Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Cohesion policy: Strategic Report 2010 on the implementation of the programmes 2007-2013 SEC(2010)360
Date: 2010-03-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU regional policy, competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, economic development, innovation, investment policy, reflation, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 31.3.2010 
COM(2010)110 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Cohesion policy: Strategic Report 2010  
on the implementation of the programmes 2007-2013 

SEC(2010)360 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Cohesion policy: Strategic Report 2010  
on the implementation of the programmes 2007-2013 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This Communication provides, for the first time, a complete overview of the implementation of 
the cohesion policy programmes 2007-2013. It is primarily based on the 27 national strategic 
reports, which are a new feature of cohesion policy for this period1. 

The  national  strategic  reports  were  introduced  to  improve  transparency  and  encourage 
accountability  of  the  policy  at  national  level  in  the  context  of  the  shared  management  of 
cohesion  policy.  The  national  strategic  reports  are  therefore  a  key  tool  to  monitor  the 
implementation of the strategic commitments of the Member States to delivery high level EU 
objectives through cohesion policy. 

This  Communication  is  intended  to  facilitate  debate  with  the  EU  institutions  in  view  of  the 
policy's significant role in fostering sustainable economic and social development in Europe’s 
regions  and  the  Member  States.  With  that  in  mind  the  concluding  section  makes 
recommendations  on  how  effective  implementation  could  be  strengthened  to  maximise  the 
contribution  of  the  2007-2013  programmes  to  strengthened  peer  review  and  policy  learning, 
also with a view to contributing to the Europe 2020 strategy. 

The  Member  States  report  that  the  original  commitments  to  invest  in  structural  change  are 
being realised. Projects are already selected amounting to more than 93 billion EUR or 27% 
of  the  total  financial  volume  for  the  period,  after  approximately  18  months  of  active 
implementation.  Within  this  overall  trend,  EU  earmarked  priorities  are  being  selected  at  a 
similar or slightly faster pace. In large part this is because cohesion policy programmes have 
responded  to  new  needs  using  flexibility  and  simplifications  in  management  to  improve  the 
effectiveness of the  funds,  including through  the  use  of  the  regulatory changes proposed by 
the Commission and adopted by the Council and European Parliament in 2009. 

Many EU priority investments are reported as advancing well with one third or more of the 
total  planned  investment  allocated  to  projects  in  areas  such  as  stimulating  research  and 
innovation  in  SMEs,  using  financial  engineering  to  provide  capital  to  SMEs  (i.e.  JEREMIE 
initiative), promoting clean urban transport, implementing active  labour market  and lifelong 
learning policies and renewing education and health infrastructures. Reporting by the Member 
States also highlights areas of slower progress where follow up is clearly required. 

The Member States have made a significant effort to deliver strategic reports presenting both 
relevant qualitative and quantifiable elements on implementation. The 2007-2013 programmes 

1 

Legal basis: Articles 29 and 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L210, 31.7.2006, p. 25). 
The publicly available reports can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/reporting/index_en.htm 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
are successfully launched, but still in the early stage of spending on the ground. It is too early 
to  have  extensive  data  on  outputs,  results  or,  in  particular,  impacts.  This  will  change  in  the 
2012  round  of  strategic  reporting  when  more  comprehensive  evidence  of  results  and  early 
impacts is expected. 

A  separate  Staff  Working  Document2,  which  presents  the  reported  progress  on  selected 
projects, a short commentary on major trends and a selection of 40 good practices identified 
in the National reports, is attached to this Communication. 

2. 

SOCIO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS AND TRENDS 

The financial and economic crisis that started in 2008 has changed dramatically the economic 
landscape  of  the  EU.  While  economic  growth  was  about  3%  in  2006  and  2007,  when  the 
National Strategic Reference Frameworks (NSRFs)3 were prepared, GDP contracted sharply 
since  the  summer  2008  triggered  initially  by  the  financial  turmoil.  Since  then,  employment 
has shrunk and unemployment is higher than it has  been for  over a decade. In addition,  the 
reductions  in  consumption  and  investment  have  been  substantial  and  public  debt  has  leapt 
dramatically  in  many  Member  States.  In  this  context  it  is  not  surprising  that  most  national 
reports  contrast  the  situation  before  the  preparation  of  the  NSRFs  with  the  situation  since 
2008. Almost all reports look at regional or local variations while more than half explore the 
relevance of these changes for the programmes. 

In 2008 GDP growth in the EU was already very low (0.8%) and it shrank by more than 4% 
on average in 2009. The recession was particularly severe in the Baltic States with negative 
rates  between  14%  and  18%.  Only  Poland  enjoyed  economic  growth  in  2009  (1.2%).  Yet, 
forecasts  show  the  first  signs  of  economic  recovery.  Economic  growth,  while  low,  will  be 
positive again in 2010 in the EU and all Member States will show GDP growth in 2011. 

Unemployment was at 9.6% in December 2009 compared to 8.2% in December 20084. Some 
countries have been particularly affected by the crisis. The increase in unemployment rate has 
roughly doubled over the last year in Ireland and Spain and tripled in the Baltic States. Latvia 
(22.8%) and Spain (18.8%) scored the highest rates at the end of 2009. The crisis is also likely 
to have increased regional disparities in the labour market. Since unemployment is likely to 
remain  high  for  some  time  there  is  an  inherent  risk  of  long-term  unemployment  and  social 
exclusion. 

The  economic  downturn  also  triggered  a  sharp  deterioration  in  the  business  climate  and  in 
consumer confidence. Total investment declined about 15% in 2009 compared to the previous 
year  and  consumption  by  about  3%.  Exports  of  goods  and  services  ebbed  dramatically  by 
almost 20% and foreign direct investment declined in several Central and Eastern European 
countries5.  Public  expenditure  rose  playing  a  counter-cyclical  role.  This  increase  resulted 
mostly  from  the  protection  offered  by  the  national  welfare  systems  and  the  stimulus  plans 
adopted  by  many  Member  States  in  the  context  of  the  European  Economic  Recovery  Plan. 
The combined effect of the fall in employment and the increase in social expenditure is likely 

2 
3 
4 
5 

SEC(2010) 360, 31.3.2010 
The NSRFs are the framework documents which translated the CSGs to the national context. 
Eurostat Unemployment rates in December 2009, seasonally adjusted. 
HU, LV, SK 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to be substantially different across Member States. Social expenditure is expected to increase 
from 27.5% to 30.8% of EU GDP between 2007 and 2010. 

The Fifth Cohesion Report to be adopted later in 2010 will present a more complete picture of 
the developments in socio economic disparities. 

3. 

CHALLENGES AND PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION 

The national reports provide insights into the very different contexts within which the 2007-
2013 programmes are being delivered. 

In terms of the systemic obstacles to the speedy implementation the following key issues are 
identified by the Member States:  

•  the delays in agreeing the EU budget, the delayed adoption of the Regulations, Community 

Strategic Guidelines (CSGs)6 and subsequent negotiation of programmes7; 

•  changes in the rules on financial control are perceived as the most frequent contributor to 

delay in implementation as the Member States adjust to the new control system8; 

•  complexity of managing overlapping programming periods9; 

•  unclear  distribution  of  tasks  nationally,  insufficient  experience,  lack  of  administrative 
capacity  at  both  managing  authorities  and  beneficiaries  and  internal  reorganisation 
processes of public administrations10. 

The  impact  of  the  global  economic  recession  that  started  in  autumn  2008  is  clearly  cited  in 
many reports as complicating delivery and changing expected demands11. A group of Member 
States refer to the impact of growing restrictions in national or local public financing12. Two 
refer to the use of EIB loans to guarantee national co-financing (LT, HU). Both the CZ and 
UK reports mention changing exchange rates as an additional challenge. According to some 
Member States programmes have nonetheless started as quickly as in the past13. 

Cohesion policy economic recovery measures 

The  Communication  "Cohesion  policy:  investing  in  the  real  economy"14  (and  supporting 
legislative  reforms)  elaborated  on  important  elements  of  the  European  Economic  Recovery 
Plan15,  including  recommendations  to  the  Member  States.  The  recovery  package  was 
welcomed by the Members states. Because the crisis is affecting them in different ways, the 

6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

OJ L291/11, 21.10.2006 - http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2007/osc/index_en.htm  
i.e. AT, DE, ES, LT 
i.e. AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, IE, IT, PT, SK, UK 
i.e. AT, EE, EL, ES, FI, IE, IT, HU, PT, UK 
i.e. BG, RO, LT 
i.e. AT, DE, ES, IE, PT, SL, UK 
i.e; DE, ES, FI, IE, LT, LV, MT 
i.e. AT, BE, DE, SE 
COM(2008) 876, 16.12.2008. 
COM(2008) 800, 29.10.2008. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
use of proposed measures has varied from one Member State to another. 

•  Most countries strongly confirm the continued relevance of the  agreed strategies. NSRFs 
as well as most programmes largely provide enough flexibility to cope with the changing 
socio-economic context. 

•  Many  Member  States  have  examined  the  need  to  meet  new  needs  or  speed  up 
implementation.  Responses  range  from  simplification  measures  (reducing  burdens  on 
beneficiaries), the use of internal flexibility within priorities, the modification in financial 
allocations between priorities or changes in co-financing rates. 

•  The measures most widely resorted to involve labour market activation measures targeted 
at  people  most  affected  by  the  crisis  (ESF)  and  greater  use  of  financial  engineering 
instruments above and beyond the 3 bio € origin ally planned not counting leverage private 
capital (i.e. JEREMIE and micro financing funds for those affected by the crisis (DE)). A 
smaller  number  of  programmes  were  changed  to  allow  new  measures  such  as  energy 
efficiency investment. 

•  The additional EU advance payments in 2009 provided a cash injection of € 6.25 billion in 
2009  for  the  Member  States  with  a  view  to  increased  pre-financing  and  accelerating 
investments. Most national reports detail how this was applied, often involving changes in 
national policy and procedures. 

•  A synthesis report on the mobilisation of cohesion  policy  programming  in  the  context  of 

the recession will be presented by the Commission before mid-2010. 

In  relation  to  the  Commission  proposals  for  further  regulatory  changes  of  July  2009  the 
Council and the European Parliament are invited to accelerate their examination to arrive at 
an early decision. 

A strength of most national reports is that they also discuss the measures taken to overcome or 
counteract the difficulties in implementation. Member States have also provided examples of 
good practices16 that underline the following factors of success in implementation; 

•  close  cooperation  between  the  MSs  and  Commission  during  the  finalisation  of  the 

Regulations and Guidelines; 

•  positive  links  between  cohesion  policy  objectives  and  sectoral  reforms  in  areas  such  as 

education, science/research, health and business environment; 

•  use of information and communication technologies; 

•  positive  effects  of  investment  plans  and  wider  national  reforms  (regional  or  local 
government reform, public budget reform, reform of environmental or procurement rules) 
though delays in some reforms also has negative consequences; 

•  simplification of administrative procedures (national and/or regional); 

16 

An  indicative  selection  of  40  of  the  220  best  practice  projects  identified  by  the  Member  States  is 
presented in Section 3 of the Staff Working Document. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  supporting entrepreneurship and addressing labour market gaps by fostering adaptability. 

It  is  clear,  for  those  Member  States  that  joined  the  Union  since  2004,  that  programming  is 
very  closely  associated  with  addressing  major  challenges 
the 
modernisation  of  the  economy  and  institution  and  capacity  building.  Many  strategic  reports 
also discuss the role of multi-level governance and partnership in their programming in terms 
of  mobilising  and  coordinating  different  levels  of  government,  involving  civil  society  and 
business interests and integrating different sectoral objectives. 

in  social 

inclusion, 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREED STRATEGIES AND PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES 

Two Commission communications have already provided insights into the agreed priorities of 
2007-2013  programmes  in  terms  of  EU  growth  and  jobs  targets17  and  more  broadly  on  the 
results of the programme negotiations18. In short, for the less developed regions designated at 
Convergence  objective  (81%  of  resources)  and  the  regions  falling  under  the  Regional 
Competitiveness and Employment (RCE) objective (15% of resources) 65% and 82% of the 
funds  are  to  be  invested  in  EU  priority  themes  respectively.  Altogether  around  EUR  230 
billion was “earmarked” for investment in the modernisation of the EU economy in line with 
the high level EU priorities established under the Lisbon Agenda. 

The  progress  towards  the  objectives  originally  set  through  the  CSGs,  the  NSRFs,  and  the 
Integrated Growth and Jobs Guidelines19 are presented below drawing on information in the 
national  reports  on  the  project  pipelines  (allocations  to  the  selected  project),  early  trends  in 
spending and looking at early evidence from monitoring and evaluation. 

4.1. 

Accelerating implementation 

The reported financial volume of projects selected is 93.4 billion EUR representing more than 
27% of available EU resources in the period. This average rate of project selection is closely 
respected in the three objectives – Convergence, RCE and European Territorial Cooperation 
(ETC) – and equally applies to the rate of selection of the Lisbon Earmarking categories. A 
total of € 63 bn is reported as allo cated to Lisbon earmarking projects. 

However, nationally the progress in implementation is more variable as shown in Graph 1. In 
the  case  of  those  Member  States  below  the  average  there  is  a  higher  risk  of  late  delivery 
unless  the  rate  of  project  selection  and  implementation  is  accelerated.  The  accompanying 
Staff Working Document2 presents the progress on projects selected in more detail. 

In terms of investment needs the earmarked EU priorities already set in this period are closely 
aligned  with  priorities  in  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  A  strength  of  the  "categorisation" 
information system is that the 86 identified “priority themes” can be looked at according to 
key thematic priorities (i.e. transport, energy) or in the light of cross cutting policy priorities 
(i.e. innovation or climate change). 

17 
18 
19 

COM(2007) 798, 11.12.2007. 
COM(2008) 301, 14.5.2008. 
COM(2007) 803, 11.12.2007. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Graph 1: Reported aggregate rates of project selection by Member State 

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU27

In  Table  1  below  the  data  on  the  financial  volume  of  selected  projects  from  the  national 
reports has been summarised in line with the priorities set in the CSGs. This shows relative 
progress in project selection under its different objectives. 

Table 1: Progress in delivering Lisbon Earmarked priorities 2007-2013 by Objective. 

Lisbon Earmarking 
Allocated 
to selected 
projects 
(bn €)  

Planned 
EU 
Investment 
(bn €) 

% 

Non earmarked 
Allocated to 
selected 
projects  
(bn €)  

Planned EU 
Investment 
(bn €) 

% 

I. Convergence 

Attractive places to invest 
and work 

Improving knowledge and 
innovation for growth 

65.883 

16.235 

24.6% 

76.579 

20.340 

26.6% 

64.599 

19.727 

30.5% 

More and better jobs 

42.860 

11.020 

25.7% 

3.878 

0.697 

18.0% 

National Earmarking 

7.972 

3.262 

40.9% 

Territorial Dimension 

181.315 

50.244 

27.7% 

11.095 

91.552 

3.036 

27.4% 

24.074 

26.6% 

II. Regional Competitiveness and Employment  

Attractive places to invest 
and work 
Improving knowledge and 
innovation for growth 
More and better jobs 
National Earmarking 
Territorial Dimension 

2.531 

0.827 

32.7% 

7.032 

1.695 

24.1% 

18.601 

21.614 
0.714 

4.740 

25.5% 

6.318 
0.193 

29.2% 
27.0% 

43.460 

12.078 

27.8% 

0.463 

0.076 

16.3% 

2.533 
10.027 

0.556 
2.327 

21.9% 
23.2% 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
III. European Territorial Cooperation 

Attractive places to invest 
and work 
Improving knowledge and 
innovation for growth 
More and better jobs 
Territorial Dimension 

0.947 

0.168 

17.7% 

2.913 

0.745 

25.6% 

1.971 

0.540 

0.462 

23.4% 

0.079 

14.6% 

3.458 

0.709 

20.5% 

0.505 
0.482 
3.900 

0.137 
0.138 
1.020 

27.2% 
28.7% 
26.9% 

Technical Assistance 

10.594 

2.993 

28.3% 

Total  

228.233 

63.031 

27.6% 

116.072 

30.413 

26.1% 

Many  Member  States  now  confirm  that  the  discipline  imposed  by  the  ‘earmarking’ 
requirement  has  improved  the  quality  and  focus  of  programming.  The  data  reported  by 
Member  States  also  allows  the  analysis  of  relative  progress  between  earmarked  and  non-
earmarked  priorities  of  each  Member  State.  Graphs  2  and  3  show  the  relative  progress  in 
earmarking under the Convergence and RCE objectives, respectively. The graph is presented 
in terms of declining absolute financial importance (left to right). 

Graph 2: Lisbon earmarking - Convergence Objective: Volume of projects selected as 
% of total 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

PL ES CZ HU IT PT EL RO DE SK LT BG LV SI EE FR UK MT BE AT EU20

Earmarked Other

Graph 3: Lisbon earmarking - Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective: 
Volume of projects selected as % of total 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

FR DE ES UK IT HU NL SE FI BE AT PT IE EL CY DK SK CZ LU EU19

Earmarked Other

4.2. 

Expenditure trends 

In  terms  of  payment  of  EU  financing, 108 billion EUR  has been transferred to the Member 
States in the years 2007-2009. 64 billion EUR related to actual expenditure under the 2000-
2006 programmes while 44 billion EUR related to advances and actual expenditure under the 
2007-2013 programmes (Graph 4).  

The national reports provide information on spending by programme, referring exclusively to 
the latter period. To date 23.3 billion EUR has been declared in interim expenditure under the 
programmes  2007-201320.  In  2009  there  was  a  clear  acceleration  in  certified  expenditure 
under the new programmes once the previous programmes were closed. 

Graph 4: EU payments to Member States - 2000-2009 (ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund - 
Billion EUR in current prices) 

40,0

35,0

30,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

1994-1999

2000-2006

2007-2013

4.3.  Monitoring and evaluation 

A  wide  range  of  indicators  are  used  by  the  different  national  and  regional  managing 
authorities under the shared management system, however these can mostly not be aggregated 

20 

As  payment  data  is  not  reported  by  Member  States  by  "priority  theme",  but  rather  in  line  with  the 
agreed programme financial tables, declared spending cannot be compared thematically to the data on 
selected projects at this stage. For that reason payments are not further analysed. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
at  EU  level21.  At  EU  level,  the  Commission  can  only  aggregate  data  on  certain  core 
indicators. Though not all reports have provided information on indicators, 19 Member States 
have reported on ERDF and Cohesion Fund core indicators. This reporting of recommended 
core indicators is an encouraging first step in the process of clarifying the aggregate picture of 
what the policy is achieving on the ground. For instance, 13 Member States have reported that 
they have programme or approved project targets to create about 351,300 gross jobs22, while 8 
Member States23 already report the creation of 55,900 gross jobs. 

In  2007  and  2008,  the  current  ESF  programmes  have  reached  almost  6  million  people,  of 
which  52%  are  women.  About  one  third  of  actions  were  targeted  at  helping  workers. 
Measures  have  been  also  addressed  to  the  unemployed  (33%  of  beneficiaries  of  which  7% 
were  long  term  unemployed),  as  well  as  to  vulnerable  groups,  e.g.  migrants  and  minorities 
(13%). 

Lessons from national and regional evaluations are referred to in 20 national strategic reports. 
Also  an  ex-ante  evaluation  for  the  Commission  of  the  national  strategies  concludes  that  the 
funds have a significant potential to contribute to EU high level goals and demonstrates the 
central position that EU priorities have in cohesion policy programming24. 

Ex-post evaluation of 2000-2006 programmes 

The  impacts  of  investments  on  structural  change  can  only  be  seen  over  time.  The 
Commission's on going ex post evaluations of the 2000-2006 period are delivering evidence 
of cohesion policy achievements on the ground25. 

Evidence  points  to  increased  investment  among  enterprises  supported  by  the  ERDF.  The 
Member States have reported at least 730,000 gross jobs created in Objective 2 regions, while 
modelling estimates 612,000 net jobs created in Objective 1 regions. 

The policy has improved connectivity throughout Europe - the ERDF alone has supported the 
building  of  2,000km  of  motorways  -  24%  of  all  motorway  development  in the  period - and 
improvement or construction of 4,000 km of rail network. 

The ESF provided relevant support to implement labour-market reforms, both at the national 
and  regional  levels.  It  proved  to  be  an  effective  instrument  contributing  to  the  shift  from 
passive  to  active  and  even  preventive  labour  market  policies  by  providing  financial  and 
conceptual support for reforms and enabling an increase in the volume and scope of actions. 

Over 75 million participants were involved in ESF financed activities. Almost 28 million of 
EU citizens participated in a wide range of active labour market policy measures, half of them 
were women, almost ¾ were unemployed and more than 1/3 young (under 26). Education and 

21 

22 

23 
24 
25 

Annual Implementation Reports provide detailed information on progress of individual programmes in 
relation  to  established  indicators  and  targets.  Annex  XXIII  of  the  implementing  Regulation  No 
1828/2006 provides data on participants in ESF operations by priority.  
The Member States are AT; BE, BG, CZ, DE, FI, HU, IE, LU, NL, PL, SE, SI . 
Programme  targets  are  an  aggregate  of  those  in  the  programmes  based  on  selected  projects.  Some 
Member States did not report programme targets but reported the targets of projects approved to date.  
CZ, DE, FI, IE, PL, SE, SI 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/rado_en.htm  
ERDF / CF evaluations: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/impact/index_en.htm 
ESF evaluations: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=701&langId=en 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
lifelong  learning  activities  involved  almost  33  million  participants.  71%  of  the  participants 
held a job while 23% were unemployed and 6% inactive. 62% of them were young and more 
than 1/3 of were 26-54 year olds. 

Cohesion policy also delivered environmental improvements in line with EU Directives with 
14 million additional people served by water supply projects and 20 million additional people 
served by waste water projects co-financed by the ERDF, especially in Objective 1 areas. 

Finally ex-post evaluation work is delivering policy learning to optimise the policy’s impact 
now and in the future. Through this work the Member States and the Commission services are 
identifying  blockages  to  the  implementation  of  EU  policies  on  the  ground  and  working  to 
remove these barriers through the funding and mechanisms of cohesion policy. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  strategic  reporting  exercise  is  an  important  improvement  in  accountability  in  the 
delivery of the policy’s objectives … 

The  Member  States  have  fulfilled  their  responsibility  and  produced  a  significant  effort  to 
report on progress. Through the experience gained in this first exercise it should be possible 
for  the  2012  national  reports  to  be  more  concise  and  more  focussed  on  outputs,  results  and 
strategic  developments.  Yet,  while  the  national  reports  were  prepared  in  close  cooperation 
with the relevant managing authorities it would have been useful to use more systematically 
public presentation and debate. 

…  though  this  first  exercise  has  limitations,  it  is  a  promising  basis  for  building  a  more 
thorough peer review of performance, giving an impetus to a more results oriented policy. 

Due to the specific legal basis and strategic objectives set, the scope of the strategic reports 
was limited to the 2007-2013 programmes. This provides only a partial picture of the impact 
of  the  policy.  Now  that  the  2000-2006  programmes  have  ended  and  spending  is  clearly 
accelerating  in  the  2007-2013  programmes  data  on  the  outputs  and  results  on  the  ground  is 
expected to show acceleration. 

The common system of reporting on projects selected has proved its worth in providing “real 
time”  data  on  the  project  pipeline.  The  Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  annual 
programme  reports  are  accompanied  by  accurate  and  complete  data  allowing  a  rolling 
monitoring of progress and a better understanding of programme content. 

It  is  encouraging  that  many  Member  States  provided  information  on  EU  defined  core 
indicators for ERDF and Cohesion Fund interventions, even though this was not obligatory. 
Reporting on common indicators should be reinforced. The specific programme reports due in 
mid 2010 and the next round of national strategic reports in 2012 must analyse the progress of 
programmes  in  achieving  objectives  and  signal  a  clear  move  from  reporting  on  inputs  to 
discussing outputs, results and early impacts. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
This exercise brings important and timely messages into the debate on the potential of the 
policy  to  accelerate  the  exit  from  the  crisis  by  addressing  development  needs  while 
responding to the effects of the crisis … 

The  national  reports  have  emphasised  the  fundamental  relevance  of  the  strategies  agreed  in 
2007 and the value of cohesion policy as a policy aiming at long-term economic development. 

In general, the measures to deliver the agreed strategies and objectives are implemented at a 
good pace while adapting to the sharp change in the economic climate. After an average of 18 
months of effective implementation on the ground 27.1% of projects are selected and progress 
is  evidenced  by  accelerating  expenditure.  The  projects  to  deliver  the  agreed  EU  earmarked 
priorities  are  selected  as  quickly  as  non-earmarked  priorities.  These  EU  priorities  include 
smart,  clean  and  socially  inclusive  investments  in  infrastructures  (energy  efficiency, 
broadband,  social  infrastructures)  business  support  (eco-innovation,  financial  engineering) 
and flexible labour markets. 

This positive progress can be partly explained because the Member States are using flexibility 
within  programmes  to  address  changing  needs  under  the  agreed  priorities.  The  cohesion 
policy  recovery  package  of  late  2008,  involving  increased  pre-financing,  rule  changes  to 
improve the speed of reimbursement and simplifications has been widely taken up, while the 
Member States have also simplified their own rules. 

However, no one can be complacent. Using the information exchanged through this exercise 
the Member States can benchmark their rate of progress in different priority themes with the 
EU average, identifying areas of good and slow progress. 

The Commission therefore calls on the Member States: 

•  To quickly implement the already selected projects; 

•  To  accelerate  the  selection  of  quality  projects  to  contribute  to  the  agreed  programme 

objectives, in particular to facilitate the exit strategy from the current economic crisis; 

•  To  ensure  that,  in  a  climate  of  growing  pressure  on  national  budgets,  the  national  co-
financing needed to fund the agreed investments is made available so that the EU budget 
resources are fully mobilised. 

For  its  part,  the  Commission  will  bring  forward  in  2010  communications  outlining  how  it 
believes  cohesion  policy  2007-2013  can  foster  support  to  the  objectives  set  for  the  Europe 
2020  strategy.  In  particular,  these  documents  will  address  how  the  current  programmes  can 
reinforce  employment  policies  and  social  recovery  and  inclusion;  support  for  sustainable 
development  and  support  to  innovation  at  national  and  regional  level.  The  Commission  is 
committed  to  continue  working  with  the  Member  States  on  improving  delivery  of  the 
programmes and addressing bottlenecks in different thematic areas. 

… while also providing a valuable monitoring tool and pointing to areas where efforts must 
be reinforced …. 

Delays  in  selecting  projects  in  important  investment  fields  are  clearly  evident  from  the 
national reports. The Commission calls on the Member States to target these priority areas - if 
necessary by putting in place action plans to correct the delays while there is still time. The 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Commission  has  identified  the  following  priority  areas  facing  delays  generally  or  a  lack  of 
homogenous progress across the Member States: 

•  In the rail sector there are difficulties in preparing important investment in a core group of 

Member States based both on reported progress and results from evaluations; 

•  Certain  energy  and  environmental  investments  are  not  progressing  as  expected.  This 
must  be  redressed  by  the  Member  States  and  regions  for  them  to  fully  contribute  to  the 
EU’s sustainable developments goals; 

•  Investment in the area of the digital economy - rolling out broadband and exploiting ICT 
use in the public and business sectors - is slower than average with uneven performance, 
even if some good practices are identified; 

•  Progress  on  delivering  the  priority  of  social  inclusion  is  relatively  slow  and  not  spread 
evenly  across  the  funds  and  programmes.  Action  is  needed  to  mobilise  EU  resources  to 
contribute to the achievement of the proposed poverty reduction target fixed in the Europe 
2020 strategy; 

•  There  are  observed  delays  in  implementation  of  governance  and  capacity  building 
measures which need to be addressed to improve public sector performance, especially in 
view of the crisis. 

… in order to deliver an early contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy. 

By  pressing  ahead  now  with  the  good  progress  already  made  in  many  priority  areas  and 
addressing  the  delays,  the  Member  States,  regions  and  programme  stakeholders  can  take 
ownership and achieve the objectives of the 2007-2013 programmes. The Commission calls 
on  the  Member  States  to  improve  implementation  of  programmes  with  increased 
transparency, networking and good practice exchange and policy learning on cohesion policy 
priorities  to  make  a  very  important  early  contribution  to  achievement  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy, its flagship initiatives and its quantified targets. 

EN 

13 

   EN