Final Report Financial needs study

Transcription

Final Report
Analysis of needs for financial instruments
in the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
Delivered to DG Regional Policy at 07.10.2011 Contract number No 2011CE160AT042
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 3 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 8 2 Needs analysis .............................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Implementation maturity ...................................................................................... 9 2.2 Typology of needs ............................................................................................... 10 2.3 Conclusion on the needs...................................................................................... 18 3 Review of existing instruments ................................................................................... 19 3.1 Sustainable.......................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Prosperous .......................................................................................................... 20 3.3 Accessible & attractive ........................................................................................ 22 3.4 Safe & secure ...................................................................................................... 24 4 Gap analysis ............................................................................................................... 27 4.1 Financial gaps...................................................................................................... 27 4.2 Non-‐financial gaps............................................................................................... 28 4.3 Structural issues .................................................................................................. 29 4.4 Current debate .................................................................................................... 30 4.5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 31 5 List of interview partners............................................................................................ 35 bv01e 2005-05-27
Annex 1 – Short presentation of needs by Priority Area (power point presentation) Annex 2 – Detailed overview of funding instruments (excel file) 1 (35)
This is the final report of the study Analysis of needs for financial instruments in the
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, commissioned by DG Regional Policy
(Contract No 2011CE160AT042).
The study was carried out by SWECO and began in July 2011. This final report was
submitted in October 2011.
The report as prepared by SWECO, namely by Ulf Savbäck, Kai Böhme and Ulf
Johansson.
Acknowledgements
bv01e 2005-05-27
This study would not have been possible without the people active in the Baltic Sea
Region who offered their insights, provided data and information and commented on
preliminary considerations. Sweco would like to thank all those who gave their time to
support this work, including the representatives of the national administrations in
charge of the Baltic Sea Strategy and the staff at DG Regional Policy and other
Commission Services. Without your constructive support this study would not have
been possible!
07.10.2011
2 (35)
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the analysis of needs for financial instruments in the
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). It analyses the financial and nonfinancial needs as expressed by the stakeholders against the background of existing
financial and non-financial instruments. The analysis is based upon interviews with
close to 60 stakeholders involved in the implementation of the EUSBSR and on
information about existing financial instruments largely provided by INTERACT Point
Turku.
The implementation at present stage
The implementation of the EUSBSR is perceived as a major undertaking by the
stakeholders. The development of partnerships and projects is time demanding and
real implementation requires financial resources. There is still a certain hesitation
regarding how the implementation is structured. Many activities are in the start-up or
early implementation phase and have a preparatory or planning character rather than
“real” implementation. However, the implementation differs considerably between
sectors as there are differences of maturity in transnational cooperation.
Currently, more than 20 different funding instruments are used as sources of
financing, not including national and regional co-financing sources. The
implementation of most Priority Areas is to a large extent dependent on EU Structural
Funds. In particular European Territorial Cooperation Programmes are widely used.
The programmes drawn upon today are only a fraction of the instruments which
potentially are available for supporting actions implementing the EUSBSR. In total
there are more than 100 programmes available plus a wide range of national and
regional instruments. There are more than 70 programmes covering the activities in
pillar 1 “Environmentally sustainable“. Over 110 programmes could support activities
related to pillar 2 “Prosperous” and there is a similar amount of programmes which
could support activities under pillar 3 “Accessible and attractive”. As for pillar 4 “Safe
and secure” about 30 programmes could be identified. In many cases programmes
can support activities under different pillars.
Despite the large amount of available instruments it is clear that various financial and
non-financial needs are not sufficiently met.
Financial needs
There are two categories of financial needs expressed by the stakeholders; the lack of
funding for specific activities, and the lack of different forms of funding better tuned
towards activities aimed at implementing the EUSBSR.
Lack of funding can be found especially in three areas:
bv01e 2005-05-27
•
Seed money. In the preparatory phase there is a widely perceived lack of
funding. At present some programmes offer seed money which is well motivated
and widely appreciated. However, it remains insufficient with regard to the
demand for seed money to develop strategic projects and build the necessary
partnerships. The seed money approach could be used by a large number of
programmes, also in order to prepare good application for the next round of EU
07.10.2011
3 (35)
funded programmes.
In the more mature priority areas there is also a need for funding of feasibility
studies to prepare for complex projects with a potential for investments.
•
Certain sectors. In the implementation phase three types of projects dominate
today, i.e. studies, platform activities and large scale infrastructure projects. The
two former types of projects are mainly financed by the Territorial Cooperation
(ETC) programmes and there is still need for more financing for these types of
projects. However, when moving beyond projects covered by ETC programmes,
all other available instruments are perceived as difficult and non-accommodating
for transnational activities. This problem of funding is mainly related to structural
challenges, as many programmes (EU-funded, national and regional alike) have
difficulties to support transnational activities. This structural challenge is a
problem particularly for activities in the areas of security, SMEs, education and
innovation, including the private sector.
•
Small investments. Small investments are a particular concern when it comes to
implementation activities in a transnational context. There are funding
instruments for small investments and some of them also support transnational
activities, so it is difficult to verify a shortage. However, not all stakeholders are
aware of the existing instruments, and more institutional and technical support
might be necessary in the process of project development. This should be taken
into account in the discussion about the Implementation Facility proposed by the
EIB.
Lack of forms of funding appropriate for the kind of activities the EUSBSR entails is
voiced by many. This concerns in particular three funding characteristics:
•
Long-term. More funding is needed to meet the more strategic processes
initiated within the Strategy. Here the funding periods of existing instruments tend
not to be long enough for the development and implementation of perspective
and strategic actions.
•
Flexibility. More flexible funding is needed to accommodate e.g. the dynamic
project character of the innovation and research areas. This is not
accommodated for in a standard Structural Funds programme. Project forms
such as Global Grants or similar set-ups, with a possibility for sub-projects and
changes along the way, should be considered to meet the needs.
•
Transnationality. A particular structural challenge is the transnational dimension,
which is very well covered by European Territorial Cooperation Programmes.
However, these programmes cannot carry the full implementation of the Strategy.
Therefore, also other instruments need to support transnational projects and
different approaches how to achieve this alignment of funding must be
investigated.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Non-financial needs
The non-financial needs emphasized are equally important to meet as the financial
needs – especially in the complex environment of transnational partnerships. The
EUSBSR has raised the ambition as well as the expectations of transnational
cooperation. It has also involved many new actors. Some steps have been taken to
07.10.2011
4 (35)
accommodate the need for support, but there is a clear gap in this area. The most
pronounced needs of non-financial support are the following:
•
Funding guidance. The wide range of available instruments is hardly known by
the stakeholders. Accordingly, help to identify appropriate funding instruments for
specific projects can be crucial. The work done by INTERACT Point Turku is well
in line with the expressed needs, but it is not sufficient. A database covering
financial instruments and resources to be able to give more tailored advice, as
has been done for the innovation area, would answer some of the needs. A
strengthened role and competence of the Priority Area Coordinators would also
serve the purpose.
•
Project preparation. There is a clear need for basic guidance in the field of
advanced project development aiming for investments (institutional assistance),
as well as technical assistance to already identified investment projects. There is
technical assistance provided in the region, (e.g. JASPERS, Baltic Sea Action
Plan Trust Fund), but there is a need for assistance for advanced project to find
the way forward to real implementation, including investments. The idea of an
implementation facility aired by the EIB should be discussed against this
background.
•
Project implementation. Similar to the support in the project preparation phase
large and complex projects are also in need of tailored assistance during the
implementation. The most frequently mentioned is facilitation of clustering and of
a more ambitious spreading of results. The EU programmes and their secretariats
could play a more active role, including adapting rules to facilitate and create
incentives for knowledge sharing and clustering in the whole region and with all
programmes.
•
Networking. The facilitation of networking among partners and projects is both a
question of concrete partner search, but also to adopt programme rules to allow
for networking on a transnational level. Networking and clustering provided today,
is not systematic and often limited to one programme area. Programme rules are
often not adapted to supporting networking outside of the programme area. There
is a need for better engagement of all EU-programmes in the region to contribute.
Overall conclusions
There are a number of financial gaps, but more importantly there are a number of
structural challenges. Structural changes would be needed to allow for:
bv01e 2005-05-27
•
•
•
funding of strategic processes rather than short-term projects,
to strengthen the transnational dimension in the financial instruments
to cluster the actions and stakeholders in a better way to ensure that synergies
are used to the limit.
Furthermore, a strengthened role and knowledge of the Priority Area Coordinators, a
more pronounced and wider responsibility for EU programme secretariats in the
region and a strengthened focal point of this work at the INTERACT Point Turku and
together with some kind of institutional assistance would strongly contribute to the
development of projects.
07.10.2011
5 (35)
Financial needs
Summary table on needs and suggestions
Needs
Suggested actions
Seed money
The seed money approach could be used by a large number of
programmes.
Improve possibilities to use available seed money in a transnational
context.
Implementation phase
A thematic widening of some programmes could be envisaged. But
mainly a lack of transnational dimension in most programmes;
Structural challenges need to be addressed.
Small investments
Better information on available instruments
investments in transnational contexts.
supporting
small
A targeted cooperation between INTERACT Point Turku and IFI’s e.g.
EIB, NIB could be considered. An improved technical or institutional
assistance for investment projects could improve the situation (see
below)
Funding guide
Establish a funding guide database searchable by themes of potential
activities and geographical coverage of funding instruments.
Strengthen role and knowledge of Priority Area Coordinators.
Non-financial needs
Project preparation
Need of basic guidance on project development could be met by
drawing more on the experience of the EU programme secretariats.
Institutional (and technical) assistance to advanced projects to identify
how to develop further, to cluster and to reach investment stage. The
IFI’s could fill such a role and the EIB Implementation facility should be
discussed taking this into consideration; a facility complementary to
JASPERS in size, focus and geography.
Project implementation
Facilitation of clustering of projects is requested and could be met by a
stronger role of Priority Area Coordinators. A re-definition of the
flagship concept to constitute a process of many complementary
projects should be considered.
Networking
Facilitate and provide incentives for transnational networking in all EU
programmes, establish platforms for partner search and
communication between existing EUSBSR related projects.
Long-term
Work towards instruments which allow the funding of long-term
strategic processes and implementation projects e.g. going beyond the
standard EU project period and even the budgetary periods.
Flexibility
The flexibility demanded in more strategic, long-term projects initiated
within the Strategy is not allowed for in a standard Structural Funds
programme. Project forms, e.g. Global Grants or similar, with a
possibility for sub-projects, should be considered.
Transnationality
Territorial Cooperation Programmes cannot carry the full
implementation of the EUSBSR. Therefore, also other instruments
need to support transnational projects directly, or indirectly by
contributing funding to the transnational level.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Structural challenges
Strengthened follow-up and spreading of results of all flagship projects
could be met by a stronger role of Priority Area Coordinators supported
by incentives from the EU programmes when funding the projects.
07.10.2011
6 (35)
Considering these gaps, and in particular the non-financial gaps and the structural
challenges, better information and small adjustments of single instruments might be
insufficient. Therefore, we argue for concerted action addressing the following points:
The strong need of increased support and assistance will raise the demands for a
clearer commitment by the Member States. This will be put to the test as there is
need to strengthen the role of Priority Area Coordinator, to find a model for
improved assistance to advanced projects and to meet the need for structural
changes.
•
Complementing existing instruments with a long-term transnational instrument
supporting strategic actions and allowing for private sector involvement and small
investments. For the more advanced projects the expressed needs give support
to some kind of implementation facility, as proposed by the European Investment
Bank, focusing on institutional process support, the whole Baltic Sea Region and
small investment. Such a facility would be a complement to the JASPERS
initiative.
•
Discussion on the possibility to set up a single instrument dedicated to the
implementation of the EUSBSR. This could e.g. be financed by contributions from
all relevant EU funded programmes in the region. The instrument could borrow
features from JASPERS as well as the EIF funds currently set up to support the
bv01e 2005-05-27
•
07.10.2011
7 (35)
1
Introduction
Eight of the nine states bordering the Baltic Sea are members of the European Union.
The introduction of Community rules, and the opportunities created by Community
instruments and policies (for example cohesion policy, the strategy for sustainable
development, environmental policy, the integrated maritime policy, the internal market
and the Lisbon Agenda) have opened important new possibilities for a more effective
coordination of activities. However, full advantage of the new opportunities that EU
membership provides has not yet been taken and the challenges facing the region
have not yet been adequately addressed. The initiative to develop an EU Strategy for
the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) was taken exactly to build on the new opportunities
embedded in the fact that almost all countries bordering the Baltic Sea are members
of the European Union. Together with an increasing realisation that the region has
many unique features and challenges to build on and to meet the Strategy was
developed by the European Commission as a concrete Action Plan that should
contribute to joint prioritization and joint action.
The Strategy was adopted in October 2009 and is moving into its third year of
implementation. With the financing of the implementation depending on existing
financial programmes in the region there is a challenge to introduce this new modus
operandum with a strategy covering a whole macro-region. Not only stakeholders and
project leaders in countries, regions and municipalities need to take the strategy into
account, but also the financial instruments, or rather those deciding on how to
prioritize the funding.
bv01e 2005-05-27
This study provides an overview of the needs for financing or non-financial support to
achieve high quality projects that can attract financing and contribute to the goals of
the strategy.
07.10.2011
8 (35)
2
Needs analysis
The list of projects proposed under the EUSBSR is diverse in terms of sector and size.
Some are national, but contribute an important part to an overall Baltic objective,
others are transnational in character. It is clear that the implementation is in need of
assistance beyond the present options. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the
needs as expressed by the stakeholders involved in the implementation at this very
moment and to compare that to the current offer of funding instruments and identifying
needs that could or should be covered in order to strengthen the implementation of the
Strategy.
The main aim of the study is therefore to provide a systematic overview of the financial
needs related to the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea, as well as
non-financial needs specifically related to the cross-border dimension of the projects.
Furthermore, an overview of relevant funding and support instruments shall be
established to cross-analyse the needs and support instruments. A gap analysis has
been carried out to investigate needs that are not met with the present supply of
funding instruments.
In order to generate information on the needs and expectations, semi-structured
interviews have been undertaken with almost 60 key stakeholders for the
implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy. By using a semi-structured approach, we
have addressed common themes and allowed new questions to arise as a response
to what the interviewee said. Generally, the focus has been on the needs of the
project owners, but Priority Area Coordinators of the 15 Priority Areas in the Action
Plan and National Contact Persons in the 8 Member States covered by the EUSBSR
have also been asked for projects of strategic value for the area, the overall
implementation and their own role.
2.1
Implementation maturity
The Baltic Sea Strategy encompasses a wide range of sectors and sub-sectors. The
four different pillars and the fifteen different Priority Areas address many different
types of challenges demanding very diverse types of actions. They also represent
distinct contexts as regards the background of cooperation i.e. whether there are
cooperation structures already established and at what level(s) of society. Taken
together, these differences create very different circumstances for the implementation
of the Strategy and this is to a certain extent reflected in the expressed needs for
additional financial or non-financial assistance. Since these differences have a
considerable effect on the implementation it could be motivated to consider different
measures to target the needs of the different pillars and Priority Areas. That is a
reason for developing this point somewhat below and to underline that the interviews
have revealed differences between the different areas and pillars as regards financial
and non-financial needs that might need to be addressed in different ways.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Low level of maturity
The Priority Areas (PA) with limited history of cooperation are those where you find the
biggest need for regular project funding and where support for the early project stages
is emphasis the most. These areas often lack established cooperation structures and
the actors are often new to transnational cooperation. The administrative support
made available to the Priority Area Coordinators (PAC’s) is often regarded as
07.10.2011
9 (35)
important, sometimes because the work is not well anchored in the institution or even
entirely accepted as part of the regular work. There is great need of facilitation to find
financial support and seed money and the flagship projects are mainly in the initial
phases of implementation. With the reservation that this is not an exhaustive
description necessarily true for all the areas, the PA’s in the Prosperity pillar (PA 6-9)
mainly belong to this category as well as the education, health and tourism area (PA
12) and to some extent also the work with major emergencies (PA 14). Targeted
measures might be necessary in order to improve progress.
Medium level of maturity
In the more mature category of PA’s the implementation has reached further having
found resources or financing for the project phase of most or all of the flagship
projects. There is also a potential for small investments in some of them. This
category is either of more administrative character and thus less dependent on project
financing or acting within a sector relatively well covered by financial instruments and
with a relatively good political and institutional support. The main needs expressed are
more diverse, but facilitation and technical assistance is emphasised, but also
additional need of project financing. For this category the establishment of more stable
cooperation platforms or tailored facilitation could have considerable effect. Some
PA’s in the environmental pillar, such as PA 2 on biodiversity and 3 on hazardous
substances as well as PA 6 on the internal market and 13 on maritime safety and
security could be placed in this category.
A high level of maturity
Areas with a high level of maturity often have well established cooperation structures
acting with a clear political support. Often within a sector where the EU dimension is
important and the cross-border cooperation is necessary. The Baltic Sea Region has
an abundance of organisations on national and regional level and they have
contributed to vast experiences of transnational cooperation in these areas. The PA’s
in this category are close to, or already in the investment stage, often financed directly
from the EU and the Member states. However, some of them still lack stable platforms
on the transnational level and this should probably be the next important step to take.
These areas often express a need for improved cooperation between different levels
and cross sectors, clustering of projects but also technical assistance for complex
partnerships and mixed financing solutions. The PA’s 10 on energy markets and PA
11 on transport links could be placed in this category as well as PA 1 on nutrient
inputs to the sea and PA 4 on clean shipping.
2.2
Typology of needs
bv01e 2005-05-27
The semi-structured interviews were based on a number of pre-defined questions and
then followed-up on the answers in order to adapt the line of questions to each area.
The basic questions focused on the state of play of the Priority Area, flagship project
or specific task of the respondents, on the present and future needs for both financial
and non-financial support and on the experiences of the work so far as regards
financing, participation etc.
The financial needs expressed are thus to be understood as those perceived as not
sufficiently covered so far. They translate into a typology of needs illustrated in the
diagram below and analysed further below. The answers have been categorised and
07.10.2011
10 (35)
give an indication to where the main needs are, without being exhaustive since the
interviews include only samples of actors involved. The diagram also serves as an
illustration of the differences between pillars, as was discussed above. Although it is
important to note each of the 15 areas has its specificities, the four pillars can serve as
relevant groups to have an indication of differences in needs. They are therefore
clustered according to the thematic pillars below.
Figure 1 – Expressed needs per category and pillar
2.2.1 State of play
The interviews with the stakeholders gave a good insight into the progress made in
the implementation of the EUSBSR, but also revealed that there is still a hesitation
regarding how the implementation is structured. The interviews also underlined the
dependence on a limited number of funding instruments.
bv01e 2005-05-27
The implementation of the EUSBSR is often perceived as a major undertaking where
real implementation measures need to draw on substantial financial resources. The
development of suitable projects and the formation of long-term partnerships can be
time demanding, as has been discussed above with regard to maturity.
Consequently, it is not surprising that many interviewees perceived that their work is
still in an early or start-up phase and will develop its full potential only in the future.
This implies also that a lot of the work carried out at the moment is considered to have
07.10.2011
11 (35)
the character of pre-studies or preparatory projects, and that the “real implementation”
will follow in a later project. It should be noted, however, that in many cases a
continuation to a “real implementation” appears not to be envisaged at present. The
primary focus is often on the present project.
Although the EUSBSR received a lot of attention among stakeholders usually not
working with Baltic Sea issues, the actual implementation relies to a large extent on
stakeholders with experience in the field. The sample interviews show that many
stakeholders have been active in various forms of Baltic Sea cooperation already prior
to the Strategy. However, as discussed above the EUSBSR has led to efforts to
establish structured cooperation in areas where this is relatively new and that this is
visible in the needs expressed in these areas. Furthermore, most of the actors come
from the public or intermediary sector and only in very rare cases is the private sector
involved.
This is closely linked to the type of funding instruments, used at present. As will be
discussed in chapter 3, there is a wide variety of relevant funding instruments
available in the Baltic Sea Region. However, when it comes to the implementation of
the Strategy, European Territorial Cooperation programmes in general clearly
dominate, and among them the Baltic Sea Region Programme. These programmes
are available for public sector and well suited for preparatory and pre-studies, whereas
“real implementation projects” might easily exceed their possibilities. There are,
however, also other reasons why these programmes are so dominating although they
have a very limited share of the total budget of funding instruments available in the
region. This will be discussed in further detail later on. The picture is clear from the
interviews what programmes are best known and connected with the implementation
of the Strategy in the minds of the actors. The five most mentioned sources of funding
were the following, starting with the most mentioned;
•
•
•
•
•
Baltic Sea Region Programme
South Baltic Programme
TEN-T (different schemes)
Central Baltic Programme
Nordic Council of Ministers (different schemes)
This is of course to a large extent a reflection of from which programmes the actors
have applied and received financial support. In total, the respondents indicated more
than 20 different programmes or funding schemes providing financing, not including
the sources for national co-financing often required. Among these, the Baltic Sea
Region Programme is the most common source, having granted financing to 32
flagship/parts of flagship projects in 12 of the 15 Priority Areas.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Partly linked to this – as well as to the debate about maturity discussed earlier in this
report – is the appreciated use of seed money. The interviews show that the seed
money approach has been widely appreciated where it has been applied.
Implementing a new strategy with a bottom-up approach must give the relevant
stakeholder the possibility to scope their possible contributions. Seed money can be a
suitable instrument for the actors to develop targeted projects to implement the
EUSBSR.
07.10.2011
12 (35)
2.2.2 Financial needs with challenges
The implementation of the EUSBSR certainly relies on financing instruments. As there
is no single instrument devoted to the implementation, a wide range of European,
national and regional funding instruments have been asked to support the
implementation within their framework and possibilities.
The current state of implementation and the wide range of flagship projects illustrate
that it is possible to attract funding for the implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy.
The discussion with the stakeholders revealed however a number of financial
challenges. Financial needs expressed by the actors are mainly perceived as those
insufficiently covered at present.
Preparatory phase
The preparation of a project implementing the Strategy is a particular moment in the
project cycle, with particular financial needs. The typology of needs expressed
includes seed money and feasibility/pre-investment studies (interpreted as the
possibility to apply for funding for such studies).
Seed money is mostly referred to as a possibility to develop a well grounded project
idea and forming the necessary partnerships in the complex transnational
environment. It is presently available in some programmes and very well received. It is
repeatedly commented on as being very important but scarce. National sector
allocations seem to sometimes being able to provide seed money, however often
limiting the use of funding to nationals. The knowledge of regular programmes offering
this possibility is very limited, especially in a transnational context. The seed-money
facility offered by the Swedish SIDA Baltic Sea Unit is one of few examples that can
cover for several countries and this facility was often referred to in the interviews.
Funding for feasibility studies are also very much in demand. This is connected to
more complex projects, often including investments, and thus expressed more
frequently in the more mature areas.
bv01e 2005-05-27
As examples the need for seed money is clearly expressed in the priority area for
biodiversity (PA 2) in order to set up partnerships and develop projects, which is not a
mainstream task for many public bodies involved. In priority area 4 on clean shipping it
is emphasised a need to facilitate the complex and “unattractive” role of the Lead
Partner as an argument for seed-money. It would also allow for building more
complete partnerships. In priority area 9 on agriculture, forestry and fishing this is also
emphasised as important especially for areas with many new actors without the
established networks. The very time consuming application procedures is underlined
by a majority as an argument for financial support in the early stages of the work.
Feasibility studies are needed in the environment sector, e.g. in Priority area 1 on
reduction of nutrient inputs, PA 2 on biodiversity and PA4 on clean shipping to prepare
for investments, to close the knowledge gap in the region and to involve the local and
regional level in the investments. In the energy field, i.e. Priority area 10 on energy,
feasibility studies are important for the large amount of investments apart from the
Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP). In the infrastructure field,
primarily at regional level, feasibility studies are underlined to prepare new projects
coming out of the studies now done on national as well as regional level.
07.10.2011
13 (35)
Implementation phase
The funding of the actual implementation holds a number of challenges as expressed
in the interviews, although the differences between the areas are considerable. It
appears that the stakeholders can attract funding in particular for three types of
projects:
•
•
•
Studies of various kinds seem to be possible with regard to most topics and
geographical delineations.
Platform activities aiming at the exchange of information and increase of
cooperation between different stakeholders are also well supported.
Large scale infrastructure investments of EU-wide importance, e.g. linked to TENT, the maritime policy or TEN-E, can attract funding.
These three types of projects represent a vast majority of the implementation. The
interviews also give a clear signal that there is still need for further funding, especially
the two first types of projects. Although the information is not exhaustive the indication
is that there are at least 15-20 flagship projects (part of flagships) that either recently
have applied unsuccessfully or would like to apply in a near future to a European
Territorial Cooperation programme, Life+ or similar.
But when going beyond these types of implementation activities, the available
instruments are often perceived as difficult to use for projects addressing the Baltic
Sea Region and not only single countries, or regions in one country. This is the case
for sectors that are not fitting the Territorial Cooperation programmes, for example
most of the projects in the security area, education and parts of the environment field.
This is also expressed by actors for whom the private sector involvement is important.
These projects must turn to other financial programmes. However, the perception is
that the idea of aligning of funding has not reached to sector programmes or regional
programmes.
Further, the Strategy has to some extent achieved the goal of raising the ambition of
cooperation. This is reflected in a need voiced by several projects and priority areas to
have funding adapted to the specifics of the project. The EU programmes provide
project funding for a limited time and demand very clear plans and outputs. For the
process of building new partnerships to make shipping in the Baltic Sea cleaner,
funding must allow for complex partnerships and a long-term approach. This same
point is emphasised by actors working with cooperation on innovation and research.
There is a need for different forms of projects and with a flexible view on the process,
the partnerships and the outcome.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Finally, a particular need expressed repeatedly concerns loans for small investments.
As pointed out above large investments with an EU-wide interest are part of the
Strategy. However, the interviews reveal the need for financing, loans or a mix to
achieve many small investments. Upgrading of port facilities for compact waste,
ballast water or shore side electricity are examples, as well as investments on farms in
the region to minimise the spreading of fertilizers and infrastructure to establish green
transport corridors.
07.10.2011
14 (35)
Funding characteristics
Going into further detail there are a few characteristics in the needs expressed that
concern the funding instruments. They seem to be rather similar across countries and
most but not all sectors. They are mentioned repeatedly and therefore worth
summarising.
•
Long-term funding allowing for the development and implementation of strategic
projects and projects where the final outcome will only be visible in a long-run.
With regard to that the funding periods of most existing instruments appear to be
challenging, for example the normal 3 year project period granted in Territorial
Cooperation programmes or even the seven years of the EU budget cycles can
be too short for long-term strategic implementation activities.
•
Flexible funding allowing for a cooperation process rather than a pre-defined
project. As a consequence of higher ambition to establish cooperation in complex
environments with many different stakeholders there is a need for other forms of
funding meeting demands from areas such as innovation, research and SME
networks.
•
Transnational funding dimensions are a pre-condition for the implementation of
the Baltic Sea Strategy. Whereas this fits well with the principles of territorial
cooperation programmes, most national and regional programmes sources are
geared towards activities within the programme area. These geographical
limitations pose a major challenge for the development of transnational activities
implementing the Baltic Sea Strategy. Possible openings in the regulations are
only rarely used and the challenge of “financial engineering” using financing from
many different programmes is seen as a very tall order for the actors involved.
2.2.3 Non-financial needs
In addition to the financial needs outlined above, the question of non-financial needs
was part of the task and the interviews. These questions have often triggered many
and diverse responses in the interviews. The interviews leave no doubt that this is an
issue of considerable importance to the stakeholders. The needs most frequently
underlined by many have been identified.
Identification of funding sources
More than one hundred funding instruments have been asked to support the
implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy. Most stakeholders, however, know only a
few of them, i.e. those which they usually worked with prior to the Baltic Sea Strategy
and those with the most obvious connection to the macro-region and cross-border
cooperation. Consequently, a systematic overview of funding possibilities (data base)
including a guide or query option which allows to easily identifying a selection of
funding opportunities relevant for a project idea, would be appreciated. The main
message in the interviews was that the starting point must be the project idea.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Project preparation
For a good project preparation more is needed than just appropriate funding
instruments. Thematically targeted support facilitating the development of project
ideas and the application process has been frequently identified as an important non-
07.10.2011
15 (35)
financial need. This is a support sometimes expected from the Priority Area
Coordinators. However, often they do not have the knowledge, experience or the time
to provide this type of direct dialogue and targeted support. Furthermore, when
including investment projects this is an even more demanding task where there is
considerable need of qualified technical assistance. There is a considerable range of
project preparation requested and it might be summarized in these points:
•
Basic guidance for “regular” cooperation projects on the setting-up of
partnerships, project development and the application process. This is of great
interest to most areas, but predominantly the less mature areas.
•
Facilitation for already established partnerships and projects in identifying the
possibilities to advance their projects towards more advanced partnerships, small
investments and sustainable financing models (grants, loans or mixed solutions);
what might be labeled Institutional Assistance. This is of interest to areas
identifying the possibilities for small investments in for example green shipping,
green transport corridors, agriculture and innovation.
•
Technical Assistance or pre-investment studies, preparing and setting-up an
investment project all the way up to project implementation and maybe further.
This is an interest in the environment sector, e.g. the Baltic Sea Action Plan
(BSAP) process
Project implementation
Only a few projects considered themselves being in the “actual implementation
phase”. From their responses mainly two types of needs for non-financial support for
the implementation phase could be identified:
•
A facilitation of the “coordination” with other projects which are closely related
thematically is requested. In particular as most flagship project addresses only
parts of a larger challenge identified in the Baltic Sea Strategy. In that context,
there were even discussions whether a flagship project could be one single
project or rather should be a group of related projects. In the latter case, it would
be possible to address a challenge identified in the Baltic Sea Strategy in a more
holistic way and develop some concerted actions.
•
Related to the point above is the need for a structured follow-up of results. The
expectations on the flagship projects to use, spread and follow-up on results
should increase. The so far limited efforts to cluster projects should be
strengthened and could serve as think tanks for the renewal of the Strategy
Action Plan. Regional competences could be more clearly defined and organised,
e.g. in joint competence centres.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Networking
The implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy relies on the cooperation of partners
from different areas of the Baltic Sea Region. This can involve some challenges
regarding the networking. Particular needs have been expressed concerning the
identification of transnational cooperation partners and a stronger involvement of
partners from the private sector. Examples could be the tourism sector with a large
amount of projects throughout the region (more than 80 territorial cooperation
projects), but without an established Baltic Sea framework and with little incentive from
07.10.2011
16 (35)
the territorial cooperation programmes to work outside the programme area the
contacts are not established.
Member States
A number of the non-financial needs can be linked to the support provided by the
Member States. A clear political support communicated to those involved in the
implementation is one of the most common needs expressed. The reasons mentioned
for this are several:
•
The Strategy is a new way of working and involves a transnational dimension to
some extent new to many of the public bodies involved.
•
The process of identifying flagships (including the present flagships) is still not
crystal clear to many and this weakens the support for the implementation.
•
In many cases there seem to be a mismatch between the expectations on the
National Contact Points and Priority Area Coordinators and the resources
reserved for them to actually do their job. Their possibilities to support the
implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy are partly perceived as too weak.
This can be directly linked to the Member States commitment and to a preparedness
also to reserve resources as a consequence.
2.2.4 EU Programme Barriers
bv01e 2005-05-27
A number of the identified needs are directly linked to the large dependence on the EU
Structural Funds, especially the territorial cooperation programmes, for funding.
Among the issues mentioned most frequently are:
•
Differences in rules among EU Structural Funds Programme. There are
many different ERDF programmes in the region and although they rely on the
same EU regulation, the implementing rules often differ. This adds to the
confusion already caused by the complex partnerships, the cross-border
dimension in general and the multitude of programmes available.
•
Long and difficult application processes. The application process for a
transnational project is often close to 1 year, and for TEN projects it can be 3-5
years including the waiting for the right call. The challenge is to keep a
partnership committed for such a long time and often without any additional
funding (a reason for the need of seed money).
•
Heavy administration. Reporting and other duties is a tall order for the Lead
Partner, which makes that role unattractive. The administrative duties after a
project has ended are also demanding and not covered enough financially. The
incentives to take on a Lead Partner role are considered far too weak.
•
Low flexibility. The flexibility in ERDF-programmes is low as regards project
partnerships and planning of activities and the usage of funding. The processes
initiated in the framework of the strategy, e.g. in innovation, have a problem
adapting to this framework.
•
Time periods not always suitable. The time periods funded are generally
perceived as too short for more strategic processes.
07.10.2011
17 (35)
•
Challenging private sector involvement. An increased involvement of the
private sector is voiced by many projects e.g. in the areas for clean shipping,
entrepreneurship and innovation and research. The dependence of Structural
Funds and the fact that this support often is reserved for public bodies is seen as
a main hindrance.
•
Transnational dimension only in territorial cooperation programmes. The
funding statistics as well as the interviews confirm that the transnational or crossborder programmes are those seen as tools for the implementation. The
perception is that EU programmes on sub-regional, national level or on EU-level
have not taken into account the Baltic Sea strategy. The financial engineering
using many different programmes in a cooperation process is seen as extremely
challenging.
2.3
Conclusion on the needs
The analysis of needs which are currently not met in a sufficient way shows that there
seem to be a limited number of cases of explicit funding needs.
Firstly, the need of seed money is strongly emphasised by many. The seed money
facility is seen as a remedy both for the less mature areas of cooperation to start, for
the more mature to rig more ambitious projects and partnerships and for getting
through the cumbersome application processes.
Secondly, there are financial needs expressed for the implementation phase. There is
obviously an additional need for funding for projects now applying, or preparing to do
so, to the territorial cooperation programmes or similar that might not be met due to
the lack of funding in the coming years. Finally, the need of financial solutions for
small investment is pointed out as a need not necessarily met by existing instruments.
Most needs appear, however, to be more of a structural nature. The most important to
mention are the support possibilities for transnational actions, the need for instruments
with longer time perspectives and instruments with a larger degree of flexibility than
what is possible within the framework of the existing ERDF regulations. The problems
of sectors having difficulties in relation to financing where the geographical focus
(cross-border, Baltic Sea Region) and delimitation is perceived as a real hindrance,
seem more to adhere to such structural problems.
Furthermore, there are important non-financial needs. These are usually in the field of
targeted support and advice for single projects or investments, as well as coordination
platforms and clustering for thematically related project.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Last but not least, there seems to be a need for a stronger commitment from the
Member States.
07.10.2011
18 (35)
3
Review of existing instruments
The Baltic Sea Strategy is supported by a wide range of more than hundred
programmes. In this chapter, we present available programmes sorted according to
the four main fields. A number of programmes are listed under various fields,
depending on the orientation of their objectives and priorities.
The data on programmes builds largely on the work carried out by INTERACT Point
Turku, complemented with information from our interviews.
Annexed to this report is an excel file with more detailed tables of the programmes
relevant for each of the four fields, including information on the objectives and
priorities of the single programmes.
3.1
Sustainable
The Baltic Sea is one of the largest bodies of brackish (part saline) water in the world
with significant salinity differences between sub-basins. It is relatively shallow
(average depth of 50 metres compared with the Mediterranean's 1500 metres) and
almost completely enclosed. Only 3% of the water (by volume) is exchanged each
year - i.e. more than 30 years for the total volume. Rivers drain a land area four times
larger than the sea itself with a population of nearly 90 million.
The unique features of the Baltic Sea, and its environmental pressures, demand a
macro-regional approach to combat its long-term deterioration. This has been longrecognised, including through joint action in HELCOM, although there is a need for
increased coordination among sector policies.
To further this dimension of the Baltic Sea Region, the Strategy addresses issues
such as the reduction of nutrient inputs to the sea to acceptable levels; the
preservation of natural zones and biodiversity including fisheries; the reduced use and
impact of hazardous substances; clean shipping; and mitigation and adaption to
climate change.
These topics are not only of high importance to the Baltic Sea Strategy, but also to a
wide range of programmes in the area. Altogether more than 70 programmes could be
indentified, which support projects in the field of sustainable development as outlined
above. This comprises all territorial cooperation programmes, a wide range of the
national and regional Structural Funds programmes, a variety of EU sector
programmes and also various loan instruments. In addition there are also national and
Nordic funding sources both as regards loans and grants.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Programmes for pillar 1 – an environmentally SUSTAINABLE place Territorial Cooperation Programmes
Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 (www.eu.baltic.net)
Central Baltic INTERREG IV A Programme 2007-2013 (www.centralbaltic.eu)
Latvia–Lithuania CBC Programme 2007–2013 (www.latlit.eu)
South Baltic CBC Programme 2007-2013 (http://en.southbaltic.eu)
CBC Programme "Botnia-Atlantica" 2007-2013 (www.botnia-atlantica.eu)
CBC Programme "Sweden - Norway" 2007-2013
CBC Programme ''Poland - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
CBC Programme ''Germany (Saxony) - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.sachsen.de/)
CBC Programme ''Slovakia - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.build.gov.sk/mvrrsr/index.php)
CBC Programme ''Poland - Slovakia" 2007-2013 (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
CBC Programme ''Poland - Germany (Saxony)" 2007-2013 (http://www.sachsen.de/)
CBC Programme ''Poland (Lubuskie) - Germany (Brandenburg)" 2007-2013 (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
CBC Programme ''Poland (Zachodniopomorskie) - Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg)" (http://www.regierung-mv.de)
CBC Programme "Syddanmark - Schleswig - K.E.R.N." 2007-2013 (http://www.regionsyddanmark.dk)
CBC Programme "Denmark - Germany" 2007-2013 (Fehmarnbelt Region Sjælland - Ostholstein-Lübeck-Plön) (http://www.fehmarnbeltregion.net/de/main/index.php)
07.10.2011
19 (35)
INTERREG IVC 2007 – 2013 (www.interreg4c.net)
Urban Development Network Programme URBACT II 2007–2013 (www.urbact.eu)
Estonia–Latvia–Russia CBC Programme 2007–2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (www.estlatrus.eu)
Latvia–Lithuania–Belarus CBC Programme 2007–2013 within European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument (www.enpi-cbc.eu)
Lithuania–Poland–Russia CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (www.cpe.gov.pl)
Kolarctic - Russia CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (http://www.kolarcticenpi.info)
Karelia - Russia CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (http://www.kareliaenpi.eu)
South East Finland - Russia CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (http://www.southeastfinrusnpi.fi/)
National and regional Structural Funds programmes
OP 'Eastern Finland' (www.tem.fi)
OP 'Northern Finland' (www.tem.fi)
OP 'Western Finland' (www.tem.fi)
OP 'Southern Finland’ (www.tem.fi)
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (www.mmm.fi) * indirect relevance
European Fisheries Fund (www.mmm.fi)
OP "Infrastructure and Services" (www.esfondi.lv)
Rural Development Programme for Latvia 2007–2013 (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) (www.lad.gov.lv)
OP for the Implementation of the European Fisheries Fund support in Latvia (www.lad.gov.lv)
OP 'Promotion of Cohesion' for Lithuania 2007 – 2013 (www.esparama.lt)
Rural Development Fund for Lithuania 2007–2013 (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) (www.nma.lt)
OP for the Implementation of the European Fisheries Fund support in Lithuania (www.nma.lt)
OP "Development of Living Environment" Estonia (www.fin.ee)
Rural Development Plan (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) Estonia (www.agri.ee)
OP for the European Fisheries Fund, Estonia (www.agri.ee)
OP 'Småland and the Islands', Sweden (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
OP 'Mid-North Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
OP for the Swedish Fisheries Sector (www.fiskeriverket.se)
Rural Development Programme 2007-2013, Denmark (http://ferv.fvm.dk/)
European Fisheries Fund, Denmark (www.ferv.fvm.dk/Fiskeriudvikling)
OP 'Berlin' - Administration for Economics, Technology and Women
OP 'Bremen' (www.efre-bremen.de)
OP 'Schleswig-Holstein' (www.schleswig-holstein.de)
OP 'Infrastructure and Environment' (www.mrr.gov.pl)
OP 'Innovative Economy' (www.mrr.gov.pl)
OP 'Zachodniopomorskie' (www.mrr.gov.pl)
OP 'Warminsko-Mazurskie' (www.bip.warmia.mazury.pl/urzad_marszalkowski/)
OP 'Pomerania' (www.woj-pomorskie.pl)
Rural Development Programme in Poland (2007-2013) (www.minrol.gov.pl)
OP 'Sustainable Development of the Fisheries Sector and Coastal Fishing Areas, Poland (www.minrol.gov.pl)
EU Sector Programmes
7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/)
LIFE+ Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/index.htm#lifeplus Nature and Biodiversity)
Environment Policy and Governance / Information and Communication / NGO Operating Grants
Eco-Innovation Programme 2008-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eco-innovation/contact_en.htm)
The Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community 2002-2012 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/intro.htm)
Bonus: Joint Baltic Sea System Research Programme (http://www.bonusportal.org/) *Indirect relevance
ENPI/Northern dimension funding (http://www.ndphs.org/?about_nd
Loans (eg EIB, NIB NEFCO …)
Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO) (http://www.nefco.org/)
NEFCO Investment Fund
Nordic Environmental Development fund (NMF)
The EIB finances a broad range of projects in all sectors of the economy.
JASPERS (Joint Assistance in Supporting Projects in European Regions) (http://www.jaspers-europa-info.org/)
Baltic Sea Environment (BASE) Lending Facility - Nordic Investment Bank’s Loans (www.nib.int/loans/loan_characteristics)
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (http://www.ebrd.com/index.htm)
National and Nordic instruments
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Baltic Sea Unit (http://www.sida.se/balticseaunit)
Nordic-Baltic NGO program (http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation)
National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Poland) (www.nfosigw.gov.pl)
Swedish state appropriation for the marine environment (www.havochvatten.se)
Private funds
John Nurminen Foundation (http://www.puhdasitameri.fi)
Baltic Sea 2020 (www.balticsea2020.org)
Zennström philanthropies (www.zennstrom.org/environment/baltic-sea/)
bv01e 2005-05-27
3.2
Prosperous
The Baltic Sea Region is also clearly divided between a prosperous, highly innovative
North and West and a developing East and South. However, the differences between
the most successfully innovative regions in the EU, in the Nordic countries and
Germany, and the regions with well-educated young people and deficient
infrastructure in Poland and the three Baltic States, provide opportunities for
complementary cooperation and development of great benefit to all sides. In
particular, such cooperation should provide real business opportunities to SMEs,
especially those working in innovative fields.
07.10.2011
20 (35)
The Baltic Sea Strategy addresses in that respect issues such as the removal of
hindrances to the internal market in the Baltic Sea Region; the exploitation of the full
potential of the region in research and innovation; the promotion of entrepreneurship
strengthening SMEs and increasing the efficient use of human resources; and
sustainable agriculture, forestry and fishing.
In the context of the Lisbon Strategy and more recently Europe 2020, most public
funding instruments available in the Baltic Sea Strategy contribute in one way or the
other to these aims. In total more than 110 programmes could be indentified and in
addition there are numerous national and regional instruments which are not
accounted for in this listing. The list comprises almost all Structural Funds
programmes and also a large list of different types of loan instruments.
Furthermore, additional funding instruments will be established in the near future.
Among others, the European Investment Fund (EIF) is currently developing two new
funds which will increase the access to venture capital in the Baltic Sea Region. One
of these funds focuses on the Baltic States and the other on the Nordic Countries.
These funds will be equipped with funding from the EIF, the involved countries, and
also private funding. They will run outside the EU Structural Funds system and sustain
for a longer period of time.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Programmes for pillar 2 – a PROSPEROUS place Territorial Cooperation Programmes
Latvia–Lithuania CBC Programme 2007–2013 (www.latlit.eu)
Estonia–Latvia CBC Programme 2007–2013 (www.estlat.eu)
Lithuania–Poland CBC Programme 2007–2013 (www.lietuva-polska.eu)
South Baltic CBC Programme 2007-2013 (http://en.southbaltic.eu)
CBC Programme "North" 2007-2013 (www.bd.lst.se)
CBC Programme "Botnia-Atlantica" 2007-2013 (www.botnia-atlantica.eu)
CBC Programme "Sweden - Norway" 2007-2013
CBC Programme ''Öresund - Kattegatt - Skagerrak" 2007-2013
CBC Programme ''Poland - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
CBC Programme ''Germany (Saxony) - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.sachsen.de/)
CBC Programme ''Slovakia - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.build.gov.sk/mvrrsr/index.php)
CBC Programme ''Poland - Slovakia" 2007-2013 (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
CBC Programme ''Poland - Germany (Saxony)" 2007-2013 (http://www.sachsen.de/)
CBC Programme ''Poland (Lubuskie) - Germany (Brandenburg)" 2007-2013 (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
CBC Programme ''Poland (Zachodniopomorskie) - Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg)" (http://www.regierung-mv.de)
CBC Programme "Syddanmark - Schleswig - K.E.R.N." 2007-2013 (http://www.regionsyddanmark.dk)
CBC Programme "Denmark - Germany" 2007-2013(Fehmarnbelt Region Sjælland - Ostholstein-Lübeck-Plön) (http://www.fehmarnbeltregion.net/de/main/index.php)
ESPON Programme 2007-2013 (http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Programme/)
Estonia–Latvia–Russia CBC Programme 2007–2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (www.estlatrus.eu)
Latvia–Lithuania–Belarus CBC Programme 2007–2013 within European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument (www.enpi-cbc.eu)
Lithuania–Poland–Russia CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (www.cpe.gov.pl)
Kolarctic - Russia CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (http://www.kolarcticenpi.info)
Karelia - Russia CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (http://www.kareliaenpi.eu)
South East Finland - Russia CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (http://www.southeastfinrusnpi.fi/)
Lithuania-Poland-Russia CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (www.interreg.gov.pl/20072013/instrument+sasiedztwa/pllt-ru/)
Poland-Belarus-Ukraine CBC Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (www.interreg.gov.pl/20072013/instrument+sasiedztwa/plbl-uk/)
National and regional Structural Funds Programmes
OP 'Eastern Finland' (www.tem.fi)
OP 'Northern Finland' (www.tem.fi)
OP 'Western Finland' (www.tem.fi)
OP 'Southern Finland’ (www.tem.fi)
OP 'Åland Islands' (www.tem.fi)
Regional Competitiveness and Employment OP (European Social Fund) (www.tem.f)i
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, Finland (www.mmm.fi) * indirect relevance
European Fisheries Fund, Finland (www.mmm.fi)
OP "Infrastructure and Services", Latvia (www.esfondi.lv)
OP "Entrepreneurship and Innovations", Latvia (www.esfondi.lv)
OP "Human Resources and Employment", Latvia (www.esfondi.lv)
OP for the Implementation of the European Fisheries Fund support in Latvia for 2007 – 2013 (www.lad.gov.lv)
OP 'Economic Growth', Lithuania (www.esparama.lt)
OP 'Development of Human Resources', Lithuania (www.esparama.lt)
Rural Development Fund for Lithuania 2007–2013 (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) (www.nma.lt)
07.10.2011
21 (35)
OP for the Implementation of the European Fisheries Fund support in Lithuania for 2007 – 2013 (www.nma.lt)
OP "Development of Economic Environment", Estonia (www.fin.ee)
OP "Development of Living Environment", Estonia (www.fin.ee)
OP 'Human Resource Development', Estonia (www.struktuurifondid.ee)
Rural Development Plan (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development), Estonia (www.agri.ee)
OP for the European Fisheries Fund, Estonia (www.agri.ee)
OP 'West Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
OP 'Skåne-Blekinge' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
OP 'Småland and the Islands' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
OP 'East Mid-Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
OP 'Stockholm' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
OP 'North Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
OP 'North Mid-Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
OP 'Mid-North Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
European Social Fund Programme, Sweden
Rural Development Programme for Sweden, Rural Development (www.sweden.gov.se)
OP for the Swedish Fisheries Sector (www.fiskeriverket.se)
OP "Innovation and Knowledge", Denmark (www.ebst.dk)
OP "More and better jobs" (ESF), Denmark (www.regionalt.dk)
European Fisheries Fund, Denmark (www.ferv.fvm.dk/Fiskeriudvikling)
OP 'Mecklenburg-Vorpommern'
OP 'Hamburg' (http://www.hamburg.de/)
OP 'Berlin' Administration for Economics, Technology and Women
OP 'Bremen' (www.efre-bremen.de)
OP 'Schleswig-Holstein' (www.schleswig-holstein.de)
OP 'Development of Eastern Poland' (www.mrr.gov.pl)
OP 'Innovative Economy' (www.mrr.gov.pl)
OP 'Zachodniopomorskie' (www.mrr.gov.pl)
OP 'Warminsko-Mazurskie' (www.bip.warmia.mazury.pl/urzad_marszalkowski/)
OP 'Pomerania' (www.woj-pomorskie.pl)
OP 'Human Capital', Poland (www.efs.gov.pl)
Rural Development Programme in Poland (2007-2013) (www.minrol.gov.pl)
OP 'Sustainable Development of the Fisheries Sector and Coastal Fishing Areas 2007-2013, Poland (www.minrol.gov.pl)
7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/)
Erasmus - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Grundtvig - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Leonardo da Vinci Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Transversal - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Jean Monnet - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Tempus IV: Modernisation of Higher Education in countries surrounding the EU 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/external-relation-programmes/doc70_en.htm)
Erasmus Mundus - Scholarships and Academic Cooperation 2009-2013 (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/index_en.php)
MEDIA 2007 programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media/index_en.htm)
Environment Policy and Governance - LIFE+ Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/index.htm#lifeplus)
Eco-Innovation Programme 2008-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eco-innovation/contact_en.htm)
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP) Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 2007-2013 (CIP) (http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm)
Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT-PSP) Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 2007-2013 (CIP)
(http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm)
Eurostars Programme (http://www.eurostars-eureka.eu/)
Fiscalis 2013 Programme (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/tax_cooperation/fiscalis_programme/index_en.htm)
Community Programme for Employment and Solidarity - PROGRESS 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=327&langId=en)
Bonus: Joint Baltic Sea System Research Programme (http://www.bonusportal.org/) * indirect relevance
Civil Justice - Fundamental Rights and Justice Framework Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/intro/funding_rights_en.htm)
Loans (eg EIB, NIB Nefco …)
European Progress MicroFinance Facility for Employment and Social Inclusion (http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=836&langId=en)
NEFCO Investment Fund
Nordic Environmental Development fund (NMF)
European Investment Bank’s Loans http://www.eib.org/products/loans/index.htm
JEREMIE (Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises) (http://jeremie.europa.eu/)
Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (CLEERE) Lending Facility
Loans for Strengthen Competitiveness - Nordic Investment Bank’s Loans (http://www.nib.int/loans/loan_characteristics)
Nordic grants and ENPI/Northern dimension
Nordic-Baltic Mobility Programme for Business and Industry 2009-2013
Northern Dimension (http://www.ndphs.org/?about_nd)
bv01e 2005-05-27
3.3
Accessible & attractive
The Baltic Sea itself, and the low-lying land around it, have provided routes for trade
and communication through history. The post 1945 division was an interruption to a
pattern of open contacts that has resumed in the 1990s. Massive investment has
followed in the last two decades but there is still much to be done before the
infrastructure endowment reaches levels elsewhere in the Union. Land and sea routes
still need to be made more straightforward and environmentally friendly. The east and
07.10.2011
22 (35)
north remain too isolated from the rest of the Union. The region is also increasingly a
gateway to Asia, notably through rail links.
Energy supply and security is a particular concern: though some countries in the
region have substantial indigenous sources of energy, most must rely on imports.
Therefore, interconnections need to be further developed and diversified to offset
possible interruptions or other shocks. Human relationships are also important and
can be strengthened by actions in the fields of education, tourism and health.
Among the issues stressed by the Strategy are the access to, and the efficiency and
security of, the energy markets; internal and external transport links; and the
attractiveness of the Baltic Sea Region in particular through education, tourism and
health.
These are also features at the heart of a wide range of programmes. Altogether more
than 100 programmes could be identified, which provide support in the field of
accessible and attractive regions. In addition there are numerous national and regional
instruments which also focus on these fields but are not accounted for in this list. In
addition to the majority of Structural Funds programmes, there is a long list of EU
sector programmes supporting activities in this field. There are also various loan
instruments that have been identified.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Programmes for pillar 3 – an ACCESSIBLE & ATTRACTIVE place
Territorial Cooperation Programmes
Latvia–Lithuania Cross Border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013 (www.latlit.eu)
Estonia–Latvia Cross Border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013 (www.estlat.eu)
Lithuania–Poland Cross-Border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013 (www.lietuva-polska.eu)
South Baltic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 (http://en.southbaltic.eu)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme "North" 2007-2013 (www.bd.lst.se)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme "Botnia-Atlantica" 2007-2013 (www.botnia-atlantica.eu)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme "Sweden - Norway" 2007-2013
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Öresund - Kattegatt - Skagerrak" 2007-2013
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Poland - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Germany (Saxony) - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.sachsen.de/)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Slovakia - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.build.gov.sk/mvrrsr/index.php)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Poland - Slovakia" 2007-2013 (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Poland - Germany (Saxony)" 2007-2013 (http://www.sachsen.de/)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Poland (Lubuskie) - Germany (Brandenburg)" 2007-2013 (http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Poland (Zachodniopomorskie) - Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg)" 2007-2013 (http://www.regierung-mv.de)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme "Syddanmark - Schleswig - K.E.R.N." 2007-2013 (http://www.regionsyddanmark.dk)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme "Denmark - Germany" 2007-2013
(Fehmarnbelt Region Sjælland - Ostholstein-Lübeck-Plön) (http://www.fehmarnbeltregion.net/de/main/index.php)
Estonia–Latvia–Russia Cross Border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (www.estlatrus.eu)
Latvia–Lithuania–Belarus Cross Border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013 within European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument (www.enpi-cbc.eu)
Lithuania–Poland–Russia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (www.cpe.gov.pl)
Kolarctic - Russia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (http://www.kolarcticenpi.info)
Karelia - Russia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (http://www.kareliaenpi.eu)
South East Finland - Russia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (http://www.southeastfinrusnpi.fi/)
Lithuania-Poland-Russia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
(www.interreg.gov.pl/20072013/instrument+sasiedztwa/pl-lt-ru/)
Poland-Belarus-Ukraine Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
(www.interreg.gov.pl/20072013/instrument+sasiedztwa/pl-bl-uk/)
Operational Programme 'Eastern Finland' (www.tem.fi)
Operational Programme 'Northern Finland' (www.tem.fi)
Operational Programme 'Western Finland' (www.tem.fi)
Operational Programme 'Southern Finland’(www.tem.fi)
Regional Competitiveness and Employment Operational Programme (European Social Fund), Finald (www.tem.f)i
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, Finland (www.mmm.fi) * indirect relevance
Operational Programme "Infrastructure and Services", Latvia (www.esfondi.lv)
Operational Programme "Human Resources and Employment", Latvia (www.esfondi.lv)
Operational Programme 'Economic Growth, Lithuania (www.esparama.lt)
Operational Programme 'Promotion of Cohesion', Lithuania (www.esparama.lt)
Operational Programme 'Development of Human Resources', Lithuania (www.esparama.lt)
Operational Programme "Development of Economic Environment", Estonia (www.fin.ee)
Operational Programme "Development of Living Environment", Estonia (www.fin.ee)
Operational Programme 'Human Resource Development', Estonia (www.struktuurifondid.ee)
07.10.2011
23 (35)
Operational Programme 'Skåne-Blekinge' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
Operational Programme 'Småland and the Islands' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
Operational Programme 'East Mid-Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
Operational Programme 'Stockholm' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
Operational Programme 'North Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
Operational Programme 'North Mid-Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
Operational Programme 'Mid-North Sweden' (www.tillvaxtverket.se)
European Social Fund Programme, Sweden
Rural Development Programme for Sweden. (www.sweden.gov.se)
Operational Programme "Innovation and Knowledge", Denmark (www.ebst.dk)
Operational Programme "More and better jobs" (ESF), Denmark (www.regionalt.dk)
Operational Programme 'Mecklenburg-Vorpommern'
Operational Programme 'Hamburg' (http://www.hamburg.de/)
Operational Programme 'Berlin' Administration for Economics, Technology and Women
Operational Programme 'Bremen' (www.efre-bremen.de)
Operational Programme 'Schleswig-Holstein' (www.schleswig-holstein.de)
Operational Programme 'Development of Eastern Poland' (www.mrr.gov.pl)
Operational Programme 'Infrastructure and Environment' (www.mrr.gov.pl)
Operational Programme 'Zachodniopomorskie' (www.mrr.gov.pl)
Operational Programme 'Warminsko-Mazurskie' (www.bip.warmia.mazury.pl/urzad_marszalkowski/)
Operational Programme 'Pomerania' (www.woj-pomorskie.pl)
Operational Programme 'Human Capital', Poland (www.efs.gov.pl)
7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/ )
Erasmus – Life - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)long Learning Programme 2007-2013
(http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Comenius - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Grundtvig - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Leonardo da Vinci - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Transversal - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Jean Monnet - - Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm)
Tempus IV: Modernisation of Higher Education in countries surrounding the EU 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/external-relation-programmes/doc70_en.htm)
Erasmus Mundus - Scholarships and Academic Cooperation 2009-2013 (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/index_en.php)
MEDIA 2007 programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media/index_en.htm)
Culture Programme 2007-2013 (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.php)
The Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community 2002-2012 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/intro.htm)
Marco Polo Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/home/home_en.htm)
Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT-PSP) (http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm)
Intelligent Energy - Europe Programme (IEE) (http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm)
Trans-European Transport Network Programme 2007-2013 (TEN-E)
(http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/en/about_us/mission__introduction/mission__introduction.htm)
Second Programme of Community Action in the Field of Health 2008-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/policy/2008-2013/index_en.htm)
Community Programme for Employment and Solidarity - PROGRESS 2007-2013
(http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=327&langId=en)
Civil Justice - Fundamental Rights and Justice Framework Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/intro/funding_rights_en.htm)
Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Fundamental Rights and Justice Framework Programme 2007-2013
(http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/intro/funding_rights_en.htm)
Drug Prevention and Information Fundamental Rights and Justice Framework Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/intro/funding_rights_en.htm)
Prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III) Fundamental Rights and Justice Framework
Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/intro/funding_rights_en.htm)
European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals - Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows 2007-2013
(http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/intro/funding_solidarity_en.htm)
Loans (eg EIB, NIB, NEFCO)
Nordic Environmental Development fund (NMF) (http://www.nefco.org/)
European Investment Bank’s Loans (http://www.eib.org/products/loans/index.htm)
JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas) (http://jessica.europa.eu)
ELENA (European Local ENergy Assistance) (http://www.eib.org/products/technical_assistance/elena/index.htm)
Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (CLEERE) Lending Facility - Nordic Investment Bank’s Loans (http://www.nib.int/loans/loan_characteristics)
Loans for Strengthen Competitiveness Nordic Investment Bank’s Loans (http://www.nib.int/loans/loan_characteristics)
National and Nordic instruments (examples)
Northern Dimension (http://www.ndphs.org/?about_nd)
bv01e 2005-05-27
3.4
Safe & secure
The region's safety and security environment will continue to experience significant
changes during the coming years: Maritime traffic is expected to increase, thus
increasing the risk of accidents and vulnerability to pollution. Cooperation already
exists, but should be strengthened to make the region a world-leader in maritime
safety and security. A maritime disaster such as the 'Erika' shipwreck would have a
catastrophic effect. The expansion and deepening of EU cooperation in criminal
matters means that regional activity in combating crime should focus on intensified
practical cross-border cooperation.
07.10.2011
24 (35)
The issues addressed in the Baltic Sea Strategy are among others maritime safety
and security; protection from major emergencies at sea and on land; and the volume
of, and harm done by, cross border crime.
For this field considerably less funding instruments could be identified as compared to
the other fields. In total about 30 instruments have been listed. These are mainly
territorial cooperation programmes and EU sector programmes in the field of safety
and security. National or regional Structural Funds programmes hardly address this
topic and there are also no loan instruments available in this field.
Programmes for pillar 4 – a SAFE & SECURE place Territorial Cooperation Programmes
Latvia–Lithuania Cross Border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013 (www.latlit.eu)
South Baltic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 (http://en.southbaltic.eu)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Öresund - Kattegatt - Skagerrak" 2007-2013
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Germany (Saxony) - Czech Republic" 2007-2013 (http://www.sachsen.de/)
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme ''Poland (Lubuskie) - Germany (Brandenburg)" 2007-2013
(http://www.mrr.gov.pl/English/Strony/default.aspx)
Latvia–Lithuania–Belarus Cross Border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013 within European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument
(www.enpi-cbc.eu)
Kolarctic - Russia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
(http://www.kolarcticenpi.info)
South East Finland - Russia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
(http://www.southeastfinrusnpi.fi/)
Poland-Belarus-Ukraine Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 within European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
(www.interreg.gov.pl/20072013/instrument+sasiedztwa/pl-bl-uk/)
Operational Programme "Development of Living Environment", Estonia (www.fin.ee)
Operational Programme 'Infrastructure and Environment', Poland (www.mrr.gov.pl)
Operational Programme 'Pomerania', Poland (www.woj-pomorskie.pl)
7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development 2007-2013
http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/
Information and Communication
Bonus: Joint Baltic Sea System Research Programme (http://www.bonusportal.org/)* indirect relevanc
Civil Protection Financial Instrument (http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/prote/finance.htm)
Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security Related Risks - Security and Safeguarding
Liberties Framework Programme 2007-2013 (http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/intro/funding_security_en.htm)
Specific Programme Prevention of and Fight against Crime - Security and Safeguarding Liberties Framework Programme 2007-2013
(http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/intro/funding_security_en.htm)
Criminal Justice - Fundamental Rights and Justice Framework Programme 2007-2013
Drug Prevention and Information - Fundamental Rights and Justice Framework Programme 2007-2013
External Borders Fund - Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows 2007-2013
European Refugee Fund -- Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows 2007-2013
Return Fund -- Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows 2007-2013
Customs 2013 Programme (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/cooperation_programmes/customs_programme/index_en.htm)
National programmes (examples)
bv01e 2005-05-27
Other sources of funding
The compilations of funding sources above are not exhaustive in any way. They give a
fairly complete coverage of EU programmes, but only random examples on national
and regional level. Information about such funding sources has been hard to come by
and without input from contact persons in the countries it is a tall order to cover 8
countries including the regional level. But clearly there are funding instruments, public
appropriations and funds on national and regional level in most countries in the region
that could fund actions/parts of actions within the framework of the Baltic Sea
Strategy. It is probably not set out in the funding regulations or eligibility criteria but if
the project is of interest it is most likely that many different funding sources could be
07.10.2011
25 (35)
bv01e 2005-05-27
relevant. There are many regional budget lines that already contribute with
considerable amounts, mostly in the form of national/regional co-financing to the EUprojects. Just as illustration of the latter given as input to this study is the Swedish
region of Halland participating in no less than 12 Interreg co-financed with approx 1.8
Meuro. The 12 projects are all in line with the Baltic Sea Strategy and two are
flagships/part of flagships. This is an illustration that is true for many regions around
the Baltic Sea.
07.10.2011
26 (35)
4
Gap analysis
The mapping of the needs expressed by the stakeholders outlined in chapter 2 serves
as the basis for the gap analysis. This chapter will therefore be structured according to
the outcome of the needs overview and follow the same line of reasoning, which will
lay the ground for our comments here below.
4.1
Financial gaps
The main financial needs that seem to be met in an unsatisfactory way were found to
be seed money, a number of specific sectors or topics and small investments. There is
also an additional need for funding of a considerable amount of projects eligible for
territorial cooperation programmes, which will have problems finding funding in the
near future due to financial constraint in the programmes.
As regards non-financial needs the most frequent needs expressed were facilitation of
finding financing and the application process. Secondly, there is need for assistance to
formulate and to prepare more advanced projects in a complex environment, aiming
for real implementation and investments; a need that would need not only typical
technical assistance but also a more basic support to the institutions involved.
Seed money
The overview of programmes in chapter 3 seems to verify the claim that seed money
is scarce, especially if a transnational dimension is required. There is no seed money
facility that could cover the whole spectrum of sectors of the strategy, so there is either
a limitation in geography, sector and/or nationality of those covered by the grant.
There is also a seed facility in use granting money to the projects approved for project
financing. The most common seed money facilities in the interviews were national
funding (e.g. in environmental area, PA 1 etc.), the Swedish SIDA Baltic Sea Unit
seed money and the possibility for approved projects to be refunded in territorial
cooperation programmes, notably the Baltic Sea Region programme.
Specific topics
bv01e 2005-05-27
The interviews indicate that the areas that cannot easily find financing in territorial
cooperation programmes have more problems in the quest for funding. These are for
example most of the projects in the security area, education and parts of the
environment field, but also projects or areas very focused on research or SME’s where
the private involvement is crucial. However, there seem to be a considerable amount
of programmes to support the education sector either through the EU programmes in
the education sector or the regional programmes of the European Social Fund (ESF)
or the European Regional Development Fund programmes where many have priorities
that could support e.g. vocational training, lifelong learning etc.
Thus, the problem seems to be structural rather than financial. For example, when
applying to the EU Civil Protection programme the macro-regional approach is not
known and poorly in line with criteria emphasising the north-south dimension in the
EU. SME-programmes are geared towards individual countries or regions in a country
etc., although the European Investment Fund (EIF) is currently developing two funds
targeted to venture capital for SMEs in the Baltic Sea Region, which should
07.10.2011
27 (35)
complement in a good way the existing instruments also by signalling that the
transnational context is taken into account.
Small investments
Many actors identify small investments as an important potential in several areas of
the strategy. These investments might need grants, loans or a financially sustainable
mix. Apart from the fact that many private banks could be a partner in many of the
cases mentioned, the international financial institutions such as the European
Investment Bank, the Nordic Investment Bank and the Nordic Environmental Finance
Corporation (NEFCO) are active in the region and attentive towards the strategy
implementation. In their responses to this expressed need it seems there should not
need to be a gap in this area. It could be a question of institutional assistance to the
projects and improved communication between projects and the financial institutions.
4.2
Non-financial gaps
The interviews revealed a rather strong emphasis on non-financial needs. From
strengthened facilitation, along the lines of the often appreciated work of the
INTERACT Point Turku, to more advanced assistance. The interviews indicate a few
factors as drivers of the needs; the strategy has involved many institutions in a more
structured and hands-on Baltic Sea cooperation than before, even if many project
leaders are quite experienced. The strategy has also raised the ambitions and the
expectations not only regarding the activities themselves, but also regarding the interlinkage between different areas and different funding programmes.
Funding sources and start-up phase
There is a certain supply of these kinds of support. Regarding facilitation the
INTERACT Point Turku offers guidance as regards existing financial instruments and
has arranged seminars and taken part in kick-off meetings for the different priority
areas. This is much appreciated but often seems to leave the individual project leader
overwhelmed by the information. The Swedish Development Agency’s (SIDA) Baltic
Sea Unit try to a certain extent to meet the demand from Swedish projects, providing
advice regarding application processes, potential partners etc. Many of the territorial
cooperation programmes arrange seminars to give advice in the application process,
but naturally this only reaches those already aware of the programme and with the
intention to apply. But on the whole there seems to be a gap concerning the demand
for more tailored advice and support to partner search and project development.
A more detailed data-base has been proposed as part of such support, with the
possibility to search according to theme and geography, but there is clearly also a
need for more tailored support.
bv01e 2005-05-27
Project preparation, assistance and small investments
If the above is more targeted towards start-up phases there are similarities with the
need for what can be called institutional or technical assistance. This relates to more
advanced projects with the potential of developing into an investment project and “real
implementation”. The interviews seem to indicate a need of help one step before that
technical assistance is normally used. If we understand technical assistance as
support to develop an already defined project and lead it to realisation, these needs
point to an even earlier phase. In such a case the assistance would start with
07.10.2011
28 (35)
identifying possible ways forward for already quite advanced planning projects.
Perhaps there is a potential to cluster a number of projects before progressing. Then
to identify what potential there is to develop into real implementation of the findings
and to realise investments, often of a smaller scale. The appropriate financial solutions
must be found and suitable partners identified. This is a complex process touch upon
by several stakeholders. This is what we call institutional assistance to distinguish it
from technical assistance.
The existing technical assistance in the region, such as the Baltic Sea Action Plan
(BSAP) Trust Fund (related to marine environment) and the JASPERS initiative
cannot claim to fill such a role. BSAP give financial support for technical assistance to
a limited range of activities and JASPERS gives assistance to already identified, major
projects in a limited part of the region only. There seems to be gap between
expressed need and existing instruments in this area and this would support the idea
of some kind of implementation facility for more advanced projects.
Networking and clustering
Similar to the support in the project preparation phase large and complex projects are
also in need of tailored support during the implementation. The most frequently
mentioned is facilitation of networking, clustering and of a more ambitious spreading of
results. There are attempts already mentioned to help with partner search and the
Strategy process in itself has to some extent contributed to the networking in the
region. There are also smaller attempts to support clustering of projects, however
often limited to one single programme. The expectations of what the Strategy work
should entail in this regard seem to be higher among the stakeholders.
There is probably room for improvement when it comes to using the Strategy process
in itself as a platform for networking and clustering. The annual events and the
contacts established among coordinators and contact persons should be
systematically used. The EU programmes and their secretariats could play a more
active role, including the adaptation of rules to facilitate and create incentives for
knowledge sharing and clustering in the whole region and with all programs.
Programme rules are often not adapted to supporting networking outside of the
programme area.
4.3
Structural issues
Many of the expressed needs are of structural and administrative nature rather than
directly concerned with financial or non-financial support. The most important items
have been listed in chapter 2. The interviews gave a good insight into the considerable
dependence on the European Regional Development Fund for financing, especially
the ETC programmes. The rules in these programmes are often perceived as a
problem for the implementation. That the funding instruments are not adapted to the
strategy work can of course be regarded as a gap in itself. Judging from the
expressed needs that are characteristic of the strategy the following could be
considered as the main gaps when using EU funding:
bv01e 2005-05-27
•
Long-term. The strategy puts up long-term goals for the region and the flagships
are formulated accordingly. Many of the flagships, or groups of flagships, have
entered into a process rather than a project. However, the programmes are not
structured to support processes and the average Structural Funds project is very
07.10.2011
29 (35)
limited in time. Even the 7-year programme period can to some processes be too
limiting.
•
Flexibility. As mentioned above, the Strategy has provoked processes to be
financed with projects. Processes in such a complex environment demand more
flexibility to adapt to changes, react to initiatives and to involve new partners
along the way. The character of certain sector, such as innovation and research,
emphasise the difficulties the experienced by some stakeholders to relate to
demands to foresee partnerships, expenditures and results years in advance.
Clearly, such processes are not accommodated in regular Structural Funds
programmes. Alternative project forms could be tried, such as Global Grants or
similar set-ups, allowing for a Lead Partner to run sub-projects and to report on a
framework level. National and regional funding sources also need to provide
flexibility for working transnational, another important challenge following below.
•
Transnational. Transnational is the key word in the implementation. All activities
should have a transnational dimension and contribute to the goals of the macroregion. However, very few financial instruments are targeting the macro-regional
level and programmes on other levels have not integrated this dimension to any
bigger extent. Furthermore, to set up projects using funds from several
programmes is seen as a very tall order for the stakeholders, even in a case
where all programmes actually would take the strategy into account. There is a
gap between the perceived importance of the macro-regional level and the effect
it has had on the financial environment.
4.4
Current debate
In the current debate about the implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy a special
implementation facility has been proposed by the European Investment Bank. It has
been referred to above in relation to assistance to advanced projects. Since this study
tries to answer what the need might be for new or additional support of financial or
non-financial nature, a comment to this proposal is called for. Hopefully this report can
contribute to a renewed discussion.
It seems clear from the above that there is a considerable need for non-financial
support of various kinds and that there is a gap in this respect. At the same time it is
important to take into consideration the existing instruments and to consider the option
to change their range of activities to meet the demand.
bv01e 2005-05-27
It seems quite clear that any initiative to establish a new implementation facility should
consider the specificities of the EUSBSR process when developing a model. The need
for what we here refer to as institutional support, explained above, is one of those
specificities. It seems to be one of the main challenges to progress to a real
implementation of actions in the Strategy framework. A number of areas would seem
to benefit from expert input on how to advance their process and how to structure it to
reach the investment stage.
Another specificity not covered presently pointed out in the interviews is the need for
small investments, rather than large. The EUSBSR certainly contains large
investments, mainly in the transport and energy infrastructure areas. These areas,
however, have to a large extent their own processes within the Strategy, such as the
TEN-T priority projects decided upon in the TEN committees. The large investments in
07.10.2011
30 (35)
the energy sector are taken care of within the Baltic Energy Markets Interconnection
Plan, BEMIP. The plan is financed by the extraordinary financing from the EU
Recovery Fund. Although these are financing sources not accessible to other projects
the set-up of the BEMIP could be an inspiration to other macro regional processes; it
has taken a macro regional approach to the needs which are very specific to the Baltic
Sea Region and reserved financing from the EU which has attracted regional EUfunding as well as co-financing to complement. The small investments however do not
have this kind of concerted process, although they are important for the goals of the
strategy. Even though it seems as the potential financial support exists, the institutions
seem to need assistance to get there.
If assistance should focus mainly on small investments and to cover the whole region
it would complement existing initiatives such as JASPERS and the BSAP Trust Fund.
JASPERS is covering major or big investments and only in the Baltic countries and
Poland. The interviews indicate a need from stakeholders in the whole Baltic Sea
Region. The beneficiaries of the BSAP Trust Fund technical assistance seem to
confirm that also stakeholders in the Nordic countries have a considerable need of
technical assistance when a project moves up to the transnational level and become
significantly more complex in terms of partnership, different countries’ rules and
cultures.
Other initiatives, such as the European Investment Funds’ two new venture capital
funds are of course of relevance to the outcome of the study. Even if the supply of
venture capital is not looked into in this study the need to facilitate for SME
cooperation and innovation in the area is voiced by several. The existing programmes
are generally geared to a single country, region or group of regions. In this case one of
the funds will focus on the Baltic States and the other on the Nordic Countries. They
will run outside the EU Structural Funds system and sustain for a longer period of
time. In all, they will answer to the needs expressed for more trans-nationality, longer
time horizons and private sector involvement in the strategy.
4.5
Conclusions
The findings from the interviews and the overview of the financial instruments indicate
that the financial gap is not necessarily the most challenging problem. A gap analysis
is a good idea and could be further explored since the input from national and regional
sources has been very limited. The overview of existing funding sources should be
improved and will facilitate the process for many stakeholders.
However, the main point seems to be that the gap analysis overlooks the real problem
at hand. Even if the financial gaps identified would be addressed, major challenges
and needs would still not be met and the implementation of the strategy would still be
hampered.
bv01e 2005-05-27
The most challenging needs seem to be of a structural character rather than financial.
In a situation where a financial crisis and slow growth is lingering in Europe this might
seem reassuring but the changes called for to adapt to the existence of a macroregion and joint EU goals on a macro-regional level will probably be a demanding
task.
07.10.2011
31 (35)
Textbox – Gap Analysis in a Nutshell
Overall the gap analysis reveals three different types of needs: financial needs, non-financial
needs and needs linked to structural challenges. Only needs today not sufficiently addressed
have been considered, but there are differences to what degree they are addressed:
Examples of needs that are poorly addressed by existing documents today:
• Financial instruments supporting projects linked to security, SME issues and some areas in
the environment sector are difficult in a transnational context. Existing programmes might be
able to widen their scope of activities supported to meet these needs.
• The non-financial support in terms of technical and institutional assistance for small
investments is poorly addressed. The idea of an implementation facility aired by the EIB
should be considered in this light.
• The long-term dimension of strategic projects beyond the lifetime of a standard Structural
Funds project is not addressed. Here in particular national and regional instruments could be
strengthened, it might also be possible to learn from the EIF funds to be set up.
• The flexibility demanded in more strategic, long-term projects initiated within the Strategy is
not allowed for in a standard Structural Funds programme. Project forms, e.g. Global Grants
or similar, with a possibility for sub-projects, should be considered.
Examples of needs addressed by programmes but with substantial room for improvement:
• Seed money is provided by some programmes, but insufficient with regard to the demand to
develop strategic projects and build the necessary partnerships. The seed money approach
could be used by a large number of programmes, also in order to prepare good application for
the next round of EU funded programmes.
• As regards the thematic coverage, projects in the fields of education, innovation involving the
private sector and projects with SME participation have few funding possibilities for
cooperation in a transnational context.
• Small investments are a particular concern when it comes to implementation activities. Here
some programmes provide financial support, but the need is still expressed. It might be
worthwhile to consider a JASPERS-inspired solution for small investments - JASPERS minor
for the whole region.
• In term of facilitation in the start-up phase the INTERACT Point Turku and the Baltic Sea Unit
of Swedish Development Agency (SIDA) provide active support in the Baltic Sea Region
context. However, the needs surpass their resources. This might be an issue of stronger
support by the National Contact Points and Priority Area Coordinators. Also the idea of an
implementation facility aired by the EIB could be of support here.
• A particular structural challenge is the transnational dimension, which is very well covered by
European Territorial Cooperation Programmes. However, these programmes cannot carry the
full implementation of the Strategy. Therefore, also other instruments must support or in other
ways contribute to transnational projects.
Small adjustments of single instruments and better information are probably not enough to meet
these gaps. We would argue for targeted actions addressing the following points:
• Increased support and commitment by the Member States including a strengthening of their
National Contact Points and the Priority Area Coordinator.
bv01e 2005-05-27
• Complementing existing instruments with a long-term transnational instrument supporting
strategic actions and allowing for private sector involvement and small investments. Close
cooperation with the EIB and EIF are suggested in this field.
• Discussion on the possibility to set up a single instrument dedicated to the implementation of
the Strategy. This could e.g. be financed by contributions from all relevant EU funded
programmes in the region. The instrument could borrow features from JASPERS as well as
the EIF funds currently set up to support the Strategy, and the discussed EIB implementation
facility.
07.10.2011
32 (35)
Figure 2 – Different types of gaps
Structural changes would be needed to allow for strategic processes rather than shortterm processes, to strengthen the transnational dimension in the financial instruments
at hand and to cluster the actions and stakeholders in a better way to ensure that
synergies are used to the limit. An incentive structure for networking and collaborating
on the transnational level should probably be established to meet the need for
clustering and sharing of knowledge.
Finally, in view of the outcome and the many very rewarding interviews with engaged
stakeholders on all levels we will summarise the conclusions in three short proposals
for different paths to take in a short and a mid-term period:
bv01e 2005-05-27
•
Continue with the present model and strengthen coordination and facilitation in
order to meet the need of information and improved implementation of the Action
Plan. A data-base with the possibility to match individual projects with funding
sources should be established. The clear commitment from the Member states
07.10.2011
33 (35)
will be crucial to strengthen the roles of the Priority Area Coordinators and the
National Contact Persons.
Another way of proceeding could be to complement with additional instruments.
One or several instruments would focus on supporting longer-term strategic
processes over longer time periods. The instrument(s) would be established on
transnational level and would allow for private sector involvement complemented
by the initiatives taken by the EIB and the EIF.
•
A more comprehensive approach could be taken when this is allowed, probably
only in the beginning of a new programme period. An instrument dedicated to the
implementation is financed by contributions/transfers from all relevant EU
programmes in the region. The instrument is tailor-made for the strategy and
borrows features from the JASPERS initiative in its way of working with annual
work plans agreed by the MS and coaching of projects from preparation to
implementation. The BEMIP model could also be used as a model for joining EUlevel financial means and goals with the macro-regional context and matching
with regional funding.
bv01e 2005-05-27
•
07.10.2011
34 (35)
List of interview partners
bv01e 2005-05-27
5
07.10.2011
35 (35)

Final Report Financial needs study

Transcription

Similar documents

Startschuss für internationales Ostseeprojekt „baltic green baltic“

Wednesday, Dec. 12, 11 am to 1 pm Texins Activity Center

WE MANUFACTURE AND SUPPLY SURGICAL,

Miecys Group Corporate presentation

Programme

Student Partnership Agreement - St Mary`s University, Twickenham

Miecys Group Corporate presentation

TCS1800 - TCS Audio

Kenban-do¯ , the Japanese name of the store, means "The Hall of

IPO Process and Listing Recent Experience from the Baltic States