Analysis of the financial and physical data in the Final ... · Final Implementation Reports concerning the Objective 1 and 2 Programmes for 2000-2006 financed by the European Regional

Final Report // page 1

Analysis of the financial and physical data in the Final Implementation Reports concerning the Objective 1 and 2 Programmes for 2000-2006 financed by the European Regional Development Fund Final Report

Prepared by: t33, ÖIR, Spatial Foresight

31/01/2012

European Commission

Directorate-General for Regional Policy, Evaluation Unit


Table of contents

ACRONYMS 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

1. FOREWORD 10

2. DATABASE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 12

2.1 Information on existing sources and relevant data 12

2.2 Database with expenditure data by field of intervention (Task 1) 16

2.3 Database with data on indicators (Task 2) 19

3. STATISTICS ON BREAKDOWN BY FIELD OF INTERVENTION 22

3.1 Completeness of the data 22

3.2 Actual expenditure and initial plans for the use of EU funds 26

4. MAIN FEATURES OF THE MONITORING SYSTEMS 33

4.1 Basic Statistics 33

4.2 Statistics on types of indicators (output, result, impact) 34

4.3 Statistics on indicator baseline, achievements and target values 36

4.4 Over- or under-achievements for physical indicators 39

4.5 Approach to reporting 45

5. CORE INDICATORS 47

5.1 Basic statistics on core indicators 47

5.2 Aggregation oF core indicators 49

5.3 Suggestions for the future programming period 55

6. CONCLUSIONS 63


ANNEX 1 – LIST OF PROGRAMMES ANALYSED 66

ANNEX 2 – LIST OF FIELDS OF INTERVENTION 72

ANNEX 3 – INITIAL AND FINAL ERDF FOI EXPENDITURE PER MEMBER STATE 76

ANNEX 4 – EXEMPLARY APPROACH TO REPORTING 85

ANNEX 5 – DEFINITION OF THE TYPES OF INDICATORS: OUTPUT, RESULT, IMPACT 91

ANNEX 6 – ANALYSIS OF COMMON INDICATORS, THEMATIC OBJECTIVES AND

INVESTMENT PRIORITIES 92

ANNEX 7 - ADDITIONAL PROPOSED INDICATORS 104


Acronyms

AIR Annual Implementation Report

DG Regio Directorate-General Regional Policy

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EC European Commission

ECF European Cohesion Fund

EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

ETC European Territorial Cooperation

EU European Union

FIR Final Implementation Report

FoI Fields of Intervention

ICT Information and Communication Technology

MS Member State

OP Operational Programme

RTDI Research, Technological Development and Innovation

SFC Structural Funds Common System

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

SPD Single Programme Document


Executive Summary

This study undertakes an analysis of financial and physical data from the Objective 1

and 2 programmes in 25 Member States, financed by the European Regional Development

Fund during the period 2000-2006. The work is based on the programmes and Member

States reporting to the European Commission.

It is based on a review of the Final Implementation Reports (FIRs) for 227 programmes, as

well as financial data available in the Structural Funds Common System. The figures

provided in this Report are those reported by the above sources. Their reliability has not been

checked. In addition, the data compiled builds on the analysis of 2000-2006 physical data

carried out within the ex-post evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes co-financed by the

ERDF.

After designing the methodology, preliminary versions of the databases were developed and

populated with expenditure and indicator data concerning 15 operational programmes in

three different Member States. Results from this stage of the project were used to enhance

the database model and assess the types of data analyses which could be provided.

Thereafter, data for all remaining programmes was collected and formed the basis for the

final databases as well as for analysis.

The study shows that the apparent differences between planned and final

expenditures allocations by field of intervention are modest, especially if analysed

at the EU level, where conflicting changes at a more disaggregated level e.g. Member State

are balanced out to a certain extent. Actual re-allocation of expenses between different

domains are even lower, as transfers of resources between fields of intervention sometimes

merely reflects different interpretations or specifications of the same interventions.

The homogeneity of methods used by programme authorities to calculate the

distribution of expenses between domains cannot be sufficiently verified from the data

analysed to ensure the comparison and aggregation of data being completely reliable. In

particular, it is not clear to what degree the breakdowns by field of intervention have been

calculated by categorising data at the project level or by using other approaches.


Analysis of the monitoring systems confirms the diversity in practices across Member

States, both in terms of numbers and types (output, result and impact) of indicators

used. Baseline, target and achievement values are provided for most indicators. During the

programming period, about one-fifth of the targets were revised significantly, upward or

downward.

Interestingly, attainments differ significantly from the targets initially established for

more than half of the indicators. At the EU level, significant over-performance is generally

more common than under-performance, which might point to the fact that targets are too

cautious. However, the proportion of over- and under-achievements varies greatly among

different types of intervention as well as Member States. The update or revision of targets

did not improve significantly the ability of programme authorities to establish more

accurate targets.

As the information drawn from the FIRs shows, the main reasons justifying differences

between targets and attainments include: difficulties with the estimation of targets,

changes in the focus of programming strategies and the demands of

stakeholders. These three aspects are closely intertwined and, even if their specific

relevance varies depending on the types of intervention, they overall reveal the complexity of

target setting for multi-annual programmes. On one side, measuring strategic attainments

may be hurt by programme re-focus or the modifications taking place during translation of

strategy into concrete intervention. On the other side, sticking more closely to

implementation details might provide more reliable targets as well as relevant information

concerning programme execution, with the risk of losing the perspective on strategic

performance.

The indicators used in the 2000-2006 period provide valuable insights for the selection of

common indicators for the next programme period. First of all the diversity of the roughly

24,000 indicators used in the past strengthens the argument that common indicators used

by all programmes are crucial in order to compile comparable data that can be easily

aggregated to EU-wide results. Most of the currently proposed common indicators

have successfully been used by a range of programmes in the past. At the same time,

matching the proposed common indicators with the proposed thematic objectives (art. 9) and

the proposed investment priorities (art. 5) shows that some aspects are not, or only partially,


covered by the common indicators. Based on analysis of suitable indicators used in the past

period, this report proposes eleven complementary common indicators to fill

these gaps.

Lessons learned – Policy recommendations

The review of the physical and financial data collected and reported by the programmes

for the 2000-2006 period provides some insights of interest for the forthcoming 2014-

2020 period:

Flexibility is important

During a programme period a number of unexpected developments can occur, which

imply that the results are not always as expected. Consequently, there is a need for

sufficient flexibility to allow deviations in the set targets for indicators and the allocation

of expenditures by FoI. Justified deviations are more valuable than manufactured figures.

Flexibility in combination with the need for explanation of changes should be advocated

for the next programming period.

FoI classification can provide insights for following programmes

The allocation of funding to FoI both at the beginning of a programme period as well as

regular adjustments to actual developments does work and provides valuable comparable

information EU-wide. Managing Authorities can learn important lessons by comparing

their initial FoI allocation to the actual outcome for the last periods. When drafting the

new OPs and allocating future funding to FoI, the programmes should thus revisit their

past experience. At the same time, minimum methodological requirements for the

classification of expenses might improve reliability and comparability of FoI data, as well

as a more detailed description of the types of intervention fitting within each area might

help avoiding erroneous use of the classification and corrections. Comparability of the

scheme with other standard sector categorisations might enhance the informative value of

the classification. The fact that authorities will adopt the common procurement


vocabulary when making use of the opportunities offered by public procurement co-

financed by the ERDF to promote innovation is of particular interest in this regard.

Common indicators are needed

Indicators are an important tool to monitor and report on achievements of the

programmes. The diversity of the indicators used in the past strengthens the argument

that common indicators used by all programmes are crucial in order to compile

comparable data which can be easily aggregated to EU-wide results. It would be desirable

to have a longer list of common indicators, covering all investment priorities listed in the

regulations. Then programmes could select the common indicators relevant for their

activities and report the monitoring data on these indicators directly to a common E-

Cohesion system. The programmes should use indicators that are not on the common

indicator list only if it is unavoidable to monitor and report on their attainments.

Missing common indicators

Common indicators should capture the main types of achievements of all ERDF

programmes (except territorial cooperation) – this list should have clear links between the

indicators, fields of interventions, thematic objectives (art. 9 CSF regulations) and

investment priorities (art. 5 ERDF regulations). Matching the proposed common

indicators with the proposed thematic objectives (art. 9) and the proposed investment

priorities (art. 5) shows that some aspects are not covered by current common indicators.

Based on the analysis of suitable indicators used in the past period, the report proposes

eleven complementary common indicators to fill these gaps.

Output, result and impact work only in theory

The distinction between output, result and impact indicators is clear and appealing at a

theoretical level. The classification has been difficult to use for this exercise, as the

categories are used rather differently by the programmes. The proposed changes in the

draft regulations will be a simplification in that area. Furthermore, stronger focus on the

common indicators might allow the abolition of the distinction between output, result and

impact, at least as regards reporting by the programmes.


Target values need more attention

Continued efforts are needed to ensure that target values are reported. As with FoI above,

programmes can learn important lessons for drafting future programmes by comparing

their targets to their final achievements for the last periods, e.g. with regard to setting

targets reflecting appropriate objectives. The programmes need to be followed-up on the

submission of the target values for common indicators which are relevant for them. This

would also allow to illustrate at an early stage, what EU Structural Funds intend to

achieve by 2020. As afore mentioned, there must be room for changes, or over and under-

achievements, to the extent that justifications are provided.


1. Foreword

This report (the Draft Final Report) is the fourth deliverable for the “Analysis of the financial

and physical data in the Final Implementation Reports concerning the Objective 1 and 2

Programmes for 2000-2006 financed by the European Regional Development Fund”.

The objective of the study is to “undertake, through the examination of the Final

Implementation Reports, an analysis of the financial and physical data of the Objective 1 and

2 Programmes financed by the European Regional Development Fund during the period

2000-2006 in 25 Member States”.

The tender for the project was awarded in July 2011 to a consortium of three companies: t33

(lead partner), ÖIR, and Spatial Foresight.

After the kick-off meeting, held in late July 2011, the first stage focused on setting up the

study, specifically on the activities needed to prepare for data collection. These included the

design and development of the databases to be populated with expenditure and indicator

data from 227 ERDF programmes1. This phase was completed with the submission of the

methodological Inception Report (August 29th, 2011).

Hence, data gathering activities included a preliminary phase during which information

concerning 15 operational programmes in three different Member States was entered in the

pilot version of the databases (delivered on October 10th, 2011). Sources of information used

include Final Implementation Reports (FIRs) submitted by the programme authorities, as

well as information provided in the Structural Funds Common System (SFC). Findings from

this stage of the project were used to enhance the database model and assess the types of

analyses which could be provided.

1 The list of programmes analysed is provided in Annex 1. It must be noted that only expenditure data were gathered and analysed for programme 2000FR161DO001 Guadeloupe.


Data for all the remaining programmes was then collected, forming the basis for the draft

final databases as well as for the analysis and commentaries presented in the current report.

It must be noted that indicator data activities in the current study build on the data feasibility

study of the ex-post evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by

the ERDF2.

Next stage of the project will include preparation of the Final Report based on Steering Group

comments on the present report.

Apart from briefly illustrating the background to the study as well as the main features of the

databases, this report provides a detailed analysis of the information collected concerning

ERDF programmes expenditures (Chapter 3) and indicators (Chapter 4). A separate section

is devoted to the aggregation of data concerning core indicators, as well as to advice

concerning common indicators for the next programming period (Chapter 5).

This report was prepared by t33, ÖIR and Spatial Foresight.

2 The study - referred to as the data feasibility study in the rest of the report - was concluded in April 2008. It assembled indicators in a searchable database containing all physical indicators (output, result and impact indicators) presented in the 2006 Annual Reports of the Programmes co-financed by the ERDF.


2. Database design and implementation

Deliverables of the study include two databases, one with information on output, result and

impact indicators used in the programmes, the other with expenditure data for the

programmes analysed broken down by FoI3.

Together with the draft databases, a quick user guide is delivered, including detailed

information on the content and functionalities of the databases.

The following paragraph describes the information entered in the databases, while 2.2 and

2.3 illustrate architecture and main features of the expenditure and indicator database

respectively.

2.1 INFORMATION ON EXISTING SOURCES AND RELEVANT DATA

Understanding the type of information available from the various sources was essential to

develop the databases as well as data gathering procedures.

As set out in Article 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying

down general provisions on the Structural Funds4, FIRs should include information on

progress in the implementation of priorities and measures for each of the funds in relation to

their specific targets, with a quantification, wherever and whenever they lend themselves to

3 2001Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds, OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 21, presents in Annex IV the Classification of FoI to be used in the annual reports on the Structural Funds. 4 OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.


quantification, of the physical indicators and indicators of results and impacts at the

appropriate level (priority or measure).

Data drawn from the FIRs was thus used as the only source for indicator information.

At the same time, expenditure data was drawn from four different data sources agreed with

DG Regio as relevant to the current study:

• Data included in the programme complements (initial allocations, xls)5;

• Data in the latest version of implementation reports in SFC6;

• Data in the FIRs (final allocations);

• Further data provided by DG REGIO, e.g. financial tables sent separately from the

FIRs, filling the gaps regarding expenditure information on FoI level (e.g. Programme

1999GB161DO002 Merseyside)7.

While information concerning initial allocation as well as data from SFC is provided in a

standardised format, different approaches are used in the FIRs to report on FoI expenditure

data. In particular, FoI data relevant to the current study are provided:

1. at different levels - measure, priority or programme;

2. using different bases - ERDF or total i.e. ERDF plus national – incl. regional – plus

private expenditures;

3. using different units – percentages e.g. of measure expenses, or euro values;

4. Moreover, ERDF or total ERDF-related expenses are sometimes reported jointly with

other Cohesion funding (ESF, EAGGF, FIFG), making it impossible to distinguish ERDF

support and the other funds assistance.

5 This data was already provided to the consultant by DG REGIO in .xls format. 6 It must be noted that the implementation reports included in SFC are classified according to their status (Proposed, Validated, Accepted). Nevertheless, latest versions of the reports were used in the current study, independently from their statuses. 7 Apart from listed information, data in the oldest version of the implementation reports included in SFC (initial allocations) was used during the pilot cases for data verification purposes.


It must be noted that also (not FoI) ERDF expenditures at different programme levels are of

importance for the study: Combined with total FoI expenditures per measure it is possible to

estimate ERDF support distribution by FoI8 in monetary terms, under the hypothesis that

total FoI expenditures have the same distribution by expenditure domain as ERDF expenses.

Based on the different combination of FoI expenditures and ERDF expenses available in the

FIR, ERDF FoI data can be classified as:

• Specific i.e. as reported in the FIR;

• Estimated, based on total, i. e. ERDF plus national – incl. regional – plus private;

expenditures FoI breakdown and (not FoI) ERDF expenditures;

• Estimated, based on total actually paid and certified ERDF eligible data as provided

by DG REGIO9

• Estimated, based on LIR information10;

• Not Available, as FoI data are missing;

• Available but not usable, as FoI data are mixing up ERDF and other Structural Funds.

The following table illustrates in detail the relationship between information reported in the

FIR and the above classification of availability of ERDF FoI data11.

8 In the same way, it is obvious that total expenditures FoI data at the measure level can’t be used to estimate ERDF funding breakdown by FoI in monetary terms in case ERDF expenditure per measure are missing. Also, using the same approach for estimating ERDF expenditures FoI distribution is much less reliable at the priority or programme level, as FoI shares differ between measures, as well as the share of community out of total expenses. 9 This refers to programmes with FoI data based on total expenditures reported, but ERDF expenditure not available. 10 The category includes few programmes having one FoI per measure for all measures both in the programming complements and the LIR. For these programmes, the same FoI measure combinations were used to estimate final ERDF breakdown by FoI. 11 Classification of each of the analysed programmes is provided in Annex 1, while further details on the data available in the FIRs can be found in the sheet “Questionnaire” of the expenditure database.


Table 1. Calculation of FoI Classification

1-0 2-1 2-2 2-3 3-1 3-3

Sour

ce

Data availability

Fund

ref

eren

ce

Ori

gin

al E

RD

F

FoI

dat

a

Est

imat

ed E

RD

F

FoI

dat

a ba

sed

on

T

otal

ex

pen

dit

ure

s

Est

imat

ed E

RD

F

FoI

dat

a ba

sed

on

L

IR in

form

atio

n

Est

imat

ed F

oI

dat

a ba

sed

on

ce

rtif

ied

ER

DF

ex

pen

dit

ure

s

FoI

info

rmat

ion

m

issi

ng

FoI

info

rmat

ion

m

ixin

g u

p E

RD

F

and

oth

er

stru

ctu

ral F

un

ds

ERDF x

Total x x

Mix x x x FIR

FoI coefficients (i.e. FoI as a % of the total measure expenditure)

n. a. x x x

ERDF x

Total x x

Mix FIR

FoI expenditures in monetary terms (i.e. ERDF FoI absolute values)

n. a. x x x

ERDF x x x x x x

x x

Total x x x

x x

Mix

x

FIR

Expenditures in monetary terms at the same level the FoI information refers to (e.g. for ERDF FoI coefficients as % of measure level -> ERDF total expenditures at measure level)

n. a. x x x

ERDF x x

Total x x

Mix

LIR

FoI coefficients (i.e. FoI as a % of the total measure expenditure)

n. a. x x

Source: Collection of information available in programme FIRs and LIRs.


2.2 DATABASE WITH EXPENDITURE DATA BY FIELD OF INTERVENTION (TASK 1)

Collection of expenditure data was carried through the following working steps:

• National experts filled in templates with data collected from the FIRs and sent it back

to the responsible of the database.

• Data was consolidated into one database.

• Data was checked regarding:

o completeness (all fields of the database filled with data);

o internal consistency of expenditure data (e.g. total expenditures over FoI per

measure equals total expenditures per measure);

o consistency of data with the questionnaire statements concerning availability,

level, type and unit of FoI data;

o consistency of the information gathered with total actually paid and certified

eligible expenditure.

In case of errors or inconsistencies national experts were asked to control and correct if

necessary the data inserted. Where needed, data in the templates where checked against FIRs

by the responsible experts of t33, OIR and Spatial Foresight. For some programmes newly

scanned FIRs or new information from other resources was provided by DG Regio in order to

fill in data gaps.

The database on expenditures is a MS Excel ®format and includes 225 programmes of 25

Member States. It comprises eleven spreadsheets as shown in the figure below. The main

database includes all detailed information. Data in the other spreadsheets are drawn for the

most part from this database while in some cases include additional information.

The content of each spreadsheet is described below. Please refer to the Quick User Guide for

more detailed information.


Figure 1: Structure of the expenditure database

Source: Expenditure Database

Contents of the spreadsheets:

Questionnaire Basic Information about comprehensiveness of the FIRs and data

included in the database,

• data source of FoI expenditures (FoI classification);

• availability of ERDF expenditures per measure;

• availability and level of FoI expenditures;

• FoI expenditures type (ERDF or total expenditures);

• FoI unit (percentage or EUR amount).

Database Main database containing all information.

• Block 1: definition of the records;

• Block 2: initial planned allocations from the programme

complements;

• Block 3: Allocations in the latest version of Implementation Report

(LIR) in SFC;

• Block 4: final actual allocations in the FIRs;

• Block 5: Calculations necessary for the pivot tables, basis for

Aggregation 1 to 5.

Quality Comparison of total over measures versus total over FoI:


• Final ERDF expenditures at Measure Level;

• Final ERDF expenditures at FoI Level;

• Final total expenditures at Measure Level;

• Final total expenditures at FoI Level;

• Final ‘ERDF*’ expenditures at FoI Level12.

Certified Table comparing ‘Total actually paid and certified eligible expenditure’

and data of the database, grouped by programme.

Aggr1 Aggregation at Programme Level:

Initial ERDF and total expenditures versus Final ERDF and total

expenditures.

Aggr2 Aggregation at Measure Level:

Initial ERDF and total expenditures versus Final ERDF and total

expenditures.

Aggr3 Aggregation at FoI Level:

total expenditures per FoI-Group;

• Initial FoI expenditures ERDF;

• Final FoI expenditures ERDF;

• Final FoI expenditures ‘ERDF*’12;

• Final total FoI expenditures;

grouped by Programme.

Aggr4 Aggregation at FoI Level:

Initial and Final ERDF and total expenditures per FoI-Group for one or

more selected programmes, basis for diagram.

Aggr5 Number of Programmes by Member State grouped by FoI-

Classification:

Number of programmes classified by origin of ERDF FoI expenditures

12 ERDF* = Share of Total FoI / measure * ERDF / measure for all programmes without FoI information on ERDF FoI expenditures.


(original data, or estimated or not available).

Dia_ERDFFoI Diagram based on Aggr4

Initial versus final ERDF expenditures (if not available ‘ERDF*’12

expenditure) for one or all programmes per FoI-Group as share of total

expenditures [%]

FoI_Fam Conversion list from FoI codes to FoI families.

2.3 DATABASE WITH DATA ON INDICATORS (TASK 2)

The database was provided in MS EXCEL ® format to the national experts to make the

collection of data easier.

The main working steps for the collection of indicator data are:

• National experts filled in templates with indicator data collected from the FIRs and

sent them back to the responsible for the database;

• Data was consolidated into one database;

• Data was checked regarding:

o completeness (all fields of the database filled with data);

o consistency of fund inserted at level of priority-measure-combination;

o aggregation key e.g. programme level indicators were verified against measure

level indicators regarding possible double-counting; subtotals like female out

of total gross jobs were checked and marked as “sub” where needed;

o core indicators 2007-2013 e.g. verification of the links between database

indicators);

o Consistency of units e.g. harmonization, where needed, of different languages.

In case of errors the national experts were asked to control and correct if necessary the data

inserted. Additionally some data were checked directly against the FIRs by the responsible

experts of t33, OIR and Spatial Foresight.


The data inserted by the national experts was then imported into an MS Access ® database,

where all the necessary search and reporting functionalities have been developed.

The database includes 226 programmes of 25 Member States. It comprises one main

datasheet that can be exported completely or in parts according to filters set in the “Detail

Search”. Additionally the database provides 5 predefined MS Access ® aggregations which

can also be exported to MS Excel ® (see figure below).

The content of the main database is described below. Please refer to the Quick User Guide for

more detailed information.

Indicator characteristics entered in the database were drawn for the most part from

information provided in the examined FIRs of the Programming Period 2000-2006. The type

of indicator (output, result, impact) also corresponds to that mentioned in the FIRs.

However, if no type was mentioned, the definition provided in Annex 5 was applied. Please

note that only ERDF indicators have been entered.

Figure 2: Structure of the indicator database


The main database consists of three blocks:

• Block 1: definition of the indicator records:

o ID-Number, Member State Code, Programme Reference Number and Name,

Objective, Priority Name, Measure Name ;

o Indicator Type (Output, Result and Impact);


o Reference of Indicator Type (from the FIR or estimation of the national

experts);

o Indicator Name (native and English language);

o Financing Fund (ERDF, or ERDF and other funds for multi-fund priorities or

programmes);

o FIR-Status referring to the ex-post evaluation study (e. g. ‘new’ if found in the

FIR but not in the data feasibility study).

o Indicator Level (measure, priority, programme);

o Remarks;

o Unit of the indicator;

o Aggregation Key (informing if indicator is an aggregation or subtitle of other

indicators; it is used to avoid double counting).

• Block 2: where the data from the FIR was included:

o Baseline values, target values and achieved values and, if available, their time

reference (year);

o For each value a separate column includes number values exclusively (marked

with the suffix ‘_Nr’). The column can be used for further calculations;

o Statement of over- and under-achievement and, if available, explanation of the

over- or under-performance as drawn from the FIRs;

o Links to FoI codes and Core Indicators 2007 – 2013;

o Indication of gender and environmental relevance.

• Block 3: with the initial values from the feasibility study database:

Initially inserted baseline, target and achieved values and, if available, time reference (year).


3. Statistics on breakdown by Field of Intervention

This chapter provides an analysis of the data gathered as part of the activities carried out

under Task 1 – Provide a review on expenditure of the programmes for 2000-2006.

Completeness of FoI data made available in final implementation reports as well as the

consistency of FIR data with total actually paid and certified eligible expenditure information

is illustrated in 3.1. Comparison of the initial plans for the use of EU financing and the final

reported use is described in 3.2, with special reference to the allocation of expenses by FoI.

3.1 COMPLETENESS OF THE DATA

Out of the 227 programmes analysed, final ERDF expenditure data broken down by national

or regional managing authorities by FoI at the programme level was identified for a total of

211 programmes13. These represent about 92% of total actually paid and certified

ERDF eligible expenditure as provided by DG REGIO, that is 116 out of 126 billion

EUR, and include:

A. Specific data

• ERDF expenditure data broken down by FoI, as provided in the FIRs (green in the

following figure);

B. Estimated FOI data for ERDF

• estimated ERDF expenditure data broken down by FoI, for those programmes stating

FoI expenses categorisation for Total expenditures, but not for ERDF specifically

(dark yellow): in these cases, it was assumed Total and ERDF spending FoI

distribution to be identical;

• estimated ERDF expenditure data broken down by FoI, for those programmes

providing an FoI percentage split but not making available ERDF expenditure data

13 For additional information on the FoI data availability categories described in the current paragraph, see Chapter 2.


(yellow): total actually paid and certified ERDF eligible data as provided by DG

REGIO was used instead of ERDF expenditure from the FIR, assuming the two are

equivalent;

• estimated ERDF expenditure data broken down by FoI, for those programmes

missing FoI expenses breakdown in the FIR, but with programming complements

and/or the annual implementation reports linking each measure to one specific FoI,

for all programme measures (purple). In these cases it was assumed that the same

relation between measures and FoIs applies to the final expenditure.

Programmes lacking FoI information (red) represent 28% of the national ERDF expenditure

in Italy (5.5 billion EUR), 18% in the United Kingdom (1.5 billion EUR), 17% in Germany (2.4

billion EUR), 6% in France (0.5 billion EUR). They amount to 8% of certified expenditure

EU-wide .

Figure 3. Specific, estimated and missing ERDF FOI data per Member State (%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CZ EE HU LU LV PT SI SK IE BE SE AT DK ES FI LT MT PL CY GR NL FR DE UK IT

Specific Est_TOT EST_Cert EST_LIR FoI missing MixingERDF&SF.



The chart above illustrates the breakdown between specific, estimated and missing ERDF

FOI expenditure per Member State14. The category “Mixing ERDF & SF” refers to

programmes reporting ERDF or total ERDF-related expenses jointly with other Cohesion

funding (ESF, EAFRD, EMFF), making it impossible to single out ERDF support (light red,

1% of certified expenditure).

Due to the fact that there’s no ERDF expenditure information available in some of the FIRs,

shares are calculated out of total actually paid and certified ERDF eligible expenditure as

provided by DG REGIO.

The same expenditure data are illustrated in absolute terms in the chart below. A full list of

FIRs with missing FoI data is provided in Annex 1.

Figure 4. Specific, estimated and missing ERDF FOI data per Member State (EUR billion)

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK

Specific Est_TOT EST_LIR EST_Cert FoI missing MixingERDF&SF.


14 The same classification is used in Aggr5 of the expenditure database to inform on the completeness of FoI data in each Member State in terms of number of programmes belonging to the different categories.


Not all specific or estimated data have been used to compare the split of initial and final

expenses by FoI. In particular, FoI data for five programmes15 were not included in further

analysis as the information provided was not usable e.g. FoI figures in the FIR were

calculated at the measure level but do not sum up to 100% per measure, and there was no

clear explanation of the approach adopted. Programmes reporting ERDF or total ERDF-

related expenses jointly with other Cohesion funding were also not used for further analysis.

Expenses of the programmes were 2% of the total certified EU25 global ERDF expenditure,

so that actual coverage of the estimations presented below was slightly lower than that in

Figure 3 and 4.

ERDF FoI specific or estimated data was more than 99% of actually paid and certified

eligible expenditures16 of the respective programmes (about EUR 114 billion).

15 The programmes are: DOCUP obj. 2 Nordrhein-Westfalen (2000DE162DO004); DOCUP obj. 2 Limousin (2000FR162DO004); DOCUP obj. 2 Haute-Normandie (2000FR162DO008); DOCUP obj. 2 Languedoc-Roussillon (2000FR162DO009); DOCUP OBJ2 BRETAGNE (2000FR162DO014). 16 Inconsistencies might depend for example on the incompleteness of FoI data in some programmes e.g. FIR provides expenditure breakdown data for the most important and not all FoIs. The 99% figure includes programmes with FIR FoI expenses higher and lower than certified eligible expenditures. As this might distort the perception of inconsistencies between the two data sets i.e. higher and lower expenses are compensating at the overall level, the absolute value of the difference between FIR and certified expenditure was calculated for each programme. When added up across all programmes, this represents 1.1% of total certified expenditure. It can be also considered that programmes with FIR FoI expenses more than 10% higher or lower than certified eligible expenditures are worth 2.4% of the latter. Both findings reinforce the idea that discrepancies between the two data sets are marginal.


3.2 ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND INITIAL PLANS FOR THE USE OF EU FUNDS

Based on information collected, ERDF total expenditure data broken down by FoI at the

programme level is aggregated at EU level. As a result, comparison of the initial and

final ERDF FoI expenditure allocations at the EU level is illustrated in the following

chart17. To make the graph more easily readable, areas of intervention as described in Annex

IV of Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 were grouped into a more limited number

of FoI groups. Linkages between areas of intervention in Regulation 438/2001 and FoI

groups shown in the graph (as well as in the rest of the report) are described in Annex 2.

Figure 5. Initial and final ERDF FoI expenditure allocations, EU level (%)

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Initial % Final %


17 For a more accurate comparison, initial FoI expenditures were included in the calculation only for programmes with actual or estimated ERDF FoI final expenditure. Therefore, information used for the graph does not include all the data contained in sheet Aggr3 of the expenditure database. Initial and final ERDF expenditure allocations per Member State are illustrated in Annex 3.


As shown by the chart, overall differences at EU level between breakdown by FoI of initial

and final expenditure is limited. The maximum deviation occurs in the area of transport

infrastructure, where final expenditures were more than 1% higher than initial expenses

(from 28.4 to 29.5%). At this level of aggregation less than 3% of ERDF expenditures were

spent in a different area than initially planned. This was calculated by adding up absolute

values of the deviation figures by FoI group, then dividing by two to avoid double-counting18.

However, the picture is more complex if the data is analysed in terms of combinations of

Member States and FoI groups. In fact, aggregated deviations per FoI group at the EU level

may be read as the sum of differences occurring at Member States level. In this perspective,

they are likely to be smoothing out larger differences occurring at this more disaggregated

level. In other words, the more detailed the level of disaggregation used for the analysis the

greater the share of expenditure shifting from one FoI group to the other.

The following table illustrates the point with reference to FoI group 15. Assisting large

business organisations. Initial and final shares of the specific Member States FoI group 15

combinations out of EU-wide all FoI groups allocation are shown.

Figure 6. Aggregated and disaggregated deviations per FoI group

MS Initial% Final% Diff%PT 0.1 0.8 0.7DE 0.5 0.7 0.2PL 0.1 0.3 0.1UK 0.1 0.2 0.0BE 0.1 0.1 0.0AT 0.2 0.2 0.0EE 0.0 0.0 0.0SI 0.0 0.0 0.0DK 0.0 0.0 0.0SE 0.0 0.0 0.0LU 0.0 0.0 0.0HU 0.0 0.0 0.0LT 0.0 0.0 0.0NL 0.0 0.0 0.0CZ 0.0 0.0 0.0LV 0.0 0.0 0.0FI 0.1 0.0 -0.1FR 0.2 0.1 -0.1GR 0.1 0.1 -0.1IT 0.6 0.4 -0.2ES 1.1 0.4 -0.7

EUInitial% 3.4Final% 3.3Diff% -0.1


18 Negative or positive deviations in the share of one FoI group imply by definition an equal and opposite change in the shares of one or more FoI groups; the latter were not included in the calculation of aggregate deviations.


Negative deviations in Spain and Italy are counterbalanced by expenditure increase in

Portugal. Initial expenses and/or deviations in the remaining Member States are modest, and

their contribution to the overall deviation marginal or zero.

By adopting this more disaggregated perspective, it appears that ERDF spent in a different

area than initially planned totals 9.8%.19 EU-wide. Deviation results from the combination of

two elements:

• the share of each Member State expense out of total initial ERDF expenditure at the

EU level;

• the extent of FoI group expenditure deviations within each Member State.

The following table illustrates the two factors for each Member State, together with the

contribution to the aggregate deviation at the EU level. In particular, the following are

provided (columns, left to right): ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code of the country; initial share of the

Member State out of the EU-wide ERDF allocation; sum of absolute deviations at the

Member State level20; contribution of the country to the EU-wide aggregate deviation21.

19 This is calculated after removing from the deviation the (marginal) effect of initial and final breakdown of expenditure by Member States differing, as well as breakdown by FoI between Member States. Here is an example. Suppose Member State x has an especially high share of expenses devoted to FoI group y. Everything else being equal, reducing the share of EU expenditures of Member States x will cause a deviation in the portion of EU expenditures devoted to FoI y. By including this factor, total deviation equals 9.7%. 20 This is column “Sum Abs Diff” of the table below, i.e. sum of the absolute values of the differences between initial and final allocations to each of the FoI groups. As a formula: where

j is the Member State being analysed

i = 1, …, n are the individual FoI groups the Member State invested in

IEij and FEij are the initial and final ERDF EUR allocations of Member State j to FoI group i 21 This is column “Contribution” of the table below, and it is calculated by multiplying the initial share of the Member State j out of the EU-wide ERDF allocation by Sum Abs Diffj .


Table 2. Contribution to EU aggregate deviation by Member State

MS Initial % Sum Abs Diff Contribution MS Initial % Sum Abs

Diff Contribution

AT 0.8 12.6 0.1 IT 11.9 7.6 0.9

BE 0.8 7.7 0.1 LT 0.5 6.3 0.0

CY 0.0 31.1 0.0 LU 0.0 40.3 0.0

CZ 0.9 4.0 0.0 LV 0.4 7.8 0.0

DE 9.4 8.7 0.8 MT 0.0 6.4 0.0

DK 0.1 22.8 0.0 NL 0.8 15.2 0.1

EE 0.2 7.3 0.0 PL 4.8 13.0 0.6

ES 27.2 7.8 2.1 PT 11.9 18.3 2.2

FI 0.7 15.3 0.1 SE 0.7 13.9 0.1

FR 5.2 10.3 0.5 SI 0.1 8.6 0.0

GR 14.0 7.7 1.1 SK 0.4 11.8 0.1

HU 1.1 5.3 0.1 UK 6.1 8.7 0.5

IE 1.8 11.8 0.2 EU 100.0 9.8


Spain and Portugal are the main contributors to the overall change in the distribution of

expenditure among FoI groups. However, in absolute terms the deviation between FoI

groups is much more relevant for Portugal, while the result for Spain is influenced by the

relevant allocation of ERDF resources to the country (more than one fourth of the total). The

main deviations in Portugal refer to the increase in the assistance to SMEs and the craft

sector (from 4 to 13% of national ERDF resources) and the reduction of investment in

transport infrastructures (from 32 to 25%).

The data illustrated in the table need to be carefully interpreted, as deviations may

sometimes be due not to changing policy priorities but to:

• Refinements in the use of codes - Initial and final programme expenditures

might have been stated at a different level of detail in terms of FoI digits. In these

cases expenditure shifting from one FoI group to another may just represent a better

specification of the area of expenditure e.g. passing from a general statement of

expenses in the area of basic infrastructure to more specific expenditure reporting in

the field of transport infrastructure implies a shift from FoI group 40 to 41, while not

necessarily reflecting a shift in policy priorities.


• Technical corrections in the use of codes - Identical actions or projects may

have sometimes been interpreted as belonging to different FoI groups at different

stages of the programming period, e.g. support to the investment of the enterprises in

the field of energy might have been taken alternatively as 43. Energy or, more

correctly, as 16. Assisting SMEs and craft sector. This would also explain some of the

reported deviations.

At the same time, as the analysis focuses on FoI groups, it might well be that additional

variations occur between different FoIs linked to the same group.

The same exercise has been performed by focusing on FoI groups instead of Member States22.

Assistance to SMEs and the craft sector as well as investment in transport infrastructure are

the main contributors to overall deviation at the EU level. These domains are also those

receiving the highest share of ERDF resources, and this is a key factor in explaining the

results.

Primary contributors to the changes in both FoI groups are expenditure deviations in

Portugal (see above) and Spain. In the latter, assistance to SMEs increased from 10 to 13% of

national resources, while transport expenses went from 36 to 40%. Germany, where

expenditure in the assistance to SMEs and the craft sector passed from 26% to 19% of

national expenditure, is also an important contributor to deviation in that domain.

Table 3. Contribution to EU aggregate deviation by FoI group23

FoI Initial % Sum Abs Diff Contribution

11. Agriculture 0.1 71.1 0.1

12. Forestry 0.0 42.0 0.0

22 Once disaggregated in terms of combinations of Member States and FoI groups, the same data can be added up by Member States, as in Table 2, or FoI groups, as in Table 3. 23 For an explanation of table headings, see footnotes 19 and 20 above.


FoI Initial % Sum Abs Diff Contribution

13. development of rural areas 0.8 15.8 0.1

14. Fisheries 0.2 11.6 0.0

15. Assisting large business 3.3 33.8 1.1

16. Assisting SMEs and craft sector 16.4 11.7 1.9

17. Tourism 6.8 9.6 0.6

18. RTDI 8.0 5.7 0.5

21.ICT services 2.8 12.4 0.3

30.HUMAN CAPITAL + Social infra 8.1 8.3 0.7

40.Other - Incl. Urban & brown field 5.4 13.2 0.7

41.Transport infrastructure 28.8 4.8 1.4

42.ICT infrastructure & technology 2.5 16.9 0.4

43.ENERGY 1.8 19.6 0.4

44.Environment Infrastructures 12.7 8.8 1.1

50.Technical Assistance 1.8 10.6 0.2

51.OTHER 0.6 33.0 0.2

EU 100.0 9.8


Total deviations are obviously higher if examined at the more disaggregated level of

programmes and FoI combinations. In this case, total change at the EU level is 15%. The

table below lists the ten programmes which contributed most to this deviation. For each

programme, the table provides the main deviations between FoI groups in terms of ERDF

initial and final allocation.

As shown by the table, the programmes are worth more than one fifth of total ERDF

resources allocated, and contribute to more than one third (6 out of 15%) of the global EU

deviation at this level. Once again, the results need careful interpretation, as not all changes

reflect relevant changes of priority. This is clear when looking for example at the Economia

programme (PT), where the re-allocation of resources between FoI groups is likely to be due

to correction in the original allocation of the codes. Most programme resources, being

initially related to the technical assistance domain, are in the final period allocated to the

assistance of large enterprises as well as SMEs.


Table 4. ERDF programmes: main contributors to EU FoI aggregate deviation

MS CCI Code Programme Name Init

Share %

Sum Abs Diff

Contribution Main deviations

PT 1999PT161PO008 Economia 2.5 98.9 2.4 15 (0 to 31%); 16 (0 to 55%); 50 (100 to 1%).

ES 2000ES161PO014 PO obj. 1 Competitividad y desarollo del Tejido Productivo

1.7 47.4 0.8 15 (45 to 4%); 16 (45 to 92%).

ES 2000ES161PO003 PO obj. 1 Andalucia 6.3 7.1 0.4 41 (45 to 49%); 44 (31 to 25%).

GR 2000GR161PO016 Compétitivité 1.7 24.2 0.4 16 (39 to 61%); 43 (23 to 9%)

PL 2003PL161PO002 Improvement of the Competitiveness of Enterprises

1.1 32.9 0.4 15 (11 to 22%); 16 (39 to 61%); 21 (12 to 0%); 42 (23 to 7%).

DE 1999DE161PO006 Freistaat Sachsen 3.0 11.7 0.3 16 (17 to 12%); 30 (0 to 5%); 44 (18 to 22%).

IT 1999IT161PO009 PO OBJ 1 PUGLIA 1.6 21.4 0.3 13 (6 to 0%); 21 (10 to 3%); 41 (7 to 13%).

DE 1999DE161PO003 PO OBJ 1 SACHSEN-ANHALT 1.7 19.6 0.3 40 (25 to 12%); 41 (4 to

11%).

PL 2003PL161PO001 Integrated Regional Development OP 2.4 12.5 0.3 30 (9 to 15%); 41 (39 to

43%); 43 (4 to 0%).

UK 1999GB161DO002 DOCUP OBJ1 MERSEYSIDE 0.8 36.0 0.3 16 (36 to 28%); 17 (4 to 14%); 21 (8 to 1%); 40 (2 to 27%).

22.8 6.1



4. Main features of the monitoring systems

This chapter provides an analysis of the data gathered as part of the activities carried out

under Task 2 – Create a complete and updated database on output, result and impact

indicators. After illustrating some basic statistics of the monitoring systems in the Member

States (4.1), the share of indicators measuring outputs / results / impacts is analysed in 4.2.

Based on the information in the FIRs, availability of baseline, target, and achievement values

is described in 4.3, highlighting variations across Member States, while paragraph 4.4

comments on the frequency and explanations of over/under achievements on physical

indicators.

Lastly, exemplary approach to reporting at the programme level is identified within 4.5.

4.1 BASIC STATISTICS

The study analysed indicator data that was included in the final implementation reports of

226 ERDF co-funded programmes. The number of indicators per programme varies

considerably, passing from the single indicator provided by the Portuguese programme

Public Administration to the 507 in the Italian Regione Toscana programme.

Overall, there are an average of 106 indicators per programme (24,013 indicators for 226

programmes). Looking at Member States, Italy and United Kingdom have the highest

number of indicators per programme24, with an average of almost 200, while there are less

than 30 indicators for programmes in Cyprus and Denmark.

For each Member State, the following table illustrates the number of programmes analysed,

the indicators identified per country, as well as the average number of indicators per

programme.

24 Even though Italy has the highest average number of indicators, United Kingdom is the Member State with by far the highest median number of indicators per programme. This is because the Italian average is influenced by the large number of indicators included in a relatively limited number of programmes. In this respect, median values can be considered as providing a picture less influenced by ‘outliers’.


Table 5. Basic statistics of the monitoring systems in the Member States

MS No Progr No Indicators Avg Progr MS No Progr No Indicators Avg

Progr

AT 9 1,348 150 IT 27 5,182

192

BE 8 744 93 LT 1 91

91

CY 1 17 17 LU 1 40

40

CZ 4 359 90 LV 1 93

93

DE 18 1,622 90 MT 1 68

68

DK 1 25 25 NL 5 267

53

EE 1 42 42 PL 4 435

109

ES 25 2,786 111 PT 20 1,319

66

FI 5 325 65 SE 6 359

60

FR 30 1,982 66 SI 1 38

38

GR 24 2,331 97 SK 3 101

34

HU 4 169 42 UK 21 3,988

190

IE 5 282 56 Total 226 24,013

106

Source: Indicator Database

4.2 STATISTICS ON TYPES OF INDICATORS (OUTPUT, RESULT, IMPACT)

The FIRs analysed cover indicators related to output, results and impacts. While in most

cases (22,032 or 92% of the total) the indicator type is specified in the FIR, a number of

programmes do not state it explicitly. This is the case especially for programmes in France

(type not stated for 33% of indicators used), Germany (32%), Finland and Sweden (100%).

Whenever the indicator type was not clarified in the FIR, indicator titles were used to classify

each indicator as output, result or impact based on the definition included in Annex 5.


Overall, 51% of the identified indicators refer to outputs, 30% to results and 19% to

impacts25. It must be noted that indicator types included in the FIRs do not always seem to be

correct, showing the difficulties of programme authorities to distinguish between the

different types.

The proportion among the three indicator types varies largely between Member States.

Denmark shows the highest share of output indicators (almost 70%), while Finland has by far

the largest proportion of result indicators (76%). At the same time, more than 60% of

indicators used by Austrian programmes are impact indicators, while Danish, Portuguese,

and Swedish monitoring systems do not provide impact indicators at all. The following chart

illustrates the differences among Member States in terms of relative proportion of output,

result and impact indicators.

Figure 7. Share of output, result and impact indicators in the Member States

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DK PT FR SE IT LV GR ES PL DE NL CY HU LU SI IE MT EE UK SK CZ BE LT AT FI EU

Output Result Impact


25 92% of the indicators used by ERDF programmes refer to the measure level, while 7% to the priority level and 1% to the programme level.


4.3 STATISTICS ON INDICATOR BASELINE, ACHIEVEMENTS AND TARGET VALUES

This section illustrates differences between Member States in terms of availability for the

baseline, achievement and target values.

4.3.a) Share of baseline values

About 77% of the indicators identified at the EU level have a baseline value. It must be noted

that the figure is higher than the share of indicators with baselines as reported in the FIRs, as

it includes both zero and non null baseline values explicitly stated in the FIRs and zero

implicit baselines. The latter were attributed by the national experts to those indicators

missing a baseline in the FIR, but with a title suggesting the appropriateness of a zero

baseline value. Zero implicit baseline values were attributed to about 49% of the indicators

identified.

Figure 8. Availability of baseline values in the Member States

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DK EE LT NL SK FI BE PL FR AT LU HU IT LV UK ES CY IE PT MT DE CZ SI SE GR

implicit explicit no null value


The above chart highlights the differences among the Member States: while in some

countries it was possible to link each indicator to a baseline value, there are Member States


like Greece, Sweden, Slovenia, and Czech Republic with less than half of indicators with

baseline values. It shall also be noted that few countries used non null baseline values.

4.3.b) Share of achieved values

There is 96% average availability for indicators with achievement figures in relevant Member

States. The share of indicators with achievement values increased compared to that resulting

from the analysis of the implementation reports during the ex-post evaluation exercise (91%).

In all countries except Belgium the availability is above 90%.

Figure 9. Availability of achievement values in the Member States

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

CY DK FI LV PL SE SI ES AT NL DEMT FR LU PT IT HU SK GR LT CZ EE UK IE BE TOT


4.3.c) Share of target values

Overall, target values are available for 82% of the indicators identified. Three Member States

(Austria, Greece and Denmark) have less than 50% indicators with target values. Denmark is

particularly notable since no target values are made available at all.


Figure 10. Availability of target values in the Member States

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CY EE FI HULU SI SK ES NL LT UK PL IT MT PT IE BE SE FR LV DE CZ AT GR DK TOT


For over 13,000 indicators both the current target as well as the target stated in the annual

implementation report analysed during the ex-post evaluation exercise are numerical non

null values. By comparing the figures stated in the FIR with the previous values for the same

indicators, it emerges that the target did not change for about 60% of the indicators, while it

was revised upward or downward by more than 50% of the initial value in 19% of the cases.

Target values are revised upward and downward almost in the same proportion; at the same

time, target changes are relatively more frequent for result indicators and less common for

impact indicators.

The situation varies greatly at the Member State level. While target values in some countries

remained almost the same as reported during the ex-post evaluation exercise, in some other

cases target figures differed for more than half of the indicators.

It must be noted that, due to the fact that target values were sometimes revised during the

programming period, a number of programmes reported more than one target per indicator,

e.g. original and revised version(s). Target changes in the database may therefore only reflect

the choice to report the previous or the latest version of the target. In this perspective, the

change reported for some targets may well have been implemented at programme level

before 2007.


4.4 OVER- OR UNDER-ACHIEVEMENTS FOR PHYSICAL INDICATORS

The ratio between achievements and target values can be calculated for a total of 18,651

indicators out of 24,030 (78%). The following chart illustrates the split of these 18,651

between under- and over-achievements, as well as indicating the proportion of those

indicators for which the achievement equals the target value.

As shown by the graph, over-achievements (49%) are relatively more common than under-

achievements (38%). The same applies to significant over-achievements i.e. achievements

higher than 130% of the target value when compared to significant under-achievements i.e.

achievements lower than 80% of targets26.

Moreover, by summing up the share of significant under- and over-achievements, it emerges

that for about 58% of the analysed indicators achievements were rather far-away from the

targets initially established.

Figure 11. Share of under- and over-achievements, EU level

13%16%

33%

25%

13%

equal

over

significantly over

significantly under

under


26 This is a working definition of over and under- achievements agreed with the European Commission.


At the Member State level, the proportion of significant under- and over-achievements varies

greatly, passing from more than 80% of the total for Slovenia to 30% for Spain27. Moreover,

even if over-achievements are globally more frequent than under-achievements, the situation

varies largely among countries, with Finland and Sweden showing a higher proportion of

under- achievements, and the share of under- and over-achievements being almost balanced

in Member States like France and United Kingdom. Low

The histograms in the following chart illustrate the proportion of over- (green) and under-

(red, shown in negative values) achievements per Member State, with the yellow dots

illustrating the difference between the two. Significant over- and –under-achievements are

shown in darker colors.

Figure 12. Share of under- and over-achievements in the Member States

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SI PL LU HU PT CZ MT SK LT IT BE LV EE AT NL GR DE IE CY ES UK FR SE FI

over significantly over under significantly under diff


27 The proportion of significant under- and over-achievements is lower for Austria, Greece, and Malta than for Spain (see also Figure 12). Nevertheless, in the case of Austria and Greece, it was possible to compare targets and achievements for a significantly lower proportion of indicators, due to the limited number of targets available. At the same time, indicators for Malta show a considerably higher proportion of achievements being equal to targets, which makes the figures for the country not comparable with those of most of the other Member States.


By comparing the occurrences of the different types of interventions among the indicators

with significant over- or under-achievements and in the overall database, it emerges that

relevant over or under-performance is especially common in the case of initiatives assisting

small and medium enterprises, and more in general in the context of actions supporting the

productive environment.

As regards the frequency of significant over- and under-achievements per indicator type, the

following table shows that the former are relatively less common among impact indicators,

while the latter are less frequent among output indicators. Overall, result indicators show the

highest proportion of achievements which are considerably distant from the targets initially

established.

Table 6. Share of under- and over-achievements per indicator type

Achievement and indicator type Total Significant

Over-achievements (output) 49% 34%

Over-achievements (result) 50% 33%

Over-achievements (impact) 48% 29%

Over (total) 49% 33%

Under-achievements (output) 35% 23%

Under-achievements (result) 41% 28%

Under-achievements (impact) 43% 28%

Under (total) 38% 25%


The share of significant over- or under-achievements is slightly lower among the indicators

which changed target. Excluding these indicators, the proportion of significant over- or

under-achievements would be 62 and not 58%.


The adoption of revised targets reduces in particular the proportion of significant over-

achievements, which become partly over- and partly under-achievements. At the Member

State level, Germany and the Netherlands are the countries which benefited most from

the revised targets: their share of significant over-and under-achievements would have been

more than 10% higher if there had been no target revisions.

Explanations of the differences between attainments and targets are provided for a total of

7% of the indicators (1,059 out of 16,225) resulting in over- or under-achievements, i.e. these

are not given for a total of 93% of over- and under-achieving indicators. Austria, Czech

Republic, Luxemburg, Latvia, and Portugal are the Member States which provided reasons

for over- and under-performance more frequently.

Explanations given can be classified according to the following categories:

• Internal dynamics of programmes – In several cases financial allocations were

moved from one measure to another, or between different initiatives within the same

measure, due to changes in the focus of programming strategies.

• Demand – Beneficiaries in the territories might show higher / lower demand for a

certain type of interventions than originally planned. Even without leading to re-

allocation of resources between measures or interventions, the fact that financial

support is market-led can explain by itself why certain targets have not been met. As

an example, there might be an insufficient number of SMEs owned by women, ethnic

minorities or people with disabilities among enterprises requiring the support made

available by ERDF programmes.

• Difficulties with the estimation of targets – According to information provided

in the FIR, the establishment of optimistic or pessimistic targets is one of the main

reasons explaining over- and under-achievements. Unrealistic targets are established

due to the fact that project features are not taken into proper account, e.g.. the success

rate of research projects is lower than for other initiatives, or because project cost

estimations are too far from expenses incurred during the implementation of the

operations. In some cases, problems with defining the indicators at the time the

targets were set explain inconsistencies with the following attainments.


• Projects features and implementation – Some projects were still not

operational at the time achievements were reported, due to the characteristics of the

projects themselves i.e. complex/integrated projects, or to delays in the

implementation of the planned initiatives. Moreover, a number of deviations could

not be quantified due to the longer term impact of the interventions, going beyond the

programming period. This also depends on the kind of impact measured and the

nature of the indicators used. For example, the time lag that occurred between firms

implementing assistance and generating jobs and/or turnover is sometimes used to

justify the inability to populate achievements for indicators related to the creation of

jobs.

• Exogenous reasons – Market conditions can result in programme attainments

being quite different from original expectations. One common reason explaining

under-achievements is the downturn which has affected the economy in the last few

years. At the same time, favorable market conditions have also been quoted as a

reason for under-performance, due to the encouragement of greater private sector

involvement which reduced the need for ERDF intervention.

Some other external factors are peculiar to specific areas, as in the case of the

Northern Ireland Peace II Programme, where: “the high over-achievements are due to

the fact that […]the overall success of the peace process encouraged individuals and

groups to engage in cross-border work”.

Unexpected variations in the magnitude of change of countrywide parameters have

also influenced the attainments of indicators built on the comparison between the

status of specific variables at regional and national level.

The chart below illustrates the share of each explanation category out of the total number of

explanations identified in the FIRs. As the graph shows, the most significant part of the

reasons provided (41%) refer to difficulties with the estimation of targets.


Figure 13. Share of under- and over-achievements explanations

11%

41%

10%

21%

17%

Demand

Difficulties with the estimation of targets

Exogenous reasons

Internal dynamics of programmes

Projects features and implementation


By analysing the frequency of the different categories of explanations at the overall level and

at the level of most recurrent intervention types, it emerges that:

• problems related to difficulties with the estimations of targets are especially common

in the case of research, technological development and innovation interventions as

well as of telecommunications infrastructure and information society interventions.

These categories of interventions are only slightly affected by the deviations from

targets generated by the internal dynamics programmes or exogenous factors;

• issues related to the internal dynamics of the programmes are particularly relevant

(more than 30%) in the case of spatial planning and rehabilitation interventions;

• deviations affecting transport infrastructure projects are more often (25%) explained

by exogenous factors;

• factors related to the characteristics of projects and of demand are especially

important in the case of interventions assisting SMEs and the craft sector - 43% of

deviations from targets explained by the categories.


4.5 APPROACH TO REPORTING

An exemplary approach to reporting is identified by analyzing the individual FIRs and

ranking programmes based on the appropriateness and completeness of the information

provided in five specific areas.

Domains of analysis as well as criteria used for ranking programmes are:

• Indicator type classification –Based on the share of indicators for which

indicator type (output, results, impact) is explicitly provided, programmes are ranked

and split in quintiles. Three stars (***) are attributed to the 20% of programmes for

which information on type is provided for the highest number of indicators (first

quintile). Two (**) and one (*) stars are attributed to programmes belonging to the

second and third quintile.

• Indicator target identification - Based on the share of indicators for which targets

are explicitly stated in the FIR, programmes are ranked and split in quintiles. Stars

are attributed based on the same method used for the indicator type classification.

• Impact identification – Three stars (***) are attributed to programmes including

at least some impact indicators, as well as indicators related to environmental and

gender domains. Programmes covering two or one of the above areas are attributed **

or * star(s).

• Under- or over-achievement explanations – Based on the share of indicators

resulting in under- or over-achievements for which an explanation is explicitly stated

in the FIR, programmes are ranked and split in quintiles. Three stars (***) are

attributed to the 20% of programmes for which explanations are more frequently

provided concerning reasons for under- or over-achievements (first quintile).

• Expenditure information – Three stars (***) are attributed to programmes for

which, based on information provided in the FIR, it is possible to calculate or estimate

FoI breakdown of ERDF expenditures.


Based on the above methodology, a total of seven programmes are selected as providing

above average to excellent information in all the five areas identified. The programmes

are listed in the following table. Exemplary approach to reporting of the individual

programmes in each of the domains is illustrated in Annex 4.

Table 7. Programmes with exemplary approach to reporting

Country Programme Type Target Impact Over ExpensesAT SPD Obj.2 Oberösterreich *** *** *** *** ***

CZ Joint Regional Operational Programme *** *** *** *** ***

EE Estonia *** *** ** *** *** ES OP obj. 1 Galicia *** *** ** *** *** GB SPD obj. 2 North East of England *** *** ** *** *** GB SPD obj. 2 North West England *** *** ** *** *** LU SPD obj. 2 Luxembourg *** *** ** *** ***



5. Core indicators

5.1 BASIC STATISTICS ON CORE INDICATORS

Globally 3,721 indicators out of 24,013 (15%) are related to the core indicators. The table

below illustrates the number of occurrences of each core indicator as well as their frequency.

The indicator referring to the number of jobs created is by far the most frequent, representing

about 46% of all core indicators. By summing up the occurrences of all indicators related to

jobs creation (no. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 35), these represent 60% (2,225 occurrences) of the

correlations identified. Other core indicators recurring frequently are those relating to the

number of start-ups supported (core 8, 6%) and to the number of tourism projects (core 34,

4%).

Three of the core indicators do not appear in the monitoring systems (20, 21 and 33). These

relate to transport (value for time savings in euro/ year stemming from new and

reconstructed roads and railroads for passengers and freight) and risk prevention (number of

people benefiting from forest fire protection and other protection measures) projects.

Table 8. Core Indicators - Occurrences

Code Title of the core indicator No of occur. Frequency

1 Jobs created (gross direct jobs created, full time equivalents) 1,728 46.4%

2 Created jobs filled by men (gross direct jobs created, full time equivalents) 57 1.5%

3 Created jobs filled by women (gross direct jobs created, full time equivalents) 202 5.4%

4 Research and technological development: Number of RTD projects 126 3.4%

5 Research and technological development: Number of cooperation projects enterprises – research institutions 51 1.4%

6 Research and technological development: Research jobs created (preferably 5 years after start of project) 63 1.7%

7 Direct investment aid to SMEs: Number of projects 107 2.9%

8 Direct investment aid to SME: number of start-ups supported (first two years after start-up) 217 5.8%

9 Direct investment aid to SMEs: Jobs created (gross, full time equivalent) 107 2.9%

10 Direct investment aid to SMEs: Investment induced (million €) 141 3.8%

11 Information society: Number of projects 54 1.5%


Code Title of the core indicator No of occur. Frequency

12 Information society: Number of additional population covered by broadband access 10 0.3%

13 Transport: Number of projects 68 1.8%

14 Transport: km of new roads, 109 2.9%

15 Transport: km of new roads for the Trans-European Network 9 0.2%

16 Transport: km of reconstructed roads 83 2.2%

17 Transport: km of new railroads 29 0.8%

18 Transport: km of new railroads for the Trans-European Network 8 0.2%

19 Transport: km of reconstructed railroads 26 0.7%

22 Transport: Additional population served with improved urban transport 14 0.4%

23 Renewable energy: Number of projects 16 0.4%

24 Renewable energy: Additional capacity of renewable energy production (MW) 29 0.8%

25 Environment: Additional population served by water projects 30 0.8%

26 Environment: Additional population served by waste water projects 22 0.6%

27 Environment: Number of waste projects 27 0.7%

28 Environment: Number of projects on improvement of air quality 8 0.2%

29 Environment: Area rehabilitated (km2) 76 2.0%

30 Climate change: Reduction greenhouse emissions (CO2 and equivalents, kt) 6 0.2%

31 Prevention of risks: Number of projects 15 0.4%

32 Prevention of risks: Number of people benefiting from flood protection measures 3 0.1%

34 Tourism: Number of projects 162 4.4%

35 Tourism: Number of jobs created 68 1.8%

36 Education: Number of projects 26 0.7%

37 Education: Number of benefiting students 21 0.6%

38 Health: Number of projects 3 0.1%

Total 3,721 100%



5.2 AGGREGATION OF CORE INDICATORS

The table below illustrates the aggregated values of the core indicators most frequently used

by the programmes, as well as of core indicators for which aggregated values were reported

within the ex-post evaluation exercise.

The figures are certainly to be considered as under-estimations of the actual attainments of

ERDF funding. In all cases there shall be programmes with realisations potentially suitable

for being reported by using core indicators, which however did not report on these

achievements or opted for using different indicators (or even aggregations of core indicators).

In order to minimize the possibility of double counting during aggregation, the database

specifies, for each indicator, if achievements are to be considered as subtotals or aggregations

of the attainments of other indicators (see the Quick User Guide of the databases for further

details). These are excluded from the calculation of aggregated values.

Table 9. Core Indicators – Aggregated Values

Code Title of the core indicator Baseline value

Achieved value28

Achieved/ Target

1 Jobs created (gross direct jobs created, full time equivalents) 15,038 2,208,725 101%

2 Created jobs filled by men (gross direct jobs created, full time equivalents) 0 61,866 126%

3 Created jobs filled by women (gross direct jobs created, full time equivalents)

0 40,144 102%

4 Research and technological development: Number of RTD projects 5 45,815 93%

6 Research and technological development: Research jobs created (preferably 5 years after start of project)

0 20,241 106%

8 Direct investment aid to SME: number of start-ups supported (first two years after start-up)

0 161,207 119%

28 Please note that it might be necessary to subtract baseline values to the achieved values included in the table to obtain ‘net attainments’. Nevertheless, due to the fact that use and interpretation of baseline values by Managing Authorities varied to some extent, this might sometimes not be needed.


Code Title of the core indicator Baseline value

Achieved value28

Achieved/ Target

10 Direct investment aid to SMEs: Investment induced (million €) 0 46,868 107%

11 Information society: Number of projects 3 3,131 91%

13 Transport: Number of projects 0 7,417 157%

14 Transport: km of new roads 5,951 16,232 103%

16 Transport: km of reconstructed roads 1,554 26,999 149%

23 Renewable energy: Number of projects 0 454 203%*

27 Environment: Number of waste projects 0 1,162 79%*

28 Environment: Number of projects on improvement of air quality 0 1,101 101%*

29 Environment: Area rehabilitated (km2) 0 4,043 162%

31 Prevention of risks: Number of projects 2 1,019 263%*

34 Tourism: Number of projects 0 7,401 106%

35 Tourism: Number of jobs created 245 26,313 118%

36 Education: Number of projects 137 11,688 150%*

38 Health: Number of projects 0 737 320% *


The last column of the table illustrates the ratio between achievements and targets. This is

calculated based on indicators linked to core having both targets and achieved values. It’s

worth mentioning that 76% of the indicators linked to core have a target value. This is lower

than the 82% target availability figure calculated for the whole database of indicators.

Ratios shown in the table have to be interpreted with caution as the total number of core

indicators meeting the condition is limited. For this reason, percentages calculated on the

basis of less than 20 indicators are marked with an asterisk (*) in the table. As with the total

of indicators analysed i.e. linked or not to core indicators, over-achievements are relatively

more common than under-achievements. Significant over- or under-performance appears to

be less frequent for core indicators.


Table 10. Jobs created – Values per MS

MS Jobs created Research jobs

AT 13,575 901

BE 18,078 382

CY 522 -

CZ 8,645 -

DE 217,760 4,362

DK 4,579 -

EE 7,622 -

ES 731,246 7,032

FI 61,274 -

FR 114,258 776

GR 359,696 5,735

HU 448 -

IE 18,764 -

IT 108,889 956

LT 12,306 -

LU 3,577 97

MT 150 -

NL 87,479 -

PL 69,281 -

PT 17,731 -

SE 70,973 -

SI 7,936 -

SK 517 -

UK 363,649 -


The above table summarises the impact of ERDF Objective 1 and 2 programmes on

employment at the Member State level29, as well as it details the achievements of core 6

(research jobs created). Jobs created in France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and the United

29 As proposed by DG REGIO, the table shows, for each Member State, the greatest between the following figures: core indicator 1; OR sum of core indicators 2 and 3; OR sum of core Indicators 6,9, and 35, This results in the figure being reported being always Core Indicator 1 except in the case of Cyprus, Ireland and Sweden. In the former case the value of 522 is given by the sum of Core Indicators 6,9,35, while the figures for Sweden and Ireland are the sum indicators 2 and 3.


Kingdom, are more than 80% of the EU-wide total. As already noted, the figures30 reflect

both the attainments of the ERDF programmes and the way these were reported in the FIRs,

e.g. use of indicators which could not be linked to core, indicators not explicitly related to a

specific job category (research, SMEs, tourism), etc.

The following table identifies the five biggest 'job creation' operational programmes, by

adding up achievements related to core indicators 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 35.

Table 11. Biggest ‘job creation’ operational programmes

CCI Code Programme Name Jobs created

2000ES161PO003 OP obj. 1 Andalucía 190,428

1999GB161DO004 SPD OBJ1 WEST WALES AND THE VALLEYS 85,340

2000ES161PO011 OP obj. 1 Galicia 78,653

2000ES161PO010 OP obj. 1 Extremadura 71,836

2000GR161PO020 OP obj. 1 Roads 71,425


Table 12 illustrates the aggregated value of two core indicators related to direct investment

aid to SMEs: core 8 - number of start-ups supported - and core 10 - investment induced (

million EUR) - split by Member State. The fact that few Member States appear in the table

indicates that several programmes didn’t report on investments induced or on number of

start ups supported, or reported in a way which was not coherent with the core indicator

definition.

30 Figures in the table were further checked for their plausibility by calculating the ratio between the amount of ERDF and national expenditure and the number of jobs created for all the programmes reporting on jobs in each Member State. 46,000 EUR of ERDF and national resources spent per job created is the minimum value found for the ratio at the country level.


Table 12. Core 8 and 10, aggregated values per MS

MS

Achieved

Number of start-ups

supported

Achieved

Investment induced

(million €)

AT 158 508

BE 10

CY 55

CZ 1,137

DE 3,770 1,186

EE 833

ES 1,421 28,082

FI 7,989

FR 104,237 65

GR 4,070

HU 277

IE 71

IT 1,676 3,190

LV 40

SE 4,249

UK 31,583 13,46631

Total 161,207 46,868


Total value of core 10 equals 46,868 euro millions of induced investments, which represents

about the 0.3% of the gross fixed capital formed in the private sector during the

programming period (see European Commission, Ameco database). The total number of start

ups created is 161,207 with a large contribution of French programmes (more than 100,000

new start ups created reported).

31 The figure for UK is calculated using an exchange rate of 1.327. This is the average exchange rate for the period from January 1st, 2006 to December 31th, 2009.


FIRs in eleven Member States included indicators which could be linked to core 14. It shall be

noted that several programmes reported jointly on the new and reconstructed kilometres of

roads, thus not matching the distinction made between core indicators 14 and 16. Overall,

14,486 kilometres of new roads were reported, representing 0.3% of the total kilometres of

paved roads in the EU 27 (about 5,000,000).

Table 13. Core 14, aggregated values per MS

MS Achieved

km of new roads

CZ 5

DE 1,679

ES 2,311

FR 24

GR 1,207

IE 1,746

IT 1,587

MT 6

PL 259

PT 7,285

SK 117

UK 7

Total 16,232


Similarly it’s worth mentioning that, by considering an average of 1.5 million new businesses

created each year (see Annual report on EU Small and Medium sized Enterprises 2009, DG

Enterprises and Industry), the number of start-ups supported under core 8 (161,207)

represents about 1.5% of the global amount of start-ups created during the programming

period.


5.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE PROGRAMMING PERIOD

"The quality of indicators and the lack of any legal requirement to establish core indicators

common to all Member States are also the reasons why data can only be aggregated

internationally for some countries and for limited information.“ (Fabrizio Barca, 2009, An

Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy, p. 90)

As already noted in the Barca report, different programmes or countries follow a different

logic as regards the selection and use of indicators. This has also been noted in the ex-post

evaluation of the 2000-2006 ERDF programmes. In addition, even in cases where the same

indicator is used, the naming differs.

This poses serious difficulties for any attempt to compile a European picture on the

achievements using the indicators and data reported by the single programmes. The core

indicator list introduced in the current programming period is therefore a useful tool that

allows for at least a number of indicators to aggregate data from different programmes and

countries. In the proposal for the next programming period, a revised and longer list of

common indicators is presented to replace the current core indicators. The new proposed

common indicators have a stronger focus on measuring programme achievements.

In any case, common indicators used by all programmes are crucial in order to compile

comparable data which can easily be aggregated to European-wide results. This poses three

questions:

a) to what extent the new common indicators can contribute to better information about

the achievements of ERDF programmes?

b) to what degree are the programme authorities used to and already familiar with the

new common indicators?

c) are there any indicators frequently used in the past period which might be useful to

include in the list of common indicators?

Answers to the above questions are based on analysis of information and data entered in the

indicator database. In particular, proposed common indicators were screened against the


indicators used in 2000-2006 taking into account quality, frequency, typologies and features

of the latter, as included in the study database.

5.3.a) Can new common indicators improve the quality of information

from the programmes?

Although the number of indicators collected through the study (more than 24,000) is

impressive, the review of the indicator database reveals a number of issues which make it

difficult to compile a European picture on the achievements of the programmes by using the

indicators and data reported.

Firstly, titles of the indicators often do not clarify the nature of the interventions. Object of

measurement or type of support offered by ERDF funding are often too generic e.g.

‘Area occupied by new interventions - new construction road, rail infrastructure and service’,

unclear, or even confusing e.g. ‘Improvement of road sector’. Minor linguistic and

interpretative issues make it difficult to ensure that even very similar indicators are

comparable enough to be aggregated.

Secondly, the same formulation of some of the indicators, even if clear, makes it

impossible to compare or aggregate data across programmes. For example, this is typical of

indicators measured in terms of share or percentages, where both terms of the ratio are

unknown.

Thirdly, the fact that three different values are potentially used for the same indicator

(baseline, target, achievement), sometimes linked to different units of measurement, adds a

level of complexity that results in ambiguous reporting more than occasionally, e.g.

achievement is stated in absolute terms and not comparable to target expressed as a

percentage; or targets clearly expressed as a deviation from a baseline, but the latter is not

reported32.

32 Different use and interpretation of baseline values makes by itself more difficult to compare and aggregate indicator figures across programmes. In addition, the fact that non null values were used by few programmes (see paragraph 4.3) suggests that baselines are valuable for measuring achievements in a limited number of cases.


Lastly, the large number of indicators provided – an average of 106 per programme – do not

ensure by itself an adequate informative value of the data33, while the categorization of

indicators as output, result or impact is not always helpful, as it was used rather

differently by the programmes.

At the same time, analysis of the database suggests that the object of measurement can be

better identified by matching the indicator title with the programme measure or priority the

indicator is related to and/or the relevant field of intervention.

In conclusion, experience from 2000-2006 teaches that conditions for having useful

monitoring systems are: small number of indicators, unambiguous definition – same naming

and unit of measure, clear link to programme strategy, connection with the FOI.

As a consequence, the quality of the information gathered can certainly be enhanced by

providing the managing authorities with a short list, a sort of ‘optimal menu’, of indicators

from which the most relevant can be picked up, based on the specificities of the individual

programme.

In this perspective, the present common indicator list can surely be considered a menu with

many desirable features: it includes a limited number of indicators; the proposed indicators

are well-connected with possible programme strategies as well as they might be easily traced

back to the FOI classification; it can ensure the homogeneity in the objects and units of

measurement that is needed to compare and aggregate information across programmes34;

indicator types are limited to result and output indicators only35; common indicators will

have target values and no baseline values.

33 As a matter of fact, the number of indicators provided by several of the programmes identified as being excellent on reporting (see paragraph 4.5) is lower than the EU-wide average. 34 The fact that there are no percentage units for the proposed indicators is also expected to improve comparability as well as make aggregation easier. 35 Impact is now defined as 'the difference a programme has made to the observed change in its result indicators'.


It can thus be expected to make it simpler to obtain a European picture of what ERDF

achieves in the regions and Member States.

Nevertheless, to make the list an ‘optimal menu’, the following would have to be ensured:

1. common indicators shall cover all ERDF investments priorities – see article 5 of the

legislative proposal for the new ERDF regulation - except territorial cooperation, as

well as thematic objectives (art. 9 common structural funds regulation); as we

illustrate in Annex 6, this is not the case with the current proposed list - see also

5.3.c);

2. the list shall include indicators which are easily usable by managing authorities – see

5.3.b).

In addition, links between proposed indicators and fields of interventions might be made

more explicit.

It would then be possible to ask the programmes to select the indicators relevant for their

activities from the ‘optimal menu’ and report the monitoring data on these directly into a

common E-Cohesion system. Programmes might use indicators not included in the common

indicator list only when it is unavoidable to monitor their achievements.

5.3.b) Are Managing Authorities familiar with the new common

indicators?

By comparing the common indicators for 2014-2020 with the indicators data gathered for

2000-2006, it emerges that, regarding the object of measurement of the indicators, only

10% of all the indicators used in 2000-2006 were of a ‘project’ type. This demonstrates that,

for the 2000-2006 period, managing authorities opted generally for ‘real object’ indicators

e.g. SMEs assisted, population benefiting from the intervention; so that the choices of 2014-


2020, shifting from a rather administrative approach to a more result oriented one, appear to

be aligned with the practices of programmes in this respect.

As concerns individual themes, indicators related to productive investments are the most

familiar to national and regional authorities. In 2000-2006 single programmes used

indicators similar to the new proposed ones, which often deviated in details. In some cases

only SMEs are considered, whereas others consider all enterprises. In most cases, the type of

support offered to enterprises is not clarified. The proposed common indicators for 2014-

2020 distinguish a number of indicators regarding the productive investments and the

number of enterprises supported by different intervention types. The proposal for the next

period will thus allow the gathering of information in a more structured way and ensure that

the collected data is comparable and can be aggregated on a EU-wide basis.

As for energy, no indicators were used in 2000-2006 relating to the smart grids and energy

consumption classification for households. This obviously relates to the fact that saving

energy was not a core objective, intervention in private housing was rare and smart grid

technology still not available.

At the same time, the situation is mixed for environment. Two indicators related to solid

waste recycling and habitat protection are present in almost all Member States, even if often

with a different formulation, e.g. population coverage or percentage of collection for

recycling. Remaining indicators are used less often.

Significant differences can be found between the approach proposed for 2014-2020 and the

2000-2006 practice for monitoring research and innovation intervention. If there are

indicators related to the number of R&D projects or research infrastructures supported, very

little information can be found in terms of jobs created. Almost no information is available

concerning new to the market or new to the firm products. The programmes might find it

difficult to populate these indicators, also considering that:

• a specific assessment is needed to understand the extent to which new products can

be considered an outcome of the supported project;

• the definition “new to the market” is rather slippery;


• interventions mostly support SMEs, where differences between change in processes

and products are not so easy to track.

In addition, by focusing on the type of operations funded, it can be seen that many

programmes opted either to provide SMEs with vouchers to be assisted in R&D, or funded

partnerships of enterprises and research centres. Therefore, the formulation of the proposed

indicator “Number of enterprises operating with assisted research institution” might not

match completely with practice at the programme level, and similar formulations were not

frequently adopted in 2000-2006.

The collection of information relating to the remaining future common indicators looks

feasible. Even by using various formulations, similar information to what would have to be

collected under the new proposal were already gathered in 2000-2006. This is especially the

case for the indicators related to social and health infrastructure, ICT, urban

development and transport where a modest effort can be expected by national and

regional managing authorities to adapt to the future common indicators. The latter can in

turn enable the collection of much more structured and homogeneous information than it

was possible in the past due to different practices at the programme level.

5.3.c) Which indicators from 2000-2006 can be usefully re-used?

The question of whether the list of common indicators should be enlarged is certainly a

matter of negotiation between the Commission and the Member States. However, to cover all

the investments priorities listed by art. 5 and to have an ‘optimal menu’ for Managing

Authorities (see above), it might be sensible to investigate the possibility to add a few

indicators.

The identification of possible additional new common indicators follows three steps:

a) identify an investment priority partially or not covered (see Annex 6, Table 6.2);

b) identify the indicators of the 2000-2006 database referring to the same field of

intervention as the investment priority (by country);

c) propose a new additional indicator taking in account the new regulation proposal.


For the identification of such possible additional indicators, we have applied some simple

criteria:

• The indicators should not be included in the 2000-2006 core indicators;

• The indicators should be used in several countries so that they do not reflect single

national perspectives;

• The indicators should indicate something about the outcome of the programmes, in

line with the six criteria36 identified by Fabrizio Barca and Philip McCann in their

paper on outcome indicators prepared for the high level group . Indicators on the

number of projects etc. were excluded.

The table below lists eleven additional indicators addressing investment priorities established

by art. 5 which are not covered or only partially covered by the proposed common indicators.

The eleven additional indicators can be found frequently in the indicator database for the

2000-2006 (see Annex 7 for a more detailed description).

Table 14. Priorities (art 5 of ERDF regulation for 2014-2020) and additional indicators

Priorities (ar. 5 – proposal of new ERDF regulation) Additional Indicator

2(b): Enhancing access to and use and quality of ICT - Developing ICT

products and services, e-commerce and enhancing demand for ICT

Number of supported enterprises

introducing e-commerce products

and services

2(c): Enhancing access to and use and quality of ICT - Strengthening ICT

applications for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and e health

Additional population served by

regional e-government, e-learning,

e-inclusion and e-health services

4(b): Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors -

Promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in SMEs

Number of supported SMEs

promoting energy efficiency and

renewable energy use

8 (c): Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility - Investing

in infrastructure for public employment services

Number of supported

infrastructures for public

employment services

9(c): Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty - Support for

social enterprises

Number of supported social

enterprises in promoting social

inclusion and combating poverty

36 (a) reasonable, (b) normative, (c) robust, (d) responsive to policy, (e) feasible, and (f) debatable.


Priorities (ar. 5 – proposal of new ERDF regulation) Additional Indicator

11: Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public

administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the

efficiency of public administrations and public services related to

implementation of the ERDF, and in support of actions in institutional

capacity and in the efficiency of public administration supported by the

ESF.

Number of public administrations

supported by institutional/

administrative capacity

interventions related to the

implementation of ERDF

3(b): Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs - Developing new business

models for SMEs, in particular for internationalisation

Number of supported SMEs in the

process of internationalization

6 (c): Protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency -

Protecting, promoting and developing cultural heritage

Additional number of beds for

tourism attractiveness

7a: Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key

network infrastructures - Supporting a multimodal Single European

Transport Area by investing in the Trans-European Transport Network

(TEN-T) network

Number of supported centres of

multimodal transport

8a: Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility -

Development of business incubators and investment support for self

employment and business creation

Number of assisted enterprises by

the activities of a supported

incubator

8b: Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility - Local

development initiatives and aid for structures providing neighbourhood

services to create new jobs, where such actions are outside the scope of

Regulation (EU) No […]/2012 [ESF]

Additional population living in areas

with local development strategies


6. Conclusions

By providing a detailed picture on the achievements of 227 Objective 1 and 2 ERDF

programmes, this study promotes enhanced accountability of ERDF funding during the

period 2000-2006. At the same time, analysis of the information collected enables a better

understanding of what of the monitoring systems can be improved and how.

Differences between planned and final expenditure by field of intervention is modest,

especially if analysed at the EU level. In total, 3% of ERDF expenditures were spent in a

different domain than initially planned.

EU-aggregated data does however offset conflicting changes at the lower level. Higher

expenses by one country are balanced out to a certain extent by lower expenditures of

another Member State in the same area. Nevertheless, once all these offset deviations are

taken into account, ERDF spending that differed from plan was a modest 10%.

Expenditure information needs to be interpreted with care. It is sometimes evident that the

transfer of resources between fields of interventions is due to subsequent different

interpretations or specifications of the same interventions. This does not reflect actual re-

allocation of expenses between different domains.

The homogeneity of methods used by programme authorities to calculate the distribution of

expenses between domains cannot be sufficiently verified from the data analysed to ensure

comparison and aggregation of data being completely reliable. In particular, it is not clear to

what degree breakdown by field of intervention has been calculated by categorising data at

the project level or by using other approaches.

Analysis of the monitoring systems confirms the diversity of practices across Member States,

both in terms of number and types of indicators used. While some countries average a few

dozen indicators per programme, others average more than a hundred. When compared to

ERDF allocations, there is a different indicator for some hundred thousand euro spent in

some Member States, compared to several millions in others. In the same way, the

proportion of output, result and impact indicators varies greatly among countries.


While achievements are provided for nearly all indicators, target and baseline values are

reported for around 80% of indicators. Nevertheless, zero values are by far the most

commonly used baselines. During the programming period, about one fifth of targets were

revised significantly upward or downward, with changes being relatively more frequent for

output indicators.

Interestingly, by comparing target and achievements, more than half of the analysed

indicators had attainments significantly different to the initially established targets. If

significant over-performance is generally more common than under-performance, the

proportion of over- and under-achievements varies greatly among countries. The update or

revision of targets did not bring significant added value in terms of the ability of programme

authorities to establish more reasonable targets. At the same time, it is worth noting that

over- and under-performance is especially more common for some types of intervention e.g.

assistance to large business organisations, than for others.

Even if explanations of the differences between attainments and targets are provided in a

limited number of cases, it is clear that difficulties with the estimation of targets, as well as

changes in the focus of programming strategies and the demand of stakeholders are among

the main reasons justifying such differences. If relevance of the factors varies across the

different types of intervention considered, it is at the same time clear that these aspects are

closely intertwined. Strategy changes may also be implemented as a consequence of weak or

strong stakeholder response to certain interventions. The difficulties in establishing realistic

targets results from difficulties in anticipating the initiatives to be implemented in a

framework of strategy that is adapted to continuous modification in the socio-economic

context.

All this points to the complexity of setting targets for multi-annual programmes. On one side,

efforts to measure strategic attainments may be hurt by programme re-focus or the

modifications taking place during translation of strategy into concrete interventions. On the

other side, sticking more closely to implementation details might provide more reliable

targets as well as relevant information concerning programme execution, with the risk of

losing the perspective on strategic performance.


The indicators used in the 2000-2006 period provide valuable insights for the selection of

common indicators for the next programme period. First of all the diversity of the roughly

24,000 indicators used in the past strengthens the argument that common indicators used

by all programmes are crucial in order to compile comparable data that can be easily

aggregated and understood for pan-European results. Most of the currently proposed

common indicators have successfully been used by a range of programmes in the

past. At the same time, matching the proposed common indicators with the proposed

thematic objectives (art. 9) and the proposed investment priorities (art. 5) shows that some

aspects are not, or only partially, covered by the common indicators. Based on analysis of

suitable indicators used in the past period, this report proposes some complementary

common indicators to fill these gaps.


Annex 1 – List of programmes analysed

Table 1.1 – List of programmes analysed

Country Programme Reference Number

File Name Obj Availability FoI data

AT 1999AT161DO001 Burgenland Obj 1 Estimated

2000AT162DO001 Kärnten Obj 2 Estimated

2000AT162DO002 Niederösterreich Obj 2 Estimated

2000AT162DO003 Oberösterreich Obj 2 Estimated

2000AT162DO004 Salzburg Obj 2 Estimated

2000AT162DO005 Vorarlberg Obj 2 Estimated

2000AT162DO006 Steiermark Obj 2 Estimated

2000AT162DO007 Tirol Obj 2 Estimated

2000AT162DO008 Wien /Vienna Obj 2 Estimated

BE 1999BE161DO001 Hainaut Obj 1 Estimated

2000BE162DO001 Bruxelles Capitale Obj 2 Specific

2000BE162DO002 Limburg Obj 2 Specific

2000BE162DO003 Provincie Antwerpen Obj 2 Specific

2000BE162DO004 Kustgebied Westhoek Obj 2 Specific

2000BE162DO006 Gent Meetjesland Obj 2 Specific

2000BE162DO008 Meuse Vesdre Obj 2 Estimated

2000BE162DO009 Wallonie Rural Obj 2 Estimated

CY 2003CY162DO001 Single Programming Cyprus Obj 2 Estimated

CZ 2003CZ161PO002 Infrastructure Obj 1 Specific

2003CZ161PO003 Industry & Enterprise Obj 1 Specific

2003CZ161PO004 Joint Regional Operational Programme Obj 1 Specific

2003CZ162DO001 Prague chapter 1-5; Prague chapter 6-7 Obj 2 Specific

DE 1999DE161PO001 Berlin Obj 1 Estimated

1999DE161PO002 Thüringen Obj 1 Estimated

1999DE161PO003 Sachsen-Anhalt Obj 1 Estimated

1999DE161PO004 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Obj 1 Missing

1999DE161PO005 Brandenburg Obj 1 Missing

1999DE161PO006 Freistaat Sachsen Obj 1 Estimated

2000DE161PO001 Verkehrsinfrastruktur Obj 1 Specific

2000DE162DO001 Rheinland Pfalz Obj 2 Estimated

2000DE162DO002 Berlin West Obj 2 Specific

2000DE162DO003 Saarland Obj 2 Estimated

2000DE162DO004 Nordrhein-Westfalen Obj 2 Estimated

2000DE162DO005 Hessen Obj 2 Estimated

2000DE162DO006 Schleswig-Holstein Obj 2 Estimated

2000DE162DO007 Bayern Obj 2 Specific




2000DE162DO008 Baden-Württemberg Obj 2 Specific

2000DE162DO009 Bremen Obj 2 Estimated

2000DE162DO010 Niedersachsen Obj 2 Missing

2000DE162DO011 Hamburg/St. Pauli Obj 2 Estimated

DK 2000DK162DO001 Danmark Obj 2 Estimated

EE 2003EE161DO001 Estonian Single Programming Document

Obj 1 Specific

ES 2000ES051PO016 Fight against discrimination Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO002 Cantabria Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO003 Andalucia Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO004 Asturias Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO005 Canarias Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO006 Castilla La Mancha Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO007 Castilla y Leon Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO008 Ceuta Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO009 Comunidad Valenciana Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO010 Extremadura Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO011 Galicia Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO012 Melilla Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO013 Murcia Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO014 Improving Competitiveness Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO015 Research Development and Innovation Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO016 Local Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO017 Technical Assistance Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES161PO029 Information Society Obj 1 Estimated

2000ES162DO002 Aragon Obj 2 Estimated

2000ES162DO003 Baleares Obj 2 Estimated

2000ES162DO004 Cataluna Obj 2 Estimated

2000ES162DO005 La Rioja Obj 2 Estimated

2000ES162DO006 Madrid Obj 2 Estimated

2000ES162DO007 Navarra Obj 2 Estimated

2000ES162DO008 Pais Vasco Obj 2 Estimated

FI 1999FI161DO001 Suomi/North Finland Obj 1 Estimated

1999FI161DO002 Suomi/Itä Suomi Eastern Obj 1 Estimated

1999FI162DO001 Etelä South Finland Obj 2 Estimated

1999FI162DO002 Länsi West Finland Obj 2 Estimated

2000FI162DO001 Åland Obj 2 Estimated

FR 1999FR161DO001 Reunion Obj 1 Specific

1999FR161DO002 Region Nord pas de Calais Obj 1 Specific

1999FR161DO003 Corse Obj 1 Specific

2000FR161DO001 Guadeloupe Obj 1 Specific

2000FR161DO002 Guyane Obj 1 Missing




2000FR161DO003 Martinique Obj 1 Estimated

2000FR161DO004 Programme National Informatique Presage

Obj 1 Estimated

2000FR161DO005 Assistance Technique Obj 1 Estimated

2000FR162DO001 Alsace OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO002 Auvergne OBJ 2 Estimated

2000FR162DO003 Lorraine OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO004 Limousin OBJ 2 Estimated

2000FR162DO005 Pays de la Loire OBJ 2 Estimated

2000FR162DO006 Poitou Charentes OBJ 2 Missing

2000FR162DO007 Basse Normandie OBJ 2 Missing

2000FR162DO008 Haute Normandie OBJ 2 Estimated

2000FR162DO009 Languedoc Roussillon OBJ 2 Estimated

2000FR162DO010 Champagne Ardenne OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO011 Provence Alpes Cote d'Azur OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO012 Franche Comte OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO013 Aquitaine OBJ 2 Missing

2000FR162DO014 Bretagne OBJ 2 Estimated

2000FR162DO015 Bourgogne OBJ 2 Estimated

2000FR162DO016 Centre OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO017 Ile de France OBJ 2 Estimated

2000FR162DO018 Midi Pyrenees OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO019 Picardie OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO020 Rhone Alpes OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO021 Nord Pas de Calais OBJ 2 Specific

2000FR162DO022 Programme National Informatique Presage

OBJ 2 Estimated

2000FR162DO023 Technical Assistance OBJ 2 Estimated

GB 1999GB161DO001 Cornwall Isles of Scilly Obj 1 Estimated

1999GB161DO002 North West England Obj 1 Estimated

1999GB161DO003 South Yorkshire Obj 1 Missing

1999GB161DO004 West Wales and the Valleys Obj 1 Specific

1999GB161DO005 Highlands and Islands Obj 1 Missing

1999GB161PO007 Northern Ireland Obj 1 Estimated

2000GB162DO001 Gibraltar Obj 2 Estimated

2000GB162DO002 West Midlands Obj 2 Specific

2000GB162DO003 Yorkshire and the Humber Obj 2 Missing

2000GB162DO004 East Midlands Obj 2 Estimated

2000GB162DO005 North East England Obj 2 Estimated

2000GB162DO006 North West England Obj 2 Estimated

2000GB162DO007 East of England Obj 2 Missing

2000GB162DO008 South East England Obj 2 Estimated

2000GB162DO009 London Obj 2 Estimated




2000GB162DO010 South West England Obj 2 Estimated

2000GB162DO011 South of Scotland Obj 2 Estimated

2000GB162DO012 East Scotland Obj 2 Specific

2000GB162DO013 Western Scotland Obj 2 Estimated

2000GB162DO014 East Wales Obj 2 Specific

NI - Northern Ireland

2000RG161PO001 Peace and Reconciliation Northern Ireland

Obj 1 Specific

GR/EL 2000GR051PO001 Employment & Vocational training Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR051PO002 Education & Vocational training Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR051PO003 Health Welfare Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR141PO001 Fisheries Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO002 ATTICA Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO003 Peloponnisou Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO004 West Regional OP Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO005 Central Greece Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO006 Thessalia Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO007 EPIRUS Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO008 CRETE Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO009 North Aegean Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO010 South Aegean Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO011 Ionian Islands Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO012 Eastern Macedonia Thrace Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO013 Western Macedonia Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO014 Central Macedonia Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO016 Competitiveness Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO019 Railway, Airports, Transport Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO020 Road Axes, Ports, Urban Development Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO023 Information Society Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO026 Culture Obj 1 Estimated

2000GR161PO027 Environment Obj 1 Estimated

2001GR161PO001 Business Technical Asstistance Obj 1 Estimated

HU 2003HU051PO001 Human Resource Development Obj 1 Specific

2003HU161PO001 Regional Development Obj 1 Specific

2003HU161PO002 Economic Competitiveness Obj 1 Specific

2003HU161PO003 Environment and Infrastructure Obj 1 Specific

IE 2000IE161PO002 Productive Sector OBJ 1 Specific

2000IE161PO003 Technical Assistance OBJ 1 Specific

2000IE161PO004 Economic and Social Infrastructure OBJ 1 Specific

2000IE161PO005 Southern and Eastern OBJ 1 Estimated

2000IE161PO006 Border Midland and Western OBJ 1 Estimated

IT 1999IT051PO013 The School for Development OBJ 1 Estimated

1999IT161PO001 Technical Assistance Obj 1 Estimated




1999IT161PO002 Local Enterprise Development Obj 1 Estimated

1999IT161PO003 Science Research and Technological Development

Obj 1 Estimated

1999IT161PO004 Security for the Development of Southern Italy

Obj 1 Missing

1999IT161PO005 Transport Obj 1 Missing

1999IT161PO006 Calabria Obj 1 Estimated

1999IT161PO007 Campania Obj 1 Missing

1999IT161PO008 Molise Obj 1 Estimated

1999IT161PO009 Puglia Obj 1 Estimated

1999IT161PO010 Sardegna Obj 1 Estimated

1999IT161PO011 Sicilia Obj 1 Estimated

1999IT161PO012 Basilicata Obj 1 Estimated

2000IT162DO001 Toscana OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO002 Abruzzo OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO003 Trento OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO004 Bolzano OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO005 Veneto OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO006 Liguria OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO007 Piemonte OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO008 Valle d'Acosta OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO009 Lazio OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO010 Umbria OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO011 Marche OBJ 2 Missing

2000IT162DO012 Emilia Romagna OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO013 Friuli Venezia Giulia OBJ 2 Estimated

2000IT162DO014 Lombardy OBJ 2 Estimated

LT 2003LT161DO001 Lithuania Obj 1 Estimated

LU 2000LU162DO001 Luxembourg Obj 2 Specific

LV 2003LV161DO001 Structural Funds OBJ1 Obj 1 Specific

MT 2003MT161DO001 Malta Obj 1 Estimated

NL 1999NL161DO001 Flevoland Obj 1 Estimated

2000NL162DO001 Noord Nederland Obj 2 Specific

2000NL162DO002 Stedelijke Obj 2 Estimated

2000NL162DO003 Zuid Nederland Obj 2 Estimated

2000NL162DO004 Oost Nederland Obj 2 Specific

PL 2003PL161PO001 Regional Development Obj 1 Estimated

2003PL161PO002 Competitiveness Obj 1 Estimated

2003PL161PO003 Transport Obj 1 Estimated

2003PL161PO004 Technical Assistance Obj 1 Estimated

PT 1999PT051PO001 Prodep III Education Obj 1 Specific

1999PT051PO002 Employment Training and Social Development

Obj 1 Specific




1999PT061PO007 Agriculture and Rural Development Obj 1 Specific

1999PT141PO018 Fisheries Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO003 Science and Innovation Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO004 Knowledge Society Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO005 Health Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO006 Culture Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO008 Economic incentives Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO009 Accessibility and Transport Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO010 Environment Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO011 Prodesa Azores Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO012 Pro Algarve Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO013 Alentejo Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO014 PO Centro Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO015 Porlut Lisboa Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO016 Madeira Obj 1 Specific

1999PT161PO017 Regiao del Norte Obj 1 Specific

2000PT161PO001 Technical Assistance Obj 1 Specific

2004PT051PO001 Public Administration Obj 1 Specific

SE 1999SE161DO001 Norra Norland Obj 1 Estimated

1999SE161DO002 Sodra Skogslansregionen Obj 1 Estimated

2000SE162DO001 Oarna Obj 2 Estimated

2000SE162DO002 Vastra Obj 2 Specific

2000SE162DO003 Norra Obj 2 Estimated

2000SE162DO004 Sodra Obj 2 Estimated

SI 2003SI161DO001 Implementation Report Part 1 Obj 1 Specific

SK 2003SK161PO001 Basic Infrastructure Obj 1 Specific

2003SK161PO002 Industry and Services Obj 1 Missing

2003SK162DO001 Bratislava OBJ 2 Obj 2 Specific


Annex 2 – List of Fields of Intervention

Table 2.1 – List of fields of intervention

Code Theme Title and Sub Categories FoI Group Code

1 PRODUCTIVE ENVIRONEMENT 15

11 AGRICULTURE 11

111 Investments in agricultural holdings 11

112 Setting up of young farmers 11

113 Vocational training 30

114 Improving processing and marketing of agricultural products 11

12 FORESTRY 12

121 Investments in forest 12

122 Improving harvesting, processing and marketing of forestry products 12

123 Promoting new outlets for the use and marketing of forestry products 12

124 Establishment of associations of forest holders 12

125 Restoring forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters and fire and introducing appropriate prevention instruments 12

126 Afforestation of non-agricultural land 12

127 Improving/maintaining the ecological stability of protective forests 12

128 Training 12

13 PROMOTING THE ADAPTAION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL AREAS 13

1301 Land improvement 13

1302 Reparcelling 13

1303 Setting up of farm relief and farm management services 13

1304 Marketing of quality agricultural products 13

1305 Basic services for the rural economy and population 13

1306 Renovation and development of villages and protection and conservation of the rural heritage 13

1307 Diversification of agricultural activities and activities close to agriculture, to provide multiple activities or alternative incomes 13

1308 Agricultural water resources management 44

1309 Development and improvement of infrastructure connected with the development of agriculture 13

1310 Encouragement for tourist activities 17

1311 Encouragement for craft activities 16

1312 Preservation of the environment in connection with land, forestry and landscape conservation as well as with the improvement of animal welfare 13

1313 Restoring agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and introducing appropriate prevention instruments 13

1314 Financial engineering 13

14 FISHERIES 14



141 Adjustment of the fishing effort 14

142 Renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet 14

143 Processing, marketing and promoting of fisheries products 14

144 Aquaculture 14

145 Equipment of the fishing ports and protection of the coastal marine zones 14

146 Socio-economic measures (including aids to the temporary stopping and compensation for technical restrictions) 14

147 Actions by professionals (including vocational training, small coastal fishing) 14

15 ASSISTING LARGE BUSINESS ORGANISATIONS 15

151 Investment in physical capital (plant and equipment, cofinancing of state aids) 15

152 Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies 15

153 Business advisory services (including internationalisation, exporting and environmental management, purchase of technology) 15

154 Services to stakeholders (health and safety, providing care for dependants) 15


16 ASSISTING SMEs AND THE CRAFT SECTOR 16

161 Investment in physical capital (plant and equipment, cofinancing of state aids) 16

162 Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies 16

163 Business advisory services (information, business planning, consultancy services, marketing, management, design, internationalisation, exporting, environmental management technology)

16

164 Shared business services (business estates, incubator units, stimulation, promotional services, networking, conferences, trade fairs) 16


166 Services in support of the social economy (providing care for dependants, health and safety, cultural activities) 16


17 TOURISM 17

171 Physical investment (information centres, tourist accommodation, catering, facilities) 17

172 Non-physical investments (development and provision of tourist services, sporting, cultural and leisure activities, heritage) 17

173 Shared services for the tourism industry (including promotional activities, networking, conferences and trade fairs) 17


18 RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION (RTDI) 18

181 Research projects based in universities and research institutes 18

182 Innovation and technology transfers, establishment of networks and partnerships between businesses and/or research institutes 18

183 RTDI Infrastructure 18

2 HUMAN RESOURCES 30

21 Labour market policy 30

22 Social inclusion 30



23 Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms) 30

24 Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, innovation, information and communication technologies (persons, firms) 30

25 Positive labour market actions for women 30

3 BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE 40

31 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 41

311 Rail 41

312 Roads 41

313 Motorways 41

314 Airports 41

315 Ports 41

316 Waterways 41

317 Urban Transport 41

318 Multimodal Transport 41

319 Intelligent Transport Systems 41

32 TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFORMATION SOCIETY 42

321 Basic infrastructure 42

322 Information and Communication Technology (including security and safe transmission measures) 42

323 Services and applications for the citizen (health, administration, education) 21

324 Services and applications for SMEs (electronic commerce and transactions, education and training, networking) 21

33 ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURES (PRODUCTION, DELIVERY) 43

331 Electricity, gas, petrol, solid fuel 43

332 Renewable sources of energy (solar power, wind power, hydro-electricity, biomass) 43

333 Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control 43

34 ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE (INCLUDING WATER) 44

341 Air 44

342 Noise 44

343 Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste) 44

344 Drinking water (collection, storage, treatment and distribution) 44

345 Sewerage and purification 44

35 PLANNING AND REHABILITATION 40

351 Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites 40

352 Rehabilitation of urban areas 40

36 SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH 30

4 MISCELLANEOUS 51

41 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INNOVATIVE ACTIONS (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF, FIFG) 50

411 Preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity 50



412 Evaluation 50

413 Studies 50

414 Innovative actions 50

5 OTHER 51


Annex 3 – Initial and final ERDF FoI expenditure per Member State

Table 3.1 – Initial and final ERDF FOI expenditure per Member State

MS FOI Group Name Initial Allocation %

Final Allocation %

AT 15. Assisting large business organisations 18.2 20.4

16. Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 35.0 28.2

17. Tourism 20.1 24.0

18. Research, technological development and innovation (RTDI) 16.5 13.5

21.ICT services 1.6 0.6

30.HUMAN CAPITAL + Social infra 0.7 0.1

40.Other - Incl. Urban & brown field 1.2 1.5

41.Transport infrastructure 0.9 0.4

42.ICT infrastructure & technology 0.6 1.3

43.ENERGY 1.6 3.5

44.Environment Infrastructures 1.8 5.3

50.Technical Assistance 1.7 1.0

BE 13. development of rural areas 1.2 1.1

15. Assisting large business organisations 8.3 11.8


17. Tourism 13.8 15.9







43.ENERGY 1.3 1.4



51.OTHER 0.3 0.0

CY 13. development of rural areas 0.0 25.3


17. Tourism 18.9 11.5





Final Allocation %

CY 40.Other - Incl. Urban & brown field 4.8 7.4



CZ 15. Assisting large business organisations 3.1 2.5


17. Tourism 11.2 10.9







43.ENERGY 3.4 1.5



DE 11. Agriculture 0.0 0.4

13. development of rural areas 0.6 0.8



17. Tourism 2.0 3.5







43.ENERGY 0.2 0.2



DK 13. development of rural areas 1.4 6.0



17. Tourism 24.7 32.2






Final Allocation %

DK 42.ICT infrastructure & technology 11.5 4.2

43.ENERGY 1.7 0.1



EE 15. Assisting large business organisations 1.1 2.0


17. Tourism 9.7 12.1







43.ENERGY 2.4 2.0



ES 13. development of rural areas 0.1 0.0



17. Tourism 3.8 3.0







43.ENERGY 1.1 0.7



51.OTHER 0.0 0.0

FI 13. development of rural areas 0.0 0.1



17. Tourism 5.1 11.7





Final Allocation %

FI 30.HUMAN CAPITAL + Social infra 1.0 1.1




43.ENERGY 0.9 0.6



FR 11. Agriculture 0.0 0.0

12. Forestry 0.1 0.1


14. Fisheries 0.4 0.4



17. Tourism 11.9 14.9







43.ENERGY 1.2 1.3



51.OTHER 0.3 0.2

GR 11. Agriculture 0.0 0.0





17. Tourism 8.7 9.5







43.ENERGY 3.0 1.1



Final Allocation %

GR 44.Environment Infrastructures 5.0 7.1


HU 12. Forestry 0.3 0.0




17. Tourism 6.5 6.7







43.ENERGY 1.2 1.8



IE 13. development of rural areas 1.2 3.3



17. Tourism 3.0 2.1





43.ENERGY 2.4 0.8



IT 11. Agriculture 0.7 0.0

12. Forestry 0.0 0.0





17. Tourism 13.1 12.7





Final Allocation %

IT 30.HUMAN CAPITAL + Social infra 1.9 1.5




43.ENERGY 1.5 1.4



51.OTHER 4.1 1.7

LT 13. development of rural areas 2.4 2.6



17. Tourism 13.4 15.4







43.ENERGY 10.3 9.6



51.OTHER 0.0 1.4

LU 15. Assisting large business organisations 5.0 0.0


17. Tourism 7.5 14.6





43.ENERGY 10.9 19.8



LV 15. Assisting large business organisations 9.8 5.0


17. Tourism 2.7 4.0




Final Allocation %

LV 30.HUMAN CAPITAL + Social infra 8.3 9.5



43.ENERGY 5.3 4.4



MT 16. Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 2.2 3.0

17. Tourism 9.7 13.4






43.ENERGY 0.4 0.1



NL 13. development of rural areas 8.8 7.1



17. Tourism 11.2 15.2







43.ENERGY 0.1 0.0



51.OTHER 0.0 2.2

PL 15. Assisting large business organisations 2.8 5.3


17. Tourism 6.8 5.3







Final Allocation %

PL 41.Transport infrastructure 43.6 47.4


43.ENERGY 2.1 0.1



PT 11. Agriculture 0.0 0.0





17. Tourism 5.5 4.1







43.ENERGY 3.5 4.1



SE 12. Forestry 0.0 0.0




17. Tourism 10.9 22.7







43.ENERGY 0.7 0.9



51.OTHER 0.0 0.0

SI 15. Assisting large business organisations 5.7 6.4




Final Allocation %

SI 17. Tourism 24.1 26.1





43.ENERGY 6.1 4.5



SK 13. development of rural areas 6.6 8.4


17. Tourism 1.7 1.6







43.ENERGY 0.0 0.9



UK 12. Forestry 0.1 0.0





17. Tourism 5.2 7.5







43.ENERGY 1.6 0.4



51.OTHER 1.0 0.0


Annex 4 – Exemplary approach to reporting

Table 4.1 – Exemplary approach to reporting

MS CCI Code Programme Name Type Target Impact Explanations Expenditure

AT 1999AT161DO001 SPD Obj.1 Burgenland *** *** *** ***

2000AT162DO001 SPD obj. Kärnten *** ***

2000AT162DO002 SPD Obj.2 Niederösterreich *** *** *** ***

2000AT162DO003 SPD Obj.2 Oberösterreich *** *** *** *** ***

2000AT162DO004 SPD obj. 2 Salzburg *** *** *** ***

2000AT162DO006 SPD obj. 2 Steiermark *** *** ***

2000AT162DO007 SPD obj. 2 Tirol *** *** ***

2000AT162DO005 SPD obj. 2 Vorarlberg *** *** *** ***

2000AT162DO008 SPD Obj. 2 Wien *** *** *** ***

BE 1999BE161DO001 SPD obj. 1 Hainaut *** ***

2000BE162DO001 SPD obj. 2 Bruxelles Capitale *** *** ***

2000BE162DO002 SPD obj. 2 Limburg *** *** ***

2000BE162DO003 Provincie Antwerpen *** ***

2000BE162DO004 Kustgebied - Westhoek *** *** ***

2000BE162DO006 Objective 2 - Oost-Vlaanderen *** *** ***

2000BE162DO008 SPD obj. 2 Meuse-Vesdre *** ***

2000BE162DO009 SPD obj. 2 Namur *** *** ***

CY 2003CY162DO001 SPD Cyprus Obj. 2 ***

CZ 2003CZ161PO002 Infrastructure *** ***

2003CZ161PO003 Industry and Enterprise *** *** ***

2003CZ161PO004 Joint Regional Operational Programme *** *** *** *** ***

2003CZ162DO001 Prague *** ***

DE 2000DE162DO009 SPD obj. 2 Bremen *** ***

2000DE162DO010 SPD obj. 2 Niedersachsen ***

2000DE162DO011 Hamburg *** *** *** ***

2000DE162DO008 SPD obj. 2 Baden-Württemberg *** *** ***

2000DE162DO006 SPD obj. 2 Schleswig-Holstein *** ***

2000DE162DO007 SPD obj. 2 Bayern *** ***

1999DE161PO001 OP OBJ 1 BERLIN (East) *** ***

1999DE161PO002 OP OBJ 1 THURINGEN ***

1999DE161PO003 OP OBJ 1 SACHSEN-ANHALT ***

1999DE161PO004 OP OBJ 1 MECKLENBURG-Western Pomerania ***

1999DE161PO005 OP OBJ1 BRANDENBURG

1999DE161PO006 OP obj. Saxony *** ***

2000DE161PO001 OP obj. 1 Transport *** *** ***

2000DE162DO001 SPD obj. 2 Rheiland-Pfalz *** *** ***

2000DE162DO002 SPD obj. 2 Berlin *** *** ***

2000DE162DO003 Saarland *** *** ***



2000DE162DO004 SPD obj. 2 Nordrhein-Westfalen *** ***

DE 2000DE162DO005 SPD obj. 2 Hessen *** *** ***

DK 2000DK162DO001 SPD obj. 2 Denmark *** ***

EE 2003EE161DO001 Estonia *** *** *** ***

ES 2000ES161PO003 OP obj. 1 Andalucia *** ***

2000ES161PO014 Improving Competitiveness *** *** ***

2000ES161PO011 OP obj. 1 Galicia *** *** *** ***

2000ES161PO010 OP obj. 1 Extremadura *** *** ***

2000ES161PO007 OP obj. 1 Castilla y león *** *** ***

2000ES162DO008 SPD Obj. 2 País Vasco *** *** *** ***

2000ES162DO002 SPD obj. 2 Aragon *** *** ***

2000ES161PO002 OP obj. 1 Cantabria *** *** ***

2000ES161PO013 OP obj. 1 Murcia *** *** ***

2000ES161PO015 OP Obj 1 Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación *** *** ***

2000ES161PO016 OP obj. 1 Local *** *** ***

2000ES161PO029 OP obj. 1 Société d'information *** *** ***

2000ES162DO006 SPD obj. 2 Madrid *** *** ***

2000ES161PO017 OP obj. 1 Asistencia Tecnica *** *** ***

2000ES161PO004 OP obj. 1 Asturias *** *** ***

2000ES162DO004 SPD obj. 2 Cataluña *** *** ***

2000ES161PO005 OP obj. 1 Canarias *** *** ***

2000ES162DO007 SPD obj. 2 Navarra *** *** *** ***

2000ES161PO009 OP obj. 1 Communidad Valeciana *** *** ***

2000ES161PO006 OP obj. 1 Castilla-La Mancha *** *** ***

2000ES161PO008 OP obj. 1 Ceuta *** *** *** ***

2000ES161PO012 OP obj. 1 Melilla *** *** ***

2000ES162DO003 SPD obj. 2 Baleares *** ***

2000ES162DO005 SPD obj. 2 La Rioja *** *** ***

2000ES051PO016 2000ES051PO016_Lucha contra la Discriminación *** *** ***

FI 1999FI162DO002 SPD Obj. 2 West Finland *** ***

1999FI161DO002 SPD obj. 1 Eastern Finland *** ***

1999FI162DO001 SPD Obj. 2 South Finland *** ***

1999FI161DO001 SPD obj. 1 Northern Finland *** ***

2000FI162DO001 SPD OBJ 2 ALAND ISLANDS *** ***

FR 1999FR161DO002 SPD Obj. 1 Nord-Pas-de-Calais *** ***

2000FR162DO013 SPD obj. 2 Aquitaine

2000FR162DO002 SPD obj. 2 Auvergne *** ***

2000FR162DO014 SPD obj. 2 Bretagne ***

2000FR162DO005 SPD obj. 2 Pays-de-la-Loire ***

2000FR162DO010 Champagne Ardenne *** ***

1999FR161DO003 SPD Obj. 1 Corse ***

2000FR162DO007 SPD obj. 2 Basse-Normandie *** *** ***

2000FR162DO015 SPD obj. 2 Bourgogne ***

2000FR162DO016 SPD obj. 2 Centre *** *** ***



2000FR162DO008 SPD obj. 2 Haute-Normandie *** ***

FR 2000FR162DO004 SPD obj. 2 Limousin *** ***

2000FR162DO020 SPD obj. 2 Rhône-Alpes ***

2000FR161DO004 Programme National Informatique PRESAGE *** ***

2000FR162DO022 National Computer Programme -PRESAGE *** ***

2000FR161DO003 SPD obj. 1 Martinique *** *** ***

2000FR162DO003 SPD obj. 2 Lorraine *** ***

2000FR162DO019 SPD obj. 2 Picardie ***

2000FR162DO011 SPD obj. 2 Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur *** ***

2000FR162DO023 Technical Assistance ***

1999FR161DO001 SPD obj. 1 Réunion *** ***

2000FR162DO012 SPD obj. 2 Franche-comté *** *** ***

2000FR162DO017 SPD obj. 2 Ile-de-France

2000FR162DO009 SPD obj. 2 Languedoc-Roussillon *** ***

2000FR161DO002 SPD obj. 1 Guyane *** ***

2000FR162DO001 SPD obj. 2 Alsace ***

2000FR162DO021 SPD obj. 2 Nord-Pas-de-Calais ***

2000FR162DO006 SPD obj. 2 Poitou-Charentes

2000FR162DO018 SPD obj. 2 Midi-Pyrénées *** ***

2000FR161DO005 Assistance Technique ***

GR 2000GR161PO003 OP OBJ 1 PELOPONNESE ***

2000GR161PO011 OP OBJ 1 IONIAN ISLANDS ***

2000GR161PO004 OP OBJ 1 WEST GREECE ***

2000GR161PO007 OP OBJ 1 EPIRUS ***

2000GR161PO010 OP OBJ 1 SOUTH AEGEAN

2000GR161PO002 OP OBJ 1 ATTICA ***

2000GR161PO008 OP OBJ 1 CRETE ***

2000GR161PO013 OP OBJ 1 WEST MACEDONIA

2000GR161PO006 OP OBJ 1 THESSALY ***

2000GR161PO005 OP OBJ 1 CONTINENTAL GREECE

2000GR161PO009 OP OBJ 1 NORTH AEGEAN ***

2000GR161PO012 OP OBJ 1 EAST MACEDONIA - THRACE ***

2000GR161PO014 OP OBJ 1 CENTRAL MACEDONIA ***

2000GR051PO001 Employment and Vocational Training Promotion ***

2000GR051PO002 Initial education and vocational training ***

2000GR161PO016 Competitivity *** ***

2000GR161PO019 OP obj. 1 Railways, airports and urban transport

2000GR161PO023 OP obj. 1 Information society ***

2000GR161PO026 OP obj. 1 Culture ***

2000GR161PO020 OP obj. 1 Roads ***

2000GR161PO027 OP obj. 1 Environment ***

2001GR161PO001 Technical Assistance *** ***



2000GR141PO001 OP obj. 1 Fishing ***

GR 2000GR051PO003 Health and Benefits ***

HU 2003HU161PO001 Regional Development OP *** *** ***

2003HU161PO003 Environmental Protection and Infrastructure *** *** ***

2003HU051PO001 Human resources development OP *** ***

2003HU161PO002 Economic Competitiveness *** *** *** ***

IE 2000IE161PO005 OP obj. 1 Southern and Eastern Ireland *** *** ***

2000IE161PO006 OP obj. 1 Border Midland and Western *** *** *** ***

2000IE161PO004 OP obj. 1 Economic and Social Infrastructure *** *** ***

2000IE161PO002 OP obj. 1 Productive Sector *** *** ***

2000IE161PO003 OP obj. 1 Technical Assistance *** ***

IT 2000IT162DO012 Emilia Romagna *** *** *** ***

2000IT162DO004 SPD obj. 2 Bolzano *** ***

2000IT162DO010 Umbria *** *** ***

2000IT162DO011 Marche *** ***

2000IT162DO013 Friuli-Venezia Giulia *** *** ***

1999IT161PO008 OP OBJ 1 MOLISE *** *** ***

2000IT162DO006 Liguria *** *** ***

2000IT162DO007 Piemonte *** *** *** ***

1999IT161PO006 OP OBJ 1 CALABRIA *** *** ***

2000IT162DO003 Trento *** ***

2000IT162DO008 Valle d'Aosta *** *** ***

1999IT051PO013 OP OBJ 1 EDUCATION *** ***

1999IT161PO002 PO OBJ 1 Local enterprise development *** *** ***

1999IT161PO001 OP OBJ 1 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ***

1999IT161PO004 OP OBJ 1 SECURITY ***

1999IT161PO005 OP OBJ 1 TRANSPORT ***

2000IT162DO001 Toscana *** *** *** ***

1999IT161PO012 OP OBJ 1 BASILICATA *** *** ***

2000IT162DO002 Abruzzo *** *** ***

2000IT162DO009 Lazio *** *** ***

1999IT161PO003 OP OBJ 1 RESEARCH *** ***

1999IT161PO010 OP OBJ 1 SARDEGNA *** *** ***

1999IT161PO009 OP OBJ 1 PUGLIA *** *** *** ***

1999IT161PO007 OP OBJ 1 CAMPANIA *** ***

2000IT162DO005 Veneto *** *** ***

2000IT162DO014 Lombardia *** *** ***

1999IT161PO011 OP OBJ 1 SICILIA *** ***

LT 2003LT161DO001 Lithuania *** *** ***

LU 2000LU162DO001 SPD obj. 2 Luxembourg *** *** *** ***

LV 2003LV161DO001 Latvia *** *** ***

MT 2003MT161DO001 Malta *** *** ***



NL 1999NL161DO001 SPD OBJ1 FLEVOLAND ***

NL 2000NL162DO001 SPD obj. 2 Noord-Nederland *** *** ***

2000NL162DO002 SPD obj. 2 Stedelijke gebieden *** *** *** ***

2000NL162DO003 Zuid-Nederland *** *** ***

2000NL162DO004 Oost-Nederland *** *** ***

PL 2003PL161PO001 IntegShared Regional Development OP *** ***

2003PL161PO002 Improvement of the Competitiveness of Enterprises (2004-2006)

*** ***

2003PL161PO003 Transport for 2004-2006 *** *** *** ***

2003PL161PO004 Technical Assistance *** *** ***

PT 1999PT161PO017 "Norte" Operational programme *** *** ***

1999PT161PO011 "Azores" Operational Programme (PRODESA) *** *** ***

1999PT141PO018 Fisheries operational programme (POF) *** *** ***

1999PT161PO005 "Health" Operational programme *** *** *** ***

1999PT061PO007 Agriculture and rural development operational programme- (agro) *** ***

1999PT161PO009 Accessibility and Transport Operational Programme (POAT) *** ***

1999PT161PO010 "Environment" Operational Programme (POA) *** ***

1999PT161PO012 "Algarve" Operational Programme (PROALGARVE) *** *** *** ***

1999PT161PO013 "Alentejo" Operational Programme *** ***

1999PT161PO015 "Lisboa e Vale to Tejo" Op. programme *** *** *** ***

1999PT161PO016 "Madeira" Operational Programme (POPRAM) *** ***

1999PT051PO001 "Education" Operational programme (PRODEP III) *** *** ***

1999PT051PO002

Employment, training, and social development operational programme- (POEFDS)

*** ***

1999PT161PO003 Science, Technology, Innovation *** *** ***

1999PT161PO004 "Knowledge Society" Operational Programme (POSC) *** *** *** ***

1999PT161PO006 "Culture" Operational Programme *** ***

1999PT161PO008 "Economy" Operational Programme (POE) *** *** ***

1999PT161PO014 "Centro" Operational Programme *** *** ***

2004PT051PO001 Public Administration *** *** *** ***

2000PT161PO001 "Technical Assistance" Operational Programme *** ***

SE 1999SE161DO001 SPD OBJ 1 NORTH NORRLANDREGIONEN ***

1999SE161DO002 SPD OBJ 1 SOUTH SKOGSLANSREGIONEN

2000SE162DO003 SPD obj. 2 Norra *** ***

2000SE162DO001 SPD obj. 2 Öarna *** ***

2000SE162DO004 SPD obj. 2 Södra *** ***

2000SE162DO002 SPD Obj. 2 Västra *** ***

SI 2003SI161DO001 Slovenia *** *** *** ***



SK 2003SK161PO001 Basic infrastructure *** *** ***

SK 2003SK161PO002 Industry and Service *** *** ***

2003SK162DO001 Bratislava *** *** ***

UK 2000GB162DO004 SPD obj. 2 East Midlands *** *** ***

2000GB162DO014 SPD obj.2 East Wales *** *** ***

1999GB161DO001 SPD OBJ1 CORNWALL AND THE ISLES OF SCILLY *** *** ***

1999GB161DO005 SPD OBJ1 HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS ***

1999GB161DO004 SPD OBJ1 WEST WALES AND THE VALLEYS *** ***

2000GB162DO007 SPD obj. 2 East of England *** *** *** ***

2000GB162DO012 SPD obj. 2 Eastern Scotland *** *** ***

2000GB162DO001 Gibraltar Obj 2 *** ***

2000GB162DO009 SPD obj. 2 London *** *** *** ***

2000GB162DO005 SPD obj. 2 North East of England *** *** *** ***

1999GB161PO007 OP obj. 1 Northern Ireland Transitional Support *** ***

2000GB162DO006 SPD obj. 2 North West England *** *** *** ***

1999GB161DO002 SPD OBJ1 MERSEYSIDE *** *** ***

2000GB162DO008 SPD obj. 2 South East England *** ***

2000GB162DO011 SPD obj. 2 South of Scotland ***

2000GB162DO010 SPD obj. 2 South West of England *** *** *** ***

1999GB161DO003 SPD OBJ1 SOUTH YORKSHIRE *** ***

2000GB162DO013 SPD obj. 2 Western Scotland *** *** ***

2000GB162DO002 SPD obj. 2 West Midlands *** *** *** ***

2000GB162DO003 SPD obj. 2 Yorkshire and the Humber *** ***

2000RG161PO001 NI_Northern_Ireland_Peace II *** *** ***


Annex 5 – Definition of the types of indicators: output, result, impact

• OUTPUT: Actual expenditure gives rise to a series of physical outputs (for example,

kilometres of road built, number of training places provided, etc.) which demonstrate

the progress made in implementing the measure.

• RESULT: Results are the (immediate) effects on the direct beneficiaries of the

actions financed (e.g., reduced journey times, transport costs or number of

“successful” trainees).

• IMPACT: These results can be expressed in terms of their impacts on achieving the

programme's global or specific objectives and are the principal bases for assessing the

success or failure of the assistance in question. Specific impacts might include, for

example, increased traffic of goods or a better match of skills to labour market

requirements. Global impacts relate to the ultimate aim of assistance such as the

creation of net jobs.


Annex 6 – Analysis of common indicators, thematic objectives and investment priorities

The table below matches the proposed indicators for the period 2014-2020 with the proposed

thematic objectives (art 9, proposal for new general regulation of structural funds). This

reveals that there is generally a good match. However, in a few areas there are additional

indicators that could be worth considering:

• (2) Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and communication

technologies. The use and quality issues are currently not covered by the proposed

indicators.

• (4) Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors. The shift

towards a low-carbon economy in the private sector is only indirectly addressed in

terms of capacity for renewable energy production.

• (7) Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network

infrastructures. Sustainable transport is not addressed.

• (8) Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility. This is probably mainly

targeted at the ESF and to a certain degree indirectly addressed by indicators in the

field of productive investment.

• (11) Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration. This

seems not to be covered in the present proposal.

The table shows that there are only two themes of art. 9 (no. 8 & 11) for which no common

indicators could be identified. For the other 9 themes the common indicators can provide

some information on the progress made in these fields, although they are partially sub-

optimal, in particular for the themes no. 2, 4 and 7.


Table 6.1 - Thematic objectives and common indicators

Thematic

objectives (art.

9)

2014-2020 (Common Indicators Proposal) Missing features

(1) strengthening

research, technological

development and

innovation

Research, Innovation: Number of R&D personnel/researchers working in newly built or equipped research infrastructures

Research, Innovation: Number of enterprises cooperating with assisted research institutions

Research, Innovation: Number of posts for R&D personnel/researchers created in assisted entities

Research, Innovation: Private investment matching public support in innovation or R&D projects

Research, Innovation: Number of enterprises that introduced new or significantly improved products, new to the market as a result of supported innovation or R&D projects

Research, Innovation: Number of enterprises that introduced new or significantly improved products, new to the firm as a result of supported innovation or R&D projects

(2) enhancing access

to, and use and quality

of, information and

communication

technologies

ICT Infrastructure: Population covered by broadband access of at least 30 Mbps

The use and quality

issues are currently not

covered by the proposed

indicators

Thematic

objectives (art.

9)


(3) enhancing the

competitiveness of

small and medium-

sized enterprises, the

agricultural sector (for

the EAFRD) and the

fisheries and

aquaculture sector (for

the EMFF)

Productive Investment: Private investment matching public support to SMEs (grants)

Productive Investment: Private investment matching public support to SMEs (non-grants)

Productive investment: Number of jobs created in assisted SMEs

Partially fitting but without specific SME focus

Productive Investment: Number of enterprises receiving grants

Productive Investment: Number of enterprises receiving financial support other than grants

Productive Investment: Number of enterprises receiving non-financial support

Productive Investment: Number of new enterprises supported


Thematic

objectives (art.

9)


(4) supporting the shift

towards a low-carbon

economy in all sectors

Energy and Climate Change: Additional capacity of renewable energy production

Energy and Climate Change: Number of households with improved energy consumption classification

Energy and Climate Change: Decrease of primary energy consumption of public buildings

Energy and Climate Change: Number of additional energy users connected to smart grids

Energy and Climate Change: Estimated decrease of GHG in CO2 equivalents

The shift towards a low-carbon economy in the private sector is only indirectly addressed in terms of capacity for renewable energy production. Changes in the consumption patterns in the industry are not addressed.

(5) promoting climate

change adaptation,

risk prevention and

management

Environment: Population benefiting from flood protection measures

Environment: Population benefiting from forest fire protection and other protection measures

Thematic

objectives (art.

9)


(6) protecting the

environment and

promoting resource

efficiency

Environment: Additional waste recycling capacity

Environment: Estimated reduction of leakage in water distribution network

Environment: Additional population served by improved wastewater treatment

Environment: Total surface of rehabilitated land

Environment: Change in land sealed due to development

Environment: Surface area of habitats in better conservation status


Thematic

objectives (art.

9)


(7) promoting

sustainable transport

and removing

bottlenecks in key

network

infrastructures

Transport: Total length of new railway line

Transport: of which TEN-T

Transport: Total length of reconstructed or upgraded railway line


Transport: Total length of newly built roads


Transport: Total length of reconstructed or upgraded roads


Transport: Increase of passenger trips using supported urban transport service

Transport: Increase of cargo transported on improved inland waterways

Sustainable transport is not addressed.

(8) promoting

employment and

supporting labour

mobility

This is probably mainly targeted at the ESF and to a certain degree indirectly addressed by indicators in the field of productive investment.

Thematic

objectives (art.

9)


(9) promoting social

inclusion and

combating poverty

Social infrastructure: Capacity of supported health services

Social infrastructure: Number of households benefiting from improved housing conditions

Social infrastructure: Number of visits at supported sites

(10) investing in

education, skills and

lifelong learning

Social Infrastructure: Service capacity of supported childcare or education infrastructure

(11) enhancing

institutional capacity

and an efficient public

administration.

Not covered.



In a similar way, the investment priorities expressed in art. 5 of the proposed ERDF

regulations can also be analysed. As above, the investment priorities have been matched with

the proposed indicators, although it is quite difficult to judge to what degree these are

covered by an indicator because of the rather specific formulations of the priorities. In

performing this analysis, we assume that investments priorities, as formulated in art. 5, will

always be connected to common indicators.

The table below illustrates the results of the analysis. In the right column, there are again

remarks regarding areas where indicators to cover the investment priorities might be

missing. The table shows that some of the investment priorities of art. 5 seem not to be

covered by specific indicators. The investment priorities which do not match with a specific

indicator are:

(2b) developing ICT products and services, e-commerce and enhancing demand for ICT;

(2c) strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and e

health;

(4b) promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in SMEs;

(8c) investing in infrastructure for public employment services;

(9c) support for social enterprises;

(11) enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration

In addition, there are investment priorities which are only partially covered by common

indicators:

(3b) developing new business models for SMEs, in particular for internationalisation;

the “internationalisation” aspect is not specifically addressed by common indicators.

(6c) protecting, promoting and developing cultural heritage; regarding this priority,

interventions enhancing protection and accommodation capacity are not covered by the

proposal.

(7a) supporting a multimodal Single European Transport Area by investing in the Trans-

European Transport Network (TEN-T) network; indicators related to transport are not

addressing multimodal shifting.

(8a) development of business incubators and investment support for self employment

and business creation; there are not specific indicator related incubating – growing up

interventions toward SMEs.


(8b) local development initiatives and aid for structures providing neighborhood services

to create new jobs, where such actions are outside the scope of Regulation (EU) No

[…]/2012 [ESF]; the “local” or “bottom up” dimension of development is not specifically

addressed. This seems rather important since the art. 28-31 of the proposal of the

general regulation regarding the introduction of “local action strategy” and “local action

group”.

Table 6.2 - Investment priorities and common indicators

Investment priorities (art. 5) 2014-2020 (Common Indicators

Proposal) Missing features

(1) strengthening research, technological development and innovation: (a) enhancing research and innovation infrastructure (R&I) and capacities to develop R&I excellence and promoting centres of competence, in particular those of European interest

Research, Innovation: Number of R&D personnel/researchers working in newly built or equipped research infrastructures Research, Innovation: Number of posts for R&D personnel/researchers created in assisted entities

(b) promoting business R&I investment, product and service development, technology transfer, social innovation and public service applications, demand stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart Specialisation

Research, Innovation: Number of enterprises cooperating with assisted research institutions Research, Innovation: Private investment matching public support in innovation or R&D projects

(c) supporting technological and applied research, pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced manufacturing capabilities and first production in Key Enabling Technologies and diffusion of general purpose technologies

Research, Innovation: Number of enterprises that introduced new or significantly improved products, new to the firm as a result of supported innovation or R&D projects Research, Innovation: Number of enterprises that introduced new or significantly improved products, new to the market as a result of supported innovation or R&D projects

(2) enhancing access to and use and quality of ICT: (a) extending broadband deployment and the roll-out of high-speed networks

ICT Infrastructure: Population covered by broadband access of at least 30 Mbps

(b) developing ICT products and services, e-commerce and enhancing demand for ICT

Not covered.

(c) strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and e health

Not covered.

(3) enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs:




(a) promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new firms

Productive Investment: Private investment matching public support to SMEs (grants) Productive Investment: Private investment matching public support to SMEs (non-grants) Productive investment: Number of jobs created in assisted SMEs Productive Investment: Number of new enterprises supported

(b) developing new business models for SMEs, in particular for internationalisation

// might be the same indicators as above // The internationalisation dimension is not explicitly addressed

(4) supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors: (a) promoting the production and distribution of renewable energy sources

Energy and Climate Change: Additional capacity of renewable energy production Energy and Climate Change: Number of additional energy users connected to smart grids Energy and Climate Change: Estimated decrease of GHG in CO2 equivalents

(b) promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in SMEs

Not explicitly addressed.

(c) supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public infrastructures and in the housing sector

Energy and Climate Change: Decrease of primary energy consumption of public buildings Energy and Climate Change: Number of households with improved energy consumption classification

(d) developing smart distribution systems at low voltage levels

Energy and Climate Change: Number of additional energy users connected to smart grids

(e) promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas

// possibly same indicators as under (a) //

(5) promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management: (a) supporting dedicated investment for adaptation to climate change

Environment: Population benefiting from flood protection measures Environment: Population benefiting from forest fire protection and other protection measures

(b) promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management systems

// possibly same indicators as under (a) //

(6) protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency: (a) addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the environmental acquis

Environment: Additional waste recycling capacity

(b) addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the requirements of the environmental acquis

Environment: Additional population served by improved wastewater treatment Environment: Estimated reduction of leakage in water Environment: Additional population served by improved water




(c) protecting, promoting and developing cultural heritage

Environment: Surface area of habitats in better conservation status Tourism: Number of visits to supported attractions

The protection perspective and the accommodation capacity are not covered

(d) protecting biodiversity, soil protection and promoting ecosystem services including NATURA 2000 and green infrastructures

Environment: Surface area of habitats in better conservation status

(e) action to improve the urban environment, including regeneration of brown field sites and reduction of air pollution

Environment: Total surface of rehabilitated land Environment: Change in land sealed due to development Urban development: New open space in urban areas

.

(7) promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures: (a) supporting a multimodal Single European Transport Area by investing in the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) network

Transport: Total length of new railway line Transport: of which TEN-T Transport: Total length of reconstructed or upgraded railway line Transport: of which TEN-T Transport: Total length of newly built roads Transport: of which TEN-T Transport: Total length of reconstructed or upgraded roads Transport: of which TEN-T Transport: Increase of cargo transported on improved inland waterways

The multimodal dimension is not really addressed by the indicators. It could be also a proxy for the “sustainability” dimension

(b) enhancing regional mobility through connecting secondary and tertiary nodes to TEN-T infrastructure

// possibly same indicators as under (a) // The regional mobility is at its best addressed indirectly by the indicators.

(c) developing environment-friendly and low-carbon transport systems and promoting sustainable urban mobility

Transport: Increase of passenger trips using supported urban transport service

The low carbon side is at its best addressed indirectly by this indicator.

(d) developing comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railway system

Transport: Total length of new railway line Transport: of which TEN-T Transport: Total length of reconstructed or upgraded railway line

(8) promoting employment and supporting labour mobility: (a) development of business incubators and investment support for self employment and business creation

Productive Investment: Number of new enterprises supported Partially fitting: Productive Investment: Private investment matching public support to SMEs (grants) Productive Investment: Private investment matching public support to SMEs (non-grants) Productive Investment: Number of enterprises receiving grants Productive Investment: Number of enterprises receiving financial support other than grants Productive Investment: Number of enterprises receiving non-financial support

The idea of incubators is not really covered by the indicators.




(b) local development initiatives and aid for structures providing neighbourhood services to create new jobs, where such actions are outside the scope of Regulation (EU) No […]/2012 [ESF]

Partially fitting: Productive investment: Number of jobs created in assisted SMEs Social infrastructure: Capacity of supported health services Social Infrastructure: Service capacity of supported childcare or education infrastructure

The local development issue dimension is not really addressed by the indicators

(c) investing in infrastructure for public employment services

Not covered.

(9) promoting social inclusion and combating poverty (a) investing in health and social infrastructure which contribute to national, regional and local development, reducing inequalities in terms of health status, and transition from institutional to community-based services

Social infrastructure: Capacity of supported health services Social Infrastructure: Service capacity of supported childcare or education infrastructure

(b) support for physical and economic regeneration of deprived urban and rural communities

Social infrastructure: Number of households benefiting from improved housing conditions Urban development: Population living in areas with integrated urban development strategies Urban development: New open space in urban areas Urban development: New housing in urban areas Urban development: New open space in urban areas

(c) support for social enterprises

Not covered

(10) investing in education, skills and lifelong learning by developing education and training infrastructure Social Infrastructure: Service capacity of

supported childcare or education infrastructure

(11) enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the ERDF, and in support of actions in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administration supported by the ESF

Not covered


Annex 7 - Additional proposed indicators

I) Additional proposed indicators related to investment priorities (art.5) not

covered by common indicators 2014-2020

Investment priority 2(b): Enhancing access to and use and quality of ICT - Developing

ICT products and services, e-commerce and enhancing demand for ICT,

There are no proposed indicators for the investment priority 2b (art.5). After an analysis of

the database, it was possible to identify four countries (Belgium, United Kingdom, Greece

and Italy) where some indicators were used in the domain. Based on the indicators found, the

“Number of enterprises receiving financial support introducing e-commerce products and

services” can be considered as a possible additional common indicators for investments in

this area.

Table 7.1 – Additional common indicators - Investment priority 2 (b)

New additional indicator Unit Country Indicator used in the period 2000-2006

BE Projects in the field of e-commerce UK Number of companies benefiting from

e-commerce and ICT support; Number of organisations taking up e-commerce trading SMEs assisted to make use of e-business / to improve ICT / to enhance applications of ICT

GR Number of e-learning tools users; Number of e-business tools users

Number of supported enterprises introducing e-commerce products and services

Enterprises

IT E-business, e-commerce, e-work projects; Share of enterprises having realized e-commerce projects out of all enterprises working in the area

Source: indicator database.

Investment priority 2(c): Enhancing access to and use and quality of ICT -

Strengthening ICT applications for e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and e health

Indicators referring to this investment domain can be found in at least six countries (Estonia,

Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Portugal). Based on the indicators found (see table below),

“Additional population served by regional e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and e-


health services” might be considered as an additional common indicator for the investment

priority.

Table 7.2 - Additional common indicators - Investment priority 2 (c)


EE Number of supported projects including number of e-government projects supported

GR People who are potentially covered by e-learning projects; Number of advanced e-learning applications; Ict applications for health services

HU Number of businesses having access to e-administration services

IT Population served by the regional e-government projects

LV Number of e-Government services according to requirements of EC Directive 200/31/EC

Additional population served by regional e-government, e-learning, e-inclusion and e-health services

Persons

PT Approved e-learning projects


Investment priority 4(b): Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all

sectors - Promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in SMEs

2000-2006 indicators consistent with the priority can be found in at least five countries

(Germany, United Kingdom, Hungary, Italy, Portugal). Based on these indicators, the

“Number of SMEs receiving financial support promoting energy efficiency and renewable

energy use” (see table below) might be considered as an additional common indicator for the

investment priority.

Table 7.3 - Additional common indicators – Investment priority 4 (b)


DE Eco-audit certifications UK Number of SMEs assisted receiving

environmental advice/financial support HU Number of certifications obtained in

supported SMEs IT Number of environmental certifications

by district

Number of supported SMEs promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use

Small and medium enterprises

PT Number of business supported with quality, safety and environmental certifications



Investment priority 8 (c): Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility -

Investing in infrastructure for public employment services

The indicators used in the period 2000-2006 focused more on training facilities rather than

on infrastructures for public employment services. Nevertheless, the indicators are relevant

to the priority, which is not covered by any proposed indicator. These suggest that the

“Number of supported infrastructures for public employment services” might be considered

as an additional common indicator (see table below).

Table 7.4 - Additional common indicators – Investment priority 8 (c)


AT Facilities for further training BE Number of new and adapted training

centres DE Number of acquired and/or newly

created training places UK ICT Training Centres supported

(number); Total training/learning facilities created (number and surface in square meter)

GR Network provider structures of individual approach

Number of supported infrastructures for public employment services

Infrastructures for public employment services

IE Number of facilities upgraded / established (number)


Investment priority 9(c): Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty - Support

for social enterprises

Indicators referring the investment priority are identified in at least in two countries (United

Kingdom, Italy). Based on the indicators found, the “Number of supported social enterprises

in promoting social inclusion and combating poverty” might be considered as a possible

additional common indicator (see table below).


Table 7.5 - Additional common indicators - Investment priority 9 (c)


IT Support to social firms - Beneficiary firms; Increase in number of users served by subsidized infrastructures or services provided by social enterprises

Number of supported social enterprises in promoting social inclusion and combating poverty

Social enterprises

UK Number of gross new social enterprises established


Investment priority 11: Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public

administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public

administrations and public services related to implementation of the ERDF, and in support

of actions in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administration supported

by the ESF.

Indicators referring to the priority are found in at least five countries (France, United

Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Portugal). These might suggest the “Number of public

administrations supported by Institutional/ administrative capacity interventions related

to the implementation of ERDF” (see table below) as a possible additional new common

indicator.

Table 7.6 - Additional common indicators – Investment priority 11


FR Studies, evaluations, diagnoses performed

UK Number of capacity building projects supported Communities Supported with Capacity Building Initiatives Capacity building training projects

IT Involved Public Administrations Technical/operative assistance of beneficiary leaders Bodies beneficiaries of technical assistance activities

PL Number of participants of trainings financed under the Technical Assistance funds

Number of public administrations supported by institutional/ administrative capacity interventions related to the implementation of ERDF

Public administrations

PT Studies (technical assistance)



II) Additional proposed indicators related to investment priorities (art.5)

partially covered by common indicators 2014-2020

Investment priority 3(b): Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs - Developing new

business models for SMEs, in particular for internationalisation

Some of the indicators of 2000-2006 period refer to promoting SMEs internationalization.

These can be found in at least six countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Sweden),

and suggest that the “Number of SMEs supported in the process of internationalization”

might be considered as an additional common indicator (see table below).



AT Consulting for internationalisation export

GR Enterprises supported for actions of internationalization

IT Incentives aimed at improving internationalization and commercialization services - Enterprises with a2) type intervention out of Number of beneficiary enterprises

LV SMEs receiving financial support for participation in international exhibitions and trade missions

PT Number of promotion and international cooperation projects

Number of supported SMEs in the process of internationalization

Small and medium enterprises

SE International collaboration projects


Investment priority 6 (c): Protecting the environment and promoting resource

efficiency - Protecting, promoting and developing cultural heritage

There are no indicators proposed concerning the accommodation capacity and the protection

of cultural heritage.

2000-2006 indicators referring to accommodation capacity can be found in at least ten

countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Greece,

Italy, Portugal, Slovakia), and suggest that the “Additional number of beds for tourism

attractiveness” might be considered as an additional common indicator (see table below).


Table 7.8 - Additional common indicators - Investment priority 6 (c), Accommodation

capacity


AT New quality beds created BE Accommodation capacity created (hotel

and rural tourism - year 2000) number of beds

CZ Number of created permanent beds in hotels and similar accommodation facilities

DE Created guest beds in new or modernised tourism organizations

FR Beds in the Northern part of the island (% of total); Beds of the improved facilities (before intervention); New/improved/renovated beds

UK N of. new bedrooms Additional bed spaces created

GR Percentage increase of new beds IT Tourist accommodation structures (beds

created, upgraded, re-adapted) PT Lodging capacity (number of beds)

Additional number of beds for tourism attractiveness

Beds

SK % of beds created or improved as a result of received assistance


Indicators referring to protection of cultural heritage can be found in at least 11 countries

(Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Malta,

Portugal, Poland). These might suggest the opportunity to discuss the “Number of protected

cultural heritage sites” as a possible common indicator (see table below).

Table 7.9 – Additional common indicators - Investment priority 6 (c) – Cultural

heritage


BE Projects related to industry and culture heritage

CZ Number of implemented projects renovating monuments and cultural heritage

Number of supported protected cultural heritage sites

Cultural heritage sites

DE Projects for the improvement of the economic infrastructure in culture, cultural tourism, exploitation of cultural heritage, implementation of cultural facilities



FR Cultural sites supported UK Cultural heritage initiatives/ promotional

activities assisted GR Interventions on enhancing natural and

cultural heritage (n.) IT Interventions aimed at restoring and

protecting the cultural heritage LV Implemented tourism infrastructure or

culture and historic heritage conservation projects

MT Upgrade and conservation of main heritage site

PL Number of financed projects from the area of local culture (including projects related to the protection of cultural heritage)

PT Number of measures of preservation, recovering, and valorisation of specific areas of importance to national heritage and environment


Investment priority 7a: Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in

key network infrastructures - Supporting a multimodal Single European Transport Area by

investing in the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) network

2000-2006 indicators related to multimodal infrastructure are identified in at least five

countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Spain, France, Italy). These might suggest the

opportunity to consider the “Number of supported centers of multimodal transport” as an

additional common indicator (see table below).

Table 7.10 - Additional common indicators – Investment priority 7 (a)


BE Centres for multimodal transport CZ Number of multimodal centres

upgraded ES Multimodal centres

Number of supported centres of multimodal transport

Centres/platforms of multimodal transport

FR Equipped surfaces (multimodal logistic platforms) Multimodal platforms realised



IT Multimodal transport -Multimodal connection – interventions; Variation of the volume of goods handled through multimodal transport structures


Investment priority 8a: Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility -

Development of business incubators and investment support for self employment and

business creation

Indicators related to the investment priority can be found in at least ten countries (Austria,

Czech Republic, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland,

Slovakia). These suggest that the “Number of assisted enterprises by the activities of a

supported incubator” might be considered as a common indicator providing useful

information on the role of incubators in promoting employment and development (see table

below).

Table 7.11 - Additional common indicators - Investment priority 8 (a)


AT Firms which will be located in incubators

CZ Number of newly established incubators science and technology parks and technology transfer centres

DE Promoted projects of infrastructure: Technology centre and business incubator

FR Number of business incubator projects UK Number of new technology, R and D

innovation and incubator centres created

GR Expected number of operational business incubator of technological Park (number)

HU Number of industrial parks, incubator houses, technology transfer centres supported

IT Enterprise incubators completed and/or realized out of Funded projects

Number of assisted enterprises by the activities of a supported incubator

Enterprises

PL Number of established, active technology incubators, including the technology incubators within the science and technology parks



SK Number of firms settling in financially supported industrial parks and incubators


Investment priority 8b: Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility - Local

development initiatives and aid for structures providing neighbourhood services to create

new jobs, where such actions are outside the scope of Regulation (EU) No […]/2012 [ESF]

Proposed new Structural Funds regulation promotes the strengthening of community-led

initiatives, as well as the implementation of integrated local development strategies and

formation of local action groups, based on the experience of the LEADER approach in a

multi-dimensional and cross-sector perspective (see art 29-31 of the proposal). 2000-2006

indicators are found in at least six Member States (Austria, Spain, France, United Kingdom,

Italy, Sweden) measuring the common processes for preparation, negotiation, management

and implementation of development strategies, at the local (sub-regional) level. This might

suggest the “Additional population living in areas with local development strategies” as a

possible common indicator to monitor ERDF support in the area (see table below).



AT Number of local development concepts and projects under the development of attractive towns

ES Projects supporting local development (advising, financed studies, etc.)

UK Number of community development initiatives supported

IT Master plans in support of local Agendas 21

Additional population living in areas with local development strategies

Persons

SE Local development plans


Documents

Analysis of the financial and physical data in the Final ... · Final Implementation Reports concerning the Objective 1 and 2 Programmes for 2000-2006 financed by the European Regional