This here is the outtakes of a report that we’re released now recently showing the wished aspects of the EEA Grants who are most donations from the Norwegian state. The Norwegian State has had through the EEA and EFTA had a company called COWI too look through the donor-funding and the interviewing of the ones getting the allocated funds.
With this in mind are surely other who have been commenting on the matter as the Report dropped in June 2016, I just got it today. So is it right? This is my take on it and here are the quotes that are significant to me and the process and overlook of the use of funds.
How much money at stake:
“The allocation of funds is channelled through 150 programmes within 32 programme areas in 16 beneficiary countries. For the period 2009-14, approximately 1.8 billion EUR were set aside under the grants. During the same period, the Norway Grants supported 61 programmes in the 13 EU Member States that joined in 2004, 2007 and 20133 respectively, and the EEA Grants supported 86 programmes in those countries as well as in Greece, Spain and Portugal. The allocation of funds to the countries is based on population size and GDP per capita” (EFTA, P:17, 2016).
“The aim of the mid-term evaluation is to assess to what extent and in which way the EEA/Norway Grants contribute to strengthening bilateral relations between donor and beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:18, 2016).
The Norwegian OAG report in 2013:
“The OAG found that bilateral efforts were not sufficiently planned and communicated at the starting phase of the 2009-14 funding period and that e.g. the key guidance documents were finalised too late” (…) “The audit expects that bilateral relations in the 2009-14 funding period will be better safeguarded than during the previous period given the fact that the current 23 Norwegian DPPs have entered into donor programme partnerships with programme operators in the beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:34-35, 2016).
Joint Research Projects:
“Possibly due to the fact that in the research field, international funding is available for joint research projects from for example the large EU programmes Horizon, etc. This kind of funding is not available to other sectors. The benefits in terms of developing international and EU networks and learning about international initiatives in research are very clear. The EEA and Norway Grants support these processes by being an important contributor and often facilitating a first international cooperation for both parties. However, the evaluation also shows that such networks and cooperation cannot always continue after the expiration of the external funding” (EFTA, P:49, 2016).
Implementation of Norway Grants:
“A number of countries have decided to use the same system for implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants as they use for the EU structural funds. Programme and project stakeholders find that the structural funds system is too bureaucratic and that the financial rules are too cumbersome. The national system for implementation of structural funds and related procedures may not be very relevant to a partner/bilateral relation focused programme, especially when this programme includes a donor project partner, who has a hard time complying with the checks and balances of EU Member State structural fund programmes. Programmes in the Research and Scholarship sector regret the decision not to use ERASMUS+ procedures” (EFTA, P:56, 2016).
Allocation to the projects:
“99.3% of the total funds have been allocated to the five focus countries, and 42.9% of total programme funds have been incurred to date. The share of incurred funds varies across the five countries from 35.6% in Romania to 56.4% in Estonia” (EFTA, P: 63, 2016).
One Slovakian project – Project title: Pro Monumenta:
” The project entitled Pro Monumenta is a cooperation between Pamiatkový úrad SR (The Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic), who is the project controller and Riksantikvaren (The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage under the Ministry of Environment). The two institutions first established contact back in 2010 based on a Slovak initiative financed by the Ministry of Culture” (…) “The project was implemented from 1 January 2014 and was scheduled to terminate on 30 March 2016. The main goal of Pro Monumenta in Slovakia is to establish and equip three mobile teams with the capacity to identify and repair easy-to-mend defects at historic monuments, which have led or may lead to deterioration (including basic roof repairs, repairs to chimneys, rainwater drains, fixing of lightning conductors). Major damage identified in the project is documented in a monument technical report, which is stored electronically in a common database” (…) “In this case, the Norwegian partner mainly learns from Slovak experiences and approaches to the implementation of such activities. However, the Norwegian partner also supports the project through its human and technical expertise, such as through an expert from Nasjonele Fervardung, who is expected to arrive to Slovakia to conduct workshops for team members on monument conservation and repairs within a given area” (…) “The project is a clear example of the great contextual and bilateral potential of the programme, if properly implemented. According to the assessment by the project coordinators the project impacts are visible both in Slovakia and Norway (establishment of the formal programmes in the project area) and as Mr. Reznik summarized: “The project significantly improved bilateral co-operation between Norwegian and Slovak experts in the area – especially because it focused on an area of the common interest” (EFTA, P: 67, 2016).
How it is in Latvia and Estonia:
“One explanation for this may be found in Latvia, where some stakeholders indicated that since the bilateral objective is included in the MoU, cooperation is therefore embedded at programme level in most programmes. Since most programmes, particularly in Latvia and Estonia, also have a DPP, the programmes automatically focus on the bilateral relations. This may indicate a tendency for the bilateral aspect to become somewhat formalistic, along the lines of ‘we have a DPP therefore our programme adheres to the bilateral objective’, rather than it being a matter of content and mutual results” (…) “In Estonia, for instance, one indicator has been used in half of the programmes, namely the mandatory indicator “Number of project partnership agreements in the beneficiary public sector”. In more than 30% of the Estonian programmes, no indicator has been used, including the two other mandatory indicators “Number of project partnership agreements in beneficiary civil society” and “…in the beneficiary private sector”. These two indicators have both been used in only 10% of the programmes in 2016. Most programmes are required to make use of at least one of the three obligatory indicators, yet if adding together the top three lines of Table 5-6 for each country, it can be seen that some shares do not sum to 100%. This may be explained by the fact that there are programmes that do not require partnerships, and in some programmes it has not been possible to find relevant partners” (EFTA, P: 69-70, 2016).
“The overall conclusion on the efficiency of EEA and Norway Grants is that a number of dedicated tools to develop bilateral relations at programme and project level have been introduced. Most of these tools directly support the work of the programmes and projects towards developing bilateral partnership relations, shared results, knowledge and understanding and wider effects. DPPs, bilateral funds and donor project partners all support this goal. The main issue for DPPs and donor project partners is securing the availability of a sufficient number of partners to meet the demand. The main hindering factor identified across the programmes and projects is the administrative procedures (complicated, slow and time consuming) in the beneficiary countries and the fact that the systems used by the beneficiary states are very different systems. Another significant factor identified is the time frame of projects, which due to a late start-up of programmes, can have a very short implementation period” (EFTA, P: 117, 2016).
Clarify the reporting of the projects:
“It is recommended that more instruction be given on the expected contents of reporting on the bilateral objective to avoid the current wide variations in reporting practice and style and the non-informative focus on bilateral activities. It is also recommended that the programme reports include the bilateral indicators selected for the programme. It is suggested that the example of one of the focus countries (Estonia) is adopted. In Estonia, the bilateral indicators are annexed to the report, complete with a justification/explanation of why they were chosen” (EFTA, P: 121, 2016).
Recommendation for bilateral projects:
“It is recommended that focus be directed towards the predefined projects under the bilateral national funds. As mentioned above, the predefined projects provide an interesting opportunity for strategic level cooperation. It is unclear whether the calls” at national level for smaller cooperation projects provide added value. Therefore, it is recommended that such calls be differentiated, either in terms of topic or timing, from the bilateral funds at programme level in order to for them to serve a real function (demand/meet a need)” (EFTA P: 121-122, 2016).
Recommendation for bilateral projects II:
“It is also recommended to standardise implementation systems and rules so that every programme does not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ (and spend a lot of time doing this). Especially DPPs working on the same programme type in several beneficiary countries could benefit from similar/aligned rules of implementation” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).
Recommendation for bilateral projects III:
“Particularly, data relevant to monitoring and assessment of the bilateral objective (results) are difficult to extract from some of the reports. Hence, the evaluator recommends that reporting requirements be standardised and clearly communicated to all relevant stakeholders (i.e. what content is required under which headings)” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).
This here proves that actually the monies that going to the Projects are well-used, but those estimates are issued and checked in the same ways, not specifically different between the Educational or other more industrial collaboration between the Donor-Nations and the representatives.
The COWI report are clear on the levels of ability to use the funds, but have questions of finding clear partners for the projects as the allocation of funds is not an issue. That is mostly put on the spot and paid to the partner program either by the direct from Norwegian grants or by the EEA grants that are fuelled by most of the Norwegian donations. Therefore the monies to the nations and projects are arriving.
The indication of the efficiencies and the learning of the projects are different from what type of Norwegian organization is behind the collaborate effort, as much as the donor nation and the projects are proof of the development and goals of the projects that are funded this way. So they are properly examined and not like with this report they are settled with the same systems and with no consideration of the extent or the actual field they we’re prospecting. So the numbers and the proof of results are questionable. Even if the funds are used and the certain results are visible in certain cultural and historical aspects; we can still question the validity of the results be one-fits all like socks when we talking learning-projects, refurbishing old artefacts and even bilateral corporation one set subject.
The indication of that each separate project under the funding have been using lot of time to find ways of implementing the collaborative effort and finding Norwegian partners for the projects funding through the grants; also how they are supposed to work to fulfil the degrees of plans that have to be there to be able to get funding through the EEA and Norwegian Grants. Also the question under how the outsider COWI struggled with understanding and getting the capacity to see the value of some of the results in some reports from the projects as they we’re all written in different ways and different lengths. Show’s the capacity of streamlining the production of reports and the evaluation of the funding through the bilateral projects as the methods of explaining is and can be hard get the data that is needed to tell the story of the projects. Therefore the methods of reporting need to change and maybe even be in one standard, so the EEA, the bilateral partners and the donors can show their success and value for money. Something that the citizens for both the organizations getting the funds and also the donors who needs to prove that the money is not wasted abroad… something that is key reason for the report to show the progress of the grants in the first place. Peace.
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Financial Mechanism Office (FMO) – ‘Mid-term evaluation of the support to strengthened bilateral relations under the EEA and Norway Grants FINAL REPORT’ (June 2016) link: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/17c16170595b473ab59c7edc5c0208a7/2016-evaluering-bilaterale-relasjoner.pdf
Gianni Pittella said: “This is no time for polemics. This is a historic event, we need clarity. Do we get clarity from the Brexit side? Difficult to see why all of a sudden there’s no clarity.” (European Parliament, 2016).
There are many of these days when one Member State have taken the vote to leave the Almighty European Union and their Organizations. This is rare occasion that shows the ramifications on the European continent. The leadership of Europe and Britain will be tested and go through fire, what we as Europeans can hope for is humility from the different partners and regulators. The Nobility of President of the European Parliament Jean-Claude Juncker shows of a man who has been punched in the stomach and tries to sustain the honor of fellow kin; while the others in Parliament we’re either ignorant, pan-Eurocentric or just wanting to speak of honoring the vote of confidence of other Eurosceptic. This is the start of the solution.
As the MEP spoke, this is how the Plenary Meeting we’re presented:
“The European Parliament held an extraordinary plenary session in Brussels on Tuesday 28 June for MEPs to discuss and vote on a resolution assessing the outcome of the UK referendum and its consequences for the European Union. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Council representatives also took part” (European Parliament, 2016).
The Northern Ireland MEP Martina Anderson said:
“There was a democratic vote, we voted to remain [in Northern Ireland]. I tell you, the last thing that the people of Ireland needs is an EU border with 27 member states, stuck right in the middle of it” (…)”The EU has supported our peace process,” she said. “I ask you to continue to do that” (…) “MEPS like Diane Dodds and Marine Le Pen would say that we in the North of Ireland are bound by a UK vote. We say we are not. Like the previous MEP Mr Smith, we ask you to respect our vote. We stand by the vote of the people from the North of Ireland, just like Scotland which voted remain. We accept, we respect and we will defend the wishes of the people of the North of Ireland.” (European Parliament, 2016).
The Scottish MEP Alyn Smith said:
“While I am proudly Scottish, I am also proudly European. Please remember Scotland did not let you down and I beg you colleagues, do not let Scotland down now.” (European Parliament, 2016).
The English MEP Nigel Farage Said:
“The United Kingdom will not be the last member State to leave the European Union.
“It is up to the British Government to invoke article 50. And I have to say that I do not think that we should spend too long in doing it” (…) “What I’d just be pragmatic, sensible, grown-up, realistic, and let’s get between us a sensible tariff-free deal and thereafter recognise that the United Kingdom will be your friend, that we will trade with you, we will cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world. But do that sensibly and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future” (…) “The only upheaval is political upheaval where we see the Prime Minister resigned and indeed the British Commissioner Lord Hill resigned. They both have done so for the right reasons. You never know, we might be getting rid of the Labour Party Leader as well. But upheavals in politics can actually be a very healthy and very good thing” (European Parliament, 2016).
The Answer from President Jean-Claude Juncker:
““You can’t leave a nation up to its nationalists. You have to respect the nations, but you don’t need to respect the nationalists, they are not patriots, they are anti-Europeans. They are not patriots at all.” (…) “The UK didn’t vote on austerity policies, they didn’t vote on the protection of external borders. The UK is not a member of the euro zone, so the euro policies does not apply to the UK. The UK is not a part of the Schengen area so the United Kingdom is a master of its own borders.” (European Parliament, 2016).
First rebuttal from Nigel Farage:
“”Isn’t it funny? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say you are not laughing now, are you?” (…) “And the reason you are so upset, the reason you are so angry has been perfectly clear from all the angry exchanges this morning: you, as a political project, are in denial. You are in denial that your currency is failing, you are in denial… well, just look at the Mediterranean.” (European Parliament, 2016).
First Rebuttal from Jean-Claude Juncker:
“I am sad after the vote in the UK. I really would have liked that the UK would have decided to stay with us but they decided differently” (…) “I’m sad because I’m not a robot, a bureaucrat or a technocrat. I’m a human being and I regret the results of the referendum” (…) “I would like the UK to clarify its position. We cannot allow ourselves a prolong time of uncertainty period. There won’t be secret negotiations. No notification, no negotiation” (…) “We need to reassure Europeans. Our flight continues, our journey continues” (European Parliament, 2016).
The European Parliament President Martin Schulz:
“The will of the majority of citizens of the United Kingdom must be done. It has to be respected and that is why we will be looking today intensively at the issue of Article 50 and its triggering.” (European Parliament, 2016).
If these words don’t prove something, then nothing does. We can see the liability of the vote and now the fragile situation that is created between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Certainly the situation does not become better with the consideration and rhetoric used by either UKIP Nigel Farage or European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The words between UKIP leader and European Commission President we’re not worthy of Parliament, reasons why I didn’t address the Le Pen or other ‘Nationalist’ who wants to coin in on the current affairs instead of creating progress. I am not a man who supports the EU, but still see the value of integrity and transparency between the counter-parts of Europe and collaboration of the Union.
With that in mind, the Northern Ireland and Scottish MEPs represented their constituency with honor and also respecting the vote, still wishing to be taken serious as people and voters who wanted to ‘Remain’, they proved the hard task of Nobility towards the Brexit Referendum in the whole United Kingdom and their own constituency, a reason alone why the other MEPs respected their words and character. While after this, Nigel Farage continued his flabbergasting words and acting as brute, instead of happy victor with some clarity. Farage was like a kid who finally gotten his candy he had nagged for the whole car-trip. Instead of being a Politician with humility and trying to commend the Union, as he forgets or trips on the escape button; like Farage doesn’t know that the levels for leaving the Union the rubberstamp by the fellow MEPs who are responsible to accept the agreement between UK and EU in the near future.
While Jean-Claude Juncker is a disappointment, he can be right about how he perceive the Union, but the doubt of the centralized organization of Brussels that many Europeans have a problem with, and doesn’t need to be nationalist or right-wing separatist, more about the question on being Sovereign, which is major question towards the EU. But, his attitude and quarrel with Farage, doesn’t make him look bigger, instead like a little kid losing his favorite toy. That is not the look the ‘aftermath’ of the UK referendum needs.
What the Italian MEP Gianni Pittella said was spot on, as the Italian sees the big picture and the accurate vivid the uncertainty and needed for clarifications on the United Kingdom and the EU leaving as the Member State of the Union. The Italian are representing something refreshing and other in the debate, as the Scottish and Northern Ireland MEPs are respectable, but also wishing to be considering as special candidates for Membership in the future it seems. This is as the England and Wales population; we’re the majority voted on the whole of referendum. While the other we’re either biased for the Nationalistic or Eurocentric that the ideas of addressing it with equal sense and clarity, instead of being there to act upon the decision made by the British public with care and honor. Certainly some like EU Commission President Juncker acted wrong… he acted with the sense and talked with caution instead of childish towards Farage, there would be a better taste in my mouth as an outsider.
But let me not forget what MEP Greens Belgium Phillippe Lamberts: “No wall will be high enough and thick enough to isolate Europe from the challenges of the 21st century” (…) “Today you can only have sovereignty if you share that sovereignty” (European Parliament, 2016).
We can question the future and how this will end, if the EU negotiations towards the UK will be in the fashion of the Commission President, then the Farage should take care of his words, while the bureaucracies on both sides have to be solid and clear on their programs, as the monetary policies and the exclusions from the current programs from the EU will hit the UK with unknown consequence, as the EEA or other possible tangible ways in the Single-Market of Europe still will be on the line. The matter of the tone and progression as respectable men should be in the end the level of concern between the negotiators.
What is worrying that the level of attitude from men likes Nigel Farage, not that I am shocked as he does have the con-man, the fraudster and the snake-oil salesman smile and attitude that cannot be taken away from him. The United Kingdom must hope they send some talented and wise consular towards the European Union when they are pushing the Article 50 and triggering the 2 Year time-table to become a Non Member State. This is a reform and reformation takes time and UK need to take their time. While EU has to prove their Community and their Peace Project worthy and Juncker was not that today, I am disgusted by him and also by Farage, but Farage was more to expect then Juncker. Peace.
European Parliament – ‘UK referendum: European Parliament debate on outcome and consequences’ (28.06.2016 – 10:00 CET) link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160627STO33965/UK-referendum-MEPs-debate-outcome-and-consequences
“Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel and President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker were among the European leaders who arrived in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss how the EU deals with the implications of the UK’s referendum result” (Ruptly TV, 2016).
“Reports of hate crime have risen by 57% since the results of the vote for the UK to leave the European Union were cast on 23 June” (Sky News, 2016)
“U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with his British counterpart Phillip Hammond and said that the Brexit vote will help sharpen debates across Europe over countries’ relationship with the EU. Photo: AP” (Wall Street Journal, 2016)
“So it is not in the interest of Britain to get out of this terrible Europe,” (…) ”So by leaving the EU while staying in the Single Market, you’re effectively deferring to an alien force in Brussels which is collapsing because you’ve left. How clever is that?” – Yannis Varoufakis (4th March 2016, yanisvaroufakis.eu).
This is a landmark day in the United Kingdom and Europe. I know the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the other immigration scaremongers will celebrate their ‘victory’. Let me be clear, I have never liked the European Union or the way it have had the ability to control the Europe from Brussels. So I am far from the men and woman who fears the unknown and the immigrants that are fleeing from war, conflict and economic instability elsewhere, something that has happen all through human history.
I have not enjoyed how the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democratic Party ways of addressing the Brexit either, as they have nearly said in so many words that the United Kingdom if they voted for departure from Brussels they would become a pariah state and closer to closure of the trades between the British Islands and the rest of Europe. Like all of a sudden the Multi-National Companies and the flow of international monies to the City of London would stop overnight… Something I doubt, because the greed of the economy and the international corporations would like to still sell fizzy-water and pre-made stew to the British consumer.
The idea that the Remain was so sure that their tactic of pulling numbers and using the moral high-ground and certainty that the United Kingdom’s population would all follow the line of the current leadership, was a high risk, as there been dissidents and growing insecurity as the NHS and others benefits been cut through austerity and the fear-mongering of European free-riders in the Kingdom have continued. Something that PM David Cameron have known about all-along and accept while Finance Minister George Osborne have smiled and grinned showed stats on Sky News and made assumptions that if UK joins Norway, Iceland and Switzerland they would end up with the Stone Age Economics instead of the hedge-fund infused laisses faire economy of our day.
The Brexit will have ripple-effect and the far-right movements will strive on their recent victory, though the ones like me who stands for Sovereign nations and Sovereign rights. They are another place in reality than the ones who fears the immigrants and eats on it. The vultures and culture fearing people who have then thinking that the Europe will be better with only ‘traditional’ Europeans. They have in my opinion lost the plot and misunderstanding the matters at hand.
“Today, there are speculative forces in the markets much bigger and more powerful. And they will be eager to exploit any miscalculations by the British government or British voters,” – George Soros
The Remain have forced itself with Economic numbers that can be questioned. The matter of the instability and currency of the British Pound, while the voting in different areas proves that the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Scottish Islands voted to Remain, while major areas like Wales and England in majority voted to exit the European Union. So that David Cameron resign with the loss, while waiting for Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party Leader fate is not yet signed.
While Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson will be all giddy. They have a giant victory on their hand, but created a uncertainty about the negotiations between the UK Government and the EU Commissions, EU Parliament and the EU Organizations towards the new positions of being a bystander to the bureaucracies of Brussels.
The ability of independent Islands and the closeness for the British to the continent have always been a strange relationship in their politics, from the far-fetched Tudor dynasties into the modern day, where they want the EU monies, but want to be controlling borders with all kind of tools, instead of the freedom of movement people from the continent towards the British Islands. As the Government of UK have done all kind of investment in Calais to secure that they can find illegal immigrations through the transport there and the UKIP and other have said there no-control of the cars and lorries there. So the scares and fear politics have been staggering.
That U.S. President Obama, which Germany Chancellor Merkel and other heavy-weights have at some point said that the UK should stay in EU, the initial response has been that the UK would be better off in the Union. Something that is expected as the Germany is the one who have had Iron-Fist on Brussels, while taming the Greek counterparts and meddling in their affairs while the Greek country have had to sell their silver for fiscal loans from the EU and IMF. The Grexit would have also caused turmoil, but not in the same level of Brexit.
Brexit is a more central economy in Europe and have a clearer place in the Union, therefore they have special position and also could decide to swallow laws and swallow regulation from Brussels. Now they will be negotiations between the UK and EU as their new role in the Brussels organizations and the EU Parliament.
European Union would not like this and have been expressed that they will not give in to the demands of United Kingdom if they would vote against the Union. That is expected that the Union would play hardball after being stripped of the title and losing one of their high-graded members, as they have all along during the recent years tried to get more on board, now they lost a key-member as the United Kingdom.
The Brexit will create a new Europe, as one of the key political forces and economic centres like London will be left more alone and trade their new reality with the European Union, as they will follow the will of the People, they will be in a place like the Norwegian, Swiss, Icelanders and other smaller nations that are partly in the EU and on the Outside at the same time.
The EU does not want to lose the City of London and the business centres of the United Kingdom, while the UK Government and the Parliament of Whitehall have to respond with cautions and mark the future policies from British and the European Union. European Union have for long acted without honour towards the nations who have struggled after the recession of 2008 and acted with fierce fiscal policies while the German and French have come better out of the negotiations.
This is now the role and the ability of people’s will, together with determined politicians from Britain that can determine the fate of the British Pound, the British Commonwealth and the distance between Britain and the rest of Europe, as they will try to find their path after a critical vote on economics and sovereign questions. The henchmen and the strength of the kingdom can only be clear as long as they restrict their rhetoric and take the high-road.
United Kingdom and the British people together with their relevance on the continent; as United Kingdom will try to find their new place in Europe and in European business, together with the trade-agreements and other allies on the continent as the new day will bring new questions and new forged agreements to settle the disputed withdrawal from the European Union. Peace.