difference difference EEA and Norway EEA and Norway Grants Grants - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

• rt
• No. of projects FM 94-98:

56 56

• No. of projects FI 99-03:

25 25

15 beneficiary states 3 donor states 1.3 billion euro 1250 grants 2004-2009 2004-2009

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

Public authorities Local 25% Local 25% National 19% National 19% Regional 7% Regional 7% Institutions/organisations Educat./research Educat./research 12% 12% NGOs NGOs 12% 12% Business Private owned Private owned 4% 4% Public owned Public owned 2% 2% Half of the funding goes to Half of the funding goes to public authorities public authorities A quarter of the support goes A quarter of the support goes to education and research to education and research institutions, and NGOs institutions, and NGOs Only a small proportion is Only a small proportion is allocated to companies allocated to companies

Beneficiaries Beneficiaries

Partnerships Partnerships

• Over 300 partnerships in

individual projects

• 1 in 3 are in Poland
• 3 in 5 research projects are with

donor state partners

– Many within environmental or health research

• In addition, several hundred

partnerships under funds, such as:

– Academic research – Regional development – Scholarships and education coop.

Strengthening bilateral cooperation Strengthening bilateral cooperation

“The cooperation establi “The cooperation established with hed with Norwegian and Icel Norwegian and Icelandic andic fellows due to the EEA and fellows due to the EEA and Norway Grants is of significant Norway Grants is of significant value to Polish researchers. value to Polish researchers.”

• Professor
• Professor Barbara Kurdycka,

arbara Kurdycka, Minister of Minister of Science Science and Higher and Higher Education Education

Does it make a Does it make a

difference? difference?

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

Mid-term Evaluation Mid-term Evaluation

Popular, appreciated and visible Popular, appreciated and visible

Review Review

Key f Key facts: cts:

• 65 projects
• 300 public buildings in schools and

health institutions

• Thermal insulation, improved

heating systems, renewable energy 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

50% energy savings in Poland 50% energy savings in Poland

“Projects are of high and “Projects are of high and relatively even quality. The relatively even quality. The expected results constitute a expected results constitute a significant contribution to significant contribution to national targets, and there is national targets, and there is a vast replication potential.” a vast replication potential.”

The review was conducted by Scanteam and Proeko and published in February 2009

Project example Project example

• Insulation of external walls

Insulation of external walls and flat roofs and flat roofs

• Exchange of window frames

Exchange of window frames and external doors and external doors

• Modernisation of heat

Modernisation of heat centres, hot water centres centres, hot water centres and ventilation systems and ventilation systems

• Installation of heaters and

Installation of heaters and thermostatic valves thermostatic valves

Renovation and energy efficiency in Renovation and energy efficiency in seven schools in Gdynia seven schools in Gdynia

• Annual reduction

Annual reduction – 5.000 MWh 5.000 MWh – 2 313 t CO2 2 313 t CO2 – 0.736 t dust PM 0.736 t dust PM

• Improved quality of air

Improved quality of air

• Improved

Improved conditions

• nditions of work

f work and study and study for 5,000

• r 5,000

students and workers students and workers

Review Review

Key f Key facts: cts:

• 29 projects
• Restoration works
• Digitisation of documents and

publications 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
• Increasing number of tourists

Saving cultural heritage in the Czech Rep. Saving cultural heritage in the Czech Rep.

“The EEA/Norway Grants “The EEA/Norway Grants financial support helped to financial support helped to revive historical buildings revive historical buildings that would have fallen in that would have fallen in disrepair.” disrepair.”

The review was conducted by CrossCzech and Nordic Consulting Group and published in April 2009

One of the oldest libraries - One of the oldest libraries - and the biggest private research nd the biggest private research library - library - in the Czech Republic n the Czech Republic Part of the 12th century Strahov Part of the 12th century Strahov monastery complex

• nastery 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

Restoration of the Restoration of the Strahov Strahov Library in Prague ibrary in Prague

Key f Key facts: cts:

• 19 NGO funds in 12 countries
• EUR 85 million in support
• 1000 projects in implementation
• In addition, 140 projects implemented

by NGOs receive direct funding Background Background

• 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

Strengthening civil society Strengthening civil society

“Building democracies is a “Building democracies is a continuous task, a continuous task, and.. the nd.. the EEA and Norway Grants is EEA and Norway Grants is unique.., funding the unique.., funding the development of active civic development of active civic participation.” participation.”

• Kuba

uba Wygnanski, Polish civil Wygnanski, Polish civil society society activist ctivist

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

NGO projects NGO projects

Fighting dis Fighting discriminatio

• rimination. Pro Humanum organises

training for senior police officers in identifying and combating discriminatory attitudes and practices in the Polish police force. Integrating Roma. Integrating Roma. An integration and talent training programme that enrolls Roma children and youth from poor, deprived families in Slovakia is implemented by Pro Donum. Green mobility. Green mobility. The organisation Ožuvení has been awarded funding by the Czech NGO fund to promote walking and cycling as alternative modes of transport.

http://www.eeagrants.org/id/86

www.eeagrants.org