Special Report No 6/2011 ‘Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?’
Date: 2011-09-08
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, co-financing, tourism policy

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

1
1
0
2

6
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

WERE ERDF CO-FINANCED 
TOURISM PROJECTS EFFECTIVE?

EN

 
 
 
 
 
Special Report No 6 

 2011

WERE ERDF CO-FINANCED 
TOURISM PROJECTS 
EFFECTIVE?

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 6 

 2011

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 978-92-9237-179-1

doi:10.2865/32601

© European Union, 2011

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

CONTENTS

3

Paragraph

GLOSSARY

I–VI	

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

1–8	

1–3	

4–8	

9–17	

9–10	

INTRODUCTION

TOURISM	IN	THE	EU

STRUCTURAL	MEASURES	AND	TOURISM

THE	AUDIT

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	OBJECTIVES

11–15	

AUDIT	METHODOLOGY

16–17	

THE	TYPES	OF	PROJECT	IN	THE	AUDIT	SAMPLE

18–58	

OBSERVATIONS

18–46	

DID	PROJECTS	DELIVER	THEIR	EXPECTED	RESULTS?

20–25 

INCREASE IN TOURISM ACTIVITY

26–30 

ADDITIONAL TOURISM CAPACITY CREATED

31–37 

JOBS CREATED OR MAINTAINED

38–46 

TARGETS, INDICATORS AND MONITORING

47–53	

ARE	PROJECT	RESULTS	SUSTAINABLE?

48 

MOST OF THE JOBS STILL EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE AUDIT

49–53 

ALMOST ALL PROJECTS CONTINUED TO OPERATE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY AT A PROFIT

54–58	

DID	GRANTS	INFLUENCE	THE	EXISTENCE	OR	THE	DESIGN	OF	PROJECTS?

55–57 

NOT ALL PROMOTERS FOUND PUBLIC SUPPORT NECESSARY 

58 

ERDF GRANT IS PERCEIVED AS BEING RECOGNITION, BUT INCREASES THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN  

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

	
4

59–64	

CONCLUSIONS	AND	RECOMMENDATIONS

59–61	

DELIVERY	OF	EXPECTED	RESULTS

62	

PROJECT	RESULTS’	SUSTAINABILITY		

63–64	

INFLUENCE	OF	GRANTS		

ANNEX	I	 —	 ERDF	TOURISM	FUNDING	ALLOCATED	BY	MEMBER	STATE	FOR	PHYSICAL	
INVESTMENT	IN	TOURISM	—	2000–06	PROGRAMME	PERIOD	

ANNEX	II	 —	 NUMBER	OF	PROJECTS	INCLUDED	IN	THE	SURVEY	AND	VISITED	ON	THE	SPOT	

REPLY	OF	THE	COMMISSION

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

	
	
GLOSSARY

55

Direct	job: Job generated by the activities receiving the ERDF grant. 
For example, jobs created to manage a hotel are direct jobs. However, jobs involved in building the 
hotel are not considered as direct jobs.

EAFW: Equivalent annual full time worked. 
EAFW = physical resources x percentage time worked x period of activity during year. 
For example, a person working at 50 % during four months corresponds to 0,17 EAFW. 
This method was used to calculate the number of jobs created or maintained mentioned in the report.

Effectiveness: The extent to which objectives of an action were achieved.

ERDF: European Regional Development Fund. 
The ERDF is one of the Structural Funds. It is a financial instrument designed to promote economic  
and social cohesion between the regions of the EU. ERDF actions are mainly implemented through 
operational programmes encompassing a large number of projects.

Managing	authority: Authority designated by the Member State to manage an action, which usually 
takes the form of an operational programme.

Operational	programme: Document approved by the Commission which takes the form of 
a coherent set of priorities comprising multiannual measures. The projects to be co-financed by the 
Structural Funds must fall within the scope of a measure.

Structural	Funds: The European Union’s principal policy instruments in support of the Treaty 
objectives of economic and social cohesion. 

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

 
 
I.
To u r i s m   i s   t h e   t h i r d - l a r g e s t   e c o n o m i c 
s e c t o r   w o r l d w i d e   a n d   t h e   l a r g e s t   s e r v i c e 
i n d u s t r y   i n   t h e   E u ro p e a n   U n i o n   ( E U ) .   I t   i s 
a n   i n c r e a s i n g l y   i m p o r t a n t   a c t i v i t y   c o n -
t r i b u t i n g   t o   b o t h   e c o n o m i c   g r o w t h   a n d 
employme nt.

II.
Fo r   t h e   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p ro gra m m e   p e r i o d,   4   6 2 3 
m i l l i o n   e u r o   w e r e   a l l o c a t e d   u n d e r   t h e 
Eu ro p e a n   R e gi o n a l   D e ve l o p m e n t   Fu n d   fo r 
p hy s i c a l   i nv e s t m e n t s   i n   t o u r i s m .   Pr o j e c t s 
a r e   s e l e c t e d   a n d   m a n a g e d   b y   m a n a g i n g 
aut hor itie s in t he M emb er St ates.

III.
T h e   p r e s e n t   a u d i t   m a i n l y   m e a s u r e d   p e r -
f o r m a n c e   r e s u l t s   t o w a r d s   g r o w t h   a n d 
e m p l oy m e nt ,   t h e   ove ra l l   a i m   o f   S t r u c t u ra l 
Fu n d s.   I n fo r m a t i o n   w a s   d i re c t l y   c o l l e c t e d 
from 206 projec t promoters randomly sam -
pled in order to give a representative over-
view of  the s it u atio n at  t he EU l e ve l.

IV.
T h e   C o u r t   e x a m i n e d   w h e t h e r   t o u r i s m 
projec t s:

(a)  delivered the results expec ted of them;

(b)  have  pro du ced s ust ain ab le resu l ts ;

(c)  we re   u n d e r t a k e n   a s   a   re s u l t   o f   E U   s u p -

por t.

6

EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY

V.
The  Cour t found th at: 

( a)  most projec ts had several results, either 
b y   c re a t i n g   o r   m a i n t a i n i n g   j o b s   ( 5 8  % ) 
o r   b y   c r e a t i n g   t o u r i s m   c a p a c i t y   ( 7 3 % ) 
o r   a c t i v i t y   ( 7 4  % ) .   4 4  %   o f   p ro j e c t s   h a d 
results  in all  three c ateg or ie s;

( b)  p r o j e c t s   fo r   w h i c h   o b j e c t i v e s   w e r e   s e t 
a c h i e v e d   t h e m   o n   a v e r a g e   a t   7 5  %   f o r 
j o b s   c re at i o n   o r   m a i nte n a n ce   a n d   9 3 % 
for tour ism c apacit y.  When  no s uc h  ob -
j e c t i ve s   we re   s e t ,   c e r t a i n   p ro j e c t s   s t i l l 
achieved some results;

( c)   t h e   s i t u a t i o n   i n   r e s p e c t   o f   t a r g e t s ,   i n -
d i c a t o r s   a n d   m o n i t o r i n g   v a r i e d   i n   t h e 
regions vis ited;

( d)  a t   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   a u d i t ,   9 8  %   o f   c o m -
p l e t e d   p r o j e c t s   w e r e   s t i l l   o p e r a t i o n a l 
a n d   9 4  %   o f   t h e   j o b s   c r e a t e d   o r   m a i n -
tain ed by projec ts  still existed;

( e)  public financial suppor t enabled 74 % of 
th e  projec ts  to  be  under taken,   a n ot h er 
20 % of projec ts were modified because 
o f   t h e   gra n t   a n d   i t   h a d   n o   i n f l u e n ce   i n 
6  %   o f   p r o j e c t s .   T h e   l o w e r   t h e   r a t e   o f 
a s s i s t a n c e ,   t h e   l e s s   i t s   i m p a c t   o n   t h e 
projec t;

( f )  w h i l e   9 2  %   o f   t h e   p ro m o te r s   p e rce i ve d 
t h e   E R D F   g r a n t   a s   r e c o g n i t i o n   o f   t h e 
q u a l i t y   o f   t h e i r   p r o j e c t ,   4 2  %   o f   t h e m 
co n s i d e re d   t h at   t h e   E R D F   s u b s i d y   co n -
siderably increased their administrative 
burden. The lower the rate of assistance, 
the more the ERDF grant is perceived as 
bein g burdenso me.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

V I.
The Cour t  reco mmends t hat:

(a)  m a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   s h o u l d   e n s u r e 
t h a t   p r o j e c t s   a r e   s e t   u p   w i t h   s u i t a b l e 
o b j e c t i v e s ,   t a r g e t s   a n d   i n d i c a t o r s   a n d 
t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e n co u ra g e   t h i s 
pra c tice;

(b)  m a n a gi n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   s h o u l d   p ay   m o re 
attent io n to  w het her the grants are  ac -
t u a l l y   n e c e s s a r y   f o r   t h e   r e a l i s a t i o n   o f 
p r o p o s e d   p r o j e c t s   a n d   w h a t   i m p a c t 
p r o j e c t s   w i l l   h a v e   i n   t e r m s   o f   i n c r e a s -
i n g   e m p l oy m e nt   a n d   e co n o m i c   grow t h 
a n d   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e n co u ra g e 
th is  prac t ice;

(c)  t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e v a l u a t e   t h e 
c o s t - e f fe c t i ve n e s s   o f   a i d   i n   t h i s   s e c t o r 
and consider whether suppor t could be 
bet ter t arge te d.

7

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

P ho to	 1	 —	 H i stori c	 bui ld ing 	 conver ted	
into 	 a	 four -st ar	 ho tel	 (Sp ain)

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, January 2010.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

INTRODUCTION

8

1.	

2.	

3.	

TO U R I S M 	 I N 	T H E 	 E U

To ur ism   has  b een  defined   as ‘ th e   a c ti vi ti es   of  pe r son s   t ravel-
ling  to  and st ayin g in pl aces  out si de  t he ir  usual envi ronm ent 
fo r   n o t   m o re   t h a n   o n e   co n s e c u t i ve   ye a r   fo r   l e i s u re,   b u s i n e s s 
an d o t her p ur po ses’ 1.  I t h as become  an  impor tant par t  of  th e 
l i fe   o f   E u ro p e a n   c i t i z e n s,   m o re   o f   w h o m   a re   t r a ve l l i n g,   b o t h 
for l eisu re  and b us ines s  p u r pos es. I t s er ves  to st re ng th e n  th e 
f e e l i n g   o f   E u r o p e a n   c i t i z e n s h i p   t h r o u g h   m o r e   c o n t a c t s   a n d 
e xc h a n g e s   b e t we e n   c i t i ze n s   o f   d i f fe r i n g   l a n g u a g e s,   c u l t u re s 
an d t ra dit io ns 2.

 I t is one of the areas where the European Union (EU) has com-
p e t e n c e   t o   c a r r y   o u t   a c t i o n s   t o   s u p p o r t ,   c o o r d i n a t e   o r   s u p -
plement Member State ac tions 3. The Treaty on the Func tioning 
o f   t h e   Eu ro p e a n   U n i o n   ( T F E U )   e m p h a s i s e s   t h e   i m p o r t a n ce   o f 
t h e   to u r i s m   s e c to r,   i n   w h i c h   t h e   U n i o n’s   a i m   i s   to   e n co u ra g e 
favourable conditions for development of undetak ings and to 
promote cooperation bet ween M ember States, par ticular ly by 
the  exchang e of  g oo d p rac tice 4.

To ur ism  is t he th ird  l arges t sec tor  wor ld wid e i n te r m s of  e co -
nomic ac tivit y and the largest ser vice industr y in the EU 5. The 
in dus tr y ge nerates  more th an 5  % of E U gros s dome stic prod -
uc t (GDP), with approximately 1,8 million enterprises employ-
i n g   a n   e s t i m a t e d   5 , 2  %   o f   t h e   t o t a l   l a b o u r   fo r c e   ( 9 , 7   m i l l i o n 
j o b s ) .  W h e n   re l a te d   s e c to r s   a re   t a k e n   i n t o   a cco u n t ,   t h e   e s t i -
mated  co nt r ib u tio n  of  to ur ism  r is e s  to  1 0 %  of  GDP   a nd  12   % 
of  the  l abo u r fo rce 6.

1  Commission Decision 
1999/35/EC of 9 December 

1998 on the procedures for 

implementing Council Directive 

95/57/EC on the collection of 

statistical information in the field 

of tourism (OJ L 9, 15.1.1999,  

p. 23).

2  Communication from the 
Commission to the European 

Parliament, the Council, the 

European Economic and 

Social Committee and the 

Committee of the Regions: 

‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist 

destination — a new political 

framework for tourism in Europe’, 

COM(2010) 352 final of 30 June 

2010.

3  Articles 6(d) and 195 of the 
TFEU (OJ C 83, 30.3.2010, p. 1 

and p. 47).

4  Article 195 of the TFEU.

5 

‘Sustainable tourism as 

a factor of cohesion among 

European regions’, Committee of 

the Regions, March 2006 (p. 9).

6  Communication from 
the Commission to the European 

Parliament, the Council,  

the European Economic and 

Social Committee and  

the Committee of the Regions: 

‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist 

destination — a new political 

framework for tourism in  

Europe’, COM(2010) 352 final of 

30 June 2010.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

9

7  Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 

laying down general provisions 

on the Structural Funds (OJ L 

161, 26.6.1999, p. 1).

8  Article 2 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1783/1999 of the European 

Parliament and of the Council 

of 12 July 1999 on the European 

Regional Development Fund,  

(OJ L 213, 13.8.1999, p. 1).

4.	

5.	

6.	

7.	

S T R U C T U R A L 	 M E A S U R E S 	 A N D 	TO U R I S M

 Str uc t u ral  Funds’  ac t ion s  in  th e  area  of   tour is m  ai m  pr i mar il y 
a t   c r e a t i n g   a n d   m a i n t a i n i n g   e m p l o y m e n t ,   a s   w e l l   a s   f o s t e r -
in g  eco no mic  grow th.   M o re  spec i fi cally,  t h ey   s hould   cont r i b -
u te   to   a   b a l a n ce d   a n d   s u s t a i n a b l e   d e ve l o p m e nt   o f   e co n o m i c 
a c t i v i t i e s   a n d   o f   e m p l o y m e n t   a n d   h u m a n   r e s o u r c e s 7.   I n   t h e 
2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p e r i o d ,   t h e   E u r o p e a n   R e g i o n a l   D e v e l o p m e n t   Fu n d 
(E R DF ) p rovided s up p o r t  to  produc ti ve inve st me nt s to cre ate 
a n d   s a fe g u a rd   j o b s   a n d   fo r   t h e   d e ve l o p m e n t   o f   t o u r i s m   a n d 
c u l t u r a l   i n v e s t m e n t ,   w i t h   t h e   p r o v i s o   t h a t   t h e   j o b s   c r e a t e d 
we re to  be  s ust ain ab le 8.

Pro j e c t s   a re   c o - f i n a n c e d   b y   t h e   E U   t h ro u g h   m u l t i a n n u a l   o p -
e r a t i o n a l   p r o g r a m m e s .  T h e s e   p r o g r a m m e s   d e f i n e   p r i o r i t i e s , 
each comprising a number of measures, some of which include 
sup p o r t  fo r to u r ism.

Th e   p ro gra m m e s   a re   d raw n   u p   by   t h e   M e m b e r   St ate s   fo l l ow-
i n g   a   co n s u l t at i o n   p ro ce s s   b e t we e n   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a n d   n a -
tional, regional and local public authorities, and the economic 
a n d   s o c i a l   p a r t n e r s   i n   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
app raises  and ap p roves  the progra mme s.

 Individual projects are proposed by project promoters. National , 
regional or local author ities designated by M ember States or-
g a n i s e   s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e s   a n d   a p p r o v e   t h e   p r o j e c t s .   T h e 
p ro m o t e r s   s h o u l d   p ro v i d e   t h e   c o m p e t e n t   m a n a g i n g   a u t h o r-
ities with monitoring information on projec t progress and the 
achie ve me nt  of ob j ec tives.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

10

8.	

Fo r   t h e   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p ro gra m m e   p e r i o d,   7   9 9 4   m i l l i o n   e u ro   we re 
a l l o c a t e d   b y   t h e   S t r u c t u r a l   F u n d s   f o r   t o u r i s m ,   i n c l u d i n g 
4 623 million euro from the ERDF on physical investments (e.g. 
i n fo r m a t i o n   c e n t re s,   to u r i s t   a cco m m o d a t i o n ,   c a t e r i n g   f a c i l i -
ties). The remaining 3 371 million euro related to non-physical 
inves tm ents  (e. g.  develop ment  an d   provi si on   of   tour i st   se r v -
ices, spor ting, cultural and leisure ac tivities, heritage), shared 
s e r v i ce s   a n d   vo c at i o n a l   t ra i n i n g   a n d   wa s   n o t   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e 
sco pe  of  t his au dit. 9

9  As of June 2009.

Photo	2	—	Construc tion 	of 	a	new 	reg io nal	 th eat re	 (France)

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, December 2009.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

THE AUDIT

11

AU D I T 	 S CO P E 	 A N D 	 O B J E C T I V E S

9.	

 T h e   C o u r t   a u d i t e d   t o u r i s m   p h y s i c a l   i n v e s t m e n t   p r o j e c t s 
 c o - f i n a n c e d   b y   t h e   E R D F   d u r i n g   t h e   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p r o g r a m m e 
 per iod. Tens of thousands of projec ts were co financed in this 
w a y,   u p   t o   a   m a x i m u m   r a t e   o f   5 0  %   i n   O b j e c t i v e   2 1 0  r e g i o n s 
an d  75 %  in  Ob j ec t ive  1 11  re gion s. Th e  n umbe r  of   operation al 
pro gram mes and  amou nts al locate d pe r  M em ber  State  is  pro -
vid ed  in A n nex  I.

10.  

The main objec tive of the audit was to assess whether tourism 
pro jec ts:

10  Objective 2 supports the 
economic and social conversion 

of areas facing structural 

difficulties.

11  Objective 1 promotes the 
development and structural 

adjustment of regions whose 

development is lagging behind.

(a )  de livered t he resu l ts exp ec te d o f  t h em ;

(b)  have  p rodu ced  s us tainable result s;

(c)  were  under t ak en as a result of E U s uppor t.

AU D I T 	 M E T H O D O LO G Y

11.   A   s u r v e y   ( s e e   B ox   1 )   o f   2 0 6   r a n d o m l y   s a m p l e d   p r o j e c t s   w a s 
u n d e r t a k e n   i n   o r d e r   t o   o b t a i n   a   r e p r e s e n t a t i v e   o v e r v i e w   o f 
the situation. The projec ts sur veyed were contained in 26 pro -
grammes relevant to nine Member States, in regions which had 
funds allocated for tour ism projec ts. D etails of the number of 
p r o j e c t s   s u r v e y e d   a n d   v i s i t e d ,   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e   a n d   o p e r a -
tio nal  p ro gramme, c an b e foun d i n  A nn ex  II.

B O X 	 1

S T R U C T U R E 	 O F 	T H E 	 Q U E S T I O N N A I R E 	 U S E D 	 F O R 	T H E 	 S U R V E Y

General information on the project.
Results of the project in terms of:

 ο  direct jobs created or safeguarded
 ο tourist capacity
 ο volume of activity
 ο  economic viability
 ο  other.

Influence of EU or other aid on the project
Factors for success or otherwise

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

12

12.  

13.  

 Responses were received from 98,5 % of project promoters sur-
ve ye d  and  p ut   into   a  Cou r t   databa se   se t  up  to  al low  an alys is 
of  the  rep lies.

I n   o rd e r   to   c h e c k   t h e   a cc u ra c y   o f   t h e   p ro m o te r s’  re p l i e s,   t h e 
fol low ing  ac tio ns  were under take n :

(a )  5 2   p ro j e c t s   ( i . e.   2 5  %   o f   t h e   s u r ve ye d   p ro j e c t s )   f ro m   n i n e 
re gi o n s   l o c ate d   i n   fo u r   M e m b e r   S t ate s   ( Fra n ce,   G e r m a ny, 
I t aly  and  Sp ain) were vis i ted.

(b)  M a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   w e r e   a s k e d   t o   v e r i f y   t h e   a c c u r a c y  
o f   p r o m o t e r s ’  r e p l i e s   f o r   t h o s e   p r o j e c t s   n o t   v i s i t e d  
o n t he s po t.

(c)  I n addition, for all projec ts in the sur vey, there was a desk 
review of key documents obtained from managing author -
i t i e s,   s u c h   a s   gra nt   a p p l i c at i o n s,   gra nt   d e c i s i o n s   a n d   a ny 
exis t ing  e val uatio n rep o r ts.

14.  

Fol l ow ing  t he  ab ove  ac t ions,   t he   dat abase   was   u pdate d  wit h 
correc ted answers. The information contained in the database 
and the evidence from the projec t visits form the basis for the 
audit  co nclu sio ns  draw n.

15.  

The audit was carried out between October 2009 and June 2010.

Photo	3	—	Pavement	and	railings	at	the	coast	to	access	
	historic al	site	(I taly)

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, December 2009.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

13

T H E 	T Y P E S 	 O F 	 P R O J E C T 	 I N 	T H E 	 AU D I T 	 S A M P L E

16.  

Th e   d e gre e   o f   d i ve r s i t y   w i t h i n   t h e   2 0 6   p ro j e c t s   s a m p l e d   c a n 
be seen in Table 1, according to a classification developed by 
the  Co u r t  fo r t his  au dit.

TA B L E 	 1

T Y P E S 	 O F 	 AC T I V I T Y 	 R E C E I V I N G 	 E R D F 	 G R A N T

A. Infrastructure / public amenities

Port, marina, boat moorings, seafront area

Access, paths, trails, cycle paths, roads, parking

Other

Beach improvement

Landscaping

B. Accommodation and catering

Hotel

Camp site

Other accommodation and catering

C. Museum and historical monuments

Museum / cultural site (archaeological centre…)

Historical monument / heritage (church, castle, palace…)

D. Holiday and leisure centre

Leisure centre (theme park, swimming pool, zoo, aquarium…)

Holiday centre (which includes accommodation, catering and activities)

E. Other

Congress centre, event centre, multi-purpose facility

Sports centre

Library, archive

Marketing, tourism centre, info points

Environmental education centre, natural reserve

Other 

Total sampled projects

Projects

No

%1

54

19

19

9

4

3

53

38

4

11

48

39

9

21

15

6

30

9

2

2

6

4

7

26

9,2

9,2

4,4

1,9

1,5

26

18,4

1,9

5,3

23

18,9

4,4

10

7,3

2,9

15

4,4

1,0

1,0

2,9

1,9

3,4

206

100

1   These figures reflect the percentage, in terms of number of projects, of the different types of activity within the sample (which is also representative of 

the percentage of ERDF expenditure for each type of activity in the population as a whole).

Source: European Court of Auditors.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

14

17.   O v e r a l l ,   7 6  %   o f   E R D F   f u n d i n g   w a s   a l l o c a t e d   t o   p u b l i c   p r o -
moters. These projec ts are fully financed by public funds, with 
E U   f u n d i n g   b e i n g   c o m p l e m e n t e d   f r o m   n a t i o n a l ,   r e g i o n a l   o r 
local authorit y sources. Figure 1 provides a breakdown of pri-
v a t e   a n d   p u b l i c   p ro j e c t s   a c c o rd i n g   t o   a   c l a s s i f i c a t i o n   d e ve l -
op ed  fo r t his au dit. 

Photo	4	—	New	indoor	seawater	swimming	pool	used	by	tourists	
and	the	lo c al	p opulation	(G erma ny)

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, February 2010.

F I G U R E 	 1

O J E C T S 	 BY 	T Y P E 	 O F 	 AC T I V I T Y 	 A N D 	T Y P E 	 O F 	 P R O M OT E R

Infrastructure / public amenities (road…)

Museums and historical monuments

4 %

Other

17 %

Holiday and leisure centres

24 %

Accommodation and catering

73 %

ALL PROJECTS

24 % 

100 %

96 %

83 %

76 %

76 %

27 %

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Projects run by private promoters

Projects run by public promoters

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

OBSERVATIONS

15

D I D 	 P R O J E C T S 	 D E L I V E R 	T H E I R 	 E X P E C T E D	
R E S U LT S ?

18.   As mentioned in paragraph 11, a sur vey was used to assess the 
e x t e n t   t o   w h i c h   p r o j e c t s   h a d   a c h i e v e d   t h e i r   o b j e c t i v e s.  T h e 
Co u r t   s e nt   a   q u e s t i o n n a i re   to   t h e   p ro m o te r s   o f   2 0 6   p ro j e c t s, 
who had received in total 369 million euro from EU funds ( just 
u n d e r   o n e   t h i rd   o f   t h e   to t a l   co s t   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t s   co n ce r n e d ) . 
T h e   s u r v e y   m e a s u r e d   i n c r e a s e s   i n   t o u r i s m   a c t i v i t y   a n d   c a p -
acit y,  as   we ll   as  direc t  j ob s   created   or   m ainta in ed.  The   Cour t 
examined funding applications and grant decisions which pro -
vide a description of what project promoters intend to achieve 
thro u gh t heir proj ec ts.

19.  

Th e   re s u l t s   i n d i c ate d   t h at   7 3 %   o f   p ro j e c t s   co nt r i b u te d   to   a n 
in creas e  in  t he  annu al   vo lume  of   tour is m,   7 4 %  in cre ased  th e 
capacity of an area to receive tourists and 58 % of the projec ts 
created o r pres e r ved direc t  jobs.  4 4  % of proje c ts h ad re sult s 
in all three categor ies, whereas 8 % had results outside of the 
three  cate g or ies mentioned.

P h o t o 	 5 	 — 	 P a t h w a y 	 d e s i g n e d 	 f o r 	 t h e 	 u s e 	 o f 	 w a l k e r s 	 a n d 	 c y c l i s t s	
(Fra nce)

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, December 2009.

16

I N C R E A S E 	 I N 	TO U R I S M 	 AC T I V I T Y	

20.   A n   i n c r e a s e   i n   t o u r i s m   w i l l   n o r m a l l y   h a v e   a   p o s i t i v e   i m p a c t 
o n   a   l o c a l   e c o n o my   a n d   o n   i n d i re c t   e m p l o y m e n t ,   l e a d i n g   t o 
t h e   g e n e r a t i o n   o f   e c o n o m i c   g ro w t h .  T h e   a u d i t   a t t e m p t e d   t o 
measure the volume of tour ism ac tivit y direc tly generated by 
projec ts. Volume can be expressed in a variety of ways, such as 
beds occupied in hotels, nights stayed on campsites, numbers 
of  visito rs fo r m us eums,  etc.

21.   142  p ro jec ts  (70  %)   in cl ude d  a n  obj ec tive  of  inc re as i ng   to ur -
ism ac tivit y as par t of their grant application and 111 of these 
p ro j e c t s   we re   s u c c e s s f u l   i n   d o i n g   t h i s.   A   f u r t h e r   3 4   p ro j e c t s 
increased ac tivit y without having set this as an objec tive, giv-
in g  an   overal l   total   o f  14 5  p roje c t s  ad din g   to  tour is t  ac ti v it y. 
In general, grants were paid whether objec tives were achieved 
or  no t   and   t he  payment  of  the  grant  was   on ly   con di ti ona l  on 
results for six of the projec ts sampled, five of which achieved 
the ir o bjec t ives.

22.  

 A project in Germany to develop a seawater bath facility which 
formerly had one pool and one sauna added a wellness centre 
w i t h   a d d i t i o n a l   s a u n a s,   a n   o u t d o o r   p o o l   a n d   o t h e r   f a c i l i t i e s 
( P h o to   4 ) . Th e   to t a l   co s t   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t   w a s   1 6 , 9   m i l l i o n   e u ro 
with 41 % coming from the ERDF. The annual number of visitors 
ros e fro m 92 000 to 129 00 0 af ter   its  comple ti on.

23.   A   p u b l i c   p r o j e c t   i n   Fr a n c e   c o n s i s t e d   i n   t h e   m o d i f i c a t i o n   o f 
an  o l d disu sed rail way to  c reate  2 6  k m of  lan e s  for  th e  us e  of 
walkers and c yclists (Photo 5). The number of users rose from 
zero in 2003 to 23 000 in 2008. An elec tronic counting system 
registers use and numbers are submitted regularly to the  local 
t o u r i s m   o f f i c e .   T h e   t o t a l   c o s t   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t   w a s   1 , 6   m i l l i o n 
euro  w ith  39  % co m in g fro m th e ERD F.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

17

24.  

 Ano th er G er man p roj ec t to  create  a wo od en  br i dge  o n a r iver 
t o   c o n n e c t   c y c l i n g   a n d   w a l k i n g   p a t h s   a n d   b u i l d   a   d o c k   f o r 
canoes (Photo 6) was successfully completed and has encour-
age d  smal l   cul tu ral   events  to  tak e   place   in   th e   v ici n it y   of  t he 
b r i d g e,   s u c h   a s   c o f fe e   a f t e r n o o n s   i n   a n   o l d   r e n o v a t e d   b a r n . 
Howe ver, it s  exac t l evel  o f succe ss  re mai ns  un k n ow n as  t h ere 
is  n o  m easu re ment  of  th e  l evel  of  ac t iv it y   re sult in g   f rom  t hi s 
p ro j e c t .  T h e   t o t a l   c o s t   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t   w a s   1 3 9   4 2 6   e u r o   w i t h 
49  %  com ing fro m t he ER DF.

25.   A French project to purchase and refurbish a traditional house, 
conver ting it into a wine museum, was located in a historic vil-
lage (Photo 7). The museum attrac ted 4 000 visitors in its first 
ye ar  bu t   the  nu mb er  o f  vis tors   h a s  si n ce  de cre as ed   to  h al f  of 
this and consequently it is now only open dur ing the summer 
season. When open, the museum plays a role in the promotion 
of   regio nal   p ro du ce  and  viticult ure  i n  g e ne ral. Th e   tota l  cost 
of the projec t was 0,8 million euro with 42 % coming from the 
ERD F.

Photo	 6	 —	Wo o den	 bridge	 on	 a	 river	 to	 con nec t 	 c ycli ng 	 an d	 walk in g	
paths	and	a	do ck	for	c ano es	(G erma ny)

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, December 2009.

18

A D D I T I O N A L 	TO U R I S M 	 C A PAC I T Y 	 C R E AT E D	

26.   M a n y   t o u r i s m   p r o j e c t s   a r e   s e t   u p   t o   a u g m e n t   c a p a c i t y   a n d 
thereby facilitate increases in tourism ac tivit y. Such in creases 
d i r e c t l y   c r e a t e d   b y   a   p r o j e c t   c a n   b e   e x p r e s s e d   i n   a   l a r g e 
 var iet y  o f  ways,   su ch  as   ex t ra  rooms,  bed s  (for   hote ls) ,   li ne ar 
k i l o m e t re s   ( p a t hw a y s   a n d   c y c l e   l a n e s   e t c. ) ,   c a m p i n g   p l a c e s, 
mooring places and seats (for theatres and catering facilities).

27.  

The 120 projec ts which had the stated objec tive of  increasing 
t o u r i s m   c a p a c i t y   a c h i e v e d   9 3  %   o f   t h e i r   t a r g e t e d   i n c r e a s e .  
I n  add it io n  to  t hese,   32   p roj ec ts  di d  n ot  h ave  an   obje c ti ve  i n 
ter ms  of  capac it y,  b ut  in creas ed i t  any way.

28.   One   p ro je c t   in  Sp ain  had  the   obj e c ti ve  of   cre ati n g  3 0    double 
r o o m s   a s   a   f o r m e r   m o n a s t e r y   w a s   c o n v e r t e d   i n t o   a   h o t e l 
(  P h o t o   8 ) .  T h e   o ve r r i d i n g   o b j e c t i ve   w a s   t o   p re s e r ve   a   b u i l d-
ing with some impor tance to the architec tural her itage of the 
l o c a l i t y   a n d   t h e   l o c a l   a u t h o r i t y   d e c i d e d   to   p u t   i t   to   to u r i s t i c 
use. In addition 20 direc t jobs were created in the process. The 
total cost of the projec t was 3,6 million euro with 75 % coming 
fro m t he ER DF.

29.  

30.  

 Not all projects had the objective of creating new capacity and 
some projec ts involved the refur bishment of what already ex -
isted. One French projec t consisted of the renovation of rooms 
i n   a n   e x i s t i n g   h o t e l   t h e re b y   p re s e r v i n g   t h e   e x i s t i n g   l e ve l   o f 
ac tivit y (4 200 nights/year) and also maintaining 1,2 jobs. The 
to t a l   co s t   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t   wa s   2 5 3   2 5 4   e u ro   w i t h   1 4  %   co m i n g 
fro m t he ER DF.

 O t h e r   p r o j e c t s   c o n c e n t r a t e d   o n   i m p r o v i n g   t h e   i n f r a s t r u c -
tural capacit y of an area. I n an I talian coastal region, a public 
projec t set out to create 37 k m of road and 9 k m of foot/c ycle 
p a t h ,   i n   a d d i t i o n   t o   p a r k i n g   a n d   r e s t   a r e a s   a n d   s o m e   p a n o -
r a m i c   v i e w i n g   p o i n t s .   T h e   o v e r a l l   a i m   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t   w a s   t o 
i m p r o v e   a c c e s s   t o   s e v e r a l   h a r d - t o - r e a c h   c o a s t a l   p l a c e s   a n d 
fo s te r   l o c a l   to u r i s m   i n   t h e   a re a .  Th e   to t a l   co s t   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t 
wa s 4, 0 mil lion  euro w ith 49  % comin g from th e ERD F.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

19

J O B S 	 C R E AT E D 	 O R 	 M A I N TA I N E D

31.  

The creation or maintenance of employment are key fac tors in 
the drive to balanced sustainable development of the economy 
and of employment. An examination of projec t grant decisions 
r e v e a l e d   t h a t   1 1 6   o r   5 8  %   o f   p r o j e c t s   i n c l u d e d   t h e   c r e a t i o n 
or  m aintenance  o f  jo b s  as   an   expe c te d  res ult.   O t h er   proj ec t s 
created employment al t hough it  had  not  been a n explicit  ob -
jec t ive  incl ud ed  in  t he  grant  appli c ati on  docume nt ati on.   For 
e x a m p l e ,   a   B e l g i a n   p r o j e c t   i n   t h e   s u r v e y,   r e l a t e d   t o   a r t   a n d 
histor y museums, created 57 jobs although no mention of this 
h a d   b e e n   m a d e   i n   t h e   gra nt   a p p l i c at i o n   d o c u m e nt at i o n .  Th e 
total cost of the projec t was 30,5 million euro with 20  % com-
in g f rom t he ER DF.

32.   R e s p o n s e s   to   t h e   s u r ve y   i n d i c a te   t h a t   a   to t a l   o f   2   5 2 0   d i re c t 
jobs were either created (1 515) or maintained (1 005). O f this 
tot al  23, 5 % we re  held  by women .

P h o to 	 7 	 — 	Tra d i t i o n a l 	 b u i l d i n g 	 re f u rb i s h e d 	 to 	 s e r ve 	 a s 	 a 	 w i n e	
museu m	(France)

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, December 2009

20

33.   Over the full sample sur veyed, 58 % of projects had positive re -
sults in ter ms of employment. S ome areas of ac tivit y, by their 
ver y nature, have more potential for job creation than others. 
The categor y ‘Holiday and leisure centres’ was the one with the 
hi gh est   p erce nt ag e  o f  p rojec ts   havi ng   c reate d  or   m aintai n ed 
j o b s.   Fe we r   j o b s   a re   b e i n g   c re ate d   o r   m a i nt a i n e d   i n   t h e   a re a 
o f  ‘ I n f r a s t r u c t u r e   a n d   p u b l i c   a m e n i t i e s’,   w h e r e   o f t e n   o n l y   a 
smal l   nu mb er  o f  maintenan ce  sta ff   wi ll  be  requi re d  on ce   th e 
pro jec t is u p and ru nning  (Figu re  2) .

34.  

Th e   1 1 6   p ro j e c t s   ( 5 8 % )   fo r   w h i c h   o b j e c t i ve s   h a d   b e e n   s e t   i n 
ter ms of direc t jobs creation and maintenance resulted in the 
at tain ment  o f  75 %  of   t he  targe ted  n umbe r  of  jo bs.   18   of  t h e 
116 projec ts did not achieve results in terms of jobs created or 
maint a ined   and  in  fo ur   c ases  th e  grant   h ad   bee n   con di ti ona l 
o n  p o s it i ve   re s ul t s.   I n   co nt ras t,  1 4 %   o f   t h e   pro j e c t s   h a d  cre -
ated or maintained jobs although no objec tive in terms of jobs 
ha d b een  p rev io usl y  set.

F I G U R E 	 2

P E R C E N TAG E 	 O F 	 P R O J E C T S 	W H I C H 	 C R E AT E D 	 O R 	 P R E S E R V E D 	 D I R E C T 	 J O B S ,	 	
BY 	T Y P E 	 O F 	 AC T I V I T Y

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

76 %

71 %

69 %

Holiday and Leisure 
centres

Museums and Historical 
monuments

Accomodation and 
catering

Percentage within each of the five categories. Overall average is 58 %.

60 %

Other

30 %

Infrastructure / public 
amenities (road, 
bridge,…)

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

21

35.   A French projec t to build a new public swimming pool created 
1 2   j o b s .   T h i s   i n c l u d e d   t w o   j o b s   f o r   m a i n t e n a n c e   w h i c h   w a s 
later per for med by an ex ter nal ser vice supplier. 1,5 jobs from 
t h e   o l d   s w i m m i n g   p o o l ,   w h i c h   h a d   t o   b e   c l o s e d ,   h a v e   b e e n 
m a i n t a i n e d.  Th i s   i s   i n   k e e p i n g   w i t h   t h e   p ro p o s e d   n u m b e r   o f 
j o b s   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e   g r a n t   a p p l i c a t i o n .  T h e   t o t a l   c o s t   o f   t h e 
projec t was 4,4 million euro with 17  % coming from the ERDF.

36.  

37.  

 A   p r i v a t e   p r o j e c t   i n   G e r m a n y   c o n s i s t e d   i n   t h e   c r e a t i o n   o f   a 
youth hostel with spor ts facilities. 17 jobs were created at the 
o p e r a t i o n a l   s t a r t - u p   i n   2 0 0 4 ,   w h i c h   w a s   t h e   t a r g e t   j o b   c r e -
ation. At the time of the audit, there were 26 people employed 
at the camp in various capacities. The total cost of the projec t 
wa s 11 ,1 mill io n eu ro  wit h 2 3  % comin g from th e ERD F.

 I n   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   c a s e s ,   f u n d i n g   w a s   n o t   c o n d i t i o n a l   u p o n 
results in terms of jobs created or maintained being achieved. 
Such conditions were laid down in respec t of only 43 projec ts 
a n d   t h e   s i t u a t i o n   r e g a r d i n g   t h e   c o n d i t i o n a l i t y   o f   a c h i e v i n g 
e m p l o y m e n t   r e s u l t s   v a r i e d   a c r o s s   t h e   r e g i o n s   a u d i t e d   ( s e e 
B ox  2).

B O X 	 2

E X A M P L E S 	 O F 	 A R R A N G E M E N T S 	 R E G A R D I N G 	T H E 	 CO N D I T I O N A L I T Y 	 O F	
E M P LOYM E N T 	TA R G E T S

For some projects visited in Germany, grants were paid on the condition that a certain number of 
jobs should be created. These jobs have to be maintained for at least five years.

In a Spanish region, according to rules on granting aid in the tourism sector, promoters applying for 
a grant must formally undertake not to reduce employment. The presentation of this document is a 
condition for presenting the application for the grant.

In Italy, a project to modernise a hotel received an ERDF grant on the basis of jobs created and 
maintained for a minimum of five years. However, another project to extend and refurbish a hotel 
only had to maintain jobs for one year. In addition the number of jobs created could deviate by up 
to 30 % without triggering penalties or reimbursement of the grant.

In the UK, there was conditionality regarding employment in 11 of the 14 completed projects. The 
number  of  jobs  to  be  created  is  estimated  when  the  grant  is  decided  upon  and  measured  after 
project completion according to mathematical formulae based on expenditure. If a condition is not 
fulfilled, the decision to request partial reimbursement of the grant from the promoter is taken by 
the managing authority.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

22

38.  

39.  

TA R G E T S ,	 I N D I C ATO R S 	 A N D 	 M O N I TO R I N G

 For t he vis ited region s,  th e m ana gin g  auth or it ie s h a d var io us 
w ay s   o f   d e a l i n g   w i t h   t h e   p ro j e c t   p e r fo r m a n c e,   a s   i l l u s t r a te d 
in  th e fol lowing  p aragrap hs.

Fo r   t h e   s u r v e y e d   Fr e n c h   p r o j e c t s ,   e x p e c t e d   r e s u l t s   i n   t e r m s 
o f   j o b   c re a t i o n ,   t o u r i s m   a c t i v i t y   o r   t o u r i s m   c a p a c i t y   a re   n o t 
syste matic ally  incl u ded in the appli cati on s for  grant or  grant 
decisions and, when present, they are provided for information 
purposes, as in none of the sur veyed projec ts was the achieve -
ment of results a conditionalit y for obtaining the ERDF grant. 
Th e   m a n a gi n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   d o   n o t   s ys te m a t i c a l l y   m o n i to r   t h e 
achie ve me nt  of t his t yp e of result.

Photo	8	—	Former	monaster y	conver ted	into	a	four-star	hotel	
(Spain)

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, January 2010.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

23

40.  

41.  

42.  

I n   S p a i n ,   g e n e ra l   c r i te r i a   a re   e s t a b l i s h e d   fo r   t h e   s e l e c t i o n   o f 
p r o j e c t s ,   a l l o w i n g   s e l e c t i o n   o f   p r o j e c t s   p r o p o s e d   b y   a   n a -
t i o n a l ,   r e g i o n a l   o r   l o c a l   a u t h o r i t y,   a s   l o n g   a s   i t   i s   r e l a t e d   t o 
h i s t o r i c a l   o r   c u l t u r a l   h e r i t a g e   o r   t o u r i s m .   Q u a n t i f i e d   o b j e c -
t i v e s   a r e   e s t a b l i s h e d   a t   t h e   m e a s u r e   l e v e l   o n l y.   O n e   o f   t h e 
samp l ed   pro jec t s   inc lud ed  quant it ati ve  obj ec t ive s  re lated   to 
an increase in tour ism capacit y and jobs created. This projec t 
h a d   o b j e c t i ve s   i n   te r m s   o f   s u r f a ce   a re a   o f   t h e   b u i l d i n g   to   b e 
re n ovate d,   t h e   ex p e c te d   n u m b e r   o f   v i s i to r s   p e r   ye a r   a n d   t h e 
n u m b e r   o f   j o b s   ( d i re c t   a n d   i n d i re c t )   to   b e   c re a te d.   Fo r   n o n e 
o f   t h e   v i s i t e d   p r o j e c t s   w e r e   s u c h   i n d i c a t o r s   c o n d i t i o n a l   t o 
ob t aining  the  ERD F grant.

 I n   o ne   G e r man  region  visited,  on ly   pu blic   tour is m  inf rast r u c -
tu re and f acil ities p ro jec t s  were  co -f in an ce d.  For  th e  proje c ts 
vis ited, qu ant if iabl e resu lt  in dicator s  were  s e t by th e ma nag -
i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s.   I n   c a s e   o f   p ro j e c t s   t h at   c re ate d   o r   p re s e r ve d 
direc t jobs, the grant application did not provide any quantifi-
abl e o bj ec t ives o r t arget s regard in g  t he  j ob c re at ion  or  pre s-
er vation. The results are repor ted by the managing authorities 
at  p r io r it y  and measu re l evel.

 I n   t h e   o t h e r   G e r m a n   re gi o n   v i s i te d,   fo r   p ro j e c t s   t h at   c re ate d 
d i re c t   j o b s,   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   fo r   a s s i s t a n c e   c o n t a i n e d   q u a n t i -
f i a b l e   o b j e c t i v e s   o r   t a r g e t s   r e g a r d i n g   j o b   c r e a t i o n .   Fo r   t h e 
v i s i te d   p ro j e c t s   i nvo l v i n g   p r i v a te   p ro m o te r s,   t h e   c re a t i o n   o f 
jobs was a condition for granting the subsidy and provided the 
managing authorities with targeted volume of tourism activity. 
Two   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t s   p rov i d e d   t a rg e t s   re l a t e d   t o   t h e   i n c re a s e 
of capacit y. I n the case of t wo pr ivate projec ts, the ac tual job 
c re at i o n   a n d   n u m b e r   o f   b e d s   c re ate d   we re   m o n i to re d   by   t h e 
managing   aut ho r ities. The  l atte r   do  a  fi n al  ver if i cati on   at   t he 
end of the earmark ing period (five years af ter projec t comple -
tion for jobs and 15 years for infrastructures) to check whether 
the  p rovision s of  t he dec ision h ave  bee n  fulf i lle d.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

24

12  See communication from the 
Commission ‘The EU budget 

review’, COM(2010) 700 final, 

19.10.2010 and in particular p. 5: 

‘Whilst added value of a political 

project cannot be reduced to a 

balance sheet, it is another key 

test to justify spending at the 

EU level: whether spending at 

EU level means a better deal 

for citizens than spending at 

national level. The European 

dimension can maximise the 

efficiency of Member States' 

finances and help to reduce 

total expenditure, by pooling 

common services and resources 

to benefit from economies of 

scale. As a consequence, the 

EU budget should be used to 

finance EU public goods, actions 

that Member States and regions 

cannot finance themselves, 

or where it can secure better 

results.’

43.  

44.  

45.  

 I n one of the visited I talian regions, expec ted results relating 
to inc reasing to u r ist c ap acit y  we re in c lude d for  all  s ix v is ited 
p r o j e c t s ;   e x p e c t e d   r e s u l t s   i n   t e r m s   o f   t o u r i s m   a c t i v i t y   w e r e 
i n c l u d e d   a n d   q u a n t i f i e d   i n   gra n t   a p p l i c a t i o n s   fo r   h a l f   o f   t h e 
projec ts. For the other half, the tourism ac tivit y was indirec tly 
p r e s e n t e d   t h r o u g h   fo r e c a s t   r e v e n u e s   i n c l u d e d   i n   p r o f i t   a n d 
l o s s   a cco u nt s   i nte grate d   i n   t h e   gra n t   a p p l i c at i o n s.   E x p e c te d 
re s u l t s   i n   t e r m s   o f   d i re c t   j o b s   c re a t i o n   we re   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e 
g r a n t   a p p l i c a t i o n s   f o r   f i v e   p r o j e c t s   a n d   w e r e   q u a n t i f i e d   f o r 
four  of  t hem .

 I n   t h e   s a m e   re g i o n ,   t h e   i n d i c a t o r s   re fe r r i n g   t o   j o b s   c re a t i o n 
w e r e   c o m p u l s o r y   o n l y   fo r   p r i v a t e   p r o j e c t s   w h e r e   t h e y   a r e   a 
component of the ex ante evaluation. Preser vation of employ-
ment is compulsor y for a determined per iod and is monitored 
dur ing  t his b ind in g p er io d.

I n   t h e   s e c o n d   I t a l i a n   r e g i o n   v i s i t e d ,   q u a n t i t a t i v e   i n d i c a t o r s 
r e l a t i n g   t o   i n c r e a s i n g   t o u r i s t   c a p a c i t y   o r   j o b   c r e a t i o n   w e r e 
not included in the application forms, for the visited projec ts. 
Similarly, for none of the visited projec ts were such indicators 
bind ing  to  ob t ain ing the grant, n ei th er  E R DF n or  ot h er  for ms 
o f   s u b s i d i e s .   T h e   m a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   d o   n o t   m o n i t o r   t h e 
projec t effec tiveness and results subsequent to projec t invest-
m e n t s   i n   te r m s   o f   n e w   d i re c t   o r   i n d i re c t   j o b s,   o r   a n   i n c re a s e 
in  to ur ist  ac t ivit y rel ated to  th e s ubsi di es.

46.   All projec ts had positive results to some degree and therefore 
could be said to be effective. The sur veyed projects had results 
i n   t e r m s   o f   j o b   c r e a t i o n ,   i n c r e a s e d   t o u r i s m   a c t i v i t y   a n d   e n -
hanced tourism capacity. Some of the projec ts did have objec-
tive s in t hese  th ree areas  and ac h ie ved  th e m,  wh ereas  ot he r s 
did no t have suc h o b jec t ives. O th e r  proj e c ts  ac h i eve d res ul ts 
not specifically planned at the outset. Without the systematic 
s e t t i n g   o f   p r o j e c t   o b j e c t i v e s ,   e s t a b l i s h m e n t   o f   t a r g e t s   a n d 
i n d i c ato r s   a n d   t h e   s u b s e q u e nt   m o n i to r i n g   a n d   e va l u at i o n   o f 
results, it is difficult to assess the true per formance of projec ts 
or t he  ex te nt  o f Eu rop ean added value 12.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

25

A R E 	 P R O J E C T 	 R E S U LT S 	 S U S TA I N A B L E ?

47.  

 A t   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   a u d i t ,   2 8  %   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t s   s a m p l e d   h a d 
be en co mp lete d in th e p as t t wo ye ar s,  4 5 % bet we en t wo an d 
five years ag o  and 2 7 % fo r m ore th an five year s. For  th e  72  % 
o f   p r o j e c t s   c o m p l e t e d   m o r e   t h a n   t w o   y e a r s   a g o,   t h e   C o u r t 
exam ined wh eth er at t he time of  th e  audi t:

(a )  p ro jec t s co nt inued  to op erate  a nd m ade  ei th e r  a prof it  or 

a co nt r ibu tio n to cos ts ; an d

(b)  the results achieved were likely to continue into the future.

M O S T 	 O F 	T H E 	 J O B S 	 S T I L L 	 E X I S T E D 	 AT 	T H E 	T I M E 	 O F 	T H E	
AU D I T

48.   9 4  %   o f   t h e   j o b s   c r e a t e d   o r   m a i n t a i n e d   s t i l l   e x i s t e d   a t   t h e 
time  o f the au dit.  Th e run ning  cos ts  of  a th ird of  t h e proj e c ts 
sustaining these jobs are funded by Member State public sub -
ve ntio ns  o f o ne for m or  ano ther. 

Photo	9	—	I mprovement	of 	main	road 	 at 	 a	 se asid e	 res or t 	 (France)

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, December 2009.

26

A L M O S T 	 A L L 	 P R O J E C T S 	 CO N T I N U E D 	TO 	 O P E R AT E ,	 B U T	
N OT 	 N E C E S S A R I LY 	 AT 	 A 	 P R O F I T

I n 93  % of cases, the tour ism capacit y created by projec ts has 
re m a i n e d   a t   t h e   s a m e   l e ve l   s i n c e   t h e   e n d   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t   a n d 
in  6 %  of  cas es it ha s inc reas ed.

 T h e   l e v e l   o f   t o u r i s m   a c t i v i t y   h a s   r e m a i n e d   s t a b l e   o r   h a s   i n -
creased since the end of the project in 94 % of cases (Figure 3).

49.  

50.  

13  One project was definitively 
closed two years after its start 

due to technical problems and 

three others were temporarily 

closed and will be re-opened 

after further work is carried out.

51.   98 %  of   co mp leted  p ro jec ts  were  st ill  ope rat ion al  at   th e  ti me 
of the audit 13. Not all projec ts generated sufficient revenue to 
cover their running costs. O verall, 25  % of projec ts completed 
at   l eas t  t wo   ye ars  p revio us l y  were  prof it able   (6 1  %  of  pr ivate 
p ro j e c t s   a n d   1 4 %   o f   p u b l i c   o n e s ) .   B y   t h e i r   ve r y   n at u re,   m o s t 
( 6 0  % )   p u b l i c   p ro j e c t s   a re   n o t   i nte n d e d   to   b e   p ro f i t a b l e.  Th e 
p u b l i c   p ro m o t e r,   u s u a l l y   a   l o c a l   a u t h o r i t y,   a s s u m e s   t h e   r u n -
n i n g   co s t s   i n   exc h a n g e   fo r   o t h e r   a d va nt a g e s   fo r   t h e   co m m u -
ni t y  (e.g.   fre e  acces s   to  a  s w immi n g  pool  for   s ch ool  c h il dre n , 
the preser vation of some item of histor ic her itage etc.). There 
a re   o t h e r   p ro j e c t s   d e d i c ate d   to   s u c h   a c t i v i t i e s   a s   re n ovat i n g 
a   p u b l i c   s p a ce   ( e. g.   a   s t re e t   o r   a   ro a d ) ,   w h i c h   we re   n e ve r   i n-
tend ed to b e revenue g eneratin g.

F I G U R E 	 3

WA S 	T H E 	 I N C R E A S E 	 I N 	TO U R I S M 	 AC T I V I T Y 	 C R E AT E D 	 BY 	 P R O J E C T S 	 L A S T I N G ?

Projects which increased 
annual volume of tourism

42 %

52 %

6 %

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Tourism activity has continued to increase significantly since the end of the project

Tourism activity has remained at the same level since the end of the project

Tourism activity has fallen since the end of the project

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

27

52.  

The difference in attitude bet ween pr ivate and public projec t 
p r o m o t e r s   w i t h   r e g a r d   t o   p r o f i t a b i l i t y   c a n   b e   i l l u s t r a t e d   b y 
resp o nses   to   th e  qu estio ns   in  th e   sur ve y   on  expe c te d  prof it -
a b i l i t y   i n   t h e   c o m i n g   t w o   t o   t h r e e   y e a r s .   Fi g u r e   4   i n d i c a t e s 
that the question of future profitability still does not apply for 
60  %  of  p u bl ic  proj ec ts in th e comple te sur ve y,  wh ere as  7 9  % 
o f   p r i v a t e   p r o m o t e r s   e x p e c t   t o   b e   p r o f i t a b l e   i n   t h e   c o m i n g 
ye ars.

53.  

 O v e r a l l ,   2 4  %   o f   t h e   j o b s   w e r e   c r e a t e d   o r   m a i n t a i n e d   b y 
p ro j e c t s,   t h e   a c t i v i t i e s   o f   w h i c h   we re   n o t   i n t e n d e d   a s   b e i n g 
pro fit ab le.

F I G U R E 	 4

F U T U R E 	 P R O F I TA B I L I T Y 	 O F 	 P R O J E C T S

Will the activity created or developed by your project be profitable in the next 2 or 3 years?

Private

79 %

17 %

2 %

2 %

Public

26 %

9 %

5 %

60 %

11 %

5 %

46 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Overall

0 %

39 %

20 %

Yes, probably

Difficult to say

Certainly not

Does not apply (by its very nature, the project was not intended to create or develop economic activity)

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

28

P h o t o 	 1 0 	 — 	 P r o j e c t 	 i nv o l v i n g 	 t h e 	 r e n o v a t i o n 	 o f 	 t h e 	 e x t e r i o r	
walls	and	ro of 	of 	a	church	(Fran ce)

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, November 2009.

D I D 	 G R A N T S 	 I N F LU E N C E 	T H E 	 E X I S T E N C E 	 O R	
T H E 	 D E S I G N 	 O F 	 P R O J E C T S ?

54.  

 T h e   C o u r t   a s k e d   w h e t h e r   p u b l i c   s u p p o r t ,   a n d   E R D F   f u n d i n g 
in  p ar t icul ar, had b een a cr it ical f ac tor  i nf lue nc i n g e it h er  t h e 
design of projec ts or the decision on whether projec ts should 
be under taken. The Cour t went on to examine how the process 
of receiving ERDF suppor t itself had been perceived by projec t 
pro mo te rs.

N OT 	 A L L 	 P R O M OT E R S 	 F O U N D 	 P U B L I C 	 S U P P O R T	
N E C E S S A R Y

55.	 5 3   p ro m o te r s   ( 2 6  % ,   3 4   p u b l i c   a n d   1 9   p r i vate   p ro m o te r s )   d e -
c l a re d   t h at   t h e y   wo u l d   h ave   u n d e r t a k e n   t h e   p ro j e c t   w i t h o u t 
having  receive d any p ub l ic grant :

(a )  12 promoters (6 %, all public) found that the projec t would 
have been carried out in exactly the same way i.e. the grant 
d i d   n o t   c h a n g e   t h e   s i ze,   t h e   co n te nt   o r   t h e   a b i l i t y   o f   t h e 
p ro j e c t   to   c re ate   j o b s.   Fo u r   o f   t h e s e   p ro j e c t s   h a d   a l re a d y 
s t a r t e d   w h e n   t h e   p ro m o t e r   d i s c o ve r e d   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   o f 
receiv ing an  ER D F s ub s id y ;

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

29

(b)  4 1   p ro m o te r s   ( 2 0 % )   s a i d   h owe ve r   t h at   t h e   p ro j e c t   wo u l d 
n o t   h ave   b e e n   t h e   s a m e.   I n   3 0   c a s e s   t h e   s c a l e   o r   co nte nt 
had been modified (12 pr ivate and 18 public) whereas the 
subsidies had an influence on employment or the environ-
me nt  in 17 p r ivate and th ree  publ i c  proj ec t s.

56.  

57.  

 The propor tion of public grant in a projec t ’s total cost had an 
impac t on the responses of projec t promoters: the smaller the 
percentage of public suppor t, the less the aid is seen as being 
cruc ial  to  t he exis tence o f th e proje c t  (Fi gu re  5) .

 Opinio n  al so   var ies   significa ntly   acco rdin g  to  th e  t yp e  of   ac -
t i v i t y   i nvo l ve d,   e. g.   5 2  %   o f   p ro m o t e r s   o f   a c c o m o d a t i o n   a n d 
 c a t e r i n g   p r o j e c t s   s a i d   t h a t   t h e i r   p r o j e c t   w o u l d   h a v e   t a k e n 
place without a public grant. For museum and historical monu-
ment projec ts or infrastruc ture and public amenities projec ts, 
2 0   %   g a v e   t h i s   r e s p o n s e   w h e r e a s   o n l y   1 0  %   o f   p r o m o t e r s   i n 
the  area o f ho lid ay an d leis ure centres  fe lt  th e  sam e way.

F I G U R E 	 5

CO R R E L AT I O N 	 B E T W E E N 	T H E 	 P E R C E I V E D 	 U S E F U L N E S S 	 O F 	T H E 	 P U B L I C	
S U B S I DY 	 A N D 	T H E 	W E I G H T 	 O F 	T H E 	 G R A N T

Promoters' opinion about the statement:
"The project would have taken place with no public subsidy?"

t
s
o
c
s
'
c
t
e
j

o
r
p

l
a
t
o
t
n

i
t
n
r
a
g
c
i
l

b
u
p
f
o
t
h
g
i
e
W

> 75 %

51 %  - 75 %

26 %  - 50 %

70 %

14 %

11 %

5 %

49 %

45 %

18 %

16 %

16 %

19 %

24 %

12 %

< 25 %

28 %

22 %

33 %

17 %

0 %

20 %

40 %

Strongly disagree

Disagree

60 %

Agree

80 %

100 %

Strongly agree

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

 
 
 
 
 
 
30

E R D F 	 G R A N T 	 I S 	 P E R C E I V E D 	 A S 	 B E I N G 	 R E CO G N I T I O N ,	 B U T	
I N C R E A S E S 	T H E 	 A D M I N I S T R AT I V E 	 B U R D E N

58.  

 Th e  vast   majo r it y  of  p rom ote rs  con si d ere d  th e   E R DF  grant   a s 
a recognition of the qualit y of their projec t (92  %) and its use -
ful ne ss to the  p ub lic  ( 90  %) . However, 4 2  % of promoter s als o 
s a i d   t h at   re ce i v i n g   a n   E R D F   gra nt   i n c re a s e s   co n s i d e ra b l y   t h e 
a d m i n i s t r a t i ve   b u r d e n   o f   t h e i r   p r o j e c t .  T h i s   o p i n i o n   i s   m o r e 
w i d e s p re a d   a m o n g s t   p r i vate   p ro m o te r s   ( 5 6 % )   t h a n   a m o n g s t 
p u b l i c   p r o m o t e r s   ( 3 7  % ) .   T h e   a t t i t u d e   o f   p r o j e c t   p r o m o t e r s 
with regard to administrative burden also varies with the pro -
p o r t i o n   o f   t h e   E R D F   gra nt   i n   re l at i o n   to   t h e   to t a l   co s t   o f   t h e 
projec t i.e. the smaller the ERDF grant is, relative to total cost, 
the  mo re k een ly is fel t the admi ni st rati ve burd en .

Photo	11	—	Renovated	13th	centur y	castle	open	to	the	public	(France)

© European Union
Source: European Court of Auditors, December 2009.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS

31

D E L I V E R Y 	 O F 	 E X P E C T E D 	 R E S U LT S

59.   All of the projects had positive results in one form or other and 
t h e   m a j o r i t y   h a d   s u c c e s s f u l   r e s u l t s   u n d e r   s e v e r a l   h e a d i n g s . 
74 % were responsible for an increase in tourist ac tivity, whilst 
73  %  c reated  add it io nal   tour ist   c apac it y  a nd  5 8 %  of  proje c ts 
c re ate d   o r   m a i nt a i n e d   2   5 2 0   j o b s,   2 3 , 5  %   o f   w h i c h   we re   h e l d 
by women. 44 % of projec ts had results in all three categories. 
8 % of projec ts sampled did not achieve results in these areas 
but were found to have benefited the local economy or to help 
p r e s e r v e   e l e m e n t s   o f   a   r e g i o n’s   c u l t u r a l ,   h i s t o r i c ,   a r t i s t i c   o r 
env iro nme nt al h er itage (s ee para graphs  1 9   an d 3 2 ) .

60.  

 Objectives were set for only 58 % of the projects in the sample. 
Where objec tives had been set, they were achieved at 75  % for 
jobs creation or maintenance and 93  % for increasing tour ism 
capacit y. 9 % of the projec ts sur veyed did not achieve any re -
sults in terms of jobs, even though they had been expec ted to 
do so.  Alter nate ly, 1 4 % o f proje c ts in creased tou r ist  c apac it y 
and 14 % increased jobs even though such objec tives had not 
be en s et  (se e paragrap h 34) .

61.   42 %  o f  th e  p ro jec ts  in  the  sample  d id  n ot   h ave   o bjec ti ve s  in 
te r m s   o f   p e r fo r m a n ce.   Fo r   t h o s e   p ro j e c t s   w i t h   o b j e c t i ve s,   i n 
m a n y   c a s e s   t a r g e t s   a n d   i n d i c a t o r s   h a d   n o t   b e e n   s e t   u p   a n d 
t h e   s i t u a t i o n   v a r i e d   i n   re s p e c t   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t s   v i s i t e d.  T h e re 
was no monitoring of results for most of the projec ts sampled. 
Managing authorities had linked the mak ing of grant payments 
to   t h e   a c h i e ve m e nt   o f   re s u l t s   i n   a   s m a l l   m i n o r i t y   o f   p ro j e c t s 
sampled. Without the systematic setting of projec t objec tives, 
e s t a b l i s h m e n t   o f   t a rg e t s   a n d   i n d i c a t o r s   a n d   t h e   s u b s e q u e n t 
m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   re s u l t s,   i t   i s   d i f f i c u l t   t o   a s s e s s 
t h e   t r u e   p e r fo r m a n c e   o f   p r o j e c t s   o r   t h e   e x t e n t   o f   E u r o p e a n 
ad de d val u e (s ee p aragrap h s 34  a nd  3 8  to 4 6 ) .

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

32

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 1

M a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   s h o u l d   e n s u r e   t h a t   s u i t a b l e   o b j e c-
t i v e s ,   t a r g e t s   a n d   i n d i c a t o r s   a r e   e s t a b l i s h e d   a t   t h e   g r a n t 
ap p li c ati o n an d  d e cisi o n s t a g e s  to e nab l e:

 ο th e s e l e c ti o n o f p roj e c t s w hi ch are  like l y  to b e  th e 

m os t  e f f i ci e nt ;  an d  

 ο th e ev alu ati o n o f th e ir  re sul t s .

T h e  Co mm issi o n sh o u l d e n co ur a g e  this  p r a c ti ce.

P R O J E C T 	 R E S U LT S’	 S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y

62.  

 G i v e n   t h a t   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   j o b s   c r e a t e d   b y   m a t u r e   p r o j e c t s 
s t i l l   e x i s t e d   a t   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   a u d i t   a n d   t h a t   t h e   a d d i t i o n a l 
ac tiv it y and capac it y created by th es e  proj ec t s  h ad rem ain e d 
sta bl e  or increa sed sl ightl y, it is lik ely  th at  t h e re sult s wi ll be 
sustainable in the shor t to medium term. However as only 25 % 
of   pro je c ts   we re  fou nd  to   b e  fina nci all y  v iabl e,  s uch   sust ai n -
abilit y is dependent upon cur rent levels of public subvention 
for ru nning  co st s co ntinu ing into th e  f ut ure.

I N F LU E N C E 	 O F 	 G R A N T S

63.   Ac c o r d i n g   t o   p r o j e c t   p r o m o t e r s ,   t h e   r e c e i p t   o f   p u b l i c   f u n d-
i n g   e n a b l e d   7 4 %   o f   p ro j e c t s   to   b e   u n d e r t a k e n   at   a l l.   I n   2 0 % 
o f   c a s e s,   t h e y   d e c l a re d   t h a t   t h e i r   p r o j e c t s   w o u l d   h a ve   g o n e 
ah ead  w ith out  grant   aid  but  in   a  m odi fi ed   fa sh ion .  Th e  l owe r 
the rate of assistance, the less its impac t on the projec t. In 6  % 
of cases, they said their projec ts would have been under taken 
simil ar l y w ith out  t he grant (s ee paragraph s  5 5  to 5 7 ).

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

33

64.  

 Whilst 92  % of the promoters perceived the ERDF grant as be -
in g a re cognit io n o f the q ualit y of  th ei r  proje c t, 4 2 % of t hem 
felt that the ERDF subsidy process considerably increased their 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n .   I t   w a s   a l s o   n o t e d   t h a t   t h e   l o w e r   t h e 
rate  of   assist ance,   the  more  the   E RD F  gra nt   was   percei ved   as 
be ing  bu rdens o me (s ee p aragra ph 5 8 ).

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 2

M ana gin g au th o r i ti e s  sh o u l d e nsure that  p roj e c t  s e l e c ti o n 
c r i t e r i a   i n c l u d e   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   o f   w h e t h e r   t h e r e   i s   a   r e a l 
n e e d   f o r   s u c h   f u n d i n g   f o r   t h e   p r o j e c t   t o   b e   r e a l i s e d .   T h e 
p otential imp ac t of the grant on proje c t design should also 
b e  t ake n  into   a cco u nt ,   in  a d di ti o n   to  th e  ove r all  imp a c t  o f 
th e p roj e c t  o n e co n o m i c  g row th  an d  e m p l oy m e nt .

T h e  Co mm issi o n sh o u l d e n co ur a g e  this  p r a c ti ce.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 3

T h e   Co m m is s i o n   s h o u l d   u n d e r t a ke   a n   e v a l u at i o n   o f   a i d   i n 
this s e c to r, to co nsi d e r th e e x te nt to w hich i t f o r ms a cos t-
e f f e c t i v e   m e a n s   t o   s u p p o r t   M e m b e r   St a t e s   t o   f o s t e r   e c o -
n o mic grow th an d to co nsi d e r w h e th e r su ch sup p o r t co ul d 
b e b e t te r t arg e te d to this  e n d .

 This repor t was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Mor ten 
LE VYSOHN, Member of the Cour t of Auditors, in Luxembourg 
at it s m eet ing  o f 4 M ay 2011.

For  th e  Cour t  of  Auditors

Vítor M anuel da  S I LVA   C A L D E I R A
Presi den t

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

 
 
34

A N N E X 	 I

E R D F 	TO U R I S M 	 F U N D I N G 	 A L LO C AT E D 	 BY 	 M E M B E R	 	
S TAT E 	 F O R 	 P H YS I C A L 	 I N V E S T M E N T 	 I N 	TO U R I S M 	 —	 	
2000 – 06	 P R O G R A M M E 	 P E R I O D

Member State

Number of operational programmes 
including tourism projects in each 
Member State

ERDF amount for tourism 
(1 000 euro)

Italy

Germany

France

Spain

Greece

United Kingdom

Austria

Portugal

Belgium

Poland

Netherlands

Lithuania

Hungary

Czech Republic

EU cross-border cooperation

EU interregional cooperation

Ireland

Finland

Estonia

Slovenia

Latvia

Malta

Cyprus

21

17

23

20

15

12

8

6

7

1

6

1

1

2

23

22

2

5

1

2

1

1

1

1 448 519

649 206

467 106

427 888

384 360

220 892

159 228

150 326

100 252

95 663

82 947

81 999

74 018

68 274

64 513

50 904

29 934

20 206

16 247

13 803

9 256

4 301

3 229

Total

198

4 623 071

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

35

A N N E X 	 I I

N U M B E R 	 O F 	 P R O J E C T S 	 I N C LU D E D 	 I N 	T H E 	 S U R V E Y 	 A N D 	V I S I T E D	
O N 	T H E 	 S P OT

9 Member States

26 operational programmes

Number of projects

Surveyed

Visited

Italy

1999IT161PO011 Sicilia

1999IT161PO007 Campania

1999IT161PO010 Sardinia

2000IT162DO007 Piemonte

2000IT162DO001 Toscana

2000DE162DO010 Niedersachsen

1999DE161PO004 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Germany

1999DE161PO005 Brandenburg

Spain

1999DE161PO003 Sachsen-Anhalt

2000DE162DO005 Hessen

2000ES161PO007 Castilla y León

2000ES161PO010 Extremadura

2000ES161PO009 Communidad Valenciana

2000ES161PO016 Local

2000FR162DO020 Rhône-Alpes

France

2000FR162DO006 Poitou-Charentes

Greece

Portugal

United Kingdom

Belgium

Lithuania

2000FR162DO014 Bretagne

2000GR161PO016 Competitiveness

2000GR161PO014 Central Macedonia

2000GR161PO005 Continental Greece

1999PT161PO016 Madeira

1999PT161PO012 Algarve

1999GB161DO004 West Wales and the Valleys

2000GB162DO008 South East England

2000BE162DO008 Meuse-Vesdre

2003LT161DO001 Lithuania

Total number of projects 

6

6

5

6

8

7

1

7

6

26

14

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

6

8

8

8

3

7

6

9

7

7

7

6

6

7

9

6

7

206

52

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
36

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

I I.
Co h e s i o n   p o l i c y,   a n d   t h e   E R D F   a s   t h e   b i g -
g e s t   S t r u c t u r a l   F u n d ,   i s   t h e   E U ’s   m a i n 
instrument for pursuing harmonious devel -
o p m e nt   a c ro s s   t h e   U n i o n .  Th i s   i s   re f l e c te d 
in the var iet y of programmes, projec ts and 
par tners that are suppor ted under the pol-
i c y.   Fo r   t h e   p ro gra m m i n g   p e r i o d   2 0 0 0 – 0 6 , 
3,5 % of the ERDF funding was allocated to 
investm ent s in tour ism .

V.	 (a)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
f i n d i n g s .   T h e   r e s u l t s   s h o w   t h a t   t h e   E R D F 
s u p p o r t   h a s   co nt r i b u te d   to   j o b   c re at i o n   i n 
t h e   a r e a   o f   t o u r i s m   a n d   a l s o   t o   l o c a l   a n d 
regional econ om ic growth. 

V.	 (b)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
f i n d i n g s   t h a t   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t s 
had the objec tive of creating jobs and that 
a   l a r g e   n u m b e r   o f   t h e   j o b s   t a r g e t e d   h a v e 
in  fac t been  cre ated. 

V.	 (d )
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   f i n d s   i t   e n co u ra gi n g   t h at 
n e a r l y   a l l   t h e   p r o j e c t s   h a d   r e a c h e d   s u c h 
a   d e g r e e   o f   m a t u r i t y   t h a t   t h e y   w e r e   s t i l l 
operation al at  th e t ime of  th e audit. 

V.	 (e)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t   n e a r l y   t h r e e 
quar ters of the audited projec ts would not 
h a v e   b e e n   c a r r i e d   o u t   w i t h o u t   t h e   p u b l i c 
ass istan ce.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

3737

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION

2 .
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   p o i nt s   o u t   t h at   to u r i s m   i s 
s t ro n g l y   i n te rco n n e c te d   w i t h   m a ny   p o l i c y 
a r e a s ,   s u c h   a s   r e g i o n a l   p o l i c y,   t r a n s p o r t , 
r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t ,   e t c .   R e g i o n a l   p o l i c y 
s u p p o r t s   t o u r i s m   a s   p a r t   o f   i n t e g r a t e d 
regional developm ent  program mes.

4 .– 8.
C o h e s i o n   p o l i c y   i s   i m p l e m e n t e d   u n d e r 
s h a r e d   m a n a g e m e n t :   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e 
p r i m a r i l y   r e s p o n s i b l e   f o r   s e t t i n g   u p   t h e 
m a n a g e m e n t   a n d   c o n t r o l   s y s t e m s   a n d 
f o r   i m p l e m e n t i n g   p r o g r a m m e s .   T h e   C o m -
m i s s i o n   n e g o t i a t e s   t h e   p r o g r a m m e s   w i t h 
th em  an d  supe r vises  th eir   wor k   d ur in g   th e 
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   p e r i o d .   A   h u g e   n u m b e r 
o f   n a t i o n a l   a n d   r e g i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   a r e 
i n v o l v e d ,   a l o n g   w i t h   h u n d r e d s   o f   t h o u -
san ds of proje c t promote rs.

Fo r   t h e   S t r u c t u r a l   Fu n d s ,   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C ) 
N o 1 2 6 0 / 1 9 9 9   s t i p u l a t e s   t h a t   p r o j e c t s   a r e 
s e l e c t e d   a n d   m a n a g e d   b y   t h e   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s ’  a u t h o r i t i e s   ( w i t h   t h e   e x c e p t i o n 
o f   l a r g e   p r o j e c t s ,   i n   w h i c h   c a s e   t h e   C o m -
m i s s i o n   h a s   t o   a p p ro ve   t h e m   a n d   c o n f i r m 
o r   a m e n d   t h e   l e v e l   o f   C o m m u n i t y   a s s i s t -
a n c e ) .    T h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s   ro l e   i s   t o   s u p e r -
v i s e   a n d   m o n i t o r   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   a n d ,   t o   a 
l e s s e r   e x t e n t ,   p h y s i c a l   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
( i m p a c t / p e r f o r m a n c e )   o f   t h e   o p e r a t i o n a l 
program me s.

A r t i c l e   2 ( 2 )   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o 
1 7 8 3 / 1 9 9 9   p o i n t s   o u t   t h e   j o b   c r e a t i o n 
d i m e n s i o n   o f   i n v e s t m e n t s   i n   t o u r i s m   a n d 
c u l t u re.   H owe ve r,   t h e   l i s t   o f   p r i o r i t i e s   p ro -
vided  is not exclusive.

V.	(f )
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t a k e s   n o t e   o f   t h e s e 
r e s u l t s .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   p o i n t s   o u t   t h a t 
for the 2007–13 programming per iod, rules 
o n   i m p l e m e nt at i o n   o f   t h e   f u n d s   we re   s i m -
p l i f i e d   i n   t h e   St r u c t u ra l   Fu n d s   re g u l at i o n s 
a n d   t h e re   we re   f u r t h e r   re v i s i o n s   i n   2 0 0 8 –
1 0 .  T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a l s o   n o t e s   t h a t   t h e re 
m u s t   b e   a   b a l a n ce   b e t we e n   s i m p l i f i c a t i o n 
and  sound ma nagem ent o f fund s.

VI.	(a)
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   co n t i n u e   to   p ro m o te 
t h e   u s e   o f   s u i t a b l e   o b j e c t i ve s,   t a rg e t s   a n d 
indic ators w ith the managing au t h or it ie s.

VI.	(b)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   c o n t i n u e   t o   e n c o u r-
a g e   m a n a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   t o   e n s u r e   t h a t 
the EU co -financing goes to those projec ts 
t h a t   re a l l y   n e e d   p u b l i c   f i n a n c i n g   fo r   t h e i r 
implem entatio n.

VI.	(c)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l r e a d y   c a r r i e d   o u t 
a n   e x   p o s t   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   E R D F 
p r o g r a m m e s   c o v e r i n g   t h e   m a i n   i s s u e s   o f 
p o l i c y   re l e v a n c e   a n d   m o s t   o f   t h e   e x p e n d -
i t u r e   c o - f i n a n c e d   b y   t h e   E R D F.   To u r i s m 
a c t i o n s   w e r e   c o v e r e d   u n d e r   e n t e r p r i s e 
s u p p o r t   a n d   p hys i c a l / n at u ra l   e nv i ro n m e nt 
 evaluatio ns.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

38

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

OBSERVATIONS

19.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
f i n d i n g s .   T h e   r e s u l t s   s h o w   t h a t   t h e   E R D F 
s u p p o r t   h a s   co nt r i b u te d   to   j o b   c re at i o n   i n 
t h e   a r e a   o f   t o u r i s m   a n d   a l s o   t o   l o c a l   a n d 
regional e cono mic  grow th. 

4 6.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t   m o s t   o f   t h e 
projec ts did have meaning ful, quantifiable 
a n d   m e a s u r a b l e   r e s u l t   i n d i c a t o r s   e s t a b -
l i s h e d   a t   t h e   o u t s e t ,   a s   i n d i c a t e d   b y   t h e 
Cour t in  paragraph s 2 1,  27  an d  34 . 

21.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
f i n d i n g s   t h a t   a   m a j o r i t y   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t s 
a c h i e ve d   t h e i r   s e t   o b j e c t i ve s   a n d   co nt r i b -
uted to an increase in tour ism ac tivit y. The 
C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   i t   e q u a l l y   e n c o u r -
aging that  t he Co ur t foun d that  a s ubs ta n-
tial number of projec ts achieved this result 
e ve n   w i t h o u t   i t   h a v i n g   b e e n   s e t   a s   a   s p e -
cific objec tive  o f the p rojec t.

27.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
f i n d i n g s   t h a t   n e a r l y   a l l   t h e   p r o j e c t s 
a c h i e ve d   t h e i r   o b j e c t i ve s   a n d   co nt r i b u te d 
to increasing to ur is m cap acit y. 

34.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
f i n d i n g s   t h a t   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   p ro j e c t s   h a d 
t h e   o b j e c t i v e   o f   c r e a t i n g   j o b s   a n d   t h a t   a 
l a rg e   n u m b e r   o f   t h e   j o b s   t a rg e te d   h ave   i n 
fac t  been create d. 

40.
I n   t h e   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   p ro gra m m i n g   p e r i o d,   m a n -
a g i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   c o u l d   m o n i t o r   a c h i e v e -
ment of some results, such as job creation, 
i n c re a s i n g   to u r i s m   a c t i v i t y   o r   c a p a c i t y,   by 
m e a n s   o f   i n d i c a t o r s   s e t   a t   m e a s u r e ,   p r i -
o r i t y   o r   p r o g r a m m e   l e v e l .   I n   t h e   2 0 0 7 – 1 3 
p r o g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d   p r o j e c t   s e l e c t i o n   i s 
c o n d i t i o n a l   o n   q u a n t i f i e d   i n d i c a t o r s   a t 
projec t  le vel.

Eve n   w h e n   s u c h   d at a   i s   ava i l a b l e,   i t   wo u l d 
b e   d i f f i c u l t   t o   a s s e s s   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   a n d 
E u r o p e a n   a d d e d   v a l u e ,   w i t h o u t   c a r r y i n g 
out a counter fac tual analysis.

4 8.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h i s   f i n d i n g 
v e r y   e n c o u r a g i n g,   e s p e c i a l l y   a t   a   t i m e   o f 
econ om ic downtur n. 

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e c a l l s   t h a t   7 6  %   o f   t h e 
p r o j e c t s   i n   t h e   C o u r t ’s   s a m p l e   w e r e   p r o -
m o t e d   b y   p u b l i c   b o d i e s .   I n   t h i s   c o n t e x t , 
t h e   f a c t   t h a t   r u n n i n g   c o s t s   o f   a   t h i r d   o f 
t h e   p ro j e c t s   a re   b e i n g   s u s t a i n e d   by   p u b l i c 
grant s is to be ex pec ted.

4 9.–5 1.
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   f i n d s   i t   e n co u ra gi n g   t h at 
near ly all ERDF co -funded tour ism projec ts 
c o n t r i b u t e d   t o   s u s t a i n a b l e   c r e a t i o n   o f 
t o u r i s m   c a p a c i t y   a n d   t o u r i s m   a c t i v i t i e s 
a n d   t h a t   n e a r l y   a l l   p r o j e c t s   r e a c h e d   a 
d e g re e   o f   m a t u r i t y   s o   t h a t   t h e y   we re   s t i l l 
operation al at  th e t ime of  th e audit.

5 5.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t   n e a r l y   t h r e e 
quar ters of the audited projec ts would not 
h a v e   b e e n   c a r r i e d   o u t   w i t h o u t   t h e   p u b l i c 
ass istan ce.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

58.
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   n o te s   t h at   m o re   t h a n   h a l f 
o f   t h e   p r o j e c t   p r o m o t e r s   c o n s i d e r e d   t h a t 
t h e   E R D F   f u n d i n g   d i d   n o t   i n c r e a s e   t h e i r 
administ rative burd en considera b l y.

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n s   c a n   a r i s e   i n   t h e 
course of man agement  of  Struc t u ra l Fun ds 
p r o g r a m m e s ,   f o r   d i f f e r e n t   r e a s o n s .  T h e s e 
c a n   i n c l u d e   e l i g i b i l i t y   a n d   c o n t r o l   r u l e s 
l a i d   d o w n   b y   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t h a t   a r e 
s t r i c t e r   t h a n   t h o s e   p r o v i d e d   f o r   i n   t h e 
Struc tura l Fu nds  regul ations.   

Fo r   t h e   c u r r e n t   ( 2 0 0 7 – 1 3 )   p r o g r a m m i n g 
p e r i o d ,   r u l e s   o n   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e 
f u n d s   h a v e   b e e n   s i m p l i f i e d   i n   t h e   S t r u c -
t u r a l   F u n d s   r e g u l a t i o n s .   F u r t h e r m o r e , 
i n   2 0 0 8 – 1 0   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i n t r o d u c e d 
s i g n i f i c a n t   s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s ,   e s p e c i a l l y   b y 
c r e a t i n g   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   t o   d e c l a r e   c o s t s 
o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   f l a t   r a t e s ,   l u m p   s u m s   a n d 
s t a n d a rd   s c a l e s   o f   u n i t   co s t s,   i n c l u d i n g   i n 
th e a rea  of  tou r is m. 

3939

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

CONCLUSIONS	AND		
RECOMMENDATIONS

5 9.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
findings that all the projec ts were success -
f u l   i n   a c h i e v i n g   r e s u l t s   s u c h   a s   d i r e c t   j o b 
c r e a t i o n ,   a n   i n c r e a s e   i n   t o u r i s m   c a p a c i t y 
a n d   a n n u a l   vo l u m e.  T h e   re s u l t s   s h o w   t h a t 
t h e   E R D F   s u p p o r t   h a s   c o n t r i b u t e d   t o   j o b 
c re at i o n   i n   t h e   a re a   o f   to u r i s m   a n d   a l s o   to 
loca l a nd regional economic  growt h.

6 0.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
f i n d i n g s   t h a t   t h e   m a j o r i t y   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t s 
h a d   t h e   o b j e c t i v e   o f   c r e a t i n g   j o b s   a n d 
t h a t   a   l a r g e   n u m b e r   o f   t h e   j o b s   t a r g e t e d 
h a v e   i n   f a c t   b e e n   c r e a t e d .   T h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   co n s i d e r s   i t   e q u a l l y   e n co u ra gi n g   t h at 
t h e   Co u r t   fo u n d   t h at   a   n u m b e r   o f   p ro j e c t s 
a c h i e v e d   t h i s   r e s u l t   e v e n   w i t h o u t   i t   h a v -
i n g   b e e n   s e t   a s   a   s p e c i f i c   o b j e c t i ve   o f   t h e 
projec t.

6 1.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t   m o s t   o f   t h e 
projec ts did h ave meanin g fu l, qu ant if iabl e 
a n d   m e a s u r a b l e   r e s u l t   i n d i c a t o r s   e s t a b -
l i s h e d   a t   t h e   o u t s e t ,   a s   i n d i c a t e d   b y   t h e 
Cour t in  paragraph s 2 1,  27  an d  34 . 

Eve n   w h e n   s u c h   d a t a   i s   av a i l a b l e   i t   wo u l d 
b e   d i f f i c u l t   t o   a s s e s s   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   a n d 
E u r o p e a n   a d d e d   v a l u e ,   w i t h o u t   c a r r y i n g 
out a counter fac tual analysis.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

40

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Recommendatio n	2
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   u n d e r s t a n d s   f r o m   t h e 
C o u r t ’s   r e s u l t s   t h a t   t h e   s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e s s 
f o r   t o u r i s m   p r o j e c t s   i s ,   i n   g e n e r a l ,   e f f e c -
t i v e .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   c o n t i n u e   t o 
encourage managing author ities to ensure 
t h a t   t h e   E U   c o - f i n a n c i n g   g o e s   t o   t h o s e 
p ro j e c t s   t h a t   re a l l y   n e e d   p u b l i c   f i n a n c i n g 
for t heir  imple me ntation .

Recommendatio n	3
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e c a l l s   t h a t   S t r u c t u r a l 
Fu n d s   d o   n o t   s u p p o r t   t o u r i s m   a s   s e c t o r a l 
p o l i c y   b u t   t o u r i s m   i n t e r v e n t i o n s   i n   t h e 
f r a m e w o r k   o f   i n t e g r a t e d   r e g i o n a l   d e v e l -
o p m e n t   p r o g r a m m e s .   F u r t h e r m o r e   t h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   r e c a l l s   t h a t   i t   a p p r o v e s   p r o -
g r a m m e s   a n d   t h e i r   p r i o r i t i e s   b u t   n e i -
t h e r   m e a s u r e s   n o r   p r o j e c t s   ( e x c e p t   l a r g e 
p r o j e c t s )   o n   s p e c i f i c   s e c t o r s   s u c h   a s 
 tour ism.

The Commission has already car r ied out an 
e x   p o s t   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   2 0 0 0 – 0 6   E R D F   p r o -
gra m m e s   cove r i n g   t h e   m a i n   i s s u e s   o f   p o l -
i c y   re l e va n ce   a n d   m o s t   o f   t h e   ex p e n d i t u re 
c o - f i n a n c e d   b y   t h e   E R D F.  To u r i s m   a c t i o n s 
w e r e   c o v e r e d   u n d e r   e n t e r p r i s e   s u p p o r t 
a n d   p h y s i c a l / n a t u r a l   e n v i r o n m e n t   e v a l u -
a t i o n s .   T h e   o u t c o m e   o f   t h i s   e v a l u a t i o n  
c a n   b e   f o u n d   o n   t h e   D i r e c t o r a t e - G e n e r a l 
f o r   R e g i o n a l   P o l i c y ' s   ‘ I n f o r e g i o’  w e b s i t e 
( a t   h t t p : / / e c . e u r o p a . e u / r e g i o n a l _ p o l i c y /
s o u r c e s / d o c g e n e r / e v a l u a t i o n / r a d o 2 _
en .htm) .

Recomme ndat ion	1
S o u n d   s e l e c t i o n   c r i t e r i a   a r e   k e y   p r e - 
r e q u i s i t e s   f o r   s e l e c t i n g   t h e   p r o j e c t s   t h a t 
c o n t r i b u t e   t h e   m o s t   t o   p r i o r i t i e s ,   o b j e c -
t i v e s   a n d   t a r g e t s   a n d   f o r   s e l e c t i n g   t h e 
most effe c t ive  and effic ient one s. 

Th e   s e t t i n g   u p   o f   s u i t a b l e   o b j e c t i ve s,   t a r -
g e t s   a n d   i n d i c a t o r s   h e l p s   w i t h   e v a l u a t i o n 
of the projec t results. The Commission will 
c o n t i n u e   t o   p r o m o t e   t h e   u s e   o f   s u i t  a b l e 
o b j e c t i ve s,   t a rg e t s   a n d   i n d i c ato r s   w i t h   t h e 
mana ging  aut hor ities.

62.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
f i n d i n g s   a n d   f i n d s   i t   e n c o u r a g i n g   t h a t 
near ly all the projec ts had achieved such a 
degree of sustainabilit y that they were still 
operational  at t he time o f the au di t.

63.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t   n e a r l y   t h r e e 
quar ters of the audited projec ts would not 
h a v e   b e e n   c a r r i e d   o u t   w i t h o u t   t h e   p u b l i c 
assistance.

64.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t a k e s   n o t e   o f   t h e s e 
r e s u l t s .     T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   p o i n t s   o u t   t h a t 
for the 2007–13 programming per iod, rules 
o n   i m p l e m e nt at i o n   o f   t h e   f u n d s   we re   s i m -
p l i f i e d   i n   t h e   St r u c t u ra l   Fu n d s   re g u l at i o n s 
a n d   t h e re   we re   f u r t h e r   re v i s i o n s   i n   2 0 0 8 –
1 0 .  T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a l s o   n o t e s   t h a t   t h e re 
m u s t   b e   a   b a l a n ce   b e t we e n   s i m p l i f i c a t i o n 
and  sound ma nagem ent o f fund s.

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

41

European Court of Auditors

Special	Report	No	6/2011

Were	ERDF	co-financed	tourism	projects	effective?

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2011 — 40 pp. — 21 × 29,7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9237-179-1

doi:10.2865/32601

Special Report No 6/2011 – Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?

How	to	obtain	EU	publications

Free	publications:

• 

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced	publications:

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced	subscriptions	(e.g.	annual	series	of	the	Official Journal of the European Union	and	reports	
of	cases	before	the	Court	of	Justice	of	the	European	Union):

• 

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
1
-
0
0
4
-
E
N

-
C

THIS  REPORT  EXAMINES  THE  PERFORMANCE  OF  ERDF  CO-FINANCED 

TOURISM  PROJECTS  IN  PROMOTING  ECONOMIC  GROWTH  AND  CREATING 

EMPLOYMENT.  TO  GIVE  A  REPRESENTATIVE  VIEW  OF  THE  SITUATION, 

INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED FROM 206 PROJECT PROMOTERS CHOSEN 

RANDOMLY ACROSS THE EU.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS