COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 12.12.1997 
COM(97) 633 final 
REPORT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7(3) OF 
REGULATION (EC) No 1404/96 
LIFE 
(Presented by the Commission) 

CONTENTS 
SUMMARY ..... 3 
1. INTRODUCTION 4 
1.1 Context of the report 4 
1.2 Description of LIFE 5 
2. LIFE - NATURE 6 
2.1 Projects received and co-financed 6 
2.2 Financial management 8 
2.3 Geographical distribution of projects 8 
2.4 Types of projects co-financed and comments 9 
3. LIFE-ENVIRONMENT 10 
3.1 Projects received and co-financed 10 
3.2 Financial management 11 
3.3 Geographical distribution of projects 12 
3.4 Types of projects co-financed 13 
4. LIFE - THIRD COUNTRIES 14 
4.1 Projects received and co-financed 14 
4.2 Financial management 15 
4.3 Geographical distribution of projects 16 
4.4 Types of projects co-financed and comments 16 
5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 17 
SUMMARY 
This report has been prepared pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Regulation governing LIFE, 
the financial instrument for the environment - Council Regulation1 (EEC) No 1973/92 of 
21 May 1992 modified by Council Regulation2(EC) No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996. It also 
fits in with SEM 2000 (the Sound and Efficient Management initiative). Articles 7(3) and 
14 of the LIFE Regulation require two reports: one to evaluate the reference amount for 
LIFE II and one to make proposals for any adjustments to be made with a view to 
continuing the action beyond the second phase. The Commission has decided to make a 
stage-by-stage evaluation. This first report pursuant to Article 7(3) covers the period 
which has elapsed since LIFE was first implemented. It outlines the next stages in the 
process for evaluating implementation of the Regulation, and considers the relevance of its 
objectives and whether they have been achieved, and whether the ideas behind the scheme 
remain valid. The second report will make proposals for any adjustments to be made with 
a view to continuing the scheme. It will also help to identify future actions. 
This report looks at implementation of the three aspects of LIFE: nature conservation 
(LIFE-Nature), demonstration projects involving industries and local authorities 
(LIFE-Environment), and cooperation with third countries bordering the Mediterranean 
and the Baltic Sea, other than the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which have 
signed association agreements with the European Union (LIFE-Third countries). 
Since 1996 the Commission has been receiving some 900 projects each year. One third of 
these projects are eligible but only half of them can be co-financed with the financial 
resources currently available, which means that LIFE would actually be able to put to 
good use greater resources up to and even beyond the current reference amount of 
ECU 450 million for the period from 1996 to 1999. However, at a time of rigorous 
budget policy, the Commission considers it necessary to propose to the budgetary 
authority a preliminary draft budget requiring no increase in appropriations. As a result, 
the amount requested for LIFE will make it impossible to attain the reference amount 
originally planned for the period as a whole. 
1 OFFICIAL JOURNAL NO. L 206 , 22/07/1992 P. 0001 
FINNISH SPECIAL EDITION ....: T 15 VOLUME 11 P. 108 
SWEDISH SPECIAL EDITION ....: T 15 VOLUME 11 P. 108 
2 Official journal NO. L 181 , 20/07/1996 P. 0001 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Context of the report 
The financial instrument for the environment, LIFE, is governed by Council 
regulation Regulation1 (EEC) No 1973/92 of 21 May 1992 modified by 
Council Regulation2 (EC) No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996 amending Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the 
environment (LIFE). 
Articles 7(3) and 14 of the Regulation stipulate that: 
"On the basis of a report to be forwarded by the Commission before 
30 September 1997 the Council will, before 31 December 1997, examine the 
reference amount with a view possibly to revising it, in accordance with the 
procedures laid down in the Treaty, within the framework of the financial 
perspective and taking in account applications received" (Article 7(3)). 
"No later than 31 December 1998, the Commission shall submit a report to 
the European Parliament and to 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..." (Article 14). 
These two reports are prepared in the context of the Sound and Efficient 
Management (SEM 2000) initiative, which calls for systematic evaluation of 
all Community programmes financing various activities so that the 
implications in terms of resources are known before decisions are taken. For 
the review of LIFE, since the deadlines for the two reports are relatively close 
together the Commission has decided on a stage-by-stage evaluation. 
This document reports on the implementation of LIFE to date, outlines the 
following evaluation stages and gives views on a possible review of the 
reference amount. 
During discussions of the Commission's proposal to continue the LIFE 
scheme with a second phase from 1996 to 1999, the Council and Parliament 
discussed setting a reference amount. 
Parliament argued in favour of a reference amount of ECU 800 million for 
the period from 1996 to 1999, while the Council considered that the current 
. budgetary outlook made it impossible to exceed ECU 450 million. 
However, in view of the environmental requirements addressed by the 
scheme, the Council felt that it should consider a possible review of the 
reference amount at the end of 1997. 
This report therefore goes beyond simply analysing applications received, and 
evaluates the extra financial requirements which could arise in 1998 and 1999 
as a result of the interest shown by Member States in LIFE and the legitimate 
expectations of the public or private bodies proposing projects. 
The report required under Article 14 of the Regulation will draw on the 
results of the detailed appraisal ordered by the Commission from outside 
experts, who will complete their work in June 1998. 
The objective of this detailed appraisal is to evaluate performance with 
implementation of the scheme and how efficiently it has been attaining its 
objectives, while assessing the relevance of its objectives and whether the 
ideas behind the scheme remain valid. It will point the way to any 
adjustments to be made with a view to continuing the scheme in the next 
stage and should help to identify future actions more clearly. 
In particular, it will have to answer the following questions: 
- Has the scheme helped to develop or implement Community environment 
policies and legislation and, if so, how? 
- Has the scheme had a knock-on effect on other Community policies or 
instruments? 
- Has the project selection procedure succeeded in choosing projects fitting 
in well with the criteria in the Regulation? 
- Have the financial resources available been put to appropriate use or 
should the conditions for granting them be changed? 
- What is the potential of the scheme in the medium to long term? 
1.2 Description of LIFE 
1.2.1 The general purpose of LIFE is to help develop and implement 
Community environment policy and legislation (Article 1 of the 
LIFE Regulation) by co-financing specific actions in the eligible 
areas of activity. 
1.2.2 The eligible areas of activity are: 
nature conservation actions (LIFE-Nature) 
demonstration actions involving industries and local 
authorities (LIFE-Environment) 
cooperation with third countries bordering the 
Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea, other than the countries 
of Central and Eastern Europe which have signed 
association agreements with the European Union (LIFE-
Third countries). 
The LIFE Regulation specifies that 92% of the resources shall be 
allocated to actions on Community territory, half of them for 
-5-
nature conservation, 5% for third country actions and 3% for 
accompanying measures. 
1.2.3 Since 1992, LIFE has attracted close to 6 500 proposals for 
projects, of which almost a third were eligible. Approximately 
half of the eligible proposals were granted co-financing totalling 
ECU 542 million. Some 750 projects are in progress. 
1.2.4 Beginning in 1996, three information packages were prepared for 
LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third countries. 
From past experience it was possible to define the scope of the 
instrument more precisely. At the same time, the package and the 
information meetings for potential proposers have helped to 
improve both the technical and financial quality of the projects. 
1.2.5 Applications are evaluated according to the specific nature of the 
area of activities. 
In the case of. LIFE-Nature, with the help of outside scientific 
consultants, the Commission makes an initial selection of 
applications officially acceptable and eligible according to the 
criteria in the Regulation. Then, in the Habitat Committee, it puts 
forward a list of the best projects at Community level for the 
opinion of the Member States. 
In the case of LIFE-Environment, a parallel evaluation procedure 
is conducted in the Member States and by the Commission. 
Bilateral discussions are held to agree on a shortlist of projects 
which are then examined by panels of independent experts. On the 
basis of this three-fold evaluation procedure, the Commission 
submits a list of projects to be funded to the LIFE Management 
Committee, consisting of representatives from the Member States, 
for its opinion. 
In the case of LIFE-Third countries, the evaluation procedure is 
similar to that for LIFE-Environment except that the independent 
experts evaluate all the proposals considered officially eligible by 
the Commission. 
2. LIFE - NATURE 
2.1 Projects received and co-financed 
Between 1992 and 1997, the Commission received 1 308 applications for co-
financing under LIFE-Nature for a total of ECU 1 328 million. The financial 
resources available made it possible to co-finance 299 projects totalling 
ECU 239.5 million. The table below gives a year-by-year breakdown. 
Table N° 1 
1. Number of projects received 
2. Contribution requested (in 
ECU million) 
3. Number of projects eligible 
4. Eligible contribution (in ECU 
million) 
5. Number of projects financed 
6. Financial contribution granted 
(in ECU million) LIFE I 
92 
(EUR 12) 
86 
227 
-. 
-. 
35 
36.9 93 
(EUR 12) 
198 
294 
80 
1863 
22 
20.6 94 
(EUR 12) 
296 
270 
116 
153 
47 
47.7 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 
(The amounts have been rounded off to millions of ECU and account only for 
the proportion co-financed by the Community, generally between 50 and 75% 
of the total cost.) 
Some information on the context in which decisions are taken is required in 
order to interpret these figures: 
• Some projects are the second phase of a project already in progress. 
Others involve several beneficiaries operating in various regions or 
Member States. 
• In 1995, the new information package was tailored to types of action 
specific to nature projects, with applicants being asked to target and plan 
their proposed actions more precisely. In the short term (1995-1996), tliis 
need for greater precision meant that more projects were then ruled 
unacceptable or ineligible. However, 1997 saw a marked improvement in 
the average quality of applications. 
• In 1996, LIFE II introduced much closer linkage with the implementation 
of the Natura 2000 network of sites. Prior entry on the national Natura 
20004 list became compulsory in 1996 for projects connected with these 
3 Including ECU 61 million for one single project. 
4 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna 
and flora 
Official journal NO. L 206 , 22/07/1992 P. 0007 - 0050 
Finnish special edition/ ....: Chapter 15 Volume IIP. 114 
Swedish special edition...: Chapter 15 Volume IIP. 114 
The aim of this Directive shall be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of 
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which 
the Treaty applies(Article 2.1). A coherent European ecological network of special areas of 
conservation shall be set up under the title Natura 2000. This network, composed of sites hosting the 
natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II of the regulation, 
sites. Because of this linkage between LIFE-Nature and the 
implementation of Community legislation, many applications were ruled 
ineligible in 1996 and 1997. It also meant that potential applicants 
refrained from submitting applications concerning sites not yet proposed 
to the Member States. 
• In 1997, projects had to be sent to the Commission before the end of 
January, scarcely three months after the end of the 1996 selection 
procedure, which had been delayed because of the late adoption of the 
LIFE II Regulation. This telescoping of the two rounds had the effect of 
reducing the number of projects submitted. 
• The average contribution per project in 1996 and 1997 was in the order of 
ECU 700 000, with contributions usually ranging from ECU 100 000 to 
ECU 2 000 000. 
2.2 Financial management 
During the period from 1992 to 1997, 100% of the appropriations allocated 
were committed. This high utilisation rate is due to the careful monitoring of 
projects by the Commission. 
Only a third of the projects were co-financed for the amount originally 
requested by the applicant. Instead the Commission examines each proposal 
shortlisted to see which measures could be co-financed by other Community 
funds (EAGGF, ERDF, Cohesion Fund, etc.) or are not essential to the 
success of nature conservation work. 
The principal problems encountered with implementation of the budget have 
been delays in implementation of the project by the recipients and, to a very 
small extent, submission of ineligible expenditure on completion of the 
project. Less than 1% of the commitments have been cancelled. 
2.3 Geographical distribution of projects 
LIFE-Nature is a Community instrument with no provision for fixed 
percentage shares for each Member State. 
It therefore makes little sense to have an annual breakdown of funds by 
Member State. However, an analysis over a longer period is more revealing. 
Certain conclusions can be drawn for the period 1992-1997: 
• LIFE-Nature primarily benefited those regions and Member States 
with the greatest number of natural habitats and species of 
Community interest. This is what was intended. 
shall enable the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be maintained or, where 
appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. 
• Although not its primary purpose, LIFE-Nature helped towards 
Community cohesion. Because of their natural riches, the four Member 
States eligible for Cohesion Fund resources benefited from a level of co-
financing far above the Community average. 
2.4 Types of projects co-financed and comments 
As the scheme has progressed, the type of projects co-financed has changed. 
Since the adoption of LIFE II, there has been more emphasis oh land-
related actions. Generally, LIFE-Nature has made it possible to control 
and manage numerous areas needed to protect habitats and species. 
• LIFE-Nature co-financed many local and national inventories (in 
Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal) by way of preparation for Natura 
2000. This type of action no longer has priority under LIFE II. 
• There were very many bird protection projects. LIFE-Nature co-
financed specific action to conserve 18 of the 23 species of bird threatened 
worldwide which are found in Europe and contributed to the designation 
of dozens of new special protection areas under the Birds Directive. 
• Several projects helped to stabilise or increase the population of 
severely endangered species (Hierro giant lizard, bearded vulture, monk 
seals, etc.). 
• Wetlands have been well represented, and feature in more than a third 
of the projects. This priority reflects Member States' commitment to 
fulfilling their obligations under the Ramsar Convention and the recent 
communication on wetlands. 
• Many of the projects concern agricultural areas, and in many cases 
follow on from agricultural and environmental measures taken under 
Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92. LIFE has made it possible to mobilise 
Community structural appropriations (e.g. for the protection of biotopes in 
Greece). 
• Similarly, many projects have contributed to preparation and 
implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Europe by helping to: 
- prepare inventories of the natural heritage in several Member States and 
regions; 
- prepare plans for managing future sites in Germany, France and the United 
Kingdom using local help; 
- identify management methods and the associated costs for maintaining or 
restoring sites, e.g. moorland; 
- training staff in ecological site management. 
• Most of the beneficiaries of co-financing are national, regional or local 
public bodies, depending on how the Member State is organised. This 
emphasis on public bodies reflects the interest shown by national 
-9-
authorities in this Community instrument for implementing nature 
directives. NGOs are the second direct beneficiaries of LIFE-Nature and 
in many cases are also associated with projects submitted by public bodies, 
either directly or because they have been made responsible for some of the 
proposed actions. 
LIFE-Nature is the only Community financial instrument specifically intended 
for nature conservation. Between 1992 and 1997 demand was therefore very 
high for urgent action which promised no economic benefits in the short term 
but could lead to more sustained activities in the context of other funding 
mechanisms. 
By the end of 1997 several thousand new sites should be on the national lists 
proposed by Member States under the Habitats Directive. This should result 
in a marked increase in the number of LIFE-Nature proposals in 1998 and 
1999. 
LIFE-Nature alone cannot claim to be the appropriate instrument for 
financing the whole of Natura 2000. It is designed solely as a catalyst. The 
only way of making a significant contribution to this Community network is 
to make complementary use of other funding mechanisms. 
LIFE-Nature has made it possible for local operators who often have very 
different interests to begin to work together on specific projects and to raise 
public awareness, an important factor, though often hard to quantify. 
3. LIFE - ENVIRONMENT 
3.1 Projects received and co-financed 
Outside the nature conservation sector, between 1992 and 1997 the 
Commission received 4 815 proposals. Between 1993 and 1997, applications 
were received for financial support totalling ECU 5 600 million from LIFE. 
During the same period, because of financial constraints, LIFE was able to 
co-finance 680 projects (14%) totalling some ECU 272 million (5%). 
The table below gives a year-by-year breakdown: 
-10-
Table N° 2 
1. Number of projects received 
2. Contribution requested (in 
ECU million) 
3. Number of projects eligible 
4. Number of projects short­
listed 
5. Contribution requested for 
short-listed projects (in ECU 
million) 
6. Number of projects financed 
7. Financial contribution granted 
(in ECU million) 
Difference between projects 
short-listed and financed (in 
ECU million) LIFE I 
92 
(EUR 12) 
300 
-
about. 185 
~ 
70 
39.6 93 
(EUR 12) 
1447 
2 012 
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 
2 214 
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 
(The amounts have been rounded off to millions of ECU and account only for 
the proportion co-financed by the Community, generally between 30 and 50% 
of the total cost.) 
• Between 1992 and 1995 many projects submitted did not come within the 
scope of the scheme (structural projects, high-cost projects, study 
projects, etc.). However, after 1996, results were much more consistent. 
• By improving the legal framework (selection criteria) and information 
given to potential applicants, with the help of the Member States, it was 
possible to reduce the number of projects which were officially 
unacceptable or ineligible under the scheme. Because of the increasing 
quality of proposals, both from industry and from local communities, it 
was possible to short-list a large number of projects worth financing. 
• The average contribution in 1996 and 1997 was in the order of 
ECU 400 000, with contributions usually in the ECU 100 000 to 
ECU 1 000 000 range. 
3.2 Financial management 
The percentage utilisation rate of appropriations for commitment for LIFE-
Environment is high (99.93%) because each year the draft budget is 
negotiated with future beneficiaries so as to prevent any over-evaluation of 
projects. 
Because of their innovatory nature, the projects financed by LIFE-
Environment pose certain technical and financial risks. Scaling up industrial 
projects from the laboratory to pilot project scale sometimes leads to a 
-11 -
technological dead-end; similarly, forming local partnerships between local 
authorities, associations and businesses can take longer or prove harder than 
expected. 
> These risks give rise to: 
- delays in implementation of the projects, ranging from a few months in 
three quarters of the cases to over a year for a quarter of the projects; to 
avoid such delays, since 1996 the Commission has been asking applicants 
for more detailed forward planning, defining the timing and budget for 
each task; 
- incomplete or deficient implementation of projects, forcing the 
Commission to reduce its contribution or recoup all or part of the advance 
paid; to date, funds have been recouped from 25 projects; since 1997 these 
amounts are re-used for new projects as far as possible; 
- ten or so projects were cancelled by the beneficiaries themselves before 
work started, due to changes in economic circumstances between 
submission of the proposal and the Commission's decision; 
- finally, fraud was suspected in three projects; the relevant files have been 
passed to the Fraud Prevention Unit (UCLAF). 
Since 1993 the Commission has taken measures to prevent such risks: 
individual decisions, technical monitoring by outside teams and bank 
guarantees required from beneficiaries in the private sector. Moreover, before 
the final payment a technical appraisal is conducted of the results attained by 
each project and spending on the project is audited by independent approved 
auditors, whether the beneficiaries are from the private or public sector. 
3.3 Geographical distribution of projects 
LIFE-Environment makes no provision on the share-out of the amount 
available between Member States. The evaluation procedure is designed to 
select proposals on merit only, under each particular subject heading (waste, 
water, air, etc.). This merit-based evaluation system takes account of the 
state of the environment in each Member State to avoid putting at a 
disadvantage less innovatory projects which may nevertheless set an example 
and have considerable local impact. 
• During the first phase, the main beneficiaries of LIFE were Germany, 
France, Italy and the United Kingdom (each receiving approximately 14%) 
followed by Spain, Greece and the Netherlands (each with some 7%). 
• There is no point giving a geographical breakdown for the first two years 
of the second phase since it would give no indication of the breakdown at 
the end of the second phase. The gap of just six months between the 1996 
and 1997 rounds created cyclical problems for some Member States. Also, 
12-
participation in the scheme by the new Member States must gradually 
settle down. 
3.4 Types of projects co-financed 
The four main types of project covered by LIFE during the period from 1992 
to 1995 were: 
• waste management and clean-up of contaminated sites (36% and 8% of 
funding respectively); 
• promotion of clean technologies ( 14% of funding); 
• methods of detecting pollution and monitoring networks (17% of 
funding); 
• land-use planning and urban problems (21% of funding). 
The remaining 4% of funds were allocated for administrative cooperation 
schemes and environmental awareness campaigns. 
Overall, the level of funding by LIFE in 1996 for industry and local 
authorities remained similar (ECU 18.2 million and ECU 19.7 million 
respectively). On the other hand, the proportions varied considerably by 
Member State. The highest level of funding for industry (clean technologies 
and recycling) was in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy and Greece, while 
funding for local authorities was highest in Spain, Denmark, Sweden and 
Finland. 
In the first group of countries, the majority of LIFE beneficiaries tend to be 
private bodies while in other countries beneficiaries are primarily public 
bodies responsible for land use management schemes involving local 
socio-economic operators. 
Sector-by-sector analysis reveals certain trends: 
• Industry: LIFE has already contributed to promoting clean technologies in 
some industries with a particularly high level of pollution, notably: 
- tanneries (reducing pollution of water by chromium and of air by 
solvents) 
- the paper industry (introducing a closed-circuit water system, 
recovering fibres, using ozone in the recycling of waste paper) 
- surface treatment (solvent- and acid-free cleaning using high-pressure 
jetsofwaterorice) 
- textiles industry (reduction of inked waste in textile printing). 
• Apart from clean technologies, LIFE has encouraged recycling in the 
following sectors: plastics, household appliances (dismantling used 
-13-
refrigerators without emission of pollutants), ceramics and metallurgy 
(recycling of foundry moulding sand). 
Local authorities: the main problems are the management of water 
(improving monitoring systems, detecting micropollutants), waste and air 
quality, although there have been a large number of projects on the 
management of urban areas (traffic management systems, non-polluting 
means of transport) and suburban areas (taking account of agriculture 
when organising suburban land use). 
In 1996 most of the preparatory measures concerned rational management 
of coastal zones, as provided for in the demonstration programme decided 
by the Council. In 1997 few proposals for preparatory measures were 
submitted. 
Because of corresponding activities under other Community programmes 
or schemes, particularly Leader II, LIFE-Environment supported very few 
projects in rural areas, apart from in France and Spain. 
4. LIFE - THIRD COUNTRIES 
Since 1996 LIFE-Third countries covers non-Community countries bordering on the 
Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea, other than the countries* of Central and Eastern 
Europe which have signed association agreements with the European Community, 
which can, however, now participate in LIFE-Nature and LIFE-Environment as a 
pre-accession measure based on specific agreements with the countries in question. 
The main objective of LIFE-Third countries is to support 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 associated Central and Eastern European countries; 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. 
4.1 Projects received and co-financed 
Between 1992 and 1997, the Commission received 371 applications for co-
funding under LIFE-Third countries. Over the same period 80 projects were 
selected for funding totalling almost ECU 30 million. If all the projects 
considered eligible by evaluators had been taken into account more than 
twice this number of projects could have been financed. 
14 
The table below gives a year-by-year breakdown. 
Table No 3 
1. Number of projects 
received 
2. Number of projects eligible 
3. Contribution requested 
(ECU million) 
4. Number of projects 
financed 
5. Financial contribution 
granted (ECU million) Life I 
92 
5.3 93 
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 
(The amounts have been rounded off to millions of ECU and account only for 
the proportion co-financed by the Community, generally between 50 and 
100% of the total cost.) 
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 much greater emphasis was 
placed on technical quality. By the end of the year, only 16 out of 29 projects 
had been funded, with a Community contribution totalling ECU 5.7 million 
(less than 60% of the total amount for eligible projects, which is a very small 
percentage). 
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. 
4.2 Financial management 
The annual utilisation rate for the commitment appropriations allocated to 
LIFE-Third countries is 100%. 
The principal problem with implementation of the budget has been the delays 
in implementation of the projects by the beneficiaries. The causes include 
political instability in some of the countries eligible, administrative and 
procedural difficulties specific to each country (licensing, banking 
procedures, etc.) and weaknesses in the local contributions. 
Since 1995 the Commission has been forced to pull out of two commitments 
totalling ECU 638 000. One concerned a project in Croatia, where the 
Community has suspended its cooperation, the other a scheme in Albania, at 
the request of the Ministry concerned. 
15 
4.3 Geographical distribution of projects 
LIFE-Third countries covers two geographical regions: the Mediterranean 
(15 countries and territories) and the Baltic Sea (since 1996 only the Baltic 
region of Russia, i.e. Kaliningrad and St Petersburg). 
Up until 1995, approximately 65% of the funding for LIFE-Third countries 
went to Mediterranean countries and 35% to the Baltic region. As regards 
LIFE H, a total of 29 projects have been fijnded, five of them in Baltic 
Russia, sharing a total of ECU 1 934 000. 
4.4 Types of projects co-financed and comments 
Since 1996 the types of activities eligible have been defined more clearly: 
technical assistance, nature conservation and demonstration activities. 
"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 on national administrations 
wishing to define their environment policies and action programmes. 
Most of the "nature" projects are concerned with conservation and/or 
establishment of coastal or wetland habitats. 
The pilot projects, first co-funded in 1997, cover a very wide range of fields: 
waste management and treatment, use of bicycles in towns and management 
of coastal areas. 
Between 1992 and 1997 LIFE-Third countries has helped to establish 
ECATs, environmental centres for administration and technology (in St 
Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Tirana, etc.), which combine the know-how of third 
countries and the Community in developing environmental policies in Central 
and Eastern Europe. LIFE-Third countries has also contributed successfully 
to Mediterranean Action Plan activities by funding projects submitted by 
some of its regional centres (Rempec, Blue Plan). Many projects involving 
several countries from the South and the East Mediterranean have also been 
financed under the Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance 
Programme. 
The statistics are encouraging but LIFE-Third countries is much more 
important than mere statistics. The instrument plays an essential role in 
promoting awareness of environmental protection in the third countries 
neighbouring the European Union. Indeed, their response and active 
participation is an obvious sign of interest. In 1996, the scheme was opened 
up to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip where four projects were accepted 
and one project financed in the very first year. In 1997 the programme was 
extended to Bosnia and Herzegovina where 10 projects were considered 
acceptable. 
Since it also disseminates and applies results of Community interest (e.g. the 
polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle) and concentrates 
-16-
primarily on technical assistance, LIFE-Third countries is an instrument for 
bringing the environmental principles and legislation of third countries- closer 
into line with those of the European Union and for transferring Community 
technology and know-how to these regions. 
5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 
The Commission has launched the important process of evaluating LIFE, the 
financial instrument for the environment. The first part of the exercise has been 
carried out by the Commission and resulted in this report. Evaluation is of crucial 
importance given the increasingly difficult budget situation. A full evaluation will be 
available during the second half of 1998. 
The Commission, in its preliminary draft budget for 1998, proposed an increase of 
6.8 MECU, compared to 1997, to the annual budget for LIFE. This gives a total 
budget of 101.3 MECU. However, this is below the 121.8 MECU originally 
envisaged for 1998. Given the budgetary discipline applied, the amounts available to 
LIFE in appropriations for commitment during the period from 1996 to 1999 will not 
reach the ECU 450 million specified as a reference amount in the Regulation. 
LIFE has now reached a certain level of maturity. Each year it attracts an average of 
around 900 project proposals (see Table 4 below), one third of which could be 
considered valid, in other words formally eligible and worthwhile (included on the 
short list). Of these 300 or so projects, allowing Community funding of 180 MECU, 
only about half are accepted for co-financing. In order to finance all the valid 
projects, the financial resources currently available would have to be more than 
doubled. 
Table No 4 
Annual averages for LIFE II ( 1996 to 1997) 
Projects received 867 
Projects considered valid 321 
Cost of valid projects (in ECU million) 180 
Projects co-financed 184 
Community contribution (in ECU million) 91 
This means that LIFE, the financial instrument for the environment, would actually 
be able to use greater resources up to and even beyond the current reference amount 
of ECU 450 million for the period from 1996 to 1999. However, in the current 
public finance situation in Europe, the Commission considers it necessary to submit a 
preliminary draft budget permitting virtually no increase in total appropriations over 
the previous year: As such, the reference amount for LIFE will not be possible to 
attain. 
17 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 633 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 09 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-665-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-28412-2 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
It