Ex Post Evaluation Objective 1 1994-1999 Member State Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ex post evaluation Objective 1 1994-1999 Member state report Netherlands Final report Client: European Commission, DG Regio ECORYS-NEI Regional & Urban Development Luc Boot Sacha Koppert Rotterdam, 24 June 2003 B/ib7212 ECORYS-NEI P.O. Box 4175 3006 AD Rotterdam K.P. van der Mandelelaan 11 3062 MB Rotterdam The Netherlands T +31 10 453 88 00 F +31 10 453 07 68 E [email protected] W www.ecorys.com Table of contents Executive Summary 7 1 Introduction 12 2 Methodology 13 3 Appropriateness of the strategy adopted 14 3.1 Introduction 14 3.2 Key issues in 1994 and their Evolution to 1999 14 3.3 Description of the SPD 18 3.4 Planned expenditure versus actual expenditure 22 3.5 Conclusions on appropriateness of the strategy 31 4 Effectiveness 36 4.1 Introduction 36 4.2 Programme outputs and results 36 4.3 Programme effects 40 4.4 Assessment of Community Added Value 55 4.5 Changes to policy and practice 59 5 Impact 60 5.1 Introduction 60 5.2 Achievement of the programme objectives 60 5.3 Impact assessment 65 6 Management and implementation systems 69 6.1 Institutional arrangements 69 6.2 Project selection process 74 6.3 Financial systems 76 6.4 Monitoring structures 77 6.5 Programme evaluations 78 6.6 Synergy effects 80 6.7 Equal opportunities and the environment 81 6.8 Conclusion 84 7 Strengths and weaknesses 86 7.1 Process issues 86 7.2 Achievements 87 7.3 Overall efficiency 88 8 Conclusions and recommendations 90 Executive Summary In the Netherlands there is only one Objective 1 region, Flevoland. The key indicator on the basis of which Flevoland received the Objective 1 status was the relatively low GRP (75% of the EU-average in 1993). The main reason was that the size of the labour force exceeded the number of jobs within the region. This is caused by the fact that Flevoland became a residential area for people from the Randstad, as the pressure on space in that area became very high. At the same time, a lot of people living in Flevoland are working in the Randstad. The programme of Flevoland for the period 1994-1999 has 9 priorities with the following division of means (in percentage): • Business development (15%) • Tourism and recreation (3%) • Agriculture and rural development (14%) • Fisheries (6%) • Human resources (19%) • Commercial infrastructure (11%) • Transport and communication (21%) • Research and development (10%) • Technical assistance (2%) Strategy The appropriateness of the strategy, seen from the perspective of effective implementation is not optimal. The high number of measures (53) has limited the transparency and flexibility of the programme implementation and had, as a result, a negative impact on the financial absorption of the programme. Despite the recommendations of the several evaluations to reduce the number of measures, the recommendation was not followed up out of fear that the administration around these changes would further slow down the programme implementation. Only in the SPD for the phasing out period (2000-2006), the number of measures is reduced which is considered to be a major improvement The appropriateness of the strategy with regard to addressing the main economic problems can be judged positively. Also the priorities indicated in the ex ante evaluation on the SPD 1994-99, like the development of indigenous potential, investments in education, research and technical development, productive investment and investments in infrastructure, are reflected in the strategy. Only the priority fisheries seems to have no clear relationship with the Objective 1 goals, as it was directed to restructuring and not to employment growth. Ex post evaluation Objective 1 programme Flevoland 1994-1999 7 Financial absorption Almost the complete budget was committed at the end of the programme period. To reach this, the programme has been reprogrammed 2 times; the last approval of the Commission dates from December 1999. However, at the end of the programme period an under- spending is found for all EU-funds. This is the result of the fact that some projects committed did not start, or spent fewer budgets than planned. As can be seen in table 1, the overall budget realised is 79%. ESF is most under spent, while almost the whole FIFG budget is spent. Table 1 Realisation (expenditures in relation to budget available) Fund Realisation ERDF 85% ESF 59% FIFG 97% EAGGF 84% Total EU 79% Source: provisional final report on Objective 1 Output In general, on a lot of output indicators the targets have been met. The results of the project with respect to employment, human resources, business sites and established companies are generally quite successful. Also the measures directed to the SME were successful, with the exception of the capital risk fund. This is probably caused by the fact that the funds were fragmented and the selection criteria were quite strict. Within the agricultural sector, it proved to be difficult to find projects that were eligible. Some projects had to be implemented within the national policy context, which made co- financing difficult. Co-financing for innovative projects was also difficult, as the co- financing Ministry of Agriculture set strict criteria for the term innovative. Results In general, the results in the several sectors during the programme period are good, but there are differences in the extent of success within the several sectors. The objectives of the priorities directed towards the agricultural sector are largely met. The same counts for business development, human resources and commercial infrastructure. This is not only the result of the programme, developments in the social economic context are also very important for this result. The economy was booming in these years. This caused a decrease in unemployment and an increase in firms that invest. Furthermore, the pressure on the Randstad made that firms searched for other locations to settle. As Flevoland borders on the Randstad, it is a logic alternative, which especially counts for Almere. Within the tourism and fisheries sector some progress was made, however, still a lot has to be done to fulfil the objectives. For the first sector, the number of visitors should increase. In the past years the number of jobs and the number of new accommodations increased, while the number of visitors remained stable. For the fisheries sector it is important to strengthen the diversification process in Urk. Also the R&D sector did not develop as planned, there is in the programme period no growth in the number of jobs in this sector. 8 Ex post evaluation Objective 1 programme Flevoland 1994-1999 Effect and impact The main problem in Flevoland was the relatively low GRP. This low GRP was a result of the mainly residential function of the region, as the region meets the residential needs of people coming from the Randstad. In this mainly agricultural region were not enough jobs available to employ the working population that settled in the region. Hence, the low GRP was mainly a result of the large commuting level. One of the solutions for this problem is the creation of employment in the region. The creation of employment in the region succeeded quite well during the programming period. This is not only the result of the programme, but is mainly caused by the booming economy and the high pressure in the neighbouring Randstad. The objective to have a yearly growth in employment that is 3% higher than the average annual growth in the Netherlands is amply met. The net growth is even three times more than the objective. However, despite this enormous growth in employment, the objective to raise the GRP per head to 85% of the average EU GRP is not completely realised, in 1999 it was 80%. This is mainly due to the fact that the population is even growing faster (natural growth and immigration) than the growth in business activity, which results in GRP growths and employment. Comparing the SWOT analysis of the ex ante evaluation of the 2000-2006 period and the key issues of 1994, shows that a lot of problem indicated in 1994 are still relevant. There were improvements in these points in the former period, but many of them are still not at the desired level. Management structure The management structure for the Objective 1 programme was split in an ESF-part (ESF- bureau) and an ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG-part (PME and expert departments of the province). In practice, this split did not cause problems for project managers and applicants and there was also a good consultative structure. However, within the province, responsible for the implementation of the ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG-part of the programme, the structure chosen caused many problems. The people from the specialist departments had their normal tasks within the policy process; the work for the Objective 1 programme was additional for them. The result was that there was a delay in the commitment of projects. This hindered the progress of the programme. Furthermore, the structure caused that the PME could not properly fulfil its tasks. The overview on the programme was lacking, no clear picture existed about the progress and results of the programme. All parties involved were not unsatisfied with this structure, however, the centralised programme management for the new programme period is considered to be a big improvement. The transparency for project applicants and project managers increased and the programme management has a better overview on the developments and results of the programme. Monitoring Within the programme a clear set of indicators was formulated and monitoring took place on these indicators. Seen in time, Flevoland had a quite extensive set of indicators already, compared to other programmes.