 square metres of floor space and establishing cooperation relationships with 380 enterprises.
Human resources
Both the ERDF and ESF have played an important role in investing in human capital. ESF funding was focused on active labour market policy, social integration, lifelong learning, developing entrepreneurship and promoting equal opportunities. The priorities, however, differed between the Länder in this regard, Brandenburg and Berlin focusing on training programmes for the so-called secondary labour market (i.e. for jobs which would not exist without public funding), Thüringen and Sachsen on helping the unemployed obtain qualifications, Sachsen-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern on entrepreneurship as well as training for the secondary labour market.
By the end of 2004, ESF interventions had assisted around 836,500 people at Länder level, with 145,665 of these participating in measures to improve adaptability8. In additional, some 512,450 people had participated in ESF-supported programmes at Federal level, giving a total of over 1.3 million participants in such programmes.
Transport and telecommunications
By far the larger part of funding in this policy area went to investment in transport (just under 20% of total expenditure). According to the update of the mid-term evaluation, investment of around EUR 2.25 billion had resulted in the construction or improvement of 2,447 km of roads by the end of 2004, while a further 304 km had been constructed under the Federal programme.
Territorial policy
Almost EUR 5 billion was spent on rural development by the end of 2004, with over 78,000 projects being supported, 17,000 of these aimed at improving the structure of the agricultural sector.
As regards urban development, in Sachsen, for example, support went to projects in 26 different towns or cities.
8 According to the update of the mid-term evaluation.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 14 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
4.2 OBJECTIVE 2
In the case of Objective 2 programmes, the Enterprise environment (46%), Territorial policy (34%) and Human resources (11%) accounted for over 90% of total funding. According to the indicators, this had the effect of creating or maintaining almost 259,100 jobs in the 8 Länder for which data are available, again measured in gross terms.
Given the relatively small scale of Objective 2 funding and the limited information available on its effects, the focus here is on the largest three programmes, which together accounted for just under 65% of the total ERDF allocation to Germany and 52% of the ESF allocation. All information comes from the 2006 annual reports, though since it is sometimes difficult to assign activities to the different policy areas, the figures presented should be regarded as indicative only.
ERDF (EUR million) ESF (EUR million)
Nordrhein-Westfalen 859.7 153.1
Niedersachsen 712.0 54.0
Bayern 499.6 60.8
Total 2,071.4 268.0
Germany Total 3,269.7 515.3
Share of funding covered 63% 52%
Enterprise environment
Under this heading, the data on indicators9 show that expenditure resulted in:
• 1,397 SMEs receiving direct investment support (in five Länder)
• 685 business start-ups being supported (in four Länder)
• 3,828 research jobs being created (in four Länder)
In Nordrhein-Westfalen, a total of around 61,000 jobs are estimated to have been created, while investment grants went to 408 enterprises, half of them to expand existing plant and equipment, a third of them for investment in new plant and equipment. In addition, 129 enterprises received equity capital amounting in total to some EUR 130 million, while
9 Again compiled under Work Package 2.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 15 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany consultancy over business start-ups was provided in 31,277 cases. Some 259 projects relating to R&D were also supported, mostly in respect of ICT, processing, environment and microsystems, as well as networking both within and between regions.
In Niedersachsen, EUR 2.7 billion of private investment was induced by funding, which led to the creation of 21,326 jobs (again in gross terms). Some 1,800 enterprises were supported while the research projects assisted led to 269 new products or services being produced.
In Bavaria, a total of 5,600 jobs are estimated to have been created, while over 7,000 enterprises were supported across all programmes.
Territorial policy
In Nordrhein-Westfalen, 110 separate tourist projects were supported, mainly aimed at developing leisure and cultural activities, while 166 projects for the integrated development of rural areas were co-financed.
In Niedersachsen, 390 projects providing support for the development of tourist infrastructure were co-funded and 112 new facilities were created.
In Bayern, some 150 tourist-related projects were supported of different kinds, including, for example, investment in museums and hiking trails.
Human resources
In Nordrhein-Westfalen, public funding supported the employment of some 1,200 people in the private sector, 470 of them remaining in work six months after the support was ended. Funding was also provided for some 1,227 projects for training employees in firms, with over 21,000 people participating.
In Niedersachsen, the ESF provided support for 25,720 people to participate in training programmes.
5 FORMS OF INTERVENTION IN THE DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS
For Germany, the identification of the main forms of intervention in the different policy areas is complicated by the sheer number of measures which were supported in 16 Operational Programmes (one for each Bundesland) as well as in horizontal programmes. Nevertheless, an overview of the main forms of intervention is set out below for Objective 1 and 2 regions.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 16 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 1 regions10
Policy Total public Main forms of intervention Categories expenditure EUR (mn) % 1 Direct 8,740.6 26.5 • Support for productive investment within the framework initiative support to “Promoting regional economic infrastructure“ firms • Providing support for research as well as market development initiatives in SMEs through loans and grants • Support of touristic infrastructure development • Support for business and trade fair participation • Support for specific initiatives aimed at advising SMEs • Strengthening international acquisition • Supporting the ability of companies and entrepreneurs to adapt for the knowledge economy and fostering entrepreneurial thinking 2 RTDI 2,615.0 7.9 21 Direct 1,002.5 3.0 • R&D cooperation for the development of new products support to • Technology development in the information society sector firms for R&D • Support for research carried out (outside of universities) such as photovoltaic 22 Indirect 1,612.5 4.9 • Support in the development of R&D infrastructure support for • Measures promoting research and development, cooperation, innovation networks and clusters, knowledge and technology transfer between firms and universities • Support for market-oriented research in universities • Support for main research and innovative research projects in the area of climate protection, renewable energy, etc. • Support for international cooperation of universities and knowledge exchange networks 3 Infrastructure 7,773.0 23.6 31 Transport 5,493.8 16.6 • Construction, expansion of motorways, railway lines and tunnels infrastructure • Infrastructure to and within business parks • Improving local and urban infrastructure 32 Other 2,279.2 6.9 • New construction of energy and water supply and waste management infrastructure infrastructure • Flood protection measures • Measures in support of urban and local infrastructure development • Investments in information and communication technology in schools and vocational training institutions • Information and communication technology development • Support in providing better access to undeveloped areas and terrains for tourism 4 Human 2,382.9 7.2 • Active and preventive labour market policy aimed at reducing long- capital term employment and youth employment • Education of workforce • Adult education • Qualification, information and consultation of target groups with a migratory background • Improvements in the educational system and infrastructure • Social and professional integration
10 This is based on the DG Regional Policy ‘Infoview’ database. For the relationship between the forms of intervention (the ‘instruments’) and the Infoview categories, see the table at the end of the report.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 17 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
5 Territorial 11,491.9 34.8 • Redevelopment of brownfield and conversion areas policy • Reclamation of areas affected by mine-related activities • Financial aids for the implementation of low-floor urban buses powered by natural gas and tram schemes • Development of cycling paths • Modernising agricultural farms (in line with guidelines of EU agricultural investment support programme) • Compensation in NATURA 2000 areas • Supporting location and markets specific agriculture • Reforestation measures • Support for the conversion of farms to other business forms • Support of tourism • Measures aimed at rural renewal (village renovation) • Conservation of the rural heritage • Promoting nearly-natural water development • Environmental education • Elaboration and implementation of local development strategies TOTAL 33,003.3 100.0
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 18 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 2 regions Policy Categories Total public Main forms of intervention expenditure
EUR (mn) % 1 Direct support to firms 3,522 54.6 • Start-up support • Investment support through participation in federal assistance programmes • Support of SMEs by means of cooperation, consultation and networking in order to improve their economic performance • Set up and expansion of business incubators • Providing support for research and development initiatives in SMEs through loans and grants • Technology development (investment) in individual firms, including conceptual and strategic preparations 2 RTDI 883.8 12.3 21 Direct support to 310.1 4.3 • Support to the market introduction of (research based) firms for R&D innovative environmental technologies • Support of technology-oriented business start-ups 22 Indirect support for 573.7 8.0 • Sustainable waste management innovation • Creation of geological and hydrogeological information base • Support of research, technological development and innovation in competence centres and networks • Projects in support of the information society 3 Infrastructure 516.8 7.2 31 Transport 286.5 4.0 • Motorway upgrade infrastructure • Connecting industrial parks to the railway network • Infrastructure to and within business parks 32 Other infrastructure 230.3 3.2 • Development of industrial and business areas • Creation, maintenance, expansion of transhipment nodes • Support of tourism-oriented infrastructure measures • (Technical) flood water protection measures
4 Human capital 447.8 6.2 • Set up, expansion or modernisation of external vocational training facilities • Supporting the knowledge potential of universities and businesses and its transfer • Adult education • Market utilisation of academic and industrial know-how • Support for initiatives to bring women back into the job market 5 Territorial policy 1,397.7 19.4 • Integrated development, renewal, renovation of urban areas • Support of tourism • Set up of local recreational sites and horticultural exhibits • Set up environmental educational facilities • Redevelopment of industrial and military sites TOTAL 7,190.6 100.0
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 19 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Overall structure
The management and implementation of the Structural Funds over the 2000-2006 period were integrated into the implementation procedures of national policies. There were no separate institutional or procedural arrangements, apart from those elements required by EU regulations for the administration and management of the Funds.
Management and implementation of domestic regional policy
Regional policy is implemented in Germany at Länder level, though by the Federal Government and by the Länder working together through the ‘Joint Task’, which was set up in 1969 to coordinate the allocation of economic development funding to structurally weak regions. Equal funding under the programme is provided by the Federal Government and the individual Länder, and is mainly focused on direct aid to business, as well as business- oriented infrastructure, with more limited funding for R&D centres, training, consultancy and networking projects. The scope of the Joint Task was extended during the 1990s and in the present decade, partly in response to the much wider range of measures which the Länder could co-finance through the Structural Funds. Decisions on eligibility for funding, and the conditions under which this is implemented, are agreed by a Planning Committee made up of representatives from Federal and Länder authorities, though more detailed operational issues are decided by each individual Land. The Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology is responsible for coordinating the funding and the measures financed.
Regional policy measures at Länder level tend to complement those supported under the Joint Task in being directed at business investment and the business environment. Accordingly, they typically consist of measures such as venture capital, R&D-programmes and finance for business start-ups as well as support for various kinds of infrastructure not covered by the Joint Task.
MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COHESION POLICY
ERDF funding in the period was implemented via a single national Objective 1 programme on transport infrastructure, six Objective 1 regional programmes (including phasing out support for Ost-Berlin), and eleven Objective 2 regional programmes. Most of the funding was, therefore, allocated through implementation arrangements at the Länder level, while the Federal authorities were responsible for coordinating the Objective 1 CSF and also carried out limited coordination of some parts of Objective 2 programmes.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 20 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
All core responsibilities for the planning of regional programmes and their implementation, monitoring and evaluation were undertaken by Managing Authorities located in various ministries in the Länder (usually the Ministry for the Economy). In some cases, such as in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Managing Authorities were supported by technical secretariats, while the task of implementing programmes was shared among a number of different ministries and associated organisations (e.g. Länder Investment Banks).
As noted above, regional policy in Germany is made up of measures implemented under the Joint Task, with a comparatively narrow focus on business development, and measures supported by the Structural Funds. While the former are decided jointly at Federal and Länder level, the latter are implemented largely at Länder level and the authorities concerned are free to use the funding to pursue their own strategies.
Although a number of different agencies were involved in the implementation of programmes over the period, including government departments, arrangements for cooperation between these were well established (such as between the Economics Ministries and the Länder Investment banks), and there was no specific need for additional means of coordination.
The system in Germany is built on a separation between political decisions on the allocation of funds at Länder level and the implementation of projects on the ground. The former is mainly concerned with the distribution of funds between different measures, in which social partners are involved but local actors, with the exception of local authorities, tend not to be.
Involvement in the implementation of measures varied. In cases where local strategies were developed (e.g. urban or rural development), there was strong involvement of local actors on the ground. In other areas, there was cooperation between actors at local and Länder level in project development and implementation.
So far as monitoring of expenditure is concerned, different approaches were pursued. In some cases, the focus was on financial monitoring, while in others physical data was systematically included in the process. In addition, there were cases where monitoring was limited to Structural Fund intervention, in others, it also covered domestically funded programmes.
These differences were not really related to whether Länder received Objective 1 or Objective 2 funding and there are examples of well-developed monitoring systems in both types of region (e.g. Sachsen-Anhalt and Nordrhein-Westfalen). The decisive factor is whether a decision is made to treat monitoring seriously or simply to set up minimum arrangements. In this regard, it is relevant to note that national policies are still predominantly implemented under a rule-oriented management system and there is no tradition of monitoring outcomes or effects.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 21 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
The more attempts were made to monitor the effects of expenditure, the more there tended to be a need for changes in administrative procedures. Problems arose mainly in cases where the monitoring systems implemented were particularly ambitious (such as in Sachsen- Anhalt).
In general, Managing Authorities followed EU guidelines in undertaking ex ante, mid-term and updated mid-term evaluations but stopped short of carrying out additional thematic or ongoing evaluations. Each programme authority was responsible for specifying the remit for the evaluation; for deciding the procedure for selecting the evaluators and for assessing the results. While the use of internal or external evaluators varied, in most cases, the mid-term evaluation and the update were undertaken by external evaluators, with contracts being awarded following open calls for tender.
Despite the weaknesses of evaluation in terms of methodology, evaluation in itself became increasingly accepted over the programming period. Some Managing Authorities began to use it as a means of collecting more information on ERDF funding and came to regard it as a potentially useful input to the implementation of programmes and not just an obligation.
The updates of the mid-term evaluations seem to have been particularly useful and were frequently used when formulating the strategy for the 2007-2013 programming period.
7 GLOBAL EFFECTS
The effects of the programmes implemented over the period on regional development are difficult to identify and assess. Indeed, there is long-standing debate in Germany about the effects of intervention under the Joint Task.
For programmes financed by the Structural Funds, very little is known about the net effects, as few attempts have been made to estimate these. Some attempts, however, have been made to estimate the overall effects using a macroeconomic model. The CSF mid-term evaluation based on the HERMIN model, therefore, concluded that funding in Objective 1 regions in Germany increased GDP by an estimated 2.5-3% over the programming period and led to the long-term level of GDP being 1% higher than it would have been in the absence of funding. At the same time, unemployment was estimated to have been reduced by 1.5% of the labour force.
In practice, while it is difficult to separate the effect of Structural Fund intervention from other influences on regional development, such intervention almost certainly contributed to the higher rate of economic growth experienced by the Länder supported under Objective 1 than other parts of Germany over the period. It is even more difficult to detect the effect of
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 22 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany intervention in Länder receiving Objective 2 support, not least because of the small scale of funding concerned.
In terms of the development of national policy, however, EU funding seems to have an innovative effect through drawing attention to particular principles or specific policies. The inclusion of the general objectives of ensuring equal opportunities and the sustainability of development in EU cohesion policy as horizontal principles, therefore, at least put these issues on the policy agenda even if they were not necessarily incorporated as prominent features in national policies. Equally, the Structural Funds seem to have opened up the possibility of supporting the development of clusters and the adoption of other innovative measures for stimulating regional development.
8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION
The added value of EU funding is also difficult to assess on the basis of official documents. Drawing a general picture is, moreover, further complicated by the fact that the different Länder involved adopted different approaches to regional development and different policy mixes. Nevertheless, it is possible to conclude that:
• from the perspective of the Länder, EU funding extended the scope of regional development policies in financial terms, since most of the programmes were co- financed by the Structural Funds;
• although it is difficult to be sure, it is reasonable to assume that a large part of the Länder programmes on RTDI would not have taken place without EU funding. It is also likely that experimentation with innovative measures would have been more limited;
• while, as noted above, the Structural Funds in Germany are integrated into existing arrangements for supporting regional development, which reduces the potential for innovation, there were, nevertheless, some innovative aspects such as:
o the pursuit of a strategy integrating the activities of different departments, which is not the norm in Germany but which was enforced by the programming approach;
o the strengthening of existing mechanisms of financial control in a number of Länder, such as in Nordrhein-Westfalen where the adoption of competitive tendering was prompted by the deficiencies revealed by control mechanisms.
• The adoption of systems for monitoring and evaluating expenditure, which for the most part did not exist before with regard to regional policy.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 23 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE
The experience of the programming period raises a number of points for the future pursuit of regional policy:
• The strategic approach to development expressed in the programme, which cuts across boundaries between departmental responsibilities needs to be strengthened to make regional policy more coherent.
• Monitoring and evaluation can help in the design of policy and its implementation if used correctly.
• There is a need to develop a funding strategy which is not simply “bottom up”, consisting of collecting together the bids for finance from the different departments, but which is also ‘top down’ aimed at achieving strategic goals.
• In general, a more performance-oriented and evidence-based approach would improve the design of policy.
• New means of financing expenditure (such as revolving funds) and new implementation procedures offer the potential to develop nation-wide policies.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 24 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
REFERENCES
In addition to the Operational Programmes, mid-term evaluation reports and updated mid- term evaluation reports for each of the German Länder, the following documents were used as main references for this report:
Bradley, J., J. Gács, E. Morgenroth and G. Untiedt, 2004. A Study of the Macro-economic Impact of the Reform of EU Cohesion Policy; Report submitted to the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy, Brussels. Http://europe.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/3cr/macro_impact.pdf
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, 2007: Nationaler Strategischer Rahmenplan für den Einsatz der EU-Strzukturfonds in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2007-2013, 19.3.2007.
GEFRA, 2003: Halbzeitbewertung des Gemeinschaftlichen Förderkonzepts 2000-2006 (GFK) für den Einsatz der Strukturfonds in den neuen Bundesländern und im Ostteil Berlins, Endbericht 2003, Münster.
GEFRA, 2005: Aktualisierung der Halbzeitbewertung des Gemeinschaftlichen Förderkonzepts 2000-2006 (GFK) für den Einsatz der Strukturfonds in den neuen Bundesländern und im Ostteil Berlins, Endbericht 2005, Münster.
GFK (without date and author): Gemeinschaftliches Förderkonzept Ziel 1 und Ziel 1 – Übergangsunterstützung in Deutschland 2000-2006.
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 25 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
TABLES
See Excel file for Tables 1 to 6:
Table 1: Regional disparities and trends
Table 2: Macro-economic developments
Tables 3: Allocation of resources by main policy area
Table 4: Expenditure at 2007 by policy area
Table 5: Allocation of resources by programme
Table 6: Expenditure by programme
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 26 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
ANNEX 1: TARGETS AND PRIORITIES IN LÄNDER RECEIVING OBJECTIVE 1 FUNDING
Land (ERDF) Main Target Priority 1/Target 1 Priority 2/Target 2 Priority 3/Target 3
Berlin Structural adjustment Support of the Infrastructural Protection and of economic competitiveness of the measures improvement of the performance and industry, in particular environment improvement of SME Advancement and labour participation expansion of Advancement of Advancement and infrastructure business-friendly support of business in (business-friendly basic conditions, the region infrastructure, R&D, protection of ICT, urban environment infrastructure)
Brandenburg Creation of Support of the Infrastructural Protection and competitive and competitiveness of the measures improvement of the sustainable industry, in particular environment employment, SME Advancement of improvement of infrastructure, Protection and employability, gender Strengthening of the (business-friendly improvement of the equality, decrease the competitiveness of the infrastructure, environment regional backorder in industry, in particular Tourism, R&D, ICT, development, SME (further) education, economic and social Traffic, urban and cohesion, operational local infrastructure) capability of the rural region, environment protection
Mecklenburg- Continuation of Support of the Infrastructural Protection and Vorpommern cohesion process competitiveness of the measures improvement of the through sustainable industry, in particular environment economic growth SME Improvement of essential Reduction of Improving the infrastructural environmental impact, productive potential factors for support of environment and the regional environment friendly enhancing the development regional development competitiveness of the enterprises
Sachsen Enhancement of the Support of the Infrastructural Protection and competitiveness of the competitiveness of the measures improvement of the economy and industry, in particular environment harmonic developing SME Advancement of of town and country infrastructure (R&D, Advancement of for a sustainable Economic growth, ICT, (further) business-friendly regional development increase in education, Traffic, environment, productivity, urban and local competitiveness of acceleration of infrastructure) enterprises, innovation, contribution to the employment creation local development of in the economy economy/ protection of environment and improvement of her quality
Sachsen- Direct or indirect Support of the Infrastructural Protection and Anhalt contribution to a competitiveness of the measures improvement of the regional economic industry, in particular environment and employment SME Improvement of growth business-friendly Significant Advancement of infrastructure (R&D, improvement of economic growth and ICT, (further) standards of supply of the competitiveness education, Traffic, and disposal of water, of enterprises urban and local sewage and wastes infrastructure)
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 27 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
Land (ERDF) Main Target Priority 1/Target 1 Priority 2/Target 2 Priority 3/Target 3
Thüringen Continue the process Support of the Infrastructural Protection and of convergence competitiveness of the measures improvement of the through sustainable industry, in particular environment economic growth, SME Advancement of increase of level of economic growth Achieving a employment and Advancement of through enhancement sustainable reduction of economic growth of factor productivity development through unemployment special activities
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 28 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
ANNEX 2: TARGETS AND PRIORITIES IN LÄNDER RECEIVING OBJECTIVE 2 FUNDING
Land (ERDF) Main Target Priority 1/Target 1 Priority 2/Target 2 Priority 3/Target 3 Priority 4/Target 4 Priority 5/Target 5
Nordrhein- Job creation and Financial support to Innovation and Innovation-oriented Target group oriented --- Westfalen protection in particular enterprises and business competence infrastructure support in SME through set-ups development development improving the Enhancement of Regional development competitiveness of the Assuring the adequate region investment activity and consolidation of including establishment competence Improvement of programme participation of new enterprises infrastructure conditions of all residents
Bayern Maintaining and Complementing Competitive enterprises Research, technology, Support of tourism Liveable city structures enhancement of Infrastructures – sustainability of jobs information, and competitive rural economic power, competence areas
competitiveness of the development enterprises,
attractiveness of the location for industry,
industrial art and
services, essential
structural change,
adoption of new
technologies, support of Expansion of Research, regional and local technology, information Revitalisation and expansion of business- Improving the modernisation of urban development, small friendly infrastructure conditions for the and support of Expansion and business economic competence qualitative improvement areas and rural centres and of transportation development of SME and improvement of the structure, human infrastructure development of the tourism offer resources employment markets
Baden- Creation of equal living Development of rural Restructuring of intra------Württemberg conditions areas (2003-2006) urban problem areas programme (diversification and further development of the economic structure, Development of the creation and protection economic and tourist of competitive infrastructure and Improvement of the employment and Support of SME in rural employment enhancement of areas opportunities in urban economic power) problem areas
Niedersachsen Improvement of the Support of the Support of tourism and Local mobilisation and Urban problem areas Business-friendly competitiveness of the competitiveness of the culture support of the infrastructure economy, quantitative endogenous potential
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 29 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
Land (ERDF) Main Target Priority 1/Target 1 Priority 2/Target 2 Priority 3/Target 3 Priority 4/Target 4 Priority 5/Target 5
and qualitative economy (networks, reg. Improvement of living Development of advancement of development concepts, conditions of the endogenous potential employment and equal Support of the Improvement of the Local Agenda 21) residents in and support of local opportunities and competitiveness of the individual profile and disadvantaged urban business cycles and environment protection economy, in particular of attractiveness of a Development of the areas employment and improvement RTD and of information region endogenous potential opportunities through society infrastructure activities
Hessen Creation and protection Expansion of business- Improvement of the Support of enterprises Support of tourism Urban problem areas of competitiveness friendly infrastructure innovation supporting permanent posts in a for environment Increasing employment Improving the tourist Advancing the economic structural crises less Support of economic creation and improving infrastructure and development of urban vulnerable diversified growth of existing the competitiveness of support of marketing areas with economic, industry structure enterprises and existing employment projects for social and settlements settlement of new Increasing innovations in places strengthening the systems problems enterprises the economy economic development
Rheinland- Enhancing the economic Support of business- Support of the industrial Support of technological Environment and --- Pfalz power for the creation friendly infrastructure economy, tourism development, sustainability and protection of and tourism industry und the service technology transfer and competitive jobs in infrastructure sector the expansion of the particular in SME information society Expansion of business- friendly infrastructure Enhancement of Enhancement of a for competitive sustainable and economic structure in competitiveness of the Support of technological business sector and development and of the environmentally the regions and development advancement of tourism advancement of tourism information society
Berlin Structural adjustment of Support of the Infrastructural measures Protection and ------economic performance competitiveness of the improvement of the and improvement of industry, in particular Advancement and environment labour participation SME expansion of infrastructure (business- Advancement of Advancement and friendly infrastructure, business-friendly basic support of business in R&D, ICT, urban conditions, protection of the region infrastructure) environment
Schleswig- Support of the economic Modernisation of the Strengthening the Support of local Improvement of regional --- Holstein growth and employment production base: competitiveness of development: Urban competitiveness: through improving the Technology and enterprises, particularly development, vocational Business-friendly location conditions and innovation SME; founding and education, infrastructure strengthening the development of SME environmental competitiveness of Handling the structural protection; tourism and change through Strengthening the enterprises, particularly culture Creation of capable of SME modernisation of the competitiveness of enterprises, particularly Improvement of local transport systems:
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 30 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
Land (ERDF) Main Target Priority 1/Target 1 Priority 2/Target 2 Priority 3/Target 3 Priority 4/Target 4 Priority 5/Target 5
production base SME and regional location Optimisation the attractiveness in gateways of regional and particular for stimulating interregional the knowledge society transportation and service economy
Hamburg Improvement of the Support of ------economic and social entrepreneurial activities situation in the and their foundation for programme area St. creating and securing Pauli jobs Improvement of the economy in the district
Saarland Accomplishment and Modern infrastructure – Economic restructuring: Liveable city structures Support of transitory --- targeted composition of productive economy alternatives to coal and areas the structural change steel
through creating the conditions for growth, Creation of Creation the conditions competitiveness Development of rural competitiveness and for competitiveness Development of urban areas employment enterprises and areas regions sustainable employment
Bremen Sustainable support of Diversification of the Strengthening of the Environmental Urban problem areas the economic power, economic structure service sector protection; competitiveness, Redevelopment of Improvement of the support of new innovation and Diversification of the Strengthening of the brownfield areas economic and social approaches of the employment in the economic structure service sector in selected situation of selected regional economic policy region through enhancement of areas and of the regional Support of environment disadvantaged urban private investment capacity for innovation protection and of the areas aspect of sustainability
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 31 WP1 – Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Germany
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND FOI CATEGORIES code Policy instruments FOI Categories 1 Direct support to firms 11 Agriculture 111+114 12 Forestry 121+122 13 Fisheries 142+143+144 14 Large businesses 151+152+153+154+155 15 Small businesses 161+162+163+164+165+166 16 Tourism 171+172+173 17 ICT 322+324 18 Development of rural areas 1307+1309+1314 19 Planning and rehabilitation 351 2 RTDI 21 Direct support to firms for innovation 182 22 Indirect support for innovation 181+183 3 Infrastructure 31 Transport infrastructure 31 32 Other infrastructure 321 Telecommunication 321 321 Energy infrastructure (production, delivery) 33 321 Environmental infrastructure (including water) 34 4 Human capital Developing educational and vocational training 41 23+113+128+167+174 (persons, firms) Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, 42 innovation, information and communication 24+184 technologies (persons, firms) 5 Local environment Indirect support to firms (agriculture, forestry, 112+1182+123+124+125+126+127+141+ 51 fisheries) 145+147+148 52 Social infrastructure and public health 36 53 Planning and rehabilitation 352+353+354 54 Labour market policy 21 55 Social inclusion and equal opportunity 22+25 1301+1302+1303+1304+1305+1306+ 56 Development of rural areas 1308+1310+1311+1312+1313+1399 ICT Services and applications for the citizen 57 322 (health, administration, education) 58 Miscellaneous 4 Note: Forms of Intervention – FOI. See Regulation 438/2001, Annex IV, Classification 3
Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 32