End Review 09-14 Pre-Final 15.01.2019
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
End review of the EEA and Norway Grants 2009-2014 Rapid assessment: final report Photo credit: Bogdan Croitoru March, 2019 1 Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway, or of the Financial Mechanism Office. The date of extraction of each set of figures is noted throughout the report. The figures are subject to change until all programmes financed under the 2009-2014 EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms are officially closed. 1 Executive Summary The End Review of the European Economic Area (EEA) and Norway Grants 2009-2014 was performed in the period September 2018 - January 2019 by a team of Ecorys experts1 under a contract with the Financial Mechanism Office (FMO), the Brussels-based secretariat for EEA and Norway Grants. The assessment had the following main objectives: • To document and assess the achievements (including bilateral results) of the programmes funded by the EEA and Norway Grants; • To identify the main factors influencing the achievement/non-achievement of the objectives; • To assess the relevance of the Grants to policy priorities, European Union (EU) funding and evidence base. How was it done? The End Review applied a two-tiered approach: (1) an overall presentation of the achievements covering all countries and sectors, followed by (2) a deeper analysis based on five pre-selected priority sectors (Climate change and renewable energy; Green industry innovation; Justice and home affairs; Culture; and Research and scholarships) and six Beneficiary States (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Romania). In terms of methodology, the review was based mainly on desk research of already available monitoring, administrative, and financial data stored in DoRIS2, including indicators, programme documents and final reports. In addition, previous assessments and evaluations were studied. Primary data were collected through interviews with the FMO and National Focal Points’ (NFP) staff. In addition, two on-line surveys were carried out: one among the Programme Operators (POs) and another one among bilateral cooperation partners. The following data analysis methods were applied: intervention logic analysis, bilateral cooperation stakeholder analysis, financial analysis, indicator analysis, contribution analysis, and case studies. To illustrate results, project stories have been elaborated and the key achievements were presented in infographics. Key findings The extent of participation of the beneficiary countries in the priority sectors supported by the EEA and Norway Grants varied. Whilst all 16 Beneficiary States benefited from the support in the area of Civil Society and Human and Social Development, eight countries were supported under the Green Industry Innovation priority sector. Participation at the level of programme areas specified under the priority sectors also varied. For example, only Romania implemented measures related to the reduction of hazardous substances while 14 countries supported cultural heritage measures. Meeting the funding gap There has been complementarity between EEA and Norway Grants and European Union (EU) funding streams at various levels. The broad objectives of EU policies and EEA and Norway Grants were largely aligned and in no cases conflicting. The EEA and Norway Grants 09-14 were valuable as they filled funding gaps in the Beneficiary States, although to a varying extent across the priority sectors. Many programmes under the EEA and Norway Grants have been designed to focus on areas, activities and/or 1 Irena Vladimirova, Agnieszka Makulec, Aleksandra Duda, Radostina Tsvetanova, Dominika Safin and Daniel Nigohosyan. Contributions to the project case studies by Assya Pavlova and Nelly Dimitrova and to the Infographics - by Rayna Terzieva. 2 The EEA and Norway Grants 09-14 Documentation, Reporting and Information System 2 target groups that would be to a very limited extent or not at all covered by EU funding in the same country. The EEA and Norway Grants and EU funding are seen as mutually supportive: the EEA and Norway Grants were frequently used to fund pilot projects, research, feasibility studies, preparatory works or capacity-building, laying the foundation for larger EU investments. In addition, the timing of the Grants itself and their accessibility to smaller organisations, including from civil society, distinguished this financing stream from the one of the EU, creating further complementarities. Most benefits from the Grants have been delivered in the area of Social and Human Development and Climate Change and Renewable Energy where the highest financial support was channelled and the majority of the countries participated. The added value of the Grants, however, was most significant in the areas where the funding by the European Structural Investment Fund (ESIF) or national sources was limited as in the case of civil society; public health; correctional services; and culture. In some areas, as in the case research and scholarship, there were particular benefits from the bilateral cooperation. Results beyond the planned indicators Apart from the specific results achieved in the respective sectors, the Grants had the following horizontal effects: (1) triggered legislative, system and attitude changes; (2) strengthened institutional and human capacity; (3) transferred know-how and good practices; (4) supported creation of partnerships and networks; and (5) created unplanned positive societal and environmental effects. The unplanned effects included: creation of permanent and temporary jobs; revitalisation of local communities; networking and future collaboration; enhanced social inclusion; and reduced pollution. In several cases, the support attracted additional funding (leverage effect), namely under Green Industry Innovation. The main factors that enhanced the achievement of results included: (1) strong interest in the Grants on the part of potential beneficiaries due to the flexibility of the mechanism (possibility to combine soft measures with infrastructure development and supply of equipment); (2) support provided to the project promoters by the POs and to the POs by the NFPs and the FMO; and (3) good collaboration with Donor State institutions/organisations during programme/project preparation and implementation. Valuable partnerships The bilateral cooperation component contributed to the unique character of the Grants, enabling knowledge transfers between the partners. In particular, partnerships created added value through (1) enhancing the overall programming of initiatives; (2) delivering diverse shared results ranging from the creation and adoption of new products, services and methodologies to the enhancement of policies and new knowledge production and dissemination; and (3) shared experiences and improved collaboration laying out solid grounds for further joint initiatives. In the 2009-2014 period, 56% of all programmes and 34% of all projects were realised in partnership. Lessons for the future The following obstacles have been encountered: delayed initiation and insufficient time to implement projects; deficiencies in programme design and setting targets; burdensome administrative procedures; not fully efficient reallocation of funds; insufficient capacity/commitment by the Programme Operators; public procurement, state aid, co-financing and building permits issues; difficulties in finding a Donor State partner and some reporting difficulties on the Donor State partners’ side; political instability and governmental changes, restructuring and legislative changes. 3 The main recommendations, based on the assessment, are as follows: 1. Maintain close cooperation and partnerships: Continue the general approach to programming and implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants where consultations with the EU and the Beneficiary States and strong bilateral cooperation, including bilateral funds disbursement, hold a centre stage. 2. Strengthen the programme operators: The FMO and NFPs should take measures to ensure sufficient capacity within the POs, such as: (a) safeguarding the involvement of a sufficient number of staff who are fully devoted to programme management; (b) studying the reasons for the underperformance of the POs, when such is the case; and (c) capacity building activities and guidance. 3. Reduce the administrative burden: The NFPs should support the POs in establishment of management and control procedures and their improvement through simplification and reduction of the administrative burden. 4. Stronger communication: Ensure greater degree of promotion and awareness-raising to enhance bilateral cooperation. 5. Simplify reporting: At national level, simplify the reporting procedures and provide information to the partners (specifically Donor State partners) on the reporting requirements. 4 Table of contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 2 Table of contents ..................................................................................................................................... 5 List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 6 List of tables, figures and text boxes .......................................................................................................