Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Comments of the Commission on the conclusions of the Mid-term Assessment of the Energy Framework Programme (1998-2002)
Date: 2002-08-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC recommendation, EU action, EU programme, energy policy, project evaluation, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 07.08.2002
COM(2002) 448 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Comments of the Commission on the conclusions of the Mid-term Assessment of the
Energy Framework Programme (1998-2002)

1. INTRODUCTION

In  1998  the  energy  policy  related  programmes  -  ETAP,  SYNERGY,  ALTENER,  SAVE,
CARNOT  and  SURE  –  were  regrouped  in  a  multi-annual  Energy  Framework  Programme
(EFP).  With  the  present  document,  the  Commission  communicates  to  the  European
Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions,
the  conclusions  of  the  Mid-term  Assessment  of  the  Energy  Framework  Programme  (1998-
2002) and its comments on it, as foreseen by the Council Decision on the Energy Framework
Programme1. The assessment covers the Community framework activities carried out during
the period 1998-2001.

The  mid-term  assessment  was  conducted  by  a  committed  Panel  of  high-level,  independent
experts, hereafter referred to as the “Panel”, chaired by Mrs. Judith Stammers. The Panel has
carried  out  a  thorough  study  based  on  a  large  variety  of  inputs,  including  previous
assessments of the specific programmes and the annual evaluation of the Energy Framework
Programme  conducted  by  Bureau  van  Dijk  in  the  year  2000,  which  covered  the  activities
implemented  during  the  period  1998-1999.  The  report  comprises  an  assessment  of  the
efficiency, effectiveness and relevance, and sustainability of the specific programmes, taking
into  account  time  and  money  constraints.  It  also  gives  consideration  to  the  co-ordination  of
the  specific  programmes,  the  synergies  between  them  and  the  added  benefit  which  the
framework programme brings. The table below illustrates the diversity in size of the various
programmes under analysis, as well as the management resources that were allocated to each
of these.

Some overall data for the EFP specific programmes, 1998-2001

Specific
Programmes

SAVE
ALTENER
SYNERGY
CARNOT
SURE
ETAP
Total

EC Funding
Mio €
53.2
52.9
14.7
1.2
1.2
4.5
127.7

N° Proposals
Received
1344
1077
4873
33
18
49
3008

N° Contracts
Placed
321
278
90
11
10
75
785

N° of Managers
in 2001 (FTE2)
9
9
1.5
1
0.8
0.7
22

The  Panel  expresses  their  views  on  future  activities,  including  the  overall  framework
architecture  and  the  specific  means  of  intervention.  In  performing  their  assessment,  the
experts  took  account  of  the  wider  political  context  in  which  energy  policy  takes  place,  in

1

2

3

Decision n° 1999/21/EC, Euratom, of 14 December 1998 (OJ L 7, 13.1.1999, p. 16), Article 5.2 states:
“in  the  third  year  of  the  period  of  application  of  this  framework  programme  and  at  all  events  before
submitting its proposals for the establishment of a subsequent framework programme, the Commission
shall  have an external assessment conducted by independent experts of  the  overall  implementation  of
the  Community  actions  carried  out  under  the  framework  programme.  The  Commission  shall
communicate  the  conclusions  thereof,  together  with  its  comments,  to  the  European  Parliament,  the
Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions”.
FTE: Full Time Equivalent
For the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 only

2

                                                
particular the Green Paper “Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply”4.
The  Commission  finds  it  particularly  useful  that  the  Panel  has  taken  account  of  the  latest
overall  political  developments  and  initiatives,  as  well  as  energy  policy  related  work  carried
out in the context of other Community policies (e.g. external relations, agriculture, regional,
research).

In the following comments the Commission endeavoured to respond to all the proposals and
recommendations  highlighted in the report.  In addition,  brief  comments have been made on
some specific points relating to conclusions and recommendations made in the summaries of
the specific programmes’ assessments.

2. MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The  Commission  considers  that  the  Panel  produced  a  balanced  and  comprehensive  report,
combining  recognition  and  criticism,  and  covering  the  whole  framework  programme
activities. Four main messages emerge from the overall report:

– 

– 

– 

– 

There is a real need for a new energy programme to follow on from the current EFP.
It is recommended that the current framework programme should evolve to a single
programme  that  retains  three  of  its  current  areas  of  activity  -  energy  efficiency,
renewable energy, and international co-operation -, and includes  an new, additional
area on the energy aspects of transport.

The new programme should be designed to take account of and influence the energy
components  of  other  Community  programmes.  It  is  recommended  that  the
programme  should  be  managed  within  a  structure  that  assures  that  an  effective
guiding and co-ordinating role can be played.

The  EFP  has  virtually  no  public  image  and  has  been  operating  as  six  separate
programmes. As a result, the links between the programmes were generally weak and
hardly any synergy has been created. The exceptions are SAVE and ALTENER. At
the  same  time,  specific  programmes  were  considered  to  be  generally  well  run,
funding good projects and producing useful outputs.

In spite of sectoral achievements and successes, all six programmes were considered
to suffer from a serious lack of resources, both financial and human. All programmes
paid insufficient attention to dissemination of project outputs and impact assessment.
The  Panel  considers  that  the  future  energy  programme  should  be  given  a
substantially  greater  budget  than  the  175  M€  that  the  EFP  has  had  for  the  period
1998-2002. Furthermore,  consideration should be given  to externalising  the day-to-
day management of the new programme, notably by means of establishing an agency
for that purpose.

Commission response

In preparing its proposal for a multiannual energy programme “Intelligent Energy for Europe,
2003-2006”5,  the  Commission  has  taken  due  account  of  the  recommendations  of  previous

4

5

COM(2000) 769 final, 29.11.2000
COM(2002) 162 final of 9.4.2002 and COM(2002)162 final/2 of 24.4.2002

3

                                                
EFP evaluations, as well as of the preliminary findings provided by the Panel in their interim
report.

In  this  context,  the  Commission  is  proposing  a  single  energy  programme  covering  the  four
identified  areas of activity  in which the  work programme  will include  detailed  rules for  co-
ordination  and  linkage  with  other  Community  policies  and  Member  States’  actions  in  the
energy  field.  The  proposal  also  emphasises  the  need  for  more  effective  and  systematic
dissemination  and  impact  assessment  of  future  programme  developments.  However,  the
Commission is still examining alternative management structures in order to identify the most
cost-effective solution for the implementation of the programme.

3. FUTURE ENERGY PROGRAMME

The  Panel  recommends  that  a  future  programme  should  be  established,  to  which  a
substantially  greater  budget  than  the  175  M€  of  the  current  EFP  should  be  allocated.  This
programme  should  retain  three  of  the  six  areas  of  activity  of  the  current  EFP,  include  an
additional area on the energy aspects of transport and put significant effort into influencing,
co-ordinating  and  orienting  the  energy  components  of  other  relevant  Commission’s
programmes,  as  well  as  into  liasing  with  Member  States’  programmes,  international
organisations, financial institutions and other stakeholders in other energy policy-related field.

The Panel considers that these ideas could be implemented by nominating a person, supported
by a Unit, who would be responsible for the co-ordination of the energy components of other
EC programmes and for the contacts with energy programmes and other stakeholders outside
the EC. This position would have to be in DG TREN. Moreover, a Commission inter-services
working group, chaired by the nominated person, should be set up involving representatives
of those Directorate Generals whose programmes have energy components. The Panel further
recommends that a formal procedure should be  instituted  for this body to screen the energy
component of any EC programme. .

The Panel recommends that the future programme should provide funding for: (i) the above
co-ordination Unit and any studies, evaluations, forecasts commissioned by them, estimated at
Euro  20  million  for  4  years;  and  (ii)  four  different  work  areas  covering  energy  efficiency,
transport,
renewable  energy, 
corresponding respectively to 40%, 35%, 10% and 15% of the remaining programme funds.

international  co-operation  and 

the  energy  aspects  of 

Along these lines, the work carried out in the current Energy Framework Programme through
ETAP that is relevant to the new programme areas should be managed by this co-ordination
Unit and funded out of their budget. The remaining activities of ETAP should be dropped out
of the future programme and the same applies to CARNOT and SURE type of activities.

Finally,  the  Panel  recommends  the  Commission  to  increase  the  visibility  of  the  programme
and improve its image and invites the Commission to consider the possibility of externalising
the day-to-day management of the four work areas of the programme, notably by setting up an
agency for that purpose.

Commission response

The Commission endorses the view  of the  Panel  that the limited resources  available  for  the
future programme should be concentrated in a reduced number of working areas that reflect
current  energy  policy  priorities.  The  Commission 
the  proposed
concentration of activities can better contribute to raising awareness among the main players

is  convinced 

that 

4

concerned  so  that  they  move  towards  more  efficient  and  intelligent  energy  production  and
consumption  schemes.  Likewise,  a  unified  programme  covering  the  four  thematic  areas  as
proposed  by  the  Panel  will  certainly  bring  a  greater  overall  coherence  and  impact  to  the
supported actions. It would also make it easier to introduce coherent management procedures,
as well as to improve flexibility in the response to changing needs and/or priorities.

Within  the  framework  of  the  programme,  the  Commission  acknowledges  the  importance  of
focusing studies, evaluations and forecasts on the four thematic areas foreseen therein, though
recognising  the  need  to  continue  the  Community  support  to  more  inter-disciplinary  and
energy  sector-wide  type  of  activities,  such  as  modelling.  Moreover,  the  Commission  agrees
that  the  work  currently  carried  out  by  CARNOT  and  SURE  specific  programmes  have  no
possible  synergies  with  the  four  thematic  areas  that  have  been  proposed  and,  consequently,
activities  in  these  domains  should  not  be  conducted  in  the  framework  of  a  single  and
integrated energy programme.

The  Commission  attaches  the  greatest  importance  to  co-ordination  and  liaison  of  the
programme  with  other  Community  policies  with  energy  relevance,  as  well  as  to  the
development  of  actions  complementary  to  and  co-ordinated  with  those  carried  out  by  the
Member  States  and  other  major  stakeholders  in  the  energy  field.  Main  contributions  in  this
context  can  be  made  by  the  members  of  the  programme  Committee  with  whom  the
Commission discusses matters related to programme management.

The Commission’s inter-service co-operation and consultation take care that the actions in the
energy  field  are  realised  in  a  coherent  way.  They  will  be  also  facilitated  by  the  impact
assessment  mechanisms  that  have  been  recently  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  its  “Better
Regulation”  package6.  The  Commission  is  fully  committed  to  the  improvement  of  the
management of Community programmes towards best management practices and in line with
Commission  reform  .  The  Commission  will  consider  the  suggestion  of  setting  up  an  inter-
service working group and will examine this proposal with the different services involved.

On the question of setting up a co-ordination Unit and externalising daily management tasks,
the Commission is still examining the different options available in order to identify the most
cost-effective  solution  for  managing  and  co-ordinating  the  programme  and  energy-related
activities.

In the frame of the recently proposed new organisational chart for the Directorate General for
Energy  and  Transport,  the  management  of  the  multi  annual  energy  programme,  “Intelligent
Energy  for  Europe”  (2003-2006),  will  be  concentrated  within  a  unique  directorate.  This
concentration  will  enhance,  as  recommended  by  the  Panel,  the  co-ordination  aspects  and  it
will lead to the identification of a high-level person who would take on the responsibility for
channelling and maintaining contacts with other energy related programmes and stakeholders
outside the European Commission.

Where appropriate, and on the basis of cost-benefit considerations, the Commission may also
decide  to  give  specific  tasks  to  other  external  bodies.  Given  the  nature  of  the  proposed
programme  activities,  a  first  option  would  be  for  the  delegation  of  certain  programme
management tasks to an executive agency with the exception of those involving a degree of
assessment which would mean making political choices.

6

COM(2002)  275  final,  COM(2002)  276  final,  COM(2002)  277  final  and  COM(2002)  278  final  of
5.6.2002

5

                                                
All  in  all,  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  multi  annual  energy  programme,  “Intelligent
Energy  for  Europe”  (2003-2006),  broadly  reflects  the  above  mentioned  recommendations.
However, as far as the budget breakdown per thematic area is concerned, the Commission is
proposing  to  reverse  the  funding  allocation  between  “energy  efficiency”  and  “renewable
energy” (35% and 40% respectively, instead of 40% and 35% as suggested by the Panel). In
fact,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  majority  of  the  activities  to  be  conducted  under
“energy aspects of transport” are related to improvements in energy efficiency and to a much
less extent to renewable energies.

4. SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES/WORK AREAS

With  regard  to  recommendations  that  apply  to  all  EFP  work  areas,  the  Panel  highlights  the
need  to  find  ways  of  reducing  the  time  that  elapses  from  the  close  of  a  call  for
proposals/tender  to  the  signature  of  a  contract.  The  Panel  also  recommends  that  the
Commission  develops  strategies  for  the  targeted  dissemination  of  project  outputs  and  for  a
systematic impact assessment of the future programme results.

Commission response

The Commission recognises that the time lag  associated  with  contract  preparation has to be
reduced. In preparing the Work Programme for “Intelligent Energy for Europe, 2003-2006”,
the  Commission  is  fully  committed  to  simplifying  procedures,  call  and  contract  related
documents,  in  order  to  make  them  more  user-friendly  and  efficient,  and  to  stimulating  and
facilitating  the  electronic  submission  of  proposals.  Moreover,  the  clarification  and  further
delegation  of  responsibilities  at  different  Commission  levels  will  also  speed  up  contract
preparations.

The  Commission  is  also  convinced  that  the  common  procedures  that  result  from  a  unified
programme  structure  will  further  contribute  to  reducing  this  time  lag.  However,  the
Commission  does  not  share  the  Panel’s  view  that  the  consultation  of  the  Programme
Committee on the set of proposals recommended for support is one of the key contributors to
the  lengthy  evaluation  process.  Programme  Committee  meetings  are  set  in  advance  and  are
usually held approximately within one month following the evaluation by external experts.

On the subject of dissemination and impact assessment, the Commission proposes to allocate
within  each  and  every  thematic  area  a  substantial  fraction  of  programme  funding  to  these
activities. The “Intelligent Energy for Europe” Work Programme will include an information
strategy  that  favours  comprehensive  promotion  and  valorisation  of  results  as  well  as  the
effective  replication  of  best  practices.  The  Work  Programme  will  also  identify  concrete
methods and instruments for systematic project and programme monitoring, notably through
the generalised use of performance indicators.

5. INDIVIDUAL WORK AREAS OF THE FUTURE PROGRAMME

The recommendations of the Panel for the individual work areas are presented in the Annex to
this Communication.

6

Commission’s response

The Commission appreciates the constructive remarks and suggestions made by the Panel and
is  committed  to  examining  them  in  depth  and  ensuring  an  appropriate  follow  up  of  these
within the context of preparing the “Intelligent Energy for Europe” Work Programme. Brief
comments are presented hereafter on some of the specific points raised by the Panel.

The  Commission  fully  agrees  that  Work  Programme  priorities  should  emerge  from  a  large
relevant  stakeholders  and  Member  States’  energy
consultation  process 
administration. However,  the  Commission  considers that  this consultation  should  take  place
in  the  context  of  the  Work  Programme  preparation  (which  includes  a  detailed  roadmap  of
foreseen calls), but certainly not before each call for proposals.

involving 

The Commission is committed to publishing overall statistics on programme participation and
to making all efforts to attract to the programme  a diverse  and  renewed constituency, along
with key energy stakeholders at national, regional and local level.

The  Commission  attaches  the  greatest  importance  to  bringing  about  a  genuine  change  in
energy behaviour in the Community by raising awareness among the main players concerned,
business  and  citizens  in  general  by  promoting  exchanges  of  experience  and  know-how,  by
supporting  actions  intended  to  boost  investment  in  best  available  technologies  and  by
encouraging  the  spread  of  best  practices  and  thus  facilitate  a  general  move  towards  more
efficient energy production and use.

The Commission considers that existing promotion networks at Community and international
levels, along with energy agencies, are important vehicles in this process and should play an
important  role  in  promoting  and  exploiting  fully  programme  results  and  outputs.  As
highlighted by the Panel, these networks include the SAVE agencies but, in the Commission’s
opinion, they should not be limited to these.

The Commission agrees that assessment of the SAVE agencies should be a pre-condition for
the  continuation  of  Community  support  but  does  not  share  the  Panel’s  view  that  more
financial help should be given to the SAVE agencies at their start-up phase. An exception to
this could however be the case of agencies in candidate countries. The Commission is in fact
of the view that the Community support should rather be focused on concrete activities that
designed to achieve precise energy policy objectives.

The Commission  takes  note of  the Panel’s  suggestions  regarding  the  organisation  of  annual
meetings for the local and regional agencies and the creation of a award scheme for the best of
these. The Commission further agrees on the importance of initiatives  like  “ManagEnergy”,
and on the need to continue and enhance these in the future.

The Commission views the international co-operation component of the future programme as
a mechanism to support development co-operation, and to promote and  facilitate investment
in  renewable  energy  sources  and  efficient  energy  use  in  the  developing  countries.  This
investment will help to tackle problems related to the expected growth in energy consumption
in  developing  countries  with  its  related  impacts  on  the  security  of  energy  supplies  and
emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use. The programme will therefore contribute
to poverty alleviation and to improving the quality of life of the populations concerned. The
Commission’s  proposal  is  designed  to  create  stronger  institutional  capabilities  in  these

7

countries, as well as promote the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, in order to encourage the
use of sustainable energy sources and improve access to energy services by the energy poor7.
In  other  words,  and  bearing  in  mind  the  limited  financial  resources  for  project  funding,
instead of continuing along the present Synergy lines, the Commission proposes to refocus the
objectives,  the  areas  of  activity  and  the  geographical  coverage  for  actions  under  the  new
programme.

The full report is available on request at tren-info@cec.eu.int.

(cid:1)

7

The  forthcoming  Communication  from  the  Commission  on  energy  co-operation  with  developing
countries in the context of the Johannesburg 2002 world Summit will also reflect these preoccupations.

8

                                                
ANNEX

CONCLUSIONS OF THE MID-TERM ASSESSMENT OF THE ENERGY

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME (1998-2002)

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Energy  Framework  Programme  (1998-2002)  (EFP)  was
carried out during January to May 2002 by a Panel consisting of Bureau van Dijk, Professor
Ugo  Farinelli  and  Judith  Stammers.  Their  mandate  was  to:  analyse  the  efficiency,
effectiveness and relevance, and sustainability of the six constituent programmes of the EFP
(SAVE,  ALTENER,  SYNERGY,  CARNOT,  SURE  and  ETAP);  consider  the  benefits  that
being  part of  the  EFP  has  brought  to  them;  and express views  on  future  activities.  In  doing
this the Panel was to take account of the wider political context in which energy policy takes
place.

The delay with which the Commission initiated the evaluation means that the  findings  have
not been able to influence the Commission’s drafting of the new framework programme. It is
hoped,  however,  that  they  will  inform  the  debate  on  the  Commission’s  proposals  and  be
useful in preparation of the programme’s future work plan.

The evaluation of the specific programmes of the EFP was based on interviews with the DG
TREN  programme  managers  and  examination  of  documents  provided  by  them.  Previous
external evaluations  covering  the  early  years of  the  programme, and  overviews  prepared  by
the management on what has happened since then, were helpful in providing the basic data.
Telephone discussions about the EFP were held with some members of the EFP Programme
Committee, a couple of members of the Energy Council’s Working Group and a contact in the
Candidate Countries. An understanding of the Commission’s other  activities  relevant  to  EU
energy policy was obtained from documents and interviews with officers in DG TREN, DG
Research,  DG  Environment,  DG  Development,  AIDCO,  DG  Regio  and  DG  Agriculture.
Interviews  were  also  conducted  with  three  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  with  a
particular interest in energy.

The  evaluators  found  that  the  specific  programmes  were  generally  well  run  by  dedicated
officers  knowledgeable  in  their  fields.  Good  projects  were  funded  and  useful  outputs
produced.  However,  all  the  programmes  suffered  from  serious  lack  of  resources,  both
financial  and  human,  bearing  in  mind  their  very  broad  objectives.  In  attempts  to  overcome
this,  all  programmes  have  in  recent  years  encouraged  submission  of  larger  projects  and
published more  focussed work programmes.  Proposal evaluation became  more rigorous and
transparent over the  years; different (but appropriate) procedures were used for the different
programmes.  As  a  result  of  complex  procedures,  the  lead  time  between  close  of  a  Call  and
contract signature was generally far too long. Because of the lack of human resources, all the
programmes  paid  insufficient  attention  to  dissemination  of  project  outputs  and  impact
assessment. It is known that a number of projects have achieved a life after their EU funding
finished but no attempt has been made to measure this systematically.

All the six specific programmes had been running for some  years before they  were brought
together  into  the  EFP.  The  Council  Decision  establishing  them  provided  no  budget  for
bringing the programmes together and achieving synergies between them. As a result the links
between the  programmes  are  generally  weak  and  hardly  any  synergy  has  been  created.  The
shining exceptions are SAVE and ALTENER which have developed an increasing closeness
in  the  last  two  years.  These  two  programmes  –  and,  indeed,  most  of  the  other  specific
programmes – are well known throughout Europe. Few people outside the Commission have
heard of the EFP or, if they have, confuse it with the Energy sub-programme of the Research
Framework Programme. The EFP has virtually no public image.

10

The  EFP’s  total  budget  for  1998-2002  is  170  M  €.  Much,  much  more  is  spent  by  the
Commission on energy policy-related work outside the EFP than within it. Most of this is the
responsibility  of  DGs  other  than  DG  TREN,  e.g.  DG  Research,  DG  Regio  and  AIDCO
(implementing  DG  Development  and  DG  External  Relations  policy).  Other  DGs  have  an
interest  in  energy  policy-related  issues  although  they  have  no  specific  funding  for  this,  e.g.
DG Environment.

From  their  work,  the  evaluators  have  concluded  that  there  is  a  real  need  for  an  energy
programme to be established to follow on from the EFP when the latter finishes at end-2002.
They consider that the new programme should have a stronger image than  was  achieved by
the  EFP  and  be  run  in  a  more  unified  way.  They  regard  it  important  that  the  programme
should be the responsibility of DG TREN. They consider the programme should be designed
to  take  account  of  and  influence  the  energy  policy-related  work  of  all  the  other  DGs.  They
feel it should also develop contacts with the many other stakeholders in this field – Member
States,  international  organisations,  financial  institutions,  etc.  –  without  whom  concrete
activities that follow on from EFP-supported projects will not get off the ground and flourish.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The evaluators’ recommendations are given below. The general recommendations concerning
the  future  programme  are  given  first.  These  are  followed  by  recommendations  that  are
common to all the specific programmes of  the  EFP and  could  be  implemented in the future
programme.  Finally,  key  recommendations  specific  to  the  work  areas  to  be  retained  in  the
future programme are listed.

General recommendations concerning the future energy programme

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

An  individual  in  DG  TREN  should  be  appointed  to  take  responsibility  for  co-
ordination of the energy components of other EC programmes, and for  establishing
and maintaining contact with energy programmes and other stakeholders outside the
EC.

A  unit  should  be  established  to  respond  to  the  above  co-ordinator,  to  carry  out
studies,  evaluations,  assessments,  data  collection  relevant  to  these  co-ordinating
functions.

An inter-services commission or working group, chaired by the above co-ordinator,
should  be  created  with  representatives  from  the  DGs  whose  programmes  have
relevant energy components, e.g. DG Environment, DG Agriculture, DG Regio, DG
Development, DG External Relations, AIDCO, and DG Research.

It  should  be  formally  agreed  that  the  energy  component  of  any  EC  programme
should be screened by this body.

The  co-ordination  with  the  other  DGs  and  external  institutions  should  not  be  a
merely  routine  exercise.  It  should  be  pulled  together  and  stimulated  by  clear
objectives. Care should be taken that all participants draw advantages from the time
and effort they put in.

The  future  energy  programme  should  be  established  as  a  single  programme  with
funding for:

11

– 

– 

the  above  co-ordination  unit  and  any  studies,  evaluations,  forecasts,  etc.,
commissioned by them;

four  different  work  areas  covering  (a)  energy  efficiency  (the  area  currently
funded  by  SAVE),  (b)  renewable  energy  (ALTENER),  (c)  international  co-
operation (SYNERGY) and (d) energy aspects of transport (TRANSPORT).

The work currently carried out through ETAP that is relevant to the new programme
should  be  managed  by  the  co-ordination  unit  and  funded  out  of  their  budget.  The
remaining work currently funded by ETAP should be dropped.

The  work  currently  carried  out  by  CARNOT  should  be  dropped  from  the  future
energy  programme  and  pursued  through  the  European  Community  Steel  and  Coal
programme.

The Transport of Radioactive Materials (TRM) work currently carried out by SURE
should be dropped from the future energy programme and pursued through  the  DG
TREN nuclear waste management and decommissioning programme.

The future energy programme should be given a substantially greater budget than the
170 M € the EFP has had over 1998-2002.

Whatever  the  final  budget  figure,  the  following  formula  be  used  to  establish  the
distribution of funds between the different elements:

– 

– 

The co-ordination unit should have a budget of 20 M € for four years (5 M € a
year  on  average)  for  the  studies,  evaluations,  assessments,  forecasts,  etc.,  it
would require to service its thinking and activities. These studies, etc., should
be funded 100% to ensure that they match the unit’s needs precisely.

The remaining funds assigned to the energy programme should be distributed
between the four specific work areas as follows:

– 

– 

– 

– 

SAVE

ALTENER

40%

35%

TRANSPORT 15%

SYNERGY

10%.

Every effort should be made to increase the visibility of the programme and improve
its public image.

Consideration should be put to externalising the day-to-day management of the four
work  areas  in  some  way,  perhaps  by  establishing  an  agency  for  that  purpose.  This
would free Commission staff to man the co-ordination unit and carry out the strategic
work concerning the running of the four work areas.

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

12

Recommendations common to all the specific programmes/work areas

– 

– 

– 

A way should be found to reduce the time from close of a Call to contract signature.
Methods  considered  should  include:  introduction  of  a  simple  fixed-fee  type  of
contract  when  appropriate;  enabling  a  project  co-ordinator  to  sign  on  behalf  of  all
project partners; introducing a special contract type for clustered projects.

Strategies  for  targeted  dissemination  of  project  outputs  should  be  developed  and
implemented  for  all  the  specific  programmes.  Dissemination  of  the  outputs  of
individual projects should be started early during the project.

Impact  assessment  should  be  seen  as  a  systematic  management  tool.  For  new
projects, procedures should be set up that involve project partners as the providers of
information  on  impact.  It  does  not  have  to  be  a  ‘heavy’  exercise.  Much  can  be
learned  from  simple  and  efficient  procedures.  Impact  assessment  of  all  completed
projects and programmes should also be carried out.

Key recommendations specific to the individual work areas of the future programme

SAVE

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

To  enable  the  most  to  be  made  of  the  available  funding,  the  objectives  should  be
more focussed. Before each Call, an independent study should be carried out with the
active  help  of  Member  States  to  determine  programme  priorities  in  relation  to  the
available budget.

Analysis  of  the  turnover  in  project  proposers  should  be  carried  out  to  determine
whether  the  right  people  are  applying  and  whether  the  programme  should  be
promoted more widely and/or in a different manner.

There  should  be  more  overview  reporting  by  the  programme  managers  on  the
activities  of 
the  programme.  These  reports  should  contain  comprehensive
information so they can be used for assessment purposes.

In  the  future,  priority  should  be  given  to  dissemination  and  impact  assessment.  In
view  of  the  large  body  of  knowledge  already  generated  by  SAVE,  dissemination
should become a major element of the future programme.

The SAVE agencies should play a strong part in dissemination of SAVE outputs and
be given funding to do this.

More direct help should be given to SAVE agencies at their start-up phase.

An  impact  analysis  should  be  carried  out  on  SAVE  agencies  at  the  end  of  their
contract with the Commission to find out the reasons for success or failure.

Annual fora should be organised for SAVE agencies, awards being given to the best
agencies.

Initiatives  like  ManagEnergy  that  support  the  exchange  of  experiences  should  be
encouraged.  They  could  be  of  real  help  to  the  SAVE  agencies  and  other  interested
parties.

13

– 

Better  links  should  be  made  between  SAVE  and  other  energy  and  environment
programmes at the national, European and international level.

ALTENER

– 

– 

– 

– 

Because  the  programme  budget  is  small,  every  effort  should  be  made  to  achieve
effective  interaction  and  synergies  between  ALTENER  and  Member  States’
initiatives and policies on renewable energy.

The  dissemination  activities  carried  out  within  projects  should  be  monitored  to
determine whether they were carried out properly and the extent to which they were
effective.

The SAVE agencies should play a strong part in disseminating ALTENER outputs at
local level and be given funding to do this.

A way should be found to enable the OPET agencies to work in close relation to the
SAVE agencies in disseminating ALTENER outputs.

SYNERGY

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The SYNERGY programme should be continued in future along the present general
lines.

The  objective  related  to  implementation  of  the  Kyoto  Protocol  should  be
reformulated  to  encourage  use  of  sustainable  energy  as  a  tool  for  economic  and
social development.

Closer  links  should  be  established  and  maintained  with  other  Commission
programmes  and  with  programmes  of  Member  States,  third  countries  and
international organisations.

Contracts  should  be  established  with  international  networks  of  study  and  research
centres to define the contribution of these networks to achievement of the objectives
of the action programme.

Co-ordination  and  co-operation  with  international  financial  institutions  and  other
sources of funds should be sought in view of the need for follow up of SYNERGY
projects and application of their results once EC support is terminated.

A  representative  from  DG  Development  and/or  AIDCO  should  participate  in  the
committee for proposal evaluation and selection.

14