environmental and social audit - european parliament · environmental and social audit report...

Environmental and Social Audit

Report (Final Draft)

on behalf of theEuropean Parliament,

Committee on Budgetary Control

Coordination:Helmut Werner

Budgetary Support UnitDirectorate Budgetary Affairs

Directorate General Internal Policies

Ellen Frings (Project Leader)Constanze Helmchen

Arved LüthStefan Schäfers

Bensheim (Germany), 14 April 2004


2

Content

SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 5

1. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... 10

1.1 European Funds and the Integration of Environmental and Social Concerns ................................... 10

1.2 The Study’s Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 11

1.3 The Study’s Approach ............................................................................................................................. 11

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE EU ......... 13

2.1 Environmental Policy............................................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Social Policy .............................................................................................................................................. 16

2.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 18

3. AUDITS AND OTHER PROCEDURES TO ASSESS ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIALASPECTS – DERIVING BEST PRACTICE................................................................................. 20

3.2 Procedures in the Framework of Policies............................................................................................... 21

3.3 Procedures in the Framework of Development Assistance................................................................... 33

3.4 Procedures in the Framework of Export Credit Agencies (ECA)........................................................ 37

3.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 41

4. STRUCTURAL FUNDS............................................................................................................... 43

4.1 The Programme Cycle ............................................................................................................................. 43

4.2 Indicators for Measuring Environmental and Social Aspects.............................................................. 47

4.3 Integrating Environmental and Social Aspects in Structural Funds................................................... 49

4.4 The Baseline for Recommendations........................................................................................................ 54

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 55

5.1 Selecting the Right Indicators – Regarding their Functions in Programme and Project Cycles ..... 55

5.2 Auditing Complex Systems – Defining appropriate Auditing Procedures .......................................... 60

5.3 Mainstreaming Structural Funds - Integrating Environmental and Social Concerns in Programmes and Projects .............................................................................................................................................. 64

6. ANNEX ........................................................................................................................................ 67


3

6.1 Environmental and social objectives ...................................................................................................... 67

6.2 Indicators and Approaches for Measuring Effects of Structural Funds............................................. 69

6.3 Specific Indicators for ESF Measures .................................................................................................... 77

6.4 Process Indicators - Audit Questionnaire on Procedures in Member States ..................................... 78

6.5 Audit Questionnaire on Environmental and Social Project Management .......................................... 80

7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 81

7.1 Literature.................................................................................................................................................. 81

7.2 Communications, Regulations and Standards ....................................................................................... 86

7.3 Internet Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 88

7.4 Interviews.................................................................................................................................................. 89

7.5 Workshop.................................................................................................................................................. 89


4

Table of Figures

Figure 1: The policies mix 17Figure 2: Relations between assessment in European legislation 21Figure 3: The stages within an environmental management system 25Figure 4: The AA 1000 framework 28Figure 5: Principles of good reporting 29Figure 6: The programme and project cycle in the framework of Structural Funds 45Figure 7: Information levels in the framework of Structural Funds 50Figure 8: Types of indicators and their purposes within programme and project cycle 57

List of Abbreviations:

DG Directorate GeneralEA Environmental AssessmentECA Export Credit AgencyECGD British Export Credits Guarantee DepartmentEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIB European Investment BankEMAS Eco-Management and Audit SchemeEMS Environmental Management SystemESF European Social FundsIA Impact AssessmentIAIA International Association for Impact AssessmentNEPP National Environmental Policy Plan (Netherlands)NGO Non-Governmental OrganizationOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOED Operations Evaluation Department of the World BankOP Operational ProgrammRIVM National Institute for Public Health and Environmental Protection (Netherlands)SAI Supreme Audit InstitutionSEA Strategic Environmental AssessmentSME Small and Medium Enterprises


5

SummaryBackgroundThe European Union's Funds are important instruments for promoting not only the economic but alsothe social and environmental aims of the European Union. Despite a long-lasting debate on indicatorsand evaluation methodology it remains a challenging task, to measure how expenditures actually con-tribute to achieving these aims. Against this background, on behalf of the European Parliament'sCommittee of Budgetary Control, and after a restricted call for tender, EP services requested IFOK tocarry out a study on "Environmental and Social Audit�.

ObjectivesThe study�s principal objective is to identify methods of measuring and auditing the contribution EUfunds have towards the European Union�s environmental and social objectives. Furthermore, thestudy formulates suggestions on how to integrate environmental and social auditing into the existingmanagement systems of the European institutions, and specifies procedures how to strengthen envi-ronmental and social concerns into programming and implementation of financial interventions withinthe Member States. For concrete recommendations the work focuses on the Structural Funds.

ApproachAs a baseline for recommendations, social and environmental objectives already defined at Europeanpolicy level are investigated and best practice in social and environmental evaluation and auditing ofpolicies and funds is analysed. Building on the above, the current practice in the framework of Struc-tural Funds is examined. In bringing these together, the study finally formulates recommendationsappropriate to be implemented into existing management systems within the European Institutions.

ResultsSocial and environmental objectivesIn recent years, the strategic debate on objectives in the European Union has intensified considerably,resulting in a generally increased awareness of environmental and social subjects within the Europeanadministration. However, there is a substantial difference between strategies at the Union�s level andthe implementation of funded actions in Member States. Therefore, the social and environmental tar-gets defined in the EC-Treaty, the Sustainability Strategy, the Environmental Action Programme, theSocial Inclusion Report and the Guidelines for the Employment Policies, were compiled in the presentpaper to provide a baseline for evaluating and auditing procedures.

A Variety of Methods to Assess Environmental and Social Impacts of Policies and FundsIn the framework of policies and funding, various tools and procedures are used to assess impacts ofpolicies, plans or programmes. Complementarily, the procedures in development assistance and inexport credit agencies are analysed.

� ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT is an important tool in the area of poli-cies, amongst others applied to check legislative intentions. In recent years, the European


6

Union has been developing a conceptual legislative framework to stipulate assessment ofpolicy strategies and programmes. As an example, the study introduces the Dutch �E-Test�.

� ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (EMS), including audits, mark a set of new instru-ments to foster the consideration of environmental aspects not only in business but also inadministrations and public bodies. Although the European EMAS Regulation as the legal basefor EMS requires tackling indirect impacts caused by planning and administrative decisionsof organisations, there is still a lack of appropriate methods. Thus, EMS in public bodiesmainly focus on the direct effects caused by the organisation�s infrastructure.

� Another tool including audit procedures are environmental and social REPORTS. VoluntaryStandards, such as AccountAbility 1000, SA 8000 or that of the Global Reporting Initiative(GRI), provide guidance, all emphasizing the requirement of involving stakeholders. Althoughspecified for businesses in the first instance, they provide useful principles for accounting,auditing and reporting within the public sector and policy. As one best practice example, theStrategic Social Plan of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador is introducedin the present paper.

� Traditional financial accounting provides one more approach to audit procedures in the areaof environmental and social objectives: more and more institutions in the area of financial ac-counting have widened their view to include the effects of funding on society and the envi-ronment. As one audit example the study presents procedures for Animal Protection in Po-land.

� Not only financial institutions carry out environmental and social audits. Due to their politicaltraditions, some countries have also established auditing institutions to monitor the success oftheir policy strategies. An example is the Canadian Commissioner on the Environment andSustainable Development

� Most PUBLIC BODIES FOR DEVELOPING ASSISTANCE have established procedures to assess theanticipated environmental and social impacts and to evaluate the results of their efforts. E.g.,the World Bank has developed an increasingly rigorous system of assessment and evaluationover the past thirty years. However, there seems to be a gap between the high policy priorityassigned to the environment and actual practice. Limiting factors are, amongst others, a lackof capacity within country and task teams of the World Bank as well as institutional capacityconstraints within recipient governments and institutions.

� EXPORT CREDIT AGENCIES (ECA) cover an important sector adopting environmental and so-cial guidelines and standards in funding. Most of the OECD Members agreed in November2001 to implement the OECD GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

CONCERNS IN THE NATIONAL EXPORT CREDIT INSURANCE. In the recent past, major ECAshave firmly integrated environmental impact assessment for projects into their lending prac-tices. Nevertheless, many projects are subject to criticism by NGOs. As a consequence, in


7

December 2003 the OECD announced an agreement to strengthen their common approachesfor evaluating the environmental impact of infrastructure projects supported by their govern-ments� ECAs.

Coordination, Participation and Capacity Building – Key Criteria for Best PracticeBased on the methods and examples analysed above, the following principles should be regarded foridentifying best practice:

� Adoption of GENERAL PRINCIPLES, such as the Safeguard Policies of the World Bank, andspecifying them with a view to defining OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS early in the process,

� CLOSE COORDINATION of the DIFFERENT STRATEGIC LEVELS, ensuring, that screening and as-sessments of projects are intertwined with policy and programme objectives,

� Allowing wide but structured and moderated PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS THROUGH-OUT all relevant stages of the programme and project level,

� ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY OF THE DECISION-MAKING POCESSES not only by participation,but also by providing information in an appropriate and appealing manner,

� GUARANTEEING INDEPENDENCE AND A HIGH QUALITY of Audits and Evaluation,� Making available SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES � including expertise, finances, time and techni-

cal support, such as operational working papers,� Ensuring the availability of instruments to take CONSEQUENCES IN CASE OF NON

COMPLIANCE.

Structural Funds – An Ambitious Legislative Framework and the Challenge of Its ImplementationTHE LEGAL BASIS for Structural Funds was revised in 1999. Supplementary to the main objectives ofthe Funds, the protection and improvement of the environment, the elimination of inequalities and thepromotion of the equalities between men and women were defined as horizontal themes. In addition,�partnership� was formulated as a basic principle. In determining the most representative partners,Member States are required to create a wide and effective association of all relevant bodies.

The programme cycle includes monitoring and reporting measures, amongst others by the means ofenvironmental and social indicators. A mid-term evaluation after three years and an ex-post evaluationthree years after programme completion have to be carried out by the Member States and the Euro-pean Commission. An external controlling institution is the European Court of Auditors, also takinginto account environmental and social aspects.

Although the legislative framework makes Structural Funds an appropriate instrument to foster envi-ronmental and social objectives in the European Union, their implementation is still challenged. Timeand again NGO�s or auditors identify projects that disregard or even counter environmental and socialobjectives. Even though environmental and social objectives enjoy a high priority on the policy level,implementation on the local level within Member States is obviously not always appropriate.


8

How to Strengthen Environmental and Social Objectives in the Framework of Structural Funds?INDICATORS are considered important instruments to ensure that environmental and social aspects aretaken into consideration in the Structural Funds´ programme cycles. In the recent past, numerous setsof indicators have been developed. Nevertheless, up to now, there has been no single agreed set ofindicators available. The study discusses the feasibility and limits of a consistent set of indicators andcomes to the conclusion that indicators should be regarded as an essential part of the processes. Pro-cedures to develop indicators should consider the diverse functions which indicators must fulfil at thedifferent stages of the programme and project cycle. Thus, the concept proposed in the study, distin-guishes between indicators to

� describe gaps in the regional situation within the programming phase, oriented at, amongstothers, the European Union�s strategic objectives (context indicators),

� support learning processes at measure and project level (specific indicators) and� to describe the appropriateness of procedures established in the Member States in order to

integrate environmental and social demands into the Structural Funds (process indicators).

Recommendations according to IndicatorsAnchoring the Union’s Environmental and Social Objectives at the Regional and Local Level� A DIALOGUE PROCESS should be established to agree on a set of objectives, derived from the

EU strategies on environmental and social objectives, and appropriate context indicators,which should then be taken into consideration in the developing plans of Member States.

Criteria and Indicators to MeasureEnvironmental and Social Mainstreaming of Structural Funds Programmes

� A SET OF CRITERIA should be developed in a participatory process to describe how the Mem-ber States ensure that environmental and social concerns have a high priority in their Struc-tural Funds programmes and projects. These criteria may include aspects such as participa-tion, capacity building, and procedures for prioritising and assessing projects.

Moreover, external performance AUDITS by financial and controlling institutions are important con-trolling tools. In the framework of Structural Funds, they complement the monitoring and evaluationprocedures established in Member States and the European Commission. With the present study, afirst suggestion for procedures has been worked out and should be further specified in a pilot project.Amongst others, the procedures described include questionnaires for an audit of the managementsystem on the programme and project level.


9

Recommendations concerning Audits� COORDINATION BETWEEN EVALUATION AND AUDIT: Approaches for assessing, monitoring,

evaluating and auditing programmes and projects should be aligned among the evaluatingauthorities and the financial institutions (e.g. by standardised checklists for appraisal, derivedfrom strategic objectives) in order to enhance synergies.

� ENHANCING MOTIVATION FOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS IN NATIONAL CONTROLLING

INSTITUTIONS: Member States should be called upon requiring their payment authority andtheir controlling institutions to include environmental and social aspects in their lending ac-tivities and auditing schemes

MAINSTREAMING ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONCERNS INTO STRUCTURAL FUNDS: Since hori-zontal themes have been explicitly embedded in the Structural Funds legislative framework, manyinnovative methods to put these requirements into practice have been developed. The approachesinclude participation, capacity building, and procedures for prioritising projects, assessments andevaluations. In the current period substantial experience has been gathered on how to integrate hori-zontal themes into Structural Funds. In the context of the forthcoming revision of Structural Funds,these experiences should be evaluated and serve as an input for the next programme period.

Recommendation Concerning the Processes Used in order to Mainstream Environmental andSocial Concerns into Structural Funds

Setting up a Participatory Process� A DIALOGUE PROCESS should be initiated, involving all Member States and representatives of

the Union. This panel of delegates should first and foremost aim at identifying best practicesand work out guidance papers for mainstreaming environmental and social concerns inStructural Funds. How to organise the processes in detail, should be up to each managingauthority at Member State or regional level.

� Results on environmental and social aspects from the findings of the audits, monitoring, andevaluation should be used as the basic information for the ALLOCATION OF THE PER-FORMANCE RESERVE. The General Provisions on Structural Funds from 1999 do not explicitlyrequire environmental and social indicators as a part of the performance indicators.

OutlookSummarized, the legislative and institutional framework of Structural Funds is appropriate for pro-moting the social and environmental objectives of the European Union. Moreover, at Member Statelevel there are promising approaches in use to strengthen environmental and social concerns in theStructural Funds programming and implementation. These procedures are worth further developing �in particular as the protection of environment and natural resources as well as securing a sustainablesociety are crucial pre-conditions to ensure the Union�s economic potential in a long-term perspective.


10

1. Background1.1 European Funds and the Integration of Environmental and Social Concerns

The European Union's Funds are important instruments for promoting not only economic but alsosocial and environmental objectives of the European Union. Moreover, all EU funding is channelledtowards precise objectives and priorities under the various common policies, which, in turn, are basedon provisions of the Treaties.

Most EU funding is not paid directly by the European Commission but via the national and regionalauthorities of the Member States. This is the case for payments under the Common Agricultural Pol-icy and most payments under the structural policy financial instruments (European Regional Devel-opment Fund, European Social Fund, European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and Fi-nancial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance), which make up, in money terms, the great bulk of EUfunding. Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds are both aiming at a more balanced socioeconomicdevelopment in the Union, essentially by transferring funds from the wealthier to the poorer regionsof the Union through specific programmes. For the 2000-2006 period 195 billion Euros will be spentby the four Structural Funds (see above), and a further 18 billion Euro is allocated to the CohesionFund.1

In the Communication on Environment Policy Review of 2003, the Commission emphasises the im-portance of Structural Funds for implementing environmental and social objectives. �Cohesion policy,which represents one third of the EU budget, makes a significant contribution to implementing envi-ronmental legislation. (...) The use of structural funds requires compliance with Community policiesand instruments including those for environment and sustainable development. In this way, structuralfunds constitute an important lever for the implementation of environmental legislation. (...) Takingfurther steps towards establishing sustainable development as an overarching objective of cohesionwould usefully extend possibilities for structural funds� contributions to environmental policy �alongside economic and social priorities.� 2

Indeed, the legislative framework of funding has been integrating environmental and social aspects inrecent years. Reforms of the Structural Funds from 1993 and 1999 already aimed on stronger consid-eration of horizontal concerns such as environmental and social demands3 in the planning and imple-mentation of Structural Funds interventions.4

Although the legislative framework makes Structural Funds an appropriate instrument to foster envi-ronmental and social objectives in the European Union, their implementation is still challenged. One

1 europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/intro/regions4_en.htm2 European Commission (2003 a): COM (2003) 745 final3 so called �horizontal themes�4 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Article 1.


11

reason lies in the lack of established evaluation and controlling procedures along these dimensions.5

Thus, despite a long-standing debate on indicators and evaluation methodology it remains a challeng-ing task, to find out whether expenditures actually contribute not only to their specific objectives, butalso to the Union�s overarching environmental and social objectives set up on strategic policy level6.

1.2 The Study’s Purpose

Against this background, the European Parliament's Committee of Budgetary Control requested astudy on "Environmental and Social Audit�. The purpose of the study is to identify methods of meas-uring and auditing the contribution of EU funds to economic development while at the same timeconsidering its effects on the quality of life of the workforce and their families, of the local commu-nity and of society at large in a long-term perspective. Therefore, both social and environmental fac-tors have to be considered.

In a questionnaire delivered for further clarifying the study�s scope the subject was specified moreprecisely as follows: �The study should focus on Structural Funds-expenditure (= Structural Fundsand Community Initiatives) in general�. As a focus for case studies to specify a matrix of criteria, thestudy�s initiators suggested ESF measures and projects.

At the same time, the study�s scope was extended: The focus should be laid on �ex-post evaluation aswell as on the early stage of decision making. The intermediary e.g. executive steps should not beexcluded.�7 Oriented at these, the study should deliver concrete recommendations. Amongst others,�indicators and methods useful for measuring social and environmental progress, especially for evalu-ating the added value and other effects of Community funding should be identified�. Furthermore, thework should �identify goals for procedural and specific organisational improvement so that environ-mental and social auditing could be integrated into existing management systems within the EuropeanInstitutions.�

1.3 The Study’s Approach

Basic InvestigationsAs a baseline for the recommendations the study specification required the investigation of the socialand environmental objectives already defined at European policy level; the objectives are structuredand compiled to provide a basis for deriving areas of auditing procedures and indicators (chapter 2).

Another fundamental element required was the analysis of best practice in the evaluation and auditingof funds (chapter 3). Amongst others, special focus is laid on the following questions:

5 IRPUD and nova (2003).6 E.g. objectives defined in the Lisbon Process, the EU Sustainability Strategy or the Cardiff Process7 Reply of the European Parliament�s Budgetary Support Unit on IFOK questionnaire from 23 January

2004


12

� Which instrument is suitable in which phases of the programme and the project cycle?� Are quantitative indicators developed and adopted?� Who is responsible for conducting assessments and evaluations?� Is participation an integrative part of the programme and project cycle and to what extent is it

realised?

Analysis of Current Practice in the Framework of Structural FundsBuilding on the above, the current practice of including social and environmental criteria in the Pro-gramme Cycle of Structural Funds was analysed (see chapter 4). Here, the following aspects weretaken into consideration:

� the legal requirements on the programme cycle, including the monitoring and evaluation pro-cedure for EU Structural Funds

� the debate on indicators.� the current practice of the integration of so-called �horizontal themes�.

The study is primarily based on analysis of the documents listed in chapter 7. However, to ensurepracticability of the recommendations, 15 interviews were carried out both in person and by telephone(see references in chapter 7.4). Moreover, first results were presented and discussed during an expertworkshop on 16 March 2004 at the European Parliament in Brussels, involving representatives fromnon-governmental organisations (NGOs), the European Commission, the European Court of Auditors,the European Investment Bank (EIB) and Member States� administration (see references, chapter 7.5).

Recommendations on ImplementationAn important intention of the study is to formulate recommendations appropriate to be implementedinto existing management systems within the European Institutions (chapter 5). The study does notonly focus on Indicators and Audits, but according to the extended scope of the study also organisa-tional measures to enhance the consideration of environmental and social objectives in programming,implementation and evaluation of Structural Funds are elaborated.


13

2. Environmental and Social Strategies and Objectives within the EUIn recent years, the strategic discussion on objectives and indicators in the European Union has inten-sified considerably, resulting in a generally increased awareness of the environmental and social sub-jects within the European administration. However, there is a substantial difference between debateson the level of the European Union and the implementation of funded actions in the Member States.Thus, structuring and compiling the ongoing discussion is an important step not only to facilitate thecommunication of the objectives but also to build a baseline for identifying areas of audit procedures.The following table gives an overview of the different key documents/ key summits dealing with EUtargets in the area of social and environmental policy.

Key Documents/Key summits Used version SocialObjectives

EnvironmentalObjectives

EC-Treaty 2002 X XLisbon Strategy 2000 XThe Sustainability Strategy 2001 X XEnvironmental Action Programme 2002 XCardiff Process Starting 1998 XBroad Guidelines of the Economic Policies 2003-2005 2003 X XGuidelines for the Employment Policies of the Member States 2002 XSocial Inclusion Report 2003 X

2.1 Environmental Policy

EC-TreatyEnvironmental policy is a policy area where the European Union holds legislative competence. Sev-eral articles of the EC-Treaty determine the objectives, principles and competences concerning envi-ronmental policy within the European Union. Article 2 declares that one main target of the EU is totake care of a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. Protectionof the environment is also a target of the Structural Funds. Article 174 (former 130r) sets the follow-ing objectives of EU environmental policy:� preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment;� protecting human health;� prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources;� promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental

problems.

Concerning the integration of environmental targets into the different policy areas Article 6 of the EC-Treaty defines: �Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and


14

implementation of the Community policies and activities referred to in Article 3, in particular with aview to promoting sustainable development.�8

Cardiff ProcessIn order to put into effect Article 6 of the EC Treaty, the European Council in Luxembourg (Decem-ber 1997), asked the Commission to prepare a strategy on environmental integration into the variouspolicy areas of the European Union. The Cardiff European Council (June 1998) agreed on the Com-munication of the European Commission �Partnership for Integration�9: The objective of the Commu-nication was the integration of environmental demands into the European Union policies. The Councilinvited all relevant formations of the Council to establish their own strategies for giving effect to en-vironmental integration within their respective policy areas. These were requested to set environ-mental objectives and to identify indicators. The policy areas Transport, Energy and Agriculture wereinvited to start this process. The European Councils of Vienna and Cologne (December 1998 and June1999) requested further policy areas to start the process such as the Development, Industry and Inter-nal Market, Economic and Financial Affairs, General Affairs and Fisheries.

The Sustainability StrategyAt its meeting in Helsinki in December 1999 the European Council invited the European Commission�to prepare a proposal for a long-term strategy dovetailing policies for economically, socially andecologically sustainable development.�10 The European Commission prepared this strategy which wasdiscussed at the European Council at Gothenburg in June 2001 in order to achieve sustainablegrowth.11 The Gothenburg Council softened the more concretely stated targets which were developedin the Commission�s Communication to the following environmental objectives:� �Combating climate change,� Ensuring sustainable transport,� Addressing threats to public health,� Managing natural resources more responsibly.�12

By integrating social, environmental and economic issues into one overall strategy, the Lisbon Strat-egy, which was developed one year earlier, was extended. The Lisbon Strategy had originally beendeveloped in 2000 at the European Council of Lisbon and set a new strategic goal for the Union: �tobecome the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sus-tainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion�13 While Lisbon in-tegrated economic and social matters into one strategy, the Sustainability Strategy added the environ-

8 European Communities (2002b); Consolidated Version of the Treaty in the Union.9 EC (1998): Communication from the Commission to the European Council: Partnership for Integration.

IP/98/471.10 European Council (1999): Presidency Conclusions Helsinki European Council 10 and 11 December 1999.11 European Commission (2001): COM (2001) 264 final12 European Council (2001): Presidency Conclusions Gothenburg European Council 15 and 16 June 200113 European Council (2000a): Presidency Conclusions Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000


15

mental dimension to the Lisbon Strategy. Thus, the Sustainability Strategy builds on and completesthe political commitment under the Lisbon strategy.

While the Cardiff-Process focuses on the implementation of environmental targets into the EU policyareas, the Sustainability Strategy/ the Lisbon Strategy mark important steps in the European environ-mental policy putting new environmental targets on the agenda.

Environmental Action ProgrammeSince 1972 the basis of all environmental activities of the European Union have been its Environ-mental Action Programmes. The 6th Environmental Action Programme (EAP) for 2002-2012 wasdefined as the environmental component of the Community�s strategy for sustainable development.Moreover, this programme emphasises the Cardiff-Process in terms of furthering the integration ofenvironment into other policy areas.

In detail the Programme aims at:� �a maximum global temperature increase of 2° Celsius over pre-industrial levels and a CO2

concentration below 550 ppm �. In the longer term this is likely to require a global reduction inemissions of greenhouse gases by 70% as compared to 1990 as identified by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);

� protecting, conserving, restoring and developing the functioning of natural systems, naturalhabitats, wild flora and fauna with the aim of halting desertification and the loss of biodiversity,including diversity of genetic resources, both in the European Union and on a global scale;

� contributing to a high level of quality of life and social well being for citizens by providing anenvironment where the level of pollution does not give rise to harmful effects on human healthand the environment and by encouraging a sustainable urban development;

� better resource efficiency and resource and waste management �, thereby decoupling the use ofresources and the generation of waste from the rate of economic growth and aiming to ensure thatthe consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources does not exceed the carrying capacityof the environment.�14

In order to address these four areas of improvement, seven thematic strategies are being developedalong a common approach independently of the specific content requirements relating to their subjectmatter. These are: Soil protection; protection and conservation of the marine environment; sustainableuse of pesticides; air pollution; urban environment; sustainable use and management of resources; andwaste recycling.

14 European Communities (2002a): Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.


16

Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies 2003-2005The 1993 Maastricht Treaty first introduced a system for co-ordinating the economic policies ofMember States (Article 99 of the EC-Treaty15). These Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs)concentrate on the contribution that economic policies can make within a three years timeframe. Onepart of the Guidelines focuses on the impact of economic policies on environmental issues. The aimof the BEPGs is to establish the notion that economic growth must not be promoted at the expense ofthe environment. Therefore, the economic policies of the EU should:

� �Reduce sectoral subsidies, tax exemptions and other incentives that have a negative environ-mental impact and are harmful for sustainable development. Ensure, inter alia through the use oftaxes and charges, that pricing of the extraction, the use and, if applicable, the discharge of naturalresources, such as water, adequately reflects their scarcity and all resulting environmental damage.

� � ensure appropriate differentiation of energy taxation to deliver a more sustainable mix andlevel of energy consumption, and further enhance competition and network interconnection in en-ergy markets.

� Adjust the system of transport taxes, charges and subsidies to better reflect environmental damageand social costs due to transport, thereby reducing distortions in the demand for transport servicesand the choice of transport modes, and increase competition, e.g. through accelerated regulatedmarket opening, in transport modes such as freight railways to make them more competitive.

� Renew efforts to meet their commitments under the Kyoto protocol�. To this end, implement theEC greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme: draw up national allocation plans; establish na-tional allowance registries; set up systems to adequately monitor, report and verify emissions atinstallation level. ....�16

2.2 Social Policy

EC-TreatyPrime targets of the EU social policy � as confirmed inthe EC treaty � are a high level of employment and ofsocial protection, equality between men and women,raising of the standard of living and quality of life, andeconomic and social cohesion (article 2)17.

15 European Communities (2002b): Consolidated Version of the Treaty in the Union.16 European Commission (2003b): Commission Recommendation on the Broad Guidelines of the Eco-

nomic. COM (2003) 170 final17 European Communities (2002b); Consolidated Version of the Treaty in the Union.

Social Policy

Social Quality/Social Cohesion

Economic Policy

Full Employment/Quality of Work

Employment Policy

Competitiveness/Dynamism

Figure 1: The policies mix


17

In this context, the European Union differentiates between the concepts of social policy and employ-ment policy and their different targets, respectively. In practice, however, both themes are mixed andnot clearly delineated from one another. Figure 1 demonstrates the (more or less) theoretical differen-tiation between social and employment policy also showing the relationship of these policies witheconomic policy. 18

Lisbon Summit 2000The Lisbon Summit 2000 (see above) declared as one of the main targets of the EU �to become themost competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable eco-nomic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion�. Concerning social policies thismeans �to restore full employment as a key objective of economic and social policy, and reduce un-employment to the levels already achieved by the best performing countries and to modernise oursocial protection system.� 19

Guidelines for the Employment Policies of the Member StatesIn order to achieve the Lisbon goals and the targets set in the Social Policy Agenda the EU decided in2002 on these guidelines with three main objectives concerning employment policy:

� full employment,� improving the quality and productivity at work, and� strengthening social cohesion and inclusion. 20

Social InclusionIn addition, the European Council agreed in 2000 (Council of Nice) on the following common objec-tives in the fight against poverty and social exclusion:� to facilitate participation in employment and access by all to the resources, rights, goods and

services,� to prevent the risk of exclusion,� to help the most vulnerable, and� to mobilize all relevant bodies.21

Furthermore, the Council decided to publish a Social Inclusion Report as a follow-up. This reportformulates objectives and measures of action and identifies eight core challenges in fighting socialexclusion:� developing an inclusive labour market and promoting employment as a right and opportunity for

all;� guaranteeing adequate income and resources for a decent standard of living;

18 European Commission (2003c): Communication on the Social Policy Agenda. COM(2000) 379 final.19 European Council (2000a): Presidency Conclusions Nice European Council 7, 8 and 9 December 200020 European Council (2003): Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (2003/578/EC)21 European Council (2000b): Presidency Conclusions Nice European Council 7, 8 and 9 December 2000


18

� tackling educational disadvantage;� preserving family solidarity and protecting the rights of children;� ensuring reasonable accommodation for all;� guaranteeing equal access to and investing in high-quality public services (health, transport, so-

cial, care, cultural, recreational and legal);� improving the delivery of services;� re-generating areas of multiple deprivation.

Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies 2003-2005One part of the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies (BGEPs; see above) focuses on the impactof economic policies on social issues. The BGEPs were published at the same time as the Employ-ment Guidelines in order to emphasise the need for co-ordination between the two. Concerning thesocial part of sustainability, economic policy should:

� (whilst ensuring an adequate level of social protection) take steps to modernise social protectionsystems and to fight poverty and exclusion with a view to supporting the broad Lisbon objectives,notably on employment, in order to achieve an inclusive labour market and a more cohesive soci-ety for all;

� improve the functioning of markets so that they are conducive to private investment in regionslagging behind, particularly by taking steps to allow wages to reflect productivity taking into ac-count differences in skills and local labour market conditions;

� ensure that public support, including that from EU sources, in regions lagging behind is stronglyfocused on investment in human and knowledge capital, as well as adequate infrastructure, andthat investment programmes are designed and administered efficiently so as to maximise their im-pact.

2.3 Conclusions

The environmental and social targets of the European Union defined by the European Council and theEuropean Commission tackle all major policy issues in the area of environmental and social policy atEuropean level. The number of targets is impressive and their forms vary widely from process targetsto output targets, from qualitative to quantitative targets. The analysis of further documents based onthe key documents investigated here would bring to light more detailed targets. However, the morecomplicated and detailed the targets are, the more complex is their application. Thus it is recom-mended, to focus on the priorities defined at strategic level.

To anchor the objectives at the Union�s level within European funding, it would be helpful to compilethe relevant areas of objectives and to define some core indicators as a baseline for programming.


19

Aware that this is not a task possible in the framework of a study, but only in a participatory processat policy level, Annex 6.1 summarizes some objectives; derived from the papers outlined in the pres-ent chapter these targets would be suitable to build a baseline for programming and to determine indi-cators according to their statistical availability. However, already this list of objectives shows thecomplexity of the target system and the ensuing problems the EU is facing.


20

3. Audits and Other Procedures to Assess Environmental and SocialAspects – Identifying Best Practice

The call for tender for this study required the investigation of best practice in environmental and so-cial auditing within the public sector, organisations and bodies. Due to the extended scope of thestudy, this analysis does not only focus on audits, but also covers procedures to assess environmentaland social aspects during programming and implementation.

Chapter 3.1 provides an overview of the terminology relevant in the context of environmental andsocial audit introduced in the presented paper. Chapters 3.2 � 3.4 then describe standards, regulationsand procedures that are used in well-established institutions with a long-term experience in social andenvironmental assessment, evaluation or audit; these were analysed in order to gain an understandingof current practice in this field. As a result of these findings, section 3.5 offers criteria for determiningbest practice for scrutiny procedures in the area of environmental and social aspects.

3.1 Terminology in the Framework of “Environmental and Social Audit”In the context of procedures for scrutinising policies and expenditures there are diverse terms used,such as �audit�, �evaluation�, �assessment� and �monitoring�. To support a consistent understanding ofthe issues, the following provides an outline of the terminology used in this study:

� SCREEENING: a first approximation to determine whether or not a proposal should be subjectto an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (see below) and, if so, at what level ofdetail.22 During the screening, the projects are mostly categorised according to their potentialnegative or even positive impacts. Screenings can be done by experts as well as by projectapplicators and most screening processes are based on questionnaires and checklists.

� ENVIRONMENTAL and SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the process of identifying, predicting,evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of developmentproposals prior to the decision-making processes.23 Assessments can be done on a qualitativeas well as a quantified basis.

� MONITORING: the ongoing review of a project or programme along physical and financial in-dicators. This will usually include annual reports, at least in the case of multiannual assis-tance.

� INDICATORS: quantified attributes or measures focussing on single, manageable, and tellingcomponents of an entire system. Indicators are used to support planning decisions, monitoringand evaluation.

22 IAIA (2003)23 IAIA (2002)


21

� The term EVALUATION is originated from the social sciences. EVALUATION covers systematicand target-oriented procedures to judge the quality, effectiveness and impacts of a plan, pro-gramme or project compared to the objectives set in the planning phase. Evaluation can be de-signed as self-evaluation as well as a third party-evaluation and is increasingly used as a toolto encourage reflection and debates throughout and after completion of the project. Thus, theparticipation of interested parties is an integrative component of the evaluation process.

� The term AUDIT is commonly used in business and financial management. AUDITS are inde-pendent reviews and examinations of records and activities in order to test the adequacy andeffectiveness of procedures, to ensure compliance with established policy and implementa-tion, and to recommend any necessary changes. In the framework of Structural Funds the termis primarily used in the context of accounting (see section 4.1); however, for many years theCourt of Auditors has carried out performance audits, considering environmental and socialaspects as well. Thus, these are complementary methods to evaluation. In other cases, whereEVALUATION is done by independent external experts, there may be substantial overlaps be-tween the instruments AUDIT and EVALUATION. New approaches of auditing even strengthenthe involvement of stakeholders as a central element of auditing.

3.2 Procedures in the Framework of Policies

In the framework of policies, various tools and procedures are used to assess and describe environ-mental impacts of policies, plans or programmes. An important tool is ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL

IMPACT ASSESSMENT, amongst others to check impacts of legislative intentions. ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (EMS), including AUDITS, mark a set of new instruments to foster the con-sideration of environmental aspects not only in the business but also in administrations and publicbodies. Environmental and social REPORTS, in addition, are instruments already applied for manyyears in some countries.

3.2.1 AssessmentsOn the European level of governance a number ofvarying assessments of social and environmentalaspects of policies have been set up (see figure 2):Identifing from experiences with the instrumentEnvironmental Impact Assessment for projects, thatwas first established in 1985 with Directive85/337/EEC, Strategic Environmental Assessments(SEA)24 were introduced for plans and programmes

24 Council Directive (EC) 2001/42

Projectscovered by EIA Directive 85/337/EEC & 97/11/EC

Programmescovered by SEA Directive 2001/42

PoliciesCommunication

(EC) COM(2002) 276

Projectscovered by EIA Directive 85/337/EEC & 97/11/EC

Programmescovered by SEA Directive 2001/42

PoliciesCommunication

(EC) COM(2002) 276

Figure 2: Relation between assessments in european legislation


22

and Impact Assessments (IA)25 for the Commission�s own major initiatives. All three instruments areapplied at the planning stage of a project, programme, plan or policy initiative, respectively. The lattertwo are delineated briefly in the following chapter.

Impact Assessment at the European CommissionPurposeIn order to improve the quality and coherence of the policy development process and to contribute to amore coherent implementation of the European Strategy for Sustainable Development, in June 2002the European Commission published a Communication on the new approach to assessing the impactof its major initiatives.26 From 2004, all newly proposed legislation and non-legislative measures willhave to be assessed for economic, social and environmental impacts. This includes regulatory propos-als such as decisions, directives and regulations, as well as non-regulatory proposals, such as whitepapers, expenditure programmes or communications on policy orientations. The Commission will usethe impact assessment to present the rationale for its proposals to Parliament, Council and the public.

The Commission�s decision to introduce impact assessment does not relieve the obligation to carryout �ex-ante evaluations� (focussing on cost-effectiveness of budgetary expenditure) of programmesand actions resulting in expenditure from the general budget of the European Commission. All otherformer assessment obligations are, however, replaced by impact assessment from the CommissionWork Programme 2003 onwards. These include SME fiches, environmental assessment, gender as-sessment, business assessments, and regulatory assessments.

ProcessAccording to the Commission�s Technical Guidelines27 impact assessment (IA) is �the systematicanalysis of the problem addressed by the proposal concerned, the objective it pursues, the alternativeoptions available to reach the objective, their likely impacts, and respective advantages and disad-vantages, including synergies and trade-offs�. The Commission�s Impact Assessment does not workas a �fiche� to be filled in, but a process providing a �step by step�, structured way to raise and thendeal with questions and issues. The process is divided: First, the policy unit of the lead Directorate-General prepares a preliminary impact assessment, mandatory for all above named proposals, which isthen submitted with the DG�s annual Policy Strategy (APS) and includes a problem identification, theobjective of the proposal, policy options, and expected impacts � positive and negative.

On the basis of this preliminary IA the Commission will then decide in its Annual Policy Strategydecision and/or Work Programme which proposals require an extended IA. For this, the guiding prin-ciples and the reporting format will generally be the same for all; however, their form, content, vol-

25 European Commission (2002): Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment, COM(2002)

276 final26 European Commission (2002): COM(2002) 276 final27 EC (without year): Impact Assessment in the Commission. Guidelines


23

ume and degree of detail will vary widely according to the nature of the proposal and its expectedsignificance � applying the principle of proportionate analysis.

For the extended IA, too � as for the preliminary IA � the lead Directorate-General is responsible.However, it must inform, consult and coordinate with other interested DGs at a very early stage. Forinitiatives with a high crosscutting dimension and/or of major importance an interdepartmental groupwill coordinate the extended IA. Generally, where appropriate, the DGs should consult with interestedparties and relevant experts in order to benefit from their knowledge.

Examples from Member States for Impact Assessment of PolicyNetherlands: Environmental test (E-test), required by national government and prepared by the re-sponsible ministry, assesses the environmental effects of the policy in question and is linked to a sepa-rate business test (B-test), a feasibility and an enforceability test. The goal of the E-test is to helpmake the policy making process more balanced by assessing the effects, ensure that the best possibleinformation on the effects is made available and that there is an integration of environmental policiesin other domains. The E-test results present the impacts, but do not make recommendations for policydecisions; this is left to the policy makers. Until April 2002 around 50 E-tests had been carried out. Itis, however, unclear whether any position or policy decision has been significantly changed on thebasis of the information from the E-test. A helpdesk � the Support Centre for Draft Legislation � is avaluable resource for the various ministries (especially given the �assessment fatigue� due to morethan 30 policy tests and assessment procedures).28

Strategic Environmental AssessmentPurposeThe objective of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is to provide a high level of environ-mental protection: This is done by ensuring that an environmental assessment is carried out for certainplans and programmes prepared by public authorities29 that are likely to have significant effects on theenvironment.30 A key objective of the SEA process is to help inform decision-making processes.Amongst others, the regulation on Structural Funds from 2007 will most likely demand an ex-anteassessment of the programmes according to the SEA directive.

28 DEFRA and IEEP (2002)29 In contrast, the Project level EIA primarily concerns private developers. Council Directive (EC) 97/11:

Environmental Impact Assessment is an instrument with a long-standing tradition: Since the first Directivein 1985 Member States have gathered extensive experience in the implementation of the Directive, espe-cially with regards to impact of the environment and nature conservation. With its amendment in 1997 theDirective was complemented with extensive guidance documents. Nevertheless, the quality of the EIA islargely dependent on the arguments of experts working out the environmental impact study. Results of theassessment are often handled with scepticism and thus fail to serve as a basis for a final evaluation. Ratherit is useful as the foundation for further discussions between the interested parties.

30 These include agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, transport, waste management water management,telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning and land use, as set out in Article 3, Directive2001/42/EC p.9


24

ProcessThe SEA can be described as a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences ofproposed policy, plan or programme initiatives in order to ensure they are fully included and appro-priately addressed at the earliest stage of decision-making on a par with economic and social consid-erations. An important part of the procedure is the consultation of partners. The procedure of carryingout an SEA comprises the following components:

� assessment of the environmental situation � developing a baseline,� objectives, targets and priorities,� draft development proposal (plan/programme) and identification of alternatives,� environmental assessment of the draft proposal,� environmental indicators,� integrating the results of the assessment into the final decision on plans and programmes.

The result of a SEA is an environmental report. In deciding on the scope (or content) of a SEA report,and the level of detail, the responsible public authority will need to consult environmental authorities(to be defined by the Member States). Having then prepared the report, the environmental authorityand the wider public must be given an �early and effective opportunity’ to comment on the draft planor programme and accompanying SEA report.

Article 8 of the Directive states that the SEA report � along with the results of the consultations �should be taken into account during the preparation of the plan and programme and before its adop-tion. Having done so, the Member States will need to ensure that the environmental considerationswere integrated into the plan or programme and the results are made available to the public. The Di-rective also requires Member States to ensure arrangements are in place for proper quality control,and to inform the Commission of what these are.31

International Association for Impact AssessmentInternational Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) was organized in 1980 with the aim to be-come the leading global authority on best practice in the use of environmental and social impact as-sessment for informed decision-making regarding policies, programmes, plans and projects. IAIAactivities seek to develop approaches and practices for comprehensive and integrated impact assess-ment, improve assessment procedures and methods for practical application and provide professionalquality assurance by peer review and other means. IAIA involves people from many disciplines andprofessions. As of October 2003, members numbered more than 2,500 and represented more than 100countries; affiliates are operating in e.g. New Zealand, South Africa, Ontario (Canada), Quebec (Can-ada), Western and Northern Canada, Beijing, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and Portu-gal.32

31 For further comment see www.eeb.org/activities/env_impact_assessment/main.htm32 www.iaia.org


25

Amongst others, IAIA drew up �Best Practice for Environmental Impact Assessment� in co-operationwith the UK Institute of Environmental Assessment33, and provides a compilation of InternationalPrinciples for Social Impact Assessments.34 According to IAIA, the term environment should be de-fined in a broader sense including social and human dimensions. Best practice, thus, respects alsohuman rights, just, fair and transparent decision-making and the broad acceptance of projects in thecommunities concerned. Moreover, local knowledge, experience and acknowledgement of differentlocal cultural values should be incorporated in any assessment.

3.2.2 Environmental Management Systems, including Environmental AuditsAn important impulse to implement environmental management standards not only in businesses butalso in public bodies was provided by the EMAS Regulation35 and the international standard ISO1400136. Both these describe an Environmental Management System (EMS) aiming at continuouslyimproving environmental performance of an organisation. An ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT is a compul-sory element of the management cycle (see figure 3).

As part of an EMS, the organisation in questiondefines environmental objectives as well as pro-grammes for their implementation and sets upresponsibilities, procedures and methods that in-tegrate environmental issues into the operationalactivities. During the environmental audit37 at theend of the cycle it is then checked whether theestablished procedures are appropriate to reachthe determined objectives. According to theEMAS Regulation an environmental audit �shallmean a management tool comprising a systematic,documented, periodic and objective evaluation ofthe performance of the organisation, managementsystem and processes designed to protect the envi-

ronment with the aim of facilitating management control of practices which may have an impact onthe environment, and assessing compliance with the environmental policy, including environmentalobjectives and targets of the organisation.� Annex 2 of the EMAS Regulation further specifies re-quirements concerning internal environmental auditing.

Supplementary to the internal audit an external accredited verifier checks whether the environmentalmanagement system implemented in an organisation complies with the requirements of the EMAS

33 IAIA (2002)34 IAIA (2003)35 Council Regulation (EC) No 761/200136 ISO (1996)37 The analog terminology used in ISO 14001 is Management Review.

EnvironmentalPolicy

Planning

Implementationand Operation

Management Review

Environmental Audit

Checking andCorrective Action

Continuous Improvement

EnvironmentalPolicy

Planning

Implementationand Operation

Management Review

Environmental Audit

Checking andCorrective Action

Continuous Improvement

Figure 3: The stages within an environmental management system


26

Regulation. In order to guarantee a high quality of the verification, each Member State had to estab-lish a system for quality assurance. Environmental verifiers have to show satisfactorily that they coverseveral fields of knowledge, such as EMSs, legislative, regulatory and administrative requirements onenvironmental subjects or technical aspects of the sectors for which they are to be accredited. An ac-creditation body assesses the verifiers´ competency and serves as a supervisor of the verifiers� work atthe organisation under scrutiny.

Environmental Management Systems in Public BodiesThe EMAS Regulation as well as ISO 14001 are increasingly seen as an approach to handle environ-mental and social aspects also in the framework of policies. Since the extension of the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) in 200138, not only businesses but also public bodies can beverified under the EMAS scheme. In practice, EMAS mainly is applied in local authorities. Since theearly 1990�s considerable experience has been gained in the United Kingdom: To date, about 20 localauthorities have implemented EMAS, and further 30 have adopted ISO 14001.39 The main focus islaid on the direct environmental effects caused by infrastructure such as buildings and car pools; lessattention is paid to the indirect environmental effects caused by plans, programmes and policies.There is still a lack of consistency in the methodology how to integrate services and products of thoseorganisations in EMS.40 To assess whether their products and services have any indirect environ-mental consequences, tools such as environmental and social assessments, evaluations or reports al-ready used in the area of policies are also applied as tools in the framework of environmental man-agement systems.

Example:Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

The Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management imple-mented an Environmental Management System (EMS) according to EMAS at its site "Stubenbastei5".In 2003, an environmental statement was verified and published.41 Public procurement and planningor administrative decisions were identified as activities causing indirect environmental effects. Inaddition, the Ministry plans to integrate their �products� � such as legislation into the EMS. However,up to now there are no procedures available how to deal with these aspects.42 Thus, the managementsystem described in the environmental statement still excludes the indirect effects of legislation.

38 Council Regulation (EC) No 761/200139 Wynne, A. (ACCA) (2004)40 There is a �Guidance on the identification of environmental aspects and assessment of their significance�

available on the EMAS-Help-Desk which include the indirect environmental effects of products andservices, but which still is quite general and does not really provide support for the application in the fieldof policies. See: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/emas/pdf/guidance/guidance06_en.pdf

41 BMLFUW (2003)42 Telephone interview with Dörthe Kunellis, BMLFUW, 22 March 2004


27

3.2.3 Environmental and Social Accounting, Auditing and ReportingSocial and environmental (i.e. sustainability) accounting, auditing and reporting is perceived as animportant tool for promoting more sustainable development in private, non-profit and public sectororganisations, and especially external reporting is thought to enhance transparency for externalstakeholders.

The call for environmental and social accounting has not been heeded to the same extent as in the areaof financial impacts, but in recent years many standards and guidelines have been developed to im-

prove their quality and consistency, mainlywithin business.43 Most guidelines provideprinciples and a set of process standards inorder to support overall performance � socialand ethical as well as environmental and eco-nomic. The process standard is built on adynamic model including planning, account-ing, auditing and reporting. To support eachof these stages, structures and systems aredeveloped to strengthen the accounting,auditing and reporting process. Thus, empha-sis lies on the process rather than on simply amere report. Since embedding of appropriateprocedures for accounting, auditing and re-porting (see figure 4) is seen as a crucial ele-

ment of the standards44, social and environmental accounting can be regarded as a management tool,which can help an organisation to plan and organise its activities. A major principle is that each proc-ess stage is permeated by the organisation�s engagement with its stakeholders.

In addition, principles for reporting were developed to enhance the quality and credibility of reports(see figure 5):

● Transparency: Full disclosure of the processes, procedures, and assumptions in the reportpreparation

● Inclusivity: Ensuring systematic engagement of stakeholders● Auditability: Designing transparent procedures for collecting and editing data and information● Sustainability Context: Describing the organisation�s performance in the larger context of

ecological, social, and other limits or constraints● Comprehensiveness: Including all necessary information consistent with the declared bounda-

ries, scope, and time period.

43 Amongst others, see: Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002); AccountAbility (1999), AccontAbility

(2003), Social Accountability International (2001).44 AccountAbility (1999), AccontAbility (2003).

Figure 4: The AA 1000 framework


28

● Relevance: Degree of importanceassigned to a particular aspect, in-dicator, or piece of information

● Neutrality: Balanced account of thereporting organisation�s perform-ance

● Comparability: Ensuring, that re-ports can be compared with previ-ous reports

● Accuracy: Achieving the degree ofexactness and a low margin of errorin reported information necessaryfor users to take decisions with ahigh degree of confidence

● Clarity: Ensuring that the report iscomprehensible, while still main-taining a suitable level of detail

● Timeliness: Ensuring, that infor-mation is up to date.

On the whole, most approaches aiming at a high quality of environmental or social accounting, audit-ing and reporting focus on reports delivered by companies. However, public bodies can also applythese principles. Usually, stakeholder involvement can be seen as a basic principle to guarantee thatrelevant social and environmental concerns are taken into account and ensure that the demands ofpotential target groups will be met.

Important building blocks to monitor the national progress are environmental indicators, which formany countries form the basis of their established national environmental plans and targets, such asthe Dutch National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP), the German �Umweltbarometer�, and the�Nationaler Umweltplan� in Austria.

Figure 5: Principles of good reporting (GRI, 2002, p. 23)


29

ExamplesNetherlands: The National Environmental Policy Plan

The Netherlands can be seen as pioneers in national environmental strategies. In 1989, the first Na-tional Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP) was published as a framework for measures and activities toprotect the environment. The NEPP gives a high priority to the cooperation between government andother sectors, such as businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and citizens.

Every four years, the NEPP is revised and updated. The current NEPP was published in 2001. TheNetherlands utilize two types of environmental review:

● ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING largely lies in the responsibility of the National Institute forPublic Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), which publishes the "National Envi-ronmental Outlook" at the midpoint of each four-year NEPP programme to evaluate the cur-rent policies and make recommendations for the next NEPP. RIVM has developed environ-mental indicators based on the issues defined in the NEPP. Indicators are weighted by theirabsolute importance to the environment and aggregated to show precisely how far the Neth-erlands is from achieving sustainability, both as a sum total and and for each of the individualthemes.

● Moreover, environmental policy is regularly adjusted based on PERFORMANCE MONITORING.The Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and Environment publishes a yearly "Environ-mental Program", which assesses the current NEPP. The country's basic environmental law,the Environmental Management Act requires four-year Policy Evaluation Exercises of thecurrent NEPP and recommendations for its successor plan.45

Newfoundland and Labradour: Strategic Social PlanIn the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada, a framework for a new Strategic SocialPlan was established in 1998. The plan identifies strategic directions, processes, and outcomes toguide the government�s long-term actions. Gardrails of the plan include the creation of partnership forsocial development, a more integrated approach to social and economic development and buildingcommunity capacity. The Strategic Social Plan was to be phased in over two years and its progresswas evaluated in a social audit process, based on a document and literature review as well as inter-views with 119 individuals (including key individuals who have been involved in the early design anddevelopment of the Strategic Social Plan, representatives of government departments, representativesof community-based agencies). In addition, eight learning discussion groups were held in four re-gions. The results are published in a so-called �Learning Study�. 46

45 www.rri.or, www2.minvrom.nl/pagina.html?id=5037,

www.netherlands-embassy.org/article.asp?articleref=AR00000287EN46 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2003)


30

3.2.4 Environmental and Social Audits in Financial Control InstitutionsMore and more financial controlling institutions perceive auditing processes as a reviewing instru-ment not only regarding the correct financial project implementation and processing but have widenedtheir view towards environmental, social and ethical aspects. Accordingly, the European section(EUROSAI)47 of the worldwide organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI's), has foundeda specific WORKING GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING with close to 30 Members that was for-mally established in 1999 after briefly existing as INTOSAI's Regional European Working Group onEnvironmental Auditing.

Its goal is to promote the involvement of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in international environ-mental audits in Europe and to exchange experiences in this area, guided by the Supreme Chamber ofControl of Poland as the Group's Coordinator supported by five Sub-coordinators (the Netherlands forWestern Europe, Norway for Scandinavia, Malta and France for the Mediterranean Region and Ro-mania for the Black Sea Region). The obligations and tasks of the Coordinator include launching ini-tiatives to involve new European SAIs in the Group's work, with particular emphasis on extending theWorking Group to include SAIs from Central and Eastern European countries; disseminating docu-ments, guidelines, standards, methods and techniques referring to coordinated and concurrent envi-ronmental audits; exchanging information on the findings of environmental audits and experiencegained from them; initiating international audits in various regions of Europe (especially in the Cen-tral Europe); promoting the Working Group's activities by disseminating information on the internetand organising workshops and meetings with the Coordinator.

47 EUROSAI was founded in 1990 and groups together 40 Supreme Audit Institutions from European coun-

tries. The Congress (general meeting of the members of EUROSAI) held every three years, is EUROSAI'ssupreme authority.


31

ExampleNational Audit of Animal Protection in Poland

UNDERTAKEN BY THE SUPREME CHAMBER OF CONTROL from September 1999 to January 2000, theaudit aim was to investigate and evaluate measures taken by public administration bodies and otherorganisational units (inter alia economic entities and non-government organisations), aimed at animalprotection and at ensuring that animals have appropriate living conditions. The audit covered thetreatment of animals living in the wild as well as animals living in man-made environments and in-vestigated the period from October 1997, i.e. when the Act on Animal Protection entered into force,until September 1999.

The audit�s SCOPE of enquiry included inter alia the following: legal provisions regulating issuesconnected with animal protection; fulfilment by public administration bodies of tasks assigned by theAct on Animal Protection and other legislation connected with the protection of fauna and living con-ditions of animals in shelters, breeding and purchasing centres, and at all places, where animals aregathered, kept, purchased and slaughtered. The audit was conducted in 133 units, among them theMinistry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Scientific Re-search Committee, the Chief Veterinary Inspectorate, district veterinary inspectorates, and town andmunicipal offices. In addition, the Department of Environmental Protection coordinated and membersof the Department of Agriculture and Food Economy participated in the audit.

The summary report on these audit findings has been forwarded to all relevant executive and legisla-tive bodies, including the President of the Republic of Poland, the Speakers of the Seym and the Sen-ate, the Chairman of the Constitutional Tribunal, and the Prime Minister. Moreover, the findings ofthe audit were discussed in the national press and local press.

In RESPONSE to the �Summary Report�, the Supreme Chamber of Control was informed i.a. that eightregulations to the Act on Animal Protection had been drafted. In April, 2000, 17 local ethics commit-tees were appointed; they will give opinions on the acceptability of tests on animals and will ensureproper supervision of these tests. The Ministry of the Environment undertook to collect estimate dataon the population sizes of selected protected animal species, as the concept of the currently imple-mented system for monitoring nature provides for the monitoring of endangered animal species. TheDepartment of Environmental Protection will continue to monitor the overall implementation of theaudit recommendations.48

48 www.nik.gov.pl/intosai/k_pl3_an.html


32

3.2.5 Environmental and Social Audits for Policy InstitutionsNot only financial institutions carry out environmental and social audits. Depending to their politicaltraditions, some countries also have established auditing institutions to monitor the success of theirpolicy strategies. An example is the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Developmentin Canada.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in CanadaThe Commissioner assists parliamentarians in overseeing the federal government's efforts to protectthe environment and foster sustainable development: He monitors the extent to which the govern-mental departments have implemented the action plans and have met the objectives outlined in theirstrategies. Within the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) of Canada, the Commissioner heads aspecialized unit that is devoted entirely to conducting environmental audits of the government's ac-tivities. The Commissioner works with over 35 highly qualified interdisciplinary staff members. 49

Petition Process - An Act to Involve the General Public in the Audit ProcessIn 1995 an environmental petitions process was created � a formal way for the public to ask federaldepartments questions about environmental and sustainable development issues. In this process, resi-dents of Canada send a written petition to the Auditor General of Canada. Petitions must relate toenvironmental matters that are the responsibility of specific departments and agencies � the sameentities that are required to prepare and implement sustainable development strategies. On behalf ofthe Auditor General, the Commissioner forwards the petitions to the appropriate federal ministers.The minister must respond to the petition within 120 days. The Commissioner monitors the status ofthe petition and reports the findings in her annual report to the House of Commons.

As of 18 July 2003, 98 petitions had been received on topics such as genetically modified crops,abandoned rail lines, timber harvesting in the north of the country, environmental assessments, inva-sive species, and pesticide labelling and advertising.50

49 OAG (2003); R.S.C (1995); www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/cesd_cedd.nsf/html/menu1_e.html,50 www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/cesd_cedd.nsf/html/menu1_e.htm


33

3.3 Procedures in the Framework of Development Assistance

In the framework of development assistance there have been many debates in recent years on the envi-ronmental and social impacts of expenditures, especially in the framework of large infrastructureprojects. Thus, public bodies responsible for organising developing assistance in general have estab-lished procedures not only to assess the environmental and social impacts ex-ante, but also to evaluatethe results of their efforts in retrospective. In the following section, the procedures of the World Bankare described as an example of assessment and evaluation being utilised in the framework of devel-opment assistance.

3.3.1 Principles and Guidelines at the World BankEnvironmental and social objectives have a high priority on the World Bank�s institutional policylevel, and there is a long experience of integrating environmental and social concerns and assessingthe impacts of the expenditures. The World Bank is committed to the Millennium DevelopmentGoals51, and has specified social and environmental guiding principles in ten SAFEGUARD POLICIES,dealing with environmental assessment, natural habits, pest management, involuntary settlements,indigenous peoples, forestry, safety and dams, cultural property, projects on international waterways,and projects in disputed areas. For each of the ten safeguard policies a procedure for implementationis formulated. The World Bank has developed an increasingly rigorous system of assessment andevaluation over the past thirty years, based on two dimensions:

� self-evaluation by the units responsible for particular programmes and activities; and� an independent evaluation by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) of the World

Bank.

The OED reports directly to the Bank's Board of Executive Directors. OED's evaluation tools used inpromoting accountability and learning are project reviews, country assistance evaluations, sector andthematic reviews and process reviews. In addition, it supervises the evaluation processes of the WorldBank from an independent point of view.

3.3.2 The World Bank’s Assessments and Evaluation Procedures at the Project LevelThe environmental and social review processes are integrated in the project cycle � from projectidentification to evaluation � as follows.52

� An investment officer is responsible for the PROJECT IDENTIFICATION and the ASSIGNMENT OF

A PROJECT TEAM, including environmental and social specialists as appropriate.

� In the EARLY REVIEW a project description is worked out. To collect information the Envi-ronment and Social Department provides a questionnaire to sponsors. Based on this informa-tion the Environment Division screens the project and classifies it within the following cate-

51 OED (2002).52 IFC (1998).


34

gories: A (relevant impacts), B (potential impacts), C (less impacts). The results are summa-rized in a report. After the World Bank senior management has assessed the appropriatenessof the project, the project appraisal is authorized.

� During the PROJECT APPRAISAL, more detailed environmental and social data is collected andanalyzed in an ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)53. The EA has to be carried out by an in-dependent expert, financed by the borrower, and is designed for each project specifically. Animportant part of the EA is public consultation and disclosure. For all Category A and some Bprojects, the borrower consults project-affected groups and local non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs). Many projects, however, do not need a full EA from the World Bank´s point ofview: those considered to be smaller, not to be in sensitive areas or those considered to pres-ent issues that are narrow in scope, well defined and well understood.54 The World Bank pro-vides applicable policies, guidelines and guidance to the borrowers.

� The Environmental Assessment considers environmental as well as social issues. The Work-ing Group on Environment of the Multilateral Financial Institutions is developing a CommonFramework for environmental assessment processes - with an initial focus on EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA). Guidance is also being prepared on common approaches to areascovered by EIA. The proposed Common Framework promotes convergence among Multilat-eral Financial Institutions on the institutional requirements, processes and practices in EIAsprepared for both public and private sector projects.55 Moreover, a specific approach for aSOCIAL ASSESSMENT is outlined in a Social Analysis Sourcebook (draft). This draft source-book neither represents operational policy nor covers minimum requirements for Bank-supported projects but describes the conceptual approach recommended by the Social Devel-opment Board as good practice. Sector-specific guidance will be prepared and issued subse-quently.56

� Bank staff reviews in detail the EA findings and recommendations and draft a final summaryof the EA, including environmental and social aspects as well as requirements on consulta-tions with affected groups and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Based on thisreport, NEGOTIATIONS with the borrower are started to incorporate appropriate covenants intoloan or credit documents.

53 World Bank (1999a).54 Such alternative approaches include e.g. specific environmental design criteria and pollution standards,

acceptable for the bank, for small scale industry plants or special design criteria and construction supervi-sion programs for small scale rural work projects.

55 World Bank (2003)56 The main topics to guide the social assessment are: Social diversity and gender, institution, rules and be-

haviour, stakeholders, participation, social risk. As evaluation tools the guidebook provides question-naires. There is no set of indicators recommended but the user is required to check whether there are


35

� Signing the COMMITMENT constitutes the formal acceptance by the project company, theWorld Bank, and other parties (if any) of the terms and conditions under which the WorldBank will finance the project. DISBURSEMENT occurs on the terms and conditions containedin the legal documentation. The investment officer, in consultation with the lawyer and envi-ronmental and social development specialists, ensures that environmental and social require-ments are reflected in the World Bank�s legal documents to the project.

� The World Bank monitors the performance of all active projects to ensure compliance withenvironmental, social and other conditions. This SUPERVISION is based on the annual envi-ronmental monitoring reports from borrowers or on a supervision process carried out by bankstaff, potentially including a project site visit.

� A final step of the project cycle is the PROJECT EVALUATION. Every task team for each projectmust prepare a Project Completion Report within six months of project completion57, summa-rizing evaluations of the actual environmental and social impacts of the project in comparisonwith the impacts anticipated in the environmental assessment and review. They also describethe effectiveness of the mitigation measures. The report is made available to the public. In or-der to validate the report, the OED reviews the report, producing an evaluation summary forinternal use.

In spite of long-term experiences with assessments and evaluation, there are still some starting pointsfor improving project design and evaluation. Thus, an evaluation study from 2000 comes to the con-clusion that there is a general gap between actual practice and the high policy priority afforded to theenvironment. The author provides the following reasons for this gap:

� the lack of clear strategies and targets relating to the environment that can be monitored,� the lack of a single authority or unit responsible for integrating and monitoring environmental

performance,� the vague and generalising definition of environment, coupled with the absence of a coherent

core set of internationally agreed indicators,� limited numbers of specialist environmental staff, and limited awareness among general pro-

gramme staff,� institutional capacity constraints within recipient governments and institutions, and� environmental projects� tendency to be relatively complex and more difficult to design and to

implement.58

The need for capacities and tools to implement the Policies on local level is also emphasized by anOED report on social development matters from 2004: �While the Bank has done a great deal to ex-

quantitative data available to examine the key elements of social analysis.World Bank (2002)

57 World Bank (1999b)


36

pand its social development activities in the past decade, incorporating best practices in social devel-opment is not yet routine. In part this is due to a lack of capacity within country and task team, but itis also a function of the amount and quality of information available to support clear decision-making.� Indeed, social analysis tools are applied but often the timing is problematic and the findingsare not used.59

The World Bank has also been criticised by NGOs. For example, in November 2002 the ExtractiveIndustries Review (EIR) published a detailed report showing that in many cases the World Bank ini-tiatives failed to support sustainable development.60 One of the suggestions given by the EIR is thatthe World Bank should take a holistic, multidimensional approach to assessments that examine cu-mulative impacts of projects and identify the socio-economic linkages to environmental issues.

3.3.3 The World Bank’s Cross-Sectional Evaluation on the Programme LevelIn addition to project-focused evaluation, the OED conducts supplementary evaluations dealing withcross-sectional subjects such as regions, countries or long-term evaluations. For example, about 25percent of all completed projects are subject to an intensive independent evaluation through OED�sProject Performance Assessment Reports. In addition, OED conducts field assessments for a quarterof the completed projects each year, and a small number of impact evaluations for projects completedfive to ten years earlier. In a similar way, the OED's Country Assistance Evaluations concentrate onthe development effectiveness of the Bank's entire programme of assistance to each country. Theyprovide opportunities to assess lending and advisory services in the context of the country assistancestrategy.

Thus, all evaluation is performed as a combination of self-evaluation and an independent evaluationby the OED. The �Annual Report on Operations Evaluation 2003� states, that in some areas of activi-ties the framework for self-evaluation by management, and independent evaluation by the OED, iswell established. Examples are project and country-specific evaluations. In other areas, there still re-main gaps, such as for example in sector strategies or knowledge initiatives.61 A challenge also is theevaluation of global grants. A report on the evaluation of global programmes from 2001 stated: �Thetreatment of outputs, outcomes, and impacts of global programs tends to be uneven, spotty, and basedon anecdotal experience.�62 Thus, in September 2002, the World Bank launched the �BETTER

MEASURING, MONITORING, AND MANAGING FOR DEVELOPMENT RESULTS� (or �MANAGING FOR

RESULTS�) initiative. The Committee on Development Effectiveness presented an implementationplan in December 2002. The 2003 Annual Report on Evaluation of OED comes to the conclusion:�The evaluation framework for grants and global programs is not fully effective.� The report notesthat a certain amount of Grant Completion Reports has not been provided timely. It also states: �Typi-

58 World Bank (2000).59 OED (2004)60 EIR (2003).61 OED (2003)62 OED (2001)


37

cally, the external evaluations report on implementation of activities, but not on outcomes and im-pacts.� Therefore, the World Bank intends to improve its evaluation of grant programmes in the fol-lowing years.

In addition, self-evaluation of the OED based on a survey within its relevant audience � the evaluees �resulted in the suggestion that the OED should clarify and better present its methodology, includingits inventory base, for sector and thematic studies. It should also better target and disseminate its sec-tor, thematic and project evaluations to Bank staff and enhance consultations with borrowers.63

3.4 Procedures in the Framework of Export Credit Agencies (ECA)

Export Credit Agencies (ECA) constitute an important sector adopting environmental and socialguidelines and standards in funding. Government supported export credit finance and insurance iscommon in transactions or projects in emerging market economies where political or other risks areconsidered to be high, as these are usually difficult to insure by private means. Most industrial coun-tries have at least one ECA that provides financing under these conditions.

3.4.1 Principles and Guidelines in ECAMost of the OECD Members (EU Member States, Norway, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland, CzechRepublic, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, and Mexico) agreed in November2001 to implement the OECD GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN

THE NATIONAL EXPORT CREDIT INSURANCE64. As a consequence, major ECA have firmly integratedenvironmental impact assessment of projects into their lending practices in the recent past.65 Never-theless, many projects are subject to external criticism by NCOs of the environmental and develop-ment area,66 which might be regarded as a sign of a gap between policy and implementation. In De-cember 2003, the OECD announced an agreement to strengthen their common approaches for evalu-ating the environmental impact of infrastructure projects supported by their governments� exportcredit agencies with a view to ensuring that these meet established international standards. Comparedto the 2001 Common Approaches, the latest agreement is enhanced in a number of respects:

� Projects should, in any case, comply with the environmental standards of the host country. Ifthe relevant international standards against which the project has been benchmarked are morestringent, these standards will be applied.

� The relevant international standards are those of the World Bank Group and, where applicablefrom a geographical viewpoint, those of Regional Development Banks.

63 OED (2003)64 OECD (2001)65 Ecologic (2003).66 e.g. www.urgewald.de; ECA Watch (2003)


38

� With regard to the most sensitive projects, the environmental standards to be applied will bereported and monitored by the ECAs, and exceptional deviations below international stan-dards will have to be justified.

� For the most sensitive projects, ECA members will seek to make environmental information,particularly Environmental Impact Assessment Reports, publicly available thirty calendardays before final commitment. 67

3.4.2 Assessments and Evaluation at the Project LevelThe OECD also supervises practices and procedures of the ECAs in their Member States. In October2003, the OECD provided a paper on the current status:68

The project cycle starts with a SCREENING PROCESS to categorise applications according to their po-tential negative impacts, for example on the environment, on indigenous communities or developmentaims. Most screening processes are based on questionnaires and check lists, which are supplied by theexporter or sponsor along with the application of coverage. Based on this information, projects areclassified into categories A (highest negative impact potential), B and C (lowest negative impact po-tential) projects, according to OECD Common Approaches and World Bank Safeguard Principles.Depending on the project�s category as a result of the screening phase the ECAs devise mitigation orcompensation measurements in co-operation with the applicant body to reduce the impacts.

Some ECAs have additionally set up THRESHOLD AND EXEMPTION CRITERIA to exclude certain proj-ects from the scope of environmental guidelines. E.g. the German Euler-Hermes or the Japanese JBICdo not carry out environmental and social assessments for projects below a certain financial value.Others, e.g. the French ECA (COFACE), generally screen all projects but use certain thresholds todetermine the screening�s extent: For every project a pre-questionnaire has to be filled in. If the proj-ect is located in or near an ecologically sensitive site, or if its value is above a certain value, a moreextensive questionnaire has to be worked out.

Some ECAs have also adopted EXCLUSION CRITERIA to identify projects or sectors which should notbe supported. Mostly exclusion criteria are based on Multilateral Environmental Agreements, such asthe Montréal Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. TheAustralian (EFIC), the Canadian (EDC) and the Swiss ECA (ERG) are examples that strongly empha-sise the compliance with Multilateral Agreements. The Australian ECA also refers to military andrelated equipment, prohibited materials and substances or certain countries.

Most ECAs have proceeded in adopting ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

as benchmarks.69 As a general rule, ECAs first and foremost demand that supported projects comply

67 OECD (2003a)68 OECD (2003b)69 Ecologic (2003)


39

with the national environmental and social legislation of the importing country. Most of the ECAsfurther determine guidelines based on their own policy: The French COFACE refers to World BankGroup guidelines and Safeguard Policies, WHO, IUCN70 and Ramsar Convention guidelines71. TheAustralian EFIC requires exporting to adopt environmental management standards, whereas the Ca-nadian EDC requires compliance with the OECD antibribery code

An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) is usually to be carried out by the sponsors or theexporter. Some ECAs require independent competent experts to carry out the EIA, such as the Aus-tria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Norway, Sweden and UK. Italy has chosen another approach and re-quires an independent review of the EIA.72 Some ECAs worked out guidance notes to specify the pro-cedure and the aspects to be regarded. Usually, there are no environmental or social data or indicatorsrequired. Results of the environmental assessment are standards and covenants that are to be laiddown in the loan contract.

ExampleThe British Export Credits Guarantee Department

The ECGD (British Export Credits Guarantee Department) is the oldest export credit agency in theworld. In July 1999 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a review of ECGD�smission and status.

While the ECDG had begun to consider environmental issues in early 1999, the review in 1999 con-cluded that it needed to consider sustainable development in a more rounded and rigorous manner.In response, a business principle unit was created within ECGD and in December 2000 a Statementof Business Principles was published, which included a commitment to further develop �existingguidelines and working procedures to assist detailed implementation of our policies at a practicallevel.� Alongside the publication of the Statement, ECGD introduced a revised and expanded ImpactQuestionnaire and other associated screening procedures. Two ECGD staff members are responsiblefor the screening procedures and the monitoring of compliance.

Regular meetings with stakeholders include an annual seminar for all exporters and costumers, aswell as meetings with NGO representatives. Consultation with civil societies is considered as animportant principle.

MONITORING is essential to foster successful implementation of the environmental and social issues.In practice the monitoring procedures differ widely from ECA to ECA. Some ECAs, such as Canadaor Greece, did not establish any monitoring process after the approval. Other ECAs demand a moni-toring procedure for all projects within category A, some even for category B projects, whereas others

70 The World Conservation Unit71 The Ramsar Convention guidelines aim on halting the worldwide loss of wetlands.72 OECD (2003 a)


40

decide on a case-by-case basis. The monitoring process is usually conducted by means of regular re-porting duties by the exporters, providing information on the progress of the project and on theircompliance with environmental and social commitments, with the law, and/or with regulations of therespective host country. Some ECAs even mention the possibility of periodic site visits during themonitoring phase.73

Introducing environmental guidelines in the process of project appraisal and management requiresadditional time and staff. The OECD asked Member States to provide information on the additionalcosts, in order to formulate an estimation of these additional resources necessary. Most of the answersonly cover qualitative information, however; there is hardly any quantified information available.Additional effort depends on the procedure and differs from ECA to ECA: Some ECAs employed oneor two environmental experts to work out the procedure, for screening or review of environmentalimpact assessment reports or even for site visits. Within the Austrian OEKB the assessments are car-ried out at the expense of the applicants.

3.4.3 Starting Points for Enhancing Project Design and EvaluationCritiques of ECAs practice primarily focus on the following aspects:74

� Insufficient commitment to sustainable development: The OECD Common Approachesmainly deal with environmental aspects. At the same time, there is a lack of specified envi-ronmental standards to be applied. Social and economic aspects are missing completely.

� Limited scope: The threshold and exemption criteria for carrying out an environmental impactassessment are regarded as deficient. These criteria exclude many projects that potentiallyhave, in fact, significant environmental impacts, even though they are no large-scale projectsnor in the designated areas or sectors.

� Lack of consultation, transparency, and public access to information75: In principle, public in-volvement should be ensured in different forms and at different stages of the process, namelybefore or after approval (but before commitment) of a project�s proposal, during the imple-mentation phase of a project, and during the development of guidelines and procedures fordesigning the process of evaluation. Establishing independent expert panels is also suggestedto oversee the implementation of the projects, and the lack of public reporting requirements iscriticized.

� Lack of common standards on operational policies: As a positive example the Equator Princi-ples of the World Bank are pointed out.

73 OECD (2003 a)74 ECA Watch (2003), Ecologic (2003)


41

� Lack of monitoring and compliance mechanisms for ECA-imposed conditionalities and othernational and international obligations: Only few ECA are considered to ensure project com-pliance with national and international obligations.

3.5 Conclusions

Coordination, Participation and Capacity Building – Key Criteria for Best PracticeThe above analysis shows that even long-term experiences in assessments, audits and evaluationscannot safeguard programmes or projects from having negative environmental and social impacts. Infact, the management of policies as well as of complex programmes still is a challenge, caused by avariety of interests, involved partners and regional contexts.

However, judging from past experiences and the types of assessments describes above, the followingseem appropriate to improve the quality and effectiveness of theses instruments:

� Adopting GENERAL PRINCIPLES, such as the World Bank�s �Safeguard Policies�, seems tosupport the significance of environmental and social aspects in programmes and projects.

� These principles should be specified towards OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS, ideally to be de-fined early in the strategic-level planning process in order to serve as the basis for allfurther planning and implementation.

� The DIFFERENT STRATEGIC LEVELS MUST BE CLOSELY COORDINATED in the planningphase. In other words, screening and assessment procedures should be intertwined andcoherent, with objectives defined at the policy and programme level. THRESHOLD andEXEMPTION CRITERIA as well as EXCLUSION CRITERIA should be set up.

� At the same time, the procedure should include INSTRUMENTS TO REFLECT, LEARN ANDREWORD the direction and targets accordingly. This will mean, that indicators are used tofoster learning processes. In addition, tools for self-assessment or evaluation should beavailable.

� INDICATORS should further guide the quantification of impacts and the progress of proj-ects/ programmes and must therefore be formulated as such.

� Allowing wide but structured and moderated PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS � both atthe time of identifying targets and of auditing the outcomes and impacts � assures notonly the process� transparency but also its quality.

� Complementing the incorporation of stakeholders in general, EXPERTS should be includedas a source of external expertise on the matters at hand.

75 In recent years there has been a trend to a more proactive approach in a number of ECA�s. Examples are

Japan and the US. Although, many examples still are criticized because of a lack of participation.


42

� AUDITORS AND CONSULTANTS executing the appraisals must be independent and wellqualified for the job at hand.

� Good quality audits of both projects and programmes necessitate SUBSTANTIALRESOURCES � finances and expertise. In planning and scheduling an assessment and/ oraudit, this must be carefully considered and calculated for.

� TECHNICAL GUIDELINES AND OTHER INFORMATION MATERIAL, such as lists on nationaland on international environmental and social legislation specified for the areas of inter-ventions, should be elaborated in order to support auditors and consultants.

� Procedures should be established to draw CONSEQUENCES IN CASE OF NON-ACHIEVEMENTof agreed social and environmental objectives.

� Finally, the results of auditing and evaluation procedures should be ACCESSIBLE TO THEPUBLIC: reports should be accessible in terms of their physical availability to interestedparties and comprehensible to a non-expert citizen and should be structured and wordedaccordingly.


43

4. Structural Funds4.1 The Programme Cycle

An Ambitious Legislative Framework and the Challenge of Its ImplementationThe legal basis for Structural Funds was revised in 1999. Supplementary to the main objectives of theFunds, protection and improvement of the environment, the elimination of inequalities and the pro-motion of the equalities between men and women were defined as so-called �horizontal themes�.76

Environmental concerns have to be addressed systematically in all programming documents, and envi-ronmental profiles of the regions must be prepared for all programmes. Environmental and socialaspects and indicators are to be used in programme evaluation.

Furthermore, �partnership� was formulated as a basic principle. In determining the most representa-tive partners at national, regional, local or other level, Member States are required to create a wideand effective association of all relevant bodies. The regulation refers to economic and social part-ners77, whereas environmental partners are not explicitly mentioned.

In spite of assessment and evaluation procedures, time and again NGO´s or the Auditors identify proj-ects infringing environmental and social concerns. Even though environmental and social objectivesare embedded in the legislative framework, implementation within the Member States obviously doesnot ensure that they have a strong position on local level as well. Furthermore, there seems to be alack of incentives and possibilities of action in the case of failure. Although the Commission can stopprojects, this is rarely rarely done in practice.

Step for Step – The Programme Cycle of Structural Funds in DetailThe programme cycle described in the General Provisions covers the following steps (see Figure 7):

PlanningMember States prepare development and conversion plans worked out through a partnership-baseddecision-making process and in several stages, until the measures are taken over by the public or pri-vate bodies entrusted with carrying them out. The plans are based on national and regional prioritiesand comprise a precise description of the current situation in the region, a description of the mostappropriate strategy for achieving the stated objectives and indications as to the use and form of thecontribution from the Funds.78 The programming documents must be submitted to the EuropeanCommission and build the basis for negotiation between the European Commission and MemberStates.

76 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Article 177 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Article 8 (1)78 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Article 16


44

EX-ANTE EVALUATION79 is a part of the programming and is carried out in the responsibility of themanaging authorities in the Member States. Explicitly, the ex-ante evaluation must consider

� the environmental situation in the region,� the expected impacts caused by the planned strategies and assistance,� an analysis of the social (and economic) situation,� the situation in terms of inequality between men and women with regard to labour market op-

portunities and treatment at work as well as on the reconciliation of family and working life,� the relevance of the proposed implementing and monitoring arrangements.

Implementation in Member States: Monitoring and EvaluationMember States appoint a MANAGING AUTHORITY for each programme responsible for implementa-tion, correct management and effectiveness of the programme. This includes collecting statistical andfinancial data, preparing and transmitting annual reports to the Commission, and organising the mid-term evaluation.

� MONITORING: In addition, monitoring committees are set up, chaired by a representative ofthe managing authority. The monitoring committees ensure the efficiency and quality of theimplementation of the structural measures. They are involved in the decision on indicators todescribe the economic, structural and environmental situation of the Member State accordingto article 37 of the General Provisions. The Monitoring Committees are also involved in theannual and final implementation reports.

79 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Article 41

R E P O R T S

Programme monitoring

R E P O R T S

Programme monitoringReporting

Screening

Project assessment

Projectmonitoring

Project evaluation

PROJECT LEVEL

Ex-ante evaluation Mid-term evaluation

Ex-post evaluation

PROGRAMME LEVEL

Selection of projects

Implementation of the projects

Programme development

Figure 6: The programme and project cycle in the framework of Structural Funds


45

� MID-TERM EVALUATION: In order to guarantee a high quality of the assistance and its effec-tiveness, the general provisions require a mid-term evaluation to examine, in the light of theex-ante evaluation, the initial results of the assistance, their relevance and the extent to whichthe targets have been attained. It has to be carried out by the managing authorities in collabo-ration with the Commission. The analysis has to be undertaken by an external expert. 80

� REPORTS: In three-yearly intervals the Commission has to submit a report to the EuropeanParliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Re-gions. In addition, before November 1st of each year, the Commission should forward a reporton the implementation of the Structural Funds during the preceding year. Annual reports aremandatory for all interventions lasting more than two years. They must at least cover chang-ing socio-economic trends, national, regional or sectoral policies and the progress in the im-plementation of priorities and measures for each of the Funds � with quantification whereverpossible. Environmental and social aspects are not considered as a mandatory element ofthese reports.81

� EX-POST EVALUATION: Three years after completion of the programme, an ex-post evaluationhas to be carried out based on the evaluation results already available. It is the responsibilityof the Commission, in collaboration with the Member State and the managing authority. Theanalysis has to be undertaken by an external expert. Like the results of the evaluations before,the ex-post evaluation has to be made available to the public, on request.82

The potential for evaluation to enhance the effectiveness of Structural Funds was recognised in thefirst reform of the Funds in 1988. Since then, its role has grown and the responsibilities of the differ-ent partners have been set out more clearly.

Payments and financial controlsAfter signing a financial contract with the Commission, the Member State also appoints a PAYMENT

AUTHORITY for each programme to act as intermediary between the final beneficiaries and the Com-mission. The payment authority, in collaboration with the managing authority, monitors the expendi-ture of the final beneficiaries and ensures that Community rules are observed. Only if the paymentauthority approves and certifies the actual expenditure, the final beneficiaries will be reimbursed.

The increased decentralisation of programme management calls for improved checking arrangements,which are the responsibility of Member States. The Commission itself ensures the effectiveness of thearrangements set up by the managing and payment authorities. Detailed checks, such as on-the-spotchecks and financial audits, must be made on five percent of expenditure in each programme. When

80 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Article 42.81 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Article 4582 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Article 43


46

irregularities are found, Member States are responsible for making financial corrections by cancellingall or part of the financing of the operations concerned. 83 A manual drafted by the European Commis-sion provides further specifications.84

Environmental and Social Assessments and Audits Carried out by Financial InstitutionsWhile EVALUATION mainly aims at supporting learning processes, AUDITS in the framework of struc-tural funds are set up mainly for controlling purposes.

Environmental and social aspects are also elements of the control mechanisms carried out by Euro-pean Financial Institutions: For some years, the EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS has been monitoringnot only the financial processing of exemplary projects but also whether these have been taking envi-ronmental or social aspects into account adequately. The reviews cover a systematic check of proce-dures and systems as well as random checks to get a representative picture on typical Structural Fundsprojects. The auditors test also whether and how environmental impact assessments have been carriedout and who has been responsible. Communication between the European Court of Auditors and theCommission are formalised: The results are communicated to the European Commission, the Direc-torate-General for Regional Policy, and to the European Parliament. In return, the Commission has toreport in a predetermined timeframe on the actions undertaken. According to the relevant nationallegislation, the audits are carried out either during implementation or after completion of projects. 85

As Structural Funds are set up to co-finance measures and projects, the NATIONAL COURTS OF

AUDITORS are also involved as controlling institutions. Whether they regard environmental and socialaspects, strongly depends on the policy of the national institutions.

In addition, the EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK (EIB) carries out environmental assessments for proj-ects, which are co-financed by Structural Funds. In the perspective of the EIB, environmental con-cerns also include social aspects. Since environment is a top operational objective, it is a general re-quirement of the EIB that each project has to meet the national and European environmental objec-tives. For more than 30 years, projects have been checked systematically in an ex-ante assessment interms of the following:

� the environmental impact of the project after abatement, mitigation or compensation;� the characteristics, size and location (especially with respect to sensitive areas) of the project;� the presence/ absence of any legal compliance issues;� the quality of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) where required � including the

studies carried out and the nature and extent of public participation;� the environmental management capability of the promoter, including the promoter�s environ-

mental awareness of and capacity and willingness to act upon environmental issues;

83 Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/200184 EC (2000)85 Telephone interview with Hendrik Fehr, Court of Auditors, 18 March 2004


47

� the presence/ absence of any major environment-related project risks.86

As a result of the ex-ante assessment, some projects are monitored during implementation. An engi-neer, an economist and a financial expert check each project. All in all, there are 90 persons availablefor project assessment and monitoring. The assessments and monitoring are undertaken without stan-dardized working material. Rather, for each project the methods are adapted. Most of the projects arechecked on-site. The results are summarized in a project completion report. Finally, the environmentalaspects of some projects may be evaluated ex-post by EIB's independent OPERATIONS EVALUATION

DEPARTMENT. Nevertheless, according to the EIB, the promoter is responsible for legal compliance,whereas regulatory and enforcement tasks lie with the competent authorities. The EIB can verifywhether all the procedural requirements were met. The EIB is seeking to strengthen the quality checkfor activities carried out by third parties.87 There is an intense exchange with the European Commis-sion, especially with DG Environment. A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING was set up to providerules for co-operation between both institutions, including experts groups und consultation mecha-nisms. In addition, twice a year NGOs are invited to discuss specific issues.88

4.2 Indicators for Measuring Environmental and Social Aspects

Indicators are considered an important instrument to ensure environmental and social aspects to beregarded in the Structural Funds´ programme cycles. Thus, formulating appropriate indicators is anissue of intensive debate within the European Commission and Member States. The sets of indicatorsdeveloped in recent years are numerous. Without claim to be exhaustive, some approaches are com-piled in Annex 6.2. Despite the wealth of indicators, an interview partner from DG Environmentstated that there is no appropriate overall set of indicators for assessing Structural Funds.

Context indicatorsAn important and commonly adopted approach to measure effects of Structural Funds is the use ofstatistical data describing the regional situation. For many years efforts have been made to develop amore consistent database within the Member States. Thus, statistical data or so-called CONTEXT

INDICATORS build the baseline for developing plans and are often used to evaluate the effect ofStructural Funds89. In some cases, e.g. anti-pesticide programmes in rural areas, a change in the envi-ronmental situation might be a direct result from Structural Funds. Here, statistical data of the envi-ronmental situation have a high indicative function. However, the measurement of effects is still achallenge in those cases where changes in the current situation cannot be directly connected to Struc-tural Funds. Generally speaking, clear cause-and-effect relationships between actions, resultsachieved and changes cannot easily be established.

86 European Parliament, Directorate-General for Research (2003)87 European Parliament, Directorate-General for Research (2003)88 Telephone interview with Shona Atkinson, 18 March 200489 e.g. water quality in the region, measured by kilometres of rivers with a high quality, or quota of women

of all employees.


48

To give an example: Qualification measures for energy saving will sooner or later have a positiveimpact on regional energy consumption and carbondioxid emission. However, changes in energy con-sumption will not relate to Structural Funds� measures only, but also on various parallel or anti-cyclical developments such as a trend in prices, technical progress and life style aspects. Therefore,context indicators can be adapted to measure effects only in a limited scope of cases.

Output, Result and Impact IndicatorsTo measure the effects of Structural Funds on environmental and social aspects, output, result andimpact indicators are the more appropriate approach. DG Regional Policy distinguishes between thefollowing types of indicators:

� output indicator, relating to activities, measured in monetary or physical units (e.g. length ofroad constructed);

� result indicators, relating to the direct and intermediate effects and changes (e.g. reduction ofjourney time due to road construction); and

� impact indicators, referring to the consequences of a programme and to the subsequentchanges in the regional state. 90

Whereas in many infrastructure measures, the database is available to build such indicators, in manyother cases a high amount of methodological know-how as well as personnel and financial resourcesis required to formulate and gather the information for output, result or impact indicators.

If these indicators shall serve as tools for fostering a high environmental and social performance ofthe projects, they must be highly specific to the projects characteristics. Furthermore, taking into ac-count the Structural Funds´ regional orientation, tools for assessing environmental and social impactsmust allow an individual approach according to regional objectives and pre-conditions.91 Thus, indi-cators used on the regional or even project level would be far too specific to use as a comprehensivecompilation and the communication of impacts and effects in all the various areas of Structural Fundsinterventions. Moreover, developing a consistent set of indicators based on project specific indicatorsis difficult because of the variety of projects financed by Structural Funds interventions. Compilingthese indicators is a logistical challenge (see figure 8): Currently, about 150,000 to 200,000 projectsare financed by Structural Funds. Computer-based solutions are expensive and raise the risk of conse-quential expenditures and efforts. In contrast to financial data, environmental and social indicators onresult, impacts and effects cannot be aggregated easily on the programme level. Moreover, aggrega-tion in such complex systems would lead to results which pretend to be accurate and objective withoutregarding uncertainties and differences between the methods applied for generating data.

90 EC, DG REGIO (without year, a)91 Indicators shall �relate to the specific character of the assistance concerned, its objectives and the socio-

economic, structural and environmental situation of the Member State concerned and its regions, as ap-propriate� (Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Article 36 (1))


49

Process IndicatorsThus the current debate at the European Commission and among interested parties92 increasingly fo-cus on indicators describing the quality of the processes established for integrating environmental andsocial demands. With theses, it would be possible to provide a better overview for the European Par-liament, the Council and interested public, which role environmental and social aspects actually playwithin the programme cycle in Member States.

4.3 Integrating Environmental and Social Aspects in Structural Funds

As shown in chapter 4.1, the legislative framework of the Structural Funds has strengthened environ-mental and social concerns in the legislative framework. Moreover, at the European Commission,environmental and social aspects have become serious concerns, amongst others fostered by the Car-diff Process, Lisbon and Gothenburg (see chapter 2). There is a constructive exchange between DGRegional Policy, DG Environment and DG Employment and Social Affairs93, 94. In addition, through-out the Commission and Member States many initiatives have been started to develop methodologiesfor mainstreaming the horizontal themes into the Structural Fund programme cycle95.

Nevertheless, environmental and social concerns are of different importance in the Member States,and the willingness to regard environmental indicators as a compulsory part of monitoring andevaluation procedures differs widely. A central pre-condition to ensure that horizontal themes aretaken into account in planning and implementation is an adequate institutional framework, involving

92 Telephone interview with Stephanie Lang, WWF Brussels, 9 March 200493 IEEP (2003)94 Nevertheless, DG Environment is only involved in an advisory function, not in decision-making.95 e.g. EC, DG EMPL (1999a), EURES (1999), EPRC (2001), IEEP (2002), IRPUD and nova (2003), IZT

(2001), WWF (2003)

Projects

Measures

European Union

OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP

MemberStates

MemberStates

MemberStates

ProjectsProjects

MeasuresMeasuresMeasuresMeasures

European Union

OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OP OPOP OP OPOP OP OP OP OP OPOP OP OP OP OP OPOP OP OP

MemberStates

MemberStates

MemberStates

MemberStates

MemberStates

MemberStates

Figure 7: Information levels in the framework of Structural Funds


50

the thematic authorities in the process. Such an institutional framework typically consists of workinggroups96.

GeM – Coordination Unit for Gender Mainstreaming in the ESF (Austria)The GeM (Gender Mainstreaming) was established in Austria in late 2000 by the Federal Ministry forEconomy and Labour (BMWA) and is co-financed under the Objective 3 programme97. It has a three-year operational period from 2001-2003 and its aim is to support gender mainstreaming primarily inthe Objective 3 programme in Austria. Its target group are end users of Objective 3 financing, in-cluding the Labour Market Service (AMS), the Federal Ministry for Education and Science and theTerritorial Employment Pacts, which make up a separate priority within the Objective 3 programme.GeM services are aimed at those persons directly involved in the design and operation of ESF meas-ures.98

Additionally, throughout many working papers PARTICIPATION of interested parties is emphasized asthe central concept for mainstreaming Structural Funds. Amongst others, Finland, Lithuania, Spainand Portugal established environmental advisory boards or networks, some of which involve a largenumber of participants99. An important aspect for ensuring that environmental demands are taken intoaccount is the close linkage between advisory boards and decision-makers. A good example is the UKwhere the Board is directly responsible to the Prime Minister.100

Italy – The Task Force of Environmental AuthoritiesDuring the evaluation of the programme period up to 1993-1999 it was shown that only 0.7 percentper region were dedicated to environmental integration in Structural Funds. This leads to the conclu-sion that dedicated central and regional task forces should be created. An innovative capacity buildingproject was created: An expert group with about 160 members was established, two thirds of themworking in environmental authorities to support programming and in environmental agencies to pro-vide support for data collection and monitoring. Another third was employed at the national Ministryof Environment and Territory. Based on this structure, guidelines on indicators, on evaluation and ontechnical directives for the implementation of the Operational Programmes101 were developed.102 Twoyears after establishing the system, all sides have learned: The acceptance of the experts has increasedand they are seen more and more as a support, rather than as creator of additional work and expendi-ture.

96 EPRC (2001)97 Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 lists three kinds of objectives of the Structural Funds: Objective 3

aims at the adaption and modernisation of policies and systems of education, training and employment.98 EPRC (2001).99 Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (2003)100 Telephone interview with Günter Raad, DG Environment, 10 February 2004.101 Operational Programme means the document approved by the Commission, which includes priorities and

measures to be financed by the Structural Funds in a given region.102 e.g.: Autorità Ambientali (2001).


51

Mainstreaming horizontal themes also requires GUIDANCE AND TRAINING at each level accompanyingthe programme cycle � from programme manager to priority managers and, ultimately, to projectmanagers and evaluators. Thus, thematic experts must be available. This requirement affords a budgetavailable for training measures for experts. For all steps of the programme cycle requirements andtools have to be specified � from programme design, project generation, selection and monitoring toevaluation.

The University of Strathclyde provides an exhaustive overview of activities in Member States: Thestudy covers a review of the content of selected 2000-2006 programmes. One result is that the pro-gramming documents show more systematic and developed responses for environmental demandsthan e.g. for gender aspects, as environmental themes are longer established. Nevertheless, the authorscome to the conclusion that there is a significant but uneven progress of integrating these themes moresystematically into programming documents. Applicants are more often being asked to consider theimplications of interventions for the environment and gender equality. Nevertheless, the process oftranslating the commitments in the programming documents into the content of projects is complex,and standard solutions are not available due to the variety of contexts in which structural programmesare designed and delivered.

Thus, the EVALUATION PROCESS is emphasised as a central step of the programme cycle to ensure theintegration of horizontal themes � assuming, that it is used as a tool to encourage reflection and de-bates. The importance of evaluation has risen considerably since it has been established as a compul-sory part of the programme cycle.

Strengthening evaluation is an important step towards the European policy understanding whichpoints out the significance of participative approaches. Involving interested parties is regarded as theappropriate course to negotiate between different and partly competitive objectives. Thus, the in-volvement of environmental and social partners in the evaluation process �ex-ante as well as midtermand ex-post - is an important step of mainstreaming programmes.

In fact, anchoring horizontal themes and partnership as important principles did not actually facilitateevaluation but even made it more complicate. In recent years, many different approaches for evaluat-ing the mainstreaming environmental and social concerns into the programmes have been elaboratedin the Member States, and many methods to measure success were developed (see also annex 6.2).Hence the methodologies of the environmental ex-ante and midterm evaluations of the Programmes2000-2006 vary considerably103 (see examples above). As a result, a consistent approach how tomeasure the overall impacts on the environment and on social concerns is not yet available.

103 This is not only a characteristic of evaluations in the framework of Structural Funds. The

FORSCHUNGSSCHWERPUNKT FÜR NACHHALTIGKEIT UND UMWELTMANAGEMENT DER TU WIEN (2002)comes to the conclusion, that the quality of public available evaluation reports in the field of sustainabilityissues is varying, the applied methods manifold, and a common set of methods or minimum standards noyet are established.


52

Example: The Single Programming Document “Objective 2 Salzburg 2000-2006”104

The single programming document �Objective 2 Salzburg 2000-2006� includes the results of the ex-ante evaluation. To describe the overall environmental impact the QUOTA OF FUNDS WHICH IS

EXPLICITLY PROVIDED TO IMPROVE THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT and the PROJECTED COMPENSATION

MEASURES are used as indicators. To classify the environmental character of projects three categoriesof environmental impacts (neutral/ mainly positive/ mainly negative) are used. The classification isbased on qualitative information.

The single programming document also identifies indicators to specify and measure the objectivesdefined in the programme. One of the targets specified is the PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATION. To quantify the impacts on this target it is proposed to use data on theair and water quality as indicators, which are irregularly collected by the national environmentalagency. The authors also stress the limitations of that approach due to the small contribution of theStructural Funds in relation to the regional added-value.

Example: Yorkshire and Humber 2000-2006 Objective 2 Programme105

In contrast to the Austrian example, in the mid-term evaluation of Yorkshire and Humber contextualindicators are excluded because of their limited significance. Instead, environmental sustainability isdescribed by output and process measures. From the mid-term evaluators� point of view most of theIntegrated Development Plans recognise environmental aspects, while major capital projects had beensubjected to appraisal against priorities and horizontal issues, such as environmental protection andgender mainstreaming. Applicants are informed that they have to address some environmental outputsand targets through self-appraisal. However, not all projects must meet all these issues. The design ofthe project merely has to demonstrate that there is no negative impact on the environment. All proj-ects that passes the initial assessment of eligibility are assessed against sustainability criteria. Theevaluators come to the conclusion that environmental aspects appear to be more intensively assessedthan other horizontal themes such as gender mainstreaming.

However, the mid-term evaluation emphasises the lack of provision for monitoring environmentalperformance of the Integrated Development Plans. There is no further central recording of progressafter the project starts. The evaluators state that progress performance in the mid-term evaluation isbuilt upon an insufficient data base. It is mainly compared with four programme-specific forecastenvironmental output indicators106, completed by interviews with relevant persons involved in theprogramming and implementing process. Thus, the evaluators recommend a monitoring of projectsand programmes including the effects on the environment.

104 Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung, Abteilung 15: Wirtschaft, Tourismus, Energie (2003).105 Leeds Metropolitan University (2003).106 1. Derelict/ Conatmined land developed, 2. Environmental initiatives assisted, 3. Brownfield land devel-

oped, 4. SME receiving financial support to introduce environmental technologies.


53

Nevertheless, debates on the evaluation of Structural Funds have a long tradition. Since 1995, fiveconferences took place to foster a culture of evaluation in relation to Structural Funds and to enhancethe quality of evaluations. Numerous studies on methodology have been carried out, and some manu-als have been launched by the European Commission to support Member States. In spite of this longdebate on methodology, the evaluation of Structural Funds programmes and projects still is chal-lenged. In many cases, it appears that the managing authorities expect the external evaluators to pro-vide solutions how to tackle the horizontal themes in the mid-term evaluation instead of providingguidance to the evaluators.107 Developing methodologies for evaluation still remains a prior task in theframework of Structural Funds policies.

Italy: Organizing EvaluationFor the organisation of the evaluation activities required by the Community regulation, Italy has de-veloped a system in the framework of the European Social Funds (ESF) that reflects the decentralisedcharacter of the institutions with as many evaluators as there are Operational Programmes (OP). Italso guarantees homogenous information on the various local situations through the scientific andmethodological coordination of a national Evaluation Unit. The tasks of the National Evaluation Unitare

● proposing the indicators, strategies and standards,● carrying out specific ongoing evaluations on topics and policies of strategic importance,● analysing the impact of the European Social Funds (ESF), also with regard to national or re-

gional labour and resource policies, and● carrying out the mid-term and final evaluation.

The evaluation activity is directed by the Technical Evaluation Group, set up within the MonitoringGroup, with the aim of steering, coordinating, and continuously checking and cross-checking theevaluation carried out by the various stakeholders. The technical Evaluation Group is the forum forcommon reflection and constitutes the partnership body of the evaluation. Presided by the Ministry ofLabour and Social Policy, it is composed of representatives of the European Commission, Ministry ofthe Economy, Operational Programme Managing Authorities, Equal Opportunities Department in thePrime Minister�s office, social partners, the National Evaluation Unit and Operational Programmeevaluators.108

At the current situation the evaluation reports are worked out for the administration in Brussels, whichhas the challenging task to assess and compile numerous documents with thousands of pages. In thelocal public and in the area of politics the evaluation reports are hardly noticed � not only becausethere might be a general lack of interest but also because the evaluation reports are difficult and tedi-ous to read. Above all, the results can hardly be compiled on an overall level, which in turn leads to acommunication challenge towards politicians and interested parties in the European public.

107 EPRC (2001)108 ISFOL (2003).


54

Nevertheless, systematic evaluation processes and the public use of their results build an importantelement to tackle complexity of Structural Funds and the requirements of a participatory policy ap-proach within the European Union. Moreover, there are already some best practice examples, such asthe evaluation of European Social Fund (ESF) in Italy (see above), where the National EvaluationUnit provides support and coordinates the evaluation process.

4.4 The Baseline for Recommendations

When providing recommendations, several framework conditions at European level should be takeninto consideration:

● Whereas the European Union in its beginning relied on standardisation, alignment, and cen-tralised steering, in the meantime more and more flexible policy approaches have been estab-lished taking into account different traditions, conditions, and cultures. According to this un-derstanding, the principles of decentralisation and partnership are awarded central importancein the relationship between Member States and the European Union. On the other hand, themulti-level governance has become very complex and often lacks the transparency requiredfor democratic legitimacy.109 Moreover, in the context of Structural Funds, many end-users donot anticipate or not even know the objectives and priorities of the Structural Funds Pro-gramming Framework110. Defining objectives often is a pro forma step. Thus, the recommen-dations have to find the balance between two sets of governance principles, decentralisationand participation, on the one hand, and better coordination and coherence, on the other.

● The European administration must address and deal with the situation that they are regardedsceptically by Member States. Thus, they often have to justify requirements which implicateadditional financial and personnel resources on the national level. Evaluations and audits havethe smell of control and bureaucracy. All requirements to establish additional administrativeprocesses will foster a critical attitude towards European interventions. Thus, not only activeinformation is required to accompany possible measurements but also the involvement ofMember States in the further design of measures to enhance consistency of evaluations andaudits and to foster environmental and social mainstreaming.

● The European Commission has only limited capacities to compile all information for the150,000 to 200,000 projects currently financed in the framework of Structural Funds. In anenlarged Europe with ten additional New Member States as important future recipients ofStructural Funds, this capacity is an even more restrictive element. Thus, simplification of theprocesses should be a guiding principle while developing recommendations.

109 Schleicher-Tapesser (2002)110 EURES (2001)


55

Context Indicators

Assessing, monitoring evaluating and auditing

measures/projects

Evaluating and auditing programmes

Specific Indicators Process Indicators

Anchoring EU objectives Supporting learning within projects

Performance of project/ measures

Adequacy of Processes

Regional situation

Gaining an overview of mainstreaming status

Planning programmes

Screening projects

Target

Focus

Stages in Programme Cycle

Context Indicators

Assessing, monitoring evaluating and auditing

measures/projects

Evaluating and auditing programmes

Specific Indicators Process Indicators

Anchoring EU objectives Supporting learning within projects

Performance of project/ measures

Adequacy of Processes

Regional situation

Gaining an overview of mainstreaming status

Planning programmes

Screening projects

Target

Focus

Stages in Programme CycleStages in Programme Cycle

Figure 8: Types of indicators and their purposes within programme and project cycle

5. Recommendations5.1 Selecting the Right Indicators –

Regarding their Functions in Programme and Project Cycles

The study should identify which indicators and methods could be useful for measuring social andenvironmental progress, especially for evaluating the added-value and other effects of Communityfunding. As shown in the previous chapter, a general, comprehensive and overall set of indicators ishardly feasible for all projects. In addition, the use of indicators should be understood as intrinsic partof a process. Thus, it is recommended to take a closer look at the functions indicators have at the di-verse stages in the programme or project cycle, where they are applied. The structure proposed in thefollowing is not meant to replace other methods to structure indicators, such as the �driving force-pressure-state-response� approach of the UN-CSD,111 OECD112 or the �input-output-result-impact�approach of the European Commission, DG Regional Policy.113 The following suggestion rather pro-vides a complementary approach.

Depending on stage and purpose within the programming cycles, three types of indicators are to bedistinguished (see figure 9), each of which will be outlined in the following sections:

� Context Indicators � Indicators for planning programmes and screening measures or projects� Specific Indicators � Indicators for monitoring measures and projects� Process Indicators � Indicators for evaluating and auditing programmes

111 United Nations Divisions for Sustainable Development:www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/isd.htm112 OECD (1993), OECD (2000)113 EC, DG REGIO (without year, a)


56

5.1.1 Context Indicators – for Planning Programmes and Screening of Measures or ProjectsContext Indicators are used to describe the regional situation. Many context indicators are available asstatistical data. In the framework of Structural Funds they are used to describe the environmental andsocial situation during the ex-ante evaluation.

The definition and formulation of context indicators should be oriented at the debate on environ-mental, social and economic objectives within the European Union (see also chapter 2 and annex 6.1).In addition, specific regional information may be important to describe and assess the regional situa-tion, of course. In order to find out the crucial regional aspects, environmental and social experts andstakeholders should be involved in the process of developing indicators.

Furthermore, it is proposed, that measures and projects should be screened and prioritised by usingEU objectives (see annex 6.1) to ensure that the EU objectives are anchored also on the local level offunding. Otherwise there might be a tendency to focus primarily � or even exclusively � on regionalinterests. During a screening phase, a specific profile should be worked out for all measures or proj-ects describing quantitatively or qualitatively their contributions to the economic, environmental andsocial objectives of the European Union as well as the specific programme. Trade-offs should be dis-cussed at least between the thematic authorities. Where appropriate, mitigation measures should bedefined. The results of the screening phase have to be documented to enhance transparency of thedecision-making process.

5.1.2 Specific Indicators – For Measures or ProjectsIn addition, indicators are required to enhance the environmental and social performance of measuresand projects according to their specific targets. Indicator sets such as developed by DG REGIONAL

POLICY114 or by DG EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS115 provide useful support. For this, during theplanning phase of measures and projects, objectives for monitoring and evaluation procedures shouldbe defined. To give an incentive for setting ambitious objectives, competitions could be set up to se-lect projects or to dangle higher grants in case of positive distinctions. An example of indicators forESF financed measures is provided in Annex 6.3.

On the level of measures and projects, an important task of indicators is to foster learning processesfor all partners involved in planning and implementing projects. Indicators are tools to support thedebate on appropriate objectives; in cases projects do not meet their targets indicators serve as cata-lysts for a structured debate on reasons for failing. At operational level indicators are more and moreconsidered instruments for structuring debates and learning processes along an ongoing monitoring.

Especially in the framework of a benchmarking, not the absolute value but related questions are sub-jects to debates. Typical questions are these: Which method and scope are used for data collection?

114 EC, DG REGIO (without year, b).115 EC, DG EMPL (1999b)


57

What are the reasons for differences between indicators derived from the diverse projects? What arethe specific situations of measures and projects causing differences? What are starting points for im-provement, and which are the experiences of the different partners in the benchmark process?

5.1.3 Process Indicators – For Monitoring, Evaluating and Auditing ProgrammesAs shown in the previous chapter, a harmonized indicator set to assess the contributions of StructuralFunds towards the Union�s environmental and social objectives is extremely difficult to formulate. Anapproach more in line with the demand to simplify processes within the EU, instead, is the use ofqualitative indicators focusing on the question, whether the procedures set up by Member States tointegrate environmental and social demands are appropriate. Starting points are (see also chapter 5.3):

� procedures to ensure that economic, environmental and social objectives of the Union are an-chored in programmes, for example by means of context indicators derived from the Europeanobjectives to identify gaps in social and environmental development,

� procedures to ensure that projects are selected only after screening their contributions to eco-nomic, environmental and social objectives of the Union, and that they are prioritised ac-cording to regional and European objectives,

� information and communication of social and environmental priorities and objectives of theEuropean Union and the specific programme,

� procedures to ensure, that for each measure and project specific environmental and social tar-gets are set up as a baseline for evaluation and auditing,

� inter-organisational working groups (advisory boards, networks) to ensure that environmentaland social demands are integrated at different stages of the programme and project cycles andguaranteeing their influence in programme and project cycle,

� capacity building to advise and support operators in environmental and social issues,� guidance and training for regional and local administration and financial control authorities,

monitoring committees, project managers or operators and auditors/ evaluators,� procedures for enhancing the consistency of monitoring and evaluation procedures,� disciplinary measures for cases where evaluations or audits show that a project or a pro-

gramme does (will) not meet the targets,� budgets for capacity building, such as development of guidance, information and communi-

cation, and training measures in the area of social environmental and social demands.

The questionnaire in Annex 6.4 shall serve as a first draft of qualitative process indicators. However,according to a European tendency to replace a �command-and-control� approach by more flexiblepolicies taking into account regional idiosyncracies, the European Union should provide guidance onprocess design as a general framework, whereas further specification along regional and national de-mands should be left to Member States. This approach takes into account that many Member States orRegions already have established procedures and capacities to integrate environmental and socialdemands. Developing the framework should be based on extensive consultation and on a participatoryprocess with European Institutions and Member States.


58


59

RecommendationsAnchoring the Union’s Environmental And Social Objectives on the Regional and Local Level

� A DIALOGUE PROCESS should be established (see chapter 5.3) to agree on a set of objectives,derived from the EU strategies on environmental and social objectives, and appropriate con-text indicators which should then be taken into consideration in the developing plans ofMember States. That process should include EUROSTAT to ensure that the indicators areavailable.

� INFORMATION AND TRAINING measures should be provided for all administrative levels andinvolved parties in Member States to communicate the Union�s environmental and social ob-jectives, including the specific objectives of the Funds. A profile of economic, social and en-vironmental objectives to be used as a baseline for screening should be provided with the ap-plication forms.

� A SCREENING PHASE should be established for all measures or projects to assess the contribu-tions against the background of the Union�s and the programmes´ economic, environmentaland social objectives. Trade-offs and mitigation measures should be discussed � at leastamong the relevant thematic authorities � and the results should be documented to enhancetransparency of the decision-making process. Project proposals should be prioritised accord-ing to their contributions towards regional and European environmental and social objectives.

Supporting Learning Processes on Structural Funds´ Measures and Projects� In order to provide incentives for setting ambitious objectives, COMPETITIONS OR AWARDS

could be set up to select and award especially noteworthy projects.

� The numerous approaches of INDICATORS for specific areas of interventions should be col-lected and made publicly available on a WEBSITE of a European Institution as well as on thewebsites of the managing and evaluating authorities in Member States.

� As a pilot project, BENCHMARKING PANELS involving project leaders in the same areas ofmeasures should be set up to support the exchange of experiences and indicator-aided learn-ing.

Asking the right questions – Set up criteria and indicators to measureenvironmental and social mainstreaming of Structural Funds programmes

� A SET OF CRITERIA should be developed in a participatory process (see chapter 5.3) to gain anoverview of the procedures set up in Member States to ensure that environmental and socialconcerns are awarded high priority in the Structural Funds programmes.

� INTEGRATING IN REPORTING: These criteria should be a mandatory part of the annual moni-toring reports and the evaluation reports.


60

5.2 Auditing Complex Systems – Defining appropriate Auditing Procedures

The audit procedure described below is formulated for institutions involved in financial audits, suchas the auditing institutions at the European level or the internal audit services in Member States andMember States� supreme audit institutions such as the national Courts of Auditors. Since audits inMember States according to national legislation are carried out at different stages of implementationor completion, the procedures described below have to be further specified. They shall serve only as afirst introduction of relevant procedures and questions. For a more practical and concrete approach, apilot project involving an auditing institution is recommended.

5.2.1 Exemplary Design of an AuditAudit PlanAt the beginning of the planning period, an AUDIT PLAN should be worked out to determine, whichprojects should be audited during the annual work programme. A guiding principle should be to en-sure that a representative number of all projects in terms of its nature would be considered.

The audit plan should also define who is to be involved in the audit. A characteristic of environmentaland social audits in the framework of Structural Funds is their multi-level design, regarding admini-strations and partners at national, regional and local level. For each of these levels audit procedureshave to be specified. It strongly depends on the organisation within each Member State, who will beinvolved in detail. However, at least the following partners have to be regarded:

� EU�Institutions involved in programming and evaluation (if the auditing institution is a Euro-pean one),

� national and regional administration,� local administration and control authorities, which manage, monitor and control individual

actions,� social and environmental partners in the monitoring committees, and� project managers or operators.

In addition, the audit plan should describe the procedures and supporting materials (such as check-lists, questionnaires, lists of the applicable environmental and social legislative framework) to beadopted during the environmental and social audit. The audit should cover systematic reviews of pro-cedures at programme level (management system audit of programmes) and include spot-checks ofprojects due to the environmental and social objectives defined by the European Union as well as ofthe programming documents (random checks).

ProceduresA central pillar of the audit should be information regarding the processes of programming and im-plementation in Member States. The process design influences considerably whether environmentaland social aspects are taken into account.


61

At programme level the audit may include:� reviews of records, written procedures and other relevant documentation, such as program-

ming documents, annual reports with the results of the monitoring process and evaluation re-ports and

� interviews and workshops with environmental and social partners in the Monitoring Com-mittees or in advisory boards as well as with the programme evaluators.

Therefore, a set of questions aiming on the process design at the PROGRAMME LEVEL should be part ofthe audit process. A questionnaire that shall provide first ideas can be found in Annex 6.4.

At the project level, the audit may include� reviews of planning documents, monitoring reports and evaluation reports,� checklists to be filled in by the operators during appraisal,� on-site visits and interviews with operators,� interviews or workshops with

- social and environmental partners,- national managing authorities,- regional or local managing, environmental and social authorities.

Thus, a set of questions aiming on the process design AT PROJECT LEVEL should be part of the auditprocess. A questionnaire with first ideas can be found in Annex 6.5.

ReportingA written audit report of appropriate form and content (see section 3.2.3) should be prepared at theend of each audit and audit cycle by the auditors to ensure full, formal submission of the findings. Theaudit report should include

� a description of the scope of the audit,� information about the state of compliance with the Union�s and the programme�s objectives

and the environmental performance of the projects,� information on the effectiveness and reliability of the arrangements for managing and moni-

toring environmental and social impacts of the projects, and� where appropriate, details on corrective action.

The findings and conclusions of the audit should be formally communicated to and discussed with theoperator. After preparing the final version, the report should be presented to the European Commis-sion (if the auditing institution is a European one) and the managing authority of the Member State.

Technical PapersTo enhance quality and consistency of the audits, technical papers should be prepared, such as

� checklists for project screening and assessment to be provided to applicants,


62

� checklists for management system audits (first drafts see Annex 6.4 and 6.5),� specific checklists for typical areas of interventions (see below), especially for infrastructure

projects with potentially considerable environmental and social impacts116,� a compilation of the principal EU environmental and social legislative instruments as they

relate to key development sectors or priorities that are often co-financed through the Struc-tural Funds (see below).

The environmental assessment handbook prepared on behalf of DG Environment may serve as a help-ful tool.117

Areas of Structural Funds Interventions� Agriculture� Forestry� Promoting the adaptation and the development of rural areas� Fisheries� Support for large firms� Support for SMEs and craft businesses� Tourism� Research, technological development and innovation (RTDI)� Labour market policy� Social inclusion� Developing educational and vocational training not linked to a specific sector� Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, innovation, information and communication

technologies� Positive labour market actions for women� Transport infrastructure� Telecommunications infrastructure and information society� Energy infrastructures (production, delivery)� Environmental infrastructure (including water)� Social and public health infrastructure118

CapacitiesA department in the auditing institution should be established to coordinate the environmental andsocial audit activities. This department would then be in charge of preparing technical papers, as wellas training and supporting auditors.

116 For infrastructure projects, the OECD Common Approaches for evaluating the environmental impact of

infrastructure projects is recommended as a guideline117 EC, DG ENV (1998)118 Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001


63

In addition, depending on number and extent of the projects to be checked, sufficient capacitiesshould be made available to carry out the environmental and social audits. Personnel must exhibitappropriate knowledge of the sectors audited, including knowledge and experience in the relevantenvironmental, management, technical and regulatory issues. This staff should also be involved in thescreening and assessment of projects to ensure the quality of assessments in the planning phase ofprojects. The environmental and social experts should form multidisciplinary appraisal and auditingteams comprising of technical, financial and legal experts.

In order to establish a high quality assurance an additional independent evaluation unit should super-vise the work of the auditing departments119, similar to the procedure in the World Bank or the Euro-pean Investment Bank, including random checks as well as thematic evaluations, focussing, for exam-ple, on social inclusion or specific environmental subjects such as urban air quality or water manage-ment.

Qualification and Exchange of ExperienceThe auditors should be trained by the environmental departments regularly, for example twice a year,regarding revised technical papers and revised environmental and social legislation. Moreover, it isrecommended that training programmes include moderated exchanges of experience between theauditors.

5.2.2 Integration in Existing Management SystemsCoordination between Audit and EvaluationTo reduce the administrative efforts to be undertaken by Member State authorities and operators, it isrecommended to enhance consistency of the approaches and methods for assessing, monitoring,evaluating and auditing programmes and projects between these Institutions. At least, a consistentframework of principles and objectives should be developed as a baseline for audits as well as forevaluations.

Therefore it is recommended to provide standardised checklists on environmental and social issues tobe filled in at the appraisal stage of a project as a framework for project screening and assessment.These checklists should be aligned with the working papers of the European Commission, theEvaluation Units in the Member States and with technical papers used by European Institutions, suchas the European Court of Auditors or the European Investment Bank.

Enhancing Motivation for Performance Audits in National Control InstitutionsIn addition, auditing the environmental and social performance of measures and projects in the Mem-ber States would increase the potential of this instrument considerably. Thus, it should be furtherstrengthened. Member States should call upon the national Courts of Auditors and their paymentauthority to include environmental and social aspects in their lending activities and auditing schemes. 119 Terminology (audit and evaluation): see chapter 3.1


64

Coordination, information and providing material are recommended as first measures to enhanceawareness. Moreover, establishing procedures for strengthening environmental and social perform-ance audits should be an issue of the dialogue proposed below (see section 5.3).

RecommendationsIntegration into Existing Management Systems

� COORDINATION BETWEEN AUDIT AND EVALUATION: Consistency of the approaches andmethods for assessing, monitoring, evaluating and auditing programmes and projects betweenthe evaluating and auditing institutions should be enhanced in order to reduce the efforts to beundertaken by Member State authorities and operators.

� ENHANCING MOTIVATION FOR PERFORMANCE AUDITS IN NATIONAL CONTROLLING

INSTITUTIONS: Member States should be called upon requiring their payment authority andtheir controlling institutions to include environmental and social aspects in their lending ac-tivities and auditing schemes.

5.3 Mainstreaming Structural Funds - Integrating Environmental and Social Con-cerns in Programmes and Projects

Since horizontal themes have been embedded explicitly in the Structural Funds legislative framework,many actors at the European level and in Member States have been developing methods to put theserequirements into practice. In the current period substantial experience has been gathered how to inte-grate horizontal themes into Structural Funds and what limits and hindrances may be.

In the context of the forthcoming revision of Structural Funds legislative framework, these experi-ences should be evaluated and serve as an input for the next programme period. European Unionshould provide guidance on process design as a general framework, whereas further specification dueto the regional and national demands is up to the Member States. For this propose, a forum, consti-tuted of representatives from all Member States and the European Union, should be set up, accompa-nied by a professional moderator. This process should primarily aim at identifying appropriate pathsfor mainstreaming the programmes taking into account possible limiting factors within Member Statesand regions, such as financial resources and capacities.

According to the findings of the present study, the following topics should be discussed in such aconsultation forum:

� BUILDING A BASELINE � AGREEMENT ON PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES: Objectives are re-quired to build a clearly defined baseline for programme development, for monitoring, evalu-ating and auditing programmes and for selecting and prioritising projects.

� LOBBYISTS FOR SOCIAL AND ENVIRONEMTAL CONCERNS � INVOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL AND

SOCIAL PARTNERS: Member States should develop methods to involve interested parties thatserve as guarantors for taking environmental and social concerns into account. Guidance


65

should be developed for selecting and involving not only environmental and social authoritiesbut also nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). It is recommended to work out proposals forinvolving those partners in decision-making.

� BUILDING NATIONAL EVALUATION UNITS � COORDINATING AND RAISING THE CONSISTENCY

OF EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS: In order to improve the informational value of the evaluationreports, the procedures and the reporting systems should be more consistent at least withineach Member State. To achieve this aim, and to ensure a high quality of the evaluations it isrecommended to establish national structures for environmental and social evaluation. Pro-posed tasks of Environmental and Social Evaluation Units are:� ensuring the qualification and training of experts for environmental and social screening,

assessment and evaluations,� coordinating the evaluation process,� providing guidelines on audit procedures,� providing guidelines on methods for measuring and assessing environmental and social

aspects,� providing guidelines on reporting for regional and national public and politicians as well

as towards the European Commission,� coordinating a process for developing indicators in accordance with the Monitoring

Committees.

� INDEPENDENCY AND HIGH QUALITY OF EVALUATIONS � PRECONDITIONS FOR ADVANCED

EVALUATION PROCEDURES: Since evaluation has been recognized as a crucial stage in theprogramme and project cycle, a high quality should be ensured. An important precondition isthat the external experts are independent from the regional and managing authorities. Toguarantee a high quality of the audit process, measures for quality assurance in the area of en-vironmental and social assessment and evaluation should be established120.

� INCENTIVES should be set up to stimulate a high environmental performance during pro-gramme implementation in the Member States. In other words, social and environmental pro-cess indicators could be included in the indicator set used for the allocation of the perform-ance reserve due to Article 14 of Council regulation 1260/1999.

� EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCE � ANALYSING FEASIBILITY AND PROBLEMS IN MAINSTREAMING

PROGRAMMES: A compulsory element of the evaluation should be regular seminars or work-shops with the managing and thematic authorities as well as interested parties in the field ofenvironmental and social concerns, and with politicians.

120 An example could be the AA 1000 Standard for quality assurance. See also chapter 3.4.


66

RecommendationsDeveloping a Framework for Mainstreaming Environmental and Social Aspects

in a Participatory Process� A DIALOGUE PROCESS, involving all Member States and representatives of the European Un-

ion, should be initiated, accompanied by a professional moderator. This panel of delegatesshould aim first and foremost at identifying best practices and work out guidance papers formainstreaming environmental and social concerns in Structural Funds programmes, measuresand projects.

Amendments to the Structural Funds’ Legislative Framework –Hot spots for the Revision

� Results on environmental and social aspects from the findings of the auditors, the monitoringand evaluation should be used as basic information for the ALLOCATION OF THE

PERFORMANCE RESERVE121. The General Provisions on Structural Funds from 1999 do notexplicitly require environmental and social indicators as a part of the performance indicators.

� The current General Provisions on Structural Funds require explicitly involving merely eco-nomic and social partners122 but do not mention environmental partners. A revised directiveshould include ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL AUTHORITHIES AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL

ORGANISATIONS (NGOS); in addition, it should call upon the Member States to developguidelines for involving those environmental and social partners, not only in advisory func-tion but also as PARTNERS WITH DECISION-MAKING RIGHTS.

� To enhance transparency of the decisions on the allocation of funds the annual monitoringand evaluation reports should describe THE PROCEDURES OF DECISION MAKING and REPORT

ON THE CHARACTER AND NUMBER OF PROJECTS DENIED. Moreover, the reports should beEASILY AVAILABLE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, not merely at request as laid down in the pres-ent General Provisions of Structural Funds.123 Up to now, social and environmental concernsare not yet considered to be a compulsory part of these reports. Integrating these aspectsshould be rendered mandatory.

121 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Articel 44122 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Articel 8 (1)123 Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Articel 40 (4)


67

6. Annex6.1 Environmental and social objectives

Derived from investigations described in chapter 2, the following provides a compendium of envi-ronmental and social objectives of the documents analysed above124: The areas of action below arerecommended as a baseline for deriving context indicators for Structural Funds programming withinMember States (see section 5.1.1).

6.1.1 Environmental objectives

Areas of Action ObjectivesCombat climatechange

Reducing the greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 1990 levels during the first "commit-ment period" 2008 to 2012Decoupling transport growth significantly from growth in Gross Domestic ProductFoster sustainable

transport Bring about a shift in transport use from road to rail, water and public passenger transportso that the share of road transport in 2010 is no greater than in 1998Ensuring that the consumption of resources do not exceed the carrying capacity of the envi-ronmentBreaking the linkages between economic growth and resource use

Preserve naturalresources

Achieve a percentage of 22 % of the electricity production from renewable energies by2010Achieving a significant overall reduction in the volumes of waste/ Break the links betweeneconomic growth and the generation of waste

Reduce waste

A significant reduction in the quantity of waste going to disposal and the volumes of haz-ardous waste produced while avoiding an increase of emissions to air, water and soilProtect and restore habitats and natural systems and halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010.

Ensure sustainable fisheries and healthy marine ecosystemsConservation, appropriate restoration and sustainable use of marine environment, coasts andwetlands and significant landscape valuesConservation of species and habitats, with special concern to preventing habitat fragmenta-tion

Preserve natureand biodiversity

Promotion of a sustainable use of the soilAiming to achieve within one generation (2020) that chemicals are only produced and usedin ways that do not lead to a significant negative impact on health and the environment

Reducing the impacts of pesticides on human health and the environmentAchieving quality levels of ground and surface water and of air quality that do not give riseto significant impacts on and risks to human health and the environment

Environment andHuman Health

Substantially reducing the number of people regularly affected by long-term average levelsof noise

124 Sources: see chapter 2


68

6.1.1 Social objectives

Fields of Objec-tives125

Objectives

The targeted employment rate: 67% in 2005 and 70 % in 2010

Increase number of women in employment (employment rate for women: 57% in2005 and 60 % in 2010)Increasing employment among elder persons (55-64) to an employment rate of 50%by 2010Making it easier to reconcile work and familyIncreasing employment in serviceFurthering equal opportunitiesImproving employability/Reducing skill gaps

Full Employment

Fostering lifelong learningIncreasing health and safety at workImproving quality and

productivity at work Creating new balance between flexibility and securityFighting povertyFacilitate participation in employmentFacilitate access by all to resources, rights, goods and services

Prevent the risk of exclusion, amongst others elder people, handicapped, foreigners

Social inclusion

Promoting gender equalityA substantial annual increase of per capita investment in human resources

The number of 18 to 24 year olds with only lower-secondary level education who arenot in further education and training should be halved by 2010

Education

Schools and training centres, all linked to the Internet

125 Sources: see chapter 2


69

6.2 Indicators and Approaches for Measuring Effects of Structural Funds

The development of appropriate indicators for measuring the effects of Structural Funds is intensivelydiscussed at the level of the European Union and in the Member States. The following section pointsto some facets of the ongoing discussion in order to illustrate the intensity and extent of a complexdebate � without claiming to be exhaustive.

6.2.1 Activities at the Union’s LevelContextual Indicators as a Planning base for Structural FundsSince 1992 and 1993 the Commission has already developed, in co-operation with Member States, acommon system of quantified indicators suitable to describe the situation in the Member States. Theyshould be used to measure gaps in development, including environmental requirements, and are suit-able for the planning phase of Structural Funds� programmes. These indicators were entered in a data-base, Quid, which was revised in 1999.

The effort of developing a minimum set of data in all countries shows progress. Which data on theenvironment are additionally collected in the Member States is compiled in a report commissioned byEUROSTAT in 2002. The results of the survey were used to consider means of improving the collec-tion of regional environmental data within at EU level.126

An interesting approach in the area of social context indicators is ELIZE, an Oracle database managedby EUROSTAT and financed by the European Commission, DG Regional Policy. In the framework ofthe project a website is being built providing regional business statistics for the evaluation of theStructural Funds. The ELIZE database provides information on topics such as employment, valueadded, wages and investments. Currently over 500 pages of analysis are available.

ECOTEC-IndicatorsIn 1999, DG Regional Policy commissioned an investigation on the sustainability effects ofObjective 2 programmes. The study prepared by ECOTEC Research and Consulting, mainly focusingon environmental aspects, raised substantial interest in the interested professional public and wasdiscussed intensively and controversially.127 One important aspect of criticism was the lack in socialdimension.128 Thus, the Commission set up regional pilot studies to get a feedback on the practicabil-ity of the ECOTEC model and to incite alternative and additional approaches. Amongst others, theregions in the UK, Netherlands, Finland, France and Germany were involved. In the framework ofthis project a scheme for project assessment recommending a qualitative approach was worked out.For each dimensions of sustainability � economics, environment and social affairs � five criteria aredetermined. In each criterion the projects are classified within four categories (positive impact, noimpact, negative impact and impact unknown). The results of the assessment are summarized to a

126 EC, EUROSTAT (2003)127 ECOTEC Research and Consulting (1997)128 IZT (2001)


70

single score value.129 Another approach was chosen by EURES (2001) with the SQM - SustainableQuality Management. The system is based on a software tool accessible via Internet, and it accompa-nies the users from analysis within the planning phase, to selection of projects up to the implementa-tion phase and the evaluation process. The system is build upon an analysis matrix with 32sustainability criteria in combination with a qualitative SWOT analysis130. The system was adoptedfor two local programmes in the region of the Midi-Pyrenees.131

DG REGIO Working Documents on IndicatorsAt the beginning of the programming period, the European Commission, DG Regional Policy, pub-lished some working documents as methodological support: In Working Paper 2 the Commissiontackles ex-ante evaluation, covering analysis of strengths, weaknesses and potential of the region aswell as the assessment of relevance and coherence, the rationale and the overall consistency of thestrategy and the evaluation of expected impacts. As one key issue the Commission identified the needof relevant indicators in order to quantify objectives and key disparities, notably in the context of coreindicators.132 With WORKING PAPER 3 INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION. AN

INDICATIVE METHODOLOGY, DG Regional Policy suggests a methodology to develop indicators. Theconcept distinguishes between:

� resource or input indicators, referring to the budget allocated to each level of assistance,� output indicator, relating to activities measured in monetary or physical units (e.g. length of

road constructed),� result indicators, relating to the direct and intermediate effects and changes (example: reduc-

tion of journey time because of road construction),� impact indicators, referring to the consequences of a programme and to changes in the re-

gional state.

The Working Paper proposes a set of output, result and impact indicators for several areas of inter-ventions, such as energy infrastructure, agriculture, forestry, promoting development of rural areas orfishery. Parallel, indicators are defined referring to the main objectives of the Structural Funds, suchas employment, transport and energy infrastructure network, telecommunication and information so-ciety, environment, research and development, technology and innovation, small and medium enter-prises (SME) and human resources development. This approach results in a considerable list of indi-cators, which � as the authors state � not is exhaustive. It is recommended to select some core indica-tors. All indicators proposed are linked to a code referring to the Commission�s categorisation of ar-eas of interventions. Thus, indicators´ values can be linked to the expenditures. However, the use ofthe indicators is voluntary. Member States are recommended to define quantified targets for eachmeasure or project in the ex-ante evaluation and to provide information on the achievement in the 129 IZT (2001)130 SWOT means an methodological approach to analyse strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats131 Schleicher-Tappeser, R. (2002)


71

mid-term evaluation.133 Based on the indicative methodology presented in working paper 3 DG Re-gional Policy additionally drafted a set of indicators specified for INTERREG III objectives.134

Textually the working papers mainly aim at socio-economic impacts. Although sustainability is de-fined as a target, in the context of the Structural Fund�s evaluation this term refers to the long-termeffects of financial assistance. Environmental and social aspects are a part of the criteria and indica-tors proposed but they are only addressed unsystematically.

Another Technical Paper of DG Regional Policy gives advice in gender mainstreaming of the pro-grammes. The paper provides checklists to check compliance with the requirements of the EuropeanDirective 1260/1999 and specifies the gender mainstreaming objectives and the information requiredin the planning documents to guarantee that gender objectives are taken into account at an early stage.A set of criteria is provided as support for evaluators of programmes and projects.135

The Commission’s Handbook on Environmental AssessmentTo support competent authorities within Member States and the regions in assessing the environ-mental situation as well as the impacts of the structural funds, a handbook was prepared by the con-sultancy ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ERM) on behalf of DG Environment with theactive co-operation and assistance of DG Regional Policy and DG Agriculture. THE COMMISSION�S

HANDBOOK ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND EUSTRUCTURAL FUNDS PROGRAMMES136 has been designed to give these authorities a thorough reviewof the environmental and sustainable development dimensions of the Structural Funds process. One ofthe key messages of the handbook is that co-operation between those authorities who are responsiblefor drawing up and managing EU Structural Funds programmes and those authorities who have re-sponsibility for environmental issues, is a main success factor to ensure environmental aspects to betaken into account. The handbook aims at maximising the co-ordination and collaboration between theDevelopment Authorities and Environmental Authorities. However, the handbook emphasises thatstyle and methods for co-operation can be flexible, since they will have to fit into a variety of nationaland regional systems. The handbook provides an environmental assessment which is often referred toas Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and can be defined as a systematic process for evalu-ating the environmental consequences of proposed policies, plans or programmes in order to ensurethey are fully included and appropriately addressed at the earliest stage of decision-making on parwith economic, environmental and social considerations. The Commission�s Handbook proposes aSEA process, which follows the Structural Fund programme stages. It is mainly process-oriented andprovides some forms and questionnaires to assist the users, covering the following stages:

� assessment of the environmental situation,

132 EC, DG REGIO (without year, a)133 EC, DG REGIO (without year, b)134 EC, DG REGIO (2000a)135 EC, DG REGIO (2000b)136 EC, DG ENV (1998)


72

� objectives, targets and priorities.� draft development proposal (plan/programme) and identification of alternatives,� environmental assessment of the draft proposal,� environmental indicators,� integrating the results of the assessment into the final decision on plans and programmes.

Amongst others, the Handbook specifies a set of issues to be regarded while developing the StructuralFunds programmes. The issues refer to the targets specified in the 5th Environmental Framework Pro-gramme, such as the minimised use of non-renewable resources, the use of renewable resources, envi-ronmentally sound use and management of hazardous or polluting substances and waste and promot-ing public participation in decisions about development. As tools for gathering and assessing infor-mation on the potential impacts questionnaires, interviews, panels, checklists and trend analysis aresuggested. The annexes of the handbook also provide examples of impact and performance indicatorsas well as examples for Operational Programme (OP) measures and summarise the environmentalassessments of plans and programmes.

DG EMPL: Equal Common DatabaseAn interesting approach to gain an overview of design and effects of funded projects is the EqualCommon Database (ECDB) reporting on activities in the framework of the Community InitiativeEQUAL. Funded by the European Social Fund (ESF), EQUAL tests new ways of tackling discrimi-nation and inequality experienced by those in work and those looking for a job. The key principals ofEQUAL are transnational co-operation, innovation, empowerment, thematic and partnership ap-proach, dissemination and mainstreaming to ensure that EQUAL informs about policies and practice.The activities are structured on the four pillars of the European Employment Strategy: employability,entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities. In addition, EQUAL has a separate theme thataddresses the needs of asylum seekers.137

The EQUAL Common Database (ECDB) contains information on all of the projects (Developmentpartnerships - DPs) financed within the European Union and in some candidate countries. The ECDBgathers data originating from the DPs, which have been validated by the National Authorities andtransmitted at European level. Target groups of this information system are those involved withEQUAL, politicians and researchers and the interested public. The database provides an overview ofhow many projects in the Member States and the candidate Countries are initiated in each of ninethematic areas. Each project is characterised according to a uniform structure. Users of the databaseget rating results on several criteria, such as nature of the experimental activities, type of innovation,structure of benefit recipients, structural, system and accompanying measures.

137 europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equal/index_en.html


73

Different search forms (simple or advanced) are available in eleven official languages in order to ob-tain the information required from the database. Help topics are available to ensure that the user un-derstands all the information given. Language options can be chosen.

DG EMPL: Guidelines for Systems of Monitoring and Evaluation of ESF Assistance in the Pe-riod 2000-2006With this guiding paper DG Employment and Social Affairs provides a set of minimum indicators forStructural Funds distinguishing between input and output indicators, and outcome and impact indica-tors (see above). Furthermore, the indicators are structured by the types of activities: Assistance topersons, to structures and systems and accompanying measures, such as local development initiatives.In addition, qualitative information is specified as a part of the process evaluation, such as informa-tion on the programme and steering assistance like guidelines etc. The guidelines also cover recom-mendations on the organisation of monitoring and evaluation. Participation is pointed out as a keyprinciple of the Evaluation of Structural Funds.138

DG EMPL: Practical Guide for Measuring Soft Outcomes and Distance TravelledThere is also a wide range of indicators to measure social effects of projects, such as the number ofemployments or number of participants of qualification courses. Nevertheless, the measurement of aproject�s social outcomes poses a series of challenges especially for ESF funded projects, for the mostrelevant measure of progress might be soft outcomes which demands an appropriate methodology formeasurement. Thus, on behalf of the Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs, a practicalguide was worked out to support project managers by measuring these aspects.139 The guide definesSOFT OUTCOMES as those outcomes that represent intermediary stages on the way to achieve a hardoutcome. To give an example: A hard outcome is GETTING A JOB, whereas a soft outcome isIMPROVED SELF-CONFIDENCE OR SELF-ESTEEM.

The practical guide sets up a five-step process to design a system for progress measuring of soft out-comes, including the following:

� Clarification of key success factors for implementing the system: In this phase the design ofthe evaluation process is determined.

� Decision on issues to be monitored and appropriate indicators: According to the aims to beachieved a set of relating skills, characteristics and behaviour patterns are specified whichmight lead to success. E.g. to get an estimation on WORK APPRAISAL, as indicator serve TASK

DID NOT NEED REDOING or BEING PUNCTUAL AND RETURNING FROM BREAKS WITHOUT

PROMPTING. These more qualitative indicators are measured on a four-point scale � fromABOVE STANDARD to UNACCEPTABLE STANDARD.

138 EC, DG EMPL (1999b)139 GHK for Department for Work and Pensions (2003)


74

� Decision on how to measure: There are different ways of measuring soft outcomes, for exam-ple through observation, witness statements, feedback from clients or by reviewing evidenceof completed tasks.

� Decision on baseline a subsequent assessment: Monitoring soft outcomes requires an initialassessment against which subsequent progress can be measured. The guide outlines self-assessment, joint completion and assessment by third parties as main methodological ap-proaches.

� Reviewing progress to assess distance travelled: Here the frequency with which assessmentsare carried out is discussed and the reporting process is outlined.

The practical guide is based on an intensive research of current practice on approaches to measuringsoft outcomes followed by ESF projects and other organisations. As no single approach will be suit-able to all ESF projects every project needs to adopt the more general approach provided by the prac-tical guide to their own use. To give further support, some approaches developed and proved in thecontext of specific projects were included in the guide.

Indicators of the Environmental and Social PartnersNot only the European Institutions, also the interested parties and their deputies at European level areworking on indicators. Due to the fact that in recent years the ESF mainly focused on the labour mar-ket, but not on social inclusion in a wider sense, the Anti-Poverty Network developed indicators onsocial inclusion within several projects, involving their target groups in a participatory process.140 TheEuropean Environmental Bureau (EEB) also is working on a set of environmental indicators forStructural Funds interventions.

6.2.2 Activities in the Member StatesIntegrating environmental or social aspects and measuring the effects of Structural Funds by indica-tors has also been discussed in Member States for many years. Amongst others, Spain, Italy, someScandinavian countries, the UK, Austria and Germany have developed procedures for environmentalassessments and indicators for Structural Funds.

� The Scottish ESEP (East of Scotland European Partnership) prepared guidance notes for thecompletion of structural funds grant applications, providing a list of performance indicators.The structure of the indicator set is geared to the approach of DG Regional Policy describedin Working Paper 3 distinguishing between output and result indicators and allocating them tothe Commission�s categorisation of areas of interventions by a code.141

� In SPAIN a set of about 500 indicators was developed and reduced in a further discussion pro-cess. The Ministry for Environment in Madrid published a manual for planning and evalua-

140 Particia Brandellero, Anti-Poverty-Network, during the Workshop on �Environmental and Social Audit�,

16th March 2004 in Brussels141 ESEP (2003)


75

tion of the structural funds programmes.142 A working document from 2004 proposes criteriafor prioritisation of projects and for integrating environmental aspects in the projects´ objec-tives.143

� In FINLAND a system was established which is based on one core indicator: theENVIRONMENTAL BENEFICENCE OF PROJECTS. This indicator is generated during the environ-mental assessment within the planning phase. For that purpose a classification for the poten-tial projects is suggested144 and for each category criteria are defined to assess if the projectsare environmentally beneficial. The assessment is carried out during project selection. The re-sult of the assessment for each project is integrated in a monitoring system called FEMOS.FEMOS builds the database for the evaluation on measure and programme level. The regionalprogrammes foresee that up to thirty percent of all projects should be environmentally benefi-cial.145

� In FRANCE the lack of coherence between the regions during the previous 1997-99 program-ming period made it very difficult to exploit the results of the regional evaluations at the na-tional level. For the new programming period, it was decided that a limited number of indi-cators should be used across regions to enable evaluators to draw considerations on the pro-grammes that could be aggregated at national level. These indicators are integrated intoPRÉSAGE, the computer database used to register, select, manage, monitor, evaluate andcontrol projects co-financed by the Structural Funds in France.

In relation to the horizontal themes, four options are available to record the impact of projects,which can be �prominent�, �positive�, �neutral� or �negative�. In addition, a box can be tickedto indicate whether a project is strongly focused on a single horizontal theme (i.e. whether it isa positive action project). Projects taking up a mainstreaming approach would claim a positiveimpact on the horizontal themes but not be focused on horizontal themes. The application ofthis framework has been more complicated in practice than anticipated, because the meaninggiven to the above options � and more generally to the themes themselves � varies signifi-cantly from one region to another, depending on local contexts. For instance, indicators as-sessing the sustainability of economic development take on a particular significance in Brit-tany, where the environment has been particularly degraded, and this is different from thesituation in other regions. As a result, it was recently decided to harmonise the definitions. Todo this, a typology of the typical impacts of assisted projects is being created. This will beused to improve the accuracy of the data entered into PRÉSAGE.146

142 Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (1999)143 Red De Autoridades Ambientales (2004)144 Projects in the area of working environments and companies; Training, information and advisory projects;

Research and product development projects; energy projects; Projects in agriculture, forestry or fisheries;Rural development projects; Urban development projects; Tourism projects; water and waste projects.

145 Telephone interview with Theri Trast, Ministry of Environment, 4.th of March, 2004Berninger, K. (2003)

146 EPRC (2001).


76

� The ÖSTERREICHISCHE RAUMORDNUNGSKONFERENZ developed indicators jointly with themanaging authorities to ensure the comparability between the federal states. The indicatorsfocus on projects co-financed by the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) andcover four environmental dimensions: pollution, consumption of resources, waste and bio-logical diversity. The set of indicators vary according to the categories of project defined byvolume of total eligible costs and was drafted on the assumption that larger Projects have agreater environmental effect. Projects smaller than 350,000 € have to apply a basic set of in-dicators focusing on four environmental dimensions, projects from 350,000 € to 3.5 m € ad-ditionally must provide written Statements explaining the reasons for the environmental indi-cators and additional indicators on the enterprise. Beside this information, projects larger than3.5 m € have to work out a detailed description of the environmental impacts. 147

� In GERMANY there are several activities in the Federal States and regions:� After four years of discussion, in the Land BERLIN a set of indicators was developed for

projects with costs eligible for assistance above 750,000 €. With this, approximately only3 to 4 percent of the Structural Funds in Berlin are covered.

� Under contract of the Federal State of SAXONY the research institute EURES developed aset of 16 criteria to implement sustainability demands in the programming documents andthe evaluation steps. The criteria are based on an interpretation of the overall concept ofsustainable development, regarding two dimensions of meta criteria: The first dimensioncovers environmental, socio-cultural and economic aspects, the second one refers toavailability of resources, prevention of impacts and risks. As a further aspect stability andability to develop are considered. An assessment procedure is proposed to find out thepotential impacts of the programme based on five guiding questions. Additionally theysuggest a method to prioritise projects. Based on the sustainability criteria the projectsare categorised qualitatively by a three-coloured traffic light system.148 A similar ap-proach was developed in NORTHRHINE-WESTPHALIA.

147 OEROK - Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz (2002).148 EURES (1999)


77

6.3 Specific Indicators for ESF Measures

Types of activities149 Input and output indica-tors (common minimum)

Output indicators specific tothe measure

Environmental criteria150

Measures of assis-tance for persons,such as

training, counsellingand orientation, media-tion, employment aid,integrated measuressuch as pathway tointegration, help forbusiness start-ups)

Assistance to compa-nies(organisation of work,continuous training,advice)

� Amounts spent peryear

� Number of benefici-aries per year (peopleentering, those leav-ing, carry over fromone year to another)

� Distribution betweenmen/women

� Distribution accord-ing to status in thelabour market

� Number of projectsand companies bene-fiting on an annualbasis

� Beneficiaries' character-istics:

� qualifications, age, other� individual or social char-

acteristics (ethnic mi-norities, the disabled,etc)

� Types of intervention percategory of beneficiaries

� Information on the dura-tion of the actions

� Number of developmentplans per year

� Number of employeesinvolved per year

Measures of assis-tance for structuresand persons, such as

teacher training, advi-sory and orientationservices, creation oftraining/educationcurricula, certification,etc


� Number of projects(new, current, com-pleted) per year

� Number of partners inthe project

� Number of trained train-ers per year

� Number of employmentor training centres bene-fiting from assistance peryear

� �Capacity of the systems(number of trainingplaces offered or created)

� Improvement of systems(number of certifiedtraining courses)

Accompanying meas-ures, such as

guidance services,tutorial system/mentor,social services, localdevelopment initiatives,care for dependants


� Number of projects(new, current, com-pleted) per year

� Number of services pro-vided per year

� Number of Co-operation� protocols /contracts per

year� Number and types of

partners involved in themeasure

Number of projects aim-ing on

� facilitating access toenvironmental in-formation

� increasing environ-mental awareness

� increasing/improving environ-mental advisoryservices

� promoting environ-mental training

� integrating environ-mental issues intoother training

� promoting tele-working or distancelearning

149 The social indicators are adopted from DG Employment and Social Affairs.

see also: EC, DG EMPL (1999a)150 The environmental criteria are based on the Finish system for assessing measures.

see also: Berninger, K. (2003).


78

6.4 Process Indicators -Audit Questionnaire on Procedures in Member States

Definition of objectivesAre environmental and social objectives clearly defined in the programming documents?Amongst regional aspects, do these objectives take into account the social and environmental ob-jectives defined in Lisbon and Gothenburg?Are possible competitions or trade-offs between environmental, social and economic aspectsidentified and described in the programme?Are relevant interest groups and administrative bodies representing environmental and social con-cerns involved in defining these objectives?Did background research on environmental and social aspects of programming accompany theprocess?

Compliance with objectivesIs there a screening and assessment process established to assess

� whether the projects contribute to economic, social and environmental objectives of theEU and/ or the programme and

� whether they have negative impacts with respect to one of these bottom lines?Does the system for project selection prioritise projects according to the environmental and socialobjectives of the EU and/ or the programme?Have threshold, exemption and exclusion criteria been determined and adopted?Have project appraisals been denied because of potential negative impacts on social and environ-mental concerns?Is the process of project selection transparent?Are spokespeople for environmental and social issues, respectively, involved in the process ofproject selection?

ParticipationDoes the Monitoring Committees involve:

� environmental and social administrative bodies?� environmental and social stakeholders?

Do they have decision-making rights?Are environmental or social networks or advisory boards established and involved in planning,implementation and evaluation?Do they have decision-making rights?Did interested parties participate in planning on the level of

● programme completion● planning of measures● planning of projects


79

Capacity BuildingAre training measures on social and environmental concerns established for managing authorities?Are capacities built to provide support in assessing environmental and social impacts?Are capacities built to provide support in environmental and social management of measures andprojects?Are guidelines prepared for environmental and social monitoring and evaluation of programmes,measures and projects?Does the monitoring and reporting system include information concerning environmental and so-cial conflicts caused by Structural Funds interventions within the reporting period?

EvaluationDid the managing authority establish a system or procedures to ensure the independency of evalu-ators and a high quality of environmental and social evaluations?Are there any guiding principles set up for best practice in environmental and social evaluation?


80

6.5 Audit Questionnaire on Environmental and Social Project Management

If an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is mandatory:� Did a well-accepted expert or organisation carry out the Environmental Impact Analysis?� Was the nature and extent of public participation appropriate from the environmental NGO�s/

thematic authorities� point of view?� Did an independent third party revise the EIA?� Were the abatement, mitigation and compensation measures accepted by the relevant NGOs

and thematic authorities?� Did the operator determine environmental and social objectives as a baseline for monitoring?

If an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not mandatory:� Was a check carried out whether the project concerns any legal environmental or social

regulations?� Did the operator involve experts to ensure the legal compliance?� Did the operator carry out a screening or assessment of environmental or social impacts?� Have environmental or social NGOs or thematic authorities been involved?� Are there any objectives defined for environmental and social performance? And is it

checked regularly whether they are being met?Is the operator aware of social and environmental impacts of the project?Did the operator determine a responsible person for managing environmental and social concernswithin the project?Is the environmental and social performance as well as the compliance with environmental and socialobjectives checked regularly?Did the operator establish any procedures for environmental and social self-evaluation?Did the operator establish an environmental management system according to EMAS or ISO 14001?Have other companies involved in the project established environmental management systems?


81

7 References7.1 Literature

Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung, Abteilung 15: Wirtschaft, Tourismus, Energie (2003):Einheitliches Programmplanungsinstrument. Ziel Salzburg 2000-2006 gem. VO (EG) Nr.1260/99. Aktualisierte Fassung 11.06.2003.Download: www.salzburg.gv.at/eppd_ziel2salzburg_30-09-03.pdf

Autorità Ambientali e Autorità della Programmazione dei fondi strutturali comunitari 2000 –2006 (2001): Indirizzi tecnici e metodologici per la Valutazione ambientale dei Programmi Ope-rativi.Download: www.minambiente.it/SVS/fondi/docfondi/gdl2_osservazioni.pdf

Berninger, K. (2003): How to assess environmentally beneficial effects of projects in EU RegionalDevelopment Programmes. Helsinki. Ministry of the Environment.Download: www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=9677&lan=FI.

BMLFUW - Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft(2003): Umwelterklärung 2003 des Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umweltund Wasserwirtschaft für den Standort Stubenbastei 5 mit den Umweltbilanzzahlen der Jahre2000�2002. Download:www.emas.gv.at/filemanager/download/662/UE%20BMLFUW-Text.pdf

DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and IEEP – Institute for Euro-pean Environmental Policy (2003): Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA). Seminar Pro-ceedings. 23 April 2002, Brussels. Download:www.ieep.org.uk/PDFfiles/PUBLICATIONS/SIASeminarDocs/SIAproceedingsfinal.PDF

EC – European Commission (without year): Technical Guidelines on Impact Assessment in theCommission . Download: europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/ia_guidelines_en.pdf

EC – European Commission (1999): Commission Working Paper: Report on Environment and Inte-gration Indicators to Helsinki Summit. SEK (1999) 1942final.Download: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/newprg/sec991942_en.pdf

EC – European Commission (2000): Management and Control Systems Audit Manual for theStructural Funds - Financial Controls in the Member States. Download:europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/esf2000/working_documents/financial_control/en.pdf

EC – European Commission, DG EMPL (1999a): Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities for Womenand Men in Structural Funds Programmes and Projects.

EC – European Commission, DG EMPL (1999b): Guidelines for systems of monitoring andevaluation of ESF assistance in the period 2000-2006.

EC – European Commission, DG REGIO (2000a): Ex-ante Evaluation and Indicators forINTERREG. The new programming period 2000 � 2006: Methodological Working Papers.Working Paper 6.

EC – European Commission, DG REGIO (2000b): Technical Paper 3.


82

EC - European Commission, DG ENV (1998): A Handbook on Environmental Assessment of Re-gional Development Plans and EU Structural Funds Programmes.

EC – European Commission, EUROSTAT (2003): Availability of Regional Environmental Statis-tics in Europe. Report prepared by S. Grall (Cronos Technologies).

EC – European Commission, DG REGIO (without year, b): The Ex-Ante Evaluation of theStructural Funds interventions. Working Paper 2.Download:http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/exante_en.pdf

EC – European Commission, DG REGIO (without year, c): Indicators for Monitoring andEvaluation. An Indicative Methodology. Working Paper 3.Download:http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/indic_en.pdf.

ECA Watch – International NGO Campaign on Export Credit Agencies (2003): Race to theBottom, Take II. An Assessment of Sustainable Development Achievements of ECA-SupportedProjects Two Years after OECD Common Approaches Rev 6.Download: www.eca-watch.org/

Ecologic – Institute for International and European Environmental Policy (2002): EU Environ-mental Governance: A Benchmark of Policy Instruments with a focus on Agriculture, Energyand Transport. Commissioned by the Belgian Federal Department of the Environment, theMinistry for Public Health, Food Chain Security & Environment. With support of the AustrianMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment & Water Management.Download: www.ecologic.de/download/projekte/1900-1949/1909/1909_summary.pdf.

Ecologic – Institute for International and European Environmental Policy (2003): The Use ofEnvironmental and Social Criteria in Export Credit Agencies� Practices. A Study of ExportCredit Agencies� Environmental Guidelines with Reference to the World Commission onDams. On behalf of Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklungand Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit.Download: www.gtz.de/dokumente/dams/Ecologic_ECAs_2003.pdf

ECOTEC Research and Consulting (1997): Fostering sustainable development by Objective-2-Programmes: Guidelines for Programme Managers.

EIR – Extractive Industries Review (2003): Striking a better balance. The extractive industriesreview. Executive Summary.Download:www.eireview.org/EIR/eirhome.nsf/(DocLibrary)/0CE5D11BE6EDFF7C85256DF000269C9D/$FILE/Exec%20Summary%2026%20Nov.pdf

EPRC – European Policies Research Centre (2001): Mainstreaming the Horizontal Themes intoStructural Fund Programming. IQ-Net Thematic Paper 10(2).Download: www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/iqnet/iq-net/downloads/IQ-Net_Reports(Public)/10.2Horizontal%20Themes.pdf

http://europa.eu/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/exante_en.pdf

http://europa.eu/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/indic_en.pdf.


83

ESEP – East of Scotland European Partnership (2003): European Structural Funds �ScotlandGuidance Notes for the Completion of European Structural Funds Grant Applications (Partsone and two).

EURES – Institute for Regional Studies in Europe (1999): Entwicklung von Verfahren zur Be-rücksichtigung von Kriterien nachhaltiger Entwicklung bei der Vergabe von Strukturfondsför-dermittel.Download: www.esep.co.uk/download/guidance/function_guidance.pdf

EURES – Institute for Regional Studies in Europe (2001): Die Bedeutung von Evaluation für einenachhaltige Entwicklung in Europa.Download: www.nachhaltigkeit.at/bibliothek/pdf/eval_schleicher_wien_3.pdf

European Parliament, Directorate-General for Research (2003): Institutional Status of theEuropean Investment Bank, Working Paper, Economic Affairs Series, ECON 132 EN,

Forschungsschwerpunkt für Nachhaltigkeit und Umweltmanagement der TU Wien (2002): E-valuation und Indikatoren für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung.Download: www.nachhaltigkeit.at/bibliothek/pdf/monatsthemen2001/mainM01_12.pdf

GHK, Department for Work and Pensions (2003): Measuring Soft Outcomes and Distance Trav-elled: A Practical Guide.Download: www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/WP8.pdf

Global Reporting Initaive (GRI) (2002): Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2002. Download:www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/2002/gri_2002_guidelines.pdf

Grall, S. (2003): Availability of regional environmental statistics in Europe. On behalf of the Euro-pean Commission and Eurostat.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2003): A Learning Study Has Government StartedDoing Business as Envisioned by the Strategic Social Plan? Final Report, December 15, 2003.

IAIA – International Association for Impact Assessment in co-operation with Institute of Envi-ronmental Assessment, UK (2002): Principles of environmental Impact Assessments BestPractice. Download:www.iaia.org/Members/Publications/Guidelines_Principles/Principles%20of%20IA.PDF

IAIA – International Association for Impact Assessment (2003): Social Impact �Assessment. In-ternational Principles. Special Publications Series No. 2.Download: www.iaia.org/Members/Publications/Guidelines_Principles/SP2.pdf

IEEP – Institute for European Environmental Policy (2002): Environmental Sustainability in UKStructural Funds Programmes 2000-2006. On behalf of English Nature and the CountrysideCouncil of Wales. Download:www.ieep.org.uk/PDFfiles/PUBLICATIONS/EnvSustainabilityInUKSFProgrammes.pdf

IEEP – Institute for European Environmental Policy (2003): Future developments in EuropeanRegional Policy. Financed by English Nature, UK. Download:www.ieep.org.uk/PDFfiles/PUBLICATIONS/IEEP%20Regional%20Policy%20Briefing%20Nov%202003.pdf


84

IFC – The International Finance Corporation (1998): Procedure for Environmental and SocialReviews of Projects.Download: ifcln1.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/ESRP/$FILE/Env&SocReviewProc.pdf

IRPUD – Institut für Raumplanung an der Universität Dortmund and nova – Institut für politi-sche und ökologische Innovationen (2003): StaR - Steuerungsansatz zur Förderung einernachhaltigen Regionalentwicklung. Background-Paper for the Workshop on �EU StructuralFunds and Regional Development � the Future�, 3-4 February 2003, Berlin. On behalf of theGerman Environmental Agency and the Ministry on Environment, Protection of Nature andNuclear Safety.

ISFOL – National Research Institute for Vocational Training Development (2003): Challengesfor the evaluation of a complex programme: the experience of the European Social Fund in It-aly. In: Vth European Conference on The Structural Funds. Challenges for evaluation in an en-larged Europe. Budapest 26/27 June 2003. Workshop 2: Programme Evaluation. Download:europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docconf/budapeval/work/berliri.doc

IZT – Institute for Future Studies and Technology Assessment (2001): Nachhaltige Entwicklungdurch Strukturförderprogramme in Berlin. Abschlussbericht in Kooperation mit TAURU(Trier). Im Auftrag der Investitions Bank Berlin. Gefördert durch die Europäische Kommission(DG XVI).Download: www.izt.de/pdfs/IZT_WB46_EU_Strukturfonds_Berlin.pdf

Leeds Metropolitan University (2003): Mid-term evaluation of the Yorkshire and Humber 2000-2006 Objective 2 Programme. Download: www.goyh.gov.uk/objective2/documents/Ob2MTE140903.pdf

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (1999): Indicatores para el seguimenzo y evaluación de los fondosestructurales. Guí a practica. Madrid.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (2003): Red De Autoridades Ambientales - Environmental Autho-rithies Network..

OAG – Office of the Auditor General of Canada (2003): Report of the Commissioner of the Envi-ronmenta and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons. The Commissioner´s Per-spective - 2003. Download: www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c20031000ce.html/$file/c20031000ce.pdf

OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1993): OECD core set ofindicators for environmental performance reviews". OECD Environment Monographs No. 83.OECD.

OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2000): Indicators to meas-ure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth.

OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003a): Recommendationon Common Approaches on Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits.Download: www.oecd.org/document/56/0,2340,en_2649_201185_21688824_1_1_1_1,00.html

OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003b): Working Paper onExport Credits and Credit Guarantees. Member�s Procedures and Practices regarding officiallysupported export credits and the Environment - As of October 2003.


85

Download:www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2003doc.nsf/43bb6130e5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/6d5045ad46e7cc4ec1256dc8002862bd/$FILE/JT00152082.PDF

OED – Operations Evaluation Department of the World Bank (2001): The World Bank andGlobal Public policies and Programs: An Evaluation Strategy, September 13, 2001.

OED – Operations Evaluation Department of the World Bank (2002): Annual Review of Devel-opment Effectiveness 2002 (ARDE).Download: www.worldbank.org/oed/arde2002/

OED – Operations Evaluation Department of the World Bank (2003): Annual Report on Opera-tions Evaluation 2003.Download: www.worldbank.org/oed/aroe2003/

OED – Operations Evaluation Department of the World Bank (2004): Social Development Mat-ters. In: OED Reach. March 2, 2004. Download:nweb18.worldbank.org/OED/OEDDocLib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaSearch/55489E88A51C9B0585256E4B00604685/$file/OED_Reach_Social_Dev_Matters.pdf

OEROK – Österreichische Raumordnungskonferenz (2002): Methode zur umweltbezogenenEvaluierung von Strukturfonds� Oktober 2002.Download (Summary): www.oerok.gv.at

Rauschelbach, B. (2002): Die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung in Projekten der Entwicklungszusam-menarbeit. UVP-Report 4/2002.

Red De Autoridades Ambientales (2004): Guía orientativa de Indicatores de Integración ambintal ycriterios ambientales de Priorización de Projectos. Documenta de Trabajo (Propuesta). Valen-cia.

Schleicher-Tappeser, R. (2002): Assessing Sustainable Development � The SQM approach.Download: www.sqm-praxis.net/info/download/schleicher_sevilla_2002_paper.pdf.

Social Accountability International (2001): Social Accountability 8000. Download:www.cepaa.org/index.htm

World Bank (1999a): Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. Download:lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/47ByDocName/ToolsEnvironmentalAssessmentSourcebookandUpdates

World Bank (1999b): The World Bank Operational Manual, BP 1355. Download:wbln0018.worldbank.org/institutional/manuals/opmanual.nsf/0/F2EA169C5A281707852569A8006EB2D4?OpenDocument

World Bank (2000): Ibrekk, H.-O.: Donor Survey of Environmental and Effectiveness. Download:lnweb18.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/GlobalView/BPdonor.pdf/$File/BPdonor.pdf

World Bank (2002): Social Development Department, Social Analysis Sourcebook.Download:www.worldbank.org/socialanalysissourcebook/Social%20AnalysisSourcebookAug6.pdf.


86

World Bank (2003): A Common Framework: Converging Requirements Multilateral Financial ofInstitutions for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA). Download:www1.worldbank.org/harmonization/romehlf/Background/MFI%20Final%20Jan17%202003-Eng.pdf

Wynne, A. (ACCA) (2004): Public sector sustainability.Download: www.accaglobal.com/publications/public_eye/42/721418

WWF – World Wildlife Fund For Nature (2003): Learning from the Past � Looking to the Future.

7.2 Communications, Regulations and Standards

AA 1000 Assurance Standard (2003).Download: www.accountability.org.uk/resources/default.asp?pageid=67#as.

AA 1000 framework (1999): Standards, guidelines and professional qualification.Download:www.accountability.org.uk/uploadstore/cms/docs/AA1000%20Framework%201999.pdf.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the im-plementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and controlsystems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds. Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities, L 63/21.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public andprivate projects on the environment. Official Journal NO. L 175 , 05/07/1985 P. 0040 - 0048

Council Directive (EC) 97/11 of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessmentof the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official Journal NO. L073 , 14/03/1997 P. 0005

Council Directive (EC) 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes onthe environment, Official Journal L 197, 21/07/2001 P. 0030 � 0037; Download: europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/full-legal-text/0142_en.pdf

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on theStructural Funds. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 161/1. 26.6.1999.

Council Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 march2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management andaudit scheme (EMAS). Official Journal of the European Communities. L 114/11.

European Commission (1998): Communication from the Commission to the European Council:Partnership for Integration. IP/98/471. Download:europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.getfile=gf&doc=IP/98/471|0|AGED&lg=EN&type=PDF


87

European Commission (2001): A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European strategy forSustainable Development�. COM (2001)264final.

European Commission (2002): Communication from the Commission on Impact Assessment,COM(2002) 276 final, Brussels, 5.6.2002Download: europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/2002_08492_impact_assessment_en.pdf

European Commission (2003 a): Communication from the Commission to the Council and theEuropean Parliament 2003 - Environment Policy Review. Consolidating the environmental pil-lar of sustainable development. COM (2003) 745 final. Brussels, 3.12.2003.Download: europa.eu.int/comm/lisbon_strategy/pdf/COM2003_745_en.pdf

European Commission (2003 b): Commission Recommendation on the Broad Guidelines of theEconomic Policies of the Member States and the Community (for the 2003-2005 period). COM(2003) 170 final. Download:europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2003/comm2003_170en. pdf

European Commission (2003c): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the EuropeanParliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: SocialPolicy Agenda. COM(2000) 379 final. Download:europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_policy_agenda/com379_en.pdf

European Commission (2003 d): Communication from the Commission to the Council, the Euro-pean Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:Joint Report on Social Inclusion: summarizing the results of the examination of the NationalAction Plans for Social Inclusion (2003-2005). COM(2003)773 final. Download:http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/com_2003_773_jir_en.pdf

European Communities (2002a): Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.Official Journal of the European Communities from the 10.9.2002. Download:europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_242/l_24220020910en00010015.pdf

European Communities (2002b): Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union. OfficialJournal of the European Communities, 24.12.2002 Download:europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_consol.pdf

European Council (1999): Presidency Conclusions Helsinki European Council 10 and 11 December1999. Download: http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm

European Council (2000a): Presidency Conclusions Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March2000. Download:ue.eu.int/newsroom/LoadDoc.asp?MAX=1&BID=76&DID=60917&LANG=1

European Council (2000b): Presidency Conclusions Nice European Council 7, 8 and 9 December2000. Download: ue.eu.int/en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm

European Council (2001): Presidency Conclusions Gothenburg European Council 15 and 16 June2001. Download:ue.eu.int/newsroom/makeFrame.asp?MAX=1&BID=76&DID=66787&LANG=1&File=/pressData/en/ec/00200-r1.en1.pdf&Picture=3

http://europa.eu/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/com_2003_773_jir_en.pdf


88

European Council (2003): Council Decision of 22 July 2003 on guidelines for the employment poli-cies of the Member States (2003/578/EC). Download:europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_197/l_19720030805en00130021.pdf

ISO – International Standard Organization (1996): ISO 14001: Environmental Management Sys-tems � Specification with Guidance for use. Order: At the national standardisation bodies orthe International Organization of Standardization (www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage)

ISO – International Standard Organization (1997): ISO 14040: Environmental Management - LifeCycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Order: see above

ISO – International Standard Organization (1999): Environmental management - EnvironmentalPerformance Evaluation � Guidelines. Order: see above

R.S.C., c. A-17 (1995): An Act respecting the Office of the Auditor General of Canada andsustainable development monitoring and reporting, 1995, c. 43, s.1. Download:www.canlii.org/ca/as/1995/c43/sec3.html

7.3 Internet Sources

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development:www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/cesd_cedd.nsf/html/menu1_e.html (March 2004)

Environmental European Bureau (EEB) (Strategic Impact Assessments):www.eeb.org/activities/env_impact_assessment/main.htm (March 2004)

European Commission: europa.eu.int/comm/publications/archives/booklets/move/15/txt_de.htm,(February 2004).

European Commission: europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/intro/regions4_en.htm (February 2004)

EQUAL: europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equal/index_en.html

EUROSAI – European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions, Working Group on Envi-ronmental Auditing: www.nik.gov.pl/intosai/index.html (March 2004)

EUROSAI – European Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions, Working Group on Envi-ronmental Auditing . Audit findings of the national audit of animal protection.www.nik.gov.pl/intosai/k_pl3_an.html

Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility: www.accountability.org.uk, (February 2004).

OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:www.oecd.org, (February 2004).

Resource Renewable Institute: www.rri.org (March 2004)

Sustainability Quality Management: www.sqm-praxis.net, (February 2004)

The Netherlands Embassy in Washington:www.netherlands-embassy.org/article.asp?articleref=AR00000287EN (March 2004)


89

UN-CSD – United Nations Divisions for Sustainable Development:ww.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/isd.htm (March 2004)

Urgewald: www.urgewald.de, (February 2004)

VROM: www2.minvrom.nl/pagina.html?id=5036 (March 2004)

7.4 Interviews

1. Shona Atkinson, European Investment Bank, 18 March 2004

2. Thomas Bender, European Commission, DG EMPL, 18 February 2004

3. Hendrik Fehr, European Court of Auditors, 18 March 2004

4. Stephanie Lang, WWF Brussels, 28 January 2004 and 9 March 2004

5. Dörthe Kunellis, BMLFUW Austria, 22 March 2004

6. Andrea Mairate, European Commission DG REGIO, 24 February 2004

7. Jonathan Parker, European Commission, DG ENV, 16 March 2004

8. Günter Raad, European Commission, DG ENV, 10 and 11 February 2004

9. Aldo Ravazzi, OECD-WPEP Committee and Italian Environmental Authority for EU Struc-tural Funds at the Ministry of Environment - DG Sustainable Development, 26 February 2004

10. Burghard Rauschelbach, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ),9 March 2004

11. Ms Rupp, European Parliament, Committee of Budgetary Control Secretary, 29 January 2004

12. Carl Schlyter, European Parliament, Assistant Green Political Group, 24 February 2004

13. Ms Stärger, German Federal Ministry of Environment, 29 January 2004

14. Mr Stutz, German Federal Environmental Agency, 29 January 2004

15. Roger Wolf, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), 26 January 2004

16. Raul Zorita-Diaz, European Commission, DG ENV, 16 March 2004

7.5 Workshop

On 16 March 2004 a Workshop on �Environmental and Social Audit� took place in the EuropeanParliament, involving relevant partners evaluating and auditing Structural Funds.


90

External Experts1. Shona Atkinson, European Investment Bank

2. Patrizia Brandellero, European Anti-Poverty Network

3. Fabienne De Maertelaer, European Investment Bank, SG/Affaires Interinstitutionnelles

4. Hendrik Fehr, Court of Auditors

5. Stefanie Lang, WWF European Policy Office

6. Andrea Mairate, European Commission, DG Regional Policy, Evaluation Unit

7. Aldo Ravazzi, OECD-WPEP Committee and Italian Environmental Authority for EU Struc-tural Funds at the Ministry of Environment - DG Sustainable Development

8. Werner Stengg, European Commission, DG Budget, Evaluation Unit

9. Anna Barnett, European Commission, DG Agriculture, Evaluation Unit

10. Richard Etievant, European Commission, DG Agriculture, Audit Unit

11. Anastasios Nychas, European Commission, DG Environment, Unit Sustainable TerritorialDevelopment

Addendum: 1

New .eu Domain

Changed Web and E-Mail AddressesThe introduction of the .eu domain also required the web and e-mail addresses of the European institutions to be adapted. Below please find alist of addresses found in the document at hand which have been changed after the document was created. The list shows the old and newlist of addresses found in the document at hand which have been changed after the document was created. The list shows the old and newaddress, a reference to the page where the address was found and the type of address: http: and https: for web addresses, mailto: for e-mailaddress, a reference to the page where the address was found and the type of address: http: and https: for web addresses, mailto: for e-mailaddresses etc.addresses etc.

Page: 82Type: http:

Old: http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/exante_en.pdfNew: http://europa.eu/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/exante_en.pdf

Page: 82Type: http:

Old: http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/indic_en.pdf.New: http://europa.eu/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/indic_en.pdf.

Page: 87Type: http:

Old: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/com_2003_773_jir_en.pdfNew: http://europa.eu/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/com_2003_773_jir_en.pdf