Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006

Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes

2000-2006 financed by the

European Regional Development Fund in

Objective 1 and 2 regions

Work package 1: Coordination, analysis and synthesis

Task 4: Development and achievements in Member States

SLOVAKIA

The Vienna Institute for

International Economic Studies ISMERI EUROPA

WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia

Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ......................................................................................................................2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................3

MAP OF SLIVAKIA – OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS .........................................................4

1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT .............................5

2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY ..............................................6

3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS ......7

4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS .......................................10

5 AREAS OF INTERVENTION AND THE IMPLEMENTED POLICY MEASURES ....................13

6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................14

7 GLOBAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................................15

8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION..............................................................15

9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE.....................................................................................16

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................17

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND FOI CATEGORIES .................18

TABLES ......................................................................................................................19



PREFACE

This report is intended to summarise the main aspects of regional disparities, the changes in

these which occurred over the 2000-2006 programming period and the principal features of

regional development policy over this period in terms of the objectives, the way that it was

implemented and the contribution of the Structural Funds. It also reviews the evidence on

the effects of policy as regards both the direct results of expenditure in the different policy

areas and the wider impact on development as such.

It is based on three primary sources of information. The statistical data on regional and

national developments over the period so far as possible come from Eurostat in order to

ensure comparability with other studies carried out at EU level as well as with the other

national reports produced as part of the ex post exercise.

The data on the allocation of funding and expenditure come from the INFOVIEW database

maintained by DG REGIO, which itself is based on regular information from the Member

States on the allocation of funding and the payments made.

Information on policy objectives, on the results of expenditure and the wider effects of this

and on the procedures adopted as regards the implementation of policy comes from various

programming documents and national evaluation reports as well as from impact studies

which have been carried out on the actual or intended effects of programmes.

The reports, therefore, are based on existing information – or more precisely, the

information available at the time they were prepared (around mid-2008) – and no new

evaluation has been undertaken for purposes of preparing the report.

The report has been prepared by the Applica-Ismeri Europa- wiiw Consortium, which is

coordinating the work on the ex post evaluation of ERDF expenditure in Objective 1 and 2

regions, working closely with a national expert who was responsible for interpreting the

quantitative data and the other information indicated above.1 Although the contents of the

report have been checked with officials in DG REGIO and with the national authorities,

responsibility for any errors in the factual information presented or its interpretation rests

with the authors and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DG REGIO or the

national authorities.

1 This report was produced with the assistance of Karol Frank, The Slovak Academy of Sciences



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Slovakia experienced favourable macroeconomic developments over the period 2000-2006.

The implementation of necessary economic reforms from 1998 on laid the basis for

sustainable GDP growth and convergence towards the EU average. The availability of pre-

accession assistance for economic development (PHARE), for environmental and transport

(ISPA), and for agricultural and rural development (SAPARD) had prepared the way for the

increase in funding in 2004-2006 – essentially going to the same sectors – under the

Structural Funds. The main achievement to date from pre-accession assistance is the

increase in administrative capacity and experience that these instruments have brought (SCF

2003).

From the sectoral perspective, the achievements in the areas covered by the operational

programmes adopted were diverse. In each of the programmes, successes as well as failures

can be found. Partly because of this, it is necessary to increase efforts to improve

programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation further. The targets laid down in

2004 in the sectors eligible for structural support were fulfilled only in selected operational

programmes and individual priority areas. High level targets in several operational

programmes and priority areas were not achieved, partly because they were initially set at an

unrealistic level. There is a need, therefore, to set more realistic objectives and to select

appropriate measures for their achievement.

The first national plan for regional development for pre-accession support was adopted in

1999, for post-accession funding in 2001, but the National Development Plan only in March

2003. Individual Ministries were late in preparing the grant schemes for smaller projects

and, compared with neighbouring countries, they were around a year behind schedule.

Consequently, the delayed process of documentation and legislative preparation hindered

accreditation of the implementing agencies. However, the process was accelerated in the

final phase of preparation for the Structural Funds and the first call for projects was

launched in January 2004.

The National Development Plan that was adopted in 2003 was designed in a overly

complicated way and even though it was reduced from an initial 11 operational programmes

to 4 in the final version, it remained unclear. Other documents have often been equally

unintelligible for applicants, which has led to mistakes in project preparation.

A new challenge arose from the parallel use of the Structural Funds from the 2004-2006

period as well as from the new programming period 2007-2013. Preparing and

implementing two systems and different programmes at the same time was very time

consuming and led to serious administrative pressure. The duplication of rules, documents



and programming was confusing for applicants as well as the authorities involved and

implementation bodies.

MAP OF SLIVAKIA – OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS



1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC

CONTEXT

The nature of industrialisation in Slovakia led in the past to the creation of mono-structural

micro regions where often only a few large enterprises were located. This small number of

large enterprises, which employed the majority of the labour force in the regions concerned,

was a major structural weakness. The centrally planned location of important industries led

to an “unnatural” regional distribution of energy-intensive, and environmentally damaging,

production of low value added.

After the communist regime came to end, in many regions it was not possible to develop

these industries. Their inevitable restructuring during the transition period resulted in a

severe impact on employment and economic development. After liberalisation of markets,

many of the main enterprises were unable to compete causing deep structural problems

across all regions. In the centrally planned economy, differences in income and productivity

between regions had been minimal. Privatisation and exposure to competition during

transition brought the underlying differences to the surface.

As a result of these developments, unemployment emerged and then went up markedly in

most parts of the country, with the major exception of Bratislavský, the capital city region,

where unemployment remained well below that in the rest of the country (typically less than

half the rate). Bratislavský is the only region in Slovakia not to have qualified for Objective 1

assistance during the period 2004-2006. Though it received support under Objective 2, the

areas this applied to form a relatively small part of the region, only 29% of the population

living in areas which were eligible for support. The regions receiving Objective 1 support

over the period were the other three NUTS 2 regions - Západnéslovenský kraj,

Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj.

Unemployment increased most in Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj, the two

most easterly regions, reaching around 20% or more. Over the 10 years 1995-2005 there

were only slight reductions in unemployment rates in these two regions. In consequence,

there was significant outward migration over this period, especially from Východoslovenský

kraj.

While unemployment fell markedly over the period 2000-2006 in Západnéslovenský kraj and

Bratislavský, in the latter declining to under 5%, it fell only slightly in the other two regions

(Table 1). This reflects the differential rate of job creation across the country, which in turn

reflects regional differences in GDP growth. Growth of GDP per head, therefore, averaged

almost 7% a year in Bratislavský over this period and in Západnéslovenský kraj, just over 4% a



year, while in Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj, it was only just over 3%.

Accordingly, regional disparities widened considerably over these years.

Nevertheless, GDP per head in all three Objective 1 regions converged towards the EU

average at a relatively rapid pace and in Bratislavský increased from just over the EU average

in 1999, in purchasing power standard terms, to 42% above the average in 2005, though

much of the high level is due to the effect of substantial inward commuting from other

regions. In the Objective 1 regions, GDP per head was still considerably below the EU average

in 2005, in Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj, well under half the average.

Some positive structural changes, however, are evident even in the most depressed regions.

The share of employment in agriculture went down to around 5% or below in all three

Objective 1 regions, whereas it had been around 10% or higher in 1995. The counterpart of

this reduction was mainly an increase in employment in basic services (distribution, HORECA

and transport), though there was also some increase in business and financial services.

Partly as a consequence, GDP per person employed increased in all regions by around 3.5% a

year or more.

2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY

Despite the high level of unemployment, Slovakia experienced favourable macroeconomic

conditions throughout the 2000-2006 period, partly due to the implementation of economic

reforms from 1998 on. Growth of GDP averaged almost 5% a year across the country as a

whole and in the last two years of the period, after EU accession, 7.5% a year.

In addition, macroeconomic policy was geared towards stability, the budget deficit being

reduced substantially in the years before accession, to under 3% of GDP, and the balance of

payment deficit also declining (Table 2). Moreover, inflation seems to have come down to

more reasonably levels, having been over 8% in 2003, though in 2006, it was still over 4%.

As part of creating the conditions for financial stability, General government expenditure has

been reduced markedly over recent years, from almost 48% of GDP in 1999 to 37% in 2006.

At the same time, the share of public investment in expenditure was also reduced to under

6%, implying relatively little growth of public investment in real terms. Although, therefore,

the high rate of national economic growth may have favoured regional development in the

past few years, the finance available for regional policy from national sources seems to have

been limited.



3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION

OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS

Accession of Slovakia to the EU and entitlement to support from the Structural Funds was

associated with a new regional division of Slovakia together with fiscal decentralisation. This

division brought about a complete change in the structure of public administration, though

also a number of problems. The newly formed regions lacked the necessary administrative

capacity as well as management experience. This complicated the development of coherent

regional planning and the new agenda has continued to be a source of substantial delays

and problems with respect to EU funding. The methodology handbook for formulating the

Plan for regional economic and social development was prepared and adopted by the

Ministry of Regional Development and Construction only in 20042.

The National Development Plan (NDP) for the period 2004–2006 introduced four

programming documents, one Operational Programme (OP Basic Infrastructure) and three

Sectoral Operational Programmes (SOP Industry and Services, SOP Human Resources and SOP

Agriculture and Rural Development for Objective 1). It also introduced a Single Programming

Document for Objective 2. The main objective was to tackle the major sources of regional

disparities which were identified as being in the following areas (SCF 2003):

1. Infrastructure,

2. Human resources,

3. Industry and services,

4. Agriculture and rural development.

Infrastructure

The NDP emphasised the need to facilitate greater mobility, particularly for access to

employment. The quality of Slovakia’s basic infrastructure varies across the country. Regions

to the east are poorly-endowed compared to the more developed centres of economic

activity closer to the capital in the extreme west of the country.

As regards the rail network, the need was more to replace worn-out track and extend

electrification than to build more lines. In the case of air transport, the immediate

shortcomings, according to the NDP, related to safety and security at regional airports, which

needed to be tackled as a first step to increasing their use.

2 (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005.



With respect to the environment, there has been a reduction in pollution in recent year and

the country has many areas of unspoilt natural beauty. Even so, problems persist from its

pre-1989 industrial history and the legacy which heavy industries left behind. In addition,

drinking water is of low quality in certain areas and only a small percentage of the

population is connected by main drainage to waste water treatment plants.

Human resources

The NDP attributed the high unemployment in Slovakia to productivity growth, allied to GDP

growth, being too low (even though it was high by EU15 standards) and identified the need

to increase this. It also highlighted the fact that unemployment particularly affected young

people, the low-skilled and older workers and that the exclusion of disadvantaged groups,

especially the Roma, from employment was a particular problem. The labour market was

regarded as being overly rigid, with little part-time work, teleworking or job-sharing, and

labour mobility as being too low. Equally, the education sector was considered to be

insufficiently oriented towards the needs of employers and ICT skills of both students and

teachers were regarded as inadequate. In addition, wage differences across the regions are

much less than differences in productivity and living costs, which may have negative

consequences for the spread of private investment, as well as for labour mobility (CSF 2003).

To address these problems, the NDP identified the main objective as the need to equip

people with the relevant skills to enter or re-enter the labour market, Active labour market

policy was to concentrate on providing the means for individuals to move from being

dependent on state benefits to paid employment and so to contribute to the generation of

income. At the same time, much attention was to be paid to ensuring that the workforce was

prepared for the labour markets of the future and for the development of the knowledge

society.

Industry and services

According to the CSF (2003), a multi-sectoral approach was to be taken to the provision of

funding to viable SMEs and larger firms with the aim of enabling them to update their

products and processes, create new employment opportunities and increase exports. Linked

to this, support was to be given to encourage more indigenous R&D in Slovakia to spark

innovation and boost GDP. A particular opportunity was identified to exist in developing

renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency, potentially resulting in benefits to

both the economy and the environment. Because of a largely unexploited cultural and

natural heritage, tourism was considered to have particular potential for development as a

source of foreign exchange earnings.



Agriculture and rural development

Intervention in this area had several objectives. First, the least efficient large cooperative and

corporate farms needed be turned into more efficient enterprises, which might require their

break-up into smaller units. Second, the large number of small semi-subsistence farms, and

the fragmentation of land ownership which was the result, needed to be reduced

substantially if progress was to be made towards regional development. The Structural

Funds were, therefore, to be used to support investment in achieving this and, accordingly,

to bring the agricultural sector and food industry up to EU standards and make them more

competitive, as well as diversifying agricultural activities. The important links between

agriculture and energy were also promoted, not least because of their potential to create

local jobs. Moreover, it was recognised that many of the Roma in Slovakia live in rural areas

and it was emphasised that the horizontal and coordinated approach for integrating

marginalised Roma communities into society would also apply to rural areas (CSF 2003).

The above priorities were accordingly funded from EU as well as national sources. Resources

were concentrated on the most relevant policy areas, namely Transport and

telecommunications, Human resources and Territorial policy. Funding also went to other

areas in accordance with the priorities.

The largest contribution from the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions was, therefore,

channelled into developing human resources (26.5% of the total, which was also allocated

21% of total national funding), Transport and telecommunications (24.5% and 23% of

national funding) and Territorial policy (16% of funding and the same for national funding).

According to the Single Programming Document, in Bratislavský kraj, support under

Objective 2 was divided between Territorial policy and the Enterprise environment, 73%

going to the former and 27% to the latter.

The rate of spending of allocations as at the end of 2007, however, shows marked

differences between policy areas. Whereas almost 82% of the budget allocated to Agriculture

and fisheries had been spent by this time, this was the case for only 60% of budget for

Human resources and Territorial policy and just 54% of the budget for Transport and

telecommunications, in all of which the budget was much bigger. Overall, therefore, some

62% of the amount of funding allocated to Objective 1 regions had been spent (Table 4). The

same was the case in the Objective 2 area.

Private funding contributed relatively little to expenditure in Objective 1 regions, amounting

to around 20% of total resources. In the Objective 2 region, the figure was much the same in

overall terms, though it was much higher for the Enterprise environment at around 47%.



Although expenditure in relation to allocations was relatively low at the end of 2007, this is

only to be expected given the relatively short time period of the programmes and there was

an observable steady improvement through the contracting period.

4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY

AREAS

Since support from the Structural Funds was allocated only from 2004 onwards, it as yet very

difficult to quantify the direct results let alone the economic and social impact. Moreover,

there is a serious lack of coherent and relevant data, which prevents any satisfactory analysis

of the effects of intervention. Nevertheless some information is available.

Agriculture and fisheries

Financial support carried out under this operational programme achieved the most success

in fulfilling its objectives if these are measured by the indicators for which targets were set

for 2006.

SOP Agriculture and rural development achievements Indicator Target value

(2006) Real outcome (31.12.2006)

% fulfilled

Number of supported agriculture enterprises as % of total agriculture enterprises

30.0% 57.0% 190.0

Number of approved projects submitted by women as % of total approved projects

5.0% 29.0% 580.0

Change in total revenues of agricultural enterprises 3.0% 24.5% 817.0

Source: Annual report on CSF implementation, 2007

Enterprise environment

The interventions relating to the Enterprise environment have been carried out under the

SOP Industry and Services. Target values set at the beginning of the programming period for

2006 were achieved only in some areas, in particular, as regards the number of research

projects supported and the number of projects in relation to the development of tourism.

The target was almost achieved, however, as regards labour productivity and value-added,

but the outcome was well short of target as regards overnight stays and support for SMEs.

SOP Industry and Services achievements

Indicator Target value

(2006) Real outcome (31.12.2006)

% fulfilled

Changes in labour productivity and value added of the supported subject

118% 117.7% 94.4

Number of overnight stays in accommodation facilities 120% 4.1% 20.5 Number of supported projects for SMEs 1200 77 6.4 Number of supported research projects 25 25 100 Number of supported projects for development of 60 64 106.7



tourism Source: Annual report on CSF implementation, 2007

Human Resources

All the targets set for 2006 were achieved under the SOP Human resources, though this was

partly a result of setting these relatively low at the beginning of the programming period.

Support was carried out though various national projects which are part of the operational

programme, four of which provided indirect support to marginalised Roma communities.

The main aim was to provide assistance to municipalities, individuals and organisations to

tackle the most pressing problems relating to labour market development.

SOP Human resources achievements Indicator Target value (2006) Real outcome (31.12.2006) % fulfilled

Number of schools receiving support 500 1 618 323.6 Number of education institutes receiving support

500 2 906 581.2

Number of persons involved in projects 150 000(2008) 235039 applicants for a job 156.9 9 000(2008) 10544 disadvantaged applicants 117.2 300 000(2008) 992 600 - applicants for a job 330.9 Number of employers supporting qualification and skills training for employees

10 000 (2008) 28986 employees in education

programmes 289.8

3 000 (2008) 6597 teachers in programmes

of life-long education 219.9


Transport and telecommunications

The majority of funding for transport infrastructure went to financing the reconstruction and

electrification of selected railway lines and to repair and reconstruct existing roads and to

build new ones. The main aim was to improve the state of the railways, modernise stations,

complete the construction of key railway junctions, upgrade inter-regional rail lines, increase

the speed of services, improve safety and reliability and reduce the environmental impact. At

the same time, the concern was to integrate regional railway networks into the national

network and provide access to the trans-European network. For roads, the concern was to

improve links between regional centres and with Bratislava as well as to connect up with the

trans-European network (OPBI Programme Complement, 2006). The targets set for 2006

were fully achieved only in respect of railways, while the length of road constructed was only

55% of the target.

Environment and energy

The environmental objectives set for 2006 were largely not fulfilled and in most cases the

outcome was well below what had been planned. The most significant achievements were in

connecting households to a new sewerage system.



OP Basic infrastructure - Environmental infrastructure achievements

Indicator Base value

(2004) Target value

(2006) Real outcome (31.12.2006)

% fulfilled

Length of newly constructed or upgraded sewer networks

0 km 800 km 84.41 km 10.6

Number of citizens connected to new drinking water supply infrastructure

1 738 000 1 765 000 1 740 855 10.7

Number of citizens and households connected to new sewer system

0 inhabitants 10 425 4, 696 45.1

Volume of separated and recycled waste 0 tons 1 100 000 64 948 5.9 Number of households connected to new reconstructed water mains

1 738 000 1 765 000 1 740 885 10.7




5 AREAS OF INTERVENTION AND THE IMPLEMENTED

POLICY MEASURES

Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 13 Total public expenditure

Policy Categories

EUR (mn) % Main forms of intervention

1 Direct support to firms 229.4 26.0 direct grants to investment,

grants to advisory, information and training services

2 RTDI 5.1 0.6 21 Direct support to firms

for R&D 2.7 0.3

22 Indirect support for innovation

2.4 0.3

direct grant to companies

subsidies to encourage provision of services to firms

subsidies to create networks of R&D institutions

subsidies to RIS creation

3 Infrastructure 274.3 31.0 direct grants to public investment

31 Transport infrastructure 179.1 20.3 direct grants to public investment

32 Other infrastructure 95.2 10.8 direct grants to public investment

4 Human capital 50.9 5.8 direct grants to public institutions

subsidies to encourage provision of support services.

5 Local environment 324.0 36.7 direct grants to public investment

TOTAL 100

Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 2 Total public expenditure

Policy Categories

EUR (mn % Main forms of intervention

1 Direct support to firms 15.5 35.8 direct grants to investment 2 RTDI 0.9 2.2 21 Direct support to firms 0.9 2.2

direct grant to companies subsidies to encourage provision of services to firms subsidies to RIS creation

22 Indirect support for innovation

3 Infrastructure 31 Transport infrastructure 32 Other infrastructure 4 Human capital 5 Local environment 26.9 62.0 direct grants to public investment TOTAL 100

3 This is based on the DG Regional Policy ‘Infoview’ database. For the relationship between the forms of intervention (the ‘instruments’) and the Infoview categories, see the table at the end of the report.



6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Reform to change completely the regional structure in Slovakia, initiated only shortly before

accession to the EU, has caused problems in relation to EU funding. Three Slovakian regions

(Western, Central and Eastern Slovakia) were disbanded and the country was instead divided

into the present four NUTS 2 regions. The result was a new self-governing structure, under

which new regional offices and new administrative and management capacity needed to be

set up (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005). Because of a lack of management experience in the

new regional self-governing authorities, organising appropriate procedures for managing

the Structural Funds and implementing the programmes has continued to be a source of

substantial delay and problems (Vojteková 2004).

As in most other new Member States, Slovakia was characterised in the past by a high

degree of centralisation and a total absence of any regional structures. The basic principles

of an integrated regional policy were defined in 1991 (as part of the federal transition

strategy), but the first Integrated plan of regional development – which was necessary to

enable the country to apply for pre-accession support – was adopted by Parliament only in

1999. The National plan of regional development required for the programming of post-

accession support was adopted in 2001, the year when the decentralisation of public

administration was initiated. At the same time, preparations were made for fiscal

decentralisation, though the introduction of this, which was planned for 2004, occurred only

in 2005.

The delay in implementing the decentralisation reform caused problems as regards the

preparation of regional structures required to make use of the Structural Funds in the

period of 2004-2006. Without fiscal decentralisation and the completion of the reform of

public administration, the es tab l ishment of administ rat ive author i t ies at local

and regional levels necessary for planning and supporting economic development was

complicated (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005).

These problems together with other complications delayed the preparation and adoption of

the necessary strategic Cohesion Policy documentation. Poor coordination between

Ministries at the beginning of the process caused additional difficulties. Individual Ministries

were late in preparing the grant schemes for smaller projects and compared to neighbouring

countries around a year behind schedule. Delays also hindered accreditation of the

implementing agencies. However, the process was accelerated during the final phase of

preparation for the Structural Funds and the first call for local Infrastructure priority projects

(Operational program Basic Infrastructure) was launched in January 2004.



The National Development Plan adopted in 2003 proved too complicated and was

reduced from an initial 11 operational programmes to f ou r in i t s final v e r s i on (Basic

infrastructure, Industry and Services, Agriculture and Human Resources). Nevertheless, it

remained unclear. Other documents in their final form were also unintelligible for

applicants, which has led to formal mistakes in project preparation (Frank, Hvozdíková,

Kvetan 2005).

A new challenge arose from the parallel use of the Structural Funds of the 2004-2006

period and those of the 2007-2013 period. Preparing and implementing two systems

and different programmes at the same time has proved very time consuming and led to

serious administrative pressure. The duplication of regulations and documents has been

confusing for both the authorities and implementation bodies i n v o l v e d and the

applicants (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005).

7 GLOBAL EFFECTS

EU cohesion policy together with the support provided has led to the necessary framework

for a coherent and sustainable regional policy being established in Slovakia. The legacy of

central planning, lack of experience with regional planning, deficiencies in administrative

capacity and so on have complicated the implementation of policy and overcoming these

problems remains the major challenge. There as yet no evidence that support to Objective 1

regions has had a significant effect on their economic development. Substantial progress has

been made, however, in strengthening administrative capacity in Objective 1 regions, even

though in many areas further improvement is necessary.

In the Objective 2 region, Bratislavský kraj, it is difficult to identify the effects of intervention

in any case because of the relatively small scale of funding and the influence of a range of

other factors. It can be assumed, for example, that funding helped SMEs to implement

innovation measures, but there is no clear evidence to support this.

8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION

Given the short period of time in which cohesion policy has been implemented, it is very

hard to identify the added-value of EU funding as yet. The only sources of information are

monitoring and evaluation reports, which mainly present a summary of the objectives

achieved, or not achieved. Nevertheless, despite the lack of quantitative evidence, there are

signs of improvement in several aspects of regional development.

In particular, investment in environmental infrastructure to tackle the legacy of decades of

neglect of the environmental damage caused by heavy industry and other factors could not

have been financed on the present scale without EU support.



EU funding also created pressure for the newly-founded self-governing regions to formulate

development strategies and programmes. Efforts to identify their respective strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats, together with a long-term development perspective,

has improved regional planning procedures and paved the way for better exploitation of

their economic potential.

In addition, the programming, implementation and monitoring of structural support and the

interaction between the different levels of administrative authority involved have improved

the coordination of policy and laid the basis for a coherent development strategy. The

establishment of a permanent and joint representation of Slovak regions in Brussels can be

also seen as a positive development in their cooperation as well as facilitating cooperation

with regions elsewhere in the EU facing similar problems.

9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

The experience with pre-accession support as well as in the short programming period

2004-2006 has provided a good basis for the implementation of cohesion policy in Slovakia.

However, a number of important obstacles to the effective use of the funds remain to be

eliminated:

Administrative responsibilities and coordination between various levels of government need

to explicitly defined and stabilised as well as being made transparent.

The quality of programming documents needs to be greatly improved to make them more

comprehensible for project applicants.

A clear, coherent and long-term regional development strategy needs to be formulated and

set out to provide the basis for effective structural assistance.

Cooperation between central, regional and local levels of government is vital for the efficient

use of funds.

Emphasis should be put on support to innovative SMEs and R&D projects with the aim of

greatly improving the present very weak RTDI performance in the country.



REFERENCES Community Support Framework Slovakia Objective 1, Ministry of Construction and Regional

Development, 2003

Frank, K., Hvozdíková, V., Kvetan V., (2005) Slovakia and Cohesion Policy, In: Eriksson,

Karlsson, Tarschys (eds.) From Policy Takers to Policy Makers, Swedish Institute for European

Policy Studies, Stockholm URL:

Frank, K., (2007) Slovak regions, In: Centrope Business and Labour Report, Vienna. URL:

http://centrope.info/baernew/getfile?name=CENTROPE_Business_and_Labour_Report_2007

Increase in motorway length, Ministry of transportation, post and telecommunications, URL:

http://www.telecom.gov.sk/externe/idic/index.html

OPBI Programme Complement, Ministry of Construction and Regional Development,

Bratislava, 2006

Single Programming Document NUTS II – Bratislava Objective 2, Ministry of Construction and

Regional Development, Bratislava 2003

Vojteková, Z., (2004) Is Slovakia prepared for Effective Exploitation of Resources From the EU

Structural Funds ?, Letters for SFPA, Slovak Foreign Policy Association

Výročná správa o implementácii rámca podpory Spoločenstva január 2006 - december 2006

(Annual report on CSF implementation january 2006 - december 2006), Ministry of

Construction and Regional Development, Bratislava, 2007

Impact evaluation

Frank, K., Hvozdíková, V., Kvetan V., (2005) Slovakia and Cohesion Policy, In: Eriksson,

Karlsson, Tarschys (eds.) From Policy Takers to Policy Makers, Swedish Institute for European

Policy Studies, Stockholm



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND

FOI CATEGORIES

code Policy instruments FOI Categories 1 Direct support to firms 11 Agriculture 111+114 12 Forestry 121+122 13 Fisheries 142+143+144 14 Large businesses 151+152+153+154+155 15 Small businesses 161+162+163+164+165+166 16 Tourism 171+172+173 17 ICT 322+324 18 Development of rural areas 1307+1309+1314 19 Planning and rehabilitation 351 2 RTDI 21 Direct support to firms for innovation 182 22 Indirect support for innovation 181+183 3 Infrastructures 31 Transport infrastructures 31 32 Other infrastructures 321 Telecommunication 321 321 Energy infrastructures (production, delivery) 33 321 Environmental infrastructure (including water) 34 4 Human capital

41 Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms)

23+113+128+167+174

42 Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, innovation, information and communication technologies (persons, firms)

24+184

5 Local environment

51 Indirect support to firms (agriculture, forestry, fisheries)

112+1182+123+124+125+126+127+141+145+147+148

52 Social infrastructure and public health 36 53 Planning and rehabilitation 352+353+354 54 Labour market policy 21 55 Social inclusion and equal opportunity 22+25

56 Development of rural areas 1301+1302+1303+1304+1305+1306+ 1308+1310+1311+1312+1313+1399

57 ICT Services and applications for the citizen (health, administration, education)

322

58 Miscellaneous 4 Note: Forms Of Intervention – FOI. See Regulation 438/2001, Annex IV, Classification 3



TABLES

Table 1: Regional disparities and trends

Table 2: Macro-economic developments

Tables 3: Allocation of resources by main policy area

Table 4: Expenditure at 2007 by policy area

Table 5: Allocation of resources by programmes

Table 6: Expenditure by programmes

Table 1 – Regional disparities and trends

EU25 Country Obj 1 Obj 2 regions (>20% pop in

Obj 2)

Obj 2

SLOVENSKA REPUBLIKA

Západné Slovensko

Stredné Slovensko

Východné Slovensko Bratislavský Total

28.8Population (000)

1995 448453.1 5373.8 1876.1 1350.6 1528.5 4755.2 618.6 178.21999 452081.4 5395.1 1876.5 1355.0 1546.7 4778.2 617.0 177.82005 462629.5 5387.0 1863.5 1352.2 1568.9 4784.6 602.4 173.6

Population (as % country total) 1995 na na 34.9 25.1 28.4 88.5 11.5 3.31999 na na 34.8 25.1 28.7 88.6 11.4 3.32005 na na 34.6 25.1 29.1 88.8 11.2 3.2

Population growth rate (% pa)1999-2005 0.4 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.41995-1999 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.1

Population (%) in:Predominantly urban areas 45.9 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0Intermediate rural, close to city 35.5 63.4 61.9 51.3 100.0 71.4 0.0 0.0Intermediate rural, remote 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Predominantly rural, close to city 12.7 25.4 38.1 48.7 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0Predominantly rural, remote 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

GDP per head, in PPS (EU25=100)1995 100.0 45.5 43.4 37.3 34.4 38.8 97.5 97.51999 100.0 48.2 46.0 39.7 36.5 41.2 102.6 102.62005 100.0 58.2 54.8 44.8 41.4 47.6 142.1 142.1

GDP per head growth rate (% pa)(*)1999-2005 1.7 4.4 4.1 3.2 3.3 3.6 6.8 6.81995-1999 2.4 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6

Gross fixed investment (% GDP)1999 20.4 29.5 28.0 30.9 33.5 30.4 26.9 26.92004 19.3 24.0 23.6 24.9 24.9 24.3 23.1 23.1Average 2000-2004 (% GDP) 19.7 24.9 24.0 26.0 25.9 25.1 24.5 24.5

1995 100.0 47.7 48.3 40.9 39.1 43.3 69.2 69.21999 100.0 53.9 54.1 46.7 45.8 49.4 75.5 75.52005 100.0 66.1 64.0 55.2 58.0 59.7 92.4 92.4

Obj 1 regions

Population in Objective 2 areas (% total in region)

GDP per person employed, PPS, EU25=100



Obj 2)

Obj 2

SLOVENSKA REPUBLIKA

Západné Slovensko

Stredné Slovensko


Obj 1 regions

Productivity growth rate (% pa)1999-2005 1.2 4.2 3.5 3.5 4.7 3.9 4.1 4.11995-1999 1.4 4.4 4.2 4.6 5.3 4.7 3.5 3.5

Employment rate (% pop. 15-64)1995 60.0 : : : : : : :1999 61.9 58.0 57.9 56.8 53.9 56.3 70.4 70.42006 64.8 59.4 62.3 57.1 53.7 58.1 69.8 69.8

Employment rate, % point change pa 1999-2006 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.1 -0.11995-1999 0.5 : : : : : : :

Unemployment rate (%)1995 11.7 : : : : : : :1999 9.9 16.0 14.1 18.2 20.5 17.3 7.0 7.02006 8.3 13.4 9.9 16.5 19.2 14.7 4.6 4.6

Total 2000-2005 : -0.2 0.2 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -1.3 -1.3Total 1995-2000 : -0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -1.9 -1.9

2001 Basic 35.6 15.1 16.3 16.1 15.2 15.9 9.0 9.0 Upper secondary 44.4 74.3 74.8 75.1 76.2 75.3 66.8 66.8 Tertiary2006 Basic 30.3 11.2 11.4 11.4 12.0 11.6 8.5 8.5 Upper secondary 46.2 74.2 76.2 74.8 75.8 75.7 63.5 63.5 Tertiary 23.4 14.5 12.4 13.7 12.2 12.7 28.1 28.1% point change 2001-2006 Basic -5.2 -3.9 -4.9 -4.7 -3.3 -4.3 -0.6 -0.6 Upper secondary 1.8 0.0 1.4 -0.2 -0.4 0.4 -3.3 -3.3 Tertiary : : : : : : : :

% Division of employment by broad sectorAgriculture

1995 5.4 9.0 11.3 9.1 10.1 10.3 2.4 2.41999 5.7 5.7 7.3 6.3 6.2 6.7 1.4 1.42005 4.9 4.4 5.6 4.6 4.6 5.0 1.9 1.9

Industry1995 21.8 30.1 35.0 32.9 28.9 32.5 18.6 18.61999 21.7 28.3 33.1 30.7 26.7 30.5 18.2 18.22005 19.5 26.8 33.2 27.7 26.4 29.6 15.0 15.0

Educational attainment level (% pop. 25-64)

Net migration 15-64 (% resident pop. in base year)



Obj 2)

Obj 2

SLOVENSKA REPUBLIKA

Západné Slovensko

Stredné Slovensko


Obj 1 regions

Construction1995 7.3 7.0 6.1 6.9 6.8 6.5 9.4 9.41999 7.8 6.7 6.6 7.1 6.3 6.7 6.7 6.72005 7.9 7.3 7.1 7.9 7.5 7.5 6.7 6.7

Distribution, HORECA, Transport1995 24.9 20.9 19.4 20.4 21.2 20.3 24.3 24.31999 24.7 24.4 23.5 23.2 23.8 23.5 28.2 28.22005 24.7 27.2 25.6 27.2 26.2 26.2 31.4 31.4

Finance+business services1995 11.4 6.8 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.1 15.8 15.81999 11.2 8.7 6.3 6.4 7.3 6.6 18.0 18.02005 12.5 10.2 7.2 7.4 8.0 7.5 21.6 21.6

Public administration, education, health1995 29.2 26.1 23.5 25.7 27.6 25.4 29.6 29.61999 28.5 26.3 23.2 26.3 29.6 26.1 27.5 27.52005 30.0 24.0 21.3 25.1 27.3 24.2 23.4 23.4

R&D expenditure (% GDP)2000 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.12003 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.1

na = not applicable; : = not available;

Source: Eurostat(*) Calculated as GDP per head at constant prices and exchange rates


Table 2 – Macro-economic developments

1995-1999 1999-2006 1999-2001 2001-2004 2004-2006GDP growth (annual average growth rate, % pa)

EU25 2.6 2.2 2.9 1.7 2.4Slovakia 3.9 4.9 2.4 4.9 7.5

Inflation (harmonised consumer price index, % rise pa)

EU25 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.2Slovakia 7.7 6.5 9.6 6.4 3.5

AveragePublic sector balance (% GDP) 1995 1999 2001 2006 2000-2006

EU25 : 0.8 -1.2 -1.5 -2.2Slovakia : -12.2 -6.5 -3.7 -6.4

Public sector consolidated debt (% GDP)EU25 : : 61.1 61.9 61.8Slovakia : 50.4 49.0 30.4 41.6

External balance (% GDP)EU25 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 1.0Slovakia -4.4 -4.4 -8.1 -3.8 -4.4

General government expenditure (% GDP) EU25 52.5 47.1 46.4 46.9 46.8Slovakia 48.4 47.7 44.4 37.2 41.9

General government investment (% GDP) EU25 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4Slovakia 2.3 2.9 3.1 2.2 2.6

General government investment (% gen. gov. exp.)

EU25 5.2 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.0Slovakia 4.8 6.1 7.0 5.9 6.3

: = not availableSource: Eurostat


Table 3 - Allocation of resources by main policy area in Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions

ERDF Other Structural Funds (SF)

Total SF National funding

Total public

funding


Total public

funding

Objective 11. Agriculture and fisheries 0.0 142.6 142.6 59.9 202.5 13.7 15.6 14.2

1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 140.8 140.8 59.1 199.9 13.5 15.4 14.01.2 Fisheries 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.8 2.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

2. Enterprise environment 19.7 0.0 19.7 16.9 36.6 1.9 4.4 2.62.1 Assisting large business organisations 6.3 0.0 6.3 5.4 11.8 0.6 1.4 0.82.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 8.9 0.0 8.9 7.7 16.6 0.9 2.0 1.22.3 RTDI 4.4 0.0 4.4 3.8 8.2 0.4 1.0 0.6

3. Human resources 0.0 275.9 275.9 79.9 355.8 26.5 20.8 25.03.1 Labour market policy 0.0 147.6 147.6 42.2 189.8 14.2 11.0 13.33.2 Social inclusion 0.0 19.3 19.3 5.3 24.6 1.9 1.4 1.73.3 Education and training 0.0 109.1 109.1 32.4 141.4 10.5 8.4 9.9

4. Transport and telecommunications 253.4 0.0 253.4 87.4 340.8 24.3 22.8 23.94.1 Transport 242.8 0.0 242.8 83.7 326.5 23.3 21.8 22.94.2 Telecommunications and IS 10.6 0.0 10.6 3.7 14.3 1.0 1.0 1.0

5. Environment and energy 96.5 0.0 96.5 41.9 138.4 9.3 10.9 9.75.1 Energy infrastructure 4.8 0.0 4.8 4.1 8.8 0.5 1.1 0.65.2 Environmental infrastructure 91.7 0.0 91.7 37.9 129.6 8.8 9.9 9.1

6. Territorial policy(*) 127.5 36.0 163.5 61.4 224.9 15.7 16.0 15.86.1 Tourism 33.2 0.0 33.2 21.0 54.2 3.2 5.5 3.86.2 Planning and rehabilitation 9.4 0.0 9.4 5.1 14.5 0.9 1.3 1.06.3 Social infrastructure 58.2 0.0 58.2 14.8 73.0 5.6 3.9 5.16.4 Development of rural areas 26.7 36.0 62.7 20.5 83.2 6.0 5.3 5.8

7. Technical assistance 76.5 12.9 89.4 36.4 125.8 8.6 9.5 8.8Total Objective 1 573.6 467.5 1041.0 383.9 1424.9 100.0 100.0 100.0

Objective 21. Agriculture and fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.2 Fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2. Enterprise environment 7.7 0.0 7.7 10.3 18.0 20.6 25.2 23.02.1 Assisting large business organisations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 6.2 0.0 6.2 8.4 14.5 16.6 20.4 18.62.3 RTDI 1.5 0.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 4.0 4.8 4.4

3. Human resources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.1 Labour market policy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.2 Social inclusion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03.3 Education and training 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4. Transport and telecommunications 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.1 Transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.2 Telecommunications and IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5. Environment and energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05.1 Energy infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05.2 Environmental infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6. Territorial policy 28.0 0.0 28.0 29.2 57.3 75.4 71.2 73.26.1 Tourism 7.8 0.0 7.8 8.7 16.5 21.0 21.1 21.16.2 Planning and rehabilitation 11.4 0.0 11.4 11.8 23.2 30.7 28.6 29.66.3 Social infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.06.4 Development of rural areas 8.8 0.0 8.8 8.8 17.6 23.7 21.4 22.5

7. Technical assistance 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.0 3.6 3.8Total Objective 2 37.2 0.0 37.2 41.1 78.2 100.0 100.0 100.0

Country 610.7 467.5 1078.2 425.0 1503.2

Source: estimates based on DG Regio data

EUR millions %

(*) Territorial policy: Expenditure on territorial policy reflects the support given to development through improvements in the economic and social environment at local level, which are essentially aimed at creating a favourable environment for business start-ups and growth of local firms as well as a source of attraction for investment from outside. Rural development policies are intended to arrest the abandonment of rural areas by making them attractive places to live and work, while preserving their essential features. Urban policies have a similar aim in respect of inner city areas. In both cases, an important objective tends to be maintain and upgrade the cultural heritage and to ensure the availability of a range of support services.

Note: The financial data are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG.


Table 4 – Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions

Public expenditure (EUR millions)

Public expenditure as % public allocated

Private expenditure as % public expenditure

Objective 11. Agriculture and Fisheries 165.1 81.5 95.0

1.1 Agriculture and forestry 165.1 82.6 95.01.2 Fisheries : : :

2.Enterprise environment 22.7 62.0 53.82.1 Assisting large business organisations 7.6 64.5 53.82.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 10.0 60.2 53.82.3 RTDI 5.1 62.1 53.8

3.Human resources 212.3 59.7 32.13.1 Labour market policy 157.0 82.7 51.23.2 Social inclusion 4.8 19.6 20.43.3 Education and training 50.4 35.7 8.7

4.Transport and telecommunications 183.9 54.0 4.94.1 Transport 179.1 54.8 5.04.2 Telecommunications and IS 4.8 33.8 2.3

5.Environment and energy 95.2 68.8 8.85.1 Energy infrastructure 6.2 70.1 53.85.2 Environmental infrastructure 89.0 68.7 5.7

6.Territorial policy 135.1 60.1 28.46.1 Tourism 37.4 69.1 53.86.2 Planning and rehabilitation 9.5 65.5 25.56.3 Social infrastructure 42.2 57.8 0.06.4 Development of rural areas 45.9 55.2 37.2

7.Technical assistance 69.4 55.2 11.6Total Objective1 883.7 62.0 30.4

Objective 21. Agriculture and Fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 0.0 0.01.2 Fisheries : : :

2.Enterprise environment 8.5 47.2 191.62.1 Assisting large business organisations 0.0 0.0 0.02.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 7.5 51.8 192.22.3 RTDI 1.0 27.8 189.1

3.Human resources 0.0 0.0 0.03.1 Labour market policy 0.0 0.0 0.03.2 Social inclusion 0.0 0.0 0.03.3 Education and training 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.Transport and telecommunications 0.0 0.0 0.04.1 Transport 0.0 0.0 0.04.2 Telecommunications and IS 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.Environment and energy 0.0 0.0 0.05.1 Energy infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.05.2 Environmental infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0

6.Territorial policy 33.1 57.8 76.76.1 Tourism 6.3 38.3 203.76.2 Planning and rehabilitation 15.0 64.5 42.26.3 Social infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.06.4 Development of rural areas 11.8 67.1 3.0

7.Technical assistance 1.8 60.3 0.0Total Objective 2 43.4 55.4 100.2

Country 927.1 61.7 34.1

: = not available

Source: estimates based on DG Regio data

Note: The financial data presented in the tables are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG. The figures on expenditure relate to the position at the end of 2007. Private expenditure is estimated.


Table 5 - Allocation of resources by programmes

ERDF Other Structural Funds (SF)


Total public funding


Sectoral Objective 1Basic Infrastructure 422.4 0.0 422.4 143.5 565.9 39.2 33.8Human Resources Development Operational Programme, 2004-2006, Slovak Republic 284.5 284.5 82.7 367.2 26.4 19.5Industry and Services 151.2 0.0 151.2 84.7 235.9 14.0 19.9Sectoral operational programme agriculture and rural development 183.0 183.0 73.0 256.0 17.0 17.2

Total sectoral Objective 1 573.6 467.5 1041.0 383.9 1424.9 96.6 90.3Regional Objective 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bratislava 37.2 0.0 37.2 41.1 78.2 3.4 9.7Total regional 37.2 0.0 37.2 41.1 78.2 3.4 9.7Total sectoral 573.6 467.5 1041.0 383.9 1424.9 96.6 90.3Country 610.7 467.5 1078.2 425.0 1503.2 100.0 100.0

EUR millions %

Note: The financial data are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG.


Table 6 – Expenditure by programme

Public expenditure (EUR millions)

Public expenditure as % public allocated

Sectoral Objective 1Basic Infrastructure 338.9 59.9Human Resources Development Operational Programme, 2004-2006, Slovak Republic 218.8 59.6Industry and Services 134.5 57.0Sectoral operational programme agriculture and rural 191.5 74.8

Total sectoral Objective 1 883.7 62.0Regional Objective 2Bratislava 43.4 55.4Total Regional 43.4 55.4Total sectoral 883.7 62.0Country 927.1 61.7

Note: The financial data presented in the tables are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG. The figures on expenditure relate to the position at the end of 2007. Private expenditure is estimated.Data on FIFG payments are not included in INFOVIEW and the amounts included in the table for Fisheries relate to expenditure in this policy area financed from sources other than this.


Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006

Documents

Transcript of Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006