d6.3 evaluation report final...2 (43) content! 1! introduction+.....+4! 1.1! tasks+.....+4! 2!...

www.clean-drive.eu

Evaluation Report Clean Drive Action 2010-2013

2013-04-16

2 (43)

Content 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Tasks ......................................................................................................... 4

2 SUMO Evaluation Tool and Training ................................................................ 4

2.1 SUMO Schedule ........................................................................................ 5

2.2 Evaluation Guideline ................................................................................. 5

2.3 WP Leader Input ....................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 World Cafe Workshop .......................................................................... 6

3 Impact Evaluation by Work Package ................................................................ 6

3.1 Successes ................................................................................................ 10

3.1.1 France ................................................................................................ 10

3.1.2 Germany ............................................................................................ 10

3.1.3 Greece ................................................................................................ 11

3.1.4 Italy .................................................................................................... 11

3.1.5 Sweden ............................................................................................... 11

3.1.6 UK ...................................................................................................... 11

3.1.7 Ireland ............................................................................................... 12

3.1.8 Slovenia ............................................................................................. 12

3.1.9 Latvia ................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Barriers .................................................................................................... 12

3.2.1 Ireland ................................................................................................ 12

3.2.2 France ................................................................................................ 13

3.2.3 Germany ............................................................................................ 13

3.2.4 Sweden .............................................................................................. 14

3.2.5 Greece ................................................................................................ 14

3.2.6 Italy .................................................................................................... 14

3.2.7 UK ...................................................................................................... 15

3.2.8 Slovenia .............................................................................................. 15

3 (43)

3.2.9 Latvia .................................................................................................. 15

4 Workshop Derived Drivers ............................................................................. 15

4.1 Barriers Output of the Workshop ............................................................ 17

5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 18

6 Revised Model ................................................................................................ 19

Appendix I -‐ Deliverable(s) taken from Annex I .................................................. 20

Appendix II -‐ Distribution of the tasks to each partner taken from Annex I ...... 20

Appendix III -‐ List of indicators to be evaluated in the action taken from Annex I ........................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix IV – SUMO WP1 Summary in January 2013 ....................................... 23

Appendix V – SUMO WP2 Summary in January 2013 ........................................ 24

Appendix VI – SUMO WP3 Summary in January 2013 ....................................... 25

Appendix VII – SUMO WP4 Summary in January 2013 ...................................... 26

Appendix VIII – SUMO WP5 Summary in January 2013 ..................................... 27

Appendix IX – SUMO WP6 Summary in January 2013 ....................................... 28

Appendix X – SUMO WP 7 Summary in January 2013 ....................................... 29

Appendix XI – SUMO WP8 Summary in January 2013 ....................................... 29

Appendix XII Attendee list at workshop ............................................................. 30

Appendix XIII Downloads from the Clean Drive project over 36 months; country by country .......................................................................................................... 32

Appendix XIV SUMO Template ........................................................................... 33

Appendix XV Summary Evaluation Guide used for SUMO data Collation .......... 37

Appendix XVI – CO2-‐ and energy savings ............................................................ 41

Appendix XVII – Percentage cars sold <120 g CO2/km ....................................... 41

Appendix XVIII – Decrease CO2-‐emissions in g/km and tonnes ......................... 42

Appendix XIX – Number of sold cars by participating LAG-‐members ................ 43

4 (43)

1 Introduction The aim of work package 6 was to review and improve the Clean Drive Action Model implemented during the project. In so doing it was to provide information about the success and impact of the project and the level of satisfaction of the different target groups. It was intended that this would lead to improved activities and working models for the campaign containing best practice examples. This report is Deliverable 6.3 of the Clean Drive project, reviews these actions and results in the creation of Deliverable 6.4 - An improved Clean Drive Action Model which will be disseminated across Europe. Resultantly the Clean Drive consortium aim to involve more actors in solutions aimed at clean cars and a sustainable transport sector. The final evaluation report includes information about the success and challenges encountered during the implementation phase of the action as well as specific data as regards CO2 savings, energy savings, sustainability of the actions and cooperation mechanisms between the various groups. SUMO is an evaluation tool which was used in Clean Drive to assess the progress of the project within and between partner countries.

1.1 Tasks

The Deliverables arising from this Work Package are listed in Appendix I while the 4 main tasks are listed below. The delegation of these tasks is defined in Appendix II.

1. Guidelines for evaluation questionnaire and survey selected. This part was developed by the WP-leader, TEA and resulted in Deliverable 6.1 and Deliverable 6.2.

2. All partners trained in using the SUMO-evaluation Tool.

3. SUMO survey collected information for evaluation. The Clean Drive partners

monitored the campaign activities implemented by the Local Action Groups as well as the annual sales in 2010, 2011 and 2012 compared with the benchmark analysis and targets. The WP leaders of WP 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 collected information from all consortium partners and forwarded to the WP6-leader.

4. Improve the Clean Drive Action Model.

2 SUMO Evaluation Tool and Training SUMO is a system for the planning, evaluation and management of behavioural change projects first conducted by the Swedish Road Administration. It allows improved design of systems which collect evaluation results and obtains better information on cause and effect. It provides an effective system to gather, organise and monitor the information collected from surveys, questionnaires and interviews. This tool enables partners to monitor both qualitative (satisfaction of participants) and quantitative parameters (CO2 and energy savings, number of low emitting cars sold). Tipperary Energy Agency (TEA) developed expert skills in evaluation with SUMO as it coordinated the SUMO-based evaluation in the Intelligent Energy Europe project MOVE (Appendix XIV). SUMO facilitates better project planning and assists the set-up of relevant objectives and what makes this method unique as an evaluation tool is that it subdivides the step between implementation and effect. What is a single step, in conventional evaluation methods, is divided into a number of shorter steps, each of which can be monitored. This makes it

5 (43)

possible to steer a project and to swiftly identify and address deviations. As with all evaluation methods it requires targets so that SUMO SMART targets with the following qualities were used: Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic and Time limited. TEA held a SUMO training workshop at the Partner meeting in Italy in the spring of 2011. The division of the WPs within Clean Drive was utilised within the SUMO method and the indicators listed in Appendix II were identified by the annex in order to assess progress. In this workshop the knowledge and understanding of all partners, in SUMO-evaluation, was increased. Subsequent to the workshop SUMO templates were made available on the ftp. During the workshop TEA facilitated an open discussion about how the partners thought they could monitor these indicators and the final decision on the exact indicators to be used was made after the meeting by email between the partners.

2.1 SUMO Schedule

The SUMO evaluation process was continuous, the first SUMO evaluation took place in January 2011 and subsequent evaluations took place in July 2011, January 2012, July 2012 and finally in January 2013. All partners were asked to complete the evaluation templates by email and these were completed, returned by email and uploaded to the common project ftp by the partners. Subsequent to SUMO template completion the progress was summarised by TEA and emailed to all partners for review in an Evaluation Guideline document (Appendix XV).

2.2 Evaluation Guideline

As stated an Evaluation Guideline document was emailed to each partner in January 2011, July 2011, January 2012, July 2012 and January 2013 summarising progress at those points in time and allowing review and amendment of the detail. Subsequent to this review the evaluation document which was generated gave each partner a second chance to appraise progress in their countries. The result was therefore an accurate evaluation of the progress in all partner countries at that moment in time. This allowed partners to thoroughly follow and scrutinise the progress of the project in their countries and to compare to project targets; it also allowed them to compare with the progress in other countries.

2.3 WP Leader Input

The deep levels of evaluation and scrutiny required by WP6 were sometimes difficult for partners to fulfill as many tasks were delayed due to it taking longer than planned to get expected numbers of Local car dealers and National Support Network members involved in the Action. It was therefore decided by TEA in the Autumn of 2012 partner meeting in Paris to request that the WP leaders would support each partner in finalising the SUMO evaluation. This solution worked well as each WP leader was well informed in relation to their respective WPs. In the partner meeting in Ireland in spring 2013 this was again reiterated and confirmed. Subsequently TEA sent incomplete SUMO templates to each WP leader for their WP and these were completed. This a separate and significant tier of evaluation of progress in the respective countries and enabled further comparison to targets. This allowed TEA to develop a complete picture of progress in the various countries as set against targets and has meant that this report (D6.3) and subsequent recommendations (D6.4) could be completed. Having each partner and each WP leader check the progress in each country was a significant extra level of scrutiny added to the SUMO.

6 (43)

2.3.1 World Cafe Workshop

The feedback from all actors in the project and especially the Local Action Groups needed to be collected by the partners on a regular basis during the project lifetime. In order to complete data gathering, facilitate Clean Drive evaluation and support the SUMO evaluation it was decided by TEA to facilitate a workshop at the end of the evaluation period in March 2013; the day after the Irish partner meeting. To this workshop all of the Clean Drive partners were invited together with the Irish car dealers, National Support Network members and a Swedish transport expert. At participatory events some participants will not express a point of view while others do so all too well and in order to sample the points of view of all attendees (listed in Appendix XII) the workshop took the form of World Cafe whereby participants were arranged in groups of four. Participants were given 3 minutes to list successful drivers in the Clean Drive project and in projects similar to it; they listed these on a poster which was fixed each table. After 3 minutes, 3 from each table moved to another table and this was repeated until we felt repetition was occurring. Each table was asked to discuss the points on their posters in relation to successes. The same method was used to identify barriers. Successes and barriers of the CD project have been compiled using the SUMO reporting of each partner, the SUMO reporting of each WP leader and the World Cafe Workshop method described above and can be found in the following sections. Subsequent to these sections a summary of the suggested revised model (D6.4) is included.

3 Impact Evaluation by Work Package The impact of the Clean Drive project is evaluated here and typical success factors are the numbers of involved car dealers, the number of National Support Network members, the number of trained car-dealers, number of Clean Drive training certificates, numbers of information materials disseminated, the number of activities implemented during the campaign, decreased CO2-emission and energy consumption from new sold cars from participating actors. In order to assess impact this section discusses the SUMO evaluation results by work package; summarised SUMO tables are located from Appendix IV to Appendix XI. One can see for WP1 in Appendix IV that 5 partner meetings were held successfully including a cumulative 70 participants from the various partner organisations within the Clean Drive consortium. Significant difficulties were encountered by partners in recruiting car dealers to Clean Drive as this target group often appeared too bust to engage. Our Clean Drive partners shared these difficulties at the partner meetings and having found solutions worked harder to recruit and engage. Our partners working on on WP2 (Appendix V) secured 102 car dealers to participate in Clean Drive across 9 partner countries. This is in line with 10 per country and has reached the targets of the Clean Drive annex. Given the difficulties that persisted throughout the project in relation to car dealer engagement this is a significant achievement. Close to half of all the 500 dealers were satisfied with the Clean Drive information received from the partners. Most partners found it difficult to organise common meetings for the car dealers and there were a number of reasons for this:

1. car dealers were spread over a large geographic area, 2. no budgets existed for car dealer travel, and 3. there was a distrust of sharing confidential experiences with other competitive car

dealers Here Clean Drive met another challenge and partners had to find solutions for this and

7 (43)

though 50 meetings were sufficient to satisfy the Clean Drive annex a total of 75 meetings with car dealers took place across the 9 countries. This again shows the comprehensive response of the partner countries in the consortium to a difficulty encountered in the real world and as a result the car dealers benefitted more from the Clean Drive Action. It appears that meetings were successful also as 75% of car dealers were satisfied with them. WP2 culminated in the development of a current analysis method capable of quantifying progress in each partner country. The SUMO evaluation also shows over 100 Action plans which were successfully implemented across Europe (Appendix V). In WP3 and after comprehensive recruitment efforts by the partners over 200 national actors were satisfied with information they received in relation to the project, and well over half of these chose to participate in and join their National Support Network (Appendix VI). The targeted number of National Support Network meetings took place in most countries; those partners establishing less meetings were SWEA, GI ZRMK and CRES and particular causes of this are mentioned in the barriers section and include the absence of travel expenses budgeted for national actors to attend such meetings. Another target met by this WP was 2 international meetings the first of which was based in Frankfurt. Given the low turn out in Frankfurt it was decided to host a second meeting by webconference and in this way bring the meeting to the delegates (Appendix VI). A total of 14 (first meeting) ans 48 participants (second meeting) were recorded at these international events and the main reason for this is that no budget was initially included in Clean Drive to cater for the costs of attendees. The IEE project officer agreed that we could finance this using a budget shift but the Clean Drive partners were not able to arrange this in the remianing time. The training elements of Clean Drive were shaped by WP4 and a summary of its evaluation results can be found in Appendix VII. The target of 100 LAG members was reached with 102 LAG members being trained by the consortium. An average of 2 members of staff were trained in each LAG, 210 were trained in all and the consortium trained more Clean Drive tutors than required (22, where the target was 20). Clean Drive training and its elements were successful as a comprehensive 94% of those trained were satisfied with the training structure, content and material. Subsequently all of the LAG members have been certified as required and much evidence accompanies this achievement on the ftp project web-folder. Relative to the 102 LAG members trained there has been good registration on the e-learning tool across Europe and the current number registered at the moment is 200 (Appendix VII). This level of registration was a massive achievement given the challenges already experienced with the car dealers. This is further evidence that the partners have shared their experience and identified solutions to many of the challenges encountered in rolling out the tasks of the Clean Drive annex. Clean Drive partners realised we were dealing with a very busy target group and thus the training and log on process ran as one. This strategy was thought to be best practice and evolved from partner dialogue at our international partner meetings. There is a country by country breakdown included in Annex XIII of the visits to the project website and it shows that to date the project website has received 21190 visits in total. Given the monitoring period this represents an average of close to 5 visitors per day per partner and this is impressive. Unfortunately the download numbers from the project website has not been measured or tracked. What is even more impressive is that over 11,000 of these visits have been from other areas of Europe other than those represented by the partner countries and this shows comprehensive dissemination of Clean Drive. One can see from the table in Appendix III that the visitor numbers increase year by year as 2013 data is complete only to April. In this way one can see that as the project and its activities have increased part of this has been the dissemination activities which have been growing since project inception. Interestingly

8 (43)

both Germany and Latvia enjoyed strong traffic with a significant 2000 visits to the project website. The e-learning webtool has a html format and this allowed upload only of text and therefore no downloading was possible for this webtool. The e-learning web-tool despite showing impressive levels of registration (200) showed poor levels of module completion. As stated the partners were able to ensure webtool registration at or after training sessions. For example in Ireland car dealers were told that they would receive training certification once webtool registration was complete. At this stage many more meetings with car dealers than planned or budgeted for had taken place in order to acquire engagement. While partners ensured webtool registration there was little that could be done to force car dealers to use the e-learning modules. It is also worth mentioneing that the content oft he e-learning tool is almost the same as the material used fort he face-to-face training and the overall coaching process. This is also further evidence that this busy target group are very focussed on selling their cars. Partners have tried using email, phone calls and personal visits to increase e-learning module use but the car dealers are difficult to tie down. They are often out of the office, away from the show room, demonstrating cars or selling product and have little time to meet and discuss this issue as from their perspective they have no time for it. Unfortunately this is the reality on the ground in a recession where car sales are falling and car dealerships are closing routinel. The Clean Drive car dealers favoured the learning experience offered by the training sessions as:

1. they preferred face to face training, 2. the training material which the partners developed for face to face training was

comprehensive, 3. the car dealer guidebook developed by Clean Drive was also excellent and as an

example it has been disseminated to over 1000 car dealers in Sweden, and 4. there were initial technical problems with the e-learning tool.

The previous work packages show the efforts of the Clean Drive consortium despite the difficulties due to the target group; car dealers. SUMO details of the progress of WP 5 can be found in Appendix VIII. The annex target for common campaigns was 30 overall and therefore 3 in each country and specifically one in each year. The challenges in engaging the target group caused delays in progress but despite this a total of 81 common campaigns were carried out by the partners with their car dealers during Clean Drive. This despite the large barriers encountered shows the significant efforts of the partners in this consortium. The greatest number arise in Sweden with 22 common campaigns and average at 9 common campaigns per partner country and this is effectively three fold larger than the target set within the annex. The annex required a total of 300 individual campaigns or 10 in each country each year of the project. The target was me by the consortium who achieved a total of 305 individual campaigns with the car dealers across the partner countries. It is likely that the numerous common campaigns which were implemented led to more individual campaigns but these are not accounted for here in order to avoid double counting. The success of the consortium efforts and WP5 can be seen in many of the statistics of Appendix VIII but none so more than the fact that close to 900,000 participants took part in the common campaigns with the Clean Drive car dealers. Close to one third of these were satisfied with the campaigns and their events and all participants who tested the campaigns were satisfied. It was not possible to monitor satisfaction for all campaigns but if all the partners campaigns could have been monitored the satisfaction levels would be higher than one third. Further evidence of the Clean Drive partner efforts can be seen in the fact that some 70,000

9 (43)

particiants took part in customised campaigns carried out with specific dealers in the partner countries and short of half of these were satisfied with these campaigns. Satisfaction of all of the individual campaigns was monitored by partners and found to be 100%. This again shows the success of the consortium partners, building on the successes of the training and devising appropriate marketing campaigns for their car dealers. Some of the indicators in WP5 have proved difficult to measure and one of these is the related increase in car sales. In general disaggregated data were difficult to acquire as mentioned as car dealers preferred not to share such personal data with the consortium partners and their competition. The interest in clean cars has increased significantly across partner countries but the exact levels of this qualitative indicator is uncertain. Given the successful uptake of the face to face training and the campaigns both common and individual it is apparent that the dealers were in a strong position to promote and nurture such interest. It would be expected that levels of interest across partner countries is significantly above those of other countries due to Clean Drive and its actions. Direct sales from the campaigns of Clean Drive are difficult to assess as the ‚seeds‘ for any purchase are ararely discussed between the car dealer and the car buyer. For example its difficult to know if a promulgation campaign on clean cars in a local event or perhaps library has much of an effect. But where the consortium partners attended these campaign events a better indication could be estimated. For example in the Eco-Car and Homes Show in Tipperary in Ireland the Nissan dealer confirmed 6 sales of his Nissan range. If the TEA staff were not at this event this would have been difficult to estimate and it is likely that any figure which we provide for increased car sales due to Clean Drive is conservative in the extreme. As can be seen from Appendix VIII four partners could not say exactly how many cars had sold and preferred to estimate a small impact. Those partners who could estimate increased car sales have collectively increased car sales by at least 1 248. Given this was for 7 countries an approximate correction can be applied to estimate car sales at 1 605 ((1248/7)*9). The indicators in WP6 (Appendix IX) show that 98 of the 102 car dealers engaged by Clean Drive in Europe were happy with the support of the consortium partners. This again points to the significant efforts the partners made and their sharing of experience and best practice which helped to solve problems and find solutions regularly over the length of the Clean Drive project. As calculated using the analysis method developed in WP2 we have been able to estimate the overall reduction in carbon dioxide emissions per km for the average car sold by the car dealers engaged. This calculation has not been possible for France or Greece (Appendix IX). The reduction in emissions is highest for Sweden at 29.3g carbon dioxide per km travelled. Reductions in Latvia and Germany are also large for their car dealers as shown in the table in Appendix IX. It has also been calculated that over 10, 226 tonnes of carbon dioxide (Appendix XVI) has been saved due to an increase in the sales of clean cars. The savings are largest in Sweden and Latvia where about 2500 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions were saved in each country. Again correcting for countries without data (France) means that 11,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide have been abatted by Clean Drive ((10,226/8)*9). The success of the efforts of the Clean Drive partners can also be seen in the increase of sales of cars with emissions under 120g carbon dioxide per km. This was greatest for the Irish car dealers as between 2009 and 2012 – from 12% to57% - almost a five time increase in these low emission cars took place (Appendix IX & XVII). In Latvia shows the highest relative increase going from 1,3 % in 2009 to 11,4 % in 2012, which give an increase with 862% (Appendix IX & XVII). The target on at least a doubled sale of cars with CO2-emissions under 120 g/km was met as the average increase became almost a trippled (286%) sale from 11,6 to 33,2 % for all partner countries sumarised. As for the other car sales data Greece and France were unable to recover data for 2009 and 2012. It needs to be stated that it is difficult to determine the absolute cause of these

10 (43)

reductions but we do know that they are correlated with Clean Drive Actions. Certainly other factors also play their part such as the recession in Ireland together with recent changes in government instruments whereby taxes on such cars are significantly lower. WP7 governed dissemination of the project and as these activities in Team Red and BSU were common a total of 82 dissmination activities (pressreleases) or almost 9 per country were generated. Again the target for this activity was surpassed and this shows strong dissemination by the partners and as mentioned reviously a significant portion of this dissemination reached other countries. A total of 122 clips or news stories were disseminated to the media by the partners and this represents an average of 16 per country. Some 6 newsletters for dissemination were targeted for Clean Drive and Prioriterre produced each of these on time and with good reference to the activities in each country (Appendix X). These newsletters have allowed dissemination of the project throughout Europe. Clean Drive consortium partners have sent each of the 6 newsletters to over 3,800 recipients. Dissemination has also been carried out by the WP-leaders with at least 32 presentations on national and international external events. Currently at one international conference in Riga, one meeting in Greece with a delegation from Romania interested in the Clean Drive Concept, at the combined national and international workshop in Ireland the 15th March 2013 etc. Subsequent to a number of presentations such as theirs the workshop attendees defined successes and barriers to Clean Drive and similar projects as described above (Appendix XI). Experiences and information related factors which motivate LAG members to participate, engage and remain interested have been shared throughout the Clean Drive project using SUMO as defined above. Specific information about the success and problems during the implementation phase of Clean Drive and the reaction of the target groups is included next.

3.1 Successes The chief successes in relation to Clean Drive tasks as defined by the partners in the SUMO evaluation are numerous and are included here in brief country by country.

3.1.1 France

Prioriterre, the French partner, felt that their municipalities showed a strong interest and were eager to participate and be part of Clean Drive. This provided Prioriterre with support and dissemination channels for the Clean Drive Actions. In France car dealers were also very interested in the message which Clean Drive would convey for them to their customers and this was a major driver for their participation. Car dealers also enjoyed and benefitted from the various strategies of Clean Drive including the training and marketing support which helped them to sell more clean cars.

3.1.2 Germany

Clean Drive has both BSU and Team Red as partners in Germany. As the project progressed in Germany positive results were achieved with the car dealers in relation to training and marketing activities. It was felt that the interest of the members in the National Steering Group and of other potential actors, who existed outside of the project, was seen to increase significantly as the training and marketing activities progressed. BSU and Team Red had good success promoting the general concept of the project and in enabling an

11 (43)

appreciation of clean cars. The sale of clean cars with under 120g CO2 emissions was seen to increase in Germany from a 2,7% share in 2009 to 16% in 2012 over the life of Clean Drive (Appendix XVII) with an overall reduction of 803 tonnes of CO2 emissions (Appendix XVI).

3.1.3 Greece

CRES made strong progress with the creation of the e-learning platform and were able to generate and set up the required pages and information and upload them. They monitored and had good success with registrations of trainees on the e-learning website. Their strong contacts with the media were leveraged such that CRES managed to obtain a number of specialist automotive-media outlets as National Support Network members. Throughout the project these stakeholders supported CRES in emphasizing the environmental friendliness of the clean car concept and broadened their impact to the National level. CRES were delighted that a number of their staff were invited to a number of workshops and other events allowing them to disseminate Clean Drive thoroughly. Despite Clean Drive presenting a new vista to the car market in Greece CRES had established a very good National Support Network and its participants were very keen on the Clean Drive concept and in disseminating its unique message. CRES also established another strong link with the Laboratory of Pollution Control Technologies of the National Technical University of Athens and they share huge synergies with the aims of the Clean Drive project in reducing emissions.

3.1.4 Italy

ALESA, the Italian partner, found strong promulgation for the Clean Drive project at the Ruote e Motori Show in Lanciano in Italy. It was a significant platform and an important showcase to introduce new models of clean vehicles and broadcast their utility. Meetings held with car dealers in Italy demonstrated progressively stronger interest, interaction and engagement. Stakeholders in Italy were particularly well disposed towards Clean Drive and its dissemination and the training and marketing campaigns worked well. The sale of clean cars with under 120g CO2 emissions was seen to increase in Italy from a 20,4% share in 2009 to 33,8% in 2012 over the life of Clean Drive (Appendix XVII) with an overall reduction of 891 tonnes of CO2 emissions (Appendix XVI).

3.1.5 Sweden

Strong success was monitored by ESS in Sweden where the sale of clean cars with under 120g CO2 emissions was seen to increase from a 15.0% share in 2009 to 42% in 2012 over the life of Clean Drive (Appendix XVII). ESS also planned together with other events, whereby one endeavour supports and builds on another, increasing the critical mass and fulfilling a greater dissemination of Clean Drive. Strong numbers of stakeholders were attracted by ESS to the Clean Drive project such that a good mix of policy makers, national car dealers, fuel companies, marketing people and sustainable transport consultants were incorporated into the action. An overall reduction of 2891 tonnes of CO2 emissions was calculated for Sweden (Appendix XVI).

3.1.6 UK

SWEA, in UK, had strong success with some of their car dealers and an example of this is that off the back of SWEA’s 2010/11 campaign (Fleet Advice & Recommendations report) an LAG member employing 240 staff employed a transport consultant within the company to set about reducing their CO2 emissions. One of the strategies used by SWEA in response to the challenges presented by the car dealers was to offer free premises audits for those

12 (43)

who took part in Clean Drive. The free audits offered by SWEA to their car dealers as a carrot worked well and leveraged strong action with these stakeholders, and this driver was replicated in Ireland. The sale of clean cars with under 120g CO2 emissions was seen to increase in the UK from a 22.5% share in 2009 to 40.0 % in 2012 over the life of Clean Drive (Appendix XVII) with an overall reduction of 238 tonnes of CO2 emissions (Appendix XVI).

3.1.7 Ireland

As in Germany and other partner countries car dealers in Ireland needed to be trained or coached separately and these individual meetings allowed stronger bonds to be developed between TEA and their car dealers. As for SWEA car dealer recruitment, engagement, training and general support needed to be incentivised by offering free premises audits to the car dealers and this proved to be a very successful strategy. Strong promulgation of the Clean Drive project took place in Ireland through TEA’s stakeholders, Saint Patricks Day Parades, an Eco-Car & Homes Show and also public demonstrations and workshops of electric car technology. This involved much action on the ground such that local low carbon workshops, throughout Tipperary, exhibited the benefits of more efficient and electric cars. The sale of clean cars with under 120g CO2 emissions was seen to increase in the Ireland dramatically from a 12.0% share in 2009 to 57% in 2012, over the life of Clean Drive (Appendix XVII) with an overall reduction of 306 tonnes of CO2 emissions (Appendix XVI).

3.1.8 Slovenia

ZRMK enjoyed strong dissemination at the Eco Rally 2011 such that their car dealers were anxious to be part of their next Eco Rally in autumn 2012. Other aspects which worked well were the training and marketing activities and this can be seen in the overall reduction of 1284 tonnes of CO2 emissions (Appendix XVI) for the Slovenian car fleet. The sale of clean cars with under 120g CO2 emissions was seen to increase in Slovenia from a 7.2% share in 2009 to 28.8% in 2012, over the life of Clean Drive (Appendix XVII).

3.1.9 Latvia

The international conference held in Latvia for the Clean Drive project proved to be a great success with significant attendees and informative presentations and discussions. As per the monitored data the sale of clean cars with under 120g CO2 emissions was seen to increase in Latvia from a 1.3% share in 2009 to 11.4 % in 2012 - over the life of Clean Drive (Appendix XVII) with an overall reduction of 2356 tonnes of CO2 emissions (Appendix XVI). The latter was the second largest reduction by any partner country in Clean Drive and represents a real success for the project.

3.2 Barriers The main challenges or barriers as defined by the partners in the SUMO evaluation are included here.

3.2.1 Ireland

All participating car dealers were required to answer a survey on the current status in their regions or countries at the start of the project. At the end of the project, the increase of awareness and knowledge was evaluated by each partner and it was intended that comparison of the before and after would point to project progress and whether correction of factors which existed before Clean Drive still existed. This was difficult in a number of

13 (43)

countries one of which was Ireland where car dealers were slow to provide information which they considered confidential. They did not want to share this with us or other car dealers as they rely on this competition for their existence. In response TEA searched for car sales data in Tipperary and found this with an organisation called SIMI (Society of the Irish Motoring Industry) and this resulted in all the car sales data from TEA being disaggregated and representing local car sales with their dealers. The initial marketing campaign, in Ireland focussed on Facebook, electronic engagement and sticker based loyalty and incentives. This was not as effective and the incentives did not motivate the car buyers to use the incentives (services). Also the car dealers are not frequent users of the internet and thus did not drive the initial campaigns. As in other countries the car dealers and the National Support Network tend to be very busy as Ireland is deep in a recession and it has been difficult to motivate action.

3.2.2 France

Considerable difficulty was also found in France in getting car sales data from car dealers. It was a major factor in France that manufacturer’s control a lot of what is done in the car dealerships and this caused a lack of availability of the car dealers. This challenge was felt by a number of partners. A further problem was the unfavourable perception of awards and prizes in France and this meant Prioriterre had to spend time developing other types of incentive. In response to these challenges Prioriterre invited more dealers to join Clean Drive than any other partner. The final figure invited was 180 car dealers. Prioriterre established 6 car dealers in Clean Drive but as they are quite busy in France one of them had to leave Clean Drive as they had no time to participate in it. Given the difficulties faced by Prioriterre their response was resolute and impressive.

3.2.3 Germany

In Germany many car dealers were not able to work with Clean Drive for the following reasons:

1. they have other economic concerns to focus on,

2. they don’t see its their place to promote more efficient cars, and

3. environmental issues are not part of their business strategy.

The car dealers in most partner countries were very busy and found it difficult to participate in the exchange of experiences within a Local Action Group; they also found it difficult to trust in the Local Action Group as they would have to share valuable information or their experiences with their competitors. Another reason in Germany for the lack of Local Action Group Meetings was the sheer geographic spread of the car dealers. As for Prioriterre the German partners decided to invite large numbers of car dealers (150) to participate. In general the consortium found the collection of the necessary data for Deliverable 2.5 difficult and this was also the case in Germany. One of the strongest reasons was the confidential nature of this data due to the competitive environment that the dealers work in. Though there was interest for the Clean Drive project and its goal in Germany, some stakeholders were quite critical about the fact that Clean Drive acted on the end points of the production-retail chain. They felt it would have been of more benefit to focus on other actors closer to the start of the production-retail chain. To some extent critics felt that it was someone else’s responsibility and not the car dealers.

14 (43)

The major challenge in Germany as for all partners was to find interested car dealers, willing to participate in Clean Drive. It took much more time to engage the car dealers and this slowed down the progress of the project in general and pushed back the tasks and deliverables of other Work Packages namely WP’s 4 and 5. It took more phone calls, emails, personal visits and meetings than were planned to accomplish car dealer recruitment and even when recruited car dealers were so busy that numerous emails, phone calls and visits had to be made and were not planned for.

3.2.4 Sweden

The car dealers were found to be very busy and it was difficult to gather them in one location and at one time. According to significant experience in Sweden however car dealers are interested in learning more and also in exchanging experiences. It is difficult for them as they feel uncomfortable with the idea of change. All partners found that once the car dealers decided to participate in Clean Drive that they showed strong interest and this was shown by the strong success of the training and marketing campaigns across all partners. In Sweden some survey questions caused upset for General Managers and it is proved difficult to collect excel data of car sales manually. Through persistence this data was acquired and this meant that the Action plans and their goals were finalised. It was also difficult to organise the kick off meeting and the date for this got pushed out until January 2011 with the second meeting in October 2011. Though progress was delayed things have worked well in Sweden where the first step introduced Clean Drive, the second step provided all stakeholders with the car dealer guide book while the third step third part was implemented during the Autumn 2012 and finalised training and certification.

3.2.5 Greece

In Greece CRES found it difficult to get signatures and final commitments as dealers were not sure they could meet the CO2 reductions required. As a result of the dealers feeling the CO2 savings were outside of their remit many dealers initially refused to participate. This was a different challenge to those faced in other partner countries and CRES after sharing their difficulty with the partners worked to recruit and engage 7 car dealers. As in Ireland, the UK and Germany dealers are extremely busy and in Greece they would have been more interested in cooperation if there had been a monetary benefit. Effectively the day to day activities of the car dealers revolve around selling cars and making money and it was thought financial incentives may have motivated them more than the Clean Drive coaching and marketing benefits. With regard to training there has been a large time delay in responses of Salesmen, Sales Managers and Directors to the survey and other Clean Drive requests. CRES found it difficult to get completed questionnaires on training evaluation back from the attendees receiving just one. There was also a very large delay as regards the response of the car dealers with information on their cars sales and the CO2 emissions for the years 2010 and 2011 and car dealers were also slow in providing CRES with their Action Plans. These issues were made more difficult in Greece due to a tough recession.

3.2.6 Italy

It was also found in Italy that the car dealers and sometimes the National Support Network were not happy to divulge all of the required information via the questionnaires, and this has, as in all countries, delayed many tasks. The recession in Italy has meant that as in other consortium countries the car dealers were too busy to devote the time required for full completion of the questionnaires. ALESA also found it difficult to engage the

15 (43)

manufacturers in the Clean Drive marketing campaign as they have their own campaigns and are very focussed on increasing what are low car sales. These difficulties meant that ALESA have had to use a database called developed by Unione Nazionale Rappresentanti Autoveicoli Esteri ( http://www.unrae.it/ ) which provides various levels of disaggregated data. It was found in Italy that the car dealers were effectively bound by the manufacturer’s business strategy. In general it was more difficult to get the car dealers on board than expected, to gather them to meetings at the same location at specific times and also to gather some important information like current surveys, NCAP ratings and CO2-statisics. This has meant that there was considerable delays getting some information and this pushed back tasks elsewhere. Each partner managed to find solutions for this in different ways each of which applied to their own challenges. For example in Ireland and in Italy a data source (belonging to the Society of the Irish Motoring Industry) had to be used which meant that the levels of disaggregation required in the car sales and CO2 data could not be achieved.

3.2.7 UK

As for other countries in the UK, SWEA, found it difficult to get time from the car dealerships which did not see the project as their priority in a recession. Another barrier in Clean Drive was the lack of finance to encourage participation of National Support Network members and this meant huge difficulty in arranging National Support Network meetings. As in Ireland the loss of one car dealer during the project meant that significant time had to be spent briefing and up-skilling a new recruit. This problem has occurred with other Intelligent Energy Europe projects and needs to be recognised and factored into future proposals.

3.2.8 Slovenia

In ZRMK dealer availability and engagement also proved difficult such that organising group meetings was difficult. Given the economic environment and their sales perspective the car dealers had less time and willingness to undergo further education. As for other countries this meant that data acquisition was difficult and as car sales reduced this issue did not improve.

3.2.9 Latvia

In general challenges in Latvia were similar to those already mentioned but high numbers of recruited car dealers and the second overall reduction of 2356 tonnes of CO2 emissions (Appendix XVI) for the consortium partners meant that RMS overcame challenges encountered admirably. In general this section leads to a significant lesson learnt that it would be very helpful to have a common statistic system for sold cars in Europe. In this way it would be possible to find statistics on Car sales at the dealer or local level. It is hoped that in Sweden in Autumn 2013 a system which benchmarks all local car dealers and their sale of new cars – in terms of CO2 emissions g/km in average, number of cars with CO2-emissions under 120 g/km, share of different fuels etc. will be created.

4 Workshop Derived Drivers As previously detailed, ideas were discussed in the workshop which the participants thought had or potentially would drive the purchase of clean or electric cars and thus relevant drivers were identified. These findings are an important addition to this document as they identify challenges for Clean Drive and similar type projects, are the views of the Clean Drive partners, and are made more comprehensive due to the views of other experts

16 (43)

present at the workshop. These are listed below: 1. Top down incentives or drivers like the scrappage deal in Ireland and Germany.

2. No or low tax on the most efficient cars in Greece drives sales. In the Netherlands and Norway tax free systems exist, no VAT, no benefit in kind for clean cars.

3. Drivers such as no annual road tax and no toll charges may be useful.

4. LPG and diesel fuel are cheaper so people buy these cars in Greece, in Ireland and in other countries.

5. Top down government subsidies of up to Euro 18,000 exist in Estonia for electric car purchase.

6. Germany working with mobility services instead of car dealers can work well.

7. Car sharing services would be an interesting target group.

8. Taking a holistic approach such as supporting the creation of links between train services and car share opportunities.

9. The incentives of car audits to motivate car dealer action worked both in the UK and in Ireland.

10. Support other bodies like government or regional authorities to drive change as in Estonia where electric cars are rolled out to social workers, nurses etc. The Society of the Irish Motor Industry in Ireland would like to train, create awareness and demonstrate electric cars to civil servants and pharmacists.

11. In line with the last point supporting green public procurement for in-house fleets, government fleets, ambulance, maintenance, roads etc. would be beneficial.

12. Using other target groups other than car dealers like in Latvia where working with the National Support Network proved more beneficial.

13. As in Sweden it is important to have clear definitions, targets, and benchmarks to drive change.

14. Much legislation focuses on the manufacturers and it would be useful to apply more legislation on other target groups like retailers or possibly citizens.

15. As in Sweden recognition, prizes and competition should be used to drive change.

16. Increasing fossil fuel prices leads to an increase in the sale of clean cars.

17. Develop alternative business models perhaps leasing clean cars with guarantees (fixed resale value) is an alternative to purchase; maybe the total cost of ownership would be less than for car purchase.

18. The last point could be broadened to fuels such that a one off leasing cost pays for much more than just the car.

19. The connection of biofuel and electric cars with Renewable Energy should be made explicit such that real awareness of the benefits exists.

20. Focus on changing the image of the electric car and raising awareness on the performance will move perceptions away from go-cart type vehicles.

17 (43)

21. Phone apps to measure every journey to build information on actual in-use habits and trends, could bring information and awareness on charging and reduce range anxiety.

In summary there were numerous drivers listed which focus on monetary incentives whether based on fuel price, annual car tax or other. Other drivers were legislative drivers, other target groups or mobility services, incentives other than money (car audits, training), linking and cooperation strategies, education and awareness drivers. Clean Drive works with an important actor in the value chain and car dealers as they are in a position to recommend cars to customers. It is a combination of different actors that need to be involved in future projects and that should include car dealers and some of the drivers from above.

4.1 Barriers Output of the Workshop

As mentioned barriers to Clean Drive and other local-scale low-carbon transport-projects were identified and listed as per below:

1. Projects like Clean Drive need to be careful that legislative instruments are in place to facilitate the project. In Ireland electric vehicles are impeded as there is no legislative instrument protecting the electric car charging points. At the moment if a fossil fuel driven car parks across a charging point there is nothing that can be done by the Local Authority to restrict or penalise this. Laws are currently being drafted which will restrict this activity such that electric car charging points will be reserved for electric cars only.

2. Forecasting demand and need for charging points and developing relevant infrastructure has been a barrier to electric car usage across Europe.

3. The government can be a barrier to purchase of clean cars and an example of this is the removal of scrappage schemes in some of our European partner countries. On the other hand government can lead sales utilising motor taxes, carbon taxes and legislative tools (requiring government bodies to buy clean cars)

4. A large barrier is down to the competitive and conservative instincts of car dealers and this impeded collective strategy between different car dealers as they see each other as competition.

5. Poor engagement of national stakeholders. Engagement of stakeholders such as in Ireland ESB e-cars and the School of the Irish Motoring Industry are extremely important in giving relevance, capacity and leverage to local scale projects.

6. Lack of financial rewards: Any project which aims to motivate sales will be affected by recessions; a broader palate of incentivisation would be of value to such projects so that as well as training and coaching perhaps some financial prize or reward could be included to bring stakeholders motivated by sales with the project.

7. It was stated by our UK partners that car dealers can be suspicious of what they perceive as help from outside agencies this was the feeling in Ireland, Slovenia, Greece and other countries. This again appears to underline the conservative nature of this important actor in the value chain.

8. Partners felt that training fatigue was a barrier and this was especially felt in the UK where, like in other partner countries, manufacturers organise training sessions for their dealers staff. “Further training” in small scale projects like Clean Drive can be looked on as unnecessary as the paymaster for the staff is the manufacturer

18 (43)

and car dealer. On the other hand from the environmental and the EU legislative perspectives the Clean Drive Action is essential.

9. Trends of car purchase amongst the younger demographic in the developed world, including Germany, Ireland, UK, North America etc., are changing. Cars do not possess the same status with younger generations as they did for the older ones and this with the formers focus on the rapidly evolving phone and mobile computer technology market and society’s general movement to public transport friendly cities meant that focussing attention on clean cars was difficult for this demographic. Projects like Clean Drive would need to carefully consider how they impact this demographic.

10. Technological issues featured also as for example the electric vehicles inability to charge on both AC and DC. Another example of this is the wide spread range anxiety which permeates society based on the limited range of battery technology.

11. In cases poor harmonisation of software, PC and phones to clean car or electric car technologies was felt to impede Clean Drive or its aims.

12. Poor levels of information and awareness surrounding potential savings, clean car use detail, payback, maintenance, available calculators, thresholds etc. was felt to impede Clean Drive. Such information was developed by the project partners but it was felt that motivating the car dealers to use these in their car sales would be an important facet of future Clean Car projects

13. The purchase price of electric vehicles was felt to be a barrier.

14. A large barrier across Europe at the moment is that some examples set by China and the USA are poor and in relation to responsibility citizens often say ‘why should we do anything’.

15. A large barrier is the lack of projects demonstrating these technologies in the partner countries.

16. In relation to manufacturing and car availability it was felt that electric cars are not always an available option.

17. In general it was felt that the lack of cooperation between the triptych of government bodies, local and regional stakeholder was poor.

5 Conclusion In short despite many different challenges Clean Drive has produced strong results and made significant in roads. There have been 102 car dealers involved, 112 National Support Network members involved, 81 common campaigns, 305 individual campaigns, a total decrease between 2009 and 2012, on average of 21.2g CO2/km across all partners (Appendix XVIII), 10 226 tonnes of CO2 abated and strong dissemination across Europe. The change in the share of sold cars with emissions lower than 120 g/km in all partner countries is shown in Appendix XIX and the 8 countries for which we have data show strong increases in this share. Irelands increase from 12 to 57% is the largest, with comprehensive changes from Sweden and Slovenia also. These results were made possible by a strong partnership within the Consortium. Where challenges existed in partner countries these were discussed and creative solutions were found. As Clean Drive dealt with a conservative group (car dealers) it was very important

19 (43)

that such partnership and collaboration existed. One of the major efforts made by the consortium to mount the challenges posed was the contacting and inviting of 500 car dealers. This worked well and has resulted in 102 car dealers being trained in Clean Car Technology and related marketing implications. The Campaigns have not only impacted 900,000 people but they leave good example by which the car dealers can benefit in the future. Car dealers are tough target group to deal with but on the other hand they are a very important part of the value chain and so need to be involved in the process. Clean Drive Action took this challenge to involve, educate and support this group. This has not been easy, but on the other hand it is not easy to reduce emissions in a car dependent world.

6 Revised Model The revised model for Clean Drive is the subject of Deliverable 6.4 and will focus on alternative target groups for actions similar to those in Clean Drive. As defined in the World Cafe workshop demonstration type projects together with case study examples are of great benefit. Engaging appropriate national stakeholders in such projects is of paramount importance as the impact many issues which can deter or even motivate the public to purchase.

20 (43)

Appendices Appendix I - Deliverable(s) taken from Annex I

D6.1 Guidelines for evaluation (including check-list) Month 5

D6.2

Training material for SUMO – The SUMO-model has different evaluation levels and will be adapted for the tasks and content of the Clean Drive Action. This deliverable is the training material (read power point slides, which will be used and presented at the training session at the second consortium meeting).

Month 10

D6.3 Evaluation report Month 36

D6.4 Improved Clean Drive Campaign working model for dissemination all over Europe

Month 36

Appendix II - Distribution of the tasks to each partner taken from Annex I

Partner organisation Task(s) for this partner organisation Related to Task N°

TEA (wp leader) The work package leader will provide drafts for the questionnaires for the survey and collect all relevant project data. He will coordinate the evaluation activities and prepare the summary for the evaluation. The WP-leader will train all partners in SUMO-evaluation.

1-4

ESS/Coordinator Will support the WP-leader to find an effective evaluation process of the project

1

WP leaders WP leaders will provide information from all actors collected during the project time.

3-4

All partners All partners will have to survey their local actors and provide information for the reports. Participate in training about the SUMO-Tool

2-3

21 (43)

Appendix III - List of indicators to be evaluated in the action taken from Annex I WP1

- Number of Consortium meetings - Number of participants at consortium meetings - How the Consortium has solved different problems

WP2 - Number of Local Action Groups (LAG’s) established - Number of car dealers informed to participate in Clean Drive (LAG) - Number of car dealers satisfied with the information about the project (LAG) - Number of car dealers that choose to participate (LAG) - Number of meetings in the LAG’s - Number of implemented Action plans - The satisfaction of the meetings from participating partners - A developed current analysis-method - Current analysis results

WP3 - Number of national actors informed to participate in Clean Drive (National

group) - Number of national actors satisfied with the information about the project

(National group) - Number of national actors that choose to participate (National group) - Number of actors in each network and in total, - Number of national meetings, - Participants at national meetings, - Number of international meetings, - Participants at international meetings, - How satisfied are the network-actors in participating in the Clean Drive

project (80%)

22 (43)

WP4 - Number of car dealers/actors/persons that participate in the training - Number of car dealers/actors/persons satisfied with the structure and content

in the training (80 % of the total of participants) - Number of car dealers/actors/persons that successfully pass the certification

level of the training (80 % of the total of participants – or at least 300 in total). - Number of trained tutors - Number of downloads of training and information materials (quantitative), - Number of downloads from different organizations (qualitative)

WP 5

- Number of campaigns (common and individually) - Number of participants (potential customers to purchase cleaner vehicles) - Number of satisfied participants (with campaign information) - Number of participants that will test any campaign offer like test driving, Eco

driving, interest to implement the Clean Drive Action Model etc. - Number of participants who have found the offer satisfying - Increased interest of cleaner vehicles (questions and communication

customer/salesmen) - Increased number of affairs with more energy efficient / cleaner vehicles

compared to the vehicles that been bought earlier. - Number of implemented campaign-plans -

The campaign activities will be monitored and followed up by the car dealers with help and instructions from the Clean Drive partners. The different campaigns implemented in the participating countries will be evaluated and the best practices/good examples will be described in terms of how they were planned, implemented and what they resulted in. These descriptions will be collected in a guidebook / guidelines for effective campaign activities which will be discussed and disseminated to all participating group-members. WP6

- Number of actors in Local Action Groups that are satisfied with the support from the Clean Drive partners (80%) and the effects of the participation in the project (80%)

- The effect of the Clean Drive Action Model – how it has been working in all countries, similarities & differences, success stories and pit falls etc. (a contributed and well working Action Model possible to disseminate to all Europe)

- The overall system effects of the campaigns and the Action plans o Reduced CO2-emissions from new sold cars o Energysavings o Number sold vehicles under 120 g/km

WP 7 - Number of dissemination activities - Number of clip, reporting in the media - Number of newsletters - Number of receivers for the newsletter

WP 8 - Number of meetings and dissemination activities

23 (43)

Appendix IV – SUMO WP1 Summary in January 2013

ESS RED BSU

CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

TARGET

WORK PACKAGE 1 SUMO Work Package 1: Number of Consortium meetings

5 (2 tele)

5 (2 tele)

5 (2 tele)

5 (2 tele)

5 (2 tele)

5 (2 tele)

5 (2 tele)

5 (2 tele)

5 (2 tele)

5 (2 tele)

5 (5)

SUMO Work Package 1: Cumulative Number of Participants at Consortium meetings

8 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 65 (60)

24 (43)

Appendix V – SUMO WP2 Summary in January 2013

WORK PACKAGE 2 ESS RED BSU CRES PRIO GI

ZRMK RMS TEA ALESA SWEA TOTAL

(TARGET) SUMO Work Package 2: Number of LAGs

16 21 7 6 7 17 11 8 9 102 (100)

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of Car Dealers Informed to Participate

23 150 30 180 25 38 32 22 30 530

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of Car Dealers Satisfied with Info

19 23 25 90 15 18 15 19 30 254

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of Car Dealers that Choose to Participate

16 21 7 6 7 17 11 8 9 102 (100)

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of meetings in the LAGs

5 4 (together with NSN meetings)

7 + 3 together with NSN

4 2 13 12 16 9 75 (20 + 30 = 50)

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of Implemented Action Plans (LAG-members involved)

16 9 (representing 21 car dealers)

2 5 13 20 yearly plans

11 8 9 105

SUMO Work Package 2: Satisfaction of LAGs with meetings

16 4 6 4 5 9 11 8 9 72

SUMO Work Package 2: A developed current analysis-method

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

25 (43)

Appendix VI – SUMO WP3 Summary in January 2013

ESS RED BSU

CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

TARGET

WORK PACKAGE 3 ESS RED BS

U CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

TARGET

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of national actors satisfied with the info about the project

44 24 16 38 17 25 12 13 14 203

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of National actors that choose to participate

19 19 10 9 7 14 11 9 14 112 (90)

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of national meetings

3 3 3 4 3 6 3 3 2 30 (27)

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of participants at national meetings

66 40 15 16 21 30 47 15 13 263

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of international meetings

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 (2)

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of participants at international meetings

14+48

14+48 14+48

14+48

14+48 14+48

14+48

14+48 14+48 14+48

26 (43)

Appendix VII – SUMO WP4 Summary in January 2013

ESS RED BSU

CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

TARGET


U CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

TARGET

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of car dealers etc. that participate in training

50 ind. from 16 LAG members









210ind. (target -300) from 90 LAG members (target – 100)

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of car dealers etc. satisfied with the structure and content of training

100%

100% 100%

80% 90% 90% 90%

80% 100%

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of car dealers etc. that successfully pass or receive certification of training

50 23 9 6 22 29

20 20 31 210 (target – 300)

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of trained tutors

2 4 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 22 (20)

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of registered users of training and information materials outside project partners and administrators

53 19

21 6 2 24 20 20 35 200 (100)

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of registered users from different organisations outside project partners, administrators and LAG members

1 (+1000 car salesmen = 500 car dealer)

9

4 2 0 7 3 4 17 47/547 (100)

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of downloads from project website

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of downloads from e-learning web-tool

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

27 (43)

Appendix VIII – SUMO WP5 Summary in January 2013


U CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA ALESA

SWEA

TARGET

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of common campaigns

22 4 15 16 6 4 6 3 5 81 (30)

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of individual campaigns

43 80 5 27 38

33 12 24 43 305 (300)

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of participants at common campaigns

16 725

1150 251 274

1100 865 50 3 825 624 000

40 899 029

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of satisfied participants

6 255

159 251 274

520 815 No info

800 No info

No info

259 823

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of participants that will test any campaign offer

2 130

159

No info

200 665 No info

No info

No info

No info

3154

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of participants that have found the offer satisfying (all who tested any campaign has found it satisfying)

2 130

No info No info

200 665 No info

No info

No info

No info

2 995

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of participants at individual campaigns

15 260

5334 500 3 452

14 500

9 524

2 743 18 940

2 242 72 495


3 820

3189 500 792 1300 1 484

2 243 15 760

442 29 117


800 359 No info

700 770 1 243

1791 8 605

257 14 525

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of participants that have found the offer satisfying

800 359 No info

700 770 1 243

1791 8 605

257 14 525

SUMO Work Package 5: Increased interest in cleaner vehicles

a) a) a) a) a) a) a) 100%

a) a)

SUMO Work Package 5: Increased business in cleaner vehicles this is hard to estimate (indicated potentially sold cars by car dealers. Add information from the result in decreased CO2-emissions and increased number/share of cars under 120 g/km in WP2)

b) 3

b) 344

b) 0

b) 0

b) 23

b) 108

b) 13

b) 491

b) 266

1 248

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of implemented campaign plans

1 common and 16 indi

17 individual

5 common and 5 individual

2 common and 4 indiv


1 common and 10 individu


1 common and 8 indi

1 common and 11 indivi


28 (43)

vidual

idual al vidual

dual

Appendix IX – SUMO WP6 Summary in January 2013

ESS RED BSU CRES PRIO GI ZRMK

RMS TEA ALESA SWEA TARGET

SUMO Work Package 6: Number of LAGs happy with support of Clean Drive partners

16 17 7 6 7 17 11 8 9 98

SUMO Work Package 6: Overall system effects – reduced CO2 emissions (gCO2/km)

29.3g 27,4g 16,1g 17,1g 24,1g 18,0g 11,3g 11,3g

21,2g

SUMO Work Package 6: Overall system effects – CO2 savings (tonnes)

2891 803 1023 1284 2356 306 891 238 10 226

SUMO Work Package 6: Overall system effects – energy savings (GWh/toe)

11,1 954

3,1 265

3,9 338

4,9 424

9,0 778

1,2 101

3,4 294

0,9 79

39,3 3376

SUMO Work Package 6: Overall system effects – share sold vehicles < 120g/km 212 vs 2009 (increase)

42,0 vs 15,0 (280%)

16,0 vs 2,7 (586%)

36,9 vs 12,1 (306%)

28,8 vs 7,2 (400%)

11,4 vs 1,3 (862%)

57,0 vs 12,0 (475%)

33,8 vs 20,4 (165%)

40,0 vs 22,5 (178%)

33,2 vs 11,6 (286%)

29 (43)

Appendix X – SUMO WP 7 Summary in January 2013

ESS RED BSU

CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

TARGET


U CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

TARGET

SUMO Work Package 7: Number of dissemination activities (pressreleases, D7.3)

15 5 4 7 10 5 6 19 5 6 82 (90)

SUMO Work Package 7: Number of clips, reporting in media (D7.4)

27 7 6 5 6 10 10 16 9 26 122 (27)

SUMO Work Package 7: Number of WP-leader dissemination activities (D7.5)

10 2 3 2 1 7 2 3 30 (7)

SUMO Work Package 7: Number of newsletters

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 (6)

SUMO Work Package 7: Number of receivers for each newsletter

1200

44 173 50 50 120 90 2000 120 3847 (1000)

Appendix XI – SUMO WP8 Summary in January 2013

ESS RED BSU

CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

TARGET


U CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

TARGET

SUMO Work Package 8: Number of meetings and dissemination activities

2-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 (43)

Appendix XII Attendee list at workshop

31 (43)

32 (43)

Appendix XIII Downloads from the Clean Drive project over 36 months; country by country

Germany Latvia England France Italy Ireland Sweden Slovenia Greece Europe Total

2011 920 937 306 379 374 255 283 284 338 3222 7298

2012 664 619 604 373 371 350 342 362 288 4726 8499

2013 309 263 250 185 171 173 149 158 161 3574 5393

Total 1893 1819 1160 937 916 778 774 804 787 11522 21190

33 (43)

Appendix XIV SUMO Template

34 (43)

35 (43)

36 (43)

37 (43)

Appendix XV Summary Evaluation Guide used for SUMO data Collation

Evaluation Guideline Checklist Each partner fills out the SUMO template for each Work Package. For example, TEA has started completing the SUMO for WP2 and this is illustrated in the Power Point Training File. The TEA then fills in this checklist so that comparisons can be made, gaps highlighted etc.

ESS RED BSU

CRES

PRIO

GI ZRMK

RMS

TEA

ALESA

SWEA

WORK PACKAGE 1 SUMO Work Package 1: Number of Consortium meetings

SUMO Work Package 1: Number of Participants at Consortium meetings

WORK PACKAGE 2 SUMO Work Package 2: Number of LAGs

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of Car Dealers Informed to Participate

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of Car Dealers Satisfied with Info

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of Car Dealers that Choose to Participate

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of meetings in the LAGs

SUMO Work Package 2: Number of Implemented Action Plans

SUMO Work Package 2: Satisfaction of LAGs with meetings

SUMO Work Package 2: A developed current analysis-method

38 (43)

WORK PACKAGE 3 SUMO Work Package 3: Number of national actors satisfied with the info about the project

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of National actors that choose to participate

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of national meetings

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of participants at national meetings

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of international meetings

SUMO Work Package 3: Number of participants at international meetings

WORK PACKAGE 4 SUMO Work Package 4: Number of car dealers etc. that participate in training

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of car dealers etc. satisfied with the structure and content of training

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of car dealers etc. that successfully pass the certification level of training

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of trained tutors

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of downloads of training and information materials

SUMO Work Package 4: Number of downloads from different organisations

39 (43)

WORK PACKAGE 5 SUMO Work Package 5: Number of common campaigns

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of individual campaigns

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of participants at common campaigns

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of participants at individual campaigns



SUMO Work Package 5: Number of participants that have found the offer satisfying

SUMO Work Package 5: Increased interest in cleaner vehicles

SUMO Work Package 5: Increased business in cleaner vehicles

SUMO Work Package 5: Number of implemented campaign plans

WORK PACKAGE 6 SUMO Work Package 6: Number of LAGs happy with support of Clean Drive partners

SUMO Work Package 6: The effect of Clean Drive model

SUMO Work Package 6: Overall system effects – reduced CO2 emissions

SUMO Work Package 6: Overall system effects – energy savings

SUMO Work Package 6: Overall system effects – number sold vehicles < 120g/km

40 (43)

WORK PACKAGE 7 SUMO Work Package 7: Number of dissemination activities

SUMO Work Package 7: Number of clips, reporting in media

SUMO Work Package 7: Number of newsletters

SUMO Work Package 7: Number of receivers of newsletter

WORK PACKAGE 8 SUMO Work Package 8: Number of meetings and dissemination activities

41 (43)

Appendix XVI – CO2- and energy savings CO2-‐ and energy savings

2009 2010 2011 2012 CO2-‐savings 2012 vs 2009 g/km

CO2-‐savings ton CO2 (15000 km/sold car)

Energy saving -‐ GWh

Energy saving in ktoe

France* Germany 168,9 168,2 163,6 141,5 27,4 803 3,1 265 Greece 143,1 129,7 127,0 16,1 1023 3,9 338 Irland 140,0 135,0 128,0 122,0 18,0 306 1,2 101 Italy 149,9 135,8 147,6 138,6 11,3 891 3,4 294 Latvia 181,1 168,9 157,9 157,0 24,1 2356 9,0 778 Sweden 166,6 153,4 143,0 137,3 29,3 2891 11,1 954 Slovenia 154,2 146,9 142,3 137,1 17,1 1284 4,9 424 UK 147,7 143,0 142,0 136,4 11,3 238 0,9 79 Total 158,3 149,3 144,3 137,1 21,2 10226 39,3 3376 *Only two LAG members

Appendix XVII – Percentage cars sold <120 g CO2/km Change in percentage share of cars sold <120gCO2/km 2009-2012.

Percentage cars sold < 120 CO2

2009 2010 2011 2012 France - 38 38 - Germany 2.7 2.6 4.2 16,0 Greece - 12,1 32,5 36,9 Ireland 12,0 38,0 44,0 57,0 Italy 20.4 28.4 30,0 33.8 Latvia 1.3 5.8 6.2 11.4 Sweden 15,0 23.9 32.5 42,0 Slovenia 7.2 16.2 15.7 28.8

UK 22.5 28.8 30.4 40,0

Total 11,6 21,5 25,9 33,2

42 (43)

Appendix XVIII – Decrease CO2-emissions in g/km and tonnes Decrease: Average CO2 -‐ Emissions

2009 2010 2011 2012

Decrease 2012 vs 2009 g/km

Decreased ton CO2 (15000 km/sold car)

France* Germany 168,9 168,2 163,6 141,5 27,4 803 Greece 143,1 129,7 127,0 16,1 1023 Irland 140,0 135,0 128,0 122,0 18,0 306 Italy 149,9 135,8 147,6 138,6 11,3 891 Latvia 181,1 168,9 157,9 157,0 24,1 2356 Sweden 166,6 153,4 143,0 137,3 29,3 2891 Slovenia 154,2 146,9 142,3 137,1 17,1 1284 UK 147,7 143,0 142,0 136,4 11,3 238 Total 158,3 149,3 144,3 137,1 21,2 10226 *Only two LAG members

43 (43)

Appendix XIX – Number of sold cars by participating LAG-members

Number of cars represented in the statistics -‐ sold new cars by particpating

LAG members

2009 2010 2011 2012 France* 167 184 Germany 1400 1716 1772 1951 Greece 13282 17985 4251 Irland 792 1462 1561 1133 Italy 10199 9372 7582 5268 Latvia 2667 3663 6232 6509 Sweden 5771 7794 8003 6578 Slovenia 5890 6365 6032 5006 UK 1380 1413 1324 1402 Total 28099 45234 50675 32098 *Only two LAG members The sold cars in 2012 means ca 320 cars per LAG-‐member in average (102 LAG-‐members)

d6.3 evaluation report final...2 (43) content! 1! introduction+.....+4! 1.1! tasks+.....+4! 2!...

Documents