Assessing territorial impacts of the EU cohesion policy at the regional level: the case of Algarve

Abstract

This article focuses on presenting the main territorial impacts of the projects approved under the auspices of the EU Cohesion Policy in Algarve (Portugal), over the last couple of decades (1990–2010). In general terms, it tunes up the TARGET_TIA methodology to assess the territorial impacts at the regional level. More concretely, it analyses the territorial impacts in the four main dimensions of territorial cohesion: socio-economic cohesion, environmental sustainability, territorial governance/cooperation and urban polycentricity. In syntheses, the territorial impacts of the EU Cohesion Policy in Algarve were moderately positive in stimulating regional development.

Keywords::

• EU Cohesion Policy
• territorial impacts
• territorial cohesion
• Algarve
• regional development

1. Introduction

All human activities have impacts. These, in a policy evaluation scenario, are understood as ‘more substantial results’ or ‘results in the long-term’ (EC 2008). More precisely, policy impacts can be understood as ‘a consequence affecting direct addressees following the end of their participation in an intervention’ (EC 1999, p. 58). Seen in this light, there could be many different types of ‘policy impact assessment (IA) procedures’ (see Medeiros 2013a). Some could be focused on specific sectoral policies (e.g. transports), while others could be concentrated in a broader analysis, such as the assessment of environmental or socio-economic impacts. Again, this IA procedure can be narrowed to project or programme analysis.

Yet, in all, the most difficult and complete IA procedure is the territorial impact assessment (TIA) procedure, since it needs to take into consideration all the aspects of territorial development (socio-economic, environmental, governance and spatial organization) (see ESPON 3.2 2006; Medeiros 2013a). Still, the TIA procedure is not yet mandatory in Portugal, unlike the IA, the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures, in certain cases.

Nonetheless, being aware of the need of a more holistic IA procedure of the EU policies, on an initial phase, the European Commission (EC) sponsored the production of the MEANS1 collection, released in 1999, with a view to improve and promote evaluation methods, namely on the socio-economic impacts of the EU policies. Later on, in 2008, this study was updated and enlarged, with the release of the EVALSED resource for the Evaluation of Socio-Economic Development (EC 2008).

In the meantime, the EC made available the ‘IA Guidelines’ (EC 2005), which were updated in 2009. These guidelines define the IA procedure as ‘a set of logical steps to be followed when you prepare policy proposals’, and a ‘process that prepares evidence for political decision-makers on the advantages and disadvantages of possible policy options by assessing their potential impacts’ (EC 2009, p. 4). However, the proposed approach to IA is mainly centred in identifying economic, social and environmental impacts of a policy.

In other words, while the EIA and the SEA only cover the environmental dimension, the EU IA procedure includes two other dimensions: the social and the economic. In the literature review, however, the environmental dimension is, by far, the most studied within the IA thematic, followed by the economic one. Hence, prior to the introduction of the main aspects of the TIA procedure, in Section 2, we briefly discuss the relationship of the TIA with other IA instruments.

However, the previously mentioned guidelines do not even mention the term ‘territorial impact’. As it stands, this notion was only debated and crystallized within some early ESPON reports (see Table 1). Equally, one of these reports gave a crucial step to produce a well-structured methodology to assess territorial impacts, which was coined TEQUILA (Territorial Efficiency Quality Identity Layered Assessment; ESPON 3.2 2006). Following this breakthrough, more recent ESPON reports have deepened the study of territorial effects and impacts of EU policies. For instance, (i) in the ESPON TIPTAP (2010), the TEQUILA methodology was updated to TEQUILA 2; (ii) the ESPON ARTS (2012) proposed a quick check TIA procedure and (iii) the ESPON EATIA (2012) proposed a different type of TIA methodology, based on a more bottom-up approach.

Table 1 ESPON Reports contribution to TIA.

	Reports with proposed TIA techniques
Report	Method	Analytic dimensions	Territorial cohesion rationale	Multicriteria	Time	Territorial level	Used in
ESPON 3.2	TEQUILA	– Territorial efficiency– Territorial quality– Territorial identity	Yes	Yes	Ex-ante	EU NUTS III	– Territorial efficiency– Territorial quality– Territorial identity– TEN policies
TIPTAP	TEQUILA 2	=  TEQUILA– As single-dimension impact– As summative impact	Yes	Yes	Ex-ante	EU NUTS II and III	– Agriculture policy– Transport policy
ARTS	Quick check– Directive/exposure matrix– Regional exposure matrix– Regional sensitivity matrix– Territorial impact matrices	– Natural environment– Regional economy– Society and people	No	Yes	Ex-ante	EU NUTS II	– 12 EU directives
EATIA	(Bottom-up approach)– Screening– Scoping– Assessment and interpretation	– Social– Economic– Environmental– Governance and Administration	No	Yes	Ex-ante+Ex post	– National– Regional– Local	– EU directives/policies
Further reports with territorial effects and impact analysis
ESPON study		Policy – sector
1.1.4		Demography and migration
1.3.1		Natural and technological hazards
1.3.3		Cultural heritage and identity
2.1.1		TEN policies
2.1.2		Research and development policies
2.1.3		Rural development policy
2.1.4		Energy policy
2.1.5		Fisheries policy
2.2.1		Structural funds
2.2.2		Pre-accession aid funds
2.2.3		Structural funds in urban areas
2.3.1		ESDP in the member states
2.4.1		Environmental policy
3.3		Common agricultural policy and rural development policy
3.4.2		Economic policies and location of economic activities
CLIMATE		Climate change
TIGER		Globalization
TIA of policies and EU directives		TIA synthesis

Source: Data (several ESPON studies) – author compilation.

Note: TEN, trans european networks.

Section 4 is dedicated to the analysis of idiosyncrasies in the Algarve territory, in order to better understand the relevance of the structural funds interventions and their main ex-post territorial impacts, in this quite diverse and peripheral EU region. Section 5 presents a summarized picture of the EU Cohesion Policy interventions in Algarve, in the last two decades, which will be scrutinized in Section 6, dedicated to the assessment of the territorial impacts of the EU Cohesion Policy in Algarve. Here, we made use of the TARGET_TIA method, properly adjusted to the ‘regional level analysis’, which was presented in Section 2.

In the end, this article intends to further contribute to the debate of the TIA procedures, which has recently gained relevance within the regional and urban studies (see Tommi 2005; Martin & Tyler 2006; Camagni 2009; Golobič & Marot 2011; Medeiros 2013a). Yet, these analyses are still much centred on the econometric analysis (see Bradley 2006; Esposti & Bussoletti 2008; Varga & Veld 2011).

2. The TIA within the other IA instruments

A broad overlook on the available literature, which discusses the ‘IA procedure’, points out to a myriad of analysed elements, most of which are concentrated around the environmental dimension (Figure 1). Indeed, in the specific domain of the EIA a plethora of articles and studies are found (see Loiseau et al. 2012). One reason for this is the fact that the EIA is a EU regulatory-based instrument, such as the SEA procedure (see Tscherning et al. 2007).

Figure 1 Prevailing themes and territorial development dimensions in the IA literature.

It often goes unreported that in this environmental dimension many other specific areas of related knowledge are more rigorously assessed, such as the (i) IA of air quality; (ii) life cycle IA; (iii) ecologic IA; (iv) IA of sustainable development; (v) climate change IA; (vi) impact risk assessment; (vii) energy IA; (viii) noise IA; (ix) IA in parks and protected areas and the (x) odour IA.

Another main domain of IA analysis is the ‘economic IA’ procedure (see Lee & Taylor 2005). The social dimension is also covered by the IA analysis (Becker & Vanclay 2003), which includes more specific research in areas such as the ‘health IA’. Both the social and economic dimensions can be grouped within the ‘socio-economic IA’ procedure which, in turn, can be used to assess the impacts of many other regional development components, such as transports, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and commerce.

When it comes to the spatial planning-related components, the ‘transport IA’ procedure stands out as one of the most relevant (EC 1996). In addition, some research is available on the IA of EU proposals and regulations. Finally, the TIA procedure can be regarded as the more complete and holistic ‘IA procedure’, as it places focus on all the territorial development dimensions, which include the social, the economic, the environmental, the governance and the spatial planning. So conceived, this TIA procedure can then be used to assess a particular sectoral policy (Golobič & Marot 2011) such as the transport policy (see Camagni 2009).

In sum, while the EIA, for instance, will only need to assess the impacts of a certain project/programme/policy within certain aspects of the environmental analytic component, the TIA procedure requires a more complete evaluation, which should include a wider spectrum of territorial components, such as the socio-economic impacts, the environmental impacts, the governance impacts and the impacts on the spatial organization. Furthermore, the TIA can be implemented in several territorial scales of analysis, which includes the regional level, as discussed in Section 3.

There is a growing recognition of the importance of the IA procedures by the EC,2 even though the ex-ante IA procedure was only officially introduced in the policy-making in 2002. In line with this acknowledgement, the ex-ante IA became a mandatory procedure (alongside the EIA3 and the SEA4 procedures) (see Tscherning et al. 2007) for (i) legislative proposals that have significant economic, social and environmental impacts; (ii) non-legislative initiatives (white papers, action plans, financial programmes and negotiating guidelines for international agreements) that define future policies and (iii) implementing measures and delegated acts likely to have significant impacts, in order to provide decision-makers evidence regarding the advantages and disadvantages of a policy choice.

However, the EU IA Guidelines are still very much centred in evaluating the potential economic, social and environmental consequences of the EU policies. In this context, the TIA can be regarded as a non-EU-mandatory procedure, which is still being developed and tuned, mainly within the ESPON Programme, with the goal of putting the ‘territorial dimension’ in the frontline of the IA procedures.

3. Assessing territorial impacts at the regional level

To begin with, in this article, the regional level will be associated with the EU NUTS II geographical division which, sometimes, is coincident with the NUTS III division, as is the case of our study area: Algarve. In a different angle, the regional level can be regarded as the first sub-national administrative division, which usually includes, at least, a dominant urban settlement (the regional capital) and several local administrative divisions (the municipalities). Accordingly, the TIA at the regional level requires a more detailed territorial analysis than the assessment carried out at the national level, and should involve the collection of necessary data (interviews, statistics and bibliography) at the local level, as well.

Going back to the TIA methods proposed in several ESPON studies, the importance of bringing to light the regional specificities is presented in the TEQUILA model (ESPON 3.2 2006), and is further explored in the TEQUILA 2 model (ESPON TIPTAP 2010). As expected, these models directed much attention towards the EU NUTS II and III administrative divisions, in an attempt to study the territorial impacts of some EU policies, in the EU territory. Yet, they were not used in a very detailed way, in each one of these divisions, or regions. Putting it differently, there was no use of local elements of analysis to detail this research.

The importance of this ‘regional sensitivity’ element is debated with further emphasis in the ESPON ARTS (2012) report, which basically associates the ‘territorial’ concept with the ‘regional’ concept. In practical terms, this report proposes a ‘territorial impact matrix’ to be applied at the regional level, by using a scale of ‘potential territorial impacts’, in a list of exposure fields, related with the ‘usual’ and ‘political correct’, economic, social and environmental dimensions. It needs to be stated, however, that the methodology used in this study was specifically designed to assess the regional sensitivity of EU legislation, policies and directives. Nevertheless, despite the presentation of several case studies, it exhibits a quite broad (EU panoramic) picture of the regional impacts of several EU directives. In other words, no specific region was selected to apply the proposed methodology in a deeper analysis, which included the local scale (municipalities).

On its part, the ESPON EATIA (2012) report made use of a more bottom-up approach, which allows a more detailed analysis of the regional/local IA procedure. More specifically, the proposed IA methodology in this report invokes the need to involve the regional and local authorities of the EU member states in this process. Yet, it points out that there should be no need for complex expert knowledge to perform this TIA procedure, which we completely disagree with. Yes, we agree that the TIA methodologies should be as ‘pain-free’ as possible. Nevertheless, let us not fool ourselves, since its robustness depends on the use and treatment of a vast set of appropriate data, which requires the presence of expert knowledge. Even so, a positive note should be given to the ESPON EATIA methodology, since it includes an additional analytic dimension of territorial development (governance and administration) to the three common developments (economy, society and environment), when assessing territorial impacts. Furthermore, examples of collection of regional/local assessment data are revealed. Table 1 presents a more complete, comparable and comprehensive view of the mentioned ESPON reports.

In sum, in all the previously mentioned ESPON reports, the ‘regional level’ is used by the proposed TIA procedures, and it is, in our view, better explored by the EATIA methodology. However, the fact that this methodology was prepared to be used by ‘non-expert’ personnel, and also because it is not very much linked with the notion of ‘territorial cohesion’, as the TEQUILA technique, this led us to prefer the use of the TARGET_TIA technique (Figure 2), to assess the territorial impacts of the EU Cohesion Policy in our study case: the region of Algarve. The main reasons behind this choice are the TARGET_TIA requirements in terms of (i) the use of a wider and more holistic (includes components from the main territorial cohesion dimensions) set of data (against the EATIA method); (ii) its adaptability to each geographical scale; (iii) the possibility to obtain ex-post impacts and (iv) the advantage of the use of a multi-vector impact analysis (against the TEQUILA model). In all, we consider that an appropriate TIA procedure at the regional level should follow these preconditions, against the national level:

• The TIA methodology should be more detailed in the use of the available regional data (statistics, interviews, bibliography).

  Figure 2 The TARGET_TIA: elements and formula for ex-post TIA procedure. Source: Adapted from Medeiros (2013a).

  

• The TIA should be spread to the local level (municipalities).

• The TIA methodology should be operationalized by experts, in order to bring more precise results. The goal of TIA procedures is not to be pain-free. Conversely, it aims to assess the ‘validity and quality’, and the effective impacts of projects, programmes, policies or directives, on a given territory.

• An impact value should be obtained, within a negative/positive scale, in order to make regional comparisons possible, and to present a tangible TIA indicator for policy-makers and regional planners.

• Distinct impact values should be obtained for each analysed territorial development dimension (socio-economic cohesion, environmental sustainability, territorial governance/cooperation and polycentrism).

• The search of univocal causality relations (cause-and-effect relationships) between the evaluated project/programme/policy/directive and the territorial development evolution (in a select number of years – preferably no less than 3 years) should be obtained, despite the inherent difficulties of this exercise.

In short, the TARGET_TIA was developed during 2011, for a 3-year study with the main goal to assess the territorial development impacts of the EU Cohesion Policy in Portugal (Medeiros 2013b). This study will be expanded to further EU and non-EU territories (Spain, Sweden, Norway), in the following 3 years. Within the Portuguese territory, it was applied at the national level (see Medeiros 2013a) and at the regional level (the five Continental NUTS II), where the results were taken into account, by DGRegio and the Portuguese authorities,5 to better design the Regional Operational Programmes for the 2014–2020 EU Cohesion Policy.

In brief, the TARGET_TIA closely follows the TEQUILA model rationale of obtaining a ‘territorial impact’ value, from a  − 4 to +4 scale, as an average of the evaluations in each one of the analysed dimensions and their components (see Table 3). This evaluation is based on report reading, interviews to experts and statistical analysis (for the ex-post). In the following, an impact value is obtained for each the four vectors (positive–negative, endogenous–exogenous, multiplier–substitution and sustainable–shortterm) and the arithmetic average of these four values will then be multiplied with the policy intensity, and the regional sensibility values of the assessed component.

For example, imagine we are assessing the ‘education component’ in Algarve. A large volume of funds were put in this particular domain by the EU Cohesion Policy; hence the policy intensity is close to the maximum value (1). In addition, in the beginning of the 1990s, this region was far from the EU average in all the main education indicators. As a consequence, the regional sensibility to these investments was (and still is) quite high. Briefly, the evaluation reports of the EU structural funds conclude that the impacts of the EU investments in Algarve's educational system are quite positive. However, some of the assisted students left the region. Hence, the endogenous impacts were not as high as expected. Furthermore, the lack of regional industrial innovation capacity hampers the multiplier effects of these investments, which might not be sustainable overtime, if many other policy interventions in diversifying the Algarve's economy are not put in place.

In all, this TIA method intends to consider all these vital aspects of territorial analysis, in a feasible way. The end result of the average of all impact values of the analysed components will give the final territorial impact value. In an ex-post phase, this value will be related with an aggregated index (normally a territorial cohesion index) which summarizes the evolution of many statistical indicators in the analysed territory and period (see Table 4).

4. The ‘Al-Gharb’ baseline scenario and territorial specificities

Algarve is the most southern and perennial Portuguese regional administrative division. Its territory coincides with the Faro District or Province (5412 km²). The district division is still valid, but has gradually given way to the EU NUTS administrative divisions. In Portugal, Algarve is, at the same time, a NUT II (of a total of five Continental and two Archipelagos) and a NUT III (30 in total). Historical (for a long time, the Portuguese kings were crowned as ‘Kings of Portugal and the Algarve’) and geographical (a mountain range divides Algarve from a vast plain up north called Alentejo) reasons conceded this region a unique character and identity, which is still recognized in the spoken dialect and regional costumes.

Despite its relatively small size (around 5% of Portuguese territory and population – 451,000 inhabitants in 2011), Algarve is a quite dynamic region, with an above average (national) productivity and wealth creation. At the same time, Algarve is the primary Portuguese touristic region. Yet, this dynamism is mostly concentrated along the urbanized southern coastline, which greatly contrasts with the depopulated rural and mountainous interior. In short, Algarve can be pictured as a smaller Portugal turned around 90°, with Faro (64,500 inhabitants – 2011) playing the role of the region capital, and with Portimão (55,600 inhabitants – 2011) further west, as the second city (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Algarve territory. Source: Adapted from CCDRALG (2002).

Even so, the relatively small size of Algarve brings along some constraints in terms of lack of critical mass densification (human capital, networks of cities, etc.), which is necessary to consolidate a long-term territorial development vision and strategy. Crucially, at the beginning of the first programming period of the EU Cohesion Policy (1989–1993), Algarve presented severe territorial setbacks in terms of (i) the absence of an adequate use of spatial planning, (ii) environmental degradation, (iii) excessive dependence of the tourism sector and (iv) the striking unbalanced development between the more populated littoral and the ‘depopulated’ inland (MPAT 1989).

Furthermore, the Algarve region was, and still is, very much debilitated by the fragile industrial tissue, the manpower (de)qualification, the seasonality of the economic activity and the lack of articulation between the urban system. On the contrary, several positive territorial elements make this region quite attractive: (i) the landscape beauty and the biodiversity of the natural protected areas; (ii) the mild and temperate all year round climate; (iii) the presence of modern touristic infrastructures; (iv) the potential in exploring renewable sources of energy – solar mainly; (v) the presence of good road accessibilities and social infrastructures; (vi) the presence of a dynamic university hub; (viii) the potentials in exploring aquaculture, horticulture and fruit culture and (ix) the potential of the implementation of the transnational cooperation with Andalusia – Spain (CCDRALG 2000).

With all these elements in mind, the Regional Spatial Plan (PROT – Algarve) defined the central and long-term territorial development goal to make the Algarve a ‘Dynamic, Competitive and Solidary Region in the Context of the Knowledge Society’. In synthesis, there is a general intention to correct the intense and unplanned urbanization in the littoral area, to safeguard the ecologic corridors, to complete and modernize the environmental sanitation systems, and to promote the demographic stabilization and the economic dynamic of the rural spaces. More concretely, this Plan defines four main strategic goals, which should become a reality in 2030 (CCDRALG 2007):

• Qualify and diversify the tourism/leisure cluster.

• Strengthen and qualify the economy, promote knowledge-intensive activities.

• Promote an integrated and competitive territorial development model.

• Consolidate a sustainable and durable environmental system.

5. The EU Cohesion Policy and the Algarve

The EU Cohesion Policy is mainly concerned with achieving the objective of economic and social cohesion (Andreou 2009), rectifying territorial imbalances (Faludi 2006, p. 668) by narrowing the gap between the EU poorest and richest regions (Cartwright & Batory 2011, p. 323) or to achieve an acceptable degree of regional disparities (De Rynck & McAleavey 2006, p. 541). As Leonardi (2006, p. 156) notes, the importance of this Policy is justified because it is the only Policy conceived to transfer resources from wealthier areas to the poorer areas, within the EU. It just so happens that the EU Cohesion Policy Structural and Cohesion Funds do not act in isolation (Mairate 2006, p. 168), making it more difficult to assess their added value, effectiveness and efficiency, in a given region or nation. However, for a long time, the EU Cohesion Policy, or regional policy, has been standing out as the most important tool to support the regional development policies in Portugal (OECD 2008).

In other words, in the last two decades (1990–2010), the bulk of the infrastructural investments made in the Portuguese regions was financially supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (DPP 2007), while the European Social Fund (ESF) greatly supported the human capital development in Portugal (IGFSE 2009), which is a key source of growth in all member states and regions in Europe (EC 2010, p. 204). Indeed, as Mairate (2006, p. 169) underlines, the Structural and Cohesion Funds have been a driving force in the process of economic growth and convergence in Portugal and the remaining Cohesion Countries, even though a substantial volume of research shows a different (less positive) perspective (see Molle 2007; Begg 2010; Medeiros 2013a).

Also, in Portugal, a strong regional component was retained in the implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy, ‘since the Commission obliged all member-states to pursue development programmes at the regional level’ (Andreou 2006, pp. 241–242), despite the fact that, in many instances, a national policy development vision had prevailed. As a consequence, in Portugal, the TIA of the EU funds, at the regional level, cannot be considered as an impossible mission. Nevertheless, we agree with the idea that the ‘Cohesion policy is a highly complex policy arena that is difficult to evaluate effectively within the fairly constrained budgets and time-scales available’ (Batterbury 2006, p. 186), and that, sometimes, the impact estimates of this Policy ‘are considered imprecise, and the effects attributable to EU funding alone appear to be limited’ (Bradley & Wren 2006, p. 150).

Furthermore, the absence of an elected intermediate administrative (regional) level in Portugal could undermine the operationalization of the EU Cohesion Policy in the NUTS II level. Still, this is not exactly the case, as the existing regional administrative structures [Comissões de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional (CCDR)– in Portuguese] gained the necessary expertise and competence to make good use of the available EU funds, as time went by.

In the case of Algarve, in the last three decades, more than 3 billion euros were made available to promote regional development (around 5% of the national total) (Table 2). A bit more than half of these investments were supported by the ERDF, while the Cohesion Fund contributed with around 561 million euros altogether. Finally, the ESF also provided an important financial support to improve the qualifications of the population of Algarve.

Table 2 EU Cohesion Policy Structural and Cohesion Funds in Algarve (1983–2013).

Programming cycle	Fund	M€	Main intervention areas
Pre-accession (1983–1993)	ERDF	4.5
	Total	11
Initial ERDF (1986–1989)	ERDF	68
	Total	195
QCA I (1989–1993)	ERDF	239	Urban renovation, productive systems
	Total	392
QCA II (1994–1999)	ERDF – CF	567	Rural areas, public equipment libraries, public markets
	Total	755
QCA III (2000–2006)	ERDF – CF	798	Littoral, basic schools, infrastructures, accessibilities
	Total	1.279
QREN (2007–2013)	ERDF – CF	275	Supra-municipal projects, urban partnerships, innovative projects
	Total^a	509
Total	ERDF – CF	1.953
	Total	3.111

Source: Adapted from data (CCDR Algarve).

Note: CF, cohesion fund.

a Estimation.

A more detailed analysis of the ERDF investments, per main regional development component, identifies the transport infrastructure (plus roads) as the main beneficiated area, closely followed by the health and the environmental infrastructures. In addition, rural development, urban renovation, education and training and tourism were also very much supported by the Structural and Cohesion Funds in Algarve, in the last couple of decades (Figure 4). Regarding the ESF, the available data show that it focused mainly on improving the population initial qualifications and the long-life adaptability (Figure 5).

Figure 4 ERDF spending per main theme (1989–2010) – Algarve (%). Source: Data IFDR Database – Author compilation.

Figure 5 ESF allocations per area (2000–2013) – Algarve (%).

In a synthesis, based on the conclusions of several evaluation reports, we can state that, in the initial programming cycle (Quadro Comunitário de Apoio, QCA I – 1989–1993), the EU Cohesion Policy in Algarve was pivotal in improving the accessibilities and the basic regional sanitation needs. These measures were continued in the following policy cycle (QCA II – 1994–1999), namely through the approved Regional Operational Programme (MPAT 1993, p. 327). Yet, they were extended to measures which supported urban renovation and the construction of social equipment (CCDRALG 2002). The third programming cycle (2000–2006) saw a significant rise in the EU Structural and Cohesion Fund's total investment, which helped to close infrastructural networks (sanitation and water supply connections and the reaming culture and social infrastructures), and consequently to improve several indicators related with the regional quality of life (education, health, accessibilities, basic sanitation and environment – CCDRALG 2010, p. V).

In brief, after the three first EU Cohesion Policy programming cycles (1989–2006), the Algarve region had the basic social infrastructure networks practically concluded. The remaining work in this area was completed in the present and last programming cycle [Quadro de Referência Estratégico Nacional (QREN) 2007–2013]. Here, the use of a criteria based on the municipal population density (used by the Algarve CCDR), in order to better adequate the infrastructure dimension, can be regarded as a ‘best practice’ in using EU funds, in order to avoid ‘white elephants – unused infra-structures’, which are spread all around the Iberia Peninsula. Finally, the present programming cycle saw the rise of the investment in the immaterial domains of development (support to enterprises, research and innovation, training and education). Nevertheless, the infrastructural domain continued to be financially supported in areas such as (i) urban renovation, (ii) environmental infrastructures (basic sanitation), (iii) population support equipment (culture and sport) and (iv) even the improvement of accessibilities (QREN 2008).

Regionally, the financial distribution of the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds, in total, privileged the more densely populated municipalities of Faro, Portimão and Loulé (Figure 6). This result is somewhat justified by the urgent infrastructural needs within these Municipalities, at the very beginning of the EU Cohesion support to the Algarve region. Yet, the per capita investment value is radically different, as it favours the less populated municipalities (Alcoutim, Castro Marim e Vila do Bispo).

Figure 6 ERDF investment per Algarve municipalities (1990–2010) – (€).

6. The territorial impacts of the EU Cohesion Policy in Algarve

Throughout the EU member states, significant resources from the EU Cohesion Policy were destined to foster regional development. While certainly important to finance key-infrastructural projects and, later on, immaterial ones, these resources were, in many instances, far from the magnitude of expenditure required to reach the goal of territorial cohesion at the national and regional scales, as the Portuguese example clearly demonstrates (Medeiros 2012).

Even so, the counterfactual argument that the territorial development panorama, of certain EU lagging regions, would be much worse without the EU Cohesion Policy financial support can also be shown, for instance, in the Portuguese case (Medeiros 2013d). Indeed, it is expected that the territorial impacts of this policy are more significant in the EU poorer regions than in the richer ones, especially in countries where the regional administrative dimension is weak, and where the EU regional policy is, very much, intertwined with a country's regional development policies, as in Portugal.

In this regard, on a more general level, by the time it began to receive support from the Structural and Cohesion Funds (early 1980s) the Algarve region was included in the Objective 1 (less developed) group of EU regions. Yet, for the 2007–2013 programming cycle, its status was upgraded, since it began to be included within the ‘Phasing-out’ group of EU regions. At present, when the 2014–2020 Cohesion Policy phase is about to begin, the Algarve is included in the intermediary group of EU regions. This signals a positive, yet moderate, trend in the Algarve regional development path, in the last couple of decades.

When it comes to a more precise evaluation of the territorial impacts of the EU Cohesion Policy in Algarve, the use of the previously explained TARGET_TIA technique, which acknowledges the links and interactions between interventions related with four territorial cohesion dimensions (Table 3), led us to conclude that they were, in fact, moderate positive to the region's territorial development (Table 4). More concretely, the overall TIA obtained value was 0.701 (from a  − 4 to +4 evaluation scale), which was slightly lower than the national level (0.789). However, the impacts of the EU Cohesion Policy varied significantly within the analysed components, as even negative impacts were detected in some of them, more related with the morphologic polycentricity dimension (Figure 7).

Table 3 EU Cohesion Policy in Algarve – territorial impacts matrix – 1990–2010.

Dimension	Component	Posi/Nega	Endo/Exog	Sust/Shor	Mult/Subs	Average	Poli/Inte	Regi/Sens
Socio-economic cohesion (SOC)	Education	2	2	2	3	2.25	0.5	1
	Health	3	3	3	3	3	0.5	0.5
	Culture/sports	2	2	2	2	2	0.5	0.75
	Exclusion/inclusion	1	1	1	1	1	0.25	0.75
Socio-economic cohesion (ECO)	Income	2	2	2	2	2	0.25	0.75
	Employment	2	2	2	2	2	0.5	0.75
	Productivity	2	2	2	2	2	0.25	0.75
	Innovation	1	1	1	1	1	0.25	1
Average		1.88	1.88	1.88	2.00	1.91	0.38	0.78
Environmental sustainability	Energy	1	1	1	1	1	0.25	1
	Environmental protection	1	1	1	1	1	0.25	0.75
	Sanitation/recycling	4	4	4	4	4	1	1
	Biodiversity	1	1	1	1	1	0.25	0.5
Average		1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75	1.75	0.44	0.81
Governance/cooperation	Horizontal cooperation	2	2	2	2	2	0.25	0.75
	Vertical cooperation	2	2	2	2	2	0.25	0.75
	Participation	2	2	2	2	2	0.25	1
	Involvement	2	2	2	2	2	0.25	1
Average		2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	2.00	0.25	0.88
Morphologic polycentricity	Hierarchy/ranking	− 2	1	1	1	0.25	0.5	0.75
	Density	2	2	2	2	2	0.5	0.75
	Connectivity	3	3	1	3	2.5	1	0.75
	Distribution / Shape	− 2	0	0	0	− 0.5	0.5	0.75
Average		0.25	1.50	1.00	1.50	1.06	0.63	0.75
General average		1.47	1.78	1.66	1.81	1.68	0.42	0.80

Note: Posi/Nega, positive versus negative; Endo/Exog, endogenous versus exogenous; Sust/Shor, sustanability versus short-term; Mult/Subs, multiplier/substitution; Poli/Inte, policy intensity; Regi/Sens, regional sensibility.

Table 4 EU Cohesion Policy in Algarve territorial impacts indexes – 1990–2010.

	General	Soc/Eco	Env/Sust	Gov/Coo	Policen
EIMql =  Estimated qualitative impacts	1.680	1.906	1.750	2.000	1.063
Territorial cohesion index	0.153	0.058	0.276	0.161	0.118
EIMqt = Estimated quantitative impacts	2.448	0.928	4.416	2.576	1.888
EIM = (EIMql × EIMqt)	2.064	1.417	3.083	2.288	1.475
I = Policy intensity of ‘p’	0.422	0.375	0.438	0.250	0.625
S = Regional sensibility of ‘p’	0.805	0.781	0.813	0.875	0.750
Territorial impacts	0.701	0.415	1.096	0.501	0.692

Note: Soc/Eco, socio-economic cohesion; Env/Sust, environmental sustainability; Gov/Coo, territorial governance/cooperation; policen, morphologic polycentrism.

Figure 7 Relevance, financial intensity and impacts from the EU Cohesion Policy by dimension and component of the Territorial Cohesion in Algarve – 1990–2010.

In essence, the socio-economic cohesion analytic dimension saw positive impacts, which can be seen in the positive change in many statistics (see Table 5), mainly due to the large investments made in the social infrastructures (health, education, culture and sports) and in the human capital. Moreover, the economic activity was also backed in their modernization and internationalization, and also by the support given to innovation and technology. However, despite all these investments, the fact remains that the Algarve region continues to show social cohesion indicators below the national average, especially in the education-related indicators, which are quite ‘worrying’, to say the least, in particular in the less populated municipalities (CCDRALG 2007). Worse still, in the economic perspective, the goal to promote a more diversified (less dependent of tourism) and innovation-based economy was not completely attained. Furthermore, the recent (2010–2013) economic indicators follow a negative trend in the rise of unemployment and in the income per capita.

Table 5 Algarve municipalities key statistical data – 1990–2010 change.

	POP	EDU	HEA	INC	CUL	UNP	ENT	SAN	ACE	URB
Portugal	5.8	5.5	1.2	157	1.0	7.1	2.5	11.0	8537	474
Algarve	32.2	4.8	1.3	127	2.7	10.6	2.6	16.0	2646	1654
Albufeira	93.5	4.3	0.8	123	4.8	14.6	16.6	1.0	8818	3841
Alcoutim	–35.7	2.3	1.6	56	18.3	2.5	0.0	41.6	20,972	3049
Aljezur	17.9	4.8	–0.2	153	6.8	6.8	0.6	1.0	4503	2612
Castro Marim	–0.8	4.2	0.9	164	11.2	8.8	0.2	16.6	24,337	2149
Faro	27.8	7.5	2.9	113	–7.2	8.5	12.5	2.0	1225	652
Lagoa	36.0	3.6	2.1	115	4.1	12.3	7.5	2.0	608	2069
Lagos	43.9	4.1	0.9	156	8.2	9.3	5.9	1.0	999	1780
Loulé	51.6	4.4	0.5	121	9.4	10.8	3.7	21.0	1325	216
Monchique	–16.6	3.6	–0.2	137	–1.9	12.0	–0.4	28.0	4596	6067
Olhão	23.5	4.6	0.8	127	0.7	10.6	2.3	1.0	1541	1683
Portimão	43.3	5.0	2.3	142	–0.4	11.9	12.3	1.0	1563	1090
São B. Alportel	39.9	4.8	0.2	252	5.3	7.2	1.5	4.0	455	246
Silves	12.9	3.8	0.1	129	3.2	11.1	0.6	12.4	1666	3168
Tavira	5.5	4.7	1.1	155	4.4	8.9	0.0	13.0	3315	1161
Vila do Bispo	–7.8	3.6	0.5	67	1.3	6.5	0.4	0.0	1902	8661
Vila R.S. António	32.9	3.6	0.6	136	2.4	14.2	4.0	0.0	862	1075

Notes: POP, population change rate (%); EDU, change in population with tertiary education (%); HEA, change in physicians per capita; CUL, expenses in culture (with total expenses) per 100 inhabitants change; INC, average monthly income change (€); UNP, unemployment rate change (%); ENT, enterprises density change; SAN, inhabitants with water supply change (%); ACE, investment in accessibilities (per capita) 1989–2013 (€); URB, investment in urban renovation (per capita) 1989–2013 (€).

Source: National Statistics and IFDR Database – or compilation.

However, in the environment sustainability dimension, the trends are much more positive, as the EU Cohesion Policy financed many projects which greatly improved water and waste infrastructure, and also the environmental quality and the coastline safeguard. Nevertheless, the impacts in this dimension would be much higher if other environmental-related components, such as the protection of biodiversity and the production of renewable energies, had had much more attention and support. Indeed, Algarve is one of the EU regions with more potential to explore solar energy, for instance, still very much unexplored.

When it comes to the territorial governance aspects, the EU Cohesion Policy had an important impact on how regional development policies started to be managed and implemented in Algarve, namely in bringing together the participation of a variety of institutional actors, in both a horizontal (inter-municipality) and vertical (local, regional, national, European) territorial cooperation perspective. In overall terms, our contacts with the Algarve regional administrative structure (CCDR-Algarve) revealed the presence of an experienced and highly qualified technical staff in managing the EU funds, and in producing regional analysis. Moreover, the territorial cooperation (INTERREG) experience has been quite fruitful in the establishment and consolidation of cross-border and transnational networks, which have been translated in the creation of one Euroregion (Euroregión Algarve – Alentejo – Andalucía (EUROAAA)– see Medeiros 2013c) and one Eurocity (V.R. Sto. António/Ayamonte; Figure 8).

Figure 8 EU Cohesion Policy territorial impacts by territorial cohesion dimension – Algarve municipalities (1990–2010).

Finally, the morphologic polycentrism in Algarve was improved in certain components such as the territorial connectivity and the attractivity of certain regional medium urban centres (Albufeira, Loulé), due to important investments in urban regeneration and economic attraction. Yet, the connectivity component was mostly valued by means of road infrastructure construction, while the railway transport domain was not given the necessary attention. Indeed, the Cohesion Fund in Algarve was only used to implement environmental projects, as the major regional transport projects were not considered financially viable, according to a CCDR-Algarve source.

Furthermore, our TIA model detected negative impacts of the EU Funds in the evolution of the urban hierarchy/ranking, and also in the compactness growth of the cities, mainly because of the concentration of the total investment in the most densely populated areas, and the lack of adequate spatial planning policies. However, the fact that the Regional Spatial Plan (PROT – CCDRALG 2007) was prepared alongside with the Algarve's Regional Operational Programme of the present EU Cohesion Policy cycle (2007–2013) has to be regarded as a positive procedure to the regional spatial planning medium- and long-term territorial development strategy. Mainly because it permitted the design of a more realistic plan, according the available funds in every development territorial component.

7. Conclusion

Almost all the available official and independent evaluation studies of the EU Cohesion Policy in Portugal agree on the overall positive impacts on the Portuguese territorial development path (see Pires 1998; DPP 2005, 2011; Romão 2006; OECD 2008; Ferrão 2010; Gaspar 2010; Ribeiro 2010; Mateus 2013). However, it is also clear that the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds were not sufficient to place Portugal within the most developed EU member states. Nevertheless, they were critical in closing the development gap between them and Portugal, at least until the last century (1999). Since then Portugal saw an inversion in this socio-economic convergence path. However, at the regional level, the Lisbon NUT II was able to reach development levels which justify their inclusion within the group of most developed EU regions for the upcoming EU Cohesion Policy cycle (2014–2020). Also, the Algarve region made a less significant positive upgrade, by being included in the ‘transition EU regions’, in the same cycle.

Therefore, the question remains: have the EU structural funds been fundamental to this positive development trend in the Algarve region? The answer is definitely positive, as our analysis has showed. For one, the EU funds were, in many instances, the only available financial resources to implement regional development policies in Algarve. As a consequence, they have a quite positive correlation in the evolution of many territorial development-related indicators. Yet, their territorial impact varied substantially as the investment priorities were mainly canalized to the necessary infrastructure endowments (socio-economic and environmental infrastructures and accessibilities) and the human capital valorization.

Overall, in the last couple of decades, the territorial impacts of the EU Cohesion Policy in Algarve have to be considered as moderate positive, following the operationalization of the TARGET_TIA technique. Nonetheless, the detailed analysis, which made use of an extensive data-set of statistical indicators, interviews and document readings, shed some light on the less positive impacts of these Policy interventions, namely in two components of the morphologic polycentrism dimension: (i) the urban hierarchy is far from being more balanced, since the bulk of the investments (in total) favoured the most populated urban settlements and (ii) a concentrated and planned growth of the urban perimeters was not attained.

In all, the regional territorial cohesion was not achieved, as the less populated municipalities continue their territorial exclusion path in many key-development indicators (unemployment, income, tertiary education). However, a positive note should be given to EU Cohesion Policy impacts in boosting the involvement of the regional and local organizations in the European political and policy debates, and also in the establishment of territorial cooperation experiences, which have been consolidated with the presence of one Euroregion (EUROAAA).

This quite general panorama presents a small EU region which still faces tremendous challenges before it can be included in the group of more developed regions, in the nearby future, despite some positive breakthroughs in its territorial development, in the last two decades (1990–2010). In this sense, the Algarve's proposed main strategic guidelines to concentrate the EU funds of the upcoming programming cycle (2014–2020) in the research and innovation, the SMEs competitiveness, the energy efficiency/renewable energies and the integrated actions to sustainable urban development should be pro-actively implemented, in order to make the Algarve's economy less dependent on the seasonable fluctuations of the tourism industry, and to better explore the regional territorial capital.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the useful comments of two anonymous referees, the journal editors and also Graça Roenning for the English revision.

Notes

^1. MEANS was a programme of the EC aimed at improving Methods of Evaluating Structural Policies.

^2.http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/index_en.htm.

^3.http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm.

^4.http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm.

^5. For further information, please contact the DGRegio Portuguese Head of Unit: Eng° Eduardo Barreto, and the President of the IFDR: Eng° José Soeiro.