1 Warmia and Mazury Regional Development Agency JSC , Grand Paradis Benchmark of EU regional support structures assisting SMEs in natural areas

2 The analysis is divided into three following chapters: I.Description of existing support structures in region II.SMEs in the natural areas – report from the survey III.Comparison of supporting structures in Warmia and Mazury rerion and Lapland

3 I.Description of existing support structures in region Within the first chapter all existing support structures in the Warmia and Mazury region were described. There were conducted survey among instiutions like: a) Public institutions to operate for economic development of the region b) Industrial Parks, technology parks and incubators c) Special Economic Zones d) Institutions to promote and support innovation e) Institutions to promote and support environment and sustainable development f) Regional Loan Funds financed from public resources g) Private equity, venture capital funds and business angels

4 I.Description of existing support structures in region There were gathered information regarding:  Main activities  Organizational structure  Target group  Range of activity - local, national, international  Source of funding for the institution’s statutory and leading activities, share of public funds in the budget  Relations with public local/national authorities  Cooperation within national and international networks, e.g. Enterprise Europe Network, clusters

5 II.SMEs in the natural areas – report from the survey Aim of the research The main goal of the questionnaire was to gather the feedback from the SMEs, active in the rural/natural areas of the warmińsko – mazurskie voivodeship, about the structures supporting entrepreneurship. The research meant to assess the most commonly used types of support by the entrepreneurs, and to rank the mentioned structures.

6 II.SMEs in the natural areas – report from the survey Methodology of the research The survey was conducted among a group of SME representatives in the form of in-depth interviews. It featured a group of qualitative and quantitative multiple- choice questions. It contains questions to identify business obstacles, information needs and evaluation of previously used advisory services.

7 II.SMEs in the natural areas – report from the survey Respondents The questionnaire was conducted among 43 SMEs in the Warmia and Mazury region. The SMEs represented the following sectors: extensive or organic agriculture, tourism and recreation, forestry and wood processing, renewable energy, hunting and fishing and other, such as furniture manufacturing and meat processing

8 II.SMEs in the natural areas – report from the survey Results  Indicating the most vital business obstacles encountered by the respondents in the natural/rural areas.

9

10 1.Lack of knowledge / information on natural / rural areas (i.e. N2000), and environmental conditions for development of the entrepreneurial activities in these areas; 2.Lack of knowledge about business opportunities in the natural/rural areas (18%); 3.Lack of specialized consulting services, information or other forms of technical assistance; 4.Lack of knowledge about the legal and administrative requirements for business creation and initiation of investments (4%); 5.Lack of ideas and innovative solutions in business; 6.Lack of access to investment loans; 7.Lack of collateral; 8.Low credit rating (13%); 9.No platform for exchange of experience between SMEs in the natural / rural areas; 10.Lack of market for specific products, equipment or machinery (1%); 11.Other: no subsidies, poor access to grants and concessional loans (2%).

11

12 A.Information on the environmental and legal requirements for business activities in natural/rural areas (20%), B.Better access to spatial development plans and more transparent information on the rules of the land use in natural/rural areas (22%); C.Information on liability for damage to the environment could be caused by existing or planned investment project, including remediation measures (7%); D.Information about other pro-biodiversity companies and on- going pro-nature business projects; E.Exchange of experiences and discussion forum for SMEs in the natural/rural areas; F.Information on market for products, services and equipment for the pro-biodiversity investment; G.Other (4%)

13

14 III.Comparison of supporting structures in Warmia and Mazury rerion and Lapland Why have we decided to choose region from Finland?  Finland is perceived as a Innovation Leader according to Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010

15 Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010 Innovation leaders: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden all show a performance well above that of the EU27 average. Innovation followers: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK all show a performance close to that of the EU27 average. Moderate innovators: The performance of Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain is below that of the EU27 average. Modest innovators: The performance of Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania is well below that of the EU27 average.

16 Why have we decided to choose region from Finland?  Notwithstanding the substantial differences which characterize the Warmia and Mazury region and Lapland, a number of common similarities and challenges can be identified. Both regions characterise outstanding natural resources, so that tourism is one of the most important industry for them. Moreover, the regions share border with Russia, which is seen as challanging for regional development.  Close cooperation between the regions