REPORT 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 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013
Date: 2013-04-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competitiveness, economic and social cohesion, economic growth, innovation, job creation, regional development, research and development, youth unemployment

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 18.4.2013  
COM(2013) 210 final 

REPORT 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 2013  
on programme implementation 2007-2013 

{SWD(2013) 129 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT 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 2013  
on programme implementation 2007-2013 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  provides  the  second  strategic  overview  of  the  implementation  of  the 
2007-2013  cohesion  policy  programmes  which  are  due  to  end  in  2015.  The  first 
report was presented in March 2010. This report summarises the 27 strategic reports 
presented by the Member States at the end of 20121.  

Cohesion policy invests to modernise national and regional economies by supporting 
innovation  and  job  creation  in  SMEs,  R&D,  labour  markets  and  human  capital,  by 
building  key  network  infrastructures,  protecting  the  environment,  enhancing  social 
inclusion  and  building  administrative  capacity.  Effective  implementation  of  the 
policy has become even more important since 2008 in view of the economic crisis as 
it ensures continued public investment in the context of fiscal consolidation in many 
Member States. 

The  reports  provide  an  overview  of  the  socio-economic  challenges  Member  States 
are  facing  and  the  implementation  of  the  EU  funded  programmes  in  a  period  of 
historic  difficulty.  In  so  doing,  they  contribute  to  strengthen  transparency  on  and 
accountability for the delivery of cohesion policy objectives. 
An accompanying Staff Working Document2 explains how the Commission set about 
assessing progress and presents 13 thematic fact sheets drawing together material on 
implementation.  

This report shows that, since the 2010 report, implementation has accelerated making 
important contributions to many areas necessary for sustaining growth and creating 
jobs.  Equally,  evidence  points  to  clear  progress  towards  the  objectives  set  at  the 
beginning of the period. 

The policy has also demonstrated its capacity to adapt to changing circumstances and 
to  respond  effectively  to  the  crisis.  That  said,  significant  and  additional  results  are 
still  expected  from  the  programmes  up  until the  end  of  2015  and  it  is  important  to 
maintain and even redouble the efforts made so far. 

Finally, the Commission has proposed significant changes for the 2014-2020 period 
related  to  many  of  the  issues  analysed  in  this  report:  concentration  of  resources, 
focus  on  results,  reliable  reporting  against  common  indicators,  a  performance 
framework and evaluation. This report and the accompanying documentation support 
the relevance of the changes proposed.  

1 

2 

Articles  29-30  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1083/2006.  The  publicly  available  reports  are  here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/strategic_report_en.cfm.  
SWD(2013) 129 final, 18.04.2013. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

SOCIO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS AND TRENDS 

The  financial  and  economic  crisis  that  started  in  2008  has  dramatically  altered  the 
context for cohesion policy programmes. In 2008 GDP growth in the EU was already 
very low (0.3%), but in 2009 it shrank by more than 4%. In 2010 and 2011, the EU 
returned to positive growth rates, but a further contraction is likely to have occurred 
in  20123.  The  recession  has  been  particularly  severe  in  the  Baltic  States,  Greece, 
Ireland,  Portugal  and  Spain.  The  Baltic  States  and  Ireland  have  managed  to  switch 
back  to  a  positive  growth  path  and  are  forecast  to  continue  growing.  Portugal  and 
Spain will still be in recession in 2012 and 2013 but are expected to return to positive 
growth  in  2014.  Cyprus,  and  Greece,  however,  are  faced  with  continuing  GDP 
decline4. 

Employment in the EU has declined significantly since the onset of the crisis. Over 
the  five  years  to  the  last  quarter  of  2012  six  million  jobs  were  lost.  After  a  slight 
recovery  from  early  2010  it  has  been  trending  down  since  mid-  2011.  The  fourth 
quarter of 2012 saw a decline in employment by 0.4% compared with the 4th quarter 
of 2011. 

Unemployment stood at 10.8 % in January 2013 compared to 8.1 % in January 2009. 
The  latest  data  show  clearly  the  divergence  among  Member  States,  especially 
between the North and South of the Eurozone. The unemployment rate gap between 
these two areas was 3.5 points in 2000, it fell to zero in 2007, but then widened to 
10.5  points  in  December  2012.  The  gap  between  the  highest  and  lowest 
unemployment rates, 4.9 % (AT - January 2013) and 27.0 % (EL - November 2012), 
is  the  biggest  ever.  The  weakness  in  economic  activity  will  continue  to  negatively 
affect  labour  markets.  The  unemployment  rate  in  the  EU  is  expected  to  increase 
further to 11 % in 2013 and 2014. 

The economic downturn also triggered a sharp deterioration in the business climate 
and  in  consumer  confidence.  Total  investments  (gross  fixed  capital  formation) 
dropped from 21% of GDP in 2008 to 18% in 2012. Exports of goods and services 
and foreign direct investments declined rapidly in 2009, but have since recovered. 
Evidence5  suggests  that  the  economic  crisis  and  the  responses  to  it  are  leading  to 
widening regional disparities, e.g. between capital or manufacturing regions and less 
developed or peripheral regions. 

3. 

THE CRISIS: PROBLEMS AND RESPONSES 

The negative shocks of the crisis were not felt evenly or simultaneously in Member 
States, regions and cities. Many national reports reflect broad trends, but the timing 
and intensity vary. 

Some  programmes  experienced  a  decline  in  demand  for  longer  term  support  for 
innovation,  a  decline  in  the  size  of  certain  projects,  and  longer  timescales  for 
delivery. At the same time, there has been a growing demand for, or resort to, such 
measures  as  labour  market  interventions,  generic  business  support  and  access  to 
finance for SMEs. Many programmes are facing problems with national or regional 

3 
4 
5 

AGS 2013, november 2012 - http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/ags2013_en.pdf.  
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2013/pdf/ee1_en.pdf. 
8th Progress Report, forthcoming. 
See  also  DG  REGIO  Expert  Evaluation  network  "Achievements  of  Cohesion  Policy  Synthesis  report  2012" 
(ERDF/ Cohesion Fund) Section 2 - http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/evaluations/index_en.cfm  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
co-financing6  and  with  exchange  rate  variations7  but  are  also,  more  positively, 
experiencing a decline in construction costs8. 

Fiscal  consolidation  has  hit  government  fixed  investment  particularly  hard:  it 
declined by 12% in real terms in the two years 2009 to 2011 across the EU and by at 
least  this  amount  in  BG,  RO,  ES,  GR  and  PT.  The  ERDF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund 
support  is  equivalent  to  over  a  third  of  annual  government  capital  expenditure  in 
most  EU12  countries  over  the  programming  period.  Since,  however,  much  of  the 
total  available  funding  has  yet  to  be  paid  to  Member  States,  the  amount  still  to  be 
claimed  until  the  end  of  the  period  is  equivalent  to  around  half  or  more  of  annual 
capital spending in 8 of the EU12 countries and to almost a third in GR and PT. It is 
also  of  a  similar  size  in  the  Convergence  regions  of  ES  and  IT.  These  figures 
underline  the  critical  importance  of  cohesion  policy  funding  for  development 
expenditure in many parts of the EU9. 

To respond to these challenges, the EU institutions reacted swiftly by mobilising all 
instruments available and, where necessary, by adapting them. 

3.1. 

Programme flexibility 

Almost EUR 36 billion – or 11% of the total funds – were reprogrammed from one 
thematic area to another by the end of 2012 to support the most pressing needs and 
strengthen  certain  interventions.  Of  that,  more  than  EUR  30  billion  concerned  the 
ERDF and Cohesion Fund and nearly EUR 5.5 billion the ESF. 

The  main  changes  have  brought  about  increases  for  innovation  and  R&D,  generic 
business support, sustainable energy, cultural and social infrastructure, roads and the 
labour  market.  Reductions  have  affected  ICT  services,  environment  measures,  rail, 
other  transport,  training  and  education  and  capacity  building  measures  –  all  areas 
with  reduced  demand  because  of  the  crisis  or  where  programmed  resources  proved 
over-ambitious. 

The  Commission  supported  Member  States  in  this  reprogramming  work.  First,  it 
established  in  July  2011,  a  Task  Force  to  help  Greece  delivery  the  EU/IMF 
adjustment programme and speed up its absorption of EU funds. Then, the European 
Council endorsed in 2012 the Youth/SME Action Teams in selected Member States 
to address the youth employment challenges (see 4.1). 

3.2. 

Other anti-crisis measures 

As  part  of  their  response  to  the  financial  crisis,  the  EU  institutions  agreed  to  a 
package  of  measures  to  promote  simplification  and  improve  the  flow  of  EU 
financing10. Four measures are again widely mentioned in the 2012 national reports: 

•  Improving  cash  flow  of  programme  authorities:  additional  EU  advance 
payments,  made  in  2009,  of  EUR  6.25  billion  were  used  to  pre-finance  mainly 
public beneficiaries (e.g., municipalities). 

•  Declaration of expenditure related to major projects not yet approved: used 

by nearly all Member States with large infrastructure projects. 

6 
7 
8 
9 

10 

CZ, GR, IT, PL, PT, RO, and SK. 
PL and UK. 
BG and PL. 
Expert evaluation network on the performance of Cohesion policy 2007-2013. Synthesis of National Reports 2012: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/evaluations/index_en.cfm#1.  
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2007/working/economic_crisis_sec20101291.pdf  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Simplification  or  rationalisation  of  national  or  regional  procedures:  more 
rapid  implementation  was  secured,  by  paying  advances  to  public  authorities  and 
by increasing advances to enterprises under state aid schemes11. 

•  Reduction  of  national  co-financing:  Respecting  the  regulatory  ceiling,  the 
Commission approved reductions in national co-financing requirements for some 
Member  States  (ES,  GR,  IE,  IT,  LT,  and  PT  and  to  a  lesser  extent  BE,  FR  and 
UK).  Moreover,  the  EU  institutions  approved  further  reductions  in  national  co-
financing  by  temporarily  increasing  co-financing  rates  up  to  95%  for  Member 
States with the greatest budgetary difficulties (GR, HU, IE, LV, PT and RO). The 
effect  of  lower  national  public  co-financing  is  to  reduce  the  total  programme 
investment volumes by around EUR 15.5 billion – some 3.1% of the total planned 
investment  or  nearly  11%  of  national  public  co-financing.  The  largest  relative 
reductions in public co-financing occurred in IE, PT, LV, GR, and ES and ranged 
from 26% (ES) to 47% (IE). The objective has been to take pressure away from 
national  budgets  at  time  of  crisis  while  at  the  same  time  ensuring  continued 
investment in projects with growth and job creation potential. 

Other implementation challenges  
While  reports  cite  the  crisis  as  the  main  cause  of  difficulties,  some12  identify  other 
contributing  factors.  Those  include  the  late  start  of  the  programmes  due  to  the 
extension  of  the  previous  period,  an  underlying  lack  (or  even  decline)  in 
administrative capacity, the challenges in preparing major infrastructure projects and 
obtaining  Commission  approval,  changes  in  legislation,  inconsistent  political 
ownership (changes in national and regional government, changes to institutions) and 
the effects of national sectoral reforms. 

3.3. 

4. 

CONTRIBUTION TO COMPETITIVENESS AND JOB CREATION 

Cohesion policy programmes were designed to contribute to the Lisbon Strategy for 
growth  and  jobs.  The  Lisbon  Strategy  was  succeeded  in  2010  by  the  Europe  2020 
Strategy. Successive European Councils have confirmed the EU2020 objectives and 
the June 2012 European Council Conclusions on the Compact for Growth and Jobs 
emphasised  the  role  of  the  Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds  in  supporting  those 
objectives. 

Most  Member  States  state  that  their  initial  investment  strategies  and  objectives 
continue to be valid despite the sharp, crisis induced change in the  socio-economic 
context. The majority of reports are optimistic that the programmes will attain most 
of their objectives. 

A  number  of  reports  underline  that  cohesion  policy  has  been  instrumental  in 
sustaining  public  investment  in  vital  economic  areas  such  as  research  and 
development,  SME  support  and  sustainable  energy,  re-industrialisation,  social 
inclusion, reforms in education and training systems and labour market challenges. 

Financial  Instruments  have  been  used  in  nearly  all  Member  States  to  support 
investment  and  job  creation  in  SMEs  in  a  period  of  deleveraging  by  the  financial 
sector. At the end of 2011, cohesion programmes had contributed more than EUR 8.9 

11 
12 

BG, CY, ES, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, SI, and UK 
BG, IT, LT, LV, PL, RO, SI, and SK.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
billion  (4.4%  of  the  total  ERDF)  to  financial  instruments  for  enterprises,  of  which 
more than EUR 3.6 billion (40%) had been paid to enterprises. 

The importance of the ESF in dealing with the crisis depends on its role in supporting 
the  labour  market.  For  those  Member  States  badly  hit  by  the  crisis  but  with  the 
capacity to respond, the ESF has been the main source of support for active labour 
market  policies.  It  has  helped  to  strengthen  these  policies  in  Member  States  facing 
budgetary  restrictions  where,  historically,  there  had  been  a  tendency  to  support 
mainly  passive  measures.  In  these  countries,  changes  in  programmes  were  directly 
linked to changes in labour market policies. 

Several Member States emphasise the role that the ERDF and ESF play in fostering 
national  reform  efforts,  particularly  in  the  field  of  better  regulation,  reform  of 
education systems, the labour market, public administration, and structural reforms in 
the  water  sector.  In  addition,  the  ESF  has  fostered  capacity  building  for  the  social 
partners. 

Member States also describe action they have taken in response to country-specific 
recommendations endorsed by the EU Council. For example, PL reports on remedial 
actions  such  as  a  railway  plan,  higher  education  reform  and  linking  science  and 
business  through  'Building  on  knowledge'.  LT  reports  on  measures  to  tackle  high 
unemployment,  as  well  as  to  improve  energy  efficiency  in  buildings.  The  UK 
underlines  the  role  of  cohesion  policy  in  fostering  regional  productivity  and 
stimulating growth and employment. 

4.1. 

Focusing on Youth and SMEs 

In January 2012 the European Council endorsed an initiative for Youth/SME Action 
Teams in the eight Member States that were worst affected by youth unemployment. 
As a result of the work of the Action Teams13 of Commission officials and national 
representatives,  an  estimated  additional  780,000  young  people  are  likely  to  benefit 
from the ESF reallocations for youth employment and training programmes. ERDF 
measures under this initiative could support an additional 54,800 SMEs compared to 
what was originally planned. These results demonstrate the ambitious action taken by 
a number of Member States to respond to high levels of youth unemployment. 

4.2. 

Quantifying progress in delivering policy objectives 

The  reports  contain  a  wealth  of  information  and  data.  This  is  the  first  programme 
period in which the Commission can aggregate and analyse data relating to common 
output indicators in annual implementation reports and the national strategic reports. 
These  data  show  that  cohesion  policy  has  delivered  tangible  results  on  the  ground 
and that there is a considerable acceleration in outputs and results reported in 2011 
compared to previous years. 

The following concrete achievements reported by the programmes can be aggregated 
to European level14. 

• 

Almost 400,000 jobs have been created to date, of which 190 000 since 2010. 
This includes : 

– 

– 

more than 15 600 research jobs (9 500 since 2010) 

more than 167 000 jobs in SMEs (69 100 since 2010) 

13 
14 

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/barroso/report_en.pdf  
More details by Member State can be found in the thematic factsheets which accompany this report. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The largest number of new jobs reported were in the UK, IT, DE, ES, PL and 
HU. This demonstrates that cohesion policy support has a positive and in some 
cases significant counter-cyclical effect on employment. 

Support  has  been  given  to  53 240  RTD  projects  and  16 000  co-operation 
projects between enterprises and research institutions. 

53 160 start-ups have been supported (28 000 since 2010) mostly in the EU15 
but with significant numbers also in HU and PL. 

Nearly  1.9  million  more  people  now  have  broadband  access  (concentrated  in 
ES, FR, IE, IT). 

1 222 megawatts of additional electricity generation capacity has been created 
from renewables since 2007 mostly in the EU1515. 

2.6  million  more  people  are  now  served  by  water  supply  projects  and  5.7 
million more people by waste water projects. 

Over  5 000  transport  projects  have  been  launched  and  outputs  are  becoming 
visible on the ground: 460 km of TEN-T roads and 334 km of TEN-T rail16. 

Nearly 3.4 million people have access to improved urban transport. 

Over  19 000  educational  infrastructure  projects  have  received  support, 
benefiting 3.4 million students, mostly in IT, but with significant achievements 
also in BG, ES, GR. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

For  the  ESF,  a  significant  acceleration  in  the  number  of  participants  took  place 
between 2009 and 2010 (from 10 to over 15 million participants annually) and this 
high level has been maintained. The profile of participants is very diverse reflecting 
different national conditions and the priorities for ESF support. From 2007 to the end 
of 2011, Member States reported the following results: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

There  were  12.5  million  participants  in  ESF  actions  to  support  access  to 
employment  through  training  or  other  forms  of  assistance.  Two  thirds  of  all 
participants were inactive or unemployed. As a result, 2.4 million found a job 
within  6  months  of  completing  the  intervention,  a  significant  achievement 
given the economic downturn. 

15  million  participants  were  young  (under  24  years)  and  the  figure  increased 
significantly  in  2010  and  2011  in  response  to  the  crisis.  In  DE,  FR  and  HU 
young people account for 40% or more of all participants. 

Nearly half (46%) of participants have lower secondary education at most. In 
DE,  GR  and  MT  they  account  for  over  60%  of  all  participants  but  less  than 
20% in FI, SE, SI and CY. In CY, EE, LT and SI, 40% or more have tertiary 
education. 

In  the  area  of  lifelong  learning  (LLL),  the  ESF  supported  around  5  million 
young people. Regarding the education profile, 5.5 million participants had low 
skills17. 

15 

16 

17 

This figure is understated as regions and Member States using different measurement units had to be excluded from 
the aggregation. 
These numbers are due to increase significantly in the next months as the delivery of major infrastructure projects 
takes time and many outputs will only become available at the very end of the programming period. 
For lifelong learning, data quoted cover the period from 2007 to end 2010.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

So  far,  over  14.5  million  final  recipients  were  covered  and  a  broad  range  of 
target groups reached in the area of social inclusion. 18% of participants were 
from  groups  which  are  particularly  vulnerable  on  the  labour  market.  Though 
the situation varies, UK and AT seem to be particularly successful in reaching 
out  to  people  with  some  form  of  disability.  Others,  notably  AT,  CY,  NL  and 
LV are successful in using the ESF to support people from a minority or with 
migrant background. 

About  700,000  participants,  notably  civil  servants,  have  upgraded  their  skills 
with  ESF  support.  Four  Member  States  (BG,  GR,  HU,  and  RO)  implement  a 
programme explicitly dedicated to institutional capacity building. 

Over  half  of  ESF  participants  (52%)  are  women,  which  is  in  line  with  the 
overall ESF goal to promote equal opportunities and raise the average level of 
women's  participation  in  the  workforce.  In  CY,  EE,  LT,  LV  they  amount  to 
more than 60%. 

This information provides important insights on implementation that we did not have 
before, even if it does not cover the full effects of the policy as many other indicators 
cannot be aggregated. While the Commission notes considerable progress in recent 
years in the quality of reporting, many programme authorities can make greater use 
of core indicators for the ERDF/CF and improve the accuracy of reporting. Greater 
use of common result indicators is also needed for the ESF. Data covering up to end 
2012  will  be  available  in  mid  2013.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  publish  the 
reported data until closure in 2017. 

4.3. 

Evaluation evidence 

Evaluation gauges how programme activities feed into policy objectives and plays an 
important role in informing policy debate. The evaluation requirements on Member 
States during this programming period do not specify a need for impact evaluation. 
The  evidence  generated  relates  to  specific  needs  of  Managing  Authorities.  Some, 
notably Poland and Italy, have carried out many evaluations to date, many on a small 
scale,  but  including  some  more  strategic  studies.  France  and  Sweden  have  drawn 
together all their evaluation findings. 

In  the  first  half  of  the  programming  period  the  evaluations  were  mostly  process-
oriented, designed to contribute to a smoother implementation of programmes and to 
justify  programme  changes.  A  large  number  of  mid-term  evaluations  were  carried 
out  (systematically  in  DE,  FR,  NL,  UK).  The  evaluations  tended  to  confirm  the 
validity of the initial strategy, though several recommended adjustments in both the 
allocation  of  funding  and  implementation  procedures.  The  impact  of  the  economic 
crisis was often the principal reason for changes being made. 

From  2011  more  evaluations  were  launched  to  assess  the  effects  of  programmes. 
While it is impossible to aggregate results across Member States, a review of these 
evaluations  for  DG  Regional  and  Urban  Policy18  found  a  growing  number  of 
evaluations  of  RTDI  and  enterprise  support  measures  with  fewer  for  infrastructure 
(unsurprising  since  these  interventions  take  longer  to  deliver).  Evaluations  record 
positive  results  for  RTDI.  In  many  cases,  interventions  generated  a  critical  mass 

18

EN 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/expert_innovation/2011_s

ynthesis_national_reports.pdf 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
which enabled a leap forward in national or regional R&D activity. The majority of 
enterprise support evaluations also reported positive results. 

The  number  of  evaluations  of  ESF  programmes  increased  significantly  since  2010. 
They show that the ESF relevance has increased dramatically since the beginning of 
the  programming  period,  though  the  crisis  has  had  a  negative  role  on  ESF 
effectiveness. 

The  Commission  has  been  evaluating  the  current  programmes  using  two  expert 
evaluation networks and continues this work. The ex-post evaluation of the current 
period  is  required  by  end-2015.  The  Commission's  work  is  dependent  on  the 
availability of monitoring systems and evaluations in the Member States and regions. 
There  is  clearly  a  need  for  more  high  quality  evaluations  of  the  effects  of 
interventions,  both  during  the  current  period  and  in  the  future.  In  the  2014-2020 
programming  period,  there  will  be  a  requirement  for  Managing  Authorities  to 
produce  an  evaluation  plan  and  to  evaluate  the  contribution  of  cohesion  policy 
interventions to achieving the objectives of programmes. 

4.4. 

Absorption of Funds  

The  figures  of  section  4.2  tell  only  part  of  the  story  as  there  is  a  timelag  to  the 
delivery  of  outputs  and  results  and  not  all  indicators  can  be  aggregated  to  the  EU 
level.  They  can  be  complemented  by  financial  information  on  the  rate  of  project 
selection and the expenditure declared to the Commission. 

Project selection trends 

Five years into the programming period and four years before the end, the reported 
financial  volume  of  projects  selected  was  EUR  246  billion  representing  71%  of 
available EU resources. Graph 1 shows the variation in the selection of projects by 
theme,  with  some  themes  (e.g.,  roads,  other  business  support,  social  infrastructure 
and  culture  heritage  and  tourism)  ahead  of  the  average  with  others  behind  (e.g., 
innovation and R&D, rail, IT services and broadband, energy and capacity building). 
The  latter  group  includes  areas  where  administrations  have  less  experience  of 
delivering  schemes  (innovation,  ICT,  capacity  building)  as  well  as  areas  like  rail, 
which  are  traditionally  more  complex  to  deliver  than  other  infrastructures.  Behind 
the averages there are considerable differences between Member States. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Graph 1: Rate of project selection by major themes - 2007-2011 

While  the  detailed  2012  figures  will  not  be  formally  notified  until  mid  201319,  the 
latest  estimates  put  aggregate  project  selection  by  end  2012  at  88%,  with  around 
EUR 304 billion now allocated to projects. 

Payment trends 

The  progress  in  project  selection  and  payments  varies  between  Member  States  as 
shown  in  Graph  2.  It  has  progressed  significantly  during  2012.  Since  there  is  a 
systemic delay between expenditure occuring on the ground and its being declared to 
the Commission, progress is underestimated. Still, for those Member States which lie 
significantly below the average there is a risk, unless things speed up significantly, of 
projects not being implemented in the programming period. 

The picture across Member States is very diverse. Absorption is higher in AT, BE, 
DE,  EE,  IE,  LT,  PT  and  SE.  The  expenditure  rates  are  especially  slow  in  BG,  CZ, 
HU,  IT,  MT,  SK  and,  in  particular,  RO.  There  is  a  growing  risk  in  these  countries 
that by not mobilising the available EU funds promptly a significant volume of them 
will be lost and the intended objectives not achieved. 

The  rate  of  expenditure  is  broadly  similar  across  the  funds.  However,  ESF 
expenditure  is  in  advance  of  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund  expenditurein  AT,  IT,  LV, 
PT, with ERDF/CF in advance of ESF in BG, GR, HU, NL and SE. 

19 

This information will only be available by theme on receipt of the 2012 Annual Implementation Reports (end June 
2013). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Graph  2:  Reported  aggregate  rates  of  project  selection  (2007-2011)  and  payments 
declared by Member States (2007-January 2013) 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

There is clear and growing evidence of programmes delivering across many policy 
priorities and Member States. 

Cumulative  figures  on  core  indicators  reported  for  the  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund 
programmes demonstrate the important contributions these programmes are making 
in  many  areas  where  investment  is  necessary  in  terms  of  economic  modernisation 
and  competitiveness.  There  was  a  very  significant  increase  in  outputs  reported  in 
2011  compared  to  previous  years.  For  the  ESF  very  large  numbers  of  people  are 
benefiting  from  the  programmes  which  are  investing  in  access  to  employment, 
education and training, social inclusion, and administrative capacity building. 

Cohesion policy programmes have shown that they have the flexibility to respond 
to the crisis… 

The inbuilt flexibility of cohesion policy has enabled regional and national needs to 
be  met  during  the  crisis.  More  than  11%  of  the  available  budget  has  been 
reprogrammed since the beginning of the period. Significant reprogramming in 2011 
and 2012 ensured that programmes continued to be aligned with changing needs. 

…. but with much still to be delivered and risks in some strategic areas. 

Significant results are still expected from these programmes over the next 33 months 
delivering job creation and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Member States 
and  regions  must  redouble  their  efforts  and  implement  the  selected  projects  by  the 
end  of  2015.  Such  an  effort  would  also  make  an  important  contribution  to  the 
objectives of the Compact for Growth and Jobs launched by the European Council in 
June 2012. 

This  will  be  challenging  for  two  reasons.  As  the  policy  discussion  is  turning 
increasingly  to  future  programmes,  attention  may  switch  to  the  new  programming 
period.  In  addition,  the  pressure  on  national  finances  may  make  it  hard  for  some 
regions to find the co-financing to implement the programmes. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
In  some  Member  States  there  are  important  delays  in  the  areas  of  innovation  and 
R&D, rail, IT services and broadband, energy and capacity building. Some Member 
States may seek to reprogramme in 2014-15 towards areas where it is easier to spend 
money (such as local roads). Any further re-programming should be clearly oriented 
toward investments which maximise the impact on growth and jobs and be carefully 
assessed to maximise the possibility for effective implementation at this late stage in 
the programming period. 

The Commission is willing to consider reductions in national co-financing. 

Any such reductions should, however, be conditional on (a) ensuring that they help 
to deliver the high priority areas for the policy, such as innovation in SMEs, energy 
efficiency and renewables, rail, education and social inclusion, and capacity building, 
and  (b)  earmarking  the  national  resources  thus  released  for  supporting  national 
growth-enhancing  investment,  particularly  investment  with  a  short-term  and  anti-
cyclical  effect  or  whose  implementation  goes  beyond  the  end  of  the  current 
programming period. 

There  are  important  lessons  to  be  drawn  from  the  past  and  the  current 
programmes …  

Learning  from  the  late  start  of  the  2007-2013  programmes,  the  Commission  will 
continue  to  urge  the  adoption  of  all  necessary  legislative  acts  to  avoid  delays  in 
starting  the  new  programmes.  It  will  also  work  closely  with  the  Member  States  on 
the adoption of the new programmes and has already initiated informal preparations 
with  all  Member  States.  The  Commission  recalls  that  eligibility  under  the  current 
period  ends  in  December  201520  and  Member  States  must  manage  the  overlap  of 
current  and  future  programmes  to  avoid  delays  in  investment  under  the  new 
programmes. 

…and evaluation and use of indicators needs to be strengthened … 

It is important that Member States and managing authorities continue to evaluate the 
impact of interventions supported for the remainder of this programming period. This 
will lead to better understanding the quality of investments and which measures are 
most effective and why. 

Equally  important  is  to  consolidate  the  use  and  monitoring  of  indicators,  and  of 
common  indicators  in  particular.  This  is  a  central  feature  of  the  next  programming 
period. 

… and better programming is needed for the future.  

The 2007-2013 programmes have strong mechanisms for tracking the flow of money 
and  absorption,  but  weaker  ones  for  setting,  monitoring  and  evaluating  objectives. 
The reports are therefore strong on absorption but struggle to provide a convincing 
narrative,  supported  by  quantified  information  on  progress  in  achieving  objectives. 
This  report  and  its  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document  are  a  first  attempt  to 
analyse the inputs, outputs and results reported by Member States. The Commission 
believes that public debate on these facts and figures will give an important incentive 
to  Member  States  and  regions  to  improve  the  quality  of  their  reporting.  Ultimately 
this feedback loop will contribute to more effective delivery of policy objectives. 

20 

Article 56.1, Council Regulation (EC) N° 1083/2006. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The analysis undertaken for this report confirms the relevance of the proposals made 
by the Commission for the next programming period to put in place a stronger results 
and  performance  orientation  for 
thematic  and  financial 
concentration,  ex  ante  conditions  in  place  to  ensure  investment  quality  and  prompt 
implementation,  and  regular,  reliable  and  earlier  reporting.  Good  progress  is  being 
made in agreeing this fundamental shift in policy focus with Member States and the 
European  Parliament.  This  will  deliver  more  accountability  in  the  future  for  the 
results achieved as well as the resources spent. 

the  policy,  with 

EN 

13 

   EN