eu life+ - final report

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

LIFE Project Number

LIFE10 INF/MT/000091

FINAL Report Covering the project activities from 01/10/2011 to 31/03/2014

Reporting Date

03/07/2014

LIFE+ PROJECT NAME or Acronym

EU LIFE+ Investing in Water Project

Project Data

Project location Malta

Project start date: 01/10/2011

Project end date: 31/03/2014

Total Project duration

(in months) 30

Total budget € 334,642

Total eligible budget € 314,298

EU contribution: € 157,149

(%) of total costs 47%

(%) of eligible costs 50%

Beneficiary Data

Name Beneficiary Malta Business Bureau

Contact person Mr. Joe Tanti

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

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

Telephone 00356 21 251 719

Fax: N/A

E-mail [email protected] / [email protected]

Project Website www.investinginwater.org

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://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


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.


The audit report shows that the project was compliant with all legal provisions. This meets the

results expected in the project proposal.


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.



Major problems


15

5.1.3 Action A4 – After-LIFE Communications Plan


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.


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.


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.



Major problems


16

5.1.4 Action A5 – Networking


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.


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.


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



Major problems


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


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.


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.


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.



Major problems


20

5.2.2.2 Action B2 – Project Portfolio


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.


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.


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.


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


22

5.2.2.3 Action C1 – Face to Face Meetings


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.


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.


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.


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


24

5.2.2.4 Action C2 – Solutions Pack


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/


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.


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.


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.

http://www.investinginwater.org/SelfAssessment/

25

Major problems


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.


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.


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

http://www.investinginwater.org/Save+Water/Browse/National+Water+Conference/183

27

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

therefore met.



Major problems


28

5.2.2.6 Action C4 – Feature Articles


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.


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.


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.



Major problems


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.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.



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


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.


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.


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.



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


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.


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.


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.



Major problems


37

5.2.2.11 Action F1– Project website


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


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.


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

http://www.investinginwater.org/

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.



Major problems


39

5.2.2.12 Action F2 – LIFE+ Boards


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.


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.


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.



Major problems


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.



Major problems


43

5.2.2.15 Action F5 – Radio & TV Appearances


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.


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.


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.



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


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.


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.


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.



Major problems


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.


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.


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.



Major problems


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

eu life+ - final report

Documents