Adam Abdulwahab Evaluation network meeting Brussels, 25 February 2010 Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (Objective 1 and 2) Work Package 5b “Environment and Climate Change” Adam Abdulwahab Evaluation network meeting Brussels, 25 February 2010

Overview of ToR - 1 Scope: Task 1: Conceptual basis ERDF environment, including relevant parts of CF Climate change: exploratory Task 1: Conceptual basis Task 2: Environment Strategies in MS Focus: 14 “big spenders” (ES, IT, DE, EL, PT, FR, PL, IE, UK, CZ, SK, HU, LV, FI)

Overview of ToR - 2 Task 3: Main Outcomes Task 4 & 5: Case Studies Output & result Indicators Effectiveness of major sectoral OPs (in IE, EL, SK, PT, HU, CZ) Task 4 & 5: Case Studies General Regional: 10 Waste management: 3 Climate change: 3

Conceptual Limitations Impact of environmental infrastructure on growth is not well explored in European context Short term vs long term Incremental improvements

Financial Allocation Environment-related interventions, 2000-2006: €25.5 billion (21% of total ERDF allocation) 86% in 7 MS (DE, EL, ES, FR, IE, IT, PT) and 50% to only 3 countries - EL, ES, PT Sectors Rehabilitation and planning (45%) Environmental infrastructure (44%) Environment-friendly technologies (7%) Energy infrastructure (4%)

Significant Contribution to Environment… Water supply No. of projects: 3913 Additional population served: 14.1 million Wastewater No. of projects: 6211 Additional population served: 20.4 million Solid waste No. of projects: 2637 New capacity of waste treatment: 231,649 m3/day Unauthorised landfills closed/rehabilitated: 964

…with factors limiting effectiveness… Investments were often oversized Financial sustainability of investments was not always ensured With the introduction of the 'polluter pays principle', some households in poorer regions refused to connect to the network, especially in the EU-10 The four cohesion countries (EL, ES, IE, PT) delayed the introduction of the polluter / user pays principles, relying more heavily on European funds

…and limited short-term contribution to growth The need to comply with European directives was the main driver of investments in environmental infrastructure. Main reasons are: Impact of environmental infrastructure on economic development is unexplored in literature The Commission also supported the view that an environmental measure is justified even if its only effect is environmental Capacity problems in implementation favoured selecting projects according to maturity to be implemented, wider socio-economic impacts were less important

Rehabilitation and Planning Important mainly in Objective 2 regions Only sporadic evidence that they had strong impact on economic development Evaluation focusing on environmental infrastructure => further analysis needed

Climate Change Not top priority until 2005 120 OPs supported some intervention linked to climate change, with total amount of €2.3 billion More exploratory and smaller interventions Mainly targeted enterprises Create capacity for renewable energy production Energy savings through new technologies Data is not available whether projects really needed public investments Wider short-term economic impacts are mixed; can lead to both increased competitiveness or decreased employment

Implications Institutional capacity must be seriously improved Financial sustainability needs more attention The “green economy” - need to move beyond environmental infrastructure Reviewing objectives: Investing in environment is a political choice Ensuring synergies between environmental infrastructure and economic growth

Thank you for your attention