Aggregated source data for Norway: Aggregated source data for Iceland:

Transcription

1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. STATE AID EXPENDITURE AID EXPENDITURE IN NOMINAL AND REAL AMOUNTS CHANGES IN EXPENDITURE IN AID INSTRUMENTS IN THE EFTA STATES STATE AID EXPENDITURE RELATIVE TO GDP EFTA - EU COMPARISON: EEA COMPARISON: STATE AID OBJECTIVES STATE AID OBJECTIVES IN THE EFTA STATES Main objectives in Norway Main objectives in Iceland Main objectives in Liechtenstein SELECTED STATE AID OBJECTIVES EEA COMPARISONS AID AWARDED UNDER THE GENERAL BLOCK EXEMPTION REGULATION GBER MEASURES IN THE EFTA STATES: GBER AID IN THE EFTA STATES: USE OF GBER IN THE EFTA STATES RELATIVE TO TOTAL AID RECOVERY CASES INFORMATION SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY TABLES AND GRAPHS IN THE SCOREBOARD STATE AID REGISTER ANNUAL REPORT AND STATE AID E-NEWS METHODOLOGY ANNEX A: ANNEX B: ANNEX C: Aggregated source data for Norway: Aggregated source data for Iceland: Aggregated source data for Liechtenstein: Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels, tel: (+32)(0) , 2 fax: (+32)(0) ,

3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Total state aid granted by the EFTA States during Figure 2: Changes in aid expenditure Figure 3: Usage of aid instruments in the EFTA States Figure 4: Total state aid relative to GDP: EFTA-EU comparison Figure 5: Total state aid relative to GDP: EEA comparison Figure 6: State aid expenditure by primary objective Figure 7: Distribution of aid by main objective in Norway during Figure 8: Distribution of aid by main objective in Iceland during Figure 9: Distribution of aid by main objective in Liechtenstein during Figure 10: State aid granted for selected aid objectives in relation to GDP Figure 11: Number of GBER measures with reported expenditure Figure 12: Amount of GBER aid granted during Figure 13: Use of GBER in the EFTA States during Figure 14: Overview of recovery cases in the EFTA States during Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels, tel: (+32)(0) , fax: (+32)(0) , 3

4 INTRODUCTION State aid is economic assistance provided by public bodies to undertakings active in a market. Such assistance can consist of public support in numerous forms, for example grants, tax breaks, favourable loans, guarantees or investments not based on market terms. In order to prevent distortions of competition and negative effects on trade, the EEA Agreement contains a general prohibition on state aid. The rules seek to ensure equal opportunities for companies across Europe, and to prevent government assistance from being used as a form of protectionism in the absence of trade barriers. The prohibition is, however, subject to numerous exceptions, recognising that government intervention can be necessary to correct market failures and to promote common EEA objectives. The state aid scoreboard ( scoreboard ) is a yearly report aimed at providing an overview of lawful state aid spending in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway ( EFTA States ) over time. 1 This latest edition of the scoreboard covers the seven-year period from 01/01/2009 until 31/12/2015. The scoreboard is intended to be a benchmarking tool for comparing aid spending across the EFTA States, as well as across the European Economic Area ( EEA ), and to measure progress in reaching the EEA policy objective of less and better targeted state aid. The information presented in the scoreboard is based on the annual reports on aid expenditure provided by the EFTA States, pursuant to Article 21 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. The scoreboard comprises all existing aid measures falling under the scope of Article 61(1) EEA, namely i) notified aid that has been authorised by formal decision; ii) aid qualifying for the general block exemption regulation; iii) aid measures introduced prior to the EEA Agreement; and iv) aid resulting from the liberalisation of markets. Compensation to undertakings performing Services of General Economic Interest ( SGEI ), including compensation for Public Service Obligations ( PSO ), is excluded from the annual reports submitted by the EFTA States, and is therefore not included in the scoreboard. The scoreboard also does not include funding granted in line with the de minimis rules, as this spending does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. The scoreboard is based on the same methodology as the state aid scoreboard for the EU Member States ( EU- 28 ). However, the scoreboard prepared for the EFTA States differs from that of the EU-28 due to the more limited scope of the EEA Agreement compared to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU ). For example, agricultural and fishery products normally fall outside the product scope of the EEA Agreement, 2 and EU aid to these sectors is therefore excluded when comparing spending in the EFTA States to that of the EU-28. Furthermore, the European Commission does not include aid granted to the transport sector, to railway infrastructure, and aid related to the financial crisis in the scoreboard for the EU-28, and these categories of aid are therefore not included in the main numbers in the scoreboard for the EFTA States. However, in line with Commission practice, complete numbers for all categories of aid can be found in annexes A to C. 1 Switzerland is an EFTA State but it is not a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement. For the purposes of this scoreboard, the term EFTA States only refers to Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway, in line with Article 2(b) of the EEA Agreement. 2 According to Article 8(3) of the EEA Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement shall apply only to products falling within Chapter 25 to 97 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, excluding the products listed in Protocol 2. However, products listed in Protocol 3 also fall within the product scope of the EEA Agreement, subject to the specific arrangements set out in that Protocol. 4

5 MAIN FINDINGS In 2015, all three EFTA States increased state aid spending both in absolute amounts and relative to GDP. Overall, the EFTA States spent EUR 2.8 billion on state aid, a real increase of around 9.6 percent from The overall rise was largely due to increased spending on environmental objectives, as well as research, development and innovation ( R&D&I ), which reflects both national policy objectives and common objectives in the EEA. The impact of the new general block exemption regulation ( GBER ), introduced in July 2014, is noticeable in the 2015 scoreboard, as GBER measures with reported expenditure grew by 50 percent, and GBER aid grew by 17 percent relative to On the whole, GBER measures accounted for 65 percent of all active measures in 2015, 79 percent of all new active measures, and 38 percent of all aid expenditure. NORWAY Norway reported aid expenditure of around EUR 2.7 billion in 2015 a real increase of 9.6 percent relative to 2014 and 0.11 percentage point relative to GDP. The rise was due primarily to a new tax measure promoting the use of electric vehicles, which alone totalled around EUR 223 million. Norway also significantly increased its use of GBER, which accounted for more than 38 percent of total spending. Norway granted most of its aid to environmental protection and energy-saving objectives, which accounted for 35 percent of all aid expenditure in Norway in Tax concessions were the main instrument used by Norway, representing more than 70 percent of all aid expenditure. A comparison with other EEA countries shows that Norway s state aid relative to GDP remained high (0.79 percent), and well above the EU-28 average (0.62 percent), similar to the other Nordic countries in the EU. ICELAND Iceland reported aid expenditure of around EUR 60 million in 2015 a real increase of 10.5 percent relative to The rise was due primarily to an increase in aid to R&D&I in particular spending under the Rannís funds. Despite the overall increase, a comparison with other EEA countries shows that Iceland s total aid expenditure relative to GDP (0.40 percent) remained well below the EU-28 average (0.62 percent). Iceland granted most of its aid for R&D&I objectives, which accounted for around 52 percent of all state aid spending in Direct grants were the main aid instrument used by Iceland, and represented more than 80 percent of all aid expenditure. Iceland introduced its first measure to qualify under the GBER in 2014, a scheme to support innovation, which accounted for 14.9 percent of total state aid in LI ECHTENSTEIN Liechtenstein reported aid expenditure of around EUR 1.83 million in 2015 a real increase of around 16 percent relative to 2014 (but only 2 percent when measured in CHF amounts). The rise was due to increases in aid to environmental and cultural objectives. Liechtenstein awarded all of its aid via direct grants. A comparison with other EEA countries shows that Liechtenstein s aid expenditure relative to GDP (0.03 percent) remained the lowest of all of the EEA States. 5

6 1. STATE AID EXPENDITURE Aid expenditure in nominal and real amounts Figure 1 displays the overall state aid expenditure by the EFTA States from 2009 until 2015 in nominal amounts ( current prices ) and amounts adjusted for inflation relative to 2015 ( constant 2015-prices ). The tables show that all three EFTA States increased state aid spending in 2015 and collectively spent EUR 2.8 billion on state aid. Compared to 2014, spending in the EFTA States increased by EUR 190 million nominally and by EUR 246 million after adjusting for inflation, corresponding to relative increases of 7.2 percent and 9.6 percent respectively. Figure 1: Total state aid granted by the EFTA States during a) Current prices (EUR million) EFTA STATE NORWAY 1, , , , , , , ICELAND LIECHTENSTEIN TOTAL - EFTA 1, , , , , , , b) Constant 2015-prices (EUR million) 3 EFTA STATE NORWAY 1, , , , , , , ICELAND LIECHTENSTEIN TOTAL - EFTA 1, , , , , , , Norway reported aid expenditure of EUR 2.75 billion in 2015 (NOK 24.6 billion), a nominal increase of around EUR 181 million from 2014 (NOK 3.4 billion). The rise represented an inflation-adjusted increase of 9.6 percent in Euro amounts (or 17 percent when calculated based on the amounts in national currency). Iceland reported aid expenditure of EUR 60 million in 2015 (ISK 8.75 billion), a nominal increase of around EUR 8.7 million from 2014 (ISK 840 million). The rise represented an inflation-adjusted increase of 10.5 percent in Euro amounts (or 4.4 percent when calculated based on the amounts in national currency). Liechtenstein reported aid expenditure of EUR 1.83 million in 2015 (CHF 1.95 million), a nominal increase of around EUR 0.24 million from 2014 (CHF ). The rise represented an inflation-adjusted increase of 16 percent in Euro amounts (or 2 percent when calculated based on the amounts in national currency) Amounts are converted to constant 2015-prices by using national GDP deflators published by Eurostat. The cap on CHF exchange rate against the euro was removed in January 2015, as a result of which the CHF/EUR exchange rate changed significantly. 6

7 1.2 Changes in expenditure in 2015 Figure 2 displays the nominal changes in aid spending in the EFTA States in 2015, based on the amounts in each country s national currency (NOK, ISK and CHF). The main observations are set out below. Figure 2a) shows that the overall NOK 3.4 billion increase in Norway s expenditure was due primarily to greater spending on environmental objectives and R&D&I. In particular, Norway introduced a new tax scheme for electric vehicles, which alone amounted to NOK 2 billion in expenditure. 5 Figure 2b) shows that the overall ISK 840 million increase in Iceland s expenditure was due primarily to greater spending on R&D&I and regional development, which outweighed reduced spending on cultural objectives. The changes reflected additional spending on existing arrangements, as Iceland did not grant aid to new measures in Figure 2c) shows that the overall CHF increase in Liechtenstein s expenditure was due to greater spending on environmental protection and cultural objectives. The changes reflected additional spending on existing arrangements, as Liechtenstein did not grant aid to new measures in Figure 2: Changes in aid expenditure a) NORWAY (NOK million) Environmental protection and energy saving NOK 2,510 Research, development and innovation NOK 898 Culture and heritage conservation Training -NOK 40 -NOK 62 -NOK 95 -NOK 345 NOK 151 NOK 135 Regional development and cohesion Sectoral development SME including risk capital Employment b) ICELAND (ISK million) c) LIECHTENSTEIN (CHF million) Research, development and innovation ISK 1, Environmental protection and energy saving CHF Regional development and cohesion ISK ISK Culture and heritage conservation Culture and heritage conservation CHF Decision No: 150/15/COL: 7

8 1.3 Aid instruments in the EFTA States Figure 3 illustrates the extent to which the EFTA States made use of different instruments for granting aid in The figure shows that Norway granted most of its aid via tax concessions, which accounted for more than 70 percent of all aid expenditure, followed by direct grants, which accounted for 29 percent. Only 0.4 percent was awarded via other instruments such as soft loans or equity participation. Iceland awarded the majority of its aid via direct grants, which accounted for 81 percent of all aid expenditure, while tax concessions and equity participation accounted for 14 and 4 percent respectively. Liechtenstein awarded all of its aid via direct grants. Figure 3: Usage of aid instruments in the EFTA States % 14% 4% 0.7% 100% 71% NORWAY 29% ICELAND LIECHTENSTEIN 81% Grant Tax concession Equity participation Other 2. STATE AID EXPENDITURE RELATIVE TO GDP 2.1 EFTA - EU comparison: Figure 4 displays total aid expenditure relative to GDP for each of the EFTA States during , together with the corresponding figure for the average of the EU-28. To facilitate comparison, aid to agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture is not included in the EU numbers, as these policies are outside the scope of the EEA Agreement. 6 The figure shows that: Norway has granted more aid relative to GDP than the average of the EU-28 every year since 2010, with an increase of about 0.11 percentage points in 2015 compared to the 2014 level; Iceland has increased state aid spending relative to GDP every year during the entire period, with an increase of about 0.01 percentage points in However, spending remained below the EU-average throughout; Liechtenstein s aid expenditure relative to GDP stayed almost constant, increasing by percentage points in 2015, and remained well below the EU-average during the entire period. 6 The basis for calculating the EU number is the amount referred to as non-agricultural aid in the Commission scoreboard. 8

9 AId expenditure as % of GDP By comparison, the EU-average decreased every year from 2009 until 2013, but increased sharply in However, the sudden rise reflects the fact that many schemes for Renewable Energy Support ( RES ) were only reported from 2014 onwards, following the adoption of the 2014 Energy and Environmental Guidelines. 7 In 2015, the EU-average decreased again with a reduction of about 0.03 percentage points relative to the 2014 level. 8 Figure 4: Total state aid relative to GDP: EFTA-EU comparison % 0.8% 0.79% 0.7% 0.6% 0.54% 0.60% 0.66% 0.65% 0.61% 0.68% 0.65% 0.62% NORWAY 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.54% 0.50% 0.21% 0.21% 0.44% 0.44% 0.24% 0.31% 0.44% 0.36% 0.39% 0.40% EU 28 ICELAND LIECHTENSTEIN 0.1% 0.0% 0.033% 0.036% 0.043% 0.034% 0.031% 0.032% 0.033% 2.2 EEA comparison: 2015 Figure 5 provides an overview of aid granted by each of the EU Member States and the EFTA States (collectively referred to as the EEA States ) relative to GDP in The figure shows that: Norway s aid expenditure relative to GDP (0.79 percent), ranked as the 10th highest in the EEA in 2015, was well above the EU average (0.62 percent). This was in line with the results for the other Nordic countries in the EEA, all of which reported state aid expenditure above the EU-average. Iceland s aid expenditure relative to GDP (0.40 percent), was below the EU average, and also well below similar-sized economies such as Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia, all of which reported expenditure well above the EU-average. Liechtenstein granted the lowest amount of aid in relation to its GDP of all of the EEA States. With aid expenditure of 0.03 percent of GPD, Liechtenstein was well beneath the lowest of the EU Member States, Ireland, which granted aid equivalent of 0.17 percent of GDP in Commission Decision No 2014/C 200/01. See also the note to Graph 1 in the Commission s scoreboard. 8 The decrease was 0.04 percentage points when aid to agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture is included. 9

10 Figure 5: Total state aid relative to GDP: EEA comparison TOTAL STATE AID AS % OF GDP - EEA COMPARISON L A T V I A 2.20% G R E E C E G E R M A N Y D E N M A R K H U N G A R Y CZECH R E P U B L I C S L O V E N I A E S T O N I A M A L T A 1.23% 1.19% 1.17% 1.17% 1.16% 1.13% 1.12% 0.99% N O R W A Y R O M A N I A L I T H U A N I A P O L A N D S W E D E N F I N L A N D C Y P R U S E U ( 2 8 C O U N T R I E S) F R A N C E C R O A T I A A U S T R I A B U L G A R I A S L O V A K I A B E L G I U M P O R T U G A L I C E L A N D U N I T E D KI N G D O M L U X E M B O U R G N E T H E R L A N D S I T A L Y S P A I N I R E L A N D L I E C H T E N S T E I N 0.79% 0.76% 0.75% 0.73% 0.71% 0.69% 0.68% 0.62% 0.60% 0.60% 0.58% 0.53% 0.51% 0.46% 0.43% 0.40% 0.34% 0.29% 0.26% 0.24% 0.18% 0.17% 0.03% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 9 Aid for agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture is not included in the data for the EU Member States and the EFTA States presented above. Similarly, aid to the transport sector, railway infrastructure and financial crisis aid is also not included in the numbers. 10

11 3. STATE AID OBJECTIVES 3.1 State aid objectives in the EFTA States Figure 6 displays the composition of aid by primary objectives in 2015, based on aid amounts. The figure shows that aid measures with environmental protection and regional development as their main objective received the largest proportion of aid in the EFTA States in 2015, each accounting for around 34 percent of all expenditure, followed by aid to R&D&I, which accounted for 22 percent. Sectoral aid, primarily aid to broadband infrastructure, accounted for 0.65 percent of total expenditure. In comparison, the EU-28 awarded around 50 percent of total aid to environmental protection and energy saving in 2015, whereas regional development and R&D&I accounted for around 11 percent and 9 percent respectively. 10 Sectoral aid granted by the EU-28 accounted for 5 percent of total state aid expenditure. Figure 6: State aid expenditure by primary objective Environmental protection and energy-saving 34 % Grand Total 100.0% R&D&I Research 22% and development including Innovation 22.08% Other Other 10% Research and development including Innovation 22.1% Regional development 34% Culture and heritage conservation 4.27% Employment 2.10% Promotion of export 1.49% Training 1.06% Sectoral 0.65% SME 0.51% Main objectives in Norway Figure 7 displays the distribution of aid expenditure in Norway over the period , by aid objective. The figure shows that aid supporting regional development and cohesion accounted for the largest proportion of expenditure in Norway during most of the period. This is mainly due to the regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme, an arrangement aiming to reduce or prevent depopulation in the least inhabited regions of Norway. In 2015, the arrangement equalled EUR 920 million in foregone social security contributions (NOK 8.24 billion), accounting for more than 33 percent of all Norwegian aid expenditure. The figure further shows that aid to promote environmental objectives accounted for the second largest proportion of all aid expenditure in Norway from 2009 until 2014, but became the largest category of aid in A large share of the expenditure in this category derive from the Norwegian Energy Fund, a governmental trust set up to promote environmentally friendly production and consumption of energy. In 2015, aid to environmental objectives in Norway amounted to EUR 956 million in total (NOK 8.56 billion) p

12 Aid expenditure (EUR million) Constant prices Finally, aid to support R&D&I projects accounted for the third largest proportion of expenditure in Norway during the period. The largest measure within this category was the Skattefunn arrangement, a tax credit scheme set up to incentivise businesses to carry out R&D&I activities. In 2015, this measure equalled EUR 277 million in foregone tax revenues (NOK 2.48 billion), representing more than 10 percent of all Norwegian aid expenditure. Figure 7: Distribution of aid by main objective in Norway during ,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 8% 17% 25% 14% 15% 28% 10% 16% 36% 10% 18% 34% 12% 10% 20% 20% 29% 28% 10% 21% 35% Other Research and development including Innovation Environmental protection including Energy saving % 43% 38% 38% 41% 39% 34% Regional development and cohesion Main objectives in Iceland Figure 8 displays the distribution of aid expenditure in Iceland over the period , grouped by aid objective. The figure shows that aid to R&D&I accounted for the largest proportion of expenditure in Iceland throughout the period. In particular, the Rannís research fund and the Rannís technological development fund made up most of this category over the years. In 2015, the funds collectively distributed around EUR 22 million in grants (ISK 3.24 billion), accounting for 37 percent of all aid expenditure in Iceland. Culture and heritage conservation has been another important objective in Icelandic state aid policy, in particular with the introduction of a scheme to support the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre in The Icelandic film support scheme, first introduced in 1999, has also accounted for a large share of expenditure in this category. This arrangement aims to enhance domestic culture and promote the history and nature of Iceland, by reimbursing producers filming in Iceland a share of certain production costs. In 2015, support for cultural objectives amounted to EUR 14 million (ISK 2 billion), accounting for 23 percent of all expenditure. Aid to promote regional development and cohesion also accounted for a significant proportion of state aid expenditure in Iceland during the period. Most of Iceland s regional aid aims to promote local economic development and industries in areas with low population density. The Alcoa aluminium smelter was the largest recipient in 2015, receiving EUR 6.81 million (ISK 997 million) in tax breaks. Aid supporting sectoral development was previously a prominent feature in Icelandic state aid policy, accounting for 41 percent of all aid expenditure in However, over the period under review, this type of aid has been significantly reduced, and only accounted for 4 percent of all Icelandic state aid expenditure in

13 Aid expenditure (EUR million) Constant 2015-prices 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 94% Aid expenditure (EUR million) Constant prices Figure 8: Distribution of aid by main objective in Iceland during % 5% 15% 4% 20% Employment Sectoral development % 32% 9% 21% 47% 45% 18% 26% 5% 47% 7% 21% 28% 43% 17% 31% 45% 35% 44% 23% 52% Regional development and cohesion Culture and heritage conservation Research and development including Innovation Main objectives in Liechtenstein Figure 9 displays the distribution of aid expenditure in Liechtenstein over the period , grouped by aid objective. For most of the period, Liechtenstein s state aid expenditure was entirely related to one measure, the Media Support Act ( Medienförderungsgesetz ), which falls under aid to support culture and heritage conservation. According to the aid-granting authority, the aim of the arrangement is to preserve pluralism of opinions, to promote journalistic editorial quality, and to facilitate the dissemination of opinion shaping media in Liechtenstein. In 2015, the measure accounted for 95 percent of all aid expenditure in Liechtenstein, amounting to EUR 1.84 million (CHF 1.72 million). Liechtenstein introduced a second state aid measure in 2014, with environmental protection and energy-saving as its primary objective. The measure involved aid to the Citizens' Co-operative Balzers for district heating, and accounted for 5 percent of all expenditure in Liechtenstein in Figure 9: Distribution of aid by main objective in Liechtenstein during % % Environmental protection including Energy saving Culture and heritage conservation

14 3.2 Selected state aid objectives EEA comparisons Figure 10 displays aid expenditure for selected objectives relative to GDP for each of the EFTA States during the period 2009 until 2015, together with the corresponding figure for the average of the EU-28. I. Figure 10 a) shows that both Iceland and Norway consistently spent more aid on R&D&I than the average of the EU-28 throughout the relevant period. The gap has widened over time, as Iceland and Norway display upward trends in R&D&I spending, while the EU-28 shows a moderate downward trend. II. Figure 10 b) shows that Norway spent more aid on environmental objectives than the average of the EU- 28 during the period 2009 until 2013, but, despite increasing its spending, fell below the EU average in In 2015, the difference between the EU-28 and Norway decreased. III. Figure 10 c) shows that Norway spent significantly more aid on regional development than the average of the EU-28 throughout the period, while Iceland consistently spent less. However, in 2015, Iceland increased regional aid spending and reached a level similar to the EU average. IV. Figure 10 d) shows that Iceland consistently spent more aid on cultural objectives than the average of the EU-28, but a reduction in 2015 narrowed the gap considerably. Liechtenstein also had a spending trend above the EU-28 for most of the period, but fell below the EU average in Figure 10: State aid granted for selected aid objectives in relation to GDP a) Research, development and innovation b) Environmental protection and energy saving 0.25% 0.40% EU 28 ICE 0.35% 0.20% 0.30% NOR 0.15% NOR 0.25% 0.20% 0.10% EU % 0.05% 0.10% 0.00% LIE 0.05% 0.00% LIE ICE c) Regional development and cohesion d) Culture and heritage conservation 0.30% 0.16% 0.25% 0.20% NOR 0.14% 0.12% 0.10% 0.15% 0.08% ICE 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% EU 28 ICE LIE 0.06% 0.04% 0.02% 0.00% EU 28 LIE NOR 14

15 Number of GBER measures 4. AID AWARDED UNDER THE GENERAL BLOCK EXEMPTION REGULATION The European Commission adopted the General Block Exemption Regulation ( GBER ) in August 2008 to simplify aid-granting procedures. Under the regulation, specific categories of state aid were declared compatible if they fulfilled certain conditions, and were thus exempted from the requirement of prior notification and approval. The regulation was incorporated into the EEA Agreement in December of the same year. As part of the State Aid Modernisation initiative, the European Commission adopted a revised GBER in July 2014, which was incorporated into the EEA Agreement in the same month. The revision had three main objectives: i) it significantly extended the possibilities for EEA States to grant good aid to companies without prior scrutiny; ii) it simplified the granting procedure; and, iii) it introduced ex-post requirements, such as the evaluation of large aid schemes. In essence, due to the broadened scope of the revised GBER, the EFTA States are now able to implement more aid measures and grant higher amounts without having to notify for authorisation. 11 Until 2013, Norway was the only EFTA State to grant aid under the regulation. Iceland introduced its first GBER measure in 2014 and a second one in Liechtenstein has not yet made use of the GBER. 4.1 GBER measures in the EFTA States: Figure 11 shows the number of GBER measures with reported expenditure in the EFTA States (primarily Norway) in the period from 2009 until The chart shows that the number of active measures has increased significantly over the period. In particular, after the revised regulation was adopted in 2014, the number of GBER measures increased by more than 50 percent and totalled 95 active measures in The largest number of GBER measures in 2015 supported R&D&I (38 measures), followed by environmental protection (17 measures), regional development (12 measures), training (10 measures) and employment (5 measures). Figure 11: Number of GBER measures with reported expenditure Culture and heritage conservation Sectoral development Employment Training SME including risk capital Regional development and cohesion Environmental protection including Energy saving Research and development including Innovation 11 See press release 14/369, at 15

16 GBER aid expenditure (EUR million) Nominal amounts 4.2 GBER aid in the EFTA States: Figure 12 illustrates the development of GBER aid in the EFTA States (primarily Norway) in the period The graph shows that the EFTA States increased GBER expenditure every year over the period (nominally), with GBER aid totalling EUR 1,064 billion in 2015, corresponding to a nominal increase of 17 percent from 2014 (EUR 154 million). The increase was due primarily to increased spending on R&D&I, particularly the following measures: Innovation projects for the industrial sector 12 (EUR 104 million); Aid scheme for R&D Contracts in Western and Southern Norway 13 (EUR 39.5 million); Funding of feasibility studies, preparatory R&D and other related aid for R&D&I 14 (EUR 21 million); and Scheme to support innovation companies 15 (EUR 8.20 million). In 2015, R&D&I measures received the largest proportion of GBER aid, accounting for 52 percent of total GBER expenditure (EUR 565 million), followed by GBER aid to environmental protection and energy saving, which accounted for 32 percent of all GBER expenditure (EUR 340 million). The shares for other aid categories were: 5.5 percent for aid to employment, 4.25 percent for culture and heritage conservation, 2.8 percent for training, 1.4 percent for regional development, 0.8 percent for SME including risk capital, and finally 0.15 percent for sectoral development (primarily aid to broadband infrastructure projects). Figure 12: Amount of GBER aid granted during Environmental protection including Energy saving Research and development including Innovation Employment Culture and heritage conservation Regional development and cohesion Training SME including risk capital Sectoral development GBER information sheet No. 32/2014: 13 GBER information sheet No. 21/2015: 14 GBER information sheet No. 45/2014: 15 GBER information sheet No. 58/2014: 16

17 4.3 Use of GBER in the EFTA States relative to total aid Figure 13 shows i) the proportion of GBER measures with reported expenditure (i.e. active measures) relative to all measures with reported expenditure; ii) the proportion of new GBER measures with reported expenditure relative to all new measures with reported expenditure; and iii) the amount of GBER aid relative to total aid spending in the EFTA States during the relevant period. The main observations are set out below: i. Since 2012, the number of active GBER measures has exceeded the number of active notified measures. In 2015 GBER measures accounted for 65 percent of all active measures in the EFTA States. For Norway alone, GBER measures accounted for 73 percent of all measures with reported expenditure. ii. Furthermore, the number of new GBER measures with reported expenditure relative to all new measures with reported expenditure was high and increasing over the period. In 2015, 79 percent of all new active measures was notified under GBER. iii. Finally, despite the increase in GBER measures and aid, the proportion of GBER aid to total aid has remained stable over the period, fluctuating between 31 and 35 percent of total aid. However, in 2015 the proportion of GBER aid increased to 38 percent of all aid granted in the EFTA States. In comparison, more than 96 percent of new aid measures in the EU-28 were covered by the GBER in 2015 and thus implemented without prior scrutiny. In terms of spending, total expenditure under the GBER in the EU-28 amounted to EUR 30 billion, i.e. around 30 percent of all expenditure. Figure 13: Use of GBER in the EFTA States during % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 55% 35% 60% 40% 69% 46% 73% 74% 76% 51% 55% 54% 79% 65% Total new GBER cases as % of all new cases with reported expenditure Total GBER cases as % of all cases with reported expenditure 30% 20% 31% 35% 32% 32% 35% 35% 38% Total GBER reported expenditure as % of all reported expenditure 10% 0% 17

18 5. RECOVERY CASES The purpose of mandating the recovery of unlawful state aid is to remove the undue advantage granted to an undertaking (or undertakings) through such illegal aid, and to restore the market to the situation that prevailed before the unlawful aid was granted. In such circumstances, the recovered aid - with interest at an appropriate level - is reimbursed to the relevant public authority that originally granted the incompatible support. In 2015, the Authority ordered recovery in one case concerning public bus transport in the County of Aust-Agder, Norway. Table 14 provides further details on recovery cases in the period Figure 14: Overview of recovery cases in the EFTA States during Decision Number Working title of case EFTA State Date of Decision Amount to be recovered according to decision Amount effectively recovered Pending 390/09/COL Mesta Norway NOK million (plus interest) NOK 129 million (incl. interest) No 97/10/COL 416/10/COL Captive insurance undertakings Investment undertakings Liechtenstein CHF 20,827,286 CHF 20,827,286 No Liechtenstein CHF 1,669,279 CHF 1,669,279 No 205/11/COL Hurtigruten Norway NOK 0 16 NOK 0 No 206/11/COL 232/11/COL HFF Mortgage Loans Scheme Sale of land at Asker Iceland To be determined ISK 0 No 17 Norway To be determined NOK 4,074,953 No 18 90/12/COL Haslemoen Leir Norway NOK 6, ,14 261/12/COL Verne Data Center Iceland To be determined NOK 6, ,14 (incl. interest) ISK 320,920, for sale of buildings ISK 142,535, for property taxes No Yes /15/COL 404/14/COL Public bus transport in Aust- Agder Investment Incentive Scheme Norway To be determined Yes Iceland To be determined Yes 16 Norway had decided to grant the aid, but had not disbursed it. The amount of overcompensation identified by the Authority was approximately NOK144 million. Since no actual payments were made, the amount to be recovered was effectively zero. 17 This recovery case was subsequently closed by the Authority in February 2013, taking into account the fact that both BYR Savings Bank and Keflavík Savings Bank had ceased all activities and that claims previously held by those banks were passed onto their successors. 18 This recovery case was subsequently closed by the Authority in January 2014 since recovery was effected in An additional ISK was placed in escrow in March In 2013, ISK was repaid by the Icelandic authorities to Verne. 21 Iceland brought an action against the Authority s decision to the EFTA Court in 2012 (Case E-9/12) and the latter upheld the Authority s decision in a judgment delivered on 22 July

19 6. INFORMATION SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY 6.1 Tables and graphs in the scoreboard The tables and graphs in the scoreboard are based on data submitted by the EFTA States in their annual reports to the Authority. The underlying data can be accessed in Excel format from the Authority s website: State aid register The Authority s state aid register is an online service, which provides an overview of all state aid cases that have been the subject of a decision by the Authority since 1 January 1994: Annual report and state aid e-news The Authority publishes Annual reports on its activities, which summarise the most important legal developments, decisions and case law during the relevant year. The reports are available at: State aid e-news is a weekly service providing updates on state aid decisions adopted by the Authority, as well as of court judgments handed down by the EFTA Court: E-news is also available through the State Aid Weekly Newsletter published by the European Commission Methodology This scoreboard is published in accordance with Article 6 of Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July This provides that the Authority shall publish a scoreboard containing a synthesis of the information from the annual reports, which are submitted by the individual EFTA States to the Authority pursuant to Article 21 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. All data concerning the EFTA States has been obtained from the annual reports provided by the EFTA States and from reports provided pursuant to block exemption regulations. Unless otherwise indicated, information has been included according to the objective of the aid as opposed to the identity of the aid recipients. As regards information concerning the 28 EU Member States, the data was obtained from the scoreboard published online by the European Commission, State Aid Scoreboard 2016 available at: 22 Decision No 195/04/COL of on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, OJ L 123, , p

20 Contact Any queries or requests for data should be marked Scoreboard and should be sent to the general state aid mailbox at Alternatively, please contact: Ida Rødseth Kjosås Officer, Competition and State Aid Directorate tel. (+32)(0) Fabian Kaisen Deputy Director, Competition and State Aid Directorate tel. (+32)(0)

21 Annex A: Aggregated source data for Norway: NORWAY Total State aid (1+2), less railways (1) Non-Agrucultural Aid of which (by objective) Closure aid Compensation for damages caused by natural disaster Culture Employment Environmental protection including Energy saving Heritage conservation Promotion of export and internationalisation Regional development Rescue & Restructure Research and development including Innovation Sectoral development SME including risk capital Social support to individual consumers Training Other of which (by instrument) of which Equity participation Grant Guarantee Soft loan Tax deferral Tax exemption 1, , , , , , , Other Co-financed : : : : : : : Non co-financed : : : : : : : (2) Agricultural Aid na na na na na na na of which na na na na na na na Agriculture and rural development na na na na na na na Aid granted to fisheries and aquaculture na na na na na na na Transport aid (exluding railway) of which Road Maritime transport Inland water transport Air transport Other transport NORWAY Total subsidies to the railway sector of which PSO and pensions Infrastructure and other aid

22 Annex B: Aggregated source data for Iceland: ICELAND Total State aid (1+2), less railways (1) Non-Agrucultural Aid of which (by objective) Closure aid Compensation for damages caused by natural disaster Culture Employment Environmental protection including Energy saving Heritage conservation Promotion of export and internationalisation Regional development Rescue & Restructure Research and development including Innovation Sectoral development SME including risk capital Social support to individual consumers Training Other of which (by instrument) Equity participation Grant Guarantee Soft loan Tax deferral Tax exemption Other of which Co-financed : : : : : : : Non co-financed : : : : : : : (2) Agricultural Aid of which Agriculture and rural development na na na na na na na Aid granted to fisheries and aquaculture na na na na na na na Transport aid (exluding railway) of which Road Maritime transport Inland water transport Air transport Other transport ICELAND Total subsidies to the railway sector of which PSO and pensions Infrastructure and other aid

23 Annex C: Aggregated source data for Liechtenstein: LIECHTENSTEIN Total State aid (1+2), less railways (1) Non-Agrucultural Aid of which (by objective) Closure aid Compensation for damages caused by natural disaster Culture Employment Environmental protection including Energy saving Heritage conservation Promotion of export and internationalisation Regional development Rescue & Restructure Research and development including Innovation Sectoral development SME including risk capital Social support to individual consumers Training Other of which (by instrument) Equity participation Grant Guarantee Soft loan Tax deferral Tax exemption Other of which Co-financed : : : : : : : Non co-financed : : : : : : : (2) Agricultural Aid of which Agriculture and rural development na na na na na na na Aid granted to fisheries and aquaculture na na na na na na na Transport aid (exluding railway) of which Road Maritime transport Inland water transport Air transport Other transport LIECHTENSTEIN Total subsidies to the railway sector of which PSO and pensions Infrastructure and other aid