1. Seite 118.02.2014 How to measure climate change impacts in Cohesion Policy Operational Programmes Experiences of Austria Gottfried Lamers Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management Department: Sustainable Development and Environmental Funding Policy Phone (+431) 515 22 - 1644 gottfried.lamers@bmlfuw.gv.at

2. Seite 2 8. 10. 2008 Overview SF Programmes in Austria 2000 - 2006 Integration of environment in the SF programmes –Horizontal –Vertical Austrian funding system Project selection Figures Effects Outlook Final remarks

3. Seite 3 8. 10. 2008 Background Structural Funds in Austria 2000 - 2006 ERDF contribution: 854 M 1 objective 1 programme 8 objective 2 programmes 1 agricultural programme No thematic programmes ERDF contribution: 257 M 7 INTERREG IIIa programmes 2 INTERREG IIIb programmes INTERREG IIIc Region EAST

4. Seite 4 8. 10. 2008 Background Integration of environment Horizontal All projects have to meet the requirements of the environmental obligations Participation of environmental NGO in the monitoring committees Monitoring of environmental effects (according to the size of the projects: 3,5 M) Vertical Environment as own priority in nearly all ERDF programmes –Approx. 8 – 9 % of the ERDF money allocated to environmental or energy projects –Approx. 32 M directly spent by the Ministry for environment Biomass district heating as own priority in the agricultural programme Sustainable development and accessibility is one of the two priorities in all INTERREG programmes –Eco-mobility –Improve the management of natural resources (Biodiversity, RES, EE, Environmental protection and awareness)

5. Seite 5 8. 10. 2008 Background Austrian funding system Austria used existing national funds for co-financing (federal and regional) ERDF money was spent through existing national funding instruments and state aid instruments –ERDF increases the available financial means (for a region) but not the individual allocation per project We had a big variety of themes and stakeholders involved in the structural funds issues –All involved instruments work according to the SF administrative regulations The Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water management has several funding instruments. The Environmental fund is used as co-financing instrument The Environmental fund spends approx. 90 M/year on grants for air pollution, hazardous waste, energy saving and renewable energy

6. Seite 6 8. 10. 2008 Major issues Project selection of the environmental fund We have a big sample of projects which we finance nationally We pick the best projects to get co-funding by EU –Best in the technical performance –Best in environmental performance –Best in administrative criteria (N + 2) In the environmental sector we predefined the categories for co- financing We are obliged to report about the performance of the national environmental fund to the parliament in a 3 years interval We made a special evaluation for the ERDF co-financed projects 2000 – 2006 and integrated this in the report.

7. Seite 7 8. 10. 2008 Major issues Figures ERDF and national financing system Evaluation of the Austrian subsidy system (KPC) EDRF 2000 - 2006Total national funding 2000 - 2006 Number of projects1.0347.382 Investment costs244 M1.516 M Environmental costs215 M1.335 M National Subsidy31,7 M273 M ERDF29,3 M0 Project categories: renewable energy and energy efficiency in enterprises

8. Seite 8 8. 10. 2008 Major Issues Financed measures (ERDF) FundingERDFNational Biomass district heating systems 8,5 M8,5 M Biomass CHP7,6 M 7,6 M Biomass for SME4,0 M 4,0 M Small hydro power3,3 M 3,3 M Energy saving1,1 M 1,1 M Thermal solar energy for SME0,9 M 0,9 M Thermal insulation for SME0,9 M 0,9 M

9. Seite 9 8. 10. 2008 Major issues Evaluation The environmental fund has to report to the Austrian parliament in an 3 years interval –Available for the period 2005 – 2007 (in German): http://www.public- consulting.at/blueline/upload/20080611effizienzbericht20052007. pdf http://www.public- consulting.at/blueline/upload/20080611effizienzbericht20052007. pdf –Environmental effects: separate chapter about EU Funding 2000 – 2006 Economic effects: Macroeconomic effects of climate-relevant measures within the scope of the Austrian environmental support scheme in 2004: http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/jsp/index.jsp?fid=23923&id=26796&typeid =8&display_mode=2&pub_language=2 http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/jsp/index.jsp?fid=23923&id=26796&typeid =8&display_mode=2&pub_language=2

10. Seite 10 8. 10. 2008 Major issues Effects of ERDF 2000 - 2006 Environmental effects Reduction of Oil 2,5 Mio. GJ/a187.500 t CO2/a Natural gas0,5 Mio. GJ/a27.770 t CO2/a Production of RES Electricity 231.500 MWh/a74.080 t CO2/a Heat1,4 Mio. MWh/a378.000 t CO2/a The total environmental effects of ERDF (6 years): 4.004.148 t CO2 Economic effects ERDF Funding: 29, 3 Mio. Investments: 244 Mio. National net income: 156 M Job effect: 2.600 full-employees

11. Seite 11 8. 10. 2008 Major issues Outlook Environmental measures in all programmes Co-financing of national subsidies in 7 regions Decreasing total amount for Austria Increasing amount for Environment –ERDF: 32 M –Agricultural funds: 34 M Measures: –Eco-innovation –RES (excluding electricity) –Energy efficiency in enterprises –Biomass district heating in the agricultural fund

12. Seite 12 8. 10. 2008 Conclusions Final remarks EU funding is important but couldn't be the main source for environmental measures A national subsidy or financing system should be in place with the same/similar selection criteria as EU funding Austria chooses the best out of a sample of good projects for co- financing –therefore only few problems with n+2 or other EU restrictions Environment can be placed in nearly all programmes of the EU EU should consider the categories for Lisbon earmarking –also natural protection and eco-tourism can create huge economic benefits