Download - Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 ...

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 SSeeccoonndd IInntteerrmmeeddiiaattee RReeppoorrtt

June 2009

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 5B: ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE ADE

Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ACRONYMS

GLOSSARY

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

2. TASK 2 : FEATURES OF ENVIRONMENT STRATEGIES OF MEMBER STATES ......... 3

2.1 PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES OF THE 14 SELECTED MEMBER STATES ....................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Status and features of environmental sectors in 2000 and main trends ............ 3 2.1.2 Overall investment made in environmental infrastructures during

the 2000-2006 period .............................................................................................. 11 2.1.3 The Contribution of ERDF to environmental infrastructures ........................ 15

2.2 MAIN FEATURES FOR THE OTHER 11 MEMBER STATES: ENVIRONMENTAL EXPENDITURES ............................................................................... 16

3. TASK 3: MAIN INPUTS AND OUTCOMES ............................................................... 19

3.1 TASK 3.1: MAIN OUTPUT AND RESULT INDICATORS FROM ERDF INTERVENTIONS .............................................................................................................. 19

3.1.1 Main output and results for the 14 selected Member States ............................ 19 3.1.2 Financial information related to environmental interventions ......................... 20

3.2 TASK 3.2 : EFFECTIVENESS OF MAJOR SECTORAL PROGRAMMES ............................. 21 3.2.1 Czech Republic ........................................................................................................ 21 3.2.2 Greece ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.2.3 Hungary .................................................................................................................... 43 3.2.4 Ireland ....................................................................................................................... 55 3.2.5 Portugal .................................................................................................................... 61 3.2.6 Slovakia ..................................................................................................................... 75

4. TASK 4: CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................ 81

4.1 REGIONAL CASE STUDIES : MAIN HYPOTHESIS TO BE EXAMINED – LESSONS FROM TASK 1 .................................................................................................... 81

4.2 REGIONAL CASE STUDY REPORT .................................................................................. 83 4.2.1 Economic and environmental features of the Norte Region at

the beginning of the period ................................................................................... 83 4.2.2 The Institutional set up .......................................................................................... 85 4.2.3 Environmental priorities ........................................................................................ 86 4.2.4 Norte regional development strategy ................................................................... 87 4.2.5 Environment actions taken ................................................................................... 90 4.2.6 ERDF contribution to environmental policies in the Norte Region .............. 91 4.2.7 Main results achieved in terms of the environmental situation ....................... 95 4.2.8 Contribution to regional territorial development ............................................... 97

4.3 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................... 104 4.4 CASE STUDY ON WASTE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF

WASTE IN CATALONIA (SPAIN) ................................................................................... 104



4.4.1 Main hypothesis to be considered ..................................................................... 104 4.4.2 General strategic context .................................................................................... 105 4.4.3 Main environmental constraints in Catalonia and public financing ............. 109 4.4.4 Regional strategy for municipal waste management and generation ............ 110 4.4.5 Catalonia Objective 2 programme (2000-2006) .............................................. 115 4.4.6 Adequacy of ERDF interventions in Catalan waste management ................ 119 4.4.7 Next steps ............................................................................................................. 120

5. TASK 5: CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................................... 121

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 121 5.2 CASE STUDY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC...................................................................... 122

5.2.1. Status and features of climate change in the Czech Republic ....................... 122 5.2.2 Link between the IEOP, challenges and the national strategy

in terms of climate change .................................................................................. 126 5.2.3 Achievements of the IEOP ................................................................................ 126 5.2.4 Contribution of the IEOP to reducing GHG emissions ............................... 128 5.2.5 Contribution of the IEOP to socio-economic development ........................ 133 5.2.6 Management of ES and RES projects supported by ERDF ......................... 134 5.2.7 Method to assess the contribution of ES and RES project

supported by ERDF to reducing GHG emissions ......................................... 135 5.2.8 Evolution to the 2007-2013 programming period .......................................... 136

5.3 NEXT STEPS FOR TASK 5 CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................ 137 LIST OF ANNEXES ANNEX 1 – SHORT OVERVIEW NOTES :

CZECH REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................................ 5

FINLAND ............................................................................................................................................... 11

FRANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 17

GERMANY ............................................................................................................................................ 25

GREECE ................................................................................................................................................. 31

HUNGARY ............................................................................................................................................. 37

IRELAND ............................................................................................................................................... 43

ITALY ...................................................................................................................................................... 49

LATVIA ................................................................................................................................................... 55

POLAND ................................................................................................................................................ 61

PORTUGAL ........................................................................................................................................... 67

SLOVAKIA ............................................................................................................................................. 75

SPAIN ...................................................................................................................................................... 83

UNITED KINGDOM .......................................................................................................................... 89

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARY INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE

INVESTMENTS IN THE REMAINING 11 MEMBER STATES ANNEX 3 – METHODOLOGY OF DATA COLLECTION FOR INDICATORS UNDER TASK 3.1



ANNEX 4 – PROGRAMME OF THE MISSION IN THE NORTE REGION AND LIST OF PERSONS MET

ANNEX 5 - PILOT CASE STUDY IN THE NORTE REGION (PORTUGAL) MAIN ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

ANNEX 6 – PILOT CASE STUDY IN CATALUNIA ABOUT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ANNEX 7 – LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS MET IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC FOR TASK 5 ANNEX 8 – EVALUATION GRID FOR TASK 5: CLIMATE CHANGE ANNEX 9 – BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR TASK 5 LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 2.1 : Waste water treatment - % population receiving total treatment ..................... 9 Graph 2.2 : Environmental investments per capita – 2000-2006 (in €) .............................. 13 Graph 2.3 : ERDF amount (€ per capita) allocated to environmental

infrastructures (mainly water and waste). Period 2000-2006 ........................... 15 Graph 4.1 : Environmental situation at national/regional level (2005) .............................. 96 Graph 4.2 : GDP /capita (PPS per inhabitant in % of the EU-27 average) .................... 106 Graph 4.3 : Waste per capita day in kg .................................................................................. 108 Graph 4.4 : Separated collection of municipal wastes (%) in Catalonia since 1995 ........ 108 Graph 4.5 : Relation between waste collection points and total waste

collected between 1997 and 2007 ...................................................................... 114 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 : Norte Programme – Priorities and environmental measures .......................... 89 Figure 4.2 : Environmental impact of the renewable energy projects by region ............... 94 Figure 5.1 : The institutional framework for the climate change policy

in the Czech Republic .......................................................................................... 125 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 : Socio economic data and municipal waste generation ....................................... 5 Table 2.2 : Population with access to improved water supply .............................................. 6 Table 2.3 : Energy intensity and GHG emission .................................................................. 10 Table 2.4 : Amount invested in environmental infrastructures by sources (in mio €) .... 12 Table 2.5 : Estimated needs for new EU countries – annual average ............................... 13 Table 2.6 : Sources of investments in environmental infrastructure for the

remaining 11 MS .................................................................................................... 16 Table 3.1 : Main output and results for the 14 selected Member States in the

field of environemtal infrastructure for the 2000-2006 programming period ....................................................................................................................... 19

Table 3.2 : Overview of the EC co-financing and national counterpart of Objective 1 and 2 operational programmes for the 2000-2006 programming period (€ m) ................................................................................... 20



Table 3.3 : Environment budget allocation of the IOP, by priority and measure as well as by field of intervention ........................................................................ 22

Table 3.4 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to transport ........... 23 Table 3.5 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to water ................. 23 Table 3.6 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to waste ................. 24 Table 3.7 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to air

and energy ............................................................................................................... 25 Table 3.8 : Environment budget allocation of the EOP, by priority and measure,

as well as by field of intervention ........................................................................ 34 Table 3.9 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to water and wastewater ..... 36 Table 3.10 : Quantitative targets and output related to solid waste ..................................... 37 Table 3.11 : Quantitative targets and output related to other environmental

projects .................................................................................................................... 37 Table 3.12 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to management

of protected natural areas ..................................................................................... 38 Table 3.13 : Environment budget allocation of the EIOP, by priority and

measure, as well as by field of intervention ........................................................ 45 Table 3.14 : Quantitative targets linked to the water sector .................................................. 47 Table 3.15 : Quantitative targets linked to the waste sector .................................................. 48 Table 3.16 : Quantitative targets linked to energy .................................................................. 49 Table 3.17 : Environment budget allocation of the ESIOP, by priority and

measure, as well as by field of intervention ...................................................... 56 Table 3.18 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to water and wastewater ..... 56 Table 3.19 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to energy conservation ........ 58 Table 3.20 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to renewable energy ............ 59 Table 3.21 : Environment budget allocation of the EOP, by priority and

measure, as well as(see previous notes) by field of intervention ................... 63 Table 3.22 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Preservation and valorisation of the natural patrimony ................................................................ 64 Table 3.23 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Support and

protection of natural resources .......................................................................... 66 Table 3.24 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Information,

awareness and administration of the environment ......................................... 67 Table 3.25 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Improvement

of the urban environment ................................................................................... 68 Table 3.26 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Support to

environmental sustainability of economic activities ........................................ 69 Table 3.27 : Environmental protection expenditures in Portugal- by main

fields of intervention and main sources - € mio .............................................. 70 Table 3.28 : Environment budget allocation of the BIOP, by priority

and mesure as well as by FOI ............................................................................. 76 Table 3.29 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to

water and wastewater ........................................................................................... 77 Table 3.30 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to waste ................. 78 Table 3.31 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to air ....................... 78



Table 4.1 : Estimates of environmental expenditures in Norte Region during the 2000-2006 period ............................................................................................. 90

Table 4.2 : Environmental measures – Approved expenditures 2000-2008 ..................... 92 Table 4.3 : Synthesis of main output indicators. ................................................................... 93 Table 4.4 : Environmental situation of the Norte Region ................................................... 95 Table 4.5 : Economic performances of the Norte Region .................................................. 97 Table 4.6 : Activities linked to environment ........................................................................ 101 Table 4.7 : Tourism activity in the Norte Region ............................................................... 102 Table 4.8 : Regional case studies ........................................................................................... 104 Table 4.9 : Evolution of GDP, municipal waste production and

population over the 2000-2006 period in Catalonia ....................................... 107 Table 4.10 : Repartition of ERDF interventions in the field of environment in

Catalonia and Spain ............................................................................................. 110 Table 4.11 : Main investments of PROGREMIC 2001-2006 programme by

type of activity ...................................................................................................... 111 Table 4.12 : Waste projects funded by the Cohesion Fund in Catalonia (2000-2006) .... 112 Table 4.13 : Axis and financial commitments of Objective 2 programme

in Catalonia ........................................................................................................... 115 Table 4.14 : Measures of axis 2 concerning the environment, natural and

hydraulic resources (in € and % of axis environment) ................................... 116 Table 4.15 : Specific allocation of waste management (measure 2.2) in

OP Objective 2 Catalonia 2000-2006 (euros) .................................................. 116 Table 4.16 : Joint financed projects OP 2000 – 2006

(amount in thousands of euros) ......................................................................... 117 Table 4.17 : Achievements of urban waste management measure (2.2) ............................ 118 Table 4.18 : Contribution of ERDF urban waste management measure

(2.2) to interventions in PROGREMIC ........................................................... 118 Table 5.1 : Selected operational programmes for the implementaion of the

case studies ............................................................................................................ 121 Table 5.2 : GHG emissions in the Czech Republic ............................................................ 122 Table 5.3 : Renewable energy sources and energy intensity in the

Czech Republic ..................................................................................................... 122 Table 5.4 : Budget allocation of the 2004-2006 IEOP devoted to climate

change issues ......................................................................................................... 127 Table 5.5 : Number of projects and budget for both sub-programmes

(ES and RES) of the 2004-2006 IEOP ............................................................. 128 Table 5.6 : Target and achieved values for projects implemented under

ES and RES sub-programmes ............................................................................ 128 Table 5.7 : Assessed impacts of both sub-programmes (ES and RES) of the

2004-2006 EIOP in terms of Climate Change ................................................ 129 Table 5.8 : Assessment of the efficiency of both ES and RES sub-programmes .......... 131 Table 5.9 : Internal rate of return of Czech projects under the 2004-2006 IEOP ........ 132 Table 5.10 : Gross number of jobs created due to projects co-financed

under the ES and RES subprogrammes ......................................................... 133 Table 5.11 : CO2 equivalent emission factors for power generation in the

Czech Republic.................................................................................................... 136


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Acronyms

Acronyms

C&D Construction & Demolition

CCDR-N Coordination Committee for the Development of the Norte Region

CEA Czech Energy Agency

CENIA Czech Environmental Information Agency

CF Cohesion Fund

CO2 Carbon dioxide

Coll. Collection of legal acts in the Czech Republic

CSF Community Support Framework

CZK Czech currency (Kc)

DG Regio Directorate-General Regional Policy

EAP Environmental Action Programme

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

EEA European Environment Agency

EIB European Investment Bank

EC European Commission

EEA European Environmental Agency

ES Energy saving

ETS Emission Trading Scheme

EKC Environmental Kuznets Curve

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

IEOP Industry and Enterprise Operational Programme

ISPA Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession

kgoe Kilogramme of Oil Equivalent

kWh Kilowatt hour

MIT Ministry of Industry and Trade

MJ Megajoule

MS Member State

Mt Mega ton



MW Megawatt

MWh Megawatt hour

n.a. Not available

NAP National Allocation Plan

NDP National Development Plan

NEP National Environmental Programme

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NIR National Inventory Reports

O1 Objective 1

O2 Objective 2

OP Operational Programme

OPBI Operational Programme Basic Infrastructure

PES Primary energy sources

PPP Polluter-pays principle

QE Question

RDP Rural Development Plan

RES Renewable energy sources

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

t ton

ToR Terms of Reference

UA Urban Audit

UN FCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UPP User-pays principle

WFD Water Framework Directive

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


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Glossary

Glossary BOD5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Quantity of organic material discharged by human activities (domestic, industrial and agricultural ) measured in terms of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The unit of measurement is BOD tonnes /year.

COD Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is the amount of oxygen required for the chemical oxidation of compounds in water, as determined using a strong oxidant (most standard methods use dichromate). The parameter is expressed as tonnes of oxygen.

Czech Invest Czech Invest is the investment and business development agency of the Czech Republic, whose services and development programmes contribute to attracting foreign investment and to developing Czech companies. The mission of Czech Invest is to support investment activities to the highest level of competence not only through the information services and consultancy but also in the framework of European Structural Funds (website: http://www.czechinvest.org).

Electricity produced from renewable energy sources (RES)

The electricity produced from RES comprises of the electricity generation from hydro plants (excluding pumping), wind, solar, geothermal and electricity from biomass/wastes. Biomass/wastes electricity comprises of electricity generated from wood/wood wastes and other solid wastes of renewable nature (straw, black liquor) burning, municipal solid waste incineration, biogas (incl. landfill, sewage, farm gas) and liquid biofuels.

Energy intensity The energy intensity (unit: kilogram of oil equivalent per thousand €) is the ratio between the Gross Inland Consumption of Energy (unit: kilogram of oil equivalent) and the Gross Domestic Product (thousand € expressed in real terms with respect to a base year) calculated for a calendar year. It measures its overall energy efficiency.

Environmental protection expenditure

Money spent on all purposeful activities directly aimed at the reduction and elimination of pollution or nuisances resulting from the production processes or consumption of goods and services. Breakdown between investment expenditures (gross fixed capital formation) and current expenditures.

Municipal waste generation

Municipal waste generation is a concept commonly used to quantify the production of solid municipal waste. This indicator does not have one single definition even inside the EU. However, it corresponds to a geographically determined area and can be easily used by public administrations. It consists of waste collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities and disposed through the waste management system. Municipal waste includes organic waste, paper waste, packaging and bulky or other waste. The bulk of this waste stream is from households, although similar wastes from commerce, offices and public institutions (schools, hospitals, etc.) are included (source: ACR+ Study and European Campaign for Waste Reduction, 2008).


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Glossary

Primary energy consumption

Primary energy consumption refers to the direct use at the source, or supply to users without transformation, of crude energy, that is, energy that has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process.

Primary treatment Treatment by physical or chemical processes in which the BOD5 and suspended solids from incoming waste water are reduced by at least 20% and 50% respectively.

Secondary treatment Process generally involving biological treatment with a secondary settlement or other processes, resulting in a BOD5 removal of at least 70% and a COD removal of at least 75%.

Tertiary treatment Treatment that targets to remove nitrogen and/or phosphorous and any other pollutant affecting the quality of water (organic pollution removal of at least 95% for BOD5 and at least 85% for COD), nitrogen removal of at least 70%, phosphorous removal of at least 80% and microbiological removal achieving a faecal coliform density less than 1000 in 100ml.

Total treatment This indicator related to any kind of sewage treatment (primary to tertiary) in municipal treatment plants run by public authorities or by private companies (on behalf of local authorities), whose main purpose is sewage treatment.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Page 1

1. Introduction

The second intermediate report provides full completion of the overview notes analysing the features of the Environment Strategies of the 25 Member States (task 2). A transversal analysis for the 14 selected Member States (MS) is presented in the core text (section 2.1) with the aim to highlight the main challenges that MS had to face at the beginning of the 2000-2006 period in the three main sectors under review: solid waste, water supply and wastewater treatment, as well as climate change. Investments to address these challenges have been estimated for each of the 25 Member States. The contribution of the different sources of funds (sections 2.1 and 2.2) has also been detailed. Short overview notes for the 14 selected MS are available in annex 1.

The report also provides an update of the main outcomes of ERDF interventions to environmental infrastructures (task 3.1). Reviewed indicators for 82 selected programmes as well as detailed financial allocations through 2000-2006 ERDF programmes are shown in Excel tables attached to the main report.

The effectiveness of major sectoral programmes has been analysed and presented under task 3.2.

Pilot missions have been carried out for each of the three areas requiring case studies. The case studies reports are presented in sections 4.1, 4.2 and 5:

the first is dedicated to the assessment of the contribution of ERDF environmental measures to regional development in the Norte Region (Portugal);

the second is devoted to waste prevention and management of waste in Catalonia (Spain);

the third provides experience of the 2004-2006 programming period in the field of climate change in the Czech Republic.

The next report is expected to be released in July and requires the following steps:

‐ fine-tune the methodologies used for the pilot case studies and provide finalised frameworks for the following case studies;

‐ carry out the remaining case studies; ‐ provide a global assessment of the contribution of ERDF to national and EU

environmental strategies based on findings from all tasks and make recommendations for the ongoing and future programming periods.



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

2.1 Principal features of the Environmental Strategies of the 14 selected Member States

This section aims to highlight the initial situation and main challenges that EU countries and in particular the 14 Member States faced in 2000 in three environmental fields: municipal waste, water supply and waste water treatment, and climate change. Achieving environmental goals has mobilised a significant amount of resources in the Member States. This section provides an estimate of overall investment made in environmental infrastructures in each of the 14 MS as well as a general assessment of how the ERDF and other sources of funds have contributed to these investments. A more detailed analysis by country is provided in annex 1. For the remaining 11 Member States, this section presents a short overview of the sources of financing for environmental infrastructures.

2.1.1 Status and features of environmental sectors in 2000 and main trends

Key messages The target to decouple economic growth and waste generation has been one of the main objectives of the MS during the 2000-2006 period together with a shift in waste management from a protective focus towards contributing to the sustainable use of resources. This has required the allocation of resources for prevention actions, separate collection, recycling as well as landfills remediation and securing. The situations among MS were not similar, the old MS being more advanced in prevention-recycling while the new EU members experienced more problems to adapt landfills to EU regulation. The ERDF contribution to solid waste infrastructures has been less important than in the water sector but still in line with the Government allocations. The role of the private sector is often more developed for ensuring the collection and treatment of solid waste. The obligation to fulfil the EU wastewater treatment directive may explain why most of the ERDF funds used for environmental infrastructures have been allocated to the water sector. The costs of both installing the required network and adapting and renewing the existing system appear to have been significant. Again, the situation in the water infrastructure was far from homogenous in the MS at the beginning of the 2000-2006 period. Three types of situation have been highlighted:

‐ Countries that completed their sewer systems long ago and now face considerable investment to renew. In some of these countries (such as France, Germany or the UK), the needs for capital investment were mainly funded through their own resources (partly coming from the application of the PPP and UPP) or through private contributions.



‐ Countries that have recently finished the expansion of wastewater treatment capacity and their expenditure now shifts to operating costs (Ireland, Finland).

‐ Countries that must still complete their sewerage networks in order to fill the EU directive requirements. They have devoted substantial resources during the 2000-2006 period to reach the objectives and have massively used the ERDF and other European funds like the pre-accession funds (ISPA) and the Cohesion Fund for enlarging their network. Overall, the amounts spent in these countries for environmental infrastructures, especially in the New Member States, appear to have been in line with the estimated needs for reaching the objectives.

The private sector was already present in both sectors and in many countries at the beginning of the period. But the role played by private investment has increased significantly during the 2000-2006 period. The most important contribution of the private sector to environmental infrastructures is in air-related infrastructure. The situation in waste and water sectors is more contrasting among the MS, the role of the private sector being more developed for collecting and treating solid waste.

Collection and treatment of municipal solid waste

Main problem in relation to safe and sustainable handling of solid waste concerns the potential impact from inappropriate waste management on human health and on ecosystems (soil and water contamination, negative impact on air quality, land use and landscape). The main challenges are to limit the volume of waste generated principally through waste prevention and recycling, and to improve waste management and treatment. Reduction of generated waste through waste prevention was one of the priorities of the recently reinforced new Waste Framework Directive1. The EU regulation also lays down an order of preference for waste operations: prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling, other recovery operations (including incineration with energy recovery) and, as a last resort, safe and environmentally-sound disposal (land filling). The target to decouple economic growth and waste generation has been one of the main objectives of the MS during the2000-2006 period together with the shift in waste management from a protective focus towards contributing to the sustainable use of resources.

1 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008



Table 2.1 : Socio economic data and municipal waste generation

Indicator GDP per

capita Municipal waste generation

Unit EU-25=100 million tons in % GDP kg/capita

Year 2000 2005/06 2000

2005 /06

Growth rate

20002005 /06

Growth rate

2000 2005 /06

Growth rate

Czech Republic 65.4 73.6 3.4 3.0 -13.2% 5.6 3.0 -46.7% 333 290 -13%

Hungary 53.5 61.7 4.6 4.6 1.7% 8.8 5.2 -40.3% 446 459 3%

Slovakia 47.8 58.2 1.4 1.6 13.7% 6.2 4.0 -34.9% 254 289 14%

Latvia 35.0 47.9 0.6 0.7 11.3% 7.6 5.5 -27.4% 271 311 15%

Poland 46.1 49.2 12.2 9.4 -23.3% 6.6 3.8 -41.7% 317 245 -23%

Germany 113.1 110.6 50.1 49.6 -1.2% 2.4 2.2 -9.1% 610 601 -1%

Finland 112.0 110.5 2.6 2.4 -5.7% 2.0 1.6 -20.6% 502 467 -7%

France 110.1 107.5 32.2 35.2 9.3% 2.2 2.0 -8.8% 530 560 6% United Kingdom 111.6 114.6 33.5 35.1 4.6% 2.1 1.9 -8.5% 569 582 2%

Italy 111.6 100.7 28.6 32.3 13.0% 2.4 2.3 -5.8% 502 551 10%

Ireland 124.8 138.1 2.3 3.0 34.0% 2.2 1.9 -13.4% 598 733 23%

Spain 93.0 98.9 26.3 25.7 -2.4% 4.2 2.8 -32.3% 654 592 -9%

Greece 80.3 92.6 4.5 4.9 8.9% 3.2 2.5 -24.0% 408 437 7%

Portugal 74.5 72.4 4.8 4.7 -3.2% 3.9 3.1 -20.6% 472 443 -6% Source: Eurostat Both the amount and composition of municipal waste2 vary widely among EU countries being directly related to levels of consumption. As shown in table 2.1, a significantly lower level of waste generation per capita characterises the new Member States, except Hungary which has already reached the level of the old MS with a municipal waste generation of 459 kg per capita. At the OECD level, the generation intensity per capita has risen at a lower rate than private final consumption expenditure and GDP and, more significantly, has slowed down in recent years. The generation of municipal waste per capita in Western European Countries has stabilised, albeit at a high level. Among the nine old MS under review (except Ireland), the generation intensity shows more of a stabilising trend, four of them showing a slight increase and the four others, a slight decrease. The case of Ireland is unparalleled with a growth in municipal waste of 23% mainly due to a booming economy. At the same time, it has been slowly decreasing in Central and Eastern Europe3. Among the five new EU countries under review, the situation is contrasting: Poland4 and the Czech

2 When interpreting these indicators, it should be kept in mind that municipal waste is only part of the total waste

generated. Others are industrial waste, hazardous waste and nuclear waste.

3 Sources : Eurostat, national data and EEA

4 In Poland, the decreasing trend in municipal waste generation observed during the early 2000s reflected the economic slowdown recorded in the years 2002-2003 as well as the mass migration in the years 2004-05 but also some disputes



Republic have recorded a significant reduction in the volume of municipal waste per inhabitant while Slovakia and Latvia have continued to register an increase. The average municipal waste generation in the OECD reached 560 kg per inhabitant in 2006. Five countries among the 14 MS are still above that level (by decreasing order, Ireland, Germany, Spain, the UK and France). Regarding waste treatment, countries have succeeded in increasing the part of solid waste recycled. However, despite a reduction of its relative share, land filling remains the predominant treatment for municipal waste. At the end of 2005, 49% of EU municipal waste was disposed of through landfill, 18% was incinerated and 27% recycled or composted. There were wide discrepancies between MS. Some landfilled 90%, others only 10%. The most spectacular changes have been seen in Germany where the urban solid waste landfilled has decreased by 98% (to 4kg/capita) while the waste managed by means of incineration has increased by 37%. Investments in pre-treatment plants and investments to support thermal treatment received high priority as well as investments in landfills remediation and securing. But this is still a severe challenge in the five new federal states because of the relatively high number of old landfills that do not fulfil environmental requirements. Overall, the problems of landfill compliance to EU regulation seem more accurate in the new MS. In the old ones, prevention, separate collection and recycling are more advanced even if the level of waste per capita has remained high.

Water supply

Table 2.2 : Population with access to improved water supply

Indicator

Unit % in urban areas % in rural areas

Year 2004 2004 2000/01 2005/06 Growth rate

Czech Republic 97,0 91,0 66,0 75,0 14%

Hungary 95,0 91,0 46,0 59,8 30%

Slovakia 99,0 93,0 51,0 55,0 8%

Latvia 93,0 59,0 67,0 67,0 0%

Poland 99,0 96,0 54,0 60,0 11%

Germany 100,0 97,0 93,0 94,0 1%

Finland 100,0 92,0 80,0 81,0 1%

France 100,0 100,0 79,0 80,1 1%

United Kingdom 100,0 98,0 94,6 97,1 3%

Italy 100,0 96,0 68,6 n.a. n.a.

Ireland 99,0 96,0 70,0 89,0 27%

Spain 99,0 99,0 88,0 92,0 5%

Greece 91,0 73,0 56,2 n.a. n.a.

Portugal n.a. n.a. 57,0 65,0 14%

%

Population with access to

improved water supply

Population receiving total treatment as

defined by the Urban Waste Water

Treatment Directive

Source: Eurostat, OECD

between property owners and companies engaged in municipal waste collection, which resulted in the management of

waste by households themselves and the development of illegal landfills.



In most OECD countries and thus in EU countries, drinking water supplied to the main centres is bacteriologically safe. According to WHO data, only a few countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland had still to connect a part of their population to safe water supplies5 (14% in the Czech Republic, 1 % in Hungary and 11% in Poland6). This must also be the case for Latvia where the ground water is of poor quality and only 59% of the rural population is connected to an improved water supply7. The main challenge is now to provide safe water which means treating it to avoid viruses, parasites, nitrates and pesticides. New concerns are emerging in this field, notably due to the tightening of drinking water standards.

Waste water treatment

The main concerns relate to the impacts of water pollution on human health, on the cost of drinking water treatment and negative impact on aquatic ecosystems 8 . The main challenge is to ensure freshwater quality that protects and restore all bodies of surface and ground water by reducing pollution discharges notably through appropriate treatment of waste water. The demand for environmental improvement within the EU is driven by the need to comply with the environmental requirements in EU environmental legislation (see box below).

5 It must be mentioned that connection rates do not have to reach 100% to ensure access to safe water. In rural areas,

part of the population will have a direct access to water supply. The safety will mainly depend on groundwater quality.

6 Source : OECD, Water : the Experience in OECD Countries, 2006.

7 In Latvia, the overall quality of ground water is good with the exception of elevated concentrations of iron, manganese and sometimes excessive sulphate concentrations. To comply with the drinking water quality standards abstracted groundwater shall be treated particularly in order to remove iron. Although the quality is adequate after treatment, drinking water quality provided to the final consumer sis often worsened due to poor condition of water supply networks.

8 Cfr OECD 2008, Key Environmental Indicators



EU waste water treatment directive One of the key Directives related to waste water treatment is the Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment, which was adopted in 1991 and amended in 1998. The objective of this Directive is “to protect the environment from adverse effects of the discharge of urban and certain industrial waste waters”. It concerns the collection and treatment of urban waste water and contains various obligations for the Member States and notably the following:

the obligation to designate “sensitive zones” according to the state of the surface waters (eutrophication or risk of eutrophication);

the obligation to collect and treat the discharged waste water by specific deadlines and with specific emission standards9 depending on the sensitivity of the zone and on the number of inhabitants of the agglomeration under consideration.

These obligations are summarized in the following table:

Source: European Commission DG Environment website10

The indicator presented here shows the percentage of the national population actually connected to public waste water treatment plants at the beginning of the period. The extent of secondary (biological) and/or tertiary (chemical) treatment provides an indication of efforts to reduce pollution loads.

9 From “appropriate”, primary (chemical/physical treatment focused on suspended solid matters and limited treatment

of biologic and chemical pollution), secondary (same as primary but improved performances) to “advanced” treatment (same as secondary + nitrogen and phosphorus additional treatment)

10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/legislation/deadlines/summary3457_en.htm

Population equivalent

0 -2000 2000-10,000 10,000-15,000 15,000-150,000 >150,000

Sensitive areas

If collection by end 2005 Appropriate treatment

Collection by end 2005 Secondary treatment

Collection byend 1998

More advanced treatment



Collection by end 1998


Normal areas

As for sensitive zones


Collection byend 2005 Secondary treatment

Collection byend 2000 Secondary treatment

Collection by end 2005 Secondary treatment

Less sensitive & Coastal zones



Appropriatetreatment


Primary or secondary treatment


Primary or secondary treatment

Collection by end 2005 Primary

(exceptional) or secondary

treatment



Graph 2.1 : Waste water treatment - % population receiving total treatment

Source: Eurostat, OECD The situation in water infrastructure was far from homogenous in the MS at the beginning of the 2000-2006 period. Three different situations can be highlighted:

- Countries that completed their sewer systems long ago and now face considerable investment to renew and to rehabilitate (western Germany, France, the UK, Italy);

- Countries that have recently finished the expansion of waste water treatment capacity and their expenditure has shifted to operating costs (Ireland, Finland, Eastern Germany11);

- Countries that must still complete their sewerage networks in order to fill the EU directive requirements (the New MS, Portugal and Greece12).

At the beginning of the 2000-06 period, five countries were lagging behind in terms of the percentage of the population connected to waste water treatment plants: Hungary, Poland and Slovakia as well as Portugal and Greece. In other countries such as the Czech Republic, Greece and Ireland, the share of primary treatment remains significant while in old MS, it was less than 10%. Progress has been significant during the period, especially in those countries: a spectacular growth of 47% was observed in Hungary thanks to a National Implementation Programme following the EU Directive. In the Czech Republic, Poland and Portugal, the percentage of the population connected to waste water treatment has increased by more than 10%.

11 In the five new federal states, improvement of waste water treatment and collection infrastructure had been a

challenge. Around 850 km of fresh water pipes have been installed in the five new federal states during the 2000-2006 period.

12 In Greece, it can be estimated that in 2007, around 70% of the population was connected to a wastewater treatment system. The improvement has been significant but around 1.7million people still require at least secondary treatment plus the associated sewerage.



The share of the population connected and the level of treatment varies significantly among the 14 MS.

Climate change and energy resources

Main problem in relation to the effects of energy production and use concerns greenhouse gas emissions and local and regional air pollution. The main challenge is to decouple energy use and related air emissions from economic growth, through improvements in energy efficiency and through the development and use of cleaner fuels. The indicators presented in the country fiches relate to the intensity of use of energy (in terms of GDP), the share of renewable electricity/energy on total electricity/energy produced and to the GHG emissions per capita.

Table 2.3 : Energy intensity and GHG emission

Indicator

Share of renewable energy in primary energy

consumption

Share of renewable

electricity in total

electricity consumption

Trends in total energy

intensity GHG emissions

Unit % % 1995=100 million T CO2

equivalent

T CO2 equivalent in %

GDP

T CO2 equivalent/

capita

Year 2000 2005/06 2000 2005/06 2000 2005/06 2000 2005/06 2000 2005/06 2000 2005/06

Czech Republic 1.5 4.1 2.7 4.0 91.8 85.3 129.4 125.9 0.21% 0.13% 12.6 12.3

Hungary 2.1 4.2 0.5 4.6 79.4 71.7 59.2 61.5 0.11% 0.07% 5.8 6.1

Slovakia 2.8 4.3 16.9 16.5 83.4 74.0 39.3 39.9 0.18% 0.10% 7.3 7.4

Latvia 34.3 36.3 47.7 48.4 63.8 51.4 7.1 7.6 0.08% 0.06% 3.0 3.3

Poland 4.2 4.8 1.7 2.9 69.8 62.2 334.5 328.2 0.18% 0.13% 8.7 8.6

Germany 2.8 4.8 6.5 10.5 91.0 89.6 879.7 874.2 0.04% 0.04% 10.7 10.6

Finland 23.9 23.2 28.5 26.9 88.9 83.3 57.5 57.2 0.04% 0.04% 11.1 10.9

France 7.0 6.0 15.2 11.3 94.0 92.9 407.0 414.6 0.03% 0.02% 6.7 6.6 United Kingdom 1.1 1.7 2.7 4.3 90.6 80.5 547.7 560.3 0.03% 0.03% 9.3 9.3

Italy 5.2 6.5 16.0 14.1 97.4 101.8 461.2 492.3 0.04% 0.03% 8.1 8.4

Ireland 1.8 2.6 4.9 6.8 83.3 68.3 44.9 47.4 0.04% 0.03% 11.8 11.4

Spain 6.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 97.9 306.0 368.9 0.05% 0.04% 7.6 8.5

Greece 5.0 5.2 7.7 10.0 98.3 88.0 103.7 112.2 0.08% 0.06% 9.5 10.1

Portugal 15.4 13.4 29.4 16.0 100.6 107.2 63.4 67.5 0.05% 0.05% 6.2 6.4 Source: Eurostat Variations in energy intensity among the 14 MS are significant. It mainly depends on national economic structure, geography (e.g. climate), energy policies and prices, and a countries’ endowment in different types of energy resources. The highest levels of energy supply intensity per unit of GDP were observed in the Central European countries (the



Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Latvia and to a lesser extent in Hungary) where energy intensity was significantly higher than the EU-25 average. Conversely, the Mediterranean countries (Greece, Italy and Portugal) have much smaller energy needs in terms of GDP produced. Since 2000, energy intensity per unit of GDP has continued to decrease. But energy supply has continued to increase, at a lower pace than GDP, reflecting mainly increasing energy demands for transport activities. The fuel mix is also changing, the share of solid fuels and oil is falling while those of other sources, including renewable energy sources are rising. The share of renewable energy in total energy is particularly high in three countries (Latvia (36,3%), Finland (23,2%) owing to wood energy and Portugal (13,4%) thanks to the use of wind energy) but remains low in the main countries under review. The GHG emissions per capita remained stable during the 2000-2006 period due to the changes in economic structures and energy supply mix, energy savings and in some countries of decreasing economic activity.

2.1.2 Overall investment made in environmental infrastructures during the 2000-2006 period

As underlined in the previous section, countries under review faced important challenges in the three environmental sub sectors that have required a high amount of resources. These resources came from three main sources:

- The national public sector, central government and local authorities; - The International community through European funds providing subsidies (ISPA,

ERDF, Cohesion fund) and through International Financial institutions which provide long term loans (mainly EBRD and EIB);

- The private sector.

This section aims to highlight the amount of resources that have been allocated by the 14 MS for investment in environmental sectors and the contribution of the various stakeholders. The question of financing strategies for environment-related infrastructure is complex and may considerably differ according to the stage of development of the infrastructure. Environmental policy in Europe is generally guided by two key principles: that those responsible for pollution and those using natural resources should bear the full cost of their actions (the Polluter-Pays-Principle (PPP) and the User-Pays Principle (UPP)). It is nevertheless recognized that in some circumstances public spending may be necessary to limit pollution and environmental damage. Especially when needs in terms of capital investments are important, the public budget will have an essential role to play. It may also be used for providing social protection and facilitating access to credit. User charges are considered to be a more important long-term source of finance for operation and maintenance expenditures. The importance of domestic financial and capital markets grows over time as the framework conditions become more enabling. The OECD has undertaken in depth research on financial issues related to the environmental sector. One of the interesting conclusions is that public environmental expenditure programmes are part of a gradual transition from public subsidy schemes to



financing user charges13.This is the case for example in France and Germany where user charges have now been raised to cost-recovery levels and now generate enough revenue to cover at least the operating and maintenance costs of water utilities, but also as far as possible investment in new water supply and sanitation infrastructure. The table below summarizes the amounts that were spent during the period 2000-2006 on environmental infrastructures in each of the 14 MS showing a wide range of situations.

Table 2.4 : Amount invested in environmental infrastructures by sources (in mio €)

Sources of investments

(in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental investments by

the public sector

National counterpart to

ERDF environmental

investments

ERDF environmental

investments

ISPA investments in environmental

projects

Cohesion Fund total

commitments in

environmental infrastructure

projects

EBRD investments in environmental infrastructure

Environmental projects

financed by EIB


industry

Grand total

Czech Republic 2830.5 33.5 91.3 258.4 580.3 0.0 673.4 1373.4 5840.8

Hungary 1933.5 24.3 60.8 323.7 734.4 12.3 374.4 1009.3 4472.6

Slovakia 250.8 25.9 68.9 152.8 384.4 0.0 42.4 664.2 1589.4

Latvia 114.4 9.8 29.5 117.1 351.8 17.9 0.0 43.8 684.3

Poland 3700.0 100.4 301.2 1299.4 2771.9 104.9 223.2 3499.2 12000.2

Germany 19820.0 756.4 1472.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2027.8 n.a. 24076.7

Finland 290.0 36.4 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 934.9 1337.4

France 20856.0 867.1 649.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 605.0 4073.6 27051.2

United Kingdom 8396.3 149.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3368.3 6857.3 18920.9

Italy 16616.0 1973.0 1788.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 213.8 8006.5 28597.5

Ireland 1948.6 153.5 215.2 0.0 292.0 0.0 60.0 n.a. 2669.3

Spain 12192.0 2289.4 4272.8 0.0 7304.0 0.0 858.6 4214.2 31131.1

Greece 2171.8 263.2 905.8 0.0 1565.3 0.0 0.0 n.a. 4906.1

Portugal 2834.0 330.9 822.3 0.0 1675.2 0.0 1023.2 1096.9 7782.6

Total 93953.9 7012.9 10854.1 2151.3 15659.3 135.1 9520.1 31773.4 171060.1 Source: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Ex post evaluation 2000-06: regional expenditure study, EBRD, EIB websites and national sources (see overview notes in annex) Comment:- This table only includes amounts invested in FOI codes 34 (Environmental infrastructure), 343 (Urban and industrial waste), 344 (Drinking water) and 345 (Sewerage and purification) - For each source, the period taken into account varies from country to country depending on the available data and on the period during which the country benefited from the funds/loans. For details on the periods taken into account, see tables in section 4 of overview notes in Annex 1 In most countries for which all data are available, the domestic public resources has contributed around half of the total investment. Clear exceptions are Slovakia, Latvia, France and Finland where either the contribution of industry (Slovakia and France), or the State (Finland) or external sources (Latvia) have provided the bulk of the means. The features that emerge from the three types of countries are the followings. New EU Members Substantial financial resources have been made available domestically, supplemented by pre-accession financial instruments as well as more recently by EU funds and more particularly the CF that has contributed substantial amounts (on some occasions ten times more than the ERDF). Financial mechanisms in keeping with the polluter-pays principle

13 See OECD, Making Environmental Spending Count, Policy Brief, September 2007.



have emerged. Increasingly, enterprises and municipalities are financing their own environmental investments and raising funds from local financial markets. Total amounts spent appear to have been in line with the needs;: the last column of the following table presents an estimation of annualised capital costs needs that have been measured by the EC14 according to the schedules contained in transitional agreements. All countries under review have covered the upper level of estimated needs.

Table 2.5 : Estimated needs for new EU countries – annual average


(annual average)

Total public sector

External commitments after 2004

EIB loans Industry

TOTAL

Annualised capital cost

needs

Czech Republic 404,4 223,9 96,2 228,9 953,3 660-940

Hungary 322,3 265,1 53,5 168,2 809,0 257-667

Slovakia 35,8 151,1 6,1 166,0 359,0 321

Latvia 16,3 127,1 0,0 8,8 152,2 99-157

Poland 740,0 1024,4 31,9 583,2 2379,5 1475-2853 Source: idem table 2.4 + EAP Task force report

Old Member States The level of investment per capita (cfr graph below) has been higher in the old MS (between €400 to €650) than in new MS (from €200 to €300) due to higher commitments from national budget (Hungary is an exception) reflecting more a larger fiscal basis (including the application of polluter-pays principle and user pay principle) than a real choice to devote more resources to environmental investments: the share of environment in total capital expenditure has been highest in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (around 10%) followed by Portugal (9.1%), Germany (8.3%) and Italy (7.8%). The role of private investment has been significant and may reflect the growing importance of the private sector in these fields. The EIB has also intervened more substantially in these countries, especially in Germany and the UK.

Graph 2.2 : Environmental investments per capita – 2000-2006 (in €)

Source : Idem Table 2.4

14 EC, Communication from the Commission The Challenge of Environmental Financing in the Candidate Countries,

COM (2001) 304 final



The Objective 1 old MS The Objective 1 old MS have also undertaken large investment as shown by the level of investment per capita. External sources have provided important contribution, mainly the CF which contributed about two thirds of European subsidies in that sector. The contribution of EIB loans has been more limited except in Portugal. In these countries, there could have been a trade off between their own national resources and European funds as the share of the environment in total capital public expenditure appeared lower than for the other countries under review (around 5%-6% except Portugal). In the future, the need for capital investment in MS that have extended their infrastructures will remain high as shown by the investment that is still running annually in old MS. As the fiscal basis grows and industry becomes more involved, the role of external sources may be less important. But the issue of environmental financing must also consider the means needed for operating and maintaining environmentally-related facilities. According to some estimates15, the challenge for financing recurrent environmental expenditures is almost as large as annual capital investment expenditure. The application of the Polluter-Pays principle and User-Pays Principle should provide the necessary resources in the long term. But it is far from being the case in most countries under review (such as Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Greece) The role of the private sector As previously mentioned, the role of private sector appears to have been significant on a whole, in old MS as well as in new MS. In Finland and Slovakia, the private sector has covered more than 40% of environmental investment. The average for the MS under review is close to 23%. Air-related infrastructure is usually funded by the private sector with or without public incentives. For the eleven countries for which we have detailed figures, these investments have amounted to €24 Bn and represented 40% of total investment made by the private sector in environmental sectors. The private sector has also substantially funded water infrastructure (24% of total private investment) and the waste sector (13% of the total). The situation in waste and water sectors is more contrasting among the MS. The role of the private sector is often more developed for ensuring the collection and treatment of solid waste. In the Czech republic, the sector is fully privatised; in France, private companies hold 62% of the collection market and 90% of the household waste treatment market. In Germany, the private sector plays a more important role for installations for treatment of waste. In the water sector, there is no common model: the private sector is particularly present in the water supply in France while in Germany, water supply and waste water collection and treatment remains in the hands of the public sector. In the UK, as well as in the Czech Republic, it is more a mixed situation with private and public companies co existing.

15 See EAP task force report, Environmental financing in transition economies. May 2003



2.1.3 The Contribution of ERDF to environmental infrastructures

As can be seen in the graph below, the use of ERDF for funding environmental infrastructures has been quite different from one country to another reflecting

- The state of the infrastructures: in countries like France, Germany, the UK and Finland, the need for capital investment is more limited and if at all, is more likely to be funded through their own resources or through private contributions. In these countries, the share of the ERDF amount devoted to environmental infrastructures has been less than 10% (except for Germany).

- The existence of other sources of funding: In the new EU countries, the cohesion fund and ISPA have brought significant resources that must be absorbed by the countries. Still around 10% of ERDF has been used for funding those infrastructures.

- A voluntary choice to dedicate a more important share of the ERDF to cover environmental needs: in Spain, Slovakia, Italy and Ireland, more than 12% of the total ERDF amount has been dedicated to environmental infrastructures; the average for the 14 MS being 11,8%.

Graph 2.3 : ERDF amount (€ per capita) allocated to environmental infrastructures (mainly water and waste). Period 2000-200616

Source : Work Package 1 More than half of the investments funded by ERDF in the environmental sector were carried out in the water sector17. Only Greece and Ireland have devoted significant amounts to the waste sector. It follows the allocation of public funds: on average, 44% of capital expenditure has been done in the water sector, 20% in waste and another 20% for protection of biodiversity and landscape18. The obligation to fulfil the EU wastewater treatment directive may explain why most of the ERDF funds used for environmental infrastructures have been allocated to the water sector. The costs of both installing the required network and adapting and renewing the existing system have been significant.

16 It must be said that the ERDF amount covers the whole period (2000-2006 for old MS and 2004-2006 for new MS).

Comparisons between these two types of countries must be made carefully.

17 This figure is under-estimated as part of the investment in the water sector has not been recorded specifically in the water FOI.

18 Source : Eurostat - COFOG data



2.2 Main features for the other 11 Member States: Environmental expenditures

The investments in environmental infrastructure that were made in the 11 remaining MS have been estimated and are listed in the table below. In these MS, ERDF allocations for environment were less substantial. Annex 2 presents tables with the sources of financing for environmental infrastructure per country and per field of intervention.

Table 2.6 : Sources of investments in environmental infrastructure for the remaining 11 MS


(in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental

investments by the public sector


ERDF environmental investments



projects

Cohesion Fund total

commitments in environmental infrastructure

projects



financed by EIB


industry

Grand total

Austria 216.7 6.4 77.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 278.1 1143.2 1722.3

Belgium 3471.5 19.9 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1121.0 769.3 5400.9

Denmark 617.4 6.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 204.2 n.a. 835.5

Luxembourg 397.8 11.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a. 413.6

The Netherlands 4587.0 7.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 970.0 1556.0 7125.3

Sweden 360.3 5.8 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.9 2501.5 2982.5

Cyprus 75.6 n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 194.0 60.3 329.9

Estonia n.a. 1.1 3.3 97.7 215.9 66.2 n.a. 114.2 498.4

Lithuania 177.5 2.2 6.6 127.0 385.7 19.7 n.a. 144.4 863.1

Malta 82.2 4.5 12.2 0.0 11.7 0.0 n.a. n.a. 110.6

Slovenia 68.9 3.1 8.3 45.9 129.5 n.a. 25.3 400.8 681.7

Total 10054.9 68.1 149.3 270.6 742.7 85.9 2902.4 6689.8 20963.7 Source : Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Ex post evaluation 2000-06: regional expenditure study, EBRD and EIB websites Comment:- This table only includes amounts invested in FOI codes 34 (Environmental infrastructure), 343 (Urban and industrial waste), 344 (Drinking water) and 345 (Sewerage and purification) - For each source, the period taken into account varies from country to country depending on the available data and on the period during which the country benefited from the funds/loans. For details on the periods taken into account, see tables in section 4 of overview notes in Annex 1 As can be seen in table 2.6, of these 11 relatively small Member States, six already belonged to EU15 and have a GDP per capita close to or exceeding 120% of the EU25 average, whereas the five others joined the EU in 2004 and have a lower than EU25 average GDP per capita.

In the 6 old MS, the main source of investment is either the domestic public sector or the private sector. The investments of the domestic public sector in environmental infrastructure is particularly important in the Benelux (0.18% of GDP in Belgium, 0.14% in the Netherlands and 0.21% in Luxemburg). In Austria and Sweden, the private sector dominates, with investments in environmental infrastructure accounting for 0.13% of GDP in both countries. In these MS, but also in Belgium and the Netherlands, industry investments, together with EIB loans, play a particularly important role for the development of environmental infrastructure.



In the 5 new MS, the external funds are the main sources, except in Malta where the domestic public sector plays the most significant role with investments in environmental infrastructure accounting for 0.26% of GDP, and in Slovenia, where the private sector dominates with a share of 0.40% of GDP. In the Baltic states (Estonia and Lithuania), the Cohesion Fund is the main source of investment in environmental infrastructure, whereas in Cyprus, EIB loans account for the largest share.

In terms of total investment in environmental infrastructure per capita, the Benelux countries, due to their large investments by the domestic public sector, have the highest ratios (ranging from €440 per capita for the Netherlands to €913 per capita for Luxemburg), together with Cyprus (€453 per capita). Sweden has the highest ratio of private investment per capita (€279) whereas Estonia proportionally receives the largest investments from external sources (€283 per capita).



3. Task 3: Main inputs and outcomes

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

3.1.1 Main output and results for the 14 selected Member States

During the 2000-2006 programming period, 143 operational programmes of the 14 selected Member states invested in the field of environment. On the one hand, an Excel file shows all the achieved values for the requested 11 indicators. On the other hand, these values are split up by Member State in 14 other Excel files. These latter also shows other specific indicators of operational programmes. The methodology applied to update achieved values of the requested indicators and the limits of the data collection are detailed in annex 3.

Table 3.1 below shows the total achieved value for 6 main indicators which monitored investments in environmental infrastructure supported by ERDF during the 2000-2006 programming period. Values are aggregated by objective (1 or 2). The values in this table only cover the OPs for which data could be computed. The values for the 5 remaining indicators (out of the 11 total requested) are not presented in the table because of two different reasons:

‐ values are expressed in percentage (e.g. percentage increase of the additional population served by water supply projects);

‐ some MS, Regions or OPs used different units to collect values for the same indicator (e.g. new capacity of waste treatment created). In this case, values for these indicators can not be aggregated at EU level.

Table 3.1 : Main output and results for the 14 selected Member States in the field of environemtal infrastructure for the 2000-2006 programming period

Indicator Unit Total achieved value19

Objective 1 Objective 2 TotalNumber of projects in water supply number 165,597 134 165,731 Number of projects in wastewater number 5,421 790 6,211Number of projects in municipal solid waste number 58,433 844 59,277

Number of additional population served by water supply projects inhabitant 13,593,695 508,134 14,101,829

Number of additional population served by wastewater projects

inhabitant 14,929,582 5,517,455 20,447,037

Number of unauthorised landfills closed/ rehabilitated (for EU-10 Member States only)

number 93 0 93

Source: ADE, 2009.

19 Depending the operational programme, values are updated on 31 December 2006 (from data of the WP2 database

based on 2006 annual reports) or on 31 December 2007 (as updated by Management authorities at the first request of the evaluator) or on 31 December 2008 (based on additional desk and field work carried out by the evaluator at the beginning of 2009).



3.1.2 Financial information related to environmental interventions

The Objective 1 and 2 EC co-financing and the national counterpart of this co-financing in the field of environment 20 for the period 2000-2006 are given in two Excel files. The first one refers to the 14 selected member states and the second one focuses on the 11 other Member states. Both Excel files show data at the global level, by fields of intervention, by Member state and by objective. The global overview of the EC co-financing and the national counterpart by Member state and by Objective (1 or 2) is shown in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 : Overview of the EC co-financing and national counterpart of Objective 1 and 2 operational programmes for the 2000-2006 programming

period (€ m)

Member State Objective 1 Objective 2

ERDF National Total ERDF National Total

14 selected MS 20,443.2 12,431.3 32,874.5 4,345.4 6,014.7 10,360.1

Czech Republic (CZ) 235.0 82.4 317.4 32.7 32.7 65.3

Finland (FI) 16.1 16.1 32.2 103.1 161.9 265.0

France (FR) 615.9 763.2 1,379.1 1,388.2 2,425.1 3,813.4

Germany (DE) 2,699.7 1,594.1 4,293.8 718.9 712.4 1,431.3

Greece (GR) 2,184.9 775.0 2,959.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hungary (HU) 196.1 69.3 265.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ireland (IE) 238.0 167.3 405.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Italy (IT) 3,334.4 3,560.2 6,894.6 802.9 1,239.4 2,042.3

Latvia (LV) 49.3 17.0 66.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Poland (PL) 929.7 309.9 1,239.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Portugal (PT) 2,777.2 1,321.7 4,098.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Slovakia (SK) 119.0 60.2 179.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Spain (ES) 6,218.2 3,006.2 9,224.4 717.3 717.3 1,434.6

United Kingdom (UK) 829.7 688.7 1,518.4 582.3 726.0 1,308.3

11 other MS 243.1 232.6 475.7 425.3 722.7 1,148.0

Austria (AT) 9.5 5.5 15.0 18.0 24.5 42.5

Belgium (BE) 55.5 56.8 112.3 38.1 47.0 85.1

Cyprus (CY) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.7 6.8

Denmark (DK) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 15.6 27.0

Estonia (EE) 17.0 5.7 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lithuania (LT) 75.2 26.9 102.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Luxembourg (LU) 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 63.8 91.1

Malta (MT) 22.4 8.3 30.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Netherlands (NL) 29.1 111.0 140.2 292.5 510.6 803.1

Sweden (SE) 9.5 9.2 18.7 34.9 57.6 92.5

Slovenia (SI) 24.9 9.2 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total EU-25 20,686.3 12,663.9 33,350.2 4,770.8 6,737.4 11,508.2 Source: ADE, 2009; from financial information of the WP1 evaluation

20 Fields of intervention which are taken into account are : Improving and maintaining the ecological stability of

protected woodlands; Preservation of the environment in connection with land, forestry and landscape conservation as well as with the improvement of animal welfare; Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies (large business, as well as SMEs and the craft sector); Energy infrastructures (production, delivery) ; Energy infrastructures (production, delivery); Renewable sources of energy; Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control; Environmental infrastructure (including water); Air; Noise; Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste); Drinking water; Sewerage and purification ; Planning and rehabilitation; Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites; Rehabilitation of urban areas; Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment; Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage.



3.2 Task 3.2 : Effectiveness of major sectoral programmes

3.2.1 Czech Republic

The Infrastructure Operational Programme (IOP)

1 Basic data programme of the IOP

2 Environmental priorities in the Czech Republic

Construction of waste water treatment plants in accordance with the Directive 91/271/EC concerning Urban Waste Water Treatment by 2010 (transition period). Achieving the standards and targets laid down by the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) by 2015.

Decrease of waste production, which is annually increasing, with a high and ever increasing proportion of waste being land filled.

Air pollution, especially due to transport, is one of the main environmental challenges. GHG emissions have displayed a moderate increase in recent years and the Czech Republic is not able to comply with the limit values for protection of human health for ozone and suspended particulate matter. According to the State Environmental Policy 2004-10, the goal is to achieve a 6 % fraction of renewable energy sources in total primary energy sources and an 8 % fraction of renewable electricity in gross electricity consumption by 2010.

3 Description of the IOP

Global Objective The global objective of the OP Infrastructure is to protect and improve the environment, and to develop and improve transport infrastructure, while respecting the sustainable development principles and focusing particularly on meeting EU standards. Within the IOP, two priorities concern the environment: Priority 2 Reducing the negative environmental impacts of transport and Priority 3 Environmental infrastructure improvement. The basic objective of priority 2 is to ensure the quality of living conditions of people in the Czech Republic and, at the same time, to continue to restrict the negative environmental impacts of the growth in transport, including the support of more environmentally-friendly transport modes. In other words, to ensure the required mobility of people and goods in the Czech Republic, while burdening the environment as little as possible.

Objective 1 Programme location Czech Republic Programme start year 2004 Programme end year 2006 Total programme duration 3 years ERDF budget in the field of environment 151,817,997 € National budget in the field of environment 54,632,164 €



The above objective will be achieved through the following sub-objectives: building protective measures to prevent negative transport-related impacts on the

landscape; supporting environmentally-friendly transport modes, i.e. combined transport in particular; supporting the introduction of alternative fuels, including biofuels; supporting research projects dealing with equality of conditions and internalisation of

externalities. The objective of priority 3 is to contribute to the quantitative improvement of environmental infrastructure, in particular in the fields of waste management, water management, air protection, improving the retention capacity of the landscape and rehabilitation of old ecological burdens.

Table 3.3 : Environment budget allocation of the IOP, by priority and measure as well as by field of intervention

Priority Measure Field of intervention ERDF

National funds

Total

Cd Name €m €m €m %

Reducing the negative environmental impacts of transport

Implementation of Protective Measures on the Transport Network to Ensure Environmental Protection

342 Noise 6.8 2.3 9 4.4%

Support for the Introduction of Alternative Fuels

162

Environmentally-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies

2.2 0.7 3 1.5%

Support for the Introduction of Alternative Fuels

341 Air 0.7 0.2 1 0.5%

Environmental infrastructure improvement

Recovery of Environmental Functions of the Landscape

353 Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment

13 3.2 16.2 7.8%

Water Management Infrastructure Improvement

344

Drinking water (collection, storage, treatment and distribution)

11.3 4.2 15.5 7.5%

Water Management Infrastructure Improvement

345 Sewerage and purification 63.8 23.9 87.6 42.4%

Air Protection Infrastructure Improvement

332

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

16.1 6.9 23 11.1%

Air Protection Infrastructure Improvement

341 Air 5.4 2.3 7.7 3.7%

Waste Management and Rehabilitation of Old Ecological Burdens

343 Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste)

16.3 5.4 21.8 10.6%

Waste Management and Rehabilitation of Old Ecological Burdens

351

Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites

16.3 5.4 21.8 10.6%

Total 151.8 54.6 206.5 100.0%

Environmental infrastructure 104.3 38.3 142.6 69.1%

Energy 18.3 7.6 26 12.6%

Other 29.2 8.7 37.9 18.4%

Note: Cd=code Source: Financial information from the WP1evaluation, 2008.



4 Discussion of the quantitative results of the IOP

The only target values that were set at the beginning of the programme concerned indicators at the “Global Objective” and “Priority (Specific/Strategic Objective)” level. The target values were not set at the beginning of the programme for programme indicators at the “Measure” level. Consequently, “n.a.” in the column “Target (2006)” means that the respective value was not set. Only a preliminary estimate of whether the target was reached or not can be made for certain target values at present, as not all projects are completed and final data are not yet available. 6.4% of the total environmental investments of the IOP were allocated to reducing the negative environmental impacts of transport. Under this priority a total of 20 projects were approved. They were mainly related to the construction of noise reduction barriers on roads, CNG petrol stations, maintenance of CNG driven buses and support to other sustainable transport.

Table 3.4 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to transport

Indicator Target (2006)

Achieved (2006)

Achieved (2008) Type Name Unit

O Length of roads and railways equipped with the noise reduction measures Km 5 n.a. 4.36

O Number of reconstructed multi-modal centres

Number 2 n.a. 1

O Number of containers transported per year Number 12,000 n.a. 28,542

O Number of installations for the application of alternative fuels Number 1 n.a. 3

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

t/year n.a. 121,169 108,769

R Involvement of private capital EUR n.a. 333,856 765,468

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; t= tonne; Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews, OPI Annual Report 2007 (issued May 2008)

Due to the limit number of targets set at the beginning of the IOP, it is difficult to discuss the achievements of the projects. It can be seen that some of the few targets that were set were not reached, mainly owing to delays in implementation. It is worth mentioning that involvement of private capital more than doubled in 2006-2008.

Table 3.5 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to water


Achieved (2006)


O Number of the population equivalent (PE) newly connected to sewerage system and WWTP

Nb. 55,000 12,450 57,261

O Length of new sewerage systems km 135 320.73 367.81

O Number of reconstructed/ new WWTP Nb. n.a. 23 27

R Number of PE connected to satisfactory WWTP

PE n.a. 17,464 57,261

R Population supplied with quality drinking water

Person n.a. 5,610 6,589

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; Nb.=number; km=kilometre; WWTP=Waste water treatment plant. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews, OPI Annual Report 2007 (issued May 2008)



Environmental infrastructure improvement accounts for 93.6% of the total environmental investments in the framework of the IOP. Projects dedicated to water management represent almost half of the allocations (42.4% for sewerage and purification and 7.5% for drinking water). 56 projects were financed including 2 new drinking water treatment plants and 27 new or upgraded wastewater treatment plants. As can be seen in the table, the two targets that were set have been reached. In terms of Population Equivalent (PE), the connection to satisfactory wastewater treatment plants more than tripled in 2006-2008. Projects in waste management and rehabilitation of old ecological burdens accounted for more than one fifth (21.2%) of the total environmental investments under the IOP. 57 projects were carried out, focused mainly on the rehabilitation of landfills and on developing waste collection and treatment. As can be seen in the table below, the target was reached in terms of rehabilitation of old ecological burdens and several important improvements were registered as regards waste treatment in 2006-2008. Indeed, the quantity of recycled waste more than doubled and the amount of separated waste almost tripled.

Table 3.6 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to waste


Achieved (2006)


O Number of waste collection yards, separated waste collection systems Nb. n.a. 16 27

O Number of rehabilitated old ecological burdens Nb. 12 7 18

I Capacity of waste collection yards, of separated waste collection systems

t/year n.a. 19,543.12 36,742.12

I Recycled waste t/year n.a. 5,000 10,440

I Processed waste t/year n.a. 2,392 7,000

I Waste separation t/year n.a. 13,356 47,554.20

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; Nb.=number; t= tonne; Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews, OPI Annual Report 2007 (issued May 2008)

14.8% of the allocations concerned air protection infrastructure improvement. 52 projects were carried out including introduction of renewable energy sources (heat pumps, solar systems, photovoltaic cells, biomass), reduction of industrial emissions (volatile organic compounds), increase in energy efficiency, combined generation of electricity and heat and measurement of emissions. The only target set was not reached. However, it can be seen that the improvements in reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) were important in 2006-2006, as the amount of GHG reduced increased by more than four times during this period. The impact on energy savings is also noticeable as the quantity of saved energy almost tripled.



Table 3.7 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to air and energy


Achieved (2006)


O Harmful compounds eliminated from waste gases

Emission units/year 4,200 754 1,251.10

I Reduction of emissions of COV t/year n.a. 152 165.9

I Reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases t/year n.a. 8,724 40,660.70

I Reduction of emissions of the main pollutants t/year n.a. 332 538.3

I Electric energy generation from renewable energy sources (employment of cogeneration) GJ/ kWh n.a. 5,054 13,387

I Energy savings GJ/year n.a. 40,479 117,380

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; Nb.=number; t= tonne; g=gram; GJ=Gigajoule; GW=Gigawatt; MG=Megawatt; Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews, OPI Annual Report 2007 (issued May 2008)

5 Effectiveness of the IOP

Of the €206.5m that were allocated to environment within the IOP, €142.6m (69%) were dedicated to environmental infrastructure. This allocation accounts for 2.4% of the total investment in environmental infrastructure in 2000-2006. Any assessment of the effectiveness of the OP Infrastructure should take into account the following programme specifics: The OP Infrastructure was composed of two, essentially independent sub-programs, which

differed not only in substance, but also in terms of administration, financial, monitoring and the nature of the end users;

Preparation time for the OP Infrastructure was limited; The OP Infrastructure programming period related to years 2004 to 2006 only; Some projects supported by the OP Infrastructure are not yet completed. Therefore final

evaluation cannot be carried out. In general, it may be stated that despite the time pressure in Infrastructure OP preparation (i.e. processing of the relevant programme documents, work procedure handbooks for the programme, etc.) a very effective implementation system was established in terms of ensuring the absorption of allocated financial resources. The OP Infrastructure environmental priorities were stipulated very realistically based on long-term detailed analyses of substantive needs. The OP Infrastructure environmental priorities were formulated in compliance with the specific needs of the potential final beneficiaries of support, i.e. with the high probability of their effective fulfilling. Waster and wastewater The indicators reflect the significant improvements that were made in terms of connection of the population to wastewater treatment. The IOP was effective in contributing to the quantitative improvement of water infrastructure. This result was helped by the fact that wastewater constitutes a strategic objective for the Czech Republic. Indeed the country has been granted transition period till 2010 to comply with the Urban Wastewater Directive.



The impact of the IOP is not observed in the indicators until 2006 as the share of the population connected to total treatment only increased from 74 to 76% in 2004-2006. However, as can be seen through the quantitative indicators of the programme, the main improvements were registered in 2006-2008. As regards water supply, the regional disparities remain and the connection to public water supply only increase from 91.6% to 92.4% in 2004-2006. Waste The IOP was effective in contributing to the quantitative improvement of waste infrastructure. Thanks to projects that resulted in an increasing waste separating and recycling capacity, improvements were also realized in order to decrease the amount of waste land filled, which constitutes a priority in the country. Moreover IOP contributed to rehabilitate landfills, which is urgent as groundwater and soil are heavily polluted at these sites. Air/Energy Improvements regarding air were observed and this is essential as the Czech Republic is not able to comply with the ambient air quality limit values for PM10. The IOP contributed to reduce GHG emission, which is coherent with the objective of the country, characterized by a national emissions of CO2 eq. per capita much higher than the EU average. Some progress were also realised as regards renewable energy sources. However, the effect of the OP was not significant during the 2004-2006 period and the objectives for 2010 are still remote: the share of renewable energy in primary energy consumption has remained stable, at around 4% during 2004-2006 (compared to an objective of 6% for 2010) and the share of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption has only increased from 4 to 4.9% in 2004-2006, whereas the objective for 2010 is 8%.



Annex Czech Republic : Quantitative targets and output/ results/ impacts of the IOP

This table was completed with the collaboration of Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Transport and they confirmed that missing data are not available.

* year 2010

Priority Measure Indicator Baseline

(2003) Target (2006)

Achieved (2006)


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

These indicators are given at priority level

O Length of roads and railways equipped with the noise reduction measures

Km n.a. 5 n.a. 4.36

O Number of reconstructed multi-modal centres Number n.a. 2 n.a. 1 O Number of containers transported per year Number n.a. 12,000 n.a. 28,542

O Number of installations for the application of alternative fuels

Number n.a. 1 n.a. 3

Support for the introduction of alternative fuels

O Projects supporting the introduction of renewable energy sources in transport Nb. n.a. n.a. 0 n.a.

O Research projects for the development of renewable energy sources in transport Nb. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

O Research projects for the development of alternative ways of propulsion Nb. n.a. n.a. 0 1

I Reduction in emissions of CO2 equiv. Achieved by implementation of the measures t/year n.a. n.a. 121,169 108,769

O Research projects for the development of alternative fuels and energies Nb. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

I Increase in the proportion of renewable energy sources in the total energy consumption in transport % n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

R Involvement of private capital EUR n.a. n.a. 333,856 765,468 O Projects supporting the introduction of alternative fuels Nb. n.a. n.a. 1 3

Study and research projects addressing the problems connected with the improvement of the environment in terms of transport

I Increase in the proportion of transport performance of the vehicles with alternative propulsion against the total performance of all vehicles in the transport system

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

I Increase in the proportion of alternative fuels in the total consumption of fuels in transport % n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

R Motor vehicles using alternative propulsion Nb. n.a. n.a. 0 0 R Relating infrastructure Nb. n.a. n.a. 1 2



Environmental Infrastructure Improvement (directed and coordinated by MoE)


R Area of revitalised territory Ha n.a. 1,000 72.4 138.6 R Number of rehabilitated old ecological burdens Nb. n.a. 12 7 18

O Harmful compounds eliminated from waste gases Emission units/year n.a. 4,200 754 1,251.1

O Induced private co-financing € n.a. 7,062,827 478,832 2,879,394.3

O Number of the population equivalent (PE) newly connected to sewerage system and WWTP

Nb. n.a. 55,000 12,450 57,261

I Decrease of CODcr discharged into waste water t/year n.a. 2,000 918 2,764 R Length of new sewerage system km n.a. 135 304.5 367.81

Recovery of environmental functions of the landscape

I Increase of retention capacity of the landscape m² n.a. n.a. 590,511 1,385,960 O Number of implemented projects B Nb. n.a. n.a. 0 1 R Length of implemented measures m n.a. n.a. 0 175 R Revitalization, establishment of wetland systems m² n.a. n.a. 1,730 52,480 R Acreage of new polders m² n.a. n.a. 30,823 30,823 R Acreage of revitalized ponds m² n.a. n.a. 518,317 1,122,374

R Length of the revitalized watercourse', the cut-off meander and the former plumes

km n.a. n.a. 0 1.2

R Acreage of new retention reservoir m² n.a. n.a. 39,641 180,283

I Elimination of migration barriers or making them passable in the watercourses Nb. n.a. n.a. 0 1

O Number of implemented projects A Nb. n.a. n.a. 27 55

Water management infrastructure improvement

I Reduction of insoluble substances in waste water t/year n.a. n.a. 440 1,679 I Reduction of BOD 5 in waste water t/year n.a. n.a. 339 1,239

I Reduction of population supplied with low-quality water

% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. O Number of WWTP sludge processing facilities Nb. n.a. n.a. 0 0 R Population supplied with quality drinking water Person n.a. n.a. 5,610 6,589 R Population newly connected to water supply system Person n.a. n.a. 7,438 7,816

O Number of reconstructed/ new water treatment plants, drinking water resources Nb. n.a. n.a. 4 4

O Utilized sludge from the total production A+B+C % n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. O Length of new sewerage systems km n.a. 135 320.73 367.81 I Reduction of proportion of unprocessed WWTP sludge % n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. O Number of reconstructed/ new WWTP Nb. n.a. n.a. 23 27 I Reduction of COD-Cr in waste waters t/year n.a. n.a. 918 2,764 R Number of PE connected to satisfactory WWTP PE n.a. n.a. 17,464 57,261



Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; Nb.=number; Ha=hectare; t= tonne; g=gram; GJ=Gigajoule; GW=Gigawatt; MG=Megawatt; km=kilometre; m=meter; m²=square meter; Nb. =Number; WWTP=Waste water treatment plant; COD= Chemical oxygen demand. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews, OPI Annual Report 2007 (issued May 2008)

Environmental Infrastructure Improvement (directed and coordinated by MoE)

Air protection infrastructure improvement

O Number of implemented projects A Nb. n.a. n.a. 10 15 I Reduction of emissions of COV t/year n.a. n.a. 152 165.9 O Number of implemented projects C Nb. n.a. n.a. 7 28 O Number of implemented projects B Nb. n.a. n.a. 3 7 R Installed heat capacity from renewable energy sources kW n.a. n.a. 2.38 19,200 R Number of connections Nb. n.a. n.a. 10 210 R New installed electric power capacity Mw n.a. n.a. 0 0.64 I Reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases t/year n.a. n.a. 8,724 40,660.7 R Number of installed measuring devices Nb. n.a. n.a. 6 6 R Newly installed heat capacity MW n.a. n.a. 17 72.023 I Heat generation from renewable energy sources (RES) GJ n.a. n.a. 14,306 203,049 I Reduction of emissions of PCDD/PCDF g/year n.a. n.a. 0.298 0.298

R Number of installed facilities to reduce emissions of VOC Nb. n.a. n.a. 3 7

R Length of central heat distribution systems m n.a. n.a. 0.8 11,950

R Length of constructed/ reconstructed distribution systems km n.a. n.a. 1.8 3.1

R Number of installed filters Nb. n.a. n.a. 3 3 I reduction of emissions of the main pollutants t/year n.a. n.a. 332 538.3

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

GJ/ kWh n.a. n.a. 5,054 13,387

R Installed electric energy capacity from renewable energy sources (cogeneration)

kW n.a. n.a. 0.5 970

R Reduction of the total installed capacity MW n.a. n.a. 4.32 15.74 I Energy savings GJ/year n.a. n.a. 40,479 117,380

Waste management and rehabilitation of old ecological burdens

I Capacity of waste collection yards, of separated waste collection systems t/year n.a. n.a. 19,543.12 36,742.12

O Number of rehabilitated sites Nb. n.a. n.a. 8 18 R Disposed waste t/year n.a. n.a. 0 0 I Rehabilitated area m² n.a. n.a. 143,509 241,528 O Number of implemented projects B Nb. n.a. n.a. 8 18 I Recycled waste t/year n.a. n.a. 5,000 10,440 O Number of implemented projects A Nb. n.a. n.a. 22 38 I Processed waste t/year n.a. n.a. 2,392 7,000 R Number of constructed facilities Nb. n.a. n.a. 22 38 I Waste separation t/year n.a. n.a. 13,356 47,554.2

O Number of waste collection yards, separated waste collection systems Nb. n.a. n.a. 16 27

R Waste collection yard area, hinterland area m² n.a. n.a. 23,342.5 31,391.5 I Waste used for energy generation t/year n.a. n.a. 0 0 O Length of new water supply systems km n.a. n.a. 78.29 n.a.



3.2.2 Greece

The Environment Operational Programme (EOP)

1 Basic data programme of the EOP

2 Environmental priorities in Greece

As mentioned in the third Community Support framework (CSF) programme, Greek priorities for the 2000-2006 programming period are the following: In terms of water resources: Greece faced challenges in terms of management of

water resources in accordance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD). In this perspective some large cities and all the Greek areas are not fully provided with potable water of suitable quality.

In terms of wastewater : Greece needed to complete the necessary infrastructure in order to serve at least 75% of the population with secondary wastewater treatment. In addition, the reduction of industrial and agricultural pollution is also a challenge.

In terms of solid waste: Greek households had to reduce the production of domestic waste by increasing waste recycling. To that purpose, more recycling centres and infrastructures for waste management had to be built, as well as integrated actions had to be implemented. Finally, 3,500 uncontrolled waste dumps had to be closed and rehabilitated.

In terms of climate change and air pollution: Greece had to reduce its GHG emissions by increasing the share of renewable energies sources in primary energy consumption and the share of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption. A specific challenge was the improvement of monitoring facilities and fuel quality controls.

Other minor challenges were: Prevention and containment of dangerous situations from large-scale technological

accidents and natural catastrophes; Protection and rehabilitation of landscape and non-protected nature from illegal

activities; Protection of the marine environment from land and sea-based activities; Protection, management, monitoring and safekeeping of protected areas.

Objective 1 Programme location Greece Programme start year 2000 Programme end year 2006 Total programme duration 7 years ERDF budget in the field of environment 381,204,723 € National budget in the field of environment 119,083,552 €



3 Description of the EOP

At the very beginning, the basic strategic objective of the Environment OP was to complete activities implemented under the 2000-2006 Greek regional operational programmes and measures supported by the Cohesion Fund. Complementarities to purely environmental infrastructure financed by other OP and the Cohesion Fund were looked for. This objective changed during 2004 taking into consideration the urgent needs related to water supply and wastewater treatment, as well as the increasing number of uncontrolled waste disposal sites.

The 2000-2006 EOP consists of eight priorities. Most important priorities taking into consideration investments in environmental infrastructures are the following:

Water environment: the objective was to monitor the water quality with a view to drawing up a water protection policy and the protection of water resources through savings in water supply systems and recycling of effluents. Projects aimed at monitoring the water quality of surface and underground water, as well as seawater. There were also investments in infrastructure for reusing treated effluents, building up wastewater treatment installations using natural methods and for water savings through the leakage reduction in water supply networks.

Solid Waste Management: the objective was to promote the integrated management of solid waste and the restoration of the environment where it was damaged by the disposal of solid waste. The focus was put towards locations where the regional operational programmes or the Cohesion Fund intervened. Projects included the rehabilitation of uncontrolled solid waste dumps, the construction of small scale domestic waste landfills (e.g. in small islands, the cleaning and rehabilitation of areas polluted by dangerous waste) and the increase of the awareness of local government and businesses about dangerous waste.

Other Environmental Projects: The objective was to mitigate the destructive effects of floods in combination with the sustainable management of water and soil resources, the compliance with Community legislation in the sectors of management of solid waste and wastewater, and the mitigation of physical catastrophes. This priority supported actions aimed at improving conditions at mountain ranges for protection from erosion, improvement of the condition of river beds to improve flood situations and small projects of water storage. In addition, it provided for flood protection in and outside cities, construction of sewerage and wastewater treatment projects, restoration of uncontrolled solid waste dumps and protection from natural disasters.

Reconstruction of Lake Karla: This lake was dried in 1962. The objective was to create a large wetland (lake surrounded by zones of special management), the partial restoration of the ecosystem existing before the drainage of the lake and the reduction of the pollution of Pagassitikos Bay. The project included the replacement of the water abstracted from the underground water table for irrigation by lake water, so that it can recover, thus improving soil resources and reversing desertification effects in the plain. Investment was also made to reinforce the water supply of Volos with good quality underground water.



Other priorities are the following:

Civil Protection, Landscape Protection and Protection of the Marine Environment: regarding Civil Protection the priority aimed mainly at the management of the danger of technological and industrial accidents of large scale, public awareness schemes, preparation of action plans, creation of management infrastructure and procurement of equipment to that purpose. Regarding landscape the aim was to restore areas damaged by human activities and protect places of extreme beauty. Regarding the marine environment, the procurement of anti-pollution equipment was the basic target.

Atmospheric Environment: Regarding air pollution the priority aimed at improving and enhancing the monitoring infrastructure, checking air pollutants at the sources and collection and storage of data according to international rule. Regarding noise, monitoring of its levels in large cities took place and infrastructure was set in place to improve the acoustic environment in cities and tourist areas.

Environmental Awareness Institutions: This priority includes actions that supported the planning and application of environmental policies and legislation, as well as the inclusion of environmental policies in other sectoral policies. It also included measures for the sensitisation and awareness of the general public, such as sensitisation campaigns, organization of events, exhibitions and publications.

Land Use Management, Urban Areas, Rehabilitation of sites: Among the priority’s targets were the National Spatial Planning, spatial planning at regional and local level, organization of urban and non-urban space and regulation of urban areas and areas around urban space. Projects also included urban regeneration, rehabilitation of historic centres and seaside tourist areas, rehabilitation of important public buildings and interventions for sustainable city development.

Protection and management of wetlands and natural habitats: The projects aimed at establishing a system of protection and management for at least 25 areas of the Natura 2000 network through mapping, organisation, instituting management bodies and organizing operational and monitoring systems. In addition, cataloguing the most important species of National and Community interest was a secondary task.



Table 3.8 : Environment budget allocation of the EOP, by priority and measure, as well as by field of intervention


National funds

Total


Water environment

Monitoring of the quality of waters


6.3 1.6 7.8 1.6%

Special interventions in the sector of sewerage and special works


7.3 1.9 9.2 1.8%

Solid waste management

Management of non-dangerous solid wastes


7.9 3.1 11 2.2%

Management of dangerous solid wastes 343

Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste)

5.5 1.9 7.5 1.5%

Civil protection, landscape protection and protection of the marine environment

Civil protection 343 Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste)

3.6 0.9 4.5 0.9%

Civil protection 353

Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment

0.9 0.2 1.1 0.2%

Protection and restoration of landscape

353


5 1.9 6.9 1.4%

Combating sea water pollution


3.2 0.8 4 0.8%

Atmospheric environment

Reduction of atmospheric pollution 341 Air 9.7 2.9 12.5 2.5%

Reduction of noise pollution

342 Noise 2.1 0.7 2.8 0.6%

Environmental awareness, institutions

Institutions 341 Air 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.2%

Institutions 342 Noise 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.2%

Institutions 343 Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste)

0.6 0.2 0.8 0.2%

Other environmental projects

Other environmental actions


18.2 5.8 24 4.8%




National funds

Total


Basic infrastructure works relating to water management. Actions of regional nature for compliance with EU legislation


126.3 39.8 166.1 33.2%

Land use management, urban areas, rehabilitation of sites

Spatial and town planning 352

Rehabilitation of urban areas 12.1 3 15.1 3.0%

Rehabilitation of the built environment of innovative character or national importance

352 Rehabilitation of urban areas

38.5 9.6 48.1 9.6%

Rehabilitation of the built environment of innovative character or national importance

353


9.6 2.4 12 2.4%

Management of protected natural areas

Protection and management of wetlands and natural habitats, 353


37.2 12.8 50 10.0%

Protection of species. Areas of natural beauty

Reconstruction of Lake Karla 344


77.4 26.1 103.6 20.7%

Reconstruction of Lake Karla

353


8.6 2.9 11.5 2.3%

Total 381.2 119.1 500.3 100.0%


Energy 0 0 0 0.0%

Other 111.9 33 144.9 29.0% Note: Cd=code Source: Financial information from the WP1evaluation, 2008. It must be underlined that the measure “other environmental projects” which represents 37% of the whole budget includes several interventions that could be classified under the water and waste sector. In addition, the field of intervention linked to the first measure, regarding monitoring of water quality, and to basic infrastructure works relating to water management (under other environmental projects) indicates urban and industrial waste which does not seem correct.



4 Discussion of the quantitative results of the EOP

Discussion of the quantitative results mainly focuses on the main part of the programme, i.e. environmental infrastructure (71% of the total budget). This discussion is based on information found in the 2007 annual report and indicators are based on the latest official documentation set.

Drinking water and wastewater

Monitoring of the quality of water

The overall absorption of this measure has been low, with only 42% of the budget used. None of the quantitative targets were reached. The main reason is unexplained delays in the starting of the implementation.

Special interventions in the sector of sewerage and special works

The overall absorption of this measure has been satisfactory, with 79% of the budget used. In 2007 quantitative results have been almost reached. According to the 2007 annual report, it has dealt with twice the number of treatment systems expected at the beginning of the programming period.

Table 3.9 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to water and wastewater

Indicator Baseline (2004)

Target (2006)


O Main studies Nb. 3 3 0.2

O Number of supported laboratories (new & complementary to the existing infrastructure)

Nb. 8 12 48%

R No of sampling/year (monitoring of bathing waters) Nb. 22,000 22,000 80%

R Number of sampling/year (for the monitoring of closing bays, sources and rivers)

Nb. 700 700 48%

O Improvement of the water supply network Nb. 0 6 5 O Recovery actions for treated effluent Nb. 0 1 74% O Wastewater treatment (WWT) natural systems Nb. 0 6 5Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; percentages in italic indicate the percentage of implementation. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews.

Solid waste

Management of non dangerous solid wastes

The target for coast-cleaning programmes was achieved. However, it should be noted that the coast cleaning programmes were reduced to the only procurement of equipment.

Regarding hygienic landfill sites, the target was not achieved due to implementation delays. Overall, 48% of the budget has been used. It seems however, that a supply contract regarding the procurement of solid waste management equipment is ready. Its implementation might considerably change achievements.



Management of dangerous solid wastes

Financial absorption is limited to 22%. Cleaning-up and rehabilitation of polluted sites by dangerous waste performed very poorly. In addition, the 2 projects referring to Thoriko Beach and Schinias Park have not even reported the areas as being polluted by hazardous waste. The awareness component has been completed. However it only concerns 1% of the measure.

Table 3.10 : Quantitative targets and output related to solid waste


Target (2006)


O Coastal cleaning programmes Nb. 8 2 2

O Hygienic Landfill site (small-sized) Nb. 33 5 1

O Cleaning-up – rehabilitation of polluted sites by dangerous waste Nb. 0 2 17.5%

O Awareness – sensitisation of public Nb. 0 1 1 Note: Type of the indicator: O=output; percentage in italic indicates the percentage of implementation. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews. Other environmental projects (mix of diverse projects)

Regarding protection against flood and natural disasters, the measure performed well, as reflected by the achieved targets. Concerning sewage, wastewater treatment plants and rehabilitation of uncontrolled waste disposal sites, progress was witnessed but targets were not reached. However, it has to be noted that the indicators do not yet fully reflect all the projects as a lot of sewage, WWT and UWD projects have been adopted after 2006.

In addition, discussions with final beneficiaries revealed that in 5 cases (Katerini, Megara, Serres, OADYK and Paralia) the sewerage and WWT projects are in the final stages of completion. Also, official sources of the Ministry of Interior, responsible for solid waste planning, have informed the EU authorities that by the end of the year 2008, only 15% of the 3,500 UWDS remained open, waiting for the placement in operation of the new sanitary landfills.

Table 3.11 : Quantitative targets and output related to other environmental projects


Target (2006)


O Barriers in the upland and semi-upland zone Nb. 0 1 0 O Complementary projects of torrent beds' management Nb. 0 7 6.5 O Sewerage projects and urban waste treatment plants Nb. n.a. 8 2

O Flood protection projects in the urban and extra-urban site

Nb. n.a. 4 5

O Rehabilitation projects of uncontrolled waste disposal sites

Nb. n.a. 330 146

O Supporting the operational functionality of fire fighting services at the Regional Administrations for tackling natural disasters

Nb. n.a. 12 12

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews.




Creation of wetland systems and rehabilitation of the lake are the only indicators that show satisfactory levels. The financial performance (89%) is misleading, as the current project budget is now above €160m instead of the initial €115m. The undertaking of such a project is totally new to the Greek authorities. Thus, many new constraints were discovered during the implementation phase, which increased the cost of the project far above the initial budget.

After reviewing the indicators, it was discovered that the progress of the project was stagnating for no apparent reason, with a period of inactivity between 2003 and 2007. The reconstruction of the lake is currently finished. The delays for the continuation of the project were due to the new studies required for the peripheral works that would allow clean water to come into the lake. This peripheral work had not started by the end of 2006. The most important part of this work is now under construction, while there are more sub-projects currently under tender. In any case, the date of completion of all the components of the project has been extended to 2012. Another factor for the delays was the significant increase of costs (more than 50% compared to the initial budget). Since all of the project’s fund allocation was bound in contracts and any increase had to be paid by the national budget, it was found necessary to delay procurement and extend the deadlines, as funds were not readily available.

Table 3.12 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to management of protected natural areas


Target (2006)


O Built infrastructure for the installation of management operators (new buildings, equipment, improvement of existing infrastructure)

Nb. n.a. 25 40%

O Demonstration areas and attraction projects Nb. 0 18 0

O Planning and organisation of the function of management operators and protected areas Nb. 2 25 24%

O Actions for the functionality of protected areas Nb. 0 25 16%

O Protection and management projects for the protected areas

Nb. 0 10 50%

O Water projects in upland areas (hectares) Ha 0 6,000 0 O Creation of wetland systems (hectares) Ha 0 45 83% O Studies (Management operator of Karla area) Nb. 2 1 0 O Buildings (new) m² 0 400 0

O Planting (supporting food webs) and environment and ecotourism management (hectares)

Ha 0 270 0

O Extension of important water supply network (km) km 0 8 15%

O Studies (protection and management plan of soil-water resources) Nb. 0 1 68%

O Recreation-rehabilitation of big lakes (hectares) Ha 0 3,800 3,081 Note: Type of the indicator: O=output; percentages in italic indicate the percentage of implementation. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews.



5 Effectiveness of the EOP


Due to delays in the beginning of the implementation of the operational programme, the objectives regarding monitoring and protection policy of water quality were not reached. On the contrary, regarding protection of water resources, implemented actions have been effective and allowed to make significant progress thanks to an improvement of the water supply network, a better recycling of effluents and the construction of wastewater treatment natural systems.

Solid waste

As can be seen through the non-achievement of the quantitative targets, actions implemented in the field of solid waste performed very poorly, due mainly to implementation delays and inadequate decisions. Therefore, the objective was not reached as regards the integrated management of solid waste and the restoration of the environment where it was damaged by the disposal of solid waste.

Other environmental projects (mix of diverse projects)

As regards the mitigation of the destructive effects of floods and natural disasters, significant improvements have been achieved thanks to the projects which have been carried out. Regarding the sustainable management of water and soil resources, and the management of solid waste and wastewater, progress is more difficult to assess as there were significant delays at the beginning of the implementation. However, the latest information indicates that many projects are currently being implemented but it is too early to estimate their effectiveness.


Taking into consideration obtained results, actions implemented in terms of management of protected natural areas can be considered ineffective as far as the EOP is concerned. Conclusions

The strategic objective of the OP Environment (to act in a complementary way/manner to the ROP and the CF) has been achieved only partly, mainly in terms of some of horizontal actions such as awareness campaigns, large scale industrial accident prevention plans, dangerous substances and landscape and urban regeneration.

Measures to face urgent needs related to water supply and wastewater treatment, as well as the increasing number of uncontrolled waste disposal sites – included in the EOP at the beginning of 2004 to face urgent needs – have been partly implemented. Indeed, the projects have allowed addressing long outstanding problems or maximise the use of existing treatment plants, thus increasing cost effectiveness of infrastructure. In this perspective, these measures can be considered as successful.

Despite this partial effectiveness related to the global objective of the EOP and measures brought at the beginning of 2004, the EOP cannot be considered effective in terms of the contribution to improve environmental infrastructures to face the urgent needs. As global picture the effectiveness of the EOP remains poor.



Annex Greece : Quantitative targets and output/ results/ impacts of the EOP

Priority MeasureIndicator Baseline

(2000) Target (2006)

Achieved (2006)


1 1.1 O Main studies Nb. 3 3 10% 0.2 1 1.1 O Number of supported laboratories (new & complementary to the existing infrastructure) Nb. 8 12 1 48% 1 1.1 R No of sampling/year (monitoring of bathing waters) Nb. 22,000 22,000 17,600 80% 1 1.1 R Number of sampling/year (for the monitoring of closing bays, sources and rivers) Nb. 700 700 336 48% 1 1.2 O Improvement of the water supply network Nb. 0 6 5 5 1 1.2 O Recovery actions for treated effluent Nb. 0 1 1 74% 1 1.2 O Wastewater treatment natural systems Nb. 0 6 5 5 2 2.1 O Coastal cleaning programmes Nb. 8 2 2 2 2 2.1 O Hygienic Landfill site (small-sized) Nb. 33 5 1 1 2 2.1 O Rehab of uncontrolled waste disposal sites (UWDS) Nb. 8 7 5 * 2 2.2 O Cleaning-up – rehab of polluted sites by dangerous waste Nb. 0 2 17% 17.5% 2 2.2 O Awareness – sensitisation of public Nb. 0 1 1 1

3 3.1 O Integrated actions of public's information and awareness for the prevention of industrial accidents

Nb. 0 4 4 4

3 3.1 O Preparation of prevention plans for technological accidents of great range Nb. 3 4 4 4

3 3.1 O Risk management at storage of dangerous substances sites at airports, ports and railway stations

Nb. 0 3 3 3

3 3.1 O Security management systems in installations with dangerous substances Nb. 0 1 1 1 3 3.1 O Functionality of an operational centre Nb. 2 1 60% 60% 3 3.1 O Equipment provision for the industrial danger's management Nb. 1 1 1 1 3 3.2 O Landscape rehabilitation and protection actions Nb. 0 10 74% 70% 3 3.3 O Equipment provision Nb. 2 1 0.,7 0.7 4 4.1 O Preparation of action plans for tackling air pollution Nb. 1 13 12 13 4 4.1 O Control systems for the emission of air pollutants Nb. 1 2 88% 2 4 4.1 O Studies Nb. 1 4 87% 90% 4 4.2 O Preparation and implementation of plans against noise Nb. 2 8 5 6 5 5.1 O Operators and mechanisms' environment (not included the building infrastructure) Nb. 3 3 32% 3 5 5.1 O Supporting programmes for special services and operators Nb. 0 3 14% 0.74 5 5.1 O Supporting and cross-sectional studies - Expert reports Nb. 0 5 5 5 5 5.1 O Built infrastructure (in cubic metres, start-up rent) m² n.a. 950 54% 673 5 5.2 O Creation of photographic material Nb. -- 1 1 1 5 5.2 O Exhibition organisation Nb. -- 2 2 2



Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; Nb. = number; Ha=hectare; km= kilometre; percentages in italic indicate the percentage of implementation. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews. * Transferred to measure 6.2, because monitoring is done on financial object progress, percentages are shown whenever progress is below 91%. Above 91% the physical object is considered completed.

5 5.2 O Publications Nb. -- 8 8 8 5 5.2 O Events organisation Nb. -- 8 8 8 6 6.1 O Barriers in the upland and semi-upland zone Nb. 0 1 0 0 6 6.1 O Complementary projects of torrent beds' management Nb. 0 7 81% 6.5 6 6.2 O Sewerage projects and urban WTPs Nb. n.a. 8 2 2 6 6.2 O Flood protection projects in the urban and extra-urban site Nb. n.a. 4 78% 5 6 6.2 O Rehabilitation projects of uncontrolled waste disposal sites Nb. n.a. 330 14% 146

6 6.2 O Supporting the operational functionality of fire fighting services at the Regional Administrations for tackling natural disasters

Nb. n.a. 12 12 12

7 7.1 O Regulatory Plans Nb. 2 4 16% 0.77 7 7.1 O Spatial plans of national level Nb. 1 4 50% 4 7 7.1 O Pilot spatial actions Nb. 12 15 64% 64% 7 7.1 O Study of the national spatial plan Nb. 0 1 37% 1 7 7.2 O Regeneration of coastal tourism zones Nb. n.a. 2 0 1

7 7.2 O Regeneration and enhancement of the metropolitan centre of Athens and other big towns (with innovative or national importance)

Nb. n.a. 7 7 7

7 7.2 O Interventions for the viable development of towns and agglomerations (implementation of the Habitat agenda

Nb. n.a.

40 88% 88%

7 7.2 O Rehabilitation of important public buildings Nb. 0 3 3 3

8 8.1 O Built infrastructure for the installation of management operators (new buildings, equipment, improvement of existing infrastructure)

Nb. n.a. 25 24% 40%

8 8.1 O Demonstration areas and attraction projects Nb. 0 18 6 0 8 8.1 O Planning and organisation of the function of management operators and protected areas Nb. 2 25 10% 24% 8 8.1 O Actions for the functionality of protected areas Nb. 0 25 4% 16% 8 8.1 O Protection and management projects for the protected areas Nb. 0 10 30% 50% 8 8.2 O Water projects in upland areas (hectares) Ha 0 6,000 0 0 8 8.2 O Creation of wetland systems (hectares) Ha 0 45 83% 83% 8 8.2 O Studies (Management operator of Karla area) Nb. 2 1 48% 0 8 8.2 O Buildings (new) m² 0 400 0 0

8 8.2 O Planting (supporting food webs) and environment and ecotourism management (hectares)

Ha 0 270 0 0

8 8.2 O Extension of important water supply network (km) km 0 8 0 15% 8 8.2 O Studies (protection and management plan of soil-water resources) Nb. 0 1 0 68% 8 8.2 O Recreation-rehabilitation of big lakes (hectares) Ha 0 3,800 84% 3,081



3.2.3 Hungary

The Environmental and Infrastructure Operational Programme (EIOP)

1 Basic data programme of the EIOP

2 Environmental priorities in Hungary

Water supply

The priority is to improve the quality of drinking water, especially to decrease the arsenic pollution of natural waters in the areas of the Great Hungarian Plain. One of the main problems is that ground waters are located in a vulnerable geological environment.

Waste water collection and treatment

The gap with the EU average is wider than for water supply but significant improvements have been implemented since the beginning of the 1990s. However there remain considerable network enlargement tasks, as well as in the field of waste water treatment.

Solid waste collection and treatment, including municipal solid waste

One of the priorities is to improve landfills, which account for 83% of waste disposal. Among the 452 landfills which operated with permission in 2004, only 30% met the requirements of a modern landfill site. The estimated number of abandoned, closed down landfills or illegal waste dumps is over two thousand in Hungary. Energy recovery and selective waste collection also constitute priorities.

Renewable resources

In terms of renewable energy and electricity, Hungary lags behind the EU average. Hungary's greatest opportunities lie in the utilisation of biomass-based and geothermal energy, but there has also been a favourable shift in the field of using wind and solar energy over the recent period.

Contaminated land

The National Environmental Remediation Program (NERP) started in 1996 with the mapping of pollution sources and contaminated lands endangering soil and groundwater. The scale of the problem of contaminated land is huge as the NERP estimates that there are between 30 and 40 thousand contaminated sites in the country and that the programme will take 40 years.

Objective 1 Programme location Hungary Programme start year 2004 Programme end year 2006 Total programme duration 3 years ERDF budget in the field of environment 125,291,228 € National budget in the field of environment 45,729,849 €



3 Description of the EIOP

The strategic objective of the EIOP linked to the environment is the “improvement of the environment by assisting the sustainable development through environment and nature protection developments”. The specific objectives of “Environmental protection” (priority 1) are the following:

Improved access to environmental and water infrastructures; Protection of sub-surface waters and drinking water bases; Strengthening nature conservation; Development of energy management by increasing the efficient use of renewable

energy resources. The programme is composed of seven environmental measures. Four of them are related to water, to specific waste management, and a minor contribution to air and noise. Five are related to the protection of groundwater and various actions of nature conservation and flood management. Finally, two measures concern the energy sector.



Table 3.13 : Environment budget allocation of the EIOP, by priority and measure, as well as by field of intervention


National funds

Total


Environmental protection

Water quality improvement

344


10.8 4.6 15.4 9.0%

345 Sewerage and purification

32.3 13.8 46.1 27.0%

Animal waste management 343


6.6 2.2 8.8 5.1%

Treatment of health-care, construction and demolition waste

343


11 3.7 14.7 8.6%

Protection of groundwater and drinking water aquifers with remediation measures

351

Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites

9.6 3.2 12.8 7.5%


9.6 3.2 12.8 7.5%

Nature conservation and sustainable flood management

127

Improving and maintaining the ecological stability of protected woodlands

4.3 1.4 5.7 3.3%

1312

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

4.3 1.4 5.7 3.3%

353


18.3 6.1 24.4 14.3%

Development of air and noise monitoring

341 Air 1.7 0.6 2.2 1.3%

342 Noise 1.7 0.6 2.2 1.3%

Environmentally friendly energy management

332

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

9.1 3 12.1 7.1%

333 Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control

6.1 2 8.1 4.7%

Total 125.3 45.7 171 100.0%


Energy 9.1 3 12.1 7.1%

Other 52.1 17.2 69.5 40.6% Note: Cd=code Source: Financial information from the WP1evaluation, 2008.



Overall, environmental infrastructure represents just over 50% of EIOP investments. It mainly includes the water sector with 36%, followed by waste management with 14%. The latter is focused on two very specific waste treatments, namely animal waste and health care and demolition waste. Investment in energy (efficiency and renewable resources) represents some 7%. The programme has an important component of other environmental investments. These include nature conservation and flood management (with 20%) as well as protection of groundwater.

4 Discussion of the quantitative results of the EIOP

Discussion of quantitative results is organised by sector.

Water sector

The water sector includes drinking water (improvement of the quality) and waste water. Regarding drinking water, objectives were to supply the population with healthy drinking water meeting the relevant standards21. The impact indicator concerns “the improvement of water quality in selected measurement stations”. For 22 out of 25 locations, appropriate or good water quality could be reached. This explains the achievement of 88% compared to a target of 100%. This impact is linked to “increased treatment capacity of drinking water” and on a “number of households served by improved drinking water”. Increased treatment capacity of drinking water was only poorly achieved (12%) because interventions have been reoriented. In the frame of this measure not only treatment capacities were implemented but new water producing capacities were also implemented (5 808 m3/day). In the case of 3 projects, no treatment capacities were implemented but water conduits were renewed. Only 42.4% of the budget used was spent on capacity increase. This explains reaching the impact indicator without being as successful with result or output indicators.

21 Improvement of drinking water quality mainly concerns elimination of harmful substances (especially iron,

manganese, ammonium etc.).



Table 3.14 : Quantitative targets linked to the water sector

Indicator Type Name Unit Target (2006)

Achieved (2006)

Achieved (2007)

Achieved (11 2008)

%

Drinking water quality

I

Improvement of water quality: increase in the measurement stations in areas where appropriate or good water quality could be reached

% 100% n.a. n.a. 88% 88%

R Number of households served by new or renewed water public utilities(drinking water)

Nb. 27,000 7,665 13,988 13,988 52%

O Increased treatment capacity (new or developed; (drinking water) m³/day 31,750 n.a. 3,904 3,904 12%

Waste water quality

R Increase in the number of inhabitants with new or renewed water and sewerage treatment capacity

persons 52,000 n.a. n.a. 35,365 68%

O

Increase in water and sewerage treatment capacity compliant with EU requirements in settlements with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants

m3/day 35,000 n.a. 13,654 23,914

68%

R Number of households served by new or renewed water public utilities (wastewater)

Nb. 25,000 7, 665 26,430 26,430 106%

O Increased treatment capacity (new or developed; wastewater)

m³/day 7,500 n.a. 20,250 20,250 270%

Source: WP2 database and update with stakeholder interviews Regarding waste water (see second part of table 3.14 above), two main objectives were defined in the beginning of the period, namely to eliminate differences between the regions concerning coverage with public wastewater collection systems; and to contribute to the technical compliance with the Urban Wastewater Directive in agglomerations below 50,000 p.e. Achievements largely exceeded the initial targets, both in terms of “increased treatment capacity” and in “number households served by new (or renewed) public utilities”. The quantitative targets were reached thanks to five important projects. Three of them concerned implementation and enlargement of waste water capacity development, whereas the other two were only related to sewage systems.

Waste sector

Interventions in the waste sector were focused on so-called “high-priority waste” for Hungary, namely animal waste, health-care waste and construction and demolition waste. The objectives were to establish streams with material-specific treatment rules, in addition to the applicable general rules. Separation of hazardous components from other waste and facilitation of recovery and recycling were other objectives.



Table 3.15 : Quantitative targets linked to the waste sector


Achieved (2006)

Achieved (2007)

Achieved (11 2008)

%

Waste

O Number of new and renewed animal waste treatment units

Nb. 6 2 6 6 100%

O Number of new and renewed waste treatment units (health-care incinerators)

Nb. 14 0 0 1 7%

O Number of new and renewed demolition waste treatment units Nb. 4 2 6 6 150%

Source: WP2 database and update with stakeholder interviews Regarding animal waste, the target in terms of “new/renewed animal waste treatment units” has been reached (100%). The target was even exceeded regarding demolition waste treatment units (150%) The target was not reached in terms of “new/renewed health care incinerators” due to the fact that interest in health care waste treatment facilities was low. Only one project was supported, and it has not yet been totally implemented, in spite of the fact that based on the National Waste Management Plan more health care incinerators would be needed. Due to the low level of interest the resources were also reallocated end of 2006 as follows: €5.15 million (HUF 1 313 million) was reallocated from the health-care waste treatment facility to Measure 1.7 in order to increase the support intensity of the Project of Cigánd (flood prevention).

Air and Noise

Objectives of these minor interventions were linked to the implementation of a permanent monitoring system of air quality and noise level; associated to this monitoring was a smog alarm system. Output targets show that these monitoring systems were successfully implemented (number of newly assembled measurement units and equipment for air and noise).

Energy

Environmentally friendly development of energy management concerned the rationalisation and promotion of energy use and consumption, especially by increasing domestic production based on renewable energy sources, more efficient public transport and industrial energy consumption. As shown in table 3.16, “new energy generating capacity from renewable sources” was partially achieved. This can be explained by the fact that a part of the budget allocated for this measure was used for projects aiming to improve the energy efficiency instead of renewable sources. This reorientation was decided during the implementation and is not reflected by the indicator.



Table 3.16 : Quantitative targets linked to energy


Achieved (2006)

Achieved (2007)

Achieved (11 2008)

%

Energy

O New energy generation capacity from renewable sources

MW 25 19 20,2 21.8 87%

R Annual volume of electric energy generated by the new capacity GWh/year 50 14.18 21.81 45.2 90%

R Annual savings of energy sources generated through energy efficiency in thermal equivalent

GJ/year 1,110,000 677,842 242,230 820,312 74%

Source: WP2 database and update with stakeholder interviews

Other

The programme put a specific focus on protection of groundwater and drinking water aquifers with remediation measures. These aimed at reducing the actual and potential pollution of groundwater by remediating the most seriously contaminated sites. These interventions directly contributed to NERP’s objectives. The “size of area were damage has been eliminated” has been doubled compared to the target (215%). Another important focus of the programme was devoted to nature conservation and sustainable flood management in the entire Tisza catchment area and the Tisza valley22. At priority level, the “number of inhabitants directly affected by the treatment of the polluted areas and by increased safety against flood” has not been achieved (9,6%). However, the target of “number of households directly affected by decreasing risk from flood prevention” has been completely achieved (100%).

5 Effectiveness of the EIOP

Some limits must be mentioned regarding the indicators, either a difficulty of interpretation of some of them (especially regarding nature management) or limits of the proposed indicators, to really express the measures achievements, especially if reorientations have been operated. The very broad character of both strategic objectives and specific objectives must also be underlined. An assessment of the effectiveness of each measure is described below:

Water sector

Even if the quantitative targets have not been achieved regarding drinking water, this measure resulted in the replacement, enlargement and cleaning of pipes and the increase in reservoir capacity. The additional population, at the settlements involved, benefits from healthy drinking water meeting the relevant standards. This was reached by the modernization of the water treatment technologies. Regarding waste water treatment, the quantitative targets were reached thanks to five important projects in this field. Three of them concerned implementation and enlargement of waste water capacity development, whereas the other two were only related to sewage

22 The size of the land affected by the measure largely exceeded the target value due to the project

concerning overhead cables, that is, replacing the overhead cables or taking them down. The interpretation of the indicator “size of land affected” caused problems for the beneficiaries. The total area of the protected territory was given by the beneficiaries since the bird migrations cover the whole protected territory. This interpretation caused the significant increase of the indicator: “size of land effected”.



systems. Even if some regional disparities remain, these projects helped to reduce them and the connection rate has now reached 83% for the country as a whole. Concerning the Urban Wastewater Directive in settlements with less than 50,000 inhabitants, the indicator shows that the OP has contributed to the compliance.

Waste sector

The effectiveness of the projects for animal and demolition waste is reflected by the achieved quantitative targets. The new and reconstructed treatment facilities include collection, recovery and treatment systems as well as a separation between hazardous components and other waste. In addition to these facilities, material-specific treatment rules were established. Concerning health-care waste, the objectives were not reached due to low interest of stakeholders.

Air and noise monitoring

Thanks to the projects of this measure, air quality, regarding NOx, SO2, CO, O3, BTEX, VOC, flying dust, TOC and NH, will be constantly monitored for 30% of the population. In two large cities, Budapest and Miskloc, a smog alarm system based on reliable data has been developed, which involves approximately 3 million inhabitants.

EC Guideline No. 49/2002/EC requires the preparation of two noise maps close to critical roads. Improvement of the KÖPE equipment will assist in meeting the requirements (maps) of the guideline. The projects are expected to be implemented by the extended deadline (June 2009).

Energy

Environmentally friendly energy management systems have been developed, even if the quantitative targets were not completely reached.

Other

Protection of groundwater and drinking water aquifers with remediation measures

Almost all of the projects implemented were situated in sensitive areas characterised by vulnerable groundwater, drinking water aquifers and a high risk of flood and inland water. By the development of this measure the environmental risks have been decreased significantly. The reduction of the potential pollution of the subsurface waters in the most contaminated areas has started and the remediation work included in the EIOP contracts was completed by the end of 2008. However, due to the physical and chemical characteristics of the contamination, only one project in five was completed fully by the end of 2008. In the case of the four projects the operator will continue the remediation work until reaching the concentration limits required. All these projects are in line with the objectives of NERP.

Nature conservation and sustainable flood management

The projects of this measure have implemented and targets have been reached. They contributed to strengthening of nature conservation efforts and the improvement of flood management of the Tisza-Valley.



Conclusions

Strategic and specific objectives of Environmental Protection of the EIOP are very broad: “improvement of the environment by assisting the sustainable development through environment and nature protection developments”. This strategic objective rests on four specific ones, namely :

Improved access to environmental and water infrastructures; Protection of sub-surface waters and drinking water bases; Strengthening nature conservation; Development of energy management by increasing the efficient use of renewable

energy resources. The EIOP has been effective in terms of most targets reached. More specifically, the EIOP provided improved access to water infrastructures (even if some did not reach all targets) and contributed to reduce regional disparities in focusing on settlements with less than 50,000 inhabitants. The programme helped to protect subsurface waters and drinking water bases even if not all projects are yet completed due to specific difficulties in remediation areas. It also contributed to strengthen nature conservation. A few targets have not been reached, especially regarding health care waste due to little interest from stakeholder. Waste sector was not included among priority indicators.



Annex Hungary : Quantitative targets and output/ results/ impacts of the EIOP


(2003) Target (2006)

Achieved (2006)

Achieved (2007)

Achieved (11 2008) Type Name Unit



I Size of land involved into the NATURA 2000 ecological network, which is supported by the ERDF

% n.a. 5% 0.07% 0.48% 7%

O Newly installed renewing energy generating capacity

MW n.a. 25 19 20,2 22

R Increase in the number of inhabitants with new or renewed water and sewerage treatment capacity

persons n.a. 52,000 n.a. n.a. 35,365

R Number of inhabitants directly affected by the treatment of the polluted areas and by increased safety against flood

Inhabitants n.a. 198,000 n.a. n.a. 19,115

O

Increase in water and sewerage treatment capacity which is in compliance with EU requirements in settlements with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants

m3/day n.a. 35,000 n.a. 13,654 23,914

O Size of the land affected by the measures taken in order to improve environment protection

ha n.a. 8,500 7,269 26,781 58,944

I

Improvement of water quality: increase in the measurement stations in areas where appropriate or good water quality could be reached

% n.a. 100% n.a. n.a. 88%

Water quality improvement

O Increased treatment capacity (new or developed; wastewater)

m³/day n.a. 7,500 n.a. 20,250 20,250

R Number of households served by new or renewed water public utilities(drinking water)

Nb. n.a. 27,000 7,665 13,988 13,988

R Number of households served by new or renewed water public utilities (wastewater) Nb. n.a. 25,000 7, 665 26,430 26,430

O Increased treatment capacity (new or developed; (drinking water)

m³/day n.a. 31,750 n.a. 3,904 3,904

Treatment of animal waste

O Number of new and renewed animal waste treatment units Nb. n.a. 6 2 6 6

R Number of households indirectly affected by the measure (with an average of 3 people in a household)

Nb. n.a. 800,000 46,828 1,338,000 3,968,145



Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; Nb. = number; MW=Megawatt; GWh = Gigawatt Hour; GJ = Gigajoule; ha=hectare; m³ = cubic metre; m²=square metre

Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews. Remark: The Management Authority of EIOP has submitted an application to the European Commission requesting to extend the programme until June 2009. Therefore, the final

report will only be competed in 2009. The Annual Report of 2007 of EIOP was prepared in 2008, the updated version of December is available. The Annual Report of 2008 of EIOP will be prepared in spring 2009 on the assignment of the Management Authority. In general it has to be submitted to the European Commission by the end of June. Data for year 2008 are provided by the National Development Agency and based on a document prepared by the Ex Ante Consulting Co. which was based on data of Nov. 2008


Treatment of medical and construction-demolition waste

R Number of households indirectly affected by the measure Nb. n.a. 816,000 88,937 408,748 697,092

O Number of new and renewed waste treatment units (health-care incinerators)

Nb. n.a. 14 0 0 1

O Number of new and renewed waste treatment units (demolition waste treatment units)

Nb. n.a. 4 2 6 6

Elimination of environment pollution for the protection of surface and underground drinking water bases

R Number of affected households - indirectly Nb. n.a. 84,000 n.a. 1,000 87,824 R Number of affected households - directly Nb. n.a. 2,600 n.a. 13 2,202

O Size of area where damage has been eliminated m² n.a. 144,000 n.a. n.a. 310,000

Nature preservation and sustainable flood prevention

O The size of land affected by the measure ha n.a. 8,000 7,269 155,340 155,340

R Number of households directly affected by the decreasing risk resulting from the strengthened flood prevention

Nb. n.a. 17,200 n.a. n.a. 17,200

Measuring air pollution and noise

O Number of newly assembled measurement units and equipment (air)

Nb. n.a. 23 46 364 26

O Number of newly assembled measurement units and equipment (noise)

Nb. n.a. 4 4 4 4

R Number of indirectly affected households Nb. n.a. 17,000 n.a. 711,066 n.a.Environmentally friendly development of energy management

O Installed new renewable electric energy capacity MW n.a. 25 10.8 9.8 21.8

R Annual volume of electric energy generated by the new capacity

GWh/year n.a. 50 14.18 21.81 45.2

R Annual savings of energy sources generated through energy efficiency in thermal equivalent

GJ/year n.a. 1,110,000 677,842 242,230 820,312



3.2.4 Ireland

The Environmental and Infrastructure Operational Programme (EIOP)

1 Basic data programme of the ESIOP

2 Environmental priorities in Ireland

The main environmental challenges for the 2000-2006 period may be summarized as follows:

Water supply and wastewater

The main challenge remains improving water supply to keep pace with growing demand. In that regard, the priority should be to control and reduce distribution leakage, especially in the Greater Dublin Area. At the same time, ensuring adequate wastewater treatment for major urban areas is still necessary, as well as preventing and controlling eutrophication of rivers and lakes.

Waste

Decoupling waste generation and economic growth, reducing waste generation per capita, and diverting waste from landfills were the main challenges regarding waste management. In the same time environmental policy focused on encouraging re-use and recycling, and providing the necessary infrastructure to enable people to recycle useful materials.

Air/ Energy/ Climate change

Meeting international commitments on emissions to atmosphere constitutes the main challenge regarding air, especially as regards greenhouse gases, acidifying gases and motor vehicle emissions.

3 Description of the ESIOP

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 is the overall framework within which applications were made for European Community Structural Funds, and it sets out the strategic objectives and quantitative targets for acquiring and using these funds. The ESIOP proposed an overall investment of € 1.8 billion in six infrastructural sectors which include environmental infrastructure and sustainable energy.

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



Table 3.17 : Environment budget allocation of the ESIOP, by priority and measure, as well as by field of intervention

Priority Measure Field of intervention

(FOI) ERDF

National funds

Total

Cd Name €m €m €m % Environmental Infrastructure

EaSI Waste Water 345 Sewerage and purification

76.58 59.53 136.11 78.8%

Sustainable Energy

EaSI Energy Conservation

333

Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control

3.65 2.93 6.579 3.8%

EaSI Alternative / Renewable Energy

333Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control

19.21 10.89 30.104 17.4%

Total 99.45 73.35 172.80 100%


Energy 22.86 13.82 36.68 21.2%

Note: Cd = code Source: Financial information from the WP1evaluation, 2008. One of the priority areas of the ESIOP addresses a deficit in environmental infrastructure in the areas of water and waste water services. The waste water treatment measure is co-financed by ERDF and Cohesion Fund. It represents a continuation of water policy objectives and investments over the 1994-99 period. Another priority area of the Programme aims to promote energy conservation and efficiency (including energy performance of low income housing – research and implementation) and the greater use of renewable energies, also in continuation of successful former investments.

4 Quantitative results of the programme23

Sewerage and purification24

Table 3.18 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to water and wastewater

Indicator Baseline

(2000)

Target (2000) Achieved

(2006) Achieved

(2007) Type Name Target (2000)

Output Compliance rate with EU Urban Wastewater Directive and capacity (population equivalent) of completed projects in NDP period

% 25% n.a. 100% n.a.Output

Pop equ

1,294,229

n.a.

5,176,916 n.a.

Impact Length of river classified as unpolluted % 70%

n.a.80% n.a.

Impact Area of lake classified as unpolluted

% 93% n.a.

95% n.a.

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; Source: WP2 database, 2008

23 The expert has not yet sent its final contribution to the report, this analysis is based on documents

available and analyzed in January 2009. 24 No single indicator for sewerage and purification indicator was available from WP2 database for this measure. The

proposed indicators come from the revised programme document: ESIOP, NDP 2000-2006, Revised Programme Complement, December 2005, chapter 3, waste water measure.



Under sewerage and purification, ten wastewater projects were selected for co-financing under the ERDF 2000 – 2006. By the end of December 2006, six of these projects – Loughrea Sewerage Scheme, Crossmolina Sewerage, Courtown / Riverchapel Sewerage, Carndonagh Sewerage Scheme, Belturbet Sewerage Scheme, and Castlerea Sewerage Scheme – had been completed, and the remaining four projects were in progress. At the end of December 2006, completed wastewater projects since 2000 had generated additional capacity equivalent to the needs of a population of 3.1 million. Cumulative expenditure on wastewater treatment at the end of December 2006 totalled €2,122 million, representing some 107% of the forecast (BMW region 108%; S&E region 107%). Of this total, €136.12 million was provided by the CSF, €76.58 million by ERDF aid, and €2,045.6 million was provided by the State. The proportion of waste water subject to secondary treatment has increased significantly from 21 per cent in 2000-2001 to 70 per cent in 2006. This is primarily due to the new sewage treatment plant at Ringsend, Dublin. The waste water now treated at Ringsend was previously accounted for in the primary treatment category, which has significantly reduced. Progress on the high levels of untreated waste water from some other large urban areas has occurred since 2003 with the provision of secondary treatment for waste water generated by the cities of Cork, Limerick and Galway. The waste water treatment plants in all 4 cities received significant EU financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund. Indicators relating to proportions of water by type of treatment were not included in the previous table about quantitative results. Energy conservation Energy conservation aims to establish the framework enabling Ireland to fulfil its commitments in delivering a more sustainable energy economy in the context of climate change and the Kyoto protocol. Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) is a main conduit for delivery of the measure. It also includes energy conservation research and a particular initiative for low income housing.



Table 3.19 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to energy conservation


Achieved (2006)


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 n.a.

Output Low Income Housing: Additional Homes Substantially Addressed / Insulated

n.a. 13500 10752 n.a.

Output “Model Solution” Demonstration Projects Approved

Number 80 70 n.a.

Output Design Studies Carried Out Number 90 79 n.a.Output Number of Units Supported under House of

Tomorrow Programme Number 1650 4750 n.a.

Output Number of the Research, Development and Demonstration Projects. > €500,000

Number 13 5 n.a.

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

Number 45 98 n.a.

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

Number 130 160 n.a.

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

% 24 40 n.a.

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

% 39 39 n.a.

Result Matching Funding / Investment Leveraged for Renewable Energy research, development and demonstration projects

Millions EUR 40 27.3 n.a.

Result Energy Efficiency Index of SEI Industry Clients (Year 2000 = 100)

% 93.5 89.1 n.a.

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

% 24 40 n.a.

Result Percentage of Consumers having heard of and understand concept of sustainable energy

% 24 45 n.a.

Result Energy Savings per annum relating to Public Sector Approved Projects

Millions EUR

5.3 5.0 n.a.

Result Percentage of Consumers having heard of and understand concept of sustainable energy

% 24 45 n.a.

Impact Percentage of Consumers Implementing Some or a Lot of Energy Efficiency Measures

% 60 67 n.a.

Impact Estimated Cumulative CO2 savings by SEI Industry Clients

Mt CO2 0.36 0.57 n.a.

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; percentages in italic indicate the percentage of implementation. Source: WP2 database, 2008

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


Renewable energy Renewable energy aims to encourage the development of alternative energy sources.

Table 3.20 : Quantitative targets and output/results related to renewable energy

Indicator Target (2000) Achieved (2006)


Output District Heating/CHP Feasibility Studies Number 5 13 n.a.

Result Total Grid-Connected Wind Energy in Ireland

MW 600 744 n.a.

Result Additional Clustered Connection Capacity to which Renewable Energy Has Connected

MW n.a. n.a. n.a.


5. Effectiveness of the ESIOP25

Progress on the high levels of untreated waste water from some large urban areas has occurred since 2003 with the provision of secondary treatment for waste water generated by the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. This is reflected by the share of population receiving total treatment, which has reached 89% in 2005, with 70% receiving secondary treatment, whereas 41% of the population was still only connected to primary treatment in 2001 (compared to 2% in 2005) The proportion of waste water subject to secondary treatment has increased significantly from 21% in 2000-2001 to 70% in 2006. This is due to the new sewage treatment plant at Ringsend, Dublin. The waste water now treated at Ringsend was previously accounted for in the primary treatment category, which has significantly reduced.

25 The expert has not yet sent its final contribution to the report, this analysis is based on documents

available and analyzed in January 2009.



3.2.5 Portugal

The Environment Operational Programme (EOP)

1 Basic data programme of the EOP

2 Environmental priorities in Portugal

At the beginning of the 2000-2006 period, the main issues were soil degradation and risk of desertification, aggravated by weather events (drought and heavy rain) and the extent of forest fires. This was combined with inadequate consideration of environmental risks in measures of utilisation and transformation of the territory, namely regarding forest fires, floods, erosion of coastal zones, and earthquakes. Finally planning in the expansion of metropolitan areas and other urban areas looked insufficient. Environmental priorities in Portugal were defined in the Regional Development Plan 2000-2006, in which the EC framework support to Portugal was based. According to the environmental strategy underlined in the document, the environmental priorities of the country were based on four aspects:

- integration of the environment into development policy and territorial sectoral policies;

- conservation and enhancement of natural heritage in a strategy of conservation of nature and biodiversity;

- establishment of a strategic partnership with various stakeholders to achieve environmental modernisation of economic activities and of organizations;

- development of environmental education and information. According to this strategic direction, environmental objectives were defined for key areas of the environment, including:

- water supply, wastewater treatment and solid waste: decreasing the asymmetries between Regions which remain significant;

- water: improving water quality and water resources management (the river basin authorities were enacted in 2008);

- preventing soil degradation and the risk of desertification, aggravated by weather events (drought and heavy rain) and the extent of forest fires;

- improving the planning on the expansion of metropolitan areas and other urban areas;

Objective 1 Programme location Portugal Programme start year 2000 Programme end year 2006 Total programme duration 7 years ERDF budget in the field of environment 322,915,005 € National budget in the field of environment 107,638,335 €



- decreasing the dependence of road transportation and use of private cars and developing other modes of transport, in particular rail;

- decreasing the high intensity of energy use and carbon emissions caused by economic activities and patterns of mobility and consumption, leading to a close direct relationship between economic growth and the increase of energy consumption and emissions of Greenhouse Gases.

3. Description of the EOP

The strategic objectives of the EOP were:

1. Nature conservation - Improving the management of protected species and habitats; - Developing infra-structures of support of tourism of nature, information and

support to visitors; - Promoting development in protected areas.

2. Valorisation and protection of natural resources - Protecting and valorising coastal areas according to Coastal Area Management

Plans (namely on beaches); - Rehabilitating and valorising the water resource networks and dams (namely river

bed regulation).

3. Urban Environment - Improving the urban environment through the reduction of pollution levels; - Construction of green spaces.

4. Recuperation and rehabilitation of derelict areas, and foster environmental

modernisation of economic activities and of organizations - Environmental rehabilitation of a former mine (about 1.5% of the total EOP) and

of the soils of a paper industry (about 6% of the total EOP); - Granting co-financing rate increases to proposals of environmental added value of

the Economy OP (called PRIME).

Basic infrastructure (wastewater treatment, water supply, waste) has thus not been covered by the EOP. The EOP was only active on mainland Portugal. The environmental components of the programmes for the Azores and Madeira autonomous regions were included in their respective OP.



Table 3.21 : Environment budget allocation of the EOP, by priority and measure, as well as (see previous notes) by field of intervention


National funds

Total


1. Sustainable management of natural resources

Preservation and valorisation of the natural patrimony

353


51.9 17.3 69.2 16.1%

Support and protection of natural resources

353


91.7 30.6 122.2 28.4%

Information, awareness and administration of the environment

341 Air 4 1.3 5.3 1.2%


342 Noise 4 1.3 5.3 1.2%


353


12 4 15 3.5%

2.Integrating the environment in economic and social activities

Improvement of the urban environment


128 42.7 170.8 39.7%

Support to environmental sustainability of economic activities

152


28.2 9.4 37.6 8.7%


162


3.1 1 4.2 1.0%

Total 322.9 107.6 430.6 100.0%

Environmental infrastructure 8 2.6 10.6 2.5%

Energy 31.3 10.4 41.8 9.7%

Other 283.6 94.6 378.2 87.8%

Note: Cd=code Source: Financial information from the WP1evaluation, 2008.

4 Discussion of the quantitative results of the EOP

It should be stressed that the Programming Complement of the EOP has been changed over time, and the last version was approved in December 2008. The tables below show targets after reprogramming (mid-term evaluation) and the targets accepted by the European Commission in December 2008 (in brackets in the column “Targets (2006)”.



The non-achievement of all other quantitative targets is mainly due to the low execution of the OP until 2007. The data used in the discussion hereinafter is presented in the EOP 2007 Annual Report. In fact, the extension of the N+2 period until the end of June 2009, led the OP coordination offices (with much of the staff already engaged in the new framework programme) to skip the 2008 annual report, and to plan to write only the “2008 and first semester of 2009” report. In the case of the EOP this really makes a difference. In fact by the end of 2007, the overall rate of spending was 43%, and the approved expense was 82%, although 97% of the overall amount was committed. According to the EOP manager, the low rate of execution until 2007 was in part related to delays in getting the state counterpart. Measure 1.1 was mainly implemented by ICNB, which staff has to deal with in everyday activities besides the implementation of projects. A similar situation occurred with the INAG in Measure 1.2. Also, with a low implementation rate, Measure 2.1 is related to Polis. The POLIS programmes have started in different moments in different cities and have involved much negotiation between central and local government and accurate planning and design before implementation. Other types of interventions with low implementation rates are linked to the lack of proposals. Investment in green environment is not always in the list of priorities of local governments, or other stakeholders. Also there are not many schools interested or in position to co-finance environmental education projects. In 2008 and in 2009 there has been quite a significant rate of implementation, as well as an increase in approved proposals. Currently, all measures in axis 1 and 2 are overbooked. Overall, the rate of achievement of the objectives is satisfactory, with the majority of indicators above 80% and quite a number of indicators overcoming the programmed targets.

Sustainable management of natural resources

Table 3.22 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Preservation and valorisation of the natural patrimony

* In ( ) are the new targets defined in 2008.



Target* (2006)

Achieved (2006)


O Protected areas in the national sector with signalling % 0 96 (92) 96 96

O Land inside protected areas in the national sector with integral protection statute, owned by the state

% 75 93 (77) 1.48 2

O Species in Portugal that are part of conservation projects of communitarian interest

% 20 56 (88) 38.44 68.40

O Recovering of ways and accesses Km 120 270 176.27 238.42 O Supporting natural tourism Nb. n.a. 93 83 98 O Intervened area % 15 45 63.07 90.09 O Protected areas with video surveillance Ha n.a. n.a. 28,944.64 28,944.64

O Recovering/ building infrastructures to support traditional activities Nb. 47 61 19 19

O Protected land in the national sector that is part of an territorial management plan

Nb. 44 96 90.18 90.18



Regarding the Preservation and valorisation of the natural patrimony, it can be stated that the programme has been effective.

The area of intervention of the programme spanned over twice the area initially foreseen. This lead to an increase of the target value, which has been achieved partly due to a forest fire prevention project covering nearly the entire mainland Portugal protected area network (2M€).

Similarly good results have been achieved for the percentage of species of Community interest that are part of conservation projects. The EOP 2007 Annual Report states that 88% of the species of EU interest occurring in continental Portugal were already intervened (“about 290 species were benefited due to projects directly addressing 13 species” – implying that a project addressing one species ends up benefiting several other species). This has resulted in an increase of the target (from 56% to 88%). Since the projects of this typology focus mainly on the improvement of the habitats, increase of the food resource for the target species and in the creation of reproduction centres, the projects targeting one species impacted positively several species. In this way, the projects focusing on 13 species have benefited, directly or indirectly, 327 species. The development of protected areas has been promoted via revision of 7 protected areas management plans and the elaboration of 17 protected areas management plans. Since the remaining protected areas in mainland Portugal had its plan financed by INTERREG, 100% of the protected areas of mainland Portugal had their management plans revised or elaborated during the 2000-2006 programming period. By the end of 2007 the execution report indicates that 10 plans have been approved and 9 other have been approved in 200826.

Portugal was not very successful at acquiring land classified as natural protected areas – according to the EOP manager, this was due mainly to delays in expropriation - which led to a reduction in the target (Land inside protected areas in the national sector with integral protection statute, owned by the state) from 93 to 77%.

Regarding infra-structure for support of tourism of nature, numerous and significant projects were approved and implemented, as it was a priority of the INCB (the National Institute for Nature Protection and Biodiversity, in charge of the implementation of the project).

26

http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gest%C3%A3o/Planos+de+Ordenamento+das+%C3%81reas+Protegidas+(POAP)/poap.htm



Table 3.23 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Support and protection of natural resources


Regarding the valorisation and protection of natural resources, the programme was slightly less effective. The targets for the different interventions in the coastal area for beach, dunes and the elaboration of plans have been slightly decreased. However the coastal protection infrastructure and securing of cliffs have been increased. The latter one has increased 22%, which reflects the priority of this type of intervention in Portugal to which the programme was able to reply.

Regarding the rehabilitation and valorisation of the water resources it is worth noticing the upgrading of lake systems (cleaning, removing siltation, valorising). The target for this indicator has increased 10 fold and the approved area for intervention until 2007 was 24 times what has been initially foreseen. It is also to be noticed the number of monitoring station of surface inland waters. The target has been doubled, and this intervention will allow for a much effective monitoring of the waters and facilitate the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.


Target* (2006)

Achieved (2006)


O Studies, projects, detail plans, and technical assistance Nb. n.a. n.a. 48 53

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- Protection of the seaside

m n.a. 8,900 8,700 9,480

O Upgrading/ rehabilitation of public space m² n.a. n.a. 108,702 334,255

O Upgrading of lake systems Ha n.a. 15 3.3 15,7

O Actions of construction, reconstruction or improvement of accessibility infrastructures

m n.a. n.a. 5,700 5,700

O Cartographic production ha n.a. n.a. 23,500 23,500

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- global interventions in areas of beach

Nb. n.a. 41 31 31

O

Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions

km n.a. 500 (460) 393.26 396.06

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- recovery of shorelines

m n.a. 2,600 2,145 3,165

O Order plan of ponds to be elaborated Nb. 16 31 16 17 O length of supported water line ha n.a. 150 151.10 152.60

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- reclaiming beaches

Nb. n.a. 4 2 3

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- reclamation of dunes

Nb. 1 31 26 26



Table 3.24 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Information, awareness and administration of the environment

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; percentages in italic indicate the percentage of implementation. Source: WP2 database, 2008 In terms of awareness raising and environmental education, measure 1.3, the project has had to change the philosophy. The focus has been changed from environmental education at schools to general public awareness raising.

The number of students and teachers included in environmental education projects was much lower than what had been initially programmed. On the other hand, the target for information/awareness actions increased, and the target for E-NGO projects supported also increased. According to the EOP manager this was the result of a change of focus, fewer activities in schools and more awareness raising campaigns for the general population. This is also expressed by the 2000% increase in the number of publications printed. The reason for this according to the EOP manager is that publications were prepared during the programme and could be published when finalised. Also, some of the projects produced their publications at the end of the project. Regarding urban environment, from the 8 actions foreseen for the POLIS programmes, only 2 were performed “due to lack of interest of the POLIS cities to receive the POLIS exhibit” as expressed in the 2007 report.


Target* (2006)

Achieved (2006)


O MAOT services linked to the environmental information system Nb. n.a. 11 26 26

O Supported projects of environmental education at schools Nb. n.a. 370 (320) 322 322

O Projects of non-governmental organizations to be supported Nb. n.a. 120 (175) 175 175

O Remodelled or restructured laboratories units Nb. n.a. n.a. 9 12

O Students to be included in projects of environmental education Nb. n.a. 100,000

(48,000) 48,786 48,786

O Analytic methods to be implemented in the national laboratory network Nb. 234 252 18 18

O Information/ awareness actions to be realized

Nb. n.a. 70 (85) n.a. 85

O Information/ awareness centres to be set up

Nb. 17 23 6 ?

O Users of the environment portal Nb. n.a. n.a. 1,497,228 1,801,271

O Fixed structures for air quality monitoring installed or renewed Nb. 41 70 29 29

O Edition and production of didactic-pedagogic materials Nb. n.a. 25,000 45,100 45,100

O Teachers to be included in projects of environmental education Nb. n.a. 6,500 (3,000) 3,082 3,082

O Equipped stations for monitoring superficial waters Nb. 439 665 760 760

O Edition and production of divulgation and information material

Nb. n.a. 300,000 913,092 5,664,132



Due to the lack of an indicator of the number of population participating in these activities it is not possible to conclude on the effectiveness of this change of focus.

Integrating the environment in economic and social activities


The programme has been effective in this area. As discussed above there has been an interaction with local governments and with the POLIS programme. The EOP financed mainly the construction of green spaces and interventions in water line.

Table 3.25 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Improvement of the urban environment

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; percentages in italic indicate the percentage of implementation. Source: WP2 database, 2008 It is to be noticed that the extension of the urban waterline to be intervened more than doubled. Due to the relevance of this type of intervention and to the number of proposals received, additional funds have been attributed to it. The target set for green areas to be built has also increased by10%.


The restoration of damaged areas has been included in measure 2.2. Despite the relevance of the interventions the indicator used to monitor these actions is too general and only allows to state that from the 6 interventions planned 5 were undertaken. However, one of the projects consisted on the rehabilitation of land to be flooded by Alqueva dam in Alentejo (one of the largest dams in Europe, flooding an otherwise semi-arid land). Other projects consisted on the environmental rehabilitation of old mines. This type of projects has been continued by measure 2 of the 2007-2013 territorial enhancement OP. While the EOP committed 9M€ in the 2000-2006 period, a call opened in March 2008 by the TEOP committed 45 M€ of Cohesion Fund to the rehabilitation of old mines environmental damage.


Target* (2006)

Achieved (2006)


O Population to be included in projects of urban life improvement Millions 0.200 3.0 4.105 4.466

O Extension of bicycle lanes Km n.a. n.a. 1.40 1.40 O Urban furniture or other equipment Nb. n.a. n.a. 1,296 1,342 O Studies and project execution plans Nb. n.a. n.a. 129 131 O Urban area to be supported Ha n.a. 300 209.62 239.92 O Extension of pedestrian ways Km n.a. n.a. 18.38 19.77

O Green areas to be built m² 1,300,000 2,400,000 (2,650,000) 1,224,329.15 1,332,151

O Extension of waterline to be intervened M n.a. 14,000

(31,000) 28,998.26 30,530.46



Table 3.26 : Quantitative targets and outputs of the EOP - Support to environmental sustainability of economic activities

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; percentages in italic indicate the percentage of implementation. Source: WP2 database, 2008 Finally concerning environmental modernization of economic activities, the programme has achieved the planned objectives. The 5 M € to be used as environmental added-value of co-financing of PRIME (economy) OP, was used by 3 industries to obtain environmental license by compliance with IPPC before 31st December 2006, 2 industries to reduce significantly GEE emissions, and a number of industries to obtain EMAS certification. The latter was a very successful intervention. While the initial target was 20 industries, proposals have been received to support 45 industries obtaining EMAS certification and, until the end of 2007, 19 industries obtained support.

The indicator, “Business with ecological policies” was abandoned in 2007. In fact, since there were no eligible candidates, it lost purpose.

5 Effectiveness of the EOP

The discussion on the effectiveness of the EOP should be regarded with caution mainly due to two factors. One arises from the fact that in 2008 and in 2009, projects are still being started and others being finalized and it is expected that the result indicators will change considerably. Another factor is linked to the revisions of the targets that serve as official basis on which to confront results to derive conclusions on the effectiveness of the programme, the last one occurred in December 2008. Besides, it is also worth mentioning that several of the projects typologies depend on the interest and on the degree of priority the public organisms attribute to them. In some cases there has been no interest on the calls, in other cases funds have been re-allocated to specific interventions, at expenses of other interventions that end up not being performed.

In addition, no specific indicators are available for assessing results or impact. The environmental OP did not concern basic infrastructure, on the contrary to the regional OPs which covered downstream environmental infrastructure, whereas the Cohesion Fund was used for upstream systems. The EOP has mainly contributed to the protection of biodiversity and landscape as well as to the rehabilitation of urban places. It has played an important role in the implementation of the national policy regarding the protection of biodiversity and landscape. The resources provided by the programme have amounted to €156 mio, representing nearly 30% of the ERDF contribution to the field and 10% of the public resources allocated to the sector. The resources allocated to urban rehabilitation through the EOP have been less important compared to what has been done through the


Target* (2006)

Achieved (2006)


O Projects for the improvement of the environment

Nb. 0 6 4 5

O equivalent CO2 not expelled t/ year n.a. 500 2,744.80 2,744.80 O NOx not expelled t/ year n.a. n.a. 10.50 10.50 O SO2 not expelled t/ year n.a. n.a. 45.60 45,60

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

Nb; 0 4 3 3

O Business registered within EMAS Nb. 1 20 (40) 14 n.a.



regional OPs: €128 mio has been spent in that field through the EOP while the ERDF has provided more than €1.5 bio to urban rehabilitation and territorial enhancement.

The articulation between environmental OP and regional OP has been satisfactory. According to the EOP manager, there has been a close coordination with regional OPs, having as a central concern the avoidance of repetitions in the co-financing of projects. This is particularly true in the regionally focused interventions of the central government priority axis. Some criteria were defined à priori such as: EOP focused in Natural Parks while regional OPs focused on other Nature 2000 sites; the EOP funded rehabilitation of urban river bed stretches or construction of urban parks, while regional OPs funded other urban interventions and the EOP tends to fund larger investments. Furthermore the EOP and regional OP managers exchanged and confronted proposal lists. Besides all EOP proposals were only accepted after the agreement of different bodies. For the axis 1 the National Institute of Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (ICNB), the National Water Institute (INAG), or the Environment Institute27 were involved in the decision making process. For measure 2.1, mainly urban intervention, the National POLIS Coordination Bureau28 supervised the proposals from all different funding sources within the scope of the POLIS programmes.

Table 3.27 : Environmental protection expenditures in Portugal- by main fields of intervention and main sources - € mio

Source: Eurostat, INE, DG Regio

The mid-term evaluation of the environmental OP recognises the important contribution of ERDF funds to improving the environmental performance of the country, with emphasis on improving the urban environment and the coastline, which is justified by the high percentage of the population concentrated on about 900 km of coast, mostly in cities. In terms of landscape protection, the main results have been achieved in protecting areas and species. In 2007 about 21,2% of mainland Portugal’s surface was within some sort of protection statute. In 2005 a new park was created. There are about 45 protected sites, of which 25

27 In 2007, the Environment Institute has fused with Waste Institute to form the Portuguese Environmental Agency. 28 The POLIS programme aim at qualification of towns and metropolitan re-qualification and improving quality of life in the cities.

Specifically on environment it focused on building side walks and bycicle lanes, building parks and green spaces, rehabilitating rivers and river margins, protecting dunes or preventing coastal erosion and solving environmental threats.

General Gvt Local Govt CF ERDF EIB

2000‐2006 Total Capital Total Capital

GF05 ‐ TOTAL Environment protection 6015.7 2834 4540 2162.1 2507.06 2777.2 1023

GF0501 ‐ Waste management 1608.3 336.5 1586.7 335.9 559.4 50.8

GF0502 ‐ Waste water management 1890.4 1353.1 1444 1079.2 1947.6 701

GF0503 ‐ Pollution abatement 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.1

GF0504 ‐ Protection of biodiversity and

landscape 1586.4 725.6 1360.3 682 510.7

GF0505 ‐ R&D Environmental protection 1.4 0.8 1.4 0.8

GF0506 ‐ Environmental protection n.e.c. 927.8 416.8 146 63.1

Others (rehabilitation of urban areas,

restoration of cultural heritage,… na na na na 7.7 1514.7



have a management plan, and according to the State of the Environment Report 10 others were either being revised or elaborated. Although EOP has contributed significantly for the management of these sites, there is still some work to be done. In Portugal including Azores and Madeira there were about 553 species that have been evaluated. Of these 46% have been considered of small concern while for 12% there is no information to allow its classification. Despite the efforts being done, there are still 42% endangered categories (critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable), or by nearly menaced or regionally extinct. Portugal let 19 species to be regionally extinct. Regarding the other aspects of the programme and having in mind the current (2007-2013) Programme of Territorial Enhancement, as well as the priorities defined, it can be stated that overall, efforts are still needed in the areas of axis 1 of the programme.



Annex Portugal : Quantitative targets and output/ results/ impacts of the EOP


(2000) Target* (2006)

Achieved (2006)



Preservation and valorisation of the natural patrimony

O Studies Nb. n.a. n.a. 106 116 O Divulgation material Nb. n.a. n.a. 151 203 O Protected areas in the national sector with signalling % 0 96 (92) 96 96

O Land inside protected areas in the national sector with integral protection statute, owned by the state % 75 93 (77) 1.48 2

O Species in Portugal that are part of conservation projects of communitarian interest % 20 56 (88) 38.44 68.40

O Recovering of ways and accesses Km 120 270 176.27 238.42 O Rehabilitation of historic and cultural heritage Nb. n.a. n.a. 5 5 O Centres for animal reproduction Nb. n.a. n.a. 1 1

O Protected areas in the national sector with specific signalling

Ha n.a. n.a. 52,150 52,150

O Recovering centres and animal shelters Nb. n.a. n.a. 2 2 O Supporting natural tourism Nb. n.a. 93 83 98 O Intervened area % 15 45 63.07 90.09 O Protected areas with video surveillance Ha n.a. n.a. 28,944.64 28,944.64

O Recovering/ building infrastructures to support traditional activities

Nb. 47 61 19 19

O Database Nb. n.a. n.a. 17 18 O revitalization of traditional activities Nb. n.a. n.a. 5 5

O Protected land in the national sector that is part of an territorial management plan Nb. 44 96 90.18 90.18

O Cartography Nb. n.a. n.a. 8 10


O Studies, projects, detail plans, and technical assistance Nb. n.a. n.a. 48 53

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- Protection of the seaside

m n.a. 8,900 8,700 9,480

O Upgrading/ rehabilitation of public space m² n.a. -- 108,702 334,255 O Upgrading of lake systems Ha n.a. 15 3.3 15,7

O Actions of construction, reconstruction or improvement of accessibility infrastructures m n.a. n.a. 5,700 5,700

O Cartographic production ha n.a. n.a. 23,500 23,500

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- global interventions in areas of beach Nb. n.a. 41 31 31



O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions

km n.a. 500 (460) 393.26 396.06

Sustainable management of natural resources Sustainable management of natural resources


O Demolition of improper occupations in public seaside areas to be completed

Nb. n.a. 1 0 n.a.**

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- recovery of shorelines

m n.a. 2,600 2,145 3,165

O Order plan of ponds to be elaborated Nb. 16 31 16 17 O length of supported water line ha n.a. 150 151.10 152.60 O Infrastructures of economic activities support Nb. n.a. n.a. 0 1

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- reclaiming beaches Nb. n.a. 4 2 3

O Extension of seaside areas to be included in interventions- reclamation of dunes Nb. 1 31 26 26


O MAOT services linked to the environmental information system Nb. n.a. 11 26 26

O Supported projects of environmental education at schools Nb. n.a. 370 (320) 322 322

O Projects of non-governmental organizations to be supported

Nb. n.a. 120 (175) 175 175

O Beaches Monitoring plan Nb. n.a. n.a. 1 1 O Portable structures for monitoring air quality Nb. n.a. n.a. 1 1 O Remodelled or restructured laboratories units Nb. n.a. n.a. 9 12

O Students to be included in projects of environmental education Nb. n.a. 100,000

(48,000) 48,786 48,786

O Analytic methods to be implemented in the national laboratory network Nb. 234 252 18 18

O Information/ awareness actions to be realized Nb. n.a. 70 (85) n.a. 85 O Information/ awareness centres to be set up Nb. 17 23 6 ? O Users of the environment portal Nb. n.a. n.a. 1,497,228 1,801,271

O Fixed structures for air quality monitoring installed or renewed Nb. 41 70 29 29

O Studies and projects Nb. n.a. n.a. 24 24 O Mobile units for monitoring air quality Nb. 1 2 1 1 O Portal (website) Nb. n.a. n.a. 1 1 O Edition and production of didactic-pedagogic materials Nb. n.a. 25,000 45,100 45,100

O Teachers to be included in projects of environmental education Nb. n.a. 6,500

(3,000) 3,082 3,082

O Equipped stations for monitoring superficial waters Nb. 439 665 760 760 O Acquisition of prevision models and noise map Nb. n.a. n.a. 1 1



Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; Nb.=number; Ha=hectare; km=kilometre; m=metre; t=tonne. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews. * In brackets, the new target accepted by the EC in Dec 2008 ** As mentioned in the 2006 report, demolition was no longer necessary since the local authority renovated the buildings which became used for beach equipment. This indicator is not referred to in the 2007 Annual Report. *** There has been an assessment done by the national authority APA, leading to a decrease in 12 methods in CCDR-Alentejo

O Analytic methods to be credited in the national laboratory network

Nb. 58 154 99*** 91



O Acquisition of equipments for measuring noise- sound meter and accessories

Nb. n.a. n.a. 2 2

O Edition and production of divulgation and information material Nb. n.a. 300,000 913,092 5,664,132

Integrating the environment in economic and social activities


O Population to be included in projects of urban life improvement Millions 0.200 3.0 4.105 4.466

O Extension of bicycle lanes Km n.a. n.a. 1.40 1.40 O Urban furniture or other equipment Nb. n.a. n.a. 1,296 1,342 O Studies and project execution plans Nb. n.a. n.a. 129 131 O Urban area to be supported Ha n.a. 300 209.62 239.92 O Extension of pedestrian ways Km n.a. n.a. 18.38 19.77

O Green areas to be built m² 1,300,000 2,400,000

(2,650,000) 1,224,329.15 1,332,151

O Extension of waterline to be intervened M n.a. 14,000 (31,000) 28,998.26 30,530.46


O equivalent CO2 not expelled t/ year n.a. 500 2,744.80 2,744.80 O NOx not expelled t/ year n.a. n.a. 10.50 10.50 O Projects for the improvement of the environment Nb. 0 6 4 5 O Business with ecologic policies Nb. 2 ? 0 n.a.

O SO2 not expelled t/ year n.a. n.a. 45.60 45,60

O Projects leading to the anticipated obtaining of environmental license in the domain of the IPCC directive Nb; 0 4 3 3

O Business registered within EMAS Nb. 1 20 (40) 14 n.a.



3.2.6 Slovakia

The Basic Infrastructure Operational Programme (BIOP)

1 Basic data programme of the BIOP

2 Environmental priorities in Slovakia

An adequate supply of drinking water and reduction of water pollution to acceptable levels thanks to completion of technical infrastructure (water/wastewater network, sewage treatment plant) to ensure the protection of water from contamination. The main challenges are : - increasing the number of households connected to public water pipelines that meet the quality requirements; - improving the technical conditions in the drinking water distribution network to avoid high losses in the water supply; - improving the unsatisfactorily level of wastewater treatment and low rate of connection of population to sewerage systems. Proper disposal or utilization of waste and minimizing its production, through:

- development of waste collection systems and construction of equipment for processing different types of waste;

- closure of operating dumps with special conditions, reconstruction of old dumps, and construction of lacking landfills for solid municipal waste.

Global environmental security and protection of the atmosphere against pollutants. Support measures include:

- air protection based on emission limits, the best available technologies, and charges for pollution;

- harmonization of requirements for refuse incineration with EU requirements; - completion of air quality monitoring system of the Slovak Republic in light of EU

requirements; - introduction of emission quotas; - enforcing maximum utilization of renewable energy sources in the regions.

3 Description of the BIOP

The strategic objectives set at the beginning of the OP were as follows:

Water

- Increasing the population’s connection to sewerage networks and WWTPs; - Improving the quality of drinking water; - Taking measures to prevent or eliminate negative impacts of flood.

Objective 1 Programme location Slovakia Programme start year 2004 Programme end year 2006 (+ 2 years) Total programme duration 3 years (+ 2 years) ERDF budget in the field of environment 97,447,182 € National budget in the field of environment 39,762,573 €



Waste

- Closing down uncontrolled landfills and dumps not meeting the required conditions; - Creating a network of landfills meeting regulatory conditions; - Waste prevention and minimisation; - Introduction of separate waste collection systems; - Improving waste recovery.

Air Protection

- Further reduction of pollutant emissions at the emission sources; - Achieving better air quality mainly in towns and industrial areas; - Reducing the energy demands of the Slovak economy; - Accomplishing changes in the fuel base with the aim of using more environmentally

friendly fuels and renewable energy resources.

Table 3.28 : Environment budget allocation of the BIOP, by priority and mesure as well as by FOI

Priority Measure Field of intervention

(FOI) ERDF

National funds

Total


Environmental infrastructure

Improvement and development of the infrastructure for protection and rational use of waters

344 Drinking water

46.02 15.34 61.36 44.7% 345

Sewerage and purification

Improvement and development of the infrastructure for the protection of air

341 Air 22.83 11.93 34.76 25.3%

Improvement and development of the waste management infrastructure

343Urban and industrial waste

22.87 10.58 33.45 24.4%

Protection, Improvement and Regeneration of the Natural Environment

353


5.72 1.9 7.62 5.6%

Total 97.44 39.75 137.19 100.0%


Energy 0 0 0 0.0%

Other 5.72 1.9 7.62 5.6%

Note: Cd = code Source: Financial information from the WP1evaluation, 2008.



4 Discussion of the quantitative results of the BIOP

Drinking water and wastewater Projects in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure accounted for 45% of the total environmental allocation of the BIOP. They aimed at improving and developing the infrastructure for protection and rational use of waters

Table 3.29 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to water and wastewater

Indicator

Baseline (2004)

Target (2006)

Achieved (30.06.2008)Type Name Unit

O Length of newly built sewerage networks km 0 800 373.2

O Length of newly built water networks km 0 1,800 138

R Number of equivalent inhabitants connected to new sewerage networks and WWTP

EI 0 10,425 27,643

R Number of households connected to new water networks

Nb. 0 27,000 10,137

R Reduction of leaks from the water networks (%) % 22.1 21.9 n.a.

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; EI= equivalent inhabitant; WWTP = Waste Water Treatment Plants. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews and Mid-Term Evaluation Report on Implementation of BIOP to 30.06.2008 Due to the financial demand for construction of sewage and water networks and limited financial resources, not enough projects could be supported to fulfil the prognosis and only 373kms and 138kms of new networks were respectively built, compared to targets of 800kms and 1,800kms. These insufficient resources also explain why only 10,137 households have been connected to new water networks, compared to a target of 27,000. However the number of equivalent inhabitants connected to new sewerage networks and WWTP increased significantly as 27,643 EI got access to a connection as a result of the OP, largely exceeding the target value. It is estimated that this value has reached 44,556 at the end of 2008. Regarding the Reduction of leaks from the water networks (%), the achieved value will be known at the end of the implementation period upon the submission of monitoring reports by the final beneficiaries.

Waste

Projects related to waste management accounted to almost one quarter of the total allocations of the OP. Improvements in waste treatment were significant thanks to the OP and this reflects the effort made by the authorities to comply with the related EU Directives. As a consequence, 61 waste separation and recovery facilities have been built or modernised within the framework of the OP, exceeding a target set at 55.



Table 3.30 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to waste


Target (2006)


O Number of newly built or modernized waste separation facilities and waste recovery facilities

Nb. 0 55 61

O Amount of closed and/or remediate landfills Nb. n.a. n.a. 28

R Amount of separated and recovered waste t 0 1,100,000 221,710 Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews and Mid-Term Evaluation Report on Implementation of BIOP to 30.06.2008 . Regarding the quantity of separated and recovered waste, the indicator chosen by the MoEnv was too optimistic and without previous experience. Due to the financial demand for construction of waste management facilities and limited financial resources, not enough projects could be supported to fulfil the prognosis. Moreover, several projects have not yet been completed and a higher amount of separated and recovered waste is expected at the end of the implementation period.

Air

Projects related to air accounted to 25% of the allocations of the OP. The indicator on the Number of installations with installed or modernised technologies that reduce air emissions was adopted because of its good measurability. When defining the indicator value, the indicative list of projects was taken as a basis, containing mainly large, capital-intensive projects with a regional impact on air quality. Therefore, the value of eight implemented facilities was defined. In reality, the interest to submit large investment projects was not as high as expected and as a result, several smaller and less expensive projects were approved. That is the reason why a higher number of projects were supported and why the indicator was several times exceeded.

Table 3.31 : Quantitative targets and output/results/impacts related to air


Target (2006)


O Number of installations with installed or modernised technologies that reduce air emissions

Nb. 0 8 236

R Decrease of air emission and greenhouse gases % 0 -5% n.a. Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews and Mid-Term Evaluation Report on Implementation of BIOP to 30.06.2008. Regarding the decrease of air emissions and greenhouse gases, the achieved value will be known at the end of the implementation period upon the submission of monitoring reports by the final beneficiaries.

5 Effectiveness of the BIOP

Some shortcomings and problems arose during the realization of the individual projects. These included limited financial sources compared to demand, lack of managing experience and administrative delays. Moreover, not all projects have been completed to date, and a lot of new facilities are not yet fully operational. Therefore, the exact figures will be available at the end of the implementation period where achievements in line with the majority of the targets are expected. These elements explain why some quantitative targets have not been achieved.



The OP allocated €129.6m to environmental infrastructure which accounts to 8.2% of the total investments that were dedicated to environmental infrastructure in Slovakia between 2000 and 2006.


Only one quantitative target has been achieved (Number of equivalent inhabitants connected to new sewerage networks and WWTP). This is predominantly explained by the limited financial resources compared to the demand for construction of public sewage and drinking water network. The objective in terms of drinking water was thus not reached, and this is reflected by the proportion of population connected to public water supply, which is stagnating at around 85% (86.3% in 2006, compared to 84% in 2003). The OP was non-effective in decreasing the regional disparities between urban areas (connection rate of 94.5% in 2004) and rural areas which still lag significantly behind.

However, the OP was effective as regards to the objective of increasing the population’s connection to sewage network and WWTP, enhancing of the quality of living standards for inhabitants and decreasing of the regional disparities regarding water infrastructure.

These results are coherent with the situation that was characterizing the country in 2004: a less critical global connection rate to drinking water supply compared to the access to wastewater services, with a connection to total treatment at only 56.5% in 2004. As a consequence, it was logical to focus the efforts on wastewater, which still constitutes a priority as this ratio only slightly increased during the period, reaching 57.1% in 2006.

Waste

The OP was effective in building and modernising waste separation and recovery facilities, in coherence with the objective of developing separate waste collection and waste recovery systems. Moreover, several uncontrolled landfills were either closed or remediated, as these projects were the most popular and most easily accessible among the mayors. The realisations of the OP will contribute to improve the situation regarding these two main priorities and it is interesting to already observe an improvement as the proportion of municipal waste landfilled decreased from 81% to 77.7% between 2004 and 2006.

Air

Within this measure, the projects focused on changing the fuel base of energy sources, with the promotion of low-emission and renewable resources. Concretely, emission abatement technologies were installed, as well as emission monitoring systems. The quantitative indicators are not useful in this case to assess the effectiveness of the measure, especially as the decrease of air emission and GHG cannot yet be computed.



Annex Slovakia : Quantitative targets and output/ results/ impacts of the BIOP

Note: Type of the indicator: O=output, R = result; I=impact; EI= equivalent inhabitant; WWTP = Waste Water Treatment Plants. Source: WP2 database, 2008 and update from stakeholders’ interviews. Data for 2008 are from Mid-Term Evaluation Report on Implementation of BIOP to 30.06.2008

Priority Measure Indicator

Baseline (2004)

Target (2006)

Achieved (2006)

Achieved (2007)

Achieved (30.06.2008)

Type Name Unit

Environmental infrastructure

Improvement and development of the infrastructure for protection and rational use of waters

O Length of newly built sewerage networks km 0 800 4.7 166.7 373.2

R Number of equivalent inhabitants connected to new sewerage networks and WWTP

EI 0 10,425 844 20,979 27,643

O Length of newly built water networks km 24,168 25,968 24,258 24,303 24,306

R Number of households connected to new water networks

Nb. 1,738,000 1,765,000 1,740,885 1,748,008 1,748,137

Reduction of leaks from the water networks (%) % 22.1 21.9 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Number of flood measures implemented Nb. n.a. 23 n.a. 21.6 22.88 Improvement and development of the infrastructure for the protection of air

O Number of installations with installed or modernised technologies that reduce air emissions

Nb. 0 8 172 224 236

R Decrease of air emission and greenhouse gases % 0 -5% n.a. n.a. n.a.

Improvement and development of the waste management infrastructure

O Number of newly built or modernized waste separation facilities and waste recovery facilities

Nb. 0 55 26 58 61

R Amount of separated and recovered waste t 0 1,100,000 64,948 221,105 221,710

Amount of closed and/or remediate landfills

Nb. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 28

Protection, Improvement and Regeneration of the Natural Environment

O Number of newly built or reconstructed facilities for nature and landscape purposes

Nb. 0 27 38 47 50

R Percentage of protected areas with elaborated and/ or realized management plans

% 22% 50% n.a. n.a. n.a.

Preservation and/or improvement of protected areas condition % n.a. 10% n.a. n.a. n.a.



4. Task 4: Case studies

4.1 Regional Case studies : Main hypothesis to be examined – Lessons from task 1

The regional case studies aim at assessing if and how environmental investments contributed to the wider socio-economic development of a region and its catching up process with the rest of the EU and at analysing differences of effects between Objective 1 and 2 regions. The theoretical and empirical review presented in task 1 (see first intermediate report) on the potential role of environmental infrastructures in regional development has provided some pointers for the methodological framework to be used for regional case studies. These outcomes can be summarised as follows: 1. Both infrastructures and environment quality may be considered as public goods with

associated externalities. Public intervention is required to ensure that provision of these goods is adequate. The effectiveness of public intervention will depend on the benefits produced and the importance of externalities. Externalities will be partly determined by the public nature of each type of infrastructure.

2. The optimal supply of environmental infrastructures is reached when the costs (current and future) are equal to the benefits. But some trade-offs may appear between short-term and long-term objectives that have to be understood.

3. Benefits are of three main types: a. Environmental: at local level on air quality and natural resources (soil, land ,

forest, water) and at global level on climate change. b. Economic: different effects need to be considered:

i. direct effects on economic activities; ii. indirect effects as an external input into private production functions

(access to services) that can change firms’ behaviour and micro-decisions; iii. indirect effects on other factors of production (productivity of labour and

natural resources); iv. technological push that may increase innovation capacity inside the region.

c. Quality of life: i. improved sanitation ii. quality of rural/urban housing

4. Costs must take into account a. costs of infrastructure b. costs of maintenance c. indirect costs on economic activity: output reduction due to displacement of

activity; increased unit costs



5. Both issues (infrastructures and the environment) encompass short and long run effects, so dynamics are key to grasping the totality of their combined effects.

6. The optimal level of environmental quality for a specific region may depend of many various factors. The level of development may be one of the factors, especially for local pollutants, but other characteristics might be even more important: income inequality, for instance degree of openness, political system, and maybe others. It is still not clear what are the main drivers for determining the optimal environmental quality.

Based on this, the regional case studies aim at analysing

- The main characteristics of the region in the environmental fields as well as its socio/economic situation (Objective 1 or 2 region; main engine of growth and competitiveness position) at the beginning of the 2000-2006 period and the evolution.

- the rationale and quality of EU support: how have environmental measures supported by the ERDF contributed to the regional public investments strategy ? How is it integrated in a sectoral/regional strategy and articulated to other sources of funds ?

- The main results achieved in terms of the environmental situation. - The main effects on the economic/social situation by distinguishing if possible

direct/indirect effects as well as short/long term effects.

The pilot mission in the Norte Region was carried out in February 2009. Essential preparatory work was undertaken before the field mission to gather information and draw up an outline of the issues and questions that had to be covered. The main sources of information were:

- the annual reports and the mid-term evaluation on the OP Norte;

- statistics from WP2 database, Eurostat, EEA and the Portuguese Institute of Statistics;

- overview note on Portugal (task 2.1) and output indicators (task 3.1).

The outline (given in annex 5) had been submitted to the different stakeholders before the start of the mission.

The programme of the mission had a twofold objective: firstly, to meet the different managing authorities, notably from the Coordination Committee for Development of the Norte Region (CCDR-N); and secondly, to visit projects representative of ERDF interventions in the field of environment. The list of the persons met during the mission is given in annex 4.



4.2 Regional Case study Report

4.2.1 Economic and environmental features of the Norte Region at the beginning of the period

The regional economy

The main characteristics of the Norte Region economy at the beginning of the period were: A relatively low GDP per capita compared to the EU average (60.6% in 2000) and

to the national level of 74.5% which could be partly explained by a significantly higher population density than in the rest of the country, with 170.6 inhabitants per km² (111 for Portugal as a whole).

A heavy weight of industries accounting for 44% of employment in 2000 among which the textile and footwear sectors were important. Norte industry was traditionally exporting a significant part of its production, representing about 40% of Portuguese exports. But this economic activity produced relatively low added value products with low productivity and employed a large number of low skilled workers.

A concentration of economic activity in the urban areas where two-thirds of the population live, and in coastal areas. In that context, urban issues became more and more important with particularly critical intra-migration trends from rural to urban areas and from inland to coastal regions. Territorial cohesion also suffered from the insufficient development of non-metropolitan urban systems and of their relationship with surrounding rural areas.

Growing competition with external markets had put industry in the Norte Region under high pressure. At the beginning of the 2000s, the region suffered from a loss of competitiveness. The first main challenge for the Norte economy was to restore industry competitiveness by enhancing innovation and worker qualifications. The second main challenge was to diversify and regenerate the rural economy.

The environmental situation

At the beginning of the 2000s, the Norte Region had the poorest environmental services in Portugal.



Sensitive area

Less sensitive are

The region remained far below the target levels set by the European Directive29 in terms both of collection and of treatment, in particular for urban waste water. Indeed in 2001 only 55% of the population of the region was served by public sewerage systems, compared with 71% at national level, and the proportion of the population served by wastewater treatment plants was only 42% (55% for Portugal). Collection and treatment of wastewater was particularly critical in Norte Region because of its heterogeneity: high density of population in urban and coastal areas on one hand, a rural territory composed of many protected areas (40% of the territory) on the other, and between them a mixed zone with scattered population.

Source: National Water Institute INAG Moreover, given the industrial structure of the regional economy with a high number of textile factories which together produced a considerable amount of wastewater, the most critical environmental issue had always been the drainage and treatment of industrial wastewater in Norte Region. This problem had partially been solved by the late 1990s, in a large extent via ERDF co-financed projects that set up sewerage and treatment systems, particularly in rivers affected by textile factories, and by imposing municipal or inter-municipal regulations relative to industrial waste water discharge, which imply on-site treatment by the industry. Nevertheless, water quality and water resources management remain a problem. The quality of sea water was affected by the poor treatment of wastewater and was lower than the national average. As regards water supply, the situation of the region was more positive and closer to the national average and the targets set by European Directive30, with 79% of the population served. Prior to 2000 water was totally free in Norte Region. In terms of air quality and urban waste, the situation was less critical in Norte Region. Air quality improved in the 1990s and has been stable since the beginning of the 2000s.31 There are only a few localised problems, such as in Porto. The generation of urban waste in the region was lower than the national average: 381.8 kg/capita compared to 436 kg/capita. Moreover, massive investments had been made during the previous programme with the aim of closing the majority of dumps.

29 Directive 91/271/EC

30 Directive 98/83/EC

31 Avaliação da qualidade do ar na Região Norte 2006, CCDRN and Universidade de Aveiro, August 2008



4.2.2 The Institutional set up

Policy-making process

In 2000, Portugal was still a highly centralised country. In practice, Portugal remains the second most centralised country in the OECD area according to the share of total public revenue and expenditure generated at sub-national levels with a level close to 10%32. This indicator ranges between 20% and 50% for almost all other EU countries. Portugal’s traditionally centralised governance framework had a major influence on regional policies and their ability to take into account the specific assets of regions and to differentiate development strategies. Responsibilities for urban planning and the environment are shared between the central government and municipalities. But resources and competencies were at that time mostly vested at a central level. Local authorities are the more involved; despite of their high degree of autonomy and of their responsibilities (namely decentralized public services) they receive limited resources to implement their policies. The central government dominated the decision making process and applied an almost final product to the different territories. Moreover, the most important instruments for enhancing the regional industry competitiveness remained in the hands of the central level.

In the environmental sector

Water distribution, waste water sewerage and treatment, and solid waste are organised in two main systems: Downstream and Upstream.

Water distribution: The upstream system covers the infrastructures needed for catchments and “transportation” to main distribution centres. These are complex systems involving a large number of sub-catchment, treatment and water-supply-to-downstream systems. The downstream system relates to the municipal systems of water distribution.

Waste water: The downstream system relates to sewerage collection while the

upstream systems involve collection from downstream systems, transport and treatment of urban wastewater, with strong geographical dispersion and diversity of size and technical complexity.

Solid waste: As regards solid waste, downstream relates to collection of solid waste

while upstream is considered the waste separation centres and landfills receiving from more than one municipality.

32 Cfr OECD Territorial reviews – Portugal - 2008



These upstream systems involve in general either a large city (more than 100,000 habitants) or a group of municipalities using a common infrastructure. There are two types of upstream systems, the inter-municipal system in which municipalities collaborate to manage the activity (directly with their own staff or by concession) and the multi-municipal system in which a group of municipalities establish an agreement with a company of Águas de Portugal group (a public corporation which deals in water, waste water and solid waste). Downstream services are ensured by municipalities which charge a fee to consumers. Municipalities can decide on the fee to charge, as long as they follow the rules set out by the National Institute of Regulation of Water and Waste (IRAR). The municipalities have their environmental departments or divisions of environment. There is not any obligation regarding the dimension and respective powers. Only some municipalities deal with green environment, all need to manage grey environment. Two bodies are now in charge of the environmental sector at regional level:

Regional Coordination and Development Commission “Comissões de Coordenação e

Desenvolvimento Regional” (CCDR) are the deconcentrated bodies of the Ministry of Environment, Territorial Planning and Regional Development. The CCDR are now administratively and financially independent, responsible for the execution of environmental policies, spatial planning, regional development and technical support to local governements. Another competence of the CCDR is management of the EDRF Regional programmes and in this sense they are also in charge of promoting coordination with other regional bodies.

River Basin District Authority “Administrações das Regiões Hidrográficas” – with activities starting in October 2008, these authorities are vested with the competence to elaborate and implement the river basin management plan and help in the elaboration of plans of dams, estuaries and coastal zones; emission of water use licences; and implementation of the economic and financial regime (cost-recovery, etc), surveillance, and implementation of policies of the national water authority. These competencies were previously (and during the 2000-2006) attributed to the CCDR.

4.2.3 Environmental priorities

Environmental priorities in Portugal were defined in the Regional Development Plan 2000-2006, in which the EC framework support to Portugal was based. According to the environmental strategy underlined in the document, the environmental priorities of the country are based on four aspects:

- integration of the environment into development policy and territorial sectoral policies;

- conservation and enhancement of natural heritage in a strategy of conservation of nature and biodiversity;

- establishment of a strategic partnership with various stakeholders to achieve environmental modernisation of economic activities and of organizations;

- development of environmental education and information.



According to this strategic direction, environmental objectives were defined for key areas of the environment, including:

- water supply, wastewater treatment and solid waste: decreasing the asymmetries between Regions which remain significant;

- water: improving water quality and water resources management (the river basin authorities were enacted in 2008);

- preventing soil degradation and the risk of desertification, aggravated by weather events (drought and heavy rain) and the extent of forest fires;

- improving the planning on the expansion of metropolitan areas and other urban areas;

- decreasing the dependence of road transportation and use of private cars and developing other modes of transport, in particular rail;

- decreasing the high intensity of energy use and carbon emissions caused by economic activities and patterns of mobility and consumption, leading to a close direct relationship between economic growth and the increase of energy consumption and emissions of Greenhouse Gases.

Sectoral plans have been established at national level for planning and managing waste and water systems: the Strategic Plan for Urban Solid Waste (PERSU I), approved in 1997 and reprinted in 1999, was the main reference tool at the beginning of the programme for planning and managing urban waste. This plan has, inter alia, quantified short, medium and long terms targets for reduction of production of solid waste, and of recycling, organic recovery and incineration with energy recovery as well as landfill. The 2000-2006 Strategic Plan for Water Supply and Wastewater Sanitation (PEAASAR) established the main strategic lines, assumptions, objectives and operational priorities for 2000-2006, to ensure the proper use of EU funds available in the 2000-2006 period, and in so doing it played a key role in the structuring of the entire sector of water supply and waste water treatment in Portugal33.

4.2.4 Norte regional development strategy

The Norte OP 2000-2006 was the main regional policy document. It has been designed to match the main objectives of the regional strategy with the institutional organisation of Portugal. The programme covered mainly the fields managed by local or regional authorities while the others, such as economy and research and innovation, were managed centrally.

33 The PEEASAR I had four key objectives: (1) increasing the % of the population with access to water supply (to 95%)

and wastewater services (to 90%); (2) promoting water supply and wastewater services with quality and continuity; (3)promoting the implementation of integrated solutions (plurimunicipal) and entrusting the management of systems to companies; (4) obligation to establish adequate tariffs for using these public services.



For the programming period 2000-2006, initial work started at the national level. A national paper came out of these discussions fixing the main priorities for actions at regional level and for the use of CSF. Three strategic priorities were defined: 1. improve the qualifications of the population, so as to increase their employment and

promote social cohesion;

2. promote regional competitiveness factors and valuate territorial productive systems;

3. promote the conditions for a sustainable and balanced territory.

Based on this, the design of the regional programmes was set up by central government and was identical for all regions. The first axis addressed primarily the actions of municipalities, axis 2 addresses inter-municipal and sub-regional aspects, and axis 3 corresponded to the implementation of national measures in the region. In this way the CCDR has established a strategy for the region, mainly in their areas of action that will be undertaken through axes 1 and 2. This strategy has been adjusted via negotiation with the central government on the framework of the regional programmes, and also with the municipalities on defining specific actions to implement; examples are the choice of areas for implementation of inter-municipal actions, or choice of cities in which to implement urban rehabilitation, or the pacts on specific issues for regional development. Each regional OP included a set of measures that are still under the central government responsibility. These measures implemented in the region were decided directly by the Central Government. Specific programs related to Central Government responsibilities such as Science and Innovation, Economy, Education or even part of the environmental sector also remain centralised, designed and managed by the Central Government. In the Norte Region, transversal objectives were clearly identified at the start but the structure of the OP has made it difficult to translate the strategy into a clear articulated regional programme.



Figure 4.1 : Norte Programme – Priorities and environmental measures

1. Infrastructural network for competitiveness in an openeconomy

2. Balance of the regional urban system: themetropolitan region and the rural areas in the interior

3. Qualification of the urban and natural environment

4. Importance of the policies towards specific groups(childhood, youth and old)

5. People qualifications and the employment growth

6. A qualified employment supply

7. Integrated policies against social exclusion, qualityimprovement and the equity of opportunities in theaccess to the main public services

8. Industrial policy toward the SME’s and the promotionof Region image of quality

9. Rural and agricultural development in the context ofEuropean and National policies

10. Modernization of the institutional framework to supportdevelopment

Water and sanitation infrastructure

Urban environment

10 key issues at stake 2 main objectives for environmental measures

Axis 1 Aid to municipal and intermunicipal investments

•Local environment systems (1.1)•Territorial qualification (1.3)•Specific actions of territorial improvement (1.6)•Basic sanitation – priority intervention areas (1.9)

Axis 2 Spatial Integrated actions •Douro (2.1)•Minho Lima (2.2)•Between Douro and Vouga (2.3)•Vale de Sousa (2.4)•Qualification of cities and metropolitan area(2.6)

Axis 3 Regional sectoral measures by central Government

•Health (3.8)•Environment (3.16)

Actually, the Norte OP had three sectoral components :

1. Transport covering the metro of Porto and the rehabilitation of roads in the metropolitan areas;

2. Environment aiming at reducing territorial imbalances and improving the quality of life as well as, in the medium term, attracting more qualified people;

3. The remaining part covering a large set of interventions notably in education, training, sport and culture.

Two critical environmental issues were placed at the forefront addressing some of the main challenges at regional level: water supply and sanitation and urban environment in a context of growing urban population. Environmental measures have been mainly driven by specific objectives linked to the water sector situation on the one hand, and on the other by a need to rehabilitate some urban and coastal zones.



4.2.5 Environment actions taken

Table 4.1 : Estimates of environmental expenditures in Norte Region during the 2000-2006 period

Norte Region

Total

environmental

expenditure

Out of which

environmental

investment

Waste

management

Water supply ‐

waste water

management

General Govt 1564.1 991.9 117.8 473.6

of which local authorities 1180.4 756.7 117.6 377.7

ERDF National Counterpart Fund 373.0 42.0

ERDF OP Norte 707.0 305.6 27.0 278.6

ERDF Ambiente 99.2 0.0

Cohesion Fund 826.4 826.4 146.2 680.3

Total grant 3569.7 2165.9 291.0 1432.5

Private sector 100.9 55.8 20.4

Total public + private 3569.7 2266.8 346.8 1452.9

EIB loans 358.1 358.1

Total 3927.7 2624.9 346.8 1452.9

Per capita (annual average) 1048.8 700.9

% Of GDP 1.4% 0.9% Source: INE, CCDR, Eurostat (COFOG data), own estimates,

The amount of environmental investments made in the Norte region during the period 2000-2006 is difficult to estimate precisely for two main reasons: regional data on national resources spent in the sector are not available for the whole period neither the amount invested by the private sector. An extrapolation has been made based on the national data by assuming that the level of national funds allocated to the Norte Region is correlated to the % of population living in that region. This is in line with available regional data for 2006 & 2007. Data on private investment are available at Nuts II level for 2005-2006-2007. The amount for the whole programming period has been estimated by using the proportion of expenditures done at national level in 2005/2006 compared to the whole period. Some interesting elements can be pointed out:

- At national level, capital expenditures accounted for nearly 50% of all expenditures in the environmental sector. This must be similar in the Norte region.

- Investment per capita is high when compared to European countries (see task 2), but similar to the national average. The Norte Region has thus not benefited of a higher level of investment as could have been expected regarding its position and the objective of reducing regional asymmetries.

- These estimates confirmed by external experts shows that a large part (50% of public investments made) of environmental investments has been covered by European funds (besides the required counterpart, national investments often amplify the EU co-financed projects).

- The CF has played a major role in environmental investment while according to our assumptions, the ERDF has contributed to nearly 20% mainly through the OP Norte but also through the Ambiente programme which accounted for nearly 2.5% of the environmental public expenditures made in the Norte Region.

- The contribution of the private sector is relatively lower in the Norte region than in the rest of the country for all types of investments and especially for investment



related to air protection (only 3% of investments made by the private sector in this field has been carried out in the Norte Region).

During the 2000-2006 period, efforts have been concentrated on waste water collection and treatment infrastructures as expected. Around 75% of waste management expenditures are now current outlays, mainly for maintaining and operating the systems. Remaining investments have been funded by the CF and local authorities. Protection of biodiversity and landscape represented also a main area for public intervention and was taken in charge by Central government and local authorities; they mainly concern implementation of the coastal territorial planning, rehabilitation of dunes and coastal erosion, maintenance/rehabilitation of inland water bodies, management of protected areas. It has not been possible to analyse in details the set of operations made by the EIB. Loans from EIB are typically used for the water sector and the whole hydrologic cycle - from abstraction and distribution of potable water to the construction of waste water treatment plants. Co-funding schemes between the EIB and the ERDF/CF existed where the latter provided the necessary conditions to receive the EIB loan. This leverage effect was also observed for the financing of the metro in Porto and seems not to be so exceptional. The involvement of the private sector in environmental fields has grown during the 2000-2006 period. In 2004, private investments amounted to €13 mio and reached €21 mio in 2006 mainly due to higher investments related to waste water. Nevertheless the private sector seemed less active in the Norte Region compared to the country as whole: only 20% of the investments related to water and waste in Portugal have been undertaken in the region while for investment regarding air protection, the share of the region is less than 3%.

4.2.6 ERDF contribution to environmental policies in the Norte Region

Role of ERDF : National and regional OP

The ERDF contribution to the Norte environmental sector came from the regional OP as well as from the national thematic programs in particular the Ambiente program but also the Economy OP. Each program showed a strong focus:

- the regional OP has mainly supported waste water collection and treatment, as well as the urban environment;

- the EOP has been used in priority for protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural environment;

- the Economy OP has provided a significant amount of resources for renewable energies and energy efficiency.



Measures

1312 Preservation of the environment

152 & 162. Environment‐friendly

technologies, clean and economical energy

technologies

33 Energy infrastructures (production,

delivery)

34 Environmental infrastructure (including water)

343 Urban and industrial waste (including

hospital and dangerous waste)

344 Drinking water (collection, storage,

treatm

ent and distribution)

345 Sew

erage and purification

35 Planning and rehabilitation

351 Upgrading and Rehabilitation of

industrial and military sites


353 Protection, improvement and

regeneration of the natural environment

354 Maintenance and restoration of the

cultural heritage

Total by

measure

% for each

measure

1.1. Local environmental systems 4,3 91,0 143,8 239,1 34,0%

1.3. Territorial qualification 9,4 124,8 0,2 134,5 19,1%

1.4. Regional and local valorization and promotion 0,2 0,2 0,0%

1.6. Specific actions of territorial improvements 2,2 34,4 36,6 5,2%

1.7. Bonus rates in credit lines of municipal investments 0,6 1,2 0,2 1,8 3,9 0,6%

1.9. Basic sanitation ‐ Priority intervention areas 8,7 7,5 21,8 38,0 5,4%

Total of Axis 1 0,0 0,0 13,0 0,0 99,2 166,8 11,8 0,0 161,2 0,2 0,0 452,3 64,3%

2.1. Douro 0,9 23,3 1,8 2,3 28,3 4,0%

2.2. Minho Lima 9,7 11,7 0,9 22,3 3,2%

2.3. Between Douro and Vouga 0,4 11,2 1,6 13,2 1,9%

2.4. Vale do Sousa 13,6 4,0 17,6 2,5%

2.6. Qualification of towns and metropolitan re‐

qualification (POLIS) 87,7 87,7 12,5%

Total of Axis 2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,9 34,5 122,8 4,2 6,3 169,2 24,1%

3.8. Health 0,1 0,1 0,0%

3.11. Agriculture and regional development 1,7 1,7 0,2%

3.14. Economy 26,4 4,5 30,9 4,4%

3.16. Environment 19,5 14,7 14,7 48,9 7,0%

Total of Axis 3 1,7 26,4 0,0 19,5 0,0 0,1 4,5 0,0 14,7 14,7 0,0 81,6 11,6%

Total Regional OP by FOI 1,7 26,4 13,0 20,0 99,2 166,9 17,2 34,5 298,7 19,1 6,3 703,0

1.1 Preservation and valorisation of the natural patrimony 19,3 19,3

1.2 Support and protection of natural resources 23,9 23,9

1.3 Information, sensibilisation and environment

management 2,8 2,8

2.1Improvement of the urban environment

49,4 49,4

2.2 Support to environmental sustainability of economic

activities

3,9 3,9

Total ERDF by FOI 1,7 3,9 26,5 13,0 20,0 99,3 167,2 17,3 34,5 348,5 65,2 6,3 802,3

% for each FOI 0,2% 0,5% 3,3% 1,6% 2,5% 12,4% 20,8% 2,2% 4,3% 43,4% 8,1% 0,8%

Axis 1:

Aid to municipal

and

intermunicipal

investments

Axis 2:

Integrated

actions of the

territorial basis

Axis 3 Regional

sectoral

measures by

the central

government

Regional OP

Priority 1:

sustainable

management of

natural

resources

Priority 2:

Integrating the

environment in

economic and

social activities

OP Ambiente

The Regional OP According to the last figures available (situation at end-2007), €2,118m have been disbursed by ERDF for the Norte Region OP. Of this total, one-third (€703m) was dedicated to environmental projects, €771m (36,4%) was used for transport, a large proportion for the construction of the Metro do Porto, while the remaining 30% was directed to other measures, mainly in education, formations, sports and culture. Nearly 85% of environmental measures were allocated to the two main critical issues, leaving limited resources for other uses. Expenditures for environmental infrastructure (water supply, wastewater and solid waste) amounted to 42% of the environmental expenditures, a share equal to the proportion of ERDF funds dedicated to the rehabilitation of urban areas (€299m) In practice the ERDF investment on Regional OPs was designed complementarily to the Cohesion Funds investment in water supply, wastewater drainage and treatment and solid waste management within a logic of integrated systems, with Cohesion Funds financing upstream “high” regime while EDRF finances downstream “low” regime (final distribution to the client) in order to maximise the functionality of the systems. One of the reasons that explain this partition is the organisation of the water sector where municipalities are mainly in charge of the distribution while Águas de Portugal has the financial capacity to develop the complex upstream system throughout the country. During the 2000-2006 period, the ERDF regional OPs were considered as a main instrument to support local authorities investments. As Águas de Portugal is now entering more and more into the downstream part of the operations, the situation is evolving.

Table 4.2 : Environmental measures – Approved expenditures 2000-2008

Source: Annual reports, 2007



The majority of the targets have been reached or even exceeded, especially in wastewater treatment which was one of the priorities of the OP and for which funds were reallocated following the mid-term evaluation. Measure 1.9 (basic sanitation) was created following the mid-term evaluation in order to solve the remaining problems in basic sanitation. The priority intervention areas were the transition zones (between urban and rural areas) where the population is particularly scattered. 51% of the funds for this measure were used for wastewater treatment, 15% for water supply and 34% for mixed interventions. Moreover, a large part of the effort was dedicated to improving the quality of service for populations already connected, which is not reflected by the indicator of kilometers of pipes built. In urban rehabilitation, some targets had not been achieved at the time of reporting but it must be stressed that some of the achieved values were compiled before the end of the programme and that there had also been delays in approval of some projects.

Table 4.3 : Synthesis of main output indicators.

Target value

Achieved value

1 Number of projects in water supply number n.a. 3372 Number of projects in wastewater number n.a. 3523 Number of projects in municipal solid waste number n.a. 74 New capacity of waste treatment created million m³ n.a. 1405 Number of unauthorised landfills closed/ rehabilitated number n.a. 106 Water supply network (constructed, improved, or rehabilitated) km 4070 43477 Wastewater network (constructed, improved, or rehabilitated) km 2526 27188 Water treatment plants (constructed, improved, or rehabilitated) number n.a. 219 Daily capacity of water treatment plants constructed m³/day n.a. 605710 Wastewater plants (constructed, improved, or rehabilitated) number n.a. 50911 Daily capacity of wastewater treatment plants constructed m³/day n.a. 39690

12 Capacity of waste treatment on improved facilitiesmetric

tonne/dayn.a.

360

Nb. Indicator UnitOP Norte

Source: Annual Report 2007 The Environmental OP (EOP) 30% of the EOP has been allocated to the Norte Region, mainly for preserving natural resources and natural patrimony as well as for improving the urban environment (an additional contribution to the POLIS programme). The specific measure dedicated to support projects from private companies (measure 2.2) was less used in the Norte Region (only 14% of the funds were allocated to the Norte Region), which is in line with the limited investments made by companies in that field (see previous point). As mentioned in the analysis of the effectiveness of the EOP (section 3.2.5), there has been a close coordination with regional OPs, having as a central concern the avoidance of repetitions in the co-financing of projects. This is particularly true in the regionally focused interventions of the central government priority axis. Some criteria were defined à priori such as: EOP focused in Natural Parks while regional OPs focused on other Nature 2000



sites; the EOP funded rehabilitation of urban river bed stretches or construction of urban parks, while regional OPs funded other urban interventions and the EOP tends to fund larger investments. For measure 2.1 of the EOP, mainly urban intervention, the National POLIS Coordination Bureau34 supervised the proposals from all different funding sources within the scope of the POLIS programmes. The Economy OP It is worth noting that the Economy Operation Programme co-financed the installation of 586.5 MW, within 76 wind power plants and 11 mini-hydro power plants (with a cost of €624.5 million). In addition, the program has spent €121 million in energy efficiency, which also includes investments in solar power and biomass use. The figure below, from the Economy OP 2007 report, shows the environmental impact of the renewable energy projects by region35 (on the left) with the largest impact being in the Norte region (63%, with an emission reduction of 1572 kton CO2/year), and the contribution of the energy source for the impact (on the right) in the entire country showing the large contribution of wind energy.

Figure 4.2 : Environmental impact of the renewable energy projects by region

The Norte region absorbed about 22% of the funds for energy efficiency. The energy co-generation systems contributed to 86.5% of the investment in the entire country, and for the reduction of 662 771 tons of CO2/year. One third of this investment was directed to the use of natural gas in thermoelectric power plants. The remainder was invested in other types of energy producing systems. In this typology, it is worth mentioning the project of changing public illumination mercury bulbs to sodium bulbs reducing emissions in 48 813 tons of CO2/year. The Norte region absorbed 45% of this national €12 million project.

34 The POLIS programme aim at qualification of towns and metropolitan re-qualification and improving quality of life in the cities.

Specifically on environment it focused on building side walks and bicycle lanes, building parks and green spaces, rehabilitating rivers and river margins, protecting dunes or preventing coastal erosion and solving environmental threats.

35 Azores and Madeira regions are not represented.



4.2.7 Main results achieved in terms of the environmental situation

Table 4.4 : Environmental situation of the Norte Region

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Residue in surface water (kg per capita) n.a. 19 15 19 22Coast: % of beaches with water of poor quality n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9,6Population served by public water supply systems (%) 79,0 81,0 83,0 83,0 84,0

Population served by public sewerage systems (%) 55,0 56,0 60,0 61,0 64,0Population served by wastewater treatment plants (%) 42,0 43,0 49,0 52,0 55,0Proportion of wastewater treated (%) 73,0 73,0 81,0 91,0 88,0

Urban solid waste (kg/hab) n.a. 381,8 388,5 389,5 388,8Urban waste selectively collected per inhabitant (kg/ hab) n.a. 12,1 15,1 19,1 22,0Proportion of urban waste selectively collected (%) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6

Sources: 2007 Operational report on OP Norte, INE, Anuario Estatistico Regional, Urban Audit

In terms of waste collection and treatment

As regards solid waste, the situation remained stable: waste generation, still lower than the national average, did not increase significantly, helped by low economic growth. ERDF investment in waste collection and treatment, though limited, has been done complementarily to Cohesion fund. Concretely, the regional programme spent over 15 million on RESIDOURO a multi-municipal encompassing 10 municipalities. It has also spent 11 million euro for the environment requalification – roofing – of the waste separation unit of Vale do Ave encompassing six municipalities. It has also performed other smaller projects namely on information. Even if the aspect of waste generation and prevention has not been dealt by the Regional Programme, some significant improvements were observed during the period 2000-2007. Indeed, in 2000, only 3,4% of urban waste were collected selectively, compared to 8,4% in 2007. The amount of waste used to produce compost has also increased: from 42 thousand tons in 2000 to 151 thousand in 2007. Moreover, in 2000, 170 thousand tons of waste were still destined to garbage dumps. Finally, the target of 3,4 millions inhabitants served by waste treatment has been exceeded. Urban audit index for the amount of collected waste was 0.46 (scale 0-1) in Braga in 2004 and waste processed in landfill was 95% satisfactory, compared with UA cities. For Porto in 2004 the index for the amount of waste collected was satisfactory (0.7) but the degree of satisfaction with the waste processed in landfill was low.

In terms of water supply and waste water collection and treatment

Almost all the water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants are new, whereas the extension of the water distribution and sewerage are new or rehabilitated, though this was not clearly assessed by the programme monitoring. In some cases the pipes had to be replaced.



As regards the Water Framework Directive, it is to be stressed that RBD authorities started functioning in October 2008. No plans are defined yet. Regarding the WFD objectives, there is still a way to go in order to achieve them. In fact, in 2007 the proportion of population served by wastewater is 78%, while the treatment covers 71,5%. It is worth noting that nevertheless there has been an enormous effort in the period 2000-2006 with the population served by wastewater increasing from 58% and 43% respectively for sewerage and treatment. Regarding quality, as defined by the parameters set by National Water Institute, water in northern region varies from good to reasonable in the coastal areas, and is bad at the River Minho (border with Spain) in 75% of the stations. There are still some stations registering very bad water in the Vouga (a bit more than 30% of stations), Douro (less than 20%), and Ave/Leça (about 25%). In terms of new treatment technologies introduced, there has been 387 new wastewater treatment plants built until 31.12.2007 and most have bacteriological (secondary) treatment. As regards management, improvements were implemented. There are verticalised system – multimunicipal, the management held by municipality associations, either with own staff or with subcontractors. There is good articulation between upstream and downstream systems. Although water tariffs are in the process of being harmonized, there are large discrepancies between values, within the limits imposed by the regulatory authority.

Graph 4.1 : Environmental situation at national/regional level (2005)

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Population served by public water supply systems (%)

Population served by public sewerage systems (%)

Population served by wastewater treatment plants (%)

Proportion of wastewater treated (%)

Proportion of urban waste selectively collected (%)

Norte

Portugal



In terms of reducing GHG emission

Energy efficiency is a relatively new concept in Portugal. The national strategy has been published in 2008. In Portugal the energy consumption per capita is 1.7 tep (UE average 2.6 tep) and in 2006 there has been a decrease. Between 1984 and 2004 the electricity consumption for domestic use has increased at a rate of 5.6% per year. Portugal has the commitment of producing 45% of the electricity by renewable means (including dams) by 2010, and using 10% of bio-fuels. The Norte region produced in 2006, 15 840 MW/h of energy, 1 178 MW/h of which by wind, 8 518 MW/h dams, 6 142 MW/h thermal. In the new framework support 2007-2013 renewable energies and energy efficiency will be dealt at the regional OP. Promotion of the use of renewable energies and energy efficiency was not a part of OP Norte but mainly addressed through the Environmental OP and the Economy OP. However, the OP Norte has contributed in reducing GHG emissions, particularly through the major expenditure of the regional programme: the construction of the light railway of Porto (metro do Porto). This has contributed to diminish by 11 thousand the presence of vehicles per day in Oporto, and to the utilization by passengers of metro instead of bus. This would imply in 2005-2007 a decrease of tons of CO, ranging from 130 (if only the change of public transportation is taken into account) to 300 (including the diminution of cars). Even though the metro has emitted 178 t CO2 per year, the balance remains positive. The incentives provided by the Environmental OP for private investment in environmentally friendly technologies and energy efficiency do not seem to be particularly effective in the Norte Region. The use of this specific measure has been quite limited and available figures on private investment since 2004 in that field do not indicate any upward movement.

4.2.8 Contribution to regional territorial development

Table 4.5 : Economic performances of the Norte Region

Economic performance 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

GDP/capita (PPS; EU25=100) 60,6 60,7 59,8 58,6 56,9 57,5 n.a.

Employement rate (of the group 15‐64) 68,0 69,1 68,4 67,0 66,3 65,9 66,3

GDP Annual growth rate n.a. 3,0 ‐1,4 ‐2,6 0,9 1,0 n.a.

Investment in % GDP 22,6 23,3 22,4 21,1 20,9 n.a. n.a.R&D in % GDP 0,2 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,7 0,7 n.a.Migration flows 0,56 0,64 0,66 0,60 0,48 0,35 0,23

Labour producitivity (GDP per employed in PPS) 20094 20268 20137 19822 20013 20318 n.a.Source: Eurostat

During the 2000-2006 period, the Norte Region’s economy suffered heavily from external shocks and a loss of competitiveness at the beginning of the 2000s. Real GDP experienced two consecutive years of recession in 2002-03 (-1.4% and -2.6%), while the EU25 economy was growing at an annual rate of 1.25%; the growth of Norte Region remained limited during the following years.



The unemployment rate increased massively as a consequence of GDP reduction while labour productivity rose very slowly. In 2005, the unemployment rate was near 9%, the second highest level in Portugal well above the national average (7,5%). In 2001, it was still under 4%. The investment rate as a percentage of GDP has decreased raising concerns for the renewing and adjustment of regional productive capacities. At the end of the 2000-2006 period, the Norte region was not able to reverse significantly the declining trend of the economy and to put forward the necessary conditions for regaining its competitiveness. Contribution of ERDF environmental measures to the adjustment process

A first but significant effect of the EU funds has been to support macroeconomic adjustement of the country. Portugal has made major efforts to reduce its budget deficit since 2000 in order to achieve the European macroeconomic convergence criteria. European funds have thus permitted support for the poorer regions through massive transfers to finance infrastructure and basic public services with a view to reducing regional income disparities36 in a context of reduced macroeconomic imbalances. The role played by the change in environmental infrastructures in the regional structural adjustment process appears to have been limited.

Basic infrastructures were not enough for addressing the big challenges the region had to face in terms of competitiveness. These investments were not integrated in a comprehensive regional strategy addressing the most important issues such as worker qualifications, innovation capacities, productivity increase and cost reduction as well as the integration of more remote areas.

One of the main difficulties for developing a more integrated approach at regional level has been the pre-eminent role taken by the national authorities, first by using national thematic programmes for dealing with the economy (and energy) and innovation, and second by maintaining a strong influence on the regional programme and the way funds are allocated (mainly through the axis 3). The management authorities of the regional OP were neither involved nor even informed of the funds allocated in the region through national thematic programmes. The centralised institutional set up also raised problems at the implementation stage partly due to the fact that the interaction between the regional representations of the different ministries was not very strong. The different sectoral programs have been implemented vertically without coordination at regional level. The CCDR-Norte didn’t even know what these programs such as Education, Health, Economy, Science and Innovation, Knowledge and culture have implemented in the region.

36 For more, see the recent OECD territorial reviews of Portugal, ISBN 978-92-64-00895-3 - 2008



Limited impact in terms of competitiveness

This assessment is in line with the conclusions of a recent OECD study 37 analysing Portuguese territorial policies and highlighting the following issues:

‐ In a context of fiscal deficit reduction, regional policy stands out as a major tool for implementing the competitiveness agenda.

‐ Past investments focusing on physical infrastructure and basic services – albeit credited with bringing about necessary improvements – were not enough to trigger an endogenous development dynamic based on competitive assets.

‐ Improvements have been brought about by the focus of past regional policy on physical infrastructure (better accessibility in terms of public services) but the limits of such choices have been recognised (agglomeration effects have tended to reinforce the already developed urban poles on the coast).

‐ There has been growing awareness that regions should not host accidental collision of sectoral policies that confuse economic agents via contradictory signals, but rather a carefully planned set of integrated and mutually reinforcing policies in accordance with a locality-based approach.

Moreover the intended contribution of environmental measure to regional development has been mainly oriented to improving the quality of the locality (including natural resources) and quality of life with a rather indirect contribution to economic development:

By improving the quality of life and the quality of the locality, the region expected to attract more qualified people and induce an upward trend in private investment;

A positive effect was also expected on tourism activities that depend partly on natural resources quality and cultural heritage.

Those measures aiming at rehabilitating urban areas, which represent an important part of the OP, had limited effects on the industrial sector. In some cases, projects were related to economic activity but the private sector has not been clearly involved and the effects are still to be seen (see box).

GAIA Polis The POLIS programme has supported the rehabilitation of eight cities, GAIA being one of them. The public company set up at the beginning of the period to manage the programme and will be closed at the end of June 2009. The budget amounted to €32m of which €13.8m came from the ERDF OP Norte (mainly through measure 2.6). A total of 23 projects were undertaken in various fields: rehabilitation of the fishing port; building of new warehouses for the fishing industry; rehabilitation of roads and construction of new roads to facilitate mobility; construction of pedestrian and bicycle tracks; setting up of municipal natural reserves; protection of dunes; basic infrastructures to permit construction of a Marina by private investors; de-pollution; and others. The municipality now expects that the private sector will take its turn in carrying out commercial investments.

37 OECD territorial reviews, Portugal, 2008



More often, projects have been undertaken for renovating urban spaces, green or not. The number of projects has been very high (around 200 under measure 1.3-territorial requalification of Norte OP) but usually of a limited amount (on average around €600 000 from the ERDF), scattered and isolated from other public investments.

The contribution to territorial development of environmental measures undertaken through axis 2 devoted to integrated actions on a territorial basis seems also to have been limited as again the most important share were used for rehabilitating urban environment. Four sub-regions were selected with the aim of enhancing territorial competitiveness. Three of the integrated action plans (Between Douro and Voga, Minho Lima, Vale do Sousa) aimed at reorganising the industrial tissue while the fourth (Douro) was dedicated to promoting tourism. Environmental measures could be undertaken if integrated into territorial planning. Only one sub-region used it for enhancing environmental infrastructures (a very limited project on solid waste). Meanwhile, two of the four sub-regions used between 25% and 40% of the fund for rehabilitating urban areas as well as industrial sites. ERDF has contributed to the POLIS programme dedicated to towns and metropolitan re-qualification. Eight cities selected by national authorities were addressed by this measure, which is being completed with the aid of national funds. Five of the eight cities were located along the coast and benefited of projects for protection of dunes, stabilisation of cliffs, improvement of beach zones and tracks for cycling.

Attractiveness enhanced thanks to an improved quality of life

All these measures may have contributed to improving the environmental performance of the country, as emphasised by the mid-term evaluation of the environmental OP, especially by improving the urban environment and the coastline, which is justified by the high percentage of the population density on the coast. The attractiveness of the zone in terms of quality of life has been enhanced. Even if the need for such projects must not be underestimated, especially in dynamic urban regions that must attract highly qualified workers, the effects on the Norte Region competitiveness seem to be weak, at least in the short term.

Low spill-over effect of innovative technologies

Bringing technological innovation could also be another potential effect expected from public investments which may contribute to regional competitiveness. Innovation has been enhanced mainly through new equipments and technologies that have been integrated in the new/renovated infrastructures. The gains come mainly from embodied technologies. As seen in the field, the state of the art technologies have been used for waste water treatment and solid waste management (as for example in the GAIA water treatment system or the AMAVE solid waste project). Cooperation with universities has also been encouraged. But the effects remain limited. There have been some technical innovations such as electronic management of water leakages but the difficulty comes from the fact that innovation must be addressed by a national sectoral programme (Science and Technology). The innovations were localised and aimed at resolving specific issues.



Specific sectoral effects

Environmental measures have not contributed to lay down the necessary conditions for an economic recovery of the Norte region. Nevertheless some specific sectors have benefited directly or indirectly from the investments made, mainly the environmental sector, the building sector and the tourism activity.

Activities in the environmental sector

Table 4.6 : Activities linked to environment

Source: Eurostat The investments in environmental infrastructures, mainly in the water sector, have reinforced the activity in the sector but the macroeconomic effects have been quite limited. The number of companies in the recycling and water sectors more than doubled during the period 2000-2006 (although not all are private companies) but employment in these sectors remained more stable. One of the reasons is that labour productivity increased due to technological innovation and better system organisation. This was the case for example in the Gaia treatment plant: 350 people are now employed compared to 300 in 1999 while the services have significantly increased. The effect of such funding on the financial health and the organisation of the water and sanitation sector would have been interesting to analyse. But it lies beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless it is worth mentioning that municipal, inter-municipal companies, and the national holding (Águas de Portugal) responsible for environmental services can in some cases achieve good results: the Gaia municipal company has obtained a profit equivalent to more or less 10% of its turnover. This raises the question of tariffs (cf next section) and of the opportunity to extend the use of Public Private Partnership for funding such investments. Another related issue that was raised during the mission concerned the concessions given to private companies to run environmental services. In the Norte region, several municipalities have chosen to work under such arrangements. But it is becoming increasingly more convenient (partly due to funds distribution in the 2007-2013 programme) to extend the role of Aguas de Portugal to the downstream network. The effect could then be to reduce the role of the private sector in that field.

Activities linked to environment Sector 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Recycling 44,0 47,0 67,0 77,0 103,0 107,0 120,0Water (1) 34,0 36,0 45,0 54,0 58,0 84,0 88,0Recycling 3,1 7,5 3,5 1,1 5,8 8,6 7,2Water (1) 203,4 171,9 194,9 200,2 180,2 374,3Recycling 512,0 527,0 439,0 595,0 635,0 602,0 766,0Water (1) 3278,0 3448,0 3149,0 3489,0 3483,0 3485,0Recycling 6,0 14,2 8,0 1,8 9,1 14,3 9,4Water (1) 62,1 49,9 61,9 57,4 51,7 107,4

(1) Collection, purification and distribution of water

Number of local units

Gross investment in tangible goods (in millions euro

Number of persons employed

Investment per person employed (in thousands euro



Hotel establishments (No.) 436 435 435 450 452 461 5.7 %Total incomes (€) of hotel establishments 161,725 151,166 170,409 164,705 183,465 208,400 28.9%

Lodging incomes (€) of hotel establishments 104,621 98,557 115,003 107,873 121,558 137,200 31.1%Nights in hotel establishments by 100 inhabitants (No.) n.a n.a 89.4 92 102.7 112.9 26.3%

2006 20072002-07 Growth

rateTourism activity 2002 2003 2004 2005

Effects on the building sector The building sector has been one of the main beneficiaries of the investment made through the Norte OP. A project such as Metro do Porto employed many local workers during its construction and helped increase significantly the qualifications of local workers and companies, which are now using this experience on other projects abroad. It is quite difficult to identify the specific effects on the building industry of the investment made in environmental infrastructures. In any event the effects are mainly transitory except where the know-how gained could be used in other contexts and enhance the position of the companies on national and external markets. But no such effects were mentioned during the mission. Indirect effects on tourism activities It is difficult to pinpoint the specific impact of ERDF funds on the tourism sector in the Norte Region. Nevertheless, the improvement of the Porto airport (previous CF and ERDF funds on a previous programme), and an attractive clean and green environment and preserved cultural heritage are fundamental ingredients. The available figures related to tourism development shows a growing trend since 2000. The incomes earned have increased by around 30% while the number of nights in hotel/inhabitants has also significantly grown. Compared to the national average, this ratio is still low (375 for Portugal as a whole in 2007 compared to 113 in the Norte Region) but the rise has been higher (only 15% for Portugal as a whole between 2004 and 2007 compared to 26% in the Norte Region).

Table 4.7 : Tourism activity in the Norte Region

Source: National Institute for Statistics - Portugal These good performances may be partly due to the OP efforts to renovate urban environment and preserve natural resources. It may have improve the image of the Region and reinforce the attractiveness of the zone for tourists, and notably for local tourists.



Key messages from Norte Region case study Norte Region is an objective 1 region facing both a backwardness in terms of infrastructure, especially in waste water collection and treatment, and a deep economic crisis due to a rapid loss of competitiveness. The region has also suffered from a territorial cohesion problem, the population and economic activity being mainly concentrated in the urban coastal zone. The ERDF has provided nearly 20% of the financial resources for setting up waste water infrastructures, which was one of the main objectives of environmental/regional policies. On the whole, the contribution through the regional OP and various sectoral OPs (mainly the Environmental OP) has provided more than 20% of the environmental expenditure made during the 2000-2006 period in the Norte region. The ERDF contribution has ensured a high level of environmental investment despite the obligation imposed on the Portuguese Government to reduce macroeconomic imbalances and to limit its expenditure. Despite the huge improvement during the period, these investments were nevertheless insufficient to reach the objectives fixed by the EU Water Directive and to reduce significantly the regional asymmetries within the country. The ERDF OP was designed complementarily to the CF investment within a logic of integrated systems, with the CF financing upstream networks, while ERDF finances downstream components. No problem of coordination has been reported even if the management and organisation of the downstream part raises some concern. The regional ERDF OP has been considered as a main tool for supporting local authorities and providing them with the necessary resources for implementing their policies. A large part of those resources managed by municipalities or at a inter-municipal level were devoted to urban rehabilitation and territorial qualification. The effects of such projects are difficult to assess, and are mainly used for improving the quality of living conditions and the image of the zone. The contribution of ERDF funds to regional development appears to be limited and concentrated on some specific sectors. They didn’t permit, at least in the short term, the addressing of the main regional weaknesses hampering economic growth. The main reasons are:

- The institutional organisation of the State, highly centralised at the beginning of the period, that explains why sectoral approaches rather than regional integrated strategies have been applied to manage the allocation of ERDF funds.

- The lack of a coherent and comprehensive regional strategy into which the environmental infrastructures ERDF programme are integrated. The main difficulties have been, on one hand, to articulate the regional strategy with the program design and on the other hand, to coordinate different levels of decision making.

- A limited involvement of the private sector at all levels: within the environmental sector and in the other sectors that could have benefited from urban rehabilitation (at least to identify their expectations or needs).

The improvement of living conditions may have contributed to the good performance seen in the tourism sector since 2002.



4.3 Next steps

The upcoming months will be devoted to undertaking the regional case studies. The regions selected are presented in the table below. The pilot case study has raised some questions regarding the methodological framework that should be applied. It is now under revision.

Table 4.8 : Regional case studies

Member State

Region or thematic

programme Obj.

Level of GDP/head

Population density

Share (%) of employment

% of environment into ERDF38

Agri. Industry Services TOT env.

FOI 3439

Greece Central Macedonia

O1 68.2 101.2 12.6 24.9 62.5 20.3% 6.7%

France 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 131.8 810 1.5 18.7 79.8 45.4% 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 O1 56.7 109.8 23.1% 21.7%

Poland Malopolskie O1 43.4 23.1 27.9 49.0 (integrated regional development OP) 29.3% 15.3%

Source: ADE, 2008.

4.4 Case study on waste prevention and management of waste in Catalonia (Spain)

4.4.1 Main hypothesis to be considered

The strategic evaluation of 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 volume of waste generated. This is the case for Spain and for Catalonia especially. However, in spite of this high increase of waste production over the past years, little ERDF funds were allocated to waste management. This case study tackles several questions. Decoupling GDP growth from waste generation is one major issue of waste strategies. The case of Catalonia will be analyzed on this respect. The waste management strategy of Catalonia is explored and in particular ERDF

38 Based on all programs containing an environmental dimension.

39 FOI 34: environmental infrastructures



contributions to this strategy. The small allocation of ERDF funds for waste management is another question tackled in this case study. The five-stage waste hierarchy promoted by EU-Regulations and reinforced in the newly revised Waste Framework directive establishes the general framework of interventions i.e. prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling, other recovery operations and as a last resort, safe and environmentally sound disposal.

4.4.2 General strategic context

4.4.2.1 General context for Catalonia

Catalonia covers a total area of 32,106.5 km2, and at the beginning of 2007 had a population of 7,168 million people. Only 6% of the total population lives in rural areas. The population is mainly concentrated on the coastal areas, particularly the metropolitan area of Barcelona.



The economic development in Catalonia has shown sustained growth since the 1980s, parallel to the growth of the rest of Spain. The evolution of GDP per capita for the period 2000-2006 (see graph 4.2) shows that Catalonia is 10-15 points above the EU average and significantly above the Spanish average.

Graph 4.2 : GDP /capita (PPS per inhabitant in % of the EU-27 average)

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

year

GDP per capita (PPC)

Catalonia

Spain

Euro zone

EU-27

Source: Catalan Statistics Institute

Regarding the employment rate, Catalonia has been characterised as a region that creates employment. According to the European regional statistics Catalonia’s employment rate increased from 61% (ages 15-64) in 1999 to 71% in 2007. It should be noted that Catalonia has known a significant population growth over the period 1998 to 2007 by 18% (from 6,09 to 7,168 million inhabitants).40

4.4.2.2 GDP growth and waste generation in Catalonia

The evolution of Catalonia’s GDP, municipal waste generation and population over the 2000-2006 period is shown in table 4.9 below and discussed hereafter.

40 Source: © Institut d'Estadística de Catalunya



Items GDPMunicipal

waste

Municipal waste/unit of

GDP Population

Units / years

in billion €

millions tons

ton/million €

in million inhabitants

per capita day in kg

per capita year in kg

2000 126,281 3,418 27 6.21 1.51 5502001 135,709 3,453 25 6.31 1.50 5482002 144,746 3,722 26 6.44 1.58 5782003 155,332 3,989 26 6.59 1.66 6052004 168,101 4,131 25 6.73 1.68 6142005 180,882 4,188 23 6.87 1.67 6092006 195,857 4,258 22 7.02 1.66 607

Growth rate 06/00 55% 25% -20% 13% 10% 10%

Municipal Waste

Table 4.9 : Evolution of GDP, municipal waste production and population over the 2000-2006 period in Catalonia

Source: ADE based on data from the Institut d'Estadística de Catalunya Figures in table x show that Catalonia has experienced constant growth in GDP of 55% in current prices (base 2000) over the period 2000-2006. Municipal waste generation has been increasing by 25% over the same period, owing to the following factors: - the population growth registered in Catalonia (13% from 2000-2006)41; - the increase in waste generation per capita although it seems the growing tendency

stops by the end of this period. Indeed, waste generation per capita increased especially from 2000-2004 from 550 to 614 kg/capita per year (or 1,51-1,68 kg/capita day). Waste generation then stabilized and even decreased from 2005 to 2006 to 607 kg/capita per year. Overall, the indicator of waste (in tons) per unit of GDP (in million €) decreased by 20% over the period, especially since 2005. A decoupling between GDP and waste growth seems to be in place.

41 Population growth has even reached 18% over the 1998-2007 period.



Graph 4.3 : Waste per capita day in kg

1,40

1,45

1,50

1,55

1,60

1,65

1,70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Waste per capita day in kg

Waste per capita day in kg

Source: ADE based on data from the Institut d'Estadística de Catalunya

Along with increased production of waste, recycling has grown, especially recycling of paper. Overall, the increase in the segregation of municipal waste rose from 2,3% in 1995 to 25,4 % in 2004 and 33,7 % in 2007, see graph 4.4.

Graph 4.4 : Separated collection of municipal wastes (%) in Catalonia since 1995

Source: Catalan Statistics Institute.

4.4.2.3 Institutional context regarding waste management in Catalonia

The Autonomous region of Catalonia has been given the competences for the legislative development and execution as well as the establishment of additional protection regulations on waste. It falls to Catalonia to elaborate the Regional Plans on Waste as well as the granting of authorisations, monitoring, inspection and sanctioning of the activities that manage or generate wastes. The competence for waste management is shared



between the Regional Government of Catalonia (Generalitat de Catalunya) and the local entities that make up the territorial organisation; thus Catalan law 6/1993 establishes the functions of both public institutions as well as the basic inter-administrative relations framework. The Catalan Waste Agency (Agència de Residus de Catalunya) is a public law entity subject to the Environmental Department (Government of Catalonia). The Agència de Residus de Catalunya is competent for waste generated in Catalonia and the waste managed in its territorial area, whether industrial, municipal, healthcare, or agricultural, with the exception of radioactive waste, waste from mining activities, waste from agricultural and stockbreeding operations that are not dangerous and used only within the framework of the agricultural operation, declassified explosives, and those managed as waste water and gas effluents. The municipal waste management model established in the Catalan Regional Plan on Waste for the period 2001-2006 called PROGREMIC42, favours the management of municipal waste generated in Catalonia by means of separate collected fractions, their recovery and as a last resort their final disposal. The local entities are those responsible for the development and application of this model to the characteristics of each municipality or municipal group. Civic amenity sites43 were created as one more tool for the management of municipal waste. Civic amenity sites are installations dedicated to reception and storage of selected urban wastes which are not home-collected and do not have special containers dedicated to their collection in the street. These specific collection points are very important in the development of the waste management model because they collect and recover other types of wastes (high-volume and special wastes) which could be a problem if managed like ordinary waste.

4.4.3 Main environmental constraints in Catalonia and public financing

Catalonia has a recurrent problem of water supply. In addition, waste water treatment is of crucial interest for environmental, economic and touristic reasons. Complying with the EU Water Directive is also of major importance. Water supply and its adequate treatment are immediately linked to the economic development of Catalonia.

In this context, although the increased waste generation also appears as an important constraint, a higher level of priority has been given to water related investments. Cohesion Fund and ERDF, which are two major funds in Spain for the environment, co-finance investments for water supply, waste water treatment and solid waste management. Both funds spend about 10-20% on solid waste management and 80-90% on the water sector.

42 PROGREMIC: Programa de Gestio de Residus Municipals de Catalunya

43 Civic Amenity Sites are sometimes called Waste collection points. Both terms are synonyms in this evaluation.



When elaborating Catalonias’ objective 2 programme (OP), the main focus for “environment” (axis 2) was given to investments in the field of water (water sanitation and waste water treatment projects). This was a top priority for the Region of Catalonia. As a general consideration, it has also to be noted that individual infrastructure projects in the field of water generally represent a higher investment than waste management projects. The important weight of water investments in total ERDF interventions in the field of environment is the result of this situation and also reflects the importance of complying with the EU Water Directive (see table 4.1 below). This observation is confirmed in most regions of Spain for ERDF funding of environmental infrastructure. According to the interviews held during the field mission in Catalonia, the respective weights of waste- and water-related projects was the result of discussions with the European Commission during the elaboration process of the OP. It also reflected the types of request for funding originating from the municipalities in Catalonia. Cohesion funds also significantly co-finance environmental investments in Spain over the 2000-2006 period. The shares granted to water and waste are similar to the ERDF, ranging between 13-19% for solid waste with the remainder spent on water44.

Table 4.10 : Repartition of ERDF interventions in the field of environment in Catalonia and Spain

Source: Direction General EC Funds (Fondos Communitarios), Spanish Ministry of Economy and Finances (Ministerio de Economia y Hacienda)

4.4.4 Regional strategy for municipal waste management and generation

Waste planning and management in Catalonia was carried out according to the following programmes:

- PROGREMIC 2001-2006 Municipal Waste Management Programme. - PROGRIC 2001-2006 Industrial Waste Management Programme. - PROGROC 2001-2006 Construction Waste Management Programme.

For the 2001-2006 period, the global estimation of the investment for the Catalan Municipal Waste Management Programme (PROGREMIC) amounted to approximately 481.85 millions of euros (see table 4.11 hereafter).

44 Source : Annual reports from the Commission on the Cohesion Fund and their annexes (2003-2006).

ERDFCatalonia (in €m)

ERDF Catalonia

(in %)ERDF Spain

(in €m)

ERDF Spain (in

%)

Water 98.9 68.30% 282.7 70.30%

Waste 9.9 6.80% 49.3 12.20%

Total Environment 144.8 100% 402.1 100%



Table 4.11 : Main investments of PROGREMIC 2001-2006 programme by type of activity

Main activity Total amount in million Euros

Waste prevention 30.05

Recovery of glass, paper, packaging and other fractions

Recovery of the organic fraction

Energy recovery

Recovery (total)

19.23

211.92

52.23

283.38

Landfilling of non recoverable waste 110.12

Dissemination and communication 36.06

Investigation and development (*) 22.24

TOTAL 481.85

Source: Progremic 2000-2006 (*) The I+D actions correspond to all action tiers in general

4.4.4.1 Financing of the Catalan municipal waste management plan (PROGREMIC)

The financing of the actions planned in the Catalan municipal waste management plan (PROGREMIC) included various contributions, namely:

the budgets of the Administration of the Generalitat and of the local entities, other public funds (state and European (Cohesion Fund and ERDF), the integrated management systems, promotion of taxation measures, participation of the private sector45.

Main financing instruments of the Catalan Waste Agency for this programme were National and Regional funds.

45 It mainly concerns Industrial Waste. CATOR, for instance is a factory where all the used oil is recycled, the vegetable

oil is recycled by private companies to manufacture biodiesel.



The main EU funding line of investments in the field of environment in Catalonia proves to be the Cohesion Fund. The regional authorities chose to use the Cohesion fund for big investments, especially in the main cities, while the ERDF instrument was aimed at funding complementary investments. The Cohesion Fund funded approximately 20% of the total investment required by PROGREMIC (see table X below).

Table 4.12 : Waste projects funded by the Cohesion Fund in Catalonia (2000-2006)

Source: Catalan Waste Agency

ERDF funding represented around 2% of the PROGREMIC programme, with 9.8 m euros46. The specific ERDF contribution will be discussed under item … .

This general picture of ERDF interventions in the broader context of waste management investments in the Region show that they do not have a prominent role when compared to other sources of funding for waste management investments.

46 The total amount dedicated to waste management in the ERDF Objective 2 programme (measure 2.2)

funded by ERDF corresponds to 5,657,277 € directly managed by local authorities and 4,190,655 € managed by regional authorities. (Source: Departament d’Economia i Finances, Generalitat de Catalunya)

Project Approved fund in m €

Creation and improvement of the municipal wastetreatment infrastructure network in Catalonia 15.24

Adaptation of the municipal waste incinerationinstallations in Catalonia to Directive 2000/76/CE 9.6 Municipal waste selection and bio treatment plant inSant Adrià de Besòs 36.1Projects for the construction and preparation ofmunicipal waste management infrastructures inCatalonia 29.5

Municipal waste treatmentplants in the Urgell, PallarsJussà and Conca de Barberà regions 8TOTAL 98.44



4.4.4.2 Implementation of the Catalan municipal waste management plan (PROGREMIC)

The regional strategy for the 2001-2006 period was organised around the following main areas: waste prevention, dissemination and information, recovery and landfilling of non recoverable waste.

The PROGREMIC programme (Municipal Waste Management Programme) carried out a projection of waste generation that forecast a level of municipal waste generation (kg/capita/day) of 1.54 in 2006 (562 kg/capita year). This figure is being largely exceeded. 2004 registered waste generation per capita of 1.68 kg /capita/day (614kg/capita year) was recorded and 722,592 more tonnes were generated than the planned number. In addition, at the end of 2003 the level of waste recovery achieved was only 18%, well below the 36% target set for PROGREMIC. Like most countries and regions during the 90’s, Catalonia has experienced an important increase in waste production. As mentioned under § 4.3.2.2, the increased volume of waste especially over the 2000-2004 period appeared as major problem for the regional authorities. This increase was mainly due to the unexpected growth of population registered in Catalonia during the period 2001-2006, and also the unexpected increase of waste generation per capita (see table X : Evolution of GDP, municipal waste production and population over the 2000-2006 period in Catalonia)

In 7 years and with a population increase of 13%, Catalonia has registered an increase of 39% in the generation of municipal waste and an increase of 21% of the daily generation of waste per capita. Actions taken to stop this pattern were established as a consequence of the mid-term evaluation (2003) of the Municipal Waste Management Program of Catalonia 2001-2006 (PROGREMIC). They were namely the following:

Definition and approval of the 2005-2012 Territorial Sector Plan for Municipal Waste Management Infrastructure;

Establishment of waste disposal taxes (Act 2003 of 13 June on financing waste treatment infrastructure);

Approval of Grant Orders.

As mentioned, the plan was revised in 2003, and in 2005 the Municipal Waste Management Action Plan 2005-2012 for Catalonia was approved. This current Action Plan is divided into two main parts: the revision of PROGREMIC and approval of PROGREMIC 2007-2012, and elaboration of the Municipal Waste Infrastructure Management Sector Plan which defines the needs to develop infrastructures for the period 2005-2012. This overall municipal waste management action plan for 2005-2012 from the department of Environment estimated an aggregate investment need of €1,789 million, €1,490 million of which dedicated to doubling the waste management installations in Catalonia (from 55 to 108).



Relació entre nombre de deixalleries i quantitats de residus totals recollits

243228 234219

199

173154

25 70

123

257

286.994

246.250221.029

183.810

149.576131.711110.030

40.06522.143

64.349

310.402

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

deix

alle

ries

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

t

deixalleries residus

Programa de residus municipals 1995-2000

Programa de residus municipals 2001-2006

The main elements of the new Municipal Waste Management Action Plan 2005-2012 in Catalonia are: 1. Prevention measures and activities to encourage sustainable consumption. 2. Implementation of the selective collection of the organic waste fraction in all the

municipalities in Catalonia. 3. Increased efficiency of selective collection (including all types of fraction). 4. Treatment of non-segregated fraction for recovery of materials and biodegradability

reduction. 5. Distribution of the installations from the point of view of proximity and adequacy. 6. Collaboration, right to be informed, communication and awareness action campaigns. In terms of implementation, regarding civic amenity sites (i.e. waste collection points), Catalonia registered 228 operational waste collection points in 2004, eight under construction and 46 in process of approval (their distribution is directly related to population density). In addition, there were more than 31 operating mobile waste collection points and nine undergoing the approval process, which serviced 572 municipalities (out of more than 900 municipalities in Catalonia). Catalonia registered 257 civic amenity sites (deixallerias) operating in 2007 compared to only 154 in 2000 (see graph 4.5 hereafter).

Graph 4.5 : Relation between waste collection points and total waste collected between 1997 and 2007



Over the same 10 years-period, the main evolutions regarding infrastructures were: the end of the uncontrolled disposal of waste and closure of 206 dumping sites, the closure at the end of 2004 of three incineration plants (leaving only four

remaining incineration facilities active in Catalonia), the closure of 3 landfills (from 32 to 29), the development of composting plants (from 9 in 2000 to 20 units in 2006), the development of “ecoparques”47 (4 plants were created during the period).

4.4.5 Catalonia Objective 2 programme (2000-2006)

4.4.5.1 The overall programme in Catalonia

Overall funding of the Catalonia Region Objective 2 programme amounted to €2832million. The management authority is the Ministry of Economy in coordination with the Generalitat de Catalunya, the regional administration. This programme put a main focus on innovation society and competitiveness with 56% of planned resources (see table 4.13).

Table 4.13 : Axis and financial commitments of Objective 2 programme in Catalonia

Source: Programming documents of Catalonia OP

The second axis of the programme concerns environment, natural and hydraulic resources. It includes five measures, namely water, waste related investments. The environmental axis represents 10% of the total programme. Management of urban and industrial treated waste amounts to around 19m € and represents 7% of axis 2 (see table 4.14 below). The main measures are related to water supply (both to population and economic activities), to water sanitation and wastewater plants.

47 The ECOPARK is a unit that allows energy and fertiliser to be gained from the municipal waste organic

fraction, which includes two lines of treatment: a) Treatment of the selective waste collection organic fraction, in order to evaluate the organic material to obtain quality compost and b) Treatment of the residual fraction.

Axis Title million € %

1Improvement of competitiveness,employment and industrial network 730 26%

2Environment, natural and hydraulicresources 289 10%

3 Innovation society 839 30%

4 Communication and energy networks 456 16%5 Local and urban development 498 18%6 Technical assistance 18 1%

2830 100%TOTAL



Table 4.14 : Measures of axis 2 concerning the environment, natural and hydraulic resources (in € and % of axis environment)48

Source: Programming documents of Catalonia OP

4.4.5.2 Urban waste management measure

The urban waste management measure49, measure 2.2, has a double objective: environmental protection and development of economic activity related to recycling, waste management and waste valorisation. As shown in table 4.15 hereafter, it mainly focused on:

- construction of urban solid waste treatment plants: sorting centres, transfer stations, civic amenity sites (waste collection points), composting plants;

- purchase of containers for selective waste collection and organic material; - sealing of uncontrolled landfills.

In addition, economic support for the preparation of environmental diagnoses and waste minimisation was financed under axis one, linked to the private sector. Overall, ERDF funds were managed by both local authorities and regional authorities as shown in the table hereafter.

Table 4.15 : Specific allocation of waste management (measure 2.2) in OP Objective 2 Catalonia 2000-2006 (euros)

Source: Departament d’Economia i Finances, Generalitat de Catalunya

48 Slight differences in total amounts for axis 2 come from rounding’s.

49 Urban waste management is the term used by the programme. It is synonym to municipal waste management.

Measure Title %

2.1 Water supply, water sanitation and wastewaterplants(WS to population and economic activities) 199 69%

2.2 Urban waste(Global managementof urban wasteandindustrial treated waste) 19 7%

2.3 Protection and regeneration of natural environment 40 14%

2.4 Monitoring, control and reduction of enviromentalpollution 6 2%

2.5 Studies, classification and recovery of industrialpolluted soil 23 8%

287 100%

Waste management (measure 2.2)

Programmed ERDF co-financed

% s/total prog.

Directly Local Authorities Managed inCatalonia

11,314,554 5,657,277 0.67%

Directly Regional Authorities Managed(ARC)

8,381,311 4,190,655 0.50%

TOTAL 19,695,865 9,847,932

Amounts (in € )

TOTAL

€m



The local line was managed by the General Direction for Local Authorities of the Department of Economy and Finances of the Regional Government, i.e. the “Generalitat de Catalunya” which handled 40 projects. The amount of projects ranges from 40,000 - 800,000 €. A detailed list of the projects is presented in annex 6. The regional line was managed by the Regional Waste Agency (Agencia de Residus de Catalunya ARC), a public body subject to the Department of Environment of the Regional Government, which intervened in 3 projects registered in the OP. These three projects are shown in table 4.16 below. In reality, these projects were feeding existing budget lines which funded more than 243 interventions as explained hereafter (see also detailed list is annex 6).

Table 4.16 : Joint financed projects OP 2000 – 2006 (amount in thousands of euros)

Source : OP Catalonia 2000-2006 The philosophy behind the allocation of funds by the Region of Catalonia has rather been one of intervening in a large number of projects with relatively small amounts of funding. Amounts for individual intervention (among the 243) vary from less to 1,000 to some 300,000 €. The objective was to use ERDF funds as a complementary source of funding as a driver so as to favour the initiation and implementation of those projects. Even if the co-funding part was not dominant, by giving the necessary financial impulse, it facilitated the realisation of investments which otherwise would not have been made. This philosophy was used as a basis for the allocation of all ERDF funds in Catalonia during the period 2000-2006. As a consequence, the general profile of the interventions corresponds: for the “local” line, in investments of limited scale, generally improvements in existing

plants, extensions of capacity, productivity gains, complementary to other sources of funding such as the Cohesion Fund or regional or national funds.

for the “regional” line, in feeding the “funding lines” managed by the Catalan Waste Agency and created under regional law in the framework of the Regional Municipal Waste Management Plan (PROGEMIC 2001-2006, see above); these funding lines concerned the following investments (243 in total):

Measure Description

Approved eligible

expenditure

Committed at

31/12/2006

Urban solid waste treatment plants: tip points, transfer stations, transfer centres (code 137) 2,792.29 2,864.55Containers for selective waste collection andorganic material (code 138) 2,181.28 2,181.28Construction of controlled landfills and landfill sealing (code 139) 3,407.74 3,689.03

8,381.31 8,734.86

2.2 Comprehensivemanagement of urbanwaste and industrial waste

TOTAL



- civic amenity centres (waste collection points) and transfer centres, - containers, - closure of unauthorised landfills.

The achievements linked to the above mentioned investments and expressed in the foreseen DG Regio indicators are expressed in number of projects, new capacity of waste treatment and closure or rehabilitation of unauthorized landfills. They are summarised in the following table 4.17.

Table 4.17 : Achievements of urban waste management measure (2.2)

Indicator Unit Target value Achieved

value

Number of projects in municipal solid waste number 100 98

New capacity of waste treatment created thousand

m³ 227.2 227.2

Number of unauthorised landfills closed/rehabilitated number 381 381 Source: Annual reports (2007) OP Objective 2 Cataluna50

The foreseen output and result indicators have been almost completely achieved, especially regarding treatment capacity and landfills. As already mentioned, ERDF funding especially contributed to installation of civic amenity sites, containers and closure of unauthorised landfills included in the Catalan Waste Management Plan (PROGERMIC). The respective ERDF contributions amount to 18% as regards landfills, 11% for civic amenity sites and 6% for containers (see table 4.18).

Table 4.18 : Contribution of ERDF urban waste management measure (2.2) to interventions in PROGREMIC

InterventionTotal funding (in

million €)ERDF

contribution% ERDF in total

Waste collection points(civic amenity centers) 25,076 2,865 11%Containers 34,874 2,181 6%Closure of unauthorisedlandfills 20,316 3,689 18%

Source: Department of Economy and Finances, Catalan Government

50 Estado de Ejecucion a 31/12/2006



4.4.6 Adequacy of ERDF interventions in Catalan waste management

As stated clearly in the introduction of this report, ERDF interventions represent a very small part of total investment in the field of waste management in Catalonia (0,07 %). In consequence it proved impossible to assess its direct impact on the implementation of Catalan waste policy and on the results achieved during and after the programming period at environmental or socio-economic level. Progress made by Catalonia in its waste management policy as well as its constant efforts to comply with EU waste policy targets and Regulations have been developed under §4.3.3. The following conclusions can be drawn regarding ERDF interventions in the concerned field: - their small weight compared to Cohesion Fund or regional/national funds which have

a determining role in efforts to comply with the EU Directives - the complementarities of the tool promoting implementation of micro-investments like

sorting centers, composting plants, civic amenity sites, closing of dumping sites, etc. - their coherence with the Catalan waste management plan - geographical coverage impacting on a relatively high number of municipalities - when analysing impact at local level, i.e. the level of a local public waste management

authority, ERDF interventions had an accelerating or facilitating effect which could have made all the difference in some cases (see description of local case studies visited during the evaluation), although overall they were not crucial as such

- good articulation with the Cohesion Fund and the regional/national funds, the higher co-funding rate of the Cohesion Fund (80%) being an important factor when choosing the interventions

- high level of execution (100 %) - good internal follow-up at Catalan regional level.

Key messages

Overall decoupling of GDP growth and waste growth seems to be in place since the end of the period (2000-2006) especially since 2005. The relative allocation of funds between the water sector and waste is in favor of the water sector for all EU funds combined (Cohesion fund and ERDF), and for all Spanish regions. The proportions are 80-90% for water and 10-20% for waste. The Regional Municipal Waste Plan is entirely coherent with the general EU framework for waste interventions based on the five-stage hierarchy. Financing of the Regional Municipal Waste Plan was mainly done through regional and national funds, with in addition 20% from the Cohesion Fund and 2% from the ERDF objective 2 programme (measure 2.2). ERDF interventions were coherent with the Regional Municipal Waste Plan. They promoted complementary tools to larger investments (especially from the Cohesion Fund). Although of small amounts and distributed over a very large number of small projects, they had an accelerating effect for investments at local level.



4.4.7 Next steps

The two remaining case studies on waste prevention and management of waste are in Brandenburg (Germany) and Hungary (at national level). Brandenburg concerns a study at regional level, with high ERDF interventions and a focus on waste prevention, recycling and disposal. Hungary concerns a programme at national level, with limited ERDF interventions but very specific waste flows (animal waste, health care waste and construction & demolition waste). Main issues to be considered are similar to Catalonia, namely:

- The position of these regions / countries in terms of decoupling economic growth from waste;

- The waste management strategy of these regions / countries, both from the institutional side (who is deciding the policy, how it is implemented) and from the financial side (who finances: national/regional, private or public, European or other funds);

- ERDF contribution to this strategy;

Intervention implemented under ERDF interventions and effects of these interventions.

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


5. Task 5: Climate change

5.1 Introduction

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. Three case studies will be implemented (cf. table 5.1 below).

Table 5.1 : Selected operational programmes for the implementaion of the case studies

MS/ Region Programme

Name Main characteristics Czech Republic Industry and

Enterprise operational programme (IEOP)

Implementation at national level Investments in renewable energies Investments to improve energy efficiency

Germany/ Sachsen-Anhalt

Sachsen-Anhalt operational programme

Implementation at regional level Investments to improve energy efficiency

Portugal/ Região Autónoma dos Açores

Região Autónoma dos Açores operational programme

Implementation at regional level Investments in renewable energies

Source: ADE 2008.

These case studies have two functions:

1. Identifying and describing measures or operations that were aimed to combat climate change or affected GHG decrease.

2. Provide experience for future interventions with similar objectives.

In the perspective of the first sub-task, the general framework is introduced, namely the status and features of climate change in the selected country or region, as well as the national (or regional) strategy implemented to combat climate change. Specific programme achievements and their contribution to reducing GHG emissions – including the assessment of the effectiveness, the efficiency, and the profitability of interventions supported by ERDF – are then described. The contribution of interventions supported by ERDF to socio-economic development is analysed.

Regarding provision of experience for future interventions with similar objectives, the case study relates as far as possible to: experience concerning the management of such interventions; methods to assess the contribution of ERDF interventions to reducing GHG

emissions; evolution to the 2007-2013 programming period: the question of expanding the

measures implemented during the 2000-2006 programming period.

The pilot case study for Task 5 was carried out in the Czech Republic. Methodology used to carry out the case study is given in annex 8. The list of stakeholders interviewed is provided in annex 7 and a list of documents used during the case study is given in annex 9. The results and lessons learnt from this pilot case study are provided below.



5.2 Case study in the Czech Republic

5.2.1. Status and features of climate change in the Czech Republic

5.2.1.1 Picture in terms of climate change

As shown in table 5.2 below, the total annual amount of GHG emissions in the Czech Republic was stable from 1995 up to 2005. However the level increased by 8% between 2005 and 2007.

In 2005 the level of GHG emissions per capita was approximately 30% higher than the EU-27 average (13.66 t CO2 eq. / capita compared to 10.4 t CO2 eq. / capita). This level of GHG emissions per capita is among the highest in Europe (Report on the Environment of the Czech Republic 2007, CENIA and the Ministry of Environment, 2008). However, the average annual growth in GDP over the period 2000-2007 was 4.4% while the annual GHG emission growth over the same period was less than 1%.

Table 5.2 : GHG emissions in the Czech Republic

Item 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007CO2 (Mt) 163.9 131.1 126.8 128.3 124.6 125.9 126.6 125.9 127.9 133.7GHG (Mt CO2 eq.)

190.3 145.4 139.6 141.4 137.3 139.7 140.6 139.3 144.8 150.0

GHG per capita (t CO2 eq./ capita)

n.a. n.a. 13.55 13.86 13.46 13.70 13.78 13.66 14.06 14.56

Trend (100 = 1990)

100 76.4 73.4 74.3 72.1 73.4 73.9 73.2 76.1 78.8

NB: data for 2007 are preliminary estimates Source: Czech Hydrometeorology Institute, 2008.

The Czech economy consumes little energy from renewable sources. As shown in Table 5.3 below, the share of renewable energy sources (RES) in the total national primary energy sources in 2000 was 1.5% but had increased to 4.3% by 2007. Coal represents a high share of total primary energy sources (PES): 49 % of total primary energy sources against 45 % in 2007.

The Czech Republic has no problem with the need to comply with the Kyoto Protocol by 2012. Czech GHG emissions in 1990 were 190.3 mt CO2 eq. whereas in 2007 the figure was 150 mt CO2 eq. Compared to 1990 GHG emissions had decreased by more than 20% by 2004 while the EU target is an 8% decrease in GHG emissions by 2012.

Table 5.3 : Renewable energy sources and energy intensity in the Czech Republic

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Share of renewable energy in primary energy consumption (%)

1.5 1.7 2.1 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3

Share of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption (%)

2.7 3.6 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.5 4.9 4.7

Energy intensity (kgoe per 1000 €) 890.2 890.5 884.7 926.9 892.4 828.5 794.84 n.a.

Sources: European Environment Agency (EEA), Eurostat, Ministry of Industry and Trade, State of the Environment reports, Report on completion of indicative goal of energy production from RES (MoIT, ERU, 2006, 2007)



Support to green electricity production was codified by the special Act No 180/2005 Coll. focusing on support for the use of RES. The State Environment Policy target is 6% of PES consumed through RES by 2010. However, the share of RES in gross domestic electricity consumption decreased from 4.9% in 2006 to 4.7% in 2007. In addition, a significant feature of the Czech economy is its high energy intensity. In 2004, the Czech energy intensity (equal to 892.4 kgoe per 1000 €) was over four times as high as the EU-25 average energy intensity (equal to 188.7 kgoe per 1000 €), while in 2007 this indicator was still more than three times the EU-25 average.

5.2.1.2 Challenges in terms of climate change

The main environmental challenges in the Czech Republic during the programming period 2004-2006 are the following:

reduction of GHG emissions per capita ;

reduction of energy demand for production;

increase of the share of RES in energy consumption.

According to the 2004-2010 State Environmental Policy strategic document, by 2020 the Czech Republic should decrease its annual GHG emissions per inhabitant to the 2000 EU average level, i.e. 8.7 t CO2 eq./ capita. In 2004 the actual figure was 13.55 t CO2 eq. / capita.

In compliance with the EC Directive 2001/77/EC, the share of electricity generation from RES in the Czech Republic should increase to 8% by 2010. The actual figure at the beginning of the programming period (2004) was 4%.

5.2.1.3 National strategy in terms of climate change

During the 2004-2006 programming period the Czech Republic acted as an integrated entity in terms of strategy and implementation of projects under the Objectives 1 and 2 programmes. In other words, the national policy, legislation and managing authorities are the same for all the Czech regions.

Environmental priorities for the Czech Republic up to 2010 were set by the 2004-2010 State Environmental Policy, the basic environmental policy document at national level51. The State Environmental Policy was approved by the Czech Government on 17 March 2004 (Resolution No 235/2004). One of its four priority areas is the Protection of the climate system of the Earth and prevention of long-range transport of air pollution.

In terms of climate change, there are two quantitative targets set in the State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic:

Achieving a 6% share of RES in total PES by 2010 ;

Achieving at least a 8% share of renewable electricity in gross electricity consumption by 2010.

At policy level, the following national or regional strategies in the Czech Republic directly related to climate change are, or were, in place:

51 This document is now under revision.



Strategy of the Czech Republic for the Protection of the Climate Change (1999) ;

National Programme to Abate the Climate Change Impacts in the Czech Republic (2004);

State Energy Policy, 2004 (under revision);

National Programme for the Support of Renewable Energy and Energy Savings (2002-2005, 2006-2009) supplemented by the State Programme for the Support of Renewable Energy and Energy Savings (updated each year annual).

All the above policies and programmes have included targets in the fields both of improved energy efficiency and of increased use of RES. They also have proposed a series of instruments to achieve these targets; mainly command-and-control and economic instruments. In the field of green electricity, examples of such instruments are: guaranteed prior access to grid; guaranteed revenue per unit of production for 15 years in the case of new installations ; choice between two supporting schemes (fixed feed-in tariff or premium green bonus), support to « in-house » consumed renewable electricity; guaranteed purchase price level for 15 years in the case of existing installations ; annual decrease in the purchase price (not higher than 5% in the case of new

installations).

5.2.1.4 Institutional framework for climate change issues

The institutional framework for climate change issues in the Czech Republic is set by relevant legislation. In accordance with the 1999 Strategy of the Czech Republic for the Protection against Climate Change, the main role in climate change issues is assigned to the Ministry of Environment. In addition, an important role is given to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, while minor roles are assigned to the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture.

Co-ordination of activities and measures implemented by particular ministries and other bodies is given by the 2004 National Programme to Abate the Climate Change Impacts in the Czech Republic. This programme was assessed in 2007 by the Ministry of Environment and lessons learnt from the assessment have been taken into account in the new set of programme activities and measures. According to the reviewed programme, the roles of the ministries are described in figure 5.1 hereafter.



Figure 5.1 : The institutional framework for the climate change policy in the Czech Republic

The Ministry of Environment

•Responsible for the implementation of the requirements of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol;

•Responsible for the implementation of EU ETS (CO2 emission trading scheme) in the Czech Republic; National Allocation Plans (NAP) for the distribution of emission allowances in cooperation with the Ministry of Industry and Trade;

•Responsible for the preparation of GHG emission inventories and projections, for the preparation of the National GHG Inventory Reports (NIRs) and the National Communications for the UN FCCC secretariat (in close cooperation with the Czech Hydro‐meteorological Institute);

•Responsible for the implementation of the 2004‐2006 Infrastructure Operational Programme co‐financed by ERDF (in close cooperation with the Ministry of Transport);

•Responsible for the implementation of the 2007‐2013 Environment Operational Programme co‐financed by ERDF, Including support to projects aiming at reducing GHG emissions (State Environmental Fund of the Czech Republic).

Climate change policy

The Ministry of Industry and Trade

•Responsible for the energy policy of the Czech Republic (including energy efficiency and development of renewable energy);

•Responsible for the implementation of the requirements in the field of renewable energy;

•Responsible for the implementation of the 2004‐2006 Industry and Enterprise Operational Programme co‐financed by ERDF;

•Responsible for the implementation of the 2007‐2013 Enterprise and Innovation OP co‐financed by ERDF; this programme facilitates support for projects in the field of energy efficiency and renewable energy (in close cooperation with Czech Invest and the Czech‐Moravian Guarantee and Development Bank).

The Ministry of Transport

•Responsible for the transport policy of the Czech Republic (including support to the “climate‐friendly”transport modes)

•Responsible for the implementation of the 2004‐2006 Infrastructure Operational Programme co‐financed by ERDF (in close cooperation with the Ministry of Environment);

•Responsible for the implementation of the 2007‐2013 Transport Operational Programme , which facilitates support for projects leading to the reduction of GHG emissions (in close cooperation with the State Transport Infrastructure Development Fund).

The Ministry of Agriculture

•Responsible for the agricultural policy of the Czech Republic (including support to the use of biomass for energy purposes)

•Responsible for the implementation of the 2007‐2013 Rural Development Plan (RDP), which enables to support projects focused on the use of biomass (in close cooperation with the State Agricultural Intervention Fund).



5.2.2 Link between the IEOP, challenges and the national strategy in terms of climate change

As detailed above, there have been three main challenges in terms of climate change in the Czech Republic: 1) reduction in specific GHG emissions; 2) reduction in energy demand for production, 3) increase in the share of RES in energy consumption. To address these challenges, the Czech government has developed several programmes and instruments through different legislation and strategy papers, such as State Environmental Policy.

Part of the 2004-2006 IEOP was designed to play a role in implementation of the national strategy to fight climate change and thereby be complementary to the national supporting programmes and instruments in this field. At the EU level, interventions are complementary to instruments such as the Emission Trading System (ETS) covering large business companies.

More specifically, co-funded interventions in the field of energy savings and renewable energy sources had to support SMEs investing in a variety of activities leading to reduction in energy consumption as well as in developing green capacity for heating and electricity production. Most subsidies were given to innovative projects such as reconstruction of small hydropower plants, construction of photovoltaic power plants, windmill power plants, biogas stations, heat pumps, biomass power plants as well as power plants using landfill gases. These co-funded interventions then contributed directly or indirectly to addressing the three main challenges faced by the Czech Republic in terms of climate change.

5.2.3 Achievements of the IEOP

The IEOP interventions were mainly concentrated on industrial research and development, technical infrastructures for enterprise, better credit disposability to SMEs, infrastructures for human resources development, business-related services development, energy savings in the industry sector and renewable sources of energy. The total budget of the 2004-2006 IEOP (all fields of interventions included) was equal to €347.8m, including an ERDF support equal to €260.9m52.

Under this programme, two sub-programmes were implemented to contribute to GHG emission reduction. These sub-programmes are:

the sub-programme Energy Savings (ES), under which the following activities were allowed: - reduction of energy intensity in the energy production, conversion and

distribution; - new technologies for energy source processes leading to higher energy yields; - new electricity and heat generation equipment; - reduction of energy losses; - use of thermal waste and secondary energy sources; - co-generation of heat and electricity;

52 Communication of the Ministry of Industry and Trade (2009), based on information from the IEOP and the

Programme complement approved by DG Regional Policy.



- introduction of energy saving production technologies; - more effective processes for distributing energy (production and logistics), as well

as improvement in the thermal properties of buildings used for production.

the sub-programme Renewable Energy Sources (RES), under which the following activities were allowed: - construction, renewal or reconstruction of equipment using RES; - introduction of low-energy-intensity production technologies and equipment

using RES; - co-generation of heat and electricity using RES.

According to EC Regulation 70/2001 the maximum subsidies by project would be 46% of the eligible costs. In addition, the minimum budget allocated to a project is CZK 0.5m (around €0.02m) and the maximum budget is CZK 30m (around €1.1m). Eligible costs were project investment costs under both sub-programmes from 1 July 2004 and with respect to the IEOP rules (75% paid by ERDF and 25% by national budget).

Due to absorption capacity issues during the implementation of the IEOP, the total budget was reduced from €34.8 m to €30.7m and reallocated between sub-programmes. Finally, ES and RES sub-programmes only accounted for 8.8% of the global budget of the IEOP. Budget changes and reallocation are given in Table 5.4 hereafter.

Table 5.4 : Budget allocation of the 2004-2006 IEOP devoted to climate change issues

Sub-programme Budget allocation in May 2004 Budget allocation in November 2008

ERDF (€m)

National funds (€m)

Total (€m)

ERDF (€m)

National funds (€m)

Total (€m)

Energy savings (ES)

13.0 4.3 17.4 3.2 1.1 4.2

Renewable energy sources (RES)

13.0 4.3 17.4 19.9 6.6 26.5

Total 26.1 8.7 34.8 23.1 7.7 30.7 Source: the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT), Structural Funds Section, January 2009

Subsidies were only given to SMEs which need to make considerable new investments. Co-financed interventions under the IEOP have partly covered these investments as the Czech SMEs do not have sufficient financial means and often have difficulty in obtaining access to credit loans for such investment processes.

Following a step-by-step selection procedure, 35 projects (out of 47 applications) have been approved in the energy savings (ES) sub-programme, to a total of CZK 113 m (€4.2m). In the sub-programme Renewable Energy Sources (RES), 63 projects (out of 153 applications) were approved during the same period, to a total of CZK 698 m (€26.5m). More detailed information on applications, grants and payments for both sub-programmes are given in Table 5.5 hereafter.



Table 5.5 : Number of projects and budget for both sub-programmes (ES and RES) of the 2004-2006 IEOP

Source: the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT), Structural Funds Section, January 2009

5.2.4 Contribution of the IEOP to reducing GHG emissions

While discussing the contribution of the IEOP to reducing GHG emissions, it should be kept in mind that the global objective of the IEOP was to support the competitiveness of Czech enterprises, especially SMEs. Consequently, only 8.8% of the total budget of the IEOP (i.e. € 30.7 m) was devoted to ES and RES sub-programmes. It should also be noted that the programming period in the Czech Republic was shorter than the standard 2000-2006 programming period.

5.2.4.1 Effectiveness of the ES and RES projects supported by ERDF

Table 5.6 hereafter shows both target and achieved values from indicators monitored during the 2004-2006 programming period. The values achieved cover all projects which produced results up to the end of 2008.

Table 5.6 : Target and achieved values for projects implemented under ES and RES sub-programmes

Indicator UnitTarget value

(2008) Achieved

value (2008) Fulfilment

(%) Sub-programme Energy savings (ES): 35 granted projects Heating energy saved GJ 153,178 112,551 73% Electricity saved GJ 364,016 197,769 54% Heating energy generated (using RES) MWh 1,004 2,711 270% Electricity generated (using RES) MWh 526 400 76% Sub-programme Renewable energy sources (RES) : 63 granted projects Installed power (electricity) MW 38.12 37.41 98% Installed power (heating) MW 7.74 8.23 106% Electricity generated (using RES) MWh 118,781 69,162 58% Heating energy generated (using RES) GJ 146,887 102,067 69% Source: the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT), Structural Funds Section, January 2009 While the budget of the sub-programme ES was reduced by 75%, the target for electricity saved using RES was largely exceeded at the end of 2008. However the targets for energy savings through supported heating projects (with or without RES) and for electricity generated using RES have not yet been achieved.

Programme Allocation

Applications Granted projetcs Paid to beneficiaires Nb. of

projects Amount (CZK m)

Nb. of projects

Amount (CZK m)

Nb. of projects

Amount (CZK m)

Energy savings 47 197.0 35 113.0 35 111.7

Renewable energy sources

153 2,554.2 63 698.1 63 684.0



According to the indicators monitored under the RES sub-programme, the target value for supported installed heating capacity was exceeded while the capacity of supported installed electricity power generation almost reached the 2008 target value. The results obtained for the RES sub-programme in terms of installed capacity may be explained by the fact that 16 of the 63 projects supported focused on renewal of small hydro-power plants where installed capacity existed prior to the ERDF interventions. Another reason is that its initial budget was boosted (+50%) during the programming period, reflecting the account taken of the higher demand for projects under the RES sub-programme vis-à-vis projects under the ES sub-programme.

In addition, it should be noted that the projects supported in energy savings as well as in installed capacity (electricity or heating) had still not yielded their full potential by the end of 2008. Therefore they have not yet contributed to GHG emission abatement to the extent expected by the ex ante energy audits.

Taking into account the above-mentioned conditions and the relatively low budget invested in energy savings and renewable energy sources through the IEOP, the results obtained from the interventions in the fields of ES and RES can be considered satisfactory. All co-funded projects which invested in green infrastructures were implemented before 31 August 2008 and have started to save energy or to produce green energy since becoming operational. In other words, still higher GHG emission reductions can be expected from 2009 onwards.

5.2.4.2 Impact of ES and RES projects supported by ERDF in terms of GHG emission reduction

Based on data provided by project energy audits the Czech Energy Agency estimated that the 98 projects supported by ERDF during the 2004-2006 period allowed avoiding a total amount of 182.6 kt CO2 eq. (cf. Table 5.7 below). This amount is equivalent to just 0.13% of the 2004 total of GHG emissions produced by the Czech Republic. In other words, the contribution of these projects to the reduction of GHG emissions at a macroeconomic level per se is not significant.

Table 5.7 : Assessed impacts of both sub-programmes (ES and RES) of the 2004-2006 EIOP in terms of Climate Change

Sub-programme Estimated GHG emission avoided by

year (kt CO2 eq.) Energy savings (ES) 18.8 Renewable energy sources (RES) 163.8 Total 182.6

Source: Czech Energy Agency, 2006



5.2.4.3 Efficiency of ES and RES projects supported by ERDF

Benchmarks are needed to assess the efficiency of projects or policy aiming at reducing GHG emissions. These benchmarks can be identified through two main sources: the market price of the EU ETS market53 and the literature review.

The marginal abatement cost represents the cost of reducing one more ton of GHGs. It also represents the cost of buying one emission permit in the carbon market, if that ton was not reduced. A first benchmark is thus the market price in the EU ETS market. The EU allowance spot price is currently around 12 € (phase II of the EU ETS market: the 2008-2012 period) while the ongoing economic crisis (2008/2009) pushes this price down. Without the economic crisis this price should be about 25 €. Expected prices for phase III (post-Kyoto: after the 2008-2012 period) is about 30 €.

Some studies have tried to provide the fundamental carbon price, when EU ETS prices are subject to market volatility. The robustness of these studies is questionable54 and the range they provide is generally quite large: Elzen et al. (2007)55 give a marginal abatement cost associated to the EU reduction

objectives between 23 € and 93 € (2005)/t CO2 ; Kuik et al. (2009)56 assesses that the marginal abatement cost for a 500 ppm target in

2025 is between 37 € and 119 € (2005)/t CO2.

Assessing the efficiency of ES and RES sub-programmes with precision is not possible due to the lack of information about total costs (eligible and non eligible costs) of implemented projects. The assessment of the efficiency is then based on the total eligible costs of both ES and RES sub-programmes. Table 5.8 hereafter shows information used to assess the cost of reducing one ton of GHG and obtained results for both ES and RES sub-programmes.

53 The European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS) is a major pillar of EU climate policy. The ETS currently

covers more than 10,000 installations in the energy and industrial sectors which are collectively responsible for close to half of the EU's emissions of CO2 and 40% of its total greenhouse gas emissions.

54 The macroeconomic valuations of marginal abatement costs of carbon strongly depend on (i) the methodology used, (ii) the underlying assumptions (on fuel prices, economic growth, time horizon, etc.), (iii) the emission reduction target (or concentration target). In particular, the stringer the reduction target, the higher the marginal abatement cost. Also, the longer the time horizon, the higher the abatement cost.

55 Elzen M.G.J., Lucas P.L., Gijsen A. (2007), « Exploring European Countries’ Emission Reduction Targets, Abatement Costs and Measures Needed Under the 2007 EU Reduction Objectives », Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP).

56 Kuik O., Brander L., R.S.J. Tol (2009), « Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions: A meta-analysis », Energy Policy 37(4).



Table 5.8 : Assessment of the efficiency of both ES and RES sub-programmes

Item ES sub-

programme RES sub-

programme

Estimated GHG avoided (kt CO2 eq.) 18.8 163.8

Average support share (%) of total eligible costs 34.5% 35.4%

Total financial support paid to beneficiaries (€ m) 4.2 26.5

Estimated total eligible costs (€ m) 12.2 74.9

Cost of reducing a ton of GHG with a time horizon of 15 years 43.3 30.5

Cost of reducing a ton of GHG with a time horizon of 10 years 64.9 45.7

Source: ADE 2009 based on information from Czech Energy Agency and Czech management authorities. For a time horizon equal to 15 years (from 2006 to 2020) or 10 years (from 2006 to 2015), the comparison between obtained results for ES and RES sub-programmes with above-mentioned benchmarks shows that costs of reducing one ton of GHG through ES and RES projects are comparable to the range of fundamental carbon prices provided in the literature review. However, all these costs of GHG abatement are higher than the spot price on the EU ETS market.

These observations suggest that the improvement of efficiency of such interventions remains a challenge. Consequently modalities of public support play an important role to improve this efficiency.

5.2.4.4 Profitability of ES and RES projects supported by ERDF

The profitability is the ability to generate net income. If a specific intervention generates a net income for an enterprise, this enterprise can decide to invest (part of) its capital to carry out this specific intervention. On the contrary, an unprofitable intervention will not attract an enterprise to invest. Public funds can then contribute to remove barriers to private investments, especially when the intervention generates a social benefit (for example, reducing GHG emissions).

The profitability of a project for an enterprise can be measured by the internal rate of return (IRR)57. In the particular case of RES, the IRR should be calculated for all types of RES (biomass, photovoltaic, wind, hydro-plant, biogas, landfill gas, etc.). This calculation should take into consideration all the characteristics and specificities of the location (country, region, climatic conditions, etc.) of the possible project – for example, the solar duration in the case of a solar energy project.

Table 5.9 hereafter shows the IRR of all types of RES projects supported by ERDF during the 2004-2006 period, as well as average IRR for both ES and RES sub-programmes. These parameters have been calculated by Czech Energy Agency taken into account the 57 A project is a good investment proposition for an enterprise if its IRR is greater than the rate of return that could be

earned by alternate investments of equal risk (for example, investing in other projects or putting the money in a bank account). The IRR should then be compared to any alternate costs of capital including an appropriate risk premium. if the IRR is greater than the project's cost of capital, or hurdle rate, the project will add value for the company.



support provided by ERDF through the 2004-2006 IEOP. However, the IRR of each type of project without ERDF support and assumptions of the IRR calculation have not been communicated to the evaluator. This constitutes an important limit to the discussion of the profitability of ES and RES projects.

Table 5.9 : Internal rate of return of Czech projects under the 2004-2006 IEOP

Type of ES/RES IRR (%) without ERDF support

IRR (%), with ERDF support

Small Hydro Plant (new) n.c. 6.8 Small Hydro Plant (renovated) n.c. 20.51 Wind n.c. 8.93 Biomass n.c. 21.42 Biogas n.c. 15.1 Landfill gas n.c. 12.06 Photovoltaic n.c. 2.48 Heat pump n.c. 2.55 ES sub-programme (35 projects) n.c. 9.89 RES sub-programme (63 projects) n.c. 12.24 NB: “n.c.” = not communicated by Czech authorities. Source: Czech Energy Agency, 2008.

The question of the most appropriate ERDF allocation to climate-friendly interventions in terms of profitability is quite complex. The profitability of ES and RES projects should be determined through the IRR calculated for each type of ES and RES without any external support. The rationale of the support ES and RES can vary depending on the level of this rate whatever the type of ES and RES: If the IRR without any external support is positive, the rationale of the ERDF

intervention is to provide incentives to enterprises to invest in climate-friendly technologies. In addition, ERDF intervention should consolidate the robustness of the private investment vis-à-vis the market volatility of GHG-intensive production patterns (e.g. fossil fuels). In the case of ERDF interventions while the IRR is positive, the risk is to provide support to enterprises which could invest in climate-friendly interventions without any external support. The higher the IRR the higher the risk of deadweight effect.

If the IRR without any external support is negative ERDF interventions will make private investments in climate-friendly technologies feasible.

Besides, it should be noted that profitability should be not the only criteria to decide ERDF support to ES or RES projects. Non-financial barriers such as the lack of information about climate-friendly technologies (potentials, costs, feasibility, etc.) at the level of the enterprise or the aversion of enterprises to invest in such measures whatever the reason, should not be neglected.

The nature of the public support, including ERDF interventions, to climate-friendly technologies could affect differently the regional or national production patterns of climate-friendly energies. Supporting uniformly all the ES and RES projects whatever their IRR in the specific country or region could lead enterprises to invest only in the most profitable ES or RES. Bringing the IRR of all the ES and RES alternatives to a similar level should maintain a similar development of all these alternatives in a country or a region.



In the Czech Republic, the rationale to support SMEs to invest in ES and RES projects through the 2004-2006 IEOP was mainly based on the assumptions that green investment could be too costly for SMEs and that energy savings and development of renewable energy were typically not a priority for profit-oriented manufacturing companies. In addition, it was considered that there was a need for public intervention in the field of ES while the energy intensity of the Czech economy was four times higher than the EU average. In other words, the decision to support such interventions was to accelerate the reduction of energy intensity of the Czech economy.

5.2.5 Contribution of the IEOP to socio-economic development

An assessment of the IEOP contribution to socio-economic development is difficult as detailed information is not available. The only exception concerns impact on employment, which was clearly monitored during the 2004-2006 period. The indicator used was the gross number of new direct jobs created in the enterprises supported by each ES and RES sub-programme. Table 5.10 hereafter shows the results of each sub-programme in terms of direct jobs created.

No information is available on indirect job creation. However, it can be assumed that co-funded interventions in ES and RES projects have led to support for or creation of some indirect jobs, taking into account supply of materials (equipment, construction materials, etc.) and services for enterprises implementing the co-funded projects.

Table 5.10 : Gross number of jobs created due to projects co-financed under the ES and RES subprogrammes

Sub-programme Nb. of direct gross jobs created (full-time

equivalent; up to September 2007) Energy savings (ES) 34 Renewable energy sources (RES) 58.4 Total 92.4

The gross number of direct jobs created by co-funded interventions under both sub-programmes has to be put into perspective. In fact improvement of energy efficiency in enterprises and in the energy production process can also reduce the number of direct and indirect jobs in enterprises. For example, one of the hydro-power plants supported by the IEOP employed three workers for maintenance and control of the plant. The plant invested in the renewal of two of the three turbines, thanks to the ERDF co-financing. As a result of this investment less maintenance and control are needed, and in consequence the number of workers has been reduced to two58.

In a business-as-usual scenario, an improvement in energy efficiency in the production process allows a reduction in energy costs and improves the economic and financial performance of the enterprises supported. In addition, co-funded projects generated increased demand for goods and services. This also contributed a degree of indirect support to socio-economic activities in the Czech Republic at national or regional level. For example, the two new turbines for the hydro-power plant were built in the Czech Republic.

58 Based on information from HYDROPOL Project and Management a.s (Ing. E. Mudroch)



5.2.6 Management of ES and RES projects supported by ERDF

The Department of Structural Funds from the Ministry of Industry and Trade has been responsible for the 2004-2006 co-funded IEOP coordination. The Czech Energy Agency (CEA)59 was responsible for the implementation of co-funded projects relating to energy savings and renewable energy up until the end of September 2007. Since 1 October 2007 Czech Invest has been the body responsible for administration of Structural Funds on behalf of the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

All criteria and procedures for the selection of projects under both sub-programmes (ES and RES) were defined according to both EU and national rules and published for all potential applicants. During the 2004-2006 programming period there were continual calls for projects in the fields of both ES and RES. The flow of calls was halted when funding applications for projects markedly exceeded the funds available. Both sub-programmes were announced on 1 April 2005, the deadline for application submissions being 30 September 2006.

During the 2004-2006 period, the selection procedure for ES and RES applications was multi-level. Each project proposal was assessed according to the following steps:

1) Evaluation of compliance and eligibility as carried out by Czech Invest

Application forms were submitted to the relevant regional office of Czech Invest, which checked the application for compliance, eligibility of the applicant and the project, eligibility of costs and the applicant’s economic evaluation (turnover, profitability, capacity to pay back loans, etc.). If the project fulfilled the basic requirements of the programme, it was then sent to the Czech Energy Agency for expert opinion. All information needed for evaluation of eligibility had to be transmitted by the applicant to the evaluation body.

One of the project admissibility conditions was a decrease in GHG emissions of at least 60t per year for projects under the RES sub-programme and 40t per year for projects under the ES sub-programme. This specific condition had to be assessed and confirmed by an independent ex ante energy audit. Another important condition was demonstration of satisfactory results from the economic evaluation (turnover, profitability, capacity to pay back loans, etc.).

2) Quality evaluation carried out by CEA

CEA evaluated the application using evaluation tables, which contained specific criteria for each application under both the ES and RES sub-programmes. It assessed each application and project on the basis of the following selection criteria:

regional development support ;

compliance with national programme on economic treatment of energy and use of renewable and secondary energy sources;

economic parameters of the project ; 59 The Czech Energy Agency (CEA) was closed down on 1 January 2008. Until 30 September 2007 CEA was the

subsidiary body of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. Its role was to support energy efficiency and introduction of renewable energy (both via direct financing and via consulting services – national network of consultants, certification of energy auditors, publications). Since 2008 the CEA duties have been carried out by several bodies, including Czech Invest.



environmental and energy benefits, one criterion addressing GHG emission levels;

qualification of the applicant.

When the evaluation by the CEA/Czech Invest was completed, the project was sent to the evaluation committee.

3) Evaluation carried out by the evaluation committee and project approval by Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT)

Members of the evaluation committee were mainly representatives of the Ministry of Industry and Trade as well as representatives of professional and business associations and unions and of the Czech regions. Based on the results of the evaluation (steps 1 and 2 as described above), the evaluation committee discussed each application and recommended approval or otherwise. Recommendations from the evaluation committee are then sent to the Ministry of Industry and Trade for a final decision.

The subsidies proposed were calculated according to the methodology of energy project evaluation and were based on specific criteria which were applied to ES and RES projects according to the importance of their contributions to improved energy efficiency and energy production from renewable sources. The total amount of subsidy for a specific project depends on the scoring of the project after evaluation. Projects have to fit minimum requirements to be eligible for subsidies from the IEOP: the higher the score, the higher the subsidy.

5.2.7 Method to assess the contribution of ES and RES project supported by ERDF to reducing GHG emissions

With a view to assessing the contribution of ES and RES projects supported by ERDF to reducing GHG emissions, the Czech management authorities implement a bottom-up method consisting of two main steps: an independent ex ante energy audit and a monitoring of the ES or RES project after completion.

The independent ex ante energy audit is an obligatory step in the selection procedure. This audit determines the energy saved, the green capacity and the potential for production of green energy/ electricity of the project. Based on this information, Czech Invest calculated the corresponding amount of GHG emissions avoided as a result of the project and compared it to a business-as-usual scenario.

The rules applied for this calculation are provided in the Notice of the Ministry of Industry and Trade No. 425/2004 Coll., amending Notice No. 213/2001 Coll. Under these rules the coefficient used to calculate the GHG emissions avoided (expressed in CO2 equivalent) through use of green energy (expressed in MWh) produced by each project is equal to 1.17 t CO2 eq./ MWh. This coefficient takes into account the share of each different source of energy in the Czech Republic. Details about the general CO2 equivalent emission factors applied in the Czech Republic are given in Table 5.11 hereafter.



Table 5.11 : CO2 equivalent emission factors for power generation in the Czech Republic

Type of energy source CO2 equivalent emission factor

(t CO2 eq./ MWh) Brown coal 0.36

Black coal 0.33

Heavy burning oil 0.27

Light burning oil 0.26

Natural gas 0.2

Biomass/ nuclear power 0

Source: Czech Energy Agency, 2009.

The monitoring of ES and RES projects is carried out using standard monitoring procedures. Project managers have to submit to Czech Invest a project progress report every six months and also when the project is fully completed (final report). In addition, beneficiaries have to submit an annual monitoring report during the three years after project completion and payment of subsidies.

Project progress and monitoring reports and the final report consist of detailed information in a concise standard report format. Apart from financial and other administrative information, reports have to notify the amount of energy savings generated or the renewable energy sources created or renewed due to the project: for example, in the RES sub-programme, the capacity installed (MW) and the energy in MWh produced as a result of the project over a specific time period.

The main constraints of this method are the data collection from beneficiaries to management authorities, the control of the collected data and their treatment to translate them into GHG emissions avoided compared to a business-as-usual scenario. Nevertheless this bottom-up method remains reliable taken into account that it is based on independent ex ante energy audits whose results are confirmed by an obligatory monitoring three years after ERDF support to the projects.

5.2.8 Evolution to the 2007-2013 programming period

Reducing energy intensiveness demonstrates the success of structural changes and of the modernisation of the industry. For industrial sectors of the Czech economy, reducing the energy intensiveness – direct or indirect – represents a key factor on the way to increased enterprise competitiveness. Achieving energy savings is highly capital intensive and thus often inaccessible to small and medium-sized enterprises (high costs of the purchase and implementation of less energy consuming technologies). In this respect, the 2004-2006 IEOP devoted 8.8% to interventions in the field of energy savings and renewable energy only for SMEs.

However the absorption capacity of SMEs was not sufficient to benefit from all the support initially devoted to them during the 2004-2006 period. In addition the most important potential for energy savings still remains in Czech larger manufacturing companies rather than in SMEs. For this reason the 2007-2013 IEOP expanded ES and RES projects to a total amount of € 286 m – including €243 m from ERDF for both SMEs and large business companies. In other words, ERDF allocations ES and RES projects



from 2004-2006 period to 2007-2013 period have been multiplied by 5 on a annual basis anticipating a higher absorption capacity.

The main objective of ES and RES projects under the 2003-2007 IEOP is similar than in the 2004-2006 period: reducing energy intensiveness of the Czech industry and of the processes related to the generation, transformation and the use of energy. Globally, the content of both ES and RES measures is also the same than in the 2004-2006 period.

In fact, support will mainly focus on building facilities for the generation and transmission of electric and thermal energy generated from RES and on the reconstruction of existing production facilities in order to use RES. Further support will be provided for modernisation of existing energy production facilities to increase their efficiency; for implementation and modernisation of systems for measurement and regulation of energy; for modernisation, reconstruction and reduction of loss in the transmission of electricity and heat and to the use of energy lost in industrial processes.

Finally, the 2007-2013 IEOP carries out a similar approach for selecting projects to be supported and for assessing GHG emissions avoided due to co-funded ES and RES projects.

5.3 Next steps for Task 5 Climate change

The two remaining case studies (Germany/ Sachsen-Anhalt and Portugal/ Região Autônoma dos Açores) will be carried out using the same methodology as used in the Czech Republic. During field missions, some interesting lessons learnt and ideas identified during the pilot case study in the Czech Republic will be tested with appropriate stakeholders. They are related to:

the role of ERDF interventions in climate change issues: how ERDF interventions were used in Germany and in Portugal to contribute to GHG emission reduction? What is the link with the national or regional policy to abate GHG emissions?

the profitability of ERDF interventions: what are the IRR without and with public support (including ERDF)? What was the rationale of ERDF allocations to projects aiming at reducing GHG emissions?

the management procedure for supported projects in the field of climate change: how does the selection procedure guarantee selection of the most efficient projects from all the applications received?

assessment of GHG emissions avoided due to ERDF interventions (energy savings and renewable energies):

- Are the results obtained satisfactory, taking into account the specific environment (e.g. strategy applied in the field of climate change) of the Member State or the Region?

- How have GHG emissions avoided been assessed? Were ex ante energy audits applied before selecting and supporting projects?

the monitoring procedure: what type of information and data had to be communicated to the management authorities with respect to supported projects in the



field of climate change (budget consumption, installed capacity created, jobs created, etc.)?

the method used to assess the GHG reduction of interventions supported by ERDF: What was the method used by management authorities to asses the GHG emission reduction of projects supported by ERDF? What were the limits of this method?

At this stage, it should be recalled that answers to these questions will strongly depend on the level of cooperation of the Member states and the selected regions; as well as information available at national and regional level and at the level of management authorities.

Annexes


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 / Page 1

Annex 1 – Short overview notes

Short overview notes for each of the 14 selected Member States are presented below following the alphabetic order. Overview notes have been written with a view to preparing next tasks of the evaluation (Task 3.2 Effectiveness of major sectoral programmes, Task 4.1 Regional case studies, Task 4.2 Case studies on waste prevention and management of waste, as well as Task 5 Climate change). In other words, these notes are not a complete overview or an in-depth analysis of the status of environment in the selected Member States.

These notes follow the same structure. Details about what type of information is mentioned under each section of the note and limits of the information collected are explained below.

Section 1: Status and features of the environment

For the 2000-2006 programming period, this section provides evolution of some key environmental indicators by theme: water supply, wastewater, solid waste, energy and climate change. When deemed necessary, comments have been added to explain lack of data or provide details about some indicators.

In general, statistics come from Eurostat database. When they are not available at EU level, statistics have been acquired from OECD, European Environment and Health Information system (EHNIS) or from Member States (in this latter case, the value is recorded in italic). When the value of the indicator has not been monitored it is mentioned not available (“n.a.”). The definition and the source(s) of each indicator are provided below.

Indicator Definition Sources

Share (%) of population connected to public water supply

This indicator is related to the share of population connected to public water supply.

EHNIS (or Member states if not available at ENHIS level)

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply (in urban or rural areas)

Access to improved water source is the percentage of population with access to an improved drinking water source in a given year. Improved drinking water sources are defined in terms of the types of technology and levels of services that are more likely to provide safe water than unimproved technologies. Improved water sources include household connections, public standpipes, boreholes, protected dug wells, protected springs, and rainwater collections. On the contrary, unimproved water sources are unprotected wells, unprotected springs, vendor-provided water, bottled water (unless water for other uses is available from an improved source) and tanker truck-provided water.

EHNIS (or Member states if not available at ENHIS level)

Share (% ) of population receiving primary wastewater treatment

Treatment by physical or chemical processes in which the BOD5 and suspended solids from incoming waste water are reduced by at least 20% and 50% respectively.

Eurostat (or OECD or Member States)

Share (%) of population receiving wastewater secondary treatment

Process generally involving biological treatment with a secondary settlement or other processes, resulting in a BOD5 removal of at least 70% and a COD removal of at least 75%.


Share (%) of population receiving tertiary wastewater treatment

Treatment that targets to remove nitrogen and/or phosphorous and any other pollutant affecting the quality of water (organic pollution removal of at least 95% for




Indicator Definition Sources BOD5 and at least 85% for COD), nitrogen removal of at least 70%, phosphorous removal of at least 80% and microbiological removal achieving a faecal coliform density less than 1000 in 100ml.

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment

This indicator related to the share of population connected to any kind of sewage treatment (primary to tertiary) in municipal treatment plants run by public authorities or by private companies (on behalf of local authorities), whose main purpose is sewage treatment.


Municipal waste generation (kg/ capita)

Municipal waste generated consists of waste collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities and disposed of through the waste management system. The bulk of this waste stream is from households, though similar wastes from sources such as commerce, offices and public institutions are included. For areas not covered by a municipal waste scheme the amount of waste generated has been estimated.

Eurostat (or Member States)

Municipal waste incinerated (kg/ capita)

Incineration means thermal treatment of waste in an incineration plant as defined in Article 3(4) or a co-incineration plant as defined in Article 3(5) of the Directive on the incineration of waste (Directive 2000/76/EC of 4 December 2000).


Municipal waste landfilled (kg/ capita)

Landfill is defined as the depositing of waste into or onto land, including specially engineered landfill, and temporary storage of over one year on permanent sites. The definition covers both landfill in internal sites (i.e. where a generator of waste is carrying out its own waste disposal at the place of generation) and in external sites.


Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita)

Packaging waste is defined as waste comprised of materials, or items, used to protect, contain, or transport a commodity or product and usually considered a type of consumer waste.


Share (%) of renewable energy in primary energy consumption (%)

Primary energy consumption refers to the direct use at the source, or supply to users without transformation, of crude energy, that is, energy that has not been subjected to any conversion or transformation process.

Eurostat

Share (%) of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption

Renewable electricity is defined as the share of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in total electricity consumption. The latter includes imports and exports of electricity. The electricity generated from pumping in hydropower plants is included in the total electricity consumption but is not included as a renewable source of energy.

Eurostat

Energy intensity (kg of oil eq. per thousand €)

The energy intensity is the ratio between the Gross Inland Consumption of Energy (unit: kilogram of oil equivalent) and the Gross Domestic Product (thousand € expressed in real terms with respect to a base year) calculated for a calendar year. It measures its overall energy efficiency.

Eurostat

Total GHG emissions (1990 = 100)

This indicator mentions the evolution of total GHG emissions through years. Total emissions are presented as indices, with the base year = 100. In general, the base year is 1990 for the non-fluorinated gases, and 1995 for the fluorinated gases. Data exclude emissions and removals due to land use change and forestry.

Eurostat

GHG emissions per capita (t CO2 eq./ capita)

The indicator mentions the level of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion per capita.

Eurostat



Section 2: Main environmental challenges (for the period 2000-2006)

This section aims at identifying the main challenges in the field of environment for the period 2000-2006 or 2004-2006 (Member states since 1st May 2004) for the 14 selected Member states. The most important environmental issues are presented by theme (water supply and wastewater treatment, solid waste, air/energy and climate change) and are described as far as possible.

Section 3: Environmental policy

On the one hand, this section focuses on the institutional framework (institutional set-up, regional particularities if any) relating to environmental themes, especially water management and waste management. On the other hand, the environmental legislation applied in the Member state is presented. In particular, possible derogations and infringements related to EU Directives are explained.

Section 4: Estimate of the overall investments in environmental infrastructures

The table presented in this section gathers the amounts financed by the main sources of investment for environmental infrastructure. If available, these amounts are presented by main field of intervention: Urban and industrial waste, Drinking water and Sewerage and purification. The row Environmental infrastructure relates to projects that combine several fields of intervention (including air and noise infrastructure). In some cases, only the total amount of investment is available (the other rows are then marked “n.a.”), in other the amounts of some of the fields of intervention are available. Then, the rows of unavailable amounts are marked “n.a.”, and the sum of the available amounts does not equal the total amount. Data sources of each source of investment are provided below.

Sources of investments Data sources

Total environmental investments by the public sector Eurostat (Cofog data) National counterpart to ERDF environmental investments

Work Package 1

ERDF environmental investments Work Package 1

ISPA investments in environmental projects ISPA report 2000-2004

Cohesion Fund total commitments in environmental infrastructure projects

Ex-post evaluations 2000-2006: Regional Expenditure Study

EBRD investments in environmental infrastructure EBRD website

Environmental projects financed by EIB EIB website

Total environmental investments by industry Eurostat (Cofog data)

Section 5: Assessment of the influence and the role of ERDF and other financial sources on environmental infrastructure systems

Based on the above-mentioned overall investments in environmental infrastructures, this section discusses as far as possible the influence and the role of ERDF and other financial sources for the period 2000-2006 (or 2004-2006 for Member states entered in the EU since 1st May 2004). This discussion distinguishes the financial sources: ERDF, other public financial sources (ISPA, Cohesion Fund, EBRD and EIB), as well as the private sector.



Section 6: General trends in developing environmental infrastructure systems

This last section summarises by environmental themes (water supply, wastewater and solid waste) the general trends in developing environmental infrastructure systems for the selected period. Discussion under this section is mainly based on information presented under the five above-mentioned sections. The aim of this section is to provide a global overview of the environmental situation in the Member state (in the specific fields of water supply, wastewater and solid waste) and to announce challenges to address in the following programming period.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Czech Republic / Page 5

Czech Republic – Overview note

1. Status and features of the environment

Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (%) of population connected to public water supply 87.1 87.3 89.8 89.8 91.6 91.6 92.4

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply in urban areas n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 97.0 n.a. n.a.

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

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 91.0 n.a. n.a.

Source: Eurostat, 2008 and Statistical environmental yearbook, 2008.

Comments: There are important regional disparities in terms of water supply. In 2006, the share of population connected to public drinking water supply varied from 82.4% in the Pilsen Region to 99.2% in Prague. In the Czech Republic, water supply data is not differentiated according to urban areas and rural areas as the country is considered uniform in this respect. Water supply related data are therefore collected either for the whole country or for regions.

Wastewater treatment Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


n.a. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Share (%) of population receiving wastewater secondary treatment n.a. n.a. 15 16 18 17 14

Share (%) of population receiving tertiary wastewater treatment n.a. n.a. 55 55 53 56 59

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment 66 68 72 73 74 75 76

Source: Eurostat, 2008.

Comments: There are important regional disparities in terms of wastewater treatment. In 2006, the share of population connected to public sewage systems varied from 73.2% in the Vysocina Region to 99.6% in Prague (the Capital City of Prague is both municipality and region at the same time).

Solid waste Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Municipal waste generation (kg/ capita) 334 273 279 280 280 289 296

Municipal waste incinerated (kg/ capita) 31 35 39 39 39 37 37

Municipal waste landfilled (kg/ capita) 282 214 205 201 201 209 234

Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) n.a. n.a. 82 71 76 83 88

Source: Eurostat, 2008

Comments: Regional distribution of landfills is quite homogeneous and its operation and maintenance is standard and uniform. Municipal waste incineration plants operate in three Czech regions only: Capital City of Prague, Liberecky Region and Jihomoravsky (South Moravia) Region.

Energy Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


1.5 1.7 2.1 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.1


3.6 4.0 4.6 2.8 4.0 4.5 4.9

Energy intensity (kg of oil eq. per thousand €) 890.2 890.5 884.7 926.9 892.4 828.5 794.8

Source: Eurostat, 2008 and Statistical environmental yearbook, 2008.



Climate change Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total GHG emissions (1990 = 100) 75.7 76.7 74.5 74.9 75.5 75.0 76.3

GHG emissions per capita (t CO2 eq./ capita) 12.6 12.6 12.2 12.5 12.5 12.3 12.5


2. Main environmental challenges (for the period 2004-2006)

Water supply and wastewater Improve the wastewater collection and treatment systems in agglomerations above 2,000 p.e. to

comply with the requirements of Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment

As a result of accession negotiations, the Czech Republic has been granted transition period till 2010 due to very high compliance costs. In addition, the whole territory of the Czech Republic has been declared as “sensitive area”. Regardless of considerable efforts between 2000 and 2006 (increased share of population served by total waste-water treatment, newly built sewer pipelines and waste water treatment plants), it is still questionable whether the Czech Republic would be able to comply with the requirements of Directive 91/271/EEC by 2010. This situation is further complicated by the fact that certain municipalities have been considered not eligible for the EU funding (due to contracts with private operating companies).

Solid waste Reduce the share of municipal waste disposed of in landfills

Disposing of municipal waste (including bio-degradable waste) is still (since 2000) the major way of waste treatment (79 % in 2006). There are only 3 municipal waste incineration plants in the Czech Republic. It may happen that the Czech Republic would not be able to comply with the requirements of Directive 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of Waste regarding bio-degradable waste. In addition, many old landfills should be urgently recultivated as groundwater and soil are heavily polluted at these sites.

Air/ Energy/ Climate change Maintain ambient air quality limit values for suspended particulate matter (PM10);

Since 2000, the Czech Republic is not able to comply with the ambient air quality limit values for PM10 and this situation is expected to continue (in 2004, 2005 and 2006, the areas with exceeded limit values represented 3.5 %, 35 % and 28.5 % of the whole national territory, respectively).

Reduce the GHG emission per capita

Regardless of the stabilized level of GHG emissions in the Czech Republic fairly below the Kyoto target, national yearly emissions exceeding 12 tons CO2 eq. per capita for the whole period are still much higher than the EU average.

Increase the share of renewable energy sources.

Share of both renewable energy and renewable electricity is still low and the Czech Republic is not in the position to comply with its targets in due time.

3. Environmental policy

Institutional framework Decision-making, implementation and monitoring of environmental infrastructures in the Czech Republic is set by relevant legislation, which is created in a legislative process involving the Cabinet, the Parliament, the Senate, the Ministry of Environment and other ministries, Agencies (e.g. CENIA), Local Authorities (County and City Councils) and social partners including professional associations, trade unions and NGOs. Details about the institutional framework are provided below by theme:

In terms of water supply and wastewater treatment: In accordance with the Act on Waters (Act No 254/2001 Coll., as amended), the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for water management even if many important competences are provided to the Ministry of Environment. In addition, certain minor competences are given to the Ministry of Health (bathing waters), the Ministry of Transport (inland water transport) and the Ministry of Defence (within military areas). Regions (at



Nuts 3 level) and municipalities (at Nuts 5 level) have differentiated competences while the Czech Environment Inspectorate (CEI) acts as an inspection and enforcement authority. Finally, another role is played by the river basin authorities (five states owned companies : Vltava River Basin, Labe River Basin, Ohre River Basin, Morava River Basin and Odra River Basin).

As for the water infrastructure itself, a special Act on Public Water Supply and Public Sewers (Act No 274/2001 Coll., as amended) is in force, which gives the differentiated decision-making competences to the Ministry of Agriculture, regions (at Nuts 3 level) and municipalities (competences are differentiated for municipalities in general and for selected “municipalities with extended competences”).

The process of development and implementation of water related infrastructure is governed by the Plans of the Development of Public Water Supply and Public Sewers (including drinking water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plans). At central level, such a plan is being prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture. The most important instruments are the Regional Plans of the Development of Public Water Supply and Public Sewers, which are to be prepared by each of 14 Czech Regions.

In terms of solid waste management: In accordance with the Act on Waste (Act No 185/2001 Coll., as amended), the Ministry of Environment is responsible for waste management, even if certain minor competences are provided to the Ministry of Agriculture (sewage sludge) and the Ministry of Health. Customs authorities also play an important role in the field of trans-boundary movement of waste while the CEI acts as an inspection and enforcement authority.

Regional governments are responsible for preparation and implementation of regional waste management plans. Regional Authorities (administration level) issue permits for operation of waste treatment installations, for hazardous waste management (if amount of hazardous waste exceeds 100 tons/year), control landfill operators, etc.

Municipalities issue permits for hazardous waste management (if amount of hazardous waste is less than 100 tons/year), process and keep waste management records, etc. The major role of municipalities lies in inspection and enforcement. Municipalities may issue penalties if waste legislation is not observed.

The process of waste management is governed by the Waste Management Plans. At central level the National Waste Management Plan is being prepared by the Ministry of Environment and approved by the Government. At regional level, each of the 14 Czech regions has to prepare a Regional Waste Management Plan. In addition, each entity which produces more than 10 tons of hazardous waste per year or 1,000 tons of other waste per year (both companies and municipalities) are obliged to prepare waste management plans. The waste management plans at all levels must be coordinated and include the concepts of further development of waste management infrastructure.

Environmental legislation General policy, legislation and system of administration in the Czech Republic are uniform through all the 14 Czech regions. Minor regional particularities are covered by the policy documents at regional level. Czech policies in the field of environmental infrastructure are detailed below by theme:

In terms of water supply and wastewater treatment: National water Policy 2004-2010 has been adopted by the Czech Government in 2004. National Plan for the Development of Public Water Supply and Public Sewers was completed in 2008. During the period 2003-2005, all the 14 Czech regions prepared and adopted their regional plans for the development of public water supply and public sewers.

In terms of solid waste: National Waste Management Plan was issued by the Governmental Decree No 197/2003 Coll. Afterwards, several national implementation plans were prepared for selected waste commodities. Based on the national plan, fourteen regional waste management plans were prepared and adopted.



In the Czech Republic, the polluter-pays principle has been applied for a long time. Economic instruments mostly based on the polluter-pays principle are being applied widely in all the sectors: air, water, waste, agricultural land, and forestry.

Waste disposal charges are being paid in the case of waste landfilling. A basic charge is being levied for any waste while in the case of hazardous waste an additional surcharge is applied. Basic charges are the revenue of the respective municipality; surcharges are the revenue of the State Environmental Fund. Besides this, any landfill operator is obliged to create a special fund for after-care. There is no charge for municipal waste incineration at present. Special provisions are in place in the case of selected wastes (batteries and cells, car wrecks, electric and electronic scrap, lamps/bulbs, tyres) and in the case of packaging and packaging waste. These provisions are in compliance with relevant EU Directives.

Charges are being applied in the case of wastewater discharges into surface waters. These charges include one for water pollutants (COD, dissolved inorganic salts, insoluble matter, total phosphorus, nitrogen, AOX, mercury and cadmium) as well as one for the volume of wastewater discharged. A charge is also levied for discharge of wastewater into ground waters (permitted only exceptionally).

Derogations and infringements for EU Directives

Water quality By way of derogation from Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment, requirements for collecting systems and treatment of urban waste water shall not apply in the Czech Republic until 31 December 2010. As regards agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10,000, the Czech Republic shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the Directive for 18 agglomerations by the date of accession at the latest and for 36 further agglomerations with the same population equivalent by 31 December 2006. Waste management By way of derogation from Article 6(1) (a) and (b) of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, the Czech Republic shall attain the recovery and recycling targets for the following packaging materials by 31 December 2005 in accordance with the following intermediate targets: recycling of plastics: 10 % by weight by the date of accession and 12 % for 2004; overall recovery rate: 39 % by weight by the date of accession and 45 % for 2004. Industrial pollution control and risk management By way of derogation from Article 4(1) and part A of Annex III of Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, the emission limit values for sulphur dioxide shall not apply in the Czech Republic until 31 December 2007 to boiler K4 of the heating plant Prerov and to boiler K11 of the plant Nova Hut.

4. Estimate of the overall investments in environmental infrastructures

Sources: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ex post evaluation 2000-06: regional expenditure study, Ispa reports, EBRD and EIB websites. Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure

Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental



ERDF environmental investments (2004-06)



projects (2000-03)

Cohesion Fund total


projects (2004-06)



financed by EIB


industry (2000-05)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 0.0 0.0 112.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 135.0 5.4 16.3 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. 125.0Drinking water n.a. 4.2 11.3 70.3 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification 2142.9 23.9 63.8 76.1 n.a. 0.0 n.a. 424.2Total 2830.5 33.5 91.3 258.4 580.3 0.0 673.4 1373.4In % of GDP 0.48 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.11 0.29



5. Assesment of the influence and the role of ERDF and other finacial sources on environmental infrastructure systems

ERDF strategy and interventions The global ERDF strategy in the Czech Republic was represented the National Development Plan (NDP) for 2004-2006. Specifically ERDF strategy related to environment dealt with the OP Infrastructure (OPI), which developed a fourth priority axis of the NDP, namely protection and improvement of the environment. OPI is in general coherent with other environmental policies in the Czech Republic.

ERDF strategy in the period 2004 – 2006 was in full compliance with the State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic as majority of its support to environmental investments (approximately 70 %) was focused on the priority area of waste-water treatment (for which the Czech Republic received transition period). Other supported areas (drinking water supply – about 12 % of ERDF investments and waste management/treatment – 18 % of ERDF investments) belonged to the priorities of State Environmental Policy as well.

Other public financial sources Support from the EU related funds to environmental investments by the public sector was substantial with major role played by the Cohesion Fund (about 20.5 %) and ISPA (approximately 9 %). Substantial amount of funding was also provided by EIB. This financial support was also in compliance with the State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic (especially with the priority area of urban waste-water treatment).

Role of the private sector Total environmental investments done by Czech industries are estimated to € 1,4 bn for the period 2000-2005, including €125 m for urban and industrial waste and €424 m for sewerage and purification.

In the field of water, the situation is rather complicated as ownership of water related infrastructure is separated from operation of this infrastructure in the majority of cases. The real owners of water related infrastructure do not operate it usually. The “operating companies” operate water related infrastructure in such a case based on the contract with the owner, which is represented by the “ownership company” (a form of leasing).

The “ownership companies” are commonly owned (or co-owned with majority) by municipalities (or associations of municipalities) while the “operating companies” are mostly private companies (foreign international companies in the majority of cases). Given this fact there is no simple way of distinguishing between public and private investment in this area. Character of contracts between “ownership companies” and “operating companies” (duration of such contracts) makes certain municipalities not eligible for the EU funding.

In the field of solid waste, there has been a growing and very significant involvement of the private sector in recent years, especially in the provision of municipal solid waste collection, waste recovery, sorting of waste, and disposal by landfilling. The waste sector in the Czech Republic is almost fully privatised at present and related investments can be taken as mainly private. In a limited number of cases, municipalities participate in waste management companies.



6. General trends in developing environmental infrastructure systems

Water supply Between 2000 and 2006, the share of inhabitants connected to public water supply networks has increased by more than 5 % (from 87.1 % in 2000 to 92.4 % in 2006) and this trend is expected to continue However, it will not reach 100 % due to small municipalities with low population density, where construction of public water supply network would not be effective due to very high investment and operational costs. Nevertheless, there still exist regional disparities. The “worst” region (Pilsen region) exhibits 82.4 %, whilst the “best” region (Capital City of Prague) exhibits 99.2 % in respect the share of inhabitants connected to public water supply networks. Problem also lies in losses of drinking water from the supply systems (14 – 25 %) caused by insufficient quality and or obsoleteness of drinking water pipelines (to solve this problem, high investments into upgrade of drinking water supply infrastructure will be necessary). Wastewater Between 2000 and 2006, the share of population receiving total waste-water treatment has increased by 10 % (from 66 % in 2000 to 76 % in 2006). Nevertheless, there still exist regional disparities. The “worst” region (Vysocina Region) exhibits 73.2 %, whilst the “best” region (Capital City of Prague) exhibits 99.6 % in respect the share of inhabitants connected to public water supply networks.). Population living in houses connected to the sewerage system has increased from 74.8 % to 80,0 % in 2006, i.e. by 5,2 %.

Length of sewer pipelines has increased from 21 615 km in 2000 to 36 629 km in 2006 and the number of waste water treatment plants has increased from 1055 in 2000 to 2017 in 2006. This trend is expected to continue but there is still not clear whether the Czech Republic will be able to comply with the requirements of Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment by 2010.

In fact, the problem concerning compliance with the requirements of Directive 91/271/EEC lies in two points: The whole territory of the Czech Republic has been declared as “sensitive area” and the tertiary level

of treatment must still be added to many treatment plants; Due to the character of contracts between “ownership companies” and “operating companies” (see

above), certain municipalities are not eligible for OP Environment funding and do not have sufficient funding available.

Solid waste The amount of municipal waste in the Czech Republic has decreased from 334 kg/capita in 2000 to 296 kg/capita in 2006. Disposing of municipal waste in landfills remains the major way of waste treatment (79 % in 2006). Level of packaging waste recycling (59 %) is slightly above the EU27 average (54.6 %). It could be expected that the share of municipal waste incinerated will increase.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Finland / Page 11

Finland – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


90.0 90.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 90.0

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

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 92.0 n.a. 95.0

Source: Eurostat, 2008, Finnish Environment Centre

Comments: Finland had an extensive reporting system on water supply since 1971 until 1999. The system was stopped in 1999 for replacement with a new system (VELVET). However, the new system is only now starting to function whereby no exact data is available for the period 2000-2008. Thereby, the above data is based on indicative estimates by the Finnish Environment Centre Wastewater treatment

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (% ) of population receiving primary wastewater treatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Share (%) of population receiving wastewater secondary treatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


80.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0


80.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0

Source: Eurostat, 2008, Finnish Environment Centre

Comment: see comment on water supply above


Municipal waste generation (kg/ capita) 502.0 465.0 449.0 452.0 454.0 467.0 492.7

Municipal waste incinerated (kg/ capita) 52.2 41.5 41.6 49.2 54.6 43.3 42.2

Municipal waste landfilled (kg/ capita) 305.5 284.3 285.9 277.5 272.6 282.2 286.2

Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) 86.0 88.0 87.0 118.0 124.0 131.1 12.,3

Source: Eurostat, 2008, Statistics Finland


Share (%) of renewable energy in primary energy consumption (%) 23.9 22.4 21.9 20.9 23.0 23.2 n.a.

Share (%) of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption 28.5 25.7 23.7 21.8 28.3 26.9 24.0





GHG emissions per capita (t CO2 eq./ capita) 11.1 12,0 12.5 14.0 13.2 10.9 12.9





Water and Wastewater The level of municipal and industrial wastewater treatment is already good in Finland, further reduction of nitrogen from municipal wastewaters being the main challenge. Moreover, the increasing usage and transport of hazardous chemicals creates risks for the water resources as well as for public health. Especially the bio-accumulating chemicals call for strengthened control and monitoring. The state of the Baltic Sea, and especially of the Gulf of Finland, is also a major national concern. The main challenges relate to domestic reduction of agriculture-originated nutrients, prevention of oil spills and disasters, and strengthening international cooperation especially for reducing the pollution from the city of St. Petersburg as well as from the large-scale animal farms in the Leningrad Region. Solid waste Even though Finland has a good track record on recycling of several products/wastes (paper, glass, several industrial wastes), the improvement of the eco-efficiency of consumption and production has risen among the main environmental challenges. Still, too much waste is dumped to the landfills. Therefore, decrease of the waste generation as well as increase of recycling and safe incineration of waste can also be listed among the main challenges. Air/ Energy/ Climate change Climate change is the most important environmental threat and challenge for the Finnish society. On one hand, its impacts on the boreal and arctic nature are rather unpredictable, and on the other hand, the reduction of greenhouse gases, as agreed upon by the EU states, affects all sectors of the society as no single measure will suffice for the targeted reductions. The main challenges in this regard are a) the increase of renewable energy resources, especially within the industries, b) development of land use to enable major reduction of emissions caused by traffic and transport, and c) improvement of the efficiency of heating as well as use of renewable energy sources for housing. In terms of air pollution, the prevention of the emission of small particles has become an increasingly important issue especially in more densely populated areas. On one hand, the planned increase of the use of wood-based renewable energy for heating of the houses creates challenges to control the emission of small particles, and on the other hand, the traffic in urban areas is increasingly spreading hazardous small particles due to the sanding of the roads during winter. The increasing shifts between cold and warm periods during winter also worsen this situation.


Institutional framework The Ministry of the Environment (MoE) has the main responsibility for environmental legislation, strategies and management. It also represents the Finnish Government in EU fora. MoE is also responsible for the planning and coordination of measures on sustainable development taken by the state administration. Other ministries are responsible for or participating in environment-related legislation directly under their mandate. In this respect the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of Transport and Communications are the main stakeholders. During 2000-2006, the regional environmental administration was based on regional environment centres, subordinated to the MoE. Altogether 13 regional centres function, covering the different parts of the country quite evenly. Their responsibilities have included issuing of permits (major permits, whereas smaller permits are handled by municipalities), regional planning on environmental issues, environmental monitoring, and support for implementation of environmental investments. The environmental administration is now, however, undergoing major restructuring. In the future, the environment centres will be integrated into wider regional centres, covering economic and commercial administration, traffic and transport, and environmental management. Issue of all regional permits (environmental included) will be transferred under a new regional structure managed by the Ministry of Finance.



Finland has a strong tradition of municipal self-governance. Thereby, municipalities are responsible for local environmental management, including issue of permits (permits with local impact) and development of municipal environmental infrastructure including waste management, water supply, sewerage and waste water treatment. In future, the municipal permit system will be simplified by replacing some of the permits with environmental norms. Roles in water supply, wastewater, and waste management: In water supply, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has the main responsibility at State level for developing water supply services. The practical implementation responsibility lies within the municipalities. In practice they have to organise water supply to all planned areas and also to rural settlements with a justified need. In practice, water supply is developed and operated by municipal or private water supply companies and cooperatives. The MoE has the main responsibility for water protection. Within that framework development of sewerage and waste water treatment are managed at national level by the MoE. Practical implementation responsibility lies with the municipalities and polluters, and most of the actual water companies are combined water supply and sewerage providers. The MoE has also the national responsibility for waste management. In practice the municipalities are responsible for the management of municipal waste whereas industries are responsible for industrial waste. More and more, private enterprises take care of the implementation of waste management. Environmental legislation The main legal and policy documents setting out the framework at national and regional levels in relation to water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, and municipal solid waste include the following: Environmental Protection Act and Decree; includes inter alia legislation on water protection,

waste management and environmental permits Waste Management Act and Decree Marine Environment Protection Act Act on Water Services; organising water supply services Land Use and Building Act and Decree

In addition to the main laws, several by-laws define environmental issues. Also several environmental policy documents give directions in environmental management. Municipalities can also establish municipal by-laws. For example, many municipalities have specific by-laws on waste management. The public health legislation also directs issues related to environmental health. Other laws with environmental links include legislation on oil pollution, chemical safety, nature conservation, and municipal self-governance. The Water Act does not deal direct either with water supply or with sewerage but gives a framework for protection of water resources.

Derogations and infringements to EU Directives In general, Finland has transposed and implemented EU Directives in a way that no major infringement procedures have been started. The main conflict has been the differing views on nitrogen removal at municipal wastewater treatment plants (WTP). Finland has objected to the requirement of the Municipal Wastewater Directive which claims that all WTPs serving population over 10.000 persons should have full nitrogen removal treatment. Finland’s claim has been that the requirement is not feasible for WTPs located inland due to the reduction occurring in the inland water systems. Only the WTPs having direct impact on the Baltic Sea should have full nitrogen removal. The case is presently processed in the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The EU’s Advocate General has now proposed that the Court should drop the case. Otherwise, several processes (not in Court) are open with the interpretation of the definitions of the Water Directive (especially on how water services are defined) and producer responsibility for used cars and electronic waste (definitions, network of collection sites). Some minor changes were made to waste legislation due to Commission’s enquiries.

The polluter-pays principle is among the key principles of Finnish environmental legislation. The only main exemption from this principle is agriculture; environmental investments in agriculture are subsidised





the public sector





projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects


Environmental projects financed

by EIB


industry (2000-04)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 17.8 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 146.0 10.6 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 114.0Drinking water n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification n.a. 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 369.5Total 290.0 36.4 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 934.9 in % of GDP 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13

as in other EU Member States. Particularly in water protection from agriculture, these grants have remained rather inefficient. The MoE also has about €10m per annum for public environmental works. This subsidy is used mainly for environmental investments where the polluter pays principle is difficult to apply. For example long transfer sewers have been constructed with this subsidy. Regional particularities: In principle, the approach to environmental management, water supply, sewerage and waste management are fairly uniform over the different parts of Finland. For geographical reasons, technical implementation has regional particularities (e.g. some regions have good groundwater resources whereas some other areas are more dependent on surface water).


Sources: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Ex-post evaluations 2000-2006: Regional Expenditure Study, EBRD and EIB websites Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure

5. Assesment of the influence and the role of ERDF and other financial sources on environmental infrastructure systems

ERDF strategy and interventions No specific environmental strategy was prepared for the 2000-2006 ERDF programme. Instead, the approach was to integrate environmental considerations into the overall programme as well as reserve substantial funding for environmental projects. The Ministry of the Environment (national level) and regional environment centres (regional programmes) were represented well in both the planning and the implementation and monitoring of the programme in national and regional steering committees. Consequently the environmental authorities feel that environmental considerations were taken reasonably well into account in the ERDF programs, even though a specific environmental strategy was lacking. The new programme (2007-2013) includes also an environmental strategy, in accordance with the requirements of the EU. According to the data collected by the Finnish statistics bureau, the value of ERDF-supported environmental projects is estimated to have been about €261m during the Programme period 2000-2006, out of which the actual ERDF funding covers about €82m. Out of the € 141 m financed by the national public funds, € 76 m came from municipalities. The private sector financed € 38 m.

The role of ERDF funding in environmental investments differs greatly across Finland’s different regions. Basically, two approaches have been practised: In some regions, ERDF funding has been targeted mainly on “innovation” projects whereas basic

infrastructure such as water supply, sewerage, and waste management has not been funded with ERDF contribution. Subsequently, the role of ERDF in environmental investments has been marginal.

In other regions environmental investments were prioritised in the region’s ERDF programmes right from the beginning, whereby ERDF funding has been used to support prioritised investments.

Regardless of the small funds available, ERDF has been for the environmental administration (especially MoE) a major source for promoting environmental investments. Thereby, its role as a “carrot” and seed-



money for prioritised investments has been substantial. In practice ERDF has been instrumental especially in the following: Construction of sewers for connecting remote areas to central treatment facilities Upgrading landfills of smaller communities Development of water supplies in regions with poor raw water sources, construction of additional

water sources to improve the safety of water supply Other public financial sources In accordance with the polluter pays principle, most of the environmental investments are financed by the polluters themselves – industries and municipalities. The main principle of municipal water supply and sewerage as well as waste management is full cost recovery. Where investors do not have sufficient money reserves, normal bank loans are used. The national funding for environmental works (about €10m per annum) has been the second major source for the MoE for promoting environmental investments.

Role of the private sector Reflecting the polluter pays principle industries are among the key investors in environmental protection. The permits define the targets and enforcement is functioning well, only marginal problems having occurred in respect of whether the private sector fulfils its requirements. The private sector is also a major partner (often in collaboration with research institutions and universities) in environmental research and development. Altogether, development of environmental technologies is among the priority areas of Finland’s research policies.


Extensive investments for environmental infrastructure (water, sewerage, waste, air pollution) were implemented from the 1960s through to the 1990s. Altogether the level of environmental infrastructure was already rather advanced and comprehensive at the beginning of the new millennium. Thereby, the period 2000-2006 did not involve any major trends on environmental infrastructure. Rather, the development has focused on improving the coverage of the services in rural areas, improving the safety of the services and preparing the grounds for alternative and next-generation systems. The main trends in water supply, sewerage and waste management may be summarised as follows:

Water supply The focus has been on improving the safety of water supplies (construction of additional water sources and on line monitoring and control) and in combining separate water supply systems into wider networks, especially in rural areas.

Wastewater In sewerage the focus has been on improving nitrogen removal from wastewater and construction of transfer sewers to connect remote areas to central treatment plants.

Solid waste In waste management, investments have focused on closing old landfills and upgrading developed landfills. Investigations and plans for alternative solutions (incineration, reuse) have been made but the respective investments are still mostly pending.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – France / Page 17

France – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


n.a. 99.9 99.9 n.a. 99.9 99.9 99.9


n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


n.a n.a. n.a. 98.5 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Sources: Eurostat, 2008; Institut français de l'environnement (Ifen), 2006; EauFrance, 2003.


Share (% ) of population receiving primary wastewater treatment n.a. n.a. 2.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.6


n.a. n.a. 51.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 37


n.a. n.a. 27.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 42.5

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment .n.a. n.a 79.0 n.a. n.a n.a. 80.1

Sources: Eurostat, 2008; OECD, 2008.

Comments: In general, France has not respected the deadlines established in the Urban Waste Water treatment Directive. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made in waste water treatment since 1999. In 2006, 3,000 treatment plants were in conformity with regulations, versus 1,300 in 2003.





Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) 212 208 206 204 204 197 201


Comments: According to the French environmental agency (ADEME), landfilling and incineration are still the two most common procedures for disposal of municipal waste. According to a study carried out in 2004 on the treatment of municipal waste in France, 43% of the waste is incinerated, 39% is landfilled, 13% is sorted and recycled, and 6% undergoes biological treatment. Energy

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


7.0 7.1 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.0 6.3


15.1 16.5 13.7 13.0 12.9 11.3 12.5


Sources: Eurostat, 2008; Statistics service (SOeS) of the Ministry of Ecology, energy, sustainable development, and territorial planning (MEEDAT), 2008



Comments: The main sources for the production of electricity in France are nuclear (78 %) and hydro power (almost 10 %), which do not contribute to GHG emissions. While France has vast resources of wind, geothermal energy and biomass, and wind power and geothermal electricity have shown growth, they however continue to play a limited role in the electricity sector. There is an important potential in the area of solid biomass. In 2006, 3.9 TWh of electricity were produced from biomass, along with 9.2 Mtep for heat production.




Source: Institut français de l'environnement (Ifen), 2007; Eurostat, 2008. Comments: Between 1990 and 2005 net GHG emissions in France were reduced by 2%. In the same period, the emissions from transportation increased by 22% (with an observable stabilisation due to the improvement of fuels) and from buildings by 15%. The contribution of these two sectors to total French GHG emissions increased from 37% to 45% during this period. In France, buildings account for 42.5% of the final energy consumption and transportation 31%. Therefore, the priority is to reduce energy consumption and related emissions in these two sectors.


Water supply and wastewater In the water area, one of the main priorities, as stated in the 2003 National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) was achieving a good ecological status over the whole territory, before 2015, in agreement with EU standards. In this regard, main challenges for the period 2000-2006 were: Promote sustainable water management ; Improve water quality in rural and urban areas.

Furthermore, 29% of the network pipe are 30 years old or more and 10% of the network is even 60 years old or more. The investment required to renew the network is estimated to be between € 1.5 and 2 bn per year from now to 2015. Financing such investment is a challenging issue for the French water sector. Solid waste As defined in the 2003 NSDS, main challenges for the solid waste sector include the implementation of a national system to reduce waste generation at the source in order to shift the natural upward trend of the amount produced per inhabitant, as well as to continue efforts towards a better level of waste recycling, with particular attention to cost control.

In this respect, supporting and promoting emerging circuits (e.g. collection and recycling of waste) are also challenges to address. In fact, the effect of the waste processing circuits on health and the environment shall be reduced, in particular through illegal waste disposal site closing and resorption, and through incinerator modernisation, as required by the European directives, before 2005.

Finally, France had to promote acceptance and waste management, as well as to improve information sharing by ensuring that the incineration regulation is applied effectively and by pursuing the reduction of non-authorised disposal. Waste management had to be organised through a territorial approach. Air/ Energy/ Climate change In terms of energy, 2000-2006 challenges were the promotion of the use of renewable energy sources and the support for energy efficiency. In this regard, the Biofuels Plan 2003-2010 was adopted in 2003 aiming at increasing tenfold the biofuel production. In the meanwhile, the rational use of energy had to be promoted through industries and households. Finally, France had to make efforts to reduce its GHG emissions to achieve national and European commitments. Commitment to reduce GHG emissions by four by 2050 was voted by the French Parliament in 2005.




Institutional framework Water management: At the level of the national government, several Ministries have a role in determining policies for water supply and sanitation: The Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Territorial Planning (Meeddat), the Ministry of Health (in charge of monitoring drinking water quality), the Ministry of Interior (in charge of supervising local government) and the Ministry of Economy and Finance (which supervises the Water Agencies together with the Ministry of Ecology).

At a regional level, the DRIRE network (regional directions for industry, research and environment), has the responsibility of controlling the impacts of industrial installations on the environment, local population and goods and of delivering operating authorisations. France has 6 catchment areas in mainland France and 5 in its overseas regions and territories. Each catchment has 2 specific organisms in charge of water resources management and protection (the catchment area committee and the water agency).

City mayors are responsible for the quality of the services that are provided in each municipality. Municipalities can choose between 2 types of management for water supply and treatment and wastewater treatment: direct management (internal) or contracting a private operator (76% of the cases). In any case, the supply and treatment installations are property of the local authorities. In municipalities with more than 10,000 inhabitants Consultative Commissions for Local Public Services assist municipalities in regulating service providers. The Commissions were created through the 1992 water law. Waste management: Waste is managed by municipalities. This management consists of the collection, transportation, storage, sorting, and energy and material recovery. When waste is to landfilled, it has to be done in such a way that possible nuisances are minimised. This management can be transferred by the local authorities to a public office in which several municipalities are represented, to be performed by a private company (though contracting) or through a private-public partnership. Environmental legislation Water management: French water policy is based on several water laws. The 1964 water law introduced harmonised water management in its natural environment – the catchment area – with the creation of catchment area committees in which all the players involved in the water sector are represented. Furthermore, it introduced the polluter-pays principle. The 1992 water law (Loi sur l’eau of January 3, 1992) introduced the principle of balanced management of water resources. Another important piece of legislation regarding water resources management, water supply and sanitation is the Loi sur l’eau et les milieux aquatiques (Water and Aquatic Environment Law) of December 30, 2006, which transposes the EU Water Framework Directive into French law. The quality for tap water is regulated by a decree of 1989. Finally, other laws have completed this regulation: they concern in particular consumer information (Barnier law of 1995) and contractor relation between local authorities and private water service providers (Barnier, Sapin, and Mazeaud law of 1995). Waste management: The French Environmental Code on pollution prevention, risks and nuisances (Title IV of the Book V) determine waste related requirements. These requirements are the prevention or reduction of hazardousness of waste, the promotion of the recovery of waste by reuse and recycling, and the organisation of the transport of waste (including limits in terms of distance and volume). In the waste field, the polluter-pays principle is applied through taxes levied for the financial participation in the waste management policy, and in the local authorities’ expenses for collection and elimination of household waste.




Drinking water In 2003, the Commission pursued legal action against eight Member States over EU water laws, including France. It received request to ensure higher drinking water standards in Brittany. Indeed, the Commission has decided to send France a Reasoned Opinion for breaches (in Brittany) of the quality standards for nitrates and pesticides that are laid down in the Drinking Water Directive based on information from the French authorities that indicated that, in 1998, 13% of the population of this region was supplied with drinking water that exceeded the limit of 50mg/l for nitrates, as laid down in the Directive. Urban wastewater France has not respected some deadlines established in the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. For example, France identified sensitive areas in 1994 and reviewed its identification in 1999, classifying a number of further sensitive areas. However, the study carried out by the Commission in 1999 showed that a number of additional sensitive areas should have been identified in terms of eutrophication. France still has not designated these areas, which include the freshwaters and coastal waters of the Artois-Picardie basin, the Bay of the Seine and its downstream river sections, rivers and coastal waters in Brittany, the river Vistre and the lagoon Etang de Thau. The identification of these areas was subject to an infringement procedure before Court. Furthermore, France received several requests to supply information on implementation of the urban waste directive. Indeed, the provision of data by the French authorities was not satisfactory. Information was submitted with long delays, or it was incomplete or completely absent. France did not published situation reports as required under Article 16 of the Directive. The Commission decided then to send France a Reasoned Opinion for failing to provide sufficient information on how the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive was been implemented. This relates in particular to the lack of information on sensitive areas. Solid waste France has already met the 2009 target (reduction of the amount landfilled to 50% of the amount produced in 1995). Nevertheless, the European Court of Justice ruled against France for incomplete transposition of the Directive Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (case C-172/04). As the missing transposition measures concerning non-industrial inert waste still have not been notified in 2006, the Commission started a procedure against France under Article 228 of the Treaty. In addition, the Commission initiated “horizontal” infringement cases against Italy and France for incorrect application of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of the Waste Framework Directive and of Article 14 of the Landfill Directive because of the numerous unauthorised landfills in these Member States. An important control of landfilling sites for non-hazardous waste, among which there was a considerable number of non-authorised installations, have been carried out. According to information provided by the Direction for pollution and risk prevention (DPPR), the national action plan from 2003 to limit illegal landfillling allowed to reduce the number of sites from 893 in 2005 to 45 in 2007.


Sources: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Ex-post evaluations: Regional Expenditure Study, EBRD and EIB websites Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure



the public sector





projects

Cohesion Fund total commitments in environmental

infrastructure projects



financed by EIB


industry (2001-04)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 336.0 224.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste n.a. 159.8 104.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 448.4Drinking water n.a. 223.0 208.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification n.a. 148.3 112.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 1455.7Total 20856.0 867.1 649.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 605.0 4073.6In % of GDP 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06




ERDF strategy and interventions During the 2000-2006 period, ERDF intervened in environmental infrastructure in France through operational programmes for a total amount of €649.5 m. Three main fields can be distinguished: urban and industrial waste (€159.8 m), drinking water (€223 m), and sewerage and purification (€148.3 m). In particular, available information shows that the ERDF intervened through 204 projects in water supply, 186 projects in wastewater, and 130 projects in municipal solid waste. Furthermore, a total amount of €336 m were also spent on other types of environmental infrastructure projects.

According to the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Territorial Planning, the ERDF strategy in the field of environment was mainly focused on the following general aspects: Sustainable improvements to the territory; Improve the appeal of the regions by enhancing the environment, regenerate urban and rural areas

and develop culture; Making agriculture part of sustainable development; Support environmental improvement and protection and prevention of natural risks; Improvement of resources management, in particular water resources; Reduction of waste generation and promotion of selective collection and recycling.

An important leading principle was favouring projects allowing overseas departments to catch up with the existing structuring delay with respect to equitable access by all to public water and waste disposal.

In terms of water supply and wastewater management, priorities of the ERDF interventions focused on: Improvement of water supply in urban renovation projects; Creation of new waste water treatment plants.

In terms of waste, priorities for the period focused on the following issues: Create new circuits for waste collection and drop-off and reclamation centres Creation of new composting installations Control of landfills (e.g. closing unauthorised landfills or rehabilitation of former landfills) Creation of transfer stations for waste

Other public financial sources Total investments in environmental infrastructure by the French public sector are estimated to €21 bn for the period 2000-2006 and mainly concern wastewater treatment and waste management. Within the public sector, municipalities, either individually or in groups, provide the greatest share of financing of environmental projects (68% in 2005), followed by territorial authorities (the Departmental level and the regional level contributing for 11% and 8%), and the water agencies (Agences de l’eau) covering the remaining part.

Regarding water supply and sanitation, investments are financed through internal revenue generation, debt and contributions from France's six Water Agencies. The latter are financed through charges for water abstraction and wastewater discharge by utilities and industries. Water represents the largest item of environment expenditures at the regional and departmental levels, accounting for an average of 33% and 61%, respectively. After the Water Agencies, the departments are the second largest source of water sector financing.

In the case of waste management, funding is provided through local taxes paid by inhabitants.



EIB loans to France for environmental infrastructure amounted to € 605 m for the 2000-2006 period. These loans were mainly used by France for the following types of investments: Improvement of the quality of life in the urban environment, particularly through urban renewal and

sustainable urban transport projects; Environmental and health issues (e.g. reduction of industrial pollution, provision of water and

wastewater treatment); Climate change, including energy efficiency and renewable energy; Protection of nature and wildlife; Preservation of natural resources and waste management (including minimisation, recycling, re-use

and disposal of domestic, commercial and industrial waste).

Role of the private sector Total environmental investments done by French industries are estimated to €4 bn for the period 2001-2004, including €448.4 m for urban and industrial waste and €1.45 bn for sewerage and purification. In 2003, 30% of total environmental expenses in France were made by private companies.

The French market is dominated by three historic and multi-sectoral key players: Veolia Environnement, Suez and Saur. Each of them has acquired important companies generally with specific sub-sectors (e.g. COVED is now the subsidiary of Saur in charge of the urban cleansing business, Dalkia is the Energy subsidiary of Veolia Environnement, Degrémont takes care of the water and waste water services of Suez). Other important companies exist, focusing on a sub-sector, such as Séché Environnement, one of the leaders in the waste management market in France.

The private sector is particularly present in the water supply sector since three-quarters of the French population are supplied with water by privately operated distribution services. Private companies also have an important role in terms of research & development activities in the environmental field in order to enable, for instance, the upgrading of new wastewater treatment processes, or development of systems for elimination of wastewater treatment sludge. In the solid waste sector, private companies held 62% of the collection market and 90% of the household waste treatment market in 2005.


Water supply At the beginning of the 1950s, less than 40% of the rural population was connected to the water supply network. From 1954 to 1995, the connection rate has increased by more than 2.5 times to reach almost a full connection rate of rural population at the end of the 1990s. In 2004, less than 1 per cent of the population still lacked supply of drinking water from public mains. Out of the 6 bn m³ of water used for drinking water supply, 4.4 bn are consumed. Among the remaining 1.6 bn m3, leakage is estimated at 21% of the volume entering the supply system, in reduction in comparison with 2001.

Wastewater In France, 23.5 m households are connected to a public waste water collecting system. Over 90% of homes are connected in municipalities with more than 10,000 inhabitants. This figure is less than 30% in municipalities with fewer than 400 inhabitants. Slightly over 5 million households are not connected to a public collecting system. They are equipped with septic tanks. Municipalities are increasingly taking this collecting method into account and 42% of them have designated areas for this purpose. In 2001, the total length of waste water collecting systems (sewers) was 250,000 km in addition to the 79,000 km of storm water collecting systems.

With 17,300 wastewater treatment plants, France has a treatment capacity of 89 m inhabitant equivalent, which is 48% higher than the capacity needed with current population. In this domain, ERDF interventions contributed to the increase of the treatment capacity by financing wastewater treatment facilities, especially in overseas departments.

Solid waste Local authorities have spent approximately €600-750 m in order to implement new requirements. Most of the incineration plants have been adapted and comply with current legislation (e.g. implementation of the Waste Incineration Directive, transposed into the French legislation by the 2 ‘arrêtés’ adopted the 10th of February 2005) and some plants were closed.



In 2006, collected municipal solid waste amounted to approximately 34 m tonnes, thus 538 kg per capita. Indeed, municipal waste generation has increased slightly from 516 kg per capita in 2000 to 538 kg per capita in 2006, thus almost a 4% increase.

Selective waste collection represented 47% of the total waste generated in 2006, in comparison to 38% in 2000. Selective waste collection, including the flow of waste collected through drop-off centres, appointed to 13 m tonnes in 2006 (+90% between 1995 and 2006).

Selective collection of packaging waste, including magazines and newspapers, continued to increase in the period 2000-2006 and represented 10% of the total waste collected in 2006. The introduction of new circuits for specific wastes (e.g. tyres) and new sorting and reclamation centres allowed improving the quality of the waste collected thus facilitating recovery and recycling.

In the solid waste sector, ERDF interventions contributed to the promotion of waste valorisation by financing the setting up of sorting centres and composting facilities. ERDF also financed the closure and rehabilitation of old landfill sites.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Germany / Page 25

Germany – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


n.a. n.a. 99.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 100 n.a. n.a.


n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 97.0 n.a. n.a.


Comments: According to information of the German Statistical Agency of January 2009 data are not collected each year. More recent data are expected for May 2009 (Source: DESTATIS personal communication, January 2009).



1.1 0 n.a. n.a. 0 n.a. 0.1


6.3 5 n.a. n.a. 3 n.a. 3.3

Share (%) of population receiving tertiary wastewater treatment 83.1 88 n.a. n.a. 90 n.a. 90

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment 90.5 93 n.a. n.a. 94 n.a. 93.5

Source: Eurostat, 2008 and OECD, 2008 (for 2000 and 2006 data).

Comments: According to information of the German Statistical Agency of January 2009 data are not collected each year. More recent data are expected for May 2009 (Source: DESTATIS personal communication, January 2009).








Share (%) of renewable energy in primary energy consumption (%) 2.8 3.0 3.4 3.6 4.0 4.8 5.4



Source: Eurostat, 2008. Climate change

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006



Source: Eurostat, 2008




Water supply and wastewater Water supply in urban and rural areas has already reached a very high level. However, it can be stated that the amount of nutrients in rivers and lakes should be further reduced. The most important source of nutrients is intense farming. Here, solution can not result from environmental infrastructure. Waste water collection infrastructure is partly aged and unattended fresh water supply network requires rehabilitation. In the period after the German reunification (after 1990) improvement of wastewater treatment and collection infrastructure had been a challenge in the 5 new federal states.

Solid waste In general the further development of waste management from the protective focus to its potential contribution to the sustainable use and consumption of resources was and is a major challenge. At the same time disconnecting economic growth from increase of waste amounts has been identified as environmental target.

The ban of landfilling of untreated waste and its enforcement entered into force in 2005. This decision can be seen as a major contribution to the reduction of the climate change potential of waste management. Its implementation required improvement of waste management infrastructure (pre-treatment plants, thermal processes for biogenic waste). Closely related to this, securing and remediation of old landfills are important steps to minimise environmental and climate change impacts from existing landfills. This was and is still a more severe challenge in the new federal states than in the old ones because of the relatively high number of old landfills in the new federal states that do not fulfil environmental requirements sufficiently.

The separate collection of specific waste streams like packaging waste and the implementation of the producers responsibility principle in the context of waste collection and treatment can be seen as another major challenge for an improved waste management system in Germany. Its implementation required, inter alia, specific treatment of the waste and recovery process for the fractions from the treatment. . Air/ Energy/ Climate change Reduction of emissions and improvement of the immission situation for the parameters PM10 and PM2.5, NOx and ozone are major issues in the cities and some rural areas. Relevant sources for pollutants are traffic, fine dust from gritting materials in winter and thermal (combustion) processes in industry and energy production. Improvements of energy efficiency of production transport and mobility, heating/housing and products is an important challenge to the achievement of the CO2 reduction target of Germany.


Institutional framework In terms of water, the responsibility for supplying drinking water is with the municipalities within the framework of the water legislation of the Federal States (Bundesländer) and the Federal Water Legislation. Decision-making, implementation and monitoring in the context of waste water collection and treatment is structured similarly to the situation with drinking water. In fact charges for drinking water and waste water are levied as a combined fee in most regions.

In terms of waste, the decision making, implementation and monitoring of waste management infrastructure are allocated to different institutions depending on the type of infrastructure, the type of waste, the source of waste, and the destination of waste. In general municipalities are responsible for the collection, treatment and disposal of mixed municipal waste from private households and small businesses. Municipal waste destined for recovery can be managed by private companies. Municipal waste from large companies and all kinds of industrial waste is managed by private companies. Separately-collected fractions from private households are managed both



by municipalities and by private companies. Treatment, recovery and disposal facilities (including landfills) for municipal waste are partly operated by municipalities and partly by private companies. Landfills and incinerators for other than municipal wastes are always operated by private companies. Waste management plans are developed by public authorities of the NUTS 1, 2 and 3 levels. Waste management plans of private companies are elaborated on a voluntary basis. Enforcement of waste management plans (aside from businesses) and monitoring are exclusive tasks of public authorities.

The basis for waste management in Germany is the federal waste law (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz). This law is implemented by the 16 Federal States (Bundesländer at NUTS level 1) and realised in smaller geographical units depending on the situation in the Federal State (at NUTS 3 level: Kreise, at LAU 2 level Gemeinden). Enforcement and inspection is often tasks of the NUTS 2 level (Regierungsbezirk) and the NUTS 3 level (Kreise) as well as the NUTS 1 level (Bundesländer).

Environmental legislation In terms of water: The framework of water-related legislation in Germany is given by the Federal

Wasserhaushaltsgsetz (Federal Water Act). It is implemented at the level of Federal States (Bundesländer ) by 16 individual regional water legislative acts and one regional administrative regulation (Bavaria, Verwaltungsvorschrift). The federal drinking water ordinance (Trinkwasserverordnung) constitutes a framework for the activities of the municipalities that supply drinking water and monitor its quality.

In terms of municipal solid waste: the main legislative document for the management of waste is the Federal waste law Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz. Subordinated legislation is differentiated by waste type (e.g. Packaging Waste, etc.), polluting substance (e.g. PCB containing waste, hydrocarbon-containing waste), tasks (e.g. monitoring, enforcement such as the German Waste List Ordinance or the Ordinance for Proof of proper waste management), addressee (e.g. Ordinance on Authorised Waste Management Companies), disposal operations (e.g. Ordinance on landfilling of waste), and destination of the waste (e.g. Ordinance on the shipment of waste).

In terms of the polluter-pays principle, the direct costs of management of waste from production activities are paid by the waste producer. The costs depend on the amount of waste and type of waste. Municipal solid waste management is also paid for by the waste producers. Usually a basic fee has to be paid by the waste producer for the availability of the waste management infrastructure and another part of the total fee depends on the amount of waste. For product-related wastes where specific waste legislation is in force (e.g. Packaging, batteries, etc.) the producer of the product is partly involved in the covering of the costs for management of those wastes.

15 regional legislative acts on waste water fees (geographical level: Bundesländer) plus 14 legislative acts on waste water fees for the NUTS 3 level determine how the costs for supply of water and disposal of waste water are distributed across users of water provided by the state. Usually the fee is divided into a basic fee and a variable fee. By this means the polluter pays principle is enforced. The legislation is complemented in nine federal states by legislation on fees for groundwater extraction.

Derogations and infringements for EU Directives (in the last 10 years)

Drinking water The European Court of Justice declared on 14 March 2002 that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. More specifically Germany did not comply with the obligations laid down in Article 5(4)(a) and point 2 of Annex III to the Directive. Article 5(4) of the Directive provides that action programmes shall be implemented within four years of their establishment and shall consists, inter alai, of the measures in Annex III of the Directive. On 15 December 2005 the ECJ declared that Germany did not adopt all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy in time and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. Solid waste On 27 February 2003 the ECJ declared that Germany, by subjecting shipments of waste to other Member States to a mandatory contribution to the solidarity fund for the return of waste has failed to fulfil its obligations in the context of Regulation No 259/93 and the contribution to a solidarity fund under Articles 23 EC and 25 EC.



Two weeks before the ECJ declared that by raising unjustified objections to certain shipments of waste to other Member States the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(2) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. In the concrete case Germany objected against shipment of waste to be used principally as a fuel. Incineration of hazardous waste On 6 November 2008 the ECJ declared that Germany failed to fulfill its obligation resultimng from Article 4(1), in conjunction with Annex I, point 9, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC 1 of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment by authorising a heating installation for the production of energy which partly incinerates dangerous waste (waste disposal and waste recovery operation) without first carrying out an assessment of the effects on the environment. Management of hazardous waste On 10 June 2004 the ECJ declared that Germany did not develop or communicate in time the plan provided for in the first indent of Article 11(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT).


Sources: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Ex post evaluation 2000-06: regional expenditure study, EBRD and EIB websites, Theseus. Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure


ERDF strategy and interventions During the 2000-2006 period, ERDF intervened in environmental infrastructure in Germany through operational programmes for a total amount of €1.5 bn. Three main fields can be distinguished: urban and industrial waste (€203.9 m), drinking water (€193.2 m), and sewerage and purification (€889.8 m). ERDF environmental investments cover a share of around 6% of the overall environmental investments from public sources in the areas waste water, solid waste and drinking water in the period 2000 to 2006.

According to the common funding concept (“Gemeinsames Förderkonzept”; GFK) for the years 2000 to 2006 protection of the environment is a horizontal objective within the overall concepts of a sustainable development. The GFK identified need for action especially for environmental infrastructures in the areas waste water management, solid waste management, site remediation, reduction of emissions to air and improvement of energy efficiency. In addition to direct investments in public infrastructure it has been an objective of the GFK to support enterprises and especially small and medium sized enterprises in environmental protection investments.


Total environmental






projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB


industry

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 112.1 185.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 1880.0 79.8 203.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Drinking water n.a. 98.8 193.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification 14790.0 465.7 889.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Total 19820.0 756.4 1472.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2027.8 n.a.In % of GDP 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 n.a.



The implementation of the concept of sustainable development in the individual measures is realised in different ways in the different federal states. An overall common concept and related indicators for the assessment of environmental impacts has not been established in the GFK. Other public financial sources Total investments in environmental infrastructure by the German public sector are estimated to €19.8 bn for the period 2000-2006 and mainly concern urban and industrial waste, as well as wastewater treatment and waste management.

EIB loans to Germany for investing in environmental amounted to € 2 bn for the 2000-2006 period. Role of the private sector Water supply and waste water collection and treatment are mainly under the responsibility of the public. Even though detailed figures are not available on federal level it can be assumed that the overall role of the private sector is relatively small compared to public investments. For installations for treatment (and especially thermal treatment) of waste the private sector plays a more important role (especially with regard to new dedicated waste incineration plants and installations for pre-treatment of mixed municipal waste). In the overall investments in minimisation of environmental impact from waste management site remediation and securing of landfills played an important role in the five new federal states of Germany. This has been financed and realised in the responsibility of the pubic sector.

Investments in minimisation of emissions from defined source and (industrial processes) is mainly realised by the private sector. Measures to reduce emissions from diffuse (nonpoint) sources (like transport) are realised by public authorities.


Water supply The percentage of population with access to improved water supply in urban areas and in rural areas was in the period until 2004 already at a high level (100% resp. 97%). Investments in environmental infrastructure focuses on keeping the high level achieved. Main fields of activity are the maintenance of the drinking water network and securing the collection of clean drinking water (prevention of pollution of sources, instalment of new sources respectively replacement sources). Around 850 km of fresh water pipes in the five new federal states of Germany have been subject to investments in the period from 2000 to 2006. For some areas (e.g. Thüringen) a saturation of investment necessities has been observed. Waste water Major pressure for action results from the badly maintained waste water collection infrastructure, from the European Directive on treatment of municipal waste water, the Water Framework Directive and the drinking water ordinance. Consequently major field of investments are the maintenance of the waste water collection infrastructure and building respectively improvement of waste water treatment plants. From 2002 to 2004 the percentage of the population connected to tertiary treatment of wastewater increased from 88% to 90% and the percentage of the population receiving total treatment from 93% to 94%.

Solid waste The European Landfill Directive as well as the German ban for landfill of biogenic waste induced a strong need to develop an infrastructure for alternative disposal routes especially for mixed municipal solid waste. The objectives of both legal bases can be achieved by mechanical biological pre-treatment before landfilling and/or by thermal treatment of the waste (incineration and co-incineration). Consequently investments in pre-treatment plants and investments to support thermal treatment have high priority. At the same time environmental effects from existing landfills must have been minimised in order to ensure that ground water and climate protection targets can be met. Consequently investments in landfill remediation and securing (target: ground water protection) and landfill degasification (target: reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and minimisation of nuisance) are required. According to data from Eurostat, the amount of municipal solid waste incinerated increased by 38% (+49 kg/capita) and the number of solid waste incinerators increased by 18%. The amount of waste landfilled decreased by 98% (161 kg/capita).



Reduction of generated waste through waste prevention was one of the priorities in the “waste hierarchy” of the European Waste Framework Directive. The target to decouple economic growth and waste generation is one of the major outcomes of the European Strategy on Prevention and Recycling of Waste and a basis of the Waste Framework Directive. Waste prevention that can be achieved and/or supported by investments has highest potential in production processes. When production is mainly done by small and medium sized enterprises and where the highest waste prevention potential is in SME, a relatively high number of small investments must be done. Efforts for administration of funds and efforts of the enterprises to become funded (relative to the available man power) are high. Compared to this recovery of waste, as second priority in the European “waste hierarchy”, is much more focussing the investment flows because of high investment needs. Detailed information about the quantitative effects of waste prevention but often also of waste recycling is only accessible by evaluating the individual measure. Waste statistics are usually not detailed enough to show the effects of investments one-to-one. Mass relevance and/or hazardousness of a prevented or recycled waste as major criteria for the relevance of a waste stream are often not described in an overall context when investments are done.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Greece / Page 31

Greece – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a


n.a n.a n.a n.a 91.0 n.a n.a


n.a n.a n.a n.a 73.0 n.a n.a

Source: Eurostat, 2008. Wastewater treatment

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (% ) of population receiving primary wastewater treatment n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a

Share (%) of population receiving wastewater secondary treatment n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a


n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a


56.2 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a

Source: OECD Statistics.

Comments: More data are available for Athens and Tessaloniki. See section 4. Statistics regarding connection of people to water supply and sewerage are not kept by the Statistical Service of the Ministry of Economy, as there are no special codes for these items and nobody collects the data on a regular basis.


Municipal waste generation (kg/ capita) 408.0 414.0 422.0 428.0 431.0 437.0 n.a.



Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) 88.0 92.0 94.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Source: Eurostat, 2008, EEA 2008





Source: Eurostat, 2008, EEA 2008.

Climate change

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006







Water supply and wastewater The implementation of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive is of high priority. The goal of the government is to increase the proportion of the population connected to wastewater treatment to 75%. This can only be achieved through the combination of the full operation of the large Athens and Thessaloniki wastewater treatment facilities and the construction of many small and large collection and treatment systems in the regions. Regarding drinking water supply, the priority is the protection of wetlands, which are in a very critical situation.

Solid waste The improved management of solid waste is to be achieved through reduction of volume of waste, construction of new sanitary landfills and increased recycling. Alternative solutions to landfills have to be developed as well as a market for recyclable materials. Finally the closure of the uncontrolled dumps has to be accelerated, especially as regards to EU action taken against Greece for lack of progress in the matter.


Institutional framework Environmental Policy in Greece is drawn up by the Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Civil Works in cooperation with the other competent Ministries involved according to the subject in hand.

The process of making decisions on environmental infrastructure projects differs in the sense that the initial proposals are made by the Local Authorities (municipalities, water and sewerage companies and, in the future, local waste management bodies). These proposals are addressed first to the Regional Authorities or directly to the Ministry of the Environment in the case of Ministry-run programmes, and receive a first scrutiny and are then passed on to the Ministry of Economy for financing approval. A major driving force in the process is the need to comply wit EU Directives such as the Water Framework Directive, The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Landfill Directive and others.

Regarding implementation of environmental infrastructure at national, regional and local level, it is mainly in the hands of local government, through municipalities, water companies or associations of local government for the management of solid waste. Monitoring should be performed by the Ministries of Environment and Interior, as well as the Counties. However, monitoring in practice is limited to the gathering of information about infrastructure and good operation is left to the discretion of the operators.

Water supply and waste water treatment are the responsibility of the municipalities (about 800) or local water and wastewater companies which are compulsory for populations above 10,000 (about 175). Control over the quality of water supplies is exercised by local municipalities and water companies, supervised by the Prefectural services of Public Hygiene (local health inspectors), whereas overall control is exercised by the Ministry of Public Hygiene. Waste collection services are mainly run by municipalities or local unions of municipalities, while disposal services are run by local solid waste management bodies constituted by the Municipalities of each area. These bodies also have the possibility of taking over collection at a later stage in their development. Responsibility for the general planning of solid waste management lies with the Ministry of Interior, Civil Administration and Public Order, which has brought forward the National Plan and the Regional Plans of solid waste management, while the process of application is monitored by a joint committee of the said Ministry with the Ministries of Development and Economy. The whole process lacks coherence and consistency, as it was developed haphazardly by bringing together plans that were drafted on a Prefectural level during the period 1996-2000.

Environmental legislation Up to 1986 environmental policy in Greece was enacted by public hygiene decrees issued by the Ministry of Health and decisions of the local Prefects, mainly prepared by local pubic hygiene services. In 1986, Law 1650/1986 was established as a framework law for the protection of the environment. This Law was later modified by Law 3010/2002, which also transposed directives 97/11 and 96/61/EEC. In application of this law, a multitude of Joint Ministerial Decisions (JMD), Ministerial Decisions (MD), Presidential Decrees (PD) and other legal acts have been issued, including those transposing EU legislation into the local legal system.



Water Supply is governed by Laws 3199/2003 and Presidential Decree PD 51/2007, transposing the WFD 2000/60/EC, supported by a number of PDs, Joint Ministerial Decisions (JMDs) and Public Hygiene Circulars. Special mention is made of JMD Y2/2600/2001 about “quality of water for human consumption”, transposing EU Directive 98/83/EC. Collection and treatment of wastewater is regulated by the same Law 3199/2003 and a series of JMDs from 1997 to actual transposition of the UWWTD 91/271 and its modifications. Water and wastewater companies have their own regulations on minimising discharges from their sewerage networks, whereas special discharge terms in specific water bodies are set by prefectural or JMDs or MDs, according to the merits of each case. Discharges are monitored by the operating bodies and are also checked periodically by prefectural or regional services, or by the Ministry of Environment.

The principal act governing the management of municipal solid waste is the JMD 50910/2727/2003. A large number of JMDs and Presidential Decrees incorporate EU Directives on various types of waste (cars, electric appliances, packaging wastes etc). Permits are issued by the Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works and its regional services, in accordance with Circular 123067/2004.


All major EU Directives have been transposed into the Greek legal system. However, the fact of the transposition does not ensure their implementation and enforcement. This is why at this moment there are a large number of cases against Greece in the European Court of Justice, while a lot of other infringements have been identified and are being processed. The main sources of infringements lie in the application of the solid waste directives due to uncontrolled waste dumps. There are also large gaps in the implementation of the UWWT Directive, mainly due to poor planning, as there are still agglomerations without sewage collection and treatment, which should have been dealt with by the year 2000, whereas more than 150 systems are missing for agglomerations between 2.000 and 15.000 population, which should have been in place by 2005. In addition, the implementation of the WFD is lagging behind by at least 3 years, while the wetlands and sensitive areas are not being properly protected and the surface and underground water quality in many areas of the country is being degraded. Finally, there are numerous complaints about the quality of water in a number of cities, which remain unattended.

The polluter-pays principle is applied only partly in relation to the cost of water supply and wastewater collection and disposal services, on the principle that users pay for the direct cost of the services, but not for any actual damage done by water abstraction or wastewater discharge. Charges for these services are levied on all users, domestic or not, except in cases where there is a privately-owned water source. In the case of infrastructure development, part of the national contribution (65%) is paid by the water and sewerage companies and recovered from the users. In the case of loans, the repayment is passed on to the water bills.

Regarding solid waste, the same practice is followed in relation to the operating costs, but in the procurement and construction of waste facilities there are no user funds involved at this point in time. Again here the user pays for the cost of the services but not for the environmental damage caused. The only cases where the polluter pays part of the environmental cost is in the imposition of fines, but even then the question of a fair price for environmental damage caused remains.

Regional particularities: different practices in decision-making, implementation, management, and so on for the different types of environmental infrastructures are encountered only in the Metropolitan areas of Athens and Thessaloniki, where the water companies are not owned by the municipalities but by the central State and serve many municipalities. These two water companies are partly privatised but are State-controlled. Another particularity is that the Athens water company constructs and owns only the major water supply and sewerage pipelines, water and wastewater treatment works and control systems but leaves the construction and ownership of secondary piping and works to the municipalities served. But in some cases of peripheral municipalities within its jurisdiction, it has allowed creation of local water companies who own all their infrastructure and perform all the functions of a water company, but have to pay the Athens water company for the water provided to them. Finally, in some rural or semi-urban regions there are still private water suppliers selling water to municipalities but this practice is gradually being eliminated.






the public sector

(2001-2006)





projects





financed by EIB


industry

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 0.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a.Urban and industrial waste 324.0 89.5 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a.Drinking water n.a. 86.5 283.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a.Sewerage and purification 447.0 86.5 319.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a.Total 2171.8 263.2 905.8 0.0 1565.3 0.0 0.0 n.a. in % of GDP 0.20 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 n.a. Sources: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Ex-post evaluations 2000-2006: Regional Expenditure Study, EBRD and EIB websites Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure


ERDF strategy and interventions ERDF strategy relating to the environment is mentioned in most regional OP programming documents and relates to:

- compliance with EU legislation and acquis; - achieving sustainable development; - protection and improvement of the environment; - application of the “polluter pays principle”.

On the other hand the basic strategic objective of the sectoral OP Environment is to work in a complementary way with the environmental measures included in the other OPs. In some cases sustainability has not been achieved, especially with regard to the almost exclusive use of land filling as a method of disposal of solid waste, or to the unbalanced development of road transport compared to minimal progress in rail transport. ERDF helped greatly in the implementation of large numbers of smaller infrastructure projects in the regions and has assisted local communities in obtaining improved services and achieving a better quality of life, thanks to the following investments which have been carried out within the framework of the 13 regional OPs:

- Water: construction of new networks, although mainly in qualitative respects through the replacement of old pipes which had been in place for more than 50 years.

- Wastewater sewage and treatment plants. - Solid waste: creation of a management system, rehabilitation of landfills, closure of dumps.

Other public financial sources The environmental component of the Cohesion Fund addresses by definition projects concerned with (a) sewerage and wastewater treatment, (b) potable water supply and (c) solid waste management. These priorities were adopted by the Greek authorities when planning Cohesion Fund projects, bearing in mind the increased need for such projects in order to satisfy the relevant EU requirements. As CF projects should be above 10 M€ each, it was natural for CF to address the larger projects in the subsectors mentioned above. However, implementation of these CF projects, is lagging behind, barely reaching 60% today, mainly due to problematic nature or immature state of the projects initially selected. Another major source is the Local Government Programme “Theseus”, total value €3,5 billion for the same period, of which about 20% is dedicated to environmental infrastructure and of which about 60% had been utilised by 2006. The Theseus programme overall strategic objective is to improve the infrastructure of municipalities in view of the relatively recent and the future planned changes in the structure of municipalities and communities, which reduced in number from more than 10.000 before 1998 to ca. 1.000 today and are about to be reduced to below 400. The environmental component addresses water and wastewater plus urban regeneration, with the water and wastewater projects covering more than 20% of the total budget.



Finally, an unspecified number of projects are financed directly by the public investment programme in urgent cases where it is not possible to obtain EU co-financing. This usually happens at the end of the programming periods. These funds are normally used to pay for the completion of projects that have exceeded their co financed budget or projects that have been adopted in OPs in excess of the approved total budget. In a few cases, these funds are given to new projects addressing immediate needs, or completing missing links in order for co financed projects to become operable.

Role of the private sector The involvement of the private sector in the construction or operation of environmental infrastructure remains limited, although this is now legally possible. There are many complications in the legal system, especially in respect of who is legally allowed to collect the charges for services rendered, where under the Constitution this cannot be done by the private sector. This can only be resolved by a change in the Constitution, which normally takes 6-10 years to review.

Even though, there are a small number of private operators in collection or transport of solid waste to landfills, contracted by some small municipalities. Regarding water supply, in most cases services are publicly owned, except in the cases of Athens and Thessaloniki, where there has been a partial privatisation by issue of stock to the general public, although the State holds the controlling majority of shares. The same holds for wastewater collection and disposal services


Water supply A lack of data makes it impossible to assess the improvements regarding water supply but the only available data (for 2004) indicates that one of the priorities in this area should be to increase the homogeneity of the territory as regards the connection of the population to improved water supply. Wastewater Data on wastewater treatment are available only for parts of the population: data from the Ministry of Environment for 1999 indicates that 51,5% of the population of agglomerations above 2,000 p.e. is served by sewerage networks, while, in Athens and Tessaloniki, only 17,3% receives secondary treatment and 20,6% receives primary treatment. OECD statistics indicate that 56.2% of the population was receiving total treatment in 2000. The 2007 situation report of the same ministry states that 86% of the same population is receiving secondary treatment. The improvement is significant but still more than 1,700,000 people require at least secondary treatment plus the associated sewerage. Given that about 20% of the population lives in agglomerations with less than 2,000 inhabitants, it can be estimated that about 70% of the population is connected to a wastewater treatment system. Solid waste Solid waste management was also improved, mainly due to the fact that a management system is now in place. At the end of 2006 45 official landfills of proper specifications were in operation, serving 318 municipalities and covering 60% of the population, while another 56 projects were under construction (including 18 extensions) which will serve another 670 municipalities, leaving very few isolated cases without landfill service. A major challenge that was partly met was the closure of unauthorised solid waste dumps, 3,034 of which had to be closed between 2004 and 2008. At this moment 487 dumps remain to be closed, but only 16 are within the scope of the European Court. No municipal waste is being incinerated and there is no prospect of this happening in the immediate future.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Hungary / Page 37

Hungary – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


97.9 92.6 93.0 93.3 93.7 94.0 94.3

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply in urban areas 95.2 94.0 95.4 95.5 95.8 95.9 96.1

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply in rural areas 86.1 89.7 88.0 88.9 89.4 89.8 90.3

Source: Eurostat, 2008; Hungarian Central Statistical Office (HCSO). Data refer to dwellings connected to public water supply.



16 20 22 16 18 19 18


24 23 25 21 22 21 29

Share (%) of population receiving tertiary wastewater treatment 6 6 11 18 20 21 16

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment 46 50 57 59 62 65 67

Source: Eurostat, 2008; Hungarian Central Statistical Office (HCSO).

Comments: The decrease in tertiary treatment between 2005 and 2006 could be explained by the fact that the Budapest operator partially reclassified its treatment efficiency for wastewater treatment plants to the biological stage (Source: Pál Aujeszky, HCSO, 2009).





Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) n.a. n.a. 78 n.a. 81 84 89














Water supply In 2004, a part of deep aquifers used for drinking water supply in Hungary contained concentration of natural materials (arsenic, boron, organic material, ammonium, iron, manganese) higher than allowed. The Drinking Water Quality Improvement programme has been implemented to address this issue during the 2004-2006 period. In 2006, effects have not yet been satisfied due to delay in the implementation of the programme.

Waste water Hungary failed to comply with EU norms in terms of wastewater collection and treatment. Many public utility network and wastewater treatment facilities are obsolete or worn out. Consequently, the capacity of wastewater treatment plants and the efficiency of treatment technologies do not comply with basic criteria at many locations in Hungary. Most facilities need refurbishment and many need complete replacement of infrastructures.

Therefore the Urban Waste Water Treatment Programme focuses on the development or upgrading of sewage network, wastewater and sludge treatment plants for agglomeration with pollution load above 2,000 population equivalents (p.e.). Technical connection to a wastewater treatment plant should be provided for 87% of the population by 2015.

Solid waste In 2004 the main challenge was to reduce the share of municipal waste devoted to landfills (around 85% of generated municipal solid waste was landfilled) by enhancing selective waste collection and sorting facilities, by composting biodegradable wastes and by energy recovery.

The settlement of landfills of high capacity was not a priority. However, this became a basic need to have a minimum capacity in Hungary (42 landfills after 2009) for residual waste, which cannot be treated in another way. In addition, old landfills should be urgently recultivated as groundwater and soil are heavily polluted in many sites. In fact, more than 2,000 sites are not yet recultivated.

Energy/ Climate change When joining the EU, Hungary has committed itself to increasing the volume of electricity generated from renewable energy sources. In this respect Hungary’s properties in general are lagging behind those of the EU Member States. Hungary’s greatest opportunities lie in the use of biomass-based and geothermal energy. However, there has been a favourable shift in the field of using wind and solar energy over the recent period. To be in line with EU objectives, the share of renewable energy sources in the total use of primary energy sources should be increased from 28 PJ/year to 50PJ/year by 2010.


Institutional framework The Ministry for Environment and Water is the central governing body for environment and nature protection and water affairs. The Ministry carries out the special fields’ sectoral, expert management and regulatory tasks in the areas of environment and nature protection, water management and meteorology. The Ministry’s responsibilities include policy development, tasks connected to governmental work and the continuation of the ever far-reaching international collaboration The Ministry for Environment and Water is the founding and supervisory body of the National Inspectorate. The Inspectorate is a ministerial organisation under the supervision of the minister for environment and water, its budget is part of the central administration's budget. The National Inspectorate - set by legislation for environment, nature and water - issues permits for certain activities, gives expert authority opinions, imposes fines and penalties. Its jurisdiction covers the whole area of Hungary. The 10 Regional Inspectorates for environment, nature and water and 2 sub-offices are the 'green authorities' at first instance, while their supervisory National Inspectorate works mainly as an authority at second instance. Based on appeals or as a supervisory body, the first instance decisions related to environmental issues are reviewed by the National Inspectorate. The authority work performed by regional inspectorates is coordinated and controlled by the National Inspectorate.



In accordance with the Act No. LXV of 1990 on local governements in Hungary water supply, waste water treatment and collection and waste collection and treatment in the settlement are the responsibility of the local governments, the national authorities are supervising and issue the permits.

Environmental legislation Act No. LIII of 1995 on the general rules of environmental protection is the main act, which has been amended several times and which covers the various Hungarian environmental regulations.

Water management is legally regulated by the Act No. LVII of 1995 on water management. This Act regulated the water supply and sewage water treatment. This Act was amended by Act LXXI of 2001 and thus a legal background was provided to the national programmes in the fields of sewage systems and drinking water improvement.

In terms of drinking water, the Government decree of 2060/2001 regulated the quality improvement programme of drinking water. In 2003 the operative implementation phase of this programme started as the deadline is 2009 to comply with the EU drinking water directive. In terms of sewage, the National Wastewater treatment and implementations programmes is based on the 91/271 Directive. Waste management is regulated by the Act No. XLIII. on waste management. This Act determines the legal background of waste collection, transport, pre-treatment, storage and recycling. In addition, it regulates the tasks of the administration of waste management, waste categories, fees etc.

The National Waste Management Plan covers the country (NUTS-1), the Regional Waste Management Plans cover the 7 statistical regions of Hungary (NUT-2). There are also Waste Management Plans at county levels (NUT-3) and at local government levels (NUTS-4). Corporations also prepare plans for waste management.


Drinking water By way of derogation from Article 9(1) of Directive 98/83/EC, Hungary may provide for derogations from the parametric value for arsenic until 25 December 2009 without communicating such a decision to the Commission. This derogation does not apply to drinking water intended for food processing. The procedure provided for in Article 9(2) shall also apply if Hungary wishes to provide for the derogations under Article 9(1) for boron, fluoride and nitrite after 25 December 2006, which was extended to 2009. Urban wastewater By way of derogation from Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC, the requirements for collecting systems and treatment of urban waste water shall not fully apply in Hungary until 31 December 2015 in accordance with the following intermediate targets: by 31 December 2008, compliance with the Directive shall be achieved in sensitive areas for agglomerations

with a population equivalent of more than 10,000 ; by 31 December 2010, compliance with the Directive shall be achieved in normal areas for agglomerations with

a population equivalent of more than 15,000. By way of derogation from Article 13 of Directive 91/271/EEC, the requirements for biodegradable industrial waste water from plants belonging to the industrial sectors listed in Annex III shall not apply to some specified plants in Hungary until 31 December 2008. Solid waste Packaging waste: By way of derogation from Article 6(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 94/62/EC, Hungary shall attain the recovery and recycling targets for the following packaging materials by 31 December 2005 in accordance with the following intermediate targets: recycling of plastics: 11% by weight by the date of accession, and 14% for 2004 ; recycling of glass: 14% by weight by the date of accession, and 15% for 2004 ; overall recovery rate: 40% by weight by the date of accession, and 43% for 2004. By way of derogation from Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 94/62/EC, Hungary may set an overall recycling target of 46% from 2005 onwards.

Incineration of hazardous waste: By way of derogation from Articles 7 and 11 and Annex III of Directive 94/67/EC, the emission limit values and the requirements for measurements shall not apply to some specified incinerators in Hungary until 30 June 2005. II. 32001 L 0080: Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the



Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (OJ L 309, 27.11.2001, p. 1). Large combustion plants: By way of derogation from Article 4(1) and part A of Annexes III to VII of Directive 2001/80/EC, the emission limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust shall not apply until 31 December 2004 to some specified plants in Hungary. The legal harmonisations have been fully accomplished. There is no time-lag endangering the fulfilment term. There is a program, which implementation has been started a bit later than it should have been necessary (Drinking-water quality improving program), that is why fulfilment of 2006 and 2009 terms need more effort.


Sources: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ex post evaluation 2000-06: regional expenditure study, Ispa reports, EBRD and EIB websites. Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure


ERDF strategy and interventions In the 2004-2006 programming period, ERDF supported the environment protection and revalorisation through the Environmental Protection and Infrastructure operational programme (EIOP) and the Rehabilitation operational programme (Rehabilitation of urban, industrial and military areas). Only the EIOP invested in environmental infrastructure: Urban and industrial waste : €17.7 m ; Drinking water: €10.8 m; Sewerage and purification: €32.3 m.

ERDF was mainly invested in the field of water (water quality and wastewater). In fact, large investments were particularly needed to respect EU Directives in the field of water (Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC and Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatment).

In addition, new regions were established for municipal solid waste treatment in the framework of the National Waste Management Plan. Local Governmental Associations and complex waste management systems for the collection, transport, treatment and reuse of waste were settled up. ERDF supported the implementation of this plan during the 2004-2006 programming period.

Other public financial sources Total investments in environmental infrastructure by the Hungarian public sector are estimated to €1.9 bn for the period 2001-2006, including €309.5 m for urban and industrial waste and €1.5 bn for sewerage and purification.

During the period 2000-2003, ISPA investments amounted to €323.7 m, including €140.3 m for interventions in the field of urban and industrial waste and €136.3 m for the field of sewerage and purification. Part of the ISPA strategy was to protect the environment to meet the requirements of the aquis communataire.

In the field of environment, projects funded through ISPA included the regional municipal solid waste management system in Gyôr, the upgrading of sewage treatment plant in Szeged, the wastewater collection and treatment plant on the Lake Tisza and the municipal waste management system in Szolnok.



the public sector

(2001-06)





projects (2000-03)

Cohesion Fund total


projects (2004-06)



financed by EIB


industry (2000-05)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 0.0 0.0 47.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 309.5 5.9 17.7 140.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 116.8Drinking water n.a. 4.6 10.8 0.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification 1516.7 13.8 32.3 136.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 178.6Total 1933.5 24.3 60.8 323.7 734.4 12.3 374.4 1009.3 In % of GDP 0.42 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.24



With a budget of €734.4 m, the Cohesion Fund invested in the Hungarian National Development Plan. Four objectives were pursued through this plan: 1) increase the competitiveness of the productive sector 2) boost the employment and human resources development, 3) support infrastructures, and 4) strengthen regional and local development potentials.

EBRD invested €12.3 m in environmental infrastructure during the 2000-2006 programming period. These investments were mainly focused on energy savings and renewable energy.

Loans provided by EIB in Hungary to invest in environmental infrastructure are estimated to €374.4 m. This amount was mainly used to support Hungary for providing the national counterpart of Objective 1 operational programmes co-financed by ERDF. Among other field of interventions, projects financed under these operational programmes focused on the improvement of the quality of drinking and ground water, flood management and use of environmentally-friendly energy sources. Role of the private sector In Hungary, total environmental investments done by industries are estimated to €1 bn for the period 2002-2005. This amount includes €116.8 m for urban and industrial waste and €178.6 m for sewerage and purification.

The weight of the private sector in environmental infrastructure investments varies depending on whether the investment is implemented under the form of an end of pipe1 environmental investment or under the form of an integrated environmental investment.

The share of the private sector in environmental investments accounted for 30% in 2000 and increased to 35% by 2006. In the fields of water supply, sewage and waste water treatment the share of private investment was not significant during the 2000-2006 period. In the field of municipal solid waste private sector investments are more significant as regards settlements of deposits and incinerators. The regional waste management systems are operated mainly by private companies.


Water supply Water supply was already high in Hungary. The task is now to improve first of all the quality of drinking water. The quality of drinking water will have to be improved in the municipalities where the arsenic concentration of the drinking water is in excess of 30 g/l and where the quality of drinking waters contaminated by nitrates, nitrites, boron and fluorides has not yet met quality standards. Wastewater treatment Obtained results in the field of wastewater treatment were significant during the 2004-2006 programming period. The number of households connected to wastewater systems increased from 62% in 2004 to 67% in 2006. This trend should continue in the next few years taking into account continuing investments in this field and the need to respect EC Directives. Waste management Solid waste were supported by the ISPA Programme and by the EIOP(co-financed by ERDF). Waste deposits implemented during the 2004-2006 period meet all EU requirements. In addition, volume of incinerated waste stagnated.

1 An approach to pollution control which concentrates upon effluent treatment or filtration prior to discharge into the

environment, as opposed to making changes in the process giving rise to the wastes.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Ireland / Page 43

Ireland – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


n.a. n.a. 90 n.a. n.a. n.a n.a.

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply in urban areas n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 99 n.a. n.a.

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply in rural areas n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 96 n.a. n.a.


Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (% ) of population receiving primary wastewater treatment n.a. 41 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 n.a.


n.a. 21 n.a. n.a. n.a. 70 90


n.a. 8 n.a. n.a. n.a. 12 82

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment n.a. 70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 89 n.a.


Comments: The proportion of waste water subject to secondary treatment has increased significantly from 21% in 2000-2001 to 70% in 2006. This is due to the new sewage treatment plant at Ringsend, Dublin. The waste water now treated at Ringsend was previously accounted for in the primary treatment category, which has significantly reduced.





Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) 209 212 217 202 205 n.a. 233

Source: Eurostat, 2008. Energy

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006



4.9 4.2 5.4 4.3 5.1 6.8 8.5


Source: Eurostat, 2008. Climate change

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


GHG emissions per capita (t CO2 eq./ capita) 11.8 12.2 11.7 11.3 11.2 11.4 n.a.





Water supply and wastewater The main challenge remains improving water supply to keep pace with growing demand. In that regard, the priority should be to control and reduce distribution leakage, especially in the Greater Dublin Area. At the same time, ensuring adequate wastewater treatment for major urban areas is still necessary, as well as preventing and controlling eutrophication of rivers and lakes. Waste Decoupling waste generation and economic growth, reducing waste generation per capita, and diverting waste from landfills were the main challenges regarding waste management. In the same time environmental policy focused on encouraging re-use and recycling, and providing the necessary infrastructure to enable people to recycle useful materials. Air/ Energy/ Climate change Meeting international commitments on emissions to atmosphere constitutes the main challenge regarding air, especially as regards greenhouse gases, acidifying gases and motor vehicle emissions.


Institutional framework Draft environmental policy papers are generated either by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG) or by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and are issued for public consultation in most cases. After public consultation, the draft is eventually approved by the Minister for the Environment who may consult with his Cabinet colleagues if the proposed policy is sufficiently broad-ranging or has major implications for other sectors. The process of making decisions about environmental infrastructure projects is different, in that the initiating agencies are usually the Local Authorities (County and City Councils). The supply of water to homes and industry is the responsibility of the 88 local authorities around Ireland, and the funding for maintaining and improving the water supply infrastructure (pipes, filtration and disinfection systems) comes from the DoEHLG. Local Authorities have the primary responsibility for delivery of water supply, for wastewater treatment, and for solid waste infrastructure and management – but with a high degree of central government control over capital funding. Funds are generally available only for those projects which form part of a programme such as the Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme (ESIOP). The task of monitoring the performance of environmental infrastructure in Ireland is divided between the Local Authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency. Local Authorities manage the day-to-day operations of water purification and supply systems, waste water treatment plants and landfills under their control, while the EPA ensures that the monitoring is carried out to an agreed standard. Water testing is carried out on all public waters by Local Authorities and the Health Service Executive (HSE). Historically, environmental infrastructure such as drinking water supply and water treatment plants, waste water treatment plants and landfills were constructed by Local Authorities (County and City Councils), with funds obtained from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and local Government. Management, operation and monitoring were under the control of Local Authorities. Following the enactment of the Waste Management Act, 1996, Local Authorities’ landfill sites were brought within the waste licensing system operated by the Environmental Protection Agency; and, during the review period, the Agency has increased the amount of monitoring and enforcement of licence conditions, particularly where landfills have been the subject of public complaints. Environmental legislation There are very few national policy documents on water supply, but most Local Authorities include an objective on water supply in the their statutory development plans. Water supplies are regulated under the Water Supplies Act, 1942, and Water Services Act, 2007. The European Communities (Drinking Water) Regulations 2007, (S.I. No. 106 of 2007) transferred to the EPA the responsibility for the supervision of Local Authority water supply monitoring programmes. Penalties for non-compliance with these





the public sector

(2000-05)

National counterpart

to ERDF environmental investments



projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB


industry

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 256.5 59.2 80.6 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Drinking water n.a. 34.8 58.0 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification 1329.1 59.5 76.6 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Total 1948.6 153.5 215.2 0.0 292.0 0.0 60.0 n.a. in % of GDP 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 n.a.

regulations have been increased by the European Communities (Drinking Water) (No.2) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 278 of 2007). The collection and treatment of wastewater is regulated under the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations, 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007). These regulations bring under the control of EPA all discharges from local authority waste water treatment works and sewage collection systems that discharge to any type of receiving water. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 254 of 2001), amended on 15 July 2004, give effect to provisions of the Urban Waste Water Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The principal act governing the collection and disposal of municipal solid waste is the Waste Management Act, 1996, which provides for a system of licensing (by the EPA) and permitting (by Local Authorities). A large number of regulations made under this Act give effect to EU Directives on waste.


The transposition of EU Directives into National Legislation during the review period has generally been slow, and this has led to a number of cases being taken against Ireland in the European Court of Justice. Namely, Ireland failed to fulfil its obligations of Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment, for the reason that discharges from the agglomerations of Bray, Howth, Letterkenny, Shanganagh, Sligo, and Tramore had not been made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment latest by the deadline of 31 December 2000, as required by the Directive. Ireland also failed to take all the measures necessary to ensure a correct implementation of the provisions of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC.

The polluter-pays principle is applied only partly in relation to the cost of treating wastewater discharges. Domestic users are not charged for either the supply of water or the collection and treatment of wastewater; but non-domestic, i.e., commercial and agricultural users, pay a charge which reflects principally the cost of supplying water. However, large industrial users are charged for discharging effluent into the public sewer network; and these users may also be faced with the requirement to contribute to the construction of new sewerage treatment facilities. Development levies are also charged by Local Authorities on new developments, including housing, as a contribution to the provision of essential services including sewerage disposal. The polluter pays principle in relation to waste became more generally applied throughout the evaluation period (2000-2006) as Local Authorities implemented systems of charging domestic producers of waste. In some Local Authority areas, an annual fixed charge was applied, while in others a system of payment by weight or payment by collection was introduced. These contributions reflected the operating costs, but not the capital costs of landfill construction. Private waste contractors, collecting mainly from commercial premises, but also from an increasing number of households, must necessarily charge for collection.






ERDF strategy and interventions ERDF Strategy relating to the environment is specifically mentioned in the ESIOP. In general, ERDF Environmental Strategy and Policy is coherent with other environmental policies in Ireland, and has been integrated into National Policy. However, in some sectors that is a significant disjunction between policy and practice. For example, the National Spatial Strategy follows quite closely the relevant EU policies on land use planning and transportation, including the need to increase the role of public transport and to reduce private car use by insuring that the need for commuting between home and work (particularly long distance commuting) is avoided. Instead, there has been a major growth in car ownership and use (including the number of vehicle-miles travelled) and in long distance commuting during the review period. Also during the review period, the State has concentrated on the construction of major roads, while investment in rail, local road improvements and telecommunication has lagged behind to a significant degree. Total expenditure on the Environmental Infrastructure Priority for the period 2000 to 2004 amounted to €2.43 billion. This represented 92% of the OP forecast. Of this, €2.37 billion came from the Exchequer, which was 92% of the OP forecast. €57 million came from the ERDF (5% more than the forecast). The main focus is the Waste Water measure, which is the only measure in receipt of ERDF funding. Other public financial sources The Cohesion Fund financed the construction of wastewater treatment plants in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway.

Role of the private sector The private sector does not take an active roll in the provision of water supplies, or in waste water treatment, with the exception of a), the very large waste water treatment plant which serves the city of Dublin, and b) numerous waste water treatment plants operated by private firms to deal with effluent from specific industrial plants. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government encouraged Local Authorities to provide water services capital projects by means of Design/Build or Design/Build/Operate contracts (DB and DBO). Procedures for such contracts were set out in a circular dated 26 January 1999. Some large-scale projects, including the Dublin City and Cork City wastewater treatment plants were financed in this way. However there has been in recent years a growing and very significant involvement of the private sector in the provision of municipal solid waste collection, waste recovery, sorting of waste, and disposal by landfilling, with recyclable materials being sent to other countries for processing. A number of large landfill sites have been developed by private operators in the last two decades. Planning permission (from the Local Authority or from An Bord Pleanála) and a waste licence (from the EPA) must be obtained before the facility, which may also incorporate recycling and composting, can begin to accept waste. All recent large-scale private landfill facilities and incinerators have been opposed by local communities; planning permissions have been granted by An Bord Pleanála in some cases, and refused in others.




Wastewater Progress on the high levels of untreated waste water from some large urban areas has occurred since 2003 with the provision of secondary treatment for waste water generated by the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. This is reflected by the share of population receiving total treatment, which has reached 89% in 2005, with 70% receiving secondary treatment, whereas 41% of the population was still only connected to primary treatment in 2001 (compared to 2% in 2005)

Solid waste In 2001, 87% of municipal waste was going to landfill for final disposal, by 2004 this had decreased to 67%, and by 2006 to 64%. No municipal waste is yet being incinerated, though planning permission and EPA licences have been granted to two incinerators (in County Meath and County Cork), and a planning application was been submitted for a large-scale municipal waste incinerator in Dublin city. Two incinerators have received planning permission and waste licences (one for municipal waste, the other for industrial and hazardous waste). Construction of the municipal waste incinerator at Carranstown, County Meath, began in mid-2008. A third privately operated Incinerator is planned for Dublin City (it will be located at Poolbeg on the eastern fringe of the City).


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Italy / Page 49

Italy – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (%) of population connected to public water supply n.a. n.a. 99.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply in urban areas 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 96.0 n.a. n.a.


Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 n.a.

Share (%) of population receiving wastewater secondary treatment n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10 n.a.

Share (%) of population receiving tertiary wastewater treatment n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 84 n.a.

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 94 n.a.



Municipal waste generation (kg/ capita) 502.0 510.0 518.0 521.0 541.0 551.0 553.0



Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) 194 195 197 200 209 n.a. n.a.

Source: Eurostat, 2008, EEA, APAT, ONR

Comments: According to APAT and ONR, in 2004, the municipal waste generated per capita in the North was 530 kg, in the Center 617 kg, and in the South 491 kg; the Italian average was 533 kg. Energy

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006












Water supply and wastewater Increase the investment in the integrated water cycle, as request in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Italy needs to spread throughout the country, and especially in the southern Regions, an integrated management of the water cycle. Since 2002, the water distribution systems and infrastructure have been managed by a single body and Basin Authorities have been invested with the task to develop basin plans and territorial operational plans to carry out integrated projects for rivers and seas. Solid waste Decoupling waste generation and economic growth is the main challenge. In that regard, it is necessary to reduce waste generation per capita, divert waste from landfills and encourage re-use and recycling. Italy needs to build a waste disposal system to reduce costs and to promote differentiated rubbish collection. The delay of development in waste management in the South results in numerous illegal dumps and has produced a declared environmental emergency in Campania, Puglia, Calabria and Sicily. Air/ Energy/ Climate change Encouraging the spread of renewable energy sources is a priority, with the adoption of coherent policies across a table of permanent consultation, which provides the technical support necessary for the coordination of sectoral policies and integration between the actions of different levels. In order to meet international commitments on emissions to atmosphere, Italy’s strategy consists in promoting new types of environmental management enterprises and in developing a tariff system.


Institutional framework Since 1986 Italian environmental policy is the responsibility of the Ministry for the Environment and is created in collaboration with the Ministry for Agricultural and Forestry Policy, along with the Ministry of Economic Development and in consultation with the public and interested bodies. Until 1993, the Ministry devolved environmental control activities to the National for Environmental Protection Agency (ANPA). Further to the sweeping reorganisation of the environmental controls in 1993, the ANPA was subjected to a thorough reform under which it merged with the Department of the National Technical Services of the Prime Minister's Office, with which it had already cooperated, and changed its name to APAT - Agency for the Protection of the Environment and the Technical Services. ISPRA (High Institute for Environmental Protection and Research; previously APAT) carries out technical-scientific tasks and activities of national interest for the protection of the environment, and conservation of water resources and the soil. The agency has technical-scientific and financial autonomy and is subject to the policy-making and supervisory authority of the Ministry for the Environment and to the control of the State Audit Court. The environmental controls at regional and provincial level are carried out by ARPA (Regional Environmental Protection Agencies) and APPA (Provincial Environmental Protection Agencies). Environmental Protection Agencies carry out for the most part control activities (accurate controls and monitoring of environmental variables, supervising actual compliance with the laws), providing also technical/scientific, technical/juridical and technical/analytical support to public administrations (basically Regions, Provinces and Municipalities) entrusted with administrative control, environmental planning and authorisation functions. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agencies carry out - in respect of enterprises and public bodies - activities promoting the quality of the environment (through voluntary instruments such as EMAS, ISO 14001, and Agenda 21), dissemination of environmental information and, in a few cases, environmental training and educational activities. One of the most important bodies in which environmental policies at national level are discussed and prepared is the National Network of Environmental Authorities and the Authorities of the Structural Funds Programming Community. It is a forum for coordination, thinking, training, pooling of experience and preparation of proposals, criteria and methodologies relating to environmental aspects of the actions of Community Structural Funds.



The following organisms are part of the network: the Management Authorities of Community Structural Funds; ARPA and APPA; APAT/ISPRA; ISTAT.

ISTAT (Italian National Institute of Statistics) cooperates with the Development and Cohesion Policies Department (DPS) of the Ministry of Economic Development, with a view to ensuring a significant increase in the availability of official statistics at a territorial level. Within the Ministry of Environment, the National Observatory on Waste was created. The Observatory was established to ensure the implementation of the standards laid down by decree, with special reference to the prevention of production and control of the amount of hazardous waste, the effectiveness and efficiency and waste management, packaging waste, and protection of public health and the environment. The Basin Authority is responsible for drafting the plan for the basin, for developing and upgrading the water balance, and for the Optimal Territorial Areas (ATO) for the management of integrated water service, consisting of Public Services collection, distribution, and collectively, purification and sewage disposal. The National Centre of Prevention and Control of Diseases of the Ministry of Health has created a specific project called "Observatory on Water and Health". The general objective is the integrated management of information and data from monitoring programmes related to water environment and human health (e.g. drinking water and bathing water monitoring systems), in order to assess the risk to health and facilitate surveillance of pathologies. The specific objectives are:

improvement and strengthening of the informative system of the Ministry of Health strengthening of the data quality control system. surveillance of risks associated to water quality.

Environmental legislation Water supply: Law 1994/36 has introduced and organised the water service system; the law foresees the integration of the competent authorities related to the whole water cycle and services. For its achievement, specific Optimal Territorial Areas were established, which are responsible for the management and supply of water services (wastewater treatment, sewers, etc., including drinking water). The "Committee for the Surveillance and the Use of Water Resources" was established according to Law 36/1994 as an independent organism of the public administration. The Committee reports directly to the Parliament by sending annual reports on the state of integrated water service including supply, sewage and treatment. With DLgs 31/2001, Italy has adopted the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC. Wastewater collection and treatment: Both the implementation of Dlgs. 152/99 on the protection of water (which incorporates the Nitrates Directive and Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment), and the ongoing implementation of the IPPC Directive, are leading to a reorganisation of the monitoring and control of emissions and to a first classification of the state environmental quality of water bodies. In particular, the IPPC and D. Lgs. 372/99 (implementation of the IPPC) have promoted the construction of a European Register (EPER) and a National Register (Ines) of Emissions of industrial origin into the air and water. The D.M. 198/2002 concerned the data and information relating to the implementation of European Directives 91/271 concerning the treatment of urban waste water and 91/676/EEC on nitrates from agriculture. Municipal and solid waste: The Legislative Decree 152 of 3 April 2006, issued in implementation of Law 308/2004 represents the national level in Italian waste legislation. Part IV of the Decree concerns "Rules on waste management and remediation of contaminated sites" (Articles 177 - 266) and replaces a series of measures including the previous Legislative Decree 22, 5 February 1997, which until the date of entry into force of the law no. 152/06 was the framework law on waste.





the public sector





projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



by EIB


industry (2001-04)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 193.2 179.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 992.0 396.6 312.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 1251.2Drinking water n.a. 600.2 557.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification 4128.0 783.0 739.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 1710.9Total 16616.0 1973.0 1788.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 213.8 8006.5 in % of GDP 0.18 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15


Italy presents a constant non-compliance with the waste EU directives. Italy was referred to the Court of Justice for failing to communicate to the Commission the required details of its waste management plans for standard and hazardous waste in Sicily and Basilicata. Neither had it given the required information about its national management plans for packaging and packaging waste. Moreover Italy does not fully comply with a requirement of the Waste Framework Directive on the registration of waste transporting companies. Italy was also given a final written warning concerning national legislation that excludes excavated soils and stones destined for reuse by land reclamation, filling, embankments and grinding operations from the definition of waste. Italy's record in implementing the Water Framework Directive is amongst the worst of all 27 Member States. Italy has not properly transposed the WFD into national legislation, nor has it provided the environmental analysis of pressures and impacts. Italy does not comply with EU legislation on urban wastewater treatment. Some 299 towns and cities have been listed as not having waste water treatment complying with EU standard. Italy faces the prospect of being brought before the European Court of Justice for discharges of untreated urban waste water. The polluter-pays principle: Damage claims characterising PPP application are formulated during judgment, although the pending suit could be met with an agreement prior to court action (Accordi Transattivi) to accelerate repayment. All the Regional Operational Programmes of the seven Objective 1 regions have designated specific funds to remediation activities. In ten (out of 14) Regional Planning documents of the Objective 2 regions measures dedicated to the contaminated sites have been included. The monitoring of the 2000-2006 programming in Italy shows the following main information about the implementation of “Regional Reclamation Plan”:

In 2000 no Objective 1 regions and only five of 14 Objective 2 regions had adopted a Regional Reclamation Plan.

In 30/09/2005 all the Objective 1 regions have approved the Regional Reclamation Plans; Between the two-year period 2001-2002, nine Objective 2 regions out of 14 have adopted their

Regional Reclamation Plans.

Regional particularities: Every region in Italy has a specific regional regulation in the sector of water supply, of wastewater and of waste. At the same time all the regional laws are coherent with the national legislation. Water: The D. Lgs. 152/1999 has transferred to the regions responsibility for the adoption of the Protection of Water Plan (PTA). The PTA is a tool to define all measures to protect the regional water system and water supply. In particular, the PTA identifies the steps to ensure the achievement or maintenance of the quality objectives for water bodies. Waste: Regional waste management is specified in the Regional Waste Plans.






ERDF strategy and interventions The ERDF Strategy related to the environment is specifically mentioned in Community Support Framework 2000-2006. The ERDF strategy in general is coherent with other environmental policies in Italy, and has been integrated into National Policy. The main goals of ERDF in Italy are:

1. Increasing the availability of environmental data 2. Increasing the investment in the integrated water cycle 3. Decoupling waste generation and economic growth: 4. Better integration of the actions against hydrological, seismic, and pollution risks into national and

regional policies; 5. Encouraging the spread of renewable energy sources; 6. Meeting international commitments on emissions to atmosphere.

A large part of the expenditures of ERDF Fund is concentrated on the sewerage and purification actions (41% of the total) and on investment for drinking water (31%). The contribution of National resources is about the 52% of the total. Water: In objective 1 regions, 36% of ERDF environmental investments were dedicated to the integrated water cycle. Sardinia (94%), Basilicata (82%), Puglia (79%) and Calabria (78%) are the administrations that used the largest share of ERDF resources to enhance the infrastructure of water sector. In objective 2 regions, measures were either specific to water as in Lazio, Liguria, Lombardy and Tuscany, or heterogeneous, with water interventions combined with other such as waste. Waste: In objective 1 regions ERDF funds were used for the development of waste collection systems of the regional districts as well as for separation and composting plants. The implementation was carried out effectively thanks to a direct management by the regions. In objective 2 regions, ERDF funds were dedicated to different types of waste management interventions, including treatment of industrial waste but also interventions for waste collection, recycling and composting. Another important type of ERDF intervention was the purification of contaminated sites Other public financial sources The environmental investments made by the Italian public sector follow the same strategy as stated in the Community Support Framework 2000-2006 and described above.

Role of the private sector In 2006, the environmental investment expenditure of industry enterprises amounted in €1,986m (more than the total ERDF expenditure in the years 2000 -2006), with an increase of 4.2% over the previous year. This growth is entirely attributable to large firms (with 250 employees and over) that, with €1,664m (+9.8% compared to 2005), account for 84% of total environmental investments. On the contrary, small and medium firms have registered a substantial decline in spending (minus 17.4 % compared to 2005). In 2006 the composition of private investment in the environmental sector shows a concentration of expenditure in the protection of the air and the climate, which represents 32.5 % of the total, whereas investments in wastewater and waste management accounted respectively for 17% and 9.1% of total investments. The remaining investments were dedicated to the protection and recovery of soil, groundwater and surface water, the reduction of noise, the protection of the landscape and research and development for the protection of the environment.




Water supply and Wastewater Italy adopted the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive only in 1999. Until 1999, constructed wetland technology was not considered a treatment technology by the Italian legal framework; this is one of the main reasons why this technology has spread much less in Italy compared to other European countries, despite good Italian climatic conditions. This law facilitated diffusion of constructed wetlands (CWs) by many Italian communities as a cost-effective means of secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment, so as to meet more stringent standards and lower operating costs. This is reflected by the data, as 84% of the population is now connected to tertiary treatment. Solid waste In the table, we observe an increase in the municipal waste generation, but also a decrease in municipal waste landfill. In this period, the landfills have been substituted especially by waste incineration, mechanical-biological treatment and packaging waste generation. From 2000 to 2004, the number of landfills in Italy decreased from 657 to 401. The distribution of landfills is not uniform across the nation and most of them are situated in the South of Italy. Because of the new law (D.Lgs. 36/2003) relating to the EU Directive of 1999, the use of landfills will decrease further: in fact, this law fixes a maximum value of biodegradable waste that can be disposed in landfill and forbids the disposal of particular materials and materials characterised by a lower heating value (LHV) higher than 13,000kJ/kg. In 2004, the source-separated collection of recyclables and compostables in Italy totalled 7.1 million tonnes, which is equal to 22.7% of the total Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) production. However, the situation varied strongly between the macro-geographical areas of Italy: in the North the percentage reached 35.5%, in the Centre 18.3% and in the South 8.1%. The tonnage of MSW combusted at waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities more than doubled from 1.6 million in 1996 to 3.5 million tonnes in 2004: this corresponds to an increase of the combusted MSW from 6.1 to 11.4 percent of the total MSW generated.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Latvia / Page 55

Latvia – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (%) of population connected to public water supply 79.81 70.22 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 804

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply n.a. n.a. n.a. 353 n.a. n.a. 464

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply in urban areas (in agglomerations above 2000 inhabitants)

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 644

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply in rural areas (in agglomerations below 2000 inhabitants)

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.84

Sources: 1 Population Census, 2000, Latvian Central Statistical Bureau, The figure covers all inhabitants; 2 Directive specific implementation and financing plan, Ministry of Environment, Latvia, 2001; 3 Single Programming Document for Latvia Objective 1 Programme 2004-2006; 4 “Analyses of the Existing Situation for National Strategic Reference Framework, Ministry of Finance, Latvia, 2007

Comments: In 2001, Latvia elaborated a plan to address requirements of the Council Directive 98/83/EC concerning the quality of water intended for human consumption. According to information from this plan, the average connection rate in agglomerations above 1,000 inhabitants was 70.2%. Higher connection rates were observed in three larger cities – Riga, Daugavpils and Liepaja – 85%, and in other towns above 10, 000 inhabitants - 78%, while in agglomerations from 1,000-10,000 inhabitants the rate was 67% on average. Wastewater treatment

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


n.a. n.a. 2 2 2 2 2


n.a. n.a. 27 35 26 26 25


n.a. n.a. 36 33 39 38 38

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment n.a. n.a. 67 72 68 67 65

Source: Eurostat, 2008. Comments: In 2001, Latvia elaborated a plan to address requirements of the Council Directive 91/271/EC concerning urban waste water treatment. According to information from this plan, the average connection rate in agglomerations above 1,000 inhabitants was 63%. Higher connection rate was observed in three larger cities – Riga, Daugavpils and Liepaja with 85%, and in other settlements above 10 000 inhabitants with 73%, while in settlements from 1,000-10,000 inhabitants the rate was 58% on average. Solid waste

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006




Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 69.4 89.9 92.6 109.2

Source: Eurostat, 2008; Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency, 2008.




Share (%) of renewable energy in gross primary energy consumption (%) 31.8 31.7 31.3 30.9 33.1 33.0 31.0








2. Main environmental challenges

Water supply and wastewater Water services (water supply, wastewater collection and treatment) are not provided in appropriate quality and in accordance with EC requirements in most of the settlements in Latvia: The overall quality of ground water is good with the exception of elevated concentrations of iron,

manganese and sometimes too high sulphate concentrations as natural background concentrations. To comply with the drinking water quality standards abstracted groundwater shall be treated, particularly with regard to iron removal, before it is distributed to the final consumers.

Although the quality gets adequate after the treatment, the drinking water quality provided to the final consumers is often worsened due to the poor condition of the water supply networks. The monitoring data shows that in 2005, the drinking water supplied to the consumers was not corresponding to the requirements for both the chemical quality (72.6% of the samples) and the biological quality (3.4% of samples). The non-compliance to the drinking water quality standards is more frequently observed at smaller water suppliers.

National Environmental data on waste water discharges shows gradual decrease in total amount discharged into water bodies – from 2000-2006 by 15%.Half of the discharges is generated by municipal sector. However, the one of the bigger challenges in waste water management is the low connection rate to public sewage systems.

Although the treatment level is defined by the relevant treatment process (e.g. secondary treatment), the water discharged from the treatment plants often does not meet the needed environmental standards, thus, causing eutrophication in many surface water bodies in Latvia. The full compliance with requirements of the Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment was achieved only for 9% of inhabitants of Latvia; only 10% out of 1,100 existing waste water treatment plants’ technologies complies with environmental standards.

Solid waste Similar to water sector, waste management sector also are facing difficulties in meeting all relevant EC requirements. Despite of improvements in waste management system and increasing public awareness on the waste

sorting issues, the generated municipal waste amount is increasing in the period 2000-2006 more than 60%. The waste management service is getting more accessible for population, however, it has been estimated that only 50-60% of the generated waste amount is collected.

Large number of dumpsites and their potential adverse impact on the environment are another problem to be dealt in Latvia. From more than 500 dumpsites in end of 1990’s, Latvia has closed more than 400 while 84 dumpsites were still operating in 2007. After closure, a lot of funding is needed to remediate the polluted sites to eliminate the impacts on the environment.

5 (out of 10) new waste landfills were constructed by the end of 2006 in Latvia. This means that waste from more than 70% of Latvian inhabitants is deposited in environmental sound way.

The share of collected waste (paper, glass, plastic) which can be recovered and recycled is increasing gradually; however, a large part is still deposited in landfills. The key challenges are to set-up the



collection systems, ensure recovery, recycling, as well as to control all producer’s responsibility waste streams, such as end of life vehicles, waste electric and electronic equipment, batteries.

Air/ Energy/ Climate change One of the key challenges for energy sector is low energy efficiency. Therefore big efforts are dedicated to reduce losses (20-25% loss in networks) in district heating systems, to change old technologies for reducing fuel consumption (current efficiency - 70%) in boiler houses/ combustion plants and in the same time to reduce air pollution.

New trend is to improve energy efficiency in housing. Insulation of block houses, public buildings is investment demanding task which is undertaken mainly by municipalities. The replacement of the inner house heating systems and equipment adjusting to the temperature changes is ongoing process in urban areas in Latvia.

The dependence on the imported fuel resources (c.a. 65% of consumption), particularly import of gas from Russia, is one of the key challenge for Latvia. The 30% of the consumed energy is ensured by wood, hydro power and energy resources. The energy production from renewable sources has higher costs then from fossil fuels. Therefore there is a need for state support to promote the use of renewable energy resources in future to achieve policy targets of the sector.


Institutional framework The Ministry of the Environment has overall responsibility for the implementation of the national policies and plans in the field of environment, but the practical measures to achieve the goals or implement projects are negotiated and agreed with the stakeholders involved, mainly municipalities or municipal companies. Water management policy is developed by the Ministry of the Environment (NUTS-1). River basin management planning is carried out by one competent authority (Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency) but at four river basin management districts - Daugava, Lielupe, Gauja, Venta (natural boundaries are used for planning). The permitting and supervision on the water pollution is performed by 8 Regional Environmental Boards (organised differently then NUTS). Municipalities (LAU2 level, in total 526) are in charge of ensuring water supply and waste water treatment at local level. They are beneficiaries if the EC investment projects. Waste management policy is developed by the Ministry of the Environment (NUTS-1). Ministry of the Environment elaborates the National Waste Management Plan and 10 Regional Waste Management Plans, except for the city of Riga. Riga municipality is elaborating own municipal waste management plan.

The permitting and supervision on the waste management is performed by 8 Regional Environmental Boards (organised differently then NUTS). Environment State Bureau (NUTS-1) is in charge of the environmental impact assessment procedures with regard to landfills as well as other bigger infrastructure projects.

Municipalities (LAU2 level) are in charge of organising waste management in their administrative territory, set- up local rules for waste management. They shall participate in regional waste management planning, organise the closure and remediation of dumpsites.

State Hazardous Waste Management Agency (NUTS-1) is in charge of management of the states’ hazardous waste facilities, information and data management on hazardous waste. Environmental legislation On accession to the EC environmental legislation was transposed into Latvian laws and regulations. The legislation has been changed and amended over time.

The polluter-pays principle is introduced through environmental charges and taxes on water abstraction, on waste water discharges and waste disposal in landfills. Further on, the government is introducing the full cost recovery principle for environmental services.





the public sector





projects (2000-03)



(2004-06)



financed by EIB


industry (2001-05)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 0.0 0.0 29.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste n.a. 2.4 7.1 16.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. 4.3Drinking water n.a. 3.7 11.2 71.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification n.a. 3.7 11.2 0.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.4Total 114.4 9.8 29.5 117.1 351.8 17.9 n.a. 43.8In % of GDP 0.15 0.02 0.07 0.31 0.87 0.02 n.a. 0.08


Drinking water By way of derogation from the Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption, a transitional measure until 31 December 2015 for bromates, total trihalogenmethanes, iron, aluminium, manganese and oxidisability parameters have been granted on the basis of the following intermediate targets : by 31 December 2008 for municipalities above 100,000 inhabitants; by 31 December 2011 for municipalities with a population between 10,000 and 100,000 inhabitants, and by 31 December 2015 for municipalities with population between 1,000 and 10,000 inhabitants and smaller

settlements. Urban wastewater By way of derogation from Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC, the following transition periods have been granted for Latvia: by 31 December 2008, compliance with the Directive shall be achieved in all 3 agglomerations of a population

equivalent more than 100,000 ; by 31 December 2011, compliance with the Directive shall be achieved in 20 agglomerations with a population

equivalent between 10,000 and 100,000. by 31 December 2015, compliance with the Directive shall be achieved in 65 agglomerations with a population

equivalent between 2,000 and 10,000. Solid waste Packaging waste: By way of derogation from the Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, Latvia has received the following transitional measures:

by 31 December 2003 for the recycling target for metals; by 31 December 2007 for the recycling target for plastics; by 31 December 2007for the overall recovery rate.

Landfill of waste: As regards Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, Latvia has applied postponing of the targets with regard to reduction of biodegradable wastes going to landfills by four years(Article 5 (2)): by 16 July 2010 for reduction of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills to 75 % of the total amount

(by weight) of biodegradable municipal waste produced in 1995 or the latest year before 1995 for which standardised Eurostat data is available;

by 16 July 20013 for reduction of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills to 50 %; by 16 July 2020 for reduction of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills to 35 %.


Sources: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Ex post evaluation 2000-06: regional expenditure study, EBRD and EIB websites, Latvian Ministry of Environment. Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure




ERDF strategy and interventions During the 2004-2006 period, ERDF intervened in environmental infrastructure in Latvia through operational programmes for a total amount of €29.5 m. Three main fields can be distinguished: urban and industrial waste (€7.1 m), drinking water (€11.2 m), and sewerage and purification (€11.2m). In particular, available information shows that the ERDF supported the development of water management services in settlements till (89 projects), the closure of dumpsites (46 projects), the development of ecotourism infrastructure in Natura 2000 areas (7 projects), the development of the separate municipal waste collection systems (8 projects), the development of heating systems and promoting of energy-efficiency (26 projects), renovating heat supply system by support in fuel transition (7 projects).

The Single Programme Document contains a single strategy for the environment. The overall objective of investments in environmental infrastructure is to improve quality of the environment, quality of services, and facilitation of the economic development of the country.

Based on the potentially available financing and the requirement to provide clear distinction between the activities financed by each financial instrument, the priorities for requesting of the ERDF co-financing for the time period 2004–2006 in the environmental sector were defined as follows: Development of the water services in small municipalities (with a population equivalent below 2,000)

in order to facilitate the economic development of the regions. Development of a separate waste collection system by the installation of the separate waste collection

points. Re-cultivation of those non-compliant dumpsites that are not included in the ongoing ISPA projects

and that will not be part of the potential Cohesion Fund projects (there are 75 dumpsites identified). Upgrading of district heating system run by the municipal companies in order to decrease air

pollution. Promotion of environmentally compatible tourism activities and infrastructure development projects.

The priorities of the ERDF funded activities related to the environmental infrastructure fully reflects the problems, goals and tasks set up by the National Environmental Policy Plan 2004-2008. Moreover, the basis for the ERDF funding has been also the Directive Specific Implementation and Financing Plans (DSIFP) for the implementation of the requirements of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment, Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption, Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste and the European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste developed in 2001 and are approved by the European Commission as the Annex to the Negotiation Position for Chapter 22 Environment. However, it needs to be admitted that the amount of ERDF has been limited thus there is still a lot to do in all areas mentioned above. Other public financial sources Total investments in environmental infrastructure by the Latvian public sector are estimated to €114.4m for the period 2000-2006. The investment used as state budget contributions to co-finance the projects is as follows: € 41.52 m for water sector and €8.75 m for waste sector. Additionally to that municipalities are providing their contributions from annual budgets or taking loans to ensure the co-financing of the larger scale projects.

For the period 2000-2003, ISPA investments in Latvia amounted to €117.1 m. Projects that commenced prior to accession as (ISPA) are continued to be funded under the Cohesion Fund. For the period 2004-2006, commitments from Cohesion Fund for environmental infrastructures were equal to € 351.8 m. The ISPA/CF had the following priorities: water supply and waste water treatment, municipal and hazardous waste management, air pollution protection and technical assistance to the project development.



In 2005, the European Investment Bank (EIB) gave a loan of EUR 150 million for co-financing of priority projects fostering the development of the Latvian economic and social infrastructure that are co-financed by the EU Structural Funds as well as projects in the fields of the environment and Trans-European networks co-financed by the EU Cohesion Fund. On the other hand EBRD invested € 17.9 m in environmental infrastructure. The allocated sum was given in form of two loans. The first was allocated to to “Riga Water Supply Project” for improvement of water supply, installation of water meters and upgrade of treatment plants in 2000. The second loan concerned the final beneficiary SIA “Liepajas Udens” for the implementation of the Cohesion Fund project “Development of Water Services in Liepaja, Stage II”. Since 2000, there has been additional financial assistance for the implementation of environmental projects, from other financial donors including NEFCO, NIB and Nordic countries.

Role of the private sector Total environmental investments done by Latvian industries are estimated to € 43.8 m for the period 2001-2005, including €4.3 m for urban and industrial waste and € 6.4 m for sewerage and purification.

The role of the private sector is related to investments in industry to reduce discharges into water bodies. To comply with air emission standards, enterprises have been investing in filters and other installations to reduce emissions. In addition, the packaging producers were charged with setting up proper waste collection system to ensure the achievement of recovery and recycling targets.


Water supply Investments in improving in water supply will be still allocated in the period 2007-2015 and even onwards. The state of water infrastructure in majority of small size towns and villages is assessed as very poor, but the State has as stated made the committment to comply with drinking water quality requirements of EC by 2015. Providing services of the centralized water supply to at least 95% of residents of the populated area, where it is economically and technically reasonable, has been outlined as another priority task of the Government. Wastewater treatment To prevent water pollution and to reduce eutrophication of water bodies, the investments will be targeted to establishing high-quality systems of waste water collection and treatment and corresponding systems of sludge storage. It is aimed to expand the current networks thus providing accessibility of the centralized sewerage services to at least 95% of residents living in agglomeration territory, where it is economically and technically reasonable. Waste management Investments in waste sector will be continued to provide collection of municipal solid waste from all the residents of cities and at least 80% of rural residents and other waste producers. There is a need to setup of the remaining 5 landfills and to ensure that dumpsites non-compliant with the requirements of the landfill are closed by 2009. Furthermore, the support for waste sorting and recycling shall be provided.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Poland / Page 61

Poland – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (%) of population connected to public water supply 82.8 84.5 84.8 85.4 85.8 86.1 86,3

Share (%) of population with access to improved water supply in urban areas 91.7 n.a. n.a. 94.3 94.4 94.9 94.9


n.a. n.a. n.a. 70.5 71.3 72.1 72.7

Source: Eurostat, Central Statistical Office (Poland), 2008.

Comments: Changes in terms of provision of water supply occurred mainly in the 1990s thanks to massive investment effort that were undertaken by municipal services and industry management during the years 1990-2003. This had been achieved without significant support from foreign sources, but with a significant contribution of national resources from the local system of funds for environmental protection and water management. Wastewater treatment

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0,6


30.0 29.0 27.0 25.0 23.0 21.0 21.7

Share (%) of population receiving tertiary wastewater treatment 20.0 23.0 27.0 31.0 34.0 37.0 39.0

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment 54.0 55.0 57.0 58.0 59.0 60.0 61.4


Comments: The population inhabiting urban areas is ca. 61% of the total, while ca. 39% inhabit rural areas. It should be noted at the same time that a significant majority of the urban population (over 80%) is covered by the wastewater treatment system. Solid waste

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Municipal waste generation (kg/ capita) 317.0 290.0 275.0 260.0 255.0 245.0 259



Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) n.a. n.a. 65 68 76 83 78




4.2 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.8 n.a.

Share (%) of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.6 2.1 2.9 n.a.


Source: Eurostat

Comments: Today electrical energy production is clearly dominated by thermal power stations heated with bituminous coal and brown coal.






Source: Eurostat, EEA

Comments: The higher level of emissions shown above in 2006 is mainly due to the increasing emission from road transport and fuel combustion in the residential sector. Poland’s emissions are still well below its Kyoto target for the period 2008–2012. The base year for calculation of emission target for Poland accordingly to the Kyoto Protocol is 1998.


Reform of the municipal waste management system. Over 90% of waste is still sent to landfill sites. This shows the ineffectiveness of the current waste collection and recovery system, and, therefore, also the need for its prompt reform. The construction of an installation for the heat treatment of waste, which has been included in the National Waste Management Plan 2010 is expected to improve this situation. Streamlining the management of water resources and the protection of these resources from pollution, as well as providing wastewater treatment plants for agglomerations with a population equivalent of over 2000 (plants with enhanced treatment for agglomerations with a population equivalent of over 15 000) and sewage systems which are properly developed. This will enable total reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus in municipal sewage. Another challenge is the protection of aquifers from the excessive and unjustified use as well as from the pollution from surface area of land. The aquifers constitute a strategic reserve of clean water for the population, which is especially important in the context of forecast water shortage in Poland in the decades to come. Protection of air against pollution: the major challenge is coal combustion, as coal constitutes the source of 95% of electricity and of 80% of heat energy generated in Poland. Increasing the share of renewable sources in energy production by at least 20% as well as increasing energy efficiency by 20% are the key challenges which Poland will have to face. 161 zones were identified which do not meet the EU standards with regard to the quality of air.


Institutional framework Environmental strategic policies and programmes are developed at national level (e.g. National Environmental Policy 2009-2012 with perspective until 2016, Poland’s Energy Policy until 2025, National Waste Management Plan 2010, National Urban Waste Water Treatment Plan, etc.). Regional programmes and plans are being created at the national and local levels (e.g. Waste management plans for voivodeships (NUTS 2), poviats (NUTS 4) and gminas (NUTS 5)). The Inspection for Environmental Protection (IEP) is responsible for the monitoring of environment quality (the quality of air, surface water and forest areas; noise; electromagnetic radiation; waste management).

Since 1999, a process of administrative reform has been implemented, under which local authorities have been taking over increasing amounts of power in the field of environmental governance. Under the present legal framework most of the power in this respect is held by gminas (municipalities; NUTS 5; procedures relating to environmental impact assessments and spatial planning), starosteships (NUTS 3; permits for the introduction of substances and energy into the environment, integrated permits, waste management permits) and voivodeships (NUTS 2; integrated permits, waste management plans).

In accordance with the Framework Water Directive water resources are managed by Regional Water Management Boards and Boards for Catchment Areas in Drainage Basins. They are supervised by the National Water Management Authority, subordinated to the Minister of Environment. According to Polish law, gminas are responsible for ensuring collective drinking water supply and waste water removal; water and sewage enterprises carry out their activities in this respect on behalf of gminas.



The major actor in the waste management system in Poland is the gmina, which acts as a planner, regulatory authority issuing licences for operators, and enforcement body controlling fulfilment of national and local provisions. In the majority of cases the municipalities do not directly maintain the system. About 75% of the municipal waste is produced in urban areas, while the population of those areas is 61% of all Polish citizens. According to the requirements of the Polish Waste Law, municipal waste must be collected and picked up in a selective manner within the organisational framework established by the municipal regulations on maintenance of cleanliness and tidiness (having a status of a local law act) adopted by municipal councils. The regulations must be in line with the municipal waste management plan. Voivodeship authorities are responsible for ensuring building, maintenance, and use of equipment and systems to recycle and neutralise hazardous waste separated out from urban waste. Environmental legislation In Poland, there are no regional differences in environmental legislation. Main features of the national environmental legislation are the following:

In terms of water supply and wastewater: The Act on gmina self-government of 8 March 1990 defines collective water supply and collective wastewater channelling as the task of each individual gmina. The Act partially implements the Directives related to water and wastewater. In order to meet the accession objectives in this area (set out by the Waste Water Directive), Poland is currently implementing the National Programme for Municipal Waste Water Treatment.

In terms of municipal solid waste: The basic legal act concerning handling of urban waste is the Act on ensuring cleanliness and order in gminas. The mandatory tasks of gminas in respect of urban waste management include organising of a system for collecting all types of urban waste; ensuring appropriate conditions for the functioning of separate collections of urban waste; ensuring building, maintenance and use of equipment to recycle and neutralise urban waste; and ensuring conditions for limiting the weight of biodegradable urban waste directed for disposal. Poland is currently implementing the National Waste Management Plan, the scope of which is wider than that stemming from Accession Treaty and EU legislation.

The polluter-pays principle is one of fundamental rules of State Environmental Policy and has been consistently used in Poland since the beginning of 1990s. In accordance with the binding law, the “polluter pays” principle is applicable to all environmental users in all sectors: water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, municipal solid waste. The law obliges environmental users to bear any costs of investments that are necessary to meet specific environmental protection requirements. In 2006, appropriate regulations were adopted, in line with EU legislation, specifying the responsibility for damage to environment and the rules of their removal, as well as compensations. Since the beginning of 1990s a system of fees and fines for the introduction of pollutants to the environment has been in force; the amounts received in this way feed Environmental Protection Funds that co-finance enterprises in the field of environmental protection, in particular in the municipal sector.


In general Poland has transposed and implemented EU Directives in a way that no infringement procedure has been started. However, there were key objections over Polish regulations, namely the organisation of the process of environmental impact assessments (including participation of environmental organizations) and incorrect designation within the framework of the Natura 2000 network. The problem was solved through entering into force of a new Act on Providing Information on the Environment and its Protection, the Public Involvement in Environmental Protection and on Environmental Impact Assessments (15th November 2008).





the public sector

(2002-06)


ERDF environmental

investments (2004-06)



projects (2000-03)



(2004-06)



by EIB


industry (2000-05)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 0.0 0.0 358.4 n.a. 5.5 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 219.8 32.2 96.6 103.2 n.a. 0.0 n.a. 415.1Drinking water n.a. 32.2 96.6 347.1 n.a. 1.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification 3104.4 36.0 108.0 490.7 n.a. 98.4 n.a. 861.7Total 3700.0 100.4 301.2 1299.4 2771.9 104.9 223.2 3499.2 in % of GDP 0.33 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.28


Sources: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Ex post evaluation 2000-06: regional expenditure study, EBRD and EIB websites Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure

5. Assesment of the influence and the role of ERDF and other finacial sources on environmental infrastructure systems

ERDF strategy and interventions From the programme documents there was not an explicit ERDF strategy relating to environment, but environmental sustainability was a cross cutting theme. In general, ERDF Environmental Strategy and Policy is coherent with other environmental policies in Poland. However there is no direct reference to the ERDF in the OP Programming Documents. The ERDF is mentioned only as a source of co-financing of the particular measures.

Basic documents, to which the goals and assumptions of the operational programmes, refer, is the Community Support Framework (CSF) and National Development Plan for the years 2004-2006 (which is the superior document). Both documents are general and constitute a link between the ERDF and Operational Programmes and should be viewed as a tool of direct realization of ERDF strategy. Both documents are the results of negotiations with the European Commission held in June – July, 2003. In Poland, two operational programmes have financed measures in the field of environment: the Improvement of Competitiveness of Enterprises Sectoral Operational Programme (SPO WKP) and the Integrated Regional Development Operational Programme (IRDOP).

The SPO WKP aimed at improving competitiveness of the Polish economy in open market conditions. One of the objectives of the SPO WKP was to support for investments in adapting enterprises to the requirements of environmental protection. The SPO WKP supported enterprises’ investment projects in respect of (among other) water, wastewater management and air protection. Enterprises’ investment activities in waste management were also supported, with particular emphasis on hazardous waste. At the end of 2007, 233 environmental projects were implemented under SPO WKP.

The strategic objective of IRDOP was establishing conditions for boosting competitiveness of regions and counteracting the marginalisation of certain areas in a manner conducive to long-term economic development of Poland, its economic, social, and territorial cohesion, as well as integration with the European Union. The IRDOP supported environmental protection infrastructures (wastewater treatment, protection of surface waters, air protection, waste management, supporting management of environmental protection, obtaining energy from renewable sources, etc). At the end of 2007, 980 environmental projects were implemented under the IRDOP.

Other public financial sources

The ISPA fund has primarily financed the investments contributing to implementation of the most expensive EU Directives in the following areas: improvement of water quality and drinking water supply, wastewater management, waste management, air quality.

Prioritary projects which may be supported from the ISPA funds included the following: projects coherent with the EU environmental policy (preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, protecting human health, prudent and rational utilization of natural resources, rectification



of environmental damage at the source, coherent with the polluter-pays principle), projects which will contribute to reduction of pollution influencing many people (i.e. generating the scale effect), projects stimulating close partner cooperation between regional and local authorities, aiming at fast regional development due to utilization of regional specific character of human and natural resources andprojects contributing to protection of particularly valuable ecosystems from the environmental protection and biodiversity point of view.

Cohesion Fund financing was allocated to large projects or project groups, creating a coherent system, which would have a significant impact on development of the trans-European transport network and improvement of environmental condition to the standards specified by the environmental acquis communautaire and with a budget of at least € 10m.

The priorities in the area of environmental protection submitted for financing from the Cohesion Fund in the years 2004 –2006 were: improvement of surface water quality, improvement of quality and distribution of drinking water, rationalization of waste management and land surface protection, air quality improvement and flood safety improvement.

EBRD activities in Poland in the environmental sector focus mainly on supporting the investments in infrastructure and environmental protection, in particular at local level and with public-private partnership. Support is also addressed to energy-saving and renewable energy projects, as well as improvements in energy effectiveness and environmental protection standards.

EIB: Water and sewage sector is one of the priority areas, to which EIB allocates its loans, encouraging the beneficiaries from both public and private sector to make large-scale investments that ensure compliance with the EU Directives. The Bank provides also its loans for sustainable water resources management by means of managing demand, integrated planning of catchment areas and integrated flood protection.

At national level, investments related to the environmental protection infrastructure are financed by means of, inter alia, investment loan schemes or subsidised loans programmes. Financing at national level is granted by the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (NFOŚiGW). At regional level financing may be obtained from 16 voivodeship funds for environmental protection and water management (WFOŚiGW). The NFOŚiGW/WFOŚiGW programmes of subsidies to investment loans may cover investments in water and land protection, which are supported by the Cohesion Fund. Role of the private sector Investment expenditures allocated for large infrastructural projects in environmental protection are generally public, with public-private partnership system still underdeveloped, whereas small-scale environmental investments are often private and numerous which explains the relatively important amount of environmental private investment. Sewage and wastewater management and water protection are the main destinations of private investments, with a share of 70% in 2007.


Water supply Investments in water infrastructure consist mainly of the construction of new water supply systems on previously uninhabited areas and modernisation of old water supply systems which are sometimes several decades old in parts of agglomerations. Investments in water treatment plans consist of the introduction of modern water treatment solutions improving the taste and smell of water.

What is noticeable is the considerable disproportion in the development of water and sewage infrastructure as between urban and rural areas. It results mainly from the costs and benefits of maintaining systems, and related water services pricing, as well as the possibility of obtaining water from alternative sources. Even though the proportion of the population with access to the water supply system is not 100%, it hardly ever happens that people make use of poor quality water. Strict sanitary standards in this field, which have been binding in Poland for several decades, eliminate in practice the possibility of utilising networks and machines that could cause a significant health risk.



Wastewater The fulfilment of the wastewater treatment requirements imposed on Poland requires agglomerations to invest in wastewater treatment plants which meet EU requirements in terms of parameters and capacity. Therefore, investments in this area mainly consist of construction and modernisation of wastewater treatment plants. Investments in sewage systems mainly consist of construction of separate sewage systems allowing for separate transfer of foul sewage and storm-water. Given that some sewage systems are several decades old, the funds are allocated for modernisation of the existing systems. The least solved problem in terms of wastewater treatment remains the management of sludge, which is currently mostly stored. In 2006, only 61% of the population was receiving total wastewater treatment. However, the situation is highly heterogeous as most municipal sewage (about 93%) from agglomeration areas is already treated. In 2007 the amount of wastewater introduced to receivers through the wastewater network was 1,265.5 hm³, out of which 92.8% was treated (91.9% including biological treatment and with increased removal of nutrients).

The greatest support in this regard comes from the Cohesion Fund (79 projects on water and wastewater management with a total value of €4bn) and the IROP (911 projects with a total value of €720m). Through the 2004-2006 SPO WKP (supported by ERDF), 59 projects on water and wastewater management were implemented with a total value of €43m. Owing to these projects, effectiveness was improved and the amount of industrial wastewater directed to treatment decreased. Since the beginning of the 21st century, 100% of industrial wastewater has been treated in some way or another.

Solid waste The decreasing trend in municipal waste generation observed during the early 2000s reflected the economic slowdown recorded in the years 2000-2003 as well as the mass immigration in the years 2004-05 but also pathological phenomena such as the failure to enter into agreements by the real property owners and the companies engaged in municipal waste collection, which resulted in the management of waste by households themselves and development of illegal landfills. The increase in 2006 resulted from the acceleration of economic growth as well as measures to decrease these pathological phenomena, especially illegal landfills. The obligation imposed on Poland to close several hundred landfills which do not meet EU requirement increased the number of investments in construction of new landfills with appropriate parameters. Systems of separate waste collection, recycling and effective economic management of waste are poorly developed in Poland. More than 95% of the municipal waste produced is neutralised by storing it. The percentage of waste biologically processed in 2007 was 2.9%. Incineration of waste material in Poland is at a very low level (0.5 to 1%) and no significant progress in this regard has been noted, owing to significant social resistance against the construction of incineration plants. However the plans adopted assume the construction of at least eight large incineration facilities, which should allow limitation of the amount of landfilled municipal waste.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Portugal / Page 67

Portugal – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


n.a. 90.0 85.0/ 91.0

92.0 92.0 92.0 n.a.





Source: Eurostat, 2008, INE, Anuario Estatistico Regional Wastewater treatment

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (% ) of population receiving primary wastewater treatment n.a. n.a. 12.0 12.0 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Share (%) of population receiving wastewater secondary treatment n.a. n.a. 20.0 25.0 n.a. n.a. n.a.


n.a. n.a. 7.0 7.0 n.a. n.a. n.a.


n.a. 55.0 57.0 60.0 62.0 65.0 n.a.

Source: Eurostat, 2008, INE, Anuario Estatistico Regional


Municipal waste generation (kg/ capita) 472.0 470.0 436.0 447.0 435.0 443.0 n.a.



Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) 123.0 127.0 128.0 n.a. 135.0 n.a. n.a.





29.4 34.2 20.8 36.4 24.4 16.0 29.4



Climate change

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006







Environmental infrastructure Asymmetries between Regions remain significant in terms of water supply, wastewater treatment and solid waste treatment and landfills. Another problem is the degradation of water quality and poor management of water resources – the river basin authorities were enacted in 2008, the elaboration of RBD management plans is ongoing, and there has been a reform on water supply with creation of public-private partnerships. Energy/Air pollution Dependence on road transportation is excessive as well as use of private cars, with insufficient development of other modes of transport, in particular rail. Moreover there is a high intensity (low efficiency) of energy use and carbon emissions by economic activities and patterns of mobility and consumption, leading to a close direct relationship between economic growth and increase in energy consumption and emissions of Greenhouse Gas (GHG). Territorial planning The main issues are soil degradation and risk of desertification, aggravated by weather events (drought and heavy rain) and the extent of forest fires. This is combined with inadequate consideration of environmental risks in measures of utilisation and transformation of the territory, namely regarding forest fires, floods, erosion of coastal zones, and earthquakes. Finally planning in the expansion of metropolitan areas and other urban areas is insufficient.


Institutional framework The Ministry for the Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development (MAOTDR) is the governmental department responsible for the definition, execution and coordination of the environmental policies, nature conservation, biodiversity, land planning and cohesion, housing and regional development. The Ministry has also responsibilities in the coordination of the EDRF and Cohesion Fund implementation. Portuguese Environmental Agency (APA) is responsible to propose, develop and monitor implementation of policies on climate change, atmospheric emissions, environmental impact assessment, waste, risk prevention, integrated control of pollution and environmental education. Regional Coordination and Development Commissions (CCDR) are services within the direct administration of the State, included in the MAOTDR. The CCDR are administratively and financially independent, responsible for the execution of environmental policies, spatial planning and regional development at a regional level in limited geographical areas. They are also in charge of promoting coordination with other regional bodies and giving technical assistance to municipal authorities and associations. Water Institute is the national water authority, an agency of the Central Administration, administratively autonomous and under the MAOTDR. - The Water Institute is the water national authority and its mission is to undertake the water resources policies at a national level. To protect the national water resources and prevent or minimise natural catastrophes are the main objectives of the water policies conducted by this agency. Among the duties of the agency are the implementation of the water law, development of a system of information on water quantity and quality, planning and management of water resources, promotion and conservation of the sustainable water use and finally promotion and monitoring of the undertaking of new infrastructures such as dams. River Basin District Authority – There are five ARH in mainland Portugal (for Azores and Madeira the regional secretariats of environment manage water), which are required to elaborate and implement the river basin management plan and help in elaboration of plans of dams, estuaries and coastal zone, issue of water use licenses, and implementation of the economic and financial regime (cost-recovery, etc), surveillance, and implementation of policies of the national water authority. Environmental legislation The 2000-2006 Strategic Plan for Water Supply and Wastewater Sanitation (PEAASAR) established the main strategic lines, assumptions, objectives and operational priorities for 2000-2006, to ensure the proper use of EU funds available in the 2000-2006 period, and in so doing it played a key role in the structuring



of the entire sector of water supply and waste water treatment in Portugal. To ensure the continuity of a strategy for the water sector, in February 2007 the PEAASAR 2007-2013 was approved. During the period 2000-2006, other plans and programmes existed, including: National Water Plan (PNA), setting out guidelines for national integrated management of water, the National Programme for the Efficient Water Use (PNUEA), aiming primarily to promote the efficient use of water in Portugal especially in urban, agricultural and industrial sectors, helping to minimise the risk of water shortages and improving environmental conditions in water resources. The National Inventory System of Water Supply and Waste Water (INSAAR) has been being developed and improved and the first results date from 2002; the system monitors compliance with the main objectives and measures under different plans and programmes and characterises sectors of water supply, drainage and waste water treatment in the country. The Water Framework Directive was transposed into national law by Law n.º 58/2005 of 29 December. Decree Law No. 77/2006, complements the transposition of the Directive in relation to a set of Community rules essentially of technical and transitional nature. Decree-law nº 97/2008, establishes the economic and financial regime of water resources. The quality of water for human consumption was significantly changed by Decree-law n.º 243/2001, which imposed the responsibility for verification of compliance at the consumer's tap or at the point of delivery, respectively, on the water supply providers of the downstream and upstream regimes. This was later revoked by Decree-law 306/2007, which aims to improve the quality of disinfection of water, namely for zones supplying less than 100 m3 per day, and improving the monitoring of the entire water supply system. Wastewater Decree-law 152/97 transposes Directive 91/271/CEE, of the Council, setting the rules and conditions for waste water discharge and treatment. This has been revised by Decree-law n.º 348/98, which transposes Directive n.º 98/15/CE, by Decree-law 149/2004 mainly in matters concerning sensitive areas, and by Decree-law 198/2008 with a new definition of sensitive areas. Regarding solid waste, the Strategic Plan for Urban Solid Waste (PERSU I), approved in 1997 and reprinted in 1999, was the main reference tool at the beginning of the programme for planning and managing urban waste. This plan has, inter alia, quantified short, medium and long terms targets for reduction of production of solid waste, and of recycling, organic recovery and incineration with energy recovery as well as landfill. The balance of PERSU I was, overall, positive, and the sector is currently regulated and structured, based on solid waste management systems. Ordinance No. 187/2007 approved the PERSU II which reviews the PERSU I and is the new benchmark for the period 2007-2016. This plan also represents a revision of strategies contained in the National Strategy for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste directed to Landfill (ENRRUBDA) and Plan of Intervention in Urban Solid Waste and Equivalent (PIRSUE). Other relevant existing plans at the beginning of the 2000-2006 period include: Strategic Plan for Industrial Waste (PESGRI), which sets out the strategic principles that must govern the management of such waste in the national territory; Plano National Plan for Prevention of Industrial Waste (PNAPRI), and the Strategic Plan for Medical Waste (PERH) currently under revision. As stated, the General Waste Management regime is set out in Decree-Law n.º 178/2006, which spells out rules on principles, responsibility, planning, licensing and management of information on waste. With this new regime the Integrated Waste Electronic Registration (SIRER) was also established. Another essential element introduced by this law is the new economic and financial system for waste management, especially the introduction of waste management fees - a tax incentive aiming at penalising the landfill of waste, and therefore promoting recovery and recycling operations. Other general rules are set by Decree-Law n.º 152/2002 transposes Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April on the landfill of waste; Decree-Law n.º 85/2005 establishes the legal regime of incineration and co-incineration of waste, transposing into national law Directive No. 2000/76/EC; and Ordinance n.º 335/97 sets the rules for the transport of waste within the national territory. Industrial waste is defined by Decree No 178/2006 as being generated in industrial processes as well as waste resulting from the activities of production and distribution of electricity, gas and water. The waste that has at least one characteristic of danger to health or to the environment – in particular those



identified in Ordinance No. 209/2004, which transposes the European Hazardous Waste List - are considered hazardous waste. Order No. 242/96 rated hospital waste into four distinct groups, with the waste to appropriate treatment differentiated for the group to which they belong. Besides, there exists comprehensive legislation regarding the specific fluxes of waste referred to above.


Portugal did not transpose the Water Framework Directive by the legal deadline of December 2003. Moreover, the country has not installed secondary treatment at sewage treatment plants for towns over 15,000 inhabitants by a legal deadline of December 2000, as requested by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Portugal also failed to submit plans to reduce locally severe nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate pollution in areas where levels of these pollutants exceed future limit values set. Finally, Portugal has failed to inform the Commission of steps taken to phase-out the ozone-depleting pesticide methyl bromide in quarantine and pre-shipment of traded crops. The polluter-pays principle: Water pricing is applied throughout the whole country, generally with explicit metering and billing for water supply. The average price is extremely variable and multi-part tariff formulae can be found. Water tariffs are on average below the investment and operating costs of the service. PEAASAR II aims at reforming the water tariffs to ensure the financial sustainability of the sector, although the plan calls for sustainable social tariffs, and subsidisation of investment as a complement to tariffs to render the investments profitable. The Art. 5 Report on the Characterisation of River Basin Districts submitted by Portugal (in 2005) indicates that an 22% average increase in the water bill would be needed to achieve cost-recovery. Sewage charges are paid along with the water bill, and in most cases reflect water supplied as there are no wastewater meters. Sewage charges vary widely, are generally lower than for water supply and in some cases do not exist at all. Regulated suppliers have to take costs into consideration in designing tariff schemes, but often retail prices are set by municipalities with no economic considerations. Regarding waste, there is a great variety of pricing schemes. In 2006, about a quarter of the municipalities were not charging households. Of those that charge households, the majority do it through the water bill, some schemes reflecting water consumption, others using fixed charges. The price incentive possibilities for households in the MSW sector are thus reduced. As in water, the total revenues are much smaller than the average costs (about 35%). It is expected that water, wastewater and solid waste tariffs will increase in the current programming period, to comply with EU Directives. Regional particularities: The Azores and Madeira archipelagos have constitutionally mandated autonomous status. Environment is managed by the Regional Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Madeira) and Regional Secretariat of Environment and Ocean (Azores). These autonomous regions have the authority to enact regional laws. In practice there are no major differences in relation to the national environmental legislation. Municipalities are vested with the power to define parameters for wastewater discharged into municipal sewerage systems, and often use it.




the public sector





projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB


industry (2000-04)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 12.3 69.8 0.0 642.6 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 336.5 22.7 51.5 0.0 372.7 0.0 n.a. 79.7Drinking water n.a. 115.7 265.3 0.0 231.7 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification 1353.1 180.3 435.7 0.0 428.2 0.0 n.a. 234.5Total 2834.0 330.9 822.3 0.0 1675.2 0.0 1023.2 1096.9 in % of GDP 0.29 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.11 0.16 Sources: Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Es-post evaluations 2000-2006: Regional Expenditure Study, EBRD and EIB websites Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure




ERDF strategy and interventions The 2000-2006 operational programmes were structured to take into account articulation with the ERDF and Cohesion Funds objectives. It should be stressed that the Environmental OP contains a section (chapter 6) entirely dedicated to discussion of the state of implementation of EU Directives and the strategy proposed in the programme to ensure compliance. In practice the ERDF investment on Regional OPs was designed complementarily to the Cohesion Funds investment in water supply, wastewater drainage and treatment and solid waste management within a logic of integrated systems, with Cohesion Funds financing upstream “high” regime while EDRF finances downstream “low” regime (final distribution to the client) in order to maximise the functionality of the systems. Another concern consisted of the integration of environment in socio-economic development policies, that is to say adequate investment in environment to minimise the environmental impacts of the economic cohesion efforts. The mid-term evaluation of the environmental OP recognises the important contribution of ERDF funds to improving the environmental performance of the country, with emphasis on improving the urban environment and the coastline, which is justified by the high percentage of the population concentrated on about 900 km of coast, mostly in cities. In Portugal, the Regional OP provided for about €620m for water supply and waste water treatment, and about €65.2m for urban solid waste. The OP Environment did not envisage funds for this type of infrastructure. ERDF fund were channelled through the regional OPs to co-finance downstream regime infra-structure. There are some discrepancies in different reports regarding the ERDF investment in water supply and waste water systems. The PEAASAR II states that the investments in downstream regime received about €570m from ERDF, corresponding to a co-financing of 63%. This represents about 6% of the total of the regional OPs and 50% of the regional OPs allocations to environment. The investment in solid waste management systems by ERDF was slim. Other public financial sources Cohesion Fund finances multi-municipal upstream regime systems. As it can be seen in the above table, the contribution of the Cohesion Fund was €231.7m for water supply and €428.2m for waste water. However, the Cohesion Fund also financed combined projects including both water supply and wasterwater for a total amount of €608.3m. Loans from EIB are typically used for the water sector and the whole hydrologic cycle - from abstraction and distribution of potable water to the construction of waste water treatment plants. Other EIB loans were used for the construction of the municipal solid waste segregation/valorization plants, as well as for the financing of renewable energy projects, namely wind energy and geothermal energy utilization, but also natural gas system and hydroelectric and thermoelectric power plants. Finally, EIB loans also financed sustainable urban transportation infrastructure, as the subways of Lisbon and Oporto. It is not possible to differentiate the environmental investment of the Portuguese public sector, from what has been the scope of the Cohesion Fund, the Regional OPs and of the Environment OP. In all the years though the 2000-2006 period, the Portuguese component accounts for about two thirds of the total investment in environment. In many instances the EU co-financing is a part of the total investment in the project, particularly for large investments on water and sanitation system, or on solid waste management. The environmental priorities of public sector were based on four aspects: i) The integration of environment into development policy and territorial sectoral policies; ii) The conservation and enhancement of natural heritage in a strategy of conservation of nature and biodiversity; iii) The establishment of a strategic partnership with various stakeholders to achieve environmental modernization of economic activities and of organizations; iv) The development of environmental education and information.



Role of the private sector Since 1993, the activities of collection and managing of municipal solid waste and of water availability and quality are no longer reserved for the State and have been open to the private sector. There are currently two models, namely: - Municipal or inter-municipal systems (municipalities alone or in association) that may be operated directly by the municipalities or by a contractor selected by a tender, which is a public or private company. In 2007 there were 14 such systems. - Multi-municipal systems (via allocation or contracting) with management granted by the State to utilities companies (solely or mainly of public capital), resulting from association between local governments and the group Águas de Portugal – this public capital group inherited in the late 1990s all the participations that the State had in the environmental area, and has management autonomy). In 2007 there were 15 such systems. In addition there are about 700 licensed operators of non-municipal waste management units, most of them performing waste valorisation. Between 2000 and 2004 there has been much activity on elaboration of studies and project design, and in the implementation of construction works of infrastructure of the multi-municipal systems. These systems were complex, involving a large number of cases of sub-catchment, treatment and water supply for human consumption, as well as collection, transport and treatment of urban wastewater, with strong geographical dispersion and diversity of size and technical complexity. These systems have used the private sector for specialised services and technology and for building infrastructure. However a significant number of management entities of the multi-municipal and inter-municipal systems have opted to use their own resources for the operation and maintenance of the systems, which generates inefficiencies and does not allow healthy growth of the market. Thus the degree of involvement of private firms as subcontractors is lower than desirable (according to PEAASAR II), and it only occurs in inter-municipal arrangements owing to legal limitations. Regarding services of valorisation of by-products, there are currently about 20 companies in Portugal. This is an emerging market, with the number of new players increasing with the evolution of environmental law, namely regulation of uses, characteristics, and destinations of by-products, and imposition of sorting solutions that facilitate re-use. As regards interaction with the final client (downstream systems), about 87% of municipalities, covering a population of about 7 million people, maintain public administration models (municipal services or local authority), while about 27% of the population is served by business models. In 2006 about 35 municipalities had business management-type (public or private) on water supply services and 25 had business management on waste water treatment services. Of these, only 26 and 14 respectively corresponded exclusively to municipal concessions. It is known that there is a need for a large investment in the downstream regime systems (PEAASAR II mentions a need of €2.2 billion), but the figures show that the public administration is not trying to solve the problem via public-private partnerships. In late 2007 a complaint to the EC was issued by the Portuguese Business Association for the Water Sector, on i) the monopoly of the group Aguas de Portugal on multi-municipal systems, ii) the fact that this group contains companies geared to intervene in a downstream regime, and iii) for the fact that EU funds are being provided to multi-municipal management entities to finance construction works on downstream regimes, which ends up penalizing the municipalities which are not interested in becoming part of those multi-municipal systems.


Water supply The largest investments aimed at developing water source solutions to guarantee water quality, quantity and reliability of service. As such there has been a large investment in "high" regime. The target set by PEAASAR for the end of the 2000-2006 period was 95% coverage of the population served with potable water at home. The rate of supply of the population in 2006 was 91% in mainland Portugal, 100% in the River Basin District of the Azores and 97% in the RBD of Madeira. Significant regional disparities persist in Mainland Portugal with regard to the population with access to public water supply for human consumption ranging from 80% at Cávado, Ave and Leça to 99% at Guadiana River Bassin Districts.



Wastewater There has been a significant investment in infrastructure for wastewater sewerage and treatment. However it was not sufficient to comply with the objectives set for 2006 (90% coverage of the population served by drainage and waste water treatment). In fact, treatment remained at 70% coverage in mainland Portugal and below 60% and 40% in Madeira and the Azores regions, respectively. Small and medium scale waste water treatment plants, are represented in all river basin districts of the country, while large size plants are located in only three river basin districts of the mainland. Tertiary treatment is available in 70% of the small size plants, while less than 50% of medium and large size plants have this level of treatment. Secondary treatment is performed in 70% of large plant and in 60% of medium size waste water treatment plants. The goal of the PEASAAR II is to achieve 90% of the population served by public drainage and waste water treatment by 2016. Solid waste Waste management infrastructure has also received considerable investment in recent years, in particular, landfills, transfer stations, and waste sorting sites. There was a significant increase in selective deposition equipment installed, with most of the systems serving fewer than 500 inhabitants per ecopoint. However, door-to-door collection systems proved very effective in certain areas, but are still not widespread in Portugal. In 2007 the entire population was served by the collection of solid waste and, through inter-municipality cooperation and public-private partnerships, the waste is deposed in landfills (64%) or valorised (in 1995, 73% of municipal solid waste was deposited in open-air waste dumps). There exists a significant deficit in terms of recycling of organic material, with only 18% (in 2007) of solid waste sent for these purposes. There is also much to do regarding the optimisation of waste sorting, in view of the high percentage of rejected material from this operation. Currently eight units of mechanical and biological treatment (composting plants or anaerobic digestion), five landfills for non-hazardous industrial waste, and two centres for the recuperation, valorisation, and elimination hazardous industrial waste, are in operation.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Slovakia / Page 75

Slovakia – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


82.9 83.4 83.9 84.0 84.7 85.4 86.3


n.a. 93,7 n.a. n.a. 94,5 n.a. n.a.



Source: Statistic Office of Slovakia 2008; Eurostat, 2008.


Share (% ) of population receiving primary wastewater treatment n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 41.9 n.a. n.a.


n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 14.5 n.a. n.a.

Share (%) of population receiving total wastewater treatment 50.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 56.5 n.a. 57.1

Source: Eurostat, 2008; OECD, 2008. Comments: In Slovakia, wastewater treatment is mainly secondary (86.2% of WWTP). There is only one primary WWTP in the town with the population of 11,100 inhabitants. Slovakia's commitment, among others, is to report on Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban wastewater treatment). For this purpose the MoE and Water Research Institute use prescribed methodology which is not fully compatible with the previous Slovak one. The whole Slovakia is considered as sensitive area in terms of wastewater treatment.


Municipal waste generation (kg/capita) 254 239 283 297 274 289 301

Municipal waste incinerated (kg/capita) 39 25 29 30 34 34 35

Municipal waste landfilled (kg/capita) 196 209 222 233 222 228 234

Packaging waste generation (kg/capita) n.a. n.a. n.a. 77 69 64 56




2.8 4 3.7 3.3 3.9 4.3 4.6


16.9 17.9 19.2 12.4 14.4 16.7 16.6

Energy intensity (kg of oil eq. per thousand €) 993.7 1,054.7 1,010.3 959.8 907.3 848.3 772.2









Water supply and wastewater Important aspect in the provision of drinking water to the population in areas where public waterworks are still missing and the population is supplied from individual water resources (wells). In most cases the water from these resources does not meet the quality requirements stipulated by the Drinking Water Directive. The main challenges are:

increase the number of households connected to public water pipelines; improve the technical conditions in the drinking water distribution network to avoid high losses in the

water supply. In 2001 there were 503 municipalities in the Slovak Republic (i.e. 17.4% of the total number of municipalities) with completed sewerage networks while only 389 municipalities (i.e. 13.5% of the total number of municipalities) had their wastewaters also fed to WWTP. From the other side existing difference between the population supply provision to the public water supply networks (83.4% of total population in 2001) and the low rate of the population connected to the sewerage network system (55.2 % of total population) and to the WWTP shows the importance for solution of this disproportion. Therefore the main challenges in this field in 2004-2006 were: improve the unsatisfactorily level of wastewater treatment and low rate of connection of population to

sewerage systems (especially in major municipal agglomerations where some WWTPs are overloaded); expansion and intensification of WWTPs for agglomerations within the range from 2000 to 10 000

population equivalent (p.e.) and provide the technology for tertiary cleaning in urban wastewater agglomerations above 10 000 p.e.

Solid waste There are two main challenges in the field of solid waste management, aiming to achieve the compliance with Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfills:

increase the volume of separated and recycled waste materials and involve the population in the system of separated urban waste collection;

safe closing of waste landfills upon expiry of their useful life and subsequent re-cultivation of the landfill.

Air/ Energy/ Climate change The key issue in air protection aimed at improvement of air quality in urban and industrial areas, decreased energy demand in the Slovak economy and to achieve changes in the fuel base aimed at more frequent use of environmentally favourable fuels and renewable energy sources.


Institutional framework In terms of water management, the State water authorities include the Ministry of Environment (MoE), eight regional environmental offices, 46 district environmental offices, Slovak Environmental Inspection and municipalities. The work of the State administration bodies includes mainly decision-making, control and supervisory activity in line with the legislation. The MoE is a central body of the State administration responsible for environment and environmental protection, including water management, protection of water quality and quantity and its reasonable use, and flood protection. District Environmental Office issues all kind of permits relating to the water management incl. drinking and wastewater network and WWTP’s on NUTS 4 level. Regional Environmental Office (REO) issues permits in case when recipient body of treated water is transboundary (SK-CZ, SK-HU, SK-PL) river or the drinking water pipelines cross more districts, resp. regions. REO is administering on NUTS 3 level. Water companies manage the water infrastructures on behalf of municipalities, which own these infrastructures. In 2006 there were 14 important water companies in Slovakia. The Department of Standardisation and Informatics for Water Management of the Water Research Institute (WRI) is a coordinator for water management. It provides technical standardisation in Slovakia, expertise and technical assistance for preparation of the Slovak Technical Standards with a focus on harmonisation of Slovak with European standards; manages the register of the Slovak Technical Standards related to water management; cooperates with State authorities and technical committees; and provides information.



In terms of waste management, decision-making institutions are the Ministry of Environment (MoE), the Department of Waste Management; eight regional environmental offices, 46 district environmental offices and municipalities. District Environmental Office issues the majority of waste management permits, incl. permissions for the operation of waste disposal, resp. waste recovery facilities on the NUTS 4 level. Regional Environmental Office, operating on NUTS 3 level, is: i) primary appeal body; ii) issue permits for the hazardous waste transportation exceeding district boundaries. MoE issues the permits for hazardous waste transportation exceeding the Slovakian borders. In addition, Slovak Environmental Agency (SEA) provides monitoring. The Centre of Waste Management regularly prepares RISW (Regional Information System on Waste) Database and annual State of the Environment Report. The Slovak Environment Inspection, department of the Waste Management Inspection, with its five regional branches, inspects performance within valid legislation and permits issued. Grants from Recycling Fund and Environment Fund (both are controlled by the MoE) support technical infrastructure development of waste management in Slovakia. However, the Environment Fund only supports the solid municipal waste infrastructure.

Environmental legislation Water management is legally regulated under the Act No. 139/2003 Coll., protection of water quality and quantity and its reasonable use under the Act No. 364/2004 Coll. on waters (Water Act) and on amendment to the National Council Act no. 372/1990 Coll. on offences, the Act No. 442/2002 Coll. on public water supply and public sewerage and on amendments to the Act No. 276/2001 Coll. on regulation of network industries as amended in later regulations, flood protection are regulated under the Act No. 666/2004 Coll. Water Framework Directive (WFD) also creates a framework for implementation of other EU Directives and Regulations related to water adopted before the WFD came into force. Their objectives, measures and environmental standards for EU waters overlap with WFD objectives. Based on these facts the Slovak Republic is obliged to implement 24 other EU Directives and Regulations and prepare the EC reports on their implementation. Since fulfilment of implementation programmes for the EU Directives and Regulations has an effect on the quality of prepared river basin management plans and programmes of measures under the WFD it is important to create conditions for solving all problems and inadequacies over time. Considering this aspect the most important and problematic are the Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution from agricultural sources (Nitrates Directive), and the Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatment. Municipal solid waste is legally regulated by the Act. No. 223/2001 Coll. on waste and waste management and its amendments. The main policy document concerns Waste Management Programme 2000-2005 and is developed at four levels – national, regional, district and municipal using top to bottom hierarchy.





the public sector


ERDF environmental




projects (2000-03)

Cohesion Fund total


projects (2004-06)



financed by EIB


industry (2002-05)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste n.a. 10.6 22.9 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. 23.1Drinking water n.a. 7.7 23.0 41.4 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification n.a. 7.7 23.0 111.4 n.a. 0.0 n.a. 91.5Total 250.8 25.9 68.9 152.8 384.4 0.0 42.4 664.2 in % of GDP 0.11 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.33 0.00 0.02 0.52


Urban wastewater By way of derogation from Articles 3, 4 and 5(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC, the requirements for collecting systems and treatment of urban wastewater shall not fully apply in Slovakia until 31 December 2015 in accordance with the following intermediate targets: by 31 December 2004, compliance with the Directive shall be achieved for 83 % of the total biodegradable load; by 31 December 2008, compliance with the Directive shall be achieved for 91 % of the total biodegradable load; by 31 December 2010, compliance with the Directive shall be achieved for agglomerations with a population

equivalent of more than 10 000; by 31 December 2012, compliance with the Directive shall be achieved for 97 % of the total biodegradable load; Solid waste Packing waste: By way of derogation from Article 6(1)(a) of Directive 94/62/EC, Slovakia shall attain the overall recovery targets for the following packaging materials by 31 December 2007 in accordance with the following intermediate targets: Recycling of metals: 7% by weight by the date of accession, 9% for 2004, 11% for 2005 and 13% for 2006; Overall recovery target: 34% by weight by the date of accession, 39% for 2004, 43% for 2005 and 47% for 2006. Incineration of hazardous waste: By way of derogation from Article7 and 11 and from Annex III of Directive 94/67/EC and by way of derogation from Articles 6, 7(1) and 11 of Directive 2000/76/EC, the emission limit values and the requirements for measurements shall not apply to some specified Hospital incinerators (11) and Hazardous waste incinerators (7) in Slovakia until 31 December 2006. Large combustion plants: By way of derogation from Article 4(1) and part A of Annexes III to VII of Directive 2001/80/EC the emission limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust shall not apply until 31 December 2007 to some specified plants in Slovakia. The legal harmonisations have been fully accomplished. Serious problems and certain time-lag occured with the fulfilment of the provision of Urban wastewater treatment directive. Therefore the fulfilment of 2010 terms needs more effort. Thewe were no infrigments in the field of water, resp. waste management in the period 2004-2006.


Sources: Work Package 1 IT Monitoring System (ITMS) of the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development of the SR, 30.11.2008, Eurostat, IDSPA reports, Ex post evaluation 2000-06: regional expenditure study, EBRD and EIB websites, www.phare.vlada.gov.sk, State on Environment Reports 2005, 2006. Comment: Total environmental infrastructure includes air and noise infrastructure


ERDF strategy and interventions During the 2004-2006 period, ERDF intervened in environmental infrastructure in Slovakia through operational programmes for a total amount of €81 m. This amount was split into three main field: urban and industrial waste (€ 27.8 m), drinking water (€ 17.8 m), and sewerage and purification (€ 35.4 m). The ERDF strategy (as well as the Cohesion Fund strategy) in the field of environment are in accordance with the following principles: state-wide, supra-regional and regional importance; significant impact on the biggest possible number of the population;



in accordance with objectives and principles of EU environmental policy respecting the commitments of Slovakia in relation to preceding period;

respecting the polluter-pays principle ; involvement of public-private ownership harmonised with EU and Slovak legislation. Co-financed projects in the water sector had to support activities in accordance with the EU Framework Directive on water and related EU Directives. To the maximum extent possible there will be applied the principles of integrated river basin management. Priority for the period 2004-2006 is concentrated on solving the problems in three following areas: drinking water supply:

- building up and/or reconstruction of drinking water resources; - building up and/or reconstruction of drinking water treatment plants; - building up and/or reconstruction of mains long-distance pipelines for supplying of drinking

water. collection and treatment of wastewater:

- reconstruction, intensification and modernisation of existing wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in the human settlements exceeding 10 000 citizens (in particular removing of nitrite and phosphorus components);

- reconstruction and completion of sewage networks interconnected to the WWTP; - building up new WWTP in the human settlements exceeding 10 000 citizens.

In terms of waste, priorities of ERDF interventions focused on: waste incineration: building or reconstruction of supra-regional waste incineration plants and building

or reconstruction of supra-regional hazardous waste incineration plants); integrated waste management: investment activities of regional importance resulting from integrated

waste management plans of individual upper territorial units.

Other public financial sources Total investments in environmental infrastructure by the Slovakian public sector are estimated to €250.8m for the period 2000-2006. These investments include subsidies from the Slovakian Environment Fund, which is equal to €116.3 m. This fund allowed investments in the field of drinking water (€ 4.6 m), in the field of water and wastewater treatment (€ 99.3 m) and in the field of solid waste (€ 12.3 m). The Environmental Fund (EF) was established on January 1, 2005 (Act 587/2004 Coll.). EF is a state’s budgetary organization under the MoEnv. Following the prescribed application procedure applicant (from the both public as well private sectors) can receive grant (after latest amendment also loan) for the following environmental activities: Protection and rational use of water; Development of waste management; Support for solution of substantial environmental situation, removal of environmental accident or exceptional pollution/degradation of water; Environmental education and promotion.

For the period 2000-2003, ISPA investments in Slovakia amounted to €52.8 m. Fourteen projects were support in the field of wastewater treatment, 3 projects in the field of drinking water and one project in air protection. The aims of ISPA strategy were: to provide a consistent and coherent programme to prepare these countries for joining the Union; to provide with the Accession Partnerships - a single framework for the various forms of EU

assistance; to make the applicants familiar with the procedures and policies of the Union so that they can take

part in Community programmes, and to provide assistance in compliance with the acquis communautaire.

In general, ISPA concentrated on the hard investments in environmental directives. Priority was therefore given to assist projects which concerned: the quality and supply of drinking water; the collection and treatment of wastewater; the collection and management of solid waste management; the reduction of air pollution.



For the period 2004-2006, commitments from Cohesion Fund for environmental infrastructures were equal to € 384.4 m. Strategy of the Cohesion Fund 2004-2006 in terms of environment was the same than ISPA interventions for the period 2000-2003 (cf. ISPA strategy and interventions above). 6 projects were support the field of water management (the both drinking water supply and wastewater treatment) and one was oriented in the protection against flood. The Cohesion Fund finances up to 85 % of eligible expenditure of major projects involving the environment and transport infrastructure. This strengthens cohesion and solidarity within the EU. Eligible are the least prosperous member states of the Union whose gross national product (GNP) per capita is below 90% of the EU-average (since 1/5/2004 Greece, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). Cohesion Fund support is conditional. The funding granted to a Member State is liable to be suspended if the country fails to comply with its convergence programme for economic and monetary union (stability and growth pact) running, i.e. an excessive public deficit (this threshold was negotiated separately for each of the ten new Member States according to their own public deficit at the moment of the accession). Until the deficit has been brought back under control, no new projects might be approved.

European Investment Bank (EIB) invested between 2000-2006 €42.4 m in environmental infrastructure in the following two activities: Co-financing of priority investment under Community Support Framework (CSF) and Single Programming Document (SPD) for Objective 2 regions (2004-2006) for environmental infrastructure (€30.4 m) and refurbishment of municipal waste incineration plant in Bratislava in 2000 ( €12 m). Role of the private sector Total environmental investments done by Slovak industries are estimated to € 664.2 m for the period 2002-2005, including €23.1 m for urban and industrial waste and €91.5 m for sewerage and purification. Water supply sector, wastewater networks, including WWTP’s are publicly owned and only in three of Water Management Companies are private stakeholder (Veolia, Suez). The private sector is particularly present in municipal waste management sector where private companies held 46% of the household waste treatment and 60% of collecting market.


Water supply Water supply for households has experienced a downward trend between 2000 and 2006 despite the fact that the number of supplied inhabitants is still increasing. In 2006 the specific consumption of drinking water decreased to 89.5 l per inhabitant a day. This alarming situation results from the high costs for drinking water which led to construction of private sources of drinking water with a quality far below hygienic standards. Projects in the field of drinking water supply, where the Slovak Republic is far below the EU Member States' average and the differences among regions within Slovakia are also significant, were oriented into the increase of the share of population connected to a drinking supply network. Construction of new water sources or extension of existing water sources and related facilities has to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption. Other important issue is to reduce losses in water supply systems to a level comparable with the average in the EU countries. Due the financial demand for construction of drinking water supply network a continual emphasis from Union is given by the grants from ISPA (2000-2003), resp. ERDF/CF (2004-2006) in this sector (see, chapters 4 and 5 above). Wastewater In 2006 the number of residents connected to public sewerage system increased by 25,000 to reach a proportion of 57.1% out of the total number of population. In addition, the number of wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in Water Companies administration in 2005 reached 442 and from this number 86.2% using the secondary, i.e. mechanical-chemical treatment. Total capacity of WWTP in 2005 grew to 2,194 thousand m3/day-1and reached the level of 343 thousand m3/day -1. In terms of discharged wastewater (452 m m3) in 2006, 440 m m3 was purified, which represented 97.3 % of the total volume of wastewater.



Construction of new public sewerage network systems/collecting systems with the purpose of connection of population and thereby reduce the gap between public water line access and the sewerage access, reduce disproportions between individual regions and achieve the compliance with the Council Directive 91/271/EEC by securing the urban wastewaters collection in agglomerations over 2 000 p.e. (population equivalent). Extension and upgrade/increase the efficiency of WWTPs for agglomerations of between 2 000 – 10 000 p.e. and provision the tertiary treatment technology for municipal wastewaters in agglomerations over 10 000 p.e. (the Slovak Republic is considered as sensitive area) in harmony with the Council Directive 91/271/EEC brought another impetus of the programming period 2000 – 2006. Solid waste Increase in waste generation in 2001 by 0.5 m tons compared to 1993, is caused by growth in gross domestic product and increased living standards, as well as better quality of waste generation monitoring. During this time period, the great majority of municipal waste was disposed of, most of it through landfills. Since 2002, assessment of waste generation has been carried out under new valid legislation, harmonised with legal regulation of the EU waste management policy, and because of this (change in waste categorisation and introduction of new classification of waste handling methods) it is impossible to compare it with data from previous years. In 2005 there was 289 kg/year of waste management per capita, which shows a slight increase of about 6 kg/capita compared to 2002. Of total generated waste management in 2005, only 3% was recovered (a reduction of 9% compared to 2002), and the rest was disposed of, with the ratio of landfilled waste being as much as 79%. In waste handling practices in Slovakia there is a growing tendency to separate municipal waste; however, this is still not sufficient. In 2005 there was 16 kg of separated municipal waste components per capita, compared to 2002 (8.6 kg/inhabitant). A more effective system that takes into consideration the quality of separated waste components and the subsequent connection to reclamation capacities will soon have to be created.

Since 2006 it has been prohibited to landfill any biologically degradable waste from yards and parks, graveyards and other greenery if it is part of municipal waste. The prohibition eliminated the disposal of any “green bio-waste”, which limited its deposition in landfills, in compliance with the EC strategy. At the end of 2006, there were 160 landfills operating in Slovakia. In terms of municipal waste composition, mixed municipal waste (71%) constitutes the major component of municipal waste together with bulky waste (9%), small construction waste (6%). Biologically degradable waste was 5% and waste from street cleaning was 3%. According to the Statistic Office of the Slovak Republic (SO SR), the volume of separated municipal waste per capita is 16 kg, which means that the level of municipal waste separation is the same as in 2005. Volume of recovered municipal waste per capita increased by 15 kg. The total number of operating incinerating plants in the year 2005 was 40 (in comparison with 1999 when have been operating 69 incinerating plants).


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – Spain / Page 83

Spain – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006




n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 99.0 n.a. n.a.


n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 99.0 n.a. n.a.


Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (% ) of population receiving primary wastewater treatment 8.0 n.a. 1.0 n.a. n.a. 1.0 n.a.

Share (%) of population receiving wastewater secondary treatment 65.0 n.a. 62.0 n.a. n.a. 65.0 n.a.


15.0 n.a. 26.0 n.a. n.a. 27.0 n.a.


88.0 n.a. 89.0 n.a. n.a. 92.0 n.a.






Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) 164 146 156 173 172 n.a. n.a.

Source: Eurostat, 2008, European Environment Agency, 2008.

Comments: This section contains contradictory information in relation to the sources consulted. According to the results showed by the EEA (European Environmental Agency) there was a decrease in the generation of urban solid waste during the period 2000-2006. On the contrary, the 2006 Environmental Profile (Perfil Medioambiental de 2006) elaborated by the Ministry of Environment states that the generation of urban waste keeps growing. Since the beginning of the 1990s there has been a year-on-year increase, attaining levels such as 524.5 kg/inhab./year in 2004. Energy

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


6.6 5.5 7.0 6.5 6.1 n.a. n.a.


15.7 20.7 13.8 21.7 18.5 15.0 17.7


Source: Eurostat, 2008, European Environment Agency, 2008.








The period under revision (2000-2006) has in Spain been characterised by a sustained economic and demographic growth which entails pressures such as pollution and shortage of resources. Among the main environmental challenges Spain are confronted with can be mentioned: Water supply and wastewater Achieve the targets set by EU regulations constitutes the main challenge. Another priority is to transfer a large part of the investment costs on to price of water which has increased, but is still far away from the average of EU countries. Other challenges include: harmonize the quality of surface water between the main river basins and minimize or mitigate the consequences deriving from waters contaminated with nitrates declared as vulnerable areas.

Solid waste The non-stop growth of the rate at which urban waste is produced, is a clear sign of the unsustainability of the Spanish waste management model. The priorities are reducing the amount of urban waste generated, establishment of preventive measures destined to waste minimisation energy recovery and selective collection. Air/ Energy/ Climate change The desertification process in Spain is growing very fast. More than a third of the land in Spain is at a significant risk of desertification.


Institutional framework The environmental framework in Spain is normally the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment. Decisions on quality control of water intended for human consumption, as well as adoption of remedial action in response to detected failures, are implemented by local authorities, following, where appropriate, the indications of the competent autonomous health administration and receiving their assistance. Wastewater discharge authorisations are granted by the hydrographic basin agencies when discharging directly into any surface or underground waters. When wastewater is discharged into a sewage municipal system authorisation is granted by the corresponding local authority. Depending on the hydrographic basin affected, these basin agencies belong to the Ministry of the Environment or to the Regional Environmental Departments. Local authorities are responsible for the collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of urban waste. Environmental legislation - In 1990 the Royal Decree 1138/1990, approving Technical and Health Regulations for the supply and quality control of drinking water intended for public consumption, transposed into Spanish national legislation the Community Directive 80/778/EEC. The later Directive 98/83/EC was transposed in Spain by Royal Decree 140/2003 by which health criteria for the quality of water intended for human consumption was established. - Royal Legislative Decree 1/2001, amended by Law 62/2003, aims at adopting the European Directive 2000/60/EC regarding water and waste water. Royal Decree 606/2003 includes new requirements to foster protection of groundwater aquifers, wastewater discharge control and also introduced a new system for the transfer of water use rights between permit-holders. Recently, in 2007, the Royal Decree 907/2007 approved the hydrological planning regulation in Spain. - The main regulations on waste management in Spain, at the beginning of the period 2000-2006, were the Law 10/1998 on Waste Management (adopting the Directive 91/156/EEC), and the Royal Decree 833/1988 approving the Regulation on Hazardous Waste, that was amended, among other regulations, by Royal Decree 952/1997. Another important regulation was the Law 11/1997, on packaging and waste packaging (adopting Directive 94/62/EC). Law 10/1998 is the basic and fundamental legislation framework to be taken into account by all companies or agents (competent authorities) related to hazardous and non-hazardous waste production, possession or management. Municipalities with more than 5,000 inhabitants were required to introduce a waste segregation system before year 2001.



- As mentioned in the previous section, the Urban Waste National Strategy 2000-2006, approved by Resolution of 13 January 2000, incorporates the EU guidelines, priorities and criteria, and complies with the duty of setting out waste management plans following EU Directive 91/156/CEE (Waste framework directive). This national strategy seeks to set out waste management systems and to promote waste reduction, waste reuse and recycling. Prior to 2006 all landfills in use had to be effectively controlled, according to EU Directive 99/31/CEE, and only 33.1% of the total urban waste could be eliminated in this way.


Generally, the adaptation process of these Directives by the Spanish Legal System has been slow and in some cases even inadequate or incomplete. During the period object of this study (2000-2006) Spain has been issued a number of final judgements regarding the non compliance with the obligations imposed by European Environmental Directives. Spain does not comply to the obligation/requirement to transpose Directive 98/83/EC on potable water. Moreover, a procedure is ongoing against Spain due to unsatisfactory implementation of Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water. In 2001 the European Court of Justice issued a judgment against Spain for not having correctly applied Directive 91/271/EC on Urban Wastewater Treatment. Recently, the European Commission has sent to Spain a written warning on the deficient application of the European Legislation on Waste Treatment (following the requirements of Directive 2006/12/EC). Spain is still pending to close down and remediate 87 illegal landfills which receive 660,000 tons of waste per year. Moreover, a number of landfills that have been closed down must be remediated.

The polluter-pays principle: In Spain the polluter pays very little. Indeed “green fees” collected in Spain amount to under 2% of GDP, vis-à-vis 3% or more in other EU countries. It is a complex matter to establish the precise level of cost recovery for water services since most of the infrastructures used for giving that service are multifunctional which means they also satisfy other uses apart from water supply (water flow control, flood event protection, leisure). Consequently, only part of the costs of these infrastructures is included in fees. Moreover, a number of infrastructures have been financed with outright public budget or because of the time of construction there have been already recouped, so they do not affect the current fees. However, the Ministry of Environment has assessed the average of cost recovery of urban services at between 60% and 100%, showing a greater level of recovery supply and treatment operations than do the water abstraction services. Regarding waste, the “polluter pays” principle is more efficiently applied to industrial waste because their origin, composition and quantity are known (so the generator is responsible for waste management costs). This is more complex in the case of urban waste. The municipalities act as the waste generators so the Regional Authorities apply their taxes or fees directly to them. These fees are final which means their collection affects the Regional Funds dedicated to waste management. Regional particularities: The Spanish Government has exclusive power to enact basic legislation on the protection of the environment, notwithstanding the powers of the Autonomous Regions (AR) to issue additional protection regulations. From a practical standpoint, however, it may well happen that an AR issues a law before the State issues a basic rule. These regional laws have to be at least as restrictive as the national laws. Based upon the requirements on the “polluter pays” principle established by the basic national regulations, most of the Autonomous Regions have adapted rules regarding water use and clean-up as well as urban waste (non-segregated) landfill disposal. Some Autonomous Regions have gone a step further and have created fees for different types of contamination as well as the different uses for natural resources.





the public sector


ERDF environmental

investments



projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB


industry (2000-04)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 986.0 1691.6 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 1895.0 114.8 236.4 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. 673.0Drinking water n.a. 705.3 1210.4 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification 4274.0 483.3 1134.4 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. 945.6Total 12192.0 1806.1 3138.4 0.0 7304.0 0.0 858.6 4240.2 in % of GDP 0.22 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.12




ERDF strategy and interventions As it is mentioned in the Spanish Community Framework of Support (Marco Comunitario de Apoyo; MCA) for the period 2000-2006, the kind of projects capable of being financed by the ERDF, were of small relevance in terms of budget in comparison with those financed by the Cohesion Fund. For this reason, the strategy of ERDF consisted to focus on the development of the small local and regional communities rather than the Cohesion Fund more focused in large projects and key national strategic infrastructures. ERDF was thus used for more distributed and decentralized projects, managed by local and regional authorities. These kinds of projects sometimes were a grouping of small interventions of local level coordinated in a major project. In general terms, the contribution of the ERDF has been related to the following type of projects: Water and Waste Water Projects: - Construction of new capacity and maintenance of municipal water supply networks; - Installation of new Waste Water treatment plants for small cities or municipalities; - Construction and renewal of existing sewerage systems of urban waste waters; - Construction of medium/small waste water treatment plants; - Amplifying the treatment of existing waste water treatment plants. ERDF Solid Waste Projects: - Improvement of the existing urban waste management collection services; - Implementation of underground containers for municipal waste collection; - Purchase of Containers dedicated to the selective and organic waste collections; - Construction of controlled landfills and closure of uncontrolled landfills; - Construction of urban organic waste composting plants. Large projects (Total cost more than 50M€) co-financed y the ERDF for the period 2000-2006 in Spain were more related to Transport Infrastructures including high speed railways and motorways, rather than environmental projects. However, some large environmental projects were co-financed by the ERDF: - Desalination Plant in Carboneras. (OP Andalucia) - Breña and Arenoso Barrages/Dams. (OP Andalucia) - Water Conduction Júcar-Vinalopó (OP Valencia) Other public financial sources The strategy of the Cohesion Fund was as stated to focus on great/large projects, normally managed at national level authorities, and also the most important projects for the regional authorities in coordination with the national authorities. These kinds of projects were usually defined in the Hydrologic National Plan, National Plan of Water Treatment and Sanitation, Urban Waste National Plan and Hazardous Waste National Plan.



The environmental investment for the period 2000-2006 has been complemented with contributions coming from the National, Regional, and Local budget. This has been possible because the real cost of projects do not always coincide with the initial cost budget. In addition, some projects, due to their nature, are not financed by EU funds. The bilateral conventions/protocols between the National Government and the Autonomous Regions have allowed to achieve a great part of the objectives on wastewater treatment and clean-up set by Directive 91/271/EC. The environmental sector represented less than half (49%) of the total allocations approved by the Cohesion Fund in Spain. The priority projects were dedicated to Waste Water treatment and sewage systems and represented 47% of the total allocation destined to the environmental sector. The rest of projects were dedicated to Water Supply (28%) and Waste (25%). During the period 2000-2006, 302 Decisions were taken, which meant the approval of a thousand projects approximately. Most important projects include construction of desalination plants, water supply infrastructure, dams, waste water treatment plants and sewage and drainage network, installations in landfills (degasification, biomethanisation and composting plants etc)

Role of the private sector Measures relating to public environmental infrastructures (national, regional or local) are generally handled by private companies through public tenders. The public authorities have been encouraging the participation of the private sector in the co-financing of environmental infrastructures, mainly due to the aim of the government to reduce the public expenditure to fulfil the requirements of national public deficit established by EU. Another reason is the inadequacy of human and material resources in the public sector for the proper operation and maintenance of environmental infrastructure and the limited control and monitoring of the operation of these installations by the competent authorities. In general terms the public authorities, including the municipalities, are in charge of the regulatory functions and increasingly the private sector offers supply services to the final user. There is a lack of guidelines for privatizing the services for both "water" and "waste" management and in some cases, the granted period of this privatization (e.g. four years) is too short to allow any meaningful action/intervention. According to the estimations of the OCDE Spain, the environmental services sector employs more than 200,000 people in Spain, mainly in SME. With the current economic situation, the environmental sector is considered in Spain as a key sector for creating new jobs. Water supply and clean-up (for 60% of the population) is carried out by private companies which operate with the aid of municipal concessions. There is a growing tendency for the private sector to participate in these services by means of administrative concessions, but the municipal administration still acts as the regulating agent. For the near future, in Spain the competitors will benefit from the effects of the Agua Plan in the participation of twenty desalination plants as an alternative to diverting the Ebro River. The participation of the private sector in water supply and waste water treatment plants is usually based on long-term contracts and concessions (usually 20-30 years) and involves direct employment. Waste management (whether urban, hazardous or non-hazardous) is generally carried out by private companies. It is also interesting to mention the presence of national companies, specialised in industrial waste, offering their services at international level.


Water supply: The volume of water supplied were increasing in the period 1996-2004. If we take into account the indicators “total volume of improved water for public supply” as well as “total availability of potable water” records show a very similar growth to that of GDP up until 2004. In contrast years 2004 and 2005 show a decrease vis-à-vis GDP. This reflects a slight environmental improvement as there is proportionally less demand for this resource to support economic growth. For the coming years a significant increase in the supply of desalinated water into the municipal water supply network is expected. Wastewater: According to the data gathered by Ministry of Environment, there has been a decrease in the organic pollution of rivers, thanks to the urban waste water treatment required by Directive 97/271/EC. Data for 2005 show that 76% of the pollution load arising from urban agglomerations comply with the clean-up levels set by the Directive. 13% corresponds to installations under construction



and the remaining 11% is either not cleaned-up or is insufficiently treated. Another factor worth mentioning is the growing tendency to reuse treated waters. In 2007 450 hm3/year were reused, which accounts for 13% of the total. According to the Ministry of Environment, the supply of re-use water by sectors is as follows: Agricultural 75%, Leisure 12%, Urban Services 6%, Environmental 4% and Industrial 3%. Solid waste: Spain shares its growing trend in solid waste generation with the European average, which also shows annual increases with values higher than Spain’s (567 kg/inhab/year in the EU-15 and 525 kg/inhab/year in the EU-25). However, the current growth rate of the generation of urban waste in Spain is slightly superior to that of the EU, therefore European set values will be reached in a very short time. The Ministry of Environment believes the generation of waste per inhabitant increased by 62.2% in the period 1990-2004. According to the EEA and the Ministry of Environment the most significant fact is the increase in the quantity of waste destined for segregation and composting plants as well as energy recovery/incineration. Based upon the data for 2004 by the Ministry of Environment, the distribution of urban solid waste management was the following: Segregation and Composting 31,72%; Controlled Disposal in Landfills 49,17%; Separate collection 9,08%, Energy Recovery/Incineration 6,72%, Uncontrolled disposal 3,26%. The generation of containers and packaging waste showed a growing trend during the period 1999-2004 according to data provided by the EEA, but to that must be added an increase of 47.4% in recycling fees in 2004. 88% of the Spanish municipalities with more than 5.000 inhabitants will have a service of light containers collection at their disposal.


Revised Second Intermediate Report – June 2009 Annex 1 – United Kingdom / Page 89

United Kingdom – Overview note


Water supply

Indicator 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share (%) of population connected to public water supply 100 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100 n.a. n.a.


n.a. 100 n.a. n.a. 100 n.a. 100


n.a. 98 n.a. n.a. 98 n.a. 98




3.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.1

Share (%) of population receiving wastewater secondary treatment 64 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 55


27 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 42


94.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 97.1

Source: OECD, 2008.









1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.2


2.7 2.5 2.9 2.8 3.7 4.3 4.6










Water supply and wastewater treatment is well developed in the UK, but the country faces significant challenges in meeting its targets and legal requirements related to solid waste disposal and reducing the level of GHG emissions. The energy generating infrastructure is aging and needs to be replaced and national efficiency improved. The UK is running out of landfill capacity, but does not yet have all the infrastructure necessary to reduce the amount of waste disposed of to landfill to meet targets outlined in relevant EU directives. There is significant investment required in alternative waste treatment infrastructure, in addition to measures necessary to reduce the amount of waste generated. The main environmental challenges in the UK are summarised below by theme.

Water supply and wastewater Focus on the provision of an improved and protected water environment, reducing chemical and

bacterial contamination; Introduce fair, affordable and cost-effective water charges to reduce demand and ensure efficient

water use; More sustainable and effective management of surface water to reduce the risk of flooding and

environmental pollution.

Solid waste Reduce waste by making produce with fewer natural resources, breaking the link between economic

growth and waste growth and putting more emphasis on waste prevention and re-use; Increase diversion from landfill of non-municipal waste and secure better integration of treatment for

municipal and non-municipal waste; Secure the investment in infrastructure needed to divert waste from landfill and for the management

of hazardous waste.

Air/ Energy/ Climate change To diversify the energy mix, ensuring that it is diverse both in terms of technologies and in terms of

geographical sources of imported fuels; To meet national and international emission targets in terms of GHG emission reduction.

Environmental governance Focus on improving the enforcement of environmental legislation, delivering on commitments and

targets related to water supply, waste management and climate change. Realising this by strengthening of the institutional framework of government agencies.


Institutional framework Environmental policy in England is created via collaboration between the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Environment Agency (England and Wales), government departments, non-government organisations (NGOs), and consultation with the public and interested bodies. Legislation is laid down in Acts of Parliament which provide the legal power for the Secretary of State to issue Statutory Instruments (generally called Regulations) and guidance in the form of Circulars and Code of Practice which, although not legally binding, can form the basis for prosecutions if they are not complied with. The institutional and legal arrangements in England and Wales are the same whereas different arrangements have developed in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Water management policy in England and Wales is prepared by Defra, and compliance enforced by the Environment Agency. In Scotland, Scottish Water is the single organisation responsible for water supply and sewage since 2001. At the beginning of the 2000-2006 programming period water management in the UK was split between central, regional and local actors. The central level was composed of the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFE), the Department of the Environment (DoE), the Department for Transport and the Regions (DETR), the Department of Health, the Environment Agency, the Office of Water Services (OFWAT) and the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI). OFWAT sets the price limits within which the privatised companies (water services and water only) may charge their customers taking into account the investment requirements of the companies to meet their legislative requirements. It is also responsible for ensuring that the water companies achieve the level of service as in the licence. The DWI is responsible for auditing the performance of the water companies in meeting the



requirements of the drinking water regulations. The regional level was composed of the eight Environment Agency Regional Offices, Regional Advisory Committees and the Regional Customer Services Committees of OFWAT. Finally the local level consists of Local Advisory Committees, local health authorities and the water companies (10 water services companies and 17 water-only companies).

The Environment Agency (England & Wales) are responsible for waste management licensing and the preparation of waste disposal plans, and a similar situation exists in Scotland with SEPA. The Environment Agency ensures effective co-ordination between all the key waste regulatory functions. The responsibilities for managing waste in England lie with different tiers and departments of the local authorities. Generally, the districts are responsible for collection and recycling of waste as well as preparation of waste recycling plans, whilst the counties are responsible for arranging the disposal of waste through contracts, preparation of local plans, and determination of waste planning applications. In Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment is responsible for waste policy and implementation, with local authorities responsible for waste collection, treatment and disposal. Environmental legislation In terms of water supply: Water supplies in the UK are regulated by each of the devolved

administrations, England & Wales being regulated together. Council Directive 98/83/EC on Drinking Water has had a considerable impact on legislation and practice in the UK and has led to greater public scrutiny of water supplies. The Directive has drawn attention to a number of deficiencies in the quality of UK drinking water and has helped to secure substantial expenditure on water supply that the UK needed to make up for under-investment in the water industry.

In terms of wastewater collection and treatment: In the UK is regulated separately by each of the devolved administrations, England & Wales being regulated together. To comply with Council Directive 91/271/EEC (Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive) no new primary legislation was required. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 all discharges to controlled waters in England and Wales had to be consented to by the Environment Agency, and these consents contained conditions relating to the quantity and content of discharges judged necessary by the Environment Agency to protect the receiving waters. Similar arrangements applied in Scotland, where the regulator authorities were the river purification authorities, and also in Northern Ireland.

In terms of solid waste: In the UK is regulated by each of the devolved administrations, England & Wales being regulated together. Several Council Directives pertain to waste, targeting sectors, and can be classified as Horizontal, Treatment and Waste Stream Directives. The legislation requires that anyone who treats, keep, deposits or disposes of waste needs a waste management licence (unless exempt or excluded), which is issued by the Environment Agency. This directive, and the corresponding legislation, were the primary policy documents relating to municipal waste at the start of the period. There are several additional directives, and corresponding legislation, that have some influence on the management of municipal waste.

There is some use of the polluter-pays principle in the UK, with a move towards metering of domestic water during the evaluation period, but it is unclear if this is to cover the cost of supplying water or the collection and treatment of wastewater (or both). Commercial and agricultural users of water pay a levy on the water they use, which reflects the cost of abstraction. Industrial businesses are charged for treating their waste water, the cost of which is often higher than the cost of supplying the water. Developers may be required to provide or improve infrastructure for new developments via (Town and County Planning Act 1990) Section 106 agreements, and this infrastructure can include wastewater treatment and sewerage disposal.

Households in the UK pay for waste collection and disposal through the Council Tax, but as this charge is a flat rate it does not encourage a reduction in the amount of household waste produced. This charge reflects the cost of collecting and disposing of municipal waste.




ECJ ruled that UK failed to implement Drinking Water Directive through failure to adopt for Northern Ireland and Wales all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive and fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of the directive There were no derogations from Urban Wastewater Treatment Directiv) granted to the UK and ECJ ruled that UK failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that adequate treatment was provided for urban waste waters in specific areas. The UK did not receive any derogation’s under either the original Waste Framework Directive or its codified versions.




ERDF strategy and interventions A key general point to make at the outset is that ERDF provided a very small proportion of expenditure on environmental infrastructure in the UK with the majority coming from UK government and the private sector (water/ sewage utility companies, waste operators etc). In fact, ERDF invested only €150 m for supporting environmental projects.

From the various programme documents from the UK regions, there was no explicit ERDF strategy relating to environment. The overall focus of the strategy in the UK supported by ERDF was fundamentally an economic development strategy. The programme’s aim was to increase GDP and reduce unemployment and inactivity and so on was to be achieved in the main by economic growth. This growth was seen to need to be underpinned by the completion of the development of the core conditions for economic success.

The priorities for the programme included Strategic Infrastructure Development, which aimed to secure additional investment and employment for the less developed parts of the relevant regions by promoting area based business investment, supported by key infrastructure improvements, for example. This priority was delivered through measures such as energy and environmental infrastructure.

In addition, the aims of the programme needed to look at the priorities alongside the agreed strategies for the cross cutting issues which were mainstreamed across the entire programme whilst receiving specific treatment in particular measures. These cross cutting issues included environmental sustainability with the aim of protecting assets of high quality and remediating the symptoms of damage and rising pressures to enable their contribution to sustainable economic growth to be realized.



the public sector





projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



by EIB


industry (2000-04)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 9.4 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Urban and industrial waste 6993.3 17.3 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 958.4Drinking water n.a. 89.5 80.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.Sewerage and purification 126.1 32.8 43.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 1299.9Total 8396.3 149.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3368.3 6857.3In % of GDP 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08



Other public financial sources Total investments in environmental infrastructure by the UK public sector are estimated to €8.4 bn for the period 2000-2006, including €7 bn for urban and industrial waste and €126 m for sewerage and purification.

Expenditure on waste and waste-water management accounted for 64.4 percent of total government environmental protection expenditure. This expenditure is mostly spent by local authorities.

Loans provided by EIB for investments in environmental projects in UK during the 2000-2006 period amounted to €3.4 bn. The EIB invested a total of €6.56 billion in environmental infrastructure in the UK during the 2000-2006 programming period. €3.19bn was invested in energy projects and €3.37bn was invested in projects in the water and sewerage sector. Water and sewerage loans were distributed to regional water systems in amounts consistent with the population of the region served. The Thames region received the highest amount totalling €545 million through three loans during the programme years. The energy sector utilized funds for, among other projects, gas production and importation of gas as well as generation of renewable energy and offshore wind-power.

Role of the private sector Total environmental investments done by UK industries are estimated to € 6.9 bn for the period 2000-2004, including €958.4 m for urban and industrial waste and almost €1,300 m for sewerage and purification. Other abatement activities (such as noise reduction and protection against radiation) represented also an important domain of expenditure.

Regional water and sewerage companies were created in England and Wales in 1989, prior to the evaluation period. Ten private water services companies responsible for providing water and waste water services were formed. In addition, there were already 21 statutory water-only companies in England and Wales who supply drinking water to areas within the region covered by the major water services companies but are not involved in waste water disposal. At the same time as privatisations, three new regulatory bodies, the National Rivers Authority (NRA) (which was replaced by the Environment Agency in 1996), the Office of Water Services (OFWAT) and the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) were set up.

Water and sewerage utilities have not been privatised in Scotland and Northern Ireland and remain public sector organisations.

Competitive tendering was introduced to municipal waste collection in the 1980s as part of the Government of the day’s drive to shrink the size of the public sector. Municipal solid waste collection and disposal is the responsibility of local councils, who usually put the job out to tender in the private sector.


Water supply Investments in water infrastructure in the UK consist mainly in the modernisation of old water supply systems which are sometimes over 100 years old, including reducing leakage, and planning for new water resource developments to meet increasing demand. Investments in water treatment plants consist of the improvement of water treatment to ensure the effective removal of chemical and biological pathogens, and improve the energy efficiency associated with water supply.

Wastewater Investments in the area of wastewater treatment mainly consist of upgrading existing facilities, and building new facilities where the need arises. Some investment in sewage systems provides for the separate transfer of foul sewage and storm water, but this is a difficult and expensive undertaking as the majority of sewage systems at risk of storm water infiltration exist in urban areas that are considerably developed. The UK is making significant investments to meet the terms of the Waste Water Directive, which includes education and new policies related to Catchment Sensitive Farming, and reducing the outflows of contaminated outflows from sewerage treatment plants associated with high rainfall events.



Solid waste The UK has obligations under the Landfill Directive to reduce the amount of biological municipal waste that is currently sent to landfill, with a target of reducing biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 35% of that produced in 1995. In order to meet this target, the UK has introduced legislation that requires that limits be set on the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that local authorities may send to landfill. This legislation will enable each country in the UK to set up a landfill allowance scheme for local authorities. This will require significant investment in alternative waste management facilities. Over 58% of municipal solid waste was sent to landfill during the period July to September 2006 in the UK, with a recycling rate of over 32% and heat treatment at just 10%. There are significant local opposition to the construction of heat treatment facilities in the UK, which means that increasing the percentage of waste heat treated will be difficult.



AUSTRIA Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental






projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB


industry (2000;2002-04)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Urban and industrial waste 45.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 120.9

Drinking water n.a. 1.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Sewerage and purification 32.4 5.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 211.5

Total 216.7 6.4 77.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 278.1 1143.2

in % of GDP 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.13

Source:Work Package 1, Eurostat, Ispa reports, Ex post evaluation 2000-06: regional expenditure study, EBRD and EIB websites

BELGIUM Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental




ERDF environmental

investments


projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB

Total environmental investments by industry (2002-

04)


Urban and industrial waste n.a. 5.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 94.7

Drinking water n.a. 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Sewerage and purification n.a. 5.2 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 158.3

Total 3471.5 19.9 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1121.0 769.3

in % of GDP 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.09


CYPRUS Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental




ERDF environmental



projects (2000-03)

Cohesion Fund total


projects (2004-06)



financed by EIB


05)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Urban and industrial waste 74.5 n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 3.7

Drinking water n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Sewerage and purification 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 8.2

Total 75.6 n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 194.0 60.3

in % of GDP 0.09 n.a. n.a. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.10


Annex 2 – Summary information on Environmental Infrastructure Investments in the remaining 11 Member States



DENMARK Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental



ERDF environmental

investments

ERDF environmental

investments


projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB


industry


Urban and industrial waste n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.


Sewerage and purification n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Total 617.4 6.9 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 204.2 n.a.

in % of GDP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n.a.


ESTONIA Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental



ERDF environmental


ERDF environmental



projects (2000-03)

Cohesion Fund total


projects (2004-06)



financed by EIB


05)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. n.a. n.a. 22.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Urban and industrial waste n.a. 0.8 2.4 24.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 28.8

Drinking water n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Sewerage and purification n.a. 0.3 0.9 47.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. 20.8

Total n.a. 1.1 3.3 97.7 215.9 66.2 n.a. 114.2

in % of GDP n.a. 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.64 0.10 n.a. 0.23


LITUANIA Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental



ERDF environmental




projects (2000-03)

Cohesion Fund total


projects (2004-06)



financed by EIB


05)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. n.a. n.a. 34.4 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Urban and industrial waste 30.7 0.5 1.5 44.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.4

Drinking water n.a. 0.9 2.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Sewerage and purification 122.1 0.9 2.6 48.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 26.3

Total 177.5 2.2 6.6 127.0 385.7 19.7 n.a. 144.4

in % of GDP 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.22 0.61 0.02 n.a. 0.15


LUXEMBURG Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental



ERDF environmental

investments



projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB


industry


Urban and industrial waste n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.


Sewerage and purification n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Total 397.8 11.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

in % of GDP 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n.a. n.a.




MALTA Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental






projects (2000-03)

Cohesion Fund total


projects (2004-06)



financed by EIB


industry

Environmental infrastructure n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Urban and industrial waste 25.9 1.1 3.0 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Drinking water n.a. 1.5 4.1 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Sewerage and purification 30.5 1.9 5.1 0.0 n.a. 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Total 82.2 4.5 12.2 0.0 11.7 0.0 n.a. n.a.

in % of GDP 0.26 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.0 n.a. n.a.


THE NETHERLANDS Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental






projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB


03)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Urban and industrial waste n.a. 6.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 59.0

Drinking water n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. n.a.

Sewerage and purification n.a. 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 151.3

Total 4587.0 7.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 970.0 1556.0

in % of GDP 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.09


SLOVENIA Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental



ERDF environmental


ERDF environmental



projects (2000-03)

Cohesion Fund total


projects (2004-06)



financed by EIB


04)

Environmental infrastructure n.a. 3.1 8.3 4.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Urban and industrial waste n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 52.5

Drinking water n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Sewerage and purification n.a. n.a. n.a. 30.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. 140.0

Total 68.9 3.1 8.3 45.9 129.5 n.a. 25.3 400.8

in % of GDP 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.15 n.a. 0.01 0.40


SWEDEN Sources of investments (in mio €; 2000-2006)

Total environmental






projects

Cohesion Fund total


projects



financed by EIB


industry


Urban and industrial waste 261.9 n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 211.4


Sewerage and purification 0.0 n.a. n.a. 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.a. 645.4

Total 360.3 5.8 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 109.9 2501.5

in % of GDP 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13




Annex 3 – Methodology of data collection for indicators under Task 3.1 The methodology applied to gather achieved values for the 143 operational programmes of the 14 selected Member states is given below step by step.

Step 1: Acquiring achieved values from WP2 database

The evaluator drafted an Excel spreadsheet gathering all achieved values for the indicators requested in ToRs. Achieved values available in the WP2 database come from 2006 annual reports of the 2000-2006 operational programmes and were updated by management authorities on 31st December 2006.

When indicators were not available from the WP2 database, they have been marked as “not available” (“n.a.”) in the Excel file. Where available and relevant, other specific indicators than those explicitly requested in the ToRs were recorded in another Excel spreadsheet. In the tables related to “Other specific indicators”, when the indicators are not relevant, they have been marked as “0”.

Step 2: Update request to the 143 management authorities

The evaluator sent an email to all the 143 management authorities to check and update achieved values for their operational programmes. In total, 32 management authorities answered to the updating request and consequently achieved values were updated for 32 operational programmes (22% of the 143 operational programmes).

Achieved values for these 32 operational programmes (highlighted in green in the table showing main outcomes) are values updated on 31st December 2007. In other words, achieved values for 111 operational programmes are values updated on 31st December 2006.

Step 3: Selection of the 50 operational programmes for additional desk research and/or field work

Out of the remaining 111 operational programmes, the evaluator identified a list of 50 operational programmes requiring additional desk research or additional field work to check and update achieved values (cf. table hereafter). This list has been drafted taking into account three main criteria: If they were not checked by managing authorities, programmes which have been

chosen for implementing task 3.2 (effectiveness of major sectoral programmes), task 4.1 (regional case studies), task 4.2 (case studies on waste prevention and waste management) and task 5 (climate change), are automatically included in the selection of 50 programmes;

the importance of the financial allocation to environmental infrastructures, taking into consideration the following FOI codes: urban and industrial waste (343), drinking water (344), sewerage and purification (345), as well as environmental infrastructures (34). Programmes which invested the largest amounts have priority as they are expected to have produced more substantial outcomes than programmes which invested lower amounts;

The volume of missing data: when more than five indicators (out of the 11 requested) are missing the programme is kept aside for additional research.



Selection of the 50 programmes for additional research in terms of the main outcomes of the programmes

Nb. CCI number Programme name Obj. Member State Total amount invested1 (€)

Number of missing data

Operational programmes selected for case studies under Tasks 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 5, and for which main outcomes have not yet been checked and completed by Managing authorities

1 2000GR161PO027 PO obj. 1 Environnement 1 Greece 338,559,054 9

2 2003SK161PO001 Basic Infrastructure 1 Slovakia 94,817,406 7

3 1999PT161PO010 Ambiente 1 Portugal 0 11

4 2000IE161PO004 OP obj. 1 Economic and Social Infrastructure 1 Ireland 136,112,844 11

5 2003HU161PO003 Environmental Protection and Infrastructure 1 Hungary 85,032,594 7

6 2000GR161PO014 PO OBJ 1 MACEDOINE CENTRALE 1 Greece 62,424,844 10

7 2000FR162DO018 DOCUP obj. 2 Midi-Pyrénées 2 France 81,660,113 11

8 2000ES161PO009 PO obj. 1 Communidad Valenciana 1 Spain 916,320,246 5

9 2000IT162DO009 Lazio 2 Italy 168,422,655 9

10 1999FI162DO001 SPD Obj. 2 South Finland 2 Finland 29,623,000 11

11 2003PL161PO001 Integrated Regional Development OP 1 Poland 386,281,201 8

Operational programmes which invested large amounts in environmental infrastructures (FOI codes: 34, 343, 344, 345) and for which main outcomes have not yet been checked and completed by Managing authorities 12 2000ES161PO003 PO obj. 1 Andalucía 1 Spain 1,645,164,261 6

13 1999DE161PO006 PO obj. Sachsen 1 Germany 1,109,568,643 8

14 1999IT161PO011 PO OBJ 1 SICILIA 1 Italy 788,400,000 7

15 1999IT161PO009 PO OBJ 1 PUGLIA 1 Italy 767,500,000 7

16 2000ES161PO016 PO obj. 1 Local 1 Spain 639,356,651 7

17 1999IT161PO010 PO OBJ 1 SARDEGNA 1 Italy 594,848,828 7

18 2000ES161PO013 PO obj. 1 Murcia 1 Spain 538,553,402 5

19 2000ES161PO006 PO obj. 1 Castilla-La Mancha 1 Spain 497,814,885 6

20 2000ES161PO007 PO obj. 1 Castilla y león 1 Spain 482,467,529 7

21 1999IT161PO007 PO OBJ 1 CAMPANIA 1 Italy 415,011,950 9

22 1999FR161DO001 DOCUP obj. 1 Réunion 1 France 347,981,401 9

23 1999DE161PO002 PO OBJ 1 THURINGEN 1 Germany 347,146,793 8

1 Only for the following FOI codes: Sewerage and purification (345), Drinking water (344), Environmental infrastructures (34), Urban and industrial waste (343).



Nb. CCI number Programme name Obj. Member State Total amount invested1 (€)

Number of missing data

24 2000ES161PO011 PO obj. 1 Galicia 1 Spain 343,262,438 6

25 2000ES161PO005 PO obj. 1 Canarias 1 Spain 325,056,168 6

26 1999PT161PO014 PO Centro 1 Portugal 236,632,304 8

27 2000ES162DO006 Docup obj. 2 Madrid 2 Spain 153,051,908 11

28 2000ES161PO004 PO obj. 1 Asturias 1 Spain 152,415,462 7

29 2000FR161DO003 DOCUP obj. 1 Martinique 1 France 145,189,358 9

30 2000ES162DO008 Docup Obj. 2 País Vasco 2 Spain 136,065,472 7

31 1999IT161PO012 PO OBJ 1 BASILICATA 1 Italy 126,425,000 6

32 2000FR161DO001 DOCUP obj. 1 Guadeloupe 1 France 124,765,280 9

33 2000FR162DO008 DOCUP obj. 2 Haute-Normandie 2 France 123,931,582 11

34 2000GR161PO002 PO OBJ 1 ATTIQUE 1 Greece 119,453,163 9

35 1999PT161PO013 PO Alentejo 1 Portugal 106,354,279 10

36 1999PT161PO015 Lisboa e Vale do Tejo 1 Portugal 103,438,232 11

37 1999GB161DO002 OP OBJ1 MERSEYSIDE 1 UK 99,124,693 10

38 2000FR162DO021 DOCUP obj. 2 Nord-Pas-de-Calais 2 France 93,681,001 11

39 1999FR161DO003 DOCUP Obj. 1 Corse 1 France 93,414,473 9

40 2000FR162DO003 DOCUP obj. 2 Lorraine 2 France 92,620,379 10

41 2000ES162DO002 Docup obj. 2 Aragon 2 Spain 79,882,262 9

42 2000GR161PO005 PO OBJ 1 GRECE CONTINENTALE 1 Greece 78,732,773 10

43 2000GR161PO010 PO OBJ 1 EGEE DU SUD 1 Greece 77,169,153 10

44 2000ES161PO002 PO obj. 1 Cantabria 1 Spain 70,432,305 5

45 2000GR161PO003 PO OBJ 1 PELOPONESE 1 Greece 67,833,612 9

46 2000GR161PO004 PO OBJ 1 GRECE OCCIDENTALE 1 Greece 67,747,195 9

47 2000GR161PO009 PO OBJ 1 EGEE DU NORD 1 Greece 61,796,124 10

48 1999PT161PO012 PO Algarve 1 Portugal 60,819,183 11

49 2000GR161PO008 PO OBJ 1 CRETE 1 Greece 58,165,654 10

50 2000GR161PO012 PO OBJ 1 MACEDOINE ORIENTALE - THRACE 1 Greece 57,687,434 10

Total 13,728,215,187 428

Source: ADE 2008



Achieved values for these 50 operational programmes (highlighted in light grey I the table showing main outcomes) are values updated on 31st December 2008 (except for some Greek operational programmes for which last available data were updated on 31st December 2007: Attica OP, Western Greece OP, Northern Aegean OP, Southern Aegean OP and Environment OP, Eastern Macedonia OP).

The total amount invested (ERDF and national funds) in the 143 operational programmes in the field of environmental infrastructures taking into consideration interventions in urban and industrial waste (343), drinking water (344), sewerage and purification (345), as well as environmental infrastructures (34), is equal to €17.8 bn.

In total, 82 (out of 143) operational programmes have been checked by management authorities or through additional desk and field work carried out by the evaluator. The total amount invested (ERDF and national funds) in these 82 operational programmes in the field of environmental infrastructures (same fields of interventions as above-mentioned) is equal to €17 bn. In other words, the checking process allowed verifying achieved values for 95% of the funds (ERDF and national funds) which invested in environmental infrastructure.



Annex 4 – Programme of the mission in the Norte Region and list of persons met

Programme February 2nd

14.30 - 15.30 Meeting with Cristina de Azevedo (Vogal Executiva da Comissão Directiva do ON.2 com a responsabilidade do encerramento do ON) and Prof. Paulo Gomes (Vice-presidente da CCDR-N com a tutela do Ambiente e Ordenamento do Território);

15.30 - 17.30 Meeting with Eng. Rui Monteiro (Director do Centro de Avaliação de Políticas e Estudos Regionais), Dra. Alina Silva and Dra. Raquel Meira (Técnicas Superiores do Centro de Avaliação de Políticas e Estudos Regionais)

February 3rd 10.30-11.30 Meeting with Dr. Armando Pereira (Gestor do EP1 do ON) and Eng.

Vilela Bouça (Chefe de Projecto do EP1 do ON) 11.30-12.30 Meeting with Eng. Lopes dos Santos (Chefe de Projecto das Medidas

2.6 e 3.16) and Eng. Júlio Pereira (Coordenação Transversal do EP3 do ON)

14.30-15.30 Meeting with Eng. Xavier Rebelo Pinto (Coordenador Regional da Medida 3.15) and Eng. Júlio Pereira (Coordenação Transversal do EP3 do ON)

15.30-17.30 Meeting with Eng. Júlio Pereira (Director de Serviços de Desenvolvimento Regional) and Dra. Paula Pinto (Directora de Serviços de Ambiente)

February 4th Morning Metro do Porto – Measure 3.15

Gaia Polis – Measur 2.6 Intervenção Polis em Vila Nova de Gaia - Reestruturação Viária e

Urbana da Cidade - Parte I Intervenção Polis em Vila Nova de Gaia - Reestruturação Viária e

Urbana da Cidade - Parte II Câmara Municipal de Vila Nova de Gaia – Medida 2.6 Requalificação da Rua da Bélgica entre a Rua Ferreira Braga Júnior

e Lavadores – Canidelo Requalificação da Rua Marques Gomes - Canidelo

Afternoon CCDR-N – Measure 3.16 Infra-estruturas de protecção dunar e outros equipamentos nos

Planos de Praia 37, 38 e 39, no concelho de Vila Nova de Gaia - 1ª Fase

Infraestruturas de protecção dunar e outros equipamentos nos Planos de Praia 40, 41, 42 e 43, no concelho de Vila Nova de Gaia - 1ª Fase



Parque Biológico de Gaia – Measure 3.16 Rota Verde dos Parques de Gaia - 1ª fase Águas de Gaia – EM – Measure 1.1 Saneamento Grande Porto - Sist. V. N. de Gaia - Bacia de

Drenagem Oc. Atlântico - 3ª fase Construção do reservatório de Vilar do Paraíso e complementos da

rede de drenagem de águas residuais da bacia do Oceano Atlântico February 5th

Morning CM Vila Verde – Measure 1.9 Plano de protecção ambiental de Pico de Regalados CM Braga – Measure 1.1 Parque da Sucata de Braga

afternoon AMAVE – Measure 3.16 Requalificação Ambiental da Estação de Tratamento de Resíduos

Sólidos Urbanos do Vale do Ave CM Santo Tirso – Measure 1.3 Parque Urbano da Rabada Beneficiação da Rua S. Bento da Batalha - 1.ª fase CM Valongo – Measure 1.3 Requalificação da Aldeia de Couce - Corredor Ecológico

February 6th 14.30-15-30 Meeting with Eng. Rui Monteiro (Director do Centro de Avaliação de

Políticas e Estudos Regionais), Dra. Alina Silva and Dra. Raquel Meira (Técnicas Superiores do Centro de Avaliação de Políticas e Estudos Regionais) para síntese dos resultados das visitas a projectos e promotores



February 2ndCristina de Azevedo Prof. Paulo Gomes

Responsible for closing Regional programme 2000-2006 Vice-president of CCDR-N responsible for environment and territorial planning

Rui Monteiro Alina Silva Raquel Meira

Director of Centre of Policy Evaluation and Regional Studies Graduate technician of the Centre Graduate technician of the Centre

February 3rdArmando Pereira Vilela Bouça

Manager of Axis 1 ON Chief of project Axis 1 do ON

Lopes dos Santos Júlio Pereira

Chief of project measures 2.6 and 3.16 Horizontal Coordination of Axis 3 do ON

Xavier Rebelo Pinto Ricardo Sousa Mário Neves

Regional Coordinator of measure 3.15 Services of Transports of CCDR-N Services of Environment Planning of CCDR – N

Guedes Marques Services of Environment and Territorial Planning February 4th

Prof. Joaquim Carmona Diana Gaspar and representatives of the Municipality

Director of Planning Metro do Porto Gaia Polis – Measure 2.6

Nuno Gomes Oliveira Dr Maciel, Bastos Gonçalves and Eng Fernando Ferreira

Parque Biológico de Gaia – Measure 3.16 Águas de Gaia – EM – Measure 1.1

February 5thRepresentatives of environment of the municipalities

CM Vila Verde – Medida 1.9 CM Braga – Medida 1.1

Secretary general of AMAVE Representatives of environment of the municipalities

AMAVE – Medida 3.16 CM Santo Tirso – Medida 1.3 CM Valongo – Medida 1.3



Annex 5 - Pilot case study in the Norte Region (Portugal) Main issues to be addressed

1. Status and features of the environment at the beginning of the period and main trends over the programming period

A. Main economic and environmental challenges at the beginning of the period

B. Main evolution observed from 2000 up to 2008 (based on indicators and qualitative information)

What were the main conclusions of the diagnostic made in 1999/2000 on the economic situation of the region ? Main weaknesses ? Main strengths ? What was the position of the region regarding environment quality and quality of life ? Compared to the national level (cfr data provided in task 2) ? What were the main problems the region faced in terms of quality of environment and natural resources and more precisely in water supply, waste water, solid waste, GHG, quality of soil/air? in terms of public health related to environment? What was the situation of the region regarding the European directives in the sectors ?

How did the regional economy evolve during the period ? Positive trends/negative trends compared to EU average ?



Table 1: Socio-economic data (data at regional/national levels and EU average)

Region characteristics 2000 2006GDP/capitaPopulation densityEconomic structure (share of employement) Agriculture Industry ServicesUrban/rural

Economic performance 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006GDP/capitaEmployement rate (of the group 15-64)GDP Annual growth rate in primary sector in secondary sector in tertiary sectorInvestment in % GDPR&D in % GDPMigration flowsLabour producitivity (GDPper employed in PPS)

C. Evolution of the environmental situation

Table 2: Environmental data at regional/national levels (if available)

Environmental situation 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Air quality in main urban placesWater pollutionForest (% of land)CoastFish resources % population connected to the public water supply system % population connetcted to the public sewerage systemCollected solid waste / capitaMortality rate for <65 from heart disease and respiratory illness

Did the environmental situation improved compared to national and European average? What are the main environmental difficulties/challenges at regional level now ?



2. ERDF Implementation in the environmental fields

A. ERDF amounts invested in environmental fields by FOI

Table 3: Environmental measures

ERDF amounts Expenditures (end 2008?)

FOI code FOI Initial budget Revision in % of budget Planned Disbursed

127Improving and maintaining the ecological stability of

protected woodlands

1312Preservation of the environment inconnection with land,

forestry and landscape conservation as well as with the

improvement of animal welfare

152Environment‐friendly technologies, clean and economical

energy technologies

162Environment‐friendly technologies, clean and economical

energy technologies

33 Energy infrastructures (production, delivery)

332

Renewable sources of energy (solar power, wind power,

hydro‐electricity, biomass)

333 Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control

34 Environmental infrastructure (including water)

341 Air

342 Noise

343

Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and

dangerous waste)

344

Drinking water (collection, storage, treatment and

distribution)

345 Sewerage and purification

35 Planning and rehabilitation

351 Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites


353

Protection, improvement and regeneration of the natural

environment

354 Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage

Total



B. Types of intervention and modalities (Main outputs)

Table 4: Main outputs

Types of intervention

Number of

projects

(targets and

achieved)

Modalities: direct

contribution to public

investment, PPP,

others

ERDF Budget

(allocations and

expenditures) National fund

Investments Infrastructures Water supply Population

Other use

Waste water collection

Waste water treatment

Solid waste collection Muncipal

Industrial

Others

Solid waste treatment

Other (wind turbines,…)

Others Soil (rehabilitation,…)

Water

Forests

Energy efficiency

Financial incentives for private investment Renewable energy

Energy efficiency

Soft interventions Awareness

Training Major projects must be identified.

C. Share of ERDF in the environmental sector

Table 5 : Investment in environmental infrastructures

Investment in environmental

infrastructures (code 34) ERDF National EIB ISPA

Cohesion

Fund EBRD

Private

funds

Portugal

Norte Region

Did actual implementation of ERDF interventions correspond to initial objectives, budget, actions ?



3. Coherence of ERDF environmental measures with regional/national/EU policies

A. The OP strategy in the environmental field

B. Coherence with the environmental policy at European/national/regional levels (policy mix)

Share of environmental budget in the whole OP budget and importance in the regional strategy (qualitative appreciation) ? What are the main objectives pursued in the environmental fields ? Is environment a horizontal priority or a very specific field with its own logic ? Did a logical framework exist or could it be builded for environmental measures : global objectives-specific objectives – expected results – activities ? Are the links between diagnostic/ strategy/OP measures clearly established and leading to a coherent set of measures ? Are environmental measures inter-related ?

What are the main objectives of the environmental strategy at national and regional levels ? By main fields of intervention (water supply, waste water/Solid waste/climate change, others) What is the degree of priority given to environmental expenditures at national/regional levels ? How expenditures devoted to the environmental sectors have evolved since 2000 in the national/regional budget? What policy instruments have been used to address the environmental problems at national/regional levels? (Fiscal policy, regulatory requirements, public investment, incentives,…) What is the intended contribution of ERDF to environmental policies ? How significant is the role of ERDF for conformity with the directives (water, waste, landfill?)? How instruments have been coordinated and inter-related ? How are ERDF environmental measures in the Norte Region connected to the EDRF sectoral program (Ambiente) at national level ?



C. Role of environmental measures in the regional/territorial development (intended contribution)

D. Links to the other OP measures: coherence, complementarities

E. Coherence with other European interventions in the field (European Investment Bank mainly, Cohesion Fund)

What were the main axes of the OP strategy ? How OP is articulated to the regional development strategy ? How did ERDF environmental measures intended to contribute to regional development ? What objectives have been pursued : improved public services reducing costs for regional stakeholders, regional attractiveness for firms, quality of the place, territorial planning, public health, preserving natural resources,… ? How activities have been implemented in light of these objectives?

What links have been established between the different environmental measures and the other OP measures ? at regional levels and sub regional levels (nuts III regions/municipalities) ? What are the existing complementarities? Is there a sequencing ?

What has been the importance of ERDF compared to other European funds (EIB, cohesion fund, LIFE,ISPRA,…) ? What were the main instruments and modalities used by other European funds ? Are ERDF interventions coherent with the other interventions in each of the covered fields ? (types of interventions, geographical distribution,…) What has been done for coordinating all interventions ? Who was in charge of it ? Did some cooperation exist between the various sources of funds (data/analyzing sharing, co-financing schemes, complementarities in terms of zones, types of actions) ?



4 Quality of sectoral planning and project selection

5. Effectiveness of public investment in improving the environmental situation and contribution of ERDF funds

The case study will provide insights into the evolution of the environmental situation in the region and the effectiveness of public investment aimed at improving the targeted sectors. The results will be analysed in terms of (1) waste collection and treatment, (2) water supply and waste water collection and treatment, (3) reduced GHG emission, as well as at a broader level (4) in terms of quality of air and natural resources quality. As the improvement of environmental quality is a result of a policy mix, interactions wit other instruments must be highlighted.

Who are the competent bodies for environment management in the region ? How is environment management organized by main fields of intervention ? What was the institutional set up for the decision process related to ERDF ? How have environmental measures/activities been planned ? What instruments have been used to select the projects (cost/benefits analysis,…) ? How is organized the follow up of the projects ?



Results

Baseline

value Target value

Achieved

value

% increase of the additional population served by water supply projects

(compared to the baseline value)

Reduction of leakage from the water supply network (% decrease compared to

the baseline)

Number of additional population served by wastewater projects

% increase of additional population served by wastewater projects (compared

to the baseline value)

Number of unauthorised landfills closed/ rehabilitated

% of unauthorised landfills in the total number of the landfills operated in 2000

(for EU‐10 Member States only)

Number of users connected to new elements of technical infrastructure

Reduction of industrial and hazardous waste (Mg/ year)

Reduction in water consumption (m³/year)

Number of additional enterprises served by water supply projects

Number of additional enterprises served by wastewater projects

Number of tonnes reduction in industrial and commercial waste to landfill

Number of properties with reduced flood risk

Tonnes of recycle or compost or recover energy from 230,000 tonnes of

municipal waste

Surface of renaturation (ha) in conversion area

Percentage of dumpsites area re‐cultivated

Reduction of pollution load to the environment (ha)

Population served by waste treatment

Number of additional population served by waste treatment projects

Number of additional population served by solid waste projects

Reduction of SO2 (t/year)

Reduction of ashes (t/year)

Reduction of CO (t/ year)

Reduction of NO x (t/year)

Reduction of CO2 (t/year)

Reduction of industrial and hazardous wastes (t/year)

Wastewater treatment capacity (m³/year)

Pre‐treated sewerage capacity (M m³/year)

Treated sewerage capacity (M m³/year)

% of population with access to systems of collection of urban solid residues

Global % of recycled urban solid residues

% of population with access to systems of collection of “liquid residues”

% of residing population served with water supply and treatment

Number of additional population served by solid waste projects

Table 6: Main indicators used for assessing results in all European regions (indicators WP2: see what is available for the Norte region)



F. In terms of waste collection and treatment

G. In terms of water supply and waste water collection and treatment

H. In terms of reducing GHG emission

How utilization rate of new/renewed infrastructures have evolved ? What are the main trends in waste generation and prevention measures for each relevant waste stream ? How did recycling rates for each relevant waste stream evolve compared to European Objectives ? Did waste management services improve ? (existing survey on beneficiaries rate of satisfaction) How did ERDF contribute to improve the situation ?

How utilization rate of new/renewed infrastructures have evolved ? What is the position of the region regarding the Water Framework Directive ? Are new treatment technologies been introduced ? Which ones ? Did management systems improve ? How did the quality/quantity of surface and groundwater for drinking supplies and aquatic habitat improve ? How Did ERDF contribute to improve the situation ?

What is the position of the region in terms of the strategy for combating climate change, the state of energy efficiency and GHG emission production as well as the use of renewable energies ? What has been the role of ERDF in promoting the use of renewable energies and energy efficiency ? To what extend have co-funded interventions led to an increase of private investment in the field of energy efficiency and use of renewable energies ? To what extend have environmental expenditures contributed to reducing GHG emissions?



I. In terms of air and natural resources quality

6. Contribution of environmental infrastructures to regional economic development

The aim of this section is to analyse the extent to which ERDF environmental expenditures have had a positive impact on regional competitiveness and economic growth. Various mechanisms may interact to produce such results:

- by increasing demand and the production capacity of the environmental sectors inside the region.

- As a factor of production for other sectors, by enhancing the attractiveness of the region for private investment.

- In the medium term by contributing to a better quality of factors of production such as natural resources.

- By introducing technological progress and innovation.

A. Direct activities linked to the infrastructures/services

Table 7: Regional data – business statistics (Eurostat) –( Employement, Number of local units, Gross investment in tangible goods,

Growth rate of employment, Investment per person employed) Activities linked to environment 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Recycling Collection, purification and distribution of water Waste collection and treatment

Are there specific results to be mentioned in terms of forests, water, soil, air quality ?

Did activities concerned with protection and management of environment increase in the region ? Did ERDF contribute to create new business opportunities in these sectors ? Did the demand for such activities increase ?



B. Contribution to region attractiveness/competitiveness

C. Contribution to activities based on natural resources

D. Bringing technological innovation

Did improved public services in the environmental sectors (water, waste, access to renewable energies,…) and rehabilitated industrial sites contribute to increase the region attractiveness/competitiveness? To what extend have co-funded environmental interventions contribute to increase private investment (extension of production capacities) or to attract external investment ? (indicators: number of companies in industrial parks; private gross fixed investment in the region) Within all environmental measures (cfr table 3), what are the most important for the business sectors ? Did it contribute to reduce/increase unit costs ?

To what extend did ERDF environmental measures contribute to improve/protect natural resources that are a primary input for economic sectors (mainly agricultural activities and tourism) ?

Did ERDF environmental measures contribute to introduce new/improved environmental technologies ? to develop new processes/products ? Did these measures improve the position of local firms on the local/national/external markets ?



7. Contribution of environmental measures to quality of life

Results Indicators (see table 6)

Did environmental measures contribute to a better access of households to environmental infrastructures/services ? How did access conditions (in terms of prices) evolve during the 2000-2006 period ? To what extend ERDF interventions contribute to improve health in the region? Did ERDF measures contribute to improve the quality of rural/urban housing/living places ?



Dia Organisme Persones entrevistades

Unitat de gestió del FEDER CatalunyaDirecció General d'Anàlisi i Política Econòmica (DGAPE)Direcció General d'Adminsitració Local (DGAL)

Joan Luria: Subdirector General de Programació (DGAPE)Sílvia Vives: Responsable Coordinació Polítiques Estructurals (DAGPE)Georgina Ubach: Tècnica (DGAPE)Xavier Civit: Responsable d'Estudis i Informes de Cooperació Financera (DGAL)Just Cortés: Cap de secció Fons Estructurals (DGAL)Núria Miralles: Tècnica (DGAL)

Coordinador de DepartamentDepartament de Medi Ambient i Habitatge

Administració sectorialAgència de Residus de Catalunya (ARC)

Executor de l'actuacióAgència de Residus de Catalunya (ARC)

Concha Marchante: Responsable de Seguiment i Control del PDR i altres fons europeus (Departament Medi Ambient)

Anna Valls: Cap Departament Gestió Financera (ARC)Cristina Fisas: Tècnica del Departament de Gestió Financera (ARC)Beatriu Sánchez: Cap de Departament d'Atenció Ciutadana (ARC)Josep Simó: Director d'Àrea Municipal (ARC)Jordi Picas: Cap del Departament de Recollida Selectiva i Envasos (ARC)

Executor de l'actuacióMancomunitat Intermunicipal del Penedès-Garraf

Frederic Rafols, Gerent Pere Sansa, Cap dels Serveis de residus V. Mora

Executor de l'actuacióConsell Comarcal del Baix Camp

Rosa Marti Roig, Gerente SECOM SA Isabel Olesti Vidal, Responsable Tecnica

Federacions municipalsFederació de Municipis de Catalunya

Associacions de reciclatgeGremi de Recuperació de Catalunya

Luis Ortiz de Zevallos Torrents, DirectorUnitat de gestió del FEDER CatalunyaDirecció General d'Anàlisi i Política Econòmica (DGAPE)Direcció Genenral d'Adminstració Local (DGAL)

Joan Luria: Subdirector General de Programació (DGAPE)Just Cortés: Cap de secció Fons Estructurals (DGAL)

05/02/09

04/02/09

06/02/09

Annex 6 – Pilot case study in Catalunia about municipal solid waste

Annex 6.1 Definitive programme of the mission



Annex 6.2 List of projects financed by measure 2.2 of Objective 2 Programme in Catalunia

Table 1. Funds distribution by measure (DOCUP Measure 2 Catalonia)

Measure Aut. Level Num. ProjectsProgrammed investment

Programmed Subsidy

% Programmed Subsidy by measure

2.1 Local 158 29.594.035 14.797.0182.1 Regional 133 170.343.252 85.171.626

Subtotal 291 199.937.287 99.968.643 69,67%2.2 Local 40 11.314.554 5.657.2772.2 Regional 3 8.381.311 4.190.655

Subtotal 43 19.695.865 9.847.932 6,86%

2.4 Local 110 29.832.378 14.916.1892.4 Regional 44 8.308.403 4.154.201

Subtotal 154 38.140.781 19.070.390 13,29%

2.5 Regional 9 5.832.640 2.916.320Subtotal 9 5.832.640 2.916.320 2,03%

2.6 Local 66 23.294.776 11.647.3882.6 Regional 1 90.152 45.076

Subtotal 67 23.384.928 11.692.464 8,15%TOTAL 564 286.991.501 143.495.750 100,00%



Nº ADMIN ACCIO PROJECTE NOM PROJECTE NOM_CURT_ORG EXECUTOR Initial date Project Final Project dateCertification Project Date

Co-Finance Tax

Programmed investment

Programmed Subsidy

1 AL 2.2 264 Construction of recycling installations in La Ferreria Aj. Montcada Reixac Aj. Montcada Reixac 01/01/2000 31/12/2003 30/06/2008 0,5 617.392,29 308.696,152 AL 2.2 442 Construction of the municipal waste collection point/installation. Type B and installations urb. Aj. Vila-seca Aj. Vila-seca 01/01/2000 31/12/2003 31/12/2007 0,5 180.303,63 90.151,823 AL 2.2 460 Improvement of the municipal waste management service CC Baix Camp CC Baix Camp 01/01/2000 31/12/2003 31/12/2007 0,5 240.404,84 120.202,424 AL 2.2 471 Regional waste collection point/installation, 2nd phase CC Conca de Barberà CC Conca de Barberà 01/01/2000 31/12/2003 31/12/2007 0,5 204.344,12 102.172,065 AL 2.2 489 Construction of regional waste collection point type A in the municipality of Falset CC Priorat CC Priorat 01/01/2000 31/12/2003 31/12/2007 0,5 48.080,97 24.040,496 AL 2.2 540 Conditioning of the USW (urban solid waste) landfill of Alt Urgell MM Urgellet MM Urgellet 01/01/2000 31/12/2003 31/12/2007 0,5 300.506,05 150.253,037 AL 2.2 704 USW surface containers and selective collection integration programme CC Alta Ribagorça CC Alta Ribagorça 01/01/2002 31/12/2005 31/12/2007 0,5 100.000,00 50.000,008 AL 2.2 705 Expansion of the regional waste collection point/installation in Santa Coloma de Queralt CC Conca de Barberà CC Conca de Barberà 01/01/2002 31/12/2005 31/12/2007 0,5 40.000,00 20.000,009 AL 2.2 706 Municipal waste management machinery and equipment CC Conca de Barberà CC Conca de Barberà 01/01/2002 31/12/2005 31/12/2007 0,5 260.000,00 130.000,00

10 AL 2.2 708 Improvement in the accesses to the environmental complex/installation CC Vallès Oriental Cons. Gest. Residus V Or 01/01/2002 31/12/2005 31/12/2007 0,5 200.000,00 100.000,0011 AL 2.2 709 Domestic waste collection project Manc. Ag.deSeg. Fon. Raj. Manc. Ag.deSeg. Fon. Raj 01/01/2002 31/12/2005 31/12/2007 0,5 120.000,00 60.000,0012 AL 2.2 1422 USW selective collection in Mont-roig Aj. Mont-roig Camp Aj. Mont-roig Camp 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 186.000,00 93.000,0013 AL 2.2 1423 Regional USW mangement service CC Conca de Barberà CC Conca de Barberà 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 148.000,00 74.000,0014 AL 2.2 1424 USW selective collection machinery CC Segarra CC Segarra 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 186.000,00 93.000,0015 AL 2.2 1425 Construction of the EMED and the regional waste collection installation. CC La Selva CC La Selva 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 760.000,00 380.000,0016 AL 2.2 1426 Adequacy of the USW transfer stations. CC Terra Alta CC Terra Alta 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 112.000,00 56.000,0017 AL 2.2 1427 USW selective collection management space CC Terra Alta CC Terra Alta 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 30/06/2006 0,5 112.000,00 56.000,0018 AL 2.2 1428 RSU collection service truck CC Alt Camp CC Alt Camp 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 138.000,00 69.000,0019 AL 2.2 1429 USW compacting plant/installation CC Alt Empordà CC Alt Empordà 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 460.000,00 230.000,0020 AL 2.2 1430 Improvement in the USW organic fraction treatment CC Baix Camp CC Baix Camp 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 460.000,00 230.000,0021 AL 2.2 1431 Environmental communication and education programme CC Montsià C per a GRM comarca Mon 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 186.000,00 93.000,0022 AL 2.2 1432 Communication and awareness campaign on USW selective collection CC Tarragonès CC Tarragonès 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 298.000,00 149.000,0023 AL 2.2 1433 Expansion of basin b in the regional landfill of Orís CC Osona C Gestió RSU Osona 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 740.000,00 370.000,0024 AL 2.2 1434 Expansion of the leachate treatment plant of the Garraf landfill EMSHTR EMSHTR 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 300.000,00 150.000,0025 AL 2.2 1668 Expansion of the composting plant Cons. Gest. Residus V Or Cons. Gest. Residus V Or 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 760.000,00 380.000,0026 AL 2.2 1674 4th phase of the basin impermeabilization of Bufalvent landfill Cons. Bages gest. residus Cons. Bages gest. residus 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 280.000,00 140.000,0027 AL 2.2 1675 Reinforcement of the access pavement into the Benavarre landfill MM Urgellet Aj. Montferrer Cast. 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 186.000,00 93.000,0028 AL 2.2 1676 Purchase of a tractor Manc.Intm. l'Anoia Gest R Manc.Intm. l'Anoia Gest R 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 60.000,00 30.000,0029 AL 2.2 1677 Remodelling of the USW segregation plant MM Penedès-Garraf MM Penedès-Garraf 01/01/2004 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 460.000,00 230.000,0030 AL 2.2 1785 Implementation of USW collection by means of underground containers Aj. Alcover Aj. Alcover 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 194.000,00 97.000,0031 AL 2.2 1786 Improvements in the sewer network, phase 1 Aj. Polinyà Aj. Polinyà 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 160.000,00 80.000,0032 AL 2.2 1787 Installation of a pneumatic waste collection system Aj. Reus Aj. Reus 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 806.000,10 403.000,0533 AL 2.2 1789 Channelling of one section of Can Rossell stream Aj. Subirats ACA 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 194.000,00 97.000,0034 AL 2.2 1790 Improvement in the waste collection and population awareness CC Urgell CC Urgell 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 40.000,00 20.000,0035 AL 2.2 1791 Improvement of the basic services of the composting plant CC Baix Camp CC Baix Camp 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 60.000,00 30.000,0036 AL 2.2 1792 Implementation of waste collection by means of underground containers CC Baix Ebre CC Baix Ebre 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 400.000,00 200.000,0037 AL 2.2 1793 Implementation of underground containers for municipal waste collection. Civil work phase 1 B CC Montsià C per a GRM comarca Mon 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 0,5 360.000,00 180.000,0038 AL 2.2 1794 Waste collection by means of underground containers CC Pallars Sobirà CC Pallars Sobirà 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 31/12/2007 0,5 240.000,00 120.000,0039 AL 2.2 1795 Implementation of underground containers for organic waste collection and awareness campaign CC Tarragonès CC Tarragonès 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 0,5 240.000,00 120.000,0040 AL 2.2 1796 Remodelling and adequacy of "Can Giró" for USW MM Penedès-Garraf MM Penedès-Garraf 01/01/2006 31/12/2008 30/06/2008 0,5 477.522,10 238.761,05

TOTAL 40 11.314.554,10 5.657.277,05

Table 2 List of Projects at Local Level (Measure 2.2 DOCUP Catalonia 2000-2006)



Table 3 . List of Projects at Regional Level (Measure 2.2 DOCUP Catalonia 2000-2006)

Nº ADMIN ACCIO PROJECTE NOM PROJECTE NOM_CURT_ORG EXECUTOR Initial date Project Final Project dateCertification Project Date

Co-Finance Tax

Programmed investment

Programmed Subsidy

41 GC 2.2 137 Plants dedicated to the treatment of USW: waste collection points, transfer plants, etc. Dept. Medi Ambient i Hab. Ag Residus Cat 01/01/2000 31/12/2006 31/12/2006 0,5 2.792.293,31 1.396.146,6642 GC 2.2 138 Containers dedicated to the selective and organic waste collections. Dept. Medi Ambient i Hab. Ag Residus Cat 01/01/2000 31/12/2006 31/12/2006 0,5 2.181.279,22 1.090.639,6143 GC 2.2 139 Construction of controlled landfils and closure of landfills. Dept. Medi Ambient i Hab. Ag Residus Cat 01/01/2000 31/12/2005 31/12/2005 0,5 3.407.738,32 1.703.869,16

TOTAL 3 8.381.310,85 4.190.655,43

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


DOCUP de Catalunya 2000-2006. Objectiu 2.

Codi del projecte: 137Nom: Plantes de tractament de residus sòlids urbans: deixalleries, plantes de transferènciaMesura: 2.2Executor: Agència de Residus de Catalunya

BENEFICIARIS COMARCA JUSTIFICAT

AJ JONQUERA ALT EMPORDÀ 37.378AJ. AGRAMUNT URGELL 140.185AJ. AIGUAFREDA VALLÈS ORIENTAL 54.091AJ. ARGENTONA MARESME 3.059AJ. BLANES SELVA 131.223AJ. CADAQUÈS ALT EMPORDÀ 5.634AJ. CASTELLBELL I VILAR BAGES 23.706AJ. COLLBATÓ BAIX LLOBREGAT 886AJ. CUNIT BAIX CAMP 23.322AJ. GELIDA ALT PENEDÈS 26.849AJ. MANRESA BAGES 34.339AJ. MATARO MARESME 98.396AJ. PALS BAIX EMPORDÀ 123.097AJ. ROSES ALT EMPORDÀ 130.360AJ. RUBI VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 13.213AJ. S.FRUITOS BAGES BAGES 9.974AJ. SABADELL VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 218.857AJ. SALOU TARRGONÈS 123.097AJ. SANT HILARI SACALM SELVA 26.150AJ. TOSSA DE MAR SELVA 82.220AJUNTAMENT D'AVINYÓ Bages 59.875AJUNTAMENT DE LA TORRE DE CLARAMUNT Anoia 59.876AJUNTAMENT DE MANLLEU Osona 15.773AJUNTAMENT DE MARTORELL Baix Llobregat 4.808AJUNTAMENT DE MARTORELL Baix Llobregat 24.040AJUNTAMENT DE NAVÀS Bages 133.735AJUNTAMENT DE PALAMÓS Baix Empordà 13.535AJUNTAMENT DE ROSES Alt Empordà 18.849AJUNTAMENT DE VILASSAR DE MAR Maresme 145.443AJUNTAMENT DEL PERELLÓ Baix Ebre 57.817AJUNTAMENT D'ESPARREGUERA Baix Llobregat 1.221AJUNTAMENT D'ESPARREGUERA Baix Llobregat 18.900AJUNTAMENT D'OLESA DE MONTSERRAT Baix Llobregat 93.796AJUNTAMENT RUBÍ Vallès Occidental 16.200AJUNTAMENT RUBÍ Vallès Occidental 24.040C.C..CONCA DE BARBERÀ CONCA DE BARBERÀ 8.093C.C..CONCA DE BARBERÀ CONCA DE BARBERÀ 32.437C.C.GARROTXA GARROTXA 24.642C.C.GARROTXA GARROTXA 36.343C.C.PALLARS JUSSÀ PALLARS JUSSÀ 37.662C.C.PRIORAT PRIORAT 50.349C.C.VALLÈS ORIENTAL VALLÈS ORIENTAL 5.442C.C.VALLÈS ORIENTAL VALLÈS ORIENTAL 19.800CC, MARESME MARESME 31.454CONSELH GENERAU VAL D´ARAN VAL D´ARAN 129.720CONSELL COMARCAL DE LA CONCA DE BARBERÀ Conca de Barberà 40.394CONSELL COMARCAL DE LA NOGUERA Noguera 9.860CONSELL COMARCAL DEL BAIX EBRE Baix Ebre 24.667CONSELL COMARCAL DEL BERGUEDÀ Berguedà 24.040CONSELL COMARCAL DEL BERGUEDÀ Berguedà 28.331CONSELL COMARCAL DEL RIPOLLES Ripollès -33.800CONSELL COMARCAL DEL RIPOLLÈS Ripollès 24.040CONSELL COMARCAL DEL RIPOLLÈS Ripollès 33.800CONSORCI DEL MONTSIÀ Montsià 82.204CONSORCI PER A LA GESTIÓ DE RESIDUS DEL VALLÈS ORIENTAVallès Oriental 78.175CONSORCI PER A LA GESTIO DE RSM DEL MONTSIA Montsià 71.306MANC.PENED.GARRAF PENEDÈS-GARRAF 30.928MANC.PENED.GARRAF PENEDÈS-GARRAF 55.720MANCOMUNITAT INTERMUNICIPAL DEL PENEDÈS I GARRAF Alt Penedès 10.000MANCOMUNITAT INTERMUNICIPAL DEL PENEDÈS I GARRAF Alt Penedès 15.000

2.864.549

List of projects co-funded by ARC Funding lines under ERDF projects 137, 138 and 139

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



Codi del projecte: 138Nom: Contenidors per a la recollida selectiva i de matèria orgànicaMesura: 2.2Executor: Agència de Residus de Catalunya


AJ. VILANANT ALT EMPORDÀ 43AJ. MASIES VOLTREGÀ OSONA 130AJ. ESCALA ALT EMPORDÀ 497CC RIPOLLÈS RIPOLLÈS 994ANOIA Santa Margarida de Montbui 1.015AJ. SANTA MARIA D'OLÓ BAGES 1.042CC BERGUEDÀ BERGUEDÀ 1.083AJ.VILADECAVALLS VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 1.386SELVA Riudarenes 1.680AJ. TIANA MARESME 1.988BAIX CAMP Baix Camp 2.107AJ. STA. PERPETUA MOGODA VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 2.165VALLÈS ORIENTAL Cardedeu 2.262CC BAIX CAMP BAIX CAMP 2.447ANOIA Igualada 2.662AJ. VALLS ALT CAMP 2.717RIPOLLÈS C.C.Ripollès 2.754SELVA Vilobí d'Onyar 2.957MARESME S. Andreu de Llavaneres 3.148CC CONCA DE BARBERÀ CONCA DE BARBERÀ 3.472CC GARRIGUES GARRIGUES 3.681MARESME Calella 3.745AJ. BLANES SELVA 4.029CONS. PRIORAT, TERRA ALTA, RIBERA EBRE PRIORAT, TERRA ALTA, RIBERA EBRE 4.496BAGES Navàs 4.542AJ. SETMENAT VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 4.971CC BAIX EBRE BAIX EBRE 5.089AJ. TARRAGONA TARRAGONÈS 5.208AJ. ESCALA ALT EMPORDÀ 5.540AJ. MARTORELL BAIX LLOBREGAT 5.650MARESME Arenys de Munt 5.884CC TARRAGONÈS TARRAGONÈS 5.965AJ. CUNIT BAIX PENEDÈS 5.965SELVA Arbúcies 6.564AJ ST CUGAT DEL VALLÈS VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 6.625CC PALLARS JUSSÀ PALLARS JUSSÀ 6.791MARESME Tordera 6.804CC RIPOLLÈS RIPOLLÈS 6.944MARESME Cabrils 7.004AJ. TARRAGONA TARRAGONÈS 7.136AJ. MARTORELL BAIX LLOBREGAT 8.150VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL Viladecavalls 8.799CC TARRAGONÈS 9.027SELVA Tossa de Mar 9.240TARRAGONÈS Salou 9.348TARRAGONÈS Vila-seca 9.373CC ANOIA ANOIA 9.689CC NOGUERA NOGUERA 10.263CC SOLSONÈS SOLSONÈS 10.416CC BAGES BAGES 10.977VALLES OCCIDENTAL Santa Perpètua Mogoda 11.165BAIX EBRE C.C Baix Ebre 11.310AJ. VILASECA TARRAGONÈS 11.457CC SOLSONÈS SOLSONÈS 11.805CC PLA DE L'ESTANY PLA DE L'ESTANY 11.999AJ. BLANES SELVA 12.265MARESME Premià de Dalt 12.462MARESME Argentona 13.535AJ. ROSES ALT EMPORDÀ 13.888CC GARRIGUES GARRIGUES 14.577GARROTXA Olot 14.790CC BAIX EMPORDÀ BAIX EMPORDÀ 15.142Ribera d'Ebre, Priorat, Ter Ribera d'Ebre, Priorat, Ter 16.091CC OSONA OSONA 16.241AJ. REUS BAIX CAMP 16.419CC BAIX EMPORDÀ BAIX EMPORDÀ 16.979CC PALLARS SOBIRÀ PALLARS SOBIRÀ 17.539CONS. PRIORAT, TERRA ALTA, RIBERA EBRE PRIORAT, TERRA ALTA, RIBERA EBRE 18.867CC GARROTXA GARROTXA 19.016AJ. REUS BAIX CAMP 21.576AJ. RUBÍ VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 22.190CC SELVA SELVA 22.568MANC. ALT URGELL MERIDIONAL ALT URGELL 23.836MARESME Vilassar de Mar 25.182CC SELVA SELVA 25.703CC TARRAGONÈS TARRAGONÈS 29.158MONTSIÀ Consorci Montsià 33.366VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL Terrassa 33.785CC BAIX EBRE BAIX EBRE 33.957CC BAGES BAGES 34.723SEGARRA Consorci Segarra 35.029VALLES OCCIDENTAL Rubí 39.690AJ. CUNIT BAIX CAMP 39.916BAGES Manresa 40.800CC BAIX PENEDÈS BAIX PENEDÈS 41.316CC VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 42.246CC MONTSIÀ MONTSIÀ 42.786CC BAIX LLOBREGAT BAIX LLOBREGAT 43.399CONSORCI VALLÈS ORIENTAL 49.301PENEDÈS Mancomunitat Penedès/G 51.035BAIX CAMP Reus 53.400Vallès Oriental Vallès Oriental 53.491MANC. PENEDÈS-GARRAF MANC. PENEDÈS-GARRAF 57.825CONSORCI VALLÈS ORIENTAL VALLÈS ORIENTAL 86.236CC MARESME MARESME 107.984CONSORCI VALLÈS ORIENTAL VALLÈS ORIENTAL 110.949CC VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 157.755CC OSONA OSONA 302.068

2.181.279




Codi i nom del projecte: 139. Construcció de dipòsits controlats i segellat d'abocadorsMesura: 2.2

Executor: AGÈNCIA DE RESIDUS DE CATALUNYA


AJUNTAMENT DE SANT PERE SALLAVINERA Anoia 103AJUNTAMENT DE TORRELLES DE LLOBREGAT Baix Llobregat 114AJUNTAMENT DE CASTELLAR DEL VALLÈS Vallès Occidental 304AJUNTAMENT DE LLIÇÀ D'AMUNT Vallès Oriental 407AJUNTAMENT DE MONTOLIU DE SEGARRA Segarra 465AJUNTAMENT DE SANTA CRISTINA D'ARO Baix Empordà 466AJUNTAMENT DE MANLLEU Osona 861AJUNTAMENT MASQUEFA Anoia 1.039Ajuntament de Cadaqués Alt Empordà 1.202AJ. S. ESTEVE SESROVIRES BAIX LLOBREGAT 1.269AJ. CASTELLVI DE LA MARCA ALT PENEDÈS 1.556CC. ANOIA ANOIA 1.731AJ. CASTELLVI DE LA MARCA ALT PENEDÈS 1.990AJ. VILADECANS BAIX LLOBREGAT 2.046AJ. SANT JULIÀ DE CERDANYOLA BERGUEDÀ 2.628AJ. GUALBA VALLÈS ORIENTAL 2.900CONSELL COMARCAL DE LA NOGUERA Noguera 3.092AJUNTAMENT DE VANDELLÒS I L'HOSPITALET DE L'INFANT Baix Camp 3.204AJ. CASTELLAR DEL VALLÈS VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 4.221AJ. ALFARA DE CARLES BAIX EBRE 4.917AJ. BEGUES BAIX LLOBREGAT 5.100AJ. ESPOLLA ALT EMPORDÀ 5.209AJ. VIELHA-MITJARAN VAL D'ARAN 5.242Ajuntament de Palamós Baix Empordà 5.463Ajuntament de Sant Pere de Ribes Garraf 5.682Ajuntament de Castellbell i el Vilar Bages 5.742AJ. LLÍVIA CERDANYA 6.139AJ. PREMIÀ DE DALT MARESME 6.328CC. ALTA RIBAGORÇA ALTA RIBAGORÇA 6.553AJ. VAJOL ALT EMPORDÀ 7.329C.C. Noguera (La Sentiu de Sió) Noguera 7.420MANC. INTERM. ALT URGELL MERIDIONAL ALT URGELL 7.427AJ. TREMP PALLARS JUSSÀ 7.741AJUNTAMENT DE SANT ESTEVE SESROVIRES 8.000C.C.Osona (Muntanyola) Osona 10.482AJ. ARMENTERA ALT EMPORDÀ 12.329AJ. ROSES ALT EMPORDÀ 14.004Ajuntament de Foradada Noguera 14.015AJ. CASTELLTERÇOL VALLÈS ORIENTAL 15.239AJ. LLIÇÀ D'AMUNT VALLÈS ORIENTAL 15.967AJ. RIUDOMS BAIX CAMP 16.187Aj. Cruïlles-Monells-St. Sadurní de l'Heura Baix Empordà 17.107AJ. S. ANDREU LLAVANERES MARESME 17.150CC. ALTA RIBAGORÇA ALTA RIBAGORÇA 17.475AJ. VALLROMANES VALLÈS ORIENTAL 19.959CC. PLA DE L'ESTANY PLA DE L'ESTANY 21.286Ajuntament de Sabadell (Talús Somosierra) Vallès Occidental 24.151AJ. TORÀ SEGARRA 24.484Ajuntament de les Borges Blanques Garrigues 24.732CONSELL COMARCAL DEL BAIX PENEDÈS 26.994AJ. VANDELLÒS I HOSPITALET BAIX CAMP 30.006AJ. PONTS LA NOGUERA 31.350AJ. LLÍVIA CERDANYA 32.965Ajuntament de Pla de Santa Maria Alt Camp 35.292Ajuntament de Sanaüja Segarra 40.193Ajuntament d'Albinyana Baix Penedès 41.225Ajuntament de Cornudella de Montsant Priorat 44.826CONSELL COMARCAL DE LA SELVA 46.414AJ. CERVIÀ DE LES GARRIGUES GARRIGUES 47.026AJ. BADIA DEL VALLÈS VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 48.177AJ. TORROELLA DE MONTGRÍ BAIX EMPORDÀ 48.630AJUNTAMENT DE LA SELVA DEL CAMP 50.250Ajuntament de Masquefa (aboc.Can Parellada i aboc. del MaAnoia 50.503Ajuntament d'Avinyó Bages 51.226AJ. DÓLESA DE BONESVALLS ALT PENEDÈS 52.500AJUNTAMENT DE SANTA CRISTINA D'ARO 57.000AJ. S. PERE TORELLO OSONA 57.076Ajuntament de Vila-rodona Alt Camp 61.775Ajuntament de Calders Bages 63.737CC. OSONA OSONA 67.420Ajuntament de Calafell Baix Penedès 72.072C.C.TARRAGONÈS TARRAGONÈS 74.334CONSELH GENERAU D'ARAN ARAN 80.021AJ. VALLS ALT CAMP 86.122C.C. Alt Penedès (Sant Quintí de Mediona) Alt Penedès 89.190Ajuntament de Sabadell (Raval d'Amàlia) Vallès Occidental 91.154Consorci Ribera Ebre, Priorat i Terra Alta (Falset, Móra la Nova i Flix) 95.374C.C.SELVA SELVA 101.284CC. PALLARS SOBIRÀ PALLARS SOBIRÀ 106.814Ajuntament de Sabadell (Can Roqueta) Vallès Occidental 108.364AJ. CUNIT BAIX PENEDÈS 111.125AJ. ULLDECONA MONTSIÀ 113.948AJ. PORTBOU ALT EMPORDÀ 121.807C.C.PLA DE LÉSTANY PLA DE LÉSTANY 121.923AJ. BALAGUER NOGUERA 145.385AJ. VENDRELL BAIX PENEDÈS 173.373C.C.BERGUEDÀ BERGUEDÀ 263.086AJ. RUBÍ VALLÈS OCCIDENTAL 360.607

3.689.025



Annex 6.3 List of site visits during field mission (February 2009)

Site visit 1 : Mancomunitat Intermunicipal del Penedès Garraf General information The Mancomunitat Penedès Garraf is an association of municipalities for the realisation of services in common. Population: 230.000 hab. Production of municipal waste: 130.000 tons in 2008 Selective collection: 35.055 tons in 2008 In relation with waste management, the Mancomunitat provides the following services: - municipal solid waste collection - collection of bulky waste and WEEE - transport of municipal waste to the treatment plants of the Mancomunitat - maintenance, cleaning and disinfection of containers - management of waste infrastructures : 12 civic amenity centres, 1 sorting plant, 1 composting plant - waste prevention actions - environmental education and awareness-raising campaigns ERDF intervention regarding waste management Project 1796 Object : Renovation and adaptation of Can Giro Mansion (Mancomunitat offices) in Vilanova Budget: 477.522,10 € ERDF : 238.761,05 € Period: 2006-2008 This project consisted of transforming an old juniper plant and owner mansion into offices for the Mancomunitat services for waste management. This project is not directly linked with waste management policies. Project 1677 Object : Remodelation of sorting centre for municipal solid waste Budget: 460.000 € ERDF : 230.000 € Period: 2004-2008 The intervention consisted in buying and installing a new machine in order to increase the productivity of the sorting plant (capacity : 4t/hour, funded by the Cohesion Fund). This machine prepares the sorting by opening the bags with drill. The rest of the sorting process is predominantly manual and aimed at sorting packaging waste.



Evaluation of ERDF intervention by the beneficiaries The initial request for funding from the Mancomunitat was to automatize completely the plant in order to increase its performances. The investment was 2.000.000 € worth. The accepted amount for funding being 460.000 €, the Mancomunitat decided to concentrate the investment on this machine which enabled a direct increase of the sorting performances: the sorted quantities destined to recycling have doubled between 2005 and 2008. For the Mancomunitat, even if it was not the global investment they wanted to promote, it is considered as a first step in the process of automatization of the sorting plant. For this local public body for waste management, ERDF has been an important source of funds during the period. The main challenge for them is to get funding for their different projects with regards to their own strategy and planning for municipal waste collection and treatment. This occurs mainly with the Catalan Waste Agency as the main interlocutor and funder through subsidies. Concerning the administrative process linked with the ERDF interventions, the following comments were made during the visit: - ERDF administrative processes require an elevated investment in time - the authorities managing ERDF interventions or the direct beneficiaries hardly understand the obligation of external controls and audits, they consider that, being public administrations having their own control procedures and legal obligations, they should be considered with more trust by the EC - the period of time for getting the funding is too long (2 years in this case)



Site visit 2 : Consell Comarcal del Baix Camp General information The Consell Comarcal del Baix Camp is a supra-local authority (comarca) composed of 28 municipalities in the area of Reus. For waste Management, a specific organisation has been created by the Consell Comarcal, the “Consorcio de Gestión de residuos del Baix Camp” Population: hab. Production of municipal waste: 53.596 tons in 2008 Selective collection: 17.013 tons in 2008 In relation with waste management, the Consorcio provides the following services: - construction and exploitation of municipal waste treatment installations - development and support of the selective collection - disposal authorizations and collection of waste taxes The Consorci manages (through a subsidiary structure named SECOMSA): - 1 transfer centre - 1 composting plant - 1 civic amenity centre ERDF intervention regarding waste management Project 1430 Object : Improvement of the treatment of the organic fraction of municipal waste Budget: 460.000 € ERDF : 230.000 € Period: 2004-2005 The intervention consisted in optimising the pre-treatment lines of the composting plant by simplifying the process lines and by creating a double line for the refining step, one for the selectively collected organic waste and the other for food waste (professional origin) and sewage sludge. The total investment was finally 1.046.274,20 €, of which around 25 % (projects 1430 and 1791) were funded by ERDF. Project 460 Object : Improvement of municipal waste collection Budget: 240.404,84 € ERDF : 120.202,84 € Period: 2000-2001 This project helped buying new collection trucks for selective collection for a population of 60.000 inhabitants. The investment amounted 570.961 €, the rest was financed by the Infrastructures Fund.



Project 1791 Object : Improvement of the composting plant Budget: 60.000 € ERDF : 30.000 € Period: 2006 Is directly linked with project 1430 and was aimed at funding a system for separating the water networks of the composting plant (rainwater and process water). Evaluation of ERDF intervention by the beneficiaries It is important to note that the ERDF interventions only represented 25 % of the total investment. The total investments have had an important impact on the waste management performances of the Comarca Baix Camp. The project 460 allowed to implement the selective collection at large scale: from 2004 to 2008 the collected quantities have increased from 7.874 t to 17.013 t, reaching now a 31,53 % of selective collection rate. The two other projects related to the composting plant allowed a capacity increase (from 30.000 to 37.000 tons/year) as well as an improvement in quality of the compost. For the Consorcio Baix Camp, ERDF has been an important source of funds during the period and it is remarkably integrated in a more global strategy for waste management. Comments regarding the administrative aspects of ERDF interventions Concerning the administrative process linked with the ERDF interventions, the following comments were made during the 2 visits:

- ERDF administrative processes require an elevated investment in time - the authorities managing ERDF interventions or the direct beneficiaries hardly

understand the obligation of external controls and audits, they consider that, being public administrations having their own control procedures and legal obligations, they should be considered with more trust by the EC

- the period of time for getting the funding is too long (2 years in this case)



Annex 7 – List of stakeholders met in the Czech Republic for task 5

Name Position Institution Peter Hrazdil Policy Officer Ministry for Regional Development, Department for EU Funds Filip Michalik Policy Officer Ministry for Regional Development, Department for EU Funds Petr Novak Head of Unit Ministry of Environment, Department of EU Funds, Unit of Monitoring Ondřej Ptácek Policy Officer Ministry of Industry and Trade, Structural Funds section Pavel Rosol Policy Officer Ministry of Industry and Trade, Structural Funds section František Becvarík Project manager Czech Invest Miroslav Honzík Project manager SEVEn Energy, The Energy Efficiency Center Erik Mudroch Project manager Hydropol Project & Management



Annex 8 – Evaluation grid for Task 5: Climate change

Background information about the selected MS/ Region

What were the environmental situation and the related strategy in respect of climate change in the selected Member State/ Region at the beginning of the programming period?

Justification et field of the question

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 in energy efficiency. As the starting point, a clear picture of the climate change situation in the MS/ Region1 is needed. In addition, it is important to know the features of the national/regional strategy for mitigation and adaptation activities for combating climate change.

Indicators Sources How to proceed?

MS/ regional position in terms of climate change

Indicators recorded under Task 2

Eurostat (GHG emission, energy intensity consumption, etc.) and statistics from the MS/ Region

Interviews with key stakeholders (notably at the Ministry of Environment)

Based on different sources of information, the evaluation team will describe the situation in terms of the strategy for combating climate change (if any), the state of energy efficiency and GHG emission production as well as the use of renewable energies in the selected MS and/ or in the selected Region. Relevant facts relating to climate change mitigation or adaptation will be highlighted. Existence of a

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

Strategy documents relating to combating climate change at national and/ or regional level


1 At MS level for the Czech Republic and at the regional level for Germany and Portugal.



1. Programme achievements in the field of climate change

What are the achievements of the co-financed operational programmes in mitigation of and adaptation to climate change?

Justification and scope of question

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 to be identified more precisely.

Sub-question 1.1: What are the types of interventions implemented under the co-financed interventions in the field of climate change?


Types of interventions co-funded by ERDF and main features (information related, direct incentives, etc.)

Programming documents, evaluation reports and annual reports

Interviews with Managing Authorities

Based on different sources of information, the evaluation team will describe and classify the different types of co-funded intervention. For major and relevant projects, the profitability and the role of public funds will be discussed.

Sub-question 1.2: What are the actual achievements of the co-financed interventions in the field of climate change?


Budget allocations and revision

Indicators from WP2 database and WP2 final report



The evaluation team will present the costs (budget allocations) and the achievements of co-funded interventions. Indicators provided by the WP2 database will be checked taking into account lessons learnt from the WP2 final report.

Number of projects (target and achieved values) related to climate change by type (renewable sources, improvement in energy efficiency)

Installed green capacity

Energy savings (notably in enterprises)

Other relevant indicators related to climate change



2. The operational programme and the national/regional environmental strategy

How far did co-funded interventions respond to climate change issues and what was their role in the national/regional strategy in terms of climate change?


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

Sub-question 2.1: Did environmental measures tackle the main environmental challenges at national/regional levels?


Key environmental indicators at national/ regional levels (GHG emissions, green electricity, etc.) at the beginning of the programme

Indicators recorded under Task 2

Eurostat (GHG emission, etc.) and statistics from the MS/ Region


The evaluation team will highlight specific features in the MS/ Region taking into consideration the evolution of the key environmental indicators throughout the programming period.

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

Information under Task 2



The evaluation team will assess the correspondence between the challenges at MS/regional level and the co-funded interventions in the field of climate change.



Sub-question 2.2: Did ERDF environmental interventions respond to European/national/regional environmental priorities?


Integration of climate change measures implemented through OP with the EU/ national/ regional priorities in respect of climate change

Strategy to fight climate change at EU/ MS or regional level

Information from DG Environment/ EEA on guidelines for reducing climate change (e.g. European Climate Change Programme



The evaluation team will verify whether the co-funded interventions address the issues at stake as defined in respect of climate change at EU/ MS and regional levels. In this regard it should be noted that climate change was not on the political agenda at the beginning of the programming period. However, some EU initiatives for combating climate change were launched in 1991. An assessment will then be made of whether the interventions designed at the beginning of the programming period were designed in parallel with these initiatives and how far they would have been complementary to and have interacted with them.

Interactions with other policy instruments linked to climate change

Sub-question 2.3: What are the role and the justification of ERDF co-financing in climate change interventions?


Involvement (strategy, financing, etc.) of the private sector in respect of climate change



The evaluation team will identify the role of the private sector whenever ERDF has intervened to support measures to mitigate climate change or facilitate adaptation to it.

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

Taking into account the role of the private sector in the field of climate change, the evaluation team will highlight the relevance of public funds in supporting interventions and identifying where public funds can efficiently provide incentives in support of private investments in the field of climate change.



3. Institutional capacity and public management

Are the management and the monitoring of co-funded interventions related to climate change effective?


An important issue is how the decision process has been conducted in the selection of interventions to fight climate change. This will take into account their costs and their potential impacts in terms of GHG emission reductions. The monitoring and evaluation of their impacts are also important. In addition to lessons learnt from the WP2 data feasibility study, the case studies will assess 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 3.1: How have the co-funded interventions in the field of climate change been selected?


Decision process and project selection in the field of climate change



The evaluation team will detail and analyse how Managing Authorities selected interventions submitted for co-financing in the field of climate change. Best practices in terms of selection of interventions will be highlighted.

Sub-question 3.2: To what extent have co-funded interventions in the field of climate change been monitored?


Management organisation for monitoring of output and results indicators in terms of GHG impact, including the choice of appropriate indicators



Based on selected projects, the evaluation team will first describe and analyse how co-funded interventions have been managed. Second, the methods used by Managing Authorities to assess the possible reduction of GHG emissions (where they exist) will be assessed. The limits and advantages of such models will be discussed and best practices underlined. Finally, alternatives for assessing (ex ante and ex post) GHG reductions attributable to co-funded interventions will be discussed with Managing Authorities. Best practices in monitoring of GHG reductions attributable to co-funded interventions will be underlined.

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

Limits and advantages of data collected relating to climate change

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



4. Effectiveness of interventions in the field of climate change

What are the effects or impacts of co-funded interventions to mitigate climate change?


The case studies will assess to what extent co-funded interventions increase the use of renewable energies and other measures 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 4.1: To what extent have co-funded interventions led to an increase of private investment in the field of energy efficiency and use of renewable energies?


Increase in private investments due to ERDF co-financing (leverage effects, reduced risk aversion for such interventions)

Programming documents, evaluation reports, annual reports


The evaluation team will identify the effects/impacts of co-funded interventions on the private sector in terms of increased investments related to climate change.

Sub-question 4.2: To what extent have environmental expenditures contributed to reducing GHG emission?


Increase in and impact of the use of renewable energies

Results of interventions as mentioned under Evaluation Question 1 (programme achievements)

Evaluation reports and annual reports


Interviews with beneficiaries (where possible)

The evaluation team will analyse as far as possible the effects/ impacts of co-funded interventions in terms of GHG reduction, improvements in efficiency and use of renewable energies. Best practices and results of such interventions in contributing to reduced GHG emissions will be underlined.

Improvement in energy efficiency

Trends in climate change indicators in the Region (renewable energy, energy savings, etc.)

National/ regional documents and statistics



5. Contribution to regional development

To what extent have co-funded interventions in the field of climate change contributed to socio-economic regional 2 development?

Justification and field of question

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

Sub-question 5.1: What are the socio-economic effects/impacts of the co-funded interventions in the field of climate change?


Employment/ turnover in environmental sectors




The evaluation team will assess the contribution of co-funded interventions in terms of employment, turnover, and energy efficiency in enterprises. The potential and limitations of such interventions to this end will be highlighted through the case studies.

Impact of better energy efficiency on firms’ competitiveness

Sub-question 5.2: Have the co-funded interventions generated technological innovation in terms of climate change?


Introduction of new/improved technology, spill-overs




The evaluation team will assess the contribution of co-funded interventions in terms of innovation. The potential and limitations of such interventions to this end will be highlighted through the case studies.

New process, new products/services developed

2 For the Czech Republic, the case study will analyse the contribution of co-funded interventions to national development.



Annex 9 – Bibliography for Task 5

Official documents, reports and publications

Annual Implementation Report for 2006 - Operational Programme Industry and Enterprise, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Prague 2007. Case Study: Description of the Financing Mechanisms of Structural and Cohesion Funds in Czech Republic – WP3, Scene. Energy savings programme (approved by Government Decree N°414/2004). Energy sawings support and RES within Operational Programme Industry and Enterprise – Measur 2.3 in the years 2004 – 2006, Czech Energy Agency, Prague, 2007. Final Report on Project 001/05 Evaluation of the mid-term implementation progress of Operational Programme Industry and Enterprise, ELBONA a.s. and the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic, Prague, 2006. National Program to Abate the Climate Change Impacts in the Czech Republic (2004). National Program for the Support of Renewable Energy and Energy Savings (2002-2005, 2006-2009. News at SEVEn, volume 15, number 2, 2008. Notice of the Ministry of Industry and Trade No. 425/2004 Coll., amending notice No. 213/2001 Coll., on details of energy audits. Operational Programme Industry and Enterprise (2004-2006), Ministry of Industry and Trade, Prague 2003. Possibilities of Renewable energy sources (RES) in the Czech Republic, CENIA, Prague, 2007. Programme Complementof the Operational Programme Industry and Enterprise, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Prague 2004. Renewable energy sources programme (approved by Government Decree N°414/2004). Report on the Environment of the Czech Republic 2007, CENIA and the Ministry of Environment, Prague, 2008. Report on completion of indicative goal of energy production from RES for year 2005/2006/2007 (MIT, ERU, 2005/2006/2007).



State Environmental Policy of the Czech Republic 2004-2010, approved by the Czech Government on 17 March 2004 (Resolution No 235/2004). State Energy Policy, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Prague, 2004 (approved by Government Decision No. 211 of March 10, 2004) State of the Environment Reports, Ministry of Environment, Prague, 2006 and 2007. Strategy of the Czech Republic for the Protection of the Climate Change, the Minsitry of Environment, 1999. State Program for the Support of Renewable Energy and Energy Savings (annual), MPO, Prague. Report on completion of indicative goal of energy production from RES (MIT, ERU, 2006, 2007. Evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 cofinanced by the European Fund for Regional Development (Objectives 1 and 2), Work package 2: Data feasibility study, ADE for the European Commission (DG regional Policy), 2008. Elzen M.G.J., Lucas P.L., Gijsen A. (2007), « Exploring European Countries’ Emission Reduction Targets, Abatement Costs and Measures Needed Under the 2007 EU Reduction Objectives », Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP). Fischer C. and Morgenstern R. (2003), « Carbon abatement costs: why the wide range of estimates? », Resources for the Future discussion paper 03-02. Kuik O., Brander L., R.S.J. Tol (2009), « Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions: A meta-analysis », Energy Policy 37(4). Park H., Lim J. (2009), « Valuation of marginal CO2 abatement options for electric power plants in Korea », Energy Policy, in press.



Web links

Czech Hydrometeorological Institute (http://www.chmi.cz) CzechInvest (http://www.czechinvest.org) European Environment Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu) Eurostat (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu) Ministry of Agriculture (http://www.mze.cz) Ministry of Environment (http://www.mzp.cz) Ministry of Industry and Trade (http://www.mpo.cz) Ministry of Transport (http://www.mdcr.cz) State Environmental Fund (http://www.sfzp.cz)