Gelderland (Nl)

Call for tender by open procedure no. 2007.CE.16.0.AT.032 for the ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (Objectives 1 and 2)

Work package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

SECOND INTERMEDIATE REPORT: Regional Case Studies

GELDERLAND (NL)

IRS, Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale CSIL, Centre for Industrial Studies

Prepared for: European Commission DIRECTORATE GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY Policy Development Evaluation Unit Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

This study was carried out by a team selected by the Evaluation Unit, DG Regional Policy, European Commission, through a call for tenders by open procedure no. 2007.CE.16.0.AT.032.

The consortium selected comprised IRS - Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale (lead partner) and CSIL, Centre for Industrial Studies. The Core Team included: - Manuela Samek Lodovici, Project Director; - Flavia Pesce, Project Coordinator; - Scientific Advisors: Charlotte Höhn (Federal Institute for Population Research); Gianfranco Viesti (University of Bari); Silvia Vignetti; Paola Villa (University of Trento). - Senior experts: Ivana Fellini (University of Milan), Julie Pellegrin; Maria Letizia Tanturri (University of Pavia); Alessandro Valenza; Giancarlo Vecchi (University of Parma). - Research assistants: Silvia Beltrametti; Julien Bollati; Jessica Catalano; Valentina Patrini; Monica Patrizio.

A network of country experts provided geographical coverage for the field analysis. The case study presented in this report was carried out by Edward Frank (UTRI).

The authors are grateful for the very helpful comments from the EC staff and particularly to Veronica Gaffey, Kai Stryczynski and José-Luís Calvo de Celis. They also wish to thank the stakeholders and beneficiaries who were available for interviews and data collection for the field analysis. The authors are fully responsible for any errors or omissions.

Quotation is authorised as long as the source is acknowledged.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GELDERLAND 1 Introduction and main findings ...... 1 Methodology overview ...... 3

1. Gelderland – Regional context ...... 5 1.1. Gelderland – General economic and social context ...... 6 1.2. Gelderland – Overview of demographic change ...... 11 1.3 Gelderland – Overview of gender equality ...... 15 1.4. Gelderland – Conclusion ...... 18

2. Gelderland – Analysis of the ERDF regional strategy and implementation procedures in relation to demographic change and gender equality ...... 19 2.1. Gelderland – Introduction ...... 19 2.2. Gelderland – Analysis of the regional strategy and implementation procedure regarding demographic change ...... 20 2.3. Gelderland – Analysis of the regional strategy and implementation procedure regarding gender equality24 2.4. Gelderland – Selected measures for the case studies ...... 26

3. Gelderland – Direct and indirect effects of ERDF interventions in enabling adaptation to demographic change ...... 29 3.1. Gelderland – Outputs of measures concerning demographic change ...... 29 3.2. Gelderland – Results and impacts of measures concerning demographic change ...... 30 3.3. Gelderland – Complementarity of ERDF interventions, identified for demographic change, with ESF, EAGGF and FIFG ...... 32 3.4 Gelderland – Sustainability of measures concerning demographic change ...... 33 3.5. Gelderland – Overall assessment of adaptation to demographic change ...... 34 3.6. Gelderland – Lessons learnt and policy implications for demographic change ...... 35

4. Gelderland – Direct and indirect effects of ERDF interventions on gender equality: results, direct and indirect effects ...... 37 4.1. Gelderland – Outputs of measures concerning gender equality ...... 37 4.2. Gelderland – Results and impacts of measures concerning gender equality ...... 40 4.3. Gelderland – Complementarity of ERDF interventions, identified for gender issue, with ESF, EAGGF and FIFG ...... 42 4.4. Gelderland – Sustainability of the measures concerning gender equality ...... 43 4.5. Gelderland – Overall assessment of gender equality ...... 44 4.6. Gelderland – Lessons learnt and policy implications for gender issue ...... 45

Annex – Sources of information for Gelderland ...... 47

III Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Gelderland – Key socio-economic figures 6

Table 2: Gelderland – Labour force from 15-64 year old as per gender (x 1000) and average annual growth (in %); Netherlands, Gelderland, NUTS3 regions and selected municipalities, 2002 and 2006* 8

Table 3: Gelderland – Key figures on demographic change 11

Table 4: Gelderland – Policy interventions in the field of demographic change for the period 2000-200612

Table 5: Gelderland – Key facts on equality condition 15

Table 6: Gelderland – Policy interventions in the field of gender equality for the period 2000-2006 17

Table 7: Gelderland – Analysis of the strategy regarding demographic change 20

Table 8: Gelderland – Analysis of the implementation of demographic change 22

Table 9: Gelderland – Analysis of the strategy regarding gender equality 24

Table 10: Gelderland – Analysis of the implementation of gender equality 25

Table 11: Gelderland – Selected measures in relation to demographic change and gender equality for the period 2000-2006 27

Table 12: Gelderland – SPD EN and SPD UA - Performance of the measures adapting to demographic change 29

Table 13: Gelderland – Effectiveness of the measures adapting to demographic change 31

Table 14: Gelderland – Complementarity of ERDF interventions, identified for demographic change, with ESF, EAGGF, FIFG 33

Table 15: Gelderland – Sustainability of the measures concerning demographic change 33

Table 16: Gelderland – Performance of the measures impacting on gender issue 38

Table 17: Gelderland – Effectiveness of the measures impacting on gender issue 40

Table 18: Gelderland – Complementarity of ERDF interventions, identified for gender issue, with ESF, EAGGF, FIFG 42

Table 19: Gelderland – Sustainability of the measures concerning to gender equality 43

IV Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Gelderland – Map of the region 5

Figure 2: Gelderland – Annual average rate of GDP growth 2000-2005 (%) 7

Figure 3: Gelderland – Population and working age population by gender 7

Figure 4: Gelderland – Employment and unemployment rates by gender 9

Figure 5: Gelderland – Total fertility rate, 2000 11

Figure 6: Gelderland – Share of women in regional assemblies, 2006 16

V Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Abbreviations

A/N Cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen

DG Regio Directorate General for Regional Policy

EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

EC European Commission

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

EU European Union

EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

FIFG Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIA Gender Impact Assessment

GSB Grote Stedenbeleid (Programme for the Larger Cities)

ILG Investeringsbudget Landelijk Gebied (Investment Budget for the Rural Areas)

IPO Interprovinciaal Overleg (Inter-provincial Coordination Committee)

ISV Investeringsbudget Stedelijke Vernieuwing (Investment Budget for Urban Renewal)

MinBZK Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zachen en Koninkrijksrelaties (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations)

MinEZ Ministerie van Economische Zachen (Ministry of Economic Affairs)

MinLNV Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality)

MinOCW Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science)

MinSZW Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment)

MinVROM Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Ministry of Housing, Physical Development and Environment)

MinVW Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (Ministry of Traffic and Water)

VI Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

MOP Meerjarig Ontwikkelingsplan (Multi-year Development Plan)

MTE Mid-term Evaluation

EN East Netherlands

POP Plattelands Ontwikkelingsprogramma (Programme for Rural Development)

R&D Research and Development

RPIA Regional Programme of Innovative Actions

SGB Subsidieregeling Gebiedsgericht Beleid (Subsidy regulation for Regional Policy)

SPD Single Programming Document

SPD EN Single Programming Document 2000 – 2006 for Eastern Netherlands

SPD UA Single Programming Document 2000 – 2006 for Urban Areas

VNG Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (Dutch Association of Municipalities)

WP Work Package

VII Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

VIII Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

GELDERLAND

Introduction and main findings

In the period 2000-2006 the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) provided support to the Gelderland region through the Objective 2 Programme “East Netherlands” (SPD EN) and the Objective 2 Programme “Urban Areas Netherlands” (SPD UA). The analysis presented in this case study aims at illustrating the contribution of ERDF to gender equality and adaptation to demographic change in the region of Gelderland for the two programmes.

The analysis reveals that, although adaptation to demographic change and gender equality were not explicitly considered as relevant issues at intervention design and implementation stages during the 2000—2006 programming period, the two programmes SPD EN and SPD UA have some indirect impacts on both the two aspects. More specifically:

1. Demographic change has not been considered at the design and implementation level. However all selected measures more or less contributed to an increase in quality of life of rural areas and the urban environment in which the projects were executed, so indirectly broadly impacted on depopulation trends.

2. For gender aspects, the relation was found to be less direct with only a few measures being of direct relevance in promoting the position of women. At the same time it was observed that the Gelderland region shows a steady increase in participation rate of women. In conformity with national emancipation policies the emphasis has shifted from participation rate to increasing the number of hours worked by women on a weekly basis and higher participation of women from disadvantaged groups in the labour market. Project investments in day care facilities were supported by a highly subsidized system of providing day care. As a result, the possibilities for women to enter the labour market or increase their number of hours worked per week has increased. Unfortunately no statistical data are available on the direct impact of the investments made, but field visits evidenced a large demand for such facilities.

As regards the research hypotheses tested the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The intervention directed at developing and enhancing the local infrastructures at the urban and regional level, including financing care infrastructures for children, the elderly and the disabled, have been of direct relevance. Here it was observed that the most relevant measures, selected for an in depth analysis (aiming at supporting social cohesion and cultural identity, functioning of the labour market and on socio-economic activation aspects), had a high and indirect impact on both demographic change and gender equality aspects. The second element, support to facilities relevant in the framework of active ageing policies was limited in scope and included some projects of both two programmes. For the SPD EN, the establishment of centralized social - and cultural facilities, ‘Kulturhusen’ in small – and medium sized towns has been of particular relevance. It promoted the integration of women and potentially contributed to an increased participation rate of women in the work force and number of hours worked per week. The ‘Kulturhusen’ provide health care services and cultural facilities of which also the elderly and handicapped benefit. For the SPD UA, especially the concept of social – and

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

cultural facilities linked with a new school complex was felt to be relevant. Wide use is made of such facilities by different communities which represents an important unifying factor in the neighbourhood. Providing day care facilities in the same complex is also important here for facilitating entry into the labour market and/or extension of the number of hours worked.

2. The other relevant intervention area has been the support to local development and the renewal of urban and densely populated areas. Here, the interventions had a medium to high indirect impact on demographic change. The strength of both programmes has not been the single measure or intervention, but the selection of mutually reinforcing actions interlinked through well defined medium/long term development plans. In rural areas, the programme provided a balanced set of interventions focusing on the restructuring and rehabilitation of industrial zones, nature development, promotion of touristic facilities and provision of community centres and facilities. For the SPD UA, measures such as the reconstruction and rehabilitation of industrial estates, vocational training activities and community-based interventions contributed to social cohesion and quality of life in urban districts. Those community-based interventions which formed part of an overall restructuring plan of an urban district were felt to be more effective than incremental projects aimed at neighbourhood improvement.

3. A last area of interest is developing and supporting the local system of enterprises. For the demographic change aspects, interventions in this field had a wide impact. In enterprise development there has been no specific gender focus with the exception of one project which was nevertheless not implemented. Lesson from one particular project indicate the importance of part-time arrangements for women having an interest in starting a company. It counts for both the time spent on running the company as well as making themselves available for external facility support. Investments made under this heading helped the Province to maintain its competitive edge by stimulating innovativeness in industrial growth and market development of companies.

Regarding the selected measures, it can be concluded that they increased the attractiveness and quality of life of rural/urban areas and were effective in preventing economic decline and urban deprivation and contained a number of innovative elements which were replicated on a larger scale in later programmes.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Methodology overview

The analysis took place in the period August 2008-January 2009, and was based on documentary analysis as well as site visits and interviews to stakeholders and beneficiaries. A list of persons interviewed, projects visited and documents analysed is provided in Annex.

The research was based on the following steps:

− The First phase of the research consisted of inventory taking and establishment of the research methodology and approach. After a desk analysis on the socio-economic regional context and the strategy as presented in planning documents, a preliminary list of measures of potential interest has been selected.

− A first round of field visit focused on obtaining additional background documentation, clarifications on what is contained in the progress reporting and an exchange of views on what priorities and measures are directly/indirectly of relevance for the issues of demographic change and gender.

− A second round of visits was aimed at collecting first hand information on the selected interventions, and a final round was used to have an overall exchange with stakeholders on the conclusions and policy recommendations provided.

In analysing the two programmes, the working hypotheses about the ERDF intervention areas and the potential effects on gender equality and demographic change aspects, as contained in the First Intermediate Report have been used as methodological framework. It lists three intervention areas:

1. Developing and supporting the local system of enterprises.

2. Developing and enhancing local infrastructures at the urban and regional level.

3. Supporting local development and the renewal of urban and densely populated areas.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

1. GELDERLAND – REGIONAL CONTEXT

This chapter identifies the features pertaining to the specific regional context that may be of importance in accounting for the performance achieved by ERDF interventions in the fields of gender equality and adaptation to demographic change. The purpose is to provide a dynamic picture (2000-2006) of the socio-economic basic conditions of the regions where the programme is implemented against the national and EU situation.

Figure 1: Gelderland – Map of the region

Source: DG Regio.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

The Province of Gelderland is highly diverse in character and consists of rural areas, a national park and a large number of small – and medium sized cities. Arnhem and Nijmegen are two of the larger cities located in the province.

Towards the western and the southern side of the province, there are higher densities of population with relative more urban agglomerations.

West of the national park Hoge Veluwe, running north-south, there is the sub-region called the ‘Valley’. It is bordered in the South by Wageningen which shows a concentration of intensive livestock/poultry keeping. The Eastern side of the province, consisting of the sub-region of the Achterhoek, is relatively less populated and predominantly agricultural in outlook. Tourism in this part is also an important economic activity.

1.1. Gelderland – General economic and social context

In what follows the main regional socio-economic conditions and trends characterizing Gelderland are described and briefly commented.

Table 1: Gelderland – Key socio-economic figures

Regional level National level EU25 level Indicator 2000 2006 ∆ 2000 2006 ∆ 2000 2006 ∆ GDP per capita 115.6 110.8* -4.8 134.6 130.4 -4,2 105.0 103.9 -1.1 (in PPS EU27=100) Total Employment rate 62.2 63.1 0.9 61.8 62.8 1.0 51.1 52.9 1.8 (15 years and over, %) Total Unemployment rate (15 years and over, 2.5 3.3 0.8 2.9 3.9 1.0 9.2 8.3 -1.0 %) Population 1,927 1,977 2.6% 15,926 16,346 2.6% 452,658 464,765 2.7% (thousands) Working age Population 1,298 1,319* 1.6% 10,801 11,025 2.1% 303,701 312,014 2.7% (15 -64 years, thousands) Source: CSIL and IRS processing of Eurostat data. * Data at 2005.

As shown in the Table 1, during the period 2000 - 2006, the region showed a similar pattern in terms of economic development as the country as a whole, but more pronounced. There was a decline in economic development with a recovery from 2006 onwards.

Over the whole period 2000-2006 there was an average annual regional growth in GDP of 3.7% which was the same as for the EU and slightly less than the growth for the Netherlands as a whole (4%).

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Figure 2: Gelderland – Annual average rate of GDP growth 2000-2005 (%)

5.0%

4.0% 4.0% 3.7% 3.7%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% GELDERLAND NETHERLANDS EU25

Source: CSIL and IRS processing of Eurostat data, on the base of a GDP at current prices (in millions of euro).

The slowdown in economic growth from the period 2001-2002 onwards affected economic activities in the region and had direct impact on the realization of projects – especially those related to development of industrial estates and company cluster buildings (SPD, 2003). There was an economic recovery starting from 2006.

Figure 3: Gelderland – Population and working age population by gender

GELDERLAND GELDERLAND % of Total Population NETHERLANDS % of Total Working age Population NETHERLANDS 70% EU25 70% EU25 60% 60% 51.3% 51.2% 50.6% 49.4% 48.7% 50.7% 49.3% 48.8% 49.4% 50.0% 50.6% 50.0% 49.7% 49.9% 50.3% 50.1% 50% 50% 50.5% 49.5% 50.6% 49.4% 49.3% 50.7% 49.5% 50.5% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% F M F M FMFM

2000 2006 2000 2006 Source: CSIL and IRS processing of Eurostat data.

In the period 2001 – 2005, both in Gelderland and for the Netherlands as a whole, the population increased on an average with 0.5% per year. Population increase in the region over the whole period was 2.6% which was similar to the national average and slightly below the figure of 2.7% for the EU25.

Of interest are the population forecasts. The Province of Gelderland expects that the population would reach the figure of 2 million in 2011. In 2006 it was still 1,976,000 persons. It implies a lower than originally expected increase in population. Reasons which are mentioned are a further decrease in number of births, increase in emigration and a reduced level of immigration. It was remarked in this context that the migration balance for the Province was negative over the last few years (2006 and before).

While for the EU25 there was an increase with 2.7% over the period 2000 – 2006 and in the Netherlands of 2.1, the Gelderland region showed a more modest increase.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

The average annual increase in the work force in the period 1998 – 2002 for the Netherlands was 1.6%, while for Gelderland it was 1.7%. For the period 2002 – 2006 the figures were respectively 0.9% and 1.7%. Within the Gelderland region there are significant differences in growth with the Achterhoek having a lower than average growth of 1.3% for the period 1998 – 2002 and for 2002 – 2006 of 0.7% only.

For Gelderland the labour force consisted in 2006 for 12% out of the age category 15 – 24, for 51.1% out of the group 25-44 and for the remaining out of the group 45 – 64. For the Netherlands as a whole the figures were almost similar. Of interest as well are the figures for the growth in the labour force as per gender and per NUTS3 region. For the purpose of this study data for the cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen have been also included. It shows that overall for each region and city, there has been an increase in the period 2002 – 2006 of the labour force. However, with the exception of the cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen, there has been a decline in the participation by men and the increase is only due to the considerable growth in labour force of women. Of the different NUTS3 regions, the Achterhoek is performing less than other sub-regions.

Table 2: Gelderland – Labour force from 15-64 year old as per gender (x 1000) and average annual growth (in %); Netherlands, Gelderland, NUTS3 regions and selected municipalities, 2002 and 2006*

2002 2006 in %, 2002-2006

Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total

The Netherlands 4,386.8 3,079.7 7,466.6 4,345.0 3,390.5 7,735.5 -0.2 2.4 0.9

Gelderland 508.8 378.6 887.4 506.3 417.9 924.2 -0.1 2.5 1.0

NUTS3 Veluwe 160.7 114.3 275.0 161.3 127.3 288.6 0.1 2.7 1.2

NUTS3 Achterhoek 107.8 77.4 185.2 105.7 84.6 190.4 -0.5 2.2 0.7

NUTS3 177.8 142.8 320.6 177.0 157.2 334.3 -0.1 2.4 1.0 Arnhem/Nijmegen

NUTS3 South-West 62.5 44.1 106.6 62.2 48.7 110.9 -0.1 2.5 1.0 Gelderland

Arnhem 37.3 31.3 68.6 37.7 34.4 72.1 0.3 2.4 1.2

Nijmegen 38.6 33.4 71.9 39.4 37.6 76.9 0.5 3.0 1.7 Source: Economic Research Bureau, Province of Gelderland, estimate based on Workforce Survey, Statistics Netherlands. * With an average working week of 1 hours or more.

The employment rate in Gelderland increased in the period 2000 – 2006 with 0.90% from 62.2% to 63.1%, a performance which is slightly less than national and EU25 average where the increase was respectively 1% and 1.8%. The employment rate at regional level of 63.1% in 2006 and 62.8% for the Netherlands was well above the EU average of 52.9% in 2006 which indicates a high participation in the labour market of both men and women.

In the period 2000-2006, the unemployment rate increased from 2.5% to 3.3%, while for the Netherlands it increased from 2.9% to 3.9%. It compared negatively with the EU figure of a decline

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

from 9.2% to 8.3%, but was positive still in absolute terms. In interpreting these data, it should be realized that for Gelderland in 1996 the unemployment rate was still 7%.

The data show strong periodic fluctuations in economic performance of the region. For example, in 2003 the number of unemployed persons increased with 13,000 people, a raise in registration of unemployed with 40% and the level of unemployment increased from 3.8% to 5.1%. Economic growth over 2004 was expected to be insufficient to balance the demand for jobs. In 2003, for the first time there was a larger increase in part-time jobs and temporarily work as compared to full- time jobs. Number of applicants per vacancy increased as well. The average time involved in searching for a job increased too. For men, in terms of getting full-time jobs, the situation was worse than for women.

Figure 4: Gelderland – Employment and unemployment rates by gender

GELDERLAND GELDERLAND Employment rate by gender NETHERLANDS Unemployment rate by gender NETHERLANDS EU25 15 EU25

80 72.2 71.6 71.0 70.2 12 10.7 70 60.5 60.9 55.5 9.0 60 52.3 52.3 55.4 9 8.1 8.3 50 42.4 45.4 40 6 4.3 30 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.5 2.9 2.3 20 3 1.6 10 0 0 F M F M F M F M

2000 2006 2000 2006 Source: CSIL and IRS processing of Eurostat data. These data are referred to population aged 15 and over.

In 2005, there was an economic improvement on a number of indicators. Unemployment decreased, more jobs became available and there were more vacancy announcements. Consumption increased as well. Gelderland also in this respect followed the national trend.

In 2006, the economy further improved and the number of jobs in 2006 as compared to 2005 increased with 1.9%. With the exception of agriculture and transport, all sectors could benefit from the improvement of the economy. The continued decline in agriculture forms part of an overall trend. The industrial sector showed a slight improvement after a substantial decrease in number of jobs (5.1% in 2003). Business sector services and industry both had a share of 13% in number of jobs with the first sector being the largest growing sector with a growth of 5% (6,000 new jobs) in 2006.

For the purpose of this study, the performance of the different economic sectors is of interest in this period. Throughout the period 2001-2005 there has been a steady decline in agriculture with an average annual decrease in employment by -1.4%, causes being an increase in scale of operations, labour productivity and worsening market conditions.

In the same period, industry showed a poor performance with an annual decrease of -3.4% in employment offered. The causes were company closures and shifting of production to low-wage countries. Also (parts of) R&D activities were moved abroad. On the positive side it can be mentioned that the R&D share of the Province is relatively large. The two universities of Nijmegen and Wageningen accommodate 11% of the Dutch student population and 14% of all research efforts in the country. Of the number of research institutions, 16% are located in Gelderland.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Gelderland is by far the most important province for domestic holidays. Spending averaged in the period 2000 – 2005, € 430 million per year. One out of 20 jobs relate to the sectors recreation and tourism. The retail sector has a share in employment of about 9.8% (2003). Typical for this sector is the large number of women it employs. While for other sectors 41% of jobs are filled by women, for this sector it is 59%. Also the share of part-time work of 32% of all jobs (less than 12 hours per week) is high. For other sectors the figure is 13%. The economic concentration in the retail sector and efficiency measures particularly affects women therefore.

Another factor of interest is the remarkable growth of small companies in this period. Those consisting of one to two persons increased from 37,000 (1996) to 54,300 (2005) and the share of small companies compared to the total increased from 41% to 48%. However, the increase in employment share was less spectacular. It increased with 1.2% to 7.5% of total employment. Number and share of medium-sized companies decreased however. When small-sized companies are left out of consideration, it can be observed that the average size of companies in terms of persons employed increased from 13.1 to 14.2 persons.

Small companies are characterized by a highly dynamic development. On average, annually 8,000 new companies were established, but 5,800 closed down again. Annual percentage of starting companies fluctuated between 6% and 9%, percentage of those closing down again varied between 4% and 9%. Main growth took place in the business services sector and in particular in the larger cities. The agricultural sector and geographically the Eastern part of Gelderland showed decline.

Between the urban areas of the SPD in Arnhem and Nijmegen there are marked differences in socio-economic outlook compared to the city as a whole. Arnhem Kern (Gemeente Arnhem, 2001), with a population of 49,000 people or 36% of the total population of Arnhem, has a relatively large share of ethnic minorities (29%) and receives more migrants than other parts of the city. There are also more single person households and persons renting rooms while the average period of stay per house is lower. The target area has a high percentage of rental housing stock (80%), average income per household is lower and a relatively large number of persons depend on social security assistance with two-third of all persons dependent on that facility living in Arnhem Kern. Safety conditions both in objective and in subjective terms are worse than for other parts of the city. On the positive side, it has a relatively larger number of community centres, schooling facilities, shops and sport facilities.

For Nijmegen Kanaalgebied (Gemeente Nijmegen, 2001), with a population of 51,116 persons or 34% of the total Nijmegen population, the percentage of ethnic minorities is 26% out of which 9% are from richer countries. In some neighbourhoods in the area the percentage of households receiving social assistance security reaches 25% and almost all of them, with the exception of one neighbourhood, have a high percentage of rental houses. There are a number of larger industrial zones which require rehabilitation.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

1.2. Gelderland – Overview of demographic change

1.2.1. The regional situation of demographic change

The section provides an overview of the regional situation in terms of demographic trends. The main dimensions of demographic change here considered are: population ageing, low fertility rate, depopulation in rural area, migration in and out the region, country and Union. Intra-regional disparities with respect to the demographic trends and settlement structures are highlighted.

Table 3: Gelderland – Key figures on demographic change

Regional level National level EU25 level Indicator 2000 2005 ∆ 2000 2006 ∆ 2000 2006 ∆

Crude rate of population natural increase 4.4 2.8 -1.6 4.2 3.0 -1.1 0.8 1.2 0.4 (%) Crude rate of net migration 3.5 -0.9 -4.4 3.6 -1.6 - 5.2 1.6 3.5 1.9 (%) Old age dependency ratio 20.2 21.4 1.2 20.0 21.1 1.1 23.4 25.1 1.7 (%) Source: CSIL and IRS processing of Eurostat data.

For Gelderland the population natural increase dropped from 4.4% to 2.8% (-1.6%). It conforms to the overall trend of declining birth rate and a lower death rate by people getting older on an average. The drop was larger than observed for the Netherlands for the same period, while increase at EU25 level was much lower. The fertility rate was almost similar to the Netherlands and slightly higher than the figure for the EU25 for the year 2000.

Figure 5: Gelderland – Total fertility rate, 2000

2.0 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 GELDERLAND NETHERLANDS EU25

Source: ESPON for the Regional total fertility rate, data available at 1999. Eurostat for the National and European total fertility rate.

A remarkable development in this period has been a sharp decrease in crude net migration from 3.5% to -0.9% (-4.4%), a figure slightly less than the national average which declined with -5.2%. It contrasts with an increase in net migration in the EU25 over the same period. An explanation is

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

provided by the introduction of (more) strict immigration rules in the country in this period and an increase in emigration.

The old age dependency ratio for Gelderland increased a development almost equal to the Netherlands and lower than observed for Europe.

As per population forecasts of the Province of Gelderland the ageing of the population would accelerate after 2010 when the baby-boom generation reaches the age of 65 years old. In 2006, 14% of the population was 65 years or older and in 2030 it was expected this would increase to 23%.

Ageing of the working population with more than 20% being between 50 and 65 years old and their high percentage within the working population (25% or 240,000 people) was felt to be a threat to future development of the region.

1.2.2. The regional policy context in relation to demographic change

In this section overview of the regional policy framework regarding demographic change is presented and the main policies at national and regional level are listed and discussed. As it is described below they are mostly dealing with urban regeneration plan for improvement of living conditions of the resident population. One instrument is specifically targeted to migrants.

Table 4: Gelderland – Policy interventions in the field of demographic change for the period 2000-2006

Name and year of Main category of Level of Resources Brief description the intervention intervention government allocation

Immigration laws Legislative Introduction of Laws National n.a. from 1993 framework restricting immigration Infrastructure, GSB social services, National and Planning framework n.a. from 1994 economic municipal development ISV I (2000 – 2004) € 3,835 M as Mainly Investment budget for urban National and & ISV II (2005 – original infrastructure development municipal level 2009) reservation. Structural (2001 – 2006 & 2007 – 2012) & regional Planning Planning framework for Provincial and n.a. development plans framework development Municipal level at NUTS2 and NUTS3 level. Law on Determines where and how Planning reconstruction of reconstruction of rural areas framework and rural areas should take place and MinLNV and ILG: € 5.5 investment budget (01.04.2002) and provides an integrated Province billion for mainly Investment Budget investment budget for rural infrastructure rural Areas (ILG). areas Note: Ranked in a chronological order with thematic separation.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

- Law on Reconstruction of Rural Areas and Investment Budget Rural Areas

The later than expected adoption of the Law on Reconstruction of Rural Areas had an impact on implementation of the programme for East Netherlands. Priority at the local level in 2002 was on the formulation of the reconstruction plans for the rural areas. Only after completion, there was interest again in proposing concrete projects. It especially concerned Measures 1.1 and 1.2 related to physical investments in rural areas. Co-financing of programmes by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (MinLNV - Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit) was limited to the subsidy programme for Regional Policy (SGB- Subsidieregeling Gebiedsgericht Beleid).

The situation changed after introduction of the Investment Budget Rural Areas (ILG- Investeringsbudget Landelijk Gebied1), a programme in which state government, provinces, municipalities and water boards participate. Municipalities are represented by their association (VNG - Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten). The purpose of the programme is an integrated regional approach to nature development, agriculture, improved environmental quality, recreational facilities, and a balanced water management and combines the subsidies for nature, recreation, landscape, agriculture and the environment. The financial allocation is approximately € 5.5 billion at national level for the period 2007-2012. Almost half of this was intended for nature purposes (Berkhout and van Bruchem, 2008).

- Structural & regional development plans at NUTS2 and NUTS3 level

After the adoption of the Reconstruction Law new policy directions were translated into multi-year plans at Provincial and sub-regional level. These Structural Plans, Trek Kracht Gelderland (Pulling Forces Gelderland) for the period 2001-2006 and Vitaal Gelderland (Vital Gelderland) for the period 2007-2012, provided the main development framework and priorities2. Parameters and directions were further detailed in the preparation of Regional Plans which provide specific directions for the development of particular areas3.

- Policy for the larger cities (GSB - Grote Stedenbeleid)

GSB was introduced in 1994 and consists of three components: improvement of the physical environment, social environment and the economy. The Investment Budget Urban Renewal, discussed below, focuses on the physical aspects of improvement of the urban environment. In the MOP’s which form the basis for ISV allocation, city-wide targets are set. In addition, under the GSB, priority neighbourhoods were selected which require an integrated approach for rehabilitation and

1 The legal framework for the ILG was provided by the Rural Development Act (WILG), which became effective from 1 January 2007, and was introduced for the period 2007 – 2012 along similar patterns as the Investment Budget for Urban Renewal (ISW). It is based on the long term policy for the rural area which was concretized in the Long Term Programme Living Countryside, implemented from 2006. See for a detailed overview the web site of the Inter-provincial Coordination Committee (IPO) at www.ipo.nl. 2 Trek Kracht Gelderland, for example, identified as one of its three priorities the stimulation of sustainable industrial zones and ranking and location of industrial zones of national, regional and local importance. It also identified knowledge clusters for an intensified cooperation between research institutes and companies. One of the consequences of the adoption of Trek Kracht Gelderland has been that agro-tourism was stimulated by more flexibility in allowing income out of tourism next to farming. 3 In analysing these plans, it should be understood that they have no power of enforcement and can only suggest directions. In the Dutch planning framework only the Master Plans prepared at municipal level have a legal status and determine land use. Any changes in category of use require the approval of the Provincial authorities who refer to their own planning framework and can influence developments therefore.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

ISV funds were matched with other investments in social cohesion aspects and economic development measures. In the 30 largest cities (G30), 56 of such neighbourhoods were identified.

- Investment Budget Urban Renewal (ISV)

ISV I was designed as a national government instrument which provides investments in physical infrastructure in urban areas, based on multi-year planning documents, (MOP’s-Meerjarig Ontwikkelingsplan), having a planning horizon of 4 years. MOP’s are prepared by municipalities and a target related subsidy is provided based on contributions of MinVROM, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (MinOCW-Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap) and MinLNV. ISV I was implemented over the period 2000 – 2004. Purpose of the ISV is improvement of the physical (and social) living environment of the city and maintaining/ (re-) establishment of interest with the middle – and upper income categories in living in the city. Financially, in principle, no direct investments are made in the housing stock as such, this is seen as responsibility of private/semi-public parties, but in improvement of public space and facilitation of the planning process.

ISV II covers the period 2005 – 2009. Compared to ISW I, some adjustments were made in the programme. It included a more specific definition of targets, promotion of inter-municipal cooperation and more emphasis on the aspects of integration of social and physical aspects and quality of the living environment.

Thirty of the larger municipalities receive funds directly from the central government (the list of eligible municipalities is established as per Government decision). For the Gelderland region these are Arnhem and Nijmegen. Smaller municipalities can apply as well for funding under this programme. In this case, the Province is the management authority and channelizes the funds4.

- Immigration laws

From 1993 onwards the rules for family reunion and marriage became stricter for non-EU citizens5. The requirement for a resident permit became a minimum legal stay in the Netherlands of 3 years. Around 2000, annually 10,000 people immigrated for the purpose of family reunion, while for marriages the majority of non-western immigrants (about 20,000 people or more than 75%) brought their partner from abroad. Together they formed 45% of all immigrants.

In November 2004 further restrictions were introduced for immigration for the purpose of marriage6. The Law on Integration Abroad7 of 15 March 2006 introduced the requirement that

4 A difference is made between programme - and project municipalities. The first category of municipalities prepares MOP’s, in Gelderland 12 municipalities, the second category, smaller municipalities only, don’t. Preparation of a MOP would be too costly for them and a more simple form of planning is allowed. The Province of Gelderland received a contribution of about € 48 million out of which Arnhem received € 23.2 million and Nijmegen € 18.7 million. 5 From the nineties onwards and in particular in the period from 2003 to 2007 under Minister Rita Verdonk, governmental policy on immigration by asylum seekers became highly restrictive. One of the first Measures was that facilities extended to asylum seekers were reduced with for example the compensation for living costs brought back from the basic subsistence level each Dutch citizen is entitled to, to a pocket money of 15 Euro per week. In 2003, the two main airports of Schiphol (Amsterdam) and Zestienhoven (Rotterdam) got centres for asylum seekers for whom the chance of being sent away again was high. These centres were established to facilitate an early removal or return of unsuccessful applicants. 6 The minimum age became 21 years for both the two partners. The applicant also required earnings equal to or exceeding 120% of the minimum wage and the partner would have to do an ‘integration exam’ in the country where the application was done and had to pay for it themselves.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

certain categories of applicants for a residence permit had to pass an ‘integration exam’ first in the country where the application was done. EU citizens were exempted from this. In 2007 the conditions were extended to those immigrants already residing in the Netherlands by the Law on Integration in the Netherlands8. The result was a sharp decline in number of persons seeking asylum. In 1994, at its top, 52,580 refugees were seeking asylum in the Netherlands. In 2004 the number was reduced to 9,780.

1.3 Gelderland – Overview of gender equality

1.3.1. The regional situation of gender equality

This paragraph describes how the region performs in the field of gender equality. Where appropriate intra-regional disparities with respect to the gender equality are highlighted and discussed.

Table 5: Gelderland – Key facts on equality condition

Regional level National level EU25 level Indicator 2000 2006 ∆ 2000 2006 ∆ 2000 2006 ∆ Gender gap in employment rate* 19.9 15.6 -4.3 19.3 14.7 -4.6 18.1 15.5 -2.6 (%) Gender gap in unemployment rate** -2.0 -0.8 1.2 -1.5 -0.8 0.7 -2.6 -0.7 1.9 (%) Source: CSIL and IRS processing of Eurostat data. * Difference between the male and the female employment rates. ** Difference between the male and the female unemployment rates.

As shown in the figure, the Province of Gelderland performs well in terms of gender equality as per identified indicators. The share of women in regional assemblies with 38% was higher than the average for the Netherlands (36%). Also the indicators of gender gap in employment and unemployment show a positive performance. Same as for the national average there was a substantial reduction in the gender gap in employment rate in 2006 as compared to 2000, while the EU25 average was reduced for the same years. The gender gap in unemployment rate was reduced as well and absolute terms Gelderland showed better results than the Netherlands as a whole, coming from a more disadvantaged position in 2000.

Overall, it can be argued that in gender relations there has been a progressive development in a relatively short period. Partly this relates to a change in cultural outlook with the standard becoming that women are also working and the realization that fathers have a shared responsibility for household and children. Partly it is due to progressive national and local policies which

7 Wet Inburgering Buitenland. 8 Wet Inburgering in Nederland.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

facilitate women to work or increase the number of hours of work per week. Of importance in this respect are measures such as day care centres and schools arranging for the stay over of children9.

Figure 6: Gelderland – Share of women in regional assemblies, 2006

45.0 38.0 40.0 36.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 GELDERLAND NETHERLANDS EU25

Source: DG Employment.

As for the impact of economic cycles on the participation rate it was observed that in 2003, a year in which economic growth slowed down, there was a larger increase in part-time jobs as compared to full-time jobs (12 hours or more per week). This would normally have a positive effect on the participation rate. However, on the other side, it was indicated that the position of men, in terms of getting full-time jobs, was less positive than for women, which would suggest that there has been a structural change in gender positions in finding full time employment. In contrast with part-time work, flex work is closely linked with economic trends to the extend that a reduction in employment offered through this channel is a clear signal of an approaching economic downturn.

In a recent study of the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands on part-time work of women (2008), it was observed that the number of hours worked by women increased markedly in recent decades and more so in the Netherlands than in other European countries. The increase was due entirely to the growth in the number of women with a part-time job; there has been no change in the proportion of women with full-time jobs over the same period: in 2006, 20% of women aged 50-64 years were in full-time jobs, the same as in 1985.

1.3.2. The regional policy context in relation to gender equality

In the present section an overview of the regional policy regarding the issue is and the main interventions in the field are reported and commented.

As expressed by the MinOCW, responsible for coordination of emancipation policies, in gender relations, objectives of the Dutch government are:

− stimulating economic independence;

9 There are also factors which deserve further analysis. Segregated data per sector of employment and as per economic cycle would learn more about factors influencing the participation rate. For example, it was discussed above in chapter 1 that the retail sector for 59% employs women while for other sectors it is 41%. One of the explanations is that this sector has a high share of part-time work of 32% of all jobs while for other sectors the figure is 13%. The conclusion would be that a more liberal attitude to part-time work, an increase in flex work, possibilities to work from home (virtual offices) all promote the participation rate of women in employment. However, such impacts have not been analysed.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

− facilitating the combination of work and social care (flexible daily schedules and tasks);

− social inclusion to avoid marginalization of women in vulnerable positions;

− balanced gender division in executive positions;

− non-violence against women and girls.

Relevant laws and regulations introduced in the period 2000-2005, include those related to leave, same rights at work, access of women to higher positions and measures to counteract sexual harassment, aggression and violence.

Table 6: Gelderland – Policy interventions in the field of gender equality for the period 2000-2006

Name and year of the Main category Level of Resources Brief description intervention of intervention government Allocation

Multi-year Policy Plan National policy plan Emancipation Policy framework formulating priorities and National n.a. 2000 measures Financial support to Different laws and subsidies Subsidies for day establishment of day care National, related to day care facilities for care facilities have Social services centres, including provincial and children, equal rights and gone up to 90% of nurseries and out-of- municipal protection of women costs school child care facilities Note: Ranked in a chronological order with thematic separation.

In 2000, the government formulated the Multi-year Policy Plan Emancipation10 which sets the targets for the period to 2010 and policy actions for the first 4 years. It observed that there was a steady improvement in educational level of women, more of them following higher levels of education while on average women took less time to get a diploma. Participation of women in work annually increased with 1% and reached 54%. Also the share in top management functions increased and reached 25% of all positions. Number of high political positions taken by women also increased.

A number of legal measures were responsible for the improved participation of women in the labour market. To make having a job more attractive for both men and women different tax measures11 were introduced. The Law on Adjustment of Working Hours12 (2000) and the Law on Labour and Care13 (2001) gave more legal possibilities for employees to reduce or extend the duration of the weekly number of working hours. The Law on Child Care14 (2005) provided a new financial framework for financing, quality control and market operation of child care. The effect was that child care became cheaper for especially the lower income groups and the number of

10 Meerjarenbeleidsplan Emancipatie, MinSZW- Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, 2000. 11 Arbeidskorting en combinatiekorting. 12 Wet Aanpassing Arbeidsduur. 13 Wet Arbeid en Zorg. 14 Wet Kinderopvang.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

facilities increased from 126,000 positions available in 2000 to more than 206,000 in 2004. In 2006 the facility was further improved by introducing a life time arrangement for child care15.

In formulating future policy directions, the conclusion was that what remained as a top priority was to ensure that more women would work for longer hours and utilize their talents and qualities in a better way. Of women with 2 children, only 12% worked more than 24 hours per week. Next, priority would have to be given to participation of women in vulnerable positions. As for the first objective, the average number of hours worked by women remained one of the lowest in Europe. A higher participation rate of women is considered to be important in the context of an ageing population. The target remained that participation rate of women would increase to 65% in 2010 and the percentage of economic independent women to 60%. The concern was expressed that if such an increase is not realized, the welfare state becomes unaffordable; the Netherlands would need all talents of men and women to be able to compete in the world economy.

1.4. Gelderland – Conclusion

During the period 2000-2006 Gelderland region has been marked by:

1. a drop of the population natural increase faster than for the Netherlands, due to the declining birth rate and a lower death rate by people getting older on an average;

2. a sharp decrease in crude net migration, due to the introduction of more strict immigration rules and an increase in emigration;

3. a positive performance in terms of gender equality, as highlighted by the indicators gender gap in employment and unemployment rate, following the same progressive trend as was observed for the Netherlands. There has been a progressive development in a relatively short period, partly due to a shift in cultural notions about the position of men and women in society and a consistent national and local policy of improving the legal possibilities for women to work and introducing a coherent set of subsidies and facilities for day care of children.

In the Dutch planning system provincial authorities have been assigned a development role for the rural areas and small – and medium sized cities while the larger cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen are fairly autonomous and deal more directly with national authorities. The Provincial authorities, through its urban development policy plan16 have a stimulating and facilitating role.

Integrated development policies were developed at national level for revitalization of rural areas and deprived urban areas. They have been supported by substantive investment programmes which had a large impact also in the Gelderland region. In economic development, Gelderland followed national trends. Same as for the country, Gelderland has a high percentage of women working part time only and increase in the number of working hours is seen as a priority therefore. The second priority is to ensure a higher social participation of women from those ethnic minorities which have stayed behind in this respect. The latter is of particular relevance for the SPD UA of Arnhem and Nijmegen which have a larger share of ethnic minorities.

15 Levensloopregeling. 16 GSO, Gelders Stedelijk Ontwikkelingsbeleid.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

2. GELDERLAND – ANALYSIS OF THE ERDF REGIONAL STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES IN RELATION TO DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE AND GENDER EQUALITY

2.1. Gelderland – Introduction

After a brief description of the two programmes under examination, this chapter assesses to what extent demographic change and gender quality have been taken into account in the strategy design and implementation arrangements of the ERDF interventions.

In the period 2000-2006 the Gelderland region received ERDF support through two different programmes: The Programme for East Netherlands (SPD EN) and Programme “Urban Areas Netherlands” (SPD UA). The first one is a multi-regional programme: East Netherlands is one of the NUTS1 regions in the Netherlands and the two provinces of Gelderland and Overijssel are at the level of NUTS2 regions and form part of it17. For Gelderland four sub-regional programme offices were established at NUTS4 level, which were instrumental in identifying projects and providing support to the development of individual project applications. Management authority for the SPD EN18 is the Secretariat for European Affairs of the Provincial authority of Gelderland19.

The programme for East Netherlands consists of 5 sub-programmes. Two of them are located in the province of Gelderland and form part of the scope of analysis. It concerns:

− Objective 2: Integrated rural development Achterhoek / Gelderse vallei. The Gelderse vallei region falls partly in the province of Utrecht. For implementation of this sub-component, regional programme offices were established in both the two sub-regions of the Achterhoek and the Gelderse Vallei, handling the communication with (potential) beneficiaries.

− Phasing-out Objective 2 programme Arnhem/Nijmegen. This sub-programme in its objectives partly overlaps with the programme for the Urban Areas implemented in the same two cities and is a continuation of earlier programmes from the period 1994 – 1999 (Eurowerk). Physically, a demarcation was made in area covered by the two programmes, with the programme for the Urban Areas concentrating on more deprived urban districts. Eurowerk also covers surrounding municipalities in the Arnhem/Nijmegen region.

The SPD UA programme for the Province of Gelderland20 includes the cities of Nijmegen and Arnhem. The programme in these two cities forms part of the programme for the Larger Cities

17 The Province of Flevoland, part of the same NUTS1 region, preferred to participate in a different regional setting. The province of Utrecht forms part of another NUTS1 region but for similarities in problems faced, included the Eastern part of its Province in the SPD EN programme. 18 Enkelvoudig Programma Document Oost Nederland (Single Programming Document East Netherlands). 19 The Gelderland provincial authority has the secretariat for overall coordination of the programme as conducted in the three provinces. At national level, final authority rests with the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food quality (MinLNV). 20 For further details see, www.edcnl.nl/ned, the Website of the European Documentation Centres in the Netherlands, www.eurowerk.nl for information about the Eurowerk programme and www.doelstelling-2.nl for information about the programme in the selected urban areas in the Netherlands. Information about the two city programs is also available on the two municipal web sites under respectively Kanaalgebied and Arnhem Kern.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

(‘Grote Stedenbeleid’, GSB). For the Gelderland region it involves the urban agglomerations of Arnhem, the provincial capital and Nijmegen (for Nijmegen the programme area has been ‘Kanaalgebied’). It is the area bordering the Maas-Waalkanaal canal which includes a large part of the Western side of Nijmegen. In Arnhem the area selected is Arnhem Kern, which includes the city centre and surrounding districts. Kanaalgebied and Arnhem Kern include within the city region some of the most deprived urban districts as per a number of socio-economic indicators.

2.2. Gelderland – Analysis of the regional strategy and implementation procedure regarding demographic change

Below it is presented how (and if) demographic change issues have been included in the overall regional strategy, and to what extent the regional priorities relate to demographic issues. It verifies if the demographic aspect is explicitly mentioned in the context analysis and if there is a specific strategy. It verifies also if in the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), management system and the stakeholder representation (mainly in the Monitoring Committee) there are elements included and envisaged concerning this issue.

Table 7: Gelderland – Analysis of the strategy regarding demographic change SPD EN: to achieve a sustainable, dynamic and balanced economic and social development which maintains and strengthens at the same time nature - and environmental qualities. There is no explicit mentioning of a strategy counteracting demographic change. However, it can be argued that the formulated objective aims to increase the competitiveness and General attractiveness of the region without which economic decline and depopulation would result. objective SPD UA: improvement of socio-economic conditions through an integrated neighbourhood approach resulting in an improvement in liveability, safety, employment and social cohesion. Specific for Arnhem is the improved (economic) attractiveness of the city centre. There is no explicit mentioning of a strategy counteracting demographic change. For the SPD EN Programme, as shown in the listed axis objectives below, one sub-objective is gender specific. All others directly or indirectly impact on demographic change in the region. · Creation of sustainable employment and removal of quantitative frictions in the labour market; · promoting equal opportunities between men/women; Axis objectives · improvement of the economic and social climate for attracting companies/persons; · strengthening of the competitiveness of companies and the development of new economic activities; · promoting the physical attractiveness of the region and improvement of its environmental quality. As regards SPD UA Programme, axis objectives are formulated at measure level only. SPD EN: Priority 1, Land-use planning and implementation, consisting of Measure 1.1 Physical restructuring; Measure 1.2 Nature development and environmental protection; Measure 1.3 Development and revitalization of industrial estates and company cluster buildings, and Measure 1.4 Strengthening of touristic infrastructure. Priority 2, Economic stimulation, with Measure 2.1 Strengthening of competitive position of companies Specific (medium/small-size companies), and Measure 2.2 Strengthening of competitive position of Objectives touristic companies. Priority 3, Social cohesion, with Measure 3.1 Human resources (measure) development, and Measure 3.2 Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity. SPD UA: Priority 1: Urban economic environment. Measure 1.1: Improvement of the physical working environment. Objective: Stimulating employment and reduction in unemployment. Measure 1.2: Improvement of sustainable economic quality and accessibility. Objective: Sustainable improvement of the spatial quality of working areas and their direct

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

environment. Measure 2.1: Strengthening private sector companies and stimulating entrepreneurship. Objective: Create and sustain employment by stimulating the establishment and development of new companies and supporting existing ones. Measure 2.2: Urban attractiveness and information/knowledge networks. Objective: City profiling and building networks with other areas for experience exchange on policy formulation. Measure 2.3: Functioning of labour market. Objective: Better matching of demand and supply in the labour market. Measure 3.1: Local involvement, environmental improvement and safety. Objective: To improve the living environment by renovation and improvement of the public space, enhanced safety (objective / subjective) and counteracting illegal waste disposal. Measure 3.2: Socio-economic activation. Increasing socio-economic cohesion by promoting the social and economic participation of especially vulnerable groups and the formation of social (network) structures. SPD EN Programme documents did not deal directly with demographic change aspects such as migration and ageing of the population. Main focus of the ERDF supported interventions has been that Gelderland should economically at least perform at the same level or better than the country as a whole thereby sustaining its competitive edge and not fall behind in development with the rest of the country. Formulated priorities and measures are similar to those identified in the provincial development plan (Trek Kracht). As regards the SPD UA Programme, the ERDF supported programme in Arnhem and Nijmegen formed part of the much larger national programme ‘Policy for the Larger Cities’ Context and the Multi-year development Plans (MOP’s) which were prepared for that. For the specific analysis purpose of ERDF support, economic oriented interventions were singled out and included in the programme. For the SPD UA demographic aspects were less pronounced than for the SPD EN with the priority being on preventing urban decay. Demographic aspects such as depopulation and ageing of the population were not considered. However, indirectly and especially in Arnhem where the selected project area has a high percentage of population originating from different countries, migration issues played a more important role. Programme documents did not deal directly with demographic change aspects such as migration and ageing of the population. In design of the SPD EN programme there was no involvement of stakeholders representing Involvement of demographic change aspects. the stake holder The GSB programme knows an extensive structure of consultations with different target in the design groups which was also applied to the SPD UA and included housing corporations, business phase associations, justice department and neighbourhood organizations. There was no involvement of stakeholders representing demographic change aspects in the design phase however.

The most relevant measure of the SPD EN for demographic issues is Measure 3.2, Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity, for which there was a high demand. Part of the funds allocated for 3.1 (Human resources development) were reallocated to this measure. Successful examples include community centres in small – and medium sized towns having a regional function (e.g. Kulturhus Ruurlo), day care centres (e.g. day care centre Bathmen) and home and care facilities for the elderly and handicapped (e.g. a Farm providing care and services to handicapped persons, Zorgboerderij Fluitekruid).

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Table 8: Gelderland – Analysis of the implementation of demographic change Monitoring arrangements specific for demographic No specific arrangements were made for this aspect. change As regards the SPD EN, in the Monitoring Committee there was broad participation of stakeholders, including participating provinces, Ministries, representatives of municipalities, employers associations, social partners, environmental organizations and Steering groups established for each region and sub-component in the programme (5 steering groups in total). There was no specific involvement however of organizations representing ‘demographic change entities (e.g. migrant organizations or associations for the elderly)’. As regards the SPD UA, the Monitoring committee for this programme has been established at national GSB level 21 and includes representatives of the concerned Stakeholder participation municipalities of Arnhem and Nijmegen. The city council approves individual to the Monitoring project proposals. Steering groups at individual city level have an advisory Committee capacity and consist next to political and administrative representatives of the city of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations (MinBZK, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zachen en Koninkrijksrelaties), Ministry of Economic Affairs (MinEZ, Ministerie van Economische Zachen), the chamber of Commerce, and other entities contributing to the programme. For feedback of beneficiaries at individual city level, use has been made of neighbourhood committees and other consultative structures established by the municipality. There was no specific involvement however of organizations representing demographic change entities (e.g. migrant organizations or associations for the elderly). Stakeholders participation There was no specific participation of stakeholders in this respect beyond what is to the evaluation mentioned above. activities/process Design and effectiveness of the project selection criteria Demographic change was not a specific criterion in the programme at this time. regarding demographic change

Measures of the first Priority were all broadly aimed at enhancing the attractiveness of the target areas, thus indirectly combating depopulation. Some of the measures faced some delays due to institutional coordination:

- For Measure 1.1 on physical restructuring, implementation was initially constrained by a later than expected introduction of the ‘Reconstruction law’ which required that integrated regional development plans had to be prepared first before investments could take place and co-funding from Central government would be made available from MinLNV.

- For Measure 1.2, nature development and environmental protection, initially there was the constraint of limited scope for demarcation between SPD EN and the POP programme for rural development (POP-Plattelands Ontwikkelingsprogramma). SPD EN could only be used for projects related to nature development outside the area reserved for the Ecological Main Structure (EHS) or for recreation purposes within the EHS. Since Central – and Provincial funding is largely directed towards nature development within the EHS, there was insufficient

21 Management authority for the SPD UA is the Ministry of the Interior. Other national partners in the programme are the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and the Environment. The Monitoring committee established at national level includes representatives of individual city governments. Investment-wise over the last 5 to 10 years the Programme for the Larger Cities (GSB) has been one of the largest government implemented development plans and is one of the political flagships.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

potential and demand for projects. From 2004 a positive turn was made by the inclusion in this measure of rehabilitation of country estates and parks. For Gelderland 4 of such projects were included.

- Measure 1.3, development and revitalization of industrial estates and company cluster buildings, included large and more complex projects with a longer period of commitment. There was more than sufficient demand for projects to increase the accessibility and revitalization of old industrial estates and development of new ones in economically less attractive regions.

- For Measure 1.4, strengthening of touristic infrastructure, there was a relatively high demand for mainly small projects in the touristic sector.

Priority 2 supported individual companies in improving their competitive edge and the establishment of knowledge clusters of universities and often new and starting companies (Measure 2.1) and strengthening of competitive position of touristic companies (Measure 2.2):

- Implementation of Measure 2.1 was initially affected by uncertainty about subsidy rules of the EU. Companies were hesitant to take the risk of having to repay subsidies at a later stage. For the phasing-out programme (Nijmegen/Arnhem) the situation was better because of some generic rules which were established to prevent this risk and performance of this measure improved when these were extended to other areas. One of the successful interventions has been the Innovation Fund (Gemeente Nijmegen, 2005). In 2004, it introduced for the first time a revolving fund through a facility of risk participation in capital funding. The Fund included both the programme for the SPD EN and for the SPD UA. Management of the fund was delegated to the Participation Fund Oost (PPM Oost)22. Projects included among others support to the strengthening of knowledge infrastructure by funding of a nano-laboratory for operational research at the Radbout University of Nijmegen and a facility for Market-oriented innovation and implementation, similar to an identical arrangement established earlier for the Phasing-out programmes.

- For Measure 2.2, strengthening of competitive position of touristic companies, there was sufficient interest for investments, initially in particular in the phasing-out programme. At a later stage it became also successful in the rural areas through the Project Investment Facility in Tourism (PIT). An example is the project NORT in the Achterhoek, in which advisers helped touristic companies to improve their business performance.

For Measure 3.1, Human resources development, there was little interest because of the small-scale nature of company activities in rural areas. In 2003, with the start of the project Development of an Integrated Centre for Vocational Training, performance of the measure somewhat improved.

ERDF support to the SPD UA has been relatively small in financial terms. In implementation, the two cities could benefit from integration with the national GSB programme. As for the different

22 The Provincial authority of Gelderland established the regional development company ‘Oost’. It has two distinct and separate branches in the organization, the PPM Oost which acts as a participation company and implements projects and the development company Oost NV which has been responsible for project intake for the SPD ON for Priority 2 and for all project intake for the SPD UA. Initially, Oost NV also implemented projects under Priority 2 for the SPD ON, but this was felt to be conflicting with its role in project intake. Therefore, SenterNovem, was asked to implement the second phase of the SMI &IGII and SPIT projects.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

priorities, Measure 1.1 on the improvement of the physical working environment and 1.2 on improvement of sustainable economic quality and accessibility, showed sufficient demand. Being investments in improvement of infrastructure and/or public space implementation was fairly straightforward. Measure 2.1 on strengthening private sector companies and stimulating entrepreneurship and Measure 2.2 on urban attractiveness and information/knowledge networks, showed also sufficient demand. In contrast, there was little demand for Measure 2.3 on the functioning of labour market and Measure 3.1 on local involvement, environmental improvement and safety and reallocations had to be made. Measure 3.2 on Socio-economic activation was successful again, but administratively was more difficult to manage with the criterion of the subsidy providing an added value, projects being more complicated and often implemented by parties not used to maintaining a registration of hours spent.

2.3. Gelderland – Analysis of the regional strategy and implementation procedure regarding gender equality

In what follows it is illustrated the extent to which gender equality has been taken into account in the strategy design and delivery of the two ERDF programmes.

Table 9: Gelderland – Analysis of the strategy regarding gender equality

General objective See above. As regards the SPD EN, there is one specific gender related sub-objective, Promoting equal opportunities between men/women’ through which programme performance was monitored in Axis objectives this respect. As regards SPD UA, there is no specific gender related (sub-) objective. For the SPD EN, of the different priorities/measures, only Measure 3.2, Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity, is of direct relevance for gender equality23. It concerned mainly projects focusing on the development and rehabilitation of cultural infrastructure in smaller communities and the development of innovative community facilities. Examples are the establishment of community centres in small – and medium sized towns having a regional Specific objective function (e.g. Kulturhus Ruurlo & Kulturhus Olst) and funding of day care centres (e.g. day care (measure) centre Bathmen). For the SPD UA, of the different priorities/measures, Measure 3.1 on local involvement, environmental improvement and safety and 3.2 on Socio-economic activation are of more direct relevance for gender equality in terms of focusing on social inclusion aspects. It includes projects focusing on the establishment of day care centres, community centres and neighbourhood management structures. In the SPD EN Programme, gender equality was formulated as one of the programme objectives. Progress in achieving this objective was measured through the indicator ‘difference in gross participation rate between men and women’. At the level of priorities/measures, gender equality was not a specific indicator. In programme documents no further discussion takes place on gender Context analysis issues beyond what is mentioned above. In the SPD UA Programme, Gender equality was not formulated as one of the programme objectives. Same as for the SPD EN the ‘equal opportunities test’’ was introduced for the SPD UA Nijmegen in the assessment of project applications. The SPD UA Arnhem maintained a qualitative description in the subsidy application. Involvement of the No specific arrangements were made to ensure gender equality in the design phase beyond what stakeholders in the is mentioned above. design phase

23 In the mid-term evaluation report of Bureau Bartels (2003), it was assumed that the SPD EN Measures, 1.4 on Strengthening of the touristic infrastructure, 2.2 Strengthening of competitive position of touristic companies, and 3.1 Human resources development would be relevant for gender aspects.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

For measuring the impact of the programme on gender, the SPD EN used for sub-objective 2, promoting equal opportunities, as indicator the difference in participation rate between men and women24.

For the Netherlands as a whole the participation rate steadily declined in the reporting period. As mentioned in the Annual Report of the SPD EN for 2003, the Eastern part of the country followed the same trend with the exception in Gelderland of the Achterhoek/Veluwe, the two sub-regions in which the rural component of the SPD EN was implemented. Here a reverse development took place. Before 2003, in the period of high economic growth there was, same as for the rest of the country, an increase in participation rate, which decreased after an economic decline followed. It was explained that possibly in those regions there are relatively more women working part time and these jobs are more affected in periods of economic decline.

Gender has not been a specific consideration in the SPD UA. However, when compared to the SPD EN there was a stronger emphasis on the aspect of social inclusion. The explanation is that the intervention areas selected for the SPD UA programme are the more deprived urban areas in the large cities where you find a concentration of social problems and economic deprivation. While for the SPD EN the target was that the Province in economic terms should perform at least at the same level as the Netherlands as a whole, for the SPD UA specific social and economic integration issues played a front role. Gender, as a social inclusion aspect, was therefore more pronounced in the SPD UA. The Measures 3.1 Local involvement, environmental improvement and safety and 3.2 Socio- economic activation focus on social inclusion aspects and hence are relevant for analysing gender aspects.

Table 10: Gelderland – Analysis of the implementation of gender equality In both programmes, for measuring the impact of the programme on gender, Monitoring arrangements the Programme for East Netherlands used for sub-objective 2, promoting equal specific for gender issues opportunities, as indicator the difference in participation rate between men and women. For the two programmes considered, gender as such has not been a criterion for participation in the Monitoring Committee, but forms part of the overall Stakeholder participation to objective of Dutch governmental policies to increase the share of women in the Monitoring Committee decision-making bodies. There was no specific involvement in the monitoring committee of stakeholders representing gender issues. Stakeholders participation to the evaluation See above. activities/process As regards the SPD EN Programme, in 2003, in the assessment of new project applications, an ‘equal opportunities test’ was introduced. Design and effectiveness of As Regards the SPD UA Programme, gender specific criteria were not applied in the projects selection criteria project selection. Considering the emphasis in national emancipation policy on used for gender social inclusion aspects, the choice for implementation through Measures 3.1 on mainstreaming Local involvement, environmental improvement and safety and 3.2 on Socio- economic activation, from a gender perspective, seems justified.

24 As discussed in Chapter 1, at national level the Emancipation policy of the Dutch government was more specific in the sense that it directed itself at the social inclusion of women from disadvantaged groups from ethnic minorities and increasing the number of hours per working week for women.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

In 2003, an ‘equal opportunities’ test was introduced for screening of project applications providing a scoring for each project proposal. It was not a test for the selection of projects but it aimed at assessing to what extent were the equal opportunities issues targeted in each of the project proposal. The test consists of a simple questionnaire which takes into consideration two aspects in the project proposal, project preparation and project results. On project preparation it is asked if women were involved, while it is also asked if study results/experiences from elsewhere in respect of establishing equal opportunities were used. Under project results it is asked if the plan contributes to the (economic) independence of women, improve the working climate for women and men and facilitate the combination of employment and care for women. The scoring for each question leads to a final assessment. One of the purposes of the test has been that together with the applicants, project proposals are improved for the aspect equal opportunities. A positive outcome of the scoring was not conditional for approval of project proposals. Before applying the test, a qualitative question was asked about this horizontal issue ascertaining if the project would have a negative, neutral or positive effect.

The focus in promoting ‘equal opportunities’ has been the participation rate of women in the age category of 16 – 64 years old. In progress monitoring and measurement of programme outputs and result, no specific gender assessment was made except for the participation rate as indicator.

For the nature of its interventions, Measure 3.2, strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity, indirectly provides an operationalisation of national policy objectives on improving gender relations.

As was observed in visits to project areas in Arnhem and Nijmegen, Measures 3.1 Local involvement, environmental improvement and safety and 3.2 socio-economic activation, make important contributions to the aspects on social inclusion of ethnic minorities and facilitating access to the labour market for women. It was realized through improved neighbourhood management and investments in social – and cultural facilities and day care centres.

2.4. Gelderland – Selected measures for the case studies

On the basis of the previous paragraphs, a description of the measures selected for the following analysis in relation to demographic change and gender equality is presented (see Table 11). The measures are reported and commented explaining the rationale of the choice.

For SPD EN the measures grouped under Priority 1 (Land use planning and implementation), provided a balanced set of interventions focusing on the restructuring and rehabilitation of industrial zones, nature development and promotion of touristic facilities and contributed to maintaining the viability of rural areas. They had a medium and indirect impact therefore on demographic change aspects. There was no specific gender dimension applied.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Table 11: Gelderland – Selected measures in relation to demographic change and gender equality for the period 2000-2006 Resources allocation Main category Brief in absolute value Measure Beneficiaries Focus of intervention description (€ M) and % of total ERDF resources 25 3.2 Mainly Rural and Strengthening of community neighbourhood 14.62 (47.45 total cost) social cohesion and Infrastructure DG centres and communities and 10% cultural identity facilities especially women (SPD EN) Research facilities, A: 0.99 (2.15 total cost) 2.3 Knowledge Improved starting 6% Functioning of infrastructure and functioning of companies and DG N:1.62 (3.87 total cost) labour market vocational the labour new entries to 10% (SPD UA) training market labour market 3.2 A: 1.15 (2.85 total cost) Socio-economic Social inclusion 7% Social services Marginal groups DG activation measures N: 1.42 (2.86 total cost) (SPD UA) 9% Note: focus may be G=gender; D=demographic; GD=both.

For the demographic change aspects, interventions in developing and supporting the local system of enterprises grouped under Priority 2 (Economic stimulation) helped the Province to maintain its competitive edge by stimulating innovativeness in industrial growth and market development of companies. Oost NV, the semi-public participation company, channelized this support in both the SPD EN and the SPD UA. Of special relevance has been the innovation support provided to the company clusters and knowledge centre at the University of Nijmegen. Also here the selected measures had a high and indirect impact on demographic change aspects. Gender considerations were not applied.

Of direct relevance, however, have been the interventions under Priority 3 (Social Cohesion). Projects under the SPD EN Measure 3.2 on Social cohesion and Cultural identity have a high and indirect impact on both demographic change and gender equality aspects. It affected the former by strengthening social networks and providing multifunctional facilities that met social needs and unify the neighbourhood. It contributed to gender equality aspects, by developing activities that promoted equal opportunities and creating an infrastructure that served the needs of employment and family life. For the SPD EN, of particular relevance has been the establishment of centralized social - and cultural facilities, ‘Kulturhusen’ in small – and medium sized towns. It potentially contributed to an increased participation rate of women in the work force and number of hours worked per week. The ‘plattelandshusen’ provide health care services and cultural facilities of which also the elderly and handicapped benefit.

For SPD UA the measures grouped under Priority 1 (Urban economic environment) contributed to the improved functioning of industrial zones and improvement of public space. Indirectly they impacted on demographic change aspects. There was no specific gender dimension applied.

25 Data based on the Annual Report 2007 for the SPD ON and presenting figures for East Netherlands. This report presents a further segregation of data for sub-regions, individual projects and contributions made by different parties. Note that the programme only comes to a close by the end of 2008 with financial closure in March 2009. Not all funds which have been allocated are spent yet. In brackets we provide the total allocated budget for subsidized costs (TSK). Total allocation out of the ERDF budget for all Measures is € 155.002.73.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

The interventions grouped under Priority 2 (Stimulating economic activity) helped in developing and supporting the local system of enterprises and city promotion. Measure 2.3 on the functioning of labour market, includes projects providing support to vocational training centres and creation of facilities for improved participation of vulnerable groups such as day care centres (e.g. Malburgen, Arnhem). Emphasis was not on support to individuals but on structural improvement measures.

Of direct relevance have been also the interventions under Priority 3 (Enforcement of social economic potential). Here in particular the SPD UA Measure 3.2 on social-economic activation aspects had a high and indirect impact on both demographic change and gender equality aspects as explained in the following section. Of particular relevance has been the concept of social – and cultural facilities linked with a new school complex as demonstrated by the SPD UA Arnhem, Malburgen. Wide use is made of such a facility by different communities and it forms an important unifying factor in the neighbourhood. Providing day care facilities in the same complex is also important here for facilitating entry into the labour market and/or extension of the number of hours worked.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

3. GELDERLAND – DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ERDF INTERVENTIONS IN ENABLING ADAPTATION TO DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE

The chapter examines the contribution of the programme to the adaptation to demographic change, analysing the implementation mechanisms and the results and impacts of programme measures.

3.1. Gelderland – Outputs of measures concerning demographic change

The purpose of this analysis is to verify the effective performance of the selected measures. It analytically describes and evaluates the output of the measures. This analytical step takes in consideration the financial and physical performance. It is specifically assessed how the measures concerning demographic change were implemented, which was their financial weight and if they met problems and which sort of.

Table 12: Gelderland – SPD EN and SPD UA - Performance of the measures adapting to demographic change Expected direct/indirect* effects budget ERDF % of total programme budget 2007 Actual expenditures till end of Field of intervention Outputs (€ M) (€ Equal access to labour market labour to access Equal conditions Improvement of working entrepreneurial capacities Improvement of Depopulation / Rural concentration Urban population Quality of life of elder Other Description Quantification

(€ M)

Measure

3.2 14.62 Strengthening of Nr of sq.m of new or (ERDF) social cohesion and I/D V improved public space 245,725 10 11.15 47.45 cultural identity Target n.a. (total cost) (SPD EN) A: 0.99 Nr. of new or extended (ERDF) 2.3 schooling infrastructure 2.15 Functioning of - Arnhem 2 (total cost) 6 0.91 I V labour market Target n.a. N: 1.62 10 1.27 (SPD UA) - Nijmegen 1 (ERDF) Target n.a. 3.87 (total cost) - Nr. of informative/ cultural neighbourhood meetings - Arnhem 11 A: 1.15 Target n.a. (ERDF) 3.2 - Nijmegen 38 2.85 Socio-economic Target n.a. (total cost) 7 1.06 I/D V activation (SPD - Nr. of multi-cultural facilities N: 1.42 9 1.23 UA). for vulnerable groups (ERDF) - Arnhem 10 2.86 Target n.a. (total cost) - Nijmegen 6 Target n.a. * With direct measures, we mean measures directly targeting specific groups of population (elderly, immigrants, etc.), while for indirect measures we mean measures not directly targeting these specific groups but that may have an indirect effect on adaption to demographic change. Source: Author processing Annual reports.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

As per Annual Report of 2007 (SPD EN), the Measure 3.2 Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity (SPD EN) performed well. The total of allocated project funds reached 120% by end of 2007 which indicated the demand for this budget provision. The support to the establishment of community/service centres (Kulturhusen) in smaller villages/ towns formed an important subsidy element for this measure. The realization of 245,725 sq.m exceeded the target of 75,000 sq.m with 328%.

For Arnhem, as per Annual report of 2007, the allocated budget under Measure 2.3 Functioning of labour market (SPD UA) was fully utilized The realization of extended schooling infrastructure was 2 as per target of 1 facility only. For Nijmegen, the performance showed mixed results. Financial performance was good with 87% of funds spent in 2007 (Annual Report 2007) and one project under implementation. Planned number of extended schooling infrastructure was 3 however, with 1 facility implemented. Number of users was 162, with a planned number of 540.

For Arnhem, on Measure 3.2 Socio-economic activation, in 2007 all allocated funds were spent. The number of 10 facilities established was well beyond the target of 4 only. For Nijmegen, the financial performance was reasonable with 85% of funds spent in 2007 and two new projects approved in 2007. Number of 6 facilities established was as per target.

3.2. Gelderland – Results and impacts of measures concerning demographic change

For the selected measures results and impacts are illustrated and evaluated with particular attention to the direct and the indirect, as well as to unexpected results and impacts in terms of adaptation to demographic changes.

In the context of demographic change of special relevance has been the Measure 3.2: Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity. This measure with a budget of €47.45 million and a percentage of 10% of total ERDF funding included the investments in community/service centres (Kulturhusen) in smaller villages/towns. As confirmed also in field visits it had several impacts. It contributes to the improvement of the quality of life by providing a higher level of services to the community. Indirectly therefore it is of influence in maintaining the viability and liveability of rural communities and towns. It makes it more attractive for younger people to seek work in the same environment. The provision of day care facilities facilitates a higher participation rate of women in the work force and increases the number of hours worked while for elderly people better and centralized care facilities are offered which are more convenient to reach.

For measuring the impact of the ‘Kulturhusen’ it can be argued that services being provided could also have been offered at different locations and would have been there anyhow. However by the fast growth in demand for such facilities there would have been shortages in physical locations. For example, the space available presently in the ‘Kulturhus’ Ruurlo is already too small with a larger demand for services for day care for children and care services for especially the elderly being higher than expected. It is discussed now with the municipality how to increase the location space available. In assessing the value of this investment, what should not be underestimated is the effect on the community of being able to make use of centralized services of a high quality and from a pleasant, well-designed and attractive building. It invites making use of these services, attend activities being organized and participate in its functioning and thereby increase social networks.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Table 13: Gelderland – Effectiveness of the measures adapting to demographic change

Expected direct/indirect* effects Results Impacts Field of intervention (direct / indirect)* (direct / indirect)* Equal access to labour market labour to access Equal conditions Improvement of working Entrepreneurial capacities Depopulation / Rural concentration Urban population Quality of life of elder Other Description Quantification Description Quantification

Measure

3.2 Gross 174 Strengthening of social Nr of new or improved 93 employment cohesion and cultural I X X X social/cultural facilities created identity Target 44 Target n.a (SPD EN) Nr. of projects focusing on women and migrants - Arnhem 1 Target n.a. - Nijmegen 0 2.3 Target n.a. Functioning of labour Number of users of new or I X X market extended schooling (SPD UA) infrastructure as per ethnicity and gender - Arnhem 112 Target n.a. - Nijmegen 162 Target n.a.

- Nr. of coaching projects for

integration in society and the

economy 10 - Arnhem n.a. Target 29 3.2 - Nijmegen n.a. Socio-economic Target I X X X activation - Nr of participants from

(SPD UA) vulnerable groups participating

in these coaching projects

- Arnhem 544 Target 225 - Nijmegen 1,208 Target 48 * The distinction between direct and indirect impacts is related to the effects of interventions, not to the type of interventions or their objectives, even if direct impacts are usually the result of interventions targeted at specific population groups (specific measures or positive actions), while indirect effects are usually related to “system interventions”, such as infrastructures, which are not targeted to specific population groups (mainstreamed measures).

For Measure 2.3 Functioning of labour market (SPD UA), there was one project in Arnhem with a specific focus on women and migrants. It concerns the MOZC facility in Malburgen. The original target was to have two of these projects. For Nijmegen, two such projects were planned but none was realized. Number of users of new or extended schooling infrastructure as per ethnicity and gender was 112 for Arnhem and 162 for Nijmegen with the original target being respectively 20 and 25. The reservation which can be made here is that in project reporting data were not segregated and it concerns a rough estimate only.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

As shown in the Tables 12, for Measure 3.2 Socio-economic activation, the SPD UA programs in Arnhem and Nijmegen have two indicators in common which are the number of coaching projects for integration in society and the economy and the number of participants in projects from vulnerable groups. For Arnhem there were 10 projects with participation of 544 persons. The target was 4 projects and the figure of 544 participants is more than double the target of 225 as per its SPD. For Nijmegen there were 29 projects with 1,208 participants. Target was 6 projects with participation of 48 persons. The large differences in results reported between the two cities relate more to the method of calculation rather than objective differences between the outputs of the two programs, but indicate that the performance of the two programs on this aspect has been above expectations.

In the SPD UA, Measure 3.2, on socio economic activation, focused on social inclusion aspects at individual – and neighbourhood level. It includes support to the establishment of community centres and facilities and employment provision to vulnerable groups having difficulties getting access to the labour market (e.g. Kultuurhuis Bosch, a community centre specifically directed to young adults, students and artists) and employment provision (e.g. a project providing work to drug addicts and homeless people 26).

The budget provision for this measure was relative small with € 5.71 million and an allocation of 7% and 9% for respectively Arnhem and Nijmegen out of the total ERDF budget available. Effectiveness has been relatively large however with 16 facilities supported and the impact of this measure has been high on the demographic change aspects related to the social inclusion issues.

3.3. Gelderland – Complementarity of ERDF interventions, identified for demographic change, with ESF, EAGGF and FIFG

This chapter deals with the extent to which ERDF interventions identified under 3.1 are complementary with and enhance other ESF, EAGGFF and FIFG interventions. Rural development programmes implemented in Gelderland at provincial level are POP27 and Leader+ only.

To facilitate coordination between the different EU programmes the Province of Gelderland established a uniform structure for management by a single programme secretariat and handling desk. Of the different EU programmes, only POP, LEADER+ and INTERREG are implemented at the Provincial/Municipal level. ESF is implemented at national level only. As indicated by the EU programme secretariat in Gelderland, where necessary actions of national authorities are facilitated but there is no direct involvement. At municipal level, the Dutch government decided that at least 20% of ESF subsidies should be spent in neighbourhood districts covered by the GSB.

26 Dagloonwerk voor verslaafde Dak – en Thuislozen. 27 The POP programme aimed at strengthening the economic development in rural areas and agriculture and was running till the end of 2006. The budget for Gelderland was € 17.2 million. It financed projects such as nature conservation, community centres in small- and medium sized towns, conservation of historical centres and monuments and day care facilities for children.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Table 14: Gelderland – Complementarity of ERDF interventions, identified for demographic change, with ESF, EAGGF, FIFG

Measure Synergy with ESF Synergy with POP * Synergy with Leader+*

3.2 Strengthening of social cohesion and H H H cultural identity (SPD EN) 2.3 H N N Functioning of labour market (SPD UA) 3.2 H N N Socio-economic activation (SPD UA) Note: synergy may be H (high), M (medium), L (low), N (null). * Rural development programmes implemented in Gelderland at provincial level are POP and Leader+ only.

For the SPD EN there is synergy with the ESF for Measure 3.2. Measure 3.2 on the strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity connects to the specific priorities of the ESF programme which promotes equal opportunities in the labour market and supports employability of disadvantaged people.

For the SPD UA, Measure 2.3 on the functioning of labour market, supports vocational training facilities while Measure 3.2 on Socio-economic activation, focused on social inclusion aspects.

3.4 Gelderland – Sustainability of measures concerning demographic change

The assessment of the sustainability of the measures considers whether the effects of the interventions are likely to persist even in the absence of the ERDF financial support.

Table 15: Gelderland – Sustainability of the measures concerning demographic change

Field of intervention market to labour Equal access conditions working Improvement of capacities Entrepreneurial Depopulation Rural / concentration Urban population elder of life of Quality Other

Measure Sustainability

3.2 Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural X M/H identity (SPD EN) 2.3 X M Functioning of labour market (SPD UA) 3.2 X M/H Socio-economic activation (SPD UA) Note: sustainability may be H (high), M (medium), L (low), N (null).

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

From the outset it should be observed that the SPD EN and the SPD UA have a high level of sustainability as compared to programs which have been formulated on an ad-hoc basis. Through the mechanism of co-financing they form part of much larger development programs and are driven by national, regional and/or local authorities.

Measures which contribute directly to the economic viability of the region or city and form part of a larger regional/municipal development framework have a high level of sustainability.

For the SPD UA Measure 2.3 Functioning of labour market focused on improving the (vocational) training infrastructure. For the SPD UA Nijmegen a positive example has been the support to the Vocational Training Centre for Mobility and Logistics located in the rehabilitated industrial area. It provides courses in truck and bus driving, car repair, moving of household items and other vocational topics. Another project under the same heading is ROC4NEC which links a vocational training facility of the ROC28 with the soccer club NEC in Nijmegen, using some of the services offered (e.g. security, canteen) for practical training purposes. Sustainability in this case depends to a large extend on demand for such services from the market.

Projects under the Measures 3.2 of the SPD EN and SPD UA can be ranked as having a medium to high level of sustainability depending on the context they form part of. For example, the support provided to the Multi-functional Educational and Care Centre (MOZC) in Arnhem forms part of a large and integrated restructuring programme of the urban district of Malburgen and has a high level of sustainability therefore. The Centre has an important role for its location in a new school complex providing a multitude of social – and cultural activities and services for the wider community. Projects which have a more incremental approach run a higher risk.

The community centres financed under the same component for the SPD EN are highly sustainable with an arrangement that for operating the facility, a management structure is created of shared responsibility of the different users of the facility, including e.g. medical services, day care facilities, services for the elderly and recreational arrangements.

3.5. Gelderland – Overall assessment of adaptation to demographic change

Key findings

The main findings of the present analysis are the following:

- Both the SPD EN and the SPD UA impacted directly or indirectly on demographic change issues. Although not defined as an objective, both the two programmes have been important in facing the demographic issue in the Gelderland region by contributing to the revitalization of rural areas and urban renewal in its two largest cities. The SPD EN aimed at the region not falling behind in economic development as compared to the Netherlands as a whole. The SPD UA supported the rehabilitation of deprived urban areas and the improvement of the liveability. The main aim for both the programmes was the enhanced participation of especially marginal segments of the population in the development process.

28 ROC is a regional educational facility providing vocational training.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

- Under the two programmes a large number of projects directly/indirectly relevant for demographic changes issues were successfully realized and all allocated funds are expected to have been spent before the financial closure of the programme (March 2009).

- Projects contributed to the demographic change aspect in varying degrees. Those interventions which were interlinked and formed part of a comprehensive restructuring programme were found to be relatively more effective and sustainable.

- Number and diversity of projects while being a strength has been a weakness of the two programmes at the same time. The strictly defined framework of priorities and measures resulted occasionally in a search for eligible project proposals which could exhaust budget lines, rather than the development of a comprehensive and integrated programme. With such multitude of projects it becomes more difficult to closely monitor individual project results and measure impacts.

3.6. Gelderland – Lessons learnt and policy implications for demographic change

Main lessons learnt are:

1. Through some of its interventions it has pioneered the issue of demographic change. In particular these are:

a. establishment of community centres in small – and medium sized towns forming a nucleus for social – and cultural activities;

b. establishment of social/cultural facilities in deprived urban areas which play an important role in social integration and cohesion of communities;

2. Both programmes were integrated in the development framework at provincial level as well as at the individual city level. Sustainability of the interventions was assured thereby and a framework was created of partnership with other public sectors, local authorities, neighbourhood associations and private sector initiatives. Rather than supporting individual stakeholders they have been instrumental in selecting those interventions which provided structural approach to public/private initiatives.

3. Successful interventions in both programmes were based on integration in multi-year government driven investment programs which offered a long-term development perspective of rural/urban restructuring. In these programs the ERDF support acted as a further accelerator together with contributions of other public/private sectors.

4. Number and diversity of the projects resulted in the size of these projects being often small (both financially and physically). It resulted in a wide outreach of the programme, at the same time the success factors depended highly on the management qualities of individual project holders and raised the question of integration and long term vision.

5. The decentralized approach of the SPD EN secretariat through provincial sub-offices and a structured form of partnership with other stakeholders highly contributed to the identification

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

and development of new project initiatives. The adopted structure for the SPD EN programme of a shared facility with different stakeholders (e.g. water boards, municipalities, employers and employees associations), the ‘Plattelandshuizen’, was instrumental in supporting local initiatives in developing successful applications and thereby contributed to capacity building and sense of ownership of local public/private parties. Municipalities were the largest group of beneficiaries and for each completed project a separate management structure was established of users to sustain operations.

Experiences obtained in the ERDF 2000 – 2006 were further developed within the new programme for 2007 – 2013 incorporating some of the lessons learnt and adopting a more strategic approach.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

4. GELDERLAND – DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF ERDF INTERVENTIONS ON GENDER EQUALITY: RESULTS, DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

This chapter provides an assessment of the effects of the programme concerning gender issues. The chapter:

− assess the extent to which gender equality have been taken into account by programme and policy design and by implementation procedures;

− examine the contribution of the programme to improve gender equality by direct and indirect measures, analysing the implementation mechanisms and the results and outputs of the programme as regards gender issues;

− in particular, the contribution of ERDF support to infrastructures for child care facilities is assessed as well as the contribution of financial and technical ERDF support to women starting up and developing companies and other possible ERDF interventions identified.

4.1. Gelderland – Outputs of measures concerning gender equality

The purpose of this analysis is to verify the performance of the two programmes towards the issue. It analytically describes and evaluates the output of the measures, with particular focus on infrastructures for child care facilities and support to women starting up and developing companies and other possible ERDF interventions.

For a discussion on the performance of the individual measures reference can be made to section 3.1. under Table 12. For the SPD UA of specific relevance for gender issues have been the Measures 2.3 Functioning of labour market and 3.2 socio-economic activation, through which the SPD UA Arnhem supported the Multi-functional Educational – and Care Centre in Malburgen (MOZC) which provided child care facilities pre-, after- and in-between schooling hours. This facility was linked with one of the three new school complexes established in this urban district. For the Measure 3.2 Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity of the SPD EN the main activity has been the establishment of social/cultural facilities with integration of care functions in community centres. These community centres were felt to be of special importance for gender aspects.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Table 16: Gelderland – Performance of the measures impacting on gender issue Expected direct/i Expected budget ERDF % of total programme budget budget programme total % of M) (€ Actual expenditures till 2007 end of Field of intervention Outputs

Equal access to labour market to labour Equal access conditions working Improvementwomen of capacities entrepreneurial Improvementwomen of re-conciliation Care-work life of Quality Other Description Quantification (€ M) (€ ndirect* effects effects ndirect*

Measure

3.2 14.62 Strengthening of No. of sq.m of new or (ERDF) social cohesion and I X X X improved public 245,725 10% 11.15 47.45 cultural identity space (total cost) (SPD EN)

A: 0.99 (ERDF) No. of new or 2.3 2.15 extended schooling Functioning of (total cost) 6% 0.91 I X X X infrastructure labour market (SPD N: 1.62 10% 1.27 - Arnhem UA) 2 (ERDF) - Nijmegen 1 3.87 (total cost) - No. of informative/ cultural A: 1.15 neighbourhood (ERDF) meetings 11 2.85 3.2 - Arnhem 38 (total cost) Socio-economic 7% 1.06 I - Nijmegen activation (SPD 9% 1.23 - No. of multi-cultural N: 1.42 UA) facilities for (ERDF) vulnerable groups 2.86 - Arnhem 10 (total cost) - Nijmegen 6 * For direct measures, it is meant measures directly targeting women, while for indirect measures it is meant measures not directly targeting women but that may have an indirect effect on gender equality.

As for other measures, no specific support was provided to women starting up and developing companies with the exception of the LTO Noord project for starting entrepreneurs in rural areas (LTO Noord Projecten BV, 2008). It has been the only project in this field, which had as a specific objective the stimulation of female entrepreneurship and to provide them with linkages with relevant networks. The project officially started in September 2007, but never came to implementation. First, implementation of this regional project was delayed by the late start of a country-wide project of which it formed part. A further reason for delay was a disagreement with the Provincial authorities about the approach to be followed. LTO Noord was in favour of a demand-driven approach, while the Province felt that the project should be structured as per given criteria, which according to the LTO Noord, was a supply-driven approach. Oost NV, the intermediate agency providing support to priority 2 initiatives remarked in this respect in the interview that it would be beneficial to the programme to have within one support facility the full range of policy instruments and support measures available, to answer specific demands and requirements of individual companies.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Another project within Priority 2 which was of potential interest from a gender perspective has been the project ‘Kansrijk Eigen Baas29’, implemented by the Foundation with the same name. It aimed at the promotion of new entrepreneurship in the SPD EN region and was implemented by an association of 15 local banks and a knowledge institute of Twente university. In its final report it was observed however that participation of women in this project with 17% was lower than the national average for similar projects in the Netherlands (22%) and the European average of 30%. The reason was the project requirement of candidates expressing being full-time available for development of the own company and participation in training courses. For some or more potentially interested female candidates this was a reason not to participate.

Project staff of Oost NV indicated that in the SPIT training programme (Subsidy Facility for Investment in Tourism) a large number of women participated.

29 Successful own entrepreneur.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

4.2. Gelderland – Results and impacts of measures concerning gender equality

The impacts but mostly results of the programme are illustrated and evaluated.

Table 17: Gelderland – Effectiveness of the measures impacting on gender issue Impacts Impacts Expected direct/i Expected Fields of intervention Results (direct/indirect)* market to labour Equal access workin Improvementwomen of Care-work re-conciliation re-conciliation Care-work life of Quality Other Description Quantification entre Improvementwomen of (direct/indirect)* p reneurial ca reneurial g conditions

Measure effects ndirect* p

acities

Project visits suggest that this 3.2 measure has a high and direct Strengthening of Nr of new or improved impact on the position of women social cohesion I X X X social/cultural facilities 93 by enabling them to accept other and cultural responsibilities. Impact is high but identity (SPD EN) indirect therefore. Measure 2.3 includes the support to Nr. of projects focusing community facilities and centres in on women and migrants both the two towns. Field visits - Arnhem 1 suggest that these centres 2.3 - Nijmegen 0 contribute to social cohesion in Functioning of Number of users of new I X X X neighbourhoods and have a high labour market or extended schooling potential positive influence on the (SPD UA) infrastructure as per participation of women in the ethnicity and gender labour by providing day care - Arnhem 112 facilities. The impact is high but - Nijmegen 162 indirect therefore. - Nr. of coaching projects for integration in society and the economy - Arnhem 10 3.2 - Nijmegen 29 Socio-economic I - Nr of participants from Same as for 2.3. activation (SPD vulnerable groups UA) participating in these coaching projects - Arnhem 544 - Nijmegen 1,208 * Results arise as actual or follow as logical consequence of the investments made. Impact relates to the (strength) of the effect and/or influence of measures. The distinction between direct and indirect impacts is related to the effects of interventions, not to the type of interventions or their objectives, even if direct impacts are usually the result of interventions targeted at specific population groups (specific measures or positive actions), while indirect effects are usually related to “system interventions”, such as infrastructures, which are not targeted to specific population groups (mainstreamed measures).

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

For the SPD EN, gender was not formulated as a specific indicator at priority/measure level. Measure 3.2 Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity includes however as an indicator ‘number of new or rehabilitated social – and cultural facilities’. Activities included financial support to the creation, renovation or extension of town/village community facilities and community centres (Kulturhusen) in small – and medium sized towns. These are multi-functional centres providing facilities in towns, villages and small communities which would otherwise not be feasible or could be offered in a fragmented way only and dispersed over different locations. Services include library facilities, day care centre, church services. The provision of such facilities contributes to a better access to the labour market for women as well as a better quality of life and living conditions.

For the SPD UA the Measures 2.3 Functioning of labour market and 3.2 Socio-economic activation are relevant. For Measure 2.3 one of the indicators is the number of users of new or extended schooling infrastructure as per ethnic origin and gender. For 3.2 the indicator is number of participants from vulnerable groups in supporting activities. These two considerations resulted in the selection of projects promoting social cohesion and integration at neighbourhood level but gender as such was not a specific criterion applied and was not further targeted or specified in the reporting system. As indicated by the SPD UA Arnhem there was a certain sensitivity involved in maintaining data on ethnic origin. Disaggregation of data was also felt to be not relevant since ethnic composition is to a large extend determined by location of the activity and sector of intervention. In order to be effective, a specific target group approach would be required focusing on needs of particular groups. The same opinion was expressed by other stakeholders.

Box - Kulturhus Ruurlo The community centre of Ruurlo, the Kulturhus, offers accommodation to 13 care and recreational organizations in the town. It includes medical services, physiotherapy, day care facilities for children, music school, pre-school, societies for art, music and the elderly, services for the elderly and the handicapped and also a service desk of the municipality of Berkelland. The later was necessitated by the merger of 4 municipalities into the municipality of Berkelland. Owner of the building is the housing corporation and management of the facility is the shared responsibility of participating organizations which in itself are independent and self-financing entities. Advantages of the shared facility are according to Yolanda Bensink, the location manager of the day care facility for children, cost saving by being able to share the costs of running and operation. Customers have the advantage that visits to different organizations can be combined and together they are able to plan and coordinate their services for better accessibility. Inhabitants of the home for the elderly make use of the facility which is shared with day care facility and feel integrated therefore with society. The Kulturhus also has a large auditorium which offers place for music performances, theatre and meetings. Sources: www.kulturhusruurlo.nl; visit and interview & Newsletter.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

For the SPD UA Arnhem, Measure 3.2 on Socio-economic activation concerns actually one project, the Multi-cultural Educational – and Care Centre (MOZC) which is located in Malburgen. The project draws from two different budget lines (2.3 and 3.2) and forms part of the overall restructuring plan for this large urban district. An interesting feature of this intervention is that as central element in the urban renewal process, three new large educational facilities were established strategically located in different parts of the district. Extra attention was paid to the architectural design of these complexes as they were perceived as nucleus for future urban development. In one of these complexes, the ERDF supported MOZC is located which provides for a large number of social – and cultural activities. In the same building there are sports facilities, day care centre and other facilities contributing to social cohesion in the neighbourhood.

Malburgen, with a high percentage of immigrant population benefits from this facility by better integration of migrant women and children and social cohesion in the neighbourhood. Provision of day care facilities facilitates the wider participation of women in the labour process. Establishment of multi-cultural facilities is in line with the emancipation policy of the Dutch government giving priority to integration of ethnic minorities and especially women.

For the SPD UA Nijmegen, the neighbourhood project in the Kolpingbuurt is of interest in this context. It consisted of providing enhanced safety by closure of inner public spaces and improvement of roads and parking places. Also facilities were provided to the existing community centre in this small and homogeneous neighbourhood (e.g. fitness centre). Beneficiaries included immigrant population which settled in this neighbourhood.

4.3. Gelderland – Complementarity of ERDF interventions, identified for gender issue, with ESF, EAGGF and FIFG

Below the extent to which ERDF interventions identified are complementary with, and enhance other ESF, EAGGFF and FIFG interventions is verified. Rural development programmes implemented in Gelderland at provincial level are POP and Leader+ only.

Table 18: Gelderland – Complementarity of ERDF interventions, identified for gender issue, with ESF, EAGGF, FIFG

Measure Synergy with ESF POP* Leader+*

3.2 Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural identity (SPD H H N EN) 2.3 M N N Functioning of labour market (SPD UA) 3.2 H N N Socio-economic activation (SPD UA) Note: synergy may be H (high), M (medium), L (low), N (null). * Rural development programmes implemented in Gelderland at provincial level are POP and Leader+ only.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

As observed under the demography section the synergy with the ESF was high for the SPD EN Measure 3.2 on Social cohesion and cultural identity and SPD UA Measure 3.2 on Socio-economic activation for the similar nature of identified interventions. They are both connected to the specific priorities of the ESF programme, which promote equal opportunities to access to the labour market and social inclusion. Measure 2.3 (Functioning of labour market) of the SPD UA provided specific support to vocational measures. With vocational training traditionally including more male participants the synergy was qualified as medium. There is limited relevance to gender aspects with the exception of the SPD UA Arnhem. In the latter case the budget line was linked with Measure 3.2 on Socio-economic activation.

For Leader+ and POP there was overlap in type of interventions by the establishment of community facilities. It included the important components of day care facilities for pre-school and school going children, thereby providing easier access by women to the labour market. In the SPD UA there was the additional element of a large segment of the population consisting of ethnic minorities. Here, there is a social inclusion aspect as well.

4.4. Gelderland – Sustainability of the measures concerning gender equality

The evaluation of the sustainability of the measures requires considering whether the effects are likely to persist even in the absence of the ERDF financial support.

Table 19: Gelderland – Sustainability of the measures concerning to gender equality Fields of intervention market to labour Equal access conditions working Improvementwomen of capacities entrepreneurial Improvementwomen of conciliation Care-work re- life of Quality Other

Measure Sustainability

3.2 Strengthening of social cohesion and cultural X X X M/H identity (SPD EN) 2.3 X X X M Functioning of labour market (SPD UA) 3.2 Socio-economic activation (SPD UA) X X M/H Note: sustainability may be H (high), M (medium), L (low), N (null).

For operation of the social and cultural facilities established under Measure 3.2 (socio economic activation) and partly Measure 2.3 (Functioning of labour market), separate management structures were established. It included organizations providing services in the field of day care and other care facilities. Sustainability is related in this case to continuation of central government subsidies to these services which make it affordable for households to make use of them.

As was argued before in the section on the sustainability aspects of the demographic change aspects, for the SPD UA the interventions which form part of a much larger restructuring plan are felt to be more sustainable.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

Unfortunately no aggregated gender data are available for both the two programmes. No insight could be obtained therefore on actual number of users of these facilities and what the direct impact has been on the position of women in terms of facilitation of entry into the labour market, extension of number of hours worked and better social/cultural integration of women from ethnic minorities. Interviews and project data suggest however that these facilities are well used and frequented and show a balanced participation in neighbourhoods with a mixed population and clearly answer a demand for such facilities. These opinions were supported by interviews made during field visits to a selected number of such facilities

4.5. Gelderland – Overall assessment of gender equality

Key findings

Main findings of the analysis are the following:

1. Gender equality has not been a specific criterion in both the two programmes. However, from 2003 onwards, in project selection an ‘equal opportunities’ test was applied for the SPD EN and SPD UA Nijmegen. It assessed the possible gender aspects and impact of the project. At an earlier stage a more qualitative gender assessment of project applications was made.

2. At priority/measure level, only Measure 2.3 on Functioning of labour market of the SPD UA included an indicator monitoring this specific aspect. No evidence was found however that specific monitoring actually took place on this issue. Through the social inclusion component of the Measures 3.2 and the emphasis given to the establishment and support to facilities such as community centres and day care facilities an important contribution was made to gender equality. For the SPD EN, 10% of available ERDF funds were spent on this measure, while for the SPD UA it was respectively 7% and 9% for Arnhem and Nijmegen. On Measure 2.3 on Functioning of labour market respectively 6% and 10% of available ERDF funds were spent.

3. The enhanced quality and increased capacity of the care services supported a better reconciliation of work and family life. Also, it can be argued that the measures increased women’s inclusion in the labour market by reducing the amount of care activities they are usually in charge of. Unfortunately, no data have been generated on this impact. What could be observed however is that through supporting national policies with subsidy levels reaching 90 percent of costs of providing day care, these facilities became highly popular and at some places (e.g. the Kulturhus in Ruurlo) necessitates a further extension of facilities. Also the MOZC facility in Malburgen, Arnhem is already felt too small now.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

4.6. Gelderland – Lessons learnt and policy implications for gender issue

Main lessons learnt are:

1. Establishment of community centres and school facilities providing day care facilities and social activities, make a large contribution to social inclusion and gender equality. Together with subsidized costs of day care facilities it makes probably the largest single contribution to providing women better access to the labour market.

2. With the steady increase of the participation rate of women in the labour market, investments in increasing economic opportunities through measures as restructuring and rehabilitation of industrial estates, research and product innovation, touristic facilities and other economic support measures, women benefit.

3. Improved water management and nature development supported by measures directed at improving touristic facilities, restoration of monuments and historical town centres and non- motorized traffic networks (bicycle – and foot paths) provide a strong economic impetus to rural development by facilitating diversification in rural incomes. Women in particular benefit from these measures as main service providers. Gender specific data on participation are not available, but the finding is supported by impressions obtained in field visits and interviews with different stakeholders.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

ANNEX – SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR GELDERLAND

References

• Algemene Rekenkamer, undated, EU Structuurfondsen: Geld voor ontwikkeling en achterstanden, Periode 1994 – 1999.

• Berkhout, P and C. van Bruchem (eds.), 2008, Agricultural Economic Report 2008 of the Netherlands, Summary, The Hague, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI).

• Bureau Bartels B.V., 2003, Mid-term Evaluatie SPD Oost-Nedeland, eindrapport uitgebracht in opdracht van de Provincie Gelderland, November.

• Economic Research Bureau, Province of Gelderland, undated, Gelderland Employment Survey 2006.

• Ecorys, 2008, Mid-term evaluatie Doelstelling 2–programma Stedelijke Gebieden Nederland 2000 – 2006, October.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2001, Programma SPD Oost Nederland 2000 – 2006.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2002, Jaarverslag 2001, SPD Oost- Nederland, 2000 – 2006, Provincie Gelderland, Juni.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2003, Jaarverslag 2002, SPD Oost- Nederland, 2000 – 2006, Provincie Gelderland, Juli.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2004, Jaarverslag 2003, SPD Oost- Nederland, 2000 – 2006, Provincie Gelderland, Juni.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2004, Programmacomplement Programma SPD Oost Nederland 2000 – 2006, behorende bij het integrale Enkelvoudig programmeringsdocument (SPD) Oost Nederland 2006 – 2006, Herziene versie 27 Mei.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2005, Jaarverslag 2004, SPD Oost- Nederland, 2000 – 2006, Provincie Gelderland, Juni.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2005, Update Tussentijdse Evaluatie SPD Oost-Nederland, Provincie Gelderland, November.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2006, Jaarverslag 2005, SPD Oost- Nederland, 2000 – 2006, Provincie Gelderland, Juni.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2007, Jaarverslag 2006, SPD Oost- Nederland, 2000 – 2006, Provincie Gelderland, Juni.

• EU Programmasecretariaat Provincie Gelderland (SPD EN), 2008, Jaarverslag 2007, SPD Oost- Nederland, 2000 – 2006, Provincie Gelderland, 11 Juni.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

• Gelderland & Overrijssel, Gebundelde Innovatiekracht, 2007, Operationeel Programma EFRO 2007 – 2013, Regio Oost – Nederland, Mei.

• Gelderland & Overrijssel, Gebundelde Innovatiekracht, 2008, Toetsingskader Operationeel Programma EFRO 2007 – 2013 Oost Nederland, Juni.

• Gemeente Arnhem, undated, Projectaanvraag, Malburgen verdient het, Subsidieaanvraag in het kader van het EFRO programma Arnhem, 2000 – 2007, Dienst Stadsbeheer.

• Gemeente Arnhem, 2001, Programma Arnhem Kern, 19 Februari.

• Gemeente Arnhem, 2001, Programmacomplement Arnhem Kern, 19 Februari 2001.

• Gemeente Arnhem, 2006, Projectplan Ondernemer in de wijk II, Afdeling Economische Zaken, Februari.

• Gemeente Arnhem, 2007, Projectplan Revitalisering Presikhaaf, fase 1, Laan van Presikhaaf, Subsidieaanvraag in het kader van het EFRO programma Arnhem, 2000 – 2007, Dienst Stadsontwikkeling, 24 September.

• Gemeente Arnhem, 2008, Jaarverslag 2007 Europees Stimuleringsprogramma Arnhem Kern, in het kader van Doelstelling – 2 SPD stedelijke Gebieden Nederland 2000 – 2006, Dienst Stadsontwikkeling, Programma Management Arnhem Kern, April.

• Gemeente Berkelland, 2007, Revitalisering Bedrijventerrein Schansekamp/Venterkamp, October, Ruurlo.

• Gemeente Eibergen, undated brochure, Revitalisering bedrijventerrein De Kiefte in Eibergen.

• Gemeente Nijmegen, undated, IPC Mobiliteit en Logistiek, Subsidieaanvraag in het kader van het EFRO programma Nijmegen – Kanaalgebied 2000 – 2007.

• Gemeente Nijmegen, 2001, EFRO Programma Nijmegen-Kanaalgebied 2000 – 2006, Gemeente Nijmegen, Directie Strategie en Projecten, Februari 2001.

• Gemeente Nijmegen, 2001, Programmacomplement, behorend bij het EFRO Programma Nijmegen-Kanaalgebied 2000 – 2006, Gemeente Nijmegen, Directie Strategie en Projecten, 27 Maart.

• Gemeente Nijmegen, 2004, Revitalisering Noord – en Oostkanaalhavens fase 1, Subsidieaanvraag in het kader van het EFRO programma Nijmegen – Kanaalgebied 2000 – 2007, April.

• Gemeente Nijmegen, 2005, Revitalisering Noord – en Oostkanaalhavens Ambachtsweg en Nijverheidsweg, Subsidieaanvraag in het kader van het EFRO programma Nijmegen – Kanaalgebied 2000 – 2007, 20 April.

• Gemeente Nijmegen, 2007, Jaarverslag 2006, Nijmegen-Kanaalgebied, Directie Wijk en Stad, Afdeling Strategie en Programmeren, April.

• Gemeente Nijmegen, 2008, Jaarverslag 2007, Nijmegen-Kanaalgebied, Directie Wijk en Stad, Afdeling Strategie en Programmeren, 25 April.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

• IRS, Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale and CSIL, Centre for Industrial Studies, 2008, First Intermediate Report, Work package 7: Effectiveness of Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change, prepared for European Commission, Directorate General, Reggional Policy, Policy Development, 23 May.

• Kenniscentrum Stedelijke Vernieuwing (KEI), KEI-overzicht: De rol van de Provincie in Stedelijke Vernieuwing.

• LTO Noord Projecten BV, 2008, Eindrapportage Startende ondernemers voor een Vitaal Platteland, September.

• Marlet, Gerard en Clemens van Woerkens, undated, Leefbaarheid doorgrond, Leefbaarheid in Arnhem in kaart gebracht, verklaard en vergeleken, Stichting Atlas voor Gemeenten.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), undated, Europees Grote Stedenbeleid, Alles over Doelstelling 2, Stedelijke Gebieden Nederland.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), undated, Europees Grote Stedenbeleid, Enkelvoudig Programmeringsdocument Doelstelling 2 Stedelijke Gebieden Nederland 2000 – 2006.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), 2004, Europa en de Krachtige Stad, Best Practices uit de Europese stedenprogramma’s, Mei.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), 2005, Europees Grote Stedenbeleid, Update mid-term evaluatie Doelstelling 2 Stedelijke Gebieden Nederland.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), 2006, Doelstelling 2 programma Stedelijke Gebieden Nederland, Meerwaarde voor de steden en Europa.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), 2007, Doelstelling 2 programma Stedelijke Gebieden Nederland, Resultaat in de wijken, Jaarverslag 2006, Juni.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), 2004, Europa en de Krachtige Stad: Best practices uit de Europese stedenprogramma’s, conference publication, International conference Europe empowers cities, 27 & 28 May 2004, Maastricht and Heerlen, The Netherlands.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), undated, Europees Grote Steden Beleid, Alles over doelstelling 2, Stedelijke gebieden Nederland.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), undated, Europees Grote Steden Beleid, Enkelvoudig Programmeringsdocument, doelstelling 2 Stedelijke Gebieden Nederland 2000 – 2006.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), 2005, Europees Grote Stedenbeleid, Update mid-term evaluatie, Doelstelling 2 Stedelijke Gebieden Nederland, June.

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), 2006, Doelstelling 2 programma, Stedelijke gebieden Nederland, Meerwaarde voor de steden en Europa.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

• Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (MinBzk), 2007, Doelstelling 2 Programma Stedelijke gebieden Nederland, Resultaat in de wijken, Jaarverlag 2006.

• Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (MinSZW), undated, Een Kristal van Kansen, Emanciepatiebeleid 1998 - 2002.

• Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (MinSZW), 2000, Van Vrouwenstrijd naar Vanzelfsprekendheid, Meerjarenbeleidsplan Emancipatie 2000-2005.

• Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (MinSZW), 2005, Emancipatie: Vanzelfsprekend, maar het gaat niet vanzelf!, Meerjarenbeleidsplan Emancipatie 2006-2010.

• Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (MinSZW), undated, Meer kansen voor Vrouwen, Emanciepatiebeleid 2008-2011.

• Nicis, 2007, Strategies for upgrading the physical environment in deprived urban areas, Examples of good practice in Europe, Frank Wassenberg, Annelien van Meer, Ronald van Kempen.

• Nicis, 2008, Economische kansen van ethnische diversiteit, Een verkennende studie naar de kansen voor de Nederlandse steden, prepared by Coen Bertens & Narde de Vries (EIM).

• Nicis, 2008, Helpt de Middenklassse? Op zoek naar het middenklasse-effect in gemengde wijken, Lex Veldboer, Radboud Engbersen, Jan Willem Duyvendak, Matthijs Uyterlinde.

• Nicis, 2008, Na de Sloop: Waterbedeffecten van gebiedsgericht stedelijk beleid, Anne Slob, Gideon Bolt en Ronald van Kempen (Universiteit Utrecht), Juni.

• Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV, 2007, Kennis Cluster Regeling deel 3, April.

• Plattelandshuis Achterhoek en Liemers, 2005, 325 Prima Plattelandsprojecten, Prestaties Achterhoek en Liemers 2002 – 2005, December, Zelhem.

• Participatiemaatschappij Oost Nederland NV (PPM Oost), 2008, Eindrapportage Innovatiefonds III 2004 – 2007, Maart.

• Province of Gelderland, undated, Economic Research Bureau, Workforce Survey, Statistics Netherlands.

• Province of Gelderland, undated, Test of Equal Opportunities for women and men in the framework of Programme objective 2 Eastern Netherlands.

• Provincie Gelderland, undated, Bevolkingsprognose 2007.

• Province of Gelderland, undated, Sustainability Test for Project Proposals in the Framework of Programme Objective 2 Eastern Netherlands.

• Province of Gelderland, undated, Test of Equal Opportunities for women and men in the Framework of Programme Objective 2 Eastern Netherlands.

• Provincie Gelderland, undated, Trekkracht Gelderland, Sociaal – Economisch Beleidsplan 2001- 2006.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

• Provincie Gelderland, 2005, Voorzet: Samenspel in zorg en welzijn, Meerjarenvisie sociaal beleid 2005-2008.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2006, Gelderland in Vier Bedrijven: Vier toekomstscenario’s over de uitbreidingsvraag naar bedrijventerreinen en kantoren, Menno Walsmeer, Bureau Economisch Ondrzoek, Afdeling Economische Zaken, December.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2006, Hedenmorgen 2006 – 2040, Vier toekomstscenario’s van de Gelderse economie, Menno Walsmeer, Bureau Economisch Onderzoek, Afdeling Economische Zaken, Januari.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2006, Programma ‘Ontgroening en Vergrijzing’, Groepswonen van ouderen in Gelderland, Zelfbeheer en nabuurschap.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2006, Provinciaal Economische Verkenning: Bouwsteen voor de opstelling van het Sociaal Economisch Beleidsplan 2007 – 2011, Menno Walsmeer, Frank Viersen en Afons Bloemberg, Bureau Economisch Onderzoek, Afdeling Economische Zaken, September.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2006, Provinciale werkgelegenheidsenquete, Frank Viersen, Uitkomsten onderzoek 2006.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2006, Subsidieaanvraagformulier Versie Juni 2006.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2006, Vitaal Gelderland: Provinciaal Meerjarenprogramma 2007 – 2013, Deel 1: Beleidskader; Deel 2: Tabellen en Cijfers; Deel 3: Subsidiekader.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2007, Maak het in Gelderland: Sociaal – Economisch beleid 2007 – 2011.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2007, Programma ‘Ontgroening en Vergrijzing’, Gebiedsgericht samewerken aan wonen, zorg en welzijn in Gelderland, Rapport A, Een verkenning van knelpunten en oplossingsrichtingen.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2007, Programma ‘Ontgroening en Vergrijzing’, Woonservicegebieden: makkelijker gezegd dan gedaan, Samenvatting, Studie naar wonen, zorg en welzijn.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2008, Programma ‘Ontgroening en Vergrijzing’, Veiligheid, zorg en wooncomfort, Praktijkervaringen met domotica in Gelderland.

• Provincie Gelderland, 2008, Voorzet twee: Sociaal beleid Provincie Gelderland 2009 – 2012, Erbij houden, Erbij halen.

• School voor Techniek ROC Rijn Ijssel, 2004, De Werkvloer aan Zet, oftewel: - hoe het technisch mbo gaat samenwerken met het bedrijfsleven en het onderwijs vraaggestuurd aanbiedt -, Een aanvraag van de in het kader van het EFRO-programma Arnhem-Kern, Projectperiode 2003 – 2006, April.

• SenterNovem, 2007, SMI & IG II en SPIT GII platteland/Eurowerk, Afsluitende rapportage over de periode Januari – Augustus 2007.

Work Package 7: “Effectiveness of the Cohesion Policy: Gender Equality and Demographic Change”

• Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands, 2008, A picture of part-time working, authors Wil Portegijs, Mariëlle Cloïn, Saskia Keuzenkamp, Ans Merens, Eefje Steenvoorden, November, English summary.

• Stichting Kansrijk Eigen Baas, 2005, Eindafrekening Project Kansrijk Eigen Baas, April.

• Stichting Volkshuisvesting Arnhem, 2005, Projectplan De Poort naar Klarendal, November.

Contacts

• European Programme Secretariat, Marjoos van den Berg, Head of European Programme Secretariat, Province of Gelderland, The Netherlands, Gebouw A, Prinsenhof 3, 6811 CE Arnhem, +31 26 359 9724, [email protected] (contacts: Fay van der Ven, project assistant, Danique van der Kuip, 026 – 359 9716; 06 – 502 73433)

• Kulturhus Ruurlo, Yolanda Bensink, Location manager, T. 0616681771 / 0573 458130, [email protected]

• Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Els Beimers-Jurgens, Senior Adviser Urban Policy, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Urban Policy and Administrative Coordination Department, DGBK/BBE, Schedeldoekshaven 200, 2511 EZ Den Haag, T. 070 – 426 6065, F. 070 – 426 7668, E-mail [email protected]

• Municipality of Berkelland, W.A.J. (Wouter) Verdaasdonk, Jan Seinen, project manager, Project manager, T. 0545 – 250310, [email protected]

• Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost NV, Gerard van Gaalen, senior project manager Europese projecten, Sylvia Kortenraij, project manager Ontwikkeling & Innovatie en Tom Cornelissen, senior project manager Ontwikkeling & Innovatie, www.oostnv.nl, 026-384 42 22

• Plattelandshuis Zelhem (Achterhoek), Folchert Oudekerk, Project manager, T. 0314 – 625000 / 06 – 53911196, [email protected]

• Province of Gelderland, Drs. Boudewijn B.A. Drewes, Sector Head Strategy, Regional Cooperation and information, Department of Economic Affairs, T. 026 – 3599173 / 06 12345631 [email protected]

• Province of Gelderland, Menno Walsweer, Bureau Economisch Onderzoek, Afdeling Economische Zaken T. 026-3599170, F. 026-3599199, [email protected]

• SPD EN, Wim Hobus, SPD EN programme manager, (contacts: Fay van der Ven, project assistant, Danique van der Kuip, 026 – 359 9716; 06 – 502 73433), [email protected]

• SPD UA Arnhem, Albert Reinders, Danielle van Haard, Pietje Molekamp, Esther Ruiten, Hans van Ammers, Municipality of Arnhem, Arnhem Kern programme, Buitensingel 53, Arnhem, T. 026 – 377 4575, [email protected]

• SPD UA Nijmegen, Harry van Gerven, Joeri Jorg, Jos v/d Broek, Programmamanagement, Nijmegen Kanaalgebied, T. 024-329 2065, e-mail: [email protected]