Resilient funding
Image credits: Adobe Stock
Flexible funding enabled rapid responses to COVID-19 and to addressing consequences of Russia’s warfare in Ukraine in affected Beneficiary States, helping countries protect people, adapt services and address urgent needs.
Staying relevant in times of uncertainty
The 2014–2021 funding period demonstrated the EEA and Norway Grants’ ability to adapt to a rapidly changing Europe. Although the Grants were established to strengthen governance, social inclusion, environmental sustainability and economic development, the period was shaped by a series of unforeseen crises that placed exceptional pressure on public institutions, civil society and local communities. Flexibility and responsiveness, therefore, became defining features of implementation, ensuring that funding remained relevant and impactful in times of uncertainty.
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted daily life across the continent, creating urgent health, social and economic needs, while limiting the ability of governments and organisations to deliver services. Soon after, the conflict in Ukraine produced a humanitarian and security crisis, prompting immediate support for refugees and displaced people as well as longer-term measures to safeguard these refugees’ access to education, healthcare and social services in host Beneficiary States. Additional shocks, including environmental emergencies, natural disasters and economic instability, further highlighted the importance of adaptable funding mechanisms that could reallocate resources quickly and support innovative responses.
Across these challenges, the Grants showed that flexible programme management and close cooperation with national and local actors are essential to sustaining resilience. This adaptability enabled Beneficiary States and partners to address urgent needs while continuing progress towards long-term development goals.
COVID-19 response
The EEA and Norway Grants adapted to the pandemic by revising timelines, simplifying reporting procedures, and enabling remote implementation of projects. Digital solutions were widely adopted to maintain service delivery, facilitate training, and continue capacity-building activities. Programme managers worked closely with Beneficiaries to identify emerging needs and ensure continuity of support, particularly for vulnerable groups affected by the crisis.
Project examples
Gaining ground in the combat against domestic violence
The Lithuanian–Norwegian project strengthened the justice chain’s response to domestic violence at a time when COVID-19 intensified risks for victims. By improving evidence handling, training frontline responders, and uniting police and judicial actors, it established clearer procedures to protect those made even more vulnerable during the pandemic.
Gender equality and COVID-19
The Latvian Path Towards Gender Equality project highlighted how the COVID-19 pandemic worsened existing gender gaps, pushing more women out of the labour market and deepening care burdens. By examining barriers in tech and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), the initiative underscored the need for targeted action to prevent pandemic-driven setbacks for women’s participation.
Europe’s recovery starts with green businesses
Europe’s COVID-19 economic downturn underscored the pivotal role of SMEs in driving a resilient, green recovery. Through €355 million in EEA and Norway Grants, innovative businesses introduced low-carbon solutions, created jobs, and strengthened circular practices—showing how post-pandemic recovery and climate action can advance together across the EU. Three projects from Bulgaria and Romania demonstrate how the Grants helped them make a real – green – difference.
Ukraine-related support
Russia’s war against Ukraine posed an unprecedented challenge to the EEA and Norway Grants, testing both pre‑existing plans and the system’s capacity to respond to rapidly changing needs. Many ongoing projects in Beneficiary States were directly affected, particularly those involving cooperation with Ukraine. Travel restrictions, heightened security risks, disrupted supply chains and no‑fly zones made implementation impossible in their original form. At the same time, inflation following the COVID‑19 pandemic and the war required contracts to be modified or extended, underlining the importance of resilience and adaptability in programme management.
Most critically, needs within Beneficiary States changed as they responded to the arrival of large numbers of Ukrainian refugees. This triggered a rapid and targeted response from the EEA and Norway Grants. The first Ukraine‑related projects were identified as early as March 2022, only weeks after the escalation of Russia’s warfare. Funding flexibility was central to this response. Resources were largely mobilised through the reallocation of existing funds, including allocations that could not be fully spent during the pandemic, complemented by bilateral cooperation budgets involving Donor States. By the end of 2024, more than €20 million had been allocated to over 200 Ukraine‑related projects.
Initial support prioritised humanitarian assistance and health, addressing immediate needs as refugees arrived. Over time, however, the emphasis shifted towards projects with more sustainable impact, in line with the long‑term objectives of the Grants. Key areas included refugee integration, access to education and health services, employability, and protection of particularly vulnerable groups, notably women exposed to risks of violence, sexual assault or human trafficking.
Civil society organisations played a central role across Beneficiary States, frequently acting as first responders and coordinating efforts to avoid duplication while filling critical gaps. Support was channelled through a wide range of programmes, reflecting the cross‑cutting nature of the response. Local authorities and NGOs benefitted from flexible funding arrangements that enabled rapid deployment of resources and cross‑border sharing of experience, including through reoriented bilateral cooperation with Donor States.
Importantly, speed and flexibility did not come at the expense of sound management. All projects were assessed against both standard quality and accountability requirements and dedicated Ukraine-specific criteria. This ensured that the response to the consequences of war combined urgency with robustness, illustrating how resilient funding can deliver effective, targeted and sustainable support in times of crisis.
Project examples
Unfrozen life: LT+UA=TULA
Lithuania has become a temporary home for Ukrainians fleeing the war in their homeland. For Lithuanians, this war is a painful reminder of the Soviet era and a real threat that they have lived with every day since the start of the war. How can these experiences be related? Can they enrich both nations’ understanding and help them make sense of this war?
Helping Ukrainian refugees in Romania
Romania rapidly became a frontline refuge as over one million Ukrainians fled the Russian invasion. With EEA and Norway Grants support, authorities received emergency funding to expand shelter capacity, improve processing of asylum applications, and ensure dignified conditions—strengthening Romania’s humanitarian response during Europe’s largest refugee influx since World War II.
Working together to help Ukrainians
Millions of people have been forced to leave their homes in search of safety, and frontline services across Europe have stepped up to meet urgent needs. Through the EEA and Norway Grants, countries have strengthened support systems that offer protection, dignity and stability to those fleeing conflict. Examples from Czechia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania demonstrate how targeted support can respond effectively to urgent needs while fostering longer-term integration.
Lessons learned about resilience and flexibility
The 2014–2021 period showed that resilience is not only about responding to crises but also about embedding adaptability into programme design. Key lessons included:
- Rapid reallocation: Flexible funding allowed programmes to pivot quickly to address emerging needs.
- Digital adaptation: Remote and digital solutions ensured continuity of services and engagement with stakeholders.
- Partnerships: Strong collaboration with civil society, local authorities and international organisations amplified the reach and effectiveness of crisis responses.
- Long-term resilience: Short-term crisis response measures often contributed to lasting improvements in institutional capacity and social infrastructure.
These experiences reinforced the value of funding mechanisms that can anticipate change, respond to unforeseen circumstances, and continue delivering impact even under challenging conditions.
