Revised Inception Report - European...

ADE s.a. Rue de Clairvaux, 40

B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium

Tel.: +32 10 45 45 10 Fax: +32 10 45 40 99 E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.ade.be

Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (Objectives 1 and 2) – Work package 5b: Environment and Climate Change

RReevviisseedd IInncceeppttiioonn RReeppoorrtt

October 2008

TThhiiss rreeppoorrtt hhaass bbeeeenn pprreeppaarreedd bbyy AADDEE aatt tthhee rreeqquueesstt ooff tthhee EEuurrooppeeaann CCoommmmiissssiioonn..

TThhee vviieewwss eexxpprreesssseedd aarree tthhoossee ooff tthhee CCoonnssuullttaanntt aanndd ddoo nnoott rreepprreesseenntt tthhee ooffffiicciiaall vviieewwss ooff tthhee EEuurrooppeeaann CCoommmmiissssiioonn..

EX-POST EVALUATION OF COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES 2000-2006 CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN FUND FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (OBJECTIVES 1 AND 2) WORK PACKAGE 2: DATA FEASIBILITY STUDY ADE

Revised Inception Report – October 2008 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ACRONYMS

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1

1. TASK 1: CONCEPTUAL BASIS.......................................................................................... 3 1.1 TASK 1: WHAT IS IT ABOUT? ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2 PRELIMINARY INSIGHTS FROM ECONOMIC THEORY OF THE ENVIRONMENT..................... 4 1.3 DYNAMICS MATTER..................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 BACK TO TASK 1: HOW TO PROCEED? ...................................................................................... 6 1.5 TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK........................................ 9 1.6 THE EVALUATION GRID............................................................................................................ 10

2. TASK 2: FEATURES OF ENVIRONMENT STRATEGIES OF MEMBER STATES ..................19 2.1 OVERVIEW NOTE FOR THE 14 MEMBER STATES .................................................................. 19 2.2 OVERVIEW NOTE FOR THE REMAINING 11 MEMBER STATES............................................. 23 2.3 SUMMARY AT EU LEVEL ........................................................................................................... 25

3. TASK 3: MAIN OUTCOMES............................................................................................27 3.1 TASK 3.1: MAIN OUTPUT AND RESULT INDICATORS FROM ERDF INTERVENTIONS....... 27

3.1.1 Collection of the main outcomes ................................................................................... 27 3.1.2 Financial information related to environmental interventions................................... 30

3.2 TASK 3.2: EFFECTIVENESS OF MAJOR SECTORAL PROGRAMMES ........................................ 30 3.2.1 Short description of the six major sectoral programmes ............................................ 30 3.2.3 Template to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the programmes .................... 37

4. TASK 4: CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................43 4.1 TASK 4.1: REGIONAL CASE STUDIES ...................................................................................... 44

4.1.1 Selection of the Regions................................................................................................... 45 4.1.2 Content of the case studies.............................................................................................. 48

4.2 TASK 4.2: CASE STUDIES ON WASTE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF WASTE ........ 55 4.2.1 Selection of the case studies ........................................................................................... 55 4.2.2 Objectives of the case studies ......................................................................................... 56 4.2.3 Methodology...................................................................................................................... 56 4.2.4 Key Evaluation Questions............................................................................................... 58 4.2.5 Information sources ......................................................................................................... 59

5. TASK 5: CLIMATE CHANGE .......................................................................................... 61 5.1 AIM OF TASK 5 ........................................................................................................................... 61 5.2 SELECTION OF MEMBER STATES AND/OR REGIONS ........................................................... 61

5.2.1 Characteristics of the operational programmes............................................................ 62 5.2.2 Selection of the operational programmes...................................................................... 64

5.3 KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................................................................................ 65 5.4 INFORMATION SOURCES ........................................................................................................... 68

6. SHARING OF TASKS BETWEEN EXPERTS.......................................................................71


Revised Inception Report – October 2008 Table of Contents

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 – INDICATORS RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE .....................................................81 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Total ERDF amounts (Objective 1 and 2) invested

in environment fields of interventions during the period 2000-2006................... 1 Table 2 : Indicators requested under Task 3.1 in ToRs ........................................................ 28 Table 3 : Indicators requested under Task 3.1 for Portugal, France and the Czech

Republic ....................................................................................................................... 28 Table 4: Selection of Member States for Tasks 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 5 ..................................... 43 Table 5 : Environmental investment by the public sector and the industry % of GDP) 46 Table 6 : Importance of environmental expenditures in programmes funded by ERDF

including an environment component ................................................................... 46 Table 7 : First proposal for regional case studies ................................................................... 47 Table 8 : Characteristics of German, Portuguese and Czech operational programmes

related to climate change issues................................................................................ 63 Table 9 : Sharing of tasks between experts, by phase and stage, including number of

man-days ...................................................................................................................... 74 LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 1 : State of the environment in Ireland compared to EU average............................ 25


Revised Inception Report – October 2008 Acronyms

Acronyms C&D Construction & Demolition

CSF Community Support Framework

DG Regio Directorate-General Regional Policy

EAP Environmental Action Programme

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

EIB European Investment Bank

EC European Commission

EEA European Environmental Agency

ESIOP Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme

ERDF European Fund for Regional Development

EU European Union

Eq. Equivalent

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

FOI Field of interventions

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GJ Gigajoule

ISPA Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession

kWh Kilowatt hour

MJ Megajoule

MS Member State

MW Megawatt

MWh Megawatt hour

n.a. Not available

n.c. Not calculable

NDP National Development Plan

NEP National Environmental Programme

NGO Non-governmental organisation

O1 Objective 1

O2 Objective 2

OP Operational Programme

OPBI Operational Programme Basic Infrastructure


Revised Inception Report – October 2008 Acronyms

QE Question

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

t ton

ToR Terms of Reference

WP Work Package

WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

Member State acronyms

AT Austria

BE Belgium

CY Cyprus

CZ The Czech Republic

DK Denmark

EE Estonia

FI Finland

FR France

DE Germany

GR Greece

HU Hungary

IE Ireland

IT Italy

LV Latvia

LT Lithuania

LU Luxembourg (Grand Duchy)

MT Malta

NL The Netherlands

PL Poland

PT Portugal

SK Slovakia

SI Slovenia

ES Spain

SE Sweden

GB or UK United Kingdom

EX-POST EVALUATION OF COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES 2000-2006 CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN FUND FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (OBJECTIVES 1 AND 2) - WORK PACKAGE 5B: ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADE

Revised Inception Report – October 2008 page 1

Introduction

The Inception Report aims to provide a methodological framework covering all tasks of this assignment. It must serve to clarify the field of analysis, the main questions to be addressed in the evaluation, and the approaches to implementing the case studies and analysing the sectoral programmes. The report is organised as follows: in the introduction the team addresses the question of the field of analysis and

proposes for approval a list of interventions to be considered as environmental interventions;

the main insights from task 1 (conceptual basis) are summarised in section 1; a comprehensive methodological framework, providing a coherent and integrated

approach to the evaluation and the various tasks to be fulfilled, is derived from this conceptual analysis and presented as a conclusion of task 1;

the team then details, for each of the requested tasks, the methodology to be applied; a final section presents the organisation of the work among the team members.

The Terms of Reference stipulates that the evaluation will cover “the ERDF interventions in the environmental sector as well as the contributions of the ERDF to mitigate the climate change”. Based on the Field of interventions (FOI) classification, table 1 below presents a proposed selection of interventions to be covered in the environmental sector. The selection has been made using the FOI title and taking account of what the Member States (MS) and regions have categorised as “environmental measures”.

Table 1: Total ERDF amounts (Objective 1 and 2) invested in environment fields of interventions during the period 2000-2006

Code Field of interventions related to environment and climate

change Total ERDF Amount

(€m)

127 Improving and maintaining the ecological stability of protected woodlands 8.5

1312 Preservation of the environment in connection with land, forestry and landscape conservation as well as with the improvement of animal welfare

165.8

152 Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies (large business) 395.7

162 Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies (SMEs and the craft sector) 1,057.0

33 Energy infrastructures (production, delivery) 53.3

332 Renewable sources of energy (solar power, wind power, hydro-electricity, biomass) 484.8

333 Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control 265.3 34 Environmental infrastructure (including water) 2,373.7 341 Air 334.8



Code Field of interventions related to environment and climate

change Total ERDF Amount

(€m) 342 Noise 52.3 343 Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste) 1,465.7 344 Drinking water (collection, storage, treatment and distribution) 3,007.0 345 Sewerage and purification 3,995.3 35 Planning and rehabilitation 510.2 351 Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites 1,938.4 352 Rehabilitation of urban areas 4,334.9

353 Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment 2,787.1

354 Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage 2,031.2 Source: Extract from Financial Database (WP1)

The selection of interventions to be covered by the evaluation is of great importance. The range of measures is quite large: environmental infrastructures (water supply, waste water, solid waste, turbine wind, etc.); promotion of renewable energies; upgrading and rehabilitation of sites; protection of the natural environment; and others. The rationale behind each, and their integration into cohesion strategies, may differ considerably. As requested the evaluation will make an assessment of their specific contribution to the implementation of environmental strategies in the EU and to the objectives of the cohesion policy. Within the proposed fields of intervention, two items may be subject to discussion: 352 Rehabilitation of urban areas; and 354 Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage. It may cover various types of interventions, some directly linked to environmental problems, others more indirectly (for example, quality of life in urban areas). As indicated by the allocation of funds across the 14 selected Member States1 (cf. third column of table 1), the interventions under code 352 Rehabilitation of urban areas appear to be the most important field in the sector. For example, the Objective 1 Nord-Pas-de-Calais operational programme allocated €77,3m over the period 2000-2006 to urban and social rehabilitation (Measure 2 of Priority 3 of the programme). Parts of this specific measure are devoted to interventions related to environment such as support for rehabilitation of industrial wasteland, development of natural parks or improvement of landscape, among others, while other parts focus on measures not directly related to environment, such as urban transport networks. The team proposes this set of interventions as the scope of the evaluation. However, care will be taken, when implementing the regional case studies, to restrict the analysis of “rehabilitation of urban areas” and “maintenance and restoring the cultural heritage” to measures directly linked to environment.

1 14 selected MS are the following: Spain, Italy, Germany, Greece, Portugal, France, Poland, Ireland, United Kingdom,

the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia and Finland.



1. Task 1: Conceptual basis

Summary of the ToR relating to Task 1

Examine in the literature the theoretical foundations and limits for the contribution of environmental infrastructure investment to the development of regions, taking into account the different types of environmental infrastructure

Examine the main trade-offs between economic development and the development of infrastructures

Explore whether regions at different stages of development depend differently on the state of the environment

At the beginning of the 2000-2006 period, no specific objectives were defined for environmental measures regarding the 2000-2006 Cohesion Policy. In fact, the decision of the Goteborg Summit to link the Lisbon strategy and the environment was taken in 2001, while the Sixth Environmental Action Programme (6th EAP) which establishes the Community framework for environment policy started in July 2002. Therefore, Task 1 has to provide a general framework for the ex post evaluation and highlight the potential impacts from interventions in the fields of environment and climate change.

1.1 Task 1: what is it about?

To ensure it is addressed effectively it is vital to have a clear understanding of the purpose of Task 1. The approach is conceptual (as indicated by the title of the task) and based on a literature review. But it cannot be a mere literature review. The object is to “examine the theoretical foundations and limits for the contribution of environmental infrastructure investment to the development of regions”, which means making and strengthening the links between theoretical insights and evaluation in practice. The difficulty of such a task must not be underestimated, as an in-depth literature survey on evaluation methods of structural funds has confirmed. Three key issues need to be addressed in the task, as specified in the ToR. These issues clearly express the domains for which a link must be made between theory and practice. They are the following: 1) “differences between the types of environmental infrastructures will be singled out”:

this issue requires a clear characterisation of the different types of investment, as their potential impacts on regional development may be different;

2) “trade-offs between economic development and the development of environmental infrastructures will be examined”: this issue suggests that environmental infrastructures may not be beneficial to economic development, or perhaps may be beneficial under certain conditions which, if they exist, need to be elucidated;



3) “explore whether regions at different stages of development depend differently on the state of environment”: this issue questions the interplay between stages of development and environmental quality; it suggests a causal relationship between environment quality and development needs, but the question of the impact of development on the environment may also have to be considered.

For all these three issues economic theory of the environment can provide insights. But how can these insights be linked to practice? In reality these issues need to be linked together to arrive at an answer the global question raised in Task 1; but how to link them? The answer is to decompose each into its simplest elements, and formally link all the elements that have some connection. Decomposing a complex issue into its basic elements, and then analysing the interplay between these elements, is the natural way to address such complexity.2 In this context that means using indicators capable of demonstrating the link between these elements. Terminology appears to be important, and therefore use is made of different objects that must be named. This will be fully addressed below.

1.2 Preliminary insights from economic theory of the environment

Before trying to make links between the above-mentioned issues and the characteristics of environmental infrastructure investments, some key concepts used in the economic theory of the environment must be explained. The purpose here is not to present that material fully, but just give some preliminary insights. In economic analysis the environment has often the characteristics of a public good. This means that the consumption of that good by one individual does not reduce the availability of the good to others (non-rivalry) and that no-one can be excluded from using the good (non-excludability). The very existence of public goods (or drawbacks, like pollution) provokes externalities, that is, the fact that the action of one agent induces impacts on another agent without compensation. It has been shown that, when such externalities prevail, the market yields a sub-optimal provision, or under-provision, of the public good. In many respects environmental quality constitutes one example of a public good. As a consequence, laissez-faire necessarily yields too much pollution. What the theory advocates is public intervention to cope with this market failure. But to what extent should pollution be reduced? Is zero pollution the optimal goal? Under normal conditions it can be shown that zero pollution is not socially optimal, in the sense that it does not maximise welfare in society as a whole. So there exists a level of pollution abatement that is socially optimal, and which depends both on pollution damage (e.g. on

2 Graph theory makes use of that principle.



health) and pollution “benefits” (employment, profits, etc.). The optimal abatement level has to be found by balancing costs and benefits. To summarise: there exists some pollution abatement level that is optimal from a social point of view (i.e. which maximises global welfare), but for it to be reached (because public good dimension causes market failures) necessitates an adequate public policy. Interestingly, infrastructures share some common features with the environment. Both present the properties of a public good. To be more precise, the environment may be both local (air quality, water quality, noise, in-house pollution, etc.) and global (climate change, biodiversity losses, etc.) while infrastructure has the characteristics of what is called a local public good: it is a public good for a limited spatial area. Taking that into account, it is likely that infrastructures, as well as the environment, because of their nature as public goods, will suffer from under-provision. In both cases, public intervention is required to ensure a socially optimal level of service. A natural question then is: cannot synergies be found by which both of these goods can be supplied more efficiently? Is it possible, by supplying more environmental infrastructure, to improve environmental quality? To answer such questions, one more element must be considered, namely dynamics.

1.3 Dynamics matter

Admittedly, both the environment and infrastructures have dynamic properties that must be taken into account. Infrastructure investments have long-lasting effects (depending on their type) and, depending on the pollutant considered, pollution abatement may also have long-lasting effects (e.g., each ton of CO2 remains for about one hundred years in the atmosphere, warming the climate throughout that period). The picture cannot be complete without considering the entire dynamics between the environment and economics. In a dynamic setting, some trade-offs may appear that were hidden in the static analysis, in particular in terms of timing of costs and benefits. Another typical trade-off will be between more consumption today and less tomorrow (monetary saving is reduced today, thus yielding less revenue tomorrow), or the contrary. And when environmental dynamics are introduced, matters become even more complicated since many dynamics interact. The penultimate link can be made by using messages from the theory of endogenous growth. Initiated in the 1990s this theory seeks to explain the engine of growth, and states that this engine may be endogenous, that is influenced by an agent’s decisions. Three engines have been identified: human capital, technological progress and infrastructures. As explained just above, the reason why infrastructures may promote growth is clear. Even so, the question of the optimal level of provision in a dynamic setting is not that simple to define.



The final link to attain the goal is introduction of the environment. Infrastructures may promote growth, but growth may be detrimental to the environment. So where is the balance? What recommendation can be made regarding public support for environmental infrastructures? How can the issues be linked? For example, what does the literature say about the effects on growth of policies supporting public investments? From a broad perspective, this issue was originally addressed by Arrow and Kurtz (1970), and it was re-ignited 20 years later by Aschauer’s empirical paper (1989) which suggested a powerful role for public infrastructure in the productivity of private capital in the US. The survey of Gramlich (1994) proposed a more balanced view, suggesting that public capital does support growth, albeit probably less strongly than initially suggested by Aschauer. Links between endogenous growth and the environment were made in literature in the 1990’s and some of the questions addressed were the following (Withagen and Vellinga, 2001): Is sustained growth still possible and optimal given exhaustible resources and

pollution? Does pollution have an impact on the growth rate? Do different attitudes towards the environment in different regions explain different

growth rates?

The theoretical literature provides insights into all these questions.3 Surprisingly, it appeared during the literature review that no paper addresses simultaneously the issues of public support for environmental infrastructure, environmental quality and growth. Even so, the findings from the existing literature can provide useful insights, if not the final answer, to our search.

1.4 Back to Task 1: how to proceed? The objective of task 1 is twofold: to identify the links between the issues, the theoretical insights and the type of

investment; to relate them to quantitative or qualitative indicators.

A formal difficulty lies in the fact that this problem consists of an n-dimensional analysis. It cannot be shrunk into a simple two-dimensional matrix that is easy to display and analyse. One way to link these issues formally is to define a set of indicators, be they qualitative or quantitative, and to link them to the theoretical properties stressed above. One needs to organise a network of informational pipelines through which demand for specific information emanating from the theoretical analysis can be satisfied by information from the set of indicators. This set of indicators must be designed so as to answer the needs identified by Task 1, and the network of information pipelines must be adequately designed such that all information links are fully connected.

3 Discussing these insights is beyond the scope of this inception report. It will be done in the first intermediate report.



At this stage of the evaluation, a clear understanding of the following features is required, for they will underpin the whole analysis (the terms in italics are defined above and will be defined further in the first intermediate report): 1. one is faced with two (local) public goods raising externalities: the supply of environmental

quality and the supply of infrastructure (related to environmental quality): since both raise externalities, they suffer from under-provision in the absence of public intervention;

2. an optimal level of environmental quality can be found for the society as a whole: it is determined by comparing the costs from pollution with the benefits from the related (i.e. polluting) economic activity;

3. in the same way, an optimal supply of infrastructure can be defined, by comparing costs (raising and use of public funds) and benefits (health improvements, increases in firms’ productivity, all influences that push up economic growth, etc.);

4. economic growth is said to be detrimental to environmental quality: more pollution, more pressure on natural resources - but empirical evidence and theory suggest that this is not necessarily the case (see the debate on the Environmental Kuznets Curve, to be discussed in the first intermediate report);

5. environmental infrastructures offer an opportunity of reconciling economic growth and environmental quality for enhancing well-being: however, for the reasons explained above, such win-win strategies require public policy;

6. both issues (infrastructures and the environment) encompass short and long run effect, so dynamics are key to grasping their full effects (typically, for this kind of public intervention costs are borne today but benefits appear tomorrow and thereafter);

7. furthermore, some trade-offs may appear between short-term and long-term objectives; for example, (i) more productive (and polluting) investment today means more wealth tomorrow, but also potentially more pollution, (ii) investment in cleaner technologies today means less pollution tomorrow, but potentially less wealth tomorrow;

8. some strategic market behaviour may also be of importance at regional, national or EU levels, for example prime mover advantage, reputational or corporate social responsibility effects.



The preliminarily information sources for Task 1 are the following:

Arrow K., Kurtz M. (1970). “Public investment, the rate of return and optimal policy”, John Hopkins University Press.

Aschauer D. (1989). “Is public expenditure productive?”, Journal of Monetary Economics 23, 177-200.

Atkinson A.B., Stiglitz J.E. (1980). Lectures on Public Economics, McGraw-Hill International Editions.

Barro R.J. (1990). “Government sending in a simple model of endogenous growth, Journal of Political Economy 98(5), S103-S125.

Ekins P., Medhurst J. (2006). “The European Structural Funds and sustainable development”, Evaluation 12(4), 474-495.

Figuières Ch., Prieur F., Tidball M. (2008). “Public infrastructure, strategic interactions and endogenous growth”, working document, INRA Montepellier.

Fullerton D., Kim S-R. (2008). “Environmental investment and policy taxes, and endogenous growth », Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56(2), 141-154.

Glomm G., Ravkumar B. (1994). “Public investment in infrastructure in a simple growth model”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 18(6), 1173-1187.

Gradus R., Smulders S. (1993). “The trade-off between environmental care and long-term growth-pollution in three prototype growth models”, Journal of Economics 58, 25-51.

Gramlich E.M. (1994). “Infrastructure investment: a review essay” Journal of Economic Literature 32(3), 1176-1196.

Pautrel X. (2008). “Reconsidering the impact of the environment on long-run growth when pollution influences health and agents have a finite-lifetime”, Environmental and Resource Economics 40(1), 37-52.

Smulders S., Gradus R. (1996). “Pollution abatement and long-term growth”, European Journal of Political Economy 12, 505-532.

Turnovsky S.J., Fisher W.H. (1995). “The composition of government expenditure and its consequences for macroeconomic performance”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 19, 747-786.

Turnovsky S.J., Pintea M. (2006). “Public an private production in a two-sector economy”, Journal of Macroeconomics 28, 273-302.

Withagen C., Vellinga N. (2001). “Endogenous growth and the environment”, Growth and Change 32, 92-109.



1.5 Towards a comprehensive methodological framework The main outcomes from economic theory may be summarised as follows: there exists some pollution abatement level that is optimal from a social point of view

(i.e. which maximises global welfare), but to be reached it requires appropriate public policy (since the public good dimension causes market failures);

as suggested by the theory of endogenous growth, infrastructures may promote growth; growth may however be detrimental to the environment, and pollution may in time

have an impact on the growth rate; there is a trade-off in reaching an optimal growth rate: more investment today leads

potentially to more wealth tomorrow but also potentially more pollution, while cleaner technologies today may mean less pollution tomorrow but potentially less wealth;

environmental infrastructures may play a key role because they may save both growth and environment quality;

public policy is required and synergies could be found through which to supply both environmental infrastructures and environment quality more efficiently.

The main lessons for the evaluation are as follows: the first aim of environmental expenditures is to limit or even reduce the level of

pollution and to maintain a certain quality of the environment (the level of which may vary according the social preference for a clean environment in the short or long terms);

in the meantime there is a clear interaction with the growth process: in certain conditions environmental expenditures, mainly infrastructures, may contribute positively to growth in the short run but may also contribute to sustaining growth in the medium term;

environmental expenditures will also have an effect on social welfare, by improving the quality of life;

it is recognised that environmental policies have distributional effects as some may lose while others may gain, and therefore a question must be asked about the redistributive impact of environmental expenditures.

The evaluation under review must address these four main issues. The team has put them together in the following three questions.

QE 2 Did ERDF environmental expenditures contribute to reducing or limiting pollution and degradation of environmental resources ?

QE 3 To what extent have ERDF environmental expenditures had a positive impact on economic growth and regional competitiveness ?

QE 4 Did ERDF environmental expenditures improve the quality of life and take into account distributional impacts of environment policy ?



The evaluation grid below presents a methodological framework for answering these questions. A set of sub-questions of importance for measuring each type of effect has been identified as well as the indicators that will form part of the basis for the answers. The sources to be used have been mentioned as far as possible. An important aspect of the evaluation is to assess the extent to which environmental interventions were in line with national environment strategies and challenges as well as with cohesion objectives (QE 1). This question is important as these interventions may have represented an important share of the ERDF programmes (Objectives 1 and 2) during the period 2000-2006 but without specific objectives in terms of environment and climate change at the outset.

Environmental interventions were part of ERDF interventions aiming at strengthening economic and social cohesion in the European Union (EU) by correcting imbalances between its regions. How environmental measures have been integrated into the regional strategies and what complementarities have been established with other types of interventions are important issues for an examination of coherence. Before analysing the relevance and the effectiveness (results, impact) of environmental interventions, one needs to know more precisely what has been financed and the effective contribution of ERDF to the development of environmental infrastructures (Achievements/ Characteristics of environmental interventions). The last three questions address (QE 5, QE 6, QE 7): first, the differences between more and less developed regions and between rural and

urban regions, as the interactions between environment and growth may be very different according to the local level of development; public response may also vary in that context.

second, the dynamic effects and the viability of these interventions; as shown by the theory, dynamics are crucial, particularly in terms of the timing of costs and benefits.

third, the complementarities between ERDF interventions in the environmental fields and interventions in the same fields funded by other European funds.

1.6 The evaluation grid

The team proposes an evaluation grid as a comprehensive methodological framework for the whole evaluation. Each task is related to this framework and will feed into the evaluation process. When relevant, sub questions and indicators will be applied for each type of environment expenditures and each type of environmental infrastructures. At the end of the evaluation, all inputs will be integrated in the evaluation grid. On this basis, answers to evaluation questions (QE1 to QE7) as well as a coherent set of conclusions and recommendations will be drafted. This will constitute the core of the final report.



Achievements/main characteristics of environmental interventions: To what extent have targeted outputs been achieved? Did ERDF environmental expenditures lead to a significant increase in environmental infrastructures?

Task 2

Task 3.1

Task 3.2

Task 4.1

Task 4.2

Task 5

Did the actual implementation of the ERDF environmental interventions differ from the initial objectives, budget and measures?

Budget allocations and revision 1 1 1 Number of projects (targets and achievements)(breakdown by

water supply, waste water, municipal waste water, others) Database WP2 Case studies

1 1

New capacity of waste treatment created (targets and achievements)

Database WP2 Case studies

1 1

Number of landfills closed (targets and achievements) Database WP2 Case studies

1 1

Number of landfills rehabilitated (targets and achievements) Database WP2 Case studies

1 1

Other achievements in the environmental fields Database WP2 Case studies

1 1

Does the investment lead to non rival/ non excludable public infrastructures? New infrastructures built / upgraded Case studies (visits) 1 Small/big infrastructures Case studies (visits) 1 Degree of exclusivity (benefits captured by a small number of

firms) Case studies (interviews) 1



QE 1: To what extent are the environmental interventions in line with national environmental challenges as well as with national/regional strategies?

Task 2 Task 3.1

Task 3.2

Task 4.1

Task 4.2

Task 5

Sub questions Indicators Main sources Did environmental measures tackle the main environmental challenges at national/regional level? Key environmental indicators at national level (gas emission, air

quality, waste generation, fresh water quality, freshwater resources, forests resources, fish resources)

EU indicators and EEA key environmental indicators National/regional statistics offices

1 1 1 1 1

Features in the fields of support at the beginning of the 2000-2006 programming period

Regional indicators 1 1 1 1 1

Position of regions compared to national level Case studies (interviews) 1 1 1 1 Did ERDF environmental interventions respond to European/national/regional environmental priorities? Environmental goals in European programmes Goteborg policy/ Cohesion

fund / 6th EAP 1

1

National/regional strategies in the environmental sector National/regional policy documents

1 1 1

ERDF strategy in the field of environment policy (national/regional programmes)

DOCUP + Case studies (interviews)

1 1 1 1

Overall investment made in environmental infrastructures and role of European funds

Financial data + case studies 1 1 1

Did ERDF environmental measures respond to cohesion objectives? Integration of environmental expenditures in O1 and O2

objectives DOCUP + Case studies (interviews)

1 1 1

Environment as an horizontal priority in programming documents

DOCUP + case studies 1 1 1

Sectoral planning Decision process and project selection

Case studies (interviews with Ministries) 1 1 1 1

Leverage or opportunity effects provided by ERDF interventions within the regional strategy

Case studies(interviews with Management Authorities)

1 1 1 1

Did environmental measures contribute to reach the "acquis communautaire"?

Directives application in the field of waste and water Thematic EU report 1 1 1

Transposition rate in the field of environment Half yearly EU report 1 1



QE2: Did ERDF environmental expenditures contribute to reducing or limiting pollution and degradation of environmental resources ?

Task 2

Task 3.1

Task 3.2

Task 4.1

Task 4.2

Task 5

Sub questions Indicators Main sources 1

To what extent have environmental expenditures contributed to reducing GHG emission?

Type of renewable energies promoted or used in the framework of the ERDF interventions

Database WP2 + evaluation reports and case studies

1 1

Role of the ERDF interventions in the promotion and use of renewable energies


1 1

Impact on the use of renewable energies Database WP2 + evaluation reports and case studies

1 1

Improvement of energy efficiency in enterprises Database WP2 + evaluation reports and case studies

1 1

To what extent did environmental infrastructures improve waste collection and waste treatment?

Trends in waste generation and prevention measures for each relevant waste stream


1 1

Trends in recycling rates for each relevant waste stream compared to European objectives


1 1

Performance of the installations in terms of air and water treatment, air and water pollutant emissions, etc.


1 1

Landfill situation Database WP2 + evaluation reports and case studies

1 1

Improvement of quality of waste management services and satisfaction of the stakeholders

Surveys 1 1

Control on waste management activities Case studies (interviews with stakeholders) 1 1

To what extent did environmental infrastructures improve water supply and waste water collection and treatment?

Contribution to Water Framework Directive (2000) implementation

Evaluation reports + case studies

1 1 1

New treatment technologies introduced Evaluation reports + case studies 1 1

Improvement of management systems Evaluation reports + case studies 1 1

Impact on the quality/quantity of surface and ground water for drinking supplies and aquatic habitat

Database WP2 1 1

Specific questions related to natural resources (forests, water, land) Database WP2 1 1 1



QE 3: To what extent have ERDF environmental expenditures had a positive impact on economic growth/regional competitiveness ?

Task 2

Task 3.1

Task 3.2

Task 4.1

Task 4.2

Task 5

Sub questions Indicators Main sources Direct activities linked to infrastructures/services (in /outside the region) Direct employment created (temporary and permanent) Database WP2

Regional economic figures Case studies

1 1 1

Trend in turnover in activities concerned with protection and management of the environment

Database WP2 Regional economic figures Case studies

1 1 1

Output reduction by competitors (displacement) Case studies (online survey) 1 1

New business opportunities linked to the projects (providers, subcontractors, etc.)

Case studies (online survey) 1 1

Demand push (e.g. due to new services or decreasing prices) Case studies (online survey) 1 1 Effect as an external input into private production function Accessibility/ Attractiveness of the region due to

improved/new public services (water, waste, access to clean energies supply, etc.) and rehabilitated industrial sites

Case studies (interviews with regional authorities)

1 1

Increased production capacities due to the improved public services(new FDI, etc.)

Case studies (interviews with regional authorities)

1 1

Number of companies in industrial parks Case studies (interviews with regional authorities)

1 1

Number of companies connected to wind turbine Case studies (interviews with regional/national authorities)

1 1

New activities in sectors where the environment constitutes a primary natural resource or input (including activities depending on environment quality)

Database WP2 + Regional economic figures + case studies

1 1 1 1

Effects on other factors of production (natural resources, labour) and firm competitiveness

Increased/decreased unit costs Case studies (online survey) 1 1

Improved quality of inputs Case studies (online survey) 1 1

Increasing labour productivity in the sector Case studies (online survey) 1 1

Qualifications of work force Case studies (online survey) 1 1



QE 3: To what extent have ERDF environmental expenditures had a positive impact on economic growth/regional competitiveness ?

Task 2 Task 3.1

Task 3.2

Task 4.1

Task 4.2

Task 5

Sub questions Indicators Main sources Bringing technological innovation Introduction of new/improved technology, spillovers Case studies (online survey) 1 1 1 1

New process, new products/services Case studies (online survey) 1 1 1 1

Innovation transferred into private local companies Case studies (online survey) 1 1 Comparative advantage gained (prime mover effect) Case studies (online survey) 1 1

Management of public expenditures (crowding out effect?) Budget constraint (public deficit, debt, etc.) Case studies (interviews with regional/national

authorities) 1 1

Degree of priority in national strategies Case studies (interviews with regional/national authorities)

1 1

Sectoral planning Selection process (criteria and decision process)

Case studies (interviews with regional/national authorities)

1 1

Additionality at sectoral level (programme would have been funded without European funds? Trade offs national/European funds)

Case studies (interviews with regional/national authorities)

1 1

Resource transfer (from country to region) linked to projects Case studies (interviews with regional/national authorities)

1 1



QE 4: Did ERDF environmental expenditures improve the quality of life and take into account distributional impacts of environment policy ?

Task 2

Task 3.1

Task 3.2

Task 4.1

Task 4.2

Task 5

Sub questions Indicators Main sources

Improved sanitation Additional population served by water supply projects in

relation to overall connection rate Database WP2 + Regional economic figures + case studies

1 1

Reduction of leakage from the water supply network Database WP2 + Regional economic figures + case studies

1

Additional population served by waste water projects in relation to overall population

Database WP2 + Regional economic figures + case studies

1 1

Air quality Regional indicators 1 1 1 1 Water quality Regional indicators 1 1 1 1 Soil quality Regional indicators 1 1 1 1 Health improvement Case studies (interviews with stakeholders) 1 1

Quality of rural/urban housing Air pollution concentration levels in residential areas Case studies 1 1

Urban parks Case studies 1 1

Other relevant indicators Case studies 1 1

Distributional effects Evolution of selling prices of environmental goods and services Case studies 1 1 Equal access to environment-related public services Case studies 1 1 Distributional effects taken into account by regional/sectoral

policies Case studies 1 1



QE 5: Do public policies and ERDF interventions in the field of environment differ according to the stage of development in Europe? Did ERDF environmental interventions reduce disparities across the European Union ?

Task 2 Task 3.1

Task 3.2

Task 4.1

Task 4.2

Task 5

Sub questions Indicators Main sources

Differences between regions according to stages of development/characteristics of regions in terms of policies and results

Analysis of answers to all other questions based by types of regions

Achievements: environmental capital (rate of investment) and type of projects Pollution and degradation of environmental resources Leverage effect (economic growth & regional competitiveness) Quality of life QE 6: Do ERDF-funded environmental infrastructures produce significant long term benefits? Are infrastructures sustainable in the medium term?

Task 2 Task 3.1

Task 3.2

Task 4.1

Task 4.2

Task 5

Sub questions Indicators Main sources Benefits horizon Evolution of Market/demand (including demographic aspect)

and available capacity Project reports + Case studies (interviews with management)

1 1 1 1

Degree of uncertainty about demand aspect Project reports + Case studies (interviews with management)

1 1 1

Promotion of benefits Project reports + Case studies (interviews with management)

1 1 1 1

Profitability and financial sustainability Management costs Project reports + Case studies (interviews with

management) 1 1 1 1

Maintenance costs Project reports + Case studies (interviews with management)

1 1 1 1

Profitability measurement Project reports + Case studies (interviews with management)

1 1 1 1

Dynamic effect (short / long term) Risk of underinvestment/overinvestment: investment rate at

national level (green accounts) and position of regions Eurostat (green national account) 1

Degree of immediate preference for clean environment at regional level

Case studies (interviews with stakeholders) 1

Management capacity Management organisation Project's reports 1 1 1 1



QE 7:To what extent are the ERDF environmental interventions linked to other European-funded interventions (LIFE programme, EIB, cohesion fund, ISPA ) ?

Task 2 Task 3.1

Task 3.2

Task 4.1

Task 4.2

Task 5

Sub questions Indicators Main sources How are ERDF environmental interventions integrated to other European interventions in the same

field? Coherence of ERDF strategies with other funds at

national/regional level Strategy documents 1 1 1

Institutional settings and decision process of ERDF interventions and other interventions

Contacts with EIB, EBRD, LIFE programme authorities

1 1

Coordination and complementarities on the field (data/analysis sharing, co-financing schemes, complementarities in terms of zone, types of measures)

Case studies (interviews with stakeholders) 1 1 1 1

Leverage effects provided by ERDF funds on other funding sources Overall investment made in environmental infrastructures and

renewable energies Financial data and case studies (interviews with stakeholders)

1 1



2. Task 2: Features of Environment Strategies of Member States


Write a short overview note (max. five pages) for the 14 selected Member States (ES, IT, DE, GR, PT, FR, PL, IE, UK, CZ, SK, HU, LV, FI) assessing the following issues:

- status and features in the fields of support relating to water (supply, waste collection and treatment), and municipal solid waste (collection and treatment) at the beginning of the 2000-2006 programming period;

- main trends relating to environmental infrastructure systems (water-related and waste-related), including an assessment of EU environmental policies and the role of private investment for the 2000-2006 programming period;

- estimates of overall investments in environmental infrastructures as well as quantification of financial allocations (EU Funds, international, national, regional and local financial institutions, where available);

- definition of the ERDF strategy in the field of environmental policy within national and regional programmes.

Write a short overview for the remaining 11 Member States presenting:

- the sources of financing for environmental infrastructures relating to water (supply, waste collection and treatment), municipal solid waste, collection and treatment);

- the role of ERDF in relation to the above-mentioned sources of financing.

Write a short summary of the situation at EU level focusing on the similarities/ differences between:

- Member States, if appropriate;

- Objectives 1 and 2 regions, if appropriate.

2.1 Overview note for the 14 Member States

An overview note summarising the main features of the environment in the 14 Member States (MS) will be drafted with a view to preparing the implementation of the different case studies (Task 4.1: Regional case studies; Task 4.2: Waste prevention and management of waste; Task 5: Climate change). Statistics will be compiled centrally by the leading evaluation team and checked and/or completed – if possible – by national experts. As suggested, socio-economic data are provided by evaluators of the WP 1 evaluation (Sources: Eurostat, 2008; DG Regional Policy, 2008; the Labour Force Survey). Each national expert will complete the remaining



fields of the template (max. five pages for each MS). The completed template will be checked by the leading evaluation team. The below-mentioned template will be used for the 14 following MS: Spain, Italy, Germany, Greece, Portugal, France, Poland, Ireland, United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia and Finland. A pilot test will be carried out with Ireland. If deemed necessary, the template will be adjusted. Country name

1. Socio-economic statistics (the whole time series from 1999 to the latest available year) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Population (1,000 capita) Population density GDP per capita (€/capita) Employment rate, 15-64 years old (%) Employment in Agriculture (%) Employment in Industry (%) Employment in Services (%) Source: Eurostat, 2008 and DG Regional Policy, 2008; Labour Force Survey.

2. Status and features of the environment

2.1 Key environmental indicators (the whole time series from 1999 to the latest available year) Water supply 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Proportion (%) of population connected to public water supply

Percentage (%) of population with access to improved water supply in urban areas

Percentage (%) of population with access to improved water supply in rural areas

Source: ENHIS, May 2007 and Eurostat, 2008. Wastewater treatment 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Percentage (% population) of primary treatment as defined by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

Percentage (% population) of secondary treatment as defined by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

Percentage (% population) of tertiary treatment as defined by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

Percentage (% population) of total treatment as defined by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

Source: Eurostat, 2008.



Solid waste 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Municipal waste generation (kg/ capita)

Municipal waste incinerated (kg/ capita)

Municipal waste landfilled (kg/ capita)

Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita)

Source: Source: European Environment Agency, 2008. Energy 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Share of renewable energy in primary energy consumption (%)

Share of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption (%)

Trends in total energy intensity (1995 = 100)

Source: Source: European Environment Agency, 2008. Climate change 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total GHG emissions (1990 = 100) GHG emissions per capita (t CO2 equivalent/ capita)

Source: Source: European Environment Agency, 2008. 2.2 Main environmental challenges List and describe briefly the principal environmental challenges or problems in the Member State. Sources: Programming documents and interviews with MS stakeholders. 2.3 Environmental policy Institutional set-up:

- Who is responsible for decision-making, implementation and monitoring of environmental infrastructures in the country (national level/ regional level/ other relevant levels) by sector?

- Describe the overall management and implementation process by sector (water supply, wastewater and municipal solid waste).

Environmental legislation:

- What are the main policy documents setting out the framework at national and regional levels in relation to water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, municipal solid waste at the beginning of the period 2000-2006?

- Is the polluter-pays principle applied in the Member State (by sector and how it is applied)?

Regional particularities (if any)

- Mention and describe possible regional particularities (decision-making, implementation, management, etc.) for the different types of environmental infrastructures (water supply, wastewater and municipal solid waste).

Sources: Programming documents and interviews with MS stakeholders.



3. Investments in environmental infrastructures during the period 2000-2006

3.1 Global overview (the whole time series from 1999 to the latest available year) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Environmental expenditures by the public sector (% of GDP)

Environmental investments by industry (% of GDP)

Environmental investments by the public sector (% of GDP)

Source: Eurostat, 2008. 3.2 Financial sources

A single Excel table will present all the financial sources over the period 2000-2006, including: - ERDF investments; - Other financial sources: national/regional/ local funds, other EU funds

(Cohesion Fund, EBRD, EIB, etc.). The only sectors to take into account are the sectors are: 1) water, 2) wastewater and 3) (municipal) solid waste.

A graph will show the ERDF investments by FOI in the MS.

The role of ERDF in the development of the environmental infrastructures (water

supply, wastewater collection and treatment, collection and treatment of municipal waste) will be described.

Sources: Programming documents, financial tables and interviews with MS stakeholders. 4. Development of the environmental infrastructure systems

Trends in the development of environmental infrastructures - Describe the trends of the development of environmental infrastructure in the

country (at least from 2000 or a little bit before 2000 up to now).

Compliance with EU Directives - Have been the EU Directives transposed into the national legislation (waste

water, water supply, solid waste)? - Indicate briefly by sector (wastewater, water supply, municipal solid waste) the

principal items of EU legislation which have had significant effects on the quality of environment in the country during the period 2000-2006?

Role of the private sector

- Define the financial weight of the private sector in investments in environmental infrastructures (see financial indicator under Section 3.1 Global overview);

- What types of intervention are implemented by the private sector in terms of environmental infrastructures?

Sources: Policy documents, existing environmental MS reports, interviews with MS representatives.



5. ERDF Strategy in the field of environment policy

Quality and relevance of the strategy of ERDF financed programmes in terms of environment and climate change - Is any explicit ERDF strategy relating to water supply, wastewater, (municipal)

solid waste and climate change mentioned in operational programmes (national and regional)? (Yes/No)

If yes, specify this strategy (characteristics, specific goals, etc.); If no, explain why? - Is this strategy relevant, taking into account the main challenges in the MS (cf.

2.2 Main environmental challenges)? - Is the ERDF strategy in terms of environment policy coherent with existing

environmental policies in the country (e.g. EIB, EBRD, etc.)? Please provide details.

Extent to which the strategy has been followed

- To which extent has this strategy been followed? Why (reasons)?

Short analysis of the followed strategy - What are the positive/ negative effects of this strategy? - Has the strategy changed in the new programming period 2007-2013? Why?

Source: National expert analysis and Interviews with MS stakeholders.

2.2 Overview note for the remaining 11 Member States

The following template will be used for the 11 remaining MS: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden. It will include: socio-economic statistics of the country; environmental investment (% of GDP) by the public sector, industry and the private

sector (in 2000 and in 2005); the sources of financing for environmental infrastructures in the field of water supply,

wastewater collection and treatment of municipal solid waste (ERDF, ISPA, etc.); the role (importance) of the ERDF in this financing.



Country name

1. Socio-economic statistics (from 1999 to the most recent available data) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Population (1,000 capita) Population density GDP per capita (€/capita) Employment rate, 15-64 years old (%) Employment in Agriculture (%) Employment in Industry (%) Employment in Services (%) Source: Eurostat, 2008 and DG Regional Policy, 2008; Labour Force Survey.

2. Investments in environmental infrastructures during the period 2000-2006

2.1 Global overview (from 1999 to the most recent available data) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Environmental expenditures by the public sector (% of GDP)

Environmental investments by industry (% of GDP)

Environmental investments by the public sector (% of GDP)

Source: Eurostat, 2008. 2.2 Financial sources

A single Excel table will present all the financial sources over the period 2000-2006, including: - ERDF investments; - Other financial sources: national/regional/ local funds, other EU funds

(Cohesion Fund, EBRD, EIB, etc.). The only sectors to take into account are the sectors are: 1) water, 2) wastewater and 3) (municipal) solid waste.

A graph will show the ERDF investments by FOI in the MS.

The role of ERDF in the development of the environmental infrastructures (water

supply, wastewater collection and treatment, collection and treatment of municipal waste) will be described.

Sources: Programming documents, financial tables and interviews with MS stakeholders.



2.3 Summary at EU level

On the basis of the above-mentioned information, the environmental situation at EU level will be summarised. Similarities and differences between countries (e.g. in terms of amounts invested in environmental infrastructures) will be highlighted. If appropriate, differences between Objectives 1 and 2 regions will be presented. For the 14 selected MS, a diagram showing the position of the MS at the beginning of the period 2000-2006 compared to the EU average will be systematically produced. The EU average will be set at 100. When the indicator is above 100, it therefore means that the performance of the MS is better than the EU average. An example is given below for Ireland on the basis of available key environmental indicators (cf. section 2.1 of the template for the 14 selected MS).

Graph 1 : State of the environment in Ireland compared to EU average

Source: ADE 2008, based on key environmental indicators.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of population connected to public water supply (2002)

Municipal waste generation (2000)

Municipal waste landfilled (2000)

Packaging waste generation (2000)

Share of renewable energy in primary energy consumption (2000)

GHG emission per capita (2000)

Trends in total energy intensity (2000)

Share of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption (2000)

Ireland

EU average



3. Task 3: Main outcomes

3.1 Task 3.1: Main output and result indicators from ERDF interventions

Summary of the ToR relating to Task 3.1 :Main output and result indicators from ERDF interventions

Collect information from the Work Package 2 of the ex post evaluation on the main outcomes of Objectives 1 and 2 programmes for the 14 selected Member States: - number of projects (including a breakdown by water supply, waste water,

municipal solid waste); - additional population served by water supply projects in relation to overall

connection rate (number. and % increase compared to the baseline); - reduction of leakage from the water supply network (% decrease compared to

the baseline), if available; - additional population served by waste water projects in relation to overall

population (number and % increase compared to the baseline); - new waste treatment capacity created; - number of unauthorised landfills sites closed or rehabilitated, and their share in

the total number of the landfills operated in 2000 (only for EU-10 among the 14 selected Member States).

Fill data gaps – when indicators or their values are not reported in the 2006 annual reports and then are not recorded in the Work Package (WP) 2 database – through additional desk research (evaluations, documents of managing authorities) and fieldwork (interviews with managing authorities, etc.). Additional field work will be limited to a maximum of 50 programming documents, taking into account financial allocations as well as the nature and volume of missing data.

Present the above-mentioned outcome results of Task 3.1 in an Excel spreadsheet.

Present financial information in the environmental sector available for the EU-25 Member States (taking into consideration annex IV of Commission Regulation (CE) 438/2001 of 2 March 2001.

3.1.1 Collection of the main outcomes

An Excel file (sent attached to this report) shows all the main outcomes of the programmes for Portugal, France and the Czech Republic (test phase) in terms of environment and climate change. This information consists of output, result and impact indicators available from the WP2 database. Items available in the Excel file are the following: name of the Member State ; name of the programme and its objective (1 or 2); indicator title and its unit; level to which the indicator relates (programme, priority or measure) and the name of

the priority or the measure, where appropriate;



baseline, target and achieved values (= outcomes); code and name of the indicator requested in the ToRs, as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 : Indicators requested under Task 3.1 in ToRs Code Indicator name

1 Number of projects on water supply 2 Number of projects on wastewater 3 Number of projects on municipal solid waste 4 Number of additional population served by water supply projects

5 % increase of the additional population served by water supply projects (compared to the baseline value)

6 Reduction of leakage from the water supply network 7 Increase in population served by wastewater projects 8 % increase in population served by wastewater projects (compared to the baseline value) 9 New waste treatment capacity created 10 Number of unauthorised landfills closed or rehabilitated

11 % of unauthorised landfills in the total number of the landfills operated in 2000 (for EU10 Member States only)

12 Other specific indicators Assigning a value to each indicator shown above will allow calculation of the main outcomes requested by Member State, programme and objective. For the test phase, the main outcomes are presented in Table 3 below by Member State. It should be noted that aggregating data has to be undertaken carefully after checks with managing authorities, where possible, taking account of the fact that definitions and units for the available indicators can differ from one region to another.

Table 3 : Indicators requested under Task 3.1 for Portugal, France and the Czech Republic

Indicator name Unit Portugal France The Czech Republic

Number of water supply projects Number 231 n.a.4 n.a. Number of wastewater projects Number 1,271 202 47 Number of municipal solid waste projects Number 6 522 38

Increase in population served by water supply projects Number n.c.5 n.a. 13,048

% increase in population served by water supply projects (compared to the baseline value)

% n.c. n.c. n.a.

Reduction in leakage from the water supply network % n.a. n.a. n.a.

Increase in population served by wastewater projects Number 3.49m 74,955 29,914

4 n.a. = not available; it means that a value may exist but is not mentioned in the WP2 database. 5 n.c. = non calculable because there are uncertainties about the definition and the unit of the indicators mentioned in

the WP2 database. There is a need to clarify it with managing authorities to be able to calculate the value of the required indicator.



Indicator name Unit Portugal France The Czech Republic

% increase in population served by wastewater projects (compared to the baseline value)

% n.c. n.a. n.c.

New waste treatment capacity created

tons/ million m³ n.a. 2.45m. tons and

679.6m. m³ 19,543 tons

Number of unauthorised landfills closed/ rehabilitated Number n.a. n.a. n.a.

% of unauthorised landfills in the total number of the landfills operated in 2000 (for EU10 Member States only)

% n.a. n.a. n.a.

Some comments should be highlighted following this test phase: “Unauthorised landfills” are never mentioned among indicators available in the

database. However, indicators related to landfills are available. Are “unauthorised landfills” really monitored through Objectives 1 and 2 programmes?

Very few of the required indicators can be derived easily from the available indicators in the WP2 database. Indeed they present uncertainties in terms of definition and unit of the indicators. Ideally the values of these required indicators should be checked by the managing authorities for each programme.

First, the collected indicators will be sent to the appropriate managing authorities in the MS for checking and, if possible, for up-dating with 2007 values. On the basis of an updated table with all the main outcomes, the evaluator will identify 50 programming documents in which any lack of data will be given urgent attention. For these programmes, the following steps will be applied: additional desk research in the programming documents, available evaluation reports

and documents of managing authorities; additional field work: the managing authorities will receive an Excel file to complete to

supply the missing information; and when necessary they will be interviewed to fill remaining information gaps.

It should be noted that the 50 programmes for which additional work will be done will be selected taking into account the following criteria: the importance of the financial allocations to environmental interventions; the nature and volume of missing data; the need for data for other evaluation tasks (Task 4.1: Regional case studies; Task 4.2:

Waste prevention and management of waste; Task 5: Climate change). The selection of the 50 programming documents and data collection will be presented through the progress reports.



3.1.2 Financial information related to environmental interventions

Financial information related to environmental interventions is presented in an Excel file (sent attached to this report). This file consists of the following worksheets: Worksheet 1: financial information for all programmes with priorities and measures

concerned with environment; Worksheet 2: financial information by fields of intervention; Worksheets 3 to 16: financial information classified by Member State.

Fields of intervention that have been taken into consideration are those presented in the introduction to this Inception Report. The use of the autofilter function in the Excel file allows aggregating data by field of interventions, by programme, priority or objective.

3.2 Task 3.2: Effectiveness of major sectoral programmes

Summary of the ToR relating to Task 3.2

For the six selected sectoral programmes (HU, CZ, IE, PT, SK, GR) the following information will be provided, based on desk research (including annual reports and evaluations) as well as additional interviews as appropriate:

Situation at outset :

- record the set of quantitative targets at the beginning of the programming period;

- record the set of strategic objectives;

Final situation :

- summarise the degree of attainment of the above-mentioned targets at the end of the programming period;

- assess the degree of implementation of the set of strategic objectives prescribed at the beginning of the programming period.

3.2.1 Short description of the six major sectoral programmes

This section presents a short description of the six major sectoral programmes, focusing on their strategic objectives and country-specific challenges in the field of environment. How economic and social development aspects were taken into account in the strategic programming documents is also described.



Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme - Ireland Objective 1 Duration: 7 years (2000 – 2006) Total budget: €1.8bn ERDF budget €1bn Weight of environment (ERDF budget): 9.6% Description

The Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme (ESIOP) is one of five programmes prepared within the framework of the Irish National Development Plan (NDP) 2000-2006. The latter set the overall framework within which applications were made for European Community Structural Funds, and set out the strategic objectives and quantitative targets for acquiring and using these funds. The ESIOP proposed an overall investment of €1.8bn in six infrastructural sectors including environmental infrastructure and sustainable energy. Priority 3 of the Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme addresses a deficit in environmental infrastructure in the areas of water supply, wastewater treatment, and pollution abatement, protection of water resources from pollution, municipal and industrial waste management, and prevention of excessive coastal erosion. Priority 4 of the Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme aims to promote energy conservation and efficiency and greater use of renewable energies.

Strategic objectives

The strategic objective at the level of the programme (ESIOP) was the provision of physical infrastructure that would (1) strengthen and improve the country’s capacity to protect and enhance the environment; (2) improve the quality of life.

Country-specific challenges

Because of Ireland’s exceptional economic development over the past decade, the environment is under significant pressure. Challenges are numerous, especially:

better integration of environmental and natural resource considerations into policies, plans and measures in the economic sectors;

improving the enforcement of environmental legislation. The three specific challenges are:

meeting international commitments on air emissions (greenhouse gases and acidifying gases); prevention and control of eutrophication (over-enrichment of waters by nutrients); waste management.

Link to economic and social development

The ESIOP is a multi-sectoral programme that includes among its objectives: maintaining economic growth and competitiveness; enhancing the potential of all parts of the country to support and increase economic activity; improving the quality of life.



Environmental Protection and Infrastructure - Hungary Objective 1 Duration: 3 years (2004-2006) Total budget: €440.3m ERDF budget : €327.2m Weight of environment (ERDF budget): 38.3% Description

The Environmental and Infrastructure Operational Programme (EIOP) 2004-2006 is one of the five programmes of Hungary’s National Development Plan (NDP). EIOP aims to fulfil specific objective 3 of the Community Support Framework (CSF), that is development of infrastructure and environmental protection. The programme has two priorities: development of (1) environment protection and (2) traffic infrastructure. Environment protection involves numerous measures including water, animal waste, medical and demolition waste, nature conservation and flood prevention, air pollution, energy management, and environment-friendly traffic infrastructure. Strategic objectives

The general objective of EIOP is to promote environment-friendly development. The two specific objectives of the EIOP are (1) improvement of the environment by promoting sustainable development through environmental and nature protection developments; (2) transport infrastructure development and improvement of the indicators of travel duration.


Challenges at country level are numerous. They are detailed in the National Environmental Programme (NEP) of Hungary and include (1) raising the level of environmental awareness in society; (2) ensuring that social and technical conditions allow reductions in the impacts of climate change; (3) developing environmental health and food safety; (4) observing the thresholds of environmental quality in urban areas; (5) strengthening biodiversity conservation and landscape protection; (6) ensuring proper land-area and land use for a good rural environment; (7) developments in the protection and sustainable use of water resources; (8) pursuing implementation of further regional waste management systems; (9) improving environmental security in relation to hazardous materials.


Through the assistance provided to the EIOP investments, economic competitiveness can be increased regionally in a more balanced way. Thus (1) strengthening environment protection will improve the quality of life; (2) promoting development of infrastructure will further support development of the economy; (3) development of infrastructure will aid economic development of disadvantaged regions. The above objectives can be attained through protection of the ecosystem; provision of a harmonious relationship between society and the environment; and enforcement of environmental criteria in economic development.



Operational Programme Environment (OPE) - Portugal Objective 1 Duration: 7 years (2000 – 2006) Total budget: €436.9m ERDF Budget: €327.6m Weight of environment (ERDF budget): 98.6% Description

The OP Environment (OPE) was implemented in coherence with the Cohesion Funds for investment in large infrastructure, and with regional OPs for localised projects. The OPE has established the POLIS programme aimed at improving the quality of life in the cities. It also served as a complement to sectoral programmes so as to promote the environmental sustainability of economic activities (the main sectors or themes were energy, agriculture, fisheries, industry, transportation, tourism, professional training and employment). The OPE was structured around two priorities: i) sustainable management of natural resources and ii) integration of environmental considerations into social and economic activities. The first priority included three measures: 1) conservation and valorisation of natural patrimony; 2) valorisation and protection of natural resources; 3) awareness and administration of the environment, including collection of information. The second priority included two measures: 1) improving the urban environment; 2) underpinning the environmental sustainability of economic activities. Strategic objectives

The strategic objective of the OP Environment in Portugal was the rehabilitation and valorisation of the natural patrimony and the urban environment, as well as improved information infrastructures, awareness raising and environmental management. The main objectives of the programme were to ensure sustainable management of natural resources, to improve the urban environment, and to promote integration of the environment into economic and social activities.


The environmental challenges in Portugal are mainly linked to the consequences of economic growth processes prior to the accession of the country to the EU; to pressures on environment and natural resources due to the process of economic convergence with the EU; the opening-up of the market; and the increasing consumption of commodities and technologies. The issues requiring immediate solutions were improvements to water quality and basic infrastructure and services (water distribution, waste water treatment, solid waste management), adaptation of Portuguese companies to EU legislation requirements (modernisation of technology and processes), reduction or control of emissions (solid, liquid, gas), and reversing the trend in degradation of the city centres caused by the exodus of their inhabitants and chaotic expansion of the outskirts of city centres without adequate infrastructure.


The OP Environment established the POLIS programme to address social issues. The POLIS has been granted 39% of the OP budget to rehabilitate degraded urban areas, promote activities that contribute to the revival of urban public spaces and improvement of their environmental indicators, increase the number of multifunctional sites, and integrate ecological structures into the urban fabric. The OP Environment has allocated 10% of the budget to sustainable economic development, namely to promote voluntary measures to improve the environmental performance of the five priority sectors of the 5th EU Action Plan for environment and sustainable development.



Basic Infrastructure – Slovakia Objective 1 Duration: 3 years (2004 – 2006) Total budget: €565.9m ERDF budget: €422.4m Weight of environment (ERDF budget): 23% Description

The Operational Programme Basic Infrastructure (OPBI) aimed to support well-balanced regional development through increasing the competitiveness of the regions. OPBI covers three strategic priorities: Transport Infrastructure, Environmental Infrastructure (EI) and Local Infrastructure. Environmental Infrastructure covers water (supply, sewerage, flood protection); air (energy sources and emission abatement technologies); waste management infrastructure; and protection, improvement and restoration of the natural environment.

Strategic objectives

The strategic objective in the environmental sector is improvement and management of the environment to provide a strong foundation for sustainable social and economic development of the seven Objective 1 regions and a reduction in disparities between them. Moreover EI also focuses on achieving compliance with EU directives relating to protection and rational use of water, reduction of air pollution, waste management, and protection of the natural environment. Thus the OPBI was also based on the Integrated Environmental Approximation Strategy (2001) and the Treaty on Accession to the EU.


(1) In the area of infrastructure related to protection and rational use of water, the main issues concern the low rate of connection of the population to sewage networks and waste water treatment plants (WWTP) and the growing problem of flood. (2) Further reduction of pollutant emissions constitutes a challenge, including achieving better air quality in urban and industrial areas, reduced energy demand, and changes in the fuel base aimed at more frequent use of environmentally-friendly fuels and renewable energy sources. (3) In waste management the focus is on reduction of waste generation, introduction of separated waste gathering, use of wastes as secondary sources, and improved status of the overall management of contaminated areas. (4) In nature and biodiversity conservation the key issue is the preparation, promulgation and protection of the network of specially protected areas – NATURA 2000.


Slovakia exhibits substantial gaps and disparities within and between regions. These socio-economic aspects were taken into account in the location of environmental infrastructure investments for water (connection of the population to sewerage networks and WWTP, supplies to the population of quality potable drinking water, and measures to prevent or eliminate the negative impact of floods – giving priority to the most burdened areas) in areas lacking drinking water reserves. In the field of air protection activities were aimed mainly at replacement of power equipment and introduction of technologies complying with the limits set out by the EU harmonised environmental law. In the waste management sector activities were focused on minimising of waste through separation and recycling. Improvements in the field of maintenance, protection and recovery of the natural environment were concentrated on enforcing institutions accountable for environmental protection and on elaboration and implementation of management plans in the protected areas.



Environment - Greece Objective 1 Duration: 7 years (2000 – 2006) Total budget: €522.6m ERDF budget: €398.5m Weight of environment (ERDF budget): 95.6% Description

The sectoral OP “Environment” programme finances ten priorities of which the most important in size cover management of protected areas (priority 8) and reconstruction of Lake Karla (priority 8, measure 8.2). Other priorities cover solid waste management, air and noise pollution, environmental awareness raising, territorial and urban planning. Strategic objectives

The environmental policy of Greece as regards the 3rd CSF has two main strategic objectives, that of environmental protection in general and that of complying with EU environmental policies. The strategic objective of the sectoral OP “Environment” programme is to work in a complementary way with the environmental measures included in the other OPs. In this context, the main target was the implementation of measures of national importance or interventions of a special nature in contrast with pure environmental infrastructure financed by the other OPs. At later stages and after many modifications, a number of environmental infrastructure projects were also included.


Basic environmental challenges concern water, especially wastewater treatment (increasing the population connected), drinking water supply, management of solid wastes (especially closure of uncontrolled dumps), protection of the landscape, reduction in air pollution and noise, creation of an environmental inspectorate, improvements in regional and land use planning, proper management of protected areas, improvements in environmental awareness, and incorporation of the environmental dimension in infrastructure and development projects.


The programming document makes a detailed description of the application of the “polluter pays principle” in charging the public for the use of environmental infrastructure. The main programming document for the CSF refers to the overall benefits of all measures as an annual addition to GDP varying from 0,3% to 1,3%, and to intangible improvements in the quality of life due mainly to the new environmental infrastructure.



Infrastructure – Czech Republic Objective 1 Duration: 3 years (2004-2006) Total budget: €334.7m ERDF budget: €246.4m Weight of environment (ERDF budget): 61.6% Description

The SP Infrastructure contributes to sustainable and balanced development of regions as stated in the CSF. The programme has three priorities: (1) modernisation and development of transport infrastructure; (2) reduction of the negative environmental impacts of transport; and (3) environmental infrastructure improvements. The second and third priorities are linked to the environment, priority 3 being directly covered by this evaluation. It covers recovery of the environmental functions of the landscape, water and waste management infrastructure, and air protection. Strategic objectives

The global objective of the OP Infrastructure is to protect and improve the environment, and to develop and improve transport infrastructure, while respecting sustainable development principles, with a focus on meeting EU standards. Three specific objectives are mentioned, namely: 1) improvement of the transport infrastructure of nationwide and inter-regional importance to ensure compliance with EU and other relevant parameters; 2) improvements in the quality of living conditions by reducing the negative environmental impacts of transport; 3) improvements in the quality of particular environmental components.

Country specific challenges

The overall environmental challenge is protection and improvement of environmental quality as one of the basic principles of sustainable development. The current status of the environment is not satisfactory and former positive trends have been arrested or reversed. The main environmental challenges are the following: (1) improvements to water management infrastructure and reduction of flood risk, (2) improvements to air quality and reduction of emission, (3) sustainable use of energy, (4) improvements in waste management and alleviation of old environmental burdens, (5) reduction of industrial pollution and environmental risks, (6) improvements in the state of nature and landscapes, and (7) development of the infrastructure for environmental education, consultancy and awareness.


The priorities of the OP Infrastructure are well linked to economic and social development aspects, as they focus on sustainable economic and social development and stability of regions by improving the environment (better living conditions) and transport infrastructure (mobility, accessibility). In order to strengthen economic and social cohesion, the OP aims at reducing economic and social disparities between regions (contribution to a harmonious and balanced development, reduction of differences between the social standards of individual regions, and support for economic and social development).



3.2.3 Template to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the programmes

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the major sectoral programmes, each national expert will have to complete a template specific to the major sectoral programme they cover. This template includes the following items:

1) basic data related to the programme (objective, location, duration, financial information);

2) the environmental challenges and the main objectives of the national strategy in the Member State where the programme has been implemented;

3) a short programme description:

- focusing on the main activities of the programme linked to environment (environmental infrastructures such as water supply, wastewater and municipal solid waste) and climate change (mainly renewable energies and improvement of energy efficiency); the description will be structured according to the priorities and measures addressing the above-mentioned environmental fields of intervention (see task 3.1);

- showing the total budget allocation by priority and field of interventions;

4) the quantitative results of the programme (indicators from the WP2 database to be verified and completed in consultation with stakeholders in each Member State);

5) an analysis of the effectiveness of the programme.

The template provided below has been partially completed for the Irish Economic and Social Infrastructure OP. As a pilot test, this template will be fully completed in the first intermediate report. Each template completed by the national expert will be checked by the leading evaluation team.



Major Sectoral Operational Programme:

Economic and Social Infrastructure

1. Data Programme Objective 1 Programme location Ireland Programme start year 2000 Programme end year 2006 Total programme duration 7 years ERDF budget in the field of environment 99,445,760 EUR National budget in the field of environment 73,349,958 EUR 2. Ireland and the Environment Environmental challenges Sources:: National expert analysis based on programming documents and reports; interviews with MS stakeholders. Main objectives of the national strategy Sources:: National expert analysis based on programming documents and reports; interviews with MS stakeholders. 3. Programme description Short description of the programme Sources:: National expert analysis based on programming documents and reports; interviews with MS stakeholders. Total budget allocation Sources:: ADE, 2008 based on ERDF financial tables.

By field of interventions linked to environment

By priority

37

136

Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control (FOI code: 333) Millions EUR

Sewerage and purification (FOI code: 345)

173

Other non-environnemental priorities: 1,626 Millions EUR

8%2%

Priority 4: Sustainable Energy 37 Millions EUR

Priority 3: Environnemental Infrastructure136 Millions EUR

90%



4. Quantitative results of the programme

Indicator Measure

Type Name Unit Target (2000)

Achieved (2006)

Achieved (2007)

Output Percentage of Industrial Energy Spend accounted for by SEI Industrial clients (members of the SEI networks; SEI Agreements Programme; participants in the SEI Energy Awards)

% 60 60.3 ?

Output Low Income Housing: Additional Homes Substantially Addressed / Insulated n.a. 13500 10752 ?

Output “Model Solution” Demonstration Projects Approved Number 80 70 ? Output Public Sector Investment Programme n.a. n.a. n.a. ? Output Design Studies Carried Out Number 90 79 ? Output Number of Units Supported under House of Tomorrow Programme Number 1650 4750 ? Output Number of the Research, Development and Demonstration Projects. >

€500,000 Number 13 5 ?

Output Number of the Research, Development and Demonstration Projects. €100,000 ≤ €500,000 Number 45 98 ?

Output Number of the Research, Development and Demonstration Projects. ≤ €100,000 Number 130 160 ?

Result Percentage Reduction in Heat Demand of SEI-Supported Dwelling Compared to House Built to the Building Regulation % 24 40 ?

Result Estimated Percentage Reduction in CO2 Emissions per SEI-Funded Public Sector Buildings After Intervention % 39 39 ?

Result Matching Funding / Investment Leveraged for Renewable Energy research, development and demonstration projects Millions EUR 40 27.3 ?

Result Energy Efficiency Index of SEI Industry Clients (Year 2000 = 100) % 93.5 89.1 ? Result Percentage Reduction in Heat Demand of SEI-Supported Dwelling

Compared to House Built to the Building Regulation % 24 40 ?

Result Percentage of Consumers having heard of and understand concept of sustainable energy % 24 45 ?

Result Energy Savings per annum relating to Public Sector Approved Projects Millions EUR 5.3 5.0 ?

3- Energy conservation

Result Percentage of Consumers having heard of and understand concept of sustainable energy % 24 45 ?



Impact Percentage of Consumers Implementing Some or a Lot of Energy Efficiency Measures % 60 67 ?

Impact Estimated Cumulative CO2 savings by SEI Industry Clients Mt CO2 0.36 0.57 ? Output Additional Clustered Connection Capacity Available to which

Renewable Energy Can Connect MW n.a. n.a. ?

Output District Heating/CHP Feasibility Studies Number 5 13 ? Result Total Grid-Connected Wind Energy in Ireland MW 600 744 ? Result Additional Clustered Connection Capacity to which Renewable Energy

Has Connected MW n.a. n.a. ?

4- Renewable/ alternative energy

Impact CO2 intensity of electricity supply (kg CO2 / kWh) kg CO2 / kWh 0.60 0.64 ?



5. Analysis of the effectiveness Link of the programme with the economic and social development What have been the effects of the programme in terms of growth, employment and technological innovation? (see QE 3 of the global evaluation framework mentioned in the evaluation grid) Strategic objectives of the programme What are the strategic objectives? How have the strategic objectives been designed? Are quantitative targets mentioned in monitoring and evaluation reports of the programme linked to the strategic objectives? Yes/ No. Why? Please provide details. Have the strategic objectives been reached at the end of the programming period? Yes/ No. Why? Please provide details. Achievements (cf. 4. Quantitative results of the programme) Have expected outputs/results been achieved at the end of the programming period? Yes/ No. Why? Provide details for all types of interventions (sewerage and purification, energy conservation, renewable energies, etc.)? Monitoring of the programme Have the selected indicators been useful in monitoring the programme? Yes/ No. Why? Please provide reasons. Could you suggest other indicators to monitor the programme? Conclusions Provide conclusions on the effectiveness of the programme, taking into account the target to be reached (as set in 2000) and interviews with key stakeholders (especially Managing authorities of the programme) Sources:: National expert analysis based on programming documents and annual reports; interviews with MS stakeholders.



4. Task 4: Case studies

The final selection proposed for the case studies is summarized in the table below. It has been done taking into consideration that each of the 14 selected Member States has to be covered by at least one task among tasks 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 5. The detailed criteria used are discussed in the relevant section.

Table 4: Selection of Member States for Tasks 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 5

Source: ADE, 2008.

Member States

Task 3.2- Effectiveness of major sectoral

programmes (6)

Task 4.1 - Regional case

studies (10)

Task 4.2 - Waste prevention and management of

waste (3)

Task 5 - Climate change (3)

Spain X X Italy X Germany X X Greece X X Portugal X X X France X Poland X Ireland X United Kingdom X Czech Republic X X Slovakia X X Hungary X X Latvia X

Finland X



4.1 Task 4.1: Regional Case Studies

Summary of the ToR relating to Task 4.1

Carry out ten regional (NUTS 2) case studies in ten Member States analysing the effects of ERDF interventions in detail (both sectoral and regional OPs, if applicable); two case studies will be carried out in one region each of Poland and Slovakia; one pilot case study must be submitted six months after signature of the contract.

The analysis must cover all measures supported by ERDF, and not only relating to water supply, wastewater and municipal waste.

The case studies will pursue a twofold objective: - analysis of differences of effects between Objectives 1 and 2 regions; - assessment of whether and how environmental investments have contributed

to the wider socio-economic development of a region and to its catching-up process with the rest of the EU.

In addition of the use of concepts highlighted under Task 1, the following issues must be covered under the Regional case studies:

- initial socio-economic and environmental situation of the region and its change during the 2000-2006 programming period;

- the degree of achievement of the environmental targets set at the beginning of the programming period;

- the role of new environmental investment vis-à-vis upgrading and maintenance of infrastructure;

- the quality of sectoral planning and project selection; - environment as a horizontal priority in programming documents; - the quality of the linkage of environmental investment to the remaining parts

of programming documents and its intended contribution to regional development;

- the effectiveness of public investment in improving the environmental situation of the region, and its interaction with other elements of the policy mix (regulatory requirements, pricing, industrial organisation);

- the extent to which the improved environmental infrastructure contributed to the economic and social development of the region;

- other issues according to the case study region selected.

Write three mini-case studies with three good practice examples (projects or approaches) according to a format defined by DG Regional Policy.



4.1.1 Selection of the Regions

The case studies have to allow comparisons of how regions with different characteristics tackled environmental issues by using ERDF during the 2000-2006 programming period, that is to say more developed vis-à-vis less developed regions with a convergence approach (development of the less favoured regions – Objective 1 or a conversion approach, compared with Objective 2 for regions with higher concentrations of industrialised activity; or which face higher risks of climate change or other environmental problems).

The selection has been made according to the following criteria: the level of GDP per head which will permit analysis of the link between the level of

development and the impact of environmental investments on economic activity. Four groups may be identified based on an index EU27=100 : (1) <=75; (2) >75, <=100; (3) >100, <=125; (4) >125. Each group is covered in the selection;

the type of programme (Objective1/Objective2), to ensure both are represented equally;

the economic structure of the regions and the importance of the industrial sector: the share of agriculture, industry and services in employment has been taken into consideration;

the importance of environmental investment as a whole and in the ERDF programmes in particular. The level of environmental expenditures varies greatly from one country to another. The case studies must cover all types of country or region but even so should focus on countries and regions where environmental investments are significant (see table 7) or at least where a large share of ERDF is targeted on environmental measures. Table 5 gives an overview of the importance of environmental expenditures in ERDF programmes including environmental components (mainly Objectives 1 and 2). Within these countries the team proposes a selection of regions where the share of ERDF environmental expenditures in the ERDF budget is among the highest. The team has also checked that a significant part of these expenditures was devoted to environmental infrastructures (FOI code: 34, 341 to 345).



Table 5 : Environmental investment by the public sector and the industry % of GDP)

Public sector Industry 2000 2004 2000 2004

EU (25 countries) 0.14 0.15 0.09 Czech Republic 0.49 0.36 0.40 0.29 Germany 0.15 : : : Ireland : : : : Greece : : : : Spain 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.11 France 0.08 0.09 : 0.06 Italy 0.14 0.15 : 0.06 Latvia 0.00 0.02 : 0.11 Hungary : 0.36 0.40 0.21 Poland 0.41 0.31 0.39 0.22 Portugal 0.24 0.15 0.20 0.18 Slovakia 0.10 0.04 0.30 0.44 Finland 0.09 0.07 0.17 0.10 United Kingdom 0.02 0.08 0.15 0.05

Source: Eurostat, 2008.

Table 6 : Importance of environmental expenditures in programmes funded by ERDF including an

environment component6

Country ERDF amounts

(in m€) National funds

(in m€)

Total environment

(in m€)

% in ERDF programmes

% Nat. Funds

%total

GR 2657.4 939.6 3597.0 31.5% 26.7% 30.1% HU 196.1 69.3 265.4 31.0% 30.1% 30.8% SP 6935.5 3723.5 10659.0 28.9% 21.3% 25.7% IT 4137.3 4799.6 8936.9 27.9% 22.6% 24.8% CZ 267.7 115.0 382.7 27.9% 30.0% 28.5% PT 2777.2 1321.7 4098.8 25.9% 16.9% 22.1% DE 3418.7 2306.5 5725.2 24.8% 17.1% 21.0% FR 2004.2 3188.4 5192.5 24.6% 22.6% 23.4% PL 929.7 309.9 1239.6 24.6% 19.6% 23.1% FI 119.2 177.9 297.1 20.7% 14.1% 16.1% UK 1412.0 1414.6 2826.7 20.3% 15.2% 17.4% SK 119.0 60.2 179.2 19.5% 22.4% 20.4% IE 238.0 167.3 405.4 13.8% 10.8% 12.4% LV 49.3 17.0 66.2 12.9% 7.7% 11.0%

Source: Financial data, WP 1. ADE calculations.

6 Not all programmes are covered but nearly all objectives 1and 2 programmes are in.



A final criterion for selection must be coherence with other case studies within this evaluation as well as field visits scheduled in the other Work Packages.

Based on the foregoing, it is proposed that regional case studies be organised in the following countries: Greece, Spain, France, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Slovakia, Finland, Latvia, and UK. Hungary and the Czech Republic, which all have quite interesting profiles, will already be visited under Tasks 4.2 and 5.

Table 7 below presents a proposal for a selection of regions and programmes within these countries. This set of regions covers seven Objective 1 programmes, three Objective 2 programmes7, five regions with a GDP per head below 75 (index EU27=100), two between 75 and 100, two between 100 and 125 and one over 125. The different economic structures are also covered (four have more than 10% of employment in the agriculture, four more than 30% in industry, and three have more than 70% in services).

Table 7 : First proposal for regional case studies

Share (%) of employment

% of environment into ERDF8

Member State

Region or thematic

programme Obj.

Level of GDP/head

Population density

Agri. Industry Services TOT env.

FOI 349

Greece Central Macedonia

O1 68.2 101.2 12.6 24.9 62.5 20.3% 6.7%

France Midi-Pyrénées

O2 100.2 59.9 6.4 22.6 71.1 18.7% 6.3%

Spain Comunidad de Valenciana

O1

93.9 191.7 3.8 34.3 61.9 35.2% 26.1%

Portugal Norte O1 58.8 174.8 12.8 39.6 47.5 32.8% 13.2% UK West Wales

& the valleys O1 80.3 142.8 2.6 23.0 74.4 19.8% 4.0%

Italy Lazio O2 131.8 310 1.5 18.7 79.8 45.5% 21.7% Finland South Finland O2 102 22.8 6.2 30.5 63.3 24.5% 6.6% Latvia O1 45.5 37.1 11.8 26.5 61.7 12.9% 7.7% Slovakia Eastern

Slovakia (Basic infrastructure OP)

O1 42.3 99.5 4.6 40.1 55.3 23.1% 21.7%

Poland Malopolskie (integrated regional development OP)

O1 43.4 23.1 27.9 49.0 29.3% 15.3%

Source: ADE, 2008.

The pilot study could be carried out in Portugal where environmental infrastructures amounted for 13.2% of the whole O1 programme (ERDF budget for environmental infrastructures reached 286 m€).

7 Or 6 Objective 1 and 4 Objective 2 if an Objective 2 region is choosen in the United Kingdom 8 Based on all programs containing an environmental dimension. 9 FOI 34: environmental infrastructures



4.1.2 Content of the case studies

The aim of the regional case studies is to provide a comprehensive analysis of how environmental expenditures contributed to the wider regional socio-economic development and the catch up process within the EU. First insights from Task 1 have permitted highlighting of a number of questions and sub-questions which appear important for assessing the interactions between environmental investment and expenditures and economic and social development. The evaluation grid proposed in section 1.5 provides the methodological approach to the conduct of this evaluation. The field visits in the ten selected regions will provide a large part of the data and analysis needed to make the assessment and will in particular provide the opportunity of arriving at an integrated picture of the various interactions. The case studies will tackle the following topics through a set of questions and indicators as proposed below. This methodological framework is partly derived from task 1 and must be fine tuned when the conceptual basis is finalised. A. Analysis of the socio-economic development of the regions during the period 2000-2006 and the link with the environmental situation.

Justification: the ERDF aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the EU by correcting imbalances between its regions. It is important to know how the selected regions have evolved during the period and the main challenges they face in terms of economic development. A link must also be made with the environmental situation and the type of interaction the region faces between environment quality and regional economic development.

Field Indicators Sources Regional economic performance

GDP/capita (2000-2006) Employment rate (2000-2006) R&D in % GDP (2000-2006) Labour productivity (2000-2006)

Eurostat regional data WP 1

Environmental situation

Regional position on indicators presented in Task 2

Eurostat /national sources Interviews with regional authorities

Direct activities linked to environment

Turnover – employment in activities linked to environment

Eurostat/ national sources

Most data will be collected before field missions. B. Programme achievements and main characteristics of environmental interventions (fields of intervention; types of infrastructures (new/upgraded, degree of publicness; expected impact (local/global; short/long term impact)). Justification: Before analysing the contribution of environmental measures to economic development, we need to have a comprehensive view of what has been actually done in the environmental field and to what extent initial targets have been achieved. The case studies



will also allow a more precise identification of the characteristics of funded infrastructures and their degree of publicness which is an important element to assess the relevance of public intervention.

Indicators Main sources

Actual implementation of the ERDF environmental interventions (compared to initial objectives and budget)

Budget allocations and revision (per FOI/measures)

Financial data To be filled with local authorities

Number of projects (targets and achievements) broken down by water supply, waste water, municipal waste water, others

Database WP2; to be completed with local authorities

Degree of achievements of environmental targets

New waste treatment capacity created (targets and achievements)


Number of landfills closed (targets and achievements)


Number of landfills rehabilitated (targets and achievements)


Other achievements in the environmental fields Database WP2; to be completed with local authorities

Types of infrastructure New infrastructures built / upgraded Project reports

Management authorities Small/big infrastructures Project reports

Management authorities Degree of excludability/rivalry (benefits captured

by a small number of firms) Project reports Management authorities

C. The regional environmental strategy and how it is integrated in the OP (horizontal priority; links with other measures/priorities; intended contribution to regional development) Justification: The regions selected have dedicated a significant amount of ERDF to environmental measures and infrastructures (cfr Table 7). Case studies will analyse how regional programmes have integrated environmental objectives in their strategy and how environmental measures have been articulated to other parts of the programme. A logic of intervention for environmental intervention in each selected region might be elaborated. The coherence of these actions with national strategy and the policy mix decided at national/regional level must also be assessed as well as the coherence with other European sources of funding.




How were ERDF environmental measures integrated to cohesion objectives and how did they intend to contribute to regional development ? ERDF strategy in the field of environment policy

(national/regional programmes) DOCUP + interviews with regional authorities

Integration of environmental expenditures in O1 and O2 programmes. Link to the remaining parts of programming documents.

DOCUP analysis + interviews

Environment as an horizontal priority in programming documents

Programming documents and interviews

Leverage or opportunity effects provided by ERDF interventions within the regional strategy

Interviews with authorities

Did environmental measures tackle the main environmental challenges at national/regional level?

Key environmental indicators at regional level (gas emissions, air quality, waste generation, fresh water quality, freshwater resources, forest resources, fish resources) at the start of the programme

Available figures at regional/national level

Features in the fields of support at the beginning of the 2000-2006 programming period Regional indicators

Position of the region compared to national level Interviews with regional administration

How ERDF environmental interventions have been articulated to European/national/regional environmental priorities and policies?

National/regional strategy in the environmental sector

National/regional documents

Risk of underinvestment/overinvestment: investment rate at national level (green accounts) and position of regions

Eurostat (green national account)

Degree of immediate preference for clean environment at regional level

Interviews with stakeholders

Interaction with other policy instruments in the environmental problems (taxation, regulatory requirements,…)

Interviews with regional authorities

How are ERDF environmental interventions integrated to other European interventions in the same field ? Overall investment in environmental

infrastructures and role of European funds Financial database

Coherence of ERDF strategies with other funds at national/regional levels

Strategy documents

Institutional settings and decision process of ERDF and other interventions

Contacts with EIB, EBRD, LIFE programme authorities

Coordination and complementarities on the field (data/analysis sharing, co financing schemes, complementarities in terms of zone, types of actions)

case studies (interviews with stakeholders)



D. The effectiveness of public investment to improve the environmental situation Justification: As far as possible, the case studies must provide insights on the evolution of the environmental situation in the region and the effectiveness of public investment aimed at improving the targeted sectors.


To what extent have environmental expenditures contributed to improve the environmental situation? Improvement of environmental services (waste, water) Satisfaction of stakeholders

(existing surveys) Trends of environmental indicators in the region from

2000 to 2006 ((gas emissions, air quality, waste generation, fresh water quality, freshwater resources, forest resources, fish resources)

National/regional documents

To what extent did environmental infrastructures improve water supply and waste water collection and treatment ?

Contribution to Water Framework Directive (2000) implementation

Evaluation reports. Interviews with administration

New treatment technologies introduced Evaluation reports. Interviews with project stakeholders

Improvement of management systems Evaluation reports. Interviews with project stakeholders

Impact on the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater for drinking supplies and aquatic habitat

Database WP2 Interviews with environmental authorities

Specific questions related to natural resources (forests, water, land)

Database WP2 Interviews with environmental authorities

E. The contribution of environmental infrastructures to regional economic development (direct and indirect contribution)

Justification: As discussed in task 1, the interactions between environment and economic growth are complex. On one hand, economic growth may alter environmental quality while on the other hand, environmental expenditures may have a positive impact on growth in the short term but also in the long term. The aim of this section is to analyse what type of effects environmental expenditures had on economic development in the region and how it contributes to the main aim of ERDF.



Direct activities linked to the infrastructures/services (in/outside the region) Direct employment created (temporary and permanent) Database WP2 + Regional economic figures

Trend in turnover in activities concerned with protection and management of the environment

Database WP2 + Regional economic figures

Output reduction by competitors (displacement) Online survey targeted on private companies (suppliers, competitors, other businesses)

New business opportunities linked to the projects (providers, subcontractors,…)

Online survey

Demand-push (due for example to new services or decreasing prices)

Online survey

Effect as an external input into private production function Accessibility/attractiveness of the region due to

improved/new public services (water, waste, access to clean energy supply,…) and rehabilitated industrial sites

Interviews with regional authorities Online survey

Increased production capacities due to improved public services (new FDI,…)

Interviews with regional authorities Online survey

Number of companies in industrial parks Interviews with regional authorities Online survey

Number of companies connected to wind turbine Interviews with regional authorities Online survey

Effects on other factors of production (natural resources, labour) Increased/decreased unit costs Online survey Improved quality of inputs Online survey

Increasing labour productivity in the sector Online survey

Qualifications of work force Online survey New activities in sectors where the environment

constitutes a primary natural resource or input (including activities depending on environment quality)


Bringing technological innovation Introduction of new/improved technology, spillovers Online survey

New process, new products/services Online survey Innovation transferred into private local companies Online survey

Comparative advantage gained (prime mover effect) Online survey

To assess how the environmental measures have affected the private sector, an online light survey will be carried out. A sample of local firms10 will be identified including direct and potentially indirect beneficiaries of environmental measures. Participants will be asked to assess how their position has evolved due to environmental policies in the region/country.

10 Firms will be identified in environmental sectors but also in the most significant sectors for the regional economy.

The sample will be formed by SMEs and big companies according to the regional context. A set of 40 to 50 firms might be selected by region.



Answers will be limited to a range of 1 to 5 (1 (very negative effect),2 (negative effect), 3 (no effect), 4 (positive effect) to 5 (very positive effect)). Assessment will be made on the following potential impact:

- New business opportunities created due to projects implementation; - Increasing demand due to the development of new services; - Displacement effect (output reduction by local-external competitors) - Increased attractiveness/competitiveness of the region; - New investment for increasing production capacity; - New investment for increasing energy efficiency; - Improved quality of inputs (natural resources); - Unit costs of production; - Labour productivity in the sector; - Qualifications of the labour force; - Availability of labour; - Introduction of new/improved environmental technology; - Development of new process/products in the environmental sector; - Comparative advantage gained (prime mover effect); - Position of the firm on local / national / foreign markets

The questionnaire should link these effects to the specific measures adopted at regional level and funded by ERDF. F. The contribution of environmental infrastructures to households situation Justification: The quality of water, air, soil,… is a significant factor of households’ quality of life. Environmental infrastructures may contribute to improving specific aspects of households’ quality of life. The case studies must permit a better understanding of what it really brings to that field in the short term as well as in the longer term.

Benefits horizon Evolution of market/demand (including demographic aspects) and

available capacity Project reports Interviews with stakeholders

Degree of uncertainty about demand aspect Project reports Interviews with stakeholders

Promotion of benefits Project reports Interviews with stakeholders

Improved sanitation Additional population served by water supply projects in relation to

overall connection rate Database WP2 + Regional economic figures

Reduction of leakage from the water supply network Database WP2 + Regional economic figures

Additional population served by waste water projects in relation to overall population


Air pollution Regional indicators Water quality Regional indicators Soil quality Regional indicators Health improvement Interviews with stakeholders



Quality of rural/urban housing Air pollution concentration levels in residential areas Regional figures Urban parks Interviews with stakeholders Other relevant indicators Interviews with stakeholders Quality of access to public infratsructures Trend in selling prices of environmental “goods and services” Interviews with regional

authorities Equal access to environment-related public services Interviews with regional

authorities

G. The Institutional capacity and Public expenditures management Jusitification: A major issue is how choices have been made within ERDF enveloppe and how the selection process has been conducted at various levels: firstly for deciding the priorities and measures that will be funded through the ERDF or through other public funds (national/regional/European); secondly for deciding the importance given to the various environmental measures and thirdly the types of infrastructures and projects that have been supported. The risk of a crowding out effect must be assessed. Another important issue related to management capacities is the financial sustainability of supported public services and the way the regional authorities address the problem. Management of public expenditures Budget constraint (public deficit, debt,…) Interviews with

regional/national authorities Degree of priority in national strategies Interviews with

regional/national authorities Sectoral planning

Decision process and project selection Interviews with regional/national authorities

Additionality at sectoral level (programme would have been funded without European funds? Trade-offs national/European funds)

Interviews with regional/national authorities

Resource transfer (from country to region) linked to projects Interviews with regional/national authorities

Profitability and financial sustainability

Management costs Project reports Interviews with stakeholders

Maintenance costs Project reports Interviews with stakeholders

Measurement of profitability Project report Interviews with stakeholders

People to meet

The planning of field visits may be drafted as follows: Day 1:

- interviews with regional authorities and programme management authorities - collection of missing figures and checking of data

Day 2:



- continuing discussion with programme management authorities - interviews with regional administration (environment sector, economic

development, business sector). - presentation of the online survey and identification of private companies involved

in the programmes Day 3:

- visits and meetings with main project stakeholders (promoters, direct beneficiaries) Day 4:

- continuation of day 3 (visits of main projects) Day 5:

- synthesis with regional authorities

4.2 Task 4.2: Case studies on waste prevention and management of waste

4.2.1 Selection of the case studies

The three case studies are being selected with the aim of representing a variety of situations regarding the types of ERDF interventions in the field of waste prevention and waste management, especially solid waste. The ToR request a Spanish case study but leave to the contractor the choice of the other two countries and of the individual case studies at national or regional level. In order to select the case studies, the following criteria have been applied: regional versus national: depending on the level at which waste management policy (in

the specific fields of the identified ERDF interventions) is mainly defined and implemented. This is to allow close evaluation of the impact of ERDF interventions on waste management performance and on the environmental situation at the appropriate authority level. For example, in Spain the “Autonomic Communities” are in charge of implementation of waste management policies.

variety of ERDF interventions: this criterion takes account of the range of interventions, that is the waste flows concerned (municipal, industrial, construction and demolition (C&D)), the types of intervention (support for prevention, collection systems, sorting and recycling infrastructure, composting plants, incineration plants, landfill closure and rehabilitation, construction of controlled landfills, etc.).

variety of contexts: the selection of the three case studies aims at giving an image of different contexts. This takes into account the geographical diversity, the diverse status of waste management at the beginning of the programming period, and the individual national waste management contexts.

importance and influence of ERDF funds: this criterion aims at reflecting first their magnitude (total extent of ERDF intervention in the waste management field in the selected area) and second their proportion of the total investment in waste management in the selected region.



This leads the team to propose selection of the following case studies: 1) Catalonia Region (Spain): regional situation, presenting varied types of ERDF

interventions, advanced waste management policy context, focus on municipal waste; 2) Hungary: national level, limited number of ERDF interventions (two) but very specific

waste flows (animal waste and C&D waste), new Member State situation with less advanced waste management policy “acquis”;

3) Brandenburg (Germany): regional level, varied ERDF interventions, high level of ERDF investments, focus on waste prevention, recycling and disposal.

4.2.2 Objectives of the case studies As mentioned in the ToR, the strategic evaluation on environment and risk prevention carried out recently for DG Regional Policy has shown that certain Member States with high GDP growth are experiencing significant growth in waste volume. The prevention of generation of waste and efficient management of waste collection and treatment are important instruments in tackling this problem. The three case studies aim at exploring the impact of ERDF interventions in these fields and at highlighting their main success and failure factors. While implementing this task it will be important to recall the hierarchy of interventions on waste management promoted by the EU Regulation and recently reinforced in the newly-revised Waste Framework Directive (final adoption in progress). The five-stage waste hierarchy lays down an order of preference for waste operations: prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling, other recovery operations and, as a last resort, safe and environmentally-sound disposal.

4.2.3 Methodology

General strategic context of waste generation and management A brief description of the evolution of waste generation in the regions since 1990 (if available) and (regional) economic growth will be given. Connections between waste generation and economic growth and consumption will be examined.

Description of the context of waste management for each selected Region A brief description of the general context of the selected Region as regards waste management will be given: general data (territory, population, regional waste figures compared to national and EU figures), competences regarding waste management, specific waste legislation, organisation of waste management (municipal and industrial), considerations of availability of data and of the targeted contact persons for the evaluation.

The regional strategy of waste management developed by each region in response to the specific context will be described.

This will be complemented by a global analysis of the situations at the beginning (2000) and end (2006) of the programming period.

This work will address the following: waste production, composition and type of collection and treatment, highlighting the

trends during the programming period;



the various waste management infrastructures (collection, sorting and recycling, composting plants, anaerobic digestion plants, incineration, landfills); a list will be compiled and include as far as possible the main characteristics of waste infrastructures, such as the year of construction, types of waste treated, capacity, type of installation, investment and operation costs ( if available).

Finally, a clear identification of the intervention of Regional Funds for each waste area will be included, along with an account of the main improvements achieved through the use of these funds. The contribution of these funds to improving or creating new infrastructures will be clearly identified as well as the proportion of waste involved. The proposed methodology differentiates between waste prevention and waste management. In general, it appears that the main support from Regional Funds aims more at improving waste management methods than at promoting waste prevention. In reality, a proportion of the measures favouring waste prevention depends essentially on national or other European policies (such as economic instruments when putting products on the market, information campaigns or specific product standards). Other measures are linked to regional or even local policies.

Evaluation A comprehensive description of the ERDF interventions will be provided to illustrate its integration into the general context of waste management in the three identified Regions. The impact of the interventions will be assessed through a double approach (quantitative and qualitative) and according to the evaluation framework developed under Task 1.

Quantitative aspects

Based on the available figures and technical features listed above, this assessment will allow examination of the possible impact of ERDF intervention on waste prevention and management performance in the policy fields concerned at regional level.

The contribution of Regional Funds to waste management issues will take into consideration the following particular aspects, in specific relation to implementation of the EU Regulations and the hierarchy of waste management interventions: the trends (between 2000 and 2006) in waste generation and the prevention measures

for each relevant waste stream; identification, and comparison with the European objectives, of the trends (between

2000 and 2006) in recycling rates for each relevant waste stream including at least waste covered by European legislation, for example vehicles, batteries, packaging, electric and electronic waste, but also paper and cardboard; the contribution of Regional Funds to attainment of these rates will also be assessed, and additional information collected on waste collection infrastructures and materials as well as on sorting and recycling facilities ;

on incineration additional information will as far as possible be gathered on the performance of the installations in terms of air and water treatment, air and water pollutant emissions, types of residue treatment, and types of energy recovery. If available, the performances of each installation will be compared with values provided by the Directive on waste incineration (2000/76/EC).



the landfill situation will be analysed in the light of conformity with the landfill Directive - 99/31/EC.

A list of indicators covering the above-mentioned elements will be provided.

Qualitative aspects

To arrive at an accurate picture of the quality of an ERDF intervention and its impact on the regional situation, it will be necessary to collect qualitative information. This will be done by means of interviews with different stakeholders directly involved in waste management (depending on the intervention, public waste managers, political representatives, companies…) or indirectly as beneficiaries of the waste management instruments (NGOs, public authorities, companies, private waste managers, etc.). Available satisfaction surveys targeting waste management users (mainly citizens and companies) will also be used to complete the picture. Some specific indicators for these qualitative aspects will be proposed; they will for instance address: the general level of satisfaction of the stakeholders regarding the evolution of waste

management (limited to the specific field(s) of ERDF intervention(s) in the Region); the extent of the impact of ERDF interventions in the evolution of the waste

management services concerned and its practical consequences; the quality of waste management services (efficiency, frequency, accessibility,

adaptation to the needs of the users…); control over waste management activities: management of complaints, number of

accidents, indirect pollution, GHG emissions, control on exports, respect of legal constraints, statistical follow-up;

if needed, a specific section on the economic aspects of waste management and its evolution will be added. This will mainly assess the impact on waste management costs, the evolution of employment and economic activities in the sector, and the indirect effects on tourism, landscape, urban planning and social development.

4.2.4 Key Evaluation Questions

How important were the ERDF interventions in the field of waste management compared to global investments in that field in the Region concerned?

Based on a set of technical and legal indicators (see quantitative aspects), what was the trend in waste management performance (in the field(s) addressed by ERDF interventions) during the programming period 2000-2006?

What link can be made between ERDF interventions in waste management in the Region and the above trend?

Apart from the environmental impact, are there clear indications of the impact on the socio-economic development of the Region?

What is the opinion of the main stakeholders of the appropriateness and impact (environmental and socio-economic) of ERDF interventions on waste management in the Region?



4.2.5 Information sources

Spain programming documents and its evaluation reports; indicators from WP2 database and financial information (see task 3.1); interviews with stakeholders involved in the programme, such as the Regional

authorities, the managing authorities of the programme, Agència de Residus de Catalunya (Dr. Roux), and selected key beneficiaries of the ERDF funds in the field of waste.

Hungary programming documents and its evaluation reports; indicators from the WP2 Database and financial information (see task 3.1); interviews with stakeholders involved in the programme such as the Hungarian

Ministry of Environment, the managing authorities of the programme, Budapest City Communal Department, Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (http://www.rec.org/), and selected beneficiaries of the ERDF funds in the field of waste.

Germany programming documents, and its evaluation reports; indicators from the WP2 Database and financial information (see task 3.1); interviews with stakeholders involved in the programme, such as Regional authorities,

the managing authorities of the programme and selected key beneficiaries of the ERDF funds in the field of waste.

http://www.rec.org/



5. Task 5: Climate change


Implement three case studies (national or regional) in three different Member States focusing on issues related to climate change, especially in three fields: use of renewable energies, regional strategies in the field of climate change, and improvements in energy efficiency.

Highlight in a concise chapter the fundamental features of programme design and implementation, including:

- intervention strategy for Structural Funds and analysis of specific features of the most important types of intervention;

- profitability of certain interventions, including the need for additional public funds if any;

- potential and limitations of climate-friendly interventions to contribute to regional development;

- experience with the management of the above-mentioned interventions; - assessment of the potential and requirements of formal models for assessing

GHG impact of ERDF interventions (notably data requirements, limitations and advantages).

5.1 Aim of Task 5

Climate change was not on the political agenda when the Cohesion Policy programmes 2000-2006 were negotiated and adopted. Therefore Task 5 will be exploratory. It will analyse three complementary fields: 1) use of renewable energies, 2) implementation of a regional (or national) strategy in the field of climate change, and 3) improvements in energy efficiency.

5.2 Selection of Member States and/or Regions

The contribution of 2000-2006 ERDF interventions to addressing climate change issues will be evaluated through the implementation of three case studies in three different Member States. As proposed in the offer, the Member States where case studies will be carried out are Germany, Portugal and the Czech Republic. The selection of the regions and operational programmes to be evaluated in these Member States is mainly based on the available quantitative information: financial information, and indicators relating to the climate change issue. This selection is done in two steps: 1) presentation of the characteristics of the German, Portuguese and Czech operational

programmes which have invested in interventions directly or indirectly linked to climate change issues;



2) selection of operational programmes taking into account the total ERDF budget related to climate change issues, the fields to be covered (regional strategies, renewable energies and improvement of efficiency) and the availability of indicators relating to climate change.

5.2.1 Characteristics of the operational programmes

Table 8 below shows relevant qualitative and quantitative information related to the German, Portuguese and Czech operational programmes. This information consists of: the name of the Member State: Germany (DE), Portugal (PT) or the Czech Republic

(CZ); the name of the programme which has invested in interventions directly or indirectly

related to climate change issues ; the total ERDF amount (source: financial tables provided by DG Regional Policy)

invested over the period 2000-2006 (2004-2006 for the Czech Republic) in the field of climate change; the fields of interventions (FOI) taken into account for this purpose are the following: - 152: environment-friendly technologies, clean and economic energy technologies

(large business organisations); - 162: environment-friendly technologies, clean and economic energy technologies

(SMEs and craft sector); - 33: energy infrastructures (only when dealing with renewable energies or energy

efficiency); - 332: renewable sources of energy; - 333: energy efficiency, co-generation, energy control; - 34: environmental infrastructures (only when dealing with air quality); - 341: air quality.

the field relating to climate change covered by the programme; as mentioned in the Terms of References possible fields are: use of renewable energies, regional strategies, and improvements in energy efficiency;

the number of indicators relating to the interventions implemented in the above-mentioned FOI (source: the Work Package 2 database); the results of these interventions (output, result and impact indicators) are presented for information, for each of the three selected Member States, in Annex1.



Table 8 : Characteristics of German, Portuguese and Czech operational programmes related to climate change issues

Field to be covered Member

State Operational programme

ERDF amount (million EUR) Use of renewable

energies Regional strategy11 Improvement of energy

efficiency

Number of indicators

DE Berlin (Objective 1) 27 X X 4 DE Berlin (Objective 2) 7.8 X X 3 DE Sachsen-Anhalt 266.912 X X 1

DE Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 21.3 X X 21

DE Brandenburg 12.4 X X X 3 DE Sachsen 88.1 X X 6 DE Rheinland-Pfalz 1.7 X X 13 DE Nordhrhein-Westfalen 36.8 X X X 1 DE Bayern 78.5 X X X 6 DE Baden-Württemberg 0.4 X 0 DE Bremen 7 X X X 2 PT Economia 105.8 X 1 PT Açores 69.8 X X 5 PT Ambiente 35.3 X 2 PT Norte 19.8 X X 0 PT Lisboa e Vale do Tejo 10 X X 0 PT Madeira 8 X X X 0 CZ Infrastructure 105.8 X X 23 CZ Industry and Trade 29.3 X X 7

Source: Financial tables provided by DG Regional Policy and indicators from the WP2 database. 11 A cross is put in this column when the programme is implemented at regional level and has carried out interventions in the field of climate change. It does mean that the concerned region has a

specific strategy to adapt or mitigate climate change. This will be identified and assessed during the implementation of the case studies. 12 Including 262.3 millions EUR for environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies (SMEs and the craft sector).



5.2.2 Selection of the operational programmes

Germany

In Germany 11 operational programmes have supported interventions relating to climate change, all at regional level. Operational programmes which invested huge ERDF amounts in interventions relating to climate change are: Sachsen-Anhalt (€266.9m), Sachsen (€88.1m) and Bayern (€78.5m). As Sachsen and Bayern have many times been selected for other work packages, they will be not selected for this evaluation. Taking into account above-mentioned information, it is proposed that the Sachsen-Anhalt operational programme will be evaluated under Task 5: Climate change. This programme has been implemented at regional level and has mainly invested in environment-friendly technologies, clean and economic energy technologies (SMEs and the craft sector) with a total ERDF amount of €266.9m.

Portugal

In Portugal six operational programmes have supported interventions relating to climate change, two at national level and four at regional level. One of the programmes implemented at national level is the Ambiente programme which will be evaluated under Task 3.2: Effectiveness of the major sectoral programmes. In addition, only three programmes have been monitored for interventions related to climate change (1 indicator for Economia, 5 indicators for Açores and 2 indicators for Ambiente). Taking into account the above-mentioned information, it is proposed that the Açores programme will be evaluated under Task 5: Climate change. This programme was implemented at regional level and mainly invested in interventions related to the use of renewable energies with a total ERDF input of €69.8m.

The Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic two programmes carried out interventions related to climate change: the Infrastructure operational programme and the Industry and Trade programme. As the Infrastructure programme will be assessed under Task 3.2: Effectiveness of the major sectoral programmes, it is proposed that the Industry and Trade operational programme be evaluated under Task 5: Climate change. This programme has invested in interventions related to the use of renewable energies and the improvement of energy efficiency with a total ERDF input of €29.3m.



5.3 Key evaluation questions

Before answering the evaluation questions, any lack of indicators (output, result and impact) focusing on climate change (renewable energies, regional strategies and improvement of energy efficiency) will be identified, and the stakeholders responsible for the relevant selected operational programmes will be asked to fill the gaps. Key evaluation questions are presented below taking into account the challenges to be addressed under Task 5 as mentioned in the ToR, and according to the evaluation framework developed under Task 1: Conceptual basis.

1. Background information

Justification: Climate change was not explicitly addressed through programmes implemented during the 2000-2006 programming period. However, some specific interventions were carried out in the field of climate change, especially in the use of renewable energies and improvement of energy efficiency. As the starting point, a clear picture of the climate change situation in the MS/ Region is needed. In addition, it is important to know the features of the national/ regional strategy for mitigation and adaptation activities against climate change.

Field Indicators Sources

Environmental situation

Regional position based on indicators presented in Task 2 (energy and climate change)

Eurostat /national sources Interviews with regional authorities

National/ regional strategy

Existence of a national/regional strategy in terms of climate change, main guidelines of this strategy, intervention logic

Interviews with environmental MS authorities, national /regional legislation and/ or programmes

2. Programme achievements in the field of climate change

Justification: Before analysing the contribution of climate change measures to the reduction of GHG emissions, and their economic profitability, it is necessary to have a comprehensive view of what has actually been done in this field and to what extent initial targets have been achieved. The case studies will also allow the characteristics of co-funded interventions – more specifically the profitability of such projects – to be identified more precisely.



Sub-question Indicators Sources

Actual implementation of the ERDF environmental interventions Budget allocations and revision Financial data; interviews with

regional/ national authorities Number of projects (target and achieved values)

related to climate change by type (renewable sources, improvement of energy efficiency)

WP2 database, programming documents, annual reports

Installed green capacity WP2 database, programming documents, annual reports

Energy savings (notably in enterprises) WP2 database, programming documents, annual reports

Types of intervention Types of interventions co-funded by ERDF and

main features (information related, direct incentives, etc.)

Programming documents, annual reports

Profitability of major projects and role of public funds (costs/benefits estimates)

Project documents

3. The regional environmental strategy and how it is integrated in the OP

Justification: The case studies will analyse if the co-funded interventions in climate change tackle challenges in this field in the MS/ Region, how programmes have integrated climate change issues in their strategy and how climate change measures have been articulated to other (co) financed measures in this field. The need and the role of ERDF interventions in climate change measures will be also assessed.

Sub-

question Indicators Sources

Did environmental measures tackle the main environmental challenges at national/ regional level? Key environmental indicators at national/ regional level

(GHG emissions, green electricity, etc.) at the beginning of the programme

Available data at regional/ national level

Coherence between the main challenges in the MS/ region and interventions related to climate change

National/ regional strategy and programming documents

Did ERDF environmental interventions respond to European/national/regional environmental priorities? Integration of climate change measures implemented

through OP in the EU/ national/ regional priorities in terms of climate change

Programming documents, evaluation reports, interviews with regional management authorities

Interactions with other policy instruments linked to climate change

Interviews with regional management authorities

What are the role and the justification of ERDF co-financing in climate change interventions? Involvement (strategy, financing, etc.) of the private

sector in terms of climate change Interviews with regional authorities

Role and justification of ERDF interventions in terms of climate change (typical need for additional public funds) compared to private sector interventions

Interviews with regional authorities



4. Effectiveness of interventions in the field of climate change

Justification: The case studies will assess to what extent co-funded interventions increase the use of renewable energies and actions with a view to improving energy efficiency, especially in enterprises. As far as possible, the impact in terms of GHG emission reduction will be estimated.

Sub-

question Indicators Sources

To what extent have climate change interventions led to an increase of private investment in the field of energy efficiency and use of renewable energies ? Increase of the private investments due to ERDF co

financing (leverage effects, fighting risk aversion for such interventions)

Regional management authorities and with some beneficiaries

To what extent have environmental expenditures contributed to reduce GHG emission? Increase and impact of the use of renewable energies Programming documents, annual

reports, interviews with regional management authorities

Improvement of energy efficiency Annual reports, interviews with regional management authorities and with some beneficiaries

Trends in climate change indicators in the region from 2000 (2004) and today (renewable energy, energy savings, etc.)

National/ regional documents and statistics

5. Contribution to regional development

Justification: The case studies will highlight the potential and limits of climate friendly interventions to contribute to regional development. As far as possible, effects in terms of employment, turnover and innovation will be assessed.

Sub-question Indicators Sources Direct activities in the field of energy efficiency and indirect effects Employment/ turnover in environmental sectors Regional management authorities

and interviews with some beneficiaries

Impact of better energy efficiency on firms’ competitiveness

Regional management authorities and interviews with some beneficiaries

Bringing technological innovation Introduction of new/improved technology, spillovers Evaluation reports and interviews

regional management authorities and with some beneficiaries

New process, new products/services developed Evaluation reports and interviews regional management authorities and with some beneficiaries



6. Institutional capacity and public management Justification: An important issue is how the decision process has been conducted when selecting interventions to fight climate change. This will take into account their costs and their potential impacts in terms of GHG emission reduction. The monitoring and the evaluation of their impacts are also important. In addition to lessons learnt from WP2 data feasibility study, the case studies will asses the potential and requirements of methods to assess the impacts of such interventions in terms of GHG emission reduction and highlight good practices. Sub-question Indicators Sources Management and monitoring of public interventions related to climate change Decision process and project selection in the field of

climate change Programming documents, annual reports, interviews with regional management authorities

Management organisation to follow output and result indicators in terms of GHG impact, including the choice of appropriate indicators

Programming documents, evaluation reports and interviews with managing authorities

Assessment of the potential and requirements of formal models for assessing GHG impact of ERDF interventions


Limits and advantages of collected data in terms of climate change


Suggestions for collecting data related to ERDF interventions in terms of climate change (link with the 2007-2013 programming period)

Interviews with managing authorities

5.4 Information sources

Germany The Sachsen-Anhalt Operational Programme and its evaluation reports; Indicators from WP2 Database and financial information (see task 3.1); Interviews with stakeholders involved in the programme, such as the Sachsen-Anhalt

Administration, the Ministry of Environment, the Managing authorities of the programme, selected main beneficiaries of the ERDF funds in the field of climate change.

Portugal The Açores Operational programme and its evaluation reports; Indicators from WP2 Database and financial information (see task 3.1); Interviews with stakeholders involved in the programme, such as The Portuguese

Ministry of Environment, the Managing authorities of the programme, selected main beneficiaries of the ERDF funds in the field of climate change.



The Czech Republic The Industry and Enterprise Operational programme and its evaluation reports; Indicators from WP2 Database and financial information (see task 3.1); Interviews with stakeholders involved in the programme, such as the Managing

authorities of the programme, the Czech Ministry for Regional Development, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Environment, Czech Invest as well as selected main beneficiaries of the ERDF funds in the field of climate change.



6. Sharing of tasks between experts

The list and main tasks of experts involved in the evaluation are given below. Mary van Overbeke (MVO)

(Senior expert)

Role: Team leader, member of LET Activities: Organise the work between all the experts; Draft questionnaires; Implement case studies in Task 4.1(of which the pilot

case study ); Analyse results; Prepare deliverables; Participation in MCTM13 and SGM14. Contacts with EC.

Monika Beck (MB)

(Senior expert)

Role: Expert assisting the evaluation team, member of LET Activities: Draft questionnaires; Implement case studies in Task 4.1 and Task 5; Analyse results; Prepare deliverables; Participation in MCTM and SGM. Contacts with EC.

Patrick Van Bunnen (PVB)

(Medium expert)

Role: ERDF expert, member of LET Activities: Support to the Team leader; Implement case studies in Task 4.1 Participation in MCTM and SGM.

Fuencisla Carmona Blanco (FCB)

(Medium expert)

Role: ERDF expert, member of LET Activities: Support to the Team leader; Implement case studies in Task 4.1 and Task 4.2; Participation in MCTM and SGM.

Benoit Lixon (BL)

(Medium expert)

Role: Environment expert, member of LET Activities: Support to the Team leader; Implement case studies in Task 4.1 and in Task 5

(climate change) Participation in MCTM and SGM.

Jack O’Sullivan (JoS)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Ireland), member of LET Activities: Draft questionnaires; Implement Task 3.2 (sectoral programme); Analysis of results; Prepare deliverables; Participation in MCTM and SGM.

13 Methodological Core team Meeting. 14 Steering Group Meeting.



Olivier De Clercq (OD)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (waste), member of LET Activities: Draft questionnaires; Analysis of results; Participation in MCTM

Thierry Bréchet (TB)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (climate change), member of LET Activities: Participation in the writing of Task 1(conceptual basis); Draft questionnaires; Analysis of results; Participation in MCTM

Claus Goldberg (CG)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert, Quality controller Activities: Quality control of deliverables.

Jordi Boronat (JB)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Spain) Activities: Collect additional information Implement case study Tasks 4.1 and 4.2 Analyse results

Francesco Liva (FL)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Italy) Activities: Collect additional information Implement case study Task 4.1 Analyse results

Knut Sander (KS)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Germany) Activities: Collect additional information Implement case study Task 4.2 and 5 Analyse results

Nikiforos Bakalis (NB)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Greece) Activities: Collect additional information Implement Task 3.2 and case study Task 4.1 Analyse results

José de Bettencourt (JB)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Portugal) Activities: Collect additional information Implement Task 3.2 and case study Tasks 4.1 and 5 Analyse results

Shailendra Mudgal (SM)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (France) Activities: Collect additional information Implement case study Tasks 4.1 Analyse results

Maciej Kabulski (MK)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Poland) Activities: Collect additional information Implement case study Tasks 4.1 Analyse results



Richard Eales (RE)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (UK) Activities: Collect additional information Implement case study Tasks 4.1 Analyse results

Bohumil Sulek (BS)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (The Czech Republic) Activities: Collect additional information Implement Task 3.2 and case study Task 5 Analyse results

Roman Krajcovic (RK)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Slovakia) Activities: Collect additional information Implement Task 3.2 and case study Task 4.1 Analyse results

Erno Kiss(EK)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Hungary) Activities: Collect additional information Implement Task 3.2 and case study Task 4.2 Analyse results

Kristina Veidemane (KV)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Latvia) Activities: Collect additional information Implement case study Task 4.1 Analyse results

Paul Silfverberg (PS)

(Senior expert)

Role: Environment expert (Finland) Activities: Collect additional information Implement case study Task 4.1 Analyse results

Two comments should be highlighted: Monika Beck (MB), Area Manager of Rural Development & Environment Area in

ADE, will strengthen and assist the leading evaluation team. Her Curriculum Vitae is given in Annex 2.

As requested by ToR and after agreement with the WP5b task manager at DG Regional Policy, three additional experts have been contracted (a total of 9 man-days, i.e. 3 man-days by expert). They are: - Mr Luc De Cordier (Belgian expert in the implementation of environmental

interventions in enterprises); - Mr Kit Strange (British expert in the waste sector); - Mr Milan Scasny (Czech expert in environmental economics).

Table 9 below shows the sharing of man-days by expert and main deadlines for submitting reports. Additional experts are not included in this table. As mentioned in the ToR, they have three man-days to participate in three meetings at DG Regional Policy and comment on deliverables at the request of DG Regional Policy.



Details of tasks FR DE ES EL PT IT UK IE CZ SK HU LV FI PLMVO MB PVB FCB BL JoS OD TB CG SM SK JB NB JdB FL RE JoS SB KR KE VK PS MK

Kick-off meeting 0.5 1 1

Task 1: Conceptual basisProvide the list of articles to be exploited,the main ideas to be looked at and table of contents of the final paper

5 2 4 11

Task 2: Features of Environment strategies in MS Template of the overview note 1 2 2 2 7

Task 3.1: Main output and results indicators from ERDF interventions

Presentation of financial data and a first overview of output and results indicators in the DB. Present how to check data and how to fill the gaps.

1 5 6

Task 3.2: Effectiveness of major sectoral programs

Short description of each sectoral programme + contents of the DB. Explain the approach to be followed.

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12

Task 4.1: Regional case studies

Fix criteria for choosing the case studies and propose the 10 regions. Precise the methodology, the objectives of the case studies, the content of the reports, the sources of data, who will be met

3 2 5

Task 4.2: Case studies on waste prevention and management of waste

Methodology: objectives, regions to visit, information to collect, persons to meet. 2 2 2 6

Task 5: Climate change Methodology: objectives, regions to visit, information to collect, persons to meet. 1 2 1 4

ADE Internal meeting 5/09/2008 1 1 1 1 1 5Write the inception report Deadline: 17/09/2008 2 2 2 1 7

Sub-total 15 8 2 2 17 4 4 6 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 64

Leading Evaluation Team (LET)TasksNb.

man-days

National experts for each country

Table 9 : Sharing of tasks between experts, by phase and stage, including number of man-days




Task 1: Conceptual basis Final paper (20-30 pages) 4 1 5 1 11Task 2 : Features of Environment strategies in MS 2 2

Task 3.1: Main output and results indicators from ERDF interventions 0

Task 3.2: Effectiveness of major sectoral programs 0

Task 4.1: Regional case studies Preparation of case studies 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20Task 4.2: Case studies on waste prevention and management of waste Preparation of case studies 0 2 2 1 1 1 7

Task 5: Climate change Preparation of case studies 1 3 1 1 1 7Write the First Intermediate report Deadline: 6/11/2008 3 2 2 1 8Task 2: Features of Environment strategies in MS Overview notes (25 M.S.) and EU situation 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 36

Task 3.1: Main output and results indicators from ERDF interventions Record indicators and financial information 3 0 3 5 1 1 1 1 15

Task 3.2: Effectiveness of major sectoral programs Record data and information 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 22

Task 4.1: Regional case studies Implement the pilot case study 5 5 10Task 4.2: Case studies on waste prevention and management of waste Implement pilot case studies 0 1 5 1 4 11

Task 5: Climate change Implement pilot case studies 0 1 3 1 4 9Write the Second Intermediate report Deadline: 18/02/2009 5 5 2 1 13

Sub-total 22 17 7 14 27 0 1 2 2 3 4 8 7 7 3 8 6 11 6 7 3 3 3 171


man-days





Task 3.1: Main output and results indicators from ERDF interventions Finalise data/ information presentation 1 2 3

Task 3.2: Effectiveness of major sectoral programs

Analysis/ synthesis of the effectiveness of sectoral OP 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 16

Implement the case studies 5 10 10 5 15 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 90Analysis/ synthesis of the case studies; 3 mini case studies 8 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 38

Implement the case studies 4 4 8Analysis/ synthesis of results 4 2 2 2 1 11Implement the case studies 6 4 4 14Analysis/ synthesis of results 2 5 2 2 2 2 15

Task 6: Summary of all tasks, conclusions and recommendations 5 3 5 5 2 2 1 23

Write the Draft Final Report Deadline:14/07/2009 7 7 4 4 5 1 1 1 30Write the Final report Deadline:14/09/2009 3 1 1 1 6

Sub-total 28 33 23 20 33 4 5 2 2 7 13 9 8 15 7 2 2 4 9 7 7 7 7 254Write progress reports (one each month) 1 4 5Participation to 6 progress meetings 3 3 3 3 12

Participation to 4 Steering Group Meetings 2 2 2 1 2 4 13

Presentation of the final report to MS and EC services 1 1 1 1 1 5

Sub-total 7 6 6 2 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35Total 71.5 64 38 38 87 12 10 10 5 10 17 17 16 23 10 10 9 16 16 15 10 10 10 524

Task 4.1: Regional case studies

Task 4.2: Case studies on waste prevention and management of waste

Task 5: Climate change


man-days


Annexes


Revised Inception Report – October 2008 Annex 1

Annex 1 – Indicators related to climate change

Germany

Program Priority Measure Indicator Type Level Unit Baseline

Value Year

Baseline Target Value

Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

OP OBJ 1 BERLIN (East) Environment relief

programme

Development/application of renewable energies

Output Measure No. of projects n.a. n.a. 17 2006 7 2006


programme Reduced emissions: CO2

Output Measure t/year n.a. n.a. 2310.02 2006 1193.96 2006


programme

Induced environment protection investments, in firms

Output Measure Mio. Euro n.a. n.a. 19377 2006 3315 2006


programme

Induced environment protection investment in the area of emissions reduction

Output Measure Mio. Euro 0 n.a. 16.284 2006 0.413 2006

OP OBJ 1 SACHSEN-ANHALT

Air pollution control/emission reduction

SMEs participating in promoted schemes Output Measure Nb. of

SMEs n.a. n.a. 19 2006 18 2006

OP OBJ 1 MECKLENBURG-Western Pomerania

Air pollution control and emission reduction

Use of seminal energy technologies : photovoltaic

Output Measure No. n.a. n.a. 100 2006 108 2006



Saved fossil primary energy per year, through the use of solar thermal energy

Output Measure kWh/year n.a. n.a. 400000 2006 440845 2006



Use of renewable energies in the framework of the climate protection programme





Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved



Saved fossil primary energy per year, through the use of heat pump/heat recovery




Saved fossil primary energy per year, through the use of geothermal energy




Measures in energy savings Output Measure No. n.a. n.a. 30 2006 30 2006



Installed capacity, of which solar thermal energy

Output Measure kW n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 239 2006



Saved fossil primary energy per year, through the use of photovoltaic




Reduced CO2 emissions Output Measure kg/year n.a. n.a. 20000000 2006 34228547 2006



Installed capacities, of which geothermal energy

Output Measure kW n.a. n.a. 1300 2006 0 2006



Use of seminal energy technologies: Geothermal energy




Enhancement of energy efficiency Output Measure No. n.a. n.a. 15 2006 16 2006



Climate protection programme, cases Output Measure Number n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 151 2006




Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved



Use of seminal energy technologies: solarthermal energy




Installed capacities, of which biogenous primary product




Fossil primary energy, saved through alternatively produced energy in the framework of the climate protection programme

Output Measure kWh/year n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 86466763 2006



Use of alternative motor fuels Output Measure No. n.a. n.a. 15 2006 21 2006



Heat pump/ heat recovery Output Measure No. n.a. n.a. 50 2006 57 2006



Use of seminal energy technologies: biogenous primary product




Installed capacity, of which photovoltaic Output Measure kW n.a. n.a. 1000 2006 1511 2006



Installed capacities: heat pump/ heat recovery


OP OBJ1 BRANDENBURG

Air pollution prevention and pollution reduction

Assisted projects Output Measure Number 0 2000 0 2006 407 2006

OP OBJ1 BRANDENBURG


Increasing the use of renewable energy until 2010

Impact Measure % 0 2000 5 2006 n.a. 2006




Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

OP OBJ1 BRANDENBURG


Projects related to air pollution prevention and emission reduction

Output Measure Number 0 2000 105 2006 64 2006

OP obj. Saxony Climate protection/renewable energies

Savings in primary energy per year in MWh/BRP

Output Measure MWh/BRP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1457 2006


Reduction of emissions, preferentially CO2

Output Measure t/year n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 56443.6 2006


Number of projects for the use of renewable energies with emphasis on biomass and solar energy in unit

Output Measure No. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 929 2006


Number of projects for environment protection and energy saving, particularly for CO2 reduction and increase of energy efficiency

Output Measure No. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1410 2006


Increase in installed capacity of sites for the use of renewable energies

Output Measure MWh n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 52217 2006


Volume of investment Output Measure Mio.Euro n.a. n.a. 51 2006 32 2006

SPD obj. 2 Rheinland-Pfalz Reduction of CO2

emissions Impact Program t/year n.a. n.a. 28800 n.a. n.a. n.a.

SPD obj. 2 Rheinland-Pfalz

Support to projects of renewable energy production and energetic use of renewable commodities

Created/rehabilitated capacity according to energy sources

Result Measure MW 0 n.a. 12 n.a. 9.215 n.a.




Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved



Savings in primary energy Impact Measure MWh 0 n.a. 48000 n.a. 43731 n.a.



Reduction of CO2 emissions Impact Measure t/year 0 n.a. 28800 n.a. 42746 n.a.


Eco-audit, energy efficiency and recycling

Supported advice for energy efficiency and for introducing low wasteproduction technics and process

Output Measure Number 0 n.a. 195 n.a. n.a. n.a.



Reduction of waste products Impact Measure % 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 121.5 n.a.



Successfully accomplished environmental audits

Result Measure Number 0 n.a. 180 n.a. 29 n.a.



Reduction of energy use Impact Measure % 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 92 n.a.



Reduction of emissions (CO2, NOx, etc.) Impact Measure % 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 25 n.a.


Pilot projects concerning material use of renewable commodities

Supported investment (volume) for introduction of new technologies in the area of renewable raw materials

Result Measure Million Euro 0 n.a. 6 n.a. 2.25 n.a.


Environment and sustainability

Savings in primary energy by investment in renewable energy resources

Impact Priority MWh n.a. n.a. 48000 n.a. 43731 n.a.




Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved



Implemented or rehabilitated capacity of renewable energy

Impact Priority MW n.a. n.a. 12 n.a. 9.2 n.a.



Reduction of CO2 emissions through investment in renewable energy resources

Impact Priority t/year n.a. n.a. 28800 n.a. 42746 n.a.

SPD obj. 2 Berlin Environment Relief Programme

Induced environmental protection investments in the area of emission reduction (air)

Output Measure Million Euro 0 n.a. 17.558 2006 8.444 2006


Reduced CO2 emissions Output Measure ton n.a. n.a. 65719 2006 17958 2006


Development/utilisation of renewable energies Output Measure number of

projects n.a. n.a. 25 2006 3 2006

SPD obj. 2 Nordrhein-Westfalen Renewable energies

Reduction of CO2 emissions per year and tons

Output Measure t/year n.a. n.a. 460970 2006 144971 2006

SPD obj. 2 Bayern Emission control Rational energy generation and recovery

Output Measure

number of projects/ respectively promoted facilities

n.a. n.a. 8 2006 1 2006

SPD obj. 2 Bayern Emission control Renewable resources - energy recovery of biomass

Output Measure

number of enterprises receiving financial support for the introduction of environmental technologies

0 n.a. 46 2006 26 2006




Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

SPD obj. 2 Bayern

Research, technology, information and development of competence

Installed biomass heat output Output Priority kW n.a. n.a. 35264 2006 22090 2006

SPD obj. 2 Bayern


CO2 reduction Output Priority kg/year n.a. n.a. 39028000 2006 21716300 2006

SPD obj. 2 Bayern


Decrease in energy consumption Output Priority n.a n.a. n.a. 9492000 2006 7000 2006

SPD obj. 2 Bayern


Additional energy efficiency in promoted plants

Output Priority number 0 n.a. 1 2006 1 2006

SPD obj. 2 Bremen

Promotion of applied environmental technologies

Rational energy usage and regenerative energy Output Measure number of

projects n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 67 2006

SPD obj. 2 Bremen

Promotion of applied environmental technologies

Recycling and emission reduction Output Measure number of

projects n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 16 2006



Portugal


Value Year

BaselineTarget Value

Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

Community Support Framework (CSF)

Operational Programme for the Economy

Percentage of renewable energy in total primary energy

Output Measure % 10.4 n.a. 10.5 2006 n.a. n.a.

"Economy" Operational Programme (POE)

Improving business strategies

Power units installed in new renewable energy producers

Output Measure MW 0 2000 320 2006 498 2006

"Environment" Operational Programme (POA)

Supporting the environmental sustainability of economic activities

Projects leading to the anticipated obtaining of environmental license in the domain of the IPCC directive

Output Measure number 0 2000 n.a. 2006 3 2006

"Environment" Operational Programme (POA)

Supporting the environmental sustainability of economic activities

Equivalent CO2 not expelled Output Measure ton/ year n.a. 2000 n.a. 2006 2744.8 2006

"Azores" Operational Programme (PRODESA)

Energy Built substations: installed potential Result Measure number 0 2000 20 2006 20 2006


Energy Extended geothermal exploitations Output Measure number 0 2000 1 2006 n.a. 2006


Energy New/ extended hydroelectric exploitation

Output Measure number 0 2000 5 2006 4 2006


Energy New geothermal exploitations Output Measure number 0 2000 1 2006 1 2006


Energy New/ extended wind energy parks Output Measure number 0 2000 8 2006 5 2006



The Czech Republic


Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

Industry and Enterprise OP

Emissions (assessed as environmental impact in the form of increase or decrease of contamination by CO2)

Impact Program Megatons 124.1 2001 n.a n.a n.a n.a


Development of enterprise competitiveness

Energy savings Result Priority GJ/year 0 2001 120000 n.a 22809 2006



Energy generated using renewable energy sources - generated MWh p.a.

Result Priority generated MWh p.a. 0 2001 50000 n.a 25668 2006



Energy generated using renewable energy sources - installed MW p.a.

Result Priority installed MW p.a. 0 2001 15 n.a 6.212 2006



Reducing energy consumption and higher use of renewable energy sources

Energy savings Result Measure GJ/year 0 2001 120000 n.a 22809 2006




Energy generated using renewable energy sources - generated MWh p.a.

Result Measure generated MWh p.a. 0 2001 50000 n.a 25668 2006




Energy generated using renewable energy sources - installed MW p.a.

Result Measure installed MW p.a. 0 2001 15 n.a 6.212 2006




Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

Infrastructure OP

Reducing the negative environmental impacts of transport (direct and coordinated by MoT)

Increase in using alternative fuels in the comparison with previous state in the areas concerned

Result Priority % n.a 2002 15 n.a n.a n.a

Infrastructure OP


Increase use in biofuels Result Priority % 0.05 2002 5.75 2010 n.a n.a

Infrastructure OP


Number of upgraded facilities for access to alternative fuels

Output Priority Number n.a n.a 1 n.a 0 2006

Infrastructure OP


Support for the introduction of alternative fuels

Research projects for the development of renewable energy sources in transport

Output Measure Number of implemented n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a

Infrastructure OP



Projects supporting the introduction of renewable energy sources in transport

Output Measure Number of implemented n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a




Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

Infrastructure OP



Reduction in emissions of CO2 equiv. Achieved by implementation of the measures

Impact Measure t/year n.a n.a n.a n.a 0 2006

Infrastructure OP



Motor vehicles using alternative propulsion Result Measure Number of

implemented n.a n.a n.a n.a 0 2006

Infrastructure OP



Research projects for the development of alternative ways fuels and energies

Output Measure Number of implemented n.a n.a n.a n.a 0 2006

Infrastructure OP



Increase in the proportion of alternative fuels in the total consumption of fuels in transport

Impact Measure % n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a

Infrastructure OP



Projects supporting the introduction of alternative fuels

Output Measure Number of implemented n.a n.a n.a n.a 1 2006




Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

Infrastructure OP

Environmental Infrastructure Improvement (directed and coordinated by MoE)

Air protection infrastructure improvement

Installed electric energy capacity from renewable energy sources (cogeneration)

Result Measure kW n.a n.a n.a n.a 0.5 2006

Infrastructure OP



Length of constructed/ reconstructed distribution systems

Result Measure km n.a n.a n.a n.a 1.8 2006

Infrastructure OP



Length of central heat distribution systems Result Measure m n.a n.a n.a n.a 0.8 2006

Infrastructure OP



New installed heat capacity Result Measure MWt n.a n.a n.a n.a 17 2006

Infrastructure OP



Reduction of the total installed capacity Result Measure MWt n.a n.a n.a n.a 4.32 2006




Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

Infrastructure OP



Heat generation from renewable energy sources (RES)

Impact Measure GJ n.a n.a n.a n.a 14306 2006

Infrastructure OP



Number of implemented projects B Output Measure Number n.a n.a n.a n.a 3 2006

Infrastructure OP



Reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases Impact Measure t/year n.a n.a n.a n.a 8724 2006

Infrastructure OP



Electric energy generation from renewable energy sources (employment of cogeneration)

Impact Measure GJ, kWh n.a n.a n.a n.a 5054 2006

Infrastructure OP



Energy savings Impact Measure GJ/year n.a n.a n.a n.a 40479 2006


Annex 1


Value Year


Year Target

Achieved Value

Year Achieved

Infrastructure OP



Installed heat capacity from renewable energy sources

Result Measure kW n.a n.a n.a n.a 2.38 2006

Infrastructure OP



New installed electric power capacity Result Measure MWe n.a n.a n.a n.a 0 2006

Infrastructure OP



Number of implemented projects A Output Measure Number n.a n.a n.a n.a 10 2006

Date post:	15-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Revised Inception Report - European...

Documents