Transcript Open Days 2009 – Global Challenges, European Responses Ex-post Evaluation 2000-2006: Is building environment infrastructure supporting growth in Europe? Brussels, Theme D Workshops Wednesday 7 October.

Open Days 2009 – Global
Challenges, European Responses
Ex-post Evaluation 2000-2006: Is building
environment infrastructure supporting growth
in Europe?
Brussels, Theme D Workshops
Wednesday 7 October 2009
This document is designed as support to the oral presentation
and is not intended to be used separately
Agenda of the workshop
 Presentation of the findings and conclusions of the part of the ex post
evaluation of the 2000-2006 Cohesion Policy devoted to environment and
climate change
– Why to evaluate the role of environmental measures in the context of regional
development (Objectives 1 and 2)?
– Environmental issues at stake as main drivers
– Environmental expenditures in the EU during the 2000-2006 period (including the
ERDF support)
– Main contributions of the 2000-2006 Cohesion Policy to support EU regional
development
– Challenge for the future
 Discussions with the participants to the workshop
2
Why to evaluate the role of environmental measures
in the context of regional development ? (1)
 Global picture of the ERDF support to the environment in the EU-25 over the
2000-2006 period: €25.5 bn, which is equivalent to 21% of the total ERDF budget
for all the fields of intervention
Environnemental
infrastructures
€11.3bn
Energy infrastructures
€1.7bn
Env-friendly
technologies
€1.5 bn
Climatefriendly
interventions
Land protection
€0.2bn
Planning and
rehabilitation
€11.5 bn
3
Why to evaluate the role of environmental measures
in the context of regional development ? (2)
 Expected role in terms of regional development? Neither clear at the beginning
of the period nor clear in the literature
– Priorities at the beginning of the period:
“The Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund should, as a priority, assist compliance with
the environmental standards established in the relevant Community Directives, in particular
with regard to water and waste management”.
4
Environmental issues at stake were the main drivers
for allocating ERDF resources to the environment
 Public intervention are justified in the environmental field because
– Environmental quality on a broad sense is a public good
– Environmental infrastructures generate positive externalities on public health,
environmental quality and economic growth potential
 ERDF intervention in the environmental fields (except urban rehabilitation) were
overall relevant compared to the needs and issues at stake
– Water supply: quality of drinking water and sustainable source of supply
– Wastewater treatment and collection: weak connection rate in Objective 1
regions and WWD requirements
– Waste: Decoupling growth and waste generation and improving waste
management and treatment
– Climate change: not at the core of the political agenda but concerns about
efficient and diversified energy sector
5
Environmental expenditures in the EU during the
2000-2006 programming period (1)
Total funds in environmental infrastructures (mainly solid waste, water supply, and
wastewater) for the 2000-2006 period: € 211 bn
ERDF : € 11.3 bn
Source: Eurostat, computation by ADE 2009
 Funding models: Gradual transition from subsidy schemes to financing user charges
6
Environmental expenditures in the EU during the
2000-2006 programming period (2)
All the funds devoted to the environmental sector: by group of EU MS
100.0%
16.3%
90.0%
31.8%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
5.3%
0.8%
4.3%
0.0%
31.6%
23.8%
6.9%
3.2%
0.0%
50.0%
40.0%
19.3%
13.6%
8.4%
2.0%
30.0%
58.2%
42.0%
20.0%
32.3%
10.0%
0.0%
EU 10
National Public Resources
EU 15 O1
ERDF
ISPA
Cohesion Fund
Other EU 15
EBRD
EIB
Industry
7
Environmental expenditures in the EU during the
2000-2006 programming period (3)
ERDF support to the environmental sector: by field of intervention and Objective
Millions €
-
1,000.0
2,000.0
3,000.0
4,000.0
5,000.0
Maintenance and restoration of the cultural …
Protection, improvement and regeneration of …
Rehabilitation of urban areas
Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and…
Planning and rehabilitation
Sewerage and purification
Drinking water (collection, storage, treatment …
Urban and industrial waste (including hospital …
Noise
Objective 1
Objective 2
Air
Environmental infrastructure (including water)
Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control
Renewable sources of energy (solar power, wind …
Energy infrastructures (production, delivery)
Environment-friendly technologies, clean and …
Environment-friendly technologies, clean and …
Preservation of the environment inconnection …
Improving and maintaining the ecological …
8
Environmental expenditures in the EU during the
2000-2006 programming period (4)
ERDF support to climate-friendly interventions: by field of intervention and groups of MS
ERDF budget
(€m)
Total O1
EU-25
Total O2
EU-25
€1.88 bn
€0.42 bn
EU-4
EU-15
EU-10
EU-25
Source:ADE, 2009 based on information from DG Regional Policy
Field of
interventions
9
Main contributions of the 2000-2006 Cohesion
Policy to support EU regional development (1)
Main contribution: improved wastewater treatment and collection in lagging MS
 Main results: extension and modernisation of wastewater treatment and collection network
enlarging the coverage of population having access to such services (=> contributing to
compliance with EU directives )
Indicator
Unit
Objective 1
Objective 2
Total
Projects in water supply
Number
165,597
134
165,731
Projects in wastewater
Number
5,421
790
6,211
Additional population served by water supply projects
Inhabitants
13,593,695
508,134
14,101,829
Additional population served by wastewater projects
Inhabitants
14,929,582
5,517,455
20,447,037
 Problems related to wastewater treatment and collection:
– Oversized investment in some areas?
– Final connection not ensured
– Financial viability
 Impact on quality of water (rivers, aquifers, coastal waters) not established
10
Main contributions of the 2000-2006 Cohesion
Policy to support EU regional development (2)
Other contributions to the environment
 Water supply:
– more oriented to solve the problem of sustainable supply but complex issue with results being
not clear at this stage
 Solid waste: focus on treatment modalities and not on waste generation. Financial contribution was
low but interesting results :
– the strengthening of the waste sorting and recycling capacities
– closure/rehabilitation of landfills
 Climate change: no significant impact in terms of the reduction of GHG emissions but interesting
specific results:
– heating systems more energy-efficient
– energy savings in entreprises
– increased renewable energy
11
Main contributions of the 2000-2006 Cohesion
Policy to support EU regional development (3)
Weak integration of environmental measures into territorial development strategies
 Sectoral approaches followed as required at the beginning of the period (mainly compliance
with WWD and various waste directives)
 No clear understanding of interactions between environmental challenges and the growth
process
 Intended role of environmental measures in territorial development not very explicit
 Objectives broadly laid down and logic of intervention difficult to highlight
 Weak integration of environmental measures with other parts of the OPs. Some good cases
but mainly for small interventions
12
Main contributions of the 2000-2006 Cohesion
Policy to support EU regional development (4)
How environmental infrastructures could support regional economic growth ?
 As a demand side effect, by increasing investment, internal demand and domestic product
(but may be mitigated by crowding out effects)
 As a supply side effect, by increasing the production capacity of the environmental sectors
(mainly related to water and waste collection and treatment as well as in the renewable
energy sector)
 As an external input into production functions that can enhance the attractiveness of the
region for direct investment and for qualified workers
 By contributing to a better quality of factors of production (mainly natural resources) for
specific sectors such as tourism, agriculture, etc.
 By supporting a technological push that may increase innovation capacity within the region
13
Main contributions of the 2000-2006 Cohesion
Policy to support EU regional development (5)
What have been the main results in terms of contribution to regional economic growth ?
Assessment is based on 10 regional case studies
(combining Objectives 1 and 2 regions – rural/urban)
 Overall: limited contribution to regional economic development
 Positive effects affecting mainly local areas without spillover effects on the regional economy
 Environmental sectors:
• improvement of labour productivity in the water sector
• more direct effect on recycling activities (growing sector in terms of employment)
• Missed opportunity in terms of developing a green economy (even if interesting
experiences)
 Some expected impact on tourism and agriculture
 Not a decisive factor for improving regional competitiveness : mainly rehabilitation measures
that have an impact on local sites attractiveness
 Has permitted macroeconomic adjustment: the ERDF has provided resources to local
authorities while budget constraint obliged central government to limit investment
14
Main contributions of the 2000-2006 Cohesion
Policy to support EU regional development (6)
Contribution of the ERDF environmental measures to economic development
Environmental
sector
South Finland
++
Lazio
Midi Pyrénées
Tourism
Agriculture
Attractiveness for
investments
+
(still expected)
+
(still expected)
++ (in Lahti)
+
+
Latvia
+
UK-WWV
+
Portugal Norte
+
Greece- Central
Macedonia
+
+ (internal)
+
+ (local sites)
+
++
(coastal zone)
++ (around
Rzeszow)
+
++
+ (local sites)
++
+
+ (local sites)
+
+
(still expected)
+
++
+
+
Eastern Slovakia
Innovation
+
Poland
Podkarpackie
Spain - Valenciana
Competitiveness of
firms
+ (local sites)
+
NB: « + » = small effect, « ++ » = medium effect and « +++ » = significant effect
15
Main contributions of the 2000-2006 Cohesion
Policy to support EU regional development (7)
Other effects on territorial development
 Significant contribution in terms of standards of living
 Impact on spatial cohesion and location of population and economic activities
 Main tradeoffs:
– More populated areas/ less populated
– Potential centres of growth/areas under risk of marginalisation
16
Challenge for the future
How to better integrate environmental investment into regional development
strategies ?
 Environmental stakes are growing
 To address them will require significant amount of resources that should not be managed
separately from public intervention dedicated to support economic growth
 Trade-offs between short-term /long-term objectives: (1) more productive investment today
means more wealth tomorrow, but also potentially more pollution; (2) investment in cleaner
technologies today means less pollution tomorrow but also potentially less wealth.
 How can the ERDF contribute to
– to make environmental investments more productive ?
– to make other investment less polluting ?
17