Seite 1 10.04.23

How to measure climate change impacts in Cohesion Policy Operational Programmes

Experiences of Austria

Gottfried Lamers

Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Department: Sustainable Development and Environmental Funding Policy Phone (+431) 515 22 - 1644 gottfried.lamers@bmlfuw.gv.at

Seite 2 8. 10. 2008

Overview

SF Programmes in Austria 2000 - 2006 Integration of environment in the SF programmes

– Horizontal– Vertical

Austrian funding system Project selection Figures Effects Outlook Final remarks

Seite 3 8. 10. 2008

BackgroundStructural Funds in Austria 2000 - 2006

ERDF contribution: 854 M€

• 1 objective 1 programme

• 8 objective 2 programmes

• 1 agricultural programme

No thematic programmes

ERDF contribution: 257 M€

• 7 INTERREG IIIa programmes

• 2 INTERREG IIIb programmes

• INTERREG IIIc Region EAST

Seite 4 8. 10. 2008

BackgroundIntegration of environment Horizontal All projects have to meet the requirements of the environmental

obligations Participation of environmental NGO in the monitoring committees Monitoring of environmental effects (according to the size of the projects:

< 350.000 €; 350.000 – 3,5 M€; >3,5 M€) Vertical „Environment“ as own priority in nearly all ERDF programmes

– Approx. 8 – 9 % of the ERDF money allocated to environmental or energy projects

– Approx. 32 M€ directly spent by the Ministry for environment Biomass district heating as own priority in the agricultural programme “Sustainable development and accessibility” is one of the two priorities in

all INTERREG programmes– Eco-mobility– Improve the management of natural resources (Biodiversity, RES,

EE, Environmental protection and awareness)

Seite 5 8. 10. 2008

BackgroundAustrian funding system

Austria used existing national funds for co-financing (federal and regional)

ERDF money was spent through existing national funding instruments and state aid instruments

– ERDF increases the available financial means (for a region) but not the individual allocation per project

We had a big variety of themes and stakeholders involved in the structural funds issues

– All involved instruments work according to the SF administrative regulations

The Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water management has several funding instruments. The “Environmental fund” is used as co-financing instrument

The Environmental fund spends approx. 90 M€/year on grants for air pollution, hazardous waste, energy saving and renewable energy

Seite 6 8. 10. 2008

Major issuesProject selection of the environmental fund

We have a big sample of projects which we finance nationally We pick the best projects to get co-funding by EU

– Best in the technical performance– Best in environmental performance– Best in administrative criteria (N + 2)

In the environmental sector we predefined the categories for co-financing

We are obliged to report about the performance of the national environmental fund to the parliament in a 3 years interval

We made a special evaluation for the ERDF co-financed projects 2000 – 2006 and integrated this in the report.

Seite 7 8. 10. 2008

Major issuesFigures ERDF and national financing system

Evaluation of the Austrian subsidy system (KPC)

EDRF 2000 - 2006 Total national funding 2000 -

2006

Number of projects 1.034 7.382

Investment costs 244 M€ 1.516 M€

Environmental costs 215 M€ 1.335 M€

National Subsidy 31,7 M€ 273 M€

ERDF 29,3 M€ 0

Project categories: renewable energy and energy efficiency in enterprises

Seite 8 8. 10. 2008

Major IssuesFinanced measures (ERDF)

Funding ERDFNational

Biomass district heating systems 8,5 M€8,5 M€

Biomass CHP 7,6 M€ 7,6 M€

Biomass for SME 4,0 M€ 4,0 M€

Small hydro power 3,3 M€ 3,3 M€

Energy saving 1,1 M€ 1,1 M€

Thermal solar energy for SME 0,9 M€ 0,9 M€

Thermal insulation for SME 0,9 M€ 0,9 M€

Seite 9 8. 10. 2008

Major issuesEvaluation

The environmental fund has to report to the Austrian parliament in an 3 years interval

– Available for the period 2005 – 2007 (in German): http://www.public-consulting.at/blueline/upload/20080611effizienzbericht20052007.pdf

– Environmental effects: separate chapter about EU Funding 2000 – 2006

Economic effects: Macroeconomic effects of climate-relevant measures within the scope of the Austrian environmental support scheme in 2004: http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/jsp/index.jsp?fid=23923&id=26796&typeid=8&display_mode=2&pub_language=2

Seite 10 8. 10. 2008

Major issuesEffects of ERDF 2000 - 2006

Environmental effectsReduction of

Oil 2,5 Mio. GJ/a187.500 t CO2/a

Natural gas 0,5 Mio. GJ/a27.770 t CO2/a

Production of RES

Electricity 231.500 MWh/a74.080 t CO2/a

Heat 1,4 Mio. MWh/a378.000 t CO2/a

The total environmental effects of ERDF (6 years): 4.004.148 t CO2

Economic effectsERDF Funding: 29, 3 Mio. €

Investments: 244 Mio. €

National net income: 156 M€

Job effect: 2.600 full-employees

Seite 11 8. 10. 2008

Major issuesOutlook

Environmental measures in all programmes Co-financing of national subsidies in 7 regions Decreasing total amount for Austria Increasing amount for Environment

– ERDF: 32 M€– Agricultural funds: 34 M€

Measures:– Eco-innovation– RES (excluding electricity)– Energy efficiency in enterprises– Biomass district heating in the agricultural fund

Seite 12 8. 10. 2008

ConclusionsFinal remarks

EU funding is important but couldn't be the main source for environmental measures

A national subsidy or financing system should be in place with the same/similar selection criteria as EU funding

Austria chooses the best out of a sample of good projects for co-financing

– therefore only few problems with n+2 or other EU restrictions

Environment can be placed in nearly all programmes of the EU EU should consider the categories for Lisbon earmarking

– also natural protection and eco-tourism can create huge economic benefits