Contribution of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT projects to the ... · ETAP Environmental Technology Action Plan EU European Union FASRB Framework Agreement on the Sava River basin Floods . Directive

ASTRALE ‘Delta-CONTRACT’

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

environmental policies and legislation

Water Sector – Report Update

January 2015 (Draft Final Ver. 0)

[Water Sector Report – Update January 2015]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 1.1. Limitations to the Study ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Review of EU water policy .........................................................................................................6 2.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Water Framework Directive (WFD): (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy) ..... 6 2.3. Legislation relevant to WFD Implementation ........................................................................................................... 10

3. Recent Developments in Delivery............................................................................................. 17 3.1. Annual Trends......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2. Means of Intervention ......................................................................................................................................................... 19

4. Evaluation of the LIFE projects ................................................................................................. 22 4.1. Projects Addressing More than One Directive ........................................................................................................... 22 4.2. Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC ................................................................................................... 23

4.2.1. Dangerous Substances Directive 76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC; 06/11/EC........................................................... 23 4.2.2. Shellfish Waters Directive 2006/113/EC ....................................................................................................................... 24 4.2.3. Fresh Waters Directive 2006/44/EC ................................................................................................................................ 24

4.3. Directives which are Obligatory Programmes of Measures under Annex VI of the WFD ........................ 25 4.3.1. The Nature Directives .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 4.3.2. Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC ................................................................................................................................ 27 4.3.3. Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC ................................................................................................................................ 28 4.3.4. The Major Accident (Seveso) Directive ............................................................................................................................ 29 4.3.5. EIA Directive 85/337/EEC .................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.3.6. Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC ........................................................................................... 29 4.3.7. Plant Protection Products Directive 91/414/EEC ..................................................................................................... 31 4.3.8. Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC ........................................................................................................................................... 31 4.3.9. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC), 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU ............... 33

4.4. Directives which are Related to the Water Sector .................................................................................................... 34 4.4.1. Floods Directive 2007/60/EC .............................................................................................................................................. 34 4.4.2. Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC ..................................................................................................................... 35 4.4.3. 2013 EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change ................................................................................................ 35 4.4.4. Groundwater 2006/118/EC ................................................................................................................................................. 37 4.4.5. EQS Directive 2008/105/EC ................................................................................................................................................. 38

4.5. Specific national/ regional/ local approaches developed by LIFE projects .................................................. 38 4.6. LIFE projects playing the role of catalyst for the implementation of national/ regional/ local water programmes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 39 4.7. Third Countries (TCY) – a special case ......................................................................................................................... 40

4.7.1. LIFE-TCY and the promotion of EU policies outside of Europe ............................................................................ 43 4.8. Best of LIFE projects ............................................................................................................................................................ 44

5. Analysis of the achievements of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT projects in the water sector ....................... 46 5.1. SWOT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 47 5.2. Characterisation of river basin districts (Article 5) ................................................................................................ 48

5.2.1. Establishment of typology for water bodies ................................................................................................................. 48 5.2.2. Identification and analysis of pressures and impacts............................................................................................... 50 5.2.3. Economic analysis of water use .......................................................................................................................................... 52

5.3. Establishment of a register of protected areas (Article 6) ................................................................................... 53 5.4. Establishment of programmes for monitoring water status (Article 8) ......................................................... 55 5.5. Assessment of water body status (Article 8) ............................................................................................................. 56

5.5.1. Ecological status of surface water ..................................................................................................................................... 56


5.5.2. Chemical status of surface water ....................................................................................................................................... 58 5.5.3. Quantitative status of groundwater ................................................................................................................................. 59 5.5.4. Chemical status of groundwater ........................................................................................................................................ 60

5.6. Development of River Basin Management Plans (Article 13) ............................................................................. 62 5.6.1. Stakeholder and public participation (Article 14) ..................................................................................................... 62 5.6.2. Establishment of an integrated river basin approach ............................................................................................. 64

5.7. Establishment of a Programme of Measures (Article 11) (Example of Constructed Wetlands) .......... 65 5.8. Reporting and information and data management (Article 15) ........................................................................ 67

6. Assessment at the Programme level......................................................................................... 69 6.1. Areas in which LIFE water projects are especially successful (Strengths) .................................................... 69

6.1.1. Alternative remediation approaches ................................................................................................................................ 69 6.1.2. Management solutions for waste water in the urban environment .................................................................. 70 6.1.3. Assessment and improvements of quantitative status in groundwater ........................................................... 71 6.1.4. New technologies for the continuous monitoring of surface waters ................................................................. 71 6.1.5. Cost effective programme of measures ........................................................................................................................... 71 6.1.6. The Horizontal Approach – linking water management to other policy sectors......................................... 72 6.1.7. Projects with high potential for transferability .......................................................................................................... 72

6.2. Areas in which LIFE water projects have failed to meet their policy objectives (Weaknesses) ........... 73 6.2.1. Scale ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 74 6.2.2. Varying costs ................................................................................................................................................................................ 75 6.2.3. Weather and technical problems ....................................................................................................................................... 75 6.2.4. Technical limitations ................................................................................................................................................................ 76 6.2.5. Human factors ............................................................................................................................................................................ 76

6.3. Continuing or new threats which make it difficult for LIFE water projects to implement policy (Threats) ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76

6.3.1. Sustainability ............................................................................................................................................................................... 77 6.3.2. Transferability ............................................................................................................................................................................ 77 6.3.3. Data access and reference information ........................................................................................................................... 77 6.3.4. Unknown long- term results ................................................................................................................................................. 78 6.3.5. Wider administrative and economic threats ................................................................................................................ 78 6.3.6. Difficulties in obtaining access, rights and permissions .......................................................................................... 78 6.3.7. Lack of close collaboration and consensus with stakeholders.............................................................................. 79 6.3.8. Insufficient harmonisation and different interpretations of policy ................................................................... 79

6.4. LIFE projects contributing to the development of new water related policies and legislation (Opportunities) ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 79

6.4.1. Projects working on complementary sub-legislation to already existing texts ............................................ 80 6.4.2. Projects developing new approaches not yet covered by existing EU legislation ........................................ 80 6.4.3. Projects providing input for specific water management related legislation ............................................... 81 6.4.4. Project contributing to the revision of water legislation ........................................................................................ 81 6.4.5. Projects contributing to further develop water management related norms and standards ............... 81 6.4.6. Projects assessing and disseminating environmental legislation ....................................................................... 83

6.5. Preparatory Projects ............................................................................................................................................................ 83 6.6. Factors for success and failure ......................................................................................................................................... 84 6.7. Ones to Watch ......................................................................................................................................................................... 87 6.8. Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................. 88

7. Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................... 90 7.1. LIFE Projects and the Water policy Cycle .................................................................................................................... 90 7.2. Key Findings Concerning the General Programme .................................................................................................. 92 7.3. Policy Complementarily ...................................................................................................................................................... 92


LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Timeline for WFD Implementation .......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-2: Directives containing measures to be included in the WFD Programme of Measures, figure adapted from Frederiksen, Mäenpää, Hansen (p.8) .............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 3-1: Trends in Projects through Time for Selected Water Related Directives ............................................... 18 Figure 3-2 Trends in LIFE Projects Addressing Legislation Cited in Annex VI of the WFD ........................................ 19 Figure 3-3: Delivery Mechanisms for Policy Implementation for all Projects .......................................................... 20 Figure 3-4: Breakdown of Delivery Mechanisms by LIFE Brand ............................................................................... 21 Figure 4-1: Relative contribution of LIFE project to the obligatory POM ................................................................. 25 Figure 4-2: Automatic measuring station in Hrastje ................................................................................................ 28 Figure 4-3: Phytoremediation system in Poland ...................................................................................................... 29 Figure 4-4: Production of the zeolitite NH4+ ........................................................................................................... 32 Figure 4-5: Number of LIFE project per related directives ....................................................................................... 34 Figure 5-1: Detailed Analysis of Projects Related to the Water Framework Directive ............................................. 47 Figure 5-2: Macrophyte planting and renewal of fish stocks in Winiary and Jelonek Lakes .................................... 57 Figure 5-3: Hydro4LIFE ............................................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 6-1: Micro-phytodepuration system ............................................................................................................. 70 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Directives repealed by the WFD ................................................................................................................ 6 Table 2-2 WFD Criteria for Good Status ..................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2-3: List of basic and supplementary measures forming POM (from Annex VI of the WFD) ......................... 10 Table 2-4: WFD related Directives listed in Annex VI of the WFD ............................................................................ 11 Table 2-5 WFD related Legislation not listed in Annex VI of the WFD ..................................................................... 14 Table 3-1: Overall Trends in Water Projects ............................................................................................................. 17 Table 4-1: LIFE TCY Water Sector Projects................................................................................................................ 41 Table 4-2: TCY Projects Promoting EU Policy outside Europe .................................................................................. 43 Table 4-3: Best of LIFE Awards – Water Projects ...................................................................................................... 45 Table 6-1: Scaling Issues with LIFE projects ............................................................................................................. 74 Table 6-2: Factors for Success and Operational Threats of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT Projects in the Water Sector .......... 85 LIST OF BOXES Box 1: LIFE08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT .......................................................................................................................... 48 Box 2: LIFE11 ENV/IT/000243 RII – LIFE ................................................................................................................... 49 Box 3: River Restoration Project............................................................................................................................... 54 Box 4: Strengths of the LIFE projects ....................................................................................................................... 69 Box 5: Weaknesses of the LIFE projects ................................................................................................................... 73 Box 6: Threats to the implementation of water policy ............................................................................................ 76 Box 7: Opportunities for LIFE projects to influence policy ....................................................................................... 80 Box 8: Deficiencies in current water monitoring programmes ................................................................................ 82 ANNEXES Annex 1: Long list of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT projects Annex 2: Finalised matrix of all projects analysed for water legislation Annex 3: Further assessment of projects considering the Water Framework Directive Annex 4: SWOT analyses for critical analysis of selected projects


ACRONYMS AR Artificial Recharge BAT Best Available Technique

BWD Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC (Bathing Water Directive)

CEC Cation Exchange Capacity CFP Common Fisheries Policy CIS Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy CODs Chemical Oxygen Demands CW Constructed Wetland

Discharge

Directive (76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC and) 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (soon to be repealed by the WFD)

EAP Environmental Action Programme EC European Commission ECGMS European Coordinating Group for Marine Strategy ENV LIFE Environment Policy and Governance strand

EQS

Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

ETAP Environmental Technology Action Plan EU European Union FASRB Framework Agreement on the Sava River basin

Floods Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (Floods Directive)

FP7 Seventh Framework Programme GES Good Environmental Status (as set out in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive ) GES Good Ecological Status (as set out in the Water Framework Directive) GIS Geographical Information System

Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (Groundwater Directive, included in WFD)

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

INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community

IPPC Directive 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control)

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LIFE + European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment (2007-2013)


LIFE III European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment (2000-2006) LIFETrack LIFE programme monitoring database LTER European Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network MBR Membrane bioreactor MPA Marine Protected Area MS Member State

MSFD Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)

MSGs Marine Strategy Groups NAT LIFE Nature and Biodiversity strand

Natura 2000 The EU wide network of nature protection areas established under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive)

Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (Nitrates Directive)

NREAP National Renewable Energy Action Plans

NVZ Nitrate Vulnerable Zones P&T Pump and Treat POM Programmes of Measures RBMP River Basin Management Plan

RD or RED Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Renewables Directive or Renewable Energy Directive)

RMS River Modelling System SMEs Small/Medium Enterprise SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems SW Surface water SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats TBT Tributyl tin, a widely used anti-fouling paint and persistent pollutant of marine systems TCY LIFE Third Countries strand UV Ultra-violet UWWT Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

WFD Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive)

WHO World Health Organisation WISE Water Information System for Europe WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Protecting the quality of Europe’s water resources has been a high priority for the European Union since it started adopting legislation in the area of environmental protection in the mid 1970s. This first generation of directives established a series of quality standards aimed at protecting human health and the living environment, including surface water used for drinking water, bathing water, fish waters, shellfish waters and groundwater. However, the quality standard approach proved insufficient for protecting Europe’s polluted waters and, in the 1980s, the EU started to focus on the sources of pollutants. This led to the Directive on Urban Wastewater Treatment (UWWT), the Nitrates Directive and the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). To make this patchwork of policies and legislation more coherent, the EU adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000, creating a global and unified approach to water legislation. The WFD’s combined approach for point and diffuse sources links the requirements established in the other directives through the programmes of measures. LIFE is the EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental and nature conservation projects throughout the EU, as well as in some candidate, acceding and neighbouring countries. Since 1992, LIFE has co-financed some 3506 projects, contributing approximately €2.5 billion to the protection of the environment and over the 20 years that the programme has been active approximately 21.6% of the projects funded under LIFE have been related to the water sector1. Furthermore, projects are overwhelmingly successful (with more than 80% of projects reaching all or nearly all of their objectives) and the LIFE programme is generally well aligned with relevant legislation and/or policy. Clearly, water sector projects form an important part of the LIFE programme; but how does the programme impact on water policy and has the programme responded to the changing impetus of the regulatory framework? In an effort to answer these questions the LIFE Unit commissioned the External Monitoring Team (Astrale) to undertake a special study to review progress to date. Reviewing all the projects from the last 20 years would have been an impossible task and so the initial review focussed on water projects from 2005-2010; this included projects which had finalised and ones which were relatively new and had only preliminary results. This document represents an update of the original report and includes projects from years 2011-2013. The Astrale team has now reviewed around 300 water related projects which have been funded during the last 9 years and selected 43 of these for detailed assessment. All brands of the LIFE programme have been represented in the study. All projects were analysed in terms of the water directives that they are related to in order to gain some understanding of the proportion of projects contributing to each directive; a subsequent gap analysis revealed those legislative areas which are not well served by LIFE projects. On examination of the spread of projects throughout the various directives there are a few areas where LIFE projects are not well represented and the Floods, Environmental Quality Standards, Drinking Water and Bathing Water Directives have the fewest projects. The reasons for this are not clear although it is possible that project proponents do not always mention all policy areas that the project is likely to influence. Nevertheless, there is certainly scope in all four directives for LIFE projects to make a contribution to the implementation (at least to certain aspects) of these policy areas. The majority of projects addressed some aspect of the Water Framework Directive and so a further breakdown of WFD policy areas revealed that typology and the delineation of water bodies and economics, and to a certain extent monitoring and groundwater related issues do not attract as many projects as other critical areas of the WFD. The suggestion in the previous report that programmes of measures were poorly addressed by the LIFE

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

ii

programme has been shown to be incorrect as a deeper analysis reveals that this is indeed a particular strength of the LIFE projects in that they address a wide range of potential measures which are worthy of further disaggregation in future iterations of this report. The report draws out some good examples of LIFE projects contributing to the requirements and objectives of the different directives. The projects examined covered a broad range of water issues addressed and solutions proposed and examined all stages of the policy development and implementation process. The number of projects with the express aim of elaborating actual policy is rather low. On the other hand, a considerable number of projects develop or demonstrate concrete water utilisation, remediation and prevention practices, demonstrating a range of economically feasible and environmentally sound options which could contribute to setting the standards for future policies. The in-depth analysis of the selected projects examined the strengths and weaknesses of the LIFE projects in relation to their impact on the water directives and went on to assess the opportunities and threats to reveal areas where the programme could improve or areas that need to be addressed if the impact on policy is to be more widespread than at present. For the 2014 report update this approach was used at both the WFD level and the programme level. The strengths of the LIFE projects lie in their ability to develop alternative remediation approaches and preventative solutions contributing to water policy issues. Undoubtedly there have been some major technological advances in water treatment (contributing to the UWWT Directive) as well as some outstanding examples of projects contributing to the implementation of river basin management plans through the integration of data capture, modelling and management techniques. Some project outputs have a high potential for transferability or replicability, although it is often difficult to determine whether the full potential has been realised as this often occurs some time after project closure. This latter point can also be considered as a threat along with long-term sustainability as it is often difficult to both maintain the momentum of a project and find continued funding once the LIFE funding has been exhausted. A new, and emerging, threat to the legacy of some LIFE projects is the macro economic climate with some projects reporting difficulties in developing innovative technologies further in the current economic climate. Few weaknesses, i.e. factors which prevented absolute success, were identified in the projects and although some were outside the control of the project design, for example poor weather conditions at critical times in the project cycle, most could perhaps have been prevented through stronger project design (e.g. technical limitations, getting the right stakeholders involved to encourage wider delivery and human factors). Variable costs was a recurring theme and some technologies developed and demonstrated by LIFE projects have proved to involve high capital costs that may act as barriers to their wider uptake and commercialisation. Other technologies demonstrate variability in cost performance on a site-by-site basis and so are less attractive to prospective investors. In terms of future opportunities, there are two policy support areas where LIFE projects could be more influential, provided that such support is built into the project design. These are projects which assess and disseminate environmental legislation and projects which contribute to the further development of water management related norms and standards. In essence it would be unrealistic to expect most LIFE projects to contribute to policy formulation due to their limited size and the generally local scale of operation. In addition, this study demonstrates how the LIFE projects contribute to the various stages of the policy cycle, highlight where the strengths of the project lie and examine the opportunities that may arise as a result of the changing regulatory landscape. The role that LIFE projects can play in each phase of the policy cycle can be assessed by examining their relevance in the four stages of the cycle. Scoping: some projects were already working on cost effective programme of measures before quantitative

iii

targets became obligatory in EU legislation. In cases such as LIFE05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM the project demonstrated the development of a cost-effective programme of measures to reduce levels of nitrogen and phosphorus originating from agricultural activities prior to the deadline. However, in the LIFE portfolio, projects of this nature are few and we could only find two projects that set out to define programmes of measures. Policy development: few projects are directly linked to the development of new environmental policies. A specific type of project (preparatory projects) was dedicated to this purpose and there was only one for the water sector which was the UK project LIFE06 PREP/UK/002 TRITECH ETV. This project was useful as in 2002, the EU adopted the Environmental Technology Action Plan (ETAP). A key aspect of ETAP is the development of improved testing, performance verification and standardisation of environmental technologies through defined processes. The TRITECH-ETV project set up and ran a pilot scheme for the verification of environmental technologies, including waste water treatment. Policy implementation: This is without doubt the main strength of the LIFE programme. Numerous LIFE projects are dedicated to policy implementation, for instance by demonstrating how (future) EU policy targets can be achieved (e.g. LIFE07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER provides innovative methods to treat hospital waste water for drinking water), by contributing to the implementation of EU policy at the national level (e.g. LIFE09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER which helps develop a modern water management system for Romania) or by demonstrating technologies (e.g. LIFE06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM that demonstrated the multi-barrier technology in Belgium and Austria). Several projects have contributed to a better understanding of how EU Directives covering different policy areas can be implemented without conflict. For example, the 2011 award winning project LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP has had a significant influence on local policy makers/regulators’ perceptions of hydropower and has proved that, with careful implementation, the ecological benefits (WFD) and the economic operation of hydropower plants (under the Renewable Energy Directive) are not contradictory and the requirements of both directives can be met. This is, arguably, the area where LIFE projects excel and make the largest contribution to EU policy. Policy evaluation / review: although, due to the demonstration nature of the LIFE programme, this element is less prominently represented in the project portfolio, there are one or two good examples of LIFE water projects contributing to policy review (e.g. LIFE07 ENV/L/540 M3 which identified shortcomings in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy). So, how well do the projects actually serve the policymaker? External evaluators tend to value the practical experimentation which LIFE projects contribute to policymaking, and they acknowledge that projects are relevant to EU policy. According to the LIFE+ mid-term evaluation2, LIFE projects “provide opportunities for the development and testing of ideas for policy development and implementation which, based on real conditions and actions on the ground, provide feedback and insight on what is feasible or less feasible, identifying good practices where possible.” The LIFE III ex-post evaluation adds3 that “in terms of utility at the European level, the projects by and large have a link to one or more pieces of EU or national legislation and/or policies, and their objectives and scopes are in line with that legislation.” In conclusion, LIFE projects excel at policy implementation but have less direct influence in other areas of the policy cycle. While LIFE projects do respond to changing legislation (i.e. response to the call for development of integrated RBMPs under the WFD) the manner of delivery (i.e. local/regional, small scale, innovative and highly technical projects), has not changed a great deal over the years. However, this may change with the advent of larger, integrated projects proposed under the new LIFE instrument (2014-2020).

2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/com2010_516_final.pdf 3 Overview of environment projects funded by the LIFE programme 1996 – 2008, GHK study 2010

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

1

1. INTRODUCTION The LIFE ENV and Eco-innovation Unit requested that Astrale EEIG should, in the context of the Enhancing Tasks of Astrale C contract, assess the contribution of LIFE ENV/INF projects to the implementation, dissemination and further development of EU environmental policies and legislation, focusing in particular on resource efficiency. Accordingly, Astrale EEIG undertook a ‘pilot study’ in 2011 which, besides providing an in-depth analysis of waste projects funded by LIFE, informed subsequent studies (input needed, methodology, ideal frequency of the updates, etc.). As a result of the pilot study the LIFE ENV and Water Unit requested a similar study concerning the contribution of the LIFE project to EU environmental policies in the Water Sector (as part of Astrale D contract). The Thematic Unit D1 (Water), represented by Ms. Evdokia Achilleos, and Mr. Jose Rizo of Unit D2 (Marine Environment & Water Industry) were involved in the design and finalisation of the report. At the time the first report was produced the Thematic Unit D1 did not identify any specific problems related to the implementation of the water related directives but they expressed some interest in identifying projects related to water re-use or addressing pharmaceutical pollution in water. Therefore, the principal objectives of the 2012 study were to:

• Review current water related legislation and agree a list of key directives to be assessed. • Review all water related projects to determine which key directives were considered,

examine trends and what the costs of implementation were (both total and EC contributions).

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

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

• Relevance of project approaches The relevant directives were analysed and grouped under four broad headings:

• Framework Directives (including the WFD and MSFD) • Directives Dealing with Pollution Control (including UWWT and Nitrates) • Directives Focussing on Aquatic Organisms (supporting fish life and Shellfish) • Directives aimed at improving Human Health (including Bathing Waters and Drinking

Waters) Some of the Directives discussed in the 2012 report have since been repealed under the Water Framework Directive and it was felt that for the 2014 update it was more appropriate to review the entire basis of the report rather than simply add on new projects that have been funded by LIFE+ since 2012. Accordingly, the Astrale team consulted with Mr Joaquim Capitão of the Water Policy Unit for advice on what should be included/removed from the existing report and how the report should be re-structured. The following actions were agreed during the course of the consultations:

1. The existing databases should be updating to add new projects and assess the effectiveness of closed out projects.

2. Re-assess all statistical analyses and include new material.

2

3. Update and amend the policy section and focus on the delivery of the WFD – be mindful of the WFD implementation timeline and make appropriate links to key LIFE projects.

4. Produce a new ‘ones to watch’ list of projects at an early stage of implementation and which have innovative solutions or approaches.

5. Remove all reference to the marine projects as these are now included in their own report and can be better referenced there.

6. Refocus the report on the WFD and change the sections accordingly – in the WFD focus area change the structure to reflect ‘subject areas’ rather than Directives.

7. Look more closely at the relationship between pressures, impacts and measures to determine possible lessons learnt from the LIFE programme.

8. Remove the section on costs as it gives a misleading impression of actual costs – the Astrale team were asked to look at the costs of implementation e.g. costs of river restoration but the data are not sufficiently robust to make this kind of assessment.

9. Amend section 4 to retain the analytical approach but make it more relevant to the implementation of the WFD.

The methodology for revising the Water Sector Report is set out below and combines the approach taken in compiling the original report with the current amendments outlined in points 1 through 9 above. A long list of projects was developed covering the period from 2005 through 2013 and thus included projects from LIFE III and LIFE +. The start period of 2005 was selected because this linked to the beginning of the implementation of the WFD which was the focus of this study. A long list of projects from all types of LIFE projects was established. TCY projects are discussed separately in Section 4.7. Projects with a clear link to the water sector were added to the final list of projects for analysis immediately without further investigation. Projects with less obvious links were investigated further by accessing the LIFE project website, the specific project website and project material housed on the Astrale system (LIFETrack). This level of analysis added further projects to the final water sector database and, in 2012, led to the rejection of 33 projects which mainly dealt with waste issues and were only marginally relevant to water and horizontal issues like soil remediation and alternative energies. A further 14 projects were removed from the main analysis because they were TCY projects and as such could only contribute to the implementation of the directives if they targeted ‘common’ water bodies shared with Member States. However, these projects were analysed separately to see whether there were any synergies in implementation in the Member States and whether there were any projects where developed technologies could be usefully transferred to the Member States (see Section 4.7). In 2014 projects from 2011, 2012 and 2013 were added to the database of water sector projects and the full list can be found in Annex 1. This list contains basic data concerning the projects and live links to the LIFE website and project website if available. This database also contains contact details of project managers; the list is up to date as far as the authors can determine. During the 2014 assessment the search parameters for projects was widened to include projects that targeted wetlands, bogs and mires because of the ecosystem services they provide, the link to climate change and the fact that reconstructed and restored wetlands are clearly indicated in the WFD in the Programme of Measures. The search revealed an additional 87 projects which are included in a separate worksheet in Annex 1. There was insufficient time allocated to this thematic report update to analyse these projects in any detail and it is recommended that they are analysed and included in the next version of this report.

3

The remaining 313 projects were then analysed by searching for applicable directives on three readily available data sources:

• LIFE project website (references given in Annex 1); • Project reports, monitoring files, evaluation files on LIFEtrack; • Website set up by the project if available (references given in Annex 1).

It is surprising how many projects did not mention any directives in any of the three source materials. It was assumed that the policy targets were included in the approved applications but this information was not readily accessible to the authors for the majority of the projects. Information concerning policy targets is actually a vital starting point for this kind of thematic analysis and one recommendation from this study is that the project policy targets (and progress towards them) are more clearly documented throughout the project lifetime. If no policy targets were mentioned in the available information the authors determined the most appropriate policy area from the aims and objectives. The results of this analysis are presented in Annex 2. Projects have been included in the database regardless of their success or failure, considering that lessons can be learnt from both. The Annex 2 database has been changed significantly from the 2012 report and now focuses on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) as the primary directive. This meant that all projects going back to 2005 had to be reanalysed and a new database constructed. This second level of analysis examined whether projects contributed to the implementation of the WFD through complimentary legislation included in Annex VI of the WFD e.g. Drinking Water, Urban Waste Water Treatment (UWWT), Nitrates or Habitats Directives. Some projects were clearly outside this remit but still made a contribution to the protection of surface and groundwater. These projects were analysed in terms of their contribution to related directives such as Groundwater, Floods or Water Quality Standards. Finally some projects were mainly concerned with water policy but also contributed towards other directives such as INSPIRE or the Waste Framework Directive. The majority of the projects citing other legal instruments were ENV projects as the majority of NAT projects deal almost exclusively with the Birds or Habitats Directives. It should be noted that all marine projects have now been removed from this report as a separate thematic study was completed on marine projects and published in 2013. A copy of this report can be accessed via the weblink below. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/news/newsarchive2014/september/index.htm#marine The policy level analysis showed that the approximately 70% of all projects 212 focussed on the WFD and so these projects were re-analysed in more depth to determine where LIFE projects made the most significant contributions and whether there were any significant gaps that the LIFE programme could be addressed in future rounds. The results of this third level analysis are presented in Annex 3. The analytical parameters used in the 2014 analysis were slightly different from those used in the 2012 report and were altered at the request of the Water Unit to better reflect the LIFE contribution towards the WFD. As a consequence the analysis follows the Annexes of the WFD as closely as possible and so projects have been assessed on parameters such as monitoring of surface waters or establishment of a GIS system or ecological status of surface waters. The analysis was conducted using a series of key word searches mainly on the LIFEtrack databases and principally using the monitoring file. Some, but not all, of the 2005-2010 projects were reanalysed if the data in the existing database was incomplete. In all cases the project background, objectives and expected results were consulted to provide information. It is true to say that some of this more detailed information was not readily available in the majority of the projects and so key word searches were not always helpful. In these cases the authors used their best judgement to allocate projects into ‘best fit’ categories. It is recognised that some

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/news/newsarchive2014/september/index.htm#marine

4

of these allocations may not be entirely appropriate. However, in cases where there was doubt in the intended outcome of a particular project, that project has not been taken forward for detailed analysis and has only been included in the statistical analysis. In some cases the authors have checked details with the relevant project monitor.

Many projects also combine water protection with other environmental issues like renewable energy directive or climate change mitigation; these links have also been taken into account and some suggestions for further improvement of the report structure are included in the conclusions and recommendations. The final, detailed level of analysis, took forward three projects in each detailed area of the WFD from the analysis in Annex 3. A further 42 projects were selected for this detailed evaluation using a SWOT analysis approach. These projects were selected according to their relevance WFD implementation, but also according to the trends that can be observed from the overall assessment. Clearly there were some topic areas that were too complex and diverse and further refinement within the topic was required. For example Annex VI of the WFD deals with Programmes of Measures and provides a long list of possible measures. For the purposes of this report the authors selected the topic of reconstructed wetlands, although it should be possible to feature any other POM on the list in future iterations of this report. Similarly the topic area Pressures and Impacts covers a wide range of possible sub-topics and so for the purposes of this report the authors selected the sub-topic area of micro-pollutants. Again it should be perfectly possible to select projects in other sub-topic areas provided that the key word searches allow for this kind of disaggregation of data. The total costs for all projects and the EC contribution under LIFE were assessed in the 2012 report but have been removed from this report at the request of the Water Unit as the data were incomplete and misleading. Only a gross level assessment remains. The concluding chapter examines where LIFE projects intervene in the policy cycle and draws together the strengths of the programme as well as summarising the opportunities that present themselves to the LIFE programme going forward.

1.1. Limitations to the Study First it must be said that it is often difficult to determine which specific policies a project sets out to address as this is not always explicitly stated in the information readily available for this assessment. The applicant (for LIFE ENV) is only obliged to complete the tick box at the beginning of Form A which gives an indication of the general area of policy the project is related to. Thus, while all of the projects analysed state that the focus of the project is on ‘water policy’ there is no imperative for the project proponents to give any further details concerning the specific directives they are contributing to. Of course many projects give further details elsewhere in the application but this is not often recorded anywhere else. As a result, searching documentation (such as the LIFE database and Astrale’s LifeTrack) using key word searches often does not reveal the required information. It would be very useful if there was a specific area on the LIFE application forms that allows the applicant to state the specific policy areas considered by the project. This information could be reproduced on Astrale’s LifeTrack and progress documented as the project progresses. Some projects, especially those that are highly technical, tend to focus very much on the development of technology and rather less on policy and so it is sometimes difficult to find the material relevant to a policy study of this nature. Indeed, for some projects on the long list it was only possible to map the broad policy area that was being considered. Projects of this nature

5

could only be assessed in these terms and could provide very little additional information. As projects often relate to more than one specific EU policy or directive, it is sometimes difficult to link a project exclusively to one legislative text. The multiple relations of LIFE ENV projects in particular4 to EU legislation make it difficult to establish clear and definite relations between projects and EU policy. This can be regarded as a limitation of the study. In terms of sustainability, transfer and replication it has only been possible to determine the potential for this to occur because these factors can only reliably be assessed after the project has closed. Although some projects do have ex-post monitoring visits, this was not used as a selection criteria, and it is only through this kind of monitoring that the real longevity of a project can be scrutinised. There was not really enough ex-post data to make any robust conclusions. Although some gaps in the portfolio have been identified it is not certain whether these are due to the fact that prospective beneficiaries do not submit applications for these areas or whether applications covering these subjects are largely unsuccessful (i.e. do not pass the evaluation stages). The information required to answer this question was not readily available in the evidence reviewed for this study. It was intended to add an assessment of bogs and mires and wetlands in general to the report during the 2014 amendment. However, the volume of projects that showed up under this selection criteria would have added a further 87 potential projects to the dataset. The authors were unable to process this volume of data at this time but there are clear links to ecological and chemical status of water bodies, ecosystem services, climate change and floods that would provide a new aspect to the analysis in future iterations of this report. The authors acknowledge that there has been insufficient time to complete the revised method of WFD analysis (Annex 3) for all parameters. In the 2012 report the authors suggested that there were few projects that dealt with the delivery of Programmes of Measures. This was because the search was conducted using the actual term or the acronym (POM). This more detailed and rigorous analysis using the terms from Annex VI of the WFD revealed that many more projects were contributing to the POM, in fact this area alone could be the main topic of future reports. It was not possible to look at all 313 projects and determine their relative contribution to POM and so these data will need to be re-examined for all projects more closely in the next iteration of this report. The same applies to the assessment of the pressures and impacts and surface water status where the authors have selected topic areas which have been highlighted in the previous report. Accordingly, the authors await feedback on this revised approach and would appreciate guidance as to the direction that any subsequent reports should take.

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

6

2. REVIEW OF EU WATER POLICY

2.1. Overview

Despite significant improvements to the quality of Europe’s water resources over the past 30 years, a number of significant pressures remain which directly impact on the health of aquatic habitats and ecosystems. Among the most significant are diffuse pollution from agriculture, water scarcity, floods, and modifications affecting hydromorphology5.

European legislation to protect the aquatic environment dates back to the 1970s. Early Directives aimed to protect human health and the environment by establishing quality standards for waters based on their utilization (e.g. Directives covering bathing water, drinking water, shellfish waters). The 1976 Discharge of Pollution Directive (repealed in 2006 by the Dangerous Substances Directive 2006/11/EC) was for many years the primary instrument for regulating aquatic pollution by establishing emission discharge limits.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was developed in response to the fragmentary nature of the existing water legislation. It provides a global and unified approach to water legislation in the European Union (EU) and coordinates environmental objectives established in other Directives by setting an overall quality standard for water bodies. The WFD incorporated the operative provisions of six earlier directives enabling them to be repealed (Table 2-1).

Table 2-1: Directives repealed by the WFD

In 2007 In 2013

Drinking Water Abstraction Directive (75/440/EEC)

Shellfish Directive (2006/113/EC)

Sampling Drinking Water Directive (79/869/EEC) Freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44/EC)

Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) Dangerous Substances Directive (2006/11/EC)

In order to assist the implementation of the WFD, the EU Member States and the Commission developed the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (WFD CIS), which was agreed in May 2001. In particular, Member States were encouraged to contribute to working groups responsible for developing analyses of pressures and impacts and best practice in river basin planning. According to the LIFE Focus Brochure (Life and Europe’s Rivers, 2007), it was here that many LIFE Nature projects have been particularly influential – promoting the key activities of the strategy, namely: the sharing of information; management of information and data; development of guidance on technical issues; and the application, testing and validation of guidance6.

The following sections provide an overview of the WFD, and other relevant EU legislation that support the achievement of the WFD objectives.

2.2. Water Framework Directive (WFD): (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy)

Adopted in 2000, the WFD establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters,

5 See EEA Report No 8/2012. European waters - assessment of status and pressures.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-waters-assessment-2012 6 Life and Europe’s Rivers. Protecting and Improving our Water Resources. LIFE III Focus Publication. 2007.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-waters-assessment-2012

7

transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. Its purpose is to protect, prevent deterioration of, and improve the aquatic environment within the EU and contribute to mitigation of the effects of floods and droughts (Article 1). It introduced a holistic approach to water management at the level of the river basin and adopted river basin districts7, delineated by Member States, as the main management unit. River basins spanning the territory of more than one MS are assigned to an international river basin district.

The WFD aims, by 2015, to achieve ‘good status’ for all water bodies; consisting of good ecological status and good chemical status elements for surface water bodies8, good ecological potential and good chemical status elements for artificial and heavily modified bodies of water9, and good quantitative status and good chemical status elements for groundwater bodies10. The overall water body classification is determined by the poorer of the two elements (Table 2-2).

Table 2-2 WFD Criteria for Good Status

Surface Water Bodies

Quality Element Criteria for Good Status

Ecological Status (comprising biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical elements)

No absolute standard set in WFD due to ecological variability within the EU Member States. Good status is achieved when ‘values of the biological quality elements…show low levels of distortion resulting from human activity, but deviate only slightly from those normally associated with the surface water body type under undisturbed conditions’.

Chemical Status Concentrations of pollutants do not exceed the environmental quality standards established in Annex IX and under Article 16 of the WFD, and under other relevant Community legislation setting environmental quality standards at Community level.

Artificial and Heavily Modified Bodies Quality Element Criteria for Good Status Ecological Potential (comprising biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical elements)

Good ecological potential is achieved when water bodies display only slight changes from conditions required to achieve maximum ecological potential. Maximum ecological potential is the highest ecological status that could be achieved given the modifications to the water body.

Chemical Status Same as for Surface Water Bodies (above)

Groundwater Bodies Quality Element Criteria for Good Status Quantitative Status Available groundwater resource11 is not exceeded by the long-term

7 River Basin District is defined in the WFD as ‘the area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with their associated groundwaters and coastal waters, which is identified under Article 3(1) as the main unit for management of river basins’. 8 Body of surface water is defined in the WFD as ‘a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir,

a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water’. 9 ‘Heavily modified water body’ is defined in the WFD as ‘a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by

human activity is substantially changed in character, as designated by the Member State in accordance with the provisions of Annex II’.

10 Body of surface water is defined in the WFD as ‘a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers’. 11 Available groundwater resource is defined in the WFD as ‘the long-term annual average rate of overall recharge of the body of groundwater less the long-term annual rate of flow required to achieve the ecological quality objectives for associated surface waters…, to avoid any significant diminution in the ecological status of such waters and to avoid any significant damage

8

annual average rate of abstraction. Chemical Status Prevention of saline intrusion and control of pollutants such that their

concentrations do not exceed quality standards established in Community legislation or lead to failure of associated surface waters to meet Good Status.

The WFD requires Member States to undertake a number of actions and establishes deadlines for delivery. Figure 2-1 shows the timeline for implementation of the Directive.

Main Actions under the WFD • Characterisation of river basin districts (Article 5)

Establishment of typology for water bodies Identification and analysis of pressures and impacts Economic analysis of water use

• Establishment of a register of protected areas (Article 6) • Establishment of programmes for monitoring water status (Article 8)

Surface waters Groundwater

• Assessment of water body status (Article 8) Ecological status of surface water Chemical status of surface water Quantitative status of groundwater Chemical status of groundwater

• Development of River Basin Management Plans (Article 13) • Stakeholder and public participation (Article 14) • Establishment of an integrated river basin approach • Establishment of a Programme of Measures (Article 11) • Reporting and information and data management (Article 15) The SWOT analyses in Chapter 5 cover a number of projects falling under the above headings. The WFD follows a cyclic approach with development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) every six years. Implementation of the first RBMP commenced in October 2009 following a development and consultation period and is due to end in October 2015, when the implementation of the second RBMPs is due to start. Development and consultation on the 2nd RBMPs commenced in many Member States during 2014. The WFD adopts a combined approach by setting standards for the concentration of pollutants within the receiving aquatic environment as well as applying emission controls to point source pollution to limit discharges. It also addresses diffuse pollution through product controls and the application of best environmental practices. Member States are required, for each river basin district within their territory, to establish a Programme of Measures (POM) to enable all water bodies to achieve good status by 2015. As a minimum the POM is required to include the necessary measures to implement other Directives covering the protection of water (basic measures), thus creating the link with the WFD. These Directives are listed in Annex VI of the WFD.

to associated terrestrial ecosystems’.

9

Figure 2-1: Timeline for WFD Implementation

10

Where implementation of the basic measures required by these Directives is insufficient to achieve the objective of good status for all water bodies, POM must include the necessary supplementary measures to achieve good status. A list of mandatory and supplementary measures is included in Annex VI of the WFD

Table 2-3: List of basic and supplementary measures forming POM (from Annex VI of the WFD)

Programme of Measures

2.3. Legislation relevant to WFD Implementation Figure 2-2 illustrates the link between the WFD and the Directives listed in Annex VI which determine the ‘basic measures’ required as part of the POM. Four categories are shown: Directives setting standards for the quality of certain waters (blue); Directives that protect biodiversity (green); Directives regulating pressures on water (orange) and procedural Directives whose implementation helps to prevent activities that negatively impact on aquatic habitats (red). Whilst the Directives setting quality standards for water (blue) have a clear link to the WFD other, such as the nature Directives (green) have more of a supporting role (e.g. measures required by the Nature Directives can support the achievement of good status under the WFD). Table 2-4 provides further details about each of the Directives and explores their link with the WFD.

Supplementary Measures (optional) Legislative instruments

Administrative instruments Economic or fiscal instruments

Negotiated environmental agreements Emission controls

Codes of good practice Recreation and restoration of wetlands

areas Abstraction controls

Demand management measures Efficiency and reuse measures

Construction projects Desalination plants

Rehabilitation projects Artificial recharge of aquifers

Educational projects Research, development and demonstration

projects Other relevant measures

Basic Measures (obligatory) Bathing Water Directive

Birds Directive Drinking Water Directive

The Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive Environmental Impact Assessment

Directive Sewage Sludge Directive

Urban Waste-Water Treatment Directive Plant Protection Products Directive

Nitrates Directive Habitats Directive

Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive

11

Figure 2-2: Directives containing measures to be included in the WFD Programme of Measures, figure adapted from Frederiksen, Mäenpää, Hansen (p.8)12

Table 2-4: WFD related Directives listed in Annex VI of the WFD

12 The Water Framework Directive and its relation to other EU legislation

(http://watersketch.tutech.eu/WP1_Directives_and_Conventions/Legislation_WFD.pdf)

Blue – water related Directives Green – Directives covering the protection of biodiversity Orange – Directives covering water relevant pressures Red – procedural Directives

http://watersketch.tutech.eu/WP1_Directives_and_Conventions/Legislation_WFD.pdf

12

Directive Description Link to WFD

Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC) replaced Directive 76/160/EEC as of 31 December 2014

Specifies two parameters, Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci, to be used to assess water quality on the basis of a four year data set (containing data from the current bathing season and three preceding seasons). Four water quality classifications are identified: excellent, good, sufficient and poor. The parameters for each category are much more stringent than in the previous Directive.

Member States are required to make information on water quality and pollution risks available to the public during the bathing season in an easily accessible place close to the bathing water, and to actively disseminate this information using other appropriate media e.g. the internet.

Sets specific criteria for bathing water that must be met in order to achieve good chemical status.

Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

Contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity through the establishment of a network of protected areas (Natura 2000) and the implementation of measures aimed at maintaining or restoring the favourable conservation status of wild birds, natural habitats and wild fauna and flora included in the annexes to the Directives.

There are a number of habitats and species listed in the Birds and Habitats Directives (BHD) for which maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection. Measures taken to achieve favourable conservation status can contribute to the achievement of the WFD objectives. The links between the WFD and BHD are detailed in an EC information document13.

Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC)

Aims to protect the health of consumers in the EU and ensure that water is wholesome and clean. It sets quality standards for drinking water covering 48 microbiological and chemical parameters. In general the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for drinking water are used as a basis for the standards. The Directive sets quality standards for drinking water quality at the tap (microbiological, chemical and organoleptic parameters) and establishes the general obligation that drinking water must be wholesome and clean. It obliges Member States to establish appropriate programmes to monitor drinking water quality and to provide adequate and up-to-date information to consumers on the quality of their drinking water. In June 2014 the Commission launched a public consultation on the quality of drinking water in the EU to assess whether improvements to EU legislation on drinking water are required. This

Quality criteria generally apply at the point of consumption but have implications for the quality of water bodies where abstraction for drinking water occurs.

13 Link between the Water Framework Directive and the Nature Directives.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/FAQ-WFD%20final.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/FAQ-WFD%20final.pdf

13


may lead to a revision of the Drinking Water Directive in the near future.

The Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC)

The Directive follows the prevention principle by requiring high-risk industrial sites to take all necessary measures to prevent accidents involving dangerous substances and to limit their impact when they occur. Sites covered by the Directive must have in place a major-accident prevention policy and emergency plan. These must be periodically updated. It includes provisions for reporting following an accident from the site operator to the competent national authority and from the national authority to the Commission.

Accidents at industrial sites have potential for wide-ranging negative impacts on the aquatic environment affecting both the ecological and chemical status of water bodies. By mitigating the risk of such accidents the Seveso Directive contributes to the prevention of any decline in the status of water bodies.

EIA Directive (85/337/EEC)

This directive is procedural in nature; it aims to protect the environment by requiring that the environmental impacts of certain projects are assessed, and ensuring that the outcome of the assessment is given due consideration during the planning and decision making process.

Supports the WFD by ensuring that developments with potential negative impacts on aquatic environments are subject to rigorous analysis. An EIA is mandatory for a number of projects directly linked to the WFD: Dams, inland waterways, ports, groundwater extraction as well as a number of industrial installations with high water consumption.

Sewage Sludge Directive (91/271/EEC)14

The Directive encourages the use of sewage sludge in agriculture whilst also regulating its use to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and man. It sets out conditions for the application of untreated sludge on agricultural land and prohibits application of sludge to agricultural land on which fruit and vegetable crops are growing or grown. It requires that the use of sludge to take account of the nutrient requirements of plants and to ensure that the quality of the soil and of the surface and groundwater is not impaired. It sets limit values for the concentrations of heavy metals in sewage sludge intended for agricultural use and in sludge-treated soils.

Sewage sludge tends to contain high concentrations of heavy metals, poorly biodegradable trace organic compounds and pathogenic organisms. Regulation of its application helps prevent runoff into aquatic environments leading to deterioration of the status of the water body.

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)

Sets requirements for pre-treatment of industrial waste water entering collecting systems and the disposal of sewage sludge. All urban areas with the equivalent of more than 2,000 inhabitants are required to conduct at least secondary (biological) treatment of their wastewater. Those in sensitive areas (as identified by Member States), or with more than 10,000 inhabitants, are required to apply more advanced treatment. The Directive timetable indicates that all MS should have fulfilled their obligations by December 2005.

Establishes parameters for discharges from urban waste water treatment plants thus contributing to the achievement of good ecological (physio-chemical) and good chemical status.

Plant Protection Lays down rules for the authorisation of plant Requires approved substances to

14 This Directive is not considered further in this analysis as it appears in the waste report. It can be included in subsequent versions if

required

14


Products Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 replaced Directive (91/414/EEC) as of 14 June 2011

protection products and their active substances for commercial sale, the placing of these products on the market and their use within the EU. The Regulation adopts the precautionary principle allowing only those substances that meet certain criteria, including the absence of any unacceptable effect on the environment, to be authorised for use.

have no unacceptable effects on the environment particularly contamination of surface waters, including estuarine and coastal waters and groundwater. It includes a provision for amending or withdrawing the approval of an active substance in cases where compliance with the WFD is compromised.

Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)

Aims to protect ground and surface water from pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources. Member States are required to identify waters affected or likely to be affected by nitrate pollution, designate areas that drain into those waters as vulnerable zones and establish action plans setting out measures for reducing pollution by nitrates. They are also required to establish codes of good agricultural practice to be implemented within nitrate vulnerable zones and adopted on a voluntary basis outside of these zones.

Tackles diffuse pollution from agriculture to prevent deterioration of water body quality and contribute to both good chemical and ecological status.

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) (2010/75/EU) replaced 96/61/EC as of 7 January 2014.

Requires industrial and agricultural activities with a high pollution potential to have a permit to operate. It establishes a number of environmental obligations that operators must comply with to obtain a permit. The aim is to prevent or reduce pollution of the atmosphere, water and soil, as well as the quantities of waste arising from industrial and agricultural installations, to ensure a high level of environmental protection.

Addresses point source pollution to water thus contributing to both good chemical and ecological status.

A number of pieces of EU legislation of relevance to the WFD have been developed since its entry into force in 2000. This legislation is therefore not specifically referenced in the WFD. Table 2-5 contains a description of the relevant legislation and explains the link to the WFD. Table 2-5 WFD related Legislation not listed in Annex VI of the WFD

15

Directive Description Link to the WFD

Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Aims to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. It requires Member States to undertake a preliminary assessment by December 2011 to identify river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding. Flood risk maps must be drawn up by 2013 for areas identified as being at risk and flood risk management plans established by 2015. The Directive applies to all inland and coastal waters across the EU.

Article 9 of the Directive includes provisions for coordination with the WFD. The deadline for establishment of flood risk management plans coincides, and should be coordinated with the start of the second cycle of the River Basin Management Plans.

EQS Directive (2008/105/EC)

Establishes environmental quality standards (EQS) for priority substances and certain other pollutants as provided for in Article 16 of the WFD. The aim is to achieve good surface water chemical status, in accordance with the objectives specified in article 4 of the WFD. The EQS Directive sets standards for fresh water and marine water.

EQS establishes limits for the concentration of priority substances and certain other pollutants in annex X of the WFD.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/EC)

Aims to achieve good environmental status (GES) of the EU's marine environment by 2020 by applying an ecosystems-based approach to management whilst ensuring sustainable use of goods and services. The MSFD sets targets for good environmental status (GES) and outlines a number of programmes of measures (POM).

Clear link as a number of pressures on the marine environment are linked to human activities are either terrestrial in nature, or are taking place in the coastal zone. The MSFD applies to coastal waters (as defined in the WFD) only ‘in so far as particular aspects of the environmental status of the marine environment are not already addressed through (the WFD) so as to ensure complementarity while avoiding unnecessary overlaps’ Projects targeting the marine environment are addressed by a separate thematic report15 and are therefore not considered further in this study.

Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC)

Sets ambitious targets for the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources for all Member States, with an overall EU target of 20% by 2020. The National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) prepared by each Member State in 2010 indicate that an overall increase of 50% in electricity generated from hydropower sources will be required to contribute towards these targets. According to estimates of the future potential generating capacity of

Development of hydropower could have potential negative impacts on the ecological status of surface water (biological and hydromorphological elements)

15 The future of Europe's seas – contribution of the LIFE programme to protecting and improving the marine environment.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/marine_report.pdf


16

Directive Description Link to the WFD

hydropower in the EU the required increase is achievable by improving the generating capacity of existing plants and by developing new installations.

EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (2013)

The strategy aims to contribute to a more climate-resilient Europe by enhancing preparedness and capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change at local, regional, national and EU levels by setting out a framework and mechanisms for action by Member States. It emphasises the use of win-win, low-cost and no-regret adaptation options, including sustainable water management and early warning systems. It also highlights the multiple benefits that can result from the adoption of ecosystem-based approaches.

Improvements to water resources e.g. reduced flood risk and improved water quality, that can result from an ecosystems based approach to adaptation are highlighted in the strategy. Improved cross-border management of floods and the sustainable management of water resources are two areas highlighted as vulnerable and in need of adaptation action.

17

3. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DELIVERY

3.1. Annual Trends The figures year on year for both NAT/BIO and ENV/INF LIFE projects addressing water policy in some form or another are shown in Table 3-1. The data show that there has been a significant increase in the number of projects in the water sector in the last three years. While there has been a change in the way that projects were initially sourced in 2014 which may account for some variation, the steady increase over the last three years is thought to represent a genuine increase in water related projects in both ENV/INF and NAT/BIO.

Table 3-1: Overall Trends in Water Projects

Year ENV/INF NAT/BIO Total 2005 22 7 29 2006 16 4 20 2007 17 3 20 2008 26 7 33 2009 20 4 24 2010 24 8 32 2011 31 10 41 2012 30 15 45 2013 34 33 67

Looking at the 9 years of the LIFE programme, it is interesting to observe that the number of projects which relate to the WFD has shown a steady increase since a low in 2007 with the last three years to 2013 representing a plateau of around 30 projects per year. This possibly reflects the considerable progress in water policy and legislation and reflects the importance of finding technical solutions to water related issues. The same cannot be said of other water related directives, the numbers of which have remained steady throughout the 9 year period. Figure 3-1 shows the number of LIFE projects which respond to each of the relevant directives over the last 9 years. It is clear that the majority of projects contribute to the implementation of the WFD. While this is true for many projects there are some that simply quote the WFD as related legislation but do not in fact make any contribution to its implementation.

The focus of LIFE projects on the WFD suggested that a further breakdown of projects, in terms of the areas of the WFD that they addressed was required and this is discussed further in Chapter 5. The Floods Directives is poorly covered by LIFE projects, although there was a mini-peak in 2011. This is perhaps surprising as the initial requirements of this Directive called for identification and mapping at the river basin level and the development of flood management plans; both requirements illustrate the synergies between the Floods Directive and the WFD. The authors could only find a small number of projects which recognised both directives and this appeared to be an area where LIFE projects could make a greater contribution. However, it is recognised that the final stages of implementation of the Floods Directive requires Member States to put in place preventative measures, probably requiring major infrastructure, and so this aspect of the Directive may well be served by other EU funding sources (i.e. structural funds).

The Groundwater Directive is reasonably well reflected in the LIFE project numbers with a steady number of projects funded in all years and the impression was that there were more projects that deal with some element of groundwater management but which did not really mention groundwater in the main objectives or project background. This breakdown is featured more extensively in Chapter 5 where the various elements of the Water Framework Directive are discussed in greater detail.

18

Figure 3-1: Trends in Projects through Time for Selected Water Related Directives

One gap identified in the LIFE portfolio in 2012 report concerned the lack of projects developing Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). Only one project (LIFE08 ENV/IT/399 EnvEurope) cited the development of EQS as an objective and this was secondary to the WFD. However, in 2011, 2012 and 2013 there are two projects per year in this area and so LIFE is becoming more influential in determining EQS, although there is still some way to go. The IPPC Directive has very few projects and, on reanalysis of all the data in 2014, it became clear that only six projects in the last two years have actually cited this directive as an objective or target. It is appreciated that projects tend to cite the individual pollution control directives rather than the IPPC and so this could be a reason why numbers are low. The pollution control directives were addressed exclusively by ENV and INF projects (no NAT projects) and tended to be mainly technical projects dealing with:

• solutions for waste water treatment in a variety of industries; • innovative technologies for reducing nitrates from point and non-point sources principally from

agriculture; • methods of dealing with pollution of groundwater, generally linked to nitrates as well; and • techniques for reducing pollution to surface and groundwater. Figure 3-2 shows the trends in LIFE projects involved with the directives mentioned in Annex VI of the WFD. These are considered to be potential legislative Programmes of Measures that could be used to implement various aspects of the WFD. There are one or two trends which may be discerned from the data. There were an increasing number of projects developing measures to address the Habitats Directive in aquatic environments. These were largely NAT projects and there was a significant increase in projects in the last three years with a particularly large increase in 2013. There was a similar trend in projects addressing the Birds Directive, also predominantly NAT projects, with a peak in 2013. As there is very little data available for these projects at the present time it may only become apparent in subsequent iterations of this report as to why this 2013 peak has occurred. Trends in projects finding new ways to deal with waste water can also be found in Figure 3-2. Projects have shown a steady increase from 2005 onwards with a slight dip in 2009. This has been a traditional strength of LIFE projects dating back to before 2005. The current upsurge in waste water treatment projects is thought to be linked to the increase in projects investigating the removal of micro-pollutants; this topic is featured in the SWOT analyses for Pressure and Impacts in section 5.2.2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

WFD

Floods

Groundwater

Renewable

Climate

EQS

19

Figure 3-2 Trends in LIFE Projects Addressing Legislation Cited in Annex VI of the WFD

As far as the other main directives are concerned there were no trends observable in the data. The number of projects dealing with Nitrates varied throughout the nine year obervation period and some directives had very few projects – these were major accidents and plant protection. The reasons for some of these observations is not immediately clear although the lack of project dealing with major accidents is possibly due to the cost of such projects which makes them outside the current LIFE remit. However, with the imminent arrival of the integrated projects it is entirely possible that some aspects of water policy which are currently poorly represented in the LIFE portfolio may become more prominent in the larger integrated project approach.

3.2. Means of Intervention It is, however, true to say that for many projects precisely how they contribute to policy is not as clearly defined as perhaps it could be. Many projects, where improvement in water quality is an objective, tend to use the WFD as a ‘catch all’ directive and often fail to elaborate specific links between the project and the policy. In an effort to explore how projects intervene in terms of policy intervention, the 197 projects between 2005 and 2010 were further screened to assess the methods and means for delivering the project. The projects for the last three years have not been analysed in this way but this could be done for the next iteration of this report. However, the overall analysis of the projects has not suggested that the means of intervention have changed significantly in the last three years and so the finding below remain relevant. The means of intervention analysis led to breaking down projects into the following action areas:

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Bathing Water

Birds

Habitat

Drinking Water

Accidents

EIA

UWWT

Plant Protection

Nitrates

IPPC

20

• Monitoring. • Policy.

It must be remembered that many LIFE projects are designed to deliver more than one of these categories, for example the dissemination strand of most projects involves some kind of awareness building but awareness-raising has only been included in the above analysis if it was a primary objective of the project (for example the LIFE INF projects have awareness raising as a primary goal). Similarly, some projects do have more than one primary objective and in these cases more than one activity has been recorded for the project. An example of this is the Luxembourg project LIFE07 ENV/L/540 M3 which is developing integrated modelling and monitoring approaches for river basin management and evaluation and the output of this project could be of interest to other WFD working groups. Figure 3-3 shows the breakdown of projects in terms of delivery mechanisms for policy implementation. It is very clear that the majority of projects help to implement policy through either the development of innovative technologies (28%) or the adoption of best practices/management (39%). A moderate number of projects involve stakeholders/awareness building (13%) or data collection and modelling (12%) as their primary activity. Only 5% of projects are designed to deliver some kind of monitoring programme and even fewer are actually designed to directly affect policy (3%).

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

A further breakdown of delivery mechanisms by LIFE brand is shown in Figure 3-4. Of the two main delivery activities virtually all the technological innovations are provided by the LIFE ENV brand, showing that this is an important means of developing and testing new technologies to deliver improved water management. Projects promoting best practices or improved management of resources are evenly distributed between the two main LIFE brands and this serves to illustrate the fact that the majority of LIFE NAT projects are specifically designed to promote best practice and rarely have truly innovative elements. There are many good examples of LIFE projects demonstrating these two delivery mechanisms and these have been mentioned in the previous section. There are several projects that are designed to improve monitoring. This is a key element of the WFD and 23 projects monitor surface water in some way with a further 12 addressing groundwater issues. Therefore a total of 35 projects have monitoring as part of the project architecture and several are harmonising the data across more than one Member State. The Italian project LIFE08 ENV/IT/399 EnvEurope is particularly ambitious as it designed to make best use of the vast range of monitoring data collected across Europe at

28%

39%

13%

12%

5%

3%

Technology

Best Practice

Stakeholders/Awareness

Data Collection/Modelling

Monitoring

Policy

21

both the national and international level which are often incompatible. The project aims to build on the work of the European Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) and to provide an analysis of the long-term ecological data and its comparison across eco-domains. In so doing the project will supply relevant scientific support to EU environmental policy and conservation in an integrated ecosystem approach. Similarly, the Spanish project LIFE09 ENV/ES/456 AG_UAS is developing a highly innovative cost-effective, spatial tool for more efficient, sustainable, water monitoring and management, in line with WFD requirements using remote sensing.

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

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

0102030405060708090

Total

ENV/INF

NAT

22

4. EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROJECTS This chapter is organised to correspond with the policy analysis presented in Annex 2. There are some projects that deal with a lot of different directives and these are presented in section 4.1. This is followed by a brief discussion of the WFD where reference is made to the detailed analysis in Chapter 5. The next section deals in depth with the obligatory measures which appear in Annex VI of the WFD and provides evidence for the support given by LIFE projects to all these directives. Finally there are some good examples of where LIFE projects contribute to the related directives which do not appear in the WFD but can gave an impact on the aquatic environment. It should be noted that references to the Marie Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) 2008/56/EC have been removed from this report as they can be accessed in a separate thematic report dedicated to this topic16.

4.1. Projects Addressing More than One Directive Some of the LIFE water projects assessed for this study focus on more than one water protection policy or directive and many of them are also linked to other environmental areas. There are also synergies with other legal instruments such as the INSPIRE, Waste Framework and Soil Directives but these have not been included in the analysis although they can be found in the comments column in Annex 2 which presents all the policy relationships for each project in the policy matrix. Many projects deal not only with the Water Framework Directive but also address other directives, either as the primary target or as a secondary function of the project. For example, it is quite possible to see how there could be a link between the Floods Directive and the WFD, a good example of which is LIFE06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN (see information in sidebar). Several projects are featured in the SWOT analyses in Annex 4. Equally it is not surprising that there are links between the WFD and the IPPC. A good example of this is the project LIFE05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP, a successful project for treating metal-contaminated groundwater on site by accelerating naturally-occurring biogeochemical processes: obviously the project also considered the Groundwater Directive. One project, LIFE07 ENV/EE/122 BaltActHaz, had the overall goal of taking joint Baltic countries’ action towards implementation of the WFD, the MSFD and the IPPC Directives as well as the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. It achieved this through a reduction of hazardous substances by improving the current permitting system and enhancing better chemical management in pilot areas. There was a large element of awareness-raising amongst the stakeholders in this project which proved most effective.

16 The future of Europe's seas – contribution of the LIFE programme to protecting and improving the marine environment.


LIFE06 ENV/D/000461 FLOODSCAN

This project developed a new technology for fast, precise and cost-efficient hydraulic 2d-modelling of flood (hazard) areas by combining laser scanning with remote sensing data. The project results contributed directly to the Floods Directive and are linked to the objectives of the WFD where the mitigation of the effect of floods is required. In addition, the results in the area of web-mapping contribute to the INSPIRE Directive (Directive 2007/2/EC).


23

It is also not difficult to understand why there could be strong interactions between projects delivering pollution control solutions and the WFD, since the Groundwater (80/68/EEC) and Discharge of Pollutants (2006/118/EC) Directives have now been repealed by the WFD. A good example of these synergies is the project LIFE06 ENV/F/158 ISONITRATE which set out to improve the management of nitrate pollution in water using isotrophic monitoring. The project acted at the river basin scale and also produced an innovative form of monitoring. Although the technology was successful it is uncertain whether there will be a major uptake of the monitoring method due to the need for local decision makers to be on board. Similarly the Dutch project LIFE06 ENV/NL/167 WET successfully demonstrated a number of techniques for the further treatment of effluent from WWTPs in order to achieve the standards of the WFD. Several techniques have already been implemented at the beneficiary’s WWTPs. In terms of the directives dealing with aquatic life, most are NAT projects, and most are also relevant to the WFD. The majority are river restoration projects to restore ecological or chemical functionality to a water body. LIFE has invested a great deal in projects of this nature and there are many good examples which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 below. One recently closed LIFE project, LIFE09 INF/UK/032 RESTORE has built a sustainable network linking policy makers, river basin planners, practitioners and experts across Europe to share information and good practice on river restoration activities. Applying sustainable river restoration serves both the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive at several levels. River restoration at the local level aims to create and improve habitat conditions for key species; at regional level supports the Natura 2000 network; and across Europe can improve the entire ecological status of river basins. River restoration can also assist with adaptation to climate change by strengthening ecological networks and providing climate space. River restoration activities play a crucial role in developing best practice approaches for flood risk management, especially through flood storage, serving the interests of the EU Floods Risks Directive. This project has been extremely successful and could make a lasting contribution to the implementation of the WFD, the Floods Directive and the Habitats Directive. Projects dealing with Human Health are also closely related to the WFD. A particularly good example is LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon which developed a new automated method for the analysis of Escherichia coli in waste water effluent. The environmental benefits of the project come with safeguarding bather’s health through rapid assessment of faecal pollution of bathing waters and so contributes to the Bathing Water Directive and the WFD, providing an interesting input to the discussion on how and if the faecal contamination of discharged effluents can be kept under control in relation to the implementation of these directives. Further discussion concerning the removal of pharmaceuticals and micro-pollutants is featured in the pressure and impact section in section 5.2.2.

4.2. Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC The EU adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000, creating a global and unified approach to water legislation. The contents of the Directive are presented in detail in Chapter 2 which updates EU water policy to the end of 2014. The WFD’s combined approach for point and diffuse sources links the requirements established in the other directives through the programmes of measures. The WFD topic is very wide and constitutes an important base for water legislation and there are many complex projects addressing both water quality and quantity issues, presenting integrated and combined approaches and diffuse sources examples as well. The main objective of the WFD requires surface freshwater and ground water bodies - such as lakes, streams, rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters - to be ecologically sound by 2015; the first review of the River Basin Management Plans should take place in 2015 and the second six year cycle should commence (see Figure 2-1). Projects which address various aspects of the WFD are explored in detail in the detailed analysis section Chapter 5 using the SWOT analysis approach. However, some mention should be made in this section of directives that have been repealed recently by the WFD (Table 2-1).

4.2.1. Dangerous Substances Directive 76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC; 06/11/EC The Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31976L0464:EN:HTML

24

environment of the Community was one of the first water related directives to be adopted. It had the ambitious objective of regulating potential aquatic pollution by thousands of chemicals already produced in Europe at that time. The Directive covered discharges to inland surface waters, territorial waters, inland coastal waters and groundwater. In 1980 the protection of groundwater was taken out of 76/464/EEC and regulated under the separate Council Directive 80/68/EEC (1) on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances. Directive 76/464/EEC has since been codified as 06/11/EC. This Directive was repealed by the Water Framework Directive at the end of 2013. The Directive introduced the concept of List I and List II substances, which were listed in the Annex to the Directive. The purpose of the Directive was to eliminate pollution from List I substances and to reduce pollution from List II substances. As with other directives, LIFE projects provide valuable technological solutions to reducing or eliminating dangerous substances in water. Some 20 projects considered the dangerous substances directives were identified between the years 2005 and 2010 in the 2012 Report. The Hungarian project LIFE05 ENV/H/418 SUMANAS developed a complex water treatment technology to remove methane, ammonia and arsenic from groundwater and the LIFE07 ENV/B/22 BACad project developed a full scale bio-augmentation technique for the cost effective remediation of volatile toxic and carcinogenic organo-chlorine compounds. In contrast the Estonian project LIFE07 ENV/EE/122 BaltActHaz was directly targeting the reduction of dangerous substances entering the Baltic Sea by a series of measures designed to raise awareness in the Baltic States and provide management tools to support better decision making by the stakeholders

4.2.2. Shellfish Waters Directive 2006/113/EC The aim of the Shellfish Waters Directive was to protect or improve shellfish waters to support shellfish life and growth. It was designed to protect the aquatic habitat for bivalve and gastropod molluscs, which included oysters, mussels, cockles, scallops and clams. The Directive required Member States to designate waters that needed protection in order to support shellfish life and growth and set physical, chemical and microbiological requirements that the waters must either comply with or endeavour to improve. The Directive provides for the establishment of pollution reduction programmes for designated waters. It only applies to coastal and brackish waters and to those species that are edible. Only one LIFE project contributed to the shellfish Directive. The French project LIFE06 ENV/F/136 MARECLEAN, aimed to improve water quality in 12 designated mussel/oyster production areas. Although at the end of the project there was a significant improvement in water quality at most designated areas the project did not entirely meet the objectives because not all the sites fully complied with the Directive. It is quite possible that a number of other LIFE projects that deal with coastal and estuarine pollution can also have some influence on shellfish areas although none are specifically stated.

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

• Salmonid waters: waters which support or become capable of supporting fish belonging to species such as salmon, trout, grayling or whitefish; and

• Cyprinid waters: waters which support or become capable of supporting fish belonging to the cyprinids or other species such as pike, perch and eel.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31980L0068:EN:HTML

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/76_464.htm#ftnote1

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0044:EN:NOT

25

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

• Physical and chemical parameters applying to designated salmonid and cyprinid waters; • Guide values and mandatory values; • Methods of analysis or inspection; and • Minimum sampling and measuring frequency.

In 2012 the analysis showed that 18 LIFE projects had focussed on improving the status of fresh water and that the most of these were LIFE NAT projects. On examination, these projects dealt exclusively with issues concerning the optimum physical requirements for designated salmonid and cyprinid water. Some projects also dealt in a limited way with chemical improvements and some had developed monitoring programmes. The Freshwater Fish (2006/44/EC) Directive was repealed and incorporated into the WFD in 2013.

4.3. Directives which are Obligatory Programmes of Measures under Annex VI of the WFD There are several directives that are cited in Annex VI of the WFD as obligatory programmes of measures which countries must seek to implement in order to protect water bodies both within their boundaries as well as transnational resources. These directives are listed in Figure 2-2 and some examples of projects which focus on these directives are presented in this section. The analysis in Figure 4-1 is taken from the policy matrix data and has been used to identify the number of projects in each category as well as the split between NAT and ENV projects. Examples of projects have been taken directly from an interrogation of the policy matrix and with reference to the detailed information contained within Astrale LIFEtrack. The Sewage Sludge Directive is not analysed in this report as it is covered in the Waste Thematic Report. It can be included in subsequent reports if required.

Figure 4-1: Relative contribution of LIFE project to the obligatory POM

4.3.1. The Nature Directives

The aim of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is to establish a framework for the protection of all surface

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bath

ing

Wat

er

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Drin

king

Wat

er

Maj

or A

ccid

ents EIA

UW

WT

Plan

t Pro

tect

ion

IPPC

Nitr

ates

Total all projects

Total ENV/INF

Total NAT

26

waters and groundwater with the aim to reach good status in all waters as a rule by 2015. Both the nature directives and the WFD aim at ensuring healthy aquatic ecosystems while at the same time ensuring a balance between water/nature protection and the sustainable use of nature's natural resources. Indeed there are many synergies as the implementation of measures under the WFD will generally benefit the objectives of the nature directives. In Article 6.1, the WFD stipulates the establishment of a register of protected areas "which have been designated as requiring special protection under specific Community legislation for the protection of their surface water and groundwater or for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water". The register must contain inter alia "areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites …" (Annex IV, (v) WFD). Any Natura 2000 site with water-dependent (ground- and/or surface water) Annex I habitat types or Annex II species under the Habitats Directive or with water-dependent bird species of Annex I or migratory bird species of the Birds Directive, and, where the presence of these species or habitats has been the reason for the designation of that protected area, has to be considered for the register of protected areas under WFD Art. 6. These areas are summarised as "water-dependent Natura 2000 sites". For these Natura 2000 sites, the objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives (BHD) and WFD apply.

Birds Directive 2009/147/EC The Directive recognises that habitat loss and degradation are the most serious threats to the conservation of wild birds. It therefore places great emphasis on the protection of habitats for endangered as well as migratory species (listed in Annex I), especially through the establishment of a coherent network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) comprising all the most suitable territories for these species. Since 1994 all SPAs form an integral part of the Natura 2000 ecological network. As a consequence the protection of wetlands is of critical importance and it is this that most closely aligns the Birds Directive with the WFD. For example, projects like LIFE06 NAT/FIN/129 Kokemäenjoki-LIFE attempt to improve wetland habitat for specific bird species under the Habitats Directive and in doing so provide indirect benefits in reducing flood risks by increasing wetland areas and retaining flood waters and so the contribution to the WFD is a secondary objective. Similarly, project LIFE08 NAT/D/010 Life Projekt “Lippeaue” which seeks to restore the connectivity of the River Rhine and the floodplain with a view to supporting the development of alluvial and river habitats; part of the project area is within an SPA under the Birds Directive. As a consequence the project is improving habitat for a number of Annex 1 species. More recently, LIFE10 NAT/AT/015 Untere March-Auen is attempting to restore near-natural river dynamics in the Lower Moravia floodplains in the eastern part of Austria. The project is improving the conservation status of a number of EU habitats and species of concern and is also targeting 15 species listed in the Birds Directive. All these projects are restoring wetland habitats as a primary objective with positive benefits for birds as a secondary objective. By contrast projects like LIFE11/NAT/BG/362 Salt of Life aim to reduce the impact of direct and indirect threats on Atanasovsko Lake lagoon and its priority bird species (103 listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive) by securing sustainable habitat management including improvements to existing and creation of new breeding sites for priority birds. Similarly the Greek project LIFE12 NAT/GR/275 Stymfalia aims to establish a sustainable management and financing system for an important but degraded wetland in southern Greece which is an important refuge for migratory birds and for breeding, passage and wintering waterbirds. Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC Projects that originally targeted the Freshwater Fish Directive do also contribute to the Habitats Directive within designated sites. Given that the NAT projects must be carried out in Natura 2000 designated areas it is not surprising that these projects provide the main focus for addressing common concerns under the WFD and Habitats Directives. Accordingly there are 81 NAT projects and 13 ENV projects that contribute to improving aquatic habitats (see Figure 4-1).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0044:EN:NOT

27

The implementation of the majority of projects is based around four main objectives i) restoration works on degraded habitats ii) physical changes in river morphology iii) removal of obstacles to improve connectivity and iv) changes in agro-silviculture practices in riparian zones. As a consequence a wide variety of river restoration techniques have been carried out by LIFE projects throughout the Member States. One UK project LIFE09 INF/UK/032 RESTORE has compiled information on best practices in river restoration which could act as guidance for future LIFE and non-LIFE projects working towards implementing the Water Framework Directive. A significant number of LIFE projects deal with habitat improvements for the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and lamprey species. LIFE05 NAT/D/057 Lippe-Aue restored the natural river and floodplain dynamics to increase habitat for the Atlantic salmon and the river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis). The project successfully restored the hydrology of 17 km of river and within eight months a total of 8,000 fish of 29 species were recorded. LIFE05 NAT/B/090 Life Grote Nete also restored river hydrology for lamprey species and LIFE05 NAT/UK/143 STREAM restored suitable hydrology for Atlantic salmon and lamprey species Some projects are extremely ambitious in their proposals for the removal of obstructions, for example the Danish project LIFE05 NAT/DK/153 Houting successfully decommissioned two hydroelectric power stations that were causing obstructions for migrating houting (Coregonus oxyrhynchus). While other projects, LIFE06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP, seek alternative solutions to obstructions through the installation of moveable hydropower installations allowing the upstream and downstream migration of fish species (see section 5.6.2 for a more detailed analysis of these projects).

Alongside the morphological changes to the river habitats several projects have also made significant improvements in riparian zones and as a consequence water quality is improved. The techniques used to bring about these improvements are rarely innovative but they are effective and generally either target removal of non-native woodland species, thinning of dense vegetation on river banks to provide dappled shade and changes in livestock management to limit access along the river banks and so prevent excessive siltation in the river. Such practices are being successfully employed in LIFE07 NAT/IRL/342 IShannonSACLAEO a project which is restoring a section of a Natura 2000 river for salmon and lamprey using in-stream habitat restoration and riparian management to improve water quality. The project relies heavily on the cooperation and involvement of local farmers to bring about changes in livestock management in the riparian zone and reduce siltation in the water column and on the river bed. Most projects combine the restoration techniques and water quality improvements with some form of monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the interventions in terms of target fish species. However, one project, LIFE08 NAT/UK/201 ISAC08 is using a more innovative approach by monitoring water quality using diatom assemblages. Diatom communities respond rapidly to changes in water chemistry and can be used as an indicator of improving water quality before changes are seen in the fish populations.

4.3.2. Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC Research into bathing water and human health since the original Directive’s introduction in 1976 has led to the development of the revised Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC), which will be implemented in stages up to 2015, when the original Directive will be repealed. The revised Directive uses two parameters to assess water quality, Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci, using a four year data set for each set of results, and sets much tighter standards than the original Directive. There will be four classification categories: Excellent (approximately twice as stringent as the current Guideline standard); Good (similar to the current Guideline); Sufficient (approximately twice as stringent as the current Mandatory standard) and Poor, for waters which do not comply with the Directive’s standards. There will be a new requirement for information about water quality and potential sources of pollution at bathing waters to be provided on signs and via the internet. Regular reviews of the list of bathing waters will

28

be carried out and the public will be encouraged to participate in the review. Key dates for the introduction of the revised Directive are:

• 2012: Signs must be in place at all bathing waters by the beginning of the bathing season. • 2014: Final bathing water report using the standards of the current Directive • 2015: First set of classifications using the new parameters will be published, based on the data set

commenced in 2012 • 2016: The current bathing water classification will be displayed using standard symbols that will be

in use throughout the European Union.

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

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

parameters) and the general obligation that drinking water must be wholesome and clean. • Obliges Member States to regular monitoring of drinking water quality and to provide to consumers

adequate and up-to-date information on their drinking water quality. Figure 4-1 indicates that there are thirteen LIFE ENV projects which may have a direct link to the Directive, although it must be said that the majority of these do not specifically cite the Directive and thereby indirectly improve drinking water quality mainly through activities related to the WFD or the Groundwater Directive. One such project is LIFE07 ENV/SLO/725 INCOME in Slovenia which is addressing groundwater pollution in the Ljubljana area through chemical analysis and hydrological monitoring (see Figure 4-2) but will have long term socio-economic benefits in terms of more healthy drinking water and a higher awareness of the importance of unpolluted groundwater.

Figure 4-2: Automatic measuring station in Hrastje

29

Similarly, the French project LIFE07 ENV/F/173 SEMEAU does not specifically refer to the Directive but has one action which establishes a strategy for trapping phosphorous from farming activities in the Saint Etienne area. This action includes the preparation of guidelines for the protection of drinking water supply drains due to be completed in April 2012. The Polish project LIFE08 ENV/PL/519 EKOROB has developed a phyto-remediation method for reduction of non point source pollution to improve water quality in the Sulejowski Reservoir used as a source of drinking water (see Figure 4-3).

Figure 4-3: Phytoremediation system in Poland

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

4.3.4. The Major Accident (Seveso) Directive The Seveso Directive (currently The Seveso II Directive) is the main piece of EU legislation that deals specifically with the control of on-shore major accident hazards involving dangerous substances. The Seveso II Directive will be replaced by the Seveso III Directive on 1 June 2015. In the context of the WFD this effectively refers to the prevention and reduction of the effects of unforeseeable water pollution from industrial plants. There are no LIFE projects that can be linked to this Directive.

4.3.5. EIA Directive 85/337/EEC

The EIA Directive and its subsequent amendments (1997, 2003 and 2009) states that all projects as defined in Annex I of the Directive are considered as having significant effects on the environment and require an EIA. Projects listed in Annex II of the Directive required screening to determine whether an EIA is necessary. Insofar as this directive is concerned any development that would have an impact on GES of a water body should also conduct a WFD assessment as part of the EIA. There are only two projects (one ENV and one NAT) that mention this directive and in neither case is it the main directive addressed by the project. It can be concluded that this is one obligatory measure where LIFE can add little to the existing body of knowledge.

4.3.6. Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC

30

The UWWT Directive (91/271/ECE) is one of the most costly pieces of EU legislation to implement. It sets requirements for pre-treatment of industrial waste water entering collecting systems and the disposal of sewage sludge. The Directive requires all urban areas with the equivalent of more than 2,000 inhabitants to conduct at least secondary (biological) treatment of their wastewater. For those in sensitive areas, or those with more than 10,000 inhabitants, more stringent treatment is required. Annex II of the Directive requires Member States to draw up lists of sensitive and less sensitive areas which receive the treated waters. These lists must be updated regularly. Member States are responsible for monitoring discharges from treatment plants and the status of the receiving waters. They must ensure that the competent national authorities publish a situation report every two years and send it to the Commission. Member States must also set up national programmes for the implementation of the UWWT Directive. The Directive timetable indicates that all MS should have fulfilled their obligations by December 2005. The main requirements are described in Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Directive.17 Despite this, Figure 4-1 shows that significant numbers of projects featuring Waste Water Treatment are still being funded through LIFE. In fact there has been a recent upsurge in interest with many new ENV projects being funded in this field throughout the last three years. While this may imply that there is still work to be done to achieve GES there is a new trend being detected towards the removal of micro-pollutants (including pharmaceuticals) which was first detected in the 2012 report where the authors reported that the 2009 and 2010 projects appear largely to revert to the development of techniques for waste water treatment, albeit with refinements such as ultrafiltation membrane technology (LIFE09 ENV/ES/467 UFTEC) and removal of different types of pollution load such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (LIFE09 ENV/FI/568 VOCless waste water). This trend has continued throughout 2011, 2012 and 2013. More information can be found on this topic in section 5.2.2. Of the 54 LIFE projects contributing to the UWWT many older projects focussed on providing new technical solutions for the treatment of waste water. There are numerous examples ranging from the development of Best Available Technique (BAT) for water reuse in textile SMEs (LIFE05 ENV/IT/846 BATTLE) to the improved treatment of storm water (LIFE05 ENV/IT/000894 ESTRUS). Several projects funded between 2005 and 2007 developed new membrane filtration techniques to improve water purification; examples are LIFE05 ENV/IT/868 PERBIOF, LIFE07 ENV/IT/439 PURIFAST and LIFE05 ENV/UK/121 PROMOTHE MBR. By 2008, projects were aspiring to more complex objectives with concepts designed to link improved waste water treatment to alternative water uses in semi-arid regions, thereby addressing resource efficiency agendas as well as simple waste water treatment (e.g. LIFE08 ENV/GR/551 PURE). The main objective of the LIFE08 ENV/P/237 WW4ENVIRONMENT project was to implement an optimising tool for the management of wastewater treatment facilities, using operational and energy consumption data to determine and minimize the carbon footprint of Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP). This helped to achieve both the EU’s environmental impact and energy efficiency objectives. The Spanish project LIFE08 ENV/E/118 GREENLYSIS looked at the production of hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis powered by renewable energies to reduce the environmental footprint of a WWTP. Throughout the period 2005-2010 a steady number of LIFE projects have focussed on pioneering techniques such as ultrasound treatment (LIFE05 ENV/F/67 SOUND SLUDGE), thermo-catalytic low temperature conversion techniques (LIFE06 ENV/D/458 LOTECOTEC) and pyrogasificiation (LIFE08 ENV/F/489 PYROBIO) for reducing and removing sludge in waste water and sewage treatment plants. Other projects, such as LIFE06 ENV/D/460 SLUDGE2ENERGY, dealt with waste prevention through sewage sludge reuse for efficient energy generation in waste water treatment plants. The principal activities of the UWWT Directive should already have been met by the Member States by 2005 however, technology should never stand still and some of the advancements made via LIFE projects will

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

31

undoubtedly contribute further to improved waste water treatment. The innovative advances in 2008, where projects were linked with other directives seem to have been replaced by projects focussing on water treatment in the last three years. The one remaining part of the UWWT Directive that requires implementation is the monitoring phase. This is an area that would be well suited to LIFE projects but further research is required to match projects targeting UWWT and a monitoring function. This relationship could be determined if required.

4.3.7. Plant Protection Products Directive 91/414/EEC Fundamentally this Directive governs the use of pesticides and plant protection products to control weeds, diseases and pest problems. It relates to the WFD in as much as it relates to the entry of such products into the aquatic environment.

4.3.8. Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC

The Nitrates Directive is one of the oldest water directives. Its principal aim is to prevent nitrates from agricultural sources from affecting ground and surface waters. It requires Member States to (1) detect waters that are already affected or likely to be affected by nitrate pollution, (2) designate all those areas that drain into waters that are polluted as vulnerable zones, (3) develop action programmes within the vulnerable zones, and (4) monitor and assess the action programmes and revise them as needed to achieve the Directive’s goals. Member States must establish codes of good agricultural practice to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis. The action programmes for vulnerable zones must include measures set out in the codes of good practice and those needed to limit the application of any nitrogenous fertilisers to soils, which may require investing in livestock manure storage facilities. The implementation of the Nitrates Directive is carried out in a number of stages. Member States are required to: • Identify surface water and groundwater affected by pollution or at risk of being so; • Designate vulnerable zones; • Establish a code of good agricultural practice to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis; • Set up compulsory action programmes to be implemented by all farmers who work in vulnerable zones.

The Nitrates Directive is much more flexible than the UWWT Directive, giving space for voluntary schemes and variability with the ultimate aim of establishing good agricultural practices. Figure 4-1 shows that a total of 35 LIFE projects focussed on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive and Figure 3-2 shows that the majority of these projects were funded in 2005 under LIFE III and again in 2010. The 2005 projects were evenly split between the northern and southern Member States but the majority of the 2010 projects were in southern Member States with Spain, Italy, Greece and Malta featuring in the portfolio. Overall the projects fall into three broad categories:

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

Among the innovative projects providing new technical solutions are LIFE05 ENV/GR/245 EnviFriendly, a project which developed environmentally friendly technologies for rural development; LIFE05 ENV/UK/137 NITRABAR which developed a multi-barrier for diffuse pollution from agricultural systems; LIFE06 ENV/F/158 ISONITRATE which developed isotopic monitoring and sono-chemical technologies for the improved management of nitrate pollution in water; LIFE05 ENV/E/289 FERTIGREEN where the project demonstrated the technical viability of the use of gasification of irrigation water (although the effectiveness of the gas injection into irrigation water (fertirrigation) system to reduce nitrate contamination was not as successful as

32

expected). The LIFE08 ENV/GR/570 HydroSense project developed and implemented a site-specific management system for reducing irrigation and chemical inputs to soil and groundwater. In particular, variable-rate irrigation reduced water consumption by 20% in comparison with uniform irrigation and variable-rate fertilisation reduced nitrate pollution by 20% and pesticide/herbicide inputs by 50%. Possibly the most interesting technological developments will be demonstrated by two Italian 2010 projects which are both exploring the use of zeolite to reduce nitrate pollution. More than 50% of natural zeolitic rocks consist of zeolites, a group of minerals with special physical and chemical properties, such as high and selective cation exchange capacity (CEC), molecular adsorption and reversible dehydration. Zeolites can take up ammonium (NH4), which is found in fertilisers, and release it at a slow enough rate that it can be absorbed by the roots of plants rather than be dispersed in groundwater. LIFE10 ENV/IT/347 UNIZEO is developing urea-based nitrogenous fertilizers coated with zeolite which they hope will significantly reduce pollution due to nitrogen. LIFE10 ENV/IT/321 ZeoLIFE aims to exploit the zeolitic cycle by adopting an integrated approach that reduces the nitrogen content in livestock effluents and agricultural soils, and improves the yield and economic efficiency of irrigation water and fertilisers, thus reducing pollution of fresh water and groundwater and overexploitation of water resources (see Figure 4-4). These projects were at a very early stage at the time of the 2012 report but are now nearing completion. It will be interesting to map their success and assess the applicability of the method to other regions with zeolitic formations18.

Figure 4-4: Production of the zeolitite NH4+

Many of the more recent projects have pioneered methods for alternative cultivation of soils or have utilised alternative methods of cleaning up nitrate pollution. One such project, LIFE09 ENV/ES/431 CREAMAgua will be creating and restoring natural ecosystem structures of wetlands and riverbank forests to reduce inorganic nutrients - nitrates and phosphates - and salts from agricultural runoff and improve the biodiversity in agricultural areas degraded by intensive agricultural use in the area of the Flumen basin in Spain. In Poland, project LIFE08 ENV/PL/519 EKOROB will construct ecotones to improve water quality in the Sulejowski Reservoir and, as an innovative element, the project will include ‘de-nitrification walls’ that form a barrier to nitrates from non-point source agricultural areas as well as areas without sewer systems. In the wall groundwater polluted with nitrates flows through a sawdust-filled ditch situated vertically to the direction of the flowing water. In an oxygen-free environment, the process of denitrification takes place, in which nitrogen compounds are removed from water to the atmosphere. There are several 2009 and 2010 projects where alternative agricultural practices are being trialled in an effort to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus inputs from livestock, through amendments to animal diets (as in LIFE09 ENV/IT/208 AQUA), or on arable farms through changes in the way that fertilizers are used. A Polish project (LIFE10 ENV/PL/661 Biorewit) aims to reduce soil and water pollution through the gradual replacement of mineral fertilisers with new soil eco-activators – the target is at least a 20% decrease in mineral nutrient emissions from greenhouse production to groundwater. While a Belgian project LIFE10

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

33

ENV/BE/699 DEMETER aims to achieve a higher level of soil organic matter in Flemish and Dutch agricultural soils thereby decreasing the nutrient load in the environment. A Greek project LIFE10 ENV/GR/594 WASTEREUSE is developing best practice guidance for recycling of agricultural wastes in the Mediterranean region by recycling nutrients and water. Finally, LIFE projects also address the implementation of the Nitrates Directive through changing agricultural or water management regimes. A number of projects have developed management models as a tool to reduce nitrate pollution. LIFE05 ENV/E/302 Ecodiptera successfully implemented a management model for the ecologically sustainable treatment of pig manure in the Region of Los Serranos, Valencia-Spain and LIFE09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER project intends to develop, at the river basin scale, an integrated water management system to identify waters under threat and designate nitrate vulnerable zones. The beneficiary will develop the management system based on the Strahler stream model of surface water flow and pollution transportation and the River Modelling System (RMS), which computes the transfer of nutrients in groundwater systems. The system will contain software capable of calculating the environmental impact of activities and changes. Another project (LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569 GISBLOOM) intends to develop a web-based mapping service with interactive portal (LakeWiki) aimed at facilitating participatory river basin management.

4.3.9. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC), 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU The IPPC Directive requires industrial and agricultural activities with a high pollution potential to have a permit. This permit can only be issued if certain environmental conditions are met, so that the companies themselves bear responsibility for preventing and reducing any pollution they may cause. Furthermore, IPPC concerns new or existing industrial and agricultural activities with a high pollution potential, as defined in Annex I to the Directive (energy industries, production and processing of metals, mineral industry, chemical industry, waste management, livestock farming, etc.). It establishes a procedure for authorising these activities and sets minimum requirements to be included in all permits, particularly in terms of pollutants released. The aim is to prevent or reduce pollution of the atmosphere, water and soil, as well as the quantities of waste arising from industrial and agricultural installations, to ensure a high level of environmental protection. Examination of Figure 4-1 shows that only nine projects aimed to contribute to the IPPC in some way between 2005 and 2013. The trend graph in Figure 3-2 shows that the majority of these projects (6 in all) were funded in the 2005 round under LIFE III and so IPPC, at least in the water sector, is not well covered during LIFE+. In general, LIFE projects assist the IPPC by developing new technologies to improve water quality either in the industrial or agricultural sectors thereby addressing some of the issues related to both point source and non-point source pollution. Clearly there is some advantage in the development of these technologies as it assists the organisation in the permitting process under IPPC. There are several good examples of where LIFE projects have developed new technologies, such as LIFE05 ENV/IT/846 BATTLE which developed a demonstration methodology (treatment plant remotely controlled by an expert system) for efficient waste water reuse in the textile industry. The project promoted the sustainable use of water, reinforcing and providing integrated water management in line with the WFD and the integrated methodology provided an effective contribution to the application of the IPPC Directive and, enabling a sustainable use of the water in critical industrial sites, may represent a good methodology for similar approaches in other industrial sectors. Similarly, ENV/UK/121 PROMOTHE MBR developed a means of process water recycling with a thermophile membrane bioreactor installation for treatment of high temperature waste water, containing varying chemical oxygen demands (CODs) with almost zero waste (sludge) production. Finally, the LIFE05 ENV/D/182 WAgriCo project promoted water resources management in agriculture through the compilation and implementation of programmes of measures to reduce diffuse pollution from agriculture. None of these projects specifically mentioned the IPPC and their contributions have been assumed from an

34

examination of the project materials. There are some more recent projects which do directly address the IPPC, projects such as LIFE11 ENV/ES/000590 ROEM-plus and LIFE11 ENV/FR/000742 BIOTTOPE but it is too early to determine if they are successful. LIFE projects assist the implementation of the IPPC Directive through the development of specific technologies. However, even the most successful technologies are rarely transferred or replicated on a wide scale. This is probably because the project proponents wish to retain the intellectual property rights (IPR) of the product and so the innovative solutions have to compete in the market place on a commercial basis, or find additional funding from elsewhere to commercialise the product.

4.4. Directives which are related to the Water Sector A second group of directives that is important in the protection and management of water resources, but which do not appear in the obligatory (Annex VI) measures of the WFD are discussed below.

Figure 4-5: Number of LIFE project per related directives

4.4.1. Floods Directive 2007/60/EC The aim of the Floods Directive is to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. The Directive required Member States to first carry out a preliminary assessment by 2011 to identify the river basins and associated coastal areas at risk of flooding. For such zones they would then need to draw up flood risk maps by 2013 and establish flood risk management plans focused on prevention, protection and preparedness by 2015. The Directive applies to inland waters as well as all coastal waters across the whole territory of the EU. The analysis in Figure 4-5 shows that 16 LIFE projects made a contribution to the Floods Directive. Projects like LIFE06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN (see section 4.1) were designed to implement the Directive through actively mapping the flood risk areas. Similarly, LIFE08 ENV/LV/451 HydroClimateStrategyRiga will make a significant contribution to the implementation of the Directive through the mapping of hydrological processes, the subsequent development of Flood Risk Management Plans for Riga City and increased awareness of stakeholders to the risks of flooding. The main objective of the project is to create the necessary means to ensure that hydrological processes intensified by climate change in Riga are adequately investigated and incorporated in the city’s planning system, thus mitigating their current and future impact to economy and society, nature and biodiversity, water resources and human health.

0

5

10

15

20

25Total

ENV/INF

NAT

35

Clearly the HydroClimateStrategyRiga project also relates to the Climate Change Strategy as does LIFE07 ENV/S/908 GreenClimeAdapt where an industrial area in south-eastern Malmö will have been turned into a green climate adaptation area with open storm water management and enhanced biodiversity and recreation. The storm water system built in this 45 ha project will retain 90% of a 10-year storm event. If applied at a European scale, the risk of local flooding could be drastically reduced. The run-off water will be cleaned before reaching the recipient by sedimentation and filtration in ponds and other retention systems (see also section 4.4.3). There are some excellent examples of LIFE projects making valuable contributions to the Floods Directive and it is encouraging that there are several projects dealing with this important topic, particularly in relation to flood risk mapping and the development of management plans.

4.4.2. Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC

This directive and how it relates to the WFD is dealt with in detail in section 5.6.

4.4.3. 2013 EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change

Europe’s water resources have long been subject to the planned and unplanned consequences of anthropogenic changes and pressures from economic activity, land use and development. The magnitude of climate change and variability predicted during the 21st Century represents an unprecedented challenge. Significant changes in annual and seasonal precipitation and water flow leading to both drought and flooding are projected, with impacts on water quality also a consequence. Coupled with changes in the distribution of species, these factors are likely to adversely impact the functioning of ecosystems and the natural buffers that they provide. The EU policy response to the challenge of building resilience and adapting to climate change from a water management perspective consists of a series of key, interlinked Directives and strategies. The EU strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change and Water Framework Directive sit at the core, supported by the Floods Directive and Water Scarcity and Droughts Strategy. The EC communication “A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources” is the policy instrument that helps to mainstream climate change resilience and adaptation within EU water policy.

The adaptation strategy includes the commitment to provide LIFE funding during the 2014-2020 multi-annual financial framework to support capacity building and step up adaptation action in Europe, with the following priority areas relevant to water management identified:

• cross-border management of floods, fostering collaborative agreements based on the EU Floods Directive;

• mainstreaming adaptation into urban land use planning; • sustainable management of water.

The strategy also calls for an increased use of ecosystem-based approaches, explaining that they are usually cost effective under different scenarios, are easily accessible and provide multiple benefits, such as reduced flood risk, less soil erosion, and improved water quality. A very brief analysis of LIFE projects shows that the programme is already delivering in these priority areas.

Flood Management: LIFE08 NAT/D/000013 Elbauen bei Vockerode has worked to establish a favourable conservation status and improved long-term resilience of part of the River Elbe in Germany. The project is using a range of techniques to connect the natural conservation functions inherent in riparian dynamics and floodplain development with aspects of flood protection. On a smaller scale and in an urban setting, LIFE11 ENV/DK/000889 Stream of Usserød is demonstrating an inter-municipal approach to cooperation on water

36

management and climate change adaptation for the Stream of Usserød, which is receiving increasing amounts of water from rainwater and sewage systems as a consequence of climate change and the gradual expansion of urban areas. These examples demonstrate that the LIFE programme is already funding ecosystem-based approaches and multi-institutional management solutions to the issue of flood management. The challenge during the implementation of the next programme is to upscale these types of interventions to the trans-boundary and river basin scale.

Mainstreaming adaptation into urban planning:

LIFE12 ENV/UK/001133 LIFE Housing Landscapes is demonstrating how hard adaptation measures such as green roofs, SUDs, rain gardens and permeable surfaces can be retrofitted in an urban land use environment. The project not only aims to reduce water run-off and localised flooding but also demonstrate how the measures can be used to inform residents about climate change and ultimately increase community resilience in social housing landscapes. The measures are designed to be no more expensive to maintain than the existing landscape features, thus helping to demonstrate that adaptation approaches can be mainstreamed into local authority and social housing.

Sustainable management of water:

LIFE07 ENV/IT/000475 TRUST employed advanced technologies to define solutions for ensuring the sustainable management of groundwater in the Upper Plain of Veneto and Friuli in view of future climate change. The project used climate change scenarios to quantify the water deficits up to the end of the 21st Century for irrigation of summer crops based on remote sensing and GIS-based modelling techniques. It also developed an innovative hydrological model to estimate the flows of the rivers that feed the aquifer in the study area and the variations of river flows induced by future climate scenarios. The models were used to help define the objectives and measures for aquifer recharge using excess surface waters (e.g. from floods), and to develop river-basin governance generally. The project was able to contribute to the relevant authorities and stakeholders management of artificial aquifer recharge at the river-basin level. The EC review of the Policy on Water Scarcity and Droughts found that limited progress has been achieved in implementing the policy instruments identified in the 2007 Communication. The Review highlights the high untapped potential for water efficiency measures in all the main water-using sectors (agriculture, industry, distribution networks, buildings and energy production). LIFE08 ENV/E/000114 POWER built on the successful demonstration of water efficient irrigation through the experimentation of artificial intelligence integrated into traditional systems of water control by its predecessor ‘Best Environment’ project LIFE03 ENV/E/000164 OPTIMIZAGUA. The main achievement of the project was the demonstration of the use of renewable energy within the irrigation system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate income (contributing to the principles of Article 9 of the WFD on cost recovery). However, the project also produced a map of 100 strategic locations with a high transfer potential of the systems within the European Union19.

Water also represents a resource in terms of producing low carbon energy, helping to contribute to the goals of the EU climate and energy package (climate change mitigation). As discussed in section 5.6 there is the potential for tension between the use of water as an energy resource and the achievement of good environmental status where hydropower installations are involved. Whilst hydropower represents the obvious source of alternative energy generation from water resources, it is interesting to note that the use of wastewater and sewage sludge is also an approach covered by a small number of LIFE projects (see section 4.3.6.). Projects such as LIFE06 ENV/D/000460 SLUDGE2ENERGY, LIFE08 ENV/D/000026 Sus Treat and LIFE08 ENV/E/000118 GREENLYSIS all seek to develop new approaches to the conversion of waste sewage sludge into energy. In most cases this is to reduce external energy demand and associated greenhouse gas

19 http://www.lifepowerproject.eu/PowerCalCO2/Life%20POWER%20GIS.html

http://www.lifepowerproject.eu/PowerCalCO2/Life%20POWER%20GIS.html

37

emissions and costs, and to increase the overall resource efficiency of the management of wastewater.

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

• Groundwater quality standards to be established by the end of 2008; • Pollution trend studies to be carried out by using existing data and data which is mandatory by the

WFD (referred to as "baseline level" data obtained in 2007-2008); • Pollution trends to be reversed so that environmental objectives are achieved by 2015 by using the

measures set out in the WFD; • Measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater to be operational so that WFD

environmental objectives can be achieved by 2015; • Reviews of technical provisions of the directive to be carried out in 2013 and every six years

thereafter; • Compliance with good chemical status criteria (based on EU standards of nitrates and pesticides and

on threshold values established by Member States).

Figure 4-5 indicates that 24 LIFE projects have contributed to the Groundwater Directive and several of these are featured in Chapter 5 of this report, thus demonstrating that this is an area where LIFE projects excel in helping to implement the legislation in a variety of different practical ways. One area where LIFE projects contribute a great deal is in assessing and modelling risk to aquifers. The Slovenian project LIFE07 ENV/SLO/725 INCOME exemplifies how risk registers can be developed from integrating precise spatial data on aquifer characteristics (geology and hydrology), pollution sources and groundwater quality status into a GIS environment. This information is then used to develop different models of groundwater flow, risk assessment in impact zones and probability assessments of accidental pollution. The LIFE08 ENV/D/021 MAGPlan is developing two innovative technologies and a suite of modelling tools to prevent threats from point sources on the good chemical status of groundwater in urban areas. Other LIFE projects provide innovative solutions for directly reducing inputs of pollutants to groundwater. The LIFE09 ENV/B/407 VOPAK-EXPERO3 will demonstrate the applicability of an in situ chemical oxidation technique for the remediation of soil and groundwater contaminated with a cocktail of organic contaminants in very high concentrations at an explosion sensitive site. The Greek project LIFE10 ENV/GR/601 CHARM will demonstrate different technologies for the remediation of groundwater bodies with high concentrations of Cr(III) and Cr(VI). A novel approach has been adopted by LIFE10 ENV/SK/086 Geohealth, this project aims to reduce the negative impact of geological conditions on the health of the population of the Slovak Republic. In order to achieve this, the project will collect data on environmental indicators for groundwater and soil from the whole territory of the Slovak Republic showing the greatest impact on human health. At the current time the datasets for eight geological areas, three contaminated and three non-contaminated areas are available on the project website (www.geology.sk/geohealth). Another geological based project, LIFE11 ENV/SK/1023 KRASCAVE, aims to reduce the risk of contamination of drinking water source in the ecosystem of Krasnohorska Cave whilst also reducing the risks of damaging the fragile karst ecosystem dependent on the quality and quantity of groundwater. Another recent project LIFE12 ENV/ES/557 LIFE RURAL SUPPLIES

http://www.geology.sk/geohealth

38

combines the requirements of the Drinking Water and Groundwater Directives. The main objective is to strengthen the sustainability of water supplies in scattered rural communities that lack clean water. One important element intended to achieve this is the determination of the most appropriate technical solutions in the uptake, distribution and subsequent treatment of groundwater consumed from wells and springs.

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

effluent waste water/discharge; hazardous substances; and • Marine waters in respect of pollution control; marine pollution; marine pollution (land-based sources);

effluent waste water/discharge; hazardous substances. This Directive is not well served by the LIFE programme although the reason for this is not clear. Figure 4-5 shows that only six projects refer to the EQS Directive with five recent additions in the last three years. Older projects have primarily considering different directives with the EQS as value added project benefits. The Finnish project LIFE08 ENV/FIN/609 CATERMASS aims to develop climate change adaptation tools for the Finnish River Basin Districts to mitigate impacts of increased leaching of acidity and associated metals from acid sulphate soils drained for agriculture and forestry. The project implementation includes mapping and risk classification methods for acid sulphate soils and the construction of prototype testing fields which include subsurface controlled drainage systems, pumping systems, tailored cropping and cultivation schemes. Although the primary legislation considered is the WFD, the acid sulphate soils contain high concentrations of cadmium which is one of the EQS Directive priority substance metals. As the project moves into its final year the infrastructure stage has been completed and the initial results of the mitigation methodologies are promising. The project will produce technical guidance documents so that the project outcomes can be reproduced in other areas where acid sulphate soils are problematic.

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

4.5. Specific national/ regional/ local approaches developed by LIFE projects

In many cases, LIFE projects do not only relate to EU legislation, but also national or regional law with their activities. This is especially the case in countries or regions – such as Flanders in Belgium or Catalonia in Spain, where the local legislation is already very advanced and can be more detailed than EU law. LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE is testing and promoting the application of the International Hydropower Association’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol across the EU. The Protocol is an enhanced sustainability assessment tool which is being used to measure and guide performance in the hydropower sector. Whilst the Protocol cannot be used to strategically assess a catchment or sub-catchment as a whole, a number of applications of the Protocol at sites along a catchment area could be used to inform an overall strategic approach, a key recommendation of the Water Director’s and CIS working groups. Water projects are perhaps uniquely placed in their requirement to cross boundaries and borders either following river courses or in wider bodies of Europe’s seas and oceans. In this respect water projects

39

sometimes have to deal with non-Member States which may have a direct impact on the outcome of a project. Some projects have a distinctly national approach and restrict their activities to within a single Member State; although it is frequently acknowledged that the results or outcomes may be readily transferred to other Member States. The project LIFE09 ENV/FI/569 GISBLOOM aims to build capacity to ensure better integration of climate change into river basin management plans in Finland. It will demonstrate an integrated model to quantify the effects of different climate change scenarios to help tackle threats of eutrophication and algal blooms. It will use an innovative combination of nationwide data and models for hydrology, land-use changes and nutrient loads to generate data and real-time forecasts for algal blooming in river basins and around 48,000 Finnish lakes on a daily basis. A new feature will be a web-based map service and interactive portal (LakeWiki) aimed at facilitating participatory river basin management. This process will inform the selection of measures for river basin management plans in eight pilot areas. Their implementation will be subject to cost-benefit analyses. By working to integrate climate change effectively into river basin management plans and to develop a participatory approach, this project will contribute to the achievement of the environmental objectives of the WFD, the MSFD and the Nitrates Directive. Although the geographical scope of the GISBLOOM project is limited to Finland the tools which will be demonstrated and evaluated are applicable to all the other EU countries. Small island states such as Malta and Cyprus are readily suited to national projects as the LIFE08 ENV/CY/460 WATER project demonstrates. The overall goal of the project is to strengthen the scientific foundation of water management programmes, including developing criteria for pollutants with high potential impact on environmental quality and biodiversity. As such, the project will establish and demonstrate an innovative set of methods and tools for the design and implementation of programmes for the preservation of the high environmental quality and good ecological status of water bodies in Cyprus. Regional projects may refer to a particular area of a country, an example of which would be LIFE05 ENV/H/418 SUMANAS a project designed to sustainably manage and treat arsenic bearing groundwater in Southern Hungary. The project constructed and operated a pilot plant that is able to remove ammonia, methane and arsenic from water with 98% efficiency and assessed the scale of arsenic content (and estimated the cost of removal) in groundwater in Southern Hungary. Alternatively, the term regional is often used to describe a specific location (often a former state or country) within a member state. An example of this would be the LIFE06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN a project elaborating detailed flood hazard and flood risk maps using an automatic data compression procedure. In addition, a cost-effective method for the use of classified data of land-cover has been developed and is being applied throughout Bavaria. However, it must be acknowledged that the majority of LIFE projects (especially those developing a technological solution) tend to operate on a local scale rather than a national or regional scale and international projects are the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, local projects can play an important role in implementing local policies (or byelaws) and meeting local regulatory requirements.

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

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

40

One excellent example of a project that has catalysed a huge amount of interest both nationally and internationally is the UK project LIFE06 ENV/UK/409 OpenMI-LIFE. Essentially the project team has designed a piece of software that allows various models to ‘talk’ to one another. The implications for such a tool in respect of implementing the integrated river basin plans demanded by the WFD are impressive. For example a groundwater model could be linked to a coastal hydrodynamic model and allow the user to determine the impact of artificial recharge of a groundwater reservoir on coastal dynamics. The tool is so powerful, and has so many applications, that there has been as much interest in its further development from Northern America as there has been from Europe. Thus the project can be said to have truly catalysed the implementation of water policy on an international scale. Clearly, this achievement is exceptional but there are other projects that may make a substantive difference provided the market conditions are favourable when the project closes. An example may be the more recent Italian project, LIFE08 INF/IT/308 WATACLIC, which seeks to reduce water use in urban areas using both communication and fiscal tools. Despite the fact that water scarcity is a recognised problem in the southern European Member States there is a general lack of interest by Italian public bodies in water-related issues (and municipalities in particular), as they do not recognise water as a key problem in their urban planning activity. More generally, the need to reduce water consumption at household level is not widely perceived by different stakeholders. For the final users this is probably due to the low price of water: in Italy the whole water service, including sewage and wastewater treatment costs around 1€ per cubic meter. Furthermore, a recent report for the Italian Government by the association of water management companies states that “Data from Water Plans clearly shows – contrary to what is asked by the European Water Framework Directive – an increasing trend in water resource demand, thus clearly showing Italian difficulties to conform to EU policy.”20 After two years of implementation the project is achieving its objectives but the real test will be if the key organisations in the public sector adopt the WATACLIC principles and in the current economic climate it may be difficult to increase water charges to realistic levels. Nevertheless, if the project is successful it could assist the Italian water authorities to make a major step forward in meeting the requirements of the WFD. On the local level, the Greek project LIFE05 ENV/GR/245 EnviFriendly significantly reduced nitrates, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in the water of pilot areas (through phytoremediation and river bank erosion controls), also by generating awareness among and synergy between local authorities (with eight municipalities involved as partners)and also including residents, for a more sustainable use of water resources. At the EU level, the project has contributed to the implementation of the WFD as the Evrotas River Basin is highly likely to achieve its environmental objectives by 2015. In addition, the project managed to involve in its activities, mainly with the aim of ensuring the sustainability of the results, the Central Water Agency of the Ministry of the Environment in Greece (the authority responsible for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive). This organisation has shown a real interest in the project with the desire to transfer project results to other Greek river basins. So again the LIFE project has acted as a catalyst for further implementation of the WFD in Greece. In conclusion, although it is difficult to assess the real success of LIFE projects as catalysts for wider implementation of EU policy in the water sector, there are some quite remarkable examples of how single projects can, given the right circumstances, have an influence over a much greater area or larger group of people than could have been anticipated at the start of the project.

4.7. Third Countries (TCY) – a special case

20 UTILITATIS 2010 - "Studio ed elaborazione di un quadro operativo per l’impianto gestionale dei servizi pubblici locali. Presidenza del Consiglio dei

Ministri. Dipartimento Affari Regionali. Organismo Intermedio PON. "Governance e Azioni di Sistema 2007-2013". Asse E Obiettivo Specifico 5.2. 2010"

41

For more than 15 years, LIFE-Third Countries (LIFE-TCY) has provided financial support for environmental actions in countries bordering the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean (other than central and eastern European acceding states and candidate countries), supporting them in improving their environmental performance and management capabilities. This LIFE brand also aimed at contributing to the strengthening of national environmental policies and at increasing environmental protection in the EU-bordering regions. The main aims were thus capacity building, on the one hand, and enhancement of priorities determined by EU environmental policies, on the other21. This report covers LIFE projects’ contribution to the implementation of water related directives and policies since 2005. Out of the 31 projects financed in these two years, 11 have been identified as related to the water sector (and are listed in Table 4-1 below).

Table 4-1: LIFE TCY Water Sector Projects

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

42

Project number and acronym

Title Type of project Comments

LIFE06 TCY/TN/275 COPEAU

Network for water quality monitoring Capacity building National authority

LIFE05 TCY/CRO/111 IBM

Wading toward Integrated Basin Management

Policy related SAVA River

LIFE05 TCY/CRO/108 CROWATER

Strengthening of public-private partnership in order to improve wastewater management in Croatia

Policy related National water utility

LIFE06 TCY/ET/226 IBISS

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

Capacity building Knowhow transfer

LIFE06 TCY/ET/232 FLAFLOM

Flash Floods in Egypt: protection and management

Capacity building Flood Directive

LIFE05 TCY/GA/115 HAGAR

Environmental action for the sustainability of natural resources through recycling of water and sludge from marble production

Capacity building Local authorities

LIFE05 TCY/MA/141 MOROCOMP

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

Capacity building Knowhow transfer

LIFE06 TCY/INT/246 SAVA RIVER BASIN

Protection of Biodiversity of the Sava River Basin Floodplains

Policy related SAVA River

LIFE05 TCY/TN/150 SMAS

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

Capacity building Trans-boundary and involvement of national authorities

LIFE05 TCY/IL/130 SUSTAINABLE JORDAN

The Sources of the Jordan River, Humans and Nature

Capacity building Regional Master Plan

LIFE06 TCY/IL/240 TRANS-BOUNDARY WATER/PRO-AQUIFER

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

Capacity building Local authorities

In line with the objectives of the LIFE-TCY strand, these 11 projects either concentrated on capacity building (8) or on the enhancement of the implementation of EU policies (3). For obvious reasons, projects aiming at the promotion of the implementation of European policy frameworks were those undertaken in acceding and candidate countries, such as Croatia or generally in the Balkans (see Table 4-2 for more details).

43

4.7.1. LIFE-TCY and the promotion of EU policies outside of Europe

While most projects funded under the LIFE-TCY programme were inspired by and used as the basis for their actions EU legislation and best practices, only three projects were identified in this report as directly aiming at the enhancement of EU policy directives and policies. These are shown in Table 4-2 below:

Table 4-2: TCY Projects Promoting EU Policy outside Europe

Project number and acronym Project title Beneficiary

LIFE05 TCY/CRO/111 IBM Wading toward Integrated Basin Management

Lonjsko Polje Nature Park (LPNP) Public Service

LIFE05 TCY/CRO/108 CROWATER Strengthening of public-private partnership in order to improve wastewater management in Croatia

Croatian Waters

LIFE06 TCY/INT/246 SAVA RIVER BASIN

Protection of Biodiversity of the Sava River Basin Floodplains

IUCN - The World Conservation Union

Interestingly, all three projects implemented activities in the trans-boundary Sava River Basin, which extends from Slovenia (an EU member) and also covers considerable parts of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and a small part of Albania. It is the third longest tributary of the Danube River (and the largest by discharge) and its importance in the European context in general and in the Balkans area more specifically is beyond doubt. Two of the three projects tackled different management aspects of the river basin, contributing to the implementation of the WFD in this part of Europe and, more specifically, to the adoption of the River Basin Management Plans. With regards to the tasks foreseen by the Water Framework Directive, the projects established the basis for implementation by putting in place procedures, action plans and decision making bodies to facilitate integrated river basin management. The LIFE05 TCY/CRO/111 IBM project reached agreement for an official management plan and for the establishment of a programme for integrated river-basin management for a nature park in Croatia (Lonjsko Polje). This park is the largest maintained inundation area in the Danube catchment and, at the same time, the key flood control system for the Sava river basin. The project ensured that several important requirements of the WFD could be applied in this area. More specifically, it established a Stakeholders' Committee to ensure a participatory approach, elaborated a management plan for the Park and collected data on the ecological and habitat status of the park.

A more ambitious project was the trans-boundary project LIFE06 TCY/INT/246 SAVA RIVER BASIN which aimed to support the elaboration of the Integrated River Basin Management Plan for the River and build management capacity for the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in the involved countries. It had a direct contribution to the implementation of both the Water Framework and the Flood Directives. It identified threats to Natura 2000 habitat types and species and defined the ecological network in which biodiversity, rural economic development, flood prevention, and other issues are taken into consideration. Another important element of the project was its contribution to trans-boundary co-operation in a politically troubled region. In fact, the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB), which entered into force in December 2004, was the first multilateral agreement in the region signed after the Dayton Peace Agreement (1995) with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia as Parties. The LIFE05 TCY/CRO/108 CROWATER project, on the other hand, aimed at developing national water and wastewater management procedures by supporting Croatian Waters in creating a new laboratory for analysis

44

of biodegradable components in wastewater. The project outputs contributed to the national water protection strategy and to the country's ultimate compliance with the WFD. Thus, TCY projects have made a valuable contribution to the implementation of the WFD in situations where there is a shared resource or common water body. As far as capacity building is concerned, the LIFE-TCY funding tool has assisted in the pursuing of this objective in non European countries in different ways. For instance on a local level, funding has facilitated the transfer of technological know-how to improve water and sanitation services (in Egypt), enhanced the capacity of local authorities to address problems associated with the treatment of debris, sludge and water from the marble industry (in Palestine), assisted in the development of an early warning system for flash floods in the Sinai peninsula and promoted trans-boundary water management capacities in two demonstration municipalities in both Israel and Palestine. In some cases, projects were also successful in influencing national or regional regulations and procedures. Such was the case in the LIFE05 TCY/TN/150 SMAS project - implemented in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia - which facilitated the adoption of a trans-boundary approach to prevent the environmental degradation associated with droughts in North Africa, by introducing early warning systems to enable the countries to deal with and adapt to periods of low rainfall. In the case of the project LIFE05 TCY/IL/130 SUSTAINABLE JORDAN funding was decisive in assisting in the creation of a regional framework for sustainable development in the Upper Jordan River in Israel, involving the preparation of a master plan for land use designation, environmental management, flood prevention and proper drainage; the putting in place of a participatory approach; the development of ecotourism in the area and the enhancement of ecological agriculture practices.

4.8. Best of LIFE projects One way of recognising the success of a LIFE project is through the Best of LIFE project awards which are made on an annual basis. Scoring of completed LIFE projects began in 2004. The system was introduced by the Commission, following an initiative taken by Sweden and the Netherlands. A set of ‘best practice’ criteria (adapted to each strand) was developed in collaboration with the Member States. These criteria included: projects’ contribution to immediate and long-term environmental, economic and social improvements; their degree of innovation and transferability; their relevance to policy and their cost-effectiveness. In view of the importance of these aspects to project success, project beneficiaries are also required to provide an After-LIFE Communication Plan and an analysis of the long-term benefits of the project with their final report. This information forms an integral part of the evaluation process. All completed projects are initially technically assessed by the LIFE Unit’s external monitoring team (the Astrale consortium). The monitors rank all the projects that ended during the year to produce a first list. The final selection is undertaken by the Member States. The objective of the exercise is to help improve the dissemination of LIFE project results by clearly identifying those projects whose results, if widely applied, could have the most positive impact on the environment. Clearly this only applies to projects that have officially closed and so, in terms of this report, only those projects from 2005, 2006 and a few from 2007 will have been evaluated in terms of the Best of LIFE projects awards. The best LIFE water projects to date are shown in Table 4-3 and cover both LIFE ENV and LIFE NAT brands. Details of these projects can be found by clicking on the website links below.

45

Table 4-3: Best of LIFE Awards – Water Projects

Award Year

Project Weblink

2009 LIFE05 ENV/GR/245 EnviFriendly http://www.envifriendly.tuc.gr/ 2009 LIFE06 ENV/NL/167 WET http://www.rijnland.net/wet-project/ 2009 IFE05 ENV/IT/868 PERBIOF http://www.perbiof-europe.com/ 2009 LIFE05 ENV/DK/155 AGWAPLAN http://www.agwaplan.dk/agwaplan.htm 2009 LIFE05 ENV/B/510 TOPPS http://www.topps-life.org/web/page.asp 2009 LIFE05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP http://wwwa.vito.be/insimep/ 2010 LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon http://www.lifekolisoon.it/ 2010 LIFE06 ENV/UK/409 OpenMI-LIFE http://www.openmi-life.org/ 2010 LIFE06 ENV/B/362 ECOTEC-STC http://www.hydrex.be/ 2010 LIFE05 NAT/D/057 Lippe-Aue www.life-lippeaue.de 2010 LIFE05 NAT/UK/143 STREAM http://www.streamlife.org.uk/ 2011 LIFE06 ENV/D/485 Moveable

HEPP http://www.moveable-hepp.com/

2011 LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gniezno

http://www.gniezno.eu/

2011 LIFE06 ENV/E/044 ES-WAMAR http://www.life-eswamar.eu/ 2012 LIFE06 ENV/FR/133 ArtWET http://www.artwet.fr/artwet/ 2012 LIFE06 ENV/D/478 IWPM http://www.eu-life-iwpm.de/ 2012 LIFE07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST http://www.lifetrust.it/cms/ 2012 LIFE07 ENV/E/845 WATER

CHANGE http://www.life-waterchange.eu/

2012 LIFE07 NAT/LT/530 WETLIFE http://www.wetlife.gpf.lt/ 2013 LIFE07 INF/UK/950 Eco-

Animation http://www.animate-eu.com/eco/

2013 LIFE07 NAT/EE/120 HappyFIsh http://www.lifelince.org/ 2013 LIFE09 INF/GR/319

PROM.SUS.FIS http://www.spp.gr/fish_biodiversity/EN/eBook.data/index.html

2013 LIFE 05 NAT/DK/153 Houting http://www.snaebel.dk/ 2013 LIFE06 NAT/FIN/000129

Kokemäenjoki-LIFE http://www.ymparisto.fi/kokemaenjokiLIFE

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

http://www.perbiof-europe.com/

http://www.agwaplan.dk/agwaplan.htm

http://www.topps-life.org/web/page.asp

http://wwwa.vito.be/insimep/

http://www.lifekolisoon.it/

http://www.openmi-life.org/

http://www.hydrex.be/

http://www.life-lippeaue.de/

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

http://www.moveable-hepp.com/

http://www.gniezno.eu/

http://www.life-eswamar.eu/

http://www.artwet.fr/artwet/

http://www.eu-life-iwpm.de/

http://www.lifetrust.it/cms/

http://www.life-waterchange.eu/

http://www.wetlife.gpf.lt/

http://www.animate-eu.com/eco/

http://www.lifelince.org/

http://www.spp.gr/fish_biodiversity/EN/eBook.data/index.html

http://www.ymparisto.fi/kokemaenjokiLIFE

46

5. ANALYSIS OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF LIFE PROJECTS IN THE WATER SECTOR

The initial analysis indicated that approximately 70% of LIFE projects in the water sector since 2005 mentioned the Water Framework Directive as either a primary or secondary legislative consideration. In fact 208 projects out of 300 projects analysed in Annex 2 were in some way related to the WFD. The very nature of the WFD means that it covers a broad range of topic areas and so in order to produce some sensible conclusions the projects were re-examined in more detail according to sub-categories suggested by the Water Unit and included in the annexes to the WFD and highlighted in section 2.2. These are indicated below: • Characterisation of river basin districts (Article 5)

Establishment of typology for water bodies Identification and analysis of pressures and impacts Economic analysis of water use

• Establishment of a register of protected areas (Article 6) • Establishment of programmes for monitoring water status (Article 8)

Surface waters Groundwater

• Assessment of water body status (Article 8) Ecological status of surface water Chemical status of surface water Quantitative status of groundwater Chemical status of groundwater

• Development of River Basin Management Plans (Article 13) • Stakeholder and public participation (Article 14) • Establishment of an integrated river basin approach • Establishment of a Programme of Measures (Article 11) • Reporting and information and data management (Article 15) The 208 projects were made up of 155 ENV/INF projects and 53 NAT projects; the breakdown between categories is given in Figure 5-1 below and a complete breakdown by category is given in Annex 3. It should be noted that a further 87 projects addressing bogs and mires and mostly NAT projects are not included in this tally. They have recently been identified and will be included in the next iteration of this report. There is a particular link between these projects and the delivery and maintenance of ecosystem services which the authors recommend is explored in more detail in the next analysis. In order to assist WFD implementation, the EU Member States and the Commission developed the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (WFD CIS), which was agreed in May 2001. In particular, Member States were encouraged to contribute to working groups responsible for developing analyses of pressures and impacts and best practice in river basin planning. According to the LIFE Focus Brochure (Life and Europe’s Rivers, 2007), it was here that many LIFE Nature projects had been particularly influential – promoting the key activities of the strategy, namely: the sharing of information; management of information and data; development of guidance on technical issues; and the application, testing and validation of guidance22. It is interesting that five years on from that publication, impact analysis, ecological and chemical status of surface water, stakeholder participation and management of information and data

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

47

are still well addressed by LIFE projects in general, but by LIFE ENV projects in particular. Indeed the analysis in Figure 5-1 shows that since 2005 LIFE NAT projects have focussed heavily on the improvement of ecological status of water courses with a relatively small contribution of projects involving stakeholders. This suggests that there has been a change of emphasis amongst the NAT projects since 2000, but that overall, LIFE projects still contribute to many critical aspects of the WFD.

Figure 5-1: Detailed Analysis of Projects Related to the Water Framework Directive

These principal areas of activity are dealt with in the detailed analysis of the selected projects using a SWOT analysis approach. It is also relevant to mention some good examples of projects that consider the less well covered aspects of the WFD and this discussion can be found in section dealing with Gap Analysis (section 6.8) below.

5.1. SWOT Analysis A total of 39 projects were selected to go forward for further analysis. Selection was based on the following criteria:

• Project must have some tangible results. • Good cross section of the directives. • Number of WFD policy elements (projects dealing with more than one WFD issues). • Project is approved by the monitoring team (for good implementation). • Geographic variety (ensuring geographic variety from many Member States).

These projects have been analysed to identify the areas in which LIFE water projects are especially successful (Strengths), areas in which projects have failed to meet their policy objectives (Weaknesses), examples of projects contributing to the development of new water related policies and legislation (Opportunities) and continuing or new threats which make it difficult for LIFE water projects to implement policy (Threats). It is important to underline that some of the projects analysed are still on-going, and hence the analysis is based on progress and results to date. It is also important to note that the full impacts of LIFE projects are often

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

NAT ENV

48

not visible at the end of the projects and that it may take time for projects to feed into the development of policy and to transfer to other settings. SWOT analyses for all 39 selected projects can be found in Annex 4. Note that some have been updated from the previous version of this report.

5.2. Characterisation of river basin districts (Article 5)

5.2.1. Establishment of typology for water bodies

The WFD calls for all Member States to identify the location and boundaries of surface water and carry out an initial characterisation of all such bodies in accordance with the methodology laid out in Annex II of the Directive. The descriptors cover such aspects as altitude, size and geology. Clearly these are aspects that are unlikely to change a great deal over time, although there is an opportunity to review original classifications as more accurate data becomes available and certainly within 13 years of the entry into force of the Directive which means that a review is due in 2017 (see Figure 2-1). There are 24 projects which deal in some way with typology (delineation) of water bodies and these are split 50:50 between NAT and ENV. Many of the projects are recent, within the last three years, and this may be important in terms of feeding into the 2017 review. The Italian project LIFE08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT was an ambitious project which dealt with a number of WFD areas (impact analysis, integrated river basin management and data management). Two of the project’s principle objectives were:

• to quantify in a standard way the natural variability in undisturbed conditions of selected hydro-morphological, habitat and physico-chemical features, which are known to be highly influent on biological communities i.e. WFD Biological Quality Elements (BQEs). Successively, biological attributes for selected BQEs will be assessed accordingly;

• to quantify such features, that can therefore noticeably affect ecological status classification, in degraded sites as well. These sites will be selected according to the highlights proposed by the ongoing WFD management plans (which were presented in December 2009);

The project includes classification and evaluation of catchments according to the most up to date WFD classification tools and development of Programmes of Measures to address uncertainty in classification. An example of the typology classification arrived at using the most up

to date methods is given in Box 1.

Box 1: LIFE08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT

Hydraulic and morphological features are crucial in structuring the habitats of aquatic organisms in rivers. Visualisation of the lentic-Iotic character of a river reach in Sardinia calculated on the basis of information collected with the CARAVAGGIO method.

49

The LIFE 11 ENV/IT/243 RII-LIFE project in Italy is in its early stages but one of the main preparatory actions is to define a strategy to manage the water streams existing in the demonstration study area, based on the core principles of WFD and Flood Directives in order to address the issues related to the hydraulic risk and to the ecological status of streams, and to provide guidelines aimed to valorise all the elements related to history and culture, landscape and public expectations. The elaboration of the Programme of Measures will be in close connection with demonstration actions that shall be carried out on sample streams. The results of the demonstrative interventions shall be used to calibrate the POM for hydraulic-environmental reclassification. This will be a dynamic tool, constantly updated both during the project and after the project’s end, which is an innovative choice when, in reality, plans and programmes are always fixed and static. A second group of preparatory actions include demonstrating the types of interventions that will be necessary on some sample streams located in the study area which have been re-classified; for these pilot streams the knowledge and planning elements useful to define the typologies of intervention and their respective location have already been put together, at least at a preliminary stage. The interventions are aimed to demonstrate how it is possible to address critical hydraulic risks by improving the ecological status of streams, even considering the limitations due to the peculiar location of the streams in relation to urbanized areas; such characteristic, which is very common in the whole regional territory and even in several zones of Italy and Europe, requires a specific approach in order to tailor the strategy to the single case, and as a matter of fact represents the core demonstrative element of this project. The project aims to develop some guidelines which could be extremely valuable across many Member States during the 16 year review cycle. There are a number of NAT projects that could be said to contribute to delineating or redefining water courses through actions designed to permanently alter the water courses and thus change the flow rates or nature of the habitats in the riparian zones. LIFE10 NAT/DE/000010 Emmericher Ward is a good example of a project that is using standard and well tried methods to reconnect the Emmerich floodplain with the river Rhone which have been separated since 1850. The area is characterised by several remnants of typical habitats such as small areas of alluvial forests, natural river shorelines and various other aquatic and dry habitats. The project expects to improve the ecological and hydrological connection between the river and its floodplain through opening up a river side-channel which will allow natural dynamic water to flow for most of the year. The Polish project LIFE13 NAT/PL/000050 Renaturyzacja II_LIFE_PL has similar objectives.

Box 2: LIFE11 ENV/IT/000243 RII – LIFE

Rio Enzola streambed during November 2014 flood. The area is characterised by the presence of small basins with clay soils which collect and concentrate water along the drainage access of the valley, where the streambeds are only 1-2m wide with limited space to accommodate floods. Flooding by streams that have been modified has become particularly important for cities and smaller urban centres.

50

The strengths of these projects is their ability to bring up to date methodologies for assessing the status of the hydrological systems. One possible weakness is that overall these projects rely on highly complex models which may be difficult to replicate. In the case where models are simplified it is possible that they become less robust and may lose some authority especially at the level of national implementation.

5.2.2. Identification and analysis of pressures and impacts

It could be argued that almost all LIFE ENV projects in some way look at pressures and impacts and as such it has been necessary to select a theme for this report which may be of immediate relevance for all Member States. Accordingly, the authors have selected the removal of micro-pollutants - pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) as the theme. It is appreciated that this theme may change in subsequent reports. In recent years a number of LIFE projects have addressed the issue of the increasing presence of PPCPs23 and EDCs24 in water. Despite significant gaps in our understanding, there is growing concern, and increasing evidence, around the potential adverse effects of these pollutants on aquatic ecosystems and human health. PPCPs and EDCs comprise more than 6 million organic compounds, most of which are persistent, bio-accumulate, and indigestible by bacteria. There is particular concern about exposure to EDCs with the WHO linking it to altered reproductive function, abnormal growth patterns, neurodevelopmental delays in children, and changes in immune function. EDCs are considered substances of very high concern (SVHC) in the EU’s regulations on chemicals and their safe use (REACH) and are regarded as main pollutants within the Water Framework Directive; however, no exhaustive list exists and regulatory thresholds have not yet been defined. Conventional treatments in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are ineffective in removing micropollutants; advanced or tertiary treatment of wastewater – to remove specific constituents that are not removed during primary and secondary treatment – either doesn’t take place or is ineffective in addressing the problem of micropollutants. As a result high levels of these pollutants can remain in the effluent from WWTPs. There are several treatments that can be used to remove micropollutants e.g. advanced oxidation (ozonation combined with UV treatment), nano-filtration and reverse osmosis; however, their uptake has been limited due to high costs and energy consumption. A number of projects have focused on the application of new technology to improve the removal of micropollutants. Successful implementation of these technologies can have positive effects on human health and contribute to the implementation of the UWWT Directive and the achievement of ‘good status’ under the WFD.

23 Products used by individuals for personnel health or cosmetic reasons or used by agribusiness to enhance growth or health of livestock 24 Substances that interfere with hormone biosynthesis, metabolism or action, resulting in a deviation from normal homeostatic control or

reproduction.

51

The Dutch project LIFE07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER involved a unique approach to addressing this problem ‘at source’. The projected demonstrated an integrated waste and wastewater management process for hospitals, which are a major source of wastewater containing human waste and contaminated with medicine residues and EDCs. In the Netherlands alone around 130 hospitals discharge 20% of this waste material while the 7 million households contribute the remaining 80%. The efficiency of the wastewater treatment process, which involves filtration using a membrane bioreactor (MBR) followed by post-filtration treatment by oxidation and adsorption, in reducing medicinal residues and EDCs from wastewater was significantly higher than anticipated. Methane produced by the digestion of organic waste from the hospital was used to produce enough energy to supply approximately 60% of the energy used by the filtration unit. An additional benefit of the PHARMAFILTER concept is the reduced risk of contagion within hospitals due to the new process for managing organic waste. The PHARMAFILTER concept can be replicated in existing and new hospitals with the option of a permanent or mobile treatment unit. However, implementation of the concept requires specialist training for hospital staff and large upfront costs. This may prohibit wider uptake of the concept. The Spanish project LIFE11 ENV/ES/503 WATOP and the French project LIFE11 ENV/FR/742 BIOTTOPE applied innovative technologies for removing micropollutants during wastewater treatment. WATOP demonstrated the use of polyamidoamine-based cross-linked resins bearing cyclodextrin units to remove PPCPs whilst BIOTTOPE focused on the removal of EDCs using a treatment process – ActifloCarb – based on activated carbon adsorption and an accelerated settling step. WATOP also demonstrated an industrial reading flow system – FrogBox – to detect endocrine disruption of wastewater using genetically modified fish and amphibians larvae that fluoresce when the part of the genome linked to their hormonal system is disturbed by pollution. While there are concerns about the ethics of using live organisms and the risk of accidental release of genetically modified organisms this technique could be used by WWTP managers to monitor the quality of their facilities in real-time and to optimize them if necessary, as well as to make potential savings by reducing investment or operation of equipment where appropriate. Both projects are ongoing but the initial results have shown the effectiveness of the filtration technologies. Municipal water treatment plants must be prepared to regulate new substances that are potentially dangerous to ecosystems and human health. A strength of both of projects is that they are demonstrating the technologies within existing semi-industrial WWTPs. This should minimise uncertainties related to upscaling and allow for easy replicability and transferability to other WWTP. Both projects have a beneficiary that manages a number of WWTPs which should facilitate the wider uptake of the technologies. One of the weaknesses of the projects is that they have not conducted an economic cost-benefit analysis of the technology. With a number of emerging technologies for the tertiary treatment of wastewater, this kind on analysis is important to enable WWTP managers to select the most advantageous technology for their facility. In this respect the Czech project LIFE13 ENV/CZ/000475 LIFE2WATER is particularly interesting. It aims to verify and optimise a number of technologies for tertiary treatment of wastewater using the

LIFE07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER

The PHARMAFILTER unit established in the hospital includes a waste water treatment unit using a membrane bioreactor (MBR) followed by post-filtration treatment by oxidation and adsorption. The initial results are extremely promising and the project hopes to demonstrate 80% reduction in medicine residuals and endocrine disruptors in hospital waste water by the end of the project.

52

following parameters: removal of selected industrial substances, removal of selected pesticides, removal of selected pharmaceuticals and level of microbial contamination. The technologies will be evaluated from an economic, environmental and operational perspective and a set of procedures to support WWTP managers to select the most appropriate tertiary treatment of wastewater will be developed. The project is in an early stage and has not yet generated any results, but it is definitely one to watch for the future.

5.2.3. Economic analysis of water use

The WFD requires Member States to undertake an economic analysis of water use for each river basin district to provide them with the relevant information to ensure compliance with the principle of the recovery of costs of water services (Article 9 of the WFD) and to make a judgement regarding the most cost-effective combination of measures in respect of water uses to be included in the programme of measures. LIFE08 ENV/GR/551 PURE aimed to transform a pre-existing network of pipelines that were distributing treated wastewater for irrigation without any controls, monitoring, pricing tariffs nor management plan into an upgraded system providing high quality alternative water resources for irrigation in a sustainable manner. The project involved a major communications and education component allowing it to achieve a high level of engagement with a range of stakeholders. This helped to negate opposition from users who objected to having to pay for wastewater. An extensive monitoring programme, which included sampling of crops irrigated with wastewater, the impact of wastewater reuse on ground water and epidemiological study on the effects of wastewater reuse on farmers, demonstrated the viability of wastewater reuse. Despite this, the quality of the water from the upgraded was not sufficiently improved to allow its use on cultivations other than olive trees. The upgraded system has greatly improved the distribution of water to the end users, however water meters and tariffs were not in place by the end of the project and the monitoring protocol developed had not been incorporated into the system’s management plan. The Danish project LIFE05 ENV/DK/145 AgrPoM demonstrated an approach to developing a cost-effective programme of measures for addressing diffuse pollution from agriculture at a catchment level. Measures were targeted using a modelling tool capable of establishing nutrient balances at the farm level. The project was highly relevant as agriculture is a major source of pollution in many river basins, and the approach developed can be adapted to fit the specific characteristics of other river basins. It contributed directly to

LIFE08 ENV/GR/551 PURE

PURE is a demonstration project showing the benefits of upgrading treated wastewater to alternative uses in semi-arid regions - construction of wastewater pipelines is a critical part of the project.

53

the activities of the EU WFD Strategic Steering Group and served as a demonstration of how the WFD could be implemented in river basins across Europe. LIFE08 INF/IT/308 WATACLIC promoted a combination of fiscal and communication tools to achieve reductions in water and energy consumption in Italian urban areas. The project faced a significant challenge due to a change to the Italian water services legal framework. This relieved Local Water Authorities of the authority on water related services and gave Regional Administrations the responsibility for defining new local frameworks. As these new frameworks had not been developed by the majority of Local Authorities by the end of the project the target audience defined in the proposal was not representative or adequate for the objectives of the campaign to promote the adoption of tariff schemes aimed at discouraging unwise use of water. Like many LIFE INF projects, it is challenging to measure the direct impact as a result of the project and behaviour change may take a number of years to emerge. A major challenge is that issues around water saving and

sustainable urban water management do not receive as much interest from the general public, public administrations and industry as other environmental issues. There is also a lack of interest within public bodies on water-related issues and a lack of public and private investment due to the economic climate. The low price of water in Italy, around 1€ per cubic meter will ultimately limit the effectiveness of campaigns aimed at end users to reduce water wastage.

5.3. Establishment of a register of protected areas (Article 6) The Water Framework Directive (Annex IV) defines protected areas as;

i) Areas designated for water abstraction for human consumption ii) Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species iii) Bodies of water designated as recreational waters including bathing waters iv) Nutrient-sensitive areas v) Areas designated for protection of habitats and species

The Natura 2000 network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) covers a wide range of habitats and species directly depending on water and thus included in the category of ‘protected areas (v)’ under the Water Framework Directive. LIFE projects supporting the Natura 2000 network include those which focus on single species or habitats but also those which look at the whole river system and the suite of habitats and species which it supports. Projects often combine catchment based approaches (such as those addressing problems with water flows or quality) with ‘river restoration’ actions which seek to remove man-made barriers to migration and re-establish natural river form and processes. River restoration projects can be delivered at different scales (see Box 1). The scale and complexity increases when rivers are reconnected to their flood plains. Projects such as LIFE08NAT/D/013 Elbauen bei Vockerode show that the work will have to be scaled up to whole river systems to address the challenges of flooding. The change adaptation message is also that large river systems must be reconnected as far as possible with the natural floodplain to reduce flood risk to communities.

LIFE05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM

Developing an Agricultural Programme of Measures

54

River restoration is often carried out in steps starting with the ‘easy wins’ such as removing barriers to migration or removing hard engineering to allow the rivers to return to their former and natural channels, followed by more difficult problems such as regulating water flows and water quality, to some of the most difficult problems which include tackling non-point source pollution and the impact of soil loss in agricultural catchments. The Vindel River in northern Sweden is a good example of a ‘classic’ LIFE Nature river restoration project. LIFE08NAT/S/000266 Vindel River LIFE focused on a single catchment and focused on removing 75% of the modifications along the 450 km river. It demonstrated the importance of a strong partnership, baseline studies, initial hydromorphological studies to show what was possible, and monitoring throughout the process. The project LIFE08NAT/UK/000201 ISAC08 addressed the specific problems caused by upland forestry on deep peats in mid-Wales on the flows and water quality in the River Irfon, a sub-catchment of the River Wye SAC. The upper reaches of the river were acidified and could not support either Atlantic salmon Salmo salar or bullhead Cottus gobio, both Annex II species in the Habitats Directive. The project sought to identify the ‘hydrological source areas’ in the uplands, remove forestry plantations, block drainage ditches and raise the pH of the water by adding crushed lime to the upper streams. Monitoring the response of diatom communities showed that the actions worked. A significant outcome has been the recognition by the forestry industry that their practice was damaging and the UK forest plan approach will be used to ensure that the restoration work is incorporated into forest cycles. The projects on the River Vindel and River Irfon made significant improvements in relatively small catchments. Consider the challenges facing river restoration along the River Elbe which originally had a natural floodplain of over 500,000 ha. The project LIFE08 NAT/D/000013 Elbauen bei Vockerode offers a case study of how the former floodplain can be brought back into use for flood storage. The project design proposed that a dyke should be breached to create over 200 ha of flood retention land to protect the village of Vockerode. However, in the great middle European flood of 2013, the breach was created by ‘nature’, thus protecting the village. The German Minister of the Environment visited the project immediately after the floods to learn from its experience. The project aim was to set a precedent for the restoration of large river systems in middle Europe and the challenge now is to see this type of work scaled up to consider areas of thousands of hectares. Seeking to bring this expertise together, LIFE09 INF/UK/032 RESTORE developed a river-Wiki database, now managed and updated by the European Centre for River Restoration, to share

Box 3: River Restoration Project

River restoration can be delivered at a range of scales from upland streams to floodplains.

LIFE08NAT/S/266 Vindel River LIFE focused on the removal of barriers to migration, opening up 278 km of this river system in northern Sweden to salmonids. Much of the 450 km river system had been modified to allow timber to be floated downstream. River restoration techniques such as replacing boulders and gravels and adding large woody debris were carried out on 5.7 km as demonstration sites.

The Wye and Usk Foundation carried out a project of similar scale on the River Irfon, a sub-catchment of the River Wye in Wales. LIFE08NAT/UK/000201 ISAC08 following earlier work to remove barriers to migration with a project which focused on water quality and riparian management.

LIFE08NAT/D/013 Elbauen bei Vockerode (Elbe Floodplains) provided a demonstration of how the removal of dykes could allow the former floodplain to be reused for storage to protect towns and infrastructure from flooding. It will be a political challenge to scale up this work to the whole Elbe floodplain. One of the most difficult hurdles to overcome will be the issue of compensation to landowners.

55

information and good practice on river restoration activities. The project promoted the fact that river restoration activities such as re-connecting brooks, streams and rivers to floodplains, former meanders and other natural storage areas, and enhancing the quality and capacity of wetlands, can increase natural storage capacity and reduces flood risk. Outputs of the project are hosted on the ECRR website (http://www.ecrr.org/). Although not covered in any depth in this report the LIFE programme has funded many mire conservation and restoration projects. Mires provide vital ecosystem services through water retention, thus reducing problems of flash flooding in upland catchments, and carbon storage. The purpose of LIFE06 NAT/UK/134 Active Blanket Bog in Wales, for example, was to improve the condition of blanket bog in Wales. As well investigating the storage of carbon and methane, the project carried out a number of hydrological and water quality surveys to establish the value of ecosystems services provided by the bog. The authors have identified 87 projects associated with bogs and mires which will be analysed in respect of their contribution to the WFD in subsequent reports.

5.4. Establishment of programmes for monitoring water status (Article 8)

The WFD requires Member States to establish “programmes for the monitoring of the status of water in order to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of the water status within each river basin district”. This applies to surface waters and groundwater. Annex V of the WFD requires the establishment of monitoring strategies that combine surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring. Annex X lists 33 priority substances that are of the highest concern for European waters and which must be monitored on an ongoing basis. The conventional approach to monitoring priority substances in water bodies involves ad hoc collection of water samples and analysis in a laboratory. This process is time consuming, costly and labour intensive and is unable to provide continuous monitoring and may therefore miss the detection of accidental spills. New technologies could provide an alternative for measuring the presence of contaminants in near real-time and on a continuous basis. Two of the project examined, LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon and LIFE10 ENV/ES/521 AQUATIK involve automated devices for monitoring the presence of contaminants in water in quasi-real time. Kolisoon successfully demonstrated an early warning device for detecting E. coli in wastewater effluent. The detection unit is able to detect low concentrations of E. coli and is more cost effective than other techniques currently used in Europe. AQUATIK is aiming to develop an automated prototype for measuring seven of the WFD priority substances. To date the project has demonstrated the feasibility of using novel microalgal-based luminescent biosensors for monitoring the presence of three pesticides (simazine, diuron and isoproturon). The technique involves immobilising algae that are sensitive and resistant to the specific pesticide on a small porous membrane. The unit detects the difference in the level of photosynthesis between the two algae to determine the presence of the pollutant in the water.

LIFE 06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon

Development of an innovative, low-cost prototype monitoring system enabling rapid assessment of faecal pollution.

http://www.ecrr.org/

http://www.lifekolisoon.it/default_eng.asp

56

Both projects tested the technologies within existing WWTPs. The prototypes enable facility managers to monitor the effectiveness of the wastewater treatment processes in near real time and regulate them based on the contaminant concentration of the water being processed, thus improving efficiency. A study on the transferability of the technology was an integral part of both projects. This has not yet been completed for AQUATIK but the Kolisoon study showed that the detection unit could be adapted for the detection of other bacteria (e.g. Enterococci and Coliform) and could be applied in a number of different situations, including: • Wastewater facilities – for the analysis of wastewater effluents at discharge or re-use sites. • Environmental agencies - for monitoring of crucial water bodies e.g. bathing sites. • Disinfection industry - as a feedback tool to assess treatment effectiveness.

LIFE05 ENV/GR/245 ENVI-Friendly was implemented in the Evrotas river basin in Greece, a predominantly rural area which suffers from over extraction for irrigation, flooding and degradation of surface water and groundwater by pollution, primarily from agriculture. The project demonstrated a number of relatively low-cost, environmentally friendly methods and techniques for reducing agricultural pollutants entering surface water and groundwater. The results of the demonstration projects and the outcomes of an extensive public consultation fed into a management plan aimed at improving water in the area. The project involved a significant sampling component to measure the effectiveness of the techniques implemented. 64 sampling points, including 7 hydrological stations installed by the project were used to measure the natural attenuation – the reduction in contaminant concentrations in the environment as a result of naturally occurring physical, chemical and biological processes – in the watershed. The results indicated that significant attenuation of nitrogen and phosphorous exists (96% and 98% respectively).

5.5. Assessment of water body status (Article 8)

5.5.1. Ecological status of surface water

The ecological status of surface waters is a topic area that is extensively covered by the LIFE projects. The main ecological restoration of rivers is a main focus of the NAT projects and this mainly covers species listed in the Nature directives. One project that worked at the international level was LIFE 07 INF/UK/032 RESTORE which developed a network linking policy makers, river basin planners, practitioners and experts across Europe to share information and good practice on river restoration activities. As part of the development of the network, a review of EU policy drivers for river restoration was carried out. The review highlights the main legislative drivers (e.g. Habitats Directive, WFD, Floods Directive etc) and the constraints to river restoration (e.g. poor progress on WFD implementation in Mediterranean countries, funding issues, planning policy, agricultural use etc). One of the main constraints identified is the control over land use in riparian zones. The review also concluded that the scale of restoration activity has changed (from small scale to catchment) and new drivers have arisen (e.g. flood protection) but whilst there are new legislative drivers, there are also obstacles to implementation. The review highlighted a lack of planner and practitioner awareness of possibilities but that lessons can be transferred between Member States and there is a demand for tools and techniques. To complement the findings of the review a database of river restoration projects has being created by the project, providing further understanding of policy opportunities and constraints, the effectiveness of restoration methods, design issues and project costs and benefits. The RESTORE project was developed due to the large numbers of water bodies that are currently failing to achieve good ecological status due to hydromorphology. The work shares information and best practice on river restoration activities to aid Water Framework Directive delivery and the results are available on the European Centre for River Restoration website (http://www.ecrr.org/Publications/tabid/2624/Default.aspx).

http://www.restorerivers.eu/

http://www.ecrr.org/Publications/tabid/2624/Default.aspx

57

Further information concerning how LIFE projects address the ecological status of surface waters can be found in the section dealing with Protected Areas (section 5.3). However, other species, including invasive species, and species that fall outside the Natura 2000 network but still contribute to biodiversity are covered by ENV projects.

The Polish project LIFE 07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno targeted lake recultivation in Gnieźno by deactivating phosphorus in bottom sediments using coagulants, thus protecting inland resources on surface waters in line with the WFD. Upon conclusion, the project had reached its objectives and the quality of water improved substantially, making it possible to use the lakes for recreational activities. The reconstruction of

the degraded banks not only protected the water from infiltration of pollutants from storm water but also increased the landscape value of the lakes. Furthermore, the biotope quality improved and the ecology of the lakes revived thanks to the planting of macrophytes (see Figure 5-2) and the renewal of fish stocks, contributing to the reduction of blue-green algae blooms. The project activities managed to reduce phosphorus and chlorophyll contents significantly, and enhanced water transparency.

The ENV projects can also make a significant contribution to improving the ecological status of urban waterways. One recent project LIFE11 ENV/FR/000746 SeineCityPark aims to demonstrate how the socio-economic development of an urbanised territory of 1,700 ha can be combined with the improvement of local environmental conditions through the creation of green urban infrastructure. It hopes to be the first step of an ambitious programme of sustainable economic development in the area known as the Chanteloup loop, approved by the French label "Eco-quartier" rewarding sustainable development of urban areas. The project will develop a management plan that will define a basis for sustainable socio-economic development of the Chanteloup loop. The project is developing ecological infrastructure to link the Park to the Seine in the south and the rest of the green network in the north - the Hautil Massif. This aims to allow the free movement of land animals, birds, insects, amphibians and dragonflies across the urbanised territory. It will use natural clean-up techniques to tackle water and soil pollution and remove invasive aquatic and terrestrial plant species, including species of the genus Ludwigia a tropical aquatic species. The works also aim to deliver a consistent ecological infrastructure which will play a key role in adapting to climate change, including flood control in the Chanteloup loop. The project is hoping to eradicate the invasive species within five years of commencing treatments. The project is at an early stage and progress will be updated in subsequent reports. The strengths of these projects are that they can harness stakeholder awareness and gain great support for actions, at least on a temporary basis while the project is active. The can explore innovative solutions to

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

Figure 5-2: Macrophyte planting and renewal of fish stocks in Winiary and Jelonek Lakes

http://gniezno.eu/strona32wqf435ge/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2587


58

complex ecological issues and significant opportunities exist to transfer the methods and outcomes to similar locations. All projects appear to face the same ongoing threats associated with maintaining adequate monitoring programmes and, if necessary, deal with continuing threats. The eradication of invasive species for example is difficult to achieve and it is more likely that ongoing controls will need to be put in place. This raises the issue of funding such initiatives, which can be problematic in locations outside Natura 2000 network sites.

5.5.2. Chemical status of surface water The chemical status of surface waters is also extensively covered by the LIFE projects but in this case the majority of projects are linked through the ENV and to a certain extent the INF project types. The subject matter is broad but mainly concerns pollution or contamination of water courses by both point and diffuse sources and so projects deal with waste water treatment, nitrates and other chemicals of concern. Mechanisms for cleanup range from membrane filtration (see section 5.2.2) through multibarrier systems for phyto-remediation techniques (see section 5.7). Some examples of successful LIFE projects which have the overall aim of improving the chemical status of surface water bodies are highlighted below. In the 2012 Water Report the authors introduced a relatively new project LIFE09 ENV/FR/593 WateRtoM which was attempting to produce a compendium of the latest research projects which may assist in the implementation of the water directives into a system that will allow the research outputs to be used by public bodies and private institutions more rapidly and effectively than in the past. The project has now closed and successfully identified over 200 research projects which can be accessed via the tool on the website. These projects present a series of innovative solutions to water quality issues that have been through the rigorous procedure of peer review and the results are considered to be robust. Whilst this has allowed research to be provided to the public and other concerned stakeholders in a meaningful and understandable format, the sustainability of the approach is questionable. Even at the mid-term stage the beneficiary had noted that the global downturn in the economy could mean that prospective users want to invest only in approved, perfectly working solutions and devices and that very often they have limited confidence in innovative solutions. The fact that there is a cost associated with the project does mean that it requires additional funding to be maintained and to progress. The beneficiary had applied for additional European funds to expand the project into six new areas, including five new European countries; whether this bid has been successful remains uncertain. Clearly, the lack of funding is the main threat to the sustainability of this project. A more conventional approach was adopted by the Dutch project LIFE 06 ENV/NL/167 WET which was successful in demonstrating the technical feasibility of a number of innovative waste water treatment processes to achieve the standards for effluent set in the WFD. The project developed a process to remove phosphate (P) by metal salt dosing and nitrate (N) using a carbon source supported dentrification process that can be combined in a one filter configuration. This resulted in a structural achievement of the WFD standards for Ptotal (<0,15 mg Ptotal/l) and Ntotal (<2,2 mg Ntotal/l). The project also developed the use of Advanced Oxidation Processes resulting in a reduction of medical remnants and pesticides by more than 70% and achieved a disinfection level up to the hygiene limits set in the Bathing Water Directive. The removal of heavy metals, organic micro-pollutants and suspended solids was also achieved using the same combination of techniques The single filter set-up of the process enables the WFD values for nitrate and phosphate to be achieved at a considerably lower cost (about 50%) than the set-up with separate filters for N and P removal. The removal of other WFD priority substances was also investigated in the second monitoring phase of the project, in which Advanced Oxidation Processes (using ozone, hydrogen peroxide and UV-light) were tested and proved successful. Surface waters and storm waters from urban areas present a considerable problem when discharging pollutants to the sewage system. There are few methods to treat polluted run-off waters and large volumes

http://water-rtom.org/sites/default/files/favicon.gif

http://www.rijnland.net/wet-project/

59

of polluted surface water end up being processed in normal municipal waste water treatment plants, which cannot cope with occasional large volumes. LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE successfully demonstrated a selection of robust, efficient and simple technologies including sedimentation, plant uptake, filtration and fixed-media additives for the extended treatment of stormwater runoff from small, medium sized and large urban catchments. The treatment facilities, which demonstrated an average pollutant reduction rate of 70-85 %, were constructed as natural and recreational elements in the form of semi-natural lakes or ponds. By contributing to a positive improvement in the aesthetical and recreational value of the urban environment, the demonstration plants/ponds received support from the local community, as well as contributing to the environmental awareness of local people. The technology can also be applied for related purposes such as treating drinking water polluted with, for example, arsenic or heavy metals or treatment of phosphorous polluted surface waters. Finally a Romanian project LIFE 09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER is also on-going, but has already achieved some useful results. It intends to evaluate the future trends of the quality of the water bodies, to measure their effectiveness and the development of other sources of nitrogen in the study area considering the climatic evolutions. The project intends to use a holistic approach for water management by integrating international competitive models and identified sources of pollution in a GIS environment. The project is developing an integrated GIS system that will be capable of correlating all information, and demonstrate how it can be used for the designation of nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZ). Mathematical modelling for surface water-soil- groundwater will be used for a complex analysis of nitrate transfer between the two water bodies. The project is useful as it collects biological and chemical results within the project’s monitoring network as part of a field campaign at Barlad river-basin level. The project contributes to the Nitrates Directive under the water framework policy, offers support for designing the monitoring program of Romanian waters and provides a good understanding of farming activities as a source of nitrate pollution. All of these projects are potentially very transferable and even though some have been developed at the local scale there is adequate room for replication to a larger scale. The main threats to sustainability lie in funding any on-going programmes of delivery and finding sufficient finances to upscale activities.

5.5.3. Quantitative status of groundwater All Member States are required to protect, enhance and restore all bodies of groundwater, ensure a balance between abstraction and recharge of groundwater with the aim of achieving good ground water status at the latest 15 years after the WFD entered into force. While there are many LIFE projects that deal with the chemical status of groundwater, there are fewer that look at the quantitative status of groundwater. The projects that follow are all based in Italy and together they provide a comprehensive assessment of the groundwater situation in southern Europe. Two projects based in Italy have demonstrated different approaches to improving the quantitative status of groundwater under current negative drawdown conditions and future climate scenarios. LIFE 06 ENV/IT/255 A.S.A.P developed a procedure for preventing the over-exploitation of groundwater systems through an integrated approach to optimising networks that combines technologies such as leak detectors, GIS and modelling systems and simulators. The project successfully demonstrated the approach on an aquifer fed system in Pisa, reducing groundwater abstraction by 11% and reducing system losses from leaks by 15% over the course of the project. As a result, the negative drawdown trend of the piezometric level of the aquifer was reversed with an average build-up of + 0.3m from 2005 to 2008 and peaks ranging from 0.5m to 1m. The approach also reduced energy consumption from pumping (and the related emissions) by 10%. The ASAP Protocol raised remarkable interest among local and regional public administrators. It was included in the White Paper "A Strategy for Water Supply in Tuscany" and has been replicated at the water utility of the Fiora Aqueduct (another utility of Toscana Region). As well as contributing to the WFD objective of improving the quantitative status of groundwater, the project also provided a potential contribution in achieving a sustainable economic and pricing model for water supply. Financial resources for bulk reconstruction and/or rehabilitation of water networks are seldom available. More often annual allocations

http://www.life-treasure.com/index.html

http://www.lifecleanwater.ro/index.html

http://www.klink.it/gate/asap


60

suffice just for maintenance with a limited quota for on-going rehabilitation. The project protocol translates even limited resources into effective action plans for efficient abstraction and leakage cut-down, increasing the life of infrastructure, reducing maintenance costs of plants and facilities, reducing mean time between failures and mean time to restore. LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST has developed an approach to adapt the groundwater resources of the Veneto and Friuli Plain to the adverse impacts of future climate change. The project has used a combination of climate change scenarios that supply the temporal series of precipitation, temperature and evapo-transpiration for the 21st Century that will affect the hydrological balance in the study area; remote sensing techniques based on the elaboration of satellite images to determine the water deficit for irrigation of summer crops in the study area; and mathematical models of the hydrologic basins and groundwater to establish how the hydro-geology will evolve in consideration of climate change and determine appropriate measures (including managed aquifer recharge using surface flood waters) to ensure sustainability of groundwater resources. The project area is extremely complex from the hydro-geological and water management perspectives as it gathers a wide variety of water uses (irrigation, hydropower generation, domestic drinking water supplies and industrial users). The project has so far been very successful in enhancing the governance and integrated management of water resources of the river basin by engaging these stakeholders through a technical board. A third Italian project LIFE10 ENV/IT/000394 WARBO is facilitating the regulation of artificial recharge (AR) to respond to the need to safeguard, protect and enhance water and land ecosystems. The test phase is concentrating on sites with AR problems that host ecosystems of community interest where urgent measures are needed to combat water scarcity. The project will develop specific experimental protocols that will define the administrative procedures to be followed, and will specify how to manage recharge activities. The protocols will concern direct (hydrogeological, geochemical and isotopic) and indirect (geophysical and remote sensing) methods, and will be finalised and applied to two main macro-areas: a) the Friuli plain; b) the southern plain in the Copparo area (Ferrara). The project is making good progress in terms of developing the experimental protocols but the results are not yet robust enough to be reproduced. Ambitiously, the project is targeting the regulation of the Artificial Recharge (AR) of groundwater aquifers in relation to water conservation and scarcity. AR techniques have already been applied to coastal saltwater aquifers to combat salt intrusion, but AR is not regulated at the EU level, and national water directives limit its application to saltwater aquifers. AR pilot projects are ready to start once final formal and organisational regulation of the issue is in place. If not regulated, large-scale use of Artificial Recharge would entail risks both for the quality (pollution, accidental mixing of freshwater coming from different water bodies) and the quantity of freshwater (e.g. changes in the dynamic behaviour of the aquifer). To guarantee the correct application of recharge techniques, legislation should define: where and how to abstract surface water resources; the chemical and physical characteristics of recharge water with respect to the chemical activity and the hydrogeological structure of the aquifer; recharge methods; environmental impact; and set-up and design of the monitoring network. The project is at the beginning of a process to develop new regulations for aquifer recharge that could be adopted throughout Europe. The WARBO project will develop specific experimental protocols that will define the administrative procedures to be followed and will specify how to manage recharge activities and in so doing will make a direct contribution to new legislation. These projects have developed highly complex models using sophisticated approaches and, while they are capable of delivering a robust solution, it is questionable as to whether they can be widely replicated due to the fact that they require specialist expertise to populate and maintain the models. Conversely, simpler models which may be more readily understood and therefore replicable are more likely to be criticised for not meeting rigorous scientific criteria. This is the main challenge that projects of a highly technical nature face. It is also true to say that continued funding can also present problems for projects relying on large data inputs and technical outputs that require specialist interpretation.

5.5.4. Chemical status of groundwater


61

In many cases polluted groundwater contains a mixture of both organic and inorganic contaminants. The abatement of such pollutant mixtures is not possible with a simple barrier/zone based on the removal of pollutants by either physico-chemical or biological means. However, such pollutant mixtures might be treated using a combination of different reactive barriers/zones. Such a combination is defined as a Multifunctional Permeable Barrier (MULTIBARRIER). This approach requires the efficient synergistic interaction and compatibility of different pollutant removal processes, often of microbial and physico-chemical key-components of the system. Multibarrier technology is a system for groundwater remediation. It is an in situ system, in which a filtrating trench is made perpendicular to the groundwater flow. This trench is filled with a coarse material of variable composition depending on the character of the pollution, and induced to treat the pollutants in the passing groundwater. The multibarrier technology is one of the options that exist to assist with meeting the requirements of the WFD, i.e. to improve the water (groundwater & surface water) quality in river basins all over Europe. A Belgian project LIFE06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM demonstrated the multibarrier technology in Belgium and Austria as a sustainable solution for preventing mixed contaminants spreading in groundwater. The approach developed consisted of a tailor-made combination of different types of permeable reactive barriers and reactive zones in which pollutant removal processes are active. Groundwater flows through the system during which the pollutants are degraded or immobilised. As such multibarriers prevent further spreading of the pollution to the downstream area. As well as trialling several innovative multibarrier concepts (including the use of zeolites as an in-situ buffer with potential for auto-regeneration), the fact that the project was performing field trials as opposed to the more common laboratory scale evaluations of multibarriers, including the demonstration of classical biological nitrification/denitrification under in situ conditions, was in itself innovative. The results can be replicated for treating leachate anywhere as the concept can be worked out for different pollution compositions and different geological situation. Cost estimations revealed a decreased cost for electricity of three to four times for a multibarrier system in comparison with a pump and treat approach for treatment of leachate containing groundwater. In the project it was demonstrated by an exercise that a multibarrier becomes cost-efficient after approximately eight years of operation in Belgium and after seven years in Austria. Over the years there have been a number of projects that have promoted the multi-barrier approach and there are some current projects which are looking at the effective use of zeolites.

The LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet project focused on preventing agricultural non-point source pollution by pesticides through the establishment of low cost vegetated treatment systems (biological systems) to mitigate the risk of pollution. The project achieved a high demonstration value by delivering 11 prototype constructed wetlands in four different countries which achieved a retention performance ranging between 40 and 80% of 18 pesticides over a two year monitoring period. A technical guide was produced to enable the low cost technique to be readily transferred to other locations and other sectors (such as urban runoff water treatment, other non-point source pollution such as nitrate or phosphorus pollution, erosion limiting, downstream biodiversity protection) for small scale implementation. The project identified constraints in setting up artificial wetlands in current legal frameworks in three different countries concluding that a harmonisation of European legislation would be needed to make the setting up of constructed wetlands easier. The results of the project LIFE05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP carry policy and legislative implications and contribute to the objectives of the WFD by aiming to achieve good surface water and groundwater status by 2015; to the Groundwater Directive by preventing and controlling pollution through appropriate measures; and to the Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control Directive by preventing the further spread of groundwater contamination. The project did not directly affect policy, but provided a demonstration of technology that may help to achieve WFD / Groundwater Directive objectives which can be further disseminated.

http://www.multibarrier.vito.be/



62

5.6. Development of River Basin Management Plans (Article 13) Many LIFE projects deal in some way with the development of river basin management plans and in fact a project like LIFE11 NAT/ES/000699 MedWetRivers has been specifically designed to operate at the river basin level and ambitiously covers all of the SCI/SPA areas of riparian and wetland habitats located in the Mediterranean Biogeographical Region of Castilla y León. It specifically aims to develop a management programme and a monitoring programme for 60 Natura 2000 sites in Castilla y León related to water ecosystems (wetlands and rivers). It thus seeks to coherently achieve the multiple objectives of the Birds, Habitats and Water Framework directives in the region. The project will work to develop cooperation and integrated approaches among the different authorities with competences in water and nature management in Castilla y Leon. It will also improve cooperation with the other national water authorities with important river basins in the region, covering the Tajo, Ebro and Miño-Sil rivers. It will ensure the participation of all stakeholders in the establishment of indicators, threshold values and methodologies to agree both a Management and a Monitoring Programme for the conservation of water-dependent habitats and species of Community interest in the River and Wetland SCI/SPAs of Castilla y León. It aims to improve the coherence of the Natura 2000 network and thus deliver concrete ecological benefits to the region. At the national level LIFE 08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT is working towards the integration of information on local hydromorphological features into practical measures to improve the reliability of implementation of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) in southern Europe. The focus is on improving RBMPs covering a number of water body types which are representative of Italian water courses and lakes, through the introduction of innovative measures that account for hydromorphological and habitat information. The project is quantifying the natural variability in undisturbed conditions of selected hydromorphological, habitat and physico-chemical features, which are known to have a significant effect on biological communities as well as factors that affect ecological status classification. The outcome of the project will serve as a basis for the implementation of RBMPs over larger areas in Italy, by putting into practice the latest approaches and methods for the collection of WFD-compliant data, classification of ecological status and technical implementation of management plans in the study catchments. The sections that follow highlight two important aspects of the river basin approach and how these are addressed by LIFE projects.

5.6.1. Stakeholder and public participation (Article 14) Although stakeholder engagement is not a new concept, the conditions of Article 14 of the Water Framework Directive have initiated a broader discussion about participatory approaches in the management of water resources. Article 14 states that Member States shall:

• encourage active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the Directive; • ensure public consultation during the RBM planning process and; • ensure public access to background documents and information.

Communication and stakeholder engagement are a key requirement in all LIFE projects; however there are a series of projects with participatory approaches at their core that demonstrate best practice and share valuable lessons that are relevant across river basins and Member States. LIFE is well placed to deliver both top-down and bottom-up stakeholder engagement, with the potential for beneficiaries representing national and regional governmental bodies with responsibility for leading the implementation of the WFD able to share best practice from the EU and river basin level with local riparian stakeholders, and local private, public sector, non-governmental stakeholders and the public able to feed local data, knowledge, practices and experience into basin level management. However, the majority of projects identified in this study take the latter approach, with different types of beneficiaries enjoying more success in influencing the development of RBMPs and new monitoring, characterisation and management approaches than others. For example, the LIFE07 ENV/IT/000475 TRUST and LIFE05 ENV/D/000182 WAgrico projects were both led by

http://www.life-inhabit.it/

63

either local government authorities, water authorities or regional environmental departments, or combinations of the above, whereas LIFE06 ENV/F/000132 Concert’ Eau was led by a research institution. On the TRUST project, which developed a tool for regional scale assessment of groundwater storage improvement, very close collaboration with stakeholders was built through the implementation of common activities, monitoring campaigns, exchange of data and know-how and involvement in project dissemination. This collaboration built the basis for concerted actions in ground-water management and experience from the project was used by the coordinating beneficiary to update the Management Plans of the river basins of the Eastern Italian Alps. Similarly, the WAgrico project, which demonstrated how cooperation between water resources management and agriculture can be used to reduce diffuse pollution, used a collaborative stakeholder process to modify agricultural assistance programmes to support the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Concert’ Eau, which worked with farmers to demonstrate the feasibility of a collaborative technological platform (CTP) to support the integrative management of agriculture and reduce its impacts on water and the related aquatic ecosystems, failed to gain formal commitment of key authorities to implement the programme of actions based on the mitigation measures produced by the CTP. These experiences demonstrate that political commitment and the involvement of key river basin authorities are important components of ensuring the sustainability of stakeholder led interventions in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Another key factor for successful stakeholder engagement is ensuring that capacity is built amongst stakeholders to affect the long term ownership and delivery of RBMPs and POMs. The LIFE09 ENV/IT/056 WIZ project, which demonstrated that it is possible to take into account the conditions and future availability of water when making decisions on spatial planning and urban development, showed that the involvement of the citizens can be a stimulus to focus on the value of drinking water and its quality and encourage new behaviours and conscious participation. Citizens and businesses were given access to information that allows them to increase their awareness on water issues and to actively participate in water governance. Similarly, it was noted that the beneficiaries and stakeholders involved in TRUST can now count on enhanced capacity to implement a more sustainable management of groundwater resources in the coming decades. And the continuation of the technical observatory network established under Concert’ Eau will enable continued exchange of knowledge on agricultural practices to prevent water pollution amongst farmers in the project region. Monitoring the participation of stakeholders and gathering data on feedback is an essential part of the engagement process. Through diverse activities (e.g. meetings and events, personal contacts, questionnaires), the LIFE05 ENV/GR/000245 EnviFriendly project received the input of local authorities and stakeholders, and raised their awareness of the need for sustainable management practices and acceptance of project activities and results. This was verified through a set of two questionnaires, before and after the project implementation. 78.3% (versus 39.8% in the first survey) of the survey respondents recognised the significance of the Evrotas River in local agricultural development; 40.3% (versus 35.8%) of the respondents understood the need to address the pollution of Evrotas; and 72% (versus 51%) of respondents were informed about the LIFE project. After an analysis of the data and a public consultation process, an integrated management plan around six axes - agricultural development, drinking water, irrigation, reduction of point and non-point source pollution, unified response to floods and drought, and protection of biodiversity and restoration of river ecosystems - for the Evrotas river basin was produced. Another key success factor is the timing of engagement with stakeholders. Ensuring that relevant stakeholders are engaged from the beginning of the process ensures better buy-in. For example, both the LIFE05 ENV/GR/000245 EnviFriendly and LIFE06 ENV/F/000132 Concert’ Eau projects carried out studies of the socio-economic aspects affecting the river basins in which they were intervening to inform stakeholder engagement as early actions. LIFE projects such WAgrico and Concert’ Eau have sought to demonstrate that integrative approaches to river basin management and agri-environment schemes delivered under the Common Agricultural Policy are beneficial when seeking to engage with farmers. This is because the farmers are being approached through

64

schemes with which they are already familiar, and the measures developed through these schemes are designed to help to deliver synergies.

5.6.2. Establishment of an integrated river basin approach The 2011 award winning project LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP has had a significant influence on local policy makers/regulators’ perceptions of hydropower and has proved that, with careful implementation, the ecological benefits (WFD) and the economic operation of hydropower plants (under the Renewable Energy Directive) are not mutually exclusive. In addition, the project demonstrated that the requirements of both directives can be met. This is, arguably, the area where LIFE projects excel and make the largest contribution to EU policy. The Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC (RED) sets ambitious targets for the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources for all Member States, with an overall EU target of 20% of energy produced by renewable means by 2020. The National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) prepared by each Member State in 2010 indicate that an overall increase of 50% in electricity generated from hydropower sources will be required to contribute towards these targets. According to estimates of the future potential generating capacity of hydropower in the EU the required increase is achievable by improving the generating capacity of existing plants and by developing new installations. However, the hydropower industry has identified the influence of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and in particular its focus on improving ecological aspects at the local level, as a significant barrier to the development of hydropower and its subsequent contribution to the wider RED objectives. The findings from two workshops organised through the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) activity on “the Water Framework Directive and Hydromorphology”, together with the “2010 Statement of the Water Directors” provide a number of key recommendations. These include instruments, technical approaches and strategies for promoting the development of hydropower whilst meeting WFD objectives. LIFE funding has enabled a number of projects to develop, test and further advance progress on meeting a number of these recommendations, whilst others have provided useful lessons in the implementation of WFD alongside RED. LIFE 06/ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP very successfully implemented two small scale hydropower plants, where a moveable turbine and generator unit are placed into an existing river weir and combined with other measures (such as fish ladders to enable upstream migration). This innovative technical approach allows water to flow through the turbine for power generation, and over and under it, improving fish migration, bed-load transport and flood safety. The approach directly responds to the Water Directors’ call for win-win solutions that enable hydropower development accompanied by improvements in water ecology and minimum flow rates, and directly addresses the need to pay greater attention to the effects of hydropower on downstream sediment transport and fish migration. Furthermore, because the technology is designed to be retrofitted into existing or abandoned weirs it can significantly contribute to the aim of improving the connectivity of water bodies at the catchment level, with the additional economic and environmental benefits of hydro-electricity production. According to the project the technology achieves 11% higher returns and costs 16% less than a conventional plant, hence challenging the theory that the mitigation measures, that are often required to ensure improvements in ecological status under the WFD, leave hydropower development unprofitable. Market interest in the technology is substantial, with the development of a further 25 plants already initiated in three other Member States. LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE tested and promoted the application of the International Hydropower Association’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol in the EU. The Protocol is an enhanced sustainability assessment tool which is used to measure and guide performance in the hydropower sector. Whilst the Protocol cannot be used to strategically assess a catchment or sub-catchment as a whole, a number of applications of the Protocol at sites along a catchment area could be used to inform an overall strategic approach, a key recommendation of the Water Directors and CIS working groups. There are a further three LIFE projects that facilitate a holistic approach to the deployment of hydropower in specific

65

catchments and sub-catchments, each with a different mix of driving influences and a different set of consequences for hydropower. LIFE 10/NAT/AT/016 Netzwerk Donau plans to upgrade all but two of the hydropower installations on the Austrian Danube and its tributaries. The project, which is the largest ever to receive LIFE funding in Austria and is led by Austria’s largest energy producer, plans to use established methods such as fish passes and ladders to ensure connectivity throughout the sub-catchment area. The project constitutes the main hydropower component of the overall strategic plan for the Austrian Danube and its tributaries and responds to both the WFD and RED. LIFE 07/ENV/B/038 WALPHY dealt with a smaller section of a sub-catchment but formed a component of the overall strategic approach to river restoration in Wallonia. Whilst the project dealt with all aspects of river restoration in line with the requirements of the WFD, it demonstrated a flexible approach when considering the role of hydropower in the sub-catchment area. Where the owners of weirs expressed a desire to develop small-scale hydropower plants instead of removing weirs, the project constructed fish passes and other mitigation measures to enable the development of sustainable hydropower, helping to contribute to RED objectives whilst maintaining the ecological status of the river. LIFE 05/NAT/DK/153 Houting had a very different set of primary drivers in targeting a Habitats Directive Annex II species by removing physical barriers to the migration of Houting (Coregonus oxyrhynchus) in four river systems, including decommissioning Denmark’s second largest hydropower plant (Karlsgårde Power Station). This an example of a strategic catchment level approach that first prioritised a specific species of Community importance, with positive secondary effects on the ecological status of the four river systems through restoration measures, hence contributing to WFD objectives. The fact that the project led to the decommissioning of hydropower generating capacity was also consistent with Denmark’s national priorities for RED, as the Danish NREAP placed very low priority on hydropower, with plans for no further increase in hydropower generating capacity between 2010 and 2020.

5.7. Establishment of a Programme of Measures (Article 11) (Example of Constructed Wetlands) For each river basin Member States must set out a programme of measures to meet the Water Framework Directive requirements to reach good groundwater and surface water status. Many LIFE projects have aims and objectives which would fulfil elements of basic and supplementary programmes of measures, even

LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE

The Protocol assesses the four main stages of hydropower development: Early Stage, Preparation, Implementation and Operation. Assessments rely on objective evidence to create a sustainability profile against some 20 topics covering all aspects of sustainability. The Protocol has already been cited by the CIS working group as a potential tool to assess and improve the effectiveness of mitigation measures. It also has the potential to be used as part of a common, clear and transparent method for the application of RED Article 4.7 exemption requirements across the Community, as it provides a framework that enables a comprehensive assessment of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of a particular hydropower development.

Figure 5-3: Hydro4LIFE

66

though the links are not always explicit in the project design. For this study the specific area of constructed wetlands has been examined. As these projects stress, the removal of pollutants by phyto-remediation and other means is not a ‘miracle solution’ and should not replace rigorous efforts to treat problems at source. Nevertheless, constructed wetlands are playing an increasingly important role in improving water quality by using wetland plants, soils and associated microorganisms to improve water quality usually through filtration. As with any developing technology there is a need for controlled scientific studies, field demonstrations and scaling up to address the issues at landscape or catchment scale. LIFE ENV projects can provide examples of each of these steps and can demonstrate real results at river basin level. The project LIFE06ENV/F/133 ArtWet addressed the mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution using artificial wetland ecosystems. The project established demonstration sites which showed that almost total removal of some pesticides (e.g. glyphosphate) could be achieved using re-circulating biomass beds. The project carried out some work to assess the potential for adopting the systems at EU level addressing aims of the WFD, the Priority Substances Directive and the Pesticides Directive. The Italian project LIFE08ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND used constructed wetlands to treat problems with nutrient pollution in an area suffering from over-exploitation of the environment. Central to this was the preparation of an Environmental Enhancement Programme for the wetlands of the Pontine Plain. The Programme was formally adopted by the provincial authorities as an implementation tool of the regional River Basin Management Plan. Four demonstration sites showed how constructed wetlands can improve water quality in natural areas, urban areas, general agricultural areas and intensive agricultural areas. Early results confirm an increase in water quality and an increase in the number of bird species using the canal networks in the region. However, as with all bio-filtering projects, land is required for constructed wetlands and farmers may be unwilling to give up part of their landholding. LIFE projects are often the test bed for approaches which can be scaled up to catchment scale. A good example is the Spanish project LIFE09ENV/ES/000431 CREAMAgua which developed both in-stream and off-stream wetlands to reduce the nutrient loads transported by the river in an agricultural sub-catchment. In-stream wetlands can be created by widening the river channel and are usually permanently flooded sites with homogenous vegetation. Off-stream sites are designed to intercept run-off some distance from the river and are usually shallower, more variable in flooding and with heterogenous vegetation giving added value for biodiversity. The project was an important demonstration of the options available to help reduce nutrient and sediment loads and experience is published in the handbook ‘Creation of ecosystems for water quality improvement in agricultural areas in the Mediterranean region’. The project work itself can be scaled up to the main River Flumen and the results can be applied where similar problems exist in the River Ebro catchment. The project was supported by the competent authority for the Ebro RBMP. The technology can also be used in urban and municipal settings. The Polish project LIFE 08 ENV/PL/517 EH-REK dealt with managing urban water ecosystems. The project is about to close and some results are available. The project introduced an innovative approach to the consolidation of knowledge about the functioning of urban water ecosystems; planning and decision-making methods used in the management of urban water ecosystems; current eco-hydrologic technologies; the implementation of a system for training; and dissemination of knowledge and cooperation based on joint actions of a multi-stakeholder platform.

At the local level, the project LIFE 05 ENV/GR/245 ENVI-Friendly has significantly reduced nitrates, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in the water of pilot areas (through phytoremediation and river bank erosion controls), also by generating awareness among and synergy between local entities (with 8 municipalities involved as partners), including also residents, for a more sustainable use of water resources.

http://www.arturowek.pl/


http://www.envifriendly.tuc.gr/en/progr.php?allid=1

67

5.8. Reporting and information and data management (Article 15) The Water Framework Directive requires that a considerable amount of information is reported using maps. Even though only annex I and annex II of the Directive explicitly state that the respective maps should as far as possible be available for introduction into a GIS, it is obvious that the best way to provide most of the requested information is in the form of GIS layers25. GIS layers assist in the reporting of the Member States and analysis by the Commission. They also play an important role in the provision of and access to common sources of information between the broad range of stakeholders involved in the implementation of the WFD at the basin and local levels. With many actors involved with different data and reporting needs, the use of open source data and the presentation of information that conforms to data standards (i.e. INSPIRE) can help to facilitate access to data and avoid double, overlapping, and redundant reporting efforts. LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN significantly contributes to the implementation of the Flood and Water Framework Directives by demonstrating the optimised and cost effective processing of data and hydraulic modelling of rivers to identify current and future flood hazards. FLOODSCAN’s technology uses a 2D hydraulic model of flood hazard areas combined with remote sensing (laser scanning) data over a large territorial scale. Consultations with the general public and specialist users helped inform the development of new flood hazard maps and improvements to the existing web-based flood mapping service (www.iug.bayern.de ). Users can access maps for different flood event frequencies and view the water depth of different flood events and areas in flood plains where building is prohibited. The approach enables the cost-effective provision of information to the public in areas at risk of flood at minimal cost. This has led to higher acceptance of flood protection measures as well as increased willingness to take individual precautions. In line with the INSPIRE Directive the information used to generate the maps is also available in real-time to insurance companies, which are able to generate their own “front-end” maps. The new mapping service is also very useful for local and regional authorities. In Germany, county administrations lead the legal planning process for the declaration of a flood area, whilst municipalities are responsible for zoning regulations. This increased information enables better zoning and municipalities now have access to the online service and flood hazard maps and can take more effective planning decisions. The more detailed information made available by the FLOODSCAN technology has led to the prohibition of building in certain areas. Using approaches that model the surface water flow and pollution transportation and the transfer of nutrients in groundwater systems, LIFE 09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER has developed, tested and implemented a GIS based integrated water management system to identify waters under threat from nitrate pollution and designate vulnerable zones in the Barlad river basin. The GIS platform collects data on features such as soil characteristics, the climate and village zootechnics (animal management) and depicts the current status of the water body. It is also able to provide predictions for future nitrate and phosphorous flows in the aquifers of the river basin based on projected changes in land-use, industrial activity and climate. Through a user interface, the relevant authorities are able to use the scenarios generated by the system to define cost-effective river basin management plans. The information obtained by the project is used for reporting on the WFD.

Modelling is another key tool in the implementation of the WFD. The introduction of the Directive necessitated the extension and coupling of more complex models in order to take into consideration the multiple physical aspects and sectoral influences at the river basin level. Modelling is a particularly applicable tool in the process of facilitating participatory approaches in the development of river basin management plans and programmes of measures, providing a scientific approach to benchmarking

25 Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance document no.9 Implementing the

Geographical Information System Elements (GIS) of the Water Framework Directive

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3080

http://www.iug.bayern.de/


68

proposed measures in terms of their impact on the ecological status of water bodies and other socio-economic factors. LIFE 07 ENV/L/540 M3 aimed to test in the field a combination of monitoring and modelling approaches that could inform decision-making processes concerning cost-effective measures for managing river basins in accordance with the WFD. Scientific concepts were tested to optimise their potential for supporting decision-makers during the planning and monitoring of the efficiency of river basin management measures in Luxembourg, the Dutch Delfland region and German Erft river basin. It assessed the applicability of different standard and custom tailored water emission and emission modelling systems in the different water basins. The project found that the calibration and the application of the models to the test basins proved to be cumbersome, limited in terms of applicability in some scenarios, and often not really quantifiable in terms of uncertainty (or even accuracy) of predictions. For instance, the transferability of models like DatenFluss and DWA-WQ (which have been calibrated in the Erft region over years with substantial effort) to Luxembourg was hampered because of missing datasets which could not be gathered during the project’s relatively short lifetime. In the same vein, the application of process-based models from scratch showed weaknesses in datasets that were not initially expected (mainly hydrological calibration data). Similarly, during the process of developing surface-soil-groundwater model for the Barland river basin, the CLEANWATER project analysed historical data and found that many of the existing data were inaccurate. In order to correct these errors the project had to analyse the possibility of acquiring new information and data necessary for building a geospatial database including a broad set of metadata related to the project objectives. Both projects highlight the fact that ensuring the robustness of modelling approaches requires planning and effort over the medium to long term, which cannot be improvised in a short time-span. It is a gradual learning and refinement process which is also dependent on natural variation of seasonal weather conditions. Once the necessary confidence in models has been established through multiple verifications and refinements, the sound testing of scenarios is possible.

http://www.life-m3.eu/

69

6. ASSESSMENT AT THE PROGRAMME LEVEL

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

The strengths of LIFE projects lie in seven main water related areas, which are discussed in more detail in the following sub-chapters and are indicated in Box 4. Common threads, related to the different policies, are drawn together in Table 6-2 below. Many of the projects that have been highlighted in the previous sections demonstrate the strengths of the LIFE programme. There is little point in repeating information already provided and in cases where a programme strength has already been identified the authors have provided references to the relevant sections. The treatment that follows is intended to provide additional illustrations of how the projects can be analysed at the programme level.

6.1.1. Alternative remediation approaches Throughout the LIFE programme26 investigated during this study, project proponents have been particularly successful in developing alternative remediation approaches to environmental problems as the case studies that follow demonstrate. A Belgian project LIFE 05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP demonstrated the precipitation of metals in situ by acceleration of biogeochemical processes that may occur naturally. The strengths of the project were the different hydrogeological conditions at the three test sites, the combination of two different metals at each site and the thorough use of modelling to explain the results and to design a full-scale remediation. This technique proved to be more sustainable than pump and treat as no above-ground waste is produced; less electricity is consumed, which reduces the carbon footprint; and there is no discharge to surface water.

26 LIFE III and LIFE+ from 2005 to present

1. Alternative approaches 2. Management solutions for waste water treatment in urban environments 3. Assessment and improvements of quantitative status of groundwater 4. New technologies for the continuous monitoring of surface waters 5. Cost effective programme of measures 6. The Horizontal Approach – linking water management to other policy sectors 7. Projects with high potential for transferability

Box 4: Strengths of the LIFE projects


70

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

6.1.2. Management solutions for waste water in the urban environment

The principle of dealing with surface water run-off at source is an established practice in the development and redevelopment of surface run-off systems (including Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)) in many parts of the world, but there is lack of experience in southern European countries. In this regard, LIFE 08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL aims to extend the use of SUDS to regions where they are not currently used through the demonstration of techniques including bio-retention zones, detention basins, filter drains, filter strips, flow control systems, infiltration trenches and basins, permeable paving, retention ponds, soakaways, swales and wetlands in two municipalities in the Valencia region. The project is also in the process of developing sustainable Urban Water Management Plans for both municipalities. The project is in a strong position to demonstrate the potential benefits to the local area other than improved water quality (including realising economic advantages from the use of grey water and the benefits from a reduction in the urban-heat island affect). There is also a significant opportunity to incorporate the use of SUDS in urban planning requirements for new developments as a consequence of the results obtained from the project, as well as the promotion of the use of the techniques and strategies between architects and engineers. LIFE 10 ENV/DE/158 HWC - Jenfelder Au is in the early stages of demonstrating an integrated wastewater disposal and energy generation system designed to improve water quality by preventing rain and grey water from being polluted with black water and to save energy by systematically treating and utilising separated wastewater streams. The system, which is being integrated into the development of 700 new apartments in

LIFE 08 ENV/IT/390 ECOMAWARU

Figure 6-1: Micro-phytodepuration

http://www.ecomawaru.it/

http://www.aquavalproject.eu/index.asp?accADesplegar=001

http://www.aquavalproject.eu/index.asp?accADesplegar=001

http://www.hamburgwatercycle.de/index.php/english.html


71

Hamburg aims to minimise the dilution of sewage with drinking water by the use of vacuum toilets. The system will be subject to an environmental and economic cost benefit analysis to assess the potential viability of the scheme and its transferability to other housing developments.

6.1.3. Assessment and improvements of quantitative status in groundwater

This topic area has been addressed in section 5.5.3.

6.1.4. New technologies for the continuous monitoring of surface waters Currently, the monitoring of surface water pollutants generally involves ad-hoc analysis of water samples collected within specific monitoring campaigns. These approaches are often time-consuming, labour intensive and expensive to operate. However, the implementation of the WFD requires Member States to gain a better understanding of priority pollutants (chemical (as listed in WFD Annex II) and biological) entering surface waters through the establishment of monitoring strategies that combine surveillance with operational and investigative monitoring. Further discussion concerning monitoring can be found in section 5.4.

6.1.5. Cost effective programme of measures The Water Framework Directive schedule has set the definition of the Programmes of Measures (POM) in 2009 as a milestone in achieving good ecological status (GES) of waters by 2015. The definition of the POM should ideally be the optimized combination of implementation costs and ecological effects. In practice, the POM will be influenced by political agendas, the level of planning detail and validity of the supporting data; all of which will be highly variable. Hence, there is a need for accompanying scientific actions that will guide and benchmark the intended POM in their development stages. A new section (section 5.7) explores one aspect of the non-obligatory POM that appears in Annex VI of the WFD – reconstituted wetlands. There are many other POMs listed in this annex (see Table 2-3). For the revised Water Thematic Report the authors analysed the LIFE projects in a much more comprehensive fashion and discovered that far more projects than originally envisaged did actually provide practical measures to address issues related to GES. In the original report the analysis was conducted only on the basis of a key work search and at that time only the following two projects could be seen as illustrating the importance of LIFE to POM. The Luxembourg project LIFE 07 ENV/L/540 M3 is very important from this perspective as it is applying the latest developments in monitoring and modelling concepts to specific river basin management measures. The M3 project (once completed) will provide the water managers in the three participating regions with state of the art means to optimize decision support, planning and monitoring of efficiency of water basin management measures. This will be achieved through a combined use of monitoring and modelling in three regions of distinct hydrological and economical catchment structure. Furthermore, the project will apply emissions models to the three regions together with a critical analysis of input data needs and cost-efficiency for decision support. The project is also in the process of developing overall practical guidelines and field reports on the optimal use of models and monitoring to fulfil the WFD requirements in three regions with catchments of different scales, hydrology and human impacts and pressures. The project has already identified that regulators and river basin managers prefer to adhere to threshold motivated monitoring than monitoring aimed at improving process understanding and source allocation/quantification. The project emphasises that the latter are prerequisites for the successful initiation of POM. The project has also discovered that monitoring campaigns are needed to confirm the magnitude of a certain pressure, i.e. via the calculation of river loads or the estimation of exposure.27 Moving from pre-requisites to actual implementation is an area of LIFE strength which is probably best

27 Modelling Monitoring Management Monitoring data assessment report, Application of integrative modelling and monitoring approaches for river basin

management evaluation http://www.life-m3.eu/fileadmin/M3-life/downloads/guidelines/Monitoring_Data_Assessment.pdf


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

72

illustrated by a Danish project, LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM. This project successfully demonstrated the development of a cost-effective programme of measures to reduce levels of nitrogen and phosphorous originating from agricultural activities in the Odense river basin. It prepared a pilot River Basin Management Plan, elaborated an input for the EU Strategic Steering Group, as well as demonstrated and made available the project’s results to other environmental and rural development authorities and stakeholders within the EU. This is a very wide topic and our more detailed analysis of the projects during the current revision has revealed that many more projects do actually attempt to define and develop POM.

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

This topic area is dealt with in greater detail in section 5.6.2.

6.1.7. Projects with high potential for transferability

It is important to underline that the success of LIFE projects is often not visible at the end of the projects. Innovative projects often have problems during the early stages due to technical adversities or planning obstacles and the breakthrough of the technology to be demonstrated comes only after the end of the project. In management or process projects much depends on whether the stakeholders are willing to take up the outcome of the project and move it forward. Therefore any assessment of the sustainability of a project is frequently subjective and based on the potential for the project outcome to be transferred or replicated rather than objectively based on actual results. A number of water projects were identified that have either already started to transfer their results to other regions, Member States or outside of the EU, or have high potential to do so once fully implemented.

For example, in the case of LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP, following the successful demonstration of the moveable hydropower plant technology the beneficiary almost immediately commenced further installations in Germany (Thurfeld (2 x 900 kW) and Hausach (300 kW)) and was at the contracting stage for the installation of plants in The Netherlands (2 x 800 kW), Austria (7 with 650 kW, 12 with 1.300 kW each) and a further four plants in Germany (600 kW and 1,250 kW). The beneficiary also commenced the process of conducting feasibility studies for some 80 plants in Africa, and has attracted interest from Thailand and other non-EU states through regular guided tours of the LIFE funded demonstration plants. LIFE 10 NAT/AT/016 Netzwerk Donau represents the largest LIFE project ever funded in Austria and has significant potential for transferability. The project aims to implement measures to improve the conservation status of water based habitats along the entirety of the Danube and its tributaries in Austria. By forming a part of the implementation of Austria’s National Water Management Plan and strategy for the Danube the project is not only a milestone for Austria, it is cited as an important guidepost along the path

LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP

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

http://odenseprb.naturstyrelsen.dk/english/





73

1. Scale 2. Varying Costs 3. Weather and technical

problems 4. Technical limitations 5. Human factors

Box 5: Weaknesses of the LIFE projects

toward improving the Danube across Europe. The project is intended to provide an example at the international level, with both the technical methodology and the strategic approach of developing a complete plan covering a large region from a large number of individual measures (including LIFE projects), intended as an example for other countries of the Danube to follow. LIFE 08 ENV/GR/551 PURE is in the process of transforming an existing network of pipelines that are currently distributing treated wastewater for irrigation, with no control, no monitoring, no pricing and no management plan, into an upgraded system that provides high quality alternative water resources for irrigation, in a sustainable manner and in accordance with the principles of the WFD. A key element of this work is the production and dissemination of a prototype approach and management plan for a sustainable, environmentally significant, humanly safe, publicly accepted wastewater reuse and utilisation system which has the potential to be replicated across southern Europe and other non-EU semi-arid regions globally. Through the restoration of the species current range, LIFE 05 NAT/DK/153 Houting has the potential to provide experience which could prove valuable for the reintroduction of the Houting in other parts of its natural distribution area, such as Germany and the Netherlands. The outcome of LIFE 08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT has the potential to serve as a basis for the implementation of River Basin Master Plans over larger areas of Italy and, possibly, the whole of Europe. LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN (see below for further details) has the potential to transfer the use of its web-mapping and Floodscan software to other regions and Member States, with the main precondition to its successful transfer being the availability of hydraulic and geographic data. The project increased the potential for transferability through cooperation projects and workshops at the national and international level (including Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia and Poland). LIFE 09 ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE has developed a series of manuals and training courses for independent auditors and the EU hydropower industry to help implement the role out of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol across the EU. These tools are already proving valuable to the beneficiary in promoting the Protocol outside of the EU, with trial applications using the materials already having taken place in Iceland, Norway, Malaysia and Australia. Finally, LIFE 08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL provides an excellent example of the ability of LIFE funding to be used to enable the transfer of existing best practice from one region of the EU to another. By collaborating with SUDS experts from the University of Abertay the project is drawing on best practice from the UK and demonstrating the use of various techniques to deal with surface run-off water with the aim of extending the use of SUDS to regions where they are not currently practiced, starting at the provincial level (Valencia) and potentially moving the national (Spain) and southern European regional level.

6.2. Areas in which LIFE water projects have failed to meet their policy objectives (Weaknesses) The weaknesses identified with the water sector projects analysed broadly fall into two crosscutting categories: weaknesses that are specific to the water sector and those that are more generic and may be applicable to projects in other sectors. Within these broad categories five common themes shown in Box 5 were identified and are discussed below. It is important to note that any weaknesses identified are not criticisms of the projects but are intended as objective assessments of factors that have impacted on the delivery of policy objectives.

http://www.pure-hersonissos.gr/

http://www.snaebel.dk/English/Houting/



http://www.hydrosustainability.org/Hydro4Life.aspx

http://www.aquavalproject.eu/

74

6.2.1. Scale

A number of projects were identified that focus on addressing problems or demonstrating approaches at the local or regional level. Whilst this is not a weakness in itself, many of the projects were found to suffer from the lack of a regional or national level institution within their partnerships or wider stakeholder groups, creating a significant barrier to the translation of project results into wider policy feedback. While the need to address problems such as the treatment of pollution resides at the local level, only through the collaboration between local and regional or national levels can meaningful and durable results be achieved in the future. Equally, if the aim of a project is to help develop policy or to act as a case study for future policy-making, then it is advisable for the project to be in close contact with European policy-makers and ensure that the policy-makers actually use their obtained results. As a consequence, many LIFE projects only demonstrate the advantages of the technology, management systems or models on a local scale, and while they aspire to be transferable or replicable on a larger scale only very few can actually demonstrate that the project outcome is sufficiently robust to allow scaling-up to the regional or national level. For example the project LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE, only demonstrated that the project could operate on a local scale and the fact that there was no national representation in the project partnership could be one reason for the lack of apparent uptake at the end of the project.

The LIFE08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL project was only demonstrated at the local level and, given that the concept of SUDS is relatively new to southern European countries, the positive results of adopting SUDS is hard to demonstrate at the local level. Not least because the local and regional legislation does not enforce the incorporation of these strategies in urban planning projects and urban planners and designers do not know these techniques and they are not included in the design of the standards. Similarly, the LIFE06 ENV/NL/167 WET project successfully demonstrated the technology for removal of priority hazardous substances from waste water at a local scale but at the end of the project there was no evidence of a wider uptake of project results/technology. However, the same can be said of many of the technology based LIFE ENV projects because the project proponents are generally from the private sector and need further assistance with the commercialisation or endorsement of a product before it can be more widely accepted.

Despite some excellent dissemination at the national level some dissemination in Cyprus, the Greek project LIFE 08 ENV/GR/551 PURE, achieved limited international dissemination either in Southern Europe or non-EU semi-arid regions which were key elements of the original proposal. Other projects which only appear to act at the local level are shown in Table 6-1 below.

Table 6-1: Scaling Issues with LIFE projects

LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM LIFE 08 ENV/IT/390 ECOMAWARU LIFE 06 ENV IT 235 Kolisoon LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet LIFE08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND

LIFE06 ENV/NL/167 WET

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









http://www.rewetland.eu/life/


75

6.2.2. Varying costs

Some technologies developed and demonstrated by LIFE projects have proved to involve high capital costs that may act as barriers to their wider uptake and commercialisation. Other technologies demonstrate variability in cost performance on a site-by-site basis. The surface water status monitoring equipment developed by LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon involved high capital costs for equipment. The device was only developed to the prototype stage and would require significant investment to fully commercialise. The use of mathematical modelling and remote sensing techniques by LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST to help adapt the groundwater resources of the Veneto and Friuli Plain to the adverse impacts of future climate change also represents a relatively technically complex and high cost approach. The high costs of the LIFE 10 ENV/D/158 HWC - Jenfelder Au project to develop and install a waste water separation and renewable energy facility in 700 apartments could prove unviable in the future (the current cost is around 24,000€ per apartment). In the case of LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE, whilst the complex, high-cost surface water treatment solutions developed proved affordable for the local authorities and water companies with good financial resources in Denmark, the approach may not be economically feasible in other parts of Europe. In another case (LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet), whilst the low cost vegetated treatment systems designed to tackle agricultural non-point source pollution by pesticides were relatively inexpensive to construct (average 10,000€), the cost of land on which to construct the artificial wetlands may cause a considerable issue. The location of the wetlands has to be carefully chosen to meet hydrological requirements meaning that land may need to be purchased. If the land is high grade agricultural land, it could cost in the region of 100,000€/ha, making the solution prohibitively expensive. The cost of the in-situ technique developed by LIFE 05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP is strongly site-dependent when compared to the classical contaminated groundwater treatment technique of pump-and-treat (P&T). The cost depends on the availability of clean-up infrastructure already on site. If pumping wells, a wastewater treatment plant or sludge dewatering facility are available then the investment necessary for the classical P&T approach strongly decreases, making the in-situ process less competitive in comparison. There are technologies that are more expensive in the short term due to higher installation costs, but over the longer term they become economically more favourable than conventional pump & treat technologies (for example the multibarrier technology demonstrated by LIFE 06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM). In general, it may be assumed that site characterization, design and contingency planning costs will be higher for a multibarrier approach than for P&T, whereas operational costs will be lower. In the case of LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM concerned farmers criticized the project results, such as the reduction rate of nitrogen and phosphorus losses from agriculture and they were in the view that a project that turned to an actual River Basin Management Plan could have targeted a much quicker reduction rate at negligible economic costs.

6.2.3. Weather and technical problems

In some cases the major difficulties encountered by the project were connected to weather conditions. LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno was affected by the weather pattern in 2009 which showed significant variation from the usual conditions and resulted in some of the activities planned for the first half of the year being delayed due to adverse conditions. This case indicates that weather conditions should be taken into account for projects such as lake-rehabilitation which include physical field works and biological manipulation. LIFE08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL has had to contend with the difficulties posed by increasing











76

variability of local weather conditions, which make the specification of SUDS facilities very difficult. With the effects of climate change having an ever increasing influence on local climatic conditions, existing historical weather data is becoming less reliable. It may be that projects such as these need to build a weather factor into the design from the outset so as to be absolutely certain that the project can be delivered in a timely fashion. In other cases projects had to request prolongations due to technical problems. LIFE 07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER encountered problems setting up the solid waste grinder and related overflow. Although this did not directly affect the waste water disposal function of the unit, the technical issues caused an overall delay in the implementation of the project. This is a common feature in LIFE projects and does not always indicate a technical weakness as frequently the prolongation strengthens the project outcomes.

6.2.4. Technical limitations

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

6.2.5. Human factors

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

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

A total of eight areas which pose continuing or newly emerging threats to the implementation of LIFE water projects were identified (see Box 6) and are discussed below.

1. Sustainability 2. Transferability 3. Data access and reference information 4. Unknown long term results 5. Wider administrative and economic threats 6. Difficulties in obtaining access, rights and permissions 7. Lack of close collaboration and consensus with stakeholders 8. Insufficient harmonisation and different interpretation of policy

Box 6: Threats to the implementation of water policy

http://www.pharmafilter.nl/








77

6.3.1. Sustainability In the case of LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno the project’s sustainability may be threatened by breakdown of infrastructure or illegal discharge of sewage into the project area. Repeated deterioration of water quality would require cleaning up of the areas that had already been rehabilitated under the project. There is a possibility that funds would not be available for such a cleanup. In the longer term repeated pollution events will lead to inhibition of self-purification processes established by the project and, as a consequence, to a further decrease of water quality. Long term sustainability can be an issue for some projects and generally the critical factors limiting sustainability relate to continued funding and institutional stability, however it is very difficult to get concrete evidence to assess actual sustainability on a project by project basis without the benefit of an ex-post mission to the project. Arguably, if a project is sustainable then it is possible that the website will still be active and this is one means of assessing sustainability – although it is also true to say that the absence of a well maintained website does not mean that the project has been unsustainable. Thus sustainability can often only be inferred from the information available.

6.3.2. Transferability

There are cases where technologies such as those developed by LIFE 05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP and LIFE 06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM are limited by restrictive conditions. The biggest threat to the uptake of these technologies is that a thorough evaluation of each site on a case-by-case basis is needed to determine the suitability and the potential effectiveness of the approach. A further key point is that additional funding is often required to make even an exceptional product ‘sellable’ in an open and highly competitive market situation as was highlighted in the final report of the LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE project. The LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon project made particular reference to other detection methods and automated equipment for determining faecal coliform levels in waste water were already penetrating the market place by the end of the project. As a basis for large-scale implementation, project LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN intended to compile the numerous working documents into a technical handbook providing instructions to third parties regarding the processing of basic data as well as the modelling of flood hazard maps. This process was started during the project period, but could not be finalised due to delays. The beneficiary sought additional internal funding to complete this but if funding could not be found then this would pose a significant threat to transferability of the methodology developed in the longer term. Project LIFE08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT noted that for wide scale application of the RBMP approach pioneered by the project it would require buy-in from regional authorities and other institutions that could not necessarily be guaranteed by the end of the project. It is perhaps premature to expect that very new projects such as LIFE10 ENV/ES/521 AQUATIK can identify potential threats to non-delivery or sustainability of project outcomes. However, it is already recognised that the stakeholders identified so far are all based in Spain/Catalonia (and all three beneficiaries are based in Spain too). The project has planned to engage widely in Europe but should this fail then the project may remain localised and will not be able to transfer the knowledge gained in monitoring priority hazardous substances in waste water to other regions or countries.

6.3.3. Data access and reference information Another typical threat identified for projects dealing with water-related issues is the need to have access to










78

sufficient levels of accurate data with all related factors and parameters (relating to pressures and impacts on the water quality and to water quantity). Often the need to collect and put together such ample and updated datasets implies the additional need to homogenise it – a process which typically is quite time-consuming. This was identified as being a threat to the uptake of the methods developed by LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST, LIFE08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT and LIFE08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND. Projects can also have difficulty establishing reference conditions for water bodies so that suitable guidelines, standards or programmes of measures can be identified. Project LIFE 05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM, found this to be the case especially for lakes, as the project showed that parameter reference values could have been established locally as far back as the Middle Ages. This could be due to the early impact of society or to natural conditions. In certain cases it is therefore recommended to establish site-specific criteria for good surface water status rather than type-specific criteria.

6.3.4. Unknown long- term results

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

6.3.5. Wider administrative and economic threats

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

6.3.6. Difficulties in obtaining access, rights and permissions

The decommissioning of a hydropower plant to improve the connectivity of a water body as part of LIFE05 NAT/DK/153 Houting was not able to be completed due to the project being unable to purchase property and water extraction rights through a voluntary negotiation process. The LIFE08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND project established that a series of on-site structural interventions within a National Park would be needed and these require special authorisations. Inevitably such authorisations are lengthy procedures and this in turn may lead to significant delays in project delivery. In one case, LIFE 07 ENV/B/038 WALPHY there was a conflict with one landowner who actually wrote to the Commission complaining of the restoration measures being undertaken by the project: thankfully this is a very unusual occurrence. On a different note the relatively new LIFE10 ENV/D/158 HWC - Jenfelder Au a very large and ambitious project which is attempting to introduce an integrated wastewater and energy generation system on a new housing estate may encounter difficulties in obtaining planning permission for solar and ground heat energy supplies which may threaten the delivery of the project within the timescale outlined in the proposal.















http://www.walphy.be/


79

6.3.7. Lack of close collaboration and consensus with stakeholders

The need for close collaboration between stakeholders to achieve the successful realisation of the technology or approach being developed by a project and the threat of either a lack of collaboration or consensus between stakeholders was identified in a number of projects. For example, an important aspect for the implementation of LIFE07 ENV/B/038 WALPHY is the continuous contact with provincial authorities, as the Provinces are responsible for the management of some categories of rivers and also for the granting of compulsory authorisations. A lack of collaboration with the provincial authorities may threaten the project’s ability to carry out its actions as planned. Despite repeated attempts, LIFE09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE has so far been unable to secure the active participation of an EU based regulatory body in trialling the use of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol. Engaging with regulatory bodies may help to reduce the barriers to hydropower development posed by some local interpretations of the WFD by demonstrating the Protocol’s suitability as a comprehensive assessment of the overall sustainability of hydropower developments. The acceptance of the Protocol by a regulatory body may also encourage more hydropower operators and developers to trial the Protocol, hence helping to achieve the projects overall objectives. LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST could face the threat of difficulties in reaching consensus amongst its many stakeholders for the acceptance of artificial aquifer recharge, with many competing economic activities that use water and land resources necessary for the project’s success (excavation sites, flood protection, etc). Collaboration is not only important between stakeholders, there are also implications for project teams which may need to remain associated after the project has finalised otherwise sustainability and transferability may not be achieved. Project LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon notes that it is vital for the project partners to maintain their collaboration if the product is to be brought to full commercialisation.

6.3.8. Insufficient harmonisation and different interpretations of policy

In some cases it was discovered that the insufficient harmonisation of national implementation of various directives threatened the application of approaches developed by LIFE projects across different Member States. The LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet project demonstrated that a harmonisation of European legislation would be required to make the setting up of constructed wetlands easier, as different Member States have different planning and financing requirements and also different interpretations of the relevant directives. LIFE 07 ENV/L/540 M3 highlighted similar issues with the insufficient harmonisation of national implementation with the approach of the WFD. In a slightly different vein the LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon project noted that there was no uniformity across member states for standards and methods of testing for coliforms in waste water and that was a significant threat to the ability to roll out the monitoring equipment to different member states in the future.

6.4. LIFE projects contributing to the development of new water related policies and legislation (Opportunities)

One of the key strengths of the LIFE programme is its ability to test the application of EU environmental legislation. For the programme to realise its full potential in this respect, it could be important for individual projects have a mechanism to feedback lessons into the continual development of new policies and legislation. The analysis identified a number of cases where water sector projects are developing new approaches not yet covered by existing EU legislation, contributing to the revision of water legislation, and providing input for specific water related legislation. However, the main strengths of water sector projects lie in contributing to the further development of water management related norms and standards, and assessing and disseminating environmental legislation. Project opportunities were examined in relation to the policy areas outlined in Box 7 and while it is possible








80

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

6.4.1. Projects working on complementary sub-legislation to already existing texts Several LIFE projects set out to develop protocols which will complement existing legislation one typical example is the UK project LIFE09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE which is testing and promoting the application of the International Hydropower Association’s Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol in the EU. The Protocol is an enhanced sustainability assessment tool which is being used to measure and guide performance in the hydropower sector. The Protocol assesses the four main stages of hydropower development: Early Stage, Preparation, Implementation and Operation. Assessments rely on objective evidence to create a sustainability profile against some 20 topics covering all aspects of sustainability. By demonstrating and promoting the application of the Protocol in the EU, the project aims to prove the Protocol’s suitability to become a standard methodology for the assessment of hydropower sustainability performance in the EU and globally. The beneficiary also intends to demonstrate the Protocol’s ability to capture assessments that are of use in implementing the WFD. On the same theme the 2011 award winning project LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP has had a significant influence on local policy makers/regulators’ perceptions of hydropower and has proved that, with careful implementation, the ecological benefits (WFD) and the economic operation of hydropower plants (RED) are not contradictory and the requirements of both directives can be met. The Spanish project LIFE08 ENV/E/099 AQUAVAL is attempting to use knowledge and experience gained in northern Europe in utilising Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) by incorporating their use in urban planning requirements for new developments in southern Europe in an effort to combat water scarcity.

6.4.2. Projects developing new approaches not yet covered by existing EU legislation The Romanian project LIFE09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER contributes to the development of a modern Romanian water management system by elaboration of a completely integrated system as the basis for the Barlad River Basin District Management Plan according to EU legislation (especially Water Framework Directive) and by gaining the knowledge and experience to be used later in management of other river basins of Romania. The Cleanwater team intends to assist the replication of the developed Open-GIS system at whole country level, like a support for the implementation of Nitrates Directive and it will contribute to a national approach methodology for delineation of vulnerable zones to the nitrogen pollution, at river basin level.

1. Projects working on complementary sub-legislation

2. Projects developing new approaches not yet covered by EU legislation

3. Projects providing input for specific water management related legislation

4. Projects contributing to the revision of water legislation

5. Projects contributing to further development of water norms and standards

6. Projects assessing and dissemination environmental legislation

Box 7: Opportunities for LIFE projects to influence policy




http://www.lifecleanwater.ro/

81

Currently, the information obtained so far by the project is used for the WISE28 reporting, thus the analysis results obtained will improve the Romanian reporting for the WFD. The project discovered through its monitoring programme that there are different factors to be taken into consideration for monitoring nitrogen pollution in Eastern and Western countries that use different agricultural methods.

6.4.3. Projects providing input for specific water management related legislation

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

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

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

The Luxembourg project LIFE07 ENV/L/540 M3 is working on examining regional monitoring programme of measures and has identified the shortcomings of the WFD Common Implementation Strategy. The project aims to provide demonstration monitoring programmes, modelling case studies and scenario testing to assist water managers and practitioners in applying the WFD and helping towards achieving the difficult goal set forth by the Directive. The project is still on-going but has already highlighted that economic costs of meeting the objectives of the WFD are likely to be very high and may even be unattainable in the time-frame available. In order to ensure management actions are most effective it is of key importance that water managers have a structured approach to gaining an understanding of what the key pressures and impacts on their water bodies are and that their monitoring of emissions (inputs) and emission situations (exposure conditions within the water body) adequately characterises these. Beyond this, the project specifies that managers need a strategy to assess the effectiveness of their programmes of measures, and

28 Water Information System for Europe (WISE)




82

the Programme of Measures (POM) themselves need to be realistic and achievable and have a time-frame for implementation against which to test any improvement in condition. The monitoring needs to be set within an adaptive management framework so that the programme receives on-going re-evaluation to ensure that the monitoring and POMs are meeting the needs for the water body ecosystem. The project points out that the WFD strategy documents remain vague on most quantitative aspects of evaluating pressures and adapting monitoring networks to provide a sound database for Programme of Measures (POM) definition. In their view the main reason for the lack of clarity in linking different steps are the large knowledge gaps in the relationship between morphological, ecological and chemical drivers leading to the endpoint metrics of good ecological status (including the appropriateness of those metrics). It is important and very useful for the future implementation of the WFD that the project identifies a number of deficits related to water monitoring programmes in the examined two regions29 and these are indicated in Box 8. The Polish project LIFE07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno helped to fulfil the requirements of the WFD, more specifically to protect inland resources of surface water with the postulated strategic objective of reaching "good ecological condition of water". Currently the quality of water in the Gniezno's lakes can be considered as in a good ecological condition as a result of the project. The applied method of lake rehabilitation -inactivation of phosphorus in bottom sediment- is a new method of lake protection. It helps to avoid sediment storage and odours emission problems which are common effects of lake dredging. All recultivation procedures are performed from the water surface, posing no risk for the environment or biological life. The method does not require an additional area around the lake surface and is an ideal method for municipal lakes. It can be used in most cities in Europe, where lake eutrophication is the main problem of their degradation and the method can be particularly recommended for shallow lakes. The method is relatively cheap and the project in Gnieźno showed that the positive results can be obtained even in the case of lakes in bad condition. The project results will be used in protecting water not only in lakes but also through the drainage basin of the Odra river with its outflow to Baltic Sea. Besides its environmental component, the project has a strong socio-economic component since it supports the recreational use of the lakes.30 In the Polish project LIFE08 ENV/PL/000517 EHREK the beneficiary is currently establishing a monitoring system to assess the effectiveness of re-cultivation activity of urban water ecosystems. The monitoring activity includes: • physical and chemical analysis (for waters every two weeks, and possibly additionally after heavy

rainfall, bottom sediments twice a year); • biological analysis (phytoplankton and zooplankton every two weeks if the weather is warm and once a

month if its colder, fish twice a year at least), • toxicological analysis (blue-green algae toxins and dioxins once a month at least, more often when blue-

green algae are blooming).

29 http://www.life-m3.eu/fileadmin/M3-life/downloads/guidelines/Monitoring_Data_Assessment.pdf 30 Winiary lake is used by the inhabitants of Gniezno as swimming place and it is very popular area for the local citizens during the summer weekends. The

Jelonek lake and park in its vicinity is the place of rest during the week and weekends. The results of the project not only enhance this function, but also reduce the need to travel to other weekend recreation destinations.

Box 8: Deficiencies in current water monitoring programmes

1. Link between pressures and monitoring concepts 2. Pressures related to chemical pollution 3. Dynamics of pressure indicator occurrence 4. Suitability for load calculation and model validation 5. Link between chemical and ecological monitoring





83

The results of the above monitoring will be used to construct and calibrate a mathematical model for decision- makers. The study of the project will implement a systemic approach that will analyse threats and opportunities faced by the reservoir catchment area; harmonise ecologic biotechnologies and technological innovations; and will apply the principles of ecohydrology as an interdisciplinary science. The project is still on-going; further results will be expected in the upcoming years. LIFE10 NAT/AT/016 Netzwerk Donau aims to implement measures to improve the conservation status of water based habitats along the entire length of the Danube and its tributaries in Austria. By forming a part of the implementation of Austria’s National Water Management Plan and strategy for the Danube the project is not only a milestone for Austria, it is an important milestone along the path toward improving the Danube across Europe. The project is intended to provide an example at the international level, with both the technical method of the project as well as the strategic approach of developing a complete plan covering a large region from a large number of individual measures (including LIFE projects), is intended as an example for other countries bordering the Danube to follow and has the potential to become a standard approach for sub-basin or basin wide activities.

6.4.6. Projects assessing and disseminating environmental legislation

The pilot project for river basin management planning in the Odense River Basin completed by project LIFE05 ENV/DK/000145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM addressed Articles 11 and 13 of the Water Framework Direc-tive. The project prepared programmes of measures and river basin management plans aimed at the achieving the environmental objectives specified in Article 4 of the WFD. The project demonstrated how the planning process required by the WFD can be carried out from initial establishment of (provisional) environmental objectives to the calculation of how the environmental objectives can be achieved most cost-effectively for the water cycle as a whole, i.e. watercourses, lakes, mires, groundwater and coastal waters. The project represents a successful example of the local cooperation and problem-solving in river basin management and is now integrated in the future institutional structure to implement the WFD. The technical part, defining the "good status" of the water body and the development of a set of measures to reach it might have systemised the beneficiary approach to the WFD implementation. For every application of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol that LIFE09 ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE conducts, the project plans to record the WFD designation and classifications at each site. Analysis of the data will compare the assessment of overall project sustainability (using the Protocol) with compliance with the WFD. If projects achieve a high sustainability assessment score using the Protocol, but fail to meet the WFD objectives set, it could indicate that the way in which the Directive is being applied in that region is to the detriment of social and economic sustainability. In this respect, the project will be able to highlight regulators that are setting requirements based on the ecological status of water bodies that compromise broader sustainability goals, and recommend ways in which these goals can be balanced. LIFE06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet successfully demonstrated the mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution and phytoremediation using artificial wetland ecosystems. Through an assessment of the implementation of the WFD in three countries (Italy, Germany and France) the project showed that a harmonisation of the European legislation would be needed to make the establishment of constructed wetlands easier. LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN has provided instruments to water management authorities which can be used for communication with the public in areas at flood risk and only require minor adjustments to the local situation.

6.5. Preparatory Projects


http://www.naturstyrelsen.dk/





84

The so- called Preparatory Projects were designed to help policy makers trying out different policy ideas in practice and to have case studies for certain issues and trends. The preparatory projects under the LIFE programme, are “…projects which are preparatory to the development of new Community environmental actions and instruments, and/or the updating of environmental legislation and policies”.31 Only four preparatory projects have been carried out to date, three of them already completed reaching very good results and helping the policy-makers, while one is still on-going. Only one pilot project developed and tested verification protocols in three technology areas: waste water treatment, soil remediation and energy. The UK project LIFE06 PREP/UK/002 TRITECH ETV (which ended in August 2009) was useful as in 2002 the EU adopted the Environmental Technology Action Plan (ETAP). A key aspect of ETAP is the development of improved testing, performance verification and standardisation of environmental technologies through defined processes. The TRITECH-ETV project has set up and run a pilot scheme for the verification of environmental technologies, including waste water treatment.

6.6. Factors for success and failure It is not easy to determine what makes a project particularly successful, as projects vary significantly and what works for one project might lead to difficulties in the case of another. There is rarely one factor that leads to overall success and the results of our analysis suggest that the most successful projects have addressed risks to the project at an early stage and have managed to overcome them. It is true to say that developing sound networks and consulting with all relevant stakeholders, be they in the private sector (e.g. farmers) or in public bodies (e.g. the regulators) is a critical factor and the most successful projects – in terms of policy intervention - are ones which engage with the appropriate national bodies who are in a position to adopt new practices or make changes to regulations. Establishing long lasting institutional arrangements, that can be in place after the LIFE project has closed also provides a much better platform for policy intervention. These strong institutional links appear to be most important for projects developing some kind of software, data processing or modelling products that require continuous support for effective implementation. For technology based projects, most of which deal with some form of water treatment, the most critical aspects for success appear to be future financing and the ability of the project team to make the significant step from prototype or pilot to full commercialisation. In the current economic climate of reduced public spending across all sectors and a general reluctance by investors to invest in untried technology, the threats to wide-scale application technology based projects is increasing. A summary of the success factors and threats to water sector projects is presented in Table 6-2. In general the water projects were typically small scale projects that did not really affect national programmes, but despite this fact, we have found some good examples of national, transboundary and international cooperation. In our view the projects should be much more proactive to disseminate their results in European level and should make the EU policy makers aware of the results achieved. In terms of WFD delivery one additional success factor is the provision of robust scientific data which is required as a sound basis upon which to base strategy and design and develop suitable interventions. This is true no matter what the scale of the project and LIFE projects are particularly good at disseminating information of a highly technical nature into material that can be accessible to a wide range of stakeholders. Financing is also a major requirement for a project to be sustainable in the long term. NAT projects tend to be less susceptible to funding issues post-project because they operate in Natura 2000 networks which the Member States must protect. On the other hand the ENV projects are more likely to require post-project financing and unless this is considered at an early stage in the project cycle then the chances of a project having a long-term impact are more limited.

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

85

Table 6-2: Factors for Success and Operational Threats of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT Projects in the Water Sector

Thematic Focus of Project Success Factors Threats Water Framework Directive • Very good partnership, including most relevant local

municipalities, research institutes and universities and good synergy with private consultancies to facilitate good project management

• High commitment of regional authority for the successful completion of project

• Creation of monitoring network • Creation of a series of guidelines and action plans for

implementing a more sustainable approach for water management

• The creation of comprehensive new databases on water use and management (including GIS mapping)

• Regularly sharing information with regional stakeholders (technical committees, web-GIS, Wiki)

• To have a strong platform for EU-wide (and global) stakeholder engagement and proactive in exploring links between the WFD issues

• Unless solutions are rapidly transferred to market place interest in further development/use is lost

• Interpretation of WFD at national level is having direct consequences on approval of new projects and allocation of concessions and permissions for hydropower development under Renewables Directive

• Inability to secure the active participation of an EU based regulatory body can jeopardise wider project application

• Reluctance from people inside the scientific community to share their results outside their community

• A lot of projects concentrated their research on solving local problems – results not directly transferable

• Downturn in economies mean that prospective users want to invest only in approved working solutions – often limited acceptance of innovative solutions

IPPC and Floods Directives • Making the software readily available on the market (i.e. Floodscan methodology)

• Cooperation between water management and land surveying authorities

• Better flood risk communication which enables information of the public areas at risk

UWWT Nitrates Groundwater

• Be active in raising awareness in the local target groups (farmers, tourists, local communities) through a range of interactive means

• Innovative technical solutions have widescale implications for implementation of directives

• Possible new regulations/legislation concerning artificial recharge of aquifers may result from project activities

• Different countries have different planning and financing requirements and also different interpretation of the directives

• Projects with no institutional partners or national policy makers run the risk of uncertain status at the end of the project

• Some technologies only prototype and no evidence provided

86

Thematic Focus of Project Success Factors Threats that technology can be easily reproduced – especially true of products that are intended for ‘farm scale’ implementation

• Harmonisation of European legislation in some areas would be needed to make results more transferable (e.g. establishment of constructed wetlands)

• Local scale demonstrations with no national representation in partnership make replication difficult

Biodiversity Nature Conservation

• Well developed techniques for improving water bodies to support biodiversity

• Wide range of management approaches that are readily transferable and can be replicated in a range of water bodies

• Stakeholder consultation critical for effective implementation

• Many projects contributing to WFD objectives have value added in improving water quality for biodiversity

• Conflict resolution between WFD and RED interpretation in many countries – concrete solutions found whereby countries can resolve issues which are mainly related to fish species

• Lack of projects of any kind in relation to former shellfish directive

• Poor water quality outside Natura 2000 site (for NAT projects) can have significant impact on efficacy of project outcomes

• Difficulties in purchasing property and water extraction rights through a voluntary negotiation processes

Drinking water Bathing water

• Rapid assessment techniques developed with value added environmental benefits

• On-line systems to give early warning of health hazards • Fully automated systems reduce human error in analysis • Successful development of innovative technology to

remove contamination of surface water by endocrine disruptors, personal care products and medical remnants

• New technology is subject to mechanical malfunctions/requires maintenance

• Technology solutions not officially recognised • Prototypes require significant investment to fully

commercialise • No institutional partners to translate results into policy

feedback • Technology can be costly – reduces likelihood of wider uptake

in current economic climate

87

6.7. Ones to Watch There are a number of new projects which have not yet produced any results but which have promising aims and objectives and which may produce some exciting innovations in due course. These projects are listed below and will be revisited in the next revision of this report.

• LIFE13 ENV/CZ/000475 LIFE2WATER is particularly interesting. It aims to verify and optimise a

number of technologies for tertiary treatment of wastewater using the following parameters: removal of selected industrial substances, removal of selected pesticides, removal of selected pharmaceutical and level of microbial contamination. The technologies will be evaluated from an economic, environmental and operational perspective and a set of procedures to support WWTP managers to select the most appropriate tertiary treatment of wastewater will be developed.

• LIFE13 ENV/ES/000341 LIFE TRIVERS: The project will contribute to solving the problems related to

the assessment of the ecological status of temporary streams through the development of software (TRESH) which, using hydrological and climatic data, can evaluate the river typology and the hydrological situation of the water body concerned. Using two new concepts, Aquatic States and Hydrological Status, the TRESH software will provide managers with relevant data on the hydrological conditions in the river, and a calendar for taking samples at the right times to be comparable to those from permanent streams. The project's outcomes will serve as a basis for the sound implementation of WFD river basin management plans and the evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation measures in much of Spain and, hopefully, the whole of Europe (with a particular focus on the rivers of southern Europe).

• LIFE13 ENV/FR/000711 BioSolWaRe-LIFE: The project aims at improving wastewater treatment in

order to fight water scarcity and the degradation of water ecosystems. BioSolWaRe-LIFE will develop and test an innovative and more efficient wastewater treatment method based on an ecological process called bio-solar purification (BSP). This process uses biological and solar technologies to enable 80% water reuse and the recovery of greenhouse gas and organic wastes. BSP technology uses phytoplankton photosynthesis and photo-oxidation (oxidation caused by the action of light) in closed tubular systems to remove a wide range of dissolved compounds and hazardous bacteria from the wastewater

• LIFE13 ENV/ES/000420 LIFE-AQUASEF: The main objective of AQUASEF is to demonstrate, promote

and disseminate the use of efficient and innovative, low-emission technologies in the aquaculture sector, especially the inshore modality. In particular, the project will focus on implementing technologies to increase the environmental sustainability of the cultivation cycle of fishes and salt water molluscs, on reducing its carbon footprint and on improving the quality of water. Project measures will reduce the energy dependence of the facilities, the oxygen dependence of the tanks, and the overall environmental impact in water ecosystems through effluent treatment and CO2 fixation. As there are virtually no LIFE projects that deal with aquaculture this will be an interesting project to follow.

• LIFE12 BIO/IT/000231 AQUALIFE: The project will develop and disseminate the AQUALIFE Package,

which will be an innovative and user-friendly work package of biodiversity indicators that will be easily and widely useable for assessing the status of biodiversity and biodiversity losses in groundwater-dependent ecosystems. The AQUALIFE Package will fill an identified gap, as no similar indicator systems currently exist.

88

• LIFE13 NAT/BE/001067 LIFE Pays mosan: This project’s area contains 40 Natura 2000 sites (covering 24,566 ha) in Belgium and the Netherlands, within the basin of the Meuse River and its tributaries between Andenne and Maastricht. The river basin has supported highly species-rich habitats related to former pastoral systems. But these habitats have become extremely fragmented and are undergoing progressive qualitative and quantitative regression. The project’s overall objective centres on restoring a mosaic of five threatened habitats in order to improve their conservation status and connectivity.

6.8. Gap Analysis On examination of the spread of projects throughout the various directives there are some areas where LIFE projects are not well represented. Figure 4-5 shows that among the directives themselves Floods, Renewable Energy and EQS have the fewest projects. The reasons for this are not clear as there is certainly scope in all three directives for LIFE projects to make a contribution to the implementation (at least to certain aspects) of these policy areas. However, it is likely that, at least for Floods and Renewable Energy, the majority of projects would attract a high budget and so may be more likely to rely on other funding sources such as structural or regional funds. It is possible that there are more projects than first appears which deal with Floods Directive, at least in an indirect way, by finding solutions to localised flooding problems. It is likely that a more in depth analysis of projects might reveal that this category is better represented especially in NAT projects. Currently, only the projects which actually cite the Floods Directive as targeted legislation are included. Within the WFD some Obligatory POM (Table 2-3), as determined in Annex VI of the WFD, do not appear to attract many LIFE projects. Figure 4-1 suggests that there are significant gaps in Major Accidents, EIA and Plant Protection, however, this is not really surprising as these are not areas where LIFE would be expected to contribute to any great extent. More interesting is the lack of projects which impact on the Bathing Water and Drinking Water Directives, topic areas where the few LIFE projects that have been reviewed do have a significant impact. This is an area where LIFE could make a bigger impact. Figure 5-1 shows the relative contribution that LIFE projects make to the various articles of the WFD. The analysis indicates that most topic areas of concern are actually covered reasonably well by the LIFE programme. In analysis in the 2012 report suggested that typology and the delineation of water bodies, economics, Programmes of Measures (POM) and monitoring programmes were areas where LIFE did not contribute significantly. However, the more detailed analytical technique adopted for this revision showed that there were many more projects than first thought in each category. This was due to the fact that key word searches do not always reveal all aspects of the project and that although key word searches are valuable on a primary search level they are often not helpful for more detailed interrogation of the data. The best example of this can be illustrated by looking at the contribution that LIFE projects make to non-obligatory POM. In the 2012 report only two projects showed up in this category using the key words programmes of measures (or derivatives thereof in the search facility. In the 2014 review the authors looked at the actual measures listed in the WFD (see Table 2-3) and reviewed a number of projects using these criteria. This revealed a lot more projects contributing in a very positive way to developing, designing and implementing POM. There has not been time to analyse all the projects in this way and so the statistics provided in this report are likely to be an underestimate of the contribution that the projects do make. This will be revisited in the next update and the data possibly disaggregated further. There are a number of reasons why certain directives (or parts of directives) appear to be under-represented in the LIFE programme, these include:

• The project proponents have not recognised that their project could influence directives other than those that they originally cited in their proposals;

• Project proponents do not consider LIFE funding appropriate for certain directives;

89

• The length of time it takes to approve and implement a LIFE project does not fit with the implementation timetables of some directives;

• Applications for LIFE funding supporting certain directives (or parts of directives) are not successful but it has not been possible to assess whether this is the case as the application information was not available for this study;

• The importance of some directives is not stressed in the annual call for LIFE applications.

There could, of course, be other reasons for the apparent lack of support for certain directives but it has not been possible to determine which the main influential factors are because the necessary information to assess this was not available at the time of this study. In general though there are very few significant gaps in the LIFE project portfolio with respect to water related projects and the WFD in particular.

90

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1. LIFE Projects and the water policy cycle LIFE projects can contribute to EU policy at different stages in the policy cycle. While some projects have successfully contributed to environmental policy at the national or EU level, most water sector projects act at the local level. The water projects examined for this study covered a broad range of topics in terms of types of water issues addressed and solutions proposed. Undoubtedly, those projects aiming to contribute to legislation did so in all stages of the development and implementation process. However, the number of projects aiming at contributing directly to new policy is limited and this is thought to be attributable to the length of time it takes to develop and complete a LIFE project. On the other hand, a considerable number of projects develop or demonstrate concrete water utilisation, remediation and prevention practices, which show the range of economically feasible and environmentally sound options which could contribute to setting the standards for future policies. The role that LIFE projects can play in each phase of the policy cycle can be generally detailed as follows:

• Scoping: some projects were already working on cost effective programme of measures before

quantitative targets became obligatory in EU legislation. In cases such as LIFE05 ENV/DK/145 Odense PRB – AgriPoM the project demonstrated the development of a cost-effective programme of measures to reduce levels of nitrogen and phosphorus originating from agricultural activities prior the deadline.

• Policy development: few projects are directly linked to the development of new environmental policies. A specific type of projects (preparatory projects) is dedicated to this purpose and there is only one for the water sector (see section 6.5). However, one project that clearly could have a role in defining new policy is LIFE10 ENV/IT/394 WARBO; a project which could define new policy in the field of artificial recharge of aquifers.

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

• Policy evaluation / review: although, due to the demonstration nature of the LIFE programme, this element is less prominently represented in the project portfolio, there are good examples of LIFE water projects contributing to policy review (e.g. LIFE07 ENV/L/540 M3 which identified shortcomings in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy). Similarly there are several projects which are dealing with the implementation issues surrounding the WFD and the RED (see section 6.1.6). These projects are making a valuable contribution to resolving the difficulties that Member States perceive they face in trying to implement both directives and they could well contribute to policy reform in the future.

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


91

But how well do the projects actually serve the policymaker? External evaluators tend to value the practical experimentation which LIFE projects contribute to policymaking, and they acknowledge that projects are relevant to EU policy. According to the LIFE + mid-term evaluation32, LIFE projects “provide opportunities for the development and testing of ideas for policy development and implementation which, based on real conditions and actions on the ground, provide feedback and insight on what is feasible or less feasible, identifying good practices where possible.” While the approach is valid and priorities appropriate, potential project contributions can be limited by the long project cycle, which may not suit the needs of the policymaking and legislative cycles: projects can take four or five years to yield results, by which time policy priorities may well have moved on. One possible limitation is that the emphasis of the projects selected may not match the immediate priorities of the policymakers. This is inevitable considering the LIFE programme’s ‘open programming’ approach, accepting applications in any relevant field of EU environmental policy. However, open programming can also lead to benefits as potentially all aspects of water policy can be addressed, rather than placing emphasis on selective areas. In this way it is possible to make breakthroughs in less well understood policy areas, a good example of which is the LIFE10 ENV/IT/394 WARBO which may make an important contribution to how the Commission deals with artificial recharge of aquifers, an area where policy is currently lacking. It should be noted that even if a project does not initially set out to influence policy reform, innovative approaches to environmental problems could later be taken to account in policy development. The authors of this report understand that studies are often conducted for DG ENV during scoping and policy development and that LIFE funded projects (among others) are analysed. However, this contribution is difficult to quantify and concrete supporting evidence is lacking. If a project does inadvertently lead to policy reform it is likely to be after the project results have been published. At the present time there is no mechanism to record these successes other than through the ‘ex-post’ project evaluations which are conducted on a regular basis by the LIFE Unit. There is a good argument that these ex-post evaluations should be inter alia more targeted towards projects that have the potential to either influence policy reform at a later stage or where there is a high potential to transfer/replicate the results. The gap analysis highlighted very few areas where LIFE could be more active. However, it is recommended that the LIFE programme encourages more applications in policy areas where there are currently few projects, specifically in assisting Member States to develop programmes of measures, with certain aspects of the Floods Directive, establishing EQSs’ and with the Bathing Water and Drinking Water Directives. In addition, projects which aim to contribute to certain aspects of the WFD should be more precise in stating which area of the relevant directive the project is related to. Beneficiaries should be asked to provide more detailed information on the policy direction, if necessary at the revision stage, as it is not really acceptable to simply state that the ‘project contributes to the implementation of the WFD’ a phrase that is often found in LIFE applications. This will become more and more important as various water policies are repealed by the WFD in the near future.

One of the outcomes of the original study was the development of a matrix (see Annexes 2 and 3) which attempted to link all the LIFE water related projects to specific areas of policy. The development of this tool was a critical element in determining the effectiveness of the individual projects in relation to their stated policy areas. Some of the problems encountered in populating this matrix i.e. policy areas were not fully described in the documentation or how successful the project had been in contributing to the specified policy area, could be improved by better reporting requirements in both the application and the final reporting stages of the LIFE projects. Nevertheless, the value of the matrix as a means of selecting projects which contribute to specific policy areas and therefore as an easy reference tool to answer questions that

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


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

92

the policy units may wish to raise, was highlighted in the feedback comments from DG ENV in that they intend to use the matrices to feed into the WISE RTD reporting. It should be noted that some of the information is already available via the FP7 STEPWISE programme which has already linked LIFE projects to the WISE portal (http://www.wise-rtd.info/en). Nevertheless, it may be that the tools developed under this study provide a different level of information that is useful to the Water Unit and it is recommended that these matrices continue to be updated to include information about projects as they close and about new projects that emerge through the new rounds of LIFE funding.

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

7.2. Key Findings Concerning the General Programme • The focus of projects financed by the LIFE programme corresponds to the priorities of the 6th EAP,

with an emphasis on natural resources and waste, water, strategic approaches and, more recently, climate change. Water related projects represent 21.6% of the funded LIFE projects.33

• LIFE projects provide opportunities for the development and testing of ideas for policy development and implementation, which provide valuable insights into what is, and what is not, feasible.

• LIFE projects cover the broad scope of the policy cycle, and have successfully contributed to environmental policies in the different phases of this cycle, i.e. monitoring, scoping, policy development, policy implementation and policy evaluation or review.

• The LIFE programme has effectively and consistently contributed to environmental legislation and policy. Projects are overwhelmingly successful (with more than 80 % of projects reaching all or nearly all of their objectives) and the LIFE programme is generally well aligned with relevant legislation and/or policy.

• The effectiveness of LIFE projects in providing input for the development of EU-level policy could be further improved, however.

• An important benefit of the LIFE programme is that the demonstration projects have been important test cases for new technologies and methods.

• Another important benefit of the LIFE programme is that it brings together the relevant stakeholders around a specific issue. Although these stakeholders often already know each other, conducting a project cooperatively often brings about a lasting improvement in understanding and cooperation between organisations. This in turn generates benefits, for instance in ensuring a smoother and more coordinated implementation of policies that are not to be underestimated.

7.3. Policy Complementarily

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

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

http://www.wise-rtd.info/en

93

• On the other hand, the effect of the projects on policy-making was less successful as there was little evidence of feed-back from projects to EU policy and that could be due to the fact that successful LIFE projects are not always promoted at the right level within the appropriate sector of the DG.

• The examined projects were generally effective and reached their objectives, but it must be noted that the direct environmental results and impacts were generally restricted to the project site/area and that the projects respond to local needs falling within broad scope of the 6th EAP, in the examined cases most specifically within the WFD.

• Wider impacts were found only in some projects and mostly in cases where policy making was an objective (preparatory projects) or where strong EU link was established for the policy makers.

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

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

[Water Sector Report January 2015] Annex 1

Annex 1

Project Database

Project acronym Project title Funding Contract code Start date End date E-mail coordinator Name coordinator Theme Keywords Website LIFE database website Date collectedAGWAPLAN Integrated Protection of Surface and Groundwater in Agricultural Regions LIFE-ENV LIFE05

ENV/DK/00015501/11/2005 01/03/2009 [email protected] Irene Asta WIBORG Industry-Production - Agriculture - Fisheries

Water - Water resources protectionagricultural method, environmental impact of agriculture, water resources management

http://www.agwaplan.dk/agwaplan.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2822

21/03/2011

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

LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/F/000058 01/12/2005 28/02/2009 [email protected] Bernadette RUELLE Industry-Production - Agriculture - Fisheries agricultural method, environmental impact of agriculture, pollution control, pest control

http://www.lifeaware.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2860

15/03/2011

BATTLE Best Available Technique for water reuse in TextiLE SMEs LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/IT/000846

01/12/2005 30/11/2008 [email protected] Maurizio CASARCI Environmental management - Cleaner technologiesWater - Water savingIndustry-Production - Textiles - Clothin

water reuse, textile industry http://www.life-battle.bologna.enea.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2872

20/09/2011

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

LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/E/000302

01/12/2005 30/11/2008 [email protected] Emilio SANCHIS MOLL Waste - Agricultural waste environmental impact of agriculture, manure http://www.ecodiptera.info/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2897

20/09/2011

EnviFriendly Environmental Friendly Technologies for Rural Development LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/GR/000245

01/12/2005 31/05/2009 [email protected] Dimitros LIAKAKOS Land-use and Planning - Sensitive and protected areas management

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

http://www.envifriendly.tuc.gr http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2835

23/03/2011

ESTRUS ENhanced and SUstainable TReatment for URban Stormwater LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/IT/000894

01/10/2005 30/09/2008 [email protected] Vittoria SIVERO Water - Water quality improvementRisk management - Pollution control

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

http://www.estrus.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2885

23/03/2011

FERTIGREEN Sustainable management of water reducing environmental impact using new fertirrigation methods


01/08/2005 01/08/2008 [email protected] Nathalie CHAVRIER Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Water resources protection

agricultural method‚ fertiliser‚ pollution control‚ irrigation http://www.fertigreen.net/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2898

23/03/2011

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

LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/UK/000126

17/01/2005 31/03/2007 [email protected] Stephen Burge Environmental management - Cleaner technologies industrial waste water,pollutant elimination

http://www.formose.co.uk/Pages/VisitProject.aspx http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2832

20/09/2011

gEa Excellence in irrigation water management LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/E/000313

01/09/2005 28/02/2007 [email protected] Daniel CAMIRUAGA NONE FOUND decision making support, water saving, irrigation, information systemhttp://www.life-gea.org/index_en.html http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2891

14/04/2011

INSIMEP In Situ Metal Precipitation for remediation of groundwater contaminated with non ferrous metals

LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/B/000517

19/09/2005 18/06/2009 [email protected] Koen GOMMERS Risk management - Site rehabilitation - DecontaminationWater - Water quality improvement

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

http://wwwa.vito.be/insimep/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2857

20/09/2011

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


01/12/2005 31/09/2009 [email protected] Simon JACKMAN Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Water resources protection

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

Non active http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2838

23/03/2011

Odense PRB - AgriPoM Odense Pilot River Basin - Agricultural Programme of Measures LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/DK/000145

15/01/2005 30/06/2007 [email protected] Harley Bundgaard Madsen Water - River basin managementIndustry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesRisk management - Pollution contro

agricultural pollution, water pollution, river management http://www.odenseprb.fyns-amt.dk/wm125969 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2820

23/03/2011

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


30/11/2005 30/03/2009 [email protected] José Ramón PERÁN GONZÁLEZ Water - Waste water treatmentIndustry-Production - Food and BeveragesWaste - Waste reduction - Raw material saving

industrial waste, waste reduction, edible fat, waste oil" http://life-olivewaste.cartif.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2900

23/03/2011

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

LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/IT/000868

15/11/2005 14/11/2008 [email protected] Claudio DI IACONI Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment http://www.perbiof-europe.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2878

21/09/2011

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


18/01/2005 31/05/2008 [email protected] Alastair MACGREGOR Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment, waste reduction, industrial waste water http://www.mbr-glasgow.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2829

21/09/2011

QUERCUS Maintaining quality urban environments for river corridors users and stakeholders LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/UK/000127

01/04/2005 30/03/2009 [email protected] Paul CHAPMAN Land-use and Planning - Urban design (urban-rural)Water - River basin management

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

http://www.quercus-project.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2978

23/03/2011

RIWAC Project for recovery and reuse of industrial waters and trivalent chromium generated by tannery waste processing


01/10/2005 30/09/2008 [email protected] Massimo Neresini Water - Waste water treatmentIndustry-Production - Leather and Footwear

leather industry, industrial waste water, pollutant elimination http://www.sicit2000.it/life05/en/index.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2853

21/09/2011

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

LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/F/000067 01/10/2005 31/12/2008 [email protected]

Sandrine BOIRON Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment, waste reduction, sewage sludge http://extranet.groupeirhenvironnement.com/soundsludge/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2854

21/09/2011

SUMANAS Sustainable management and treatment of arsenic bearing groundwater in Southern Hungary

LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/H/000418

15/11/2005 14/11/2008 [email protected] Laszlo RÉTI Water - Water quality improvementRisk management - Site rehabilitation - Decontamination

decision making support, water quality improvement, groundwater http://www.korkovizig.hu/life/en-index.php?nyelv=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2861

23/03/2011

TOPPS Train the operators to prevent pollution from point sources LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/B/000510

01/11/2005 31/10/2008 [email protected] Stuart RUTHERFORD Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Water resources protection

agroindustry, environmental training, industrial pollution, water pollution

http://www.topps-life.org/web/page.asp http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2855

21/09/2011

WAgriCo Water Resources Management in Cooperation with Argriculture. Compilation and Implementation of Integrative Programmes of Measures According to the WFD to Reduce Diffuse Pollution from Agriculture

LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/D/000182

01/10/2005 30/09/2008 [email protected]

Astrid KRÜGER Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Water resources protection

agricultural pollution, social participation, water resources management, diffuse pollution

http://www.wagrico.org/site/WAgriCo/wagricoorguk/content/home


23/03/2011

ZERO PLUS Integral liquid residuals management model for surface tratment industries through LIFE-ENV LIFE05 ENV/E/000256

01/12/2005 31/07/2009 [email protected] Manuel Sánchez De La Asunción Industry-Production - Metal industryWaste - Industrial wasteEnvironmental management - Cleaner technologies

industrial waste, waste treatment, coating, metal products industry http://www.zeroplus.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2874

21/09/2011

A.S.A.P. Actions for systemic aquifer protection: implementation and demonstration of a Protocol to scale down groundwater vulnerability to pollution due to overexploitation


02/10/2006 01/10/2009 [email protected] Oberdan CEI Water - Water resources protection maintenance (technical)‚ integrated management‚ drinking water‚ water supply

http://www.klink.it/gate/asap http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3061

15/03/2011

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

LIFE-ENV LIFE06 ENV/F/000133 01/10/2006 30/09/2009 [email protected] Caroline GREGOIRE Water - Water quality improvementIndustry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesRisk management - Pollution contro

pest control‚ agricultural pollution‚ water quality‚ http://www.artwet.fr/artwet/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3099

15/03/2011

CONCERT'EAU Collaborative Technological Plateform for implementation for WDF within agricultural context

LIFE-ENV LIFE06 ENV/F/000132 01/10/2006 30/09/2009 [email protected] Jean RIVENC NONE FOUND water resources management‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ integrated management

http://concerteau.ecobag.org http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3100

23/03/2011

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


01/10/2006 31/03/2011 [email protected] Arturo DAUDÉN IBAÑEZ Waste - Agricultural waste waste reduction, environmental management, animal husbandry, rural area, agricultural waste

http://www.life-eswamar.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3070

20/09/2011

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


01/07/2006 31/12/2009 [email protected] Dieter RIEGER Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeRisk management - Natural risks (Flood - Forest fire - Landslide)

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

http://www.wzw.tum.de/floodscan/index.php http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3080

14/04/2011

ISONITRATE Improved management of nitrate pollution in water using isotopic monitoring LIFE-ENV LIFE06 ENV/F/000158 01/11/2006 31/01/2010 [email protected] David WIDORY Water - River basin management pollutant monitoring‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ river management

http://isonitrate.brgm.fr/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3107

23/03/2011

IWPM Integrated Wastewater Purification Management LIFE-ENV LIFE06 ENV/D/000478

01/10/2006 31/10/2011 [email protected] Helmut WILKER Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment http://www.eu-life-iwpm.de/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3073

20/09/2011

Kolisoon A new automated method for the analysis of Escherichia coli in wastewater effluent LIFE-ENV LIFE06 ENV/IT/000235

01/12/2006 30/09/2009 [email protected] Francesca SANTORI Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment‚ water monitoring‚ water quality‚ http://www.lifekolisoon.it http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3082

21/09/2011

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


01/11/2006 30/04/2010 [email protected] Joachim STODOLKA Waste - Municipal waste (including household and commercial)

waste recycling‚ sewage sludge‚ residual waste http://www.lotecotec.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3077

21/09/2011

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


01/10/2006 30/06/2011 [email protected] Georg SCHMID Water - River basin managementClimate change - Energy - Energy supply

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

http://www.moveable-hepp.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3075

23/03/2011

MR Mo ToWFO Managed Realignment Moving Towards Water Framework Objectives LIFE-ENV LIFE06 ENV/UK/000401

01/10/2006 31/12/2009 [email protected]

Philip Winn Risk management - Natural risks (Flood - Forest fire - Landslide)

Flood protection‚ monitoring‚ nature conservation http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/123710.aspx


17/05/2011

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


01/11/2006 30/08/2010 [email protected] Leen BASTIAENS Water - Water resources protectionWater - Waste water treatment

Alternative technology‚ pollution prevention‚ landfill leachate‚ groundwater

http://www.multibarrier.vito.be/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3086

23/03/2011

OpenMI-LIFE Bringing the OpenMI-Life LIFE-ENV LIFE06 ENV/UK/000409

01/10/2006 31/01/2010 [email protected] C. Isabella TINDALL Water - River basin managementWater - Water resources protection

water resources management‚ integrated management‚ modelling http://www.openmi-life.org/; http://public.deltares.nl/display/OPENMI/Home; http://www.openmi.org/reloaded/


15/03/2011

SLUDGE2ENERGY Waste prevention through sewage sludge reuse for efficient energy generation at waste water treatment sites


01/10/2006 30/09/2011 [email protected] Robert FREYGANG Climate change - Energy - Energy supplyWater - Waste water treatmentClimate change - Energy - Energy saving

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

http://www.sludge2energy.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3079

21/09/2011

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

LIFE-ENV LIFE06 ENV/DK/000229

01/10/2006 01/10/2009 [email protected] Kenn LANGE Water - Water management and supply water treatment‚ urban area‚ rain water‚ pollutant elimination‚ http://www.life-treasure.com http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3103

18/09/2011

WET Wastewater & Effluent Treatmen LIFE-ENV LIFE06 ENV/NL/000167

01/12/2005 30/06/2009 [email protected] Jeffrey DEN ELZEN Water - Water management and supply water quality improvement‚ waste water treatment‚ municipal wastehttp://www.rijnland.net/wet-project http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3090

24/02/2011

AQUA-PLANN PROJECT Gestion Integrada de los Recursos Hidricos y su Aplicacion en el Planeamiento Local del L.I.C. Abegondo - CECEBRE


01/01/2009 30/06/2012 [email protected] Carlos AMEIJENDA Water - River basin managementWater - Water resources protection

river‚ integrated management http://www.aqua-plann.eu http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3289

14/09/2011

BACad Using full scale bioaugmentation for cost-efficient remediation of a large CAH groundwater contamination


01/01/2009 31/12/2013 [email protected] Chris BLOCK Air and Noise - Air pollutantsRisk management - Site rehabilitation - DecontaminationWater - Water resources protection

Diffuse pollution, restoration measure‚ volatile organic compound‚ metal products industry‚ industrial pollution‚ contaminated area‚ groundwater

http://www.bioaugmentatie.be/web/bioaugmentatietpl1.asp?customer=17&ut=L&hmain=2698&hsub=2770&stype=X


13/09/2011

GreenClimeAdapt Green tools for urban climate adaptation LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/S/000908

01/01/2009 31/12/2013 [email protected] Sam Ekstrand Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeRisk management - Natural risks (Flood - Forest fire - Landslide)

Flood protection, urban area‚ modelling‚ rain water http://www.malmo.se/greenclimeadapt http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3263

14/09/2011

Eco-animation Eco-Animation: a cutting edge cartoon to raise awareness on climate change and sustainable use of natural resources among European children

LIFE-INF LIFE 07/INF/UK/950 01/01/2009 31/03/2011 [email protected] Mr. Luigi Petito Information-Communication - Environmental training - Capacity buildingClimate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeServices and Trade - Education and Cultural activitie

NONE FOUND http://www.animate-eu.com/eco and http://www.myfriendboo.com/watch.html


14/12/2011

Renew Regional Environmental Networks for Energy and Water LIFE-INF LIFE 07/INF/UK/932 01/01/2009 31/12/2011 [email protected] Ms Frances Galvanoni Climate change - Energy - Energy savingInformation-Communication - Awareness raising - InformationClimate change - Energy - Reduction of greenhouse gases emissions

NONE FOUND www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Life-water-and-energy-project


14/12/2011

INCOME Improved management of contaminated aquifers by integration of source tracking, monitoring tools and decision strategies

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/SLO/000725

01/01/2009 30/06/2012 [email protected] Brigita JAMNIK Water - Water quality improvement decontamination‚ water pollution‚ water quality improvement‚ monitoring system‚ drinking water

http://www.life-income.si/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3267

14/09/2011

Lake recult. in Gniezno Recultivation of Jelonek and Winiary lakes in Gniezno by inactivation of phosphorus in bottom sediments

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/PL/000605

01/02/2009 30/11/2010 [email protected] Piotr WIŚNIEWSKI Risk management - Site rehabilitation - DecontaminationWater - Water resources protection

restoration measure‚ water shortage‚ eutrophication‚ http://gniezno.eu/strona32wqf435ge/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2587


14/09/2011

M3 Application of integrative modelling and monitoring approaches for river basin management evaluation

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/L/000540 01/01/2009 31/12/2012 [email protected] Tom GALLÉ Water - River basin management water resources management www.life-m3.eu http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3304

14/09/2011

PHARMAFILTER An innovative waste and waste water management concept for hospitals LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/NL/000576

01/01/2009 30/06/2011 [email protected] Steve VELLINGA Water - Waste water treatmentServices and Trade - Healthcare - Social workWaste - Hazardous waste

waste water treatment‚ waste treatment‚ hospital waste‚ organic waste‚ hazardous substance‚ alternative technology

http://www.pharmafilter.nl http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3298

14/09/2011

PURIFAST Advanced Purification Of Industrial And Mixed Wastewater By Combined Membrane Filtration And Sonochemical Technologies


01/01/2009 31/12/2011 [email protected] Enrico VENTURINI Water - Waste water treatmentIndustry-Production - Textiles - Clothing

waste water treatment‚ textile industry‚ industrial waste water‚ alternative technology‚ comparison

http://purifast.tecnotex.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3284

14/09/2011

SALT Sustainable management of the Esino river basin to prevent saline intrusion in the coastal aquifer in consideration of climate change


01/01/2009 30/12/2011 [email protected] Valerio SPINACI Water - River basin managementWater - Water resources protection

environmental impact of agriculture‚ river‚ modelling‚ industrial area‚ groundwater

http://www.lifesalt.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3273

14/09/2011

SEMEAU Application of the Water Framework Directive through the implementation of an expert system providing a total modelling of a water mass

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/F/000173 01/01/2009 31/12/2012 [email protected] Patrick LACHASSAGNE Risk management - Pollution controlRisk management - Risk assessment and monitoringWater - Water resources protection

water resources management‚ modelling‚ drinking water http://www.life-semeau.eu/en/node/81 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3274

14/09/2011

Soil Sustainability(So.S) Soil Sustainable Management in a Mediterranean River basin based on the European Soil Thematic Strategy

LIFE-ENV LIFE07 ENV/GR/000278

01/01/2009 30/06/2012 [email protected] Socratis FAMELLOS Information-Communication - Environmental training - Capacity buildingLand-use and Planning - Soil and landscape protectio

river‚ soil degradation‚ environmental training http://www.lifesos.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3305

14/09/2011

TRUST Tool for regional - scale assessment of groundwater storage improvement in adaptation to climate change


01/01/2009 31/12/2011 [email protected] Francesco BARUFFI Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeWater - Water resources protection

river http://www.lifetrust.it/cms/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3252

14/09/2011

WALPHY Design of a decision tool for hydromorphological restoration of water bodies in WallooRegion


01/01/2009 31/12/2013 [email protected] Francis LAMBOT Risk management - Site rehabilitation - DecontaminationWater - River basin management

water quality improvement‚ restoration measure‚ river managementhttp://www.walphy.be http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3242

14/09/2011

WATER CHANGE Medium and long term water resources modelling as a tool for planning and global change adaptation. Application to the Llobregat Basin


01/01/2009 31/12/2011 [email protected] CETaqua, Technology Center Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeWater - Water management and supply

river‚ modelling‚ forecast‚ water resources management http://www.life-waterchange.eu http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3276

14/09/2011

AQUAVAL Sustainable Urban Water Management Plans, promoting SUDS and considering Climate Change, in the Province of Valencia


01/01/2010 30/06/2013 [email protected] Eduardo BALAGUER PALLÁS Water - Waste water treatmentWater - Water resources protection

river‚ waste water treatment‚ urban area‚ rain water http://www.aquavalproject.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3448

15/09/2011

CATERMASS Climate Change Adaptation Tools for Environmental Risk Mitigation of Acid Sulphate Soils

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/FIN/000609

01/01/2010 31/12/2013 None found Kari-Matti VUORIFax: +358 20 4902985

Risk management - Industrial risks - Hazardous substancesClimate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate change

river‚ soil degradation‚ risk management http://www.catermass.fi/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3474

15/09/2011

ECOMAWARU Eco-sustainable managmenet of water and wastewater in rural communities LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/IT/000390

01/03/2010 28/02/2013 [email protected] Michela MARCONE waste water treatment‚ modelling‚ rural area waste water treatment‚ modelling‚ rural area www.ecomawaru.it http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3402

15/09/2011

EH-REK Ecohydrologic rehabilitation of recreational reservoirs "Arturówek" in Łódź as a model approach to rehabilitation of urban reservoirs

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/PL/000517

01/01/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected] Prof. dr hab. Maciej Zalewski Water - River basin managementWater - Water resources protection

river‚ urban area‚ environmental training‚ management plan‚ water resources management‚ recreational area‚

http://www.arturowek.pl/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3497#AD

15/09/2011

EKOROB ECOtones for Reducing Diffusion Pollution LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/PL/000519

01/01/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected] Wojciech FRATCZAK NONE FOUND diffuse pollution‚ recreational area‚ restoration measure‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ eutrophication‚ monitoring‚ river‚ water quality improvement‚ environmental trainin

http://www.ekorob.pl/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3496

15/09/2011

ENSAT Enhancement of Soil Aquifer Treatment to Improve the Quality of Recharge Water in the Llobregat River Delta Aquifer


01/01/2010 31/12/2011 [email protected] CETaqua, Technology Center Water - Water resources protection water shortage‚ river‚ water quality improvement‚ groundwater www.life-ensat.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3429

15/09/2011

GREENLYSIS Hydrogen and oxygen production via electrolysis powered by renewable energies to reduce environmental footprint of a WWTP


01/01/2010 31/12/2012 [email protected] Enric LARROTCHA Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment‚ energy saving http://www.life-greenlysis.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3416

15/09/2011

HydroClimateStrategyRiga Integrated Strategy for Riga City to Adapt to the Hydrological Processes Intensified by Climate Change Phenomena

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/LV/000451

01/02/2010 30/11/2012 [email protected] Renārs GRINBERGS Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeRisk management - Natural risks (Flood - Forest fire - Landslide)Water - River basin management

Flood protection, water resources management‚ urban planning‚ modelling‚ risk management

NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3413

15/09/2011

HydroSense Innovative precision technologies for optimised irrigation and integrated crop management in a water-limited agrosystem


01/01/2010 31/12/2012 [email protected] Stamatis STAMATIADIS Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesLand-use and Planning - Soil and landscape protectionWater - Water resources protection

water shortage‚ agricultural method‚ remote sensing‚ water resources management‚ irrigation

http://www.hydrosense.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3466

15/09/2011

INHABIT Local hydro-morphology, habitat and RBMPs: new measures to improve ecological quality in South European rivers and lakes


01/04/2010 31/03/2013 [email protected]; [email protected] BUFFAGNI Water - River basin managementWater - Water resources protection

river‚ water monitoring‚ management plan‚ water resources management‚

www.life-inhabit.it http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3415

15/09/2011

INTER-WASTE Demonstration of an integrated waste-to-energy system for energy generation from biodegradable organic waste and wastewater

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/CY/000457

01/01/2010 30/09/2012 [email protected] Dr. Ioannis Papadopoulos Climate change - Energy - Energy supplyWaste - Waste use

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

http://www.interwaste.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3480

15/09/2011

ITEST Increased total efficiency in sewage treatment LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/S/000272

01/01/2010 31/12/2012 [email protected] Eva Hjälmered NONE FOUND sewage treatment system NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3470

15/09/2011

LVM-BIOcells Using hydrogeobiocells (HGBcells) for the in-situ biological treatment of CAH contaminated groundwater in areas with low hydraulic gradients


01/01/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected] Jules HOUTMEYERS NONE FOUND contamined soil‚ decontamination‚ groundwater‚ hazardous substance

http://www.lvm-biocells.be/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3407

15/09/2011

MAGPlan Management plan to prevent threats from point sources on the good chemical status of groundwater in urban areas


01/01/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected]

Hermann Josef KIRCHHOLTES Water - Water resources protection Diffuse pollution, management plan‚ urban area‚ environmental assessment‚ groundwater

http://www.sauberes-grundwasser-stuttgart.de/projekt.html


16/09/2011

POWER Project for Optimisation of Water and Emissions Reduction LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/E/000114

01/01/2010 31/12/2012 [email protected] María Nieves ZUBALEZ MARCO Water - Water scarcity and draughtWater - Water resources protection

water shortage‚ energy saving‚ water resources management‚ irrigation

NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3428

16/09/2011

PURE From Treated Wastewater to Alternative Water Resources in Semi-Arid Regions LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/GR/000551

01/01/2010 30/06/2013 [email protected] Dimitris YIAKOUMAKIS Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment‚ water reuse‚ environmental performance‚ management plan

http://www.pure-hersonissos.gr/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3439

16/09/2011

PYROBIO New process for the heat treatment and the energy valorisation of the sludge coming from wastewater treatment plant.

LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/F/000489 01/01/2010 31/10/2011 [email protected] Pascal Colignon Water - Waste water treatmentWaste - Municipal waste (including household and commercial)

waste water treatment‚ urban area‚ organic waste‚ sewage sludge http://www.pyrobio.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3494

24/02/2011

REWETLAND Widespread introduction of constructed wetlands for a wastewater treatment of Agro Pontino


01/01/2010 30/06/2013 [email protected]; [email protected]

Nicoletta VALLE Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment‚ integrated management‚ wetland‚ water resources management

http://www.rewetland.eu/life/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3457

16/09/2011

Waste Joint Management Development and operation of an integrated model for managing Industrial Waste in the Zona Franca Industrial Estate, Barcelona


02/01/2010 31/12/2012 [email protected] Rosa RODRIGO SANZ Environmental management - Integrated managementEnvironmental management - Life Cycle Assessment-ManagementWaste - End-of-pipe treatment - LandfillingWaste - Industrial wasteWaste - Waste recyclingWaste - Waste reduction - Raw material saving

Waste management‚ contamined soil‚ industrial waste‚ groundwater‚ pollution control


16/09/2011

WATACLIC Water against climate change. Sustainable water management in urban areas LIFE-INF LIFE08 INF/IT/000308 01/01/2010 31/12/2012 [email protected] Giulio CONTE Water - Water savingLand-use and Planning - Urban design (urban-rural)Climate change - Energy - Energy saving

financial instrument‚ water resources management‚ environmental awareness‚ water saving‚ energy saving‚ urban area‚ urban planning

http://www.wataclic.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3499

16/09/2011

WATER Strengthening the scientific foundation of water quality programs LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/CY/000460

01/02/2010 31/07/2013 [email protected]

Athina Papanastasiou Water - Water quality improvementWater - Water resources protection

water resources management‚ water quality improvement‚ environmental assessment

http://www.life-water.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3481

16/09/2011

WATLIFE Enhancement of Public Awareness of the Importance of Water for Life, its Protection and Sustainable Use in Accordance with the Water Framework Directive

LIFE-INF LIFE08 INF/SK/000243

01/01/2010 31/12/2013 [email protected] Director General of Water Research Institute Ing. Juraj Brtko, CSc.

Water - Water resources protectionInformation-Communication - Awareness raising - Information

preventive measure‚ water resources management‚ environmental awareness‚ consumption pattern

http://www.vuvh.sk/index.php/sk_SK/projekt-life/zakladne-informacie-o-projekte


16/09/2011

WEISS The Water Emissions Inventory, a planning Support System aimed at reducing the pollution of water bodies


01/01/2010 31/12/2012 [email protected] Greet VOS NONE FOUND Decision making support, diffuse pollution, environmental assessment, water monitoring

http://weiss.vmm.be/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3404

16/09/2011

WINEC Advanced systems for the enhancement of the environmental performance of WINEries in Cyprus


01/02/2010 31/10/2012 [email protected] Dr. Despo Kassinos Industry-Production - Food and BeveragesEnvironmental management - EMASIndustry-Production - Agriculture - Fisherie

waste water treatment‚ environmental management‚ environmental performance‚ industrial waste water‚ beverage industry

http://www.eng.ucy.ac.cy/winec/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3479

16/09/2011

WW4ENVIRONMENT Integrated approach to energy and climate changes changing LIFE-ENV LIFE08 ENV/P/000237

01/01/2010 31/12/2012 [email protected] Ramiro NEVES Climate change - Energy - Energy efficiencyClimate change - Energy - Reduction of greenhouse gases emissionsEnvironmental management - Cleaner technologiesEnvironmental management - Life Cycle Assessment-ManagementWater - Waste water treatment

waste water treatment‚ energy saving‚ environmental performance‚ http://ww4environment.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3467

16/09/2011

Adapt2Change Adapt agricultural production to climate change and limited water supply LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/GR/000296

01/09/2010 31/08/2014 [email protected] Dr Alex Papachatzis Water - Water scarcity and draughtWater - Water resources protection

water shortage‚ agricultural method‚ water saving http://www.adapt2change.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3674

16/09/2011

AG_UAS Sustainable water management at regional scale through Airborne Remote Sensing based on Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/ES/000456

01/10/2010 30/09/2013 [email protected] Teofilo VITORIA Water - River basin managementWater - Water resources protection

water resources management‚ monitoring system‚ remote sensing http://www.lifeaguas.es/en/proyecto-aguas http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3649

15/03/2011

AQUA Achieving good water QUality status in intensive Animal production areas LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/IT/000208

01/10/2010 31/03/2014 [email protected] Marco LIGABUE Water - Water resources protectionIndustry-Production - Agriculture - Fisheries

Diffuse pollution, animal husbandry‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ river‚ water quality improvement‚ groundwater

http://aqua.crpa.it/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=9599&tt=t_law_market_www


16/09/2011

AQUA Adoption of Quality water Use in Agro-industry sector LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/IT/000075

01/01/2011 30/06/2013 [email protected] Donatella FERRI Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Water resources protection

water resources management‚ water saving‚ public-private partnership‚ agroindustry

http://www.life-aqua.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3753

16/09/2011

CLEANWATER Integrated system for protect and analyse the status and trends of water threatened by nitrogen pollution

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/RO/000612

15/10/2010 01/03/2014 [email protected]; [email protected] Maria Cristina TRIFU Water - River basin managementWater - Water resources protection

river‚ decision making support‚ monitoring system‚ pollution controlhttp://www.lifecleanwater.ro/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3639

16/09/2011

CREAMAgua Creation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems for improvement of water quality and biodiversity in agricultural basins


01/01/2011 31/12/2014 [email protected] Francisca GALLEGO OLIVA Water - River basin managementWater - Water quality improvement

pollutant elimination‚ restoration measure‚ agricultural method‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ water quality improvement‚ rural area‚

http://www.creamagua.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3661

16/09/2011

GISBLOOM Participatory monitoring, forecasting, control and socio-economic impacts of eutrophication and algal blooms in river basins districts

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569

01/10/2010 30/09/2013 [email protected] Senior Research Scientist Olli Malve NONE FOUND eutrophication‚ river‚ modelling‚ monitoring system‚ management plan‚

www.environment.fi/syke/gisbloom http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3719

16/09/2011

LOS TOLLOS Project for the comprehensive restoration of the endorheic basin of Los Tollos (El Cuervo and Jerez de la Frontera, Sevilla and Cadiz respectively).


20/09/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected] Esperanza PEREA ACOSTA Risk management - Site rehabilitation - Decontamination mine‚ abandoned industrial site‚ restoration measure‚ soil degradation‚ site rehabilitation‚ wetland

http://www.lifetollos.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3684

16/09/2011

MY FAVOURITE RIVER Sustainable use of and identification with the River Neckar in co-operative governance (national, municipal and regional level)

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/DE/000011

01/11/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected] Walter BRAUN Water - River basin management river‚ urban area NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3768

16/09/2011

PALM Pump And Leakage Management LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/IT/000136

01/09/2010 31/08/2013 [email protected] Alessandro BETTIN Water - Water management and supply decision making support‚ water saving‚ environmental performancewater supply

http://www.leakagemanagement.eu http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3738

16/09/2011

RESTORE Rivers: Engaging, Supporting and Transferring knOwledge for Restoration in Europe LIFE-INF LIFE09 INF/UK/000032

01/09/2010 30/09/2013 [email protected] WIM ZEEMAN Water - River basin management restoration measure‚ information network‚ river http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/wfo/128855.aspx


16/09/2011

The Green Deserts The Green Deserts: new planting techniques for tree cultivation in desertified environments to face Climate Change


01/09/2010 31/08/2015 [email protected] Sven KALLEN Land-use and Planning - Forest managementLand-use and Planning - Soil and landscape protection

desertification‚ restoration measure‚ soil degradation http://thegreendeserts.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3654

16/09/2011

UFTEC Substitution of conventional treatment of raw river water by ultrafiltration membrane technology


01/01/2011 31/12/2013 [email protected] CETaqua, Centro Tecnológico Water - Water quality improvement alternative technology‚ water treatment‚ reverse osmosis http://www.life-uftec.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3686

16/09/2011

VOCless waste water Abatement of VOC load from waste water treatment in mechanical pulping LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/FI/000568

01/10/2010 30/09/2013 [email protected]@meehanite.org

Markku Tapola Air and Noise - Air quality monitoringIndustry-Production - Paper - Pulp - PrintingWater - Waste water treatment

waste water treatment‚ emission reduction‚ volatile organic compound‚ industrial waste water‚ end-of-pipe technology‚ odour nuisance‚ paper industry

http://voclesspulping.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3668

16/09/2011

VOPAK-EXPERO3 Using ISCO with perozone for the remediation of a cocktail of organic contaminants at an EX-rated industrial site in operation

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/BE/000407

01/09/2010 31/08/2015 [email protected] Wim VAN BOGAERT Risk management - Industrial risks - Hazardous substances risk assessment‚ contamined soil‚ decontamination‚ groundwater http://www.vopak-expero3.be/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3751

16/09/2011

WaterRtoM Water Research to Market - to speed-up the transfer of water related research outputsto better implement the Water directives

LIFE-ENV LIFE09 ENV/FR/000593

01/09/2010 31/08/2013 [email protected] Natacha JACQUIN Environmental management - Cleaner technologiesWater - River basin managementWater - Water management and supplyWater - Water quality improvementWater - Water resources protection

environmental law‚ water resources management‚ survey‚ technology transfer

http://water-rtom.org/Home http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3700

16/09/2011

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

LIFE-INF LIFE09/INF/GR/319 01/10/2010 31/03/2013 [email protected] Marianna VLASSI Information-Communication - Awareness raising - InformationLand-use and Planning - Sensitive and protected areas management

fish biodiversity http://www.spp.gr/life_prespafish/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3&lang=en


06/01/2015

WIZ WaterIZe spatial planning: encompass future drinkwater management conditions to adapt to climate change


01/09//2010

30/08/2013 [email protected] Oberdan CEI Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeWater - Water resources protection

water resources management‚ urban area‚ drinking water http://www.wiz-life.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3692

16/09/2011

AQUAENVEC Assessment and improvement of the urban water cycle eco-efficiency using LCA and LCC


01/01/2012 31/12/2014 [email protected] Anna Massagué Water - Waste water treatment decision making support‚ waste water treatment‚ urban area‚ environmental performance‚ life-cycle management

http://www.life-aquaenvec.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3968

08/10/2011

AQUATIK Development and validation of advanced monitoring system for control of organic priority pollutants in treated wastewater effluents


01/09/2011 31/12/2014 [email protected] Susana GONZÁLEZ BLANCO Risk management - Pollution control waste water treatment‚ pollution control‚ residual waste http://www.life-aquatik.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4012

08/10/2011

AQUAVIVA Live Water - from Biodiversity to the Tap LIFE-INF LIFE10 INF/SI/000135 01/09/2011 31/08/2014 [email protected] Marjana HOENIGSFELD ADAMIČ Information-Communication - Awareness raising - InformationHabitats - Freshwater

freshwater ecosystem‚ river‚ biodiversity‚ public awareness campaign‚ water resources management


08/10/2011

AQUOR Implementation of a water saving and artificial recharging participated strategy for the quantitative groundwater layer rebalance of the upper Vicenza's plain


01/09/2011 01/09/2013 [email protected] Teresa MURARO Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeWater - Water resources protection

information system‚ water shortage‚ decision making support‚environmental awareness‚ water saving‚ social participation‚ groundwater‚ water resources management

http://www.lifeaquor.org/en http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3994

08/10/2011

CHARM Chromium in asopos groundwater system: remediation technologies and measures LIFE-ENV LIFE10 ENV/GR/000601

01/09/2011 31/08/2015 [email protected] Daniel Mamais Risk management - Site rehabilitation - Decontamination decontamination‚ groundwater‚ restoration measure http://www.charm-life.gr/charm/index.php/en http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3951

08/10/2011

CYPADAPT Development of a national strategy for adaptation to climate change adverse impacts in Cyprus


01/09/2011 31/03/2014 [email protected] Theodoulos MESIMERIS Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate change information system‚ decision making support‚ environmental awareness‚ monitoring system‚ environmental assessment

http://cypadapt.uest.gr/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3942

08/10/2011

DEMETER Duurzaam En geïntegreerd bodembeheer om MilieuEffecten TE Reduceren (Sustainable and integrated soil management to reduce environmental effects)


01/01/2012 30/03/2016 [email protected] Patrick VERSTEGEN Industry-Production - Agriculture - Fisheries agricultural method‚ soil degradation‚ environmental awareness‚ manure‚ pollution prevention

http://www.demeterlife.eu/DEMETER/Paginas/default.aspx


08/10/2011

EUTROMED Técnica demostrativa de prevención de la eutrofización provocada por nitrógeno agrícola en las aguas superficiales en clima mediterráneo


01/09/2011 01/03/2015 [email protected] Myriam Prieto Labra Water - River basin management preventive measure‚ eutrophication‚ river‚ diffuse pollution http://www.eutromed.org./ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3946

08/10/2011

Geohealth The impact of geological environment on health status of residents of the Slovak Republic

LIFE-ENV LIFE10 ENV/SK/000086

01/09/2011 31/08/2015 [email protected] Stanislav Rapant Risk management - Human health protection public health‚ environmental assessment‚ groundwater‚ pollution control


08/10/2011

HWC Jenfelder Au - Hamburg Water Cycle - Jenfelder Au LIFE-ENV LIFE10 ENV/DE/000158

01/09/2011 31/08/2016 [email protected] Kim AUGUSTIN Water - Waste water treatment use of waste as energy source‚ water quality improvement‚ waste water treatment‚ urban area‚ energy supply

http://www.hamburgwatercycle.de/index.php/the-jenfelder-au-quarter.html


08/10/2011

LCA4PORTS European Ports Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) LIFE-ENV LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369

01/11/2011 01/11/2015 [email protected], [email protected]

Gianluca IEVOLELLA Environmental management - Life Cycle Assessment-ManagementServices and Trade - Transportation - Storage

decision making support‚ integrated management‚ harbour‚ life-cycle management

http://www.lca4ports.eu/index.php/en/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3934

08/10/2011

NITRATES Repercussion of Agricultural Activities in Nitrate Contamination of Continental Water LIFE-ENV LIFE10 ENV/ES/000478

01/09/2011 31/08/2014 [email protected] Luis Sanz AZCARATE Industry-Production - Agriculture - Fisheries agricultural pollution‚ environmental impact assessment‚ groundwater‚ diffuse pollution

http://www.life-nitratos.eu/index.php/en/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3995

08/10/2011

OMZET Waste water treatment as energy and mineral recovery utility LIFE-ENV LIFE10 ENV/NL/000028

01/09/2011 31/12/2016 [email protected] Henry VAN VELDHUIZEN Water - Waste water treatment clean technology‚ use of waste as energy source‚ waste water treatment

http://www.omzetpuntamersfoort.nl/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4007

08/10/2011

UNIZEO Urea-based nitrogenous fertilizers coated with zeolite : reducing drastically pullution due to nitrogen


01/09/2011 31/03/2015 [email protected] Giorgio BOZZOLA Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Water resources protection

fertiliser‚ agricultural pollution‚ alternative technology http://www.unizeo.eu/static/index.php http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3969

08/10/2011

URWASTECH Innovative Urban Waste Treatment: A Sustainable Approach Using Hydrodynamic andBiological Technologies


01/10/2011 01/04/2014 [email protected] Dirk SASETA Waste - Municipal waste (including household and commercial)

urban wastewater‚ urban area‚ waste treatment‚ separated collection‚ solid waste‚ residual waste

http://urwastech.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3956

08/10/2011

WARBO Water re-born - artificial recharge: innovative technologies for the sustainable management of water resources


01/01/2012 30/06/2014 [email protected] Daniel NIETO YABAR Water - Water scarcity and draught water shortage‚ modelling‚ water resources management http://www.warbo-life.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4004

08/10/2011

WASTEREUSE Best practices for agricultural wastes treatment and reuse in the Mediterranean countries


01/09/2011 31/08/2015 [email protected] Konstantinos Komnitsas Waste - Agricultural waste agricultural method‚ waste recycling‚ water reuse‚ agricultural waste


08/10/2011

WW-SIP From Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant to Self Sustainable Integrated Platform for Wastewater Refinement


01/01/2012 31/12/2015 [email protected] Francesca SANTORI Water - Waste water treatment urban area‚ industrial waste water http://www.lifewwsip.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3949

08/10/2011

ZeoLIFE Water Pollution Reduction and Water Saving Using a Natural Zeolite Cycle LIFE-ENV LIFE10 ENV/IT/000321

01/09/2011 28/02/2015 [email protected] Massimo COLTORTI Waste - Agricultural waste environmental impact of agriculture‚ eutrophication‚ water saving‚ pollution prevention‚ water pollution

http://en.zeolife.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3957

08/10/2011

WATOP New tertiary waste water treatment for organic micro-pollutants PPCPs (Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products).


01/06/2012 30/11/2015 [email protected] Claudio Fernandez Water - Waste water treatment water quality improvement‚ waste water treatment‚ pharmaceutical industry‚ pollutant elimination‚ hazardous waste

http://www.watop-life.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4242

21/07/2013

PLATAFORMA CENTRAL IBERUM

Sustainable urban development in "PLATAFORMA CENTRAL IBERUM" LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/ES/000538

18/07/2012 31/07/2017 [email protected] Nuria Muñoz EstévezLand-use and Planning - Urban design (urban-rural)Water - Water resources protection

drainage system‚ urban planning‚ industrial area‚ environmental performance‚ rain water‚ water resources management‚ flood protection

http://www.plataformacentraliberum.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4224

21/07/2013

MINAQUA Demonstration project for water saving in car wash premises using innovative detergents and soft treatment systems.


16/07/2012 30/09/2016 [email protected] Sara MASSANAS Water - Waste water treatment water saving‚ waste water treatment‚ cleansing product‚ alternative material

http://www.minaqua.org/wp5/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4403

21/07/2013

REAGRITECH Regeneration and reuse of runoff and drainage water in agricultural plots by combined natural water treatment systems


01/09/2012 30/12/2015 [email protected] MORATO JORDI Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Water quality improvement

water quality improvement‚ water reuse‚ pollutant elimination‚ groundwater‚ water pollution‚ irrigation

http://www.unescosost.org/project/reagritech/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4478

21/07/2013

ROEM-plus High resolution AppROach for ManagEMent of Surface Water EutroPhication in RuraLareas of the DUero River BaSin


01/09/2012 28/02/2016 [email protected] López Fidalgo Analía Water - River basin management eutrophication‚ river‚ rural area http://www.roemplus-life.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4219

21/07/2013

aWARE Innovative hybrid MBR-(PAC-NF) systems to promote water reuse LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/ES/000606

01/01/2013 30/06/2016 [email protected] Ignacio MARTIN GARCIA Water - Water saving water saving‚ waste water treatment‚ water reuse‚ life-cycle management‚ water resources management

http://www.life-aware.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4201

21/07/2013

IRRIGESTLIFE - TELEMANAGEMENT NETWORK USING FREE CONTROLLERS CONECTED TO A GIS FOR AN OPTIMIZED IRRIGATION IN VITORIA-GASTEIZ


01/09/2012 30/09/2015 [email protected] ASIER SOPELANA BOSCH Services and Trade - Sports and Recreation activitiesWater - Water saving water saving‚ urban area‚ green space‚ irrigation

http://www.irrigestlife.eu/index.php/en/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4206

21/07/2013

IES Irrigation expert simulator LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/ES/000621

01/10/2012 16/10/2015 [email protected] FERRAN TERSA Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Water saving agricultural method‚ decision making support‚ water saving‚

irrigation

http://www.ies-life.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4220

21/07/2013

CITYWATER Benchmarking water protection in cities LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/FI/000909

01/10/2012 30/09/2015 [email protected] Satu VIITASALO-FRÖSEN Water - Water resources protection cost-benefit analysis‚ water quality improvement‚ urban area‚ coastal area‚ rain water

http://www.citywater.fi/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4225

21/07/2013

Biovalsan Demonstration of waste water's biogas total upgrading system to bioCH4 & bioCO2 and health risks acceptance


01/06/2012 31/12/2015 [email protected] Frédéric PIERRE Water - Waste water treatment use of waste as energy source‚ waste water treatment‚ biomass energy

http://www.biovalsan.eu/en/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4221

21/07/2013

BIOTTOPE BIological tools to Optimize Treatment Technologies to remove micro Pollutants and Endocrine disrupters


01/06/2012 31/12/2014 [email protected] Luis CASTILLO Water - Waste water treatment public health‚ waste water treatment‚ pollutant elimination http://www.biottope.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4211

21/07/2013

MAC EAU Reducing Consumption of Drinking Water: Implementation and Evaluation of Integrated Measures in Gironde (France)


16/07/2012 31/12/2016 [email protected] Nathalie BRICHE Water - Water saving water saving‚ drinking water‚ groundwater‚ water resources management

http://www.jeconomiseleau.org/index.php/en/projet-mac-eau


21/07/2013

Lambro vivo Actions for the improvement of water quality and habitats in the River Lambro valley LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/IT/000004

01/06/2012 31/12/2017 [email protected] Daniele Giuffrè Habitats - FreshwaterWater - Water quality improvement

natural park‚ protected area‚ water quality improvement‚ river management

http://www.progettolambro.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4415

21/07/2013

WSTORE2 Reconciling agriculture with environment through a new water governance in coastal and saline areas


01/11/2012 31/10/2015 [email protected] LORENZO FURLAN Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesHabitats - CoastalWater - Water management and supply

protected area‚ Agriculture‚ water saving‚ coastal area‚ rural area‚ rain water‚ water resources management

http://www.wstore2.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4232

21/07/2013

Biosur Rotating bioreactors for sustainable hydrogen sulphide removal LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/IT/000075

01/07/2012 31/12/2015 [email protected] Gualtiero Mori Water - Waste water treatmentIndustry-Production - Leather and Footwear

air quality management‚ leather industry‚ industrial waste water‚ odour nuisance‚ alternative technology

http://www.biosurproject.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4405

21/07/2013

ReQpro A model to reclaim and reuse wastewater for quality crop production LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/IT/000156

01/12/2012 28/02/2015 [email protected] Marco LIGABUE Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Water resources protection

Agriculture‚ waste water treatment‚ water reuse http://reqpro.crpa.it/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=11828 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4196

21/07/2013

CENIRELTA CENIRELTA, Cost-Effective NItrogen REmoval from waste water by Low-Temperature Anammox

LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/NL/000785

01/07/2012 31/12/2015 [email protected] Richard LEURS Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment http://www.cenirelta.eu/?pId=2509 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4263

21/07/2013

Hydrochip Hydrochip LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/NL/000788

01/09/2012 30/09/2016 [email protected] Marco Jaspers Water - Water quality improvement water quality improvement‚ monitoring system‚ water monitoring http://watermozaiek.stowa.nl/projecten/hydrochip_aspx?eid=1099&pid=2391


21/07/2013

Spalarnia pirolityczna OS - Demonstration installation for thermal utilization of sewage sludge by pyrolysis LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/PL/000453

01/06/2012 31/12/1015 [email protected] Tadeusz Furowicz Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment‚ sewage sludge http://www.fuwi-lifeplus.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4216

21/07/2013

Hydro-climate recovery Revitalisation of the climate in dried-out communities in Eastern Slovakia via hydro-climate recovery


01/08/2012 30/09/2015 [email protected] Dana Kravčíková Risk management - Natural risks (Flood - Forest fire - Landslide)Water - Water resources protection

integrated management‚ rain water‚ water resources management‚ flood protection

http://www.ludiaavoda.sk/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4198

21/07/2013

KRASCAVE Implementation of sustainable groundwater use in the underground karst system of the Krásnohorská jaskyňa Cave


01/06/2012 30/09/2017 [email protected] Peter Malík Habitats - Rocky and CavesLand-use and Planning - Sensitive and protected areas managementWater - Water resources protection

protected area‚ drinking water‚ pollution prevention‚ groundwater‚ risk management‚ water resources management

http://www.geology.sk/krascave/news.php http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4190

21/07/2013

CSP Celtic Seas Partnership (CSP) – stakeholder driven integrated management of the Celtic Seas Marine Region


01/01/2012 31/12/2016 [email protected] Lyndsey Dodds Environmental management - Integrated managementHabitats - Marine

integrated management‚ coastal area‚ marine environment‚ conflicting use‚ sensitive area

http://celticseaspartnership.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4218

21/07/2013

RII - LIFE Hydrological and environmental integrated restoration of brooks in the piedmont area of Emilia


03/09/2012 31/03/2016 [email protected] Alfredo Caggianelli Risk management - Natural risks (Flood - Forest fire - Landslide)

drainage system‚ urban area‚ risk management‚ management plan‚ mountainous area‚ flood protection

http://ambiente.regione.emilia-romagna.it/life-rii http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4237

21/07/2013

Stream of Usserød Intermunicipal cooperation on Water Management and Climate Change Adaptation for The Stream of Usserød

LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/DK/000889

03/09/2012 29/02/2016 [email protected] Martin Ullerup Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeRisk management - Natural risks (Flood - Forest fire - Landslide)

river‚ monitoring system‚ flood protection http://www.usseroed-aa.dk/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4268

21/07/2013

FLIRE Floods and fire risk assessment and management LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/GR/000975

01/10/2012 30/09/2015 [email protected] Maria Mimikou Risk management - Natural risks (Flood - Forest fire - Landslide)

forest fire‚ decision making support‚ modelling‚ forecast‚ risk assessment‚ flood protection


21/07/2013

Urban Oases - Keidas Urban Oases: Shaping a Sustainable Future through Environmentally Functional Landscape Features

LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/FI/000911

01/06/2012 30/06/2017 [email protected] Outi Salminen Biodiversity issues - Urban biodiversityLand-use and Planning - Spatial planning urban planning‚ rain water‚ wetland

http://www.helsinki.fi/taajamakeitaat/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4180

21/07/2013

SeineCityPark - Development of an urban green infrastructure in the Chanteloup loop LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/FR/000746

01/08/2012 31/07/2017 [email protected] Isabelle Chatoux Biodiversity issues - Invasive speciesBiodiversity issues - Ecological coherenceLand-use and Planning - Urban design (urban-rural)Services and Trade - Sports and Recreation activitie

river‚ urban development‚ green space‚ management plan‚ recreational area

http://www.seinecitypark.fr/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4202

21/07/2013

SUSTAIN-ICT - ICT for greener urban development LIFE-ENV LIFE11 ENV/FR/000739

01/07/2012 31/10/2015 [email protected] Sophie HOUZET Climate change - Energy - Energy efficiencyEnvironmental management - Integrated management

telecommunications‚ water saving‚ energy saving‚ integrated management‚ urban area‚ emission reduction‚ greenhouse gas

http://www.sustainict-eu-life.org/sustainICT/introSUSTAIN.html


21/07/2013

LIFE ALBUFERA - Integrated management of three artificial wetlands in compliance with the Water Framework, Bird and Nitrates Directives


01/10/2013 30/09/2016 [email protected] Miguel Martín Monerris Land-use and Planning - Sensitive and protected areas management

natural park‚ protected area‚ biodiversity‚ water quality improvement‚ wetland

http://lifealbufera.org/index.php/en/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4687

21/07/2013

LIFE MEDACC - Demonstration and validation of innovative methodology for regional climate change adaptation in the Mediterranean area


01/07/2013 30/06/2018 [email protected] Gabriel Borràs Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate change integrated management‚ water resources management http://medacc-life.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4690

21/07/2013

LIFE RusaLCA Nanoremediation of water from small waste water treatment plants and reuse of water and solid remains for local needs

LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/SI/000443

01/07/2013 31/12/2016 [email protected] Alenka Mauko Water - Waste water treatmentRisk management - Site rehabilitation - Decontamination

water saving‚ waste water treatment‚ urban area‚ water reuse‚ drinking water

http://www.rusalca.si/si/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4600

21/07/2013

LIFE Stop CyanoBloom Innovative technology for cyanobacterial bloom control LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/SI/000783

01/07/2013 31/12/2016 [email protected] Marko Gerl Risk management - Human health protectionWater - Water quality improvement

public health‚ water treatment‚ aquatic ecosystem‚ water quality improvement‚ pollution control


21/07/2013

LIFE-URBANLAKE Integrated Lake Management of the Urban Lake "Alte Donau" LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/AT/000128

01/07/2013 30/06/2017 [email protected] Gerhard Blöschl Climate change - Energy - Adaptation to climate changeServices and Trade - Sports and Recreation activities

environmental impact of recreation‚ integrated management‚ urban area‚ bathing water‚ water quality

http://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/wasserbau/gewaesser/alte-donau/life/


21/07/2013

LIFE HyMemb Tailoring hybrid membrane processes for sustainable drinking water production LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/PT/001154

01/01/2014 31/12/2016 [email protected] Maria João Rosa Water - Water quality improvement water treatment‚ water quality improvement‚ drinking water‚ pollutant elimination


21/07/2013

LIFE DYES4EVER - Demonstration of cyclodextrin techniques in treatment of waste water in textil industry to recover and reuse textil dyes


01/07/2013 31/12/2015 [email protected] Korinna Mollá Latorre Industry-Production - Textiles - ClothingWaste - Waste reduction - Raw material saving

waste water treatment‚ waste recycling‚ textile industry‚ raw material consumption‚ industrial waste water

http://www.dyes4ever.eu/index.php?lang=en http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4682

21/07/2013

LIFE BIOCLOC BIOprocess ControL through Online titrimetry to reduce Carbon footprint in wastewatetreatment


01/09/2013 28/02/2017 [email protected] Giulio Munz Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment‚ emission reduction‚ monitoring system‚ greenhouse gas


21/07/2013

LIFE of water is man life Minimize the water footprint of the impactful H2O waste in the cutting cycle of natural stone blocks


01/07/2013 30/06/2016 [email protected] Stefano Cangioli Industry-Production - Mining - QuarryingWater - Water saving

quarry‚ water saving NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4557

21/07/2013

LIFE CLEANSED Innovative integrated methodology for the use of decontaminated river sediments in plant nursing and road building


01/10/2013 31/03/2016 [email protected] Graziana Masciandaro Water - Waste water treatment fertiliser‚ river‚ waste use‚ building material‚ sludge treatment NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4533

21/07/2013

LIFE-PHYTOBARRE Un procédé innovant de traitements des effluents phytopharmaceutiques et de nouveaux usages pour les agriculteurs


01/10/2013 30/12/2016 [email protected] Daniel GARCIA Water - Waste water treatmentIndustry-Production - Agriculture - Fisheries

Agriculture‚ waste water treatment‚ industrial waste water‚ diffuse pollution

http://www.lifephytobarre.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4709

21/07/2013

LIFE+ 2012 N-SINK Reduction of waste water nitrogen load: demonstrations and modelling (N-SINK) LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597

01/08/2013 31/07/2017 [email protected] Lauri Arvola Water - Waste water treatment eutrophication‚ water quality improvement‚ waste water treatment‚ modelling‚ coastal area‚ monitoring system


21/07/2013

LIFE WaterReuse Improving water management efficiency at industries with organic load LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/ES/000184

01/10/2013 30/09/2015 [email protected] Pedro MuñozEnvironmental management - Cleaner technologiesWater - Waste water treatment

clean technology‚ waste water treatment‚ industrial waste‚ water reuse‚ chemical industry

http://www.waterreuse.eu/index.php/es/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4654

21/07/2013

LIFE-ETAD ECOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF ACID DRAINAGE LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/ES/000250

01/07/2013 31/12/2017 [email protected] Antonio Ramirez Industry-Production - Mining - QuarryingWaste - Industrial wasteRisk management - Site rehabilitation - DecontaminationWater - Waste water treatment

waste water treatment‚ industrial waste water‚ mine http://www.life-etad.com/index.php/en/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4681

21/07/2013

LIFE ADNATUR Demonstration of natural coagulant use advantages in physical & chemical treatments in industry and urban waste water


01/10/2013 30/09/2016 [email protected] MIRIAM MARTÍNEZIndustry-Production - Textiles - ClothingWater - Waste water treatment

waste water treatment‚ textile industry‚ industrial waste water http://www.adnatur.com/index.php/en/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4642

21/07/2013

LIFE NECOVERY Nutrient and Energy Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants by Up-concentration and Adsorption processes


01/07/2013 31/12/2016 [email protected] Alexandre Galí Water - Waste water treatment water quality improvement‚ urban area http://www.life-necovery.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4657

21/07/2013

LIFE-REMPHOS - IMPLEMENTATION OF A NEW PHOSPHATE REMOVAL TERTIARY TREATMENT IN WWTP


01/09/2012 28/02/2017 [email protected] Claudio Fernandez Water - Waste water treatment eutrophication‚ water quality improvement‚ waste water treatment‚ pollutant elimination

http://www.remphos.es/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4664

21/07/2013

LIFE PHORWater Integral Management Model for Phosphorus recovery and reuse from Urban Wastewater


01/09/2013 31/08/2016 [email protected] Laura Pastor Water - Waste water treatment urban wastewater‚ waste water treatment‚ raw material consumption

http://phorwater.eu/en/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4625

21/07/2013

LIFE Lo2x Supercritical water co-oxidation (SCWcO) of urban sewage sludge and wastes LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/ES/000477

01/10/2013 31/12/2016 [email protected] Albert Canut Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesWater - Waste water treatment

Agriculture‚ water quality improvement‚ waste water treatment‚ industrial waste water

http://www.lo2x.com/eng/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4692

21/07/2013

LIFE WIRE Water Cycle Efficiency Improvement by Boosting Industrial Water Reuse LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/ES/000545

01/10/2013 30/09/1016 [email protected] Ignacio Martín Water - Waste water treatment urban wastewater‚ water reuse http://www.life-wire.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4684

21/07/2013

LIFE RURAL SUPPLIES SOSTENIBLES SOLUTIONS FOR VERY SMALL WATER SUPPLIES LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/ES/000557

01/07/2013 30/06/2017 [email protected] Carlos Ameijenda Mosquera Water - Water management and supply rural area‚ water supply‚ groundwater http://ruralsupplies.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4685

21/07/2013

LIFE-OFREA Improving Water Reuse at the coastal areas by an advanced desalination process LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/ES/000632

01/10/2013 30/09/2016 [email protected] Jordi Bacardit Water - Water quality improvement water treatment‚ coastal area‚ water reuse http://www.life-ofrea.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4683

21/07/2013

LIFE+ InSiTrate In-situ treatment technology for drinking water production from nitrate-polluted groundwater


01/07/2013 30/07/2017 [email protected] David Smith Water - Water management and supply water treatment‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ drinking water‚ diffuse pollution‚ water pollution

http://insitrate.ctm.com.es/en http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4655

21/07/2013

LIFE-PURIWAT New demostrative pilot plant for the purification waste water with oils, fats and hydrocarbons


01/09/2013 28/02/2017 [email protected] CLAUDIO FERNANDEZ Water - Waste water treatment waste water treatment http://www.puriwat.es/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4667

21/07/2013

LIFE SANePLAN Integrated Planning and Sustainable Management of Sanitation Infrastructures through innovative precision technology


01/09/2013 28/02/2017 [email protected] JUAN LUIS SOBREIRA SEOANEWater - Water management and supply

integrated management‚ urban planning‚ water supply‚ information system

http://www.saneplan-life.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4668

21/07/2013

LIFE+ ZELDA Zero Liquid Discharge desalination: brine treatment based on electrodialysis metathesis and valuable compound recovery


01/07/2013 30/06/2017 [email protected] David Smith Water - Water scarcity and draughtWater - Water management and supply

water shortage‚ waste water treatment‚ water supply http://life-zelda.eu/en http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4651

21/07/2013

RIVERLINK LIFE SEGURA RIVERLINK LIFE-ENV LIFE12 ENV/ES/001140

01/08/2013 30/07/2017 [email protected] Eduardo Lafuente Sacristán Water - River basin management river‚ management plan http://www.chsegura.es/chs/cuenca/segurariverlink/riverlink/index.html


21/07/2013

LIFE+ IRRIMAN Implementation of efficient irrigation management for a sustainable agriculture LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/ES/000539

01/09/2014 31/12/2017 [email protected] Alejandro Pérez-Pastor Scarcity and Drought, Water Resources Protection agricultural method / hydrographic basin / irrigation / water resources management / water saving / water shortage /


30/10/2014

LIFE-GREEN4GREY Innovative design & development of multifunctional green & blue infrastructure in Flanders grey peri-urban landscapes


01/07/2014 30/06/2019 [email protected] Pieter De Corte River basin management land use planning‚ urban development‚ biodiversity‚ periurban space‚ urban area‚ urban planning‚ rural area‚ green space


30/10/2014

LIFE TRIVERS Implementing the Water Framework Directive to temporary rivers: tools for the assessment of their ecological status


02/06/2014 01/06/2018 [email protected] Narcis Prat River basin management environmental assessment / environmental management / river / river management / water monitoring / water quality / water resources management /


30/10/2014

LIFE EBRO-ADMICLIM Adaptation and mitigation measures to climate change in the Ebro Delta LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/ES/001182

02/06/2014 01/06/2018 [email protected] Josep Carles Ibañez Martí River basin management integrated management‚ emission reduction‚ coastal area‚ wetland‚ greenhouse gas‚ soil erosion


30/10/2014

LIFE RINASCE Naturalistic Restoration for the integrated hydraulic-environmental Sustainability of the Emilian Canals


02/07/2014 21/12/2018 [email protected] Aronne Ruffini River basin management flood protection / restoration measure / river management / wetland NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4872

30/10/2014

LIFE WaterLIFE Delivery of the Water Framework Directive through collaborative action between civil society and the private sector


01/07/2014 30/06/2017 [email protected] Simon AGUSS River basin management, Water resources protection environmental law / public-private partnership / river management / social participation / water quality improvement / water resources management /


30/10/2014

LIFE2Water Verification and assessment of technologies for tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater

LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/CZ/000475

01/09/2014 31/12/2017 [email protected] Josef Šebek Waste water treatment hazardous substance / industrial waste water / pollutant elimination / urban wastewater / waste water treatment / water quality / water quality improvement /


31/10/2014

LIFE+ WOGAnMBR Demonstration of Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor technology for valorization of agro-food industry wastewater


01/07/2014 30/06/2017 [email protected] Rubén GALLO Waste water treatment use of waste as energy source‚ waste water treatment‚ food production‚ waste oil‚ industrial waste water‚ biomass energy‚ renewable energy


31/10/2014

LIFE MEMORY Membrane for ENERGY and WATER RECOVERY LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/ES/001353

01/07/2014 30/06/2018 [email protected] Frank Rogalla Waste water treatment urban wastewater‚ use of waste as energy source‚ energy saving‚ emission reduction‚ greenhouse gas‚ energy supply‚ biomass energy‚ alternative technology‚ renewable energ


31/10/2014

LIFE SMART Hospital A Step towards zero eMissions goAl in Heath SectoR: BesT Practice Examples in Hospital Universitario Río Hortega


01/09/2014 30/11/2017 [email protected] Raquel Lopez Waste water treatment, Water Saving hospital‚ water saving‚ energy saving‚ waste reduction‚ environmental management‚ energy supply‚ environmental assessment‚ environmental impact of energy


31/10/2014

LIFE-RENEWAT Optimised Renewable Mix for Energy Saving in Waste Water Treatment Plants LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/ES/000704

01/07/2014 30/06/2014 [email protected] JOSE DANIEL GARCIA ESPINEL Waste water treatment emission reduction / energy saving / greenhouse gas / renewable energy / waste water treatment /


31/10/2014

LIFE-Aquemfree In-Farm remediation by solar photocatalysis of agro-waste water with pesticides from remnants, cleaning and rinse


01/07/2014 30/06/2018 [email protected] Fulgencio Contreras Lopez Waste water treatment Agriculture / agricultural waste / pollutant elimination / waste water treatment /


31/10/2014

LIFE+ TL-BIOFER NUTRIENTS AND REGENERATED WATER RECYCLING IN WWTPs THROUGH TWIN-LAYER MICROALGAE CULTURE FOR BIOFERTILIZERS PRODUCTION


01/07/2014 30/06/2017 [email protected] Inmaculada Gonzalez Waste water treatment eutrophication / fertiliser / sludge treatment / waste water treatment / water reuse /


31/10/2014

LIFE ECOdigestion Automatic control system to add organic waste in anaerobic digesters of WWTP to maximize the biogas as renewable energy


01/09/2014 31/07/2017 [email protected] GLORIA FAYOS Waste water treatment agricultural waste / biofuel / biomass energy / food production / organic waste / renewable energy / use of waste as energy source / waste water treatment /


31/10/2014

LIFE RELEACH Decreasing the environmental impact of waste management: An innovative leachate treatment using recovered membranes.


01/06/2014 30/11/2017 [email protected] Juanjo Martí Waste water treatment emission reduction / greenhouse gas / landfill / landfill leachate / waste reduction / waste treatment / waste water treatment /


31/10/2014

BioSolWaRe-LIFE Bio-Solar Water Recycling: Demonstration wastewater treatment system dedicated to freshwater reuse and recycling.


01/07/2014 31/12/2018 [email protected] Samuel DE LA ROCHEBROCARD Waste water treatment waste water treatment‚ energy saving‚ emission reduction‚ greenhouse gas


31/10/2014

Life+ISR LIFE+ISR-Innovative sludge reduction LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/NL/000178

01/06/2014 31/12/2018 [email protected] Harmen DEHAAN Waste water treatment clean technology‚ waste water treatment‚ energy saving‚ emission reduction‚ waste reduction‚ greenhouse gas‚ sludge treatment‚ biomass energy‚ alternative technology‚ renewable energy


31/10/2014

LIFE NOVADRAIN Innovative drainage water solutions and spatial planning LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/DK/000668

01/09/2014 31/08/2019 [email protected] Flemming Gertz Water quality improvement, Water Resources Protection Agriculture / alternative technology / drainage system / eutrophicatio/ soil degradation / water pollution / water quality improvement / water resources management / wetland /


31/10/2014

LIFE REGENERA LIMIA Development of demostrative solutions to reduce the water contamination of agrarian origin in the Limia basin


01/07/2014 30/06/2017 [email protected] Alberto de Anta Montero Water quality improvement, Water Resources Protection agricultural pollution / decision making support / environmental impact of agriculture / eutrophication / fertiliser / protected area / river management / water monitoring / water pollution / water quality / water quality improvement / water resources management / wetlands ecosystem /


31/10/2014

LIFE CO2FORMARE USE OF CO2 AS A SUBSTITUTE OF CHLORINE-BASED CHEMICALS USED IN O&M INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES FOR MACROFOULING REMEDATION



Elías RODRIGUEZ Water quality improvement alternative material / coastal area / emission reduction / greenhouse gas / hazardous substance / maintenance (technical) / marine environment / pollution prevention /


31/10/2014

LIFE+ WHEYPACK Reduction of CO2 emissions by the PHB use obtained from whey: demonstration in dairy products packaging


01/06/2014 30/11/2016 [email protected] Miguel Alborch Water quality improvement waste use‚ packaging‚ food production‚ greenhouse gas‚ life-cycle management‚ biodegradability‚ alternative material


31/10/2014

LIFE SMART-AGROWETLAND SMART WATER AND SOIL SALINITY MANAGEMENT IN AGRO-WETLANDS LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/ES/001125

01/09/2014 31/03/2018 [email protected] José Miguel de Paz Water quality improvement, Water Resources Protection Agriculture / decision making support / integrated management / irrigation / on-line service / protected area / water saving / wetlands ecosystem /


31/10/2014

LIFE-AQUASEF ECO-EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT OF AQUACULTURE, AQUASEF


02/06/2014 30/06/2017 [email protected] Rafael Berruezo Water quality improvement energy saving / fishing industry / food production / greenhouse gas / marine environment / pollutant elimination / renewable energy /


31/10/2014

LIFE - MERMAIDS Mitigation of microplastics impact caused by textile washing processes LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/IT/001069

01/07/2014 31/12/2016 [email protected] Maurizio AVELLA Water quality improvement chemical industry / industrial waste water / laundering / marine ecosystem / plastic / plastic waste / pollutant elimination / research project / textile industry /


31/10/2014

LIFE ECODEFATTING Environmentally friendly natural products instead of chemical products in the degreasing phase of the tanning cycle


01/10/2014 30/09/2016 [email protected] Massimo Corsi Water quality improvement, Water Saving heavy metal‚ leather industry‚ industrial waste water‚ pollutant elimination‚ hazardous substance‚ alternative technology


31/10/2014

LIFE SMART Waste Smarter Regulation of Waste in Europe LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/UK/000549

02/06/2014 31/05/2019 [email protected] Catherine Preston Water quality improvement, Water Management & Supply Waste management / environmental law / environmental training / information network / water pollution / water quality / water quality improvement /


31/10/2014

LIFE EXTRUCLEAN REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN POLYETHYLENE PACKAGES USING SUPERCRITICAL CARBON DIOXIDE(SC-CO2) IN RECYCLING PROCESS


01/07/2014 31/12/2016 [email protected] RAQUEL GINER BORRULL Water saving Waste management / alternative technology / greenhouse gas / hazardous substance / industrial waste water / packaging / plastic / plastic waste / recycling / waste recycling / waste reduction / waste use / water saving /


31/10/2014

LIFE TEXTILEATHER Functional textiles and leathers by innovative MLSE process LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/ES/001138

02/06/2014 30/1102016 [email protected] FELIPE CARRASCO Water saving heavy metal‚ leather industry‚ industrial waste water‚ pollutant elimination‚ hazardous substance‚ alternative technology


31/10/2014

LIFE REPLACE BELT Prototyping of Recycled Plastic Conveyor Belt Machine and Demonstration of Recycled Plastic Tight tolerance Applications


01/07/2014 01/07/2017 [email protected] Brotto Manuela Water saving emission reduction / energy saving / greenhouse gas / plastic waste raw material consumption / waste recycling / water saving /


31/10/2014

GREEN LIFE GREEN LIFE: GREEN Leather Industry For the Environment LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/IT/000840

01/06/2014 31/05/2017 [email protected] Guido ZILLI Water saving clean technology‚ water saving‚ industrial waste‚ heavy metal‚ emission reduction‚ waste reduction‚ air quality management‚ air pollution‚ leather industry‚ industrial process‚ industrial pollutio


31/10/2014

LIFE+ DIGITALIFE A novel manufacturing process for photocatalytically activate ceramic tiles by digital printing.


01/07/2014 31/12/2017 [email protected] Valentino CAPUCCI Water saving clean technology‚ water saving‚ energy saving‚ emission reductioncoating‚ building material‚ air pollution‚ greenhouse gas‚ industrial process‚ ceramics industry


31/10/2014

QUARTERBACK for LIFE Crude glycerine water used on-site as a feedstock in an anaerobic digestion reactor to produce the renewable fuel biogas


01/06/2014 30/06/2017 [email protected] Ron van 't Hof Water saving water saving‚ energy saving‚ industrial waste‚ waste use‚ emission reduction‚ greenhouse gas‚ energy supply‚ biomass energy‚ renewable energy


31/10/2014

LIFE.SU.SA.FRUIT Low pesticide IPM in sustainable and safe fruit production LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/HR/000580

16/06/2014 16/12/2017 [email protected] Tomislav Jemrić Industry-Production ~ Agriculture - Fisheries / Industry-Production ~ Food and Beverages / Risk management ~ Pollutants reduction / Waste ~ Waste reduction - Raw material saving /

Agriculture / horticulture / human exposure to pollutants / integrated management / pest control /


03/11/2014

LIFE ENVIPHAGE Environmental impacts on bacterial ecology of bacteriophage use in aquaculture LIFE-ENV LIFE13 ENV/ES/001048

01/07/2014 30/06/2017 [email protected] IGOR HERNANDEZ Environmental management ~ Cleaner technologies / Industry-Production ~ Agriculture - Fisheries / Risk management ~ Pollutants reduction /

alternative technology / animal foodstuff / animal husbandry / fishing industry / food production / hazardous substance / marine environment / pollution prevention /


03/11/2014

LIFE+ IntegralCarbon Development and global enforcement of GHG capture photobioreactors in agroindustrial activities.


01/07/2014 31/12/2016 [email protected] Miriam MANRIQUE Climate change - Energy ~ Reduction of greenhouse gases emissions / Industry-Production ~ Agriculture - Fisheries / Waste ~ Agricultural waste / Waste ~ Waste use / Waste ~ Industrial waste /

agricultural waste / emission reduction / environmental impact of agriculture / fertiliser / food production / greenhouse gas / waste treatment / waste use /


03/11/2014

LIFE iSEAS Knowledge-Based Innovative Solutions to Enhance Adding-Value Mechanisms towards Healthy and Sustainable EU Fisheries


01/07/2014 30/06/2018 [email protected] Ricardo I. Pérez-Martín Industry-Production ~ Agriculture - Fisheries / Waste ~ Wastereduction - Raw material saving / Waste ~ Waste use /

biodiversity / decision making support / fishing industry / marine environment / marine pollution / modelling / organic waste / waste reduction / waste use /


03/11/2014

LIFE TRANSFOMEM Transformation of disposed reverse osmosis membranes into recycled ultra- and nanofiltration membranes


01/06/2014 30/06/2018 [email protected] Juana SANZ Waste ~ Waste recycling / Water ~ Waste water treatment / alternative technology / waste recycling / waste reduction / waste water treatment / water treatment /


03/11/2014

LIFE SEACOLORS Demonstration of new natural dyes from algae as substitution of synthetic dyes actualused by textile industries


01/07/2014 31/12/2016 [email protected] MIRIAM MARTÍNEZ Environmental management ~ Cleaner technologies / Environmental management ~ Eco-products design / IndustryProduction ~ Textiles - Clothing / Risk management ~ Industrial risks - Hazardous substances / Risk management ~Pollutants reduction / Waste ~ Hazardous waste / Waste ~ Waste reduction - Raw material saving / Waste ~ Industrial waste / Water ~ Water quality improvement /

alternative technology / hazardous substance / hazardous waste / pollutant elimination / textile industry / waste reduction / waste water reduction /


03/11/2014

LIFEAGROINTEGRA DEMONSTRATION OF SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVES TO CHEMICAL PRODUCTS FOR EUROPEAN CROP PROTECTION (AGROINTEGRA)


01/07/2014 30/06/2017 [email protected] Delia SOLA Industry-Production ~ Agriculture - Fisheries / Risk management ~ Pollutants reduction / Risk management ~ Risk assessment and monitoring /

agricultural method / alternative technology / decision making support / environmental impact of agriculture / pest control /


03/11/2014

LIFE+ EfficientShip Demonstration of an innovative ORC module to improve the efficiency of European fishing vessels


01/06/2014 31/12/2016 [email protected] Audrey ROGER Climate change - Energy ~ Energy efficiency / Climate change - Energy ~ Reduction of greenhouse gases emissions / Climate change - Energy ~ Energy saving / Environmental management ~ Cleaner technologies / Industry-Production ~ Engines - Machinery - Vehicles / Industry-Production ~ Agriculture - Fisheries

emission reduction / energy saving / fishing industry / greenhouse gas /


03/11/2014

InfoNitrates Information and communications campaign for the proper use and management of nitrates in agriculture and livestock breeding

LIFE-INF LIFE10 INF/MT/000092

01/09/2011 31/12/2013 [email protected] Mario SPITERI Information-Communication - Environmental training - Capacity buildingIndustry-Production - Agriculture - Fisheries

agricultural method‚ environmental training‚ pollution prevention‚ groundwater‚ diffuse pollution

http://www.agric.gov.mt/info_nitrates http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4027

08/10/2011

Investing in Water Achieving Reduction in Water Consumption by Business in Malta LIFE-INF LIFE10 INF/MT/000091

01/10/2011 31/03/2014 [email protected] Joe TANTI Water - Water scarcity and draught environmental awareness‚ water saving http://www.investinginwater.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4026

08/10/2011

Saimaan lohikalojen Saimaan lohikalojen kestävän kalastuksen edistäminen LIFE-INF LIFE10 INF/FI/000052 01/10/2011 30/06/2014 [email protected] Veli-Matti KAIJOMAA Species - FishInformation-Communication - Awareness raising - Information

endangered species‚ conservation of genetic resources‚ lake‚ biodiversity‚ environmental awareness

http://www.jarvilohi.fi/fi/etusivu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4033

08/10/2011

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

LIFE-INF LIFE10 INF/IT/000282 01/09/2011 28/08/2014 [email protected] Riccardo GORI Information-Communication - Environmental training - Capacity building

environmental awareness‚ waste water treatment http://www.showwproject.eu/Home http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4032

08/10/2011

AQUAVIVA Live Water - from Biodiversity to the Tap LIFE-INF LIFE10 INF/SI/000135 01/09/2011 31/08/2014 [email protected] Marjana HOENIGSFELD ADAMIČ Information-Communication - Awareness raising - InformationHabitats - Freshwater

freshwater ecosystem‚ river‚ biodiversity‚ public awareness campaign‚ water resources management


18/11/2014

AGROSAFE Strengthening the awareness of Polish farmers to reduce the eutrophication impact from agriculture

LIFE-INF LIFE11 INF/PL/000480

01/09/2012 29/02/2016 [email protected] Barbara Kowalkowska Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesInformation-Communication - Awareness raising - Information

agricultural method‚ environmental education‚ environmental impacof agriculture‚ eutrophication‚ environmental awareness‚ water pollution

http://agrosafe.pl/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4417

21/07/2013

SAVING DANUBE STURGEONS JOINT ACTIONS TO RAISE AWARENESS ON OVEREXPLOITATION OF DANUBE STURGEONS IN ROMANIA AND BULGARIA

LIFE-INF LIFE11 INF/AT/000902

01/07/2012 30/09/2015 [email protected] Jutta Jahrl Species - FishInformation-Communication - Awareness raising - Information

endangered species‚ fishing industry‚ river‚ environmental awareness

http://danube-sturgeons.org/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4340

21/07/2013

Aquatic Warbler project Conserving Acrocephalus paludicola in Poland and Germany LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/PL/000101

1/2/2005 31/05/2010 [email protected] Izabela FLOR Species - Birds endangered species‚ protected area‚ public awareness campaign‚ public-private partnership‚ financial instrument

http://www.otop.org.pl/ ; http://www.wodniczka.pl/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2926

06/01/2015

Ardmouperl Restoration of pearl mussel populations in the Ardennes LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/L/000116 1/9/2005 31/08/2011 [email protected] Frantz-Charles Muller Species - InvertebratesHabitats - FreshwaterWater - River basin management

protected area‚ international river basin‚ restoration measure http://www.margaritifera.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2934

06/01/2015

Dommeldal Transboundery habitat restoration in the valley of the Dommel LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/B/000091 17/01/2005

31/12/2009 Tel:+32 015 424921 Joost DEWYSPELAERE Habitats - Bogs and MiresHabitats - Heath and Scrublands

grazing‚ protected area‚ renaturation‚ river‚ integrated management‚ tourist facility‚ border

http://www.natuurpunt.be/nl/natuurbehoud/life-natura-/life-dommeldal_742.aspx


06/01/2015

Fortore 2005 Urgent conservation actions for Fortore River pSCI LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/IT/000026

01/10/2005

30/03/2010 [email protected] Claudio LA ROSA Habitats - Freshwater endangered species‚ protected area‚ river‚ emergency plan‚ restoration measure

www.lifefortore.eu http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2907

06/01/2015

Houting Urgent actions for the endangered Houting "Coregonus oxyrhunchus" LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/DK/000153

01/02/2005

31/07/2009 [email protected] Hans Ole HANSEN Species - FishHabitats - FreshwaterWater - River basin management

endangered species‚ migratory species‚ protected area‚ river‚ emergency plan‚ restoration measure

http://www.snaebel.dk/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2947

06/01/2015

LIFE - Gesäuse Conservation strategies for woodlands and rivers in the Gesäuse Mountains LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/A/000078 01/08/2005

01/08/2010 [email protected] Daniel Kreiner Habitats - FreshwaterWater - River basin managementHabitats - Forests

protected area‚ river‚ rural area‚ wetland‚ mountainous area www.nationalpark.co.at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2923

06/01/2015

Life Grote Nete Restoration of the lowland river system 'Grote Nete' LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/B/000090 17/01/2005

31/12/2009 [email protected] Tom DE BEELDE Habitats - GrasslandsHabitats - Heath and Scrublands

protected area‚ renaturation‚ integrated management‚ public-private partnership‚ restoration measure‚ landscape

http://www.natuurpunt.be/nl/natuurbehoud/life-natura-/life-grote-nete_752.aspx


06/01/2015

Lippe-Aue Optimisation of the pSCI "Lippe flood plain between Hamm and Hangfort" LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/D/000057

08/01/2005

28/02/2010 [email protected] Oliver Schmidt-Formann Habitats - FreshwaterWater - River basin management

migratory species‚ protected area‚ renaturation‚ land purchase‚ river management

www.life-lippeaue.de; http://www.hamm.de/lifepluslippeaue.html


06/01/2015

Loutre BeLu 2005-2006 Restoration of European otter habitats (Be & Lu) LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/B/000085 01/10/2005

30/09/2010 [email protected] Donatien Liesse Species - Mammals protected area‚ river‚ restoration measure‚ border www.loutres.be http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2919

06/01/2015

Lower Prut Floodplain Ecological restoration of the Lower Prut Floodplain Natural Park LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/RO/000155

01/11/2005 30/10/2009 [email protected] Fica BOLDEA Habitats - FreshwaterWater - River basin management

endangered species‚ environmental impact of agriculture‚ environmental impact of tourism‚ protected area‚ public awareness campaign‚ integrated management‚ wetland

www.luncaprut.ro http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2953

06/01/2015

STREAM River Avon cSAC: demonstrating strategic restoration and management LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/UK/000143

01/08/2005

30/09/2009 [email protected] Jenny WHEELDON Habitats - FreshwaterWater - River basin management

grassland ecosystem‚ protected area‚ biodiversity‚ restoration measure‚ river management

http://www.streamlife.org.uk/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2939

06/01/2015

WETREST Restoration of Wetlands at Zahorie Lowland LIFE-NAT LIFE05 NAT/SK/000112

01/02/2005

31/12/2008 [email protected] Jaromír ŠIBL Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ wetland‚ forest management‚ restoration measure www.broz.sk/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=2932

06/01/2015

BIOMURA Conservation of biodiversity of the Mura river in Slovenia LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/SI/000066

31/10/2006

31/10/2011 [email protected] Lidija GLOBEVNIK Habitats - FreshwaterWater - River basin management

protected area‚ management plan http://www.biomura.si/ang/default.aspx http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3153

06/01/2015

Cerknisko Jezero Intermittent Cerknica Lake LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/SI/000069

01/01/2007

31/12/2009 tanja.vasilevska@notranjski-park-si Tanja VASILEVSKA Species - BirdsHabitats - Freshwater

lake‚ natural park‚ protected area‚ land purchase‚ restoration measure

http://life.notranjski-park.si/eng/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3154

06/01/2015

CILENTO IN RETE Management of the network of pSCIs and SPAs in the Cilento National Park LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053

01/01/2007

30/12/2010 [email protected] Giuseppe TARALLO; Angelo DE VITA Habitats - CoastalHabitats - Forests

forest ecosystem‚ natural park‚ protected area‚ coastal area‚ social participation‚ management plan‚ information network

www.lifecilentoinrete.eu http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3218

06/01/2015

GREENDANUBE Conservation and integrated management of Danube islands Romania LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/RO/000177

01/09/2006

31/08/2010 [email protected] Viorica ENACHE Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ integrated management‚ island http://www.ostroaveledunarii.ro/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3111

06/01/2015

Kokemäenjoki-LIFE From Ancient to the Present Estuary, Kokemäenjoki Wetland Chain LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/FIN/000129

01/08/2006

31/07/2011 [email protected]; [email protected]

Arto AHOKUMPU; Tapio AALTO Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ wetland‚ restoration measure http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=21245&lan=en


06/01/2015

LIFE Obere Drau II Life in Upper Drau River LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/A/000127 01/09/2006

31/08/2011 [email protected] Norbert SEREINIG Habitats - FreshwaterWater - River basin managementSpecies - Amphibians

protected area‚ river‚ restoration measure‚ mountainous area www.life-drau.at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3149

06/01/2015

Marais de Rochefort Preservation and restoration of the Rochefort marshes biological functions LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/F/000147 01/10/2006 31/12/2010 [email protected] Thierry MICOL Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ renaturation‚ wetland‚ restoration measure http://www.maraisderochefort.lpo.fr http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3139

06/01/2015

INFORMATION PROJECTS

NATURE PROJECTS

Schwäbisches Donautal Swabian Danube valley LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/D/000006

01/10/2006

31/03/2011 [email protected] Norbert KNOPF Species - BirdsHabitats - FreshwaterWater - River basin management

migratory species‚ protected area‚ Agriculture‚ river management http://www.donautal-life-natur.de/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3112

06/01/2015

Verbrakking Westzaan Restoration of brackish ecosystems in Westzaan polder LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/NL/000076

01/09/2006

31/08/2010 [email protected] Kees ROMEIJNDERS Species - FishHabitats - Coastal

protected area‚ coastal area‚ management plan http://www.staatsbosbeheer.nl/Actueel/Dossiers/LIFE%20Nature/LIFE%20Polder%20Westzaan/Project%20Verbrakking%20polder%20Westzaan.aspx


06/01/2015

Vlietmonding Connecting 3 pSCI around the Hoeksche Waard for Root Vole LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/NL/000079

23/02/2006

23/12/2008 [email protected] Mellany VONK Species - Mammals protected area‚ island www.vlietproject.nl http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3129

06/01/2015

Wetland succession Wetlands: challenges and innovation in succession management LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/NL/000074

01/08/2006

31/12/2010 [email protected] T.J. Wams NONE FOUND protected area‚ wetland http://www.natuurmonumenten.nl/natmm-internet/natuurherstel_in_nederland/de_wieden/home.htm


06/01/2015

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

LIFE-NAT LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100

01/08/2006

31/03/2010 [email protected] Michał MIAZGA Species - InvertebratesHabitats - Grasslands

endangered species‚ protected area‚ land purchase http://www.rec.org.pl/life/english_version/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3219

06/01/2015

HORTOBAGY SODIC LAKES Restoration of sodic lake sub-type of the Pannonic salt steppe and marsh habitat in thHortobágy

LIFE-NAT LIFE07 NAT/H/000324

01/01/2009 30/04/2013 [email protected] Zoltan ECSEDI NONE FOUND wetland‚ restoration measure‚ water pollution www.hortobagyte.hu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3366

06/01/2015

P.A.R.C. Petromyzon And River Continuity LIFE-NAT LIFE07/NAT/IT/000413

12/01/2009 31/12/2011 [email protected] Patrizio Scarpellini Biodiversity issues - Ecological coherenceSpecies - Fish

protected area‚ river‚ wetland www.lifeparc.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3342

06/01/2015

REFLOW Re-establishing a natural water flow level in the river system "Mølleåen" LIFE-NAT LIFE07 NAT/DK/000100

01/01/2009 30/06/2011 [email protected] Ida DAHL-NIELSEN Species - Amphibians protected area‚ river http://www.skovognatur.dk/Naturprojekter/Projekter/Hovedstaden/Molleasystemet/


06/01/2015

WETLIFE Restoring Hydrology in Amalvas and Žuvintas Wetlands LIFE-NAT LIFE07/NAT/LT/000530

01/01/2009 31/03/2012 [email protected] Argaudas STOŠKUS Industry-Production - Agriculture - FisheriesHabitats - Freshwater

agricultural method‚ biosphere reserve‚ forest ecosystem‚ wetland‚restoration measure

http://www.wetlife.gpf.lt/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3334

06/01/2015

IShannonSACLAEO Restoration of the Lr.Shannon SAC for Sea lamprey, Atlantic salmon and European otter

LIFE-NAT LIFE07 NAT/IRL/000342

01/01/2009 31/12/2014 [email protected] Laszlo Becsy Species - MammalsHabitats - Freshwater

protected area‚ wetland‚ restoration measure www.mulkearlife.com http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3358

06/01/2015

Elbauen bei Vockerode Improvement and Long-Term Safeguarding of the Natura 2000 Site “Dessau-Wörlitz Elbe Floodplain”

LIFE-NAT LIFE08 NAT/D/000013

01/01/2010 31/12/2018 [email protected] Karl Gutzweiler Habitats - Freshwater river‚ landscape protection‚ restoration measure http://www.wwf.de/maintenance/wwf.html http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3519

06/01/2015

Ems-Dynamik+Habitate Near-natural river and flood plain development of the River Ems at Einen – river dynamics and habitat diversity


01/01/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected]

Franz Reinhard Species - BirdsHabitats - Freshwater

river‚ management plan http://www.ems-life-nrw.de/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3516

06/01/2015

Healthy Heath Propagation and development of dry, moist and wet heath in the Dwingelderveld SPA and pSCI

LIFE-NAT LIFE08 NAT/NL/000192

01/01/2010 01/01/2016 [email protected] Peter PASMAN Habitats - Bogs and MiresHabitats - Heath and Scrublands

environmental impact of agriculture‚ protected area‚ soil degradation‚ groundwater‚ restoration measure

http://www.nationaalpark-dwingelderveld.nl http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3562

06/01/2015

ISAC Irfon Special Area of Conservation Project LIFE-NAT LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201

01/01/2010 15/09/2013 [email protected] Stephen MARSH-SMITH Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ river‚ hydrographic basin‚ restoration measure http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/isac/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3538

06/01/2015

Keiljungfer Optimization of watercourses in Middle Franconia for the Green club-tailed Dragonfly (Ophi-ogomphus cecilia)


01/01/2010 31/12/2013 [email protected] Andreas VON LINDEINER NONE FOUND river‚ biodiversity‚ nature conservation‚ management plan http://www.lbv.de/unsere-arbeit/life-natur-projekte/life-projekt-keiljungfer.html


06/01/2015

Life Projekt "Lippeaue" Improvement of the connection between the river and the floodplain within the pSCI "Lippe floodplain between Hangfort and Hamm"


01/03/2010 28/02/2015 [email protected] Oliver SCHMIDT-FORMANN Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ river‚ periurban space www.hamm.de/en/lifeplus-projekt.html http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3522

06/01/2015

Murerleben Mur experience - Alpine river management Upper Mur LIFE-NAT LIFE08/NAT/A/000614 01/02/2010 01/02/2015 [email protected] Rudolf HORNICH Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ river‚ restoration measure www.murerleben.at/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3514

06/01/2015

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


01/01/2010 31/12/2015 [email protected] Klaus MARKGRAF-MAUÉ Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ river‚ wetland http://www.life-rhein-bislich.de/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3521

06/01/2015

The Dutch Crane Resort Improvement of hydrological conditions in peat bog area Fochteloërveen LIFE-NAT LIFE08/NAT/NL/000193

01/01/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected] Fen VAN ROSSUM Species - BirdsHabitats - Bogs and Mires

eutrophication‚ migratory species‚ protected area‚ wetland‚ restoration measure

https://www.natuurmonumenten.nl/project/natuurherstel-fochtelo%C3%ABrveen


06/01/2015

Vindel River LIFE Restoration of tributaries of the Vindel river combined with monitoring and evaluation oecological responses of species and habitats

LIFE-NAT LIFE08/NAT/S/000266 01/01/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected] Johanna GARDESTRÖM Habitats - Freshwater monitoring‚ river‚ restoration measure http://vindelriverlife.se/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3567

06/01/2015

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

LIFE-NAT LIFE09 NAT/ES/000514


Jesús SANTAMARINA FERNÁNDEZ Habitats - Freshwater river‚ nature conservation http://margalulla.xunta.es/es/life-natura-2000 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3844

06/01/2015

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

01/09/2010 30/12/2016 [email protected] Mariusz SIŁAKOWSKI Habitats - FreshwaterSpecies - Birds

protected area‚ hydrographic basin‚ wetland‚ management plan http://www.renaturyzacja.biebrza.org.pl/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3862

06/01/2015

Rheinauen bei Rastatt Rhine wetlands near Rastatt LIFE-NAT LIFE09 NAT/DE/000004

01/01/2011 31/12/2015 [email protected] Daniel RADDATZ Habitats - Freshwater environmental impact of agriculture‚ protected area‚ river‚ wetlands ecosystem‚ decision making support‚ restoration measure

http://www.rheinauen-rastatt.de/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3859

06/01/2015

WETMAN Conservation and management of freshwater wetlands in Slovenia LIFE-NAT LIFE09 NAT/SI/000374

01/02/2011 01/02/2015 [email protected] Nika DEBELJAK ŠABEC Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ wetland http://www.wetman.si/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3832

06/01/2015

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


01/09/2010 31/12/2014 [email protected] Carles IBAÑEZ Habitats - CoastalLand-use and Planning - Soil and landscape protection

natural park‚ coastal area‚ soil erosion‚ restoration measure http://lifedeltalagoon.eu/lifedeltalagoon/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=3845

06/01/2015

ECOTONE Management of riparian habitats towards the conservation of endangered invertebrates

LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/PT/000073

01/01/2012 01/01/2016 [email protected] José Paulo MARTINS Habitats - Forests endangered species‚ forest ecosystem‚ management plan http://ecotone.pt/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4036

06/01/2015

Emmericher Ward River and floodplain improvement - Emmericher Ward within the EU Bird Area UntereNiederrhein

LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/DE/000010

01/01/2012 31/12/2017 [email protected]

Klaus MARKGRAF-MAUÉ Biodiversity issues - Ecological coherenceHabitats - Freshwater

protected area‚ river http://www.life-rhein-emmerich.de/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4086

06/01/2015

HUMEDALES DE LA MANCHA Restoration of salt flats around 27 endorheic wetland areas in La Mancha LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/ES/000563

01/10/2011 30/09/2014 [email protected] Enrique Jesús CALLEJA HURTADO Species - BirdsHabitats - Freshwater

biosphere reserve‚ endemic species‚ migratory species‚ natural park‚ protected area‚ wetland‚ restoration measure


06/01/2015

HYDROPLAN Restoring the hydrological regime of the Kemeri National Park LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/LV/000160

01/09/2011 31/08/2016 [email protected] Ilze KUZE Habitats - Bogs and Mires protected area‚ biodiversity‚ restoration measure http://hydroplan.daba.gov.lv/public/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4073

06/01/2015

LIFE Continuité écologique LIFE ecological continuity, management of catchment area and associated patrimonial fauna

LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/FR/000192

01/09/2011 01/09/2015 [email protected] Nicolas GALMICHE Biodiversity issues - Ecological coherence protected area‚ river‚ water resources management http://www.life-continuite-ecologique.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4044

06/01/2015

LIFE+ Lavant Habitats network for endangered small fish species LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/AT/000017

01/10/2011 31/12/2015 [email protected] Siegfried JURI Species - Fish endangered species‚ protected area‚ river‚ restoration measure http://www.life-lavant.at/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4037

06/01/2015

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

LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/SI/000142

01/01/2012 31/12/2015 [email protected] Mitja BRILLY Biodiversity issues - Ecological coherence endangered species‚ animal corridor‚ river‚ hydrographic basin‚ survey


06/01/2015

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

LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/IT/000262

19/09/2011 30/06/2017 [email protected] Sara Fusco Habitats - Coastal endangered species‚ protected area‚ coastal area‚ nature conservation

http://lifemaestrale.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4096

06/01/2015

Netzwerk Donau Danube Network LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/AT/000016

01/09/2011 31/12/2017 [email protected] Herfried HARREITER Species - Fish protected area‚ nature conservation‚ environmental impact of energy

http://www.life-netzwerk-donau.at/de/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4039

06/01/2015

OROKLINI Restoration and Management of Oroklini Lake SPA (CY6000010) in Cyprus LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/CY/000716

01/01/2012 31/12/2014 [email protected] Nikolaos Kassinis Habitats - Coastal lake‚ protected area‚ restoration measure http://www.orokliniproject.org/en/home http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4068

06/01/2015

Rur und Kall Rur and Kall – fluvial habitats LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/DE/000008

01/01/2012 31/12/2016 [email protected] Heidrun DÜSSEL-SIEBERT Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ river‚ hydrographic basin‚ restoration measure http://www.rurundkall.de/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4084

06/01/2015

Untere March-Auen Restoration of the Lower Morava floodplains LIFE-NAT LIFE10 NAT/AT/000015

01/10/2011 31/10/2017 [email protected] Franz STEINER Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ renaturation‚ river http://www.life-march.at/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4070

06/01/2015

Salt of Life Urgent Measures to Restore and Secure Long-term Preservation of the Atanasovsko Lake Coastal Lagoon

LIFE-NAT LIFE11 NAT/BG/000362

01/07/2012 31/08/2018 [email protected] Diyana KOSTOVSKA Habitats - Freshwater endangered species‚ lake‚ coastal area‚ restoration measure http://www.saltoflife.biodiversity.bg/bg/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4322

21/07/213

LIFE CORCONTICA - Grasslands and streams restoration in SCI Krkonoše: Future of Nardus grasslands*, Dwarf gentian* & Bullhead

LIFE-NAT LIFE11 NAT/CZ/000490

01/06/2012 30/04/2018 [email protected] Tomáš JANATA Habitats - Grasslands grassland ecosystem‚ protected area‚ restoration measure http://life.krnap.cz/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4290

21/07/2013

MedWetRivers Natura 2000 management and monitoring programme for Mediterranean wetlands and rivers


01/09/2012 01/05/2017 [email protected] Adrian ANGULO CORMENZANA Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ river‚ wetland http://www.lifemedwetrivers.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4276

21/07/2013

LIFE AUFIDUS Habitat restoration actions in the SCI "Ofanto Valley - Lake Capacciotti" LIFE-NAT LIFE11 NAT/IT/000175

01/09/2012 31/12/2017 [email protected] Lattanzio Angela Habitats - Freshwater lake‚ protected area‚ restoration measure http://lifeaufidus.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4333

21/07/2013

Resto-unio Restoration of Unio crassus rivers in the luxemburgish Ardennes LIFE-NAT LIFE11 NAT/LU/000857

01/09/2012 28/02/2018 [email protected] Alexandra ARENDT Habitats - FreshwaterSpecies - Invertebrates

endangered species‚ river‚ restoration measure‚ population dynamics

http://www.unio.lu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4317

21/07/2013

Project MIGRATE - Conservation Status and potential Sites of Community Interest for Tursiops truncatus and Caretta caretta in Malta

LIFE-NAT LIFE11 NAT/MT/001070

0/10/2012 29/04/2016 [email protected] Petra Bianchi Species - MammalsSpecies - Reptiles

endangered species‚ marine ecosystem‚ survey‚ nature conservation

http://lifeprojectmigrate.com/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4298

21/07/2013

Floodplain development Nature development in the Natura2000 upper floodplains of the river IJssel LIFE-NAT LIFE11 NAT/NL/000771

01/06/2012 31/12/2017 [email protected] Andries STOKERHabitats - Freshwater

environmental impact of agriculture‚ eutrophication‚ protected area‚river

https://www.natuurmonumenten.nl/projectbeschrijving-20


21/07/2013

Niebieski korytarz Regi The construction of the blue ecological corridor along the valley of Riga river and its tributaries


01/06/2012 30/09/2017 [email protected] Tomasz PŁOWENS Habitats - FreshwaterSpecies - Fish

animal corridor‚ migratory species‚ protected area‚ river http://www.liferega.zzmiuw.pl/index.php?lang=en http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4286

21/07/2013

LIVEDRAVA Riparian Ecosystem Restoration of the Lower Drava River in Slovenia LIFE-NAT LIFE11 NAT/SI/000882

01/09/2012 31/12/2017 [email protected] Damijan Denac Habitats - Freshwater protected area‚ river‚ restoration measure‚ environmental impact of energy‚ population dynamics


21/07/2013

PIP GB Pearls in Peril - securing the future of the freshwater pearl mussel in Great Britain LIFE-NAT LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383

03/09/2012 02/09/2016 [email protected] Jackie WEBLEY Habitats - FreshwaterSpecies - Invertebrates

endangered species‚ river http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-species/life-projects/pearls-in-peril/


21/07/2013

LIFE RIVERMANAGEMENT Integrated management of river ecosystems in southern Slovakia LIFE-NAT LIFE12 NAT/SK/000488

01/10/2013 30/09/2018 [email protected] Ján Gúgh Habitats - Freshwater freshwater ecosystem‚ river‚ integrated management http://www.podunajsko.sk/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4772

21/07/2013

Life+-Łosoś- Drwęc-PL Improvement of fish living conditions in River Drwęca and its tributaries. LIFE-NAT LIFE12 NAT/PL/000033

01/09/2013 31/08/2017 [email protected] Krzysztof Wolfram Habitats - FreshwaterSpecies - Fish

freshwater ecosystem‚ river‚ restoration measure NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4580

21/07/2013

LIFE HAPPYRIVER Restoring the integrity of freshwater habitats in Alam-Pedja Natura 2000 area- bringinthe River Laeva back to life

LIFE-NAT LIFE12 NAT/EE/000871

01/07/2013 31/12/2017 [email protected] Meelis Tambets Habitats - Freshwater freshwater ecosystem‚ protected area‚ river‚ restoration measure http://www.loodushoid.ee/HAPPYRIVER_347.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4508

21/07/2013

LIFE Saimaa Seal Safeguarding the Saimaa Ringed Seal LIFE-NAT LIFE12 NAT/FI/000367

01/08/2013 31/08/2018 [email protected] Mikko Tiira Species - Mammals fishing industry‚ endemic species‚ freshwater ecosystem‚ environmental assessment

http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/fi/Hankkeet/LifeLuontohankkeet/saimaannorppa/Sivut/default.aspx


21/07/2013

LIFEEMYS Ligurian Invasive Fauna Eradication pro indigenous Emys orbicularis restocking LIFE-NAT LIFE12 NAT/IT/000395

01/07/2013 30/06/2016 [email protected] Claudia Gili Species - Reptiles freshwater ecosystem‚ protected area‚ river‚ restoration measure NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4530

21/07/2013

LIFE+TROTA Trout population RecOvery in central iTAly LIFE-NAT LIFE12 NAT/IT/000940

01/11/2013 31/01/2018 [email protected] ELISABETTA CECCHINI Species - Fish endangered species‚ population dynamics http://www.lifetrota.eu/en/content/mediterranean-trout


21/07/2013

LIFE VIMINE An integrated approach to the sustainable conservation of intertidal salt marshes in the lagoon of Venice


02/09/2013 01/09/2017 [email protected] Luca Palmeri Habitats - Coastal integrated management‚ coastal area‚ nature conservation NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4555

21/07/2013

REDCOHA-LIFE Restoration of Danish Coastal Habitats LIFE-NAT LIFE12 NAT/DK/001073

0/08/2013 31/08/2018 [email protected] Uffe Strandby Habitats - Coastal protected area‚ coastal area‚ restoration measure NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4618

21/07/2013

LIFE Potamo Fauna Conservation of river fauna of Community interest in the Natura 2000 network sites of the Ter, Fluvià and Muga river basins


01/01/2014 31/12/2017 [email protected] Miquel Campos Species - ReptilesSpecies - FishSpecies - AmphibiansBiodiversity issues - Invasive speciesHabitats - FreshwaterSpecies - Invertebrates

endangered species‚ freshwater ecosystem‚ protected area‚ natureconservation

http://www.lifepotamofauna.org/ca/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4628

21/07/2013

LIFE FREE FISH Conservation and restoration of Natura 2000 rheophilic fish species and their migratorroutes in key SCIs in Bulgaria

LIFE-NAT LIFE12 NAT/BG/001011

01/09/2013 30/09/2017 [email protected] Katerina RAKOVSKA Species - Fish endangered species‚ migratory species‚ protected area‚ restorationmeasure‚ population dynamics

http://www.wwf.bg/what_we_do/rivers/free_fish/life_free_fish/?desktop=1


21/07/2013

LIFE Stymfalia Sustainable management and financing of wetland biodiversity - the case of Lake Stymfalia

LIFE-NAT LIFE12 NAT/GR/000275

01/10/2013 29/09/2017 [email protected] Muriel Drukman Habitats- Freshwater protected area ⁄ restoration measure ⁄ wetlands ecosystem http://www.lifestymfalia.gr/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4719

07/01/2015

LIFE PharmDegrade Degradation of pharmaceuticals in wastewaters from nursing homes and hospitals LIFE-NAT LIFE13 ENV/SI/000466

01/09/2014 30/11/2016 [email protected] Alexis Tsalas Services and Trade - Healthcare - Social workRisk management - Human health protectionWater - Waste water treatment

public health‚ water quality improvement‚ waste water treatment‚ hospital waste‚ pollutant elimination‚ hazardous substance

http://lifepharmdegrade.arhel.si/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=5158

07/01/2015

HELVEX-LIFE Cross-Border heath restoration, inland dunes and pools, integrated invasive plant management.

LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/BE/000074

01/07/2014 30/06/2019 [email protected] Ledegen Ignace Habitats ~ Freshwater / Habitats ~ Grasslands / Species ~ Birds /

freshwater ecosystem / grassland ecosystem / natural park / protected area / restoration measure /

http://www.grensparkzk.nl/helvex-life-project-2014-2019


03/11/2014

LIFE Pays mosan Connectivity of the Natura 2000 network across the Belgian-Dutch borders in the Meuse basin

LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/BE/001067

01/07/2014 30/06/2020 [email protected] Joelle Huysecom Biodiversity issues ~ Ecological coherence / Habitats ~ Freshwater / Habitats ~ Rocky and Caves /

biotope network / protected area / restoration measure / river / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5041

03/11/2014

REWETDUNE-LIFE Restoration of wetlands in dune habitats LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/DK/001357

01/08/2014 31/07/2019 [email protected] Jesper Blom-Hansen Habitats ~ Coastal / coastal area / endangered species / protected area / restoration measure / wetland /


03/11/2014

LIFE Hochwald Restoration and conservation of sloping and transition mires in low mountain range Hunsrück (area Hochwald)

LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/DE/000406

01/01/2015 31/12/2020 [email protected] Jochen Krebühl Habitats ~ Bogs and Mires / forest ecosystem / mountainous area / protected area / restoration measure /


03/11/2014

LIFE Feuchtwälder Conservation and restoration of alluvial forests and bog woodland in Brandenburg LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/DE/000091

01/07/2014 30/09/2022 [email protected] Michael ZAUFT Habitats ~ Bogs and Mires / forest ecosystem / protected area / wetland / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5026

03/11/2014

LIFE LimnoPirineus Restoration of lentic habitats and aquatic species of Community interest in high mountains of the Pyrenees


01/06/2014 31/05/2019 [email protected] Marc Ventura Habitats ~ Freshwater / Species ~ Fish / endangered species / freshwater ecosystem / mountainous area / protected area /


03/11/2014

LIFE CIPRÍBER ACTIONS TOWARDS THE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF IBERIAN CYPRINIDS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST


02/06/2014 31/08/2018 [email protected] Carlos Marcos Species ~ Fish / endangered species / endemic species / freshwater ecosystem / river /


03/11/2014

LIFE Madeira Monk Seal Mediterranean monk seal conservation in Madeira and development of a conservation status surveillance system


01/06/2014 30/05/2018 [email protected] Nuria El Khadir Habitats ~ Marine / Species ~ Mammals / endangered species / island / marine ecosystem / monitoring / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4961

03/11/2014

LIFE-PLETERA De-urbanizing and recovering the ecological functioning of the coastal systems of La Pletera


01/07/2014 30/06/2018 [email protected] Xavier QUINTANA Climate change - Energy ~ Reduction of greenhouse gases emissions / Habitats ~ Coastal /

climate protection / coastal area / island / protected area / renaturation / urban area /


03/11/2014

LIFE MIGRATOEBRE Migratory fish recovery and improved management in the final stretch of the Ebre River


01/07/2014 30/06/2018 [email protected] Jordi BORRÀS Biodiversity issues ~ Ecological coherence / Habitats ~ Freshwater / Species ~ Fish /

animal corridor / endangered species / management plan / migratoryspecies / protected area / river /


03/11/2014

LIFE Miera Biodiversity conservation in river Miera LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/ES/000899

01/07/2014 31/12/2017 [email protected] Carlos Sánchez Martínez Biodiversity issues ~ Ecological coherence / Habitats ~ Freshwater /

animal corridor / endangered species / protected area / restoration measure / river management /


03/11/2014

LIFE Jura peatlands Functional rehabilitation of the Jura mountains peatlands of Franche-Comté LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/FR/000762

01/06/2014 31/11/2020 [email protected] Emilie CALVAR Habitats ~ Bogs and Mires / mountainous area / nature conservation / protected area / http://www.life-tourbieres-jura.fr/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4861

03/11/2014

Life+ Marga Haute-Dronne Life + Nature Preservation of Margaritifera margaritifera and restoration of river continuity of the Upper Dronne River

LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/FR/000506

01/06/2014 31/05/2020 [email protected] Frédéric DUPUY Habitats ~ Freshwater / Species ~ Invertebrates / protected area / restoration measure / river / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5016

03/11/2014

LIFE Old-Drava Transboundary cooperation for revitalization of riverine habitat complex in Drava regiowithin Natura 2000 sites

LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/HU/000388

01/06/2014 31/05/2018 [email protected] Tibor Parrag Habitats ~ Freshwater / natural park / protected area / restoration measure / river / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4860

03/11/2014

RAPTOR LIFE Connecting and Restoring habitats for Hen Harrier, Merlin, Atlantic Salmon and Brook Lamprey in Duhallow, Ireland

LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/IE/000769

30/01/2015 30/05/2019 [email protected] Maura Walsh Biodiversity issues ~ Ecological coherence / Species ~ Fish / biotope network / mountainous area / protected area / restoration measure /


03/11/2014

LIFE Kerry Sustainable land use management for the conservation of the freshwater pearl musselLIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/IE/000144

01/07/2014 31/12/2019 [email protected] Niall Redmond Species ~ Invertebrates / endangered species / freshwater ecosystem / land use planning / nature conservation /


03/11/2014

LIFE BARBIE Conservation and management of Barbus meridionalis and Barbus plebejus in the Emilian tributaries of Po River


01/07/2014 31/12/2018 [email protected] Francesco Nonnis Marzano Species ~ Fish / endangered species / freshwater ecosystem / protected area / restoration measure / river /


03/11/2014

LIFE WHALESAFE WHALE protection from Strike by Active cetaceans detection and alarm issue to ships and FErries in pelagos sanctuary


01/10/2014 31/12/2017 [email protected] Mauro Taiuti Habitats ~ Marine / Species ~ Mammals / conflicting use / endangered species / marine conservation area / monitoring system / preventive measure / protected area / risk management / wildlife sanctuary /


03/11/2014

LIFE AGREE coAstal laGoon long teRm managEmEnt LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/IT/000115

01/06/2014 30/04/2019 [email protected] Paola Magri Habitats ~ Coastal / coastal area / integrated management / management plan / protected area / public-private partnership /


03/11/2014

LIFE RES MARIS LIFE RES MARIS - Recovering Endangered habitatS in the Capo Carbonara MARInearea, Sardinia.


01/06/2014 31/05/2018 [email protected] Gian Michele CAMOGLIO Biodiversity issues ~ Invasive species / Habitats ~ Marine / environmental impact of tourism / marine environment / protected area / restoration measure /


03/11/2014

WETLIFE 2 Restoration of proper hydrological conditions in Amalva and Kamanos bogs LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/LT/000084

01/07/2014 31/10/2018 [email protected] Argaudas Stoskus Habitats ~ Bogs and Mires / restoration measure / wetland / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5097

03/11/2014

Life+GP "More water, more raised bogs in the Groote Peel" LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/NL/000079

01/08/2014 01/08/2018 [email protected] Maarten Clercx Habitats ~ Bogs and Mires / natural park / restoration measure / wetland / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4980

03/11/2014

LIFE going up a level More water for wet habitat types in Drents-Friese Wold & Leggelderveld LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/NL/000162

01/06/2014 31/12/2019 [email protected] Anne BOONSTRA Habitats ~ Freshwater / nature reserve / renaturation / wetland / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5090

03/11/2014

ZSiNPK Kielce LIFE PL Protection of valuable natural habitats in Ponidzie LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/PL/000038

01/06/2014 01/12/2018 [email protected] Parki Krajobrazowe Kielce Habitats ~ Freshwater / Habitats ~ Forests / Habitats ~ Grasslands /

botanical conservatory / endangered species / endemic species / environmental impact of tourism / freshwater ecosystem / grassland ecosystem / natural park / protected area / restoration measure /


03/11/2014

AlkFens_S_Plife Conservation of alkaline fens (7230) in southern Poland / Ochrona torfowisk alkalicznych (7230) południowej Polski


01/09/2014 31/06/2018 [email protected] Magdalena MAKLES Habitats ~ Bogs and Mires / eutrophication / grassland ecosystem / restoration measure / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4983

03/11/2014

LIFEDrawaPL Active protection of water-crowfoots habitats and restoration of wildlife corridor in the River Drawa basin in Poland


01/09/2014 31/12/2019 [email protected] Elżbieta HOŁUBCZAT Biodiversity issues ~ Ecological coherence / Habitats ~ Freshwater /

animal corridor / restoration measure / river / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5038

03/11/2014

Life - Lasy Janowskie PL In harmony with nature- Life + for Janowskie Forest LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/PL/000032

01/01/2015 31/12/2019 [email protected] Tomasz Wąsik Habitats ~ Bogs and Mires / conflicting use / forest management / protected area / wetland / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5056

03/11/2014

LIFENaturaSlowinskaPL Conservation of selected habitats and species in Ostoja Słowińska PLH220023 and Pobrzeże Słowińskie PLB220003 Stage I


01/01/2015 31/12/2019 [email protected] Katarzyna WOŹNIAK Habitats ~ Freshwater / Species ~ Fish / migratory species / natural park / protected area / river / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5063

03/11/2014

Renaturyzacja II_LIFE_PL Restoration of hydrological system in the Middle Basin of the Biebrza Valley. Phase II LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/PL/000050

01/06/2014 31/12/2018 [email protected] Roman SKĄPSKI Habitats ~ Freshwater / protected area / restoration measure / river / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5111

03/11/2014

LIFE Saramugo Conservation of the Saramugo (Anaecypris hispanica) in the Guadiana basin (Portugal)

LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/PT/000786

01/07/2014 31/01/2018 [email protected] Rita Alcazar Species ~ Fish / endemic species / freshwater ecosystem / information system / river /


03/11/2014

LIFE-TripleLakes - Triple Lakes Catchment restoration and preventive action for aquatic habitats in a climate change perspective

LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/SE/000116

01/07/2014 30/06/2019 [email protected] Malin BERNHARDSSON Climate change - Energy ~ Adaptation to climate change / Habitats ~ Freshwater /

freshwater ecosystem / lake / protected area / restoration measure / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5033

03/11/2014

Cumbrian BogsLIFE+ Restoration of degraded lowland raised bogs on three Cumbrian SCI/SACs LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/UK/000443

01/08/2014 31/12/2019 [email protected]

Dawn Isaac Habitats ~ Bogs and Mires / protected area / restoration measure / wetland / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4948

03/11/2014

THATS-LIFE Restoring Humberhead Peatlands: LIFE+ Project LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/UK/000451

01/07/2014 31/06/2017 [email protected]

Craig Thomas Habitats ~ Bogs and Mires / protected area / restoration measure / wetland / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=5075

03/11/2014

LIFE+ Wilderness Wachau LIFE+ Wilderness Wetland Wachau LIFE-NAT LIFE13 NAT/AT/000301

01/01/2015 31/12/2020 [email protected] Radinger Marius Habitats ~ Freshwater / protected area / restoration measure / river / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4917

03/11/2014

BIOAQUAE Biodiversity Improvement Of Aquatic Alpine Ecosystems LIFE-BIO LIFE11 BIO/IT/000020 01/09/2012 31/08/2017 [email protected] Bruno Bassano Biodiversity issues - Invasive species natural park‚ biodiversity‚ mountainous area http://www.bioaquae.eu/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4355

21/07/2013

AQUALIFE Development of an innovative and user-friendly indicator system for biodiversity in groundwater dependent ecosystems

LIFE-BIO LIFE12 BIO/IT/000231 01/09/2013 31/08/2018 [email protected]

MONICA DI FRANCESCO Habitats - Freshwater freshwater ecosystem‚ protected area‚ biodiversity‚ monitoring system‚ indicator‚ groundwater

http://aqualife.regione.abruzzo.it/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4519

21/07/2013

LIFE CWR Ecological Restoration and Conservation of Praia da Vitória Coastal Wet Green Infrastructure

LIFE-BIO LIFE12 BIO/PT/000110

01/08/2013 31/07/2018 [email protected] Elisabete Nogueira Habitats - Coastal coastal area‚ restoration measure NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4745

21/07/2013

LIFE RIPISILVANATURA Strengthening associated biodiversity of habitat 92A0 and control of Invasive Alien Species in the Segura River.

BIO LIFE13 BIO/ES/001407

01/09/2014 31/08/2019 [email protected] Adolfo MÉRIDA ABRIL Biodiversity issues ~ Invasive species / Habitats ~ Forests / forest ecosystem / management plan / protected area / river / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj id=4975

03/11/2014

LIFE Giant Pearl Mussel Conservation of the Giant Pearl Mussel in Europe BIO LIFE13 BIO/FR/001162

01/07/2014 01/07/2020 [email protected] Karl Matthias Wantzen Species ~ Invertebrates / endangered species / freshwater ecosystem / nature conservation / NONE FOUND http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=4889

03/11/2014

BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS


Annex 2

Policy Matrix

2000

/60/EC

WFD

2006

/7/E

C

Bath

ing

2009

/147

/EC

Bird

s 92

/43/

EEC

H

abita

t 98

/83/

EC

Drin

king

96

/82/

EC

The

Maj

or

85/3

37/E

EC

EIA

91

/271

/EEC

U

rban

11

07/2

009

Plan

t 20

10/7

5/EU

In

tegr

ated

91

/676

/EEC

N

itrat

es

2007

/60/

EC

Floo

ds

2009

/28/

EC

Ren

ewab

le

2013

EU

St

rate

gy o

n 20

06/1

18/E

C

2008

/105

/EC

EQ

S

othe

r

Tota

l Cos

t

EU

Cos

t

Com

men

ts

1 LIFE05 ENV/DK/000155 AGWAPLAN 1 1 1,617,795 791,8202 LIFE05 ENV/F/000058 AWARE 1 1,070,021 440,1273 LIFE05 ENV/IT/000846 BATTLE 1 1 1 2,672,885 965,9024 LIFE05 ENV/E/000302 Ecodiptera 1 1 1,439,054 719,5275 LIFE05 ENV/GR/000245 EnviFriendly 1 1 2,151,531 1,075,7656 LIFE05 ENV/IT/000894 ESTRUS 1 1,478,711 739,3557 LIFE05 ENV/E/000289 FERTIGREEN 1 1 587,622 287,3178 LIFE05 ENV/UK/000126 FORMOSE 1 1,393,561 181,0229 LIFE05 ENV/E/000313 gEa 1 642,119 192,63510 LIFE05 ENV/B/000517 INSIMEP 1 1 2,256,913 667,50911 LIFE05 ENV/UK/000137 NITRABAR 1 1 1 1,067,414 518,67012 LIFE05 ENV/DK/000145 Odense PRB - AgriPoM 1 488,117 210,84113 LIFE05 ENV/E/000292 OLIVEWASTE 1 4,566,361 2,065,58514 LIFE05 ENV/IT/000868 PERBIOF 1 1 637,270 318,63515 LIFE05 ENV/UK/000121 PROMOTHE MBR 1 1 1 2,883,870 406,96516 LIFE05 ENV/UK/000127 QUERCUS 1 9,712,865 1,324,04517 LIFE05 ENV/IT/000812 RIWAC 1 6,236,754 1,044,00018 LIFE05 ENV/F/000067 SOUND SLUDGE 1 1,308,578 687,62619 LIFE05 ENV/H/000418 SUMANAS 1 1,752,743 715,00820 LIFE05 ENV/B/000510 TOPPS 1 2,666,941 1,259,10521 LIFE05 ENV/D/000182 WAgriCo 1 1 1 5,278,610 2,639,30522 LIFE05 ENV/E/000256 ZERO PLUS 1 2,276,386 1,136,75923 LIFE06 ENV/IT/000255 A.S.A.P 1 1 1,993,946 862,75124 LIFE06 ENV/F/000133 ArtWet 1 1 4,555,702 1,916,99325 LIFE06 ENV/F/000132 CONCERT 'EAU 1 1 1 2,801,600 1,394,36726 LIFE06 ENV/E/000044 ES-WAMAR 6,951,426 2,624,45527 LIFE06 ENV/D/000461 FLOODSCAN 1 1 1 1,947,803 959,775 INSPIRE directive28 LIFE06 ENV/F/000158 ISONITRATE 1 1 1 753,774 376,88729 LIFE06 ENV/D/000478 IWPM 1 12,429,217 1,899,02930 LIFE06 ENV/IT/000235 Kolisoon 1 1 570.043 285,02131 LIFE06 ENV/D/000458 LOTECOTEC 1 2,994,160 850,47332 LIFE06 ENV/D/000485 Moveable HEPP 1 7,858,296 1,695,37533 LIFE06 ENV/UK/000401 MR Mo ToWFO 1 433,385 034 LIFE06 ENV/B/000359 MULTIBARDEM 1 1 1,400,640 416,70035 LIFE06 ENV/UK/000409 OpenMI-LIFE 1 1 3,705,712 1,849,99136 LIFE06 ENV/D/000460 SLUDGE2ENERGY 1 4,206,682 504,60037 LIFE06 ENV/DK/000229 TREASURE 1 4,763,782 1,960,25738 LIFE06 ENV/NL/000167 WET 1 1 2,632,603 1,176,24039 LIFE07 ENV/E/000826 AQUA-PLANN PROJECT 1 988,564 333,30440 LIFE07 ENV/B/000022 BACad 1 1,495,041 633,81941 LIFE07 ENV/S/000908 GreenClimeAdapt 1 1 3,166,264 1,582,93242 LIFE07 ENV/SLO/000725 INCOME 1 1 1,804,915 834,86043 LIFE07 ENV/PL/000605 Lake recult. in Gniezno 1 431,861 215,93044 LIFE07 ENV/L/000540 M3 1 2,054,739 1,238,99045 LIFE07 ENV/NL/000576 PHARMAFILTER 1 1 2,423,889 1,092,94546 LIFE07 ENV/IT/000439 PURIFAST 1 2,234,335 1,106,91747 LIFE07 ENV/IT/000421 RE-WASTE 1 1,546,500 773,25048 LIFE07 ENV/IT/000497 SALT 1 1,447,112 795,43449 LIFE07 ENV/F/000173 SEMEAU 1 1 1,341,400 670,70050 LIFE07 ENV/GR/000278 Soil Sustainability(So.S) 1 1,572,745 771,87251 LIFE07 ENV/IT/000475 TRUST 1 1 1 1 1 1,838,380 898,380 INSPIRE Directive52 LIFE07 ENV/B/000038 WALPHY 1 1 2,861,641 919,161

ENV and INF PROJECTS Annex VI of WFD Related Directives

53 LIFE07 ENV/E/000845 WATER CHANGE 1 1,238,280 616,02054 LIFE08 ENV/E/000099 AQUAVAL 1 1,562,532 773,91655 LIFE08 ENV/FIN/000609 CATERMASS 1 1 1 2,860,775 1,408,52156 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000390 ECOMAWARU 1 960,122 942,37257 LIFE08 ENV/PL/000517 EH-REK 1 1,421,597 665,78858 LIFE08 ENV/PL/000519 EKOROB 1 1 1 1,330,249 665,14959 LIFE08 ENV/E/000117 ENSAT 1 1,240,358 597,37260 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399 EnvEurope 1 1 6,067,876 3,003,93861 LIFE08 ENV/E/000118 GREENLYSIS 1 1,594,833 797,41662 LIFE08 ENV/LV/000451 HydroClimateStrategyRiga 1 662,240 658,54063 LIFE08 ENV/GR/000570 HydroSense 1 1 1,756,563 851,15664 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000413 INHABIT 1 2,264,341 1,118,49365 LIFE08 ENV/CY/000457 INTER-WASTE 1 1,471,838 735,33066 LIFE08 ENV/S/000272 ITEST 1 1,226,800 613,40067 LIFE08 ENV/D/000021 MAGPlan 1 1 3,459,350 1,722,62568 LIFE08 ENV/E/000114 POWER 1 1,431.15 655,72569 LIFE08 ENV/GR/000551 PURE 1 1 2,404,277 1,039,63870 LIFE08 ENV/F/000489 PYROBIO 1 1,697,573 846,00771 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000406 REWETLAND 1 1 3,706,632 1,450,56672 LIFE08 ENV/E/000132 Waste Joint Management 1 555,879 277,94073 LIFE08 INF/IT/000308 WATACLIC 1 767,545 383,78674 LIFE08 ENV/CY/000460 WATER 1 1 1 1 1 909,228 447,418 Solid Waste Directive75 LIFE08 INF/SK/000243 WATLIFE 1 1,056,895 527,27276 LIFE08 ENV/B/000042 WEISS 1 984,428 468,51777 LIFE08 ENV/CY/000455 WINEC 1 1 1,371,357 682,95478 LIFE08 ENV/P/000237 WW4ENVIRONMENT 1 784,442 382,22179 LIFE08 ENV/B/000046 LVM-BIOcells 1 1,868,173 862,11280 LIFE09 ENV/GR/000296 Adapt2Change 1 2,576,548 1,288,27481 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000456 AG_UAS 1 2,384,688 1,192,34482 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000208 AQUA 1 1 1 2,634,689 1,310,90183 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000075 AQUA 1 807,720 403,86084 LIFE09 ENV/RO/000612 CLEANWATER 1 1 698,319 300,62285 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000431 CREAMAgua 1 1 1,884,304 898,67786 LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569 GISBLOOM 1 1 3,060,856 1,503,63887 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000447 The Green Deserts 1 2,074,518 1,007,99788 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000472 LOS TOLLOS 1 7,947,463 3,123,23689 LIFE09 ENV/DE/000011 MY FAVOURITE RIVER 1 5,841,093 2,199,50590 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000136 PALM 1 1,589,690 784,59591 LIFE09 INF/UK/000032 RESTORE 1 1 1,794,567 872,75392 LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299 SOL-BRINE 193 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000467 UFTEC 1 1 2,156,157 1,050,78994 LIFE09 ENV/FI/000568 VOCless waste water 1 1 1,840,026 915,01395 LIFE09 ENV/BE/000407 VOPAK-EXPERO3 1 1,341,968 654,73496 LIFE09 ENV/FR/000593 WaterRtoM 1 1 799,594 399,97997 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000056 WIZ 1 1 1,896,540 942,37098 LIFE09 ENV/UK/000026 Hydro4LIFE 1 1,282,637 641,81899 LIFE10 ENV/ES/000520 AQUAENVEC 1 1,594,413 789,456

100 LIFE10 ENV/ES/000521 AQUATIK 1 1 1,564,259 775,879101 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000380 AQUOR 1 1 1,814,548 693,348102 LIFE10 ENV/GR/000601 CHARM 1 1 2,708,267 1,337,679103 LIFE10 ENV/CY/000723 CYPADAPT 1 1,358,847 678,423104 LIFE10 ENV/BE/000699 DEMETER 1 1 1,907,092 952,353 Soil Framework Directive105 LIFE10 ENV/ES/000511 EUTROMED 1 1,504,486 750,742106 LIFE10 ENV/SK/000086 Geohealth 1 418,112 207,273107 LIFE10 ENV/DE/000158 HWC 1 1 16,746,974 3,446,821108 LIFE10 INF/MT/000092 InfoNitrates 1 2.212.475 689,339109 LIFE10 INF/MT/000091 Investing in Water 1 336,329 166,542110 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369 LCA4PORTS 1 1,091,650 485,300111 LIFE10 ENV/ES/000478 NITRATES 1 2,420,765 1,147,132

112 LIFE10 ENV/NL/000028 OMZET 1 14,447,825 1,552,512113 LIFE10 INF/FI/000052 Saimaan lohikalojen 1 367,170 180,635114 LIFE10 INF/IT/000282 SHOWW 1 1,432,211 716,105115 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000347 UNIZEO 1 2,450,166 1,218,518116 LIFE10 ENV/ES/000530 URWASTECH 1 1,666,009 756,174117 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000394 WARBO 1 2,000,785 860,887118 LIFE10 ENV/GR/000594 WASTEREUSE 1 1 1,384,799 679,399119 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000308 WW-SIP 1 1 3,915,770 1,927,274120 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000321 ZeoLIFE 1 1 2,150,839 1,044,513121 LIFE10 INF/SI/000135 AQUAVIVA 1 1 1 1 548,141.00 € 235,314.00 €122 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000503 WATOP 1 967,956.00 € 481,887.00 €123 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000538 PLATAFORMA CENTRAL IBERIUM 1 1 15,779,116.00 € 2,577,014.00 €124 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000569 MINAQUA 1 1,288,337.00 € 626,859.00 €125 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000579 REAGRITECH 1 1 2,168,571.00 € 1,083,942.00 €126 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000590 ROEM-plus 1 1 1 1 1,933,584.00 € 922,416.00 €127 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000606 aWARE 1 1 2,631,247.00 € 1,301,840.00 € Water Reclamation and Reuse Directive128 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000615 IRRIGESTLIFE 1 2,817,737.00 € 1,184,213.00 €129 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000621 IES 1 1,015,368.00 € 506,484.00 €130 LIFE11 ENV/FI/000909 CITYWATER 1 1 1 1 1,158,515.00 € 578,909.00 € 2002/2099/EC131 LIFE11 ENV/FR/000740 Biovalsan 1 6,762,872.00 € 2,380,543.00 €132 LIFE11 ENV/FR/000742 BIOTTOPE 1 1 1 1 2,417,166.00 € 1,193,583.00 € Directive 2006/44/EC133 LIFE11 ENV/FR/000745 MAC EAU 1 1,886,476.00 € 930,738.00 €134 LIFE11 ENV/FR/000739 SUSTAIN- ICT 1 1,772,946.00 € 725,139.00 €135 LIFE11 ENV/IT/000004 Lambro vivo 1 1 2,673,872.00 € 566,686.00 €136 LIFE11 ENV/IT/000035 WSTORE2 1 1,576,521.00 € 686,210.00 €137 LIFE11 ENV/IT/000075 Biosur 1 1,279,555.00 € 637,655.00 €138 LIFE11 ENV/IT/000156 ReQpro 1 1 698,600.00 € 343,148.00 €139 LIFE11 ENV/NL/000785 CENIRELTA 1 2,478,548.00 € 1,239,274.00 €140 LIFE11 ENV/NL/000788 Hydrochip 1 1,428,835.00 € 713,988.00 €141 LIFE11 ENV/PL/000453 Spalarniapirolityczna OS 1 2,657,810.00 € 1,178,905.00 €142 LIFE11 ENV/SK/001019 Hydro-climate recovery 1 1 1,431,535.00 € 690,267.00 €143 LIFE11 ENV/SK/001023 KRASCAVE 1 1,244,326.00 € 613,238.00 €144 LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392 CSP 1 1 3,963,025.00 € 1,973,546.00 € Marine Strategy Framework Directive145 LIFE11 ENV/IT/000243 RII - LIFE 1 1 1,199,250.00 € 599,250.00 €146 LIFE11 ENV/DK/000889 Stream of Usserod 1 1 2,530,689.00 € 931,728.00 €147 LIFE11 ENV/GR/000975 FLIRE 1 1 1,617,734.00 € 808,041.00 €148 LIFE11 ENV/FI/000911 Urban Oases - Keidas 1 1 1 1 3,411,690.00 € 1,702,770.00 € Marine Strategy Framework Directive149 LIFE11 ENV/FR/000746 SeineCityPark 1 1 1 1 3,473,266.00 € 1,728,666.00 € Marine Strategy Framework Directive150 LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839 BUCEFALOS 1 3,681,067.00 € 1,634,311.00 €151 LIFE11 INF/PL/000480 AGROSAFE 1 534,483.00 € 263,504.00 €152 LIFE11 INF/AT/000902 SAVING DANUBE STURGEONS 1 770,836.00 € 384,143.00 €153 LIFE12 ENV/PT/001154 LIFE HyMemb 1 1154 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000184 LIFE WaterReuse 1 1,688,437.00 € 844,218.00 €155 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000250 LIFE-ETAD 1 1 2,650,738.00 € 1,325,173.00 €156 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000265 LIFE ADNATUR 1 1 1 1,560,754.00 € 745,502.00 €157 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000332 LIFE NECOVERY 1 1 1,813,054.00 € 904,802.00 €158 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000361 LIFE-REMPHOS 1 988,375.00 € 494,187.00 €159 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000441 LIFE PHORWater 1 1,275,064.00 € 637,532.00 €160 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000477 Lo2x 1 1 1 2,948,698.00 € 1,474,348.00 €161 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000545 LIFE WIRE 1 1 1,724,617.00 € 862,306.00 €162 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000557 LIFE RURAL SUPPLIES 1 1 1 774,122.00 € 382,560.00 €163 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000632 LIFE-OFREA 1 1 1 797,976.00 € 398,988.00 € Reuse Water Directive164 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000651 LIFE+ InSiTrate 1 1 1 1 1,211,634.00 € 590,841.00 €165 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000684 LIFE-PURIWAT 1 1 1 1,238,408.00 € 499,175.00 € 2000/54/EC166 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000687 LIFE SANePLAN 1 1 4 1,513,376.00 € 756,688.00 € 2003/4/EC, 2008/56/EC, 2008/114/EC, 2007/2/EC INSPIRE167 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000901 LIFE+ ZELDA 1 1 1 2,301,553.00 € 1,021,775.00 € 2008/56/CE EMSFD168 LIFE12 ENV/ES/001140 RIVERLINK 1 3,424,250.00 € 1,655,555.00 €169 LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 LIFE+ 2012 N-SINK 1 1 1,188,260.00 € 594,130.00 € Nitrogen Removal Directive170 LIFE12 ENV/FR/000530 LIFE-PHYTOBARRE 1 1 1,393,028.00 € 674,658.00 €171 LIFE12 ENV/IT/000120 LIFE BIOCLOC 1 1 1,196,584.00 € 594,417.00 €172 LIFE12 ENV/IT/000419 LIFE of water is man life 1 1,206,612.00 € 603,306.00 €173 LIFE12 ENV/IT/000652 LIFE CLEANSED 1 1,655,370.00 € 827,683.00 €

174 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000309 LIFE DYES4EVER 1 919,740.00 € 459,244.00 €175 LIFE12 ENV/SI/000443 LIFE RusaLCA 1 852,388.00 € 426,192.00 €176 LIFE12 ENV/SI/000783 LIFE Stop CyanoBloom 1 1,300,963.00 € 648,792.00 €177 LIFE12 ENV/AT/000128 LIFE- URBANLAKE 1 1 1 1 3,616,050.00 € 1,637,900.00 € Urban Environment: Decision 1411/2001/EG178 LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 LIFE+ IMAGINE 1 1 1 1,521,258.00 € 754,628.00 € INSPIRE Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive179 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000685 LIFE ALBUFERA 1 1 1 1,446,234.00 € 723,117.00 €180 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000536 LIFE MEDACC 1 1 2,548,841.00 € 1,266,208.00 €181 LIFE13 ENV/SI/000466 PharmDegrade 1 1 1,216,874.00€ 1,210,097.00€ 182 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000539 IRRIMAN 1 1 1 1 1,713,654.00 € 840,193.00 €183 LIFE13 ENV/BE/000212 LIFE-GREEN4GREY 1 1 4,352,355.00 € 1,671,415.00 €184 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000341 LIFE TRIVERS 1 1,407,943.00 € 682,962.00 €185 LIFE13 ENV/ES/001182 LIFE EBRO-ADMICLIM 1 1 1 1,124,341.00 € 1,124,341.00 €186 LIFE13 ENV/IT/000169 LIFE RINASCE 1 1 1 2,076,390.00 € 941,390.00 €187 LIFE13 ENV/UK/000497 LIFE WaterLIFE 1 2,249,728.00 € 1,124,414.00 €188 LIFE13 ENV/CZ/000475 LIFE2Water 1 600,015.00 € 298,007.00 €189 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000779 LIFE+ WOGAnMBR 1 1,232,647.00 € 616,323.00 €190 LIFE13 ENV/ES/001353 LIFE MEMORY 1 2,102,327.00 € 1,046,101.00 €191 LIFE13 ENV/ES/001019 LIFE SMART Hospital 1 4 1,794,999.00 € 756,838.00 € 2010/31/EC, 2008/98/EC, 2004/12/EC, 94/62/EC192 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000704 LIFE-RENEWAT 1 1 1,366,044.00 € 621,362.00 €193 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000488 LIFE-Aquemfree 1 1,863,566.00 € 911,356.00 € 2009/128/EC194 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000800 LIFE+ TL-BIOFER 1 1,097,092.00 € 548,546.00 €195 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000377 LIFE ECOdigestion 1 1 1,027,536.00 € 438,671.00 € 2008/98/CE196 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000970 LIFE RELEACH 1 2,145,730.00 € 1,069,986.00 €197 LIFE13 ENV/FR/000711 BioSolWaRe-LIFE 1 1 2,322,837.00 € 1,146,793.00 €198 LIFE13 ENV/NL/000178 Life+ISR 1 7,268,722.00 € 1,634,161.00 €199 LIFE13 ENV/DK/000668 LIFE NOVADRAIN 1 1 1 1,705,308.00 € 837,653.00 €200 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000227 LIFE REGENERA LIMIA 1 1 2,053,808.00 € 858,741.00 €201 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000420 LIFE-AQUASEF 1 1 1,899,318.00 € 919,744.00 €202 LIFE13 ENV/IT/001069 LIFE - MERMAIDS 1 1,287,123.00 € 643,561.00 € 2008/56/EC 203 LIFE13 ENV/IT/000470 LIFE ECODEFATTING 1 4 1,035,556.00 € 517,778.00 € 2002/231/EC, 96/64/EC, 2002/231/EC, 96/61/EC204 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000067 LIFE EXTRUCLEAN 2 1,473,010.00 € 674,254.00 € 2008/98/EC, 94/62/EC Packaging and Packaging Waste205 LIFE13 ENV/ES/001138 LIFE TEXTILEATHER 1 942,842.00 € 471,419.00 € 2008/1/EC206 LIFE13 ENV/IT/000840 GREEN LIFE 1 2,301,616.00 € 1,124,181.00 € 67/548/CEE European Dangerous Substances Directive207 LIFE13 ENV/HR/000580 LIFE.SU.SA.FRUIT 1 1 1 1,839,378.00 € 901,938.00 €208 LIFE13 ENV/ES/001048 LIFE ENVIPHAGE 1 1 820,622.00 € 410,310.00 €209 LIFE13 ENV/ES/001251 LIFE+ IntegralCarbon 1 3,866,342.00 € 1,919,325.00 €210 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000751 LIFE TRANSFOMEM 1 956,077.00 € 477,488.00 € 2008/98/CE211 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000665 LIFEAGROINTEGRA 1 1,561,766.00 € 774,642.00 € 2009/128/EC212 LIFE13 ENV/FR/000851 LIFE+ EfficientShip 1 1,245,666.00 € 622,833.00 € DESP 97/23

NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS1 LIFE05 NAT/PL/000101 Ardmouperl 1 1 2,303,363 1,132,0312 LIFE05 NAT/IT/000026 Fortore 2005 1 1 1,590,000 715,5003 LIFE05 NAT/DK/000153 Houting 1 1 13,385,913 8,031,5484 LIFE05 NAT/B/000090 Life Grote Nete 1 1 1 3,120,974 1,560,4705 LIFE05 NAT/D/000057 Lippe-Aue 1 1 5,514,594 2,757,2976 LIFE05 NAT/B/000085 Loutre BeLu 2005-2006 1 1 3,891,664 1,945,8327 LIFE05 NAT/UK/000143 STREAM 1 1 1,449,430 579,7728 LIFE06 NAT/SI/000066 BIOMURA 1 1 1 1 1,975,519 969,3859 LIFE06 NAT/FIN/000129 Kokemäenjoki-LIFE 1 1 1 3,408,558 1,704,27910 LIFE06 NAT/A/000127 LIFE Obere Drau II 1 3,768,262 1,531,30511 LIFE06 NAT/D/000005 LIFE-Projekt Maifisch 1 1 956,348 478,17412 LIFE07 NAT/IRL/000342 IShannonSACLAEO 1 1,740,818 869,83013 LIFE07/NAT/IT/000413 P.A.R.C. 1 1 1,511,286 755,50014 LIFE07 NAT/DK/000100 REFLOW 1 1 4,669,642 2,334,82115 LIFE08 NAT/D/000013 Elbauen bei Vockerode 1 1 1 2,184,912 1,094,45616 LIFE08 NAT/D/000008 Ems-Dynamik+Habitate 1 1 2,843,346 1,421,67317 LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201 ISAC 1 1,626,458 813,22918 LIFE08 NAT/D/000010 Life Projekt "Lippeaue" 1 1 1 6,011,951 3,005,97519 LIFE08/NAT/A/000614 Murerleben 1 1 2,784,131 1,392,06520 LIFE08 NAT/D/000007 Nebenrinne Bislich 1 1 2,897,526 1,448,76321 LIFE08/NAT/S/000266 Vindel River LIFE 1 1 1 1 1 2,675,513 1,337,75722 LIFE09 NAT/ES/000514 MARGAL ULLA 1 1

23 LIFE09 INF/GR/000319 PROM.SUS.FIS.PR.PRESPA 1 752,085 355,99224 LIFE09 NAT/DE/000004 Rheinauen bei Rastatt 1 1 1 9,933,256 4,698,71625 LIFE10 NAT/PT/000073 ECOTONE 1 1 599,161 449,37126 LIFE10 NAT/DE/000010 Emmericher Ward 1 1 1 3,278,135 1,538,87727 LIFE10 NAT/FR/000192 LIFE Continuité écologique 1 1 1 3,344,533 1,598,61728 LIFE10 NAT/AT/000017 LIFE+ Lavant 1 1 3,600,100 1,541,40829 LIFE10 NAT/SI/000142 Ljubljanica connects 1 1 1 1,188,015 584,38230 LIFE10 NAT/AT/000016 Netzwerk Donau 1 131 LIFE10 NAT/DE/000008 Rur und Kall 1 1 3,976,076 1,423,10832 LIFE10 NAT/AT/000015 Untere March-Auen 1 1 1 3,491,774 1,745,88733 LIFE11 NAT/BG/000362 Salt of Life 1 1 2,013,027.00 € 1,450,558.00 €34 LIFE11 NAT/CZ/000490 LIFE CORCONTICA 1 3,588,573.00 € 2,691,429.00 €35 LIFE11 NAT/ES/000699 MedWetRivers 1 1 1 1 2,744,394.00 € 1,284,376.00 € 2007/2/EC Directive36 LIFE11 NAT/IT/000175 LIFE AUFIDUS 1 1 2,354,000.00 € 1,765,500.00 €37 LIFE11 NAT/LU/000857 Resto-unio 1 1 2,057,068.00 € 1,028,534.00 €38 LIFE11 NAT/NL/000771 Floodplain development 1 1 1 3,268,719.00 € 1,634,355.00 € 2004/18/EC39 LIFE11 NAT/PL/000424 Niebieski korytarz Regi 1 1 5,407,999.00 € 2,703,999.00 €40 LIFE11 NAT/SI/000882 LIVEDRAVA 1 1 4,409,483.00 € 2,188,741.00 €41 LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383 PIP GB 1 1 4,617,398.00 € 2,293,990.00 €42 LIFE11 BIO/IT/000020 BIOAQUAE 1 1,353,540.00 € 676,770.00 €43 LIFE12 NAT/GR/000275 LIFE Stymfalia 1 144 LIFE12 NAT/BG/001011 LIFE FREE FISH 1 1 411,057.00 € 205,528.00 €45 LIFE12 NAT/DK/001073 REDCOHA-LIFE 1 1 2,845,912.00 € 1,422,956.00 €46 LIFE12 NAT/ES/001091 life Potamo Fauna 1 1,900,262.00 € 949,981.00 €47 LIFE12 NAT/EE/000871 LIFE HAPPYRIVER 1 1 911,529.00 € 455,764.00 €48 LIFE12 NAT/FI/000367 LIFE Saimaa Seal 1 5,261,612.00 € 3,946,209.00 €49 LIFE12 NAT/IT/000395 LIFEEMYS 1 1,323,496.00 € 580,120.00 €50 LIFE12 NAT/IT/000940 LIFE+ TROTA 1 1,557,187.00 € 778,592.00 €51 LIFE12 NAT/IT/001122 LIFE VIMINE 1 2,024,295.00 € 1,396,763.00 €52 LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845 LIFE BaĦAR for N2K 1 2,612,810.00 € 1,306,405.00 €53 LIFE12 NAT/PL/000033 Life+-Łosoś- Drwęc-PL 1 1 3,401,394.00 € 1,700,697.00 €54 LIFE12 NAT/SK/000488 LIFE RIVERMANAGEMENT 1 1 1,785,675.00 € 892,837.00 €55 LIFE12 BIO/IT/000231 AQUALIFE 1 1,705,964.00 € 848,585.00 €56 LIFE12 BIO/PT/000110 LIFE CWR 1 1 2,163,042.00 € 1,081,521.00 €57 LIFE13 NAT/BE/000074 HELVEX-LIFE 1 3,227,731.00 € 1,613,865.00 €58 LIFE13 NAT/BE/001067 LIFE Pays mosan 1 1 15,632,867.00 € 11,724,650.00 €59 LIFE13 NAT/DK/001357 REWETDUNE-LIFE 1 2,873,843.00 € 1,724,305.00 €60 LIFE13 NAT/DE/000406 LIFE Hochwald 1 2,054,593.00 € 1,027,296.00 €61 LIFE13 NAT/DE/000091 LIFE Feuchtwälder 1 1 5,118,408.00 € 3,838,806.00 €62 LIFE13 NAT/ES/001210 LIFE LimnoPirineus 1 2,619,047.00 € 1,443,880.00 €63 LIFE13 NAT/ES/000772 LIFE CIPRÍBER 1 1 2,429,049.00 € 1,214,524.00 €64 LIFE13 NAT/ES/000237 LIFE MIGRATOEBRE 1 1 1,568,574.00 € 784,285.00 €65 LIFE13 NAT/ES/000899 LIFE Miera 1 1 1,650,105.00 € 825,052.00 €66 LIFE13 NAT/FR/000762 LIFE Jura peatlands 1 1 1 8,051,163.00 € 4,025,582.00 € 2011/92/EU67 LIFE13 NAT/FR/000506 Life+ Marga Haute-Dronne 1 1 5,855,204.00 € 2,927,602.00 €68 LIFE13 NAT/HU/000388 LIFE Old-Drava 1 1 1 833,985.00 € 623,674.00 €69 LIFE13 NAT/IE/000769 RAPTOR LIFE 1 3,075,846.00 € 1,537,923.00 €70 LIFE13 NAT/IE/000144 LIFE Kerry 1 1 1 5,010,581.00 € 2,439,924.00 €71 LIFE13 NAT/IT/001129 LIFE BARBIE 1 2,189,378.00 € 1,085,025.00 €72 LIFE13 NAT/IT/000115 LIFE AGREE 1 1 4,381,801.00 € 2,190,900.00 €73 LIFE13 NAT/LT/000084 WETLIFE 2 1 1 1,564,386.00 € 1,173,289.00 €74 LIFE13 NAT/NL/000079 Life+GP 1 1 5,561,553.00 € 2,224,621.00 €75 LIFE13 NAT/NL/000162 LIFE going up a level 1 1 6,025,003.00 € 2,935,381.00 €76 LIFE13 NAT/PL/000038 ZSiNPK Kielce LIFE PL 1 1,161,649.00 € 580,824.00 €77 LIFE13 NAT/PL/000024 AlkFens_S_Plife 1 1,003,129.00 € 501,564.00 €78 LIFE13 NAT/PL/000009 LIFEDrawaPL 1 6,730,292.00 € 3,365,146.00 €79 LIFE13 NAT/PL/000032 Life - Lasy Janowskie PL 1 971,855.00 € 485,927.00 €80 LIFE13 NAT/PL/000018 LIFENaturaSlowinskaPL 1 1 2,100,371.00 € 1,050,185.00 €81 LIFE13 NAT/PL/000050 Renaturyzacja II_LIFE_PL 1 1 6,641,806.00 € 3,320,903.00 €82 LIFE13 NAT/PT/000786 LIFE Saramugo 1 1 1,453,664.00 € 726,831.00 €83 LIFE13 NAT/SE/000116 LIFE-TripleLakes - Triple Lakes 1 1 1 4,122,299.00 € 1,992,307.00 €84 LIFE13 NAT/UK/000443 Cumbrian BogsLIFE+ 1 6,585,236.00 € 3,292,618.00 €

85 LIFE13 NAT/UK/000451 THATS-LIFE 1 5,592,243.00 € 2,638,276.00 €86 LIFE13 NAT/AT/000301 LIFE+ Wilderness Wachau 1 1 3,876,937.00 € 1,938,468.00 €87 LIFE13 BIO/ES/001407 LIFE RIPISILVANATURA 1 2,454,611.00 € 1,221,168.00 €88 LIFE13 BIO/FR/001162 LIFE Giant Pearl Mussel 1 1 4,445,691.00 € 2,004,458.00 €

Total all projects 208 9 24 91 12 0 2 52 6 9 34 16 3 4 23 6 41Total ENV/INF projects 155 5 2 12 12 0 1 52 1 9 34 15 2 3 22 6 38Total NAT project 53 4 22 79 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3

Total projects 300Total ENV/INF projects 212Total NAT project 88


Annex 3

WFD Assessment

Year Life Code & Project Name Typo

logy

, del

inea

tion

of w

ater

bod

ies

Econ

omic

ana

lysi

s

Pres

sure

s an

d im

pact

ana

lysi

s

Surfa

ce w

ater

s

Gro

undw

ater

Ecol

ogic

al s

taus

of s

urfa

ce w

ater

s

Che

mic

al s

tatu

s of

sur

face

wat

ers

Che

mic

al s

tatu

s of

gro

undw

ater

Qua

ntita

tive

stat

us o

f gro

undw

ater

Stak

ehol

der p

artic

ipat

ion

Inte

grat

ed ri

ver b

asin

app

roac

h

Dat

abas

e G

IS m

appi

ng/m

odel

ling

Prog

ram

me

of m

easu

res

Prot

ecte

d ar

eas

comments Obj

ectiv

es m

et

Proj

ect s

core

ove

rall

%ag

e

Proj

ect s

core

out

of 6

P P P P P P P P P P P P1 LIFE05 ENV/IT/000846 BATTLE 1 1 12 LIFE05 ENV/UK/000137 NITRABAR 1 13 LIFE05 ENV/IT/000812 RIWAC 1 1 14 LIFE05 ENV/H/000418 SUMANAS 1 1 15 LIFE05 ENV/DK/000155 AGWAPLAN 1 1 1 1 deals witth nitrates in agriculture yes except guidelines was not possible due to delays of the fina85 66 LIFE05 ENV/F/000058 AWARE 1 deals with reduction of pesticides yes 85 67 LIFE05 ENV/GR/000245 EnviFriendly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 this project could be a useful case study - especially integrated management and social aspects - also has phytoremediation and 10 yes 85 68 LIFE05 ENV/E/000289 FERTIGREEN 1 deals with pollutants from greenhouses only marginally associated with WDF yes but not as successful as predicted and more research nece 63 39 LIFE05 ENV/UK/000126 FORMOSE 1 1 waste water clean up of formaldehyde before discharge to rivers yes technically but dissemination was poor 54 210 LIFE05 ENV/E/000313 gEa 1 sustainable water use through computerised irrigation system yes 59 411 LIFE05 ENV/B/000517 INSIMEP 1 1 1 1 The project is expected to contribute to the objectives of: the Water Framework Directive (by aiming to achieve "good" surface water yes 85 512 LIFE05 ENV/DK/000145 Odense PRB - AgriPoM 1 1 1 1 Planning at river basin level - might be a good case study yes 79 513 LIFE05 ENV/E/000292 OLIVEWASTE 1 mainly deals with waste from olive industry yes 69 514 LIFE05 ENV/IT/000868 PERBIOF 1 waste water biological treatment replacement yes 95 615 LIFE05 ENV/UK/000121 PROMOTHE MBR 1 waste water treatment using membrane technology yes except dissemination was poor 59 416 LIFE05 ENV/UK/000127 QUERCUS 1 1 1 1 improving urban rivers through stakeholder involvement yes 77 517 LIFE05 ENV/B/000510 TOPPS 1 1 1 targets agriculture sector through reducing pollution of water by plant protection products yes 87 518 LIFE05 ENV/D/000182 WAgriCo 1 1 1 1 1 ammendment of agricultural assistance programmes to support the implementation of the Water Framework Directive - stakeholders yes 77 619 LIFE05 ENV/E/000256 ZERO PLUS 1 1 model for managing metal wastes in water yes 85 520 LIFE06 ENV/IT/000255 A.S.A.P 1 1 1 1 1 protocol for reducing ground water abstraction and economic model re tarrifs - could be a good case study yes - After LIFe plan has activities planned for 4 years following 82 621 LIFE06 ENV/F/000133 ArtWet 1 1 1 using phytoremediation to reduce non point source pollution from agriculture - technology has been successfully transferred in 2011 yes and transfer ongoing 95 622 LIFE06 ENV/F/000132 CONCERT 'EAU 1 1 collaborative protocol for reducing nitrates in water from agriculture no - some objectives not met 62 523 LIFE06 ENV/D/000461 FLOODSCAN 1 1 1 also targets Flood and INSPIRE directives - flood management through mapping - could be good case study largely - transfer potential large 82 624 LIFE06 ENV/F/000158 ISONITRATE 1 1 1 innovative monitoring method could be interesting to know why not disseminated as widely as expected?? partially - method not demonstrated to the policy makers 51 425 LIFE06 ENV/D/000478 IWPM 1 1 manly linking waste water treatment plants to improve efficiency not yet finished - prolongation granted - 80% finished26 LIFE06 ENV/IT/000235 Kolisoon 1 1 1 method for assessing E coli in waste water in situ yes - not sure if applications transerred 85 627 LIFE06 ENV/D/000485 Moveable HEPP 1 1 1 project specificaly designed to address conflict between WFD and Renewables Directive - link with Hydro4LIFE and Netzwerk Doneayes - evaluated as major success 97 528 LIFE06 ENV/UK/000401 MR Mo ToWFO 1 1 addressing water quality through managed realignment no - no objectives met 15 229 LIFE06 ENV/B/000359 MULTIBARDEM 1 1 1 multibarrier approach to preventing groundwater pollution yes 79 530 LIFE06 ENV/UK/000409 OpenMI-LIFE 1 1 1 Implementation of a computer modelling system in an integrated management approach to Water Framework Directives. yes - project continuing to attract attention after closure 95 631 LIFE06 ENV/DK/000229 TREASURE 1 1 treatment of polluted surface water at low cost Yes - project continues to progress after closure 92 632 LIFE06 ENV/NL/000167 WET 1 1 removal of priority hazardous substances cited in WFD from WWTP yes - further use of technology foreseen at close of project 87 633 LIFE07 ENV/E/000826 AQUA-PLANN PROJECT 1 1 WFD, local planning strategies The project has delivered far reaching results and has achieved69 634 LIFE 07/INF/UK/750 Ecoanimation 1 series of cartoons focussing on water conservation and aimed at children very successful and likely to be on-going 64 535 LIFE07 ENV/S/000908 GreenClimeAdapt 1 1 1 Focuses on climate change but also tries to achieve good ecological status under WFD, local stakeholder particoipation and floodingAll in all the project has reached the foreseen objectives. The pr77 536 LIFE07 ENV/PL/000605 Lake recult. in Gniezno 1 1 1 WFD also, it was a good project, improving water quality yes - water quality objectives met 92 637 LIFE07 ENV/L/000540 M3 1 1 1 1 Insufficient harmonisation of national implementation with the approach of the WFD causes some problems, and the experience and The project had accumulated some huge delays during its lifetim77 638 LIFE 07/INF/UK/932 RENEW 1 deals with reduction in water and energy use Regional Environmental Networks for Energy and Water (RENE80 639 LIFE07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER 1 1 innovation high - new system for removing pharmaceutical products from hosptal water. High installation costs could hinder replicatioObjectives met and exceeded 72 640 LIFE07 ENV/IT/000497 SALT 1 1 1 primarily climate change but also WFD through resource efficiency and reduction in ground water use The beneficiary successfully concluded the technical activities th69 641 LIFE07 ENV/F/000173 SEMEAU 1 1 1 1 essentially a modelling project to develop a tool to assist water quality management in hilly areas The project can generally be considered successful as it has ac 72 642 LIFE07 ENV/GR/000278 Soil Sustainability(So.S) 1 1 1 1 Mainly targets soil directive but also aims to improve water quality at the river basin level The project produced all of the expected outputs and achieved m85 643 LIFE07 ENV/IT/000475 TRUST 1 1 1 1 1 Trust links with Water Framework Directive, Floods Directive and the European Policy on Water Scarcity and Drought - may be a gooThe TRUST project has run according to schedule and work pla92 644 LIFE07 ENV/B/000038 WALPHY 1 1 1 1 also targets Flood directive - deals with hydromorphological assessment of water bodies for implementing infrastructure improvemenThe project achieved its main objectives. The results of the proje85 645 LIFE07 ENV/E/000845 WATER CHANGE 1 1 1 Medium and long term water resources modelling as a tool for planning and global change adaptation. Application to the Llobregat B The project has achieved the main objectives. Additionally, with 90 646 LIFE08 ENV/E/000099 AQUAVAL 1 1 1 WFD, water treatement plans, also linked to Floods (also targets Floods Directive) - promotes the use of SUDS - urban polution arisi The project has been very successful presenting solutions for a87 547 LIFE08 ENV/FIN/000609 CATERMASS 1 1 Water Framework (2000/60/EC), Flood (2007/60/EC), Habitat (92/43/EEC) and EQS (priority substances) directives - mainly to do w Long-term benefits of the project are rising from the main outcom82 648 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000390 ECOMAWARU 1 1 1 1 improvement of water quality from waste treatment plants through phytoremediation (algae) in open and closed systems The ECOMAWARU project fully achieved its main objectives of 69 449 LIFE08 ENV/PL/000517 EH-REK 1 1 1 to rehabilitate reservoirs, WFD and water quality use of eco-hydrology in planning the interventions - some major infrastructure - cou still open - due to close 12/201450 LIFE08 ENV/PL/000519 EKOROB 1 1 Mentions the WFD, cost effective ecohydrology actions (using vegetation as a means of removing pollutants) to reduce diffuse pollut still open - due to close 12/201451 LIFE08 ENV/E/000117 ENSAT 1 1 1 1 1 Targets pollution clean up of groundwater and possibly managed aquifer recharge to address water scarcity through model developmAt the end of the project the foreseen objectives have been ach 82 552 LIFE08 ENV/GR/000570 HydroSense 1 1 1 Use of GIS technology to address resource efficiency in water and energy use in irrigation and reduce ferilizer and pesticide use The HydroSense project's aim to employ the principles of site-sp90 653 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000413 INHABIT 1 1 1 1 River Basin Management Plan Project - seeks to include hydro-morphology to support Biological Function in RBMPs The project completed all its activities in the field within the dura85 654 LIFE08 ENV/CY/000457 INTER-WASTE 1 1 Minly Urban Waste water - addresses waste annd sustainable energy - improved water quality a secondary objective The ambitious goal of the project, according to the proposal, wa67 655 LIFE08 ENV/D/000021 MAGPlan 1 1 1 Ris management for pollution of groundwater. Compilation of EU-wide applicable recommendations for action for ground water risk mstill open - due to close 12/201456 LIFE08 ENV/E/000114 POWER 1 Project to reduce energy consumption associated with irrigation and reduce water consumption (by 60%) through use of models. ResThe project has been completely successful and has achieved t 95 657 LIFE08 ENV/GR/000551 PURE 1 To transform an existing network of pipelines that are currently distributing treated wastewater for irrigation, with no control, no monit still open - due to close 04/201458 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000406 REWETLAND 1 1 1 Encourage participatory decision making in line with the WFD as well and deal with farmers to reduce nitrates pollution - also uses co Very Good. Main successful elements:1. The methodological ap82 659 LIFE08 INF/IT/000308 WATACLIC 1 1 1 1 not stated but deals with resource efficiency - redution in water use in Urban areas using communication and fiscal tools.In the case It can be stated that the project achieved its objectives and mos80 760 LIFE08 ENV/CY/000460 WATER 1 1 Preservation of good water quality status and reducing water use. Developing indicators for water quality in lakes. The project has achieved the following: - Catchment-scale wate 85 661 LIFE08 INF/SK/000243 WATLIFE 1 1 1 This is a dissemination project, dealing with WFD - changing attitudes to conserve water and reduce pollution Some results were produced with a delay due to problems with 71 662 LIFE08 ENV/B/000042 WEISS 1 1 Water Emissions Inventory Planning Support System (WEISS) to support competent authorities across Europe with the implementat The WEISS model had been completed, and is of excellent qua 72 5

Man

agem

ent

Riv

er B

asin

Mon

itorin

g

Stat

us A

sses

smen

t

ENV and INF PROJECTS

63 LIFE08 ENV/CY/000455 WINEC 1 1 Reducing pollution from wineries - mainly deals with pilot WWTP The WINEC project aims were to (a) identify environmental impa79 564 LIFE09 ENV/UK/000026 Hydro4LIFE 1 165 LIFE09 ENV/GR/000296 Adapt2Change 1 Reducing water use in greenhouses in response to climate change still open - due to close 08/201466 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000456 AG_UAS 1 To develop a cost-effective, spatial tool for more efficient, sustainable, water monitoring and management, in line with WFD requiremstill open - due to close 09/201367 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000208 AQUA 1 1 1 1 1 reducing nitrates from livestock production - also groundwater pollution -plans to operate at river basin scale stillopen - due to close 03/201468 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000075 AQUA 1 1 1 1 Could be good example of regional and local WFD actions - operating in the agro industry to reduce water use and pollution - high st The project has reached the overall objective set in the proposa82 469 LIFE09 ENV/RO/000612 CLEANWATER 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nitrates mostly, groundwater and vulnerable zones. still open - due to close 02/201470 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000431 CREAMAgua 1 1 1 To introduce ‘natural’ ecosystem structures of wetlands and riverbank forests to reduce inorganic nutrients in farming communities onstill open - due to close 12/201471 LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569 GISBLOOM 1 1 1 1 Introduce, demonstrate and evaluate an array of technical and methodological innovations to improve cost efficiency of implementati Yes, the project is achieving its objectives. The project has succ90 672 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000447 The Green Deserts 1 limited relevance to WDF in conservation of water still open - due to close 08/201573 LIFE 09/ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE 1 examines clash between WFD and renewables still open - due to close 09/201374 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000472 LOS TOLLOS 1 1 Restoring good quality water through a series of measures connected with soil and hydrology still open - due to close 12/201475 LIFE09 ENV/DE/000011 MY FAVOURITE RIVER 1 1 Deals with river management using a variety of techniques to establish good ecological status still open - due to close 08/201476 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000136 PALM 1 1 Deals with wter losses from reticulation systems (resource efficiency) and assocaited costs The project was successfully carried out without major problems87 677 LIFE09 INF/UK/000032 RESTORE 1 1 1 Building a newtork of river restoration projects - providing forum for exchange of knowledge and best practice - also deals with HabitaThe project achieved its objectives by giving new energy to the 94 778 LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299 SOL-BRINE 1 Addressing water scarcity and desalination79 LIFE09 ENV/ES/000467 UFTEC 1 1 ultra filtration pre-treatment water technology to reduce pollution and water use The UFTEC project succeeded in demonstrating the technical fe79 580 LIFE09 ENV/FR/000593 WaterRtoM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Promoting results of research to get faster feedback to inform Water policy implementation - could be a good one for case study - tec According to the MoT, the project fulfilled all the objectives.The 62 481 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000056 WIZ 1 1 1 Involving stakeholders in drinking water management - stakeholders consulted throughout. Influences policy in Italy and Spain. The project achieved all its objectives. The WIZ platforms were 90 682 LIFE10 INF/FI/000052 Saimaan lohikalojen 1 183 LIFE10 ENV/ES/000521 AQUATIK 1 1 1 new monitoring technology for 7 of WFD priority pollutants measured in waste water still open - due to close 02/201584 LIFE10 INF/SI/000135 AQUAVIVA 1 1 1 1 improving water quality in rivers through increasing pubic awareness - also mentions Habitat and biodiversity still open - due to close 08/201485 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000380 AQUOR 1 1 1 1 1 Protection of groundwater resources through stakeholder efforts - reduction in water use - establishment of GIS tool - also targets Gr still open - due to close 05/201586 LIFE10 ENV/GR/000601 CHARM 1 1 1 Mainly cites the Groundwater Directive - programme of measures to address chromium pollution in groundwater still open - due to close 08/201587 LIFE10 ENV/CY/000723 CYPADAPT 1 National programme to prepare adaptation to climate change - may have relevance to water scarcity in WDF still open - due to close 03/201488 LIFE10 ENV/DE/000158 HWC 1 1 Urban wastewater disposal and reduced water use through vacuum extraction and reuse of grey water + energy production - mainly still open - due to close 08/201689 LIFE10 INF/MT/000091 Investing in Water 1 1 1 Sustainable water use in the business sector It can be stated that the project achieved its objectives and mos91 790 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369 LCA4PORTS 1 1 Mainly targets Directive 2010/31/EU - some aspects dealing with wastewater quality and recovery still open - due to close 11/201591 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000394 WARBO 1 1 Targetting the regulation of Artificial Recharge of groundwater aquifers (a practice which is currently unregulated) in relation to water still open - due to close 12/201492 LIFE10 ENV/GR/000594 WASTEREUSE 1 1 1 Deals with agricultural waste, waste nutritians and agriculture and reducing water use in the sector still open - due to close 08/201593 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000308 WW-SIP 1 1 Prototype Urban WWTP - to reduce water use and improve water quality still open - due to close 12/201594 LIFE10 INF/SI/000135 AQUAVIVA 1 1 195 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000503 WATOP 1 1 WWTP for removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products - new pilot treatment plant96 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000569 MINAQUA 1 1 197 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000579 REAGRITECH 1 198 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000590 ROEM-plus 1 1 1 1 199 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000606 aWARE 1 1 1 New membrae treatement for pharmaceutcals and other contaminants Still open - due to close 06/2016

100 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000615 IRRIGESTLIFE 1 1 1101 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000621 IES 1102 LIFE11 ENV/FI/000909 CITYWATER 1103 LIFE11 ENV/FR/000742 BIOTTOPE 1 1 1 WWT - new technque - Aim for successful removal at semi-industrial scale of pollutants causing biological effects from wastewater, i Due to close 31/12/2014104 LIFE11 ENV/IT/000004 Lambro vivo 1 1105 LIFE11 ENV/IT/000035 WSTORE2 1 1 1 1106 LIFE11 ENV/IT/000075 Biosur 1 1107 LIFE11 ENV/NL/000785 CENIRELTA 1 1108 LIFE11 ENV/NL/000788 Hydrochip 1 1109 LIFE11 ENV/SK/001023 KRASCAVE 1 1 1 1 1 1110 LIFE11 ENV/IT/000243 RII - LIFE 1 1 1 1 1 1111 LIFE11 ENV/DK/000889 Stream of Usserod 1 1 1 1 1 1 1112 LIFE11 ENV/GR/000975 FLIRE 1 1 1 1113 LIFE11 ENV/FI/000911 Urgan Oases - Keidas 1 1 1 1114 LIFE11 ENV/FR/000746 SeineCityPark 1 1 1 1 1115 LIFE11 ENV/FR/000739 SUSTAIN- ICT 1116 LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839 BUCEFALOS 1 1 1117 LIFE11 INF/PL/000480 AGROSAFE 1 1 1 Project terminated early - no results to report118 LIFE12 ENV/IT/000120 LIFE BIOCLOC 1 1119 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000309 LIFE DYES4EVER 1 1 1120 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000184 LIFE WaterReuse 1 1121 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000250 LIFE-ETAD 1 1122 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000265 LIFE ADNATUR 1123 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000332 LIFE NECOVERY 1124 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000361 LIFE-REMPHOS 1125 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000441 LIFE PHORWater 1126 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000477 Lo2x 1127 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000545 LIFE WIRE 1 1 1 1 Development of protitype to treat water and to evaluate and to compare from a technical and economic point of view the current watedue to cose 30/09/2016128 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000557 LIFE RURAL SUPPLIES 1129 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000632 LIFE-OFREA 1 1130 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000651 LIFE+ InSiTrate 1 1 1131 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000684 LIFE-PURIWAT 1 1 1132 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000687 LIFE SANePLAN 1 1133 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000901 LIFE+ ZELDA 1 1 1 1 Zero Liquid Discharge desalination: brine treatment based on electrodialysis metathesis and valuable compound recovery - includingdue to close 30/06/2017134 LIFE12 ENV/ES/001140 RIVERLINK 1 1135 LIFE12 ENV/FI/000597 LIFE+ 2012 N-SINK 1 1 1136 LIFE11 ENV/FR/000745 MAC EAU 1 1 1137 LIFE12 ENV/FR/000530 LIFE-PHYTOBARRE 1 1 1 An Innovative Process for Treating Phytopharmaceutical Effluents and New Uses for Farmers Due to close 30/12/16138 LIFE12 ENV/AT/000128 LIFE- URBANLAKE 1 1 1 1139 LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 LIFE+ IMAGINE 1 1 1 1140 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000685 LIFE ALBUFERA 1 1 1 1141 LIFE12 ENV/ES/000536 LIFE MEDACC 1 1 1 1142 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000539 IRRIMAN 1 1143 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000341 LIFE TRIVERS 1 1 1144 LIFE13 ENV/ES/001182 LIFE EBRO-ADMICLIM 1145 LIFE13 ENV/IT/000169 LIFE RINASCE 1 1146 LIFE13 ENV/UK/000497 LIFE WaterLIFE 1 1 1 1

147 LIFE13 ENV/CZ/000475 LIFE2Water 1 1 1 Verification and assessment of technologies for tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater - includes Removal of selected pharmace due to close 31/12/2018148 LIFE13 ENV/ES/001353 LIFE MEMORY 1149 LIFE13 ENV/ES/001019 LIFE SMART Hospital 1 1150 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000704 LIFE-RENEWAT 1151 LIFE13 ENV/FR/000711 BioSolWaRe-LIFE 1 1152 LIFE13 ENV/DK/000668 LIFE NOVADRAIN 1153 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000227 LIFE REGENERA LIMIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1154 LIFE13 ENV/ES/000420 LIFE-AQUASEF 1 1155 LIFE13 ENV/IT/000470 LIFE ECODEFATTING 1 1 1 1156 LIFE12 ENV/PT/001154 LIFE HyMemb 1 1 1 Tailoring hybrid membrane processes for sustainable drinking water production - inlcudes pharmaceuticals157 LIFE13 ENV/SI/000466 LIFE PharmDegrade 1 1 1 Degradation of pharmaceuticals in wastewaters from nursing homes and hospitals

1 LIFE05 NAT/PL/000101 Ardmouperl 1 1 pearl mussel The project has great direct results and impact. A good after-LIF86 n/a2 LIFE05 NAT/IT/000026 Fortore 2005 1 1 1 improving status The project can be generally considered as unsuccessful since 19 n/a3 LIFE05 NAT/DK/000153 Houting 1 1 1 claims to decommission 2 hydropower stations The project has reached most of its results. Foreseen results in 95 n/a4 LIFE05 NAT/B/000090 Life Grote Nete 1 1 In general the project has achieved its objectives, even surpass 69 n/a5 LIFE05 NAT/D/000057 Lippe-Aue 1 1 The project has been successfully completed and has achieved 87 n/a6 LIFE05 NAT/B/000085 Loutre BeLu 2005-2006 1 1 L'habitat "rivière" a été substantiellement amélioré en beaucoup78 n/a7 LIFE05 NAT/UK/000143 STREAM 1 1 1 Project well managed and met all objectives. Best practice guide91 n/a8 LIFE06 NAT/SI/000066 BIOMURA 1 1 The project achieved the objectives. There were several delays 65 n/a9 LIFE06 NAT/FIN/000129 Kokemäenjoki-LIFE 1 1 1 All the project objectives were successfully reached. Though the88 n/a10 LIFE06 NAT/A/000127 LIFE Obere Drau II 1 1 1 improving status The project was successfully completed and it achieved its obje 97 n/a11 LIFE06 NAT/D/000005 LIFE-Projekt Maifisch 1 The project was completed at the end of December 2010 – with95 n/a12 LIFE07 NAT/IRL/000342 IShannonSACLAEO 1 113 LIFE07 NAT/DK/000100 REFLOW 1 1 good ecological status Main actions of the project were not implemented, and effects w35 n/a14 LIFE08 NAT/D/000008 Ems-Dynamik+Habitate 1 1 1 1 115 LIFE08 NAT/D/000013 Elbauen bei Vockerode 1 1 1 flood protection set to close 12/201816 LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201 ISAC 1 1 addresses a number of directves though not stated The project was a successful partnership between NGOs and st78 n/a17 LIFE08 NAT/D/000010 Life Projekt "Lippeaue" 1 1 floodplain management set to close 02/201518 LIFE08/NAT/S/000266 Vindel River LIFE 1 1 set to close 10/201519 LIFE09 NAT/ES/000514 MARGAL ULLA 1 Pearl mussel/good WQ status set to close 08/201620 LIFE09 NAT/DE/000004 Rheinauen bei Rastatt 1 1 set to close 12/201521 LIFE10 NAT/PT/000073 ECOTONE 1 1 122 LIFE10 NAT/DE/000010 Emmericher Ward 1 1 1 123 LIFE10 NAT/FR/000192 LIFE Continuité écologique 1 1 124 LIFE10 NAT/AT/000017 LIFE+ Lavant 1 1 125 LIFE10 NAT/SI/000142 Ljubljanica connects 1 1 set to close 12/201526 LIFE10 NAT/AT/000016 Netzwerk Donau 1 1 could expore conflict between WFD and renewable energy like HYDRO4LIFE connect to large case study set to close 12/201727 LIFE10 NAT/DE/000008 Rur und Kall 1 1 set to close 12/201628 LIFE10 NAT/AT/000015 Untere March-Auen 1 1 improving status set to close 10/201729 LIFE11 NAT/BG/000362 Salt of Life 1 1 130 LIFE11 NAT/ES/000699 MedWetRivers 1 1 1 1 1 1 131 LIFE11 NAT/LU/000857 Resto-unio 1 1 1 132 LIFE11 NAT/PL/000424 Niebieski korytarz Regi 1 1 1 133 LIFE11 NAT/UK/000383 PIP GB 1 1 1 134 LIFE12 NAT/PL/000033 Life+-Łosoś- Drwęc-PL 1 135 LIFE12 BIO/PT/000110 LIFE CWR 1 1 1 136 LIFE12 NAT/BG/001011 LIFE FREE FISH 1 1 1 137 LIFE12 NAT/EE/000871 LIFE HAPPYRIVER 1 1 1 1 1 1 138 LIFE12 NAT/GR/000275 LIFE Stymfalia 1 Sustainable management and financing of wetland biodiversity – The case of Lake Stymfalia39 LIFE13 NAT/PL/000018 LIFENaturaSlowinskaPL 1 1 1 140 LIFE12 BIO/IT/0000231 AQUALIFE 1 1 1 1 1 ecological monitoring of groundwater - one to watch41 LIFE13 NAT/AT/000301 LIFE+ Wilderness Wachau 1 142 LIFE13 BIO/FR/001162 LIFE Giant Pearl Mussel 143 LIFE13 NAT/BE/001067 LIFE Pays mosan 1 1 144 LIFE13 NAT/DE/000091 LIFE Feuchtwälder 1 1 145 LIFE13 NAT/ES/000772 LIFE CIPRÍBER 1 1 146 LIFE13 NAT/ES/000237 LIFE MIGRATOEBRE 1 1 1 147 LIFE13 NAT/ES/000899 LIFE Miera 1 148 LIFE13 NAT/FR/000762 LIFE Jura peatlands 1 1 1 1 149 LIFE13 NAT/FR/000506 Life+ Marga Haute-Dronne 1 1 1 1 150 LIFE13 NAT/HU/000388 LIFE Old-Drava 1 1 151 LIFE13 NAT/IE/000144 LIFE Kerry 1 152 LIFE13 NAT/PL/000050 Renaturyzacja II_LIFE_PL 1 1 1 153 LIFE13 NAT/PT/000786 LIFE Saramugo 1 1 154 LIFE13 NAT/SE/000116 LIFE-Triple Lakes 1 1 1

Total ENV 7 14 79 20 11 28 80 19 10 41 53 29 42 10Total NAT 5 3 11 3 1 46 3 0 0 17 19 5 7 40Total all projects 12 17 90 23 12 74 83 19 10 58 72 34 49 50

NATURE PROJECTS


Annex 4

SWOT Analyses

Projects Addressing more than one Directive

LIFE 09 ENV/UK/026 Hydro4LIFE Policies targeted: No areas directly targeted but project is related to WFD and Renewables Directive Strengths Weaknesses • The beneficiary (International Hydropower Association) provides a

strong platform for EU-wide (and global) stakeholder engagement and has been proactive in exploring the links between the WFD (DG ENV), Renewables Directive (RD) (DG ENER) and hydropower development.

• IHA has a close relationship with designated national authorities within individual EU member states, and is in close contact with many of the agencies responsible for regulating hydropower operations at EC level. Furthermore, its membership is made up of hydropower operators and developers, and the IHA has broad membership reach within the EU. The project has so far obtained active participation from major EU-based energy generators (E.On and EDF).

• Criticism of the Protocol itself – it is designed to only deal with individual hydropower developments on a site-by-site basis, it does not look at strategic resource utilisation and environmental impacts at a river basin level.

Opportunities Threats • The project is keen to explore the possibility of the Protocol (or at least

its holistic approach to sustainability) feeding into regulators' assessments of river quality as part of the WFD and informing future revisions of the Directive. The beneficiary argues that the WFD’s focus on ecological status (an area that is likely to be adversely impacted by hydropower developments) ignores the positive environmental benefits of hydropower that are realised under the scope of other Directives (i.e. RED/reduced GHG emissions) and, indeed, other social and economic benefits.

• The application of the Protocol is highly transferable to any scale and type of hydropower installation (within the EU or globally) but only on a site-by site basis (see weaknesses).

• The Protocol could become a standard methodology for the assessment of hydropower sustainability performance in the EU and globally (this is the beneficiary’s ultimate goal).

• The beneficiary initially saw the LIFE support received and the application of the Protocol in the EU as a means of endorsing the

• The interpretation of the WFD at national level is having direct consequences on the approval of new projects and allocation of concessions and permissions for hydropower development in the EU. This is impacting the project’s ability to test the application of the Protocol on EU hydropower schemes in the concept, design and build phases (applications have been limited to existing operational installations). It may also be the reason for the fact that only two EU based operators have signed up to test the Protocol but uptake globally has been far easier to obtain (including Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Brazil, SE Asia).

• Negative perceptions of the project’s investigation/assessment of the WFD - from discussions with various stakeholders, the beneficiary is aware that the WFD is generally well regarded within the EU. The beneficiary, as a hydropower industry representative, is therefore conscious of not appearing to be too critical of the WFD (this is despite the fact that the Protocol has been developed with a number of Governments and international NGOs).


Protocol (as it perceives the EU to be at the forefront of global water policy), and hence increasing its uptake within the EU and globally (however, so far in practice the uptake of the application of the Protocol has been greater outside of the EU (see threats)).

• Despite repeated attempts, the project has so far been unable to secure the active participation of an EU based regulatory body (ARH-Norte in Portugal showed interest but have yet to actively participate). Engaging with regulatory bodies may help to reduce the barriers of the local interpretation/application of the WFD.

LIFE 10 ENV/DE/158 HWC - Jenfelder Au Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); quantitative water management; Directives on reduction CO2, improvement of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Strengths Weaknesses • Demonstrate an integrated wastewater disposal and energy generation

system; • Minimise the dilution of sewage with drinking water (flush) by the use of

vacuum toilets within an urban district; • Improve water quality, i.e. preventing rain and grey water from being

polluted with black water; • Save energy by systematically treating and utilising separated

wastewater streams. This will be done by preventing energy consuming wastewater processing;

• Demonstrate an innovative decentralised energy generation concept based on a biogas plant and a combined heat and power plant, in combination with solar and geothermal plants. The concept will demonstrate the potential to minimise the use of non-renewable energy sources and the potential for energy generation based on separation of black water;

• Prepare for future phosphorus and nitrogen recovery and effective elimination of micro pollutants such as pharmaceuticals.

• Cost of delivery – high capital cost of project (700 apartments – total cost 16,746,974€ = 24,000€ per apartment)

• Highly technical – may be difficult to replicate • Designed for apartment blocks – could it be transferred to other types of

housing stock? • Project part f new build – does it have the potential for retrofit to older

buildings

Opportunities Threats • Potentially transferable to other similar housing systems • Environmental and economic cost benefit analysis included – potential

viability of the scheme can be assessed

• Obtaining planning permission for solar and ground heat energy supplies


LIFE 05 ENV/B/517 INSIMEP Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); Groundwater Directive; IPPC Directive. Strengths Weaknesses • Demonstrated an alternative remediation approach: to precipitate

metals in situ by acceleration of biogeochemical processes that may occur naturally, and to irreversibly fix them in the soil in a form that is stable under naturally occurring groundwater conditions.

• Demonstration was carried out on three sites in Belgium where groundwater was heavily contaminated as a result of 100 years of industrial activity.

• The strengths of the project were the different hydrogeological conditions at the three test sites, the combination of two different metals at each sites and the thorough use of modelling to explain the results and to design a full-scale remediation.

• The technique is more sustainable than pump and treat: - No above-ground waste is being produced. - Less electricity consumed, reducing the carbon footprint. - There is no discharge to surface water, which is important for both

the fact that no priority (hazardous) substances (like Cd) are being discharged, and that a hydraulic load to surface waters is avoided.

- A biodegradable carbon source is being used instead of hazardous chemicals, used to treat groundwater aboveground.

- Lower remaining concentrations of metals will be reached at a faster time horizon

- Resources will be used more efficiently, as the injection rate can be modulated based on the remaining contamination.

• Results of the project carry policy and legislative implications and contribute to the objectives of: WFD by aiming to achieve "good" surface water and groundwater status by 2015; the Groundwater Directive by preventing and controlling pollution through appropriate measures; and the IPPC Directive by preventing the further spread of groundwater contamination. The project also contributes to the 6th EAP by increasing awareness that human health is affected by environmental

• The project did not directly affect policy, but provided a demonstration of technology that may help to achieve WFD / groundwater directive objectives.

• The limitations of the ISBP technique are the restrictive conditions which are mainly hydrogeological (the presence of clay lenses or low permeable soil, the depth of the groundwater) or (bio) geochemical origin toxic conditions, level of groundwater contamination with heavy metals and mineral content of the aquifer).

• The experience with an undefined groundwater flow direction and a low permeability due to clay lenses shows that application of ISBP is difficult in those circumstances.

• The cost of applying INSIMEP is strongly site-dependent, i.e., compared to the classical technique of pump-and-treat (P&T). The cost depends on the availability of clean-up infrastructure already on site. If pumping wells are available, a wastewater treatment plant or sludge dewatering, the investment necessary for the classical P&T approach strongly decreases.

• The economical evaluation showed that overall, ISBP is cheaper than pump and treat. Capital Expenses (CAPEX) related to ISBP, however, are more expensive than classical pump & treat. For smaller sites, this difference becomes less. Due to the lower Operational Expenses (OPEX), ISBP is cheaper as from a term of 10 years for big sites, with CAPEX taken fully on the account in the first year. After this break-even point, the operational cost for ISBP is 40% lower than for pump and treat. For smaller sites, ISBP is cheaper after a shorter time (taking the parameters of site 1 into account for the design).


problems related to water pollution and chemical contamination. Opportunities Threats • The advantages of the ISBP technique are its economic soundness in the

long-term rather than classic remedial technology, its low operational maintenance, its positive impact on the environment as well as its relatively easy implementation in terms of infrastructure works.

• ISBP for immobilization of metals can be applied by metal or other industry with similar contamination. The economic importance of the metal industry is clear: in Europe, Eurometaux (non-ferrous metals federation) contributes 1.1% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and employs (directly and indirectly) 1.2 million people.

• Replication is possible, depending on nature of pollution: the project has started preparatory actions to use the in-situ method to decontaminate another site at UMICORE, the Zolder site. Furthermore, it is envisioned that the in-situ method will be used on other UMICORE sites as well.

• As a threat for application of ISBP, the biggest is that thorough evaluation of each site on a case-by-case basis is needed.

• There are technical and economical limiting factors for application of ISBP: - The presence of clay lenses or low permeable soil; - The absence of redox conditions allowing the sulphate reduction ; - The level of groundwater contamination with heavy metals; - The depth of the groundwater; - The presence of adjacent protected natural area, to which sulphate

or organic carbon plumes could migrate (linked with improper design of the in-situ remediation).

• The presence of other contaminants than heavy metals, non- reduced/treated by ISBP;

• The availability of the carbon source as well as the availability of non- impacted water to create the injection fluid.

• Overall economics, based on the amount of carbon source which is needed reach sulphate reducing conditions.

Characterisation of the River Basin

Establishment of typology for water bodies

LIFE 08 ENV/IT/413 INHABIT Policies targeted: WFD (River Basin Management Plans, Programme of Measures also mentioned) Strengths Weaknesses • Improvement of RBMPs covering a number of water body types, which

are representative of Italian water courses and lakes, through the introduction of innovative measures that account for hydromorphological and habitat information;

• Quantification of the natural variability in undisturbed conditions of selected hydromorphological, habitat and physio-chemical features, which are known to have a significant effect on biological communities;

• Quantification of factors that affect ecological status classification; • To put into practice the latest approaches and methods for the

collection of WFD-compliant data, classification of ecological status and technical implementation of management plans in the study catchments;

• To update existing management plans to include measures related to hydro-morphological and habitat condition.

• Suggestions for improvement of RBMPs and Programmes of Measures as far as uncertainty in classification issues is concerned

•

• Depends on large amounts of accurate data being available • Data compiled into database – fields and specifications as part of the

project - not certain how this can be accessed post project • Some areas quite complex in terms of data requirements and how data

is managed and interpreted • Modelling of results required – how could this be achieved for wider

implementation

Opportunities Threats • The outcome of the project will serve as a basis for the implementation

of RBMPs over larger areas of Italy and, possibly, the whole of Europe

• Wider application requires buy-in from regional authorities and other agencies – not guaranteed


LIFE 11 ENV/IT/243 RII-LIFE Policies targeted: WFD (identification of water bodies; restoration work); Floods Directive Project Status: Open at a relatively early stage with few concrete results Strengths Weaknesses • Introduction, testing and demonstrating the usefulness of innovative

territory management strategies and water course intervention techniques, based on WFD and Floods Directive key concepts to manage hydraulic critical points;

• Quantification of the natural variability in modified and unmodified conditions of selected hydromorphological, habitat and physio-chemical features, which are known to have a significant effect on biological communities;

• Quantification of factors that affect hydrological status classification; • To develop measures related to hydro-morphological and habitat

condition; • Project has successfully engaged with stakeholders to determine other

locations for implementation.

• Depends on large amounts of accurate data being available for any particular location

• How can GIS model be accessed post-project?

Opportunities Threats • To demonstrate that the WFD and Floods Directive principles can be

adapted for use in a network of drainage basins and watersheds that are not directly addressed by the two directives – thus delineating new water courses;

• To examine heavily urbanised areas along the borders between mountainous territory and the plain where minor drainage networks are typically modified;

• Transferability appears to be high and the methodology can be applied to other similar regions throughout southern Italy (and possibly further) – the project has already expanded into other similar areas that were not originally foreseen in the application.

• Participation remains strong throughout • Difficulties in defining the results of the concrete actions due to the use

of simplified models • Difficulties in development of innovative design methods


Pressures and impact analysis – micro-pollutants

Project: LIFE11 ENV/ES/503 WATOP Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive (WFD); UWWT Directive Strengths Weaknesses • The process being demonstrated is able to remove Pharmaceutical &

Personal Care Products (PPCPs), which are not removed by conventional treatment, from wastewater.

• Demonstrated that polyamidoamine-based cross-linked resins bearing cyclodextrin units are efficient at removing PPCPs.

• The polyamidoamine-cyclodextrin (PAA/CD) nanoresins in the filtration membrane are insoluble and the membrane can be easily regenerated by washing with methanol (tests have shown a regenerative capacity up to 42%).

• To date the treatment process has proven highly efficient in reducing the concentration of certain pharmaceuticals: ibuprofen, naproxen, lyncomycin and 1.7-Dymethylxanthine.

• Removal rates achieved during laboratory tests (using water with higher concentrations of PPCPs than found in wastewater) have been positive.

• The membrane is being tested at both a pilot WWTP (processing capacity - 48m3 water/day) and semi-industrial WWTP (processing capacity - 3,000m3 water/day).

• The pilot WWTP is owned by the Coordinating Beneficiary and is therefore easily accessible to the project.

• No additional environmental permit was required to install the technology at the WWTP.

• The process is more energy efficient than alternative tertiary treatments for wastewater (e.g. reverse osmosis).

• The purification process is not yet efficient in reducing concentrations of carbamazepine, diclofenac and paracetamol – this will be the focus of improvements in the design up to the end of the project.

• Trials of the technology carried out in the laboratory and in the pilot scale WWTP used simulated water flows with significantly higher concentrations of PPCPs than are found in wastewater. As such the results can’t be readily extrapolated to the semi-industrial level (testing of the technology in the semi-industrial WWTP have not yet taken place).

Opportunities Threats • The purification equipment can be retrofitted within existing WWTPs. • The Associated Beneficiary, SMSA owns nine WWTPs including the semi-

industrial one in which the technology is being trialled. This should

• The results from testing at the pilot WWTP are not yet available. • The technology has not yet tested at semi-industrial WWTP scale. • A cost-benefit analysis of installation of the technology has not yet

http://www.watop-life.eu/

facilitate the rollout of the technology to new facilities. • The technology has the potential to be adapted to treat wastewater from

a number of different industrial sectors e.g. pharmaceutical, textile, paper.

conducted.

Project: LIFE 07 ENV/NL/576 PHARMAFILTER Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive (WFD); UWWT Directive Strengths Weaknesses • Successfully demonstrated the application of the Pharmafilter concept

(an integrated process for processing organic waste and purifying wastewater) in a hospital environment.

• The wastewater treatment process addresses the contamination of surface water by medicine residues and endocrine disruptors.

• Proved the effectiveness of a membrane bioreactor (MBR) followed by post-filtration treatment by oxidation and adsorption to treat hospital wastewater at source.

• The process is effective at removing medicines, germs, cytostatics, röntgen contrast liquids and hormone disturbing substances.

• The end result of the Pharmafilter process (which includes disinfection using ozone) is clean, purified, potable water.

• Methane produced by the digestion of organic waste is used to generate energy to run the Pharmafilter unit (approximately 60-70% of energy used is generated by the unit itself).

• The performance of Pharmafilter in treating wastewater was in line with or better than anticipated. >99.9% of hormone disrupting agents and drug residues removed (target – 80%).

• Application of the Pharmafilter concept can lead to improved and safer working conditions (reduced risk of contagion) in hospitals.

• Hospital staff require special training in order to implement the Pharmafilter process – this entails a time commitment from staff and a financial commitment from the hospital.

• Following changes to Dutch regulations the project was required to obtain a number of permits (building and environmental) before the project could be implemented – this led to a delay to activities and meant the project required a prolongation.

• The cost of purchasing the Pharmafilter equipment was substantially higher than foreseen in the proposal – this led to the project having to rent a mobile Pharmafilter unit (for two years) rather than purchasing it.

• Pharmafilter BV – the company providing the Pharmafilter unit – was not included as an associated beneficiary (because it was a small start-up enterprise with limited funds to co-finance its role in the project).

• The project suffered from delays due to problems with the grinders used to treat solid organic waste and leakage problems in the Pharmafilter unit – this led to the need for a prolongation.

Opportunities Threats • The Pharmafilter wastewater treatment process tackles a serious

environmental problem at source and provides an alternative to tackling this problem in WWTPs.

• The process can in principle be replicated in any hospital. • Pharmafilter has been patented as a concept and working method

providing an incentive for transfer and wider uptake.

• The high cost of the equipment and training for staff may limit uptake. • The cost effectiveness of Pharmafilter depends on many factors that are

specific to individual hospitals. • The rental of a mobile Pharmafilter unit rather than purchasing of the

equipment could impact on the sustainability of the project as the hospital will have to pay to continue to rent the equipment at the end of


• Implementation of the process can generate co-benefits in the form of decreased risk of contagion for hospital staff and reduced hospital waste.

• The project received positive feedback from both hospital staff and patients demonstrating the appropriateness of the concept.

• A conditional contract for a Pharmafilter installation at a hospital in Terneuzen, and business cases for 20 other hospitals were in place by the end of the project.

• Reported to be a cost effective treatment process, thus creating a win-win situation for the environment and hospital.

the project.

Project: LIFE11 ENV/FR/742 BIOTTOPE Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive (WFD); UWWT Directive; Drinking Water Directive; EQS Directive Strengths Weaknesses • Project is demonstrating innovative technologies for removing and

monitoring micro-pollutants causing biological effects (Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs)) in wastewater: A wastewater treatment process (ActifloCarb) - based on activated

carbon adsorption and an accelerated settling step – to remove micro pollutants causing biological effects.

An industrial reading flow system (FrogBox) to detect endocrine disruption of wastewater using genetically modified fish and amphibians larvae that fluoresce when the part of the genome linked to their hormonal system is disturbed by pollution.

• Prototypes are being demonstrated at two sites (one in Belgium and one in France) in full scale WWTPs.

• The initial results obtained have been promising - endocrine disrupting activity in effluent has been reduced - and the feasibility of the process has been confirmed.

• WATCHFROG, the Associated Beneficiary, had authorisation in place from the French Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies for the use of transgenic larvae for the detection of pollutants before the start of the LIFE project.

• The authorisations for the use of transgenic larvae in FrogBox expire before the end of the project (although the beneficiaries expect them to be renewed).

• The prototype of the reading flow system (FrogBox) cost significantly more than foreseen.

Opportunities Threats • The technical scale chosen to test and validate the technologies

minimises uncertainties related to upscaling and should allow for easy replication and transfer to other WWTPs.

• The Coordinating Beneficiary, Veolia Group, manages many water treatment plants in Europe providing opportunities for the technologies to be easily transferred.

• FrogBox - the industrial automated biological tool for the analysis of endocrine disruption of wastewater directly on site - could be commercialized all around the world.

• The data from the testing of the effectiveness of the pilot in removing EDCs is still being assessed.

• The cost of the technologies may limit their uptake. • Two additional factors may limit the uptake of the monitoring approach: Ethical concerns around the use of living organisms to assess water

quality – the project is assessing the social acceptability of the technology.

Concerns about the use of genetically modified organisms and the risk of accidental release.

http://www.biottope.eu/

• Frogbox could allow WWTP managers to monitor the quality of their facilities in real-time and to optimize them as necessary, as well as to make potential savings by reducing investment in or operation of equipment based on the content of the wastewater entering the plant.

• The FrogBox concept could be used to improve environmental monitoring strategies by using untargeted chemical and biological tools to carry out analysis of environmental samples in real time.

• It could also achieve cost savings due to lower expenditure on laboratory analysis (substance by substance) to evaluate water quality.


Economic Analysis

Project: LIFE05 ENV/DK/145 AgrPoM Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive (WFD); Nitrates Directive Strengths Weaknesses • Addresses nutrient pressures from agricultural activities. • Project included an analysis of the socio-economic importance of

agriculture in the river basin and a projection of changes over an 8-10 year timeline.

• Demonstrated an approach for developing a cost-effective programme of measures to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous pollution from agriculture.

• Developed a modelling tool capable of establishing nutrient balances at the farm level (as it was found to be most cost effective to target individual measures to each single type of farm).

• Demonstrated that it is possible to prepare a cost-effective programme of measures for agriculture on basin catchment level and to incorporate this programme in a Pilot River Basin Management Plan.

• Project analysed the linkages between the WFD and CAP and how the CAP could contribute to the implementation of the WFD and finance parts of a Programme of Measures at catchment level.

• Directly contributed to the activities of the EU WFD Strategic Steering Group.

• Good dissemination – results were presented at a number of regional, national and international forums and fed into international networks.

• Project has contributed to the EU Pilot River Basin Agricultural report. • A National Advisory Board and Environmental Economics Expert Group

were established to provide support and guidance during the project.

• The farm level modelling tool was produced by an external contractor and was delayed as a result of technical problems with the model and quality assurance of the results.

Opportunities Threats • Diffuse pollution from agriculture is a major pressure in many river basins

hence the project has wide relevance. • The methodological approach could be adapted to fit the specific

circumstances of other river basins. • The project results were highly relevant for the development and

• Implementation of the WFD at farm level may impact on the structure of farming and on the ability of individual farmers to farm their land – it was beyond the scope of the project to conduct socio-economic studies to assess this.

implementation of EU water policy and legislation. • The project served as a demonstration of how the WFD could be

implemented in river basins throughout Europe.

Project: LIFE 08 ENV/GR/551 PURE Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive (WFD) Strengths Weaknesses • Transformed an existing network of pipelines that were distributing

treated wastewater for irrigation, with no control, no monitoring, no pricing and no management plan, into an upgraded system that provides high quality alternative water resources for irrigation in a sustainable manner.

• A wide range of stakeholders (incl. farmers, local authorities, local population and tourists) were consulted and a good level of engagement was achieved.

• An excellent environmental education package on wastewater reuse was prepared and implemented widely in local schools.

• The upgraded wastewater treatment and irrigation network was operational for two irrigation seasons (summer) allowing the system to be tested and optimised during the project.

• The project enabled the Coordinating Beneficiary, Municipal Enterprise for Water & Wastewater of Chersonissos (MEWWC), to upgrade their in-house capacity for quality testing of water.

• Extensive sampling took place during the project covering areas irrigated with treated wastewater, irrigated with potable water and not irrigated.

• An experimental olive grove was established at the Technological Education Institute of Crete (TEIC) to investigate the impacts of using wastewater for irrigation.

• Effects of wastewater reuse on groundwater were investigated. • An epidemiological study didn’t find any significant risk to farmers of

using treated wastewater for irrigation.

• Although the upgraded system has resulted in a marked improvement of water quality, especially with respect to suspended particles, the values of microbiological parameters have not improved sufficiently to allow use of the treated water in cultivations other than olive trees e.g. vegetables.

• The automations introduced through the technical upgrading of the system have greatly facilitated distribution to the end users; however, water meters and pricing were not in place by the end of the project.

• The monitoring protocol hadn’t been incorporated into the system's management plan by the end of the project.

• Changes to the team meant that project management during the last two years of the project was weak.

• Delays to the tender procedure for the purchase of equipment for the wastewater distribution system meant the project required a prolongation.

• A Life Cycle Assessment of the system has not yet been conducted. • End users of the system (estimated to number more than 1000) were not

identified.

Opportunities Threats • The Coordinating Beneficiary, MEWWC, has commenced procedures for

initiating a new project for the extension of the distribution network to new areas and the introduction of an additional treatment stage to further improve water quality to enable it to be used for irrigation of

• A new department was established within the MEWWC with responsibility for managing the upgraded wastewater distribution system, instead of a separate entity as foreseen in the proposal. There are questions about the capacity of this new department.


other crops.

• The management plan for the system is unlikely to be in place by the end of the project.

• Installation of flow meters for measuring consumption and administering water pricing did not proceed as foreseen in the proposal.

Project: LIFE08 INF/IT/000308 WATACLIC Policies targeted: WFD Strengths Weaknesses • Utilised a combination of fiscal and communication tools to achieve

reductions in water and energy consumption within Italian urban areas. • A wide range of different stakeholders were targeted. • Large database containing ~2,000 was compiled. • One campaign was dedicated to informing and communicating the role

that different water tariff policies can play in reducing water consumption by final users.

• Produced a ‘concept document’ that presents an ‘optimal’ water tariff scheme and highlights economic tools other than tariffs that can reduce water consumption.

• Project had support from the representative of the Ministry of the Environment.

• The project monitoring questionnaires confirmed stakeholder interest in the innovative economic instruments and tariff schemes.

• Events attracted a large number of participants, although not always the targeted individuals e.g. a large number of students attended some events that were targeted at experts currently working in the area.

• Feedback from participants was that the information provided during the campaigns was useful and of a high quality.

• Project has involved both local government bodies (municipalities, provinces and regions) and national ones (the Ministry of the Environment).

• Innovation lies in the project’s approach of targeting all possible actors involved in urban water management.

• Project concluded that the adoption of new water tariff systems had the highest potential for achieving water savings within the regions in which the project was implemented (19%).

• Changes to the Italian water services legal framework occurred during the project relieving Local Water Authorities of the authority on water related services and giving Regional Administrations the responsibility for defining new local frameworks. As these new frameworks had not been developed by the majority of Local Authorities by the end of the project the target audience defined in the proposal was not representative or adequate for the objectives of the campaign (to promote the adoption of tariff schemes aimed at discouraging unwise use of water).

• This necessitated a change of target for some of the campaigns including the one on water tariffs.

• Uncertainties related to the legal framework, and identification of institutions responsible for the definition and application of tariff schemes prevented the concerned authorities from adopting and modifying current tariff schemes during the project lifetime.

• Not all local entities agreed to actively support the project in the beginning.

• Events attracted a large number of participants, although not always the targeted individuals e.g. a large number of students attended some events that were targeted at experts currently working in the area.

• Any impact on domestic water consumption as a result of the project activities will probably only be visible after the end of the project.

http://www.wataclic.eu/index.php?lang=en

• Project results and approach were disseminated at two international conferences (in Romania and Crete).

Opportunities Threats • The uptake of economic tools for water management is promising given

the creation of the Authority on Water Services Regulation and the start of a public consultation on a new national water tariff scheme in Italy.

• One of the project team is assisting the new Agency in charge of Water Service Regulation which could facilitate the adoption of the WATACLIC approach.

• Transferability of the project approach is high due to the geographic characteristics of the Italian territory in which the project was implemented.

• Sensitivity to the issues of sustainable water consumption may be higher in other countries e.g. in southern Europe, facilitating the transfer and impact of similar campaigns.

• A European-level initiative aimed at encouraging sustainable water management could speed up the process of adoption of new technologies and economic tools.

• Estimated that an investment of 2,000 million € per year in improving water and wastewater management in Italy through adoption of the technologies promoted by the project could lead to the creation of nearly 50,000 new jobs.

• In Italy issues around water saving and sustainable urban water management do not receive as much interest from the general public, public administrations and industry as other environmental issues.

• The domestic and urban water issue is perceived as a problem only in the case of a poor distribution service.

• Despite raised awareness, uptake of approaches and technologies highlighted by the project is likely to be slow and may be further hampered by the lack of public and private investment due to the economic climate.

• Proper "market signals" (fair pricing of water) are needed from government to allow for a more effective information and communication activities with the water sector.

• There is a general lack of interest of public bodies in water-related issues (and municipalities in particular), as these do not recognise water as a key problem in their urban planning activity. More generally speaking, the need to reduce water consumption at household level is not widely perceived by different stakeholders. For the final users this is probably due to the low price of water: in Italy the whole water service, including sewage and wastewater treatment costs around 1€ per cubic meter. But also “Water Authorities” do not comprehend the need for a more rational water use - contrary to what is asked by the European Water Framework Directive.

• If the lack of water pricing continues to prevail, it is very probable that no real interest in sustainable water management and related solutions will ever emerge

Establishment of a Register of Protected Areas

LIFE08NAT/S/000266 Vindel River LIFE –Restoration of tributaries of the Vindel River combined with monitoring and evaluation of ecological responses of species and habitats http://vindelriverlife.se/?lang=en Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive Strengths Weaknesses • Strong and effective partnership of experienced practitioners, research

bodies and policy makers. • Clear objectives to continue to restore the 450 km Vindel River which

historically had been modified for floating of timber. • Importance of a baseline study to record the ‘before’ situation. • The use of hydromorphological studies to identify and select

demonstration sites and reference sites so that results can be reported as scientific studies.

• Demonstration restoration techniques were a scale larger than previous work, using boulders, large woody debris and reintroduction of gravels. 5.7 km of river will be treated.

• Removal of barriers to migration, based on known best practice, has opening up 278 km of the river system to salmonids.

• Large scale works combined with small scale actions such as improving spawning areas by the hand placing of gravel.

• 40 km of the channelized river have been restored by opening up old side channels and other re-naturalisation work. The restored sections have a very natural ‘feel’.

• Excellent website showing 360 degree visualisation of the restored sections.

• Good dissemination of scientific results, practical experience and information to local, regional and European audiences through conferences, workshops, training courses and school visits. An additional action will provide information to landowners.

• Appropriate monitoring projects to measure the changes to the riparian habitats (two Annex I habitats) and species (five Annex II species) and other parameters.

• Some monitoring data could not be acquired due to high flow events and other factors (a common problem to most river projects). A project prolongation will ensure that sufficient data is obtained.

• Legal consultations, e.g. on EIAs, took longer than envisaged in the project design.

• Communication was good, but some techniques, such as the introduction of large woody debris (trees with root plates attached) is likely to require careful explanation.

http://vindelriverlife.se/?lang=en

• By the end of the project c. 75% of the modifications to the River Vindel will have been treated.

Opportunities Threats • The European Commission accepted a project prolongation request to

allow more work to be done based on cost-effectiveness of main programme.

• The use of hydromorphological studies is a methodology which has wider dissemination value.

• The project allowed a sum of money for compensation payments to private landowners, but, in many cases less formal agreements were reached. This is a positive result which should help with transferability.

• The project partners are keen to extend the work with local schools. • The monitoring work could be extended by adding water chemistry

analysis to help explain the changes to fish populations. • The project was supported by the Swedish Environmental Protection

Agency and the County Administration Board of Västerbotten. The regional action programme for inland aquatic ecosystems emphasises that the restoration of channelized rivers is most important for the development of favourable conservation status.

• Project emphasised the need for patience in river restoration, the importance of long term monitoring, the importance of stakeholder involvement and the need to link practice to research.

• There are good opportunities to transfer the project experience to other Nordic rivers.

• River restoration is a long term process which requires political and financial commitment to ensure that the success of actions is measured and evaluated.

• Much depends on a supporting attitude from private landowners. Whilst the response has been good to date this will always be the main stakeholder group to be engaged with.

LIFE08NAT/D/000013 Elbe floodplains at Vockerode- improvement and long-term safeguarding of the Natura 2000 site ‘Dessau-Wörlitz Elbe Floodplain’ http://www.wwf.de/themen-projekte/projektregionen/elbe/elbauen-vockerode/life-project-in-english/ Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive, Floods Directive and Habitats Directive Strengths Weaknesses • Good technical design with engineering feasibility developed prior to

project application. • 800 ha project demonstrates how flood protection can be combined

with nature conservation in an UNESCO biosphere reserve and Natura 2000 site.

• Project design was tested in middle European flood of June 2013 and showed how the opening up of more floodplain could protect the village of Vockerode.

• The project is a form of ‘managed realignment’ with some dykes being abandoned but others strengthened.

• Landowners and land users were willing to reach agreements for selling land to WWF for habitat creation and also for receiving compensation payments (but this is also a potential weakness / threat for extending the work).

• The main project output, opening of the dyke ‘Gatzer Bergdeich’, happened ‘by nature’ when it was breached in the 2013 floods, but this helped to protect the village by creating 212 ha of flood retention and the dyke was not repaired.

• The German Minister of the Environment visited the project immediately after the floods to learn from its experience.

• The project can demonstrate the additional flood protection delivered by reclaiming natural floodplains (but see weaknesses /threats)

• The project will also develop best practice in the rehabilitation, protection and conservation of riparian landscapes.

• The project has a special focus on the management of hardwood riparian forests through the removal of non-native species and the creation of new native woodlands.

• Other habitat creation work includes floodplain meadows, wetland

• To achieve the project results 54ha of land had to be purchased from 48 land owners. The project avoided a compulsory purchase route but if the programme was extended throughout the floodplain it is likely that land may have to be expropriated.

• With LIFE funds all land purchased had to be designated as Natura 2000. This was not foreseen in the application. For the project it was not a problem but it could be a constraint in other locations and would limit the use of LIFE funds.

• The project is small in scale compared to the Elbe floodplain as a whole. The project shows the need to scale up the work but does not set out how this could be done despite “setting a precedent for the restoration of large river systems in middle Europe”.

• The relocation or removal of dykes can be achieved quickly once all approvals are in place whereas habitat creation is a much longer term process. The project runs for eight years with most of the habitats creation action in the second half. Is this too long for a single project?

http://www.wwf.de/themen-projekte/projektregionen/elbe/elbauen-vockerode/life-project-in-english/

features and the reconnection of a former ox-bow. The project covers all aspects of floodplain biodiversity.

• The project is generally supported by the local communities most at risk of flooding.

• Socio-economic benefits include improved flood protection, new uses for agricultural land and a potential increase in tourism.

Opportunities Threats • The project approach and habitat targets can be used throughout the

middle Elbe landscape. There are excellent historic records of flooding (dating back to 1500 for Dresden) so there is a real awareness of how a flood plain can and should work.

• The case study of the project can be used by WWF in its campaigns for sustainable flood protection strategies by giving more space for rivers. WWF is involved in consultations at national and international level through the ‘Nationale Hochwasserschutzkonzeption’.

• The project is also recognised as a case study for climate change adaptation. However, alone it can only make a small contribution to reducing the risk of flooding along the Elbe.

• Scaling up the demonstration project should involve tens of thousands of hectares along the Elbe floodplain.

• A wider programme would require a new approach to land use from landowners and farmers to be able to profit from the natural habitats (e.g. biomass) along with compensation to farmers for improved ecosystem services.

• After the 2013 floods the German flood compensation fund was used to replant trees lost in the flood. It is important that ‘flood compensation’ can also be applied to investments in nature.

• As more land is returned to the floodplain the specifications for the remaining dykes (e.g. height) should be less so an economic case can be made for restoring the river.

• The natural floodplain of the Elbe is > 500,000 ha but all that remains is < 100,000 between dykes. The opening up of 200 ha through the project has to be put in this context. The potential leverage of the project is an issue for the final report.

• Payments are essential to compensate farmers for loss of land and to provide payments for land management. In the project the payments will be c. 250,000€ over 14 years for 54 ha (based on 520€ / ha/ yr). Scaled up these costs will be considerable.

• Whilst there is growing support for river restoration there may also be archaeological and cultural constraints on some of the actions which would benefit nature.

LIFE08NAT/UK/000201 Irfon Special Area of Conservation Project http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/isac/ Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive Strengths Weaknesses • Build on tried and tested practice but addressing issues at the

catchment scale (300 km2 Irfon catchment - part of River Wye SAC ). • Addresses the main problems affecting upland catchments in the UK-

acid runoff, siltation and over-shading of river banks. • Addressed the full suite of Annex I habitats and Annex II species in an

ecosystems approach. • The project showed how to treat the sources of acid runoff from

forestry plantations and could measure the improvements to water quality using diatom assemblages and the re-colonisation of the upper 10 km of the river by Atlantic salmon.

• The riparian management work and in-stream enhancements significantly increased the population of salmon and the extent of Annex I river habitat.

• Baseline studies identified the distribution and populations of Annex II species and supported two captive breeding programmes for freshwater invertebrates.

• River restoration which improves fisheries can help to support local employment and tourism.

• The dissemination of results through public walks, workshops, layman’s report and scientific studies has been effective.

• The project was delivered through a partnership of statutory agencies and NGOs which provides a good model for similar work.

• The project suffered from setbacks due to severe weather and high river flows. This affected the reliability of monitoring information and required a project prolongation.

• Some problems were found with sampling for lamprey species and a new methodology is suggested.

Opportunities Threats • The sub-catchment based approach is transferable to similar upland

river systems where farming and forestry are the main land uses. • The evidence from the project is being use to recommend extensions

and additional features for the River Wye SAC. • The project promotes extensions to river SACs in the UK to include the

headwaters.

• The main remaining threat to the upland catchments is from soil loss from agricultural practice which can smother the river bed and wipe out species such as Freshwater Pearl Mussel. There is no easy solution.

• To obviate the need for short term solutions, such as adding lime to acidified streams to control the pH, there has to be a permanent change to forest practice. The Welsh Government does now support the

http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/isac/

• The project demonstrated the economic benefits of river management through the ‘wild streams’ fishing passport which can generate an income for landowners and farmers.

• Through the project the public and private forestry sectors accepted that upland plantations were affecting water quality and will now incorporate restoration of hydrological sources in Forest Design Plans.

• Project such as this can demonstrate the ecosystem services value of protecting blanket bogs to control flows and water quality. A cost-benefit ratio of 40-1 is suggested.

• The project results show that it may be better to focus resources on river habitat management for salmon rather than over-reliance on fish hatcheries. Cost-benefit estimates indicate that river restoration is cheaper in the long-term.

conservation of upland peat but existing problems may take decades to solve.

Monitoring

Surface and groundwater status

Project: LIFE06 ENV/IT/235 Kolisoon Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive, UWWT Directive Strengths Weaknesses • Successfully demonstrated an automated on-line early warning device for

detecting E. coli in wastewater effluent. • The prototype detection unit provides a quasi-real time assessment of E.

coli concentrations – this is not possible with conventional monitoring as laboratory analysis of samples takes 24-48 hours.

• Enables the disinfection of wastewater to be finely regulated depending on the need, avoiding unnecessary use of chemicals and the waste of electricity and other resources.

• Prototype is suitable for microbiological procedures since it is biologically and chemically resistant in the essay conditions and does not interfere with the results.

• Prototype met the requirements of Italian law regulating the presence of E. coli in wastewater effluent and reduced ozone consumption by ~20%.

• Prototype was tested at a WWTP owned by the Associated Beneficiary. • The detection unit had a high sensitivity and was able to detect low

concentrations of E. coli. • Transferability was built in to the project through the development of a

transferability strategy. • A cost-benefit analysis was carried out to compare the Kolisoon device

with other techniques used in Europe for the detection of E. coli. This showed the Kolisson device is provide more rapid results and requires less human inputs making it more cost effective.

• The prototype was promoted in Spain and Romania and training on the features of the device and it applications for individuals involved in the field of water quality monitoring.

• Systea Spa, an external contractor on the project with expertise in the production and sale of automated equipment for water analysis, would have been an ideal partner had the project know about the organisation at the time of putting in the proposal.

• Change in the ownership structure of one of the Associated Beneficiaries led to some costs being incurred by a related, but separate, legal entity – these were declared ineligible at the FR stage.

Opportunities Threats • The technology has the potential to be applied in a number of situation

requiring the analysis of water: Wastewater facilities – for the analysis of wastewater effluents at

• At the end of the project the prototype still required fine-tuning of the sensitivity to ensure it produced consistent results.

• Whilst there was a lot of interest in the technology a major challenge is

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3082&docType=pdf

discharge or re-use sites. Environmental agencies - for monitoring of crucial water bodies e.g.

bathing sites. Disinfection industry - as a feedback tool to assess treatment

effectiveness. • The detection unit could be adapted to detect other bacteria e.g.

Enterococci or Coliform. • If applied in WWTP the technology could improve communication

between facility managers and environmental authorities on problems related to bacterial contamination of water bodies.

to convert this into adoption of the prototype.

Project: LIFE10 ENV/ES/521 AQUATIK Policies targeted: WFD Strengths Weaknesses • Demonstrating an automated prototype for measuring, in quasi-real

time, seven of the WFD priority substances (four pesticides: atrazine, simazine, diuron, isoproturon and three plasticises/surfactants: octylphenors, nonylphenols and DEHP) discharged in wastewater effluents and related spills.

• Demonstrated the feasibility of using novel microalgal-based luminescent biosensors for monitoring the presence of three pesticides (simazine, diuron and isoproturon).

• The technology is being demonstrated at a ‘prototype’ scale within an existing WWTP.

• A cross technology comparison against existing methodologies is ongoing.

• Transferability is built into the project design through a study on market transferability – this is not yet complete.

• The project also includes a cost-benefit analysis of the technology – this is not yet complete.

• Wide dissemination of the project at relevant events and conferences.

• Short delays during the design, contracting and validation of the prototype.

• Off-site validation was done in the WWTP rather than a laboratory. • The prototype construction is fragile preventing it from being moved to a

second WWTP for testing – instead water from the WWTP was transferred to the prototype.

• Technology is only being tested at the “prototype” scale.

Opportunities Threats • The modularity of the device enables it to be easily configured to detect

other pesticides. • Testing of the prototype under real environment conditions is not yet

complete. • The biosensor is able to detect the presence of pesticides through the

inhibition of algae respiration, however the concentration values cannot be quantified. This may limit its application.

http://www.life-aquatik.eu/

Project: LIFE05 ENV/GR/245 ENVI-Friendly Policies targeted: WFD Strengths Weaknesses • Aimed to integrate the results of environmentally-friendly technologies

and socioeconomic factors in an integrated management plan for the Evrotas River watershed which suffers from over extraction and high levels of pollution from agriculture.

• Produced a toolbox of environmentally friendly technologies able to minimise diffuse pollution from agricultural land.

• Installed three prototype treatment units to treat wastewater and solid waste from local olive and orange production.

• Demonstrated several low-cost and environmentally friendly methods and techniques (e.g. monitored natural attenuation, drainage canal management, river bank management, agricultural product waste management) that can contribute to the reduction of agricultural pollutants such as nitrates and pesticides

• Setup a Local Development Observatory which gained official status in the last months of the project implementation – this should ensure sustainability of the project.

• Developed an integrated watershed management plan following a public consultation process.

• Implemented a significant social component emphasising interaction with the farmers and other stakeholders to encourage adoption of sustainable management practices.

• Extensive sampling carried out by the project enabled the naturally occurring pollutant attenuation (Monitored Natural Attenuation - MNA) to be measured and documented - it was shown that MNA can reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads by 96% and 98% respectively.

• Monitoring stations were established or equipped with necessary instrumentation. Existing and 7 new hydrologic stations were used for sampling. The sampling network consisted of 64 sampling points.

• The electrolytic unit for separating solids and colloid particles from olive mill effluents, which was originally installed at Toutoulis Olive Oil Mill had to be relocated to the EuroAmericana edible olive producing company since it was not effectively used in its first location.

• There were delays in the installation of the prototypes.

Opportunities Threats

http://www.envifriendly.tuc.gr/en/progr.php?allid=1

• Techniques demonstrated by the project can be easily transferred to other settings - the Central Water Agency of the Ministry of the Environment in Greece (the authority responsible for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive) expressed interest during the project in transferring the project results to other Greek river basins.

• An EC – FP7 project involving integrated management of the Evrotas River Basin commenced shortly after the end of the LIFE project enabling best practices demonstrated by ENVI-Friendly to be continued.

• The Evrotas river basin participates in the EU Pilot River Basin (PRB)-Agriculture network allowing the wide dissemination of the LIFE proposed environmental measures, public participation and public acceptance strategies and management plans

• Not clear whether the uptake of techniques will be as high in other contexts without the extensive communication activities and support provided by the project.

Assessment of Water Body Status

Quantitative and chemical status of groundwater

LIFE10 ENV/IT/394 WARBO Policies targeted: WFD (quality and quantity of groundwater, also water scarcity mentioned). Project Status: Mid term stage – prolongation approved Strengths Weaknesses • The project will develop specific experimental protocols that will define

the administrative procedures to be followed, and will specify how to manage recharge activities. The protocols will concern direct (hydrogeological, geochemical and isotopic) and indirect (geophysical and remote sensing) methods, and will be applied to two main macro-areas.

• Definition of the recharge method, development of a model to evaluate the response of aquifers, and assess the WARBO methods in test areas;

• Assessment of the impact of AR on: 1) degradation of organic substances due to the input of high quality water; 2) increase in the piezometric level of the aquifer, which can thus resume its feeding functions instead of its draining-only functions without conveying surface water contaminated by human activities towards the aquifer ; 3) protection of the environmental characteristics of rivers and streams as a result of the recovery of the feeding functions of AR aquifers;

• Reduction in subsidence caused by withdrawal of underground water; • Use of aquifers as water storage and transport systems as an alternative

to building dams and costly water-supply systems; • Transfer of knowledge with a view towards the acquisition of data and

the management of AR for geothermal purposes; • Development of reliable models for managing AR activities

• Models may be too complicated for the widespread dissemination • Reluctance to adopt recommendations • Highly technical project which may be difficult to replicate

Opportunities Threats • The applicability of the WARBO methodology by other MS • Concentration on sites with a range of artificial recharge problems that

host ecosystems of community interest where urgent measures are needed to combat water scarcity.

• Development of new regulations for aquifer recharge that could be adopted throughout Europe

• The technology might not work and might not be easily transferable • Monitoring might show project outputs are not as robust as required • Lack of proper authorisations for withdrawal and injection from/to

water wells


LIFE 06 ENV/IT/255 A.S.A.P Policies targeted: No specific policy area targeted but relates to Groundwater Project Status: Closed Strengths Weaknesses • Project achieved its objectives of reduced groundwater abstraction by

10% (achieved 11%) and reduced system losses from leaks by 10% (achieved 15%). As a result, the negative drawdown trend of the piezometric level was reversed with an average build-up of + 0.3m from 2005 to 2008 and peaks ranging from 0.5m to 1m.

• Energy consumption from pumping was reduced by 10%. • The protocol translates even limited resources into effective action

plans for efficient abstraction and leakage cut-down. • The ASAP Protocol raised remarkable interest among (local/regional)

public administrators involved in the water management. It was included in the White Paper "A Strategy for Water Supply in Tuscany".

• The ASAP model has been replicated already: the water utility of the Fiora Aqueduct (Toscana Region) has adopted the ASAP approach.

• Local scale only with only regional impacts • Dissemination very Italy/Tuscany centric (some in Spain) • The protocol cannot be regarded as a solution to the original cause of

network losses and consequent depletion of water resources: the aging of pipeline infrastructure (see threats)

• Lots of mentions of improved water quality (reduced risk of pollution from over abstraction) but no monitoring – project dealt only with availability, not quality – could be argued as a weakness.

Opportunities Threats • Methodology outlined in protocol is readily transferable throughout

Europe (especially Mediterranean coastal areas). • One of the main challenges to be addressed in the coming years is

ineffective water pricing policies which generally do not reflect the level of sensitivity of water resources.

• The application of the ASAP protocol may bring about relevant benefits (increasing the life of infrastructure, reduce maintenance costs of facilities, reducing mean time between failures, reducing mean time to restore).

• Limiting factor for the uptake of the protocol elsewhere is the lack of investment available for the renovation of network pipelines (despite the benefits of the protocol (see strengths point 3).


LIFE 06 ENV/B/359 MULTIBARDEM Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); Groundwater Directive is mentioned. Project Status: Closed Strengths Weaknesses • The multibarrier technology is one of the options that exist to improve

water quality (groundwater & surface water) in river basins across Europe.

• Multi-barrier consists of an innovative, tailor-made combination of different types of permeable reactive barriers and reactive zones in which groundwater pollutant removal processes are active. The groundwater flows through the system during which the pollutants are degraded or immobilized.

• The project demonstrated a multibarrier as a sustainable solution for preventing mixed contaminants spreading in groundwater.

• It demonstrated the multibarrier concepts at two different locations with different geological situations (a Landfill site and an Industrial site).

• Pilot tests showed value and benefits of system. • The direct environmental benefit of the multibarrier system is the

containment of pollutants in the groundwater, hereby preventing further spreading of the contaminated groundwater.

• Cost estimations revealed a decreased cost for electricity of 3 to 4 times in comparison with a conventional pump and treat approach.

• A demonstration of technology took place that can contribute to removing pollutants from leachate – there is a clear connection with policy but it does not affect policy directly.

• In the short term, multibarriers are more expensive due to higher installation costs, but at the longer term they become economically more favourable than conventional pump & treat technologies.

• The multibarrier technology is tailor made, and is dependent on the pollution present and the hydrogeological situation.

• Construction costs depend highly on the type of multibarrier installed (reactive barriers vs reactive zones), and may be either higher or lower than for P&T.

Opportunities Threats • Multibarrier was demonstrated in Belgium and Austria and can be

replicated for treating leachate anywhere. • The multibarrier concepts can be worked out for different pollution

compositions and different geological situation. • Highly innovative project with a high relevance for environmental issues

/ policy areas - i.e. the implementation of the WFD. • Estimation of the long-term cost savings & business opportunities

related with the multibarrier technology was part of the cost-benefit analyses that were made

• Potential need for replacement of reactive materials. This remains as yet a major unknown.

• Authorities will therefore probably require more stringent monitoring and contingency planning than for conventional techniques.

• For successful realisation of multibarriers, a close collaboration is needed between applied scientists, consultants and contractors. This may not always be achievable.


Assessment of Water Body Status

Ecological and chemical status of surface water

LIFE 07 INF/UK/032 RESTORE Policies targeted: WFD (ecological status of surface waters); Habitats Directive; Floods Directive Project Status: Closed 2014 Strengths Weaknesses • Development of a knowledge-exchange network linking policy makers,

river basin planners, practitioners and experts across Europe to share information and good practice on river restoration activities.

• Creation of a Wiki-database of river restoration projects, providing understanding of policy opportunities and constraints, the effectiveness of restoration methods, design issues and project costs/benefits;

• To build up existing river restoration network capacity through the European Centre for River Restoration and national centres. The project outputs maintained and updated through the ECRR (www.ecrr.org ).

• Based on earlier work: partnership was well known to each other and covered most regions in Europe

• Project partners are key contributors to annual European River Restoration Conference

• ECRR has a rotating secretariat (i.e. UK, NL, IT etc). Its management and its funding are not secured.

• Ensuring that the difference between the science and research led networks (e.g. Deltares funded by FP7) and the practitioner network approach led by RESTORE continues to be recognised and links between the networks are maintained

Opportunities Threats • Ability to use case studies to demonstrate that river restoration can

reduce flood risk, restore habitats, provide recreation etc. • The production of communication plans at regional and European level; • Continue to use project knowledge base to input into reviews of

current policy, planning and project activity; • Aim to influence the planning, architect and landscape architect sectors

through project publication Rivers by Design –rethinking development and river restoration

• Close association with European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR) should ensure longevity of project after LIFE

• The knowledge-base established by the project will assist in bids for future funding to support the network.

• The wiki-database is open access and allows many contributors to add information.

• River restoration is not high on the agenda in some countries. Several Eastern European Countries still follow an engineering-led approach to controlling rivers.

• Problems with technical delivery (expertise not available, incomplete data sets, evaluation too complex, lack of ICT facilities/knowledge etc)

• Communications (lack of response by MTA, language barriers, inconsistent messages, poor turnout at events, etc)

• Financial crisis reducing opportunities for practitioners to meet face to face- the network will always need some core funding to support mobility.

• Environmental (e.g. demand for energy generation outweighs environmental issues in rivers) *Link to Hydro4LIFe assessment

• Maintenance of national and European stakeholders network for sustainable river restoration programmes

http://www.restorerivers.eu/

http://www.ecrr.org/

LIFE 07 ENV/PL/605 Lake recult. in Gnieźno Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive (ecological and chemical status of surface waters) Project Status: Project closed 2010 Strengths Weaknesses • Activities to reduce pollution have also contributed to the development

of macrophytes in the lakes further improving water quality. • The habitat improvement in lakes also reconstructed fish stocks. • Reduction in blue-green algae blooming and limited algae in the

phytoplankton. • The project helped to fulfil the requirements of the Water Framework

Directive. Currently the quality of water in the Gniezno's lakes can be considered as in a good ecological condition.

• All recultivation procedures are performed from the water surface, posing no risk for the environment or biological life. The method does not require additional area around the lake surface.

• It is relatively cheap method and helps to reach progress in the short time. The project in Gniezno shown that the positive results can be obtained even in the case of lakes in very bed condition.

• Major difficulties for the project were connected to the weather conditions. Weather pattern in 2009 was different than usual, which meant that some of the activities planned for the first half of the year could not be made in due (planned) time. This indicates that weather conditions should be taken into account it the projects of this type (which include physical field works, biological manipulation).

• Permanent monitoring and active conservation measures: - Seasonal elimination of reeds from the area of inflow to the Jelonek

lake, which will take the contaminants stored in the reeds out in the lake;

- Control of the fish stock, control catch of the selected fish species, which will ensure a wide diversity of fish species;

- Controlled mowing of water plants from the sites around the lakes devoted to recreation;

- Control of macrophytes and their plantation if needed; Campaign to prevent feeding of aquatic birds.

Opportunities Threats • Implementation of the project will also improve water quality in

Drainage Basin of Odra River with its outflow to Baltic Sea. • The applied method of lake rehabilitation - inactivation of phosphorus in

bottom sediment is a new method of lake protection. It can be used in most of the cities in Europe where lake eutrophication is the main problem of their degradation.

• The method is ideal for use in the case of municipal lakes. It helps to avoid sediment storage and odours emission which are very often during lake dredging.

• The method can be particularly recommended for shallow lakes.

• Breakdown failure or illegal discharge of sewage into Gnieźniejskiej Struga from which the pollution flows to the lakes. Repeat significant deterioration of water quality could cause that it will not be funds for cleaning up the lakes. This will lead to inhibition of self-purification processes and, in consequence, to further decrease of water condition.

• If the water quality deteriorates, protection activities might not be taken.


LIFE11 ENV/FR/000746 SeineCityPark Policies targeted: No directives mentioned WFD implied plus biodiversity strategy (ecological coherence, invasive species). Project Status: Open – Mid-term report expected 2015 Strengths Weaknesses • Stabilisation of water and soil pollution in the Bords de Seine Park - with

a significant decrease in pollution within five years of the project end • At least a 70% decline in the presence of Ludwigia and a 10-30%

decrease in Japanese knotweed or black locust in the park - with full eradication within five years of the project end;

• Development of new habitats and species, especially aquatic species, in the park and increased biodiversity in urban sections;

• Increased mobility of insect and amphibian species from the south of the loop (Seine) to the north (Hautil Massif), via transitional areas connecting green zones; and

• The project will also provide a good practice example of green urban development.

• The project is in an early phase, so it is not evident yet what the results are and why it will be unique.

• Relies quite heavily on stakeholder buy-in – process requires a lot of effort (heavy on human and financial resources) – is this really replicable?

• Eradication of invasive species predicted but in reality this may not be practical and on-going treatment may be required;

Opportunities Threats • Potential spread of methods used to other areas could be significant • Concept of maintaining ecological coherence is becoming increasingly

important – results should be disseminated widely for best effect

• Long term threat from invasive species recurring post project • Other threats not yet evident.

LIFE 09 ENV/FR/593 WateRtoM Policies targeted: WFD (potentially all areas); Floods Directive. Project Status: Closed 2014 Strengths Weaknesses • Gathering together innovative solutions that could help to implement

the water directives – over 200 research projects identified • Bringing solutions to the market place in 3-5 years instead of the 10

years it takes to date • Have developed reasonable networks and interest among the

Administrators and SMEs to date • Development of water management tool (accessible from the website)

to access valuable research outputs quickly and efficiently • Obtained good support from the research organisations who recognised

that the project added value to their work • Improving the visibility of innovative solutions outside the scientific

community in a non-scientific language • Creation of experts and users committees • Encourage the networking and clustering between researchers and

other stakeholders

• Reluctance from people inside the scientific community to share their results outside the scientific community without considerable effort to engage them

• A lot of projects concentrated their research on solving local problems - and such a project produces results that are not directly transferable

Opportunities Threats • Contact the research promotion agencies to better analyse their

dissemination strategies potentially could lead to a better match between research output and delivering water directives

• The tools and strategy developed by the WateRtoM team seems, so far, easily transferable to other sector – continued dissemination required

• Active extension to the system planned on a wider scale to six new partners in France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Romania – EC funding applied for.

• Main threat at end of project is the lack of interested customers willing to pay for the service – risk confirmed by all four partners

• Financial sustainability (in the absence of EU funds) appears to be critical threat factor

• Research does not always translate to marketable products – highlights the gap between research and practical application

• Need to maintain the process and keep the research record up to date if the water management tool is to be effective in the longer term


LIFE 06 ENV/NL/167 WET Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters); waste water and bathing water also mentioned. Project Status: Closed 2009 Strengths Weaknesses • Achieving the quality standards included in the WFD for WWTP effluent

that needs to be achieved by 2015. As investments in additional treatment steps were necessary, the project provided insight in all measures that are necessary to achieve these standards.

• The technology proposed in the project (additional treatment steps for the WWTP effluent) is very innovative - especially the Advanced Oxidation Processes that are tested in the second research phase - and was not used in any municipal WWTP before.

• Established an installation of a water treatment facility in Leiden that can achieve the WFD values for nitrate and phosphate even with the single filter set-up, which would lead to considerably lower costs than the set-up with separate filters for N and P removal.

• The use of Advanced Oxidation Processes resulted in a reduction of medical remnants and pesticides by at least more than 70% and in a disinfection level up to the hygienic limits set for in the Bathing Waters Directive.

• The project demonstrated that heavy metals can be removed and additional removal of organic micro-pollutants and suspended solids can be achieved using the same combination of techniques.

• The project demonstrated that the further systematic removal of nitrogen (to below 2.2 mg N/l) and phosphorus (to below 0.15 mg P/l) is feasible, including at higher filtration speeds (up to 20 m/h). It is important that the main treatment (which precedes sand filtration) also works well. No clear distinction could be demonstrated between the removal performances of the single and the two-filter concepts.

• The study has shown that the combination of the two processes in a single filtration step is quite possible. The single-filter concept can be used both in a continuous sand filter and in a double-layer fixed-bed filter. As one would expect, the possibility of combining the two

• Being performed at local scales at the time of the project period– but could still be widened further.


processes in a single filtration step yields considerable cost savings (about 50%) compared with the two-filter concept.

Opportunities Threats • Results are replicated by other Water Boards in the Netherlands, at the

time of the FR, the technology demonstrated in the project had already been used by the beneficiary at two other WWTP's (Leiden Noord and Alphen Noord). Further use of the technology is foreseen at other locations of the beneficiary and by other water management bodies.

• Highly innovative project with a high relevance for environmental issues/policy areas - i.e. the implementation of the WFD.

• The study that the project prepared has yielded a lot of new information and experience with regard to the further removal of nitrogen, phosphorus and other relevant contaminants using subsequent treatment techniques. Most of the research results can be translated directly to other wastewater treatment plants in the Netherlands and other European countries.

• No apparent threats, WFD standards have to be met and this is a sound way of achieving this.

LIFE 06 ENV/DK/229 TREASURE Policies targeted: WFD (improving water quality in surface waters) Project Status: Project closed 2009 Strengths Weaknesses • Successfully demonstrated robust, efficient and simple technologies for

removal of pollutants from storm water runoff. • Different technologies for extended treatment of storm-water runoff

from small, medium sized and large catchments are demonstrated. • Treatment facilities were constructed as natural and recreational

elements on the form of semi-natural lakes that in a positive way contributes to an improved urban environment.

• The project demonstrates how storm-water in the future can be treated and discharged to sensitive waters without causing ecological and recreational deterioration.

• A practical project implementing policy.

• Local scale demonstration – no national representation in partnership. • Project scope quite narrow/limited and restricted to Denmark. • Expensive option – can only be afforded by water companies/local

authorities with good cash resources – works well for Denmark but elsewhere?

• Requires extensive background investigations. • The very clear, concrete and well programmed technical

implementation overshadowed the policy related thinking.

Opportunities Threats • 1½-years of monitoring and verification under variable climate

conditions make it possible to transfer the technology to a range of European climate conditions.

• Two other projects in Denmark funded using results from project. • The technology can also be applied for related purposes such as treating

drinking water polluted with for example arsenic or heavy metals or treatment of phosphorous polluted surface waters.

• Needs follow up (monitoring) which requires continued financing otherwise results might not be effective.

• Transferability depends on ability (and desire) of project team to ‘sell’ technology elsewhere.


Stakeholder and Public Participation

LIFE 07 ENV/IT/475 TRUST Policies targeted: WFD (quality and quantity of groundwater); Floods Directive and water scarcity also mentioned; data meets INSPIRE requirements. Strengths Weaknesses • Climate change scenarios that supply the temporal series of

precipitation, temperature and evapotranspiration for the 21st century that will affect the hydrological balance in the study area

• Remote sensing techniques based on the elaboration of satellite images to determine the water deficit for irrigation of summer crops.

• Mathematical models of the hydrologic basins and groundwater in the study area to establish how the hydro-geology will evolve in consideration of climate change and determine appropriate measures (including managed aquifer recharge) to ensure sustainability of groundwater resources.

• Very close collaboration with stakeholders was built through the implementation of common activities (MAR techniques, monitoring campaigns), exchange of data and know-how and involvement in project dissemination, and frequent communications through periodic technical meetings. This collaboration built the basis for concerted actions in ground-water management in compliance with EC directives (WFD, Groundwater Directives).

• The beneficiaries and stakeholders can now count on enhanced capacity to implement a more sustainable management of the resource in the coming decades.

• The project know-how will be used by the coordinating beneficiary to update the Management Plans of the river basins of the Eastern Italian Alps.

• High cost of delivery • Highly technical implementation involving GIS, modelling and remote

sensing – technology transferred via workshops within the project but question how this might be delivered in sustainable way for technology transfer

• Web GIS on website currently closed to non-subscribers • Maintenance of national and European stakeholders network for

sustainable management of groundwater

Opportunities Threats


• The applicability of the TRUST methodology by other national and European stakeholders to improve their groundwater management in consideration of future climate change scenarios.

• Sharing of information with regional stakeholders by means of the Technical Committee that meets periodically and shares information about the project through the Web-GIS. This collaborative approach can be exported to other realities;

• Sharing of project results (e.g. through the web site). The project area is extremely complex from the hydro-geological and water management perspectives as it gathers a wide variety of water uses (irrigation, hydropower generation, potable, industrial); therefore project results will find a wide application in many other situations.

• Sharing of project data and lessons learnt. The project consortium is committed to inform about the project advancement, the data collection and experiences which can be useful to other stakeholders dealing with groundwater management. At a national scale approximately 70 organisations will be made aware of the results.

• The primary constraint for the implementation of TRUST is the availability of data.

• Difficulty in reaching consensus amongst the many stakeholders for the acceptance of artificial aquifer recharge. Artificial aquifer recharge will have to compete against other economic activities that use water and land resources (excavation sites, flood protection, etc).

• The political agenda, rather than artificial aquifer recharge, may gain greater support as adaptation measures. Not a project risk but potentially a risk for wider application

• Difficulties in collaborating with stakeholders.

LIFE09 ENV/IT/056 WIZ Policies targeted: European Framework for Adapting to Climate Change; Water Framework Directive Strengths Weaknesses • Promotes balanced and sustainable water use based on the long-term

protection of available water resources, aiming to ensure sufficient supply of good quality water (environmental and economic benefits);

• Supports the analysis of the impact of human activity on the status of surface water and groundwater, and the economic analysis of water use;

• Demonstrates that the involvement of the citizens can be a stimulus to focus on the value of drinking water and its quality and encourage new behaviours and conscious participation.

• Citizens and businesses can access information that allows them to increase their awareness on water issues and to actively participate in water governance.

• Contributed to the creation of a base of knowledge on the impact of climate change on water resources and its consequences at the local level;

• Made available to water managers and decision-makers a series of political and strategic tools that integrate the aspect of climate change in local planning policies to ensure the effectiveness of adaptation objectives;

• No significant weaknesses identified. • No specific weaknesses related to stakeholder participation identified.

Opportunities Threats • Modification of the Tuscany Regional Law 1/2005 on Land Governance

to ensure wide-spread introduction of the use of WIZ throughout the territory.

• Easily replicable in other countries as demonstrated by the successful demonstration of the services in two different European contexts (Tuscany and Galicia).

• The innovations introduced by WIZ and, in particular, the online platforms, have been developed in such a way to be easily adaptable to new users and compatible with different types of background data, promoting the replication potential of the project.

• Obstacle to the implementation of WIZ lies in the dispersion and non-harmonisation of the data needed to feed the system

• Promotion of infrastructure projects as a means of promoting economic growth could lower the priority of an integrated, "waterised" planning policy.

• Extreme changes in climate could force the remodelling of the system if the changes invalidate the model simulation.

• An increase in localised approaches could fragment spatial planning systems and the integrated use of the tool.

LIFE06 ENV/F/000132 CONCERT 'EAU Policies targeted: WFD - good ecological, chemical and quantitative water status and coherent and sustainable water management; 6th EAP; Strengths Weaknesses • Demonstrated the feasibility of a collaborative technological platform

(CTP) to support the integrative management of agriculture and reduce its impacts on water and the related aquatic ecosystems, in accordance with the WFD requirements.

• The CTP helped develop mitigation measures against several agricultural pressures, as well as an action programme for large-scale cropping, involving key actors such as administrative officials, scientists, political and community leaders, cooperatives and agricultural organisations

• Sociological study helped identify the relevant stakeholders to be involved in the project process.

• Testing the up-scaling to large geographical area of agri-environmental measures experimented within two small watersheds.

• Demonstrated an approach to collective co-production of policies for agriculture instead of a top-down process

• Mitigation measures were not implemented during the project lifetime therefore no significant decreases of nitrate and pesticide concentrations in surface water.

• Methodology for a generic CTP that could be used to produce and implement the programmes of measures of the WFD developed to an average standard.

Opportunities Threats • “Technical observatory network" established to enable continued

exchange of knowledge on agricultural practices amongst stakeholders • Since the project ended, local Water Authority consultation processes

have originated from the results obtained during the project (however, see first threat)

• No formal commitment of river basin stakeholders to implement a programme of actions based on the mitigation measures produced by the CTP.

• Legal agreement ensuring the maintenance of the tool and the access to the toolbox was not concluded before the end of the project.

• Risk of disappointment from farming community that engaged in the project because they were heavily involved in a decision process which was ultimately not respected and considered by the relevant local authorities. This could be counterproductive for environmental action in the area.

Establishment of an Integrated River Basin Approach

The case of hydropower and the WFD

LIFE 06 ENV/D/485 Moveable HEPP Policies targeted: No policies specifically targeted. However project relates to Renewables Directive and Water Framework Directive. Strengths Weaknesses • Committed beneficiary and partner - to solve competition and legal

problems, they founded a new company for the project. • Economic factors driving ecological improvements - the incentive of the

beneficiaries was to produce electricity and not to save the salmon. But without saving the salmon they would have not been allowed to produce electricity.

• Multiple benefits across different policy areas - this new system showed that the ecological aspects of the re-establishment of fish passability and bed load transport can be combined with economic aspects, an improvement of the efficiency of hydropower plants and improvements in flood safety/control.

• Meeting policy objectives on local/regional/EU/global scale – Technology guarantees the fish passability thus directly fulfilling the goals of the “Rhine Action Programme“, “Salmon 2000“ and “Rhine 2020”. Development of low carbon technology will help to meet Renewables Directive targets and the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

• Project design - (minor weakness) Prolongation for 9 months required, in order to allow for meaningful bio-monitoring after the implementation of the power plants.

• Dissemination – (minor weakness) project’s dissemination efforts seemed to be focussed in Germany – less evidence of EU wide dissemination (although projects in Austria and Netherlands demonstrate awareness outside of Germany).

Opportunities Threats • Good potential for transferability - the approach is independent from

national/regional aspects. It merely depends on the size and shape of a river. There are 100s of small weirs in Europe that may be suitable for this technology. So whilst large scale hydropower dams may no longer be suitable (or viable under WFD), increased numbers of smaller hydropower plants requiring little river diversion could be realised.

• Influence local policy makers/regulators perceptions of hydropower - Proves that ecological benefits (WFD) and the economic operation of a hydropower plant (RD) are not contradictory.

• Promising market uptake - interest from potential buyers of the technology is high. Further plants are planned in The Netherlands (2 x 800 kW), Austria (7 x 650 kW, 12 x 1,300 kW each) and Germany (600 kW and 1,250 kW). Feasibility studies running for 80 plants in Africa.

• Local policy makers/regulators perceptions of hydropower - Potential for the continued resistance of local regulatory authorities to facilitating the development of hydropower vs requirements of WFD.


LIFE 07 ENV/B/038 WALPHY Policies targeted: WFD; Floods Directive. Strengths Weaknesses • The project directly responds to the WFD (Water Framework Directive)

requirements by : - undertaking work to maintain or recover the good ecological status of two water bodies - proposing tools to expand the experience to other water bodies - giving a tool to evaluate preliminary the relevance and efficiency of management measures - being based uppermost on existing and available data and information

• The project is part of a regional (Wallonia) plan to implement the WFD – it builds on work already carried out and ecological monitoring at the restored sites will continue after the LIFE project.

• Project has benefits in terms of the Habitats Directive (improving conditions for Atlantic salmon, sea trout, eels etc.)

• As a result of the communication strategy most of the works were implemented in a positive context and all the necessary permits were granted in the normal time frame without major modifications or requests from stakeholders. In only three locations did stakeholder consultation lead to the postponement of works. The perception of the management of the river for ecological purposes has been improved during the project. The integration of the flood risks in the measures taken by the project was positively considered by the people living near the rivers.

• The project does not implement actions towards farmers in relation to nitrogen and phosphorus release from farmland into surface waters (however this should be dealt with by a different department within the regional administration.

• Regional beneficiaries – potentially little in the way of dissemination outside of region.

Opportunities Threats • Demonstration of hydropower working alongside the WFD. Most of the

owners of dams are not ready to accept the simple removal of the dams as they are thinking about the establishment of mini hydroelectric power plants to produce green electricity (in the overall context of high energy costs and climate change). In these cases the project has considered/implemented alternatives to dam removal (bypass river or a fish ladder).

• An important aspect for the implementation of the project is the continuous contact with the provincial authorities: the Provinces are responsible for the management of some categories of rivers and also for the granting of the compulsory authorisations.

• Conflicts with land owners (one particular case where a land owner wrote to the EC complaining about restoration measures) and some anglers.


• Strong ownership by beneficiary and good after-LIFE plan. Scientific monitoring is already planned for the next 4 years. Additional works include the supplementary removals of obstacles and an ambitious remeandering plan on the Eau Blanche. Plans and budget are in place.

LIFE10 NAT/AT/016 Netzwerk Donau Policies targeted: Habitats Directive (17 species); Birds Directive; WFD (incl. Austrian National Water Management Plan); Ramsar Convention. Strengths Weaknesses • Private sector beneficiary running a €14.5m project to contribute to the

implementation of Austria’s National Water Management Plan/strategy for the Danube.

• Beneficiary has carried out two basic feasibility studies of the project at its own expense prior to the project to ensure greater chance of success.

• Beneficiary has previous experience of running LIFE projects. • The project is designed to be a complimentary component of a larger

strategy for the Austrian Danube and its tributaries.

• There are no specific innovations or demonstration values in this project. The construction of fish migration facilities has a long tradition in Austria and the technique applied is up-to-date

Opportunities Threats • “The project is not only a milestone for Austria: it is an important

guidepost along the path toward improving the Danube in all of Europe.” The project is intended to provide an example at the international level. The method practised in Austria, i.e. the technical method of the project as well as the strategic approach of developing a complete plan covering a large region from a large number of individual measures (including LIFE Nature projects), is intended as an example for other countries bordering on the Danube.

• Measures to improve habitat in and to interlink Natura 2000 regions of Austrian Danube

• Over the long term, the ecological benefits realised in the Austrian Danube could be felt upstream and downstream beyond the borders of Austria, in this way having positive radiating effects for neighbouring regions as well.

• Economic difficulties amongst energy companies are delaying implementation.

• Legal action taken by fishermen who do not agree with the project actions.

• The project planned to sell the gravel removed from the backwater of the hydro power station. However, the water administration insists that the gravel remains in the River Danube further downstream as is in large parts of the Austrian Danube the bed load transport (gravel) is interrupted by hydro power plants which has a negative impact on the ecology of the river. Since gravel cannot be sold to partly finance the measure, it will become 20% more expensive than originally budgeted.


Establishment of a Programme of Measures

Reconstructed wetlands case study

LIFE 08 ENV/IT/406 REWETLAND Widespread introduction of constructed wetlands for a wastewater treatment of Agro Pontino Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive, Floods Directive, Habitats Directive, SEA Directive Strengths Weaknesses • The methodological approach was innovative for Italy to create governance

arrangements involving all local and regional agencies responsible for water and to help them engage with stakeholders.

• The project used a participatory planning process, supported by a wide base of stakeholders, to develop an integrated and holistic Environmental Enhancement Programme (ERP) for the wetlands of the Pontine Plain, the first of its kind in the Lazio Region.

• The ERP was formally adopted by the provincial authorities as an implementation tool of the regional River Basin Management Plan.

• The project preparatory stages assembled a database of knowledge which underpinned the work.

• Four demonstration sites showed how constructed wetlands can improve water quality in natural areas, urban areas, general agricultural areas and intensive agricultural areas.

• A costed action plan was developed to deliver the ERP with guidelines for practical techniques for bio-filtering and the use of constructed wetlands.

• Early results from demonstration sites look promising with increase in water quality, bird populations and bird species.

• A Strategic Environmental Assessment applied to the ERP is quite innovative and can be seen as an example of best practice.

• Relevant stakeholders in the project partnership included local authorities, a land reclamation authority and a national park.

• Continuation of management is set out in after-LIFE plan covering administrative duties, updating the regional studies, implementation of the ERP, completion of SEA, maintenance of pilot projects and dissemination.

• Overall generally poor perception of the importance of the environment leading to over-exploitation of natural resources

• Difficulties in working with regional authorities leading to delays in actions including the SEA. It would have been better to have involved the regional authorities as partners in the project.

• The time taken to gain permissions for pilot projects was not sufficiently considered in project design leading to the need for project prolongation.

• The pilot projects started late and only the results of preliminary monitoring data were available by the end of the project. So the sites will be monitored for one year after the project and the results disseminated.

• Engaging with the agricultural community and local farmers was difficult as they were generally unwilling to give up land as buffer strips and the results of the pilot projects were not available to demonstrate the effects of the project actions.

Opportunities Threats • The delivery of the ERP may be coupled with greater environmental

awareness and opportunities to support tourism and sustainable • The continuing urbanisation of the Pontine Plain threatens both

agriculture and natural values.


agricultural practices. • The environmental benefits of delivering the ERP will be reduced water

pollution and increased biodiversity. • The guidelines and approaches developed by the project would be

transferable to other areas, especially in Italy • The process is of particular interest, from participatory planning,

stakeholder engagement through to the approval of an action plan by the local and regional authorities.

• Lazio Region could adopt the Strategic Environmental Assessment approach as a common practice for any local Action Plan.

• Improving the already existing monitoring network with new monitoring stations and protocols, fine-tuned to the requirements of the WFD.

• The pilot sites could act as catalysts for similar small-scale initiatives. • The project helped to create and support employment and the delivery of

the ERP, estimated at 21.5 million € will also help to support the local economy

• Climate change may exacerbate the problems of water management in the Pontine Plain.

• Farming communities were not fully engaged during the project and their main interest will probably continue to be farm income.

• It may be difficult to find the funding required to deliver the ERP

LIFE 06 ENV/F/133 ArtWet Mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution and phyto-remediation in artificial wetland ecosystems Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive, Directive on Environmental Quality Standards (2008/105/EC), EU Directive on sustainable use of pesticides (2009/128/EC) Strengths Weaknesses • Innovative project where experimental and demonstration prototypes

showed good results for the removal of pesticides through bioremediation.

• Practical feasibility was demonstrated with engineering solutions used to complement natural biodegradation.

• Even young (not fully vegetated) systems could remove 40-80% of the pesticide load and in more mature systems 76% +/- 19% (total concentrations) could be achieved.

• Some pesticides, such as glyphosphate, could be totally removed. • Solutions with recirculation of water (e.g. biomass beds) could achieve a

99.8% removal of pesticides even with high concentrations of active ingredients.

• Good technical guide including recommendations to choose the relevant system and how to construct it.

• Good non-technical guide providing information on regulating issues and financial aspects.

• Scientific dissemination was a key output and the project supported new studies through Masters, PhD and post-doctoral work.

• There was also a focus on scientist and practitioner training with visits to the demonstration sites.

• Some simulation work was carried out to assess the potential for roll out at EU level.

• Wetlands relatively cheap to construct (1,000- 12,000€ for a watershed of 50 ha) but there are issues with finding the land (see weaknesses)

• Availability and cost of land may be a constraint. Farmers may be unwilling to set-aside productive land for artificial wetlands.

• There were no institutional partners or national policy makers in the project team. The legal status of new wetlands is uncertain and this may hinder wider implementation.

• No evidence that the technology could be easily reproduced by an inexperienced team for ‘farm scale’ implementation.

• Not clear how technology could be disseminated on a large scale post project

Opportunities Threats • Technical guide can be readily transferred to other locations for small

scale implementation: some replication of the methodology is reported. • Reproduction of technology could be used for urban runoff, nutrient

• The science behind the project has to be turned into widespread practice. It is not clear from the project how this can be done. Ignorance of the process is one of the main threats.


enrichment and silt trapping. There are no technical factors foreseen which would limit the use of the technology (e.g. it could be combined with the construction of storm water basins).

• Artificial wetlands contribute to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. They also support the aims of the Directive on Environmental Quality Standards (2008/105/EC) and the Directive on sustainable use of pesticides (2009/128/EC).

• Funding for artificial wetlands could perhaps be linked to reducing the costs of water treatment and perhaps linked to farm payments through CAP.

• Artificial wetlands could be used at different scales from farm to plot, catchment area or landscape. The potential opportunities are huge but it is not clear how the project dissemination can lead to widespread practice.

• There also needs to be political commitment to reduce pesticide use. • Harmonisation of European legislation may be needed to support EU

wide programmes of constructed wetlands as Member States will have different planning and financing requirements and also different interpretation of Directives

• Artificial wetlands are not the miracle solution and are not a license to pollute. Artificial wetlands need to be combined with measures to reduce problems at source.

LIFE09ENV/ES/000431 http://www.creamagua.com/ CREAMAgua –Creation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems for improvement of water quality and biodiversity in agricultural basins Policies targeted: Water Framework Directive Strengths Weaknesses • Directly relevant to meeting Water Framework Directive targets for

nitrate and phosphate concentrations in rivers. • Demonstration project at sub-catchment level which can be scaled up to

main river (River Flumen) and catchment (River Ebro). • The project is testing the effectiveness of both ‘in-stream’ and ‘off-

stream’ wetlands. • In stream wetlands involved widening the drainage channel to provide

permanently flooded sites with homogenous vegetation. Off-stream sites are more variable in flooding, shallower and more heterogenous giving rise to a richer biodiversity.

• Supported by competent authority for River Basin Management Plan (Confederación Hidrográphica del Ebro).

• ‘Trial and error’ approach used to improve techniques and reduce costs. • Initial monitoring results are promising in terms of nutrient retention (in

some cases up to 90% of the nitrate load) but monitoring will have to be continued for several years before conclusive results can be presented.

• The project has received interest and support from local and regional authorities and from the competent agency.

• Scientific dissemination and networking with similar projects has been good.

• Dissemination of results will include a handbook for the ‘creation of ecosystems for water quality improvement in agricultural areas in the Mediterranean region’.

• Innovative approaches include the adoption of a ‘naturalised random method’ for riparian and wetland tree planting which aims to match the right tree species to habitat conditions. Tree survival using this technique has been 70%.

• There are several commitments from partners even before the end of

• Initial project design was over-prescriptive and expected to use standard solutions. The lesson learned was to be more adaptive to the characteristics of individual sites.

• The planning for constructed wetlands to reduce nutrient loads in the rivers requires a good baseline of information which in turn informs a modelling tool to work out how much land has to be set aside to address the nutrient problems. Not all catchments will have this information.

• The planning has to be done at a fine level of detail. The project started with a sub-division of the River Flumen into 17 sub-catchments but their modelling created 163 sub-catchments, each with its own requirement for ameliorating nutrient loss.

• ‘Off river’ constructed wetlands have to be in agricultural land and there may be unwillingness to give up good farmland. Also the ‘footprint’ of the operational wetland is larger than the site itself, putting more pressure on the land affected by the construction the green filters.

• There will be costs to maintain the new wetland habitats, including riparian forests and these will have to be identified at the design stage.

• A programme for constructed wetlands has to be linked to a monitoring programme of sufficient detail to provide a link between the actions and the outputs. The costs for such programmes would have to be included in budgets for the RBMP.

• Some of the monitoring proposals did not have standard methodologies (e.g. macro-invertebrates in constructed wetlands) and new protocols should be developed at RBMP level.

• Retention of nutrients was found to be good during periods of irrigation but less so in the periods without irrigation. This is probably due to reduced metabolic activity in the drier periods. Solutions may be to increase the size of the wetlands, increase their water retention period, increase associated tree planting and remove filamentous algae to

http://www.creamagua.com/

the project to extend the work (see opportunities). reduce nutrient loss on decomposition. • Although water quality is better leaving the wetlands than when

entering the wetlands the overall river water quality is still ‘moderate’. • The initial level of communication was rather weak and had to be

significantly improved. Opportunities Threats • The methodology is transferrable to all sub-catchments in the River

Flumen basin and to the River Ebro RBMP. • The methodology is also very relevant to other Mediterranean RBMPs. • Commitments have been made through project partners to include

‘green filters’ in land use plans, including allocating a percentage of land cover and providing the associated funds.

• Partners will also explore whether the provision and maintenance of green filters could be supported through EU regional development funds.

• The competent authority for the Ebro River basin will provide funding to extend the project methodology to other sites across the catchment.

• The construction of ‘green filters’ needs land and the support of public bodies is essential in this respect. The project was only able to work on public land.

• The use of constructed wetlands is only one intervention in river basin management planning and has to be supported by actions to reduce sediment loads and loss of soil. If soil losses increase the wetlands may not be able to catch the nutrients and sediment.

• It is not clear how the wetlands will respond to severe flooding events. Would stored sediment and nutrients be released to the river course?

Reporting and information and data management

Databases, GIS, Mapping and Modelling

LIFE 07 ENV/L/540 M3 Policies targeted: WFD (quality of surface waters). Strengths Weaknesses • Monitoring and modelling of water quality and reporting for the Water

Framework Directive. Water quality models based on real monitoring results were used for estimating the impact of Programmes of Measures.

• The most important legislation implication is the link to the Water Framework Directive; the project works on monitoring, modelling and management of water basins in the sense of the WFD.

• The beneficiary identified some incoherence between national water monitoring (substances monitored, priority substances) and the requirements of the WFD; the project team participated in the WFD working groups in order to address this issue.

• The M3 project analysed current monitoring efforts in the 3 partner regions in light of their pertinence towards pressure identification and quantification in view of the evaluation of successful Programs of Measures.

• The technical capacity of the partner Erftverband was a strength because it has a very extensive and advanced monitoring and modelling programme and also a long-term database.

• The project focused on middle and small watercourses, which are much more sensitive to peak loads and other interferences than large ones.

• Some weakness in the monitoring system of the water courses. • Data collection proved to be much more onerous than foreseen as

existing data was very meagre so that the monitoring campaigns had to be intensified and extended.

• Insufficient harmonisation of national implementation with the approach of the WFD causes some problems.

• The project does not develop specific national or regional approaches; it rather builds on existing regional approaches and develops these further.

• The uncertainty analysis could not be completed to the desired extent due to the complexity and diversity of the models and some incompatibilities between the behaviour of some pollutant parameters and the behaviour predicted by the models.

Opportunities Threats • The M³ project assessed the applicability of different, standard and

custom tailored water emission and emission modelling systems in different water basins. Since water modelling is not very streamlined throughout Europe - some member states, regions or water boards applying their own modelling approach, others simply ignoring water quality modelling - the results of the project might be very interesting to others in terms of transferability.

• The project tested the applicability of four different advanced process

• No eminent threats are foreseen. The beneficiary and the partner were very active in water modelling and water quality management before the start of the LIFE project. The project is well embedded in existing permanent structures, and the results will doubtlessly be used, transferred and further developed.


oriented water quality models for reporting under the WFD and could also identify limits of application (or needs for further development) due to the complexity of some models, the requirements of which exceeded the capacities of existing databases provided by routine monitoring. In this way, the project also identified needs and concrete indications for the improvement of water quality monitoring, both in terms of parameters, sampling techniques, frequency and spatial solution. This outcome is also of interest for other European stakeholders (water boards, ministries of environment, other organisations involved in river basin management).

• The project provides enough data and evaluation regarding the inclusion of pharmaceutical substances as priority substances in the WFD.

LIFE 06 ENV/D/461 FLOODSCAN Policies targeted: Floods Directive; Water Framework Directive; INSPIRE Directive. Strengths Weaknesses • The project significantly contributes to the implementation of the Flood

Directive, mainly by demonstrating the optimised and cost effective (up to 60 % savings) processing of data and hydraulic modelling of rivers subject to risk of flooding.

• The project demonstrated clear added value with regards to the cooperation between water management and land surveying authorities.

• Better flood risk communication enables information of the public in areas at risk about flood hazards and risks at minimal cost. This also leads to higher acceptance for flood protection measures as well as increased willingness to take individual precautions.

• The dissemination and communication activities were implemented well

• Local scale demonstration – no national representation in partnership (although neighbouring federal state was engaged with and application across Germany through LAWA (German Working Group on water issues of the Federal States and the Federal Government was explored)

• Delays were experienced in the area of hydraulic modelling, which did not diminish the overall project results, but lead to a slightly reduced level of reliability and validity of modelling

• The method is generally applicable in areas and regions outside the Alps. It is yet to be examined whether it is suitable for the particular conditions in the Alps (supercritical flow, excessive bed load).

Opportunities Threats • Task 8 Action 1 applied cooperation projects at national and

international level (Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Slovenia, Poland). Several workshops were held. Suggests that the approach can be transferred on national and international scale, the main precondition being the availability of hydraulic and geographic data.

• The project provides instruments to water management authorities which can be used for communication with the public in areas at flood risk and only require minor adjustments to the local situation.

• The experiences with laser scan data in the area of flood risk management can be transferred to other sectors such as forestry. Also within the sector of water management replicability is high.

• The data thinning software is readily available on the market. FloodScan methodology is available at no cost through project website.

• In the course of the project a high-performing Web mapping service infrastructure including a frontend and backend conforming to INSPIRE

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


standards has been implemented. The demonstration of the practicability of splitting frontend and backend (of the web-mapping tool) means significant progress in the implementation of the INSPIRE directive. This can be the blueprint for similar map viewer projects.

LIFE 09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER Policies targeted: WFD (monitoring surface water); Nitrates Directive Strengths Weaknesses • The Cleanwater approach represents a real link with the WFD and

Nitrates Directive. The project used a holistic approach to water management by integrating surface-soil-groundwater models and identified sources of pollution in a GIS environment to designate nitrate vulnerable zones. It also communicated with farmers to improve the management of nitrate sources (manure and fertilisers)

• Biological and chemical results were obtained through a monitoring network as well as data completion using a field campaign. Analysis of monitoring data, field campaigns, mass balance and dynamic modelling used to identify and quantify the impact of human activities.

• The GIS system has been built in line with the European directive INSPIRE and is an instrument of analysis and prognosis of water quality within the river basin.

• Contributed to reporting under Nitrate and Water Framework Directive starting from 2012.

• The data are introduced and visualised in graphic form through an open GIS system

• With this system one can see the nutrient variation along the river, the mapping of the vulnerable zones, information about how the nutrient is transferred through the soil, and the costs of the measures aimed for the protection of the aquatic ecosystems.

• The mathematical model which the beneficiary used was developed by the Marie Curie Institute and was used for free for the purpose of this project. The modelling approach was more difficult to apply than originally expected, but in the end the project managed to overcome the difficulties and achieve its expected results. The complexity of the mathematical model lies in the complexity of the data and in the specificity of the project area. In consequence, the mathematical model

• Requires hand-monitoring at all sites that takes a lot of effort and time • Needs strong collaboration with the water authorities. • Not all farmers want to cooperate. • The project analysed historical data (for the period 2007-2009) and

found that many of the existed data are inaccurate. In order to correct these errors the project was required to analyse the possibility of acquiring new information and data necessary for building a geospatial database including a broad set of metadata related to the project objectives.

• Only one modelling approach used, no other models compared.


was adapted to the characteristics of the project area and further supported by a software upgrade for the modelling of ground water.

• The project offered support for: i) design the monitoring program of Romanian waters; ii) a good understanding of farmer’s activities as nitrate pollution source; iii) design the program of measures for the villages.

Opportunities Threats • The project contributed to a national approach methodology for

delineation of vulnerable zones to the nitrogen pollution, at river basin level.

• The long – range objective of Cleanwater Project is to contribute to the development of a modern Romanian water management system by elaboration of a completely integrated system as basis for the Barlad River Basin District Management Plan according to EU legislation (especially Water Framework Directive) and by gaining the knowledge and experience to be used later in management of other river basins of Romania.

• The system can be used at either smaller or larger scale. Through the project the system has been built to a smaller scale and it includes the data collected within the Barlad basin, but it can be easily adapted at national level or at a designated surface area according to the data introduced. Also, the system can address different type of pollutions, not only water pollution.

• The information obtained by the project is used for the WISE reporting, thus the analysis results obtained will improve the Romanian reporting for the WFD.

• Awareness amongst farmers regarding nitrates and water pollution grew higher through the provision of information through the GIS, but it is difficult to change the behaviour of the people and is extremely difficult to impose some measures while there is nothing to oblige the farmers to adopt them.

Documents

Contribution of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT projects to the ... · ETAP Environmental Technology Action Plan EU European Union FASRB Framework Agreement on the Sava River basin Floods . Directive