Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006

on

  • 1,572 views

Development and achievements in member states: Slovakia, Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006 financed by the European regional development fund in objective 1 and 2 regions. ...

Development and achievements in member states: Slovakia, Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006 financed by the European regional development fund in objective 1 and 2 regions. Work package 1.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,572
Views on SlideShare
1,569
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 3

http://www.linkedin.com 2
http://www.lmodules.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006 Document Transcript

  • 1. The Vienna Institute for ISMERI EUROPA International Economic Studies Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000-2006 financed by the European Regional Development Fund in Objective 1 and 2 regions Work package 1: Coordination, analysis and synthesis Task 4: Development and achievements in Member States SLOVAKIA
  • 2. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ......................................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................3 MAP OF SLIVAKIA – OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS .........................................................4 1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT .............................5 2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY ..............................................6 3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS ......7 4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS .......................................10 5 AREAS OF INTERVENTION AND THE IMPLEMENTED POLICY MEASURES ....................13 6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................14 7 GLOBAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................................15 8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION..............................................................15 9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE.....................................................................................16 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................17 CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND FOI CATEGORIES .................18 TABLES ......................................................................................................................19 Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 1
  • 3. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia PREFACE This report is intended to summarise the main aspects of regional disparities, the changes in these which occurred over the 2000-2006 programming period and the principal features of regional development policy over this period in terms of the objectives, the way that it was implemented and the contribution of the Structural Funds. It also reviews the evidence on the effects of policy as regards both the direct results of expenditure in the different policy areas and the wider impact on development as such. It is based on three primary sources of information. The statistical data on regional and national developments over the period so far as possible come from Eurostat in order to ensure comparability with other studies carried out at EU level as well as with the other national reports produced as part of the ex post exercise. The data on the allocation of funding and expenditure come from the INFOVIEW database maintained by DG REGIO, which itself is based on regular information from the Member States on the allocation of funding and the payments made. Information on policy objectives, on the results of expenditure and the wider effects of this and on the procedures adopted as regards the implementation of policy comes from various programming documents and national evaluation reports as well as from impact studies which have been carried out on the actual or intended effects of programmes. The reports, therefore, are based on existing information – or more precisely, the information available at the time they were prepared (around mid-2008) – and no new evaluation has been undertaken for purposes of preparing the report. The report has been prepared by the Applica-Ismeri Europa- wiiw Consortium, which is coordinating the work on the ex post evaluation of ERDF expenditure in Objective 1 and 2 regions, working closely with a national expert who was responsible for interpreting the quantitative data and the other information indicated above.1 Although the contents of the report have been checked with officials in DG REGIO and with the national authorities, responsibility for any errors in the factual information presented or its interpretation rests with the authors and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DG REGIO or the national authorities. 1 This report was produced with the assistance of Karol Frank, The Slovak Academy of Sciences Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 2
  • 4. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Slovakia experienced favourable macroeconomic developments over the period 2000-2006. The implementation of necessary economic reforms from 1998 on laid the basis for sustainable GDP growth and convergence towards the EU average. The availability of pre- accession assistance for economic development (PHARE), for environmental and transport (ISPA), and for agricultural and rural development (SAPARD) had prepared the way for the increase in funding in 2004-2006 – essentially going to the same sectors – under the Structural Funds. The main achievement to date from pre-accession assistance is the increase in administrative capacity and experience that these instruments have brought (SCF 2003). From the sectoral perspective, the achievements in the areas covered by the operational programmes adopted were diverse. In each of the programmes, successes as well as failures can be found. Partly because of this, it is necessary to increase efforts to improve programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation further. The targets laid down in 2004 in the sectors eligible for structural support were fulfilled only in selected operational programmes and individual priority areas. High level targets in several operational programmes and priority areas were not achieved, partly because they were initially set at an unrealistic level. There is a need, therefore, to set more realistic objectives and to select appropriate measures for their achievement. The first national plan for regional development for pre-accession support was adopted in 1999, for post-accession funding in 2001, but the National Development Plan only in March 2003. Individual Ministries were late in preparing the grant schemes for smaller projects and, compared with neighbouring countries, they were around a year behind schedule. Consequently, the delayed process of documentation and legislative preparation hindered accreditation of the implementing agencies. However, the process was accelerated in the final phase of preparation for the Structural Funds and the first call for projects was launched in January 2004. The National Development Plan that was adopted in 2003 was designed in a overly complicated way and even though it was reduced from an initial 11 operational programmes to 4 in the final version, it remained unclear. Other documents have often been equally unintelligible for applicants, which has led to mistakes in project preparation. A new challenge arose from the parallel use of the Structural Funds from the 2004-2006 period as well as from the new programming period 2007-2013. Preparing and implementing two systems and different programmes at the same time was very time consuming and led to serious administrative pressure. The duplication of rules, documents Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 3
  • 5. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia and programming was confusing for applicants as well as the authorities involved and implementation bodies. MAP OF SLIVAKIA – OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 4
  • 6. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia 1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT The nature of industrialisation in Slovakia led in the past to the creation of mono-structural micro regions where often only a few large enterprises were located. This small number of large enterprises, which employed the majority of the labour force in the regions concerned, was a major structural weakness. The centrally planned location of important industries led to an “unnatural” regional distribution of energy-intensive, and environmentally damaging, production of low value added. After the communist regime came to end, in many regions it was not possible to develop these industries. Their inevitable restructuring during the transition period resulted in a severe impact on employment and economic development. After liberalisation of markets, many of the main enterprises were unable to compete causing deep structural problems across all regions. In the centrally planned economy, differences in income and productivity between regions had been minimal. Privatisation and exposure to competition during transition brought the underlying differences to the surface. As a result of these developments, unemployment emerged and then went up markedly in most parts of the country, with the major exception of Bratislavský, the capital city region, where unemployment remained well below that in the rest of the country (typically less than half the rate). Bratislavský is the only region in Slovakia not to have qualified for Objective 1 assistance during the period 2004-2006. Though it received support under Objective 2, the areas this applied to form a relatively small part of the region, only 29% of the population living in areas which were eligible for support. The regions receiving Objective 1 support over the period were the other three NUTS 2 regions - Západnéslovenský kraj, Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj. Unemployment increased most in Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj, the two most easterly regions, reaching around 20% or more. Over the 10 years 1995-2005 there were only slight reductions in unemployment rates in these two regions. In consequence, there was significant outward migration over this period, especially from Východoslovenský kraj. While unemployment fell markedly over the period 2000-2006 in Západnéslovenský kraj and Bratislavský, in the latter declining to under 5%, it fell only slightly in the other two regions (Table 1). This reflects the differential rate of job creation across the country, which in turn reflects regional differences in GDP growth. Growth of GDP per head, therefore, averaged almost 7% a year in Bratislavský over this period and in Západnéslovenský kraj, just over 4% a Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 5
  • 7. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia year, while in Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj, it was only just over 3%. Accordingly, regional disparities widened considerably over these years. Nevertheless, GDP per head in all three Objective 1 regions converged towards the EU average at a relatively rapid pace and in Bratislavský increased from just over the EU average in 1999, in purchasing power standard terms, to 42% above the average in 2005, though much of the high level is due to the effect of substantial inward commuting from other regions. In the Objective 1 regions, GDP per head was still considerably below the EU average in 2005, in Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj, well under half the average. Some positive structural changes, however, are evident even in the most depressed regions. The share of employment in agriculture went down to around 5% or below in all three Objective 1 regions, whereas it had been around 10% or higher in 1995. The counterpart of this reduction was mainly an increase in employment in basic services (distribution, HORECA and transport), though there was also some increase in business and financial services. Partly as a consequence, GDP per person employed increased in all regions by around 3.5% a year or more. 2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY Despite the high level of unemployment, Slovakia experienced favourable macroeconomic conditions throughout the 2000-2006 period, partly due to the implementation of economic reforms from 1998 on. Growth of GDP averaged almost 5% a year across the country as a whole and in the last two years of the period, after EU accession, 7.5% a year. In addition, macroeconomic policy was geared towards stability, the budget deficit being reduced substantially in the years before accession, to under 3% of GDP, and the balance of payment deficit also declining (Table 2). Moreover, inflation seems to have come down to more reasonably levels, having been over 8% in 2003, though in 2006, it was still over 4%. As part of creating the conditions for financial stability, General government expenditure has been reduced markedly over recent years, from almost 48% of GDP in 1999 to 37% in 2006. At the same time, the share of public investment in expenditure was also reduced to under 6%, implying relatively little growth of public investment in real terms. Although, therefore, the high rate of national economic growth may have favoured regional development in the past few years, the finance available for regional policy from national sources seems to have been limited. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 6
  • 8. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia 3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS Accession of Slovakia to the EU and entitlement to support from the Structural Funds was associated with a new regional division of Slovakia together with fiscal decentralisation. This division brought about a complete change in the structure of public administration, though also a number of problems. The newly formed regions lacked the necessary administrative capacity as well as management experience. This complicated the development of coherent regional planning and the new agenda has continued to be a source of substantial delays and problems with respect to EU funding. The methodology handbook for formulating the Plan for regional economic and social development was prepared and adopted by the Ministry of Regional Development and Construction only in 20042. The National Development Plan (NDP) for the period 2004–2006 introduced four programming documents, one Operational Programme (OP Basic Infrastructure) and three Sectoral Operational Programmes (SOP Industry and Services, SOP Human Resources and SOP Agriculture and Rural Development for Objective 1). It also introduced a Single Programming Document for Objective 2. The main objective was to tackle the major sources of regional disparities which were identified as being in the following areas (SCF 2003): 1. Infrastructure, 2. Human resources, 3. Industry and services, 4. Agriculture and rural development. Infrastructure The NDP emphasised the need to facilitate greater mobility, particularly for access to employment. The quality of Slovakia’s basic infrastructure varies across the country. Regions to the east are poorly-endowed compared to the more developed centres of economic activity closer to the capital in the extreme west of the country. As regards the rail network, the need was more to replace worn-out track and extend electrification than to build more lines. In the case of air transport, the immediate shortcomings, according to the NDP, related to safety and security at regional airports, which needed to be tackled as a first step to increasing their use. 2 (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 7
  • 9. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia With respect to the environment, there has been a reduction in pollution in recent year and the country has many areas of unspoilt natural beauty. Even so, problems persist from its pre-1989 industrial history and the legacy which heavy industries left behind. In addition, drinking water is of low quality in certain areas and only a small percentage of the population is connected by main drainage to waste water treatment plants. Human resources The NDP attributed the high unemployment in Slovakia to productivity growth, allied to GDP growth, being too low (even though it was high by EU15 standards) and identified the need to increase this. It also highlighted the fact that unemployment particularly affected young people, the low-skilled and older workers and that the exclusion of disadvantaged groups, especially the Roma, from employment was a particular problem. The labour market was regarded as being overly rigid, with little part-time work, teleworking or job-sharing, and labour mobility as being too low. Equally, the education sector was considered to be insufficiently oriented towards the needs of employers and ICT skills of both students and teachers were regarded as inadequate. In addition, wage differences across the regions are much less than differences in productivity and living costs, which may have negative consequences for the spread of private investment, as well as for labour mobility (CSF 2003). To address these problems, the NDP identified the main objective as the need to equip people with the relevant skills to enter or re-enter the labour market, Active labour market policy was to concentrate on providing the means for individuals to move from being dependent on state benefits to paid employment and so to contribute to the generation of income. At the same time, much attention was to be paid to ensuring that the workforce was prepared for the labour markets of the future and for the development of the knowledge society. Industry and services According to the CSF (2003), a multi-sectoral approach was to be taken to the provision of funding to viable SMEs and larger firms with the aim of enabling them to update their products and processes, create new employment opportunities and increase exports. Linked to this, support was to be given to encourage more indigenous R&D in Slovakia to spark innovation and boost GDP. A particular opportunity was identified to exist in developing renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency, potentially resulting in benefits to both the economy and the environment. Because of a largely unexploited cultural and natural heritage, tourism was considered to have particular potential for development as a source of foreign exchange earnings. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 8
  • 10. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia Agriculture and rural development Intervention in this area had several objectives. First, the least efficient large cooperative and corporate farms needed be turned into more efficient enterprises, which might require their break-up into smaller units. Second, the large number of small semi-subsistence farms, and the fragmentation of land ownership which was the result, needed to be reduced substantially if progress was to be made towards regional development. The Structural Funds were, therefore, to be used to support investment in achieving this and, accordingly, to bring the agricultural sector and food industry up to EU standards and make them more competitive, as well as diversifying agricultural activities. The important links between agriculture and energy were also promoted, not least because of their potential to create local jobs. Moreover, it was recognised that many of the Roma in Slovakia live in rural areas and it was emphasised that the horizontal and coordinated approach for integrating marginalised Roma communities into society would also apply to rural areas (CSF 2003). The above priorities were accordingly funded from EU as well as national sources. Resources were concentrated on the most relevant policy areas, namely Transport and telecommunications, Human resources and Territorial policy. Funding also went to other areas in accordance with the priorities. The largest contribution from the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions was, therefore, channelled into developing human resources (26.5% of the total, which was also allocated 21% of total national funding), Transport and telecommunications (24.5% and 23% of national funding) and Territorial policy (16% of funding and the same for national funding). According to the Single Programming Document, in Bratislavský kraj, support under Objective 2 was divided between Territorial policy and the Enterprise environment, 73% going to the former and 27% to the latter. The rate of spending of allocations as at the end of 2007, however, shows marked differences between policy areas. Whereas almost 82% of the budget allocated to Agriculture and fisheries had been spent by this time, this was the case for only 60% of budget for Human resources and Territorial policy and just 54% of the budget for Transport and telecommunications, in all of which the budget was much bigger. Overall, therefore, some 62% of the amount of funding allocated to Objective 1 regions had been spent (Table 4). The same was the case in the Objective 2 area. Private funding contributed relatively little to expenditure in Objective 1 regions, amounting to around 20% of total resources. In the Objective 2 region, the figure was much the same in overall terms, though it was much higher for the Enterprise environment at around 47%. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 9
  • 11. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia Although expenditure in relation to allocations was relatively low at the end of 2007, this is only to be expected given the relatively short time period of the programmes and there was an observable steady improvement through the contracting period. 4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS Since support from the Structural Funds was allocated only from 2004 onwards, it as yet very difficult to quantify the direct results let alone the economic and social impact. Moreover, there is a serious lack of coherent and relevant data, which prevents any satisfactory analysis of the effects of intervention. Nevertheless some information is available. Agriculture and fisheries Financial support carried out under this operational programme achieved the most success in fulfilling its objectives if these are measured by the indicators for which targets were set for 2006. SOP Agriculture and rural development achievements Indicator Target value Real outcome % fulfilled (2006) (31.12.2006) Number of supported agriculture enterprises as % of 30.0% 57.0% 190.0 total agriculture enterprises Number of approved projects submitted by women as % 5.0% 29.0% 580.0 of total approved projects Change in total revenues of agricultural enterprises 3.0% 24.5% 817.0 Source: Annual report on CSF implementation, 2007 Enterprise environment The interventions relating to the Enterprise environment have been carried out under the SOP Industry and Services. Target values set at the beginning of the programming period for 2006 were achieved only in some areas, in particular, as regards the number of research projects supported and the number of projects in relation to the development of tourism. The target was almost achieved, however, as regards labour productivity and value-added, but the outcome was well short of target as regards overnight stays and support for SMEs. SOP Industry and Services achievements Target value Real outcome Indicator % fulfilled (2006) (31.12.2006) Changes in labour productivity and value added of the 118% 117.7% 94.4 supported subject Number of overnight stays in accommodation facilities 120% 4.1% 20.5 Number of supported projects for SMEs 1200 77 6.4 Number of supported research projects 25 25 100 Number of supported projects for development of 60 64 106.7 Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 10
  • 12. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia tourism Source: Annual report on CSF implementation, 2007 Human Resources All the targets set for 2006 were achieved under the SOP Human resources, though this was partly a result of setting these relatively low at the beginning of the programming period. Support was carried out though various national projects which are part of the operational programme, four of which provided indirect support to marginalised Roma communities. The main aim was to provide assistance to municipalities, individuals and organisations to tackle the most pressing problems relating to labour market development. SOP Human resources achievements Indicator Target value (2006) Real outcome (31.12.2006) % fulfilled Number of schools receiving support 500 1 618 323.6 Number of education institutes 500 2 906 581.2 receiving support Number of persons involved in projects 150 000(2008) 235039 applicants for a job 156.9 9 000(2008) 10544 disadvantaged applicants 117.2 300 000(2008) 992 600 - applicants for a job 330.9 Number of employers supporting 28986 employees in education qualification and skills training for 10 000 (2008) 289.8 programmes employees 6597 teachers in programmes 3 000 (2008) 219.9 of life-long education Source: Annual report on CSF implementation, 2007 Transport and telecommunications The majority of funding for transport infrastructure went to financing the reconstruction and electrification of selected railway lines and to repair and reconstruct existing roads and to build new ones. The main aim was to improve the state of the railways, modernise stations, complete the construction of key railway junctions, upgrade inter-regional rail lines, increase the speed of services, improve safety and reliability and reduce the environmental impact. At the same time, the concern was to integrate regional railway networks into the national network and provide access to the trans-European network. For roads, the concern was to improve links between regional centres and with Bratislava as well as to connect up with the trans-European network (OPBI Programme Complement, 2006). The targets set for 2006 were fully achieved only in respect of railways, while the length of road constructed was only 55% of the target. Environment and energy The environmental objectives set for 2006 were largely not fulfilled and in most cases the outcome was well below what had been planned. The most significant achievements were in connecting households to a new sewerage system. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 11
  • 13. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia OP Basic infrastructure - Environmental infrastructure achievements Base value Target value Real outcome Indicator % fulfilled (2004) (2006) (31.12.2006) Length of newly constructed or 0 km 800 km 84.41 km 10.6 upgraded sewer networks Number of citizens connected to new 1 738 000 1 765 000 1 740 855 10.7 drinking water supply infrastructure Number of citizens and households 0 inhabitants 10 425 4, 696 45.1 connected to new sewer system Volume of separated and recycled waste 0 tons 1 100 000 64 948 5.9 Number of households connected to 1 738 000 1 765 000 1 740 885 10.7 new reconstructed water mains Source: Annual report on CSF implementation, 2007 Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 12
  • 14. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia 5 AREAS OF INTERVENTION AND THE IMPLEMENTED POLICY MEASURES Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 13 Total public Policy Categories expenditure Main forms of intervention EUR (mn) % 1 Direct support to firms 229.4 26.0 direct grants to investment, grants to advisory, information and training services 2 RTDI 5.1 0.6 direct grant to companies 21 Direct support to firms 2.7 0.3 subsidies to encourage provision of services to firms for R&D subsidies to create networks of R&D institutions 22 Indirect support for 2.4 0.3 subsidies to RIS creation innovation 3 Infrastructure 274.3 31.0 direct grants to public investment 31 Transport infrastructure 179.1 20.3 direct grants to public investment 32 Other infrastructure 95.2 10.8 direct grants to public investment 4 Human capital 50.9 5.8 direct grants to public institutions subsidies to encourage provision of support services. 5 Local environment 324.0 36.7 direct grants to public investment TOTAL 100 Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 2 Total public Policy Categories expenditure Main forms of intervention EUR (mn % 1 Direct support to firms 15.5 35.8 direct grants to investment 2 RTDI 0.9 2.2 direct grant to companies 21 Direct support to firms 0.9 2.2 subsidies to encourage provision of services to firms subsidies to RIS creation 22 Indirect support for innovation 3 Infrastructure 31 Transport infrastructure 32 Other infrastructure 4 Human capital 5 Local environment 26.9 62.0 direct grants to public investment TOTAL 100 3 This is based on the DG Regional Policy ‘Infoview’ database. For the relationship between the forms of intervention (the ‘instruments’) and the Infoview categories, see the table at the end of the report. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 13
  • 15. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia 6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Reform to change completely the regional structure in Slovakia, initiated only shortly before accession to the EU, has caused problems in relation to EU funding. Three Slovakian regions (Western, Central and Eastern Slovakia) were disbanded and the country was instead divided into the present four NUTS 2 regions. The result was a new self-governing structure, under which new regional offices and new administrative and management capacity needed to be set up (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005). Because of a lack of management experience in the new regional self-governing authorities, organising appropriate procedures for managing the Structural Funds and implementing the programmes has continued to be a source of substantial delay and problems (Vojteková 2004). As in most other new Member States, Slovakia was characterised in the past by a high degree of centralisation and a total absence of any regional structures. The basic principles of an integrated regional policy were defined in 1991 (as part of the federal transition strategy), but the first Integrated plan of regional development – which was necessary to enable the country to apply for pre-accession support – was adopted by Parliament only in 1999. The National plan of regional development required for the programming of post- accession support was adopted in 2001, the year when the decentralisation of public administration was initiated. At the same time, preparations were made for fiscal decentralisation, though the introduction of this, which was planned for 2004, occurred only in 2005. The delay in implementing the decentralisation reform caused problems as regards the preparation of regional structures required to make use of the Structural Funds in the period of 2004-2006. Without fiscal decentralisation and the completion of the reform of public administration, t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t i e s a t local and regional levels necessary for planning and supporting economic development was complicated (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005). These problems together with other complications delayed the preparation and adoption of the necessary strategic Cohesion Policy documentation. Poor coordination between Ministries at the beginning of the process caused additional difficulties. Individual Ministries were late in preparing the grant schemes for smaller projects and compared to neighbouring countries around a year behind schedule. Delays also hindered accreditation of the implementing agencies. However, the process was accelerated during the final phase of preparation for the Structural Funds and the first call for local Infrastructure priority projects (Operational program Basic Infrastructure) was launched in January 2004. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 14
  • 16. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia The National Development Plan adopted in 2003 proved too complicated and was reduced from an initial 11 operational programmes to f o u r in i t s final v e r s i o n (Basic infrastructure, Industry and Services, Agriculture and Human Resources). Nevertheless, it remained unclear. Other documents in their final form were also unintelligible for applicants, which has led to formal mistakes in project preparation (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005). A new challenge arose from the parallel use of the Structural Funds of the 2004-2006 period and those of the 2007-2013 period. Preparing and implementing two systems and different programmes at the same time has proved very time consuming and led to serious administrative pressure. The duplication of regulations and documents has been confusing for both the authorities and implementation bodies i n v o l v e d and the applicants (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005). 7 GLOBAL EFFECTS EU cohesion policy together with the support provided has led to the necessary framework for a coherent and sustainable regional policy being established in Slovakia. The legacy of central planning, lack of experience with regional planning, deficiencies in administrative capacity and so on have complicated the implementation of policy and overcoming these problems remains the major challenge. There as yet no evidence that support to Objective 1 regions has had a significant effect on their economic development. Substantial progress has been made, however, in strengthening administrative capacity in Objective 1 regions, even though in many areas further improvement is necessary. In the Objective 2 region, Bratislavský kraj, it is difficult to identify the effects of intervention in any case because of the relatively small scale of funding and the influence of a range of other factors. It can be assumed, for example, that funding helped SMEs to implement innovation measures, but there is no clear evidence to support this. 8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION Given the short period of time in which cohesion policy has been implemented, it is very hard to identify the added-value of EU funding as yet. The only sources of information are monitoring and evaluation reports, which mainly present a summary of the objectives achieved, or not achieved. Nevertheless, despite the lack of quantitative evidence, there are signs of improvement in several aspects of regional development. In particular, investment in environmental infrastructure to tackle the legacy of decades of neglect of the environmental damage caused by heavy industry and other factors could not have been financed on the present scale without EU support. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 15
  • 17. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia EU funding also created pressure for the newly-founded self-governing regions to formulate development strategies and programmes. Efforts to identify their respective strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, together with a long-term development perspective, has improved regional planning procedures and paved the way for better exploitation of their economic potential. In addition, the programming, implementation and monitoring of structural support and the interaction between the different levels of administrative authority involved have improved the coordination of policy and laid the basis for a coherent development strategy. The establishment of a permanent and joint representation of Slovak regions in Brussels can be also seen as a positive development in their cooperation as well as facilitating cooperation with regions elsewhere in the EU facing similar problems. 9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE The experience with pre-accession support as well as in the short programming period 2004-2006 has provided a good basis for the implementation of cohesion policy in Slovakia. However, a number of important obstacles to the effective use of the funds remain to be eliminated: Administrative responsibilities and coordination between various levels of government need to explicitly defined and stabilised as well as being made transparent. The quality of programming documents needs to be greatly improved to make them more comprehensible for project applicants. A clear, coherent and long-term regional development strategy needs to be formulated and set out to provide the basis for effective structural assistance. Cooperation between central, regional and local levels of government is vital for the efficient use of funds. Emphasis should be put on support to innovative SMEs and R&D projects with the aim of greatly improving the present very weak RTDI performance in the country. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 16
  • 18. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia REFERENCES Community Support Framework Slovakia Objective 1, Ministry of Construction and Regional Development, 2003 Frank, K., Hvozdíková, V., Kvetan V., (2005) Slovakia and Cohesion Policy, In: Eriksson, Karlsson, Tarschys (eds.) From Policy Takers to Policy Makers, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, Stockholm URL: Frank, K., (2007) Slovak regions, In: Centrope Business and Labour Report, Vienna. URL: http://centrope.info/baernew/getfile?name=CENTROPE_Business_and_Labour_Report_2007 Increase in motorway length, Ministry of transportation, post and telecommunications, URL: http://www.telecom.gov.sk/externe/idic/index.html OPBI Programme Complement, Ministry of Construction and Regional Development, Bratislava, 2006 Single Programming Document NUTS II – Bratislava Objective 2, Ministry of Construction and Regional Development, Bratislava 2003 Vojteková, Z., (2004) Is Slovakia prepared for Effective Exploitation of Resources From the EU Structural Funds ?, Letters for SFPA, Slovak Foreign Policy Association Výročná správa o implementácii rámca podpory Spoločenstva január 2006 - december 2006 (Annual report on CSF implementation january 2006 - december 2006), Ministry of Construction and Regional Development, Bratislava, 2007 Impact evaluation Frank, K., Hvozdíková, V., Kvetan V., (2005) Slovakia and Cohesion Policy, In: Eriksson, Karlsson, Tarschys (eds.) From Policy Takers to Policy Makers, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, Stockholm Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 17
  • 19. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND FOI CATEGORIES code Policy instruments FOI Categories 1 Direct support to firms 11 Agriculture 111+114 12 Forestry 121+122 13 Fisheries 142+143+144 14 Large businesses 151+152+153+154+155 15 Small businesses 161+162+163+164+165+166 16 Tourism 171+172+173 17 ICT 322+324 18 Development of rural areas 1307+1309+1314 19 Planning and rehabilitation 351 2 RTDI 21 Direct support to firms for innovation 182 22 Indirect support for innovation 181+183 3 Infrastructures 31 Transport infrastructures 31 32 Other infrastructures 321 Telecommunication 321 321 Energy infrastructures (production, delivery) 33 321 Environmental infrastructure (including water) 34 4 Human capital Developing educational and vocational training 41 23+113+128+167+174 (persons, firms) Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, 42 innovation, information and communication 24+184 technologies (persons, firms) 5 Local environment Indirect support to firms (agriculture, forestry, 112+1182+123+124+125+126+127+141+ 51 fisheries) 145+147+148 52 Social infrastructure and public health 36 53 Planning and rehabilitation 352+353+354 54 Labour market policy 21 55 Social inclusion and equal opportunity 22+25 1301+1302+1303+1304+1305+1306+ 56 Development of rural areas 1308+1310+1311+1312+1313+1399 ICT Services and applications for the citizen 57 322 (health, administration, education) 58 Miscellaneous 4 Note: Forms Of Intervention – FOI. See Regulation 438/2001, Annex IV, Classification 3 Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 18
  • 20. WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia TABLES Table 1: Regional disparities and trends Table 2: Macro-economic developments Tables 3: Allocation of resources by main policy area Table 4: Expenditure at 2007 by policy area Table 5: Allocation of resources by programmes Table 6: Expenditure by programmes Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 19
  • 21. Table 1 – Regional disparities and trends EU25 Country Obj 1 regions Obj 1 Obj 2 regions Obj 2 (>20% pop in Obj 2) SLOVENSKA Západné Stredné Východné Bratislavský Total REPUBLIKA Slovensko Slovensko Slovensko Population in Objective 2 areas (% total in region) 28.8 Population (000) 1995 448453.1 5373.8 1876.1 1350.6 1528.5 4755.2 618.6 178.2 1999 452081.4 5395.1 1876.5 1355.0 1546.7 4778.2 617.0 177.8 2005 462629.5 5387.0 1863.5 1352.2 1568.9 4784.6 602.4 173.6 Population (as % country total) 1995 na na 34.9 25.1 28.4 88.5 11.5 3.3 1999 na na 34.8 25.1 28.7 88.6 11.4 3.3 2005 na na 34.6 25.1 29.1 88.8 11.2 3.2 Population growth rate (% pa) 1999-2005 0.4 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 1995-1999 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Population (%) in: Predominantly urban areas 45.9 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Intermediate rural, close to city 35.5 63.4 61.9 51.3 100.0 71.4 0.0 0.0 Intermediate rural, remote 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Predominantly rural, close to city 12.7 25.4 38.1 48.7 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 Predominantly rural, remote 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GDP per head, in PPS (EU25=100) 1995 100.0 45.5 43.4 37.3 34.4 38.8 97.5 97.5 1999 100.0 48.2 46.0 39.7 36.5 41.2 102.6 102.6 2005 100.0 58.2 54.8 44.8 41.4 47.6 142.1 142.1 GDP per head growth rate (% pa)(*) 1999-2005 1.7 4.4 4.1 3.2 3.3 3.6 6.8 6.8 1995-1999 2.4 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 Gross fixed investment (% GDP) 1999 20.4 29.5 28.0 30.9 33.5 30.4 26.9 26.9 2004 19.3 24.0 23.6 24.9 24.9 24.3 23.1 23.1 Average 2000-2004 (% GDP) 19.7 24.9 24.0 26.0 25.9 25.1 24.5 24.5 GDP per person employed, PPS, EU25=100 1995 100.0 47.7 48.3 40.9 39.1 43.3 69.2 69.2 1999 100.0 53.9 54.1 46.7 45.8 49.4 75.5 75.5 2005 100.0 66.1 64.0 55.2 58.0 59.7 92.4 92.4 Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 20
  • 22. EU25 Country Obj 1 regions Obj 1 Obj 2 regions Obj 2 (>20% pop in Obj 2) SLOVENSKA Západné Stredné Východné Bratislavský Total REPUBLIKA Slovensko Slovensko Slovensko Productivity growth rate (% pa) 1999-2005 1.2 4.2 3.5 3.5 4.7 3.9 4.1 4.1 1995-1999 1.4 4.4 4.2 4.6 5.3 4.7 3.5 3.5 Employment rate (% pop. 15-64) 1995 60.0 : : : : : : : 1999 61.9 58.0 57.9 56.8 53.9 56.3 70.4 70.4 2006 64.8 59.4 62.3 57.1 53.7 58.1 69.8 69.8 Employment rate, % point change pa 1999-2006 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 1995-1999 0.5 : : : : : : : Unemployment rate (%) 1995 11.7 : : : : : : : 1999 9.9 16.0 14.1 18.2 20.5 17.3 7.0 7.0 2006 8.3 13.4 9.9 16.5 19.2 14.7 4.6 4.6 Net migration 15-64 (% resident pop. in base year) Total 2000-2005 : -0.2 0.2 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -1.3 -1.3 Total 1995-2000 : -0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -1.9 -1.9 Educational attainment level (% pop. 25-64) 2001 Basic 35.6 15.1 16.3 16.1 15.2 15.9 9.0 9.0 Upper secondary 44.4 74.3 74.8 75.1 76.2 75.3 66.8 66.8 Tertiary 2006 Basic 30.3 11.2 11.4 11.4 12.0 11.6 8.5 8.5 Upper secondary 46.2 74.2 76.2 74.8 75.8 75.7 63.5 63.5 Tertiary 23.4 14.5 12.4 13.7 12.2 12.7 28.1 28.1 % point change 2001-2006 Basic -5.2 -3.9 -4.9 -4.7 -3.3 -4.3 -0.6 -0.6 Upper secondary 1.8 0.0 1.4 -0.2 -0.4 0.4 -3.3 -3.3 Tertiary : : : : : : : : % Division of employment by broad sector Agriculture 1995 5.4 9.0 11.3 9.1 10.1 10.3 2.4 2.4 1999 5.7 5.7 7.3 6.3 6.2 6.7 1.4 1.4 2005 4.9 4.4 5.6 4.6 4.6 5.0 1.9 1.9 Industry 1995 21.8 30.1 35.0 32.9 28.9 32.5 18.6 18.6 1999 21.7 28.3 33.1 30.7 26.7 30.5 18.2 18.2 2005 19.5 26.8 33.2 27.7 26.4 29.6 15.0 15.0 Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 21
  • 23. EU25 Country Obj 1 regions Obj 1 Obj 2 regions Obj 2 (>20% pop in Obj 2) SLOVENSKA Západné Stredné Východné Bratislavský Total REPUBLIKA Slovensko Slovensko Slovensko Construction 1995 7.3 7.0 6.1 6.9 6.8 6.5 9.4 9.4 1999 7.8 6.7 6.6 7.1 6.3 6.7 6.7 6.7 2005 7.9 7.3 7.1 7.9 7.5 7.5 6.7 6.7 Distribution, HORECA, Transport 1995 24.9 20.9 19.4 20.4 21.2 20.3 24.3 24.3 1999 24.7 24.4 23.5 23.2 23.8 23.5 28.2 28.2 2005 24.7 27.2 25.6 27.2 26.2 26.2 31.4 31.4 Finance+business services 1995 11.4 6.8 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.1 15.8 15.8 1999 11.2 8.7 6.3 6.4 7.3 6.6 18.0 18.0 2005 12.5 10.2 7.2 7.4 8.0 7.5 21.6 21.6 Public administration, education, health 1995 29.2 26.1 23.5 25.7 27.6 25.4 29.6 29.6 1999 28.5 26.3 23.2 26.3 29.6 26.1 27.5 27.5 2005 30.0 24.0 21.3 25.1 27.3 24.2 23.4 23.4 R&D expenditure (% GDP) 2000 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 2003 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.1 na = not applicable; : = not available; (*) Calculated as GDP per head at constant prices and exchange rates Source: Eurostat Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 22
  • 24. Table 2 – Macro-economic developments 1995-1999 1999-2006 1999-2001 2001-2004 2004-2006 GDP growth (annual average growth rate, % pa) EU25 2.6 2.2 2.9 1.7 2.4 Slovakia 3.9 4.9 2.4 4.9 7.5 Inflation (harmonised consumer price index, % rise pa) EU25 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.2 Slovakia 7.7 6.5 9.6 6.4 3.5 Average Public sector balance (% GDP) 1995 1999 2001 2006 2000-2006 EU25 : 0.8 -1.2 -1.5 -2.2 Slovakia : -12.2 -6.5 -3.7 -6.4 Public sector consolidated debt (% GDP) EU25 : : 61.1 61.9 61.8 Slovakia : 50.4 49.0 30.4 41.6 External balance (% GDP) EU25 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 1.0 Slovakia -4.4 -4.4 -8.1 -3.8 -4.4 General government expenditure (% GDP) EU25 52.5 47.1 46.4 46.9 46.8 Slovakia 48.4 47.7 44.4 37.2 41.9 General government investment (% GDP) EU25 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4 Slovakia 2.3 2.9 3.1 2.2 2.6 General government investment (% gen. gov. exp.) EU25 5.2 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.0 Slovakia 4.8 6.1 7.0 5.9 6.3 : = not available Source: Eurostat Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 23
  • 25. Table 3 - Allocation of resources by main policy area in Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions ERDF Other Total SF National Total Total SF National Total Structural funding public funding public Funds (SF) funding funding EUR millions % Objective 1 1. Agriculture and fisheries 0.0 142.6 142.6 59.9 202.5 13.7 15.6 14.2 1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 140.8 140.8 59.1 199.9 13.5 15.4 14.0 1.2 Fisheries 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.8 2.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 2. Enterprise environment 19.7 0.0 19.7 16.9 36.6 1.9 4.4 2.6 2.1 Assisting large business organisations 6.3 0.0 6.3 5.4 11.8 0.6 1.4 0.8 2.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 8.9 0.0 8.9 7.7 16.6 0.9 2.0 1.2 2.3 RTDI 4.4 0.0 4.4 3.8 8.2 0.4 1.0 0.6 3. Human resources 0.0 275.9 275.9 79.9 355.8 26.5 20.8 25.0 3.1 Labour market policy 0.0 147.6 147.6 42.2 189.8 14.2 11.0 13.3 3.2 Social inclusion 0.0 19.3 19.3 5.3 24.6 1.9 1.4 1.7 3.3 Education and training 0.0 109.1 109.1 32.4 141.4 10.5 8.4 9.9 4. Transport and telecommunications 253.4 0.0 253.4 87.4 340.8 24.3 22.8 23.9 4.1 Transport 242.8 0.0 242.8 83.7 326.5 23.3 21.8 22.9 4.2 Telecommunications and IS 10.6 0.0 10.6 3.7 14.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 5. Environment and energy 96.5 0.0 96.5 41.9 138.4 9.3 10.9 9.7 5.1 Energy infrastructure 4.8 0.0 4.8 4.1 8.8 0.5 1.1 0.6 5.2 Environmental infrastructure 91.7 0.0 91.7 37.9 129.6 8.8 9.9 9.1 6. Territorial policy(*) 127.5 36.0 163.5 61.4 224.9 15.7 16.0 15.8 6.1 Tourism 33.2 0.0 33.2 21.0 54.2 3.2 5.5 3.8 6.2 Planning and rehabilitation 9.4 0.0 9.4 5.1 14.5 0.9 1.3 1.0 6.3 Social infrastructure 58.2 0.0 58.2 14.8 73.0 5.6 3.9 5.1 6.4 Development of rural areas 26.7 36.0 62.7 20.5 83.2 6.0 5.3 5.8 7. Technical assistance 76.5 12.9 89.4 36.4 125.8 8.6 9.5 8.8 Total Objective 1 573.6 467.5 1041.0 383.9 1424.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Objective 2 1. Agriculture and fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. Enterprise environment 7.7 0.0 7.7 10.3 18.0 20.6 25.2 23.0 2.1 Assisting large business organisations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 6.2 0.0 6.2 8.4 14.5 16.6 20.4 18.6 2.3 RTDI 1.5 0.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 4.0 4.8 4.4 3. Human resources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Labour market policy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Social inclusion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Education and training 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. Transport and telecommunications 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 Transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 Telecommunications and IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. Environment and energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Energy infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 Environmental infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6. Territorial policy 28.0 0.0 28.0 29.2 57.3 75.4 71.2 73.2 6.1 Tourism 7.8 0.0 7.8 8.7 16.5 21.0 21.1 21.1 6.2 Planning and rehabilitation 11.4 0.0 11.4 11.8 23.2 30.7 28.6 29.6 6.3 Social infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 Development of rural areas 8.8 0.0 8.8 8.8 17.6 23.7 21.4 22.5 7. Technical assistance 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.0 3.6 3.8 Total Objective 2 37.2 0.0 37.2 41.1 78.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 Country 610.7 467.5 1078.2 425.0 1503.2 (*) Territorial policy: Expenditure on territorial policy reflects the support given to development through improvements in the economic and social environment at local level, which are essentially aimed at creating a favourable environment for business start- ups and growth of local firms as well as a source of attraction for investment from outside. Rural development policies are intended to arrest the abandonment of rural areas by making them attractive places to live and work, while preserving their essential features. Urban policies have a similar aim in respect of inner city areas. In both cases, an important objective tends to be maintain and upgrade the cultural heritage and to ensure the availability of a range of support services. Note: The financial data are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG. Source: estimates based on DG Regio data Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 24
  • 26. Table 4 – Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions Public expenditure Public expenditure Private expenditure (EUR millions) as % public allocated as % public expenditure Objective 1 1. Agriculture and Fisheries 165.1 81.5 95.0 1.1 Agriculture and forestry 165.1 82.6 95.0 1.2 Fisheries : : : 2.Enterprise environment 22.7 62.0 53.8 2.1 Assisting large business organisations 7.6 64.5 53.8 2.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 10.0 60.2 53.8 2.3 RTDI 5.1 62.1 53.8 3.Human resources 212.3 59.7 32.1 3.1 Labour market policy 157.0 82.7 51.2 3.2 Social inclusion 4.8 19.6 20.4 3.3 Education and training 50.4 35.7 8.7 4.Transport and telecommunications 183.9 54.0 4.9 4.1 Transport 179.1 54.8 5.0 4.2 Telecommunications and IS 4.8 33.8 2.3 5.Environment and energy 95.2 68.8 8.8 5.1 Energy infrastructure 6.2 70.1 53.8 5.2 Environmental infrastructure 89.0 68.7 5.7 6.Territorial policy 135.1 60.1 28.4 6.1 Tourism 37.4 69.1 53.8 6.2 Planning and rehabilitation 9.5 65.5 25.5 6.3 Social infrastructure 42.2 57.8 0.0 6.4 Development of rural areas 45.9 55.2 37.2 7.Technical assistance 69.4 55.2 11.6 Total Objective1 883.7 62.0 30.4 Objective 2 1. Agriculture and Fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Fisheries : : : 2.Enterprise environment 8.5 47.2 191.6 2.1 Assisting large business organisations 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 7.5 51.8 192.2 2.3 RTDI 1.0 27.8 189.1 3.Human resources 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Labour market policy 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Social inclusion 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Education and training 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.Transport and telecommunications 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 Transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 Telecommunications and IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.Environment and energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Energy infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 Environmental infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.Territorial policy 33.1 57.8 76.7 6.1 Tourism 6.3 38.3 203.7 6.2 Planning and rehabilitation 15.0 64.5 42.2 6.3 Social infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 Development of rural areas 11.8 67.1 3.0 7.Technical assistance 1.8 60.3 0.0 Total Objective 2 43.4 55.4 100.2 Country 927.1 61.7 34.1 : = not available Note: The financial data presented in the tables are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG. The figures on expenditure relate to the position at the end of 2007. Private expenditure is estimated. Source: estimates based on DG Regio data Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 25
  • 27. Table 5 - Allocation of resources by programmes ERDF Other Total SF National Total public Total SF National Structural funding funding funding Funds (SF) EUR millions % Sectoral Objective 1 Basic Infrastructure 422.4 0.0 422.4 143.5 565.9 39.2 33.8 Human Resources Development Operational Programme, 2004-2006, Slovak Republic 284.5 284.5 82.7 367.2 26.4 19.5 Industry and Services 151.2 0.0 151.2 84.7 235.9 14.0 19.9 Sectoral operational programme agriculture and rural development 183.0 183.0 73.0 256.0 17.0 17.2 Total sectoral Objective 1 573.6 467.5 1041.0 383.9 1424.9 96.6 90.3 Regional Objective 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bratislava 37.2 0.0 37.2 41.1 78.2 3.4 9.7 Total regional 37.2 0.0 37.2 41.1 78.2 3.4 9.7 Total sectoral 573.6 467.5 1041.0 383.9 1424.9 96.6 90.3 Country 610.7 467.5 1078.2 425.0 1503.2 100.0 100.0 Note: The financial data are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 26
  • 28. Table 6 – Expenditure by programme Public expenditure Public expenditure (EUR millions) as % public allocated Sectoral Objective 1 Basic Infrastructure 338.9 59.9 Human Resources Development Operational Programme, 2004- 2006, Slovak Republic 218.8 59.6 Industry and Services 134.5 57.0 Sectoral operational programme agriculture and rural 191.5 74.8 Total sectoral Objective 1 883.7 62.0 Regional Objective 2 Bratislava 43.4 55.4 Total Regional 43.4 55.4 Total sectoral 883.7 62.0 Country 927.1 61.7 Note: The financial data presented in the tables are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG. The figures on expenditure relate to the position at the end of 2007. Private expenditure is estimated. Data on FIFG payments are not included in INFOVIEW and the amounts included in the table for Fisheries relate to expenditure in this policy area financed from sources other than this. Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 27