Mid-term evaluation of the Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007-2013Summary of the evaluation results

Maaelu Arengu Euroopa Põllumajandusfond:

Euroopa investeeringud maapiirkondadesse

Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................3Evaluations........................................................................................................................4

1.1 Relevance of the problems mapped in ERDP............................................................41.2 Achievements and the effect of ERDP objectives......................................................4

1.2.1 Summary of achievements on ERDP measures objectives.................................41.2.2 The effect of the program.................................................................................12

1.3 The implementation of the programme..................................................................21

Ernst & Young | 2

Introduction

On request of the Ministry of Agriculture, Ernst & Young Baltic AS performed the mid-term evaluation of the programme for the Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 (ERDP) between 17/03/2010 and 31/12/2010. The main objective of the mid-term evaluation was to assess the fulfillment of the objectives of the ERDP programme and the results of the programme as well as its influence on rural and agricultural development and to give recommendations for improving the quality of the ERDP.

The mid-term evaluation covered the period between 01/01/2007 and 30/04/2010. The evaluation was mainly based on the monitoring indicators collected and analyses made by the ongoing evaluators 1 which, in their turn, collected the data from the Agricultural Registers and Information Board (hereinafter ARIB), the commercial register, Statistics Estonia and other sources. Additionally, in order to collect qualitative information, the mid-term evaluator performed two surveys, 70 interviews, five focus group discussions and five panel discussions. Where necessary, the analysis was supplemented by other secondary sources.

The Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007–2013 (the ERDP) covers the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of 2013. The overall objective of the ERDP is to support the balanced development of rural areas through the rural development measures related to the European Union Common Agricultural Policy. Within the framework of the EU budget and programming period (2007–2013) Estonia can use ca 935 million EUR of public sector support funds within the framework of the ERDP for supporting agriculture and rural development. The ERDP budget is distributed between four axes (see Figure 1) plus the technical assistance for the ERDP implementation.

The full report on the mid-term evaluation of the programme for the Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 is found on the webpage of the Ministry of Agriculture.

1 The ongoing evaluation of axes I, III and IV is performed by the Estonian University of Life Sciences; and the ongoing evaluation of axis II, by the Agricultural Research Centre.

Ernst & Young | 3

Evaluations1.1 Relevance of the problems mapped in ERDP

ERDP has mapped the problems that the measures aim to solve or alleviate. The ERDP has, for example, specified the decrease in the size of rural population, the advanced age of the managers of rural enterprises, the decrease in the number of people employed in agriculture, etc., as problems. The mid-term evaluation discovered that the problems mapped before the current programming period have predominantly remained the same; the economic recession that started in 2008 has rather deepened the problems.

Owing to the changes in the economic conditions, the financing of investments has become an additional problem. As the applicants’ own funds are not sufficient for making the whole investment and receiving loans from banks has become complicated, it is not always possible to make investments from the applicants’ own funds before the aid has been paid. As making investments from one’s own funds is mostly the prerequisite for the payment of the aid, it is essential to find opportunities for increasing the solvency of rural enterprises. Until the alleviation of the financial problems, it is worth considering the implementation of the payment system on the basis of the partly paid expense receipts or, as an alternative, on the basis of the permission of a larger number of expense receipts, advance payments, agreements with banks, etc. The evaluation also exposed the necessity to shift the focus from investing into fixed assets to increasing the value of the whole production chain and to promote the ongoing integration of agriculture and the food sector. That is why more funds could be directed namely there in the second half of the implementation period.

1.2 Achievements and the effect of ERDP objectives

1.2.1 Summary of achievements on ERDP measures objectives

The rural development plan is divided into four axes, each of which aims at its own goal. As to the thematic distribution of the ERDP aid, business activity and environment have been supported the most, followed by the development of village life and support activities.Figure 1 provides an overview of the distribution of resources between the ERDP axes and thematic distribution of resources.Figure 1. Distribution of resources between the ERDP axes and thematic distribution of resources

Source: Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007-2013; the calculations of the mid-term evaluator based on the report: EULS (2010). Estonian Rural Development Strategy 2007–2013: a strategic monitoring report of axes 1, 3 and I4 regarding the achievement of objectives.

When analysing the distribution of resources between the axes and the thematic distribution of resources, it can be said that the programme is thematically balanced.

The ERDP axis 1 is targeted at improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector. The budget value of axis 1 is 351.3 mill. Euro which constitutes 39% of the budget to be distributed as ERDP aid. The following is supported on the axis: training and information

Ernst & Young | 4

activities; setting up of young agricultural producers; advisory system and services; modernisation of agricultural enterprises; improving the economic value of forests and adding value to forestry produce; adding value to agricultural and non-wood forestry produce; the development of new products, processes and technologies in the sectors of agriculture, food and forestry; the development of infrastructure of agriculture and forest management as well as setting up and development of producer groups.

As of the moment of the mid-term evaluation, the following of axis 1 measures have not yet been implemented: 1.6.2 (Adaptation of the dairy sector and organic farming to new challenges), 1.7 (Development of new products, processes and technologies in the sectors of agriculture, food and forestry) and 1.9 (Setting up and development of producer groups).

Measure 1.1 “Training and information activities”The objective is to support the in-service training, retraining and transfer of knowledge of the people employed in the agricultural, food and forestry sectors with a view to improve their competitiveness on the labour market and to develop their enterprise, as well as to support the transfer of knowledge through diffusion of scientific information, scientific achievements and innovative practices among people engaged in agricultural, food and forestry sectors. The training activities of the measure should be based on the expectations specified by the survey of training needs. Training and information activities have been conducted in the following fields: introduction of the changes in legislation and of the principles of applying for agricultural aid, financial management and fulfilling the requirements for good agricultural and environmental conditions. 15% of the target number of participants in the training set for the year 2013 have been achieved during the first half of the activity period. The implementation of county-specific activities has been more successful this far. The achievement of the set objective would imply that training would have to be conducted far more actively in the second half of the programme, especially in the form of nationwide activities. Experts have specified the following reasons why the process of conducting the training has not met the expectations: disadvantageous conditions in the economy, which has decreased the interest of participants; insufficiently co-ordinated training calendar, as a result of which the training and information activities are often performed simultaneously.

Measure 1.2 “Support for setting up of young agricultural producers”This measure is important from the viewpoint of the structural changes in agricultural enterprises and of supporting their competitiveness. Measure 1.2 has been implemented well during the programming period, and both the number of applications and the amount exceed the forecasted levels. The measure supports the achievement of domain-specific objectives, bringing additional competence and business initiative into agriculture, which has positive impact on the development of the agricultural sector. During the forthcoming half of the programme, the form of the business plans to be submitted for applying for the aid should become more comprehensive, so that the entrepreneurs could get a more detailed overview of the planned revenues and expenditures as well as improve the business and financial skills of agricultural entrepreneurs through training and advisory services.

Measure 1.3 “Support for advisory system and services”The aid for rendering advisory services is closely connected to other measures; the largest overlapping is with the submeasures of measure 1.4. 34% of the total value of the measure has been paid. The share of agricultural producers is 99% of the aid beneficiaries, and private forest holders form only 1%. Nine different advisory sectors out of 16 have received advisory aid. Out of all advisory services, the advice related to financial management constituted 52% of all the advisory services rendered, the other most widely spread sectors being plant production and company management. The application process is considered to be complicated, and the period of the payment is too long. Experts have considered the uneven qualification level of the advisors, which affects the quality of the advisory services, the main problem. We recommend improving the competence of the advisors by the professional training of the advisors and by offering them opportunities of practical training.

The advisory centres offer their support in order to enhance the competitiveness of enterprises. On the basis of the results of the survey conducted among the advisors employed by the advisory centres, the advisory sectors asked for the most are financial management

Ernst & Young | 5

(83%) and diversification of the activities of enterprises (54%) as well as legal services (54%) and advisory services for organic farming (45%). The mid-term evaluator recommends improving the competence of the advisors by professional training and promoting the use of the practical training aid for advisors as well as establishing competence centres at the advisory centres. This would enable offering a complete service solution and would support the development of competences in the sectors of agriculture and forestry.

Measure 1.4 “Modernisation of agricultural holdings”The overall objective of this measure is to improve the competitiveness of agricultural production through the diversification of agricultural activities, the promotion of agriculture meeting the relevant standards and through the promotion of the use of biomass. To attain the overall objective, agricultural producers are supported by three submeasures:• submeasure 1.4.1 “Investments into the development of micro agricultural holdings”;• submeasure 1.4.2 “Investments in livestock buildings”;• submeasure 1.4.3 “Investments into the production of bioenergy”.

Submeasure 1.4.1 has been implemented successfully, and it is essential for supporting the competitiveness of small agricultural holdings with up to 10 employees. The demand for such aid is big, which is proven by the large number of applications in the calls for applications. The implementation of investment plans with the help of the aid is successful, which is proven by the large share of payments among the approved aid. Aid has mainly been granted for cereal cultivation and mixed production; and other sectors have received less aid. The entrepreneurs consider covering the self-financing part when making the investment problematic because it is complicated to involve money from the banks and their own funds are not sufficient.

Submeasure 1.4.2 is essential from the viewpoint of supporting the competitiveness of the agricultural enterprises active in the field of livestock farming. The aid is mainly granted for the construction of livestock farm buildings for dairy and cattle as well as for the enterprises occupied with mixed production. If the investment plans are not implemented, it is not possible to develop environmental conditions and conditions for keeping animals in conformity with the requirements, which endangers the sustainable development of enterprises and the competitiveness of the sector.

Submeasure 1.4.3 contributes to the implementation of environmentally friendly and effective technologies among agricultural producers and supports the objectives set in the ERDP. It is the application of the measure that is problematic as too few applications have been submitted in the two applications rounds and only 4% of the target value of investments has been achieved. Agricultural producers can apply for the support; but, taking into account the business risk mitigation and the specificity of bioenergy production, the agricultural producer is not interested in taking additional business risks. This is a rapidly developing sector, and the lack of knowledge, success stories and operating sample projects may be the reason why the investments into the production of bioenergy have been modest this far.

Measure 1.5 “Improving the economic value of forests and adding value to forestry products”The overall objective of the aid for improving the economic value of forests and adding value to forestry produce is to improve the competitiveness of private forest owners (both natural persons and legal persons governed by private law), non-profit associations and commercial associations (forestry associations) of forest owners, and micro-enterprises active in industrial production of wood and in forest management.Measure 1.5 is divided into three submeasures:• Submeasure 1.5.1 “Improving the economic value of forests”;• Submeasure 1.5.2 “Adding value to forestry products (implementation of a development

project)”;• Submeasure 1.5.3 “Restoration of damaged forest and prevention of forest fires”.

Submeasure 1.5.1 is essential as regards the aid for the competitiveness of forest owners and forestry enterprises. Applying for the measure and the implementation of investment plans

Ernst & Young | 6

have been successful. Among the activities, the largest amounts of aid have been granted for the purchase of forestry equipment, and slightly above one quarter of all aid amounts has been directed to performing works in forest management. The forest owners consider covering the self-financing part when making the investment problematic because it is complicated to involve money from the banks and their own funds are not sufficient. In case of smaller work volumes, it is problematic that the service must be ordered which is economically inexpedient.

The objective of submeasure 1.5.2 is to achieve the Implementation of new products, processing methods and technologies and more successful marketing of products. The aid beneficiaries are micro-enterprises active in the processing of timber forestry produce. Application is indeed active, but only half of the projects have been approved. The share of payments is low, only 6% of the budget of this submeasure. 27% of the total amount of the planned target level of investments has been achieved. Among the activities, the purchase of machinery and equipment necessary for the production of biofuels (firewood processor, chippers, presses etc.) forms the largest share that constitutes 51% of the approved total investments, but the share of payments for this activity is only 10%.

The majority of the supported activities of submeasure 1.5.3 have been directed to the prevention of forest fires and the restoration of otherwise damaged forests. The aid for this measure has, however, not been much applied for; and only 3% of the amount planned for this measure has been achieved. The results of a survey show that the aid beneficiaries consider this measure very important. The more effective use of this measure may be impeded by the fact that the regions eligible for aid are restricted with the criterion "areas of high or medium fire hazard”. This restriction proceeds from the legislation of the EU. In the period 2007–2009, there have been no large forest fires or storm damages, and the supports have been applied for mainly in order to perform preventive activities.

Measure 1.6 “Adding value to agricultural and non-wood forestry products”Submeasure 1.6.1 of this measure supports the efficiency and competitiveness of the marketing of agricultural and forestry production by the enterprises. The pace of the implementation of this measure is not meeting the expectations. Only 10% of the target level for the total investments has been implemented, and 11.5% have been paid from the budget for this submeasure. The delay in opening this measure has been specified as a problem. The supported activities are related to the purchase and implementation of equipment and technology, and they support the improvement of the sales and/or export potential and the quality of products. Of the entrepreneurs, 65% feel the positive impact of the aid for investments on improving the marketing of products and, proceeding from that, also on the increase of the market share.

Measure 1.8 “Infrastructure of agriculture and forest management”The objective of the measure is to preserve the operational condition of the drainage systems on agricultural and private forest land. This measure is important from the viewpoint of the development of infrastructure, of supporting the reconstruction of production capacities and of the competitiveness of enterprises. Applying for this measure and the implementation of investment plans with the help of the supports have been successful this far. Of the aid beneficiaries, 92.9% have replied that the measure fully meets their expectations. The mid-term evaluator recommends continuing the drainage measure in the manner that has developed so far in the forthcoming programming period as well.

The activities of the ERDP axis 2 are primarily directed at the promotion of such ways of agricultural production which ensure the stable status of the environment and land use in the regions where it is important for the formation of traditional landscapes and in Natura 2000 areas. The budget value of axis 2 is 334.5 mill. Euro which constitutes 37% of the budget to be distributed as ERDP supports. In particular, attention is paid to the maintenance of biological diversity and traditional landscapes, to the assurance of water quality and to the alleviation of climate change.

As of the moment of the mid-term evaluation, among the measures of axis 2, the following measures have not been implemented: submeasure 2.5.2 (Support for the establishment of mixed species hedgerows) of measure 2.5 as well as measure 2.6 “Support for the

Ernst & Young | 7

establishment of protection forest on agricultural land”.

Measure 2.1 “Support for less-favoured areas”This support measure has been transferred from the previous period, and the interest in this aid largely corresponds to the forecasted level, and the objectives set by the end of the programming period are attainable. Turning this measure to a one year commitment has had a positive impact on the support. The areas with handicaps aid is rather the compensation aid that binds the applicants to preserve the condition of the environment on the existing level, but this measure does not essentially contribute to the improvement of the environmental situation. The impact of the aid on the maintenance of rural areas and local communities has been for a short while related to the compensation effects that might sustain the rationality of continuing operation for some of the applicants. The aid for areas with handicaps is relevant, since it supports the activities in these areas and compensates for the additional expenses due to the peculiarities of the area. As the main recommendation, it can be mentioned that the support rate could be differentiated in different regions for the next programming period as the impacts of areas with handicaps could be different for different regions and they may demand different levels of contribution for coping with them.

Measure 2.2 “Natura 2000 support for agricultural land”The Natura support for agricultural land is crucially important for the producers

active in the given regions as it compensates for their additional expenses and loss of income due to the requirements for operation in the Natura area. From the environmental aspect, fulfilling the requirements set in the given area is of huge importance. Ca. 24% of the budget of the measure have been used, which is a rather good result. A the same time, proceeding from the process of application on the basis of the area this far, it is probable that the objective of 38,000 ha will not have been achieved by the end of the programming period. The most problematic issue has been the discord between the landowners and the executives in determining and mapping the Natura areas, because of which inconsistencies in the data of the applicants and the executives have occurred. The main recommendation would be to continue synchronising the maps to avoid future discrepancies and problems. It is also important that all intermediate bodies continue the information activities related to Natura.

Measure 2.3 “Agri-environment support”Among the overall objectives of the agri-environment support, the requirements of this submeasure contribute above all to the objective of maintaining and increasing biological and landscape diversity. From the budget of all agricultural supports, about 30% were been spent as of 30/04/2010, which is a rather good result. As this aid is related to a five year commitment, the money has also been deposited for the forthcoming years to the extent of the budget for the submeasures. As for different measures, there is, however, a certain difference as to the implementation of the budget since some of the measures have been already over-applied for and other measures have remained a little below the target levels. A more detailed overview of each measure is given below.

Submeasure 2.3.1 “Support for environmentally friendly management”The measure of environmentally friendly management has been very popular among the applicants. For the period of the mid-term evaluation, the target levels set as objectives have been fulfilled and the estimated amount will have been exceeded by the end of the programming period. Since the objectives of environmentally friendly management (hereafter EFM) are mainly directed towards the improvement of the environmental situation, according to the results of the research conducted by the Agricultural Research Centre (hereafter ARC), the supported areas have contributed to biodiversity and the high nature value agriculture and forestry as well as the maintenance of water and soil quality. The requirements set for the applicants for the aid for environmentally friendly management are generally in conformity with the objectives of the ERDP 2007–2013. The main suggestion would be to apply additional information measures and to offer training, especially concerning the use of fertilisers to ensure their conscious and proper utilisation (above all, attention should be paid to the fact that fertilisers must be sparingly but sufficiently to ensure the maintenance of soil fertility) in order to thus fulfill the environmental objectives more successfully.

Measure 2.3.2 “Support for organic production”

Ernst & Young | 8

The measure has been very appropriate and necessary for supporting the competitiveness of organic producers. Of the organic farming (hereafter OF) aid budget, ca. 24% have been used as of 30/04/2010, which is below the objective value. Taking into account the application activity so far and the fact that a part of the budget is deposited for projects with a five-year commitment, the calculated budget will have been used. As a result of the mid-term evaluation, it can be said that the objective of the measure has not fully been achieved; the aid has rather been directed to supporting OF and its contribution to marketing has been smaller. As a main proposal, it can be noted that the increase of the aid level should be considered for those producers that are active in the marketing of organic products in order to promote the subsequent marketing of organic products or the application of new measures (that would contribute to marketing and processing) should be considered.

Measure 2.3.3 “Support for keeping animals of local endangered breeds”The objective of this measure is to ensure the maintenance of endangered breeds of animals and to support breeding these animals. Observing the activity of applying for the aid for animals of endangered breeds and analysing the change in the number of the animals of endangered breeds in the ERDP period, we can conclude that the aid is appropriate and fulfilling its objective. The measure has been implemented successfully and is relevant for the maintenance and protection of animals of endangered breeds. On the basis of the proposals made in the interviews during the period of the mid-term evaluation, we would recommend to expand the list of supported breeds, e.g., adding the Estonian native sheep (when it is recognised as an endangered breed), for the next programming period.

Measure 2.3.4 “Support for growing plants of local varieties”The objective of the aid for growing plants of local varieties is to support growing plants of namely local varieties that are often discarded because of their lower productivity while imported varieties that are less adjusted to local growing conditions are promoted. According to international agreements, for cultural crop breeding, each country has to preserve its own parent material, and, for this reason, the measure is surely appropriate. Applying for this measure has not been sufficient, which has mainly been caused by the insufficient growing of the given plant variety. There has indeed been an impact on the maintenance of the Sangaste rye and genetic diversity; but as to the situation from the broader perspective of the whole ERDP axis 2, the impact of the measure in its present form is minimal for achieving the overall objectives of this axis. To ensure that the measure would justify its value still better, it is recommended, in the next programming period, to include other varieties of local value in the scope of the given aid as well.

Measure 2.3.5 “Support for the maintenance of semi-natural habitats”The measure has been implemented successfully and is fulfilling its objectives. The measure helps to maintain biodiversity and landscape diversity and to ensure the continuous management of the areas. The estimated objective of the measure is set to the value of public expenses equal to 26.8 million EUR. Proceeding from the amount of money used as of the date of the mid-term evaluation and the fact that no decrease is foreseen in the number of applications for the coming years, we can conclude that the budget objective set for the whole programming period is reasonable because the completed calls for applications have shown that the estimated monetary value has been fully covered with applications. It is possible that additional direction of resources into this measure is needed by the end of the programming period for the support payments. As the problems related to this measure, we can note that the aid for the maintenance of semi-natural habitats only comprises Natura 2000 areas although there also are valuable semi-natural habitats outside the Natura 2000 areas. In addition, the semi-natural habitats outside the Natura 2000 areas that have been left without attention also act as an important intermediate chain for maintaining the biodiversity of the semi-natural habitats to be found in the Natura 2000 area. For the time being, two different support rates are in use: for wooded meadows and for other habitats. However, this classification is partly too general; and the areas that cannot be classified under wooded meadows also need more maintenance.

Measure 2.4 “Animal welfare: support for animal grazing”The main objective of the aid for animal grazing is to ensure animal welfare. This measure is relevant as it supports the continuation of grazing by compensating for the expenses related to

Ernst & Young | 9

it and thus contributes to achieving a higher level of animal welfare. Considering that it was already applied for well above the budget in the first call for applications and no scarcity of applications can be predicted for the coming years, most probably the whole budget will have been used by the end of the programming period; and it is possible that the estimated sum will have bean exceeded. As proposals, it can be noted that amendments to the registers of animals should be additionally emphasized and information measures related to the opportunities of using e-PRIA (the online environment of the ARIB) should be applied with the objective of ensuring the awareness of applicants with regard to tracking their register data and ensuring that the content of registers is updated. As to the evaluation of environmental impact, it is also important to specifically find opportunities for linking the animal keeper with the land planned for grazing in register maintenance. One opportunity is that the applicants may be asked to specify in which area the grazing of animals is planned.

Measure 2.5 “Support for non-productive investments”In the beginning of the period, both the establishment and the restoration of stonewalls were supported. By the period of the mid-term evaluation, only the aid for the restoration of stonewalls remained. Stonewalls are undoubtedly important both with regard to the environment and the general aesthetic value. Already in the beginning of the period, the amount of applications has exceeded the budget value. As applying for this measure and both the establishment and restoration of stonewalls have been very successful, it is recommended to review the existing objectives of the measure and, considering the Estonian circumstances, to consider to which extent it is still reasonable and necessary to restore stonewalls. Supporting other fence types (e.g. picket fences) should also be considered in the next programming period as the opinion of the specialists interviewed during the mid-term evaluation (ca. 40%) suggests there are also other fence types that create cultural and environmental value.

Measure 2.7 “Natura 2000 support for private forest land”The implementation period for the Natura 2000 aid for private forest land has been short, and it is difficult to assess its direct impact on the environment. As of the moment of the mid-term evaluation, it is probable that the objectives set for this measure will not have been achieved by the end of the programme. As of 30/04/2010, approximately 6% of the estimated sum have been used, which is significantly below the target level. As a main recommendation, it could be emphasised that it is essential that all intermediate bodies intensify information activities as it has also been specified in case of Natura agricultural land support. It is also important to continue synchronising the maps in order to avoid further discrepancies and to simplify the process of application.

The ERDP axis 3 is directed at the improvement of the quality of life and at the diversification of economic activity in rural area. The budget value of axis 3 is 125.3 mill. EUR which constitutes 14% of the budget to be distributed as ERDP supports. This Axis supports the diversification of economic activity in rural area as well as village renewal and development.

As of the moment of the mid-term evaluation, submeasure 3.2.2 (Extension of Estonian broadband Internet network coverage) of measure 3.2 of axis 3 has not been implemented.

Measure 3.1 “Diversification of the rural economy”The measure has displayed extensive application activity; but, at the same time, the share of payments for the measure has been modest; and there is a danger that not in all the selected projects investments will be completed in due time. For this reason, a timely reaction is needed at the end of the investment period; and, if necessary, the unused aid amounts should be directed into a new call for applications. The probability of achieving the operational objectives of the measure by the end of the period is little in case of the given budget value and the implementation conditions. One reason for this is merging large projects with the measure, after which the target levels of the objectives have not been accordingly adjusted to the changes. Diversification into non-agricultural activities (submeasure 3.1.1) has received less attention than expected in comparison with support for business development (submeasure 3.1.2), which is caused by low application activity of agricultural producers. For this reason, agricultural producers could be better informed about the opportunities of this measure, and the determination of the agricultural producer on the basis of the return on sales

Ernst & Young | 10

for three last years and not only for the last year could be considered. The biggest efficiency potential of the measure lies in creating jobs. At the same time, jobs could be this far characterised only by the opinions expressed in the applications; and the actual situation as to creating jobs will only be clarified at the final evaluation. Within this measure, aid has been granted to projects in several areas of activity. At the same time, more than a half of the applicants have expanded their activities in the direction of tourism. For this reason, preference for other areas of activities over tourism could be considered in the forthcoming calls for applications.

Measure 3.2 “Village renewal and development”The experience of the implementation of this programme extends back to the SAPARD programme. Thus this measure has been well developed by now. The measure has been implemented as planned; and taking into account the application activity of this measure, there is little probability that the aid amounts will remain unused. In general, the measure has been implemented successfully; but little attention has been paid to the submeasures of improving the availability of services (3.2.1) and the conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage (3.2.4). The majority of the aid for this measure is mainly related to the activities of submeasure 3.2.3 (Village renewal and development), but some part of these investments contribute to the achievement of the objectives of measures 3.2.1 and 3.2.4. The measure has primarily affected the maintenance of the living environment and cultural heritage of villages through more opportunities for leisure activities and increasing the attractiveness of the region. As the submeasures of this measure are implemented in the same call for applications, it is worth considering preference for the development of services or for conducting the call for applications only for the development of services in the last call for applications. Widening the scope of services to be supported as main services is also worth considering. Achieving the target level of the total investments of this measure is not likely at the present conditions. Thus the target levels for the indicators of the submeasures would need reviewing.

The objective of the ERDP axis 4 or the Leader-measure is to promote local initiative, contributing to the improvement of competitiveness of agriculture and forestry, of the environment and the countryside, and particularly to the improvement of the quality of life and to the diversification of economic activities, through mobilising the internal development potential of the rural area. Consequently, it is important to give more decision-making power to the local level, so that the majority of rural municipalities would be covered by LAGs which have developed and are implementing the development strategies of their respective local regions by 2009–2010. The budget value of axis 4 is 85.8 mill. EUR which constitutes 9% of the budget to be distributed as ERDP supports. Within the framework of the Leader-measure, the development of strategies of LAGs and covering the running costs of LAGs and the acquisition of skills are supported. The main activities of the Leader-measure are, however, the distribution of project supports to the applicants of this region within the framework of the implementation of strategies. Co-operation is also an important keyword for the Leader-measure.

As to the activities related to the development of strategies as well as the running the LAGs and their development, the budget for this measure has been exceeded by now. As to these activities, the objectives of activities of this measure have also been achieved by the moment of the mid-term evaluation. Within the framework of Leader-measures, the development of strategy of two activity groups was supported. The strategies were completed in 2009, after which the activity groups started to implement the strategies. In all, aid has been granted to 26 local action groups (LAGs) for implementing their strategies and improving their performance capacity, including two groups that have developed their strategies in this period and 24 groups that developed their strategies in the previous period. Both the size of the area of the involved activity groups and the number of benefit gaining activity groups have exceeded the desired level. As to the whole Estonian area eligible for support, only three eligible rural municipalities have not yet joined the Leader-groups.

The budget for project aid and the achievement of the operational objectives have been modest this far. The number of projects fulfilling the axis 1 objectives has been especially modest. Although a calm start was indeed expected from the project supports in the first half of the programming period, there is a danger concerning LAGs that its will not be possible to

Ernst & Young | 11

implement the budget funds for the project supports by the end of the period. Thus it would be important to monitor the use of the project supports and the funds for the co-operation projects, and, if necessary, to re-direct the funds.

The implementation of the budget for co-operation projects and the achievement of the operational objectives have also been modest. Of the targeted number of co-operation projects, only fewer than 10% have been started. Although starting co-operation projects may take some time, it has also been hindered by the complexity of the administration of official co-operation projects in comparison to unofficial co-operation. To increase the number of official co-operation projects, the conditions related to co-operation projects could be modified in the Leader-regulations. Decreasing the budget and the target levels of official co-operation projects could also be considered.

The Leader-measure enables resting upon the local potential and bringing the decision making level closer to the local inhabitant. Thus the measure enables involving the applicants to whom the ERDP nationwide measures seemed too remote and complicated. The development and implementation of strategies and the activity of local action groups in the regions has had a positive impact on cohesion in the region irrespective of the forecast according to which the number of created jobs would be little. In order to achieve the sector-specific objectives of this measure more efficiently, it would be important to support a large number of projects related to business.

1.2.2 The effect of the program

The effect of the ERDP aid has not yet completely become visible owing to the shortness of the implementation period, and it will start to become evident only in the second half of the programme when the investments approved in the first calls for applications will have been implemented. At the same time, it is also more complicated to distinguish this effect from the results of alternative types of aid and other external factors. Neither are many statistical impact indicators as of 30/04/2010 not yet available for the year 2009. For this reason, opinions and surveys of the beneficiaries, executives and opinion-formers have been used as an alternative to ascertain the effect.

Reducing territorial imbalances

The figure 2 provides an overview of the aid granted, aid per capita and per km² in each county.

Figure 2. The aid granted within the measures of axes 1, 3 and 4 (mill. EUR), the aid per capita (EUR) and per km² (EUR) in each county2.

2 Only the number of people living in rural municipalities and the area of rural municipalities in counties have been taken into account. The figure does not include the aid granted to several counties at a time (cases within measure s 1.1 and the Leader-measure) or the cases where the aid beneficiary was unspecified, amounting to 5.5 million EUR (i.e.1.9% of the total aid amount).

Ernst & Young | 12

Source: Statistics Estonia; Estonian University of Life Sciences

With all the aid amounts from axes 1, 3 and 4 summed up, the most aid has been granted to Tartu, Lääne-Viru and Pärnu counties. The amounts of aid granted per capita have been the largest in Valga, Lääne, Saare and Hiiu counties; and per km², in Tartu and Valga counties, followed by Lääne-Viru, Võru, Jõgeva, Põlva and Järva counties. The amounts per capita have been generally larger in the peripheral regions, and the amounts per capita have been the smallest in Harju county.

The aid within the ERDP measure 3.1 is granted taking the regional aspect into consideration: the peripheral regions located far from the centre are prioritised. Thus, for example, support rates have been the lowest in rural municipalities bordering the City of Tallinn or county centres, but also in rural municipalities located in Harju county.

On the basis of the above facts, it can be said that the aid has fulfilled its purpose in reducing regional disparities.

Creation of employment opportunities

The figure below provides some background information regarding the creation of employment opportunities within the ERDP by illustrating the share of people employed in the primary and non-primary sector of all people employed.

Figure 3. The number of people employed in the primary sector and food industry compared to the forecast of the RDS and the total number of employed people (in thousands)

Ernst & Young | 13

Source: Statistics Estonia, Estonian University of Life Sciences

As shown on the figure 3, although the share of people employed in the primary sector is smaller than expected, the decrease has also been smaller than expected (0.4% per year instead of the expected 0.9%). This means that the increase of employment in the non-primary sector during the period has been slower than expected. The difference of the base value of the forecast and actual indicator may be due retrospective changes in data made by Statistics Estonia where necessary.

The creation of new jobs primarily concerns the ERDP axis 3 measures, where in case of large projects of measure 3.1, the creation of new jobs is set as a condition to qualify for the aid and in case of small projects the existing jobs have to be preserved. The overall objective of the ERDP axis 1 is to improve competitiveness in the agricultural and forestry sector through restructuring, modernisation, innovation, and advisory services. The more efficient business activity, however, tends to bring about a reduced numbers of employees in an enterprise, rather than additional employment opportunities. Nevertheless, the activities of the axis may improve the quality of jobs. Axis 2 measures are mostly aimed at the preservation of the environment and countryside and are only indirectly linked to the preservation of jobs. Like other axes, the Leader-measure contributes to creating new jobs.

Within axis 3 measures, which are the primary source of the ERDP for creating new jobs, the creation of around 1000 new jobs was forecast (around 890 jobs in measure 3.1, and 108 in measure 3.2). Since 39.7% of payments from the granted amounts in these two measures have been made, and the creation of new jobs does not necessarily occur as soon as the investment is made, it is still too early to draw conclusions about the actual number of jobs created.To put it in a gist, according to the objectives of the measure as well as the estimates of the respondents of the survey, it is mainly the measures of axis 3 that contribute to creating employment opportunities, but this happens primarily outside the agricultural sector. As mid-term evaluation is still in progress, it is too early to say to what degree the entire ERDP has contributed to the creation of employment opportunities.

Ernst & Young | 14

Amelioration of conditions for economic growth

The economic development is expressed by the value added in current prices (million EUR). The figure below shows the value added in current prices in the primary and non-primary sector, and food industry.

Ernst & Young | 15

Figure 4. Economic development in the agricultural sector, food industry and non-primary sector (produced value added in current prices, million EUR).

Source: Statistics Estonia; Estonian University of Life Sciences

The forecasted annual economic growth in the primary sector was 3% but due to the value added dropping to the level of 2004, the economic recession which started in 2008 and unfavourable weather conditions the desired target was has not been met. In food industry, however, the economic growth has surpassed the expectations even in the conditions of economic recession. Instead of the forecasted 1.6% yearly increase, the value added in food industry has increased 8.5% per year. Looking at the primary and agricultural sector together, we can see that in the year 2009 the value added of the two sectors coincides with the target level of the RDS.

Comparing the GVA and NVA of the supported enterprises with the average of the sector, we can see that the capacity of such enterprises to create any value added is extremely low (see Table 1). In addition, these enterprises are more affected by the economic recession. They are considerably smaller than the average and their contribution to creating value added in the sector is scarce. This may be doe to the fact that the majority of beneficiaries of agricultural aid are microenterprises. As the most recent data on these enterprises comes from 2008, it is too early to assess the impact of the aid based on these indicators.

Table 1. GVA and NVA indicators of the ERDP applicants vs. the entire agricultural sector

IndicatorEntrepreneurs to whom aid has been paid Sector average*

2007 2008 change 2007 2008chang

eNVA,

EUR/entrepreneur 5,620 657 -88% 172,824 127,936 -26%BVA,

EUR/entrepreneur 12,346 7,706 -38% 215,092 174,509 -19%

Source: Estonian University of Life Sciences

Ernst & Young | 16

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Primaarsektor 331,0 349,0 372,8 460,7 407,8 320,5MAS sihttase 346,4 360,0 373,0 387,0 398,0 410,0 419,2 433,0 443,0 452,8Toiduainetööstus 189,4 216,1 260,3 296,4 321,4 284,1MAS sihttase 175,9 180,3 185,0 190,0 192,3 194,6 197,0 199,0 201,0 203,0Primaarsektor + Toiduainetööstus 520 565 633 757 729 605MAS sihttase 522 540 558 577 590 605 616 632 644 656

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

88.8% of the respondents of the survey conducted among the applicants for investment aid agreed that the aid has had a positive impact on their economic performance3. According to 90.5% of the respondents the aid helped to increase the productivity of the enterprise and according to 87.4% the competitiveness of the enterprise was improved. An increased quality of a product/service was noted by 84.7%; the ability to save costs by 72.7% and the ability to expand to external markets by 22% of respondents (see Table 57). Thus, the estimates of the respondents regarding the impact of the aid on the competitiveness and economic performance of enterprises have been positive.

Reducing the disparities among EU citizens

The following data provided by Statistics Estonia helps to specify the context: figures 5 and 6 below present the average gross income earned in the agricultural and forestry sector compared to all the areas of activity and the annual equivalent net income earned by urban and rural population4; the share the income earned by rural population forms of the national average is also given.

Figure 5. Average monthly incomes (EUR) and the share the income earned by rural population forms of the national average (%)

Source: Statistics Estonia

3 The respondents who agreed or rather agreed with the statements4 Urban settlements include cities, towns within rural municipalities and towns; rural settlements include small towns and villages.

Ernst & Young | 17

Figure 6. Annual equivalent incomes earned by urban and rural population (EUR) and the share the income earned by rural population forms of the national average (%)

Source: Statistics Estonia

On the basis of the data provided by the Statistics Estonia, in 2005–2007 the average income in the agricultural sector increased; yet the growth was slower than the total growth in all areas of activity. Over these years, incomes also increased in forest management, the growth there being quicker than the average growth of all areas of activity (see Figure 78). The incomes earned by rural population as a whole also increased and were approximating the national average until 2007; in 2008, however, the gap with the national average widened again (see Figure 79). The approximation of incomes calls for a structural change in business activity in rural areas, with axis 1 measures contributing at the intra-sectoral and Axis 3 measures at the supra-sectoral level.

According to the opinions expressed in the interviews and focus groups, the measures related to the improvement of village life and the Leader-approach have also contributed to reducing the disparities. These measures have helped to enliven village life and provided opportunities for local people to participate in various events and spend quality free time together. The measures have also encouraged the rural community to become more active and improved their quality of life in general.

In conclusion, it can be said that on the basis of macroeconomic parameters and with the most recent data on incomes concerning years 2007 and 2008, it is too early to say to what extent the ERDP has contributed to reducing the income disparities. However, people generally agree that the ERDP aid has been beneficial for the quality of life in rural areas and helped to reduce social disparities, mostly by providing more opportunities for local people to participate in various events but also by promoting active village life and by supporting business activity.

Depopulation

To examine the extent of depopulation, figure 7 shows the share that rural population formed of the entire Estonian population in years 2005-2009.

Figure 7. The share that rural population forms of the entire Estonian population (%)5

5 Urban settlements include cities, towns within rural municipalities and towns; rural settlements include small towns and villages.

Ernst & Young | 18

85%86%87%88%89%90%91%92%93%94%95%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2005 2006 2007 2008EUR

Kogu EestiLinnaline asulaMaa-asulaMaa-asulate osakaal kogu Eesti keskmisest

Source: Statistics Estonia

The figure indicates that the pace of depopulation in rural areas has somewhat decreased. According to the opinion of the expert panel, the slowdown of the trend may be also attributed to urban sprawl, resulting in the increase of population in rural municipalities around major cities; thus the actual decline in rural population in more peripheral areas is not necessarily slowing.

Although the parties involved in the evaluation process emphasised the positive impact that the ERDP has had on improving the quality of life and on inhibiting social decline, they also admitted that the aspects that play a vital role in slowing down the decline of rural population – such as the development of physical infrastructure, availability of schools, kindergartens, etc. – are not included in the ERDP.

Age structure of the agricultural sectorThe RDS aims to increase the share of younger and decrease the share of older agricultural entrepreneurs. Figure 8 shows the trend towards this goal, reflecting the changes in the age structure of the agricultural sector.

Ernst & Young | 19

Figure 8. Age structure of the agricultural sector; the ratio of entrepreneurs below 35 years of age to the ones over 55 years of age.

Source: Statistics Estonia; Estonian University of Life Sciences

The data necessary for the mid-term evaluation was available until 2007. Thus, it is still too early to assess the impact of the ERDP on achieving the RDS targets. In 2007, the ageing of agricultural entrepreneurs was still a trend that had not been reversed.

Figure 9. Leaders of the agricultural sector (the number and share each age group forms of all leaders) on the basis of the legal form of the possessor (2007)

Source: Statistics Estonia

The figure 9 reflects the age structure of the leaders of the agricultural sector. As the figure shows, the share of leaders under 35 years of age constitute only 6.2% of all the leaders of the agricultural sector; and those under 45 years of age, 21.9%. The share of the leaders over 65 years of age is the biggest.

Of the ERDP measures, measure 1.2 is targeted at young people (Support for the setting up of young agricultural producers). Here, the term "young agricultural producer” refers to an agricultural producer under 40 years of age. The aid within this measure has been granted to a total of 231 applicants: 32.0% of aid has been granted to those under 35 years of age; 13.3%, to those over 35 years of age; and the age of 54.8% applicants has not been specified. The number of applicants within this measure was more than twice as big (519) as the number of actual aid beneficiaries. The measure has become popular and has also contributed to the increase in the share of young agricultural producers.

Ernst & Young | 20

The requirements of the measures also provide a basis for prioritising young applicants, e.g. measure 1.1 (Training and information activities), measure 1.3 (Support for advisory system and services), measure 1.4 (Modernisation of agricultural holdings) and measure 3.1 (Diversification of the rural economy). The data specifying the age of aid beneficiaries is available for submeasures 1.3.1, 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 and provided in the table 60:

In conclusion, it can be said that the ERDP measures take the age structure of rural areas into consideration and promote the increase in the number of younger agricultural entrepreneurs and the decrease in the share of older ones.

Summary

The ERDP aid has contributed to the balanced development of the rural areas, but the ERDP should not be the only means for directing the development of the rural areas. The other partners involved in the preparation of the programme (government agencies, umbrella organisations of the beneficiaries, etc.) noted the deep involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture in the composition and implementation of the programme as a very positive example. In the course of the evaluation, however, the ambiguity of the objectives of the regional policy, and an insufficient co-operation between the ministries became evident. For this reason, it would be essential to bind the other programmes implemented by the state more tightly to the objectives and measures of the regional development and of the rural development plan. The objective lies in the agreement about the common goals of the rural and regional development that also other sectors (education policy, business policy, investments into the infrastructure etc.) could take into account. The organisation of topic-oriented (tourism, business etc.) discussion groups through the different programmes could also be considered and the development strategies of the sectors.

1.3 The implementation of the programmeThe implementation of the programme has been satisfactory so far: the level of the achievement of the objectives of the programme generally meets the expectations. The funds have also been utilised as expected: the amount of the granted aid forms 49%, and the amount of the paid aid, 32% of the budget for the programming period. With such indicators, it is probable that the funds will have been used by the end of the programming period. In case of some measures, the number of applicants has not reached the estimated one; at the same time, for example, application for measures 1.2, 3.1 and 3.2 has been very active. There are problems with the payment of aid for some investment measures (e.g. measures 1.4, 1.5 and 3.1). For example, irrespective of the expected allocation of aid for measure 3.1, the share of the payments has been lower than expected. This results from the fact that it was difficult for the applicants to find funds for investments in the changed economic situation. The problems that emerged in the course of administration were mainly related to the understanding and interpretation of the rules of the aid system, to the different degrees of circumstantiality of the requirements and the documents to be submitted for application as well as to the use of the maps forming the basis for the calculations.

The following analyses the use of the funds by axes and provides recommendations for the use of the funds in the second half of the programme. The recommendations only concern the diversion of funds within the axes; the mid-term evaluator does not recommend redistributing the funds among the axes. Axis 1

The aid applied for within axis 1 amounts to 237,902,443 EUR, which on average accounts for 69% of the budget of axis 1 measures. Of the aid applied for, 78% i.e. 54% of the budget have been approved, of which 95,489,127 EUR i.e. 51% of the aid approved and 28% of the budget have already been paid. The ERDP is targeted at supporting the competitiveness of agricultural, food industry and forestry sector. It has also deemed it necessary to pay more attention to structural adaptation and to promote vertical integration; therefore; thus we do not recommend curbing the total budget volume of axis 1; the funds should rather be redistributed between the measures of this axis. If fewer aid applications have been submitted so far within

Ernst & Young | 21

these measures than can be funded, we first recommend reviewing the conditions for granting the aid in order to make them more attractive to the applicants in order to achieve the target.

We the recommend supporting more complex solutions which would contribute to the development of more sustainable enterprises and activities with a higher value added rather than direct investments (machinery, tractors, equipment) to avoid deadweight in the next programming period.

Axis 2

The aid applied for within axis 2 amounts to 238,565,325 million EUR, which forms 71% of the budget of axis 2. The aid granted amounts to 164,149,927 EUR, which forms 49% of the budget and 69% of the aid applied for; and the amounts paid in their turn constitute 159,954,350 EUR, which forms 48% of the budget and 97% of the aid granted. The share the aid applied for within axis 2 forms of the budget is smaller than the respective figure within axis 1; however, taking the peculiarities of the measures with the 5-year commitment, the measures of axis 2 have been successfully implemented. It is likely that the budgets of NATURA measures and the aid for growing a particular local plant variety will not have been expended; thus, diverting these funds to other measures could be considered.

Axis 3Applying for the measures of axis 3 has been very active. The aid applied for within measure 3.1 (diversification of the rural economy) amounts to 69,991,995 EUR, which forms 98% of the budget of the measure. Although the share of the amounts approved accounts for 56% of the whole budget, so far only 10,870,415 EUR have been paid, which forms 15% of the budget and 27% of the amount approved. The deadline for making the investments of the firs call for applications is November 2010; at the same time, two and half months before the deadline the payments made in the first call for proposal accounted for only 55% of the budget. That is why there is a risk that not all the investments in to the chosen projects can be effected before the deadline. Thus, after the deadline, diverting the unused aid amounts to another call for applications could be worth considering. We suggest reducing the share of investments in tourism within this measure in the following calls for proposals.

Measure 3.2 has also been popular, with the aid applied for exceeding the budget by 23%. The aid approved within this measure amounts to 24,472,248 EUR, which forms 45% of the budget of the measure. The aid paid so far amounts to 14,765,394 EUR, which forms 27% of the budget and 60% of the aid approved, whereas 91.2% of the aid approved in the first call for applications have been paid. Considering the activity of applying for the given measure, it is unlikely that the budget will not have been expended. We suggest putting more emphasis on the projects related to the development of services (i.e. on the activities of sub-measure 3.2.1, and to expand the scope of eligible service projects) in the next call for applications.

In conclusion, as far as the measures of axis 3 are concerned, we recommend keeping to the established budget proportions of the measures.

Axis 4The aid applied for within the Leader-axis constitutes only 33.6% of the budget of the axis, amounting to 20.9 million EUR. The aid granted within this axis accounts for 24.4% of the budget of the measure; the amount paid, for 6.4% of the budget of the measure and for 26.2% of the aid granted.

As to the running costs, skills acquisition and promotion of local initiative (codes 341 and 431), by April 30th of 2010, the budget established in the ERDP was already exceeded by half. Taking the fact that this amount also includes the cost of developing two LAG strategies (in the second half of the programming period, no costs are planned for developing the strategies) and the running costs of action groups into consideration, it is likely that the growth rate of this submeasure will be reduced in the second half of the programming period.

Ernst & Young | 22

The amounts granted for co-operation projects (421) have been smaller than expected. The slow launch of co-operation projects has been attributed to the fact that the preparation of co-operation projects is a time-consuming activity; by the time of the mid-term evaluation, however, several co-operation projects had been launched.

The project supports (411 and 413) granted within the Leader-axis amount to 13.9 million EUR, which is 18% of the total project support budget; the amounts paid are 3.1 million EUR, which forms 4.1% of the project support budget and 22.6% of the aid granted. As to project supports, the process of both expending the budget and paying the aid granted has been modest regardless of the fact that according to the implementing personnel, the launch of project supports has been more successful than expected. The interviewed Leader action groups were of different opinions as to their estimate of whether the budget would be expended or not. While some groups believed that the funds allocated to them would be expended by the end of the programme, the others perceived the risk of not having expended the funds. In our opinion, the use of project supports within the Leader-measure must be regularly monitored and, if the budget is not totally expended, part of it should be diverted to the measures of axis 3 in 2012 at the latest.

Ernst & Young | 23

MAK 2007–2013 vahehindamise tulemusi kokkuvõttev raport

Table 2. An overview of the use of funds within the ERDP axis 1 measures as of 30/04/2010 (EUR and%)

Budget Aid applied for % of the budget

Aid approved % of the budget

% of the applications

Aid amount paid

% of the budget

% of the aid approved

Recommen-dation

1.1 4 266 012 2 299 528 54% 1 214 059 28% 53% 213 952 5% 18%

1.2 11 813 787 24 348 615 206% 8 800 634 74% 36% 8 800 634 74% 100%

1.3

activity 1 3 042 414 1 069 788 35% 1 026 723 34% 96% 1 026 723 34% 100%

1.3

activity 2 925 155 784 869 85% 784 869 85% 100% 485 120 52% 62%

1.4.1 99 235 459 73 917 305 74% 64 560 663 65% 87% 45 523 904 46% 71%

1.4.2 64 455 793 71 796 884 111% 60 560 862 94% 84% 19 884 548 31% 33%

1.4.3 25 328 669 3 614 269 14% 2 946 728 12% 82% 1 043 027 4% 35%

1.5.1 11 267 409 10 683 393 95% 6 267 949 56% 59% 2 035 191 18% 32%

1.5.2 6 822 468 3 979 082 58% 1 734 513 25% 44% 413 549 6% 24%

1.5.3 2 584 268 445 289 17% 362 214 14% 81% 47 793 2% 13%

1.6 42 090 319 16 510 514 39% 14 013 167 33% 85% 4 420 819 11% 32%

1.7 22 305 379

1.8 35 441 168 28 452 908 80% 24 179 247 68% 85% 11 593 867 33% 48%

1.9 12 733 667

24

MAK 2007–2013 vahehindamise tulemusi kokkuvõttev raport

Budget Aid applied for % of the budget

Aid approved % of the budget

% of the applications

Aid amount paid

% of the budget

% of the aid approved

Recommen-dation

Total342 311 

967 237 902 443 69% 186 451 626 54% 78% 95 489 127 28% 51%

Table 3. The aid within the measures of axis 2 and the amounts paid as of 30/04/2010 (EUR and%)Budget Aid applied

for% of the budget

Aid granted % of the budget

% of the applications

Aid mount paid

% of the budget

% of the aid granted

Recommen-dation

2.1 53,513,654 25,956,550 49% 25,644,383 48% 99% 25,639,592 48% 100%

2.2 8,652,796 2,118,750 24% 2,047,380 24% 97% 1,350,931 16% 66%

2.3 210,886,973 96,978,100 46% 63,031,974 30% 65% 62,990,739 30% 100%

2.3.1 (EFM and EFP) 105,198,573 63,210,417 60% 38,475,057 37% 61% 38,474,002 37% 100%

2.3.2 55,794,869 21,795,811 39% 13,192,646 24% 61% 13,152,466 24% 100%

2.3.3 3,495,967 1,519,457 43% 1,422,934 41% 94% 1,422,934 41% 100%

2.3.4 894,763 9,946 1% 9,785 1% 98% 9,785 1% 100%

2.3.5 26,798,154 10,442,468 39% 9,931,553 37% 95% 9,931,553 37% 100%

2.4 21,724,033 5,279,662 24% 5,069,218 23% 96% 5,069,218 23% 100%

2.5 3,962,523 6,822,126 172% 1,276,923 32% 19% 275,608 7% 22%

2.7 31,439,272 4,432,036 14% 4,048,075 13% 91% 1,637,522 5% 40%

25

MAK 2007–2013 vahehindamise tulemusi kokkuvõttev raport

Budget Aid applied for

% of the budget

Aid granted % of the budget

% of the applications

Aid mount paid

% of the budget

% of the aid granted

Recommen-dation

Total 334,460,344 238,565,325 71% 164,149,927 49% 69% 159,954,350 48% 97%

Table 4. The aid within the measures of axis 3 and axis 4 and the amounts paid as of 30/04/2010 (EUR and %)

Budget Aid applied for

% of the budget

Aid approved

% of the budget

Aid amount paid

% of the budget

% of the aid approved

Recommendation

Axis 3 125 310 145

136 587 877

109% 64 612 812 52% 25 635 809 20% 40%

3.1 71 351 540 69 991 995 98% 40 140 564 56% 10870415 15% 27%

3.2 53 958 605 66 595 882 123% 24 472 248 45% 14 765 394 27% 60%

Axis 4 85 759 063 28 817 378 34% 20 930 132 24% 5 485 298 6% 26%

341 and 431

3 430 363 7 022 531 205% 7 022 531 205% 2 343 080 68% 33%

41 77 183 156 21 771 917 28% 13 898 110 18% 3 142 218 4% 23%

421 5 145 544 22 930 0% 9 491 0% 0 0% 0%

26