Life water study

ASTRALE ‘D‐CONTRACT’

ENHANCING TASK N°3

Contribution of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT projects to the implementation, dissemination and further development of EU environmental policies and legislation

Water Sector

August 2012 (Final Ver. 1)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. i 1.

1.1.

2.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Limitations to the Study ................................................................................................................................ 3

Recent Developments in Delivery ................................................................................................ 5

3. Evaluation of LIFE ENV/INF water projects in relation to EU water policy and legislation ............. 7 3.1.

Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.

Policy sectors and legislative texts considered by the LIFE ENV/INF/NAT projects ..................................... 10 3.2.1. Framework Directives ............................................................................................................................. 10 3.2.2. Pollution Control ..................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.3. Aquatic Organisms .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.4. Human Health ......................................................................................................................................... 21 3.3.

Means of Intervention ................................................................................................................................ 23 3.4.

Specific national/ regional/ local approaches developed by LIFE projects ................................................. 25 3.5. LIFE projects playing the role of catalyst for the implementation of national/ regional/ local water programmes ................................................................................................................................................ 27 3.6.

Cross cutting policy ..................................................................................................................................... 28 3.7.

LIFE Water sector projects and Natural Water Retention Measures .......................................................... 30 3.8.

Gap Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 32 3.9.

Third Countries (TCY) – a special case ......................................................................................................... 34 3.9.1. LIFE‐TCY and the promotion of EU policies outside of Europe ................................................................ 35 3.10. Project Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 37 3.10.1. Total Costs and EU Commitment ........................................................................................................ 37 3.10.2. Project costs by Directive .................................................................................................................... 39 3.10.3. Cost Comparison with other Programmes ......................................................................................... 40 3.11. Best of LIFE projects .................................................................................................................................... 41 4.

Analysis of the achievements of LIFE ENV/INF projects in the water sector ................................ 43

4.1.

SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 43 4.2.

Areas in which LIFE water projects are especially successful (Strengths) ................................................... 43 4.2.1. Alternative remediation approaches ...................................................................................................... 43 4.2.2. Alternative preventative solutions .......................................................................................................... 45 4.2.3. Management solutions for waste water in the urban environment ....................................................... 46 4.2.4. Assessment and improvements of quantitative status in groundwater ................................................. 46 4.2.5. New technologies for the continuous monitoring of surface waters ...................................................... 47 4.2.6. Cost effective programme of measures .................................................................................................. 48 4.2.7. The Horizontal Approach – linking water management to other policy sectors .................................... 49 4.2.8. Projects with high potential for transferability ....................................................................................... 49 4.2.9. Standalone Successes ............................................................................................................................. 51 4.3.

Areas in which LIFE water projects have failed to meet their policy objectives (Weaknesses) .................. 53 4.3.1. Scale ........................................................................................................................................................ 53 4.3.2. Varying costs ........................................................................................................................................... 54 4.3.3. Weather and technical problems ............................................................................................................ 55 4.3.4. Technical limitations ............................................................................................................................... 55 4.3.5. Human factors ........................................................................................................................................ 55 4.4.

Continuing or new threats which make it difficult for LIFE water projects to implement policy (Threats) 55 4.4.1. Sustainability .......................................................................................................................................... 56 4.4.2. Transferability ......................................................................................................................................... 56 4.4.3. Data access and reference information .................................................................................................. 57

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

4.4.4. Unknown long‐ term results ................................................................................................................... 57 4.4.5. Wider administrative and economic threats .......................................................................................... 57 4.4.6. Difficulties in obtaining access, rights and permissions .......................................................................... 58 4.4.7. Lack of close collaboration and consensus with stakeholders ................................................................ 58 4.4.8. Insufficient harmonisation and different interpretations of policy ......................................................... 59 4.5. LIFE projects contributing to the development of new water related policies and legislation (Opportunities) ............................................................................................................................................ 59 4.5.1. Projects proposing new legislation ......................................................................................................... 60 4.5.2. Projects working on complementary sub‐legislation to already existing texts ....................................... 60 4.5.3. Projects developing new approaches not yet covered by existing EU legislation ................................... 61 4.5.4. Projects providing input for specific water management related legislation ......................................... 62 4.5.5. Project contributing to the revision of water legislation ........................................................................ 62 4.5.6. Projects contributing to further develop water management related norms and standards ................ 63 4.5.7. Projects assessing and disseminating environmental legislation ........................................................... 64 4.6.

Preparatory Projects ................................................................................................................................... 66 4.7.

Factors for success and failure .................................................................................................................... 66

5.

Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................... 71

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2‐1: Trends in Projects through Time for Principal Directives ........................................................................ 5 Figure 2‐2 Trends in LIFE Projects Dealing With Pollution Control ............................................................................ 6 Figure 3‐1: Detailed Analysis of Projects Related to the Water Framework Directive ............................................. 11 Figure 3‐2: Relative Proportion of LIFE Projects contibuting to Directives Relating to Aquatic Organisms ............. 20 Figure 3‐3: Delivery Mechanisms for Policy Implementation for all Projects .......................................................... 24 Figure 3‐4: Breakdown of Delivery Mechanisms by LIFE Brand ............................................................................... 25 Figure 3‐5: Distribution of Total Project Values for LIFE ENV projects ..................................................................... 38 Figure 3‐6: Distribution of Total Project Values for LIFE NAT projects ..................................................................... 39 Figure 3‐7: Total Cost Comparison – LIFE vs other EU Funds ................................................................................... 41 LIST OF TABLES Table 3‐1: Number of LIFE projects per water directive ............................................................................................ 7 Table 3‐2 : Table of Cross Cutting Legislation ............................................................................................................. 9 Table 3‐3: LIFE TCY Water Sector Projects ................................................................................................................ 34 Table 3‐4: TCY Projects Promoting EU Policy outside Europe .................................................................................. 35 Table 3‐5: Total Costs of Delivering LIFE Projects in the Water Sector ..................................................................... 37 Table 3‐6: Highest and Lowest Ranking Projects on Total Cost ................................................................................ 38 Table 3‐7: Cost Breakdown by Directive ................................................................................................................... 40 Table 3‐8: Average Cost of Projects .......................................................................................................................... 40 Table 3‐9: Best of LIFE Awards – Water Projects ...................................................................................................... 42 Table 4‐1: Scaling Issues with LIFE projects .............................................................................................................. 54 Table 4‐2: Factors for Success and Operational Threats of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT Projects in the Water Sector .......... 67 LIST OF BOXES Box 1: Phytoremediation .......................................................................................................................................... 30 Box 2: Strengths of the LIFE projects ....................................................................................................................... 43 Box 3: Weaknesses of the LIFE projects ................................................................................................................... 53 Box 4: Threats to the implementation of water policy ............................................................................................ 56 Box 5: Opportunities for LIFE projects to influence policy ....................................................................................... 60 Box 6: Deficiencies in current water monitoring programmes ................................................................................ 63 ANNEXES Annex 1: Long list of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT projects Annex 2: Finalised matrix of all projects analysed for water legislation Annex 3: Further assessment of projects considering the Water Framework Directive Annex 4: SWOT analyses for critical analysis of selected projects

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

ACRONYMS

AR BAT BWD CEC CFP CIS CODs CW Discharge EAP EC ECGMS ENV

EQS

ETAP EU FASRB Floods FP7 GES GES GIS Groundwater

Artificial Recharge Best Available Technique Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC (Bathing Water Directive) Cation Exchange Capacity Common Fisheries Policy Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Chemical Oxygen Demands Constructed Wetland Directive (76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC and) 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (soon to be repealed by the WFD) Environmental Action Programme European Commission European Coordinating Group for Marine Strategy LIFE Environment Policy and Governance strand Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Environmental Technology Action Plan European Union Framework Agreement on the Sava River basin Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (Floods Directive) Seventh Framework Programme Good Environmental Status (as set out in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive ) Good Ecological Status (as set out in the Water Framework Directive) Geographical Information System Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (Groundwater Directive, included in WFD)

GW HELCOM INF

Ground Water The Helsinki Commission, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission LIFE Information and Communication strand

INSPIRE

Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community Directive 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) Intellectual Property Rights International Union for Conservation of Nature European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment (2007‐2013) European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment (2000‐2006)

IPPC IPR IUCN

LIFE + LIFE III

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

LIFETrack LTER MBR MPA MS MSFD MSGs NAT Natura 2000 Nitrates NREAP NVZ P&T POM RBMP RD or RED RMS SMEs SUDS SW SWOT TBT TCY UV UWWT VOCs WFD WHO WISE WWTP

LIFE programme monitoring database European Long‐Term Ecosystem Research Network Membrane bioreactor Marine Protected Area Member State Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) Marine Strategy Groups LIFE Nature and Biodiversity strand The EU wide network of nature protection areas established under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive) Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (Nitrates Directive) National Renewable Energy Action Plans

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Pump and Treat Programmes of Measures River Basin Management Plan Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Renewables Directive or Renewable Energy Directive) River Modelling System Small/Medium Enterprise Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Surface water Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Tributyl tin, a widely used anti‐fouling paint and persistent pollutant of marine systems LIFE Third Countries strand Ultra‐violet Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste‐water treatment Volatile Organic Compounds Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive) World Health Organisation Water Information System for Europe Waste Water Treatment Plant

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Protecting the quality of Europe’s water resources has been a high priority for the European Union since it started adopting legislation in the area of environmental protection in the mid 1970s. This first generation of directives established a series of quality standards aimed at protecting human health and the living environment, including surface water used for drinking water, bathing water, fish waters, shellfish waters and groundwater. However, the quality standard approach proved insufficient for protecting Europe’s polluted waters and, in the 1980s, the EU started to focus on the sources of pollutants. This led to the Directive on Urban Wastewater Treatment (UWWT), the Nitrates Directive and the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

To make this patchwork of policies and legislation more coherent, the EU adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000, creating a global and unified approach to water legislation. The WFDs combined approach for point and diffuse sources links the requirements established in the other directives through the programmes of measures. This integrated approach has more recently been adopted in an effort to protect the marine environment and in 2008 the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive came into force with the goal of achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) in Europe’s Seas by 2020.

LIFE is the EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental and nature conservation projects throughout the EU, as well as in some candidate, acceding and neighbouring countries. Since 1992, LIFE has co‐financed some 3506 projects, contributing approximately €2.5 billion to the protection of the environment and over the 20 years that the programme has been active approximately 21.6% of the projects funded under LIFE have been related to the water sector1. Furthermore, projects are overwhelmingly successful (with more than 80% of projects reaching all or nearly all of their objectives) and the LIFE programme is generally well aligned with relevant legislation and/or policy.

Clearly, water sector projects form an important part of the LIFE programme; but how does the programme impact on water policy and has the programme responded to the changing impetus of the regulatory framework? In an effort to answer these questions the LIFE Unit commissioned the External Monitoring Team (Astrale) to undertake a special study to review progress to date.

Reviewing all the projects from the last 20 years would have been an impossible task and so the review focussed on water projects from 2005‐2010; this included projects which had finalised and ones which were relatively new and had only preliminary results. The Astrale team reviewed around 150 water related projects which have been funded during the last 6 years and selected 33 of these for detailed assessment. All brands of the LIFE programme have been represented in the study.

All projects were analysed in terms of the water directives that they are related to in order to gain some understanding of the proportion of projects contributing to each directive; a subsequent gap analysis revealed those legislative areas which are not well served by LIFE projects. On examination of the spread of projects throughout the various directives there are some areas where LIFE projects are not well represented and the Floods, Environmental Quality Standards and Shellfish Directives have the fewest projects. The reasons for this are not clear although it is possible that project proponents do not always mentions all policy areas that the project is likely to influence. Nevertheless, there is certainly scope in all three directives for LIFE projects to make a contribution to the implementation (at least to certain aspects) of these policy areas.

The majority of projects addressed some aspect of the Water Framework Directive and so a further breakdown of WFD policy areas revealed that typology and the delineation of water bodies, economics, monitoring and

1

Overview of environment projects funded by the LIFE programme 1996 – 2008, GHK study 2010

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

i

Programmes of Measures (POM) do not attract many projects. The report draws out some good examples of LIFE projects contributing to the requirements and objectives of the different directives.

The study also considered the overall costs of the programme and calculated the relative costs associated with each directive. The WFD is the directive which receives most attention in terms of number of projects and in terms of total EU commitment of some 137 million Euros between 2005 and 2010. The average cost per project for delivery is perhaps a better indicator of the average cost of the programme and although the WFD projects tend to have a slightly higher unit cost than other projects there is very little difference in the cost of delivery between the directives for any single project. However, the average cost of NAT projects is much higher (almost double) that of the ENV projects, although the reasons why this should be so were outside the scope of this study.

The projects examined covered a broad range of water issues addressed and solutions proposed and examined all stages of the policy development and implementation process. The number of projects with the express aim of elaborating actual policy is rather low. On the other hand, a considerable number of projects develop or demonstrate concrete water utilisation, remediation and prevention practices, demonstrating a range of economically feasible and environmentally sound options which could contribute to setting the standards for future policies.

The in depth analysis of the selected projects examined the strengths and weaknesses of the LIFE projects in relation to their impact on the water directives and went on to assess the opportunities and threats to reveal areas where the programme could improve or areas that need to be addressed if the impact on policy is to be more widespread than at present.

The strengths of the LIFE projects lie in their ability to develop alternative remediation approaches and preventative solutions contributing to water policy issues. Undoubtedly there have been some major technological advances in water treatment (contributing to the UWWT Directive) as well as some outstanding examples of projects contributing to the implementation of river basin management plans through the integration of data capture, modelling and management techniques. Some project outputs have a high potential for transferability or replicability, although it is often difficult to determine whether the full potential has been realised as this often occurs some time after project closure. This latter point can also be considered as a threat along with long‐term sustainability as it is often difficult to both maintain the momentum of a project and find continued funding once the LIFE funding has been exhausted. A new, and emerging, threat to the legacy of some LIFE projects is the macro economic climate with some projects reporting difficulties in developing innovative technologies further in the current economic climate.

Few weaknesses, i.e. factors which prevented absolute success, were identified in the projects and although some were outside the control of the project design, for example poor weather conditions at critical times in the project cycle, most could perhaps have been prevented through stronger project design (e.g. technical limitations, getting the right stakeholders involved to encourage wider delivery and human factors). Variable costs was a recurring theme and some technologies developed and demonstrated by LIFE projects have proved to involve high capital costs that may act as barriers to their wider uptake and commercialisation. Other technologies demonstrate variability in cost performance on a site‐by‐site basis and so are less attractive to prospective investors.

In terms of future opportunities, there are two policy support areas where LIFE projects could be more influential, provided that such support is built into the project design. These are projects which assess and disseminate environmental legislation and projects which contribute to the further development of water management related norms and standards. In essence it would be unrealistic to expect most LIFE projects to contribute to policy formulation due to their limited size and the generally local scale of operation.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

ii

In addition, this study demonstrates how the LIFE projects contribute to the various stages of the policy cycle, highlight where the strengths of the project lie and examine the opportunities that may arise as a result of the changing regulatory landscape.

The role that LIFE projects can play in each phase of the policy cycle can be assessed by examining their relevance in the four stages of the cycle.

Scoping: some projects were already working on cost effective programme of measures before quantitative targets became obligatory in EU legislation. In cases such as LIFE05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM the project demonstrated the development of a cost‐effective programme of measures to reduce levels of nitrogen and phosphorus originating from agricultural activities prior to the deadline. However, in the LIFE portfolio, projects of this nature are few and we could only find two projects that set out to define programmes of measures.

Policy development: few projects are directly linked to the development of new environmental policies. A specific type of project (preparatory projects) is dedicated to this purpose and there is only one for the water sector which was the UK project LIFE06 PREP/UK/002 TRITECH ETV. This project was useful as in 2002, the EU adopted the Environmental Technology Action Plan (ETAP). A key aspect of ETAP is the development of improved testing, performance verification and standardisation of environmental technologies through defined processes.

The TRITECH‐ETV project set up and ran a pilot scheme for the verification of environmental technologies, including waste water treatment.

Policy implementation: This is without doubt the main strength of the LIFE programme. Numerous LIFE projects are dedicated to policy implementation, for instance by demonstrating how (future) EU policy targets can be achieved (e.g. LIFE07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER provides innovative methods to treat hospital waste water for drinking water), by contributing to the implementation of EU policy at the national level (e.g. LIFE09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER which helps develop a modern water management system for Romania) or by demonstrating technologies (e.g. LIFE06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM that demonstrated the multi‐barrier technology in Belgium and Austria). Several projects have contributed to a better understanding of how EU Directives covering different policy areas can be implemented without conflict. For example, the 2011 award winning project LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP has had a significant influence on local policy makers/regulators’ perceptions of hydropower and has proved that, with careful implementation, the ecological benefits (WFD) and the economic operation of hydropower plants (under the Renewable Energy Directive) are not contradictory and the requirements of both directives can be met. This is, arguably, the area where LIFE projects excel and make the largest contribution to EU policy.

Policy evaluation / review: although, due to the demonstration nature of the LIFE programme, this element is less prominently represented in the project portfolio, there are one or two good examples of LIFE water projects contributing to policy review (e.g. LIFE07 ENV/L/540 M3 which identified shortcomings in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy).

So, how well do the projects actually serve the policymaker? External evaluators tend to value the practical experimentation which LIFE projects contribute to policymaking, and they acknowledge that projects are relevant to EU policy. According to the LIFE+ mid‐term evaluation2, LIFE projects “provide opportunities for the development and testing of ideas for policy development and implementation which, based on real conditions and actions on the ground, provide feedback and insight on what is feasible or less feasible, identifying good practices where possible.” The LIFE III ex‐post evaluation adds3 that “in terms of utility at the European level, the projects by and large have a link to one or more pieces of EU or national legislation and/or policies, and their objectives and scopes are in line with that legislation.”

2 3

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/com2010_516_final.pdf Overview of environment projects funded by the LIFE programme 1996 – 2008, GHK study 2010

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

iii

In conclusion, LIFE projects excel at policy implementation but have less direct influence in other areas of the policy cycle. While LIFE projects do respond to changing legislation (i.e. response to the call for development of integrated RBMPs under the WFD) the manner of delivery (i.e. local/regional, small scale, innovative and highly technical projects), has not changed a great deal over the years. However, this may change with the advent of larger, integrated projects proposed under the new LIFE instrument (2014‐2020).

It is recommended that the LIFE programme encourages beneficiaries to submit applications that contribute to those areas of water policy that are currently poorly addressed, such as the programmes of measures, and that beneficiaries should be more precise in terms of which areas of the WFD they aim to focus on, e.g. groundwater monitoring or river basin management plans. Furthermore, communicating the results of the LIFE projects to the water managers in a form that allows them to answer critical questions is seen as an important outcome of this study and the analytical tools developed to complete this analysis could be improved and updated to provide this vital information link.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

iv

1. INTRODUCTION The LIFE ENV and Eco‐innovation Unit requested that Astrale EEIG should, in the context of the Enhancing Tasks of Astrale C contract, assess the contribution of LIFE ENV/INF projects to the implementation, dissemination and further development of EU environmental policies and legislation, focusing in particular on resource efficiency.

Accordingly, Astrale EEIG undertook a ‘pilot study’ in 2011 which, besides providing an in‐depth analysis of waste projects funded by LIFE, informed subsequent studies (input needed, methodology, ideal frequency of the updates, etc.). As a result of the pilot study the LIFE ENV and Water Unit requested a similar study concerning the contribution of the LIFE project to EU environmental policies in the Water Sector (as part of Astrale D contract).

The Thematic Unit D1 (Water), represented by Ms. Evdokia Achilleos, and Mr. Jose Rizo of Unit D2 (Marine Environment & Water Industry) have been involved in the design and finalisation of the report.

The Thematic Unit D1 did not identify any specific problems related to the implementation of the water related directives but they expressed some interest in identifying projects related to water re‐use or addressing pharmaceutical pollution in water.

Therefore, the principal objectives of the study were to:

   

Review current water related legislation and agree a list of key directives to be assessed.

Review all water related projects to determine which key directives were considered, examine trends and what the costs of implementation were (both total and EC contributions).

Review selected projects relating to the implementation of key EU water legislation, including the Water Framework Directive, using SWOT analysis.

Review of selected projects that provide new solutions and best practice for implementation of EU legislation and policy in the most efficient way and a high potential for transferability within the EU. Selected projects also allow understanding of factors for failure or success of certain approaches.

Relevance of project approaches



The relevant directives were analysed and grouped under the following headings:



Framework Directives WFD: Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive) MSFD: Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) IPPC: Directive 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) Floods: Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks



Pollution Control UWWT: Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste‐water treatment

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

1

Nitrates: Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources Discharge of Pollution Directive (76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC and) 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (soon to be repealed by the WFD) Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (included in WFD) EQS Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

Aquatic Organisms Directive 2006/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life (soon to be repealed by WFD) Directive 2006/113/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the quality required of shellfish waters (soon to be repealed by WFD)



Human Health Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC

Although some of these directives will be repealed by the WFD in the future it was relevant to analyse the projects in terms of these directives because they were still active during the timeframe of the projects analysed. Many of the projects still referred to these directives and were clearly targeting them in their original applications.

A long list of projects was developed covering the period from 2005 through 2010 and thus included projects from LIFE III and LIFE +. The start period of 2005 was selected because this linked to the beginning of the implementation of the WFD which was considered to be the main directive considered by the majority of the LIFE projects.

A long list of 244 projects from the ENV, NAT, TCY and INF brands was established. This long list also covered projects that were not directly water related but included water management aspects ‐ the full long list can be found in Annex 1. The analysis of these projects led to the rejection of 33 projects which mainly dealt with waste issues and were only marginally relevant to water and horizontal issues like soil remediation and alternative energies. A further 14 projects were removed from the main analysis because they were TCY projects and as such could only contribute to the implementation of the directives if they targeted ‘common’ water bodies shared with Member States. However, these projects have been analysed separately to see whether there were any synergies in implementation in the Member States and whether there were any projects where developed technologies could be usefully transferred to the Member States.

The remaining 197 projects were then analysed in terms of the principal directives outlined above and the results are presented in the following section. In each case the project was rated as specifically contributing to the objectives of a directive as the principal objective or as a secondary objective. Projects have been

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

2

included in the short list regardless of their success or failure, considering that lessons can be learnt from both.

The majority of projects (113) focussed on the WFD and so these projects were re‐analysed in more depth to determine which parts of the WFD LIFE projects focussed upon and whether there were any significant gaps that the LIFE programme could address in future rounds.

The total costs for all projects and the EC contribution under LIFE were assessed and allowed an overview of the overall spend associated with each directive. In addition, an average cost per project has been calculated in an attempt to evaluate whether projects servicing some directives are more costly than others.

Many projects also combine water protection with other environmental issues like renewable energy directive or climate change mitigation; these links have also been taken into account.

The scope of the study does not allow an in‐depth assessment of all 197 projects. However, an assessment of results – as far as available – is given in the matrix presented in Annex 2. These projects allowed a broad analysis of the overall coverage of LIFE projects in relation to the main directives and the WFD in particular but also provided valuable information concerning information gaps i.e. main directives of parts of the WFD that are poorly addressed by LIFE.

A further 35 projects were selected for a more detailed evaluation using a SWOT analysis approach. These projects have been selected according to their relevance for the Water Thematic Unit, but also according to the trends that can be observed from the overall assessment. Chapter 4 gives more information on the relation of projects to water protection legislation.

The concluding chapter examines where LIFE projects intervene in the policy cycle and draws together the strengths of the programme as well as summarising the opportunities that present themselves to the LIFE programme going forward.

1.1. Limitations to the Study

First it must be said that it is often difficult to determine which specific policies a project may be related to as this is not always explicitly stated in the application. The applicant is only obliged to complete the tick box at the beginning of Form A which gives an indication of the general area of policy the project is related to.

Thus, while all of the projects analysed state that the focus of the project is on ‘water policy’ there is no imperative for the project proponents to give any further details concerning the specific directives they are contributing to. Of course many projects give further details elsewhere in the application but this is not often recorded anywhere else. As a result, searching documentation (such as the LIFE database and Astrale’s LifeTrack) using key word searches often does not reveal the required information. It would be very useful if there was a specific area on the LIFE application forms that allows the applicant to state the specific policy areas considered by the project.

Some projects, especially those that are highly technical, tend to focus very much on the development of technology and rather less on policy implications and so it is sometimes difficult to find the material relevant to a policy study of this nature. Indeed, for some projects on the long list it was only possible to map the broad policy area that was being considered. Projects of this nature could only be assessed in these terms and could provide very little additional information.

As projects often relate to more than one specific EU policy or directive, it is sometimes difficult to link a project exclusively to one legislative text. The multiple relations of LIFE ENV projects in particular4 to EU

4

Note NAT projects tend to far more precise in terms of relationship to policy

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

3

legislation make it difficult to establish clear and definite relations between projects and EU policy. This can be regarded as a limitation of the study.

In terms of sustainability, transfer and replication it has only been possible to determine the potential for this to occur because these factors can only reliably be assessed after the project has closed. Although some projects do have ex‐post monitoring visits, this was not used as a selection criteria, and it is only through this kind of monitoring that the real longevity of a project can be scrutinised. There was not really enough ex‐ post data to make any robust conclusions.

Finally, although some gaps in the portfolio have been identified it is not certain whether these are due to the fact that prospective beneficiaries do not submit applications for these areas or whether applications covering these subjects are largely unsuccessful (i.e. do not pass the evaluation stages). The information required to answer this question was not readily available in the evidence reviewed for this study.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

4

2. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DELIVERY

Looking at the 6 years of the LIFE programme, it is interesting to observe that the number of projects which claim to relate to the Framework Directives have not changed a great deal despite the considerable progress in water policy and legislation. Figure 2‐1 shows the number of LIFE projects which respond to each of the four Framework Directives over the last 6 years. It is clear that the majority of projects claim to contribute to the implementation of the WFD. While this is true for many projects there are some that simply quote the WFD as related legislation but do not in fact make any contribution to its implementation. The focus of LIFE projects on the WFD suggested that a further breakdown of projects, in terms of the areas of the WFD that they addressed was required and this is discussed further in Chapter 3.

Figure 2‐1: Trends in Projects through Time for Principal Directives

The number of projects considering the MSFD is perhaps lower than would be expected with a maximum of 10 projects in 2009; and over 50% of these are NAT projects which tend to focus on establishment of marine protected areas or conservation of individual species. Therefore, some of the strategic aspects of the MSFD such as the implementation of the ecosystems based approach and the developing of monitoring systems and programmes of measures are poorly addressed by LIFE projects. However, most Member States are still at the first stage of implementation which involves an initial assessment of the current environmental status of the waters and so it is possible that there will be a greater emphasis on marine projects in future rounds of LIFE.

The Floods Directive is also poorly covered by LIFE projects and this is perhaps surprising as the initial requirements of this Directive calls for identification and mapping at the river basin level and the development of flood management plans; both requirements illustrate the synergies between the Floods Directive and the WFD. We could only find a small number of projects which recognised both directives and this appears to be an area where LIFE projects could make a greater contribution. However, it is recognised that the final stages of implementation of the Floods Directive requires Member States to put in place preventative measures, probably requiring major infrastructure, and so this aspect of the Directive may well be served by other EU funding sources (i.e. structural funds).

The IPPC Directive is the only one to show a steady decline in LIFE project numbers from six in 2005 to zero

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

5

in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The reasons for the decline are not clear but it is possible that the projects have focussed more on the individual pollution control directives (Figure 2‐2).

These individual pollution control directives were addressed exclusively by ENV and INF projects (no NAT projects) and tended to be mainly technical projects dealing with:

   

solutions for waste water treatment in a variety of industries; innovative technologies for reducing nitrates from point and non‐point sources principally from agriculture; methods of dealing with pollution of groundwater, generally linked to nitrates as well; and techniques for reducing pollution to surface and groundwater.

Figure 2‐2 shows the trends in LIFE projects involved with the five directives dealing with pollution control.

There are few real trends in the data with perhaps the exception of an increasing number of projects considering groundwater and a decrease in the number of projects addressing discharges, but the numbers are quite low and so it is not certain that these are real trends. It is appreciated that all these directives, apart from the UWWT, will be repealed by the WFD in time, however, the projects cited these directives and so the assessment here is valid. One gap appears in the LIFE portfolio, only one project (LIFE08 ENV/IT/399 EnvEurope) cited the development of Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) as an objective but this was secondary to the WFD. This is clearly an area where LIFE projects could be more influential.

Figure 2‐2 Trends in LIFE Projects Dealing With Pollution Control

Trend analyses were not completed for Directives dealing with Aquatic Organisms and Human Health becuase there were too few projects to make a meaningful assessment. However, on examination of the 18 projects dealing with protection of fish waters there was an even spread of projects across all years with the exception of 2009 when no projects were funded in support of this directive.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

6

3. EVALUATION OF LIFE ENV/INF WATER PROJECTS IN RELATION TO EU WATER POLICY AND LEGISLATION 3.1. Overview Most of the LIFE water projects assessed for this study focus on more than one water protection policy or directive and many of them are also linked to other environmental areas. Table 3‐1 shows the water protection directives the projects focus on as a priority.

Table 3‐1: Number of LIFE projects per water directive Directive

Framework Water Framework Marine Strategy Integrated Pollution Prevention Flood Risk Pollution 91/271/EEC Urban Waste Water Nitrates from 91/676/EEC Agriculture 76/464/EEC; Discharge of 80/68/EEC; 06/11/EC Pollution 2006/118/EC Groundwater 2008/105/EC EQS Aquatic Organisms Fresh Waters to 2006/44 Support Fish 2006/113/EC Shellfish Human Health 98/83/EC Drinking Water 2006/7/EC Bathing Water

2000/60/EC 2008/56/EC 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU 2007/60/EC

No of projects 113 28 12 8 28 25 20 14 2 18 1 8 3

Each category is dealt with in more detail in Chapter 4 below but it can be seen that the majority of projects deal with the Water Framework Directive and that some areas of legislation are poorly addressed by LIFE, for example there are very few projects that deal with bathing water, shellfish waters or EQS. The main analysis of projects is presented in Annex 2.

However, many projects deal not only with the Water Framework Directive but also cite other areas of water legislation that have been considered in either a primary or secondary function.

Table 3‐2 below shows how LIFE projects can relate to several different aspects of water legislation and indicates the cross cutting nature of many LIFE projects5. There are a number of projects that cite more than one directive. It is quite possible to see how there could be a link between the Floods Directive and the WFD, a good example of which is LIFE06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN (see information in sidebar below).

5

The total exceeds the number of projects assessed, because many projects focus on more than one directive.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

7

Equally it is not surprising that there are links between the WFD and the IPPC. A good example of this is project LIFE05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP, a successful project for LIFE06 ENV/D/000461 FLOODSCAN treating metal‐contaminated groundwater on site by accelerating naturally‐occurring biogeochemical A project which developed a new processes: obviously the project also considered the technology for fast, precise and cost‐ Groundwater Directive. One project, LIFE07 efficient hydraulic 2d‐modelling of flood ENV/EE/122 BaltActHaz, had the overall goal of taking (hazard) areas by combining laser scanning joint Baltic countries’ action towards implementation of with remote sensing data. The project the WFD, the MSFD and the IPPC Directives as well as results contributed directly to the Floods the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. It achieved this Directive and are linked to the objectives through a reduction of hazardous substances by of the WFD where the mitigation of the improving the current permitting system and enhancing effect of floods is required. In addition, better chemical management in pilot areas. There was a the results in the area of web‐mapping large element of awareness‐raising amongst the contribute to the INSPIRE Directive stakeholders in this project which proved most (Directive 2007/2/EC). effective.

It is also not difficult to understand why there could be strong interactions between projects delivering pollution control solutions and the WFD, since the Groundwater (76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC; 06/11/EC) and Discharge of Pollutants (2006/118/EC) Directives will be repealed by the WFD in due course. A good example of these synergies is the project LIFE06 ENV/F/158 ISONITRATE which set out to improve the management of nitrate pollution in water using isotrophic monitoring. The project acted at the river basin scale

and also produced an innovative form of monitoring.

Although the technology was successful it is uncertain whether there will be a major uptake of the monitoring method due to the need for local decision makers to be on board. Similarly the Dutch project LIFE06 ENV/NL/167 WET successfully demonstrated a number of techniques for the further treatment of effluent from WWTPs in order to achieve the standards of the WFD. Several techniques have already been implemented at the beneficiary’s WWTPs.

In terms of the directives dealing with aquatic life, most are NAT projects, and most are also relevant to the WFD. The majority are river restoration projects to restore ecological or chemical functionality to a water body. LIFE has invested a great deal in projects of this nature and there are many good examples which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 below. One current LIFE project, LIFE09 INF/UK/032 RESTORE is seeking to build a sustainable network linking policy makers, river basin planners, practitioners and experts across Europe to share information and good practice on river restoration activities. Applying sustainable river restoration serves both the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive at several levels.

River restoration at the local level aims to create and improve habitat conditions for key species; at regional level supports the Natura 2000 network; and across Europe can improve the entire ecological status of river basins. River restoration can also assist with adaptation to climate change by strengthening ecological networks and providing climate space. River restoration activities play a crucial role in developing best practice approaches for flood risk management, especially through flood storage, serving the interests of the EU Floods Risks Directive. If it is successful, this project could make a lasting contribution to the implementation of the WFD, the Floods Directive and the Habitats Directive.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

8

Table 3‐2 : Table of Cross Cutting Legislation Primary legislation is given on the vertical axis, secondary legislation is given on the horizontal axis

Framework WATER legislation

Framework

2000/60/EC Water Framework 2008/56/EC Marine Strategy 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU IPPC 2007/60/EC Floods Pollution6

91/271/EEC UWWT 91/676/EEC Nitrates 76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC; 06/11/EC Discharge of Pollution 2006/118/EC Groundwater

2000/6 2008/5 96/61/ 0/EC 6/EC EC WFD MSFD IPPC

2 6

2

Pollution

Aquatic Organisms

Human Health

2006/1 2006/44 2006/11 98/83/E 2006/ 2007/60/ 91/271/E 91/676/E 80/68/EEC 18/EC /EC EC EC EC 3/EC C 7/EC Discharge Ground Fish Floods

7 0 0

UWWT

12 0 2 0

Nitrates of Pollution water

17 10 9 1 2 0 2 3 1 0 0 0

1 3 0

3 2

Waters

Shellfish

Drinking

Bathing

10 1 0 1

0 0

5 0 0 0

0 1

4 1 0 0

2 2

4 0 0 0

2 0

2 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

3

0 0

0 1

0

Aquatic Organisms

2006/44 Fish Waters 2006/113/EC Shellfish Human Health 98/83/EC Drinking Water 2006/7/EC Bathing Water

6

Note 2008/105/EC EQS has not been included in the analysis as there is only one project

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

9

Projects dealing with Human Health are also closely related to the WFD. A particularly good example is LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon which developed a new automated method for the analysis of Escherichia coli in waste water effluent. The environmental benefits of the project come with safeguarding bather’s health through rapid assessment of faecal pollution of bathing waters and so contributes to the Bathing Water Directive and the WFD, providing an interesting input to the discussion on how and if the faecal contamination of discharged effluents can be kept under control in relation to the implementation of these Directives. Similarly, LIFE06 ENV/F/136 MARECLEAN has developed tools and approaches for a risk‐based reduction of microbial pollution discharge to coastal waters, thus contributing to the Bathing Waters and Shellfish Directives as well as the MSFD. While the project uptake was achieved in one territory in France it failed to transfer to the 20 coastal states of the EU, which was one of the more ambitious objectives.

Although the product is potentially transferable, the dissemination was not as widespread as envisaged.

3.2. Policy sectors and legislative texts considered by the LIFE ENV/INF/NAT projects 3.2.1. Framework Directives

The number of LIFE projects related to the main framework Directives over the period 2005 through 2010 is illustrated in Figure 2‐1. Each directive is examined in more detail in the sections that follow.

Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC The EU adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000, creating a global and unified approach to water legislation. The WFDs combined approach for point and diffuse sources links the requirements established in the other directives through the programmes of measures. The WFD topic is very wide and constitutes an important base for water legislation and there are many complex projects addressing both water quality and quantity issues, presenting integrated and combined approaches and diffuse sources examples as well. The main objective of the WFD requires surface freshwater and ground water bodies ‐ such as lakes, streams, rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters ‐ to be ecologically sound by 2015; the first review of the River Basin Management Plans should take place in 2020.

The initial analysis indicated that the majority of LIFE projects in the water sector since 2005 cited the Water Framework Directive as either a primary or secondary legislative consideration. In fact 113 projects out of 197 projects screened were in some way related to the WFD. It is appreciated that many of these projects also deal with related water directives (particularly in respect of nitrates and groundwater) which will come directly under the WFD when the individual directives are repealed.

Error! Reference source not found. (see section 3.7) illustrates the complexity of the projects and demonstrates that each project can contribute to a number of different areas not only within the WFD but also draws in other water directives. All these projects deal, in one way or another, with phytoremediation (i.e. reducing pollution in surface waters using plant based materials). They deal with both point and diffuse source pollution, agricultural land and the restoration of habitats. The technologies they employ can have widespread application.

So the very nature of the WFD means that it covers a broad range of topic areas and so in order to produce some sensible conclusions the projects were re‐examined in more detail according to the sub‐categories suggested by the Water Unit and indicated below:

 Characterisation of the river basins Typology, delineation of water basins Pressures and impact analysis Economic analysis  Monitoring Programmes Surface waters Groundwater  Assessment of Status

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

10



Ecological status of surface water Chemical status of surface water Chemical status of groundwater Quantitative status of groundwater Planning Process Stakeholder and public participation Integrated river basin approach Programme of measures Reporting and information and data management

 

The 113 projects were made up of 90 ENV/INF projects and 23 NAT projects; the breakdown between categories is given in Figure 3‐1 below and a complete breakdown by category is given in Annex 3.

Figure 3‐1: Detailed Analysis of Projects Related to the Water Framework Directive

In order to assist WFD implementation, the EU Member States and the Commission developed the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (WFD CIS), which was agreed in May 2001. In particular, Member States were encouraged to contribute to working groups responsible for developing analyses of pressures and impacts and best practice in river basin planning. According to the LIFE Focus Brochure (Life and Europe’s Rivers, 2007), it was here that many LIFE Nature projects had been particularly influential – promoting the key activities of the strategy, namely: the sharing of information; management of information and data; development of guidance on technical issues; and the application, testing and validation of guidance7. It is interesting that five years on from that publication, impact analysis, ecological and chemical status of surface water, stakeholder participation and management of information and data are still well addressed by LIFE projects in general, but by LIFE ENV projects in particular. Indeed the analysis in Figure 3‐1 shows that since 2005 LIFE NAT projects have focussed heavily on the improvement of ecological status of water courses with a relatively small contribution of projects involving stakeholders. This suggests that there has been a change of emphasis amongst the NAT projects since 2000, but that overall, LIFE projects still contribute to many critical aspects of the WFD.

These principal areas of activity are dealt with in some detail in Chapter 4 through the detailed analysis of the selected projects. Nevertheless, it is relevant to mention some good examples of projects that consider

7

Life and Europe’s Rivers. Protecting and Improving our Water Resources. LIFE III Focus Publication. 2007.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

11

the less well covered aspects of the WFD and this discussion can be found in section dealing with Gap Analysis (section 3.8) below.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) 2008/56/EC Like the WFD before it, the MSFD aims to achieve good environmental status (GES) of the EU's marine waters by 20218 and to protect the resource base upon which marine‐related economic and social activities depend. It establishes four European Marine Regions on the basis of geographical and environmental criteria. Each Member State ‐ cooperating with other Member States and non‐EU countries within a marine region ‐ are required to develop strategies for their marine waters. Key requirements of the Directive are:

 An initial assessment of the current environmental status of the waters.  A detailed description of what Good Environmental Status means for waters, and associated targets and indicators.  Establishment of a monitoring programme to measure progress toward Good Environmental Status.  Establishment of a programme of measures for achieving Good Environmental Status.

Table 3‐1 shows that a total of 28 projects have considered the MSFD in some form or other since 2005. The majority (10 projects) were in 2009, one year after the Directive was launched (see Figure 2‐1). Some projects, such as LIFE06 ENV/B/362 ECOTEC‐STC target specific pollutants – in this case TBT (Tributyl tin, a widely used anti‐fouling paint and persistent pollutant of marine systems) – to achieve good environmental status. Although principally contributing to the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the pioneering actions of LIFE05 ENV/E/267 BE‐Fair, a project which focussed on reducing marine waste streams and discards, illustrated the steps that will need to be taken to comply with the MSFD, as it provided elements of an integrated approach to the sustainable management and governance of estuarine areas.

The project followed the ‘ecosystem based’ approach, and provided solutions to comply with the objective of ‘improving the ecological status of all marine areas’ in the forthcoming years, also integrating economic considerations. This was a very good example of the compatibility (and possibly synergy) between the MFSD and the CFP.

Some projects such as LIFE08 ENV/S/271 WEBAP seek to develop highly technical solutions to specific problems, in this case the development of two different models of a wave activated aeration pump designed to combat oxygen depletion caused by nutrient inputs and eutrophication in coastal waters. Others address the need to clean up coastal waters (to achieve GES) through raising awareness about priority pollutants.

One such project is LIFE 10 INF/EE/108 BaltInfoHaz, a project which aims to build on the experience gained through the successful LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122 BaltActHaz (see section 3.1) by strengthening consumer demand in the three Baltic States for products free of hazardous substances. This will be done by changing consumption patterns among pilot stakeholder groups and through communication of the environmental message to policymakers nationally and internationally.

Finally, there is a group of NAT projects which deal with a very different aspect of the MSFD, namely improving conservation of a species or group of species and strengthening protected area networks both in the coastal areas and offshore. In 2009, a small number of new LIFE projects focussed on this aspect of the MSFD. Projects like LIFE09 NAT/IT/190 ARION and LIFE09 NAT/ES/534 Life Posidonia Andalucia work with a single species and the main objectives, respectively, are to improve of the conservation status of the bottlenose dolphin in the Marine Protected Area (MPA) of Portofino, Italy and to improve the conservation status of Posidonia oceanica meadows in Spain’s Andalusia region. A more ambitious project is LIFE09 NAT/LT/234 DENOFLIT, this four and a half year project aims to produce an inventory of marine species and habitats for the development of a Natura 2000 network in the offshore waters of Lithuania.

8

LIFE and the marine environment. Promoting Sustainable Management of Europe’s Seas. LIFE III Focus Publication. 2006.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

12

There can be no doubt that projects such as these make a significant contribution to the implementation of the MSFD.

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC), 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU The IPPC Directive requires industrial and agricultural activities with a high pollution potential to have a permit. This permit can only be issued if certain environmental conditions are met, so that the companies themselves bear responsibility for preventing and reducing any pollution they may cause. Furthermore, IPPC concerns new or existing industrial and agricultural activities with a high pollution potential, as defined in Annex I to the Directive (energy industries, production and processing of metals, mineral industry, chemical industry, waste management, livestock farming, etc.). It establishes a procedure for authorising these activities and sets minimum requirements to be included in all permits, particularly in terms of pollutants released. The aim is to prevent or reduce pollution of the atmosphere, water and soil, as well as the quantities of waste arising from industrial and agricultural installations, to ensure a high level of environmental protection.

Examination of Table 3‐1 shows that 12 projects aimed to contribute to the IPPC in some way between 2005 and 2010. The trend graph in Figure 2‐1 shows that the majority of these projects (6 in all) were funded in the 2005 round under LIFE III and so IPPC, at least in the water sector, is not well covered during LIFE+. In general, LIFE projects assist the IPPC by developing new technologies to improve water quality either in the industrial or agricultural sectors thereby addressing some of the issues related to both point source and non‐point source pollution. Clearly there is some advantage in the development of these technologies as it assists the organisation in the permitting process under IPPC.

There are several good examples of where LIFE projects have developed new technologies, such as LIFE05 ENV/IT/846 BATTLE which developed a demonstration methodology (treatment plant remotely controlled by an expert system) for efficient waste water reuse in the textile industry. The project promoted the sustainable use of water, reinforcing and providing integrated water management in line with the WFD and the integrated methodology provided an effective contribution to the application of the IPPC Directive and, enabling a sustainable use of the water in critical industrial sites, may represent a good methodology for similar approaches in other industrial sectors.

Similarly, LIFE05 ENV/E/302 Ecodiptera implemented a management model for the ecologically sustainable treatment of pig manure in the Region of Los Serranos, Valencia‐Spain and the LIFE05 ENV/UK/121 PROMOTHE MBR developed a means of process water recycling with a thermophile membrane bioreactor installation for treatment of high temperature waste water, containing varying chemical oxygen demands (CODs) with almost zero waste (sludge) production. Finally, the LIFE05 ENV/D/182 WAgriCo project promoted water resources management in agriculture through the compilation and implementation of programmes of measures to reduce diffuse pollution from agriculture.

LIFE projects assist the implementation of the IPPC Directive through the development of specific technologies. However, even the most successful technologies are rarely transferred or replicated on a wide scale. This is probably because the project proponents wish to retain the intellectual property rights (IPR) of the product and so the innovative solutions have to compete in the market place on a commercial basis, or find additional funding from elsewhere to commercialise the product.

Floods Directive 2007/60/EC The Floods Directive aim is to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. The Directive required Member States to first carry out a preliminary assessment by 2011 to identify the river basins and associated coastal areas at risk of flooding. For such zones they would then need to draw up flood risk maps by 2013 and establish flood risk management plans focused on prevention, protection and preparedness by 2015. The Directive applies to inland waters as well as all coastal waters across the whole territory of the EU.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

13

The analysis in Table 3‐1 shows that only eight LIFE projects seek to contribute to the Floods Directive.

However, some of these projects, like LIFE06 NAT/FIN/129 Kokemäenjoki‐LIFE where attempts to improve wetland habitat for specific bird species under the Habitats Directive, provide indirect benefits in reducing flood risks by increasing wetland areas and retaining flood waters.

Other projects like LIFE06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN (see section 3.1) were designed to implement the Directive through actively mapping the flood risk areas. Similarly, LIFE08 ENV/LV/451 HydroClimateStrategyRiga will make a significant contribution to the implementation of the Directive through the mapping of hydrological processes, the subsequent development of Flood Risk Management Plans for Riga City and increased awareness of stakeholders to the risks of flooding. The main objective of the project is to create the necessary means to ensure that hydrological processes intensified by climate change in Riga are adequately investigated and incorporated in the city’s planning system, thus mitigating their current and future impact to economy and society, nature and biodiversity, water resources and human health.

Clearly the HydroClimateStrategyRiga project also relates to the Climate Change Strategy as does LIFE07 ENV/S/908 GreenClimeAdapt where an industrial area in south‐eastern Malmo will have been turned into a green climate adaptation area with open storm water management and enhanced biodiversity and recreation. The storm water system built in this 45 ha project will retain 90% of a 10‐year storm event. If applied at a European scale, the risk of local flooding could be drastically reduced. The run‐off water will be cleaned before reaching the recipient by sedimentation and filtration in ponds and other retention systems.

While there are some excellent examples of LIFE projects making valuable contributions to the Floods Directive it is disappointing that there are not more projects dealing with this important topic, particularly in relation to flood risk mapping and the development of management plans.

3.2.2. Pollution Control

The contribution of all LIFE projects to directives dealing with pollution control over the period 2005 through 2010 is illustrated in Figure 2‐2. The LIFE portfolio has been dominated by projects considering the UWWT, Nitrates and Discharge of Pollution Directives averaging between 4 and 5 projects funded per directive on an annual basis. The Groundwater Directive has very low support throughout but does show a gradual increase from 2005 to 2010. It is not certain whether this is due to a lack of applications under this strand or whether applications are made but are unsuccessful. The EQS strand is probably the area least covered by LIFE projects, with only two projects even mentioning the directive.

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC The UWWT Directive (91/271/ECE) is one of the most costly pieces of EU legislation to implement. It sets requirements for pre‐treatment of industrial waste water entering collecting systems and the disposal of sewage sludge. The Directive requires all urban areas with the equivalent of more than 2,000 inhabitants to conduct at least secondary (biological) treatment of their wastewater. For those in sensitive areas, or those with more than 10,000 inhabitants, more stringent treatment is required.

Annex II of the Directive requires Member States to draw up lists of sensitive and less sensitive areas which receive the treated waters. These lists must be updated regularly. Member States are responsible for monitoring discharges from treatment plants and the status of the receiving waters. They must ensure that the competent national authorities publish a situation report every two years and send it to the Commission.

Member States must also set up national programmes for the implementation of the UWWT Directive. The Directive timetable indicates that all MS should have fulfilled their obligations by December 2005. The main 9 requirements are described in Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Directive. Despite this, Table 3‐1 shows that

9

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 6th Commission Summary on the Implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive SEC (2011) 1561

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

14

significant numbers of projects featuring Waste Water Treatment are still being funded through LIFE. In fact there were nine projects funded as recently as 2008, which implies that there is still work to be done to achieve GES.

Of the 28 LIFE projects contributing to the UWWT (see Table 3‐1) over 20 focussed on providing new technical solutions for the treatment of waste water. There are numerous examples ranging from the development of Best Available Technique (BAT) for water reuse in textile SMEs (LIFE05 ENV/IT/846 BATTLE) to the improved treatment of storm water (LIFE05 ENV/IT/000894 ESTRUS). Several projects funded between 2005 and 2007 developed new membrane filtration techniques to improve water purification; examples are LIFE05 ENV/IT/868 PERBIOF, LIFE07 ENV/IT/439 PURIFAST and LIFE05 ENV/UK/121 PROMOTHE MBR.

By 2008, projects were aspiring to more complex objectives with concepts designed to link improved waste water treatment to alternative water uses in semi‐arid regions, thereby addressing resource efficiency agendas as well as simple waste water treatment (e.g. LIFE08 ENV/GR/551 PURE). The main objective of the LIFE08 ENV/P/237 WW4ENVIRONMENT project was to implement an optimising tool for the management of wastewater treatment facilities, using operational and energy consumption data to determine and minimize the carbon footprint of Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP). This helped to achieve both the EU’s environmental impact and energy efficiency objectives.. The Spanish project LIFE08 ENV/E/118 GREENLYSIS looked at the production of hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis powered by renewable energies to reduce the environmental footprint of a WWTP.

Paradoxically, the 2009 and 2010 projects appear largely to revert to the development of techniques for waste water treatment, albeit with refinements such as ultrafiltation membrane technology (LIFE09 ENV/ES/467 UFTEC) and removal of different types of pollution load such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (LIFE09 ENV/FI/568 VOCless waste water).

Throughout the period 2005‐2010 a steady number of LIFE projects have focussed on pioneering techniques such as ultrasound treatment (LIFE05 ENV/F/67 SOUND SLUDGE), thermo‐catalytic low temperature conversion techniques (LIFE06 ENV/D/458 LOTECOTEC) and pyrogasificiation (LIFE08 ENV/F/489 PYROBIO) for reducing and removing sludge in waste water and sewage treatment plants. Other projects, such as LIFE06 ENV/D/460 SLUDGE2ENERGY, dealt with waste prevention through sewage sludge reuse for efficient energy generation in waste water treatment plants.

As the principal activities of the UWWT Directive should already have been met by the Member States by 2005 it is difficult to see how the projects, which are clearly linked to improved waste water treatment, could actually assist implementation. However, although the technology should never stand still and that some of the advancements made via LIFE projects will undoubtedly contribute further to improved waste water treatment they can no longer be said to link directly to policy implementation in terms of the UWWT Directive. The innovative advances in 2008, where projects were linked with other directives, were more appropriate in terms of policy implementation and it is a pity that these were so poorly represented in subsequent years. The one remaining part of the UWWT Directive that requires implementation is the monitoring phase. Although this is an area that would be well suited to LIFE projects no projects dealing with monitoring could be identified from the data.

Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC The Nitrates Directive is one of the oldest water directives and it will soon be repealed by the WFD. Its principal aim is to prevent nitrates from agricultural sources from affecting ground and surface waters. It requires Member States to (1) detect waters that are already affected or likely to be affected by nitrate pollution, (2) designate all those areas that drain into waters that are polluted as vulnerable zones, (3) develop action programmes within the vulnerable zones, and (4) monitor and assess the action programmes and revise them as needed to achieve the Directive’s goals. Member States must establish codes of good agricultural practice to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis. The action programmes for

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

15

vulnerable zones must include measures set out in the codes of good practice and those needed to limit the application of any nitrogenous fertilisers to soils, which may require investing in livestock manure storage facilities.

The implementation of the Nitrates Directive is carried out in a number of stages. Member States are required to:

 Identify surface water and groundwater affected by pollution or at risk of being so;  Designate vulnerable zones;  Establish a code of good agricultural practice to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis;  Set up compulsory action programmes to be implemented by all farmers who work in vulnerable zones.

The Nitrates Directive is much more flexible than the UWWT Directive, giving space for voluntary schemes and variability with the ultimate aim of establishing good agricultural practices. Table 3‐1 shows that a total of 25 LIFE projects focussed on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive and Figure 2‐2 shows that the majority of these projects were funded in 2005 under LIFE III (7 projects) and in 2010 (8 projects). The 2005 projects were evenly split between the northern and southern Member States but the majority of the 2010 projects were in southern Member States with Spain, Italy, Greece and Malta featuring in the portfolio. Some of these are analysed in detail in Chapter 4.

Overall the projects fall into three broad categories:

 Those that rely on the development of new technologies;  Those that develop alternative cultivation practices; and  Those that provide a management solution.

Among the innovative projects providing new technical solutions are LIFE05 ENV/GR/245 EnviFriendly, a project which developed environmentally friendly technologies for rural development; LIFE05 ENV/UK/137 NITRABAR which developed a multi‐barrier for diffuse pollution from agricultural systems; LIFE06 ENV/F/158 ISONITRATE which developed isotopic monitoring and sono‐chemical technologies for the improved management of nitrate pollution in water; LIFE05 ENV/E/289 FERTIGREEN where the project demonstrated the technical viability of the use of gasification of irrigation water (although the effectiveness of the gas injection into irrigation water (fertirrigation) system to reduce nitrate contamination was not as successful as expected). The LIFE08 ENV/GR/570 HydroSense project developed and implemented a site‐specific management system for reducing irrigation and chemical inputs to soil and groundwater. In particular, variable‐rate irrigation reduced water consumption by 20% in comparison with uniform irrigation and variable‐rate fertilisation reduced nitrate pollution by 20% and pesticide/herbicide inputs by 50%.

Possibly the most interesting technological developments will be demonstrated by two Italian 2010 projects which are both exploring the use of zeolite to reduce nitrate pollution. More than 50% of natural zeolitic rocks consist of zeolites, a group of minerals with special physical and chemical properties, such as high and selective cation exchange capacity (CEC), molecular adsorption and reversible dehydration. Zeolites can take up ammonium (NH4), which is found in fertilisers, and release it at a slow enough rate that it can be absorbed by the roots of plants rather than be dispersed in groundwater. LIFE10 ENV/IT/347 UNIZEO is developing urea‐based nitrogenous fertilizers coated with zeolite which they hope will significantly reduce pollution due to nitrogen. LIFE10 ENV/IT/321 ZeoLIFE aims to exploit the zeolitic cycle by adopting an integrated approach that reduces the nitrogen content in livestock effluents and agricultural soils, and improves the yield and economic efficiency of irrigation water and fertilisers, thus reducing pollution of fresh water and groundwater and overexploitation of water resources. Both these projects are at a very early stage and it will be interesting to map their development and assess the applicability of the method to other

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

16

regions with zeolitic formations10.

Many of the more recent projects have pioneered methods for alternative cultivation of soils or have utilised alternative methods of cleaning up nitrate pollution. One such project, LIFE09 ENV/ES/431 CREAMAgua will be creating and restoring natural ecosystem structures of wetlands and riverbank forests to reduce inorganic nutrients ‐ nitrates and phosphates ‐ and salts from agricultural runoff and improve the biodiversity in agricultural areas degraded by intensive agricultural use, in the area of the Flumen basin in Spain. In Poland, project LIFE08 ENV/PL/519 EKOROB will construct ecotones to improve water quality in the Sulejowski Reservoir and, as an innovative element, the project will include ‘de‐nitrification walls’ that form a barrier to nitrates from non‐point source agricultural areas as well as areas without sewer systems. In the wall, groundwater polluted with nitrates flows through a sawdust‐filled ditch situated vertically to the direction of the flowing water. In an oxygen‐free environment, the process of denitrification takes place, in which nitrogen compounds are removed from water to the atmosphere.

There are several 2009 and 2010 projects where alternative agricultural practices are being trialled in an effort to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from livestock, through amendments to animal diets (as in LIFE09 ENV/IT/208 AQUA), or on arable farms through changes in the way that fertilizers are used. A Polish project (LIFE10 ENV/PL/661 Biorewit) aims to reduce soil and water pollution through the gradual replacement of mineral fertilisers with new soil eco‐activators – the target is at least a 20% decrease in mineral nutrient emissions from greenhouse production to groundwater. While a Belgian project LIFE10 ENV/BE/699 DEMETER aims to achieve a higher level of soil organic matter in Flemish and Dutch agricultural soils thereby decreasing the nutrient load in the environment. A Greek project LIFE10 ENV/GR/594 WASTEREUSE is developing best practice guidance for recycling of agricultural wastes in the Mediterranean region by recycling nutrients and water.

Finally, LIFE projects also address the implementation of the Nitrates Directive through changing agricultural or water management regimes. A number of projects have developed management models as a tool to reduce nitrate pollution. LIFE05 ENV/E/302 Ecodiptera successfully implemented a management model for the ecologically sustainable treatment of pig manure in the Region of Los Serranos, Valencia‐Spain and LIFE09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER project intends to develop, at the river basin scale, an integrated water management system to identify waters under threat and designate nitrate vulnerable zones. The beneficiary will develop the management system based on the Strahler stream model of surface water flow and pollution transportation and the River Modelling System (RMS), which computes the transfer of nutrients in groundwater systems. The system will contain software capable of calculating the environmental impact of activities and changes. Another project (LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569 GISBLOOM) intends to develop a web‐based mapping service with interactive portal (LakeWiki) aimed at facilitating participatory river basin management.

Discharge of Pollution Directive 76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC; 06/11/EC The Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community was one of the first water related directives to be adopted. It had the ambitious objective of regulating potential aquatic pollution by thousands of chemicals already produced in Europe at that time. The Directive covered discharges to inland surface waters, territorial waters, inland coastal waters and groundwater. In 1980 the protection of groundwater was taken out of 76/464/EEC and regulated under the separate Council Directive 80/68/EEC (1) on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances. Directive 76/464/EEC has since been codified as 06/11/EC. This Directive will be repealed by the Water Framework Directive from the end of 2013.

The Discharge of Pollution Directive introduced the concept of List I and List II substances, which were listed in the Annex to the Directive. The purpose of the Directive is to eliminate pollution from List I substances

10

There are between 40 and 50 Zeolites which are naturally occurring minerals formed when volcanic magma and ash meets with seawater

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

17

and to reduce pollution from List II substances.

As with other directives, LIFE projects provide valuable technological solutions to reducing or eliminating dangerous substances in water and Table 3‐1 indicates that some 20 projects have considered the dangerous substances directives over the last 6 years. The Hungarian project LIFE05 ENV/H/418 SUMANAS developed a complex water treatment technology to remove methane, ammonia and arsenic from groundwater and the LIFE07 ENV/B/22 BACad project is developing a full scale bio‐augmentation technique for the cost effective remediation of volatile toxic and carcinogenic organo‐chlorine compounds. In contrast the Estonian project LIFE07 ENV/EE/122 BaltActHaz is directly targeting the reduction of dangerous substances entering the Baltic Sea by a series of measures designed to raise awareness in the Baltic States and provide management tools to support better decision making by the stakeholders. A Swedish project LIFE09 ENV/SE/351 Mare Purum is developing an anti‐fouling alternative to TBT based paints for use in the shipping industry.

Groundwater 2006/118/EC This Directive establishes a regime which sets underground water quality standards and introduces measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater. The Directive establishes quality criteria that takes into account local characteristics and allows for further improvements to be made based on monitoring data and new scientific knowledge. The Directive thus represents a proportionate and scientifically sound response to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive as it relates to assessments on chemical status of groundwater and the identification and reversal of significant and sustained upward trends in pollutant concentrations. Member States will have to establish the standards at the most appropriate level and take into account local or regional conditions. The Groundwater Directive requires:

 Groundwater quality standards to be established by the end of 2008;  Pollution trend studies to be carried out by using existing data and data which is mandatory by the WFD (referred to as "baseline level" data obtained in 2007‐2008);  Pollution trends to be reversed so that environmental objectives are achieved by 2015 by using the measures set out in the WFD;  Measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater to be operational so that WFD environmental objectives can be achieved by 2015;  Reviews of technical provisions of the directive to be carried out in 2013 and every six years thereafter;  Compliance with good chemical status criteria (based on EU standards of nitrates and pesticides and on threshold values established by Member States).

Table 3‐1 indicates that 14 LIFE projects have contributed to the Groundwater Directive and several of these are featured in Chapter 4 of this report, thus demonstrating that this is an area where LIFE projects excel in helping to implement the legislation in a variety of different practical ways. One area where LIFE projects contribute a great deal is in assessing and modelling risk to aquifers. The Slovenian project LIFE07 ENV/SLO/725 INCOME exemplifies how risk registers can be developed from integrating precise spatial data on aquifer characteristics (geology and hydrology), pollution sources and groundwater quality status into a GIS environment. This information is then used to develop different models of groundwater flow, risk assessment in impact zones and probability assessments of accidental pollution. The LIFE08 ENV/D/021 MAGPlan is developing two innovative technologies and a suite of modelling tools to prevent threats from point sources on the good chemical status of groundwater in urban areas.

Other LIFE projects provide innovative solutions for directly reducing inputs of pollutants to groundwater.

The LIFE09 ENV/B/407 VOPAK‐EXPERO3 will demonstrate the applicability of an in situ chemical oxidation technique for the remediation of soil and groundwater contaminated with a cocktail of organic contaminants in very high concentrations at an explosion sensitive site. The Greek project LIFE10 ENV/GR/601 CHARM will demonstrate different technologies for the remediation of groundwater bodies with high concentrations of Cr(III) and Cr(VI).

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

18

EQS Directive 2008/105/EC This Directive lays down environmental quality standards (EQS) for priority substances and certain other pollutants as provided for in Article 16 of the WFD. The aim is to achieve good surface water chemical status, in accordance with the objectives specified in article 4 of the WFD. The EQS sets out standards for:

 Fresh water in respect of pollution control; freshwater quality/freshwater pollution; surface water; effluent waste water/discharge; hazardous substances; and  Marine waters in respect of pollution control; marine pollution; marine pollution (land‐based sources); effluent waste water/discharge; hazardous substances.

This Directive is not well served by the LIFE programme although the reason for this is not clear. Table 3‐1 shows that only two projects refer to the EQS Directive and both projects are primarily considering different directives with the EQS as value added project benefits. The Finnish project LIFE08 ENV/FIN/609 CATERMASS aims to develop climate change adaptation tools for the Finnish River Basin Districts to mitigate impacts of increased leaching of acidity and associated metals from acid sulphate soils drained for agriculture and forestry. The project implementation includes mapping and risk classification methods for acid sulphate soils and the construction of prototype testing fields which include subsurface controlled drainage systems, pumping systems, tailored cropping and cultivation schemes. Although the primary legislation considered is the WFD, the acid sulphate soils contain high concentrations of cadmium which is one of the EQS Directive priority substance metals. As the project moves into its final year the infrastructure stage has been completed and the initial results of the mitigation methodologies are promising. The project will produce technical guidance documents so that the project outcomes can be reproduced in other areas where acid sulphate soils are problematic.

The main objective of the project, LIFE10 ENV/ES/521 AQUATIK, is the development and validation of an advanced monitoring system for control of organic priority pollutants in treated wastewater effluents. The project environmental benefits refer to the quality of surface water and specifically to the EQS Directive. It is developing and validating an advanced system for control of organic priority pollutants in treated wastewater effluent through the use of a cost effective smart tool capable of detecting and quantifying pollution. The smart tool will be driven by selected innovative technologies such as automatic on‐line concentrators and biosensors to detect pollutants.

3.2.3. Aquatic Organisms

Fresh Waters Directive 2006/44/EC The Directive aims to ensure that fish populations living in water‐courses and lakes are protected and, accordingly, it lays down quality criteria which apply to designated waters. Member States are expected to comply with these criteria in order to reduce or eliminate pollution and to allow various freshwater fish species to be maintained at balanced levels. The Directive covers running or standing fresh waters which support, or could become capable of supporting, fish in sufficient numbers to maintain a natural balance and diversity. Under the Directive the Member States are required to designate the fresh waters which are to be considered suitable for fish‐breeding. These are subdivided into two categories:

 Salmonid waters: waters which support or become capable of supporting fish belonging to species such as salmon, trout, grayling or whitefish; and  Cyprinid waters: waters which support or become capable of supporting fish belonging to the cyprinids or other species such as pike, perch and eel.

The Directive requires Member States to establish 5‐year programmes to reduce pollution or improve the quality of designated waters and set limits for pollutants. The Directive determines:

 Physical and chemical parameters applying to designated salmonid and cyprinid waters;  Guide values and mandatory values;

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

19

 

Methods of analysis or inspection; and Minimum sampling and measuring frequency.

As the Directive protects fish population it is not surprising that LIFE NAT projects focus more on implementing this Directive than on other water related policy. Table 3‐1 shows that 18 LIFE projects have focussed on improving the status of fresh water and Figure 3‐2 shows that by far the highest proportion of these were LIFE NAT projects.

On examination, the 18 LIFE projects exclusively deal with issues concerning the optimum physical requirements for designated salmonid and cyprinid water. Some projects also deal in a limited way with chemical improvements and some have developed monitoring programmes.

Figure 3‐2: Relative Proportion of LIFE Projects Addressing Directives Relating to Aquatic Organisms

The implementation of the majority of projects is based around four main objectives i) restoration works on degraded habitats ii) physical changes in river morphology iii) removal of obstacles to improve connectivity and iv) changes in agro‐silviculture practices in riparian zones. As a consequence a wide variety of river restoration techniques have been carried out by LIFE projects throughout the Member States. One UK project LIFE09 INF/UK/032 RESTORE is now compiling information on best practices in river restoration which will act as guidance for future LIFE and non‐LIFE projects working towards implementing the Water Framework Directive.

A significant number of LIFE projects deal with habitat improvements for the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and lamprey species. LIFE05 NAT/D/057 Lippe‐Aue restored the natural river and floodplain dynamics to increase habitat for the Atlantic salmon and the river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis). The project successfully restored the hydrology of 17 km of river and within eight months a total of 8,000 fish of 29 species were recorded. LIFE05 NAT/B/090 Life Grote Nete also restored river hydrology for lamprey species and LIFE05 NAT/UK/143 STREAM restored suitable hydrology for Atlantic salmon and lamprey species

Some projects are extremely ambitious in their proposals for the removal of obstructions, for example the Danish project LIFE05 NAT/DK/153 Houting successfully decommissioned two hydroelectric power stations that were causing obstructions for migrating houting (Coregonus oxyrhynchus). While other projects, LIFE06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP, seek alternative solutions to obstructions through the installation of moveable hydropower installations allowing the upstream and downstream migration of fish species (see section 3.6 for a more detailed analysis of these projects).

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

20

Alongside the morphological changes to the river habitats several projects have also made significant improvements in riparian zones and as a consequence water quality is improved. The techniques used to bring about these improvements are rarely innovative but they are effective and generally either target removal of non‐native woodland species, thinning of dense vegetation on river banks to provide dappled shade and changes in livestock management to limit access along the river banks and so prevent excessive siltation in the river. Such practices are being successfully employed in LIFE07 NAT/IRL/342 IShannonSACLAEO a project which is restoring a section of a Natura 2000 river for salmon and lamprey using in‐stream habitat restoration and riparian management to improve water quality. The project relies heavily on the cooperation and involvement of local farmers to bring about changes in livestock management in the riparian zone and reduce siltation in the water column and on the river bed.

Most projects combine the restoration techniques and water quality improvements with some form of monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the interventions in terms of target fish species. However, one project, LIFE08 NAT/UK/201 ISAC is using a more innovative approach by monitoring water quality using diatom assemblages. Diatom communities respond rapidly to changes in water chemistry and can be used as an indicator of improving water quality before changes are seen in the fish populations.

Shellfish Waters Directive 2006/113/EC The aim of the Shellfish Waters Directive is to protect or improve shellfish waters to support shellfish life and growth. It is designed to protect the aquatic habitat of bivalve and gastropod molluscs, which include oysters, mussels, cockles, scallops and clams. The Directive requires Member States to designate waters that need protection in order to support shellfish life and growth and sets physical, chemical and microbiological requirements that the waters must either comply with or endeavour to improve. The Directive provides for the establishment of pollution reduction programmes for designated waters. It only applies to coastal and brackish waters and to those species that are edible.

Table 3‐1 shows that only one LIFE project contributed to the shellfish Directive and Figure 3‐2 shows that it came from the LIFE ENV strand. The French project LIFE06 ENV/F/136 MARECLEAN, aimed to improve water quality in 12 designated mussel/oyster production areas. Although at the end of the project there was a significant improvement in water quality at most designated areas the project did not entirely meet the objectives because not all the sites fully complied with the Directive. It is quite possible that a number of other LIFE projects that deal with coastal pollution can also have some influence on shellfish areas although none are specifically stated.

3.2.4. Human Health

Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC The objective of the Drinking Water Directive is to protect the health of consumers in the European Union and to make sure that water is wholesome and clean. It sets standards for 48 microbiological and chemical parameters that must be monitored and tested regularly. In principle World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for drinking water are used as a basis for the standards in the Directive. It:

 Sets quality standards for drinking water quality at the tap (microbiological, chemical and organoleptic parameters) and the general obligation that drinking water must be wholesome and clean.  Obliges Member States to regular monitoring of drinking water quality and to provide to consumers adequate and up‐to‐date information on their drinking water quality.

Table 3‐1 indicates that there are eight LIFE ENV projects which may have a direct link to the Directive, although it must be said that the majority of these do not specifically cite the Directive and thereby indirectly improve drinking water quality mainly through activities related to the WFD or the Groundwater Directive. One such project is LIFE07 ENV/SLO/725 INCOME in Slovenia which is addressing groundwater pollution in the Ljubljana area through chemical analysis and hydrological monitoring but will have long term socio‐economic benefits in terms of more healthy drinking water and a higher awareness of the importance

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

21

of unpolluted groundwater. Similarly, the French project LIFE07 ENV/F/173 SEMEAU does not specifically refer to the Directive but has one action which establishes a strategy for trapping phosphorous from farming activities in the Saint Etienne area. This action includes the preparation of guidelines for the protection of drinking water supply drains due to be completed in April 2012. The Polish project LIFE08 ENV/PL/519 EKOROB is developing a phyto‐remediation method for reduction of non point source pollution to improve water quality in the Sulejowski Reservoir used as a source of drinking water.

One of the few projects that is contributing to the implementation of the Directive, but again indirectly, is LIFE09 ENV/IT/056 WIZ which aims to use spatial mapping to deliver future drinking water management conditions to adapt to climate change. The project services include integrating and projecting existing information about drinking water demand trends, infrastructure capacity, investment costs and climate change impacts on water resources. The results will be made available to planning authorities in Italy.

Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC Research into bathing water and human health since the original Directive’s introduction in 1976 has led to the development of the revised Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC), which will be implemented in stages up to 2015, when the original Directive will be repealed. The revised Directive uses two parameters to assess water quality, Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci, using a four year data set for each set of results, and sets much tighter standards than the original Directive.

There will be four classification categories: Excellent (approximately twice as stringent as the current Guideline standard); Good (similar to the current Guideline); Sufficient (approximately twice as stringent as the current Mandatory standard) and Poor, for waters which do not comply with the Directive’s standards.

There will be a new requirement for information about water quality and potential sources of pollution at bathing waters to be provided on signs and via the internet. Regular reviews of the list of bathing waters will be carried out and the public will be encouraged to participate in the review.

Key dates for the introduction of the revised Directive are:

   

2012: Signs must be in place at all bathing waters by the beginning of the bathing season.

2014: Final bathing water report using the standards of the current Directive 2015: First set of classifications using the new parameters will be published, based on the data set commenced in 2012 2016: The current bathing water classification will be displayed using standard symbols that will be in use throughout the European Union.

Only one LIFE ENV project actually contributed to the implementation of this Directive. LIFE06 ENV/F/136 MARECLEAN was specifically designed to reduce microbial pollution discharge to coastal waters. The objective for the 40 km of coastline covered by the project was to reduce the number of bathing sites rated ‘sufficient’ according to the Directive from 5 to 2 areas and from 3 to 0 for those rated poor. At the end of the project bathing water quality had improved but not to the targeted extent. However, the water quality modelling showed that the project targets would be met by 2012‐2015 thanks to the implementation of the overall project actions. The main sources of coastal pollution were found to be i) from non point sources coming from coastal rivers due to cattle farming and ii) a substantial impact from the overflow of sewage after heavy rainfall. The project developed a risk based assessment tool to reduce storm water overflow (which has been adopted by the local authorities) and introduced better cattle management procedures on two sensitive rivers.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

22

Other Human Health Related Projects not covered by the DWD or BWD There are two innovative LIFE ENV projects which bring positive benefits for human health whilst contributing to either the UWWT or WFD Directives objectives. The Spanish project LIFE07 ENV/E/794 TEXLEGIO designed, developed, installed and tested a pilot plant that combines the technologies of ozone and UV radiation to offer a technically viable solution for the elimination of Legionella bacteria from surface water used to supply at risk equipment or LIFE07 ENV/NL/576 transferred in air currents. The new technology is comparable PHARMAFILTER with current treatments using chlorination based prevention and control systems as well as being much more effective, safer and more environmentally acceptable.

The Dutch project LIFE07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER developed an innovative waste and waste water management concept for hospitals, which are a major source of waste water containing

human waste which is further contaminated by medicine residues and endocrine disruptors. In the Netherlands alone around 130 The PHARMAFILTER unit hospitals discharge 20% of this waste material while the 7 million established in the hospital households contribute the remaining 80%. The medicine residues includes a waste water and endocrine disruptors are not effectively treated by treatment unit using a conventional waste water treatment processes. membrane bioreactor (MBR) 3.3. Means of Intervention Arguably, all LIFE projects aspire to assist with the implementation of one or more directives as the analysis in Section 3.1 clearly demonstrates. It is, however, true to say that for many projects precisely how they contribute to policy is not as clearly defined as perhaps it could be. Many projects, where improvement in water quality is an objective, tend to use the WFD as a ‘catch all’ directive and often fail to elaborate specific links between the project and the policy.

In an effort to explore how projects intervene in terms of policy intervention, the 197 projects were further screened to assess the methods and means for delivering the project. This led to breaking down projects into the following action areas:

 Development of new/innovative technologies.  Demonstration of good practice or management techniques.  Stakeholder engagement and awareness building.  Data collection, data management and modelling.  Monitoring.  Policy.

followed by post‐filtration treatment by oxidation and adsorption. The initial results are extremely promising and the project hopes to demonstrate 80% reduction in medicine residuals and endocrine disruptors in hospital waste water by the end of the project.

It must be remembered that many LIFE projects are designed to deliver more than one of these categories, for example the dissemination strand of most projects involves some kind of awareness building but awareness‐raising has only been included in the above analysis if it was a primary objective of the project (for example the LIFE INF projects have awareness raising as a primary goal). An example of this is project LIFE07 ENV/UK/943 PISCES which has, as its over‐riding action, engagement with stakeholders to deliver an ecosystem‐based approach to delivering the MSFD.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

23

Similarly, some projects do have more than one primary objective and in these cases more than one activity has been recorded for the project. An example of this is the Luxembourg project LIFE07 ENV/L/540 M3 which is developing integrated modelling and monitoring approaches for river basin management and evaluation and the output of this project could be of interest to other WFD working groups.

Figure 3‐3 show the breakdown of projects in terms of delivery mechanisms for policy implementation. It is very clear that the majority of projects help to implement policy through either the development of innovative technologies (28%) or the adoption of best practices/management (39%). A moderate number of projects involve stakeholders/awareness building (13%) or data collection and modelling (12%) as their primary activity. Only 5% of projects are designed to deliver some kind of monitoring programme and even fewer are actually designed to directly affect policy (3%).

Figure 3‐3: Delivery Mechanisms for Policy Implementation for all Projects

A further breakdown of delivery mechanisms by LIFE brand is shown in Figure 3‐4. Of the two main delivery activities virtually all the technological innovations are provided by the LIFE ENV brand, showing that this is an important means of developing and testing new technologies to deliver improved water management.

Projects promoting best practices or improved management of resources are evenly distributed between the two main LIFE brands and this serves to illustrate the fact that the majority of LIFE NAT projects are specifically designed to promote best practice and rarely have truly innovative elements. There are many good examples of LIFE projects demonstrating these two delivery mechanisms and these have been mentioned in the previous section.

There are very few projects that are designed to improve monitoring. Even though this is a key element of the WFD only 10 projects overall have monitoring as part of the project architecture and even fewer address any kind of harmonisation of monitoring across the Member States. Therefore, the Italian project LIFE08 ENV/IT/399 EnvEurope is particularly ambitious as it designed to make best use of the vast range of monitoring data collected across Europe at both the national and international level which are often incompatible. The project aims to build on the work of the European Long‐Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) and to provide an analysis of the long‐term ecological data and its comparison across eco‐ domains. In so doing the project will supply relevant scientific support to EU environmental policy and conservation in an integrated ecosystem approach. Similarly, the Spanish project LIFE09 ENV/ES/456 AG_UAS is developing a highly innovative cost‐effective, spatial tool for more efficient, sustainable, water monitoring and management, in line with WFD requirements using remote sensing.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

24

Figure 3‐4: Breakdown of Delivery Mechanisms by LIFE Brand

It would seem that the majority of LIFE projects (at least in the water sector) do not set out to have a direct input into policy making although there are one or two notable exceptions. The project LIFE07 ENV/E/794 TEXLEGIO set out to reduce and eliminate Legionella pneumophila bacteria in water using alternative methods to those accepted by the Spanish water regulator. As a consequence of the successful results obtained from the project the team developed a proposal for adopting new legal regulations within the EU to adopt this new technology. A new Italian project LIFE10 ENV/IT/394 WARBO has been specifically set up to facilitate the regulation of Artificial Recharge (AR) and to respond to the need to safeguard, protect and enhance water ecosystems. In southern Europe AR is considered to be an appropriate and effective tool to protect groundwater quantity but it is not regulated at either the national or the EU level. To guarantee the correct application of recharge techniques, legislation needs to define inter alia where and how to abstract water and the chemical and physical nature of the recharge water. The WARBO project will develop specific experimental protocols that will define the administrative procedures to be followed and will specify how to manage recharge activities and in so doing will make a direct contribution to new legislation.

3.4. Specific national/ regional/ local approaches developed by LIFE projects In many cases, LIFE projects do not only relate to EU legislation, but also national or regional law with their activities. This is especially the case in countries or regions – such as Flanders in Belgium or Catalunya in Spain, where the local legislation is already very advanced and can be more detailed than EU law.

Water projects are perhaps uniquely placed in their requirement to cross boundaries and borders either following river courses or in wider bodies of Europe’s seas and oceans. In this respect water projects sometimes have to deal with non‐Member States which may have a direct impact on the outcome of a project. One such example of a truly international project was LIFE05 NAT/LV/100 Baltic MPAs, which made a significant contribution to the protection and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in the Eastern Baltic and involved Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. However, due to the close ecological connectivity of the Baltic Sea ecosystem and taking into account serious threats originating from the adjacent non‐EU territories, the project involved some key stakeholders from the North West Russian Region in the threat assessment, awareness and capacity building activities. In fact a set of high quality dissemination products were prepared and distributed including a film and a book aimed at the general public and published in English, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Russian, which can still be accessed from the website www.balticseaportal.net.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

25

Some projects have a distinctly national approach and restrict their activities to within a single Member State; although it is frequently acknowledged that the results or outcomes may be readily transferred to other Member States. The project LIFE09 ENV/FI/569 GISBLOOM aims to build capacity to ensure better integration of climate change into river basin management plans in Finland. It will demonstrate an integrated model to quantify the effects of different climate change scenarios to help tackle threats of eutrophication and algal blooms. It will use an innovative combination of nationwide data and models for hydrology, land‐ use changes and nutrient loads to generate data and real‐time forecasts for algal blooming in river basins and around 48,000 Finnish lakes on a daily basis. A new feature will be a web‐based map service and interactive portal (LakeWiki) aimed at facilitating participatory river basin management. This process will inform the selection of measures for river basin management plans in eight pilot areas. Their implementation will be subject to cost‐benefit analyses. By working to integrate climate change effectively into river basin management plans and to develop a participatory approach, this project will contribute to the achievement of the environmental objectives of the WFD, the MSFD and the Nitrates Directive. Although the geographical scope of the GISBLOOM project is limited to Finland the tools which will be demonstrated and evaluated are applicable to all the other EU countries.

Small island states such as Malta and Cyprus are readily suited to national projects as the LIFE08 ENV/CY/460 WATER project demonstrates. The overall goal of the project is to strengthen the scientific foundation of water management programmes, including developing criteria for pollutants with high potential impact on environmental quality and biodiversity. As such, the project will establish and demonstrate an innovative set of methods and tools for the design and implementation of programmes for the preservation of the high environmental quality and good ecological status of water bodies in Cyprus.

Regional projects may refer to a particular area of a country, an example of which would be LIFE05 ENV/H/418 SUMANAS a project designed to sustainably manage and treat arsenic bearing groundwater in Southern Hungary. The project constructed and operated a pilot plant that is able to remove ammonia, methane and arsenic from water with 98% efficiency and assessed the scale of arsenic content (and estimated the cost of removal) in groundwater in Southern Hungary. Alternatively, the term regional is often used to describe a specific location (often a former state or country) within a member state. An example of this would be the LIFE06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN a project elaborating detailed flood hazard and flood risk maps using an automatic data compression procedure. In addition, a cost‐effective method for the use of classified data of land‐cover has been developed and is being applied throughout Bavaria.

Some projects are more ambitious in nature and cover a number of regions such as the Spanish LIFE07 NAT/E/732 INDEMARES project. Goals set out in the MSFD provide a legal impetus for extending the coverage of Natura 2000 into offshore territories and projects such as INDEMARES are helping to pioneer methods that can assist marine areas comply with the Directive. Early outputs identified suitable sites and selection criteria that prioritised locations with diverse features or varied biodiversity in natural states.

Project sites also had to be representative of other areas into order to provide replicable results with good multiplier opportunities (thus ensuring the EU added value of INDEMARES). A total of ten locations were then chosen from the Atlantic, Mediterranean and Macaronesian regions. LIFE is contributing €7.7 million of EU funding to support these prospective members of the marine Natura network and final project outcomes are anticipated towards the end of 201311.

However, it must be acknowledged that the majority of LIFE projects (especially those developing a technological solution) tend to operate on a local scale rather than a national or regional scale and international projects are the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, local projects can play an important role in implementing local policies (or byelaws) and meeting local regulatory requirements.

11

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/features/2012/marine.htm

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

26

3.5. LIFE projects playing the role of catalyst for the implementation of national/ regional/ local water programmes

An inherent objective in most projects is to help catalyse wider implementation of national/regional or local water programmes. A characteristic feature of a LIFE project is how much potential it has for replication and transfer to other sectors or locations. Regrettably, the ability for a single project to perform this catalytic role depends not on the success of the project outcome but more on the ability of the project to attract the required interest and financing to move it through to the next step of commercialisation (for technical solutions) or operationalisation (for models and management solutions). The 2011 LIFE Environment Conference examined the critical success factors and barriers to further implementation in a session on ‘The Multiplier Effect – How Good Solutions Spread’. One clear conclusion from the conference was that LIFE projects require a certain set of market conditions in order to fully realise their potential.

One excellent example of a project that has catalysed a huge amount of interest both nationally and internationally is the UK project LIFE06 ENV/UK/409 OpenMI‐LIFE. Essentially the project team has designed a piece of software that allows various models to ‘talk’ to one another. The implications for such a tool in respect of implementing the integrated river basin plans demanded by the WFD are impressive. For example a groundwater model could be linked to a coastal hydrodynamic model and allow the user to determine the impact of artificial recharge of a groundwater reservoir on coastal dynamics. The tool is so powerful, and has so many applications, that there has been as much interest in its further development from Northern America as there has been from Europe. Thus the project can be said to have truly catalysed the implementation of water policy on an international scale.

Clearly, this achievement is exceptional but there are other projects that may make a substantive difference provided the market conditions are favourable when the project closes. An example may be the more recent Italian project, LIFE08 INF/IT/308 WATACLIC, which seeks to reduce water use in urban areas using both communication and fiscal tools. Despite the fact that water scarcity is a recognised problem in the Southern European Member States there is a general lack of interest by Italian public bodies in water‐related issues (and municipalities in particular), as they do not recognise water as a key problem in their urban planning activity. More generally, the need to reduce water consumption at household level is not widely perceived by different stakeholders. For the final users this is probably due to the low price of water: in Italy the whole water service, including sewage and wastewater treatment costs around 1€ per cubic meter. Furthermore, a recent report for the Italian Government by the association of water management companies states that “Data from Water Plans clearly shows – contrary to what is asked by the European Water Framework Directive – an increasing trend in water resource demand, thus clearly showing Italian difficulties to conform to EU policy.”12 After two years of implementation the project is achieving its objectives but the real test will be if the key organisations in the public sector adopt the WATACLIC principles and in the current economic climate it may be difficult to increase water charges to realistic levels. Nevertheless, if the project is successful it could assist the Italian water authorities to make a major step forward in meeting the requirements of the WFD.

On the local level, the Greek project LIFE05 ENV/GR/245 EnviFriendly significantly reduced nitrates, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in the water of pilot areas (through phytoremediation and river bank erosion controls), also by generating awareness among and synergy between local authorities (with eight municipalities involved as partners)and also including residents, for a more sustainable use of water resources. At the EU level, the project has contributed to the implementation of the WFD as the Evrotas River Basin is highly likely to achieve its environmental objectives by 2015. In addition, the project managed to involve in its activities, mainly with the aim of ensuring the sustainability of the results, the Central Water Agency of the Ministry of the Environment in Greece (the authority responsible for the implementation of

12

UTILITATIS 2010 ‐ "Studio ed elaborazione di un quadro operativo per l’impianto gestionale dei servizi pubblici locali. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. Dipartimento Affari Regionali. Organismo Intermedio PON. "Governance e Azioni di Sistema 2007‐2013". Asse E Obiettivo Specifico 5.2. 2010"

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

27

the Water Framework Directive). This organisation has shown a real interest in the project with the desire to transfer project results to other Greek river basins. So again the LIFE project has acted as a catalyst for further implementation of the WFD in Greece.

One final example comes from the UK where the LIFE 07/ENV/UK/943 PISCES project is beginning to make a significant contribution to the implementation of the MSFD outside the project target area of the Celtic Sea. In a recent breakthrough the project team has been able to influence how the MSFD working groups throughout Europe can implement the ecosystems based approach called for by the Directive using the direct results of the project. PISCES is in its final year and is putting the final touches to peer reviewed guidelines for implementation of the ecosystems based approach which could be adopted by all Member States.

In conclusion, although it is difficult to assess the real success of LIFE projects as catalysts for wider implementation of EU policy in the water sector, there are some quite remarkable examples of how single projects can, given the right circumstances, have an influence over a much greater area or larger group of people than could have been anticipated at the start of the project.

3.6. Cross cutting policy Other directives indirectly considered by LIFE projects seeking to find solutions for water management and protection are the Waste Directive, the EU thematic strategy on urban environments, Climate Change, Renewable Energy, as well as the INSPIRE and Habitats Directives already mentioned above.

The potential issues raised by Member States trying to implement a range of EU Directives are best illustrated by examining a number of LIFE projects relating to more than one directive. The following combined case study looks at the Water Framework Directive in relationship to the Renewable Energy Directive and provides some interesting insights as to how some of the apparent conflicts in implementation can be resolved. The lessons learnt from this exercise are applicable to all Member States.

The Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC (RED) sets ambitious targets for the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources for all Member States, with an overall EU target of 20% of energy produced by renewable means by 2020. The National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) prepared by each Member State in 2010 indicate that an overall increase of 50% in electricity generated from hydropower sources will be required to contribute towards these targets. According to estimates of the future potential generating capacity of hydropower in the EU the required increase is achievable by improving the generating capacity of existing plants and by developing new installations. However, the hydropower industry has identified the influence of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and in particular its focus on improving ecological aspects at the local level, as a significant barrier to the development of hydropower and its subsequent contribution to the wider RED objectives.

The findings from two workshops organised through the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) activity on “the Water Framework Directive and Hydromorphology”, together with the “2010 Statement of the Water Directors” provide a number of key recommendations. These include instruments, technical approaches and strategies for promoting the development of hydropower whilst meeting WFD objectives. LIFE funding has enabled a number of projects to develop, test and further advance progress on meeting a number of these recommendations, whilst others have provided useful lessons in the implementation of WFD alongside RED.

LIFE 06/ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP very successfully implemented two small scale hydropower plants, where a moveable turbine and generator unit are placed into an existing river weir and combined with other measures (such as fish ladders to enable upstream migration). This innovative technical approach allows water to flow through the turbine for power generation, and over and under it, improving fish migration, bed‐load transport and flood safety. The approach directly responds to the Water Directors’ call for win‐win solutions that enable hydropower development accompanied by improvements in water ecology and

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

28

minimum flow rates, and directly addresses the need to pay greater attention to the effects of hydropower on downstream sediment transport and fish migration. Furthermore, because the technology is designed to be retrofitted into existing or abandoned weirs, it can significantly contribute to the aim of improving the connectivity of water bodies at the catchment level, with the additional economic and environmental benefits of hydro‐electricity production. According to the project the technology achieves 11% higher returns and costs 16% less than a conventional plant, hence challenging the theory that the mitigation measures, that are often required to ensure improvements in ecological status under the WFD, leave hydropower development unprofitable. Market interest in the technology is substantial, with the development of a further 25 plants already initiated in three other Member States.

LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE is testing and promoting the application of the International Hydropower Association’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol in the EU. The Protocol is an enhanced sustainability assessment tool which is being used to measure and guide performance in the hydropower sector. Whilst the Protocol cannot be used to strategically assess a catchment or sub‐catchment as a whole, a number of applications of the Protocol at sites along a catchment area could be used to inform an overall strategic approach, a key recommendation of the Water Directors and CIS working groups.

There are a further three LIFE projects that facilitate a holistic approach to the deployment of hydropower in specific catchments and sub‐catchments, each with a different mix of driving influences and a different set of consequences for hydropower.

LIFE 10/NAT/AT/016 Netzwerk Donau plans to upgrade all but two of the hydropower installations on the Austrian Danube and its tributaries. The project, which is the largest ever to receive LIFE funding in Austria and is led by Austria’s largest energy producer, plans to use established methods such as fish passes and ladders to ensure connectivity throughout the sub‐catchment area. The project constitutes the main hydropower component of the overall strategic plan for the Austrian Danube and its tributaries and responds to both the WFD and RED.

LIFE 07/ENV/B/038 WALPHY deals with a smaller section of a sub‐catchment but forms a component of the overall strategic approach to river restoration in Wallonia. Whilst the project deals with all aspects of river restoration in line with the requirements of the WFD, it has demonstrated a flexible approach when considering the role of hydropower in the sub‐catchment area. Where the owners of weirs have expressed a desire to develop small‐scale hydropower plants instead of removing weirs, the project has constructed fish passes and other mitigation measures to enable the development of sustainable hydropower, helping to contribute to RED objectives whilst maintaining the ecological status of the river.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE

The Protocol assesses the four main stages of hydropower development: Early Stage, Preparation, Implementation and Operation.

Assessments rely on objective evidence to create a sustainability profile against some 20 topics covering all aspects of sustainability.

The Protocol has already been cited by the CIS working group as a potential tool to assess and improve the effectiveness of mitigation measures. It also has the potential to be used as part of a common, clear and transparent method for the application of RED Article 4.7 exemption requirements across the Community, as it provides a framework that enables a comprehensive assessment of the socio‐economic and environmental impacts of a particular hydropower development.

29

LIFE 05/NAT/DK/153 Houting had a very different set of primary drivers in targeting a Habitats Directive Annex II species by removing physical barriers to the migration of Houting (Coregonus oxyrhynchus) in four river systems, including decommissioning Denmark’s second largest hydropower plant (Karlsgårde Power Station). This an example of a strategic catchment level approach that first prioritised a specific species of Community importance, with positive secondary effects on the ecological status of the four river systems through restoration measures, hence contributing to WFD objectives. The fact that the project led to the decommissioning of hydropower generating capacity was also consistent with Denmark’s national priorities for RED, as the Danish NREAP placed very low priority on hydropower, with plans for no further increase in hydropower generating capacity between 2010 and 2020.

3.7. LIFE Water sector projects and Natural Water Retention Measures

The ability of natural features to retain water delivers a number of important ecosystems services directly related to water including flood protection, water provision and the improvement of water quality (see Box 1). However other benefits can also be realised such as improvements of soil quality, provision of habitat, cultural services, air quality, climate regulation and, especially in peat bogs, storage of carbon and climate change mitigation.

LIFE projects have the potential to contribute to the growing evidence base on the benefits of natural water retention measures, as well as demonstrating innovative management practices in an area of growing interest across the EU.

With the LIFE NAT theme funding a large number of river, floodplain and wetland restoration projects, often primarily driven by the Habitats and Water Framework Directives, a large body of work exists that could be used to underpin the development of policy. LIFE06 NAT/FIN/129 Kokemäenjoki‐LIFE, which attempts to improve wetland habitat for specific bird species under the Habitats Directive, provides indirect benefits in reducing flood risks by increasing wetland areas and retaining flood waters.

LIFE05 NAT/D/057 Lippe‐Aue demonstrated best practice in engaging with riparian farmers to ensure the long‐term management of restoration measures that seek to promote the development of typical floodplain meadows and the occurrence of rare bird species in the Lippe floodplains. LIFE08 NAT/D/000013 Elbe bei Vockerode is using natural protective measures in the Elbe floodplain to provide the necessary future flood protection. Incorporating natural techniques, the relocation of a dyke will result in extra retention areas, and the preventative values of natural ecological flood protection will be enhanced. The project aims to set a precedent for the restoration of large river systems in middle

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

Box 1: PHYTOREMEDIATION Some LIFE projects have dealt with improving water quality by using various forms of phytoremediation.

LIFE06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet successfully demonstrated that agricultural nonpoint‐source pesticide pollution could be mitigated by constructing artificial wetland ecosystems to act as a filtering mechanism for runoff. The project contributed to the implementation of the WFD, the Priority Substances Directive and the Pesticides Directive simultaneously.

In Italy the LIFE08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND project aims to set up an integrated environmental enhancement programme for the implementation of constructed wetlands (CW) and wide‐spread biofiltering techniques along reclaimed canal networks. The CW pilots will test the system’s ability to reduce water pollutants and increase biodiversity closely connected to the process of environmental restoration of the basin network of the Agro Pontino.

LIFE 08 ENV/IT/390 ECOMAWARU is in the process of developing a water and wastewater management scheme adopting phytodepuration with micro algae to significantly improve the quality of effluent that is reused for irrigation purposes.

30

Europe.

Seeking to bring this expertise together, LIFE09 INF/UK/032 RESTORE is building a sustainable network linking policy makers, river basin planners, practitioners and experts across Europe to share information and good practice on river restoration activities. The project promotes the fact that river restoration activities such as re‐connecting brooks, streams and rivers to floodplains, former meanders and other natural storage areas, and enhancing the quality and capacity of wetlands, can increase natural storage capacity and reduces flood risk.

LIFE projects also provide examples of the use of river restoration and other measures such as SUDS to offer flood protection and other benefits in the urban environment. LIFE 08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL aims to extend the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to regions where they are not currently used through the demonstration of techniques including bio‐retention zones, detention basins, filter drains, filter strips, flow control systems, infiltration trenches and basins, permeable paving, retention ponds, soakaways, swales and wetlands in two municipalities in the Valencia region. The objective of LIFE07 ENV/S/908 GreenClimeAdapt is to turn an industrial area in south‐eastern Malmo into a green climate adaptation area with open storm water management with enhanced biodiversity and recreation. The storm water system built in this 45 ha project will retain 90% of a 10‐year storm event. If applied at a European scale, the risk of local flooding could be significantly reduced. The run‐off water will be cleaned before reaching the recipient by sedimentation and filtration in ponds and other retention systems.

Natural retention measures have also proved to be effective in improving water quality. LIFE06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet successfully demonstrated the mitigation of agricultural nonpoint‐source pesticide pollution and phytoremediation using artificial wetland ecosystems. LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE successfully demonstrated a selection of robust, efficient and simple technologies including sedimentation, plant uptake, filtration and fixed‐media additives for the extended treatment of stormwater runoff from small, medium sized and large urban catchments. The treatment facilities were constructed as natural and recreational elements in the form of semi‐natural lakes or ponds contributing to a positive improvement in the aesthetical and recreational value of the urban environment. LIFE09 ENV/ES/431 CREAMAgua will be creating and restoring natural ecosystem structures of wetlands and riverbank forests to reduce inorganic nutrients ‐ nitrates and phosphates ‐ and salts from agricultural runoff and improve the biodiversity in agricultural areas degraded by intensive agricultural use, in the area of the Flumen basin in Spain.

Afforestation and soil management are effective natural water retention measures. LIFE09 ENV/ES/447 The Green Deserts main objective is to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of new tree planting techniques in desertified, poor and/or rocky areas. Innovative ‘waterbox’ technology will be applied to restore the capacity of degraded soils to retain water and reinforce existing capacities for supporting plant life. Waterboxes will be tested to assess their suitability as a means of capturing rain and condensation for use in cultivating Hedera plants along roadsides, where the plants are intended to absorb traffic‐related air particulates and CO2.

Aside from the water sector projects identified for the purposes of this study, LIFE has funded a number of bog restoration projects, which too have important lessons for natural water retention measures. For example, the purpose of LIFE06 NAT/UK/134 Active Blanket Bog in Wales was to bring about a significant and sustained improvement in the condition of blanket bog in key parts of two SACs in Wales. As well investigating the storage of carbon and methane, the project carried out a number of hydrological and water quality surveys to establish the value of ecosystems services provided by the bog. The project area serves as a catchment to Lake Vyrnwy, a reservoir serving North West England. There was huge concern about the impact of water quality following drain blocking, with increased particulate and organic matter causing health concerns and the need for additional treatment of the water to ensure it was of drinking quality. This proved not to be the case. The hydrological surveys also demonstrated the ability of an active bog to retain water for longer, therefore providing an important defence against flooding.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

31

3.8. Gap Analysis

On examination of the spread of projects throughout the various directives there are some areas where LIFE projects are not well represented. Table 3‐1 shows that among the directives themselves Floods, EQS and Shellfish Directives have the fewest projects. The reasons for this are not clear as there is certainly scope in all three directives for LIFE projects to make a contribution to the implementation (at least to certain aspects) of these policy areas. In terms of the Floods Directive it is possible that project proponents feel that LIFE funding is insufficient to address some of the issues and that structural funds are more appropriate for implementing the directive i.e. flood defence mechanisms. On the other hand the project analysis shows that there are a number of projects (see section 3.7) which do address the directive but that this is rarely acknowledged by the project proponents. A good example of this is LIFE 08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND which aims to contribute to the WFD but, in creating artificial wetlands, also addresses the Floods Directive although this is never acknowledged in the project documentation.

Likewise there are probably more LIFE projects that contribute to the Shellfish Directive than appears to be apparent from the analysis. Arguably, all projects that aim to improve water quality in coastal areas could potentially make a contribution to the Shellfish Directive. As a result, the contribution of the LIFE programme to these particular Directives is probably under‐estimated.

In contrast, the lack of projects addressing the EQS is more likely to be a true reflection of the actual situation because it is unlikely that projects will contribute to the development of EQS if it was not an original objective of the project.

Within the WFD some policy areas do not appear to attract many LIFE projects, these are typology and the delineation of water bodies, economics, Programmes of Measures (POM) and to a certain extent monitoring programmes for both surface and groundwater.

Only two projects dealt in some way with typology (or the delineation of water bodies) and only a couple of projects dealt with Programme of Measures. The Italian project LIFE08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT is an ambitious project which deals not only with these topics but also with a number of other WFD areas (impact analysis, integrated river basin management and data management). The project, with a total budget of €2.2 million, aims to integrate information on local hydromorphological features into practical measures to improve the reliability of implementation of RBMPs in southern Europe. The focus is on rivers and lakes in two areas in Italy, covering a wide range of environmental features and water body types. The outcome of the project will serve as a basis for the implementation of RBMPs over larger areas in LIFE05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – Italy and, possibly, the whole of Europe. The project includes AgriPoM classification and evaluation of catchments according to the most up to date WFD classification tools and development of Programmes of Measures to address uncertainty in classification. They will produce guidelines on how and where the new set of measures should be adopted to aid the achievement of good ecological status by 2015.

The project LIFE05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM had the main aim of producing an Agricultural Programme of Measures. The main output of the project was a cost‐effective Developing an Agricultural Programme of Measures to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus Programme of Measures losses from agricultural activities in the Odense river basin in order to meet the WFD objectives ahead of the official time schedule. The project was successful in meeting its objectives.

Despite the fact that there are very few projects that deal with

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

32

POM this area has been identified as a strength of the LIFE projects (see section 4.2.6) and so it would be a good area to encourage more applications.

The economic considerations of the WDF are rarely addressed by LIFE projects despite the fact that such considerations are probably the most important drivers of policy implementation. However, there are some examples of LIFE projects that have looked at various economic and fiscal aspects of the WFD delivery and have made useful contributions to resource efficiency and more sustainable water use. Addressing mismanagement of water resources is a priority objective of the WFD. One of the main challenges is ineffective water pricing policies which generally do not reflect the level of sensitivity of water resources.

The way forward, according to EC (COM(2007) 414)13, is putting in place water tariffs based on a consistent economic assessment of water uses and water value, with adequate incentives to use water resources efficiently with adequate contributions from different water users to recover the costs of water services.

The project LIFE06 ENV/IT/255 A.S.A.P produced a protocol for reducing ground water abstraction together with an economic model concerning tariffs. The application of the ASAP protocol brought about a number of benefits (increasing the life of infrastructures, reduce maintenance costs of plants and facilities, reducing mean time between failures, reducing mean time to recharge) and so had a subsequent impact on tariffs.

However, the protocol cannot be regarded as a solution in cases of network losses generally in places where the reticulation system is aging and only a full revamp of the infrastructure would have an impact on resource efficiency and costs. Clearly this scale of project is outside the scope of LIFE and this may be one reason why so few projects deal with costs. Project LIFE08 ENV/GR/570 – Hydrosense produced a full cost assessment of water uses at the watershed level derived by aggregating the financial cost, the environmental cost and the resource cost and suggesting that the cost should be recovered through water pricing. The project produced best and worst case scenarios. These assessments should trigger a policy response towards a radical reform of the water pricing policy in Greece.

Using a different approach based on stakeholder engagement, the WATACLIC project (LIFE08 INF/IT/308) will produce a “concept document” of an “optimal” water tariff scheme (possibly including hints concerning economic tools other than tariffs) aimed at reducing water consumption. The project expects the document will be subscribed to by a minimum of 20 “entities” (including Regions, Basin Authorities, Provinces, Municipalities, Public utilities) and will be officially submitted to the new Agency in charge of Water Service Regulation in Italy.

Several other projects calculate the costs of interventions and provide some kind of cost benefit analysis, but these do not really explore the use of fiscal or economic management tools. One such project is LIFE08 ENV/GR/551 PURE which aims to transform an existing network of pipelines that are currently distributing treated wastewater for irrigation, with no control, no monitoring, no pricing and no management plan, into an upgraded system that provides high quality alternative water resources for irrigation, in a sustainable manner and in accordance with the principles of the WFD.

Projects involving monitoring programmes of either groundwater or surface waters are also under‐ represented in LIFE projects although it is true that many LIFE projects undertake some form of monitoring as part of the project activities. However, there are some good examples of monitoring projects such as LIFE06 ENV/F/158 ISONITRATE which developed an innovate approach to monitoring nitrate pollution in water using isotopic technology.

13

Commission Regulation (EC) No 414/2007 of 13 March 2007 concerning the technical guidelines for the planning, implementation and operational use of river information services (RIS) referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

33

These projects clearly show that there is further scope for LIFE projects to implement areas of the WFD that are currently under‐represented in the programme.

However, there is an issue of timing of the directives and the length of time it takes for a LIFE project to produce results. This is highlighted by the LIFE 07 UK/ENV/932 PISCES project which commenced in 2009 and is due to close in December 2012. The project aims to assist the implementation of the MSFD and has produced a Guide to implementing the ecosystem approach. The Guide will not be available until October 2012 but the MSFD called for all Member States to produce targets and indicators by June 2012; clearly the project outputs were not developed in time for the initial stages of implementation of this directive but may be influential in the development of the Programme of Measures which are not due for the MSFD until 2015.

There are a number of reasons why certain directives (or parts of directives) appear to be under‐represented in the LIFE programme, these include:

 The project proponents have not recognised that their project could influence directives other than those that they originally cited in their proposals;  Project proponents do not consider LIFE funding appropriate for certain directives;  The length of time it takes to approve and implement a LIFE project does not fit with the implementation timetables of some directives;  Applications for LIFE funding supporting certain directives (or parts of directives) are not successful but it has not been possible to assess whether this is the case as the application information was not available for this study;  The importance of some directives is not stressed in the annual call for LIFE applications.

There could, of course, be other reasons for the apparent lack of support for certain directives but it has not been possible to determine which the main influential factors are because the necessary information to assess this was not available at the time of this study 3.9. Third Countries (TCY) – a special case For more than 15 years, LIFE‐Third Countries (LIFE‐TCY) has provided financial support for environmental actions in countries bordering the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean (other than central and east European acceding states and candidate countries), supporting them in improving their environmental performance and management capabilities. This LIFE brand also aimed at contributing to the strengthening of national environmental policies and at increasing environmental protection in the EU‐bordering regions. The main aims were thus capacity building, on the one hand, and enhancement of priorities determined by EU environmental policies, on the other14. This report covers LIFE projects’ contribution to the implementation of water related directives and policies since 2005. Out of the 31 projects financed in these two years, 11 have been identified as related to the water sector (and are listed in Table 3‐3 below).

Table 3‐3: LIFE TCY Water Sector Projects Project number and acronym LIFE06 TCY/TN/275 COPEAU LIFE05 TCY/CRO/111 IBM LIFE05 TCY/CRO/108 CROWATER

14

Title

Type of project

Comments

Network for water quality monitoring

Capacity building

National authority

Wading toward Integrated Basin Management Strengthening of public‐private partnership in order to improve wastewater management in Croatia

Policy related

SAVA River

Policy related

National water utility

European Commission. 2007. LIFE‐Third Countries 1992‐2006: Supporting Europe’s neighbours in building capacity for environmental policy and action.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

34

Project number and acronym LIFE06 TCY/ET/226 IBISS LIFE06 TCY/ET/232 FLAFLOM LIFE05 TCY/GA/115 HAGAR

LIFE05 TCY/MA/141 MOROCOMP

LIFE06 TCY/INT/246 SAVA RIVER BASIN LIFE05 TCY/TN/150 SMAS

LIFE05 TCY/IL/130 SUSTAINABLE JORDAN LIFE06 TCY/IL/240 TRANS‐BOUNDARY WATER/PRO‐ AQUIFER

Title

Type of project

Comments

Italian‐Egyptian Capacity Building in the Integrated Water Supply and Sanitation Flash Floods in Egypt: protection and management Environmental action for the sustainability of natural resources through recycling of water and sludge from marble production Design and Application of an Innovative Composting Unit for the Effective Treatment of Sludge and other Biodegradable Organic Waste in Morocco Protection of Biodiversity of the Sava River Basin Floodplains Capacity building for an early assessment system of drought in three countries of the south shore of the Mediterranean sea: Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia The Sources of the Jordan River, Humans and Nature

Capacity building

Knowhow transfer

Capacity building

Flood Directive

Capacity building

Local authorities

Capacity building

Knowhow transfer

Policy related

SAVA River

Capacity building

Trans‐boundary and involvement of national authorities

Capacity building

Regional Master Plan

Capacity building

Local authorities

Protecting trans‐boundary groundwater sources from pollution: research, training and guidelines for Israeli and Palestinian municipalities

In line with the objectives of the LIFE‐TCY strand, these 11 projects either concentrated on capacity building (8) or on the enhancement of the implementation of EU policies (3). For obvious reasons, projects aiming at the promotion of the implementation of European policy frameworks were those undertaken in acceding and candidate countries, such as Croatia or generally in the Balkans (see Table 3‐4 for more details).

3.9.1. LIFE‐TCY and the promotion of EU policies outside of Europe

While most projects funded under the LIFE‐TCY programme were inspired by and used as the basis for their actions EU legislation and best practices, only three projects were identified in this report as directly aiming at the enhancement of EU policy directives and policies. These are shown in Table 3‐4 below:

Table 3‐4: TCY Projects Promoting EU Policy outside Europe Project number and acronym LIFE05 TCY/CRO/111 IBM

Project title Wading toward Integrated Basin Management LIFE05 TCY/CRO/108 CROWATER Strengthening of public‐private partnership in order to improve wastewater management in Croatia LIFE06 TCY/INT/246 SAVA RIVER Protection of Biodiversity of the Sava BASIN River Basin Floodplains

Beneficiary Lonjsko Polje Nature Park (LPNP) Public Service Croatian Waters

IUCN ‐ The World Conservation Union

Interestingly, all three projects implemented activities in the trans‐boundary Sava River Basin, which extends from Slovenia (an EU member) and also covers considerable parts of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and a small part of Albania. It is the third longest tributary of the Danube River (and the

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

35

largest by discharge) and its importance in the European context in general and in the Balkans area more specifically is beyond doubt. Two of the three projects tackled different management aspects of the river basin, contributing to the implementation of the WFD in this part of Europe and, more specifically, to the adoption of the River Basin Management Plans. With regards to the tasks foreseen by the Water Framework Directive, the projects established the basis for implementation by putting in place procedures, action plans and decision making bodies to facilitate integrated river basin management.

The LIFE05 TCY/CRO/111 IBM project reached agreement for an official management plan and for the establishment of a programme for integrated river‐basin management for a nature park in Croatia (Lonjsko Polje). This park is the largest maintained inundation area in the Danube catchment and, at the same time, the key flood control system for the Sava river basin. The project ensured that several important requirements of the WFD could be applied in this area. More specifically, it established a Stakeholders' Committee to ensure a participatory approach, elaborated a management plan for the Park and collected data on the ecological and habitat status of the park.

A more ambitious project was the trans‐boundary project LIFE06 TCY/INT/246 SAVA RIVER BASIN which aimed to support the elaboration of the Integrated River Basin Management Plan for the River and build management capacity for the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in the involved countries.

It had a direct contribution to the implementation of both the Water Framework and the Flood Directives. It identified threats to Natura 2000 habitat types and species and defined the ecological network in which biodiversity, rural economic development, flood prevention, and other issues are taken into consideration.

Another important element of the project was its contribution to trans‐boundary co‐operation in a politically troubled region. In fact, the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB), which entered into force in December 2004, was the first multilateral agreement in the region signed after the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995) with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia as Parties.

The LIFE05 TCY/CRO/108 CROWATER project, on the other hand, aimed at developing national water and wastewater management procedures by supporting Croatian Waters in creating a new laboratory for analysis of biodegradable components in wastewater. The project outputs contributed to the national water protection strategy and to the country's ultimate compliance with the WFD.

Thus, TCY projects have made a valuable contribution to the implementation of the WFD in situations where there is a shared resource or common water body.

As far as capacity building is concerned, the LIFE‐TCY funding tool has assisted in the pursuing of this objective in non European countries in different ways. For instance on a local level, funding has facilitated the transfer of technological know‐how to improve water and sanitation services (in Egypt), enhanced the capacity of local authorities to address problems associated with the treatment of debris, sludge and water from the marble industry (in Palestine), assisted in the development of an early warning system for flash floods in the Sinai peninsula and promoted trans‐boundary water management capacities in two demonstration municipalities in both Israel and Palestine.

In some cases, projects were also successful in influencing national or regional regulations and procedures.

Such was the case in the LIFE05 TCY/TN/150 SMAS project ‐ implemented in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia ‐ which facilitated the adoption of a trans‐boundary approach to prevent the environmental degradation associated with droughts in North Africa, by introducing early warning systems to enable the countries to deal with and adapt to periods of low rainfall. In the case of the project LIFE05 TCY/IL/130 SUSTAINABLE JORDAN funding was decisive in assisting in the creation of a regional framework for sustainable development in the Upper Jordan River in Israel, involving the preparation of a master plan for land use designation, environmental management, flood prevention and proper drainage; the putting in place of a participatory approach; the development of ecotourism in the area and the enhancement of ecological agriculture practices.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

36

3.10.

Project Costs

3.10.1. Total Costs and EU Commitment

The Water Unit requested some assessment of the costs involved in delivering the projects. First it must be remembered that there are two cost components; the total cost of the project which includes the beneficiary and partner contributions, and the contribution made by the EU. This second contribution varies depending on the type of project and the different depreciation rates applied to infrastructure and equipment costs in LIFE projects. Wherever possible the final cost calculation of the project has been taken into account ‐ that is the actual cost of the project and the actual contribution made by the EU. Clearly this cannot be done for projects which are still open and in these cases the commitment costs have been included. Therefore this assessment can only paint a broad picture of the costs involved in delivery. Table 3‐5 below shows the broad breakdown of project costs for all projects and also broken down by LIFE brands.

Over the period 2005 through 2010 the EU has committed a total of 215 million Euro to project supporting water policies and this has been matched by 292 million Euro coming from the beneficiaries, partners and co‐financiers in the Member States. A further breakdown reveals that 60% (or 129 million Euros) is committed to funding LIFE ENV projects and the remaining 40% (or 85 million Euros) is committed to LIFE NAT projects. However, LIFE ENV projects make up 76% of the total projects and so it can be concluded that LIFE NAT projects cost more to deliver than LIFE ENV projects in terms of EU contribution. This is supported by average cost per project data as this clearly demonstrates that a LIFE NAT project costs in the region of 50% more overall than the LIFE ENV projects and the EU contribution is, on average, 1 million Euros per project higher for LIFE NAT projects.

Table 3‐5: Total Costs of Delivering LIFE Projects in the Water Sector

Total for all projects Total for ENV/INF projects Total for NAT projects Average cost per project Average cost per ENV projects Average cost per NAT projects

Total Project Costs million Euro 507 333 174 2.5 2.1 3.7

EU Contribution million Euro 215 129 85 1 0.8 1.8

No of Projects 196 150 46 ‐ ‐ ‐

A closer examination of the distribution of individual projects shows that for LIFE ENV projects there is a narrow distribution with the majority of projects costing between 0.5 and 2.5 million Euros in total with by far the largest number falling with the 1‐2 million Euro bracket (see Figure 3‐5). The figure also shows that there are a number of very small projects with a total value up to 0.5 million Euros and a small number of mega projects with very high overall costs in excess of 10 million Euros.

The highest and lowest cost projects are shown in Table 3‐6. This table shows that projects with the highest total cost do not necessarily receive the highest grant contribution from the EU, indeed this is rarely the case, with the notable exception of LIFE10 ENV/DE/158 HWC which topped the list for both highest total cost and highest community contribution.

At the lower end of the cost scale the ongoing Maltese project LIFE10 INF/MT/091 Investing in Water had the lowest total budget and lowest community commitment.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

37

Figure 3‐5: Distribution of Total Project Values for LIFE ENV projects

One interesting feature has emerged from this exercise. In the Best of Environment projects for 2011, three water projects made it into the top 5, LIFE06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP, one of the highest budget projects, LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gniezno one of the lowest budget projects and LIFE06 ENV/E/044 ES‐ WAMAR, a 6 million Euro budget project. All have been extremely successful in implementing policy and have clearly made an impact within the LIFE and Water Units of DG ENV (see section 3.11).

Table 3‐6: Highest and Lowest Ranking Projects on Total Cost

Ranking

Project

Top 5 ranked highest total cost projects 1 LIFE10 ENV/DE/158 HWC 2 LIFE10 ENV/NL/028 OMZET 3 LIFE06 ENV/D/478 IWPM 4 LIFE05 ENV/UK/127 QUERCUS 5 LIFE06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP Bottom 5 ranked lowest total cost projects LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gniezno 5 4 LIFE10 ENV/SK/086 Geohealth 3 LIFE 07/INF/UK/750 Ecoanimation 2 LIFE10 INF/FI/052 Saimaan lohikalojen 1 LIFE10 INF/MT/091 Investing in Water

Total Cost EU Million € Contribution Million € 16.7 14.4 12.4 9.7 7.8

3.4 1.5 1.8 1.3 1.6

0.43 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.34

0.21 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.17

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

38

Figure 3‐6: Distribution of Total Project Values for LIFE NAT projects

Figure 3‐6 shows the distribution pattern for LIFE NAT brand of projects. The majority of projects in this brand type have a total cost between 0.5 and 4.5 million Euros with the greatest number of projects falling in the 1.5 – 2 million cost category. There are no very small projects with budgets up to 0.5 million Euros and the lowest total cost project is LIFE09 INF/GR/319 PROM.SUS.FIS.PR.PRESPA with a total budget of 0.75 million Euro. There is a greater percentage of high cost projects, i.e. projects with a total cost of over 10 million Euro, in the LIFE NAT brand (6%) than in the LIFE ENV brand (2%). The highest total cost project is LIFE07 NAT/E/732 INDEMARES (15.4 million Euros) and the project which receives the highest community contribution is LIFE05 NAT/DK/153 Houting (8.0 million Euros).

3.10.2. Project costs by Directive

The costs for each Directive have been analysed in an effort to determine how the costs of the LIFE programme are allocated. Only those Directives where there is enough data to make a reasonable analysis have been examined and the results are shown in Table 3‐7. It should be noted that some projects consider more than one Directive and so the costs for some projects will appear in more than one category. The WFD is the directive which receives most attention in terms of number of projects and in terms of total EU commitment of some 137 million Euros between 2005 and 2010. The MSFD is served by a much smaller number of projects and consequently attracts less funding with only 36 million Euros committed by the EU in the same timeframe. The other Directives examined are only appropriate to the LIFE ENV brand and so have fewer overall projects. The UWWT and Nitrates Directives are more or less equally served by the LIFE programme with committed funds of 23 and 25 million Euros respectively while the Groundwater Directive has the least number of projects and receives some 14 million Euros from the EU in order to implement the projects.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

39

Table 3‐7: Cost Breakdown by Directive

Total Projects

Total EU No of costs15 Commitment Projects

LIFE ENV/INF Total Costs

EU No of Commitment Projects

LIFE NAT Total Costs

EU No of Commitment Projects

WFD 323 137 123 219 88 98 103 49 25 MSFD 72 36 28 25 11 13 47 25 15 UWWT 66 23 28 66 23 28 0 0 0 Nitrates 50 25 25 50 25 25 0 0 0 Groundwater 27 12 14 27 12 14 0 0 0

The average cost per project for delivery is shown in Table 3‐8 and although the WFD projects tend to have a slightly higher unit cost than other projects there is very little difference in the cost of delivery between the Directives for any single project. However, within the WFD and MSFD the average cost of NAT projects is much higher than that of the ENV projects. For the WFD the average total cost of an ENV project is 2.2 million against a NAT project of 4.1 million Euros and for the MSFD the figures are 1.9 and 3.1 million Euros respectively; once again emphasising the fact that NAT projects are more costly to deliver on a per project basis.

Table 3‐8: Average Cost of Projects

WFD MSFD UWWT Nitrates Groundwater

Average Total Cost of Project Million € 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.9

Average EU Commitment Million € 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.8

The majority of projects are relatively low cost considering that many of them deliver new technologies or try out management approaches on a relatively large scale. There is no clear reason why NAT projects cost almost twice as much as ENV projects, however, except perhaps that NAT projects do undertake more concrete actions over a wider area and many include land purchase, NAT projects are generally longer than ENV projects and the EU financial contribution can be greater in a NAT project.

3.10.3. Cost Comparison with other Programmes

Finding directly comparable data on other EU programmes is difficult but there are some published data that illustrate whether LIFE projects are reasonable in terms of cost of delivery. A comparison between the average costs of delivering a project under different EU funding mechanisms16,17 is presented in Figure 3‐7 below. It is appreciated that all the programmes represented in the figure have different purposes and objectives which makes direct comparison problematic. However, it is still useful to look at the costs of delivery of the various programmes as this does give some indication of value for money.

15

All costs are given in millions of Euros http://www.eulaks.eu/attach/EULAKS_Deliverable_D.1.2_IRD_LAC_Project_Participation.pdf 17 http://www.cadses.net/media/files/CADSES_Results_Brochures/1143_cadses_results_iii_web.pdf 16

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

40

Interestingly, the LIFE ENV brand has one of the lowest costs per project of all the programmes and there is very little difference between the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Interreg and FF7 packages which all fall between 1.9 and 2.6 million Euro per project. Interestingly, the Integrated Water Management strand of the Interreg programme, which is arguably the closest match to the LIFE water projects, is identical to the average cost of a LIFE project in the water sector.

Figure 3‐7: Total Cost Comparison – LIFE vs other EU Funds

LIFE NAT projects are amongst the most costly and are only surpassed by FP6 projects. Given that LIFE projects are extremely successful, with some 80% of projects achieving their objectives according to the ex‐ post evaluation of the LIFE III programme, the LIFE programme can be considered to be cost effective and good value for money at least in comparison with other EU funded projects.

3.11.

Best of LIFE projects

One way of recognising the success of a LIFE project is through the Best of LIFE project awards which are made on an annual basis. Scoring of completed LIFE projects began in 2004. The system was introduced by the Commission, following an initiative taken by Sweden and the Netherlands. A set of ‘best practice’ criteria (adapted to each strand) was developed in collaboration with the Member States. These criteria included: projects’ contribution to immediate and long‐term environmental, economic and social improvements; their degree of innovation and transferability; their relevance to policy and their cost‐effectiveness. In view of the importance of these aspects to project success, project beneficiaries are also required to provide an After‐ LIFE Communication Plan and an analysis of the long‐term benefits of the project with their final report. This information forms an integral part of the evaluation process.

All completed projects are initially technically assessed by the LIFE Unit’s external monitoring team (the Astrale consortium). The monitors rank all the projects that ended during the year to produce a first list. The final selection is undertaken by the Member States.

The objective of the exercise is to help improve the dissemination of LIFE project results by clearly identifying those projects whose results, if widely applied, could have the most positive impact on the environment.

Clearly this only applies to projects that have officially closed and so, in terms of this report, only those projects from 2005, 2006 and a few from 2007 will have been evaluated in terms of the Best of LIFE projects awards. The best LIFE water projects to date are shown in Table 3‐9 and cover both LIFE ENV and LIFE NAT brands. Details of these projects can be found by clicking on the website links below.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

41

Table 3‐9: Best of LIFE Awards – Water Projects

Award Year 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011

Project LIFE05 ENV/GR/245 EnviFriendly LIFE06 ENV/NL/167 WET IFE05 ENV/IT/868 PERBIOF LIFE05 ENV/DK/155 AGWAPLAN LIFE05 ENV/B/510 TOPPS LIFE05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon LIFE06 ENV/UK/409 OpenMI‐LIFE LIFE06 ENV/B/362 ECOTEC‐STC LIFE05 NAT/D/057 Lippe‐Aue LIFE05 NAT/UK/143 STREAM LIFE06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gniezno LIFE06 ENV/E/044 ES‐WAMAR

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

Weblink http://www.envifriendly.tuc.gr/

http://www.perbiof‐europe.com/ http://www.agwaplan.dk/agwaplan.htm http://www.topps‐life.org/web/page.asp http://wwwa.vito.be/insimep/ http://www.lifekolisoon.it/ http://www.openmi‐life.org/ http://www.hydrex.be/ www.life‐lippeaue.de http://www.streamlife.org.uk/ http://www.moveable‐hepp.com/

http://www.life‐eswamar.eu/

42

4. ANALYSIS OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF LIFE ENV/INF PROJECTS IN THE WATER SECTOR 4.1. SWOT Analysis A total of 33 projects were selected to go forward for further analysis. Selection was based on the following criteria:  Project must have some tangible results.  Good cross section of the directives.  Number of WFD policy elements (projects dealing with more than one WFD issues).  Project is approved by the monitoring team (for good implementation).  Geographic variety (ensuring geographic variety from many Member States).

These projects have been analysed to identify the areas in which LIFE water projects are especially successful (Strengths), areas in which projects have failed to meet their policy objectives (Weaknesses), examples of projects contributing to the development of new water related policies and legislation (Opportunities) and continuing or new threats which make it difficult for LIFE water projects to implement policy (Threats). It is important to underline that some of the projects analysed are still on‐going, and hence the analysis is based on progress and results to date. It is also important to note that the full impacts of LIFE projects are often not visible at the end of the projects and that it may take time for projects to feed into the development of policy and to transfer to other settings. SWOT analyses for all 33 selected projects can be found in Annex 4.

4.2.

Areas in which LIFE water projects are especially successful (Strengths)

The strengths of LIFE projects lie in 1. Alternative remediation approaches eight main water related areas, 2. Alternative preventative solutions which are discussed in more detail 3. Management solutions for waste water treatment in the following sub‐chapters and in urban environments are indicated in Box 2 (adjacent 4. Assessment and improvements of quantitative text). Also included is a section (see 4.2.9) that deals with stand status of groundwater alone successes which focuses on 5. New technologies for the continuous monitoring projects which have excelled in of surface waters delivery of an isolated issue that is 6. Cost effective programme of measures perhaps country specific, develops 7. The Horizontal Approach – linking water cutting edge technology or management to other policy sectors demonstrates innovative practice in a specific topic area. Common 8. Projects with high potential for transferability threads, related to the different 9. Standalone Successes policies, are drawn together in section 4.7 below.

Box 2: Strengths of the LIFE projects

4.2.1. Alternative remediation approaches

Throughout the LIFE programme18 investigated during this study, project proponents have been particularly

18

LIFE III, LIFE+ and LIFE10

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

43

successful in developing alternative remediation approaches to environmental problems as the case studies that follow demonstrate.

A Belgian project LIFE 05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP demonstrated the precipitation of metals in situ by acceleration of biogeochemical processes that may occur naturally. The strengths of the project were the different hydrogeological conditions at the three test sites, the combination of two different metals at each site and the thorough use of modelling to explain the results and to design a full‐scale remediation. This technique proved to be more sustainable than pump and treat as no above‐ground waste is produced; less electricity is consumed, which reduces the carbon footprint; and there is no discharge to surface water.

LIFE 08 ENV/IT/390 ECOMAWARU is in the process of developing a water and wastewater management scheme adopting phytodepuration with micro algae to significantly improve the quality of effluent that is reused for irrigation LIFE 08 ENV/IT/390 ECOMAWARU purposes. The project is implementing two treatment plants at different scales: one at an urban catchment area, designed to treat only a portion of the entire wastewater flow and one in a rural setting that treats the entire wastewater flow. The application of micro‐phytodepuration systems could present several opportunities because they need smaller surfaces than macrophyte processes and because they obtain a product with an added value, microalgal biomass, which could be directly re‐used in agriculture as nitrogenous fertiliser or, depending on the quality and quantity, used for producing chemicals, animal feeds or bio‐diesel. The new technologies developed by the project are easy to manage and ecologically friendly. They could be integrated into rural communities, particularly those sparsely populated communities that suffer from a lack of suitable sewage treatment facilities. The project is producing a handbook containing technical documentation about design, installation, maintenance, management and control procedures of the phytodepuration system, to enhance the reproducibility of the approach in other locations.

A Dutch project LIFE 06 ENV/NL/167 WET was also successful in demonstrating the technical feasibility of a Micro‐phytodepuration system number of innovative waste water treatment processes to achieve the standards for effluent set in the WFD. The project developed a process to remove phosphate (P) by metal salt dosing and nitrate (N) using a carbon source supported dentrification process that can be combined in a one filter configuration. This resulted in a structural achievement of the WFD standards for Ptotal (<0,15 mg Ptotal/l) and Ntotal (<2,2 mg Ntotal/l).

The project also developed the use of Advanced Oxidation Processes resulting in a reduction of medical remnants and pesticides by more than 70% and achieved a disinfection level up to the hygiene limits set in the Bathing Water Directive. The removal of heavy metals, organic micro‐pollutants and suspended solids was also achieved using the same combination of techniques

The single filter set‐up of the process enables the WFD values for nitrate and phosphate to be achieved at a considerably lower cost (about 50%) than the set‐up with separate filters for N and P removal. The removal of other WFD priority substances was also investigated in the second monitoring phase of the project, in

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

44

which Advanced Oxidation Processes (using ozone, hydrogen peroxide and uv‐light) were tested and proved successful.

Another Dutch project LIFE 07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER provides innovative methods to treat hospital waste water. The Pharmafilter concept aims at processing solid organic waste and waste water in a hospital environment in an integral manner that will lead to the recycling of components and production of energy.

The Pharmafilter unit that was set up by the project (a mobile unit outside of the hospital that treats hospital waste water and organic waste) has been processing all waste water (with human faeces) from a hospital since November 2010. Furthermore since January 2011 the installation began processing some organic waste (from bed pans, kitchen wastes, etc) by connecting a grinder to the Pharmafilter unit. A second grinder was installed in March 2011 and another 18 grinders were installed in the period up to September 2011. The project is in its closing stages but independent qualified laboratory research has already proved that Pharmafilter removes medicines, germs, cytostatica, röntgen contrast liquids and hormone disturbing substances from the water. Pharmafilter uses different purification steps to eradicate and clean the waste water of medicines. The end result is clean, purified water (including disinfection through ozone) which at the final stage is apparently clean enough to drink. Furthermore, the project also demonstrates resource efficiency, as the organic material, including the bio‐plastic products is digested and the total mass is reduced by 90%. The digestion process converts the solid matter into biogas, then this biogas is used for heating up the digesters and delivers power to the water purification plant (60 ‐70% of energy used by the Pharmafilter is generated by the unit from methane). This digestion process eliminates viruses and bacteria and the digestion of the waste requires fewer trucks to transport the waste away. The remaining waste will be recycled or turned into a second source of energy.

4.2.2. Alternative preventative solutions

In many cases polluted groundwater contains a mixture of both organic and inorganic contaminants. The abatement of such pollutant mixtures is not possible with a simple barrier/zone based on the removal of pollutants by either physico‐chemical or biological means. However, such pollutant mixtures might be treated using a combination of different reactive barriers/zones. Such a combination is defined as a Multifunctional Permeable Barrier (MULTIBARRIER). This approach requires the efficient synergistic interaction and compatibility of different pollutant removal processes, often of microbial and physico‐ chemical key‐components of the system.

A Belgian project LIFE 06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM demonstrated a multibarrier as a sustainable solution for preventing mixed contaminants spreading in groundwater. The approach developed consists of a tailor‐ made combination of different types of permeable reactive barriers and reactive zones in which pollutant removal processes are active. Groundwater flows through the system during which the pollutants are degraded or immobilised. As such multibarriers prevent further spreading of the pollution to the downstream area. As well as trialling several innovative multibarrier concepts (including the use of grape mark as a slow release C‐source in a barrier; and the use of zeolites as an in‐situ buffer with potential for auto‐regeneration), the fact that the project was performing field trials as opposed to the more common laboratory scale evaluations of multibarriers, including the demonstration of classical biological nitrification/denitrification under in situ conditions, was in itself innovative.

The LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet project focused on preventing agricultural non‐point source pollution by pesticides through the establishment of low cost vegetated treatment systems (biological systems) to mitigate the risk of pollution. The project achieved a high demonstration value by delivering 11 prototype constructed wetlands in four different countries which achieved a retention performance ranging between 40 and 80% of 18 pesticides over a two year monitoring period. A technical guide was produced to enable the low cost technique to be readily transferred to other locations and other sectors (such as urban runoff water treatment, other non‐point source pollution such as nitrate or phosphorus pollution, erosion limiting, downstream biodiversity protection) for small scale implementation. The project identified constraints in setting up artificial wetlands in current legal frameworks in three different countries concluding that a

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

45

harmonisation of European legislation would be needed to make the setting up of constructed wetlands easier.

4.2.3. Management solutions for waste water in the urban environment

Surface waters and stormwaters from urban areas present a considerable problem when discharging pollutants to the sewage system. There are few methods to treat polluted run‐off waters and large volumes of polluted surface water end up being processed in normal municipal waste water treatment plants, which cannot cope with occasional large volumes. LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE successfully demonstrated a selection of robust, efficient and simple technologies including sedimentation, plant uptake, filtration and fixed‐media additives for the extended treatment of stormwater runoff from small, medium sized and large urban catchments. The treatment facilities, which demonstrated an average pollutant reduction rate of 70‐ 85 %, were constructed as natural and recreational elements in the form of semi‐natural lakes or ponds. By contributing to a positive improvement in the aesthetical and recreational value of the urban environment, the demonstration plants/ponds received support from the local community, as well as contributing to the environmental awareness of local people. The technology can also be applied for related purposes such as treating drinking water polluted with, for example, arsenic or heavy metals or treatment of phosphorous polluted surface waters.

The principle of dealing with surface water run‐off at source is an established practice in the development and redevelopment of surface run‐off systems (including Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)) in many parts of the world, but there is lack of experience in Southern European countries. In this regard, LIFE 08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL aims to extend the use of SUDS to regions where they are not currently used through the demonstration of techniques including bio‐retention zones, detention basins, filter drains, filter strips, flow control systems, infiltration trenches and basins, permeable paving, retention ponds, soakaways, swales and wetlands in two municipalities in the Valencia region. The project is also in the process of developing sustainable Urban Water Management Plans for both municipalities. The project is in a strong position to demonstrate the potential benefits to the local area other than improved water quality (including realising economic advantages from the use of grey water and the benefits from a reduction in the urban‐ heat island affect). There is also a significant opportunity to incorporate the use of SUDS in urban planning requirements for new developments as a consequence of the results obtained from the project, as well as the promotion of the use of the techniques and strategies between architects and engineers.

LIFE 10 ENV/DE/158 HWC ‐ Jenfelder Au is in the early stages of demonstrating an integrated wastewater disposal and energy generation system designed to improve water quality by preventing rain and grey water from being polluted with black water and to save energy by systematically treating and utilising separated wastewater streams. The system, which is being integrated into the development of 700 new apartments in Hamburg aims to minimise the dilution of sewage with drinking water by the use of vacuum toilets. The system will be subject to an environmental and economic cost benefit analysis to assess the potential viability of the scheme and its transferability to other housing developments.

4.2.4. Assessment and improvements of quantitative status in groundwater

Two projects based in Italy are demonstrating different approaches to improving the quantitative status of groundwater under current negative drawdown conditions and future climate scenarios. LIFE 06 ENV/IT/255 A.S.A.P developed a procedure for preventing the over‐exploitation of groundwater systems through an integrated approach to optimising networks that combines technologies such as leak detectors, GIS and modelling systems and simulators. The project successfully demonstrated the approach on an aquifer fed system in Pisa, reducing groundwater abstraction by 11% and reducing system losses from leaks by 15% over the course of the project. As a result, the negative drawdown trend of the piezometric level of the aquifer was reversed with an average build‐up of + 0.3m from 2005 to 2008 and peaks ranging from 0.5m to 1m. The approach also reduced energy consumption from pumping (and the related emissions) by 10%. The ASAP Protocol raised remarkable interest among local and regional public administrators. It was included in the

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

46

White Paper "A Strategy for Water Supply in Tuscany" and has been replicated at the water utility of the Fiora Aqueduct (another utility of Toscana Region). As well as contributing to the WFD objective of improving the quantitative status of groundwater, the project also provided a potential contribution in achieving a sustainable economic and pricing model for water supply. Financial resources for bulk reconstruction and/or rehabilitation of water networks are seldom available. More often annual allocations suffice just for maintenance with a limited quota for on‐going rehabilitation. The project protocol translates even limited resources into effective action plans for efficient abstraction and leakage cut‐down, increasing the life of infrastructure, reducing maintenance costs of plants and facilities, reducing mean time between failures and mean time to restore.

LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST is in the process of developing an approach to adapt the groundwater resources of the Veneto and Friuli Plain to the adverse impacts of future climate change. The project is using a combination of climate change scenarios that supply the temporal series of precipitation, temperature and evapo‐transpiration for the 21st century that will affect the hydrological balance in the study area; remote sensing techniques based on the elaboration of satellite images to determine the water deficit for irrigation of summer crops in the study area; and mathematical models of the hydrologic basins and groundwater to establish how the hydro‐geology will evolve in consideration of climate change and determine appropriate measures (including managed aquifer recharge using surface flood waters) to ensure sustainability of groundwater resources. The project area is extremely complex from the hydro‐geological and water management perspectives as it gathers a wide variety of water uses (irrigation, hydropower generation, domestic drinking water supplies and industrial users). The project has so far been very successful in enhancing the governance and integrated management of water resources of the river basin by engaging these stakeholders through a technical board.

4.2.5. New technologies for the continuous monitoring of surface waters

Currently, the monitoring of surface water pollutants generally involves ad‐hoc analysis of water samples collected within specific monitoring campaigns. These approaches are often time‐consuming, labour intensive and expensive to operate. However, the implementation of the WFD requires Member States to gain a better understanding of priority pollutants (chemical (as listed in WFD Annex II) and biological) entering surface waters through the establishment of monitoring strategies that combine surveillance with operational and investigative monitoring.

LIFE 06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon has developed a monitoring device LIFE 06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon enabling the rapid, low‐cost assessment of faecal pollution. The system is capable of fully automated sampling, filtration, detection and data transmission of the faecal indicator bacteria Escherichia coli, providing operators and regulators with an online solution for monitoring sudden variations in microbial contamination of effluent and an effective early warning system to prevent pollution episodes. With assessment times taking just a few hours, the system eliminates the anomaly of being able to gauge the microbiological quality of water bodies only 24 hours after a sample has been taken. This time lapse has long posed a threat to public health, particularly where bathing waters are Development of an innovative, involved, and increasingly from the re‐use of treated/untreated low‐cost prototype monitoring wastewater in an ever widening range of applications. The system enabling rapid prototype also provides a feedback tool for the disinfection assessment of faecal pollution. process, enabling the amount of disinfectant to be finely

regulated according to the level required. The technology is transferable to a wide range of end‐users including wastewater facilities, environmental agencies, and the disinfection industry.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

47

LIFE 10 ENV/ES/521 AQUATIK is in the early stages of testing new methods and techniques for the monitoring of selected priority pollutants in surface waters. The project seeks to develop a new automated prototype to measure pollutants discharged in wastewater effluents and related spills in quasi‐real time. From the WFD list of priority pollutants, the project will focus on seven, including pesticides, alkylphenols and phthalates.

These have been selected due to their widespread presence in waters across Europe and especially in the study area. The project will design and construct an automated self‐controlled device for the detection of the selected priority substances and then demonstrate the prototype at selected wastewater treatment plants in the Barcelona area.

4.2.6. Cost effective programme of measures

The Water Framework Directive schedule has set the definition of the Programmes of Measures (POM) in 2009 as a milestone in achieving good ecological status (GES) of waters by 2015. The definition of the POM should ideally be the optimized combination of implementation costs and ecological effects. In practice, the POM will be influenced by political agendas, the level of planning detail and validity of the supporting data; all of which will be highly variable. Hence, there is a need for accompanying scientific actions that will guide and benchmark the intended POM in their development stages. This is especially true for the less obvious environmental pressures on water bodies. So far there are only a few tools for evaluating measures with respect to their effect on the ecological status of surface water bodies.

The on‐going Luxembourg project LIFE 07 ENV/L/540 M3 is very important from this perspective as it is applying the latest developments in monitoring and modelling concepts to specific river basin management measures. The M3 project (once completed) will provide the water managers in the three participating regions with state of the art means to optimize decision support, planning and monitoring of efficiency of water basin management measures. This will be achieved through a combined use of monitoring and modelling in three regions of distinct hydrological and economical catchment structure. Furthermore, the project will apply emissions models to the three regions together with a critical analysis of input data needs and cost‐efficiency for decision support. The project is also in the process of developing overall practical guidelines and field reports on the optimal use of models and monitoring to fulfil the WFD requirements in three regions with catchments of different scales, hydrology and human impacts and pressures. The project has already identified that regulators and river basin managers prefer to adhere to threshold motivated monitoring than monitoring aimed at improving process understanding and source allocation/quantification.

The project emphasises that the latter are prerequisites for the successful initiation of POM. The project has also discovered that monitoring campaigns are needed to confirm the magnitude of a certain pressure, i.e. via the calculation of river loads or the estimation of exposure.19

A Danish project LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM was very useful as it demonstrated the development of a cost‐effective programme of measures to reduce levels of nitrogen and phosphorous originating from agricultural activities in the Odense river basin. It prepared a Pilot River Basin management plan, elaborated an input for the EU Strategic Steering Group, as well as demonstrated and made available the project’s results to other environmental and rural development authorities and stakeholders within the EU.

19

Modelling Monitoring Management Monitoring data assessment report, Application of integrative modelling and monitoring approaches for river basin management evaluation http://www.life‐m3.eu/fileadmin/M3‐life/downloads/guidelines/Monitoring_Data_Assessment.pdf

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

48

4.2.7. The Horizontal Approach – linking water management to other policy sectors

LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP very successfully implemented two small scale hydropower plants, where a moveable turbine and generator unit are placed into an existing river weir where it is combined with other measures such as fish ladders to enable upstream migration. This innovative technical approach allows water to flow through the turbine for power generation, and over and under it, improving fish migration, bed load transportation and flood safety. The technology demonstrated for the first time that the ecological LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP aspects of the re‐establishment of fish passability and bed load transport can be combined with positive economic aspects, an improvement in the efficiency of hydropower plants and improvements in flood control. The approach is independent from national/regional aspects and merely depends on the size and shape of a river. There are hundreds of small weirs (with low heads) in Europe, and indeed across the world, that may be suitable for this technology and the interest from potential buyers is very high, with two further power plants already under construction.

LIFE 05 NAT/DK/153 Houting is on course to achieve its main objectives of removing physical barriers to the migration of the Coregonus oxyrhyncus (Houting) in four river systems (ensuring access to approximately 117 km of water courses), the re‐establishment of the natural hydrological regime in over 20 km of the river Varde and the restoration of some 25km of physically degraded water course. Building on the recommendations of the National Management Plans for Houting and Salmon, the project is targeting the whole range of the Houting in Denmark and the EU. The project is expected to lead to an improved condition in four Danish Natura 2000 sites, housing in addition to Houting a number of other Annex II species, including Salmo salar, Alosa fallax, Petromyzon marinus, Lampetra fluviatilis, Lutra lutra and Margaritifera margaritifera. Whilst the project specifically contributes to the Habitats Directive, it will also assist in meeting the objectives of the Water Framework Directive by restoring the continuity and natural water regime of four river systems.

LIFE 07 ENV/B/038 WALPHY directly responds to WFD requirements by undertaking work to maintain or recover the good ecological status of two water bodies as part of the Wallonia regional plan to implement the WFD. The project is also realising benefits in terms of the Habitats Directive by improving conditions for Atlantic salmon, sea trout Salmo trutta and eel Anguilla anguilla, and has implications for the Renewable Energy Directive as it works with small‐scale hydropower developers to implement alternative measures to dam removal.

The project is a good example of economic factors (the production and sale of electricity) driving ecological improvements, with the technology helping to fulfil the goals of the “Rhine Action Programme“, “Salmon 2000“ and “Rhine 2020” as well as the Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive and Renewable Energy Directive.

4.2.8. Projects with high potential for transferability

It is important to underline that the success of LIFE projects is often not visible at the end of the projects.

Innovative projects often have problems during the early stages due to technical adversities or planning obstacles and the breakthrough of the technology to be demonstrated comes only after the end of the project. In management or process projects much depends on whether the stakeholders are willing to take up the outcome of the project and move it forward. Therefore any assessment of the sustainability of a project is frequently subjective and based on the potential for the project outcome to be transferred or

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

49

replicated rather than objectively based on actual results.

A number of water projects were identified that have either already started to transfer their results to other regions, Member States or outside of the EU, or have high potential to do so once fully implemented.

For example, in the case of LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP, following the successful demonstration of the moveable hydropower plant technology the beneficiary almost immediately commenced further installations in Germany (Thurfeld (2 x 900 kW) and Hausach (300 kW)) and was at the contracting stage for the installation of plants in The Netherlands (2 x 800 kW), Austria (7 with 650 kW, 12 with 1.300 kW each) and a further four plants in Germany (600 kW and 1,250 kW). The beneficiary also commenced the process of conducting feasibility studies for some 80 plants in Africa, and has attracted interest from Thailand and other non‐EU states through regular guided tours of the LIFE funded demonstration plants.

The guidelines for using ecosystems approaches to reversing damage to the marine environment developed

by LIFE 07 ENV/UK/943 PISCES have been specifically developed to be transferable to any region/sea area.

The North Sea Commission has already indicated its intention to adopt the PISCES stakeholder engagement model for Northern North Sea whilst the Baltic Sea Regional Programme has also been engaged with PISCES.

LIFE 10 NAT/AT/016 Netzwerk Donau represents the largest LIFE project ever funded in Austria and has significant potential for transferability. The project aims to implement measures to improve the conservation status of water based habitats along the entirety of the Danube and its tributaries in Austria. By forming a part of the implementation of Austria’s National Water Management Plan and strategy for the Danube the project is not only a milestone for Austria, it is cited as an important guidepost along the path toward improving the Danube across Europe. The project is intended to provide an example at the international level, with both the technical methodology and the strategic approach of developing a complete plan covering a large region from a large number of individual measures (including LIFE projects), intended as an example for other riparian countries of the Danube to follow.

LIFE 08 ENV/GR/551 PURE is in the process of transforming an existing network of pipelines that are currently distributing treated wastewater for irrigation, with no control, no monitoring, no pricing and no management plan, into an upgraded system that provides high quality alternative water resources for irrigation, in a sustainable manner and in accordance with the principles of the WFD. A key element of this work is the production and dissemination of a prototype approach and management plan for a sustainable, environmentally significant, humanly safe, publicly accepted wastewater reuse and utilisation system which has the potential to be replicated across Southern Europe and other non‐EU semiarid regions globally.

Through the restoration of the species current range, LIFE 05 NAT/DK/153 Houting has the potential to provide experience which could prove valuable for the reintroduction of the Houting in other parts of its natural distribution area, such as Germany and the Netherlands.

The outcome of LIFE 08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT has the potential to serve as a basis for the implementation of River Basin Master Plans over larger areas of Italy and, possibly, the whole of Europe.

LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN (see below for further details) has the potential to transfer the use of its web‐mapping and Floodscan software to other regions and Member States, with the main precondition to its successful transfer being the availability of hydraulic and geographic data. The project increased the potential for transferability through cooperation projects and workshops at the national and international level (including Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia and Poland).

LIFE 09 ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE has developed a series of manuals and training courses for independent auditors and the EU hydropower industry to help implement the role out of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol across the EU. These tools are already proving valuable to the beneficiary in promoting the Protocol outside of the EU, with trial applications using the materials already having taken place in

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

50

Iceland, Norway, Malaysia and Australia.

Finally, LIFE 08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL provides an excellent example of the ability of LIFE funding to be used to enable the transfer of existing best practice from one region of the EU to another. By collaborating with SUDS experts from the University of Abertay the project is drawing on best practice from the UK and demonstrating the use of various techniques to deal with surface run‐off water with the aim of extending the use of SUDS to regions where they are not currently practiced, starting at the provincial level (Valencia) and potentially moving the national (Spain) and southern European regional level.

4.2.9. Standalone Successes

The Polish project LIFE 07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno targeted lake recultivation in Gnieźno by deactivating phosphorus in bottom sediments using coagulants, thus protecting inland resources on surface waters in line with the WFD. Upon conclusion, the project had reached its objectives and the quality of water improved substantially, making it possible to use the lakes for recreational activities. The reconstruction of the degraded banks not only protected the water from infiltration of pollutants from storm water but also increased the landscape value of the lakes. Furthermore, the biotope quality improved and the ecology of the lakes revived thanks to the planting of macrophytes and the renewal of fish stocks, contributing to the reduction of blue‐green algae blooms and to a limited proportion of algae in the phytoplankton. The project activities managed to reduce phosphorus and chlorophyll contents significantly, and enhanced water transparency.

LIFE 07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno

Macrophyte planting and renewal of fish stocks in Winiary and Jelonek Lakes

A second Polish project LIFE 08 ENV/PL/517 EH‐REK is dealing with managing urban water ecosystems. The project is still on‐going, so only limited results are available. The project introduces an innovative approach to the consolidation of knowledge about the functioning of urban water ecosystems; planning and decision‐ making methods used in the management of urban water ecosystems; current eco‐hydrologic technologies; the implementation of a system for training; and dissemination of knowledge and cooperation based on joint actions of a multi‐stakeholder platform. The project area comprises the riverbed section of the Bzura River and the complex of reservoirs in Arturówek, which is one of the primary recreational sites for Łódź population of one million people. The project will provide a better understanding of the possibilities of applications of hydro‐ecological methods in sustainable water management for urban areas. The project will also establish a network of piezometers for monitoring underground water quality and purchase the equipment needed for on‐site analysis and for demonstration and education activities.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

51

A Romanian project LIFE 09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER is also on‐going, but has already achieved some useful results. It intends to evaluate the future trends of the quality of the water bodies, to measure their effectiveness and the development of other sources of nitrogen in the study area considering the climatic evolutions. The project intends to use a holistic approach for water management by integrating international competitive models and identified sources of pollution in a GIS environment. The project will develop an integrated GIS system that will be capable of correlating all information, and demonstrate how it can be used for the designation of nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZ). Mathematical modelling for surface water‐soil‐ groundwater will be used for a complex analysis of nitrate transfer between the two water bodies. The project is useful as it collects biological and chemical results within the projects’ monitoring network as part of a field campaign at Barlad river‐basin level. The project contributes to the Nitrates Directive under the water framework policy, offers support for designing the monitoring program of Romanian waters and provides a good understanding of farming activities as a source of nitrate pollution.

The technology developed by the LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN project significantly contributes to the implementation of the Floods Directive, mainly by optimising a cost effective method of processing data and the hydraulic modelling of rivers subject to the risk of flooding. Previous approaches have proved highly time consuming and expensive. However, the project developed a procedure for the automatic compression of laser‐scan data that reduced processing times by up to 98% whilst maintaining a high level of detail together with a cost‐effective method for the use of classified land‐cover data to produce flood hazard maps. The project also very successfully carried out a series of communication activities with the public in areas at risk of flood, improving the public’s knowledge of and resilience to floods at minimal cost.

LIFE 08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT is working towards the integration of information on local hydromorphological features into practical measures to improve the reliability of implementation of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) in southern Europe. The focus is on improving RBMPs covering a number of water body types which are representative of Italian water courses and lakes, through the introduction of innovative measures that account for hydromorphological and habitat information. The project is quantifying the natural variability in undisturbed conditions of selected hydromorphological, habitat and physico‐chemical features, which are known to have a significant effect on biological communities as well as factors that affect ecological status classification. The outcome of the project will serve as a basis for the implementation of RBMPs over larger areas in Italy, by putting into practice the latest approaches and methods for the collection of WFD‐compliant data, classification of ecological status and technical implementation of management plans in the study catchments.

The LIFE 05 ENV/GR/245 ENVI‐Friendly project has been very effective in creating a successful collaboration of all levels of policy making – local, regional and national – all with the aim of contributing to the implementation of the WFD. On the local level, the project has significantly reduced nitrates, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in the water of pilot areas (through phytoremediation and river bank erosion controls), also by generating awareness among and synergy between local entities (with 8 municipalities involved as partners), including also residents, for a more sustainable use of water resources. On the other hand, the Prefecture of Laconia, the regional authority behind the activities – as the beneficiary of the project – showed high commitment to the successful completion of the project. Finally, the project has managed to involve in its activities, mainly with the aim of ensuring the sustainability of the results, the Central Water Agency of the Ministry of the Environment in Greece (the authority responsible for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive) that has shown sincere interest in the project with the desire to transfer project results to other Greek river basins. At the EU level, the project has contributed to the implementation of the WFD as the Evrotas River Basin is highly likely to achieve its environmental objectives by 2015.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

52

4.3.

Areas in which LIFE water projects have failed to meet their policy objectives (Weaknesses)

The weaknesses identified with the water sector projects 1. Scale analysed broadly fall into two crosscutting categories: 2. Varying Costs weaknesses that are specific to the water sector and those that are more generic and may be applicable to 3. Weather and technical problems projects in other sectors. Within these broad categories 4. Technical limitations five common themes shown in Box 3 were identified and 5. Human factors are discussed below. It is important to note that any weaknesses identified are not criticisms of the projects Box 3: Weaknesses of the LIFE but are intended as objective assessments of factors that projects have impacted on the delivery of policy objectives.

4.3.1. Scale

A number of projects were identified that focus on addressing problems or demonstrating approaches at the local or regional level. Whilst this is not a weakness in itself, many of the projects were found to suffer from the lack of a regional or national level institution within their partnerships or wider stakeholder groups, creating a significant barrier to the translation of project results into wider policy feedback. While the need to address problems such as the treatment of pollution resides at the local level, only through the collaboration between local and regional or national levels can meaningful and durable results be achieved in the future. Equally, if the aim of a project is to help develop policy or to act as a case study for future policy‐making, then it is advisable for the project to be in close contact with European policy‐makers and ensure that the policy‐makers actually use their obtained results.

As a consequence, many LIFE projects only demonstrate the advantages of the technology, management systems or models on a local scale, and while they aspire to be transferable or replicable on a larger scale only very few can actually demonstrate that the project outcome is sufficiently robust to allow scaling‐up to the regional or national level. For example the project LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE, only demonstrated that the project could operate on a local scale and the fact that there was no national representation in the project partnership could be one reason for the lack of apparent uptake at the end of the project.

The LIFE08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL project was only demonstrated at the local level and, given that the concept of SUDS is relatively new to southern European countries, the positive results of adopting SUDS is hard to demonstrate at the local level. Not least because the local and regional legislation does not enforce the incorporation of these strategies in urban planning projects and urban planners and designers do not know these techniques and they are not included in the design of the standards.

Similarly, the LIFE06 ENV/NL/167 WET project successfully demonstrated the technology for removal of priority hazardous substances from waste water at a local scale but at the end of the project there was no evidence of a wider uptake of project results/technology. However, the same can be said of many of the technology based LIFE ENV projects because the project proponents are generally from the private sector and need further assistance with the commercialisation or endorsement of a product before it can be more widely accepted.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

LIFE06 ENV/NL/167 WET

Projects can often be very successful at the local scale but experience difficulty in scaling‐ up to new markets

53

Despite some excellent dissemination at the national level some dissemination in Cyprus, the Greek project LIFE 08 ENV/GR/551 PURE, achieved limited international dissemination either in Southern Europe or non‐EU semi‐arid regions which were key elements of the original proposal.

Other projects which only appear to act at the local level are shown in Table 4‐1 below.

Table 4‐1: Scaling Issues with LIFE projects LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM LIFE 08 ENV/IT/390 ECOMAWARU LIFE 06 ENV IT 235 Kolisoon LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet LIFE08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND

4.3.2. Varying costs

Some technologies developed and demonstrated by LIFE projects have proved to involve high capital costs that may act as barriers to their wider uptake and commercialisation. Other technologies demonstrate variability in cost performance on a site‐by‐site basis.

The surface water status monitoring equipment developed by LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon involved high capital costs for equipment. The device was only developed to the prototype stage and would require significant investment to fully commercialise. The use of mathematical modelling and remote sensing techniques by LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST to help adapt the groundwater resources of the Veneto and Friuli Plain to the adverse impacts of future climate change also represents a relatively technically complex and high cost approach. The high costs of the LIFE 10 ENV/D/158 HWC ‐ Jenfelder Au project to develop and install a waste water separation and renewable energy facility in 700 apartments could prove unviable in the future (the current cost is around 24,000€ per apartment).

In the case of LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE, whilst the complex, high‐cost surface water treatment solutions developed proved affordable for the local authorities and water companies with good financial resources in Denmark, the approach may not be economically feasible in other parts of Europe.

In another case (LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet), whilst the low cost vegetated treatment systems designed to tackle agricultural non‐point source pollution by pesticides were relatively inexpensive to construct (average 10,000€), the cost of land on which to construct the artificial wetlands may cause a considerable issue. The location of the wetlands has to be carefully chosen to meet hydrological requirements meaning that land may need to be purchased. If the land is high grade agricultural land, it could cost in the region of 100,000€/ha, making the solution prohibitively expensive.

The cost of the in‐situ technique developed by LIFE 05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP is strongly site‐dependent when compared to the classical contaminated groundwater treatment technique of pump‐and‐treat (P&T). The cost depends on the availability of clean‐up infrastructure already on site. If pumping wells, a wastewater treatment plant or sludge dewatering facility are available then the investment necessary for the classical P&T approach strongly decreases, making the in‐situ process less competitive in comparison.

There are technologies that are more expensive in the short term due to higher installation costs, but over the longer term they become economically more favourable than conventional pump & treat technologies (for example the multibarrier technology demonstrated by LIFE 06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM). In general, it may be assumed that site characterization, design and contingency planning costs will be higher for a multibarrier approach than for P&T, whereas operational costs will be lower.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

54

In the case of LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM concerned farmers criticized the project results, such as the reduction rate of nitrogen and phosphorus losses from agriculture and they were in the view that a project that turned to an actual River Basin Management Plan could have targeted a much quicker reduction rate at negligible economic costs.

4.3.3. Weather and technical problems

In some cases the major difficulties encountered by the project were connected to weather conditions.

LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno was affected by the weather pattern in 2009 which showed significant variation from the usual conditions and resulted in some of the activities planned for the first half of the year being delayed due to adverse conditions. This case indicates that weather conditions should be taken into account for projects such as lake‐rehabilitation which include physical field works and biological manipulation. LIFE08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL has had to contend with the difficulties posed by increasing variability of local weather conditions, which make the specification of SUDS facilities very difficult. With the effects of climate change having an ever increasing influence on local climatic conditions, existing historical weather data is becoming less reliable. It may be that projects such as these need to build a weather factor into the design from the outset so as to be absolutely certain that the project can be delivered in a timely fashion.

In other cases projects had to request prolongations due to technical problems. LIFE 07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER encountered problems setting up the solid waste grinder and related overflow. Although this did not directly affect the waste water disposal function of the unit, the technical issues caused an overall delay in the implementation of the project.

4.3.4. Technical limitations

There are some techniques whose application is limited by restrictive conditions. For example LIFE 05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP encountered problems in applying its approach to various hydrogeologic conditions (including the presence of clay lenses, low permeable soil and the depth of groundwater) and (bio)geochemical factors (toxic conditions, level of groundwater contamination with heavy metals and mineral content of the aquifer). There are technologies, such as the multibarrier technique developed by LIFE 06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM that are tailor‐ made, and are dependent on the pollution present and the hydrogeological situation. Generally though, many LIFE projects encounter technical difficulties at some point or another during their lifetime and most manage to overcome the technical difficulties by the end of the project.

4.3.5. Human factors

For projects such as LIFE 09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER that carry out wide and complex monitoring programmes hand‐monitoring is required at all sites and that takes a lot of effort and time. This also requires a strong collaboration with the water authorities. It could also be a problem that the concerned farmers do not want to cooperate and it represents a weakness of the method. In some cases such as LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM the role of the general public was modest during the project's duration and a simple link for the general public on the website was considered sufficient.

4.4. Continuing or new threats which make it difficult for LIFE water projects to implement policy (Threats)

A total of eight areas which pose continuing or newly emerging threats to the implementation of LIFE water projects were identified (see Box 4) and are discussed below.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

55

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Sustainability Transferability Data access and reference information Unknown long term results Wider administrative and economic threats Difficulties in obtaining access, rights and permissions Lack of close collaboration and consensus with stakeholders Insufficient harmonisation and different interpretation of policy

Box 4: Threats to the implementation of water policy

4.4.1. Sustainability

In the case of LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno the project’s sustainability may be threatened by breakdown of infrastructure or illegal discharge of sewage into the project area. Repeated deterioration of water quality would require cleaning up of the areas that had already been rehabilitated under the project.

There is a possibility that funds would not be available for such a cleanup. In the longer term repeated pollution events will lead to inhibition of self‐purification processes established by the project and, as a consequence, to a further decrease of water quality.

Long term sustainability can be an issue for some projects and generally the critical factors limiting sustainability relate to continued funding and institutional stability, however it is very difficult to get concrete evidence to assess actual sustainability on a project by project basis without the benefit of an ex‐ post mission to the project. Arguably, if a project is sustainable then it is possible that the website will still be active and this is one means of assessing sustainability – although it is also true to say that the absence of a well maintained website does not mean that the project has been unsustainable. Thus sustainability can often only be inferred from the information available.

4.4.2. Transferability

As discussed in section 4.3, there are cases where technologies such as those developed by LIFE 05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP and LIFE 06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM are limited by restrictive conditions. The biggest threat to the uptake of these technologies is that a thorough evaluation of each site on a case‐by‐ case basis is needed to determine the suitability and the potential effectiveness of the approach. A further key point is that additional funding is often required to make even an exceptional product ‘sellable’ in an open and highly competitive market situation as was highlighted in the final report of the LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE project. The LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon project made particular reference to other detection methods and automated equipment for determining faecal coliform levels in waste water were already penetrating the market place by the end of the project.

As a basis for large‐scale implementation, project LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN intended to compile the numerous working documents into a technical handbook providing instructions to third parties regarding the processing of basic data as well as the modelling of flood hazard maps. This process was started during the project period, but could not be finalised due to delays. The beneficiary sought additional internal funding to complete this but if funding could not be found then this would pose a significant threat to transferability of the methodology developed in the longer term.

Project LIFE08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT noted that for wide scale application of the RBMP approach pioneered

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

56

by the project it would require buy‐in from regional authorities and other institutions that could not necessarily be guaranteed by the end of the project.

It is perhaps premature to expect that very new projects such as LIFE10 ENV/ES/521 AQUATIK can identify potential threats to non‐delivery or sustainability of project outcomes. However, it is already recognised that the stakeholders identified so far are all based in Spain/Catalonia (and all three beneficiaries are based in Spain too). The project has planned to engage widely in Europe but should this fail then the project may remain localised and will not be able to transfer the knowledge gained in monitoring priority hazardous substances in waste water to other regions or countries.

4.4.3. Data access and reference information

Another typical threat identified for projects dealing with water‐related issues is the need to have access to sufficient levels of accurate data with all related factors and parameters (relating to pressures and impacts on the water quality and to water quantity). Often the need to collect and put together such ample and updated datasets implies the additional need to homogenise it – a process which typically is quite time‐ consuming. This was identified as being a threat to the uptake of the methods developed by LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST, LIFE08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT and LIFE08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND.

Projects can also have difficulty establishing reference conditions for water bodies so that suitable guidelines, standards or programmes of measures can be identified. Project LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM, found this to be the case especially for lakes, as the project showed that parameter reference values could have been established locally as far back as the Middle Ages. This could be due to the early impact of society or to natural conditions. In certain cases it is therefore recommended to establish site‐specific criteria for good surface water status rather than type‐specific criteria.

4.4.4. Unknown long‐ term results

In many cases the long term application and results of technologies developed is not yet known. For example the application of a new method for ground water pollution prevention technique developed by LIFE 06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM is likely to be slow in the near future due to the current uncertainty regarding long term performance of the approach. Authorities will therefore probably require more stringent monitoring and contingency planning than for conventional techniques.

4.4.5. Wider administrative and economic threats

A number of projects were identified that have suffered from, or are vulnerable to, the on‐going economic difficulties that are being experienced across Europe. In Greece, the “Kallikratis” administrative reform has led to delays in the announcement of the tenders for essential activities of the LIFE 08 ENV/GR/551 PURE project and has increased bureaucracy, especially with respect to the approval of expenses and hiring project personnel. The reforms also pose a threat to the replication of the project’s approach in other Municipal Enterprises for Water & Wastewater in Greece, whilst the wider economic issues may increase the already strong opposition from end users to pay a specific price (or any price) for the treated wastewater that is produced by the project. This may threaten the long‐term economic viability of the upgraded water distribution system. A lack of financial resources in local authorities could also prove to be an issue for the maintenance of demonstration sites and the replicability of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems that have been developed as part of LIFE08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL, whilst a considerable limiting factor for the uptake of the protocol developed to manage the quantitative status of groundwater by LIFE06 ENV/IT/255 A.S.A.P is the lack of investment available for the renovation of distribution network pipelines.

A relatively new project LIFE09 ENV/FR/593 WateRtoM is attempting to compile the latest research project which may assist in the implementation of the water directives into a system that will allow the research outputs to be used by public bodies and private institutions more rapidly and effectively than in the past. At

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

57

the mid‐term stage the beneficiary had already noted that the global downturn in the economy could mean that prospective users want to invest only in approved, perfectly working solutions and devices and that very often they have limited confidence in innovative solutions.

4.4.6. Difficulties in obtaining access, rights and permissions

The decommissioning of a hydropower plant to improve the connectivity of a water body as part of LIFE05 NAT/DK/153 Houting was not able to be completed due to the project being unable to purchase property and water extraction rights through a voluntary negotiation process. The LIFE08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND project established that a series of on‐site structural interventions within a National Park would be needed and these require special authorisations. Inevitably such authorisations are lengthy procedures and this in turn may lead to significant delays in project delivery. In one case, LIFE 07 ENV/B/038 WALPHY there was a conflict with one landowner who actually wrote to the Commission complaining of the restoration measures being undertaken by the project: thankfully this is a very unusual occurrence.

On a different note the relatively new LIFE10 ENV/D/158 HWC ‐ Jenfelder Au a very large and ambitious project which is attempting to introduce an integrated wastewater and energy generation system on a new housing estate may encounter difficulties in obtaining planning permission for solar and ground heat energy supplies which may threaten the delivery of the project within the timescale outlined in the proposal.

4.4.7. Lack of close collaboration and consensus with stakeholders

The need for close collaboration between stakeholders to achieve the successful realisation of the technology or approach being developed by a project and the threat of either a lack of collaboration or consensus between stakeholders was identified in a number of projects. For example, an important aspect for the implementation of LIFE07 ENV/B/038 WALPHY is the continuous contact with provincial authorities, as the Provinces are responsible for the management of some categories of rivers and also for the granting of compulsory authorisations. A lack of collaboration with the provincial authorities may threaten the project’s ability to carry out its actions as planned.

Despite repeated attempts, LIFE09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE has so far been unable to secure the active participation of an EU based regulatory body in trialling the use of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol. Engaging with regulatory bodies may help to reduce the barriers to hydropower development posed by some local interpretations of the WFD by demonstrating the Protocol’s suitability as a comprehensive assessment of the overall sustainability of hydropower developments. The acceptance of the Protocol by a regulatory body may also encourage more hydropower operators and developers to trial the Protocol, hence helping to achieve the projects overall objectives.

LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST could face the threat of difficulties in reaching consensus amongst its many stakeholders for the acceptance of artificial aquifer recharge, with many competing economic activities that use water and land resources necessary for the project’s success (excavation sites, flood protection, etc).

The continued success of LIFE07 INF/UK/032 RESTORE relies heavily on the maintenance of national and European stakeholder networks for sustainable river restoration programmes and on ensuring that the difference between the science and research led networks and the practitioner network approach led by RESTORE continues to be recognised and links between the networks are maintained. This is made more difficult by the fact that the European Centre for River Restoration has a rotating secretariat (i.e. UK, NL, IT etc) meaning that its management is not secured, together with potential communications issues faced by the project such as language barriers, inconsistent messages and competing events.

Finally, LIFE07 ENV/UK/943 PISCES has found balancing national representation within the Celtic Sea Region difficult, with the main stakeholders initially coming from the UK but other countries better represented only towards the end of project. Engaging with the fishing community (especially industrial fishermen) has also

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

58

proved exceptionally difficult, with the resulting lack of input from a major stakeholder group threatening to undermine the effectiveness of the guidelines that the project has produced. This project, which dealt with various stakeholder groups as a main objective, noted that stakeholder fatigue was also an issue with so many initiatives being launched to assist member states in the implementation of the MSFD – keeping these stakeholder groups interested within and beyond the project would present a major challenge.

Collaboration is not only important between stakeholders, there are also implications for project teams which may need to remain associated after the project has finalised otherwise sustainability and transferability may not be achieved. Project LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon notes that it is vital for the project partners to maintain their collaboration if the product is to be brought to full commercialisation.

4.4.8. Insufficient harmonisation and different interpretations of policy

In some cases it was discovered that the insufficient harmonisation of national implementation of various directives threatened the application of approaches developed by LIFE projects across different Member States. LIFE 07 ENV/UK/943 PISCES highlighted the fact that the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is at different stages in different countries with the UK well ahead of France, Ireland and Spain (for example Spain is focussing on data collection). The method of implementation is also different in different countries – Spain (and probably France) will adopt a regional approach implemented through Regional Councils rather than a national approach which could lead to differences in interpretation. The LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet project demonstrated that a harmonisation of European legislation would be required to make the setting up of constructed wetlands easier, as different Member States have different planning and financing requirements and also different interpretations of the relevant directives. LIFE 07 ENV/L/540 M3 highlighted similar issues with the insufficient harmonisation of national implementation with the approach of the WFD. In a slightly different vein the LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon project noted that there was no uniformity across member states for standards and methods of testing for coliforms in waste water and that was a significant threat to the ability to roll out the monitoring equipment to different member states in the future.

4.5. LIFE projects contributing to the development of new water related policies and legislation (Opportunities) One of the key strengths of the LIFE programme is its ability to test the application of EU environmental legislation. For the programme to realise its full potential in this respect, it could be important for individual projects have a mechanism to feedback lessons into the continual development of new policies and legislation. The analysis identified a number of cases where water sector projects are developing new approaches not yet covered by existing EU legislation, contributing to the revision of water legislation, and providing input for specific water related legislation. However, the main strengths of water sector projects lie in contributing to the further development of water management related norms and standards, and assessing and disseminating environmental legislation.

Project opportunities were examined in relation to the policy areas outlined in Box 5 and while it is possible to find good examples in each policy area the assessment shows that there are some opportunities within the LIFE programme to contribute more fully in some parts of the policy cycle. However, the question remains as to whether the LIFE programme is able to exploit these opportunities as the projects themselves are generally undertaken on a local scale and most policy initiatives are undertaken at the national level.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

59

Box 5: Opportunities for LIFE projects to influence policy 1. Projects proposing new legislation 2. Projects working on complementary sub‐legislation 3. Projects developing new approaches not yet covered by EU legislation 4. Projects providing input for specific water management related legislation 5. Projects contributing to the revision of water legislation 6. Projects contributing to further development of water norms and standards 7. Projects assessing and dissemination environmental legislation

4.5.1. Projects proposing new legislation Among the LIFE projects assessed in detail for this study, few projects specifically aimed at the development of new legislation. LIFE10 ENV/IT/394 WARBO is targeting the regulation of the Artificial Recharge (AR) of groundwater aquifers in relation to water conservation and scarcity. AR techniques have already been applied to coastal saltwater aquifers to combat salt intrusion, but AR is not regulated at the EU level, and national water directives limit its application to saltwater aquifers. AR pilot projects are ready to start once final formal and organisational regulation of the issue is in place. If not regulated, large‐scale use of Artificial Recharge would entail risks both for the quality (pollution, accidental mixing of freshwater coming from different water bodies) and the quantity of freshwater (e.g. changes in the dynamic behaviour of the aquifer). To guarantee the correct application of recharge techniques, legislation should define: where and how to abstract surface water resources; the chemical and physical characteristics of recharge water with respect to the chemical activity and the hydrogeological structure of the aquifer; recharge methods; environmental impact; and set‐up and design of the monitoring network. The project is at the beginning of a process to develop new regulations for aquifer recharge that could be adopted throughout Europe.

4.5.2. Projects working on complementary sub‐legislation to already existing texts Several LIFE projects set out to develop protocols which will complement existing legislation one typical example is the UK project LIFE09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE which is testing and promoting the application of the International Hydropower Association’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol in the EU. The Protocol is an enhanced sustainability assessment tool which is being used to measure and guide performance in the hydropower sector. The Protocol assesses the four main stages of hydropower development: Early Stage, Preparation, Implementation and Operation. Assessments rely on objective evidence to create a sustainability profile against some 20 topics covering all aspects of sustainability. By demonstrating and promoting the application of the Protocol in the EU, the project aims to prove the Protocol’s suitability to become a standard methodology for the assessment of hydropower sustainability performance in the EU and globally. The beneficiary also intends to demonstrate the Protocol’s ability to capture assessments that are of use in implementing the WFD.

On the same theme the 2011 award winning project LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP has had a significant influence on local policy makers/regulators’ perceptions of hydropower and has proved that, with careful implementation, the ecological benefits (WFD) and the economic operation of hydropower plants (RED) are not contradictory and the requirements of both directives can be met.

Many projects also develop guidelines that are most valuable in the interpretation and implementation of directives. An outstanding example of such an approach is LIFE 07 ENV/UK/943 PISCES where the project team has developed a set of guidelines for implementing the ecosystem based approach to spatial area

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

60

management as called for by the MSFD. Once accepted (late 2012) these guidelines could become the blueprint for implementation of this part of the MSFD and the team are currently working with the Marine Strategy Groups (MSGs) set up in all member states to deliver the strategy.

LIFE 07 ENV/UK/943 PISCES Developing an ecosystem based approach to deliver the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This involves consultation with all the interested parties using the Celtic Sea.

The Spanish project LIFE08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL is attempting to use knowledge and experience gained in northern Europe in utilising Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) by incorporating their use in urban planning requirements for new developments in southern Europe in an effort to combat water scarcity.

4.5.3. Projects developing new approaches not yet covered by existing EU legislation

The Romanian project LIFE09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER contributes to the development of a modern Romanian water management system by elaboration of a completely integrated system as the basis for the Barlad River Basin District Management Plan according to EU legislation (especially Water Framework Directive) and by gaining the knowledge and experience to be used later in management of other river basins of Romania. The Cleanwater team intends to assist the replication of the developed Open‐GIS system at whole country level, like a support for the implementation of Nitrates Directive and it will contribute to a national approach methodology for delineation of vulnerable zones to the nitrogen pollution, at river basin level.

Currently, the information obtained so far by the project is used for the WISE20 reporting, thus the analysis results obtained will improve the Romanian reporting for the WFD. The project discovered through its monitoring programme that there are different factors to be taken into consideration for monitoring nitrogen pollution in Eastern and Western countries that use different agricultural methods.

20

Water Information System for Europe (WISE)

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

61

4.5.4. Projects providing input for specific water management related legislation

Current techniques for the treatment of municipal wastewater are not designed to remove the priority substances mentioned in the WFD, which are to be met in 2015. A national screening of effluent of Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs) in the Netherlands has shown that WWTP‐effluent forms a significant emission source of priority substances into surface waters. To achieve the discharge limits for these substances before 2015, additional treatment steps are required. The objectives of the successful Dutch project LIFE06 ENV/NL/167 WET were therefore to prepare the development of these measures by demonstrating mostly the technical feasibility of the removal of dissolved organic compounds using coagulants in WWTP‐effluent. The project established an installation of a water treatment facility in Leiden that can achieve the WFD values for nitrate and phosphate even with the single filter set‐up, which would lead to considerably lower costs than the set‐up with separate filters for N and P removal. The use of Advanced Oxidation Processes resulted in a reduction of medical remnants and pesticides by at least more than 70 % and in a disinfection level up to the hygienic limits set for in the Bathing Water Directive. The project demonstrated that heavy metals can be removed and additional removal of organic micro‐pollutants and suspended solids can be achieved using the same combination of techniques. As investments in additional treatment steps were necessary, the project provided insight in all measures that are necessary to achieve these standards. The study that the project prepared has yielded a lot of new information and experience with regard to the further removal of nitrogen, phosphorus and other relevant contaminants using subsequent treatment techniques. Most of the research results can be translated directly to other wastewater treatment plants in the Netherlands and other European countries.

Another Dutch project LIFE07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER also provides innovative methods to treat hospital waste water. The project contributes directly to a number of actions specified in the WFD: the reduction of water pollution as a result of urban waste water treatment and the improvement of surface water quality by providing a cost effective measure for waste water treatment. In addition, the project contributes to the 6th Environmental Action Plan: the protection of natural systems; reduction of carbon footprint; and higher level of the living environment. The PHARMAFILTER concept aims at processing solid organic waste and waste water in a hospital environment in an innovative integral manner and will lead to the recycling of components and production of energy. The results can in principle be replicated by any hospital. Pharmafilter has been patented as concept and working method. This project aims to demonstrate a new concept that: addresses successfully a serious environmental problem: contamination of surface water by endocrine disruptors, personal care products and medical remnants; offers a cost effective alternative at the source, thus creating a win‐win situation for environment and hospital; is attractive to the direct involved staff, since it offers significant advantages in terms of better working conditions and a significant decrease of risk of contagion. The process that the project is demonstrating can be applied to both existing buildings as in new to build buildings for public health care purposes. The costs prepared by the project show an up to a 90% kitchen waste cost savings and up to 50% savings in hospitals.

4.5.5. Project contributing to the revision of water legislation

Although LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon was mainly aimed at developing a prototype device for the analysis of E‐Coli in wastewater effluent and demonstrate its functionality and applicability, it also took into consideration the limits set by and the role of the WFD. The results of the project are relevant for the WFD and provide an interesting input into the discussion on if and how the faecal contamination of discharged effluents shall be controlled in relation to the implementation of the WFD and also the revision of the Water Bathing Directive.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

62

4.5.6. Projects contributing to further develop water management related norms and standards

The Luxembourg project LIFE07 ENV/L/540 M3 is working on examining regional monitoring programme of measures and has identified the shortcomings of the WFD Common Implementation Strategy. The project aims to provide demonstration monitoring programmes, modelling case studies and scenario testing to assist water managers and practitioners in applying the WFD and helping towards achieving the difficult goal set forth by the Directive. The project is still on‐going but has already highlighted that economic costs of meeting the objectives of the WFD are likely to be very high and may even be unattainable in the time‐ frame available. In order to ensure management actions are most effective it is of key importance that water managers have a structured approach to gaining an understanding of what the key pressures and impacts on their water bodies are and that their monitoring of emissions (inputs) and emission situations (exposure conditions within the water body) adequately characterises these. Beyond this, the project specifies that managers need a strategy to assess the effectiveness of their programmes of measures, and the Programme of Measures (POM) themselves need to be realistic and achievable and have a time‐frame for implementation against which to test any improvement in condition. The monitoring needs to be set within an adaptive management framework so that the programme receives on‐going re‐evaluation to ensure that the monitoring and PoMs are meeting the needs for the water body ecosystem. The project points out that the WFD strategy documents remain vague on most quantitative aspects of evaluating pressures and adapting monitoring networks to provide a sound database for Programme of Measures (POM) definition. In their view the main reason for the lack of clarity in linking different steps are the large knowledge gaps in the relationship between morphological, ecological and chemical drivers leading to the endpoint metrics of good ecological status (including the appropriateness of those metrics).

It is important and very useful for the future implementation of the WFD that the project identifies a number of deficits Box 6: Deficiencies in current related to water monitoring programmes in the examined 21 water monitoring two regions and these are indicated in Box 6.

programmes The Polish project LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in 1. Link between pressures and Gnieźno helped to fulfil the requirements of the WFD, more monitoring concepts specifically to protect inland resources of surface water with the postulated strategic objective of reaching "good 2. Pressures related to chemical ecological condition of water". Currently the quality of water pollution in the Gniezno's lakes can be considered as in a good ecological condition as a result of the project. The applied 3. Dynamics of pressure method of lake rehabilitation ‐inactivation of phosphorus in indicator occurrence bottom sediment‐ is a new method of lake protection. It helps to avoid sediment storage and odours emission 4. Suitability for load problems which are common effects of lake dredging. All calculation and model recultivation procedures are performed from the water validation surface, posing no risk for the environment or biological life.

The method does not require an additional area around the 5. Link between chemical and lake surface and is an ideal method for municipal lakes. It ecological monitoring can be used in most cities in Europe, where lake eutrophication is the main problem of their degradation and the method can be particularly recommended for shallow lakes. The method is relatively cheap and the project in Gnieźno showed that the positive results can be obtained even in the case of lakes in bad condition. The project results will be used in protecting water not only in lakes but also through the drainage

21

http://www.life‐m3.eu/fileadmin/M3‐life/downloads/guidelines/Monitoring_Data_Assessment.pdf

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

63

basin of the Odra river with its outflow to Baltic Sea. Besides its environmental component, the project has a strong socio‐economic component since it supports the recreational use of the lakes.22

In the Polish project LIFE08 ENV/PL/000517 EHREK the beneficiary is currently establishing a monitoring system to assess the effectiveness of re‐cultivation activity of urban water ecosystems. The monitoring activity includes:

 physical and chemical analysis (for waters every two weeks, and possibly additionally after heavy rainfall, bottom sediments twice a year);  biological analysis (phytoplankton and zooplankton every two weeks if the weather is warm and once a month if its colder, fish twice a year at least),  toxicological analysis (blue‐green algae toxins and dioxins once a month at least, more often when blue‐ green algae are blooming).

The results of the above monitoring will be used to construct and calibrate a mathematical model for decision‐ makers. The study of the project will implement a systemic approach that will analyse threats and opportunities faced by the reservoir catchment area; harmonise ecologic biotechnologies and technological innovations; and will apply the principles of ecohydrology as an interdisciplinary science. The project is still on‐going; further results will be expected in the upcoming years.

LIFE10 NAT/AT/016 Netzwerk Donau aims to implement measures to improve the conservation status of water based habitats along the entire length of the Danube and its tributaries in Austria. By forming a part of the implementation of Austria’s National Water Management Plan and strategy for the Danube the project is not only a milestone for Austria, it is an important milestone along the path toward improving the Danube across Europe. The project is intended to provide an example at the international level, with both the technical method of the project as well as the strategic approach of developing a complete plan covering a large region from a large number of individual measures (including LIFE projects), is intended as an example for other countries bordering the Danube to follow and has the potential to become a standard approach for sub‐basin or basin wide activities.

4.5.7. Projects assessing and disseminating environmental legislation

The pilot project for river basin management planning in the Odense River Basin completed by project LIFE05 ENV/DK/000145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM addressed Articles 11 and 13 of the Water Framework Direc‐ tive. The project prepared programmes of measures and river basin management plans aimed at the achieving the environmental objectives specified in Article 4 of the WFD. The project demonstrated how the planning process required by the WFD can be carried out from initial establishment of (provisional) environmental objectives to the calculation of how the environmental objectives can be achieved most cost‐ effectively for the water cycle as a whole, i.e. watercourses, lakes, mires, groundwater and coastal waters.

The project represents a successful example of the local cooperation and problem‐solving in river basin management and is now integrated in the future institutional structure to implement the WFD. The technical part, defining the "good status" of the water body and the development of a set of measures to reach it might have systemised the beneficiary approach to the WFD implementation.

The results of the project LIFE05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP carry policy and legislative implications and contribute to the objectives of the WFD by aiming to achieve "good" surface water and groundwater status by 2015; to the Groundwater Directive by preventing and controlling pollution through appropriate measures; and to the Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control Directive by preventing the further spread of groundwater

22

Winiary lake is used by the inhabitants of Gniezno as swimming place and it is very popular area for the local citizens during the summer weekends. The Jelonek lake and park in its vicinity is the place of rest during the week and weekends. The results of the project not only enhance this function, but also reduce the need to travel to other weekend recreation destinations.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

64

contamination. The project did not directly affect policy, but provided a demonstration of technology that may help to achieve WFD / Groundwater Directive objectives which can be further disseminated.

Multibarrier technology is a system for groundwater remediation. It is an in situ system, in which a filtrating trench is made perpendicular to the groundwater flow. This trench is filled with a coarse material of variable composition depending on the character of the pollution, and induced to treat the pollutants in the passing groundwater. The multibarrier technology is one of the options that exist to assist with meeting the requirements of the WFD, i.e. to improve the water (groundwater & surface water) quality in river basins all over Europe. A Belgian project LIFE06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM demonstrated the multibarrier technology in Belgium and Austria and its results can be replicated for treating leachate anywhere as the concept can be worked out for different pollution compositions and different geological situation. Cost estimations revealed a decreased cost for electricity of three to four times for a multibarrier system in comparison with a pump and treat approach for treatment of leachate containing groundwater. In the project it was demonstrated by an exercise that a multibarrier becomes cost‐efficient after approximately eight years of operation in Belgium and after seven years in Austria.

LIFE07 ENV/UK/943 PISCES is successfully generating interest and understanding of the concepts of ecosystem based approaches to reversing damage to the marine environment by working closely with target stakeholders from a number of Member States in the Celtic Sea region. The project is working with a group of committed stakeholders to produce guidelines for implementing the ecosystems approach which are transferable to any region/sea area. Through forming strong links with other Regional/Local programmes (e.g. Baltic Seas Regional Programme, EC FP7 ‐ Making the European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan Operational (MEFEPO) and MESMA (marine Spatial Planning in the EU)) and key policy stakeholders including the European Coordinating Group for Marine Strategy (ECGMS) for all member states and relevant country Marine Strategy Groups (MSGs) responsible for implementing MSFD nationally, the project has ensured significant potential for the transferability and impact of the guidelines. Furthermore, by engaging with key policy stakeholders, the project has been able to identify and feedback some of the synergies and conflicts between the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Common Fisheries Policy, including the need to align the MSFD with the CFP because the MSFD will be regulated by CFP.

Applying sustainable river restoration serves both the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive at several levels. LIFE 07 INF/UK/032 RESTORE is developing a network linking policy makers, river basin planners, practitioners and experts across Europe to share information and good practice on river restoration activities. As part of the development of the network, a review of EU policy drivers for river restoration was carried out. The review highlights the main legislative drivers (e.g. Habitats Directive, WFD, Floods Directive etc) and the constraints to river restoration (e.g. poor progress on WFD implementation in Mediterranean countries, funding issues, planning policy, agricultural use etc). One of the main constraints identified is the control over land use in riparian zones. The review also concluded that the scale of restoration activity has changed (from small scale to catchment) and new drivers have arisen (e.g. flood protection) but whilst there are new legislative drivers, there are also obstacles to implementation. The review highlighted a lack of planner and practitioner awareness of possibilities but that lessons can be transferred between Member States and there is a demand for tools and techniques. To complement the findings of the review a database of river restoration projects is being created by the project, providing further understanding of policy opportunities and constraints, the effectiveness of restoration methods, design issues and project costs and benefits.

For every application of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol that LIFE09 ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE conducts, the project plans to record the WFD designation and classifications at each site.

Analysis of the data will compare the assessment of overall project sustainability (using the Protocol) with compliance with the WFD. If projects achieve a high sustainability assessment score using the Protocol, but fail to meet the WFD objectives set, it could indicate that the way in which the Directive is being applied in that region is to the detriment of social and economic sustainability. In this respect, the project will be able to highlight regulators that are setting requirements based on the ecological status of water bodies that

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

65

compromise broader sustainability goals, and recommend ways in which these goals can be balanced.

LIFE06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet successfully demonstrated the mitigation of agricultural nonpoint‐source pesticide pollution and phytoremediation using artificial wetland ecosystems. Through an assessment of the implementation of the WFD in three countries (Italy, Germany and France) the project showed that a harmonisation of the European legislation would be needed to make the establishment of constructed wetlands easier.

LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN has provided instruments to water management authorities which can be used for communication with the public in areas at flood risk and only require minor adjustments to the local situation.

4.6. Preparatory Projects The so‐ called Preparatory Projects were designed to help policy makers trying out different policy ideas in practice and to have case studies for certain issues and trends. The preparatory projects under the LIFE programme, are “…projects which are preparatory to the development of new Community environmental actions and instruments, and/or the updating of environmental legislation and policies”.23 Only four preparatory projects have been carried out to date, three of them already completed reaching very good results and helping the policy‐makers, while one is still on‐going. Only one pilot project developed and tested verification protocols in three technology areas: waste water treatment, soil remediation and energy.

The UK project LIFE06 PREP/UK/002 TRITECH ETV (which ended in August 2009) was useful as in 2002, the EU adopted the Environmental Technology Action Plan (ETAP). A key aspect of ETAP is the development of improved testing, performance verification and standardisation of environmental technologies through defined processes. The TRITECH‐ETV project has set up and run a pilot scheme for the verification of environmental technologies, including waste water treatment.

4.7.

Factors for success and failure

It is not easy to determine what makes a project particularly successful, as projects vary significantly and what works for one project might lead to difficulties in the case of another. There is rarely one factor that leads to overall success and the results of our analysis suggest that the most successful projects have addressed risks to the project at an early stage and have managed to overcome them. It is true to say that developing sound networks and consulting with all relevant stakeholders, be they in the private sector (e.g. farmers) or in public bodies (e.g. the regulators) is a critical factor and the most successful projects – in terms of policy intervention ‐ are ones which engage with the appropriate national bodies who are in a position to adopt new practices or make changes to regulations. Establishing long lasting institutional arrangements, that can be in place after the LFIE project has closed also provides a much better platform for policy intervention. These strong institutional links appear to be most important for projects developing some kind of software, data processing or modelling products that require continuous support for effective implementation. For technology based projects, most of which deal with some form of water treatment, the most critical aspects for success appear to be future financing and the ability of the project team to make the significant step from prototype or pilot to full commercialisation. In the current economic climate of reduced public spending across all sectors and a general reluctance by investors to invest in untried technology, the threats to wide‐scale application technology based projects is increasing. A summary of the success factors and threats to water sector projects is presented in Table 4‐2. In general the water projects were typically small scale projects that did not really affect national programmes, but despite this fact, we have found some good examples of national, transboundary and international cooperation. In our view the projects should be much more proactive to disseminate their results in European level and should make the EU policy makers aware of the results achieved.

23

Guidelines 2005‐2006 for ‘LIFE‐Environment’ preparatory projects (2004/C 287/02)

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

66

Table 4‐2: Factors for Success and Operational Threats of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT Projects in the Water Sector

Thematic Focus of Project Water Framework Directive

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Success Factors  Very good partnership, including most relevant local municipalities, research institutes and universities and good synergy with private consultancies to facilitate good project management  High commitment of regional authority for the successful completion of project  Creation of monitoring network  Creation of a series of guidelines and action plans for implementing a more sustainable approach for water management  The creation of comprehensive new databases on water use and management (including GIS mapping)  Regularly sharing information with regional stakeholders (technical committees, web‐GIS, Wiki)  To have a strong platform for EU‐wide (and global) stakeholder engagement and proactive in exploring links between the WFD issues  Strong links with relevant country Marine Strategy Groups (MSGs) responsible for implementing MSFD nationally  Identification of, and engagement with, key policy stakeholders  Working with committed stakeholders to produce guidelines for implementation of the ecosystems based approach to marine management

Threats  Unless solutions are rapidly transferred to market place interest in further development/use is lost  Interpretation of WFD at national level is having direct consequences on approval of new projects and allocation of concessions and permissions for hydropower development under Renewables Directive  Inability to secure the active participation of an EU based regulatory body can jeopardise wider project application  Reluctance from people inside the scientific community to share their results outside their community  A lot of projects concentrated their research on solving local problems – results not directly transferable  Downturn in economies mean that prospective users want to invest only in approved working solutions – often limited acceptance of innovative solutions

   

IPPC and Floods Directives



Engaging with fishing community has proved exceptionally difficult – lack of input from major groups could undermine efforts in delivery MSFD implementation interpreted differently in different countries Implementation timetables different in different countries so some more advanced than others – timing of interventions can be difficult Public awareness concerning issues and requirements of MSFD low

Making the software readily available on the market (i.e.

Floodscan methodology)

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

67

Thematic Focus of Project

POLLUTION CONTROL UWWT Nitrates Discharge of pollution Groundwater

Success Factors  Cooperation between water management and land surveying authorities  Better flood risk communication which enables information of the public areas at risk  Be active in raising awareness in the local target groups (farmers, tourists, local communities) through a range of interactive means  Innovative technical solutions have widescale implications for implementation of directives  Possible new regulations/legislation concerning artificial recharge of aquifers may result from project activities

Threats

    

AQUATIC ORGANISMS Supporting Fish Shellfish

    

Well developed techniques for improving water bodies  to support fish species  Wide range of management approaches that are readily transferable and can be replicated in a range of water  bodies Stakeholder consultation critical for effective implementation Many projects contributing to WFD objectives have value added in improving water quality for fish species Conflict resolution between WFD and RED interpretation in many countries – concrete solutions found whereby countries can resolve issues which are mainly related to fish species

Different countries have different planning and financing requirements and also different interpretation of the directives Projects with no institutional partners or national policy makers run the risk of uncertain status at the end of the project Some technologies only prototype and no evidence provided that technology can be easily reproduced – especially true of products that are intended for ‘farm scale’ implementation Harmonisation of European legislation in some areas would be needed to make results more transferable (e.g. establishment of constructed wetlands) Local scale demonstrations with no national representation in partnership make replication difficult Lack of projects of any kind in relation to shellfish directive Poor water quality outside Natura 2000 site (for NAT projects) can have significant impact on efficacy of project outcomes Difficulties in purchasing property and water extraction rights through a voluntary negotiation processes

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

68

Thematic Focus of Project HUMAN HEALTH Drinking water Bathing water

Success Factors  Rapid assessment techniques developed with value added environmental benefits  On‐line systems to give early warning of health hazards  Fully automated systems reduce human error in analysis  Successful development of innovative technology to remove contamination of surface water by endocrine disruptors, personal care products and medical remnants

Threats  New technology is subject to mechanical malfunctions/requires maintenance  Technology solutions not officially recognised  Prototypes require significant investment to fully commercialise  No institutional partners to translate results into policy feedback  Technology can be costly – reduces likelihood of wider uptake in current economic climate

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

69

4.7.1. Key findings concerning the general programme

 The focus of projects financed by the LIFE programme corresponds to the priorities of the 6th EAP, with an emphasis on natural resources and waste, water, strategic approaches and, more recently, climate change. Water related projects represent 21.6% of the funded LIFE projects.24  LIFE projects provide opportunities for the development and testing of ideas for policy development and implementation, which provide valuable insights into what, and what is not, feasible.  LIFE projects cover the broad scope of the policy cycle, and have successfully contributed to environmental policies in the different phases of this cycle, i.e. monitoring, scoping, policy development, policy implementation and policy evaluation or review.  The LIFE programme has effectively and consistently contributed to environmental legislation and policy. Projects are overwhelmingly successful (with more than 80 % of projects reaching all or nearly all of their objectives) and the LIFE programme is generally well aligned with relevant legislation and/or policy.  The effectiveness of LIFE projects in providing input for the development of EU‐level policy could be further improved, however.  An important benefit of the LIFE programme is that the demonstration projects have been important test cases for new technologies and methods.  Another important benefit of the LIFE programme is that it brings together the relevant stakeholders around a specific issue. Although these stakeholders often already know each other, conducting a project cooperatively often brings about a lasting improvement in understanding and cooperation between organisations. This in turn generates benefits, for instance in ensuring a smoother and more coordinated implementation of policies that are not to be underestimated.

4.7.2. Policy complementarily 

 

  

24

The examined projects demonstrate that their objectives correspond with the LIFE + themes and with the 6th Environmental Action Plan. There are many good examples of projects helping local actors in implementing EU environmental requirements, e.g. the WFD. Therefore the examined water projects were most effective in implementing EU water policies and demonstrating new technologies on small scale.

On the other hand, the effect of the projects on policy‐making was less successful as there was little evidence of feed‐back from projects to EU policy and that could be due to the fact that successful LIFE projects are not always promoted at the right level within the appropriate sector of the DG. The examined projects were generally effective and reached their objectives, but it must be noted that the direct environmental results and impacts were generally restricted to the project site/area and that the projects respond to local needs falling within broad scope of the 6th EAP, in the examined cases most specifically within the WFD. Wider impacts were found only in some projects and mostly in cases where policy making was an objective (preparatory projects) or where strong EU link was established for the policy makers.

Generally LIFE covers a broad project portfolio; however, most projects were attached to the WFD issues and some of the gaps in the portfolio have been highlighted in this study.

It was also a weakness that in many cases the demonstration potential was not fully released or exploited.

Overview of environment projects funded by the LIFE programme 1996 – 2008, GHK study 2010

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

70

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LIFE projects can contribute to EU policy at different stages in the policy cycle. While some projects have successfully contributed to environmental policy at the national or EU level, most water sector projects act at the local level.

The water projects examined for this study covered a broad range of topics in terms of types of water issues addressed and solutions proposed. Undoubtedly, those projects aiming to contribute to legislation did so in all stages of the development and implementation process. However, the number of projects aiming at contributing directly to new policy is limited and this is thought to be attributable to the length of time it takes to develop and complete a LIFE project. On the other hand, a considerable number of projects develop or demonstrate concrete water utilisation, remediation and prevention practices, which show the range of economically feasible and environmentally sound options which could contribute to setting the standards for future policies.

The role that LIFE projects can play in each phase of the policy cycle can be generally detailed as follows: 







Scoping: some projects were already working on cost effective programme of measures before quantitative targets became obligatory in EU legislation. In cases such as LIFE05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM the project demonstrated the development of a cost‐effective programme of measures to reduce levels of nitrogen and phosphorus originating from agricultural activities prior the deadline.

Policy development: few projects are directly linked to the development of new environmental policies. A specific type of projects (preparatory projects) is dedicated to this purpose and there is only one for the water sector (see section 4.6). However, one project that clearly could have a role in defining new policy is LIFE10 ENV/IT/394 WARBO; a project which could define new policy in the field of artificial recharge of aquifers.

Policy implementation: numerous LIFE projects are dedicated to policy implementation, for instance by demonstrating how (future) EU policy targets can be achieved (e.g. LIFE07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER provides innovative methods to treat hospital waste water for drinking water), by addressing implementation of EU policy at the national level ( e.g. LIFE09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER which helps develop a modern Romanian water management system) or by demonstrating technologies (e.g. LIFE06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM that demonstrated the multibarrier technology in Belgium and Austria). This is arguably the area where LIFE projects excel and make the largest contribution to EU policy.

Policy evaluation / review: although, due to the demonstration nature of the LIFE programme, this element is less prominently represented in the project portfolio, there are good examples of LIFE water projects contributing to policy review (e.g. LIFE07 ENV/L/540 M3 which identified shortcomings in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy). Similarly there are several projects which are dealing with the implementation issues surrounding the WFD and the RED (see section 4.2.7). These projects are making a valuable contribution to resolving the difficulties that Member States perceive they face in trying to implement both directives and they could well contribute to policy reform in the future.

Generally speaking, LIFE projects are successful: according to the ex‐post study carried out for the LIFE III programme, “the project‐level effectiveness of the LIFE Environment projects is assessed as high as more than 80 % have reached all or nearly all of their objectives.”

But how well do the projects actually serve the policymaker? External evaluators tend to value the practical experimentation which LIFE projects contribute to policymaking, and they acknowledge that projects are

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

71

relevant to EU policy. According to the LIFE + mid‐term evaluation25, LIFE projects “provide opportunities for the development and testing of ideas for policy development and implementation which, based on real conditions and actions on the ground, provide feedback and insight on what is feasible or less feasible, identifying good practices where possible.”

While the approach is valid and priorities appropriate, potential project contributions can be limited by the long project cycle, which may not suit the needs of the policymaking and legislative cycles: projects can take four or five years to yield results, by which time policy priorities may well have moved on.

One possible limitation is that the emphasis of the projects selected may not match the immediate priorities of the policymakers. This is inevitable considering the LIFE programme’s ‘open programming’ approach, accepting applications in any relevant field of EU environmental policy. However, open programming can also lead to benefits as potentially all aspects of water policy can be addressed, rather than placing emphasis on selective areas. In this way it is possible to make breakthroughs in less well understood policy areas, a good example of which is the LIFE10 ENV/IT/394 WARBO which may make an important contribution to how the Commission deals with artificial recharge of aquifers, an area where policy is currently lacking.

It should be noted that even if a project does not initially set out to influence policy reform, innovative approaches to environmental problems could later be taken to account in policy development. The authors of this report understand that studies are often conducted for DG ENV during scoping and policy development and that LIFE funded projects (among others) are analysed. However, this contribution is difficult to quantify and concrete supporting evidence is lacking. If a project does inadvertently lead to policy reform it is likely to be after the project results have been published. At the present time there is no mechanism to record these successes other than through the ‘ex‐post’ project evaluations which are conducted on a regular basis by the LIFE Unit. There is a good argument that these ex‐post evaluations should be inter alia more targeted towards projects that have the potential to either influence policy reform at a later stage or where there is a high potential to transfer/replicate the results.

The gap analysis highlighted some areas where LIFE could be more active. It is recommended that the LIFE programme encourages more applications in policy areas where there are currently few projects, specifically in assisting Member States to develop programmes of measures, with certain aspects of the Floods Directive, establishing EQSs’ and with the Shellfish Directive. In addition, projects which aim to contribute to certain aspects of the WFD, and for that matter the MSFD, should be more precise in stating which area of the relevant directive the project is related to. Beneficiaries should be asked to provide more detailed information on the policy direction, if necessary at the revision stage, as it is not really acceptable to simply state that the ‘project contributes to the implementation of the WFD’ a phrase that is often found in LIFE applications. This will become more and more important as various water policies are repealed by the WFD in the near future.

One of the outcomes of this study was the development of a matrix (see Annexes 2 and 3) which attempt to link all the LIFE water related projects to specific areas of policy. The development of this tool was a critical element in determining the effectiveness of the individual projects in relation to their stated policy areas.

Some of the problems encountered in populating this matrix i.e. policy areas were not fully described in the documentation or how successful the project had been in contributing to the specified policy area, could be improved by better reporting requirements in both the application and the final reporting stages of the LIFE projects. Nevertheless, the value of the matrix as a means of selecting projects which contribute to specific policy areas and therefore as an easy reference tool to answer questions that the policy units may wish to raise, was highlighted in the feedback comments from DG ENV in that they intend to use the matrices to

25

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/com2010_516_final.pdf

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

72

feed into the WISE RTD reporting. It should be noted that some of the information is already available via the FP7 STEPWISE programme which has already accessed all LIFE projects to the WISE portal (http://www.wise‐rtd.info/en). Nevertheless, it may be that the tools developed under this study provide a different level of information that is useful to the Water Unit and it is recommended that these matrices are updated to include information about projects as they close and about new projects that emerge through the new rounds of LIFE funding.

In conclusion, LIFE projects excel at policy implementation but have less influence in other areas of the policy cycle. While LIFE projects do respond to changing legislation (i.e. response to the call for development of integrated RBMPs under the WFD) the manner of delivery (i.e. local/regional, small scale, innovative and highly technical projects), has not changed a great deal over the years. However, the move to larger, integrated projects being developed under the new LIFE instrument which will become effective in 2014, acknowledges this issue of scale and should lead to more effective reproduction of results across wider geographical units.

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

73

Annex 1

Initial Project Assessment

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

Annex 1

Website

Project acronym

Project title

Funding

contract code

start date

end date

Aquatic Warbler project

Conserving Acrocephalus paludicola in Poland and Germany

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/PL/000101

1/2/2005

31/05/2010 izabela.flor@otop.org.pl Izabela FLOR

Ardmouperl

Restoration of pearl mussel populations in the Ardennes

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/L/000116

1/9/2005

31/08/2011

BALTCOAST

Rehabilitation of the Baltic coastal lagoon habitat complex

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/D/000152

Baltic MPAs

Marine protected areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea

LIFE-NAT

Biomares

Restoration and Management of Biodiversity in the Marine Park Site Arrábida-Espichel

BIOMURA

e-mail coordinator

name coordinator

secretariat.commun@lu Frantz-Charles xnatur.lu Muller

Website entered

LIFE database website

http://www.otop.org.pl/ ; http://www.wodniczka.pl/

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=292 6

10/02/2011

http://www.margaritifera.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=293 4

16/02/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=299 8

16/02/2011

16/02/2011

project@life31/12/2011 baltcoast.eu; kueper@sn-sh.de

Britta KÜPER

www.life-baltcoast.eu

LIFE05 01/08/2005 NAT/LV/000100

31/07/2009 heidrun.fammler@bef.lv

Heidrun FAMMLER

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://lifempa.balticseaportal.n dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc et/ h.dspPage&n_proj_id=292 7

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/P/000192

01/01/2007

01/01/2011 kerzini@ualg.pt

Karim ERZINI

Conservation of biodiversity of the Mura river in Slovenia

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/SI/000066

31/10/2006

31/10/2011 uprava@izvrs.si

BLUEREEF

Rebuilding of Marine Cavernous Boulder Reefs in Kattegat

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 01/08/2006 NAT/DK/000159

01/04/2012

anb@sns.dk; ogc@sns.dk

Cerknisko Jezero

Intermittent Cerknica Lake

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/SI/000069

01/01/2007

31/12/2009

tanja.vasilevska@notra Tanja njski-park-si VASILEVSKA

CILENTO IN RETE

Management of the network of pSCIs and SPAs in the Cilento National Park

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053

01/01/2007

30/12/2010 direttore@pncvd.it

Co.Me.Bi.S.

Urgent conservation measures for biodiversity of Central Mediterranean Sea

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050

01/10/2006 30/09/2009

rdefilippis@regione.lazi Raniero DE o.it FILIPPIS

Cuxhavener Küstenheiden

Large Herbivores for Maintenance and Conservation of Coastal Heaths

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/D/000051

01/10/2005

30/09/2009

Renate.thole@mu.nied Renate THOLE ersachsen.de

Dommeldal

Transboundery habitat restoration in the valley of the Dommel

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/B/000091

17/01/2005

31/12/2009 Tel:+32 015 424921

01/05/2005

Mitja STAREC; Lidija GLOBEVNIK

Henrik CHRISTENSE N; Olaf CHRISTIANI

Giuseppe TARALLO; Angelo DE VITA

Joost DEWYSPELAE RE

http://ec.europa.eu/environ http://www.ccmar.ualg.pt/biom ment/life/project/Projects/in ares/ dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=316 4 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://www.biomura.si/ang/def dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc ault.aspx h.dspPage&n_proj_id=315 3 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in www.bluereef.dk dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=310 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://life.notranjskidex.cfm?fuseaction=searc park.si/eng/ h.dspPage&n_proj_id=315 4 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in www.lifecilentoinrete.eu dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=321 8 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://www.lifecomebis.eu/ dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=316 http://ec.europa.eu/environ http://www.lifement/life/project/Projects/in kuestenheiden.niedersachse dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc n.de h.dspPage&n_proj_id=294 http://ec.europa.eu/environ http://www.natuurpunt.be/nl/n ment/life/project/Projects/in atuurbehoud/life-natura-/lifedex.cfm?fuseaction=searc dommeldal_742.aspx h.dspPage&n_proj_id=292

Data Info collected

Comments

16/02/2011

16/02/2011

22/02/2011

22/02/2011

22/02/2011

22/02/2011

16/01/2012

22/02/2011

website not in english

Fortore 2005

Urgent conservation actions for Fortore River pSCI

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/IT/000026

30/03/2010 comunita@wooow.it

Claudio LA ROSA

GREENDANUBE

Conservation and integrated management of Danube islands Romania

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 01/09/2006 NAT/RO/000177

31/08/2010 office@apmcl.ro

Viorica ENACHE

HABI.COAST

Protection of coastal habitats in pSCI Torre Guaceto

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/IT/000050

31/12/2008

Houting

Urgent actions for the endangered Houting "Coregonus oxyrhunchus"

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 01/02/2005 NAT/DK/000153

31/07/2009 ole@sns.dk

Kokem채enjoki-LIFE

From Ancient to the Present Estuary, Kokem채enjoki Wetland Chain

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/FIN/00012 01/08/2006 9

Arto.Ahokumpu@metsa Arto 31/07/2011 .fi; tapio.aalto@elyAHOKUMPU; keskus.fi Tapio AALTO

LIFE - Ges채use

Conservation strategies for woodlands and rivers in the Ges채use Mountains

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/A/000078

01/08/2005

01/08/2010

Life Grote Nete

Restoration of the lowland river system 'Grote Nete'

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/B/000090

17/01/2005

tom.debeelde@natuurp Tom DE 31/12/2009 unt.be BEELDE

LIFE Obere Drau II

Life in Upper Drau River

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/A/000127

01/09/2006

31/08/2011

The re-introduction of allis shad LIFE-Projekt Maifisch (Alosa alosa) in the Rhine System

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/D/000005

01/01/2007

heiner.klinger@lanuv.nr Heiner 31/12/2010 w.de KLINGER

Lippe-Aue

Optimisation of the pSCI "Lippe flood plain between Hamm and Hangfort"

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/D/000057

08/01/2005

28/02/2010

schmidtformann@stadt. Oliver Schmidthamm.de Formann

Loutre BeLu 20052006

Restoration of European otter habitats (Be & Lu)

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/B/000085

01/10/2005

30/09/2010

donatien@parcnaturel. Donatien be Liesse

Ecological restoration of the Lower Prut Floodplain Lower Prut Floodplain Natural Park

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 01/11/2005 30/10/2009 office@luncaprut.ro NAT/RO/000155

Fica BOLDEA

Preservation and restoration of Marais de Rochefort the Rochefort marshes biological functions

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/F/000147

Thierry MICOL

01/10/2005

01/01/2006

segreteria@riservadito Alessandro rreguaceto.it CICCOLELLA Hans Ole HANSEN

daniel.kreiner@national Daniel Kreiner park.co.at

norbert.sereinig@ktn.g Norbert v.at SEREINIG

01/10/2006 31/12/2010 thierry.micol@lpo.fr

MOFI

Monk seal & fisheries: Mitigating the conflict in Greek seas

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 01/07/2005 NAT/GR/000083

30/06/2009 admin@mom.gr

Spyros KOTOMATAS

NELEAP

Protection of Emys orbicularis and amphibians in the north European lowlands

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 08/01/2005 NAT/LT/000094

31/12/2009 nerijus.z@glis.lt

Nerijus ZABLECKIS

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=290 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environ http://www.ostroaveledunarii.r ment/life/project/Projects/in o/ dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=311 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=290 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://www.snaebel.dk/ dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=294 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://www.ymparisto.fi/defaul dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc t.asp?node=21245&lan=en h.dspPage&n_proj_id=315 1 www.lifefortore.eu

07/03/2011

07/03/2011

16/01/2012

07/03/2011

16/03/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=292 3

16/03/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environ http://www.natuurpunt.be/nl/n ment/life/project/Projects/in atuurbehoud/life-natura-/life- dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc grote-nete_752.aspx h.dspPage&n_proj_id=291 8

16/03/2011

www.life-drau.at

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=314 9

16/03/2011

http://www.alosa-alosa.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=312 1

16/01/2012

www.nationalpark.co.at

http://ec.europa.eu/environ www.life-lippeaue.de; ment/life/project/Projects/in http://www.hamm.de/lifepluslip dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc peaue.html h.dspPage&n_proj_id=295 1 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in www.loutres.be dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=291 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in www.luncaprut.ro dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=295 3 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://www.maraisderochefort dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc .lpo.fr h.dspPage&n_proj_id=313 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://mofi.mom.gr dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=293 6 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://www.glis.lv dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=294 2

No website

16/03/2011

16/03/2011

16/03/2011

16/03/2011

16/01/2012

16/01/2012

animals

STREAM

River Avon cSAC: demonstrating strategic restoration and management

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 01/08/2005 NAT/UK/000143

30/09/2009

jenny.wheeldon@englis Jenny h-nature.org.uk WHEELDON

http://www.streamlife.org.uk/

Schwäbisches Donautal

Swabian Danube valley

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/D/000006

31/03/2011

norbert.knopf@noel.gv. Norbert at KNOPF

http://www.donautal-lifenatur.de/

Verbrakking Westzaan

Restoration of brackish ecosystems in Westzaan polder

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 01/09/2006 NAT/NL/000076

Kees k.romeijnders@staatsb 31/08/2010 ROMEIJNDER osbeheer.nl S

Vlietmonding

Connecting 3 pSCI around the Hoeksche Waard for Root Vole

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 23/02/2006 NAT/NL/000079

23/12/2008

mvonk@commissiehw.

Mellany VONK nl

Wetland succession

Wetlands: challenges and innovation in succession management

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 01/08/2006 NAT/NL/000074

31/12/2010

a.stoker@natuurmonu menten.nl

Wetlands Butterflies

Conservation and upgrading of habitats for rare butterflies of wet, semi-natural meadows

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 01/08/2006 NAT/PL/000100

31/03/2010 recpl.miazga@data.pl

Michał MIAZGA

WETREST

Restoration of Wetlands at Zahorie Lowland

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 01/02/2005 NAT/SK/000112

31/12/2008 sibl@broz.sk

Jaromír ŠIBL

SUM

34

01/10/2006

T.J. Wams

http://www.staatsbosbeheer.n l/Actueel/Dossiers/LIFE%20N ature/LIFE%20Polder%20W estzaan/Project%20Verbrakki ng%20polder%20Westzaan.a spx

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=293 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=311 2 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=312 6

http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=312 http://ec.europa.eu/environ http://www.natuurmonumente ment/life/project/Projects/in n.nl/natmmdex.cfm?fuseaction=searc internet/natuurherstel_in_ned h.dspPage&n_proj_id=312 erland/de_wieden/home.htm 4 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in http://www.rec.org.pl/life/engli dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc sh_version/ h.dspPage&n_proj_id=321 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environ ment/life/project/Projects/in www.broz.sk/ dex.cfm?fuseaction=searc h.dspPage&n_proj_id=293 2

www.vlietproject.nl

18/03/2011

22/02/2011

18/03/2011

18/03/2011

18/03/2011

18/03/2011

18/03/2011

Website

Project acronym

Project title

Funding

ARION

Systems for Coastal Dolphin Conservation in the Ligurian Sea

LIFE09 LIFE-NAT NAT/IT/000190

contract code

start date

end date

e-mail coordinator

name coordinator

Website entered

LIFE database website

Data Info collected Comments

30/09/2014

taiuti@ge.infn.i Mauro TAIUTI t

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3851

16/01/2012

01/06/2009

30/06/2013

luisfreitas@m useudabaleia. Luis FREITAS org

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects http://www.cetaceos/index.cfm?fuseaction=se madeira.com arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3344

16/01/2012

ConShagAud MIBAGR

Concrete Conservation Actions for the Mediterranean Shag and Audouin's gull in LIFE07 LIFE-NAT 01/01/2009 Greece including the NAT/GR/000285 inventory of relevant marine IBAs

31/12/2012

jakobfric@orni thologiki.gr

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro http://www.ornitholo nment/life/project/Projects giki.gr/page_in.php? /index.cfm?fuseaction=se tID=2569&sID=172 arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3372

16/01/2012

CUBOMED

Development and demonstration of eradication and control methods for an invasive species: Carybdea marsupialis (Cubozoa), Mediterranean

LIFE08 LIFE-NAT NAT/E/000064

31/12/2014

Cesar cesar.bordeho BORDEHORE re@ua.es FONTANET

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3530

16/01/2012

DENOFLIT

Inventory of marine species and habitats for development of NATURA 2000 network in the offshore waters of Lithuania

LIFE09 LIFE-NAT NAT/LT/000234

31/03/2015

darius@corpi. ku.lt

Darius DAUNYS

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3787

16/01/2012

Elbauen bei Vockerode

Improvement and Long-Term Safeguarding of the Natura LIFE08 LIFE-NAT 2000 Site “Dessau-Wörlitz NAT/D/000013 Elbe Floodplain”

31/12/2018

gutzweiler@w wf.de

Karl Gutzweiler

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3519

21/02/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects http://www.ems-life/index.cfm?fuseaction=se nrw.de/ arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3516

21/02/2011

Identifying critical marine areas for bottlenose dolphin CETACEOSM LIFE07 and surveillance of the LIFE-NAT ADEIRA II NAT/P/000646 cetaceans' conservation status in Madeira archipelago

01/10/2010

01/01/2010

01/10/2010

01/01/2010

Jakob FRIC

Near-natural river and flood Emsplain development of the Dynamik+Habi River Ems at Einen – river tate dynamics and habitat diversity

LIFE08 LIFE-NAT NAT/D/000008

01/01/2010

31/12/2014

FINMARINET

Inventories and planning for the marine Natura 2000 network in Finland

LIFE07 LIFE-NAT NAT/FIN/00015 1

01/01/2009

31/12/2012

pasi.laihonen @ymparisto.fi

Pasi LAIHONEN

Healthy Heath

Propagation and development of dry, moist and wet heath in LIFE08 LIFE-NAT the Dwingelderveld SPA and NAT/NL/000192 pSCI

01/01/2010

01/01/2016

p.pasman@dr enthe.nl

Peter PASMAN

01/01/2009

30/04/2013

hortobagy.te@ Zoltan ECSEDI chello.hu

Restoration of sodic lake subHORTOBAGY type of the Pannonic salt LIFE07 LIFE-NAT SODIC LAKES steppe and marsh habitat in NAT/H/000324 the Hortobágy

franz.reinhard @brms.nrw.de

Franz Reinhard

-

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects www.ymparisto.fi/fin /index.cfm?fuseaction=se marinet arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3329 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro http://www.nationaal nment/life/project/Projects park/index.cfm?fuseaction=se dwingelderveld.nl arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3562 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects www.hortobagyte.h /index.cfm?fuseaction=se u/ arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3366

16/01/2012

15/02/2011

23/02/2011

animals

animals

animals

31/12/2013

indemares@fu ndacionbiodiversidad. es; dpena@funda cionbiodiversidad.

David PEÑA

15/09/2013

stephen@wye uskfoundation. org

Stephen MARSHSMITH

31/12/2013

a-vAndreas VON lindeiner@lbv.

LINDEINER de

31/08/2014

diliamenezes. sra@govmadeira.pt

Dilia MENEZES

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects http://www.pnm.pt/ /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3802

16/01/2012

31/12/2013

elena.diaz@ju ntadeandaluia. es; dgdsia.cma@j untadeandaluc ia.es

Elena DÍAZ ALMELA

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3829

16/01/2012

28/02/2015

schmidtforman n@stadt.ham m.de

Oliver SCHMIDTFORMANN

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects www.hamm.de/en/li /index.cfm?fuseaction=se feplus-projekt.html arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3522

23/02/2011

31/08/2015

esus.santamar ina.fernandez Jesús @xunta.es; SANTAMARIN biodiversidade A 2.cma@xunta. FERNÁNDEZ es

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3844

25/02/2011

31/03/2015

heidrun.famml er@bef.lv

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3822

16/01/2012

01/01/2011

31/12/2015

catarina.eira@ Catarina EIRA ua.pt

INDEMARES

Inventory and designation of marine Natura 2000 areas in the Spanish sea

LIFE07 LIFE-NAT NAT/E/000732

ISAC 08

Irfon Special Area of Conservation Project

LIFE08 LIFE-NAT 01/01/2010 NAT/UK/000201

Keiljungfer

Optimization of watercourses in Middle Franconia for the LIFE08 LIFE-NAT Green club-tailed Dragonfly NAT/D/000002 (Ophi-ogomphus cecilia)

Life Ilhéus do Porto Sant

Halt the loss of European Biodiversity through the recovery of habitats and species of the islets of Porto Santo and surrounding marine area.

Conservation of Posidonia Life Posidonia oceanica meadows in Andalucia Andalusian Mediterranean Sea

LIFE09 LIFE-NAT NAT/PT/000041

01/01/2009

01/01/2010

01/09/2010

LIFE09 LIFE-NAT 01/01/2011 NAT/ES/000534

Life Projekt "Lippeaue"

Improvement of the connection between the river and the floodplain within the LIFE08 LIFE-NAT pSCI "Lippe floodplain NAT/D/000010 between Hangfort and Hamm"

MARGAL ULLA

Recovery of populations of Margaritifera margaritifera and Galemys pyrenaicus inn the Ulla river basin (Galicia).

MARMONI

Innovative approaches for marine biodiversity monitoring LIFE09 and assessment of LIFE-NAT NAT/LV/000238 conservation status of nature values in the Baltic Sea

MarPro

Conservation of Marine Protected Species in Mainland Portugal

LIFE09 LIFE-NAT NAT/PT/000038

Murerleben

Mur experience - Alpine river management Upper Mur

LIFE-NAT

LIFE08/NAT/A/0 01/02/2010 00614

01/02/2015

rudolf.hornich @stmk.gv.at

Nebenrinne Bislich

Vahnum - Restoration of a side channel of the river Rhine near Wesel, Lower German Rhine

LIFE-NAT

LIFE08 NAT/D/000007

01/01/2010

31/12/2015

info@NABUKlaus Naturschutzsta MARKGRAFtion.de MAUÉ

P.A.R.C.

Petromyzon And River Continuity

LIFE-NAT

LIFE07/NAT/IT/0 12/01/2009 00413

31/12/2011

direttore@parc omagra.it

POSEIDONE

Urgent conservation actions of *Posidonia beds of Northern Latium

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176

30/09/2014

paololupino@ Paolo LUPINO beachmed.eu

01/03/2010

LIFE09 LIFE-NAT 01/09/2010 NAT/ES/000514

01/10/2010

01/12/2010

Heidrun FAMMLER

Rudolf HORNICH

Patrizio Scarpellini

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects http://www.indemar /index.cfm?fuseaction=se es.es arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3370

-

-

-

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3538 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3523

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3842 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects www.murerleben.at/ /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects http://www.life-rhein/index.cfm?fuseaction=se bislich.de/ arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3521 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects www.lifeparc.eu/ /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3342 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3808

16/01/2012

23/02/2011

23/02/2011

16/01/2012

25/02/2011

25/02/2011

25/02/2011

16/01/2012

REFLOW

Re-establishing a natural water flow level in the river system "Mølleåen"

LIFE07 LIFE-NAT 01/01/2009 NAT/DK/000100

Restoration of hydrological LIFE09 Renaturyzacja system in the Middle basin of LIFE-NAT NAT/PL/000258 Biebrza Valley Phase I.

30/06/2011

iddni@sns.dk

Ida DAHLNIELSEN

01/09/2010

30/12/2016

biebrza@vp.pl

Mariusz SIŁAKOWSKI

Rheinauen bei Rhine wetlands near Rastatt Rastatt

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 01/01/2011 NAT/DE/000004

31/12/2015

daniel.raddatz @rpk.bwl.de

Daniel RADDATZ

The Dutch Crane Resort

Improvement of hydrological conditions in peat bog area Fochteloërveen

LIFE-NAT

LIFE08/NAT/NL/ 01/01/2010 000193

31/12/2014

f.vanrossum@ natuurmonum enten.nl

Fen VAN ROSSUM

Vindel River LIFE

Restoration of tributaries of the Vindel river combined with monitoring and evaluation of ecological responses of species and

LIFE08/NAT/S/0 LIFE-NAT 01/01/2010 00266

31/12/2014

johanna.garde Johanna strom@emg.u GARDESTRÖ mu.se M

WETLIFE

Restoring Hydrology in Amalvas and Žuvintas Wetlands

LIFE-NAT

31/03/2012

a.stoskus@gpf .lt

Argaudas STOŠKUS

WETMAN

Conservation and management of freshwater wetlands in Slovenia

LIFE09 LIFE-NAT NAT/SI/000374

01/02/2015

nika.debeljak @zrsvn.si

Nika DEBELJAK ŠABEC

ZTAR

Zwin Tidal Area Restoration

LIFE09 LIFE-NAT 01/01/2011 NAT/BE/000413

Δ-LAGOON

Restauración y gestión del hábitat en dos lagunas costeras del Delta del Ebro: Alfacada y Tancada

LIFE09 LIFE-NAT 01/09/2010 NAT/ES/000520

LIFE07/NAT/LT/ 000530

01/01/2009

01/02/2011

31/12/2015

31/12/2014

http://www.skovogn atur.dk/Naturprojekt er/Projekter/Hovedst aden/Molleasystem et/

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3352 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects http://www.renaturyz /index.cfm?fuseaction=se acja.biebrza.org.pl/ arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3862 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro http://www.rheinaue nment/life/project/Projects n-rastatt.de/ /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id=

-

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects http://vindelriverlife.s /index.cfm?fuseaction=se e/ arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3567 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects http://www.wetlife.g /index.cfm?fuseaction=se pf.lt/ arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3334

01/03/2011

01/03/2011

04/03/2011

04/03/2011

04/03/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects http://www.wetman. /index.cfm?fuseaction=se si/ arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3832

04/03/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3867

16/01/2012

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3845

04/03/2011

evy.dewulf@ln e.vlaanderen.b Evy DEWULF e

carles.ibanez Carles IBAÑEZ @irta.cat

http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/project/Projects /index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id= 3563

01/03/2011

-

Website

Project acronym

Project title

Funding

contract code

start date

end date

e-mail coordinator

name coordinator

ECOTONE

Management of riparian habitats towards the conservation of endangered invertebrates

LIFE-NAT

LIFE10 NAT/PT/000073

01/01/2012

01/01/2016

fcnatureza@que rcus.pt

José Paulo MARTINS

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4036

12/01/2012

Emmericher Ward

River and floodplain improvement - Emmericher Ward within the EU LIFE-NAT Bird Area Unterer Niederrhein

LIFE10 NAT/DE/000010

01/01/2012

31/12/2017

Klaus.markgraf @nabunaturschutzstati on.de

Klaus MARKGRAFMAUÉ

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4086

12/01/2012

HUMEDALES DE LA MANCHA

Restoration of salt flats around 27 endorheic wetland areas in La LIFE-NAT Mancha

LIFE10 NAT/ES/000563

01/10/2011

30/09/2014

director@altogu adiana.es

Enrique Jesús CALLEJA HURTADO

HYDROPLAN

Restoring the hydrological regime of the Kemeri National Park

LIFE-NAT

LIFE10 NAT/LV/000160

01/09/2011

31/08/2016

ilze.kuze@daba. gov.lv

Ilze KUZE

LIFE Continuité écologique

LIFE ecological continuity, management of catchment area LIFE-NAT and associated patrimonial fauna

LIFE10 NAT/FR/000192

01/09/2011

01/09/2015

nicolas.galmiche @parcdumorvan .org

Nicolas GALMICHE

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4044

12/01/2012

LIFE+ Lavant

Habitats network for endangered LIFE-NAT small fish species

LIFE10 NAT/AT/000017

01/10/2011

31/12/2015

siegfried.juri@kt n.gv.at

Siegfried JURI

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4037

12/01/2012

Ljubljanica connects

Restoration of the Ljubljanica River corridor and improvement of the river’s flow regime

LIFE-NAT

LIFE10 NAT/SI/000142

01/01/2012

31/12/2015

mitja.brilly@fgg.u ni-lj.si

Mitja BRILLY

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4062

12/01/2012

MAESTRALE

Actions for the recovery and the conservation of dune and back dune habitats in the Molise Region

LIFE-NAT

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000262

19/09/2011

30/06/2017

fusco.sara@gm ail.com

Sara Fusco

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4096

12/01/2012

MALTA SEABIRD PROJECT

Creating an inventory of Marine IBAs for Puffinus Yelkouan, Calonectris diomedea and Hydrobates pelagicus in Malta

LIFE-NAT

LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090

01/09/2011

30/06/2016

paul.debono@bi rdlifemalta.org

Paul DEBONO

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4055

12/01/2012

LIFE-NAT

LIFE10 NAT/AT/000016

01/09/2011

31/12/2017

Herfried.harreite r@verbund.at

Herfried HARREITER

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4039

12/01/2012

OROKLINI

Restoration and Management of Oroklini Lake SPA (CY6000010) LIFE-NAT in Cyprus

LIFE10 NAT/CY/000716

01/01/2012

31/12/2014

Lemesos.thira@ cytanet.com.cy

Nikolaos Kassinis

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4068

12/01/2012

Rur und Kall

Rur and Kall – fluvial habitats

LIFE10 NAT/DE/000008

01/01/2012

31/12/2016

info@biostationdueren.de

Heidrun DÜSSELSIEBERT

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4084

12/01/2012

SHARKLIFE

Urgent actions for the conservation of cartilaginous fish LIFE-NAT in Italy

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271

01/10/2011

31/12/2014

sdimarco@cts.it

Luigi VEDOVATO

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4078

12/01/2012

Netzwerk Donau Danube Network

LIFE-NAT

Website entered

LIFE database website

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4056 http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4073

Data Info collected Comments

12/01/2012

12/01/2012

SIMARINENATURA

Preparatory inventory and activities for the designation of marine IBA and SPA site for Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii in Slovenia

SUBLIMO

Untere MarchAuen

LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141

01/09/2011

28/02/2015

ursa.koce@dop ps.si

Urša KOCE

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4061

12/01/2012

Biodiversity Survey of Fish PostLarvae in the Western LIFE-NAT Mediterranean Sea

LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200

01/12/2011

01/04/2015

lenfant@univperp.fr

Philippe LENFANT

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4075

12/01/2012

Restoration of the Lower Morava LIFE-NAT floodplains

LIFE10 NAT/AT/000015

01/10/2011

31/10/2017

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4070

12/01/2012

LIFE-NAT

franz.steiner@vi Franz STEINER a-donau.org

Website

Project acronym

Project title

Funding

contract code

start date

end date

Thalassa

Thalassa Campaign: Learn, Act, Protect/Awareness, Educational and Participation Campaign for Marine Mammals in Greece

LIFE-INF

LIFE09/INF/GR/320

01/09/2010

31/12/2013

Halt the decline of fish biodiversity, in the Prespa basin, PROM.SUS.FIS. by promoting sustainable fishery LIFE-INF PR.PRESPA practices in compliance with EU policy

LIFE09/INF/GR/319

01/10/2010

31/03/2013

Saimaan lohikalojen

Promoting sustainable salmon LIFE-INF fishing practices on Lake Saimaa

LIFE10/INF/FI/52

01/10/2011

31/03/2014

Investing in Water

Achieving Reduction in Water Consumption by Business in Malta

LIFE10 INF/MT/000091

01/10/2011

31/03/2014

SHOWW

SHOWW - puShing aHead with LIFE-INF field implementatiOn of best fitting Wastewater treatment and management solutions

LIFE10 INF/IT/000282

Information and communications LIFE-INF campaign for the proper use and management of nitrates in agriculture and livestock breeding

LIFE10 INF/MT/000092

Live Water - from Biodiversity to the Tap

LIFE10 INF/SI/000135

InfoNitrates

AQUAVIVA

FISH SCALE

INFOIL

Olèico+

RESTORE

WATACLIC

WATLIFE

RENEW

LIFE-INF

LIFE-INF

Food Information and Safeguard LIFE-INF of Habitat a Sustainable Consumption Approach in Local Environment

LIFE09 INF/IT/000076

Promoting sustainable production LIFE-INF and consumption patterns: the example of olive oil

LIFE08 INF/GR/000581

European awareness raising campaign for an environmentally sustainable olive mill waste management

LIFE07 INF/IT/000438

LIFE-INF

Rivers: Engaging, Supporting and LIFE-INF Transferring knOwledge for Restoration in Europe

LIFE09 INF/UK/000032

Water against climate change.

Sustainable water management in urban areas

LIFE08 INF/IT/000308

LIFE-INF

Enhancement of Public LIFE-INF Awareness of the Importance of Water for Life, its Protection and Sustainable Use in Accordance with the Water Framework Regional Environmental LIFE-INF Networks for Energy & Water

LIFE08 INF/SK/000243

LIFE07 INF/UK/000932

01/09/2011

01/09/2011

01/09/2011

01/10/2010

01/01/2010

01/01/2009

01/09/2010

01/01/2010

01/01/2010

01/01/2009

28/08/2014

31/12/2013

31/08/2014

30/09/2013

31/12/2012

31/12/2011

30/09/2013

31/12/2012

31/12/2013

31/12/2011

e-mail coordinator

name coordinator

v.savvidou@mo Valia m.gr SAVVIDOU

spp@line.gr

Marianna VLASSI

Website entered

LIFE database website

Data Info collected Comments

http://www.thalassaproject.gr

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3775

12/01/2012

Already on list (MAYBE)

http://www.spp.gr/life_p respafish/index.php?o ption=com_content&vi ew=article&id=2&Itemi d=3&lang=en

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3774

12/01/2012

fish biodiversity

12/01/2012

Already on list

08/10/2011

Already on list

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4033 http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4026

kirjaamo.pohjoisVeli-Matti karjala@elyKAIJOMAA keskus.fi ceo@mbb.org.m Joe Tanti t

Riccardo.Gori@ Riccardo GORI dicea.unifi.it

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4032

08/10/2011

Already on list

mario.j.spiteri@ Mario SPITERI gov.mt

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4027

08/10/2011

Already on list

marjana@lutra.s Marjana i HÖNIGSFELD ADAMIČ

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4030

08/10/2011

Already on list

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3880

16/09/2011

Was a MAYBE

bvalettini@acqu Bruna ariodigenova.it VALETTINI

www.fishscale.eu/

gpap@dpem.tuc Georgios .gr PAPADAKIS

http://www.infoil.tuc.gr

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3510

15/09/2011

Was a MAYBE

f.santori@isrim.i Francesca t SANTORI

http://www.lifeoleicoplu http://ec.europa.eu/environm s.it/ ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3320

14/09/2011

Was a MAYBE

info@ecrr.org

http://www.environment- http://ec.europa.eu/environm agency.gov.uk/aboutus ent/life/project/Projects/index. /wfo/128855.aspx cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3780

16/09/2011

Already on list

giulio.conte@am Giulio CONTE bienteitalia.it

http://www.wataclic.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3499

16/09/2011

Already on list

brtko@vuvh.sk

http://www.vuvh.sk/inde x.php/sk_SK/projektlife/zakladneinformacie-o-projekte

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3503

16/09/2011

Already on list

http://www.energysavin gtrust.org.uk/corporate /Corporate-and-mediasite/Keyinitiatives/New-

http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/project/Projects/index. cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3312

12/01/2012

WIM ZEEMAN

Director General of Water Research Institute Ing.KAYE Juraj Brtko, jo.kaye@est.org Jo .uk

TOTAL Numbers LIFE III NAT projects

34

LIFE + NAT projects

32

LIFE2010 NAT projects

16

LIFE INF projects

14

TOTAL

96

General project information

Of interest?

Project acronym

Website

start date

end date

LIFE06 ENV/IT/000255

02/10/2006

01/10/2009

name e-mail coordinator coordinator o.cei@acqueingegneria.net Oberdan CEI

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/DK/000155

01/11/2005

01/03/2009

iaw@landcentret.dk

Irene Asta WIBORG

Mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution and phytoremediation in artificial wetland ecosystems

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/F/000133

01/10/2006

30/09/2009

caro@engees.u-strasbg.fr

Caroline GREGOIRE

agricultural method, AWARE environmental impact of agriculture, pollution t lreuse, t textile t l water BATTLE industry

Reducing pesticide-related water pollution by improving crop protection practices: The use of embedded ICT*technologies

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/F/000058

01/12/2005

28/02/2009

bernadette.ruelle@cemagref Bernadette RUELLE .fr

Best Available Technique for water reuse in LIFE-ENV TextiLE SMEs

LIFE05 ENV/IT/000846

01/12/2005

30/11/2008

maurizio.casarci@casaccia. Maurizio CASARCI enea.it

industrial waste, organic BE-FAIR waste, fishing industry

Benign and environmentally friendly fish LIFE-ENV processing practices to provide added value and innovative solutions for a responsible and sustainable management of fisheries.

LIFE05 ENV/E/000267

15/11/2005

15/11/2008

antonio@iim.csic.es

Antonio Álvarez Alonso

Reduction of pest control impact of LIFE-ENV horticulture on ground and surface water through a system of constant crop monitoring, early diagnoses, prevention and early treatment

LIFE05 ENV/NL/000021

01/10/2005

31/12/2007

info@CEPE-Life.nl

Rob MEIJER

http://www.cepe-life.nl/NL/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=286 6

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/F/000132

01/10/2006

30/09/2009

ecobag1@ecobag.org

Jean RIVENC

http://concerteau.ecobag.or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 g project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=310 0

LIFE-TCY

LIFE06 TCY/TN/000275

01/01/2007

30/06/2010

anpe.boc@anpe.nat.tn

Noura LAROUSSI

http://www.aquapole.ulg.ac http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 .be/index.php?pg=52&nr=2 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti 5 on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=317 8

LIFE05 TCY/CRO/000108

01/02/2006

01/02/2009

ssirac@voda.hr

Siniša ŠIRAC

http://www.life.voda.hr/life2/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=296 1

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250

01/02/2007

01/12/2009

zeljka.skaricic@ppa.htnet.hr Ivica Trumbic

http://www.projectdestinations.org/

LIFE05 ENV/E/000302

01/12/2005

30/11/2008

emilio.sanchis@dva.gva.es Emilio SANCHIS MOLL

http://www.ecodiptera.info/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=289 7

Project title

Funding

contract code

maintenance (technical)‚ A.S.A.P. integrated management‚ drinking water‚ water supply agricultural method, AGWAPLAN environmental impact of agriculture, water resources management

Actions for systemic aquifer protection: implementation and demonstration of a Protocol to scale down groundwater vulnerability to pollution due to Integrated Protection of Surface and Groundwater in Agricultural Regions

LIFE-ENV

Yes

pest control‚ agricultural ArtWET pollution‚ water quality‚

Yes

YES Yes

Maybe

Yes

Yes

Maybe

Yes

Yes

Yes

Keywords

agricultural method, groundwater, pest control, environmental impact of agriculture, horticulture

CEPE

water resources CONCERT'EAU Collaborative Technological Plateform for management‚ implementation for WDF within agricultural environmental impact of context agriculture‚ integrated management pollution control‚ water COPEAU Network for water quality monitoring resources management

Yes

pollutant analysis‚ clean CROWATER technology‚ waste water treatment‚ water monitoring‚ municipal waste

Stenghtening of public-private partnership in LIFE-TCY order to improve wastewater management in Croatia

Yes

risk assessment‚ DESTINATIONS Development of Strategies for Sustainable environmental impact of Tourism Investments in the Mediterranean tourism‚ coastal area‚ Nations environmental management

Yes

environmental impact of Ecodiptera agriculture, manure

LIFE-TCY

Implementation of a management model for LIFE-ENV the ecologically sustainable treatment of pig manure in the Region of Los Serranos, Valencia-Spain

Data Info Website entered LIFE database website collected http://www.klink.it/gate/asa http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 15/03/2011 p project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=306 http://www.agwaplan.dk/ag 1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 21/03/2011 waplan.htm project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=282 2 http://www.artwet.fr/artwet/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 15/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=309 9 http://www.lifeaware.org/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 15/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=286 http://www.lifehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 battle.bologna.enea.it/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=287 2 http://www.befairproject.co http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 m/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=287 6

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 30/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=317 1

Yes

Maybe

Maybe

Yes

Yes

LIFE06 ENV/B/000362

01/06/2006

01/12/2009

life@hydrex.be

Kristof ADAM

http://www.hydrex.be/life_in http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 dex.htm project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=308 7

urban area, social Elefsina 2020 participation, contaminated area, EC regulation on ecomanagement and audit, harbour, restoration measure

Collaborative Environmental Regeneration of Port-Cities: Elefsina Bay 2020

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242

01/10/2005

30/09/2009

grammatiads@olesa.gr

Panagiotis MANAKOS

http://www.life-ole.gr/

Environmental Friendly Technologies for Rural Development

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000245

01/12/2005

31/05/2009

grafeio.symvoulou@lakonia. Dimitros LIAKAKOS gr

http://www.envifriendly.tuc. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 gr project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=283 5

ESTRUS

ENhanced and SUstainable TReatment for URban Stormwater

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/IT/000894

01/10/2005

30/09/2008

vsivero@comune.genova.it Vittoria SIVERO

http://www.estrus.it/

ES-WAMAR

Environmentally-friendly management of swime waste based on innovative thechnology: a demonstration project set in Aragón (Spain)

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/E/000044

01/10/2006

31/03/2011

adauden@sodemasa.com

Arturo DAUDÉN IBAÑEZ

http://www.lifeeswamar.eu/

agricultural method‚ FERTIGREEN fertiliser‚ pollution control irrigation risk management‚ water FLAFLOM resources management‚ flood‚ rain water‚

Sustainable management of water reducing LIFE-ENV environmental impact using new fertirrigation methods Flash Floods in Egypt :protection and LIFE-TCY management

LIFE05 ENV/E/000289

01/08/2005

01/08/2008

nchavrier@citagro.es

Nathalie CHAVRIER

http://www.fertigreen.net/

LIFE06 TCY/ET/000232

01/01/2007

31/12/2009

wrri@wrri.org.eg

Sameh SAKR

Flood‚ public awareness FLOODSCAN campaign‚ modelling‚ remote sensing‚ risk management

LArge scale adjustment of new technology for fast, precise and cost-efficient hydraulic 2d-modelling of flood (hazard) areas by combining laser scanning with remote sensing data

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000461

01/07/2006

31/12/2009

dieter.rieger@lfu.bayern.de Dieter RIEGER

The demonstration of the environmental benefits of a new chemical process (Formose), capable of 100% reduction of formaldehyde from industrial effluent waste streams

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/UK/000126

17/01/2005

31/03/2007

saburg@solutia.com

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/E/000313

01/09/2005

28/02/2007

afernandezde@soluziona.co Daniel CAMIRUAGA m

urban area, harbour, water treatment, rain water, pollutant elimination

Yes

Yes

Demonstration of a 100% non-toxic hull LIFE-ENV protection and anti-fouling system contribution to zero emissions to the aquatic environment and saving 3-8 % heavy fuels

protected area, rural EnviFriendly area, mountainous area, coastal area, agricultural pollution, diffuse pollution

Yes

Yes

energy saving‚ emission ECOTEC-STC reduction‚ coating‚ marine environment‚ environmental impact of transport‚ shipbuilding

waste reduction, environmental management, animal husbandry, rural area, agricultural waste

industrial waste water, pollutant elimination

FORMOSE

Stephen Burge

Yes

decision making support, gEa water saving, irrigation, information system

Excellence in irrigation water management

Yes

pollution control‚ quarry‚ HAGAR industrial waste‚ publicprivate partnership‚ technology transfer‚ industrial waste water

Environmental action for the sustainability of LIFE-TCY natural resources through recycling of water and sludge frm marble production

LIFE05 TCY/GA/000115

09/01/2006

30/07/2008

tawfiq.arafeh@lifehebron.co Tawfik ARAFEH m

Italian-Egyptian Capacity Building in the Integrated Water Supply and Sanitation

LIFE-TCY

LIFE06 TCY/ET/000226

01/01/2007

31/12/2008

malfy@hcww.com.eg

LIFE-TCY

LIFE05 TCY/CRO/000111

09/01/2005

31/08/2008

manager@pp-lonjsko-polje.h Goran GUGIĆ

LIFE05 ENV/B/000517

19/09/2005

18/06/2009

koen.gommers@umicore.co Koen m GOMMERS

Yes

water quality improvement

IBISS

Yes

management plan‚ river IBM management‚ river‚ landscape protection

Central Posavina - Wading toward Integrated Basin Management

Yes

heavy metal, industrial INSIMEP pollution, groundwater, metal products industry, decontamination

In Situ Metal Precipitation for remediation of LIFE-ENV groundwater contaminated with non ferrous metals

Eng. Mamdouh RASLAN

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=283 6

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=288 5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=307 0

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti hd P & j id 289 http://www.flaflom.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 14/04/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=316 http://www.wzw.tum.de/floo 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 14/04/2011 dscan/index.php project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=308 0 http://www.formose.co.uk/P http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 ages/VisitProject.aspx project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=283 2 http://www.lifegea.org/index_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 14/04/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=289 http://www.lifehebron.com/ 1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=296 4 http://www.ibisslife.com.eg/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=316 8

http://www.life.pp-lonjsko-pohttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=296 2 http://wwwa.vito.be/insimep http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 / project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=285 7

Yes

Yes

pollutant monitoring‚ ISONITRATE environmental impact of agriculture‚ river management waste water treatment

IWPM

Improved management of nitrate pollution in LIFE-ENV water using isotopic monitoring

LIFE06 ENV/F/000158

01/11/2006

31/01/2010

d.widory@brgm.fr

David WIDORY

http://isonitrate.brgm.fr/

Integrated Wastewater Purification Management

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000478

01/10/2006

31/10/2011

wv-wittlage@uhv70.de

Helmut WILKER

http://www.eu-life-iwpm.de/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=307 3 http://www.lifekolisoon.it http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=308 2 http://www.lotecotec.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=307 7 http://www.smbcghttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ mareclean.eu project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=310 4

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=310 7 20/09/2011

Yes

waste water treatment‚ Kolisoon water monitoring‚ water quality‚

A new automated method for the analysis of LIFE-ENV Escherichia coli in wastewater effluent

LIFE06 ENV/IT/000235

01/12/2006

30/09/2009

f.santori@isrim.it

Francesca SANTORI

Yes

waste recycling‚ sewage LOTECOTEC sludge‚ residual waste

Efficient recycling and disposal of sewage sludge with innovative thermo-catalytic low temperature conversion technique

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000458

01/11/2006

30/04/2010

joachim.stodolka@azvpfattertal.de

Joachim STODOLKA

Yes

water quality MARECLEAN improvement‚ waste water treatment‚ coastal area‚ bathing water

Risk based reduction of microbial pollution discharge to coastal waters

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/F/000136

01/10/2006

30/12/2009

clement.nalin@villegranville.fr

Clément NALIN

Yes

sewage sludge‚ organic MOROCOMP waste‚ compost‚ sludge treatment

Design and Application of an Innovative LIFE-TCY Composting Unit for the Effective Treatment of Sludge and other Biodegradable Organic Waste in Morocco

LIFE05 TCY/MA/000141

01/02/2006

01/08/2008

assobhei1@yahoo.fr; assobhei@ucd.ac.ma

Mohamed KOUAM

http://www.uest.gr/Moroco http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 mp/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=297 0

Yes

river‚ biodiversity‚ Moveable HEPP energy supply‚ environmental impact of energy‚ renewable energy

Demonstration Plant in the Kinzig River: Moveable Hydroelectric Power Plant for Ecological River Improvements and Fish Migration Reestablishment

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000485

01/10/2006

30/06/2011

schmid.georg@e-werkmittelbaden.de

Georg SCHMID

http://www.moveablehepp.com/

Managed Realignment Moving Towards Water Framework Objectives

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/UK/000401

01/10/2006

31/12/2009

WinnP.Willerby1.NE@envir Philip Winn onment-agency.gov.uk

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/B/000359

01/11/2006

30/08/2010

Leen.bastiaens@vito.be

Leen BASTIAENS

Wastewater treatment and reuse for irrigation: demonstration, management and administrative capacity building for sustainable water use and environmental protection

LIFE-TCY

LIFE06 TCY/MA/000256

02/01/2007

31/12/2010

nejmeddine@ucam.ac.ma

Ahmed NEJMEDDINE

NITRABAR

Remediation of agricultural diffuse nitrate polluted waters though the implementation of a permeable reactive barrier

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/UK/000137

01/12/2005

31/09/2009

Yes

Flood protection‚ monitoring‚ nature conservation

Yes

Alternative technology‚ pollution prevention‚ landfill leachate‚ groundwater

Yes

MR Mo ToWFO

MULTIBARDEM Demonstration of a MULTIBARRIER as a sustainable approach for the prevention of groundwater contamination by leaking landfills and multipollutant contaminated sites : a cheap alternative to landfill reinstallation and/or leachate treatment

environmental law‚ clean NAORA technology‚ water reuse

23/03/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=307 5

http://www.environmenthttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 17/05/2011 agency.gov.uk/homeandlei project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti sure/floods/123710.aspx on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=306 8 http://www.multibarrier.vito. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 be/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=308 6

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=317 4

simon.jackman@earth.ox.ac Simon JACKMAN .uk

Non active

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=283 8

http://www.odenseprb.fyns- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 amt.dk/wm125969 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=282 0 http://lifehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 olivewaste.cartif.com/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=290 0 http://www.openmi-life.org/; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 15/03/2011 http://public.deltares.nl/disp project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti lay/OPENMI/Home; on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=305 http://www.openmi.org/relo 8 aded/

research project, agricultural pollution, diffuse pollution, water quality improvement, restoration measure

Yes

agricultural pollution, water pollution, river management

Odense PRB AgriPoM

Odense Pilot River Basin - Agricultural Programme of Measures

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/DK/000145

15/01/2005

30/06/2007

habma@ode.mim.dk

Harley Bundgaard Madsen

Yes

industrial waste, waste reduction, edible fat, waste oil"

OLIVEWASTE

Processing plant for the integral treatment and valorisation of the wasted generated during the olive oil production process

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/E/000292

30/11/2005

30/03/2009

josper@cartif.es

José Ramón PERÁN GONZÁLEZ

Bringing the OpenMI-Life

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/UK/000409

01/10/2006

31/01/2010

cit@ceh.ac.uk

C. Isabella TINDALL

water resources OpenMI-LIFE management‚ integrated management‚ modelling

21/09/2011

NONE

Yes

Yes

21/09/2011

waste water treatment

Yes

Maybe

Yes

PERBIOF

A new technology for treating municipal and/or industrial wastewater with low environmental impact

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/IT/000868

15/11/2005

14/11/2008

claudio.diiaconi@ba.irsa.cnr Claudio DI IACONI .it

touristic zone

PRE-THERM

Preservation of Thermal Water Resources and Sustainable Exploitation for Therapeutic Tourism

LIFE-TCY

LIFE06 TCY/TR/000284

01/01/2007

30/06/2009

karahayit@superonline.com Ibrahim Vural

waste water treatment, waste reduction, industrial waste water

PROMOTHE MBR

Process water recycling with a thermophile LIFE-ENV membrane bio reactor installation for treatement of hightemperature waste water, containing recalcitrant cod -varying in load, concentration and composition-with almost zero waste (sludge) production.

LIFE05 ENV/UK/000121

18/01/2005

31/05/2008

macgregor.alastair.gb@norit Alastair MACGREGOR .com

Yes

clean technology, plastic PVClean

Optimising process Water Handling in SPVC Production - PVClean

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000470

01/12/2005

31/12/2008

joerg.hessberg@vinnolit.co Jörg HESSBERG m

Yes

river, environmental QUERCUS awareness, quality of life, restoration measure, urban development, integrated management, green space

Maintaining quality urban environments for river corridors users and stakeholders

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/UK/000127

01/04/2005

30/03/2009

paul.chapman@lewisham.g Paul CHAPMAN ov.uk

Yes

leather industry, industrial waste water, pollutant elimination

RIWAC

Project for recovery and reuse of industrial LIFE-ENV waters and trivalent chromium generated by tannery waste processing

LIFE05 ENV/IT/000812

01/10/2005

30/09/2008

neresini@sicit2000.it

Yes

landscape protection‚ nature conservation

SAVA RIVER BASIN

Protection of Biodiversity of the Sava River Basin Floodplains

LIFE-TCY

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000246

01/01/2007

31/12/2009

tamas.marghescu@iucn.org Tamas MARGHESCU

Yes

use of waste as energy source‚ waste water treatment‚ sewage sludge

SLUDGE2ENER Waste prevention through sewage sludge GY reuse for efficient energy generation at waste water treatment sites

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000460

01/10/2006

30/09/2011

fyr@huber.de

Robert FREYGANG

SMAS

Capacity building for an early assessment system of drought in three countries of the south shore of the Mediterranean sea: Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia

LIFE-TCY

LIFE05 TCY/TN/000150

01/03/2006

30/09/2009

Mourad.briki@oss.org.tn

Mourad BRIKI

Upgrading of wastewater treatment plants with ultrasound treatment for reducing the production of sludge

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/F/000067

01/10/2005

31/12/2008

sandrine.boiron@angersloir Sandrine BOIRON emetropole.fr

Controlled Treatment of TBT-Contaminated LIFE-ENV Dredged Sediments for the Beneficial Use in Infrastructure Applications Case: Aurajoki - Turku

LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195

01/04/2006

31/03/2009

Jarmo.Yletyinen@terramare Jarmo YLETYINEN .fi

Sustainable management and treatment of arsenic bearing groundwater in Southern Hungary

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/H/000418

15/11/2005

14/11/2008

reti.laszlo@korkovizig.hu

Laszlo RÉTI

The Sources of the Jordan River, Humans and Nature

LIFE-TCY

LIFE05 TCY/IL/000130

01/11/2005

01/11/2008

moshes@galil-elion.org.il

Moshe Shalit

Train the operators to prevent pollution from LIFE-ENV point sources

LIFE05 ENV/B/000510

01/11/2005

31/10/2008

Stuart.rutherford@ecpa.eu

Stuart RUTHERFORD

Maybe

waste water treatment, SOUND waste reduction, sewage SLUDGE sludge

Yes

Maybe

Yes

Yes

Yes

n.a

Pollution prevention‚ harbour‚ hazardous substance

STABLE

decision making support, SUMANAS water quality improvement, groundwater management plan‚ ecotourism‚ river‚ drinking water‚ social participation‚ nature conservation

SUSTAINABLE JORDAN R

agroindustry, TOPPS environmental training, industrial pollution, water pollution

Massimo Neresini

http://www.perbiofeurope.com/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 21/09/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=287 8 http://www.karahayit.bel.tr/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 20/09/2011 haberler.asp project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=318 1 http://www.mbrhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 21/09/2011 glasgow.com/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=282 9

http://www.vinnolit.de/vinno http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 21/09/2011 lit.nsf/id/DE_LIFE_III__PVC project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti lean on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=308 5 http://www.quercushttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 project.eu/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=297 8

http://www.sicit2000.it/life0 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 5/en/index.htm project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=285 3 http://www.savariver.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=317 0 http://www.sludge2energy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ eu/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=307 9 http://prog.oss.org.tn/smas/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=297 2

21/09/2011

http://extranet.groupeirhen http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ vironnement.com/soundslu project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti dge/ on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=285 4 http://projektit.ramboll.fi/life/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ stable/index.asp project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=310 2 http://www.korkovizig.hu/lif http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ e/en-index.php?nyelv=en project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=286 1 http://www.galilhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ elion.org.il/info/machlakot/t project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti ashtiyot/sviva/life/welcome. on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=296 htm 6

21/09/2011

http://www.toppslife.org/web/page.asp

15/03/2011

21/09/2011

20/09/2011

21/09/2011

23/03/2011

15/03/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 21/09/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=285 5

Yes

international river basin‚ water resources management‚ environmental training‚ local authority

TRANSBOUNDARY WATER/PROAQUIFER

Protecting trans-boundary groundwater sources from pollution: research, training and guidelines for Israeli and Palestinian municipalities

LIFE-TCY

LIFE06 TCY/IL/000240

01/01/2007

01/01/2009

gidon@foeme.org

Gidon BROMBERG

Not active

Yes

water treatment‚ urban area‚ rain water‚ pollutant elimination‚

TREASURE

Treatment and re-use of urban stormwater runoff by innovative technologies for removal of pollutants

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/DK/000229

01/10/2006

01/10/2009

kel@silkeborg.dk

Kenn LANGE

http://www.lifetreasure.com

VOICE

Vegetable oil initiative for a cleaner environment

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/IT/000257

01/10/2006

31/12/2009

d.chiaramonti@ing.unifi.it

David CHIARAMONTI

Water Resources Management in Cooperation with Argriculture. Compilation and Implementation of Integrative Programmes of Measures According to the WFD to Reduce Diffuse Pollution from Agriculture

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/D/000182

01/10/2005

30/09/2008

astrid.krueger@nlwkndir.niedersachsen.de

Astrid KRÜGER

Jeffrey DEN ELZEN

Maybe

agricultural pollution, WAgriCo social participation, water resources management, diffuse pollution

Yes

Yes

Maybe

Yes

vegetable oil‚ environmental awareness‚ emission reduction‚ rural area‚ biofuel

water quality improvement‚ waste water treatment‚ municipal waste

WET

Wastewater & Effluent Treatmen

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/NL/000167

01/12/2005

30/06/2009

jeffrey.elzen@rijnland.net

atmospheric pollution‚ emission reduction‚ energy supply‚ navigation

ZEM/SHIPS

Zero.Emission.Ships

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000465

01/11/2006

30/04/2010

Anke.Stolper@bsu.hamburg Anke STOLPER .de

Integral liquid residuals management model LIFE-ENV for surface tratment industries through

LIFE05 ENV/E/000256

01/12/2005

31/07/2009

otri@aimme.es

industrial waste, waste ZERO PLUS treatment, coating, metal products industry

Manuel Sánchez De La Asunción

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 15/03/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=317 2

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 18/09/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=310 3 http://crear.bluefactor.it/ind http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 21/09/2011 ex.php?module=CMpro&fu project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti nc=viewpage&pageid=14& on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=306 expsubid=2; 3 http://crear.unifi.it/imes/foru m/index.php?c=11 (1) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 23/03/2011 http://www.nlwkn.niedersac project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti hsen.de/live/live.php?navig on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=288 ation_id=8247&article_id=4 2 5185&_psmand=26; (2) http://www.wagrico.org/site /WAgriCo/wagricoorguk/co ntent/home http://www.rijnland.net/wet- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 24/02/2011 project project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=309 0 http://www.zemships.eu/en http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 21/09/2011 /index.php project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=308 1 http://www.zeroplus.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 21/09/2011 project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=287 4

General project information

Of interest?

Website

Project YES

Maybe Maybe

Yes

acronym Keywords marine ecosystem‚ Waste 3R-FISH management‚ industrial waste‚ solid waste‚ harbour water shortage‚ agricultural method‚ water saving

Yes

Adapt2Change

water resources management‚ AG_UAS monitoring system‚ remote sensing

Yes

Diffuse pollution, animal husbandry‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ river‚ water quality improvement‚ groundwater

AQUA

start date

Project title

Funding contract code

Integral management model of recovery and recycling of the proper solid waste from the fishing and port activities

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/E/000814

Adapt agricultural production to climate change and limited water supply

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 01/09/2010 ENV/GR/000296

01/01/2009

end date

e-mail coordinator name coordinator 01/01/2012 jtaboada@cetmar.org Julio Taboada Pérez

Data Info Website entered LIFE database website collected http://www.3rfish.org http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3287

31/08/2014 papachad@teilar.gr

Dr Alex Papachatzis

http://www.adapt2cha http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 nge.eu/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3674

Sustainable water management at LIFE-ENV LIFE09 regional scale through Airborne ENV/ES/000456 Remote Sensing based on Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

01/10/2010

30/09/2013 tvitoria@ain.es

Teofilo VITORIA

http://www.lifeaguas. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/03/2011 es/en/proyecto-aguas ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3649

Achieving good water QUality status in intensive Animal production areas

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/IT/000208

01/10/2010

31/03/2014 m.ligabue@crpa.it

Marco LIGABUE

http://aqua.crpa.it/nqc http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ontent.cfm?a_id=959 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear 9&tt=t_law_market_w ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3645 ww

Yes

water resources management‚ AQUA water saving‚ public-private partnership‚ agroindustry

Adoption of Quality water Use in Agro- LIFE-ENV LIFE09 industry sector ENV/IT/000075

01/01/2011

30/06/2013 dferri@arpa.emr.it

Donatella FERRI

http://www.lifeaqua.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3753

Yes

river‚ integrated management AQUA-PLANN PROJECT

Gestion Integrada de los Recursos Hidricos y su Aplicacion en el Planeamiento Local del L.I.C. Abegondo - CECEBRE

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/E/000826

01/01/2009

30/06/2012 carlosameijenda@g

Carlos AMEIJENDA

http://www.aquaplann.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3289

river‚ waste water treatment‚ urban area‚ rain water

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 Sustainable Urban Water ENV/E/000099 Management Plans, promoting SUDS and considering Climate Change, in the Province of Valencia

01/01/2010

Using full scale bioaugmentation for cost-efficient remediation of a large CAH groundwater contamination

01/01/2009

Yes

Yes

Diffuse pollution, restoration BACad measure‚ volatile organic compound‚ metal products industry‚ industrial pollution‚ contaminated area waste water treatment‚ marine BaltActHaz pollution‚ industrial waste water

Yes

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/B/000022

Baltic actions for reduction of pollution LIFE-ENV LIFE07 of the Baltic Sea from priority ENV/EE/000122 hazardous substances

30/06/2013 vicesecretario@ayto- Eduardo BALAGUER

xativa.es

PALLÁS

31/12/2013 Chris.Block@punchg Chris BLOCK

raphix.com

01/01/2009

31/12/2011 kitty.kislenko@bef.ee Kitty Kislenko

01/01/2009

31/12/2011 rmpieras@cetaqua.c Rosa Maria PIERAS

http://www.aquavalpr http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 oject.eu/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3448

http://www.bioaugme ntatie.be/web/bioaug mentatietpl1.asp?cus tomer=17&ut=L&hma http://www.baltacthaz .bef.ee/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 13/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3302

http://www.lifebiocell.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 13/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3279

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 13/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3285

clean technology‚ waste water BIOCELL treatment‚ biofuel

Energy self-sustaining and environmental footprint reduction on wastewater treatment plants via fuel cells

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/E/000847

Maybe

urban area‚ waste use‚ public- BIOFUELS-2G private partnership‚ waste oil‚ biofuel

Demonstration of a Sustainable & Effective 2nd Generation Biofuels Application in an Urban Environment

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 01/01/2010 ENV/GR/000569

31/12/2012 paris@cperi.certh.gr

Spyros VOUTETAKIS

http://www.biofuels2g http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 .gr/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3465

Maybe

sport facility‚ Waste BOATCYCLE management‚ environmentally friendly product‚ navigation‚ life-cycle management

Management, recycling and recovery of wastes of recreational boat scrapping

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/E/000158

01/01/2010

01/07/2012 cavolio@leitat.org

Ciro AVOLIO

http://www.lifeboatcycle.com/

01/01/2010

31/12/2013

Kari-Matti VUORI Fax: +358 20 4902985

http://www.catermass http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 .fi/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3474

Yes

Yes

AQUAVAL

mail.com

river‚ soil degradation‚ risk management

CATERMASS

Climate Change Adaptation Tools for LIFE-ENV LIFE08 Environmental Risk Mitigation of Acid ENV/FIN/00060 Sulphate Soils 9

om

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3455

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maybe

river‚ decision making support‚ CLEANWATER monitoring system‚ pollution control

Integrated system for protect and LIFE-ENV LIFE09 15/10/2010 analyse the status and trends of water ENV/RO/000612 threatened by nitrogen pollution

01/03/2014 cris.trifu@hidro.ro;

Coastal area, contamined soil‚ COAST-BEST integrated management‚ harbour‚ hazardous substance

CO-ordinated Approach for Sediment LIFE-ENV LIFE08 Treatment and BEneficial reuse in ENV/IT/000426 Small harbours neTworks

01/01/2010

31/12/2012 alessandra.polettini@ Alessandra Polettini

COR

Campaña Objetivo Residuos (Waste Objective Campaign)

LIFE-INF

01/01/2010

31/12/2012 agbatlle@amb.cat

Cowtoplant

Bio-treatement of cow wastes to produce bio-stimulants for plants

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/E/000788

20/01/2009

20/01/2012 mecarrion@zurkores Maria ENGRACIA

Waste management‚ environmental awareness‚ urban area‚ municipal waste‚ i t ll alternative technology‚ agricultural waste‚ slaughterhouse‚ fertiliser‚ waste use

Yes

Maybe

Yes

waste water treatment‚ modelling‚ rural area

Maybe

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EcoBrick

ECOMAWARU

Creation and restoration of aquatic LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ecosystems for improvement of water ENV/ES/000431 quality and biodiversity in agricultural basins

01/01/2011

Manufacturing Sand-Limestone Bricks, Recycling Energy and Organics from Sewage Sludge

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/D/000029

01/01/2010

Eco-sustainable managmenet of water and wastewater in rural communities

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/IT/000390

01/03/2010

OLIVA

http://www.lifecleanw http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ater.ro/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3639 http://www.coastbest.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3434

http://www.emacorlife .cat/es/proyecto-lifecor/life-.html http://www.cowtoplan t.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3512 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3303

http://www.creamagu http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 a.com/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3661

30/06/2013 mail@uni-wh-utm.de Karl-Ulrich

28/02/2013 sindaco.vareseligure Michela MARCONE

NONE FOUND www.ecomawaru.it

@liguriainrete.it

Ecological Certification of Products LIFE-ENV LIFE07 from Sustainable Marine Aquaculture ENV/D/000229

01/01/2009

Ecohydrologic rehabilitation of recreational reservoirs "Arturówek" in Łódź as a model approach to rehabilitation of urban reservoirs ECOtones for Reducing Diffusion Pollution

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/PL/000517

01/01/2010

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/PL/000519

01/01/2010

fishing industry‚ marine FISH SCALE ecosystem‚ biodiversity‚ consumption pattern‚ environmental training‚ nature conservation eutrophication‚ river‚ GISBLOOM modelling‚ monitoring system‚ management plan‚

CARRIÓN

RUDOLPH

Marine ecosystem‚ ECOSMA environmental awareness‚ food production‚ certification‚ coastal management river‚ urban area‚ EH-REK environmental training‚ management plan‚ water resources management‚ diffuse pollution‚ recreational EKOROB area‚ restoration measure‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ eutrophication‚ monitoring‚ river‚ water quality ENSAT

Anna GONZALEZ BATLLE

31/12/2014 fr.gallego@monegros Francisca GALLEGO

.net

01/01/2011

Fishing industry, integrated FAROS management‚ waste recycling‚ survey Maybe

earch.com

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 Green (environmentally friendly) ENV/ES/000459 management of cattle farm waste and its repercussion on the GHG emissions

marine ecosystem‚ integrated EnvEurope management‚ monitoring system‚ water monitoring‚ nature conservation‚ information network

Yes

Yes

CREAMAgua

uniroma1.it

agricultural waste‚ fertiliser‚ ECOREGA use of waste as energy source‚ emission reduction‚ organic waste‚ greenhouse gas‚

water shortage‚ river‚ water quality improvement‚ groundwater

Yes

Yes

pollutant elimination‚ restoration measure‚ agricultural method‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ water quality waste use‚ building material‚ sewage sludge

LIFE08 INF/E/000187

Maria Cristina TRIFU

cristrifu@yahoo.com

31/12/2012 dtor.tecnico@unions

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3402

Paula CONTE

http://life.unionsagrari http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 as.org/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3691

Stefan REHM

http://www.ecosma.d http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 e ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3299

agrarias.org

31/12/2011 stefan.rehm@crm-

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3447

online.de 31/12/2014 mzal@biol.uni.lodz.pl Prof. dr hab. Maciej

Zalewski 31/12/2014 ekorob@rzgw.warsza Wojciech FRATCZAK

wa.pl

http://www.arturowek. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 pl/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3497#AD http://www.ekorob.pl/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3496

Enhancement of Soil Aquifer LIFE-ENV LIFE08 Treatment to Improve the Quality of ENV/E/000117 Recharge Water in the Llobregat River Delta Aquifer Environmental quality and pressures LIFE-ENV LIFE08 assessment across Europe: the LTER ENV/IT/000399 network as an integrated and shared system for ecosystem monitoring

01/01/2010

31/12/2011 info@cetaqua.com

CETaqua, Technology Center

www.life-ensat.eu/

01/01/2010

31/12/2013 alessandra.pugnetti

Alessandra PUGNETTI

http://www.enveurop http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 e.eu/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3445

Integral networking of fishing actors to LIFE-ENV LIFE08 organize a responsible optimal and ENV/E/000119 sustainable exploitation of marine resources Food Information and Safeguard of LIFE-INF LIFE09 Habitat a Sustainable Consumption INF/IT/000076 Approach in Local Environment

15/01/2010

14/01/2013 antonio@iim.csic.es

Antonio ÁLVAREZ ALONSO

http://www.farosproje http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ct.eu/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3431

01/10/2010

30/09/2013 bvalettini@acquariodi Bruna VALETTINI

Participatory monitoring, forecasting, LIFE-ENV LIFE09 control and socio-economic impacts of ENV/FI/000569 eutrophication and algal blooms in river basins districts clean technology‚ water saving‚ GREEN TESTING Make your Non Destructive Testing LIFE-ENV LIFE09 energy saving‚ industrial greener by new eco-friendly practices ENV/FR/000600 process‚ and technologies

@ismar.cnr.it

www.fishscale.eu/

genova.it

01/10/2010

30/09/2013 olli.malve@ymparisto Senior Research

.fi 01/01/2011

31/12/2013 ixtrem@wanadoo.fr

Scientist Olli Malve

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3429

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3880

www.environment.fi/s http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 yke/gisbloom ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3719

Eric CRESCENZO NONE FOUND

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3724

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Flood protection, urban area‚ modelling‚ rain water

Yes

decontamination‚ water pollution‚ water quality improvement‚ monitoring system drinking water vegetable oil‚ consumption pattern‚ edible fat‚

river‚ water monitoring‚ management plan‚ water resources management‚

Yes

INCOME

INFOIL

INHABIT

use of waste as energy source‚ INTER-WASTE waste water treatment‚ municipal waste‚ organic waste‚ sewage sludge sewage treatment system ITEST

Yes

Yes

restoration measure‚ water shortage‚ eutrophication‚

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maybe

Yes

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/S/000908

Hydrogen and oxygen production via LIFE-ENV LIFE08 electrolysis powered by renewable ENV/E/000118 energies to reduce environmental Flood protection, water HydroClimateStrat Integrated Strategy for Riga City to LIFE-ENV LIFE08 resources management‚ urban egyRiga Adapt to the Hydrological Processes ENV/LV/000451 planning‚ modelling‚ risk Intensified by Climate Change t Ph water shortage‚ agricultural HydroSense Innovative precision technologies for LIFE-ENV LIFE08 optimised irrigation and integrated ENV/GR/000570 method‚ remote sensing‚ water t i vector t li it d LIFE-ENV LIFE08 IMCM Control of noxioust or Maybe pest control‚ public health‚ ENV/F/000488 mosquitoes: implementation of integrated management‚ integrated management consistent coastal area‚ monitoring with sustainable development system

Maybe

Yes

Green tools for urban climate adaptation

waste water treatment‚ energy GREENLYSIS saving

Yes

Yes

GreenClimeAdapt

Lake recult. in Gniezno

01/01/2009

31/12/2013 sam.ekstrand@ivl.se Sam Ekstrand

http://www.malmo.se/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 greenclimeadapt ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3263

01/01/2010

31/12/2012 elarrotcha@agbar.es Enric LARROTCHA

http://www.lifegreenlysis.eu/

01/02/2010

30/11/2012 renars.grinbergs@rig Renārs GRINBERGS

01/01/2010

31/12/2012 stam@gnhm.gr

01/01/2010

30/06/2013 clagneau@eid-

a.lv

med.org

Improved management of LIFE-ENV LIFE07 01/01/2009 contaminated aquifers by integration ENV/SLO/00072 of source tracking, monitoring tools 5 and decision strategies Promoting sustainable production and LIFE-INF LIFE08 01/01/2010 consumption patterns: the example of INF/GR/000581 olive oil Local hydro-morphology, habitat and LIFE-ENV LIFE08 01/04/2010 RBMPs: new measures to improve ENV/IT/000413 ecological quality in South European rivers and lakes Demonstration of an integrated waste- LIFE-ENV LIFE08 01/01/2010 to-energy system for energy ENV/CY/000457 generation from biodegradable organic waste and wastewater Increased total efficiency in sewage LIFE-ENV LIFE08 01/01/2010 treatment ENV/S/000272 Recultivation of Jelonek and Winiary lakes in Gniezno by inactivation of phosphorus in bottom sediments

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/PL/000605

01/02/2009

mine‚ abandoned industrial LOS TOLLOS site‚ restoration measure‚ soil degradation‚ site rehabilitation‚ wetland

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 Project for the comprehensive ENV/ES/000472 restoration of the endorheic basin of Los Tollos (El Cuervo and Jerez de la Frontera, Sevilla and Cadiz respectively).

20/09/2010

contamined soil‚ LVM-BIOcells decontamination‚ groundwater‚ hazardous substance water resources management M3

Using hydrogeobiocells (HGBcells) for LIFE-ENV LIFE08 the in-situ biological treatment of CAH ENV/B/000046 contaminated groundwater in areas Application of integrative modelling LIFE-ENV LIFE07 and monitoring approaches for river ENV/L/000540 basin management evaluation

01/01/2010

Diffuse pollution, management MAGPlan plan‚ urban area‚ environmental assessment‚

Management plan to prevent threats from point sources on the good chemical status of groundwater in

heavy metal‚ marine pollution‚ Mare Purum pollutant elimination

Mare Purum - Prevention of Marine Fouling on Commercial Shipping and Leisure Boats with a Non Toxic Method

31/12/2012 gpap@dpem.tuc.gr

Georgios PAPADAKIS

31/03/2013 buffagni@irsa.cnr.it;

Andrea BUFFAGNI

30/09/2012 ioannis.papadopoulo Dr. Ioannis

s@cut.ac.cy

Papadopoulos

rshamn.se 30/11/2010 piotrwisniewski@gnie Piotr WIŚNIEWSKI

31/12/2014 felipe.oliveros@junta Esperanza PEREA

ACOSTA

31/12/2014 jules.houtmeyers@te Jules HOUTMEYERS

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/D/000021

01/01/2010

31/12/2014 Hermann.Josef.Kirch Hermann Josef

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351

01/09/2010

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/IT/000070

holtes@stuttgart.de

Tom GALLÉ

KIRCHHOLTES

28/02/2014 gunilla@ekomarine.s Gunilla ÖSTBERG

e

01/09/2010

www.life-inhabit.it

20/07/2012 sserghiou@dms.mcw Sergios SERGHIOU

.gov.cy 31/12/2013 juanb.lobera@carm.e Juan Bautista

s

LOBERA LÖSSEL

http://gniezno.eu/stro na32wqf435ge/index. php?option=com_con http://www.lifetollos.o rg/

http://www.lvmbiocells.be/ www.life-m3.eu

NONE FOUND

BIANCO

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n proj id=3407 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3304

http://www.maritimec http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 o2.com/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3482 http://www.metabiore http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 sor.eu/procesoect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear metabioresor.php ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3459

und.de

ssat.it

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n proj id=3470 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3260 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3684

http://www.sauberes- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 grundwasserect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear stuttgart.de/projekt.ht ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3423 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3711 NONE FOUND

31/12/2014 Walter.braun@wsv.b Walter BRAUN

31/12/2013 giuseppe.lobianco@ir Giuseppe LO

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3415

http://www.interwaste http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 .org/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3480 NONE FOUND

31/12/2012 tom.galle@tudor.lu

METABIORESOR Integrated Pilot Plant for complete LIFE-ENV LIFE08 01/01/2010 energy recovery of different municipal ENV/E/000113 and livestock waste materials and byproducts 01/11/2010 MY FAVOURITE Sustainable use of and identification LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/DE/000011 RIVER with the River Neckar in co-operative governance (national, municipal and regional level)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3267 http://www.infoil.tuc.g http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 r ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3510

31/12/2012 Eva.hjalmered@oska Eva Hjälmered

01/01/2009

agricultural waste‚ water treatment‚ municipal waste‚ organic waste

http://www.lifeincome.si/

andreabuf@tiscali.it

ssenderlo.com

Impact assessment for the adoption of LIFE-ENV LIFE08 20/01/2010 CO2 emission trading for maritime ENV/CY/000461 transport

New Organic Waste Sustainable Treatment Engine: Implementation and Promotion of a System for the

Brigita JAMNIK

deandalucia.es

MARITIMECO2

water treatment‚ domestic N.O.WA.S.T.E waste‚ organic waste‚ compost

30/06/2012 bjamnik@vo-ka.si

zno.eu

greenhouse gas‚ maritime transport‚ environmental assessment

river‚ urban area

Stamatis STAMATIADIS Christophe LAGNEAU

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear hd P & j id 3416 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear NONE FOUND ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3413 http://www.hydrosens http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 15/09/2011 e.org/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear http://www.lifeplusmo http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ustique.eu/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3424

www.lifenowaste.it

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3768 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3748

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Maybe Yes

Maybe

Yes

pest control‚ contamined soil‚ NorthPestClean pollutant elimination‚ groundwater‚ hazardous substance alternative technology‚ flood Olèico+ protection‚ vegetable oil‚ Waste management‚ environmental awareness‚ industrial waste‚ fertiliser‚ waste recycling‚ P.R.I.M.E. coastal area

Demonstration of alkaline hydrolysis as a new technology for remediation of pesticide contaminated soil and groundwater European awareness raising campaign for an environmentally sustainable olive mill waste management Posidonia Residues Integrated Management for Eco-sustainability

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 01/09/2010 ENV/DK/000368

31/12/2013 Morten.bondgaard@r Morten

LIFE-INF

01/01/2009

31/12/2011 f.santori@isrim.it

Francesca SANTORI

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061

01/09/2010

01/09/2013 di.susca@tin.it

Donato SUSCA

decision making support‚ water PALM saving‚ environmental performance‚ water supply

Pump And Leakage Management

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/IT/000136

01/09/2010

31/08/2013 alessandro.bettin@s

Alessandro BETTIN

waste water treatment‚ waste PHARMAFILTER treatment‚ hospital waste‚ organic waste hazardous marine ecosystem‚ biodiversity PISCES

An innovative waste and waste water LIFE-ENV LIFE07 management concept for hospitals ENV/NL/000576

Partnerships Involving Stakeholders in LIFE-ENV LIFE07 01/07/2009 the Celtic sea Eco-System ENV/UK/000943

30/06/2012 jmiller@wwf.org.uk

water shortage‚ energy saving‚ POWER water resources management‚ irrigation

Project for Optimisation of Water and Emissions Reduction

31/12/2012 nzubalez@svalero.es Nieves Zubalez

vegetable oil‚ soil degradation‚ PROSODOL industrial waste‚ edible fat‚ pollution prevention‚ environmental impact assessment

Stategies to improve and protect soil LIFE-ENV LIFE07 01/01/2009 quality from the disposal of olive mills' ENV/GR/000280 wastes in the Mediterranean region

31/12/2012 mdoula@otenet.gr;

From Treated Wastewater to LIFE-ENV LIFE08 01/01/2010 Alternative Water Resources in SemiENV/GR/000551 Arid Regions

30/06/2013 deyahers@otenet.gr

Innovative Centrifugal Separator LIFE-ENV LIFE09 Technology for Energy Recovery and ENV/SE/000352 Oily Waste Volume Reduction

01/09/2010

30/06/2013 tomas.oldeback@alfa Tomas OLDEBÄCK

Advanced Purification Of Industrial LIFE-ENV LIFE07 And Mixed Wastewater By Combined ENV/IT/000439 Membrane Filtration And Sonochemical Technologies LIFE-ENV LIFE08 New process for the heat treatment ENV/F/000489 and the energy valorisation of the sludge coming from wastewater treatment plant.

01/01/2009

waste water treatment‚ water PURE reuse‚ environmental performance‚ management plan Maybe

Yes

waste reduction‚ waste oil‚ navigation‚ shipbuilding

Pure Energy Separator

waste water treatment‚ textile PURIFAST industry‚ industrial waste water‚ alternative technology‚ comparison waste water treatment‚ urban PYROBIO area‚ organic waste‚ sewage sludge

Yes

Maybe

waste treatment‚ maritime transport‚ hazardous waste‚ shipbuilding

Yes

clean technology‚ paper industry

Yes

restoration measure‚ information network‚ river

Recyship

waste water treatment‚ integrated management‚ wetland‚ water resources management Maybe

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/E/000114

01/01/2009

01/01/2010

http://www.pharmafilt http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 er.nl ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear http://projectpisces.e http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 u/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear hd P & j id 3281 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear NONE FOUND ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3428

Maria DOULA

http://www.prosodol.g http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 r/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3297

Dimitris YIAKOUMAKIS

http://www.purehersonissos.gr/

maria.doula@yahoo. com; ssia@otenet.gr

31/12/2011 enrico.venturini@tec

Enrico VENTURINI

notex.it 01/01/2010

31/10/2011 Pascalcolignon@fina Pascal Colignon

xo.fr

01/01/2010

RESTORE

Rivers: Engaging, Supporting and Transferring knOwledge for Restoration in Europe

LIFE09 INF/UK/000032

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 Recovery, recycling, resource.

ENV/IT/000421 Valorisation of olive mill effluents by recovering high added value bioproducts.

Widespread introduction of LIFE-ENV LIFE08 constructed wetlands for a wastewater ENV/IT/000406 treatment of Agro Pontino Establishment of Impact Assessment Procedure as a tool for the sustainability of agroecosystem: the case of mediterranean olives

Janet Miller

http://www.lifeprime.e http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 u/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch dspPage&n proj id=3694 http://www.leakagem http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 anagement.eu ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3738

NONE FOUND

Concentrated saline rejection LIFE-ENV LIFE08 treatment: Environmental Technology ENV/E/000133 using a non profitable solid waste as energy source

organic farming‚ vegetable oil‚ SAGE10 agricultural method‚ EC regulation on eco-management and audit‚ environmental assessment

Berg

http://www.northpestc http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 lean.dk/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3701 http://www.lifeoleicopl http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 us.it/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3320

laval.com

RESALTTECH

REWETLAND

30/06/2011 E.berg@pharmafilter. Eduardo van den

nl

01/01/2009

LIFE-INF

BONDGAARD

gi-spa.it

Proyecto piloto de desmantelamiento LIFE-ENV LIFE07 y descontaminación de barcos fuera ENV/E/000787 de uso

Maybe vegetable oil‚ clean technology‚ RE-WASTE waste use‚ edible fat‚ industrial waste water Yes

LIFE07 INF/IT/000438

u.rm.dk

31/12/2012 mgarcia@reciclauto.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3439 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3713

http://purifast.tecnote http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 x.it/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3284 http://www.pyrobio.eu http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 24/02/2011 / ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3494

Miguel Ángel García Molina

http://www.recyship.c http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 om/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3241

31/12/2012 jccastell@aiica.com

Joan Carles CASTELL

http://www.resalttech. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 com/en/contact/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3453

01/09/2010

30/09/2013 info@ecrr.org

WIM ZEEMAN

01/01/2009

31/12/2011 acaturano@mataluni. Antonio CATURANO

http://www.environme ntagency.gov.uk/about us/wfo/128855 aspx http://www.rewasteproject.it

es

com 01/01/2010

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 01/10/2010 ENV/GR/000302

30/06/2013 nicolettavalle@provin Nicoletta VALLE

cia.latina.it; c.perotto@provincia.l atina.it 31/03/2014 Ch.emmanouil@bpi.g Christina

r

EMMANOUIL

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3780 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3247

http://www.rewetland. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 eu/life/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3457 www.sage10.gr

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3681

Yes

environmental impact of agriculture‚ river‚ modelling‚ industrial area‚ groundwater Maybe

Yes

Maybe

Yes

Yes

Sustainable management of the Esino LIFE-ENV LIFE07 river basin to prevent saline intrusion ENV/IT/000497 in the coastal aquifer in consideration of climate change

01/01/2009

waste recycling‚ environmental SEDI.PORT.SIL management‚ raw material consumption‚ harbour‚ hazardous waste

Recovery of dredged SEDIments of the PORT of Ravenna and SILicon extraction

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/IT/000158

01/09/2010

water resources management‚ SEMEAU modelling‚ drinking water

Application of the Water Framework Directive through the implementation of an expert system providing a total modelling of a water mass

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/F/000173

01/01/2009

use of waste as energy source‚ SEWEEX urban area‚ energy supply‚ sewage sludge‚ alternative technology

Sewage energy exchange

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/NL/000427

01/09/2010

use of waste as energy source‚ Sludge's Wealth sewage sludge

Ennobling of sludge for energy use and industrial

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/IT/000186

01/10/2010

river‚ soil degradation‚ environmental training

Yes

SALT

Soil Soil Sustainable Management in a Sustainability(So.S Mediterranean River basin based on ) the European Soil Thematic Strategy

Yes

Maybe

Yes

31/08/2012 elisa.ulazzi@meding Elisa ULAZZI

egneria.it

31/12/2012 patrick.lachassagne

@danone.com

01/09/2015 ilja.jansen@arnhem.

http://www.lifehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 semeau.eu/en/node/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear 81 ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3274

Ilja Jansen

http://www.arnhem.nl/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 content.jsp?objectid= ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear arnhemintern:123597 ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3707

30/09/2013 d.marangoni@coomi. Danilo MARANGONI

it 30/06/2012 environment@anatoli Socratis FAMELLOS

ki.gr

01/01/2010

31/12/2014 klaerwerk-koblenz@t- Thomas Kesselheim

Legionellosis: risk reduction to public health from environmental sources using biotechnology in the textile sector

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/E/000794

01/04/2009

01/01/2012 rlopez@aitex.es

Rosa López

http://lifelegionela.aite http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 x.es/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3244

Thalassa Campaign: Learn, Act, Protect/Awareness, Educational and Participation Campaign for Marine Mammals in Greece

LIFE-INF

LIFE09 INF/GR/000320

01/09/2010

31/12/2013 info@mom.gr

Spyros KOTOMATAS

http://www.thalassa- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 project.gr/homepage. ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear asp?ITMID=2&LANG ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3775 =EN

The Green Deserts

The Green Deserts: new planting techniques for tree cultivation in desertified environments to face Climate Change

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/ES/000447

01/09/2010

31/08/2015 espana@transfer-

Sven KALLEN

http://thegreendesert http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 s.com/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3654

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/IT/000475

01/01/2009

31/12/2011 segreteria@adbve.it

Francesco BARUFFI

http://www.lifetrust.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 cms/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3252 http://www.lifehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 uftec.eu/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3686

industrial pollution‚ pollution control‚ risk management‚ environmental law‚ water treatment‚ textile industry

TEXLEGIO

Thalassa endangered species‚ environmental education‚ marine ecosystem‚ biodiversity‚ nature conservation

online.de

lbc.com

river

TRUST

Tool for regional - scale assessment of groundwater storage improvement in adaptation to climate change

Yes

alternative technology‚ water treatment‚ reverse osmosis

UFTEC

Substitution of conventional treatment LIFE-ENV LIFE09 of raw river water by ultrafiltration ENV/ES/000467 membrane technology

01/01/2011

31/12/2013 info@cetaqua.com

CETaqua, Centro Tecnológico

vegetable oil‚ use of waste as energy source‚ waste treatment‚ biomass energy waste water treatment‚ emission reduction‚ volatile organic compound‚ industrial waste water‚ end-of-pipe technology odour nuisance risk assessment‚ contamined soil‚ decontamination‚ groundwater

VALUVOIL

Demonstration of zero waste cycle by LIFE-ENV LIFE09 the complete valorization of residues ENV/ES/000451 from refining of used vegetable oils Abatement of VOC load from waste LIFE-ENV LIFE09 water treatment in mechanical pulping ENV/FI/000568

01/09/2010

28/02/2013 oscleo@cartif.es

Óscar LEÓN

01/10/2010

30/09/2013 markku.tapola@axco Markku Tapola

VOPAKEXPERO3

Using ISCO with perozone for the LIFE-ENV LIFE09 remediation of a cocktail of organic ENV/BE/000407 contaminants at an EX-rated industrial site in operation

01/09/2010

WALPHY

Design of a decision tool for hydromorphological restoration of water bodies in Walloon Region

01/01/2009

Yes

Maybe

Yes

water quality improvement‚ restoration measure‚ river management

http://www.coomi.it/e http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ng/life.html ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3699 http://www.lifesos.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3305

Use of immanent energy for sludge LIFE-ENV LIFE08 treatment - a central step towards selfENV/D/000026 sustaining sewage flow management

Sus Treat

m

Yes

Maybe

http://www.lifesedipor http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 tsil.eu ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3682

Patrick LACHASSAGNE

nl

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 01/01/2009 ENV/GR/000278

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3273

31/03/2013 dimostinou@gmail.co Simeon ORFANOS

energy saving‚ urban area‚ sludge treatment

desertification‚ restoration measure‚ soil degradation

http://www.lifesalt.it/

spa.it

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 01/10/2010 Development of an advanced ENV/GR/000299 innovative energy autonomous system for the treatment of brine from seawater desalination plants

waste water treatment‚ water SOL-BRINE supply‚ island‚ renewable energy‚ Maybe

30/12/2011 vspinaci@multiservizi- Valerio SPINACI

VOCless waste water

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/B/000038

ns.fi markku.tapola@mee hanite.org 31/08/2015 sven.vanassche@vo Sven Van Assche

pak.com

31/12/2013 francis.lambot@spw. Francis LAMBOT

wallonie.be

http://uest.ntua.gr/sol http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 brine/?lang=en ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3679 http://www.sustreat.e http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 u ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3437

http://valuvoil.com/?la http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ng=en ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n proj id=3652 http://voclesspulping. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 com/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3668 http://www.vopakexpero3.be/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3751

http://www.walphy.be http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3242

Maybe

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Waste Joint Waste management‚ Management contamined soil‚ industrial waste‚ groundwater‚ pollution control

Development and operation of an integrated model for managing Industrial Waste in the Zona Franca Industrial Estate, Barcelona

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/E/000132

financial instrument‚ water WATACLIC resources management‚ environmental awareness‚ water saving‚ energy saving‚ water resources management‚ WATER water quality improvement‚ environmental assessment

Water against climate change.

Sustainable water management in urban areas

LIFE-INF

preventive measure‚ water resources management‚ environmental awareness‚ consumption pattern

Yes

preventive measure‚ aquatic ecosystem‚ coastal area

Yes

Yes

Yes

31/12/2012 rodrigor@el-

consorci.com

01/01/2010

Rosa RODRIGO SANZ

31/12/2012 giulio.conte@ambient Giulio CONTE

eitalia.it

Strengthening the scientific foundation LIFE-ENV LIFE08 01/02/2010 of water quality programs ENV/CY/000460

river‚ modelling‚ forecast‚ WATER CHANGE Medium and long term water LIFE-ENV LIFE07 water resources management resources modelling as a tool for ENV/E/000845 planning and global change adaptation. Application to the Llobregat Basin environmental law‚ water WaterRtoM Water Research to Market - to speed- LIFE-ENV LIFE09 resources management‚ up the transfer of water related ENV/FR/000593 survey‚ technology transfer research outputs to better implement the Water directives

Yes

Yes

LIFE08 INF/IT/000308

02/01/2010

31/07/2013 apapanastasiou@en Athina Papanastasiou

vironment.moa.gov.c y

NONE FOUND

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3488

http://www.wataclic.e http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 u/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3499 http://www.lifewater.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3481

01/01/2009

31/12/2011 info@cetaqua.com

CETaqua, Technology Center

http://www.lifewaterchange.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 14/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3276

01/09/2010

31/08/2013 n.jacquin@oieau.fr

Natacha JACQUIN

http://waterrtom.org/Home

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3700

LIFE08 INF/SK/000243

01/01/2010

31/12/2013 brtko@vuvh.sk

Director General of Water Research Institute Ing. Juraj Brtko, CSc.

http://www.vuvh.sk/in http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 dex.php/sk_SK/proje ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear kt-life/zakladnech.dspPage&n_proj_id=3503 informacie-o-projekte

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/S/000271

01/01/2010

31/12/2012 christian.baresel@ivl. Christian Baresel

WATLIFE

Enhancement of Public Awareness of LIFE-INF the Importance of Water for Life, its Protection and Sustainable Use in Accordance with the Water Framework Directive

WEBAP

Wave Energized Baltic Aeration Pump

se

Decision making support, WEISS diffuse pollution, environmental assessment, water monitoring waste water treatment‚ WINEC environmental management‚ environmental performance‚ industrial waste water‚ water resources management‚ WIZ urban area‚ drinking water

The Water Emissions Inventory, a LIFE-ENV LIFE08 01/01/2010 planning Support System aimed at ENV/B/000042 reducing the pollution of water bodies Advanced systems for the LIFE-ENV LIFE08 01/02/2010 enhancement of the environmental ENV/CY/000455 performance of WINEries in Cyprus

31/12/2012 g.vos@vmm.be

Greet VOS

31/10/2012 dfatta@ucy.ac.cy

Dr. Despo Kassinos

WaterIZe spatial planning: encompass LIFE-ENV LIFE09 future drinkwater management ENV/IT/000056 conditions to adapt to climate change

01/09//2010

30/08/2013 o.cei@acqueingegne Oberdan CEI

waste water treatment‚ energy WW4ENVIRONM saving‚ environmental ENT performance‚

Integrated approach to energy and climate changes changing

01/01/2010

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/P/000237

ria.net 31/12/2012 ramiro.neves@ist.utl. Ramiro NEVES

pt

www.webap.ivl.se

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3469

http://weiss.vmm.be/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n proj id=3404 http://www.eng.ucy.a http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 c.cy/winec/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3479 http://www.wiz-life.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3692 http://ww4environme http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj 16/09/2011 nt.eu/ ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=3467

General project information Project Maybe acronym Project title AQUAENVEC Assessment and improvement of

Website

Of interest?

YES Yes

Funding

contract code

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000520

the urban water cycle ecoefficiency using LCA and LCC

start date 01/01/2012

end date 31/12/2014

e-mail coordinator name coordinator amassague@cetaqu Anna Massagué a.com

Website

LIFE database website http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3968

Data Info collected 08/10/2011

Yes

AQUATIK

Development and validation of advanced monitoring system for control of organic priority pollutants in treated wastewater effluents

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000521

01/09/2011

31/12/2014

sgonzalez@cetaqua. Susana González com Blanco

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4012

08/10/2011

Yes

AQUAVIVA

Live Water - from Biodiversity to the Tap

LIFE-INF

LIFE10 INF/SI/000135

01/09/2011

31/08/2014

marjana@lutra.si

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4030

08/10/2011

Yes

AQUOR

Implementation of a water saving and artificial recharging participated strategy for the quantitative groundwater layer rebalance of the upper Vicenza's plain

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000380

01/09/2011

01/09/2013

muraro.teresa@prov Teresa MURARO incia.vicenza.it

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3994

08/10/2011

Yes

Biorewit

New soil improvement products for LIFE-ENV reducing the pollution of soils and waters and revitalizing the soil system

LIFE10 ENV/PL/000661

01/01/2012

31/12/2014

stkanicz@iwarz.pl

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3918

08/10/2011

Yes

CHARM

Chromium in asopos groundwater LIFE-ENV system: remediation technologies and measures

LIFE10 ENV/GR/000601

01/09/2011

31/08/2015

mamais@central.ntu Daniel Mamais a.gr

ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm ?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3951

08/10/2011

LIFE-ENV Profitable organic farming techniques based on traditional crops: contrasting soil degradation in the Mediterranean

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000471

15/10/2011

14/10/2016

mariano@transati.co Mariano SAZ m ACHUELO

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3921

08/10/2011

Maybe CYPADAPT

Development of a national strategy LIFE-ENV for adaptation to climate change adverse impacts in Cyprus

LIFE10 ENV/CY/000723

01/09/2011

31/03/2014

tmesimeris@environ Theodoulos ment.moa.gov.cy MESIMERIS

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3942

08/10/2011

Maybe DEMETER

Duurzaam En geïntegreerd bodembeheer om MilieuEffecten TE Reduceren (Sustainable and integrated soil management to reduce environmental effects)

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/BE/000699

01/01/2012

30/03/2016

patrick.verstegen@vl Patrick VERSTEGEN m.be

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3984

08/10/2011

Maybe ECO Courts

Ecological courtyards united for resources saving through smart technologies and life style

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000401

01/10/2011

30/11/2014

luised@comune.pad Daniela Luise ova.it

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4017

08/10/2011

Maybe ELINA

Integrated green life-cycle management of waste oils and petroleum residues

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/GR/000606

01/09/2011

31/08/2014

memmanouilidou@k Nikolaos Rempakos onkat.gr

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4010

08/10/2011

Maybe Crops for

better soil

Marjana HÖNIGSFELD ADAMIČ

Stanislaw KANISZEWSKI

Técnica demostrativa de prevención de la eutrofización provocada por nitrógeno agrícola en las aguas superficiales en clima mediterráneo

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000511

01/09/2011

01/03/2015

Maybe Geohealth

The impact of geological environment on health status of residents of the Slovak Republic

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/SK/000086

01/09/2011

31/08/2015

Maybe GREEN SITE

Green Site : supercritical fluid technologies for river and sea dredge sediment remediation

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343

01/10/2011

30/09/2013

g.cravin@alles.it

Yes

HWC

Jenfelder Au - Hamburg Water Cycle - Jenfelder Au

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/DE/000158

01/09/2011

Yes

InfoNitrates

Information and communications LIFE-INF campaign for the proper use and management of nitrates in agriculture and livestock breeding

LIFE10 INF/MT/000092

Yes

Investing in Water

Achieving Reduction in Water LIFE-INF Consumption by Business in Malta

European Ports Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Yes

EUTROMED

Maybe LCA4PORTS

LIFE-ENV

mprieto@dipgra.es

Myriam Prieto Labra

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3946

08/10/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3982

08/10/2011

Guerrino Cravin

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3972

08/10/2011

31/08/2016

Kim.Augustin@ham Kim AUGUSTIN burgwsser.de

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3987

08/10/2011

01/09/2011

31/12/2013

mario.j.spiteri@gov. Mario SPITERI mt

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4027

08/10/2011

LIFE10 INF/MT/000091

01/10/2011

31/03/2014

ceo@mbb.org.mt

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4026

08/10/2011

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369

01/11/2011

01/11/2015

life.anzio@libero.it, Gianluca IEVOLELLA life@comune.anzio.r oma.it

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3934

08/10/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3995

08/10/2011

Joe Tanti

Yes

NITRATES

LIFE-ENV Repercussion of Agricultural Activities in Nitrate Contamination of Continental Water

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000478

01/09/2011

31/08/2014

Yes

OMZET

Waste water treatment as energy and mineral recovery utility

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/NL/000028

01/09/2011

31/12/2016

hvanveldhuizen@W Henry VAN WE.nl VELDHUIZEN

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4007

08/10/2011

Pesticides Use Reduction in Agriculture: demonstration of an innovative Integrated Pest Management technology

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000324

01/09/2011

28/02/2015

drei@dow.com

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3960

08/10/2011

kirjaamo.pohjoisVeli-Matti KAIJOMAA karjala@elykeskus.fi Riccardo.Gori@dice Riccardo GORI a.unifi.it

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4033

08/10/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4032

08/10/2011

gbozzola@g-mm.com

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3969

08/10/2011

Maybe PURA4IPM

Yes

Saimaan lohikalojen

Saimaan lohikalojen kestävän kalastuksen edistäminen

LIFE-INF

LIFE10 INF/FI/000052

01/10/2011

30/06/2014

Yes

SHOWW

LIFE-INF SHOWW - puShing aHead with field implementatiOn of best fitting Wastewater treatment and management solutions

LIFE10 INF/IT/000282

01/09/2011

28/08/2014

Yes

UNIZEO

Urea-based nitrogenous fertilizers LIFE-ENV coated with zeolite : reducing drastically pullution due to nitrogen

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000347

01/09/2011

31/03/2015

Francesco DREI

Giorgio BOZZOLA

Maybe URWASTECH Innovative Urban Waste Treatment: A Sustainable Approach Using Hydrodynamic and Biological Technologies

LIFE-ENV

Water re-born - artificial recharge: LIFE-ENV innovative technologies for the sustainable management of water resources

Yes

WARBO

Yes

LIFE-ENV WASTEREUS Best practices for agricultural wastes treatment and reuse in the E

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000530

01/10/2011

01/04/2014

international@leitat. Dirk SASETA org

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3956

08/10/2011

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000394

01/01/2012

30/06/2014

dnieto@ogs.trieste.it Daniel NIETO YABAR

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4004

08/10/2011

LIFE10 ENV/GR/000594

01/09/2011

31/08/2015

komni@mred.tuc.gr

Konstantinos Komnitsas

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3943

08/10/2011

Mediterranean countries

Yes

WW-SIP

From Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant to Self Sustainable Integrated Platform for Wastewater Refinement

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000308

01/01/2012

31/12/2015

f.santori@isrim.it

Francesca SANTORI

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3949

08/10/2011

Yes

ZeoLIFE

Water Pollution Reduction and Water Saving Using a Natural Zeolite Cycle

LIFE-ENV

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000321

01/09/2011

28/02/2015

clt@unife.it

Massimo COLTORTI

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ind ex.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3957

08/10/2011

Of interest?

YES

Maybe

Yes

maybe

General project information Project acronym Project title

Website Funding

contract code

start date

end date

BaltInfoHaz

Baltic Info Campaign on Hazardous Substances

LIFE-INF

LIFE 10/INF/EE/108

01/10/2011

31/03/2015

COM-U

Communicating environmental action to children and youth

LIFE-INF

LIFE 07/INF/S/901

01/01/2009

31/12/2011

e-mail coordinator

name coordinator

Website

LIFE database website

kitty.kislenko@bef.ee

Ms Kitty Kislenko

Not yet established

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/lif e/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuse action=search.dspPage&n_proj_i d=4034 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/lif e/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuse action=search.dspPage&n_proj_i d=3310

14/12/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/lif e/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuse action=search.dspPage&n_proj_i d=3313

14/12/2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/lif e/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuse www.energysavingtrust.or action=search.dspPage&n_proj_i g.uk/Life-water-andd=3312 energy-project http://ec.europa.eu/environment/lif e/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuse action=search.dspPage&n_proj_i d=3665

14/12/2011

Ingela Berggren ingela.berggren@hsr.se http://www.hsr.se

yes

Eco-Animation: a cutting LIFE-INF edge cartoon to raise awareness on climate change and sustainable use of natural resources among European children

LIFE 07/INF/UK/950

Renew

Regional Environmental LIFE-INF Networks for Energy and Water

LIFE 07/INF/UK/932

01/01/2009

31/12/2011

frances.galvanoni@est.org.uk Ms Frances Galvanoni

maybe

Hydro4LIFE

LIFE-ENV Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol: EU Assessments, Monitoring, Capacity Development and Outreach

LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026

01/09/2010

01/09/2013

ci@hydropower.org

Mr Cameron Ironside

maybe

SEAweb

Scotland's Environmental LIFE-ENV Web

LIFE 10/ENV/UK/182

01/09/2011

31/08/2014

SEWeb@sepa.org.uk

Mr Martin Marsden

Eco-animation

yes

01/01/2009

31/03/2011

Mr. Luigi Petito

luigi@bs-europa.eu

http://www.animateeu.com/eco and http://www.myfriendboo.c om/watch.html

Data Info collected

14/12/2011

14/12/2011

http://www.hydrosustaina bility.org/Hydro4Life.aspx http://ec.europa.eu/environment/lif e/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuse action=search.dspPage&n_proj_i d=3990

Not yet established

14/12/2011

New additions

Yes

Maybe

LIFEIII projects

53

8

61

0

61

LIFE+ (07-09) projects

73

23

96

4

100

LIFE10 projects

19

10

29

2

31

TOTAL

186

192

Annex 2

Project Assessment Matrix

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

Annex 2

LIFE05 ENV/DK/000155 5 AGWAPLAN 5 LIFE05 ENV/F/000058 AWARE 5 LIFE05 ENV/IT/000846 BATTLE LIFE05 ENV/E/000267 BE-Fair

S

P

S

P

1 1

S

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

5

Lynne

Yael

Zsuzsa

S

1 1 1

EU Cost

Total Cost

other

2008/105/EC WQS

2007/60/EC flood risks

2006/7/EC bathing water

Human Health & Infrastructure 98/83/EC drinking water

2006/113/EC shellfish

2006/44 fresh waters to support fish

P

S

2006/118/EC groundwater

P

Aquatic Organisms

76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC; 06/11/EC discharge of pollution

91/676/EEC nitrates from agriculture

P

91/271/EEC urban waste water

ENV and INF PROJECTS

Pollution Control 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU IPPC

Frameworks 2008/56/EC MSFD

Life Code 2000/60/EC WFD

Year

1

1

1,617,795 1,070,021 2,672,885

791,820 440,127 965,902

2,170,746

909,248 deals with waste

1,439,054

719,527

1,654,796

Targets EU thematic strategy on urban 827,398 environments

MSFD? (deals indirectlty with marine pollution) It states future link with MFD

LIFE05 ENV/E/000302 Ecodiptera

5

1

1

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242 Elefsina 2020

5

1 LIFE05 ENV/GR/000245

5 EnviFriendly

1

1

2,151,531

1,075,765

LIFE05 ENV/IT/000894 ESTRUS

5

1

1,478,711

739,355

587,622

287,317

1,393,561

181,022

642,119 2,256,913

192,635 667,509

LIFE05 ENV/E/000289

5 FERTIGREEN 5

LIFE05 ENV/UK/000126 FORMOSE

1

1

1

LIFE05 ENV/E/000313 gEa

5 5 LIFE05 ENV/B/000517 INSIMEP

1 1

LIFE05 ENV/UK/000137 5 NITRABAR LIFE05 ENV/DK/000145 Odense 5 PRB - AgriPoM LIFE05 ENV/E/000292 5 OLIVEWASTE LIFE05 ENV/IT/000868 PERBIOF

1

5

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1 1

1,067,414

518,670

488,117

210,841

4,566,361

2,065,585

637,270

318,635

LIFE05 ENV/UK/000121

5 PROMOTHE MBR

1

1

1

2,883,870

406,965

9,712,865

1,324,045

6,236,754

No directive stated recycling wastes from 1,044,000 waste water

LIFE05 ENV/UK/000127

5 QUERCUS

1

LIFE05 ENV/IT/000812 RIWAC

5

1

LIFE05 ENV/F/000067 SOUND 5 SLUDGE LIFE05 ENV/H/000418 SUMANAS

5 5 LIFE05 ENV/B/000510 TOPPS

1 1 1

1,308,578

687,626

1,752,743 2,666,941

715,008 1,259,105

5,278,610

2,639,305

2,276,386 1,993,946 4,555,702

1,136,759 862,751 1,916,993

2,801,600

1,394,367

4,528,294

No Directives targeted reduces pollution by TBT 1,067,789 to marine waters

6,951,426

2,624,455

Agree, no directive stated, project deals with reuse of industrial water

This was my project, water cleaning technology, directive 80/68

LIFE05 ENV/D/000182 WAgriCo

5

1

1

1

LIFE05 ENV/E/000256 ZERO

5 PLUS 6 LIFE06 ENV/IT/000255 A.S.A.P 6 LIFE06 ENV/F/000133 ArtWet

1 1 1

1 1

1

1

1

LIFE06 ENV/F/000132 CONCERT

6 'EAU

1

LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTECSTC

6

1 LIFE06 ENV/E/000044 ES-

6 WAMAR

1

LIFE06 ENV/D/000461

6 FLOODSCAN

1

LIFE06 ENV/F/000158 6 ISONITRATE 6 LIFE06 ENV/D/000478 IWPM LIFE06 ENV/IT/000235 Kolisoon

1 1

6

1

1 1

1

2

1,947,803

FLOODS Directive and 959,775 INSPIRE

753,774 12,429,217

376,887 1,899,029

1

570.043

285,021

2,994,160

850,473

1

1,597,451

783,429

7,858,296

1,695,375

LIFE06 ENV/D/000458 LOTECOTEC

1

6 LIFE06 ENV/F/000136

6 MARECLEAN

1

1

1

LIFE06 ENV/D/000485 Moveable HEPP

6

1

1

LIFE06 ENV/UK/000401 MR Mo

6 ToWFO

1

433,385

0

1,400,640

416,700

LIFE06 ENV/B/000359

6 MULTIBARDEM

1

1

MSFD?

MFSD is mentioned

LIFE06 ENV/UK/000409 OpenMI-

6 LIFE

1

1

3,705,712

1,849,991

LIFE06 ENV/D/000460

6 SLUDGE2ENERGY

1

4,206,682

504,600

5,516,150

940,399

4,763,782 2,632,603

1,960,257 1,176,240

LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195 STABLE

6

1 LIFE06 ENV/DK/000229

6 TREASURE 6 LIFE06 ENV/NL/000167 WET

1 1

1 1

1

LIFE07 ENV/E/000814 3R-FISH

7

1

1

1,447,990

not specifically stated 595,620 principally waste project

Indeed. Maybe MSFD as deals also with marine pollution

It mentions Directive 2006/66 batteries

LIFE07 ENV/E/000826 AQUA-

7 PLANN PROJECT

1

988,564

LIFE07 ENV/B/000022 BACad

7

1

1

333,304

1,495,041

not specifically stated reducing pollution in 633,819 groundwater

1,691,598

851,816

WFD, local planning strategies

LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122

7 BaltActHaz

1

1

1

1

LIFE 07/INF/UK/750 Ecoanimation

7

1

388,641

LIFE07 ENV/D/000229 ECOSMA

7

1

828,144

183,443 also harmonisation with 414,072 Baltic MECP

LIFE07 ENV/S/000908 GreenClimeAdapt

7

1

1

3,166,264

LIFE07 ENV/SLO/000725 INCOME

7

1

1

1,804,915

1,582,932 climat change project

project focusing on water quality: Marine Strategy Directive, 2006/113, shellfish But it's also about managing increased amounts of rain, hence dealing with floods

not specifically mentioned but covers drinking water 834,860 and aquifers

LIFE07 ENV/PL/000605 Lake

7 recult. in Gniezno

It indeed focuses on climate change but also tries to achieve good ecological status under WFD, local stakeholder particoipation and flooding modelling

WFD also, it was a good project, improving water quality

1

1

431,861

215,930

2,054,739

1,238,990

2,423,889

not specifically mentioned but deals with clinical water 1,092,945 treatment

2,045,506

1,022,753

2,234,335

not specifically stated but 1,106,917 deals with WWT

1,941,702

water scarcity, droughts 970,850 and climate

1,546,500 1,447,112

deals with recycling and 773,250 waste reduction 795,434

1,341,400

670,700

1,572,745

addresses soil directive but may have water 771,872 application

LIFE07 ENV/L/000540 M3

7

1 LIFE07 ENV/NL/000576 PHARMAFILTER

7

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES

7

1 LIFE07 ENV/IT/000439 PURIFAST

7

1

water purification

LIFE 07/INF/UK/932 RENEW

7

1 LIFE07 ENV/IT/000421 REWASTE

7 7 LIFE07 ENV/IT/000497 SALT

1 1

It concerns olive production and waste water treatment Wastewater as well, not only and concerns UWWT. However, it seems that mostly concentrate on biogas, not on water. waste.

LIFE07 ENV/F/000173 SEMEAU

7

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/GR/000278 Soil Sustainability(So.S)

7

1 LIFE07 ENV/E/000794 TEXLEGIO

7

1

1,031,836

1

1,838,380

Not stated deal with 506,168 legionella?? also water scarcity and 898,380 droughts

2,861,641

919,161

LIFE07 ENV/IT/000475 TRUST

7

1

1

1

1

1

It is a bacteria in drinking water, but the project will apply the new method in a

soil strategy, includes the Soil Directve, but does not really details with water , more on soil management issues The project proposal does not mention any water directives, it focuses on reducing legionella in the textile industry , and it monitors water. Mainly it is a water

LIFE07 ENV/B/000038 WALPHY

7

1

1,238,280

not stated but is water resource management 616,020 project

1

1,562,532

773,916

LIFE07 ENV/E/000845 WATER CHANGE

7 LIFE08 ENV/E/000099 AQUAVAL

8

WFD, water treatement plans, also linked to Floods

LIFE08 ENV/FIN/000609 CATERMASS

8

1

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000426 COAST8 BEST LIFE08 ENV/IT/000390 8 ECOMAWARU LIFE08 ENV/PL/000517 EH-REK

8

1 1

1

2,860,775 1,730,501

1

1

1

960,122

942,372

1,421,597

665,788

1,330,249

not specifally stated denitrification in drinking 665,149 water reservoir

LIFE08 ENV/PL/000519 EKOROB

8

1

1

1

also habitats and EG EQS 1,408,521 priotity substances not specifically stated This is my project. Agree with 812,465 reuse of dredging spoil selection of legilsaiton

to rehabilitate reservoirs, WFD and water quality Mentions the WFD, cost effective ecohidrology actions to reduce diffuse pollution and achieve good status of water

LIFE08 ENV/E/000117 ENSAT

8

1

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399 8 EnvEurope LIFE08 ENV/E/000118 GREENLYSIS

1,594,833

not specifally stated 597,372 addresses water scarcity not specifically stated 3,003,938 information systems not specifically mentioned 797,416 but included WWTP

662,240

not specifically mentioned 658,540 but covers flooding

1,240,358 1

1

8

6,067,876

1

LIFE08 ENV/LV/000451 HydroClimateStrategyRiga

8

1

LIFE08 ENV/GR/000570 8 HydroSense LIFE08 ENV/IT/000413 INHABIT

1

1,756,563

851,156

8

1

2,264,341

1,118,493

1

1,471,838

1

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000457 INTERWASTE

8

Not specifically stated but 735,330 about WWTP

LIFE08 ENV/S/000272 ITEST

1

8

1,226,800

613,400

3,459,350

1,722,625

LIFE08 ENV/D/000021 MAGPlan

8

1

1

Project deals wirh integral grounwater risk management , WFD and GWT directives

LIFE08 ENV/E/000114 POWER

1

8

1,431.15

not specifically stated but 655,725 about reducing water use

LIFE08 ENV/GR/000551 PURE

8

1

1

2,404,277

1,039,638

1

1,697,573

846,007

2,028,302

not stated - deals with clean technologies with 993,614 some water cleanup

LIFE08 ENV/F/000489 PYROBIO

8 LIFE08 ENV/E/000133 RESALTTECH

8

1 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000406 REWETLAND

8

1

1

3,706,632

LIFE08 ENV/E/000132 Waste Joint Management

8

1

767,545

deals with remediation but 277,940 does mention grondwater not stated but deals with water resource 383,786 management

909,228

447,418 also mentions Natura

555,879

LIFE08 INF/IT/000308 WATACLIC

8

1

not stated - reed bed 1,450,566 filtration system

This is my project. Encourage participatory decision making in line with the WFD as well and deal with farmers to reduce nitrates pollution.

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000460 WATER

1

8

1

1

LIFE08 INF/SK/000243 WATLIFE

1

8

1,056,895

527,272

1,178,605 984,428

not stated - aeration 562,553 systems for coastal waters 468,517

1

1,371,357

682,954

1

784,442

This is a dissemination project, dealing with WFD

LIFE08 ENV/S/000271 WEBAP

8 8 LIFE08 ENV/B/000042 WEISS

1 1

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000455 WINEC

8

1 LIFE08 ENV/P/000237 WW4ENVIRONMENT

8 LIFE09 ENV/GR/000296 Adapt2Change

9

1

2,576,548

not stated focusses on 382,221 Climate change not specifically stated reducing water use in 1,288,274 agriculture

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000456 AG_UAS

9

1

2,384,688

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000208 AQUA

1

9

1

1

2,634,689

1,192,344 not specifically stated reducing nitrates from 1,310,901 agriculture

Also groundwater pollution

In the proposal it focuses mostly on the Nitrates Directive

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000075 AQUA

9 LIFE09 ENV/RO/000612 9 CLEANWATER LIFE09 ENV/ES/000431 9 CREAMAgua

1 1

1

1

1

1

807,720

403,860

Could be good example of regional and local WFD actions

698,319

not specifically stated 300,622 water trends and nitrates

Nitrates mostly, groundwater and vulnerable zones.

1,884,304

898,677

9 9

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569 GISBLOOM

1

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000447 The Green Deserts

1

1

1

3,060,856

1,503,638

2,074,518

may have relevance to 1,007,997 water scarcity in WDF

LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE

1

9

1

1,283,637

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000472 LOS TOLLOS

1

9

7,947,463

LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351 Mare Purum

9

1

1

1,800,673

LIFE09 ENV/DE/000011 MY FAVOURITE RIVER

9

1

5,841,093

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000136 PALM

9

1 1

1

1,794,567

1,924,557

waste management of 931,192 dredged sediments

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000158 SEDI.PORT.SIL

9

1 LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299 SOLBRINE

9

1

1,209,689

LIFE09 INF/GR/000320 Thalassa

9

1

not specifically stated deals with alternative to 886,211 TBT not specifically mentioned but deals with river 2,199,505 management not specifically mentioned but deals with wter losses 784,595 from reticulation systems also deals with Habitats 872,753 directive

1,589,690

LIFE09 INF/UK/000032

9 RESTORE

examines clash between 641,818 WFD and renewables Not specifically stated but about restoring good 3,123,236 quality water

1,343,248

The proposal mentions WFD, MSFD, Bathing water. It deals with measurment of marine fouling,aims toxic pain reduction.

Agreed, no directive is mentioned specifically

Same topic as the project Coast Best above - MSFD

not specific - treatment of 604,844 brine from desal plants Not stated deals with conservatio of marine mammals - targets 667,124 Habitats Directive

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000467 UFTEC

1

9

1

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000568 VOCless 9 waste water LIFE09 ENV/BE/000407 VOPAKEXPERO3

2,156,157

1

1

9

1,840,026

1

1,341,968

not stated but deals wth 1,050,789 water treatment not stated but deals wth 915,013 water treatment deals with remediation but 654,734 does mention grondwater

LIFE09 ENV/FR/000593 WaterRtoM

9

1

1

799,594

399,979

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000056 WIZ

9

1

1

1,896,540

not stated focusses on 942,370 Climate change

1,282,637

641,818

1,594,413

789,456 not stated

1,564,259

775,879 not stated also mentions Habitat and 235,314 biodiversity

LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4 Life

9

1

Urban waste water : to asess all environmental impacts of the life cycle of urban waste water

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000520

10 AQUAENVEC

1

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000521 10 AQUATIK LIFE10 INF/SI/000135 AQUAVIVA

1

1

1

1

1

10

1

548,141

WFD, priority pollutants, waste water

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000380 AQUOR

1

10

1

1,814,548

LIFE 10 INF/EE/108 BaltInfoHaz

1

10

1

1,683,396

693,348 dels with hazardous watse 834,573 in marine

LIFE10 ENV/PL/000661 Biorewit

10

1

1

1

1,836,195

926,597 not stated

mostly soil and landfill

LIFE10 ENV/GR/000601 CHARM

10

1

1

2,708,267

LIFE10 ENV/CY/000723

10 CYPADAPT

1

LIFE10 ENV/BE/000699 10 DEMETER LIFE10 ENV/ES/000511 EUTROMED

1

10

1

1,337,679

1,358,847

may have relevance to 678,423 water scarcity in WDF

1,907,092

952,353 deals with soild directive

1,504,486

750,742 need to check

418,112

207,273 need to check

LIFE10 ENV/SK/000086 Geohealth

10

1 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343 GREEN

10 SITE

1

1

1,377,428

684,298 need to check

16,746,974

3,446,821 need to check

LIFE10 ENV/DE/000158 HWC

10

1

1

LIFE10 INF/MT/000092

10 InfoNitrates

1

2.212.475

689,339

LIFE10 INF/MT/000091 Investing

10 in Water

1

336,329

166,542

It is also about reduction of nutrients from agri.

Nitrates Directive, sustainable method to reduce Nitrates directive nitrogen level Not stated, but through geology - linked to groundwater Doesn't seem very relevant. Agree, no directive is mentioned, sediment About decontamination. decontamination Urban wastewater disposal + energy production

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369 LCA4PORTS

10

1

1,091,650

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000478 10 NITRATES LIFE10 ENV/NL/000028 OMZET

1

10

2,420,765

1 1

10

1,432,211

1,147,132 not stated deals with 1,552,512 WWTP not stated but deals with 180,635 salmon conservation not stated deals with WWT 716,105 - interesting!

2,450,166

1,218,518

1,666,009

756,174

2,000,785

not stated focusses on 860,887 artificial recharge

1,384,799

679,399 not stated need to check

14,447,825

LIFE10 INF/FI/000052 Saimaan 10 lohikalojen LIFE10 INF/IT/000282 SHOWW

367,170

1

not stated deals with Directive 2010/31/EU 485,300 ossible WFD?

Some aspects dealing with wastewater quality and recovery, but seems more generally linked to ports management

Agree, mostly deals with ports management and focuses on Directive on energy sufficiency 2010/31

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000347 UNIZEO

10

1 LIFE10 ENV/ES/000530

10 URWASTECH

1

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000394 WARBO

10

1

LIFE10 ENV/GR/000594 10 WASTEREUSE LIFE10 ENV/IT/000308 WW-SIP

1

10

1

1 1

3,915,770

1,927,274

2,150,839

1,044,513 could be others check

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000321 ZeoLIFE

1

10 NATURE PROJECTS LIFE05 NAT/L/000101 5 Ardmouperl LIFE05 NAT/D/000152 5 BALTCOAST LIFE05 NAT/LV/000100 Baltic 5 MPAs LIFE05 NAT/IT/000026 Fortore 5 2005 LIFE05 NAT/DK/000153 5 Houting LIFE05 NAT/B/000090 Life 5 Grote Nete LIFE05 NAT/D/000057 Lippe5 Aue LIFE05 NAT/B/000085 Loutre 5 BeLu 2005-2006 LIFE05 NAT/UK/000143 5 STREAM LIFE06 NAT/P/000192 6 Biomares LIFE06 NAT/SI/000066 6 BIOMURA LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050 6 Co.Me.Bi.S. LIFE06 NAT/FIN/000129 6 Kokem채enjoki-LIFE LIFE06 NAT/A/000127 LIFE 6 Obere Drau II LIFE06 NAT/D/000005 LIFE6 Projekt Maifisch LIFE07 NAT/P/000646 7 CETACEOSMADEIRA II LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285 7 ConShagAudMIBAGR LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151 7 FINMARINET LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 7 INDEMARES LIFE07 NAT/IRL/000342 7 IShannonSACLAEO 7 LIFE07/NAT/IT/000413 PARC LIFE07 NAT/DK/000100 7 REFLOW LIFE08 NAT/D/000013 8 Elbauen bei Vockerode LIFE08 NAT/D/000008 Ems8 Dynamik+Habitate

8 LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201 ISAC LIFE08 NAT/D/000010 Life 8 Projekt "Lippeaue" LIFE08/NAT/A/000614 8 Murerleben LIFE08 NAT/D/000007 8 Nebenrinne Bislich

1

1 1 1 1

2,303,363

1,132,031 pearl mussel

5,685,005

3,403,203

3,111,316

not stated but meets 1,554,508 objectives

1,590,000

715,500 improving status claims to decommission 2 8,031,548 hydropower stations

1

1

13,385,913

1

1

3,120,974

1,560,470

1

5,514,594

2,757,297

3,891,664

1,945,832

1 1 1

1

1,449,430 2,364,438 1,975,519

969,385

1

1,100,000

525,000 restoration of MPA

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1,182,219 restoration of MPA

3,408,558

1,704,279

3,768,262

1,531,305 improving status

956,348

478,174

1

795,074

1

2,357,922

1,768,422 IBA in marine

1

3,408,950

1

1 15,405,727

1,704,315 resource mapping for MPA resource mapping for MPA 7,702,863 also OSPAR

397,537 dolphin conservation

1

1,740,818

869,830

1

1,511,286

755,500

1 1

1 1

1

579,772

1

1

4,669,642

2,334,821 good ecological status

2,184,912

1,094,456 flood protection

2,843,346

1,421,673 restoration for fish

1,626,458

1

6,011,951 1 1

addresses a number of 813,229 directves though not stated 3,005,975 floodplain management

2,784,131

1,392,065

2,897,526

1,448,763

Deals with agricultural waste, waste nutritians and agriculture

Nitrates directive and groundwater pollution

Nitrates directive and also groundwater

LIFE08/NAT/S/000266 Vindel 8 River LIFE

1

9 LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190 ARION LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234 9 DENOFLIT LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534 Life 9 Posidonia Andalucia LIFE09 NAT/ES/000514 9 MARGAL ULLA LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 9 MARMONI LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038 9 MarPro

1

9 10 10 10 10 10 10

Total Nature Projects 46 Total Env and Inf projects 150

1

1,569,699

1

3,562,125 3,666,981

1

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176 POSEIDONE LIFE09 NAT/DE/000004 Rheinauen bei Rastatt LIFE10 NAT/PT/000073 ECOTONE LIFE10 NAT/DE/000010 Emmericher Ward LIFE10 NAT/FR/000192 LIFE Continuité écologique LIFE10 NAT/AT/000017 LIFE+ Lavant LIFE10 NAT/SI/000142 Ljubljanica connects LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090 MALTA SEABIRD PROJECT

LIFE10 NAT/AT/000016 10 Netzwerk Donau LIFE10 NAT/DE/000008 Rur 10 und Kall LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271 10 SHARKLIFE LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200 10 SUBLIMO LIFE10 NAT/AT/000015 10 Untere March-Auen Total all projects Total ENV/INF projects Total NAT project

1,733,378

1

5,888,801

LIFE09 INF/GR/000319 9 PROM.SUS.FIS.PR.PRESPA

9

2,675,513

1

1

2,773,032

1

752,085

1

1,900,000

1

9,933,256

1

355,992 sustainable fisheries restoration seagrass and prevention of illegal 542,787 trawling 4,698,716 449,371

3,278,135

1,538,877

1

3,344,533

1,598,617

1

3,600,100

1,541,408

1

1,188,015

584,382 meeting marine SPA 436,982 requirements could expore conflict between WFD and renewable energy like 4,379,712 HYDRO4LIFE

873,964

1 14,509,424

1

3,976,076

1,423,108

1

1,337,640

668,820

1

1,947,590 3,491,774

12 6 6

784,849 mapping resources 2,474,902 Marine protected areas Pearl mussel/good WQ 1,821,604 status ecosystem approach assessments spatial 2,944,400 planning MPA and SCI 1,385,516 implementation

1

1

76 68 8

866,689 MPA dolphin conservation

628,588

1

1 38 22 16

1,337,757

18 7 11

8 8 0

3 2 1

22 22 0

7 7 0

19 19 0

6 6 0

5 5 0

15 15 0

9 9 0

6 6 0

10 1 9

8 1 7

1 1 0

0 0 0

1 1 0

7 7 0

3 3 0

1 1 0

6 6 0

3 1 2

1 1 0

1 1 0

9 7 2

964,252 1,745,887 improving status

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

S

P

S

P

S

P

P

S

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250 DESTINATIONS LIFE06 TCY/TN/000275 COPEAU LIFE05 TCY/CRO/000108 CROWATER LIFE06 TCY/ET/000232 FLAFLOM LIFE05 TCY/GA/000115 HAGAR LIFE06 TCY/ET/000226 IBISS

other

2006/7/EC bathing water

98/83/EC drinking water

2008/75/EC bottom fishing gears P

2008/105/E C WQS

P

Human Health & Infrastructure 2007/60/EC flood risks

S

2006/113/E C shellfish

P

S

Aquatic Organisms

91/676/EEC nitrates from agriculture 76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC; 06/11/EC discharge of 2006/118/E C groundwater 2006/44 fresh waters to support fish

P

Pollution Control

96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU IPPC 91/271/EEC urban waste water

2008/56/EC MSFD

LIFE III

2000/60/EC WFD

Frameworks

Lynne

S stated - strategic tourism project not really water TCY - no directives stated

1

1

Yael g g point was the coastal zones, but this is a marginal issue.

1

1

1

TCY - no directives stated

1

TCY - no directives stated

LIFE05 TCY/CRO/000111 IBM

TCY - no directives stated

1 LIFE05 TCY/MA/000141 MOROCOMP LIFE06 TCY/MA/000256 NAORA

TCY - no directives stated

TCY - no directives stated

1

TCY - no directives stated - reuse of irrigation water TCY - no directives stated conservation of water resources

LIFE06 TCY/TR/000284 PRETHERM

1 LIFE06 TCY/INT/000246 SAVA RIVER BASIN

1 LIFE05 TCY/TN/000150 SMAS LIFE05 TCY/IL/000130 SUSTAINABLE JORDAN R

1

1

LIFE06 TCY/IL/000240 TRANS-BOUNDARY WATER/PROAQUIFER

1

1

1

1

treatment. Maybe WFD - as a general framework, seeing that the project aimed at changing

TCY - no directives I'd add also the WFD stated more habitats (seeing the idea to directive elaborate IBRM) No directive stated conservation of water resources This was my project.

Very similar in its TCY - no directives ideas to WFD, but stated - tenuous link also relates to to drinking water nitrates pollution, and This was my project.

TCY - no directives Relates to groundwater stated - links to urban waste water management as well as to urban and groundwater

Zsuzsa

S

P

S

LIFE06 ENV/D/000465 ZEM/SHIPS LIFE07 ENV/E/000847 BIOCELL

1

LIFE09 INF/IT/000076 FISH SCALE LIFE09 ENV/FR/000600 GREEN TESTING LIFE08 ENV/F/000488 IMCM LIFE08 INF/GR/000581 INFOIL LIFE08 ENV/B/000046 LVMBIOcells LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461 MARITIMECO2 LIFE08 ENV/E/000113 METABIORESOR LIFE09 ENV/IT/000070 N.O.WA.S.T.E LIFE09 ENV/DK/000368 NorthPestClean LIFE07 INF/IT/000438 Olèico+ LIFE07 ENV/GR/000280 PROSODOL LIFE09 ENV/SE/000352 Pure Energy Separator LIFE07 ENV/E/000787 Recyship

S

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

P

S

other

2006/7/EC bathing water

98/83/EC drinking water

2008/75/EC bottom fishing gears

2006/113/EC shellfish

2006/44 fresh waters to support

2006/118/EC groundwater

76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC; 06/11/EC P

Lynne

Yael

Zsuzsa

S rejected deals with Biofuel Directive rejected deals with air emissions

LIFE06 ENV/IT/000257 VOICE

LIFE08 ENV/GR/000569 BIOFUELS-2G LIFE08 ENV/E/000158 BOATCYCLE LIFE08 INF/E/000187 COR LIFE07 ENV/E/000788 Cowtoplant LIFE09 ENV/ES/000459 ECOREGA LIFE08 ENV/E/000119 FAROS

P

Human Health & Infrastructure 2008/105/EC WQS

P

Aquatic Organisms

2007/60/EC flood risks

S

91/676/EEC nitrates from agriculture

P

S

91/271/EEC urban waste water

P

Pollution Control

96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU

2008/56/EC MSFD

LIFE III

2000/60/EC WFD

Frameworks

Agree

Also agree to reject

Agree

Agree, air and odour

this is energy reduction project with WWTP on the side Maybe we can exclude it then.

OK, agree

rejected deals with waste

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with waste rejected deals with waste

Agree Agree

Agree Agree

rejected deals with waste

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with waste

Agree

Agree

rejected deal with waste and discards not in MSFD rejected deal with waste and discards not in MSFD

Agree Agree

not really water more waste but does mention IPPC Don't know as well

2005/32, but mentions IPPC, Climate Change and EMAS as well, agree that it is not much into

rejected - about mosquito control

Agree

rejected - deals with waste

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with soild bioremediation

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with CO2 emission trading in shipping

Agree

rejected deals with waste and alternative energy

Agree

rejected - deals with waste rejected deals with soil remediation no details but looks like waste project

Agree Agree Agree

rejected deals with soil directive

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with waste oil directive

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with recycling ships

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with EIA of olive production Agree

LIFE09 ENV/GR/000302 SAGE10 LIFE09 ENV/NL/000427 SEWEEX LIFE09 ENV/IT/000186 Sludge's Wealth LIFE08 ENV/D/000026 Sus Treat

rejected deals with transfer of heat energy from sewage

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with sewage sludge

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with sustainable energy Agree reinstated - may have relevance to water scarcity in WDF

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000447 The Green Deserts LIFE09 ENV/ES/000451 VALUVOIL LIFE10 ENV/ES/000471 Crops for better soil LIFE10 ENV/CY/000723 CYPADAPT LIFE10 ENV/GR/000606 ELINA

rejected - deals with waste

Agree

rejected - deals wth soil reinstated - may have relevance to water scarcity in WDF

Agree

rejected - waste oils

Agree

need to check

Doesn't seem very relevant.

About decontamination.

Agree, no directive is mentioned, sediment decontamination

not stated deals with Directive 2010/31/EU ossible WFD?

Some aspects dealing with wastewater quality and recovery, but seems more generally linked to ports management

Agree, mostly deals with ports management and focuses on Directive on energy sufficiency 2010/31

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343 GREEN SITE

1

1

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369 LCA4PORTS

1 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000324 PURA4IPM

Agree

Agree

rejected deals with pest control Agree

Annex 3

WFD Assessment Matrix

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

Annex 3

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

p

P

1

1

1

1

Project score (relevance to policy area) out of 6

Project score overall %age

comments

S

deals witth nitrates in agriculture

yes except guidelines was not possible due to delays of the final inter-calibrations of the environmental objectives in the WFD in different watercourses.

deals with reduction of pesticides

yes

this project could be a useful case study - especially integrated management and social aspects - also has phytoremediation and 10 methods for reducing pollution deals with pollutants from greenhouses only marginall associated with WDF

yes yes but not as successful as predicted and more research necessary

LIFE05 ENV/DK/000155 AGWAPLAN

5

Objectives met

Database GIS mapping/modelling

S

Programme of measures

Data

Integrated river basin approach

Stakeholder participation

Quantitative status of groundwater

Chemical status of groundwater

Chemical status of surface waters

Groundwater

Surface waters

S

Planning Process

Assessment of Status Ecological staus of surface waters

Monitoring

Pressures and impact analysis

Year Life Code ENV and INF PROJECTS

Economic analysis

2000/60/EC WFD

Typology, delineation of water bodies

Characterisation of river bsins

1

85

6

LIFE05 ENV/F/000058 AWARE

5

1

1

1

1

85

6

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000245 EnviFriendly

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

LIFE05 ENV/E/000289

5 FERTIGREEN

1

1

LIFE05 ENV/UK/000126 FORMOSE

1

5

1

1

85

6

63

3

waste water clean up of formaldehyde before discharge to rivers yes technically but dissemination was poor

54

2

sustainable water use through computerised irrigation system

59

4

LIFE05 ENV/E/000313 gEa

1

5

1

yes

LIFE05 ENV/B/000517 INSIMEP

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

The project is expected to contribute to the objectives of: th Water Framework Directive (by aiming to achieve "good" surface water and groundwater status by 2015), the Groundwater Directive (by preventing and controlling pollution through appropriate measures) and the Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control Directive (by preventing the further spread of groundwater contamination). yes

85

5

Planning at river basin level - might be a good case study yes

79

5 5

LIFE05 ENV/DK/000145 Odense

5 PRB - AgriPoM

1

1

1

1

1

mainly deals with waste from olive industry

yes

69

1

1

waste water biological treatment replacement

yes

95

6

1

waste water treatment using membrane technology

yes except dissemination was poor

59

4

LIFE05 ENV/E/000292

5 OLIVEWASTE LIFE05 ENV/IT/000868 PERBIOF

5 LIFE05 ENV/UK/000121 5 PROMOTHE MBR LIFE05 ENV/UK/000127 5 QUERCUS LIFE05 ENV/B/000510 TOPPS

5

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

improving urban rivers through stakeholder involvement yes targets agriculture sector through reducing pollution of wate by plant protection products yes ammendment of agricultural assistance programmes t support the implementation of the Water Framework Directive yes

1

1

1

LIFE05 ENV/D/000182 WAgriCo

5

1

1

77

5

87

5

77

6

85

5

82

6

95

6

LIFE05 ENV/E/000256 ZERO

5 PLUS

model for managing metal wastes in water

1

yes

LIFE06 ENV/IT/000255 A.S.A.P

6

1

1

1

1

protocol for reducing ground water abstraction and yes - After LIFe plan has activities planned for 4 economic model re tarrifs - could be a good case study years following closure using phytoremediation to reducenon point source pollution from agriculture - technology has been successfully transferred in 2011 - different approach could be good case study yes and transfer ongoing collaborative protocol for reducing nitrates in water from agriculture no - some objectives not met

1

LIFE06 ENV/F/000133 ArtWet

6

1

1

1

1

1

LIFE06 ENV/F/000132

6 CONCERT 'EAU

1

LIFE06 ENV/D/000461 FLOODSCAN

6

1

1

1

also targets Flood and INSPIRE directives - flood management through mapping - could be good case study largely - transfer potential large

62

5

82

6

51

4

LIFE06 ENV/F/000158 ISONITRATE

1

6

1

1

1

innovative monitoring method could be interesting to know why not disseminated as widely as expected?? manly linking waste water treatment plants to improv efficiency

partially - method not demonstrated to the policy makers not yet finished - prolongation granted - 80% finished

1

method for assessing E coli in waste water in situ

yes - not sure if applications transerred

1

LIFE06 ENV/D/000478 IWPM

6

1

1

1

1

LIFE06 ENV/IT/000235 Kolisoon

6

1

LIFE06 ENV/F/000136 MARECLEAN

6

1

1

1

85

6

also 76/160 Bathing Water Directive - contribution to WFD partially - method demonstrated but did not in improvement of surfce water quality from diffuse sources reach all reduction targets

54

5

project specificaly designed to address conflict between WFD and Renewables Directive - link with Hydro4LIFE and Netzwerk Doneau as big case study yes - evaluated as major success

97

5

addressing water quality through managed realignment

15

2

79

5

LIFE06 ENV/D/000485 Moveable HEPP

6

1

1

1

LIFE06 ENV/UK/000401 MR Mo

6 ToWFO

1

1

1

no - no objectives met

LIFE06 ENV/B/000359

6 MULTIBARDEM

1

1

1

1

multibarrier approach to preventing groundwater pollution yes

Implementation of a computer modelling system in a integrated management approach to Water Framework Directives.

LIFE06 ENV/UK/000409 OpenMILIFE

6

1

1

1

yes - project continuing to attract attention after closure

95

6

Yes - project continues to progress after closure

92

6

yes - further use of technology foreseen at close

87

6

64

5

92

6

LIFE06 ENV/DK/000229

6 TREASURE

1

1

1

1

1

1

treatment of polluted surface water at low cost removal of priority hazardous substances cited in WFD from WWTP

LIFE06 ENV/NL/000167 WET

6 LIFE07 ENV/E/000826 AQUA-

7 PLANN PROJECT

1

1

WFD, local planning strategies Addresses 3 directives plus new HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. series of cartoons focussing on water conservation and aimed at children Focuses on climate change but also tries to achieve goo ecological status under WFD, local stakeholder particoipation and flooding modelling

1

LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122

7 BaltActHaz

1

1

1

1

LIFE 07/INF/UK/750

7 Ecoanimation

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/S/000908 GreenClimeAdapt

7

1

1

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/PL/000605 Lake

7 recult. in Gniezno

still open - closes 06/2012 very successful and likely to be on-going

still open - dues to close 10/2013

WFD also, it was a good project, improving water quality

1

1

yes - water quality objectives met Insufficient harmonisation of national implementation wit the approach of the WFD causes some problems, and the experience and outputs of the M続 project might be of still open - due to close 12/2012 1 interest for the working groups on the WFD

LIFE07 ENV/L/000540 M3

7

still open - closes 06/2012

1

1

1

1

LIFE 07/INF/UK/932 RENEW

7

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/IT/000497 SALT

7

1

1

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/F/000173 SEMEAU

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/GR/000278 Soil

7 Sustainability(So.S)

1

1

1

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/IT/000475 TRUST

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/B/000038 WALPHY

7

1

1

1

1

LIFE07 ENV/E/000845 WATER CHANGE

7

1

1

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/E/000099 AQUAVAL

8

1

1

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/FIN/000609 CATERMASS

8

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Mentions the WFD, cost effective ecohydrology actions (using vegetation as a means of removing pollutants) to reduce diffuse pollution and achieve good status of water still open - due to close 12/2014

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/PL/000519 EKOROB

8

still open - due to close 06/2013

1

1

1

still open - due to close 12/2012

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/PL/000517 EH-REK

8

Targets Climate change but also WFD through resource efficiency WFD, water treatement plans, also linked to Floods (als targets Floods Directive) - promotes the use of SUDS urban polution arising from stor water runoff

Water Framework (2000/60/EC), Flood (2007/60/EC), Habitat (92/43/EEC) and EQS (priority substances) directives - mainly to do with mapping and risk classification of acid soils still open - due to close 12/2012 improvement of water quality from waste treatment plant through phytoremediation (algae) in open and closed systems still open -due to close 02/2013 to rehabilitate reservoirs, WFD and water quality use of ecohydrology in planning the interventions - some major infrastructure - could be interesting case study still open - due to close 12/2014

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000390 ECOMAWARU

8

deals with reduction in water and energy use waiting final report closed 12/2011 primarily climate change but also WFD through resource efficiency and reduction in ground water use waiting final report closed 12/2011 essentially a modelling project to develop a tool to assis water quality management in hilly areas still open - due to close 12/2012 Mainly targets soil directive but also aims to improve wate quality at the river basin level waiting final report closed 12/2011 Trust links with Water Framework Directive, Floods Directive and the European Policy on Water Scarcity and Drought - may be a good case study waiting final report closed 12/2011 also targets Flood directive - deals with hydromorphologica assessment of water bodies for implementing infrastructure improvements still open - due to close 12/2013

LIFE08 ENV/E/000117 ENSAT

8

1

1

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399

8 EnvEurope

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/GR/000570 HydroSense

8

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Targets pollution clean up of groundwater and possibly managed aquifer recharge to address water scarcity through model development still open due to close 03/2012 Environmental Information System for Europe (SEIS) project mentions ecological indicators of ecosystem quality still open - due to close 12/2012 Use of GIS technology to address resource efficiency in water and energy use in irrigation and reduce ferilizer and pesticide use still open - due to close 12/2012

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000413 INHABIT

8

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000457 INTERWASTE

8

1

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/D/000021 MAGPlan

8

1

1

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/E/000114 POWER

8

1

1

River Basin Management Plan Project - seeks to include 1 hydro-morphology to support Biological Function in RBMPsstill open - due to close 03/2013 Minly Urban Waste water - addresses waste annd sustainable energy - improved water quality a secondary objective still open - due to close 09/2012 Ris management for pollution of groundwater. Compilation of EU-wide applicable recommendations for action for ground water risk management in urban areas linked to the activities of the WFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) - Working Group C activities to develop further guidance for implementation of the GWD still open - due to close 12/2014 Project to reduce energy consumption associated with irrigation and reduce water consumption (by 60%) through use of models. Resource efficiency and renewables still open - due to close 12/2012

LIFE08 ENV/GR/000551 PURE

8

1

1

To transform an existing network of pipelines that are currently distributing treated wastewater for irrigation, with no control, no monitoring, no pricing and no management plan, into an upgraded system that provides high quality alternative water resources for irrigation, in a sustainable manner and in accordance with the principles of the Water Framework Directive (WFD still open - due to close 06/2013

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000406 REWETLAND

8

1

1

1

Encourage participatory decision making in line with the WFD as well and deal with farmers to reduce nitrates pollution - also uses constructed wetland approach still open - due to close 06/2013 not stated but deals with resource efficiency - redution in water use in Urban areas using communication and fiscal tools still open - due to close 12/2012

1

LIFE08 INF/IT/000308 WATACLIC

8

1

1

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000460 WATER

8

1

LIFE08 INF/SK/000243 8 WATLIFE LIFE08 ENV/B/000042 WEISS

1

8

1

1

Preservation of good water quality status and reducing water use. Developing indicators for water quality in lakes. still open - due to close 07/2013 This is a dissemination project, dealing with WFD changing attitudes to conserve water and reduce pollution still open - due to close 12/2013 Water Emissions Inventory Planning Support System (WEISS) to support competent authorities across Europe with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) still open - due to close 12/2012 Reducing pollution from wineries - mainly deals with pilo WWTP stilll open - due to close 10/2012 Reducing water use in greenhouses in response to climate change still open - due to close 08/2014

1

1

1

1

1

1

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000455 WINEC

8

1

1

1

LIFE09 ENV/GR/000296

9 Adapt2Change

1

1

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000456 AG_UAS

9

1

To develop a cost-effective, spatial tool for more efficient, sustainable, water monitoring and management, in line with WFD requirements using remote sensing approach - highly innovative and maybe worth y case study still open - due to close 09/2013

1

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000208 AQUA

9

1

1

1

1

1

reducing nitrates from livestock production - also groundwater pollution -plans to operate at river basin scale stillopen - due to close 03/2014

1

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000075 AQUA

9

1

1

1

Could be good example of regional and local WFD actions operating in the agro industry to reduce water use and pollution still open - due to close 06/2013

1

LIFE09 ENV/RO/000612

9 CLEANWATER

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Nitrates mostly, groundwater and vulnerable zones. still open - due to close 02/2014 To introduce â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;naturalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ecosystem structures of wetlands and riverbank forests to reduce inorganic nutrients in farming communities on regional scale still open - due to close 12/2014

1

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000431 CREAMAgua

9

1

1

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569 GISBLOOM

9 9

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000447 The Green Deserts

1

1

Introduce, demonstrate and evaluate an array of technical and methodological innovations to improve cost efficiency o implementation of WFD and river basin management still open - due to close 09/2013

1 1

limited relevance to WDF in conservation of water

still open - due to close 08/2015

examines clash between WFD and renewables

still open - due to close 09/2013

LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE

1

9

1

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000472 LOS TOLLOS

9

1

1

Restoring good quality water through a series of measures connected with soil and hydrology still open - due to close 12/2014

1

LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351 Mare Purum

1

9

1

The proposal mentions WFD, MSFD, Bathing water. It deals with measurment of marine fouling,aims toxic paint (TBT) reduction. still open - due to close 12/2014 Deals with river management using a variety of technique to establish good ecological status still open - due to close 08/2014

1

LIFE09 ENV/DE/000011 MY

9 FAVOURITE RIVER

1

1

1

The proposal mentions WFD,

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000136 PALM

9

1

1

Deals with wter losses from reticulation systems (resource efficiency) and assocaited costs still open - due to close 08/2013 Building a newtork of river restoration projects - providin forum for exchange of knowledge and best practice - also deals with Habitats directive still open - due to close 09/2013

1

LIFE09 INF/UK/000032 RESTORE

9

1

1

1

1

LIFE09 ENV/ES/000467 UFTEC

9

1

1

ultra filtration pre-treatment water technology to reduce pollution and water use

1

LIFE09 ENV/FR/000593 WaterRtoM

9

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

still open - due to close 08/2013

Promoting results of research to get faster feedback to inform Water policy implementation - could be a good one for case study - technically could target all areas still open - due to close 08/2013

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000056 WIZ

9

1

LIFE10 ENV/ES/000521 10 AQUATIK LIFE10 INF/SI/000135 AQUAVIVA

10

Involving stakeholders in drinking water management. Also targets climate change directive but not sure how! still open - due to close 08/2013

1

1

1

1

1

1

new monitoring technology for 7 of WFD priority pollutants still open - due to close 02/2015

1

1

1

improving water quality in rivers through increasing pubic awareness - also mentions Habitat and biodiversity

still open - due to close 08/2014

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000380 AQUOR

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

Protection of groundwater resources through stakeholder efforts - reduction in water use - establishment of GIS tool also targets Groundwater Directive still open - due to close 09/2014

LIFE10 ENV/GR/000601 CHARM

10

1

1

1

1

LIFE10 ENV/CY/000723 CYPADAPT

10

1

1

Mainly cites the Groundwater Directive - programme of measures to address chromium pollution in groundwater

still open - due to close 08/2015

National programme to prepare adaptation to climate change - may have relevance to water scarcity in WDF

still open - due to close 03/2014

Agreed, no directive is mentioned specifically

10

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000401 ECO Courts

1

Mainlly resource efficiency in all sectors - aim to reduce water use by 30%

1

LIFE10 ENV/DE/000158 HWC

1

10

Still open - due to close ??

Urban wastewater disposal and reduced water use through vacuum extraction and reuse of grey water + energy production - mainly resource efficiency still open - due to close 08/2016

1

LIFE10 INF/MT/000091 Investing

10 in Water

1

1

1

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369 LCA4PORTS

1

10

1

1

Sustainable water use in the business sector

still open - due to close 03/2014

Mainly targets Directive 2010/31/EU - some aspects dealing with wastewater quality and recovery

still open - due to close 11/2015

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000394 WARBO

10

1

1

Targetting the regulation of Artificial Recharge of groundwater aquifers (a practice which is currently unregulates) in relation to water conservation and scarcity still open - due to close ??

1

LIFE10 ENV/GR/000594 WASTEREUSE

10

1

1

1

Deals with agricultural waste, waste nutritians and agriculture and reducing water use in the sector still open - due to close 08/2015 Prototype Urban WWTP - to reduce water use and improve water quality still open - due to close 12/2015

1

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000308 WW-SIP

10

1 69

21

2

2

2

5

1 35

24

8

2

5

2

5

2

1 30

7

10

4

6

1

13

7

30

12

20

3

2

NATURE PROJECTS LIFE05 NAT/PL/000101 5 Ardmouperl LIFE05 NAT/IT/000026 Fortore 5 2005 LIFE05 NAT/DK/000153 5 Houting LIFE05 NAT/B/000090 Life 5 Grote Nete LIFE05 NAT/D/000057 Lippe5 Aue LIFE05 NAT/B/000085 Loutre 5 BeLu 2005-2006 LIFE05 NAT/UK/000143 5 STREAM LIFE06 NAT/SI/000066 6 BIOMURA LIFE06 NAT/FIN/000129 6 Kokem채enjoki-LIFE LIFE06 NAT/A/000127 LIFE 6 Obere Drau II LIFE06 NAT/D/000005 LIFE6 Projekt Maifisch LIFE07 NAT/IRL/000342 7 IShannonSACLAEO LIFE07 NAT/DK/000100 7 REFLOW LIFE08 NAT/D/000013 8 Elbauen bei Vockerode 8 LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201 ISAC LIFE08 NAT/D/000010 Life 8 Projekt "Lippeaue" LIFE08/NAT/S/000266 Vindel 8 River LIFE LIFE09 NAT/ES/000514 9 MARGAL ULLA LIFE09 NAT/DE/000004 9 Rheinauen bei Rastatt LIFE10 NAT/SI/000142 10 Ljubljanica connects LIFE10 NAT/AT/000016 10 Netzwerk Donau LIFE10 NAT/DE/000008 Rur 10 und Kall LIFE10 NAT/AT/000015 10 Untere March-Auen T Total ENV/INF projects Total NAT project Total projects Total Nature Projects 23 Total Env and Inf projects 124

1 1 1 1

pearl mussel

1

1

1

1

improving status

1

1

claims to decommission 2 hydropower stations

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

good ecological status

1 1

flood protection

1

1 1 1

69 7 76

improving status

1

1

addresses a number of directves though not stated

1

floodplain management

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

21 16 37

2 0 2

2 0 2

2 0 2

5 0 5

35 0 35

24 0 24

8 0 8

2 0 2

5 0 5

2 0 2

5 21 26

Pearl mussel/good WQ status

could expore conflict between WFD and renewable energ like HYDRO4LIFE connect to large case study

improving status

2 0 2

30 1 31

7 0 7

10 0 10

4 0 4

6 0 6

1 0 1

13 5 18

7 0 7

30 1 31

12 1 13

20 0 20

3 0 3

2 0 2

4 0

Total Proje

4

Economic Impact ana Monitoring Monitoring Ecological Chemical SChemical SQuantity of StakeholdeIntegrated Data projecProgramme of Measures 6 59 10 7 7 37 14 7 20 42 23 2 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 6

Number of Projects

Typology ENV NAT

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

59

10

7

28

38

14

7

NAT ENV

25

44

23

2

Annex 4

SWOT Analyses

[Water Sector Report August 2012]

Annex 4

LIFE 05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); Groundwater Directive; IPPC Directive.

Strengths Weaknesses  Demonstrated an alternative remediation approach: to precipitate  The project did not directly affect policy, but provided a demonstration metals in situ by acceleration of biogeochemical processes that may of technology that may help to achieve WFD / groundwater directive occur naturally, and to irreversibly fix them in the soil in a form that is objectives. stable under naturally occurring groundwater conditions.  The limitations of the ISBP technique are the restrictive conditions  Demonstration was carried out on 3 sites in Belgium where groundwater which are mainly hydrogeological (the presence of clay lenses or low was heavily contaminated as a result of 100 years of industrial activity. permeable soil, the depth of the groundwater) or (bio) geochemical origin toxic conditions, level of groundwater contamination with heavy  The strengths of the project were the different hydrogeological metals and mineral content of the aquifer). conditions at the three test sites, the combination of two different metals at each sites and the thorough use of modelling to explain the  The experience with an undefined groundwater flow direction and a low results and to design a full-scale remediation. permeability due to clay lenses shows that application of ISBP is difficult in those circumstances.  The technique is more sustainable than pump and treat: - No above-ground waste is being produced.  The cost of applying INSIMEP is strongly site-dependent, i.e., compared - Less electricity consumed, reducing the carbon footprint. to the classical technique of pump-and-treat (P&T). The cost depends on - There is no discharge to surface water, which is important for both the availability of clean-up infrastructure already on site. If pumping the fact that no priority (hazardous) substances (like Cd) are being wells are available, a wastewater treatment plant or sludge dewatering, discharged, and that a hydraulic load to surface waters is avoided. the investment necessary for the classical P&T approach strongly - A biodegradable carbon source is being used instead of hazardous decreases. chemicals, used to treat groundwater aboveground.  The economical evaluation showed that overall, ISBP is cheaper than - Lower remaining concentrations of metals will be reached at a faster pump and treat. Capital Expenses (CAPEX) related to ISBP however are time horizon more expensive than classical pump & treat. For smaller sites, this - Resources will be used more efficiently, as the injection rate can be difference becomes less. Due to the lower Operational Expenses (OPEX), modulated based on the remaining contamination.

ISBP is cheaper as from a term of 10 years for big sites, with CAPEX  Results of the project carry policy and legislative implications and taken fully on the account in the first year. After this break-even point, contribute to the objectives of: WFD by aiming to achieve "good" the operational cost for ISBP is 40% lower than for pump and treat. For surface water and groundwater status by 2015; the Groundwater smaller sites, ISBP is cheaper after a shorter time (taking the parameters Directive by preventing and controlling pollution through appropriate of site 1 into account for the design). measures; and the IPPC Directive by preventing the further spread of groundwater contamination. The project also contributes to the 6th EAP by increasing awareness that human health is affected by environmental problems related to water pollution and chemical contamination.

Opportunities  The advantages of the ISBP technique are its economic soundness in the long-term rather than classic remedial technology, its low operational maintenance, its positive impact on the environment as well as its relatively easy implementation in terms of infrastructure works.  ISBP for immobilization of metals can be applied by metal or other industry with similar contamination. The economic importance of the metal industry is clear: in Europe, Eurometaux (non-ferrous metals federation) contributes 1,1% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and employs (directly and indirectly) 1.2 million people.  Replication is possible, depending on nature of pollution: the project has started preparatory actions to use the in-situ method to decontaminate another site at UMICORE, the Zolder site. Furthermore, it is envisioned that the in-situ method will be used on other UMICORE sites as well.

Threats  As a threat for application of ISBP, the biggest is that thorough evaluation of each site on a case-by-case basis is needed.  There are technical and economical limiting factors for application of ISBP: - The presence of clay lenses or low permeable soil; - The absence of redox conditions allowing the sulphate reduction ; - The level of groundwater contamination with heavy metals; - The depth of the groundwater; - The presence of adjacent protected natural area, to which sulphate or organic carbon plumes could migrate (linked with improper design of the in-situ remediation).  The presence of other contaminants than heavy metals, nonreduced/treated by ISBP;  The availability of the carbon source as well as the availability of nonimpacted water to create the injection fluid.  Overall economics, based on the amount of carbon source which is needed reach sulphate reducing conditions.

LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive (focusing on Articles 11 and 13, achieving the objectives specified in Article 4).

Strengths Weaknesses  The pilot project for river basin management planning in Odense River  Could be too local, rather focuses on the Danish problems.

Basin has been carried out pursuant to Articles 11 and 13 of the WFD.  The project was neither supposed to involve the consultation of the The preparation of programmes of measures and river basin general public nor to have the governmental approval, but was to be an management plans aimed at achievement of the environmental essential component of in the forthcoming river basin management objectives specified in Article 4 of the WFD. plan, which, at the later stage, has went through the abovementioned  This WFD-related LIFE project focused on agricultural nutrient pressure processes; ministerial approval in February 2010 and public and its impact on achieving the WFD objectives. consultations/hearing in October 2010 - March 2011.  It demonstrated the development of a cost-effective programme of  The project could have been in closer contact with the Commission to measures to reduce levels of nitrogen and phosphorous originating from safeguard a bit more extensive utilisation of the results. agricultural activities in the Odense river basin.  No account has been taken of how the final environmental objectives  It prepared a Pilot River Basin management plan, elaborated input for are to be established and to what extent the derogation provisions of the EU Strategic Steering Group, as well as demonstrated and made the Water Framework Directive are to be utilized since such decisions available the project’s results to other environmental and rural relate to the environmental objectives and the resultant economic development authorities and stakeholders within the EU. consequences.  The project demonstrated how the planning process required by the  The role of the general public was modest during the project's duration; WFD can be carried out from the initial establishment of (provisional) the website made the link to the general public. This was by purpose environmental objectives to the calculation of how the environmental since it was well known, that the actual River Basin Management Plan objectives can be achieved most cost-effectively for the water cycle as a must be put in public hearing. whole, i.e. watercourses, lakes, mires, groundwater and coastal waters.  The reduction rate of nitrogen and phosphorus losses from agriculture  It provided a very cost-effective programme of measures for achieving was criticised by the farmers; the project that turned to an actual River the specified (example) environmental objectives for watercourses, Basin Management Plan, could have targeted a much quicker reduction lakes, wetlands, groundwater and coastal waters (Odense Fjord). rate at negligible economic costs.  The project elaborated the different pressures on the river catchment, developed/compiled a list of cost-effective measures and made an estimate of the economic cost of these recurring measures; €12.7m p.a.  All the project's essential technical and environmental components have been adopted in the Water Management Plan; in this sense the project's impact is clear and visible.  A considerable synergy effect (savings of DKK 21 million) is achieved by integrated implementation of the WFD and Habitats Directive.

Opportunities  The results were (successfully) consolidated in the actual Odense River Basin Management Plan.  The project represents a successful example of the local cooperation and problem-solving in river basin management and is now integrated in the future institutional structure to implement the WFD.  The technical part, defining the "good status" of the water body and the development of a set of measures to reach it might have systemised the beneficiary approach to the WFD implementation. There might be opportunity "sell" the overall approach.  The fact that Denmark has been behind the EU stipulated time schedule in developing the River Basin Management Plans, and thus in delay in utilising the results of this LIFE project might reduce the opportunities the sell the methodology beyond Denmark and indeed there is not much indication that the results were used beyond Denmark.

Threats  There is some uncertainty regarding the establishment of reference conditions, especially for lakes, it having been shown that parameter values could be elevated locally even in for example the Middle Ages.

This could be due to the early impact of society or to natural conditions.

In certain cases it is therefore recommended to establish site-specific criteria for good surface water status rather than type-specific criteria.  For technical and economic reasons the majority of the culverted watercourses are not encompassed by the programme of measures for this plan period. The same applies to reclaimed lakes and marine waters.

Based on qualitative considerations it is assessed that achievement of “good surface water status” in these water bodies during the present plan period would entail disproportionately high costs. The water bodies in question will thus remain as heavily modified water bodies during the present plan period and decisions on environmental objectives and associated measures will be postponed until the next plan period.

LIFE 05 ENV/GR/245 ENVI-Friendly Policies targeted: WFD and Nitrates Directive Strengths  Reducing significantly nitrates, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in the water of pilot areas (through phytoremediation and river bank erosion controls).  Generating awareness among and synergy between local entities for a more sustainable use of water resources.  Very good partnership (13 members), including most relevant local municipalities, research institutes and university, and good synergy with a private consultancy company – to facilitate good project management).  High commitment of regional authority for the successful completion of the project.  Identification of, and dialoguing with, key local stakeholders for the elaboration of an integrated watershed management plan, with a preliminary identification of socio-economic reality.  Synergies between the WFD and the Nitrates Directive and contribution to the Waste Directive (agricultural waste).  Good collaboration with Greek National Authorities.  The creation of monitoring network of the natural attenuation and water management.  Establishment of a Local Development Observatory to ensure results effectiveness and sustainability.

Opportunities  Toolbox developed to be transferable to any region/area suffering from diffuse pollution originating from agricultural practices and from the emergence of the “temporary river” phenomenon.  Transferability of a participatory approach model which emphasises the interaction with farmers and other stakeholders, and social aspects of the region aiming at the identification of the potential for changes towards sustainable management practices.

Weaknesses No weaknesses were identified by the MoT.

Threats  Lack of funding for future activities and the ongoing economic crisis in Greece  Farming communities not wholly engaged who see the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAFP) as their major interest.

     

Establishment of the Local Development Observatory, which gained official status in the last months of the project implementation, to ensure its sustainability.

A new project funded for the integrated management of the Evrotas River Basin (MIRAGE - FP7).

The Evrotas river basin was identified to take part in the EU Pilot River Basin (PRB)-Agriculture network.

The Central Water Agency of the Ministry of the Environment in Greece (the authority responsible for the implementation of the WFD) has shown interest in transferring project results to other Greek river basins.

The water unit of the regional authorities has gained strength following the implementation of the project.

The project stirred interest also in other related themes in the region (e.g. fires, floods).

LIFE 05 NAT/DK/153 Houting Policies targeted: Habitats Directive (Annex I habitat 3260-watercourses characterized by Ranunculion fluitanis and Callitrico –Batrachion communities and Annex II priority species Coregonus oxyrhyncus (Houting). WFD is not specifically targeted, however the project substantially contributes to meeting targets.

Strengths Weaknesses  The project is on course to achieve its main objectives - removing  Interventions were planned at a third hydropower site, but no physical barriers in 4 river systems (ensuring access to app 117 km of agreement was reached with the owner and the action abandoned. water courses), re-establish natural hydrological regime over app 20 km of a major river (Varde) and restoration of physically degraded water courses – estimated some 25 km.  The project targeted the whole range of the priority species (Houting) in Denmark and the EU. Supplementary sites were restored during project duration, through national and private funds.  It builds on the recommendations of National management plans for Houting and Salmon (2003).  The project is expected to lead to an improved condition in 4 Danish Natura 2000 sites housing in addition to Houting a number of other Annex II species.  The project will also provide a number of environmental benefits, including reduction of nutrient loads to the internationally important coastal area, the Wadden Sea and it will assist in meeting the objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive by restoring the continuity and natural water regime of 4 river systems.  Areas restored so far are of good quality and methodology has proved to be efficient  Engagement in international river restoration conferences.

Opportunities Threats  The approach of targeting whole river systems/catchment areas is  Difficulties in purchasing property and water extraction rights through a reproducible, as well as the techniques used and fine-tuned during the voluntary negotiation process. project.  The project will provide experience which could prove valuable for the reintroduction of the Houting in other parts of its natural distribution area, e.g. Germany and the Netherlands.

LIFE 06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); Groundwater Directive is mentioned.

Strengths Weaknesses  The multibarrier technology is one of the options that exist to improve  A demonstration of technology took place that can contribute to water quality (groundwater & surface water) in river basins across removing pollutants from leachate – there is a clear connection with Europe. policy but it does not affect policy directly.  In many cases polluted groundwater contains a mixture of both organic  At a short term, multibarriers are more expensive due to higher and inorganic contaminants. The abatement of such pollutant mixtures installation costs, but at the longer term they become economically is not possible with a simple barrier/zone based on removal of the more favourable than conventional pump & treat technologies. pollutants by either physico-chemical or biological processes. However,  In general, it may be assumed that site characterization, design and such pollutant mixtures might be treated using a combination of contingency planning costs will be higher for a multibarrier than for P&T, different reactive barriers/zones. Such a combination is defined as a whereas operational costs will be lower.

Multifunctional Permeable Barrier (multibarrier). A multibarrier is a  The MULTIBARRIER technology is tailor made, and is dependent on the sustainable in-situ passive solution to contain and treat contaminated pollution present and the hydrogeological situation. groundwater. It consists of a tailor-made combination of different types of permeable reactive barriers and reactive zones in which pollutant removal processes are active. The groundwater flows through the system during which the pollutants are degraded or immobilized. As such multibarriers prevent further spreading of the pollution to the downstream area.  The project aimed at the demonstrating a multibarrier as a sustainable solution for preventing mixed contaminants spreading in groundwater.  It demonstrated the multibarrier concepts at two different locations with different geological situations (a Landfill site and an Industrial site).  For both locations hydrogeological and chemical data were collected and reported, to determine the kind of problem pollutants.  In total 3 pilot tests were performed.  The direct environmental benefit of the multibarrier system is the containment of pollutants in the groundwater, hereby preventing further spreading of the contaminated groundwater.  Cost estimations revealed a decreased cost for electricity of 3 to 4 times for a multibarrier system in comparison with a pump and treat approach for treatment of leachate containing groundwater.

Opportunities  Multibarrier was demonstrated in Belgium and Austria and can be replicated for treating leachate anywhere.  The multibarrier concepts can be worked out for different pollution compositions and different geological situation.  Highly innovative project with a high relevance for environmental issues / policy areas - i.e. the implementation of the WFD.  Estimation of the long-term cost savings & business opportunities related with the multibarrier technology was part of the cost-benefit analyses that were made. Extrapolation of the Belgian multibarrier case to a full scale system was made and compared with a pump and treat technology. For this hypothetical case, a multibarrier became costefficient after approximately 8 years of operation. A similar exercise was made for the Austrian multibarrier. Here the multibarrier became cost efficient after 7 years of operation.  The multibarrier technology is expected to have a positive influence on health, by protecting groundwater from pollution.  The processes demonstrated in the multibarriers designed in this project are innovative:  demonstration of classical biological nitrification/denitrification under in situ conditions (12°C)  the use of grape mark as slow release C-source in a barrier  the use of zeolites as an in-situ buffer with potential for autoregeneration in place  use of cheap diffusive oxygen supply systems.

  



Threats Construction costs depend highly on the type of multibarrier installed (reactive barriers vs reactive zones), and may be either higher or lower than for P&T. However, much depends on the long term performance of multibarriers and potential need for replacement of reactive materials. This remains as yet a major unknown.

Application of multibarriers will likely be slow in the near future, due to the current uncertainty regarding long term performance. Authorities will therefore probably require more stringent monitoring and contingency planning than for conventional techniques.

For successful realisation of multibarriers, a close collaboration is needed between applied scientists, consultants and contractors.

LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN Policies targeted: Floods Directive; Water Framework Directive; INSPIRE Directive.

Strengths Weaknesses  The project significantly contributes to the implementation of the Flood  Local scale demonstration – no national representation in partnership Directive, mainly by demonstrating the optimised and cost effective (up (although neighbouring federal state was engaged with and application to 60 % savings) processing of data and hydraulic modelling of rivers across Germany through LAWA (German Working Group on water issues subject to risk of flooding. of the Federal States and the Federal Government was explored)  The project demonstrated clear added value with regards to the  Not very diverse international engagement (nothing outside of cooperation between water management and land surveying immediate Alpine/German speaking neighbours and Poland) authorities.  Delays were experienced in the area of hydraulic modelling, which did  Better flood risk communication enables information of the public in not diminish the overall project results, but lead to a slightly reduced areas at risk about flood hazards and risks at minimal cost. This also level of reliability and validity of modelling leads to higher acceptance for flood protection measures as well as  The method is generally applicable in areas and regions outside the Alps. increased willingness to take individual precautions.

It is yet to be examined whether it is suitable for the particular  The dissemination and communication activities were implemented well conditions in the Alps (supercritical flow, excessive bed load).

Opportunities Threats  Task 8 Action 1 applied cooperation projects at national and  As a basis for large-scale implementation it was intended to compile the international level (Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia, Poland). Several numerous working documents into a technical handbook providing workshops were held. Suggests that the approach can be transferred on instructions to third parties regarding the processing of basic data as national and international scale, the main precondition being the well as the modelling of flood hazard maps. This process was started availability of hydraulic and geographic data. during the project period, but could not be finalised due to delays. The beneficiary sought additional internal funding to complete this but if  The project provides instruments to water management authorities funding was not found then this would pose a significant threat to which can be used for communication with the public in areas at flood transferability of the methodology developed. risk and only require minor adjustments to the local situation.  The experiences with laser scan data in the area of flood risk management can be transferred to other sectors such as forestry. Also within the sector of water management replicability is high.  The data thinning software is readily available on the market. FloodScan methodology is available at no cost through project website.  The demonstration of the practicability of splitting frontend and backend (of the web-mapping tool) means significant progress in the implementation of the INSPIRE directive.

LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP Policies targeted: No policies specifically targeted. However project relates to Renewables Directive and Water Framework Directive.

Strengths Weaknesses  Committed beneficiary and partner - to solve competition and legal  Project design - (minor weakness) Prolongation for 9 months required, problems, they founded a new company for the project. in order to allow for meaningful bio-monitoring after the implementation of the power plants.  Economic factors driving ecological improvements - the incentive of the beneficiaries was to produce electricity and not to save the salmon. But  Dissemination – (minor weakness) project’s dissemination efforts without saving the salmon they would have not been allowed to seemed to be focussed in Germany – less evidence of EU wide produce electricity. dissemination (although projects in Austria and Netherlands demonstrate awareness outside of Germany).  Multiple benefits across different policy areas - this new system showed that the ecological aspects of the re-establishment of fish passability and bed load transport can be combined with economic aspects, an improvement of the efficiency of hydropower plants and improvements in flood safety/control.  Meeting policy objectives on local/regional/EU/global scale – Technology guarantees the fish passability thus directly fulfilling the goals of the “Rhine Action Programme“, “Salmon 2000“ and “Rhine 2020”. Development of low carbon technology will help to meet Renewables Directive targets and the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

Opportunities Threats  Good potential for transferability - the approach is independent from  Local policy makers/regulators perceptions of hydropower - Potential national/regional aspects. It merely depends on the size and shape of a for the continued resistance of local regulatory authorities to facilitating river. There are 100s of small weirs in Europe that may be suitable for the development of hydropower vs requirements of WFD. this technology. So whilst large scale hydropower dams may no longer be suitable (or viable under WFD), increased numbers of smaller hydropower plants requiring little river diversion could be realised.  Influence local policy makers/regulators perceptions of hydropower Proves that ecological benefits (WFD) and the economic operation of a hydropower plant (RD) are not contradictory.  Promising market uptake - interest from potential buyers of the technology is high. Further plants are planned in The Netherlands (2 x 800 kW), Austria (7 x 650 kW, 12 x 1,300 kW each) and Germany (600 kW and 1,250 kW). Feasibility studies running for 80 plants in Africa.

LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE Policies targeted: WFD (improving water quality in surface waters) Strengths  Successfully demonstrated robust, efficient and simple technologies for removal of pollutants from storm water runoff.  Different technologies for extended treatment of storm-water runoff from small, medium sized and large catchments are demonstrated.  Treatment facilities were constructed as natural and recreational elements on the form of semi-natural lakes that in a positive way contributes to an improved urban environment.  The project demonstrates how storm-water in the future can be treated and discharged to sensitive waters without causing ecological and recreational deterioration.  A practical project implementing policy.

Opportunities  1½-years of monitoring and verification under variable climate conditions make it possible to transfer the technology to a range of European climate conditions.  Two other projects in Denmark funded using results from project.  The technology can also be applied for related purposes such as treating drinking water polluted with for example arsenic or heavy metals or treatment of phosphorous polluted surface waters.

Weaknesses  Local scale demonstration – no national representation in partnership.  Project scope quite narrow/limited and restricted to Denmark.  Expensive option – can only be afforded by water companies/local authorities with good cash resources – works well for Denmark but elsewhere?  Requires extensive background investigations.  The very clear, concrete and well programmed technical implementation overshadowed the policy related thinking.

Threats  Needs follow up (monitoring) which requires continued financing otherwise results might not be effective.  Transferability depends on ability (and desire) of project team to ‘sell’ technology elsewhere.

LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet Policies targeted: WFD (improving surface water quality (chemical)); drinking waters and nitrates in agriculture also mentioned.

Strengths Weaknesses  Identified constraints in setting up artificial wetlands in current legal  Cost of land may be a considerable issue – location has to be carefully framework in 3 different countries (see also threats) chosen to meet hydrological requirements – therefore land may need to be purchased – if good agricultural land could be 100,000€/ha which  Delivered several (11) prototype constructed wetlands in 4 different makes the solution prohibitively expensive countries (high demonstration value)  No institutional partners or national policy makers – legal status of  Effectively addressed some of the issues associated with non-point newly set up wetlands is uncertain – widescale implementation? source pollution from agriculture and storm water run off  Technologies were only prototype and no evidence that the technology  Very good technical guide produced allowing technical reproducibility can be easily reproduced by inexperienced team – especially as product (see also weakness) intended for ‘farm scale’ implementation  Very good non-technical guide covering policy and cost implications  Not clear how technology could be disseminated on a large scale post  Relatively cheap to construct 10,000€ average (but see weaknesses) project Opportunities Threats  Technical guide can be readily transferred to other locations for small  Different countries have different planning and financing requirements – scale implementation also different interpretation of Directives  Possible opportunities lie with the CAP to compensate farmers for loss  Artificial wetlands are not the be all and end all – must be combined of income (see weaknesses) – but not in all countries with good land management as well otherwise results will not be as effective  Intended for use at the local (farm) scale – but would require a huge dissemination programme to make it more widely available  The ArtWet project showed that a harmonisation of the European legislation would be needed to make the setting up of constructed wetlands easier

LIFE 06 ENV IT 235 Kolisoon Policies targeted: WFD (monitoring surface water); bathing waters and groundwater also mentioned.

Strengths Weaknesses  Rapid assessment of fecal pollution  High capital cost for equipment  Reduced consumption and use of disinfectants  Subject to mechanical malfunctions/requires maintenance  Early warning of treatment process malfunctions  Indirect measurement  Early warning and prevention of health hazard  Not recognized officially, to be used for self-control activities  On line monitoring of bathing waters and re-used wastewater  Requires calibration  No need for workforce - fully automated on-line (remote control ready)  Prototype only would need significant investment to fully commercialise device (project had small budget)  Low cost of analysis per sample 2-3€ per sample  No institutional partners to translate results into policy feedback Opportunities  Market replication of Kolisoon device possible (but see weaknesses)  Growth of the microbiological market  Possible feed into the revision of the Bathing Water Directive

Threats  Other detection methods/automated equipment may be hitting the market place  Project partners need to maintain collaboration to bring to commercialisation  No uniformity across countries for standards and methods of testing

LIFE 06 ENV/IT/255 A.S.A.P Policies targeted: No specific policy area targeted but relates to WFD (mismanagement of water resources).

Strengths Weaknesses  Project achieved its objectives of reduced groundwater abstraction by  Local scale only with only regional impacts 10% (achieved 11%) and reduced system losses from leaks by 10%  Dissemination very Italy/Tuscany centric (some in Spain) (achieved 15%). As a result, the negative drawdown trend of the  The protocol cannot be regarded as a solution to the original cause of piezometric level was reversed with an average build-up of + 0.3m from network losses and consequent depletion of water resources: the aging 2005 to 2008 and peaks ranging from 0.5m to 1m. of pipeline infrastructure (see threats)  Energy consumption from pumping were reduced by 10%.  Lots of mentions of improved water quality (reduced risk of pollution  Financial resources for bulk reconstruction and/or rehabilitation of from over abstraction) but no monitoring – project dealt only with water networks are seldom available. More often annual allocations availability, not quality – could be argued as a weakness. suffice just for maintenance plus a limited quota for ongoing rehabilitation. The protocol translates even limited resources into effective action plans for efficient abstraction and leakage cut-down.  The ASAP Protocol raised remarkable interest among (local/regional) public administrators involved in the water management. It was included in the White Paper "A Strategy for Water Supply in Tuscany".  The ASAP model has been replicated already: the water utility of the Fiora Aqueduct (Toscana Region) has adopted the ASAP approach.

Opportunities  Methodology outlined in protocol is readily transferable throughout Europe (especially Mediterranean coastal areas).  One of the main challenges to be addressed in the coming years is ineffective water pricing policies which generally do not reflect the level of sensitivity of water resources. The way forward is putting in place water tariffs based on a consistent economic assessment of water uses and water value, with adequate incentives to use water resources efficiently and an adequate contribution of the different water users to the recovery of the costs of water services. The application of the ASAP protocol may bring about relevant benefits (increasing the life of infrastructure, reduce maintenance costs of facilities, reducing mean time between failures, reducing mean time to restore).

Threats  Limiting factor for the uptake of the protocol elsewhere is the lack of investment available for the renovation of network pipelines (despite the benefits of the protocol (see strengths point 3).

LIFE 06 ENV/NL/167 WET Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); waste water and bathing water also mentioned.

Strengths Weaknesses  Achieving the quality standards included in the WFD for WWTP effluent  Being performed at local scales at the time of the project period– but that needs to be achieved by 2015. As investments in additional could still be widened further. treatment steps were necessary, the project provided insight in all measures that are necessary to achieve these standards.  The technology proposed in the project (additional treatment steps for the WWTP effluent) is very innovative - especially the Advanced Oxidation Processes that are tested in the second research phase - and was not used in any municipal WWTP before.  Established an installation of a water treatment facility in Leiden that can achieve the WFD values for nitrate and phosphate even with the single filter set-up, which would lead to considerably lower costs than the set-up with separate filters for N and P removal.  The use of Advanced Oxidation Processes resulted in a reduction of medical remnants and pesticides by at least more than 70% and in a disinfection level up to the hygienic limits set for in the BW Directive.  The project demonstrated that heavy metals can be removed and additional removal of organic micro-pollutants and suspended solids can be achieved using the same combination of techniques.  The project demonstrated that the further systematic removal of nitrogen (to below 2.2 mg N/l) and phosphorus (to below 0.15 mg P/l) is feasible, including at higher filtration speeds (up to 20 m/h). It is important that the main treatment (which precedes sand filtration) also works well. No clear distinction could be demonstrated between the removal performances of the single and the two-filter concepts.  The study has shown that the combination of the two processes in a single filtration step is quite possible. The single-filter concept can be used both in a continuous sand filter and in a double-layer fixed-bed filter. As one would expect, the possibility of combining the two processes in a single filtration step yields considerable cost savings (about 50%) compared with the two-filter concept.

Opportunities  Results are replicated by other Water Boards in the Netherlands, at the time of the FR, the technology demonstrated in the project had already been used by the beneficiary at two other WWTP's (Leiden Noord and Alphen Noord). Further use of the technology is foreseen at other locations of the beneficiary and by other water management bodies.  Highly innovative project with a high relevance for environmental issues/policy areas - i.e. the implementation of the WFD.  The study that the project prepared has yielded a lot of new information and experience with regard to the further removal of nitrogen, phosphorus and other relevant contaminants using subsequent treatment techniques. Most of the research results can be translated directly to other wastewater treatment plants in the Netherlands and other European countries.



Threats No apparent threats, WFD standards have to be met and this is a sound way of achieving this.

LIFE 06 NAT/P/192 Biomares Policies targeted: Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Marine Protected Areas) Strengths Weaknesses  Information gathered emphasised importance of the marine park.  Lack of a professional Marine Park communication strategy.  Increased knowledge of the biotopes of the marine park and its  Lack of social-economic impact evaluation. vulnerability.  Lack of information on the impact of the protection regulation on  First signs of the reserve effect. adjacent marine habitats/species.  Increased public involvement and awareness of the marine park  Unable to compare all the factors prior to the creation of the marine existence. park.  National seagrass status conservation awareness  Lack of oceanographic information and water quality at local scale.

Opportunities  Lack of a professional Marine Park communication strategy.  Lack of social-economic impact evaluation.  Lack of information on the impact of the protection regulation on adjacent marine habitats/species.  Unable to compare all the factors prior to the creation of the marine park.  Lack of oceanographic information and water quality at local scale.

Threats  Furtive/illegal fishing.  Lack of marine park surveillance.  Funding discontinuities for monitoring.  Changing of politics/ discontinuity of political support to Marine Protected Areas.  Natural catastrophes/increasing of extreme events (floods, warmer seawater etc.)

LIFE 07 ENV/B/038 WALPHY Policies targeted: WFD; Floods Directive.

Strengths  The project directly responds to the WFD (Water Framework Directive) requirements by : - undertaking work to maintain or recover the good ecological status of two water bodies - proposing tools to expand the experience to other water bodies - giving a tool to evaluate preliminary the relevance and efficiency of management measures - being based uppermost on existing and available data and information  The project is part of a regional (Wallonia) plan to implement the WFD – it builds on work already carried out and ecological monitoring at the restored sites will continue after the LIFE project.  Project has benefits in terms of the Habitats Directive (improving conditions for Atlantic salmon, sea trout, eels etc.)  As a result of the communication strategy most of the works were implemented in a positive context and all the necessary permits were granted in the normal time frame without major modifications or requests from stakeholders. In only 3 locations did stakeholder consultation lead to the postponement of the works Opportunities  Demonstration of hydropower working alongside the WFD. Most of the owners of dams are not ready to accept the simple removal of the dams as they are thinking about the establishment of mini hydroelectric power plants to produce green electricity (in the overall context of high energy costs and climate change). In these cases the project has considered/implemented alternatives to dam removal (bypass river or a fish ladder).

Weaknesses  The project does not implement actions towards farmers in relation to nitrogen and phosphorus release from farmland into surface waters (however this should be dealt with by a different department within the regional administration.  Regional beneficiaries – potentially little in the way of dissemination outside of region.

Threats  An important aspect for the implementation of the project is the continuous contact with the provincial authorities: the Provinces are responsible for the management of some categories of rivers and also for the granting of the compulsory authorisations.  Conflicts with land owners (one particular case where a land owner wrote to the EC complaining about restoration measures)

LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST Policies targeted: WFD (quality and quantity of groundwater); Floods Directive and water scarcity also mentioned; data meets INSPIRE requirements.

Strengths Weaknesses  Climate change scenarios that supply the temporal series of  High cost of delivery precipitation, temperature and evapotranspiration for the 21st century  Highly technical implementation involving GIS, modelling and remote that will affect the hydrological balance in the study area sensing – technology transferred via workshops within the project but  Remote sensing techniques based on the elaboration of satellite images question how this might be delivered in sustainable way for technology to determine the water deficit for irrigation of summer crops transfer  Mathematical models of the hydrologic basins and groundwater in the  Web GIS on website currently closed to non-subscribers study area to establish how the hydro-geology will evolve in  Maintenance of national and European stakeholders network for consideration of climate change and determine appropriate measures sustainable management of groundwater (including managed aquifer recharge) to ensure sustainability of groundwater resources.

Opportunities Threats  The applicability of the TRUST methodology by other national and  The primary constraint for the implementation of TRUST is the European stakeholders to improve their groundwater management in availability of data. consideration of future climate change scenarios.  Difficulty in reaching consensus amongst the many stakeholders for the  Sharing of information with regional stakeholders by means of the acceptance of artificial aquifer recharge. Artificial aquifer recharge will Technical Committee that meets periodically and shares information have to compete against other economic activities that use water and about the project through the Web-GIS. This collaborative approach can land resources (excavation sites, flood protection, etc). be exported to other realities;  The political agenda, rather than artificial aquifer recharge, may gain  Sharing of project results (e.g. through the web site). The project area is greater support as adaptation measures. Not a project risk but extremely complex from the hydro-geological and water management potentially a risk for wider application perspectives as it gathers a wide variety of water uses (irrigation,  Difficulties in collaborating with stakeholders. hydropower generation, potable, industrial); therefore project results will find a wide application in many other situations.  Sharing of project data and lessons learnt. The project consortium is committed to inform about the project advancement, the data collection and experiences which can be useful to other stakeholders dealing with groundwater management. At a national scale approximately 70 organisations will be made aware of the results.

LIFE 07 ENV/L/540 M3 Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters).

Strengths  The project mainly works on monitoring and modelling of water quality and reporting for the Water Framework Directive. Water quality models based on real monitoring results are used for estimating the impact of new measures or additional loads on water quality of the water courses; the objective is to create a planning tool.  The most important legislation implication is the link to the Water Framework Directive; the project works on monitoring, modelling and management of water basins in the sense of the WFD.  The beneficiary identified some incoherence between national water monitoring (substances monitored, priority substances) and the requirements of the WFD; the project team participates also to the WFD working groups in order to address this issue.  The M3 project has analysed current monitoring efforts in the 3 partner regions in the light of their pertinence towards pressure identification and quantification in view of the evaluation of successful Programs of Measures (POM).  The main outcomes were that regulators and river basin managers are rather sticking to a threshold motivated monitoring than a monitoring aiming at improving process understanding and source allocation/quantification. The latter are however the prerequisite to initiate successful POM. Monitoring campaigns are needed to confirm the magnitude of a certain pressure, i.e. via the calculation of river loads or the estimation of exposure.  The project is now focusing on the following aspects: - Ability to sample exposure (emission situation) in an integrated way - Quantify ecosystem metrics (metabolism, transient storage) - Serve as water quality model validation dataset - Quantify loads of dynamic components - Circumvent problems related to limits of detection and spatial

Weaknesses  Some weakness in the monitoring system of the water courses.  Insufficient harmonisation of national implementation with the approach of the WFD causes some problems.  The project does not develop specific national or regional approaches; it rather builds on existing regional approaches and develops these further.

  

representativeness The technical capacity of the partner Erftverband is strength because it has a very extensive and advanced monitoring and modelling programme and also a long-term database.

The project focuses on middle and small watercourses, which are much more sensitive to peak loads and other interferences than large ones.

Strength is the commitment; both the beneficiary and the partner assign sufficient qualified personnel and have the necessary scientific background to do their work competently.

Opportunities  The M³ project assesses the applicability of different, standard and custom tailored water emission and emission modelling systems in different water basins. Since water modelling is not very streamlined throughout Europe - some member states, regions or water boards applying their own modelling approach, others simply ignoring water quality modelling -, the results of the project might be very interesting in terms of transferability.  An opportunity is that the project provides enough data and evaluation regarding the inclusion of pharmaceutical substances as priority substances in the WFD.  The M3 project will use existing tools and test them in the field with monitoring data of variable density in catchments of different scale and pollutant load. The chosen river basins are subject to different environmental pressures, are located in three different Member States with differing programs of measures and are covered by distinct monitoring programs. In this way, reliability of model predictions for different program of measures will be demonstrated and it will be shown that the concept is applicable in different Member States and within different river basins.

Threats  No eminent threats are foreseen.

LIFE 07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); waste water and bathing water also mentioned.

Strengths Weaknesses  The project contributes directly to a number of actions specified in the  The operation of Pharmafilter is still to be fine-tuned; the project is onWFD: the reduction of water pollution as a result of urban waste water going. treatment and the improvement of surface water quality by providing a cost effective measure for waste water treatment.  In addition, the project contributes to the 6th environmental action plan: the protection of natural systems; reduction of carbon footprint; and higher level of the living environment.  It provides very innovative new methods to treat hospital waste water.

Independent qualified laboratory research has proved that Pharmafilter removes medicines, germs, cytostatica, röntgen contrast liquids and hormone disturbing substances from the water. Pharmafilter IP uses different purification steps to eradicate and clean the waste water of medicines.  The PHARMAFILTER concept aims at processing solid organic waste and waste water in a hospital environment in an innovative integral manner and will lead to the recycling of components and production of energy.  The Pharmafilter unit that was set up by the project (a mobile unit outside of the hospital that treats hospital waste water and organic waste) is since November 2010 processing all waste water (with human faeces) from building H in the hospital (that constitutes about half of the RdGG hospital). Furthermore since January 2011 the installation has started to process some organic waste (bed pans, kitchen wastes, etc) from one of the grinders that has been connected to the Pharmafilter unit. A second grinder has been installed in March 2011 and another 18 grinders were installed in the period up to September 2011.  The Pharmafilter is currently removing medicinal residues from the waste water and is generating and using a substantial amount of its own energy (60 -70% of energy used by the Pharmafilter is currently being developed by the unit itself through the use of methane) – two key objectives of the project. The beneficiary showed the numerous steps



 



that the hospital waste must go through to be processed and treated by the Pharmafilter. The end result is clean, purified water (including disinfection through ozone) – which at the final stage is apparently clean enough to drink.

The organic material, including the bio-plastic products is digested and the total mass is reduced by 90% in mass. The digestion process converts the sol id mater into biogas. This biogas is used for heating up the digesters and delivers power to the water purification plant.

Digestion process eliminates viruses and bacteria.

Digestion of the waste requires fewer trucks to transport the waste away. The remaining waste will be recycled or turned into a second source of energy. This in today terms diverts waste from landfill and makes for the most efficient use of this waste by generating energy.

The costs prepared by the project show an up to a 90% kitchen waste cost savings and up to 50% savings in hospitals.

Opportunities  The results can in principle be replicated by any hospital.  Highly innovative project with a high relevance for environmental issues/policy areas - i.e. the implementation of the WFD.  Pharmafilter has been patented as concept and working method.  This project aims to demonstrate a new concept that: - Addresses successfully a serious environmental problem: contamination of surface water by endocrine disruptors, personal care products and medical remnants - Offers an cost effective alternative at the source, thus creating a win-win situation for environment and hospital - Is attractive to the direct involved staff, since it offers significant advantages in terms of better working conditions and a significant decrease of risk of contagion.

- Will proof to be economical attractive in the long term - Can be applied to both existing buildings as in new to build buildings for public health care purposes.

 

Threats The project had to ask for prolongation due to a technical problem of setting up the grinder and related overflow which caused delay in implementation.

Attention is needed when staff place the bio-disposables in the grinder.

LIFE 07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive (water quality) Strengths  The improvement of water quality in the Jelonek and Winiary lakes.  Conducted activities have also contributed to the development of macrophytes in the lakes. As a result of conducted activities macrophytes in the lake have been intensively developing in a natural way and it improved water quality.  The biotope quality improvement and biocenosis in lakes environment revived thanks of the macrophytes plantation and reconstruction of fish stock. It reduced the blue-green algae blooming and limited share of algae in the phytoplankton. Thanks to strengthening of the selfregulation mechanism in the lakes it will influence on the further improvement of their quality.  Inventory of the sources of contamination of the lakes and the level of the pollutant load discharged to them.  The project helped to fulfil the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The Directive is aimed e.g. to protect inland resources of surface water with the postulated strategic objective of reaching "good ecological condition of water". Currently the quality of water in the Gniezno's lakes can be considered as in a good ecological condition.  Besides its environmental component, the project has a strong socioeconomic component since it support a recreational use of the lakes.

Winiary Lake is used by the inhabitants of Gniezno as swimming place and it is very popular area for the local citizens during the summer weekends. The Jelonek Lake and park in its vicinity is the place of rest during the week and weekends. The results of the project not only enhance this function, but also reduce the need to travel to other weekend recreation destinations.  Permanent monitoring and active conservation measures: - Seasonal elimination of reeds from the area of inflow to the Jelonek lake, which will take the biogenous stored in the reeds out in the lake;

Weaknesses  Major difficulties for the project were connected to the weather conditions. Weather pattern in 2009 was different than usual, which meant that some of the activities planned for the first half of the year could not be made in due (planned) time. This indicates that weather conditions should be taken into account it the projects of this type (which include physical field works, biological manipulation).

-

Control of the fish stock, control catch of the selected fish species, which will ensure a wide diversity of fish species; Controlled mowing of water plants from the sites around the lakes devoted to recreation; Control of macrophytes and their plantation if needed; Campaign to prevent feeding of aquatic birds.

Opportunities  Implementation of the project will assist in protection of water not only in lakes but through the river also in Drainage Basin of Odra River with its outflow to Baltic Sea.  The applied method of lake rehabilitation - inactivation of phosphorus in bottom sediment is a new method of lake protection. It can be used in most of the cities in Europe where lake eutrophication is the main problem of their degradation.  Rehabilitation of lakes by inactivation of phosphorus in bottom sediments represents ideal applicable method in case of municipal lakes.

It helps to avoid sediment storage and odours emission which are very often during lake dredging. All recultivation procedures are performed from the water surface, posing no risk for the environment or biological life. The method does not require additional area around the lake surface.  It is relatively cheap method and helps to reach progress in the short time. The project in Gniezno shown that the positive results can be obtained even in the case of lakes in very bed condition.  The method can be particularly recommended for shallow lakes.  Because the project reached most of the expected results and the quality of water improved substantially, it has high demonstration value as an effective method of lake rehabilitation.

Threats  Breakdown failure or illegal discharge of sewage into Gnieźniejskiej Struga from which the pollution flows to the lakes. Repeat significant deterioration of water quality could cause that it will not be funds for cleaning up the lakes. This will lead to inhibition of self-purification processes and, in consequence, to further decrease of water condition.  If the water quality deteriorates, protection activities might not be taken.

LIFE 07 ENV/UK/943 PISCES Policies targeted: Marine Strategy Framework Directive Strengths  Generating interest and understanding of the concepts of ecosystem based approaches in a wide and diverse range of stakeholder groups  Working with committed stakeholders to produce guidelines for implementing ecosystems approach  Strong links developed with European Coordinating Group for Marine Strategy (ECGMS) for all member states  Strong links with relevant country Marine Strategy Groups (MSGs) responsible for implementing MSFD nationally  Identification of, and engagement with, key policy stakeholders  Synergies (and conflicts) with DG ENV and DG MARES policies  Links made with other Regional/Local programmes e.g. Baltic Seas Regional Programme  Regular contact with EC FP7 - Making the European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan Operational (MEFEPO) and MESMA (marine Spatial Planning in the EU). PISCES PM also on the Advisory Panel for the KnowSeas project.

Opportunities  Guidelines developed to be transferable to any region/sea area  North Sea Commission wants to adopt PISCES stakeholder model for Northern North Sea (funded by INTERREG)  Two new projects identified for engagement Channel Arc Manche Integrated Strategy (CAMIS) and Options for Delivering Ecosystems Based Marine Management (ODEMM).  Interest generated at MS level through the ECGMS  Need to align MSFD with CFP because MSFD will be regulated by CFP  Dissemination of guidelines through ECGMS and related policy groups – potential transferability significant – potential impact significant

Weaknesses  Balancing national representation within the Celtic Sea Region has been difficult – main stakeholders initially from UK but other countries better represented towards end of project  Engaging with the fishing community has proved exceptionally difficult – lack of input from major group could undermine effectiveness of guidelines

Threats  Fishing communities not wholly engaged (especially industrial fishermen) who see the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as their major interest.  Potential mismatch between the MSFD and the Integrated Marine Policy  MSFD implementation at different stages in different countries UK well ahead of France, Ireland and Spain - Spain focussing on data collection  MSFD implementation different in different countries – Spain (and probably France) will adopt a regional approach – implemented through Regional Councils rather than national approach – could lead to differences in interpretation  Potential confusion amongst stakeholders with so many similar projects  Implementation of MSFD in other sea regions which do not include MS could be problematic for wider implementation

LIFE 08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL Policies targeted: WFD; urban water pollution.

Strengths  The principle of dealing with surface water run-off at source has now been taken to heart in the development and redevelopment of surface run-off systems in many parts of the globe, but there is lack of experience in Southern European countries. In this regard, AQUAVAL aims to extend the use of SUDS to regions where they are not current practice, such as Spain, and in particular to the province of Valencia, with the collaboration of SUDS experts from the University of Abertay (Dundee, Scotland)  Climate change scenarios used to predict future capacity requirements (adaptation to climate change in line with EU policy).  The fact that Diputación Provincial de Valencia participates as a cofinancer in the AQUAVAL project highlights its interest for the issue, and brings in a public body very well positioned to disseminate AQUAVAL progress and results, and promote the wider use of SUDS within the region (However, Diputación Provincial de Valencia has no influence on making SUDs a legal requirement (see weakness point 2)).

Opportunities  Potential benefits to the local area other than improved water quality (economic advantages of use of grey water, reduction in urban-heat island affect (positive impacts for human health) and living roofs supporting biodiversity)  The incorporation of the use of SUDS in urban planning requirements for new developments as a consequence of the results obtained from the project.  The promotion of the use of these techniques and strategies between architects and engineers, ultimately responsible for its incorporation in urban designs.  SUDS can partially alleviate the low capacity of the existing sewage networks, which haven’t been properly adapted to recent urban growth.

Weaknesses  The positive results of these kind of strategies are difficult to show up at this small pilot scale  Local and regional legislation does not enforce the incorporation of these strategies in urban planning projects (although see opportunities point 2).  Difficulties in quantifying the savings generated by these strategies (in waste water treatment plants a result of reduction of water flows or environmental benefits by reductions of waste water run offs)  Urban planners and designers do not know these techniques and they are not included in the design of the standards.

Threats  Financing difficulties in local entities make these kind of projects (SUDS in general) something difficult to afford and could threaten the future maintenance of the pilot sites.  Great variability on local weather conditions, which make the specification of these facilities very difficult. Climate change is making existing historical weather data useless in some cases of very extreme events (they seem to be more frequent now)  The sewage networks have not been adapted to cope with high levels of urban growth of recent years, which aggravate run off episodes, which creates an opportunity.

LIFE 08 ENV/GR/551 PURE Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive; Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Strengths Weaknesses  The upgraded Waste Water Treatment Unit (WWTU) that will be  The WFD and UWWTD are clearly stated in the proposal but their link to constructed by the project is not only a demonstration action for others, the project activities is not clearly articulated. but a permanent investment, the continued use of which is secured  Despite excellent dissemination at a national level in Greece and some after LIFE. dissemination in Cyprus, little international dissemination (either in  Project has been very active in raising awareness of the local target Southern Europe or non-EU semi-arid regions as mentioned in the groups (farmers, tourists, local communities) through a range of proposal). interactive means.

Opportunities Threats  A new Joint Ministerial Decision on wastewater reuse, was issued in  The administrative reform “Kallikratis” led to delays in the April 2011 (MoT considers that this development is not due to the announcement of the tenders for upgrading the WWTU and has project’s lobbying efforts, but is not certain). Nevertheless the increased bureaucracy especially with respect to the approval of beneficiary has indicated that since the issue of the JMD there has been expenses, while hiring of personnel is next to impossible. a growing interest of Municipal Enterprises for Water & Wastewater  An important threat to the project’s replication in other Municipal across the country on the project. The beneficiary has been advised (in Enterprises for Water & Wastewater in Greece in the future is the the latest EC letter) to discuss the implications of this JMD and indicate financial crisis. how the project will capitalise on this opportunity for the dissemination  Potential for strong opposition from end users to pay a specific price (or and demonstration of the project's methods and results to the relevant any price) for the wastewater. May threaten the long-term economic stakeholders. So the project does have the potential to be replicated on viability of the upgraded water distribution system, but also the a wider scale in Greece (provided funds are available). potential replication of the approach.  The administrative reform “Kallikratis” that came into effect in Greece as of 01/01/11 and as a result of which the Municipal Enterprise for Water & Wastewater of Chersonissos (MEWWC), was unified with the Municipal Enterprise for Water & Wastewater of Malia (MEWWM). The unification of the two enterprises is an opportunity in that the project has the potential of expanding to the former Municipality of Malia (but not within the project duration).  Potential for replication outside of Greece in other Southern European and non-EU semi-arid regions (if not the technology then certainly the public engagement and environmental monitoring approach developed).

LIFE 08 ENV/IT/390 ECOMAWARU Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); waste water also mentioned.

Strengths Weaknesses  Development of a water and wastewater management scheme adopting  Very local scale – needs to be taken up by water authorities/companies phytodepuration with micro algae. Technique allows a significant to make major difference improvement in the quality of the final effluent that is eventually reused  No cost benefit analysis envisaged – must be economically viable as well for irrigation purposes. as environmentally good solution to ensure take-up on wider scale  Implementation of two treatment plants at different scales. Urban  Permits required – could be an issue in some places catchment area, designed to treat only a portion of the entire wastewater flow. Rural areas treating the entire wastewater flow.  Elaboration of a draft proposal regarding the use of phytodepuration technique with micro algae to be included in the Varese Ligure Municipal Building Code (to be submitted for approval to the Municipal Council).  Handbook collecting the Best Practices in water and wastewater “green” management. In particular the handbook will contain the technical documentation about design, installation, maintenance, management and control procedures of the phytodepuration system using micro algae.

Opportunities Threats  The application of micro-phytodepuration systems could be  Possible risk in the project implementation is the selection of microalgae advantageous because they need smaller surfaces than the macrophyte species to be inoculated in the photobioreactor and in the pond. The processes and because they obtain a product with added value, the selection could be limited, because a microalgal death or a microalgal biomass, which could be directly re-used in agriculture as contamination of the culture by undesired species can occur. nitrogenous fertiliser or, depending on the quality and quantity, used for  Design constraints of specific field conditions encountered could be producing chemicals, animal feeds or bio-diesel. problematic to wider scale replicability.  The new technologies developed by the project are easy to manage and ecologically friendly. They could be integrated in rural communities, with the aim to develop a standardised methodology for the global water management, applicable to other similar backgrounds.

LIFE 08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive Strengths  Generating synergy between local institutions and enhancing local decision making for a more sustainable use of water resources.  Launching of a wide participatory approach to local environmental and water-related decision making (in line with WFD requirements and with biodiversity considerations), among all relevant stakeholders (school pupils, farmers, and urban residents).  The creation of wide databases on water use and management in the area, never collected and homogenised before (including also GIS mapping), in line with WFD requirements.  The creation of a series of guidelines and action plans for implementing a more sustainable approach for water management.  Dialoguing with local stakeholders to define an Environmental Regeneration Programme for the area.  Applying a (SEA) of the Programme, in an attempt to change regional policies which currently do not foresee such a process.  Very good local representation of most important relevant stakeholders in the partnership (local authorities – both in urban and rural areas, a land reclamation authority, and a national park).  Synergy with a private consultancy company – good project management.

Opportunities  Guidelines and approach developed to be transferable to similar areas, which underwent serious hydro morphological changes and reclamation works  Lazio Region could adopt the Strategic Environmental Assessment approach as a common practice for any local Action Plan.  Improving the already existing monitoring network with new monitoring stations and protocols, fine-tuned to the requirements of the WFD.  The four created pilot sites contribute to a decrease in the pollution of water in the area or to the launching of similar small-scale initiatives.

Weaknesses  Lack of regional representation in the partnership to guarantee real regional policy impact and, in general, low profile synergies with regional/national/European decision making processes and legislation frameworks.  Engaging with the agricultural community and local farmers has proved quite difficult as the only way to contact them is through trade associations or other third parties. General lack of interest on their behalf means low potential impact on agricultural practices.

Threats  Farming communities not wholly engaged who see the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAFP) as their major interest.  Delays to the need to homogenise data collected from many types of data owners.  Project foresees a series of on-site structural interventions which require long authorisation procedures - might lead to long delays.  Maintenance costs of the pilot sites or costs of the application of the non-binding guidelines might be considered as too high by future local policy makers.

LIFE 08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT Policies targeted: WFD (River Basin Management Plans, Programme of Measures also mentioned) Strengths Weaknesses  Improvement of RBMPs covering a number of water body types, which  Depends on large amounts of accurate data being available are representative of Italian water courses and lakes, through the  Data compiled into database – fields and specifications as part of the introduction of innovative measures that account for project - not certain how this can be accessed post project hydromorphological and habitat information;  Some areas quite complex in terms of data requirements and how data  Quantification of the natural variability in undisturbed conditions of is managed and interpreted selected hydromorphological, habitat and physio-chemical features,  Modelling of results required – how could this be achieved for wider which are known to have a significant effect on biological communities; implementation  Quantification of factors that affect ecological status classification;  To put into practice the latest approaches and methods for the collection of WFD-compliant data, classification of ecological status and technical implementation of management plans in the study catchments;  To update existing management plans to include measures related to hydro-morphological and habitat condition.  Suggestions for improvement of RBMPs and Programmes of Measures as far as uncertainty in classification issues is concerned  Opportunities Threats  The outcome of the project will serve as a basis for the implementation  Wider application requires buy-in from regional authorities and other of RBMPs over larger areas of Italy and, possibly, the whole of Europe agencies – not guaranteed

LIFE 08 ENV/PL/517 EH-REK Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive (water quality, urban water ecosystems).

Strengths Weaknesses  The project area comprises the riverbed section of the Bzura River and  The project is in an early phase, so it is not evident yet what the results the complex of reservoirs in Arturówek, which is one of the primary are and why it will be unique. recreational sites for Łódź population of one million people.  It will be not possible to promote the proposed method if it will not be  The project introduces an innovative approach to: effective in Lodz.

- consolidation of knowledge about the functioning of urban water ecosystems; - planning and decision-making methods as used in the management of urban water ecosystems, - the developed and utilised eco-hydrologic technologies and their synergy in order to accomplish goals prescribed in the EU Directives and the - implementation of a system for training, dissemination of knowledge and cooperation based on joint actions of a multistakeholder platform.  The project will provide better knowledge about the possibilities of applying hydro-ecological methods to sustainable water management in urban areas.  Another aim of the project is to establish the network of piezometers needed for underground water quality and to purchase equipment needed for on-site analysis and for demonstration and education activity.  The beneficiary is establishing a monitoring system to assess effectiveness of re-cultivation activity. The monitoring activity includes: - physical and chemical analysis (for waters every two weeks, and possibly additionally after heavy rainfall, bottom sediments twice a year); - biological analysis (phytoplankton and zooplankton every two weeks if the weather is warm and once a month if its colder, fish twice a year at least), - toxicological analysis (blue-green algae toxins and dioxins once a



month at least, more often when blue-green algae are blooming).

- The results of the monitoring will be used to construct and calibrate the mathematical model.

The study of the project will implement a systemic approach that will: - analyse threats and opportunities faced by the reservoir catchment area; - harmonise ecologic biotechnologies and technological innovations; - apply the principles of eco-hydrology as an interdisciplinary science.

Opportunities  The eco-hydrology method presents an innovative approach. If it will be effective in the project, it could be widely promoted in the EU.  The provided model system will also be used for training at three levels: - the city – for the Łódź platform of stakeholders representing the water sector (the “Learning Alliance” group established under the European project SWITCH), - the country – for the personnel of Voivodeship Inspectorates for Environmental Protection and Regional Water Management Boards, municipalities, and investors, and - International – as part of training delivered by the University of Łódź and other scientific and research institutions to UNESCO IHP trainees.

- It will provide better knowledge about the possibilities of applying hydro-ecological methods to sustainable water management in urban areas among the society and decision makers.

Threats Not yet evident.

LIFE 09 ENV/FR/593 WateRtoM Policies targeted: WFD (potentially all areas); Floods Directive.

Strengths  Gathering together innovative solutions that could help to implement the water directives  Bringing solutions to the market place in 3-5 years instead of the 10 years it takes to date  Have developed reasonable networks and interest among the Administrators and SMEs to date  Opportunities  Contact the research promotion agencies to better analyse their dissemination strategies potentially could lead to a better match between research output and delivering water directives  The tools and strategy developed by the WateRtoM team seems, so far, easily transferable to other sector  The impact will gather the water research information in one place (website) to save time and energy to find the adequate innovation needed.

Weaknesses  Reluctance from people inside the scientific community to share their results outside the scientific community  Mot of results from a research project are cited as publications – limited dissemination  A lot of projects concentrated their research on solving local problems and such a project produces results that are not directly transferable Threats  Difficult to identify real outputs (that could assist implementation of the Directives) from research outputs  Research does not always translate to marketable products – highlights the gap between research and practical application  Lack of available information in public domain concerning suitable projects  Downturn in economies mean that prospective users want to invest only in approved, perfectly working solution and devices - their acceptance of innovative solution has very often limited confidence

LIFE 09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER Policies targeted: WFD (monitoring surface water); Nitrates Directive Strengths  Cleanwater represents a real link with the WFD and Nitrates Directive  The project intends to evaluate the future trends of the quality of the water bodies, to measure their effectiveness and the development of other sources of nitrogen in the study area considering the climatic evolutions. The project intends to use a holistic approach for the water management by integrating in the GIS environment the international competitive models and the identified sources of pollution.  The project will demonstrate in an inter-disciplinary frame, the meaning of an integrated GIS system that will be capable to inter-correlate all information, and how it can be used for the designation of nitrates vulnerable zones.  Mathematical modelling for surface water-soil- groundwater will be used for a proper analysis of nitrates transfer between the water bodies.  Biological and chemical results obtained in the framework of monitoring network as well as the data completion using field campaign are the important factors in analysis of chemical and ecological status of water at Barlad basin level.  Analysis of monitoring data, field campaigns, mass balance and dynamic modelling represent important tools, included in the project, for the identification and quantification of human activities impact.  Open –GIS system developed in the project offers the possibility for economic analyses of cost-recovery of water services and costeffectiveness of measures to achieve the environmental objectives.  Mathematical models with GIS interface will be used for analyse the scenarios related to the effect of changes concerning the land use, water usage and water abstraction, point and diffuse pollution.  The project offer support for: i) design the monitoring program of Romanian waters, ii) a good understanding of farmer’s activities as nitrate pollution source , iii) design the program of measures for the villages.

Weaknesses  Requires hand-monitoring at all sites that takes a lot of effort and time  Needs strong collaboration with the water authorities.  Not all farmers want to cooperate.

Opportunities  The project will contribute to a national approach methodology for delineation of vulnerable zones to the nitrogen pollution, at river basin level.  The long – range objective of CLEANWATER Project is to contribute to the development of a modern Romanian water management system by elaboration of a completely integrated system as basis for the Barlad River Basin District Management Plan according to EU legislation (especially Water Framework Directive) and by gaining the knowledge and experience to be used later in management of other river basins of Romania.  The Cleanwater team intends to assist the replication of the developed Open-GIS system at whole country level, like a support for the implementation of Nitrates Directive.  Currently, the information obtained so far by the project is used for the WISE reporting, thus the analysis results obtained will improve the Romanian reporting for the WFD.

Threats Too early to identify

LIFE 09 ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE Policies targeted: No areas directly targeted but project is related to WFD and Renewables Directive Strengths Weaknesses  The beneficiary (International Hydropower Association) provides a  Criticism of the Protocol itself – it is designed to only deal with individual strong platform for EU-wide (and global) stakeholder engagement and hydropower developments on a site-by-site basis, it does not look at has been proactive in exploring the links between the WFD (DG ENV), strategic resource utilisation and environmental impacts at a river basin Renewables Directive (RD) (DG ENER) and hydropower development. level.  IHA has a close relationship with designated national authorities within individual EU member states, and is in close contact with many of the agencies responsible for regulating hydropower operations at EC level.

Furthermore, its membership is made up of hydropower operators and developers, and the IHA has broad membership reach within the EU. The project has so far obtained active participation from major EU-based energy generators (E.On and EDF).

Opportunities  The project is keen to explore the possibility of the Protocol (or at least its holistic approach to sustainability) feeding into regulators' assessments of river quality as part of the WFD and informing future revisions of the Directive. The beneficiary argues that the WFD’s focus on ecological status (an area that is likely to be adversely impacted by hydropower developments) ignores the positive environmental benefits of hydropower that are realised under the scope of other Directives (i.e RED/reduced GHG emissions) and, indeed, other social and economic benefits.  The application of the Protocol is highly transferable to any scale and type of hydropower installation (within the EU or globally) but only on a site-by site basis (see weaknesses).  The Protocol could become a standard methodology for the assessment of hydropower sustainability performance in the EU and globally (this is the beneficiary’s ultimate goal).  The beneficiary initially saw the LIFE support received and the application of the Protocol in the EU as a means of endorsing the

Threats  The interpretation of the WFD at national level is having direct consequences on the approval of new projects and allocation of concessions and permissions for hydropower development in the EU. This is impacting the project’s ability to test the application of the Protocol on EU hydropower schemes in the concept, design and build phases (applications have been limited to existing operational installations). It may also be the reason for the fact that only 2 EU based operators have signed up to test the Protocol but uptake globally has been far easier to obtain (incl Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Brazil SE Asia).  Negative perceptions of the project’s investigation/assessment of the WFD - from discussions with various stakeholders, the beneficiary is aware that the WFD is generally well regarded within the EU. The beneficiary, as a hydropower industry representative, is therefore conscious of not appearing to be too critical of the WFD (this is despite the fact that the Protocol has been developed with a number of Governments and international NGO’s).

Protocol (as it perceives the EU to be at the forefront of global water policy), and hence increasing its uptake within the EU and globally (however, so far in practice the uptake of the application of the Protocol has been greater outside of the EU (see threats)).

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Despite repeated attempts, the project has so far been unable to secure the active participation of an EU based regulatory body (ARH-Norte in Portugal showed interest but have yet to actively participate). Engaging with regulatory bodies may help to reduce the barriers of the local interpretation/application of the WFD.

LIFE 07 INF/UK/032 RESTORE Policies targeted: WFD (ecological status of surface waters); Habitats Directive; Floods Directive Strengths Weaknesses  Development of a network linking policy makers, river basin planners,  ECRR has a rotating secretariat (i.e. UK, NL, IT etc). Its management is practitioners and experts across Europe to share information and good not secured. practice on river restoration activities.  Ensuring that the difference between the science and research led  Creation of a database of river restoration projects, providing networks (e.g. Deltares funded by FP7) and the practitioner network understanding of policy opportunities and constraints, the effectiveness approach led by RESTORE continues to be recognised and links between of restoration methods, design issues and project costs/benefits; the networks are maintained  To build up existing river restoration network capacity. Several river  Possibly too much of a cosy club restoration networks are already established. Strong link to ECRR and  Has to get the final product right –or else the effort is wasted want to ‘morph’ project results into a rejuvenated ECRR  Based on earlier work: partnership was well known to each other  River restoration is high on the agenda in many countries Opportunities  The production of communication plans at regional and European level;  Preparatory reviews of current policy, planning and project activity;  The development of a river restoration handbook to be published in print and online form;  Close association with European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR) could ensure longevity of project after LIFE  To establish a project of sufficient weight to attract long term funding  To showcase a number of high profile case studies

Threats  Problems with technical delivery (expertise not available, incomplete data sets, evaluation too complex, lack of ICT facilities/knowledge etc)  Communications (lack of response by MTA, language barriers, inconsistent messages, poor turnout at events, etc)  Environmental (e.g. demand for energy generation outweighs environmental issues in rivers) *Link to Hydro4LIFe assessment  Maintenance of national and European stakeholders network for sustainable river restoration programmes

LIFE 10 ENV/DE/158 HWC - Jenfelder Au Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); quantitative water management; Directives on reduction CO2, improvement of energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Strengths Weaknesses  Demonstrate an integrated wastewater disposal and energy generation  Cost of delivery – high capital cost of project (700 apartments – total system; cost 16,746,974€ = 24,000€ per apartment)  Minimise the dilution of sewage with drinking water (flush) by the use of  Highly technical – may be difficult to replicate vacuum toilets within an urban district;  Designed for apartment blocks – could it be transferred to other types of housing stock?  Improve water quality, i.e. preventing rain and grey water from being polluted with black water;  Project part f new build – does it have the potential for retrofit to older  Save energy by systematically treating and utilising separated buildings wastewater streams. This will be done by preventing energy consuming wastewater processing;  Demonstrate an innovative decentralised energy generation concept based on a biogas plant and a combined heat and power plant, in combination with solar and geothermal plants. The concept will demonstrate the potential to minimise the use of non-renewable energy sources and the potential for energy generation based on separation of black water;  Prepare for future phosphorus and nitrogen recovery and effective elimination of micro pollutants such as pharmaceuticals.

Opportunities Threats  Potentially transferable to other similar housing systems  Obtaining planning permission for solar and ground heat energy supplies  Environmental and economic cost benefit analysis included – potential viability of the scheme can be assessed

LIFE 10 ENV/ES/521 AQUATIK Policies targeted: –WFD and Environmental Quality Standards Directive (in particular monitoring of priority pollutant from Waste Water Treatment Facilities). Also related to Environmental Liability Directive; European pollutant release and transfer register (PRTR); REACH; IPPC Strengths Weaknesses  Coordinating beneficiary has 5 other LIFE funded waste water treatment Too early to identify related projects (good past experience of LIFE).  7 Priority pollutants targeted (out of 33) – these 7 represent a good range and generally found across Europe  Conventional chemical monitoring is not likely to detect potential impacts and does not offer early warning systems of water contamination and early changes on aquatic ecosystems. The limitations of the conventional techniques (costly, labour-intensive, fails to detect temporal concentrations...) can be overcome with innovative techniques developed under this project.  A methodology for monitoring the target compounds that takes into account different situations in different European regions will be established. This should contribute to the implementation of WFD by proposing to Waste Water Treatment Plant Operators a technological solution for monitoring their discharges to receiving water bodies.  Different project activities are planned to reach stakeholders, general public and research community interest, both during the project and after the project end. Widespread transfer of project outputs and knowhow directly to stakeholders and industries related to the wastewater treatment sector throughout Europe is planned.

Opportunities Threats  The selected case study of the project is the Barcelona area, due to the  Stakeholders – those identified so far are all based in Spain/Catalonia high presence of priority pollutants, the high concentration of industrial (and all three beneficiaries are based in Spain too). The project has area, population and agriculture and the proximity to the project planned to engage widely in Europe but should this fail then the project partners. However, the geographical scope is Europe and the may remain localised. applicability and transferability will be studied during the AQUATIK  The beneficiary has many ongoing LIFE projects – this may overstretch project. its capacity (both financial and personnel).

LIFE10 ENV/IT/394 WARBO Policies targeted: WFD (quality and quantity of groundwater, also water scarcity mentioned).

Strengths Weaknesses  The WARBO project will facilitate the regulation of AR and to respond to Too early to identify. the need to safeguard, protect and enhance water and land ecosystems.

The test phase will concentrate on sites with AR problems that host ecosystems of community interest where urgent measures are needed to combat water scarcity.  The project will develop specific experimental protocols that will define the administrative procedures to be followed, and will specify how to manage recharge activities. The protocols will concern direct (hydrogeological, geochemical & isotopic) and indirect (geophysical and remote sensing) methods, and will be applied to two main macro-areas.  Definition of the recharge method, development of a model to evaluate the response of aquifers, and assess the WARBO methods in test areas;  Assessment of the impact of AR on: 1) degradation of organic substances due to the input of high quality water; 2) increase in the piezometric level of the aquifer, which can thus resume its feeding functions instead of its draining-only functions without conveying surface water contaminated by human activities towards the aquifer ; 3) protection of the environmental characteristics of rivers and streams as a result of the recovery of the feeding functions of AR aquifers;  Reduction in subsidence caused by withdrawal of underground water;  Use of aquifers as water storage and transport systems as an alternative to building dams and costly water-supply systems;  Transfer of knowledge with a view towards the acquisition of data and the management of AR for geothermal purposes;  Development of reliable models for managing AR activities Opportunities Threats Too early to identify.  The applicability of the WARBO methodology by other MS  Development of new regulations for aquifer recharge that could be adopted throughout Europe

LIFE10 NAT/AT/016 Netzwerk Donau Policies targeted: Habitats Directive (17 species); Birds Directive; WFD (incl. Austrian National Water Management Plan); Ramsar Convention.

Strengths Weaknesses  Private sector beneficiary running a €14.5m project to contribute to the Too early to identify. implementation of Austria’s National Water Management Plan/strategy for the Danube.  Beneficiary has carried out 2 basic feasibility studies of the project at its own expense prior to the project to ensure greater chance of success.  Beneficiary has previous experience of running LIFE projects.  The project is designed to be a complimentary component of a larger strategy for the Austrian Danube and its tributaries.

Opportunities  “The project is not only a milestone for Austria: it is an important guidepost along the path toward improving the Danube in all of Europe.” The project is intended to provide an example at the international level. The method practised in Austria, i.e. the technical method of the project as well as the strategic approach of developing a complete plan covering a large region from a large number of individual measures (including LIFE Nature projects), is intended as an example for other countries bordering on the Danube.  Measures to improve habitat in and to interlink Natura 2000 regions of Austrian Danube  Over the long term, the ecological benefits realised in the Austrian Danube could be felt upstream and downstream beyond the borders of Austria, in this way having positive radiating effects for neighbouring regions as well.

Threats Too early to identify.