1.Introduction

This executive summary outlines the main findings of two evaluations analysing the long‑term contribution to economic development, quality of life and social well‑being of major transport and environment projects co-funded by EU cohesion policy in the 2000-2006 and 2007‑2013 programming periods. The findings of the evaluations are set out in more detail in the two separate accompanying staff working documents.

Cohesion policy is the EU’s key investment tool. It aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion by reducing disparities in levels of development between regions. Large-scale environmental and transport infrastructure projects have traditionally been among its priorities, thanks to support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund.

The objectives of environmental investments are to preserve and improve the environment in line with Treaty obligations and the acquis communautaire. Cohesion policy support for large‑scale transport projects has helped to improve connectivity at EU and national level, and encouraged the development of sustainable transport.

Large-scale infrastructure projects in both fields involve significant investments under operational programmes supported by the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund. In the two periods in question, such projects exceeding a certain financial size qualified as ‘major projects’ and were subject to special rules involving an assessment procedure and specific approval by the European Commission.

Large-scale infrastructure projects take time to implement and have an impact. It was therefore not possible to include them in the ex post evaluations of cohesion policy in 2000‑2006 and 2007‑2013. The two evaluations summarised here were specifically designed to make up for that.

The two evaluations follow the same methodology, each focusing on a sample of 10 large‑scale infrastructure projects selected on the basis of a well-defined set of criteria that sought to ensure geographical and sectoral balance and equal distribution over the two periods.

The 20 case studies are not meant to be statistically representative. They are nonetheless illustrative of large-scale transport and environment infrastructure projects and deliver generally valid insights into the long-term effects of such projects. The analysis is also an opportunity to draw lessons for future ERDF and Cohesion Fund support for large infrastructure projects in both sectors.

The methodology addressed the five standard evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value) identified in the Better Regulation Guidelines.

2.Assessment against evaluation criteria

2.1. Effectiveness

Large-scale infrastructure projects co-funded by the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund contribute to the achievement of core cohesion policy goals by supporting economic growth and competitiveness, and protecting and improving the environment.

Although major environmental projects respond primarily to environmental needs, they generate other benefits as regards economic development and quality of life. By furthering the efficient and sustainable management of natural resources and providing basic services in previously unserved areas, they make those areas more economically and socially attractive, inducing people and firms to locate there and creating necessary (though not sufficient) conditions for territorial development.

The evaluation indicates that the large-scale transport infrastructure projects have helped Member States to enhance travel conditions, improve connectivity, reduce travel times, divert traffic to less populated areas, improve transport safety and reliability, and boost local economic development. Of the 10 projects studied, the most effective were those responding to clear transport needs and providing significant transport benefits (especially in terms of travel time and cost reductions).

All projects analysed were successful overall in achieving their stated objectives and delivering the expected benefits. However, only a few fully achieved their objectives. For most of the transport projects, this may suggest widespread, systematic over‑ambition in target‑setting. The effectiveness of the environmental projects was affected by a lack of the necessary accompanying or synergic investments.

2.2. Efficiency

Even where not all objectives were achieved, almost all the projects generated net gains, with social benefits outweighing costs. At the same time, most of them were not as efficient as expected, partly because of cost and time overruns (which are common in all types of infrastructure project).

Most of the projects experienced time overruns. Delays were primarily due to contractors’ underperformance, low technical capacity, slow procurement procedures or unpredicted exogenous factors such as adverse weather conditions. Without the assistance of JASPERS, which helped Member States to improve project preparation and streamline the review process so that projects could be implemented quickly, the delays could have been even longer.

Budget planning proved accurate for the majority of environmental projects, while costs exceeded the ex ante forecasts in the case of some of the transport projects.