EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.11.2017 SWD(2017) 355 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT MID-TERM EVALUATION Accompanying the document Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)

{COM(2017) 642 final}

{SWD(2017) 356 final}



The scope of the evaluation encompasses all actions and operations financed under the LIFE programme, and in particular (for further details see section 2.3): ­traditional action grants ­integrated projects ­technical assistance projects ­capacity-building projects ­preparatory projects ­operating grants for non-profit making organisations ­operations through financial instruments (Natural Capital Financing Facility and Private Finance for Energy Efficiency) ­public procurement for support activities. This mid-term evaluation has been undertaken at an early stage of the programme’s implementation: most projects have not started yet, and few projects have been completed (the average duration of a LIFE project is 4 to 5 years). As a consequence, the mid-term evaluation has focused mainly on the processes put in place (launch of calls, signing of contracts, funding of projects, etc.) to reach the programme’s objectives. Where relevant, the evaluation has looked at their expected results and anticipated long-term effects more than the results and long-term effects achieved (since they have not yet had time to achieve their objectives). In addition, where appropriate, the results of the (earlier) LIFE+ projects are used to support and inform the evaluation's findings. However, with more than half of the LIFE+ projects underway, a full analysis of the long-term effect of LIFE, as required by the LIFE Regulation, is premature at this stage. This evaluation builds on the ‘External and independent LIFE mid-term evaluation report’, (the ‘external study’) carried out by independent contractors. Together, the external study and the mid-term evaluation respond to Article 27 of the LIFE Regulation which requires the Commission to submit an external and independent mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme to the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. 2. Background of the initiative Major environmental and climate challenges have significant consequences for the EU’s environment and economy if left unaddressed. The 7th environmental action plan provides the framework for EU action and identifies three key objectives: 1.protect, preserve and improve the EU’s natural capital; 2.turn the EU into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy; 3.safeguard the EU public from environment-related pressures and risks to health and wellbeing;

It also identifies four ‘enablers’: 1.better implementation of legislation, 2.better information by improving the knowledge base, 3.more and wiser investment for environment and climate policy, 4.full incorporation of environmental requirements and considerations into other policies. 2.1. The LIFE programme’s objectives Within this policy framework, the LIFE Regulation establishes the EU’s instrument to fund environmental, nature conservation, and climate action projects throughout the EU. Its general aims (contained in Article 3) are to: 1.help move towards a resource-efficient, low carbon and climate resilient economy, improve the quality of the environment and halt and reverse biodiversity loss; 2.improve the development, implementation and enforcement of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation, and act as a catalyst for, and promote, the mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives into other policies and practices; 3.support better environmental and climate governance at all levels, including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors; 4.support the implementation of the 7th environmental action plan. In this context LIFE provides support to an extremely wide range of stakeholders. They range from the private sector (a lead player in production processes) to public institutions (primarily responsible for legislation and governance), civil society organisations (which carry out awareness-raising and environmental protection activities) and the general public (which benefits from environmental goods). 2.2. Problems that LIFE intends to solve According to its ex ante impact assessment, the role of the LIFE programme is to focus on specific problems linked to institutional barriers such as: ­uneven and inadequate implementation of legislation in Member States; ­uneven inclusion of environment and climate concerns in other policies and Member States’ practices; ­inadequate level of awareness of and sharing of information on environmental and climate change goals; and ­limited support to eco-innovation. Because of its limited size, the LIFE programme is not meant to solve environmental and climate problems. Rather, it is meant to act as a catalyst for developing and exchanging best practices and knowledge. The programme’s role is also to build up and improve capacity, speed up the implementation of EU legislation, and help private players, in particular businesses, to test small-scale technologies and solutions.

2.3. The structure of the LIFE programme The LIFE Regulation replaced the LIFE+ programme, which covered the years 2007-2013. LIFE+: the results of the evaluation LIFE+ had a budget of EUR 2.1 billion, divided into three components: nature and biodiversity, environmental policy and governance, and information and communication. They were used to finance action and operating grants and procurement contracts for the development and implementation of environmental legislation. The EU provided EUR 1.7 million in funding for grant projects under LIFE+. It mobilised more than EUR 1.8 million in non-EU funding from other private or public sources. Several independent evaluations found that, in general, the LIFE+ programme was a successful instrument to implement Union environmental policy and legislation, and had significant added value. However, the following weaknesses were identified: 0.There needs to be a more strategic focus. Given that a minimum of 78 % of the LIFE+ budgetary resources were devoted to action grants, the possibility of addressing Union environmental and climate policy issues depended on the quality and quantity of the applications received (a ‘bottom-up’ approach based on demand for action grant projects). 1.The application process and reporting obligations need to be simplified, as underlined by stakeholders. 2.The objectives of certain strands need to be better defined. This is especially the case with environmental policy and governance and information and communication. There also needs to be more focus on implementing and creating multipliers to improve the utilisation of project results and the transfer of know-how. 3.There needs to be more complementarity and synergies with other EU Funds. The new features introduced in the LIFE programme After analysing options in the impact assessment and consulting stakeholders, the Commission included some changes in the new LIFE Regulation compared to the previous LIFE+ programme. These are summarised in Figure 1 below. The main features introduced in the new LIFE Regulation are: 1.a change in the overall objectives, with two additional objectives clarifying the general purpose of the LIFE programme (see objective 1 of the LIFE programme), the importance of environmental and climate governance with the involvement of all stakeholders (see objective 3 of the LIFE programme), and the role of the LIFE programme in the enforcement of environmental and climate policy and legislation (see objective 2 of the LIFE programme in comparison with objective 2 of LIFE+). 2.two sub-programmes, one for environment (under the responsibility of the Directorate-General for Environment with a budget of EUR 2.59 billion) and one for climate action (under the responsibility of the Directorate-General for Climate Action with a budget of EUR 0.86 billion). The creation of a sub-programme for climate action upgraded the former thematic strand ‘climate change’, which showed a percentage of projects of around 14 %. Given that the Commission intended to increase the climate-related proportion of the Union budget to at least 20 % for all policies, it was decided that the allocation under the LIFE programme would be 75:25 between the sub-programme for environment and the sub-programme for climate action. Figure 1. Structure of the LIFE and LIFE+ programmes Source: Based on the LIFE and LIFE+ Regulations 3.two multiannual work programmes (MAWP), which detail the allocation of resources between types of funding, the selection process and specific eligibility and award criteria for grants, and the progamme’s output and outcome indicators. The first MAWP covers 2014-2017. The second multiannual work programme covering 2018-2020 is expected to be adopted in 2017.

4.six ‘priority areas’ — environment and resource efficiency; nature and biodiversity; environment governance and information; climate mitigation; climate adaptation and climate governance and information — replace the three LIFE+ ‘components’ — environmental policy and governance; nature and biodiversity; and information and communication. 5.an overall budget increase from EUR 2.1 billion (for LIFE+ 2007-2013) to EUR 3.4 billion (for the LIFE programme 2014-2020). 6.a shift from a pure bottom-up approach with the grants driven only by demand, to a flexible bottom-up approach designed to better steer demand, with thematic priorities and specific project topics defined for the environment sub-programme. 7.a minimum 81 % of the overall LIFE budget is dedicated to action grant projects, which are awarded funding following an annual call for proposals, and to operations financed through financial instruments. Projects and operations through financial instruments continue to depend on the quantity and quality of the applications received. The definition of priorities is expected to improve the programme’s strategic focus. Table 1. Planned allocation of the financial resources by sub-programme and type of activities Source: MAWP 2014-2017 8.A more structured approach to funding consisting of: a.traditional projects: these are action grant projects to test a new potential best-practice or to demonstrate a technique or a method that has not been applied or tested before or to support communication, dissemination of information and awareness-raising. They must include activities to ensure the project’s sustainability and/or replicability. Box 1. Example of a LIFE traditional project on nature and biodiversity LIFE EUROTURTLES — Collective actions to improve the conservation status of the EU sea turtle populations (LIFE15 NAT/HR/000997) EU contribution: €3 793 167.00 Coordinating beneficiary: Croatian Natural History Museum (research institution) Thematic priorities: Nature conservation External link: http://www.euroturtles.eu/ This project focuses on the conservation of two priority sea turtle species, the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Several important cross-country measures are planned to reduce the impact of anthropogenic threats at nesting sites and fishery-related threats in foraging grounds. These include the extension of marine Natura 2000 network sites in Croatia and Italy to include current turtle ‘hot-spot’ areas, and the improvement of turtle management in Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Slovenia. The project is expected to protect more than 700 nesting sites annually and, by working with the fishing industry, reduce turtle by-catch and ensure that more than 2 000 turtles accidentally caught in fishing nets are saved from death. It will also establish an EU network for sea turtle conservation based on common objectives and methods. b.integrated projects — new type of intervention introduced by the LIFE Regulation: these are action grant projects that act as a catalyst to implement environmental or climate plans or strategies on a large territorial scale. These plans and strategies are required by specific EU environmental or climate legislation, established pursuant to other EU acts or developed by Member State authorities. Under the sub-programme for environment, they focus on the implementation of specific directives related to nature, water, waste, and air. Under the sub-programme for climate action, they address climate mitigation and climate adaptation. They must involve multiple stakeholders and leverage complementary financing by including climate and environment objectives into other policy areas. They are awarded funding following a two-step procedure. c.technical assistance projects (new type of project): these provide, by way of action grants, financial support to help applicants prepare integrated project applications, and in particular to ensure that those projects comply with the timing, technical and financial requirements of the LIFE programme in coordination with other EU, national, regional or private funds. d.capacity-building projects (new type of project): these provide, by way of action grants, funding for selected Member States to improve their capacity to participate more effectively in the LIFE programme. According to the eligibility criteria in the LIFE Regulation, 15 Member States are eligible to receive such funds under the first MAWP. e.preparatory projects (new type of intervention): these are identified by the Commission in cooperation with Member States to support specific needs related to the development and implementation of EU environmental or climate policy and legislation. Such projects implement environmental priorities defined each year. Member States are consulted and their comments taken on board as appropriate. f.operations funded by financial instruments (new types of projects): implemented by the European Investment Bank, these instruments fund projects in energy efficiency and natural capital. g.operating grants: these help to finance the operations of NGOs working on environmental and climate issues at European level. The aim of the funding is to enable NGOs to participate more in environmental/climate policy-making and implementation. h.Commission procurement and support activities. Through the procurement activities, the Commission finances:

­ the preparation and/or development of environmental and climate action policies and related legislation (such as the definition of the circular economy package); ­ technical assistance to Member States for the implementation and enforcement of environmental and climate action policies and related legislation (i.e. peer reviews, joint inspections, definition of national plans, etc.); ­ support for the EU’s role in international fora (e.g. preparatory work for the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, COP21); ­ other activities for environmental and climate action policies and related legislation (e.g. communication, IT, etc.). 9.A phasing-out of the national allocation system. National allocations defining the distribution of funds among Member States for all projects — other than integrated projects — under the sub-programme for environment are included in the LIFE Regulation. They are determined on the basis of solidarity and responsibility-sharing, taking into account the population and natural resources expressed in terms of Natura 2000 sites within a Member State. The final evaluation of the LIFE+ programme showed that: a)national allocations did not lead to a significantly more balanced distribution of projects across the EU; b)where progress was made in some countries, it was through the efforts of the national contact points. c)the EU added value was somewhat compromised by the system of national allocations leading to compromises in the quality of projects financed. According to the LIFE Regulation, this system of a geographical distribution of project funds is applied under the first MAWP 2014-2017 and will no longer be applied in the 2018-2020 MAWP. 2.4. The intervention logic The intervention logic for LIFE 2014-2020 is summarised in Figure 2, for the four key objectives of the LIFE programme, and for the two sub-programmes with their respective priority areas, activities, and intermediate and final expected results. Figure 2 — Intervention Logic Diagram — The LIFE programme 2014-2017 A minimum of 81 % of the resources devoted to activities is driven by demand, which is steered through the MAWP and annual calls. Taking into account the actual environmental external factors, environmental and climate issues cannot be solved without a change in the mentality and behaviour of producers and consumers. This change cannot occur through a top-down approach. It requires the active participation and involvement of the stakeholders. This makes it difficult to predict in advance which activities will provide the intermediate and expected results. This is why a specific monitoring system was put in place to measure each project’s contribution to the specific objectives of the priority areas (see box 2 below for more information). At this stage, the LIFE programme is implementing the different activities planned (action and operating grants, procurement, operations funded by financial instruments). The programme’s intermediate results (see Figure 2) are only expected to begin materialising in 2019 - 2020 when the first projects are completed. 3. Method

This mid-term evaluation is designed to answer the evaluation questions (referred to below in paragraph 5 as Q.1 to Q.16) in the Roadmap. It is largely based on the external study by an independent consultant (study required by the LIFE Regulation). The results of the external study were complemented, where necessary, with background information on the state of play from the Commission’s databases that support the programme’s management. The external study was conducted between March 2016 and January 2017. It relied on: ­qualitative assessment tools, including desk research based on available documents, interviews, stakeholder surveys and a public consultation which ran for 12 weeks; and ­quantitative assessment tools (based on the indicator database and the LIFE projects database, which mostly include LIFE+ projects) and the data processing tools designed to manage the LIFE proposals and projects. The desk research consisted of a review of a certain number of thematic strategic documents and reports, legislative texts and related accompanying documents, and included impact and cost-benefit analyses. It was used as the basis for structuring the external study, informing its different parts. The external study focused its analysis on those activities that consumed the largest portion of the budget, i.e. on action grants, and particularly traditional and integrated projects which represent 71 % of the available financial resources (see Figure 3 for additional details). Various complementary consultation activities were conducted as part of the external study, including a public consultation and five specific surveys and over 150 interviews of the key stakeholder groups. Table 2: Number of interviews and answers to the surveys and public consultation In addition to the consultation activities carried out during the external study, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions provided an opinion on the LIFE programme, which has been taken into consideration. The aim of the consultations was to gather information on the programme’s perceived relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value and sustainability. Analysis of the qualitative assessment tools was complemented with data from the monitoring system (see Box 2) to estimate the expected project results. Box 2 — Monitoring system: how it works The LIFE monitoring system started in the final year of LIFE+ and was continued and improved to respond to the requirements of the new LIFE regulation. It is based on the following: ­the outcome indicators and 2017 targets for each thematic priority identified in the MAWP for 2014-2017; ­a system to catch, at project level, the qualitative and quantitative outcomes measured on the basis of a comprehensive list of indicators and related parameters that correspond to each thematic priority. For example, the MAWP includes the following list of qualitative/quantitative outcomes and targets for water: The data in the indicators database are based on a pre-defined list of environment and climate action output and outcome indicators, descriptors, and related measuring units, which are aimed at making the results comparable. Every applicant is required to describe the measurable effects of his/her project (descriptors), and, where mandatory, identify the related values. The applicant is encouraged to provide descriptors and, where available, also estimate values for indicators of complementary effects of his/her project. For example, a project on ‘Water’ will need to provide values for one of the water-related indicators. If the project focuses on ‘Point source pollution’, the applicant will have to choose at least one pollutant (e.g. zinc and its compounds) as a ‘descriptor’ and provide related values which are expected to be measured at the outset, at the end, and 3 or 5 years after the end of the project with the corresponding measuring units. The applicant will also have to choose from the related drop down list the targeted source(s) of this pollutant and the key type(s) of measures envisaged. The applicant can also provide complementary data, e.g. on the project’s effects on an endangered species affected by the point source pollution. In the application phase, the values are estimates. On the basis of actual measurements, the baseline values and possibly also the estimates for the end and beyond the project are revised during the first 18 months of the project. The external monitoring experts validate the revised data. At the time of the evaluation, the LIFE indicators database contained records of 1 123 on-going and completed projects, of which 143 are projects from the current programme with validated data. Most of the projects providing data were financed under LIFE+. Additional quantitative data have also been sourced from two databases used by the Commission for the technical and financial management of the applications and LIFE projects and a third public online database of LIFE projects designed for public consultation. Limitations This mid-term evaluation is required at a very early stage of the programme cycle. It is therefore too soon to provide any actual results of the LIFE programme. This is because: ­Available data relate to the 2014 and 2015 calls for proposals and their selected projects. Most LIFE-funded projects are still in progress (98 % of the grants awarded since 2014).

­The financial instruments started very recently (in 2015) and are in a pilot phase. Moreover, for the Nature Capital Financing Facility (NCFF), two potential beneficiaries could not be interviewed for reasons of confidentiality. The following mitigation measures have been used to provide additional information for this mid-term evaluation: ­Data from the indicator database were validated for the anticipated results of the projects from the 2014 call for proposals. These data have been used to estimate the programme’s potential effectiveness and efficiency. ­LIFE traditional projects represent a continuation of the LIFE+ traditional projects. Information on the implementation of LIFE+ 2007-2013 projects from the indicators database has therefore been used to perform comparisons to confirm/contradict the anticipated results of the 2014 projects. This was done, in particular, for the data on job creation and project sustainability. ­The results of each evaluation question (e.g. desk research, qualitative findings based on the consultation process and quantitative findings) were compared to cross-validate findings and capture different aspects of a specific issue. ­Where not all data were available for indicators, statistical extrapolations have been made. - For the NCFF, given that there are no comparable measures in the former LIFE + programme and it was not possible to have contact with perspective beneficiaries because the negotiations were on-going, some interviews were conducted with European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Commission staff. Moreover, literature on similar financial instruments and the experience of other institutions (such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EBRD) were reviewed. 4. Implementation — state of play The following sections mention the state of implementation of the programme’s key activities. They are based on data extracted from the Commission’s electronic financial system (ABAC) and from the databases on proposals received and projects awarded funding. How have the LIFE funds been used? Table 4 shows the overall commitment rate for 2014, 2015 and 2016: Table 3. LIFE commitment rate — years 2014-2016 Source: Commission’s financial system The activities that have consumed a significant portion of the budget are traditional and integrated projects, followed by procurement and administrative support and financial instruments. The budget amounts dedicated to action grant projects and financial instrument operations observe the 81 % ceiling in the Regulation. Figure 3 — LIFE 2014-2015 — distribution of the funds Source: Commission’s financial system 4.1. Grants

The following figure shows the number of action grants financed in 2014 and 2015 per type of project and includes the operating grants to NGOs. Figure 4 — Number of projects financed (years 2014-2015) Source: Commission’s database on projects While the average EU contribution per project is EUR 1.5 million, the size of LIFE projects granted under LIFE range from EUR 48 000 for the smallest technical assistance project to EUR 13.4 million for the largest integrated project. Given the prevalence of traditional projects, the following analysis focuses on these. Traditional projects Taking into account the available funds across all the priority areas, the demand for traditional projects appears to be extremely high. Figure 5 shows the number of proposals received per priority area in 2014 and 2015 and the numbers of grants awarded. The average ratio between proposals submitted and projects awarded is 9 to 1, ranging from 12 to 1 for the priority area environmental governance and information to 5 to 1 for climate change mitigation. Figure 5 — Traditional projects awarded funding out of the total proposals received (priority area, 2014 and 2015 data) Source: Commission’s project database Figure 6 — Amount of traditional projects awarded out of total eligible proposals (per priority area, 2014 and 2015 data) Source: Commission’s project database a. Who are the LIFE beneficiaries?

Grants are awarded to a wide range of different organisations: from small to large businesses (44 % in total, out of which 33 % are small medium enterprises), to private non-commercial organisations (24 %), and public bodies (32 %), as can be seen in the figure below. Figure 7 — Legal status of the beneficiaries: data on 2014-2015 traditional projects Source: Commission’s financial system LIFE project beneficiaries must co-finance the project awarded EU funding. Data on this co-financing show that total EU financing under LIFE of about EUR 438 million mobilised an additional EUR 329 million in external co-financing (43 % of the total project cost — see Table 4 below). Data per priority area show that the percentage of co-financing ranges from 37 % for nature and biodiversity projects to 49 % for projects under the priority areas climate change mitigation and the environment and resource efficiency. The maximum threshold for the EU co-financing rate in the LIFE programme is 60 % of the eligible costs for all projects for the duration of the first multiannual work programme (MAWP 2014-2017) However the co-financing rate is lower if compared with other similar EU programmes, such as Horizon 2020, societal challenges 5, where the co-financing rate is up to 70% and for some actions can reach 100%. Table 4 — Non-EU funds mobilised by traditional projects per priority area: data on 2014-2015 traditional projects Source: Commission’s financial system b. How are the priorities defined? The calls for proposals include specific priorities which are defined differently in the environment and climate action sub-programmes: ­In the environment sub-programme, specific project topics which implement each thematic priority included in Annex 3 of the LIFE Regulation are defined in the MAWP and cannot be modified over its entire duration. The thematic distribution of projects awarded funding under the sub-programme for environment shows a certain concentration on some thematic priorities and project topics. Based on the classification of projects per thematic area, the highest thematic concentration of grants awarded is for resource efficiency projects implementing the circular economy (23 %) and for nature and biodiversity projects to protect habitats and species in Natura 2000 sites (38 %). Although the number of projects financed during the first two years is rather limited, it is relevant that one thematic priority ‘industrial accidents’ and about 30 % of the project topics across all the priority areas have not yet been targeted by a successful project. ­In the climate action sub-programme, the Commission specifies non-binding key priorities in the yearly call for proposals. For instance, the distribution of the projects awarded funding in 2014 under the sub-programme for climate action shows a concentration on priority sectors related to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), energy and industries. Other priority sectors concern urban adaptation and planning and adaptation in agriculture, forestry and tourism. In 2016, new key priorities in the call for proposals triggered a number of proposals on climate strategies, fluorinated gases and urban adaptation. Such proposals are important given the recent Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. c. How are traditional projects selected? The eligibility and award criteria applied to select the traditional projects are the result of the programme’s 25 years of experience: To be eligible to receive LIFE funds, the proposed initiative needs either to propose an innovation (which is the case of the pilot, demonstrationand best practices projects) or address shortcomings in communicating the environmental/climate impacts that could hamper an efficient utilisation of resources (information, awareness-raising and dissemination projects).

The merit of an eligible proposal is determined by taking into account the technical and financial coherence of the proposed action and the extent to which it contributes to the specific objectives. In addition, a proposal will score higher if it can demonstrate a specific EU added value and a catalyst effect by: ­ ‘improving integration of specific environmental objectives in other policy area’ (mainstreaming); ­ ‘including a specific strategy aimed at replicating or transferring the projects’ solutions and mobilise a wider uptake’ (replicability and transferability); ­ ‘being transnational and/or ensuring an extensive application of green procurement concepts’; ­ ‘planning to take up the results of environmental and climate-related research and innovation projects financed by Horizon 2020 or by previous framework programmes’. A proposal under the environment sub-programme will also receive additional points if it addresses any priority project topics included in the MAWP. These criteria are aimed to ensure that the programme is strategically focused because they allow selecting well-conceived projects, with a high demonstrated potential in terms of EU added value and catalytic effect. Integrated projects The integrated projects are a new feature introduced by the LIFE Regulation. The LIFE Regulation states that a maximum of 30 % of the budgetary resources allocated to action grants may go to integrated projects with an indicative allocation of three integrated projects per Member State. Figure 8. Integrated projects awarded funding out of the total proposals and concepts notes received (Years 2014 -2015) Source: Commission’s database on proposals Taking into account their complexity, the integrated projects have been introduced gradually since 2014 under the environment sub-programme (nature and environment projects) and since 2015 under the climate action sub-programme (mitigation and adaptation projects). Their introduction has been accompanied by technical assistance projects to help potential applicants of integrated projects improve their capacity to plan and manage. According to the LIFE Multi-Annual Work Programme, the 30 % ceiling is expected to be attained in 2017 and to remain stable in 2018-2020 in view of reaching the indicative allocation of three integrated projects per Member State. The demand for funding integrated projects has exceeded available resources from the very beginning, as can be seen from the figure below, in all the steps of the award process. Fifteen integrated projects were selected in 2014-2015: ­Six are supporting the implementation of prioritised action frameworks developed in Belgium, Finland, Italy, Germany and Spain, pursuant to Article 8 of the Habitats Directive, ­Four are implementing river basin management plans developed in Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Belgium pursuant to the Water Framework Directive, ­Two in Italy and Poland (see Box 3) are aimed at implementing and monitoring air quality plans as defined by Directive 2008/50/EC with the ultimate goal of contributing to the national air pollution reduction programmes,

­One in Finland is implementing waste management plans and a waste prevention programme as required by the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98, ­One in Denmark supports the implementation of 21 municipal climate change adaptation (CCA) plans and ­One in Germany aims to better structure and optimise the implementation of the country’s climate action programme 2020 and the climate protection plan 2050. Box 3. Example of an integrated project Implementation of an air quality plan for the Małopolska Region — Małopolska in a healthy atmosphere (LIFE14 IPE/PL/000021) EU contribution: 9 914 871.00 € Coordinating beneficiary: Małopolska Region (public local authority) Thematic priority: Air quality External link: http://powietrze.malopolska.pl/en/life-ip/ The purpose of this project is to implement an air quality plan in the province of Małopolska in Poland, and regional and local air quality policies in the province of Silesia, and adjacent regions in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Specific aims include improving regional cooperation in these air pollution hotspots, removing barriers to the mobilisation of funding to replace obsolete coal boilers, building local capacity (through ‘eco-managers’ and a centre of excellence) and raise awareness about how to improve air quality. The province of Małopolska struggles with very poor air quality, particularly during the winter season. Along with Silesia and nearby regions in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, it is one of the most polluted regions in the EU. The major source of air pollution in Małopolska is low-stack emissions (combustion of solid fuels in obsolete household boilers). At the national level, the anti-smog law passed in October 2015 allows local governments to adopt their own local air quality regulations, and set parameters for the stoves allowed to be used in particular areas and for the fuels used (including coal). The fundamental barrier at the local level to the effective implementation of Małopolska’s air quality plan is a lack of human resources, organisational capacities and necessary know-how in the municipality. Barriers at the regional level to the effective implementation of Małopolska’s air quality plan include insufficient financial resources to eliminate low-stack emissions in individual houses and to make energy-efficiency improvements in buildings. In addition to the budget for the integrated project itself, the project will facilitate the coordinated use of EUR 799 million in complementary funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Polish National and Regional Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, and other national and private funds, as applicable. The proposals received for integrated projects for 2014 and 2015 represent a combined total of LIFE and non-LIFE co-financing of EUR 283 million. This co-financing should facilitate the coordinated use of about EUR 3.6 billion in total, as shown in table below. Table 5 — Integrated projects 2014 and 2015: financial resources Source: Commission’s database on projects Other projects In 2014 and 2015, the Commission financed 14 capacity-building projects to help countries less successful in obtaining grants under the LIFE programme. These projects are now being implemented. They cover all the Member States with lower uptake, except one which did not submit any proposal. It is expected that, once completed, the projects will help improve the quality and the quantity of applications from these Member States. Technical assistance projects provide financial support to help applicants prepare integrated projects. Seven projects were financed in 2014-2015, two of which under the sub-programme for climate action. Three have already led to the successful submission of an integrated project. Preparatory projects address specific needs for the development and implementation of EU environmental or climate policy and legislation. For climate action, one preparatory project has been funded on the reporting of emissions and removals from land use. Under the environment sub-programme, five projects were funded in 2014 - 2015 on different topics of Commission interest. These include the online bird portals data collection for displaying near-real-time bird distribution across Europe and the financing of young volunteers doing nature protection and climate adaptation activities (European Voluntary Corps — environment strand). Novelties introduced in grant management The LIFE Regulation introduced two main changes in grant management: 1.The transfer of the management of the bulk of grants to the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) Following a cost-benefit analysis, the Commission entrusted EASME with the management of the operating grants, the traditional and the capacity-building projects under the two sub-programmes and the integrated and the technical assistance projects under the climate action sub-programme. The Directorate-General for Environment implements directly the integrated, the technical assistance and the preparatory projects under the environment sub-programme as well as the ongoing LIFE+ projects. The Directorate-General for Climate Action manages the preparatory projects under the climate action sub-programme. 2.The introduction of a system to monitor project outcome and impact on the environment, climate change, and societal and economic issues. To assess impact, a comprehensive set of quantitative and, where possible, qualitative indicators with related milestones, was included in the LIFE MAWP for 2014 – 2017. A system to monitor these indicators has been developed and implemented at project level so that the programme’s performance can be evaluated in an objective manner: Box 2 above describes how it works. The expected environment and/or climate impact of a project’s results is therefore assessed during the project selection phase. Specific award criteria are applied for this, and there is a minimum pass score. As a consequence, projects which are not expected to provide an adequate impact cannot be awarded a grant. A specialised monitoring team validates the expected impact and then continuously checks this during the project’s implementation and after it ends.

4.2. Financial Instruments Two pilot financial instruments have been introduced to test innovative approaches: - the Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE) supports investments to implement Member States’ energy efficiency action plans through financial intermediaries; - the Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) is designed to demonstrate that natural capital projects can generate revenues or save costs. It intends to establish a pipeline of replicable, bankable operations that will serve as a ‘proof of concept’ and demonstrate to potential investors that such operations directly addressing biodiversity and climate adaptation objectives are attractive. Following an ex ante assessment analysing the potential demand and defining the best possible conditions for its financing, the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) developed and signed specific delegation agreements. Subsequently, in the case of the PF4EE, the EIB has started to make agreements with financial intermediaries, which have then to develop their own portfolio to provide loans for energy efficiency investments. At the outset of PF4EE, the EIB expected there would be support for up to EUR 540 million in total investment. However, on the basis of the six agreements signed since 2015 with local intermediary banks and in view of the pipeline, the EIB now expects EUR 1 billion in investments in energy efficiency (EUR 430 million from EIB and EUR 570 million from financial intermediaries) in 10 Member States. There appears to be a high demand for this type of loan. The other instrument, NCFF, supports the financing of loans and equity for investments in natural capital that help to achieve biodiversity and/or climate change adaptation objectives. The aim is to develop a pipeline of projects that encourages greater uptake of such investments in the market. Since the launch of the instruments in February 2015, the EIB has scrutinised a significant number of potential operations. The first operation was signed in April 2017, and two or three further operations are expected for the remainder of 2017. However, many potential operations that were scrutinised did not materialise, in particular because of the difficulty of developing the business case. This confirms the challenges identified in the ex-ante assessment. Greater use of the NCFF support facility to develop more operations is planned for example, for promoting urban adaptation projects. The recommendation to look into how grants can be used in combination with other type of financing tools to make certain operations more viable 5. Answers to the evaluation questions At this early stage of the programme’s implementation, it is obviously too soon to present actual results. Therefore, the answers to all the evaluation questions take into account, where appropriate, the activities being implemented, their expected outcomes, the processes in place, the initial findings and/or the results of the stakeholder consultation. The answer to each evaluation question is provided below under the respective evaluation criterion. To make it easier to read, the questions are numbered and a summary is presented at the end of each answer. 5.1. Effectiveness Q.1. What are the outcomes likely to be achieved under LIFE 2014-2020 LIFE is implemented through two multiannual work programmes (MAWP) covering 2014-2017 and 2018-2020 respectively. The first MAWP (1 January 2014 to 31 December 2017) was adopted on 19 March 2014 by decision C (2014)1709. All the calls planned in 2014, 2015 and 2016 were launched as planned, and the relevant budget fully committed (see Table 3 above). This means that all the steps to implement the action grants in the first half of the LIFE programme 2014 - 2020 have been taken. To measure the likely outcomes to be achieved under the LIFE programme 2014-2020, the external study analysed the values of the indicators provided by the project beneficiaries of the 2014 call for proposals. These indicators were validated by the monitoring team (see Box 2 for more information). Although the projects awarded are ongoing and their outcome is expected in 4-5 years, the outcome is considered to be realistic. The results of this analysis were compared with the target milestones indicated as target for 2017 in the first MAWP. These can be found in the MAWP where for each priority area and type of project, qualitative and quantitative outcomes, indicators and targets have been established in line with Article 24 (2)(c) of the LIFE Regulation. Information on how they have been defined appears in Box 4 below.

Box 4. Definition of the MAWP targets The 2017 targets in the first MAWP were based on the evaluation of the estimated impact of the LIFE programme and defined in consideration of the following: ­the environmental or climate objectives to be reached by each project which will have to be at least equivalent to or surpass the objectives set by the relevant Union legislation; ­a projection of the number and scope of successful projects within a priority area based on the estimated number of successful applications submitted. Moreover, given that no project was expected to be finished by 2017, the milestones refer to on-going projects and ‘consist in having set up the projects in such a way that they can reach the targets by 2020’.. Based on their anticipated results, the 2014 projects already address 70 % of each target milestone included in the first MAWP. The tables reporting the results of the comparison are included in Annex 5 — Assessment of indicators against targets. While it is too early to assess the ambition of the targets, the fact that the planned milestones are in some cases exceeded is a positive finding showing that the programme is well on track to achieving its expected results. Taking into account the links between evaluation questions 1 and 2, more information on the expected outcomes of the activities and some specific examples are included in the next section on question 2. These anticipated results provide assurance that the LIFE programme 2014-2020 is on track to contribute significantly to its general outcomes. Q.1. What is the outcome likely to be achieved under LIFE 2014-2020? In the absence of actual results, the analysis of the ongoing projects selected in 2014 shows that they already address 70 % of each target milestone to be achieved for 2017 as indicated in the first MAWP. These anticipated results provide assurance that the LIFE programme 2014-2020 will provide a significant contributions to its expected outcomes. Q.2. To what extent does the observed outcome correspond to its objectives and to the EU 2020 strategy on sustainable growth? As actual results are not available yet, the expected results of the action grants awarded in 2014 and the activities which are being implemented and which target directly each general objective of the LIFE programme, are presented below together with some specific examples. The programme’s contribution to the EU 2020 strategy on sustainable growth is also analysed taking into account the activities under implementation and their expected outcomes. Objective 1 to contribute to the shift towards a resource efficient, low carbon and climate resilient economy and to the protection of the environment including biodiversity and Natura 2000 According to the results of the external study, the ongoing LIFE projects are expected to contribute to this objective by, inter alia: ­improving the conservation status of 59 habitats, 114 species and 85 Natura 2000 sites; ­reducing adverse effects of chemicals on health and the environment for about 1.6 million people over 5 years; ­reducing energy consumption (about 600 000 MWh per year) by best practice solutions; ­increasing the production of energy from renewable sources (about 500 000 MWh per year from different sources); ­targeting 35 million hectares with climate adaptation measures and developing best practice solutions for adaptation in various areas.

These anticipated results might appear limited compared to the existing needs and challenges. However, as in the case of its predecessor LIFE+, the LIFE programme has a limited size and is not designed to solve all environmental and climate problems but to act as a catalyst for change. This role of catalyst has been developed over the years along three different dimensions: - in terms of disseminating best practice and knowledge (spreading effect), because LIFE provides a platform to develop and exchange good practices and knowledge (see Box 5 for a concrete example of how this is happening via LIFE+ funded projects), allowing Member States and stakeholders to learn from each other about implementing EU legislation; Box 5 — Example of a traditional LIFE+ project on information and communication ADEME — European day ‘In town, without my car!’ (LIFE99 ENV/F/000459) EU contribution: €1 022 923.00 Coordinating beneficiary: French National Agency for Environment and Energy (national authority) Thematic priority: Air quality, transport External link: http://www.ademe.fr/ Europeans are very worried about urban pollution and mobility. The overall aim of the ‘In town without my car!’ campaign was to encourage public awareness of the need to act against pollution caused by the increase in motorised traffic in the urban environment. This involves not just fighting atmospheric pollution or noise but also improving the quality of urban life. Following on from the success of an ‘In town without my car!’ operation launched in France in 1998, and capitalising on the experience of other European cities, the project aimed to create a Europe-wide day on the theme ‘In town, without my car!’ in 2000, financed by national authorities and local communities. This initiative helped to include environmental considerations in transport policies, in keeping with EU policies in this area, in particular the Air Quality and Noise Directives. A pilot project was carried out in 1999 in a small number of volunteer cities, primarily in the project partner countries. This initial operation was a test, providing feedback for the main operation in 2000. A number of indicators were defined to evaluate the pilot project, e.g. city residents’ level of satisfaction, air pollution levels, measurement of traffic and noise levels. On the basis of this assessment, the theme day for 2000 was launched at a major European seminar. The project partners consulted with the EU member countries to organise the European-wide day for 22 September 2000. The initiative had a great success and many cities continue to organise each year a day without cars. - in terms of attracting other funds, given, for example, that LIFE financing (see Tables 4 and 5) is used to mainstream environmental and climate objectives into other EU policies and public and private sector practice. This allows the informed inclusion of environmental and climate concerns in the decisions that drive national, local and sectoral policy, plans, investment and related rules, while addressing the specific needs of environmental and climate action. This is the case, for example, of the integrated projects, whose aim is to facilitate the implementation of environmental and climate plans and to integrate these plans into comprehensive development strategies. It is also the case of the two financial instruments which are expected to support private investments in energy efficiency (PF4EE) and in natural capital operations. Such investments would normally have difficulty obtaining financing from commercial banks because of their risk profile (NCFF). - in terms of supporting actions to improve and accelerate changes directly targeting environmental externalities, which result in (a)private costs of production and consumption failing to account for all the environmental costs; (b)inadequate information on the environmental/climate impact preventing efficient utilisation of resources, and (c)a systematic discouraging of investments in eco-products/processes, thus limiting their potential return. LIFE intervenes to address these issues by: (a) building up the capacity of the key stakeholders of the production and consumption processes (see project in Box 8); (b) by providing adequate tools (legislation, information, etc.. — see examples of the LIFE action in Boxes 9 and 15); and (c) by supporting private players, in particular small and medium enterprises in testing small-scale technologies and solutions (see the examples in Boxes 6 and 21). Box 6 — Example of a traditional LIFE+ project on environmental policy and governance: the Dyemond Solar project EU contribution: €1 735 846.00 Coordinating beneficiary: NLAB Solar AB (private company) Thematic priority: renewable energy External link: http://www.dyemondsolar.com/ The overall objective of the Dyemond Solar project (LIFE 09/ENVSE/000355) was to demonstrate a cost-effective means of producing transparent dye-sensitised solar cells (DSCs). This was based on patented technology that uses one-dimensional photonic crystals to improve the efficiency and colour of solar cells. The project aimed to demonstrate a prototype production system at pre-industrial scales which could then serve as a base model for an industrial-scale operation. The result: the solar technology led to quantitative environmental improvements compared with the state-of-the-art technology. There was less embedded energy, a lower volume of waste from production, and a reduction of CO2 emissions in comparison with silicon solar cells. Moreover, it is expected to reduce the investment and operational costs by 50 %. The upgrading of the prototype to an industrial-scale operation has a potential value of over €100 million. The process of marketing is still ongoing, and it is not yet possible to determine whether it will be successful. The technology itself has many advantages compared to other types of solar panels, like silicon and thin film solar cells. The activities to develop, implement and enforce EU environmental policy and legislation (see objective 2 below) and support better governance (see objective 3 below) further illustrate LIFE’s role in moving towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon and climate-resilient economy and its contribution to environmental protection.

Objective 2: improve the development, implementation and enforcement of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation The external study confirmed that the procurement activities launched by the Commission to support the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental and climate policy and legislation play a key role in achieving the LIFE programme’s second objective, especially because they address all stages of the policy cycle (that might not be covered by demand-led activities). Evaluations and impact assessments provide evidence to inform and support the decision-making process and are carried out in the preparation phase, before the Commission finalises a proposal for a new/ revised policy or legislative act on environment and climate action. These studies are carried out with the support of external expertise and directly funded by the LIFE programme, under the procurement activities budget line. The LIFE programme (and, partially, the LIFE+ programme) financed, for example, the preparatory and related tasks (such as the impact assessment, stakeholders analysis, communication, etc.) for the adoption of the circular economy package. The package lays the basis for ‘closing the loop’ of product lifecycles by improving recycling and re-use. LIFE also financed work on the set of proposals for ‘Driving Europe’s transition to a low-carbon economy’, which aims to accelerate the transition to low-carbon emissions in all sectors of the economy. Box 7. Framework service contracts for more cooperation with national judges in the field of environmental law National judges play a key role in implementing EU environmental law. The capacity of national courts to guarantee the correct and efficient application of EU environmental law is an essential factor in addressing the legitimate expectations of EU citizens in this domain. It has also become more and more obvious that without efficient mechanisms to settle environmental matters at national level, enforcement at EU level by the Commission is insufficient for an effective implementation of EU environmental legislation across the EU. An effective implementation and enforcement of the environmental law at national level would allow the Commission to focus on its core activities. On the one hand the Commission should concentrate its resources on systemic, serious matters which cannot be addressed effectively at national level or in only one Member State. On the other hand, the Commission should take measures to ensure the spread of knowledge of EU environmental legislation at national level and help the relevant national bodies to address enforcement effectively. Appropriate knowledge of EU environmental law is key to this. Therefore, the Commission launched the ‘programme for cooperation with national judges in the field of environment law’. In the first phase (2008-2012), training materials for various sectors of EU environment legislation, were developed, and several workshops with judges and prosecutors from almost all Member States were organised. In a second phase, additional training in environmental law was offered to national judges. This phase built on the results of the first phase and extended the programme’s scope. Steps were taken to consolidate the partnership with the national judicial training centres and ensure that the project’s results were shared and disseminated at national level. So far about 500 judges and prosecutors from the courts of first instance to the supreme courts of all Member States have attended the roughly 45 workshops organised. During these pan-EU seminars judges from various Member States are able to exchange good practice and compare their experience. Box 7 gives an example of how the procurement activities are used to support the enforcement of the legislation, by providing training to judges and prosecutors. Box 10 describes a study contract to inform Member States’ decision making on a new compliance-monitoring mechanism in the Commission’s proposals on waste. At the level of grants, the traditional projects financed under all priority areas support the implementation or enforcement of specific legislative acts. In particular: ­The nature and biodiversity projects (a priority area) focus on Natura 2000 and nature legislation (the Birds and Habitats Directives). The evidence gathered in the recently finalised evaluation of the Directives (fitness-check) confirmed the strategic role that the LIFE programme plays in supporting the implementation of the Directives. - The projects targeting the priority area environment and resource efficiency are designed to make it easier to develop and share new solutions and best practices for water, waste, resource efficiency — including soil and forests, green and circular economy — set out in the Roadmap for a Resource-Efficient Europe and the 7th Environment Action programme (see Box 19 below). - Projects under the priority area climate change mitigation aim to help develop and implement climate-related policy and legislation, and, in particular, contribute to ‘a roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’. For this, the projects focus, inter alia, on the emissions trading system, Member States’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), renewable energy and energy efficiency, transport and fuels. Below is an example of an on-going project which focuses on GHG. Box 8 — Example of a traditional project on climate change mitigation LIFE BEEF CARBON — Demonstration actions to mitigate the carbon footprint of beef production in France, Ireland, Italy and Spain (LIFE14 CCM/FR/001125) EU contribution: €3 276 300.00 Coordinating beneficiary: Institut de l’Elevage (national authority) Thematic priority: climate mitigation External link: http://idele.fr/index.php?id=2487 Beef production generates 6 % of all human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. LIFE BEEF CARBON is testing and promoting innovative practices to reduce GHG emissions and increase carbon sequestration in beef farms in France, Ireland, Italy and Spain, countries that together account for 32 % of the EU’s cattle population. The project will calculate the beef carbon footprint of over 2000 farms, representing the full range of beef production systems. Carbon mitigation plans will be applied and evaluated on 172 beef farms as a precursor to the development of national action plans. Implementation of these plans is expected to lead to a 15 % reduction of the beef carbon footprint of the four countries in 10 years. The project will thus make a significant contribution to achieving the goals of the EU Effort Sharing Decision on GHG emissions as it relates to agriculture, as well as to the proposed new legislation on integrating emissions from land use in the 2030 climate and energy framework. ­The governance and information projects under both sub-programmes support the development of cooperation platforms and the sharing of best practices for more effective compliance and enforcement, including training programmes for judges and public prosecutors (see Box 17 for an example). The projects also support the development of policies, e.g. by funding actions specifically aimed at increasing the level of understanding among stakeholders. The 15 integrated projects selected in 2014-2015 (and presented above) help various players in Member States implement key plans and strategies required by specific Union environmental or climate legislation on a large territorial scale. While these projects have only just started, they appear to ensure a systematic and coherent implementation of key environment or climate plans by involving all the players on the ground and ensuring their integration in a comprehensive strategy. On this basis, taking into account the overall amount of resources involved, their results are expected to be much larger than their limited budget would suggest (see Table 5). Objective 3. support better environmental and climate governance at all levels, including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors

The action grants financed under the priority areas environment and climate governance and information are specifically aimed at broadening stakeholder involvement and promoting more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union environmental and climate legislation (see Box 7 for an example). This is obtained through the award process, e.g. by targeting information and awareness-raising campaigns, capacity building of key stakeholders, activities in support of effective control processes (i.e. enforcement, inspections and surveillance, non-judicial conflict resolution) and measures to promote compliance. The external study confirms that governance is an integral part of many projects, especially in nature and biodiversity, water, and climate action (see Q9 under Coherence). The analysis of indicators at project level shows in fact that the beneficiaries are targeting specific outputs and outcome indicators related to environmental and climate governance, even if their project’s main aim pertains to another priority area. On the basis of these indicators, the external study estimates that the projects awarded in 2014 and their awareness-raising activities are expected to impact dozens of millions of citizens and more than 6 000 stakeholders. Box 9. Example of a LIFE Environmental Governance and Information project LIFE Legal Actions — Legal Actions on Clean Air (LIFE15 GIE/DE/000795) EU contribution: €521 834.00 Coordinating beneficiary: Environmental Action Germany (NGO) Thematic priority: Air pollution External link: http://www.right-to-clean-air.eu The project aims to empower and motivate EU citizens and NGOs to campaign for effective air quality measures. This means providing information about the sources and effects of air pollution and potential solutions and providing advice on the right of citizens and NGOs to participate in decision-making processes and take legal action if necessary when Member States are not in compliance with the Air Quality Directive. The project’s targeted awareness-raising activities are expected to reach 13 million citizens in seven EU countries, with a particular focus on Germany and the Czech Republic. NGOs and citizens will participate in the process of revising Air Quality Plans. LIFE Legal Actions will also motivate political decision-makers to improve air quality legislation and implementation by advising them on existing national and European funding schemes, promoting green public procurement (GPP) as part of a resource-efficient economy, and transferring examples of best practice. Furthermore, operating grants financed under the LIFE programme have enabled beneficiary NGOs to operate and thus to be involved in shaping environmental and climate policy, to mainstream climate and environmental policies into other areas and to increase the involvement and knowledge of environmental and climate action priorities among citizens and EU policy makers. The procurement activities contribute to the third LIFE objective by building up the knowledge base on environmental and climate issues, necessary to underpin policy decision-making (see Box 10 for an example). About 200 contracts are concluded every year under LIFE to support better environmental and climate governance, including stakeholder involvement, at all levels. Box 10. The early warning mechanism — Study contract to identify Member States at risk of non-compliance with the 2020 target of the Waste Framework Directive and to follow up on the exercise to promote compliance This is a study on the state of implementation of the 2020 municipal waste recycling target. The purpose is to identify Member States at risk of non-compliance with this 2020 target and provide a so-called early warning report. The study is based on the idea of a new compliance monitoring mechanism included in the Commission’s proposals on the waste targets review — the ‘early warning’ which would apply to the post-2020 targets proposed. The study will conduct a comprehensive review of the waste management policy of these Member States at risk of not meeting the 2020 target. It will include the reasons for underperformance, looking at the policy measures introduced or expected to be introduced and how relevant these are in closing the gap to the target. Based on the results of this study, detailed, country-specific recommendations will be proposed to each Member State at risk of not meeting the target and included in the Commission’s ‘early warning report’. This would also help to ensure that the initiative receives the visibility it needs to be effective in anticipating, ahead of the deadline for compliance, any difficulties Member States may have in reaching the proposed targets. Objective 4: support implementation of the 7th Environment Action Plan (EAP) The activities mentioned under the other LIFE objectives also help to implement the 7th EAP, because these activities target the first two objectives of the 7th EAP as well (see Figure 2 above). However, the third objective of the 7th EAP refers to safeguarding public health, and as concluded in the external study, following the 2014 calls for proposals, no projects were directly targeting the thematic area ‘environment and health’. Support to the EU 2020 strategy on sustainable growth According to the LIFE Regulation, the LIFE programme should contribute to the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (the ‘Europe 2020 strategy’). According to the external study, the LIFE programme: ­directly contributes to the second pillar of the EU 2020 strategy on ‘Sustainable growth: promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy’ by helping to sever the link between economic growth and the use of resources. ­contributes to the other pillars of the EU 2020 strategy by making it easier ­to convert new ideas into products and processes (Innovation Union) and ­to develop new skills and jobs (Agenda for new skills and jobs). Some of the most recent policy developments financed by LIFE through the 19 % of the budget dedicated to procurement — namely the 2030 climate and energy framework adopted in 2014, the circular economy package adopted in 2015 and the implementation of the Paris Agreement ratified in 2016 — are expected to help shape the future of the European economy in the coming decades. The LIFE programme’s support for the Europe 2020 strategy takes different forms:

­All the LIFE projects already funded help to put the EU on a path to resource-efficiency and sustainable growth. These are projects aimed at halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity, improving resource efficiency, addressing environmental and health concerns, moving towards a low-carbon and resilient economy and preventing the consequences of floods, droughts, the rise of temperatures and sea levels. For example, the ongoing projects funded under the priority area ‘environment and resource efficiency’ target the effective implementation of EU environmental policy by the public and private sectors (in particular in the environmental sectors covered by the ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’) and are facilitating the development and sharing of new solutions and best practices. ­A contribution to innovation is expected from projects funded under all priority areas aimed at developing policy or management approaches, best practices and solutions (so called, demonstration and best practices projects — see, for example, Box 6). This includes the development of innovative technologies for environment/climate challenges and the contribution to innovation is happening by targeting specific types of projects. The external study extracts from the indicator database that 61 % of the climate change adaptation projects and over 80 % of all the climate change mitigation projects aim to help develop innovative technologies, systems and/or instruments. The external monitors confirmed that this is the result of more emphasis on the business perspective of projects introduced in recent years. Ongoing projects to promote innovation and investments in energy efficiency and the PF4EE are designed to help reduce energy demand and thus to make the EU less energy dependent, which is one of the objectives of the Energy Union. Project beneficiaries and external monitors affirmed in their interviews that the LIFE programme is a source of funding for innovation. They mentioned that if LIFE stopped funding or withdrew it, one of the consequences would be less support for innovative environmental solutions. ­Although employment is not the primary aim of the LIFE programme, the external study estimates that a total of 139 projects, out of 280, have created jobs as a result of various LIFE actions. This is based on the indicators database for 2014-2015 projects. At the beginning of these projects a total of 330 jobs in FTE (full time equivalent) terms were created. But the number of FTE jobs is expected to increase to more than a thousand by the end of the projects. The employment generated is generally temporary and directly related to the implementation of the projects. It consists mainly of researchers and technicians but also project managers, assistants, public relations experts, webmasters, accountants, etc. For a large number of projects, it is specified that their implementation is not expected to lead to the direct creation of permanent jobs. However, the projects are expected to stimulate certain sectors and therefore have an indirect positive impact on employment. There is also mention of some cases (relatively fewer) where long-term unemployed people have been recruited (9 % of all projects reporting employment) including, in 3 projects, people with reduced mobility. Table 6 — Employment generated by LIFE and LIFE+ projects: average figures per type of projects Source: External study On average, 2.5 jobs in FTE equivalent were reported at the beginning of the project. This is expected to increase to 13.5 FTEs at the end of the project and to 17.8 after the end of LIFE funding. By thematic areas, at the end of project implementation, the largest average employment per project is reported in integrated projects and climate adaptation projects. If this trend is confirmed, it would be suitable to try to understand why these types of projects seem more resource-intense than the other ones. Employment after LIFE funding of environment projects ends is expected to double compared to the employment generated at the beginning (30 FTE). These figures are in line with the findings from the stakeholder consultation that show that pilot or demonstrative environment projects are more sustainable and also score rather well on replicability. Instead, nature and biodiversity conservation projects are mainly replicated through non-market mechanisms, and therefore the employment created is not always visible. A comparison between the two programming periods (2007 - 2013 and 2014 - 2020) provides interesting findings. The external study examined 700 LIFE+ projects which reported on employment creation for the years 2007-2013. The study found that the LIFE+ programme helped to create 56 000 jobs, of which almost 16 000 are sustainable (28 %). A comparison between the previous and current programmes shows that for the current LIFE programming period a lot more jobs are expected to be created on average in terms of FTE after the project ends (17.8 FTE) compared to LIFE+ (8.6 FTE).

However, this finding might be due to the efforts made under LIFE 2014-2020 to ensure replicability of results. Or another interpretation could be that LIFE+ projects, which have been completed and/or are near completion, could have a better understanding of their sustainability after the end of LIFE financing. Q.2. To what extent do the observed outcomes correspond to the programme’s objectives and to the EU 2020 strategy on sustainable growth? Actual results are not yet available at this stage of the programme’s implementation. There is evidence that the anticipated results of the projects and the activities under implementation are addressing all of the programme’s objectives. However, since 2014 call there have been no projects awarded directly targeting the thematic areas under environment and health (one of the objectives of the 7th EAP) In particular, the role of LIFE as a catalyst is built on the lessons learnt from LIFE+ and results from the programme’s ability to attract other funding, to disseminate best practice and knowledge (spreading effect) and to support actions to improve and accelerate changes directly targeting environmental externalities. Some evidence from LIFE+ and LIFE confirms that the programme is doing well in playing its role of catalyst. Initial findings from the programme’s implementation show that the programme is supporting the Europe 2020 strategy: - by financing projects expected to contribute to resource efficiency and sustainable growth, - by promoting innovation and - by slightly contributing to employment, although job creation is not one of the primary aims of the LIFE programme. Some of the most recent policy developments financed by LIFE — namely the circular economy package adopted in 2015 and the 2030 climate and energy framework adopted in 2014 — are expected to shape the future of the EU economy in the coming decades. Q.3. What are the factors positively and negatively influencing the delivery of the objectives? Again, at this early stage of the programme’s implementation, it is not possible to determine the factors that are influencing the delivery of the LIFE objectives. Some of them are outside EU control (such as extreme weather conditions, the financial crisis, etc.) and cannot be addressed by the LIFE programme itself. However, the experience of these first years of implementation shows some factors which are considered to have a positive and negative influence on the delivery of the objectives. Positive influence The LIFE programme’s flexibility to address emerging challenges and priorities, its mix of activities and the support the programme has from the stakeholders are three factors which positively influence the delivery of the objectives. 1. The LIFE programme is flexible because it can finance projects of different sizes that attract small, medium and large enterprises, universities, research centres, national and local authorities, civil society and non-governmental organisations. The LIFE programme’s recent contribution to the European Solidarity Corps shows that the programme’s existing range of activities is able to rapidly respond to emerging needs and opportunities. 2. The mix of activities combines: ­the experience acquired during 25 years of programme implementation with ­the new types of actions introduced by the LIFE Regulation to provide a more comprehensive support (integrated projects), specific assistance (capacity-building and technical assistance projects) and to test new forms of financing (financial instruments). The traditional projects are managed in accordance with a comprehensive package of specific procedures — based on lessons learnt from experience — which enable the project’s life to be followed closely: ­In the award procedure, the applicant is required to identify the project’s expected impact of the project, by using specific indicators and descriptors and providing during-project and after–project values. ­From the project’s earliest stages, the external specialised monitoring experts and the EASME/Commission officials assist the beneficiary with the project’s implementation. Besides the reporting, almost one monitoring visit per year on average is organised to see how each traditional and integrated project is performing, how each is progressing towards the expected impact and concretely how the funds are being used. According to the initial findings for the programme’s first years of implementation, the new types of activities have demonstrated a strong potential to be effective, thus confirming the initial expectations: ­Integrated projects are of a larger scale and have a larger outreach than the traditional projects; ­Financial instruments are pilot initiatives designed to help build the future of financing energy efficiency and biodiversity/climate adaptation; ­Technical assistance projects are improving the quality of integrated projects, and capacity-building projects are investments to enable countries under represented in the LIFE programme to participate more. The European Economic and Social Committee confirmed this in a recent draft opinion. Taking into account the information received from its constituencies, it welcomes the LIFE programme’s high degree of flexibility and adaptability to new challenges and the experience the programme has gained in recent years.

3. The results of the interviews with the project beneficiaries and the open public consultation show a positive perception of the quality of the LIFE projects, which are seen as a concrete answer to existing needs. This positive perception is shared also by unsuccessful candidates, which also recognised LIFE as an important contributor to biodiversity and nature conservation. For more information on the support from the stakeholders, see Annex 4 and the answer to Q12 below. Negative influence Given that 81 % of the programme’s overall financial resources are devoted to projects, the results of the LIFE programme are highly dependent on the projects. This is true for each objective and priority area. The programme’s success will also be determined by the capacity to replicate and transfer the project results and thus have a multiplier effect. Some issues have been identified which can negatively affect the delivery of the objectives: 1. In terms of coverage, LIFE has supported the definition, agreement and development of new emerging priorities — such as the circular economy and the 2030 climate and energy framework targets, the implementation of the Paris Agreement ratified in 2016 as well as the EU’s adaptation strategy whose importance and ramificationsere unknown when the LIFE Regulation was adopted. These new priorities are de facto being addressed by limiting the financing for other priority issues. This could represent a problem, particularly in the near future, because of the need to adequately finance their implementation and further development. Taking into account the bottom-up approach which cannot anticipate the quantity and quality of the proposals received or the size of the LIFE budget, which was defined when the Regulation was adopted, there is a greater risk that not all the objectives and priority areas will be adequately covered by projects. The competition for the limited available resources is extremely strong. Following the 2014 and 2015 calls for proposals, under the sub-programme for environment for example, projects addressing the thematic priorities under environment and health and 30 % of the project topics have not received any financing. Thematic priorities and project topics were introduced in the current LIFE programme to better focus key targets. However, even if it is premature to draw conclusions from the first two years of implementation, some initial observations can be made. Given the available financial resources, the scope of the priorities could be too broad for a critical mass to trigger change on all the environmental and climate issues. However, the thematic priorities which reflect environmental needs in all Member States cannot be reduced. There are two main reasons for this: a) a reduction would mean that some aspects of the specific objectives would not be covered; b) a reduction could have a drastic impact in the Member State if the thematic priority no longer covered reflected specific key needs. On the project topics, besides the possibility of addressing any possible need, thought should be given to introducing a better focus in the next MAWP. This could be done, for example, by targeting specific project topics, to be selected year by year taking into account targeted challenges and the results of previous calls for proposals. 2. The second risk is related to the outcomes of the projects and to the replicability and transferability of their results. The potential for replicability and transferability is one of the project award criteria. This criterion ensures the programme’s strategic focus to increase its EU added value and its catalytic effect. Moreover, during the life of the project, there is close monitoring, and platform meetings are organised to encourage the exchange of experiences and best practices. This makes it easier to disseminate and transfer project results. Meetings are also organised with potential investors so the beneficiaries can present their investment plans. Before the end of the project, ‘after-LIFE Plans’ are drawn up to organise the continuation of the activities after LIFE financing ends. Despite these mitigating measures, there is the risk that a project will not produce the expected results. This is particularly the case for nature projects where climatic conditions could have an impact on the outcomes and/or duration of a project. Indeed, it is not possible to overcome all the obstacles with these measures. This is the case, for example, when beneficiaries lack financial resources and/or lack capacity/human resources to plan an investment. Such a situation may limit the possibility to multiply the project results. The possibility of providing customised accompanying measures for those projects showing a promising potential for replicability and transferability should be explored. More information on project sustainability and replicability is provided in paragraph.6.6.

Q.3. What factors are positively and negatively influencing delivery of the objectives? Although it is not possible at this stage of the programme’s implementation to definitively determine the factors influencing delivery of the LIFE objectives, and given that some of these cannot be controlled (such as extreme weather conditions, the financial crisis, etc..), the experience of these first years of implementation shows that - On the positive side: ­the programme is flexible and able to rapidly respond to emerging needs and priorities; ­it involves a wide range of stakeholders, who are highly supportive of the programme. ­the mix of activities combines activities based on lessons learnt from 25 years of experience — such as traditional projects — with new activities — such as integrated, capacity-building and technical assistance projects as well as financial instruments — which are expected to increase the programme’s effectiveness. - On the negative side: ­given the new emerging challenges, the bottom-up approach and the available financial resources, there is a risk that not all the priorities will be covered by adequate projects. The possibility of more flexible project topics could be explored. ­Risks that the projects will not deliver the expected outcomes exists. However, a bulk of measures covering the entire project life cycle is in place to reduce this risk. The introduction of customised accompanying measures to overcome the obstacles that limit the possibility to replicate/transfer the results of the most promising projects could be explored. Q.4. To what extent is the geographical distribution of projects effective? The distribution of LIFE projects between Member States is pursued through three main mechanisms: (a)national allocations; (b)capacity-building projects; (c)geographical balance for the integrated projects. (a) Indicative national allocations are established for projects, other than integrated projects, under the sub-programme for environment during the first multi-annual work programme. At present, some Member States have reached or are close to reaching their quota of funds according to the national allocations. However, the system of national allocation is not exclusive: if funds remain available after the award of a grant to all the successful projects from the Member States which have not exhausted their national allocations, they are redistributed on the basis of merit. As a consequence, two Member States (Spain, Italy) share more than a third of the entire LIFE budget allocation for traditional grants for 2014 and 2015. This further confirms that the national allocations are not effective in ensuring a more balanced distribution of projects. Also, Spain and Italy submitted the biggest number of proposals and have a reduced percentage of success in comparison to other Member States. As the interviews with project beneficiaries have revealed, one of the reasons for such a strong participation from these two countries is the lack of local public funds for environment and climate action. The proactive action of the national contact points is also thought to play a role in Spain and Italy’s active participation. National allocations will be abandoned in the second multiannual work programme because, as emerged during the impact assessment for the LIFE programme, they ‘have not led to a more balanced distribution of projects across the EU (e.g. projects from Italy, Spain and Germany receive most of the funding under LIFE+), [..] they may lead to selecting projects of lower quality, which would have an impact on the effectiveness of the Programme to provide EU added value and had a perverse impact on smaller Member States (smaller allocations do not encourage submission of proposals)’. (b) capacity-building projects are aimed at enabling selected Member States to build up their capacity to submit more good quality projects by strengthening the role of the network of national players — the national contact points (NCPs) — . The NCPs provides institutional support to prepare and implement projects, and their work is appreciated. Nevertheless, the consultations carried out for the external study confirm that the applicants across Europe receive varying degrees of support, depending on the quantity and quality of the resources made available by each Member State. There need to be minimum standards for all Member States on providing assistance for the submission of proposals. Many NCPs also need to adopt a more proactive approach. The capacity-building projects have been put in place in anticipation of the phasing-out of the national allocations by 2018, mentioned earlier. They are action grants used to finance training, capacity-building activities, external expertise, the dissemination of information and administrative support. Of the 15 Member States eligible, 14 submitted a proposal which has been financed and is in progress. (c) a geographical balance of integrated projects, which is to be achieved by indicatively allocating at least three integrated projects to each Member State under both sub-programmes. Q.4. To what extent is the geographical distribution of projects effective? Two Member States (Italy and Spain) share more than a third of the entire LIFE budget for traditional grants for 2014 and 2015. There was an uneven distribution of funds among Member States also under the previous programme, with Italy, Spain and Germany receiving most of the grants. One of the reasons for such a strong participation is the lack of local public funds for environment and climate action. The interviews with project beneficiaries confirmed this. Another reason is the role played by the NCPs, which are more proactive in some countries than in others. However, in view of the phasing-out of national allocations in the second MAWP that were introduced in LIFE+, different mechanisms have been put in place to ensure a more equitable distribution and greater effectiveness of LIFE funds between Member States. These mechanisms include capacity-building projects to boost selected Member States’ capacity to submit more good quality projects and a geographical balance of the integrated projects. However being the programme’s implementation at its early stage, it is not possible to make definitive statements on the effectivity of the projects geographical distribution. These mechanisms are expected to start producing some results during the next MAWP (2018-2020). Q.5. What is the role of LIFE in bridging uneven integration of environmental and climate action objectives among Member States?

The situation in the Member States differs widely when it comes to: - the availability and use of natural resources and the speed at which they are depleted; - the degree to which environmental and climate concerns are taken into account in their policies.. Addressing the uneven integration of environmental and climate action objectives is a long-term challenge in a constantly evolving context where environmental and climate legislation and policies are playing a leading role. As underlined in the reports of the European Environment Agency, ‘emissions of specific pollutants to the air, water and soil have generally been reduced significantly. These improvements are to a substantial degree a result of the comprehensive environment legislation established across Europe’. Since 1992, the only dedicated funding programme, which has systematically supported and accompanied environment and climate legislation and policies, is LIFE. The LIFE programme’s role in bridging the uneven integration of environmental and climate action objectives between Member States is twofold: (a)on the one hand, the programme provides customised solutions designed to respond to the specific problems of each Member State by taking into account the existing situation; (b)on the other hand, it coordinates at EU level the vision, targets and requirements needed to define, implement and enforce EU environmental and climate legislation and policies. (a) For the customised solutions, specific actions are defined through a flexible bottom-up approach which takes into account the local situation while targeting the implementation of existing environmental and climate policies and legislation or better governance. This is the reason why 81 % of LIFE’s overall financial resources are devoted to grants, which are mainly projects conceived by different stakeholders to solve the needs they perceive (see above answer to question Q.2 for the activities in support of the second and third objectives of the LIFE programme). The integrated projects are also specifically meant to provide examples of good practice for an efficient and well-coordinated implementation of EU environmental and climate policy in Member States and regions, with the involvement of all stakeholders. (b) EU-level coordination is mainly ensured through the procurement activities, which are based on a top-down approach: the needs are defined by the Commission with the aim to support the coordinated definition, implementation and enforcement of EU environmental and climate legislation. The procurement activities help target uneven integration of environment and climate action in the practices of Member States by: ­identifying targets for specific legislative acts or policies (see above under Q.1, objective 2, for the LIFE programme’s contributions to the EU environmental and climate policy and legislation) which take into account the situation in the different Member States (see Boxes 10 and 15 for possible examples). ­providing specific inputs to Member States on their implementation of environmental and climate policies and legislation and supporting the exchange of solutions and best practices (see Boxes 3 and 11 for concrete examples). Box 11 — LIFE support to Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy The Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy initiative (see http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/index_en.html) supports the efforts by local authorities to implement sustainable climate and energy policies. LIFE funding is used to run the Covenant of Mayors initiative together with funding from Horizon 2020 and the Foreign Policy Instrument. By signing up to the Covenant, local authorities commit to implement EU objectives in the 2030 climate and energy package: new signatories have to commit to action to support implementation of the EU 40 % greenhouse gas-reduction target by 2030 and the adoption of a joint approach to tackling mitigation and adaptation to climate change. To date, there are more than 800 signatories that have signed up to implement the 2030 and climate change adaptation targets. The Covenant of Mayors provides capacity-building to local authorities to design and finance integrated strategies to reduce CO2 (and possibly other greenhouse gas) emissions and adapt to climate risks. This includes providing information and guidance on funding available from the European budget to support the implementation of strategies. A concrete example of a capacity-building activity is the twinning programme which offers cities, regions and provinces across Europe the opportunity to take part in exchanges to increase local authorities’ capacity and knowledge to mitigate and adapt to climate change. There is also a help desk to provide assistance to signatories. The LIFE action grants for climate change adaptation and integrated projects also encourage implementation of projects that implement the Covenant framework. Q.5. What is the role of LIFE in bridging uneven integration of environmental and climate action objectives among Member States? The situation in the Member States differs widely when it comes to the availability of natural resources and defining, implementing and enforcing environmental and climate legislation and policies. EU environmental and climate legislation and policies are already contributing to the integration of environmental and climate objectives into Member States by setting up a comprehensive environmental legislative framework. The definition, implementation and enforcement of these set of laws have all been supported in a range of ways via the LIFE programme. . LIFE’s role in bridging the uneven integration of environmental and climate action objectives between Member States is twofold: (a) on the one hand, the programme provides customised solutions to respond to the specific problems of each Member State by taking into account the existing situation. This is done mainly through the 81 % of its resources which are devoted to support bottom-up actions such as grants and financial instruments. (b) on the other hand, LIFE helps to coordinate at EU level the vision, targets and requirements of EU environmental and climate action. This is done mainly through procurement activities which aim to support the definition, implementation and enforcement of EU environmental and climate legislation and policies as well as the exchange of solutions and best practices. 5.2. Efficiency

Q.6. To what extent are the costs (especially management) of the LIFE programme justified, given the effects which have been achieved, and are likely to be achieved, by the end of the LIFE programme? To analyse the programme’s efficiency, the external study estimated the value for money of the anticipated results of a series of ongoing LIFE projects from the 2014 call. The estimated value for money was compared to the programme’s overall cost. In particular, the external study estimated the benefits derived from the conservation of 17 million hectares of Natura 2000 sites and the reduction of 489 000 tonnes of CO2 (including methane and the reduction of electricity consumed). The study used the social cost of carbon (SCC) approach and calculated the quota attributable to LIFE’s financing (i.e. 75 % for nature projects and 60 % for climate change mitigation projects on the basis of the related EU co-financing rates). On the basis of this estimate, the benefits derived from LIFE 2014 financing the conservation of Natura 2000 sites would reach EUR 1.5 billion and the benefits from financing the reduction of CO2 would lead to a savings of EUR 0.2 billion for society. The relevant projects selected under the 2014 calls for proposals would therefore contribute to a societal benefit of EUR 1.7 billion. This represents four times the cost of the overall LIFE budget for 2014 (EUR 405 million) and shows the programme’s high value for money. On the programme’s management, the cost-benefit analysis that led to the transfer of management of most of the LIFE grants to EASME in 2014 estimated that the cost of managing the programme would be reduced, compared to managing LIFE+. This has now been confirmed by the actual data (see the reply to Q.7). Moreover, the analysis included an estimate of the management costs for different programmes. This implies that some comparisons can be made. These results were elaborated to determine the human and financial resources needed by EASME in 2014-2020 to manage the implementation of each programme delegated to the Agency. The data show that LIFE is less costly to manage than other programmes. Indeed, for the programmes managed by EASME, when comparing the costs of the various programmes as a percentage of the total budget managed, LIFE costs significantly less to