www.locregis.net
Helsinki 15.10.1999
One of the
main tasks of LOCREGIS II project is to make an inventory of local and regional
information society projects in Austria, Finland and Sweden and produce appropriate
regional analyses based on this information and the needs of the people working
with the European regional development.
This
document is the first regional analyse in LOCREGIS II project. The main source
has been the database collected in LOCREGIS project 1996-1998 and its
continuation project LOCREGIS II during the first implementation months 1999.
The
definition of the local and regional information project is similar used in
ESIS project funded by DGXIII:
¨
“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.
w
Education and
training
w
healthcare
and social care
w
culture
w
administration
w
industry and
commerce
w
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”
The projects
in LOCREGIS database must of course have also the nature of local and/or
regional activity. This does not necessarily exclude all national projects
because many of them have also transregional co-operation.
LOCREGIS
database tries to put together logical projects. This means that the use of EU
funding sources is not always following the EU regulation; neighbour regions
can e.g. build up a joint logical project using administrative separate own
Objective programmes or other funding elements.
The concept
of logical project is also needed in all kind of other umbrella projects.
The funding
information is not perfect in 50% of the projects. This includes also all the
transregional projects without any exact regional input and output. In this
kind projects the funding shares of the different sources as well in many cases
the total costs by region have been estimated. This estimation has been done
using the information received through other projects and programme documents
and seems to be quite reliable.
LOCREGIS II
will continue the inventory until the end of April 2000. The estimated regional
level of inventory is presented in the next part of this document.
The
regional information is also presented in the LOCREGIS regional profiles in
Internet in the address: http://www.locregis.net.
The number
of the single projects in the database was 1209, in the end of September 1999.
This analyse is done from the viewpoint of the regions and EU funding sources.
When summing up all the projects in tree main target countries by region and EU
programme (all transregional and multifunded projects divided), the number of
projects is 1640. Using the same viewpoint for the whole Europe the number of
all projects by region is in the database more than 4000.
|
|
Austria |
Finland |
Sweden |
|
Projects |
206 |
830 |
602 |
|
Total € |
68 000 000 |
227 000 000 |
280 000 000 |
|
Average size € |
330 000 |
270 000 |
460 000 |
|
Private funding % |
31 |
16 |
13 |
|
Local and regional funding % |
44 |
40 |
44 |
|
EU funding % |
18 |
26 |
25 |
|
Other funding sources % |
7 |
18 |
18 |
Half of the
projects are from Finland because there is already many existing inventories
available in Internet and the collecting of the data is easy. The average size
of the projects in Finland is rather small.
Main
national difference in funding is the use of private money in Austria. But in
Finland and Sweden the role of the local authorities is much higher than in
Austria and also Nordic countries have bigger national public funding
structures to complete EU supply.
LOCREGIS
database is now used also in Finnish and Swedish national inventories.
The tables
and maps illustrating the situation in tree target countries are in Annex.
As seen in
Picture 7, the regions locating on the Objective 1 and 6 areas are using more
money (by inhabitant) for the local and regional information society projects.
Exceptional regions are Blekinge and Gotland (2 and/or 5b), where IS has also
been one of the major issues.
In Finland
the project are smaller than in other countries and especially this difference
is remarkable comparing the Finnish and Swedish Objective 6 regions;
|
Objective 6 region |
Average cost € |
|
Lappi FIN |
170.000 |
|
Keski-Pohjanmaa FIN (partly) |
190.000 |
|
Pohjois-Pohjanmaa FIN (partly) |
220.000 |
|
Kainuu FIN |
250.000 |
|
Etelä-Savo FIN |
260.000 |
|
Keski-Suomi FIN (partly) |
290.000 |
|
Pohjois-Karjala FIN |
330.000 |
|
Västerbotten
SWE |
350.000 |
|
Norrbotten SWE |
360.000 |
|
Värmland SWE
(partly) |
400.000 |
|
Jämtland SWE |
520.000 |
|
Västmanland SWE
(partly) |
540.000 |
|
Västernorrland
SWE (partly) |
590.000 |
|
Gävleborg
SWE (partly) |
880.000 |
|
Dalarna
SWE (partly) |
1.000.000 |
The size of
the projects varies:
|
Less than
50.000 € |
212 |
|
50.000 –
100.000 € |
677 |
|
100.001 –
250.000 € |
367 |
|
250.001 –
500.000 € |
193 |
|
500.001 –
1.000.000 € |
89 |
|
More than
1.000.000 € |
100 |
From the
over 1 M Euro projects 24 are funded by the Objective 6 programme.
The
regions, where at least 10 % of the projects are more than 1 M Euro, are
(Picture 9):
|
Västra Götaland SWE |
|
Kronoberg SWE |
|
Värmland SWE |
|
Kärnten AUT |
|
Halland SWE |
|
Kalmar SWE |
|
Örebro SWE |
|
Satakunta FIN |
|
Voralberg AUT |
|
Västmanland SWE |
|
Västernorrland SWE |
|
Salzburg AUT |
|
Dalarna SWE |
|
Gävleborg SWE |
Almost half
of all funding (250 M Euro from 577 M Euro) is coming outside the EU sources.
In the database most important EU source is Objective 6 programme. This will
decrease when the inventory continues but will anyway stay considerable high.
The total
amount of European funding is 145.000.000 €, which is on the same level the
local and regional authorities have used.
As showed
in the picture 3, third of the projects is education and/or training. It could
be said that almost all projects are more or less with the same content.
Infrastructure
and business development, including electronic commerce, are with equal 13-14 %
shares.
Important
for the regional development is that many regions have found their specialisation
sectors like healthcare, education technology etc. Of course other part of
regions is working without that kind of business products strategies.
As
illustrated in the annex (picture 12) the following strong networks are easy to
recognise:
1.
Objective
6 regions network in Finland
2.
Objective
6 regions network in Sweden
3.
Co-operation
between the most Northern regions in Finland and Sweden (Lappi, Norrbotten,
Pohjois-Pohjanmaa, Västerbotten)
4.
Co-operation
between capital regions (Stockholm, Uusimaa and Wien)
5.
Regions
active jointly in Baltic co-operation (Stockholm area, South Finland)
6.
West
Finnish regions (West Finland Alliance RISI area)
7.
Regions in
the Middle Austria (Niederösterreich, Wien, Steiermark, Kärnten)
One
important and clear conclusion is that in average Objective 1 and 6 regions are
participating more in transregional and international projects using also more
other EU funding sources than Structural Funds (Picture 16).
Co-operation
with other countries
The
database shows at least following strong partnerships that go outside the
target countries (picture 13):
1.
Nordic
network is covering also the northern regions in Norway and Russia
2.
Capital
regions co-operate all over the Europe
3.
Also
some regions like Cataluna in Spain, Scotland in United Kingdom and Emilia-Romagna
have many partners in LOCREGIS target countries, Attiki in Greece and South
East in United Kingdom also with other than capital regions
Estimated
level of inventory 75 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
49.8 |
18 391 |
2 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
47 |
27.7 |
25.5 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
380.000 |
115 |
22 |
IT-Blekinge,
founded by the local and regional authorities is the main actor and co-ordinator
of the implementation.
The
regional RISI project has been also implemented under the same title.
The
international visibility of IT-Blekinge has been good and this has supported
the positive development. This has also helped to have a lot of contacts and
asks for partnerships; thinking the small size of the region, it is using a
wide palette of EU funding sources. Also the main partner regions are
internationally the most active ones (Stockholm, Skåne, South East,
Emilia-Romagna etc.).
Education,
infrastructure and common information society projects have been the main
sectors.
The cost of
the projects per capita is among the highest in target countries.
Estimated
level of inventory 80 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
69.6 |
12 878 |
1 Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
23 |
60.9 |
39.1 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
1.020.000 |
81 |
18 |
The main
strategy in Objective 1 programme has been the use of information technology to
reduce the negative effects of the border region situation and to support the
co-operation between EU and CEEC.
In Austria
the co-operation between other Länder is active. In the international
co-operation the joint projects with Kainuu in Finland has been effective.
The main
project under Objective 1 programme has been infrastructure project Backbone
Burgenland. Burgenland has also been interesting partner and the use of
different EU funding sources is wide.
Like in
many other Austrian Länder also in Burgenland active development power especially
on the local level is missing and these has negative influence to the local and
regional content. Comparing with the Nordic regions the low level of Internet
use is also easy to recognise in the providing of services.
The active
“championship” promoter is missing.
For the
regional development the strength is the importance in the private sector. And
also the share of private funding is the highest in the database (49%).
The highest
average cost in the target countries but mainly because of two big projects.
Estimated
level of inventory 40-50 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
10.3 |
22 960 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b Partly 6 Partly Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
25 |
16.0 |
0.0 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
1.000.000 |
78 |
41 |
The average
cost of the projects is the highest in the target countries and also the share
of the big projects (23 % over 1 M Euro) the second highest.
The level
of EU funding is high. The share of the transregional projects is lowest in the
database. Co-operation is mainly with the national neighbourhood regions.
As an
exception with other Objective 6 regions in Dalarna the projects are mainly
funded by different Objective programmes and the use of other funding sources
is insignificant.
Local and
regional authorities (especially County Administrative Board and County Council)
are the main actors.
Estimated
level of inventory 60-70 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
19.2 |
16 086 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
10 |
40.0 |
20.0 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
150.000 |
10 |
45 |
No projects
over 1 M Euro. The average cost of the projects is low. The cost of the projects
per capita is among the lowest in target countries.
The level
of EU funding is high. The level of private funding is low.
The EU
funding is coming from the Structural Funds. In spite of the location there is
less cross border co-operation with Russia than on many other South-Finnish
regions. Partner regions are mainly from neighbourhood.
Lappeenranta
University of Technology, also operationally in charge of the regional
IS-strategy, is the main actor together with the Regional Council.
Estimated
level of inventory 80 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
14.3 |
13 286 |
5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
40 |
25.0 |
12.5 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
160.000 |
29 |
40 |
The region
has used the possibilities of the Objective 5b and LEADER programmes and has
also been the driving force in transregional co-operation in West Finland
Alliance and its RISI project.
Also the
use of other EU-funding sources is wide.
Hubnet is
the IS network created by the Central and Western Finnish Objective 5b regions.
The co-ordinator is the Etelä-Pohjanmaa Regional Council.
The
co-operation with SMEs has been very good example. Main actors are
municipalities (especially Seinäjoki and Kauhajoki), regional council and the
local affiliates of the Tampere and Helsinki universities.
No projects
over 1 M Euro. The average cost of the projects is low. The level of EU funding
is high.
Estimated
level of inventory 80 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
9.0 |
12 920 |
6 Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
29 |
44.8 |
27.6 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
260.000 |
43 |
41 |
Etelä-Savo
has concentrated on the distance learning content business with good national
results. This concept has provided some export potential. For the regional
development the period has still been too short.
Good
examples of the Objective 6 programme are distance learning projects Internetix
and DINE-PM.
Main actor
in distance learning and multimedia has been Otava Folk High School.
The region
is participating in the wide co-operation of the Finnish objective 6 regions.
The level
of EU funding is high. But together with Skåne the share of the private funding
is the lowest one (4%).
The use of
different EU-funding sources is wide.
Estimated
level of inventory 70-80 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
18.4 |
16 718 |
5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
27 |
18.5 |
14.8 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
570 000 |
268 |
7 |
Very low
level of EU funding and also the use of different EU-funding sources, the main
tool is the Objective 5b programme. The share of the transregional projects is
low. This all can be explained by the small size of the regions.
The cost of
the projects per capita is the highest in the target countries.
The
municipality of Gotland, which is also the regional authority, is of course the
main actor. The co-operation regions are mainly on the Baltic area.
Estimated
level of inventory 40-60 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
15.8 |
17 729 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b Partly 6 Partly Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
32 |
18.8 |
9.4 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
880 000 |
97 |
27 |
A quarter
of the projects is more than 1 M Euro. This is the highest value among the regions.
The
EU-funding is mainly coming from the Structural Funds.
The level
of private funding is low. The share of the transregional projects is also
low. Main partner region is Dalarna.
The main
actor is Objective 6 municipality Ljusdal and County Administrative Board.
Estimated
level of inventory 30-40 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
49.5 |
17 394 |
Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
8 |
37.5 |
37.5 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
300 000 |
9 |
4 |
Very low
level of EU funding. The cost of the projects per capita is among the lowest in
target countries.
The region
has also international co-operation in R&D projects. Main actor is the
regional information society co-ordinator IT-samverkan Halland.
Estimated
level of inventory 85 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
30.8 |
17 665 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
10 |
70.0 |
40.0 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
80 000 |
11 |
43 |
No projects
over 1 M Euro and the average cost is together with Åland the lowest in the
database.
The level
of EU funding is high. The level of transregional projects is high.
The region
is very small. Main actor has been Adult Education Centre. The use of different
EU-funding sources is wide.
Estimated
level of inventory 70 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
2.7 |
18 836 |
6 Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
42 |
50.0 |
31.0 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
520 000 |
170 |
36 |
The cost of
the projects per capita is among the highest in target countries.
Very wide
use of different EU-funding sources and a good combination of Objective 6 programme
and international projects.
Municipalities
and the County Administrative Board are the main actors but also the women
network Agendum has been very active in international IS-projects.
Main
partners are the most northern Objective 6 regions in Finland and Sweden and
North West in United Kingdom.
The
projects developing the infrastructure and promoting electronic commerce are
good examples.
Estimated
level of inventory 40-50 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
31.4 |
18 508 |
Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
13 |
46.2 |
23.1 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
320 000 |
12 |
5 |
Very low
level of EU funding but many different EU-funding sources.
Main actor
is the County Administrative Board as well Technology Centre.
Estimated
level of inventory 95 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
3.8 |
12 606 |
6 Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
43 |
41.9 |
23.3 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
250 000 |
118 |
41 |
The level
of EU funding is high. The cost of the projects per capita is among the highest
in target countries. The main funding source is Objective 6 programme but also
the use of other funding source is wide.
The main
actor is the Regional Council (also in charge of the regional IS strategy)
together with Kajaani Polytechnic and Kajaani Development Centre of The Oulu
University. The most active municipalities are Kajaani and Paltamo.
The size of
the region looks optimal; it has been possible to have quite large projects but
also manageable co-ordination and good regional network. As a result also some
business products (healthcare and social work).
Main
partners are on the Finnish Objective 6 area. The co-operation with Burgenland
in Austria is remarkable.
Estimated
level of inventory 30-50 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
21.7 |
17 304 |
Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
8 |
25.0 |
25.0 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
510 000 |
17 |
5 |
Very low
level of EU funding.
The widest
co-operation with neighbour region Blekinge.
Main actor
is County Administrative Board.
Estimated
level of inventory 80 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
28.9 |
14 967 |
Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
22 |
59.1 |
27.3 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
200 000 |
28 |
35 |
No projects
over 1 M Euro. The average cost of the projects is low.
Region is
using wide range of EU-funding possibilities and also quite active in Interreg
(even locating without border with other countries).
Main
partners in Southern Finland and most active actor Riihimäki-Hyvinkää Chamber
of Commerce. Maybe this is also the explanation of many business sector
projects.
Estimated
level of inventory 90 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
13.3 |
13 268 |
Partly 2 Partly 6 Partly Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
27 |
18.5 |
14.8 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
190 000 |
57 |
27 |
Good
development especially on the Objective 6 part of the region, Kaustinen
subregion. They have built a new broadband ATM-infrastructure with the cost of
over 1 M Euro. Infrastructure is also the main sector. The average cost of the
projects is anyway low.
The level
of private funding is also low.
From the
population aged 15-64 about 0.6 % is working in IT-enterprises, which is the
lowest value among the Finnish regions.
Thinking
the small size of the region it is working quite international.
Main actor
is the Municipality of Lestijärvi because it is co-ordinating the work on the
Kaustinen subregion. Other municipalities and Central Ostrobothnia Polytechnic
are also active.
Estimated
level of inventory 70-80 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
13.4 |
15 292 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b Partly 6 Partly Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
60 |
31.7 |
11.7 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
290 000 |
59 |
27 |
As one of
the main Finnish competence centre in IT the region is using widely different
EU-funding possibilities, especially ESF programmes more than in average.
Main actor
(with very positive effects on the regional development) is the Information
Technology Institute in the University of Jyväskylä. The whole objective 6 area
in Northern part of the region has done very good co-ordinated work. Also the
Regional Council is among the main actors.
The
specialisation sector is information society and education.
Keski-Suomi
is part of the West Finland RISI-project.
Estimated
level of inventory 30-50 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
21.2 |
18 844 |
Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
10 |
20.0 |
0.0 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
350 000 |
20 |
6 |
Very low
level of EU funding. No international projects in the database.
Main actor
is University of Växjö and main partner Blekinge.
Estimated
level of inventory 85 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
34.3 |
17 608 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
28 |
32.1 |
25.0 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
210 000 |
32 |
22 |
The average
cost of the projects is low. The regional spearhead in information society is
missing.
Objective 2
is the main funding source. The region has also quite many Interreg projects.
Main
partners are in the Southern Finland. A lot of projects with private sector
even the main actors are the municipalities Kouvola, Valkeala and Anjalankoski
and the Regional Council.
Estimated
level of inventory 50-60 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
59.1 |
16 014 |
Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
17 |
47.1 |
17.6 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
400 000 |
12 |
1 |
Lowest
share of EU funding in the database, coming so far only from different
Community Initiatives.
Main actor
is Telematik Initiative Kärnten GmbH with 3 co-ordination projects.
Co-operation is with other Austrian Länder.
Many
projects working with the problems of disabled and elderly people.
Estimated
level of inventory 85-90 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
2.0 |
14 613 |
6 Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
83 |
50.6 |
42.2 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
170 000 |
158 |
45 |
No projects
over 1 M Euro. The average cost of the projects is low. But the cost of the projects
per capita is among the highest in target countries. The region is
participating in some big international projects but the regional share is
quite small.
The level
of EU funding is high because half of the projects is funded by the Objective 6
programme.
The region
is using widely the possibilities of different EU-funding sources. Main partner
regions are in neighbourhood so that the border has been no obstacle;
Norrbotten in Sweden (15 joint projects), Pohjois-Pohjanmaa in Finland (15
projects), Murmansk in Russia (10 projects) and Finnmark in Norway (8
projects).
There is
one actor over all the other organisations; Kemi-Tornio Polytechnic, which has
in the database 30 project participation. Other active organisations are
University of Lapland and Rovaniemi Polytechnic. The difference with the most
other, and very local and regional authority centred, Objective 6 regions in
Finland and Sweden is significant.
These
organisations are located in South-Lapland. The distance from South-Lapland to
the most northern part is the same as from Brussels to South-Switzerland. It is
evident that the local authorities so have more co-ordinated strategy to
develop Lapland together and after agreed plans “order” the projects.
Estimated
level of inventory 50-65 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
79.7 |
17 146 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
23 |
82.6 |
60.9 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
230 000 |
4 |
17 |
Niederösterreich
has good potential to develop; the location is good and the regional authorities
are actively looking for good examples and implementing different studies.
The
location near capital area has provided also the possibility to participate a
lot in the international projects (highest level in the database) funded by
different EU funding sources. This may have the danger that for the regional
development the projects are too separate.
The widest
co-operation is with Vienna region. The average cost of the projects is low.
The share of the transregional projects is highest in the database. Also the
level of international projects is high.
The cost of
the projects per capita is among the lowest in target countries.
Estimated
level of inventory 80-85 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
2.6 |
19 395 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b Partly 6 Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
59 |
47.5 |
39.0 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
360 000 |
91 |
33 |
The level
of private funding is low.
Main actor
is IT-Norrbotten. This a good example of the co-ordination work of the local
and regional authorities where the expertise and project implementation is in
the good hands but also the political framework in the right hands.
IT-Norrbotten provides also good infrastructure.
Norrbotten
(like the municipality of Arvidsjaur) have been among the first in Sweden in developing
information society as part of the regional development strategy.
Other
important actor in the international projects is Luleå University of
Technology.
Norrbotten,
as many other Objective 6 regions, is using widely different EU-funding possibilities.
Objective 6 programme is the main funding source but not so important as in Lapland.
Norrbotten
is part of the North-European co-operation cluster and so the main partner regions
are, besides Västerbotten, in Finland, Norway and Russia.
Main
sectors are public services including education.
Estimated
level of inventory 60-75 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
115.0 |
19 164 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
34 |
61.8 |
41.2 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
170 000 |
4 |
22 |
No projects
over 1 M Euro. The average cost of the projects is low. Also the cost of the
projects per capita is among the lowest in target countries.
Most active
organisation is ODE Datenhighway Entwicklungs GmbH (11 projects). What is not
very common in Austria, also the city of Linz has been active organisation
including international co-operation. Partner regions are still mainly
national.
The use of
different EU-funding sources is wide.
Estimated
level of inventory 70-80 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
30.0 |
16 139 |
Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
64 |
42.8 |
21.9 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
330 000 |
48 |
19 |
Region has
used Objective 5b tools widely to support the development on the rural areas.
And also other EU-funding sources.
Pirkanmaa
has a lot of high technology expertise, which is not necessary easy to
exploit in the regional development
covering the whole region. Main actors are Tampere Technology Centre Hermia and
the Regional Council. Also some municipalities (Tampere, Vammala, Ylöjärvi,
Toijala) are quite active.
Pirkanmaa
is part of the West Finland RISI-project.
Estimated
level of inventory 90-95 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
8.2 |
13 023 |
6 Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
65 |
50.8 |
36.9 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
330 000 |
120 |
34 |
The cost of
the projects per capita is among the highest in target countries. The region is
also on the top when speaking about the wide use of different EU-funding
sources. And like many other Objective 6 regions also quite international in
the IS project implementation. Beside
some Finnish Objective 6 regions also Attiki from Greece is among the top
partner regions.
NOKIS is
the regional ESF funded RISI-project
Pohjois-Karjala
has very good and human touch to the development. They have also developed own
way to measure the level of information society. Top sector is training.
Main actor
is the Regional Council, but active organisations are also North Karelia Polytechnic,
University and some municipalities (like Joensuu and Lieksa).
Estimated
level of inventory 80-85 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
9.7 |
15 032 |
Partly 5b Partly 6 Partly Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
85 |
36.5 |
20.00 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
220 000 |
53 |
29 |
In the
western part of the region is the Oulu subregion, which is one of the leading
high technology centres in Europe. International projects are mostly
implemented here.
In the
Eastern part is Koillismaa subregion, which has made regional development oriented
information society projects already 15 years. First now there are remarkable employment
effects.
In
Koillismaa the main actor has been the municipality of Kuusamo, in Oulu the
university and Nokia Research Centre.
Outside the
Koillismaa subregion Objective 6 projects (total 34) have been relative small
and the average cost of the projects is low.
Main
partner regions are Objective 6 regions in Finland and Sweden.
The use of
different EU-funding sources is quite wide. About half of the projects are education
and training.
Estimated
level of inventory 75-85 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
12.9 |
14 115 |
Partly 5b Partly 6 Objective 1 2000-2006 |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
46 |
32.6 |
17.4 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
160 000 |
29 |
33 |
The average
cost of the projects is low.
In
Pohjois-Savo the situation, when only small part has been Objective 6 area, has
disturbed the possibilities to plan good projects. The next programming period
looks now better.
The most
northern part of the region, those municipalities around the city of Iisalmi,
has been very active; as an example Upper-Savo Development Company.
The
co-operation is done mainly with the neighbourhood regions.
Estimated
level of inventory 80-85 %
|
Population density |
GDP per capita € |
Objective programmes |
|
31.6 |
15 295 |
Partly 2 Partly 5b |
|
Projects |
Transregional % |
International % |
|
25 |
44.0 |
20.0 |
|
Average cost € |
Cost per capita € |
Share of EU funding % |
|
160 000 |
20 |
33 |