Strategic Coherence of Cohesion Policy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013 Call for Tenders N° 2016CE16BAT077 Contract N° 2017CE16BAT029 Final Report Written by CSIL, Centre for Industrial Studies (Italy) - In partnership with Ramboll Management Consulting A/S (Denmark) - In association with Significance BV (The Netherlands) - TPLAN Consulting (Italy) June – 2018 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General and Urban Policy Directorate Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy Unit Evaluation and European Semester Contact: Jan Marek Ziółkowski E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussel EUROPEAN COMMISSION Ex post evaluation of major projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013 Call for tenders N° 2016CE16BAT077 Contract N° 2017CE16BAT029 Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 2018 EN Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 ISBN: 978-92-79-92564-1 doi:10.2776/042373 © European Union, 2018 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. This report is part of a study carried out by a Team selected by the Evaluation Unit, DG Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission, through a call for tenders by open procedure No 2016CE16BAT077. The consortium selected comprises CSIL – Centre for Industrial Studies (lead partner, Italy), Ramboll Management Consulting A/S (Denmark), Significance BV (The Netherlands), TPLAN Consulting (Italy). The Core Team comprises: Scientific Director: Massimo Florio (CSIL and University of Milan); Project Manager: Silvia Vignetti (CSIL); Scientific Committee: Ginés de Rus, John Nellthorp, Emile Quinet; Task managers: Silvia Vignetti (CSIL), Gerard de Yong (Significance), Roberto Zani (Tplan), Emanuela Sirtori (CSIL), Xavier Le Den (Ramboll), Julie Pellegrin (CSIL); Thematic Experts: Gianni Carbonaro (CSIL), Enrico Bernardis (Tplan), Mario Genco (CSIL), Eric Kroes (Significance), Kim Ruijs (Significance), Barry Zondag (Significance). A network of National Correspondents provides the geographical coverage for the field analysis. The authors are grateful for the very helpful insights from the EC staff and particularly to Mariana Hristcheva, Daria Gismondi, Jan Marek Ziółkowski, Jerome Glantenay, and other members of the Steering Group. They also express their gratitude to all stakeholders who agreed to respond to the team’s questions and contributed to the realisation of the case study. The authors are responsible for any remaining errors or omissions. The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Quotation is authorised as long as the source is acknowledged. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 11 RÉSUMÉ ........................................................................................................ 19 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG .................................................................................... 28 1 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................... 37 1.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ...............................................................................37 1.2 SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 10 CASE STUDIES .......................................46 1.3 WRAP UP SEMINAR AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................47 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SELECTED PROJECS .................................................. 51 3 PROJECT PERFORMANCE ........................................................................ 53 3.1 PROJECT RELEVANCE .....................................................................................53 3.2 PROJECT COHERENCE .....................................................................................58 3.3 PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................60 3.4 PROJECT EFFICIENCY .....................................................................................77 3.5 EU ADDED VALUE .........................................................................................84 4 MECHANISMS AND DETERMINANTS ....................................................... 93 4.1 RELATION WITH THE CONTEXT ..........................................................................93 4.2 SELECTION PROCESS .....................................................................................96 4.3 PROJECT DESIGN ........................................................................................ 100 4.4 FORECASTING CAPACITY ............................................................................... 103 4.5 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ............................................................................. 108 4.6 MANAGERIAL CAPACITY ................................................................................ 111 4.7 BEHAVIOURAL PATTERN ................................................................................ 114 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 122 5.1 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 122 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 125 ANNEX I. TAXONOMY OF LONG-TERM EFFECTS ........................................ 129 ANNEX II. EVALUATION SCORES OF NON-MONETARY EFFECTS ............. 131 ANNEX III. EVALUATION QUESTIONS MATRIX ........................................ 132 ANNEX IV. PROJECT SCORES FOR SELECTION PROCESS ......................... 134 ANNEX V. THE TEN CASE STUDIES IN A NUTSHELL .................................. 136 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 150 7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS B/C Benefit/Cost ratio CBA Cost-benefit analysis DG REGIO Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy EC European Commission EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ENPV Economic Net Present Value ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds ERR Economic Rate of Return EU European Union EUR Euro FNPV/C Financial Net Present Value of the investment FNPV/K Financial Net Present Value of national capital FRR/C Financial Rate of Return on investment FRR/K Financial Rate of Return on national capital GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse Gas JASPERS Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions NPV Net Present Value NUTS2 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics O&M Operating & Maintenance TEN-T Trans-European transport networks ToRs Terms of References VAT Value Added Tax VOC Vehicle Operating Cost VOT Value of Time 8 ABSTRACT The objective of this evaluation is to analyse the long term contribution of selected major investment projects to economic development as well as to the quality of life and well- being of citizens, including their effects on the environment. The evaluation addressed five criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value) through a consistent use of retrospective CBA and qualitative analysis. Findings show that major transport projects can positively contribute to increasing the transport efficiency within EU regions, supporting the shift to cleaner urban mobility and facilitating cross-border transport connections. There are two main critical success factors: a sound forecasting capacity driving the project design and selection process and excellent managerial capacity to keep the project on track. The EC has an important role to play. There is evidence that, more than merely providing funds, the EC can strategically guide the prioritisation and selection process towards projects that maximise EU objectives or are implemented according to well defined quality standards (e.g. environmental measures). In addition, EC services can provide technical assistance to improve the quality at entry of funded projects. While a lot has already been achieved, there is room to expand EU added value in the implementation of major projects. 9 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Major projects claim a sizable proportion of Cohesion Policy expenditure, especially in the transport sector: in the period 2007-2013 they represented almost 30% of the total allocation from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) and nearly 49% of major projects were in the transport sector (i.e. 945 major