One of the main tasks of LOCREGIS II project has been 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.

The regional information is also presented in the LOCREGIS regional information society profiles in Internet in the address: http://www.locregis.net.

The pictures presented in this analyse report are available as PowerPoint - slides in the LOCREGIS Document Store and later on the homepage mentioned above.

Methodology

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 local or regional partners.[1]

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.

Half of the projects have not perfect funding information in the database. This includes also all the transregional projects without any exact regional input and output. In these cases 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. The coordinator has tested the estimation by asking the actual funding information afterwards in some cases and the validity of the estimation has been reliable.

The estimated coverage of the inventory is the best in Finland, but good enough for conclusions also on the most regions in Austria and Sweden

National Summary

In the end of the August 2000, the number of the single projects in the database was 1850. This is the object of this analyse. After that date new projects have been added, and will be added continually, but because of the estimation procedure the some weeks are needed for the analyse part.[2]

The analyse is done from the viewpoint of the regions and EU funding sources. This means that the transregional projects and projects with more than one EU funding source have been divided between the regions[3]. When summing up all the projects in tree main target countries by region and EU programme, the number of projects is 2591. Using the same viewpoint for the whole Europe the number of all projects by region is in the database more than 5000.

	Austria	Finland	Sweden
Projects	420	1235	936
Total €	107 040 000	288 741 000	396 406 000
Average size €	255 000	234 000	424 000
Private funding %	22	14	12
Local and regional funding %	50	38	43
EU funding %	24	30	28
Other funding sources %	4	18	17

The average size of the projects is the smallest in Finland, but the size of the Austrian projects is closer than in previous LOCREGIS analyses. This is because inventory includes now many small Austrian LEADER projects.

Main national difference in funding is the use of private and regional money in Austria. However, in Finland and Sweden the role of the local authorities is much higher than in Austria and Nordic countries have bigger national public funding structures to complete EU supply. Partly this difference is based on the different national funding systems in the member states.

On five regions, the number of the projects is over 100, on the top Uusimaa with 168 projects. The estimated coverage of the inventory varies from 60 % to almost 100 %. There has been a fear that the low number of the private projects has some influence to the analyses based on the inventory. It seems that, taking into consideration the definition presented above, there are quite few private local and regional information society projects. The main group of missing projects consists of activities that are not funded by the European Union or other public tools.

Size of the projects

The regions locating on the Objective 1 and 6 areas are using more money (by inhabitant) for the local and regional information society projects than the most other regions. Exceptional regions are Blekinge, Gotland, Kalmar and Satakunta (2 and/or 5b), where the investments are on the same level.

This map is almost the same as in LOCREGIS I in the year 1998. Because of the 1200 new projects and new regions implementing big projects the sums have doubled.

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 €	Variance
Lappi FIN	200.000	260.000
Keski-Pohjanmaa FIN (partly)	160.000	220.000
Pohjois-Pohjanmaa FIN (partly)	210.000	350.000
Kainuu FIN	230.000	220.000
Etelä-Savo FIN	190.000	240.000
Keski-Suomi FIN (partly)	230.000	280.000
Pohjois-Karjala FIN	270.000	500.000
Västerbotten SWE	410.000	1.060.000
Norrbotten SWE	410.000	900.000
Värmland SWE (partly)	350.000	710.000
Jämtland SWE	500.000	1.090.000
Västmanland SWE (partly)	460.000	850.000
Västernorrland SWE (partly)	430.000	730.000
Gävleborg SWE (partly)	770.000	1.340.000
Dalarna SWE (partly)	960.000	1.820.000

The size of the projects varies from 10.000 € to 30.000.000 €. Typical size of the projects is between 50.000 and 100.000 €. This includes also almost 100 Objective 6 projects. Only 10 % are bigger than 500.000 €.

From the over 1 M Euro projects 35 are funded by the Objective 6 programme.

	Number of projects	%
Less than 50.000 €	317	12
50.000 – 100.000 €	1234	48
100.001 – 250.000 €	492	19
250.001 – 500.000 €	282	11
500.001 – 1.000.000 €	136	5
More than 1.000.000 €	130	5

Comparing the results with LOCREGIS I, the number of regions implementing “big project strategy” has increased and the first experiences from the new Objective 1 Programmes show similar results. Even some regions have started with small pre-studies to prepare the real projects. Also the level of integration with other activities has naturally increased.

Many of the over 1.000.000 € are locating on the big urban regions. On every region in Sweden is at least that kind of spearhead project.

Thinking that the size of the “big” project is 10 €/inhabitant, the picture will be different.

In Sweden, the most regions have this “big project strategy” in the regional development. In this meaning number one is the Swedish Objective 6 region Jämtland, where the number of projects being more than 10 €/inhabitant is seven, more than 10 % of all projects.

Main sectors

Using new European terminology in the sectors explained in the following picture, the share of the education and training projects has slightly decreased comparing with the previous LOCREGIS analyses, but is still a third of all projects. In addition, two years ago the explanation was that almost all projects are more or less e Learning. This situation has also changed and no many projects are direct implementation projects without remarkable training features. This is true especially with the new eCommerce projects.

On the Austrian regions, eCommerce is more popular than in Finland and Sweden. Because big umbrella projects are included in eEurope group, these kinds of projects are key issue on many regional Objective programme regions in all countries.

Only few regions have used the opportunity to specialise in one sector. Typical healthcare regions in the database are Satakunta and Uppsala and the location of the automobile industry in the target countries is possible to recognise.

On the Objective 1 and 6 regions, main sector is normally education and training. The exceptions are Burgenland and Norrbotten, where many business development projects are implemented.

Funding sources

Total costs of the projects are over 792 M€. Main funding source is the local and regional public funding including also own regional funds and other similar possibilities. This, as also national public funding, is often essential part of the implementation of the EU Objective programmes and so the real impact of the European Union is more than this 28 % described in the below.

In the regional inspection, the funding sources vary much. Outside the Objective 1 and 6 areas are many regions, where EU funding is of same importance. As mentioned above private funding is on the higher level in Austria, but also there are some exceptions.

Main single European funding sources in the target countries have been Objective 1 and 6, Objective 2 and 5b and 4^th R&D Framework Programmes. In addition, the share of the new fifth R&D Framework Programme with its Information Society part is growing fast in the local and regional information society projects.

Innovative actions with five RISI-projects in Austria, Finland and Sweden are also important funding source. Horizontal Objective 3 and 4 Programmes are funding many but small projects.

The costs of the projects funded by Structural Funds are half of the total costs of all projects in Finland and Sweden. In Austria, the corresponding share is a third. On the other hand, in Austria more important are other EU funding sources so that the total costs of the non-EU funded projects is proportionally on the same level in all tree countries.

In Finland and Sweden Objective 2 Programme as a funding source is on eligible areas more important than Objective 6 on its own target area.

In Austria Objective programmes are important only in Burgenland, where almost 80 % of the total costs is in Objective 1 Programmes. It is difficult to say what would be the situation on the Finnish and Swedish Objective 6 regions without European Union membership, but is clear that on the regions like Burgenland the effects of the EU regional programmes have been remarkable.

In Austria, many regions are active R&D Framework Programme collaborates as well some technology regions in Finland and Sweden

Share of the EU funded projects has increased in two last years, but the regions with low EU participations are the same.

EU funding by inhabitant is the highest on the Objective 6 regions as an exception some small regions that have been active in the use of other funding sources like Blekinge, Gotland and Satakunta. In Austria many regional initiatives are funded without EU money and so the average level is only 10 % of that on the Objective 6 regions.

Transregional co-operation

Inside the target countries

In Austria, the co-operation of the Bundesländer is common but it is more concentrated around Wien and Oberösterreich with their neighbouring regions.

In Finland the main co-operation network is between the Objective 6 regions but also Southern regions are co-operating with the neighbours. In the national projects, regions of Etelä-Karjala, Etelä-Pohjanmaa, Keski-Pohjanmaa and Kymenlaakso are more often implementing the projects without regional co-operation.

Also in Sweden there is a lot of co-operation between the Objective 6 regions, but somewhat less than in Finland. The high-tech triangle of Stockholm, Skåne and Västra Götaland has several join projects:

International co-operation

The main network, looking naturally from the viewpoint of the target countries and with missing information from other countries, is between the main European capital areas. The level of the capital region network is dominated that some regions (like South-East in the United Kingdom or Attiki in Greece) have more projects in the database than the most regions in the target countries. There are many logical reasons supporting this network (universities, location of the big companies and central administration) but also some organisational things like Telecities.

Other visible networks are:

Barents area
Peripheral areas in Nordic countries and United Kingdom
Some university based networks

In spite of some joint projects, there are not yet large networks between the regions of the Baltic Sea area. The other still growing networking area is the Eastern part of Austria with some neighbouring regions in CEE-countries.

PART II : REGIONAL INFORMATION

Blekinge SWE LOCREGIS

Estimated level of inventory 95 %

Population density

GDP per capita €

Objective programmes

49.8

18 391

Partly Objective 2 2000-2006

Projects	Transregional %	International %
60	36.8	29.8

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
350.000	138.4	26

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
12	29	22	37

The share of the projects by sector is well balanced. The total cost of the information society projects by capita is among the highest in the database. Main funding source is Objective 2, but mainly no EU funding. Main actors are Municipality of Ronneby, university and IT-Blekinge.

After the evaluation information in the database, the projects have been well planned and innovative. Also the level of the criterion partnership is high.

IT Blekinge, a non-profit organisation founded in 1996 by the local and regional actors, has been the co-ordinator and main driving force of the IT development in the region. IT Blekinge has also been the main co-ordinator of the RISI project (funded by the ERDF, art. 10). The organisation and activities of IT Blekinge are currently being restructured.

IT Blekinge has successfully implemented a number of awareness raising activities directed towards public and private sector as well as towards the general public in the region. The international visibility of IT Blekinge has also been very good, which has further supported the positive development. Considering the small size of the region, it has developed many useful partnerships and it is using a wide palette of EU funding sources. The main partner regions of Blekinge are internationally the most active ones, e.g. South-East (UK) and Emilia-Romagna (IT).

Profile of a group of projects by region Blekinge

Number of projects fulfilling the criteria:	9
Total number of projects evaluated so far:	228

Legend description:

Yes

[3.6] Partnership in a long term
[4.6] Dissemination plan
[4.3] Commitment of the partners
[1.6] Improved image
[2.1] Innovative on the regional level
[2.6] Potential for exploitation
[3.3] Creating new networks
[3.4] Optimising the competencies
[4.4] Controlling system
[4.5] Survival plan
[5.3] Transferable
[1.3] Higher quality of life
[1.4] Enhanced economic resources
[4.2] Involvement of the end-users
[3.5] Transregional partnership
[4.1] Market analyses
[1.2] Creating demand
[2.2] Innovative on the international level
[2.3] Innovative for the target group
[2.5] Innovative implementation
[5.1] Compatibility with regional strategies
[5.2] Connected to the clusters
[5.6] Leverage effect
[2.4] Reengineering the structures
[3.1] Involving all important partners
[3.2] Public-private partnership
[5.5] Covering the region
[1.5] Increased skills
[5.4] Spearhead project
[1.1] Improved access to telecommunication

20% steps

Burgenland AUT LOCREGIS

Estimated level of inventory 90 %

Population density

GDP per capita €

Objective programmes

69.6

12 878

Objective 1 2000-2006

Projects	Transregional %	International %
40	65.8	55.3

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
630.000	91.4	19

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
33	40	13	15

Main sectors are in electronic commerce and more general information society activities. The region has less than in average public administration projects. Average size of the projects is among the highest in the database because of two very big projects. The share of the private funding is the highest.

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 regions 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. Main partners are in neighbourhood, now also on the Eastern side in Hungary and Slovakia. The use of the different funding sources is wide. Region has started well also with Fifth R&D Framework Programme.

The active “championship” promoter is missing. The projects have been innovative on the regional level but very seldom innovative on international level. There are big projects, but the variance of the size is the highest among the target regions. Awareness activities are missing.

For the regional development, the strength is the importance in the private sector. The region has been very successful with technology centre programme and new private high technology enterprises have born.

Profile of a group of projects by region Burgenland

Number of projects fulfilling the criteria:	15
Total number of projects evaluated so far:	228

Legend description:

Yes

[4.3] Commitment of the partners
[2.1] Innovative on the regional level
[5.1] Compatibility with regional strategies
[1.6] Improved image
[3.6] Partnership in a long term
[3.1] Involving all important partners
[3.2] Public-private partnership
[1.2] Creating demand
[1.4] Enhanced economic resources
[4.2] Involvement of the end-users
[4.5] Survival plan
[5.3] Transferable
[1.3] Higher quality of life
[1.5] Increased skills
[2.3] Innovative for the target group
[2.6] Potential for exploitation
[3.3] Creating new networks
[3.5] Transregional partnership
[4.4] Controlling system
[5.5] Covering the region
[5.6] Leverage effect
[3.4] Optimising the competencies
[4.1] Market analyses
[4.6] Dissemination plan
[5.4] Spearhead project
[2.4] Reengineering the structures
[5.2] Connected to the clusters
[1.1] Improved access to telecommunication
[2.5] Innovative implementation
[2.2] Innovative on the international level

20% steps

Dalarna SWE

Estimated level of inventory 70 %

Population density

GDP per capita €

Objective programmes

10.3

22 960

Partly 2

Partly 5b

Partly 6

Partly Objective 1 2000-2006

Partly Objective 2 2000-2006

Projects	Transregional %	International %
32	19.4	9.7

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
960.000	108.9	31

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
3	22	25	50

Database includes few projects in electronic commerce but very many in education and training.

The average cost of the projects is the highest in the target. The high variance of the size shows that besides some big projects there are also many small projects. Region is a big project region (more than 2 projects with the size more than 10 €/inhabitant).

The level of EU funding is high even the use of different funding sources is limited. 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 as well as the municipality of Malung.

Etelä-Karjala FIN

Estimated level of inventory 80 %

Population density

GDP per capita €

Objective programmes

19.2

16 086

Partly 2

Partly 5b

Objective 2 2000-2006

Projects	Transregional %	International %
23	30.4	21.7

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
170.000	28	39

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
17	43	26	13

The projects have mainly general feature. The share of the local and regional public funding is among the lowest in the database. The share of the European Union funding is among the highest.

The EU funding is coming from the Structural Funds but the use of different funding sources is limited. The implementation of the Fifth R&D Framework Programme and the new Objective 2 Programme has started. 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 and Technology Centre Kareltek.

Etelä-Pohjanmaa FIN

Estimated level of inventory 85 %

Population density

GDP per capita €

Objective programmes

14.3

13 286

Partly Objective 2 2000-2006

Projects	Transregional %	International %
55	30.2	20.8

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
140.000	39	40

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
24	40	15	22

The projects have mainly general feature.

Average cost of the projects is among the lowest in the database. The share of the European Union funding is among the highest.

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. The use of different EU funding possibilities 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 SME's 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.

Etelä-Savo FIN LOCREGIS

Estimated level of inventory 95 %

Population density

GDP per capita €

Objective programmes

9.0

12 920

Objective 1 2000-2006

Projects	Transregional %	International %
58	30.9	21.8

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
190.000	64.5	40

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
19	28	14	40

The share of the projects by sector is balanced. The share of the European Union funding is among the highest.

Start with the new programming period has been.

Etelä-Savo has concentrated on the distance learning content business with good national results. This concept has provided some export potential. Good examples of the Objective 6 programme are distance learning projects Internetix and DINE-PM. After the evaluation the projects are exceptionally well compatible with the regional strategies.

Main actor in distance learning and multimedia has been Otava Folk High School. Other important actor is Mikkeli Polytechnic.

The region is participating in the wide co-operation of the Finnish objective 6 regions.

The use of different EU-funding sources is wide.

Public-private partnership is poor. Clear spearhead projects are missing as well projects that are covering the whole region.
Profile of a group of projects by region Etelä-Savo

Number of projects fulfilling the criteria:	17
Total number of projects evaluated so far:	228

Legend description:

Yes

[3.3] Creating new networks
[5.1] Compatibility with regional strategies
[5.3] Transferable
[1.3] Higher quality of life
[1.4] Enhanced economic resources
[2.4] Reengineering the structures
[3.6] Partnership in a long term
[1.5] Increased skills
[1.6] Improved image
[3.5] Transregional partnership
[4.1] Market analyses
[4.3] Commitment of the partners
[4.5] Survival plan
[4.6] Dissemination plan
[1.2] Creating demand
[2.1] Innovative on the regional level
[2.6] Potential for exploitation
[4.4] Controlling system
[2.3] Innovative for the target group
[4.2] Involvement of the end-users
[5.6] Leverage effect
[2.2] Innovative on the international level
[3.4] Optimising the competencies
[5.2] Connected to the clusters
[5.5] Covering the region
[2.5] Innovative implementation
[3.2] Public-private partnership
[3.1] Involving all important partners
[1.1] Improved access to telecommunication
[5.4] Spearhead project

20% steps

Gotland SWE LOCREGIS

Estimated level of inventory 80 %

Population density	GDP per capita €	Objective programmes
18.4	16 718	5b

Projects	Transregional %	International %
35	29.4	23.5

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
250.000	152.4	20

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
24	29	24	24

The share of the projects by sector is balanced.

The total cost of the information society projects by capita is among the highest in the database. Region is a big project region (more than 2 projects with the size more than 10 €/inhabitant).

The share of the transregional projects is among the lowest in the database.

The main co-operative regions are located at the Baltic Sea, mainly so far in Sweden. The use of different funding sources is wide.

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.

The criterion partnership is good but the number of the spearhead projects could be higher.

Profile of a group of projects by region Gotland

Number of projects fulfilling the criteria:	4
Total number of projects evaluated so far:	228

Legend description:

Yes

[3.3] Creating new networks
[3.5] Transregional partnership
[3.6] Partnership in a long term
[5.3] Transferable
[2.1] Innovative on the regional level
[2.4] Reengineering the structures
[2.6] Potential for exploitation
[3.4] Optimising the competencies
[4.2] Involvement of the end-users
[4.3] Commitment of the partners
[4.4] Controlling system
[4.6] Dissemination plan
[5.1] Compatibility with regional strategies
[5.2] Connected to the clusters
[1.2] Creating demand
[1.3] Higher quality of life
[1.4] Enhanced economic resources
[1.6] Improved image
[2.2] Innovative on the international level
[2.3] Innovative for the target group
[2.5] Innovative implementation
[4.1] Market analyses
[4.5] Survival plan
[1.1] Improved access to telecommunication
[1.5] Increased skills
[3.1] Involving all important partners
[3.2] Public-private partnership
[5.4] Spearhead project
[5.5] Covering the region
[5.6] Leverage effect

20% steps

Gävleborg SWE

Estimated level of inventory 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 %
40	25.6	17.9

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
770.000	108.6	27

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
3	18	8	73

Few projects in electronic commerce and public services.

Average size of the projects is among the highest in the database. Region is a big project region (more than 2 projects with the size more than 10 €/inhabitant).

The share of the transregional projects is among the lowest in the database.

The use of different funding sources is wide.

The main actor is Objective 6 municipality Ljusdal and County Administrative Board.

Halland SWE

Estimated level of inventory 60 %

Population density	GDP per capita €	Objective programmes
49.5	17 394	Partly 5b

Projects	Transregional %	International %
17	52.9	47.1

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
360.000	22.2	12

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
6	19	19	56

A lot of education projects but quite few in electronic commerce. The share of the local and regional public funding is among the highest. The share of the European Union funding is among the lowest.

The use of different funding sources is limited.

The region has also international co-operation in R&D projects. Main actor is the municipality of Halmstad and County Administrative Board.

Häme FIN

Estimated level of inventory 85 %

Population density	GDP per capita €	Objective programmes
28.9	14 967	Partly 5b

Projects	Transregional %	International %
31	63.0	33.3

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
180.000	32.9	40

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
23	32	13	32

The share of the projects by sector is balanced.

The region has started the implementation of the new Objective 2 Programme and Fifth R&D Framework Programme.

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 and other organisations on the same subregion.

Itä-Uusimaa

Estimated level of inventory 95 %

Population density

GDP per capita €

Objective programmes

30.8

17 665

Partly 2

Partly 5b

2000-2006 partly Objective 2

Projects	Transregional %	International %
13	53.8	30.8

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
80.000	11.2	36

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
23	31	8	38

The share of the projects by sector is balanced expect only few public administration projects.

Average cost of the projects is among the lowest in the database and median size the lowest one. The low variance of the size shows that all projects are small. The share of the private funding is among the lowest.

Main partners are on the neighbourhood regions. The use of the different funding sources is limited.

Main actor has been Adult Education Centre. The use of different EU-funding sources is wide.

Jämtland SWE LOCREGIS

Estimated level of inventory 90 %

Population density

GDP per capita €

Objective programmes

2.7

18 836

Objective 1 2000-2006

Projects	Transregional %	International %
62	43.3	31.7

Average cost €	Cost per capita €	Share of EU funding %
500.000	233.6	36

Sectors %

eCommerce	eEurope	eGovernment	eLearning
18	41	3	38

A lot of general information society projects but very few specialised only in public services. The total cost of the information society projects by capita is among the highest in the database. The number of the projects, where the total cost is more than 10 €/inhabitant is the highest (7) in the target countries.

Jämtland's attitude towards the development of a regional IS strategy is very pragmatic. The development of a fibre optic broadband network is naturally a key issue, but one of the most important factors is nevertheless the use of information and communication technologies.

Jämtland is a rural region with a diminishing population, and this is clearly a major threat to the development and growth of the region. The market for the major telecom operators is still not lucrative. The focus on developing a solid infrastructure is therefore very important.

But the focus on the use of ICT - education and training for citizens and business - can prove to be a crucial factor for the further development of the region. There are a number of IT-companies located in the region, especially in and around the largest town Östersund. A continuous concentration on the various IT-clusters is therefore of great importance.

Jämtland has made good use of the different EU funding sources, especially the Objective 6 programme. Infrastructure projects and projects promoting electronic commerce are good examples. The municipalities and the County Administrative Board are the main actors in the field of regional development and the information society, but various networks like the women network Agendum has also 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.

Jämtland is producing transferable projects with high compatibility with the regional strategies. Low number of the covering spearhead projects might be the weak point.
Profile of a group of projects by region Jämtland

Number of projects fulfilling the criteria:	20
Total number of projects evaluated so far:	228

Legend description:

Yes

[5.3] Transferable
[5.1] Compatibility with regional strategies
[4.3] Commitment of the partners
[1.2] Creating demand
[3.6] Partnership in a long term
[2.1] Innovative on the regional level
[2.4] Reengineering the structures
[4.2] Involvement of the end-users
[1.6] Improved image
[2.6] Potential for exploitation
[4.5] Survival plan
[4.6] Dissemination plan
[1.3] Higher quality of life
[1.4] Enhanced economic resources
[1.5] Increased skills
[2.3] Innovative for the target group
[2.5] Innovative implementation
[3.2] Public-private partnership