Upload
malta-business-bureau
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
(Projects submitting final reports after 1 January 2014 must use this format.)
LIFE Project Number
LIFE10 INF/MT/000091
FINAL Report Covering the project activities from 01/10/2011 to 31/03/2014
Reporting Date
03/07/2014
LIFE+ PROJECT NAME or Acronym
EU LIFE+ Investing in Water Project
Project Data
Project location Malta
Project start date: 01/10/2011
Project end date: 31/03/2014
Total Project duration
(in months) 30
Total budget € 334,642
Total eligible budget € 314,298
EU contribution: € 157,149
(%) of total costs 47%
(%) of eligible costs 50%
Beneficiary Data
Name Beneficiary Malta Business Bureau
Contact person Mr. Joe Tanti
Postal address Cornerline, Dun Karm Street, Birkirkara, BKR 9039, Malta
Visit address Cornerline, Dun Karm Street, Birkirkara, BKR 9039, Malta
Telephone 00356 21 251 719
Fax: N/A
E-mail [email protected] / [email protected]
Project Website www.investinginwater.org
2
Instructions:
The final report must be submitted to the Commission no later than 3 months after the project
end date.
One paper and one electronic version of the report is sufficient for the Commission. These
documents must be sent in identical versions also to the monitoring team. The report must
also be sent to the national authority.
Please refer to the Common Provisions annexed to your grant agreement for the contractual
requirements concerning a final report .
1. List of contents
Contents 1. List of contents ................................................................................................................... 2 2. Executive Summary (maximum 5 pages) .......................................................................... 3 3. Introduction (1 page) .............................................................................................................. 7 4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages) ................................................................................ 9
4.1 Description of the management system ........................................................................... 9 4.2 Evaluation of the management system ........................................................................... 11
5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages) .................................................................................... 12
5.1. Technical progress, per task .......................................................................................... 12
5.2 Dissemination actions .................................................................................................... 18 5.2.2 Dissemination: overview per activity ................................................................. 18
5.3 Evaluation of Project Implemention .............................................................................. 46 5.4 Analysis of long-term benefits ....................................................................................... 59
6. Comments on the financial report ........................................................................................ 62
6.1. Summary of Costs Incurred ........................................................................................... 63 6.3. Partnership arrangements (if relevant) .......................................................................... 66 6.4. Auditor's report/declaration ........................................................................................... 66
7. Annexes ................................................................................................................................ 68 7.3.1 Layman's report ........................................................................................................... 70
7.3.2 After-LIFE Communication plan – for LIFE+ Biodiversity and LIFE Environment
Policy and Governance projects ....................................................................................... 70
7.3.3 Other dissemination annexes ................................................................................... 70
3
2. Executive Summary (maximum 5 pages) Briefly describe the project objectives, key deliverables and outputs, and include a
paragraph summarising each chapter of the main report. This summary should be a stand-
alone text and must be provided in English as well as in the language in which the rest of
the report is written.
The project’s objectives were to bring about a 10% decrease in water consumption amongst
20% of its target audience. This was to be done through identification and dissemination of
best practice amongst hotels and businesses. The project’s key messages were identified as
being; groundwater as an essential resource; climate change as a threat to water supply in
Malta; EU water policy; reverse osmosis as an energy-intensive and expensive alternative
water source; and best practice solutions. An increase in awareness of these key messages was
expected by the project end.
To bring these objectives about the project focused strongly on direct contact with enterprises,
particularly through Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings, C5 – Workshops and E2 –
Monitoring or Project Progress. Additionally, media work particularly under Action F4 –
Press Releases, also supported by Actions C4 – Media Features and F5 – TV and Radio
Appearances, was also prioritised for target audiences to adopt water saving solutions
recommended by the project.
With regards to awareness increase amongst the target audience, three surveys as part of
Action E1 – Monitoring Project Impact, Surveys of Target Audience were carried out by
MISCO, an independent market research company engaged by the project. The 1st survey in
2012 established a baseline, the 2nd
in 2013 monitored progress and informed project actions,
and the final survey in 2014 evaluated overall impact. The surveys show that awareness of all
key messages has increased, with the exception of the EU Policy, amongst decision takers by
2014 over the baseline in 2013.
Furthermore the surveys show that there was an increase in the adoption of the water saving
best practices recommended by the project. The partners therefore believe that the project was
successful in its overall objectives of raising awareness leading to take action on water
savings.
With regards to the target of water savings, as part of Action E2 – Monitoring Project Impact,
Environmental Problem Targeted, data on water consumption by individual enterprises was
collected. Baseline data was taken to be either 2011 or 2012 (depending on which year
companies submitted), and savings calculated based on 2013 and 2014 data, also taking into
consideration in which year interventions were implemented. Roughly 80% of the 136
enterprises which participated in the water audits carried out as part of Action C1 – Face to
Face Meetings, also submitted water consumption data.
The data showed that of the 136 enterprises, 11 were already best practice water saving
enterprises, and a further 28 could implement water saving measures for which the financial
savings were so small that the enterprise considered them to make too poor a business case.
14 enterprises adopted water saving measures over the project life, with a further four known
to the project to be implementing recommendations, but not having completed the
4
intervention till after the project’s conclusion in March 2014. Of the 14, two companies are
BOV and HSBC – Malta’s largest employers after government, operating a combined total of
around 70 premises. Verification of savings was only completed for the head premises of
each, due to resource limitations of the project. Given that both implemented water saving
measures in all their premises (with some implementation extending to beyond the project’s
close), savings can therefore be expected to be larger than estimated at project close.
Furthermore, another hotel chain which implemented water savings, exported the project
recommendations to their hotels outside of Malta, thus further increasing the savings total in
other countries (both EU and non-EU).
The results show average savings of a staggering 28%, by 14% of the target enterprises for
which savings were feasible. The total amount of water being saved is 96,197,000 (96
Million) litres per annum. Furthermore, an additional two enterprises which were audited by
the project adopted water saving measures on their own initiative. Although the project
worked with them in identifying opportunities and making recommendations, since these
enterprises were planning to implement water saving measures prior to the project’s
collaboration, it was felt that they should not form part of the 14 which adopted best practice
following project collaboration. However, the partners feel that the project’s contribution and
support helped encourage the projects, particularly as in both cases, the interventions were
increased in scope following the project’s promotion of these enterprises as ‘best practice case
studies’ amongst peer enterprises and stakeholders. If their savings are also added to those of
the 14 which adopted project recommendations, the total figure for savings increases to
145,000,000 litres per annum. This is enough to operate 5 of the larger enterprises comprising
the list of 136 enterprises audited by the project. Furthermore, an additional four enterprises
are still in the process of adopting project recommendations.
With regards to the targets of 20% of enterprises adopting best practice leading to a 10%
reduction, the figures are therefore 14% of enterprises leading to a 28% reduction. While the
project achieved a figure just short of one target, it exceeded the other by just under 300%.
A particular strength of the project was its reception by various stakeholders contacted as part
of Action A5 - Networking. Amongst these collaboration with the Chamber of Engineers,
Malta Tourism Authority, Ministry for Energy and Conservation of Water/Ministry for
Energy and Health and Ministry for the Economy, Investment and Small Business in
particular stand out.
The CoE were members of the Steering Committee over the project’s life, and also supported
the project disseminate key messages and information to their members. This was seen by the
partners as particularly important for two reasons; as engineers, many of their members would
also be technical people within the project’s target audience; and some of their members work
within enterprise support industry, i.e. industry which provides the project’s target audience
with equipment or services relating to water consumption. The CoE contributed by
participating in Action C3 - National Water Conference, C5 – Workshops, and also invited
the project manager to present key messages, best practice and project findings at their annual
conference in 2012.
The MTA (Malta Tourism Authority) were also very supportive of the project. Apart from
sitting on the project’s Steering Committee, they also promoted the project’s workshops
amongst Malta’s hotels. Most importantly, they signed an agreement where they recognised
that hotels collaborating with the project (to the project’s satisfaction) would meet water
5
related criteria for the award or maintenance of Malta’s Eco-Certification scheme for hotels -
a GSTC recognised scheme. MTA also invited the project to present key messages, best
practice and findings at their Eco-Certification annual seminar of 2012 and 2013.
MECW/MEH is the ministry responsible for water conservation in Malta. The project was in
regular contact with Mr. Manuel Sapiano (Head of Water Policy) throughout the project’s life.
Mr Sapiano and his staff provided valuable input on several actions, including F4 – Press
Releases, C4 – Feature Articles, F6 – Layman’s Report, C3 – National Water Conference, and
A5 – Networking. The ministry also invited the project to several ministry events relating to
water, most notable of which was an invitation to present key messages, best practice and
findings for the National Conference for the launch of public consultation on the National
Water Management Plan in March 2014. Recommendations by the project, based on
information and findings gained from enterprises, were presented to the ministry in March
2014, and by May 2014 the ministry confirmed that the project recommendations were to be
integrated into Malta’s National Action Water Plan – letter of confirmation is attached under
Annex 7.3.3.2.
The project was also well received by the shadow spokespeople of the two main opposition
parties. Both Hon. MP George Pullicinio from the Partit Nazzjonalista as well as Carmel
Caccopardo from the Alternativa Demokratika have written blog posts praising industry’s
achievements through the project and the project’s efforts.
MEIB’s contribution to the project was in recognising the project’s value to enterprises in
supporting an increase in resource efficiency. The MEIB awarded the MBB the 2014 National
Enterprise Support Award for the project’s work. The MBB will now be participating in the
European Enterprise Support Awards in November.
In addition, for the project’s contribution to its target audience, the project manager was
selected by the European Projects Association for ‘European Projects Association will hand in
the ‘2014 Award for outstanding achievements in development of the EU through European
Projects‘ to Mr. Geoffrey Saliba.’
The project also helped two university students researching water use with their research. The
project was credited in one of the student’s technical papers, published for the 11th
Global
Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, attached under Annex 7.3.3.23.
The partners remain committed to working on the water conservation issue beyond the life of
the project. In fact, the MBB continues to work in this regards, having been in May 2014
invited to support the MECW/MEH by jointly organising consultation with industry for water
conservation and groundwater use considerations to be reflected in the National Action Water
Plan. The MBB has accepted this invitation, and consultation will commence through
dedicated workshops in September 2014.
Given the volume of water saved by the target audience; the overall increase in awareness; the
reception by national stakeholders, authorities and government of project findings, the
adaptation of the project’s recommendations to Malta’s national policy and the request by
government for continued support from the MBB on the issue of water conservation by
industry, the partners feel the project has been very successful.
6
Financial reporting
The project spent 94% of its budget. Expenditure in the Consumables, External Assistance,
and Other Costs categories was largely as foreseen in the Grant Agreement. Expenditure on
Travel proved to be considerably lower, due to savings achieved in booking flights and
accommodation for the Kick-Off Meeting and the complimentary provision by Island Hotels
Group of the accommodation for international speakers and catering for the National Water
Conference. Expenditure in Personnel Costs was larger than forecast, due mainly to needing
to use more of the Water Expert’s time and contact with enterprises requiring more effort than
originally foreseen. However, since the amount did not exceed EUR 30,000, as per Common
Provisions 2010 article 15.2 this did not require a project amendment.
Reports and documents published by the project
Project Portfolio (March 2012) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.5
Solutions Pack (June 2012) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.7
National Water Conference Report (August 2012) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.8
Awareness Surveys of Target Audiences and Employees (2012, 2013, 2014) Attached
under Annex 7.3.3.14
Paper: Water Consumption Benchmarks – a Step Towards Reduced Consumption
(Presented at the Chamber of Engineers Annual Engineering Conference -Water: A
21st Century Challenge, 9th May 2012) Attached under Annex 7.2.2
Paper: The Hotel Industry, a Shift to Greener and Lower Cost Operations (published
for World Tourism Day, September 2013) Attached under Annex 7.2.3
Paper: Greening the Economy; Grey-Water Treatment and Flow Rate Regulation
(December 2013) Attached under Annex 7.2.4
Recommendations – Greening the Economy (December 2013) Attached under Annex
7.2.5
Recommendations – National Water Management Plan (March 2014) Attached under
Annex 7.2.6
Recommendations relating to the Water Framework Directive Review (Apr 2014)
Attached under Annex 7.2.7
Layman’s Report (March 2014) Attached under Annex 7.3.1
Water Consumption Pattern Changes Analysis (March 2014) Attached under Annex
7.3.3.6
Letters of Recommendation
Dr Ian Borg, Parliamentary Secretary for the EU Presidency 2017 and EU Funds (May
2014) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.1
Mr Manuel Sapiano, Head of Water Policy, Ministry for Energy and the Conservation
of Water (June 2014) Attached under Annex 7.3.3.2
7
3. Introduction (1 page)
Description of background, problem and objectives
o For LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity:
Overall and specific objectives
Which sites are involved
Which habitat types and/or species are targeted
Main conservation issues being targeted (including threats)
Socio-economic context
o For LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance:
Environmental problem/issue addressed
Outline the hypothesis to be demonstrated / verified by the project
Description of the technical / methodological solution
Expected results and environmental benefits
o For LIFE+ Information and Communication:
Environmental problem/issue addressed
Outline the information/communication strategy implemented in
function of the environmental problem addressed by the project
Baseline situation
Stakeholders targeted
Monitoring of the project impact
Socio-economic context
Expected longer term results
o LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity: e.g. ha habitat protected, population of
species xx increased to yy individuals, kept in favourable conservation
status or like.
o LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance: e.g. future contribution to the
implementation, updating and development of European Union
environmental policy and legislation, including the integration of the
environment into other policies, future EU and Global applicability and
reproducibility of demonstrated technology, future Market strategy and
economic feasibility.
o LIFE+ Information and Communication: e.g. the continued effect on the
followed strategy on key stakeholders, expected transfer of the followed
methodology to other countries or policy areas, future impact on European
Union environmental policy and legislation.
8
Malta is the most severely water stressed country in the EU. Malta’s main source of
freshwater is groundwater, yet demand exceeds natural supply. Over-extraction remains a
problem, with an estimated extraction of around 50% more than the sustainable yield.
Groundwater forms around 50% of the tapwater mix provided to all consumers by the Water
Services Corporation. As per the Water Framework Directive, extraction needs to be
sustainable and meet recharge. The project aimed to support Malta’s meeting of this
requirement by reducing water demand in hotels and businesses, thus contributing to reduced
pressure on groundwater bodies.
The project focused primarily on direct contact as a means of conveying project messages and
encouraging take up of best practice recommendations. This drive was supported through
project publications, and on-going media work. In addition a series of workshops as well as a
high profile national conference were organised. Regular updates featured in the partners
electronic mail-shots to enterprises on their databases.
The project targeted around 186 companies under the Malta Chamber employing over 23,000
people and 72 hotels under the MHRA employing around 6,500 people. Under these two
target groups (companies) the project’s main target audiences were decision takers at the
companies (owners, senior directors), employees and tourists (for the hotel sector).
Baseline data was gathered through the project’s monitoring. Monitoring was carried out
through awareness survey of decision takers and employees, and the gathering of water
consumption data to verify savings achieved by enterprises implementing project
recommended best practice solutions.
The project’s long term benefits can be described as being:
1) Long term reduction in water supply by the target audience is a benefit which will
stay in place until operations or equipment is changed. The amount of water saved by
enterprises is 96,197,000 lt of water per annum.
2) Further increases in water savings by target audience - of the enterprises which
participated, a number were considering adopting water saving measures when the project
concluded. It is likely that several will adopt water saving measures, leading to a total volume
of water saved as a result of the project increasing over that presented in this report.
3) Transfer of water savings best practice to other countries by target audience -
several of the enterprises which adopted, or are considering adoption, or water saving
solutions recommended by the project are parts of international groups. One such example are
the three Malta based hotels of the Corinthia Group. After the project’s best practice
recommendations were adopted by these hotels, the Group implemented the solutions in
several of its international hotels, found in London, Prague, Lisbon, Tripoli, St Petersburg,
Budapest and Khartoum.
4) Contribution of water savings findings to national policy - MEH recently confirmed
that project recommendations are being integrated into the National Action Water Plan.
9
4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages)
4.1 Description of the management system
Description and schematic presentation of working method, including overview of:
o project phases
o activities and tasks per phase
o planning
Below is a Gantt chart showing planned project progression in ticks by quarter, compared to
actual project progression highlighted in yellow. The execution of the project matched the
plan.
Action 2011
Number/name of action IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV
A1. Project Management
A2. Monitoring of Progress
A3. External Audit
A4. After-LIFE Communications Plan
A5. Networking Activities
B1. Develop Project Identity
B2. Project Portfolio
C1. Face to Face Meetings
C2. Solutions Pack
C3. National Water Conference
C4. Produce Features
C5. Workshops
C6. "Save Water" signs
E1. Monitoring of Project Impact –
Surveys of target audience
E2. Monitoring of Project Impact –
Environmental problem targeted
F1. Project Website
F2. LIFE+ Boards
F3. Project Launch
F4. Press Releases
F5. Radio & TV Appearances
F6. Layman's Report
F7. After-LIFE Reception
2012 2013 2104
The project phases could broadly be defined as:
Ongoing – Actions A1, A2, A5, C1, C4, E1, E2, F1, F4, F5
Preparatory – Actions B1, B2, F2, F3
Mid-term – Action C2, C3, C5, C6
Concluding – Action F6, F7, A4, A5
Project planning is covered in the below section, detailing the types of meetings organised to
plan project actions and the staff involved in this planning.
10
Presentation of the coordinating beneficiary, associated beneficiaries and project
organisation (Organigramme providing information about functions, tasks, persons
and companies); describe what the project manager and other representatives of the
coordinating beneficiary have done to organise/co-ordinate the project: meetings,
seminars etc.
The main vehicles through which the partners have managed the project are: action review
meetings, monthly review meetings, end-of-end of action review meetings, and Steering
Committee Meetings. Monthly review meetings are carried out by the coordinating
beneficiary and involve the associate beneficiaries as required, organised by the project
manager. These meetings consider the progress of the project in general, focusing particularly
on reviewing of the two monitoring actions (Action E1-Surveys of Target Audience and
Action E2-Monitor Environmental Problems Targeted), on progress in reaching out to
enterprises and encouraging water savings best practice adoption (Action C1 Face to Face
Meetings), and on general financial and administrative issues. Through the action review
meetings relevant partners review the technical progress of specific actions, taking into
consideration the expenditure of each action compared to its allocated budget and the required
outputs of that particular action. These meetings are organised by the project manager with
relevant project staff participating. Through the end-of-action review, the project assures that
lessons learned in carrying out actions are transferred to other actions. These meetings are
organised by the project manager, attended by relevant staff including the MBB CEO.
Potential for findings or results feeding into progression on other actions is normally also
identified during these meetings. In addition Steering Committee Meetings provide the
management team with high level input. The Steering Committee is a high-level group of
11
individuals representing a broad range of stakeholders namely: the three partner organisations;
MEH; MRA; ME; UoM Faculty for the Built Environment; MWA; MTA; and CoE.
The project partnership also benefited from training on issues relating to LIFE project
administration and financial management by experienced consultants, when needed
throughout the project lifetime.
Description of changes due to amendments to the Grant Agreement.
There were no amendments to the Grant Agreement.
If relevant, indicate with which report the Partnership agreements were submitted to
the Commission
The partner agreements were submitted to the Commission with the letter from MBB dated
18.10.2012, following a request for amendments after their submission with the Inception
Report.
4.2 Evaluation of the management system
Please discuss the following issues:
The project management process, the problems encountered, the partnerships and their
added value, including comments on any significant deviations from the arrangements
contained in the partnership agreements
Communication with the Commission and Monitoring team.
The project management process of regular planning meetings, action reviews, and Steering
Committee Meetings allowed the team to have ongoing information on the state of
implementation of the project, challenges in implementing actions, general progress and
outcomes. It also provided a financial overview. The partnership strengths were clearly the
MHRA’s and Malta Chamber’s positive influence on businesses and hotels, as well as the
MBB’s expertise in managing EU funded projects and information campaigns.
Communication from the Commission and Monitoring team has always been clear.
Particularly helpful is the structure nature of the communication – letters from the
Commission can be expected following receipt of each progress report, while meetings with
the Monitoring team are always set up well in advance, and letters following the meetings
received shortly after. No problems were encountered in the management of the project, and
no significant deviation was made from the arrangement in the partnership agreement.
A list of letters received from the Commission and the project replies and reactions is
included in Annex 7.1.5. This annex also includes a summary of the letters and reactions,
document name ‘LIF10_INF_MT000091_RepliestoECletters’.
12
5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages)
5.1. Technical progress, per task
This section concerns all project tasks except for:
"project management" which is dealt with in the administrative part (section 4) and
"dissemination", which is dealt with in section 5.2.
NOTE – the majority of actions in this Information and Communication project are
dissemination actions. This section therefore details only Action set A, while Action sets B,
C, E and F are detailed in section 5.2
In this section you should describe what and how has been done regarding the different
technical/substantial components of the project (such as research, fieldwork,
construction). You should indicate what has been done regarding each task (subtasks if
appropriate) but avoid describing the objectives and targets as such. The description of
the work done has to be sufficient to allow a good understanding of the project without a
need to refer to the annexes. The technical details, however, should be given in the
annexes. Any related reports or memos other than the official Progress Reports should be
described shortly and attached furthermore as annexes.
For each action (the description of which should start on a new page):
o Describe the activities undertaken and outputs/results achieved in quantifiable
terms (also indicate by whom they were done).
o Compare with planned output and time schedule. (Please note that the overall
progress of the project should also be presented using a Gantt-chart or similar –
see section 4.1)
o Clearly indicate (when applicable) the indicators used to test the performance
of the action.
o If relevant, clearly indicate how actions were modified, and any
correspondence with the Commission approving the changes. (In particular this
is required if there has been a significant over-spending of the foreseen budget
for the action.)
o Clearly indicate major problems / drawbacks encountered, delays, including
consequences for other tasks (technical, legal, financial/economic, market,
organisational or environment related problems).
o Mention any complementary action outside LIFE;
o Outline the perspectives for continuing the action after the end of the project
o Include tables, photographs etc to illustrate the actions; for LIFE+ Nature and
Biodiversity e.g. land purchase and non-recurring management activities;
13
5.1.1 Action A2 – Project Monitoring
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
The main vehicles for this action are: action review meetings, monthly review meetings, end-
of-end of action review meetings, and Steering Committee Meetings. Monthly review
meetings consider the progress of the project in general, focusing particularly on reviewing of
the two monitoring actions (Action E1-Surveys of Target Audience and Action E2-Monitor
Environmental Problems Targeted) undertake a general financial review and assess the
project’s relationship with enterprises – seen as prerequisite to success by the partnership.
Through the action review meetings, the technical progress of specific actions is also
reviewed, taking into consideration the expenditure of each action compared to its allocated
budget. Through the end-of-action review, the project assures that lessons learned in carrying
out actions are transferred to other actions.
Invoices have been centrally collected at the MBB’s premises. The financial claim forms for
the three partners have been updated on a regular basis, and all the partners have been kept
up-dated regarding the project’s expenditure, schedule and deadlines. This has been carried
out predominately through the two Steering Committee Meetings, three end-of-action review
meetings as well as through the numerous action review meetings. The Steering Committee
members include all partner staff, the project’s water expert, the LIFE+ Focal Point for Malta,
Maria Elena Attard, CoE representative Ing. Paul Refalo, ME/MIP representative Marvin
Cuschieri, MTA representative John Magri, UoM Faculty for the Built Environment Dean
Profs. Alex Torpiano, MRA representative Manuel Sapiano, and MWA representative
Vincent Gauci. Steering Committee Minutes and progress reports are attached under Annex
7.3.3.3.
Outputs/results achieved
The result initially foreseen is that the project will adhere to the LIFE+ programme
requirements. The partners are confident this has been achieved.
Indicators testing performance
Timesheets were submitted on a monthly basis (following a request from the external monitor
on their first visit). Progress on each action, timetable and deliverable has been reported in all
progress reports, the financial monitoring in place allowed for full updates in all financial
reports, records of all important meetings have been kept. A final report and request for
payment has been submitted, together with an auditor’s report verifying that all claimed costs
are eligible.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
14
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
5.1.2 Action A3 – External Audit
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
An independent auditor (Mazars Malta) was engaged during the first quarter of 2014. The
auditing firm was tasked with evaluating and reporting on the project’s compliance with LIFE
provisions. All financial records including, previous progress reports, invoices, financial
claim forms, the grant agreement, partner agreements, leave forms for project staff for each
project year and time sheets were made available to the auditors. The format of the report was
decided to be the standard independent auditor report available from the LIFE website. The
audit started in March 2014, all the partners' financial entries were checked, revised and
approved by the auditors, and a final report eventually produced on 2nd July 2014. It is
attached under Annex 7.3.3.5.
Outputs/results achieved
The audit report shows that the project was compliant with all legal provisions. This meets the
results expected in the project proposal.
Indicators testing performance
The auditor was engaged within 3 months of the project’s end, the audit concluded and report
presented to the MBB and with this report. This meets the indicators listed in the grant
agreement.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
15
5.1.3 Action A4 – After-LIFE Communications Plan
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
An After-LIFE Communications Plan was drawn up with input from the project’s water
expert, the LIFE focal point within the MSDEC, and the Head of Water Policy Unit within
MEH. The plan focuses on continued dissemination of best practice amongst industry, and the
communication of progression in Malta’s NAWP and the WFD’s revision expected in 2017.
The document was produced in electronic and print format, and is available for download on
the project website.
Outputs/results achieved
The After-LIFE Communications Plan has been produced, and is attached under Annex 7.3.2.
This meets the expected results listed in the grant agreement.
Indicators testing performance
The draft After-LIFE Communications Plan was produced three months prior to the project’s
end, following which consultation took place with MEH and MSDEC, as well as within the
project through the Water Expert and the partnership. The plan was produced before the
deadline listed in the Grant Agreement. This therefore meets all the indicators listed in the
Grant Agreement.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
16
5.1.4 Action A5 – Networking
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
Contact has been maintained with international organisations such as Business Europe,
EuroChambers, HOTREC, EU LIFE+ WATACLIC project and GWP Med’s Alter Aqua
project. Mr Peter Gammeltoft from DG ENVironment and Mr Gerald Petit from DG
Enterprise and Industry attended the National Water Conference organised as part of Action
C3, while Mr Alan van Raek and Mrs Antonella Correra from DG Enterprise and Industry
have also been briefed about the project during their visits to Malta.
Nationally, a relationship was established with CoE, MRA, MRRA, the previous MTCE
(which has become MECW/MEH after the general elections in March 2013), EU LIFE+
Focal Point, UoM and other LIFE+ projects, the FHRD, EPRM, MEPA, NSO, ME and MIP,
presenting them with project reports, the Solutions Pack, and sharing information. ME is the
entity which under Malta’s Programme of Measures for the implementation of the WFD is
responsible for initiating a nation-wide water audit scheme. To share knowledge gained
through this project, the partners invited ME to attend Steering Committee Meetings and
workshops organised. ME also receives regular updates regarding the project.
A particular strong point of the action is the recognition by the MTA of hotels participating in
the project as meeting water conservation related award criteria for the national Eco-
Certification Scheme. As part of this recognition, certificates of participation issued by the
project to hotels may be submitted to the MTA as proof of achievement. The agreement
between the MTA and the project will be signed shortly, communicated publicly through
media work by the project and the MTA in May 2013. It is attached under Annex 7.2.1.
The project also enjoyed the support of Minister for Energy and Water Conservation Konrad
Mizzi and Minister for the Environment Leo Brincat. Both Ministers regularly met with
project staff, also addressing attendees at the project’s closing event. Furthermore, project
recommendations are being integrated into the MECW/MEH’s National Action Water Plan –
letter of confirmation is attached under Annex 7.3.3.2 while the recommendations submitted
to the government as well as the EC are submitted under Annex 7.2.6 and 7.2.7 respectively.
Outputs/results achieved
This action contributed to a better understanding and more awareness of the project, its key
messages, actions and findings, as well as the LIFE+ programme in Malta. It enabled the
presentation of recommendations to government and DG ENV. This meets the results listed in
the Grant Agreement.
Indicators testing performance
Beneficiaries of international organisations were contacted and involved in knowledge
exchange with the project. Other national LIFE projects were regularly updated with
information about the project. Recommendations to government and DG ENV were presented
at the project’s close. This meets the indicators listed in the Grant Agreement.
17
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
18
5.2 Dissemination actions
5.2.1 Objectives
Summarise the objectives of the dissemination plan set out in the revised project
proposal.
5.2.2 Dissemination: overview per activity
For each activity and output (as for the technical progress – cf. above):
Provide a description in quantifiable terms, and indicate who was responsible
Compare with the planned activity – was the objective reached? What reactions and
feedback was obtained?
Provide a list of deliverables including:
o Use of LIFE logo (and for LIFE+ Nature projects: Natura2000 logo) on
documents and durable goods;
o Erection of notice boards
o Web site
o (e)Mailing lists
o Audio-visual products (if relevant): videos
o Photographs (see Common Provisions clause related to use of photographs by
the Commission)
o Brochures, handouts, leaflets
o Publications: handbooks
o Press cuttings overview (press cuttings to be annexed)
o Social Media used (Facebook, Twitter etc)
19
5.2.2.1 Action B1 – Develop Project Identity
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
A professional communications company was engaged to produce the project identity. The
identity was developed over October 2011 and presented to the partners at the staff training
organised as part of Action A2 (Monitor the Project) on the 3rd
November 2012. The identity
guidelines booklet has since been used to guide the project’s communications and was
constantly referred to by designers working on material required for the various project
actions. The identity guidelines are available as hardcopy and softcopy; a softcopy is attached
under Annex 7.3.3.5.
Outputs/results achieved
The Project Identity document formed the basis of all communications material produced,
guiding the designers in producing consistently high quality material. This meets the results
expected of this action in the grant agreement.
Indicators testing performance
The project identity document was concluded prior to the deadline of end November 2011,
with the draft communications company selected and draft reviewed in line with the timeline
listed in the grant agreement.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
20
5.2.2.2 Action B2 – Project Portfolio
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
The project manager and the project’s water expert prepared a portfolio detailing the key
project messages: groundwater as an essential resource, climate change as impacting on water
scarcity in the Maltese islands, the EU’s water policy commitments and obligations, reverse-
osmosis as an energy intensive and expensive alternative to groundwater, best practice
solutions being beneficial for both the ecology and the economy. Contact details for the
MBB’s office were given to facilitate target enterprises contacting project staff.
The portfolio also included a CD on which the portfolio itself, logos and images were
included. In line with the project’s environmental credentials the portfolio was printed on FSC
paper, while the CD packaging was printed on recycled paper.
The portfolios were distributed to project launch attendees, following which distribution to the
other target enterprises commenced. The portfolio was also distributed to journalists and news
editors, embassies and consulates of EU member states in Malta, high ranking officials within
local authorities such as MEPA, MRA, and the University of Malta, key politicians from the
Partit Laburista (Labour Party) and the Partit Nazzjonalista (Nationalist Party) as well as
internationally to the partners’ international associations EuroChambres, HOTREC, and
Business Europe. The portfolio is also available for download from the project website.
700 copies were printed and distributed. Hard copies including CD have been submitted with
the mailed report, and an electronic version of the portfolio is attached under Annex 7.3.3.6.
Outputs/results achieved
Nearly 100% of target companies received the portfolio. This was also confirmed through
Action C1–Face to Face meetings. Furthermore, certain stakeholders, such as Dr. Ing. John C
Betts, UoM Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, requested a meeting with the project staff
after receiving the portfolio. This meets the results expected of this action as listed in the grant
agreement. A positive development arising from this action is that HSBC Malta based an
internal circular on the Project’s Portfolio, and sent it to all staff to raise awareness about
water scarcity in Malta.
Indicators testing performance
The portfolio was distributed during the project launch, mailed to all target audience
companies following the launch, and distributed during meetings held as part of Action C1 –
Face to Face Meetings. This meets the indicators listed in the grant agreement.
Modifications to work plans
There was a slight delay in printing the CD, which was completed by mid-March. All
enterprises which had already received a portfolio were also provided with the CD once this
21
became available. This minor delay therefore did not affect the expected outcome of this
action or the project in general.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
22
5.2.2.3 Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
The project carried out face to face meetings resulting in water audits of 136 companies.
Audits were initiated by the project manager discussing the project’s key messages with the
relevant staff of the enterprises, following which the project’s water expert or assistant water
expert carry out water audits. Following the audit, a report is presented to the enterprise, and
project staff remains available for on-going consultation regarding the implementation of
water saving solutions. During the meetings, enterprise staff is also presented with a Solutions
Pack and a water-saving kit consisting of a wash hand basin faucet restrictor, shower restrictor
(for hotels or factories where manufacturing staff showers exist), toilet flushing displacement
device, and toilet flushing dye which can be used to check for in-bowl leakages. Enterprises
audited include: 3, 4, and 5 star hotels; office based enterprises; manufacturing enterprises in
the pharmaceutical, steel, food, and plastic industries; and financial organisations. Enterprises
audited range from SMEs to branches of multinationals operating in Malta, to the largest
employers, and industry leaders. A list of audited enterprises is provided in the Action E2
Report on water savings, attached under Annex 7.3.3.6.
Outputs/results achieved
The output expected of this action was in achieving water consumption reductions amongst
target enterprises. Through this action 13 best practice enterprises were identified adopting
project recommendations, leading to savings of 145,000,000 lt/annum or a reduction of 28%.
Furthermore, this action proved important in gathering information and data with which the
project could provide government and DF ENV with feedback and recommendations
regarding water policy as part of Action A5 (Networking). The recommendations presented
by the project to the Maltese government were taken aboard as confirmed in a letter by Head
of Water Policy, Mr Manuel Sapiano – the letter is attached under Annex 7.3.3.2.
Indicators testing performance
The full list of target audience enterprises was prepared during the final quarter of 2011. Of
these, meetings with 39 had been concluded by the start of April 2012, following which a
report was published in May 2012 detailing the outcome of the first meetings. Another set of
meetings was initiated immediately following the publication of this report, continuing
through to February 2014. By the project’s close water audits had been carried out in 136
enterprises. All indicators listed in the grant agreement were therefore met, although the final
number of water audits was four short of the 140 target.
Modifications to work plans
This action required considerably more effort than originally foreseen to conclude. The main
reason for this was that while companies were interested in the project’s key messages and
participating in water audits, booking meetings and following up proved more timely than
anticipated. In addition, those enterprises which had been audited also proved to require more
23
follow up correspondence than originally foreseen. The result is that a significant amount of
additional time was required from the water expert to work with the enterprises, particularly
best practice enterprises. Budget was however, available due to savings achieved on other
actions, and this modification did not therefore impact on the project’s ability to conclude in
line with the grant agreement.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
24
5.2.2.4 Action C2 – Solutions Pack
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
The Solutions Pack was prepared during the summer of 2012 and is available in print, as an
interactive CD and as a website application. The pack details the project’s key messages,
water saving solutions, best practice case studies and online self-assessment tool for
businesses. It was launched through a press release and an event attended by Minister for
Tourism, Culture and the Environment at the time, Mario de Marco. 2000 copies of the print
version and CDs were produced and mailed to all target enterprises. The pack is also
distributed to relevant personnel through Action C1 - Face to Face Meetings and through both
the general and technical workshops held as part of Action C5 - Workshops. The packs are
also presented at every meeting held as part of Action A5 - Networking. A copy of the print
version and CD are attached under Annex 7.3.3.7 and the online self-assessment application
may be accessed online through this link:
http://www.investinginwater.org/SelfAssessment/
Outputs/results achieved
The output expected of this action was in supporting the project’s overall aim in achieving
water consumption reductions amongst target enterprises. By the project’s close, 14 best
practice enterprises had been identified, together with another 11 established best practice
enterprises, leading to savings of 145,000,000 lt/annum or a reduction of 28%. This action
therefore achieved its results.
Indicators testing performance
The first set of 39 companies was identified by project staff by December 2011, with
meetings and water audits concluded by April 2012. A report analysing the outcome of this
first set of meetings was published on the 9th
of May 2012). Following this, meetings with a
further 96 companies started in the end of October 2012, continuing till February 2014. A
final report was published in March 2014. All reports were available for download from the
project website. This largely meets the indicators listed in the grant agreement, with only
minor delays experienced. Furthermore, tests of the online self-assessment application done
by existing best practice enterprises Hilton and APS Bank confirmed that the analysis
presented by the tool matches their own analysis – verifying the tools accuracy and
usefulness.
Modifications to work plans
The Solutions Pack was launched in November, a few weeks later than originally anticipated.
The delay was due to technical corruption of formulae and cross-browser compatibility issues
in the online self-assessment tool. Without the correct formulae the tool’s analysis of entered
data would have been inaccurate, compromising the tool’s usefulness. These errors were
corrected and the final tool launched in print, as an online interactive tool, and in CD form.
The delay had no impact on this action’s success, or the project in general.
25
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
26
5.2.2.5 Action C3 – National Water Conference
Partner responsible - MHRA
Actions undertaken
The conference was held on the 22nd
June 2012 at the Radisson Blu Resort in St Julians.
Speakers included Dr Marie-Louise Mangion, Head of the Sustainable Development Unit
within MTCE, Mr Peter Gammeltoft, Head of Water Protection Unit, DG ENV, and Mr
Manuel Sapiano, Hydrologist within the MRA. During the conference, case studies of best
practice in water conservation were presented by the Hilton Hotel and APS Bank. The event
was covered by the media through two TV news items, two print articles, and several online
articles. Details of media coverage are available under Annex 7.2.4. Then shadow
Environment Minister Leo Brincat, who has now become the Minister for Environment after
March 2013 general elections, attended the conference, and penned an opinion piece which
featured in The Times of Malta shortly after the conference. This piece detailed issues
discussed during the National Water Conference, focused mainly on the deterioration of
groundwater bodies. The conference was attended by 123 persons from the public sector,
industry (hotel, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and services industries), CoE, UoM, ECRM,
the Malta Labour Party, MEPA, MEUSAC, DG ENV, DG Enterprise, and other relevant
stakeholders including overseas attendees from Sicily, Italy and the Czech Republic including
Mr Fabio Masi representative of LIFE Wataclic Project, and Ms. Konstantina Toli,
representative from GWP MED’s Alter Aqua Project (two projects focused on water savings
in the Mediterranean). A report was produced and disseminated to the attendees. The
conference speeches were recorded. The report and audio recordings of the speeches were
made available for download from the project website, which also features a section including
synopsis of the speeches and profiles of speakers. The report and attendance sheets are
attached under Annex 7.3.3.8 and the website section may be seen here:
http://www.investinginwater.org/Save+Water/Browse/National+Water+Conference/183.
Outputs/results achieved
The conference attracted a large and varied audience which was however, smaller than
anticipated (123 as opposed to 200), largely due to many participants having booked but not
attending on the day. Presentations given by speakers holding prominent positions in
ministries, authorities, university, target audience enterprises, the European Commission, and
project staff resulted in good media coverage. The conference also served to strengthen the
project’s relationship with its target audience, with many of the attending enterprises having
participated in other project actions. Furthermore, the media coverage received also helped
raise the recognition of the project amongst target audience. The partners therefore feel that
this action has been successful.
Indicators testing performance
The conference was held within the deadline set in the grant agreement, and the report
published and distributed in August - within 3 months following the event. Media coverage
was good, with the main English language newspapers The Times of Malta and The Malta
Independent, and the main TV stations TVM (Public broadcaster) as well as the third most
27
popular station NET covering the conference. All indicators listed in the grant agreement were
therefore met.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
28
5.2.2.6 Action C4 – Feature Articles
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
Regular articles about the project were published in partner magazines, local newspapers, and
other magazines. The articles covered a variety of topics from the project’s key messages
including groundwater status, WFD and water policy, to project progress. A returns list of the
articles and scans is attached under Annex 7.3.3.9. Publications in which articles have
appeared include; The Malta Independent, The Malta Independent on Sunday, The Times of
malta, The Sunday Times of Malta, Malta Today, Money, Engineering Today, Air Malta’s in-
flight magazine Il-Bizilla, the Commercial Courier and the Business Agenda. Apart from
project publications, several high profile articles have also featured covering the subject of
water in Malta by editors, ministers and shadow ministers. Several also referred directly to the
project, most notably an article published following the project’s National Water Conference
by then shadow minister Leo Brincat, who has since been elected, as well as various editorials
covering water use. A selection of these is attached under Annex 7.3.3.10.
Outputs/results achieved
10 articles appeared in newspapers and magazines, 14 appeared in partner media, and one
appeared in Air Malta’s magazine – the most prominent local magazine targeting tourists.
Indicators testing performance
As listed in the grant agreement, through this action the project aims to reach at least 90% of
the target companies and between 25,000 and 90,000 members of the public. Over the course
of the project, the combined circulation for publications in which articles appeared was in
excess of 248,000. This action has therefore reached its objectives.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
29
5.2.2.7 Action C5 – Workshops
Partner responsible – Malta Business Bureau
Actions undertaken
The project planned a series of technical and general workshops. The technical workshops
focused strongly on the best practice solutions, while also presenting best practice case studies
directly from enterprise representatives. The general workshops focused on how employees
can contribute to reducing an enterprise’s consumption, with some examples of how
employees from other enterprises contributed, and a brainstorming session on the specific
practices of the enterprise concerned. Both workshop types started with dissemination of
information on the key project messages.
Invitations were issued by email and phone call to all companies on the project’s contact list,
and through Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings. The workshops were also publicised through
media work and on the project website. In addition, participation of hotels in workshops was
acknowledged as contributing to the award and/or maintenance of the MTA’s Eco-
Certification. The workshops were also promoted by the MTA to registered hotels. A
workshop was organised together with the ITS for its 3rd
year tourism management students.
The CoE also issued invites to its members promoting the workshops.
All material distributed during the workshops was made available for download on the project
website, and notifications emailed to the project’s contact list following workshops.
Outputs/results achieved
10 workshops for general staff were held, reaching 199 attendees, while 6 workshops for
technical staff were held, reaching 124 attendees. Attendance sheets are attached under Annex
7.3.3.11.
Indicators testing performance
Presentations were prepared by the Water Expert by September 2012, and experts from the
Chamber of Engineers to contribute to the workshops were identified and meetings held
shortly after. Information about the workshops was made available on the project and partner
websites, and also promoted by the partners in their electronic mailing lists and magazines.
All material from the workshops was made available online, and notifications issued to the
project’s contact list to disseminate this information.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
The main problem encountered in this project was that enterprises were largely hesitant to
disrupt their activities by pulling general staff off their duties for workshops. This resulted in
30
fewer workshops for general staff being taken up. Interest in workshops for technical staff
was high, so this problem was only encountered for workshops for general staff. The project
attempted to mitigate by promoting heavily through emails, press work, and direct contact,
and by emphasizing the savings staff could help an enterprise achieve. In addition, the
partners also reached out to other social partners such as the GWU and UHM. A workshop
was also organised with ITS for its 3rd
year Tourism Management students working within
industry.
Although these attempts resulted in more workshops, the target for this particular action on
general workshops was nevertheless not reached. No other problems were encountered in
executing this action.
31
5.2.2.8 Action C6 –Water Saving Signs
Partner responsible - MHRA
Actions undertaken
Signs for hotel rooms were drafted and designed, with feedback from the MTA. The signs
were produced in English, German, French and Italian (the top four countries of origin for
tourists in Malta). The format chosen was two flat cards which slotted into each other to form
a cross shaped stand. This allowed hotels the option of either simply inserting them into
welcome packs for guests, or displaying them prominently on room furniture. The signs were
also laminated for increased durability. At the same time large posters in English and Maltese
were designed for staff areas of both hotels and businesses. The display of guest room signs
was included in the MTA agreement as contributing to the award and/or maintenance of the
MTA’s Eco-Certification, and their use was promoted to hotels by the MTA as well as the
project.
Outputs/results achieved
The posters for employee areas were distributed to all enterprises on the project’s contact list,
while the guest room signs were promoted by the project through Action C1 – Face to Face
Meetings, Action C5 – Workshops, through phone calls and sample distribution to all hotels
on the project’s contact list. Just over 6000 signs were distributed for display in 2,397 hotel
rooms of 18 hotels. This represents 14% of all hotel rooms in Malta.
Indicators testing performance
An action plan was prepared by summer 2012, companies informed about the scheme through
emails, face to face meetings, phone calls, and feature articles in partner magazines, as well as
through press releases. The sings were printed and distributed by May 2013, with a report on
the action prepared by end of September 2013. This report was updated in May 2014 to reflect
further developments, mainly take-up of signs by additional hotels. The signs are attached in
hard and soft form under Annex 7.3.3.12, while the report is attached under Annex 7.3.3.13.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action. The only problem encountered
was that the large branded 5* hotels could not use the signs due to their branding policies.
However, almost all these hotels already had similar signs of their own, and therefore would
not have needed project signs.
32
5.2.2.9 Action E1– Monitoring of project impact, Surveys of target audience
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
Misco was selected as the market research company responsible for the awareness surveys of
decision takers and employees. Together with the water expert and project manager, Misco
developed questionnaires based on project needs. The aim was to establish a baseline of
awareness relevant to the subject area, from which changes could be monitored to gauge the
project’s effectiveness. Electronic questionnaires were distributed to decision takers within all
target enterprises, and pen and paper questionnaires were distributed to 1,500 employees
within the target companies. This was done in three waves, in the first quarter of 2012,
January 2013, January 2014. Reports were available by May 2012, February 2013, and March
2014.
Questionnaires for tourists were distributed in pen and paper form to participating hotels in
March 2014, and collected by September 2014. The questionnaires were given to hotel
receptions, with requests for them to be handed to guests on check-out, and kept for collection
by project staff. Unfortunately response was poorer than anticipated and only 207
questionnaires were returned filled in.
Outputs/results achieved
The full reports are attached under Annex 7.3.3.14, however a summary is given below.
Decision takers:
Green signifies an improvement over baseline, orange a decrease over baseline, and yellow
little difference.
33
Change over project's lifetime Notes
Overall Awareness about Water Scarcity water scarcity is a serious issue for businesses in Malta Positive
More groundwater is recharged than extracted (False) Positive
Malta's only natural source of fresh water is groundwater (True)Positive
Malta is amongst the top 10 countries worldwide for water
scarcity (True)Positive
The only source of groundwater is rainwater (True) Positive
Over extraction of groundwater increases the salinity of
remaining groundwater (True)Negative
Climate change is expected to lead to more annual rainfall in the
MediterraneanNegative
Climate change is expected to lead to more intense periods of
rainfall leading to water runoff and floodingStatic
Climate change is expected to lead to increase in temperatures,
resulting in an increase in demand for waterPositive
Reverse Osmosis consumes small amounts of electricity Positive
Reverse Osmosis is the largest single consumer of electricity in
Malta, consuming up to 4% of all electricity produced nationally
Positive
Member States were required to introduce a price for
groundwater, which was to be passed on to the consumer as an
environmental and resource cost
Negative 2% decrease
EU policy requires Member States to use natural resources as
efficiently as possible before considering alternative methods of
supply
Negative 4% decrease
Member States are required to balance groundwater with
recharge by 2015Negative 7% decrease
Best practice in water conservation can be on both a behavioural
and on a technological levelNegative
Best practice involves first reducing consumption, rainwater
harvesting, reusing/recycling water, before considering
alternative methods of supply
Positive 98%
Water conservation practices Positive 6.4% increase
Water conservation technology Static
Both water conservation practices and water conservation
technologyPositive 5.5% increase
None adopted Positive more than 10% decrease
Adoption of Best Practice
Overall Awareness about Climate Change
Overall Awareness about Groundwater
Overall Awareness about Reverse Osmosis
Overall Awareness about EU Water Policy & Legislation
Awareness of key largely messages increased. The only exception is of awareness of EU
policy, which has slightly decreased. Interesting to note is that awareness of EU policy
increased significantly during the 2nd
wave but then decreased by the 3rd
and final wave.
Analysing this trend and project communications leads the partners to conclude that although
the project communicated EU policy throughout its duration, the participation of Mr. Peter
Gammeltoft in Action C3 – National Water Conference, helped raise awareness due to the
credibility of having an EC spokesperson directly verifying project messages with the target
audience. Since then no further direct statements verifying project messages came from the
EC to the target audience, leading to a weaker position for the project in convincing the target
audience of its EU policy messages. The main reason here is that the project, although EU
funded, was probably seen as a third party reporting on another party’s position, and without
verification from the said party, the message was somewhat weaker. This has been a very
important lesson learned for the partners, who will attempt to include direct messages from
spokespersons within the EC in future communications revolving around EU policy relating
to both projects and their work in general, on an on-going basis.
The results show that adoption of best practice water saving measures has increased by more
than 10% amongst respondents over the baseline. Awareness of key project messages has also
increased overall, except for awareness of EU policy and legislation which has actually
experienced a slight decrease. This decrease could be attributed to the fact that the project is
largely the only entity giving information about EU obligations relating to the WFD. Two of
the messages were; the need to charge an environmental and resource cost for groundwater,
and the need to balance groundwater extraction with recharge. Since Malta has not
implemented these requirements and there has been no communication regarding their
implementation from the EC or government, this weakens the message delivered from an
34
entity seen as ‘third party’ to the implementation of EC legislation. This is felt to be the
reason for the decrease in awareness of these measures, given that awareness of all other
project message areas has increased over baseline. Furthermore the “decrease” might also be
due to the fact that a random sample was chosen and this would suggest that the first group of
people interviewed might be more informed than the last group. Interesting to note is that
although only 10% of respondents noted an adoption of water saving measures during the
project lifetime, Action E2 notes a 13% increase. Action E2 is based on direct contact with
companies and verification of adoption of best practice measures through Action C1 – Face to
Face Meetings and taking into account existing best practice – this explains the difference
between the 13% registered in Action E2 and the 10% registered in Action E1.
Employees:
Green signifies an improvement over baseline, orange a decrease over baseline, and yellow
little difference.
Perceived Seriousness of Water Scarcity Nationally
The level of importance attributed to water conservation within the business
Employee perception on company involvement in water conservation practices/technology
Effectiveness of water conservation practices/technology implemented
Change over project's lifetime
:)
:)
:)
:)
Interestingly enough, awareness amongst employees increased over baseline in all aspects of
the project’s communications. However, when asked which measures their enterprises have
adopted, most employees could not name specific measures. This indicates that management
could better inform employees of their actions.
Tourists:
Yes No Unsure
Would you take action to save water 91% 9%
Would you reuse towel 71% 29%
Would you reuse bed linen 80% 20%
Are there in-room signs offering reuse of towels 72% 17% 11%
Are there in-room signs offering reuse of bed linen 37% 20% 43%
Did you reuse towels 71% 29%
Did you reuse bed linen 77% 23%
Country of origin UK, Italy, Libya, Sweden, Germany,
Czech Republic, Spain, Japan, Austria, Ireland, Denmark, South Africa
18-24 14%
25-64 77%
65+ 6%
The tourist questionnaires indicate that the majority of tourists would take action to save
water, and that as many as 80% would be willing to reuse bed linen, while 71% would be
willing to reuse towels. Hotel signs encouraging the reuse of towels appear to be prominently
placed, with 71% of guests reporting seeing them. However, only 37% of guests reported
35
seeing signs encouraging the reuse of bed linen. These results were shared with the hotels to
ensure that such signs are placed in the rooms in more prominent places in future.
Encouragingly, the reuse of towels and bed linen appears to be common, with over 70% of
respondents in both cases practicing these water conservation measures. However, the fact
that only 207 respondents returned completed questionnaires, and the very high (91%)
percentage of respondents willing to engage in water conservation actions when on holiday,
raises the possibility that the questionnaire resulted in a bias towards environmentally
conscious respondents.
Indicators testing performance
The first stages of the awareness survey were concluded later than anticipated, however future
waves proceeded according to schedule. Detailed reports were available within a month of
their completion, and were used to steer project actions. Questionnaires for tourists were
ready by March 2013, and distributed over summer 2013, with a report produced by the end
October 2013. This meets the indicators of progress listed in the Grant Agreement.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
According to the proposal, the first of three awareness surveys should have been available in
January 2012 after fieldwork was carried out in December 2011. The proposals for this
service received by MBB were unfortunately unsatisfactory and required revision and
resubmittal. This led to a delay in the first awareness survey. Upon completion and circulation
of the questionnaire, fewer responses than anticipated were received. To overcome this, the
project manager contacted decision takers within companies directly. This was successful in
achieving a high response rate (decision takers from 28% of target enterprises submitted filled
in questionnaires). The survey was completed at the end of May. The delays which occurred
during this first round of surveys have not impacted on the results of this action and are not
expected to repeat themselves. This minor problem has therefore been overcome without
compromising the project’s ability to reach its objectives (this was reported in the Inception
Report). Following this, the schedule listed in the Grant Agreement was followed. No other
problems were encountered in executing this action.
36
5.2.2.10 Action E2– Monitoring of project impact, environmental problem targeted
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
Following the preparation of a data collection sheet was prepared by the water expert and
project manager, on the 23rd
December enterprises were invited to participate in this action. A
total of 42 enterprises submitted information which was verified through the water audits
carried out as part of action C1 – Face to Face Meetings, and published in the project’s Water
Audit 2012 Aggregate Report which is attached under Annex 7.3.3.15.
The project collected water consumption data of 2011 to form a base line against which to
compare changes in consumption, and water consumption data from 2012 and 2013 to
compare savings. This data was collected electronically and through Action C1 – Face to Face
Meetings, on an ongoing basis throughout the project’s life. Data was collected from around
100 enterprises. This allowed the project to verify the success of enterprises in achieving
reduced water consumption. A report on the final water savings figure is presented under
Annex 3.3.6.
Outputs/results achieved
The ongoing assessment enabled the project to identify cases of best practice as well as
enterprises success in adopting water saving measures. This action enabled the project to
verify the savings achieved by enterprises through collaboration with the project. This meets
the results listed in the Grant Agreement.
Indicators testing performance
Water consumption data sheets were prepared by the water expert by mid-December 2011.
Data was then collected on a regular basis throughout the project. An end of project report
was prepared by 31st March 2014, and updated in May 2014 to include some additional
details. This meets the indicators testing performance listed in the Grant Agreement.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
37
5.2.2.11 Action F1– Project website
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
A detailed plan was prepared by the project manager and presented to the web developer prior
to the development of the site. The website was designed to give maximum visibility to
different actions running at different times in the project’s life. This was achieved through
having an attractive homepage which supports the use of both static and animated banners, as
well as through the facility of having side banners, with all banners linking to relevant pages.
The homepage also features various subpages such as media releases, feature articles, case
studies of successfully implemented water saving solutions, and multi-media.
The website currently has 11 informative pages, a download section, a links section, a video
section, and a media section with over 20 pages. The website includes a dedicated media
section which features press releases and articles, and a search function. To give the media
section added visibility, synopsis of press releases appear on the homepage. Information
pages on all of the project’s key messages have been included, as well as dedicated pages to
the project partners, the LIFE funding programme, co-financiers and project supporters. The
LIFE logo appears in a fixed position on every page in each section. The website
infrastructure also permits information pages to be shared virally through social media sites
such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. The website was also designed with a dedicated and
visible section from which project material could be downloaded.
In addition Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube accounts were also set up. The aim of these
pages is to further disseminate project information and messages while also increasing the
referrals to the project website. The project’s website is www.investinginwater.org
Outputs/results achieved
The main results expected from this action are that the website will contribute to knowledge
about the project and its key messages amongst target companies. The results of action E1 –
Monitor Project Impact, Survey of Target Audience, show that awareness was indeed
increased, with electronic reference material being a preferred choice amongst the target
audience for information – results of which are detailed under Section 7.3.3.14. This action
can therefore be considered to have met its expected results.
Indicators testing performance
The project website was set up just a few days following the deadline, and has since been
upgraded on a regular basis, often more than monthly. The website received a total of 27,168
page views by 4,034 visitors with a repeat visit rate of 35.5%. This meets the expected results
listed in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the project’s YouTube channel registered over
13,000 visits over the project duration – far exceeding the partners’ expectations. Numbers
have since continued to grow. The project’s YouTube site may be accessed here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/InvestingInWater/about
38
The above meet and exceed the indicators listed in the grant agreement. Visitor statistics are
presented under Annex 7.3.3.16.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
39
5.2.2.12 Action F2 – LIFE+ Boards
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
Based on the Project Identity produced as part of Action B1, the project commissioned the
design and printing of three EU LIFE+ boards. The message ‘Helping businesses and hotels
save water’ is displayed on the boards. The format chosen for the boards was in the form of a
roll-up banner. This was the option chosen by all partners to have the flexibility of displaying
the boards at various events, such as the National Water Conference (Action C3), technical
workshops (Action C5), or other unforeseen events. The boards feature the project logo, the
partners’ logos, the EU LIFE logo, co-financier logos, as well as the logos of project
supporters.
The boards are permanently displayed at the three partner offices, and were/are used at other
venues/events as necessary such as at the project exhibition set up in commemoration of the
EU LIFE 20th
anniversary, at the National Water Conference, at workshops organised as part
of Action C5, and at the closing event organised as part of Action F7. Artwork and a photo of
the boards on display are available under Annex 7.3.3.17.
Outputs/results achieved
The main result of this action is that staff, contractors, authorities, members of the
organisation and general public would be aware of the LIFE funded project undertaken by the
three partners. Given the level of participation by the authorities at all levels, sub-contractors
and the target audience, which has allowed the project to meet its objectives, these results can
be considered met.
Indicators testing performance
The boards were and remain displayed in prominent places in the partner offices, promoting
the project to staff and visitors. The objectives for this action have therefore been met.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
40
5.2.2.13 Action F3 – Project Launch
Partner responsible – Malta Chamber
Actions undertaken
The Project Launch was held on the 25th
January 2012 in the courtyard of the Malta Chamber
offices in Valletta. Invitations were issued to all businesses and hotels forming part of the
project’s target audience, as well as to several other stakeholders. The Minister for Tourism,
the Environment and Culture, Hon. Dr. Mario de Marco opened the launch. The project
manager and the presidents of the three partner organisations addressed the attendees and
encouraged enterprises to participate in the project.
Representatives from around 50 organisations attended the launch, including enterprises
forming part of the project’s target audience as well as stakeholders such as: Mrs Rita Bartolo
from the MRRA, Mr Raymond Vassallo and Mr Paul Refalo from the CoE, Mrs Maria Elena
Attard from the OPM, Mr Angelo Chetcuti from the European Commission Representation in
Malta, and notably Mr Alain van Raek from DG Enterprise and Industry. A list of attendees is
attached under Annex 7.4.10.
The focus of the launch was to present the project’s aims and key messages, and encourage
participation by target companies in project actions. The project portfolio was distributed to
all attendees as well as to the media. A press release was issued following the event. Footage
of the event was released to TV stations, and also turned into a short video which was
uploaded to the project’s website and YouTube channel. A list of news features covering the
Project Launch is attached under Annex 7.3.3.18.
Moreover, the project launch venue was set up as an exhibition displaying various water
related photos, provided by the Malta Photographic Society. The photos focused on different
elements relating to the key project messages, with historic water management features also
included. The photo collection forming part of this exhibition remains the property of the
project. It is planned to feature at different locations over the course of the project life and so
far has been exhibited at the ministerial exhibition celebrating the EU LIFE programme’s 20th
anniversary.
Outputs/results achieved
The main outputs listed in the grant agreement are that companies and authorities will become
aware of the project and the environmental problem through the launch, and that the launch ill
help establish ties with both mentioned parties. Given the number of enterprises which
collaborated with the project, and the interest by authorities in the project’s findings and
recommendations, these outputs can be considered met.
Indicators testing performance
The event was planned, sub-contractors engaged, invites designed and issued in time for the
event to be held within four months of the project start. The event was well covered by the
local media with the main TV station TVM, the third most popular station NET and popular
41
English language newspaper The Independent and the Business Weekly section also covering.
High ranking officials including the minister responsible for the environment and the LIFE
programme addressed attendees. The turnout was slightly smaller than originally foreseen,
with representatives from around 50 enterprises attending instead of 100 attendees. However,
interest was high and several water audits were booked by attending companies on the spot.
The partners therefore feel that the indicators of progress were met.
Modifications to work plans
No modification to work plans was required in the execution of this action.
Major problems
The only difficulty encountered in implementing this action was that the launch was held a
few days after parliament took a vote of no confidence in the government. Despite this the
event was well attended, and media coverage was good with Malta’s TVM (most popular TV
station) and NET TV station (the third most popular TV station) reporting the event, as well as
most of Malta’s main print and online newspaper portals. No other problems or delays were
encountered in implementing this action.
5.2.2.14 Action F4 – Press Releases
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
A total of 18 press releases were issued, which exceeds the number expected in the grant
agreement. Press releases were drafted by the partners, with input from stakeholders relevant
to the subject matter. These included the LIFE Focal Point, the Head of Water Policy within
MEH, and the MTA. Press releases were then issued to all the local media, uploaded to the
project website, and were appropriate also circulated electronically to the partners member
base and the project’s target audience. Press release coverage was often prominent and wide
amongst media sources. Several press releases also quoted high ranking individuals outside of
the partnership, who collaborated with the project to disseminate the project’s key messages.
These included Mr Peter Gammeltoft, Head of Water Protection Unit, DG ENV, former
Minister Mario de Marco, current ministers Minsiter Konrad Mizzi and Minister Leo Brincat,
and MTA CEO Josef Formosa Gauci. Press releases covered a wide range of topics, all of
which related directly to project key messages and actions. A returns list is attached under
Annex 7.3.3.19.
Outputs/results achieved
It was foreseen that between 15 and 25 percent of the population will receive information
about the project through newspaper purchases, and that this would support the project in
reaching its goals vis a vis participating enterprises and take up of water saving solutions. The
total distribution for media in which press releases was covered is over 200,000. This
indicates that the target of 25% of the population receiving information through newspaper
purchases has been indicated, even without considering that several people read each
newspaper, resulting in higher figures of readership than distribution. The partnership is
42
convinced that this action served to support the project’s goal of facilitating target enterprise
adoption of water saving best practice. The foreseen outputs have therefore been met.
Indicators testing performance
Press releases were drafted with input from partners, the project’s Water Expert, and where
necessary relevant stakeholders. Several featured very prominently in the print media, the
most prominent of which include features on page 3 of the main English language and the
main Maltese language newspapers. The indicators have therefore been met.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
43
5.2.2.15 Action F5 – Radio & TV Appearances
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
Throughout the project’s duration the partners maintained contact with TV and radio stations
and hosts, seeking opportunities to appear on programmes to discuss key messages, progress
and results. The project appeared for a total of 10 programmes. These included eight
appearances on Malta’s two most popular TV stations – TVM and One TV. Another
appearance was made on a popular programme discussing topical issues during prime time on
another popular TV station. This programme consisted of a 1.5 hr discussion about the
project, key water issues, results and water saving potential. It repeated four times in the
following weeks. A returns list if attached under Annex 7.3.3.20.
Outputs/results achieved
The project identified suitable programmes, making several high profile appearances. The
total viewership for the programmes attended is estimated at around 114,000 viewers. This
indicates that the project’s strategy in choosing high visibility programmes resulted in
excellent exposure. Coupled with the results of Action E1 – Monitoring Project Progress,
Awareness Surveys – that 50% of the target audience adopted water saving measures over the
project’s lifespan (an increase of 10% over baseline), this shows that the expected results
listed in the Grant Agreement have been met.
Indicators testing performance
Interviews were given, appearances made, and good coverage obtained on all media. The
project constantly targeted TV and radio programmes (on a monthly basis), resulting in 10
appearances. Viewer numbers are available as per the above section.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action. A minor problem encountered
is that from September 2012 to March 2013 Malta held a general election, and in May 2014
Malta held the European Parliament elections. In the build up to, and during these periods, the
TV media was almost exclusively interested in political issues, resulting in fewer programmes
being attended than planned. The project partners countered this problem by seeking
programmes with particularly good visibility and exposure. The problem therefore is
considered to have been largely overcome.
44
5.2.2.16 Action F6 – Layman’s Report
Partner responsible - MBB
Actions undertaken
A non-technical Layman’s Report was drafted by the partners with input from the project’s
Water Expert. The document was also circulated to the LIFE focal point for Malta, as well as
the Head of Water Policy MECW/MEH. The document communicates the project’s key
messages, presents water saving solutions and potential for industry, gives project results, and
further reading. An attractive visual layout was prepared, and the document published in print
and electronic format, also available for download from the project website. It was widely
distributed, in both print and electronic form, to media houses; stakeholders the project has
been in contact with; target audience enterprises; and various journalists. Additionally, it was
distributed in print form to attendees at the project’s closing event. The Layman’s Report is
attached under Annex 7.3.1.
Outputs/results achieved
The main output foreseen was the dissemination of information about the project, results,
LIFE programme, the After-LIFE plan to the following:
Local companies
Industry players not members of the partners’ organisations and those not reached, or
less informed about the project
Local media
Local stakeholders including government, NGOs
EU officials working on or with the Water Framework Directive
The above was all met, with the report also made freely available on the project website. The
outputs for this action have therefore been met.
Indicators testing performance
Information collected over the course of the project was used in the preparation of a draft.
This draft was distributed to partners, as well as key stakeholders. The report was published
and distributed prior to the project’s end, thus also being available for distribution at the
project’s closing event organised as part of Action F7. The report was uploaded to the project
website and distributed electronically to a wide list of stakeholders and target audiences. This
meets and in some cases exceeds the indicators of performance listed in the grant agreement.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
45
5.2.2.17 Action F7 – Closing Event
Partner responsible – Malta Chamber
Actions undertaken
The event was held on the 28th
March 2014 in the Malta Chambers Exchange Buildings in
Valletta – the same venue and hall in which the project was launched in. It was a high profile
event during which attendees were addressed by the presidents of the partner organisations as
well as Minister for Energy and Health Konrad Mizzi (under whose portfolio water
conservation falls) and Minister Leo Brincat (under whose portfolio the LIFE programme
falls). Around 60 participants attended the event, including shadow minister for the
conservation of water George Pullicino. During the event Minister Brincat awarded
certificates of participation to best practice enterprises. The event was well covered by the
local media, achieving articles in the Times of Malta and TVM (Malta’s main English
language newspaper and Malta’s main TV station respectively). The Shadow Minister
responsible for water conservation also wrote about and praised the project on his personal
blog following the event – screenshot attached under Annex 7.3.3.21. During the event an
audio-visual presentation was given by the project manager, and the Layman’s Report
published.
Outputs/results achieved
The main outputs/results listed under the grant agreement are that the event will include high
level government representation and that it will serve to honour the companies that cooperated
with the project. These outputs/results were met through the attendance and address by two
ministers as well as the awarding of certificates to companies by one of the ministers.
Indicators testing performance
The closing event was held in March 2014, during which speakers included the Minister
responsible for water conservation as well as the Minister responsible for the LIFE
programme in Malta, opposition spokesperson for water conservation, numerous attendees
from the project’s target audience, and various stakeholders including public authorities
workers. Although the grant agreement lists 100 attendees, 60 were registered attending the
event – an attendance sheet is attached under Annex 7.3.3.22. The main TV stations TVM and
ONE TV covered the event, along with the main English language newspapers the Times and
the Independent. The event was planned and sub-contractors engaged within the timelines
identified in the grant agreement.
Modifications to work plans
No modifications to the work plan were required.
Major problems
No major problems were encountered in executing this action.
46
5.3 Evaluation of Project Implemention
In this section you should evaluate the following aspects of the project:
Methodology applied: discuss the success and failures of the methodology applied,
results of actions conducted and the cost-efficiency of actions
The key methodologies for this project affected:
1) Communications and media work,
2) Direct contact with enterprises,
3) Direct contact with stakeholders including authorities,
4) Sourcing of sub-contractors.
Communications and media work
The methodology chosen here was for project actions, findings and results to be
communicated through media work, direct electronic contact with target audience, through
direct contact, and through the project website. Each element to be communicated was
therefore disseminated through as wide a media as possible. The key procedure here was the
circulation of material drafts to the partnership and relevant stakeholders (normally the LIFE
focal point, but also including Manuel Sapiano, Head of Water Policy within MEH, and John
Magri, Manager Quality and Industry HR Development MTA) for feedback. Once feedback
had been received within a timeframe which allowed the project to quickly process news
items, the news would be released through Action F4 – Press Releases. It would then be used
to communicate through other actions. This system is cost effective as input need only be
obtained once per release, with the output being used in several actions. It was also an
effective methodology as evidenced by the prominence given to the project’s communications
in the media.
Direct contact with enterprises
The project’s focus here was on first calling target enterprises and requesting a meeting with
the General Manager, CEO or director. During this meeting the project’s aims, key messages,
and actions would be explained and collaboration with the enterprise sought. In most cases
project requests were accepted during the meeting, and water audits through Action C1 – Face
to Face Meetings, or participation in other actions such as C5 – Workshops, confirmed by the
enterprise. Following this, the collaboration would take place. Often, follow up information
would be required by the project which would have been supplied electronically. The project
would then keep the key contact person within the enterprise updated with information as
appropriate. The structure is simple; however in practice it required a lot of time and effort by
the project manager and project assistant – more than was originally anticipated, as is
reflected by the increased expenditure on personnel costs by the project. This is particularly so
with respect to acquiring information following water audits carried out as part of Action C1 –
Face to Face Meetings and E2 – Monitoring of Project Impact, Environmental Problem
Targeted. While the methodology was successful and the partners will adopt it for future
projects, it will be improved upon through a stronger focus on maintaining contact with a key
person within the enterprise. This will require a stronger emphasis on direct contact actions,
and more time by the project’s contact staff allocated to these actions.
47
Direct contact with stakeholders including authorities
The process adopted here builds on that described above. Stakeholders were kept up to date
through regular contact following key project publications or communications. Meetings were
regularly organised, and where appropriate support sought during these meetings, with follow
up communication to organise the support. Examples include the CoE inviting their members
to workshops organised by the project, or ITS organising a workshop with the project, for
students studying hospitality management. In all cases key contact points were identified and
regularly updated to build a strong working relationship. This process worked particularly
well with the CoE, MTA, MEH, and ITS, resulting in tangible and public support given by
these entities for the project. The only failure was in the project’s attempt to contact the
Chamber of Architects, with a view to entering into a working relationship similar to the other
stakeholders. Only one meeting was available and the project manager fell ill for that meeting.
Contact continued, however the project had not identified a strong contact point and a
working relationship did not result. This emphasises the importance of a strong contact point
within stakeholders, through whom a working relationship can be built.
Sourcing of sub-contractors
The procedure used here was to contact three providers and request quotes based on a project
provided briefing of the job required. Depending on the quotes sub-contractors would have
been immediately eliminated from the selection, or alternatively asked for a meeting to
discuss their submission further prior to the project team making a final selection. This
process is reasonably cost-effective and efficient, allowing sub-contractors to be selected
based on the best available information. The process allowed the project to engage sub-
contractors who delivered to a high standard, and undoubtedly helped the project reach its
goals.
Compare the results achieved against the objectives: clearly assess whether the
objectives were met and describe the successes and lessons learned. This could be
presented in a table, which compares through quantitative and qualitative information
the actions implemented in the frame of the project with the objectives in the revised
proposal:
Task Foreseen in the revised proposal Achieved Evaluation
Action
A1
The overall Result of Action A1 will be
that the project management structure will
enhance the completion and success rate of
all the other project actions through
appropriate planning and well established
structures.
This action will also ascertain that the
reporting and other procedures expected as
part of the LIFE+ project funding
administration and described in Action A2
Monitoring of Project progress are adhered
to as well as the Common Provisions.
The management
structure enabled the
completion of all
project actions, and the
overall success of the
project.
The action also ensured
that reporting and other
procedures required for
a LIFE+ project were
adhered to.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action Through this action, it is expected Time sheets were Planned and actual
48
A2 that all LIFE+ programme
requirements are adhered to
meticulously and in a timely fashion.
Moreover, this action will allow the
coordinating beneficiary to maintain
the project on track and to budget
therefore allowing for the appropriate
implementation of all other project
actions.
collected on a
monthly basis,
records of Steering
Committee Meetings
kept, invoices
processed according
to the partner’s
established system,
financial forms filled
in, and all other
administration and
financial
management
necessary for the
appropriate
implementation of
all project actions
carried out.
results are identical.
Action
A3
An audit report will be produced
showing the compliance with all
legal provisions
An audit report was
produced showing
the compliance with
all legal provisions.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action
A4
After-LIFE Communications Plan
produced and included with Final
Report.
After-LIFE
Communications
Plan produced and
included with Final
Report.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action
A5
Within the After-LIFE
communications plan it is expected
that the recommendations for the
revision of the Water Framework
Directive, which includes the
involvement of other Mediterranean
stakeholders will be disseminated to
key stakeholders such as the
Mediterranean country/local
governments as well as to the
Commission.
The After-LIFE
communications
plan was distributed
to various
stakeholders
including
government and
other key
stakeholders
working in the
Mediterranean.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action
B1
The result of this action will ascertain
consistency and high standards in all
communication materials for the
duration of the project life. This
action is therefore one which is
expected to support all other actions
in achieving their results as well as
supporting the awareness of the
project as a whole.
The output of this
action informed all
communications
material produced by
the project, thus
supporting all other
actions in achieving
their result, and
supporting the
project overall in
Planned and actual
results are identical.
49
achieving its
objectives.
Action
B2
We expect that over 90% of the
target companies (72 MHRA
members and 186 Malta Chamber
members) will receive the project
portfolio, thereby becoming aware of
the project and its main messages. A
well-designed project portfolio will
give the project a high profile,
importance and professionalism,
thereby helping the partnership in
establishing strong contacts for the
project.
Almost all the target
companies received
the portfolio, as well
as various
stakeholders and
also companies not
falling within the
target group. Interest
in the portfolio was
high, and feedback
given through
Action C1 – Face to
Face meetings,
suggests that it was
important in helping
the project achieve
the number of
audited enterprises it
did.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action
C1
The companies will be fully
informed about the importance of
reducing water consumption to help
Malta reach good ecological status in
line with the objectives of the EU
Water Framework Directive. The
target companies will learn about the
cost of reverse-osmosis technology
and why it cannot be a viable
alternative to groundwater and will
also be made fully aware of the
economic and environmental benefits
of water savings to the business.
Although certain water saving
measures are already known to the
project partnership, through face to
face meetings, new methods and/or
other practical solutions as well as
the most effective communication
tools to convince the decision takers
will be identified. This information
will be included in other
communications material such as the
Solutions Pack, project website,
feature articles etc and will enable
the project to disseminate the
campaign messages more effectively.
This action will be one of the main
Companies were
made aware of the
importance of
reducing their water
consumption in line
with Malta’s
ecological needs and
the EU WFD
objectives, as well as
of other key
messages.
This action helped
the project identify
and disseminate
existing best
practice. It also fed
into the development
of almost all other
actions, and can
therefore be
considered a crucial
action within the
project.
Through this action
the project achieved
a 13% take up rate
of water saving
recommendations
Planned and actual
results are similar,
with 136 enterprises
audited in place of
the forecast 140, and
leading to a take up
of 14% of target
enterprises adopting
water saving
solutions in place of
a forecast 20%. This
action was also
crucial in helping the
project achieve a
28% water
consumption
reduction in place of
a 10% water
consumption
reduction.
50
communication tools that will
increase the effectiveness of the
project and help achieve at least 20%
of the target companies adopting best
practices during the project lifetime.
amongst its target
audience, leading to
a staggering 28%
reduction in
consumption.
Action
C2
Over 90% of the target companies
will receive the solutions pack. It will
also be handed to key staff during
face to face meetings, workshops and
an electronic copy of the booklet will
be sent to the companies by e-mail.
As a result of the distribution of the
pack, most of the companies will
become aware of the key messages of
the project and the best practices and
its benefits to business as well as
Malta’s water resources. Thus this
action will help the project to provide
the necessary information to the
target audience and encouraging
them to adopt best practices to reduce
their water consumption.
Almost all target
companies received
the solutions pack,
which was also
handed to key staff
during face to face
meetings,
workshops, and
made available
online through the
project website,
promoted through
emails.
Awareness of the
key project messages
registered an overall
increase, to which
this action
contributed.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action
C3
It is expected that approximately 200
persons attend the National Water
Conference representing business,
government and other stakeholders.
Attendees well informed about the
water scarcity issue and other key
messages of the project.
Prominent coverage received in
newspapers, TVs, radio and online
media.
Around 150 people
attended the
National Water
Conference,
receiving
information about
project key
messages. Coverage
was prominent on
TV, radio,
newspapers and
online.
Planned and actual
results are almost
identical, the only
difference being a
somewhat smaller
number of attendees
than originally
foreseen.
Action
C4
A minimum of 18 articles will appear
in the magazines published by the
Malta Chamber, MHRA and MBB.
A minimum of 15 features will also
appear in Maltese and English
language newspapers and magazines.
At least 4 articles will be published
in the publications targeting the
tourists. 4 articles will be published
in the publications of the MBB’s
partners in Brussels such as
“Eurochambers news” and weekly
“Business Europe”. At least 6 articles
14 articles appeared
in the partners
magazines. 10
appeared in Maltese
and English
language
newspapers and
magazines. One
appeared in
publications
targeting tourists. Of
the companies
HSBC is known to
In general fewer
articles appeared
than were foreseen.
This is largely due to
media agents
preferring to cover
project material
through press-
releases rather than
feature articles. This
resulted in fewer
feature articles in
local newspapers
51
about the water conservation signs
for the employees of the target
companies will be published in the
publications produced by large
companies for their employees.
Furthermore, we expect certain
column writers and opinion writers
(including the editors of the main
papers) to take up this issue.
have published an
article on their
intranet; however
this was unavailable
due to
confidentiality
procedures. Column
and opinion writers
produced several
pieces taking up the
issue.
magazines and
publications targeting
tourists than
expected.
Nevertheless, the
project managed a
high readership
through the feature
articles published as
part of this action (in
excess of 248,000).
Action
C5
Over 90 percent of the target
companies will become aware of the
workshops and will be given a
chance to attend. We expect that
these workshops will facilitate the
implementation of the best practices
that will be promoted by the project.
We also expect at least 50% of the
large companies to include the best
practices for water savings in the
trainings for their employees using
the solutions pack as a guideline.
This action will provide the
necessary technical information to
the target companies in Malta and
help them to adopt best practices to
reduce their water consumption. It
will also help the project to receive
direct feedback from the industries
regarding the logistical and/or
financial issues, if any, regarding the
implementation of the best practices
and help offer alternatives and
explanations on how to over come
these problems.
At least 180 technical staff attend the
first six workshops and another 400
non-technical staff members will the
second set of 20 workshops.
All target companies
were invited to
participate in
workshops. This
action provided the
necessary technical
information to target
companies regarding
best practice in
water conservation.
10 workshops for
general staff were
held, reaching 199
attendees, while 6
workshops for
technical staff were
held, reaching 124
attendees.
Numbers reached
were lower than
anticipated.
Conclusions are that
general workshops
are perceived as too
disruptive to
everyday operations,
while interest in
technical workshops
was high.
Action
C6
Over 50% of the target companies
(which do not already have any water
conservation signs) will join the
scheme.
Over 11,000 signs will be distributed.
(This is based on the assumption that
50% of the hotels will participate in
the scheme thus resulting in around
19 hotels joined the
scheme, resulting in
the distribution of
nearly signs to
nearly 3000 rooms,
or 14% of all hotel
rooms. Signs for
employee areas were
9,000 rooms
indicated in the
project application
was an omission,
based on 50% of all
hotel rooms (17,000)
in Malta and not 50%
of target hotels.
52
9,000 rooms under 3/4/5 star Hotels
that are members of the MHRA and
further 650 distributed to hotels for
the staff quarters. As for the
companies it is estimated that an
average of 5 signs per targeted
company will be required (total 930
signs).
We expect that the questionnaires
will show that the tourists notice the
water conservation signs and
implement some of the proposed
actions during their stay.
The water savings that would be
achieved through this action will
clearly demonstrate to the target
audience the economic benefits of
small and simple investments.
Through this scheme we expect the
target companies to become more
aware of the main messages of the
project and raise interest in the
project actions such as face to face
meetings and workshops as well as
start implementing other best
practices.
distributed to all
target hotels and
businesses.
Furthermore 21 of 72
hotels targeted
already had such
signs. 19 of 51 hotels
without signs joined
the action (2 five
star, others three and
four stars). This
resulted in a total of
3000 rooms.
Action
E1
This action will allow the project
staff to monitor the success of the
project in terms of raising awareness
on the key messages and their
effectiveness at different stages of
the project life.
The main result of this action will be
to enable the project partnership to
monitor the impact of the project
actions, in particular the
communications actions at regular
intervals of the project. This will
result in the project staff knowing the
extent of adoption of best practices,
and the awareness created by the
project amongst the target audiences.
This will allow review and revision
of methods employed of the project
actions as necessary to ensure
maximum project impact. For
example, if there is a significant
change in behaviour and awareness
This action allowed
project staff to
monitor awareness
of key messages and
effectiveness of the
project at different
stages.
The main results are
listed in Section
5.2.2.9 and show
that overall,
awareness of project
key messages
increased.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
53
between the companies that took part
in the face to face meetings as
compared with the companies that
did not take part, effort will be made
to increase face to face meetings.
With regards the impact of ‘Water
Conservation Signs’ (Action C6) on
the tourists, the project is planned to
have signs placed in around 9,000
rooms under 3/4/5 star hotels as we are
envisioning that 50% of the hotels that
do not already have water conservation
signs will participate in this action.
This means that between May 2013 till
the end of the project life (March
2014), tourists staying at in these 9,000
rooms will receive the project
messages. Although it is not possible
to accurately estimate how many
tourists would be staying in these
9,000 rooms over the 10 month period
till the end of the project (due to
differing length of stays and number of
guests per room), the total number of
tourists who stayed in the MHRA
member hotels in 2010 was over
820,000 tourists. Extrapolating this
annual figure, over a 10-month period
in a straight proportion method, results
in over 683,500 tourists. Therefore, as
we had assumed that 50% of the
MHRA members will participate in
Action C6 Signs for Water
Conservation, it is estimated that
around 340,000 tourists will see these
signs during the project life. Moreover
as the project will reach an agreement
with the hotels to retain and maintain
the signs for 5 years after the project
ends, it can be expected that a further
1.7 million tourists in the subsequent 5
years will be recipients of the
messages through the water
conservation signs.
Moreover, according to the feedback
from the tourists with regards to the
Water Conservation Sings, the hotels
with minimum positive feedback
from the tourists will be identified by
the project partnership and will be
54
approached to find ways to maximize
the impact of these signs (for
example by re-placing them in a
more effective way etc).
Action
E2
The ongoing assessment of the
companies’ water consumption will
enable both the project and the target
companies to monitor consumption
thereby identifying any improvements.
The regular briefs drafted about the
consumption pattern changes will
direct the project manager providing a
more targeted approach in particular
during the Face to Face meetings
(Action C1) but as well for other
communications messages. This
monitoring action will also potentially
highlight best practices which achieved
excellent results, which the project will
highlight on the website (Action F1)
and potentially also through press
releases and other C Actions.
The expected environmental results
(10% service water reduction among
the 20% target businesses that will
adopt water saving measures) of the
project will be effectively monitored
through this action.
With regards to the calculation of the
objective of reaching at least 20% of
target companies, the hotels that have
already adopted these changes prior to
the project’s commencement will be
excluded from the calculation of the
objective of reaching at least 20% of
target companies which will adopt best
practices to reduce water consumption
during the project lifetime. The
Commission will be informed of these
hotels through the Report of 1st Stage
of Face to Face Interviews (deadline
30th April 2012) which will form part
of the Inception report to be submitted
to the Commission by July 2012.
This action allowed
the project to
identify water
savings, also
informing other
actions particularly
F1 – Project
Website, C actions,
and F4 – Press
Releases on material
for communication.
The achieved results
were a 28% water
reduction by 10% of
enterprises. This
takes into
consideration
enterprises which
were already best
practice or had little
scope for savings
when audited by the
project.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action
F1
Knowledge about the project and its
key messages will be increased
among target companies. The
website will also act as a hub of
information for the industries that
wish to invest in best practices.
The website served
to disseminate
information about
the project and its
key messages
amongst target
Planned and actual
results are identical.
55
Through promotion of the businesses
on the website that take part in the
project, we hope that other business
will also become aware of the project
messages and benefits of investing in
best practices.
enterprises and
stakeholders, and
contributed to the
overall success of
the project.
Action
F2
Staff, contractors, authorities,
members of the organisations and
members of the general public who
visit the offices of the three partners
will become aware of the LIFE
funded project being undertaken by
the three partners
The signs have been
noted by most
visitors to the
partner offices. This
indicates that most
visitors are aware of
the LIFE funded
project being
undertaken.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action
F3
The target companies and authorities
will become aware of the project and
the environmental problem
communicated during the launch.
Through the dissemination of the
project portfolio (Action B2) and
press coverage, the target audience
will start becoming familiar with the
project’s key messages and start
recognising the project through its
branding developed through Action
B1 (Develop project identity). The
project launch will also help the
partnership establish working
relationships with key representatives
from government authorities and as
well as from the companies
immediately resulting in an increase
in participation especially in Action
C1 (face to face meetings) which will
commence immediately after the
project launch.
Target companies
and authorities
became aware of the
project and its key
messages during the
launch. The
dissemination of the
project portfolio
(Action B2) and
related press
coverage, the target
audience and
stakeholders also
started becoming
familiar with the
project’s key
messages and start
recognising the
project through its
branding developed
through Action B1
(Develop project
identity). The project
launch will also help
the partnership
establish working
relationships with
key contacts within
enterprises as well as
government and
authorities,
contributing to
Action C1 – Face to
Face Meetings.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action It is estimated that between 15 and The total distribution Actual results are
56
F4 25 percent of the population will
receive this information through
newspaper purchases. The actual
number of people who read the
articles are likely to be higher as
these percentages are based on the
number of papers purchased and not
the number of readers (as more than
one person is likely to read the
papers purchased). This will
contribute to raising the awareness of
the target audience on the project and
its messages as well as the general
public. Coverage received in the
national media will increase the
recognition of the project among the
target audience and would lead to
increased cooperation.
for the papers in
which press releases
were covered was in
excess of 200,000,
or approaching 50%
of the population.
better than planned
results. This action
was the project’s
strong point in terms
of media work. This
will be taken into
consideration when
developing other
projects.
Action
F5
At least one TV or radio programmes
will be targeted every month
throughout the project life depending
on the agenda and the season.
An increase in the discussion and
coverage of the topic in other media
is expected.
The results will increase the visibility
and recognition of the project among
the target audience, and stakeholders.
TV and radio
programmes were
targeted every
month, resulting in
10 appearances over
the project life,
resulting in over
114,000 viewers
receiving project
messages. The
project’s topic
registered an
increase in
discussion and
project visibility.
Planned and actual
results are identical.
Action
F6
This action is expected to further
disseminate the projects objects, its
results and provide information on
the LIFE programme, as well as
inform the audience of aspects of the
After-LIFE Communications plan
(Action A4). The following
audiences are expected to be
recipients of the document;
Local companies
Industry players not members
of the partners’ organisations
and those not reached, or less
informed about the project
Local media
Local stakeholders including
government, NGOs
Through this action
the project further
disseminated its
objectives, findings
and results, and also
informed the
audience of elements
in the After-LIFE
Communications
plan. Local
companies, industry
players not members
of the partner
organisations, local
media and
stakeholders
including
Planned and actual
results are identical.
57
EU officials working on or
with the Water Framework
Directive
government, and EU
officials received
copies of the
document.
Action
F7
This event is aimed at honouring the
companies that have cooperated with
the project as well as engaging the
local authorities in understanding the
needs to continue the work already
undertaken through the project as
described in the After LIFE
communications plan section within
the Layman’s report. This will ensure
that the solutions identified
throughout the project and their
benefits to Malta’s economy and
ecology can continue to be
disseminated to other industries and
beyond. High level representation
from the government is expected.
Certificates were
issued to
participating
companies by one of
the two attending
Ministers. Future
work on water
conservation was
communicated to
attendees and the
Layman’s report was
distributed.
Planned and actual
results are identical,
with high level
representation from
government and the
opposition being
particularly strong
(with the attendance
of two ministers as
well as the shadow
minister for
environment of the
main opposition
party).
Indicate which project results have been immediately visible and which results will
only become apparent after a certain time period.
Project results which are immediately visible include the amount of water saved by
enterprises which adopted best practice during the project’s lifetime, and the change in
awareness of key project messages amongst the target audience. Results which will become
apparent over a time period include:
1) Adoptions of project recommendations by the Maltese government,
2) Adoptions of project recommendations by the European Commission,
3) Adoption of project recommendations by enterprises which had not yet implemented them
during the project’s lifetime,
4) A shift towards more efficient products/services supplied to industry by engineers.
If relevant, clearly indicate how a project amendment led to the results achieved and
what would have been different if the amendment had not been agreed upon.
Not applicable.
Indicate effectiveness of the dissemination and comment on any major drawbacks
The partners feel that the dissemination of information was largely successful. This is mainly
due to the simple and replicable procedures established. The procedures allowed the project to
follow an established template to communicate actions, progress, findings, and results
through:
1) Quick and effective media work,
2) Direct electronic contact with the target audience,
3) Direct face to face dissemination through project actions (notably C1 – Face to Face
Meetings, C5 – Workshops, C3 – National Water conference),
58
4) Availability of information through the project website.
In all cases the information communicated was made available through all the above
channels. The partners feel that there were no major drawbacks to this system, and will
continue to build upon it in other projects and work areas.
59
5.4 Analysis of long-term benefits
In this section please discuss the following:
1. Environmental benefits
a. Direct / quantitative environmental benefits:
i. LIFE+ Information and Communication: e.g. reductions of the use of
pesticides within a group of targeted stakeholders, measured changes of
attitude of important stakeholders.
b. Relevance for environmentally significant issues or policy areas (e.g.
industries/sectors with significant environmental impact, consistency with 6th
or 7th
(as applicable) EU Environment Action Programme and/or important
environmental principles, relevance to the EU legislative framework
(directives, policy development, etc.)
The direct environmental benefits brought about by the project are a reduced water
consumption by enterprises from various sectors, with a reduction in energy requirements
mainly for water heating by the hotel sector. This is highly relevant to Malta, where
groundwater bodies are over-extracted by nearly 50% over sustainable yield on an annual
basis. This work therefore supports the WFD requirement for efficient use, as well as the
WFD requirement for Member States to balance extraction with recharge.
2. Long-term benefits and sustainability
a. Long-term / qualitative environmental benefits
i. LIFE+ Information and Communication: e.g. the continued effect of
the followed strategy on key stakeholders, expected transfer of the
followed methodology to other countries or policy areas, future impact
on European Union environmental policy and legislation.
b. Long-term / qualitative economic benefits (e.g. long-term cost savings and/or
business opportunities with new technology etc., regional development, cost
reductions or revenues in other sectors)
c. Long-term / qualitative social benefits (e.g. positive effects on employment,
health, ethnic integration, equality and other socio-economic impact etc.)
d. Continuation of the project actions by the beneficiary or by other stakeholders.
Savings achieved by industry through the project’s dissemination of best practice translate
into around EUR 100,000 per annum. Water saving initiative by industry can be expected to
continue developing, leading to stronger financial savings. This will increase the
competiveness and safeguard the economic sustainability of the sectors involved, and can be
expected over the medium to long term.
Recommendations made by the project could lead to increased focus on the water savings
sector, particularly the green jobs element. A number of new green jobs could be created, as
outlined in the policy recommendations document presented to government attached under
Annex 7.2.5. To summarise the recommendations; the Project has identified that an industry
wide adoption of shower and wash-hand basin flow rate regulation, and grey-water treatment
by hotels could lead to considerable savings in water and electricity consumption. The
60
adoption of these three water saving measures would lead to an industry level reduction in
water use of 37%, and significant energy savings on heating.
The MBB as coordinating beneficiary together with partners MHRA and Malta Chamber will
continue to work on water savings for industry. A work plan has been highlighted through
Action A4 – After-LIFE Communications Plan. Additionally, the MECW/MEH has requested
assistance in organising consultation with industry on Malta’s National Water Action Plan,
which request has been agreed to by MBB. The MBB will also follow the development of the
Greening the Economy National Strategy to provide further input supporting the
recommendations listed above.
3. Replicability, demonstration, transferability, cooperation: Potential for technical
and commercial application (transferability reproducibility, economic feasibility,
limiting factors) including cost-effectiveness compared to other solutions, benefits
for stakeholders, drivers and obstacles for transfer, if relevant: market conditions,
pressure from the public, potential degree of geographical dispersion, specific
target group information, high project visibility (eye-catchers), possibility in same
and other sectors on local and EU level, etc.
The process adopted by the project could be adapted to address other environmental areas of
concern, particularly energy use and waste issues, related to industry. The partners have in
fact; decided to export the work method to these areas and consultation with government over
national priorities is already underway. While the approach has proved successful in Malta,
similar projects have also achieved success in other Mediterranean Member States, and
therefore it can be assumed that the process is largely transferable to other countries dealing
with the same sectors.
4. Best Practice lessons: briefly describe the best practice measures used and if any
changes in the followed strategy could lead to possible adjustment of the best
practices
The project’s strategy focused on direct contact with enterprises as a means of gathering
information, identifying water saving opportunities, and encouraging their adoption. To
further build a drive towards water saving by industry media and communications work was
used on an ongoing basis throughout the project. Project information also formed the basis of
recommendations to government and the European Commission.
The key elements to this strategy are having a good contact person with enterprises, carrying
out media work effectively and being able to react quickly to developments, and on
maintaining a good working relationship with stakeholders including government.
As best practice the partners would consider the contact maintained with key enterprises and
key stakeholders. The critical element here was identifying the right contact point within the
enterprise or stakeholder, then providing relevant information on a regular basis, and checking
on progress to offer support frequently, yet without over-exposing the contact. The partners
view the strategy as having been successful and would therefore not change the best practice.
On the other hand, this model will be considered for use in other projects where applicable,
and built open to increase its effectiveness and reach.
61
5. Innovation and demonstration value: Describe the level of innovation,
demonstration value added by EU funding at national and international level
(including technology, processes, methods & tools, organisational & co-operational
aspects);
The demonstration value added through the EU funding can be described as follows. Firstly it
involved a collation of best practice and baseline data on water consumption by industry.
Secondly it involved a dissemination of best practice to the target audience, together with data
gathering to verify impact. Thirdly it involved dissemination of impact amongst stakeholders
and presentation of policy recommendations nationally and at EU level. The impact of the
best practice dissemination is an increase in water savings, verified through data submitted by
enterprises. This points to a national impact at industry level. Equally importantly, project
recommendations will be integrated into national policy, furthering the gains already achieved
by spreading them more widely within industry nationally. To summarise the
recommendations; the Project partners advocate a demand management strategy coupled with
awareness raising of efficiency measures, and a supply augmentation strategy facilitating and
promoting the use of non-conventional water resources. The demand management strategy
should facilitate and prioritize the use of efficient technology. This could be done through the
establishment and promotion of an Eco-Label for water consuming appliances. Supply
augmentation should take into consideration existing best practice in the in-house rainwater
harvesting and re-use, grey-water treatment, black-water (sewage) treatment, and industry
specific waste-water treatment. At the same time, externally sourced non-conventional water
resources, such as rainwater or municipally treated sewage effluent, should also be optimised
for consumption by sectors in which demand for 2nd
class water already exists. These
recommendations were presented to government, and are attached under Annex 7.2.6. In June
2014, the MBB received a letter from Mr Manuel Sapiano, Head of Water Policy within
MECW/MEH, confirming that the recommendations are being integrated into policy. The
letter is attached under Annex 7.3.3.2. The MBB will continue to collaborate with government
on the issue of water policy for industry, as Mr Sapiano requested in the above mentioned
letter.
6. Long term indicators of the project success: describe the quantifiable indicators to
be used in future assessments of the project success, e.g. the conservation status of
the habitats / species.
The ultimate long term indicator of success would be the comparison of water usage by
industry, taking into consideration changes to nature or size of local industry. If this shows a
long term reduction, it can be assumed that the project has contributed to this reduction.
Indicators leading up to this would include policy incorporations of project recommendations
to strengthen water efficiency. Increased interest in water savings best practice by industry
demonstrated through adoption of best practice is also a long term indicator of project
success.
62
6. Comments on the financial report The standard statement of expenditure (available in the 'toolkit' on the LIFE web page)
must be used and presented in a separate document, as described below – see section 8 on
financial reporting. This part of the technical report must include the following points:
overview of costs incurred,
information about the accounting system and relevant issues from the
partnership agreements
an allocation of the costs per action
This information should include sufficient detail to establish a clear link between
technical activities on the one hand and costs declared in the financial forms on the other.
Please note that – as set out in the Common Provisions on the eligibility of costs – only
costs that are necessary for and clearly linked to the activities carried out, are eligible.
This section should justify and explain extraordinary cases, e.g. necessary costs not
foreseen in the budget, persons changing status during the project from external
consultants to employed staff (or vice versa), etc.
63
6.1. Summary of Costs Incurred
Complete the following table concerning the incurred project costs and comment on
each of the cost categories focussing particularly on discrepancies compared to the
allowed flexibility of 30,000€ and 10% (cf. Article 15.2 of the Common Provisions)
PROJECT COSTS INCURRED
Cost category Budget according to the
grant agreement*
Costs incurred within
the project duration
%**
1. Personnel 157,769 182,437 116%
2. Travel 10,557 1,925 18%
3. External assistance 73,369 61,520 84%
4. Durables: total non-
depreciated cost
- Infrastructure sub-
tot.
NA NA NA
- Equipment sub-tot. 1,558 949.90 61%
- Prototypes sub-tot. NA NA NA
5. Consumables 61,327 40,775 66.5%
6. Other costs 6,715 6,129 91.2%
7. Overheads 21,790 20,564 94%
TOTAL 333,084 314,298.70 94%
*) If the Commission has officially approved a budget modification indicate the breakdown of the revised budget
Otherwise this should be the budget in the original grant agreement.
**) Calculate the percentages by budget lines: e.g. the % of the budgeted personnel costs that were actually
incurred
Comments per cost category
Personnel costs:
Expenditure in this cost category exceeds that budgeted. The main reason for this is that
considerably more time was required of the Water Expert than originally foreseen, mainly
with regards to obtaining and processing water consumption data of enterprises. However,
due to savings in other cost categories, the extra cost incurred did not affect the overall
budget. The amount does not exceed EUR 30,000, and as per Common Provisions (2010)
Article 15.2, this therefore did not require a project amendment.
Travel costs:
Expenditure under this cost category is significantly below budget. The main reason is that
Island Hotels Group plc. provided complimentary accommodation for the international guests
participating in Action C3 – National Water Conference. Secondly, significant savings were
achieved in travel for the Kick-Off Meeting.
64
External Assistance:
Expenditure in this category is lower than budgeted, due to savings made on most actions
owing to negotiations of better prices for services rendered.
Equipment:
Although percentage expenditure is significantly lower, this only amounts to a figure of
around EUR 500, due to savings made on equipment purchase.
Consumables:
Expenditure in this cost category is substantially lower than forecast. This is mainly due to the
Island Hotels Group providing complimentary venue and catering for Action C3 – National
Water Conference, due to a better price negotiated for the printing of Action C6 – Water
Saving Signs, and due to not incurring venue costs for hosting Action F3 – Project Launch
and F7 – Closing Reception as the event took place at the premises of one of the Associated
Beneficiaries, The Malta Chamber.
Other costs:
Expenditure in this cost category reflects that budgeted.
6.2. Accounting system
This should include among other aspects,
Brief presentation of the accounting system(s) employed and the code(s) identifying the
project costs in the analytical accounting system,
Brief presentation of the procedure of approving costs,
the type of time recording system used, i.e. electronic or manually completed
timesheets,
Brief presentation of the registration, submission and approval procedure/routines of
the time registration system,,
Brief explanation how it is ensured that invoices contain a clear reference to the
LIFE+ project showing how invoices are marked in order to show the link to the
LIFE+ project
A project account has been set up in the Shireburn SFM accounting programme, which is the
standard accounting tool used by the organisation. The accounts are administered by the
project administrator and further controlled by an accountancy firm. An established
independent auditing firm is engaged to conduct an audit on an annual basis.
Timesheets are filled in and submitted to the Project Administrator on a monthly basis in
electronic form. Once approved by the Project Manager a signed form is then submitted by
the relevant staff member.
The Malta Business Bureau has established a standard operating system for all EU-funded
projects. The Malta Business Bureau opens dedicated bank accounts for each project in order
to ascertain transparency within its accounting system and procedures. For the EU LIFE+
Investing in Water project two current accounts were opened with APS Bank Malta Ltd. The
accounts have been entitled as follows 1) Malta Business Foundation-LIFE+ Investing in
65
Water and 2) Malta Business Foundation-LIFE+ Co-Financiers. In the first account the
European Commission’s pre-financing payment was deposited, while the co-financier funds
and sponsorships were deposited in the second account.
It was also established that the MBB Chief Executive Officer – Joe Tanti and MBB Executive
and Project Manager – Geoffrey Saliba are the joint-signatories of both project current
accounts. Therefore, whenever an invoice is received, the Project Administrator makes sure
that the invoice is correct and that it includes the project code. If the project code is omitted
by the issuing party, a request for the invoice to be re-submitted is made. The Project
Administrator then fills in a payment requisition form where all information related to the
payment is inputted, following which a cheque is issued and signed by the two signatories.
The cheque is sent along with a covering letter and a copy of the invoice to the service
provider. All invoices are numbered and colour coded according to the cost category (such as
External Assistance, Travel, Consumables etc).
The MBB cannot reclaim any VAT on expenditure, while both the Malta Chamber and the
MHRA can recover part of the VAT. The partner VAT status documents are attached under
Annex 7.1.2. The percentage of recoverable VAT varies from year to year for both entities as
follows:
2012 2013 2014
Malta Chamber 43% No project
expenditure
41%
MHRA 35% 35% 55%
All Malta Chamber and MHRA expenses which incurred VAT have had expenses charged to
the project in line with the above percentages of recoverable VAT.
An Annex showing the documentation for services rendered by an external provider is also
attached, to demonstrate the documentation of records relating to provision of external
services/products. Therefore, under Annex 7.1.3 are attached the following documents, as an
example of a document trail for the engagement of a particular external provider for services
rendered:
1) Terms of reference issued to potential providers to enable them to prepare a quote for
market research carried out as part of Action E1 – Monitoring Project Progress. Filenames –
‘1.ToR_Investing_in_Water_Surveys_December2011’
2) The three proposals received by the MBB in response to the issuing of (1) listed above.
Filenames – ‘2.2011 MBB - Business Survey Proposal’, ‘2.AIS Enviornmental Ltd.
Proposal’. ‘2.People & Co Ltd. Proposal’.
3) An internal document assessing the three proposals and highlighting the course of action to
be taken by MBB. Filename ‘3.Proposal_Review_Internal_Document’.
4) The contract signed with Misco as external provider. Filename ‘4.Misco Contract’
5) The invoices received by Misco for services rendered. Filenames ‘5.Misco_Invoice_34’,
‘5.Misco_Invoice_81’, ‘5.Misco_Invoice_50’.
An Annex showing all documentation relevant to a project staff member’s engagement also is
attached, to demonstrate the documentation of staff records. Therefore, under Annex 7.1.4 are
attached the following:
1) Contract for Geoffrey Saliba, Project Manager
2) FS3 forms for 2011, 2012, 2013 and the March 2014 payslip
66
3) Leave summary forms for 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
5) Timesheets
In two letters received by the project from the EC, clarification has been requested regarding
the project’s calculation of annual working hours. The annual working hours are calculated on
a per staff basis as follows: the total number of annual working hours is calculated based on
working days (i.e. weekends and public/national holidays taken into consideration). From this
any form of absence is also deducted (i.e. annual leave, sick leave, maternity/paternity leave,
bereavement leave, leave without pay, etc). Over-time is taken into consideration, and the
total actual hours worked per staff member are arrived at. This is reflected in the timesheets
where total hours worked per day and leave days are listed.
6.3. Partnership arrangements (if relevant)
Please briefly explain how financial transactions between the coordinating beneficiary
and the associated beneficiaries have taken place. How is financial reporting
implemented (do associated beneficiaries themselves enter the information in the financial
tables or is this done by the coordinating beneficiary?)
The project has so far received a pre-financing payment by the EC. This was divided amongst
partners in equal proportion to their respective budgets (i.e. 70% as per pre-financing
payment). The remaining funds will be distributed to the partners following the EC’s final
payment. Financial information is entered into the Financial Claim Form by the MBB as
coordinating beneficiary. This is done following submission by partners incurring expenses,
of invoices. The processing system used for such invoices is the same as used for MBB
incurred expenses, i.e. all project expenditure is processed in the same way regardless of
which partner incurs the expense. Note is made in the requisition and soft and hard filing
system of which partner has incurred which cost, allowing quick and easy access to this
information for budgeting purposes.
6.4. Auditor's report/declaration
Name and address of the external auditor, if required under the terms of the Common
Provisions. The auditor's report (to be included with the financial report) must follow the
format of the standard audit report form available on the LIFE website, in particular the
auditor must in section 7 clearly state that the financial report is in compliance with the
LIFE+ Programme Common Provisions, the national legislation and accounting rules.
The auditor’s report, as concluded through Action A3 – External Audit, is attached under
Annex 7.3.3.4. The audit has been completed by Mazars Malta, Mr Anthony Camilleri,
Managing Partner, Address: 32, Triq iz-Zaghfran, Attard ATD9012, MALTA registration
number AB/26/84/39
67
6.5 Summary of costs per action
This table should present an allocation of the costs incurred per action. It should be
presented in both paper and Excel format.
Please comment on any major discrepancies between this table and the summary of costs
per action set out in the grant agreement (form FB or R2).
A1 Project Management 22626.85 538.48 6490.00 949.90 429.23 95.75 31130.21
A2 Project Monitoring 28342.29 340.60 28682.89
A3 External Audit 534.04 994.50 1528.54
A4 After-LIFE Communications Plan 1165.65 1165.65
A5 Networking 6522.29 15.70 6537.99
B1 Project Identity 494.79 3492.80 3987.59
B2 Project Portfolio 3253.15 2726.38 3277.84 9257.37
C1 Face to face Meetings 36182.98 953.43 8276.82 45413.23
C2 Solutions Pack 9980.45 10115.13 9395.87 196.20 29687.65
C3 National Water Conference 7044.14 402.18 562.97 8921.59 953.92 17884.80
C4 Feature Articles 6777.01 6777.01
C5 Workshops 8990.19 15.70 2394.82 11400.71
C6 Water Saving Signs 6681.05 1248.87 5836.72 13766.64
E1 Monitoring - Awareness Surveys 2342.95 12771.13 177.00 15291.08
E2Monitoring - Environmental
Problem 11480.54 11480.54
F1 Project Website 7828.84 10908.20 4543.00 23280.04
F2 LIFE+ Boards 412.22 454.30 1026.60 1893.12
F3 Project Launch 5605.07 542.99 4343.99 10492.05
F4 Press Releases 6717.46 251.76 6969.22
F5 Radio & TV Appearances 5527.15 5527.15
F6 Layman's Report 1234.11 2462.00 906.15 4602.26
F7 After-LIFE Reception 2683.45 232.30 4104.94 7020.69
Over-
heads12769.87 134.78 4307.11 0.00 66.49 0.00 0.00 2857.03 429.06 20564.35
TOTAL 182426.66 1925.49 65837.26 0.00 1016.39 0.00 0.00 43671.78 6558.53 314340.77
TOTALAction no. Short name of action1.
Personnel
2.
Travel and
subsistence
3.
External
assistance
4.a
Infra-
structure
4.b
Equip-
ment
4.c
Prototype
5.
Purchase
or lease of
land
6.
Consumables
7.
Other
costs
The main discrepancies have already been described under Section 6.1.
68
7. Annexes Please make a reference to the annexes in the report text. In case the annexes are
presented in local languages, a summary (titles, headings, map keys, etc) in English
should be included, either in the report or in the annexes.
Annexes should be provided in paper form and in electronic form.
The electronic version must be complete and include all annexes.
The paper version may make a reference to a previous submission of the annexes e.g.
that certain brochures were submitted with the report submitted on (date).
7.1 Administrative annexes At the stage of the final report most administrative annexes, including all Partnership
agreements (if relevant), should have already been submitted to the Commission. For
such previously submitted documents, a list indicating with which report they were
already forwarded to the Commission is sufficient.
The Partnership Agreements were submitted to the Commission with the Inception Report
dated 28.06.2012, and amended with the Project response to Commission queries, dated
18.10.2012.
7.1.2 – VAT status documentation for the partners
7.1.3 – Documentation E1: this is sample documentation to highlight the procedure followed
in the engagement of external providers for market research under Action E1.
7.1.4 – Documentation relevant to the engagement of Geoffrey Saliba, Project Manager, as
sample documentation relating to engagement of project staff.
7.1.5 – List of letters received by the project from the Commission, and brief discussing main
queries and the project partners’ actioned follow ups.
7.2 Technical annexes List of keywords and abbreviations used
Technical reports, e.g. hydrological studies,
Maps, drawings, technical designs, technical memos etc, as appropriate.
For LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity with land purchase: copies of the purchase / lease
acts, including a "conservation clause", as this is a prerequisite for the costs to be
considered eligible. All land sections purchased or leased must be shown on a map,
which also provides the boundaries of the project area and the Natura2000 site
boundaries.
For LIFE+ Nature projects: the After-LIFE Conservation Plan
7.2.1 List of abbreviations
BOV Bank of Valletta
CoE Chamber of Engineers
DG ENV
Directorate General for the Environment within the European
Commission
EC European Commission
ECRM European Commission Representation in Malta
69
EPIO European Parliament Information Office in Malta
EU European Union
FHRD Foundation for Human Resources Development
GWP MED Global Water Programme - Mediterranean
GWU General Workers Union
HOTREC European Trade Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafes
HSBC Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
ITS Institute for Tourism Studies
MBB Malta Business Bureau
Malta Chamber Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry
ME Malta Enterprise
MECW Ministry of Energy and the Conservation of Water
MEH Ministry of Energy and Health
MEPA Malta Environment and Planning Authority
MEUSAC Malta-EU Steering Action Committee
MHRA Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association
MIP Malta Industrial Parks
MRA Malta Resources authority
MRRA Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs
MSDEC
Ministy for Sustainable Development, the Environment and Climate
Change
MTA Malta Tourism Authority
MTCE Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment
MWA Malta Water Association
NAWP National Action Water Plan
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NSO National Statistics Office
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
SME Small and Medium Enterprise
UHM Union Haddiema Maghqudin
UoM University of Malta
WFD Water Framework Directive
7.2.2 – Paper: Water Consumption Benchmarks – a Ste Towards Reduced Consumption
7.2.3 – Paper: The Hotel Industry, a Shift to Greener and Lower Cost Operations
7.2.4 – Paper: Greening the Economy; Grey-Water Treatment and Flow Rate Regulation
7.2.5 – Recommendations – Greening the Economy
7.2.6 – Recommendations – National Water Management Plan
7.2.7 – Recommendations relating to the Water Framework Directive Review
7.3 Dissemination annexes
70
7.3.1 Layman's report
Purpose: The layman's report is the document aimed at a broader target group and serves
to inform decision-makers and non-technical parties on the objectives of the project and
the results achieved. The layman’s report will be distributed widely and will be available
on the LIFE web site via the project database. It is therefore compulsory for all projects.
Form: This document is an entirely self-standing document, often in the form of a leaflet
or similar. It should be provided in English and/or French and in the language(s) of the
beneficiaries, both on paper and in digital form (preferably MS WORD and/or PDF-
format).
Content: The length of the layman’s report should normally be 5-10 pages, including
supporting graphs, photographs etc. Since the target group is the general public, the
technical details should not be excessive. However, it is normally advantageous to include
some quantitative results to illustrate the impact of the techniques/methods demonstrated
by the project. It should include the following points (adapted to the target group):
Summary of project scope and objectives;
Description of the techniques/methodology implemented and the results achieved;
Assessment of the benefit and impact
o LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity: conservation benefits for the Natura 2000
(SCI/SPA) and species/habitat type targeted. Highlight briefly issues that
may have important policy implications.
o LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance: environmental impact of the
project, describing the environmental benefits (illustrated with quantified
information);
o LIFE+ Information and Communication: impact on the environmental
problem, describing the change in awareness and/or approach.
Cost-benefit discussion on the results (economic and environmental benefits);
Transferability of project results.
Map indicating where the project takes place: NB please ensure that the project site is
illustrated in a way that allows a broader public to know where in Europe and in the
Member State the project is implemented.
7.3.2 After-LIFE Communication plan – for LIFE+ Biodiversity and LIFE Environment
Policy and Governance projects
This compulsory plan (1-2 pages) shall be presented in electronic and in paper form. It
shall set out how the beneficiary and partners plan to continue applying, disseminating
and communicating the results of the project after its end, and in particular how they plan
both to continue applying the results themselves and to facilitate / encourage / ensure their
wider application by others; it shall be delivered in English and also in the language(s) of
the beneficiaries.
7.3.3 Other dissemination annexes
In electronic format (on one or more CD-ROMs, memory sticks or DVDs appropriately
labelled and indexed):
All the photographs produced during the project (in high quality, high resolution
JPEG/TIFF format or better (e.g. RAW)
71
All dissemination related products (brochures, scientific articles, guidelines, books,
posters, newsletters, …) in PDF format;
Videos (if relevant)
Standard presentation illustrating the main actions and results of the project (set of
slides / colour photographs, electronic images with captions)
In paper format: Any document, map or publication which is an identifiable product of
the project or which is useful to assess the success of the project.
Dissemination / publication list
Articles,
Books
Brochures
7.3.3.1 – Letter of Recommendation by Dr Ian Borg, Parliamentary Secretary for the EU
Presidency 2017 and EU Funds (May 2014)
7.3.3.2 – Letter of Recommendation by Mr Manuel Sapiano, Head of Water Policy, Ministry
for Energy and the Conservation of Water (June 2014)
7.3.3.3 – Steering Committee Meeting Minutes & Reports
7.3.3.4 – External Audit Report
7.3.3.5 – Action B1 – Project Identity
7.3.3.6 – Action E2 Report – Water Consumption Pattern Analysis
7.3.3.7 – Action C2 – Solutions Pack
7.3.3.8 – Action C3 – Conference report & Attendance Sheet
7.3.3.9 – Action C4 – Scans of articles
7.3.3.10 – Action C4 – Returns sheet
7.3.3.11 – Action C5 – Scans of attendance sheets
7.3.3.12 – Action C6 – Signs artwork
7.3.3.13 – Action C6 – Report
7.3.3.14 – Action E1 – 2012, 2013, 2014 reports
7.3.3.15 – Action E2 – Water Audit 2012 Aggregate Report
7.3.3.16 – Action F1 – Website Statistics
7.3.3.17 – Action F2 – Artwork and photo
7.3.3.18 – Action F3 – List of attendees
7.3.3.19 – Action F4 – Returns List & Scans
7.3.3.20 – Action F5 – Returns List
7.3.3.21 – Action F7 – Blog by Shadow Minister for Environment
7.3.3.22 – Action F7 – Attendance Sheet
7.3.3.23 – Paper published at the 11th
Global Conference for Sustainable Manufacturing
7.4 Final table of indicators Please see the separate Guidelines for the compilation of final outcome indicators’ tables
72
_________________________________________________________________
8. Financial report and annexes
- "Standard Payment Request and Beneficiary's Certificate" - duly signed original must
be submitted
- For Nature projects, signed originals of the "Beneficiary's Certificate for Nature
Projects" must be submitted to justify costs claimed for durable goods.
- If one or more associated beneficiary participates in the implementation of the project,
"Consolidated Cost Statement for the Project" - signed original must be submitted
- "Financial Statement of the Individual Beneficiary" to be completed for each project
beneficiary, i.e. signed, originals must be submitted by the coordinating beneficiary and
by each associated beneficiary. It includes the individual transactions which are
specified in the following forms (which necessarily do not have to be printed, but can be
submitted on electronic media, e.g. CD ROM, USB key)
o Personnel costs
o Travel costs
o External assistance
o Infrastructure
o Equipment
o Prototype (only applicable for ENV and BIO projects)
o Land purchase (only applicable for NAT projects)
o Lease of land (only applicable for NAT projects)
o Consumable material
o Other direct costs
o Overheads
o Funding from other sources, divided in "Contribution of the associated
beneficiary", "Other sources of funding" and "Direct income".
- Supporting documents, and further information or clarifications, requested in previous
letters from the Commission (e.g. in the letter announcing mid-term pre-financing
payment, in the feed-back letter following project visits, etc.), and not already
submitted.
- Auditor's report using the standard reporting format (compulsory for most projects,
please refer to the section "independent financial audit" in the Common Provisions)
For detailed guidance on preparation of the financial report and annexes, please refer to the
financial management guidance document available on the following web site:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/index.htm