www.trinomics.eu

Service contract to support the evaluation of the 7th Environmental Action Programme

Workshop – Emerging Findings

www.trinomics.eu

Purpose of today

Agenda – Overview (1/2)Time Presentation topic

08.30 – 08.45 Registration

08.45 – 09.15

Introduction and scene setting

Welcome and current state in the evaluation process – Director Global Sustainable

Development, European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment (Ms. Astrid

Schomaker)

Purpose of today – summary of agenda and approach (seeking views on the emerging findings)

(Trinomics)

09.15 – 09.45

Emerging Findings

Summary of the key views from the public and targeted consultations

EC Analysis (DG ENV - Mr. Stephen White)

09.45-10.45

Experience of the 7th EAP – panel debate on what has worked, what has worked less well and what

could be improved

EEB (Mr. Patrick Ten Brink)

Member State experience and use of the 7th EAP

- Poland - Department of Sustainable Development and International Cooperation, Ministry

of the Environment (Mr. Rafał Włodarczyk)

- Belgium - Environment Attaché, Brussels Environment (Ms. Anne Saudmont)

Questions for discussion:

What has worked well

What hasn’t worked well

10.45– 11.00 Coffee Break

Agenda – Overview (2/2)Time Presentation topic

10.45– 11.00 Coffee Break

11.15-12.30Review of the emerging findings in smaller groups

View on the questions - see the boxes in the emerging findings for more detail.

Group A - EffectivenessGroup B – Efficiency and

coherence

Group C – Relevance and EU

added value

E.g. Continuity between

Commissions; strategic vs.

concrete targets; informing and

involving citizens and business.

E.g. Does the EAP improve

coherence and therefore the

efficiency of policy making?

Links to SDGs and Paris?

Agriculture? Addressing silo

thinking?

E.g. Level of detail? Missing

areas / issues? Future options –

monitoring? Role of the ‘vision’

and who should be better

engaged?

12.30 - 13.00 Summing up Discussions and Next Steps

13:00 – 14:00 Networking Lunch

Evaluation of the 7th EAP

• Timeframe:

• January 2018 – December 2018

• Approach:

• Using Better Regulation Guidelines:

Final Evaluation

Report

Issue Specific Papers (5-7)

2 WorkshopsTargeted

InterviewsOpen Public Consultation

Effectiveness Efficiency Relevance CoherenceEU-Added

Value

Approach

• Provide Emerging Findings of the Evaluation• Based on Open Public Consultation, Targeted interviews, and

Workshop

• Speakers (EEB, Poland, Belgium)• A chance for different stakeholders to share their experiences with

and perceptions of the programme.

• Your contribution• A chance to provide feedback and further suggestions on the findings

• What worked well, what did not?

www.trinomics.eu

Background to the Consultation

Open Public Consultation

• Objective: to consult all

citizens and organisations

• Open 3rd of May 2018 until the

26th of July 2018

• 153 responses, from a variety of

stakeholder types and Member

States

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

tsa business or business representative a non-governmental organisation

a private individual a public authority

an academic/research institute an association of citizens

an European Institution or Agency other

Targeted stakeholder consultation

• Objective: to gain in-depth input on the issues closest to

stakeholder’s experience with the 7th EAP

• Two groups:

• MSs (15 responses)

• Non-MS Stakeholders (17 responses)

• NGOs/MSs provided more detailed input

• Private sector less familiar with programme

Key:

MS Responses

Non-MS Responses

*5 only provided written feedback

Yes Unable No Contact

Business EU /

international organisation

NGORegional authority

Industry association

BankSustainability

associationTotal

1 4 6 1 2 1 2 17

www.trinomics.eu

The Emerging Findings

Effectiveness

• The 7th EAP as an effective tool for predictability and accountability

• The programme has engaged a broad variety of stakeholders

• Action noted in all 9 priority areas

• (esp. obj 1 natural capital and obj 2 RE and low-carbon economy)

• Use for MS as “high-level strategic guidance” for the long-term

“… the progress made towards achieving the objectives of the intervention,

looking for evidence of why, whether or how these changes are linked to the EU

intervention”

Efficiency

• The concept of mainstreaming environmental protection

concerns deemed positive and as improving the efficiency

• Knowledge-base seen as a driver for more efficient policy

• Improved coherence between policy believed by some to

contribute to more efficient policy

“… look closely at both the costs and benefits of the EU intervention as they

accrue to different stakeholders, identify what factors are driving these

costs/benefits and how these factors relate to the EU intervention.”

Relevance

• Overall the 7th EAP remains relevant

• The vision “Living well, within the limits of our planet” is

important and politically useful

• Some areas require additional attention

• Emerging issues maybe need more attention

“…look at the objectives of the EU intervention being evaluated and see how well

they (still) match the (current) needs and problems.”

Coherence

• The Programme itself was deemed internally coherent

• Mainstreaming seen as a key positive of the 7th EAP for driving policy coherence

• Overall 7th EAP helps provides EU policy coherence

• “Fighting for attention” with Europe2020, the Juncker Priorities, and Agricultural policy

• MS policy harmonisation not as clear, but more coherence between MS Environmental

Ministries was perceived

• International Commitments – Coherence with SDGs (future EAP should

incorporate them more explicitly)

• Areas for improvement (European Semester, MFF 2014-2020, Circular Economy,

“Silo” thinking)

“… look at how well the intervention works i) internally and ii) with other EU

interventions.”

EU-Added Value

• “Without doubt” the 7th EAP provides added value

• It is the only strategy that prioritises the environment

• Another Environment Action Programme wanted, with:

• Explicit and complete inclusion of SDGs; increased ownership (EU

Institutions and MSs); Quantifiable objectives/monitoring should be

considered

“… the value resulting from EU interventions that is additional to the value that

would have resulted from interventions initiated at regional or national levels by

both public authorities and the private sector”

www.trinomics.eu

Thank you

www.trinomics.eu

Next Steps

Next Steps

Workshop Findings

Workshop Summary Report

Revision of Final Report