ISSN 1831-08342012
EN
Special Report No 23
HAVE EU STRUCTURAL MEASURES 
SUCCESSFULLY SUPPORTED THE REGENERATION 
OF INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY  BROWNFIELD 
SITES?EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

HAVE EU STRUCTURAL MEASURES 
SUCCESSFULLY SUPPORTED THE 
REGENERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND 
MILITARY BROWNFIELD SITES?Special Report No 23  2012
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Special Report  No 23  2012
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013
ISBN 978-92-9241-093-3
doi:10.2865/56327
© European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?3
CONTENTS
Paragraph
 GLOSSARY  
I–IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1–12  INTRODUCTION
1–3  BROWNFIELD SITES IN THE EU
4–6  EU INTERVENTIONS FOR REGENERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY  
BROWNFIELD SITES
7–12  EU STRUCTURAL MEASURES CO-FINANCING BROWNFIELD SITE REGENERATION
13–17  AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
18–58  OBSERVATIONS
18–34  DID THE EU CO-FINANCED REGENERATION PROJECTS ACHIEVE THEIR  
OBJECTIVES?
22–25  RESULTS OF REMEDIATION ARE NOT ALWAYS APPROPRIATELY CERTIFIED
26–30  MOST PROJECTS ACHIEVED THEIR OBJECTIVES IN TERMS OF PHYSICAL OUTPUTS, BUT IN MANY CASES THE 
INTENDED FUTURE OCCUPATION OF THE REDEVELOPED LAND AND BUILDINGS HAS YET TO MATERIALISE
31 ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES HAVE CREATED FEWER JOBS THAN ANTICIPATED
32–34  ALL PROJECTS HAD SOME KEY CHARACTERISTICS HAVING A  POSITIVE EFFECT ON THEIR SUSTAINABILITY
35–45  WAS THE TARGETING OF EU SUPPORT FOR INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY SITE REGENERATION BASED ON 
ROBUST CRITERIA?
37–42  ALL MEMBER STATES HAVE A  BROWNFIELD SITE REGENERATION POLICY BASED ON A  NUMBER OF RECOGNISED 
PRINCIPLES …
43–44 … BUT THE LACK OF COMPLETE AND APPROPRIATE BROWNFIELD SITE REGISTERS ALSO COVERING 
CONTAMINATED SITES COMPLICATES THE SETTING OF PRIORITIES
45 MORE CAN BE DONE TO PROMOTE REGENERATION BEST PRACTICES
4
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?46–58  HAVE RESUL TS BEEN ACHIEVED AT THE LOWEST COST TO THE EU BUDGET?
48 THE NEED FOR PUBLIC SUPPORT, INCLUDING EU FUNDS, WAS NOT ALWAYS ASSESSED AND …
49 … WHEN CARRIED OUT, FUNDING GAP ASSESSMENTS PRESENT SHORTCOMINGS
50–55  AUTHORITIES ARE AWARE OF THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE, BUT IN NO CASES DID THE POLLUTER BEAR THE 
FULL COST OF DECONTAMINATION
56 STATE AID RULES NOT PROPERLY APPLIED
57–58  THERE IS LIMITED SCOPE FOR PUBLIC SUPPORT TO BE CLAWED BACK WHEN REGENERATION PROJECTS 
GENERATE MORE REVENUE THAN EXPECTED
59–73  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
59–63  OVERALL CONCLUSION
64–65  ACHIEVEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY SITE REGENERATION OBJECTIVES
66–68  CRITERIA FOR THE ALLOCATION OF EU SUPPORT TO THE REGENERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY 
SITES
69–73  COST OF THE RESUL TS ACHIEVED
 ANNEX I  — STRUCTURAL MEASURES FUNDING OF INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY SITE 
REGENERATION (2000–06  AND  2007–13 PERIODS)
 ANNEX II  — SAMPLE OF 27 PROJECTS AUDITED
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?5
GLOSSARY
Beneficiary : Public or private legal person receiving ERDF or CF support in order to regenerate a brownfield 
site (sometimes also referred to as the ‘promoter’ or in this report also as ‘developer’). The beneficiary will often 
sell or rent plots of land or buildings to investors after the regeneration of the site.
Brownfield site : A site which has been affected by its former use (for the purposes of this report, industrial 
or military) or that of surrounding land, is derelict or underused and requires intervention to bring it back to 
beneficial use. It may or may not be contaminated.
Cohesion Fund (CF) : Financial instrument designed to strengthen economic and social cohesion by finan-  
cing environment and transport projects in Member States with a per capita GNP of less than 90 % of the EU 
average.
Concerted Action on Brownfield and Economic Regeneration Network (Cabernet) : European expert 
network addressing the issues that are raised by brownfield regeneration. The network’s aim is to enhance the 
rehabilitation of brownfield sites within the context of sustainable development, by sharing experiences from 
across Europe, providing new tools and management strategies and a framework for coordinated research 
activities. Cabernet was originally supported by the EU under the fifth research framework programme.
Contaminated site : A site where there is a confirmed presence, caused by human activities, of dangerous 
substances at a level deemed to pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. This risk is evalu -
ated taking into account current and approved future use of the land. The most frequent categories of con -
taminated sites are industrial and military brownfield sites, landfills and agricultural land.
EEA : European Environmental Agency. The EEA members are the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechten -
stein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) : Financial instrument designed to promote economic and 
social cohesion between the regions of the EU. ERDF interventions are mainly implemented through oper-  
ational programmes involving a large number of projects.
Funding gap method : Method that aims at ensuring that projects which generate revenue receive only the 
public resources necessary, thereby avoiding unjustified over-financing. The grant cannot exceed the differ -
ence between the discounted costs and the discounted net revenues of the project.
Greenfield : Undeveloped land in a city or rural area either used for agriculture, landscape design or left to 
nature.
Major project : A project requesting ERDF or CF co-financing whose total cost exceeds 50 million euros. Such 
projects typically comprise multiple works, activities or services intended to accomplish an indivisible task of 
a precise economic or technical nature, with clearly identified goals.
6
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?Managing authority : A national, regional or local public authority or a public or private body designated by 
the Member State to manage an Operational Programme.
Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe (Nicole) : Forum on contaminated land manage -
ment in Europe. The forum’s aim is to promote cooperation between industry, academia and service providers 
on the development and application of sustainable technologies for managing land contaminated by industrial 
and commercial activities. Nicole was originally supported by the EU under the fourth research framework 
programme.
Operational programme (OP) : A Commission-approved programme of investments by a Member State 
receiving Structural Funds, which takes the form of a coherent set of priorities comprising multiannual 
measures.
Programming period : The multiannual framework within which Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund expend-  
iture is planned and implemented.
Public–private partnership (PPP) : Public and private sector jointly owned entity set up to carry out regen -
eration works.
Regeneration/remediation/redevelopment : As understood in this report, the regeneration of industrial and 
military sites may include two types of actions, depending on the state of the site:
(a) remediation: action to stabilise land and to remove, control, contain or reduce pollutants from soil, surface 
water, groundwater, vegetation and buildings so that a degraded site no longer poses any significant risk 
to human beings or the environment, account being taken of its current and approved future use;
(b) redevelopment: action on an uncontaminated site, or as a second phase on a remediated site, to prepare 
land and buildings for their final intended use. Redevelopment may include the demolition of old build -
ings, landscaping, partitioning of land and installation of basic infrastructure such as utilities and roads, 
and sometimes building works.
Structural Measures : In this report, interventions from the European Regional Development Fund and the 
Cohesion Fund.
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(b) In all Member States a brownfield policy is mainly 
implemented through local planning instruments, 
which promote the application of some key best 
practices, namely the regeneration of brownfields 
over greenfield developments, while the interim 
use of brownfield sites is rarely promoted. How -
ever, the lack of complete and appropriate brown -
field site registers also covering contaminated 
sites complicates the setting of priorities. Struc -
tural Funds regulations do not require an integra-  
ted development plan and the reuse of brownfield 
sites over greenfields is not adequately supported.
(c)  Results could have been achieved at a reduced 
cost to national and EU budgets, as for nine pro -
jects the grant was not justified by an assessment 
of revenue and, when revenue was assessed, 
shortcomings were observed in half of the cases. 
National and EU funds have also borne part of 
the cost of environmental remediation, as the 
polluter pays principle has not been fully applied 
and certain state aid rules have been disregarded. 
Provisions in the Structural Funds regulations and 
specific clauses in the grant decisions for regen -
eration projects do not allow sufficient possibility 
for public support to be clawed back if projects 
generate more revenue than expected.I.
In recent decades, more and more derelict industrial 
and military sites (so-called brownfield sites) have 
become available. Their number in Europe is esti -
mated to range from a few hundred in small Member 
States to a few hundred thousand in larger Member 
States with a rich industrial past. Many brownfield 
sites are contaminated. The regeneration and the re-
use of brownfield sites is promoted by EU Structural 
Measures in order to protect human health and the 
environment and mitigate urban sprawl.
II.
In its audit, the Court assessed whether project objec -
tives were met, whether the targeting of EU support 
was based on robust criteria and whether the results 
were achieved at the lowest cost to the EU budget. 
The Court audited the performance of 27 regen -
eration projects directly and reviewed the Member 
States’ brownfield site regeneration tools, which are 
the framework for specific co-financed interventions.
III.
The Court concluded that:
(a) The results of remediation works are not always 
appropriately certified and there are wide dif -
ferences between national soil contamination 
screening values. While most projects achieved 
their objectives in terms of physical outputs, in 
many cases the intended future occupation of 
the redeveloped land and buildings has not ma -
terialised; job creation has been lower than ex -
pected. Two main factors contribute to explain -
ing the modest results achieved: the economic 
downturn and the lack of a sound market analysis 
justifying the development of the sites — or the 
fact that this analysis was disregarded. All projects 
had some key characteristics contributing to their 
longer-term sustainability, but only two thirds 
were part of an integrated development plan.
8
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?IV.
The Court recommends that:
(a) Member States ask promoters to carry out a mar -
ket analysis and consider the relevant options for 
the possible future use of brownfield sites. They 
should require brownfield regeneration projects 
to be part of an integrated development plan and 
remediation results to be certified by a competent 
authority or accredited body.
(b) Member States consider setting up brownfield site 
regeneration strategies with clear targets; avoid 
the use of greenfield unless strictly necessary and 
otherwise require the application of compensa -
tion measures; consider measures to address 
problematic sites that are privately owned where 
the owner fails to take the necessary action; and 
consider making more frequent interim greenfield 
use of regenerated sites and creating registers 
of brownfield and contaminated sites with suf -
ficient standardised information for prioritising 
interventions.
(c) Member States thoroughly assess the funding gap 
for each project. They should require the appli -
cation of the polluter pays principle to be made 
a condition for granting EU funding. They should 
apply the provisions of the state aid schemes 
agreed with the Commission. They should include 
a reimbursement clause in all grant decisions for 
regeneration projects to allow the possibility for 
them to reassess the financial performance of pro -
jects in the light of developments over a longer 
period (say 15 years), and to allow, where projects 
have generated more revenues than expected, 
part or all of a grant to be clawed back. The Com -
mission should follow up the application of such 
reimbursement clauses.
(d) The Commission propose, in cooperation with 
Member States and on the basis of scientific evi -
dence and best practices, EU standards for the 
definition of contamined sites and the signifi -
cance of the environmental and health risks they 
pose, as well as a methodology for the definition 
of site-specific remediation standards taking ac -
count of final site use. It should promote the ap -
plication of an integrated development approach 
by requiring co-financed brownfield regeneration 
projects to be included in an integrated develop -
ment plan.(e) The Commission and the Member States support 
the application of best practices in the regener-  
ation of brownfield sites and give preference for 
brownfield regeneration over greenfield use.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
Photo 1 — Renovation and conversion of an iconic city centre tower at a derelict power station 
being converted into arts and cultural centre (Łódź, Poland)
10
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?BROWNFIELD SITES IN THE EU
1. In recent decades, more and more derelict industrial and military sites 
(so-called brownfield sites) have become available. Their number in  
Europe is estimated to range from a few hundred in small Member States 
with a light industrial heritage to a few hundred thousand in larger Mem -
ber States with a rich industrial past1. These sites are often located in  
regions and urban areas in economic and social decline. The regener-  
ation of industrial and military brownfield sites has significant environ -
mental, economic and social repercussions.
2. Many brownfield sites are contaminated, and cleaning up this legacy 
will require a concerted effort for decades to come. The European Envir-  
onmental Agency (EEA) estimates the number of contaminated sites at 
250 000 and that of sites potentially contaminated, where investigation 
is necessary to establish whether remediation is required, at 3 million. In 
about 70 % of cases, contamination was caused by military or industrial 
use2.1 Cabernet (2006), 
Sustainable Brownfield 
Regeneration (based on data 
gathered by Member States 
from the late 1990s to the 
early 2000s).
2 EEA (2007), Progress 
in management of 
contaminated sites (CSI 
015). Other sources of 
contamination are waste 
landfill and agricultural 
activities.INTRODUCTION
Photo 2 — Pipe injecting cleaning fluids into polluted ground at 
a steel works (Dunaujvaros Hungary)
11
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
3. The regeneration of brownfield sites leads to different possible achieve -
ments: economic activities, public spaces or land reserves. In case of 
economic activities, the redevelopment includes the construction of 
buildings or aims at making plots ready for sale to investors. This can 
be done by a private or public promoter. Only economic activities are 
expected to create jobs (see Figure 1 ).
EU INTERVENTIONS FOR REGENERATION OF 
INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY BROWNFIELD SITES
4. Regeneration is tackled as a dimension of environmental policy and 
spatial development in the Member States.
FIGURE 1
INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY SITE REGENERATION ACTIVITIES AND POTENTIAL 
ACHIEVEMENTS
Installa tion of basic
infrastruc ture
(utilities , roads , etc.)
Construc tion of
ready -to-use
buildingsPartitioning of landEconomic ac tivit y
(job cr eation, et c.)
Demolition of
old buildings Remedia tion Rede velopmen t
Decontamina tion
Stabilisa tion Landsc apingRegener ation ac tivitiesPotential Regener ation
achie vemen ts
Public spac e
(e.g. park)
Reser ve
(public or priv ate)
Source : European Court of Auditors.
12
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?5. EU environmental directives are particularly relevant where contam-  
ination is a problem on a site. Such directives focus on contamination 
prevention3 and the management and control of surface water  and 
groundwater4.
6. An integrated development approach and the reuse of brownfield sites 
in preference to greenfield are promoted by the Cohesion Policy5.3 Directive 2008/1/EC of 
the European Parliament 
and the Council of 
15 January 2008 (OJ L 24 of 
29.1.2008, p. 8) repealing 
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 
24 September 1996 concerning 
integrated pollution 
prevention and control 
(OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26), 
Directive 2010/75/EU of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 24 November 
2010 on industrial emissions, 
(OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17) 
and Directive 2004/35/EC 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council 
of 21 April 2004 on 
environmental liability with 
regard to the prevention and 
remedying of environmental 
damage (ELD Directive) 
(OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56). 
4 Directive 2000/60/EC of 
the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
23 October 2000 establishing 
a framework for Community 
action in the field of water 
policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, 
p. 1) and Directive 
2006/118/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
of 12 December 2006 on the 
protection of groundwater 
against pollution and 
deterioration (OJ L 372, 
27.12.2006, p. 19).
5 Council Decision 
2006/702/EC of 
6 October 2006 on 
Community strategic 
guidelines on cohesion  
(OJ L 291, 21.10.2006, p. 11); 
COM(2004) 60 final — 
Towards a thematic strategy 
on the urban environment; 
COM(1999) 344  final — 
Structural Funds and their 
coordination with the 
Cohesion Fund Guidelines for 
programmes in the period 
2000 to 2006; Commission 
Guidelines for URBAN II 
Community Initiative 
adopted on 28 April 2000.
Photo 3 — Preparation of new structures at former power plant  
(Łódź, Poland)
13
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?EU STRUCTURAL MEASURES CO-FINANCING 
BROWNFIELD SITE REGENERATION
7. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion 
Fund (CF) may co-fund the regeneration of brownfield sites in the eli -
gible regions of Member States. Both funds are referred to hereafter as 
Structural Measures. The support may attain 85 % of the eligible expend-  
iture for a specific project6.
8. The total funding allocated to the regeneration of brownfield sites for 
the two periods covered by the audit, with the main Member States 
concerned, is shown in Table 1 . A complete overview by Member State 
is provided in Annex I .
9. Co-financed projects concerned different regeneration activities:
 ο the remediation of unstable and contaminated land (see Photos 2 and  9);
 ο the redevelopment of sites7 (see Photo 7 );
 ο or the full regeneration of contaminated brownfield sites combining both 
remediation and redevelopment measures (see Photos 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8  and 
10).6 Since 2007, Member States 
could choose to invest part of 
their EU Structural Measures 
envelopes in JESSICA 
revolving funds to help 
recycle financial resources 
and accelerate investment 
in Europe’s urban areas. At 
the time of the audit, such 
funds were at the early stages 
of being established and 
very few were devoted to 
brownfield sites regeneration.
7 Residential developments 
were not eligible for ERDF 
and CF financial support in 
the programming periods 
concerned by the audit.
TABLE 1
FUNDING ALLOCATED FOR THE REGENERATION OF BROWNFIELD SITES AND MAIN 
MEMBER STATES CONCERNED
2000–06 2007–13
Funding allocated 2,3 billion euro 3,4 billion  euro
Main beneficiaries Germany, United Kingdom, FranceHungary, Czech Republic, Germany,
Romania, Italy, Poland
Source : European Court of Auditors, on the basis of data collected by the Commission.
14
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?10.  Co-financed projects are part of operational programmes implemented 
under shared management, the Commission bearing the ultimate re -
sponsibility for implementation of the EU budget8. In particular:
(a) the Commission negotiates and approves programmes proposed 
by Member States, and allocates resources;
(b) the Member States/regions manage the programmes, implement 
them by selecting projects, control and assess them;
(c) the Commission is involved in programme monitoring, commits and 
pays out approved expenditure and verifies the control systems.
11.  During the 2000–06 programming period, there was a specific approval 
procedure by the Commission for Cohesion Fund projects and ERDF 
major projects (projects whose total cost exceeded 50 million euro). 
For the 2007–13 programming period, only projects costing in excess 
of 50 million euro have to be approved by the Commission9.
12.  Two Commission directorates-general play a significant role in the area 
of regeneration of industrial and military sites:
 ο DG Regional and Urban Policy is responsible for the EU budget in the area 
of regional policy, under which the regeneration of industrial and military 
sites is co-financed;
 ο DG Environment is responsible for EU environmental policy. It is required 
to monitor the implementation and achievement of specific targets of the 
relevant directives and is consulted by DG Regional and Urban Policy on the 
quality of operational programmes proposals and major projects10.8 Article 17(1) of the TEU and 
Article 317 of the TFEU.
9 From 1 January 2007 to 
25 June 2010 the amount was 
25 million euro in the case of 
environment projects.
10 During the 2000–06 
programming period DG 
Environment was also 
consulted by DG Regional 
and Urban Policy in the case 
of Cohesion Fund project 
applications.
15
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
13.  The main objective of the audit was to assess whether EU Structural 
Measures have successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and 
military brownfield sites.
14.  The Court assessed whether:
 ο EU co-financed regeneration projects achieved their objectives;
 ο the targeting of EU support for industrial and military site regeneration was 
based on robust criteria;
 ο the results were achieved at the lowest cost to the EU budget.
15.  The audit was carried out from March to December 2011 at the Com -
mission and in the five Member States which accounted for most of 
the expenditure in relation to projects financed during the 2000–
06 and 2007–13 programming periods: Germany, the United Kingdom, 
Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.
16.  A sample of 27 projects funded by the ERDF or the CF was examined, 
worth a total of 231 million euro in EU co-financing (see Annex II ):
 ο four of these 27 projects entailed remediation actions only, six redevelop -
ment actions only and 17 both remediation and redevelopment;
 ο 23 of the 27 projects had job creation as an objective;
 ο for the 2000–06 period, only projects that had been completed were in -
cluded in the sample (22 projects), while for the 2007–13 period projects 
in progress were included (five projects)11;
 ο 22 ERDF projects in the sample were approved by the managing authorities 
at Member State level, while the other five (four ERDF major projects and 
one CF project) were also approved by the Commission.11 The implementation of 
a project takes in general 
several years. This is why 
completed projects had to be 
selected from the 2000–06 
programming period for 
which Germany and the 
United Kingdom were the 
main beneficiaries and were 
selected for the audit.
16
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
Photo 4 — Roads and utility installations being constructed on the site  
of a former coal mine slag heaps (Jaworzno, Poland)
17.  Project files were reviewed at the Commission, at the managing authority 
of the operational programme concerned and at beneficiary level. The 
audit team interviewed representatives of the Commission, regional and 
local authorities in charge of spatial development and public or private 
companies responsible for the design and implementation of selected 
remediation and redevelopment projects.
17
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
OBSERVATIONS
DID THE EU CO-FINANCED REGENERATION 
PROJECTS ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES?
18.  Regeneration achievements can be measured by output indicators, which 
reflect the implementation of physical aspects, and result indicators, 
which should reflect the extent to which the needs to be addressed by 
the project have been met12.
19.  A range of best practices are generally accepted13 as having a positive 
effect on the sustainability of a regenerated site and its achievements 
in the long term, including:
 ο the certification of decontamination works by a competent authority or 
accredited body;
 ο respect for the spatial planning rules in the region concerned;
 ο the existence of an integrated development plan targeting particular busi -
ness sectors and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) more suitable 
to the socioeconomic background of the area, taking into account par -
ticular fields of knowledge, skills available and links with local research or 
academic institutions; these plans should also establish residential, transport 
and leisure developments to enhance the attractiveness of the area and 
the creation of employment for the local community;
 ο adequate servicing of the site (road access, public transport, electricity and 
water, sanitation, broadband connection, etc).
20.  Those regeneration activities which the promoter has committed itself 
to deliver can be said to be endogenous because, in principle, these 
factors remain within its direct sphere of influence. However, there are 
many other factors, such as general economic conditions14, that have 
an important influence on the achievement of results. These exogenous 
factors do not necessarily lie within the direct sphere of influence of the 
promoter.12 Examples of indicators 
include contaminant 
concentration levels after 
remediation, hectares of 
regenerated land, floor space 
constructed by the promoter, 
floor space constructed 
by investors after project 
completion, occupancy 
of developed plots and 
buildings, and number of jobs 
accommodated by the firms 
hosted on the site. Source:  DG 
Regional and Urban Policy 
Methodological working 
papers on Monitoring 
and Evaluation Indicators: 
‘Working Paper No 3’ for 
the 2000–06 programming 
period and ‘Working 
Document No 2’ for the 2007–
13 programming period. 
RESCUE-Administrative Tools 
and Incentives for Sustainable 
Brownfield Regeneration, 
EU fifth research framework 
programme, Action 4, 
July 2005.
13 As advocated by 
recognised leaders in the 
field, notably the World Bank, 
Cabernet and Nicole.
14 These can also include 
other factors relating to 
the region in which a site 
is located, such as labour 
market conditions.
18
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?21.  For the projects in the sample, the Court examined whether:
(a) the decontamination works had been certified by a competent  
authority when such works were necessary;
(b) the projects had achieved their objectives particularly for job crea -
tion, where it was an objective;
(c) the projects demonstrated best practices which contributed to the 
sustainability of their results.
Photo 5 — Municipal park on the site of a former battery factory 
where decontamination works were carried out and park 
facilities built (Marcali, Hungary)
19
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?RESUL TS OF REMEDIATION ARE NOT ALWAYS APPROPRIATELY 
CERTIFIED
22.  The certification of results achieved in terms of decontamination and 
land stabilisation is regarded as a key factor to ensure the absence of 
risks for the environment and health, in particular for potential inves -
tors, as well as a best practice contributing to the sustainability of the 
regenerated site.
23.  Among the 21 projects audited which entailed some remediation, at the 
time of the audit, works were completed in 17 cases:
 ο for nine of these completed projects works were supervised or certified 
by the environmental or mining authority of the region concerned; while
 ο for the other eight projects there was no supervision or certification by 
such an authority.
24.  The identification of contaminated sites, remediation target-setting and 
monitoring are managed at Member State level. There are wide differ-  
ences between national soil contamination screening values15, in par -
ticular in terms of the level and number of contaminants followed up. No 
EU-level standards exist to define whether a site poses significant risks to 
human health and to soil or water. The Member States visited have their 
own methodologies for establishing remediation values to be achieved, 
and there is no such standard methodology at EU level. There are also no 
procedures at EU level regarding controls of the correct implementation 
of remediation works.
25.  The Commission proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for 
the protection of soil16 provides for Member States to identify the con -
taminated sites in their territory, put in place a method for determining 
whether a site is contaminated and ensure that contaminated sites are 
remediated17. This proposal is still under discussion in the Council. Sev -
eral experts consider that harmonisation may bring beneficial effects.15 Soil screening values are 
generic quality standards 
adopted in many countries 
to regulate the management 
of contaminated land. They 
are usually in the form of 
concentration thresholds 
(mg/kg of soil-dry weight) 
of contaminants in soil 
above which certain actions 
are recommended or 
enforced. See ‘Derivation 
methods of soil screening 
values in Europe. A review 
and evaluation of national 
procedures towards 
harmonisation.’ JRC (Joint 
Research Centre) Scientific 
and Technical Reports), 
EUR 22805 EN-2007.
16 COM(2006) 232 final 
of 22 September 2006 — 
Proposal for a Directive of 
the European Parliament 
and of the Council 
establishing a framework 
for the protection of 
soil and amending 
Directive 2004/35/EC.
17 In addition, the current 
working version of the 
proposal, as modified 
by the Council Working 
Party on the Environment 
(Document 6124/1/10 REV 1 
of 4 March 2010), provides 
for the Commission to 
adopt delegated acts on 
common technical elements 
for soil contamination risk 
assessment.
20
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?MOST PROJECTS ACHIEVED THEIR OBJECTIVES IN TERMS OF 
PHYSICAL OUTPUTS, BUT IN MANY CASES THE INTENDED FUTURE 
OCCUPATION OF THE REDEVELOPED LAND AND BUILDINGS HAS YET 
TO MATERIALISE
26.  Twenty-two of the 27 projects reviewed for the audit had been com -
pleted. Of these 22 finished projects:
 ο 18 fully achieved their targets in terms of demolition, land clean-up, land -
scaping, basic infrastructure installation and construction of buildings by 
the promoter;
 ο four projects achieved between 90 % and 100 % of the expected outputs.
27.  For the 13 projects audited where the promoter aimed at making plots 
ready for sale to potential investors (see paragraph 3), by mid-2011, 
the average rate at which industrial and office buildings had been con -
structed on those plots was only 25 %18. The occupancy rate of these 
buildings was 89 %.
28.  Ready-to-use buildings had been erected by promoters in five projects. 
For these buildings, the average rate of occupancy was 76 %.
29.  In the case of developments which target lettings to any potential user, 
the occupancy rate was lower than in that of bespoke developments 
targeting a specific final user, such as an industrial project or techno -
logical park planned before the start of the regeneration project. The 
former developments are more dependent on the general economy and 
the availability of public funding (see Box 1  and Photo 6 ).18 An additional 10 % of 
the plots for sale had been 
sold by the promoter but 
construction of buildings had 
yet to begin.
21
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?BOX 1
EXAMPLE OF A  DEVELOPMENT WHICH TARGETED LETTINGS TO ANY POTENTIAL USERS
Work at the former industrial harbour (Barrow-in-Furness, UK) concerned the regeneration of 23 ha for the 
development of a business park oriented towards SMEs. Work was halted in 2010 because national funds were 
not available to complete the development in the absence of a private or public industrial or commercial final 
user commitment. At the time of the audit visit no buildings had yet been erected on the site.
Photo 6 — Ready-to-use offices constructed on the site of a former chemicals works (Widnes, United Kingdom)
22
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?30.  In the projects reviewed for this audit, several factors contributed to 
explaining the relatively low rates of construction on surfaces developed 
at regenerated brownfield sites, one being the economic downturn since 
2008. These factors included:
 ο the approval of some regeneration projects without a sound market analysis 
justifying the new industrial and office developments (see Box 2 );
 ο where a market analysis had been carried out, insufficient attention was 
paid to its conclusions, in particular concerning the risk of competition 
between several sites in the same area or the unsuitability of developments 
to match local socioeconomic characteristics (see Box 3 ).
BOX 2
EXAMPLES OF REGENERATION SITES WHERE EXPECTED MARKET ACTIVITY HAS NOT 
MATERIALISED
At the former oil refinery (Braunsbedra, Germany), started in 2002, the surface bought by investors was 50 % 
of the total developed and for the former metal works (Halle, Germany), started in 2003, it was 11 %. In both 
cases, when the initial grant decision was made, the promoter had been required to demonstrate that it had 
already received enquiries from investors covering a significant portion of the regenerated surface. However, 
although the managing authority relied on the assertions of the promoter regarding such enquiries, it had not 
set up precise criteria to verify this pre-condition. 
BOX 3
EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS FOR WHICH NOT ENOUGH ATTENTION WAS PAID TO THE 
RESUL TS OF MARKET ANALYSIS
The former metal works (Barnsley, UK) project involved the construction of a multi-storey office tower with 
10 750 m2 of floor space. The project was approved although the market analysis warned of the lack of market 
for the type of building proposed. Construction was completed by the end of 2008, but it proved difficult to 
let the office space. In August 2010, the promoter sold the office building to the local authority. By March 2011 
only two floors out of six were occupied.
At the former steel works (Dortmund, Germany) the work involved the development of a technological park and 
other amenities. The project documents submitted to the managing authority and the Commission for initial 
assessment highlighted problems such as the distance to a university, competition with other business locations 
in the city and the strong focus on information and micro-systems technologies, both of which were facing 
growth slowdown. Plots were progressively developed and made ready for construction from 2005 to 2008. 
However, the purchase and construction of office buildings progressed more slowly than envisaged. By mid-
2011, only 22 % of the available area had been sold.
23
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES HAVE CREATED FEWER JOBS THAN 
ANTICIPATED
31.  Twenty-three of the 27 projects assessed in the audit aimed at job cre-  
ation, and reporting data was available for 10 projects. At the time of 
the audit, the rate of job creation was lower than expected because:
 ο achieving the full job creation target was a more long-term goal;
 ο there were delays in the construction of buildings (see paragraphs 20 
and 27); and
 ο the economic activity developed on the site was less job intensive than 
expected.
ALL PROJECTS HAD SOME KEY CHARACTERISTICS HAVING A  POSITIVE 
EFFECT ON THEIR SUSTAINABILITY
32.  All the brownfield site regeneration projects examined by the Court had 
some of the key characteristics which are considered to be best practices 
for assuring the sustainability of sites and outcomes in the long term:
 ο all sites were developed in accordance with the land use in the spatial plan -
ning documents and are adequately served by transport, sanitation and 
information and communication technology infrastructure;
 ο some are strategically located and are served by tri-modal transport net -
works (road, rail and waterways);
 ο new buildings conform to environmental standards.
33.  Eighteen of the 27 projects were part of an integrated development 
plan for the locality or the economic area. The Court noted that, even in 
cases where an integrated approach was in place, the projects reviewed 
had only a modest effect in terms of jobs and training opportunities 
for the local communities. This was due to the fact that many projects 
selected for the audit were oriented towards high technology activities 
and aimed to have a city-wide or regional rather than a local impact. 
In some Member States, the regional authorities were aware of the low 
expected impact on local communities and had put in place plans for 
them to take advantage of regeneration, for instance by including some 
public spaces as parks, cultural areas and sports facilities and helping 
locals to obtain less specialised jobs and develop hospitality activities.
24
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?34. Box 4  presents examples where the conditions for sustainability were 
particularly well implemented.
WAS THE TARGETING OF EU SUPPORT FOR 
INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY SITE REGENERATION 
BASED ON ROBUST CRITERIA?
35.  Successful regeneration of industrial and military sites relies upon the 
implementation of a strategy based on planning principles and a good 
knowledge of the environmental, economic and social problems and 
threats which have to be tackled so that actions can be prioritised. The 
main planning principles are19:
 ο a preference for brownfield over greenfield;
 ο interim greenfield use of regenerated sites pending final use in order to 
avoid redeveloping brownfield sites for inappropriate activities.19 As advocated by 
recognised leaders in the 
field, notably the World Bank, 
Cabernet and Nicole.
BOX 4
EXAMPLES WHERE CONDITIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY WERE PARTICULARLY WELL 
IMPLEMENTED
The former steel works I (Duisburg, Germany) has been remediated and serviced with basic infrastructure for use 
as a tri-modal logistics centre. By mid-2011, the developed area was almost fully occupied by several container 
loading and storage firms. The site development was consistent with a priority business cluster (the logistics 
sector) and was on the banks of a navigable river. The port also has cooperation and research projects with 
universities and research institutes in the field of logistics.
At the former steel and metal works (Pilsen, Czech Republic) an industrial hall has been constructed with ERDF 
support. The site is devoted to a specific cluster (metal manufacturing) for which the host city offers important 
advantages and is complemented by other investments, especially the expansion of the road network and railway 
connections. Companies on the site cooperate closely with a network of research centres, technical colleges, 
secondary schools, and a children’s science centre.
25
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?36.  The Court examined whether:
 ο Member States have national, regional or local strategies for the regener-  
ation of brownfield sites based on good planning practices and registers of 
brownfield sites which include a description of the problems and threats 
posed by those sites;
 ο the EU funds encourage the implementation of those best practices.
ALL MEMBER STATES HAVE A  BROWNFIELD SITE REGENERATION 
POLICY BASED ON A  NUMBER OF RECOGNISED PRINCIPLES …
37.  In all the Member States visited, brownfield policy is mainly implemented 
through local planning instruments which promote the application of 
certain key principles and best practices.
38.  The regeneration of brownfield in preference to the development of 
greenfield sites is promoted by inhibiting or preventing development 
projects on greenfield sites and by making brownfield land available for 
development. Several tools are in place for this purpose:
 ο New areas for development can be designated by changes in the land use 
plan only when previously developed land areas cannot be used and there 
is a demonstrable need for such new areas.
 ο Local authorities are empowered to proceed to compulsory purchase of 
brownfields.
 ο A planning or construction permit is required for any specific development. 
These permits set conditions for site investigations and, where appropriate, 
the remediation of brownfield sites.
26
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?39.  The interim greenfield use of regenerated sites has rarely occurred in 
the Member States visited for the audit. However:
 ο the principle was considered by the United Kingdom government in its 
recommendations of March 200820; the interim greenfield use of brownfield 
sites is to be promoted where they are not suitable for other developments, 
as a tool for tackling the visual and economic blight associated with those 
sites;
 ο in Germany, in the view of the BBSR21, brownfield should be regenerated 
more for recreational/nature use, at least on an interim basis, and less for 
economic activities; periodic surveys carried out by the BBSR indicate that, 
although significant brownfield surface is being regenerated, the stock 
of sites is increasing as the number and area of sites falling into disuse is 
greater than the number and area being regenerated22.
40.  In all the Member States visited, regenerating brownfields has often been 
hampered by several obstacles:
 ο A lack of financial resources for the public bodies responsible for the re-  
mediation or regeneration of brownfield sites;
 ο A lack of regional strategies based upon sufficient information, such as 
registers of existing brownfield sites, and a system encouraging the use of 
national and EU funds for sites of highest priority;
 ο Difficulties in determining land ownership and responsibility for remediation;
 ο Where brownfield sites are privately owned, public and private actors may 
not share the same interest as regards the regeneration of the site.
41.  Among the five Member States visited, only in the United Kingdom (Eng -
land) are quantified targets defined for the surface of brownfield sites to 
be regenerated. Since 2000, the planning rules set targets for the reuse 
of brownfield sites in general (17 % of current brownfield land by 2010) 
and for housing construction in particular (60 % of all new houses had 
to be built on brownfield sites by 2008), although no targets are set as 
regards the reuse of brownfield sites for industrial/business develop -
ments. These targets have largely been achieved23.20 ‘Securing the Future 
Supply of Brownfield Land: 
Government Response 
to English Partnerships’ 
Recommendations on 
the National Brownfield 
Strategy’ , Communities and 
Local Government, London, 
4 March 2008.
21 Federal Institute for 
Research on Building, 
Urban Affairs and Spatial 
Development.
22 In Germany, the split 
among types of intended 
new uses of brownfields 
(2006) is: nature 19 %, 
housing 19 %, industry/
commerce 62 %. According 
to the BBSR researchers, 
a more realistic split might be: 
nature 70 %, housing 20 %, 
industry/commerce 10 %. 
Dr Fabian Dosch, BBSR-Bonn. 
Session 14 REFINA Stuttgart 
26.4.2007.
23 From 2002 to 2009, 
brownfield surface area 
declined in England by 
20,4 %, from 40 714 ha to 
33 390 ha. 77 % of houses 
were built on brownfields 
in 2009. Source:  Trends 
in previously developed 
land and housing stock by 
Government Office Region 
(2002, 2009). Homes and 
Communities Agency.
27
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?42.  In Germany, spatial planning and environmental rules do not set tar -
gets for brownfield site regeneration as such. Nevertheless, the Federal 
Sustainability Strategy adopted in 2002 includes among its goals the 
reduction of additional greenfield land consumption from 129 ha per 
day in the 1993–96 period to 30 ha per day in 2020. Recent statistics24 
show a sharp decline in land consumption in Germany since 2006. The 
average in the 2007–10 period was 87 ha per day.
… BUT THE LACK OF COMPLETE AND APPROPRIATE BROWNFIELD SITE 
REGISTERS ALSO COVERING CONTAMINATED SITES COMPLICATES THE 
SETTING OF PRIORITIES
43.  In the Member States visited, a number of actions have been taken 
to compile brownfield site registers at local, regional or national level. 
These registers provide some knowledge about the situation of brown -
field sites, but they are incomplete, cannot be interconnected or do not 
include appropriate information for prioritising public intervention for 
one site rather than another (see Box 5 ).24 Nachhaltige Entwicklung 
in Deutschland 
Indikatorenbericht 2012, 
Statistisches Bundesamt, 
Wiesbaden, 2012.
BOX 5
EXAMPLES OF ACTION TAKEN IN THE MEMBER STATES VISITED TO COMPILE 
BROWNFIELD SITE REGISTERS
In the Czech Republic, a national brownfield sites database was established following a study carried out in 
2005–07 which identified 2 355 brownfield sites covering an area of 10 326 ha25. However, it only contains data 
on sites for which the owner agrees that information can be made public, and it excludes sites in Prague. Another 
database lists brownfield sites in all regions, but only those under majority municipal ownership (375 sites).
In Poland, there is no nationwide register of brownfield sites. Some information is available at regional or local 
level, but it is not comparable because of the absence of a uniform methodology for collecting and presenting 
data. Starting in 2005, a pilot inventory of brownfield sites was made in three regions. However, preparation of 
the national brownfield sites inventory was stopped at this early stage.
25 According to experts, a more realistic figure of total brownfield area in the Czech Republic is between 27 000 and 38 000 ha.
28
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?26 To be eligible, projects had 
to be located in a town of 
more than 5 000 inhabitants, 
cover a brownfield area 
greater than 40 ha and satisfy 
at least three out of eight 
socioeconomic criteria.44.  Information on contaminated and potentially contaminated sites is col -
lected in all five Member States visited. However, the registers never in -
clude all the relevant sites, and only in the Czech Republic and Hungary 
is the information necessary for setting priorities available (see Box 6 ).
MORE CAN BE DONE TO PROMOTE REGENERATION BEST PRACTICES
45.  Although the Structural Funds regulations do not specify any rules aimed 
at promoting particular aspects of brownfield regeneration best prac -
tices, the Court noted that some initiatives are taken by Member States:
 ο Two Member States give preference to brownfield sites compared to green -
field sites projects in the selection process for the award of grants;
 ο In the Operational Programme for Poland an integrated spatial develop -
ment plan is required as a prerequisite for EU funding;
 ο In Hungary the extent to which projects seek to address social and eco -
nomic deprivation was a specific selection criterion26.
BOX 6
EXAMPLES OF MEMBER STATE REGISTERS OF CONTAMINATED OR POTENTIALLY 
CONTAMINATED SITES
In England and Wales, the Environment Agency maintains a register of special high-risk sites only (33 sites in 
mid-2011). It had not been updated since 31 March 2007. Registers of other contaminated sites are kept by the 
local authorities.
In the Czech Republic, the SEKM27 national database of contaminated and potentially contaminated sites includes 
previous industrial, military and mining sites, landfills, etc. Each site is allocated a priority: the most urgent 
category corresponds to sites which need immediate remediation (130 sites). A new database of contaminated 
sites is currently being developed with the aim of unifying data from various sources and updating the existing 
database at the national level.
In Hungary, a remediation plan of contaminated sites has been in place since 1996. The main objective is to 
identify contaminated sites and carry out remediation so as to avoid pollution spreading to the water table. 
Application of this plan is supported by a register of contaminated sites that are a potential risk to water quality. 
Each site is prioritised on the basis of multiple environmental and health risk criteria. 
27 Systém Evidence Kontaminovaných Míst (System of Records of Contaminated Sites).
29
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?HAVE RESUL TS BEEN ACHIEVED AT THE LOWEST 
COST TO THE EU BUDGET?
46.  Brownfield site regeneration has the potential to offer profitable op -
portunities and can therefore be carried out by private investors. Where 
projects are only marginally profitable, it will be necessary to share the 
risks and costs between the public and private sectors, and full public 
investment may be required in the presence of such severe handicaps as 
significant contamination, poor location or a sluggish real estate market. 
When considering how much public co-financing regeneration projects 
should receive, it is very important to limit public funding to what is 
necessary to implement the project: the public contribution should not 
exceed the funding gap between the cost of the investment and the 
revenue it is expected to generate28.
47.  In order to assess whether the 27 regeneration projects examined could 
have been carried out at a lower cost, in particular for the EU budget, 
the Court examined whether:
 ο the public grant, including the EU contribution, had been set at an appro -
priate level, by using the funding gap method, and whether this funding 
gap had been satisfactorily assessed;
 ο the site value included among the project costs in the assessment of the 
funding gap reflected the polluter pays principle, which states that polluters 
should bear the remediation costs at sites they have damaged;
 ο the applicable state aid rules aimed at preventing distortion of competition 
were respected;
 ο the grant decision included a reimbursement mechanism that would ap -
ply if the project generated more revenues than was expected at the grant 
approval date.28 Costs and revenue are 
discounted to take account 
of the time elapsing between 
the various cash flows.
30
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?29 To be eligible for inclusion 
in the costs for calculating 
EU co-financing, the cost of 
land can only be charged up 
to an amount of 10 % of total 
project costs, on condition 
that there is a direct link 
between the land purchase 
and the objectives of the 
co-financed project and 
that a certificate is obtained 
from an independent 
qualified valuer or duly 
authorised official body 
confirming that the cost 
does not exceed the market 
value. See Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 448/2004 
of 10 March 2004 amending 
Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 
laying down detailed rules 
for the implementation of 
Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1260/1999 as regards 
the eligibility of expenditure 
of operations co-financed 
by the Structural Funds and 
withdrawing Regulation 
(EC) No 1145/2003 (OJ L 72, 
11.3.2004, p. 66).THE NEED FOR PUBLIC SUPPORT, INCLUDING EU FUNDS, WAS NOT 
ALWAYS ASSESSED AND …
48.  Out of the 27 projects examined for the audit:
 ο For 15 projects, the beneficiary carried out an assessment of the funding 
gap at the request of the Commission or the managing authority.
 ο For 12 projects, the funding gap was not assessed. For three projects, it is 
reasonable that no such assessment was done because no revenues were 
expected to be generated either because they only addressed decontam-  
ination or because they aim to create parks and land reserves. In these 
cases, the funding gap can be said to be 100 %. However, for the remaining 
nine projects, no funding gap assessment was carried out even though the 
projects will generate revenues from the sale or rental of redeveloped plots 
and buildings (see Box 7 ). Had a funding gap analysis been carried out for 
these nine cases, the grant, including EU funds, would have been lower.
… WHEN CARRIED OUT, FUNDING GAP ASSESSMENTS PRESENT 
SHORTCOMINGS
49.  Where the funding gap was assessed, the following shortcomings were 
detected:
 ο In three cases where the specific co-financed project concerned one part 
of a larger brownfield site, despite the fact that Structural Measures had 
co-financed basic infrastructure for the entire site (either under a different 
project in the same programming period (2000–06) or in the previous per-  
iod (1994–99)), the revenues generated for the developer from the site as 
a whole were not taken into consideration in the funding gap assessment 
(see Box 8 ); and
 ο In five cases in which the cost of land was included in the declared costs29, 
either there was no independent valuation certificate establishing the mar -
ket value of the land, or it was not possible to establish which of the two, 
the purchase price or the market value, was lower (see Box 9 ).
31
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?BOX 8
EXAMPLE WHERE THE FUNDING GAP ANALYSIS CONCERNED ONLY PART OF THE SITE
The former coal mine/cokery (Sheffield, UK) is being developed in phases. ERDF support was provided in the 
2000–06 period for a second phase of the site development to construct several industrial and office build -
ings. The funding gap assessment justifying this ERDF grant was limited only to the costs and revenues from 
this second phase. It did not take into account the revenues generated elsewhere on the same site as a whole. 
BOX 9
EXAMPLES WHERE THE COST OF LAND CHARGED TO THE PROJECT WAS NOT SUPPORTED 
BY AN INDEPENDENT VALUATION CERTIFICATE
At the former open cast mine (Rotherham, UK), where the development took the form of a public–private part -
nership, the private partner’s only contribution was the land. The land value of 6,7 million GBP was included 
among the eligible costs for the ERDF grant. This exceeded by 3,4 million GBP the market value established by 
a chartered surveyor.
At the former steel works (Dortmund, DE), the price paid by the promoter to purchase the land was included in 
the cost of the project. However, at the time the ERDF co-financing was granted, this price was not compared 
with the market value established by an independent valuer or other authorised official body. Only later, in 
2006, the local authority, one of the development partners, prepared a report confirming that the purchase 
price corresponded to the market value. However, in this valuation, the market value applied per square metre 
was higher than the official reference prices for plots in the same area, and was applied to a surface of 82 ha, 
even though only around 40 ha of the site was to be made available for building (the remainder was to be used 
for green spaces).BOX 7
EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS FULLY FINANCED WITH PUBLIC FUNDS AND LIKELY TO 
GENERATE REVENUE, BUT FOR WHICH THE FUNDING GAP WAS NOT ASSESSED
At the public reserve land (Halton, UK), the local authority intended to build a warehouse to be operated at 
market conditions which could generate revenue. The development cost (land acquisition and landscaping) 
was fully financed from public funds, of which 29 % was covered by ERDF co-financing. However, no funding 
gap analysis was carried out taking future revenue into account.
The development of the former planned nuclear power station (Arneburg, Germany) (see Photo 7 ) is likely to 
produce revenues for the private landowner because the site has the advantage of featuring tri-modal trans -
port infrastructure, thus making it attractive for certain industries. However, a funding gap assessment was not 
carried out for this project.
32
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?30 Article 191(2) TFEU.
31 Such conditions usually 
include derogations 
regarding the liability for 
remediating polluted land.AUTHORITIES ARE AWARE OF THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE, 
BUT IN NO CASES DID THE POLLUTER BEAR THE FULL COST OF 
DECONTAMINATION
50.  The EU Treaty30 states that the environmental policy of the EU is founded 
on the principle that the polluter should pay for any environmental dam -
age it causes. In all Member States visited, the polluter pays principle 
has been included among the underlying principles of environmental 
law since the 1990s. It provides that polluters, as well as landowners 
and their tenants, which were obliged to prevent damage to the soil on 
their property, are liable for the damage caused. Therefore, public grants 
should only co-finance the cost of land remediation when all legal means 
to enforce the polluter pays principle have been pursued, so that public 
money is only used as a last resort.
51.  Much of the polluted land whose remediation EU and other public funds 
are called upon to help finance is the result of the legacy of Europe’s 
past heavy industrial and military activities. In many of the most serious 
circumstances, applying the polluter pays principle in practice is a dif -
ficult challenge. It is often not possible to require the entity that was 
responsible for causing the pollution in the first place to pay for rem-  
ediation since, in many cases, either the historic polluter no longer exists 
or it was a state-run enterprise or the site was sold to a private owner 
with specific conditions31.
52.  In the sample of ERDF-supported projects reviewed for the audit, 21 
projects entailed some remediation works. In none of these projects had 
the entity responsible for the original pollution paid in full remediation 
costs:
 ο 13 concerned sites which had been polluted by private firms but where the 
polluter pays principle had been only partly applied;
 ο six concerned sites where the pollution had been caused by state-run en -
terprises and the new owner accepted remediating the land with support 
from public funds; and
 ο in the other two sites, the state took on full responsibility for remediating 
the sites where pollution had been caused by state-run enterprises.
33
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?53.  It is often the case that when polluted land is sold to a developer, a dis -
count in the purchase price is offered to compensate for the works 
necessary to bring the land to a usable quality. However, even though 
such discounts might have been provided, developers sometimes seek 
further public subsidies to pay for the remediation works they actually 
carry out. In such circumstances, there is a risk that, where developers 
receive both purchase price discounts and subsidies for remediation 
works, double financing by public funds can occur. Public authorities 
need to be vigilant regarding this risk.
54.  Against this background, agreements between the seller and develop -
ers are very complex and, regarding remediation issues, may include 
discounts, subsidies and detailed agreements concerning the allocation 
of liability for environmental clean-up. Fully evaluating such agreements 
from a sound financial management perspective is itself a significant 
challenge, including establishing the extent to which EU funds may have 
subsidised remediation works for which a developer had already been 
compensated. Particular factors contribute to this difficulty, such as:
 ο lack of robust land valuations leading to uncertainty about market valuations 
and the real value of discounts provided in land acquisition agreements;
 ο lack of detail of assessments of the nature of the pollution problems on 
a site leading to underestimation of remediation costs (see Box 10 ); and
 ο lack of transparency in land transaction agreements regarding the extent 
of liability of the parties for remediation.
BOX 10
EXAMPLES WHERE REMEDIATION COSTS WERE UNDERESTIMATED AND EU AND OTHER 
PUBLIC FUNDS PROVIDED THE NECESSARY ADDITIONAL FINANCE
At the former steel works (Dortmund, Germany) a public agency bought contaminated land from the polluting 
entity, a private company. The costs of remediation were estimated at the time at 58  million  euro, and the seller 
agreed to provide a discount in the price for half of this amount (29 million euro) in exchange for its liability for 
clean-up being extinguished. The eventual cost of remediation was 74,8 million euro (16,8 million euro more 
than the amount on which the price discount was calculated). This cost escalation was absorbed by the public 
agency with a 25 % subvention from ERDF. In this case, the polluting entity covered only 29 million euro out of 
the total remediation costs of 74,8 million euro.
At the former metal works (Barnsley, UK), the initial estimate for decontamination was understated, and as 
a result the managing authority approved an increase in total cost of 15 % and a corresponding increase in 
the ERDF grant.
34
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?32 Guide to Cost Benefit 
Analysis of Investment 
Projects. European 
Commission, DG Regional 
and Urban Policy, July 2008.
33 See eligibility rule No 2 of 
Commission Regulation (EC) 
448/2004 of 10 March 2004 
(OJ L 72, 11.3.2004, p. 66) 
and Article 55 (3) of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 
of 11 July 2006 laying 
down general provisions 
on the European Regional 
Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund and the 
Cohesion Fund and repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 
(OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25).55.  As a result of such complex contexts, there are cases amongst the pro -
jects audited where there is no clear basis for establishing the cost of the 
land and of old buildings. As a result, an overstatement of the need for 
public funds cannot be excluded. Given that such activities are eligible 
for ERDF co-financing, at subvention rates of up to 85 %, this is as much 
a problem for EU funds as it is for national funds.
STATE AID RULES NOT PROPERLY APPLIED
56.  Specific state aid rules had been agreed by the Commission and the 
Member States which concern 16 projects . These rules were not fully 
applied in eight cases (see Box 11 ).
THERE IS LIMITED SCOPE FOR PUBLIC SUPPORT TO BE CLAWED BACK 
WHEN REGENERATION PROJECTS GENERATE MORE REVENUE THAN 
EXPECTED
57.  Revenue from sales or rentals of assets can result from regeneration pro -
jects. The public contribution should then be determined before grant 
approval on the basis of estimates of revenues and costs over a 20-year 
period32 (see paragraph 46). Once a regeneration project has been im -
plemented, the revenues and costs that actually result can be different 
from the initial estimates. If the calculation of the public contribution 
were to be revised retrospectively, taking into account actual revenues 
and costs, then it could be concluded that the project should have re -
ceived a lower grant amount. A reimbursement of part or all of the grant 
could be the result of this. Whilst the Structural Funds regulations do 
not require to reassess the funding gap on the basis of actual figures, 
some Member States took the initiative to insert a reimbursement clause 
in the grant decisions. This was the case for eight of the 15 projects for 
which the funding gap was assessed (see paragraph 48). In Germany, the 
reassessment takes account of revenue generated within 15 years after 
project completion.
58.  Where it was not possible to estimate the revenue in advance or no 
revenue was expected from the projects, there is a provision in the Struc -
tural Funds regulations which enables managing authorities to request 
a reimbursement of revenues generated up to the closure of the oper-  
ational programme, for the 2000–06 period, or within a period of five 
years of project completion, for the 2007–13 period33. However, given 
that regeneration projects often mature over the long term, the five-
year period currently taken into account for assessing such revenues is 
too short.
35
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?BOX 11
EXAMPLES WHERE STATE AID RULES WERE NOT RESPECTED
UK state aid rules34 specify that, where the owner of the land is also the project promoter, the promoters’ profit 
has to be excluded from the calculation of public financial support35. However, at the former chemicals works 
(Widnes, UK) and the former coal mine/cokery (Sheffield, UK) this rule was not respected and an allowance 
for the promoter’s profit was included in the calculation. This was considered acceptable at the time by the 
Regional Development Agency, but the profit percentage was not assessed by a chartered surveyor valuation, 
as required in the applicable state aid scheme.
At the former open cast mine 
(Rotherham, UK), the site was 
regenerated by a public–private 
partnership. The land contrib -
uted by the private partner was 
evaluated at 30 % of total project 
cost, and the regeneration works 
to be paid by the public partner 
was estimated at 70 %. However, 
when the plots were sold, 70 % 
of incomes were allocated for 
the private partner and 30 % for 
the public partner. In this way, an 
advantage was conferred on the  
private owner, which was not 
compliant with the applicable 
state aid scheme.
At former planned nuclear sta -
tion (Arneburg, Germany) (see 
Photo 7 ), the promoter (a munici -
pality) paid for the regeneration 
of land owned by a private group, 
with the aim of attracting indus -
trial investors to the site. The landowner had acquired the land in 1993 and had carried out some demolition 
work. After the approval of the regeneration project, the landowner sold plots for a much higher price than 
it had originally paid. According to the provisions of the applicable state aid scheme36, the contract between 
the promoter and the owner should have provided for land sale benefits to be passed on to the municipality.
34 N 747/A/99 — ‘Partnership support for regeneration (1): Support for speculative developments’ (SG (2001) D/ 286569).
35 In some cases the profit is assessed at 15 % of buildings sale value plus 10 % of the value of plot sales. 
36 State aid scheme N 644 A/B/2002, approved by the EC on 9 July 2003, which reflects the rules provided for in Rahmenplan 31 (notably 
Part II, point 7).
Photo 7 — A cellulose works on the site of a former planned nuclear power station 
(Arneburg, Germany)
36
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
Photo 8 — Old buildings being demolished and renovated at a derelict power station that is being converted into an arts  
and cultural centre (Łódź, Poland)
37
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OVERALL CONCLUSION
59.  The legacy of pollution on industrial and military sites remains a sig -
nificant challenge for many Member States. Cleaning up this historic 
pollution and regenerating the sites will likely still need to be paid for 
out of public funds. For many Member States Structural Measures have 
been a crucial source of financing for this.
60.  Projects receiving support from the EU usually deliver the infrastructure 
as planned. However, progress on many of the sites is slower and fewer 
jobs are created than expected.
61.  Whilst the polluter pays principle is well understood, because of prac-  
tical difficulties it is frequently public authorities with support from EU 
Structural Measures who end up paying for a significant amount of re -
mediation works; in none of the cases reviewed for this audit did the 
polluter pay fully for remediation works.
62.  Funding gap assessments, when they are done, are frequently not robust 
enough and reimbursement clauses are not always included in the grant 
decisions.
63.  Whilst some good practices and principles are present in regeneration 
activities in the Member States, a lack of detailed information about the 
extent of the problems on the ground means that prioritising actions 
on the sites most in need of attention could be improved.
38
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?ACHIEVEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY SITE 
REGENERATION OBJECTIVES
64.  Most projects achieved their objectives in terms of physical outputs. How -
ever, the results of remediation works are not always appropriately certi -
fied and there are wide differences between national soil contamination 
screening values. The Commission proposed a Directive on establishing 
a framework for the protection of soil (see paragraphs 22 to 25).
65.  At the time of the audit, most projects had obtained modest results in 
terms of economic activity and employment. The economic downturn 
has had an impact on the results achieved and not enough use was made 
of market analyses to justify the co-financed development. The better 
results were observed at sites which were regenerated in the context of 
a clear and bespoke integrated development plan meeting most of the 
generally accepted regeneration best practices (see paragraphs 26 to 34).
Photo 9 — Barrel of plastic moulded balls used for extracting underground pol-  
lutants from contaminated site (Dunaujvaros, Hungary)
39
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?Member States should:
(a) require brownfield regeneration projects to be part of an integ-  
rated development plan for the city or area concerned;
(b) ask promoters to carry out a market analysis and consider the 
relevant options for the possible future of brownfield sites which 
should be based on the integrated development plan;
(c) ensure that site remediation results are certified by a competent 
authority or accredited body.
The Commission should:
(a) propose, in cooperation with Member States and on the basis of 
scientific evidence and best practices:
(i) EU standards for the definition of contaminated sites and 
the significance of the environmental and health risks they 
pose;
(ii) an EU methodology for the definition of site-specific re-  
mediation standards taking account of final site use;
(b) promote the application of an integrated development approach 
through the Operational Programme, by requiring co-financed 
brownfield regeneration projects to be included in an integrated 
development plan.RECOMMENDATION 1
CRITERIA FOR THE ALLOCATION OF EU SUPPORT TO 
THE REGENERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY 
SITES
66.  Regeneration is implemented in the Member States in line with most 
generally accepted best practices, but this is hampered by significant 
obstacles, such as the lack of financial resources (see paragraphs 37 to 42).
67.  National registers provide some knowledge about the situation of brown -
field sites, but they are incomplete in all Member States visited, and in 
only two do they include appropriate information for prioritising public 
intervention with regard to contaminated sites (see paragraphs 43 to 44).
40
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?68.  Although the Structural Funds regulations do not specify any rules 
aimed at promoting particular aspects of brownfield regeneration best 
practices, some Member States are supporting an integrated devel-  
opment approach and the principle of reusing brownfield sites rather 
than greenfields (see paragraph 45).
Member States should:
(a) consider setting up brownfield site regeneration strategies with 
clear targets;
(b) promote the regeneration of brownfield sites, avoiding the use 
of greenfield unless strictly necessary and otherwise requiring 
the application of compensation measures;
(c) consider measures to address problematic sites that are privately 
owned where the owner fails to take the necessary action;
(d) consider making more frequent the interim greenfield use of re -
generated brownfield sites;
(e) require regional or local authorities to maintain registers of 
brownfield and contaminated sites; these should be standardised 
at least at Member State level in order to allow for their consoli -
dation into a national register to facilitate the implementation 
of a brownfield regeneration and remediation policy;
(f) compile lists of brownfield sites where contamination is suspect -
ed and classify them according to the corresponding health and 
environmental risks. Sites should be prioritised for remediation 
to facilitate the preparation of remediation plans contributing to 
health protection and to the achievement of EU environmental 
objectives, such as the good water ecological status required by 
the European Water Framework Directive.
The Commission and the Member States should:
(a) support the application of best practices in the development of 
business parks and give preference for brownfield regeneration 
over greenfield use.RECOMMENDATION 2
41
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?COST OF THE RESUL TS ACHIEVED
69.  The results could have been achieved with less EU funding for various 
reasons.
70.  In revenue-generating projects the public grant was not always justified 
by a funding gap assessment, and where the gap was assessed, short -
comings were observed (see paragraphs 48 to 49).
71.  Where the funding gap was assessed the grant decision did not always 
include a reimbursement clause that would apply if the project gener -
ated more revenue than was expected and the Structural Funds regula -
tions do not require for doing so. Where it was not possible to estimate 
the revenue in advance or no revenue was expected from the projects, 
Structural Funds regulations enable managing authorities to request 
a reimbursement of revenues generated. However, given that regenera -
tion projects often mature over the long term, the five-year period cur -
rently taken into account for assessing such revenues is too short (see 
paragraphs 57 to 58).
72.  Although the polluter pays principle is enshrined in Member States’ le -
gal frameworks, it has not been fully applied and national and EU funds 
have borne part of the cost of environmental remediation. Agreements 
between polluters, landowners and developers are often not sufficiently 
transparent, and it is not always possible to ascertain the extent to which 
polluters have actually borne the costs of remediation works (see para -
graphs 50 to 55).
73.  Specific state aid rules were not fully applied by the authorities of the 
Member States (see paragraph 56).
42
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?Member States should:
(a) thoroughly assess the funding gap for each project;
(b) require the extent to which the polluter pays principle can be ap -
plied to be explicitly considered for all regeneration projects and 
application of that principle to be made a condition for granting 
EU funding;
(c) apply all the provisions of the state aid schemes agreed with the 
Commission;
(d) make detailed checks to ensure that subsidies for remediation are 
not provided in respect of sites for which a promoter has already 
received purchase price discounts. For this, the public authority 
should have a  reliable market valuation of the land, a  realistic as -
sessment of the likely costs of remediation works, and full trans -
parency of terms of the land acquisition and any price discounts 
included therein;
(e) include a reimbursement clause in all grant decisions for regen -
eration projects to allow the possibility for them to reassess the fi -
nancial performance of projects in the light of developments over 
a longer period (say 15 years), and to allow where projects have 
generated more revenues than expected, part or all of a grant to 
be clawed back. The Commission should follow up the application 
of such reimbursement clauses.
The Commission should:
(a) consider the opportunity to define common principles for the ap -
plication of the polluter pays principle in case of contamination 
originating before the introduction of the principle in the law;
(b) remind the Member States’ managing authorities of their oblig-  
ation to determine the funding gap for all projects which may 
generate revenue, and apply all applicable state aid rules.RECOMMENDATION 3
This report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Harald NOACK, 
Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 
12 December 2012 .
For the Court of Auditors
Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
President

43
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
Photo 10 — Ground prepared for construction of road infrastructure on the site of former coal mine slag heaps 
(Jaworzno, Poland)
44
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?ANNEX I
STRUCTURAL MEASURES FUNDING OF INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY SITE REGENERATION  
(2000–061 AND  2007–13 PERIODS)
2000–06 Structural Measures regeneration of 
industrial and military sites2007–13 Structural Measures regeneration of 
industrial and military sites
Member State RankAmount allocated
(euro)% Member State RankAmount allocated
(euro)%
Germany 1 645 490 864 28,7 Hungary 1 475 191 832 14,0
United Kingdom 2 574 288 905 25,5 Czech Republic 2 372 290 509 11,0
France 3 195 305 373 8,7 Germany 3 335 518 228 9,9
Netherlands 4 160 821 924 7,2 Romania 4 316 430 710 9,3
Portugal 5 156 012 908 6,9 Italy 5 298 355 961 8,8
Italy 6 143 383 095 6,4 Poland 6 278 413 953 8,2
Belgium 7 65 421 025 2,9 Portugal 7 191 960 262 5,7
Greece 8 55 655 389 2,5 United Kingdom 8 178 957 047 5,3
Spain 9 54 873 962 2,4 Spain 9 177 403 701 5,2
Czech Republic 10 46 073 161 2,0 Estonia 10 138 045 325 4,1
Poland 11 43 940 360 2,0 Slovenia 11 130 400 000 3,8
Hungary 12 28 773 946 1,3 Bulgaria 12 108 322 014 3,2
Finland 13 18 104 950 0,8 France 13 90 193 437 2,7
EU interregional 14 17 035 874 0,8 Belgium 14 62 048 204 1,8
EU cross-border 15 13 996 478 0,6 Latvia 15 49 000 000 1,4
Latvia 16 11 414 454 0,5 Malta 16 48 280 000 1,4
Luxembourg 17 10 019 687 0,4 EU cross-border 17 47 801 926 1,4
Slovenia 18 2 924 609 0,1 Netherlands 18 28 799 000 0,8
Malta 19 2 539 367 0,1 Greece 19 26 295 000 0,8
Estonia 20 1 712 389 0,1 Cyprus 20 16 150 000 0,5
Austria 21 674 726 0,0 Lithuania 21 14 501 892 0,4
Luxembourg 22 3 786 550 0,1
Finland 23 2 071 886 0,1
TOTAL EU 2 248 463 446 100,0 TOTAL EU 3 390 217 437 100,0
1 For the 2000–06 period, the figures for the EU-10 Member States are from 2004 on.
Source : DG Regional and Urban Policy data 31 December 12.2010. 
45
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?ANNEX II
SAMPLE OF 27 PROJECTS AUDITED
Regeneration works co-financed 
by ERDFPlanned regenera -
tion outputs/planned 
future land useEU co-financed project completed?
ERDF co-financing (million euro)
Job creation targeted?
Decontamination/stabilisation
Landscaping
Demolition/renovation of old buildings
Roads, utilities and other infrastructure
Partitioning of land for resale or letting
Construction of ready-to-use buildings
Land and buildings for industrial or  
commercial use
Land and buildings for public use
Public park facilities
Reserve (public or private)Remediation works onlyFormer uranium treatment 
plant**Mydlovary (CZ) Y 18,50 √ √ √
Former coal mine/chemical 
wasteBerhida-
Peremartoni (HU)16,83 √ √
Steel works Dunaujvaros (HU) Y 2,93 Y √ √
Former explosives factoryBerhida-
Peremartoni (HU)0,06 Y √ √Redevelopment works onlyFormer steel and metal works
[Skoda]Pilsen (CZ) Y 1,36 Y √ √
Information technology factory Brno (CZ) Y 0,43 Y √ √
Former oil refinery Braunsbedra (DE) Y 6,32 Y √ √ √ √
Former planned nuclear station Arneburg (DE) Y 26,58 Y √ √ √
Former coal mine shaft Jaworzno (PL) Y 3,32 Y √ √ √ √
Public reserve land Halton (UK) Y 2,53 Y √ √ √
46
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?Regeneration works co-financed 
by ERDFPlanned regenera -
tion outputs/planned 
future land useEU co-financed project completed?
ERDF co-financing (million euro)
Job creation targeted?
Decontamination/stabilisation
Landscaping
Demolition/renovation of old buildings
Roads, utilities and other infrastructure
Partitioning of land for resale or letting
Construction of ready-to-use buildings
Land and buildings for industrial or 
commercial use
Land and buildings for public use
Public park facilities
Reserve (public or private)Mixed remediation and redevelopment workFormer metal works Halle (DE) Y 3,79 Y √ √ √
Former coal mine/cokery III* Essen (DE) Y 2,21 Y √ √ √ √ √
Coal mine slag heaps Jaworzno (PL) 7,07 Y √ √ √ √
Former industrial harbour IBarrow-in-Furness  
(UK)Y 5,89 Y √ √ √ √ √
Former industrial harbour IIBarrow-in-Furness 
(UK)Y 5,79 Y √ √ √ √ √
Former steel works I Duisburg (DE) Y 15,21 Y √ √ √ √ √
Former zinc works II Duisburg (DE) Y 20,90 Y √ √ √ √ √
Former steel works* Dortmund (DE) Y 30,32 Y √ √ √ √ √ √
Former coal mine/cokery I* Essen (DE) Y 12,79 Y √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Former coal mine/cokery II Essen (DE) 3,02 √ √ √ √
Former barracks and battery factory Marcali (HU) Y 3,02 √ √ √ √ √ √
Former power plant* Łódź (PL) 20,61 Y √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Former open cast mine I Rotherham (UK) Y 4,51 Y √ √ √ √ √ √
Former open cast mine II Rotherham (UK) Y 5,22 Y √ √ √ √ √
Former coal mine/cokery Sheffield (UK) Y 10,33 Y √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Former metal works Barnsley (UK) Y 8,81 Y √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Former chemicals works Widnes (UK) Y 2,53 Y √ √ √ √ √ √ANNEX II
Notes : Cohesion Fund (**) projects or ERDF ‘major projects’(*) for which prior approval from the European Commission was required.
Source : OPs final implementation report for projects from the 2000–06 programming period; grant decisions for projects from the 2007–13 programming period. Na -
tional currencies converted into euro at European Central Bank average exchange rate for the corresponding programming period.
47
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.
The regeneration of military and industrial sites or brown -
fields constitutes an important part of increasing the 
attractiveness of a region and contributes to job creation.
III. (a)
Certification is considered to be a good practice. How -
ever, the lack of certification and the differences between 
national soil contamination screening values do not auto -
matically imply that the decontamination and regenera -
tion work was not carried out properly. 
Project developments always take place in a context of 
economic uncertainties. Some projects faced delays due 
to financing constraints in the context of the economic 
downturn together with deficit reduction at national level. 
Both have impacted the public policies priorities. Fur -
thermore, job creation is a long-term objective of these 
projects.
The notion of ‘integrated urban development plan’ is 
embedded in the Community strategic guidelines and in 
Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006. The JESSICA 
financial engineering instrument can only be deployed 
in areas where such a plan has been set up. In addition, 
according to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 the 
ERDF may support integrated and sustainable strategies to 
tackle the high concentration of economic, environmen -
tal and social problems affecting urban areas, including 
amongst others, rehabilitation of physical environment and 
brownfield redevelopment.III. (b)
In 2006, the Commission presented a proposal for a Soil 
Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) which would pro -
vide for a definition of ‘contaminated site’ and require the 
establishment of an inventory of such sites on the national 
territory of Member States. Brownfield sites are often con -
taminated and would, therefore, be identified as well. The 
European Parliament adopted the proposal in first reading 
in November 2007. The Council has yet to agree on a com -
mon position.
The Commission has also taken initiatives outside the 
legal framework to promote good practices for example 
to favour the rehabilitation of derelict brownfield sites in 
lieu of the use of greenfield sites and the coordination of 
land use.
III. (c)
The Commission recognises that there were some weak -
nesses in setting grant rates in the past in part also due 
to the regulatory framework. For 2000–06 projects gener-  
ating substantial net revenues, maximum co-financing 
rates were established in accordance with Article 29 of 
Regulation (EC) 1260/1999. The funding gap assessment 
was enshrined in the 2007–13 Regulation.
In the 2007–13 period, revenues that can be determined 
in advance are taken into account for a period between 
10 and 30 years depending on the sector. For the sector of 
environment the cost benefit analysis (CBA) guide recom -
mends the reference time horizon of 30 years, applied for 
discounting costs and revenues of the project. 
The Commission considers that the inclusion of a reim -
bursement clause in the grant letter issued by the manag -
ing authority is a case of good practice which can usefully 
be included by Member States in their national rules. 
Applying the polluter pays principle in practice is a difficult 
challenge. It is often not possible to require the person or 
legal entity that was in the first place responsible for caus -
ing the pollution to pay for remediation since, in many 
cases, such person or legal entity no longer exists, or it can 
demonstrate it complied with the applicable rules at the 
time of the pollution.
REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION48
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?IV. (a)
The Commission agrees with this recommendation to 
Member States, and already requested an integrated devel -
opment approach not only in the Community Strategic 
Framework (CSF) but also in the Commission Regulation.
IV. (b)
The Commission services have recently published a staff 
working document (SWD(2012) 101 final/2) containing 
‘Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compen -
sate soil sealing’ . The document describes approaches 
which have been implemented in the Member States, 
including preventing the conversion of green areas and 
the subsequent sealing of (part of ) their surface, and the 
reuse of already built-up areas, e.g. brownfield sites.
IV. (c)
With a view to the polluter pays principle and the state 
aid, the Structural Funds regulatory framework for 2007–13 
already includes the Court’s observations.
Regarding the reimbursement clause in the grant letter 
issued by the managing authority, the Commission con -
siders it a case of good practice which can usefully be 
included by Member States in their national rules. How -
ever, under the principle of shared management, since 
the Managing Authorities issue the grant decisions, they 
should also monitor the application of the reimbursement 
clause as they monitor the implementation of projects.
IV. (d)
The Commission agrees to the Court’s recommend-  
ation but points out that it presented a proposal for a Soil 
Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) in 2006 that would 
introduce a legal basis to propose EU standards for the 
definition of contaminated sites, the risk they pose and 
remediation methodologies. The Commission emphasises 
that the adoption of specific EU legislation on soil rests 
upon the co-legislators.
Brownfields are quite often located in urban areas. The 
Commission is already promoting integrated sustainable 
urban development through the current mainstream pro -
grammes and via the JESSICA financial instrument vehicle, 
which requires the establishment of an integrated urban 
development plan.
In addition, the Commission strongly advocates that Mem -
ber States incorporate the regeneration of brownfield 
sites as a key part of their integrated urban development 
approach as ‘regeneration of brownfield sites’ is included in 
one of the four urban-specific investment priorities.
This approach will be significantly strengthened in the 
2014–20 period.IV. (e)
The Commission has taken initiatives outside the legal 
framework to promote good practices for example to 
favour the rehabilitation of derelict brownfield sites in lieu 
of the use of greenfield sites and the coordination of land 
use.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that its proposal 
for a Soil Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) would 
require the identification of contaminated sites in national 
territories.
49
REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?INTRODUCTION
5.
The Commission notes that operators carrying out hazard -
ous activities are strictly liable to remedy soil pollution 
that has taken place after 30 April 2007, the date when 
the Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC took 
effect. In this context, the Commission wishes to recall 
that it presented a proposal for a Soil Framework Directive 
(COM(2006) 232) in 2006 which would require the iden -
tification of all contaminated sites, including those con -
taminated before April 2007. Such proposal is still being 
discussed in the Council. The European Parliament has 
adopted its first reading in November 2007.
6.
The promotion of the integrated development approach 
and the reuse of brownfield sites are broad concepts1. 
The integrated development approach is promoted as the 
various dimensions of urban life — environmental, eco -
nomic, social and cultural are interwoven. Success in urban 
development can only be achieved through an integrated 
approach. Measures concerning physical urban renewal 
should, therefore, be combined with measures promoting 
education, economic development, social inclusion and 
environmental protection. 
1 See Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 and Communication 
‘Cohesion policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in 
the regions’ , COM(2006) 385 final.AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
17.
Except for major projects, project files are not kept by the 
Commission, but by Member States managing authorities.
OBSERVATIONS
23. Second indent
Certification is considered to be a good practice. However, 
the lack of certification does not automatically imply that 
the decontamination and regeneration work was not car -
ried out properly.
Please see also the Commission’s reply to paragraph 5 and 
the reference to its 2006 proposal for a Soil Framework 
Directive (COM(2006) 232).
24.
There are no harmonised screening values for soil contam-  
inants and standards to define whether a site poses signifi -
cant risks to the environment and human health and cur -
rently no EU harmonised definition of ‘contaminated site’ . 
In 2006, the Commission presented a proposal for a Soil 
Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) which would pro -
vide for a definition of ‘contaminated site’ and require the 
establishment of an inventory of such sites on the national 
territory. The adoption of this directive would provide 
the necessary legal basis for the subsequent adoption  — 
should the need arise and following an exchange of infor -
mation with Member States — of EU common technical 
elements for soil contamination risk assessment, not hav -
ing any bearing on the risk acceptability. 
Please see also the Commission’s reply to paragraph 5.
REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION50
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?26.
The Commission welcomes that 20 out of 22 completed 
audited projects fully or to a large extent (> 90 %) achieved 
their output targets. 
27.
Brownfield regeneration projects need a long period to 
achieve the expected results.
Box 1 
The example of the former industrial harbour (Barrow-in-
Furness, UK) shows the difficulty of carrying out projects in 
the context of an economic crisis. 
Box 2 
Concerning the example of the former oil refinery (Brauns -
bedra, Germany), the research of marketing possibilities for 
the rehabilitated areas was a funding condition. However, 
the managing authority cannot anticipate events at the 
time of the funding approval that may occur years later. 
Whatever criteria are set, the only possible check is on the 
plausibility of the marketing research.
Box 3 
The example of the former metal works (Barnsley, UK, des -
ignated as a ‘Renaissance town’ under the Regional Devel -
opment plan) shows the difficulty of carrying out projects 
in the context of economic crisis. Raising the attractiveness 
of an area is part of the objectives pursued by the ERDF, 
which cannot always been measured in quantitative terms.
With regard to the former steel works (Dortmund, Ger -
many), the implementation of the project is partially con -
tingent upon external factors which cannot be influenced 
by either the Member State or the Commission. The fact 
that only 22 % of the available area had been sold by mid-
2011 can be attributed to the economic crisis. 31.
Brownfield regeneration projects need a long period to 
achieve their results and impacts. Job creation is a long-
term objective, in particular when the projects aim at 
improving the environment for economic activity.
32.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s finding.
38.
The Commission services have recently published a staff 
working document (SWD(2012) 101 final/2) containing 
‘Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate 
soil sealing ’ . The document describes approaches which 
have been implemented in the Member States, including 
preventing the conversion of green areas and the subse -
quent sealing of (part of ) their surface, and the reuse of 
already built-up areas, e.g. brownfield sites. 
39.
The Commission notes that in at least two out of the five 
audited Member States, provisions were in place to pro -
mote the interim greenfield use of regenerated brownfield 
sites.
40.
The Commission notes that constraints of national and/or 
regional budgets, the existence of registers for brownfield 
sites and the uncertainties concerning land ownership 
always influence the execution of projects.
40. Second indent
The Commission notes that the proposed Soil Framework 
Directive (COM(2006) 232) would require Member States 
to identify contaminated sites across their territories and 
make such an inventory public (see also the Commission’s 
reply to paragraph 24). Brownfield sites are often contam-  
inated and would therefore be identified as well. 
43.
The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 24 and 40: 
it notes that the proposed Soil Framework Directive would 
require Member States to identify contaminated sites 
across their territories and make such an inventory public. 
51
REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?Box 5 
In the case of Poland, although there are initiatives at local 
level, a national register would certainly allow for better 
prioritisation.
However, the ‘National Spatial Development Concept 2030’  
adopted by the Polish Government in March 2012 will 
ensure the coordination of planning and the integrated 
approach of the revitalised areas. 
44.
The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 43.
Box 6 
The Commission refers to its reply to paragraph 40, second 
indent.
45.
Selection criteria for the ERDF co-financed projects 
are decided by the Monitoring Committees of the pro -
grammes. The Commission encourages that the selection 
criteria include concepts such as value added, value for 
money and environmental sustainability and recommends 
applying best practices.
The Commission takes various initiatives beyond legal 
instruments to promote good practices in this respect. For 
example its Communication ‘Cohesion policy and cities: 
the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions’  
(COM(2006) 385 final) promotes the rehabilitation of der -
elict brownfield sites in lieu of the use of greenfield sites 
and the coordination of land use and Cohesion policies to 
manage urban sprawl. Its services also organised and pub -
lished online an expert report on the results of the 2010 
Regions for Economic Change Conference workshop on 
‘Reusing Brownfield Sites and Buildings’ , which provides 
good practice.45. First indent This prioritisation of projects and decision 
on rate of EU-funding at project level falls into the compe -
tency of the programme authorities.
48. Second indent
The Commission recognises that there were some weak -
nesses in setting grant rates in the past in part also due 
to the regulatory framework. For 2000–06 projects gener-  
ating substantial net revenues, maximum co-financing 
rates were established in accordance with Article 29 of 
Regulation (EC) 1260/1999. The funding gap assessment 
was enshrined in the 2007–13 Regulation.
Box 7 
With regard to the public reserve land (Halton, UK), the 
funding gap methodology which is applied since 2007 did 
not apply the same way in the 2000–06 period. The ERDF 
co-financing is below the maximum intervention rate as 
foreseen in Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, 
and therefore took indeed into account the potential rev -
enue to be generated, in compliance with the applicable 
regulations.
As regards the former planned nuclear power station 
(Arneburg, Germany), the funding gap methodology 
which is applied since 2007 did not apply the same way 
in the 2000–06 period (see Article 29 (4) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1260/1999).
49.
The Commission recognises that there were some weak -
nesses in setting grant rates in the past in part also due 
to the regulatory framework. For projects generating sub -
stantial net revenues, maximum co-financing rates were 
established in accordance with Article 29(4) of Regulation 
(EC) No 1260/1999 which applies to the following three 
cases. The funding gap methodology was enshrined in the 
2007–13 Regulation.
49. First indent
The Commission notes that for eight out of the 15 audited 
projects where the beneficiary carried out a funding gap 
assessment, the Court had no findings regarding possible 
revenues that were generated elsewhere in other develop -
ments carried out by the same developer.
REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION52
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?49. Second indent
Market value of land requires indeed an independ -
ent valuation. The Commission notes that for 22 of the 
27 audited projects, the Court had no findings regarding 
this valuation.
Box 8 
With regard to the former coal mine/cokery (Sheffield, UK), 
please refer to the reply in Box 7.
Box 9 
Concerning the former open cast mine (Rotherham, 
UK), the eligibility of land purchased should have been 
assessed in terms of the state aid scheme in accordance 
with Rule No 5 (Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000). With refer -
ence to the state aid scheme, the land should have been 
valued at zero or in certain circumstances, at the lower of 
actual purchase price or market value. 
With regard to the former steel works (Dortmund, Ger -
many), the Commission will follow up this issue.
50.
The polluter pays principle, as enshrined in Article 191(2) 
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU), is a guiding principle of environmental policy. It is 
directed at EU level and individuals cannot directly rely on 
this Article of the TFEU in order to exclude the application 
of national legislation in an area covered by environmental 
policy for which there is no EU legislation adopted on the 
basis of the same Article2. In other words, this Article is 
binding at Member State level insofar as it has been imple -
mented through secondary acts at EU level, for instance 
through directives (e.g. Environmental Liability Directive 
2004/35/EC, Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, Waste 
Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, Mining Waste Directive 
2006/21/EC, etc.).
According to the Community Guidelines on state aid for 
environmental protection3, if there is no such secondary 
act at EU level, the implementation of the polluter pays 
principle is relevant insofar as it is defined in the applica -
ble national law. 
2 Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 March 2010 
in the case C-378/08, paragraph 46.
3 OJ C 82, 1.4.2008, pp. 1–33.51.
In addition to the comments on paragraph 50, the Com -
mission proposal for a Soil Framework Directive would 
provide for the setting up of an appropriate economic 
mechanism to fund the investigation and the remediation 
of ‘orphan sites’ (i.e. contaminated sites for which, subject 
to the polluter pays principle, the natural or legal person 
responsible for the contamination cannot be identified or 
cannot be held liable under EU or national legislation or 
may not be made to bear the costs of the investigation and 
the remediation).
53.
The Commission agrees that programme authorities need 
to be vigilant with a view to mitigating the described risk.
54.
As shown by the Court in paragraphs 53–55, the projects 
audited have faced many complexities, in particular con -
cerning agreements between sellers and developers of 
polluted land.
Box 10 
Concerning the former steel works (Dortmund, Germany), 
the Commission will follow up this issue.
55.
The Commission always recommends an assessment of the 
value of the land (and of the buildings) by an independent 
qualified appraiser or duly authorised official body (Rule 5 
of Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000). 
Box 11 
Concerning the former chemicals works (Widnes, UK) and 
the former coal mine/cokery (Sheffield, UK), the Commis -
sion will follow up this issue.
With regard to the former open cast mine (Rotherham, UK), 
the managing authority has informed the Commission that 
it has taken steps to inform the Homes and Community 
Agency (HCA, new owning responsible body) of this case. 
53
REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?57.
The Commission considers that the inclusion of a reim -
bursement clause in the grant letter issued by the manag -
ing authority is a case of good practice which can usefully 
be included by Member States in their national rules.
For the 2000–06 programming period Article 29(4) of Reg -
ulation (EC) No 1260/1999 limited the EU contribution to 
revenue-generating projects depending on the priority 
objective and the sector of the investment. For the 2007–
13 period, Article 55(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 
provides common guidelines on dealing with the revenues 
that have not been accounted for at the time of the sub -
mission of the project. Additional guidelines on the stand -
ardised approach to funding gap calculation and revenue-
generating projects were provided in 2008 in the Cost 
Benefit Analysis (CBA) guide, which applies to all Member 
States but can be adapted to the specific national cond-  
itions. Therefore, some Member States have issued their 
own CBA guidelines, hence some differences between 
Member States can be observed. Clear and complete 
guidance notes for revenue-generating projects were 
published at the beginning of the 2007–13 programming 
period (COCOF 07/0074/09 and 08/0012/02).
58.
The Commission considers that for projects for which reven-  
ues cannot be expected or calculated at the time of their 
approval, the managing authority should have the pos-  
sibility to verify if revenues have been generated after pro -
ject completion. The period referred to in the Regulation 
is adequate since it presents a balance between the need 
to review possible revenues when they eventually occur 
and the reasonable expectation of the managing author -
ity and the beneficiaries to close projects once they are 
completed.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
59.
The regeneration of military and industrial sites or brown -
fields is a first step towards increasing the attractiveness of 
a region. It constitutes a prerequisite for the development 
of job-creating activities.
60.
Some projects faced delays due to financing constraints in 
the context of the economic crisis and the job creation is 
a long-term objective of these projects.
61.
Applying the polluter pays principle in practice is a difficult 
challenge. It is often not possible to require the person or 
legal entity that was in the first place responsible for caus -
ing the pollution to pay for remediation since, in many 
cases, such person or legal entity no longer exists, or it can 
demonstrate it complied with the applicable rules at the 
time of the pollution.
62.
The Commission considers that the inclusion of a reim -
bursement clause in the grant letter issued by the manag -
ing authority is a case of good practice which can usefully 
be included by Member States in their national rules.
REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION54
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?64.
Certification is considered to be a good practice. How -
ever, the lack of certification and the differences between 
national soil contamination screening values do not auto -
matically imply that the decontamination and regenera -
tion work was not carried out properly. The Commission 
proposal for a Soil Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) 
would provide for a definition of ‘contaminated site’ and 
require the establishment of an inventory of such sites on 
the national territory of Member States. 
65.
Project developments always take place in a context of 
economic uncertainties and economic downturn together 
with deficit reduction at national level impacts upon pub -
lic policies priorities.
The notion of ‘integrated urban development plan’ is 
embedded in the Community Strategic Guidelines and in 
Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006. The JESSICA 
financial engineering instrument can only be deployed 
in area where such a plan has been set up. In addition, 
according to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 the 
ERDF may support integrated and sustainable strategies to 
tackle the high concentration of economic, environmen -
tal and social problems affecting urban areas, including 
amongst others, rehabilitation of physical environment and 
brownfield redevelopment.
Recommendation 1 to Member States
The Commission agrees with this recommendation to 
Member States, and already requested an integrated devel -
opment approach not only in the Community Strategic 
Framework but also in the Commission Regulation.
Recommendation 1 (a) to the Commission 
The Commission agrees to the Court’s recommendation 
but points out that it presented a proposal for a Soil 
Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) in 2006 that would 
introduce a legal basis to propose EU standards for the 
definition of contaminated sites, the risk they pose and 
remediation methodologies.
Such directive would harmonise the definition of ‘contam-  
inated site’ across the EU and introduce, among others, the 
obligation for Member States to remediate contaminated 
sites. The directive would also allow the Commission to 
adopt — should the need arise and following an exchange 
of information with Member States — EU common techni -
cal elements for soil contamination risk assessment.
The Commission emphasises that the adoption of specific 
EU legislation on soil rests upon the co-legislators.Recommendation 1 (b) to the Commission
Brownfields are quite often located in urban areas. The 
Commission is already promoting integrated sustainable 
urban development through the current mainstream pro -
grammes. This approach will be significantly strength -
ened in the 2014–20 period with the requirement that at 
least 5 % of the Member States’ ERDF allocation is spent 
on integrated actions for sustainable urban development. 
Integrated urban development is also promoted via the 
JESSICA financial instrument vehicle, which requires the 
establishment of an integrated urban development plan. 
In addition, the Commission strongly advocates that Mem -
ber States incorporate the regeneration of brownfield 
sites as a key part of their integrated urban development 
approach as ‘regeneration of brownfield sites’ is included in 
one of the four urban-specific investment priorities.
Common reply to paragraph 66 and paragraph 67
External factors that lie beyond the responsibility of pro -
gramme authorities, such as constrains of national and/
or regional budgets and uncertainties concerning land 
ownership, always influence the execution of regeneration 
projects.
The proposed Soil Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) 
would require Member States to identify contaminated 
sites across their territories and make such an inventory 
public. Brownfield sites are often contaminated and would 
therefore be identified as well.
68.
Selection criteria for the ERDF co-financed projects 
are decided by the Monitoring Committees of the pro -
grammes. The Commission encourages that the selection 
criteria include concepts such as value added, value for 
money and environmental sustainability and recommends 
applying best practices.
The Commission has also taken initiatives outside the 
legal framework to promote good practices for example 
to favour the rehabilitation of derelict brownfield sites in 
lieu of the use of greenfield sites and the coordination of 
land use. 
55
REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION
Special Report No 23/2012 – Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?Recommendation 2 (b) to Member States
The Commission recalls that its services have recently pub -
lished a staff working document (SWD(2012) 101 final/2) 
containing ‘Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate 
or compensate soil sealing’ . The document describes 
approaches which have been implemented in the Member 
States, including preventing the conversion of green areas 
and the subsequent sealing of (part of ) their surface, and 
the reuse of already built up areas, e.g. brownfield sites.
Recommendation 2 to the Commission and 
Member States
The Commission has taken initiatives outside the legal 
framework to promote good practices for example to 
favour the rehabilitation of derelict brownfield sites in lieu 
of the use of greenfield sites and the coordination of land 
use.
70.
The Commission recognises that there were some weak -
nesses in setting grant rates in the past in part also due 
to the regulatory framework. For 2000–06 projects gener-  
ating substantial net revenues, maximum co-financing 
rates were established in accordance with Article 29(4) of 
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. The funding gap methodol -
ogy was enshrined in the 2007–13 Regulation.
71.
The Commission considers that the inclusion of a reim -
bursement clause in the grant letter issued by the man -
aging authority is a case of good practice which can use -
fully be included by Member States in their national rules. 
However, under the principle of shared management, since 
the Managing Authorities issue the grant decisions, they 
should also monitor the application of the reimbursement 
clause as they monitor the implementation of the projects.
The Commission considers that for projects for which reven-  
ues cannot be expected or calculated at the time of their 
approval, the managing authority should have the possi -
bility to verify if revenues have been generated after pro -
ject completion. The period referred to in the Regulation is 
adequate since it presents a balance between the need to 
review possible revenues when they eventually occur and 
the reasonable expectation of the managing authority and 
beneficiaries to close projects once they are completed.72.
The Commission notes that programme authorities need 
to be vigilant with a view to mitigating the described risk 
related to complex agreements between polluters, land -
owners and developers.
The Commission always recommends an assessment of the 
value of the land (and of the buildings) by an independent 
qualified appraiser or duly authorised official body (Rule 5 
of Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000). 
73.
The Commission agrees that state aid rules should always 
be complied with by national authorities as they form part 
of the Structural Funds regulatory obligations.
Recommendation 3 (e) to Member States
The Commission considers that the inclusion of a reim -
bursement clause in the grant letter issued by the man -
aging authority is a case of good practice which can use -
fully be included by Member States in their national rules. 
However, under the principle of shared management, since 
the Managing Authorities issue the grant decisions, they 
should also monitor the application of the reimbursement 
clause as they monitor the implementation of projects.
Recommendation 3 (a) to the Commission
Concerning the definition of common principles for the 
application of the polluter-pays principle, the Commission 
considers that such principles are already in place.
Recommendation 3 (b) to the Commission
The Commission has already implemented the Court’s 
recommendation. Compliance with state aid rules has 
always been a regulatory requirement. In the 2007–13 
programming period, the Commission regulatory frame -
work requires that the funding gap methodology has to be 
taken into account. In agreement with the Member States, 
the Commission has provided clear and complete guid -
ance notes for revenue-generating projects at the begin -
ning of the programming period (COCOF 07/0074/09 and 
08/0012/02).

European Court of Auditors
Special Report No 23/2012
Have EU Structural Measures successfully supported the regeneration of industrial and military brownfield sites?
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2013 — 55 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9241-093-3
doi:10.2865/56327

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
•	 via	EU	Bookshop	 (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•	 at	the	European	 Union’s	representations	 or	delegations.	 You	can	obtain	their	contact	details  
 on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Priced publications:
•	 via	EU	Bookshop	 (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union  and reports of 
cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):
•	 via	one	of	the	sales	agents	of	the	Publications	 Office	of	the	European	 Union  
 (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
QJ-AB-12-024-EN-C
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
THERE ARE MORE AND MORE DERELICT INDUSTRIAL AND MILITARY SITES 
(SO-CALLED BROWNFIELD SITES) ACROSS EUROPE IN NEED OF REGENER-  
ATION, MANY OF WHICH ARE CONTAMINATED. EU STRUCTURAL MEASURES 
HAVE PROMOTED BROWNFIELD REGENERATION IN ORDER TO PROTECT 
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND MITIGATE URBAN SPRAWL.
 
THE COURT ASSESSED WHETHER EU-FUNDED REGENERATION PROJECTS 
MET THEIR OBJECTIVES, WHETHER THE TARGETING OF EU SUPPORT WAS 
BASED ON ROBUST CRITERIA AND WHETHER RESULTS WERE ACHIEVED AT 
THE LOWEST COST TO THE EU BUDGET.