The Inventory of the Projects

 
Implementation and Main Results
30.6.1998


 

The Implementation of the inventory

A central objective of the LOCREGIS project was to make an inventory of local and regional information society projects in the new member states of the EU. A task was an essential one as such but also because results of the inventory formed a basis for other project results.
 
 

The local and regional information society projects?

 In the beginning of LOCREGIS a concept of information society project was clear to all the project partners – their viewpoints differed from each other only slightly. An inventory changed these outlooks on information society projects and made the work more difficult. It was influenced at least by the following factors:

  
Projects are often networked hierarchically. A part of them are only utilised as umbrellas for administrating other projects, and they do not have any practical project goals.
Wide national projects have various regional subprojects which role is not clear in the overall picture.
Projects are transregional. In these cases it is difficult to evaluate financing and results of projects only as seen from one region. For example, a group of its own is formed by projects of the Framework Programme, which are also nationally difficult to evaluate.
Especially in Finland and Sweden they are several wider regional projects which cover most of the sectors and target groups.
Financial regulations of projects are very heterogeneous. This concerns especially decisions made on the grounds of the Structural Funds. For example 6-8 separate decisions has been made only for one project because a project covered two regions and was funded by several Objective programmes. In these cases both a name and the contents of project often vary from decision to decision. Sometimes the authorities also make decisions on project financing only for a year at a time so a financial structure and project costs are not necessarily final in the application or in the first decision.
In practice almost fifth of the projects which are in the LOCREGIS database have been examined in greater detail during the implementation of LOCREGIS. In several cases a difference between official financial decisions and implementation of projects is considerable, at least if an examination is made from structured point of view expected in the database. Often preliminary project plans were also officially changed during implementation period lasting several years.
For the inventory LOCREGIS developed own definition of local and regional information society projects, but already in the very beginning the definition of the European Survey of Information Society ESIS was widely accepted to resolve the problem between the information society project and the more traditional use of the information technology:
 
the projects are using data processing and telecommunications technologies to support innovative methods of communication between members of society for a wide range of purposes e.g. 
education and training
healthcare and social care
culture
administration
industry and commerce
research and development etc. 
The projects may concern a large number of social and economic sectors and be initiated by (national), regional, public and private organisations"
 
 
 

Updating the database

 
The actual entry of data was started in December 1996. As the first LOCREGIS seminar was held in Kuusamo in January 1997, the database was ready to be used and presented in the seminar.

The original plan was that in the end of the first phase in March 1997 the database would have had enough projects to analyse the regional situation. More information on projects from various sources and programmes was gathered in order to ensure that the planned analysis was based on all the relevant information.

The entry of data to the database was delayed with 2-3 months from the original timetable due to some changes of personnel resources. The first analyses with adequate regional validity were possible just in the end of May 1997. Preliminary analyses, which turned out to be of quite good validity, were possible to be made also before the aforementioned time.

Already at the beginning of the project was noted that official financing decisions alone would not have offered enough information and would have led to wrong regional conclusions. However, examination of these decisions and entering the data to the database took most of the time available for this work.

Existing inventories offered only little support because projects were not examined from regional point of view or regional development was not stressed enough in order to derive advantage from the results. Naturally, these inventories offered a lot of additional information. One of the most important inventories to LOCREGIS during its final stages was European Survey on Information Society, ESIS, cofinanced by the ISPO. Co-operation between ESIS and LOCREGIS succeeded well, for example:
 
Practical co-operation at national level in collection of information on projects. Both projects LOCREGIS and ESIS got benefit from each other databases.
From March 1998 the ESIS database has been at the same server, the server of the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities than the LOCREGIS database. Both databases have been able to benefit from same database and search applications.
Internet has been a significant source of information in gathering information on projects, almost as important as financial decisions. A special feature concerning Finland could be mentioned; financial decisions of several Finnish regions and all projects funded by the Social Fund can also be found in Internet.
 
 

Evaluation of the database

During the work as good project information as possible was aimed at to be gathered from the most important target areas, Objective 1 and 6 regions, and less information was collected on projects belonging to other areas. It was also important to get at least a name and a description from as many projects as possible. As more information was later found on projects the information in the database was completed.

It is clear, that this inventory is not complete. There are several good projects, which have not received any official funding and have no aim to be well known. In some few cases the projects were not willing to have any information at all in the database. And especially in countries like Austria, Finland and Sweden the situation is changing fast and without continuos maintenance the database is particularly for analysing purposes very soon out-of-date.
 

The main defectiveness in the database is without question the lack of projects of the private sector financed mainly directly only by themselves. Using the definition of the information society project mentioned above, it is probable that especially in the Nordic countries it is as such a question of a large number of missing projects, but that the analyses are emphasized on public sector.

 

The Results of the Inventory

 
 

Summary

 
 

Summary of project results is based on information of the database as it was in the mid-April 1998. After that time new projects have been added but not in so large amount that they would change the results to be presented here. The database will stay accessible and new information can be added also after the actual implementation period of LOCREGIS.
 

Summary by countries is presented in the following table:

 
 
 
Austria
Finland
Sweden
Total MECU
62
158
268
Projects
144
408
457
Average MECU
0.43
0.25
0.59
Private funding %
36
11
14
Local and regional funding %
43
41
43
EU funding %
20
26
21
Other funding %
1
22
22
 

The average size of the projects is smallest in Finland. In Sweden the projects are more than double larger. The private funding sources are used in Austria more than in other two countries. On the other hand Nordic member states have more national funding possibilities.
 

 
 

Target Sectors of the Projects

 

Addressing a variety of business and social needs, projects are targeted at several sectors. More precisely, the analysis of the database shows that 42% of projects have education as their main focus and 36% have training activities in their scope, showing that education and training is a great concern in the regional and local IS development. However, private activities (private sector, business development, business-life) are ranked at the second place, with 40% of projects. The less favoured sectors (equal or less than 4%) are teledemocracy, transports, environment, GIS, agriculture, strategies, libraries and tourism.

 

 

The country profiles by sector are quite similar. In Austria is less education and training than in the Nordic countries, but more often the target of the project is in enterprises.

 

 
 
 
Austria
Finland
Sweden
Total
Education
13
17
18
17
Private
22
15
15
16
Training
10
17
13
14
Public service
10
10
8
9
Infrastructure
9
6
10
8
Healthcare
4
5
7
6
Telework
9
6
3
5
Cross border
2
3
6
4
Rural areas
3
3
2
2
 
 
 

EU Programmes and the Sectors

 

The comparison of the target sectors in different EU programmes gives mostly quite natural results; agriculture is more common in Objective 6 programme and there is less education and training in the IV Framework Programme.

 
Maybe the most surprising discovery is that inside the Objective 5b programme is much projects concentrating on infrastructure, health care and public services.
 

 

Sectors of the Projects by some EU Programmes (%)

 
 
No EU Programme
Objective 6
Programme
Objective 5b
Programme
IV Framework
Programme
Agriculture
0,4
3,9
10,6
5,9
Private
15,9
25,7
57,4
35,3
Crossborders
1,9
1,1
0,0
0,0
Culture
2,8
5,0
2,1
1,5
Disabled
1,5
4,5
2,1
16,2
Education
45,7
39,1
31,9
5,9
E-Commerce
1,9
5,6
21,3
8,8
Environment
1,3
1,7
0,0
5,9
GIS
0,3
3,9
0,0
4,4
Healtcare
5,6
7,3
8,5
47,1
Infrastructure
10,0
16,2
36,2
19,1
Strategies
1,2
3,4
2,1
1,5
Library
1,3
1,1
0,0
13,2
Multimedia
2,8
3,9
4,3
8,8
Public services
9,1
19,0
42,6
51,5
Rural areas
1,6
7,8
14,9
7,4
Teledemocracy
0,7
1,1
2,1
0,0
Telework
3,7
12,8
21,3
17,6
Training
11,6
38,5
29,8
16,2
Transport
0,4
0,0
0,0
16,2
Tourism
1,2
5,0
0,0
5,9
 

 

Comparing the sectors of the Objective 6 programme in Finland and Sweden gives also some interesting differences between those two countries:

 
In Finland the telework is one of the key sectors, in Sweden not at all
In Finland the target of the project is much more common the private sector
Sweden is focusing much more on the building of the infrastructure
In Sweden most sectors are presented (also sectors like culture, environment, crossborders and teledemocracy)
In both countries there are quite few projects targeting the development of tourism
In both countries, after education and training, the public services have been one of the key areas
 

Sectors of the projects funded by Objective 6 Programme in Finland and Sweden (%)

 
 
Finland
Sweden
Agriculture
6,1
1,2
Private
32,7
16,9
Crossborders
0,0
2,4
Culture
0,0
10,8
Disabled
7,1
1,2
Education
36,7
41,0
E-Commerce
8,2
2,4
Environment
0,0
3,6
GIS
2,0
6,0
Healtcare
8,2
6,0
Infrastructure
9,2
24,1
Strategies
1,0
6,0
Library
2,0
0,0
Multimedia
4,1
3,6
Public services
21,4
15,7
Rural areas
9,2
6,0
Teledemocracy
0,0
2,4
Telework
22,4
1,2
Training
45,9
28,9
Transport
0,0
0,0
Tourism
5,1
4,8
 

 
 

EU Funding

 

More than a half of the all projects in the database are funded by European Union. Most important funding source is the Objective 6 Programme, the next one IV Framework Programme and after that Objective 2 and 5b Programmes.

   

Almost the half of the EU funding is from Objective 6 Programme (about 46 MECU from the total EU funding of 102 MECU). Objective 2 Programme has a financing of 18 MECU.

 

 
 

Regional analyses

 
 

Total costs of the projects

 

It is misinterpretation to verify that the size of the project and its effect on regional development would always have positive correlation. Of course it is also clear that many measures aiming at the same direction have more influence than individual projects. In the most cases the regions having a more strategic approach were using the methodology of many smaller projects with one umbrella based on area and/or sector. Only very few regions (e.g. Burgenland) were collecting all available resources into one big project.

As aforesaid, the average size of the projects was lowest in Finland and highest in Sweden. In Finland only in more favoured regions in South the size of the projects was comparable to Swedish average. And in Burgenland in Austria the average size of the projects was among the highest in the target countries, mainly ascribe to one project.

In spite of differences in strategies to put all the resources to serve the same goal, it is quite clear that until now some kind of "let the all flowers bloom" –policy has in general been more common on the Finnish regions than in the other target countries. During the first quarter of 1998 this situation has changed a little.

As seen in the picture (Projects by size) the average size of the projects is anyway on the most Objective 6 regions in Finland and Sweden bigger than on the other regions.
 

 

The influence of European regional policy comes better out in the next picture, total costs of the local and regional information society projects by inhabitants. Comparing that information with the map of the Objective areas, it is easy to observe that regions with higher rate of EU funding are also most often investing more to information society projects per capita.

Especially high is the propensity to invest in Jämtland in Sweden and in Pohjois-Karjala in Finland, both regions fully covered by Objective 6 programme.
 

 

 

In the following table is the regional information in detail:
 
 
Region Objective programmes Number of project Average size MECU Total cost ECU by inhabitants EU funding by inhabitants ECU
Blekinge SWE Partly 2 and 5b
16
0.81
79.70
10.68
Burgenland AUT 1
16
1.45
84.58
19.22
Dalarna SWE Partly 2, 5b and 6
24
1.00
84.32
29.63
Etelä-Karjala FIN Partly 2 and 5b
3
0.23
5.04
1.73
Etelä-Pohjanmaa FIN 5b
14
0.15
10.50
3.71
Etelä-Savo FIN 6
16
0.53
49.06
20.57
Gotland SWE 5b
9
1.46
227.20
0.69
Gävleborg SWE Partly 2, 5b and 6
32
0.83
92.90
24.63
Halland SWE Partly 5b
9
0.30
9.91
0.52
Itä-Uusimaa FIN Partly 2 and 5b
3
0.03
1.15
0.34
Jämtland SWE 6
32
0.70
168.47
51.20
Jönköping SWE Partly 5b
12
0.33
12.01
0.29
Kainuu FIN 6
26
0.23
64.41
24.46
Kalmar SWE Partly 5b
6
0.32
7.91
0.55
Kanta-Häme FIN Partly 5b
13
0.22
17.15
6.64
Keski-Pohjanmaa FIN Partly 2 and 6
11
0.25
37.62
19.03
Keski-Suomi FIN Partly 2, 5b and 6
39
0.24
36.76
9.76
Kronoberg SWE Partly 5b
9
0.38
19.27
0.80
Kymenlaakso FIN Partly 2 and 5b
4
0.48
9.97
4.16
Kärtnen AUT Partly 5b
9
0.38
61.10
19.94
Lappi FIN 6
41
0.27
57.20
23.98
Niederösterreich AUT Partly 2 and 5b
15
0.31
3.06
0.21
Norrbotten SWE Partly 2 and 6
47
0.43
77.60
19.67
Oberösterreich AUT Partly 2 and 5b
22
0.20
3.21
0.61
Pirkanmaa FIN Partly 5b
31
0.49
34.37
3.87
Pohjois-Karjala FIN 6
43
0.44
110.09
50.05
Pohjois-Pohjanmaa FIN Partly 5b and 6
45
0.23
29.06
8.38
Pohjois-Savo FIN Partly 5b and 6
27
0.18
18.90
5.40
Päijät-Häme FIN Partly 2 and 5b
14
0.16
11.38
3.35
Salzburg AUT Partly 5b
12
0.38
9.06
1.56
Satakunta FIN Partly 2 and 5b
28
0.49
36.34
13.92
Skåne SWE Partly 5b
23
0.85
17.59
0.39
Steiermark AUT Partly 2 and 5b
26
0.31
6.73
0.56
Stockholm SWE Partly 5b
58
0.46
15.51
0.96
Södermanland SWE Partly 5b
10
0.31
12.19
0.18
Tirol AUT Partly 5b
4
0.13
0.80
0.08
Uppsala SWE -
15
0.19
9.81
1.12
Uusimaa FIN Partly 5b
41
1.20
39.02
2.71
Varsinais-Suomi FIN Partly 2 and 5b
12
0.18
4.82
1.38
Voralberg AUT Partly 2 and 5b
7
0.83
16.80
6.32
Värmland SWE Partly 2, 5b and 6
18
0.48
30.75
11.43
Västerbotten SWE Partly 2, 5b and 6
34
0.37
47.97
13.12
Västernorrland SWE Partly 2 and 6
27
0.53
56.77
13.22
Västmanland SWE Partly 2 and 5b
12
0.68
31.64
9.28
Västra Götaland SWE Partly 2 and 5b
38
0.73
18.56
5.13
Wien AUT -
33
0.21
4.29
0.78
Åland FIN 5b
0
0
0.00
0.00
Örebro SWE Partly 2 and 5b
13
0.72
33.93
11.72
Österbotten FIN Partly 5b
4
0.27
6.14
2.53
Östergötland SWE Partly 5b
12
0.33
9.63
1.50
 

 

Naturally on Objective 1 and 6 regions the share of the EU funded projects was much higher than on the other regions. But in Finland is the EU also on the other regions much more important funding source than in other countries. Or maybe Finland as isolated country by culture and language has more interest to transregional experiences. The fact, that Finland has get double so much from the IV Framework Programme as the national share of the funding has been, also supports the last conclusion.
 

 
 

Funding of the projects

The share of the European funding is over 30 % on many Objective 6 regions in Finland but not on all. Other funding sources are important e.g. in Norrbotten an in Västerbotten in Sweden and in Pohjois-Pohjanmaa in Finland.

The relative value, EU funding by inhabitants in the next picture, is following more the borders of Objective areas.
 

 

Local funding in the database means all the public local and regional funding sources. The importance of the local funding, probably due to the federal constitution, is significant. The same situation is also in Southern Finland, what is in the Objective programmes mostly white area.

In Sweden it is harder to find a logical explanation to the variations in the local funding. One possible reason could be the difficulties in other funding sources.

 

The share of the private funding is relative low in Finland and Sweden, whereas it significant in Eastern Austria. Of course there is positive correlation between the number of the private sector projects and the share of the private funding.

 

 

 

In the following table is the regional project funding information in detail:

 
 
Region Local funding EU funding Private funding Other funding
Blekinge SWE
24
51
13
11
Burgenland AUT
59
18
23
0
Dalarna SWE
10
42
35
14
Etelä-Karjala FIN
6
43
34
17
Etelä-Pohjanmaa FIN
18
25
35
22
Etelä-Savo FIN
10
22
42
26
Gotland SWE
16
57
0
26
Gävleborg SWE
2
53
27
18
Halland SWE
34
43
5
19
Itä-Uusimaa FIN
16
40
30
14
Jämtland SWE
16
16
30
38
Jönköping SWE
54
40
2
4
Kainuu FIN
11
22
38
29
Kalmar SWE
29
58
7
6
Kanta-Häme FIN
32
21
39
9
Keski-Pohjanmaa FIN
2
27
51
20
Keski-Suomi FIN
24
31
27
19
Kronoberg SWE
23
45
4
28
Kymenlaakso FIN
25
31
42
2
Kärtnen AUT
10
58
32
0
Lappi FIN
12
15
42
31
Niederösterreich AUT
30
55
7
8
Norrbotten SWE
7
41
25
26
Oberösterreich AUT
22
59
19
0
Pirkanmaa FIN
15
67
11
6
Pohjois-Karjala FIN
10
28
45
17
Pohjois-Pohjanmaa FIN
17
29
29
25
Pohjois-Savo FIN
15
37
29
20
Päijät-Häme FIN
12
41
29
18
Salzburg AUT
19
63
17
1
Satakunta FIN
8
53
38
1
Skåne SWE
8
38
2
51
Steiermark AUT
20
71
8
0
Stockholm SWE
21
66
6
7
Södermanland SWE
5
87
1
7
Tirol AUT
8
83
9
0
Uppsala SWE
21
41
11
27
Uusimaa FIN
4
57
7
32
Varsinais-Suomi FIN
13
44
29
14
Voralberg AUT
33
29
38
0
Värmland SWE
14
33
37
15
Västerbotten SWE
27
24
27
22
Västernorrland SWE
3
56
23
18
Västmanland SWE
9
22
29
39
Västra Götaland SWE
20
42
28
10
Wien AUT
20
58
18
3
Åland FIN
0
0
0
0
Örebro SWE
9
17
35
39
Österbotten FIN
16
21
41
22
Östergötland SWE
25
59
16
1
 

The following conclusions can be made on regional data:

 
A membership in the European Union has been of great importance to the financing of local and regional information society projects especially in Objective 1 and 6 regions.
 
Differences between regions are more significant than those between countries. The same conclusion can also be made on the areas inside the regions.
   
 

Concrete Results of the Projects

 

One of the aims of the inventory was to collect information on project results. It was certainly the most difficult task in the inventory. In several areas wider evaluations of Objective programmes have already been made on the basis of applications and project evaluations. Numbers of jobs created and maintained and people trained by projects have also been subjects of the examination. The LOCREGIS project did not have resources to go as far as that.

 

Results of the implemented projects have been entered to the database mostly at general level. As regards the jobs created or maintained certain prudence is needed. In many cases figures of official documents did not correspond a reality. This is quite natural as figures are often presented with optimism in applications for financial assistance. In certain cases an opposite phenomenon has happened; more new jobs had been created in a reality than had been expected in the beginning.

 

Wide regional development projects, which cover various sectors and continue for many years stand out from the rest of the projects. IT-Blekinge, Kaustinen subregion, Koillismaa Information Network and some others are examples of this kind of projects amongst core projects. An essential goal of the projects has been regional development together with its monitoring. They have made long-term development plans and also follow up the effects they might have on employment. Another conclusion is that these projects represent the ones with the best possible results as seen from the regional development because

 
they cover an area which is large enough but at the same time so little that concrete actions are still possible inside the area
they are made of several subprojects with the same overall goal
preliminary project plans have been based on a wide public-private partnership
they are an integral part of the overall regional development strategy
they also have the backing of politicians
 

In Finland and Sweden municipalities generally initiate these projects. In Austria the corresponding projects are often initiated by private sector. A number of new jobs created by this kind of regional networks or similar projects is estimated to be 1000.

 

Effects on employment created by projects themselves should not be disregarded. Approximately 5.000 – 5.500 man-years are needed by the projects in the database and often starting up these projects brings new human resources to the area.

 

A number of jobs maintained by local and regional information society projects is even more difficult to evaluate. Indirect effects of projects (like regional networks) on employment can easily be seen especially in sparsely populated and less favoured regions. What does it mean that local networks and telematic reservation systems are now prepared for the future by businesses in tourism in these areas? A situation of the near future where almost the whole tourist industry benefits from the information society infrastructures is already developed in less favoured and sparsely populated areas. If they do not prepare their future actions, does it mean that they are forced to lay down their businesses? Correspondingly, if they are well prepared are they better placed even amongst regions, which are naturally better positioned?

 

Another practical result is a raise in a level of expertise. As most of the local and regional information society projects cover the sectors education and training, thousands of people have been able to enjoy and benefit from the result.