4 Lessons learnt

4.1 Conclusions and recommendations of external evaluations

A mid-term1 and a final2 evaluation of the EEA and Norway Grants scheme for the period 2004–09 were conducted. External evaluations were also made of the efforts to involve Norwegian partners,3 and the donors’ organisation of the work.4 The Norwegian cooperation programme with Bulgaria and Romania was evaluated separately, with a focus on partnership.5 The implementation and results of the grant scheme in the various priority areas were also evaluated externally. These evaluations, which are discussed in Chapter 3, served as valuable input when the objectives for the new period were being drawn up.

Three main areas for improvements were identified:

• More systematic facilitation of partnerships with Norwegian actors

• More focused efforts

• Better risk management

4.2 More systematic facilitation of partnerships with Norwegian actors

4.2.1 A firm basis in the agreements with the EU

One of the difficulties in the efforts to involve Norwegian actors in projects during the 2004–09 period was that the principle of partnership was not laid down in the agreements with the EU on the EEA and Norway Grants. A relatively large number of partnership projects were established, but the evaluations showed that the quality and the content of the cooperation varied considerably, from loosely linked networks to lasting cooperation and substantial knowledge transfers.

When Bulgaria and Romania joined the EEA in 2007, financial mechanisms were established for these countries as well. In Norway’s agreement with the EU for the period 2007–09 it was stated that all projects under the Norway Grants scheme should have a Norwegian partner. The Norway Grants scheme was administered by Innovation Norway, to which potential Norwegian partners addressed their applications. For Norway, it has been important to ensure a common understanding that the EEA and Norway Grants are also intended to strengthen bilateral relations between Norway and the beneficiary states, and this principle was included in the negotiations with the EU on the EEA and Norway Grants for 2009–14. On the basis of experience gained in the previous funding period, a new model for both sets of grants was developed. This provides opportunities for long-term, strategic cooperation in fields where Norway has significant interests, while at the same time leaving room for ad-hoc contacts in other areas as well.

4.2.2 Programme cooperation

An important tool for strengthening relations with the beneficiary states has been to define key programmes as donor partnership programmes. The programmes in question are specified in the MoUs with the individual countries.

In deciding on programme areas with the individual countries, Norway has focused on areas that are of special interest to Norwegian authorities, such as correctional services and environmental management in Poland, correctional services in Lithuania, and asylum and migration in Greece. The intention of the donor partnership programmes is that Norwegian expertise should be involved in the strategic development of the programmes and the exchange of knowledge and best practices during implementation, and provide advice on the selection of projects. The aim is that these knowledge exchanges and contacts will pave the way for further cooperation after the programme has been completed.

Norwegian government agencies facilitate contact between Norwegian companies, research institutions, NGOs and other bodies, and possible partners in the beneficiary states. For example Innovation Norway is currently facilitating cooperation with Norwegian companies on green innovation in seven countries. In total, more than 20 Norwegian agencies are involved as donor programme partners, and their expenses are covered by the EEA and Norway Grants scheme.

4.2.3 Project partnerships

Efforts are being made to ensure that Norwegian companies, NGOs, the social partners, research, education and cultural institutions, and other actors have the opportunity to participate in relevant projects. This applies primarily to cooperation between equal partners, for example between a Norwegian company and a company in a beneficiary state, or between two cultural institutions. In projects involving government agencies in the beneficiary states, the rules for public procurement apply. Experience in 2004–09 showed that it was difficult to involve Norwegian companies, and programmes specifically targeted at the business sector have therefore been introduced for the new period. In the area of green industry innovation, projects without Norwegian partners are only approved in exceptional cases.

Projects dealing with research and cultural exchanges are also required to have Norwegian partners. Great importance is attached to involving Norwegian municipalities in programmes that focus on local and regional development.

4.2.4 Networking and knowledge exchange

The agreements with the EU states that the EEA and Norway Grants for 2009–14 are intended to strengthen bilateral relations, and this should be made an objective for all the programmes, including those that do not have a Norwegian donor programme partner. Thus 1.5 % of all programme budgets is set aside for promoting contact with Norway in the relevant areas. The funds are used for participation in courses and seminars, efforts to find a Norwegian project partner, contact with Norwegian experts and similar activities. At the national level a further 0.5 % of the total allocation to each beneficiary state is devoted to promoting further contact and cooperation with Norway.

Thus the new model, consisting of partnership programmes and funds earmarked for cooperation with Norway, has strengthened the bilateral aspect of the EEA and Norway Grants.

4.3 More focused efforts

The final evaluation of the EEA and Norway Grants for 2004–09 concluded that the projects had largely achieved their goals and had had spin-off effects in local communities. Visible effects at national level in some areas were also found, for example in the area of support and development of civil society. In other areas, where only a few, scattered projects had been conducted, the total effects were less visible at the national or sectoral level.

An important objective of the EEA and Norway Grants scheme for 2009–14 is to ensure that the efforts in the individual sectors and beneficiary states are more comprehensive and coordinated. Although the sectors eligible for support were specified in the agreement with the EU, they were very broadly defined. Therefore, in cooperation with the relevant ministries, NGOs, the social partners and the Association of Local and Regional Authorities in Norway, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs defined the priority areas and objectives for each sector more explicitly and on this basis determined appropriate programme areas. The programme areas were then used as the framework for the negotiations with the individual state.

Prior to negotiating with the beneficiary states, the Norwegian authorities assessed which states had the greatest potential for cooperation with Norwegian partners. For example they concluded that the Norwegian business sector would be interested in cooperating on green industry innovation with companies in the three Baltic states. It has also been important to make sure that the EEA and Norway Grants are actually supporting and complementing national strategies in the beneficiary countries. During the negotiations it was recognised that the financial crisis had increased the need for funding in many social sectors, and several of the countries expressed a wish for the allocations to be distributed over a larger number of sectors. This has meant that in certain countries the support has been less focused than was originally intended. The agreed distribution of funds between the sectors was confirmed in the MoUs with each beneficiary state.

4.4 Better risk management

The mid-term report on the EEA and Norway Grants for 2004–09 pointed out that the highly comprehensive nature of the control mechanisms had impeded progress. It recommended that the risk assessments should take the differences between the countries into account, and that greater use should be made of other partners’ risk and capacity assessments. Statskonsult (the Directorate for Communication and Public Management)6 reviewed the administration of the Grants and concluded that although comprehensive measures had been taken to reduce the risk of corruption and fraud, these had used up considerable administrative resources.

To provide a better basis for risk assessment, Norway entered into a partnership agreement with Transparency International (TI) on analysing the risk of corruption in most of the beneficiary states.7 The analyses are undertaken by the TI national chapters. This enables the donor states to concentrate their resources for follow-up and control on areas where the risks are greatest. The analyses also make the beneficiary states more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their institutions, which can have positive effects on administration in the beneficiary states over and above that of administering the Grants. TI has developed tools for risk assessment for programmes and projects related to the EEA and Norway Grants. On request by the donors the organisation will make use of the tools and follow up the implementation of particularly high-risk programmes.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has consulted with external expertise to quality assure its own risk management procedures for the EEA and Norway Grants, and the donor states have developed a risk management strategy based on advice from an international firm of auditors.8 The donors will also clarify the degree of risk they are willing to accept in order to achieve the objectives of the individual programme area and in the individual beneficiary country.

4.4.1 Major risk factors

There are great differences in the degree and type of risk between the beneficiary states. Weak administration in a state entails a risk that objectives will not be achieved, that funds will be mismanaged and that there will be a lack of transparency and compliance with rules and legislation. In some states new contact persons are appointed when there is a change of government, which can delay implementation. Political changes may also weaken ownership of established programmes.

In times of economic crisis it can be difficult to ensure that projects are sustainable. Cuts in public budgets can result in delayed payment of co-financing obligations in local and regional projects. When companies find it difficult to obtain credit there is a risk that private-sector projects will fail. The risk factors are assessed for each country, and developments will be monitored throughout the programme period.

The changeover from funding individual projects to supporting larger-scale programmes was decided in response to clear recommendations in the external evaluations and in cooperation with the European Commission. The advantage of programmes is that this form of support is more effective and facilitates performance management. However, it also involves more complex planning and management procedures in the beneficiary states, thus increasing the risk of delays and irregularities. In order to remedy this, the programme operators and the national coordinating authorities (National Focal Points) have followed a training programme and control mechanisms have been established.

The type of risk also varies with the programme area. Programmes for civil society involve different types of risk from those targeted at the public sector. One of the objectives of the NGO programmes is to strengthen the participation and influence of vulnerable groups, and if this is to be successful, the organisations representing these groups must be involved in the work. Many of the organisations are weak and there is a risk of misuse of funds. Despite tighter control measures, this is a higher risk level that must be accepted if high-priority objectives are to be achieved. The projects targeted at the Roma people are an example of such a case.

Other types of programmes involve innovation and testing of new technology. The programmes for carbon capture and storage and for green industry innovation are examples of areas where the risks are attached to technical solutions. Here the intention is to identify and reduce the risks with the help of technical expertise. However, these are areas where there is always a danger that the objectives will not be fully achieved.

Another risk factor is poor capacity and lack of competence among programme operators and project managers. To reduce the risk, funds have been allocated to the administration of the EEA and Norway Grants in the beneficiary states, and the donor states keep in close contact with the programme operators throughout the implementation phase.

Interest and capacity among Norwegian actors are crucial to strengthening bilateral relations. Efforts were made to identify potential actors during the planning of the 2009–14 funding period. Close contact with the parties during implementation is emphasised, and Norwegian partners are required to give this aspect sufficient priority.