Implementation of Estonia – Latvia Programme Projects in Vidzeme Planning Region

1. ImplementationofEstonia – LatviaProgrammeProjectsin Vidzeme PlanningRegion Dagnija Ūdre Project Manager Vidzeme PlanningRegion www.vidzeme.lv Võru, Estonia, 19.09.2012

2. VidzemePlanningRegion

3. Basic data on VPR • Area: 15 246 km2(23.6 % of the country) • Population: 234 thousand (9.5 % of the country) • Nationality: 85 % Latvians • Density: 15 people per km2 (58 % live in rural areas) • Municipalities: Cityof Valmiera + 25municipalities (novadi) • GDP per capita: 4503 LVL (63% of the average) • Institution – Development Council (decision-making body) and Administration (executive body)

4. Supported projects • Priority 1. Increased cohesion of the Programme area – 13 projects (completed – 4, running – 9) • Priority 2.Higher competitiveness of the Programme area – 6 projects (completed – 4, running – 2) • Priority 3. Active, sustainable and integrated communities – 13 projects (completed – 6, running – 7) • Total – 32 projects related to Vidzeme PR • Total ERDF financing – 2 386 800.67 EUR (outoftotal17 177 299.12 EUR in Latvia)

5. Project fieldsunderPriority 1 • Road reconstruction • Energy efficient construction • Health services (emergency, regenerative medicine) • Fire and rescue operations • Protection of environment (cultural heritage sites, landscape diversity, water resources, environmental education)

6. Project fieldsunderPriority 2 • Development of tourism services (winter tourism, cycling tourism) • Help to local SMEs and start-ups to access cross-border market • Improvement of attractiveness of public areas • Growing organic potatoes

7. Project fieldsunderPriority 3 • Cultural exchange (art education, handicraft skills, singing and dancing, classical music) • Sports activities and infrastructure (skiing and biathlon, orienteering, football and other ball sports) • Media study programmes for local schools • Activities for senior people

8. Leadpartners • Alūksne Regional Council (Cross Border Ball, Cultural Cooperation for Intermediates) • Ape Municipality (Developing of Cross-border Trade Network, Sportborder) • Madona Regional Council (Active Tourism – attractive feature of Madona and Põlva) • Valka Municipality (Art School “Walk”) • Cēsis Culture and Tourism Centre (Artists for Development) • Vidzeme Tourism Association (ViSoEst by Bike)

9. Municipalities involved as partners • Ape – 5 projects • Valka – 4 projects • Alūksne – 4 projects • Madona – 3 projects • Strenči • Gulbene • Cēsis • Naukšēni

10. Involvedregionalinstitutions • Vidzeme Hospital – 2 projects • North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve Administration • Vidzeme Tourism Association • Euroregio Pskov-Livonia Latvian Section • Vidzeme Region Vocational Education Development Competence Centre • State Plant Breeding Institute in Priekuļi • Gauja NationalParkFoundation

11. Involved national institutions – regional impact • Ministry of Transport (road reconstruction projects) • State Fire and Rescue Service (Valga-Valka Joint Rescue Capacity) • Latvian Fund for Nature (Eagles) • Latvian Orienteering Federation (Est-O-Lat League) • Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology (Gauja/Koiva) • Nature Conservation Agency(Green Corridor) • Latvian Radio (Radio Classics) • Latvian Community Initiative Foundation (Still Active)

12. InvolvedlocalNGOs • FB Gulbene 2005 and NGO FK AbulsSmiltene – Festival “Friendship Through Football” • Mount Ķoņi Life Schooland Support Club for Ape Development – Still Active (senior people engaged in different activities)

13. Impact (I) • Improved infrastructure – roads, sports facilities, recreation places, technical documentation for future investments • New equipment, e.g., rescue vehicles, snow machines • Preservation of cultural heritage sites and objects – electronic database

14. Impact (II) • Wider possibilities for cultural, educational and sports activities – joint events, camps, competitions, trainings, study programmes • New knowledge and skills through exchange of experience • Increased public awareness about environmental issues, e.g., energy efficiency, biological and landscape diversity, water resources

15. Impact (III) • Better health care services – emergency medicine, regenerative medicine • Improved rescue and fire fighting services • New contacts in the neighbouring country • Improved language skills

16. Conclusions • A great variety of project activities in different fields; most popular – cultural exchange, sports, environmental issues • Municipalities located in border areas are more active • “Inland” municipalities are less involved • National institutions work for the benefit of border regions • Limited capacity of NGOs • Poor involvement of the private sector

17. Suggestions • To promote co-operation in education and support to business development • To motivate the private sector to get involved • To promote more active participation of “inland” municipalities • To increase capacity of NGOs and facilitate their involvement in co-operation projects • To generate larger-scale projects with involvement of greater areas of the Programme territory

18. Prioritiesforthefuture • Business development and collaboration • Strengthening regional businesses and innovation support systems • Energy independency • Increased attractiveness of remote territories • Competitive vocational and higher education • Innovative and inclusive provision of public services