Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006

The Vienna Institute for
ISMERI EUROPA International Economic Studies

Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes
2000-2006 financed by the
European Regional Development Fund in
Objective 1 and 2 regions

Work package 1: Coordination, analysis and synthesis

Task 4: Development and achievements in Member States

SLOVAKIA

WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Slovakia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ......................................................................................................................2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................3

MAP OF SLIVAKIA – OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS .........................................................4

1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT .............................5

2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY ..............................................6

3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS ......7

4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS .......................................10

5 AREAS OF INTERVENTION AND THE IMPLEMENTED POLICY MEASURES ....................13

6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................14

7 GLOBAL EFFECTS ...................................................................................................15

8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION..............................................................15

9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE.....................................................................................16

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................17

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND FOI CATEGORIES .................18

TABLES ......................................................................................................................19

Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 1


PREFACE

This report is intended to summarise the main aspects of regional disparities, the changes in
these which occurred over the 2000-2006 programming period and the principal features of
regional development policy over this period in terms of the objectives, the way that it was
implemented and the contribution of the Structural Funds. It also reviews the evidence on
the effects of policy as regards both the direct results of expenditure in the different policy
areas and the wider impact on development as such.

It is based on three primary sources of information. The statistical data on regional and
national developments over the period so far as possible come from Eurostat in order to
ensure comparability with other studies carried out at EU level as well as with the other
national reports produced as part of the ex post exercise.

The data on the allocation of funding and expenditure come from the INFOVIEW database
maintained by DG REGIO, which itself is based on regular information from the Member
States on the allocation of funding and the payments made.

Information on policy objectives, on the results of expenditure and the wider effects of this
and on the procedures adopted as regards the implementation of policy comes from various
programming documents and national evaluation reports as well as from impact studies
which have been carried out on the actual or intended effects of programmes.

The reports, therefore, are based on existing information – or more precisely, the
information available at the time they were prepared (around mid-2008) – and no new
evaluation has been undertaken for purposes of preparing the report.

The report has been prepared by the Applica-Ismeri Europa- wiiw Consortium, which is
coordinating the work on the ex post evaluation of ERDF expenditure in Objective 1 and 2
regions, working closely with a national expert who was responsible for interpreting the
quantitative data and the other information indicated above.1 Although the contents of the
report have been checked with officials in DG REGIO and with the national authorities,
responsibility for any errors in the factual information presented or its interpretation rests
with the authors and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DG REGIO or the
national authorities.

1 This report was produced with the assistance of Karol Frank, The Slovak Academy of Sciences



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Slovakia experienced favourable macroeconomic developments over the period 2000-2006.
The implementation of necessary economic reforms from 1998 on laid the basis for
sustainable GDP growth and convergence towards the EU average. The availability of pre-
accession assistance for economic development (PHARE), for environmental and transport
(ISPA), and for agricultural and rural development (SAPARD) had prepared the way for the
increase in funding in 2004-2006 – essentially going to the same sectors – under the
Structural Funds. The main achievement to date from pre-accession assistance is the
increase in administrative capacity and experience that these instruments have brought (SCF
2003).

From the sectoral perspective, the achievements in the areas covered by the operational
programmes adopted were diverse. In each of the programmes, successes as well as failures
can be found. Partly because of this, it is necessary to increase efforts to improve
programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation further. The targets laid down in
2004 in the sectors eligible for structural support were fulfilled only in selected operational
programmes and individual priority areas. High level targets in several operational
programmes and priority areas were not achieved, partly because they were initially set at an
unrealistic level. There is a need, therefore, to set more realistic objectives and to select
appropriate measures for their achievement.

The first national plan for regional development for pre-accession support was adopted in
1999, for post-accession funding in 2001, but the National Development Plan only in March
2003. Individual Ministries were late in preparing the grant schemes for smaller projects
and, compared with neighbouring countries, they were around a year behind schedule.
Consequently, the delayed process of documentation and legislative preparation hindered
accreditation of the implementing agencies. However, the process was accelerated in the
final phase of preparation for the Structural Funds and the first call for projects was
launched in January 2004.

The National Development Plan that was adopted in 2003 was designed in a overly
complicated way and even though it was reduced from an initial 11 operational programmes
to 4 in the final version, it remained unclear. Other documents have often been equally
unintelligible for applicants, which has led to mistakes in project preparation.

A new challenge arose from the parallel use of the Structural Funds from the 2004-2006
period as well as from the new programming period 2007-2013. Preparing and
implementing two systems and different programmes at the same time was very time
consuming and led to serious administrative pressure. The duplication of rules, documents



and programming was confusing for applicants as well as the authorities involved and
implementation bodies.

MAP OF SLIVAKIA – OBJECTIVE 1 AND 2 REGIONS



1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
CONTEXT

The nature of industrialisation in Slovakia led in the past to the creation of mono-structural
micro regions where often only a few large enterprises were located. This small number of
large enterprises, which employed the majority of the labour force in the regions concerned,
was a major structural weakness. The centrally planned location of important industries led
to an “unnatural” regional distribution of energy-intensive, and environmentally damaging,
production of low value added.

After the communist regime came to end, in many regions it was not possible to develop
these industries. Their inevitable restructuring during the transition period resulted in a
severe impact on employment and economic development. After liberalisation of markets,
many of the main enterprises were unable to compete causing deep structural problems
across all regions. In the centrally planned economy, differences in income and productivity
between regions had been minimal. Privatisation and exposure to competition during
transition brought the underlying differences to the surface.

As a result of these developments, unemployment emerged and then went up markedly in
most parts of the country, with the major exception of Bratislavský, the capital city region,
where unemployment remained well below that in the rest of the country (typically less than
half the rate). Bratislavský is the only region in Slovakia not to have qualified for Objective 1
assistance during the period 2004-2006. Though it received support under Objective 2, the
areas this applied to form a relatively small part of the region, only 29% of the population
living in areas which were eligible for support. The regions receiving Objective 1 support
over the period were the other three NUTS 2 regions - Západnéslovenský kraj,
Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj.

Unemployment increased most in Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj, the two
most easterly regions, reaching around 20% or more. Over the 10 years 1995-2005 there
were only slight reductions in unemployment rates in these two regions. In consequence,
there was significant outward migration over this period, especially from Východoslovenský
kraj.

While unemployment fell markedly over the period 2000-2006 in Západnéslovenský kraj and
Bratislavský, in the latter declining to under 5%, it fell only slightly in the other two regions
(Table 1). This reflects the differential rate of job creation across the country, which in turn
reflects regional differences in GDP growth. Growth of GDP per head, therefore, averaged
almost 7% a year in Bratislavský over this period and in Západnéslovenský kraj, just over 4% a



year, while in Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj, it was only just over 3%.
Accordingly, regional disparities widened considerably over these years.

Nevertheless, GDP per head in all three Objective 1 regions converged towards the EU
average at a relatively rapid pace and in Bratislavský increased from just over the EU average
in 1999, in purchasing power standard terms, to 42% above the average in 2005, though
much of the high level is due to the effect of substantial inward commuting from other
regions. In the Objective 1 regions, GDP per head was still considerably below the EU average
in 2005, in Východoslovenský kraj and Stredoslovenský kraj, well under half the average.

Some positive structural changes, however, are evident even in the most depressed regions.
The share of employment in agriculture went down to around 5% or below in all three
Objective 1 regions, whereas it had been around 10% or higher in 1995. The counterpart of
this reduction was mainly an increase in employment in basic services (distribution, HORECA
and transport), though there was also some increase in business and financial services.
Partly as a consequence, GDP per person employed increased in all regions by around 3.5% a
year or more.

2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY

Despite the high level of unemployment, Slovakia experienced favourable macroeconomic
conditions throughout the 2000-2006 period, partly due to the implementation of economic
reforms from 1998 on. Growth of GDP averaged almost 5% a year across the country as a
whole and in the last two years of the period, after EU accession, 7.5% a year.

In addition, macroeconomic policy was geared towards stability, the budget deficit being
reduced substantially in the years before accession, to under 3% of GDP, and the balance of
payment deficit also declining (Table 2). Moreover, inflation seems to have come down to
more reasonably levels, having been over 8% in 2003, though in 2006, it was still over 4%.

As part of creating the conditions for financial stability, General government expenditure has
been reduced markedly over recent years, from almost 48% of GDP in 1999 to 37% in 2006.
At the same time, the share of public investment in expenditure was also reduced to under
6%, implying relatively little growth of public investment in real terms. Although, therefore,
the high rate of national economic growth may have favoured regional development in the
past few years, the finance available for regional policy from national sources seems to have
been limited.



3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION
OF STRUCTURAL FUNDS

Accession of Slovakia to the EU and entitlement to support from the Structural Funds was
associated with a new regional division of Slovakia together with fiscal decentralisation. This
division brought about a complete change in the structure of public administration, though
also a number of problems. The newly formed regions lacked the necessary administrative
capacity as well as management experience. This complicated the development of coherent
regional planning and the new agenda has continued to be a source of substantial delays
and problems with respect to EU funding. The methodology handbook for formulating the
Plan for regional economic and social development was prepared and adopted by the
Ministry of Regional Development and Construction only in 20042.

The National Development Plan (NDP) for the period 2004–2006 introduced four
programming documents, one Operational Programme (OP Basic Infrastructure) and three
Sectoral Operational Programmes (SOP Industry and Services, SOP Human Resources and SOP
Agriculture and Rural Development for Objective 1). It also introduced a Single Programming
Document for Objective 2. The main objective was to tackle the major sources of regional
disparities which were identified as being in the following areas (SCF 2003):

1. Infrastructure,

2. Human resources,

3. Industry and services,

4. Agriculture and rural development.

Infrastructure

The NDP emphasised the need to facilitate greater mobility, particularly for access to
employment. The quality of Slovakia’s basic infrastructure varies across the country. Regions
to the east are poorly-endowed compared to the more developed centres of economic
activity closer to the capital in the extreme west of the country.

As regards the rail network, the need was more to replace worn-out track and extend
electrification than to build more lines. In the case of air transport, the immediate
shortcomings, according to the NDP, related to safety and security at regional airports, which
needed to be tackled as a first step to increasing their use.

2 (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005.



With respect to the environment, there has been a reduction in pollution in recent year and
the country has many areas of unspoilt natural beauty. Even so, problems persist from its
pre-1989 industrial history and the legacy which heavy industries left behind. In addition,
drinking water is of low quality in certain areas and only a small percentage of the
population is connected by main drainage to waste water treatment plants.

Human resources

The NDP attributed the high unemployment in Slovakia to productivity growth, allied to GDP
growth, being too low (even though it was high by EU15 standards) and identified the need
to increase this. It also highlighted the fact that unemployment particularly affected young
people, the low-skilled and older workers and that the exclusion of disadvantaged groups,
especially the Roma, from employment was a particular problem. The labour market was
regarded as being overly rigid, with little part-time work, teleworking or job-sharing, and
labour mobility as being too low. Equally, the education sector was considered to be
insufficiently oriented towards the needs of employers and ICT skills of both students and
teachers were regarded as inadequate. In addition, wage differences across the regions are
much less than differences in productivity and living costs, which may have negative
consequences for the spread of private investment, as well as for labour mobility (CSF 2003).

To address these problems, the NDP identified the main objective as the need to equip
people with the relevant skills to enter or re-enter the labour market, Active labour market
policy was to concentrate on providing the means for individuals to move from being
dependent on state benefits to paid employment and so to contribute to the generation of
income. At the same time, much attention was to be paid to ensuring that the workforce was
prepared for the labour markets of the future and for the development of the knowledge
society.

Industry and services

According to the CSF (2003), a multi-sectoral approach was to be taken to the provision of
funding to viable SMEs and larger firms with the aim of enabling them to update their
products and processes, create new employment opportunities and increase exports. Linked
to this, support was to be given to encourage more indigenous R&D in Slovakia to spark
innovation and boost GDP. A particular opportunity was identified to exist in developing
renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency, potentially resulting in benefits to
both the economy and the environment. Because of a largely unexploited cultural and
natural heritage, tourism was considered to have particular potential for development as a
source of foreign exchange earnings.



Agriculture and rural development

Intervention in this area had several objectives. First, the least efficient large cooperative and
corporate farms needed be turned into more efficient enterprises, which might require their
break-up into smaller units. Second, the large number of small semi-subsistence farms, and
the fragmentation of land ownership which was the result, needed to be reduced
substantially if progress was to be made towards regional development. The Structural
Funds were, therefore, to be used to support investment in achieving this and, accordingly,
to bring the agricultural sector and food industry up to EU standards and make them more
competitive, as well as diversifying agricultural activities. The important links between
agriculture and energy were also promoted, not least because of their potential to create
local jobs. Moreover, it was recognised that many of the Roma in Slovakia live in rural areas
and it was emphasised that the horizontal and coordinated approach for integrating
marginalised Roma communities into society would also apply to rural areas (CSF 2003).

The above priorities were accordingly funded from EU as well as national sources. Resources
were concentrated on the most relevant policy areas, namely Transport and
telecommunications, Human resources and Territorial policy. Funding also went to other
areas in accordance with the priorities.

The largest contribution from the Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions was, therefore,
channelled into developing human resources (26.5% of the total, which was also allocated
21% of total national funding), Transport and telecommunications (24.5% and 23% of
national funding) and Territorial policy (16% of funding and the same for national funding).

According to the Single Programming Document, in Bratislavský kraj, support under
Objective 2 was divided between Territorial policy and the Enterprise environment, 73%
going to the former and 27% to the latter.

The rate of spending of allocations as at the end of 2007, however, shows marked
differences between policy areas. Whereas almost 82% of the budget allocated to Agriculture
and fisheries had been spent by this time, this was the case for only 60% of budget for
Human resources and Territorial policy and just 54% of the budget for Transport and
telecommunications, in all of which the budget was much bigger. Overall, therefore, some
62% of the amount of funding allocated to Objective 1 regions had been spent (Table 4). The
same was the case in the Objective 2 area.

Private funding contributed relatively little to expenditure in Objective 1 regions, amounting
to around 20% of total resources. In the Objective 2 region, the figure was much the same in
overall terms, though it was much higher for the Enterprise environment at around 47%.



Although expenditure in relation to allocations was relatively low at the end of 2007, this is
only to be expected given the relatively short time period of the programmes and there was
an observable steady improvement through the contracting period.

4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY
AREAS

Since support from the Structural Funds was allocated only from 2004 onwards, it as yet very
difficult to quantify the direct results let alone the economic and social impact. Moreover,
there is a serious lack of coherent and relevant data, which prevents any satisfactory analysis
of the effects of intervention. Nevertheless some information is available.

Agriculture and fisheries

Financial support carried out under this operational programme achieved the most success
in fulfilling its objectives if these are measured by the indicators for which targets were set
for 2006.

SOP Agriculture and rural development achievements
Indicator Target value Real outcome
% fulfilled
(2006) (31.12.2006)
Number of supported agriculture enterprises as % of
30.0% 57.0% 190.0
total agriculture enterprises
Number of approved projects submitted by women as %
5.0% 29.0% 580.0
of total approved projects
Change in total revenues of agricultural enterprises 3.0% 24.5% 817.0
Source: Annual report on CSF implementation, 2007

Enterprise environment

The interventions relating to the Enterprise environment have been carried out under the
SOP Industry and Services. Target values set at the beginning of the programming period for
2006 were achieved only in some areas, in particular, as regards the number of research
projects supported and the number of projects in relation to the development of tourism.
The target was almost achieved, however, as regards labour productivity and value-added,
but the outcome was well short of target as regards overnight stays and support for SMEs.

SOP Industry and Services achievements
Target value Real outcome
Indicator % fulfilled
(2006) (31.12.2006)
Changes in labour productivity and value added of the
118% 117.7% 94.4
supported subject
Number of overnight stays in accommodation facilities 120% 4.1% 20.5
Number of supported projects for SMEs 1200 77 6.4
Number of supported research projects 25 25 100
Number of supported projects for development of 60 64 106.7



tourism

Human Resources

All the targets set for 2006 were achieved under the SOP Human resources, though this was
partly a result of setting these relatively low at the beginning of the programming period.
Support was carried out though various national projects which are part of the operational
programme, four of which provided indirect support to marginalised Roma communities.
The main aim was to provide assistance to municipalities, individuals and organisations to
tackle the most pressing problems relating to labour market development.

SOP Human resources achievements
Indicator Target value (2006) Real outcome (31.12.2006) % fulfilled
Number of schools receiving support 500 1 618 323.6
Number of education institutes
500 2 906 581.2
receiving support
Number of persons involved in projects 150 000(2008) 235039 applicants for a job 156.9
9 000(2008) 10544 disadvantaged applicants 117.2
300 000(2008) 992 600 - applicants for a job 330.9
Number of employers supporting
28986 employees in education
qualification and skills training for 10 000 (2008) 289.8
programmes
employees
6597 teachers in programmes
3 000 (2008) 219.9
of life-long education

Transport and telecommunications

The majority of funding for transport infrastructure went to financing the reconstruction and
electrification of selected railway lines and to repair and reconstruct existing roads and to
build new ones. The main aim was to improve the state of the railways, modernise stations,
complete the construction of key railway junctions, upgrade inter-regional rail lines, increase
the speed of services, improve safety and reliability and reduce the environmental impact. At
the same time, the concern was to integrate regional railway networks into the national
network and provide access to the trans-European network. For roads, the concern was to
improve links between regional centres and with Bratislava as well as to connect up with the
trans-European network (OPBI Programme Complement, 2006). The targets set for 2006
were fully achieved only in respect of railways, while the length of road constructed was only
55% of the target.

Environment and energy

The environmental objectives set for 2006 were largely not fulfilled and in most cases the
outcome was well below what had been planned. The most significant achievements were in
connecting households to a new sewerage system.



OP Basic infrastructure - Environmental infrastructure achievements
Base value Target value Real outcome
Indicator % fulfilled
(2004) (2006) (31.12.2006)
Length of newly constructed or
0 km 800 km 84.41 km 10.6
upgraded sewer networks
Number of citizens connected to new
1 738 000 1 765 000 1 740 855 10.7
drinking water supply infrastructure
Number of citizens and households
0 inhabitants 10 425 4, 696 45.1
connected to new sewer system
Volume of separated and recycled waste 0 tons 1 100 000 64 948 5.9
Number of households connected to
1 738 000 1 765 000 1 740 885 10.7
new reconstructed water mains



5 AREAS OF INTERVENTION AND THE IMPLEMENTED
POLICY MEASURES

Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 13
Total public
Policy Categories expenditure Main forms of intervention
EUR (mn) %
1 Direct support to firms 229.4 26.0 direct grants to investment,
grants to advisory, information and training services
2 RTDI 5.1 0.6 direct grant to companies
21 Direct support to firms 2.7 0.3 subsidies to encourage provision of services to firms
for R&D
subsidies to create networks of R&D institutions
22 Indirect support for 2.4 0.3
subsidies to RIS creation
innovation
3 Infrastructure 274.3 31.0 direct grants to public investment
31 Transport infrastructure 179.1 20.3 direct grants to public investment
32 Other infrastructure 95.2 10.8 direct grants to public investment
4 Human capital 50.9 5.8 direct grants to public institutions
subsidies to encourage provision of support services.
5 Local environment 324.0 36.7 direct grants to public investment
TOTAL 100

Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 2
Total public
Policy Categories expenditure Main forms of intervention
EUR (mn %
1 Direct support to firms 15.5 35.8 direct grants to investment
2 RTDI 0.9 2.2 direct grant to companies
21 Direct support to firms 0.9 2.2 subsidies to encourage provision of services to firms
subsidies to RIS creation
22 Indirect support for
innovation
3 Infrastructure
31 Transport infrastructure
32 Other infrastructure
4 Human capital
5 Local environment 26.9 62.0 direct grants to public investment
TOTAL 100

3 This is based on the DG Regional Policy ‘Infoview’ database. For the relationship between the forms of
intervention (the ‘instruments’) and the Infoview categories, see the table at the end of the report.



6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Reform to change completely the regional structure in Slovakia, initiated only shortly before
accession to the EU, has caused problems in relation to EU funding. Three Slovakian regions
(Western, Central and Eastern Slovakia) were disbanded and the country was instead divided
into the present four NUTS 2 regions. The result was a new self-governing structure, under
which new regional offices and new administrative and management capacity needed to be
set up (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005). Because of a lack of management experience in the
new regional self-governing authorities, organising appropriate procedures for managing
the Structural Funds and implementing the programmes has continued to be a source of
substantial delay and problems (Vojteková 2004).

As in most other new Member States, Slovakia was characterised in the past by a high
degree of centralisation and a total absence of any regional structures. The basic principles
of an integrated regional policy were defined in 1991 (as part of the federal transition
strategy), but the first Integrated plan of regional development – which was necessary to
enable the country to apply for pre-accession support – was adopted by Parliament only in
1999. The National plan of regional development required for the programming of post-
accession support was adopted in 2001, the year when the decentralisation of public
administration was initiated. At the same time, preparations were made for fiscal
decentralisation, though the introduction of this, which was planned for 2004, occurred only
in 2005.

The delay in implementing the decentralisation reform caused problems as regards the
preparation of regional structures required to make use of the Structural Funds in the
period of 2004-2006. Without fiscal decentralisation and the completion of the reform of
public administration, t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t i e s a t local
and regional levels necessary for planning and supporting economic development was
complicated (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005).

These problems together with other complications delayed the preparation and adoption of
the necessary strategic Cohesion Policy documentation. Poor coordination between
Ministries at the beginning of the process caused additional difficulties. Individual Ministries
were late in preparing the grant schemes for smaller projects and compared to neighbouring
countries around a year behind schedule. Delays also hindered accreditation of the
implementing agencies. However, the process was accelerated during the final phase of
preparation for the Structural Funds and the first call for local Infrastructure priority projects
(Operational program Basic Infrastructure) was launched in January 2004.



The National Development Plan adopted in 2003 proved too complicated and was
reduced from an initial 11 operational programmes to f o u r in i t s final v e r s i o n (Basic
infrastructure, Industry and Services, Agriculture and Human Resources). Nevertheless, it
remained unclear. Other documents in their final form were also unintelligible for
applicants, which has led to formal mistakes in project preparation (Frank, Hvozdíková,
Kvetan 2005).

A new challenge arose from the parallel use of the Structural Funds of the 2004-2006
period and those of the 2007-2013 period. Preparing and implementing two systems
and different programmes at the same time has proved very time consuming and led to
serious administrative pressure. The duplication of regulations and documents has been
confusing for both the authorities and implementation bodies i n v o l v e d and the
applicants (Frank, Hvozdíková, Kvetan 2005).

7 GLOBAL EFFECTS

EU cohesion policy together with the support provided has led to the necessary framework
for a coherent and sustainable regional policy being established in Slovakia. The legacy of
central planning, lack of experience with regional planning, deficiencies in administrative
capacity and so on have complicated the implementation of policy and overcoming these
problems remains the major challenge. There as yet no evidence that support to Objective 1
regions has had a significant effect on their economic development. Substantial progress has
been made, however, in strengthening administrative capacity in Objective 1 regions, even
though in many areas further improvement is necessary.

In the Objective 2 region, Bratislavský kraj, it is difficult to identify the effects of intervention
in any case because of the relatively small scale of funding and the influence of a range of
other factors. It can be assumed, for example, that funding helped SMEs to implement
innovation measures, but there is no clear evidence to support this.

8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION

Given the short period of time in which cohesion policy has been implemented, it is very
hard to identify the added-value of EU funding as yet. The only sources of information are
monitoring and evaluation reports, which mainly present a summary of the objectives
achieved, or not achieved. Nevertheless, despite the lack of quantitative evidence, there are
signs of improvement in several aspects of regional development.

In particular, investment in environmental infrastructure to tackle the legacy of decades of
neglect of the environmental damage caused by heavy industry and other factors could not
have been financed on the present scale without EU support.



EU funding also created pressure for the newly-founded self-governing regions to formulate
development strategies and programmes. Efforts to identify their respective strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats, together with a long-term development perspective,
has improved regional planning procedures and paved the way for better exploitation of
their economic potential.

In addition, the programming, implementation and monitoring of structural support and the
interaction between the different levels of administrative authority involved have improved
the coordination of policy and laid the basis for a coherent development strategy. The
establishment of a permanent and joint representation of Slovak regions in Brussels can be
also seen as a positive development in their cooperation as well as facilitating cooperation
with regions elsewhere in the EU facing similar problems.

9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

The experience with pre-accession support as well as in the short programming period
2004-2006 has provided a good basis for the implementation of cohesion policy in Slovakia.
However, a number of important obstacles to the effective use of the funds remain to be
eliminated:

Administrative responsibilities and coordination between various levels of government need
to explicitly defined and stabilised as well as being made transparent.

The quality of programming documents needs to be greatly improved to make them more
comprehensible for project applicants.

A clear, coherent and long-term regional development strategy needs to be formulated and
set out to provide the basis for effective structural assistance.

Cooperation between central, regional and local levels of government is vital for the efficient
use of funds.

Emphasis should be put on support to innovative SMEs and R&D projects with the aim of
greatly improving the present very weak RTDI performance in the country.



REFERENCES
Community Support Framework Slovakia Objective 1, Ministry of Construction and Regional
Development, 2003

Frank, K., Hvozdíková, V., Kvetan V., (2005) Slovakia and Cohesion Policy, In: Eriksson,
Karlsson, Tarschys (eds.) From Policy Takers to Policy Makers, Swedish Institute for European
Policy Studies, Stockholm URL:

Frank, K., (2007) Slovak regions, In: Centrope Business and Labour Report, Vienna. URL:
http://centrope.info/baernew/getfile?name=CENTROPE_Business_and_Labour_Report_2007

Increase in motorway length, Ministry of transportation, post and telecommunications, URL:
http://www.telecom.gov.sk/externe/idic/index.html

OPBI Programme Complement, Ministry of Construction and Regional Development,
Bratislava, 2006

Single Programming Document NUTS II – Bratislava Objective 2, Ministry of Construction and
Regional Development, Bratislava 2003

Vojteková, Z., (2004) Is Slovakia prepared for Effective Exploitation of Resources From the EU
Structural Funds ?, Letters for SFPA, Slovak Foreign Policy Association

Výročná správa o implementácii rámca podpory Spoločenstva január 2006 - december 2006
(Annual report on CSF implementation january 2006 - december 2006), Ministry of
Construction and Regional Development, Bratislava, 2007

Impact evaluation

Frank, K., Hvozdíková, V., Kvetan V., (2005) Slovakia and Cohesion Policy, In: Eriksson,
Karlsson, Tarschys (eds.) From Policy Takers to Policy Makers, Swedish Institute for European
Policy Studies, Stockholm



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND
FOI CATEGORIES

code Policy instruments FOI Categories
1 Direct support to firms
11 Agriculture 111+114
12 Forestry 121+122
13 Fisheries 142+143+144
14 Large businesses 151+152+153+154+155
15 Small businesses 161+162+163+164+165+166
16 Tourism 171+172+173
17 ICT 322+324
18 Development of rural areas 1307+1309+1314
19 Planning and rehabilitation 351
2 RTDI
21 Direct support to firms for innovation 182
22 Indirect support for innovation 181+183
3 Infrastructures
31 Transport infrastructures 31
32 Other infrastructures
321 Telecommunication 321
321 Energy infrastructures (production, delivery) 33
321 Environmental infrastructure (including water) 34
4 Human capital
Developing educational and vocational training
41 23+113+128+167+174
(persons, firms)
Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity,
42 innovation, information and communication 24+184
technologies (persons, firms)
5 Local environment
Indirect support to firms (agriculture, forestry, 112+1182+123+124+125+126+127+141+
51
fisheries) 145+147+148
52 Social infrastructure and public health 36
53 Planning and rehabilitation 352+353+354
54 Labour market policy 21
55 Social inclusion and equal opportunity 22+25
1301+1302+1303+1304+1305+1306+
56 Development of rural areas
1308+1310+1311+1312+1313+1399
ICT Services and applications for the citizen
57 322
(health, administration, education)
58 Miscellaneous 4
Note: Forms Of Intervention – FOI. See Regulation 438/2001, Annex IV, Classification 3



TABLES

Table 1: Regional disparities and trends

Table 2: Macro-economic developments

Tables 3: Allocation of resources by main policy area

Table 4: Expenditure at 2007 by policy area

Table 5: Allocation of resources by programmes

Table 6: Expenditure by programmes


Table 1 – Regional disparities and trends

EU25 Country Obj 1 regions Obj 1 Obj 2 regions Obj 2
(>20% pop in
Obj 2)

SLOVENSKA Západné Stredné Východné
Bratislavský Total
REPUBLIKA Slovensko Slovensko Slovensko

Population in Objective 2 areas (% total in region) 28.8
Population (000)
1995 448453.1 5373.8 1876.1 1350.6 1528.5 4755.2 618.6 178.2
1999 452081.4 5395.1 1876.5 1355.0 1546.7 4778.2 617.0 177.8
2005 462629.5 5387.0 1863.5 1352.2 1568.9 4784.6 602.4 173.6
Population (as % country total)
1995 na na 34.9 25.1 28.4 88.5 11.5 3.3
1999 na na 34.8 25.1 28.7 88.6 11.4 3.3
2005 na na 34.6 25.1 29.1 88.8 11.2 3.2
Population growth rate (% pa)
1999-2005 0.4 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.4
1995-1999 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.1
Population (%) in:
Predominantly urban areas 45.9 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
Intermediate rural, close to city 35.5 63.4 61.9 51.3 100.0 71.4 0.0 0.0
Intermediate rural, remote 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Predominantly rural, close to city 12.7 25.4 38.1 48.7 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0
Predominantly rural, remote 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
GDP per head, in PPS (EU25=100)
1995 100.0 45.5 43.4 37.3 34.4 38.8 97.5 97.5
1999 100.0 48.2 46.0 39.7 36.5 41.2 102.6 102.6
2005 100.0 58.2 54.8 44.8 41.4 47.6 142.1 142.1
GDP per head growth rate (% pa)(*)
1999-2005 1.7 4.4 4.1 3.2 3.3 3.6 6.8 6.8
1995-1999 2.4 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6
Gross fixed investment (% GDP)
1999 20.4 29.5 28.0 30.9 33.5 30.4 26.9 26.9
2004 19.3 24.0 23.6 24.9 24.9 24.3 23.1 23.1
Average 2000-2004 (% GDP) 19.7 24.9 24.0 26.0 25.9 25.1 24.5 24.5
GDP per person employed, PPS, EU25=100
1995 100.0 47.7 48.3 40.9 39.1 43.3 69.2 69.2
1999 100.0 53.9 54.1 46.7 45.8 49.4 75.5 75.5
2005 100.0 66.1 64.0 55.2 58.0 59.7 92.4 92.4


(>20% pop in
Obj 2)

Bratislavský Total
Productivity growth rate (% pa)
1999-2005 1.2 4.2 3.5 3.5 4.7 3.9 4.1 4.1
1995-1999 1.4 4.4 4.2 4.6 5.3 4.7 3.5 3.5
Employment rate (% pop. 15-64)
1995 60.0 : : : : : : :
1999 61.9 58.0 57.9 56.8 53.9 56.3 70.4 70.4
2006 64.8 59.4 62.3 57.1 53.7 58.1 69.8 69.8
Employment rate, % point change pa
1999-2006 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.1 -0.1
1995-1999 0.5 : : : : : : :
Unemployment rate (%)
1995 11.7 : : : : : : :
1999 9.9 16.0 14.1 18.2 20.5 17.3 7.0 7.0
2006 8.3 13.4 9.9 16.5 19.2 14.7 4.6 4.6
Net migration 15-64 (% resident pop. in base year)
Total 2000-2005 : -0.2 0.2 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -1.3 -1.3
Total 1995-2000 : -0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -1.9 -1.9
Educational attainment level (% pop. 25-64)
2001 Basic 35.6 15.1 16.3 16.1 15.2 15.9 9.0 9.0
Upper secondary 44.4 74.3 74.8 75.1 76.2 75.3 66.8 66.8
Tertiary
2006 Basic 30.3 11.2 11.4 11.4 12.0 11.6 8.5 8.5
Upper secondary 46.2 74.2 76.2 74.8 75.8 75.7 63.5 63.5
Tertiary 23.4 14.5 12.4 13.7 12.2 12.7 28.1 28.1
% point change 2001-2006
Basic -5.2 -3.9 -4.9 -4.7 -3.3 -4.3 -0.6 -0.6
Upper secondary 1.8 0.0 1.4 -0.2 -0.4 0.4 -3.3 -3.3
Tertiary : : : : : : : :
% Division of employment by broad sector
Agriculture
1995 5.4 9.0 11.3 9.1 10.1 10.3 2.4 2.4
1999 5.7 5.7 7.3 6.3 6.2 6.7 1.4 1.4
2005 4.9 4.4 5.6 4.6 4.6 5.0 1.9 1.9
Industry
1995 21.8 30.1 35.0 32.9 28.9 32.5 18.6 18.6
1999 21.7 28.3 33.1 30.7 26.7 30.5 18.2 18.2
2005 19.5 26.8 33.2 27.7 26.4 29.6 15.0 15.0


(>20% pop in
Obj 2)

Bratislavský Total
Construction
1995 7.3 7.0 6.1 6.9 6.8 6.5 9.4 9.4
1999 7.8 6.7 6.6 7.1 6.3 6.7 6.7 6.7
2005 7.9 7.3 7.1 7.9 7.5 7.5 6.7 6.7
Distribution, HORECA, Transport
1995 24.9 20.9 19.4 20.4 21.2 20.3 24.3 24.3
1999 24.7 24.4 23.5 23.2 23.8 23.5 28.2 28.2
2005 24.7 27.2 25.6 27.2 26.2 26.2 31.4 31.4
Finance+business services
1995 11.4 6.8 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.1 15.8 15.8
1999 11.2 8.7 6.3 6.4 7.3 6.6 18.0 18.0
2005 12.5 10.2 7.2 7.4 8.0 7.5 21.6 21.6
Public administration, education, health
1995 29.2 26.1 23.5 25.7 27.6 25.4 29.6 29.6
1999 28.5 26.3 23.2 26.3 29.6 26.1 27.5 27.5
2005 30.0 24.0 21.3 25.1 27.3 24.2 23.4 23.4
R&D expenditure (% GDP)
2000 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.1
2003 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.1 1.1

na = not applicable; : = not available;
(*) Calculated as GDP per head at constant prices and exchange rates
Source: Eurostat


Table 2 – Macro-economic developments

1995-1999 1999-2006 1999-2001 2001-2004 2004-2006
GDP growth (annual average growth rate,
% pa)
EU25 2.6 2.2 2.9 1.7 2.4
Slovakia 3.9 4.9 2.4 4.9 7.5
Inflation (harmonised consumer price
index, % rise pa)
EU25 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.2
Slovakia 7.7 6.5 9.6 6.4 3.5
Average
Public sector balance (% GDP) 1995 1999 2001 2006 2000-2006
EU25 : 0.8 -1.2 -1.5 -2.2
Slovakia : -12.2 -6.5 -3.7 -6.4

Public sector consolidated debt (% GDP)
EU25 : : 61.1 61.9 61.8
Slovakia : 50.4 49.0 30.4 41.6
External balance (% GDP)
EU25 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 1.0
Slovakia -4.4 -4.4 -8.1 -3.8 -4.4

General government expenditure (% GDP)
EU25 52.5 47.1 46.4 46.9 46.8
Slovakia 48.4 47.7 44.4 37.2 41.9

General government investment (% GDP)
EU25 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4
Slovakia 2.3 2.9 3.1 2.2 2.6
General government investment (% gen.
gov. exp.)
EU25 5.2 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.0
Slovakia 4.8 6.1 7.0 5.9 6.3

: = not available
Source: Eurostat


Table 3 - Allocation of resources by main policy area in Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions

ERDF Other Total SF National Total Total SF National Total
Structural funding public funding public
Funds (SF) funding funding
EUR millions %
Objective 1
1. Agriculture and fisheries 0.0 142.6 142.6 59.9 202.5 13.7 15.6 14.2
1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 140.8 140.8 59.1 199.9 13.5 15.4 14.0
1.2 Fisheries 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.8 2.6 0.2 0.2 0.2
2. Enterprise environment 19.7 0.0 19.7 16.9 36.6 1.9 4.4 2.6
2.1 Assisting large business organisations 6.3 0.0 6.3 5.4 11.8 0.6 1.4 0.8
2.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 8.9 0.0 8.9 7.7 16.6 0.9 2.0 1.2
2.3 RTDI 4.4 0.0 4.4 3.8 8.2 0.4 1.0 0.6
3. Human resources 0.0 275.9 275.9 79.9 355.8 26.5 20.8 25.0
3.1 Labour market policy 0.0 147.6 147.6 42.2 189.8 14.2 11.0 13.3
3.2 Social inclusion 0.0 19.3 19.3 5.3 24.6 1.9 1.4 1.7
3.3 Education and training 0.0 109.1 109.1 32.4 141.4 10.5 8.4 9.9
4. Transport and telecommunications 253.4 0.0 253.4 87.4 340.8 24.3 22.8 23.9
4.1 Transport 242.8 0.0 242.8 83.7 326.5 23.3 21.8 22.9
4.2 Telecommunications and IS 10.6 0.0 10.6 3.7 14.3 1.0 1.0 1.0
5. Environment and energy 96.5 0.0 96.5 41.9 138.4 9.3 10.9 9.7
5.1 Energy infrastructure 4.8 0.0 4.8 4.1 8.8 0.5 1.1 0.6
5.2 Environmental infrastructure 91.7 0.0 91.7 37.9 129.6 8.8 9.9 9.1
6. Territorial policy(*) 127.5 36.0 163.5 61.4 224.9 15.7 16.0 15.8
6.1 Tourism 33.2 0.0 33.2 21.0 54.2 3.2 5.5 3.8
6.2 Planning and rehabilitation 9.4 0.0 9.4 5.1 14.5 0.9 1.3 1.0
6.3 Social infrastructure 58.2 0.0 58.2 14.8 73.0 5.6 3.9 5.1
6.4 Development of rural areas 26.7 36.0 62.7 20.5 83.2 6.0 5.3 5.8
7. Technical assistance 76.5 12.9 89.4 36.4 125.8 8.6 9.5 8.8
Total Objective 1 573.6 467.5 1041.0 383.9 1424.9 100.0 100.0 100.0

Objective 2
1. Agriculture and fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.2 Fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2. Enterprise environment 7.7 0.0 7.7 10.3 18.0 20.6 25.2 23.0
2.1 Assisting large business organisations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 6.2 0.0 6.2 8.4 14.5 16.6 20.4 18.6
2.3 RTDI 1.5 0.0 1.5 2.0 3.5 4.0 4.8 4.4
3. Human resources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.1 Labour market policy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.2 Social inclusion 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.3 Education and training 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4. Transport and telecommunications 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.1 Transport 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.2 Telecommunications and IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5. Environment and energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.1 Energy infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.2 Environmental infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6. Territorial policy 28.0 0.0 28.0 29.2 57.3 75.4 71.2 73.2
6.1 Tourism 7.8 0.0 7.8 8.7 16.5 21.0 21.1 21.1
6.2 Planning and rehabilitation 11.4 0.0 11.4 11.8 23.2 30.7 28.6 29.6
6.3 Social infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.4 Development of rural areas 8.8 0.0 8.8 8.8 17.6 23.7 21.4 22.5
7. Technical assistance 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 4.0 3.6 3.8
Total Objective 2 37.2 0.0 37.2 41.1 78.2 100.0 100.0 100.0

Country 610.7 467.5 1078.2 425.0 1503.2

(*) Territorial policy: Expenditure on territorial policy reflects the support given to development through improvements in the
economic and social environment at local level, which are essentially aimed at creating a favourable environment for business start-
ups and growth of local firms as well as a source of attraction for investment from outside. Rural development policies are intended
to arrest the abandonment of rural areas by making them attractive places to live and work, while preserving their essential features.
Urban policies have a similar aim in respect of inner city areas. In both cases, an important objective tends to be maintain and
upgrade the cultural heritage and to ensure the availability of a range of support services.
Note: The financial data are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the
basis of national communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and
Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG.
Source: estimates based on DG Regio data


Table 4 – Expenditure by broad category and form in Objective 1 and Objective 2 regions

Public expenditure Public expenditure Private expenditure
(EUR millions) as % public allocated as % public
expenditure
Objective 1
1. Agriculture and Fisheries 165.1 81.5 95.0
1.1 Agriculture and forestry 165.1 82.6 95.0
1.2 Fisheries : : :
2.Enterprise environment 22.7 62.0 53.8
2.1 Assisting large business organisations 7.6 64.5 53.8
2.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 10.0 60.2 53.8
2.3 RTDI 5.1 62.1 53.8
3.Human resources 212.3 59.7 32.1
3.1 Labour market policy 157.0 82.7 51.2
3.2 Social inclusion 4.8 19.6 20.4
3.3 Education and training 50.4 35.7 8.7
4.Transport and telecommunications 183.9 54.0 4.9
4.1 Transport 179.1 54.8 5.0
4.2 Telecommunications and IS 4.8 33.8 2.3
5.Environment and energy 95.2 68.8 8.8
5.1 Energy infrastructure 6.2 70.1 53.8
5.2 Environmental infrastructure 89.0 68.7 5.7
6.Territorial policy 135.1 60.1 28.4
6.1 Tourism 37.4 69.1 53.8
6.2 Planning and rehabilitation 9.5 65.5 25.5
6.3 Social infrastructure 42.2 57.8 0.0
6.4 Development of rural areas 45.9 55.2 37.2
7.Technical assistance 69.4 55.2 11.6
Total Objective1 883.7 62.0 30.4

Objective 2
1. Agriculture and Fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.1 Agriculture and forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.2 Fisheries : : :
2.Enterprise environment 8.5 47.2 191.6
2.1 Assisting large business organisations 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.2 Assisting SMEs and the craft sector 7.5 51.8 192.2
2.3 RTDI 1.0 27.8 189.1
3.Human resources 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.1 Labour market policy 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.2 Social inclusion 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.3 Education and training 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.Transport and telecommunications 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.1 Transport 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.2 Telecommunications and IS 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.Environment and energy 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.1 Energy infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.2 Environmental infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.Territorial policy 33.1 57.8 76.7
6.1 Tourism 6.3 38.3 203.7
6.2 Planning and rehabilitation 15.0 64.5 42.2
6.3 Social infrastructure 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.4 Development of rural areas 11.8 67.1 3.0
7.Technical assistance 1.8 60.3 0.0
Total Objective 2 43.4 55.4 100.2

Country 927.1 61.7 34.1

: = not available
Note: The financial data presented in the tables are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by
DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and
payments.
The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other
programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG. The figures on expenditure relate to the
position at the end of 2007. Private expenditure is estimated.
Source: estimates based on DG Regio data


Table 5 - Allocation of resources by programmes

ERDF Other Total SF National Total public Total SF National
Structural funding funding funding
Funds (SF)
EUR millions %
Sectoral Objective 1
Basic Infrastructure 422.4 0.0 422.4 143.5 565.9 39.2 33.8
Human Resources Development Operational
Programme, 2004-2006, Slovak Republic 284.5 284.5 82.7 367.2 26.4 19.5
Industry and Services 151.2 0.0 151.2 84.7 235.9 14.0 19.9
Sectoral operational programme agriculture and rural
development 183.0 183.0 73.0 256.0 17.0 17.2
Total sectoral Objective 1 573.6 467.5 1041.0 383.9 1424.9 96.6 90.3
Regional Objective 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bratislava 37.2 0.0 37.2 41.1 78.2 3.4 9.7
Total regional 37.2 0.0 37.2 41.1 78.2 3.4 9.7
Total sectoral 573.6 467.5 1041.0 383.9 1424.9 96.6 90.3
Country 610.7 467.5 1078.2 425.0 1503.2 100.0 100.0

Note: The financial data are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national
communications on allocations of funding and payments. The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account
other programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG.


Table 6 – Expenditure by programme

Public expenditure Public expenditure
(EUR millions) as % public allocated

Sectoral Objective 1
Basic Infrastructure 338.9 59.9
Human Resources Development Operational Programme, 2004-
2006, Slovak Republic 218.8 59.6
Industry and Services 134.5 57.0
Sectoral operational programme agriculture and rural 191.5 74.8
Total sectoral Objective 1 883.7 62.0
Regional Objective 2
Bratislava 43.4 55.4
Total Regional 43.4 55.4
Total sectoral 883.7 62.0
Country 927.1 61.7

Note: The financial data presented in the tables are extracted from the INFOVIEW data-warehouse maintained
by DG Regio, which is updated daily on the basis of national communications on allocations of funding and
payments.
The figures included are confined to Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes and leave out of account other
programmes, such as Leader, Urban, Equal, Objective 3 and INTERREG. The figures on expenditure relate to
the position at the end of 2007. Private expenditure is estimated.
Data on FIFG payments are not included in INFOVIEW and the amounts included in the table for Fisheries relate
to expenditure in this policy area financed from sources other than this.


Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (12)

Similar a Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006

Similar a Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006 (20)

Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000 - 2006