1 Cohesion Policy JOSE LUIS CALVO DE CELIS DG REGIO EVALUATION UNIT Evaluation network meeting Brussels February 25th 2010 Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (Objective 1 and 2) Work Package 4 Structural Change and Globalisation

2 Cohesion Policy SUBJECT to assess the impact of Objective 2 programmes ( ) supporting regional structural change and enabling adaptation to globalisation SCOPE Objective 2 ( ) focusing particularly on selected programmes financed totally or in their majority by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The regional level of analysis is NUTS 2 level.

3 Cohesion Policy The evaluation research tools were: 1.- A broad statistical analysis of all Objective 2 regions case studies of Objective 2 programmes co-funded by the ERDF regions in the EU15, selected as representative of different clusters of Objective 2 regions were : Basque country (ES) Bayern (DE) Brittany (FR) North East of England (UK) North Netherlands (NL) North Rhine-Westphalia (DE) North West England (UK) Rhône-Alpes (FR) Southern Finland (FI) Styria (AT) Tuscany (IT) Västra Programme (SE)

4 Cohesion Policy POLICY RESPONSES Focus on R&D innovation and internationalisation Focus on employment creation and safeguarding Focus on balanced territorial development North Rhine-Westphalia Southern Finland Västra Programme North Netherlands Styria Tuscany Basque country Brittany North East England North West England Bayern Rhône-Alpes

5 Cohesion Policy Positive evidence of success: Styria, Tuscany, Basque country Mixed evidence of success: Bayern North East England, North West England, North Netherlands, North Rhine-Westphalia, Southern Finland Västra Limited evidence of success: Brittany and Rhône-Alpes WERE ERDF FUNDED MEASURES RELEVANT FOR TACKLING STRUCTURAL CHANGE AND GLOBALISATION EFFECTIVE OR NOT?

6 Cohesion Policy Focus strategic policy response and early awareness of policy makers enabled regions to effectively and promptly react to structural change 2.Objective 2 interventions aligned with a broader regional strategy were more effective CONCLUSIONS (I) Success factors behind the contribution of Obj. 2 programmes to support structural change and globalisation

7 Cohesion Policy The commitment and vision of the regional planners, rather than a specific regional specialisation or structural pattern of growth, determines policy responses and its effectiveness 4.There is a need for differentiated strategies to achieve innovation- driven structural change 5.ERDF had a positive effect on policy learning about tackling structural change and globalisation CONCLUSIONS (II) Success factors behind the contribution of Obj. 2 programmes to support structural change and globalisation

8 Cohesion Policy Active acknowledgment and strategic anticipation of structural change should be put in place by regional policy makers In order to overcome the limited scale of funding, ERDF strategies should be aligned with the wider regional policy objectives and embedded in a longer term policy effort The Commission is strongly encouraged to strengthen its role of partner in strategic planning, and take a more active role in terms of policy thinking with the regional authorities RECOMMENDATIONS for ERDF interventions