1. 1 Cohesion Fund (including former ISPA) 2000 -2006 ex post evaluation Jurate Vaznelyte, Adam Abdulwahab Evaluation Network Meeting Brussels, April 14 th 2011

2. 2 WP A: Contribution to EU transport and environment policies. Contract awarded to RGL Forensics /AECOM (UK). Work started in January 2010, to be completed in July 2011. WP B: Cost benefit analysis of selected transport projects. Contract awarded to Frontier Economics (UK). Work started in January 2010. Final report expected in May 2011. WP C: Cost benefit analysis of selected environment projects. Contract awarded to COWI (DK). Work started in January 2010. Final report expected in May 2011. WP D: Management and Implemenation Contract to be awarded within 2011. Study should be completed within 5 months. WP E: Drawing conclusions and recommendations. Internal work of the Evaluation unit Evaluation structure and timing

3. 3 WP A: Contribution to EU transport and environment policies (1) Cohesion Fund (CF) co-financed 1,139 projects and allocated 34 million euro during the 2000-2006 period. On average, CF contributed 11% of the total investment needs of each of the beneficiary countries. For EU4 countries, on average, CF funding equals to 0.21% of their GDP (ranges from 0.07% in Ireland to 0.3% in Portugal) For EU10 countries, CF as a proportion to GDP ranges from 0.12% in Cyprus to 0.66% in Bulgaria (on average 0.36 % of GDP)

4. 4 WP A: Contribution to EU transport and environment policies (2) Transport sector: –CF co-financed 1,281 km of new roads and 3,176 km of reconstructed roads (4,457 km roads (new and reconstructed) in total) –CF co-financed 2,010 km of new rail and 3,840 km of reconstructed rail (5,350 km rail (new and reconstructed) in total) Environment sector: –17.2 million additional people were served by water supply projects –18.9 million additional population were served by waste water projects

5. 5 WP B: Cost benefit analysis of selected 10 transport projects (1) 1. M1 motorway – Ireland 2. Agiou Konstantinou bypass – Greece 3. Railway line Thriassio-Pedio- Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece 4. Levante – Francia motorway - Spain 5. High-speed rail line Madrid- Barcelona-French border – Spain 6. Modernisation of the Algarve rail line - Portugal 7. IXB Transport Corridor – Lithuania 8. Construction of A2 Motorway – Poland 9. Eastern Section of the M0 Budapest Ring Road between National Road 4 and M3 – Hungary 10. Modernisation of the railway line Senkevice-Cifer and stations Raca-Trnava – Slovak Republic

6. 6 WP B: Cost benefit analysis of selected 10 transport projects (2) All projects delivered value for money. Some questions about the utilisation rates (e.g. A23 motorway in Spain exhibits a utilisation rate of 5%, while M1 motorway in Ireland around 100%) The Cohesion Fund contribution was needed to unlock the economic benefits of these projects. Benefits from these projects come from 8 categories (travel time saving, vehicle operating cost, safety improvements, carbon emission, air and noise reduction ad other). It was difficult to establish a direct causal link between the transport infrastructure investments and the wider socio- economic impacts (especially relevant for GDP).

7. 7 WP B – some qualitative findings (3) Wider impacts are an important source of costs and benefits, but infrastructure impacts on (local) economy are difficult to measure. Ex ante CBA is one among many factors considered in the decision making process. Ex ante vs. ex post comparisons require historical memory and common model. Ex post evaluation helps to improve the ex ante analysis (demand modeling, risk analysis) and adds transparency to the ex ante analysis

8. 8 WP C: Cost benefit analysis of selected 10 environment projects (1) 4 solid waste and 6 water/wastewater projects Delay of implementation: more of an up-date of ex ante CBA than actual ex post –Limited information on operation –Non-technical results are not yet observable Monitoring and data on before/after situation is problematic Technical solutions are generally OK

9. 9 WP C: revision of ex ante CBAs (2) Legal compliance is the main driver of investments CBA is focused on the “administrative” project –“Ticking the box” approach, not integrated into decision-making processes –Quality to be improved –Individual project components are not valued individually –Missing the “big picture” (total river basin, synergies among projects)

10. 10 WP C: lessons learnt (3) CBA helps decisions if: –Carried out early in the process –Process seems to be more important than the values attached to costs & benefits –Roles of financial and economic analysis are clear and distinguished Carrying out ex post CBAs: –More useful if ex ante CBA is of good quality –Benefits can be best identified by examining individual components –Wider benefits are important but difficult to quantify

11. 11 Thank you for your attention Thank you for your attention http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/rado_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/rado_en.htm