1

ANNUAL MEETING SWISS-LATVIAN COOPERATION

PROGRAMMEApril 2012 – March 2013

Riga, 25 April 2013

Agenda

1. Financial progress

2. Work plan

3. Risks and action plan

4. Publicity

5. Swissness

6. Conclusions

7. Questions and Answers –NCU/Donors/Executing Agencies

2

1.Financial progress: Committments (I)

3*Progress achieved during reporting period.

Priority sector

Financial allocation/ committed

grant, million CHF

%(project promoter’s

expenditure vs. committed

grant)till December 2012

% (reimbursements

received vs. committed

grant)till April 2013

1. Security, stability and support for reforms 28,15 75,4% (16,4%*) 72,1% (19,4%*)

2. Environment and infrastructure 13 1,5% (0,2%*) 0,3% (0,3%*)

3. Promotion of the Private Sector 9,46 77% (3,2%*) 76,5% (3,6%*)

4. Human and Social Development 2,34 16,6% (7,7%*) 16,2% (7,4%*)

5. Special allocations (excluding Swiss programme management)

3,77 93,1% (20,7%*) 85,7% (41,0%*)

Total allocation for projects 56,72 57,5% (10,4%*) 55% (13,3%*)

Swiss programme`s and CRUS management/ Evaluation Committee costs

3,16    Total Swiss Programme’s allocation 59,88

1.Financial progress:Reimbursements (II)

4

Total: 50,4 million CHF*

*Excluding CRUS/Scholarship fund’’s planned reimbursements and 2nd tranche of Sarkandaugava project for which reimbursement plan will be specified after amendments in the Project Agreement in amount 6,3 mill. CHF

1.Financial progress:

Reimbursements for projects in 2012 (III)

5

2.Work plan: 2012/2013

Implemented activities (I)

6

2.Work plan: 2012/2013

Delayed activities (II)

7

8

2.Work plan:2013 (III)

9

2.Work plan:2013 (IV)

10

3.Risks and action plan (I)

* Risks and mitigation of them will be presented by responsible Executing Agencies

Mitigation of risk– change of procurement procedure for the 2nd tranche from closed to open tender:

1)requires less time (approximately 35 days shorter procedure)

2)is more appropriate for competition where the possible range of applicants is known.

11

3. Risks and action plan (II)

Sarkandaugava

3. Risks and

action plan (III)CRUS Scholarships

12

Open Call No.

Available sum per

call

Utilized grant

after call

Utilized grant vs. available per call

Date of announcement -

submission date

Received applic.

Approved applic.

1.886 233 337 167 38%

Sept-Nov/2010 5 3

2. Sept-Nov/2011 5 2

3.-7. 990 187 500 250 51% Sept-Nov/2012 13 6

4.

1 001 912

    Jan-Apr/2013 5  

5.     Sept-Nov/2013    

6.     Jan-Apr/2014    

7.     Sept-Nov/2014    

Total: 1 839 329* 837 417 45,53%  28 11

*excluding CRUS management and evaluation committee costs

3. Risks and

action plan (IV)CRUS Scholarships

Mitigation of risk:

1)starting from 2013 – calls are launched biannually (previously once per year)

2)some of EU Funded projects for researchers (with doctoral degree) in this area has been partly finished

3)information about calls actively provided via webpages, press release, publications in newspapers, e-mails, seminars

13

3. Risks and action plan (V)

Swiss researchers

No.Available sum per

call

Utilized grant after call

Utilized grant vs. available

Open call timingReceived

applic.Approved

applic.

1. 88 235 20 130 23% 01.03.-30.04.2012 9 9

2. 101 856 14 105 14% 04.09.-05.11.2012 8 7

3. 123 794     05.03.-06.05.2013    

4.-6. 371 382

   

second half of 2013

till all grant will be used    

Total: 529 411 34 235 6,5% 17 16

14

3. Risks and action plan (VI)

Swiss researchers

Mitigation of risk:

1)further on – single call stays open on a permanent basis for the remaining period of the Block Grant until all funds are used

2)professors, researchers from Swiss higher education institutions can do lecturing not only in Latvian higher education and research institutions but also in colleges

3) information about calls actively provided via webpages, press releases, publications in newspapers, e-mails, seminars

15

4.Publicity:

Attractive examples (I)NGO Fund

11 best example subproject stories with pictures on SIF web page

16

Encouragement to a healthy lifestyle, Liepaja, in 2011 Health promotion in Limbazi, in 2012

4.Publicity :

Attractive examples (II)Fire safety project

Competition about fire

safety issues for school

children from 7th to 8th

grade

17

Competition for children ofRiga region, in April 201317

4.Publicity :Attractive examples (III)

Scholarship Fund – Two experience stories from interviewed fellows published on SEDA web page;

Swiss researchers –

13 informative

seminars during 2012/

2013 for potential

applicants in higher

education institutions and

research institutions18Informative seminar, Riga, 2012

4.Publicity:

Attractive examples (IV)Modernization of courts

In Supreme Court of Latvia press conference was held demonstrating installed video/audio equipment in courts/prisons. Widely reflected in mass media, shown in largest Latvian TV channels (LTV1, TV3).

19Closing event, the Supreme Court of Latvia, on 28 June 2012

4.Publicity: Attractive examples (VI) Youth initiatives project

11 opening events of multifunctional youth centres were organized in all Planning Regions of Latvia. Representatives of the Embassy participated in order to emphasize the role played by the Swiss Contribution.

20

Opening of Rūjiena youth centre on 21 September 2013

Opening of Gulbene youth centre on 7 September 2013

5. Swissness (I)

21

NGO Fund– 18 (out of 62) subprojects promotedbilateral co-operation with organizations from Switzerland

Researchers’ positive experiencein Latvia improves future cooperationbetween educational institutions

In Latvia University of Agriculture, in October 2012

22

Sarkandaugava- one subcontractor of remediation works for the 1st

tranche is an enterprise from Switzerland

Fire safety project’sofficial partner – Institution of Fire Safetyand Natural Disasters ofthe Canton of Vaud ofSwitzerland (knowledge exchangevisit for public officialsto Switzerland took place)

 

5. Swissness (II)

In the Centre of Technics and Logistics in Romanel in the Canton of Vaud, Switzerland, in May 201222

6. Conclusions (I)

23

Swiss Programme is well perceived and highly appreciated in Latvia, especially at regional and local level:Youth centres,School busses,Fire safety systems,NGOs, Micro-lending projects

6. Conclusions (II)

Swiss programme made direct impact to rural and disadvantage areas of Latvia by implementing activities like:providing pupils’ transportation to remote schools and improving fire safety in schools, providing micro-loans,establishment of youth centres, as well as supported local NGO activities,high expectations from courts modernization project thus speeding up judicial procedures.

Further co-operation with Switzerland is very important for Latvia and would be highly appreciated. 24

Questions and Answers – NCU/Donors/Executing Agencies

25