COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Ex post evaluations of major projects in the transport and environmental sectors financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013
Date: 2020-02-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU Member State, EU environmental policy, European Regional Development Fund, coordination of financing, direct investment, economic and social cohesion, environmental protection, investment project, principle of additionality

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.2.2020  SWD(2020) 44 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Ex post evaluations of major projects in the transport and environmental sectors financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund between 2000 and 2013 {SWD(2020) 43 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

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

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

The objectives of environmental investments are to preserve and improve the environment1 in 
line  with  Treaty2  obligations  and  the  acquis  communautaire.  Cohesion  policy  support  for 
large-scale transport projects has helped to improve connectivity at EU and national level, and 
encouraged the development of sustainable transport.  

Large-scale  infrastructure  projects  in  both  fields  involve  significant  investments  under 
operational programmes supported by the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund. In the two periods in 
question,  such  projects  exceeding  a  certain  financial  size3  qualified  as  ‘major  projects’  and 
were subject to special rules involving an assessment procedure and specific approval by the 
European Commission.  

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

The  two  evaluations  follow  the  same  methodology,  each  focusing  on  a  sample  of  10 
large-scale  infrastructure  projects  selected  on  the  basis  of  a  well-defined  set  of  criteria  that 
sought  to  ensure  geographical4  and  sectoral5  balance  and  equal  distribution  over  the  two 
periods.  

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

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

1

2

3

4

5

See, for example, Article 1 of 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). 

  Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 
  Under  the  General  Provisions  Regulations,  the  cost  threshold  above  which  large-scale  environmental  and 
transport infrastructure projects qualified as ‘major projects’ was €50 million in 2000-2006 and 2007-2013. 
In 2007-2013, the threshold for major environmental projects was initially set at €25 million, before being 
put back to €50 million. 
The  environmental  case  studies  are  in  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Estonia,  France,  Italy,  Malta,  Poland,  Romania, 
Slovenia  and  Spain.  The  transport  case  studies  are  in  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Poland (2), Slovakia and Spain. 

  Road, rail and urban transport; drinking water, wastewater treatment, water management and remediation. 

1 

 
                                                           
 
 
2.  ASSESSMENT AGAINST EVALUATION CRITERIA  

2.1.  Effectiveness  

Large-scale infrastructure projects co-funded by the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund contribute 
to  the  achievement  of  core  cohesion  policy  goals  by  supporting  economic  growth  and 
competitiveness, and protecting and improving the environment6.  

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

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

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

2.2.  Efficiency  

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

Most  of  the  projects  experienced  time  overruns.  Delays  were  primarily  due  to  contractors’ 
underperformance,  low  technical  capacity,  slow  procurement  procedures  or  unpredicted 
exogenous factors such as adverse weather conditions. Without the assistance of JASPERS7, 
which  helped  Member  States  to  improve  project  preparation  and  streamline  the  review 
process  so  that  projects  could  be  implemented  quickly,  the  delays  could  have  been  even 
longer.  

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

Medium-  to  long-term  financial  sustainability  proved  to  be  an  issue  with  the  transport 
projects. Only two are capable of covering operation and maintenance costs through revenues. 
In the other cases, financial sustainability is mainly ensured through public funding. Seven of 
the  environmental  projects  are  generating  revenues  that  ensure  their  long-term  financial 
sustainability.  All  the water and  waste projects  collect  revenues from  end-users in  line with 

6

7

  Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the 
European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25); 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R1083&from=EN 
Joint assistance to support projects in European regions (JASPERS). 

2 

 
                                                           
 
 
the ‘polluter pays’ principle8. Risk reduction projects, on the other hand, rely exclusively on 
government subsidies.  

2.3.  Relevance 

Large-scale  environmental  infrastructure  projects  generally  address  significant  and  clearly 
identified  environment-related  needs  for  intervention.  Compliance  with  EU  legislation  is  a 
significant  driver  for  such  projects,  particularly  in  the  fields  of  wastewater  treatment  and 
waste  management.  However,  it  is  generally  not  an  objective  per  se,  but  instrumental  in 
prioritising needs and investments. This is a peculiarity of the environmental sector; it was not 
so evident in the transport sector.  

Almost all the transport projects addressed well-identified development needs. In some cases 
(e.g.  the  Malaga  project),  these  were  particularly  urgent  and  called  for  immediate 
intervention.  Other  projects  (e.g. the  Greek  project)  addressed  longstanding  mobility  issues. 
All the projects reflected priorities established at national or EU level, e.g. six are part of the 
TEN-T network.  

2.4.  Coherence  

Most  of  the  selected  projects  were  generally  consistent  with  other  interventions  at  various 
(EU, national, regional or local) levels. In the case of the transport projects, while consistency 
with  broader  EU,  national  and  regional  priorities  was  generally  ensured,  consistency  with 
more local and/or specific priorities was sometimes less obvious. 

The  environmental  projects  (primarily  those  to  do  with  wastewater  treatment  and  waste 
management) were coherent with the environmental framework and, in several cases, played a 
major role in pushing national and regional administrations to comply with the environmental 
acquis. This was particularly relevant in the EU-13 Member States.  

2.5.  EU added value  

For most of the projects, the availability of a significant proportion of EU funding was critical 
in enabling or accelerating implementation, and thus the achievement of the objectives. This 
is  probably  the  most  obvious  and  most  widely  recognised  dimension  of  EU  added  value. 
Some of the projects would have been implemented even without EU funding.  

For both types of project, the technical assistance provided by the EU institutions contributed 
to the development of administrative capacity and institutional learning, particularly in EU-13 
Member States.  

From a more strategic point of view, the environmental projects made a major contribution to 
compliance  with  the  environmental  acquis  and  broader  EU  sustainable  development 
strategies. Compliance with the acquis was also a key driver for investment prioritisation. In 
some  cases,  EU  support  facilitated  innovative  and  complex  investments  with  demonstrative 
value  and  enabling  knowledge  transfer.  Environmental  issues  are  often  transboundary  in 
nature and require action at international level; in some cases, EU support triggered positive 
transboundary effects that may not have been attainable through Member State action alone.  

Likewise,  for  most  of  the  transport  projects,  EU  support  was  relevant  in  pushing  national 
authorities  to  adopt  a  more  strategic  approach,  by  prioritising  investments  in  TEN-T 
infrastructure  over  national  or  regional  transport  priorities,  improving  project  design  and 
ensuring  a  better  allocation  of  resources.  Apart  from  having  a  positive  effect  on 

8

  Article 191(2) TFEU. 

3 

 
                                                           
implementation, this helped Member States to align their transport network systems with EU 
standards in terms of technical design and service performance.  

Both  ex  post  evaluations  found  that  project  quality  at  entry,  project  governance  and  project 
management were the main determinants of success. On the other hand, forecasting capacity, 
especially  as  regards  future  demand  and  design  flexibility,  emerged  as  problematic 
determinants of performance.  

3. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The evaluations of a sample of large-scale  transport and environment  infrastructure projects 
co-funded  by  the  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund,  though  not  statistically  representative,  have 
delivered  generally  valid  insights  into  the  long-term  effects  of  these  projects.  They  have 
confirmed the importance of EU support for these projects in achieving EU objectives.  

By  supporting  large-scale  transport  projects,  cohesion  policy  has  made  a  significant 
contribution  to  improving  connectivity  at  EU  and  national  level  and  encouraged  the 
development  of  sustainable  transport.  Investments  have  improved  accessibility  in  the 
countries  and  regions  concerned  and  paved  the  way  for  increased  trade  with  the  rest  of  the 
EU, which is vital for economic development.  

Large-scale  environmental  infrastructure  projects  have  made  a  major  contribution  to 
compliance with the acquis and broader EU sustainable development strategies. Compliance 
with the environmental  acquis was  a key driver for investment prioritisation. In most cases, 
the objectives would not have been achieved – or their achievement would have been delayed 
– in the absence of a critical proportion of EU funding.  

Project  quality  at  entry,  forecasting  capacity,  project  governance  and  project  management 
proved  to  be  the  main  determinants  of  success.  On  the  other  hand,  the  long-term  financial 
sustainability of EU-funded transport projects proved to be a challenge.  

Some  of  the  critical  points  identified  in  respect  of  the  2000-2006  and  2007-2013 
programming  periods  have  been  addressed  in  the  current  period,  particularly  with  the 
introduction in the regulations of ‘ex ante conditionalities’ for the effective and efficient use 
of funds.  

In  the  future,  the  environment  will  remain  a  priority  for  EU  cohesion  policy,  which  will 
continue  to  support  large  infrastructure  projects  in  the  sector  thanks  to  a  specific  policy 
objective  targeting  a  greener,  low-carbon  Europe9.  The  ‘thematic  concentration’  provisions 
proposed  by  the  Commission,  whereby  Member  States  would  have  to  devote  a  greater 
proportion  of their  resources  to  policy objectives such as ‘a smarter Europe’ and  ‘a  greener 
Europe’, would further boost the environmental benefits of cohesion policy.  

Support for large-scale transport infrastructure remains strategically relevant at EU, national 
and  regional  levels,  as  it  improves  connectivity  and  social  and  territorial  cohesion,  and 
encourages the development of sustainable transport. The Commission  proposes to  continue 
to  fund  large-scale  transport  infrastructure  through  the  ERDF,  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  the 
Connecting Europe Facility, in order to promote sustainable, climate-resilient and intelligent 
mobility. 

9  Article 4(1)(b) of Commission proposal for a Regulation laying down common provisions - COM(2018) 375 

final);  
Article  2(1)(b)  of  Commission  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  the  ERDF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  - 
COM(2018) 372 final).  

4 

 
                                                           
 
The Commission’s proposals for the next programming period drop the procedural distinction 
between projects above and below a specific threshold. All projects, regardless of their size, 
would undergo an enhanced selection procedure incorporating some features of the old ‘major 
projects’  approach.  The  clear  prioritisation  of  projects  is  designed  to  maximise  the 
contribution of EU funding to the achievement of the programme’s objectives.  

Achievement of these objectives would be further supported by the proposed introduction of 
new enabling conditions replacing and reinforcing the 2014-2020 ex ante conditionalities for 
both transport and environmental investments. The two-tier approach requiring a cost/benefit 
analysis  (CBA)  only  for  projects  above  a  certain  threshold  would  be  discontinued.  To 
prioritise  projects  offering  the  best  value  for  money,  programme  authorities  will  need  a 
suitable assessment tool or mechanism. Member States will be free to choose what form this 
takes,  but  it  is  likely  that  many  will  continue  to  use  CBAs,  given  their  experience  from 
previous periods and the straightforwardness of the tool. 

The Commission’s proposal  would require that the most important  projects  from  a strategic 
perspective be explicitly included in the programme and be subject to heightened monitoring 
in discussions with the monitoring committee, and with the Commission in the annual review 
process. They would also be subject to stricter visibility and communication requirements. 

5