Making a Making a difference difference EEA and Norway EEA and Norway Grants Grants Sigve Soldal Sigve Soldal Bjorstad Bjorstad Head of Head of information information EEA Seminar 10 December EEA Seminar 10 December 2009 2009
Text Text White White THE EEA GRANTS AND NORWAY GRANTS THE EEA GRANTS AND NORWAY GRANTS The EEA and Norway Grants The EEA and Norway Grants A contribution from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway to reduce social and reduce social and economic disparities economic disparities within the European Economic Area
15 years of support 15 years of support The EEA EFTA States have contributed with cohesion The EEA EFTA States have contributed with cohesion support ever since the European Agreement entered support ever since the European Agreement entered into force in 1994 into force in 1994 Financial Mecha Financial Mechanism ( ism (1994- 994-1998) 998) Financial Ins Financial Instrument ( trument (1999-2003) 999-2003) Donor states: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway (Austria, Finland, Sweden) Beneficiary states: Greece, Ireland, Northern Greece, Ireland, Northern Irela Ireland, Portuga d, Portugal, Spain , Spain Funding size FM 94-98: EUR 500 millio EUR 500 million + interes n + interest rebates on EUR 1.5 bill of EIB rebates on EUR 1.5 bill of EIB loans loans Funding size FI 99-03: EUR EUR 119.6 million 19.6 million Sectors: Environment, Education a Environment, Education and tra d training, Tra ning, Transport ort No. of projects FM 94-98: 56 56 No. of projects FI 99-03: 25 25
2004-2009 2004-2009 15 beneficiary states 3 donor states 1.3 billion euro 1250 grants
THE EEA GRANTS AND NORWAY GRANTS THE EEA GRANTS AND NORWAY GRANTS Three components Three components EEA Grants EEA Grants EUR 672 million EUR 672 million Norway Grants Norway Grants EUR 567 million EUR 567 million The Norwegian Cooperation The Norwegian Cooperation Programmes with Bulgaria Programmes with Bulgaria and Romania and Romania EUR 68 million* EUR 68 million* *administered separately by Innovation Norway Norway represents 97% of the tot Norway represents 97% of the total EUR 1.3 billion contribution al EUR 1.3 billion contribution
Sectors Sectors
Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Public authorities Half of the funding goes to Half of the funding goes to Local Local 25% 25% public authorities public authorities National National 19% 19% Regional Regional 7% 7% A quarter of the support goes A quarter of the support goes Institutions/organisations to education and research to education and research Educat./research Educat./research 12% 12% institutions, and NGOs institutions, and NGOs NGOs NGOs 12% 12% Business Only a small proportion is Only a small proportion is Private owned Private owned 4% 4% allocated to companies allocated to companies Public owned Public owned 2% 2%
Partnerships Partnerships Strengthening bilateral cooperation Strengthening bilateral cooperation • Over 300 partnerships in “The cooperation established with “The cooperation establi hed with Norwegian and Icel Norwegian and Icelandic andic individual projects fellows due to the EEA and fellows due to the EEA and • 1 in 3 are in Poland Norway Grants is of significant Norway Grants is of significant • 3 in 5 research projects are with value to Polish researchers. value to Polish researchers.” donor state partners -Professor Barbara Kurdycka, -Professor arbara Kurdycka, – Many within environmental or health Minister of Minister of Science Science and Higher and Higher research Education Education • In addition, several hundred partnerships under funds, such as: – Academic research – Regional development – Scholarships and education coop.
Does it make a Does it make a difference? difference?
Mid-term Evaluation Mid-term Evaluation Popular, appreciated and visible Popular, appreciated and visible Positive conclusions Positive conclusions -Highly popular and appreciated in the BS -Highly visible in the BS -Funds and programmes appear most successful Negative conclusions Negative conclusions -Inefficiencies in implementation have led to delays -Delays have led to losses for beneficiaries -Lack of clear objectives, supported by indicators and targets
Review Review 50% energy savings in Poland 50% energy savings in Poland Key f Key facts: cts: “Projects are of high and “Projects are of high and • 65 projects relatively even quality. The relatively even quality. The • 300 public buildings in schools and expected results constitute a expected results constitute a health institutions significant contribution to significant contribution to • Thermal insulation, improved heating systems, renewable energy national targets, and there is national targets, and there is a vast replication potential.” a vast replication potential.” Expected impact Expected impact • 20,000 metric tonnes of coal saved / year • 52.000 tonnes of CO2 saved / year • Lower heating costs • Improved conditions for working, learning and treatment The review was conducted by Scanteam and Proeko and published in February 2009
Renovation and energy efficiency in Renovation and energy efficiency in Project example Project example seven schools in Gdynia seven schools in Gdynia • Insulation of external walls Insulation of external walls • Annual reduction Annual reduction and flat roofs and flat roofs – 5.000 MWh 5.000 MWh – 2 313 t CO2 2 313 t CO2 • Exchange of window frames Exchange of window frames and external doors and external doors – 0.736 t dust PM 0.736 t dust PM • Modernisation of heat Modernisation of heat • Improved quality of air Improved quality of air centres, hot water centres centres, hot water centres and ventilation systems and ventilation systems • Improved Improved conditions onditions of work f work • Installation of heaters and Installation of heaters and and study and study for 5,000 or 5,000 thermostatic valves thermostatic valves students and workers students and workers
Review Review Saving cultural heritage in the Czech Rep. Saving cultural heritage in the Czech Rep. Key f Key facts: cts: “The EEA/Norway Grants “The EEA/Norway Grants • 29 projects financial support helped to financial support helped to • Restoration works revive historical buildings revive historical buildings • Digitisation of documents and that would have fallen in that would have fallen in publications disrepair.” disrepair.” Expected impact Expected impact • Monuments and objects are salvaged from a critical state • Monuments opened to the public • Creation and strengthening of local professional capacity and skills • Jobs created The review was conducted by CrossCzech and • Increasing number of tourists Nordic Consulting Group and published in April 2009
Restoration of the Restoration of the Strahov Library in Prague Strahov ibrary in Prague One of the oldest libraries - and the biggest private research One of the oldest libraries - nd the biggest private research library - library - in the Czech Republic n the Czech Republic Part of the 12th century Strahov monastery complex Part of the 12th century Strahov onastery complex More than 110 00 More than 110 000 volumes, including 1200 pre-15th century 0 volumes, including 1200 pre-15th century handwritten books. handwritten books. 250 000 tourists, visitors and researchers annually 250 000 tourists, visitors and researchers annually --------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Repairs on the roof and furniture, the wooden cassette floor Repairs on the roof and furniture, the wooden cassette floor and the 18th century ceiling frescoes and the 18th century ceiling frescoes
Strengthening civil society Strengthening civil society Key facts: Key f cts: “Building democracies is a “Building democracies is a • 19 NGO funds in 12 countries continuous task, and.. the continuous task, a nd.. the • EUR 85 million in support EEA and Norway Grants is EEA and Norway Grants is • 1000 projects in implementation unique.., funding the unique.., funding the • In addition, 140 projects implemented development of active civic development of active civic by NGOs receive direct funding participation.” participation.” - Kuba uba Wygnanski, Polish civil Wygnanski, Polish civil Background Background society society activist ctivist • A young and vulnerable sector in many countries • Former international donors have shifted focus further east or south • The financial crisis has hit the NGO- sector hard
NGO funds NGO funds
Fund example Fund example Polish NGO-fund Polish NGO-fund • EUR 37.5 in grants • the largest single grant • Will support over 500 projects Focus areas: • Democracy and civil society • Environmental protection and sustainable development • Equal opportunities and social integration
Recommend
More recommend
