environment final report work package...

Environment

Final Report

Work Package 6 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes

2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF)

March 2016

Authors: COWI, Milieu and CSIL

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy

Directorate B - Policy Unit B.2 Evaluation and European Semester

Contact: Annette Mengel

E-mail: [email protected]

European Commission B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy

2016 EN

Environment

Final report

Work Package 6

Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes

2007-2013 Co-Financed by the ERDF/CF.

Contract: 2014CE16BAT043

Birgitte Martens, Tony Zamparutti, Agnieszka Markowska, Lars Grue Jensen, Michael Jacobsen, Davide Sartori

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016

ISBN 978-92-79-58518-0 doi: 10.2776/973044

European Union, 2016

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1

Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2007-2013

______________________________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

List of tables and figures 1

List of abbreviations 3

Member states 4

Glossary 5

Executive summary 8

Rsum 16

Kurzfassung 25

1 Introduction 33

1.1 The evaluation study 33

1.2 The final report 35

2 Methodology 37

2.1 Task 1 37

2.2 Task 2 41

2.3 Task 3 46

2.4 Task 4 46

2.5 Task 5 47

2.6 Task 6 47

2.7 Task 7 47

2.8 Limitations, weaknesses and methodological lessons learned 48

Part 1 Overview of contribution of Cohesion Policy to EU environmental

policy objectives 51

3 Introduction and overview of Cohesion Policy investment for the

environment 52

3.1 Overview of Cohesion Policy investments for the environment 52


______________________________________________________________________________________

4 Role of Cohesion Policy in the waste sector 57

4.1 Overview of EU objectives and Member State achievements in waste

management 57

4.2 Cohesion Policy resources and expenditures 60

4.3 Review of selected Operational Programmes and major projects 65

4.4 The role of Cohesion Policy 78

5 Role of Cohesion Policy in the water sector 83

5.1 Overview of EU objectives and Member State achievements in water

management 83

5.2 Cohesion Policy resources and expenditures 86

5.3 Review of selected Operational Programmes and major projects 90

5.4 Role of Cohesion Policy 104

6 Common issues and concluding notes regarding the contribution of

Cohesion Policy 109

6.1 Data availability 110

6.2 Administrative capacity 112

6.3 Financial sustainability 113

6.4 Linking different funding sources as well as other policy instruments 114

Part 2 Overview of the quality and use of financial analysis 115

7 Introduction to Part 2 116

7.1 Financial analysis and financial sustainability 116

8 Quality of financial analyses 119

8.1 Demand forecast 119

8.2 Affordability and tariff setting 122

8.3 Project implementation budget and time 126

8.4 Project operation budget 129

8.5 Risk and sensitivity analysis 130

9 Conclusions 131

Part 3 Catalogue of challenges 136

10 Introduction 137

10.1 The catalogue of challenges purpose, scope and methodology 137

10.2 Structure of the catalogue 139


______________________________________________________________________________________

11 Issues in relation to financial sustainability and what to do about it 140

11.1 Problem 1: Project versus company approach for financial

sustainability 140

11.2 Problem 2: EU grant calculation (dis)incentives 144

11.3 Problem 3: Lack of a financially strong and technically competent

contractor 145

11.4 Problem 4: Non-involvement of the Beneficiary in project design 148

11.5 Problem 5: Overestimation of demand for water services 149

11.6 Problem 6: Overestimation of demand for waste management

services 151

11.7 Problem 7: Cash flow management for 'major projects' 153

11.8 Problem 8: Optimism bias with regard to length of implementation

period 154

11.9 Problem 9: Affordability is average household incomes a good

indicator? 157

11.10 Problem 10: Exceeding the affordability thresholds and a price

subsidy mechanism 159

11.11 Problem 11: Tariffs are not increased as per plans in the Application 161

Part 4 Policy implications 163

12 Policy implications 164

References 168


______________________________________________________________________________________

List of tables and figures

Table 2-1 List of 20 selected projects (for projects selected for detailed

case studies both actual and planned values (in brackets) are

indicated.) 42

Table 3-1 Priority themes for the area of environment in the 2007-2013

programming period 52

Table 3-2 Operational Programme decided amounts for environment

compared to all sectors, 2007-2013 programming period

(status in 2014), EUR million 53

Table 3-3 Total Operational Programme decided amounts for waste and

water themes, 2007-2013 programming period, status in 2014

(million EUR) 55

Table 4-1 Cohesion Policy investments in waste management:

Operational Programmes decided amounts and expenditures,

2007-2013 programming period (EUR million, cumulative

through 2014) 61

Table 4-2 Annual average Cohesion Policy expenditures and EIB loans in

the waste sector compared with annual average general

government expenditure, 2007-2013 (EUR million) 64

Table 4-3 Number of waste projects: targets and achievements, per MS,

2013 66

Table 4-4 Estonias Programme-specific indicators for waste

management 68

Table 4-5 Campania (Italy): Programme-specific indicators for waste

management 70

Table 4-6 Polands Programme-specific indicator for waste management 71

Table 4-7 Slovenias Programme-specific indicators for waste

management 74

Table 4-8 Separate waste collection in Andalusia, 2006-2010, in metric

tonnes 76

Table 4-9 Three waste management projects studied as case studies 77

Table 4-10 Overview of the role of Cohesion Policy for the waste sector in

the six Operational Programmes considered 82

Table 5-1 Progress in meeting UWWT Directive requirements (Articles 3,

4 and 5): 2007 compared to 2013 levels 85

Table 5-2 Cohesion Policy investments in the water sector: Operational

Programmes decided amounts and expenditures, 2007-2013

programming period (EUR million, cumulative through 2014) 87

Table 5-3 Cohesion Policy expenditures and loans in the water sector

compared with general government expenditure (gross fixed

capital formation plus capital transfers), 2007-2013 yearly

average (EUR million) 89


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

2

Table 5-4 Cohesion Policy core indicator: Additional population served by

drinking water supply projects: targets and achievements, per

Member State, cumulative 2007-2013 90

Table 5-5 Cohesion Policy core indicator: Additional population served by

waste water projects: targets and achievements, per Member

State, cumulative 2007 to 2013 91

Table 5-6 Bulgarias Programme-specific indicators for the water sector 92

Table 5-7 Estonias Programme-specific indicators for the water sector 95

Table 5-8 Campania, Italy: Programme-specific indicators for the water

sector 97

Table 5-9 Slovenias programme-specific indicators for the water sector 101

Table 5-10 Overview of the role of Cohesion Policy for the water sector in

the six Operational Programmes considered 107

Table 7-1 Polluter pays and cost recovery principles in key

environmental Directives 118

Figure 2-1 Map of reviewed operational programmes and case studies 48

Figure 3-1 Operational Programmes decided amounts for environment per

capita, 2007-2013 programming period, status in 2014 (EUR) 54

Figure 4-1 Municipal solid waste recycled (as a share of all the municipal

solid waste treated), 2007 and 2013 59

Figure 4-2 Changes in Operational Programme decided amounts for the

waste sector: 2007 compared to 2014 63

Figure 4-3 Operational Programmes expenditures rates for the waste and

water sectors as compared to transport and across all axes,

2007-2013 programming period (EUR) 80

Figure 5-1 Rate of compliance of MS agglomerations with Article 3 (waste

water collection) of the UWWT Directive in terms of

percentage of the load subject to the requirement 84

Figure 5-2 Changes in Operational Programmes decided amounts for the

water sector: 2007 compared to 2014 88


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

3

List of abbreviations

Art. Article

AIR Annual Implementation Report

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

BWD Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC)

CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis

CF Cohesion Fund

CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

COFOG Classification of the Functions of Government

DG Directorate General

DG REGIO Directorate General Regional and Urban Policy

DWD Drinking Water Directive

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

EEA European Environment Agency

EIB European Investment Bank

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

EU European Union

EUR Euro

GES Good Ecological Status

IFI International Financing Institutions

JASPERS Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions

MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment

MS Member State

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

O&M Operating and Maintenance

OP Operational Programme

OPIE Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment (in Poland)

p.e. Population equivalent

PPP Public private partnership

TSS Total Suspended Solids

UWWTD Urban wastewater Directive (91/271/EEC as amended)

WFD Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

WMP Waste Management Plan

WP Work package


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

4

Member states

AT Austria

BE Belgium

BG Bulgaria

CY Cyprus

CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany

DK Denmark

EE Estonia

EL Greece

ES Spain

FI Finland

FR France

HR Croatia

HU Hungary

IE Ireland

IT Italy

LT Lithuania

LU Luxembourg

LV Latvia

MT Malta

NL Netherlands

PL Poland

PT Portugal

RO Romania

SE Sweden

SI Slovenia

SK Slovakia

UK United Kingdom


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

5

Glossary

Beneficiaries

According to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006,

beneficiary is an operator, body or firm, whether public or

private, responsible for initiating or initiating and implementing

operations. In the context of aid schemes under Article 87 of

the Treaty, beneficiaries are public or private firms carrying out

an individual project and receiving public aid.

Core indicators Common minimum core indicators (core indicators) are

physical and financial indicators, which can be used to make

comparisons or aggregations of data across similar

programmes. The Commission proposed the following indicators

for the priority themes related to waste and water

management: Number of waste projects (indicator No. 27),

Additional population served by water projects (indicator No.

25), and Additional population served by waste water projects

(indicator No. 26) (source: EC, 2006).

Programme-specific

indicators

Indicators that are additional to the core indicators and may be

reported by Managing Authorities individually for the

Operational Programme to reflect its main interventions.

Decided amounts

Amounts of funding allocated in Operational Programmes

according to Priority Axes. Cohesion Policy gives Member States

the opportunity to reallocate and re-programme funds within

and across priority axes. Member States have to obtain the

agreement of the Commission if they want to shift the allocation

between priority axes or modify the composition of these.

Expenditures EU funds paid or due to be paid to beneficiaries before end of

the year. More details about expenditures can be found in

Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

EU15 The EU15 is comprised of: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,

France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the

Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

EU13 The EU13 is comprised of the Member States joining the EU in

2004 or later: Cyprus, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia,

Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia

(2004 accession); Bulgaria and Romania (2008); and Croatia

(2013).

Full cost recovery

Full cost recovery through tariffs entails that the tariffs should

be sufficient to cover all the direct economic and financial costs

of supplying the service, including the capital costs of replacing


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

6

and expanding the infrastructure, and ultimately the scarcity

value of natural resources affected and externality costs as well.

(source: OECD, 2009).

This principle is evoked by the EU Water Framework Directive

and the EU Waste Framework Directive, which require Member

States to take account of the principle.

Implementing

body/intermediate

body


intermediate body is any public or private body or service

which acts under the responsibility of a managing or certifying

authority, or which carries out duties on behalf of such an

authority vis--vis beneficiaries implementing operations.

Major projects Large-scale infrastructure projects concerning transport,

environment and other sectors energy, research and ICT. Major

Projects benefit from financial support from the European

Regional Development Fund and/or the Cohesion Fund. Their

eligible cost must be more than 75 million for projects under

thematic objective 7 ("Promoting sustainable transport and

removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructure") and more

than 50 million in other thematic objectives and therefore are

subject to the quality appraisal by the European Commission

(source: InfoRegio, 2015).

Managing Authority According to Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006,

Managing Authority is a national, regional or local public

authority or a public or private body designated by the Member

State to manage the operational programme.

Population equivalent

(p.e.)

1 p.e. (population equivalent) means the organic biodegradable

load having a five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of

60 g of oxygen per day.

Polluter Pays Principle The Polluter-Pays Principle was adopted by OECD in 1972 as an

economic principle for allocating the costs of pollution control.

Under the 1972 and 1974 OECD Recommendations, the

Polluter-Pays Principle means that the polluter should bear the

"costs of pollution prevention and control measures", the latter

being "measures decided by public authorities to ensure that

the environment is in an acceptable state". In other words the

polluter has to bear the cost of steps that he is legally bound to

take to protect the environment, such as measures to reduce

the pollutant emissions at source and measures to avoid

pollution by collective treatment of effluent from a polluting

installation and other sources of pollution. (source: OECD,

1981)

Work Package 0

(WP0)

Ex-post evaluation work package on data collection and quality

assessment of (core) indicator data reported by the managing


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

7

authorities.

Work Package 13

(WP13)

Ex-post evaluation work package on geography of expenditure

focusing on gathering data on allocations to selected projects

and expenditures by Member States and regions and by priority

theme.

Priority theme Priority themes are categories of expenditure listed in Annex IV

of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 with specific codes. According

to Article 9(3) of this Regulation, the assistance co-financed by

the Funds shall target the European Union priorities that are

reflected in these categories.

Priority Axis According to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, priority

axis is one of the priorities of the strategy in an operational

programme comprising a group of operations which are related

and have specific measurable goals.

Annual

Implementation

Report (AIR)

The reports on the progress made in implementing the

operational programme and priority axes which the Managing

Authorities are obliged to send to the Commission by 30 June

each year (Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 provides

more details on contents of these reports).

Operational

Programme (OP)


Operational Programme is a document submitted by a Member

State and adopted by the Commission setting out a

development strategy with a coherent set of priorities to be

carried out with the aid of a Fund, or, in the case of the

Convergence objective, with the aid of the Cohesion Fund and

the ERDF.


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

8

Executive summary

The project 'Ex post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2007-2013 Co-

Financed by the ERDF/CF, Work Package 6' was one out of a number of work packages

included in the ex post evaluation organised by DG Regional and Urban Policy.

The evaluation analysed the progress and achievements of Cohesion Policy in selected

areas of environmental infrastructure: drinking water, wastewater treatment, and

solid waste management. Due to the nature of the projects supported, it is difficult in

practice to distinguish between water and wastewater projects and so these were

combined in the analysis. This report therefore presents results of the evaluation for

two major policy areas: waste management and water.

Four main questions guided the evaluation:

1 To what extent has Cohesion Policy funding contributed to Member States'

implementation of EU environmental directives?

2 To what extent are investment projects co-funded by Cohesion Policy funding

financially sustainable?

3 What has been the quality of financial analysis (including demand analysis)

undertaken as part of the preparation of major projects on water and waste

management?

4 What are the most common problems encountered in financial analysis and

what could be done to avoid these problems?

In order to answer the questions, the evaluation used an approach combining a broad

review of the portfolio of projects and operational programmes for water and waste

management with a more detailed and deeper analysis of a limited number of selected

major projects.

The broad, horizontal analysis focused on assessing the role of Cohesion Policy co-

funded investments in achieving key water and waste targets. This was undertaken

through a review of trends in the two sectors, an analysis of the importance of

Cohesion Policy funding in relation to public spending in general and an overview of

the achievements of Cohesion Policy projects as shown by core indicators. As the

evaluation was carried out in 2015, not all Cohesion Policy expenditure had been

completed and not all projects were operational. Further, the latest available financial

data covered Operational Programme decided amounts and expenditure through 2014

(as per Regulation 1083/2006, the last year of expenditure is 2015). Consequently,

the evaluation does not present the final results of the 2007-2013 programming

period as these are not yet available.


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

9

An analysis of six selected Operational Programmes elicited additional findings on the

contribution of Cohesion Policy to environmental improvement. The six Operational

Programmes were in: Bulgaria, Estonia, Italy (Campania regional programme),

Poland, Slovenia and Spain (Andalusia regional programme).

At the project level, the evaluation comprised a desk study of the quality of the

financial analysis for 20 selected major projects and in-depth case studies of 10 of

these projects. The selection favoured operational projects in order to enable ex-post

assessment of the financial analysis and financial sustainability as well as project

outcomes. Other selection criteria included geographical balance as well as the mix of

water and waste management projects. Through interviews with managing authorities

and implementing bodies, the ten case studies examined implementation issues and

provided a wider, contextual understanding of the financial analysis and sought to

identify any problems in this respect.

A seminar with participation from the Member States, the Commission Services and

other key stakeholders discussed the results, providing further insight into the issues

and possible policy recommendations.

The main findings of the evaluation in relation to the four guiding questions were:

1. To what extent has Cohesion Policy funding contributed to Member States'

implementation of EU environmental directives?

Ensuring the long-term sustainability of Europe's natural resources and protecting

human health are the main objectives of EU environmental legislation. Cohesion Policy

is an important source of finance for environmental investments in the EU. In total,

just over EUR 46.5 billion were foreseen for the environment in the period 2007-2013.

Environment took the second-largest share among the 15 Cohesion Policy broad policy

areas for which spending is tracked, exceeded only by transport. Decided amounts for

water represented the largest share, 46.5%, of all decided amounts for the

environment. Waste management accounted for 12.0%. The total decided amount for

the two areas was EUR 27.3 billion, with two-thirds of this located in the EU13. Three

countries with large populations accounted for 46% of all the resources for the two

broad areas: Poland, Spain and Romania. Almost 90% of resources go to convergence

regions.

In the case of water, at the start of the programming period many Member States

across Europe needed to make major investments to improve drinking water and to

ensure collection and treatment of waste water in order to meet EU standards. The

greatest investment needs were seen in the EU13 and southern EU15 Member States.

Cohesion Policy funding amounting to EUR 21.8 billion was used for this. In several

Member States, including Bulgaria and Slovenia, Cohesion Policy represented the

majority of funding for improvements. In other Member States that needed to make

large investments in this regard, Cohesion Policy was one of the leading sources of

funding, along with co-financing from EIB loans and domestic resources. Projects

supported by the Operational Programmes and completed by the end of 2013 had


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

10

improved drinking water supply for at least 4 million EU citizens, and ensured better

wastewater treatment for over 7 million. Between 2007 and 2013, a broad range of

Member States, in particular in the EU13 and southern Europe, succeeded in

complying more closely with the EUs Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. This

included the Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Hungary, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia and

Slovakia (for some other Member States, comparable data were not available;

complete data for 2013 will be available in the first half of 2016). The qualitative

overview of the six Operational Programmes indicated above highlighted the large

share of resources devoted to the water sector and the important role of Cohesion

Policy compared to other funding sources. Results in terms of progress to EU targets

were fairly clear in Estonia, Poland and Slovenia.

In respect to waste management, the situation in 2007 was similar to that in the

water sector: major investments were necessary to implement EU requirements and

meet targets and the largest investment needs were seen in EU13 and southern EU15

Member States. Cohesion Policy provided nearly EUR 5.6 billion for investments in this

area. In Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia, Cohesion Policy provided the majority of

financing for investments in municipal solid waste management. In other EU13

Member States as well as southern EU15 Member States, Cohesion Policy has been

one of the main sources of public financing, along with domestic resources and co-

financing from EIB loans. Between 2007 and 2013, many of these Member States

have made progress in closing landfills that did not meet EU standards, in increasing

the separate collection of recyclable and biodegradable waste and in building new

waste treatment facilities. The rate of recycling rose in 18 of the Member States that

allocated Cohesion Policy resources to waste management; for six of these Croatia,

Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia it increased by at least 10

percentage points.

In the six Member States and regions whose Operational Programmes were reviewed,

Cohesion Policy funding directly supported key investments to increase recycling and

achieve other targets of EU legislation for the management of municipal solid waste.

Cohesion Policy provided the most important source of financing for these investments

in two Member States, Bulgaria and Slovenia. In Bulgaria, the level of landfilling fell

from 80% to 70% between 2007 and 2013. In Slovenia, recycling nearly doubled from

2007 to 2013 to exceed 40%. Cohesion Policy provided a major source of investment

in two other EU13 Member States: Estonia and Poland. In Poland, for example,

Cohesion Policy funded the construction of regional waste facilities, including

Mechanical Biological Treatment plants and recycling plants, thus contributing to

progress towards EU recycling targets.

The 10 in-depth project case studies found a high degree of coherence between

Operational Programmes and Member States sectoral plans for water and waste

management, a link that should ensure the contribution of Cohesion Policy

investments to the achievement of compliance with EU water and waste requirements.

The rate of expenditure, however, has been a concern in particular for waste

management: up to the end of 2014, several Member States had spent only 55% of


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

11

their decided amounts. The rate of expenditure for water was higher over 70% and

on par with the average for all Cohesion Policy spending; however, the expenditure

rate for transport, the broad area receiving the largest amount of funding, exceeded

80%. Several national officials participating in the work package seminar for

example from Estonia, Hungary and Poland said that they expected the funding for

both waste management and water to be fully spent by the end of 2015. It is not yet

confirmed that this has been achieved. Experience of past programming periods,

however, has shown that projects are completed especially in the last year of eligible

expenditure. It is therefore expected that substantial improvements through 2015 will

be seen. Based on preliminary data for 2015 provided by DG REGIO, improvements

have already been observed in some countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic,

Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia).

One reason for the slow pace of expenditure through the end of 2014 is that, due to

the financial crisis, the cost of many projects turned out to be lower than anticipated,

leaving a surplus budget. Many Operational Programmes have lacked strong pipelines

of potential projects at an advanced stage of preparation and so did not have ready

additional projects for investing more in waste management. At the work package

seminar, Member States participants also cited problems in procurement procedures

as a reason for delays; this is linked in part to a lack of administrative capacity in

municipal authorities for managing large and often technically complex tenders.

Overall, for both water and waste, Cohesion Policy spending has provided crucial

financing to meet EU requirements and targets, in particular in the EU13 and in

southern European Member States. The evaluation nonetheless shows that data on

decided amounts and expenditures need to be supplemented by better data on

achievements. Moreover, it would be valuable to integrate more closely future

evaluations for EU regional policy with assessments of implementation for the water

and waste directives, compliance with which requires major infrastructure investment.

2. To what extent are investment projects co-funded by Cohesion Policy

funding financially sustainable?

Financial sustainability is an important issue for assessing the contribution of Cohesion

Policy to achieving EU environmental targets. One of the important findings of

previous evaluations carried out for the 2000-2006 programming period was that the

financial sustainability of investments in environmental infrastructure was not always

ensured. This could jeopardise the future operation of the services that were supposed

to be delivered and call into question whether Cohesion Policy funding is in fact

helping to meet environmental targets.

The evaluation was based on analysis of 20 projects, out of which only 11 were

operational at the time of analysis and those that were operational had only been so

for relatively short periods of time (all for less than three years). Therefore, it is too

early to make firm judgements on the financial sustainability of the projects. Further,

the sample of projects was too small to be considered representative of the entire

portfolio of major projects with regard to water and waste management (comprising


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

12

189 projects). This being said, the findings of the evaluation are predominantly

positive in respect of financial sustainability:

The financial analysis in the 20 projects reviewed was found to be of reasonable quality and so provided a sound basis for financial sustainability.

Nevertheless, there is still room for further improvement illustrated by the 11

problems identified under evaluation question 4.

The seven operational projects studied as case studies all showed good financial performance and there were no indications that financial

sustainability was likely to be an issue.

3. What has been the quality of financial analysis (including demand

analysis) undertaken as part of the preparation of major projects on water

and waste management?

The project reviews and case studies overall showed that the quality of the financial

analysis was reasonably good. Only a few concrete methodological errors were

identified in the analysis and there were no systematic errors across projects.

However, the review did identify some general quality issues (see question 4 below).

One of the important findings of the previous evaluations of environmental projects in

the 2000-2006 programming period was that there was a lack of capacity for financial

analysis and this was a weakness hampering project implementation. The findings of

the current evaluation suggest that this situation has improved. This was discussed

with stakeholders at the seminar, where the consensus was that there has been an

improvement in the quality of submissions (the quality of documents submitted, the

quality of the financial analysis of the estimates, etc.) especially for projects submitted

later in the 2007-2013 programming period.

4. What are the most common problems encountered in financial analysis and

what could be done to avoid these problems?

The study identified eleven challenges to financial sustainability based on analysis of

the projects, case studies and the conclusions from the seminar. The problems

presented below are common in the sense both that they occur in several of the

projects analysed and that they are found in both waste management and water.

Detailed information can be found in the catalogue of challenges (Part 3 of the report).

It provides practical tips for managing authorities, implementing bodies and project

reviewers and helps overcome the most common problems. The challenges belong to

five main clusters:

Challenges resulting from the implementation of EU directives and regulations: The financial analysis of each of the project reviewed focused

only on the financial sustainability of the project, in line with the EU

guidelines. However, sustainability of services is determined inter alia by the

financial sustainability of the operating company in the with the project


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

13

situation (Problem 1 Project versus company approach to financial

sustainability). The Cost Benefit Analysis guide 2014-2020 has resolved this

by specifically requiring an analysis of sustainability in the with the project

scenario. For Problem 2 EU grant calculation (dis)incentives, it was observed

that the calculation of the financing gap, and so the EU grant, in the

application provides an incentive to keep tariffs low, e.g. not to charge

sufficiently. Costs of asset depreciation, replacement, and cost of financing

are not included; as a result they become difficult to recover creating a

financial sustainability issue.

Issues of capacity, commitment and involvement have major consequences for financial sustainability. In projects with less competent

contractors, delays were typically experienced. This is discussed in Problem 3

Lack of a financially strong and technically competent contractor. A good

practise to mitigate this is a robust tendering process by which the

competence of the bidders as well as their financial strength is taken into

account in the selection procedure. For projects that have been prepared

centrally on behalf of regional governments/beneficiaries, Problem 4 Non-

involvement of the Beneficiary in project design may prolong the

implementation period and give rise to operational difficulties, because the

beneficiaries may not have sufficient ownership of the project and knowledge

of its specific features.

Issues related to assumptions used in project preparation, in particular in relation to demand analysis: The project review showed that the demand

analyses conducted are typically sound, but there are examples of demand for

water being overestimated (Problem 5 overestimation of demand for water

services). When the actual volumes of water consumed or wastewater

requiring treatment are smaller than estimated, the plants will be affected by

inefficiencies due to overcapacity and, potentially, there is a risk to financial

sustainability because of tariff revenues being lower than expected. Clear

references for population forecasts and for demand forecasts to factor in price

elasticities as well as a clear explanation and justification of the return factors

applied could mitigate this. Also waste amounts have been overestimated

(Problem 6 overestimation of demand for solid waste services) leading to

overcapacity that results in inefficient plant operations and unnecessarily high

fixed costs. Systematic analysis of future waste amounts based inter alia on

population, consumption habits and markets for recycled material and

compost and the performance of a check using benchmark data for equivalent

waste producers in similar surroundings would be required to mitigate this

problem.

Consequences for financial sustainability of optimism bias in the planning of infrastructure investments. In Cohesion Policy projects optimism bias

gives rise to implementation delays (Problem 8 Optimism bias with regard to

length of implementation period). Seminar participants noted that in some

cases, the original project proponent would suggest a more realistic schedule


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

14

but at a later stage, Managing Authorities would impose more optimistic

schedules due to the pressure on governments to demonstrate that they are

doing something to counter the crisis as well as the need to abide by the n+2

rule. In addition, some beneficiaries interviewed for the case studies

experienced the process of obtaining final approval for 'major projects' from

the EU Commission to be longer than expected. Many beneficiaries initiated

projects without having final approval from the Commission. In some of these

cases, the optimism bias led to cash flow problems for the beneficiaries, which

delayed project implementation (Problem 7 Cash flow management in major

projects").

Affordability of service levels and financial sustainability are objectives

that are in conflict. Some consequences of this contradiction show up in

Problem 9 Is average household incomes a good indicator? Beneficiaries

generally use average household expenditure relative to average household

disposable income. However, the lack of consideration of income distribution

and local/regional income levels could adversely affect the collection of tariffs

and so harm the financial sustainability of the utility company. In projects

where affordability concerns limit tariff increases to below what is needed for

cost recovery, it was observed that beneficiaries choose lower tariffs assuming

that governments will make good the missing revenue (Problem 10

Exceeding the affordability threshold and a subsidy mechanism). However,

typically, no information is provided on the institutional arrangements to

compensate the operating company for the missing tariff revenue, often

reflecting the fact that no such arrangements as regards securing public

subsidy are in place. Furthermore, the reviewed projects provided plans for

how tariffs should be increased during the project implementation period

typically with a phasing-in period. However, Problem 11 Tariffs are not

increased as per plans in the Application form was observed in some cases.

Typically reasons are given that tariffs cannot be raised prior to provision of

improved services to consumers and consumers perceiving this improvement

in service. In particular in water, if tariffs are kept too low, the water

resources will not be used efficiently, and, in addition, there is a threat to the

financial sustainability of the service. More emphasis should be put on

considering ways of gradually phasing in higher tariffs rather than

implementing sharp increases.

All in all, the study shows that Cohesion Policy has provided a major contribution

to achieving EU water and waste targets, in particular for EU13. Due to

affordability concerns in relation to financing the construction and operation of

major infrastructure for water and waste management, there is and will

continue to be a need for Cohesion Policy co-funding to projects in these areas.

Financial analysis underlying the major projects is of reasonable quality and

provides a sound basis for financial sustainability. Re-allocations and relatively

low rates of expenditure in several Member States, in particular in the waste

sector, raise concerns. Still, some Member States expected that allocated

amounts for both waste management and water would be fully spent by the end

of 2015. Some of the quality issues that were identified for the financial analysis


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

15

of major projects 2007-2013 have already been addressed by the new regulation

and guidelines covering the 2014-2020 period.


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

16

Rsum

Le projet 'valuation ex post des programmes de la politique de cohsion 2007-2013

cofinancs par le FEDER/FC, module de travail 6' tait lun des modules de travail

inclus dans lvaluation ex post organise par la Direction gnrale de la politique

rgionale et urbaine.

Lvaluation a analys les progrs et les rsultats de la politique de cohsion dans

certains domaines de linfrastructure environnementale : leau potable, le traitement

des eaux uses et la gestion des dchets solides. Compte tenu de la nature des

projets soutenus, il est difficile, en pratique, de distinguer les projets de gestion de

leau et des eaux uses; ils ont donc t combins dans lanalyse. Ce rapport prsente

ainsi les rsultats de lvaluation pour deux grands domaines stratgiques: la gestion

des dchets et leau.

Quatre grandes questions ont orient lvaluation:

1 Dans quelle mesure le financement de la politique de cohsion a-t-il contribu

la mise en uvre des directives environnementales de lUE par les Etats

membres?

2 Dans quelle mesure les projets dinvestissement cofinancs par les fonds de la

politique de cohsion sont-ils financirement viables?

3 Quelle a t la qualit de lanalyse financire (y compris lanalyse de la

demande) ralise dans le cadre de la prparation de projets majeurs de

gestion de leau et des dchets?

4 Quels sont les problmes les plus courants rencontrs dans lanalyse

financire et que pourrait-on faire pour les viter?

Afin de rpondre ces questions, lvaluation a utilis une approche associant un

examen gnral du portefeuille de projets et de programmes oprationnels pour la

gestion de leau et des dchets une analyse plus dtaille et approfondie dun certain

nombre de projets majeurs slectionns.

Lanalyse horizontale gnrale a essentiellement consist valuer la contribution des

investissements cofinancs par la politique de cohsion dans la ralisation des

objectifs cls en matire de gestion de leau et des dchets. Cette analyse a t

ralise dans le cadre dun examen des tendances dans les deux secteurs, dune

analyse de limportance des fonds de la politique de cohsion par rapport aux

dpenses publiques en gnral et dune vue densemble des rsultats des projets de la

politique de cohsion selon des indicateurs cls. Lvaluation ayant t ralise en

2015, toutes les dpenses de la politique de cohsion navaient pas t effectues et

tous les projets ntaient pas oprationnels. De plus, les dernires donnes financires


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

17

disponibles couvraient les montants et les dpenses dcids pour les programmes

oprationnels au cours de lanne 2014 (conformment au rglement 1083/2006, la

dernire anne de dpenses est lanne 2015). Par consquent, lvaluation ne

prsente pas les rsultats finaux de la priode de programmation 2007-2013 puisque

ceux-ci ne sont pas encore disponibles.

Une analyse de six programmes oprationnels slectionns a permis dobtenir des

informations supplmentaires sur la contribution de la politique de cohsion

lamlioration de lenvironnement. Les six programmes oprationnels taient situs

en: Bulgarie, Estonie, Italie (programme rgional de Campania), Pologne, Slovnie et

Espagne (programme rgional dAndalousie).

Au niveau des projets, lvaluation a notamment consist en une tude de bureau de

la qualit de lanalyse financire pour 20 projets majeurs slectionns et en des

tudes de cas approfondies pour 10 dentre eux. La slection a privilgi des projets

oprationnels afin de permettre une valuation ex-post de lanalyse financire et de la

viabilit financire, ainsi que des rsultats des projets. Parmi les autres critres de

slection figuraient lquilibre gographique, ainsi que la combinaison de projets de

gestion de leau et des dchets. Dans le cadre dentretiens avec des autorits de

gestion et des organismes dexcution, les dix tudes de cas ont examin les

problmes de mise en uvre, ont permis une apprhension contextuelle plus gnrale

de lanalyse financire et ont tent didentifier dventuels problmes ce niveau.

Un sminaire avec la participation des Etats membres, des services de la Commission

et dautres acteurs cls a examin les rsultats et a approfondi lanalyse des enjeux et

des recommandations stratgiques possibles.

Les principaux rsultats de lvaluation par rapport aux quatre principales questions

ont t les suivants:

1. Dans quelle mesure le financement de la politique de cohsion a-t-il

contribu la mise en uvre des directives environnementales de lUE par

les Etats membres?

Assurer la durabilit long terme des ressources naturelles de lEurope et protger la

sant humaine sont les principaux objectifs de la lgislation environnementale de lUE.

La politique de cohsion est une importante source de financement pour des

investissements environnementaux au sein de lUE. Au total, un peu plus de 46,5

milliards deuros ont t prvus pour lenvironnement au cours de la priode 2007-

2013. Lenvironnement a reprsent la deuxime part la plus importante parmi les 15

grands domaines stratgiques de la politique de cohsion pour lesquels les dpenses

sont suivies, devanc seulement par le transport. Les montants dcids pour leau ont

reprsent la plus grande part, 46,5% de lensemble des montants dcids pour

lenvironnement. La gestion des dchets a reprsent 12,0%. Le montant total dcid

pour les deux domaines sest lev 27,3 milliards deuros, les deux tiers tant situs

dans lUE13. Trois pays trs peupls ont reprsent 46% de lensemble des ressources


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

18

pour les deux grands domaines : la Pologne, lEspagne et la Roumanie. Prs de 90%

des ressources sont destines des rgions de convergence.

Dans le cas de leau, au dbut de la priode de programmation, de nombreux Etats

membres en Europe ont d faire des investissements majeurs pour amliorer leau

potable et assurer la collecte et le traitement des eaux uses afin de respecter les

normes de lUE. Les principaux besoins dinvestissement ont pu tre observs dans

lUE13 et dans les Etats membres du sud de lUE15. Des fonds de la politique de

cohsion slevant 21,8 milliards deuros ont t utiliss ces fins. Dans plusieurs

Etats membres, dont la Bulgarie et la Slovnie, la politique de cohsion a reprsent la

majorit des fonds prvus pour des amliorations. Dans dautres Etats membres o de

grands investissements taient ncessaires dans ce domaine, la politique de cohsion

a t lune des principales sources de financement, avec le co-financement des prts

de la BEI et des ressources nationales. Des projets soutenus par les programmes

oprationnels et mens terme avant la fin de lanne 2013 avaient amlior la

distribution deau potable pour au moins 4 millions de citoyens de lUE et assur un

meilleur traitement des eaux uses pour plus de 7 millions. Entre 2007 et 2013,

plusieurs Etats membres, notamment dans lUE13 et dans le sud de lEurope, sont

parvenus respecter davantage la directive de lUE relative au traitement des eaux

urbaines rsiduaires. Parmi ces Etats membres figuraient la Rpublique tchque,

lEstonie, lEspagne, la Hongrie, la Lettonie, le Portugal, la Slovnie et la Slovaquie

(pour dautres Etats membres, des donnes comparables ntaient pas disponibles ;

les donnes compltes pour 2013 seront disponibles au premier semestre 2016).

Laperu qualitatif des six programmes oprationnels indiqus ci-dessus a soulign la

grande part des ressources destines au secteur de leau et le rle important de la

politique de cohsion par rapport dautres sources de financement. Les rsultats au

niveau de la ralisation des objectifs de lUE ont t assez clairs en Estonie, en

Pologne et en Slovnie.

Concernant la gestion des dchets, la situation en 2007 tait semblable celle du

secteur de leau : des investissements majeurs taient ncessaires pour rpondre aux

exigences de lUE et atteindre les objectifs, et les principaux besoins dinvestissement

pouvaient tre observs dans lUE13 et les Etats membres du sud de lUE15. La

politique de cohsion a apport prs de 5,6 milliards deuros dinvestissements dans

ce domaine. En Bulgarie, en Roumanie et en Slovnie, la politique de cohsion a fourni

lessentiel des fonds pour des investissements dans la gestion des dchets solides au

niveau municipal. Dans dautres Etats membres de lUE13, ainsi que dans les Etats

membres du sud de lUE15, la politique de cohsion a t lune des principales sources

de financement public, avec des ressources nationales et le co-financement des prts

de la BEI. Entre 2007 et 2013, beaucoup de ces Etats Membres ont ralis des progrs

en fermant des dcharges non conformes aux normes de lUE, en dveloppant la

collecte spare des dchets recyclables et biodgradables et en construisant de

nouvelles installations de traitement des dchets. Le taux de recyclage a augment

dans 18 des Etats Membres qui ont allou des ressources de la politique de cohsion

la gestion des dchets ; pour six dentre eux la Croatie, la Rpublique tchque, la

Hongrie, la Lituanie, la Pologne et la Slovnie il a augment dau moins 10 points de

pourcentage.


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

19

Dans les six Etats membres et rgions dont les programmes oprationnels ont t

examins, les fonds de la politique de cohsion ont directement soutenu des

investissements cls pour augmenter le taux de recyclage et atteindre dautres

objectifs de la lgislation de lUE concernant la gestion des dchets solides au niveau

municipal. La politique de cohsion a constitu la principale source de financement

pour ces investissements dans deux Etats membres, la Bulgarie et la Slovnie. En

Bulgarie, le taux de mise en dcharge est pass de 80% 70% entre 2007 et 2013.

En Slovnie, le recyclage a presque doubl entre 2007 et 2013 pour dpasser les

40%. La politique de cohsion a constitu une source majeure dinvestissement dans

deux autres Etats membres de lUE13 : lEstonie et la Pologne. En Pologne par

exemple, la politique de cohsion a financ la construction dinstallations rgionales de

traitement des dchets, notamment des stations de traitement mcano-biologiques et

des centres de recyclage, contribuant ainsi progresser sur la voie des objectifs de

recyclage de lUE.

Les dix tudes de cas approfondies des projets ont constat une grande cohrence

entre les programmes oprationnels et les plans sectoriels des Etats membres

concernant la gestion de leau et des dchets, un lien qui devrait garantir la

contribution des investissements de la politique de cohsion lobjectif de conformit

avec les exigences de lUE en matire de gestion de leau et des dchets.

Cependant, le taux de dpense a pos problme, notamment pour la gestion des

dchets: fin 2014, plusieurs Etats membres navaient dpens que 55% de leurs

montants dcids. Le taux de dpense pour leau tait plus lev plus de 70% et

dun niveau quivalent la moyenne pour lensemble des dpenses de la politique de

cohsion ; cependant, le taux de dpense pour le transport, le domaine gnral

recevant la principale part des fonds, dpassait les 80%. Plusieurs reprsentants

nationaux participant au sminaire sur le module de travail originaires, par exemple,

dEstonie, de Hongrie et de Pologne ont indiqu quils pensaient que les fonds prvus

pour la gestion des dchets et de leau seraient entirement dpenss avant la fin de

lanne 2015. Il na pas encore t confirm si ce rsultat avait t obtenu.

Cependant, lexprience des prcdentes priodes de programmation a montr que les

projets sont surtout mens terme au cours de la dernire anne de dpenses

ligibles. Des amliorations considrables devraient donc tre observes au cours de

lanne 2015. Selon des donnes prliminaires pour 2015 fournies par la DG REGIO,

des amliorations ont dj pu tre observes dans certains pays (Bulgarie, Croatie,

Rpublique tchque, Lettonie, Roumanie, Slovaquie et Slovnie).

Le rythme lent des dpenses jusqu la fin 2014 sexplique en partie par le fait quen

raison de la crise financire, le cot de nombreux projets sest avr plus bas que

prvu, donnant lieu un excdent budgtaire. Beaucoup de programmes

oprationnels manquaient dun portefeuille solide de projets potentiels un stade de

prparation avanc et ne disposaient donc pas de projets additionnels pour investir

davantage dans la gestion des dchets. Lors du sminaire sur le module de travail,

des participants des Etats membres ont galement cit des problmes dans les

procdures de passation des marchs parmi les raisons des retards ; ces problmes

sont dus en partie au manque de capacit administrative des autorits municipales


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

20

pour grer des appels doffre de grande porte et souvent complexes sur le plan

technique.

En gnral, pour leau comme pour les dchets, les dpenses de la politique de

cohsion ont reprsent des financements cruciaux en vue de respecter les exigences

et objectifs de lUE, notamment dans lUE13 et dans les Etats membres du sud de

lEurope. Lvaluation souligne nanmoins que les donnes sur les montants et les

dpenses dcids doivent tre compltes par de meilleures donnes sur les rsultats.

De plus, il serait utile dintgrer davantage de futures valuations des politiques

rgionales de lUE aux valuations de mise en uvre pour les directives relatives la

gestion de leau et des dchets, le respect de ces dernires ncessitant des

investissements dinfrastructure majeurs.

2. Dans quelle mesure les projets dinvestissement cofinancs par les fonds

de la politique de cohsion sont-ils financirement viables?

La viabilit financire est une question importante pour valuer la contribution de la

politique de cohsion la ralisation des objectifs environnementaux de lUE. Lun des

rsultats importants des prcdentes valuations ralises pour la priode de

programmation 2000-2006 a t de constater que la viabilit financire des

investissements dans linfrastructure environnementale ntait pas toujours assure.

Cela pourrait compromettre la future gestion des services qui taient censs tre

fournis et remettre en question la contribution des fonds de la politique de cohsion

la ralisation des objectifs environnementaux.

Lvaluation tait fonde sur lanalyse de 20 projets, dont seulement 11 taient

oprationnels au moment de lanalyse et ceux qui taient oprationnels ne ltaient

que depuis relativement peu de temps (tous depuis moins de trois ans). Il est donc

trop tt pour mettre des jugements dfinitifs sur la viabilit financire des projets. De

plus, lchantillon de projets tait trop petit pour tre considr comme reprsentatif

de tout le portefeuille de projets majeurs en matire de gestion de leau et des

dchets (comprenant 189 projets). Cela dit, les rsultats de lvaluation sont

majoritairement positifs concernant la viabilit financire:

Lanalyse financire dans les 20 projets examins sest avre tre de qualit raisonnable et a ainsi fourni une base solide pour la viabilit financire.

Nanmoins, il reste encore des progrs faire, comme lillustrent les 11

problmes identifis dans le cadre de la question dvaluation 4.

Les sept projets oprationnels tudis en tant qutudes de cas ont tous obtenu de bons rsultats financiers et rien nindiquait que la viabilit

financire risquait dtre problmatique.


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

21

3. Quelle a t la qualit de lanalyse financire (y compris lanalyse de la

demande) ralise dans le cadre de la prparation de projets majeurs de

gestion de leau et des dchets?

Les examens des projets et les tudes de cas en gnral ont indiqu que la qualit de

lanalyse financire tait raisonnablement bonne. Seules quelques erreurs

mthodologiques concrtes ont t identifies dans lanalyse et aucune erreur

systmatique na t observe dans les projets. Cependant, lexamen a identifi

certains problmes gnraux de qualit (voir question 4 ci-dessous).

Lun des rsultats importants des prcdentes valuations ralises pour la priode de

programmation 2000-2006 a t de constater le manque de capacits pour raliser

lanalyse financire, une faiblesse qui entravait la mise en uvre des projets. Les

rsultats de lvaluation actuelle suggrent que la situation sest amliore. Ce point a

t voqu avec des parties prenantes lors du sminaire, o un consensus existait

pour dire que la qualit des soumissions stait amliore (la qualit des documents

prsents, la qualit de lanalyse financire des estimations, etc.), notamment pour

des projets prsents ultrieurement durant la priode de programmation 2007-2013.

4. Quels sont les problmes les plus courants rencontrs dans lanalyse

financire et que pourrait-on faire pour les viter?

Ltude a identifi onze obstacles la viabilit financire selon lanalyse des projets,

les tudes de cas et les conclusions du sminaire. Les problmes prsents ci-dessous

sont courants dans le sens o ils sont observs dans plusieurs des projets analyss et

o ils se posent aussi bien pour la gestion des dchets que pour celle de leau. Des

informations dtailles se trouvent dans le catalogue des obstacles (partie 3 du

rapport). Il donne des conseils pratiques lintention des autorits de gestion, des

organismes dexcution et des examinateurs des projets, et contribue surmonter les

problmes les plus courants. Les obstacles relvent de cinq grands groupes:

Des obstacles dus la mise en uvre des directives et rglements de lUE: Lanalyse financire de chaque projet examin a uniquement port sur

la viabilit financire du projet, conformment aux lignes directrices de lUE.

Cependant, la viabilit des services est notamment dtermine par la viabilit

financire de la socit dexploitation dans la situation avec le projet

(Problme 1 Lapproche projet versus lapproche entreprise de la viabilit

financire). Le guide danalyse cot-bnfice 2014-2020 a rsolu ce

problme en exigeant expressment une analyse de la viabilit dans le

scnario avec le projet. Pour le problme 2 Les (contre)incitations du

calcul des subventions de lUE, il a t observ que le calcul de lcart de

financement, et donc de la subvention de lUE, dans la candidature incite

maintenir les tarifs un niveau bas, cest--dire ne pas suffisamment

facturer. Les cots de dprciation des actifs, de remplacement et les cots

de financement ne sont pas inclus; ils deviennent donc difficiles recouvrer,

ce qui cr un problme de viabilit financire.


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

22

Des problmes de capacit, dengagement et dimplication ont des consquences majeures sur la viabilit financire. Dans des projets ayant des

contractants moins comptents, les retards sont courants. Ce point est

voqu dans le problme 3 Manque de contractants solides sur le plan

financier et comptents sur le plan technique. Une bonne pratique pour

attnuer cet aspect consiste organiser une procdure dappel doffres solide

o la comptence et la capacit financire des soumissionnaires sont prises en

compte dans la procdure de slection. Pour des projets qui ont t prpars

centralement pour le compte de gouvernements/bnficiaires rgionaux, le

problme 4 Non-implication du bnficiaire dans la conception du projet

peut rallonger la priode de mise en uvre et donner lieu des difficults

oprationnelles, les bnficiaires risquant de ne pas avoir une mainmise

suffisante sur le projet et la connaissance de ses caractristiques spcifiques.

Des problmes lis aux suppositions faites pendant la prparation du projet, notamment par rapport lanalyse de la demande : Lexamen du projet a

soulign que les analyses de la demande effectues sont gnralement

solides, mais la demande en eau semble parfois avoir t surestime

(Problme 5 Surestimation de la demande pour les services deau). Si les

volumes rels deau consomme ou deaux uses ncessitant un traitement

sont plus faibles que prvu, les stations souffriront dun manque defficacit

d la surcapacit et potentiellement, le fait que les recettes tarifaires soient

plus basses que prvu peut menacer la viabilit financire. Des rfrences

claires concernant les prvisions dmographiques et les estimations de la

demande pour tenir compte de llasticit des prix, ainsi quune explication et

justification claire des facteurs de rendement appliqus, pourraient attnuer

cela. De plus, les quantits de dchets ont t surestimes (Problme 6

Surestimation de la demande pour les services de dchets solides),

entranant une surcapacit qui se traduit par le fonctionnement inefficace des

installations et des cots fixes inutilement levs. Lanalyse systmatique des

futures quantits de dchets, notamment en fonction de la population, des

habitudes de consommation et des marchs pour les matriaux recycls et le

compost, ainsi que la ralisation dun contrle laide de donnes de

rfrence pour des producteurs de dchets quivalents dans un

environnement semblable, seraient ncessaires pour attnuer ce problme.

Consquences de la tendance loptimisme sur la viabilit financire

dans le cadre de la planification des investissements dinfrastructure. Dans les

projets de la politique de cohsion, la tendance loptimisme est lorigine

de retards de mise en uvre (Problme 8 Tendance loptimisme

concernant la dure de la priode de mise en uvre). Les participants au

sminaire ont soulign que dans certains cas, le promoteur original du projet

suggrerait un calendrier plus raliste mais quultrieurement, les autorits de

gestion imposaient des calendriers plus optimistes compte tenu de la pression

sur les gouvernements pour prouver quils font quelque chose contre la crise

et de la ncessit de respecter la rgle n+2. De plus, certains bnficiaires

interrogs dans le cadre des tudes de cas ont indiqu que le processus


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

23

dobtention de lapprobation finale pour des projets majeurs de la part de la

Commission europenne avait t plus long que prvu. De nombreux

bnficiaires ont lanc des projets avant davoir lapprobation finale de la

Commission. Dans certains cas, la tendance loptimisme a entran des

problmes de trsorerie pour les bnficiaires, ce qui a retard la mise en

uvre des projets (Problme 7 Gestion de la trsorerie dans les projets

majeurs).

Laccessibilit conomique des niveaux de service et la viabilit financire sont des objectifs conflictuels. Certaines consquences de cette

contradiction peuvent tre observes dans le problme 9 Le revenu moyen

des mnages est-il un bon indicateur? Les bnficiaires utilisent

gnralement les dpenses moyennes des mnages par rapport au revenu

disponible moyen des mnages. Cependant, la non prise en compte de la

rpartition des revenus et des niveaux de revenus locaux/rgionaux

pourraient avoir un effet ngatif sur la perception des tarifs et nuire ainsi la

viabilit financire du fournisseur de services. Dans des projets o

laccessibilit conomique limite les augmentations des tarifs un niveau

infrieur ce qui est ncessaire pour le recouvrement des cots, il a t

observ que les bnficiaires choisissaient des tarifs moins levs en

supposant que les gouvernements compenseraient le manque gagner

(Problme 10 Dpassement du seuil daccessibilit conomique et un

mcanisme de subvention). Cependant, en gnral, aucune information nest

fournie sur les dispositifs institutionnels prvus pour ddommager la socit

dexploitation face au manque de recettes tarifaires, ce qui reflte souvent

labsence de tels dispositifs scurisant les subventions publiques. De plus, les

projets examins ont fourni des plans daction concernant la hausse des tarifs

durant la priode de mise en uvre du projet, gnralement avec une priode

dintroduction progressive. Cependant, le problme 11 Les tarifs douaniers

ne sont pas augments conformment aux plans daction dans le formulaire

dapplication a t observ dans certains cas. En gnral, les raisons

invoques sont que les tarifs ne peuvent tre augments avant que des

services amliors soient fournis aux consommateurs et que ces derniers

aient peru cette amlioration. En particulier pour leau, si les tarifs sont

maintenus un niveau trop bas, les ressources de leau ne seront pas

utilises efficacement et, de surcroit, la viabilit financire du service sera

menace. Il faudrait insister davantage sur des mthodes pour introduire

progressivement des tarifs plus levs, et non pour appliquer des

augmentations soudaines.

Dans lensemble, ltude souligne que la politique de cohsion a apport une

contribution majeure la ralisation des objectifs de lUE en matire de gestion de

leau et des dchets, notamment pour lUE13. Compte tenu des problmes

daccessibilit conomique par rapport au financement de la construction et de

lexploitation dinfrastructures majeures pour leau et la gestion des dchets, il y a et

il continuera dy avoir un besoin de co-financement de la politique de cohsion pour

des projets dans ces domaines. Lanalyse financire sous-jacente aux projets majeurs


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

24

est de qualit raisonnable et fournit une base solide pour la viabilit financire. Les

raffectations et les taux de dpense relativement bas dans plusieurs Etats membres,

notamment dans le secteur des dchets, suscitent des inquitudes. Cela dit, certains

Etats membres pensaient que les montants allous la gestion des dchets et leau

seraient entirement dpenss dici la fin de lanne 2015. Certains problmes de

qualit identifis pour lanalyse financire des projets majeurs 2007-2013 ont dj t

pris en compte dans le nouveau rglement et les nouvelles lignes directrices

concernant la priode 2014-2020.


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

25

Kurzfassung

Das Projekt Ex post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2007-2013 Co-

Financed by the ERDF/CF, Work Package 6 (Ex-post-Evaluierung der Programme der

Kohsionspolitik 2007-2013 kofinanziert vom EFRE/Kohsionsfonds, Arbeitspaket 6)

war eines von mehreren Arbeitspaketen, die in die Ex-post-Evaluierung einbezogen

waren und von der Generaldirektion Regionalpolitik und Stadtentwicklung organisiert

wurden.

Die Evaluierung analysierte Fortschritt und Erfolge der Kohsionspolitik in

ausgewhlten Bereichen der Umweltinfrastruktur: Trinkwasser, Abwasserbehandlung

und Entsorgung fester Abflle. In der Praxis ist es aufgrund der Art der gefrderten

Projekte schwierig, zwischen Wasser- und Abwasserprojekten zu unterscheiden. Diese

Projekte wurden daher in der Analyse zusammengefasst, so dass dieser Bericht

Ergebnisse fr die zwei Hauptbereiche Abfallbehandlung und Wasser enthlt.

Die Evaluierung erfolgte nach vier wichtigen Fragestellungen:

1 Inwieweit hat die Finanzierung der Kohsionspolitik zur Umsetzung von EU-

Umweltrichtlinien durch die Mitgliedstaaten beigetragen?

2 Inwieweit sind durch Frdermittel der Kohsionspolitik kofinanzierte

Investitionsprojekte finanziell nachhaltig?

3 Wie war die Qualitt der finanziellen Analyse (einschlielich Bedarfsanalyse),

die im Rahmen der Vorbereitung von Groprojekten in den Bereichen Wasser-

und Abfallwirtschaft durchgefhrt wurden?

4 Was sind die am hufigsten aufgetretenen Probleme bei der Finanzanalyse

und wie knnen diese Probleme vermieden werden?

Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, wurde in der Evaluierung ein Ansatz verwendet, der

eine umfassende Prfung des Portfolios der Projekte und operativen Programme fr

Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaftsprojekte mit einer detaillierteren und tieferen Analyse

einer beschrnkten Anzahl ausgewhlter Groprojekte kombiniert.

Die umfassende horizontale Analyse konzentrierte sich darauf, die Rolle von

Investitionen, die durch Kohsionspolitik kofinanziert werden, fr die Erreichung von

wichtigen Zielen fr Wasser und Abfall zu untersuchen. Dies erfolgte durch eine

Prfung der Entwicklungen in den beiden Sektoren, eine Analyse der Bedeutung von

Frdermitteln der Kohsionspolitik im Verhltnis zu ffentlichen Ausgaben im

Allgemeinen und anhand eines berblicks ber die Ergebnisse von

Kohsionspolitikprojekten anhand von Basisindikatoren. Da die Evaluierung 2015

durchgefhrt wurde, waren nicht alle Ausgaben der Kohsionspolitik abgeschlossen

und es waren noch nicht alle Projekte angelaufen. Die aktuellsten, finanziellen

Angaben bezogen sich zudem auf die im Jahr 2014 bewilligten Betrge und gettigten


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

26

Ausgaben der operationellen Programme (entsprechend der Verordnung 1083/2006 ist

das letzte Ausgabenjahr 2015). Folglich enthlt die Evaluation nicht die Endergebnisse

der Programmperiode 2007-2013, da diese noch nicht verfgbar sind.

Eine Analyse von sechs ausgewhlten operationellen Programmen ergab weitere

Erkenntnisse ber den Beitrag der Kohsionspolitik zur Verbesserung der Umwelt. Die

sechs operationellen Programme waren in: Bulgarien, Estland, Italien (regionales

Programm in Kampanien), Polen, Slowenien und Spanien (regionales Programm in

Andalusien).

Auf Projektebene bestand die Evaluation aus einer Schreibtischstudie zur Qualitt der

Finanzanalyse fr 20 ausgewhlte Groprojekte und aus umfassenden Fallstudien fr

10 dieser Projekte. Um Finanzanalyse, finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit sowie

Projektergebnisse ex-post bewerten zu knnen, wurden bei der Auswahl bereits

laufende Projekte bevorzugt. Andere Auswahlkriterien waren geografische

Ausgewogenheit sowie der Mix von Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaftsprojekten. Mit Hilfe

von Interviews mit lokalen Behrden und Durchfhrungsorganen untersuchten die

zehn Fallstudien Fragen der Umsetzung, lieferten ein umfassenderes kontextuelles

Verstndnis der finanziellen Analyse und zielten darauf ab, etwaige diesbezgliche

Probleme zu ermitteln.

Auf einem Seminar wurden die Ergebnisse zwischen Vertretern der Mitgliedstaaten

und der Kommission sowie mit anderen wichtigen Akteuren diskutiert. Dies lieferte

weitere wichtige Erkenntnisse zu mglichen Problemen und politischen Empfehlungen.

Wesentliche Erkenntnisse der Evaluierung bezglich der vier Leitfragen waren:

1. Inwieweit hat die Finanzierung der Kohsionspolitik zur Umsetzung von

EU-Umweltrichtlinien durch die Mitgliedstaaten beigetragen?

Die Hauptziele der EU-Umweltvorschriften bestehen darin, die langfristige

Nachhaltigkeit von Europas Rohstoffquellen zu gewhrleisten und die menschliche

Gesundheit zu schtzen. Die Kohsionspolitik ist eine wichtige Finanzquelle fr

Umweltinvestitionen in der EU. Insgesamt waren fr die Umwelt rund 46,5 Milliarden

EUR fr den Zeitraum 2007-2013 vorgesehen. Unter den 15 groen Politikbereichen

der Kohsionspolitik, in denen die Finanzierung nachverfolgt wird, besa die Umwelt

den zweitgrten Anteil, nur noch bertroffen von Transport. Der grte Anteil entfiel

auf bewilligte Betrge fr Wasser, was 46,5% aller bewilligten Betrge fr die Umwelt

ausmacht. Die Abfallwirtschaft erhielt 12,0%. Der bewilligte Gesamtbetrag in den

beiden Bereichen belief sich auf 27,3 Milliarden EUR, wobei hiervon zwei Drittel auf die

EU13-Staaten entfielen. Drei bevlkerungsreiche Lnder besaen einen Anteil von

46% aller Ressourcen fr die zwei Umweltbereiche: Polen, Spanien und Rumnien.

Fast 90% der Mittel gingen an Konvergenzregionen.

Im Fall von Wasser mussten viele Mitgliedstaaten in ganz Europa zu Beginn der

Frderperiode umfangreiche Investitionen ttigen, um Trinkwasser zu verbessern und

Abwassersammlung und -behandlung zu gewhrleisten und EU-Standards zu erfllen.


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

27

In den EU13-Staaten und den sdlichen EU15-Staaten wurde der grte

Investitionsbedarf ermittelt. Dafr wurden Frdermittel der Kohsionspolitik in Hhe

von 21,8 Milliarden EUR verwendet. In mehreren Mitgliedstaaten, einschlielich

Bulgarien und Slowenien, machte die Kohsionspolitik den berwiegenden Teil der

Finanzierung von Verbesserungen im Bereich Wasser aus. In anderen Mitgliedstaaten,

die diesbezglich groe Investitionen ttigen mussten, war Kohsionspolitik eine der

wichtigsten Finanzierungsquellen, zusammen mit Kofinanzierung durch EIB-Darlehen

und heimischen Ressourcen. Dank der gefrderten (und bis Ende 2013

abgeschlossenen) Projekte hat sich die Trinkwasserversorgung fr mindestens 4

Millionen EU-Brger verbessert. Darber hinaus haben die operationellen Programme

fr mehr als 7 Millionen EU-Brger eine bessere Abwasserbehandlung sichergestellt.

Zahlreiche Mitgliedstaaten, besonders EU13 und sdeuropische Lnder, konnten

zwischen 2007 und 2013 die EU-Richtlinie ber die Aufbereitung von stdtischem

Abwasser besser einhalten. Dazu zhlen die Tschechische Republik, Estland, Spanien,

Ungarn, Lettland, Portugal, Slowenien und die Slowakei (fr andere Mitgliedstaaten

liegen noch keine vergleichbaren Angaben fr 2013 vor; diese werden im ersten

Halbjahr 2016 zur Verfgung stehen). Auch die bereits erwhnte qualitative Analyse

der sechs operationellen Programme belegte die umfangreichen Ausgaben fr den

Wassersektor und die wichtige Rolle der Kohsionspolitik verglichen zu anderen

Finanzierungsquellen. Fortschritte in Richtung EU-Zielvorgaben waren in Estland, Polen

und der Slowakei relativ eindeutig.

In Bezug auf die Abfallwirtschaft war die Situation 2007 hnlich wie im Wassersektor:

Fr die Umsetzung der EU-Auflagen und zur Erreichung der Zielvorgaben waren groe

Investitionen ntig. Der grte Investitionsbedarf wurde in den EU13- und den

sdlichen EU15-Mitgliedstaaten festgestellt. Die Kohsionspolitik stellte in diesem

Bereich fast 5,6 Milliarden EUR fr Investitionen zur Verfgung. In Bulgarien,

Rumnien und in der Slowakei hat die Kohsionspolitik grtenteils in die Entsorgung

von Siedlungsabfllen finanziert. Sowohl in anderen EU13- als auch in sdlichen EU15-

Mitgliedstaaten war die Kohsionspolitik zusammen mit heimischen Ressourcen und

der Kofinanzierung durch EIB-Darlehen eine der Hauptquellen der ffentlichen

Finanzierung. Viele dieser Mitgliedstaaten machten zwischen 2007 und 2013

Fortschritte bei der Schlieung von Abfalldeponien, die nicht den EU-Standards

entsprachen, indem sie die separate Sammlung wiederverwertbarer und biologisch

abbaubarer Abflle gesteigert und neue Anlagen zur Abfallbehandlung gebaut haben.

In 18 Mitgliedstaaten, welche Mittel der Kohsionspolitik zur Abfallbehandlung

bereitgestellt haben, stieg die Recyclingquote. In sechs dieser Lnder Kroatien, der

Tschechischen Republik, Ungarn, Litauen, Polen und Slowenien nahm die

Recyclingquote um mindestens 10 Prozentpunkte zu.

In den sechs Mitgliedstaaten und Regionen, deren operationelle Programme qualitativ

geprft wurden, hat die Kohsionspolitik Schlsselinvestitionen untersttzt und

dadurch zur Frderung von Recycling und zum Erreichen anderer Ziele der EU-

Gesetzgebung zur Bewirtschaftung von festen Siedlungsabfllen beigetragen. In zwei

Mitgliedstaaten, Bulgarien und Slowenien, stellte die Kohsionspolitik die wichtigste

Finanzierungsquelle fr diese Investitionen zur Verfgung. In Bulgarien sank der Anteil

der Abfalldeponierung zwischen 2007 und 2013 von 80% auf 70%. In Slowenien hat


______________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ March 2016

28

sich die Recyclingquote von 2007 bis 2013 verdoppelt und lag ber 40%. Auch in zwei

weiteren EU13-Mitgliedstaaten stellte die Kohsionspolitik eine wichtige

Investitionsquelle dar: Estland und Polen. In Polen finanzierte die Kohsionspolitik

zum Beispiel den Bau regionaler Abfallanlagen, einschlielich Anlagen fr mechanisch-

biologische Behandlung und Recycling-Anlagen und trug auf diese Weise dazu bei,

den Recyclingzielen Polens ein Stck nher zu rcken.

Die 10 detaillierten Fallstudien zeigten zudem ein hohes Ma an Kohrenz zwischen

den operationellen Programmen und den bereichsbezogenen Plnen fr Wasser- und

Abfallwirtschaft der Mitgliedstaaten auf. Dies sollte den Beitrag der Investitionen der

Kohsionspolitik zur Erreichung der Einhaltung von EU-Anforderungen fr Wasser und

Abfall gewhrleisten.

Grund zur Besorgnis gab es jedoch bei der Entwicklung der Ausgaben, insbesondere

fr die Abfallwirtschaft: Bis Ende 2014 hatten mehrere Mitgliedstaaten nur 55% ihrer

bewilligten Betrge ausgegeben. Die Ausgaben fr Wasser waren hher ber 70%

und damit auf gleicher Hhe mit dem Durchschnitt aller Ausgaben der

Kohsionspolitik. Die Ausgaben fr Transport dem Bereich, der den grten Anteil

der Finanzmittel erhlt lagen jedoch ber 80%. Mehrere Vertreter der

Mitgliedstaaten (zum Beispiel aus Estland, Ungarn und Polen) erklrten im Rahmen

des Seminars, dass sie davon ausgehen, dass die Finanzierung sowohl fr

Abfallwirtschaft als auch fr Wasser bis Ende 2015 vollstndig ausgegeben sei. Es ist

jedoch noch nicht besttigt, da

environment final report work package...

Documents