section 1 – regional characteristics and socio...

The Vienna Institute for

International Economic Studies ISMERI EUROPA

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

FRANCE

WP1– Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 France

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ......................................................................................................................3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................4

MAP OF FRANCE – OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS ...........................................................7

1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT .............................8

2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY ............................................11

3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS ....12

4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS .......................................17

5 FORM OF INTERVENTION IN THE DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS ....................................23

6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................25

7 GLOBAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................................28

8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION..............................................................31

9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE.....................................................................................32

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................35

TABLES ......................................................................................................................44

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND FOI CATEGORIES .................45

Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 2


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 Michel Lacave, University of Montpellier



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the period 2000-2006, all 21 mainland French regions received support from

Structural Funds under Objective 2, with Corsica and some parts of Nord Pas-de-Calais

under Objective 1 phasing out. The four outermost regions were supported under Objective

1. French regions can be divided into 6 groups: (i) Ile de France, the capital region, which

accounts for 28% of national added value, in which government services and headquarters of

large companies are concentrated and which is among the top regions in Europe for higher

education and public and private R&D; (ii) Rhône-Alpes which is second largest in terms of

population and GDP, which has increased its share of national added value, and which has a

complex economic structure with both world-class industries (micro- and nano-

technologies in Grenoble) and traditional manufacturing as well as and rural areas; (iii)

Southern regions, the French “sun belt” with a higher than average ratio of R&D expenditure

to GDP, attracting migrants from Ile de France and Northern France, but with high

unemployment and marked intra-regional disparities; (iv) Western regions with high growth

of a highly qualified work force and major cities which are among the most attractive in

France (the eastern region Alsace can be included in this group); (v) Changing regions facing

specific difficulties, either with a rural profile (such as Corsica) or with an old industrial base,

which are poor performers in terms of higher education, R&D and the qualifications of the

work force; (vi) Outermost regions which suffer from a range of problems (remoteness and

poor accessibility, lack of critical mass, environmental challenges and dependence on

mainland France.

A number of macroeconomic developments have regional effects. The loss of

competitiveness reflected in the deterioration of the external balance had a negative impact

on the most manufacturing-dominated regions (e.g. Franche-Comté). On the other hand,

attractive southern regions with a weak economic base (e.g. Languedoc-Roussillon)

benefited from large government transfers in the form of pensions to people in retirement

and benefits to the unemployed. Ile de France has been losing ground in relative terms as

regards its share of added value, growth of GDP per head and research potential.

French Single Programming Documents (SPDs) in Objective 2 areas and Corsica have broadly

similar features because of the centralised administration of the country. Illustrated by the

role of the “Secrétariats généraux pour les affaires régionales” in preparing SPDs and of



DATAR (now DIACT)2 in coordinating Structural Fund intervention at national level. This does

not mean that there are no differences between regions, but a general pattern applies to all.

The overall aim was to improve the attractiveness and competitiveness of Objective 2 areas

through diversifying economic activity and transforming local and regional goods and

services. There was no strong strategic focus on particular objectives and the overall

impression is more one of ‘sprinkling’ resources around. The highest SPD funding per head

was in Corsica, central and mainly rural regions and southern regions. Surprisingly perhaps,

in a number of regions facing industrial problems SPD funding per head was lower than the

national average.

Objective 1 SPDs in the outermost regions reflect three main aims: modernising traditional

economic sectors (tourism and agriculture), diversifying activity, and developing ICT for

businesses and individuals.

Overall, the Structural Fund contribution did not significantly change the situation in regions

or the territorial disequilibria between regions in mainland France and Corsica. It has

reinforced: (i) ongoing trends that were evident, such as population growth in many rural

areas, through contributing to improvement in infrastructure and tourist facilities; (ii) the

focus of national policies, for instance, in relation to RTDI or urban development through

helping to tackle problems of ‘difficult’ urban areas. In Objective 1 outermost regions, the

Structural Fund contribution has supported the catching up process.

Policy implementation was again characterised by centralisation under the national

Government with a relatively minor role for elected regional authorities. At operational level,

implementation was often hampered by the lack of coordination, support in the preparation

of projects and selectivity. Other problems were linked to the complexity of the French

institutional system.

On the positive side, global grants were in general considered to have improved

programming, in particular when management was delegated to regions. Implementation

has been more effective where there was decentralised management and technical assistance

to project leaders. More effective strategies on information, promotion and communication

significantly helped to accelerate programming.

2 DATAR (Délégation à l’Aménagement du Territoire et à l’Action Régionale) changed to DIACT (Délégation

Interministérielle à l’Aménagement et à la Compétitivité des Territoires) between 2006 and 2009. After 2009 the

acronym changed again back to DATAR (Délégation interministérielle à l'Aménagement du Territoire et à

l'Attractivité Régionale). Through this report the acronym DIACT is used except when reference is made to DATAR as

the author of a study or evaluation..



Lessons can be learned from the experience of policy implementation for the programming period 2007-2013. In addition, significant weaknesses need to be addressed in the future:

• try to involve more private partners (projects are more public-public than public-

private)

• have a stronger strategic focus and clear priorities: in principle, the regional strategic

documents resulting from “Décentralisation Acte II” should help to be more selective

as regards training programmes and align them more closely to labour market needs

• improve access to finance for businesses

• be more selective as regards industrial real estate projects (industrial zones, business

parks, etc.) and in general, adopt a less infrastructure-oriented approach.



MAP OF FRANCE – OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS



1

REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC

CONTEXT3

France has some marked regional characteristics4. Mainland France (including Corsica) can

be divided into five groups of regions: Ile de France (the capital region), Rhône-Alpes,

Southern regions, Western regions, changing regions facing specific problems. The

outermost regions (Objective 1) present a completely different picture.

Ile de France has a unique position. It is where government services and headquarters of

large companies are concentrated. Population density is high, the average age is relatively

low and education levels are above those in the rest of France. It has a large proportion of

people with tertiary education and it accounts for a large share of public and private R&D

expenditure (almost 50% of public research expenditure). It generates around 28% of

national added value. However, mid-to-high-tech manufacturing is of lower importance

than the national average. It has also been losing ground in relative terms since the mid-

1990s at least to Southern and Western regions as regards its share of added value, growth

of GDP per head and research potential5.

Rhône-Alpes is the second largest region in terms of population and GDP. Its share of the

value-added has tended to rise. It has a complex economy with an industrial, banking and

service centre in Lyon, a world class R&D centre in Grenoble and some advanced

manufacturing industries combined with traditional ones, as well as some rural areas.

Southern regions (Provence Alpes Côte-d’Azur – PACA - Languedoc-Roussillon, Midi-

Pyrénées, and to a lesser extent Aquitaine) constitute a French “sun belt” attracting

significant inward migration from Ile de France and Northern regions, the average age of the

population is relatively low, but unemployment is high in PACA and Languedoc-Roussillon.

Midi-Pyrénées is a special case with large-scale business R&D (EADS Airbus). In Languedoc-

Roussillon and Midi-Pyrénées, there are wide intra-regional disparities due to the

concentration of services and research in the main cities and, on the other hand, many rural

and mountainous areas. Overall, Southern regions benefit from transfers to people in

retirement (pensions) and income support for the unemployed who migrate to “sunny”

regions.

3 See Table 1.

4 P. Veltz, La grande transition, 2008.

5 L. Davezies, La République et ses territoires, 2008.



Western regions and in particular Bretagne have experienced a large increase in highly

qualified people and the major cities are among the most attractive in France.

Unemployment is below the national average. Alsace, on the German border, is also

attractive with a highly skilled work force and is a centre of mid-to-high tech manufacturing,

science and technology.

By contrast, other regions have no very specific features. Some are largely rural in nature and

have small numbers of people with tertiary education, a poorly qualified work force and low

R&D (Poitou-Charentes, Champagne-Ardenne and Basse-Normandie). Others have an old

industrial base (Lorraine and Nord Pas-de-Calais) and, despite of restructuring efforts, still

lag behind in terms of wealth and knowledge creation capacities.

The French outermost regions (supported under Objective 1) suffer from a range of

disadvantages: remoteness, lack of critical mass, low accessibility, environmental challenges

and high dependence on mainland France. The economy depends heavily on tourism and the

public sector. It is mainly composed of service-related SMEs and micro-enterprises, often

family owned and neither export nor innovation oriented. The proportion of recipients of

minimum income support (RMI) is six times the level in mainland France.

So far as Objective 2 regions are concerned, accessibility of major cities and regional capitals

has in general improved due to the TGV network (in particular with the eastern routes) and

motorways. However, peri-urban areas suffer from increased congestion, and intra-regional

accessibility to small and medium-sized cities from regional capitals has not improved

significantly in most regions.

Access to tertiary education is not a problem since France has 88 universities spread across

the country. The ranking of universities in terms of the quality of education and research

excellence is, nevertheless, very different and there is a divide between regions with

“Grandes écoles” such as Ile de France and Rhône-Alpes and those having only ordinary

universities.

R&D activities are heavily concentrated in a small number of regions: Ile de France, Rhône-

Alpes and the Southern regions, even if the overall predominance of Ile de France is slightly

on the decline. R&D is particularly low in the industrial regions Nord Pas-de-Calais, Picardie

and Lorraine) as well as, in the rural regions Poitou-Charentes, Limousin Champagne -

Ardenne and Corsica.

Population growth has risen significantly during the period 1999-2006 compared to 1995-

1999. Those regions in which population declined in the first period experienced growth in

the second with the exception of Champagne-Ardenne. There was a marked acceleration of

population growth in all Atlantic regions, Southern regions (less in PACA) and Rhône-Alpes.



Ten regions in the North and East and in the centre (Massif central) experienced a reduction

in their share of population.

Growth of GDP per head was higher in the period 1999-2006 than in the previous four years

only in two regions (Lorraine and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur). In others it was much lower

especially in some north-eastern regions (in particular Franche-Comté) and central-eastern

regions.

Growth of productivity was higher in the period 1999-06 than in 1995-99 in ‘traditional’

industrial regions such as Nord Pas-de-Calais, Lorraine, and in two Atlantic regions (Poitou-

Charentes, Aquitaine). It was much lower, however, in Franche-Comté, Champagne-

Ardenne, Picardie and Auvergne.

The proportion of the work force with tertiary education increased markedly between 2001

and 2006 in Bretagne, Midi-Pyrénées, Champagne-Ardenne, the Centre and Corsica and to a

lesser extent in Basse-Normandie, Nord Pas-de-Calais, Languedoc-Roussillon and Poitou-

Charentes, while it declined in Haute-Normandie.

Overall, regional capitals and large conurbations have been the engines of growth and of the

knowledge economy, accounting for a rising share of population, value-added and labour

skills, especially in Southern and Atlantic regions.

At the same time, some rural areas gained from inward migration (see the 2004 census

survey) while many medium-sized cities in northern and eastern France lost population.

As a result, disparities within regions perhaps became a more important challenge than

disparities between them during the period 2000-20066.

In general, eligibility to Objective 2 support is in line with the characteristics of the five

groups of regions. For example, the Greater Paris area encompassing Ile de France, the

northern part of the Centre region and Bourgogne, the south of Picardie, the south-east of

Haute-Normandie, had few eligible areas. In Rhône-Alpes, the southern part (mostly rural)

and the western part (with “old” manufacturing industries) were eligible, while there were

almost no eligible areas in the Haute-Savoie “département” which, despite being

mountainous and rural, has a high GDP per head due to tourism, dynamic industries and

proximity to Switzerland (with a high level of daily commuting). In western regions, a large

part of western Bretagne was eligible (because of agriculture and fisheries). In southern

regions, most of Midi-Pyrénées was eligible, reflecting the marked contrast between the

highly dynamic Toulouse area and the wider periphery.

6 Region Midi-Pyrénées is probably one of the best examples.



2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY

Since the slowdown in 2001-2003, growth in France has been at much the same rate as in

the Euro area as a whole, but it has been held back by weak competitiveness (illustrated by

the deterioration in the external balance). Employment has risen and the budget deficit has

been reduced, but persistent unemployment and low participation of younger and older

people in the work force have reflected underlying structural problems.

Ile de France, Rhône-Alpes, Provence Alpes Côte-d’Azur and Nord Pas-de-Calais, i.e. the

two ‘leading’ regions plus the most populated southern one and the most traditionally

industrial one, are together responsible for about 50% of French GDP. A second group of

regions, composed of Western regions (Pays de la Loire, Aquitaine, Bretagne) are responsible

for slightly less than 15%. This predominance is even more marked for the most advanced

activities.

Overall, there has been a reduction in disparities to the benefit of “peripheral” regions.

Western and Southern regions (Pays de la Loire, Bretagne, Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrénées,

Provence Alpes Côte-d’Azur, Corse) have had rates of growth of GDP and population higher

than average, some of them experiencing significant inward migration from Ile de France

and Northern France. As compared with other EU countries, such as the UK and Spain,

growth in France was more geographically balanced over the programming period. Moreover,

the overseas regions caught up to some extent (mainly Réunion, Guyane and Guadeloupe),

but unemployment remains high (above 20% in Spring 2005).

The macroeconomic context did not significantly affect regional development policy over the

period. The Government did not comply with the requirements of the Stability and Growth

Pact concerning budgetary deficits and public debt, and general government expenditure as

well as general government investment have been higher than the EU average, despite GDP

growth being lower. In addition, local and regional authorities maintained a high level of

investment.

On the other hand, regional development policy as such was not a clear priority during the

period 2000-2006. At operational level, policy primarily resulted from the combination of

‘Contrats de Plan Etat-Région’ and SPDs with rather broad objectives (such as ‘territorial

development’ which was aimed at reducing intra-regional disparities). Development policies

targeted specific areas with the aim of compensating for ‘handicaps’: - the rural, coastal,

mountainous nature of regions and inner city areas ‘with difficulties’ (quartiers sensibles). In

addition, a policy of developing clusters was progressively pursued from the end of the

1990s on, first, with ‘Systèmes Productifs Locaux’ (SPL) at a modest level (with the Italian



industrial districts as a ‘model’), then with the “Pôles d’excellence rurale” (PER), and finally

with the much more ambitious “Pôles de compétitivité” from 2005-2006.

Apart from this general framework, businesses creating jobs were able to benefit from direct

grants (PAT: Prime d’Aménagement du Territoire) in specific areas (which did not correspond

with Objective 2 areas).

However, two macroeconomic trends affected regional development. The loss of

competitiveness had a negative effect in the most manufacturing-dominated regions, such

as Franche-Comté. On the other hand, some of the less ‘productive’ regions, i.e. those with

a weak economic base, benefited from high government expenditure (Table 2) through

transfers, as noted above. The most pronounced case is Languedoc-Roussillon, which has

low GDP per head but which attracted migrants from other parts of France because in

particular of its warm climate, a phenomenon which has been statistically confirmed7.

Finally, an important institutional change which has affected the pursuit of regional

development policy occurred at the end of the 2000-2006 programming period in the form

of the “Décentralisation Acte II” with the revision of the Constitution of March 28, 2003 and

the law on ‘local freedoms and responsibilities’ of August 13, 2004, which gave new

competencies to regions, in particular for economic development and vocational training. As

a consequence, nearly all regions have set up “Regional Schemes for Economic Development”

(SRDE)8 that have defined priorities. In principle, these priorities are supposed to feed the

‘Contrats de Projet Etat-Région’ and the Operational Programmes 2007-2013.

3

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION

OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS

Allocation of expenditure in Objective 2 Regions

French SPDs in Objective 2 regions generally have similar features, due to the centralised

administration of the country and the role played in preparing SPDs by the “Secrétariats Généraux à l’Administration Régionale” (SGAR) of the “Préfets de Région”. This does not

mean that there are no differences between regions (see below), but that an overall pattern

applies to all regions. This pattern is in line with the national policies, which means that

Structural Fund intervention did not change the existing orientation of policy. One of the

7 L. Davezies, op. cit.

8 Schémas régionaux de développement économique.



best illustrations is perhaps in RTDI with the global grant OSEO-ANVAR9 (for supporting

innovative projects in SMEs) being included in all SPDs.

Another key point is that there was no strong strategic focus on particular objectives that

can be identified by examining the allocation of expenditure. The general impression is one

of assistance being “sprinkled” across policy areas.

The overall objective was to support and strengthen the attractiveness and competitiveness

of Objective 2 areas through ‘valorisation’ of their environments, diversification of economic

activity and the transformation of local and regional products.

One of the main specific objectives was supporting economic development and the

improvement of the business environment, focusing on SMEs, through the diffusion of ICT,

access to RTDI services and improvement of infrastructure (technology and business parks,

incubators, equipment, buildings, etc.), especially in remote, or relatively remote, areas, i.e.

a mix of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ support.

The second objective, partly related to the first, was to strengthen human capital, adapt this

to the needs of SMEs and facilitate access to R&D, for example through measures supporting

more employment of young engineers and researchers in companies, feasibility studies on

R&D projects and the better adaptation of training and qualifications to the needs of SMEs.

The third objective was aimed at improving the attractiveness and competitiveness of

regions and reducing regional disparities through improving living conditions in rural and

peri-urban areas by regeneration programmes, the provision of services (public services and

services to business), investment in roads and ICT; and in some regions (Languedoc-

Roussillon, Provence Alpes Côte-d’Azur, Bourgogne, Midi-Pyrénées, Pays de la Loire, Rhône-

Alpes) support to tourism. In rural areas, the main aims were to develop existing products,

diversify activity and improve qualifications and reduced social exclusion in depressed areas.

The final objective was to improve the environment through developing natural resources

and combating the risk of damage. Two regions had precise environmental aims: Limousin,

to restore forests after the 1999 storm and Languedoc-Roussillon, to combat seasonal

flooding and coastal erosion.

The objective of strengthening territorial cohesion encompasses three policy areas:

Agriculture and fisheries (0.8 % of EU funding and 0.7% of total public funding), Transport

and telecommunications (13% and 16%, respectively) and Territorial policy (37% and 39%).

Territorial cohesion, therefore, absorbed 51% of EU funds and 55.5% of public funding and

9 See: Strategic Evaluation on innovation and the knowledge-based economy in relation to the Structural and

Cohesion Funds for the programming period 2007-2013, European Commission, DG REGIO (2006).



was the main objective of French SPDs. Policy was multi-dimensional, embracing support for

specific areas (rural, mountain, run-down inner-city areas, etc.), infrastructure and tourism.

The second broad aim was to improve the business environment, which absorbed 27% of EU

funding and 25% of the total. Within this, around two-thirds of resources went to SMEs and

the craft sector) and slightly over a quarter to RTDI.

Around 13% of EU funding and 11% of national went to human resources, with most of this

going to education and training, in line with the objective noted above. A very small part

went to labour market policy.

Finally, the environment (together with energy) was allocated less than 6% of both EU and

national funding, though it should be remembered that, when the SPDs were prepared,

environment was mostly regarded as a transversal objective.

For all of the French Objective 2 areas, the principal aim of intervention was to reduce

regional disparities.

The final synthesis prepared by DATAR (November 2002)10 for comparing the respective

objectives of SPDs and CPERs (Contrats de Plan Etat-Région) listed 18 more precise

objectives.

Aims of intervention by policy area

Policy areas Aims of intervention Agriculture and fisheries

Rural development, diversification of activities, ‘green’ tourism, development of new products (IGP, ‘bio’ products)

Enterprise environment

Development of enterprises; improvement of productivity, technology transfer, innovation, use of ICT; improving business infrastructure (industrial and business parks, technological parks, incubators); providing services to SMEs; supporting enterprise creation

Human resources

Education, training (vocational and life-long learning), in particular for young, unemployed and non-active population; supporting training of employed population (including entrepreneurs); favouring professional and social inclusion; strengthening of local and regional culture

Transport and telecommunications

Developing transport infrastructure and ICT infrastructure

Environment and energy

Strengthening environment protection: management of fragile areas, water, reduction of pollution, waste treatment, prevention of risks

Territorial policy

Improving and rehabilitating heritage (rural and urban) and public buildings and infrastructure; renewing derelict urban areas and brownfield sites; improving business infrastructure (industrial and business parks, technology parks, incubators); promoting leisure activities; strengthening social, family, non-profit making services; improving housing; developing territorial management skills

Etudes des objectifs comparés des SPD et des CPER – Rapport national. 10



Ten metropolitan regions had SPD funding per head above the national average, with Corsica

(Objective 1) having the highest level. A first group is composed of central regions, with

Limousin and Auvergne with the highest funding, Centre and Bourgogne with lower funding.

A second group includes two northern regions, Picardie and Nord Pas-de-Calais. A third

group is composed of southern regions: Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrénées and Provence Alpes Côte-

d’Azur (PACA). The two first groups were facing serious problems, due either to the

importance of rural areas or to the presence of traditional industries. The Southern regions

were among the most dynamic, at least in terms of population growth11. Aquitaine and Midi-

Pyrénées were suffering from a crisis in the aeronautics industry and PACA was facing

problems of industrial restructuring in western parts.

It is surprising to see regions with industrial problems such as Haute-Normandie and Basse-

Normandie, or regions suffering from low productivity, such as Franche-Comté with a

funding per head significantly below the national average.

In general, it seems that regions concentrated efforts on the most critical areas. An example

is Limousin, a relatively low income and isolated region, which focused policy on both the

enterprise environment and agriculture. Within the ‘Enterprise environment’ policy area,

support to RTDI varied in importance: Some regions concentrated efforts on this because

they were lagging behind in this area (e.g.: Picardie, Nord Pas-de-Calais), others focused on

technology transfer and support to innovation because they had strong public research

which was not being turned into business opportunities (Languedoc-Roussillon, PACA). In

‘Transport and telecommunications’, Haute-Normandie concentrated efforts on improving

and modernising the port of Le Havre, while in ‘Human resources’, Languedoc-Roussillon

and Midi-Pyrénées concentrated on training in response to high unemployment and marked

intra-regional disparities.

Allocation of expenditure in Objective 1 Regions

Objective 1 SPDs reflect at least 3 common objectives. The first objective was to modernise

and restructure traditional economic sectors, in particular tourism and agriculture; the

second to diversify activities both in traditional sectors and outside by supporting the

development of new activities; the third to develop ICT for both individuals and businesses

in order to strengthen the attractiveness of the region and open up to new markets.

Improving the environment was also a common objective, in particular through protecting

natural resources, developing renewable energies and supporting public transport as an

alternative to cars.

The robustness of their economic fabric is questionable: see the example of Languedoc-Roussillon. 11



Other objectives were to combat exclusion through support to training, the strengthening of

micro-enterprises, the improvement of urban infrastructure and services.

In order to achieve these objectives, around 28% of financial allocations were directed

towards human resources, and in particular education and training. Significant allocation

going to ‘Enterprise environment’, ‘Agriculture and fisheries’, and tourism within ‘Territorial

policy’ reflects the importance attached to economic development as indicated above.

Education and training, however, seem to have been regarded as the main means of

increasing regional economic potential.

The financial allocations to ‘Environment and energy’ (about 12%) are in line with the

importance given to environmental improvement.

Overall, therefore, resources were concentrated on the most critical problems. The level of

education in general is relatively low in the overseas regions concerned and represents a

clear obstacle to economic development. Environmental problems relating to the protection

of natural resources, energy, and prevention of risks (natural, pollution) are also critical.

It should be noted, however, that RTDI which ought to play an important role in diversifying

economic activity was allocated very little funding (only 2.4% of the total). The only

outermost region that allocated a significant amount to RTDI was Réunion12.

Financial execution

In general, the amount spent up to end-2008 was in line with initial intentions for both

Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions (Table 4).

In two policy areas, ‘Enterprise environment’ and ‘Territorial policy’, public expenditure was slightly higher in relative terms than the initial allocation, the main difference being in Objective 2 regions. On the other hand, expenditure was lower in relative terms in ‘Agriculture and fisheries’

Contribution of private expenditure13

Not surprisingly, the ratio private to public expenditure was the highest in the ‘Enterprise

environment’ area in both Objective 1 (105%) and Objective 2 (95%) regions (especially in

relation to large businesses).

In the other policy areas, there were some significant differences. In Objective 1 regions, the

private contribution ranged from 52% of public expenditure in ‘Agriculture and fisheries’

(adding: 52% to public expenditure), to 15-19% in ‘Environment and Energy’ and ‘Territorial 12 See Louis Lengrand & Associés / INESC Porto « Mieux connaître la RDT dans les régions ultra-périphériques (RUP)

de l’Europe et mieux les intégrer dans l’espace européen de la recherche », 2002.

See Table 4. 13



policy’ and virtually zero in ‘Human resources’ and ‘Transport and telecommunications’.

Within ‘Territorial policy’, the private contribution was particularly high for Tourism (43%).

In Objective 2 regions, the private funding added close to 20% to public expenditure in

‘Environment and Energy’ and ‘Territorial Policy’ (i.e. much the same as in Objective 1

regions) but only around 10% to expenditure in ‘Agriculture and Fisheries’.

4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY

AREAS

It is important to note that the evaluation reports had to be drafted according to national

guidelines provided by DIACT, which left regions some freedom to select regional themes in

addition to national ones. As a consequence, data on the effects of support are highly

variable. In general, no surveys on recipients or control group analysis are available, at least

at the time of writing.

4.1 OBJECTIVE 2 REGIONS

Agriculture and fisheries

Effects of support have mainly concerned rural development. Major specific effects were: the

diversification of activities of farmers, in particular oriented toward eco-tourism; an

improvement in the quality of accommodation for ‘green tourism’ (agri-tourism);

‘valorisation’ of the natural heritage and housing improvements in villages and small towns;

the development of services to the rural population (particularly for young children) and to

farmers.

There were, however, at least two effects on agriculture as such, first from the support to

new farmers (for instance in regions such as Limousin), second from support to ‘regionally

labelled products (e.g.: in the Midi-Pyrénées).

These measures seem to have mainly benefited farmers, whereas benefits to the rural

population as such are less clear.

As regards fisheries, it is not easy to judge the effects of measures from the questions posed

in the final evaluation. However, major intervention seems to have come from FIFG rather

than the ERDF.



Enterprise environment

The SPDs served to increase access to RTDI significantly for businesses and in particular

SMEs. According to evaluations, they contributed to bringing about a better culture of

innovation all over the country.

The focus of support differed between regions, in some cases being on research centres and

universities, in others on ‘interface organisations’ (centres of technology transfer, innovation

agencies, etc.), in others on businesses and yet others on all of these through trying to

improve the links between research centres and industry.

In regions where the main target of technology transfer and innovation-related measures

was enterprises (e.g.: PACA; Languedoc-Roussillon, where a third of companies receiving

support applied for a patent), there were relatively few projects of effective technology

transfer. However, support increased expenditure on R&D by firms and helped to develop

new markets.

Other regions (e.g. Midi-Pyrénées) mainly targeted research centres by funding research

projects and public/private partnerships on a project basis and supporting ‘interface

organisations’ (CRITT, Réseaux de développement technologique, Technological Platforms).

In a number of industrial regions, such as Franche-Comté, Structural Fund support for

innovation led to some diversification of the regional economy towards ICT-related services.

More generally, technology transfer and innovation-related measures have created a context

favouring large-scale projects with leverage effects (e.g.: the micro-nano-electronic pole in

Toulon, PACA), an innovative approach to the environment, the development of ICT - both

infrastructure and use, and the general development of firms.

As regards the effects on businesses, there was, as noted above, a grant to OSEO-ANVAR14

in all SPDs to support feasibility studies of innovative projects and support for innovative

projects themselves, and which subsidised firms’ recruitment of researchers and engineers.

Through targeting beneficiaries which may have differed from those usually targeted, OSEO-

ANVAR used the EU funds to complement its existing scheme.

In comparison, measures supporting financial engineering do not seem to have been very

successful because of the lack of intermediary services and well-trained staff (regional

public-supported equity funds are not in general professionally managed). The same can be

said of the support to innovative firms through incubators and networked services.

A number of SPDs supported services to SMEs and the improvement of conditions for setting

up businesses. This was used in practice for investment in new industrial zones tailored to

The national public agency supporting commercialisation of research. 14



SME needs, business parks and premises in urban areas and the rehabilitation of derelict

areas in old industrial zones. In general, there seems to have been too much ‘sprinkling’ of

funding in this area, the projects not being all necessarily justified in property development

terms.

In general, projects in the handicraft sector were considered as successful.

It should be noted that none of the evaluation reports mentions “clusters” as targets or

recipients, with the sole exception of Nord Pas-de-Calais.

Human Resources

SPDs funding for human resources included two strands, the building or refurbishment of

training centres and training programmes for women, young people and older workers. The

training programmes in general, however, were rather general and did not address specific

needs, nor target specific activities, except construction. Funds were insufficiently

concentrated and concrete results are difficult to identify.

The evaluation reports indicate that only a limited number of new jobs were created, the

majority of them requiring only low levels of qualification. A noticeable exception was

Bretagne where a good effect on unemployment could be achieved (see Table 1) though the

evaluation reports did not try in general to establish a causal link between training and

employment.

Transport and telecommunications

Few Objective 2 evaluation reports pay specific and detailed attention to transport since this

was not considered as a priority for evaluation by DIACT. Reports on Aquitaine, Midi-

Pyrénées and Haute-Normandie are the main exceptions.

Roads were improved, in particular in remote areas, but there is little mention of large-scale

investment in new infrastructure or modernisation of existing networks. In Aquitaine, a

major new motorway was built, while in some coastal regions, there was investment in ports,

especially in Le Havre in Haute-Normandie. There was also investment in public transport in

Haute-Normandie as well as in Midi-Pyrénées, which invested in cycle tracks as well.

Towards the end of the programming period, a trend towards investment in environment-

friendly transportation is evident.

As regards the development of ICT infrastructure and use, there were two categories of

effects. First, investment in ICT improved the competitiveness of both regions and firms,

including improving the ‘regional image’. Secondly, it limited the ‘digital divide’ when it was

targeted on specific groups (crafts and micro-enterprises, the general public, those living in

low-income urban areas).



The DORSAL project developed in Limousin, one of the rare large-scale ICT projects in the

SPDs, is interesting since it illustrates the factors for success of this kind of project: public-

private partnership, regional coherence (i.e. management not divided between local areas),

and a coherence between different measures and programmes.

Environment and energy

The SPDs’ evaluators considered in general that the effects obtained in the environment and

energy policy area were difficult to assess, particularly because the environment could be

included in some SPDs as a priority axis in itself while in general they were scattered across

other priority axes.

For instance, in Haute-Normandie, a specific axis was devoted to the environment with a

comprehensive approach which was unusual in other regions. The Centre region had a

similar, though more limited, strategy. In Pays de Loire, the environment strategy was also

concentrated on a specific measure, namely waste water treatment and sewage works.

In many regions, the environment was viewed as a transversal issue with various objectives,

such as: sustainable agriculture, improved quality of industrial areas, and the attractiveness

of tourist areas. In these cases, environmental issues were often addressed under ‘territorial

development’, which meant promoting, for instance, rural, mountain or coastal areas.

The main measures related to sewage disposal and waste water treatment. Other measures

included the rehabilitation of derelict industrial areas and investment grants to

manufacturers. Some difficulties of implementation were apparent in remote areas where the

aim was to improve the ‘landscape’ due to a lack of understanding of the issues involved on

the part of those carrying out the schemes.

Expenditure on energy schemes was very small and, accordingly, difficult to evaluate in

terms of the results.

What is clear is that the environment became an increasingly important issue over the

programming period, stimulated by EU funding and the growing emphasis at Community

level on this.

Territorial policy

Under Territorial policy, a large number of projects were aimed at tackling problems of

derelict urban areas, in particular – but not exclusively – in traditional manufacturing regions

(e.g.: Lorraine, Picardie, Haute-Normandie). Such projects appear to have been more

successful when they involved investment to regenerate run-down areas than when they

needed to involve particular sections of the community, such migrants or unemployed, in

particular, even though NGOs or interest groups usually acted as intermediaries. The main

positive effect was often to improve the management capabilities of the social workers



concerned. Around a third of the funds going to urban areas were used to restore buildings

and infrastructure. However, the low level of private contributions should be noted since it

might imply that such projects were likely to generate a low rate of sustainable employment.

In rural areas, the main effects of Territorial policy were in improving their attractiveness for

people to live in and businesses to locate there as well as in supporting the development of

tourism. The most effective projects with regard to the former were: the rehabilitation of

industrial zones and the creation of new ones and support for the diversification of activities

(e.g. the agri-food industry in Picardie), and development of ICT. However, efforts to

encourage diversification out of agriculture and forestry encountered problems in Auvergne

(the wood industry) and in Limousin. In some regions (Franche-Comté, Basse-Normandie,

Rhône-Alpes), small rural towns were the main beneficiaries of actions to strengthen the

industrial base in contrast to the national trend.

Measures to support the tourism industry took the form of the renovation and modernisation

of accommodation and support for better organisation of activities, improving the quality of

services, diversification into other tourist areas, especially ‘rural’ tourism, restoration of

heritage sites and the creation of cultural events. In Bretagne and Limousin in particular,

however, it seems that such measures had limited effect.

Although it is difficult to measure the effect on improving the attractiveness of rural areas as

places to live (through, for example supporting projects for waste water treatment and

providing main drainage, the renovation of villages and adapting services to needs), it is the

case that population stabilised or even increased over the period in many such areas.

In mountainous areas, the main focus was on increasing their attractiveness as tourist

destinations through improving accommodation, training and protection of the natural

heritage (e.g.: in Auvergne and Midi-Pyrénées). These seem to have been more effective than

increasing the attractiveness of these areas as places to live because of difficulties in

maintaining basic services (Auvergne being an example). This was also the case as regards

strengthening the economic base, where effects on increasing employment and business

development seem to have been limited.

In coastal areas, measures were focused on strengthening the economic base, such as

through the development of businesses and crafts in Corsica, Picardie (in the form of

industrial parks) and Haute-Normandie (support for the construction industrial premises).

The only region where the results were regarded as being inadequate was Languedoc-

Roussillon. Industrial ports were also modernised in some regions (Le Havre with Port 2000

in Haute-Normandie; Sète and Port-la-Nouvelle in Languedoc-Roussillon), though the

impact on competitiveness is difficult to assess. Support was, in addition, given to improve

the attractiveness of areas for tourists through similar measures as elsewhere.



4.2 OBJECTIVE 1 OUTERMOST REGIONS

Measures were aimed at strengthening agriculture and fisheries in Martinique, by helping to

develop new markets, though with limited effect on employment, and in Réunion by

supporting sugar cane and milk production. Structural Fund intervention in Réunion

encouraged the development of Qualitropic, a “Pôle de Compétitivité” centred on tropical

produce.

Measures were also taken to improve the business environment, mainly in Réunion through

the development of a regional ‘Technopole’ and Guadeloupe (through support to

investment). Deficiencies remain, however, in technology transfer, financial engineering and

business infrastructure.

Support was given, in addition, to improving human capital through the provision of training to the unemployed and the developments of apprenticeships in Réunion. Measures also supported investment in the ICT sector, by helping to install high-speed lines in Réunion and Martinique, though the high charges due to a lack of competition limited the effects on business.

Structural Fund support for tourism had only limited effects in Guadeloupe and Martinique,

in particular, partly due to higher labour costs than in most of the competing destinations in

the Caribbean (such as the Dominican Republic).

Overall, the division of expenditure by main measure reflects the lack of a strong strategic

focus, as emphasised in Section 3 above, in particular in Objective 2 regions as well as in

Corsica. In Objective 1 outermost regions, the focus was on investment in human capital

(which is justified by the low level of education) and infrastructure (because of the need to

improve endowment).

At the same time, as also noted above, the measures taken were closely in line with national

measures, so reinforcing the latter, the grant to OSEO-ANVAR which enabled the amount

allocated to support innovation in SMEs to be increased, being a prime example.

Another example is the support given to ‘project-based territories’ (“territoires de projet”), aimed at establishing and maintaining groupings of municipalities15.

The make-up of support over the period indicates a clear preference for public goods as

compared to direct financial aid to companies, together with a concern to invest in physical

infrastructure, in the form of industrial, business, science and technology parks and

incubators as well as universities and research centres.

Known as « intercommunalités ». 15



5 FORM OF INTERVENTION IN THE DIFFERENT POLICY

AREAS

Expenditure by broad categories and forms of intervention in Objective 1 regions16

Total public expenditure

Policy categories EUR million %

Main forms of intervention

1 Direct support to firms

1,424.8 20.2

− Support to physical investment and to immaterial investment (including investment aimed at strengthening agricultural ‘filières’ and agro-food industries)

− Support to acquisition of agricultural land − Support to fisheries (fleets, marketing, aquaculture) − Investment in incubators and industrial real estate and in shared

services to business − Financial engineering (guarantee funds, equity funds) − Support to creation of activities − Provision of support services to firms and farms − Support to collective actions − Re-qualification of brownfields

2 RTDI 184.1 2.6 −

21 Direct support to firms for innovation

57.9 0.8

− Global grant to OSEO-ANVAR − Support to R&D projects − Support to technology transfer − Support to innovative projects

22 Indirect support for innovation

126.2 1.8 − Support to incubators for innovative enterprises − Investment in RTDI infrastructure and scientific equipments

3 Infrastructure 1,946.6 27.6 −

31 Transport infrastructure

1,103.2 15.6 − Support to urban transport infrastructure (public transportation)

32 Other infrastructure

843.4 11.9 − Environmental infrastructure (waste treatment, water) − Investment in renewable energy infrastructure

4 Human capital 1,445.7 20.5

− Training programmes in agriculture, firms and research organisations − Support to learning programmes (unemployed, entrepreneurs,

disadvantaged people) − Support to learning infrastructure and equipments

5 Local environment

2,057.6 29.1

− Support to tourism infrastructure and equipment − Improvement of tourist accommodation − Investment in ICT infrastructure − Improvement of labour market (young, women, disadvantaged people)− Support to social inclusion actions − Support to the emergence of ‘pays’ and ‘intercommunal’ projects

(‘project-based territories’) − Feasibility studies of environmental projects − Support to urban re-qualification (in particular ‘difficult’ city districts)

Total - Objective 1 7,058.9 100.0 Source: calculations based on DG Regio data INFOVIEW

16 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.



Expenditure by broad categories and forms of intervention in Objective 2 regions

Total public expenditure

Policy categories

EUR million %

Main forms of intervention

1 Direct support to firms

7,324.2 40.9

− Support to physical investment, including support to investment in industrial real estate

− Support to immaterial investment and to the use of advisory services

− Support to buy-outs and business transfers − Financial engineering (through equity and venture capital

funds) − Support to collective actions (e.g. through Chambers of

Commerce and Industry) − Creation or refurbishment of industrial zones and business

parks − Training programmes for entrepreneurs

2 RTDI 1,005.6 5.6 −

21 Direct support to firms for innovation

398.0 2.2

− Global grant to OSEO-ANVAR − Support to R&D projects, in particular collaborative (with

R&D organizations and universities) − Financial engineering (support to seed- and venture-

capital funds) − Support to recruitment of researchers and engineers − Support to high added value micro-enterprises

22 Indirect support for innovation

607.5 3.4

− Creation of incubators, technology parks − Funding of innovation support services and ‘interface’

organizations and networks for technology transfer − Support to poles of excellence in R&D − Support to RTDI infrastructure and investment in scientific

equipments 3 Infrastructure 3,729.7 20.8

31 Transport infrastructure

2,358.9 13.2

− Roads − Railways (connection with high-speed TGV network,

logistics and inter-modality) − Cycle tracks − Ports − Feasibility studies

32 Other infrastructure

1,370.8 7.7

− Feasibility studies − ICT infrastructure (high speed Internet access) − Acquisition of land − Waste treatment, sewage works, water − Support to investment in buildings with high

environmental quality (‘HQE’) − Large-scale infrastructure such as La Halle d’Auvergne

4 Human capital 1,408.2 7.9

− Support to training programmes − Support to vocational training organisations − Support to programmes of social inclusion − Qualification of active population in rural areas and in

‘difficult’ city districts − Support to improvement of the labour market − Support to education and training infrastructure



5 Local environment

4,450.3 24.8

− Support to sustainable development of territories and to territorial cohesion

− Support to the development of tourism: improvement of accommodation, restoration of natural and historical heritage

− Support to regionally labellised products − Support to diversification of agricultural activities − Support to social housing − Support to re-qualification of derelict urban areas,

‘difficult’ city districts

Total - Objective 2

17,918.0 100.0

Source: calculations based on DG Regio data INFOVIEW

6

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Despite the process of decentralisation that started in 1982, France still remains a strongly

centralised country. The “Préfet de Région”, representative of the State in each region, plays

a key role, assisted by the “Secrétariat général pour les Affaires régionales” (SGAR), in the

preparation of both the SPD and the “Contrat de Plan Etat-Région” (CPER) which cover the

same programming period and are strongly intertwined. Although the elected regional

authorities participate in the process, it should be noted that: (i) the regional level of

government is one among others, the “départements” in particular having on average larger

budgets than the regions of which they are part (even if the latter concentrate more on

investment); (ii) there is neither a hierarchy nor a clear distribution of competencies between

the different levels of government. In spite of recent progress resulting from the

“Décentralisation Acte II”17 the “Préfet de Région” remains, with only a very few exceptions

(such as in Alsace), the managing authority for the Structural Funds.

In addition, at national level, DIACT is in charge of the coordination of Structural Fund

management and allocations.

6.1 OBJECTIVE 2 REGIONS

There were delays in programming in a number of regions, mainly up until the end of 2002,

especially in respect of the ESF. These were sometimes accompanied by delays in

implementation (Languedoc-Roussillon, Basse-Normandie) but, in general, there was a

significant acceleration in programming in 2003.

17 Which, as already mentioned, allowed regions for establishing « Schémas régionaux de développement

économique ».



There were a number of problems over the quality of projects in relation to programming.

First, the lack of support for the preparation of projects, as well as a lack of sufficient staff

for management and ‘animation’ are often regarded as having hindered “good” projects

being formulated and caused delays in programming and, later, in implementation (in

Languedoc-Roussillon, Champagne-Ardenne, Basse-Normandie, especially). Secondly, in a

number of SPDs, there was failure to define concrete objectives sufficiently (in Provence

Alpes and Côte-d’Azur), which made programming more difficult. Thirdly, there was a lack

of strategic vision in programming in some regions, projects being selected without

adequate justification or simply to spend the money (Bourgogne, Centre, Picardie).

Other problems were linked to the complexity of the French politico-institutional framework.

As a result, there was a lack of coherence in some regions between the different measures

coming from different plans and programmes.

The setting up of the PRESAGE system - the national monitoring system for EU programmes

- was the counterpart of greater subsidiarity (the “Comité de suivi” alone approving the

operational part of the programme and any modifications in it) and was intended to fulfil

stronger requirements concerning the follow-up of interventions and the performance of

programmes. PRESAGE is considered to have successfully addressed the first requirement.

The second requirement, however, was not always well understood by the programme

managers who took it into account only belatedly18. Moreover, some evaluation reports

(Rhône-Alpes, Poitou-Charentes, Midi-Pyrénées) point out that in some cases there was a

lack of skilled personnel to be able to use it properly and information was not processed in a

way which would have provided support to decision-making.

The “Synthèse de l’évaluation finale des DOCUP 2000-2006” compiled by DIACT dedicates a

section to the comparative advantages of direct and delegated management19. This section

relates to:

• Global grants for specific measures delegated to local and regional authorities and

public organisations (e.g.: ANVAR)

• Delegation of the programming authority to Region Alsace

The main conclusions can be summarised as follows. The efficiency of delegated

management is closely linked to the correspondence between the object of the global grant

and the competences of the beneficiary of the delegation (as in the case of the global grant

to ANVAR). It seems that in general delegated management has shortened and simplified the

Synthèse de l’évaluation finale des DOCUP 2000-2006, p. 7. 18

Pp. 153-155. 19



process. A ‘learning period’, however, was necessary for the authorities and organisations

concerned. On the whole, the programming as well as the quality of implementation was not

adversely affected.

As regards Alsace, the final evaluation report assessed positively the way it allocated

resources, adapted to the context and needs, allocated resources to coordination diffusion

and publicity, and set up a ‘one-stop shop’. There was no loss of expertise and the

partnership with the State administration of the Region helped in some cases to fill some of

the gaps in the competence of the Region administration. Programming and implementation

tended to be more effective where there was decentralisation of coordination, for instance at

the Département level (as in Bourgogne), through improved institutional and local

partnership (Franche-Comté, Limousin, Nord Pas-de-Calais), where technical assistance was

provided to project leaders (Midi-Pyrénées) and where innovative methods were used, such

as outsourcing in tourist projects (Centre).

Information, promotion and communication significantly helped to accelerate programming

(Picardie, Poitou-Charentes, Centre, Provence Alpes Côte-d’Azur).

In general, effective use was made of the recommendations formulated in mid-term

evaluations, especially as regards disseminating best practice and success stories, improving

coordination and monitoring and simplifying procedures as well reallocating funds to more

effective measures.

On the other hand, recommendations on providing support for the preparation of projects,

strengthening management and facilitating the search for co-funding were not followed in

all cases.

6.2 OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS There were also delays in programming and implementation in Guadeloupe and in the case

of infrastructure projects in Corsica.

Implementation was adversely affected by some lack of coordination between those involved

in decision-making and insufficient promotion and communication (Martinique) and a lack of

maturity of projects and of technical assistance (Guadeloupe).

On the positive side, the involvement of local authorities in Guadeloupe and close links with

key actors (Réunion) played a key role in policy implementation.

There was some response to the recommendations of the mid-term evaluations, in

particular, in Réunion and in Corsica (improvement in selecting projects), but it was not

always sufficient (Martinique, where the management system was too weak), while in

Guadeloupe, the mid-term evaluation came too early to be really useful.



The synthesis of the results of the final evaluation compiled by DIACT20 drew attention to a

number of governance and management issues relating to policy implementation.

The involvement of private partners in strategic monitoring was limited, even though the

share of private co-funding was significant. Where enterprises played the main role as

project leaders, expenditure tended to be more oriented towards equipment and human

resources, with better results in terms of employment and a higher leverage of EU funding

than in public-led projects.

There were many intermediary organisations involved, which often faced difficulties from a

lack of communication and collaboration with programme managers, insufficient human

resources, information and training and inadequate coordination between the intermediary

organisations themselves. On the other hand, when intermediary organisations were

efficient, this helped to improve the design and quality of projects and reduce delays.

Three methods of selecting projects were used: selecting those that came along, without

identifying priorities, selection based on a prior list of priority projects and through calls for

proposals (competition). The first practice was the most often used, which left little room for

competition between projects. During the course of the period, however, the second method

was used more extensively. Calls for proposals, however, were infrequently used because

they were regarded as requiring too much time.

7

GLOBAL EFFECTS

Analysis of global effects on the basis of French official documents is constrained, as already

underlined, by the decision taken by DIACT to focus the final evaluations on a series of

targeted ‘national questions’ to which each region was able to add its own ‘regional

questions’. Three of the national questions had to be answered with a compulsory one on

the overall effects on employment. Other national questions included the way in which

technology transfer and innovation had benefited industry, how the specific features of

regions had been taken into account and how coherent territorially based projects were with

the SPD strategy.

Effects on employment

The emphasis put on employment was understandable given the relatively high and

increasing rate of unemployment from Spring 2001 onwards and the low participation rates

of both young and older people in the labour market. It should be stressed, however, that

Synthèse des résultats de l’évaluation finale des SPD 2000-2006, DIACT, juin 2006. 20



employment was not a priority as such in the SPDs (only a transversal priority at EU level),

which made evaluation difficult.

Overall, an important part of SPDs was allocated to measures aimed at consolidating the

economic base, which have benefited employment but without reversing regional structural

trends. While support went mostly to manufacturing, services contributed most to job

creation.

There was a significant decline in the number of job-seekers (about 10%) in areas eligible for

support, which was more than in non-eligible ones. The number of women job-seekers also

declined more in eligible areas. The various evaluation reports, however, emphasise the

difficulty of linking changes in employment to measures of support because of the influence

of many other factors.

Some reports also cite zoning as a possible factor limiting the creation or maintenance of

jobs, because of the exclusion of the most dynamic areas of regions where the potential of

job creation was greatest.

Effects on sustainable development

Around two-thirds of SPD programmed measures (corresponding to 60% of total funding)

had a ‘neutral’ effect on the environment, while the other third had a positive or even

marked effect. In the case of the latter, the main areas concerned were agriculture, the

development of rural areas, environmental infrastructure, rehabilitation of the natural

environment and tourism.

Effects on equal opportunities

Around 80% of SPD expenditure was considered to have had a neutral effect on equal

opportunities, while around 20% was considered to have had a positive effect, mainly in

relation to support for SMEs, craft trades, tourism, education and vocational training and

positive measure to assist women on the labour market.

Overall, however, the data available on those benefiting from Structural Fund support,

including from the ESF, do not demonstrate an effect on improving opportunities for women.

In overseas Objective 1 regions, however, the majority of ESF beneficiaries were women.

Global effects - Objective 2

The effects of structural intervention on industrial decline are difficult to assess since the

final evaluations came too early. Although some regions concentrated efforts on ‘traditional’

industries, a majority focused on two key issues for moderating industrial decline. The first

was improving infrastructure for businesses – industrial and business parks, incubators,

rehabilitation of derelict industrial areas – with visible and short-term results. The second



was support to R&D, technology transfer and innovation, the effects of which require more

time to assess. On the second issue, in some regions, support went more to public R&D

infrastructure and ‘interface’ organisations, in others more to businesses.

In the regions where the strategy was targeted at businesses, SPDs had a positive effect on

innovation and the measures implemented. In addition, there was a positive effect on

employment, with grants for hiring qualified personnel.

In general, support for innovation led to a better understanding of enterprise needs, the

development of partnerships between companies, research centres and technology transfer

organisations as well as encouraging SMEs to adopt a research culture.

Although structural intervention was intended to shift the development path on to new

activities – specifically, tourism, ICT, innovative companies and services (especially personal)

- it is again very difficult to assess the effects at this stage.

As regards the effect of intervention on agriculture, of the reduction in its share of

employment over the period was largest in the Atlantic and Southern regions as well as in

the Massif Central, but there is no necessary causal relationship. Support to the sector was

concentrated on sustainable agriculture, for example, on animal welfare (Bretagne) and

product quality (regional labels, IGP).

Structural intervention, however, has not led to a new model of intervention in France. The

French problem was more about ensuring coherence of actions undertaken in ‘project-based

territories’ (territoires de projet) with respect the SPD strategy.

Global effects - Objective 1

In overseas regions and Corsica, the Structural Funds mainly supported ‘traditional’ activities

(tourism and agriculture). Diversification of activities was limited, in spite of an explicit aim

of developing new sectors through support to RTDI and ICT. In Réunion in particular, it

stimulated growth in the ICT sector, though only after telecommunication charges were

reduced significantly following the intervention of the regulatory authorities.

In the Objective 1 phasing-out part of Nord Pas-de-Calais, structural intervention was aimed

at helping the unemployed find work through training and at strengthening research

capacity (in poles of excellence) but with only a limited effect on innovation in SMEs.

Effects on the regional administrative capacity were limited, though there were initiatives

taken to improve management of SPD. Nevertheless, there was some increase in the extent

of partnership between institutions and those on the ground – indeed this is probably among

the main effects of structural intervention.



In sum, Structural Fund intervention did not significantly change the situation within regions

nor the extent of imbalance between regions. The effect was to reinforce the trends that

were already evident, such as the positive demographic trend in many rural areas, through

improving infrastructure and tourist facilities, national policies on RTDI and action to

alleviate problems in urban areas. This is not too surprising given the lack of any strong

strategic focus and the wide dispersion of funding across regions and policy areas.

In Objective 1 outermost regions, on the other hand, Structural Fund support almost

certainly contributed to some catching up.

8

ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION

An important characteristic of the French system is the link between SPDs and national

programming documents known, as “Contrats de Plan Etat-Région” (CPER), which are

negotiated between the State and the regions. Programming periods are the same as is the

authority responsible for management, i.e. the “Secrétariat general pour les affaires régionales” under the “Préfet de Région”, the representative of the State in each French

region (including the overseas regions). The objectives of both programming documents

were, in general, similar even though the pattern of financial allocation differed.

As noted several times, therefore, EU Structural Funds mainly complemented national

funding directed at pursuing national objectives and the added value of the EU contribution

was very limited.

However, a 2002 DATAR study, which compared the respective objectives of SPDs and

CPER21, enables the added value of the EU contribution to be assessed in quantitative terms

by comparing the respective financial allocations of the SPDs and CPER to the different

objectives.

The main results in Objective 2 regions are as follows:

• Enterprise environment: the added value of the EU contribution seems relatively high

since this objective was accorded higher priority in SPDs than in to the CPER within

this, the added value as regards RTDI was, however, smaller

• Environment: the situation was similar

21 Etude sur les objectifs comparés des SPD et des CPER – Période 2000-2006, DATAR, Novembre 2002. The study

lists 18 objectives, 16 of which can be aggregated to correspond roughly to the policy areas of the present

evaluation.



• Transport: the added value of the EU contribution was relatively low, since investment

in transport was accorded much higher priority in the CPER (45% of total expenditure)

than in the SPDs (8% of the total).

In other policy areas, the differences are not large enough to draw conclusions.

EU Structural Funds have, therefore, contributed to strengthening policy on the business

environment and the rural and urban environment. At the same time, support for investment

in the business environment took the form mainly of developing business premises, the

added value of it is open to question.

In Objective 1 regions, the apparent added value of the EU contribution was relatively large

in respect of the Enterprise environment and slightly smaller for Human resources and

Transport but relatively small as regards Territorial policy.

The final evaluations in general confirm the above findings. The Structural Funds had a

leverage effect in improving the economic environment and business infrastructure in the

majority of regions, especially in rural and mountain areas.

The added value of the EU contribution was particularly evident in relation to large-scale

projects (“projets structurants”), in particular, Port 2000 in Le Havre (Haute-Normandie),

Euroméditerranée in Marseille ( PACA), La Grande Halle in Auvergne and DORSAL in the ICT

sector in Limousin.

In rural and mountainous areas, added value came from supporting tourist activities,

especially from improving accommodation. More generally, it was relatively large from

supporting the development of small villages in, for example, Rhône-Alpes and Limousin.

EU support also led to more attention being paid to protecting the environment, such as in

Haute-Normandie, Centre and Pays de la Loire, and to improving environment-related

infrastructure in coastal areas.

In RTDI, the Structural Funds had a marginal effect in terms of adding value since EU funding

was merely a complement to national funding.

9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

Some general lessons can be drawn from the final evaluation reports for the programming period 2007-2013.

As regards SPD strategies and programming, it is important to improve economic and social analysis and to be sure that there is a consensus among regional actors of the main challenges and objectives. In principle, this issue should be addressed through the “Schéma



regional de développement économique” (SRDE) that each region has formulated since 2005 (within the framework of “Décentralisation Acte II”).

It is equally important to better anticipate problems, such as the closure of a plant or changes in the macroeconomic context by developing tools for monitoring economic and territorial developments. Since there are large-scale population movements towards the South, there is also a need to develop strategies for encouraging business investment in areas of population growth in order to avoid a division between residential areas and centre of economic activity22.

Creating some distance between Structural Fund intervention and the national policy framework and, on the other hand, improving links with development strategies formulated by regional authorities (SRDE, Schémas régionaux de l’enseignement supérieur, Diagnostics régionaux de l’innovation) would perhaps lead to more involvement and increased commitment of local and regional actors.

It should be noted that, in general, the knowledge and understanding which local actors had of SPD programming was limited during 2000-2006 programming period. Accordingly, there is a need to increase information and strengthen communication and cooperation as part of a coordinated strategy at regional level in the 2007-2013 programming period. There is also a need for more cooperation among intermediary organisations in charge of implementing projects. Those selected to manage projects should receive financial and technical support and collaboration should be encouraged between them, together with the identification and promotion of best practice.

Private participants were involved only to a limited extent in the preparation and monitoring of SPDs 2000-2006 during the programming period. For the next programming period, they should be more directly involved in the design of strategy and the operational implementation and public-private partnerships should be strengthened. In addition, regional equity funds should be supported in order to resolve or ease the liquidity problems that project leaders may encounter.

There are a number of more specific recommendations which should be added to these general lessons.

As regards RTDI and the business environment, there should be a closer and wider coherence with EU sectoral programmes. Innovation support services for SMEs and micro-enterprises should target, in particular, businesses that have no track record of R&D.

As regards the environment, support should be give to high level expertise and specific studies. Project leaders developing infrastructure projects such as for industrial areas and business premises should be encouraged to consider environment as a factor of competitiveness

L. Davezies, op. cit. 22



Finally, in Objective 1 overseas regions, collaborations with neighbouring countries should be strongly supported.



REFERENCES

DIACT, the « Délégation interministérielle à l’attractivité et compétitivité des territoires » which had an overall responsibility on SPD evaluation studies, edited guidelines for the final evaluation studies as an “Annexe relative au dispositif national et regional d’évaluation”. All final evaluations had to address three ‘national’ questions, one of which was compulsory, about employment, and were able to address ‘regional’ questions, selected by the regions themselves. The Annex also indicated methodologies for addressing the national evaluation questions.

As a consequence, there are in the final evaluations long discussions about employment which are partly disconnected from the objectives of the SPDs (no priority axis in the SPDS directly concerned employment). In addition, it was probably too early in 2005 to assess a large part of effects.

SEGESA - MC2 : Etude sur les objectifs comparés des SPD et des CPER - Tome 1 & 2. Rapport national - DATAR - Novembre 2002

AscA- EDATER – SEGESA : Synthèse des résultats de l’évaluation finale SPD 2000- 2006, Rapport national – DIACT – Juin 2006

ALSACE

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation intermédiaire du programme européen Objectif 2 Alsace (2000 – 2006), Rapport final Région Alsace, November 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation intermédiaire du programme européen Objectif 2 Alsace (2000 – 2006), Synthèse Région Alsace, November 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation intermédiaire du programme européen Objectif 2 Alsace (2000 – 2006), Annexes du Rapport final Région Alsace, November 2003

EUREVAL C3E : Evaluation finale du programme européen Objectif 2 Alsace (2000 – 2006), Rapport final Région Alsace, October 2005

EUREVAL C3E : Evaluation finale du programme européen Objectif 2 Alsace (2000 – 2006), Synthèse Région Alsace, October 2005

AQUITAINE

Groupe Bernard Brunhes Consultants : Evaluation à mi- parcours de l’objectif 2 Aquitaine 2000-2006, Rapport Final, SGAR Aquitaine, Novembre 2003

Groupe Bernard Brunhes Consultants : Evaluation à mi- parcours de l’objectif 2 Aquitaine 2000-2006, Synthèse, SGAR Aquitaine, Novembre 2003

Groupe Bernard Brunhes Consultants : Evaluation à mi- parcours de l’objectif 2 Aquitaine 2000-2006, Annexes du Rapport Final, SGAR Aquitaine, Novembre 2003



DELOITTE : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 2000-2006 en Aquitaine, Synthèse, conclusions et recommandations, Préfecture d’Aquitaine SGAR, December 2005

DELOITTE : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 2000-2006 en Aquitaine, Volume 1 Réponse aux questions, Préfecture d’Aquitaine SGAR, December 2005

DELOITTE : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 2000-2006 en Aquitaine, Volume 2 Analyse des Mesures Axes 1&2, Préfecture d’Aquitaine SGAR, December 2005

DELOITTE : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 2000-2006 en Aquitaine, Volume 2 Analyse des mesures Axes 3&4, December 2005

DELOITTE : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 2000-2006 en Aquitaine, Annexes, Préfecture d’Aquitaine SGAR, December 2005

AUVERGNE

CODE : Evaluation intermédiaire SPD objectif 2 Auvergne 2000-2006, Rapport final,

December 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Mise à jour de l’Evaluation à mi- parcours du programme objectif 2, Rapport final, Préfecture de la Région Auvergne, November 2005

ERNST & YOUNG : Mise à jour de l’Evaluation à mi- parcours du programme objectif 2, Annexes Rapport final, Préfecture de la Région Auvergne, November 2005

ERNST & YOUNG : Mise à jour de l’Evaluation à mi- parcours du programme objectif 2, Synthèse, Préfecture de la Région Auvergne, November 2005

BASSE- NORMANDIE

PricewatershouseCoopers – Welcomeurope – ADEL : Mission d’assistance technique auprès de la Préfecture de Basse- Normandie dans le cadre de l’évaluation intermédiaire du SPD objectif 2 2000- 2006, Rapport final, November 2003

PricewatershouseCoopers – Welcomeurope – ADEL : Mission d’assistance technique auprès de la Préfecture de Basse- Normandie dans le cadre de l’évaluation intermédiaire du SPD objectif 2 2000- 2006, Synthèse, November 2003

PricewatershouseCoopers – Welcomeurope – ADEL : Mission d’assistance technique auprès de la Préfecture de Basse- Normandie dans le cadre de l’évaluation intermédiaire du SPD objectif 2 2000- 2006, Annexes du Rapport final, November 2003

EUREVAL C3E : Mise à jour de l’évaluation à mi parcours du programme objectif 2 Basse- Normandie 2000- 2006, Rapport Final, October 2005

BOURGOGNE

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000- 2006 Bourgogne, Rapport Final Volume 2

Synthèse, conclusions et recommandations, October 2003



EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000- 2006 Bourgogne, Rapport Final Volume

1, October 2003

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000- 2006 Bourgogne, Rapport Final résumé,

October 2003

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000- 2006 Bourgogne, Annexes du Rapport

Final, October 2003

MAZARS : Evaluation finale des fonds structurels 2000-2006 en Bourgogne, Rapport final

Volume 1, Résumé, conclusions et recommandations, September 2005


Volume 2, September 2005


Annexes 1, September 2005


Annexes 2, September 2005

BRETAGNE

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation mi- parcours du programme européen objectif 2 (2000-2006) en Bretagne, Synthèse, November 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation mi- parcours du programme européen objectif 2 (2000-2006) en Bretagne, Rapport final, November 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation mi- parcours du programme européen objectif 2 (2000-2006) en Bretagne, Annexes, November 2003

TREND Consultants : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 2000-2006 , Projet de

rapport final, January 2006

CENTRE

CODE : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final, Préfecture de la région

Centre- SGAR, December 2003

EDATER : Evaluation finale d programme européen objectif 2 2000- 2006, Rapport final,

October 2005

EDATER : Evaluation finale d programme européen objectif 2 2000- 2006, Annexes du

Rapport final, October 2005

CHAMPAGNE ARDENNE

SEGESA : Evaluation intermédiaire du programme objectif 2 2000-2006 en Champagne- Ardennes, Rapport final, November 2003



SEGESA : Evaluation intermédiaire du programme objectif 2 2000-2006 en Champagne- Ardennes, Annexes du Rapport final, November 2003

SEGESA : Evaluation intermédiaire du programme objectif 2 2000-2006 en Champagne- Ardennes, Synthèse, November 2003

MC2 Consultants : Evaluation finale du programme de l’objectif 2, Rapport Final Volume 1,

Préfecture de la Région Champagne Ardennes, November 2005











CORSE

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation intermédiaire du SPD objectif 1 transitoire 2000-2006 pour la Corse, Rapport final, December 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation intermédiaire du SPD objectif 1 transitoire 2000-2006 pour la Corse, Annexes Rapport final, December 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation intermédiaire du SPD objectif 1 transitoire 2000-2006 pour la Corse, Revue Axe 1, December 2003








ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 1 2000-2006 Corse, Rapport final, Préfecture de la Région Corse, Secrétariat général pour les affaires de Corse,

November 2005

FRANCHE COMTÉ

AMNYOS : Evaluation du programme objectif 2 (2000-2006) en Franche Comté, Rapport

final, December 2005

GUADELOUPE

ACT Consultants : Evaluation intermédiaire de l’objectif 1 (2000-2006), Rapport final Tome

1, December 2003

ACT Consultants : Evaluation intermédiaire de l’objectif 1 (2000-2006), Rapport final Tome

2, December 2003

ORFIS : Evaluation finale du SPD objectif 1 2000-2006, Préfecture de la Région Guadeloupe,

novembre 2005

GUYANE

ORFIS : Evaluation à mi parcours du SPD 2000-2006 objectif 1 Guyane, Volume 1, mars 2004



ORFIS : Evaluation à mi parcours du SPD 2000-2006 objectif 1 Guyane, Annexes à

l’évaluation globale, mars 2004

HAUTE NORMANDIE

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006 Haute- Normandie, Rapport final

Tome 1, novembre 2003

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006 Haute- Normandie, Rapport final

Tome 2 Synthèse, novembre 2003

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006 Haute- Normandie, Annexes du

rapport final, novembre 2003

EDATER : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 2000-2006 Haute Normandie, Rapport final, novembre 2005

EDATER : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 2000-2006 Haute Normandie, Evaluation finale, novembre 2005

ILE DE FRANCE

EVALUA : Evaluation à mi parcours du programme objectif 2 2000- 2006 d’Ile de France, Rapport final, October 2003



EVALUA : Evaluation à mi parcours du programme objectif 2 2000- 2006 d’Ile de France, Synthèse du rapport, October 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Mise à jour de l’évaluation à mis parcours du SPD objectif 2, Projet de

rapport final, October 2005

ERNST & YOUNG : Mise à jour de l’évaluation à mis parcours du SPD objectif 2, Annexes au

projet de rapport final, October 2005

ERNST & YOUNG : Mise à jour de l’évaluation à mis parcours du SPD objectif 2, Synthèse du

rapport final, October 2005

LANGUEDOC ROUSSILLON

MC2/ TERTIA : Evaluation intermédiaire du SPD 2000-2006 Languedoc- Roussillon, Synthèse

du rapport définitif, October 2003

MC2/ TERTIA : Evaluation intermédiaire du SPD 2000-2006 Languedoc- Roussillon, rapport

définitif, October 2003

MC2/ TERTIA : Evaluation intermédiaire du SPD 2000-2006 Languedoc- Roussillon, Annexes

du rapport définitif, October 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 (2000-2006), Projet

de rapport final, October 2005

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 (2000-2006), Annexes du rapport final, October 2005

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 (2000-2006),

Synthèse du rapport final, October 2005

LIMOUSIN

MC2 : Evaluation intermédiaire du SPD objectif 2 (2000-2006), Rapport final, October 2003

MC2 : Evaluation intermédiaire du SPD objectif 2 (2000-2006), Annexes au rapport final,

October 2003

EUREVAL C3E : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 (2000-2006) Limousin, Rapport final, October 2005

LORRAINE

CODE : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 Lorraine, Rapport final, October 2003

CODE : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 Lorraine, Annexes au rapport final, October 2003

MAZARS/ MCM Conseil : Evaluation finale des fonds européens 2000-2006 en Lorraine, rapport final, December 2005

MAZARS/ MCM Conseil : Evaluation finale des fonds européens 2000-2006 en Lorraine, synthèse rapport final, December 2005



MARTINIQUE

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation intermédiaire du programme objectif 1 Martinique 2000-2006, rapport final, novembre 2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation intermédiaire du programme objectif 1 Martinique 2000-2006, annexes rapport final, novembre 2003

ORFIS : Evaluation finale du SPD objectif 1 2000-2006, Préfecture de la Région Martinique,

Rapport final, October 2005


Alternative transport, October 2005


Rapport Indicateurs, October 2005

MIDI PYRENEES

EDATER/ AscA : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 2000-2006 Midi Pyrénées, Rapport final Tome I, novembre 2005

EDATER/ AscA : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 2000-2006 Midi Pyrénées, Rapport final Tome 2, novembre 2005

EDATER/ AscA : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 2000-2006 Midi Pyrénées, Rapport final Annexes, novembre 2005

EDATER/ AscA : Evaluation finale du programme européen objectif 2 2000-2006 Midi Pyrénées, Synthèse globale, novembre 2005

NORD PAS DE CALAIS

ACT Consultants : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 1 Nord Pas de Calais, Rapport final Tome

I, novembre 2003

ACT Consultants : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 1 Nord Pas de Calais, Rapport final Tome

2, novembre 2003

EDATER/ ADE : Evaluation à mi parcours objectif 2, Rapport final volume I, novembre 2003

EDATER/ ADE : Evaluation à mi parcours objectif 2, Rapport final volume 2, novembre 2003

EDATER/ ADE : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 1 de la Région Nord Pas de Calais, Rapport final, novembre 2005

EDATER/ ADE : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 1 de la Région Nord Pas de Calais, Rapport final annexes, novembre 2005

EDATER/ ADE : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 de la Région Nord Pas de Calais, Rapport final, novembre 2005



EDATER/ ADE : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 1 de la Région Nord Pas de Calais, Rapport final annexes, novembre 2005

PROVENCE- ALPES- COTE D’AZUR

ACT Consultants : Programme objectif 2 PACA, Rapport final Tome I, novembre 2003

ACT Consultants : Programme objectif 2 PACA, Rapport final Tome 2, novembre 2003

Quat’alyse Quaternaire : Evaluation environnementale du Programme objectif 2 PACA, Synthèse environnementale, October 2003

Bernard Yves Consultants : Evaluation intermédiaire de la priorité égalité des chances entre les hommes et les femmes objectif II 2000 2006, Rapport final, October 2003

PAYS DE LA LOIRE

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final Tome I, October 2003

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final Synthèse, October

2003

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final Tome I Annexes,

October 2003

EDATER : Evaluation finale objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final Tome I Analyse, December

2005

EDATER : Evaluation finale objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final Tome II Annexes, December

2005

PICARDIE

RCT : Evaluation à mi parcours objectif 2 2000-2006, Résumé du rapport final , novembre

2003

RCT : Evaluation à mi parcours objectif 2 2000-2006, rapport final , novembre 2003

RCT : Evaluation à mi parcours objectif 2 2000-2006, Annexes du rapport final , novembre

2003

ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 2000-2006, synthèse rapport


ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 2000-2006, annexes rapport


ERNST & YOUNG : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 2000-2006, rapport final,

December 2005

POITOU- CHARENTES

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final , October 2003



EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final Synthèse, October

2003

EDATER : Evaluation intermédiaire objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final Tome I Annexes,

October 2003

EDATER : Evaluation finale objectif 2 2000-2006, Rapport final Tome I, novembre 2005

REUNION

ACT : évaluation intermédiaire du programme objectif 1 2000-2006, Synthèse du rapport


ACT : évaluation intermédiaire du programme objectif 1 2000-2006, Rapport final,

December 2003

ACT : évaluation intermédiaire du programme objectif 1 2000-2006, Annexes du rapport


RHONE ALPES

CODE : évaluation à mi parcours du SPD objectif 2 2000-2006 en Rhône Alpes, rapport final,

September 2003

ACT : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 Rhône Alpes, Rapport final tome I, October

2005

ACT : Evaluation finale du programme objectif 2 Rhône Alpes, Rapport final tome II, October

2005



TABLES

See Excel file for Tables 1 to 6:

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 programme

Table 6: Expenditure by programme



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 Infrastructure 31 Transport infrastructure 31 32 Other infrastructure 321 Telecommunication 321 321 Energy infrastructure (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
