Final report

By taking part in the project Orkney has been able to benfit from the broad experiences of the other partners and also to share some of Orkney’s experiences within the field of energy efficiency and energy awareness campaigns. By sharing experiences from the Scandinavian partners on wind power, energy efficiency Orkney has been fitted with a set of experiences and advice which will be valuable for the future introduction of wind energy on Orkney. Gained insights in the situation on the energy market in Estonia, especially regarding the West Estonain islands has given specialists from Orkney an increased understanding of the needs of the CEE energy markets.

Although Shetland has not been able to participate in the project to the full extent that was originally anticipated a number of experiences have been possible to exchange. Shetland has also become a lasting member of a nertwork of energy authorities in all the participating regions. However, by not participating in two of the seminars Shetland has not been able to take as active a part in the project as could be wished. Although information has been thoroughly disseminated and thus also Shetland has been able to share the experiences and know how of the other partners it can not be considered that Shetland has been able to achieve the project objectives as well as Orkney.

For Bornholm, Åland and Gotland the overall objectives of the project have been achieved despite the problems faced concerning funding. The island regions have planned and carried out seminars and training activities according to the project plan. The regions have also been able to get valuable insights and knowledge about the Estonian energy market and transfer a lot of this knowledge to public and private actors within their regions.

Hiiumaa County (this evaluation was written by Mr Ruuben Post, project coordinator on Hiiumaa)

The concrete benefits achieved by the Hiiumaa County from the project is that networks have been established between the participating regions. Hiiumaa now is provided with a local team of experts with the means for international collaboration. So the preconditions to develop the energy management for the benefit of local development through international cooperation are realized.

The project has and will futher increase our access to the energy policy and capacity of European Union. The cooperation has been very beneficial to the efforts to more efficient energy management as well in short term as in a long term perspective.

The major benefit for Saaremaa has been the possibility to become memeber of a network of specialists within the field of energy. Saaremaa has also greatly benefitted from the exhange of knowledge and experiences. A number of Saaremaa specialists have been able to gain new insights in the field of energy and energy management. The project has given a good possibility for Saaremaa to discuss energy problems and management. The discussion has also been valuable as a guide for the future energy situation on Saaremaa. Based on the project Saaremaa is better prepared for projects and development within the fields of energy and waste. The project has given a very valuable contribution to Saaremaa and it has created links with experts from other island regions and ISLENET which no doubt will prove to be valuable in the future.

During the implementation of the project an number of select meetings between participants from other cooperation projects have taken place.

Gotland Energy Agency and its partners agency the Orkney Energy Agencies have been able to meet and also to create valuable links to the Estonian Islands for future assistance and cooperation. The project has enhanced ther links between the Energy Agency partners.

The idea of a Baltic centre for Sustainable Development has been discussed between experts from Gotland, Saaremaa and Tallinn University of Technology. A feasablility study for the project is currently being made.

During the project wind energy companies on Gotland have been able to create links with the Estonian and UK island regions. An intitative for a study of the wind power potential around the Baltic Sea has been encouraged thorough these contacts and one wind energy company from Gotland has visited the Estonian islands.

A large EU company within the energy sector has found possible future partners and has announced plans for entering the energy market on the Estonian islands.

Experts from the EU partners have been able to meet and informally discuss methodology, approaches and policies as well as technical matters. The audits on the Estonian islands have given reason for the EU experts to assess their own methods and discuss them in between themselves.

A number of initiatives are envisaged for the future. First of all it is necessary to finalise the CEE part of the project in an orderly manner. The project EU åproject leadre is permanentely based on the Estonian islands and will support the Etsonian partners in their efforts. Furthermore an application has been submitted to the Commission, asking for an extension and added gfunding to finish parts of the project that have not been possible to finish due to the lack of coordination between programmes (see the ”Activity report”).

The overall assessment of the project is that the major aims concerning exchange of experience have been achieved. The events held and the activities connected to these events have been successful and all partners have gained valuable knowledge and experiences. Strong networks have been created and a good basis for future cooperation and exchange has been established. Experts within the energy sector have been able to share valuable experiences with colleguages from other regions and close contacts have been established between professionals. EU consultants have obtained greater knowledge about the situation in the Baltic States in general and Estonia in particular. A large number of ideas for future cooperation (including the establishment of energy agencies in the Estonian islands) have been discussed.

On the negative side the difficulties to run the project according to the original time schedule due to lack of coordination between PHARE and ECOS-Ouverture has made it diffucult and in some ways impossible to achieve all aims of the project. For instance the energy audits have had to be made without a possibility to follow up on results from measures. They have also had to be done during a time of year that is not the best for such activities.

Installation of measuring equipment and other technical installations have not been possible to follow by the EU partners since there has been no way that the CEE partners could have made these installations during the period of the ECOS-Ouverture part of the project. Consequently documentation of these efforts has not been possible make within the time frames of the ECOS-Ouverture part of the project.

The frustrating situation of no coordination between PHARE and ECOS-Ouverture has made the project almost impossible to manage in a proper way. The situation has become truly absurd when the EU partners have had project time limits that effectively have been totally different than the time limits for the CEE partners (over a period of 15 months only two have overlapped in reality). On top of that deadlines have changed over time and further increased uncertainties. However, there is no need to go further into detail in this matter since the situation is well known to all concerned.

Concerning advice on how to improve the programme the following should be stressed:

Improved coordination of funding: Preferably, when handling east-west cooperation funding should be handled under one and the same authority. So far there has been resistance to such a solution based on the fact that EU doesn’t permit CEE countries to be funded under the ECOS-Ouverture programme. Since the PHARE programme seems to be handled in a very buerocratic manner and with the involvement of slow working CEE authorities with Government involvment the situation for project management is very difficult.

Quick payments: The CEE partners (and sometimes also EU-partners) are very short of funds and have no means to pay in advance for travel and accomodation expenses. It is unacceptable money that has been allocated by the Commission stays in the accounts of consultancy or coordination consultancy firms while the project proceedures are hampered. Instruments so safeguard quick payments to the projects have to be elaborated. It is recommended that the Commission includes in its agreements with supervising agencies/firms a speical assurance that payments shall be made without delay and include special measures (fines etc.) in case this is not done.

The contents of the work programme have not been changed. Changes in the activity plan have been made after agreements with partners and the ECOS-Ouverture monitoring officer in order to achieve a better output of the project and to adjust for the delays in PHARE funding. The project partners have still been enthusiastic about the project and the undertaken actions have been carried out in a serious and positive manner.

The Energy E.S.T.O.N.I.A. project has not been possible to run according to the initial time schedule. Delays have been caused by severe problems concerning the PHARE funding. The ECOS-Ouverture funding was received in April 1996. However the first instalment of the PHARE funding was not allocated to the CEE partner regions until the end of summer 1997, which has caused unacceptable problems concerning the management of the project. Only due to a generous and assisting attitude from the EU partners has the project been possible to run during the first 12 months. The ECOS-Ouverture co-ordinator has also allowed for a delay thus enabling the project some possibilities of success. Subsequently the time schedule has been updated and the tempo of the project drastically slower than planned.

The ECOS-Ouverture part of the project was scheduled to finish in September 1997 while the PHARE funded part of the project will end in May 1998. This has caused co-ordination problems concerning the final reports and the final activities. However, discussions have been held between the partners and actions have been undertaken to minimise the damages of these inconsistencies. For instance a special co-ordination of reports will be made between the lead partner and the Estonian islands to enhance the output of the project. Furthermore the time schedule for the work programme has been modified to fit in with the discrepancies. During the last month of the project a joint application for a prolongation of the project was submitted to CEMR. The main aim of a prolongation would be to compensate for the mismatch of funds and time frames and make it possible to achieve a final result of a higher quality.

Due to the lack of coordination a number of pilot activities have not been possible to to start within the time limits of the ECOS-Ouverture part of the project. Hence documentation and publication of results concerning such actions (as was planned in the action plan) have not been possible to produce.

For instance the CEE partners have not been able to start activities and installations in buildings before September 1997, which has made it absolutely impossible to coordinate these, very important activities and evaluate their results. Needless to say the project results as a whole have suffered from this and can not be estimated to have a quality that is up to the level originally expected.

One change has been made in the original work programme: Gotland Energy Audit of Hiiumaa to give the western partners more benefit from the project. This enables the western islands to compare methods and also to get a broader perspective on the problems in buildings and energy systems in the Estonian islands. This change has been discussed and approved by the project partners and by representatives of ECOS-Ouverture and PHARE. Otherwise the programme has been followed as planned although at a much slower pace. The following activities have been carried out:

Activity				Status
Index (according to action plan)	Content	Comments	(see explanations below)
EEA 1	Co-ordination meeting.	Gotland 23 May 1996 - 12 participants. All partners and Mr Christer Lindberg from the Swedish ECOS-Ouverture participated. Discussions were held concerning the project plan, budget issues, the need for associated contracts, and the overall contents of the project. Mr Lindberg informed the participants about the delayed Phare funding and it was decided that further activities following EEA1 - EEA 4 should be postponed until the Phare financing had arrived. For further information see APPENDIX B ”Minutes from coordination meeting 23 May 1996”	1a)
EEA 2	Seminar on ”Energy planning and programming - production and distribution of energy with emphasis on the development of New and Renewable Energy Sources (NRES) and rational use of energy (RES)”.	Gotland 23 - 24 May 1996 - 24 participants. All partners were represented at the meeting. During the seminar people from the energy sector on Gotland reported on the current situation from an island’s point of view, the introduction of renewables on the island and also about the energy management situation. The participants gained valuable knowledge about problems connected to the introduction of renewables, possible options concerning biomass fueled systems, energy efficiency measures and energy planning activites. The ECOS-Ouverture partners were able to exchange information about energy policies and management. For further information see APPENDIX E ” Minutes from the conference on Gotland 23 - 24 May 1996”	1a)
EEA 3	A study/plan on energy planning and programming in Hiiumaa and Saaremaa.	A study has been made by Mr Per Knudsen, Gotlands Fjärrvärme AB in cooperation with the Estonian partners. The results from the study show that from a cost-benefit analysis it is will be very difficult to introduce renewables in the short term (Main reasons are the lack of subsidies and the relatively low prices on conventional fuels). Biomass can be competitive providing that the energy distribution systems (district heating, central heating) are improved. At the moment there are great losses of energy in the distribution chain. The use of coal and crude oil is at present economic and this prevents a faster introduction of more sustainable and environment friendly solutions. Wind energy has a great potential in the islands. However the lack of subsidies in Estonia and the lack of other incentives for introducing wind energy will make it difficult to build large scale wind parks on the islands in the near future.	1a)

Activity				Status
Index (according to action plan)	Content	Comments	(see explanations below)
EEA 3 (continued)		The greatest potential is found on the shallow shores of the islands and on these areas it is most likely that an exploitation of the wind resources will take place. Planning efforts should be started to prepare for such actitivites. Finally it is also obvious that awareness campaigns will play a major role in the efforts to increase energy efficiency. Outlines for such campaigns should be elaborated during the end of the project by the Estonian partners. For further information see APPENDIX G ”Energy planning for Hiiumaa and Saaremaa.”
EEA 4	Study visit to sites of energy management interest in Gotland.	Gotland 23 - 24 May 1996. Visby district heating, Visby biogas plant, Näs Windfarm, Klintehamn district heating (wood chips) and Gotlands waste management scheme were among the sites visited. At the Visby biogas plant it was shown how energy can be exctracted from land fills and used in the local district heating system. It was also shown how heat and gas for use in the district heating system can be extracted from waste water and sludge. At Klintehamn a small scale district heating system heated with wood chips was demonstrated. It was considered that such plants could be of great interest in the Estonian islands. The visit to Näs Windfarm showed the impacts of large scale wind energy plants on the landscape and also started a discussion on the impact of wind energy on the local energy grids. To the partners it was of great interest to discuss the potential use of windpower on their islands and (based on the Bornholm and Gotland experiences) the necessary steps that have to be taken in advance to avoid negative impacts. Representatives from the Gotland Wind Industry discussed possible future co-operation efforts with the Estonian partners. For further information see APPENDIX E ” Minutes from the conference on Gotland 23 - 24 May 1996”	1a)
EEA 5	Seminar on ”Development and implementation of energy efficiency plans and energy awareness campaigns in Estonian islands”.	Bornholm 27 - 28 May 1997 - 19 participants. Participation from all partners besides Orkney and Shetland. The seminar dealt with the energy situation in the Estonian islands. The preliminary energy plan for the islands was discussed. Examples of best practice within the energy field in the partner islands were disseminated and discussed. An overview was given of the major efforts in Denmark within the energy sector during the last decades and comparisions made with other countries.	1a)

Activity				Status
Index (according to action plan)	Content	Comments	(see explanations below)
EEA 5 (continued)		During the seminar the situation on the Estonian islands was also discussed and ideas for future efforts were offered. The participants gained valuable experiences from each other and major insights were offered into possible energy efficiency measures in island communities. Furthermore new contacts were established among other between the Gotland and Bornholm Energy Agencies and the Estonian island authorities. Discussions were initiated concerning future cooperation between Energy Agencies on Bornholm, Gotland and Åland and agencies in the Estonian islands. The ECOS-Ouverture partners gained increased knowledge about the current energy situation in Estonia. For further information see APPENDIX F ” Minutes from the conference on Bornholm 27 - 28 May 1997”
EEA 6	Draft energy efficiency plans and energy awareness campaigns for the Estonian islands.	During the third seminar on Åland a special discussion was held concerning energy efficiency plans and energy awareness campaigns for the Estonian islands. Examples were given from Orkney and the other partner islands. A special package of examples has been made available to the Estonian partners by Orkney to support their future activities. It was very useful for the EC-partners to share information and know how about these matters since the regions are on very different levels concerning energy efficiency plans and energy awareness campaigns.	1a)
EEA 7	Training for representatives of Hiiumaa on energy efficiency measures.	The training took part on Bornholm during 29 - 30 May 1997. Representatives from Saaremaa where also invited and attended the training. A total of five specialists received training. To make the training more adequate it was done as fieldwork in public buildings on Bornholm. Inspections were made of different types of public buildings and the results were used as learning examples. The delegates from Hiiumaa and Saaremaa found the training very useful and the knowledge and know-how gained will be of good use in future work on implementing energy efficiency measures in the Estonian islands. After evaluating the results of the energy audits on Hiiumaa and Saaremaa the gained knowledge will be very important.	1b)

Activity				Status
Index (according to action plan)	Content	Comments	(see explanations below)
EEA 8	Seminar on ”Energy management and the environment - particular emphasis on water supply and urban waste management”	The seminar is took place on Åland during the end of August 1997. All partners and ISLENET had signed up for the seminar. Shetland was unfortunately not able to attend because of travel problems. A number of interesting presentations were held. A special report was given on the energy situation and planning in Estonia. A visits was also made to a factory manufacturing different products based on potatoe (chips, french fries etc). The factory had developed a special scheme to reutilise heat from the production back into the production unit, to reuse water in order to minimse water consumption and to extract energy (methane gas) from rest products for use in the processes. The factory had also built its own sewage plant in order to reduce impacts on the environment. During the visit to the factory and the speech held by the technical director all partnes gained valuable knowledge and increased understanding about the benefits of a more holistic approach in industrial processes. The environmental efforts had substantially reduced the use of fresh water, the use of non renewable energy and impacts on the environment. They had also increased the profitability. This shows that environmental efforts do not necessarily have to be expensive in a long term perspective but can rather be quite economic. For further information see APPENDIX K ” Minutes from the conference on Åland 27 - 28 August 1997”	1a)
EMH	Establishment of a local team of experts on Hiiumaa (LTEH)	A local team of experts has been established on Hiiumaa. The group has been working since May 1996. The project co-ordinator has taken part in three meetings with the LTEH. At these meetings a sustainable structure for the LTEH has been discussed and elaborated. Special teams will be made up within the LTEH focusing on certain areas of interest. These areas will be strategic issues and planning, energy efficiency, energy distribution and introduction of renewables. The build up of an energy agency on Hiiumaa has emerged as an idea during these discussions and further steps will be taken to see if this is possible to achieve.	1a)

Activity				Status
Index (according to action plan)	Content	Comments	(see explanations below)
EMH 1	Auditing and monitoring of energy use and energy loss in public buildings.	Auditing of has taken place with assistance of experts from Gotland. The auditing took place during May 1997. This task was originally supposed to be carried out by an expert team from Bornholm. After discussions between partners the energy audits on Hiiumaa and Saaremaa where divided in order to give a broader input and to benefit both CEE and EC partners more. The audit was made through visual inspection and analysing of data on the inspected buildings. A separate report on each building has been elaborated. The report shows that the most cost efficient measures can be found in the fields of heat regulating systems, control of air flow and ventilation, insulation and public awareness. The results of the audits on Hiiumaa have been translated to Estonian to be of greater use on the islands. **For further information see APPENDIX H: ”Energy Audits in buildings on Hiiumaa”**	1b)
EMH 2	Insulation of buildings.	Planned for late autumn and winter 1997-98. Some activities have been started. For instance Kärdla secondary school has been refitted with a new roof insulation since the audits took place.	2a)
EMH 3	Installing meters or other energy efficiency related equipment.	Planned for late autumn and winter 1997-98.	3a)
EMH 4	Preparing a feasibility study in order to attract additional funding for larger projects.	Planned for late autumn and winter 1997-98. Some intital work has been started including discussions concerning the district heating system in Kärdla.	2a)
EMH 5	Preparations for establishing a local energy advisory agency.	Discussions and preparatory work have started. Experiences have been exchanged between the partners and a supportive network has been created between energy agencies to support Hiiumaa in its efforts to create a local energy advisory agency. Financing issues have also been discussed as well as possible partnerships.	1a)
EMS	Establishment of a local team of experts on Saaremaa (LTES)	A local team of experts is being established on Saaremaa. The group will be integrated in the development planning for Saaremaa and co-ordinated with the work group for energy and environment that has been set up within the framework of Saaremaa regional planning. The idea is that this will enable a faster input of project results in the long term strategical planning for the island. This in return will make it easier to implement the ideas put forward within the project in policies and concrete actions.	2a)

Activity				Status
Index (according to action plan)	Content	Comments	(see explanations below)
EMS (contiuned)	Establishment of a local team of experts on Saaremaa (LTES)	The group on Saaremaa is not yet finally formed. There is still a need to make further efforts to strengthen the LTES and support it in its work during the rest of the project.
EMS 1	Auditing and monitoring of energy use and energy loss in public buildings.	The audit on Saaremaa was carried out by Mr Niels Vendelbo, engineer and expert on energy audits from Bornholm. The audit is compiled in three reports. The approach was different than on Hiiumaa and hence the EU partners have been able to exchenge valuable knowledge about mtehods fopr energy audits as well. As was anticipated, the results in many cases coincide with the results obtained on Hiiumaa. **For further information see APPENDIX H: ”Energy Audits in buildings on Saaremaa”**	1b)
EMS 2	Insulation of buildings.	Planned for late autumn and winter 1997.	3a)
EMS 3	Installing meters or other energy efficiency related equipment.	Planned for autumn late autumn andwinter 1997.	3a)
EMS 4	Improving the district heating system	Activities have started during summer 1997. Mostly activities will be of the nature of making overall estimations of the most urgent needs and to facilitate future investments. During the cause of the project it has become more and more obvious that the district heating systems and the infrastructure connected to these systems are among the most urgent on the list of necessary actions. In Kuressaare a new boiler for wood chips has been installed and some of the pipelines have also been renewed. This has been done with support from other sources and inspired by the project. Considering the energy situation in Estonia and the great need to introduce renewables it is important that more combined heat and power (CHP) stations are beeing constructed. Especially in the islands the need for alternative energy and less dependency from main land sources are vital. At the moment the possibility to combine heat production with power production unfortunately seems to be ignored.	2a)
EMS 5	Improving the waste management and waste collective systems	Discussions and exchange of know how have started between the partners following the Åland meeting. Furthermore a special exchange of know how and experiences has taken place between Gotland and Saaremaa within the field of waste management. The latter has been done within the project Waste WEISTE and coordinated with the Energy ESTONIA efforts. A special report on waste management in islands elaborated with support from the Commission has been a valuable source of information.	2a)

Activity				Status
Index (according to action plan)	Content	Comments	(see explanations below)
EMS 6	Saving energy by reducing the use and losses of water and by improving the water supply system.	This activity is planned to start during autumn/ winter 1997 following the seminar on Åland.	3a)
Other activities
Info-letter	To inform partners and others who might have an interest in the project short infoletters will be produced during the project.	One infoletter has been produced and distributed. Due to the great delays in PHARE funding further information concerning the project has been disseminated through mail, fax and e-mail. A second infoletter will be distributed in connection to the final report. **For further information see APPENDIX I: ”Infoletter and WWW-page”**	1 (Not described in the action plan.)
E-mail	All project partners have access to an e-mail address. This enhances communication between partners and makes dissemination of information easier.	More than 390 project related e-mail messages have been sent or received by the project co-ordinator during the period May 1996- September 1997. The use of e-mail has drastically reduced the need for written information through ordinary sources such as fax and mail and cut the costs for telephone. It has also made it easier to reach partners and to disseminate information both quicker and more extensively.	1 (Not described in the action plan.)
Media	During the project contacts with media will be an important part of making the project known to the public.	A press conference was held on Gotland on May 24 1996 in connection with the start of the project. A press conference was also held during the Åland seminar. Media has been continuously informed about the progress of the project. **For further information see APPENDIX J: ”Media coverage”**	1 (Not described in the action plan.)
WWW-page	To spread information about the project and to provide easier access to people involved in the project a WWW page will be set up.	A homepage on WWW has been set up with links to ECOS-Ouverture and projects related to the programme. The WEB-site has the following address: http:/www.hiiumaa.ee/coop/energy/ Links have been made available. Through the homepage the project has received interest from energy experts and people interested in the project not only from the partner countries but also from France, Italy, Canada and USA **For further information see APPENDIX I: ”Infoletter and WWW-page”**	1 (Not described in the action plan.)
Manuals	Manuals will be elaborated for energy audits, energy efficiency measures and awareness campaigns		3a)

Explanations to status:
1= Activity has been carried out
2= Activity has been started but not yet finished
3= Activity planned to start
4= Activity has been cancelled
a) = According to project proposal
b) = Changes have been made after agreement between partners

REFERENCE: ECOS Agreement No 30 (CEMR contract 91/00/29/003)
TITLE: Energy ESTONIA

Types of costs	ERDF GRANT TOTAL	ERDF GRANT SPENT	ERDF GRANT LEFT
1. Travel and accommodation	29563	11724	17839
2. Translation and interpretation	3112	3139	-27
3. Communication (tel, fax, mail)	3775	1394	2381
4. Documentation/publication	9800	2491	7309
5. Conference, exhibition, facilities	5850	4087	1763
6. General administration (max. 5%)	4050	1284	2766
7. Consultancy/expert fees (max. 15%)	12050	8081	3969
8. Staff costs (max. 20%)	16800	14677	2123
9. Other	-	-	-
10. Idem	-	-	-
TOTAL	85000

Types of costs	Accepted Budget		Present Budget
	ECU	%	ECU	%
1. Travel and accomodation	48.785	32	20.748	24
2. Translation and interpretation	4.150	3	4.186	5
3. Communication (tel, fax, mail)	6.600	4	2.683	3
4. Documentation and publication	19.600	13	4.982	6
5. Conference, exhibition facilities	11.700	8	8.173	10
6. General administration	7.135	5	2.496	3
7. Consultancy/expert fees	22.700	15	15.004	18
8. Staff costs	30.000	20	27.155	32
9. Other	0	0	0	0
10. Idem	0	0	0	0
TOTAL	150.670	100	85.426	100

	Gotland	Bornholm	Orkney	Shetland	Åland	TOTAL
1. Travel and accommodation	(9.400) 9.339	(9.400) 3.790	(10.185) 3.614	(10.500) 1.787	(9.300) 2.218	(48.785) 20.748
2. Translation and interpretation			(2.000) 2.093	(2.150) 2.093		(4.150) 4.186
3. Communication (tel, fax, mail)	(2.900) 2.178	(900) 175	(1.000) 162	(900) 48	(900) 120	(6.600) 2.683
4. Documentation/publication	(10.100) 2.656	(6.700) 2.020			(2.800) 306	(19.600) 1.948
5. Conference, exhibition, facilities ¹⁾	(3.900) 3.762	(3.900) 3.840			(3.900) 563	(11.700) 8.173
6. General administration (max. 5%)	(2.100) 1.879	(1.800) 201	(1.000) 106	(935) 37	(1.300) 273	(7.135) 2.496
7. Consultancy/expert fees (max. 15%)	(6.600) 6.758	(8.400) 3.839	(1.400) 1.132	(1.400) 1.185	(4.900) 2.090	(22.700) 15.004
8. Staff costs (max. 20%)	(9.000) 8.003	(7.900) 9.512	(3.600) 1.875	(3.600) 2.525	(5.900) 5.239	(30.000) 27.155
9. Other	(0)	(0)	(0)	(0)	(0)	(0)
10. Idem	(0)	(0)	(0)	(0)	(0)	(0)
TOTAL	(44.000) 34.576	(39.000) 23.386	(19.335) 8.983	(19.335) 7.674	(29.000) 10.807	(150.670) 85.426

Strong points	Weak points
Successful events for exchange of experience	No follow up on results of energy audits
Lasting networks have been created and strengtened between island energy ”players”.	No installations made in buildings
EU experts have gained new and valuable knowledge about situations in other regions.	No documentation of CEE efforts available to EU partners.
EU consultants and companies have been introduced to new markets in CEE countries.	Lower than planned participation from Objective 1 partners
Important ”follow up” activities have been discussed and elaborated.

	Total partner contribution	Partners’ contribution spent	ERDF grants accepted	ERDF grants spent
Gotland	22.000	17.288	22.000	17288
Bornholm	19.500	11.693	19.500	11693
Orkney	4.835	2.246	14.500	6737
Shetland	4.835	1.919	14.500	5756
Åland	14.500	5.404	14.500	5404
TOTAL