EU Life+ - Final Report

(Projects submitting final reports after 1 January 2014 must use this format.)

LIFE Project Number

LIFE10 INF/MT/000091 FINAL Report Covering the project activities from 01/10/2011 to 31/03/2014 Reporting Date

03/07/2014 LIFE+ PROJECT NAME or Acronym

EU LIFE+ Investing in Water Project Project Data Project location

Malta

Project start date:

01/10/2011

Project end date:

31/03/2014

Total Project duration (in months)

30

Total budget

€ 334,642

Total eligible budget

€ 314,298

EU contribution:

€ 157,149

(%) of total costs

47%

(%) of eligible costs

50%

Beneficiary Data Name Beneficiary

Malta Business Bureau

Contact person

Mr. Joe Tanti

Postal address

Cornerline, Dun Karm Street, Birkirkara, BKR 9039, Malta

Visit address

Cornerline, Dun Karm Street, Birkirkara, BKR 9039, Malta

Telephone

00356 21 251 719

Fax:

N/A

E-mail

ceo@mbb.org.mt / info@mbb.org.mt

Project Website

www.investinginwater.org

Instructions: The final report must be submitted to the Commission no later than 3 months after the project end date.

One paper and one electronic version of the report is sufficient for the Commission. These documents must be sent in identical versions also to the monitoring team. The report must also be sent to the national authority.

Please refer to the Common Provisions annexed to your grant agreement for the contractual requirements concerning a final report .

1. List of contents Contents 1. List of contents ................................................................................................................... 2 2. Executive Summary (maximum 5 pages) .......................................................................... 3 3. Introduction (1 page) .............................................................................................................. 7 4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages) ................................................................................ 9 4.1 Description of the management system ........................................................................... 9 4.2 Evaluation of the management system ........................................................................... 11 5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages) .................................................................................... 12 5.1. Technical progress, per task .......................................................................................... 12 5.2 Dissemination actions .................................................................................................... 18 5.2.2 Dissemination: overview per activity ................................................................. 18 5.3 Evaluation of Project Implemention .............................................................................. 46 5.4 Analysis of long-term benefits ....................................................................................... 59 6. Comments on the financial report ........................................................................................ 62 6.1. Summary of Costs Incurred ........................................................................................... 63 6.3. Partnership arrangements (if relevant) .......................................................................... 66 6.4. Auditor's report/declaration ........................................................................................... 66 7. Annexes ................................................................................................................................ 68 7.3.1 Layman's report ........................................................................................................... 70 7.3.2 After-LIFE Communication plan – for LIFE+ Biodiversity and LIFE Environment Policy and Governance projects ....................................................................................... 70 7.3.3 Other dissemination annexes ................................................................................... 70

2

2. Executive Summary (maximum 5 pages) Briefly describe the project objectives, key deliverables and outputs, and include a paragraph summarising each chapter of the main report. This summary should be a standalone text and must be provided in English as well as in the language in which the rest of the report is written.

The project’s objectives were to bring about a 10% decrease in water consumption amongst 20% of its target audience. This was to be done through identification and dissemination of best practice amongst hotels and businesses. The project’s key messages were identified as being; groundwater as an essential resource; climate change as a threat to water supply in Malta; EU water policy; reverse osmosis as an energy-intensive and expensive alternative water source; and best practice solutions. An increase in awareness of these key messages was expected by the project end.

To bring these objectives about the project focused strongly on direct contact with enterprises, particularly through Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings, C5 – Workshops and E2 – Monitoring or Project Progress. Additionally, media work particularly under Action F4 – Press Releases, also supported by Actions C4 – Media Features and F5 – TV and Radio Appearances, was also prioritised for target audiences to adopt water saving solutions recommended by the project.

With regards to awareness increase amongst the target audience, three surveys as part of Action E1 – Monitoring Project Impact, Surveys of Target Audience were carried out by MISCO, an independent market research company engaged by the project. The 1st survey in 2012 established a baseline, the 2nd in 2013 monitored progress and informed project actions, and the final survey in 2014 evaluated overall impact. The surveys show that awareness of all key messages has increased, with the exception of the EU Policy, amongst decision takers by 2014 over the baseline in 2013.

Furthermore the surveys show that there was an increase in the adoption of the water saving best practices recommended by the project. The partners therefore believe that the project was successful in its overall objectives of raising awareness leading to take action on water savings.

With regards to the target of water savings, as part of Action E2 – Monitoring Project Impact, Environmental Problem Targeted, data on water consumption by individual enterprises was collected. Baseline data was taken to be either 2011 or 2012 (depending on which year companies submitted), and savings calculated based on 2013 and 2014 data, also taking into consideration in which year interventions were implemented. Roughly 80% of the 136 enterprises which participated in the water audits carried out as part of Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings, also submitted water consumption data.

The data showed that of the 136 enterprises, 11 were already best practice water saving enterprises, and a further 28 could implement water saving measures for which the financial savings were so small that the enterprise considered them to make too poor a business case.

14 enterprises adopted water saving measures over the project life, with a further four known to the project to be implementing recommendations, but not having completed the

3

intervention till after the project’s conclusion in March 2014. Of the 14, two companies are BOV and HSBC – Malta’s largest employers after government, operating a combined total of around 70 premises. Verification of savings was only completed for the head premises of each, due to resource limitations of the project. Given that both implemented water saving measures in all their premises (with some implementation extending to beyond the project’s close), savings can therefore be expected to be larger than estimated at project close.

Furthermore, another hotel chain which implemented water savings, exported the project recommendations to their hotels outside of Malta, thus further increasing the savings total in other countries (both EU and non-EU).

The results show average savings of a staggering 28%, by 14% of the target enterprises for which savings were feasible. The total amount of water being saved is 96,197,000 (96 Million) litres per annum. Furthermore, an additional two enterprises which were audited by the project adopted water saving measures on their own initiative. Although the project worked with them in identifying opportunities and making recommendations, since these enterprises were planning to implement water saving measures prior to the project’s collaboration, it was felt that they should not form part of the 14 which adopted best practice following project collaboration. However, the partners feel that the project’s contribution and support helped encourage the projects, particularly as in both cases, the interventions were increased in scope following the project’s promotion of these enterprises as ‘best practice case studies’ amongst peer enterprises and stakeholders. If their savings are also added to those of the 14 which adopted project recommendations, the total figure for savings increases to 145,000,000 litres per annum. This is enough to operate 5 of the larger enterprises comprising the list of 136 enterprises audited by the project. Furthermore, an additional four enterprises are still in the process of adopting project recommendations.

With regards to the targets of 20% of enterprises adopting best practice leading to a 10% reduction, the figures are therefore 14% of enterprises leading to a 28% reduction. While the project achieved a figure just short of one target, it exceeded the other by just under 300%.

A particular strength of the project was its reception by various stakeholders contacted as part of Action A5 - Networking. Amongst these collaboration with the Chamber of Engineers, Malta Tourism Authority, Ministry for Energy and Conservation of Water/Ministry for Energy and Health and Ministry for the Economy, Investment and Small Business in particular stand out.

The CoE were members of the Steering Committee over the project’s life, and also supported the project disseminate key messages and information to their members. This was seen by the partners as particularly important for two reasons; as engineers, many of their members would also be technical people within the project’s target audience; and some of their members work within enterprise support industry, i.e. industry which provides the project’s target audience with equipment or services relating to water consumption. The CoE contributed by participating in Action C3 - National Water Conference, C5 – Workshops, and also invited the project manager to present key messages, best practice and project findings at their annual conference in 2012.

The MTA (Malta Tourism Authority) were also very supportive of the project. Apart from sitting on the project’s Steering Committee, they also promoted the project’s workshops amongst Malta’s hotels. Most importantly, they signed an agreement where they recognised that hotels collaborating with the project (to the project’s satisfaction) would meet water

4

related criteria for the award or maintenance of Malta’s Eco-Certification scheme for hotels a GSTC recognised scheme. MTA also invited the project to present key messages, best practice and findings at their Eco-Certification annual seminar of 2012 and 2013.

MECW/MEH is the ministry responsible for water conservation in Malta. The project was in regular contact with Mr. Manuel Sapiano (Head of Water Policy) throughout the project’s life.

Mr Sapiano and his staff provided valuable input on several actions, including F4 – Press Releases, C4 – Feature Articles, F6 – Layman’s Report, C3 – National Water Conference, and A5 – Networking. The ministry also invited the project to several ministry events relating to water, most notable of which was an invitation to present key messages, best practice and findings for the National Conference for the launch of public consultation on the National Water Management Plan in March 2014. Recommendations by the project, based on information and findings gained from enterprises, were presented to the ministry in March 2014, and by May 2014 the ministry confirmed that the project recommendations were to be integrated into Malta’s National Action Water Plan – letter of confirmation is attached under Annex 7.3.3.2.

The project was also well received by the shadow spokespeople of the two main opposition parties. Both Hon. MP George Pullicinio from the Partit Nazzjonalista as well as Carmel Caccopardo from the Alternativa Demokratika have written blog posts praising industry’s achievements through the project and the project’s efforts.

MEIB’s contribution to the project was in recognising the project’s value to enterprises in supporting an increase in resource efficiency. The MEIB awarded the MBB the 2014 National Enterprise Support Award for the project’s work. The MBB will now be participating in the European Enterprise Support Awards in November.

In addition, for the project’s contribution to its target audience, the project manager was selected by the European Projects Association for ‘European Projects Association will hand in the ‘2014 Award for outstanding achievements in development of the EU through European Projects‘ to Mr. Geoffrey Saliba.’

The project also helped two university students researching water use with their research. The project was credited in one of the student’s technical papers, published for the 11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, attached under Annex 7.3.3.23.

The partners remain committed to working on the water conservation issue beyond the life of the project. In fact, the MBB continues to work in this regards, having been in May 2014 invited to support the MECW/MEH by jointly organising consultation with industry for water conservation and groundwater use considerations to be reflected in the National Action Water Plan. The MBB has accepted this invitation, and consultation will commence through dedicated workshops in September 2014.

Given the volume of water saved by the target audience; the overall increase in awareness; the reception by national stakeholders, authorities and government of project findings, the adaptation of the project’s recommendations to Malta’s national policy and the request by government for continued support from the MBB on the issue of water conservation by industry, the partners feel the project has been very successful.

5

Financial reporting The project spent 94% of its budget. Expenditure in the Consumables, External Assistance, and Other Costs categories was largely as foreseen in the Grant Agreement. Expenditure on Travel proved to be considerably lower, due to savings achieved in booking flights and accommodation for the Kick-Off Meeting and the complimentary provision by Island Hotels Group of the accommodation for international speakers and catering for the National Water Conference. Expenditure in Personnel Costs was larger than forecast, due mainly to needing to use more of the Water Expert’s time and contact with enterprises requiring more effort than originally foreseen. However, since the amount did not exceed EUR 30,000, as per Common Provisions 2010 article 15.2 this did not require a project amendment.

Reports and documents published by the project            

Project Portfolio (March 2012) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.5 Solutions Pack (June 2012) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.7 National Water Conference Report (August 2012) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.8 Awareness Surveys of Target Audiences and Employees (2012, 2013, 2014) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.14 Paper: Water Consumption Benchmarks – a Step Towards Reduced Consumption (Presented at the Chamber of Engineers Annual Engineering Conference -Water: A 21st Century Challenge, 9th May 2012) Attached under Annex 7.2.2 Paper: The Hotel Industry, a Shift to Greener and Lower Cost Operations (published for World Tourism Day, September 2013) Attached under Annex 7.2.3 Paper: Greening the Economy; Grey-Water Treatment and Flow Rate Regulation (December 2013) Attached under Annex 7.2.4 Recommendations – Greening the Economy (December 2013) Attached under Annex 7.2.5 Recommendations – National Water Management Plan (March 2014) Attached under Annex 7.2.6 Recommendations relating to the Water Framework Directive Review (Apr 2014) Attached under Annex 7.2.7 Layman’s Report (March 2014) Attached under Annex 7.3.1 Water Consumption Pattern Changes Analysis (March 2014) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.6

Letters of Recommendation  

Dr Ian Borg, Parliamentary Secretary for the EU Presidency 2017 and EU Funds (May 2014) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.1 Mr Manuel Sapiano, Head of Water Policy, Ministry for Energy and the Conservation of Water (June 2014) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.2

6

3. Introduction (1 page)  Description of background, problem and objectives o For LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity:  Overall and specific objectives  Which sites are involved  Which habitat types and/or species are targeted  Main conservation issues being targeted (including threats)  Socio-economic context o For LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance:  Environmental problem/issue addressed  Outline the hypothesis to be demonstrated / verified by the project  Description of the technical / methodological solution  Expected results and environmental benefits o For LIFE+ Information and Communication:  Environmental problem/issue addressed  Outline the information/communication strategy implemented in function of the environmental problem addressed by the project  Baseline situation  Stakeholders targeted  Monitoring of the project impact  Socio-economic context  Expected longer term results o LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity: e.g. ha habitat protected, population of species xx increased to yy individuals, kept in favourable conservation status or like. o LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance: e.g. future contribution to the implementation, updating and development of European Union environmental policy and legislation, including the integration of the environment into other policies, future EU and Global applicability and reproducibility of demonstrated technology, future Market strategy and economic feasibility. o LIFE+ Information and Communication: e.g. the continued effect on the followed strategy on key stakeholders, expected transfer of the followed methodology to other countries or policy areas, future impact on European Union environmental policy and legislation.

7

Malta is the most severely water stressed country in the EU. Malta’s main source of freshwater is groundwater, yet demand exceeds natural supply. Over-extraction remains a problem, with an estimated extraction of around 50% more than the sustainable yield.

Groundwater forms around 50% of the tapwater mix provided to all consumers by the Water Services Corporation. As per the Water Framework Directive, extraction needs to be sustainable and meet recharge. The project aimed to support Malta’s meeting of this requirement by reducing water demand in hotels and businesses, thus contributing to reduced pressure on groundwater bodies.

The project focused primarily on direct contact as a means of conveying project messages and encouraging take up of best practice recommendations. This drive was supported through project publications, and on-going media work. In addition a series of workshops as well as a high profile national conference were organised. Regular updates featured in the partners electronic mail-shots to enterprises on their databases.

The project targeted around 186 companies under the Malta Chamber employing over 23,000 people and 72 hotels under the MHRA employing around 6,500 people. Under these two target groups (companies) the project’s main target audiences were decision takers at the companies (owners, senior directors), employees and tourists (for the hotel sector).

Baseline data was gathered through the project’s monitoring. Monitoring was carried out through awareness survey of decision takers and employees, and the gathering of water consumption data to verify savings achieved by enterprises implementing project recommended best practice solutions.

The project’s long term benefits can be described as being: 1) Long term reduction in water supply by the target audience is a benefit which will stay in place until operations or equipment is changed. The amount of water saved by enterprises is 96,197,000 lt of water per annum.

2) Further increases in water savings by target audience - of the enterprises which participated, a number were considering adopting water saving measures when the project concluded. It is likely that several will adopt water saving measures, leading to a total volume of water saved as a result of the project increasing over that presented in this report.

3) Transfer of water savings best practice to other countries by target audience several of the enterprises which adopted, or are considering adoption, or water saving solutions recommended by the project are parts of international groups. One such example are the three Malta based hotels of the Corinthia Group. After the project’s best practice recommendations were adopted by these hotels, the Group implemented the solutions in several of its international hotels, found in London, Prague, Lisbon, Tripoli, St Petersburg, Budapest and Khartoum.

4) Contribution of water savings findings to national policy - MEH recently confirmed that project recommendations are being integrated into the National Action Water Plan.

8

4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages) 4.1 Description of the management system  Description and schematic presentation of working method, including overview of: o project phases o activities and tasks per phase o planning Below is a Gantt chart showing planned project progression in ticks by quarter, compared to actual project progression highlighted in yellow. The execution of the project matched the plan.

Action

2012

2011

2013

2104

Number/name of action

IV

I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

I

A1. Project Management





















A2. Monitoring of Progress



















III

IV



A3. External Audit



A4. After-LIFE Communications Plan

































































C5. Workshops











C6. "Save Water" signs















A5. Networking Activities B1. Develop Project Identity



B2. Project Portfolio





C1. Face to Face Meetings





C2. Solutions Pack C3. National Water Conference C4. Produce Features

II



E1. Monitoring of Project Impact – Surveys of target audience





E2. Monitoring of Project Impact – Environmental problem targeted















F1. Project Website

















F2. LIFE+ Boards

 

















F3. Project Launch





F4. Press Releases





















F5. Radio & TV Appearances





















F6. Layman's Report





F7. After-LIFE Reception





The project phases could broadly be defined as: Ongoing – Actions A1, A2, A5, C1, C4, E1, E2, F1, F4, F5 Preparatory – Actions B1, B2, F2, F3 Mid-term – Action C2, C3, C5, C6 Concluding – Action F6, F7, A4, A5 Project planning is covered in the below section, detailing the types of meetings organised to plan project actions and the staff involved in this planning.

9

 Presentation of the coordinating beneficiary, associated beneficiaries and project organisation (Organigramme providing information about functions, tasks, persons and companies); describe what the project manager and other representatives of the coordinating beneficiary have done to organise/co-ordinate the project: meetings, seminars etc.

The main vehicles through which the partners have managed the project are: action review meetings, monthly review meetings, end-of-end of action review meetings, and Steering Committee Meetings. Monthly review meetings are carried out by the coordinating beneficiary and involve the associate beneficiaries as required, organised by the project manager. These meetings consider the progress of the project in general, focusing particularly on reviewing of the two monitoring actions (Action E1-Surveys of Target Audience and Action E2-Monitor Environmental Problems Targeted), on progress in reaching out to enterprises and encouraging water savings best practice adoption (Action C1 Face to Face Meetings), and on general financial and administrative issues. Through the action review meetings relevant partners review the technical progress of specific actions, taking into consideration the expenditure of each action compared to its allocated budget and the required outputs of that particular action. These meetings are organised by the project manager with relevant project staff participating. Through the end-of-action review, the project assures that lessons learned in carrying out actions are transferred to other actions. These meetings are organised by the project manager, attended by relevant staff including the MBB CEO. Potential for findings or results feeding into progression on other actions is normally also identified during these meetings. In addition Steering Committee Meetings provide the management team with high level input. The Steering Committee is a high-level group of

10

individuals representing a broad range of stakeholders namely: the three partner organisations; MEH; MRA; ME; UoM Faculty for the Built Environment; MWA; MTA; and CoE. The project partnership also benefited from training on issues relating to LIFE project administration and financial management by experienced consultants, when needed throughout the project lifetime.

Description of changes due to amendments to the Grant Agreement.

There were no amendments to the Grant Agreement.

If relevant, indicate with which report the Partnership agreements were submitted to the Commission The partner agreements were submitted to the Commission with the letter from MBB dated 18.10.2012, following a request for amendments after their submission with the Inception Report.

4.2 Evaluation of the management system Please discuss the following issues:  The project management process, the problems encountered, the partnerships and their added value, including comments on any significant deviations from the arrangements contained in the partnership agreements  Communication with the Commission and Monitoring team.

The project management process of regular planning meetings, action reviews, and Steering Committee Meetings allowed the team to have ongoing information on the state of implementation of the project, challenges in implementing actions, general progress and outcomes. It also provided a financial overview. The partnership strengths were clearly the MHRA’s and Malta Chamber’s positive influence on businesses and hotels, as well as the MBB’s expertise in managing EU funded projects and information campaigns.

Communication from the Commission and Monitoring team has always been clear.

Particularly helpful is the structure nature of the communication – letters from the Commission can be expected following receipt of each progress report, while meetings with the Monitoring team are always set up well in advance, and letters following the meetings received shortly after. No problems were encountered in the management of the project, and no significant deviation was made from the arrangement in the partnership agreement.

A list of letters received from the Commission and the project replies and reactions is included in Annex 7.1.5. This annex also includes a summary of the letters and reactions, document name ‘LIF10_INF_MT000091_RepliestoECletters’.

11

5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages) 5.1. Technical progress, per task This section concerns all project tasks except for:  "project management" which is dealt with in the administrative part (section 4) and  "dissemination", which is dealt with in section 5.2.

NOTE – the majority of actions in this Information and Communication project are dissemination actions. This section therefore details only Action set A, while Action sets B, C, E and F are detailed in section 5.2 In this section you should describe what and how has been done regarding the different technical/substantial components of the project (such as research, fieldwork, construction). You should indicate what has been done regarding each task (subtasks if appropriate) but avoid describing the objectives and targets as such. The description of the work done has to be sufficient to allow a good understanding of the project without a need to refer to the annexes. The technical details, however, should be given in the annexes. Any related reports or memos other than the official Progress Reports should be described shortly and attached furthermore as annexes.

For each action (the description of which should start on a new page): o Describe the activities undertaken and outputs/results achieved in quantifiable terms (also indicate by whom they were done). o Compare with planned output and time schedule. (Please note that the overall progress of the project should also be presented using a Gantt-chart or similar – see section 4.1) o Clearly indicate (when applicable) the indicators used to test the performance of the action. o If relevant, clearly indicate how actions were modified, and any correspondence with the Commission approving the changes. (In particular this is required if there has been a significant over-spending of the foreseen budget for the action.) o Clearly indicate major problems / drawbacks encountered, delays, including consequences for other tasks (technical, legal, financial/economic, market, organisational or environment related problems). o Mention any complementary action outside LIFE; o Outline the perspectives for continuing the action after the end of the project o Include tables, photographs etc to illustrate the actions; for LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity e.g. land purchase and non-recurring management activities;

12

5.1.1 Action A2 – Project Monitoring Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken The main vehicles for this action are: action review meetings, monthly review meetings, endof-end of action review meetings, and Steering Committee Meetings. Monthly review meetings consider the progress of the project in general, focusing particularly on reviewing of the two monitoring actions (Action E1-Surveys of Target Audience and Action E2-Monitor Environmental Problems Targeted) undertake a general financial review and assess the project’s relationship with enterprises – seen as prerequisite to success by the partnership.

Through the action review meetings, the technical progress of specific actions is also reviewed, taking into consideration the expenditure of each action compared to its allocated budget. Through the end-of-action review, the project assures that lessons learned in carrying out actions are transferred to other actions.

Invoices have been centrally collected at the MBB’s premises. The financial claim forms for the three partners have been updated on a regular basis, and all the partners have been kept up-dated regarding the project’s expenditure, schedule and deadlines. This has been carried out predominately through the two Steering Committee Meetings, three end-of-action review meetings as well as through the numerous action review meetings. The Steering Committee members include all partner staff, the project’s water expert, the LIFE+ Focal Point for Malta, Maria Elena Attard, CoE representative Ing. Paul Refalo, ME/MIP representative Marvin Cuschieri, MTA representative John Magri, UoM Faculty for the Built Environment Dean Profs. Alex Torpiano, MRA representative Manuel Sapiano, and MWA representative Vincent Gauci. Steering Committee Minutes and progress reports are attached under Annex 7.3.3.3.

Outputs/results achieved The result initially foreseen is that the project will adhere to the LIFE+ programme requirements. The partners are confident this has been achieved.

Indicators testing performance Timesheets were submitted on a monthly basis (following a request from the external monitor on their first visit). Progress on each action, timetable and deliverable has been reported in all progress reports, the financial monitoring in place allowed for full updates in all financial reports, records of all important meetings have been kept. A final report and request for payment has been submitted, together with an auditor’s report verifying that all claimed costs are eligible.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems

13

No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

5.1.2 Action A3 – External Audit Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken An independent auditor (Mazars Malta) was engaged during the first quarter of 2014. The auditing firm was tasked with evaluating and reporting on the project’s compliance with LIFE provisions. All financial records including, previous progress reports, invoices, financial claim forms, the grant agreement, partner agreements, leave forms for project staff for each project year and time sheets were made available to the auditors. The format of the report was decided to be the standard independent auditor report available from the LIFE website. The audit started in March 2014, all the partners' financial entries were checked, revised and approved by the auditors, and a final report eventually produced on 2nd July 2014. It is attached under Annex 7.3.3.5.

Outputs/results achieved The audit report shows that the project was compliant with all legal provisions. This meets the results expected in the project proposal.

Indicators testing performance The auditor was engaged within 3 months of the project’s end, the audit concluded and report presented to the MBB and with this report. This meets the indicators listed in the grant agreement.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

14

5.1.3 Action A4 – After-LIFE Communications Plan Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken An After-LIFE Communications Plan was drawn up with input from the project’s water expert, the LIFE focal point within the MSDEC, and the Head of Water Policy Unit within MEH. The plan focuses on continued dissemination of best practice amongst industry, and the communication of progression in Malta’s NAWP and the WFD’s revision expected in 2017.

The document was produced in electronic and print format, and is available for download on the project website.

Outputs/results achieved The After-LIFE Communications Plan has been produced, and is attached under Annex 7.3.2.

This meets the expected results listed in the grant agreement.

Indicators testing performance The draft After-LIFE Communications Plan was produced three months prior to the project’s end, following which consultation took place with MEH and MSDEC, as well as within the project through the Water Expert and the partnership. The plan was produced before the deadline listed in the Grant Agreement. This therefore meets all the indicators listed in the Grant Agreement.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

15

5.1.4 Action A5 – Networking Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken Contact has been maintained with international organisations such as Business Europe, EuroChambers, HOTREC, EU LIFE+ WATACLIC project and GWP Med’s Alter Aqua project. Mr Peter Gammeltoft from DG ENVironment and Mr Gerald Petit from DG Enterprise and Industry attended the National Water Conference organised as part of Action C3, while Mr Alan van Raek and Mrs Antonella Correra from DG Enterprise and Industry have also been briefed about the project during their visits to Malta.

Nationally, a relationship was established with CoE, MRA, MRRA, the previous MTCE (which has become MECW/MEH after the general elections in March 2013), EU LIFE+ Focal Point, UoM and other LIFE+ projects, the FHRD, EPRM, MEPA, NSO, ME and MIP, presenting them with project reports, the Solutions Pack, and sharing information. ME is the entity which under Malta’s Programme of Measures for the implementation of the WFD is responsible for initiating a nation-wide water audit scheme. To share knowledge gained through this project, the partners invited ME to attend Steering Committee Meetings and workshops organised. ME also receives regular updates regarding the project.

A particular strong point of the action is the recognition by the MTA of hotels participating in the project as meeting water conservation related award criteria for the national EcoCertification Scheme. As part of this recognition, certificates of participation issued by the project to hotels may be submitted to the MTA as proof of achievement. The agreement between the MTA and the project will be signed shortly, communicated publicly through media work by the project and the MTA in May 2013. It is attached under Annex 7.2.1.

The project also enjoyed the support of Minister for Energy and Water Conservation Konrad Mizzi and Minister for the Environment Leo Brincat. Both Ministers regularly met with project staff, also addressing attendees at the project’s closing event. Furthermore, project recommendations are being integrated into the MECW/MEH’s National Action Water Plan – letter of confirmation is attached under Annex 7.3.3.2 while the recommendations submitted to the government as well as the EC are submitted under Annex 7.2.6 and 7.2.7 respectively.

Outputs/results achieved This action contributed to a better understanding and more awareness of the project, its key messages, actions and findings, as well as the LIFE+ programme in Malta. It enabled the presentation of recommendations to government and DG ENV. This meets the results listed in the Grant Agreement.

Indicators testing performance Beneficiaries of international organisations were contacted and involved in knowledge exchange with the project. Other national LIFE projects were regularly updated with information about the project. Recommendations to government and DG ENV were presented at the project’s close. This meets the indicators listed in the Grant Agreement.

16

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

17

5.2 Dissemination actions 5.2.1 Objectives Summarise the objectives of the dissemination plan set out in the revised project proposal.

5.2.2 Dissemination: overview per activity For each activity and output (as for the technical progress – cf. above):  Provide a description in quantifiable terms, and indicate who was responsible  Compare with the planned activity – was the objective reached? What reactions and feedback was obtained?  Provide a list of deliverables including: o Use of LIFE logo (and for LIFE+ Nature projects: Natura2000 logo) on documents and durable goods; o Erection of notice boards o Web site o (e)Mailing lists o Audio-visual products (if relevant): videos o Photographs (see Common Provisions clause related to use of photographs by the Commission) o Brochures, handouts, leaflets o Publications: handbooks o Press cuttings overview (press cuttings to be annexed) o Social Media used (Facebook, Twitter etc)

18

5.2.2.1 Action B1 – Develop Project Identity Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken A professional communications company was engaged to produce the project identity. The identity was developed over October 2011 and presented to the partners at the staff training organised as part of Action A2 (Monitor the Project) on the 3rd November 2012. The identity guidelines booklet has since been used to guide the project’s communications and was constantly referred to by designers working on material required for the various project actions. The identity guidelines are available as hardcopy and softcopy; a softcopy is attached under Annex 7.3.3.5.

Outputs/results achieved The Project Identity document formed the basis of all communications material produced, guiding the designers in producing consistently high quality material. This meets the results expected of this action in the grant agreement.

Indicators testing performance The project identity document was concluded prior to the deadline of end November 2011, with the draft communications company selected and draft reviewed in line with the timeline listed in the grant agreement.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

19

5.2.2.2 Action B2 – Project Portfolio Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken The project manager and the project’s water expert prepared a portfolio detailing the key project messages: groundwater as an essential resource, climate change as impacting on water scarcity in the Maltese islands, the EU’s water policy commitments and obligations, reverseosmosis as an energy intensive and expensive alternative to groundwater, best practice solutions being beneficial for both the ecology and the economy. Contact details for the MBB’s office were given to facilitate target enterprises contacting project staff.

The portfolio also included a CD on which the portfolio itself, logos and images were included. In line with the project’s environmental credentials the portfolio was printed on FSC paper, while the CD packaging was printed on recycled paper.

The portfolios were distributed to project launch attendees, following which distribution to the other target enterprises commenced. The portfolio was also distributed to journalists and news editors, embassies and consulates of EU member states in Malta, high ranking officials within local authorities such as MEPA, MRA, and the University of Malta, key politicians from the Partit Laburista (Labour Party) and the Partit Nazzjonalista (Nationalist Party) as well as internationally to the partners’ international associations EuroChambres, HOTREC, and Business Europe. The portfolio is also available for download from the project website.

700 copies were printed and distributed. Hard copies including CD have been submitted with the mailed report, and an electronic version of the portfolio is attached under Annex 7.3.3.6.

Outputs/results achieved Nearly 100% of target companies received the portfolio. This was also confirmed through Action C1–Face to Face meetings. Furthermore, certain stakeholders, such as Dr. Ing. John C Betts, UoM Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, requested a meeting with the project staff after receiving the portfolio. This meets the results expected of this action as listed in the grant agreement. A positive development arising from this action is that HSBC Malta based an internal circular on the Project’s Portfolio, and sent it to all staff to raise awareness about water scarcity in Malta.

Indicators testing performance The portfolio was distributed during the project launch, mailed to all target audience companies following the launch, and distributed during meetings held as part of Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings. This meets the indicators listed in the grant agreement.

Modifications to work plans There was a slight delay in printing the CD, which was completed by mid-March. All enterprises which had already received a portfolio were also provided with the CD once this

20

became available. This minor delay therefore did not affect the expected outcome of this action or the project in general.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

21

5.2.2.3 Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken The project carried out face to face meetings resulting in water audits of 136 companies.

Audits were initiated by the project manager discussing the project’s key messages with the relevant staff of the enterprises, following which the project’s water expert or assistant water expert carry out water audits. Following the audit, a report is presented to the enterprise, and project staff remains available for on-going consultation regarding the implementation of water saving solutions. During the meetings, enterprise staff is also presented with a Solutions Pack and a water-saving kit consisting of a wash hand basin faucet restrictor, shower restrictor (for hotels or factories where manufacturing staff showers exist), toilet flushing displacement device, and toilet flushing dye which can be used to check for in-bowl leakages. Enterprises audited include: 3, 4, and 5 star hotels; office based enterprises; manufacturing enterprises in the pharmaceutical, steel, food, and plastic industries; and financial organisations. Enterprises audited range from SMEs to branches of multinationals operating in Malta, to the largest employers, and industry leaders. A list of audited enterprises is provided in the Action E2 Report on water savings, attached under Annex 7.3.3.6.

Outputs/results achieved The output expected of this action was in achieving water consumption reductions amongst target enterprises. Through this action 13 best practice enterprises were identified adopting project recommendations, leading to savings of 145,000,000 lt/annum or a reduction of 28%.

Furthermore, this action proved important in gathering information and data with which the project could provide government and DF ENV with feedback and recommendations regarding water policy as part of Action A5 (Networking). The recommendations presented by the project to the Maltese government were taken aboard as confirmed in a letter by Head of Water Policy, Mr Manuel Sapiano – the letter is attached under Annex 7.3.3.2.

Indicators testing performance The full list of target audience enterprises was prepared during the final quarter of 2011. Of these, meetings with 39 had been concluded by the start of April 2012, following which a report was published in May 2012 detailing the outcome of the first meetings. Another set of meetings was initiated immediately following the publication of this report, continuing through to February 2014. By the project’s close water audits had been carried out in 136 enterprises. All indicators listed in the grant agreement were therefore met, although the final number of water audits was four short of the 140 target.

Modifications to work plans This action required considerably more effort than originally foreseen to conclude. The main reason for this was that while companies were interested in the project’s key messages and participating in water audits, booking meetings and following up proved more timely than anticipated. In addition, those enterprises which had been audited also proved to require more

22

follow up correspondence than originally foreseen. The result is that a significant amount of additional time was required from the water expert to work with the enterprises, particularly best practice enterprises. Budget was however, available due to savings achieved on other actions, and this modification did not therefore impact on the project’s ability to conclude in line with the grant agreement.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

23

5.2.2.4 Action C2 – Solutions Pack Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken The Solutions Pack was prepared during the summer of 2012 and is available in print, as an interactive CD and as a website application. The pack details the project’s key messages, water saving solutions, best practice case studies and online self-assessment tool for businesses. It was launched through a press release and an event attended by Minister for Tourism, Culture and the Environment at the time, Mario de Marco. 2000 copies of the print version and CDs were produced and mailed to all target enterprises. The pack is also distributed to relevant personnel through Action C1 - Face to Face Meetings and through both the general and technical workshops held as part of Action C5 - Workshops. The packs are also presented at every meeting held as part of Action A5 - Networking. A copy of the print version and CD are attached under Annex 7.3.3.7 and the online self-assessment application may be accessed online through this link: http://www.investinginwater.org/SelfAssessment/ Outputs/results achieved The output expected of this action was in supporting the project’s overall aim in achieving water consumption reductions amongst target enterprises. By the project’s close, 14 best practice enterprises had been identified, together with another 11 established best practice enterprises, leading to savings of 145,000,000 lt/annum or a reduction of 28%. This action therefore achieved its results.

Indicators testing performance The first set of 39 companies was identified by project staff by December 2011, with meetings and water audits concluded by April 2012. A report analysing the outcome of this first set of meetings was published on the 9th of May 2012). Following this, meetings with a further 96 companies started in the end of October 2012, continuing till February 2014. A final report was published in March 2014. All reports were available for download from the project website. This largely meets the indicators listed in the grant agreement, with only minor delays experienced. Furthermore, tests of the online self-assessment application done by existing best practice enterprises Hilton and APS Bank confirmed that the analysis presented by the tool matches their own analysis – verifying the tools accuracy and usefulness.

Modifications to work plans The Solutions Pack was launched in November, a few weeks later than originally anticipated.

The delay was due to technical corruption of formulae and cross-browser compatibility issues in the online self-assessment tool. Without the correct formulae the tool’s analysis of entered data would have been inaccurate, compromising the tool’s usefulness. These errors were corrected and the final tool launched in print, as an online interactive tool, and in CD form.

The delay had no impact on this action’s success, or the project in general.

24

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

25

5.2.2.5 Action C3 – National Water Conference Partner responsible - MHRA Actions undertaken The conference was held on the 22nd June 2012 at the Radisson Blu Resort in St Julians.

Speakers included Dr Marie-Louise Mangion, Head of the Sustainable Development Unit within MTCE, Mr Peter Gammeltoft, Head of Water Protection Unit, DG ENV, and Mr Manuel Sapiano, Hydrologist within the MRA. During the conference, case studies of best practice in water conservation were presented by the Hilton Hotel and APS Bank. The event was covered by the media through two TV news items, two print articles, and several online articles. Details of media coverage are available under Annex 7.2.4. Then shadow Environment Minister Leo Brincat, who has now become the Minister for Environment after March 2013 general elections, attended the conference, and penned an opinion piece which featured in The Times of Malta shortly after the conference. This piece detailed issues discussed during the National Water Conference, focused mainly on the deterioration of groundwater bodies. The conference was attended by 123 persons from the public sector, industry (hotel, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and services industries), CoE, UoM, ECRM, the Malta Labour Party, MEPA, MEUSAC, DG ENV, DG Enterprise, and other relevant stakeholders including overseas attendees from Sicily, Italy and the Czech Republic including Mr Fabio Masi representative of LIFE Wataclic Project, and Ms. Konstantina Toli, representative from GWP MED’s Alter Aqua Project (two projects focused on water savings in the Mediterranean). A report was produced and disseminated to the attendees. The conference speeches were recorded. The report and audio recordings of the speeches were made available for download from the project website, which also features a section including synopsis of the speeches and profiles of speakers. The report and attendance sheets are attached under Annex 7.3.3.8 and the website section may be seen here: http://www.investinginwater.org/Save+Water/Browse/National+Water+Conference/183.

Outputs/results achieved The conference attracted a large and varied audience which was however, smaller than anticipated (123 as opposed to 200), largely due to many participants having booked but not attending on the day. Presentations given by speakers holding prominent positions in ministries, authorities, university, target audience enterprises, the European Commission, and project staff resulted in good media coverage. The conference also served to strengthen the project’s relationship with its target audience, with many of the attending enterprises having participated in other project actions. Furthermore, the media coverage received also helped raise the recognition of the project amongst target audience. The partners therefore feel that this action has been successful.

Indicators testing performance The conference was held within the deadline set in the grant agreement, and the report published and distributed in August - within 3 months following the event. Media coverage was good, with the main English language newspapers The Times of Malta and The Malta Independent, and the main TV stations TVM (Public broadcaster) as well as the third most

26

popular station NET covering the conference. All indicators listed in the grant agreement were therefore met.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

27

5.2.2.6 Action C4 – Feature Articles Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken Regular articles about the project were published in partner magazines, local newspapers, and other magazines. The articles covered a variety of topics from the project’s key messages including groundwater status, WFD and water policy, to project progress. A returns list of the articles and scans is attached under Annex 7.3.3.9. Publications in which articles have appeared include; The Malta Independent, The Malta Independent on Sunday, The Times of malta, The Sunday Times of Malta, Malta Today, Money, Engineering Today, Air Malta’s inflight magazine Il-Bizilla, the Commercial Courier and the Business Agenda. Apart from project publications, several high profile articles have also featured covering the subject of water in Malta by editors, ministers and shadow ministers. Several also referred directly to the project, most notably an article published following the project’s National Water Conference by then shadow minister Leo Brincat, who has since been elected, as well as various editorials covering water use. A selection of these is attached under Annex 7.3.3.10.

Outputs/results achieved 10 articles appeared in newspapers and magazines, 14 appeared in partner media, and one appeared in Air Malta’s magazine – the most prominent local magazine targeting tourists.

Indicators testing performance As listed in the grant agreement, through this action the project aims to reach at least 90% of the target companies and between 25,000 and 90,000 members of the public. Over the course of the project, the combined circulation for publications in which articles appeared was in excess of 248,000. This action has therefore reached its objectives.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

28

5.2.2.7 Action C5 – Workshops Partner responsible – Malta Business Bureau Actions undertaken The project planned a series of technical and general workshops. The technical workshops focused strongly on the best practice solutions, while also presenting best practice case studies directly from enterprise representatives. The general workshops focused on how employees can contribute to reducing an enterprise’s consumption, with some examples of how employees from other enterprises contributed, and a brainstorming session on the specific practices of the enterprise concerned. Both workshop types started with dissemination of information on the key project messages.

Invitations were issued by email and phone call to all companies on the project’s contact list, and through Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings. The workshops were also publicised through media work and on the project website. In addition, participation of hotels in workshops was acknowledged as contributing to the award and/or maintenance of the MTA’s EcoCertification. The workshops were also promoted by the MTA to registered hotels. A workshop was organised together with the ITS for its 3rd year tourism management students.

The CoE also issued invites to its members promoting the workshops.

All material distributed during the workshops was made available for download on the project website, and notifications emailed to the project’s contact list following workshops.

Outputs/results achieved 10 workshops for general staff were held, reaching 199 attendees, while 6 workshops for technical staff were held, reaching 124 attendees. Attendance sheets are attached under Annex 7.3.3.11.

Indicators testing performance Presentations were prepared by the Water Expert by September 2012, and experts from the Chamber of Engineers to contribute to the workshops were identified and meetings held shortly after. Information about the workshops was made available on the project and partner websites, and also promoted by the partners in their electronic mailing lists and magazines.

All material from the workshops was made available online, and notifications issued to the project’s contact list to disseminate this information.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems The main problem encountered in this project was that enterprises were largely hesitant to disrupt their activities by pulling general staff off their duties for workshops. This resulted in

29

fewer workshops for general staff being taken up. Interest in workshops for technical staff was high, so this problem was only encountered for workshops for general staff. The project attempted to mitigate by promoting heavily through emails, press work, and direct contact, and by emphasizing the savings staff could help an enterprise achieve. In addition, the partners also reached out to other social partners such as the GWU and UHM. A workshop was also organised with ITS for its 3rd year Tourism Management students working within industry.

Although these attempts resulted in more workshops, the target for this particular action on general workshops was nevertheless not reached. No other problems were encountered in executing this action.

30

5.2.2.8 Action C6 –Water Saving Signs Partner responsible - MHRA Actions undertaken Signs for hotel rooms were drafted and designed, with feedback from the MTA. The signs were produced in English, German, French and Italian (the top four countries of origin for tourists in Malta). The format chosen was two flat cards which slotted into each other to form a cross shaped stand. This allowed hotels the option of either simply inserting them into welcome packs for guests, or displaying them prominently on room furniture. The signs were also laminated for increased durability. At the same time large posters in English and Maltese were designed for staff areas of both hotels and businesses. The display of guest room signs was included in the MTA agreement as contributing to the award and/or maintenance of the MTA’s Eco-Certification, and their use was promoted to hotels by the MTA as well as the project.

Outputs/results achieved The posters for employee areas were distributed to all enterprises on the project’s contact list, while the guest room signs were promoted by the project through Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings, Action C5 – Workshops, through phone calls and sample distribution to all hotels on the project’s contact list. Just over 6000 signs were distributed for display in 2,397 hotel rooms of 18 hotels. This represents 14% of all hotel rooms in Malta.

Indicators testing performance An action plan was prepared by summer 2012, companies informed about the scheme through emails, face to face meetings, phone calls, and feature articles in partner magazines, as well as through press releases. The sings were printed and distributed by May 2013, with a report on the action prepared by end of September 2013. This report was updated in May 2014 to reflect further developments, mainly take-up of signs by additional hotels. The signs are attached in hard and soft form under Annex 7.3.3.12, while the report is attached under Annex 7.3.3.13.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action. The only problem encountered was that the large branded 5* hotels could not use the signs due to their branding policies.

However, almost all these hotels already had similar signs of their own, and therefore would not have needed project signs.

31

5.2.2.9 Action E1– Monitoring of project impact, Surveys of target audience Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken Misco was selected as the market research company responsible for the awareness surveys of decision takers and employees. Together with the water expert and project manager, Misco developed questionnaires based on project needs. The aim was to establish a baseline of awareness relevant to the subject area, from which changes could be monitored to gauge the project’s effectiveness. Electronic questionnaires were distributed to decision takers within all target enterprises, and pen and paper questionnaires were distributed to 1,500 employees within the target companies. This was done in three waves, in the first quarter of 2012, January 2013, January 2014. Reports were available by May 2012, February 2013, and March 2014.

Questionnaires for tourists were distributed in pen and paper form to participating hotels in March 2014, and collected by September 2014. The questionnaires were given to hotel receptions, with requests for them to be handed to guests on check-out, and kept for collection by project staff. Unfortunately response was poorer than anticipated and only 207 questionnaires were returned filled in.

Outputs/results achieved The full reports are attached under Annex 7.3.3.14, however a summary is given below.

Decision takers: Green signifies an improvement over baseline, orange a decrease over baseline, and yellow little difference.

32

Change over project's lifetime Overall Awareness about Water Scarcity

Overall Awareness about Groundwater

Overall Awareness about Climate Change

Overall Awareness about Reverse Osmosis

water scarcity is a serious issue for businesses in Malta More groundwater is recharged than extracted (False) Malta's only natural source of fresh water is groundwater (True) Malta is amongst the top 10 countries worldwide for water scarcity (True) The only source of groundwater is rainwater (True) Over extraction of groundwater increases the salinity of remaining groundwater (True) Climate change is expected to lead to more annual rainfall in the Mediterranean Climate change is expected to lead to more intense periods of rainfall leading to water runoff and flooding Climate change is expected to lead to increase in temperatures, resulting in an increase in demand for water Reverse Osmosis consumes small amounts of electricity

Reverse Osmosis is the largest single consumer of electricity in Malta, consuming up to 4% of all electricity produced nationally Member States were required to introduce a price for groundwater, which was to be passed on to the consumer as an environmental and resource cost EU policy requires Member States to use natural resources as Overall Awareness about EU Water Policy & Legislation efficiently as possible before considering alternative methods of supply Member States are required to balance groundwater with recharge by 2015 Best practice in water conservation can be on both a behavioural and on a technological level Best practice involves first reducing consumption, rainwater harvesting, reusing/recycling water, before considering alternative methods of supply Adoption of Best Practice Water conservation practices Water conservation technology Both water conservation practices and water conservation technology None adopted

Notes

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Negative Static Positive Positive Positive

Negative

2% decrease

Negative

4% decrease

Negative

7% decrease

Negative Positive

98%

Positive Static

6.4% increase

Positive

5.5% increase

Positive

more than 10% decrease

Awareness of key largely messages increased. The only exception is of awareness of EU policy, which has slightly decreased. Interesting to note is that awareness of EU policy increased significantly during the 2nd wave but then decreased by the 3rd and final wave.

Analysing this trend and project communications leads the partners to conclude that although the project communicated EU policy throughout its duration, the participation of Mr. Peter Gammeltoft in Action C3 – National Water Conference, helped raise awareness due to the credibility of having an EC spokesperson directly verifying project messages with the target audience. Since then no further direct statements verifying project messages came from the EC to the target audience, leading to a weaker position for the project in convincing the target audience of its EU policy messages. The main reason here is that the project, although EU funded, was probably seen as a third party reporting on another party’s position, and without verification from the said party, the message was somewhat weaker. This has been a very important lesson learned for the partners, who will attempt to include direct messages from spokespersons within the EC in future communications revolving around EU policy relating to both projects and their work in general, on an on-going basis.

The results show that adoption of best practice water saving measures has increased by more than 10% amongst respondents over the baseline. Awareness of key project messages has also increased overall, except for awareness of EU policy and legislation which has actually experienced a slight decrease. This decrease could be attributed to the fact that the project is largely the only entity giving information about EU obligations relating to the WFD. Two of the messages were; the need to charge an environmental and resource cost for groundwater, and the need to balance groundwater extraction with recharge. Since Malta has not implemented these requirements and there has been no communication regarding their implementation from the EC or government, this weakens the message delivered from an

33

entity seen as ‘third party’ to the implementation of EC legislation. This is felt to be the reason for the decrease in awareness of these measures, given that awareness of all other project message areas has increased over baseline. Furthermore the “decrease” might also be due to the fact that a random sample was chosen and this would suggest that the first group of people interviewed might be more informed than the last group. Interesting to note is that although only 10% of respondents noted an adoption of water saving measures during the project lifetime, Action E2 notes a 13% increase. Action E2 is based on direct contact with companies and verification of adoption of best practice measures through Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings and taking into account existing best practice – this explains the difference between the 13% registered in Action E2 and the 10% registered in Action E1.

Employees: Green signifies an improvement over baseline, orange a decrease over baseline, and yellow little difference.

Perceived Seriousness of Water Scarcity Nationally The level of importance attributed to water conservation within the business Employee perception on company involvement in water conservation practices/technology Effectiveness of water conservation practices/technology implemented

Change over project's lifetime :) :) :) :)

Interestingly enough, awareness amongst employees increased over baseline in all aspects of the project’s communications. However, when asked which measures their enterprises have adopted, most employees could not name specific measures. This indicates that management could better inform employees of their actions.

Tourists: Yes Would you take action to save water Would you reuse towel Would you reuse bed linen Are there in-room signs offering reuse of towels Are there in-room signs offering reuse of bed linen Did you reuse towels Did you reuse bed linen

Country of origin

18-24 25-64 65+

No 91% 71% 80% 72% 37% 71% 77%

Unsure 9% 29% 20% 17% 20% 29% 23%

11% 43%

UK, Italy, Libya, Sweden, Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, Japan, Austria, Ireland, Denmark, South Africa 14% 77% 6%

The tourist questionnaires indicate that the majority of tourists would take action to save water, and that as many as 80% would be willing to reuse bed linen, while 71% would be willing to reuse towels. Hotel signs encouraging the reuse of towels appear to be prominently placed, with 71% of guests reporting seeing them. However, only 37% of guests reported

34

seeing signs encouraging the reuse of bed linen. These results were shared with the hotels to ensure that such signs are placed in the rooms in more prominent places in future.

Encouragingly, the reuse of towels and bed linen appears to be common, with over 70% of respondents in both cases practicing these water conservation measures. However, the fact that only 207 respondents returned completed questionnaires, and the very high (91%) percentage of respondents willing to engage in water conservation actions when on holiday, raises the possibility that the questionnaire resulted in a bias towards environmentally conscious respondents.

Indicators testing performance The first stages of the awareness survey were concluded later than anticipated, however future waves proceeded according to schedule. Detailed reports were available within a month of their completion, and were used to steer project actions. Questionnaires for tourists were ready by March 2013, and distributed over summer 2013, with a report produced by the end October 2013. This meets the indicators of progress listed in the Grant Agreement.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems According to the proposal, the first of three awareness surveys should have been available in January 2012 after fieldwork was carried out in December 2011. The proposals for this service received by MBB were unfortunately unsatisfactory and required revision and resubmittal. This led to a delay in the first awareness survey. Upon completion and circulation of the questionnaire, fewer responses than anticipated were received. To overcome this, the project manager contacted decision takers within companies directly. This was successful in achieving a high response rate (decision takers from 28% of target enterprises submitted filled in questionnaires). The survey was completed at the end of May. The delays which occurred during this first round of surveys have not impacted on the results of this action and are not expected to repeat themselves. This minor problem has therefore been overcome without compromising the project’s ability to reach its objectives (this was reported in the Inception Report). Following this, the schedule listed in the Grant Agreement was followed. No other problems were encountered in executing this action.

35

5.2.2.10 Action E2– Monitoring of project impact, environmental problem targeted Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken Following the preparation of a data collection sheet was prepared by the water expert and project manager, on the 23rd December enterprises were invited to participate in this action. A total of 42 enterprises submitted information which was verified through the water audits carried out as part of action C1 – Face to Face Meetings, and published in the project’s Water Audit 2012 Aggregate Report which is attached under Annex 7.3.3.15.

The project collected water consumption data of 2011 to form a base line against which to compare changes in consumption, and water consumption data from 2012 and 2013 to compare savings. This data was collected electronically and through Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings, on an ongoing basis throughout the project’s life. Data was collected from around 100 enterprises. This allowed the project to verify the success of enterprises in achieving reduced water consumption. A report on the final water savings figure is presented under Annex 3.3.6.

Outputs/results achieved The ongoing assessment enabled the project to identify cases of best practice as well as enterprises success in adopting water saving measures. This action enabled the project to verify the savings achieved by enterprises through collaboration with the project. This meets the results listed in the Grant Agreement.

Indicators testing performance Water consumption data sheets were prepared by the water expert by mid-December 2011.

Data was then collected on a regular basis throughout the project. An end of project report was prepared by 31st March 2014, and updated in May 2014 to include some additional details. This meets the indicators testing performance listed in the Grant Agreement.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

36

5.2.2.11 Action F1– Project website Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken A detailed plan was prepared by the project manager and presented to the web developer prior to the development of the site. The website was designed to give maximum visibility to different actions running at different times in the project’s life. This was achieved through having an attractive homepage which supports the use of both static and animated banners, as well as through the facility of having side banners, with all banners linking to relevant pages.

The homepage also features various subpages such as media releases, feature articles, case studies of successfully implemented water saving solutions, and multi-media.

The website currently has 11 informative pages, a download section, a links section, a video section, and a media section with over 20 pages. The website includes a dedicated media section which features press releases and articles, and a search function. To give the media section added visibility, synopsis of press releases appear on the homepage. Information pages on all of the project’s key messages have been included, as well as dedicated pages to the project partners, the LIFE funding programme, co-financiers and project supporters. The LIFE logo appears in a fixed position on every page in each section. The website infrastructure also permits information pages to be shared virally through social media sites such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. The website was also designed with a dedicated and visible section from which project material could be downloaded.

In addition Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube accounts were also set up. The aim of these pages is to further disseminate project information and messages while also increasing the referrals to the project website. The project’s website is www.investinginwater.org Outputs/results achieved The main results expected from this action are that the website will contribute to knowledge about the project and its key messages amongst target companies. The results of action E1 – Monitor Project Impact, Survey of Target Audience, show that awareness was indeed increased, with electronic reference material being a preferred choice amongst the target audience for information – results of which are detailed under Section 7.3.3.14. This action can therefore be considered to have met its expected results.

Indicators testing performance The project website was set up just a few days following the deadline, and has since been upgraded on a regular basis, often more than monthly. The website received a total of 27,168 page views by 4,034 visitors with a repeat visit rate of 35.5%. This meets the expected results listed in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the project’s YouTube channel registered over 13,000 visits over the project duration – far exceeding the partners’ expectations. Numbers have since continued to grow. The project’s YouTube site may be accessed here: http://www.youtube.com/user/InvestingInWater/about

37

The above meet and exceed the indicators listed in the grant agreement. Visitor statistics are presented under Annex 7.3.3.16.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

38

5.2.2.12 Action F2 – LIFE+ Boards Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken Based on the Project Identity produced as part of Action B1, the project commissioned the design and printing of three EU LIFE+ boards. The message ‘Helping businesses and hotels save water’ is displayed on the boards. The format chosen for the boards was in the form of a roll-up banner. This was the option chosen by all partners to have the flexibility of displaying the boards at various events, such as the National Water Conference (Action C3), technical workshops (Action C5), or other unforeseen events. The boards feature the project logo, the partners’ logos, the EU LIFE logo, co-financier logos, as well as the logos of project supporters.

The boards are permanently displayed at the three partner offices, and were/are used at other venues/events as necessary such as at the project exhibition set up in commemoration of the EU LIFE 20th anniversary, at the National Water Conference, at workshops organised as part of Action C5, and at the closing event organised as part of Action F7. Artwork and a photo of the boards on display are available under Annex 7.3.3.17.

Outputs/results achieved The main result of this action is that staff, contractors, authorities, members of the organisation and general public would be aware of the LIFE funded project undertaken by the three partners. Given the level of participation by the authorities at all levels, sub-contractors and the target audience, which has allowed the project to meet its objectives, these results can be considered met.

Indicators testing performance The boards were and remain displayed in prominent places in the partner offices, promoting the project to staff and visitors. The objectives for this action have therefore been met.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

39

5.2.2.13 Action F3 – Project Launch Partner responsible – Malta Chamber Actions undertaken The Project Launch was held on the 25th January 2012 in the courtyard of the Malta Chamber offices in Valletta. Invitations were issued to all businesses and hotels forming part of the project’s target audience, as well as to several other stakeholders. The Minister for Tourism, the Environment and Culture, Hon. Dr. Mario de Marco opened the launch. The project manager and the presidents of the three partner organisations addressed the attendees and encouraged enterprises to participate in the project.

Representatives from around 50 organisations attended the launch, including enterprises forming part of the project’s target audience as well as stakeholders such as: Mrs Rita Bartolo from the MRRA, Mr Raymond Vassallo and Mr Paul Refalo from the CoE, Mrs Maria Elena Attard from the OPM, Mr Angelo Chetcuti from the European Commission Representation in Malta, and notably Mr Alain van Raek from DG Enterprise and Industry. A list of attendees is attached under Annex 7.4.10.

The focus of the launch was to present the project’s aims and key messages, and encourage participation by target companies in project actions. The project portfolio was distributed to all attendees as well as to the media. A press release was issued following the event. Footage of the event was released to TV stations, and also turned into a short video which was uploaded to the project’s website and YouTube channel. A list of news features covering the Project Launch is attached under Annex 7.3.3.18.

Moreover, the project launch venue was set up as an exhibition displaying various water related photos, provided by the Malta Photographic Society. The photos focused on different elements relating to the key project messages, with historic water management features also included. The photo collection forming part of this exhibition remains the property of the project. It is planned to feature at different locations over the course of the project life and so far has been exhibited at the ministerial exhibition celebrating the EU LIFE programme’s 20 th anniversary.

Outputs/results achieved The main outputs listed in the grant agreement are that companies and authorities will become aware of the project and the environmental problem through the launch, and that the launch ill help establish ties with both mentioned parties. Given the number of enterprises which collaborated with the project, and the interest by authorities in the project’s findings and recommendations, these outputs can be considered met.

Indicators testing performance The event was planned, sub-contractors engaged, invites designed and issued in time for the event to be held within four months of the project start. The event was well covered by the local media with the main TV station TVM, the third most popular station NET and popular

40

English language newspaper The Independent and the Business Weekly section also covering.

High ranking officials including the minister responsible for the environment and the LIFE programme addressed attendees. The turnout was slightly smaller than originally foreseen, with representatives from around 50 enterprises attending instead of 100 attendees. However, interest was high and several water audits were booked by attending companies on the spot.

The partners therefore feel that the indicators of progress were met.

Modifications to work plans No modification to work plans was required in the execution of this action.

Major problems The only difficulty encountered in implementing this action was that the launch was held a few days after parliament took a vote of no confidence in the government. Despite this the event was well attended, and media coverage was good with Malta’s TVM (most popular TV station) and NET TV station (the third most popular TV station) reporting the event, as well as most of Malta’s main print and online newspaper portals. No other problems or delays were encountered in implementing this action.

5.2.2.14 Action F4 – Press Releases Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken A total of 18 press releases were issued, which exceeds the number expected in the grant agreement. Press releases were drafted by the partners, with input from stakeholders relevant to the subject matter. These included the LIFE Focal Point, the Head of Water Policy within MEH, and the MTA. Press releases were then issued to all the local media, uploaded to the project website, and were appropriate also circulated electronically to the partners member base and the project’s target audience. Press release coverage was often prominent and wide amongst media sources. Several press releases also quoted high ranking individuals outside of the partnership, who collaborated with the project to disseminate the project’s key messages.

These included Mr Peter Gammeltoft, Head of Water Protection Unit, DG ENV, former Minister Mario de Marco, current ministers Minsiter Konrad Mizzi and Minister Leo Brincat, and MTA CEO Josef Formosa Gauci. Press releases covered a wide range of topics, all of which related directly to project key messages and actions. A returns list is attached under Annex 7.3.3.19.

Outputs/results achieved It was foreseen that between 15 and 25 percent of the population will receive information about the project through newspaper purchases, and that this would support the project in reaching its goals vis a vis participating enterprises and take up of water saving solutions. The total distribution for media in which press releases was covered is over 200,000. This indicates that the target of 25% of the population receiving information through newspaper purchases has been indicated, even without considering that several people read each newspaper, resulting in higher figures of readership than distribution. The partnership is

41

convinced that this action served to support the project’s goal of facilitating target enterprise adoption of water saving best practice. The foreseen outputs have therefore been met.

Indicators testing performance Press releases were drafted with input from partners, the project’s Water Expert, and where necessary relevant stakeholders. Several featured very prominently in the print media, the most prominent of which include features on page 3 of the main English language and the main Maltese language newspapers. The indicators have therefore been met.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

42

5.2.2.15 Action F5 – Radio & TV Appearances Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken Throughout the project’s duration the partners maintained contact with TV and radio stations and hosts, seeking opportunities to appear on programmes to discuss key messages, progress and results. The project appeared for a total of 10 programmes. These included eight appearances on Malta’s two most popular TV stations – TVM and One TV. Another appearance was made on a popular programme discussing topical issues during prime time on another popular TV station. This programme consisted of a 1.5 hr discussion about the project, key water issues, results and water saving potential. It repeated four times in the following weeks. A returns list if attached under Annex 7.3.3.20.

Outputs/results achieved The project identified suitable programmes, making several high profile appearances. The total viewership for the programmes attended is estimated at around 114,000 viewers. This indicates that the project’s strategy in choosing high visibility programmes resulted in excellent exposure. Coupled with the results of Action E1 – Monitoring Project Progress, Awareness Surveys – that 50% of the target audience adopted water saving measures over the project’s lifespan (an increase of 10% over baseline), this shows that the expected results listed in the Grant Agreement have been met.

Indicators testing performance Interviews were given, appearances made, and good coverage obtained on all media. The project constantly targeted TV and radio programmes (on a monthly basis), resulting in 10 appearances. Viewer numbers are available as per the above section.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action. A minor problem encountered is that from September 2012 to March 2013 Malta held a general election, and in May 2014 Malta held the European Parliament elections. In the build up to, and during these periods, the TV media was almost exclusively interested in political issues, resulting in fewer programmes being attended than planned. The project partners countered this problem by seeking programmes with particularly good visibility and exposure. The problem therefore is considered to have been largely overcome.

43

5.2.2.16 Action F6 – Layman’s Report Partner responsible - MBB Actions undertaken A non-technical Layman’s Report was drafted by the partners with input from the project’s Water Expert. The document was also circulated to the LIFE focal point for Malta, as well as the Head of Water Policy MECW/MEH. The document communicates the project’s key messages, presents water saving solutions and potential for industry, gives project results, and further reading. An attractive visual layout was prepared, and the document published in print and electronic format, also available for download from the project website. It was widely distributed, in both print and electronic form, to media houses; stakeholders the project has been in contact with; target audience enterprises; and various journalists. Additionally, it was distributed in print form to attendees at the project’s closing event. The Layman’s Report is attached under Annex 7.3.1.

Outputs/results achieved The main output foreseen was the dissemination of information about the project, results, LIFE programme, the After-LIFE plan to the following:  Local companies  Industry players not members of the partners’ organisations and those not reached, or less informed about the project  Local media  Local stakeholders including government, NGOs  EU officials working on or with the Water Framework Directive The above was all met, with the report also made freely available on the project website. The outputs for this action have therefore been met.

Indicators testing performance Information collected over the course of the project was used in the preparation of a draft.

This draft was distributed to partners, as well as key stakeholders. The report was published and distributed prior to the project’s end, thus also being available for distribution at the project’s closing event organised as part of Action F7. The report was uploaded to the project website and distributed electronically to a wide list of stakeholders and target audiences. This meets and in some cases exceeds the indicators of performance listed in the grant agreement.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

44

5.2.2.17 Action F7 – Closing Event Partner responsible – Malta Chamber Actions undertaken The event was held on the 28th March 2014 in the Malta Chambers Exchange Buildings in Valletta – the same venue and hall in which the project was launched in. It was a high profile event during which attendees were addressed by the presidents of the partner organisations as well as Minister for Energy and Health Konrad Mizzi (under whose portfolio water conservation falls) and Minister Leo Brincat (under whose portfolio the LIFE programme falls). Around 60 participants attended the event, including shadow minister for the conservation of water George Pullicino. During the event Minister Brincat awarded certificates of participation to best practice enterprises. The event was well covered by the local media, achieving articles in the Times of Malta and TVM (Malta’s main English language newspaper and Malta’s main TV station respectively). The Shadow Minister responsible for water conservation also wrote about and praised the project on his personal blog following the event – screenshot attached under Annex 7.3.3.21. During the event an audio-visual presentation was given by the project manager, and the Layman’s Report published.

Outputs/results achieved The main outputs/results listed under the grant agreement are that the event will include high level government representation and that it will serve to honour the companies that cooperated with the project. These outputs/results were met through the attendance and address by two ministers as well as the awarding of certificates to companies by one of the ministers.

Indicators testing performance The closing event was held in March 2014, during which speakers included the Minister responsible for water conservation as well as the Minister responsible for the LIFE programme in Malta, opposition spokesperson for water conservation, numerous attendees from the project’s target audience, and various stakeholders including public authorities workers. Although the grant agreement lists 100 attendees, 60 were registered attending the event – an attendance sheet is attached under Annex 7.3.3.22. The main TV stations TVM and ONE TV covered the event, along with the main English language newspapers the Times and the Independent. The event was planned and sub-contractors engaged within the timelines identified in the grant agreement.

Modifications to work plans No modifications to the work plan were required.

Major problems No major problems were encountered in executing this action.

45

5.3 Evaluation of Project Implemention In this section you should evaluate the following aspects of the project:  Methodology applied: discuss the success and failures of the methodology applied, results of actions conducted and the cost-efficiency of actions The key methodologies for this project affected: 1) Communications and media work, 2) Direct contact with enterprises, 3) Direct contact with stakeholders including authorities, 4) Sourcing of sub-contractors.

Communications and media work The methodology chosen here was for project actions, findings and results to be communicated through media work, direct electronic contact with target audience, through direct contact, and through the project website. Each element to be communicated was therefore disseminated through as wide a media as possible. The key procedure here was the circulation of material drafts to the partnership and relevant stakeholders (normally the LIFE focal point, but also including Manuel Sapiano, Head of Water Policy within MEH, and John Magri, Manager Quality and Industry HR Development MTA) for feedback. Once feedback had been received within a timeframe which allowed the project to quickly process news items, the news would be released through Action F4 – Press Releases. It would then be used to communicate through other actions. This system is cost effective as input need only be obtained once per release, with the output being used in several actions. It was also an effective methodology as evidenced by the prominence given to the project’s communications in the media.

Direct contact with enterprises The project’s focus here was on first calling target enterprises and requesting a meeting with the General Manager, CEO or director. During this meeting the project’s aims, key messages, and actions would be explained and collaboration with the enterprise sought. In most cases project requests were accepted during the meeting, and water audits through Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings, or participation in other actions such as C5 – Workshops, confirmed by the enterprise. Following this, the collaboration would take place. Often, follow up information would be required by the project which would have been supplied electronically. The project would then keep the key contact person within the enterprise updated with information as appropriate. The structure is simple; however in practice it required a lot of time and effort by the project manager and project assistant – more than was originally anticipated, as is reflected by the increased expenditure on personnel costs by the project. This is particularly so with respect to acquiring information following water audits carried out as part of Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings and E2 – Monitoring of Project Impact, Environmental Problem Targeted. While the methodology was successful and the partners will adopt it for future projects, it will be improved upon through a stronger focus on maintaining contact with a key person within the enterprise. This will require a stronger emphasis on direct contact actions, and more time by the project’s contact staff allocated to these actions.

46

Direct contact with stakeholders including authorities The process adopted here builds on that described above. Stakeholders were kept up to date through regular contact following key project publications or communications. Meetings were regularly organised, and where appropriate support sought during these meetings, with follow up communication to organise the support. Examples include the CoE inviting their members to workshops organised by the project, or ITS organising a workshop with the project, for students studying hospitality management. In all cases key contact points were identified and regularly updated to build a strong working relationship. This process worked particularly well with the CoE, MTA, MEH, and ITS, resulting in tangible and public support given by these entities for the project. The only failure was in the project’s attempt to contact the Chamber of Architects, with a view to entering into a working relationship similar to the other stakeholders. Only one meeting was available and the project manager fell ill for that meeting.

Contact continued, however the project had not identified a strong contact point and a working relationship did not result. This emphasises the importance of a strong contact point within stakeholders, through whom a working relationship can be built.

Sourcing of sub-contractors The procedure used here was to contact three providers and request quotes based on a project provided briefing of the job required. Depending on the quotes sub-contractors would have been immediately eliminated from the selection, or alternatively asked for a meeting to discuss their submission further prior to the project team making a final selection. This process is reasonably cost-effective and efficient, allowing sub-contractors to be selected based on the best available information. The process allowed the project to engage subcontractors who delivered to a high standard, and undoubtedly helped the project reach its goals.  Compare the results achieved against the objectives: clearly assess whether the objectives were met and describe the successes and lessons learned. This could be presented in a table, which compares through quantitative and qualitative information the actions implemented in the frame of the project with the objectives in the revised proposal: Task Foreseen in the revised proposal Achieved Evaluation The management Action The overall Result of Action A1 will be Planned and actual that the project management structure will structure enabled the A1 results are identical. enhance the completion and success rate of all the other project actions through appropriate planning and well established structures.

completion of all project actions, and the overall success of the project.

This action will also ascertain that the reporting and other procedures expected as part of the LIFE+ project funding administration and described in Action A2 Monitoring of Project progress are adhered to as well as the Common Provisions.

The action also ensured that reporting and other procedures required for a LIFE+ project were adhered to.

Action Through this action, it is expected

Time sheets were

Planned and actual 47

A2

that all LIFE+ programme requirements are adhered to meticulously and in a timely fashion.

Moreover, this action will allow the coordinating beneficiary to maintain the project on track and to budget therefore allowing for the appropriate implementation of all other project actions.

collected on a monthly basis, records of Steering Committee Meetings kept, invoices processed according to the partner’s established system, financial forms filled in, and all other administration and financial management necessary for the appropriate implementation of all project actions carried out.

An audit report was produced showing the compliance with all legal provisions.

After-LIFE Communications Plan produced and included with Final Report.

results are identical.

Action Within the After-LIFE A5 communications plan it is expected that the recommendations for the revision of the Water Framework Directive, which includes the involvement of other Mediterranean stakeholders will be disseminated to key stakeholders such as the Mediterranean country/local governments as well as to the Commission.

The After-LIFE communications plan was distributed to various stakeholders including government and other key stakeholders working in the Mediterranean.

Planned and actual results are identical.

Action The result of this action will ascertain B1 consistency and high standards in all communication materials for the duration of the project life. This action is therefore one which is expected to support all other actions in achieving their results as well as supporting the awareness of the project as a whole.

The output of this Planned and actual action informed all results are identical. communications material produced by the project, thus supporting all other actions in achieving their result, and supporting the project overall in

Action An audit report will be produced A3 showing the compliance with all legal provisions Action After-LIFE Communications Plan A4 produced and included with Final Report.

Planned and actual results are identical.

Planned and actual results are identical.

48

Action We expect that over 90% of the B2 target companies (72 MHRA members and 186 Malta Chamber members) will receive the project portfolio, thereby becoming aware of the project and its main messages. A well-designed project portfolio will give the project a high profile, importance and professionalism, thereby helping the partnership in establishing strong contacts for the project.

Action The companies will be fully C1 informed about the importance of reducing water consumption to help Malta reach good ecological status in line with the objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive. The target companies will learn about the cost of reverse-osmosis technology and why it cannot be a viable alternative to groundwater and will also be made fully aware of the economic and environmental benefits of water savings to the business.

Although certain water saving measures are already known to the project partnership, through face to face meetings, new methods and/or other practical solutions as well as the most effective communication tools to convince the decision takers will be identified. This information will be included in other communications material such as the Solutions Pack, project website, feature articles etc and will enable the project to disseminate the campaign messages more effectively.

This action will be one of the main

achieving its objectives.

Almost all the target companies received the portfolio, as well as various stakeholders and also companies not falling within the target group. Interest in the portfolio was high, and feedback given through Action C1 – Face to Face meetings, suggests that it was important in helping the project achieve the number of audited enterprises it did.

Companies were made aware of the importance of reducing their water consumption in line with Malta’s ecological needs and the EU WFD objectives, as well as of other key messages.

Planned and actual results are identical.

Planned and actual results are similar, with 136 enterprises audited in place of the forecast 140, and leading to a take up of 14% of target enterprises adopting water saving solutions in place of a forecast 20%. This action was also This action helped crucial in helping the the project identify project achieve a and disseminate 28% water existing best consumption practice. It also fed reduction in place of into the development a 10% water of almost all other consumption actions, and can reduction. therefore be considered a crucial action within the project.

Through this action the project achieved a 13% take up rate of water saving recommendations

49

communication tools that will increase the effectiveness of the project and help achieve at least 20% of the target companies adopting best practices during the project lifetime.

Action Over 90% of the target companies C2 will receive the solutions pack. It will also be handed to key staff during face to face meetings, workshops and an electronic copy of the booklet will be sent to the companies by e-mail.

amongst its target audience, leading to a staggering 28% reduction in consumption.

Almost all target companies received the solutions pack, which was also handed to key staff during face to face meetings, As a result of the distribution of the workshops, and pack, most of the companies will made available become aware of the key messages of online through the the project and the best practices and project website, its benefits to business as well as promoted through Malta’s water resources. Thus this emails. action will help the project to provide the necessary information to the Awareness of the target audience and encouraging key project messages them to adopt best practices to reduce registered an overall their water consumption. increase, to which this action contributed.

Action It is expected that approximately 200 Around 150 people C3 persons attend the National Water attended the Conference representing business, National Water government and other stakeholders.

Conference, Attendees well informed about the receiving water scarcity issue and other key information about messages of the project. project key Prominent coverage received in messages. Coverage newspapers, TVs, radio and online was prominent on media.

TV, radio, newspapers and online.

Action A minimum of 18 articles will appear 14 articles appeared C4 in the magazines published by the in the partners Malta Chamber, MHRA and MBB. magazines. 10 A minimum of 15 features will also appeared in Maltese appear in Maltese and English and English language newspapers and magazines. language At least 4 articles will be published newspapers and in the publications targeting the magazines. One tourists. 4 articles will be published appeared in in the publications of the MBB’s publications partners in Brussels such as targeting tourists. Of “Eurochambers news” and weekly the companies “Business Europe”. At least 6 articles HSBC is known to

Planned and actual results are identical.

Planned and actual results are almost identical, the only difference being a somewhat smaller number of attendees than originally foreseen.

In general fewer articles appeared than were foreseen.

This is largely due to media agents preferring to cover project material through pressreleases rather than feature articles. This resulted in fewer feature articles in local newspapers

50

about the water conservation signs for the employees of the target companies will be published in the publications produced by large companies for their employees.

Furthermore, we expect certain column writers and opinion writers (including the editors of the main papers) to take up this issue.

Action Over 90 percent of the target C5 companies will become aware of the workshops and will be given a chance to attend. We expect that these workshops will facilitate the implementation of the best practices that will be promoted by the project.

We also expect at least 50% of the large companies to include the best practices for water savings in the trainings for their employees using the solutions pack as a guideline.

This action will provide the necessary technical information to the target companies in Malta and help them to adopt best practices to reduce their water consumption. It will also help the project to receive direct feedback from the industries regarding the logistical and/or financial issues, if any, regarding the implementation of the best practices and help offer alternatives and explanations on how to over come these problems.

At least 180 technical staff attend the first six workshops and another 400 non-technical staff members will the second set of 20 workshops.

Action Over 50% of the target companies C6 (which do not already have any water conservation signs) will join the scheme.

Over 11,000 signs will be distributed.

(This is based on the assumption that 50% of the hotels will participate in the scheme thus resulting in around

have published an article on their intranet; however this was unavailable due to confidentiality procedures. Column and opinion writers produced several pieces taking up the issue.

All target companies were invited to participate in workshops. This action provided the necessary technical information to target companies regarding best practice in water conservation.

magazines and publications targeting tourists than expected.

Nevertheless, the project managed a high readership through the feature articles published as part of this action (in excess of 248,000).

Numbers reached were lower than anticipated.

Conclusions are that general workshops are perceived as too disruptive to everyday operations, while interest in technical workshops was high.

10 workshops for general staff were held, reaching 199 attendees, while 6 workshops for technical staff were held, reaching 124 attendees.

19 hotels joined the scheme, resulting in the distribution of nearly signs to nearly 3000 rooms, or 14% of all hotel rooms. Signs for employee areas were

9,000 rooms indicated in the project application was an omission, based on 50% of all hotel rooms (17,000) in Malta and not 50% of target hotels.

51

9,000 rooms under 3/4/5 star Hotels that are members of the MHRA and further 650 distributed to hotels for the staff quarters. As for the companies it is estimated that an average of 5 signs per targeted company will be required (total 930 signs).

We expect that the questionnaires will show that the tourists notice the water conservation signs and implement some of the proposed actions during their stay.

The water savings that would be achieved through this action will clearly demonstrate to the target audience the economic benefits of small and simple investments.

Through this scheme we expect the target companies to become more aware of the main messages of the project and raise interest in the project actions such as face to face meetings and workshops as well as start implementing other best practices.

Action This action will allow the project E1 staff to monitor the success of the project in terms of raising awareness on the key messages and their effectiveness at different stages of the project life.

The main result of this action will be to enable the project partnership to monitor the impact of the project actions, in particular the communications actions at regular intervals of the project. This will result in the project staff knowing the extent of adoption of best practices, and the awareness created by the project amongst the target audiences.

distributed to all target hotels and businesses.

Furthermore 21 of 72 hotels targeted already had such signs. 19 of 51 hotels without signs joined the action (2 five star, others three and four stars). This resulted in a total of 3000 rooms.

This action allowed Planned and actual project staff to results are identical. monitor awareness of key messages and effectiveness of the project at different stages.

The main results are listed in Section 5.2.2.9 and show that overall, awareness of project key messages increased.

This will allow review and revision of methods employed of the project actions as necessary to ensure maximum project impact. For example, if there is a significant change in behaviour and awareness

52

between the companies that took part in the face to face meetings as compared with the companies that did not take part, effort will be made to increase face to face meetings.

With regards the impact of ‘Water Conservation Signs’ (Action C6) on the tourists, the project is planned to have signs placed in around 9,000 rooms under 3/4/5 star hotels as we are envisioning that 50% of the hotels that do not already have water conservation signs will participate in this action.

This means that between May 2013 till the end of the project life (March 2014), tourists staying at in these 9,000 rooms will receive the project messages. Although it is not possible to accurately estimate how many tourists would be staying in these 9,000 rooms over the 10 month period till the end of the project (due to differing length of stays and number of guests per room), the total number of tourists who stayed in the MHRA member hotels in 2010 was over 820,000 tourists. Extrapolating this annual figure, over a 10-month period in a straight proportion method, results in over 683,500 tourists. Therefore, as we had assumed that 50% of the MHRA members will participate in Action C6 Signs for Water Conservation, it is estimated that around 340,000 tourists will see these signs during the project life. Moreover as the project will reach an agreement with the hotels to retain and maintain the signs for 5 years after the project ends, it can be expected that a further 1.7 million tourists in the subsequent 5 years will be recipients of the messages through the water conservation signs.

Moreover, according to the feedback from the tourists with regards to the Water Conservation Sings, the hotels with minimum positive feedback from the tourists will be identified by the project partnership and will be 53

approached to find ways to maximize the impact of these signs (for example by re-placing them in a more effective way etc).

Action The ongoing assessment of the companies’ water consumption will E2 enable both the project and the target companies to monitor consumption thereby identifying any improvements.

The regular briefs drafted about the consumption pattern changes will direct the project manager providing a more targeted approach in particular during the Face to Face meetings (Action C1) but as well for other communications messages. This monitoring action will also potentially highlight best practices which achieved excellent results, which the project will highlight on the website (Action F1) and potentially also through press releases and other C Actions.

The expected environmental results (10% service water reduction among the 20% target businesses that will adopt water saving measures) of the project will be effectively monitored through this action.

With regards to the calculation of the objective of reaching at least 20% of target companies, the hotels that have already adopted these changes prior to the project’s commencement will be excluded from the calculation of the objective of reaching at least 20% of target companies which will adopt best practices to reduce water consumption during the project lifetime. The Commission will be informed of these hotels through the Report of 1st Stage of Face to Face Interviews (deadline 30th April 2012) which will form part of the Inception report to be submitted to the Commission by July 2012.

Action Knowledge about the project and its F1 key messages will be increased among target companies. The website will also act as a hub of information for the industries that wish to invest in best practices.

This action allowed the project to identify water savings, also informing other actions particularly F1 – Project Website, C actions, and F4 – Press Releases on material for communication.

Planned and actual results are identical.

The achieved results were a 28% water reduction by 10% of enterprises. This takes into consideration enterprises which were already best practice or had little scope for savings when audited by the project.

The website served to disseminate information about the project and its key messages amongst target

Planned and actual results are identical.

54

Through promotion of the businesses on the website that take part in the project, we hope that other business will also become aware of the project messages and benefits of investing in best practices.

Action Staff, contractors, authorities, F2 members of the organisations and members of the general public who visit the offices of the three partners will become aware of the LIFE funded project being undertaken by the three partners

enterprises and stakeholders, and contributed to the overall success of the project.

The signs have been noted by most visitors to the partner offices. This indicates that most visitors are aware of the LIFE funded project being undertaken.

Action The target companies and authorities Target companies F3 will become aware of the project and and authorities the environmental problem became aware of the communicated during the launch. project and its key Through the dissemination of the messages during the project portfolio (Action B2) and launch. The press coverage, the target audience dissemination of the will start becoming familiar with the project portfolio project’s key messages and start (Action B2) and recognising the project through its related press branding developed through Action coverage, the target B1 (Develop project identity). The audience and project launch will also help the stakeholders also partnership establish working started becoming relationships with key representatives familiar with the from government authorities and as project’s key well as from the companies messages and start immediately resulting in an increase recognising the in participation especially in Action project through its C1 (face to face meetings) which will branding developed through Action B1 commence immediately after the (Develop project project launch. identity). The project launch will also help the partnership establish working relationships with key contacts within enterprises as well as government and authorities, contributing to Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings.

Action It is estimated that between 15 and The total distribution

Planned and actual results are identical.

Planned and actual results are identical.

Actual

results

are

55

F4

25 percent of the population will receive this information through newspaper purchases. The actual number of people who read the articles are likely to be higher as these percentages are based on the number of papers purchased and not the number of readers (as more than one person is likely to read the papers purchased). This will contribute to raising the awareness of the target audience on the project and its messages as well as the general public. Coverage received in the national media will increase the recognition of the project among the target audience and would lead to increased cooperation.

Action At least one TV or radio programmes F5 will be targeted every month throughout the project life depending on the agenda and the season.

An increase in the discussion and coverage of the topic in other media is expected.

The results will increase the visibility and recognition of the project among the target audience, and stakeholders.

Action This action is expected to further F6 disseminate the projects objects, its results and provide information on the LIFE programme, as well as inform the audience of aspects of the After-LIFE Communications plan (Action A4). The following audiences are expected to be recipients of the document;  Local companies  Industry players not members of the partners’ organisations and those not reached, or less informed about the project  Local media  Local stakeholders including government, NGOs

for the papers in which press releases were covered was in excess of 200,000, or approaching 50% of the population.

better than planned results. This action was the project’s strong point in terms of media work. This will be taken into consideration when developing other projects.

TV and radio programmes were targeted every month, resulting in 10 appearances over the project life, resulting in over 114,000 viewers receiving project messages. The project’s topic registered an increase in discussion and project visibility.

Through this action the project further disseminated its objectives, findings and results, and also informed the audience of elements in the After-LIFE Communications plan. Local companies, industry players not members of the partner organisations, local media and stakeholders including

Planned and actual results are identical.

Planned and actual results are identical.

56



government, and EU officials received copies of the document.

Action This event is aimed at honouring the Certificates were F7 companies that have cooperated with issued to the project as well as engaging the participating local authorities in understanding the companies by one of needs to continue the work already the two attending undertaken through the project as Ministers. Future described in the After LIFE work on water communications plan section within conservation was the Layman’s report. This will ensure communicated to that the solutions identified attendees and the throughout the project and their Layman’s report was benefits to Malta’s economy and distributed. ecology can continue to be disseminated to other industries and beyond. High level representation from the government is expected.

EU officials working on or with the Water Framework Directive

Planned and actual results are identical, with high level representation from government and the opposition being particularly strong (with the attendance of two ministers as well as the shadow minister for environment of the main opposition party).

 Indicate which project results have been immediately visible and which results will only become apparent after a certain time period.

Project results which are immediately visible include the amount of water saved by enterprises which adopted best practice during the project’s lifetime, and the change in awareness of key project messages amongst the target audience. Results which will become apparent over a time period include: 1) Adoptions of project recommendations by the Maltese government, 2) Adoptions of project recommendations by the European Commission, 3) Adoption of project recommendations by enterprises which had not yet implemented them during the project’s lifetime, 4) A shift towards more efficient products/services supplied to industry by engineers. If relevant, clearly indicate how a project amendment led to the results achieved and what would have been different if the amendment had not been agreed upon.

Not applicable.  Indicate effectiveness of the dissemination and comment on any major drawbacks The partners feel that the dissemination of information was largely successful. This is mainly due to the simple and replicable procedures established. The procedures allowed the project to follow an established template to communicate actions, progress, findings, and results through: 1) Quick and effective media work, 2) Direct electronic contact with the target audience, 3) Direct face to face dissemination through project actions (notably C1 – Face to Face Meetings, C5 – Workshops, C3 – National Water conference),

57

4) Availability of information through the project website.

In all cases the information communicated was made available through all the above channels. The partners feel that there were no major drawbacks to this system, and will continue to build upon it in other projects and work areas.

58

5.4 Analysis of long-term benefits In this section please discuss the following: 1.

Environmental benefits a. Direct / quantitative environmental benefits: i. LIFE+ Information and Communication: e.g. reductions of the use of pesticides within a group of targeted stakeholders, measured changes of attitude of important stakeholders. b. Relevance for environmentally significant issues or policy areas (e.g. industries/sectors with significant environmental impact, consistency with 6th or 7th (as applicable) EU Environment Action Programme and/or important environmental principles, relevance to the EU legislative framework (directives, policy development, etc.)

The direct environmental benefits brought about by the project are a reduced water consumption by enterprises from various sectors, with a reduction in energy requirements mainly for water heating by the hotel sector. This is highly relevant to Malta, where groundwater bodies are over-extracted by nearly 50% over sustainable yield on an annual basis. This work therefore supports the WFD requirement for efficient use, as well as the WFD requirement for Member States to balance extraction with recharge.

2.

Long-term benefits and sustainability a. Long-term / qualitative environmental benefits i. LIFE+ Information and Communication: e.g. the continued effect of the followed strategy on key stakeholders, expected transfer of the followed methodology to other countries or policy areas, future impact on European Union environmental policy and legislation. b. Long-term / qualitative economic benefits (e.g. long-term cost savings and/or business opportunities with new technology etc., regional development, cost reductions or revenues in other sectors) c. Long-term / qualitative social benefits (e.g. positive effects on employment, health, ethnic integration, equality and other socio-economic impact etc.) d. Continuation of the project actions by the beneficiary or by other stakeholders.

Savings achieved by industry through the project’s dissemination of best practice translate into around EUR 100,000 per annum. Water saving initiative by industry can be expected to continue developing, leading to stronger financial savings. This will increase the competiveness and safeguard the economic sustainability of the sectors involved, and can be expected over the medium to long term.

Recommendations made by the project could lead to increased focus on the water savings sector, particularly the green jobs element. A number of new green jobs could be created, as outlined in the policy recommendations document presented to government attached under Annex 7.2.5. To summarise the recommendations; the Project has identified that an industry wide adoption of shower and wash-hand basin flow rate regulation, and grey-water treatment by hotels could lead to considerable savings in water and electricity consumption. The

59

adoption of these three water saving measures would lead to an industry level reduction in water use of 37%, and significant energy savings on heating.

The MBB as coordinating beneficiary together with partners MHRA and Malta Chamber will continue to work on water savings for industry. A work plan has been highlighted through Action A4 – After-LIFE Communications Plan. Additionally, the MECW/MEH has requested assistance in organising consultation with industry on Malta’s National Water Action Plan, which request has been agreed to by MBB. The MBB will also follow the development of the Greening the Economy National Strategy to provide further input supporting the recommendations listed above.

3.

Replicability, demonstration, transferability, cooperation: Potential for technical and commercial application (transferability reproducibility, economic feasibility, limiting factors) including cost-effectiveness compared to other solutions, benefits for stakeholders, drivers and obstacles for transfer, if relevant: market conditions, pressure from the public, potential degree of geographical dispersion, specific target group information, high project visibility (eye-catchers), possibility in same and other sectors on local and EU level, etc.

The process adopted by the project could be adapted to address other environmental areas of concern, particularly energy use and waste issues, related to industry. The partners have in fact; decided to export the work method to these areas and consultation with government over national priorities is already underway. While the approach has proved successful in Malta, similar projects have also achieved success in other Mediterranean Member States, and therefore it can be assumed that the process is largely transferable to other countries dealing with the same sectors.

4.

Best Practice lessons: briefly describe the best practice measures used and if any changes in the followed strategy could lead to possible adjustment of the best practices

The project’s strategy focused on direct contact with enterprises as a means of gathering information, identifying water saving opportunities, and encouraging their adoption. To further build a drive towards water saving by industry media and communications work was used on an ongoing basis throughout the project. Project information also formed the basis of recommendations to government and the European Commission.

The key elements to this strategy are having a good contact person with enterprises, carrying out media work effectively and being able to react quickly to developments, and on maintaining a good working relationship with stakeholders including government.

As best practice the partners would consider the contact maintained with key enterprises and key stakeholders. The critical element here was identifying the right contact point within the enterprise or stakeholder, then providing relevant information on a regular basis, and checking on progress to offer support frequently, yet without over-exposing the contact. The partners view the strategy as having been successful and would therefore not change the best practice.

On the other hand, this model will be considered for use in other projects where applicable, and built open to increase its effectiveness and reach.

60

5.

Innovation and demonstration value: Describe the level of innovation, demonstration value added by EU funding at national and international level (including technology, processes, methods & tools, organisational & co-operational aspects);

The demonstration value added through the EU funding can be described as follows. Firstly it involved a collation of best practice and baseline data on water consumption by industry.

Secondly it involved a dissemination of best practice to the target audience, together with data gathering to verify impact. Thirdly it involved dissemination of impact amongst stakeholders and presentation of policy recommendations nationally and at EU level. The impact of the best practice dissemination is an increase in water savings, verified through data submitted by enterprises. This points to a national impact at industry level. Equally importantly, project recommendations will be integrated into national policy, furthering the gains already achieved by spreading them more widely within industry nationally. To summarise the recommendations; the Project partners advocate a demand management strategy coupled with awareness raising of efficiency measures, and a supply augmentation strategy facilitating and promoting the use of non-conventional water resources. The demand management strategy should facilitate and prioritize the use of efficient technology. This could be done through the establishment and promotion of an Eco-Label for water consuming appliances. Supply augmentation should take into consideration existing best practice in the in-house rainwater harvesting and re-use, grey-water treatment, black-water (sewage) treatment, and industry specific waste-water treatment. At the same time, externally sourced non-conventional water resources, such as rainwater or municipally treated sewage effluent, should also be optimised for consumption by sectors in which demand for 2nd class water already exists. These recommendations were presented to government, and are attached under Annex 7.2.6. In June 2014, the MBB received a letter from Mr Manuel Sapiano, Head of Water Policy within MECW/MEH, confirming that the recommendations are being integrated into policy. The letter is attached under Annex 7.3.3.2. The MBB will continue to collaborate with government on the issue of water policy for industry, as Mr Sapiano requested in the above mentioned letter.

6.

Long term indicators of the project success: describe the quantifiable indicators to be used in future assessments of the project success, e.g. the conservation status of the habitats / species.

The ultimate long term indicator of success would be the comparison of water usage by industry, taking into consideration changes to nature or size of local industry. If this shows a long term reduction, it can be assumed that the project has contributed to this reduction.

Indicators leading up to this would include policy incorporations of project recommendations to strengthen water efficiency. Increased interest in water savings best practice by industry demonstrated through adoption of best practice is also a long term indicator of project success.

61

6. Comments on the financial report The standard statement of expenditure (available in the 'toolkit' on the LIFE web page) must be used and presented in a separate document, as described below – see section 8 on financial reporting. This part of the technical report must include the following points:  overview of costs incurred,  information about the accounting system and relevant issues from the partnership agreements  an allocation of the costs per action This information should include sufficient detail to establish a clear link between technical activities on the one hand and costs declared in the financial forms on the other.

Please note that – as set out in the Common Provisions on the eligibility of costs – only costs that are necessary for and clearly linked to the activities carried out, are eligible.

This section should justify and explain extraordinary cases, e.g. necessary costs not foreseen in the budget, persons changing status during the project from external consultants to employed staff (or vice versa), etc.

62

6.1. Summary of Costs Incurred Complete the following table concerning the incurred project costs and comment on each of the cost categories focussing particularly on discrepancies compared to the allowed flexibility of 30,000€ and 10% (cf. Article 15.2 of the Common Provisions)

PROJECT COSTS INCURRED Cost category 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Budget according to the Costs incurred within grant agreement* the project duration

%**

Personnel Travel External assistance Durables: total nondepreciated cost

157,769 10,557 73,369

182,437 1,925 61,520

116% 18% 84%

- Infrastructure subtot.

- Equipment sub-tot.

- Prototypes sub-tot.

Consumables Other costs Overheads TOTAL

NA

NA

NA

1,558 NA 61,327 6,715 21,790 333,084

949.90 NA 40,775 6,129 20,564 314,298.70

61% NA 66.5% 91.2% 94% 94%

*) If the Commission has officially approved a budget modification indicate the breakdown of the revised budget Otherwise this should be the budget in the original grant agreement. **) Calculate the percentages by budget lines: e.g. the % of the budgeted personnel costs that were actually incurred

Comments per cost category Personnel costs: Expenditure in this cost category exceeds that budgeted. The main reason for this is that considerably more time was required of the Water Expert than originally foreseen, mainly with regards to obtaining and processing water consumption data of enterprises. However, due to savings in other cost categories, the extra cost incurred did not affect the overall budget. The amount does not exceed EUR 30,000, and as per Common Provisions (2010) Article 15.2, this therefore did not require a project amendment.

Travel costs: Expenditure under this cost category is significantly below budget. The main reason is that Island Hotels Group plc. provided complimentary accommodation for the international guests participating in Action C3 – National Water Conference. Secondly, significant savings were achieved in travel for the Kick-Off Meeting.

63

External Assistance: Expenditure in this category is lower than budgeted, due to savings made on most actions owing to negotiations of better prices for services rendered.

Equipment: Although percentage expenditure is significantly lower, this only amounts to a figure of around EUR 500, due to savings made on equipment purchase.

Consumables: Expenditure in this cost category is substantially lower than forecast. This is mainly due to the Island Hotels Group providing complimentary venue and catering for Action C3 – National Water Conference, due to a better price negotiated for the printing of Action C6 – Water Saving Signs, and due to not incurring venue costs for hosting Action F3 – Project Launch and F7 – Closing Reception as the event took place at the premises of one of the Associated Beneficiaries, The Malta Chamber.

Other costs: Expenditure in this cost category reflects that budgeted.

6.2. Accounting system This should include among other aspects,  Brief presentation of the accounting system(s) employed and the code(s) identifying the project costs in the analytical accounting system,  Brief presentation of the procedure of approving costs,  the type of time recording system used, i.e. electronic or manually completed timesheets,  Brief presentation of the registration, submission and approval procedure/routines of the time registration system,,  Brief explanation how it is ensured that invoices contain a clear reference to the LIFE+ project showing how invoices are marked in order to show the link to the LIFE+ project A project account has been set up in the Shireburn SFM accounting programme, which is the standard accounting tool used by the organisation. The accounts are administered by the project administrator and further controlled by an accountancy firm. An established independent auditing firm is engaged to conduct an audit on an annual basis.

Timesheets are filled in and submitted to the Project Administrator on a monthly basis in electronic form. Once approved by the Project Manager a signed form is then submitted by the relevant staff member.

The Malta Business Bureau has established a standard operating system for all EU-funded projects. The Malta Business Bureau opens dedicated bank accounts for each project in order to ascertain transparency within its accounting system and procedures. For the EU LIFE+ Investing in Water project two current accounts were opened with APS Bank Malta Ltd. The accounts have been entitled as follows 1) Malta Business Foundation-LIFE+ Investing in

64

Water and 2) Malta Business Foundation-LIFE+ Co-Financiers. In the first account the European Commission’s pre-financing payment was deposited, while the co-financier funds and sponsorships were deposited in the second account.

It was also established that the MBB Chief Executive Officer – Joe Tanti and MBB Executive and Project Manager – Geoffrey Saliba are the joint-signatories of both project current accounts. Therefore, whenever an invoice is received, the Project Administrator makes sure that the invoice is correct and that it includes the project code. If the project code is omitted by the issuing party, a request for the invoice to be re-submitted is made. The Project Administrator then fills in a payment requisition form where all information related to the payment is inputted, following which a cheque is issued and signed by the two signatories.

The cheque is sent along with a covering letter and a copy of the invoice to the service provider. All invoices are numbered and colour coded according to the cost category (such as External Assistance, Travel, Consumables etc).

The MBB cannot reclaim any VAT on expenditure, while both the Malta Chamber and the MHRA can recover part of the VAT. The partner VAT status documents are attached under Annex 7.1.2. The percentage of recoverable VAT varies from year to year for both entities as follows:

Malta Chamber

2012 43%

MHRA

35%

2013 No project expenditure 35%

2014 41% 55%

All Malta Chamber and MHRA expenses which incurred VAT have had expenses charged to the project in line with the above percentages of recoverable VAT. An Annex showing the documentation for services rendered by an external provider is also attached, to demonstrate the documentation of records relating to provision of external services/products. Therefore, under Annex 7.1.3 are attached the following documents, as an example of a document trail for the engagement of a particular external provider for services rendered: 1) Terms of reference issued to potential providers to enable them to prepare a quote for market research carried out as part of Action E1 – Monitoring Project Progress. Filenames – ‘1.ToR_Investing_in_Water_Surveys_December2011’ 2) The three proposals received by the MBB in response to the issuing of (1) listed above.

Filenames – ‘2.2011 MBB - Business Survey Proposal’, ‘2.AIS Enviornmental Ltd. Proposal’. ‘2.People & Co Ltd. Proposal’.

3) An internal document assessing the three proposals and highlighting the course of action to be taken by MBB. Filename ‘3.Proposal_Review_Internal_Document’.

4) The contract signed with Misco as external provider. Filename ‘4.Misco Contract’ 5) The invoices received by Misco for services rendered. Filenames ‘5.Misco_Invoice_34’, ‘5.Misco_Invoice_81’, ‘5.Misco_Invoice_50’.

An Annex showing all documentation relevant to a project staff member’s engagement also is attached, to demonstrate the documentation of staff records. Therefore, under Annex 7.1.4 are attached the following: 1) Contract for Geoffrey Saliba, Project Manager 2) FS3 forms for 2011, 2012, 2013 and the March 2014 payslip

65

3) Leave summary forms for 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 5) Timesheets In two letters received by the project from the EC, clarification has been requested regarding the project’s calculation of annual working hours. The annual working hours are calculated on a per staff basis as follows: the total number of annual working hours is calculated based on working days (i.e. weekends and public/national holidays taken into consideration). From this any form of absence is also deducted (i.e. annual leave, sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, bereavement leave, leave without pay, etc). Over-time is taken into consideration, and the total actual hours worked per staff member are arrived at. This is reflected in the timesheets where total hours worked per day and leave days are listed.

6.3. Partnership arrangements (if relevant) Please briefly explain how financial transactions between the coordinating beneficiary and the associated beneficiaries have taken place. How is financial reporting implemented (do associated beneficiaries themselves enter the information in the financial tables or is this done by the coordinating beneficiary?)

The project has so far received a pre-financing payment by the EC. This was divided amongst partners in equal proportion to their respective budgets (i.e. 70% as per pre-financing payment). The remaining funds will be distributed to the partners following the EC’s final payment. Financial information is entered into the Financial Claim Form by the MBB as coordinating beneficiary. This is done following submission by partners incurring expenses, of invoices. The processing system used for such invoices is the same as used for MBB incurred expenses, i.e. all project expenditure is processed in the same way regardless of which partner incurs the expense. Note is made in the requisition and soft and hard filing system of which partner has incurred which cost, allowing quick and easy access to this information for budgeting purposes.

6.4. Auditor's report/declaration Name and address of the external auditor, if required under the terms of the Common Provisions. The auditor's report (to be included with the financial report) must follow the format of the standard audit report form available on the LIFE website, in particular the auditor must in section 7 clearly state that the financial report is in compliance with the LIFE+ Programme Common Provisions, the national legislation and accounting rules.

The auditor’s report, as concluded through Action A3 – External Audit, is attached under Annex 7.3.3.4. The audit has been completed by Mazars Malta, Mr Anthony Camilleri, Managing Partner, Address: 32, Triq iz-Zaghfran, Attard ATD9012, MALTA registration number AB/26/84/39

66

6.5 Summary of costs per action This table should present an allocation of the costs incurred per action. It should be presented in both paper and Excel format.

Please comment on any major discrepancies between this table and the summary of costs per action set out in the grant agreement (form FB or R2).

Action no.

Short name of action

A1

Project Management

A2

Project Monitoring

A3

External Audit

A4

After-LIFE Communications Plan

A5

Networking

B1

Project Identity

B2

Project Portfolio

C1

Face to face Meetings

C2

Solutions Pack

C3

National Water Conference

C4

Feature Articles

C5

Workshops

C6

Water Saving Signs

E1

Monitoring - Awareness Surveys Monitoring - Environmental Problem

E2 F1

Project Website

F2

LIFE+ Boards

F3

Project Launch

F4

Press Releases

F5

Radio & TV Appearances

F6

Layman's Report

F7 Overheads

After-LIFE Reception

TOTAL

1.

Personnel

22626.85 28342.29 534.04 1165.65 6522.29 494.79 3253.15 36182.98 9980.45 7044.14 6777.01 8990.19 6681.05 2342.95

2.

Travel and subsistence 538.48

3.

External assistance

4.a Infrastructure

6490.00

5.

4.c Purchase 6.

Prototype or lease of Consumables land 949.90 429.23

4.b Equipment

7.

Other costs

TOTAL

95.75

31130.21

340.60

28682.89

994.50

1528.54 1165.65

15.70

6537.99 3492.80

3987.59

2726.38 953.43 402.18

3277.84

9257.37

8276.82

45413.23

10115.13

9395.87

196.20

29687.65

562.97

8921.59

953.92

17884.80 6777.01

15.70

2394.82

11400.71

1248.87

5836.72

13766.64

12771.13

177.00

15291.08 11480.54

11480.54 7828.84 412.22 5605.07 6717.46 5527.15 1234.11 2683.45

10908.20

4543.00

23280.04

454.30

1026.60

1893.12

542.99

4343.99

10492.05

251.76

6969.22 5527.15

2462.00

906.15

4602.26

232.30

4104.94

7020.69

12769.87

134.78

4307.11

0.00

66.49

0.00

0.00

2857.03

429.06

20564.35

182426.66

1925.49

65837.26

0.00

1016.39

0.00

0.00

43671.78

6558.53

314340.77

The main discrepancies have already been described under Section 6.1.

67

7. Annexes Please make a reference to the annexes in the report text. In case the annexes are presented in local languages, a summary (titles, headings, map keys, etc) in English should be included, either in the report or in the annexes.

Annexes should be provided in paper form and in electronic form. The electronic version must be complete and include all annexes. The paper version may make a reference to a previous submission of the annexes e.g. that certain brochures were submitted with the report submitted on (date).

7.1 Administrative annexes At the stage of the final report most administrative annexes, including all Partnership agreements (if relevant), should have already been submitted to the Commission. For such previously submitted documents, a list indicating with which report they were already forwarded to the Commission is sufficient.

The Partnership Agreements were submitted to the Commission with the Inception Report dated 28.06.2012, and amended with the Project response to Commission queries, dated 18.10.2012.

7.1.2 – VAT status documentation for the partners 7.1.3 – Documentation E1: this is sample documentation to highlight the procedure followed in the engagement of external providers for market research under Action E1.

7.1.4 – Documentation relevant to the engagement of Geoffrey Saliba, Project Manager, as sample documentation relating to engagement of project staff.

7.1.5 – List of letters received by the project from the Commission, and brief discussing main queries and the project partners’ actioned follow ups.

7.2 Technical annexes List of keywords and abbreviations used Technical reports, e.g. hydrological studies, Maps, drawings, technical designs, technical memos etc, as appropriate. For LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity with land purchase: copies of the purchase / lease acts, including a "conservation clause", as this is a prerequisite for the costs to be considered eligible. All land sections purchased or leased must be shown on a map, which also provides the boundaries of the project area and the Natura2000 site boundaries. For LIFE+ Nature projects: the After-LIFE Conservation Plan 7.2.1 List of abbreviations BOV Bank of Valletta CoE Chamber of Engineers Directorate General for the Environment within the European DG ENV Commission EC European Commission ECRM European Commission Representation in Malta

68

EPIO EU FHRD GWP MED GWU HOTREC HSBC ITS MBB Malta Chamber ME MECW MEH MEPA MEUSAC MHRA MIP MRA MRRA MSDEC MTA MTCE MWA NAWP NGO NSO OPM SME UHM UoM WFD

European Parliament Information Office in Malta European Union Foundation for Human Resources Development Global Water Programme - Mediterranean General Workers Union European Trade Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafes Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Institute for Tourism Studies Malta Business Bureau Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry Malta Enterprise Ministry of Energy and the Conservation of Water Ministry of Energy and Health Malta Environment and Planning Authority Malta-EU Steering Action Committee Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association Malta Industrial Parks Malta Resources authority Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs Ministy for Sustainable Development, the Environment and Climate Change Malta Tourism Authority Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment Malta Water Association National Action Water Plan Non-Governmental Organisation National Statistics Office Office of the Prime Minister Small and Medium Enterprise Union Haddiema Maghqudin University of Malta Water Framework Directive

7.2.2 – Paper: Water Consumption Benchmarks – a Ste Towards Reduced Consumption 7.2.3 – Paper: The Hotel Industry, a Shift to Greener and Lower Cost Operations 7.2.4 – Paper: Greening the Economy; Grey-Water Treatment and Flow Rate Regulation 7.2.5 – Recommendations – Greening the Economy 7.2.6 – Recommendations – National Water Management Plan 7.2.7 – Recommendations relating to the Water Framework Directive Review

7.3 Dissemination annexes

69

7.3.1 Layman's report Purpose: The layman's report is the document aimed at a broader target group and serves to inform decision-makers and non-technical parties on the objectives of the project and the results achieved. The layman’s report will be distributed widely and will be available on the LIFE web site via the project database. It is therefore compulsory for all projects.

Form: This document is an entirely self-standing document, often in the form of a leaflet or similar. It should be provided in English and/or French and in the language(s) of the beneficiaries, both on paper and in digital form (preferably MS WORD and/or PDFformat).

Content: The length of the layman’s report should normally be 5-10 pages, including supporting graphs, photographs etc. Since the target group is the general public, the technical details should not be excessive. However, it is normally advantageous to include some quantitative results to illustrate the impact of the techniques/methods demonstrated by the project. It should include the following points (adapted to the target group): Summary of project scope and objectives; Description of the techniques/methodology implemented and the results achieved; Assessment of the benefit and impact o LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity: conservation benefits for the Natura 2000 (SCI/SPA) and species/habitat type targeted. Highlight briefly issues that may have important policy implications. o LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance: environmental impact of the project, describing the environmental benefits (illustrated with quantified information); o LIFE+ Information and Communication: impact on the environmental problem, describing the change in awareness and/or approach. Cost-benefit discussion on the results (economic and environmental benefits); Transferability of project results. Map indicating where the project takes place: NB please ensure that the project site is illustrated in a way that allows a broader public to know where in Europe and in the Member State the project is implemented.

7.3.2 After-LIFE Communication plan – for LIFE+ Biodiversity and LIFE Environment Policy and Governance projects This compulsory plan (1-2 pages) shall be presented in electronic and in paper form. It shall set out how the beneficiary and partners plan to continue applying, disseminating and communicating the results of the project after its end, and in particular how they plan both to continue applying the results themselves and to facilitate / encourage / ensure their wider application by others; it shall be delivered in English and also in the language(s) of the beneficiaries.

7.3.3 Other dissemination annexes In electronic format (on one or more CD-ROMs, memory sticks or DVDs appropriately labelled and indexed): All the photographs produced during the project (in high quality, high resolution JPEG/TIFF format or better (e.g. RAW)

70

All dissemination related products (brochures, scientific articles, guidelines, books, posters, newsletters, …) in PDF format; Videos (if relevant) Standard presentation illustrating the main actions and results of the project (set of slides / colour photographs, electronic images with captions) In paper format: Any document, map or publication which is an identifiable product of the project or which is useful to assess the success of the project. Dissemination / publication list Articles, Books Brochures 7.3.3.1 – Letter of Recommendation by Dr Ian Borg, Parliamentary Secretary for the EU Presidency 2017 and EU Funds (May 2014) 7.3.3.2 – Letter of Recommendation by Mr Manuel Sapiano, Head of Water Policy, Ministry for Energy and the Conservation of Water (June 2014) 7.3.3.3 – Steering Committee Meeting Minutes & Reports 7.3.3.4 – External Audit Report 7.3.3.5 – Action B1 – Project Identity 7.3.3.6 – Action E2 Report – Water Consumption Pattern Analysis 7.3.3.7 – Action C2 – Solutions Pack 7.3.3.8 – Action C3 – Conference report & Attendance Sheet 7.3.3.9 – Action C4 – Scans of articles 7.3.3.10 – Action C4 – Returns sheet 7.3.3.11 – Action C5 – Scans of attendance sheets 7.3.3.12 – Action C6 – Signs artwork 7.3.3.13 – Action C6 – Report 7.3.3.14 – Action E1 – 2012, 2013, 2014 reports 7.3.3.15 – Action E2 – Water Audit 2012 Aggregate Report 7.3.3.16 – Action F1 – Website Statistics 7.3.3.17 – Action F2 – Artwork and photo 7.3.3.18 – Action F3 – List of attendees 7.3.3.19 – Action F4 – Returns List & Scans 7.3.3.20 – Action F5 – Returns List 7.3.3.21 – Action F7 – Blog by Shadow Minister for Environment 7.3.3.22 – Action F7 – Attendance Sheet 7.3.3.23 – Paper published at the 11th Global Conference for Sustainable Manufacturing

7.4 Final table of indicators Please see the separate Guidelines for the compilation of final outcome indicators’ tables

71

_________________________________________________________________

8. Financial report and annexes - "Standard Payment Request and Beneficiary's Certificate" - duly signed original must be submitted - For Nature projects, signed originals of the "Beneficiary's Certificate for Nature Projects" must be submitted to justify costs claimed for durable goods.

- If one or more associated beneficiary participates in the implementation of the project, "Consolidated Cost Statement for the Project" - signed original must be submitted - "Financial Statement of the Individual Beneficiary" to be completed for each project beneficiary, i.e. signed, originals must be submitted by the coordinating beneficiary and by each associated beneficiary. It includes the individual transactions which are specified in the following forms (which necessarily do not have to be printed, but can be submitted on electronic media, e.g. CD ROM, USB key) o o o o o o o o o o o o

Personnel costs Travel costs External assistance Infrastructure Equipment Prototype (only applicable for ENV and BIO projects) Land purchase (only applicable for NAT projects) Lease of land (only applicable for NAT projects) Consumable material Other direct costs Overheads Funding from other sources, divided in "Contribution of the associated beneficiary", "Other sources of funding" and "Direct income".

-

Supporting documents, and further information or clarifications, requested in previous letters from the Commission (e.g. in the letter announcing mid-term pre-financing payment, in the feed-back letter following project visits, etc.), and not already submitted.

-

Auditor's report using the standard reporting format (compulsory for most projects, please refer to the section "independent financial audit" in the Common Provisions)

For detailed guidance on preparation of the financial report and annexes, please refer to the financial management guidance document available on the following web site: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/index.htm

72