Ex post evaluation Objective 1 1994-1999Ex post evaluation Objective 1 programme Flevoland 1994-1999...

B/ib7212

Ex post evaluation Objective 11994-1999Member state report Netherlands

Final report

Client: European Commission, DG Regio

ECORYS-NEIRegional & Urban Development

Luc BootSacha Koppert

Rotterdam, 24 June 2003

ECORYS-NEI

P.O. Box 4175

3006 AD Rotterdam

K.P. van der Mandelelaan 11

3062 MB Rotterdam

The Netherlands

T +31 10 453 88 00

F +31 10 453 07 68

E [email protected]

W www.ecorys.com

Table of contents

Executive Summary 7

1 Introduction 12

2 Methodology 13

3 Appropriateness of the strategy adopted 143.1 Introduction 143.2 Key issues in 1994 and their Evolution to 1999 143.3 Description of the SPD 183.4 Planned expenditure versus actual expenditure 223.5 Conclusions on appropriateness of the strategy 31

4 Effectiveness 364.1 Introduction 364.2 Programme outputs and results 364.3 Programme effects 404.4 Assessment of Community Added Value 554.5 Changes to policy and practice 59

5 Impact 605.1 Introduction 605.2 Achievement of the programme objectives 605.3 Impact assessment 65

6 Management and implementation systems 696.1 Institutional arrangements 696.2 Project selection process 746.3 Financial systems 766.4 Monitoring structures 776.5 Programme evaluations 786.6 Synergy effects 806.7 Equal opportunities and the environment 816.8 Conclusion 84

7 Strengths and weaknesses 867.1 Process issues 867.2 Achievements 877.3 Overall efficiency 88

8 Conclusions and recommendations 90

Ex post evaluation Objective 1 programme Flevoland 1994-1999 7

Executive Summary

In the Netherlands there is only one Objective 1 region, Flevoland. The key indicator onthe basis of which Flevoland received the Objective 1 status was the relatively low GRP(75% of the EU-average in 1993). The main reason was that the size of the labour forceexceeded the number of jobs within the region. This is caused by the fact that Flevolandbecame a residential area for people from the Randstad, as the pressure on space in thatarea became very high. At the same time, a lot of people living in Flevoland are workingin the Randstad.

The programme of Flevoland for the period 1994-1999 has 9 priorities with the followingdivision of means (in percentage):• Business development (15%)• Tourism and recreation (3%)• Agriculture and rural development (14%)• Fisheries (6%)• Human resources (19%)• Commercial infrastructure (11%)• Transport and communication (21%)• Research and development (10%)• Technical assistance (2%)

StrategyThe appropriateness of the strategy, seen from the perspective of effectiveimplementation is not optimal. The high number of measures (53) has limited thetransparency and flexibility of the programme implementation and had, as a result, anegative impact on the financial absorption of the programme. Despite therecommendations of the several evaluations to reduce the number of measures, therecommendation was not followed up out of fear that the administration around thesechanges would further slow down the programme implementation. Only in the SPD forthe phasing out period (2000-2006), the number of measures is reduced which isconsidered to be a major improvement

The appropriateness of the strategy with regard to addressing the main economicproblems can be judged positively. Also the priorities indicated in the ex ante evaluationon the SPD 1994-99, like the development of indigenous potential, investments ineducation, research and technical development, productive investment and investments ininfrastructure, are reflected in the strategy. Only the priority fisheries seems to have noclear relationship with the Objective 1 goals, as it was directed to restructuring and not toemployment growth.

Ex post evaluation Objective 1 programme Flevoland 1994-19998

Financial absorptionAlmost the complete budget was committed at the end of the programme period. To reachthis, the programme has been reprogrammed 2 times; the last approval of the Commissiondates from December 1999. However, at the end of the programme period an under-spending is found for all EU-funds. This is the result of the fact that some projectscommitted did not start, or spent fewer budgets than planned. As can be seen in table 1,the overall budget realised is 79%. ESF is most under spent, while almost the whole FIFGbudget is spent.

Table 1 Realisation (expenditures in relation to budget available)

Fund Realisation

ERDF 85%

ESF 59%

FIFG 97%

EAGGF 84%

Total EU 79%

Source: provisional final report on Objective 1

OutputIn general, on a lot of output indicators the targets have been met. The results of theproject with respect to employment, human resources, business sites and establishedcompanies are generally quite successful. Also the measures directed to the SME weresuccessful, with the exception of the capital risk fund. This is probably caused by the factthat the funds were fragmented and the selection criteria were quite strict.Within the agricultural sector, it proved to be difficult to find projects that were eligible.Some projects had to be implemented within the national policy context, which made co-financing difficult. Co-financing for innovative projects was also difficult, as the co-financing Ministry of Agriculture set strict criteria for the term innovative.

ResultsIn general, the results in the several sectors during the programme period are good, butthere are differences in the extent of success within the several sectors. The objectives ofthe priorities directed towards the agricultural sector are largely met. The same counts forbusiness development, human resources and commercial infrastructure. This is not onlythe result of the programme, developments in the social economic context are also veryimportant for this result. The economy was booming in these years. This caused adecrease in unemployment and an increase in firms that invest. Furthermore, the pressureon the Randstad made that firms searched for other locations to settle. As Flevolandborders on the Randstad, it is a logic alternative, which especially counts for Almere.Within the tourism and fisheries sector some progress was made, however, still a lot hasto be done to fulfil the objectives. For the first sector, the number of visitors shouldincrease. In the past years the number of jobs and the number of new accommodationsincreased, while the number of visitors remained stable. For the fisheries sector it isimportant to strengthen the diversification process in Urk. Also the R&D sector did notdevelop as planned, there is in the programme period no growth in the number of jobs inthis sector.


Effect and impactThe main problem in Flevoland was the relatively low GRP. This low GRP was a resultof the mainly residential function of the region, as the region meets the residential needsof people coming from the Randstad. In this mainly agricultural region were not enoughjobs available to employ the working population that settled in the region. Hence, the lowGRP was mainly a result of the large commuting level. One of the solutions for thisproblem is the creation of employment in the region.The creation of employment in the region succeeded quite well during the programmingperiod. This is not only the result of the programme, but is mainly caused by the boomingeconomy and the high pressure in the neighbouring Randstad. The objective to have ayearly growth in employment that is 3% higher than the average annual growth in theNetherlands is amply met. The net growth is even three times more than the objective.However, despite this enormous growth in employment, the objective to raise the GRPper head to 85% of the average EU GRP is not completely realised, in 1999 it was 80%.This is mainly due to the fact that the population is even growing faster (natural growthand immigration) than the growth in business activity, which results in GRP growths andemployment.

Comparing the SWOT analysis of the ex ante evaluation of the 2000-2006 period and thekey issues of 1994, shows that a lot of problem indicated in 1994 are still relevant. Therewere improvements in these points in the former period, but many of them are still not atthe desired level.

Management structureThe management structure for the Objective 1 programme was split in an ESF-part (ESF-bureau) and an ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG-part (PME and expert departments of the province).In practice, this split did not cause problems for project managers and applicants andthere was also a good consultative structure.However, within the province, responsible for the implementation of theERDF/EAGGF/FIFG-part of the programme, the structure chosen caused many problems.The people from the specialist departments had their normal tasks within the policyprocess; the work for the Objective 1 programme was additional for them. The result wasthat there was a delay in the commitment of projects. This hindered the progress of theprogramme. Furthermore, the structure caused that the PME could not properly fulfil itstasks. The overview on the programme was lacking, no clear picture existed about theprogress and results of the programme.All parties involved were not unsatisfied with this structure, however, the centralisedprogramme management for the new programme period is considered to be a bigimprovement. The transparency for project applicants and project managers increased andthe programme management has a better overview on the developments and results of theprogramme.

MonitoringWithin the programme a clear set of indicators was formulated and monitoring took placeon these indicators. Seen in time, Flevoland had a quite extensive set of indicatorsalready, compared to other programmes. However, according to earlier evaluations, not


all indicators were relevant to the same extent (especially when it concerned only outputindicators, that do not say anything about the effect).The computerized monitoring system of the programme management was mainly directedtowards financial monitoring. Hence, a lot of work had to be done to get an overview ofthe results of the projects, as this information had to be derived from the paper projectreports. For the new programming period there is a computerized monitoring system forthe results as well, which hopefully improves the monitoring process.The programme management relatively spent much time on evaluation. Except for theobligatory ex ante and mid term evaluation, the programme management initiatedevaluations of specific measures.

Monitoring committee and partnershipThe Programme Monitoring Committee had a limited role. Members of the Committeefeel that they could not give enough input and are missing strategic discussions. As therewas no steering group or working groups, the monitoring committee was the onlyinstrument to establish partnership. As the partners feel they do not have the overview,nor influence on the programme, partnership was not well developed within theprogramme. This is a pity, as partners consider it important to be involved in theformulation and implementation of the programme. A steering group could solve thisproblem to an extent, as well as the setting up of working groups. A steering group wouldalso facilitate more strategic discussions, which were lacking during the programmeperiod.

SynergyAt the first place, the Flevoland programme corresponds closely with the EU-policy.Besides implementing priorities that are connected to the key objectives of the EU, thereis also a relation with other communitarian initiatives that are implemented in Flevolandas well. There were some attempts to gear projects that were financed by different fundsto one another, but in practice there are only a few examples.The match with national policy is less clear, as the Flevoland was not on the priority listfor regional development support. This caused in the beginning some problems with theco-financing of Ministries. With most ministries these problems were solved, but thematch between the programme and the priorities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Nature Conservation remained limited.Also for the regional and local level counts that the policy had to be adjusted. In somecases, there were other priorities than those of the SPD. Adjustments in the local policy inand in the divisions of the budget had to be made, in order to be able to implement themeasures of the Objective 1 programme. The match with the regional policy is better, asthe programme is partly based on the priorities already set.


1 Introduction

In this report the results of the ex post evaluation of the Objective I programme in theNetherlands are laid down. This ex post evaluation is done within the framework of theoverall evaluation of the Objective 1 programme of the European Commission and isdirected to the Dutch part in it. Contrary to other countries is in the Netherlands only oneregion eligible for Objective 1: Flevoland.

For the province of Flevoland, the regional development plan (RDP) 1994-1999 wasdrawn up. In the beginning it was not clear what the European contribution to the planwould be. Hence, the plan was based on a contribution of the EU of 320 MECU.However, it proved that Flevoland would get only 150 MECU. For this, the regionaldevelopment plan was adapted and further priorities were set. The RDP was at 29 June1994 approved by the EC.

The structure of the report is as following:• The methodology of the evaluation is found in Chapter 2• The description of the social economic context and the strategy is described in

chapter 3• The programme effects (outputs and results) are analysed in chapter 4• The impact of the programme is described in chapter 5• In chapter 6 attention is paid to the management structure


2 Methodology

This evaluation of the Objective 1 programme Flevoland 1994-1999 is based on themethodology guide for the European-wide evaluation of Objective 1, as formulated byEcotec.

The research activities are:• desk research• analysis of the financial tables• interviews with key actors.

The desk research gives us insight in the developments and results of the programmes,while the interviews give additional information about the management structure, theeffects, success factors and so on.

The desk research is based on the following documents:• SPD• Annual progress reports• Ex ante and mid-term evaluations• Annual programmes• Document on administrative organisation programme management• Financial analysis, based on the SPD, annual reports and final financial table.

Interviews were held with the following persons:• Ms. J. van den Brink, Programme management Province Flevoland• Mr. B. Pels, implementation ESF• Mr. W. Schutte, Noordelijke Land en Tuinbouworganisatie (agricultural

organization)• Mr. A van Leeuwen, FNV (trade union)• Mr. Essing, Ministry of Transport and Public Works• Mr. F. Smit, Chamber of Commerce Flevoland• Ms. R. Wijnands, Ms. De Jonge, Mr. Van Holk and Mr. Van de Kamp, Ministry of

Economic Affairs• Ms. T. Bij de Vaate, Noordoostpolder• Mr. Willibrord Sluyters, DG Regio


3 Appropriateness of the strategy adopted

3.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an assessment of the appropriateness of the strategy adopted andpursued during the 1994-1999 period in Flevoland. It provides in particular an assessmentof the key issues that needed to be addressed in 1994. In order to prevent overlap, thequestion of how the economic situation evolved during the period is dealt with in aseparate section in the Chapter on Impact. Subsequently, a short description is providedof the main elements of the SPD document, including an overview of the priorities andmeasures. The last section of this chapter provides an assessment of the appropriatenessof the strategy as a whole and takes a closer look into the appropriateness of theindividual priorities as well.

3.2 Key issues in 1994 and their Evolution to 1999

The province of Flevoland is the result of a process of land reclamation and landdevelopment, most of which took place during the 1950s. As a consequence of its uniquehistory, the region also faces rather unique economic development problems, differentfrom the ones experienced in most other Objective 1 regions. Key issues in 1994 inparticular related to the:• Negative commuting balance, resulting from a lack of employment opportunities

within the administrative boundaries of the region• The economic structure of the region and the conflict of interest between the original

“new land strategy”, that mainly focused on agricultural development, and the realityof 1994 when Flevoland had become a home for one of the largest urban settlementsin the Netherlands.

Low GDP per capita and the commuting problemFlevoland received Objective 1 status in 1993 based on the low Gross Domestic Product(GDP) per capita. In 1993, GDP per capita was at 75% of the EU average. In the yearsbefore, GDP per capita had been considerably lower at 68.1% of EU average in the late1980s. With regard to other regional statistics, the region did not show considerabledifferences with the EU average. With regards to unemployment for example, in the late1980s unemployment in Flevoland almost exactly matched the EU average (99.1%).

A major cause for the low GDP was that the size of the labour force exceeded by far thenumber of jobs that were available within the provincial boundaries. The low number ofemployment opportunities was mainly compensated for by a disproportionately highnegative commuting balance of 26% in 1989/90, the highest of all regions in the


Netherlands. No less than 60% of the employees in Flevoland had a job outside theprovincial administrative boundaries. The key issue on Flevoland's labour markettherefore was neither excessive unemployment, nor low average income. The negativecommuting balance was the main reason for the low per capita GRP. The outgoingcommuters mainly consisted of two groups:• Inhabitants of Flevoland that had a job in the surrounding urban regions of

Amsterdam, Hilversum and Utrecht;• People working in the regions around the cities of Amsterdam, Hilversum and

Utrecht that had moved to Flevoland for residential reasons.

The latter group was the dominating one, as the province had been catering for thehousing needs of the surrounding regions (the Amsterdam region in particular) for manyyears, especially in the two cities of Almere and Lelystad. Being inextricably linked tolarge neighbouring urban regions, with booming economies (both Amsterdam andUtrecht were amongst main the fastest growing economic areas in the Netherlandsthroughout the 1990s), Flevoland possessed (and still possesses) a “sui generis” qualitycompared to most other Objective 1 regions throughout the EU.

An on going debate in Flevoland: agricultural area or residential area?The original intention of the national policy makers in the 1950s was to turn Flevolandinto an agricultural production area that could ensure the self-sufficiency of theNetherlands in terms of food supply. And indeed, large parts of Flevoland have developedinto a flourishing agricultural area where productivity is amongst the highest in the world.

However, during the 1960 the fast population growth of the Netherlands after the SecondWorld War led to a sharp increase in housing demands. Especially in Amsterdam the highpressure on the existing urban structures exacerbated the need for additional residentialareas. To that end, the two cities of Almere (some 50 km from Amsterdam) and Lelystad(located in the heart of the province of Flevoland) were assigned the function ofresidential areas for the Amsterdam urban population.

This situation still applied in the beginning of the 1990s. The 1993 spatial developmentplan for Flevoland (“streekplan”), stated that the province would still have to providemore dwellings for people from the surrounding urban regions. With 255,000 inhabitantsin Flevoland in 1994 the provincial population was expected to almost double to 440,000inhabitants in 2015.

Objective 1 status: national recognition for the development problems of FlevolandThe policy makers in the region at the time were of the opinion that a region likeFlevoland should be able to function as a more or less “normal” or independent economicand social entity, providing an attractive living and working environment for itsinhabitants. This was felt to be a joint responsibility between the national and the regional(provincial) government. Although the national government also shared this opinion, itwas felt in Flevoland that this was not translated into any concrete actions from thenational level, since the national regional development policy instruments were hardly ifnot at all available for Flevoland.


According to the prevailing national policy document of the Dutch Ministry of EconomicAffairs, “Regions without frontiers” (1990), Flevoland was not high on the list of nationalregional development priorities. National regional development policies traditionallyfocus mainly on the North of the Netherlands, the Twente region in the East (formertextiles industry area) and South Limburg (former mining area) in the South of theNetherlands, all Objective 2 areas. Only the city of Lelystad had been singled out for aspecial subsidy that promoted job creation (PSOL). Major national regional policyinstruments such as the investment grant schemes (IPR) and regional developmentagencies (ROMs) did not apply to Flevoland, neither did the policy developed around thattime aiming, providing financial support for the development of industrial estates(StiREA instrument).

The main economic development problems in 1994Stating that unemployment and income levels were not really a problem in Flevoland in1993/4, does not mean that the region did not face any economic development problemsat all. The main items on the list of economic development problems in Flevoland were:

Economic structure:• The economic structure of the region. The economic structure was characterized by

an overrepresentation of the agricultural sector and the non-commercial services andan underrepresentation of the industrial sector, transport and logistics andcommercial services sector. This contributed to the low GDP figures, as the addedvalue per person in agriculture and non-commercial services is relatively low.

• Overrepresentation of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and lack of large(industrial, commercial services) enterprises within the provincial boundaries. Asseveral evaluation reports refer to the lack of critical mass of the regional economy,and the lack of endogenous growth potential within the province. This lead toproblems such as fragmentation of economic development, low degree oforganisation of the local SME community. Growth poles for further economicdevelopment in the region that could propel the economy in the right direction wereabsent at the time.

• The agricultural production was mainly exported and / or processed outside theprovincial boundaries and as a consequence most added value generating activitieswere carried out outside the province. As a consequence the local economy hardlybenefited from the richness and high efficiency of the agricultural production.

Labour market:• Low qualification levels of the unemployed. Even though unemployment figures did

not deviate from national figures, the composition of the unemployed wasproblematic as it mainly consisted of people with lower education. In addition, thenumber of long-term unemployed was higher than the national average. Also it wasnoted that Flevoland had the highest number of unemployed ethnic minorities in theNetherlands, after the four large cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht).

• Further increase of the professional population, not matched by growth in economicactivity.

Productive environment:


• Weak intermediary organisations capacity / infrastructure within the provincecompared to other regions in the Netherlands, partly be cause of the lack ofexperience within the region in the field of business support and business advisoryservices. Intermediary organisations such as Innovation Centres, Chambers ofCommerce lacked the staff and experience to support business in fields such asbusiness start- ups, management, innovations, networking, cluster development, etc.;

• Underdeveloped higher educational and knowledge infrastructure within theprovince. In 1994 in particular the absence of infrastructures and facilities in thefield of technology and industrial development were seen as a weakness of theproductive environment. Although for the agricultural sector the knowledgeinfrastructure was relatively well developed, it was felt that this would notsufficiently support the much-needed process of economic diversification. Also thetransfer of knowledge from the knowledge centres to the local business communitywas a weakness, also partly caused by the weak intermediary organisations.

• Although blessed with abundant space for economic activities, in particularcompared to the nearby, overcrowded urban areas of Amsterdam and Utrecht, thenumber of industrial estates, in particular for industrial and commercial servicesenterprises, was not sufficient at the start of the 1994-1999 period. As aconsequence, the region could not realise its potential to benefit from possible spillover effects caused by the high congestion and diseconomies of scale in theAmsterdam and Utrecht regions.

• High congestion on the transportation infrastructure in particular on the linkageswith the Northern wing of the Randstad (Amsterdam, Hilversum, Utrecht) (A27).

• The living environment for the inhabitants of the province was poor in terms ofurban facilities in the field of (higher) education, professional education, culturalfacilities, health and public transportation.

Having listed these economic development problems, it should be realised that despiteflaws in the productive environment, economic development in Flevoland during the1980s and beginning of 1990s had been generally speaking very favourable. Flevolandwas e.g. successful in attracting a large number of new businesses to the region and in anumber of economic sectors the number of enterprises more than doubled (e.g. incommerce, transport, construction). The real challenge for the Objective 1 periodtherefore was to how to further accelerate economic growth in such a way that it wouldmatch the additional employment needs caused by the large number of immigrants fromoutside the region. The additional challenge was how to ensure that the newly createdjobs would be filled by native job seekers and school leavers, rather than by incomingcommuters or labour immigrants, which would result in a two direction commuting flow.Matching the qualifications of Flevoland’s job seekers and school leavers with labourdemands was one of the challenges in that respect.

To give an indication of the challenge that the province was facing it was calculated inthe SPD that 16,500 new jobs had to be created in order to accommodate the growth ofthe professional population between 1994 and 1999 (based on the assumption thatunemployment in 1999 would be 8% and the number of net outgoing commuters wouldremain at 21,000). With autonomous job growth estimated at 5,800 jobs the additionalnumber of jobs to be created by the Objective 1 programme was estimated at 10,700additional jobs: 2% more than the expected autonomous growth of 1.2%.


Differences in development within the province FlevolandHowever small Flevoland as an Objective 1 region might seem compared to countries thathave Objective 1 status as a whole, it should be noted that even within such a smallterritory as Flevoland (1,412 km2) internal differences do exist in terms of the nature ofthe economic development problems. A divide can be made in particular between:• The city of Almere: closest to Amsterdam and experiencing the fastest growth both

in terms of population and in terms of economic development. Here the challenge ofeconomic development catching up with population growth is the largest;

• The city of Lelystad: located in the heart of the province of Flevoland. Lelystad hassuffered most from the discrepancy between the originally planned urbanisation taskand the ultimate realisation in terms of population;

• The Noordoostpolder in the Northeast of the province, including the municipality ofEmmeloord and the fisheries village of Urk: this is the oldest part of the province(pre-war) and has a more traditional and less efficient agricultural profile;

• The large-scale agricultural areas in the remaining parts of the province, whereproblems in the agricultural sector, mainly related to the CAP, are the main topics.

Horizontal issues• Environment: Due to the limited history of the Province of Flevoland, there were

hardly any environmental problems, such as pollution caused by historical sources(an exception is the polluted Ketelmeer). The environmental situation was generallyspeaking relatively good, with hardly any pollution by industrial activities. However,also Flevoland experienced increasingly negative environmental effects related to theeconomic development of the region. An important source for environmentalpollution is traffic (mainly caused by the commuting problem). Also the agriculturalsector contributed to the environmental problems within the province. The increaseof the stock and the strong increase in import of fertilizer increased phosphateproblems. Also the amount of nitrogen in the soil reached its limits.

• Equal opportunities: Although not an explicit priority in the plan, the SPD does referto the situation of women on the provincial labour market. Female unemploymentwas 10% as compared to 6% male unemployment.

3.3 Description of the SPD

Objectives of the SPDThe ex ante evaluation provides a good summary of the main challenge that the Objective1 programme Flevoland faced at the start of the programming period: “The main problemto be addressed by the regional development plan is (…) to provide jobs and a reasonableincome, primarily for the job-seeking population, also catering to future naturalpopulation growth. To achieve this, the structure of the regional (provincial) economymust be strengthened and adjusted. The basis for this has to be laid in the period 1994-1999”.

The general and “operational” objectives for the SPD 1994-99 were formulated alongsimilar lines:


General objective:• To make optimal use of the available development potentials in order to reduce the

social-economic backward position, without damaging the quality of the naturalenvironments.

Operational objectives:• Improvement of the employment prospects and the standard of living of the labour

force in the region;• Increasing the competitiveness of the local economy by stimulation of the own

potentials and the attraction of investments;• To improve the economic and social cohesion within the region and within the

Community;• Improvement and optimisation of the supply and demand on the labour market;• To protect and improve the environment in the region in order to improve the image

of Flevoland as an attractive region for investments and living.

Structure of the SPD: 8 priorities and 53 measures (excl. TA)The general and operational objectives were translated into 8 priorities (+1 technicalassistance priority):

Priorities1. Business development2. Tourism and recreation3. Agricultural and rural development4. Fisheries5. Human recourses6. Commercial infrastructure7. Transport and communication8. Research and development9. Technical assistance

The table below provides an overview of all measures, listed per priority.

Table 3.1 Priorities and measures

Priorities Measures

1. Business development 1.1 Advice services (operational schedules, marketing, quality, design)

1.2 Programme for direct assistance to the SME

1.3 SME service centre, SME promotion centre and Service and SME

information centre

1.4 Common services: subsidies on income and management common

services

1.5 Assistance to starting entrepreneurs, education for starting

entrepreneurs

1.6 Industrial promotion SME and the attraction of external investors

1.7 SME audits concerning technology, energy and clean production

processes

1.8 Management training SME

1.9 Audits concerning SME employment quality and education for SME


Priorities Measures

employers

1.10 Innovation centre for education and business

2. Tourism 2.1/2.2 Improvement of existing and development of new facilities for

tourism, the organization of festivals

2.3 Education

3. Agricultural and rural

development

3.1 Improvement agricultural structure (regulation (EEG) 2328/91)

3.2 Improvement of processing and sale of agricultural products (regulation

(EEG) 866/90)

3.3 Stimulation of innovative agricultural activities

3.4 Stimulation of special agricultural projects

3.5 Renewal of villages, the improvement of basic facilities and landscape

preservation

3.6 Improvement of water management

3.7 Physical infrastructure

3. 8 Improvement of tourism structures in rural areas, development of

accommodation

3. 9 Development of ecological structures to improve nature and landscape

3.10 Concentration and extension of high-quality technological research and

technological developments in the agricultural sector

3.11 Realisation of a business and education centre for sustainable

agricultural activities

4. Fisheries 4.1 Adaptation and modernization of the fisheries fleet

4.2 Education

4.3 Aquaculture

4.4 Processing and sale

5. Human recourses 5.1 Education / wage subsidies

5.2 Advices to / education for long-term unemployed people

5.3 Improvement of structures to improve the functioning of the labour

market (investments, wage subsidies, advices)

6. Commercial infrastructure 6.1 Supply-demand analyses

6.2 Industrial estate

6.3 Business centres

6.4 Urban development

6.5 Environmental technical works

6.6 Education “building”

6.7 Education “environment”

7. Transport and

communication

7.1 Access to trans European road network

7.2 Physical infrastructure industrial estates

7.3 Cost-benefit analysis

7.4 Education

8. Research and Development 8.1 Regional technology plan

8.2 Educational centre for technology and telecom centres

8.3 Assistance to business to hire newly graduates

8.4 Research and educational facilities and scientific parks

8.5 Research grants

9. Technical assistance


3.4 Planned expenditure versus actual expenditure

The table below provides an overview of planned expenditure of the SPD Flevoland andthe funds distribution. Most priorities show a mix of funds from ESF and ERDF. Inpriority 1 Business development, the ratio between ESF and ERDF was approximately50-50. Priority 5 Human resources was almost exclusively funded from the ESF, whilethe priorities 2 Tourism, 6 Commercial infrastructure and 7 Transport and communicationmainly received funds from the ERDF. Priorities 3 Agricultural and rural developmentand 4 Fisheries were supported from the EAGGF and FIFG respectively. Priority 8Research and development was supported from the ERDF.

Table 3.2 Overview of Structural Funds planned budget per priority in euro’s (x1000)

Priority EU-

contribution

ERDF ESF EAGGF FIFG

1. Business development 15

%

22,020 11,900 10,120

2. Tourism and recreation 3% 5,180 4,300 880

3. Agriculture and rural development 14

%

21,250 21,250

4. Fisheries 6% 8,250 8,250

5. Human resources 19

%

27,970 900 27,070

6. Commercial infrastructure 11

%

17,010 16,500 510

7. Transport and communication 21

%

31,420 31,000 420

8. Research and development 10

%

14,400 14,400

9. Technical assistance 2% 2,500 1,000 1,000 250 250

150,000 80,000 40,000 21,500 8,500

100% 53% 27% 14% 6%

Source: On going evaluation Research voor Beleid 1997

The financial table above shows that most SF resources were allocated to businessdevelopment, human resources development and transport infrastructure, a total of 60%of structural funds available.

The table also provides insight into the funds distribution:• ERDF 53%• ESF 27%• EAGGF: 14%• FIFG: 6%.

Table 3.3 below provides an overview of planned versus actual expenditure per year perfund.


23

Table 3.3 Planned versus actual expenditure per year per fund in euros (x1000)

Overall Community finance National

Total Total EU ERDF ESF FIFG EAGGF administration

Private

1994 Planned 73,289 19,513 13,951 3,122 585 1,854 31,562 22,215

Actual 2299 1321 152 1152 17 979

1995 Planned 148,898 21,314 9,689 4,844 2132 4,65 84,442 43,142

Actual 44191 1172 7328 3479 913 2169 1078

1996 Planned 190,669 22,928 9,952 5,903 2,39 4,683 111,057 56,684

Actual 130482 14849 8632 3941 127 2149 32631 83002

1997 Planned 197,027 19,307 10,781 3,258 1,073 4,195 121,288 56,43

Actual 73415 15292 736 2157 1766 4009 36253 2187

1998 Planned 178,076 31,652 15,236 13,016 1,017 2,383 102,825 43,6

Actual 192426 1643 8264 4235 1102 2829 109169 66828

1999 Planned 359,031 37,258 22,414 7,345 3,922 3,576 240,105 81,668

Actual 52576 17713 9895 449 646 2682 16302 18561

2000 Planned - - - - - - - -

Actual 166534 24262 14654 3305 3672 263 112289 29982

2001 Planned - - - - - - - -

Actual 84199 49071 21730 5786 3708 5546 85602 23767

Planned budget (a) 1146,99 151972 82023 37488 11119 21341 691279 303739

Revised budget (b) 844458 158810 83826 41770 11357 21857 430675 254973

Total expenditure (c) 746122 125323 71391 24504 11021 18408 395394 225405

Difference (b) – (c) 98336 33487 12435 17266 336 3449 35281 29568

Difference (a) – (c) -744975 26649 10632 12984 98 2933 295885 78334

Source: PME Provincie Flevoland, expenditure 2001 estimated by ECROY-NEI based on yearly figures and final figures


• All 4 Structural Funds show under expenditure compared to planned expenditure.Expenditure levels is highest for FIFG (97%), followed by ERDF (85% and EAGGF(84%). The ESF-budget is with 59% most under spent. A reason for this is, next tothe above-mentioned reasons, probably the strict observation of the regulations.

• The main explanations for the under expenditure is that many projects were notapproved until the very last months of 1999. This was necessary to make sure that atthe end of 1999 nearly the whole available EU budget would be committed.However, after the closing of the commitment period projects that eventually did notstart or project of which the actual implementation was delayed could not bereplaced by new projects.

• In the case of ESF also the rather strict observation of the regulations have beenmentioned by interviewees as an explanatory factor

Commitment patternsIn general, the commitment patterns during the lifetime of the programme weresatisfactory. Nonetheless, low levels of commitments for certain measures were the majorrationale for the two revisions of the financial table that took place during the 1994-1999period. To be able to commit all funds in time, the financial table was eventuallymodified for the second time on 27 December 1999 in consultation with the EuropeanCommission in favour of measures with abundant projects in the “pipeline” (see belowfor further explanation). This allowed for full commitment of the European funds justbefore “closing time”. Consequently, large sums of money were committed during thelast months of 1999.

In particular bottlenecks related to co-financing arrangements formed a problem forcommitting the resources for some measures in time. Bottlenecks included:• Lack of co-financing for advisory services to SME.• Co-financing problem with the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and

Fisheries for the agricultural development measures• Not enough project proposals for the fisheries measures• Lack of public co-financing resources at the local (municipal) level for measures in

the field of commercial infrastructure such as industrial estates.• Research and development: less co-financing on national level is available than

planned

In particular during the first years of programme implementation the level ofcommitments were quite low. Explanations include:

• Starting up of the programme took time, in particular setting up the organisation ofthe programme implementation (see the chapter on implementation and managementfor further details on this issue).

• At the start of the programme the “project pipeline” was not filled yet. This wascaused by:


• Lack of awareness among potential public and private beneficiaries of thepossibilities offered by the programme. One reason for this is that it took sometime before programme communication and marketing activities had beensuccessful creating awareness

• It was not always clear for both the programme manager and potentialapplicants how the regulations should be applied

• In the beginning of the programming period in particular the identification andformulation of larger and more ambitious project proposals took time

• Organisation of the required co-financing

In particular in the case of FIFG commitment levels in the first years of programmeimplementation were low (zero). This was partly the result of problems with co financingby the national Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Also a lack of private co financing,as well as the fact that low fish quota caused in general a low inclination for investment inthe private sector should be mentioned.

Expenditure patternsTable 3.3 above illustrates in particular the expenditure (payments to projectbeneficiaries) pattern in Flevoland. The pattern is not uncommon to other SF programmesin the Netherlands: actual expenditure starts slow but accelerates during the course of theprogramming period. The bulk of expenditure took place in 2000 and 2001. Mainexplanatory factors include:

• The fact that a lot of projects were only committed in the last months of 1999 asdescribed above.

• Slow start of projects in general. In general it took time for project beneficiaries tostart up their activities. As a result requests for payment did not followed untilsometimes several years after projects had been committed. This is in particular thecase with infrastructure investments in industrial estates and transport infrastructure.In other cases, such as the Employment Grant Scheme (APR), actual payments to thesupported businesses were not made until after actual business settlement and thesubsequent monitoring by the managing authorities (PME Flevoland) if jobs hadactually been realised.

• Issues related to the organisation of the programme. In particular the (lack of)instruments of the PME Flevoland to speed up project implementation and paymentrequests by project beneficiaries.

Planned versus actual expenditureGenerally speaking, it should be noted that the annual tables in the financial planning ofthe SPD did not serve as “predictions” or “ex ante assessments” of actual commitments orexpenditure patterns, as it would in the current period 2000-2006 as a result of theautomatic decommitment rule. Therefore, comparing planned budgets and actualexpenditure by year is not a useful exercise.

Changes in the financial tableThe financial table has been revised twice during the lifetime of the programme:


• The first time was after the second on going evaluation. The changes were approvedby the EC in 1998. As a result, the budget allocated to priority 1 Businessdevelopment increased at the expense of priority 6, Commercial infrastructure.

• Just before the end of the programming period (27 December 1999) a secondrevision of the financial table was approved by the EC.

In both cases the changes in the financial table appear to have been mainly “money-driven”, with the degree of financial absorption being the main rationale for changes inthe financial table. Especially at the end of the programme period, it proved that therewere not enough projects in the pipeline to fully commit some measures; while for othermeasures the budget was (nearly) exhausted with still many projects in the pipeline. In theend, more budget was made available for priority 1(business development) and priority 4(fisheries), at the cost of priority 7 (transport), 8 (research and development) and 6(commercial infrastructure).

The table below shows the allocation of the planned budget over the priorities in 1994 atthe start of the programming period and after the second revision of December 1999. Itshows that the reprogramming was only limited at the priority level. Most changesoccurred within priorities at the measure level, indicating that the strategy adopted inlargely maintained its value during the whole of the 1994-1999 period.

Table 3.4 Allocation of planned budget over the priorities in 1994 and after the second revision of 1999

Priority Allocation planned 1994 Allocation planned aftersecond revision

1. Business development 15% 17%

2. Tourism and recreation 3% 3%

3. Agriculture and rural

development

14% 14%

4. Fisheries 6% 7%

5. Human resources 19% 19%

6. Commercial infrastructure 11% 10%

7. Transport and communication 21% 19%

8. Research and development 10% 9%

9. Technical assistance 2% 2%

100% 100%


Expenditure by priorityTable 3.5 below shows expenditure by priority and compares actual expenditure with theplanned budget. The table shows that all priorities eventually showed under spending ofthe EU budgets. In percentages, the under spending is approximately the same for allpriorities. Exceptions are in the field of transport and fisheries, for which almost all theavailable budget has been spent and in the field of human resources, which shows thelowest spending of EU budgets (approximately 50%).


Table 3.5 Budget (after last revision) and expenditure per priority (x 1000 euro)

Community finance

Total Total EU ERDF ESF FIFG EAGGF

National

administrati

on Private

SME Budget 225,191 27,363 17,955 9,408 0 0 42,305 155,523

SME Realisation 185214 22480 14885 7595 0 0 28381 134352

Difference 39977 4883 3070 1813 0 0 13924 21171

Tourism Budget 24,253 5,285 5,250 35 0 0 8,437 10,531

Tourism Realisation 40056 4228 4210 19 0 0 14893 20935

Difference -15803 1057 1040 16 0 0 -6456 -10404

Rural development Budget 106,107 21,607 0 0 21,607 0 55,450 29,050

Rural development Realisation 110496 18176 0 0 18176 0 58480 33840

Difference -4389 3431 0 0 3431 0 -3030 -4790

Fisheries Budget 45,757 11,107 0 0 0 11,107 10,650 24,000

Fisheries Realisation 48687 10790 0 0 0 10790 17930 19967

Difference -2930 317 0 0 0 317 -7280 4033

Human resources Budget 73,250 30,302 900 29,402 0 ,0 39,574 3,374

Human resources Realisation 17784 16014 504 15510 0 0 1720 50

Difference 55466 14288 396 13892 0 0 37854 3324

Commercial infrastructure Budget 196,741 15,581 14,299 1,282 0 0 155,110 26,050

Commercial infrastructure Realisation 186750 11887 11357 530 0 0 165440 9423

Difference 9991 3694 2942 752 0 0 -10330 16627

Transport Budget 90,153 30,177 30,082 95 0 0 59,975 1

Transport Realisation 90816 29190 29116 73 0 0 61464 163

Difference -663 987 966 22 0 0 -1489 -162


Community finance

Total Total EU ERDF ESF FIFG EAGGF

National

administrati

on Private

R&D Budget 75,972 14,522 14,522 0 0 0 55,150 6,300

R&D Realisation 62496 10562 10562 0 0 0 45257 6677

Difference 13476 3960 3960 0 0 0 9893 -377

TA Budget 7,034 2,866 818 1,548 250 250 4,024 144

TA Realisation 3824 1995 757 776 231 231 1829 0

Difference 3210 871 61 772 19 19 2195 144

Total Budget 844,458 158,810 83,826 41,770 21,857 11,357 430,675 254,973

Total Realisation 746,122 125,323 71,391 24,504 18,408 11,021 395,394 225,405

Difference 98,336 33,487 12,435 17,266 3,449 336 35,281 29,568

Source: Provisional final financial table, PME Flevoland


Co-financingIn the preparatory phase of the programme, co-financing arrangements had to be set up.As Flevoland received Objective 1 status at a rather late stage, a lot of time an effort hasbeen spent on finding the required co financing resources at all administrative levels.

Important co financing sources at the national level were:• The Ministry of Economic Affairs (ERDF)

The Ministry of Economic Affairs made available a separate budget that could beused for the co-financing of initiatives in Flevoland. Just as in other SF (Objective 2)supported regions in the Netherlands, this budget was at the disposal of theprogramme management / managing authorities in Flevoland. Consequently, noproject-by-project co financing negotiations were needed in this case. Expenditurehad to be accounted for ex post.

• The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (ESF)The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment provided co financing for the ESFparts of the programme.

• The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries (EAGGF)The Ministry of Agriculture provided co-financing on a project-by-project basis.During the implementation of the programme, the co-financing of this ministry wasproblematic from the point of view of the province of Flevoland. A major problemwas that policies and regulations by the Ministry did not match those within theSPD. As an illustration, many discussions took place on the issue of what would beregarded as an “innovative approach”. The definition applied by the Ministry(innovative for the Netherlands as a whole) was stricter than the one applied in theSPD (innovative for Flevoland). Such matters should have been better discussed andelaborated at the start of the programme period.

• The Ministry of Transport (ERDF)The Ministry of Transport provided co-financing for some major transportinfrastructure projects. It did not have a general budget for the co-financing ofinitiatives, but it did reserve a budget for the concrete projects in question.

At the local level the municipalities (local governments) were important sources for co-financing. The local government made reservations for the co-financing of projects. Insome cases special arrangements were signed for this. Also here the budgets for co-financing had to be found on short notice, implying that the whole local budgets had to berearranged. After funds had been made available at the beginning of the period 1994-1999 local co-financing generally speaking never proved to be too problematic.

Private parties were especially important as co-financing source for the business relatedmeasures under priority 1, such as the Employment Grant Scheme, which provided directsupport to local SMEs.


3.5 Conclusions on appropriateness of the strategy

The appropriateness of the strategy can be looked at from two different perspectives:• the extent to which the strategy lend itself for effective implementation• the extent to which the strategy addressed the main economic problems that the

region was facing at the time.

Complexity of the strategy from an implementation perspectiveFrom an implementation perspective the way in which the strategy had been translatedinto 8 priorities and over 50 measures, was far from ideal. This was underlined also bythe PME staff (Programme management Bureau Europe, see chapter on Implementationfor more details).

It is hard to reconstruct how the structure of the SPD exactly came to be. Judging fromthe interviews done, the choice for 8 priorities was made by the province itself. However,the subsequent subdivision into 53 measures (some of which had been subdivided intosub-measures themselves) was believed to be the end result of the negotiations with DGRegio, one result with which the province was not particularly happy.

In practice, the large number of measures limited the flexibility of the programmeimplementation and is believed to have had a negative impact on the financial absorptionof the programme. The various on going evaluations have also commented on this.

Eventually, it was not until the SPD for the phasing out period 2000-2005 that the numberof measures has been reduced substantially. In fact this is now considered as one of thekey lessons that was learnt from the 1994-1999 period: try keep the number of measuresas limited as possible to maximise flexibility during programme implementation.

The extent to which the strategy addressed the main economic problemsThe key problem in the Netherlands Objective 1 region Flevoland was and still is verydifferent from most other Objective 1 countries / regions across Europe:• the economic problem is partly a commuting / spatial planning problem rather than

an economic development problem (people working outside the administrativeboundaries of the province);

• partly, the economic problems that exist are from an explicit sectoral nature(agriculture, fisheries) or stem from the young history of the region (lack of criticaleconomic mass and business activity within the provincial boundaries and weakinstitutional structures in the socio-economic policy environment).

The problem of fast growing population compared to job growth was not dealt with in theprogramme, in particular as the housing / residential function of the region wasmaintained and not put into question, in particular not by the national policy makers.

The programme strategy on the other hand generally speaking did deal appropriately withthe main problems that the region was facing as a result of the young history of the region(economic and institutional). The priorities and measures of the EPD deal with the mainissues at stake:


• The development of indigenous potential by measures which encourage and supportlocal development initiatives and the activities of small- and medium-sizedenterprises;

• Investments in the field of education;• Measures contributing towards regional development in the field of research and

technological development;• Productive investment and investment in infrastructure aimed at environmental

protection;• Supplementary investments in infrastructure, where such investments strengthen the

economic structure.

Below a short assessment is provided of the appropriateness of each priority.

• Priority 1 Business developmentThe development of indigenous potential, encouragement and support of localdevelopment initiatives and activities of small- and medium-sized enterprises werein particular the topic of priority 1 Business development.

In many ways this priority can be regarded as having been the most innovativepriority, having the highest added value compared to the other measures, as itprovided the province of Flevoland with a whole set of new instruments with whichthey could stimulate business development in the region. (One should remind thatmost national regional development schemes at the time did not apply to Flevoland).In particular the Employment Grant Scheme (APR), the SME advisory scheme andthe actions aiming at strengthening of the intermediary structures and organisationsin the region are important to mention in this respect.

As mentioned before, the SME sector in Flevoland was already strong developed. AsSMEs are considered to be one of the most important motors for economicdevelopment, it was and sill is indeed important to further strengthen SMEs inFlevoland. With 15% of the SF resources dedicated to this priority (and also takinginto account the relatively small size of individual projects under this priority), thispriority has been amongst the most relevant / appropriate ones of the SPD.

• Priority 2 Tourism and recreationTourism is generally considered to be a growth sector. Flevoland possesses a coastalregion and also the rural area has potentials for tourism development. However, theregion was felt not to have the minimum requirements in tourist facilities to attractlarge numbers of tourists. That is why focus was on the creation of improving touristattractions and accommodations and facilities and to improve the quality of humanresources working in this sector.

• Priority 3 Agriculture and rural developmentThis priority was what might best be described as a “mixed bag” of measures, partlyrelevant for regional development, partly less relevant. The latter is in particular thecase for the measures and schemes that were specifically related to the agriculturalsector. The objectives of these measures were more oriented towards development ofthe agricultural sectoral as such, than that they formed a logical and integrated


element of a regional development strategy. They are therefore evaluated as havingbeen less appropriate elements of the Objective 1 strategy.

This is in particular the case for the two EC regulations that were implemented bythe Ministry of Agriculture, which seemed to have hardly any direct link to theregional development objectives of Objective 1. (Improvement agricultural structure(regulation EC2328/91) and Improvement of processing and sales of agriculturalproducts (regulation EC866/90)). This also applies to measures such as Stimulationof innovative agricultural activities and Stimulation of special agricultural projects.

The more general regional development measures under this priority are evaluated asmore appropriate in the Objective 1 regional development context. These measuresaimed at improving the productive environment in the regions through actions suchas renewal of villages, the improvement of basic facilities and landscapepreservation, investments in physical infrastructure and improvement of tourismstructures in rural areas, including the development of accommodation. Measures toimprove the extent to which the region itself could benefit from the agriculturalsector by increasing the number of added value generating activities within theprovince were not dealt with within the framework of the measure.

• Priority 4 FisheriesAlso some measures under this priority had a less clear relationship to the generalobjective of the programme of stimulating employment growth, and are evaluated asless appropriate elements of the programme strategy. It should be taken into accountthat some of the measure had exactly the opposite objective: breaking down thefishing fleet, thereby negatively contributing to employment creation and GRPdevelopment. Also the other measures under this priority (education, promotion ofaquaculture, processing and sale) had a very strong sectoral focus and seemed tocontribute less clearly to the Objective 1 goals.

• Priority 5 Human resources developmentActivities under this priority focused on increasing employment opportunities withinFlevoland and to solve the problem of the relatively high share of long termunemployed in the region. The measures were directed to the match between theskills of the labour force and the needs of (new coming) firms. This was done byproviding education and training of the labour force and by providing workplacements and subsidized jobs.

• Priority 6 Commercial infrastructureThis priority addressed the need for supplementary investments in infrastructure,where such investments strengthen the economic structure, as mentioned in the exante evaluation. In particular infrastructures in the field of industrial estates, officespace and public investment in the living environment were dealt with under thispriority. Contributing to improving the productive environment for industrial andnon-commercial services activities this is evaluated as having been an appropriateelement of the strategy.


• Priority 7 Transport and communicationThis priority also addressed the need for supplementary investments ininfrastructure, where such investments strengthen the economic structure, asmentioned in the ex ante evaluation. In particular infrastructures in the field oftransportation were dealt with under this priority. Contributing to improving theproductive environment for industrial and non-commercial services activities this isevaluated as having been an appropriate element of the strategy.

• Priority 8 Research and developmentPriority 8 and priority 1 Business development were the priorities that most directlyaddressed the needs of the local business community with regards to direct enterprisesupport. Activities that were programmed in the SPD included the RegionalTechnological Plan, and the provision of research and development facilities andR&D grants for SMEs.

Strategy mixThe strategy mix showed an appropriate mixture between on the one hand structuralinvestments in the productive environment, essentially investments with a long paybacktime in terms of results and effects on the economic performance, and on the other handmore direct business support measures, with more short-term but not always structuraland permanent effects. The effects are discussed in more detail in the chapter oneffectiveness.

Sectoral focusThe overview of priorities shows a sectoral focus in the priorities 2 Tourism andrecreation, 3 Agriculture and rural development and 4 Fisheries. Although a sectoralfocus is made explicit in these three priorities, it does not mean that these were also thethree main priority economic sectors for regional development in the programme. Inparticular the development of SMEs in high added value industries in the industrial sectorand commercial services sector was more important as priority sectors for furtherdevelopment, and indeed formed the most appropriate elements of the strategy from asectoral point of view.

Productive environmentThe priorities 1 Business development, 5 Human resources, 6 Commercial infrastructure,7 Transport and communication en 8 Research and development are characterised byhaving a thematic or instrumental focus. They cover the main aspects of the regionalproductive environment.

Changes in appropriateness during the programming periodThe SWOT analysis done for the 2000-2006 period shows that the strong and weak pointsin Flevoland still correspond with the main problems as described in 1994. On manypoints were improvements have been made and weaknesses have been appropriately dealtwith, but the main weak points are still not at the desired level (see also paragraph 5.3).This means that the strategy adopted remained valid during the whole programme period.

One development that necessitated a strategy change was the sharp decline in the numberof unemployed during the programming period. The measures directed on training were


for this reason adapted and changed into to the combination working and learning for themore difficult group unemployed people that remained.


4 Effectiveness

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the activities that have been carried out within the framework ofthe in the programme and provides an analysis of the programme outputs and results(paragraph 4.2). The programme effects are subject of paragraph 4.3, followed by anassessment of the community added value (paragraph 4.4). By interpreting the figures, itshould be kept in mind that the figures are based on the provisional report of Summer2002. The figures in the final report, which only came available after finishing this report,are in some cases more positive. Changes in to policy and practice are discussed inparagraph 4.5.

4.2 Programme outputs and results

In Flevoland serious work has been made of the identification and quantification ofprogramme indicators, at measure, priority and programme level. This paragraph containsoutputs and results.

First, the activities per measure are described, followed by a table presenting the resultsmeasured on measure level. The results on priority level are presented in paragraph 4.3and the results on the programme indicators are presented in paragraph 5.2.

The following table gives a picture of the realisation of the indicators per measure. Theinformation is derived from the indicators on measure level, as presented in theprovisional final report of the programme management. For this table the outcomes aregrouped, as in almost all measure e.g. employment is an indicator. Hence, e.g. theemployment figures are the sum of employment results of all measures within theprogramme. In general, the indicators on measure level are output indicators. In somecases, it involves results, like potential jobs that are created by new industrial areas or thecreation of new business accommodation.


Table 4.1 Programme outputs and results

Core indicators (where available) Targets Outputs Results

Employment Jobs created 8,865 7342

Jobs safeguarded 7,800 9,0001

Temporarily jobs, labour years 8,545 5,9542

Temporarily jobs/number of unemployed placed 450 1,086

Potential jobs 4,960 6,6003

Human Resource Number of unemployed trained 6,640 19,217

Number of employees trained 1,450 6,466

Number of managers trained 75 0

Participants workshop 600 101

Training centre created 1 1

Transport Infrastructure networks Motorways constructed or upgraded (km) 18,5 18,5

Other: public transport lines 10 2

Other: increase public transport travellers 2,000 1400

Telecommunications and Information Society Number of advisory services 20 14

Environment SME aid scheme technical environmental innovation

Number of audits)

50 48

SMEs Number of SMEs receiving advisory services 300 292

Centre of innovation and services/multiservice centre

SME (number of centres)

2 2

Number of SME’s using risk capital fund 200 17

RTD Science parks 2 3

Number of research studies financed 3 1

1 This number is not really the output of the programme, as in the agricultural sector just the number of jobs in Flevoland (7300) is mentioned as the number of jobs safeguarded.2 Result of activities within several measures3 Result of business sites and business centre


38

Core indicators (where available) Targets Outputs Results

Business sites Surface area of industrial zones, ha 96 234 Potential jobs1

Refurbishment of sites (ha) 40 40 Potential jobs

Surface business accommodation (m2) 3,500 127,152 Potential jobs

Number of business accommodation 5 5 Potential jobs

Established companies Number of companies 440 450

Tourism Number of visitors 1,000,000 1,075,000 (Temporary) jobs2

Number of museums, cultural sites assisted 5 5 (Temporary) jobs

Number of new accommodations 10 244 (Temporary) jobs

Urban development Number of projects assisted 6 10

Fisheries Renewal and modernisation of fishing fleet, number of

coasters cleaned up

0 22

Rural development

• Improvement agricultural structures, Number of projects assisted 40 11

• Agricultural development (new activities) Number of projects assisted

Major projects

40

2

42

3

• Renovation small villages Number of projects assisted 10 6

Nature/water management Construction natural development areas 2 1

Construction natural areas (ha) 35 35

Agricultural areas by water distribution (ha) 16,000 8,8601 See employment2 Included in employment figure

Source: Provisional table on measure level, adapted by ECORYS-NEI


The employment targets are for some indicators amply realized, for other indicatorscounts that the target only partly is realized. There are much more jobs safeguarded thanplanned. These safeguarded jobs are found in the agricultural and fishery sector. Bothsectors developed more prosperous than was foreseen at the beginning of theprogramming period.

The number of temporary jobs and the number of potential jobs also exceed the plannedfigures. On the other hand, there are less jobs created than planned (83% of the target isrealized) and also less labour years within temporarily jobs realized than planned (70%).

In general the output in human development is much higher than the target and themeasures are considered to be successful. It proved that training of people could be donein a more efficient way than foreseen; more people could be trained against lower costs.

The targets with respect to transport infrastructure networks are realized with respect tothe number of kilometres new road. However, the number of new public transport lines ismuch lower than planned. This is caused by the fact that the budget available for newpublic transport lines was already exhausted after two projects.

Considering the outputs of measures directed to SME, it could be stated that the targetsare nearly met, with the exception of the number of SME’s using risk capital fund. Asmentioned before, this is probably the result of fragmented implementation and thedifficulty to meet all the criteria set.The measures directed towards the establishment of industrial sites and businessaccommodation is very successful. The targets are more than fulfilled, especiallyconsidering the surface of business accommodation. The booming economy, the pressurefrom the Randstad and the already planned granting in Almere contributed to this result.

In the field of tourism the number of realized new accommodations catch the eye, thereare 244 realized instead of the planned 10.In the SPD, no output targets were set for the renewal and modernisation of the fishingfleet. The output is renewal of 22 coasters.

In the field of rural development the planned number of projects regarding to newinitiatives is realised. However, fewer projects than planned are assisted in the field ofimprovement of agricultural structures. It proved to be difficult to formulate proposalsthat met all the criteria set within this measure.There were only few project applications for renovation of small villages. At the end ofthe programme period the programme management had to initiate projects for thismeasure. This explains why fewer projects are assisted than planned.

The picture for nature conservation and water management is mixed. It was planned toestablish two natural conservation areas, but only one is realised. On the other hand, thenumber of planned hectares is constructed. For water management counts that only somemore than half of the target is realised. It was expected that in the last year of theprogramme period another large project would be assisted, so that the target would bemet. This project, however, did not start.


4.3 Programme effects

In this paragraph, the results on the indicators set per priority are presented. In thefollowing table the indicator, the objective and the realization per indicator are presented.


Table 4.2 Programme effects

Indicator Objective Realized

Priority 1 Business development

Development of number of new establishments Annual 10% growth Average annual growth 1994-2001: 15%

Development net number of new establishments related to

growth in population (net extra establishments per 100.000

inhabitants)

500 net extra establishments related to growth in

population

Average in the period 1994-2000: 350 (only in 1995 the

target was met)

Number of jobs created by new establishments No objective Jobs in new establishments: 34,000

Jobs lost by firms leaving:

18,000

Net growth: 16.000

Number of firms that invests in Flevoland Increase of number of firms that invest to 60% at the end

of 1999

1999: 64%, 2000: 73%

Development turn over 2% growth per year Average growth is 3,25% per year 1994-2000

Priority 2 Tourism

Increase employment in tourism and leisure Flevoland Increase with 20% at the end of 1999 compared to 1993,

average yearly growth of 3%

50%, average yearly growth 1994-2001: 6%

Increase in number of recreation and tourism companies 3% per year Average yearly growth 1994-2000: 6%

Increase in number of nights spent 10% growth (1999 compared to 1992) 1999: 2,36 million, which is an increase of 16%, but from

1994 a average yearly decrease of 1%

Increase in number of tourist beds Average yearly growth of 2% Average yearly growth 1994-1999: 6%

Increase in number of tourists that visit the 8 main

attractions in Flevoland

Average yearly growth of 2% Average yearly growth 1994-1999: 0%

Priority 3 Agriculture and rural development

Development employment in primary agriculture Stable on 5800 full time jobs In 2000 6274 jobs, growth since 1994: 9%

Development employment agribusiness Yearly growth of 2% Average yearly growth 1994-1999: 5%

Population in rural areas remains stable 0% growth Average yearly growth 1994-1999: 3%

Number of agrarian heads of business Maximum decrease is 2.5% yearly Average yearly growth 1994-2000: -1%

Development of number of agribusiness firms Yearly growth of 3% Average yearly growth 1994-1999: 4%


42

Indicator Objective Realized

Priority 4 Fisheries

Employment fish processing industry Stable on 0% Annual growth 1994-2000: 2,5%

Number of fish processing firms Stable on 0% Annual growth 1994-2000: 3,6%

Share number of jobs in fishery and fish processing

industry compared to total employment in Urk

- (no target) 1994: 51%, 2001: 40%

Priority 5 Human resources

Number of employed as percentage of the working

population

At least above 90% In the period 1991-2000 the % was always above 90%.

The figure increased form 91% in 1994 to 96.7% in 2000

Number of participants in courses 11,353 19,591

Priority 6 Commercial infrastructure

Number of ha newly created industrial estate 90 ha 422 ha

Full time employment on new industrial estate - (no target) 13832

Priority 7 Transport and communication

New highway 8.5 km 8,5 km

Improved highway 10 km 10 km

New access road 3 km 0 km

Improved access road 2,5 km 0 km

Number of public transport facilities 10 4, of which 2 new lines

Priority 8 Research and development

Growth in number of jobs in R&D 2% per year Average yearly growth 1994-2000: 0%

Source: Revised annual report 2000 on EU programmes in Flevoland, 2002


In the following paragraphs table 4.2 is amplified. However, this is done after thequestions as formulated in the methodology guide of Ecotec. Hence, the structure differssomewhat from the table, which makes that not all elements of the table are furtherelaborated.

4.4 SME’s

Three priorities are directed to the support of SME. These priorities are• Business development• Tourism• Commercial infrastructure

4.4.1 Mix of activities

Business development measuresWithin this priority 10 measures are formulated. This makes that the activities in thispriority are quite divers of character, like a job premium regulation in order to attractfirms to Flevoland, activities directed to support to the SME sector, activities to supportstarting companies and activities to prevent and reduce unemployment.• One of the most important measures within this priority is the job premium

regulation. The regulation provides firms that newly settle in the region with apremium per job. The available budget was for some municipalities already halfwaythe programme period exhausted, and the available budget is expanded with approvalof the EC.Within this measure the total planned number of newly created jobs is notcompletely realised. This is mainly caused by the fact that at the end of theprogramme period budget was committed, but some of these projects did not start.As the programme period was finished, no alternative projects could be approved.

Interviewees doubt the necessity and effect of this measure, as they think that asubsidy will never be the reason for a firm to settle in a region. The evaluation of thismeasure confirms this opinion, as it states that the subsidy was never a decisivereason for a firm to settle in Flevoland. Furthermore, it is said that in some casesseasonal jobs were subsidized, which does not contribute to employment in asubstantial way.

• The other measures were mainly directed to support to SME. For the support of theSME, a regulation, which provides SME with the possibility to hire external advisorsin the field of innovative products and processes, market and strategy studies, isformed. Furthermore, firms had the possibility to have their firm scanned in severalfields, like technology, marketing and human recourses. After this scan, which is freeof charge, advisory services could be obtained at a reduced tariff. It was also plannedto train managers, but for this activity no candidates were found.

• There are also some institutions created in order to support enterprises. A building fora multi service centre is realised and an information centre for enterprises is created.Within the information centre several instances that deal with enterprises arerepresented, so that creating one stop-ship increases the efficiency of the services. Inorder to make this centre more widely known, a publication project is started.

• Starting companies are within this priority supported in several ways. A startersservice centre is created, in which several services are concentrated. The centre pays


among others attention to stimulation of starters accommodation, stimulation offinancing, promotion, and providing overviews of training. Training for startingentrepreneurs is also provided within the programme, which is qualified as a verysuccessful project by the programme management.Another tool to support starting companies, is the SME-fund, which provides venturecapital. The measure is not used as much as planned. An interviewee mentioned thatthe strict selection process probably causes this low number, not many SME-firmscould meet the criteria set. Furthermore, an interviewee indicated that the measuresare implemented in a quite fragmented way. This influences the transparencynegatively and makes it difficult for the target group to make use of the measures.

• In order to prevent and reduce unemployment a regional transfer centre is set up,which seconds unemployed at a reduced tariff. After 24 months the people have toget a contract at the firm involved. More than 300 unemployed took part.Furthermore, a lot of attention is paid on the vocational training of employees, ofwhich much use is made.

TourismWithin this priority the following activities are undertaken:• assistance is provided to investments in the tourist attractions. Examples are the

Batavia shipyard, where a historic ship is rebuilt, a ship historic museum and touristprojects along the coast in Lelystad and Almere.

• a contribution to the implementation of the Actionplan cultural tourism. Activitiesare, among others, the development of a culture arrangement, promotion and thedevelopment of a Festival.

• It was also planned to provide training directed to the tourism sector for unemployed.However, only a few people have been trained.

Commercial infrastructureWithin this priority projects are directed to the (re)development of industrial estates andbusiness centres, as well as projects directed to urban development and vocationaltraining:• Several industrial estates are revitalised/restructured and extended. Furthermore, a

business park is created and a site is prepared for building.• Some business centres are created. Special attention is paid to buildings for starters.• Urban development projects proved to be difficult to generate, also caused by

difficult procedures. However, in Almere and Lelystad projects directed to theimprovement of the city-centres are implemented.

• Vocational training directed to construction is provided and trainees had thepossibility to be involved in construction projects as trainee. Also training is given toemployees in the field of environment, quality and health and safety.

4.4.2 Enhancing capacity for generating viable businesses

The number of new establishments exceeded the target. The number of new firms isincreased from 1700 per year in 1994 to 2800 in 2001, but this growth is not enough toreach the target 500 extra establishments per 100.000 inhabitants. This is caused by the


fact of the exceptional high population growth, as a result of a migration surplus as wellas a natural growth surplus.The contribution of the programme to the number of new establishments is not onlyfound in activities undertaken under business development, but especially under thepriority commercial infrastructure. The following activities contributed to newestablishments:• new establishments were facilitated by the creation of new industrial sites. In the

1994-2000 period 422 hectares industrial estate were created, the programmecontributed to this with 234 hectares. According to the provisional final report, 450new companies established at these industrial sites. This facilitates the number ofjobs. The employment on the new industrial estates grows; in 1994 the growth was805, while in 2000 about 4.000 new jobs were created.However, according to an interviewee, a lot of the created industrial estates inFlevoland, would also have been created without the Objective 1 programme. Mostof the newly established industrial estate can be found in Almere, which is the nearestcity to the Randstad.

• the creation of business offices facilitated new establishments.• new establishments are also realised by providing assistance to starting entrepreneurs.• about the contribution of the job premium regulation to the newly establishments

many people have doubts. An evaluation of this regulation pointed out that thispremium is never a decisive item for new establishments.

• new establishments are indirectly supported by the priority infrastructure. One of themore important location factors is a good road infrastructure. The programmecontributed to the improvement of the infrastructure (priority 7). Hence, theattractiveness of the area to settle is improved.

• the measures under the tourism priority led to an increase in the number ofcompanies, as the programme contributed to the creation of tourist attractions andpromotion of the region. Other activities that contributed to employment and thenumber of companies are the creation of bed and breakfast facilities and minicampsites. At the same time, the number of tourists spending the night and those thatvisit tourist attractions remains stable. This is according to the provisional reportmainly the result of the loss of some recreation centres. The exact contribution of theprogramme on these developments is difficult to determine, as all the results of somelarge scale investments can only be visible in the coming years.

The relative number of firms that invest in Flevoland increased in the programmingperiod and the percentage was always higher than the target. The average growth in turnover is also higher than the objective.The extent to which the programme contributed to this development is difficult todetermine. The programme supported innovation investments by the SME fund and thetechno fund. Furthermore, the investments are stimulated by the provision of scans inseveral fields. However, this is a very indirect way to contribute to investments.

According to the provisional final report, the above-mentioned developments havecontributed to a growth in employment. In the period 1994-2001 16,000 extra jobs werecreated (the new firms were responsible for a growth with 34,000 jobs, but leaving firmswere caused an decrease with 18,000 jobs).


4.4.3 Competitiveness

The programme contributed to the competitiveness of the region by providing industrialestates and business accommodations. This makes the region more attractive to locate.Furthermore, the assistance to starting entrepreneurs and the job premium regulationmade Flevoland more attractive for (starting) entrepreneurs, though these regulations areprobably not the most important location factor.By strengthening the SME-structure in the region, the economic base of the regionbecame broader, which strengthened the competitiveness of the region. Furthermore, oneof the most important location factors is the availability of educated personnel. This is notreached under measures taken within the SME sector, but the programme contributed tothe improvement of the education level under the priority education and training. By thisthe competitiveness of the region increased.

4.4.4 Long term growth

To what extent the enterprises supported achieved long-term growth, is difficult todetermine. However, there are several facilities created that support SME in several ways.E.g. the improvement of production processes after advice and the support given to theSME in general help to create a stronger SME-sector with better chances grow. This alsocounts for support given to starting enterprises. As the first years of a firm are crucial,support in the first years is very important in order to improve the chances to survive andgrow.

4.4.5 Economic structure of the productive sector

To what extent the programme contributed to a change in the economic structure of theregion is not known, as there are no monitoring indicators formulated that tell somethingabout these changes. For Flevoland as an whole counts that the growth of employmentwas the strongest in the sectors transport and communication, financial and commercialservices and the building industry, while the growth within agriculture and fisheries andin industry and public utilities was quite low (see also table 5.3).

4.4.6 Distribution of funds

The EU budget was highest for Business development measures (22 million EU-budget),followed by measures for commercial infrastructure (11 million EU budget). A relativelimited budget was available for tourism (4 million EU budget). This distribution seemsto be effective, also seen in the light of absorption capacity. However, within priority 1almost two-third of the spending went to the job premium regulation. Seen in the lightthat there are some doubts about the effectiveness of this regulation, the budget availablecould probably have been spent in a more effective way.

4.4.7 Environmental protection

The measures directed to SME did not contribute to a large extent to the improvement ofenvironmental protection. Some effort is taken by supporting the SME with technical


environmental innovation audits. The follow-up, however, was the responsibility of theaudited firms.

4.4.8 Contextual factors contributing the developments

The booming economy and the high pressure in the Randstad, made that a lot of firmsfrom the Randstad settled in Flevoland. The booming economy demanded for anenormous increase in new industrial estates. Especially Almere, which is bordering theRandstad, profited to a large extent from these developments.


4.5 Agriculture and rural development


Rural developmentWithin the rural development 11 measures are formulated. As a consequence, a broadscope of activities is developed within this priority. Generally, the activities in thispriority are connected to effectiveness and processing and sales in the agricultural sector,agribusiness, smaller villages, rural tourism, nature conservation and R&D within theagricultural field.

• The first two measures are directed to support to individual farmers, in order toimprove the effectiveness and to processing and sales. There are fewer projectsgenerated in this field than planned. According to one of the interviewees, this ispartly the result of the fact that a lot of project applications were not approved andthat these measures only could be implemented within the context of national policy(EEC-regulations).

• A third measure to support agriculture, is the contribution to innovative projects.Some examples of these projects are a project directed to innovations in thecultivation of bulbs and the strengthening of the sales structure and support tocultivation, processing and sales of medicinal herbs and the concentration of LifeScience Industry (high tech infrastructure and the realisation of a knowledgeinstitute). The implementation of this measure was quite difficult as the co-financingMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Nature Conservation, had quite strict selectioncriteria. There was a continuous discussion about the interpretation of the word“innovative”. However, finally the planned number of projects is realised, partly as aresult of the fact that the province decided to co-finance this measure. It was alsoplanned to provide loans for improving the sales structure. However, there were noprojects available for this measure.

• One of the measures within this priority was to create industrial zones for newagribusiness initiatives. Altogether, there are 3 industrial zones (6 ha) created.

• Projects directed to smaller villages mainly focus on the improvement of services forthe elderly, so that the liveability for this group improved.

• In order to promote rural tourism, projects directed to the realisation of bed andbreakfast and mini campsites are supported. The number of projects was limited atthe beginning of the programme period, but in the last year a group accommodation isrealised and agreements on bed and breakfast are made. Lot of attention is paid to thepromotion in order to attract tourists. There are information panels placed and thereare skate routes and bulb routes created. Furthermore, a project directed to thevisualisation of culture historical sites is realised. Other projects, directed to theimprovement of the tourism infrastructure, are the construction of the road connectedto sports and recreation centre and the creation of a lock for recreation ships.

• Within this priority also an ecological zone is created, which forms the connectionbetween the most important nature areas in Flevoland.

• In order to support R&D in the agricultural field a concentration and extension oftechnological and fundamental research is realised, as well as the concentration of theDutch general inspection institute. A concentration of training institutions directed to


agriculture is realised in Dronten, in which 8 institutes are involved. The project isextended by the creation of possibilities for small firms to settle on the same territory.

FisheriesWithin the programmes, the fleet of Urk is reorganised and the number of coasters shrunkwith 22. Furthermore, a new fish auction is realised by which the quality, accessibilityand environmental aspects have been improved. The old auction and grounds have beengiven another function. The objective of the fish information centre project is to informpeople about aqua culture, fisheries and the processing industry. For this purpose, the oldauction is used for tourist visits.Within the aquaculture measure, a project directed to eel breeding is supported; it provedto be very difficult to find projects in the field of aquaculture and processing.

4.5.2 Improvement of the social and economic fabric of rural areas

The developments in the field of agriculture and rural development are quite successfulmeasured to the indicators set.

The number of agribusiness firms grew somewhat above the target. The employment inagribusiness and the increase in the number of firms are facilitated by the programme bythe establishment of industrial zones for new agribusiness initiatives, where 10 new firmswere established.

Employment generationThe number of jobs grew, in contrast to the expectations for the sector at the beginning ofthe programming period and the decrease in the number of agrarian heads of business isless than the maximum that was set. The programme contributed to this probably to asmall extent to this development, as only a limited number of projects were directed tofirms in the agrarian sector. The highest contribution in terms of development is probablythe promotion of new activities (according to the provisional report about 325 jobs werecreated with these projects). Furthermore, the rural tourism measure probably supportedthis development, as diversification within agricultural firms help to make themprofitable.Within the fisheries sector it was the objective to decrease the dependence of fishery ofthe working population. This objective is realised, as the share of fishery in the totalemployment decreased from 50% to 40%. At the same time, the employment and numberof companies in the fishery sector increased, despite the cleaning up of 22 coasters.The diversification of the economic base in the rural areas is mainly reached bypromoting rural tourism and the investments in firms active in this field. Furthermore, thecreation of industrial zones for new agribusiness activities contributed to thediversification of the economic base. Furthermore, the activities were directed to thediversification of the economy of Urk, as the fisheries sector is concentrated here. In theprovisional final report is stated that the diversification process of the economy in Urkonly partly started, as still many companies are related to fishery, and that it is importantto continue investments in this diversification process.The programme stimulates the diversification of the agricultural product by financinginnovative projects. Indirectly, the diversification is also supported by the support and


concentration of technological and fundamental research and the connected traininginstituted.By support to individual farmers in the field of improvement of effectiveness andprocessing and sales, a contribution is made to higher value added production. Attemptsto improve the sales structure were not realised, as there were no projects available.Whether the programme contributed to the improvement of income levels in rural areas isnot known, as these figures have not been monitored.

4.5.3 Attractiveness of rural areas and regional disparities

Also, the population in rural areas increased. As only a few projects directed to theattractiveness of rural areas (directed to the elderly) were implemented, it seems that thisdevelopment is rather an autonomous development than a clear effect of the programme.The programme was not directed to the decrease of regional disparities in rural areas.Hence, the contribution of the programme in this respect is limited.

4.5.4 Natural resources

The programme contributed to the extension of natural resources in the region by thecreation of an ecological zone. This zone forms the connection between the mostimportant nature areas in Flevoland.


4.6 Education and training/Human recourse development


The activities within this priority are mainly directed towards:• training, mainly directed to the sectors health, ICT, audio-visual, retail trade and

agriculture. There are much more people trained than foreseen, as the costs proved tobe lower than foreseen. There is also an institute created for the development andimplementation of training.

• Improvement of the functioning of the labour market. For this purpose sometransfer/support points for several sectors are set up. Furthermore, there was acoordinator for the training of employed people and a project directed towardscorporate social responsibility.

4.6.2 Reducing problems of social exclusion

More than a contribution to constraints in economic development and improvements inthe overall levels of human capital, the programme contributed especially to the chancesfor the more difficult groups of unemployed. This is done by providing training and bythe setting up of special firms that provided the possibility to combine learning andworking in order to build up work experience and skills. In this way, people with scarcepossibilities on the labour market improved their chances. The number of participants incourses exceeds the expectations (which is apparently an output indicator instead of aneffect).

The percentage of employed increased in the period 1994-2000 to 97%. Almost allmeasures within the programme were directed to the increase of employment, in a directway as well as in an indirect way. At the same time, the economy was flourishing and theunemployment was low in the Netherlands as a whole. The economic prosperity is mainlyresponsible for this positive figure.

4.6.3 Labour productivity

To what extent the labour productivity has been affected by the programme, is not clear.The objective of the programme was rather to reduce unemployment under difficultgroups than to improve the labour productivity. The increase of labour productivity in theNetherlands is a recent topic. As mentioned before, the relatively low GRP in Flevolandhas other reasons.

4.6.4 Reducing constraints in education

The programme provided the possibility for people that have scarce possibilities on thelabour market to receive training and to obtain work experience. In the regular educationfacilities there are hardly possibilities for this group.


4.6.5 Changes

In the course of time, it proved to become more difficult to find training participants. Thereason for this was the prosperous economic development and the accompanying lowlevel of unemployment. With this development, more attention was paid to the remaininggroup of unemployed people, a group that is very difficult to mediate. For them, institutesare set up where people learn and work at the same time, so that they can get used to aworking rhythm and at the same time can obtain practical skills. According tointerviewees, this is a successful approach.

4.6.6 Administrative workload

Some interviewees indicate that the administrative workload and regulations aroundprojects give a heavy burden on the organisation. The main problem is that theadministrative rules are connected to the administrative system an organisation has itself.This makes that an extra effort has to be taken in order to fulfil the obligations. Theinterviewees would like a simplification of the administrative rules.

4.6.7 Role of ESF in national education policy

The SF fund makes it possible to provide training and education for people who are in adisadvantaged position on the labour market. People in this position are dependent ontraining and subsidized jobs in order to enter the labour market. This assistance can onlybe provided by subsidy.


4.7 Transport and mobility

4.7.1 Activities

The following projects are realised:• The major project within this priority is the realisation of the connection between the

A27 and the A6 by the extension of the A27.• Another major project is the reconstruction of the N50 to a motorway connection

between Emmeloord and Ens.• A smaller project that is realised is the improvement of the accessibility of the airport.

Concerning public transport, two interliner connections are realised in order to makea new industrial estate accessible by public transport.

4.7.2 Contribution to (economic) development

The programme has contributed to the diminishing of the backward position inaccessibility of the Flevoland and the Noordoostpolder, by creating a connection betweentwo highways and the upgrading of road to a motorway. In 2000 about 45.000 vehiclespassed the newly created part that connects the highways.

As mentioned before, one of the most important location factors is the accessibility of aregion. Hence, the programme has contributed to the attractiveness of the region and withthis to the economic development.

The investment does not contribute to the Community-objective to establish or develop oftrans-European networks. The objective of the investment was to increase theaccessibility of Flevoland and not to contribute to the trans-European networks.


4.8 Research and development


Activities within this priority are directed to science parks and the match betweenbusiness demand and the supply of personnel. Furthermore, there are measures directed tothe stimulation of innovation. The following activities were financed• Within this priority the companies/science parks Geomatica, Alnovum and ID-DLO

are realised. Geomatica contains the development of a prototype of electronic datanetworks based services.

• A knowledge transfer centre is realised. Purpose of this project is the clustering ofknowledge of all participants. Furthermore, an ICT entrepreneurial centre is createdin Almere.

• A transfer point for trainees is set up, in order to provide a better match between thebusiness demand and the supply of highly educated trainees.

• The promotion of innovation processes by organising workshops for entrepreneurs,followed by a scan and professional assistance for the formulation of a projectproposal. Furthermore, a development expert was available for entrepreneurs thatwanted support in the field of technological problems.

• The creation of two funds, the SME fund and the techno fund to contribute toinnovation. Furthermore, the technological and environmental innovation regulationprovides assistance to firms that invest in R&D for technological and environmentalinnovations. An evaluation of the regulation pointed out that entrepreneurs are ratherpositive about this regulation.

Research and developmentThe activities directed to R&D within the programme had their effect with respect toemployment (the output is 300 jobs). However, it should be noted that the results of thesmall-scale activities in first instance were not registered; as a result the growth inemployment could only be measured within firms which main activity is R&D.

The extent to which the R&D activities generated the development of higher value addedactivities, is not monitored. However, one can expect that the knowledge transfer centre,the promotion of innovative processes and the support in the technological field forentrepreneurs contributed to the development of higher value added activities.

4.9 Programme contribution to social and economic changes

Based on qualitative assessments from the interviews, the following table indicates towhat extent the programme was effective in social and economic changes.

Table 4.3 Programme contribution to overall social and economic changes

Very

strong

Strong Adequate Weak Why is this?

Supporting innovation and

research and

X See activities under priority R&D


development

Supporting skills

development

X Lot of attention to training

Overcoming territorial

imbalance

X Not an objective of the

programme

Promoting rural

diversification

X See activities under priority rural

development

Promoting infrastructure

development

X See activities under priority

Transport

Supporting SMEs X Many priorities/measures are

directed to this

Improving environmental

infrastructure

X Not included in programme

Improving energy

infrastructure


Improving renewable

energy infrastructure and

resource efficiency


Contributing to urban

regeneration

X See activities under commercial

infrastructure

Modernising the fishing

sector

X See activities under priority

fisheries

Supporting

telecommunications

infrastructure and

developing an Information

Society

X See activities under transport

and communication

4.10 Assessment of Community Added Value

Not all interviewees have a clear opinion on the added value of all the measures. In thisparagraph is indicated where the several interviewees see problems with the added valueand additionality.

Within priority 1, there are some measures of which the added value is doubted byinterviewees. Regarding the Arbeidsplaatsen premieregeling (premium on new jobs)some interviewees mention that there are doubts about the added value; the number ofjobs would also have been created without this premium. The outcome of the evaluationon this measure indicates as well that the measure is not really important for firms in theirdecision on coming to Flevoland. An interviewee indicated that also seasonalemployment was subsidized, which did not really contribute to the diminishing ofunemployment.According to some interviewees, the added value of the SME-fund is less than it couldhave been. It is indicated that the implementation of the measure is very fragmented, asthe several banks that co-finance the measure all have their own agreement with theprogramme management. This makes it difficult to make optimal use of them.


For the measures within priority 3 counts that the measures directed towardsimprovement of the agricultural structure and improvement of processing and sale did notcome into its own, as these measure could only be implemented in the light of nationalpolicy instead of regional policy. This hindered the co-financing. The measure directedto innovative projects did not generate much projects, as not many projects could meetthe criterion to be innovative (the opinion of the for co-financing responsible ministry ofagriculture was that projects had to be innovative for the Netherlands and not only for theregion.

Measures directed to the creation of industrial sites, taken within priority 6, areconsidered to have only partly an added value. A big part of the target is realized inAlmere, which is closest to the Randstad. Without the programme, the developments inAlmere would probably have been the same, as Almere had already plans for thisdevelopment. This makes that many of the projects implemented are not really additional.

An interviewee mentioned that subsidies for the attraction of firms are useless, as subsidyis never the main reason for a firm to settle in a certain region. Furthermore, theinterviewee mentioned that this kind of measures can have negative effects in otherregions and that regions are played off against each other. It could be the case that a firmwants to move from a region to an objective region, while the originating region has aninterest in keeping the firm. At the moment the originating region wants to keep the firmin its own region, it can cost the regional government lots of money to compensate.Others indicate that this is the consequence of the objective to realise equal developmentsin all regions. In other cases firms “shop around” and chose the objective region that willbe the most profitable with respect to the amount of subsidies it can get.

For the extension of the road network counts that the work is much earlier implementedthan planned. After discussion with the European Commission, it is agreed thatimplementing this projects earlier than planned, the condition additionality is met. At thesame time, some people indicate that this should have been a task for the nationalgovernment and not for the EU.

In the following table the added value of the structural interventions is presented. Thistable is based on the indicative list of criteria and indicators for defining CommunityAdded Value.


Table 4.4 Assessment of community added value

Yes No Evidence*

COMMUNITY DIMENSIONContribution to economic and social cohesion

1. Additional growth X See growth figures table 4.5

2. Increase in the level of investment X Number of established companies, number of

firms that invest

3. Productivity gains X Not measured, but advice and training

contribute to a more efficient production

4. Greater economic integration Not relevant

Community priorities

5. Infrastructure provision, particularly trans-

European networks

effectiveness of infrastructure

accessibility

energy efficiency and diversification

new information technologies

connections to drinking water and waste recycling

systems

XX

XXX

Important connection of highways created

Not relevant

Not relevant

Not relevant

6. Regional competitiveness

public and private expenditure on R&D

employment in R&D

potential for job creation through local

development initiatives

X

X

Programme generated public and private

investments (see table 3.5)

Almost whole programme is directed to job

creation

7. Human resources

improved employability

reducing long-term employment

employment rate

XXX

See activities undertaken under priority human

resource development

8. Environment

Fund contributions to compliance with

environmental standards

?

9. Equal opportunities

rate of employment among women

number of women setting up a business

XX

No special attention to equal opportunities

within programme

Balanced and sustainable development

10 Better distribution of economic activities over

the Union

regional convergence

degree of concentration of economic activities

Quality of growth (sustainability index)

XXX

The programme as a whole is directed to

attract economic activities to keep up with other

regions

FINANCIAL CRITERIA

11. Additionality

changes in structural expenditure of national origin X There was no national policy towards Flevoland


Yes No Evidence*

(annual average)

12. Financial leverage effect

national public co-financing mobilised under the

Structural Funds

private sector expenditure

X

X

Before the programme, there was no national

budget available

The programme generated private funding (see

financial table)

CRITERIA RELATED TO THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS METHOD

13. Quality of multi-annual programming

degree of integration between national and

Community priorities

degree of coherence between national and

Community programming

X

X

The national priorities had to be adapted, as

there was no national policy towards Flevoland.

The programme is set up after the Community

priorities

14. Enlarged partnership

extent of the partnership

degree of efficiency

XX

There was already a broad partnership

structure, which is further strengthened

15. Control – Audit

share of projects audited X A strong monitoring structure was set up

16. Development of monitoring systems based on

quantified objectives

share of measures covered by financial and

physical monitoring information

XA broad set of indicators is formulated and a lot

of attention is paid on monitoring and

evaluation

17. Extension of evaluation work in the public

administrations

external evaluations

budget for evaluations

evaluation structures

quality of evaluations

XXXX

Flevoland initiated extra evaluations and pays a

lot of attention to evaluation.

CROSS-BORDER AND TRANSNATIONAL COOPERATION AND NETWORKING

18. Added Value of cooperation activities

joint cross-border of transnational management

committees

joint projects involving administrations and/or firms

cooperation projects with non-member countries

N/A

19. Innovative actions

multiplier effects in terms of volume of investment

mobilised and jobs created in the region

degree of transferability of actions

(mainstreaming)

N/A

20. Networking and exchange of experiences

initiatives and seminars on exchanges of

experiences on the Structural Funds

N/A

Other, please specify N/A


4.11 Changes to policy and practice

The context factors influenced the successes of the measures directed to train joblesspeople. The economic booming process made that most jobless people found a job andthat mostly the more problematic cases were left. This problem is solved by adapting thestrategy from training alone to education-work firms. In these firms people were sociallyactivated. By working people got a working rhythm, they learned how to cope withcolleagues, and so on. At the same time they acquired professional knowledge.

Furthermore, there were changes in allocated budget for the several measures/priorities.These changes are based on the wish to use all the available funds. Hence, budgets wereshifted from measures that were not exhausted and were there were only a few projectproposals to measures were too many projects were for the budget available.

In the following table is presented to what extent the programmes led to changes in policyat national (c), regional (b) and local level (a).

Table 4.5 Changes to policy

Policy change Programme influence Significance of change Significance of

programme influence

C. Budget/policy became

available for Flevoland,

where earlier no national

budget/regional policy

existed

Budget became available Important Important

B. Policy better

structured in priorities,

measures, activities and

indicators

Structure of EU-

programme determined

structure of regional

policy

Important Important

A. Adaptation of local

policy and budget

Local policy in line with

regional policy

In some cases important,

in other cases of low

importance

In some cases important,

in other cases of low

importance

Table 4.6 Changes to practice

Practice change Programme influence Significance of change Significance ofprogramme influence

C. -B. Programmed way ofworking

Organisation structureof implementingregional policychanged

Important Important

A. Increase in thematicworking

At implementationlevel programmecontains only projects

? Important


5 Impact

5.1 Introduction

In the SPD, the five operational objectives have been translated into 5 major programmeimpact indicators. These formed the basis for the monitoring of the impacts of theprogramme. Each annual report provided an update of the progress of each indicatortowards achieving the programme objectives. In 1995, a sixth objective regardinginvestments made by SMEs was added (see below).

The six programme impact indicators are:• Objective 1: Increase in GRP (Gross Regional Product) per head to 85% of the

average GDP of the EU;• Objective 2: An annual growth in employment of 3% above the Dutch growths

figure. The net growth should be at least 15.000 jobs;• Objective 3: An annual growth of the gross added value per employee of 2% above

the Dutch growth rate;• Objective 4: Unemployment rate is below the Dutch level;• Objective 5: Decrease of sub-regional differences in unemployment figures;• Objective 6: Share of enterprises with investments to expand their business activity

is at least the same as the average Dutch share.

It should be recognised that these socio-economic indicators represent context indicators.The impact of the programme on the developments in the socio-economic contexts canonly be established on the basis of qualitative assessment. Section 5.2 provides anoverview of the extent to which the impact indicator objectives have been achieved. Insection 5.3 a qualitative assessment is provided regarding the extent to which theprogramme has contributed to improving the future economic development perspectivesof the region.

5.2 Achievement of the programme objectives

Objective 1: Increase in GRP per head to 85% of the average GDP of the EUAs discussed before at the outset of the programming period, GRP per head in Flevolandwas just at the required level of 75% of the EU average. The following table shows thedevelopment of the GRP/GDP per head compared to the EU average for the Netherlandsas a whole and for Flevoland.


Table 5.1 GDP/GRP per head, EU-15=100, objective: 85%

Year Netherlands Flevoland

1993 104 75

1994 105 77

1995 107 77

1996 107 75

1997 113 82

1998

1999 114 80

1995/1997 110 78

1997/1999 114 81

Source: Eurostat, in provisional final report, 2002, Index EU15=100

The table shows that the objective to increase the average GRP per head to 85% was notreached, but did nevertheless increase to 80%, well above Objective 1 criteria. The mainexplanatory factors for this are:• Economic growth in Flevoland over the 1994-1999 period;• The original EU was based on 12 member states, during the programming period

with the accession of the Nordic member states the index increased, which led to aincrease in the gap between Flevoland and the EU average.

• Despite economic growth in Flevoland, the increase in employment possibilities wasnot enough to counteract the high in-migration as a result of Flevolands function as aresidential area for people originating from other parts of the Randstad. Thiscontributed to the fact that the 85% level could not be reached.

Noteworthy from the table is also that Flevoland was successful in diminishing the gapwith the EU average. When we compare the situation in Flevoland with that of theNetherlands as a whole, the gap with the national average actually increased, as GDPgrowth in the Netherlands as a whole was faster than in Flevoland over the period 1994-1999 (this again, as result of the population growth in Flevoland, compared to theNetherlands).

A yearly growth in employment of 3% above the Dutch growths figure. The net growthshould be at least 15.000 jobsThe objective of the programme was that the annual growth in employment would be 3%above the Dutch figure. In the following table the development per year is indicated, aswell as the annual objective.


Table 5.2 Development of employment

Year Full timeemployment

Flevoland

Full timeemploymentNetherlands

(x1000)

Developmentcompared to

last yearFlevoland

(%)

Developmentcompared to

last yearNetherlands

(%)

SPD-Objective:

Netherlands+ 3%

1993 65,700 5,925

1994 68,200 5,920 3.8 -0.1 2.9

1995 72,100 6,063 5.7 2.4 5.4

1996 75,800 6,187 5.1 2.0 5.0

1997 80,200 6,400 5.8 3.4 6.4

1998 87,100 6,609 8.6 3.3 6.3

1999 96,100 6,805 10.3 3.0 6.0

2000 103,400 6,917 7.6 2.3 5.3

2001 110,300 7,064 6.7 2.1 5.1

Average annual

growth 1994-

2001 (%)

7.1 2.6 5.6

Source: CBS and the Province of Flevoland, in provisional final report Flevoland, 2002

Table 5.3 Development of full time employment in Flevoland 1995-2000

Branch of business 1995* 2000* growth % growth

Agriculture and Fisheries 7,400 8,200 800 11

Industry and public utilities 10,300 13,000 2,700 26

Building industry 3,900 6,400 2,500 64

Trade and catering industry 14,700 21,000 6,300 43

Transport and communication 2,600 4,800 2,200 85

Financial and commercial services 13,600 23,400 9,800 72

Non-commercial services 19,600 26,600 7,000 36

Total 72,300 103,400 31,100 43

* Full time is for 1995 more than 15 hours, for 2000 more than 12 hours a week

Source: Statistiek van de werkgelegenheid, in Revised annual report 2000 on EU programmes in Flevoland,

2002, 2002

The tables indicate that the objective of a net growth of 15,000 jobs was almost threetimes exceeded; in the period 1994-2001 a growth with 42,000 jobs could be realized. Atthe same time there was an increase in the number of part time jobs with 8000.The average annual growth in the period 1994-2001 is also more than 3% higher than thefigure for the Netherlands. For all years, with the exception of 1997, the target to have agrowth that is 3% higher than the growth in the Netherlands was achieved.

Still, there are not enough jobs for the population. The region provides jobs for 69% ofthe working population (2000). This figure is only slightly higher than the figure at thestart of the programme period (67%). Again, this is a result of the fact that the workingpopulation growth is almost just as high as the increase in the number of jobs.


An annual growth of the gross added value per employee of 2% above the Dutch growthrateThe objective is to realise a growth in gross added value per employee, which is 2%higher than the growths figure of the Netherlands. In the following table the developmentof the gross added value compared to the objective is shown.

Table 5.4 Gross added value per employee labour year (Netherlands and Flevoland) x 1000

Development compared to former

year (%)

Objective:

Netherlands

+2%

Year Netherlands Flevoland Netherlands Flevoland

1993 124 129.1

1994 132 146.5 6.5 13.5 8.5

1995 * 126 130

1996 128 129 1.2 -0.7 3.2

1997 ** 131 132 2.5 2.9 4.5

1998 ** 134 135 2.4 2.3 4.4

Average growth

1995-1998

2.1 1.3 4.2

* In 1995 the CBS revised the added value figures, hence, the period 1990-1994 cannot be compared t the

period 1995-1998; ** Provisional figures; Source: CBS, in provisional final report, 2002

The objective to reach a growth in gross added value per employee per that is 2% higherthan the growth in the Netherlands is not reached for the period 1995-1998. The results aredivergent; in 1994 the growth in gross added value was very high, while it was much lowerin the next years. This is caused by the differences in prices in a year. Flevoland is a relativeimportant producer of agrarian products. A strong decrease in the agrarian prices causes alow gross added value. In the provisional final report it has been indicated that the measurestaken to achieve an increase in gross added value are mainly directed to the SME sector andnot so much to the for the region important agrarian sector.

Unemployment rate that is below the Dutch levelThe objective of the programme was to achieve an unemployment rate below the Dutchunemployment level. The following table presents the development of the unemployment inFlevoland and the Netherlands.


Table 5.5 Registered unemployed in % of the working population

Year Netherlands Flevoland

1994 8 8

1995 8 10

1996 7 7

1997 6 7

1998 5 6

1999 4 4

2000 4 5

2001 3 4

Source: CBS, statline, Voorburg, Heerlen, 2002

Unemployment rate is in the whole programme period not lower than the unemployment rateof the Netherlands as a whole. However, positive trends are shown; the unemployment ratedecreases from 1995 on. It follows the trend that can be seen in the Netherlands as a whole.In 2001 it reached nearly the level of the Dutch unemployment rate, which is very low.

Decrease of sub-regional differences in unemployment figuresThe objective is to decrease the sub-regional differences in unemployment. The provinceof Flevoland calculated the standard deviation of the unemployment rates of themunicipalities within the province of Flevoland. This standard deviation indicateswhether sub-regional differences decrease of increase. The following table shows thetrend in the standard deviation.

Table 5.6 Differences in unemployment, standard deviation

Year Standard deviation

1993 3.8

1996 4.2

1997 3.9

1998 3.8

1999 3.3

2000 2.7

2001 2.3

Source: RBA and province of Flevoland in the provisional final report, 2002

The objective to diminish the sub-regional differences has been achieved as the standarddeviation decreased as of 1996. The lowest unemployment rate in 2001 was found in Urkand Zeewolde (3%) and the highest in Lelystad (9%).

Share of enterprises with expansion investments is at least the same as the average DutchshareThe objective is to have at least the same share of enterprises with expansion investmentsas the average figure for the Netherlands. The following table shows the figures for theprogramme period.Table 5.7 Share of enterprises with expansion investments

Year The Netherlands (%) Flevoland (%)


1994 31 41

1995 35 42

1996 32 40

1997 31 31

1998 34 38

1999* 33 40

* from 2000 the distinction between investments and expansion investments is not made anymore within the

ERBO-enquête; Source: ERBO-enquête, provisional final report Objective 1 Flevoland, 2002

As can be seen in the table above, the objective to have at least the same share ofenterprises having expansion investments is met. However it should be noted that beforethe start of the programme period the share was already higher in Flevoland than in theNetherlands as a whole.

ConclusionThe employment developments in Flevoland have been quite prosperous over the 1994-2001 period and the targets that were set have been achieved. At the end of theprogramme period, the unemployment rate was just as low as in the rest of theNetherlands. Furthermore, in Flevoland the expansion investments of enterprisesremained higher than in the Netherlands as a whole.However, despite this positive development, the GRP per head did not reach the statedobjective of 85% of the European average GRP. Due to the enormous population growthof the last years, it is almost impossible to fulfil this objective, as the creation of jobscannot keep up with this development. Also the gross added value per employee is aboutthe same as the figure for the rest of the Netherlands, instead of the target to be 2%higher.

5.3 Impact assessment

In this section a closer look is taken into the impacts that the Objective 1 programme hashad on creating the preconditions for future economic growth in Flevoland. An interestingexercise in that respect is to compare the SWOT-analysis that has been done for the exante evaluation of the 2000-2006 phasing out period with the analysis of the key issues in1994.


Weak points indicated in 1994 and those indicated for the 2000-2005 period

1994 weak pointsindicated in the ExAnte evaluation2000-2005

• Negative commuting balance X X

Economic structure• under representation commercial services

sector

• under representation industrial sector

• under representation of the transport and

logistics sector

• over representation agrarian sector

• Over representation SME /under representation

large enterprises

• Agricultural production mainly exported and/or

processed outside provincial boundaries

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Labour marketBrain drain of high educated people X

• Relatively high percentage long term

unemployed

• Low qualification levels of the unemployed

X

X

X

• Further increase in working population, not

matched by growth in economic activity

X

Productive environment• Weak intermediary organisations

capacity/infrastructure

X

• R&D efforts staying behind X

• Underdeveloped higher education and

knowledge infrastructure

X

• Lack of clustering (between enterprises and

enterprises - knowledge institutions)

X

• High congestion on the transportation

infrastructure

• Infrastructural connections not optimally

developed, intraprovincial as well as the

connection with the ‘old land’

X

X

• Poor social and cultural services X X

• Poor non-commercial services (health care,

education and public transport)

X X

As can be seen in the table above, the weak points indicated in for the former period areroughly the same as the ones indicated for the new programming period.

Low GDP per capita and the commuting problemA negative commuting balance caused the low GDP per capita at the start of theprogramme. One of the objectives of the programme was to reduce this negative balance


by the creation of jobs within the region. Despite the fact that many jobs were created,both outgoing as well as the incoming commuting increased. The outgoing commutinggrowth was stronger than the outgoing, hence the negative commuting balance increased.

Economic structureOne of the weak points in Flevoland is the under representation of several sectors.However, in all sectors there is an increase in the number of firms, except for theagricultural sector. This growth is stronger than the growth in the rest of the Netherlands.Especially the sectors building industry, commercial services and transport andcommunication show a strong growth. For the new programming period the underrepresentation in several sectors is again indicated as a weak point, but the problem isdiminishing.The overrepresentation of the agrarian sector is still a problem. The number of agrarianfirms decreases slower than in the rest of the Netherlands.

Concerning the size of the firms, it is stated that the under representation of large firms isa weak feature. However, this problem is mainly found in the industrial sector. Comparedto the Netherlands, the representation of large firms in Flevoland is only a bit lower.

Labour marketFlevoland still faces a tremendous growth in the working population. This growth ispartly met by a strong growth in the number of firms and the strong growths of thenumber of jobs in the region. However, as indicated above, there is still a negativecommuting balance. The increase in working population is not matched with the growthin economic activity. There is still a relatively high percentage of long term unemployed.

Productive environmentThe R&D activities are still a weak point for the 2000-2005 period, as the efforts in thisfield are staying behind. Problems are also found in the field of infrastructure, theconnections are not optimally developed. Also, there is still a problem within the social,cultural and non-commercial services, which still does not reach the national level.

Al together it can be stated that there were improvements on the weak points indicated atthe start of the programme in 1994 improved, but are still not at the desirable level.Continuous efforts are needed to solve these problems.


6 Management and implementation systems

6.1 Institutional arrangements

OrganisationThe following actors play an important role in the implementation of the Objective 1programme Flevoland:• the programme monitoring committee• the provincial political representation• the board of the regional employment office• the programme management and provincial specialist departments• project bureau ESF• project applicants

Figure 6.1 Organisation structure of the Objective-1 programme FlevolandProgramme Monitoring Committee

Board of the Regional

Employment Ofice

Provincial Political Representation

Board of the Regional

Employment Ofice

Provincial Political Representation

Projectbureau ESFProgramme management

/ provincial specialist departments

Projectbureau ESFProgramme management

/ provincial specialist departments

Description of the programme management (programme management and project bureauESF)There are several bodies involved in the programme management of the Objective-1programme of Flevoland. These are the Programme Management Europe (PME), theprovincial specialist departments and the project bureau ESF. Within the programme themanagement of EFDF /EAGGF/ FIFG-part and of the ESF-part of the programme aresplit. The management of the first mentioned funds are the responsibility of the PME andthe project bureau ESF is responsible for the management of ESF. PME operates from theprovince, while the project bureau PME operated from the regional employment office.


Furthermore, the provincial specialist departments are closely involved in themanagement of the ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG-part of the programme.

Programme Management EuropeOne of the challenges that the provincial organisation faced after acquiring Objective 1status was to find a suitable model for the implementation of the programme. Severalpossible models were thought of. The programme manager at the time advocated having aseparate project organisation operating within the provincial organisation. Such a projectorganisation would act as managing authority and paying authority and would beresponsible for all aspects of programme implementation, from project selection untilproject finalisation. However, the provincial administration (GS) at the time judged thisidea as being too revolutionary.

Instead it was decided that the implementation of the programme, at least for the ERDF,EAGGF and FIFG measures, would be integrated within the existing provincialorganisation. Staff of the specialist departments carried out most aspects of programmeimplementation. They became responsible for project acquisition and identification,project intake and, after their approval, for monitoring the projects during theirimplementation, ensuring that the payments were made and invoiced in time, etc. Eachproject was assigned one provincial official who followed the project from beginning toend.

The main tasks of the PME are:• Steering and monitoring the processes within the programme• Drafting of the year programmes, procedures, selection criteria and criteria for

prioritisation• Check proposals on the European regulations• Application of financial advances at the EU• Administration of grants and monitoring the financial and physical progress• Supervise the evaluations and evaluation procedures• Drafting the progress reports of the programme• Preparation of the meetings of the Programme Monitoring Committee• Supporting and stimulating project applicants• Informing on procedures and subsidy possibilities

At the end of the programme period 10 people were employed at the PME. One of themis an external hired controller, who is financed by the technical assistance (TA) budget.The same counts for some other persons within the PME, who have a temporarilycontract. Employees who were already employed by the province could not be paid fromthe TA budget. At the beginning of the programme period this was brought underdiscussion with the DG’s involved, but the outcome was not in favour of the province.

Project Bureau ESFThe tasks of the project bureau ESF are broadly the same as these of the PME.Nevertheless, there are a few clear differences. The project bureau ESF is also responsiblefor initiating projects, providing support to project applicants and the assessment ofproject applications. The whole procedure, from application to payment, is the


responsibility of one organisation. The procedure for ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG projects ismore complex.The project bureau ESF employed 7 people at the end of the programme period,complemented with 2 people for projects for which the regional employment office wasthe applicant. The costs for the first mentioned employees are financed by the TA-budget.

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and FisheriesExcept the split between the management of ESF and ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG, there is athird party involved in the implementation of the programme. A number of EAGGF andFIFG measures under priority 3 and 4 were implemented directly by the Ministry ofAgriculture and Fisheries in The Hague.

Programme monitoring committeeThe programme monitoring committee (PMC) is basically responsible for theimplementation of the Objective 1 Programme Flevoland and has the power to adjust theprogramme if it proves to be necessary. In practice the PMC acts as a kind of company'sboard of commissioners. The same PMC supervises the communitarian initiativesLEADER-II and Pesca as well.

The following organisations are represented in the PMC:• EC• European Investment bank• Ministry of Economic Affairs• Ministry of Transport• Ministry of agriculture, nature conservation and fisheries• Ministry of Housing, Planning and environment• Ministry of social affairs and employment• Regional employment office• member of the Provincial Executive• Municipalities• District water board• Agricultural organisation• Social-economic platform• Chamber of Commerce

The PMC meets twice a year. Since 1996, the PMC organised thematic meetings. For thismeetings eternal experts are invited. These thematic meetings stopped in 1999 out ofefficiency considerations.

Members of the Monitoring Committee consider their role very limited. They criticize thelack of fundamental discussions in the Monitoring Committee and the fact thatdevelopments are only discussed afterwards and not at the moment that decisions have tobe taken.At the moment that the SPD was formulated, most members of the MonitoringCommittee feel that they were not involved in the strategic discussions. Partly this wascaused by the time pressure in which the SPD had to be drawn, and by the fact that manydiscussions were on the rules and less on the content. Representatives of the towns have a


different idea on this, as they felt involved in drafting the SPD. They had the chance tocome with suggestions for possible projects.Also the involvement of the members of the Monitoring Committee with theimplementation of the programme remained limited. Members did not feel that they havea role in this process and are even wondering whether they should attend the meetings.The members of the monitoring committee feel a lack of information. They do receive alot of paperwork, but they do not have the general overview activities and projects thattake place within the context of the programme. Also, they consider it important thatevaluations of the programme are more thoroughly discussed within the MonitoringCommittee than the practice is now.

Most interviewees consider the composition of the Monitoring Committee adequate.However, it is indicated that there is an under representation of the business sector.

Judgement on the management organisation structureESF project bureau - PMEThe split in management between PME and the ESF programme bureau did not causeoperational problems. Similar structures are found in other Objective regions though. It isa logic choice as the financing structure differs and also the financial procedures differfrom the other funds. However, for the new programme period, the management bureausare integrated, which is judged to be better.

From the beginning on, both programme management bodies operated independent ofeach other in the field of decision-making. However, it was desirable that the severalbodies involved would co-operate in a more structural way. This counts for the projectbureau ESF and the PME as well for the specialist departments. For this, a so-calledintake group was set up in1995. This intake group gears the projects and measures to oneanother. In the course of the programme the contacts within this framework intensifiedand resulted in a weekly meeting. The intake group consisted of:

- PME-ESF bureau- Economic advisor- Legal advisor- Staff of the specialist departments within the province

Persons involved were satisfied with this co-operation.

ERDF/EAGGF/FIFGA drawback of the organisation set-up was in particular the fact that the PME did nothave any concrete steering mechanisms or decision powers to steer the work of thespecialist departments. For the staff of the specialist departments the implementation ofthe Objective 1 programme was not their ‘core business’ as they were also involved inother tasks such as policy preparations, drafting of policy documents, etc. In particularthis was regarded as a problem when the financial absorption of certain measures(commitments) or projects (expenditure) was problematic. It was felt that PME staff, forwhom such issues would indeed be their ‘core business’, could attack such problemsmore effectively and with a higher sense of urgency. This was felt in particular during thesecond half of the programme period when the emphasis shifted to a certain extent fromproject initiation and formulation to project administration and management. It was not


until the start of the 2000-2006 period however that the organisational set-up waschanged drastically into this direction. For the phasing out-programme, the PME operateswith a total of almost 30 staff members is actually running the programme within theprovincial organisation. It is expected that this new organisational set-up will be bettercapable of keeping the programme at the right speed, which is all the more importantgiven the additional requirements posed by the automatic decommitment n+2 rule.

It was also felt that the fact that the PME was small and the specialist departments wereinvolved in the initiation of projects had a negative impact on the visibility and therecognizability of the Objective 1 programme to (potential) project implementers and thewider public in general. It was not always clear for potential project applicants who theyshould turn to with project ideas and requests for information.

The table below summarizes the main organisational changes that have been made for the2000-2006 period that stem from lessons learnt during the 1994-1999 period.

Table 6.1 Organisational changes

Approach 1994-99 Approach 2000-06 Benefit gained Reason for change

PME, programme

management within

province spread

between specialist

departments and PME

and ESF-bureau

shift of all

responsibilities for

programme

management to PME,

with support from

specialist departments

where and when

necessary

clear designation of

responsibilities for

programme

management to PME;

better control of speed

of commitments

absence of steering

mechanisms to speed

up programme

implementation led to

absorption problems

and insufficient control

over programme

implementation

Idem idem increased visibility,

recognisability and

accessibility of

programme for potential

beneficiaries

Source: Interviews ECORYS-NEI

Role of the ECThe EC funds the programme and is responsible for the formulation of the regulations.The EC changed the regulations, or elaborated them, during the programme period.Unfortunately, the information of these changes was not always found in the availablepublications and regulations. The consequence was that in 1995 the implementation of theprogramme was delayed caused by the insecurity these changes brought.

Horizontal partnership: the absence of a Steering CommitteeNo other groups (such as ‘informal working groups’) were involved in the managementof the Objective 1 programme in Flevoland. In particular the absence of a SteeringCommittee (SC) should be noted here. It is common practice in Objective 2 programmesin the Netherlands to have a Steering Committee that takes decisions regarding projectproposals and that monitors the general progress of the programme. The SC usuallyconsists of key representatives of the regional partnership, in particular representatives of


the province, the regional representative of the Ministry of Economic Affairs as well asseveral representatives of the social partners and intermediary organisations. While theMC consists of the political representatives, the SC usually consists of public officials.

In Flevoland such a Steering Committee did not exist. The Provincial Executive did notdeem this necessary for a variety of reasons. One was the fact that the province ofFlevoland is a relatively small, well structured and ‘young’ province, where all socialpartners and other interest groups, including environmental groups, meet already on aregular basis (e.g. within the framework of the Provincial Consultation Body for SpatialPlanning). The added value of an additional consultation body was therefore judged to belimited. In addition, it was felt that the province was the main co financer of theprogramme. Co financing by other parties in the region was limited and therefore thenecessity for having them co-decide on the programme was judged to be limited as well.The absence of a Steering Committee has been maintained until the end of theprogramming period, and the situation will prevail in the phasing out period as well.Nonetheless, PME did feel that that having an SC would have promoted and stimulatedmore strategic thinking about the programme and the direction it should go. This wouldhave facilitated the work of the PME and would have had an added value compared to theexisting situation. This is in particular the case, as the somewhat politicised MonitoringCommittee usually is less apt to such strategic discussions.

An interviewee indicates that the lack of involvement of partners is a pity and that itcould be improved. One way to improve the involvement is the establishment of workinggroups or commissions that give advice on projects within their field of expertise. It isalso suggested that for partners that do not have a direct interest in the programme, butwhich can have an important role in policy formulation, receive some budget from theTA-budget, so that they can put some effort in it.

6.2 Project selection process

Origin of project proposals (ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG)During the programming period a project inventory already took place. Manyorganisations were encouraged by that time to come up with project ideas and to giveinput for the contents of the SPD. Hence, several projects are found already in the SPD.

Projects come into existence in different ways. In some cases the province receiveselaborated project proposals. Most of the time, however, the potential project applicantcontacts the province before writing the project proposal. In these cases there is only abrief project idea and the specialist departments become involved in the furtherelaboration of the project proposal. In other cases, employees of the specialistdepartments have project ideas and develop them together with relevant actors. In thisway, the specialist departments are often involved in the preparatory phase of a project.The opinion about the guidance, which is given in the preparatory phase by the PME,differs; representatives of municipalities find that the PME assists in formulating projectsthat fit in the criteria of the programme. On the other hand, other organisations considerthe assistance minimal. Their idea is that project proposals are too much judged on theelements that do not fit in the programme. They had expected more guidance and


assistance in order to find out which elements of a project fit within the programme andhow a project could be adjusted, so that it fulfilled the selection criteria.It is mentioned that in some cases a discrepancy existed in the opinion of the PME andthe people from the specialist departments on the extent to which a project would beeligible. For the new programming period the structure changed, as there is one contactperson that communicates with the applicant, no opposite opinions are given to theapplicant.

Project selection procedureAt the moment that a project application is received, a registration number is given to theproject. The PME checks the proposal on the formal requirements. Then the project isdiscussed within the intake group (PME and project bureau ESF). The intake groupjudges the proposal on general selection criteria. The main selection criteria are:• information in application is correct and complete• economic feasibility of the project• financial recourses needed and way of financing• judgement on fiscal aspects• contribution to objectives and value for money• match with one of the measures• match with the year programme• expectation on the effects• expectation of the employment effects• extent to which the programme generates extra investments• extent of complementarity or synergy with other projects within the SPD• indicators during and after completion of the project (monitoring)Based on these criteria, the intake group formulates an advice on the proposal. When theadvice is positive, a project number is given to the project and the proposal is send to thespecialist department for a judgement as regards the content of the project. The projectproposals are judged on specific selection criteria that belong to specific priorities. Thesecriteria have been adapted during the programme period, more elaborated criteria are forinstance formulated for the priorities agriculture and fisheries (priority 3 and 4) as well asfor tourism.If necessary the project proposals are further elaborated. The last step that the specialistdepartments take in the selection process is the formulation of a proposal to the provincialpolitical representation on the participation of the province in the project. The PMEjudges on this proposal as well. At last, the political representation of the provincedecides on the project proposal.

Project selection ESFThe project proposals for ESF are handled by the project bureau ESF and the employmentoffice. New projects are in most cases initiated by tow members of the project bureau.Both persons have their own field of working, one is responsible for education ofemployed and the other for education of job seekers. The projects are judged on criteriaby the ESF-coordinator. The ESF-coordinator advises on the project to the director of theregional employment office, who decides on the approval.


CommunicationFor the communication about the programme a communication plan was formulated in1994, which is updated in 1996. The publicity on the programme started in 1994. Someseminars and information meetings were organised for the target groups of theprogramme. On the ESF part of the programme, a conference was organised in 1997.Several brochures on the programme were developed, like a brochure for potential projectapplicants, a brochure on the background of programme and a brochure directed to theSME sector on the ESF-programme.Monthly newsletters disseminate from 1998 on, information about the progress of theprogramme. Furthermore, press releases and articles in regional newspapers provideinformation on the programme. From 1997 on, the accent in communication was mainlyon agriculture, fisheries and the regional technology plan. For the communication andinformation on the programme to the SME, the in 1996 established business informationcentre has an important function.

6.3 Financial systems

Advance payments on programme levelThe Objective 1 programme Flevoland receives advance payments of the EU structuralFunds. The PME applies for the advanced payments at the EU (for theERDF/EAGGF/FIFG funds). The national employment office receives the advancedpayments for the ESF-part of the programme. The advanced payments cover the advancespayments of the PME/project bureau ESF to the project managers.

Advances payments and final payment to projectsFor the structure of the advanced payments to projects, the projects are divided in threecategories:• Small projects (less than 50,000 guilders, about 22,700 euro)• Medium projects (between 50,000 and 1 million guilders, 22,700 – 454,000 euro)• Major projects (more than 1 million guilders, 454,000 euro).

Small projects receive at the start of the project an advanced payment of 75%. When theproject is finished, there is a final payment. For the medium projects counts thefollowing:

• 10% at the start• 20% after proved spending 20% of the project costs• 20% after proved spending 40% of the project costs• 30% after proved spending 70% of the project costs• 20% after finishing the project

The advance payments for major projects take place periodically, based on the spending.These payments take place at least once a year, with a maximum of three times a year.The last 20% is paid after finishing the project.

An atomised system is used for the monitoring of projects. As soon as a project isapproved, the project data are put into this system, including the financial data. Theproject managers had to report on the projects, financial as well as physical. Only afterfinancial reporting, the advanced or final payments are paid.


In the 4th evaluation report is indicated that most project managers are satisfied with theterm on which the advanced payments were made.

6.4 Monitoring structures

Both PME and the project bureau ESF are responsible for the monitoring of theprogramme. Both bodies have a computerized system in which project data are gathered.The monitoring system of the provincial part of the programme was confined tomonitoring of financial data. It was developed by the programme controller and functionswell from the beginning, as the PME could rely on the experiences that had been gainedwith the monitoring of Objective 2 and objective 5b programme in other regions. Thesoftware of the monitoring system, however, appeared not to be millennium proof.Therefore, during the course of the programme period it was replaced by another system.

Monitoring of projectsThe monitoring of the effects starts at the moment that the project proposal is written. Inthe proposal applicants indicate which effects are expected. There are several types ofeffects:• financial effects• physical effects• job creation effects

Within the programme a clear set of indicators was formulated. However, according toearlier evaluations, not all indicators were relevant to the same extent (especially when itconcerned only output indicators, that do not say anything about the effect).In the 4th evaluation is stated that many applicants find it difficult to quantify theemployment effects. When a project does not have an employment objective, the projectis not monitored on employment effects. In the fourth evaluation is stated that this is apity, as many projects do have an effect on employment, but this was not indicated in theproposal. The programme management should assist the project applicants in thepreparation period to quantify the expectations.After approval al a project, the project applicant is obliged to provide a quarterly or halfyear report on the progress of the project. For the reports on ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG countsthat the reporting discipline is often lacking, while the programme management does nothave sanctions to improve the reporting discipline. Hence, the PME did not receiveenough information about the (financial) progress of the projects. As a result, monitoringteams were created in 1996. These teams visited all running projects in 1996. In 1998 theprogramme management of the province started with the execution of Risk-analysis.These analyses were directed to the available budgets per priority and measure, so that therisks for under spending became clear. In the last year of the programme period, theseanalyses were executed 4 quarterly.The fact that the computerized monitoring system did not contain physical outputindicators, meant that for the preparation of the annual reports provincial staff had toderive the information from the paper project files, which added very much to theadministrative workload associated with the implementation of the programme.


Project bureau ESF does not have problems with the reporting discipline. They put a lotof effort in getting the reports and send a reminder immediately when the report is notreceived in time. Contrary to the ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG projects, a standard form is usedfor the reports on ESF projects. The programme management of ESF started with randomvisits to projects in 1997 and later on more regular base.

6.5 Programme evaluations

The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs had developed an evaluation framework in 1994/ 1995 that was used for the evaluation of all regional SF programmes in the Netherlands.This framework has contributed to uniformity in the evaluation approach that wasadopted throughout the Netherlands. All evaluation reports contained and were structuredaccording the following elements:• Regional economic situation;• Strategy and coherence;• Organisation and management;• Implementation and synergy;• Impact.

The on going evaluations in practice in particular have concentrated on the organisationalaspects of programme implementation. They were less oriented towards the content,strategy and impacts of the programme. According to the programme managers this iswhere they could potentially have had most added value. Explanatory factors include:• organisational issues are “easier” for both evaluators and programme managers than

more abstract, strategic discussions regarding the content of a programme;• the wide scope of programme evaluations, dealing with all aspects and all measures

of a programme, left less room for looking in detail into specific measures. This is inparticular the case with ‘wide’ regional development programmes such as theObjective 1 SPD, as compared to having OPs oriented at specific sectors under aCSF;

• limited budget for evaluations forces evaluators to focus on a limited number ofissues and limit the possibilities for carrying out e.g. surveys among projectbeneficiaries;

• given their timing (while the programme is still being implemented) the possibilitiesfor impact assessment, both top-down and bottom-up, are limited almost bydefinition.

Programme evaluations took place at different stages of programme implementation: anex ante appraisal by the EC and three on going / mid term evaluations during programmeimplementation. In addition the province of Flevoland commissioned some additionalevaluations of specific measures.

• An ex ante appraisal was carried out of the original regional development plan in1994. The DG Regio of the European Commission commissioned this ex anteappraisal. For the provincial staff the status and objective of the ex ante appraisalwere not made clear and it was not until the start of the negotiations with the EC thatthey actually found out what remarks had been made in the ex ante appraisal.


Consequently, at first the possibilities to take into account the comments made bythe evaluators were limited. Based on this experience, one can say that the conceptof evaluation did not have the most favourable introduction in Flevoland.

• This seems to have been confirmed by the second evaluation, which was carried outin 1996 by Research voor Beleid. In the view of the programme management theadded value of the evaluation was limited compared to the information that wasalready included in the annual reports. Even so, the evaluators came up with anumber of relevant issues and recommendations to increase the effectiveness ofprogramme implementation. Issues that were raised in particular concerned:• the structure of the SPD, in particular with respect to the large number of

measures which were felt to negatively impact the flexibility of programmeimplementation;

• the absence of a Steering Committee and the limited involvement of thehorizontal (regional) partnership in project selection;

• the at times unclear division of labour between PME and specialist departmentswithin the province

Also this evaluation contained a more elaborate socio-economic analysis than thetwo evaluations that were to follow.

• The third and fourth on going evaluation were carried out by Bureau Bartels. Thethird evaluation report in particular analysed the financial progress of the prioritiesand measures and included recommendations and points of attention for theremaining implementation period of the programme. The fourth evaluation was themost elaborate evaluation of the three on going evaluations. It was valued by thePME in particular because of the evaluation process, and because the analysis of theorganisational set-up were useful in convincing the provincial executive of the needfor change with respect to the 2000-206 period with a stronger role for the PME.

In addition to the regular on going evaluations a number of more detailed evaluationscarried were out for specific measures. These evaluations included more detailedinformation regarding the content and (expected) impacts of the specific measures theydealt with. It concerns the following evaluations:• evaluation of measure 1.2 (job creation subsidy), Terp advies, 1999• evaluation on measure 1.7 (technologic and environmental innovative projects),

MHP, 1996 and 2000• the evaluation of the SME funds (1999)

Job creation subsidyThe job creation subsidy is a measure under the Objective 1 programme and providessubsidy on jobs created by firms which newly settle in Flevoland or which expand theiractivities. Later, ESF-budget is added to this measure, in order to stimulate job creationfor jobless people.The main conclusions of the evaluation on the job creation subsidy measure were:• a substantial part of the employment growth in the applicable sectors is subsidised

with this measure. This does not mean that this measure is an important factor on thedecision of firms to settle or invest in Flevoland. In some cases the existence of the


measure contributed to the decision of entrepreneur to settle in Flevoland, but was nota decisive factor.

• the adding of an ESF-component does not have much effect; only a small part of thebudget is used.

As a result of the outcome of the evaluation of measure 1.2, the measure is somewhatadapted. As the measure contributed to the promotion of Flevoland, the province wishedto continue the measure in an adapted way.

Technologic and environmental innovative projectsThe objective of the measure technologic and environmental innovative projects is tostimulate technological innovative economic activity and the use of environmentaltechnical production methods. The main conclusions are:• The measure has a positive influence on the economy of Flevoland, as it contributes

to the creation of sustainable, high quality jobs and the strengthening of enterprisesinvolved. Furthermore, enterprises involved are forced to consider the newtechnologies as an answer on growing concurrence.

• The enterprises involved are in most cases relatively small.• The project selection procedure takes too much time.

Lessons learntLessons that can be learnt from the evaluation experience in Flevoland are in particular:• it is important that those being evaluated are part of the evaluation process (see

experience with ex ante evaluation) so that they are aware of the evaluation purposesand what kind of recommendations they can expect;

• those being evaluated should state clearly to the evaluator their expectations andshould have a clear vision in their mind as to what they intend to do with theevaluation results (see experience with on going evaluation).

• evaluations with a clear purpose and support from those being evaluated are in theend more effective as the recommendations have more chance of beingimplemented;

• wide programme evaluations are less appropriate for evaluating specific measuresthan measure-specific evaluations.

6.6 Synergy effects

EU policyThe SPD is in the first place corresponding to the policy of the European Union. SeveralDG’s of the Commission are represented in the Programme Monitoring Committee. Oneof the EU priorities is the creation of employment. The objective 1 programme ofFlevoland contributes to this, especially with the job creation subsidy. Regarding scienceand technology, the EU instruments are directed to the strengthening of these potentials.In the Flevoland programme actions were taken in this direction, among others by theimplementation of a find for techno-starters. Within the EU policy a lot of attention ispaid on SME. Within all priorities attention is paid on this theme. The Flevolandprogramme is also directed to agriculture and fisheries, sectors that are also importantwithin the EU-policy. The same counts for rural development, for which the activities arematched as far as possible with the objectives of Leader.


There is also a relation with other communitarian initiatives which are implemented inFlevoland as well, like LEADER-II, Pesca, APAPT-II, the SME initiative and Action forEmployment. During the implementation of the programme is sought for thestrengthening of effects of a project, by implementing a related project out of anotherfunds. According to some respondents, this is not always easy, but there are someexamples where e.g. LEADER-projects were combined with substantial Objective-1projects.

National PolicyAt the time of writing of the Objective 1 programme, Flevoland was not on the prioritylist of national regional policies. Flevoland did not receive any regional developmentsupport of the national government. The ex ante appraisal, however, rightly stated that thefact that major policy instruments do not apply to Flevoland does not mean that they arenot relevant to the reinforcement and adjustment of its regional economy, It is a mater ofpriorities in nation regional policy – which can change, as the selection of Flevoland as anobjective-1 region has clearly shown.The relation of the Objective-1 programme with the national policy has to be foundmainly with the field of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture,Nature Conservation and Fisheries, The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, TheMinistry of Transport and Waterworks and the ministry of Housing, Regional Planningand Environment. These ministries are represented within the Monitoring Committee.Moreover, in many cases these ministries are responsible for the co-financing of theObjective 1 projects. This causes in some cases a problem, as the policy and selectioncriteria of the Ministry did not match. This is especially the case with the ministry ofAgriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries.

Regional and local policyThere is a match between the regional policy and the SPD, as the province is responsiblefor the implementation. All projects are judged on the provincial policy. Furthermore, themunicipalities are also responsible for the co financing of projects. This means that thelocal policy should match with the SPD objectives. The city of Noordoostpolder evenadjusted its policy in order to have enough finds for co financing available.

6.7 Equal opportunities and the environment

Equal opportunitiesWithin the programme, no special attention is paid on equal opportunities. Looking at thedivision of ESF-beneficiaries, it can be stated that the percentage male participants issomewhat higher (54% of the participants is male, 45% female).


Table 6.2 Development in labour force and employed population after sex

Flevoland The Netherlands

Labour force 1990 (x

1000)

1998 (x

1000)

Average

growth

per year

(5)

1990 (x

1000)

1998 (x

1000)

Average

growth

per year

(5)

Men 56 81 5.6 3,865 4,196 1.1

Women 32 55 9.0 2,198 2,761 3.2

Total 88 136 6.8 6,063 6,957 1.8

Employed population

Men 53

(65%)

79

(61%)

6.1 3,686

(65%)

4,047

(61%)

1.2

Women 28

(35%

50

(39%)

9.8 1,958

(35%)

2,562

(39%)

3.9

Total 81 129 7.4 5,644 6,609 2.1

Source: CBS, in ex ante evaluation SPD 2000-2006

Following the above presented figures, the growth in the female labour force and in theemployed population is much higher than the male growth. The share of employedwomen has grown from 35% to 39%, just as the figures for the Netherlands as a whole.

With respect to the environment is should first be noted that the problems concerning theenvironment are relatively small within Flevoland. Some measures of the SPD aredirected towards the improvement of the environment and nature. This resulted, amongothers, in the establishment of 35 ha natural area.

The gross and net participation are for men and to a lesser extent for women somewhathigher than the Dutch gross and net participation. The growth in participation of womenis much higher than the growth in participation of men, in Flevoland as well as in theNetherlands as a whole.

The programme did not direct specific project to equal opportunities and there was nospecial working group in this field. Hence, there is no influence of the programme on thistopic.


Table 6.3 Gross and net participation

Flevoland Netherlands

Gross

participation

Men Women Total Men Women Total

1994 80 49 64 75 48 62

1995 81 49 65 76 49 63

1996 82 52 67 77 50 63

1997 80 51 66 77 52 65

1998 81 55 68 78 53 66

2000 83 56 69 79 55 67

Net

Participation

1994 75 43 59 70 42 57

1995 76 42 59 72 44 58

1996 78 46 62 72 45 59

1997 77 45 61 74 47 61

1998 78 50 64 75 49 62

2000 81 51 66 77 52 65

Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Voorburg/Heerlen 2002

EnvironmentWith respect to the environment is should first be noted that the problems concerning theenvironment are relatively small within Flevoland. This is the consequence of the factthat Flevoland is relatively new land. Hence, there is hardly any pollution from industrialactivities in the past. On the other hand, as the environmental condition does not causeproblems, there are hardly quantitative figures available at the beginning of theprogramme period. The authorities started in this time with the collection of informationand the analysis of positive and negative developments in the environmental field. Themain threat is the fast growing population and the accompanying necessity economicdevelopment, which could influence the environmental conditions negatively.

Air and waterThe most important sources for emissions that cause acidification and climate changes areformed by commuting, traffic and agriculture. As an increase in traffic is to be expected,the environmental problems will increase as well. In the SPD, however, is stated thatwhen development policy and measures are chosen well, Flevoland does not have toexpect major problems.The measures within the SPD are not directed to the diminishing of the emissions, exceptfor the measures directed to the SME audits directed to clean production. Besides, it wasplanned to extend the public transport services, which diminishes the traffic pressure.However, only a few new services were established.

Regarding water, attention should be paid on sewage sludge and the agricultural use ofpesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. For this a purification plan for sludge was set up forthe period 1992-1998, which is directed to reducing the quantity and improvement of thequality, as well to the removal of sludge and to improve the processing of dry matter.


The contribution of the SPD to these problems is quite limited. Regarding to agriculture,the stimulation of innovative activities and the improvement of water management couldhave contributed.

Nature protection and biodiversityThere are several areas that are pointed out or qualified as vulnerable or protected areawithin the scope of the Habitat and Bird directive. With the implementation of the SPD,these areas are taken into account and with areas that might become protected areas.Furthermore, within the programme 35 ha natural area is established, which forms anecological connection zone between to protected areas.

DehydrationThere is no problem with dehydration in Flevoland. However, it is important to monitorthe developments in this field, as the demand for groundwater will increase as a result ofthe population growth and the growing demand of the agricultural sector and theimportance of the region for supra regional supply of drinking water.Within the programme one project was directed to the water management in agriculturalarea.

6.8 Conclusion

Management• The split of the programme management was not ideal, but did not cause troubles in

practice. Within the programme management (PME) for the funds, which are notESF, the staff of the provincial specialist departments was involved in theimplementation of the programme. This caused that the overview on the progress andresults of the programme was lacking. Hence, it prevented high transparency of theprogramme management and implementation.

• Within the preparatory phase, the programme management in some cases had anadvisory role. However, applicants consider the guidance of the management feeble,more attention should be paid on guidance on what elements of a project are eligibleand what not. Within the project preparation/selection process, the involvement o theprovincial management and the specialist department caused in come cases adiscrepancy in judgements about the project towards the applicant.

• The financial management works well, the project managers are satisfied about thepayments done. The only problem is that the rules for the final financial reportingchanged, which caused a lot of work for the accountants.

PMC• The Programme Monitoring Committee had a limited role. Members of the

Committee feel that they could not give enough input and are missing thefundamental discussions. As there was no steering group or working groups, themonitoring committee was the only instrument to establish partnership. As thepartners feel they do not have the overview, nor influence on the programme,partnership is not well developed within the programme. This is a pity, as partnersconsider it important to be involved in the formulation and implementation of the


programme. A steering group could solve this problem to an extent, as well as thesetting up of working groups. A steering group would also facilitate more strategicdiscussions, which were lacking during the programme period.

Monitoring• For the monitoring of projects a clear set of indicators is formulated. However, not all

indicators are as relevant. This counts especially for output indicators like the numberof projects subsidised, which does not say anything about the result or effect.

• Monitoring caused some problems and took a lot of time in case of theERDF/EAGGF/FIFG funds. Firstly, the results were not put in an atomised system,hence the management had to derive the information from paper sources.Furthermore, it took a lot of time to get the data, as it proved that the reportingdiscipline is not always high, while the programme management does not have anysanctions on this. In order to compensate for this lack in information, the programmemanagement decided to visit all the projects. For the ESF-projects, the reportingdiscipline proved to be better, as sanctions were possible.

• The programme management paid relatively much time on evaluation. For specificmeasures, evaluations took place on the initiative of the programme management. Atthe same time, the results of the evaluations are only briefly discussed within themonitoring committee.

Synergy• Regarding the synergy, there is a match between the programme and the EU

priorities. Furthermore, there is a relationship between other communitarianinitiatives and the Objective 1 programme and there were some attempts to relateprojects from these several funds to one another.

• The relationship with the national and local policy is more complicated. Flevolandwas not on the priority list of the national government for regional policy and theseveral ministries involved had to adjust their budget in order to be able to co-financethe programme. For the transport sector counts that the ministry just accelerated theimplementation of activities that were planned for the future, bur other ministries hadto adjust their policy as well. Co-financing of the Ministry of Agriculture remainedproblematic, as the their criteria for the implementation of the policy differed formthe programme criteria. For the municipalities counts that the had to revise theirbudget as well adjusted their priorities to these of the programme, while for othermunicipalities counts that the programme supported developments which werealready planned.


7 Strengths and weaknesses

7.1 Process issues

Strengths Weaknesses

Strategy Strategy reflects main needs Number of measures influenced

transparency and flexibility

negatively

Reprogramming Changes in programme were

mainly based on financial

absorption and not on changes in

contextual factors and/or

effectiveness of measures

Financial influence Programme generated budget on

national level for the region

Partnership Clear agreements on co-

financing with several ministries

and municipalities

Co-financing of the Ministry of

Agriculture, Nature Conservation

and Fisheries was problematic

Clear agreements with

municipalities about the strategy

Partners hardly involved in

programming and in programme

implementation. The programme

management choose for not

having a steering group in which

partners are represented as there

are already many consultative

structures within the province

Implementation Timely financial settlements Division of tasks between PME

and specialist departments:

• fragmented implementation,

lack of transparency and

overview

• lack of time within specialist

department, which caused a

delay in implementation

Division of tasks between PME



and ESF-bureau. In practice,

however, this caused no

problems

Available budget fully committed Under spending of EU budget

77%spent, partly as result of

projects that did not start. Under

spending is especially found

within ESF (measure Human

Resources)

Much more private co-financing

realized than foreseen (45% of

the total spending is private)

Monitoring and evaluation Clear set of indicators and

relatively much attention

regarding the physical results,

which was quite unique for this

time

No sanctions on weak reporting

discipline of project managers

Quite much attention for

evaluation, as even specific

measures were evaluated on

initiative of the programme

management

Additionality For some projects counts that they

were not additional, this was

especially the case with the

creation of industrial sites.

7.2 Achievements


Transport

road

rail

• Important connection roads

are created which diminished

the backward position in

accessibility

• NA • NA

SME’s • Many new establishments in

the region

• High relative number of firms

that invest in the region

• Growth in employment

• Number of establishments not

enough to keep up with the

exceptional high population

growth



• Competitiveness of region

increased

• Economic structure improved

Research and development • Increase in employment • Not much study activities

• Results only visible in the

long term

Education and training/ human

resources

• Improvement of labour market

position of people with scarce

possibilities on the labour

market

• Much more people trained

than planned

• Shift to work-learn

combination successful

• Large under spending within

the priority human resources

Rural development • Population in rural areas has

grown

• Employment in agricultural

sector remains stable (even

some growth)

• Ecological zones are created

• Co-financing for some

measures a problem, hence

less projects than planned

• Difficulties with finding

projects directed to the

renovation of small villages

Fisheries • Number of coasters

diminished

• New auction created

• Still not enough diversification

in Urk

7.3 Overall efficiency

Efficiency can best be described by costs per unit. However, most measures have severalkinds of outputs, it is in most cases impossible to calculate the costs per unit. Only for afew measures this action can be taken. The results are presented in the table below. As thefigures only represent the outcomes of some specific measures, one should take care withinterpreting the results.

Measure Totalexpenditure

(euro)

Output Costs/unit(euro)

Realisticprice?

Consultancy services 2,319,441 292 advices 7,043 / advice Yes

Premium on jobs 402,858,381 5718 jobs 70,454 / job ?

Environmental audits 6,386,394 48 audit 133,050 / audit Yes

Physical infrastructure

(rural development)

1,043,589 6 ha 173,932 / ha ?


Nature development 2,145,782 35 ha 61,565 / ha Seems to be

somewhat

expensive

Cleaning up of

coasters

7,090,071 22 coasters 322,267 /

coaster

?

Industrial area 161,999,547 228 ha 710,524 / ha Yes, average

price

Surface office 13,526,332 127,152 m2 106 / m2 Yes, average

price

Refurbishment 97,563 40 ha 2,439 /ha Yes

Research study 331.803 1 study 331,803 /

study

Yes

Overall, the figures above presented seems to be quite normal for the price level in theNetherlands.


8 Conclusions and recommendations

In this chapter, the main lessons learned from the Flevoland case that can be importantlessons for other programmes as well, are presented. Conclusions on programme levelthat are only of importance for the Flevoland programme are presented already in thereport and executive summery.

Strategy• A large number of priorities and measures within one programme has some

drawbacks. First, the management of the programme becomes more complicatedwhen there are too many measures. Second, the when there are many priorities andmeasures, the division of means becomes fragmented and only a few projects permeasure can be implemented. As a result, the contribution to a particular sector /problem remains limited which makes it difficult to determine the effects of themeasures taken. After this lesson, the 2000-2006 programme for Flevoland contains 4priorities and 18 measures.

Management• It is important to have one focal point in management of the programme. In the case

of Flevoland, the responsibilities were too much divided over several departments,which makes it difficult to keep an overview over the progress in the programmeimplementation and effects. Besides, the decision might be inconsistent, as differentpeople decide in different ways. Hence, the programme management in Flevoland hascentralised its organisation structure for the new programming period. In this way theintegral approach is improved, there is one desk for project applicants, the synergyeffects will improve and there is more transparency concerning the division of tasks.

Monitoring and evaluation• A reliable monitoring system stands or falls with the information provided by project

managers on progress, outputs and results. The case of Flevoland proves that thereporting discipline of implementing project partners sometimes remains limited. Asthere are no sanctions that can be taken when the reports are not delivered or have notthe required quality, it proves to be a difficult process to force the people involved toreport in time.

• Flevoland was quite progressive in formulating indicators on results and effects,while this was not very common. Nowadays there is more attention for theformulation of indicators and for the new programme period it is obliged to formulateindicators on outputs, results and effects. The case of Flevoland proves that it isimportant to make a clear distinction between output, results and effects, as in somecases there is an overlap. However, the distinction is very often quite complicated.For instance, the number of jobs created is an output indicator at the moment thatmeans are used to subsidize employment, while in other cases, e.g. with investments


in the growth of a sector or the creation of industrial estates it might be an effectindicator or even an impact indicator. For the new programme period a distinction ismade between output, result and impact indicators.

• The targets/indicators should be chosen in such way that they say something aboutthe programme. At the same time, the availability and reliability of data should beconsidered in choosing the indicators and the targets should be realistic. A learningeffect of the former programming period for Flevoland is to state a less ambitioustarget concerning the RDP. Other targets are also not included in the new programmeperiod, as the data are not reliable or timely available. This concerns data on addedvalue per employee (difficult to monitor and a big time lap in the available figures),sub regional differences in unemployment (not a realistic target as there are alwaysdifferences between urban and rural areas) and the percentage of firms that invest(difficult to obtain reliable figures).

Implementation-strategy and costs• The Objective 1 programme has to be implemented by parties that apply for projects.

These parties can be direct beneficiaries, as well as intermediary bodies. Especiallyfor this last group of project implementing bodies, there is a lack of capacity inhuman and financial resources to prepare a project application. As projects need to beadditional, there are no human/financial resources available for preparation andimplementation of projects. This is especially a problem when it is not sure that aproject proposal will be committed.This makes that it is important to decide in the programming period already, whatkind of organisation are responsible for the implementation of specific measures withtheir accompanying projects. When intermediary bodies that are not a directbeneficiary have this role, it should be discussed how the costs and risks for thesebodies can be minimized / compensated.


Literature

• Single Programming Document Flevoland 1994-1999 (Enig Programmerings-document), 7 July 1994

• Provincie Flevoland, Flevoland, Towards joint development of a new region,Regional Development Plan for the period 1994-1999 (Flevoland, naar eengemeenschappelijke ontwikkeling van een nieuwe regio, Regionaal Ontwikkelings-plan voor de periode 1994-1999), Lelystad, October 1993

• Research voor Beleid, On going evaluation Objective 1 programme Flevoland (Ongoing evaluatie Doelstelling 1 programma Flevoland), Leiden, 8 January 1997

• Research voor Beleid, On going evaluation Objective 1 programme FlevolandAddendum (On going evaluatie Doelstelling 1 programma Flevoland Addendum),Leiden, November 1997

• Bureau Bartels, Third Evaluation of the Objective 1 programme Flevoland (1994-1999) (Derde evaluatie van het Doelstelling-1 programma Flevoland), Amersfoort,19 November 1998

• Bureau Bartels, Fourth Evaluation of the Objective 1 programme Flevoland (1994-1999) (Vierde evaluatie van het Doelstelling-1 programma Flevoland), Amersfoort,23 July 1999

• Bureau Bartels, Ex ante evaluation of the phasing out programme Flevoland (2000-2006) (Ex ante evaluation of the phasing out programme), Amersfoort, 23 July 1999

• TERP Advies, Evaluation of the employment premium grant scheme (Quick ScanAPR), Amersfoort, November 1999

• M3 New Business Creation BV, Evaluation of Technological and InnovativeEnvironmental Projects (Eindevaluatie Technologische en Milieu-innovatieveprojecten (TMI), September 2000

• Algemene Rekenkamer (Dutch Court of Auditors), EU Structuurfondsen: geld voorontwikkeling en achterstand, December 2000

• Province of Flevoland/RBA Flevoland, Annual report within the framework of theSPD 1994-1999 and other European programmes in Flevoland, years 1995-1999


• Province of Flevoland/RBA Flevoland, Revised Annual report 2000 onimplementation European programmes in Flevoland, period 1994-1999 and 2000-2006, 5 April 2002

• Province of Flevoland/, Annual report 1997, project overview, 26 May 1998

• Province of Flevoland, Annual programme within the framework of the SPD 1994-1999, years 1994-1999

• Province of Flevoland, Annual programme 2001, implementation Europeanprogrammes in Flevoland in 1994-1999 and 2000-2006, Lelystad, 11 May 2001

• Province of Flevoland, Provisional final report on the SPD Flevoland, 2002

Ex post evaluation Objective 1 1994-1999Ex post evaluation Objective 1 programme Flevoland 1994-1999...

Documents

Transcript of Ex post evaluation Objective 1 1994-1999Ex post evaluation Objective 1 programme Flevoland 1994-1999...