mm 
&m COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 04.12.1998 
COM( 1998) 721 final 
Report under Article 14 of 
iWP Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 
Life 
(presented by the Commission) 
«*•• 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. INTRODUCTION 3 
1.1 Presentation of LIFE 3 
1.2 The context of this report 5 
2. ACTIONS FINANCED BY LIFE FROM 1992 TO 1995 6 
2.2. Life-Nature: 6 
2.3. Life -Environment 7 
2.4. Life-Third countries 7 
3. FRAMEWORK OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF LIFE 8 
4. MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 
EXTERNAL EVALUATION 9 
4.1. Contribution to the development and implementation of 
Community environmental policy and legislation 9 
4.2. Life's added value in relation to other financial or environmental-
policy instruments 9 
4.3. Means and procedures for implementing Life 10 
4.4. Recommendations of the external assessors 10 
5. THE COMMISSION'S ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS FOR 
CHANGE 11 
5.1. General objective of Life 11 
5.2. Forging closer links between Life and Community environmental 
policy 11 
5.3. Dissemination of results in line with their potential 11 
5.4. The role of Life in relation to non-EU and Central and Eastern 
European countries 12 
6. DURATION AND REFERENCE AMOUNT OF THE THIRD PHASE 12 
7. CONCLUSION 13 
ANNEX 1 Life - Nature 15 
ANNEX 2 Zz/e-Environment 19 
ANNEX 3 LIFE- Third countries 26 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Presentation of LIFE 
1.1.1. The financial instrument for the environment, Life, was set up by 
Council Regulation EEC No 1973/92, as amended by Council 
Regulation EC No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996. 
1.1.2. The general objective of Life is to contribute to the 
development and, if appropriate, implementation of 
Community environment policy and legislation (Article 1 of 
the Life Regulation) by co-financing specific actions in the three 
eligible areas of activity. 
1.1.3. The areas of activity eligible for financial support from Life are: 
* nature conservation actions (/.//^-Nature) 
* demonstration actions involving industry and local 
communities (L//<?-Environment) 
* co-operation actions with third countries bordering 
the Mediterranean and Baltic seas, other than the 
countries of Central and Eastern Europe which have 
signed association agreements with the European 
Union {Life-Third countries). 
1.1.4. When it was set up in 1992, Life took over ACNAT, MEDSPA 
and NORSPA, which financed projects in the fields of nature 
conservation, the Mediterranean environment, and the 
environment of the Atlantic and North Sea coasts respectively. 
Life provided a coherent, stable and better funded framework for 
these environmental activities. The Annex to the Life Regulation 
contained a list of priorities, which change in practice from one 
year to another. 
1.1.5. The main change introduced in 1996 by the second Life 
Regulation was the suppression of these priorities, the eligible 
fields of action being valid for the duration of Life II (1996-
1999), and the definition of evaluation criteria for selecting 
actions to be financed. 
The Life II Regulation also made provision for preparatory actions 
under ^//^-Environment, preparing structural actions, and for 
nature conservation and demonstration actions under Life-Third 
countries, alongside the technical assistance actions. 
1.1.6. Since 1996, Life has been open to participation by associated 
countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as a pre-accession 
exercise, in accordance with the requirements of the additional 
protocols to the association agreements. These countries can 
therefore participate in Life-Nature and Zz/ê-Environment on 
terms close to those of Member States, but may no longer benefit 
under Life-Third countries. No project has yet been selected in 
this framework. 
1.1.7. Projects to be funded by Life are selected on the basis of their 
merits and their contribution to the objectives of Community 
environment policy, using the evaluation criteria set out in the 
Regulation. The evaluation procedure is adapted to the 
characteristics of each eligible area of activity. 
For Life-Nature the Commission, with the help of outside 
scientific consultants, makes an initial selection of applications 
which are formally acceptable and eligible according to the 
criteria in the Regulation. It then puts forward a list of the best 
projects at Community level for approval by the Habitat 
Committee. 
For /.(/^-Environment, a parallel evaluation procedure is 
conducted in the Member States and by the Commission, leading 
to the selection of a short-list representing around a third of 
projects submitted. The shortlisted projects are then examined by 
panels of independent experts. On the basis of this three-stage 
evaluation, the Commission submits a list of projects to be 
funded for approval by the Life Management Committee. 
For Life-Third countries, the evaluation procedure begins with 
an initial selection by the Commission. It then proposes a list of 
projects to be assessed by independent experts. On the basis of 
this two-stage evaluation, the Commission submits a list of 
projects to be funded for approval by the Life Management 
Committee. 
1.1.8. Since 1992, Life has received 8 502 proposals for projects of 
which almost one third were eligible. 1 275 projects were jointly 
funded at a total cost of ECU 643 million. Some 900 projects are 
in progress. 
1.1.9. The following table gives a breakdown of appropriations used to 
co-finance projects in the three areas of activity (amounts in 
million ECU). 
LIFE-Nature 
(in 1992, with ACNAT) 
£,/F£'-Environment 
(in 1992, with MEDSPA 
and NORSPA) 
LIFE-Third countries 
(in 1992, with MEDSPA 
and NORSPA) 
Total Life I 
92 
(EU-12) 
36.9 
44.6 
5.3 
86.8 93 
(EU-12) 
20,6 
44.7 
3.5 
68.8 94 
(EU-12) 
43 
53.1 
4.8 
100.9 95 
(EU-15) 
48.5 
48.1 
5.7 
102.3 Life 11 
96 
(EU-15) 
43.4 
43.3 
6.0 
92.7 97 
(EU-15) 
42.4 
43.6 
4.2 
90.2 98 
(EU-15) 
48 
48.6 
4.7 
101.3 
The Annex gives detailed data for each area of activity. 
1.2 The context of this report 
1.2.1. This report has been prepared within the context of both the Life 
Regulation and the "Sound and Efficient Management" initiative 
(SEM 2000). 
1.2.2. SEM 2000 states that the implications of political decisions in 
terms of resources must be known at the time these decisions are 
taken. To that end, it recommends a systematic evaluation of all 
programmes entailing expenditure of Community funds. 
1.2.3. The Life Regulation includes two articles concerning resources, 
namely Articles 7(3) and Article 14. Article 7(3) asks the Council 
to examine the reference amount, on the basis of a Commission 
report, with a view to revising it if necessary. 
The Commission's report under Article 7(3) was sent to the 
Council in December 1997, reporting on the implementation of 
the Regulation and outlining the following stages of the 
evaluation of Life. It concluded that Life could make good use of 
resources up to and even beyond the current reference amount of 
ECU 450 million for the period 1996-99. However the 
Commission considered that the budgetary outlook would restrict 
the Life budget to less than the reference amount. 
1.2.4. Article 14 stipulates that: 
'"No later than 31 December 1998, the Commission shall 
submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council 
on the implementation of this Regulation and on the use of 
appropriations and shall make proposals for any adjustment 
to be made with a view to continuing the action beyond the 
second phase." 
1.2.5. This report was written in application of Article 14. It is based on 
a detailed evaluation commissioned from outside experts who 
submitted their report in June 1998. The objective of this 
evaluation was to assess performance in implementing the 
scheme and its efficiency in attaining its objectives, while 
assessing their relevance and whether the ideas behind the 
scheme remain valid. This report presents the main conclusions 
and the Commission's analysis of the experts' report, and the 
changes proposed for stage three of Life. 
2. ACTIONS FINANCED BY LIFE FROM 1992 TO 1995 
2.1. Before considering the evaluation of Life, we need to describe the 
projects it funds and the results it has achieved, to serve as a basis for the 
evaluation of the instrument as a whole. 
2.2. Life-Nature: 
During the first phase (1992-95) Life-Nature co-financed many 
projects in Special Protection Areas for birds as well as national 
natural heritage inventories in several Member States in order to 
prepare the implementation of Natura 2000. The latter type of project no 
longer has priority under Z,//ê-Nature II. 
During the second phase (1996-98), Life-Nature gave priority to site 
protection projects, especially those proposed and in progress under 
the Habitats Directive (NA1). The breakdown by topic of projects 
funded by Z,//è-Nature II has evolved over time as follows: 
nNA3 
BNA2 
mNA1 
1996 1997 1998 
(NA1 = projects concerning Habitat Directive sites; NA2 = projects concerning Birds 
Directive sites; NA3= projects concerning species non specifically related to sites) 
Annex 1 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
2.3. Life - Environment 
The breakdown by topic of the projects financed under Z//ê-Environment 
between 1992 and 1997 reveals that the most common topic is "clean 
technologies" modifying industrial production processes, (accounting 
for 23% of budget expenditure), and to a lesser degree water 
management, regional planning in rural areas and in urban areas, and 
waste management (14-17%). 
Annex 2 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
2.4. Life-Third countries 
During the first phase of Life (1992-95), the only actions eligible under 
Life-Third countries were technical assistance ones. Since 1996, the 
eligibility criteria have been extended to include nature protection and 
demonstration actions. 
Technical assistance actions are the most common requests for co-
financing, accounting for 50 to 70%. The reason is that Life-Third 
countries is mainly intended for national administrations who need to 
define their environmental policies and action plans. (NA1 = projects concerning Habitat Directive sites; NA2 = projects concerning Birds 
Directive sites; NA3= projects concerning species non specifically related to sites) 
Annex 1 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
2.3. Life - Environment 
The breakdown by topic of the projects financed under Z//ê-Environment 
between 1992 and 1997 reveals that the most common topic is "clean 
technologies" modifying industrial production processes, (accounting 
for 23% of budget expenditure), and to a lesser degree water 
management, regional planning in rural areas and in urban areas, and 
waste management (14-17%). 
Annex 2 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
2.4. Life-Third countries 
During the first phase of Life (1992-95), the only actions eligible under 
Life-Third countries were technical assistance ones. Since 1996, the 
eligibility criteria have been extended to include nature protection and 
demonstration actions. 
Technical assistance actions are the most common requests for co-
financing, accounting for 50 to 70%. The reason is that Life-Third 
countries is mainly intended for national administrations who need to 
define their environmental policies and action plans. (NA1 = projects concerning Habitat Directive sites; NA2 = projects concerning Birds 
Directive sites; NA3= projects concerning species non specifically related to sites) 
Annex 1 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
2.3. Life - Environment 
The breakdown by topic of the projects financed under Z//ê-Environment 
between 1992 and 1997 reveals that the most common topic is "clean 
technologies" modifying industrial production processes, (accounting 
for 23% of budget expenditure), and to a lesser degree water 
management, regional planning in rural areas and in urban areas, and 
waste management (14-17%). 
Annex 2 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
2.4. Life-Third countries 
During the first phase of Life (1992-95), the only actions eligible under 
Life-Third countries were technical assistance ones. Since 1996, the 
eligibility criteria have been extended to include nature protection and 
demonstration actions. 
Technical assistance actions are the most common requests for co-
financing, accounting for 50 to 70%. The reason is that Life-Third 
countries is mainly intended for national administrations who need to 
define their environmental policies and action plans. 
Nature protection projects generally relate to the conservation and/or 
rehabilitation of habitats in coastal areas and wetlands. 
Demonstration actions, co-financed for the first time in 1997, concern 
many fields, such as waste management and treatment, the use of bicycles 
in cities and management of coastal zones. 
Annex 3 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
3. FRAMEWORK OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF LIFE 
3.1. The external experts' evaluation from December 1997 to June 1998 had 
to answer the main following questions, in order to serve as a basis for 
the drafting of this report: 
• Does Life contribute to the development and implementation of 
Community environmental policy and legislation, and if so and how? 
• Does Life have a knock-on effect on other Community policies or 
instruments? 
• Did the project selection procedure make it possible to choose 
projects matching the criteria laid down in the Regulation? 
• Were the available financial resources used appropriately or should 
the conditions for allocating them be changed? 
• What is the medium- and long-term potential of Life? 
3.2. The external assessors followed the methodology proposed by the 
Commission under SEM 2000. After examining the logic of intervention 
under Life, experts selected a sample of 100 projects according to the 
quotas method; the sample was representative of projects financed under 
Life II as well as projects financed under Life I conforming to the Life II 
intervention logic. 
Experts met 23 project managers (from the 100 selected projects), some 
competent national authorities, the consultancy teams responsible for 
monitoring Life projects, the units in charge of Life and other 
Commission staff working on subjects covered by Life. 
3.3. The methodology followed considers Life as a whole, without necessarily 
taking account of the different approaches in the three areas of Life. This 
is in line with the Commission's evaluation recommendations, but 
introduces a device in the case of Life, which has to take account of the 
differences in approach, objectives and beneficiaries between Life-Nature, 
Z//ê-Environment and Life-Third countries. 
4. MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 
4.1. Contribution to the development and implementation of Community 
environmental policy and legislation 
After examining the implementation of the instrument's general objective 
set out in Article 1 of the Regulation, the external experts conclude that 
Life can contribute to the implementation of Community 
environmental policy and legislation, but its contribution to the 
development of policy and legislation is very limited. 
Life's general objective appears to them far too broad to be achieved and 
not always consistent with the specific objectives of the three areas of 
activity, which refer only to the implementation of Community policy 
and legislation. 
The objective of developing policy could only be achieved by a "bottom-
up" approach, implying better use of the results of individual actions by 
political decision-makers at European level. 
On the other hand, with regard to policy implementation, Life's strong 
points are its participatory approach, effective implementation of 
environmental legislation and the management of natural resources. Life 
contributes to a lesser extent to improving the quality of the environment: 
this contribution is significant for the quality of water and landscape, 
more limited for the urban environment, and flora and fauna, and 
negligible for soil quality. 
4.2. Life's added value in relation to other financial or environmental-
policy instruments 
Life is not the only Community financial instrument addressing 
environmental issues. Others include the agro-environmental measures of 
the Common Agricultural Policy, the Structural and Cohesion Funds, 
research & development programmes, and the Union's external policy 
instruments. 
In comparison with these instruments, Life has several strong assets: 
• Life is the only instrument dedicated solely to the environment. It 
offers flexibility and presents less constraints than other Community 
instruments. 
• Life is managed directly by the Commission and so has great 
potential for providing European decision-makers with field results. 
• Life is a political instrument, which is a critical asset for the 
environmental actors who often still lack political influence. 
A detailed analysis of Life in comparison with other Community 
instruments shows that in most cases, Life can have a complementary 
role. 
However, while Life has the potential to develop real added value, it has 
not yet realised this potential. It is still an "unfinished symphony". 
4.3. Means and procedures for implementing Life 
The external assessors consider that better focusing of financial resources 
would do much to improve the instrument's overall effectiveness. They 
consider that the main areas for improvement are management of land 
acquisitions for Life-Nature, dissemination and transfer of project results 
for Zz/ê-Environment, and focusing on fewer priorities for Life-Third 
countries. 
Human resources within the Commission often appear to be too scarce, 
and organisational limitations are impeding the development of Life. 
There is currently too much emphasis on projects and not enough on the 
dissemination of project results; the budget allocated to communication 
actions (3% of appropriations) also seems too low to be effective. 
Selected projects are usually representative of proposers' priority 
problems, and to some extent the priorities of the national authorities 
taking part in the pre-selection of projects. On the other hand insufficient 
account is taken of the priorities of the various Community 
environmental policies. When selecting projects, the Commission should 
systematically anticipate the possible re-use of results of projects in 
Community policies, the dissemination of those results and their long-
term effects. 
4.4. Recommendations of the external assessors 
• Life should adopt a pro-active approach to preparing environmental 
policy, programmes and legislation; 
• Life should set up a knowledge management system and make full 
use of the information accumulated since it began; 
• Life should clearly identify whether it has a role to play with third 
countries and Central and Eastern European Countries; 
• Life should reinforce the political strength of public environmental 
stakeholders; 
.10 
• Life should remain independent of economic and geographical 
constraints. 
5. THE COMMISSION'S ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE 
5.1. General objective of Life 
The objectives of developing and implementing Community 
environmental policy and legislation are not separable in the financing of 
projects. Individual projects selected by Life should contribute to both: 
• implementation, by applying the legislation and objectives of 
Community policies in an exemplary way , 
• development of new policies or updating of existing policies, by 
facilitating feedback to decision-makers. 
It is proposed to reformulate Article 1 of the Life Regulation so as to 
define the development objective more clearly. 
5.2. Forging closer links between Life and Community environmental policy 
The Commission agrees with the external experts' suggestion that closer 
links should be forged between Life and the Community environmental 
policy. 
This is particularly true of /.//^-Environment, where it is proposed to 
reformulate the eligible fields in the Regulation and lay down 
guidelines for demonstration projects, with a view to directing 
proposers towards priority themes of Community policy. This proposal is 
in line with an amendment introduced by the European Parliament during 
the discussion of the Life II Regulation in 1996. 
Similarly, "preparatory actions" under Life-Environment are 
redefined as preparing for the development of new Community 
environmental policy and will be collected by direct calls for expression 
of interest, in order to gather a homogeneous set of projects in support of 
a policy in preparation. 
5.3. Dissemination of results in line with their potential 
The external experts' assessment regarding the dissemination of project 
results underestimates beneficiaries' and the Commission's dissemination 
activities (Internet site including a database of projects funded, Natura 
2000 information letter linking to Life-Nature, anthology of Life-
Environment success stories). Moreover, the Life Management committee 
adopted a dissemination strategy for Life -Environment in April 1997. 
The Commission nevertheless agrees on the need to step up the 
dissemination of results in order to realise the full potential of the funded 
11 
projects. To that end, it is proposed to increase the budget allocation to 
accompanying measures from 3 to 5% of Life appropriations. 
For Life-Nature, this increase will pay for two new accompanying 
measures: the "starter" measure will help to prepare multinational 
projects, "co-op" measure will encourage the networking of the 
funded projects. 
For Z//ê-Environment, the increase will be used to develop the 
exploitation of project results on the basis of topic, for example by 
industrial sector in the case of clean technologies. 
5.4. The role of Life in relation to non-EU and Central and Eastern 
European countries 
These groups of countries should be considered separately: 
• Participation in Life by the Central and Eastern European 
Countries applying for EU membership follows a general 
Commission strategy which remains valid; participation will become 
effective following the specific decisions of the association Councils. 
• For the other non-EU countries bordering the Mediterranean and 
Baltic seas, the Commission agrees on the need to concentrate the 
efforts of Life-Third countries and proposes to focus on technical 
assistance actions (institutional and capacity building) which step 
up the Union's neighbours' power to act on environmental issues. 
6. DURATION AND REFERENCE AMOUNT OF THE THIRD PHASE 
The Commission favours a duration of five years for the third phase of 
Life, and allowing for an updating of the eligible fields of action. 
In the report to the Council under Article 7(3), the Commission showed 
that Life has considerable growth potential, since the instrument receives 
twice as many valid project proposals, i.e. which are formally eligible and 
favourably evaluated, than it can actually fund. 
The budgetary record of Life is very satisfactory. All commitment 
appropriations are regularly used for Life-Nature, L//^-Environment and 
Life-Third countries. Use of payment appropriations, in 1997 for 
example, was 86% for Life-Nature, 100% for L//^-Environment and 79% 
for Life-Third countries. 
12 
Life also satisfies the criteria laid down under Agenda 2000 for defining 
priority programmes, where growth may exceed the Community budget; 
Life takes part in particular in "implementing environment-friendly 
technologies" and contributes indirectly to job creation by financing 
activities with a high job-creation potential, such as waste recycling and 
new services connected with the environment. 
Nevertheless, with current budgetary prospects the five-year budget is 
unlikely to exceed ECU 613 million, broken down as follows, without 
taking account of the costs of enlargement: 
Year 
Nature 
Environment 
Third 
countries 
CEECs 
Life 2000 
52.65 
52.65 
6.7 
p.m. 
112 2001 
54.5 
54.5 
7.0 
p.m. 
116 2002 
57.80 
57.80 
7.4 
p.m. 
123 2003 
59.70 
59J0 
7.6 
p.m. 
127 2004 
63.45 
63.45 
8.1 
p.m. 
135 
(All amounts are in million ECU) 
7. CONCLUSION 
When preparing the third phase of Life, the Commission carried out a 
comprehensive assessment exercise consisting of the following stages: the report 
under Article 7(3) of the Life Regulation, transmitted to the Council in December 
1997, the evaluation by outside experts between December 1997 and June 1998, 
and finally this report to the European Parliament and Council under Article 14 
of the Life Regulation. 
As we complete this evaluation, we can reaffirm the importance of Life for 
Community environmental policy and its positive contribution to the goals 
of this policy. As the only Community instrument specifically dedicated to the 
environment, it has a unique position among Community financing instruments, 
relying working on innovatory and exemplary local initiatives to foster the 
implementation of Community policy and develop new activities. 
Thanks to Life-Nature, thousands of hectares of natural habitats of European 
interest are now protected; species only recently endangered are now safe; the 
European Natura 2000 network is gradually taking shape. The introduction of 
new accompanying measures during the third phase of Life will encourage the 
emergence of multinational projects and the networking of ongoing ones. 
13 
Under Li/<?-Environment, dozens of clean technologies have proved their 
effectiveness in the most polluting industries; new techniques and methods have 
emerged to improve water quality or recycle waste; new partnerships are trying 
out more ecological regional planning methods. For the third phase, guidelines 
will be defined to improve the synergy between demonstration actions and 
Community policy, while better dissemination of project results will enable us to 
exploit theif full potential. 
Thanks to Life-Third countries, the principles of Community environmental 
policy are now known to our Baltic and Mediterranean neighbours and inspire 
the drafting of their own environmental policies or protection activities. For the 
third phase of Life, focusing funding on institutional and capacity building will 
give the best return on the Life-Third countries budget. 
The involvement of the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe in Life 
should grow in the coming years, and Life's contribution to the European 
environment will take on a new dimension when they actually join the Union. 
Day after day and project after project, concrete examples show that sustainable 
development can become reality. These examples thus contribute to the 
objectives that the European Union pursues through legislation, integration of the 
environment into other policies, promotion of voluntary approaches, etc. Life's 
aim is to bridge the gap between such exemplary individual projects and 
Community policy, to link real examples of innovation with European 
integration. It is this aim in the service of the environment that the Commission 
proposes to pursue from 2000 to 2004. 
14 
ANNEX 1 
LIFE - NATURE 
1. NUMBER OF CO-FINANCED PROJECTS 
The number and quality of projects submitted under Life-Nature changed 
between 1992 and 1998. 
• Under Life I, many projects included actions per phase and involved several 
beneficiaries. Average co-financing for these projects was close to 
ECU 1 million. 
• In 1995 the Commission revised the application brochure. Each project is 
now under the responsibility of only one beneficiary. The Commission no 
longer commits itself in advance to co-financing following phases. It prefers 
projects whose actions are clearly linked to attainable objectives. All projects 
are divided into 6 categories: 
- Preparing management plans/preparatory projects 
- Land and land-use control 
- One-off habitat management projects 
- Ongoing habitat management projects 
- Awareness-raising/dissemination of results 
- Project management 
In the short term this requirement for more accuracy increased the number of 
ineligible projects. But as from 1997, the average quality of the projects 
received has significantly improved. 
• The Life II Regulation adopted in 1996 reinforced the link with Natura 2000. 
More projects were then declared ineligible because Member States had not 
proposed the sites in time. Potential applicants also preferred to postpone their 
project until the sites had been included in the national lists of sites proposed 
under the Habitats Directive. 
• 1998 has seen an increase in the number and the quality of projects. Average 
co-financing per project is between ECU 500 000 and 1 000 000. 
The table below gives a year-by-year breakdown. 
15 
Number of projects 
received 
' Contribution 
requested 
Number of eligible 
projects 
Contribution 
requested for 
eligible projects 
Number of projects 
funded 
Financial 
contribution granted LIFE I 
92' 
(EUR 12) 
86 
227 
_2 
1 
35 
36.9 93 
(EUR 12) 
198 
294 
80 
1863 
22 
20,6 94 
(EUR 12) 
296 
270 
116 
153 
47 
43 95 
(EUR 15) 
313 
235 
139 
139 
72 
48.5 LIFE II 
96 
(EUR 15) 
241 
174 
123 
93 
63 
43.4 97 
(EUR 15) 
174 
128 
97 
76 
60 
42.4 98 
(EUR 15) 
191 
136 
115 
83 
85 
48 
The 1992 budget for Z//£-Nature includes reports from ACNAT; 2 not available; 3 including 
ECU 61 million for one single project. (Amounts are in million ecus and account only for the 
Community contribution, generally between 50 and 75% of the total cost) 
2. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTS 
Life-Nature has no provision for sharing out the amount available between the 
Member States according to fixed criteria. 
Rather, the Commission considers that the quality of each project, compared with 
other projects proposed in the same year, should be the only basis for the 
decision on co-financing. 
A Member State may send several very good proposals one year and few the 
next. It therefore makes little sense to analyse the annual allocation of funds per 
Member State. 
However, it is interesting to analyse figures for the whole of the 1992-98 period. 
It shows that: 
- Member States with large territories are the main beneficiaries (including 
Finland and Sweden as from 1995); 
- when areas are comparable, countries with higher bio-diversity, mainly in the 
Mediterranean and the Alps, benefited from more funding. 
These criteria tie in with the purpose of Life, and explains why Spain is the main 
beneficiary of Life-Nature. 
The table below shows the distribution between Member States of contributions 
of Z,z/e-Nature between 1992 and 1998. 
16 
Member State LIFE-Nature 
(92-98) 
ECU '000 000 
Belgium 6.9 
Denmark 3.5 
Germany 30.2 
Greece 18^9 
Spain 54~7 
France 32.2 
Ireland 83 
Itaty 2^6 
Luxembourg 0.2 
Netherlands 6.6 
Austria * 11.9 
Portugal 1677 
Finland * fO 
Sweden * i~8l> 
United Kingdom 18.2 
(* as from 1995) 
3. TYPES OF PROJECTS CO-FINANCED 
Life -Nature co-finances projects to protect natural sites and species of interest 
under the Birds and Habitats Directives, so the types of projects co-financed have 
changed between 1992 and 1998 as these two directives have been implemented. 
• Bird protection projects: these accounted for most of the projects funded 
under Life-Nature I (1992-1995). The aim is to protect, and therefore manage, 
important sites for the birds listed in Annex 1 to the Birds Directive. Measures 
include for example: 
- Restoring habitat: cleaning up areas of water, improving water systems 
- Managing habitat: annual clearing of ditches and undergrowth 
- Implementing a management plan: changing farming practices, controlling 
tourism 
- Renting or purchasing key land in order to protect the biological quality of a 
site. 
17 
Many of these projects concerned wetlands. The Commission thus contributed to 
the objectives of the Ramsar Convention to protect wetlands of international 
importance. 
• Protection of natural habitats: these projects accounted for most of those 
funded under Life-Nature II. As from 1996-1997, Member States have 
proposed thousands of sites containing natural habitats quoted in Annex 1 to 
the Habitat Directive, so Life-Nature logically gives those priority. 
As with the protection of birds, these projects combine measures to safeguard 
the future of these sites: land control, improving the biological state of habitat, 
and regular biotope management. The preparation of a management plan, 
involving the various site users (municipalities, farmers, hunters, forest 
managers, etc.), improves the prospects of long-term success. The cooperation 
initiated under Life often makes it possible later to implement agri-
environmental measures, funded by the CAP, or infrastructure for sustainable 
tourism, paid for by the Structural Funds. 
• Protection of species of fauna and flora: the Union has chosen to focus its 
policy on sites necessary for the survival of endangered flora and fauna. Life-
Nature thus co-finances as a matter of priority site-related actions. But 
specific actions may be necessary, for example to study the reproduction or 
movements of a species or to prepare its reintroduction, although actions 
which do not relate to sites proposed for Natura 2000 are very much the 
minority (some 5% of projects). 
4. DETAILED CONTENT OF PROJECTS 
Experience sharing between projects is an essential component of Life. Each 
year, in the trimester following the co-financing decision, in order to 
encourage the circulation of ideas, the Commission published a summary in 
three languages of each of the selected Life-Nature projects. This transparency 
and rapidity facilitates the networking of projects and their integration into 
local development programmes. These annual summaries can be ordered 
through the Nature homepage at the following address: 
http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg 11 /nature/docum.htm 
18 
ANNEX2 
L/F£-ENVIRONMENT 
1. NUMBER OF CO-FINANCED PROJECTS 
Between 1992 and 1998 the Commission received 5449 applications under Life-
Environment. Between 1993 and 1998 these applications represented a total of 
approximately ECU 5900 million in requested contributions. 
During the same period, the available budget made it possible to co-finance 795 
projects (15%) for an overall amount of ECU 321 Million (5%). 
The table below gives a breakdown of essential data for each year: 
Number of projects received 
Contribution requested 
Number of eligible projects 
Number of pre-selected projects 
(short-list) 
Contribution requested for pre­
selected projects 
Number of projects financed 
Financial contribution granted 
Difference between projects pre­
selected and financed LIFE I 
921 
(EUR 12) 
300 
_2 
+/- 185 
_3 
_3 
70 
44.6 
_3 93 
(EUR 12) 
1447 
2012 
601 
306 
79 
99 
44.7 
33.8 94 
(EUR 12) 
1224 
653 
721 
258 
84 
160 
53.1 
30.6 95 
(EUR 15) 
729 
2214 
431 
264 
84 
135 
48.1 
36.0 LIFE II 
96 
(EUR 15) 
601 
393 
283 
177 
90 
104 
43.3 
47.2 97 
(EUR 15) 
514 
328 
244 
194 
81 
112 
43.6 
37.4 98 
(EUR 15) 
634 
292 
526 
226 
100 
115 
48.6 
51.4 
1 The L//ë-Environment budget for 1992 includes reports from MEDSPÀ and NORSPA; 2 not 
available;3 no shortlist was drawn up in 1992 as the projects were selected under MEDSPA and 
NORSPA procedures. (All amounts are in million ecus and account only for the Community 
contribution, generally 30-50% of the total budget.) 
The number of projects submitted, which declined between 1993 and 1997 rose 
in 1998; this number has always been much higher than the number of projects 
funded (by a ratio of 1 to 5 at least). 
The pre-selected projects, after parallel evaluations by the Commission and the 
Member States, also greatly exceed the budgetary possibilities of Life: the gap 
between the budget available and the potential contribution to pre-selected 
projects has continued to widen since the beginning. 
19 
2. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROJECTS 
Lz/e-Environment has no provision for sharing out the amount available between 
the Member States according to fixed criteria. 
The evaluation procedure is designed to select projects on the basis of merit, the 
projects being evaluated by subject category (waste, water, air, etc). This system 
of evaluation on merit nevertheless takes into account the state of the 
environment in each Member State, so as not to penalise less innovatory but 
exemplary projects, which can have a strong local impact. 
The annual distribution of contributions between Member States thus has little 
significance. As an indication, the year-by-year distribution of Z,z/ê-Environment 
contributions between Member States is as follows: 
Member States 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Portugal 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Total Life I 
1992 
2.1 
0.8 
7.1 
2.1 
3.1 
5.5 
3.9 
5.1 
0.0 
2.1 
-
2.9 
-
-
8.6 
44.61 1993 
3.6 
3.7 
6.7 
2.4 
1.1 
4.2 
3.1 
5.7 
0.8 
3.4 
-
3.4 
-
-
6.4 
44.7 1994 
2.4 
1.2 
7.7 
4.5 
4.7 
9.2 
2.9 
6.2 
0.8 
3.5 
-
1.8 
-
-
8.1 
53.1 1995 
3.6 
0.8 
6.9 
3.2 
4.7 
6.6 
0.2 
6.8 
0.2 
4.1 
1.8 
1.2 
2.2 
0.5 
5.3 
48.1 Life II 
1996 
1.4 
2.1 
5.0 
2.5 
4.8 
6.7 
0.7 
6.0 
0.0 
2.8 
2.5 
2.3 
2.0 
2.8 
1.8 
43.3 1997 
3.9 
2.3 
4.8 
2.8 
3.9 
5.7 
1.2 
4.1 
0.5 
4.0 
1.2 
1.2 
1.9 
2.1 
4.2 
43.6 1998 
3.1 
1.0 
6.9 
2.5 
4.6 
5.5 
1.9 
5.0 
0.7 
3.6 
1.5 
1.0 
1.4 
3.0 
7.1 
48.6 Total 
20.1 
11.9 
45.1 
20.0 
26.9 
43.4 
13.9 
38.9 
3.0 
23.5 
7.0 
13.8 
7.5 
8.4 
41.5 
326.0 
1 including one international project for ECU 1.3 million. 
(all amounts are in million ecus and account only for the Community contribution.) 
20 
3. TYPES OF PROJECTS CO-FINANCED 
The following table shows the distribution by topic of the actions funded from 
1992 to 1997. It is not exhaustive as regards completed projects. 
It shows that the actions most funded by ^//^-Environment concerned « clean 
technologies », modifying industrial production processes, then water 
management, regional planning in rural areas, in urban areas, and waste 
management. 
Topic 
Clean technologies 
Reduction of the industrial emissions (all sectors) 
Agri-food sector 
Glass and ceramics 
Chemical and electronics industries 
Construction industry 
Paper 
Surface treatments paint and ink 
Tanneries 
Textiles and laundries 
Wood and furnishing 
Water management 
Drinking water 
Groundwater 
Surface water and sea water 
Urban waste water 
Industrial waste water and treatment of water for industrial use 
Regional planning in rural areas and coastal areas 
Rural development and agriculture 
Management of forests 
Management of natural areas 
Environment-friendly tourism 
Integrated management of coastal areas 
Protection of dunes Number 
145 
12 
20 
9 
28 
5 
13 
27 
15 
7 
9 
93 
10 
8 
36 
21 
19 
96 
18 
9 
12 
26 
24 
7 Contribution 
53 809 301 
4 852 536 
6 246 427 
3 609 078 
9 175 709 
1 448 632 
9 949 234 
7 219 857 
4 410 396 
2 362 546 
4 534 886 
42 747 634 
4 316 386 
3 497 058 
18 655 804 
7 932 070 
8 346 316 
41 333 046 
5 357 886 
3 543 021 
6 161 320 
8 553 151 
13 171291 
4 546 377 % 
23% 
18% 
17% 
21 
Regional planning in urban areas 
Actions specific to suburban areas 
Planning or integrated management of urban areas 
Reduction of noise 
Measurement of air pollution 
Management of transport 
Waste management and treatment 
Household waste management 
Management of industrial or special waste 
Management of landfills 
Incineration-related projects 
Recycling of organic waste 
Recycling of sewage sludge 
Recycling of plastics and packaging 
Recycling of batteries 
Recycling of used tyres 
Mercury extraction and recycling 
Metallurgical industry waste 
Soil protection and treatment 
Treatment of soil pollution 
Fire prevention 
Training, promoting awareness, environmental 
management 
Impact assessment, evaluation, administrative structures 
Training, raising the consciousness of economic actors 
(inc. SMEs) 
Environmental management 
Total 72 
7 
17 
4 
17 
27 
91 
14 
9 
9 
7 
9 
7 
18 
2 
3 
4 
9 
23 
21 
2 
48 
12 
17 
19 
569 32 660 512 
3 701 237 
10 058 497 
1431364 
6 229 960 
11239 454 
35 868 390 
4 579 086. 
3 086 590 
3 873 496 
2 783 172 
3 390 641 
2 060 433 
9 169 006 
664 996 
1201403 
2 010 189 
3 049 378 
9 868 291 
9 422 330 
445 961 
19 994 173 
8 451350 
4 455 344 
7 087 479 
236 281 347 14% 
15% 
4% 
8% 
The following comments consider only the most salient topics among Life-
Environment actions. The reader can get further information from the brochure 
"LIFE in action - Demonstration projects for Europe's environment - 96 success 
stories" available from the Office for Official Publications of the European 
Communities, or by consulting the Zi/e-Environment database homepage at the 
following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/life/index.htm 
22 
3.1. Modifications of industrial processes 
An important function of Z//ê-Environment is to promote the use of new 
technologies in manufacturing processes, as opposed to "end-of-pipe" 
pollution treatment. After a study conducted in 1995, the Commission 
tried to orientate proposers towards the most polluting sectors in order to 
concentrate efforts. Here are two examples of sectors where Life-
Environment contributed to the implementation of clean technologies: 
Surface treatment in many industrial sectors is very polluting because of 
the chemicals used. One such case is de-coating in aeronautics, which 
currently uses large amounts of acid baths. Two projects tested alternative 
techniques: KLM in the Netherlands for high pressure water jets, and 
SOCHATA in France for ice blasting. The first project was a success, 
while the second proved that the technique, although technically valid, 
was unprofitable. 
The tanneries sector is a special case since about fifteen Life-iunded 
projects, including eight in Italy, cover all the stages of the tanning 
process and offer a complete solution to the acute pollution problems in 
this sector. Pollution has been reduced in air emissions, liquids (in 
particular those containing chromium) and solid waste. The techniques 
developed by the projects also appeared also interesting from an 
economic point of view (saving raw materials) and in the quality of the 
products. Thus there are possible "win-win" solutions in this sector in 
economic difficulty, in the "Objective 1 and 2" areas of Community 
regional policy. 
3.2. Water management 
Many of the projects financed by Zz/ê-Environment aim to improve the 
quality of water, with projects from both industries and local authorities. 
Completed projects generally produced interesting and reproducible 
results. 
The treatment of urban waste water is an important issue of 
environmental concern and the subject of many Life projects, applying 
techniques such as basins with macrophyte, mainly between 1992 and 
1995, the improvement of nitrogenous compound treatments or the 
recycling of treated waste water for irrigation. The management of 
sewage networks in storms is also the subject of several projects. 
Projects on surface waters include several programmes of integrated 
water management and quality monitoring. For example, several Danish 
projects in 1993 and 1994 tried to restore water streams and wetlands 
while monitoring the quality of water in terms of biological and physico-
chemical composition. 
23 
3.3. Regional planning in rural areas 
This title covers projects on rural development, nature management, 
environmentally-friendly tourism and the rational management of coastal 
areas. Projects often concern several of these topics, so the proposed 
distribution is only indicative. 
For example, environmentally-friendly tourism projects often aim to 
restrict visits to fragile sites, planning tourism in regions with landscapes 
and natural environment of high value, trying out contracts to respect the 
environment (charter for durable tourism, eco-labelling, environmental 
management of tourist activities, etc.). Some actions were reproduced 
afterwards in the framework of regional policies, e.g. Cohesion Fund 
actions. 
The rational management of coastal areas has twice been a priority for 
Life: in 1992, when Life took over from MEDSPA, and in 1996, under the 
demonstration programme on coastal zone management, initiated by a 
Commission communication in November 1995. The projects funded set 
up - for example - large partnerships to monitor the coastal environment 
(monitoring the sea and water quality) and pilot actions to improve this 
environment. The results of these actions, often of very high quality, 
probably stimulated the debate in Europe on the specific character of the 
management of coastal areas. 
3.4. Regional planning in urban areas 
This title covers projects relating on the one hand, to planning or the 
consistency of urban policies and, on the other hand, to more specific 
actions on noise and air pollution abatement. 
The management of transport, a critical and tricky aspect of urban 
policies, has been the subject of numerous Life projects since it started. 
Although they rarely cover demonstration of new vehicles or of new 
fuels, which is more relevant for other Community financing, there are 
many pilot management plans among Life projects, especially in 
Germany and the Benelux: mobility indicators, planning of goods 
transportation to release the pressure on city centres (Leyden 1994), 
modelling tools, etc. 
Between 1995 and 1997 some projects concentrated specifically on 
suburban areas, which represent an important issue for the environment: 
whether or not environmental requirements figure in the extension of 
urban areas, as well as the relationship between cities and the surrounding 
countryside, have important and durable effects on the environment. The 
role of agriculture in suburban areas in particular was examined by two 
Spanish projects of 1996, in Barcelona and Aranjuez. 
24 
3.5. Waste management and treatment 
Waste management is an important topic for the environment and 
requires much expensive investment by local bodies; it has been the 
subject of numerous Life projects since the beginning. Actions funded 
cover all the issues involved, especially recycling, which ties in with the 
orientation of Community policy in this field. 
The management of industrial or special waste is the subject of 
projects with specific objectives but often interesting results, reusable at 
European level: hospital waste in Freiburg (D) and Helsinki (FIN) in 
1996 or treatment of end-of-life refrigerators in Milan (IT) in 1995. 
Incineration-related projects include the demonstration of recent 
techniques, such as non-thermal plasma, in Culham (UK) in 1995 or the 
PyroArc process in Hofors (S) in 1997. Other projects include the 
recycling of incineration refuse in road coating in Kassel (D) and Le 
Mans (F) in 1996. 
The recycling of plastics and packaging, a critical aspect of waste 
management, is tackled by many projects on different materials or 
products (such as polyurethane in Langeac (F) or coated textiles in 
Saarland (D) in 1996) which initiate or supplement industrial recycling 
concerns. It is a field where economic factors are often important and 
require full-scale demonstration, hence the importance of financing 
mechanisms like Life, which still has an important role to play in this 
field. 
The recycling of batteries is a field where collection has been 
compulsory since 1991 for certain types of batteries but where treatment 
techniques are still under-developed or unsatisfactory from the 
environmental point of view. With only three projects (plus the mercury 
recycling projects for certain types of batteries), Life took part in the 
demonstration of three of the ten or so techniques arriving on the 
European market to respond to this need: acid and basic hydrometallurgy 
(Recupyl 1994 and Zimaval 1998 respectively), and pyrometallurgy in 
arc furnaces (AFE Métal 1996). 
25 
ANNEX3 
LIFE- THIRD COUNTRIES 
1. NUMBER OF CO-FINANCED PROJECTS 
Between 1992 and 1998, the Commission received 652 applications under Life-
Third Countries totalling approximately ECU 250 million. During the same 
period, the available budget made it possible to select 96 projects for funding 
under Life-Third countries for a total EC contribution of almost ECU 33 million. 
The table below gives a breakdown of essential data for each year: 
Number of projects 
received 
Number of eligible 
projects 
Contribution requested 
Number of projects 
financed 
Financial contribution 
granted LIFE I 
92 
45' 
2 
2 
9 
5.3 93 
551 
2 
2 
12 
3.5 94 
65 
40 
18.4 
14 
4.8 95 
103 
29 
10.2 
16 
5.7 LIFE II 
96 
82 
23 
10.0 
13 
6.0 97 
121 
28 
9.8 
16 
4.2 98 
181 
83 
24 
16 
4.7 
Estimate; 
2 Not available. (All amounts are in million ecus and account only for the Community 
contribution, generally 50-100% of the total budget.) 
In 1995, which was the last year of Life I, the total number of acceptable projects 
increased considerably because of the information campaign on Life-Third 
Countries. On the other hand, the number of projects considered eligible by the 
Commission decreased, because it wanted to place much greater emphasis on the 
technical quality of projects. 
The smaller number of projects accepted in 1996 is due to the fact that the new 
Life Regulation was adopted late leaving a relatively short period for submitting 
projects. The number of projects eligible and financed is similar to that for 1995. 
In subsequent years, the efforts made to disseminate information on Life-Third 
Countries increased the number of projects to 181 in 1998, approximately 50% 
more than in 1997. 
26 
2. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTS 
Life-Third Countries covers two geographical regions: the Mediterranean and the 
Baltic Sea (since 1996 only the Baltic region of Russia, i.e. Kaliningrad and 
Saint Petersburg). 
Since 1996 Life-Third Countries has been covering the non-Community 
countries bordering on the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea, except the countries 
of Central and Eastern Europe which have signed association agreements with 
the European Community. The latter can now take part in Life-Nature and Life-
Environment, as a pre-accession exercise, on the basis of specific agreements 
with these countries. At the time of drafting this report, only Romania had 
completed the procedures necessary for submitting projects under Life as from 
1999. 
The main objective of Life-Third Countries is to support, in countries bordering 
on the Union, technical assistance projects, nature conservation projects and 
demonstration projects to promote sustainable development, in order to promote 
awareness of the need for environmental protection in these countries. 
Life II is different from Life I in two ways: 
• the instrument no longer applies to Poland, Slovenia and the three Baltic 
States which are now associate countries of Central and Eastern Europe; on 
the other hand, since 1996, it includes the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and 
since 1997, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 
• it may cover demonstration projects on sustainable development and nature 
conservation in addition to simple technical assistance, as was the case with 
Life I. 
The following table shows the distribution of Life-Third Countries per country 
between 1992 and 1998: 
Mediterranean Region 
Country 
Albania 
Algeria 
Bosnia 
Cyprus 
Egypt 
Israel 
Jordan 
Lebanon 
Malta 
Morocco 
Palestine 
Syria 
Slovenia 
Tunisia 
Turkey 
Multinational 
Total 1 
Total million ECU 
2.6 
0.66 
0.53 
2.45 
1.15 
1.18 
0.77 
0.97 
1.04 
1.15 
0.68 
1.62 
1.56 
0.75 
3.09 
5.41 
25.5 Baltic Region 
Country 
Estonia 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Russia 
Multinational 
Total 2 million ECU 
0.81 
1.54 
0.14 
0.67 
3.55 
v 
0.77 
7.5 
33 
27 
3. TYPES OF FINANCED PROJECTS 
Since 1996, the framework for eligible actions has included technical assistance, 
nature conservation and demonstration projects. 
"Technical assistance" projects are the largest group of applications received, 
accounting for between 50% and 70%. This can be explained by the fact that 
Life-Third Countries is targeted primarily at national administrations faced with 
the need to define their environmental policies and action plans. The other 
categories of action are less widely represented and concern: 
• for the "Nature" projects, conservation and/or restoration of coastal and 
wetland habitats. 
• for demonstration projects, pilot projects (co-financed for the first time in 
1997) covering a very wide range of fields: waste management and treatment, 
use of bicycles in towns and management of coastal areas. 
3.1 In the field of technical assistance, over the period 1992-1997, Life-Third 
Countries helped to establish ECATs, which are environmental centres for 
administration and technology (in St Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Tirana, etc.) 
which combine the know-how of third countries and the Community and play 
an important catalyst role in developing environmental policies in Central and 
Eastern Europe. 
In synergy with the action of other environmental programmes and 
conventions (HELCOM for the Baltic region), the authorities responsible have 
thus benefited from efficient technical assistance in several fields. Among the 
most important are the following: 
• environmental monitoring, protection of water resources and waste 
water treatment (Latvia), 
• treatment of waste from industrial galvanisation and management of a 
network for the collection and treatment of hospital waste in 
St Petersburg, 
• management of action against sea pollution by hydrocarbons in the 
Baltic Sea (region of St Petersburg). 
3.2 Life-Third Countries has also contributed successfully to Mediterranean 
Action Plan activities by funding projects submitted by some of its regional 
centres. These projects include assistance to national authorities in fields such 
as: 
• action against oil pollution in the territorial waters of Cyprus, Egypt 
and Israel (REMPEC), 
28 
• regional development of environment monitoring activities in the 
Mediterranean and developing specific indicators (Blue Plan), 
• conservation and rational use of wetlands (MED WET). 
3.3 Many projects involving a number of countries from the South and East 
Mediterranean have also been financed under the Mediterranean 
Environmental Technical Assistance Programme (METAP). Examples are: 
• the problem of waste water treatment in the city of Cairo, 
• the creation of a structure to develop methodologies for 
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in Syria, 
• the design of an environmental action plan in Jordania. 
These various initiatives co-financed by Life-Third Countries illustrate the 
fundamental role of this instrument for the Union's neighbours in promoting 
the Community's environmental protection principles. Their active 
participation is a clear sign of interest. 
Life-Third Countries thus helps to interlink the principles and legislation of 
third countries and the European Union, and to transfer Community 
technologies and know-how to these regions. 
29 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 721 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 14 17 01 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-721-EN-C 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
30