revised first int report v2 - european...

ADE s.a. Rue de Clairvaux, 40

B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium

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

Web: www.ade.be

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

RReevviisseedd FFiirrsstt IInntteerrmmeeddiiaattee RReeppoorrtt

December 2008

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

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

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

Revised First Intermediate Report – December 2008 Acronyms

Table of Contents ACRONYMS GLOSSARY

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1 1. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ..........................................................................................1 2. AIM AND CONTENT OF THE FIRST INTERMEDIATE REPORT ......................................1

1. TASK 1: CONCEPTUAL BASIS..................................................................................3 1.1 TASK 1: WHAT IS IT ABOUT?............................................................................................3 1.2 PUBLIC GOODS AND EXTERNALITIES............................................................................5

1.2.1 Externalities and public goods in theory ...............................................................6 1.2.2 Key properties of environmental investments .....................................................9

1.3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROWTH, INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ..........................................................................................11

1.3.1 Taking dynamics into account ..............................................................................11 1.3.2 The optimal timing for decisions..........................................................................13 1.3.3 Lessons from the endogenous growth theory ....................................................13 1.3.4 Environmental quality with endogenous growth ...............................................14

1.4 PUBLIC INVESTMENT AND GROWTH: EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS.......................15 1.4.1 Public investment in infrastructure and private output.....................................15 1.4.2 Public investment in infrastructure and quality-of-life......................................17 1.4.3 The regional dimension and the economic geography literature .....................18

1.5 STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.....................19 1.5.1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve.....................................................................19 1.5.1 Two basic arguments againts the EKC................................................................20 1.5.2 Is the EKC empirically robust?.............................................................................20

1.6 WHAT IS THE SOCIALLY OPTIMAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT LEVEL?......................21 1.7 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS..............................................................................................22

1.7.1 Cost-Benefit analysis applied to environmental investments ...........................22 1.7.2 The limits of cost-benefit analysis ........................................................................25

1.8 FROM THEORETICAL INSIGHTS TO A FRAMEWORK FOR EX POST EVALUATION ...26 1.8.1 A summary of the main insights from economic theory ..................................26 1.8.2 Linking theory to practice: a methodological framework .................................27

2. TASK 2: FEATURES OF ENVIRONMENT STRATEGIES OF MEMBER STATES .........35 2.1 SUMMARIES OF THE PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

STRATEGIES OF THE 14 SELECTED MEMBER STATES...............................................35 2.2 SUMMARY INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE

INVESTMENTS IN THE REMAINING 11 MEMBER STATES..........................................42 2.3 SUMMARY AT EU LEVEL ...............................................................................................43



3. TASK 3: MAIN OUTCOMES...................................................................................45 3.1 TASK 3.1: MAIN OUTPUT AND RESULT INDICATORS FROM ERDF

INTERVENTIONS.............................................................................................................45 3.1.1 First results of the desk collection of the main outcomes ................................45 3.1.2 Next steps to complete the information on the main outcomes .....................46 3.1.3 Financial information related to environmental interventions.........................49

3.2 TASK 3.2: EFFECTIVENESS OF MAJOR SECTORAL PROGRAMMES .............................49 3.2.1 Template to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the programmes ..........49 3.2.2 Assessment of the effectiveness of the ESIOP programme ............................49

4. TASK 4: CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................55 4.1 TASK 4.1: REFINED METHODOLOGY FOR REGIONAL CASE STUDIES......................55

4.1.1 The methodological framework............................................................................56 4.1.2 Organisation of case studies ..................................................................................66

4.2 TASK 4.2: CASE STUDIES ON WASTE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF WASTE ........................................................................................................................69

4.2.1 Selection of the case studies .................................................................................69 4.2.2 Content of case studies ..........................................................................................70 4.2.3 Information sources ...............................................................................................74 4.2.4 Example of a mission plan ....................................................................................75

5. TASK 5: CLIMATE CHANGE .................................................................................79 5.1 SELECTED OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES....................................................................79 5.2 KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS ...................................................................................80 5.3 ORGANISATION OF THE CASE STUDIES.......................................................................88

5.3.1 Desk phase...............................................................................................................88 5.3.2 Field phase ...............................................................................................................88 5.3.3 Analyis and judgment phase..................................................................................88

5.4 PILOT MISSION................................................................................................................89

ANNEXES..................................................................................................................... 91 ANNEX 1 – REFERENCES FOR TASK 1 ANNEX 2 – BACKGROUND NOTE ON ENERGY USE FOR IRELAND ANNEX 3 – MAIN OUTPUT AND RESULT INDICATORS FROM ERDF INTERVENTIONS LIST OF TABLES Table 1 : Total ERDF amounts (Objective 1 and 2) invested in

environment fields of interventions during the period 2000-2006 ....................... 1 Table 2: Focus and approach of each task of the evaluation ................................................ 2 Table 3 : Characteristics of the main kinds of environmental investments

funded through ERDF .............................................................................................. 10 Table 4 : Programmes for which the main outcomes have been checked and

completed by Managament authorities.................................................................... 46 Table 5 : Selection of the 50 programmes for additional research in terms of

the main outcomes of the programmes .................................................................. 47 Table 6 : Selection of Member States for Tasks 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 5 ..................................... 55



Table 7: Main characteristics of the selected operational programmes for the implementaion of the case studies..................................................................... 79

Table 8 : Correspondance between the evaluation questions and the ToRs ..................... 80 LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 1 : The environmental Kuznets curve ............................................................................. 19 Graph 2 : State of the environment in Ireland compared to EU average .............................. 43



Acronyms C&D Construction & Demolition

CSF Community Support Framework

DG Regio Directorate-General Regional Policy

EAP Environmental Action Programme

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

EIB European Investment Bank

EC European Commission

EEA European Environmental Agency

EKC Environmental Kuznets Curve

ESIOP Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme

ERDF European Fund for Regional Development

EU European Union

Eq. Equivalent

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

FOI Field of interventions

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GJ Gigajoule

ISPA Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession

kWh Kilowatt hour

MJ Megajoule

MS Member State

MW Megawatt

MWh Megawatt hour

n.a. Not available

NDP National Development Plan

NEP National Environmental Programme

NGO Non-governmental organisation

O1 Objective 1

O2 Objective 2

OP Operational Programme

OPBI Operational Programme Basic Infrastructure



QE Question

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

t ton

ToR Terms of Reference

WP Work Package

WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

Member State acronyms

AT Austria

BE Belgium

CY Cyprus

CZ The Czech Republic

DK Denmark

EE Estonia

FI Finland

FR France

DE Germany

GR Greece

HU Hungary

IE Ireland

IT Italy

LV Latvia

LT Lithuania

LU Luxembourg (Grand Duchy)

MT Malta

NL The Netherlands

PL Poland

PT Portugal

SK Slovakia

SI Slovenia

ES Spain

SE Sweden

GB or UK United Kingdom

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

Revised First Intermediate Report – December 2008 Glossary

Glossary

BOD5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Quantity of organic material discharged by human activities (domestic, industrial and agricultural ) measured in terms of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The unit of measurement is BOD tonnes /year.

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

Energy intensity Energy intensity is a measure of the energy efficiency of a nation's economy. It is calculated as units of energy per unit of GDP.

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

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

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


Revised First Intermediate Report – December 2008 page 1

Introduction

1. Scope of the evaluation

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

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

Code Field of interventions related to environment and climate

change Total ERDF Amount

(€m)

127 Improving and maintaining the ecological stability of protected woodlands 8.5

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

165.8

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

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

33 Energy infrastructures (production, delivery) 53.3

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

333 Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control 265.3 34 Environmental infrastructure (including water) 2,373.7 341 Air 334.8 342 Noise 52.3 343 Urban and industrial waste (including hospital and dangerous waste) 1,465.7 344 Drinking water (collection, storage, treatment and distribution) 3,007.0 345 Sewerage and purification 3,995.3 35 Planning and rehabilitation 510.2 351 Upgrading and Rehabilitation of industrial and military sites 1,938.4 352 Rehabilitation of urban areas 4,334.9

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

354 Maintenance and restoration of the cultural heritage 2,031.2 Total environmental measures 25,261.2

Source: Extract from Financial Database (WP1)

The range of measures is quite large: environmental infrastructures (water supply, waste water collection and treatment, collection and treatment of municipal solid waste); promotion of renewable energies; upgrading and rehabilitation of sites; protection of the natural environment; and others. The rationale behind each, and their integration into cohesion strategies, may differ considerably.



The evaluation has to focus on environmental infrastructures and their contribution to the development of regions. It represents moreover half of the budget spent (€11 bn within an extended budget of €25 bn). Tasks are organised in a way to cover the whole set of measures but with different approaches as summarized in the table 2 below.

Table 2: Focus and approach of each task of the evaluation

Task Focus Approach Task 1 Conceptual basis Environmental

infrastructures Theoretical analysis of contribution to regional development

Task 2 Features of Environment Strategies in MS

Water supply, waste water collection and treatment, collection and treatment of municipal solid waste Focus enlarged to the whole environmental situation (energy and climate change)

Overview of the situation in each field at national level. Overview of environmental challenges, policies and institutional set up.

Task 3.1 Main outputs and results indicators from ERDF interventions

Water supply, waste water, municipal solid waste

Collection of output and results indicators related to interventions in the covered fields

Task 3.2 Effectiveness of major sectoral programmes

All environmental fields covered by the sectoral programme

Analysis of achievements of targets and of how strategic objectives have been reached

Task 4.1 Regional case studies

Environmental investments enlarged to the whole set of environmental measures funded by the ERDF

Overall assessment of the contribution of ERDF environmental measures to regional development

Task 4.2 Case studies on waste prevention and management of waste

Waste prevention and management of waste (centred on municipal solid municipal waste)

Analysis of typical features of successful or failing ERDF interventions

Task 5 Climate change Use of renewable energies, regional strategies and improvement of energy efficiency

Analysis of the contribution of these interventions to the reduction of GHG

Source: ADE, 2008.



2. Aim and content of the first intermediate report

The first intermediate report aims to provide a complete conceptual basis (Task 1) and, on this basis, a refined methodological framework covering all tasks of the Work package (WP) 5b evaluation: Environment and Climate Change. The refined methodology must serve to detail the field of analysis, the questions and sub-questions to be addressed in the evaluation, and the approaches to implementing the case studies and analysing the sectoral programmes. The report is organised as follows: under Task 1, the evaluation team has provided the conceptual basis for the ex post

evaluation. A comprehensive methodological framework, providing a coherent and integrated approach to the evaluation and the various tasks to be fulfilled, is derived from this conceptual basis and presented as a conclusion of Task 1;

as a pilot test, the evaluation team has completed under Task 2 the Member State (MS) template to present features of environment strategies for Ireland;

under Task 3.1 first main output and results indicators as well as financial information about priorities and measures dealing with environment and climate change are presented;

as a pilot test, the template for assessing the effectiveness of major sectoral programmes (Task 3.2) has been completed for Ireland with available information at this stage.

the evaluation team has provided refined methodologies for Task 4.1 Regional case studies, Task 4.2 Case studies on waste prevention and management of waste as well as for Task 5 Climate change. First insights for the organisation of pilot missions are also presented.



1. Task 1: Conceptual basis

At the beginning of the 2000-2006 period, no specific objectives were defined for environmental measures relating to the 2000-2006 Cohesion Policy. Indeed the decision of the Goteborg Summit to link the Lisbon strategy and the environment was taken in 2001, while the Sixth Environmental Action Programme (6th EAP) establishing the Community framework for environment policy started in July 2002. The main drivers for public interventions at that time were environmental obligations arising from the various directives adopted in the field. The aim of Task 1 is therefore to provide a general framework for the ex post evaluation and highlight the potential impacts of interventions in the fields of environment and climate change.

References used under Task 1 are available in Annex 1 of this report.

1.1 Task 1: what is it about?

The purpose of task 1 is to “examine the theoretical foundations and limits for the contribution of environmental infrastructure investment to the development of regions”, which means making and strengthening the links between theoretical insights and practical assessment. The approach is conceptual (as indicated by the title of the task) and based on a review of the literature, but it cannot be limited to a literature survey. The ToR specifies three key issues to be addressed. They clearly express the domains for which a link must be made between theory and practice. They are: 1) “differences between the types of environmental infrastructure will be singled out”: this

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

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

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

For all these three issues economic theory of the environment can provide insights. But how can these insights be linked to practice? The objective of task 1 is twofold: (1) to identify the links between the issues, the theoretical insights and the type of investment; (2) to relate them to quantitative or qualitative indicators.



The report first addresses the rationale for public interventions in the sector under review. Terminology appears to be important as use is made of different concepts that must be elucidated. The first section (1.2) aims to define those concepts. One is faced with two (local) public goods which give rise to externalities: the supply of environmental quality and the supply of infrastructure (related to environmental quality). Since both give rise to externalities, they suffer from under-provision in the absence of public intervention. ERDF environmental interventions have supported both infrastructures and environmental quality through different instruments. Key properties of such “goods” must therefore be discussed in terms of externalities generated and the extent to which they are public. The discussion leads to single out some differences between the different types of infrastructures. The second part of the report focuses on the complex relationship between growth, infrastructure and environment quality. Economic growth is said to be detrimental to environmental quality - more pollution, more pressure on natural resources - but theory suggests that is not necessarily the case, and empirical evidence are disputed (see below the debate on the Environmental Kuznets Curve). Links between stages of development and environmental quality or requirements have been investigated for a long time now. The issue is still debated and no common position has been reached (see section 1.5). On the other hand, we can argue that environmental infrastructures may offer an opportunity for reconciling economic growth and environmental quality for enhancing well-being; but such win-win strategies require public policy. Both issues (infrastructure and the environment) encompass short- and long-run effects, so dynamics are key to grasping their full effects (typically, the costs of this kind of public intervention are borne today but the benefits appear tomorrow and thereafter). Furthermore, some trade-offs may appear between short-term and long-term objectives; for example, (i) more productive (and polluting) investment today means more wealth tomorrow, but also potentially more pollution, (ii) investment in cleaner technologies today means less pollution tomorrow, but also potentially less wealth. Section 1.3 aims at explaining how macro models take into account the dynamic properties of environment and infrastructure, and the links with economic growth. In particular section 1.3 (dynamic models) investigates more closely how potential trade-offs between environment and growth are taken into consideration by macro-economic theory. Section 1.4 reviews some interesting empirical analysis on the links between public infrastructure investment and private output on one hand, and quality of life on the other. In addition the regional dimension is introduced. Some insights from the economic geography literature are presented in section 1.4.3.



The last part of the report focuses on optimisation of public interventions in the environmental field. The next step is to determine the optimal level of environmental quality for society as a whole that will guide public intervention. In the same way, an optimal supply of infrastructure can be defined, by comparing costs (raising and use of public funds) and benefits (health improvements, increases in firms’ productivity, all influences that stimulate economic growth, etc.).1 Macro-analysis provides an interesting tool for improving understanding of how public intervention interacts with private behaviour and contributes to achieving an optimal balance of growth and environmental quality, taking into account social preferences. Models may be used for decision-making but rarely provide a perfect tool for decision-making on how to allocate public money. Cost-benefit analysis is more commonly used for that purpose. Section 1.7 focuses on the cost-benefit methodology applied in the environmental sector and on the main limits of this approach. A formal difficulty lies in the fact that the problem must be scrutinised in several dimensions. It cannot be shrunk into a simple two-dimensional matrix that is easy to display and analyse. One way of linking these issues formally is to define a set of criteria and indicators, qualitative or quantitative, and to link them to the theoretical and empirical properties mentioned above. Section 1.8 presents a set of criteria designed to address the identified requirements for evaluating the contribution of environmental infrastructure to regional development2. The relationship between theory and indicators will be provided in Section 1.8.

1.2 Public goods and externalities

In some regions, the 2000-2006 ERDF programmes allocated significant amounts of money to environmental measures including environmental infrastructure as well as specific measures to address climate change (see Table 1 above). As requested in the ToR, task 1 will focus on environmental infrastructure investment but some aspects of the other types of intervention will also be highlighted. The reasons why environmental infrastructures are supported through public interventions must be debated. The economic and social impact of such investments will then be better understood. This section first gives some insights from economic theory on public

1 Just comparing costs and benefits does not necessarily lead to an optimal solution, only to a potential Pareto

improvement, potential meaning that winners have the potential to compensate losers but no actual compensation mechanism is put in place. Still, the issue of victim’s compensation raises many problems, both in terms of social acceptability and efficiency (see Baumol and Oates, Chap. 3). For a formal discussion on optimality, see below

2 The purpose of this report is neither to provide the reader with a literature review, nor to provide a handbook in environmental economics. As a consequence, and for the sake of efficiency, we will restrain the bibliographical references to the academic literature to those which have a straight link to our purpose.



interventions and then discusses the specific characteristics of environmental measures and, in particular, of environmental infrastructures.

1.2.1 Externalities and public goods in theory

Even if one assumes the presence of an open, competitive set of markets for goods and factor services, freedom of choice, and information availability, the existence of important externalities implies that markets alone cannot yield an efficient allocation of resources. Government intervention is then needed: to provide public goods which would not otherwise be available, at least not at their

social optimum level; to compensate for missing markets (e.g. clean air); to supplement the market which on its own cannot provide the right set of incentives

for private decisions.

Positive and Negative Externalities The existence of externalities is the main rationale for public interventions. Certain measures taken by one party will have effects on other parties without any compensation: Positive externalities: others benefit from the effects for which the responsible party

receives no compensation (e.g. R&D outcomes) with the result that the market under-provides that good;

Negative externalities: others suffer the effects for which the active parties do not pay compensation (e.g. pollution) with the result that the market over-provides that good.

The optimal level of provision of these goods is defined as that which maximises global welfare in society (see section 1.6 for a formal presentation of the social optimum). In both cases, letting the market work alone (that is to say, with no public regulation) provides sub-optimal provision of such goods. Without any market failure it has been shown that general equilibrium leads to a social optimum (the two fundamental theorems of welfare economics proved by Arrow and Debreu; see Atkinson and Stiglitz (1980) for a presentation). But as soon as any failure such as an externality appears, the market alone is unable to maximise social welfare and public intervention is required to compensate for such failures. Various types of externalities exist that permit highlighting of the differences between private and common interests: Bilateral/multilateral: the bilateral externality arises from the action of one agent on

another. Most of the externalities are multilateral (impact of the actions of many agents on a substantial number of others).

Rival/non-rival: a non-rival externality denotes cases where the extent of the effects on one agent does not influence its effects on the others. In that sense it has the same characteristics as a public good.

Static/dynamic: static externality ceases when the source disappears. On the other hand, the effects of dynamic externalities may persist long afterwards.



Furthermore, the reach of the externality can be local, national, or global (pollution from GHG is global, but pollution from pesticides may be more local). And this spread is also time-related: some externalities operate only in the short term, others have effects in the long term. Finally, when discussing pollution a difference must be made between the emission of the pollutant, its transmission through the natural system, and its impact on human beings. Externalities are always costs caused to third parties, and as such are never related to emissions or transmission, but always to impact in terms of welfare. The link between emission of the pollutant and its impacts is not always straightforward, but both ought to be linked if one wants to regulate impacts effectively When designing a public intervention to take into account any such externality, the precise nature of the externality must be taken into account to ensure environmental and welfare efficiency.

Public goods Public goods are characterised by two key properties: non-rival consumption: consumption by one individual does not detract from

consumption by others; non-excludability: no-one can be excluded from the consumption of the good.

Some examples of public goods are moonlight, peace or conflict, or economic stability but also the atmosphere, R&D results, reliable statistical information, or some public services like defence. The properties of goods do not always correspond to this standard definition. There may be degrees of rivalry or exclusion. A pure public good may be provided in equal quantities to all members of the community at zero marginal cost. It has two salient characteristics: joint nature of supply and the impossibility or inefficiency of excluding others from its consumption once it has been supplied to some members of the community (an extreme example of the joint nature of supply is a good of which all production costs are fixed). One of the main causes of an « impure » public good is that society can modify the (non)-rivalry and (non)-excludability of the good. Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy choices3. In many cases public goods exist not in their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by policies and other collective human actions. In other words the status of public goods may be socially determined through the political process (for example land is a rival good that can be made non-excludable by creating a management regime that maintains broad public access; an opposite example would be knowledge made excludable and private through imposition of property rights).

3 Cfr Paul I. & Mendoza R.U., Advancing the Concept of Public Goods.



Public goods also differ according the scope of their application: local: benefits are enjoyed only by those in the locality (air quality, landfills); national: benefits are enjoyed by the entire national economy or society; global: benefits extend to all countries, people, and generations (atmosphere, sea level,

communicable diseases). A link can be made between the scope and institutional level of decision-making: when benefits are local; the relevant institutional level will often be the municipality or the region. In some cases such benefits will also extend to national level. The subsidiary principle requires that policies are decided at the institutional level closest to the problem. Generally there is a market failure whenever a pure public good is involved. The reason is explained by the free rider problem: if I cannot be excluded from the rivalry-free benefit of the publicly-available good, why should I contribute to it? Since everyone has an incentive to free-ride, there is a strong tendency towards under-provision of pure public goods. Even so, many goods provided by the public sector are not truly public goods. There is no straight relationship between public goods and goods produced by the public sector. A private citizen that invests in a non-polluting central heating system contributes to a public good (cleaner air) whereas many public enterprises do not produce public goods. The degree to which a good is public needs therefore to be assessed to measure the benefits the public interventions will produce for society as a whole. The provision of a public good is usually considered optimal when the sum of all individuals’ marginal willingness to pay for an additional unit of the particular public good equal the marginal cost of producing that unit (known as the « Samuelson condition »). Nevertheless this condition, based as it is on a balanced pattern of costs and benefits, does not necessarily indicate that a public good has to be provided. Criteria based on its value to the economy and society must be added to determine its provision.

Other market failures Other failures also exist that are more directly linked to the functioning of markets. A first is due to imperfect or asymmetric information among agents. Decisions taken by agents can be flawed if they do not have all information in hand, or if some agents have the information and others lack it. The existence of uncertainties, and in particular risk aversion, is another factor leading to sub-optimal private decisions: a high uncertainty level linked to a significant risk aversion severely limits the level of private investment. Reduction of uncertainty or greater risk-neutrality may be one objective of the public intervention. Monopolies may also be regarded as a market failure, although some are natural and are explained by high fixed costs that prevent entry to the market by more than one producer . All these factors justify, on a theoretical rationale, not letting the market work alone and, therefore, interventions by public authorities. Public interventions aimed at restoring optimality may be of different kinds: taxes, fines, regulations and government expenditures.



There is no single policy instrument that allows correction for all externalities: an adequate policy mix must be found, which depends on the nature of the externalities considered. Another practical concept that may help determine the relevance of public investment is the magnitude of the externality at hand. The stronger the externality, the higher the benefits or spill-overs of the public intervention or investment. When substantial positive external benefits are associated with physical capital, and when charging a market price for this indirect service is not possible, then the agent will not be able to reap the full profit from the investment. The larger the external benefits, the less likely it is that private agents will invest in the goods concerned and the more important will be the role of the Government. But this raises two other questions: When is investment spending best done by the government itself? When should public funds be used to support investment by the private sector?

A key motive may be that of ensuring that benefits in practice reach all possible users and are not concentrated on a limited number (guaranteeing the non-excludability of services).

1.2.2 Key properties of environmental investments In economic analysis, the environment quality has often the characteristics of a public good. This means that the consumption of that good by one individual does not reduce the availability of the good to others (non-rival) and that no-one can be excluded from benefiting from the good (non-excludable). Climate quality is maybe the best example of a global public good, with a strong long-term dimension. Interestingly, infrastructures share some common features with the environment. Both possess the properties of a public good. To be more precise, the environment may be both local (air quality, water quality, noise, in-house pollution, etc.) and global (climate change, biodiversity losses, etc.) while infrastructures have the characteristics of what is known as a local public good. Taking that into account, it is likely that infrastructures, as well as the environment, will - given their nature as public goods - suffer from under-provision. In both cases public intervention is required to ensure a socially optimal level of service. The key properties of environmental infrastructures and other environmental interventions that are of interest in this context can be characterised as follows: their use does not reduce directly the use by other agents; but they are not fully non-

rival, as their supply is not unlimited4; access to them may be easily restricted to some agents; it can be made excludable by

charging prices or by directly limiting access; they produce a double range of externalities: first as infrastructures, they may have an

effect on private output (see point 1.4.1.) as well as on the quality of life (see point 1.4.2.), mainly at local level; second, through their impact on environmental quality (mainly on soil, air and water), they generate broader impact at national or even global level over a longer term.

4 Definition of non-rival goods has been expanded to include those that can be made available to additional users at

minimal or no cost.



To evaluate the contribution of each type of infrastructure to regional development, their specific characteristics must be highlighted. So, Table 3 below provides a characterization for the main kinds of environmental investments funded through ERDF according to their degree publicness, to which extend they meet non-rivalry and non-excludability properties. As explained above, it is nevertheless important to keep in mind that these properties may be influenced, to some extent, by local policy choices for regulatory rules. Each type of investment is split into specific impacts: public health, natural resources, climate change, etc. Then, for each effect the nature and the magnitude of the externalities are identified in the table. The rational is the following: the stronger the externalities, the higher the social return of the investment; the nature of the externalities must be clearly identified, for it represents the channels

through which it will raise its positive effects.

Table 3 : Characteristics of the main kinds of environmental investments funded through ERDF

Type of environmental

investments

Degree of

excludability

Degree of

rivalry Nature and magnitude of related-externalities

Nature Magnitude

Scope Static/ dynamic

Water supply (drinkable)

+ - - Public health - Territorial attractiveness

(+) +

Local Static

Waste water collection

-/+ -/+ - Public health - Natural resources quality - Territorial attractiveness

(+) + +

Local Static Dynamic Static

Waste water treatment

- -/+ - Public health - Natural resources quality - Territorial attractiveness

(+) + +


Collection of solid waste

+ - - Public health - Natural resources quality - Territorial attractiveness

(+) + +


Treatment of solid waste

- -/+ - Public health - Natural resources quality - Territorial attractiveness

(+) + +


Incentives for using renewable energy

+ + - Public health - Air quality - Climate change

+ +

++

Local Local Global

Dynamic

Incentives for energy efficiency

+ + - Public health - Air quality - Climate change

+ +

++

Local Local Global

Dynamic

Note: Excludable: + if access may be restricted; Rival: + if use of one reduces other user’s consumption; ++ means a high magnitude while (+) denotes a potential positive effect.



What about the usefulness of this table for the evaluation of ERDF? This table identifies the key issues that determine the social effects of the investments in infrastructure. So, related to the taxonomy displayed in the table, answers to the following questions must be fundamentally sought for by the evaluators: What are the public properties of the investments made? First, check for the degree of

excludability: are benefits being captured by a limited number of firms/households? Second, check for the degree of rivalry: is there any evidence that capacities are insufficient, so that usage by one agent reduces its availability for others?

What is the very nature of the externalities raised by the investment, and how significant are they?

What is the scope of these externalities and what is the institutional involvement in decision-making for that particular investment?

Because the evaluator cannot be asked to raise theoretical such questions during the case studies, we have translated them into concrete questions. The formulaire presented in Section 1.8.2 is thus narrowly based on this table, as the following examples show: Point A : Achievements. Types of interventions ; incentives provided to

enterprises/households ; nature and magnitude of externalities ; Point B : Regional environmental strategy and integration. Coherence of ERDF

strategies with other funds at national/regional levels ; leverage or opportunity effects provided by ERDF interventions within the regional strategy ;

Point C : Institutional capacity and public expenditures management. Degree of priority in national strategies, additionnality ; resource transfer (from country to region) linked to projects ;

Point D: Contribution in improving environment quality; Point E : Contribution of environmental infrastructures to regional development.

Accessibility/attractiveness of the region due to improved/new public services; demand-push;

Point F : Contribution to quality of life. Evolution of market/demand (including demographic aspects) and available capacity ; additional population served by water supply projects in relation to overall connection rate ; reduction in leakage from the water supply network; air pollution concentration levels in residential areas.

1.3. The relationship between growth, infrastructure and environmental quality

1.3.1 Taking dynamics into account Both the environment and infrastructures have dynamic properties that must be taken into account:

Infrastructure investment costs are borne in the short term, but their cost may also be spread over time depending on the how the investment is financed;

Infrastructure investments then potentially yield benefits over a number of years, depending on their type; they also give rise to annual operational costs that have to be taken fully into account when evaluating their overall return;



Resultant environmental benefits also last for several years, though this depends on the pollutant or environmental issue: stock pollutant or flow pollutant, impact of the pollutant on the environment and human being (e.g. each ton of CO2 remains for about one hundred years in the atmosphere, warming the climate throughout that period, so that avoiding that ton in the atmosphere has cumulative benefits over one hundred years). Assessing the benefits of the infrastructure through the resultant improvements to environmental quality is far from straightforward.

The picture is not complete without consideration of the entire dynamical interplay between the environment and the economy, bearing in mind that each has its own dynamics. For example a renewable resource is governed by its intrinsic dynamics, which will be altered by human harvesting. The earth’s climate has its own dynamics based on GHG concentration in the atmosphere and the natural carbon cycle, which is altered by anthropogenic GHG emissions. So when environmental dynamics are introduced, issues become much more complicated, as multiple dynamics interplay: global dynamics are shaped by all these interactions. Both the short long terms are important (the long term is a as much a short-term problem, for long-term outcomes depends on short-term decisions). Thus the timing of intervention can be a key element in efficient public policy. Taking dynamics into account is thus essential if one seeks to evaluate the full costs and benefits of public investments in infrastructures. Intriguingly, dynamics are often neglected in the literature on ex post evaluation. For example the word does not even appear in Ekins and Medhurst (2006). An attempt to integrate dynamics (natural, human, and technological) fully into an indicator framework can be found in Boulanger and Bréchet (2005). Typically, and in particular in the literature on cost-benefit analysis, dynamics is reduced to a discussion of the choice of discount factor. The discount factor allows comparison of costs and benefits over time. To express it simply, it represents the opportunity cost of spending one euro today instead of spending it tomorrow. The opportunity cost is the benefit that euro would have generated if invested in the best possible alternative. Moreover discounting may reveal some preference characteristics , for example impatience (people prefer to consume today rather than tomorrow) or risk aversion (people are unwilling to incur risk). The stage of development, which bears on income levels, also influences preferences. For example it is acknowledged that patience increases with wealth. The literature and debates on the choice and implications of discount factors is plethoric and goes beyond the scope of this report.5 What matters in this context are the implications of discounting for ex post investment evaluation. These implications may be summarised as follows. Investment costs are borne in the short term while benefits appear in the long run. Since discounting boils down to reducing the weight of the future in the cost-benefit balance, a higher discount factor mechanically reduces the profitability of a project. It is now widely suggested that low discount rates should be used for public or environmental projects, say between 2% and 5% per year. See Brent (2006) for a discussion on that topic.

5 For a comprehensive discussion on the role of discounting in climate policies, see the Stern review (Stern, 2006).



1.3.2 The optimal timing for decisions

Dynamic factors matter as they allow for key trade-offs that occur over time. Typically, one trade-off occurs between more consumption today and less tomorrow (monetary saving is reduced today, thus yielding less revenue tomorrow), or the reverse. Investing today in environmental infrastructure has an opportunity cost, for example less resource in the economy for consumption. But it will bring more income, and thus more consumption, tomorrow. So one has to compare the cost of restraining consumption today with the benefits of having more revenue available for consumption tomorrow. This trade-off is influenced by the discount factor and the productivity of the investment considered. In a dynamic setting, efficiency thus relies on a good understanding of timescale-related trade-offs that remain hidden in a static analysis. The concept of dynamic efficiency is used to address this. It consists of choosing a time-path for decision-related variables such that the total net income in the economy (i.e. benefits minus costs) is maximised over the time span considered. Investing too much or too early may be inefficient, and the reverse also applies.

1.3.3 Lessons from the endogenous growth theory

The penultimate link can be made by using messages from the theory of endogenous growth. Initiated in the 1990s, this theory seeks to explain the engine of growth, and states that this engine may be endogenous, that is to say influenced by an agent’s decisions. Three engines have been identified: 1. human capital, 2. technological progress, 3. infrastructures. As explained above, the reason why infrastructures may promote growth is straightforward. Even so, the question of the optimal level of provision in a dynamic setting is less simple to define. Optimality in a dynamic setting follows the same rule as in a static setting. It consists of comparing marginal costs with marginal benefits, but over time. The optimal investment level is that such that the marginal investment cost (borne today) is equal to the discounted sum of marginal benefits generated by the project in the future. Most of the papers in the literature address human capital and transportation. Even so, some provide relevant key results for the current context. Chesire and Magrini (2000) specifically examine regional growth processes in Western Europe. They do so empirically but draw on theoretical insights. Their focus is on analysing factors contributing to regional growth and the extent to which specific factors produce either divergence or convergence of per capita incomes. Agénor and Moreno-Dodson (2006) provide an overview of the recent literature on endogenous growth, with an emphasis on interactions between public infrastructure,



education, and health outcomes. Although they apply their discussion mainly to developing countries, most of the discussion also applies to ERDF. In particular they stress that in the short term an increase in the stock of public capital in infrastructure may have an adverse effect on private activity and investment, which is called a crowding-out effect. This short run effect may thus translate into reduced growth if the fall in private capital formation persists over time. A good understanding of the reasons why a crowding-out effect may appear is key to evaluate its magnitude and time span. Agénor and Moreno-Dodson (2006) offer a good synthesis on that issue (see also Pereira, 2001). If public investment is financed through an increase in distortionary local taxes, the reduction in the expected net rate of return to private capital may lower the propensity to invest. The local financial return will be lowered (but non-financial benefits will still be there). Another detrimental effect on private capital formation may occur if the increase in public infrastructure outlay is paid for through borrowing on national financial markets, as a result either of higher domestic interest rates or of rationing of credit to the private sector. Moreover, if an investment-induced expansion in public borrowing raises concerns about the sustainability of public debt over time, the risk premium embedded in interest rates may increase. By raising the cost of borrowing and negatively affecting expected after-tax rates of return on private capital, an increase in the perceived risk of default on government debt may have a compounding effect on private capital accumulation. As may be evident, many of the motives for strong crowding-out effects probably do not apply to the regional projects implemented under Objectives 1 & 2. The fact that a huge institutional gap exists between the levels of public intervention (the Region, the Municipalities, and the EU) and the funding of Structural Funds, means that most of the crowding-out effects discussed above may be irrelevant. Typically, crowding-out effects should be short-term in nature. Conversely, beneficial effects on the supply and demand sides appear over the whole lifetime of the infrastructure. This may explain why, all in all, empirical estimates generally highlight a “crowding-in effect”(see section 1.4 below). For a link between endogenous growth and the economic geography mentioned above, see Martin and Sunley (1998). They present the two strands of literature and their connections.

1.3.4 Environmental quality with endogenous growth

The final link required for attainment of the goal is introduction of the environment. Infrastructures may promote growth, but growth may be detrimental to the environment. So where is the balance? What recommendation can be made regarding public support for environmental infrastructures?



Links between endogenous growth and the environment were discussed in literature in the 1990s and some of the questions addressed were as follows (Withagen and Vellinga, 2001): • Is sustained growth still possible and optimal, given exhaustible resources and pollution? • Does pollution have an impact on the growth rate? • Do different attitudes to the environment in different regions explain different growth

rates?

The theoretical literature provides insights into all these questions. They rely on the inter-temporal trade-offs explained above, although also taking into account natural environment dynamics.6

1.4 Public investment and growth: empirical investigations

1.4.1 Public investment in infrastructure and private output

The issue of ex post empirical evaluation of public investment programmes on economic growth and private output was originally addressed by Arrow and Kurtz (1970), and was re-ignited 20 years later by Aschauer’s empirical paper (1989). Aschauer (1989) suggested that public capital was a powerful engine for growth in the United States. His results suggest that public capital would pay for itself three times in the form of additional tax revenues. In the event Aschauer’s works were criticised on econometric grounds and many subsequent works failed to confirm the likelihood of such large effects. The surveys by Hulten and Schwab (1993) or Gramlich (1994) suggested a more balanced view: public capital does support growth, albeit probably less strongly than initially suggested by Aschauer. Most of the studies make use of static, univariate production functions and apply non-stationary time series. It is now well-known (since the works by Engle and Granger, 1987) that non-stationary data cannot be handled in such econometric settings using ordinary least squares (OLS), and that they yield spurious estimates. Recent works have tried to address this issue more comprehensively. By and large, as noticed by Ottaviano (2008), the general appraisal that public infrastructures have a positive impact on private output and employment seems to survive application of more sophisticated econometric techniques, e.g. Gramlich (1994), Peirera and Flores (1999) or Röller and Waverman, (2001). Some recent papers focused on key features that will be of importance for the purposes of this report, in particular by disaggregating types of infrastructure. 7 Peirera and Flores (1999), and Peirera (1999) adopted a multivariate time-series framework. They use US annual data for the period 1956-1997 and consider five types of non-military

6 Surprisingly, it seems that no paper addresses simultaneously the issues of public support for environmental

infrastructure, environmental quality and growth. 7 Many papers are devoted to investments on transportation, but this is beyond the scope of our analysis. See Crescenzi

and Rodriguez-Pose (2008) for a recent discussion and apparaisal on that subject, with a special attention to EU SFs.



public investment. In these papers two points are particularly appealing for current purposes: the share of each kind of investment in total public investments and the link to the private sector, as explained by Peirera (1999):8 1. Infrastructure investments in highways and roads, which affects private productivity

through the provision of transportation services for both final and intermediary goods; it represented 41% of total investment in the early years of the sample, and then declined.

2. Infrastructure investments in electrical and gas facilities and in transit systems, which guarantee secure and affordable access to energy facilities for the private sector; they accounted for 19% of total investments in the 1980s, thereafter declining to 11%.

3. Infrastructure investments in sewage and water supply systems which as with energy access, directly enter private sector production processes; they accounted for 14% of public investment.

4. Educational buildings, general office buildings, police and fire stations, courthouses, passenger terminals, and so forth: such investments ensure promotion of knowledge and well-being of the labour force as well as the setting of rules and regulations that increase private sector productivity; they have shown a stable pattern of around 32% of total public investment, except notably during the 1980s, when the proportion fell to 17%;

5. Investments in conservation and development structures (intended for water, land, and animal protection), and civilian equipment, which together represented 12% of total investment by the end of the sample period. They play a supportive role in the preservation of private capital stock, but do not seem to be directly connected to private productive processes.

The main results from Peirera (1999) were as follows. First, in the long term, public investment “crowds in” (i.e. encourages) private investment. They also find that aggregate public investment has a positive effect on private output, thus being a powerful engine for long-term growth. Second, it was found that all five types of public investment crowd in private investment, but with specific magnitudes. Infrastructure investments in electricity and gas facilities, in transit systems, and in sewage and water supply systems, display the highest rates of return (16.1% and 9.7%, respectively), closely followed by investments in educational, hospital, and other public buildings (8.9%). Moomaw et al. (1995) used less disaggregated data and found that States generally achieve greater returns from investing in water and sewerage systems than from investing in highways. Results from “other” investment are of minor degree, but statistically significant. Interestingly, Moomaw et al. (1995) introduced the idea that the effectiveness of an investment may depend on the way it is used when available. By extending their intuition it seems clear that some infrastructure investments may well be under-used, or misused, which would certainly reduce their effectiveness. This suggests that both investment costs and operating costs (including maintenance costs) play a key role in the effectiveness of public investment in infrastructure.

8 Even if these figures are for the US, they show how sharply public expenditures can vary over time, and the order of

magnitude of the different types of investments. European-wide figures remain spare is that area.



They also discuss and evaluate the idea that the economic impact of public investments is influenced by the characteristics of the region considered (this constitutes the main contribution of their paper). This links into the issue of the stage of development (see below). However, the reasons why regional characteristics may play a role remain to be understood from a theoretical standpoint. Some studies focus on the impact on employment of public investment in infrastructures. While the magnitude of the impact on private output is somewhat questionable, it seems that the evidence in respect of employment is much clearer. Dalenberg and Partridge (1997) evaluated both in a single comprehensive framework. Despite the fact that they mainly consider investment in highways, their results are of interest here. They show that for the private sector as a whole, an increase in the number of highways reduces wages, the reason being that highways act as an important household amenity, attracting workers to a State and increasing the supply of labour. However, for the manufacturing sector, which depends heavily on highways for the transportation of material and goods, they find that an increase in highways increases wages, indicating that a productivity effect dominates. For public investments in water and sewerage, the results are less clear and deserve a more disaggregated analysis.

1.4.2 Public investment in infrastructure and quality-of-life

As noticed by Haughwout (2001), the value of public infrastructure as a contributor to households’ quality of life has received little attention in the literature. This may be due to the fact that such benefits are un-priced, as they are outside the market and thus difficult to evaluate. However, the quality-of-life benefits of public investment should be considerable. Households are heavy direct users of public infrastructures, and many of these infrastructures are directly designed for households: water supply, energy facilities, public buildings and infrastructures, recreation facilities, and so forth. In environmental economics it is standard to consider both market benefits and non-market benefits as bearing on the quality of life. For firms, only market benefits accrue, such as those discussed in section 1.4.1. But for households both market and non-market benefits are evident. These non-market quality-of-life benefits are excluded from the previous studies that focus on productive impacts. As a consequence, all these studies under-estimate the benefits of public infrastructure investment on society as a whole. Many methods are available in environmental economics to evaluate non-market benefits of private or public investments. One example is the evaluation of the benefits of urban air quality improvements by contingent evaluation or hedonic price methods. Presenting these methods is beyond the scope of this task. It seems also that incorporating quality-of-life benefits is not within the scope of this Task 1, as it has been discussed in section 1.1 above. Nevertheless, this is one dimension of the problem that should be kept in mind and that might be considered for future works.



1.4.3 The regional dimension and the economic geography literature

To introduce the regional dimension into this analysis, economic analysis of space, location and agglomeration is required. See Fujita and Thisse (2002) for a thorough presentation of these theoretical tools. In a recent paper Ottaviano (2008) analyses the role of public infrastructure investments on regional growth and firms' location decision, using the afore-mentioned literature. His paper is basically a literature survey, but it also introduces the reader to the key concepts used in economic geography. Particularly in this setting, the spatial concentration of economic activities is fostered by market size asymmetries (market seeking) and production cost asymmetries (cost saving). Concentration is also promoted by easier tradability of products and factor services between locations as well as by larger differentiation of firms in terms of products (horizontal differentiation) and smaller differentiation in terms of quality/productivity (vertical differentiation). Ottaviano (2002) also discusses the impacts of the different types of infrastructure investments on market size and production cost asymmetries, as one has to identify the specific sources of agglomeration economies they influence. A general definition of infrastructures is provided by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC), which adopts the term “public works infrastructures” to include “both specific functional modes - highways, streets, roads, and bridges; mass transit; airports and airways; water supply and water resources; wastewater management; solid-waste treatment and disposal; electric power generation and transmission; telecommunications; and hazardous waste management - and the combined system these modal elements comprise. A comprehension of infrastructure spans not only these public works facilities, but also the operating procedures, management practices, and development policies that interact together with societal demand and the physical world to facilitate the transport of people and goods, provision of water for drinking and a variety of other uses, safe disposal of society’s waste products, provision of energy where it is needed, and transmission of information within and between communities” (NRC (1987), page 4, quoted by Ottaviano (2002), page 18). Such a range of types of infrastructure affects the strength of agglomeration economies differently depending on the corresponding sources. According to Ottaviano a crucial distinction is to be made between: local infrastructures that mainly affect short-distance interactions; examples are provision

of water for drinking and a variety of other uses, safe disposal of society’s waste products, provision of energy where it is needed, formation of human capital; and

global infrastructures that mainly affect long-distance interactions; examples are transportation infrastructures, networks.

The former mainly influences attraction whereas the latter mainly influences accessibility. It should be noticed that some infrastructures belong in both categories, such as transportation of goods and people and transmission of information.



1.5 Stages of development and environmental requirements

As stressed in Section 1.1, Task 1 seeks to explore whether regions at different stages of development are influenced in different ways by the state of the environment. This point suggests a causal relationship between environment quality and stage of development. The usual means of linking stages of development and environmental quality or requirements is the so-called Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). In this section we will explain that relationship, how it is linked to the current purpose, and its main drawbacks.

1.5.1 The Environmental Kuznets Curve

As explained by S. Dasgupta et al. (2002), the EKC postulates an inverted-U relationship between pollution and economic development. In the first stage of industrialisation, pollution in the environmental Kuznets curve grows rapidly because people are more interested in jobs and income than in clean air and water. Communities are too poor to pay for abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak. The balance shifts as income rises; leading industrial sectors become cleaner, people value the environment more highly, and regulatory institutions become more effective. Along the EKC pollution levels off in the middle-income range and then, in wealthy societies, falls towards pre-industrial levels. The EKC typically looks as displayed in the figure below, where the horizontal axis represents per capita income and the vertical axis represents environmental quality or pollution levels.

Graph 1 : The environmental Kuznets curve

Income/ habitant

Reducedpollution

Inflection point

Environmentaldamage

Growingpollution

Source: WTO, 1999Income/ habitant

Reducedpollution

Inflection point

Environmentaldamage

Growingpollution

Income/ habitant

Reducedpollution

Inflection point

Environmentaldamage

Growingpollution

Source: WTO, 1999



Barbier (1997) noted that, although the analysis of EKC relationships has been a relatively recent phenomenon, there is widespread interest in this analysis on the part of academics, and also on the part of policymakers in its implications for environment and development. A special issue of the academic journal Environment and Development Economics (1997) addressed it in two ways: first, empirical results of the special issue papers are compared with previous analyses of EKC relationships; and second, the additional insights offered by the special issue papers on EKC are discussed. In fact the policy implications of the EKC may explain why it rapidly became famous in the literature on environmental economics. Indeed the EKC seems to suggest that economic growth and an increase in wealth are the best remedies against pollution. At any rate this was an interpretation made by some. The resultant conclusion is that no real public regulation or intervention is required for the environment and the policy message could be rendered “grow first, then clean up” (S. Dasupta et al., 2002).

1.5.1 Two basic arguments againts the EKC

Two main arguments can be advanced against the far too simplistic view given by the EKC. The first has to do with environmental irreversibilities, the second to a “scale effect”. The EKC relies on a key implicit assumption that pollution is perfectly reversible. In other words, the economy is assumed to generate a maximum pollution level which subsequently falls, with no long-term consequences. This cannot be the case in the presence of irreversibilities in the ecological systems, or when some dynamics are allowed for.9 For example, some natural resources may disappear for ever after a certain threshold is reached (as with a lake, river, certain natural species, biodiversity, etc.), or long-lasting mechanisms may operate, for example environmental damage from a stock pollutant which lasts for a long time even if the pollution flow stops (as for example with climate change). The “scale effect” simply means that the environmental pressure depends, among other things, on the size of the population or the economy. The EKC conceals this scale effect as it links pollution to per capita income. If per capita income is linked to growth in population or the economy, then the scale effect can dominate. Put differently, even if one economy follows an EKC, the fact that other economies follow that EKC path at different stages of development can result in an increase in global environmental pressure.

1.5.2 Is the EKC empirically robust?

Beyond these two arguments, many criticisms have been levelled at the very idea of an EKC. They rely both on quantitative (econometric) and theoretical issues. This section will focus on the empirical robustness of the EKC. 10 According to S. Dasgupta et al. (2001), pessimistic critics of empirically-estimated curves have argued that their declining phases are illusory, either because they are cross-sectional 9 It may also be noticed that some irreversibilities also exist in the economic system: for example technological lock-in,

human habits and, naturally, infrastructures. 10 The literature mainly focuses on the empirical debate, but some papers also propose a theoretical foundation for a

EKC. Since they do not provide insights for current purpose, they are not discussed here.



snapshots that mask a long-run “race to the bottom” in environmental standards, or because industrial societies will continually produce new pollutants as old ones are controlled. However, recent evidence has fostered an optimistic view by suggesting that the curve is in fact flattening and shifting to the left. The driving forces appear to be economic liberalisation, clean technology diffusion, and new approaches to pollution regulation in developing countries. Harbaugh et al. (2002) use an updated and revised panel data set on ambient air pollution in cities. The authors test the sensitivity of the pollution-income relationship to alternative functional forms, to additional co-variates, and to changes in the nations, cities, and years sampled. It turns out that the results are highly sensitive to these changes. They conclude that the data present little empirical support for an inverted U-shaped relationship between several important air pollutants and national income. Importantly, their conclusions also apply to local pollutants. For pollution variables that show such an EKC relationship, Torras and Boyce (1998) hypothesise that a more equitable distribution of power contributes to these outcomes, by enhancing the influence on policy of those who bear the costs of pollution vis-à-vis the influence of those who benefit from pollution-generating activities. They provide an empirical analysis of international variations in seven indicators of air and water quality. Literacy, political rights, and civil liberties are found to have particularly strong links to environmental quality in low-income countries. Stern (2004) presents a critical history of the EKC. In particular, he shows that developing countries are addressing environmental issues, sometimes adopting developed country standards with a short time lag and sometimes performing better than some wealthy countries. Thus means that EKC results have a very flimsy statistical foundation. Decomposition and efficient frontier techniques can help disentangle the true relationship between development and the environment, and may lead to the demise of the classic EKC. Finally, it seems that the EKC may be valid for local pollutants, that is those that directly impact the wellbeing of people who are themselves in a position to abate them. For global pollutants (like GHGs), the EKC seems less robust, or wholly absent, which may be explained by the presence of a strong free-riding incentive (see discussion on externalities).

1.6 What is the socially optimal pollution abatement level?

To what extent should pollution be reduced? Is zero pollution the optimal goal? Under normal conditions it can be shown that zero pollution is not socially optimal, in the sense that it does not maximise welfare in society as a whole. So there should exist some level of pollution abatement that is socially optimal, in the sense that it maximises social (or global) welfare, that is to say the aggregation of the welfare both of the polluter and of those polluted. This socially optimal abatement level results from a balance between pollution damage and pollution benefits (employment, profits, etc.) for society. As long as the benefits of one unit of pollution abatement outweigh its costs, further pollution abatement is required. Socially optimal pollution abatement is reached when marginal abatement costs are equal to marginal environmental benefits.



To summarise: there exists some pollution abatement level that is optimal from a social point of view (i.e. which maximises global welfare), but achievement of which requires adequate public intervention given the market failures in the public good dimension of the environment.

1.7 Cost-Benefit analysis

1.7.1 Cost-Benefit analysis applied to environmental investments

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is another tool used in various sectors to support public expenditure decisions. In a CBA all costs and benefits of a project or policy are expressed in a common currency, monetary values. Costs are compared to benefits using various criteria11. Such criteria should help decision-makers in choice of projects or a policy (in both cases from a range of alternatives). CBA applied to environmental impacts includes direct environmental effects and environmental externalities, expressed in monetary terms in the calculation of CBA indicators.

CBA for project appraisal

The theoretical origins of CBA date back to the early 20th century, in the USA in the framework of water-related investments, and even earlier in France for infrastructure appraisal. CBA has been widely used in project evaluation in OECD and developing countries.

Financial analysis is based on a discounted cash flow approach. Total costs and revenues of the intervention are presented in a cash-flow table over a defined time horizon, in line with the economic life of the main assets. Financial (internal) rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) are calculated as the main indicators.

Economic analysis attempts to assess the project’s net impact on economic welfare. Observed financial prices are converted into shadow prices and externalities are taken into account and valued (in monetary terms). Methodologies applied to measure environmental impacts in monetary terms are detailed in the following section (CBA and the environment). Economic performance indicators are calculated from the adjusted economic cash-flow table (economic NPV, economic rate of return {ERR}, and the benefit-cost ratio). Risk assessment is mainly covered by a sensitivity analysis.

CBA for structural and cohesion funds is focused on this conventional project appraisal. It has to be applied at project level, especially investment projects totally over €25m (in the field of environment) or over €50m (Regulation 1260/1999 art. 26 {over €50m} and more recently Regulation 1083/2006 state that Managing Authorities are required to provide a

11 Main criteria are net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and benefit-cost ratio and should be used

together. The correct criterion is to see whether NPV is greater than zero. IRR is not always uniquely defined and benefit-cost ratios do not reflect scale.



CBA for major projects12 financed under their Operational Programmes for Cohesion Policy).

Special application of CBA to environmental investment is covered in the Guide to CBA of investment projects developed by DG Regio for waste treatment and integrated water supply services.

CBA for waste treatment

The main principles of EU policy on waste management are the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP), the proximity principle and the waste management hierarchy13. Projects need to define carefully the population covered and the volume and type of waste treated, the type of technologies implemented, local economic impacts in terms of revenue and employment, savings in raw materials consumption, reduction in air, water and soil pollutants (and other type of avoided environmental damages), and other factors. According to the Guide developed by DG Regio, the key economic benefits and costs are: treatment of waste, which minimises impacts on human health and the urban

environment (compared to a do-nothing alternative); energy recovery; impacts on human health (morbidity or mortality due to air, water or soil pollution); induced environmental damage such as water and soil contamination; aesthetic and landscape impacts such as changes in land prices or economic

development induced by the project. Externalities are considered as special non-marketed goods or services. They use among others hedonic prices. Positive externalities from waste treatment could be specified as morbidity avoided and shadow pricing applied to CO² avoided. Conversion factors are applied to traded and non-traded items (of the financial cash-flow statement). They mainly use border prices by applying an appropriate conversion factor, often a standard conversion factor or a sector-specific conversion factor based on long run marginal willingness-to-pay. CBA for water supply and sanitation

The European policy on water is set out in Directive 2000/60/EC that establishes the framework of Community action in this field (EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)). Its main objective is to achieve good status for all waters by 2015. The main principles of this directive are the following: integrating the management of water resources on a river district scale; integrating economics into the management of water services; applying total cost recovery (financial, environmental, resource costs); the “polluter pays principle”.

12 The term “major » meaning more than €25-50m. 13 Waste management strategies must aim primarily at preventing generation of waste and reducing its harmfulness.

Where this is not possible, waste materials should be re-used, re-cycled or used as energy source. As a final resort, waste should be disposed of safely (DG Regio, 2008).



These are also guiding principles for carrying out economic analysis of water usage. Economic costs and benefits of water supply and waste water treatment should be identified on a case-by-case basis according to the range of interventions: supply and delivery of water, collection, removal, purification and elimination of sewage (DG Regio, 2008). All costs and benefits have to be taken into account, whether arising for users, for the water resource itself or for the environment.

For example, the benefits of water supply projects include satisfied demand for water as compared to a “do-nothing alternative” valued at the user’s willingness-to-pay (WTP).

Positive and negative externalities of the impact of the infrastructure’s construction have to be taken into account by means of a quantitative approach (mainly based on WTP or willingness-to-accept-compensation {WTA}).

Moving from financial to economic analysis entails setting aside of subsidies and taxes. However, environmental taxes and subsidies should not be deducted although possible double-counting of externalities should be avoided.

CBA and the environment14

CBA has largely evolved since the 1960s when it was mainly used for project appraisal. (It was first developed in the 1930s with the theory of welfare economics or new welfare economics that formalised the notion of divergence of private and social costs - this is also its major criticism, the social welfare function in CBA as portrayed by Kaldor-Hicks). It has been recognised as an appraisal technique for public investments and public policy, notably in the fields of environmental policy, transport planning and healthcare. CBA should be a tool to help decision-makers plan public investment efficiently.

In this framework of policy analysis, benefits are defined as increases in human wellbeing (utility) and costs are defined as reductions in human wellbeing. In order to support a project or policy with public investment, the social benefits must exceed social costs. The society is the sum of its individuals. CBA attempts to aggregate all gains and losses of utility and wellbeing. Defined methodologies for valuing costs and benefits have to be used, so as to make possible broad comparisons between alternatives on a consistent basis, giving a measure of transparency to the decision-making process. Three main methodologies are used to measure environmental benefits in monetary terms for non-market goods, namely the revealed preference method, the stated preference method and the benefit transfer method. The first focuses on willingness to pay WTP and in particular uses a hedonic pricing method as its main specific method. Benefits are based on aggregated benefits for different groups (social) of the society. It usually includes valuing WTP or WTA (see above). Benefits and costs are spread over time and need discounting. Indicators similar to those used for project analysis are calculated, namely the NPV, the internal rate of return (IRR) and a benefit-cost ratio. One key element of CBA is presentation of alternatives for achieving the chosen goal of a policy.

14 Source: Pearce D, Atkinson G., Mourato S. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment, OECD



Among the advantages of CBA is the need to circumscribe a policy clearly. It provides a model of rationality for decision-makers. CBA forces the decision-maker to identify beneficiaries and losers in both spatial and temporal dimensions. CBA clearly requires setting out of alternatives or options for achieving goals.

1.7.2 The limits of cost-benefit analysis The limitations of cost-benefit analysis in the current context are the following:

CBA guarantees that global net benefits are positive, but does not ensure social optimality. Optimality means that the social net benefit is not only positive, but maximised.15 Optimality is achieved when marginal costs equal marginal benefits, not when total costs equal total benefits. However the rule for optimality is quite impossible to fulfil in practice, as marginal costs and marginal benefits are unknown. So this first limit is mainly theoretical: CBA comparison is a rational and practical criterion for decision-making;

CBA requires comparing of costs and benefits in the same unit, which is a monetary unit. In consequence environmental benefits, like non-market values, are tricky to evaluate. They require specific methodologies such as hedonic price methods or contingent evaluation…

What are the frontiers of a CBA? One the one hand costs are quite straightforward to identify. They consist of direct investment costs (clearly known on a budgetary basis) and opportunity costs (i.e. the social benefits of having used these resources in the best alternative public project). On the other hand benefits may be manifold and difficult to identify. As far as structural funds (SFs) are concerned in this context, benefits rely not only on private output, but also on private employment, environmental quality and human well-being. Integrating all these dimensions in a single comprehensive empirical analysis is challenging and requires many methodological pre-requisites. This point relates to what are sometimes referred to as ancillary benefits of a project, that is benefits that were not initially sought.

CBA only applies to single-project appraisals. It cannot apply to multiple projects policies, because these projects may overlap and produce cross-effects. CBA rests on the assumption that everything else remains unchanged in the global economy when the project under study is implemented. This is known as partial equilibrium analysis. If one considers that SFs may have some (regional) general equilibrium effects, then CBA cannot be applied.

Related to the previous point, CBA is unable to shed light on timescale-related trade-offs: is it optimal to implement a project today, or rather tomorrow? Answering this question requires a dynamic general equilibrium setting. Such a setting also allows evaluation of whether the economy follows a path of over-investment or under-investment in public infrastructure, that is to say an investment path that does not maximise global welfare.

15 See section 1.2.2 for a definition of optimality in a static setting.



1.8 From theoretical insights to a framework for ex post evaluation

1.8.1 A summary of the main insights from economic theory The theoretical and empirical review presented in the previous sections on the potential role of public environmental infrastructures in regional development provides some pointers for developing the methodological framework we seek for. These outcomes can be summarised as follows: 1. Both infrastructures and environment quality may be considered as public goods with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

activity; increased unit costs 5. Both issues (infrastructures and the environment) encompass short and long run

effects, so dynamics are key to grasping the totality of their combined effects. 6. The optimal level of environmental quality for a specific region may depend of many

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



1.8.2 Linking theory to practice: a methodological framework

One of the main conclusions to be drawn from task 1 is that the issue of the contribution of environmental infrastructure investment to regional development has not been extensively addressed by the economic literature. The main outcomes we reach come from a combination of various approaches applied separately to infrastructures, environment or growth process but rarely all together. Moreover some of the issues are quite interesting to discuss theoretically but become rather complex when applied empirically. To derive from that a comprehensive methodology for evaluating the contribution of ERDF environmental measures to regional development is therefore a tricky task. Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to highlight some of the issues and to make the link with the foreseen tasks. The issues may be grouped under two main questions: the process of intervention and the results/impacts achieved.

Analysis of the process One of the strongest outcomes of this review is the discussion about the rationale for public intervention in these fields. The question will rarely be to know if environmental infrastructures are relevant or not (most of the time, it is except when there is a risk of overlapping with other interventions) but more if and how public bodies must intervene for supporting these investments. To address this issue, time should be spent for clearly identifying what has been done, the types of support provided, the market conditions existing at the place and the alternative approaches used or not by other public stakeholders. The analysis of the process may be divided into three steps:

1. Analysis of what has been done and of the achieved outputs. 2. Analysis of the ERDF environmental strategy and its complementarities with other

policies 3. Analysis of the decision and management process.

A. What has been done? And how has it been done?

The first step is to have a clear idea of what has been financed by ERDF (resources allocated) and the main characteristics of environmental interventions (fields of intervention); types of infrastructure (new/upgraded, degree of public relevance, public/private character; expected impact (local/global; short/long term), types of incentive provided. Ideally, the question should be raised about the degree of publicness of these infrastructures and the magnitude of the related externalities. But even if it is quite interesting to discuss theoretically, it becomes rather complex when applied empirically. Topics that should be considered are detailed below.



Actual implementation of ERDF environmental interventions Budget allocations and revision (per FOI/measures) Number of projects (targets and achievements) broken down by water supply, waste water, municipal waste water, others Types of public interventions : public investment in infrastructures/natural resources through subsidies, preferential

interest rates, guarantees, PPP, etc. Financial incentives provided for private investment “soft” interventions

Types of incentives provided to enterprises/households New infrastructures built / upgraded Small/large infrastructures

Degree of achievements of environmental targets

New waste treatment capacity created (targets and achievements) Number of landfills closed (targets and achievements) Number of landfills rehabilitated (targets and achievements) Other achievements in environmental fields Properties of infrastructure For public infrastructures: share of public funds and % of ERDF Involvement of private sector in funding, exploitation,… Access conditions: taxes, connection rates, etc. territorial coverage

Nature and magnitude of externalities



B. Analysis of the strategy and its complementarities with other policies

The next step is to assess the extent to which environmental interventions were in line with national environment strategies and challenges as well as with cohesion objectives. This question is crucial, for these interventions may have accounted for an important proportion of the ERDF programmes (Objectives 1 and 2) during the 2000-2006 period, but without specific objectives at the outset in respect of environment and climate change.

Environmental interventions were part of ERDF interventions aimed at strengthening economic and social cohesion in the European Union (EU) by correcting imbalances between its regions. How environmental measures have been integrated into the regional strategies and what complementarities have been established with other types of interventions are important issues for an examination of coherence.

How were ERDF environmental measures integrated into cohesion objectives and how were they intended to contribute to regional development? ERDF strategy in the field of environment policy (national/regional programmes) Integration of environmental expenditures in O1 and O2 programmes. Link to the remaining parts of programming documents. Environment as an horizontal priority in programming documents Leverage or opportunity effects provided by ERDF interventions within the regional strategy Did environmental measures tackle the main environmental challenges at national/regional level?

Key environmental indicators at regional level (gas emissions, air quality, waste generation, fresh water quality, freshwater resources, forest resources, fish resources) at the start of the programme Features in the fields of support at the beginning of the 2000-2006 programming period Position of the region compared to national level How have ERDF environmental interventions been linked to European/national/regional environmental priorities and policies? National/regional strategy in the environmental sector Risk of underinvestment/overinvestment: investment rate at national level and position of regions Degree of immediate preference for clean environment at regional level Interaction with other policy instruments in the environmental area (taxation, regulatory requirements, etc.)

How are ERDF environmental interventions integrated with other European interventions in the same field? Overall investment in environmental infrastructures and role of European funds Coherence of ERDF strategies with other funds at national/regional levels Institutional setting and decision process of ERDF and other interventions Coordination and complementarities in the field (data/analysis sharing, co-financing schemes, complementarities in terms of zone, types of measure)



C. Institutional capacity and implementation management A major issue is how choices were made within the ERDF envelope, and how the selection process was conducted at various levels: first, for deciding on the priorities and measures to be funded through the ERDF or through other public funds (national/regional/ European); second, for deciding on the importance accorded to the various environmental measures; and third, in relation to the types of infrastructure and project that have been supported. The risk of a crowding-out effect must be assessed. Another important issue related to management capacities is the financial sustainability of the public services supported and the way in which the regional authorities address the problem.

Management of public expenditures Budget constraint (public deficit, debt,…) Degree of priority in national strategies Sectoral planning Decision process and project selection (i.e. use of CBA for the selection of major projects (around €20m) Additionally at sectoral level (programme would have been funded without European funds? Trade-offs between national and European funds) Resource transfer (from country to region) linked to projects Profitability and financial sustainability Management costs Maintenance costs Measurement of profitability

Assessing results and impact

The evaluation must analyse the effects of ERDF interventions in terms of environment (how it contributes to the implementation of environmental strategies?), in terms of regional development as well as in terms of quality of life.

D. The effectiveness of public investment and interventions in improving the environmental situation

The effects must be first assessed in the fields covered by ERDF (water supply, collection and treatment of waste water and solid waste). Then the contribution of ERDF to the environmental situation may be analysed at local level on air quality and natural resources (quality of soil, land forest, water) and at global level on climate change and GHG emission.



To what extent did environmental infrastructures improve waste collection and waste treatment? Trends in waste generation and prevention measures for each relevant waste stream Trends in recycling rates for each relevant waste stream as compared to European objectives Performance of the installations in terms of air and water treatment, air and water pollutant emissions, etc. Landfill situation Improvement of quality of waste management services and satisfaction of the stakeholders Control of waste management activities To what extent did environmental infrastructures improve water supply and waste water collection and treatment? Contribution to Water Framework Directive (2000) implementation New treatment technologies introduced Improvement of management systems Impact on the quality/quantity of surface and ground water for drinking supplies and aquatic habitat To what extent have environmental expenditures contributed to reducing GHG emission? Types of renewable energy promoted or used in the framework of the ERDF interventions Role of the ERDF interventions in promotion and use of renewable energies Impact on the use of renewable energies Improvement in energy efficiency in enterprises

To what extent did environmental measures improve air quality?

Specific questions related to natural resources (forests, water, land) E. The contribution of environmental infrastructures to regional economic development Task 1 has provided some evidences that environmental infrastructures may have a positive effect on output and employment in the medium term. Various mechanisms may interact to produce such results: As a demand side effect, by increasing investment, internal demand and domestic

product (direct activities created). Full impact may be mitigated by a crowding out effect (reduction of other types of investment).

As a supply side effect, by increasing the production capacity of these environmental sectors inside the region. This may contribute to increase GDP by reducing imports, rising exports, and increasing local demand through decreasing prices (for example). A risk of reducing output of other competitors exist that must be assessed (displacement of activities from one supplier to another inside the same region).



As entering directly into private sector production, it may crowd in private investment: the improvement of “environmental” services will enhance the attractiveness of the region for direct investment.

In the medium term by contributing to a better quality of factors of production such as natural resources, activities where natural resources constitute an input may benefit. In the same way, by improving living conditions and health situation, environmental infrastructures may have an impact on the quality of labour (both directly because people are in a better ill and indirectly by attracting more qualified people).

Technological progress and innovation constitute one of the endogenous engines of growth. It increases productivity and competitiveness. We know that technological progress may have positive externalities on the local/regional environment and push innovation capacities of related providers/clients/sub contractors.

Direct activities linked to the infrastructures/services (in/outside the region) Direct employment created (temporary and permanent) Trend in turnover in activities concerned with protection and management of the environment Output reduction by competitors (displacement) New business opportunities linked to the projects (providers, subcontractors,…) Demand-push (due for example to new services or decreasing prices)

Effects as external inputs into private production functions Accessibility/attractiveness of the region due to improved/new public services (water, waste, access to clean energy supply,…) and rehabilitated industrial sites Increased production capacities due to improved public services (new FDI,…) Number of companies in industrial parks Number of companies connected to wind turbine Effects on other factors of production (natural resources, labour) Increased/decreased unit costs Improved quality of inputs Increasing labour productivity in the sector Qualifications of work force New activities in sectors where the environment constitutes a primary natural resource or input (including activities dependent on environment quality) Introducing technological innovation Introduction of new/improved technology, spill-overs New process, new products/services Innovation transferred into private local companies Comparative advantage gained (prime mover effect)



F. The contribution of environmental infrastructures to quality of life By improving public services in the field of water and waste, environmental investment may contribute to a better quality of life. The effects will depend first on the available capacities and conditions of access to the infrastructures. A restricted access due to high prices or to limited capacities will restrain the benefits to the population. The impact that can be expected are first an improved sanitation situation and second a better quality of place/housing.

Benefits horizon Evolution of market/demand (including demographic aspects) and available capacity (i.e. demand for waste recovery and disposal (evaluation of production by type of waste and producer, compliance norm,..) Degree of uncertainty about demand aspects Promotion of benefits Quality of access to public infrastructures Trend in selling prices of environmental “goods and services” Equal access to environment-related public services

Improved sanitation Additional population served by water supply projects in relation to overall connection rate Reduction in leakage from the water supply network Additional population served by waste water projects in relation to overall population Air pollution Water quality Soil quality Health improvement (mortality rates under 65 due to respiratory illness and heart disease) Quality of rural/urban housing Air pollution concentration levels in residential areas Urban parks Other relevant indicators



A last question addresses the differences between more and less developed regions and between rural and urban regions. As the interactions between environment and growth may be very different according to the local level of development, public response may also vary in that context. Some of the evaluation issues could then be analysed separately for the different types of region with the aim of establishing whether regions at different stages of development respond in different degrees or respects to the state of the environment and in consequence intervene differently. The most interesting issues to be analysed separately are: achievements and types of investment made; strategy and complementarities with other policies; results.

The proposed framework will be partly used for carrying out the different tasks. Especially, the methodologies elaborated for the case studies are greatly inspired by the issues raised in this section. All questions will not be addressed as some are too complex to treat in the limited time we have. However, this evaluation framework will guide the whole process and will permit to draft a coherent set of conclusions and recommendations (task 6).



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

2.1 Summaries of the Principal Features of the Environmental Strategies of the 14 Selected Member States

Summaries of the principal environmental issues and strategies in the 14 selected Member States (MS) are being prepared to assist the implementation of the case studies, namely regional case studies (task 4.1), waste prevention and management of waste (task 4.2) and climate change (task 5). Relevant statistics for each MS are being compiled centrally by the leading evaluation team and checked and/or completed – if possible – by national experts. These include socio-economic statistics, status and features of the environment, investment in environmental infrastructures during the period 2000-2006 and development of the environmental infrastructures. Country stories are focusing on the three types of environment infrastructure mainly financed, namely water supply, wastewater treatment and solid waste as well as on energy and climate change. As suggested, socio-economic data are provided by WP 1 evaluation (Sources: Eurostat, 2008; DG Regional Policy, 2008; the Labour Force Survey). Each national expert will complete the remaining fields of the template (max. five pages for each MS), and the completed templates will be checked by the leading evaluation team. A draft summary for Ireland has been completed and is available below; while the summaries for the remaining Member States (Spain, Italy, Germany, Greece, Portugal, France, Poland, United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia and Finland) will be completed in the Second Intermediate Report. During the preparation of the Second Intermediate Report, the opportunity will also be taken to revise and provide additional detail in the summary for Ireland, if this is considered useful or necessary.

Ireland

1. Socio-economic statistics

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Population (million habitants) 3.75 3.8 3.86 3.93 4 4.07 4.2 4.26

GDP per capita at PPS (k€/capita) 22.5 24.9 26.2 28.2 29.1 30.6 32.2 n.a.

Employment rate, 15-64 years old (%) 62.5 65.2 65.8 65.5 65.5 66.3 67.6 68.6

Employment in Agriculture (%) n.a. 7.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.9 n.a.

Employment in Industry (%) n.a. 28.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 27.6 n.a.

Employment in Services (%) n.a. 63.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 66.5 n.a.

Sources: Eurostat, 2008 and DG Regional Policy, 2008; Labour Force Survey; Census; Central Statistics Office, Ireland (CSO)



2. Status and features of the environment

2.1 Key environmental indicators

Water supply 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Proportion (%) of population connected to public water supply

n.a. n.a. n.a. 90 n.a. n.a. 83 n.a.

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

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 99 n.a. n.a.

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

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 96 n.a. n.a.

Sources: ENHIS, May 2007 and Eurostat, 2008.

Wastewater treatment 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% population receiving primary treatment as defined by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

40 n.a. 41 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 n.a.

% population receiving secondary treatment as defined by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

21 n.a. 21 n.a. n.a. n.a. 70 90

% population receiving tertiary treatment as defined by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

5 n.a. 8 n.a. n.a. n.a. 12 82.

% population receiving total treatment as defined by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

66 n.a. 70 n.a. n.a. n.a. 89 n.a.

Source: Eurostat, 2008. Comments: The proportion of waste water subject to secondary treatment has increased significantly from 21 per cent in 2000-2001 to 70 per cent in 2006. This is due to the new sewage treatment plant at Ringsend, Dublin. The waste water now treated at Ringsend was previously accounted for in the primary treatment category, which has significantly reduced. Progress on the high levels of untreated waste water from some other large urban areas has occurred since 2003 with the provision of secondary treatment for waste water generated by the cities of Cork, Limerick and Galway. The waste water treatment plants in all 4 cities received significant EU financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund. Sources: Discussions with Mr Enda Falvey, Assistant Principal Officer, Water Services Investment Programme, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; data from the “Executive Summary of Mid-Term Evaluation Report”, from the “December 2006 Report on progress under ESIO”, from “Achievements in WSIP sector 2000 - 2007” and from “The Cohesion Fund in Ireland”.

Solid waste 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Municipal waste generation (kg/ capita) 603 705 698 736 745 742 804

Municipal waste incinerated (kg/ capita) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Municipal waste landfilled (kg/ capita) 554 540 504 480 451 444 471

Packaging waste generation (kg/ capita) 209 212 217 202 205 n.a. 233

Source: European Environment Agency, 2008. Comments: Municipal waste includes household waste and similar commercial, industrial and institutional wastes according to the main typologies of waste in the European catalogue. It is interesting to mention household waste generation in that context, which represents around 52-58% of total municipal waste generation. (source: EPA). According to the EPA, every person in the State generated 430kg of household waste in 2004, up from 398 kg in 2003, 390 kg in 2002, and 370 kg in 2001. The quantities of municipal waste landfilled rose from 1.87 million tonnes in 2004, 1.89 million tonnes in 2005, to 2.05 million tonnes in 2006. In 2001, 87% of municipal waste was going to landfill for final disposal, by 2004 this had decreased to 67%, and by 2006 to 64%. No municipal waste is yet being incinerated, though planning permission and EPA licences



have been granted to two incinerators (in County Meath and County Cork), and a planning application was been submitted for a large-scale municipal waste incinerator in Dublin city. Sources: : Discussions with Mr Kieran Moylan, BMW Regional Assembly; The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 2005 National Waste Database Report adjusted for Repak’s projected market growth; Repak Ltd., Report by Forfás (“Waste Management Benchmarking Analysis and Policy Priorities, May 2008”).

Energy 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Share of renewable energy in primary energy consumption (%) 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.7.

Share of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption (%) 4.9 4.2 5.4 4.3 5.1 6.8 8.6.

Trends in total energy intensity16 (1995 = 100) 83.3 n.a n.a. n.a. 75.3 68.3 n.a.

Comments: Additional information on energy use in Ireland is given in Annex 2 of this report. Source: European Environment Agency, 2008. Climate change 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total GHG emissions (1990 = 100) 124.1 127.2 123.8 123.4 123.5 126.5 125.5

GHG emissions per capita (t CO2 equivalent/ capita) 11.8 12.2 11.7 11.3 11.2 11.4 n.a.

Source: European Environment Agency, 2008.

2.2 Main environmental challenges of the country During the period under review (2000 – 2006), Ireland’s economic development accelerated significantly, resulting in environmental pressures and challenges. The most serious issues included the need for:

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

better enforcement of environmental legislation; improving water supply to keep pace with growing demand; controlling and reducing distribution leakage, especially in the Greater Dublin Area; ensuring adequate wastewater treatment for major urban areas; decoupling waste generation and economic growth, reducing waste generation per capita, and diverting waste from

landfills; encouraging re-use and recycling, and providing the necessary infrastructure to enable people to recycle useful materials; meeting international commitments on emissions to atmosphere (mainly greenhouse gases, acidifying gases and motor

vehicle emissions); and, prevention and control of eutrophication of rivers and lakes.

Sources: Programming documents, interviews with MS stakeholders, and author’s comments.

2.3 Main objectives of the National Strategy

Main objectives of the National Strategy

There is no clearly defined National Environmental Strategy; however, there are strategies for sustainability, climate change, water quality and other environmental issues which could be considered as reasonably consistent with each other, and contributing to a group of overall strategic goals. Summarizing, Ireland should become less dependent on external factors which give rise to environmental problems, with better quality of air and water, better quality of life for all people throughout the entire country, and the State in full compliance with all EU Environmental Directives and other international environmental obligations.

A process of catching-up with best practice in environmentally leading nations must also be considered as an essential target. For example, obligations concerning urban waste water treatment (Council Directive

16 Energy intensity is a measure of the energy efficiency of a nation's economy. It is calculated as units of

energy per unit of GDP.



91/271/EEC) need to be met (failure to designate sufficient areas of priority and other habitats for protection has already lead to Ireland being adversely judged in the European Court). 2.4 Environmental policy Institutional Framework: Environmental policy The creation of environmental policy in Ireland is the result of an iterative process involving the Cabinet, the

Minister for the Environment, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other Government Department and Agencies, Local Authorities (County and City Councils) and social partners including environmental NGOs, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, and other stakeholders.

The country’s first major national policy on waste (“Changing Our Ways”), published in 1998, set out targets over a 15-year period to reach a recycling rate of 35 per cent of municipal waste. Subsequent policy documents (“Preventing and Recycling Waste – Delivering Change”, DoEHLG, 2002; and “Taking Stock and Moving Forward”, DoEHLG, 2004) have proposed programmes aimed to increase waste recycling, diversion of waste from landfill, waste prevention and improving waste management infrastructure.

Decision making about environmental infrastructure projects Initiating agencies are usually the Local Authorities (County and City Councils) for decision making about environmental infrastructure projects. The supply of water to homes and industry is the responsibility of the 88 local authorities around Ireland, and the funding for maintaining and improving the water supply infrastructure (pipes, filtration and disinfection systems) comes from the DoEHLG. Local Authorities have the primary responsibility for delivery of water supply, for wastewater treatment, and for solid waste infrastructure and management – but with a high degree of central government control over capital funding. The Executive (Management) and/or the Elected Members (Councillors) identify a need for improved or new infrastructure, generally as a consequence of other developments. For example, water supplies may need to be augmented, wastewater treatment plants expanded or renewed, and waste treatment or disposal facilities extended or new facilities constructed. An application for funding is made to the DoEHLG; and if the project is approved, the Local Authority receives the funds to pay the successful tenderer / contractor. Funds are generally available only for those projects which form part of a programme such as the Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme (ESIOP), and, in the case of waste, the relevant Regional Waste Management Plan. A significant driving force is the need to comply with EU Directives, including the Waste Framework Directive, the Landfill Directive, the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, and others.

• Ownership of water services All water services (supply and wastewater treatment) are publicly owned, but during the review period the DoEHLG and Local Government encouraged Local Authorities to provide water services capital projects by means of Design/Build (DB) or Design/Build/Operate contracts (DBO). Procedures for such contracts were set out in a circular dated 26 January 1999. Some large-scale projects, including the Dublin City and Cork City wastewater treatment plants were financed in this way.

• Ownership of landfill sites and incinerators A number of large landfill sites have been developed by private operators in the last two decades. A private operator will generally make a decision based on perceived need and commercial profitability, and on finding a suitable site. Planning permission (from the Local Authority or from An Bord Pleanála) and a waste licence (from the EPA) must be obtained before the facility, which may also incorporate recycling and composting, can begin to accept waste. All recent large-scale private landfill facilities and incinerators have been opposed by local communities; planning permissions have been granted by An Bord Pleanála in some cases, and refused in others. Large landfills have to be licensed by the EPA, and the Agency carries out inspections and audits to ensure compliance with licence conditions. Privately operated landfills are subject to planning control by Local Authorities, in addition to the EPA’s licensing system. Smaller waste management sites, for example waste transfer and sorting facilities, operate under a permit system controlled by Local Authorities. Civic amenity sites, i.e., locations where members of the public can bring recyclable wastes, are operated by Local Authorities.

- Performance monitoring of environmental infrastructure The task of monitoring the performance of environmental infrastructure in Ireland is divided between the Local Authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Local Authorities manage the day-to-day operations of water purification and supply systems, waste water treatment plants and landfills under their control, while the EPA ensures that the monitoring is carried out to an agreed standard. Water testing is carried out on all public waters by Local Authorities and the Health Service Executive (HSE).

• Regional differences There are almost no regional differences, as all waste management facilities are built and operated according to regional



waste management plans which are very similar. Environmental legislation:

There are very few national policy documents on water supply, but most Local Authorities include an objective on water supply in the their statutory development plans.

• Water supply Water supplies are regulated under the Water Supplies Act, 1942, and Water Services Act, 2007. Other important legal instruments include the European Communities (Drinking Water) Regulations, 2000 (S.I. No. 439 of 2000), which prescribe quality standards to be applied in relation to supplies of drinking water, including sampling frequency, methods of analysis, the provision of information to consumers and related matters. The Regulations give effect to provisions of EU Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption. The European Communities (Drinking Water) Regulations 2007, (S.I. No. 106 of 2007) transferred to the EPA the responsibility for the supervision of Local Authority water supply monitoring programmes. Penalties for non-compliance with these regulations have been increased by the European Communities (Drinking Water) (No.2) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 278 of 2007).

• Wastewater The collection and treatment of wastewater is regulated under the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations, 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007). These regulations bring under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency all discharges from local authority waste water treatment works and sewage collection systems that discharge to any type of receiving water. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 254 of 2001), amended on 15 July 2004, give effect to provisions of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, as amended, concerning urban waste water treatment, and Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 - the Water Framework Directive.

• Municipal solid waste The principal act governing the collection and disposal of municipal solid waste is the Waste Management Act, 1996, which provides for a system of licensing (by the EPA) and permitting (by Local Authorities). A large number of regulations made under this Act give effect to EU Directives on waste.

• The polluter pays principle The polluter pays principle is applied only partly in relation to the cost of treating wastewater discharges. Domestic users are not charged for either the supply of water or the collection and treatment of wastewater; but non-domestic, i.e., commercial and agricultural users, pay a charge which reflects principally the cost of supplying water. However, large industrial users are charged for discharging effluent into the public sewer network; and these users may also be faced with the requirement to contribute to the construction of new sewerage treatment facilities. Development levies are also charged by Local Authorities on new developments, including housing, as a contribution to the provision of essential services including sewerage disposal. The polluter pays principle in relation to waste became more generally applied throughout the evaluation period (2000-2006) as Local Authorities implemented systems of charging domestic producers of waste. In some Local Authority areas, an annual fixed charge was applied, while in others a system of payment by weight or payment by collection was introduced. These contributions reflected the operating costs, but not the capital costs of landfill construction. Private waste contractors, collecting mainly from commercial premises, but also from an increasing number of households, must necessarily charge for collection.

Regional particularities There are no regional differences in environmental legislation.

Sources: Programming documents and interviews with MS stakeholders. 3. Investments in environmental infrastructures during the period 2000-2006 3.1 Global overview 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Environmental expenditures by the public sector (% of GDP) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Environmental investments by industry (% of GDP) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Environmental investments by the public sector (% of GDP) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Source: Eurostat, 2008. 3.2 ERDF and CSF investments ERDF investments over the period 2000-2006

Total expenditure on the Environmental Infrastructure Priority for the period 2000 to 2004 amounted to €2.43 billion, as outlined in the table below. This represented 92% of the OP forecast. Of this, €2.37 billion came from the Exchequer, which was 92% of the OP forecast. €57 million came from the ERDF (5% more than the forecast). The main focus is the Waste Water measure, which is the only measure in receipt of ERDF funding.



Total Cumulative Expenditure on Environmental Infrastructure January 2000 to December 2004 National € millions Total NDP Total CSF ERDF AID National Public

Expenditure 2000 460.6021 7.969 5.074 455.528

as % of OP Forecast 96.8% 16.3% 17.1% 102.0%

Expenditure 2001 571.242 20.985 12.897 558.345

as % of OP Forecast 115.7% 126.5% 141.6% 115.2%

Expenditure 2002 503.940 17.535 11.200 492.740

as % of OP Forecast 93.5% 272.8% 309.4% 92%

Expenditure 2003 490.8832 23.141 13.657 477.226

as % of OP Forecast 89.6% 186.3% 213.4% 88.2%

Expenditure 2004 402.012 27.994 14.509 387.503

as % of OP Forecast 70.01% 227.78% 227.78% 68.24%

Cumulative Expenditure 2,428.679 97.624 57.337 2371.342

as % of OP Forecast 92.33% 100.9% 104.90% 92.1%

Source: ESIOP Progress Report 2004 Source: Financial tables from WP1 and interviews of key MS stakeholders; ESIOP Progress Report 2004

Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control (FOI code: 333)€22.9m

24%

34%

10%

Urban and industrial waste (FOI code: 343)€80.6m

Drinking water (FOI code: 344) €58.0m

Sewerage and purification (FOI code: 345)€76.6m

32%

Total: €238m



3.3 Other financial sources See Table above. 4. Development of the environmental infrastructure systems

Trends in the development of environmental infrastructures Historically, environmental infrastructure such as drinking water supply and water treatment plants, waste water treatment plants and landfills were constructed by Local Authorities (County and City Councils), with funds obtained from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and local Government. Management, operation and monitoring were under the control of Local Authorities. Following the enactment of the Waste Management Act, 1996, Local Authorities’ landfill sites were brought within the waste licensing system operated by the Environmental Protection Agency; and, during the review period, the Agency has increased the amount of monitoring and enforcement of licence conditions, particularly where landfills have been the subject of public complaints. From the year 2000, and within the review period, privately operated landfills have been constructed, and they are operated under Waste Licenses issued by the EPA and planning permissions granted by An Bord Pleanála; and private companies in the area of waste management have exercised a growing influence on waste policy. Two incinerators have received planning permission and waste licences (one for municipal waste, the other for industrial and hazardous waste). Construction of the municipal waste incinerator at Carranstown, County Meath, began in mid-2008. A third privately operated Incinerator is planned for Dublin City (it will be located at Poolbeg on the eastern fringe of the City). Contracts to design, build and operate (DBO) environmental infrastructure were unknown in Ireland prior to the year 2000, but the largest waste water treatment plant in the country, to handle Dublin’s sewage, had been constructed under a DBO contract. While it would be fair to say that the trend in the development of environmental Infrastructure is towards higher standards of operation, a small but significant number of landfill sites are still causing serious public nuisance, and these have been the focus of complaints to the European Commission, e.g. the landfill site at Tramore, County Waterford.

Compliance with EU Directives

The transposition of EU Directives into National Legislation during the review period has generally been slow, and this has led to a number of cases being taken against Ireland in the European Court of Justice. On 11 September 2008, in Case C-316/06, the Court declared that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, for the reason that discharges from the agglomerations of Bray, Howth, Letterkenny, Shanganagh, Sligo, and Tramore had not been made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment latest by the deadline of 31 December 2000, as required by the Directive. In an earlier case (Case C-494/01), the Court found that Ireland had failed to take all the measures necessary to ensure a correct implementation of the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and had failed to comply with its obligations under those provisions. Other cases against Ireland for failing to comply with the provision of environmental infrastructure or obligations under environmental directives will be familiar to the Commission. The EU Legislation which has had significant effect’s on the quality of the environment during the review period 2000-2006 include the Urban Waste Water Directive, Bathing Water Directive, Salmonid Waters Directive, The Bird’s Directive, Habitats Directive, the Waste Framework Directive and the Landfill Directive.

Role of the private sector The private sector had not yet taken an active roll in the provision of water supplies, or in waste water treatment, with the exception of a), the very large waste water treatment plant which serves the city of Dublin, and b) numerous waste water treatment plants operated by private firms to deal with effluent from specific industrial plants. However, as mentioned above, there has been in recent years a growing and very significant involvement of the private sector in the provision of municipal solid waste collection, waste recovery, sorting of waste, and disposal by landfilling, with recyclable materials being sent to other countries for processing.

Source: Policy documents, existing environmental Member State reports, interviews with Member State representatives.

5. ERDF Strategy in the field of environment policy

ERDF Strategy relating to the environment is specifically mentioned in the ESIOP. In general, ERDF Environmental Strategy and Policy is coherent with other environmental policies in Ireland, and has been integrated into National Policy. However, in some sectors that is a significant disjunction between policy and practice. For example, the National Spatial Strategy follows quite closely the relevant EU policies on land use planning and transportation, including the need to increase the role of public transport and to reduce private car use by insuring that the need for commuting between home and work (particularly long distance commuting) is avoided. Instead, there has been a major growth in car ownership and use (including the number of vehicle-miles travelled) and in long distance commuting during the review period. Also during the review period, the State has concentrated on the construction of major roads, while investment in rail, local road improvements and telecommunication has lagged behind to a significant degree

Source: Interviews with Member State stakeholders.



2.2 Summary information on Environmental Infrastructure Investments in the remaining 11 Member States

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

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

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

Country name

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

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

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

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

Environmental investments by industry (% of GDP)

Environmental investments by the public sector (% of GDP)

Source: Eurostat, 2008. 2.2 Financial sources

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

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

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

The role of ERDF in the development of the environmental infrastructures (water supply, wastewater

collection and treatment, collection and treatment of municipal waste) will be described. Sources: Programming documents, financial tables and interviews with MS stakeholders.



2.3 Summary at EU level

On the basis of the above-mentioned information, the environmental situation at EU level will be summarised. Similarities and differences between countries (e.g. in terms of amounts invested in environmental infrastructures) will be highlighted. If appropriate, differences between Objectives 1 and 2 regions will be presented. For the 14 selected MS, a diagram showing the position of the MS at the beginning of the period 2000-2006 compared to the EU average will be systematically produced. The EU average will be set at 100. Data are presented in such a way that when the indicator is above 100 the performance of the MS is better than the EU average. The 14 diagrams will also be used as tools to compare the MS between each other. An example is given below for Ireland on the basis of available key environmental indicators (cf. section 2.1 of the template for the 14 selected MS). No indicator for waste water treatment was included at this stage, given the lack of data at EU average level.

Graph 2 : State of the environment in Ireland compared to EU average

Source: ADE 2008 based on key environmental indicators.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of population connected to public water

supply (2002)‏

Capita per ton of municipal waste

generation ‏(2000)

Capita per ton of

municipal waste

landfilled‏(2000)

Capita per ton of packaging wastegeneration ‏(2000)

Share of renewable energy in primary energy

consumption (2000)‏

GHG emissionper capita

‏(2000)

Trends in total energy intensity ‏(2000)

Share of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption (2000)‏

Ireland

EU average

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Share of population connected to public water

supply (2002)‏

Capita per ton of municipal waste

generation ‏(2000)

Capita per ton of

municipal waste

landfilled‏(2000)

Capita per ton of packaging wastegeneration ‏(2000)

Share of renewable energy in primary energy

consumption (2000)‏

GHG emissionper capita

‏(2000)

Trends in total energy intensity ‏(2000)

Share of renewable electricity in total electricity consumption (2000)‏

Ireland

EU average

Ireland

EU average



3. Task 3: Main outcomes

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

3.1.1 First results of the desk collection of the main outcomes

143 operational programmes of the 14 selected MS have invested in the field of environment. The main outcomes of these programmes in terms of water supply, wastewater and municipal solid waste are given in Annex 3 (Word format) as well as in an Excel file (attached to this report). The first spreadsheet of the Excel file contains the 11 indicators for all these programmes. The second spreadsheet presents other specific indicators, when available and relevant under this evaluation. Indicators requested in the ToRs are the following: number of water supply projects number of wastewater projects number of municipal solid waste projects number of additional members of the population served by water supply projects percentage increase in the additional population served by water supply projects

(compared to the baseline value) reduction of leakage from the water supply network increase in population served by wastewater projects percentage increase in population served by wastewater projects (compared to the

baseline value) new waste treatment capacity created number of unauthorised landfills closed or rehabilitated percentage of unauthorised landfills in the total number of the landfills operated in

2000 (for EU10 Member States only) The collection of the main outcomes has been organised as follows: 1) the 11 requested indicators were recorded from the WP2 database for the 143

programmes. Sometimes these indicators were available from the WP2 database, sometimes not. In the latter case they have been marked in the table (Annex 3) or in the first Excel spreadsheet as “n.a.”. Where available and relevant, other specific indicators were recorded in the second Excel spreadsheet.

2) all the collected indicators (11 indicators/ programme, where available) were sent by e-mail to the appropriate Management Authorities for the 143 programmes to be checked and valorised. Table 4 below shows the number of programmes by MS which have been checked and valorised by Management authorities. Programmes for which the indicators have been checked and valorised are highlighted in the table included in Annex 3.



Table 4 : Programmes for which the main outcomes have been checked and completed by Managament authorities

Member State Nb. of programmes

which invested in the field of environment

Nb. of programmes for which main outcomes have been checked/

completed

% of programmes checked by

Management authorities

Czech Republic (CZ) 4 4 100%

Germany (DE) 16 6 38%

Spain (ES) 20 2 10%

Finland (FI) 4 0 0%

France (FR) 26 2 8%

Greece (GR) 15 1 6% Hungary (HU) 2 0 0%

Ireland (IE) 3 2 67%

Italy (IT) 21 6 29%

Latvia (LV) 1 1 100%

Poland (PL) 2 1 50%

Portugal (PT) 11 3 27% Slovakia (SK) 3 0 0%

United Kingdom (UK) 15 4 27% Total 143 32 22%

Source: ADE 2008.

3.1.2 Next steps to complete the information on the main outcomes

Based on the table provided in Annex 3, the evaluator has identified below a list of 50 operational programmes requiring additional desk research (based on programming documents, available evaluation reports and documents of Managing Authorities) or additional field work (interviews with Managing Authorities) to fill remaining information gaps, as appropriate. The selection of these 50 programmes takes into account the following criteria: 1) Only the 111 programmes which were not checked and completed by Managing

Authorities (see above) can be selected. 2) If they were not checked by Managing Authorities, programmes which have been

chosen for implementing task 3.2 (effectiveness of major sectoral programmes), task 4.1 (regional case studies), task 4.2 (case studies on waste prevention and waste management) and task 5 (climate change), are automatically included in the selection of 50 programmes.

3) The programmes to be selected for additional research needed to have invested substantial amounts (ERDF and national inputs together) in the field of environmental infrastructures, taking into consideration the following FOI codes: sewerage and purification (345), drinking water (344), environmental infrastructures (34), urban and industrial waste (343). Programmes which invested the largest amounts have priority as they are expected to have produced more substantial outcomes than programmes which invested lower amounts.

4) The volume of missing data: when more than five indicators (out of the 11 requested) are missing the programme is kept aside for additional research.

Table 5 below provides the list of the selected 50 programmes for additional research.



Table 5 : Selection of the 50 programmes for additional research in terms of the main outcomes of the programmes

Nb. CCI number Programme name Obj. Member State Total amount invested17 (€)

Number of missing data

Operational programmes selected for case studies under Tasks 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 5, and for which main outcomes have not yet been checked and completed by Managing authorities

1 2000GR161PO027 PO obj. 1 Environnement 1 Greece 338,559,054 9

2 2003SK161PO001 Basic Infrastructure 1 Slovakia 94,817,406 7

3 1999PT161PO010 Ambiente 1 Portugal 0 11

4 2000IE161PO004 OP obj. 1 Economic and Social Infrastructure 1 Ireland 136,112,844 11

5 2003HU161PO003 Environmental Protection and Infrastructure 1 Hungary 85,032,594 7

6 2000GR161PO014 PO OBJ 1 MACEDOINE CENTRALE 1 Greece 62,424,844 10

7 2000FR162DO018 DOCUP obj. 2 Midi-Pyrénées 2 France 81,660,113 11

8 2000ES161PO009 PO obj. 1 Communidad Valeciana 1 Spain 916,320,246 5

9 2000IT162DO009 Lazio 2 Italy 168,422,655 9

10 1999FI162DO001 SPD Obj. 2 South Finland 2 Finland 29,623,000 11

11 2003PL161PO001 Integrated Regional Development OP 1 Poland 386,281,201 8

Operational programmes which invested large amounts in environmental infrastructures (FOI codes: 34, 343, 344, 345) and for which main outcomes have not yet been checked and completed by Managing authorities 12 2000ES161PO003 PO obj. 1 Andalucía 1 Spain 1,645,164,261 6

13 1999DE161PO006 PO obj. Sachsen 1 Germany 1,109,568,643 8

14 1999IT161PO011 PO OBJ 1 SICILIA 1 Italy 788,400,000 7

15 1999IT161PO009 PO OBJ 1 PUGLIA 1 Italy 767,500,000 7

16 2000ES161PO016 PO obj. 1 Local 1 Spain 639,356,651 7

17 1999IT161PO010 PO OBJ 1 SARDEGNA 1 Italy 594,848,828 7

18 2000ES161PO013 PO obj. 1 Murcia 1 Spain 538,553,402 5

19 2000ES161PO006 PO obj. 1 Castilla-La Mancha 1 Spain 497,814,885 6

20 2000ES161PO007 PO obj. 1 Castilla y león 1 Spain 482,467,529 7

21 1999IT161PO007 PO OBJ 1 CAMPANIA 1 Italy 415,011,950 9

22 1999FR161DO001 DOCUP obj. 1 Réunion 1 France 347,981,401 9

23 1999DE161PO002 PO OBJ 1 THURINGEN 1 Germany 347,146,793 8

17 Only for the following FOI codes: Sewerage and purification (345), Drinking water (344), Environmental infrastructures (34), Urban and industrial waste (343).



Nb. CCI number Programme name Obj. Member State Total amount invested17 (€)

Number of missing data

24 2000ES161PO011 PO obj. 1 Galicia 1 Spain 343,262,438 6

25 2000ES161PO005 PO obj. 1 Canarias 1 Spain 325,056,168 6

26 1999PT161PO014 PO Centro 1 Portugal 236,632,304 8

27 2000IT162DO009 Lazio 2 Italy 168,422,655 9

28 2000ES162DO006 Docup obj. 2 Madrid 2 Spain 153,051,908 11

29 2000ES161PO004 PO obj. 1 Asturias 1 Spain 152,415,462 7

30 2000FR161DO003 DOCUP obj. 1 Martinique 1 France 145,189,358 9

31 2000ES162DO008 Docup Obj. 2 País Vasco 2 Spain 136,065,472 7

32 1999IT161PO012 PO OBJ 1 BASILICATA 1 Italy 126,425,000 6

33 2000FR161DO001 DOCUP obj. 1 Guadeloupe 1 France 124,765,280 9

34 2000FR162DO008 DOCUP obj. 2 Haute-Normandie 2 France 123,931,582 11

35 2000GR161PO002 PO OBJ 1 ATTIQUE 1 Greece 119,453,163 9

36 1999PT161PO013 PO Alentejo 1 Portugal 106,354,279 10

37 1999PT161PO015 Lisboa e Vale do Tejo 1 Portugal 103,438,232 11

38 1999GB161DO002 DOCUP OBJ1 MERSEYSIDE 1 UK 99,124,693 10

39 2000FR162DO021 DOCUP obj. 2 Nord-Pas-de-Calais 2 France 93,681,001 11

40 1999FR161DO003 DOCUP Obj. 1 Corse 1 France 93,414,473 9

41 2000FR162DO003 DOCUP obj. 2 Lorraine 2 France 92,620,379 10

42 2000ES162DO002 Docup obj. 2 Aragon 2 Spain 79,882,262 9

43 2000GR161PO005 PO OBJ 1 GRECE CONTINENTALE 1 Greece 78,732,773 10

44 2000GR161PO010 PO OBJ 1 EGEE DU SUD 1 Greece 77,169,153 10

45 2000ES161PO002 PO obj. 1 Cantabria 1 Spain 70,432,305 5

46 2000GR161PO003 PO OBJ 1 PELOPONESE 1 Greece 67,833,612 9

47 2000GR161PO004 PO OBJ 1 GRECE OCCIDENTALE 1 Greece 67,747,195 9

48 2000GR161PO009 PO OBJ 1 EGEE DU NORD 1 Greece 61,796,124 10

49 1999PT161PO012 PO Algarve 1 Portugal 60,819,183 11

50 2000GR161PO008 PO OBJ 1 CRETE 1 Greece 58,165,654 10

Total 13,838,950,408 427

Source : ADE 2008



The total amount invested (ERDF and national funds) in the 143 operational programmes in the field of environmental infrastructures (FOI codes: 34, 343, 344 and 345) is € 17,845 m18. Following the additional research, the main outcomes for 82 (out of 143) operational programmes would be covered. In terms of investments, this corresponds to 78% of the total amount invested in the field of environmental investments (FOI codes: 34, 343, 344 and 345).

3.1.3 Financial information related to environmental interventions

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

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

The use of the autofilter function in the Excel file allows aggregation of data by field of intervention, programme, priority or objective.

3.2 Task 3.2: Effectiveness of major sectoral programmes

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

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the major sectoral programmes, a template will be completed for each programme by the national expert.

The template provided below has been almost completed for the Irish Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme (ESIOP). In fact, interviews with Irish stakeholders are still ongoing When fully completed this template will be used as benchmark by the leading evaluation team to check the quality of the input of national experts covering the remaining 5 MS to be covered (Hungary, Portugal, Slovakia, Greece and the Czech Republic).

3.2.2 Assessment of the effectiveness of the ESIOP programme

The guide for assessing the effectiveness of the ESIOP is available below.

18 The 2000-2006 total amounts per FOI code are: € 2,467 m for Urban and industrial waste; €5,327m for , (345) –

6,327, (34) – 4,040m€.



Major Sectoral Operational Programme:

Economic and Social Infrastructure

1. Data Programme Objective 1 Programme location Ireland Programme start year 2000 Programme end year 2006 Total programme duration 7 years ERDF budget in the field of environment 99,445,760 EUR National budget in the field of environment 73,349,958 EUR 2. Ireland and the Environment (see task 2) 3. Programme description

Short description of the programme The Economic and Social Infrastructure Operational Programme (ESIOP) is one of five programmes prepared within the framework of the Irish National Development Plan (NDP) 2000-2006. The latter is the overall framework within which applications were made for European Community Structural Funds, and it sets out the strategic objectives and quantitative targets for acquiring and using these funds. The ESIOP proposed an overall investment of € 1.8 billion in six infrastructural sectors which include environmental infrastructure and sustainable energy. One of the priority areas of the ESIOP addresses a deficit in environmental infrastructure in the areas of water and waste water services. The waste water treatment measure is co-financed by ERDF and Cohesion Fund. It represents a continuation of water policy objectives and investments over the 1994-99 period. Another priority area of the Programme aims to promote energy conservation and efficiency (including energy performance of low income housing – research and implementation) and the greater use of renewable energies, also in continuation of successful former investments.

Total budget allocation Sources: ADE, 2008 from WP1 financial tables.

By field of interventions linked to environment

By priority

37

136

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

Sewerage and purification (FOI code: 345)

173

Other non-environnemental priorities: 1,626 Millions EUR

8%2%

Priority 4: Sustainable Energy 37 Millions EUR

Priority 3: Environnemental Infrastructure136 Millions EUR

90%

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


4. Quantitative results of the programme

Indicator Measure

Type Name Unit Target (2000)

Achieved (2006)

Achieved (2007)

Sewerage and purification

No single indicator is available from WP2 database for this measure. This information will be added in the second interim report.

Result Compliance rate with EU Urban Wastewater Directive % (baseline: 25%) target

100%

(2004) 90%

?

Pop eq. (baseline: 25%)

1,294,229

(2004) 4,683,506

?

Output Percentage of Industrial Energy Spend accounted for by SEI Industrial clients (members of the SEI networks; SEI Agreements Programme; participants in the SEI Energy Awards) % 60 60.3 n.a.

Output Low Income Housing: Additional Homes Substantially Addressed / Insulated n.a. 13500 10752 n.a. Output “Model Solution” Demonstration Projects Approved Number 80 70 n.a. Output Public Sector Investment Programme n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Output Design Studies Carried Out Number 90 79 n.a. Output Number of Units Supported under House of Tomorrow Programme Number 1650 4750 n.a. Output Number of the Research, Development and Demonstration Projects. > €500,000 Number 13 5 n.a. Output Number of the Research, Development and Demonstration Projects. €100,000 ≤

€500,000 Number 45 98 n.a.

Output Number of the Research, Development and Demonstration Projects. ≤ €100,000 Number 130 160 n.a. Result Percentage Reduction in Heat Demand of SEI-Supported Dwelling Compared to House

Built to the Building Regulation % 24 40 n.a.

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

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

Millions EUR 40 27.3 n.a.

Result Energy Efficiency Index of SEI Industry Clients (Year 2000 = 100) % 93.5 89.1 n.a. Result Percentage Reduction in Heat Demand of SEI-Supported Dwelling Compared to House

Built to the Building Regulation % 24 40 n.a.

Result Percentage of Consumers having heard of and understand concept of sustainable energy % 24 45 n.a. Result Energy Savings per annum relating to Public Sector Approved Projects Millions

EUR 5.3 5.0 n.a.

3- Energy conservation

Result Percentage of Consumers having heard of and understand concept of sustainable energy % 24 45 n.a. Impact Percentage of Consumers Implementing Some or a Lot of Energy Efficiency Measures % 60 67 n.a. Impact Estimated Cumulative CO2 savings by SEI Industry Clients Mt CO2 0.36 0.57 n.a.

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


Output Additional Clustered Connection Capacity Available to which Renewable Energy Can

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

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

4- Renewable/ alternative energy

Impact CO2 intensity of electricity supply (kg CO2 / kWh) kg CO2 / kWh 0.60 0.64 n.a.

Sources:: WP2 database and ADE based on key stakeholders’ interviews, 2008. 5.Discussion of quantitative results of the programme

Complete, update and comment quantitative targets set out at the beginning of the programming period (pre-filled from WP2). Have expected outputs/results been achieved at the end of the programming period? Yes/ No. Why? Provide details for all types of interventions (sewerage and purification, energy conservation, renewable energies, etc.)? Summarize and comment these achievements at the end of the programming period.

Have the selected indicators been useful to monitor the programme?

(This discussion is based on a detailed description of activities and projects that were financed under each priority. This detailed description will be added in a separate file for each programme by priority and measure).



6. Strategic objectives of the programme Identify strategic objectives of your sectoral national environment programme (if no strategic

objectives are mentioned please discuss this issue with stakeholders). Assess the implementation of these strategic objectives (are quantitative targets linked to

strategic objectives?) Are the strategic objectives responding to the main challenges of the environment (link with

task 2)? If no strategic objectives were defined, are targets responding to main challenges in the environment?

Strategic objectives at the level of the programme (ESIOP) were to provide physical infrastructures that would (1) strengthen and improve the country’s capacity to protect and enhance the environment; (2) improve the quality of life; and (3) address regional disparities. Irish regional policy, as set out in the National Development Plan (2000–2006), aims to reduce spatial imbalance (the greatest concentration of economic activity, together with the bulk of the country’s population, is to be found in Dublin and the mid-east, and along the Dublin-Belfast corridor (Cities of Dublin, Belfast and the area between them) and to provide for a better distribution of economic activity and development. The National Spatial Strategy (2002) further articulated Ireland’s regional policy by proposing that principles of sustainable development should apply and that equal emphasis should be given to economic, social and environmental dimensions if people’s quality of life is to be advanced. 7. Effets of the programme Does the sectoral programme contribute to compliance with EU regulations? If yes, please mention to which regulation it contributes and how. Compliance with EU Urban Wastewater Directive Compliance with EU directive on Energy Performance in Buildings

Is there any link between the sectoral programme and a decoupling of economic development from increased pressure on the environment? Please explain. What is the effect of major investments of the sectoral programme on quality of life issues. Please provide examples (see hereunder for ESIOP): Additional population served by waste water treatment plants: at the end of December 2006,

completed wastewater projects since 2000 had generated additional capacity equivalent to the needs of a population of 3.1 million.

Water quality (comparison before and after upgraded plants) Health improvement (complaints about health problems before and after upgraded plants)? Evolution of the quality of housing linked to energy recovery and efficiency measures?

Are there any regional effects (direct/indirect) of the environmental investments that can be identified? Attractiveness of the region; Technological innovation linked to the investment (especially energy performance of

buildings); New activities linked to supported investment (i.e. sluge management); Other



4. Task 4: Case studies

The final selection proposed for the case studies is summarized in the table below. One of the criteria has been that each of the 14 selected Member States has to be covered by at least one task among tasks 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 5. The other criteria have been presented in the Inception Report.

Table 6 : Selection of Member States for Tasks 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 5

Source: ADE, 2008.

4.1 Task 4.1: Refined methodology for regional case studies

The aim of the regional case studies is to provide a comprehensive analysis of how environmental expenditures contributed to the wider regional socio-economic development and the catch-up process within the EU. The analysis will cover all environment protection investment including all planning and rehabilitation interventions (FOI code 35). A pilot mission will be undertaken in Portugal (Norte Region) in January. The methodological framework proposed below will be tested during this pilot mission. Availability and quality of data will also be systematically checked. Based on lessons drawn from this pilot case study, the final methodology to be applied to the remaining 9 case studies will be definitely agreed.

Member States

Task 3.2- Effectiveness of major sectoral

programmes (6)

Task 4.1 - Regional case

studies (10)

Task 4.2 - Waste prevention and management of

waste (3)

Task 5 - Climate change (3)

Spain Communidad De Valenciana Catalonia Region

Italy Lazio Germany Brandenburg Sachsen-Anhalt

Greece X Central

Macedonia Portugal X Norte Açores France Midi Pyrénées Poland Malopolskie Ireland X

United Kingdom West wales & the

valleys Czech Republic X Czech Republic Slovakia X Eastern Slovakia Hungary X Hungary Latvia Latvia

Finland South Finland



4.1.1 The methodological framework

A. Initial socio-economic and environmental situation of the region and its change in the 2000-2006 programming period.

For each region, a set of indicators will be gathered before the field mission. These indicators will be chosen first to determine the characteristics of the region in terms of development level (GDP/capita), rural or urban zones and main economic activities (agricultural/ industrial/services). These criteria can be used for a separate analysis of each region according to its type. A second subset of indicators measures the socio-economic performances of the region since 2000 in terms of GDP growth, employment, investment and R&D with the aim to have a global overview of the economic situation. It includes data on sectors related to environment and more specifically on the evolution of employment in sectors linked to water and to waste collection and treatment (NACE 41 and 90). In parallel, regional indicators on the environmental situation will be collected. Air quality, natural resources, the local situation regarding water and waste will be described and analysed in order to highlight the main environmental challenges the region must faced. The table below provides a common framework for collecting economic and environmental regional data. Main available sources are mentioned. A systematic search for comparative environmental and regional data is underway. Main socio-economic data 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sources GDP/capita Employment rate (of the group 15-64) GDP Annual growth rate in primary sector in secondary sector in tertiary sector Economic structure (share of employment) Agriculture Industry Services Investment in % GDP R&D in % GDP

WP 1 Database Eurostat Regional statistics

Population growth (migration flows) Urban/rural (proportion of population)



Environmental situation 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sources Air quality in main urban places Water pollution

Forest (% of land)

EEA datasets (Zones in relation to EU air quality thresholds; Europe’s environment – the fourth assessment; etc.)

Coast/fisheries EEA (Status of marine fish and stocks)

% population connected to the public water supply system % population connected to the public sewerage system % population connected to the waste water treatment system Regional sources Collected solid waste / capita/year Urban audit (Eurostat) Mortality rate for <65 from heart disease and respiratory illness Urban audit (Eurostat) Main sources of water pollution Eurostat (Portrait of regions)

Number of environmental protection associations Eurostat (Portrait of regions) List of protected areas

Eurostat (Portrait of regions)



B. Programme achievements and main characteristics of environmental interventions Before analysing the contribution of environmental measures to economic development, a comprehensive view of what has been actually done in the environmental field is needed. First financial data will permit the drawing-up of a picture of resources allocated by priority, measure and field of intervention according to FOI codes. It will provide a first insight into the most important programme measures that have to be further analysed. Output indicators and the last annual report will provide a more refined picture of the achievements. As far as possible, a distinction will be established between interventions dedicated to public investments in capital and natural resources stock, those that target private investments through financial incentives (subsidies, preferential interest rate, etc.) and those that can be considered more as soft investment (information campaign, planning, etc.). In the case of infrastructures, investment in new building will be identified vis-à-vis upgrading and maintenance of old buildings. The evaluation team will then be able to analyse how ERDF has most usually been used to address environmental challenges in the context of the regional economic development strategies.

Actual implementation of the ERDF environmental interventions (compared to initial objectives and budget) Criteria Sources of information Budget allocations and revision (per

FOI/measures/priorities) Financial data To be checked with local authorities

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

Database WP2; to be completed with local authorities

Types of public interventions : • public investment in

infrastructures/natural resources through subsidies, preferential interest rates, guarantees, PPP…

• Financial incentives provided for private investment

• “soft” interventions

Last annual report Mid term evaluation Field mission

New infrastructures built / upgraded Project reports Management authorities

Small/large infrastructures

Project reports Management authorities

Initial targets will be compared with what has correspondingly been achieved. Comparisons between what was planned and what was implemented will be made for the different types of intervention and for the different types of infrastructure.



Degree of achievements of environmental targets

Criteria Sources Achievements versus targets /measures/

types of intervention Financial revision Outputs indicators Annual report and mid term evaluation

Water network (constructed, improved or rehabilitated) (cfr Norte program)

Management authorities Task 3.1

New waste treatment capacity created (targets and achievements)


Number of landfills closed (targets and achievements)


Number of landfills rehabilitated (targets and achievements)


C. The place of environment in programming documents: - horizontal/specific priority - intended contribution to regional development - quality of the link of environmental investment to the OP measures The case studies will analyse how regional programmes have environmental objectives integrated into their strategy and how environmental measures have been linked into other parts of the programme. As far as possible, an intervention logic for environmental measures in each selected region will be drawn up and compared to the main regional environmental and economic challenges.

The coherence of these measures with regional and national strategies in the environmental field and the policy mix decided at national or regional level also has to be assessed as well as coherence with measures funded from other European sources. One issue is the need to understand the key characteristics of the ERDF in that field compared to other “providers” of funds (mainly the EIB and for some countries, cohesion funds). The key characteristics can be looked at in terms of strategy (integration of environmental measures in an economic strategy), of types of interventions funded, of the instruments used.

Part of this information will be gathered during the desk review. But most of the questions will have to be discussed with regional authorities (Ministry of environment and ministry of economic affairs) as well as with management authorities (cfr table below).



How were ERDF environmental measures integrated to cohesion objectives and how were they intended to contribute to regional development ?

Criteria Sources

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

DOCUP analysis Interviews with regional authorities

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


Environment as a horizontal priority in programming documents


Links with OP 2007-2013 DOCUP analysis Interviews with regional authorities

Did environmental measures tackle the main environmental challenges at national/regional level? Key environmental indicators at regional level (gas emissions, air quality, waste generation, fresh water quality, freshwater resources, forest resources, fish resources) at the start of the programme and main challenges to be addressed

Figures collected in A.

Coherence between main regional challenges and environmental measures

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

National/regional strategy in environmental sector

National/regional documents

Degree of immediate preference for clean environment at regional level

Interviews with regional authorities

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

National/regional policy documents/Studies

How are ERDF environmental interventions linked to other European interventions in the same field ? Overall investment in environmental infrastructures and role of European funds

Task 2 + Interviews with management authorities

Coherence of ERDF strategies in the field of environment with other funds at national or regional levels (instruments used, types of interventions financed

Interviews with EIB, EBRD, LIFE programme authorities

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

Interviews with ERDF, EIB, EBRD, LIFE programme authorities

D. The quality of sectoral planning and project selection A major issue is how choices have been made within the ERDF envelope and how the selection process has been conducted at various levels: first, for deciding on the priorities and measures that will be funded through the ERDF or through other public funds (national/regional/European); second, for deciding on the importance accorded to the



various environmental measures and third, the types of infrastructures and projects that have been supported. The quality of planning and selection is of great importance for ensuring the coherence and the effectiveness of the programme. An assessment of the implementation management for environmental measures will be carried out, based on the main conclusions and recommendations made during the mid-term evaluation. Another important issue related to management capacities is the financial sustainability of supported the public services supported and the way in which the regional authorities address the problem. This could be measured for some of the large projects selected19.

How effective is sectoral planning and project selection ?

Criteria Sources

Degree of priority given to environmental expenditures in national/regional strategies

Interviews with regional/national authorities

Quality of planning of ERDF programme (quality of environmental strategy and action plans) Decision process at regional level (institutional set up and main problems encountered)

Mid term evaluation Interviews with managing authorities

Selection of projects (tools (C/B analysis,etc.) and practices) Mid term evaluation Interviews with managing authorities

Quality of the follow-up (strategy and projects) Mid term evaluation Interviews with managing authorities

Are profitability and financial sustainability of the infrastructures ensured in the short and medium term ? Management & maintenance costs

Project reports Interviews with stakeholders

E. The effectiveness of public investment in improving the environmental situation

As far as possible, the case studies should provide insights into the evolution of the environmental situation in the region and the effectiveness of public investment aimed at improving the targeted sectors. The results will be analysed in terms of (1) waste collection and treatment, (2) water supply and waste water collection and treatment, (3) reduced GHG emission, as well as at a broader level (4) in terms of quality of air and natural resources quality. As the improvement of environmental quality is a result of a policy mix, interactions wit other instruments must be highlighted.

19 Selection will include the major projects funded in the region, if any.



Criteria Sources

To what extent did environmental infrastructures improve waste collection and waste treatment? Utilisation rate of new/renewed infrastructures Evaluation reports

Interviews with regional authorities Trends in waste generation and prevention measures for each relevant waste stream Trends in recycling rates for each relevant waste stream compared to European objectives Performance of installations in terms of air and water treatment, air and water pollutant emissions, etc. Landfill situation

Regional data Database WP2 Evaluation reports Other specific documents Interviews with regional authorities

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

Existing Surveys

Control of waste management activities Existing surveys Interviews with stakeholders

Interactions with other policy instruments Regional/national environment strategy Interviews with regional authorities

To what extent did environmental infrastructures improve water supply and waste water collection and treatment? Utilisation rate of new/renewed infrastructures Evaluation reports

Interviews with regional authorities Contribution to Water Framework Directive (2000) implementation New treatment technologies introduced Improvement of management systems

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


Interactions with other policy instruments Regional/national environment strategy Interviews with regional authorities

To what extent have environmental expenditures contributed to reducing GHG emission? Type of renewable energy promoted or used in the framework of the ERDF interventions Role of the ERDF interventions in the promotion and use of renewable energies Interactions with other instruments used to reduce GHG emission (complementarities) Impact on the use of renewable energies Improvement in energy efficiency in enterprises


To what extent have environmental expenditures contributed to improve air quality?

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




F. The contribution of environmental infrastructures to regional economic development

The aim of this section is to analyse the extent to which ERDF environmental expenditures have had a positive impact on regional competitiveness and economic growth. Task 1 has provided some evidences that environmental infrastructures may have a positive effect on output and employment in the medium term. As explained in section 1.8, various mechanisms may interact to produce such results:

- by increasing demand and direct activities. - As a supply side effect, by increasing the production capacity of the environmental

sectors inside the region. - As a factor of production for other sectors, by enhancing the attractiveness of the

region for private investment. - In the medium term by contributing to a better quality of factors of production

such as natural resources. - By introducing technological progress and innovation.

The case studies must explore how the regional economy has benefited from the environmental measures through these mechanisms.

Criteria Sources Direct activities linked to the infrastructures/services (in/outside the region) Direct employment created (temporary and permanent)

Database WP2 + Regional economic figures

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


Output reduction by competitors (displacement)

Survey targeted on private companies (suppliers, competitors, other businesses)

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


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


Effects as an external inputs into private production function Accessibility/attractiveness of the region due to improved/new public services (water, waste, access to clean energy supply,etc.) and rehabilitated industrial sites

Interviews with regional authorities Existing evaluation/surveys Survey targeted on private companies (suppliers, competitors, other businesses)

Increased/decreased unit costs Survey targeted on private companies (suppliers, competitors, other businesses)

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

Regional/local statistics WP2

Number of companies in industrial parks Regional/ local statistics WP2



Effects on other factors of production (natural resources, labour) Qualifications of work force

Survey targeted on private companies (suppliers, competitors, other businesses) Migration survey

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


Bringing technological innovation Introduction of new/improved technology, spill-overs New processes, new products/services Innovation transferred into private local companies Comparative advantage gained (prime mover effect)


Main sources of information Quantitative indicators Existing regional economic figures (Eurostat) for sectors linked to environment are presented below. All date will be collected for the 10 regions before the field missions and will be discussed and check with regional authorities. Activities linked to environment 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sources Recycling

Collection, purification and distribution of water

Regional data – business statistics Indicators available:

• Employement • Number of local units • Gross investment in tangible goods • Growth rate of employment • Investment per person employed

Waste collection and treatment Crop and animal production, hunting Forestry Fishing and aquaculture Accommodation Other activities linked to tourism

Regional data – business statistics Indicators available:

• Employement • Number of local units • Gross investment in tangible goods • Growth rate of employment

Investment per person employed



Other indicators will be collected directly at regional level (in annual/evaluation reports) or if available will be extracted from the WP2 database. In particular, information related to the number of industrial parks equipped, the number of new companies installed in the parks, the level of new investments made, will be searched. Qualitative assessment To assess how the environmental measures have affected the private sector, a light survey will be carried out. A sample of local firms will be identified including direct and potentially indirect beneficiaries of environmental measures. Firms will be identified in environmental sectors but also in the most significant sectors of the regional economy. The sample will be made up of SMEs and large companies according to the regional context. Ten to twenty companies will be identified so as to achieve a minimum of ten answers per region. Interviews will be made by phone based on a previously distributed questionnaire. Participants will be asked to assess how their position has evolved as a result of environmental policies in the region or country. Answers will be limited to a range of 1 to 5 (1 (very negative effect),2 (negative effect), 3 (no effect), 4 (positive effect) to 5 (very positive effect)). Assessment will be made on the basis of the following criteria:

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

The questionnaire should link these effects to the specific measures adopted at regional level and funded by ERDF. Discussion with regional and management authorities Each of these topics will be discussed extensively with regional authorities.



G. The contribution of environmental infrastructures to quality of life The quality of water, air, soil, the access to sewerage system and water supply are significant factors of households’ quality of life and by the way of the attractiveness of the zone for qualified people. Environmental infrastructures may contribute to improving some of these aspects. The case studies should allow to facilitate better understanding of the regional situation in that field, of how it has evolved during the programming period and the extent to which the evolution can be attributed to the ERDF programme. Urban audits that are carried out throughout Europe may provide interesting information.

Criteria Sources

Access to public infrastructures Evolution of prices of environmental “goods and services”


Access conditions to environment-related public services (taxes, connection rates,…)


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

Database WP2 + Regional data

Reduction of leakage from the water supply network


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


Air pollution

Regional indicators

Water quality

Regional indicators

Soil quality

Regional indicators

Health improvement

Regional indicators

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

Regional figures

Urban parks Regional figures Other relevant indicators Interviews with beneficiaries

4.1.2 Organisation of case studies

In practice, each regional case study will be carried out in three main steps: A short desk review for finalising the evaluation grid to be filled by experts, collecting

data and reviewing existing documents in accordance with the evaluation framework. Results of the analysis will be recorded in each related items of the evaluation grid.

A field mission of five days (including travel) for meeting regional authorities and visiting or contacting key project stakeholders (promoters, direct beneficiaries). Experts will verify information and hypothesis gathered during the document analysis. Questions will be focused on those indicators for which information were not available or insufficient during the desk phase.



An analysis and judgement phase entailing answering of all evaluation questions and compilation of a synthesis of the most salient features.

At the end of the pilot case study, lessons will be drawn on the methodological framework used. The availability and quality of data will be specifically assessed. Based on all completed evaluation grid, the leading evaluation team will summarize findings and draft conclusions for each topics. Recommendations will then be drawn up for co-funded interventions in the environmental field. In order to test the above-mentioned methodology, the evaluation team will carry out a pilot mission. This pilot mission will take place in Portugal (Norte Region). Experts who will carry out this mission are the Portuguese Jose de Bettemcourt and Mary van Overbeke, team leader of the evaluation. Results and lessons learnt from this pilot mission will be presented in the second intermediate report. Indicative planning for field visit in Norte Region (Portugal) The duration of the mission will be five days including travel time for the external expert. Both experts will meet regional authorities and the involved management authorities, and they will visit the most interesting projects. The local expert will be in charge of interviews with private companies. Day 1 Meeting regional authorities and programme management

authorities Regional Authorities Programme Managers: CCDR – Norte (North Regional Coordination and Development Commission) - http://www.ccr-norte.pt Presidente, Carlos Lage Regional Director of the Environmental services: Dra. Paula Pinto

Collection of missing figures and checking of data Meeting the Centro de Avaliação de Políticas e Estudos Regionais (CAPER) - The Centre of Policy Evaluation and Regional Studies, of CCDR-N20.

20 The North Regional Coordination and Development Commission (CCDR-N), besides managing finantial instruments

such as EU funds, is a decentralised body of central government. Its mission is to promote the conditions permitting the integrated and sustainable development of Portugal North Region (NUT II), thereby contributing to the national cohesion. CCDR-N, a body which has administrative and financial autonomy, is tasked with coordinating and promoting, in the Portuguese North Region, governmental policies with regard to Regional Planning and Development, Environment, Land Management, Inter-Regional and Cross-Border Cooperation and also support Local Government and Inter-Municipal Associations. The body’s fields of intervention also encompasses the management of regional operational programmes financed by European Union (EU) funds supplied to provide support to Portugal, as well as other regional development finance instruments.



Day 2 Meeting people in charge of coordinating the following specific measures: Medida 1.1 | Sistemas Ambientais Locais Medida 1.6 | Acções Específicas de Valorização Territorial Medida 1.9 | Saneamento Básico – Zonas de Intervenção Prioritárias Manager: Dr. Armando Pereira | [email protected] | Chief of Project: Eng.º António Vilela Bouça | [email protected] | Medida 2.6 | Qualificação das Cidades e Requalificação Metropolitana – Componente Territorial Chief of Project: Eng.º Miguel Lopes dos Santos | [email protected] Medida 3.15 | Acessibilidades e Transportes Coordenador Regional Acessibilidades e Transportes (Medida 3.15): Engº Augusto Xavier Rebelo Pinto [email protected] Instituto para a Construção Rodoviária - ICOR Medida 3.16 | Ambiente Coordinator– [email protected] Interviews with regional administration (environment sector, economic development, business sector).

Day 3 Visits and meetings with main project stakeholders (promoters, direct beneficiaries such as municipality associations and urban communities (NUTS3)). Phone interviews with private companies based on a previously distributed questionnaire

Day 4 Continuation of day 3 (visits to main projects)

Phone interviews with private companies based on a previously distributed questionnaire

Day 5 Synthesis with regional authorities



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

4.2.1 Selection of the case studies

The three case studies are being selected with the aim of representing a variety of situations in respect of ERDF interventions in the fields of waste prevention and waste management, mainly for municipal solid waste. The ToR request a Spanish case study but leave to the contractor the choice of the other two countries and of the individual case studies at national or regional levels. In order to select the case studies, the following criteria have been applied: Regional versus national considerations, that is, depending on the principal level at

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

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

Variety of contexts, as the selection of the three case studies is aimed at providing a review of different contexts. This takes into account the geographical diversity, the diverse status of waste management at the beginning of the programming period, and the individual national waste management contexts.

Importance and influence of ERDF funds, this criterion aiming to reflect, first, their magnitude (total extent of ERDF intervention in the waste management field in the selected area) and, second, the proportion of the total investment in waste management in the selected region.

This leads the team to propose selection of the following case studies, with the main reasons: 1) Catalonia Region (Spain): regional context, varied range of ERDF interventions,

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

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

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



4.2.2 Content of case studies As mentioned in the ToR, the strategic evaluation of environment and risk prevention carried out recently for DG Regional Policy has shown that certain Member States with high GDP growth are experiencing significant growth in waste volume. The prevention of waste generation and promotion of efficient management of waste collection and treatment are important instruments for tackling this problem. The three case studies aim to explore the impact of ERDF interventions in these fields and to highlight their main success and failure factors. While implementing this task it will be important to recall the hierarchy of interventions in waste management promoted by the EU Regulation and recently reinforced in the newly-revised Waste Framework Directive (final adoption in progress). The five-stage waste hierarchy lays down an order of preference for waste operations: prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling, other recovery operations and, as a last resort, safe and environmentally-sound disposal. The proposed methodology differentiates between waste prevention and waste management. In general it appears that the main support from Regional Funds aims more at improving waste management methods than at promoting waste prevention. In reality, a proportion of the measures favouring waste prevention depends essentially on national or other European policies (such as economic instruments when putting products on the market, information campaigns or specific product standards). Other measures are linked to regional or even local policies. The case studies will deal with the following issues through a set of questions and indicators as proposed below as for other case studies of this evaluation. Questions and indicators will be fine-tuned during pilot missions. The methodological framework is also partly derived from Task 1.

Background information

1. General strategic context

Justification: A brief description of the general strategic context of waste generation in the region since 1990, if available and (regional) economic growth will be provided. Indeed, a link between high GDP growth and growth in waste volume is often evident, as shown by recent studies. Connections between waste generation, economic growth and consumption will be examined.

Field Indicators Sources Regional economic performance

GDP/capita (2000-2006) Employment rate (2000-2006) + 1990-2000

Eurostat regional + WP1 data

Environmental investment by public sector/industry/private sector

Investments by sector in % of GDP at regional level (period 1990-2000)

Eurostat regional data (to be checked)

Environmental situation regarding solid waste

Trends in waste generation since 1990 by waste stream

Eurostat /national sources (to be checked) Interviews with regional authorities

Direct activities linked to solid waste

Turnover/ employment in activities linked to solid waste

Eurostat/ national sources



2. Context of waste management for each region

Justification: A brief description of the general situation in the selected region in the context of waste management will be provided, including coverage of general background information (territory, population, regional waste figures compared to national and EU figures), competences in waste management, specific waste legislation, and organisation of waste management (municipal and industrial), all taking account of the availability of data and of the targeted contact persons for the evaluation.

Field Indicators Sources

General regional data Territory (km²) ;Population (inhabitants) (rural/urban)

Eurostat regional data + WP1 data

Competent bodies for waste management

Entity/entities: area of responsibility (for each entity)


Organisation of waste management (municipal and industrial)

Description by waste stream Interviews with regional authorities

3. Description of regional strategy for solid waste

Justification: The regional strategy for waste management and waste generation developed by region in response to the specific context has to be described in order later to compare ERDF contribution to this strategy.

What was the regional trend in solid waste management in the fields addressed by ERDF interventions during the programming period? Short description of the regional strategy of waste management Explicitly description of regional or even local policies for waste prevention Sources: interviews with stakeholders among others Short description of the regional strategy of waste generation Sources: interviews with stakeholders among others Prevention measures by waste stream Describe main prevention measures by waste stream Source: Interviews with regional authorities and stakeholders Trends in waste generation by waste stream Waste production

Waste generation by waste type and stream (municipal, packaging, other) (kg/capita) 2000-2006

Eurostat regional data

Waste collection

Description of waste collection by type of waste including potential evolution over the period


Waste treatment

Description of waste treatment infrastructures by type of infrastructure including: population covered, year of construction, types of waste treated, capacity, type of installation, type of technology, investment and operation costs


Main projects carried out by other public funds (EIB, etc.) Waste projects and investments

Description of the projects and the way they have been supported


Management of interventions Selection process for projects (criteria and decision

process); application of CBA to major projects Interviews with regional/national authorities



4. European trends in waste generation and management for each relevant waste stream (2000 - 2006) - benchmark

Justification: European trends in waste generation and management will be provided as a benchmark to facilitate comparisons.

Field Indicators Sources

Waste production (which type of waste? Municipal solid waste- packaging waste, other?)

Waste generation by type of waste stream (municipal, packaging, other, in kg/capita) 2000-2006 for three European countries (best practice)

Eurostat national data

Waste collection (by type of waste)

Recycling rate by type of waste stream Eurostat national data (or other)

Waste treatment (by type of waste)

2000-2006 for three European countries (best practice)

Eurostat national data (or other)

5. Programme achievements in the field of environment

Justification: In order to clearly identify the intervention of Regional Funds for each waste area, along with an account of the main improvements achieved through the use of these funds, basic programme achievements need to be described. For each measure, individual projects that were financed will have to be identified and briefly described. They will be recorded on an Excel spreadsheet or using Access. A standard format will be provided following the first pilot mission. Actual implementation of ERDF interventions in the field of solid waste (by waste stream) correspond to the initial objectives, budget and actions?

Indicators Main sources Budget allocations and revision for solid waste Financial data

To be completed with local authorities

Number of solid waste projects by waste stream (targets and achievements)


New waste treatment capacity created (targets and achievements)


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

Interviews with local authorities

Number of landfills closed (targets and achievements) Database WP2; to be completed with local authorities

Number of landfills rehabilitated (targets and achievements)


Regional landfill situation in the light of conformity with the landfill Directive - 99/31/EC.

Interviews with local authorities

Other (targets and achievements) Interviews with local authorities



5. Effectiveness of environmental expenditures to improve the environmental situation

Justification: the questions and indicators listed under this theme of effectiveness aim to establish a linkage between ERDF interventions in the field of solid waste management, global trends in waste management, and the main objectives in the field of solid waste.

What link can be made between ERDF interventions in the field of solid waste management in the region and the global trend?

Compare ERDF interventions to the observed global trend, analyse and explain the link Indicators Main sources Describe contribution of ERDF funds to trends in waste

generation and prevention measures for each relevant waste stream during the period 2000-2006 (use quantitative indicators from question ahead)

Regional documents, interviews with stakeholders

Describe contribution of ERDF funds to trends in recycling rates for each relevant waste stream during the period 2000-2006


Describe contribution of ERDF funds to landfill situations in the light of conformity with the landfill Directive 99/31/EC


Describe contribution of ERDF funds to air and water pollutant emissions in the light of conformity with the Directive on waste incineration 2000/76/EC


Contribution to attainment of the “acquis communautaire” in the field of waste (by relevant waste streams)

Evaluation reports. Interviews with administration

New treatment technologies introduced Evaluation reports. Interviews with project stakeholders

Improvement of management systems Evaluation reports. Interviews with project stakeholders

What is the opinion of the main stakeholders on the appropriateness and impact of ERDF interventions in waste management in the region?

Improvement of environmental services (solid waste) - general level of satisfaction of stakeholders regarding the

evolution of waste management (limited to specific ERDF interventions in solid waste), listing practical consequences

- quality of waste management services (frequency, accessibility, adaptation to the needs of users)

Stakeholders (level of satisfaction – identification of complaints from waste treatment, etc.)

Control of waste management activities (solid waste) - management of complaints - number of accidents - indirect pollution - GHG emissions - Control over exports - Respect for legal constraints - Statistical follow-up

Satisfaction of stakeholders (level of satisfaction through existing surveys) National/regional documents



6. Effectiveness in improving quality-of-life

Justification: This part tries to identify the contribution of environmental investments in waste management and waste treatment to some specific elements of the quality of life.

Improved sanitation Air pollution

(e.g. reduction of air pollution from municipal waste incineration plants)

Interviews with stakeholders

Water quality (e.g. reduction in water pollutants from diminished unauthorised landfills)


Soil quality (e.g. reduction in water pollutants from diminished unauthorised landfills)


Quality of waste management services (efficiency, frequency, accessibility, adaptation to the needs of users)


4.2.3 Information sources

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

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

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

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

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

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



4.2.4 Example of a mission plan

An example of a mission plan is provided below for the Catalonia Region in Spain. Funding of the Catalonia Region Objective 2 programme amounted to €2.832M. The management authority is the Ministry of Economy in coordination with the Generalitat de Catalunya the regional administration (see day 1 visit programme). The programme develops its strategy along six axes : Axis 1: Improvement of competitiveness, employment and industrial network €730m Axis 2: Environment, natural and hydraulic resources €289m Axis 3: Innovation society €839m Axis 4: Communication and energy networks €456m Axis 5: Local and urban development €498m Axis 6: Technical assistance €18m Axis 2 is subdivided into the following five measures:

2.1 Improvement in current infrastructures for water supply to the population and the economic activities as well as for water sanitation and wastewater plants €199M 2.2 Global management of urban waste and industrial treated waste €19M 2.3 Protection and regeneration of natural environment €40M 2.4 Monitoring, control and reduction of environmental pollution €6M 2.5 Studies, classification and recovery of industrial polluted soil €23M

In the framework of Task 4.2, the field visit will be focused on measure 2.2. This measure concerning waste management has a double objective: environmental protection and development of economic activity related to recycling, waste management and waste valorisation. In this framework the following types of intervention can be realised: infrastructure construction (recycling, management and valorisation), and provision of information to the population on prevention and recycling. The achievements under this measure are summarised in the following table. Type of indicator

Indicator Unit Target value Achieved value

Achievement Number of projects in municipal solid waste

Number 100 98

Achievement New waste treatment capacity created Million m³ NA 210.980 Achievement Number of unauthorised landfills

closed/rehabilitated Number

NA 341 Result Tons of urban solid waste treated Tons/year 227.214 227.214 Impact Reduction of non-valorised urban

solid waste (% / year by weight) 50 50

Sources: Activity report, 2007.



Interventions under measure 2.2 are twofold: Interventions by the regional administration under the management of the Agència de

Residus de Catalunya (ARC) (see first visit day 2). Interventions by local administrations which are mostly managed by consejos comarcales

(district level), mancomunidades (association of municipalities) or consortia (private-public-partnerships) but also municipalities. The mission plan proposes visits to two comarcas: Baix Camp and El Garraf (see visits 6 and 7). The selection has been made on the basis of : - the number of projects implemented: four projects are implemented in Baix

Camp and two in El Garraf, - their financial weight, Baix Camp is the first comarca and El Garraf the third; and - the logistical organisation of the mission: Osona is the second comarca in financial

weight but is located 70 km north of Barcelona and a double mission to Baix Camp and Osona seems difficult. Baix Camp and El Garraf are on the same route to the south (respectively 50km and 108km from Barcelona).

Comarca Nb of

projects Total

executed 2006Alt Camp 2 194.000,00Alt Penedès 1 0,00Alt Empordà 1 0,00Alt Urgell 1 186.000,00Anoia 1 60.000,00Bages 1 0,00Baix Camp 4 630.705,40 Baix Ebre 1 0,00Baix Empordà 1 0,00Barcelonès 1 0,00Conca de Barberà 1 0,00Garraf 2 375.333,99Montsià 2 111.661,45Tarragonès 2 151.746,07Terra Alta 2 112.000,00Pallars Sobirà 1 0,00Osona 1 481.734,05Segarra 1 0,00Selva 1 35.920,58Urgell 1 0,00Vallès Occidental 1 0,00Vallès Oriental 1 0,00Total 30 2.339.101,54

Source: Activity Report, 2007 The ARC will be also met to facilitate collection of information on the context and policy framework as it is the Generalitat de Catalunya, the organisation competent in waste generated in Catalonia and waste managed within its territorial area (see visits day 1 and 2). Furthermore, to provide an accurate picture of the quality of ERDF interventions, other stakeholders indirectly involved as beneficiaries of the waste management instruments will be met. The proposal is that meetings be held with the federation of municipalities, an association of recycling companies and a neighbourhood association.



Day Stakeholder Issues of discussion Management unit DG Programación Económica Dirección General de Programación Económica del Departamento de Economía y Finanzas – Barcelona –

Programming of Objective 2 Identification and selection of projects

for measure 2.2 (planned/achieved) Results achieved Management of selected interventions

1

Sectoral administration Agencia de Residus de Catalunya (ARC) – Barcelona –

Waste management. and prevention policy

Trends in waste production, collection and treatment

Investment in treatment by stream Compliance with EU directives

Intervention Manager Agencia de Residus de Catalunya (ARC) – Barcelona –

Programming of Objective 2 Achievement of Obj. 2 interventions Results achieved (environmental. and

employment) Non-rival public infrastructures

Municipalities federation Federación de Municipios de Cataluña – Barcelona –

Programming of Objective 2 Waste management. and prevention

policy Compliance with EU directives Achievement of Obj. 2 interventions Non-rival public infrastructures Improvement in environmental services Results achieved (environment and

employment)

2

Recycling associations Gremi de Recuperació de Catalunya – Barcelona –

Waste management. and prevention policy

Achievement of Obj. 2 interventions Results achieved (environment and

employment) Intervention manager Consejo comarcal de Garraf - Vilanova i la Geltrú -

Programming of Objective 2 Waste management and prevention


employment) On-site visit

Intervention manager Consejo comarcal Baix Camp - Reus -

Programming of Objective 2 Waste management. and prevention


employment) On-site visit

3

Neighbours association Federacio d'associacions de veins de Reus - Reus -

Waste management and prevention policy

Achievement of Obj. 2 interventions Improvement in environmental services Results achieved (environment and

employment)



5. Task 5: Climate change

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

5.1 Selected operational programmes

As mentioned in the revised inception report, three operational programmes in three different MS/Regions have been selected for implementation of the case studies under Task 5. Table 7 below indicates the main characteristics of these programmes.

Table 7: Main characteristics of the selected operational programmes for the implementaion of the case studies

Programme

MS/ Region Name

ERDF amount 21

(€ m)

Main characteristics

Available indicators related to climate change22

Czech Republic

Industry and Trade operational programme

29.3 Implementation at national level

Investments in renewable energies

Investments to improve energy efficiency

CO2 emissions (increase or decrease) Energy savings Energy generated using renewable energy

sources - generated MWh/ year Energy generated using renewable energy

sources - installed MW/ year

Germany/ Sachsen-Anhalt

Sachsen-Anhalt programme

266.923 Implementation at regional level

Investments to improve energy efficiency

No. of SMEs participating in promoted schemes for air pollution control/ emission reduction

Portugal/ Região Autónoma dos Açores

Região Autónoma dos Açores operational programme

69.824 Implementation at regional level

Investments in renewable energies

Substations built: installed potential Extended geothermal exploitations New/ extended hydroelectric exploitations New geothermal exploitations New/ extended wind energy parks

Source: ADE 2008.

21 Including the following FOI codes: Environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies

(152 and 162), Energy efficiency, cogeneration, energy control (333), Environmental infrastructure (34), and Air (341). 22 Source: WP2 database. 23 Including €262.3m for environment-friendly technologies, clean and economical energy technologies (SMEs and the

craft sector). 24 Only one FOI code : Environmental infrastructure (34).



5.2 Key Evaluation Questions

Key Evaluation Questions including sub-questions, indicators and sources are presented below, taking into account the challenges to be addressed under Task 5 as mentioned in the ToR, and in accordance with the evaluation framework developed under Task 1: Conceptual basis. Table 8 below shows which proposed Evaluation Questions address the points specified in the ToRs.

Table 8 : Correspondance between the evaluation questions and the ToRs Points mentioned in the ToRs

Evaluation questions

Intervention strategy for

SF

Profitability of certain

interventions25

Contribution of interventions to

regional development

Management of interventions

Monitoring26 of interventions

Background information

EQ.1 – Programme achievements in the field of climate change

EQ.2 – The operational programme and the national/ regional environmental strategy

EQ.3 – Institutional capacity and public management

EQ.4 – Effectiveness of interventions in the field of climate change

EQ.5 – Contribution to regional development

Source: ADE 2008.

25 Including typical need for additional public funds. 26 Including data requirements, advantages and limits of formal models to assess GHG impact of ERDF interventions.



Background information about the selected MS/ Region

What were the environmental situation and the related strategy in respect of climate change in the selected Member State/ Region at the beginning of the programming period?

Justification et field of the question

Climate change was not explicitly addressed through programmes implemented during the 2000-2006 programming period. However, some specific interventions were carried out in the field of climate change, especially in the use of renewable energies and improvement in energy efficiency. As the starting point, a clear picture of the climate change situation in the MS/ Region27 is needed. In addition, it is important to know the features of the national/regional strategy for mitigation and adaptation activities for combating climate change.

Indicators Sources How to proceed?

MS/ regional position in terms of climate change

Indicators recorded under Task 2

Eurostat (GHG emission, energy intensity consumption, etc.) and statistics from the MS/ Region

Interviews with key stakeholders (notably at the Ministry of Environment)

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

Strategy documents relating to combating climate change at national and/ or regional level


Based on different sources of information, the evaluation team will describe the situation in terms of the strategy for combating climate change (if any), the state of energy efficiency and GHG emission production as well as the use of renewable energies in the selected MS and/ or in the selected Region. Relevant facts relating to climate change mitigation or adaptation will be highlighted.

27 At MS level for the Czech Republic and at the regional level for Germany and Portugal.



1. Programme achievements in the field of climate change

What are the achievements of the co-financed operational programmes in mitigation of and adaptation to climate change?

Justification and scope of question

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

Sub-question 1.1: What are the types of interventions implemented under the co-financed interventions in the field of climate change?


Types of interventions co-funded by ERDF and main features (information related, direct incentives, etc.)

Programming documents, evaluation reports and annual reports

Interviews with Managing Authorities

Based on different sources of information, the evaluation team will describe and classify the different types of co-funded intervention. For major and relevant projects, the profitability and the role of public funds will be discussed.

Sub-question 1.2: What are the actual achievements of the co-financed interventions in the field of climate change?


Budget allocations and revision

Number of projects (target and achieved values) related to climate change by type (renewable sources, improvement in energy efficiency)

Installed green capacity

Energy savings (notably in enterprises)

Other relevant indicators related to climate change

Indicators from WP2 database and WP2 final report



The evaluation team will present the costs (budget allocations) and the achievements of co-funded interventions. Indicators provided by the WP2 database will be checked taking into account lessons learnt from the WP2 final report.



2. The operational programme and the national/regional environmental strategy

How far did co-funded interventions respond to climate change issues and what was their role in the national/regional strategy in terms of climate change?


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

Sub-question 2.1: Did environmental measures tackle the main environmental challenges at national/regional levels?


Key environmental indicators at national/ regional levels (GHG emissions, green electricity, etc.) at the beginning of the programme

Indicators recorded under Task 2

Eurostat (GHG emission, etc.) and statistics from the MS/ Region


The evaluation team will highlight specific features in the MS/ Region taking into consideration the evolution of the key environmental indicators throughout the programming period.

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

Information under Task 2



The evaluation team will assess the correspondence between the challenges at MS/regional level and the co-funded interventions in the field of climate change.



Sub-question 2.2: Did ERDF environmental interventions respond to European/national/regional environmental priorities?


Integration of climate change measures implemented through OP with the EU/ national/ regional priorities in respect of climate change

Interactions with other policy instruments linked to climate change

Strategy to fight climate change at EU/ MS or regional level

Information from DG Environment/ EEA on guidelines for reducing climate change (e.g. European Climate Change Programme



The evaluation team will verify whether the co-funded interventions address the issues at stake as defined in respect of climate change at EU/ MS and regional levels. In this regard it should be noted that climate change was not on the political agenda at the beginning of the programming period. However, some EU initiatives for combating climate change were launched in 1991. An assessment will then be made of whether the interventions designed at the beginning of the programming period were designed in parallel with these initiatives and how far they would have been complementary to and have interacted with them.

Sub-question 2.3: What are the role and the justification of ERDF co-financing in climate change interventions?


Involvement (strategy, financing, etc.) of the private sector in respect of climate change

The evaluation team will identify the role of the private sector whenever ERDF has intervened to support measures to mitigate climate change or facilitate adaptation to it.

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



Taking into account the role of the private sector in the field of climate change, the evaluation team will highlight the relevance of public funds in supporting interventions and identifying where public funds can efficiently provide incentives in support of private investments in the field of climate change.



3. Institutional capacity and public management

Are the management and the monitoring of co-funded interventions related to climate change effective?


An important issue is how the decision process has been conducted in the selection of interventions to fight climate change. This will take into account their costs and their potential impacts in terms of GHG emission reductions. The monitoring and evaluation of their impacts are also important. In addition to lessons learnt from the WP2 data feasibility study, the case studies will assess the potential and requirements of methods to assess the impacts of such interventions in terms of GHG emission reduction, and highlight good practices.

Sub-question 3.1: How have the co-funded interventions in the field of climate change been selected?


Decision process and project selection in the field of climate change



The evaluation team will detail and analyse how Managing Authorities selected interventions submitted for co-financing in the field of climate change. Best practices in terms of selection of interventions will be highlighted.

Sub-question 3.2: To what extent have co-funded interventions in the field of climate change been monitored?


Management organisation for monitoring of output and results indicators in terms of GHG impact, including the choice of appropriate indicators

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

Limits and advantages of data collected relating to climate change

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



Based on selected projects, the evaluation team will first describe and analyse how co-funded interventions have been managed. Second, the methods used by Managing Authorities to assess the possible reduction of GHG emissions (where they exist) will be assessed. The limits and advantages of such models will be discussed and best practices underlined. Finally, alternatives for assessing (ex ante and ex post) GHG reductions attributable to co-funded interventions will be discussed with Managing Authorities. Best practices in monitoring of GHG reductions attributable to co-funded interventions will be underlined.



4. Effectiveness of interventions in the field of climate change

What are the effects or impacts of co-funded interventions to mitigate climate change?


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

Sub-question 4.1: To what extent have co-funded interventions led to an increase of private investment in the field of energy efficiency and use of renewable energies?


Increase in private investments due to ERDF co-financing (leverage effects, reduced risk aversion for such interventions)

Programming documents, evaluation reports, annual reports


The evaluation team will identify the effects/impacts of co-funded interventions on the private sector in terms of increased investments related to climate change.

Sub-question 4.2: To what extent have environmental expenditures contributed to reducing GHG emission?


Increase in and impact of the use of renewable energies

Improvement in energy efficiency

Results of interventions as mentioned under Evaluation Question 1 (programme achievements)

Evaluation reports and annual reports


Interviews with beneficiaries (where possible)

Trends in climate change indicators in the Region (renewable energy, energy savings, etc.)

National/ regional documents and statistics

The evaluation team will analyse as far as possible the effects/ impacts of co-funded interventions in terms of GHG reduction, improvements in efficiency and use of renewable energies. Best practices and results of such interventions in contributing to reduced GHG emissions will be underlined.



5. Contribution to regional development

To what extent have co-funded interventions in the field of climate change contributed to socio-economic regional 28 development?

Justification and field of question

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

Sub-question 5.1: What are the socio-economic effects/impacts of the co-funded interventions in the field of climate change?


Employment/ turnover in environmental sectors

Impact of better energy efficiency on firms’ competitiveness




The evaluation team will assess the contribution of co-funded interventions in terms of employment, turnover, and energy efficiency in enterprises. The potential and limitations of such interventions to this end will be highlighted through the case studies.

Sub-question 5.2: Have the co-funded interventions generated technological innovation in terms of climate change?


Introduction of new/improved technology, spill-overs

New process, new products/services developed




The evaluation team will assess the contribution of co-funded interventions in terms of innovation. The potential and limitations of such interventions to this end will be highlighted through the case studies.

28 For the Czech Republic, the case study will analyse the contribution of co-funded interventions to national

development.



5.3 Organisation of the case studies The case studies will be carried out in three main steps: a desk phase, a field phase and an analysis and judgment phase.

5.3.1 Desk phase

The first task of the desk phase will be to prepare an evaluation grid to be completed by the experts in charge of implementation of the case studies. This evaluation grid will present the Evaluation Questions, sub-questions, indicators and sources to be consulted. The second task will consist of a document analysis drawing on programming documents, evaluation reports, annual reports, and strategy papers at EU, national and regional levels. In addition, appropriate statistics will be collected for the purpose of valorising indicators relating to the Evaluation Questions. Statistics sources will include inter alia the WP2 database, annual reports, evaluation reports, Eurostat and specific statistics related to climate change (from the EEA, DG Environment, and Managing Authorities’ databases). Task 2 of this evaluation will also be useful in terms of information at MS level. The results of the document analysis will be recorded in the evaluation grid. Taking account of this initial information, the experts will draft a specific questionnaire for the conduct of interviews with Managing Authorities and some beneficiaries (where possible).

5.3.2 Field phase

During the field phase, evaluation experts will verify information and hypotheses built up during the document analysis. They will conduct interviews with Managing Authorities, key stakeholders at the Ministry of Environment (at national and regional levels, if they exist) as well as with some beneficiaries of co-funded interventions in the field of climate change. Information from the field phase will aid completion and finalisation of the evaluation grid.

5.3.3 Analyis and judgment phase

During the analysis and judgement phase, evaluation experts will use the collected information in the evaluation grid to answer Evaluation Questions for each of the three case studies. Based on all the completed and finalised evaluation grids as well as on the answers to the Evaluation Questions for each of the case studies, the leading evaluation team will summarise its findings and draft conclusions and recommendations on co-funded interventions in the field of climate change.. These main findings, conclusions and recommendations will be integrated into the evaluation framework as described under Task 1.



5.4 Pilot mission To test the above-mentioned methodology, the evaluation team will carry out a pilot mission for Task 5. This mission will take place in the Czech Republic covering the Industry and Trade operational programme. The experts who will carry out this mission include the Czech expert Sulek Bohumil and Benoit Lixon, expert from the ADE leading evaluation team. Results and lessons learnt from this pilot mission will be presented in the second intermediate report. The plan of the pilot mission is proposed below.

Day Phase Tasks to be done 1

2 Preparation of the evaluation grid (done only by the leading evaluation team) Collection of information from documents and available statistics (Eurostat,

WP2 database, etc.) 3

Desk phase

Filling in the evaluation grid and drafting first hypotheses for testing during the field phase

Preparation of the field phase: - Making appointments (key stakeholders to be interviewed) - Drafting the specific questionnaires and sending them to key stakeholders

4 Interviews with the Ministry of Environment, for discussion of: - the situation in respect of climate change at MS level - the challenges associated with climate change for the MS - the national strategy relating to climate change (since 2003) Interviews with the Ministry of Regional Development, for discussion of the role of the Ministry in the selection, management and monitoring of the co-funded interventions

5 Interviews with the Ministry of Industry and Trade, and Czech Invest for discussion of: - the national strategy (since 2003) and operational programme strategy in

the field of climate change - the role of this Ministry in the selection, management and monitoring of

the co-funded interventions - the achievements of the operational programme - the effectiveness of the co-funded interventions, the role of the private

sector and public funds and the contribution of such interventions to regional development

6

Field phase

If possible, visits to co-funded interventions and interviews with some beneficiaries

Drawing of lessons learnt from the pilot mission

7 Analysis and Judgment phase

Finalisation of the evaluation grid Answering of Evaluation Questions for the Industry and Trade programme Drawing lessons learnt from the pilot mission and integrating them in the

methodology for case studies under Task 5


Revised First Intermediate Report – December 2008 Annexes

Annexes

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

Revised First Intermediate Report – December 2008 Annex 1 / Page 1

Annex 1 – References for Task 1

Agénor P-R., Moreno-Dodson B. (2006). “Public infrastructure and growth: new channels and policy implications”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4064.

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

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

Aschauer D. (1989b). “Does public capital crowd out private capital?”, Journal of Monetary Economics 24, 171-188.

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

Barbier E.B. (1997). “Introduction to the Environmental Kuznets Curve special issue”, Environment and Development Economics 2(4), 369-381.

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

Bertinelli L. and Strobl E. (2005). “The Environmental Kuznets Curve semi-parametrically revisited”, Economics Letters 88(3), 350-357.

Boulanger P-M., Bréchet Th. (2005). “Models for sustainable development policy-making: state of the art and perspectives for research”, Ecological Economics 55(3), 337-350.

Brent R.J. (2006). Applied cost-benefit analysis, Edward Elgar, Second Edition, UK.

Calleja I., Delgado L., Eder P., Kroll A., Lindblom J., van Wunnik Ch., Wolf O., Gouarderes F., Langendorff J. (2004). “Promoting environmental technologies: sectoral analyses, barriers and measures”, IPTS Report 21002, European Commission.

Chesire P., Magrini S. (2000) “Endogenous processes in European regional growth: convergence and policy”, Growth and Change 31, 455-479.

Cooper J.C., Perali F., Veronesi M. (2006). Integrated assessment and management of public resources. Edward Elgar, UK.

Crescenzi R., Rodriguez-Pose A. (2008). “Infrastructure endowment and investment as determinants of regional growth in the European Union” EIB Papers 13(2), 61-101.

Dalenberg D.R. and Partridge M.D. (1997). “Public infrastructure ans wages: public capital’s role as a productive input and household amenity”, Land Economics 73(2), 268-284.

Dasgupta S., Laplante B., Wanf H. and Wheeler D. (2002). “Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(1), 147-168.

Ekins P., Medhurst J. (2006). “The European Structural Funds and sustainable development: a methodological and indicator framework for evaluation”, Evaluation 12(4), 474-495.



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

Fujita M., Thisse J-F. (2002). Economics of agglomeration, industrial location ad regional growth. Cambridge University Press, USA.

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

Glomm G., Ravkumar B. (1994). “Public investment in infrastructure in a simple growth model”, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 18(6), 1173-1187. Gradus R., Smulders S. (1993). “The trade-off between environmental care and long-term growth-pollution in three prototype growth models”, Journal of Economics 58, 25-51.

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

Harbaugh W.T., Levinson A. and Wilson G.M. (2002). “Reexamining the empirical évidence for an Environental Kuznets Curve”, The Review of Economics and Statistics 84(3), 541-551.

Haughwout A.F. (2001). “Infrastructure ans social welfare in metropolitan America”, FRBNY Economic Policy Review December, 1-16.

Hulten C., Schwab R. (1993). “Infrastructure spending: where do we go from here?”, National Tax Journal 46, 261-274.

Ottaviano G. (2008). “Infrastructure and economic geography: an overview of theory and evidence” EIB Papers 13(2), 8-35.

Martin R., Sunley P. (1998). “Slow Convergence? The New Endogenous Growth Theory and Regional Development”, Economic Geography 74(3), 201-227.

Moomaw R.L., Mullen J.K, Williams M. (1995). “The interregional impact of infrastrucure capital”, Southern Economic Journal 61(3), 830-845.

National Research Council (NRC) (1987). Infrastructure for the 21st century: Framework for a research agenda, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Pautrel X. (2008). “Reconsidering the impact of the environment on long-run growth when pollution influences health and agents have a finite-lifetime”, Environmental and Resource Economics 40(1), 37-52.

Peirera A.M., Flores R. (1999). “Public capital and private sector performance I the United States”, Journal of Urban Economics 46, 300-322.

Pereira A.M. (1999). “Is all public capital created equal?”, The Review of Economics and Statistics 513-518.

Pereira A.M. (2001). “On the effects of public investment on private investment: what crowds in what?”, Public Finance Review 29(3), 3-25.

Röller L-H., Waverman L. (2001). “Telecommunications infrastructure and economic development: a simultaneous approach”, American Economic Review (91)4, 909-923.



Selwyn J., Leverett B. (2006). Emerging Markets in the Environmental Industries Sector, Report for UK Department of Trade and Industry, Environmental Industries Units, BPR 394, The UK Center for Economic and Environmental Development.

Stern D.I. (2004). “The rise and fall of Environmental Kuznets Curve”, World Development 32(8), 1419-1439.

Stern N. (2006). The Economics of Climate Change, the Stern Review, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.

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

Torras M. and Boyce J.K. (1998). “Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve”, Ecological Economics 25(2), 147-160.

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

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

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



Annex 2 – Background note on energy use for Ireland

Energy use in Ireland increased by 0.9% from 2005 to 2006 to reach 15,910 ktoe while energy related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased by 0.4% for a total of 46,910 kt CO2. However, a reduction in energy-related CO2 emissions of 0.4% was recorded if international aviation is omitted. Primary energy usage in 2006 was 67% higher than 1990 levels (the base year) while energy-related CO2 emissions increased by 54% over the same period. This shows a slight decoupling of CO2 emissions from energy use, but not as good as hoped. Ireland’s energy import dependency reached 91% in 2006, making Ireland one of the most dependent countries in Europe for imported energy. At the economy level there was an 8.1% improvement in energy efficiency from 1995 to 2005, as measured by ODEX. Renewable energy contributed 2.7% to Ireland’s total energy requirements for 2006 (5% on a primary energy equivalent basis), and accounted for 3.1% of Ireland’s final energy consumption. This must be considered a very low percentage of renewable energy, given the country’s large biofuel potential (from forestry thinnings, agriculture waste, energy crops, etc), extremely good wind energy resources, potential wave energy, and a reasonable amount of solar energy. The renewable energy share of gross electricity consumption was 8.6% in 2006. Wind energy contributed 5.6%. These low percentages reveal the difficulty in shifting from a fossil-fuel based economy to a more sustainable economy based on a greater use of renewable energy. Natural gas was the dominant fuel in 2006 used for electricity generation in Ireland (2,417 ktoe in 2006; 46% of total primary input), followed by coal (1,265 ktoe in 2006; 24% of total primary input) and fuel oil (611 ktoe in 2006). In 2006, the conversion of primary energy to electricity incurred losses of 59% of the total energy inputs (primary energy used for electricity generation amounted to 5,205 ktoe; while the losses, including transformation, own use and transmission losses, amounted to some 2,963 ktoe). A useful indicator of environmental progress in the electricity generation sector is the amount of CO2 produced per kWh generated, as shown in the following table:

Electricity Supply % change

1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 1990 – 2006 overall

1990– 2006 per annum

kg CO2/kWh 0.8960 0.8608 0.7706 0.6365 0.6011 -32.9 -5.6

Efficiency % 32.96 33.35 35.35 40.60 41.35 25.5 1.9



Reasons for the decrease in CO2 emissions and the increase in efficiency include the closure of older and less efficient peat fired stations, the introduction of higher efficiency natural gas plants, and, to a small extent, increasing use of renewable sources. During the period under review (2000 – 2006), the efficiency increased by 6 percentage points and the amounts of CO2 emitted per kWh of electricity generated fell by 22%. From 1990 to 2006 final energy usage in industry grew by 56% while industrial output as measured by value added (constant prices) grew by 234%. This is an excellent achievement, but it must be considered that Ireland’s major industrial growth has been very recent, the new industries are producing very high value products, and high fossil fuel prices have encouraged energy efficiency. However, in the transport sector the final energy use increased by 167% between 1990 and 2006, achieving the fastest growth rate of all sectors. Fuel consumption by road freight increased by 255% over the period making it the mode with the highest growth rate. This negative result was accentuated by the very low percentage of goods carried by rail, and by the almost complete absence of water-based freight, either inland or coastal. Over the period 1990 to 2006 final energy use in the residential sector increased by 32%. Despite this its share of the total energy use fell from 31% in 1990 to 23% in 2006. Over the same period the number of permanently occupied dwellings increased by 145% to 1,462,296. Nevertheless, energy efficiency in housing is low, with building standards lagging behind those of other EU Member States, especially the Nordic States. Source: Data from Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI), especially the March 2008 publication “Energy in Ireland -- Key Statistics”, prepared by Fergal O’Leary, Martin Howley and Dr. Brian Ó Gallachóir; with additional comments by ADE of this report.



Annex 3 – Main output and result indicators from ERDF interventions

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

ADE

Nb. MS CCI number Programme name Obj.Number of

projects in water supply

Number of projects in wastewater

Number of projects in municipal solid waste

Number of additional population served by

water supply projects

% increase of the additional

population served by


(compared to the baseline

value)

Reduction of leakage from

the water supply network

(% decrease compared to the baseline)


wastewater projects

% increase of additional population served by

wastewater projects


value)

New capacity of waste treatment

created (million m³)

Number of unauthorised

landfills closed/ rehabilitated

% of unauthorised landfills in the

total number of the landfills

operated in 2000 (for EU-10

Member States only)

1 CZ 2003CZ161PO002 Infrastructure 1 10 49 38 7,816 n.a. n.a. 57.261 n.a. n.a. 18 n.a.2 CZ 2003CZ161PO003 Industry and Trade 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 CZ 2003CZ161PO004 Joint Regional Operational Programme 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 CZ 2003CZ162DO001 Prague 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 05 FI 2000FI162DO001 SPD OBJ 2 Aland Islands 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.6 FI 1999FI161DO002 SPD obj. 1 Eastern Finland 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.7 FI 1999FI162DO001 SPD Obj. 2 South Finland 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.8 FI 1999FI162DO002 SPD Obj. 2 West Finland 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.9 IE 2000IE161PO004 OP obj. 1 Economic and Social Infrastructure 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.10 IE 2000IE161PO005 OP obj. 1 Southern and Eastern Ireland 1 468 120 31 317.039 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.11 IE 2000IE161PO006 OP obj. 1 Border Midland and Western 1 212 200 0 258.856 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.12 HU 2003HU161PO001 Regional Development OP 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.13 HU 2003HU161PO003 Environmental Protection and Infrastructure 1 n.a. 4 n.a. 7.665 n.a. n.a. 407.295 n.a. 0 n.a. n.a.14 PT 1999PT161PO008 Economia 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.15 PT 1999PT161PO010 Ambiente 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.16 PT 1999PT161PO013 PO Alentejo 1 n.a. n.a. 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.j17 PT 1999PT161PO016 PO Madeira 1 4 9 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.18 PT 1999PT161PO015 Lisboa e Vale do Tejo 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.19 PT 1999PT161PO017 PO Norte 1 337 352 7 628.667 22,4 n.a. 449.048 21 n.a. 10 n.a.20 PT 1999PT161PO011 Região Autónoma dos Açores 1 47 29 12 n.a. 11 n.a. n.a. 13 n.a. 0 n.a.21 PT 1999PT161PO005 Saúde 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.22 PT 1999PT161PO014 PO Centro 1 231 1242 4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.23 PT 1999PT161PO012 PO Algarve 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.24 PT 1999PT161PO006 Cultura 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.25 SK 2003SK161PO001 Basic Infrastructure 1 n.a. n.a. 26 1.740.885 n.a. n.a. 4.696 n.a. 178,000 n.a. n.a.26 SK 2003SK161PO002 Industry and Services 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.27 SK 2003SK162DO001 Bratislava 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.28 ES 2000ES161PO002 PO obj. 1 Cantabria 1 23 3 230 49.108 n.a. n.a. 469.305 n.a. 3,980 n.a. n.a.29 ES 2000ES161PO003 PO obj. 1 Andalucia 1 12 55 733 10.355.991 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 19,740 n.a. n.a.30 ES 2000ES161PO004 PO obj. 1 Asturias 1 n.a. 5 n.a. 43.516 n.a. n.a. 65.300 n.a. 157,694 n.a. n.a.31 ES 2000ES161PO005 PO obj. 1 Canarias 1 n.a. 5,31 15 787.600 n.a. n.a. 441.215 n.a. 9,930 n.a. n.a.32 ES 2000ES161PO006 PO obj. 1 Castilla-La Mancha 1 n.a. 36,13 35 5.022.136 n.a. n.a. 106.706 n.a. 2,140 n.a. n.a.33 ES 2000ES161PO007 PO obj. 1 Castilla y león 1 136 n.a. n.a. 2.637.159 n.a. n.a. 789.752 n.a. 0,020 n.a. n.a.34 ES 2000ES161PO008 PO obj. 1 Ceuta 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.35 ES 2000ES161PO009 PO obj. 1 Communidad Valeciana 1 1068 2 1 0 n.a. n.a. 339.079 n.a. 0,100 n.a. n.a.36 ES 2000ES161PO010 PO obj. 1 Extremadura 1 149 136 22.099 166.322 89,76 15 240.741 88,56 3,178 n.a. n.a.37 ES 2000ES161PO011 PO obj. 1 Galicia 1 0 0 50.434 289.353 n.a. n.a. 1.561.423 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.38 ES 2000ES161PO012 PO obj. 1 Melilla 1 1 n.a. 0 n.a. n.a. 6,5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.39 ES 2000ES161PO013 PO obj. 1 Murcia 1 45 10 6.228 149.600 n.a. n.a. 449.000 n.a. 35,460 n.a. n.a.40 ES 2000ES161PO016 PO obj. 1 Local 1 212 48 90 1.147.291 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.41 ES 2000ES162DO002 Docup obj. 2 Aragon 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 294.343 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5,100 n.a. n.a.42 ES 2000ES162DO003 Docup obj. 2 Baleares 2 n.a. n.a. 5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.43 ES 2000ES162DO004 Docup obj. 2 Cataluña 2 n.a. 16 98 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.888.835 n.a. 0,211 641 n.a.44 ES 2000ES162DO005 Docup obj. 2 La Rioja 2 n.a. 4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 4.750 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.45 ES 2000ES162DO006 Docup obj. 2 Madrid 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.46 ES 2000ES162DO007 Docup obj. 2 Navarra 2 n.a. 3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 22.766 n.a. 26,547 n.a. n.a.47 ES 2000ES162DO008 Docup Obj. 2 País Vasco 2 n.a. 15 3 53.200 n.a. n.a. 108.600 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Note : Main output and result indicators of the grey-highlighted operational programmes have already been checked and completed by Management Authorities.

Revised First Intermediate Report – December 2008 Annex 3


ADE











value)





wastewater projects


wastewater projects


value)








Member States only)

48 UK 1999GB161DO001 DOCUP OBJ1 CORNWALL AND THE ISLES OF SCILLY 1 15 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

49 UK 1999GB161DO002 DOCUP OBJ1 MERSEYSIDE 1 3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.50 UK 1999GB161DO003 DOCUP OBJ1 SOUTH YORKSHIRE 1 53200 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

51 UK 1999GB161DO004 DOCUP OBJ1 WEST WALES AND THE VALLEYS 1 n.a. 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0,001 0 0

52 UK 1999GB161DO005 DOCUP OBJ1 HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS 1 n.a. 2 n.a. 56 n.a. n.a. 9.982 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.ISLANDS

53 UK 1999GB161PO007 PO obj. 1 Northern Ireland Transitional Support 1 108600 2 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 47.400

78% to 179% depending the

location of the project

0 0 0

54 UK 2000GB162DO002 DOCUP obj. 2 West Midlands 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

55 UK 2000GB162DO003 DOCUP obj. 2 Yorkshire and the Humber 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

56 UK 2000GB162DO004 DOCUP obj. 2 East Midlands 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

57 UK 2000GB162DO006 DOCUP obj. 2 North West England 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

58 UK 2000GB162DO008 DOCUP obj. 2 South East England 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

59 UK 2000GB162DO009 DOCUP obj. 2 London 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

60 UK 2000GB162DO010 DOCUP obj. 2 South West of England 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

61 UK 2000GB162DO012 DOCUP obj. 2 Eastern Scotland 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

62 UK 2000GB162DO014 East Wales 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.




ADE











value)





wastewater projects


wastewater projects


value)








Member States only)

63 FR 1999FR161DO001 DOCUP obj. 1 Réunion 1 n.a. n.a. 6 n.a. n.a. n.a. 57.455 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.64 FR 1999FR161DO002 DOCUP Obj. 1 Nord-Pas-de-Calais 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,106 n.a. n.a.65 FR 1999FR161DO003 DOCUP Obj. 1 Corse 1 n.a. 17 124 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.66 FR 2000FR161DO001 DOCUP obj. 1 Guadeloupe 1 n.a. n.a. 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 17.500 0,16 n.a. n.a. n.a.67 FR 2000FR161DO002 DOCUP obj. 1 Guyane 1 34 5 15 22.800 22 n.a. 8.788 n.a. 0,027 6 n.a.68 FR 2000FR161DO003 DOCUP obj 1 Martinique 1 n a n a 6 n a n a n a 57 455 n a n a n a n a68 FR 2000FR161DO003 DOCUP obj. 1 Martinique 1 n.a. n.a. 6 n.a. n.a. n.a. 57.455 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.69 FR 2000FR162DO001 DOCUP obj. 2 Alsace 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,311 n.a. n.a.70 FR 2000FR162DO002 DOCUP obj. 2 Auvergne 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.71 FR 2000FR162DO003 DOCUP obj. 2 Lorraine 2 n.a. 36 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.72 FR 2000FR162DO004 DOCUP obj. 2 Limousin 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.73 FR 2000FR162DO005 DOCUP obj. 2 Pays-de-la-Loire 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.74 FR 2000FR162DO006 DOCUP obj. 2 Poitou-Charentes 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.75 FR 2000FR162DO007 DOCUP obj. 2 Basse-Normandie 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.76 FR 2000FR162DO008 DOCUP obj. 2 Haute-Normandie 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.77 FR 2000FR162DO009 DOCUP obj. 2 Languedoc-Roussillon 2 n.a. 79 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.78 FR 2000FR162DO010 DOCUP obj. 2 Champagne-Ardenne 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.79 FR 2000FR162DO011 DOCUP obj. 2 Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.80 FR 2000FR162DO012 DOCUP obj. 2 Franche-comté 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.81 FR 2000FR162DO014 DOCUP obj. 2 Bretagne 2 n.a. n.a. 199 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.82 FR 2000FR162DO015 DOCUP obj. 2 Bourgogne 2 n.a. n.a. 103 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,025 n.a. n.a.83 FR 2000FR162DO016 DOCUP obj. 2 Centre 2 n.a. 53 37 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.84 FR 2000FR162DO017 DOCUP obj. 2 Ile-de-france 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.85 FR 2000FR162DO018 DOCUP obj. 2 Midi-Pyrénées 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.86 FR 2000FR162DO019 DOCUP obj. 2 Picardie 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 087 FR 2000FR162DO020 DOCUP obj. 2 Rhône-Alpes 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.88 FR 2000FR162DO021 DOCUP obj. 2 Nord-Pas-de-Calais 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.




ADE











value)





wastewater projects


wastewater projects


value)








Member States only)

89 DE 1999DE161PO001 PO OBJ 1 BERLIN (OST) 1 4 14 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 13.500 n.a. 0 0 090 DE 1999DE161PO002 PO OBJ 1 THURINGEN 1 1 3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 7.900 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.91 DE 1999DE161PO003 PO OBJ 1 SACHSEN-ANHALT 1 587 591 0 5.059 0 0 281.937 0 0 0 0

92 DE 1999DE161PO004 PO OBJ 1 MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN 1 120 162 0 0 0 n.a. 32.155 2,2 0,095 0 0

93 DE 1999DE161PO005 PO OBJ1 BRANDENBURG 1 24 534 35 n.a. n.a. n.a. 289.000 82 n.a. 44 094 DE 1999DE161PO006 PO obj. Sachsen 1 68 n 165 n.a. n.a. n.a. 305.430 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

95 DE 2000DE162DO001 DOCUP obj. 2 Rheiland-Pfalz 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

96 DE 2000DE162DO002 DOCUP obj. 2 Berlin 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

97 DE 2000DE162DO003 Saarland 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

98 DE 2000DE162DO004 DOCUP obj. 2 Nordrhein-Westfalen 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

99 DE 2000DE162DO005 DOCUP obj. 2 Hessen 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

100 DE 2000DE162DO006 DOCUP obj. 2 Schleswig-Holstein 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

101 DE 2000DE162DO007 DOCUP obj. 2 Bayern 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

102 DE 2000DE162DO008 DOCUP obj. 2 Baden-Württemberg 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

103 DE 2000DE162DO009 DOCUP obj. 2 Bremen 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

104 DE 2000DE162DO010 DOCUP obj. 2 Niedersachsen 2 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

105 GR 2000GR161PO002 PO OBJ 1 ATTIQUE 1 n.a. 2 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.106 GR 2000GR161PO003 PO OBJ 1 PELOPONESE 1 n.a. 7 255 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.107 GR 2000GR161PO004 PO OBJ 1 GRECE OCCIDENTALE 1 n.a. 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 n.a.108 GR 2000GR161PO005 PO OBJ 1 GRECE CONTINENTALE 1 n.a. n.a. 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.109 GR 2000GR161PO006 PO OBJ 1 THESSALIE 1 n.a. 2 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.110 GR 2000GR161PO007 PO OBJ 1 EPIRE 1 n.a. 1 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.111 GR 2000GR161PO008 PO OBJ 1 CRETE 1 n.a. 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.112 GR 2000GR161PO009 PO OBJ 1 EGEE DU NORD 1 n.a. 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.113 GR 2000GR161PO010 PO OBJ 1 EGEE DU SUD 1 n.a. 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.114 GR 2000GR161PO011 PO OBJ 1 ILES IONIENNES 1 9 10 0 15.000 23 n.a. 6,500 10 n.a. 0 0

115 GR 2000GR161PO012 PO OBJ 1 MACEDOINE ORIENTALE - THRACE 1 n.a. 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

116 GR 2000GR161PO013 PO OBJ 1 MACEDOINE OCCIDENTALE 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

117 GR 2000GR161PO014 PO OBJ 1 MACEDOINE CENTRALE 1 n.a. 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.118 GR 2000GR161PO016 Compétitivité 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.119 GR 2000GR161PO027 PO obj. 1 Environnement 1 n.a. 5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 46 n.a.




ADE











value)





wastewater projects


wastewater projects


value)








Member States only)

120 IT 1999IT161PO006 PO OBJ 1 CALABRIA 1 140 19 363 367.000 8 6 592.878 17 2,660 40 n.a.121 IT 1999IT161PO007 PO OBJ 1 CAMPANIA 1 1 25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.122 IT 1999IT161PO008 PO OBJ 1 MOLISE 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.123 IT 1999IT161PO009 PO OBJ 1 PUGLIA 1 204 n.a. 97 1.243.434 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,247 n.a. n.a.124 IT 1999IT161PO010 PO OBJ 1 SARDEGNA 1 1 35 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.400.845 n.a. 73,385 n.a. n.a.125 IT 1999IT161PO011 PO OBJ 1 SICILIA 1 n a 1 0 n a n a n a 1 400 000 n a 0 000 n a n a125 IT 1999IT161PO011 PO OBJ 1 SICILIA 1 n.a. 1 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.400.000 n.a. 0,000 n.a. n.a.126 IT 1999IT161PO012 PO OBJ 1 BASILICATA 1 n.a. 2 0 24.864 0,8 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,017 n.a. n.a.127 IT 2000IT162DO001 Toscana 2 n.a. 7 27 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.789.400 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.128 IT 2000IT162DO002 Abruzzo 2 n.a. 5 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.129 IT 2000IT162DO003 Trento 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.130 IT 2000IT162DO004 DOCUP obj. 2 Bolzano 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.131 IT 2000IT162DO005 Veneto 2 19 45 13 22.378 n.a. n.a. 49.161 n.a. 0,130 3 n.a.132 IT 2000IT162DO006 Liguria 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.133 IT 2000IT162DO007 Piemonte 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.134 IT 2000IT162DO008 Valle d'Aosta 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.135 IT 2000IT162DO009 Lazio 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.862 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,002 n.a. n.a.136 IT 2000IT162DO010 Umbria 2 0 12 112 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.137 IT 2000IT162DO011 Marche 2 n.a. 159 149 n.a. n.a. n.a. 39.995 n.a. 0,088 n.a. n.a.138 IT 2000IT162DO012 Emilia Romagna 2 0 65 11 n.a. n.a. n.a. 163.358 n.a. 0,253 n.a. n.a.139 IT 2000IT162DO013 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0140 IT 2000IT162DO014 Lombardia 2 18 53 n.a. 9.597 0,9 n.a. 139.787 13,2 4 n.a. n.a.141 PL 2003PL161PO001 Integrated Regional Development OP 1 n.a. 103 37 n.a. n.a. n.a. 41.947 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

142 PL 2003PL161PO002 Improvement of the Competitiveness of Enterprises for Years 2004-2006 1 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,160 0 0

143 LV 2003LV161DO001 Latvia 1 81 86 8 42,961 1,89 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 47 n.a.



revised first int report v2 - european...

Documents