EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 12.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1543 final 
Volume 2 of 2 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
ANNEXES TO THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a Regulation  
on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 
{COM(2011) 874 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1541 final} {SEC(2011) 1542 final} 
 
 
 1Disclaimer : These annexes commit only the Comm ission's services involved in its 
preparation and do not prejudge  the final form of any d ecision to be taken by the 
Commission. 
 
 2TABLE OF CONTENT 
 
1. List of Abbreviations         3 
 
2. The LIFE Programme as per the Communication from the Commission  
on a Budget for Europe 2020, 29th June 2011     7 
 3. Summary of Stakeholders' consultations       9 
 
4. Summary of conclusions and recommend ations from the Ex-post evaluation 
of the LIFE Programme (1996-2006) and from the Mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (2007-2009)    46  
5. Scale of the environmental problem, underlying causes and benefits of action 
(externalities)         60 
 6. Examples illustrating the EU added value of the LIFE Programme    82 
 7. Assessment of the LIFE+ Regulation: data used to calculate the impacts of   86 
the baseline scenario 
 8. Full assessment of the zero option and of the expanded option   117 
 9. Calculation of externals costs        141 
 
10. Objectives and Monitoring framework      151 
 11. Integrated Projects         158 
 12. References           173 
 
 
 3ANNEX 1:  L IST OF ABBREVIATIONS 
6EAP  6th Environment Action Programme 
AEM  Agri-environment Measure 
AMPs  Annual Management Plans 
BAT  Best Available Techniques BBOP  Biodiversity Offsets Programme BREF  Best Available Techniques Reference Document CAP  Common Agricultural Policy CBA  Cost-benefit analysis 
CBD  Convention on Biological Diversity 
CF  Cohesion Fund CFP  Common Fisheries Policy CIP  Competitiveness and Innovation Programme CITES  Convention on internationa l trade in endangered species 
CoE  Council of Europe CoR  Committee of the Regions CP  Cohesion Policy DGs  Directorates-General  DMC  Domestic Material Consumption 
DPSIR  Driving Forces-Pressu res-State-Impacts-Responses 
DRB   Danube River Basin EACI  Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EC /EP / EU European Commission / Eu ropean Parliament / European Union 
EEA  European Environment Agency EFF  European Fisheries Fund EIB  European Investment Bank ELENA European Local Energy Assistance Scheme 
EMS  Environmental Management System 
ENP  European Neighbourhood Policy ENRTP Thematic programme for environm ent and sustainable management of 
natural resources including energy 
ENVI   European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health & Food 
Safety 
EP  European Parliament 
 
 4EPG  Environment Policy Governance (LIFE+ strand) 
ERDF  European Regional Development Fund 
ESF  European Social Fund ETAP  Environmental Tec hnologies Action Plan 
ETUC  European Trade Union Confederation ETV  Environmental Technologies Verification EU  European Union EU12  Group of countries which jo ined the EU from 2004 onwards 
FDOs  Financial Desk Officers FP7  Seventh Framework Programme FP8  Eighth Framework Programme GDP  Gross Domestic Product GHG  Greenhouse gas 
GIF  Growth and Innovation Fund 
GIS  Geographic Information System GVA  Gross Value Added HSAP  Hydropower Sustaina bility Assessment Protocol 
IA  Impact Assessment IPs  Integrated Projects IPA  Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 
ICPRD  International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 
ICUN  International Union for Conservation of Nature 
IMPEL European Union Network for th e Implementation and Enforcement of 
Environmental Law 
INF Information and communication (LIFE+ strand) IPPC  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISG  Inter-Service Steering Group IUCN International Union fo r Conservation of Nature 
JASPERS Joint Assistance to Suppor t Projects in European Regions 
JEREMIE Joint European Resources for Micro to medium Enterprises 
LFA  Less Favoured Areas  
LRTAP Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution 
MDG Millennium Development Goals MAFF/MFF Multi Annual Financial Framework 
 
 5MTE  Mid-term evaluation 
MS  Member State 
N2K  Natura2000 NAT  Nature & Biodiversity (LIFE+ strand) NCP  National Contact Points NGO  Non-governmental Organisation NOx  Nitrogen Oxides OECD  Organisation for Economic  Co-operation and Development 
PAFs  Prioritised Action Frameworks PAN  Pesticides Action Network PES  Payments for Ecosystem Services PM  Particulate Matter PPP  Polluter pays principle 
PPPs  Public Private Partnerships 
R&D  Research and Development  REACH Registration, Evaluation, Author isation and Restriction of Chemical 
substances 
RSFF Risk Sharing Finance Facility  SDS  Sustainable Development Strategy SICAs  Specific International Cooperation Actions SMEs  Small and Medium Enterprises 
SOER  State of the Environment Report  
SOx  Sulphur Oxides TA  Technical assistance TCY  Third Countries TDOs  Technical Desk Officers 
TEEB  The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity 
TFEU  Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNEP  United Nations Environment Programme VAT  Value added tax VOCs  Volatile Organic Compounds VOSL  Value of a Statistical Life VOLY  Value of Life Years 
 
 6WFD  Water Framework Directive 
WTO  World Trade Organisation 
WTP  Willingness to pay  YVIE  Your Voice in Europe 
 
 7ANNEX 2:  T HE LIFE  PROGRAMME AS PER THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 
COMMISSION ON A BUDGET FOR EUROPE 2020,  29TH JUNE 2011 
The LIFE programme will be  composed of two sub-programmes: an Environment sub-
programme and a Climate Acti on sub-programme. It will ha ve a global envelop of €3.2 
billion for the seven years w ith €2.4 billion (75%) for the Environment sub-programme and 
€800 million (25%) for the Climate Action sub-programme. 
1. The Environment sub-programme 
It will be organised accordi ng to the following priorities:  
(a) LIFE Biodiversity, while still focusing on Natura 2000 and on the development and 
sharing of best practices in relation to bi odiversity, will also target wider biodiversity 
challenges in line with the Europe 2020 biodi versity strategy target to maintain and 
restore ecosystems and their services. 
(b) LIFE Environment will focus on supporting the implementation of EU 
environmental policy by the public and pr ivate sectors and in particular the 
implementation of environmental legislati on relevant to the Europe 2020 resource 
efficiency objectives (such as the Wa ter Framework Directive or the Waste 
Framework Directive).  
(c) LIFE Governance will support the creation of platfo rms for the exchange of best 
practices for improved compliance with EU environmental policy priorities and 
enforcement, policy development and knowledge-based decision-making (e.g., wide dissemination of project results), with an emphasis on good governance. This strand will also support envi ronmental NGOs and promote awar eness-raising, advocacy and 
dissemination of environmental informati on, as these are inextricably linked to 
achieving good governance and full implementation and compliance.  
 The instrument will focus on two types of proj ect: new Integrated Projects, the number and 
financial share of which will gradually increase over the lifetime of the programme; and "traditional" projects. Projects will continue to be selected for their EU added value and 
potential for transfer of know- how. LIFE Integrated Projects  are designed to demonstrate the 
sustainable implementation of environmental ac tion plans relating to major EU environmental 
directives, such as the Habitats Directive or the Water Framework Directive. A structured cooperation with other EU funds will be  established through the Common Strategic 
Framework.  
2. The Climate Action sub-programme 
It will, in particular, support efforts contributing to the following objectives:  
(a) Mitigation: Support for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions . Actions for 
setting up pilot projects, which can be used  to test innovative approaches including 
through support to SMEs, to improve the knowledge base and to facilitate the 
implementation of the climate acquis .  
(b) Adaptation: Support to efforts leading to increa sed resilience to climate change . 
Actions to support the development or im plementation of national/regional/local 
adaptation strategies. Actions enabling deci sion makers to effectively use knowledge 
and data about climate change impacts in particular for adapta tion related planning.   
 
 8(c) Governance and Awareness: support for efforts leading to increased awareness, 
communication, cooperation and disseminati on on climate mitigation and adaptation 
actions. Actions for awarene ss-raising amongst EU citizens and stakeholders including 
on behaviour changes. 
 
 9 
ANNEX 3:  SUMMARY OF THE ST AKEHOLDERS' CONSULTATIONS   
Table of Contents 
1 .  I n t r o d u c t i o n           1 1  
1.1.  Purpose of stakeholder consultation      13 
1.2. Interviews with the Commission       13 1.3. GHK Survey of stakeholders       13 1.4. GHK Survey of project beneficiaries      14 1 . 5 .  E C  O n l i n e  S u r v e y         1 4  1.6. EC Workshop led by GHK       14 1 . 7 .  T h e  C o R  s u r v e y         1 5  
 
2. Problem definition         15 
2.1 Physical environmental problems and challenges in the EU Member States 16 
2.2 Institutional drivers and underlying causes     16 2.2.1 Unregulated environmental pr oblems: Policy Development   17 
2.2.2 Inadequate Policy Implementation      18 
2.2.3 Insufficient synergies and inadequate in tegration of the environment into policy 20 
2.2.4.  Lack of awareness and information sharing     22 2.2.5 Inadequate support for eco-innovation      23  
3 The rationale for, and EU added val ue of, a specific instrument for the 
environment and climate action       23 
3.1 Justifications for an instrument for the environment    23 
3.2 EU added value of the existing instrument for the environment   24 
3.3 Rationale for an instrument for the envir onment to intervene in the five main problems 
i d e n t i f i e d          2 6  
3.3.1 Policy development        26 3.3.2 Policy implementation        26 3.3.3 Integration of environmental c oncerns into sectoral policies   26 
3.3.4 Awareness raising and information sharing     27 3.3.5 Support for eco-innovation       28 
 
 
 
 10 
 
4 Objectives, Activities and Resources of a future instrument for the environment  29 
4 . 1  O b j e c t i v e s          2 9  
4.2 Activities         29 4 . 3  R e s o u r c e s          3 2   
5 Thematic and territorial focus        33 
5 . 1  T h e m a t i c  f o c u s          3 3  
5 . 2  T e r r i t o r i a l  f o c u s          3 5  
 
6 Delivery Mechanisms and Management Options     36 
6.1. Delivery Mechanisms        36 
6.2 Action grants         36 6.3 Operational grants        37 6.4 Use of innovative instruments       37 
6.5 Integrated Projects        38 
6.6 Management approaches       39  
7  T h e  O p t i o n s           4 0  
7.1 Brief overview of the options       40 
7.2 Feedback on the options        41  
8 Summary of stakeholder consultations      43 
 
 11 
1. Introduction 
The European Parliament  made several contributions, in cluding the Böge report on the 
Mid-Term Review of the 2007-2013 Financial Framework.1 This report calls for providing 
the Union with the means to fulfil its political ambitions in the area of fighting against climate 
change. It also stressed that the EP is rea dy to examine the possibility of creating a specific 
fund for that purpose. Moreover,  it highlighted the need to climate proof "all major 
programmes, including agriculture, cohesi on, transport and energy networks, and 
development programmes". The climate activi ties across the EU budget including LIFE+ are 
to be reinforced to reflect this new priority.   The Council
2 and the European Parliament3 have indicated their support to the 
continuation of the LIFE Programme. The Counc il Conclusions highlighted the importance of 
LIFE+ and the need to keep all its components.  The European Parliament report on "Investing 
in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe"
4 underlined that LIFE has been su ccessfully implemented and has proven 
its importance in safeguarding biodiversity and protecting the environment and emphasises 
the need for continuing the programme. The repor t highlighted the need to continue LIFE 
support especially to achieve  biodiversity objectives. 
 The European Economic Social Committee opinion
5 and Committee of Regions opinion 
(CoR)6 also show strong support for the contin uation and enhancement of LIFE. The CoR 
also requested additional funds under LI FE for biodiversity and climate action.7  
 The impact assessment has been preceeded by the following public consultations  in order to 
gather as many comments and suggestions as poss ible from individuals and bodies concerned: 
 
An initial stakeholder consultation was ca rried out on the Commission's behalf by 
GHK
8 from October 2010 until February 2011. The consultation gathered a total of 192 
stakeholder responses, including from NGOs,  social partners, Member States and 
Commission officials. This includes: 
• Commission services: 11 interviews with Commission officials, including  in DG 
Environment and DG Climate Action (DG CLIM A), as well as representatives from 
DG Agriculture and Rural Developmen t (DG AGRI), DG Regional Policy (DG 
REGIO), and DG Maritime Affairs and Fi sheries (DG MARE. (GHK Interviews). 
• Stakeholders: A total of 34 survey respons es were received: 16 from NGOs, 6 from 
social partners and 12 from LIFE Nationa l Contact Points (NCP) (GHK Survey).  
                                                 
1 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getD oc.do?pubRef=-//EP//N ONSGML+COMPARL+PE-
418.451+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN. 
2 Council Conclusions "Improving Environmental Policy Instruments", 17 January 2011. 
3 ENVI Committee Opinion for the Special committee on the policy challe nges and budgetary resources for a 
sustainable European Union after 2013. 
4http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.d o?pubRef=-//EP//NONSG ML+REPORT+A7-2011-
0193+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN. 
5 EESC's Opinion LIFE+/Mid-term Review: http://www .eesc.europa.eu/?i=porta l.en.nat-opinions.18989 
6 CoR's Opinion on "The EU Life Programme. The way forward"  . 
7 CoR’s Opinion on 30 June 2011 on Climate mainstreaming and the future EU budget. 
8 Hereinafter referred to as "GHK survey".  
 
 12• Project beneficiaries: projec t beneficiaries were also surveyed separately on the 
problem definition and 147 responses  were received (GHK Survey). 
Surveys aimed to obtain quantitative informati on on stakeholders' pers pectives regarding 
environmental and climate problems facing the EU and the potential role for a financial 
instrument dedicated to the environment and cl imate action. Also, LIFE project beneficiaries 
(147 responses) were consulted to obtain info rmation on the administrative burden of the 
programme, the quantitative estimates regarding impacts, and on their views on the problems. 
There was a general agreement that the most important problem is the lack of implementation of EU environmental legislation and inadequa te integration of environment into other 
policies. Responses emphasised the need for a specific instrument to catalyse and leverage 
change.   
 An open online consultation was carried out on 'Your Voice in Europe'
9. Around 1000 
responses were received from a variety of stakeholders, of which 58% had never received 
LIFE funding. Some 35% of res pondents were organisations, 13%  were competent authorities 
and 53% were private indivi duals. The main views are: 
• 84% of respondents consider that there is a need for a specific financial instrument for 
the environment and climate action with  only 10% supporting discontinuation.   
• Stakeholders consider all LIFE interv entions needed: 87.7%  respondents support 
action grants, 65.7% support operating gran ts for NGOs and 74.9% procurement. 
81.6% of respondents support the role of LI FE in boosting eco-innov ation and 78% in 
allowing EU-wide exchange of information and awareness raising.  
• As to scope, stakeholders support a more focused instrument (main priorities 
mentioned were biodiversity, adaptation to climate change, resource use and waste, 
and climate mitigation), but priorities s hould be non-exclusive. 67.5% of respondents 
support carrying out activities outside the EU.  
• When it comes to the budget, 54.6% of responde nts indicated that the current budget is 
too low to achieve the Programme's objec tives. As to the management, 68.1% of 
respondents supported current central dire ct management by the Commission. Only 
20% of respondents showed a prefer ence for other management modes,10 of which 
shared management (7%) was preferred to an executive agency (3%). 
More targeted consultations  have been carried out to complement the stakeholder survey: 
one organised with the LIFE Committee members and Member States' environmental attachés 
on 27 January 2010, and an ad-hoc stakeholder  meeting11 with around 100 representatives 
on 28 January 2010 (e.g. NGOs, farmers associati on, business, and public authorities).  
 
In both cases, responses were consistent with th e results of the online consultation with strong 
opposition from the Member States to discontinuing LIFE and eco-innovation activities funded under LIFE. Similarly, there was strong o pposition to eliminating the traditional LIFE 
smaller bottom-up projects. Support for an increased budget was very strong with the 
exception of farmers associati ons that considered  the current budget adequate. One Member 
State (UK) considered that a lower budget could be envisaged. Options were discussed during 
                                                
 
9 Hereinafter referred to as "YVIE". 
10 Options available were management by the European Commission, management by national authorities only, 
shared management between the European Commission a nd national authorities, and EU Executive Agency.  
11 Hereinafter referred to as "EC workshop".  
 
 13both meetings, with stakeholders showing a preference for the Strategic and Integrated 
Programming. 
 A specific consultation on the territorial impacts by the CoR  targeting local and regional 
authorities received a total of 40 responses, mostly from Spain (11) and Italy (10). The main 
conclusions were similar to othe r consultations with specific support to In tegrated Projects, 
appreciating their high added value and considering them quite feasible.   
 Additional discussions with the public led to the following recommendations:
12  
• On Nature and Biodiversity –  enlarged territorial scope, more programmatic 
approach to funding Natura 2000, more stru ctured cooperation w ith other EU funds. 
• On the “Environmental Policy and Governance" strand - increase budget, better 
exploitation of project results, clearer  identity for LIFE Environment, better 
coordination with other funds, 3 year priori tisation, removal of national allocations. 
In February 2011, Member States were informed via the European Climate Policy Group  of 
the results of the consultations which show ed general support for continuing a specific 
environment instrument, but to revise the inst rument, including an increased focus on climate 
action. 
1.1.  Purpose of stakeholder consultation  
The stakeholder consultations aimed to cont ribute to the process of defining problems, 
objectives and subsequent options.   
As can be seen from the below, considerable effort went into defini ng the problems and need 
for a future financial instrument for the environment as the basis for determining the rationale and agreed objectives. The results of this effort, in the form of the developed options, were 
only then presented at the stakeholder work shop, where the options were discussed and 
developed further.  
1.2. Interviews with the Commission 
The interviews with Commission officials focused on qualitative discussions around: 
• The type and scale of the environmental pol icy problems in the EU (including available 
evidence) and potential for EU added value  
• The relative importance of pa rticular problems and the dr ivers behind the problems  
• What responses might best address the probl ems; what could/shoul d be the priorities, 
objectives and activities for an In strument for the environment. 
1.3. GHK Survey of stakeholders 
Surveys of NGOs, NCPs and social partners aimed to obtain quantitative information on 
stakeholder perspectives regarding the envir onmental policy problems facing the EU and the 
potential role for a financial instrume nt dedicated to the environment.  
                                                
 
12 Proceedings available at http://ec.europa.eu/e nvironment/life/news/events/lifeconf_env/index.html. 
 
 14A total of 34 surveys were r eceived in response: 16 from NGOs13, 6 from social partners14 
and 12 from NCPs.15 It is not possible to determine how many recipients the survey was sent 
to, as several were passed onto networks who distributed the survey to members.  
1.4. GHK Survey of project beneficiaries 
This survey primarily served to gather data fo r the assessment of the baseline impacts, against 
which the options would then be  assessed. Project beneficiarie s were also asked questions 
about their opinion on the nature and scale of the problems that a European environmental 
instrument should seek to address. 
All project beneficiaries from the 2007, 2008, 2009 cal ls for proposals were surveyed (totally 
549 projects).  The responses received totalled 147 (a 30% response rate).  
1.5. EC Online Survey  
In parallel to the GHK surveys described above,  a separate survey wa s also conducted by the 
Commission’s LIFE Unit in “Your Voice in Eu rope”. The purpose of this survey was to 
gather views on the objectives, activities a nd support modalities of the instrument. 
The consultation was open to all organisations re gistered inside or outside the EU as well as 
to individual citizens. Stakeholders consulted as  part of this survey covered a broad spectrum 
of sectors and included those who were not recipients of any LIFE  funding as well as direct 
beneficiaries. Of these responses 53% were fr om private individuals, 35% from organisations 
and the remaining 13% from Competent Author ities in Member States. Roughly 10% of the 
responses were campaigns answers from Euroscep tics. Most responses originated from Italy 
(13%), Germany (13%), France (9%), Belgiu m (9%) and Spain (8%). Answers were also 
received from outside the EU. 
The survey included questions on the following areas: 
• the need and the rationale for the LIFE instrument; 
• the most effective design and management of the LIFE instrument;  
• the most appropriate delivery mechanisms;  
• relevant priorities for the LIFE instrument; 
• the most effective ways to impr ove  integration and synergy;  
• the most effective ways to im prove the visibility of LIFE. 
1.6. EC Workshop led by GHK 
Once the options had been developed on the basis of the stakeholder consultation, a 
Workshop was held on 28 Januar y 2011 where stakeholders were consulted on their views of 
                                                 
13 Including AIFM, Bankwatch, EUCC, Euro Group for Animals,  Europarc, FACE, FERN, FOE Europe, National Trust UK, 
Pan-Europe, WWF EPO, IFOAM,  ECO standard, CCB and WECF. 
14 Including BC Europe, GNM (Romania), IGOAT (Portugal) , UEAPME (European Associat ion of Craft, Small and 
Medium-sized Enterprises), SRDCP (S ustainable Development Research Ce ntre) and Environment Agency (UK). 
15 These included responses from the National Contact Points of  Italy, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Czech Republic, Spain, Slovenia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania. 
 
 15the revised problem definition, th e rationale for an EU financia l instrument, and the proposed 
options. The aim was to presen t and gather the views of stakeholders on the developed 
options for a future financial instrument for the environment and climate action. The options 
were presented to stakeholders in advance of  the workshop in a ‘LIFE Options Consultation 
Paper’. 
The workshop was attended by roughly 100 stake holders, comprised of NCPs and Member 
State representatives, NGOs and social partners , representatives from the private and public 
sectors, and European Commission officials. The breakdown of the stakeholder types of 
participants is shown in 0 below.  
Figure 1.1  Half of the workshop participants were  national contact points, with the other half being 
composed of EC officials,  NGOs and social partners  
21
11408
EC officials
NGOs
National Contact Points
Social partners
 
Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 
1.7. The CoR survey 
This was an EC-led survey which ran afte r the GHK stakeholder wo rkshop. Its aim was to 
gather the opinions of local and regional au thorities (LRAs) on the important environmental 
problems, the weaknesses and limitations in im plementing EU environm ental policy, and the 
potential role for a future EU financial instrument for the environment.  
A total of 40 survey responses were submitted from 12 EU MS, mostly from Spain (11) and 
Italy (10).  
2. Problem definition  
The initial stage of research s ought to define the problems to  be addressed by a specific 
instrument for the environment. To initiate  the stakeholder consultation, a set of five 
environmental problems that could potentially fo rm the basis for a specific instrument for the 
environment was devised. This was subject to stakeholder consultati on and discussion with 
Commission services. 
In light of these consultations the description of the five problems was revised and sought to 
clarify more particularly  the distinction between: 
• physical environmental problems; and 
• institutional drivers that lead  to policy gaps and weaknesses that result in the continuation 
of the physical problems.  
 
 162.1 Physical environmental problems and challenges in the EU Member States 
Workshop participants were asked to rank the three most important environmental problems 
facing the EU. The weighted totals are shown in the graph below (where a problem ranked 
number 1 was given a weight of  10, number 2 was given a weight of 5, and a 3 was given a 
weight of 2). 
 Figure 2.1   The weighted totals of the rankings given by stakeholders to the environmental problems 
facing the EU indicate that stak eholders believe the most important problems are nature and 
biodiversity, climate change adaptation and resource use 
050100150200250300350400450500
Air pollution Chemicals Climate
change
adaptationClimate
change
mitigationFreshwater
managementLand use Nature and
BiodiversityResource
use and
wasteUrban
environment 
Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 
The results indicate that stakeholders believe the greatest environmental challenges facing the 
EU are that of nature and biodiversity, clim ate change adaptation and resources use and 
waste. Similar findings came out of the CoR survey, where climate change adaptation was 
identified as being highly significant by 69% of  respondents, resource use and waste by 67% 
and nature and biodiversity by 42%. The two su rveys differ however, in that nature and 
biodiversity was seen as more important than climate change adaptation and resource use by 
workshop participants than responses from the CoR. 
Notably, most CoR respondents (54% of res ponses) identified a w eak cause-and-effect 
relationship between their local environmenta l problems and those occurring in other 
countries; two thirds of the remaining responde nts believe that these problems are to some 
extent related (31% of responses ), while only one third of them  (15% of responses) consider 
that such a link exists to a great extent. 
2.2 Institutional drivers and underlying causes 
The key institutional drivers identified during the options development are: 
• Variable and inadequate levels of envir onmental protection through weaknesses in policy 
development;  
• Variable and inadequate levels of envir onmental protection through weaknesses in policy 
implementation;  
 
 17• Inadequate coordination, and inadequate inte gration of the environment into policy and 
practice (including non EU countries);  
• Inadequate sharing of information and aw areness of EU environmental problems; 
• Inadequate system of support for eco-innovation. 
In the following, stakeholder views are presente d on each of these barriers, considering:  
• Their importance; and 
• Their underlying causes and barriers. 
 
The extent to which a financial instrument de dicated to the environment should be used to 
address these institution al problems is discu ssed in Section 0.  
2.2.1 Unregulated environmental problems: Policy Development  
2.2.1.1 Extent and importance of the problem 
Although most stakeholders (62%) from the GHK survey  (including non-project stakeholders 
and project-beneficiaries) agreed that there is  a need for continued policy development, the 
scope of the current acquis  was not identified as being one of the most important problems 
that needs addressing. In fact, the scope of the acquis  was the problem that was considered 
second least important (with addressing internati onal problems as the le ast important). Most 
GHK survey stakeholders (54%) also believed the problem is most likely to stay the same in 
terms of severity, with only 25% believing the problem will increase in severity.  
This relative lack of importance attributed to  the scope of the acquis across all stakeholder 
consultations was largely a reflection of the fact  that stakeholders c ould only identify a few 
areas which the current acquis  does not address.  
Policy gaps were also identified by GHK survey  respondents. For instance, in terms of broad 
policy areas, two-thirds of GHK survey respon dents identified natural resources and waste 
policy as having the biggest need for policy de velopment. 45% of respondents also believed 
that there was a gap in the development of po licy in terms of climate change. There was a 
division of opinion in relation to  biodiversity with half believi ng there is only a small, or no 
gap at all, whilst the other half believed there is either a very big or big gap to fill.  
Environment and health policy was thought  to be the most comprehensive. 
 
 18 Figure 2.2   Policy development was only considered to be a significant problem by some stakeholders across 
the four environmental policy areas 
3
3
4
513
14
10
1616
13
13
93
10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Nature / biodiversity
Climate change
Environment + health
Natural resources + waste
1 - very big gap 2 - big gap 3 - small gap 4 - no gap 
Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey 
2.2.1.2 Underlying causes and barriers to the problem 
Results from the EC workshop  further supported these findi ngs. However, attendees noted 
that a potential barrier to impr oving the scope of the acquis is the perceived lack of appetite 
for new legislation and legal standards. It is therefore, likely to become more difficult to regulate future environmental challenges, espe cially in the current economic and political 
climate. The perceived decline in support for the EU  and its activities is also a potential issue.  
2.2.2 Inadequate Policy Implementation  
2.2.2.1 Extent and importance of the problem 
The implementation of the acquis  was consistently considered to be the most important issue 
to address across all stakeholders consultations. More than 80% of the GHK stakeholder 
survey  agreed that the inadequate implementation of policies is causing major environmental 
problems to persist, and 55% of stakeholders  identified inadequate implementation as the 
most important environmental policy problem in the EU.  
On the other hand, respondents to the CoR questionnaire felt that weaknesses in policy 
development and implementation was not the most  important problem to address, however it 
was still rated as being very significant. Re spondents most often ra ted the weaknesses in 
policy development and implementation as sec ond most important institutional barrier to 
addressing environmental problems.  
Policy implementation was identified by GHK survey respondents as being a significant 
concern across all four environmental policy ar eas; more than 70% of  respondents rating the 
gap in policy implementation as either very bi g, or big across all four policy areas. The gap 
was thought to be especially big in terms of nature and biodiversity policy; almost half 
believed there was a very big gap in policy im plementation with almost all the remainder 
believing there was a big gap (see Figure below). 
 
 19Figure 2.3  Stakeholders believed there were significant gaps in policy implementation across all four 
environmental policy areas   
15
11
7
613
14
14
164
3
7
82
10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Nature / biodiversity
Climate change
Environment + health
Natural resources + waste
1 - very big gap 2 - big gap 3 - small gap 4 - no gap 
Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey 
In the case of nature and biodi versity, the management of the Natura 2000 network remains 
the biggest challenge as empha sised across all stakeholder groups. The issue of enforcement 
was also raised in the survey responses as a key barrier to the prope r implementation of the 
acquis. The use of derogations and exemptions by Member States was also noted as being a 
potential contributing fa ctor to the inadequate implementation .   
2.2.2.2 Underlying causes and barriers to the problem 
When asked to consider the causes of conti nuing environmental prob lems in the EU, GHK 
survey respondents indicated that more than 40 % of the cause is due to weaknesses in the 
current EU environmental policy and difficulties with its implementation. The remaining 60% 
was thought to be due to the broad range of demographic, economic and social pressures on the environment which indirectly implie s weaknesses in the current policy.  
The GHK survey highlighted that the inadequa te implementation of the acquis was largely 
seen as a problem of insufficient resources and differing competencies  and understandings at 
Member State level. Similarly, results from th e CoR survey showed that 40% of respondents 
felt that regional level improvements in the implementation of EU environmental 
policy/legislation are most effective in addressing the identified environmental problems. A further 24% believed that national res ponses also play a significant role. 
However, a few GHK survey respondents also noted that the implementation of the acquis 
was being significantly hampered at the policy level by the lack of integration of 
environmental concerns in the implementation other EU policies  
CoR respondents were asked to consider the most significant barriers to improving the 
implementation of the acquis. The two most fre quently cited in response were the ‘lack of 
financial resources to adequately implement a nd enforce policy’ and ‘conflicting priorities.  
The ‘least significant’ issue in terms of impl ementing EU environmenta l policy/legislation for 
CoR respondents was the ‘lack of knowledge’: 46% of the responde nts consider th is issue as 
‘least significant’ and 13% as ‘second leas t significant’. Other issues mentioned by 
respondents include the lack of technical and hu man resources, the lack of a relevant policy 
framework at the national and regional levels, as well as the lack of  knowledge and awareness 
by the general public. 
GHK survey respondents were split almost eq ually across those who thought the problem 
would improve or get worse to 2020, whilst most (more than 40%), believed the problem 
 
 20would stay the same. Moreover, the current econo mic climate is likely to worsen the problem 
as the environment drops down on the ag enda, in favour of other priorities. 
2.2.3 Insufficient synergies and inadequate inte gration of the environment into policy  
There is a distinction between integration, a nd creating synergies (mainstreaming). Integration 
of environmental concerns into sectoral policies is seen as the responsibility of individual 
policy units. Creating synergies on the other ha nd, has less to do with policies than with 
improving complementarities between actual f unding instruments. Stakeholders tended to 
focus their feedback and discus sion on the former issue (i.e. integration of environmental 
concerns into sectoral policies), rather than on improving synergies between funding 
instruments as such (i.e. between, for instance,  LIFE and the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD). The latter poi nt was, however, reflected in proposals 
(especially for Commission service interviews), fo r developing options for the future of LIFE, 
whereby LIFE could act as a test bed for pilo t projects, which would then be mainstreamed 
through other funds. 
It is important to note that the issue of integr ation of environmental co ncerns into sectoral 
policies can be broken down into two key components:  
• integration in principle: the integration of  the environment concerns into sectoral 
objectives; and,  
• integration in practice: the lack of implementation of in tegration objectives (i.e. the 
lack of implementation of more sustaina ble concerns into se ctoral policies).  
2.2.3.1 Extent and importance of the problem 
Consultation of Commission services suggest that whilst some progre ss has been made in 
improving environmental integration within sect oral objectives (and to  a lesser extent in 
practice), it remains a key issue across the policy areas and there is still significant room for 
improvement.   
In fact, respondents to the CoR questionnaire most often rated the weaknesses in the 
integration of environmental policy considera tions into other polic y areas as the most 
important institutional barrier to addressing environmental problems (selected as most 
important weakness by 41% of the respondents a nd as second most important by 16% of the 
respondents). Moreover, weaknesses in the use of various EU funding instruments to support 
the environment was also felt to be  a signific ant problem, being select ed as most important 
weakness by 15.5% of the respondents and as  second most important by 22% of them. 
The general consensus across GHK survey stakeholders , EC workshop  attendees and 
interviews  with Commission officials was that the problem of integra tion is one of its 
application, not the principle. Most stakeholders  did think that the main problem lay in the 
implementation of the policies, rather than the definition of polices; instruments such as the 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are ‘greened ’ in principle, but this does not always 
translate into their application.  
 
 21Figure 2.4.  The clear majority of workshop participants did not think that the integration of environmental 
concerns into sectoral policies has been successful 
3
6310
Good
Bad/Insufficient
Don’t Know
 
Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop  
Overall, the impact of other EU policies and spending instruments was seen as the second 
most important environmental policy problem by GHK survey  respondents (after the 
implementation of the acquis), especially in the area of nature and biodiversity policy and 
natural resources and waste. Some EC workshop participants  for instance, noted that the 
lack of coherence in funding for biodiversity across major European policy instruments (as 
well as weak political prioritisation in Member States), are the key factors in the low uptake 
of the wide range of fundi ng opportunities for biodiversity.16  Indeed, integration was seen as 
a problem by most workshop participants, with 83%  feeling that integra tion to date has been 
poor. 
The CAP was mentioned most ofte n as the funding instrument in which integration in practice 
was most difficult. Participants to the workshop  perceived the CAP as ‘unsuccessful’ in 
integrating nature and biodiversity objectives into the instrument, and as counteracting other 
environmental policies. Areas outside Natura 2000 were felt to be particularly neglected, with 
CAP funding being viewed as ‘patchy’ on the ground, with low uptake by some farmers.  
However, in its mid-term review of the 6th Environment Action Programme (6EAP) 
(COM(2007) 225) the Commissi on expressed a different view from above, through 
recognising that, "in the agricultural sector, ther e have been fundamental reforms over the last 
15 years that have moved towards seeing farmers as stewards of nature". Specifically in the 
case of nature and biodiversit y, integration was seen as a particularly major issue by 
stakeholders, especially given th at currently only 20% of fina ncing needs for the Natura 2000 
network are being met. This ‘gap’ in financ ing needs highlights the importance of other 
instruments, namely rural development and re gional funding, and the role they can play in 
contributing towards filling the gap. Currently, although instruments such as the CAP and the 
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) ar e ‘proofed’ and ‘greened’ (e.g. explicitly 
mention Natura 2000) and opportunities to finan ce activities relating to the network exist, 
uptake remains poor in practice. This lack of  application ‘on the ground’ is most likely 
associated with poor administra tive and absorption capacity in  the Member States, and the 
fact that for example in agriculture, less st rategic planning is undertaken for nature and 
biodiversity.  
                                                 
16 Changing Perspectives: How the EU budget can sh ape a sustainable future (2010). Available from: 
http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=7819455 B-C145-9353-9D77F0192D2A9BD2&showMeta=0.  
 
 222.2.3.2 Underlying causes and barriers 
Given the general viewpoint that integration is an issue of application, it is perhaps 
unsurprising that many stakeholders in th e GHK survey, in the workshop and in the 
interviews with EC officials, noted that the problem of integration manifested itself at a 
national, Member State level (once the polic ies had been developed and environmental 
concerns integrated); there is a disconnect be tween what is happening at the EU policy level 
and what is happening in practice at the local level. This is possibly due to the degree of 
flexibility given to Member States to utilis e the funding from the key instruments and/or 
because the instruments are regionally managed.  
Although most GHK survey stakeholders (46%) be lieved the problem woul d largely stay the 
same until 2020, almost 40% thought the environmental problems caused by the impact of other EU policies was likely to increase.  
2.2.4.  Lack of awareness and information sharing   
2.2.4.1 Extent and importance of the problem 
The need to improve awareness levels and to  increase knowledge sharing was most often 
rated as having middling importance by GHK survey respondents. Similarly, CoR respondents gave a lower level of importance to  the inadequate leve ls of awareness of 
environmental problems by policy-makers, with  22% ranking this wea kness as second most 
important and an equal percentage as th ird most important. However, Commission 
interviewees believed that awareness of the public and of politicians is a key issue which needs to be improved, especially given the links between awareness and policy implementation. 
A lack of awareness and knowledge sharing was rated by GHK survey respondents as second 
most important in the policy area of e nvironment and health. However Commission 
interviewees considered that the problem was rele vant to virtually all policy areas. Interviews 
with Commission services suggested  that knowledge sharing was also  seen as important in the 
case of waste policy and resource use, with a lack of knowledge transfer between national and 
local levels, whilst in the case of the Natura 2000 network, the lack of awareness of the 
benefits of the network is seen as a major barrier to progress.  
2.2.4.2 Underlying causes and barriers 
EC workshop participants also noted that raisi ng awareness should not be seen as a standalone 
activity, but rather as an  activity that is associated with all other activities. Several workshop 
attendees noted that a lack of awareness im pedes the implementation of policy. Some also 
thought that an adequate implementation of po licy would also lead to  greater awareness. 
Awareness is therefore considered  a critical element to ensuri ng the adequate implementation 
of policy. As such, many stakeholders indicate d that a lack of awar eness is an underlying 
cause of other problems.  
Nonetheless, a few GHK survey stakeholders suggested that in the case of politicians 
(compared to the public) the issue is one of increasing political will, and less a case of 
increasing knowledge.  
 
 232.2.5 Inadequate support for eco-innovation  
2.2.5.1 Extent and importance of the problem 
Regarding general implementation of the eco-i nnovation issue, all stak eholders recognised 
that new policy and technological responses ar e required to address continuing and future 
environmental problems, above all of the other drivers. Some workshop participants however, 
suggested that the lack  of support for eco-innovation should not be considered  as a driver 
(especially when interpreted strictly as supporting innovative eco-technologies). 
Respondents to the CoR survey rated the inadeq uate support for eco-innovation as one of the 
least important issues to address. Views in the case of the GHK survey were very much 
divided about how important the need for eco-innovation is; roughly a third each thought it was most important, of middling importance, a nd of low importance. Almost the same was 
found when GHK survey respondents were asked how  the problem would change in severity 
by 2020, with roughly a third each saying it would decrease, stay the same, or increase.  
Eco-innovation was rated by survey respondents as by far the most important issue to address 
in the policy area of climate change.  
2.2.5.2 Underlying causes and barriers 
The underlying causes and barriers were not commented on by stakeholders.  
3 The rationale for, and EU added value  of, a specific instrument for the 
environment and climate action 
3.1 Justifications for an inst rument for the environment 
Several reasons were felt to be  important justifications for ha ving a dedicated instrument for 
the environment. The two most important reas ons according to workshop participants are the 
transboundary and public asset nature of environmental assets (see 0) 
 Figure 3.1 Weighted ratings indicate that the most important justifications for an instrument for the 
environment rated by workshop participants is the transboundary and public goods nature of environmental assets  
050100150200250300
Burden sharing Transboundary Environmental
assets are
public goodsPrevent
Member States
gaining
competitive
advantageRemedy
implementation
failures in
Member StatesImproving
coordination
across Member
StatesSharing of good
practice and
innovative ideasOther (Various)
 
Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 
 
 24However, viewpoints between different stakehol der groups did differ somewhat. For instance, 
social partners believed the most important  reason for a dedicated instrument for the 
environment was for the sharing of good practice and innovative ideas, while for government officials, the most important reason was to re medy implementation failures in Member States. 
For NGOs and NCPs, both felt that the most im portant justification was the public asset 
nature of environmental assets, although NGOs also felt that implementation failures in 
Member States was almost equally as important. 
In the case of CoR respondents, who were aske d a similar question, the rationale for EU level 
action that were considered high ly valid by stakeholders (50% of  respondents) was that  ‘EU 
action is required to remedy failures in Member  States in the transposition, implementation 
and enforcement of EU environmental policy’ was considered highly valid by 50% of the 
respondents. ‘Improved coordination of policy efforts across Member States (MS)  in 
(central/regional level) in order to better integr ate environmental policies in sectoral policies’, 
was placed in the top two validity levels by 85% of the respondents. A similar indication was given by 77.5% of the responden ts about ‘burden sharing at  EU level to increase the 
effectiveness of MS policy in  meeting EU objectives’. Moreover, 40% of the respondents 
considered highly valid the following arguments : ‘Environmental problems are often trans-
boundary across MS borders and require EU leve l responses’ and ‘envir onmental assets are 
public goods and require EU action to  ensure adequate provision’.  
3.2 EU added value of the existing  instrument for the environment 
Stakeholders believe the LIFE instrument is  a valuable programme and should definitely 
continue into the future. Results from the YVIE survey were also clear on this point – almost 
80% of respondents believed  to a great extent that  there is a need for a specific instrument for 
the environment. Moreover, 98% of workshop partic ipants also felt that a specific instrument 
for the environment was necessary in order to  meet environmental challenges. However, 
whilst virtually all participants felt that there is  a clear need, some noted that it will not be 
sufficient to address environmental problem s unless the integration of environmental 
considerations into other funding instruments is  improved and the resources available to it are 
significantly increased. 
The overwhelming consensus across all stakeholde rs consulted is that the most important 
focus for LIFE should be the implementation of the acquis. Its role in  implementing policies 
for nature and biodiversity (e.g. the Natura 20 00 network) was seen as being particularly 
important, given the absence of any other financ ial instrument specifically focused on nature 
protection. The promotion of aw areness and knowledge sharing was seen as a particularly 
important activity. GHK survey respondents stated  that other relevant areas of activity for 
LIFE+ were the funding of innovative means of addressing future challenges as well as 
addressing the impact that other EU policie s and spending instruments can have on the 
environment.  
 
 25Figure 3.2  The existing LIFE instrument was thought to  be most effective (first figure) and most relevant 
(second figure) in the case of the acquis’ implemen tation, with its role in awareness raising and 
knowledge sharing also bein g especially significant 
25
9
9
7
205
9
17
17
1011
2
50% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Implementation of the acquis
Scope of the acquis
Future challenges & innovation
Impact of other EU policies & spending instruments
Awareness & knowledge sharing
1 - highly relevant 2- somewhat relevant 3 - not relevant 
Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey 
Survey respondents were also asked to allocate resources across the different policy problems, 
and consequently spread the resources across all the policy problems, although most of the 
resources (38%) were thought to be best allocat ed to the implementation of the environmental 
acquis. This provides further indication that the focus of a future instrument for the 
environment should be on improving the implementation of the acquis. 
There was a clear preference for the instrument to focus a significant portion of its resources 
on the implementation of the acquis (see figure below). GKH survey respondents thought that 
after the implementation of the acquis, almost equal portions of resources should be spent on 
awareness raising and knowledge sharing, and a ddressing the impact that other EU policies 
and spending instruments can have on the en vironment. Respondents thought that the least 
amount of resources should be spent on addressi ng the impacts of international pressures on 
the EU (see Figure below). Thus, despite th e current resource limita tions, none of the 
stakeholders believed the instrument should be re stricted to addressing ju st one type of policy 
problem or activity.  
Figure 3.3.   GHK survey stakeholders believed, on average, that 38% of the resources of LIFE should be 
spent on addressing the inadequacies of the acquis’ implementation 
38%
10%12%14%19%7%Implementation of the acquis
Scope of the acquis
Future challenges & innovation
Impact of other EU policies & 
spending instruments 
Awareness & knowledge sharing
International pressures
 
Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey 
  
 
 263.3 Rationale for an instrument for the envi ronment to intervene in the five main 
problems identified 
3.3.1 Policy development  
Although the need for further pol icy development was not thought to be as great relative to 
other environmental policy issues, almost 70% of GHK survey stakeholders believed there 
was substantial added value from EU level actio n. The transboundary nature of environmental 
problems was by far the most commonly cited rationale by GHK survey respondents for EU 
intervention in policy development. 
Whether a dedicated financial inst rument for the environment is the best means to address this 
problem however is not so clea r. For instance, participants in the EC workshop expressed 
reservations as to whether an  instrument for the environmen t should address weaknesses in 
the development of EU policy. 
3.3.2 Policy implementation 
Although the implementation of the acquis was larg ely seen as a problem at the Member State 
level, virtually all GHK survey stakeholders be lieved there was substa ntial added value from 
EU level action to improve the implementati on of environmental legislation, with all 
respondents believing there was a need for financ ial intervention to addr ess the problem.  The 
most common rationales given fo r doing so was the transboundary  nature of environmental 
problems and the regulatory failures in Member States.  
90% of GHK survey respondents indicated that there was substantial EU added value for EU 
level action to improve policy implementation, w ith 97% believing that th ere is a rational for 
EU financial intervention. Enhancing the capacity  of Member States to implement policy was 
ranked as the most important role for a sp ecific instrument for the environment.  
More than 80% of respondents to  the “Your Voice in Europe” survey also noted that EU 
financial assistance for the implementation of the environmental acquis is relevant or very 
relevant as a justification for a specific inst rument for the environment. 70% also believed 
that supporting and improving implementation was either very important or important for a 
future financial instrument for the environment. 
3.3.3 Integration of environmental co ncerns into sectoral policies 
Improving the integration of environmental c oncerns into other policies is considered 
imperative by all groups of stakeholders because of:  
• the cross-cutting natu re of the environment and biodiversity;  
• the negative impacts on the environment a nd biodiversity of other policies; and 
• the fact that direct funding for the environmen t is severely constrained, and so financing 
for the environmental acquis is highly de pendent on other policies and funding 
instruments.  
Most (almost 75%) of GHK survey respondents t hought the added value of EU level action to 
improve the impact of other EU policies on the environment was substantial. The most 
popular rationales given for doing so was the fact that environmental assets are public goods, 
 
 27requiring EU action to ensure their adequate provision, and the need to mitigate the possible 
adverse impacts on competitiveness. 75% of stakeholders thought the problem merited 
financial expenditure at the EU level. 
With regard to synergies between different funding instruments, YVIE results showed that 
most respondents agreed (more than 80%) that a structured cooperation between the future 
EU financial instruments for the environment and other EU funding instruments should be 
established. This was by far the preferred op tion for enhancing synergies between LIFE and 
other EU programmes.  
A further popular suggestion was to use the future  instrument for the environment to develop 
a project pipe-line, funding exem plar initiatives to demonstrate feasibility and disseminating 
results as the basis of subse quent mainstream funding other EU instruments (65% of GHK 
stakeholder survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this would improve 
complementarity). A significant number of re spondents to the YVIE also  believed that this 
approach would be a good means to improving complementarities between different funding 
instruments (see figure below) 
Figure 3.4 The most popular suggestion for improving complementarities between funding instruments was 
for structured cooperation to be estab lished between the financial instruments 
432226165
301365364
58130180
80114114
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Structured cooperation between financial
instrumentsInstrument for the environment to act as a
project pipeline, laying the groundwork for…Each funding instrument should finance different
objectives and types of projects
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 
3.3.4 Awareness raising and information sharing   
Slightly more than half of the GHK survey respondents believed ther e was substantial added 
value for EU level action to improve awareness levels (with the other half believing there was 
at least some added value). The majority of respondents (almost 90%) also believed there was 
a rationale for EU level expenditure to do so, because of the need to  share good practice and 
innovative ideas, and to support burden sharing. In the case of the YVIE survey, a considerable number of respondents felt that it was very important for a future instrument for 
the environment to contribute to awareness ra ising and information activities (being given a 
rating of 5 or 4 by 64% of re spondents). However, some wo rkshop participants felt that 
awareness had already been sufficiently mainst reamed, and that other instruments and other 
stakeholders are already addressing this issue.  
 
 28Figure 3.5 Most YVIE respondents felt it was important  for a future instrument for the environment to 
contribute towards awareness raising and information sharing was an important  
326
258128655085 5 - very important
4
3
2
1
0 - not at all important
 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 
3.3.5 Support for eco-innovation  
Almost 60% of survey respondents believed th ere is substantial EU added value from 
supporting eco-innovation (with 77% agreeing that this should include financial support), 
with the key justification being the need for knowledge sharing.  
In the case of the YVIE survey, a considerable number of respondents fe lt that it was very 
important for a future instrument for the environment to contribute to awareness raising and information activities (being given a ra ting of 5 or 4 by 68% of respondents). 
However, although thought to be an important is sue in addressing environmental problems in 
general, only a third of GHK survey responden ts felt that a specific instrument for the 
environment should address th e needs of eco-innovation gi ven the presence of other 
instruments in this field, particularly that  of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme 
(the CIP) and the Seventh Fram ework Programme. More than 60% of survey respondents felt 
that addressing eco-innovation is only somewhat relevant for an instrument dedicated to the 
environment.   
Figure 3.6 Most YVIE respondents felt it was important for a future instrument for the environment to 
boost innovative actions for the environment  
352
270122373992 5 - very important
4
3
2
1
0 - not at all important
 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 
 
 29 
4 Objectives, Activities and Resources of  a future instrument for the environment 
4.1 Objectives 
The stakeholder workshop considered suggested  objectives. These were largely accepted. As 
with the GHK survey, the most important objective for a specific instrument for the 
environment was felt to be the implementation of the acquis (see 0). 
However, there was some concern that a sp ecific objective relating to EU international 
commitments might lead to an instrument that gave insufficient weight to issues of more 
immediate concern and which would provide clearer EU added value. 
Figure 4.1 Workshop participants indicated that the most important objective for an instrument for the 
environment is to improve the implementation of the environmental acquis  (weighted scores) 
 
Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 
4.2 Activities 
Workshop participants were asked to rate potentia l activities that a future instrument for the 
environment could undertake. By far the most im portant activities rate d by participants were 
the management of the Natura 2000 network, and the demonstration of good practice through 
pilot projects. 
The demonstration and sharing of best practice was rated the most important objective for an 
instrument for the environment by respondents to the YVIE survey, although only marginally. 
Some stakeholders also suggested that LI FE should fund bottom-up projects, as well as 
projects programmed at national level with in a national framework to develop innovative 
approaches that provide new so lutions to the key problems. 
 
 30Figure 4.2 Weighted ratings by workshop participants indicate that the management of the Natura 2000 
network and the demonstration of good pr actice are the key activities perceived by 
stakeholders for an instrument for the environment 
0100200300400500600
Raise
awarenessPilot and
demonstrate
good practiceIncrease in the
exchange of
knowledge and
experiencePromote
innovation in
techniquesResearch and
investigate
improvements
in
environmental
policyStrengthen the
role of
environmental
NGOsManagement of
the Natura 2000
Network 
Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 
 
Figure 4.3 Demonstration and sharing of best practice was most often given the highest ratings when 
YVIE respondents were asked what role a future instrument for the environment should play 
 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 
 
CoR respondents were also asked to consider what activities would be most effective in 
improving environmental policy and its implementati on. In contrast to th e results found in the 
GHK and YVIE survey, the most frequently sel ected activities was the “raising awareness of 
the environmental problems and the need for so lutions amongst different actors” (selected as 
most effective by 28% of the respondents and as second most effective by 34.5% of the respondents) and “promoting innov ation in techniques (includi ng monitoring) that enable 
improved environmental management especially by competent authorities” (selected as ‘most 
effective’ by 25% of the respondents and sec ond most effective by 16% of the respondents). 
The demonstration of good practice (selected as  ‘most effective’ by 22% of the respondents 
and as second most effective by 19% of the respondents) and investment in the management 
 
 31of the Natura 2000 network (selected as most ef fective by 19% of the respondents and as third 
most effective by an equal percentage of re spondents), whilst also popular choices, were 
considered slightly less important than those activities mentioned above. 
The least effective of the activities were considered to be ‘to research and investigate 
improvements in environmenta l policy and expanding the knowle dge base for policy’, ‘to 
strengthen the role of envir onmental NGOs’ and ‘to accelerate le arning through an increase in 
the exchange of knowledge and experience between competent authorities responsible for 
environmental policy implementation’. 
Figure 4.4 CoR respondents most often selected the need to raise awareness of environmental problems 
and solutions, and the promotion of innovation as the key activities to improve the implementation of environmental policy 
 
Source: CoR Report: ‘Assessment of Territorial Impact s of the EU LIFE+ Instrument’ – results from the 
Committee of the Regions survey 
YVIE respondents were also asked what activities they thought would most  act to increase the 
visibility of the results of LIFE+ funded projec ts and encourage their re plication at a larger 
scale. Most respondents thought this was best done through encouraging projects to 
communicate more on their results. However, more thematic events, and the creation of 
networks and clusters of projects within the same environmental field and/or which have 
similar objectives was also thought to be useful. 
 
 32Figure 4.5 YVIE respondents believed that the communication of project results was most often selected 
as the activity which would increase the visib ility and replicability of LIFE+ project results 
548
484
48224515913462 Encouraging projects to communicate more on their
results
Organising more thematic events
Creating networks / clusters of similar projects
Increasing the importance of transnational projects
Favouring projects with more beneficiaries
Other
Dont know
 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 
4.3 Resources 
Although stakeholders identified opportunities fo r improvement, they also noted that a key 
factor limiting the effectiveness of LIFE+ has been its limited resources.  
Results from the YVIE survey indicate that th e clear majority of respondents (68%) thought 
that a future instrument for the environment s hould have an annual budget that is higher than 
the current annual budget of LIFE+.   Only the least number of respondents (15%) believed the 
budget should be decreased. 
Figure 4.6  The majority of respondents to the YVIE survey believed that the budget for a future 
instrument for the environm ent should be increased 
 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 
The result was even more unequivocal in the case of the GHK survey , where 90% of survey 
respondents believed that LIFE+ was under-resourced and should have access to considerably 
more funding. Whilst many did not think there w ould, realistically, be a very significant 
increase, most nonetheless cons idered that signifi cantly more resources were required. 
Similarly with EC workshop participants, the sen timent was one of, “the more the better”, as 
long as there was a commensurate increas e in capacity to manage the funds.  
Most survey respondents, and 42%  of EC workshop participants , believed that resources of 
€500 million to €1 billion a year would be more  appropriate (see figure below) than the 
current €0.3 billion. The majority of the remaining workshop participants (33%) voted for an 
increase in resources to  €1 – 5 billion a year.  
 
 33Figure 4.7 The preference of stakeholders consulted by GHK, (an almost identical proportion of those 
consulted in the survey and in the workshop), was to increase the resources available to LIFE+ 
to levels of between €500 million and €1 billion a year (about 40%), while the second most popular option was to increase resources to €1 million and €5 billion a year (about 30%) 
 
Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey and EC Workshop 
5 Thematic and territorial focus  
5.1 Thematic focus 
None of the GHK survey stakeholders believ ed the instrument should be restricted to 
addressing just one type of po licy problem or activity. The clear majority of EC workshop 
participants (75%) were also clear that a th ematic focus was not re quired, with a need to 
address the whole of the acquis. Some noted that  excluding certain themes at different times 
might compromise the continuity in the support  provided to particul ar themes and hence 
quality of work delivered. There was a resounding vi ew that all the themes are interlinked and 
there is a lot of interaction between them, maki ng it difficult to separate out ‘more important’ 
themes.  
Similarly, respondents to the CoR survey indicat ed that more than three quarters of the 
respondents (76%) do not agree with narrowing th e focus of the future instrument to a 
specific area/objective (Chart  20). Those who are in favour of a more focused LIFE 
instrument, specify climate change (42% of re sponses), the management of the Natura 2000 
Network (33% of responses) and the Habitats a nd Birds directives (17% of responses) as the 
most pertinent objectives/areas.  
The results from the YVIE survey, however, s how that roughly 60% of  respondents felt that 
the Commission should set a number of environm ental thematic issues to be addressed in 
priority. It should be noted that the YVIE survey was aski ng respondents whether certain 
environmental fields should be prioritised; this does not necessarily mean that other 
environmental fields would be completely ex cluded. Therefore the YVIE results and the GHK 
survey results are not necessarily contradi ctory, given that the GHK survey was asking 
respondents to consider whether a future instrument should be completely limited to certain 
environmental policy areas. This latter option was clearly much less desirable.  
Indeed, whilst many stakeholders noted that a focus on nature and biodiversity in a future 
instrument would be useful (especially give n that no other instruments directly supports 
nature protection and biodiversity as an explicit objective), other activities which are not explicitly related to nature pr otection (e.g. water resources) should not be excluded from 
being potentially funded (see 0). 
 
 34A similar result was found in the YVIE survey, wh ere nature and biodiv ersity was thought to 
be the most relevant environmental policy area  for an instrument for the environment, but 
other environmental fields (e.g. water, climate ch ange, marine, etc.) were also believed to be 
particularly relevant. 
Overall then, it seems that stakeholders are not necessarily adverse to having a focused  
instrument, but they are adverse to having an instrument which focuses only on one type of 
activity or policy area to the exclusion of all ot hers (such as nature pr otection). Stakeholders 
felt that priorities, if set, s hould be non-exclusive, to avoid deterring good ideas and projects 
but ensuring the weight of the progr amme addresses the main objectives. 
Figure 5.1 Weighted responses from workshop particip ants indicated that the cl ear majority felt that a 
focus on nature and biodiversity was most important, although other environmental policy areas remain relevant  
 
Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 
 
 35Figure 5.2 YVIE results indicate that the most relevant environmental policy area for an instrument for 
the environment is nature and biodiversity, although other environmental policy areas also remain important 
 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 
5.2 Territorial focus  
The territorial focus could better be considered in  the design of the future instrument. Several 
Commission interviewees stated that it was regr ettable that the Third Country component was 
removed from LIFE, as they felt these projects had been effective in the past. Stakeholders 
across all the consultations gene rally supported the potential for a specific instrument for the 
environment to fund activities outside the EU , as long as it provided EU benefits. 
Almost 70% of respondents to the “Your Voice in Europe” survey agr eed that a specific 
instrument should allow for the possibility of so me activities to be carried out outside the EU. 
Of those who responded in the affirmative, mo st (almost 40%) thought that external action 
should only be carried out wher e there is a clear contribution to achieving an EU policy 
objective. Other justifications given for extern al action were in the case of countries which 
aim at becoming members of the EU in the fu ture ('candidate countr ies' and 'potential 
candidates') and in the case of countries neighbouring the EU. 
Similarly, workshop participants considered that the primary fo cus for activities outside the 
EU should be on issues with neighbouring countr ies, rather than inte rnational commitments. 
Funding activities outside the EU would help w ith awareness raising and knowledge sharing 
as there is often a significant need for joint action.  
For transnational projects, the current minimu m share of LIFE+ funds allocated (15%) is 
viewed as reasonable by the major ity of stakeholders consulted. In  fact, the current instrument 
spends 30% of the budget on transnationa l activities. 
 
 36However, 39% of respondents to the CoR survey believe that the new LIFE instrument should 
address EU countries only. Nonetheless, 36% co nsider that it should ideally include ‘minor 
allowances for third countries involvement’ . The few arguments raised by the respondents 
regarding this matter su ggest that involvement of countries  outside the EU should be allowed 
if required by the project, or more specificall y, whenever there is a clear contribution towards 
achieving specific EU policy object ives and/or promoting solutions to shared problems. 
Overall, these results are not entirely surprising , in light of the fact that most stakeholders 
believed that burden sharing and the transboundar y nature of environmental problems is the 
second most important rationale for a specific instrument for the environment to exist (EC  workshop participants), and the most importa nt rationale by YVIE survey respondents. 
survey). 
6 Delivery Mechanisms and Management Options  
6.1. Delivery Mechanisms  
In general, the existing suite of mechanisms us ed in the current LIFE+ instrument was seen by 
stakeholders as being adequate. Respondents to  “Your Voice in Europe” noted that action 
grants were, by far, the most important activit y, followed by public procurement of services.  
Procurement of services (e.g. studies, technica l assistance) was only so mewhat thought to be 
more relevant than the operational grants given to NGOs. There was considerable more 
uncertainty about the use of innovative instruments (e.g. provis ion of interest rate subsidies, 
subsidised loans, venture capital, micro-credit). 
In the case of the CoR survey, th e most effective mechanisms to be used in the future LIFE 
instrument are considered to be ‘action grants (transnational projects, in tegrated and technical 
assistance)’, followed by ‘operati onal grants’, (42% and 23% of  responses, respectively). The 
other two mechanisms listed in the questionnaire (‘public procurement’ and innovative 
instruments) received less than one fifth of responses (19% and 16% respectively). 
Figure 6.1 YVIE results indicate that respondents be lieve that the most releva nt delivery mechanism for 
an instrument for the environment is nature action grants 
 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 
6.2 Action grants  
Despite the support given by stakeholders to the need for, and importance of, action grants (as 
indicated in figure 6.1), stak eholders did raise some issues with the current co-financing rate  
for action grants, with 65% of YVIE respondents  noting that the curr ent 50% rate is not 
appropriate. Some workshop participants, for instan ce, felt that the current co-financing rate is 
regressive, and discriminate s against poorer Member Stat es. It was suggested that 
 
 37differentiated co-financing rates, would be bene ficial, with higher co-financing rates for those 
Member States who find it difficult to subm it project applications or absorb funding. The 
number of quality projects being financed may also be lower, as some project beneficiaries are unable to secure sufficient match f unding to be eligible for LIFE funding.  
Overall, there was a general agreement amon g workshop participants that the EU should 
contribute a maximum of 75% of the total project budget to ensure  that beneficiaries maintain 
ownership of their projects.  
6.3 Operational grants 
Although operational grants received less  support in the YVIE survey than public 
procurement or action grants, workshop particip ants nonetheless noted that strengthening the 
role of environmental NGOs was a very importa nt activity, given their importance in linking 
inputs from the general public to policy deve lopment, in raising awareness and sharing 
knowledge, as well as ensuring that the views of civil society are re presented at a policy level. 
When asked whether the current co-financing  rate of 70% for NGO operating grants is 
appropriate, most stakeholders (52%) believed it was.  Howeve r, several respondents also 
believed it was too high, although an  almost similar amount was not sure (see figure below). 
When asked further whether this operationa l funding should be gradually decreased over 
consecutive years, there was an even split between respondents who thought it should, and 
respondents who thought it shoul d not (38% each way). 
A clearer response was given to the question of whether a future instrument for the 
environment should prioritise the funding of certain types of NGOs; in this case, 46% 
believed this approach should be adopted, whilst a third believed it should not.  
The type of NGOs that were most often chosen  as being prioritised, are the NGOs that work 
on the implementation of EU policy. Other pr eferred means of prioritisation were NGOs 
which are involved in shaping EU  policy, and those which have large geographical coverage.  
Respondents were less likely to  indicate that prioritisation should be given to those NGOs 
which work on specific topics and new NGO networks.  
Figure 6.2 YVIE results indicate that most stakeholders believed the current co-financing rate for NGO 
operating grants (70%) to be appropriate 
189
47068184Too high
Appropriate
Too low
Dont know
 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 
6.4 Use of innovative instruments 
The use of innovative instruments (e.g. loans)  had the least support. For instance, many 
workshop participants believed that loans are not  likely to be appropriate for nature and 
biodiversity projects, which ar e better served by grants. However, loans could be more 
 
 38feasible for EPG-type demonstration projects th at are close to market (although the potential 
for overlaps with the CIP would n eed to be carefully managed).  
6.5 Integrated Projects 
Views were somewhat divided on the benefits of integrated projects (IPs ). Some thought they 
have the potential to increase complementarity and policy interaction, especially respondents 
to the YVIE survey, where 55% thought that IPs should be encouraged. Fewer respondents 
felt that IPs are suited to the management of the Natura 2000 network (42%), and a significant 
number of respondents were not  sure (41%). Slightly more  respondents (50%) thought IPs 
were right, however, for other sectors. Again though, many were unclear about the nature and 
benefits of IPs (38%). 
In the case of the CoR survey, 85% of the respondents liked the idea of IPs, as opposed to 
only 10% who disagreed with that  concept; 5% of respondents  did not expre ss an opinion. 
Respondents have underlined the suitability of IPs when sear ching for local solutions to 
regional or national envi ronmental problems. They also cl aim that IPs are appropriate to 
enhance coordination in envir onmental issues especially when involving international 
cooperation; can help promote coordination betw een sectoral policies and between different 
territorial areas; and a llow the optimisation of resources. On  the other hand, respondents have 
commented that the necessary staff capacity to support IPs is missing at the local level, as 
well as that integration in projects can be both a desirable aspect and a burden (as sometimes it is important to have the option to address only environmental issues in a project). Moreover, those who are against IP s, argue that in practice, such  projects are too complex and 
fail to achieve high quality standards.  
About three quarters of the respondents consid er IPs quite feasible, while 21% finds those 
projects very feasible; only 5% believe that su ch projects are not feasible (Chart 15). As one 
of the respondents commented, IPs offer the a dvantage of a comprehensive solution to the 
problem at regional level, but at the same tim e require quality coordination of activities and 
increased financing. In addition, respondents ra ised concerns over the increased coordination 
requirements between the different agencies g overning IPs, calling for consensus at a high 
governance level. The need to simplify financia l reporting procedures was also mentioned, 
along with comments on the difficulties faced by public bodies lacking resources to co-
finance IPs.  
At the same time, respondents highlighted the potential of IPs to maximise synergies and 
value for money, as well as to create opport unities for the implementation of large-scale 
actions, bringing together both a large number of experts/technician s and adequate funds. 
Many participants at the workshop believed IPs would be difficult to operationalise in 
practice. Some issues that were raised includ ed the potential difficulties in fulfilling eligibility 
requirements, possible difficulties in managing pr ojects and actually coordinating the project 
across the different funding instruments involve d given the very different management and 
organisational cultures. The perceived clash between the programmatic approach in other 
instruments and the project approach in LIFE  was a key reason for why stakeholders were 
sceptical of the potential for integr ated projects to be successful in practice. It was noted that 
IPs are likely to be more feasible for nature an d biodiversity projects as  the future instrument 
would be able to ‘activate’ other funds and gather diverse sectoral policies.  
However, CoR respondents suggested that IPs coul d most realistically an d effectively be used 
to address a wide variety of environmen tal problems/challenges met within their 
 
 39region/municipality, notably: ‘freshwater mana gement’ (21.5% of responses); ‘nature and 
biodiversity’ (18% of responses);  ‘resource use and waste’ (14%  of responses); as well as 
‘urban environment’, ‘air pollution’ and ‘land use’ (each counting for 9% of responses). In 
addition, a total of 14% of th e related responses concerned c limate change issues (either 
adaptation or mitigation). 
About half of the CoR respondents (47%) were not  certain if their muni cipality/region would 
be interested in applying for an integrated project in the next pr ogramme period; as few 
respondents commented, such a decision remains s ubject to their capacity and availability of 
resources. 45% of the respondents anticipate such  an action in the future, while only 8% is 
negative in that respect. 
6.6 Management approaches 
An interesting discussion was had between work shop participants regarding the most suitable 
management approach. The overall conclusion was the best management approach varies 
depending on the size of the budget. With the cu rrent budget however, the significant majority 
(81%) agreed that the current direct centra lised management approach is best (see 0). 
Although there was significantly more variation in response to the YVIE survey, a clear 
majority (almost 70%) of respondents also want ed to see the current  central management 
approach continue.  
YVIE respondents who felt that a management sy stem other than the current centralised 
approach was more appropriate, varied in what th ey believed was the best alternative. Slightly 
more than a third of those (34%) believed th at shared management between the European 
Commission and national authori ties was best.  Slightly less than a third of those (29%) 
believed that the management of a future inst rument for the environment should be entirely 
left to national authorities. The least popular approach for YVIE respondents was an European Executive Agency.  
Figure 6.3 The clear majority of workshop particip ants and YVIE respondents felt that a centralised 
management system would continue to be the most appropriate management approach 
52614
327
262 53 38 107
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%GHK workshopYVIE results
Centralised management
Executive Agency
Decentralised / Shared between EC and national authorities
Management by national authorities only
Other
Don’t know 
Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey and EC Workshop 
The direct centralised approach was seen as th e preferred approach for a number of reasons:  
• the Commission has gained a wealth of expe rience in managing the instrument and seems 
to have delivered it competently to date;  
 
 40• management by the Commission enables a good oversight of the programme, making the 
creation of synergies with other instruments easier; and,  
• it is the best approach for maintaining th e linkage between what happens on the ground 
and policy development, which participants feared would be lost  through a European 
Executive Agency approach.  
Although some workshop participants recognised th e benefits (e.g. potential cost savings) of 
having an Executive Agency managing the future instrument, very few felt that these were 
significant enough given the effort and time that  would be required to change the current 
system, especially when the current system is established and is working quite well.  
Decentralising the management of a specific inst rument for the environment was only seen as 
a feasible alternative if the budget was to signifi cantly increase (and if the subsequent increase 
in resources would outstrip the capacity of the Unit to manage the increase). 
7 The Options  
7.1 Brief overview of the options 
The options that have been developed were  only discussed in depth with workshop 
participants, as the options were only develo ped after, and on the basis of, the initial 
stakeholder consultation (surveys). 
The five options which had been identified for a future specific financial instrument for the 
environment for the period 2014-2020, partly reflec ting the terms of refere nce, and partly the 
underlying problem and related intervention logic,  are given in the Box below. These are the 
five options which were discusse d and developed in the workshop: 
Instrument option 1:  Zero Option  – no LIFE financial instrument (other th an the continuation of the ‘common pot’ for 
policy development and review) 
Instrument option 2:   Baseline Option  – continuation of the current LIFE+ Re gulation and related delivery mechanisms 
(‘Common pot’, Action Grants, Operating Grants) 
Instrument option 3:  Strategic Programming Option  – combining a stronger strate gic planning framework with 
‘bottom-up’ delivery that includes but also expands current delivery mechanisms 
Instrument option 4:  Restricted Activities Option  – focusing on a smaller number of act ivities linked most closely with 
the development and implementati on of the environmental acquis 
Instrument option 5:  Restricted Themat ic (Biodiversity and Climate Action) Option  – focusing on the two major 
global and EU environmental problems and the deve lopment and implementatio n of policy responses 
It should also be noted that the options consid er an instrument for th e environment including 
climate change, recognising the creation of a separate Directorate-General (DG).  
All options assume that other EU financial in struments continue to operate in the next 
programme period, as they operate  within the current programme. 
Table 7.1 below provides a brie f comparison of the instrume nt options, highlighting key 
differences.  
 
 41  Table 7.1 Quick comparative overview of policy options (with key differences highlighted) 
Features Zero Option Baseline  Strategic 
Programming  Restricted 
Activity  Restricted Theme 
(Biodiversity + Climate)  
Strategic planning None Limite d Extensive Extensive Extensive 
Catalytic value None Limited Extens ive Extensive Extensive (in themes) 
Thematic focus None None None  None Biodiversity + Climate 
Activities ‘Common Pot’ All All Restricted All 
Delivery 
mechanisms Public 
procurement only Only existing 
mechanisms Expanded + 
Additional As required to 
reflect 
activities Expanded + Additional 
7.2 Feedback on the options  
Overall participants re acted positively to the options propos ed. It was clear however that the 
most popular option was Option 3 (Strategic Prog ramming), with almost 60% of participants 
voting for that option over the others. This option was also consistently the most popular 
across all stakeholder types.   
Figure 7.2. The most popular option amongst Workshop participants, across all stakeholder types, was 
Option 3 (Strategic Programming)  
 
Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 
Discussions made it clear that there were, in pa rticular, two key aspects to be considered: the 
future budget and the fact that most participants saw the curre nt LIFE instrument as being 
generally effective and fit for purpose (alt hough there are some areas where improvements 
could be made). Consequently, the general sense was that participants did not want to stray 
too far from the current instrument and pa rticipants were keen ly aware of budgetary 
constraints which might affect whether certain options are realistic or not.  
Some felt that the current wide thematic sc ope was also a clear ad vantage, by providing 
flexibility, where projects can reflect needs as th ey arise. Moreover, some participants felt that 
setting a strict thematic focus could reduce the quality of projects, in which good ideas are not 
accepted as they do not “fit” the priorities. Other participants however fe lt that without a clear 
focus, an instrument for the environment risks being ‘aimless’. Several pa rticipants noted that 
having priorities could increase the EU added value of an instrument such as LIFE. Overall, 

 
 42the general consensus was that stra tegic priorities would be useful, so long as they are non-
exclusive .  
This strategic programming was the key element that stakeholders appreciated in Option 3. 
For instance, survey respondents were asked to rank 9 potential aspects for LIFE in order of 
importance; improving the strategic management of LIFE was rated the most important most 
often. Option 3 was also the most popular of the 5 options presente d, with 58% of the 
participants voting for this option as their pref erred choice. Nonetheless,  several participants 
noted that the emphasis on integrated projects  to improve complement arities between funding 
instruments may be an unrealistic expectation. 
 
 
 438 Summary of stakeholder consultations  
The importance of the institutional barriers 
• The implementation of the acquis was consider ed to be the most important issue to 
address; stakeholders across the vari ous consultations tended to identify  
inadequate implementation as the mo st important environmental policy 
problem in the EU.  The majority of stakeholders agreed the inadequate 
implementation of policies is causing ma jor environmental problems to persist. 
• Although most stakeholders agreed that there is a need for continued 
environmental policy development, the scope of the EU acquis was not 
considered an important issue . The existence of, and need  to fill, policy gaps in 
certain areas was emphasised.  
• Stakeholders recognised that the integration of environmental and climate 
concerns into other EU policies was a problem . Consultation of Commission 
services indicated that some progress ha s been made in improving environmental 
integration but it remains a key issue across policy areas.  
• Stakeholders believe that awareness of the public and of politicians is a key 
issue (although less important than th at of policy implementation and 
integration) , especially given the links between awareness and policy 
implementation.  
The rationale for intervention in the institutional barriers 
• The value of, and need for, a future in strument for the environment and 
climate action was recognised acro ss all the various consultations  that were 
conducted and considered; stakeholders beli eve the LIFE instrument is a valuable 
programme and should definitely con tinue into the future in order for 
environmental challenges to be met. There wa s also a clear view th at there is also a 
clear rationale for this role to be a financial one. 
• The majority of respondents indicated that there was substantial EU added value 
for EU level action to im prove policy implementation , with stakeholders also 
believing that there is a rational for EU  financial intervention. Enhancing the 
capacity of Member States to implement policy was most often ranks as the most 
important role for a specific in strument for the environment. 
• Policy development  was cited as important by the majority of stakeholders who 
believed there was substantial added valu e from EU level action although a third 
believed there was no added value for fina ncial expenditure at the EU level on 
policy development. 
• The majority of stakeholders thought that  the added value of EU level action 
to improve the impact of other EU  policies on the environment was 
substantial , the rationale being that environmental assets are public goods, 
requiring EU action to ensure  their adequate provision. 
• Stakeholders also recognised the added value for EU level action  to improve 
awareness levels. 
• Although the issue of  eco-innovation was recognised as important, 
stakeholders generally believed there wa s less added value for EU level action 
from a specific instrument for the environment in these areas.  For instance, in 
the case of eco-innovation, stakeholders di d not feel that eco-innovation should not 
be the focus of the instrument as other instruments such as CIP exist to fulfil this 
aspect. 
 
 44Objectives and resources for a future instrument for the environment  
• The consensus across all stakeholde rs is that the most important focus for LIFE 
should be the implementation of the acquis . Its role in implementing policies for 
nature and biodiversity (e.g. the Natura 2000 network) was seen  as particularly 
important, given the absence of any other fi nancial instrument specifically focused 
on nature protection.  
• Another particularly important  role for a future instrument for the environment, as 
seen by stakeholders, was the demonstration and sharing of best practice . 
• Stakeholders noted that a key factor limiting the effectiveness of LIFE+ has 
been its limited resources ; as such the clear majority thought these resources 
should be increased . The general view was that th e budget should be increased to 
levels of between €500 million and €1 b illion a year (about 40%), although a 
significant portion of stakeholders also thought that the budget should be further 
increased to between €1 milli on and €5 billion a year.  
Design and delivery of a future instrument for the environment 
• In terms of thematic focus stakeh olders are not averse to having a focused  
instrument , but they are averse to havi ng an instrument which focuses only on 
one type of activity or policy area to the exclusion of all others. 
• In terms of territorial focus, stakeholde rs supported the potential for a specific 
instrument for the environment to fund activities outside the EU, as long as it 
provided EU benefits . 
• Regarding delivery of the instrument respondents noted that action grants were, 
by far, the most important activity,  followed by public procurement of services. 
Overall there was a general agreement th at the EU should contribute a maximum 
of 75% of the total project budget to ensure  that beneficiaries maintain ownership 
of their projects. Strengthening the role of environmental NGOs was also noted as 
a very important activity. 
• The use of innovative instruments (e.g. loans) had little support . For instance, 
many workshop participants believed that loans are not likely to be appropriate for 
nature and biodiversity projects, wh ich are better served by grants. 
• Views were somewhat divided on th e benefits of integrated projects . Some 
thought they have the potential to increase complementarity and policy interaction. 
However, others believed they would be  difficult to operationalise in practice. 
• The majority of respondents agreed that the current direct centralised 
management approach is most appropriate , although some other stakeholders 
believed that other management options, such as a shared management between 
the European Commission and national authorities, should be considered. 
Options for a future instrument for the environment and climate action  
• The options that were developed were only discussed in depth with workshop 
participants, as the options were only developed after, and on the basis of, the 
initial stakeholder consultation. 
• Option 3, strategic programming, was the most popular option  amongst 
workshop participants (see figure below). This option was also  consistently the 
most popular across all stakeholder types.   
• This option was thought to in clude the most positive asp ects of the current baseline 
situation including centralised management, the broad eligibility of activities, and 
the support given to NGOs. At the same time  participants felt that options 3 had 
the most scope to allow for additional improvements to be introduced. 
 
 45The most popular option amongst Workshop participants, across all stakeholder 
types, was Option 3 (Str ategic Programming)  
 
Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 
 
 
 
 
The response statistics for the 'Consultation on  a future EU financia l instrument for the 
environment (continuation of LIFE+)' co nducted by the Commission online on 'Your 
Voice in Europe' and the conclusions of the CoR 'Assessment of territorial impacts on 
the EU LIFE+ instrument' can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/life/about/beyond2013.htm   
 
 
 46ANNEX 4: Summary of conclusions and recommendations from the Ex-post 
evaluation of the LIFE Programme (1996-2006) and from the Mid-term 
evaluation of the implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (2007-2009) 
 
EX-POST EVALUATION OF THE LIFE  PROGRAMME (1996-2006)  
 Background: 
 
The ex-post evaluation was commissioned in July 2008 by the European 
Commission 
Directorate General Environment and carried out by COWI. It covered projects co-financed by 
the LIFE Programme initiated during the pe riod 1996-2006. This period, comprising three 
generations of the LIFE Programme, saw the co-fi nancing of a total of 2026 projects of which 
1076 were under the Environment component , 771 under the Nature component and 179 
under the Third Countries component. The total commitments made from the LIFE 
Programme amounted to EUR 1315 million. 
 
The overall objective of the evaluation was to a ssess the relevance and impact of activities 
and projects financed under the LIFE Pr ogramme. The ex-post evaluation focused on 
assessing the effect of the LIFE Programme through evaluating results and impacts of LIFE 
projects implemented under the three components. The results and impacts have been assessed according to four main evaluation crite ria: effectiveness (i.e. the extent to which 
planned objectives have been reached, and the extent to which LIFE Programme management 
contributed to the effectiveness of LIFE projects) ; efficiency (i.e. the extent to which results 
were achieved at a reasonable cost, and the ex tent to which LIFE Programme management 
contributed to the efficiency of LIFE projects); sustainability (i.e. the extent to which positive impacts have continued or are lik ely to continue; and utility (i.e . the extent to which impacts 
address key environmental needs and priorities in  the EU and for the stakeholders concerned). 
 
Conclusions of the evaluation: 
 
LIFE Programme managed effectively and efficiently  
 
The main conclusion in respect to the analysis  of programme management was that the LIFE 
Programme was managed effectively and effici ently by the LIFE Unit in DG Environment. 
Through high demands to project design, rigor ous procedures and a close follow-up the 
projects selected were typical ly well designed and provided with  the necessary assistance to 
support an effective and efficient implemen tation process. Some areas for further 
improvement were identified. Se lection of projects was a slow  process with cumbersome 
application procedures which could benefit from further optimisation and outsourcing of 
tasks, and there was some scope to further enha nce transparency and clarify award criteria in 
the selection process. Concer ning the monitoring of the progr amme and projects, the set-up 
was less effective concerning the strategic management of the programme. Although managed 
in accordance with the objectives set out in th e respective LIFE Regulatio ns, little interest was 
shown on the part of the LIFE Unit and DG Envi ronment as a whole to further target the 
programme to specific policies. While the mon itoring of the individu al projects was very 
detailed, there was no reporting on how the LIFE  instrument was performing at programme 
level. 
 
 47 
LIFE Nature component – a successful instrument targeted at the Birds and Habitats 
Directives  
 
The specific objectives guiding LIFE Nature we re relatively clear focusing on implementation 
of the Habitats and Birds Directives. Effectivene ss was assessed as high as the projects clearly 
made a significant contribution to the implemen tation of these Directives in the Community. 
The projects were estimated to have covered 8-9% of all Natura 2000 sites and a significant 
share of the habitats and species listed in the Annexes to the Birds and Habitats Directives. 
Considering the relatively limited budget of appr oximately EUR 70 million per year, this is 
considered a significant achievement. The LIFE projects played a very  important role in 
increasing the general level of awareness conc erning biodiversity, Natura 2000 and the related 
policies and regulatory requirements among nationa l, regional and local authorities. Also, 
through the LIFE projects, capacity to implemen t and manage the interventions required to 
implement the Birds and Habitats Directives wa s built up – both within  relevant authorities 
and NGOs. This affected in a positive direction the general implementation of the Directives 
within the individual Member States. LIFE Nature thus made a significant contribution 
towards addressing the challenges related to  nature conservation in the Community and 
reaching the objectives of the Biodiversity Ac tion Plan. The utility of LIFE Nature was 
therefore assessed as high. However, the ev aluation also showed room for continued 
development of the LIFE Nature instrument to  respond to developments in biodiversity 
policies and the future challenges of nature cons ervation in the EU. The level of sustainability 
was assessed as high. Projects requiring less in tensive follow-up and recurrent funding were 
by nature more sustainable. Other key factors e xplaining the high level of  sustainability were 
well-designed projects, attenti on to building the necessary management and monitoring 
capacity to continue activities after project completion and abil ity of the projects to secure 
recurrent funding after project completion. Comp eting interests from agriculture and (to a 
lesser extent) forestry posed a significant threat  to sustainability. The challenges to ensure 
project sustainability were mo re significant in the cases wher e the projects involved private 
land as opposed to public land already designate d for conservation. In these cases, a number 
of projects have been successful in prepari ng the ground for continued management through 
agri-environmental measures under the Guarantee section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. 
 
LIFE Environment component – less impact at European level but with good local results  
 
LIFE Environment differed from LIFE Nature with a diffuse programming strategy that did 
not couple specific environmental priorities with selec tion criteria. Since it was the objective 
of the LIFE programme to fund environmental projects and since this evaluation documents 
that eligible projects were selected and subs equently effectively implemented, a satisfactory 
relation between results and objectives can be  noted. The innovation 'content' was generally 
found to be highest in technol ogy projects undertaken by privat e enterprises (and research 
institutions). A significant part of the project s, especially those of  the management type, 
seemed not to be genuinely innovative but rath er adaptations or optimisations of existing 
systems, approaches and methods to a part icular geographic setting or other specific 
conditions. On the average probably more than  50 % of the LIFE Environment projects were 
continued, fully or partially, at the site or  in the organisation where they were executed. 
Considering the innovative nature  of many projects, this was a ssessed as a satisfactory level 
of sustainability. The direct or immediate e nvironmental results and impacts were generally 
small and typically restricted to the project ar ea/site itself, which in most cases were quite 
local. The bottom-up programming strategy did not  ensure that the most important/urgent 
environmental problems from a Community pe rspective were addressed. The wider impact 
 
 48arising from the possible replication of th e projects was uncerta in, but probably only 
occurring in approximately 10-20 per cent of  the projects. Many projects were found to 
demonstrate technical feasibility and a numb er even additionally to be considered 
economically viable. However, the demonstrati on potential was often not fully released or 
exploited because the necessary dissemination of activities and results did not take place or at 
least only to a limited extent. 
 
Third countries component – positive lo cal impacts but lack of sustainability  
 
Overall, the LIFE TCY projects led to positive local impacts in terms of improvement of 
capacities and environmental performances of bene ficiaries. It was a us eful instrument for 
transfer of knowledge and experience, awaren ess raising and highlig hting environmental 
issues at policy level. At national level, the im pact of LIFE TCY project s was more visible in 
Cyprus, Malta and Candidate Countries in terms of approximation of legislation. In the other 
countries, the global impact of LIFE TCY wa s more limited due to the small proportion of 
LIFE projects in relation to the size of the par ticular country; the diverg ence of fields covered, 
and, largely, due to insufficient  involvement of nati onal authorities. The overall effectiveness 
and efficiency of the TCY projects clearly im proved over time as a result of the significant 
improvement to the selection and monitori ng system. In general, the TCY projects 
successfully achieved their objec tives in a cost effective manner. However, lack of 
sustainability was the largest gap in TC Y projects. Although there were positive 
developments, particularly in Candidate Countri es, many projects did not generate long term 
effects either due to insufficient disseminati on of information or lack of ownership by the 
national authority. 
 
Efficiency difficult to evaluate but assessed as reasonable  
 
Since the LIFE Programme 'produced' not easily  measurable 'products' as environmental 
improvements, innovation and capacity-building, a precise cost-effectiveness assessment 
could not be given. The evaluation construc ted comparisons when possible and compiled 
qualitative cost-benefit assessments, on the basis of which efficiency was assessed as 
reasonable. 
 
Recommendations from the evaluation: 
 
A set of 13 key recommendations has been form ulated on the basis of  the analysis:   
Strategic management and programming: 
1. Clarify the role and objectives of the LIFE Programme in relation to implementation of 
EU environmental policy and creation of Eu ropean added   value - Set targets and 
indicators for the Programme to determine the degree of success. The LIFE Unit should 
increase co-ordination with Policy Units e.g., through a steering committee for the LIFE 
programme. The LIFE Unit could also be reorgani sed into thematic desks. The role of the 
LIFE programme is unclear and having a un it dedicated to project management has 
improved streamlining and efficiency but it has become removed from the policy development function.  
2. Implement regular monitoring and reporting on the performance at programme level  - 
Systems for regular monitoring and performa nce should be developed on the basis of 
objectives and indicators. A uniform set of i ndicators should be applie d across all projects 
and a regular annual status re port on programme performanc e could be produced. Current 
 
 49monitoring and reporting systems were focu sed on the project leve l - monitoring of 
programme performance is irre gular (external eval uations) and lack of knowledge existed 
about programme performance against objectives. 
3. Develop support systems to improve the basis for strategic management, i.e., database on 
Nature projects linked to database on Natu ra 2000 - The systems containing the project 
level information should be developed to pr ovide information on pr oject objectives and 
achievements in line with the indicators for the Programme. For LIFE Nature it was recommended that a geographical database should be developed, comparable with the 
Natura 2000 database to see how far LIFE pr ojects were supporting the implementation of 
Natura 2000. The organisation of the LIFE Unit as a functional, project management 
secretariat was not effective concerning the strategic management of the programme as 
little interest was shown on the part of the LIFE Unit and DG Environment to further target the programme to specific policies. 
Co-ordination, dissemination, partnerships 
4. Promote active knowledge sharing at European  level, e.g. through thematic workshops 
and seminars - Organise thematic confer ences for knowledge sharing and to involve 
increased numbers of stakeholders to prom ote general awareness of LIFE. Co-ordinate 
events with policy units to create synergy. The ex-post evaluation discovered a need to 
focus more on dissemination and knowledge sharing to exploit the learning and 
replication potential of the LIFE projects. 
5. Target dissemination efforts to  reach the right audience thro ugh a strategic communicative 
effort in individual projects and at progra mme level - Ensure considerations of key 
messages, target groups and communication cha nnels were high by urgi ng beneficiaries to 
think along the lines of co mmunication strategy. Projec ts which found appropriate 
communication channels to reach target group saw the most positive results in regards to 
dissemination and replication. 
6. Build capacities of potential LIFE benefici aries to increase number and quality of 
applications - Broaden the client-base of the LIFE Programme to ensure a sufficient number and quality of applications. Consider less experience organisations for LIFE Nature to increase number of organisations  capable of managing conservation actions. 
The LIFE Unit should be proactive in build ing relations through na tional focal point and 
arrange information meetings, training seminars, etc. 
7. Involve Member States in dissemination and capacity building activi ties - The Unit should 
be more proactive in engaging the national focal  points to play a key role as access points 
to potential beneficiaries, marketing the LIFE Programme and providing guidance to 
applicants. This would contribute to a more  uniform approach among the Member States 
to guiding potential applicants.  
Procedures for selection and monitoring 
8. Further improve application guidance and ap plication forms, e.g., by simplifying and 
digitalising application forms - The guidanc e to applicants should be improved and 
application forms simplified and digitalised. Th is would also minimise the time required 
for assessing the applications. Eliminating the approval procedure of final projects by 
Member States (the LIFE Committee) would reduce the length of th e selection period.  
 
 509. Outsource the receipt, eligibility check, se lection and award phase s of the selection 
procedure - Outsource the entire process from r eceipt of applications to the award phase. 
The calculation of administrative costs compar ed to commitments made indicated a slight 
annual increase in the period 2002-2006.  
10. Further clarify criteria for sel ection and scoring system - Th e evaluation guide should be 
clarified with regard to the evaluation of the award criteria in order to ensure equal 
treatment of the applications. Ambiguities were identified in the definition of criteria, e.g. 
guides to applicants mentioned priorities whic h were not reflected in  the criteria, there 
was a lack of clarity in how the sub-criteria /questions mentioned unde r each criteria are to 
be weighted. 
11. Further clarify tasks of the monitoring team  - A broader dialogue with the monitoring 
team should be initiated, e.g. focus more on common training seminars , conferences, etc.  
This dialogue should clarify tasks and quality cr iteria for the evaluati on of project reports 
to avoid duplication of tasks. It was noted that dialogue is to a large extent decentralised to 
the individual TDO/FDO and monitoring expert  in connection with specific countries. 
12. Apply a prioritised approach to individual pr oject monitoring based on risk assessment - A 
more strategic approach focusi ng on visits to high-risk projec ts and replacing some visits 
with cross-project (thematic) conferences/works hops to reach a larger number of projects 
and still achieve similar benefi ts for each project. Visits to projects and face-to-face 
contact with beneficiaries were  found to be important part s of the effective monitoring 
system in place. 
13. Optimise document flow and clarify the role of the verifier in the Unit - Prepare the 
signatories when receiving the evaluation from the benefi ciaries. The system for 
verification should also be clar ified so that unnecessary time used on verification can be 
eliminated. 
 
 51MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE LIFE+  PROGRAMME (2007-2009)  
 
Background: 
 
The Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) has been co mmissioned to GHK, in association with 
Arcadis and VITO to advise on the progress to-date of the activit ies undertaken under the 
LIFE+ Regulation (the Regula tion), introduced in 2007, examining the relevance, economy, 
effectiveness, efficiency, consistency, dist ributional effects and acceptability of the 
Regulation.   
Main findings from the evaluation: 
LIFE+ Regulation 
 
 
Simplification  
 
The adoption of the strategic planning an d financial budgeting pr ocedures has been 
implemented effectively in so far as it regularis ed previous activities, with little need to 
change operating practices.  
As regards third country involvement in environment policy development and 
implementation, alternative instruments are av ailable through the inte rnational assistance 
managed by DG RELEX and DG AIDCO. Although th ese instruments are designed, at least 
in part, to support similar objectives, they are heavily subscribed and applicants that might 
have secured funding under the previous LIFE programme would not necessarily be funded 
by these instruments.  
Article 1(2) of the LIFE+ Regulation and the Fi nancial Perspectives has been interpreted as 
implying that all activities financed under the in strument must be for the benefit of the EU 
and its Member States. This has led to several trade-offs in the functioning of the three interventions. For action  grants, nature projects  requiring the co-operation of third countries to 
protect certain species that ha ve trans-boundary patterns have b een particularly affected.  
Annex II of the Regulation defines the priorities  of the Regulation. This represents a high 
level summary of the 6EAP. However as a resu lt, the Action Grant Programme is constrained 
from introducing further defini tion and detail of the needs and priorities, and can not reflect 
changes in these priorities through time. As a result, the calls for proposals are less well 
defined than in previous programmes and can not focus on or target specific needs. The 
resulting projects, whilst consiste nt with 6EAP in general, are not necessarily targeted at the 
most important issues. 
 
 
Consolidation  
 
The Regulation consolidated three previous programmes: Forest Focus (FF), Sustainable 
Urban Development (SUD) and NGOs. For Forest Focus,  comparison of previous and current 
objectives and activities suggests that there may be a loss of effectiveness as a result. For 
Sustainable Urban Development, there  has been a change in the natu re of beneficiary and type 
of activity, with less involvement of publ ic authorities in networking activity. The 
consolidation of these tw o programmes has led to some savings  of staff time. However, it led 
to increased costs for those beneficiaries th at would have previously used the closed 
programmes because of the greater effort of application.   
 
 52LIFE+ Programme of Action Grants  
 
Changes and additions to Components  
 
The LIFE Programme first started in 1992 and has been continually assessed to be an essential 
intervention through successive programmes. The c onclusions of the recent ex-post evaluation 
of the previous activity confirmed the relevan ce and added value of the LIFE Programme. The 
MTE has assessed the Programme to have a continuing relevance based on the well 
documented needs of environment policy an d its implementation combined with the 
recognition in the Regulation that EU added value derives at least in part from the bottom-up 
approach.   Three major changes were made to the Action Grants Programme: the introduction of the biodiversity theme with the Nature component; the revision and expansion of themes under 
Environment Policy & Governance (EPG) and the introduction of Information and 
Communication Projects (INF). These changes have the potential to significantly increase the capacity of the Programme to contribute to EU policy and the generation of EU added value. 
However, this capacity is not being fully util ised, because the number of projects under the 
new components and themes (biodiversity, new EPG themes and INF) is as yet too small. 
Moreover; in all three cases the projects that have been funded lack a degree of programme 
level coherence, i.e., the ability to gene rate outcomes and impacts beyond the individual 
project level.  The Nature theme has remained the same as in  previous Programmes, with the improvement 
in LIFE+ of a formal recogniti on that projects must represen t 'Best Practice‘, with the 
objectives of supporting the Natura 2000 network and the implementation of the 'Birds‘ and 
'Habitats‘ Directives. LIFE+ Nature and Biodivers ity is seen as a key funding mechanisms for 
promoting and implementing nature and biodivers ity objectives across all regions in the EU.  
 
Impact of the Operational Approach on EU Added Value  
 
National allocations and priorities 
 
 The Regulation introduced the allocation of Pr ogramme funding by MS based on specified 
criteria in the Regulation, and the opportunity for MS to indi cate national priorities for the 
programme. The project appraisal process seek s to take into account national needs and 
priorities as only one of the four criteria c oncerned with EU added va lue. The limited demand 
for the programme in some MS has allowed f unding to be transferred to those MS where 
demand exceeds the national allocation. Where all national allocations are taken up, the risk is 
that the weaker projects as identified by appraisal are funded in-line with the national allocation, at the expense of str onger projects elsewhere. This risk of reduced EU added value 
is increased, firstly because the population base d allocation criteria are a limited proxy of EU 
policy needs and affects EPG pr ojects particularly; and sec ondly because of the general 
failure by MS to specify nationa l priorities. The change has th erefore the strong potential to 
limit the capacity of the Programme  to deliver EU added value. 
 
 53 
Project selection and programme coherence  
The programme has selected and contracted wi th 338 projects under th e first two calls; and 
provided co-finance of €392m. This has been matched by funding form project beneficiaries 
of €405m, a total investment of €797m. Details are summar ised in the Table below. 
Table 1: Projects selected and funded by component (2007 and 2008) 
Programme Number 
of 
Project 
Applicati
ons Number 
of 
Projects 
Selected EC 
funding 
(€m) Total 
investme
nt (€m) 
Nature & Biodiversity  491 138 201 371 
Environment 
Policy & 
Governance  613 171 172 390 
Information & 
Communication  216 28 17 37 
Total  1,320 337 390 798 
 
The overall project selection process works we ll. However, the change in the appraisal 
process compared to LIFE III has the potential  to reduce programme capacity to deliver EU 
added value. The revised process has reduced th e transparency and consistency of assessment 
and the assessment of EU added va lue because of the lack of speci ficity of criteria. However, 
of more strategic importance is the risk that even within themes, the projects lack coherence 
as a programme, addressing a wide range of is sues and approaches and limiting the scope for 
effective multipliers.  
 
Project and Programme monitoring  
 The general process and operation of the mon itoring system works well, with developed 
procedures supported by fully defined and well executed technical assistance. However, the 
agreed adoption of the proposed LIFE+ monito ring and evaluation system for the definition 
and measurement of results and outcomes at pr oject level, and as th e basis for aggregation 
across the Programme, has not been fully im plemented. Projects have complied with new 
requirements to define output indi cators, but in the main, have yet to define result indicators.  
 
Programme Management  
 
There has been considerable effort over this  and previous LIFE programmes to better 
integrate the Action Grant activity more cen trally within the policy development and 
implementation processes with the DG. However,  despite improvement, th ere continues to be 
a perceived lack of integrati on of the Programme within DG Environment. This results from: 
a lack of understanding of the role of the inst rument; variable utility of the instrument across 
different policy units; the limited scope to translate specific policy needs and priorities into 
calls for project proposals; and a weaker multipli er effect in the case of EPG projects through 
insufficient learning and exchange and testing of transferability, re ducing the lessons and 
advice to policy makers.  
 
 54Complementarity  
 
The risks of double-funding have  pre-occupied existing guida nce, despite which some 
National Contact Points (NCPs) and applicants still remain confused. This guidance, together 
with the appraisal process, focuses on safegua rding against the risk of double-funding. The 
importance of complementarity is also recognised as an explicit cr iterion in project appraisal.  
 However, the focus on risk management has te nded to dominate over a focus on building and 
enhancing linkages and synergies with other programmes and fi nancial instruments, and has 
led to some conservatism about developing lin kages. Building these linkages with other 
programmes is especially difficult where, unlik e LIFE, they are implemented through shared 
management arrangements. The most obvious area where activity has helped build and support linkages is with the CIP Programme to support eco- innovation through its market 
replication strand.  
 
Overview of Findings on Action Grants  
 
LIFE began in 1992 and to date LIFE has co-financed over 3,000 pr ojects across the EU, 
contributing approximately €2.2 billion to the protection of the environment. The current 
phase of the programme, LIFE+, runs fr om 2007-2013 and has a budget of €2.1 billion. 
LIFE+ covers both the operational expenditure of DG Environment and the co-financing of 
projects. According to Article  6 of the LIFE+ Regulation, at least 78% of the LIFE+ 
budgetary resources must be used for proj ect action grants (i.e. LIFE+ projects). 
 The MTE has highlighted that the main impact of  the simplification pro cess is the adoption of 
Annex II based on 6EAP as the general statement of needs and priorities and the failure of 
national allocations and prioriti es to provide any further guida nce to applicants. The MTE has 
also emphasised that the three major changes in  the components is considered to be positive 
and increases the capacity of the Programme to deliver EU added value. Currently, the level 
of funding awarded in all the new areas is insufficient to make  any major difference at this 
time, partly because of a lack of information to  potential beneficiaries not previously familiar 
with the Programme, and the lack  of specification of needs and priorities that applicants 
should address. This is in turn reflected in the request for illustrations of 'exemplar‘ projects to 
help guide applications.   The primary issue for the Programme is therefor e the scope to create the impact from the 
programme that is more than just the sum of the individual projects.  
 
NGO Operating Grants  
 
Types of NGO Activities  
 
The allocation of operational funding by the NGOs  seems to be balanced over the following 
types of activities: policy implementation, pol icy development and internal and external 
capacity building. Policy developm ent is clearly more importan t for Brussels based NGOs, 
while internal capacity  building and enlargement is more important for EU12 based NGOs. 
Press releases, participation in  conferences and written submi ssions to the Commission are the 
most observed activities in the field of policy development and implementation. However, the 
quantitative indicators on these activity levels  do not provide much information on the quality 
of the work performed. Staff training is th e major instrument applied for organisational 
development and capacity building.  
 
 
 55Topics of NGO Activity  
 
The NGOs cover all topics of the Sixth Envi ronmental Action Programme. However, amongst 
the topics listed in Annex II of the LI FE+ Regulation, barely  any NGOs cover noise, 
innovation or soil. Out of 50 applications, 30 NGOs  have been funded in the last two years, 
representing a broad range of NGOs. They repr esent generally an equitable distribution over 
the regions and the topics. Grants range from relatively small amounts (such as approximately €30,000) to very large amounts (almost €1m - or 1/10 of the overall bu dget). Although it is 
acknowledged that large NGOs that  undertake a wide range of ac tivities should re ceive a 'fair 
share‘, smaller, more sectoral organisations sh ould also receive adequa te levels of funding. 
Increasing the budget for NGOs would ensure that  the size of the gran t reflects the evolving 
environmental agenda, and would allow NGOs to  attract and retain better qualified staff. 
There appears to be a logical link between  the size and experience of an NGO and the 
probability that it receives  a grant. Indeed, the larger a NGO,  the more likely it is to submit a 
good application (good paper, clear mission, clear description of deliverables). In general, 
there is no apparent objecti on to the NGO operating grants  intervention,  with most 
suggestions relating to improvements in procedural  or administrative con cerns, rather than the 
underlying rationale for the existenc e of the intervention itself.  
 
Public Procurement 
 
 
Technical Assistance  
 
The review of the performance of the techni cal assistance provided to the LIFE+ Programme 
indicated that the work was well organi sed and delivered to good standard.  
 
Communications  
 
DG ENV general communication activities are funded under the LIFE Regulation. The review 
of these activities suggests th at communication is focused on  the 6th Environmental Action 
Plan priorities. The review of the outputs, and where avai lable success indicators and 
outcomes, suggests that the non LIFE communicati on activities meet the objectives set out for 
these activities. As regard LIFE related communication , the LIFE Units have undertaken a 
range of new information and communication activ ities and have improved existing activities. 
Furthermore, the LIFE Units have worked to ensure a more proactive involvement of the 
NCPs. The review, however, also suggests that  activities in the ma in have reached an 
audience already aware of LIFE and to a large extent also, audiences already involved in 
LIFE in some form. There is therefore a ne ed to consider how communication activities 
undertaken can be better targeted at the 'non LIFE community'.   Service Contracts 
 
 The expenditure of DG ENV is linked appropriate ly to the objectives a nd priorities of the 
Commission and DG ENV‘s work programmes. The majority of the public procurement 
contracts are studies or forms of  technical assistance which feed  directly into implementation 
of different EU environmental po licies, ranging from the Birds and Habitats Directives to the 
Emissions Trading Scheme. Contracts do appear to  be consistent with the priorities of the 
Units within DG ENV. Furthermore, the perfor mance of contractors appears to be either 
satisfactory, or at times, exceeds the expectati ons of the managing desk officer. However, the 
feedback mechanisms within the DG for commen ting on the quality of contractors appear to 
be rather informal and weak.  
 
 56 
Summary of Findings Against th e Main Evaluation Criteria  
 
Evaluation 
Criteria  Overall 
Regulation  Action Grants  NGO 
Operating 
Grants  Public 
Procurement  
Relevance  Clear rationale  
Unique focus 
on 
environment policy  Clear rationale, 
especially in 
relation to 
policy implementatio
n  Continuing 
relevance of 
NGO activity 
and contribution to 
EU policy 
dialogue  Clear rationale, 
especially in 
relation to policy 
development  
Economy  Adoption of 
Financial 
Perspectives 
largely regularises 
previous 
activities  Project 
evaluation, 
selection and 
monitoring processes are 
largely 
effective in 
allocating 
resources  Some concern 
over the 
transparency 
and administrative 
burden  The ABB process 
under the 
Financial 
Perspectives allows effective 
allocation of 
resources  
Effectiveness  Overall impact 
is marginal 
given that it 
largely regularises 
previous 
activities  Capacity for 
further EU 
added value 
provided by changes. Some 
key issues to 
address have been identified NGO 
programme is 
largely 
unaffected by the change in 
Regulation.  Technical 
assistance 
procured is 
effective  Service contracts 
effective 
Efficiency  Consolidation 
has generated 
staff cost savings of 
around 10%.  Savings on TA 
in comparison 
with previous Programme  
Significant 
increase in project size  Administrative 
costs are 
largely unchanged  
Some loss of 
efficiency from 
ineligibility of 
members‘ interests  Public 
procurement 
process designed to provide best 
value. Process 
governed by standard 
ASP/AMP 
procedure  
Consistency  Reduced risk 
of duplication, 
but little effect 
on improving 
complementarity  Strong effort to 
avoid double-
funding; and to 
increase 
complementarity especially 
with CIP  Programme 
and NGO 
awareness 
raising 
complementary. Some scope 
to improve 
linkages between 
NGOs.  Some use of 
project results in 
service contracts  
Limited scope for 
increased flexibility in 
choice of 
instrument.  
Allocative / Distributional  Limited effect 
on the distribution of 
resources  Possible future 
issue with national 
allocations if 
demand is high Limited effect 
on the distribution of 
resources  Reflects the 
planning process, governed by 
Commission 
procedure  
Acceptability  Broad 
character of 
Annex II 
reduces focus on key issues  Well accepted 
by stakeholders 
(projects and 
NCPs). Issue of EC integration  NGOs and 
Commission 
stakeholders 
accept the programme  Process is well 
understood and 
accepted  
 
 
 57 
Recommendations from the Mid-Term Evaluation: 
 
Relevance of the Instrument and Generating EU Added Value  
 The MTE confirms the relevance of the three interventions funded under the LIFE+ 
Regulation. In the case of public procuremen t, this derives from the planned use of 
procurement to meet agreed policy needs thr ough the standard Commission procedures.  NGO 
Operating Grants continue to be  relevant given the continuing importance of transparent and 
open dialogue on EU policy need s and priorities. In the case of Action Grants, the MTE has 
assessed the Programme to have a continuing relevance based on the well documented needs of EU environment policy and its implementati on and the EU added value derived from the 
bottom-up project based approach. 
Therefore, the major issue is not whether the Regulation is relevant and provides EU added 
value, but how to best maximise this thr ough careful design and operation of the three 
interventions. In this context, it is clear from the MTE that the changes made in the 
Regulation to the Action Grants Programme has the biggest influence, not least because it 
accounts for 78% of the resources. In the case  of Action Grants, the Regulation has not 
increased EU added value as expected; and do es not provide any significant improvement 
compared to the previous LIFE III Programme.  
The lack of improved added value stems in larg e part from the weakness of Annex II and the 
system of national allocations and priorities to  provide the necessary framework for a focused 
and targeted statement of needs and priorities. Since these are defined by the Regulation, there 
is a difficulty of establishing the specific need s and priorities without  being seen to go beyond 
the Regulation. This is a partic ular problem for EPG projects wh ere there is a danger that, 
although good projects are funded, b ecause of the lack of targeted  activity, together they lack 
coherence and have limited multiplier effect. 
The continuing importance of the underlying ra tionale for the Regulation and the LIFE+ 
Programme argues for action to remedy this  weakness by changes in the methods of 
implementation, under the terms of the existing Regulation. 
Changes to the Regulation – Possible Strategic Directions
 
 
At the time of conclusion of the MTE (Spring 2 010), attention was turning to the plans to be 
made for the strategic priorities in DG Environm ent with the end of the 6EAP plan period in 
2012 and the next programming pe riod starting in 2014 to 2020. Mo re widely, attention was 
turning to the new financial perspectives to  frame the next programming period. There is 
therefore considerable uncertainty over the co ntext for discussion over the successor to the 
LIFE+ Regulation. 
At the same time, the decisions on the re-alloca tion of responsibilities for climate change and 
GMOs/pesticides to other DGs from DG Envir onment means that to the extent that the 
Regulation governs DG Environment activity, it incr eases uncertainty over the framing of the 
future financial instrument.  
In terms of the next programme period, there s eem to be three basic options: either make 
changes to the Regulation per se, revert back  to a more formal separation of the Grant 
programmes under a new Regulatio n, governed by its own specifi c strategic framework, or 
recognise Action Grants as one of a number of funding instrume nts, and allow policy units to 
define and be responsible depending on po licy needs, again under a new Regulation. 
 
 58Changes to the drafting of the Regulation 
The major change would be the removal of Anne x II (and national allocations and priorities) 
to be replaced by an annual work programme speci fying the particular needs and priorities to 
be addressed by the Programme and setting a de tailed framework for the calls for proposals. 
The work programme would seek to focus on selected policy needs and would target 
particular MS, sectors, technologies, pr ospective beneficiaries depending on the EU 
significance and character of th e problem. The Annual Framewor k would be drawn up, as part 
of the Annual Management Plan, between the policy units and the LIFE units. 
Other changes could include provisions for: 
1. A more explicit understanding of EU added value. 
2. A more explicit distinction between polic y development and implementation – and the 
particular focus of the grants pr ogramme and public procurement. 
3. A greater emphasis on mutual learning and shared exchange, testing of transferability, 
and trans-national co-operation as the basi s of stronger multipliers and increased EU 
value. The minimum indicative of 15% to be allocated to transnational activity would be 
increased substantially given the contribution of transboun dary activity to EU added 
value 
4. Partnerships with third c ountry partners where co-ope ration is needed and where 
alternative instruments can be shown to be ineffective. 
5. Differentiated intervention rate s by type of beneficiary to encourage especially smaller 
authorities, institutes and NGOs. 
6. Removing the innovative / demonstrative require ment of the biodiversity theme to aid 
the selection of higher quality projects. 
In addition, the opportunity w ould be taken to combine CIP and LIFE+ Environment Policy 
and Governance activity on eco-innovation into  a single eco-innovation funding mechanism 
under shared management using the market repli cation management as the model. This would 
also allow scope to introduce leveraged funding instruments.  
Drafting a New Regulation – Stand alone Programme 
The rationale and policy need fo r the Regulation is unlikely to change and by implication a 
new Regulation would address the same objectiv es (of development and implementation of 
EU environment policy). However, the Programme  would by design be directed to supporting 
policy implementation in the MS, rather than policy development. The new Regulation would stipulate the need and specific funding for a Programme, operating within its own strategic 
framework. 
The strategic framework would need to be ba sed on extensive consultation with EC and MS. 
The strategic framework would provide the deta iled basis for the programme (missing at the 
present time) and would place the emphasis fi rmly on improving the MS implementation of 
existing or revised environmental legislation where it responds to major legal, economic or environmental problems caused by inadequate implementation. Transnat ional activity would 
be expected to be strongly supported. 
 
 59The Framework could consider adopting asp ects of the Open Method of Co-ordination 
(OMC) approaches for the operation of the Pr ogramme (for example, agreed indicators, 
benchmarks, reporting and structured Peer Lear ning Activities), making it more explicit that 
the programme is primarily targ eted at supporting MS  needs in achieving the more effective 
and efficient implementation of environmental legislation. 
The specific responsibilities of MS for engagi ng with the Programme wo uld be defined based 
on clearly specified environmental needs and problems with implementation. The need and 
approach to the animation of potential benefi ciaries around key issues should be discussed 
explicitly and made a formal requirement. The State of the Environment report could help identify those needs. MS would be required to develop specific priority programmes as 
requested under Article 8 of  Habitats Directive.  
Drafting a New Regulation – No Specific Programme 
The rationale and policy need fo r the Regulation is unlikely to change and by implication a 
new Regulation would address the same objectiv es (of development and implementation of 
EU environment policy). 
The new Regulation should allow a flexible resp onse to the specific nature of the needs and 
priorities as they arise. The specific roles a nd responsibilities of MS in defining needs and 
priorities would need to be explicitly define d. The response however, would be framed by the 
policy units as a standard part of the Co mmission’s work programme and making use of 
whichever financial instrument is best suited. In other words there is no formal action grant 
programme.  
The form of funding instrument would be de pendent on the purpose  and the types of 
intervention required. The new Regulation would define the appropriate suite of funding 
instruments but allow the releva nt choice and mix of instrume nts dependant on specific goals. 
There would be no earmarked money for any one of the financial instruments - only a single 
reference budget; bids to use th e reference budget would be made  as part of the standard 
strategic and annual planning. This will provide flex ibility to adjust to changes in priorities 
and require explicit justifications  for the choice of instrument. 
The logic would suggest that there would not be an Action Grants Programme as such but 
rather that Action Grants would be one of the delivery mechanisms to be used as defined by 
the needs of policy units. Some central co-ordin ation would be required but the activity would 
be the responsibility of the policy units. 
 
The full version of the report 'Ex-post Evalua tion of Projects and Activities Financed 
under the LIFE Programme', Final Report, July 2009 by COWI can be found at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/pub lications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm#
expost   
The full version of the report 'Mid-term Evalua tion of the Implementation of the LIFE+ 
Regulation', Final Report, April 2010 by GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO 
can be found at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/pub lications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm#
mte2010  
 
 
 60ANNEX  5:  S CALE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM , UNDERLYING CAUSES AND 
BENEFITS OF ACTION (EXTERNALITIES ) 
 
1. The environment and climate problems 
When analysing the need for a specific instrument for the environment and climate action, as 
well as its design and focus, an identificatio n of existing and emerging environmental and 
climate problems is needed to clarify the drivers and the underlying causes that should be 
addressed by a specific instrument or thematic areas for action.   The problems  that have been identified are as follows:
17 
• The 2010 assessment of Europe's environment18 as well as the 2009 Environmental 
Policy Review19 show that, although considerable progress has been made in single 
thematic areas, halting the loss of biodiversity and improving resource efficiency 
along with climate change and environmen t and health related concerns remain key 
challenges for the EU  in its path to "prosper in a low-carbon, resources constrained 
world while preventing environmental degrad ation, biodiversity lo ss and unsustainable 
use of resources."  
• There are new and emerging threats  and challenges in the EU   posed by changes to 
the economic and technological landscape, including new mate rials and substances placed 
on the market in the future that could pos e a threat to the environment (e.g., some 
nanomaterials). Similarly, changes to econom ic activity and demography in the future 
will change the type and magnitude of pre ssures placed on the environment and climate. 
On the other hand projected climate change impacts pose a significant threat to the economy. This in turn generates an in creasing need for new approaches.  
• The burden from global and non-EU problems is increasing. The EU is contributing 
to environmental pressures in other regions of  the world and at the same time the impacts 
of activities elsewhere are increasingly aff ecting the EU. Examples of EU pressures 
include over-fishing, or climat e change while POPs origin ating in other regions are 
affecting the EU.  In some cases, for action to be effective within the EU, investment 
outside the EU may be required, e.g. migrator y species, international river basins, marine 
environment.  
• Difficulty in decoupling economic activity from the natural resources/environmental 
impact  is an extension of environmental cha llenges which is explicitly defined to 
recognise the established need for decoupling.  
 
                                                
 
17 Combined Impact Assessment and Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Review of the LIFE+ Regulation (GHK).   
18 EEA, The European Environment St ate and outlook 20 10 available at  http://w ww.eea.europa.eu/soer.  
19 SEC(2010) 975 final.   
 
 612. Scale of the environmental problems 
2.1 Approach to the assessment 
The assessment is concerned with establis hing the broad orders of magnitude of the 
environmental costs associated with pollutio n and the use of natural resources. These 
environmental costs, expressed as  far as possible in monetary terms, reflect the external costs 
of economic and social activity on the environm ent; and which fail to be reflected in the 
prices and therefore decisions of producers and consumers. 
 The intention of the assessment is only to provide a broad contextual estimate of the approximate overall scale of the environmenta l problem in the EU. The assessment is based 
on the availability of existing literature to quan tify and value these external costs. There is 
considerable uncertainty in the valuation of at least some of these external costs, and the assessment seeks to provide the approximate orde r of magnitude of the problem, rather than 
offer a precise calculation of the scale of the problem.   
There are a number of studies currently under way (for example with respect to climate 
change and resource efficiency) that are examining and updating existing estimates of 
environmental externalities. The analysis s hould therefore be understood as a work in 
progress and not a defini tive statement.   
 
Because there are significant inter-linkages be tween environmental problems (for example 
climate change affects biodiversity, air pollution can cause water pollution from 
acidification), there is consider able risk of doubl e-counting these external costs from a 
‘bottom-up analysis’ of individual problems.  A conservative assessment was adopted, 
omitting impacts where there is a risk  that is reflected in part at  least in another impact. This 
is compared to available ‘top-down’ or a ggregate assessments of external costs. 
 The methodologies employed in the literature to  quantify and value environmental impacts is 
by now well developed. In essence, these me thodologies seek to quantify the physical 
environmental impacts (reflected most rece ntly in the State of the Environment 
assessment
20) and then to establish the costs of dama ge (damage costs) to various ‘receptors’ 
such as adverse human health effects, damage to agriculture, forestry, buildings and infrastructure, biodiversity loss, and adve rse impacts on recreation and tourism. These 
impacts can be monetised by reference to the lo ss in market value (e.g. of crops, timber or 
tourism) and, in the absence of markets, estim ates of the willingness of society to pay to 
avoid these impacts using revealed or stated  preference techniques. In some cases, where 
environmental objectives and standards have been  set, the expenditure to comply (compliance 
costs or environmental expenditure) provides a proxy of the minimum estimate of the value 
of the environmental impact. For example, the cost of improving water quality by removing the subset of pollutants from wastewater can be a reasonable proxy for the economic cost of 
the pollution to water. The presence of pollution creates an economic cost. 
 A major determinant of the economic value of e nvironmental impacts is the scale and impact 
on human health. In some cases where the lite rature reports health impacts but has not 
                                                
 
20 State of the Environment (S OER) Assessment, European Environment Agency (2010): 
http://www.eea.e uropa.eu/soer .  
 
 62provided a monetary value, the as sessment has followed IA Guidelines 21 to estimate the 
economic cost. These advise that the Value of a Statistical Life (VOS L) should be taken as 
between €1-2 million and the Value of Life  Years (VOLY) as between €50-100,000, Mid-
range estimates of €1.5 million and €75,000 respectively have been used to convert health 
related impacts to monetary estimates.  It is important to note that both VOSL a nd VOLY estimates include several important 
uncertainties. For example, VOSL is calculate d based on two general approaches, the human 
capital approach and th e willingness to pay (WTP) approa ch.  The human capital approach 
measures the economic productivity of the indi vidual whose life is at risk; it takes an 
individual’s discounted lifetime earnings as it s measure of value, assigning valuations in 
direct proportion to income.  The WTP approach  is based on the assumption that changes in 
individuals’ economic welfare can be valued acc ording to what they are wiling (and able) to 
pay to achieve that change
22.  Thus the monetary estimate of th e value of a statistical life will 
be influenced by an individual’s ability and pr opensity to pay, which itself depends on their 
individual financial circumstances .  In addition, an individual ’s perception of risk-changes 
will influence their WTP, and thus the final VOSL value.  
The themes particularly analysed: 
 
▪ Climate change and energy 
▪ Air pollution 
▪ Water pollution and resources 
▪ Biodiversity and nature 
▪ Material resource use and Waste management 
The review presents an overview of the environmental problem and a discussion of the 
related available estimates of the external environmental costs.  
2.2 The scale of environmental problems in the EU 
The most recent State of the Environmen t Report (2010), published by the European 
Environment Agency (EEA), concluded that  mounting demands on natural capital are 
exerting increased pressure to ecosystems, eco nomies and social cohesion in Europe and 
elsewhere.
23 Despite some progress and improvements to the environment, major 
environmental challenges remain, which will have significant consequences for Europe if left unaddressed. 
2.2.1 Thematic approach  
The analysis adopts a thematic approach ba sed on the range of phy sical environmental 
problems and examining the available estimates of external costs.  
 
The different thematic impacts and their enviro nmental costs can be ag gregated, as long as 
care is taken to avoid double-c ounting particular im pacts. In the summary table below are 
                                                
 
21 Section 9 of Annex to Part III: Annexes to impact assessment guidelines (European Commission 15 January 
2009).  
22 European Commission (2005) ExternE – Externalities of Energy: Methodology 2005 update 
http://www.externe.info/ brussels/methup05a.pdf . 
23 Available from: http://www.eea.euro pa.eu/soer/synthesis/synthesis.  
 
 63indicated those impacts that have not been included in the overall order of magnitude 
estimate to avoid the double counting risk.  
The table is a summary of the costs of the envi ronmental issues described above.  This value 
is an approximation, and should not be consid ered as a comprehensive valuation of all 
environmental issues in Europe.   
Table 1.1  Aggregation of Thematic External Costs in the EU (€ per year) 
Aggregated Annual 
Value Environmental theme Type of Environmental Cost Annual 
Value (€ 
billion) (€ billion) (%) 
Climate Change External cost of European GHG emissions €162 
billion €162 24% 
Biodiversity Loss of Ecosystem Servi ces (Cost of Policy Inaction) €218 
billion 
 Invasive Alien Species €13 billion 
 Soil Degradation €38 billion €269 40% 
Air and Industrial 
Pollution Ozone (premature deaths) €1 billion 
 Ozone (crop damage) €7 billion 
 Particulate matter  < €1 
billion 
 SOx, NOx. PM, VOCs, mercury €87 billion €95 14% 
Water Resources Drought €12 billion 
 Abstraction  €102 
billion €114 17% 
Freshwater Pollution Pesticides (benef it of implementing policy) €1.billion 
 Urban waste water (com pliance cost) €15 billion €16 2.5% 
Marine Environment Fishing < €1 
billion 
 Urbanisation and development < €1 
billion 
 Eutrophication (Baltic Sea) €8 billion €8  1% 
Waste Benefit of Landfill Directive €2 billion €2 0.5% 
Total    €666  
Source: Individual thematic assessments 
The aggregated assessment indicates that the total environmental cost in the EU each year is 
in the order of €666 billion. This is a cons ervative assessment, given the risks of double 
counting, and might be considered a minimum estimate. To put the figure of €666 billion in 
context, the GDP of the EU-27 was €11,783 billion in 200924. External environmental costs 
therefore represent, conser vatively, 5.7% of EU GDP. 
 
Finally, it is worth noting th e analysis by UNEP et al su mmarised in the Table 1.2. This 
suggests that global external costs are in the order of €5,000 billion.  This figure does not 
include the cost of ecosystem services associ ated with biodiversity loss. Based on the EU 
share of global GDP (as a crude proxy of the share of external cost) of 20%, this would 
                                                 
24 Eurostat. 
 
 64suggest that the aggregated annual external cost  in the EU is in th e order of €1,000 billion, 
which comparable with the aggregate thematic figure above.   
The UNEP report also suggests that  the external cost will conti nue to increase. At a global 
level, the increase to 2050 is in the order of fo ur times. For the EU, assuming the EU share of 
global GDP falls to say 10% by 2050, as a result of the relatively higher rates of growth in the 
rest of the world, the UNEP report suggests annua l external cost woul d still double in real 
terms to over €2,000 billion without further policy action. 
Table 1.2   Global Environmental Costs in 2008 and Projected to 2050 
Environmental Impact External costs in 
2008 
(€ billions) External cost 
relative to global 
GDP in 2008 Projected external 
costs in 2050 
(€ billions) Projected external 
cost relative to 
global GDP in 
2050 
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 3,398 7.5% 15,607 12.9% 
Water abstraction 920 2.0% 3,527 2.9% 
Pollution (SOx, NOx, PM, 
VOCs, mercury) 410 0.9% 1,445 1.2% 
General Waste 148 0.3% 476 0.4% 
Natural resources 
Fish Timber  
41 32  
0.1% 0.1%  
215 192  
0.2% 0.2% 
Other ecosystem services, pollutants and waste Not available (NA) NA NA NA 
Total 4,946 11.0% 21,461 17.8% 
Source: UNEP/FI Trucost, 2010. Adjusted to Euro at $1=€0.75 
The recently published impact assessment of  the new EU biodiversity strategy to 202025 
provides information on economic reasons for action to reach the 2020 objective of halting biodiversity loss
26. The assessment of the economic impact  of the different targets showed 
that increased benefits from ecosystem services  are to be expected if new initiatives are 
implemented. Though no aggregate information is  yet available, project-based evidence 
showed the cost-benefits ratio of restoration projects can range  from 3 to 75. In addition, 
payments for water-related ecosystem services  are expected to amount to USD 30 billion by 
2050. The implementation of green infrastructu re, amongst others, could reduce the social 
costs of traffic accidents. In Switzerland for example, these amount to €42 million per year. 
No detailed assessment of the impact of different initiatives to be taken in the context of the 
strategy is available yet.  
2.2.2 Resource Use and Decoupling 
A different approach to considering the scale of  environmental external costs is to consider 
the cost savings from improving the efficiency  with which resources are used and hence 
                                                 
25 European Commission (2011). Communication on our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity 
strategy to 2020, COM(2011) 244 final, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5B1%5D.pdf .  
26 European Commission (2010). Communication on options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 
2010, COM(2010)4 final, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/policy/pdf/communication_2010_0004.pdf ; Environment 
Council Conclusions of 15 March 2010, http://registe r.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st07/st07536.en10.pdf.  
 
 65reducing the associated external cost. It should  be clearly noted that this approach is an 
alternative method of examining external costs,  and should not be included in the thematic 
aggregation of external costs, above. It more sp ecifically relates to thos e costs resulting from 
the inability to decouple econom y from use of natural resources/environmental impact.   
 Potential resource savings, achieved by improving resource efficiency in the EU to levels 
already achieved by the most efficient Member St ates, have been estimated. This provides an 
indication of the scale of benefits available using existing technologies.  
 
The analysis is based on Eurostat data for EU27 on total domestic material consumption (DMC) and domestic inland energy consumption. Th is data refers to raw materials only and 
does not address natural resource s and the associated challenges  such as unde restimation. The 
resource savings are based on Memb er States (MS) achieving the level of resource efficiency 
set by the average achieved by the five most e fficient MS, calculated as the resources used 
per unit of GDP by MS.  The analysis (Table 1.3.) indicates  that the scope for resource sa vings is greater for materials 
(46%) than for energy (20%), due in part to  the higher unit costs of energy. The resource 
savings are estimated using the market price of  materials and for energy, plus an estimate of 
the associated external cost savings from re duced pollution, based on available externality 
estimates. The saving at market prices is €550 billion a year. A further €60 billion a year in 
reduced externality costs might also be s ecured. The total economic value achieved is 
equivalent to over 5% of EU GDP. 
Table 1.3  Estimated savings in market and external costs from improved re source efficiency in the EU (€ 
billion) 
Indicator Unit Materials Energy Total
Total resources (EU27) mil tonnes; mil toe 8,200            1,800             
Resource saving (avg of top 5) mil tonnes; mil toe 3,800            370                
Savings as a share of total % 46% 20%
Unit value of external cost €/tonne;  €/toe 2.40              151                
Unit value of market price €/tonne;  €/toe 9.80              1,508             
External cost € billion per annum 10                 60                   60              
Market value € billion per annum 40                 550                590            
Total economic value € billion per annum 50                 610                660             
Sources: GHK own estimates using data from Eurostat. External cost estimates sourced from COWI (using a 
UK study of the externalities of primary aggregate production and likely to be a minimum estimate; and taken 
as 10% of market price for energy, at current price of $100 a barrel, which approximates to  €0.01 per kWh) 
Notes: 
1. Materials: The total amount of mate rials directly used, defined as th e annual quantity of raw materials 
extracted from the domestic territory, plus all physical imports minus all physical exports. Data for 2007.  
2. Energy: The total energy necessary to satisfy inland consumption of the EU based on consumption by 
the energy sector itself; distribution and transformation losses; and final energy consumption by end users. Data for 2008. 
2.2.3. New and emerging problems in the EU 
In addition to the problems of well defined envir onmental impacts, there is also the risk that 
new and emerging problems will add to the current stock of problems. One case that illustrates this is the environmen tal risks from nanotechnology. It is  likely that other risks will 
 
 66emerge in coming years. However, stakeholders c onsidered this risk to be of less significance 
than the problem of implementing current policies. 
2.3 The scale of environmental problems outside the EU 
Table 1.3 provides an indicative estimate of the gl obal external cost per year from a range of 
environmental impacts. The recent European  Environment State and Outlook Report 2010 
(SOER2010) highlights close link between Europe’s environmen tal challenges and those in 
the rest of the world. Europe is contributing to environmental pressures in other regions of the 
world, and at the same time, the impacts of ac tivities elsewhere are increasingly affecting 
Europe. 
 
This analysis provides a brief overview of ke y environmental issues that link the EU and 
other parts of the world: these are presented in the table below, which describes both EU 
influence on the rest of the world as we ll as those of other regions on Europe.  
For the sake of analysis, these issues have been divided into three levels: 
• Global issues 
• Regional issues (in this cas e, the Pan-European regi on of countries that are 
members of the UN Economic Commission in Western, Central and Eastern 
European, the Caucasus and Central Asia) 
• Europe’s neighbourhood (bordering countri es and others under the European 
Neighbourhood Policy, ENP). 
 
The EU has subscribed to number of multilatera l environmental agreements to address these 
common issues. These agreements are found at gl obal level, in the Pan-European region and 
also with neighbouring countries. A selected set of key conven tions are also shown in the 
Table 1.4., together with key agreements the EU has undertaken, su ch as the Cancun 
Agreement on climate change agreed at the December 2010 COP. In a few cases, EU 
legislation calls for cooperation with neighbo uring countries on shared ecosystems: an 
example is the Water Framework Di rective (listed in the table). 
 SOER provides a description of environmental i ssues, including projections for some issues. 
It also provides an analysis of the long-term global megatrends that will influence Europe’s 
environment. Key megatrends are presented in the last column of the table along with brief 
information on projections, where available. 
 
 67Table 1.4   Key environmental issues linking the EU and the rest of the world 
Issue Global influence on EU 
environment EU influence on environment in 
other regions of the world Selected EU 
Commitments Global megatrends and their potential influence in coming 
years (from EEA, SOER 2010) 
Shared global environmental issues  
Climate change: mitigation • GHG emissions in 
the rest of the world affecting climate change impacts in Europe • EU commitment to reduce GHG 
emissions  
• EU commitment to address 
climate change and assist 
developing countries in so doing • UNFCCC and the 
Kyoto Protocol  
• The Cancun 
Agreement  
• Climate and Energy 
Package Increasing severity of the c onsequences of climate change 
• Growth of emerging economies will increase their share of 
global GHG emissions in  coming decades 
Climate change: adaptation • GHG emissions in 
the rest of the world affecting climate change impacts in Europe • EU commitment to assist 
countries with adaptation  • UNFCCC 
• The Cancun 
Agreement Increasing severity of the c onsequences of climate change 
• Without new policies, global climate change impacts will 
become more severe  
Biodiversity protection • Alien species from 
other parts of the world disrupt EU 
ecosystems 
• Habitat loss outside 
EU affects migratory species 
 • Biodiversity loss in the EU 
affects global trends 
• EU imports of endangered 
species 
• EU commitment to support 
global biodiversity goals • CBD 
• Nagoya Declaration 
• CITES  
• MDG 7b  
• EU Council 
(3/2010) Decreasing stocks of natural resources 
Increasing severity of the c onsequences of climate change 
• Resource consumption and cl imate change are growing 
pressures on global biodiversity 
Transboundary movements of 
hazardous waste  • Illegal EU exports of hazardous 
waste • Basel Convention Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
• Waste exports from emer ging economies may grow; 
possible backlash in receiving countries 
Other transboundary waste 
movements  • Legal and illegal EU exports 
(e.g. electronic waste, cars 
exported as second-hand goods) • Waste Framework 
Directive, other 
legislation Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
• Waste exports from emer ging economies may grow; 
possible backlash in receiving countries 
 
 68Issue Global influence on EU 
environment EU influence on environment in 
other regions of the world Selected EU 
Commitments Global megatrends and their potential influence in coming 
years (from EEA, SOER 2010) 
Transboundary movement of 
chemicals • Chemicals imported 
to the EU as well as 
chemicals found in agricultural and manufactured imports may harm human health and the environment in Europe • EU exports of chemicals 
(including pesticides) could 
harm human health and the environment in other parts of the world, especially if their storage, use and disposal are not properly managed • Rotterdam 
Convention (Prior 
informed consent) 
• Stockholm 
Convention (persistent organic pollutants) 
• Support for sound 
management 
through SAICM • Thousands of chemicals are in commerce and for most, 
their effects on human health and the environment are poorly understood 
• Chemical production outside the EU and OECD countries 
is growing rapidly 
• EU legislation – in particular REACH – provides a 
comprehensive approach to assessing risks and applies to 
imports; moreover, many govern ments are looking at EU 
legislation.  
EU share of consumption of 
global renewable/non-
renewable resources • Competition for 
natural resources (from oil and gas to rare metals and timber) affecting 
resource extraction 
in EU (from oil from regional seas to timber) • EU imports of renewable/ non-
renewable imports and “embedded” GHG emissions, water consumption, etc. 
• EU goods imports and 
“embedded” GHG emissions, 
water consumption, etc. • MDG 7a Intensified global competition for resources 
Decreasing stocks of natural resources 
• With rise of emerging economie s, global resource demand 
will grow along with issues of  price and scarcity: a concern 
for EU in terms of environmental security 
Insufficient access of the share 
of global population to safe 
drinking water supply and basic sanitation  • EU support for a shared global 
commitment to halve the share of global population without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation • MDG 7c Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
• UN reports progress to drinking water goal, but sanitation 
goal remains more distant 
The adverse living conditions 
of slum dwellers  • EU support for a shared global 
commitment to improve the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers • MDG 7d Living in an urban world: spreading cities and spiralling 
consumption 
• Improvements not keeping pace with growing numbers of 
urban poor 
Ozone layer protection • High share of ODS 
emissions from non-
EU sources • Decreasing with accelerated 
phase-out of ODS in EU  • Montreal Protocol  • Global ODS consumption expect ed to decline in coming 
years 
Regional environmental i ssues (i.e. Pan-European)  
 
 69Issue Global influence on EU 
environment EU influence on environment in 
other regions of the world Selected EU 
Commitments Global megatrends and their potential influence in coming 
years (from EEA, SOER 2010) 
Transboundary air pollution • Air pollution from 
neighbouring 
countries to EU 
• Air pollution from 
other continents 
 • Air pollution from EU to 
neighbouring countries 
• EU commitments under LRTAP • LRTAP Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
• EU emissions of SO 2 and NO x  expected to decline (PM 
and others to remain stable) 
• Inter-continental pollutants expected to raise background 
levels of pollution in EU 
Transboundary water pollution • Water pollution 
from neighbouring countries to EU 
 • Water pollution from EU to 
neighbouring countries 
 • Helsinki Convention
• Water Framework 
Directive Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
• Water pollution from urban areas in EU should decrease; 
agricultural trends unclear  
Issues in Europe’s direct neighbourhood  
Shared ecosystems: regional 
seas 
• Arctic 
• Baltic 
• Black 
• Mediterranean 
• NE Atlantic • Exploitation of 
fisheries by other countries • EU fishing, aquaculture and 
agricultural runoff, as well as 
chemical pollution from ships and industry, are having major 
impacts on coastal waters and 
seas 
• EU exploitation of shared 
fisheries (varies by sea) • Conventions for 
Baltic, Black and 
Med. seas and NE Atlantic 
• Marine Strategy 
Framework 
Directive Decreasing stocks of natural resources 
• Concerns over oil and gas exploration in Arctic 
Increasing severity of the c onsequences of climate change 
• Climate change will increase ecosystem vulnerability 
Shared cross-border 
ecosystems (e.g. Carpathians, 
Dinaric Alps, Bialowieza 
Forest) • Shared migratory 
species and habitats 
 • Shared migratory species and 
habitats 
• Links with neighbouring areas 
can support habitats and species in the EU • Carpathian 
Convention and 
others  
• COE Conventions Increasing severity of the c onsequences of climate change 
• Climate change will increase ecosystem vulnerability – and 
need for ecological corridors  
Shared watercourses (e.g. 
Danube, Dniestr, Daugava) • Water pollution 
from neighbouring 
countries affecting EU 
• Shared water 
resources and ecosystems • EU water pollution affecting 
neighbouring countries 
• Shared water resources and 
ecosystems 
 • Water Framework 
Directive 
• Danube Convention 
and others Increasing severity of the c onsequences of climate change 
• Climate change will increase ecosystem vulnerability  
• The intensity and frequency of water scarcity, droughts and 
flooding are expected to increase  
 
 70The impacts of the activities of non-EU countries on the effectiveness of EU environmental policy and intervention  
Depolluting the Danube 
The Danube River Basin (DRB) is Europe's second largest river basi n, and  the world's most ‘int ernational’ river basin as it 
includes the territories of nineteen count ries, nine of which are non-EU countries . The DRB contains 130 identified industrial 
pollution hot spots and suffers from toxic chemical pollution as well as eutrophication caused by nutrient runoff from 
agriculture and industrial pollutants discharged into the river. The DRB also faces water quantity issues as a function of dams  
and flood control measures and vulnerability to climate change and extreme weather events27. 
The Joint Action Programme28 of the ICPDR demonstrated that the Danube C ountries were willing to invest over €4.4 billion 
over the period 2001-2005 in order to respond to priority need s in the sectors of municipal waste water collection and 
treatment, industrial waste wa ter treatment, and agricultural pollution and land use.  
Countries within the DRB are socially and economically divers e and face a variety of challenges that are bound up with the 
environment. Serbia and Romani a contain significant mineral deposits that co uld serve as an economic foundation for rural 
development. However, the risks to th e environment from poorly planned and tec hnologically inadequate  mining operations 
are great. While the EU’s environmental legal framework provides a protection to the environment, there are concerns that 
since this does not apply to non-EU count ries, such as Serbia, it could undermine EU efforts to address pollution in the 
Danube.  
Threats to the conservation of the Egyptian vulture  
The Egyptian Vulture was listed as Endangered in the IUCN Re d List following a very recent and extremely rapid population 
decline in India, Europe and West A frica, owing to a variety of threats29. The species is included in Annex I of the EU Wild 
Birds Directive and in Appendix II of the Bern, Bonn and CITES Conventions. As a result of the important decline in Europe, 
the species was classified as Endangered at European and EU level. 
The species is migratory and spends a considerable part of its life cycle in Africa, where it may be facing significant threats . 
The threats stem from a range of activities including the use of poison baits (prohibite d in Europe by the Bern Convention and 
in the EU by both the Birds and the Habitats Directives); a nd the electrocution of migratory and wintering, Egyptian Vultures 
that prefer to roost on electrical poles and pylons. In the la tter case, halting these deaths requires the insulation of the po wer 
lines, especially near Port Sudan and coordination with the Suda nese Electricity Company to ensure the use of a safe model of 
pylons. 
It is not possible to quantify the costs relating to the losses of  these vultures, EU based vultures,. based in the Balkans and  
also Southern Europe, particularly Spain. However this exam ple demonstrates how activities taking place outside the EU are 
undermining the EU’s conservation efforts relating to these species,  most notably through projects funded by the LIFE 
programme to conserve a number of raptors30. 
 
3. Underlying causes of environment and climate problems 
The problems described above are a consequen ce of wide range of economic and social 
activity and behaviour, such as institutional driv ers, market failures and regulatory failures.  
The role of LIFE is not to solv e the environmental problems but rather to act as catalyst for 
change in areas where a small instrument wo uld be effective and achieve the highest EU 
added value. This has been achieved by funding start-up's actio ns and innovative, 
demonstrative, and best practice projects that c ould be replicated elsewhere, as well as by  
acting as a platform for knowledge-sharing. LIFE also acted as a gap filler. Given these characteristics, the instrument t ypically deals with institutional drivers (and in some cases also 
market failures). For this reason, only these drivers are described in this section.  
                                                
 
27 Antypas, A (2010) Environment and the Purposes of a Danube Area Macroregional Strategy. 
28 The Joint Action Programme (JAP) of the ICPDR outlines the specific steps that were agreed to be taken over 
the period 2001-2005 to achieve the environmental objectives outlined in the Danube River Protection 
Convention. 
29 BirdLife International, 2008. 
30 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/life/themes/animala ndplants/lists/raptors.htm .  
 
 71• Uneven and inadequate level of environm ental protection due to the insufficient 
implementation31 or scope of environmental and climate policy  
Despite the well documented health and so cio-economic benefits of implementing 
environmental and climate legislation, a high rate of implementation failures remains.32 New 
strategies for implementation and compliance ar e being analysed in an effort to reduce 
implementation failures. The underlying causes for implementation failures identified are 
diverse and vary from Member State to Member St ate. One of the drivers to be highlighted is 
insufficient administrative capacity. The cap acity of institutions include individual 
compentence, organisational capacities, the en abling environment and partnerships/network 
organisations (that describes the quality of the intereaction and cooperation among the 
relevant public, and private actors as well as wi th development of partners in the sector or 
among authorities). This situation occurs in a moment where the most demanding EU 
environmental acts (such as the Habitats Di rective, the Water Framework Directive, the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Waste Framework Directive, the EU Climate and 
Energy Package or REACH to name a few) en ter their crucial peri od of implementation.  
• Uneven integration of environment and climate concerns in to other policies  
The principle of environmental integration reco gnises that environmental policy alone cannot 
achieve the environmental improvements needed.33  However, evidence (e.g., see the latest 
Cohesion report) suggests that this approach has shown some limits. As a consequence, in 
practice, there are substantial divergences in the way environmental and climate objectives are 
incorporated into national/reg ional programmes and dealt with by the various authorities and 
the private sector.  Underlying cau ses identified include different competing priorities, lack of 
absorption capacity and knowledg e sharing, or lack of coor dination between authorities 
(including the fact that envir onmental authorities often do not have direct access to funding 
sources) and poor strategic planning. Overcoming ba rriers such as the la ck of knowledge of 
the benefits that can be gained from improved in tegration will be key to addressing this area.  
• Inadequate levels of awarenne ss and sharing of information  
The problem of implementation and integration de scribed above arise in part because of an 
inadequate sharing of information. The prob lem is twofold: insu fficient understanding of 
environmental problems and challenges and insu fficient knowledge sharing (e.g., potential 
solutions to the problems). Insufficient und erstading requires raising awareness among EU 
citizens and stakeholders to drive behavi oural changes and promoting environmental 
responsiveness. Inadeq uate sharing of information and EU environmental/climate policy 
lessons  requires more attention to networks, me ans for information flows, and cooperation 
between different actors that remain insuffi cient and inadequate, limiting the capacity for 
experience sharing and mutual learning.   
                                                 
31 It was discussed whether to consider implementation as a problem as such. However, given that legislation and 
thus implementation of the acquis  aims at solving the environmental and climate physical problems, it was 
decided to limit environmental problems to physical problems and consider uneven implementation as a driver to 
those problems. Nevertheless it should be acknowledged that most of the drivers and underlying causes 
mentioned can also be considered drivers and underlyi ng causes for inadequate implementation in addition to 
independent drivers to environmental and climate physical problems.  
32 One third of all open cases for non-compliance are en vironment related cases, which indicates that the 
implementation of environmental legislation remains far from satisfactory. 
33 COM(2004)394 "Integrating environmental consideratio ns into other policy areas – a stocktaking of the 
Cardiff process".   
 
 72• Inadequate support to eco-innovation  
The pursuit of eco-innovation is  not just developing new cons umer products, services and 
technologies that are intrinsically  cleaner and greener than their predecessors. It is also about 
engendering better practices a nd approaches across the econom y. While market failures are 
addressed by other EU funds, institutional w eaknesses in the area of eco-innovation are more 
insufficiently dealt with. This is particularly  relevant for activities related to developing 
policy-driven and public sector oriented soluti ons to environmental problems that have no 
market replication potential and that simply promote new and more cost effective ways to 
implement environmental policy. Simirlaly, tes ting of new approaches remain inadequate.  
Low carbon technology development is hampered by uncertainty and knowledge spill-over in 
general, which may lead to lo wer investment in R& D than optimal. In addition, there is a 
commercialisation problem for capital intensiv e technologies where i nvestments are marked 
by long lead times. After technologies have been developed they need to be tested at a small 
scale, hence it will be critical to foster the take up of low carbon approaches, strategies and 
tools and to accelerate the learning curv es as cost-effectively as possible. 
4. Benefits of action  
The scope for improvements in EU policy implementation and development can be 
demonstrated by the achievements of recent EU  policy development and improvements. This 
can be evidenced to experience in MS and by reference to partic ular EU polices to 
demonstrate the costs and benefits  of better, and better implemen ted, environmental policies.   
Evidence 1:   Benefits of improved environmental policy implementation and development 
The development and implementa tion of improved environmental policies and le gislation will lead to a wide range of 
benefits, including health benefits, eco-syst em benefits, and broader benefits such as benefits to natural resources (e.g. 
fisheries or agriculture), social benefits and also genera l economic benefits (e.g. attracting tourism or eco-efficiency 
gains). It is, however, important to clarify up front what is meant by benefits and how they are calculated. Many of the 
benefits are in fact avoided damage. This is the case notably for health benefits and other environmental benefits such as 
eco-system benefits. In other words, the benefit is calculate d on the basis of understanding what the impact or level of 
damage is and how this will be reduced with improved environm ental regulation. This leads to estimates for reductions in 
the incidence of respiratory diseases fo r example, the reduction in the number of  poor quality rivers, or the reduction in 
agricultural losses from pollution depositi on. Other benefits are mo re ‘common sense’ benef its, i.e. where improved 
regulation leads to actual improvements ra ther than just a reduction of damage. For example, the social benefits of 
increased learning and awareness of e nvironmental impacts and increased i nvolvement in solving environmental 
problems is this type of benefit. Anothe r example is the issue of improved access to clean drinking water. Also, improved 
environmental policy may lead to enhanced competitiveness and new job opportunities, e.g. by promoting environmental 
technologies and innovation  
Source: Ten Brink and Bassi, 200834 
A number of recent case studies illustrate the economic and social benefits of improvements 
in the development and implementation of environmental policies at the MS level, which demonstrate the capacity to secure environmen tal objectives and to do so cost-effectively. 
Evidence 2:   Benefits of policy action for the e nvironment – evidence from case studies 
Implementation of Birds and Habitats Directive – Belgium (Flanders) 
The Birds and Habitats Directives are the cornerstone of th e EU’s nature and biodiversity policy. Although most of the 
Natura 2000 network (central to implementation of the Dire ctives) has now been establis hed, effective protection, 
management and restoration of sites is now of utmost importance. In Flanders, one of the most densely populated regions 
                                                 
34 add 
 
 73of the European Union, widespread pressures on environmenta l quality and natural areas particularly due to pollution and 
habitat fragmentation are affecting the ability of the region to reach its biodiversity targets, for example in terms of 
reducing the barriers to migratory fish  species and improving the connectivity of  its rivers. In re sponse, the Flemish 
region has increasingly focused on a number of ecological restor ation measures as part of its activities to meet the 
objectives of the Directives. This includes a trend towards larger restor ation projects (supported by increased funding 
provided by the LIFE instrument); the acqui sition of land for creation of nature re serves and the use of large public works 
such as port development/design of flood control areas, to carry out restoration activities.  
In Belgium, the cost of implementing the network per year was recently estimated to be €195/ha/year, compared with an 
EU-25 average of €63/ha/year (Gantioler et al. 2010). The high pe r hectare costs are likely influenced by cost drivers such 
as population density (incr eased costs due to increased pressure on the site ), highly scattered and small sites, and high 
levels of income (e.g. GDP, reflecting wa ges and land costs). No overall monetary va luation of the benefits of the Natura 
2000 network compared to costs has yet been undertaken in  Belgium (although site-level cost-benefit studies do exist). 
However, it has been shown through a range of studies th at ecosystem restoration pr ovides a number of ecosystem 
services which are of extremely high valu e, such as improving the resilience of  the region against flooding (Decleer, K. 
(2008). Additional studies (De Nocker et al. not dated, Liek ens et al 2009, LNE 2010) have been undertaken  attempting 
to estimate the value of these ecosystem services, which woul d otherwise have been lost w ithout restoration of sites. 
Some of those studies have shown that a combination of m easures such as dykes and floodpl ains can be cost-effective, 
offering higher benefits at lower costs compared to more in tensive man-made measures, such  as the development of huge 
flood barriers near Antwerp.  
Bio-waste prevention – Hungary  
In 2005, 4,646 ktonnes of municipal waste wa s generated in Hungary, 27.6% of whic h is considered bio-waste. Hungary 
has not asked for a derogation under the Landfill Directive,  and so has to reduce the amount of its biodegradable 
municipal waste going to landfills by 75%  in 2004, 50% in 2009 and 35% in 2016.  The majority of municipal waste 
(82%) is currently landfilled, with less than 5% of bio-waste being composted. By 2020, it is estimated that Hungary’s 
generation of bio-waste will have increased by more than 30%  compared to 2008 levels (2.1 ktonnes). There is thus a 
strong rationale for implemen ting waste prevention and recycling measures  to divert waste from landfill. Waste 
prevention measures and cha nging the current disposal and treatment me thods, (increasing the amount of bio-waste 
(59%) disposed of through in-vessel com posting) is expected to provide signifi cant economic savings as well as reducing 
the environmental impact s of municipal waste  
The PV of avoided environmental da mage is estimated to be almost  €90 million from 2013-2020 (roughly €10 per 
capita). The PV of the financial cost  for composting is about €45 million (2013-2020), however the financial benefit from 
avoided landfilling, incineration, MBT a nd home composting reduces the overall cost . This case study did not investigate 
any potential benefits from job creation resulting from these measures.  
Landfill diversion of biodegradable waste – Bulgaria  
Bulgaria is confronted with wide spread dumping in non managed dumpsites,  although it is currently developing a 
network of well managed landfills combined with sanitation and land restoration of closed dumpsites. Despite this, 
complementary measures are needed, in particular the deve lopment of a bio-waste treatment capacity. One of the main 
measures relating to this is the developm ent of a windrow composting plant, as an affordable solution to divert bio-waste 
from landfills. Bio-waste treatment, as one of the main compos ing elements of biodegradable waste, will help in reaching 
the EU acquis, and beyond.  
The investment costs for developing such a plant are estimated to be almost €900,000 and operational costs are 
approximately €15/ton. The benefits of such a measure are mu lti-faceted and are mainly in terms of cost savings through 
home composting (avoided transport costs) and a voided landfill costs, as  well as avoided CO 2 emissions, which totalled 
for the project period, amount to €240,000. Other benefits include positive impacts on human health, reduced water and 
soil contamination, aesthetic an d landscape impacts and economic impacts, all of  which impact on soci al welfare and thus 
need to be taken into consideration. The case study demonstrates that by increasing the recycling capacity and the 
quantity of biodegradable waste to be handled by composting,  stimulated by funding programs, a significant benefit can 
be realised. 
Air emission reduction measures – Croatia  
The Croatian Air Protection Act is harmonised with Di rective 96/62/EC on Ambient Air Quality Assessment and 
Management and takes into ac count other EU Directives relating to air qua lity and emissions into air (97/101/EC). 
Potential technical and policy me asures have been proposed that can be implem ented in the short term to guarantee that 
present and future air quality standards can be respected in Rijeka Port, thus complying with the European acquis. 
                                                                                                                                                         
35 Nera & Accent (2007): Report on the benefits of Water Framework Directive programmes of measures in 
England and Wales, by Nera and Accent  for the UK Department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra), 
November 2007.  
 
 74Potential measures include  the use of fuel with a lower sulphur; flue ga s desulphurization; advanced internal engine 
modification such as dry water injection (DWI), humi d air motors (HAM) and exhaust gas recirculation.  
The mandatory use of 0.1% content sulphur fuel by shipping when in the harbour would cost €4.6 million a year, and €2.4 
when at berth. The annual cost of inst alling sustainable shore side  electricity (above 5 visits) driven by the use of a 
differentiated harbour tax would amount to  €2.4 million. Other benefits for agricu ltural production, cultural heritage or 
ecosystems from reduced pollutant emissions  are excluded and the potential benef its under-estimated The annual cost of 
implementing a secondary catalytic reduction process would amo unt to €1.6 million. By using figures in the Clean Air for 
Europe (CAFE) Programme on the average damages on human h ealth, the resulting reduction in pollutant emissions by 
implementing these select measures would lead to net bene fits of €7.3 million a year. Other measures (e.g. flue gas 
desulphurization and more significant motor adaptations) lead to  significant net costs due to the high investment costs of 
the measures. 
Water Framework Directive – UK  
Improving water quality is the leading object ive of water policy within the EU. As a resource, the quality and availability 
of water is important for economic sustainability, social  well being, human health and the preservation of the 
environment. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is th e overarching legislative tool  aimed at achieving this 
objective. To achieve compliance with the Directive, each e nvironmental standard must be accomplished (or a derogation 
issued) and a series of reporting deadlines must be met to ensure that national plans and systems are in place to effectively 
implement and enforce the Directive.  
It is difficult to provide an EU-level  cost in this case study for methodological  reasons. However, the results of the UK 
assessments are indicative of the order of magnitude of the exp ected costs and benefits. They suggest that the cost of full 
compliance with the WFD is approximately €63 billion in th e UK by 2015 (although this does not take into account the 
fact that less stringent targets apply and phased improvements are permitted). A UK benefits study35 estimated the 
aggregate willingness to pay (WTP) benefits of th e WFD by households ranged from €21-€33 billion per annum. 
However, other benefits must also be considered - in terms of cost sa vings for industries which rely on both large 
volumes of water and good quality water re sources (such as cost savings in dr inking water treatment). The EU wide 
benefit of this was estimated to be around €362.5 million per year due to reduced pesticide contamination and €70 million 
in the Netherlands alone from reduced metal removal costs. Taki ng these other benefits into account demonstrates that the 
benefits of effective implementation of WFD are sizeable and justify the costs of implementation. 
The value of this process can be identified from a review of recent improvements in EU 
policy development, two examples of which include:  
1. Air quality improvements36 - Additional measures to deliver better air quality would 
cost between 0.04% and 0.12% of EU-25 GDP in  2020, but would achieve health benefits 
alone that would exceed the cost s by a factor of two or more; 
2. Improved pesticides management37 - Introducing further meas ures on the sustainable 
use of pesticides would generate net benefits  to the EU especially farmers even with 
additional costs to some industries. 
These examples are further discussed in the Box below. The exploita tion and demonstration 
of such opportunities to improve the scope an d stringency of the acquis, where marginal 
changes can be made, and where the cost-effect iveness of action can be shown, will continue 
to be needed.   
Evidence 3:  Environmental and economic benef its of improvements in EU en vironmental policy - exemplars  
Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and the Directive on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe38 
                                                 
36 The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and 
Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact Asse ssment. http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/archives/cafe/general/keydocs.htm. 
37 European Commission (2006)Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Impact Assessment. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/sec_2006_0894.pdf. 
38 The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and 
Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact Asse ssment. http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/archives/cafe/general/keydocs.htm.  
 
 75Emissions of pollutants to air, not only damage the envi ronment through changes to the climate and air quality (i.e. 
greenhouse gases and particulate emissions ), but can also have repercussions for water and soil environments, as 
suspended pollutants in the atmosphere  can be deposited in each environment through precipitation. Recognising the 
success of previous strategies and the legislative action taken to reduce air pol lution and protect the environment, the 
Commission has investigated what additi onal measures could be empl oyed to deliver greater benefits by revising the 
strategy and its constituent legislative tools.  To achieve si gnificant improvements by 2020, three options for abatement of 
emissions are assessed, based on incremental degrees of pollution abatement. Net of the baseline, the direct abatement 
costs for the EU were estimated to be in the region of €5.9 billion for Scenario 1, and €14.9 billion for Scenario 3 per year 
in 2020. Additionally, the indirect cost s were also assessed usi ng the GEM-E3 general equilibrium model of the EU 
economy which accounts for the direct and wider economic impacts,  such as those relating to price changes, labour market 
adjustments and feedback effects caused by implementing the ab atement measures. The estimated costs of the scenarios in 
this model were estimated to be between 0.04% and 0.12% of EU-25 GDP in 2020 respectively.   
Assessing the benefits of these measures, the following estimates were calculated: 
• Human health benefits of €37-€120 billion in scenario 1 and €49-€160 billion in Scenario 3, based on the value of 
statistical lives saved in 2020 (equ ivalent to 0.1%-0.35% of GDP); 
• Damage reduction to agricultural crops in 2020 of €0.3 billion per year; and 
• Environmental benefits equivalent to 74% less forest area and 39% less freshwater area where acidification critical 
loads are exceeded, plus 43% less area where crit ical loads for eutrophication are exceeded in 2020.  
Based on the health benefits alone, the anal ysis indicates that the benefits should at least exceed the costs by a factor of tw o 
or more, if the environmental and agriculture benefits are to be accounted for. A clear justification for improving the 
implementation and development of environmental policy therefore exists. 
Thematic Strategy on the Sus tainable Use of Pesticides39   
A review of the thematic strategy on the use of pesticides to include plant protection and biocidal products has revealed 
that substantial benefits can st ill be achieved through the introduction of furt her measures to protect  human health and the 
environment. The Strategy sits between two other leading pi eces of environmental legislation, the REACH regulation to 
regulate what chemicals can be placed on the market and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which monitors residues 
of chemicals entering the water environm ent. The Thematic strategy is therefor e responsible for regulating the use of 
pesticides.  
The proposed measures target a reduction of the risks for th e environment and human health linked to the use of plant 
protection products. The overall costs and benefits of the st rategy are summarised in Table 1 below, reproduced from the 
impact assessment. 
Table 1: Costs and Benefits of the Thematic Strategy on Pesticides 
 Benefits  Costs  Balance  
Farmers  €1,110 - €1440 million /yr  
                          (Reduced health impacts) €725 million /yr €380 - €710 million  
Industries         + 3,000 jobs                                      €300 - €670 million /yr 
                          (could be contained through more advisory services and developmen t of more innovative products)        
                                                                                                                                         -€670  to - €300 million/yr 
                                                                                                                                         + 3000 jobs 
Member State Authorities   
€200 million /yr (savings for health and environment costs) + 180 jobs 
Positive impacts on humans and the environment  
 
The analysis clearly indicates a positive net benefit from the revision of existing legislation protecting human health and 
the environment. 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
39 European Commission (2006) Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Impact Assessment. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/sec_2006_0894.pdf . 
 
 76It is not possible to specify the exact contri bution of implementation failures to the overall 
scale of the problem. Moreover, the full impl ementation of existing policies would not be 
expected to internalise al l external costs, where the costs of doing so would be greater than the 
environmental benefits achieved. However, the costs of continued environmental damage 
would be lower if the acquis were properly im plemented; difficulties of transposition and 
inadequate capacities to implement and enforce polices at MS level are resulting in higher 
external costs. Effective implementation of envi ronmental policy can lead to cost savings as 
well as environmental benefits. 
Benefits from implementing the IPPC –  To date, there has been insufficient implementation 
of best available techniques (BAT). Estimates indicate that implementing BAT is likely to 
incur additional costs of €2– €7 billion for i ndustry and yield €9 – €30 billion in cost savings, 
a benefit-cost ratio of over €5 for every €1 spent.  This increases to over €7 for every €1 spent 
if health benefits are included. 
This example is further detailed in the Box below.   
Evidence 4:  Environmental and economic benefits of the implementation of EU environmental policy - exemplars  
Industrial Emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) Directive40  
The review process evaluating the performance of the first IPPC Directive 96/61/EC highl ighted a number of problems 
which were adversely affecting the cost effective implementa tion of the Directive by the Member State authorities and 
industrial operators. Foremost amongst th ese problems is the insufficient implem entation of best available techniques 
(BAT) leading to limited progress in the prevention and reduc tion of industrial emissions and to distortion of competition 
due to large differences in environmental standards between operators in the different Member States. While the initial 
compliance costs associated with introducing BAT may be higher, the BREF supporting document prepared for each 
industry sector prove that sufficient cost savings can occu r through greater energy, water and material efficiency, in 
addition to reductions in waste generation to exceed the initial investment cost.  Estimates of the impacts indicate the 
implementing BAT is likely to incur additional costs of €2.1-  €6.5 billion for industry and yield €9 – €30 billion in cost 
savings. This result suggests a cost bene fit ratio of over €5 for every €1 spent. 
If health benefits of €7-€28 billion per year due to the reduc tion of premature deaths/ years of lives lost by 13,000 and 
125,000 respectively are included then this ratio increases to over €7 per €1 spent. 
 
 
                                                 
40 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Industrial Emissions (integrated pollution 
prevention and control) (r ecast) Impact Assessment 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=462132:cs&lang=en&list= 511975:cs,516991:cs,508612:cs,505133:cs,499125:cs,48
5132:cs,461932:cs,462133:cs,462132:cs,261603:cs,&p os=9&page=1&nbl=16&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=
checkbox&visu=#texte . 
 
 77Environmental externalities values: Da ta sources used to calculate the ec onomic value of environmental impacts  
Theme Indicator  Economic value per 
unit € Source 
Environment, Policy and Governance (EPG) 
Climate 
Change/Air/ Urban 
Environment Reduction in CO2 emissions – tonnes 120 Watkiss, P.(2006): The soci al cost of carbon, by Paul Watkiss Associates, UK, for Defra , available at:  
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/21/37321411.pdf.  
This reference provides EU pr ice as 70-170 Euros, hence aver age of 120 Euros per tonne carbon.  
Reduction in energy consumption – 
tons/CO2 0.0015 The value of energy savings was calculated by conve rting MJ into kwh, and then using a standard figure 
for kg / CO2 of electricity generated in the UK. This value was identified at: 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/enviro nment/business/reporting/pdf/ 20090928-guidelines-ghg-conversion-
factors.pdf ). 
The total tonnage of CO2 emissions wa s subsequently multipli ed by the social cost of carbon of €120 / 
tonne.  
Likely reduction in use of limited or 
non-renewable natural resources: Tons 
per year 10 COWI (July 2010) Economic An alysis of Resource Efficiency Policies, DG environment Natural resources 
and waste 
Likely reduction in non-hazardous 
solid waste generation tonnes/year 11 DG Env (2000) A Study on the Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities from Landfill 
Disposal and Incineration of Waste  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/wast e/studies/pdf/econ_eva_landfill_report.pdf  
Assumes that the landfill is a modern  containment landfill that fulfils th e demands of the newest directive 
(EC/31/1999). The landfill has a leachate collection and treatment system. Further, the landfill gas is 
collected to generate electricity and heat (CHP).  Includes global warming, air pollution, leachate, 
disamenity and pollution disp lacement externalities. 
 
 78Environmental externalities values: Da ta sources used to calculate the ec onomic value of environmental impacts  
Theme Indicator  Economic value per 
unit € Source 
Likely increase in recycling of waste -  
Tons/year 11 DG Env (2000) A Study on the Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities from Landfill 
Disposal and Incineration of Waste  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/wast e/studies/pdf/econ_eva_landfill_report.pdf  
Assumes that the landfill is a modern  containment landfill that fulfils th e demands of the newest directive 
(EC/31/1999). The landfill has a leachate collection and treatment system. Further, the landfill gas is 
collected to generate electricity and heat (CHP).  Includes global warming, air pollution, leachate, 
disamenity and pollution displacement externalities.  
Soil Reduced of soil erosion - ha 51 From Commission staff work ing document - Document accompan ying the Communication from the 
Commission to the Council, The European Parliame nt, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions - Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection - Impact assessment of the thematic strategy on soil protection {COM( 2006)231 final} {SEC(2006)1165} http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriSe rv/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52006SC0620:EN:NOT .  
 Based on intermediate figure for cost of soil er osion in Europe of €7,624 million (2003 €), for 
approximately 150 million ha.   This is only based on data for 13 European countries. Therefore €7624 
million/150 ha = €51/ha. 
Forests Protection of forest area - ha 1836 Ten Brink, P., Braat, L., Rayment, M., Bräuer, I., Chiabai, A., Bassi, S., Markandy a, A., Nunes, P., ten 
Brink, B., van Oorschot, M., Gerdes  H., Stupak, N., Foo, V., Kettunen,  M., & Gantioler, S. 2009. Further 
Developing. Figure based on COPI values for bioregions in Europe. 
Area of rivers/lakes that will have 
improved quality  (chemical, 
microbiological or ecological) -ha  36 Benefits from improved environmental quality from eu trophication in marine ecos ystem. Valuation of air 
pollutation ecosystem damage acid ozone nitrogen e and biodiversity; DG Environment, October 2007. 
 A study calculated the potential bene fits of improved water in Swed ish archipelago as 506-842 SEK. The 
evaluation team estimated the poten tial benefits in the EU given the characteristics of the geographical 
area in question (e.g. the size and the population). 
Likely improvement in areas meeting national quality standa rds/ targets - ha 36 Benefits from improved environmental quality from eu trophication in marine ecos ystem. Valuation of air 
pollutation ecosystem damage acid ozone nitrogen e and biodiversity; DG Environment, October 2007. 
 Water 
Area of likely improved groundwater 
quality - ha 120 EU Water saving potential (Part 2 – Case Studi es) ENV.D.2/ETU/2007/0001r, 19. July 2007: Ecologic - 
Institute for International and European Environmental Policy 
 
 79Environmental externalities values: Da ta sources used to calculate the ec onomic value of environmental impacts  
Theme Indicator  Economic value per 
unit € Source 
Likely improvement of air quality - 
km2 0.038 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annex to  : The Communication on Thematic Strategy on 
Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact 
Assessment , SEC (2005) 1133 
 
Likely improvement of air quality - Number of people that will be affected 91 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annex to  : The Communication on Thematic Strategy on 
Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact 
Assessment , SEC (2005) 1133 
 
Health benefits under the chosen level  of ambition. The evaluation team selected what the EC calls “the 
mid-range scenario”: the middle value improvem ent in each category. The figure includes fewer 
premature deaths, less sickness, fewer hosp ital admission, improved  labour productivity. 
Likely increase in area with ambient 
air quality meeting EU air quality 
standards - km2 0.038 The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on Ambient Air Quality 
and Cleaner Air for Europe Air 
Likely reduction in emissions of 
noxious gasses (e.g. SO2, NOx, 
NMVOC an NH3) - tonnes/year 1,308 The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on Ambient Air Quality 
and Cleaner Air for Europe 
Environment and 
Health People that will be  better protected 
from air pollution by particles? Number of people 37,348 Reference: de Leeuw, F. and Ho rálek, J. (2009). Assessment of the health impacts of the exposure to 
PM2.5 at a European level. ETC/ACC Technical paper 2009/1. 
 
The benefit per person is €37,300.  This is based on an approximate reduction in mortality associated 
with reducing particulate matter c oncentrations.  If we assume that the LIFE interventions decrease 
mortality by 5% (low scenario in reference used), th en every person lives ~0.5 years longer. Value of a 
Year of Life Lost is €75,000, so 0.5 years is worth €37,300 per person. 
Nature and Biodiversity 
Coastal and 
Halophytic Habitat Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic mana gement – ha 7083 
  
 
 All values across habitats are taken from the following source: 
ten Brink, P., Braat, L., Rayment, M., Bräuer, I., Chiabai, A., Bassi, S., Markandya, A., Nunes, P., ten Brink, B., van Oorschot, M., Gerdes  H., Stupak, N., Foo, V., Kettunen,  M., & Gantioler, S. 2009. Further 
Developing 
Figure based on COPI values for bior egions in Europe.  There is likely to be considerable variation 
 
 80Environmental externalities values: Da ta sources used to calculate the ec onomic value of environmental impacts  
Theme Indicator  Economic value per 
unit € Source 
Coastal Sand 
Dunes and Inland Dunes Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic mana gement – ha 60970 
Freshwater 
Habitats Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic mana gement – ha 3675 
Temperate Heath 
and Scrub Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic mana gement – ha 317 
Sclerophyllous 
scrub Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic mana gement – ha 89 
Natural and Semi-
Natural Grassland Formations Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic mana gement – ha 202 
Raised Bogs, 
Mires and Fens Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic mana gement – ha 1845 
Forests Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha Habitats that will be restored – ha 1836 between habitats in specif ic bioregions due to biotic / abiotic factors. 
 
 81Environmental externalities values: Da ta sources used to calculate the ec onomic value of environmental impacts  
Theme Indicator  Economic value per 
unit € Source 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic mana gement – ha 
Invasive Alien 
Species  Controlling invasive species / ha / year 21 Reference: Kettunen , M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., Pagad, S., Starfinger, U. ten Brink, P. & Shine, C. 
(2008) Technical support to EU strate gy on invasive species (IAS) - Asse ssment of the impacts of IAS in 
Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission). Institute for European 
Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 44 pp. + Annexes 
 
 
 82ANNEX  6:  E XAMPLES ILLUSTRATING THE EU ADDED VALUE OF THE LIFE  PROGRAMME  
 1. The concept of EU added value in LIFE  
 
Most environmental problems have a transboundary or transnational nature and cannot be adequately solved by Member States alone w ithout international coope ration. Member States 
need to join forces and create partnerships w ith stakeholders to tackle these problems which, 
if not solved, may later come at a great cost for the EU as whol e. LIFE attracts partnerships 
that otherwise would be difficult to set-up, ensuring a more effec tive interven tion than 
Member States' individual action by an incr eased pooling of resour ces and expertise.  
 At the same time, some EU environmental probl ems are better addressed at regional or local 
level, also because some EU environmental assets are very localised.  Local solutions can be replicated in other areas or transfered to s ectors facing similar problems. LIFE provides the 
platform for development and exchange of best practices and knowldedge-sharing allowing 
Member States and stakeholders to learn fr om each other and address the environmental 
problem more efficiently.    Finally, environmental assets are unevenly di stributed across the EU and the obligation to 
preserve them calls for a consistent application of the principle of responsability sharing and 
solidarity.  
2. Examples of EU added value  in the LIFE programme 
 
2.1. Solidarity: Pooling efforts to  protect EU natural capita l and environmental assets 
 
By assisting Member States that host most valuab le EU natural capital or are confronted with 
transboundary or transational environmental problem s, LIFE allows for a better distribution of 
responsibility and solid arity in preserving the EU e nvironmental common good.  This is 
typically the case of Natura 2000 with high concentration of species and sites of EU 
importance in certain countries fr equently associated with a reduced capaci ty to address the 
needs of protecting the network.  
Ilustration: LIFE and the Iberian lynx (Spain and Portugal) 
 
The Iberian lynx is the world’s most endangered feline species and the most endangered carnivorous mammal in Europe. 
Numbers of the animal declined significantly from around 1000 in 1990 in Spain and Protugal to 102 by 2002 localised in 
two areas in Andalucía: Sierra Morena and Doñana. The lynx is one of the most emblematic EU specie and an umbrella 
species that helps in the conser vation of a whole ecosystem.  
Building partnerships for species protection.  To build on and move beyond the findi ngs of regional projects, the Andalusian 
government applied for LIFE funding to develop a partnership pr oject to consolidate and guarantee the future of the lynx 
populations, principally by restoring rabbi t populations. The partnership included all those crucial to protecting the lynx suc h 
as hunters and landowners organisations , environmental NGOs and internationa l experts on carnivores conservation. 
When the project started only 102 specimenes remained in the entire word. After two LIFE projects population has increased 
up to 270 specimens, it is being reintrodu ced in new areas, and further reintroduction in Portugal and other Spanish regions is  
expected. Furthermore, the project works in close collaboratio n with the captive breeding programme financed by Spain  and 
Portugal creating synergies between EU funding and national fund s. Hopes are high to upgrade the conservation status of this 
EU essential species.  
2.2. Catalytic role of LIFE 
 
LIFE acts as a catalyst to star t-up action, providing one-off invest ment needed in a specific 
area, eliminating initial barriers to the implementation of EU e nvironmental poli cy and testing 
 
 83new approaches for future scaling up. LIFE addr esses gaps and externalities, raises awareness 
and demonstrates the benefits of environmental protection.   
Illustration: LIFE eliminating barriers to facilitate the implementation and acceptance of the Habitats Directive 
LIFE started in 1992 just after the Habitats  Directive was adopted. Sinc e its beginnings LIFE was a crucial instrument for its 
implementation: firstly by fina ncing the inventories required fo r the designation of the Natura 2000 sites both in old and new 
Member States; secondly by restoring and improving the conservation status of habita ts and species; thirdly by building the 
capacity required to manage the network in the long term; and fourthly by eliminating the initial resistance in many sectors, 
including public administration, to implement the Directive. 
Farming for Conservation in the Burren: The Burren region in Ireland (c.720km2)  was always in demand by farmers 
whose unique pastoral activities – includi ng the reverse transhumance tradition of winter grazing – have been proven to be 
central to the presence of such a rich biodiversity. However,  a distortion of the ‘balance’ between farming and the Burren in 
recent decades has resulted in serious conservation concerns: agricultural intensification has impacted on water quality, while  
a reduction in farming on rough limestone  grasslands has resulted in extensive scrub encroachment. Livelihoods in the 
farming and the tourism sector were also threatened as a result.  
An EU LIFE Nature project brought together farmers, scientis ts, conservationists and agricultu ralists to work proactively 
together to help resolve these problems and formulate a blueprint for sustainable fa rming in the Burren. Innovative ideas such 
as the development of new grazing and feeding systems we re launched to improve hab itat health without further 
compromising the financial viability of the farming system. The success of this project led to a pioneering ‘Burren Farming 
for Conservation Programme (BFCP)’ funded through the Iris h Rural Development Programme . Massively oversubscribed, 
the BFCP now works with 120 Burren farmer s managing 12,887ha within Natura 2000.  
 
2.3. Creating synergies, multipliers and leverage 
 
LIFE helps Member States and stakeholders to accelarate and improve the implementaton of 
EU legislation by finding more cost-effective wa ys to address environmental problems and by 
creating synergies across EU funds and nationa l funds while levering in additional national 
and private sector funds to ensure the con tinuation of activities financed under LIFE or 
expanding  their results.    
Illustration: LIFE ensuring synergies across EU funds and national funds 
Protection and usage of aapa mires  with a rich avifauna in Finland : The aim of this LIFE project was to prepare 
conservation and management plans for five areas within the central Lapland aapa mire zone, so that ecotourism and 
recreational use can be organised on a sustainable basis. The project succeeded in combining resources from different EU 
sources (LIFE for planning and ERDF for construction of the tourism infrastructure) and national funds (for construction of 
barns on the hay meadows).  The use of various funding sources provided the opport unity to make environmental objectives 
more ambitious. Implementation of  the service structure in Lapland has increa sed interest in the Natura 2000 network as a 
whole and brought positive publicity to the project. The success in combining funds led to setting up of a group at regional 
level responsible for planning the yearly allocation of dom estic and EU resources for Natura 2000 allowing greater 
integration of environment in the wider development objec tives, engaging more stakeholde rs and building capacity.  
Protecting coastal meadows in Estonia : LIFE projects have financed the restorat ion and conservation of Estonian's coastal 
meadows part of Natura 2000 network. In 2003 the administra tion of the Silma Nature Reserve applied for a LIFE-Nature 
project on these habitats. Using the experi ence of the previous LIFE projects, th e Reserve administration set up and started 
implementing management plans for the Natura 2000 sites con cerned. These have been used  as a basis for a National 
Environment Action Plan 2007-2013, the Deve lopment Plan of the Environment Mini stry and the Rural Development Plan 
2007-2013. Moreover thanks to the LIFE project the nature admi nistration in Estonia was reor ganised and the management 
tools developed through the LIFE project are being used in ot her protected areas of the sa me region and the experience 
gained by LIFE project is now availabl e to the whole region. The sustainability  of the habitat management has been 
guaranteed by using the nationa l subsidies for semi-natural grasslands unde r the RDR scheme. A similar cooperation is 
currently being developed concerning the use of Regional Development funds, through the State Forest Management Centre, 
which is responsible for the constr uction and maintenance of all vis itor infrastructures in the area. 
 
Illustration: LIFE as a platform for dissemination best practices and knowledge-sharing (creating multipliers and 
leverage) 
The Open MI project  developed an innovative tool which allows the integration of predictive  models in watershed 
management and so helps implementing th e Water Framework Directive (which requi res an integrated approach and thus 
integrated modelling for the watershed). The proj ect secured continued funding in the form of venture capital  to allow 
development of the standard operational so ftware to a next level. As a result, applications for the software are being 
considered not just in Europe but internationally, with a high level of interest in USA. 
 
 84The MAD but Better project: One of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the long-term progressive 
reduction of contaminant discharges to th e aquatic environment in urban wastewat er. One of the products of wastewater 
treatment processes is sludge, the use of which is encouraged by the Urba n Waste Water Treatment Directive whenever 
appropriate. However it continues to remain an environmentall y senstive issue with a significa nt need to build confidence 
through regulatory compliance. The LIFE project developed and demonstrated a full-scale treatment process which made it 
highly adaptable to a range of companies in this related wa ste industries and therefore ga ve the plant high replication 
transferability potential. It became a catalyst for improved wastewater managenment and the project’s technology has now 
become the new sludge treatment standard for the entire UK water industry. By August 2007, four Enzymic Hydrolysis 
Plants had been built by the beneficiary and five ordered by other UK. 12 EU Member States and 26 countries around the 
world have already shown interest in repli cating the treatment plant. In addition, the cost of sludge disposal is further reduc ed 
to just €210 per tonne of dry solid - this compares very favourab ly with average landfill costs of €415 per tonne. It also save s 
farmers around €175 per ha in fertiliser replacement. 
PERBIOF : Wastewater treatment plants  face recurrent problems such as sludge pr oduction and toxicity of  treated effluents 
in the tannery sector. The PERBIOF project developed at demonstration scale an innovat ive technology for treating 
municipal and/or industrial wastewater. The high compactness of  the plant in comparison with  traditional plants meant the 
footprint is some 25% of that of a sta ndard plant and sludge production is about one  thirtieth of the amount produced by a 
traditional plant. Although investment costs are 10% higher than for a standard plant, operating costs are one-third of those o f 
a standard plant. With €625,000 EU investme nt over 3 years, the LIFE project estim ated that by using its technology, €72 
million per year in cost savings could be achieved by the tann ery industry. The project yields a Net Present Value (NPV) over 
10 years, discounted at 4%, of €655 million. This is equivale nt to over €1,000 in benefits generated for every €1 spent in 
LIFE.  
The “SuperC” project  aimed to demonstrate the economical  and ecological advantages of us ing geothermal energy to heat 
and cool large buildings. Taking the Students' Service Centre of the RWTH Institute of Technology at the University of 
Aachen as its demonstration site, it plan ned to develop an installation which w ould provide the energy required for the 
heating and cooling of this large building with a 95 percent reduction in CO 2 emissions. 
 
2.4. Bringing solutions to upcoming enviro nmental challenges of EU interest 
 
Stakeholders are often confronted with envi ronmental problems for which no solutions have 
been found yet, and which, if not addressed at an  early stage, will lead to higher costs. LIFE 
offers the possiblity for stakeholders (public an d private) to find solutions to these problems 
and a direct channel for influencing EU deci sion making, such as modification of BREF and 
BATs or even proposing the development of ne w legislation and demonstrating the economic 
feasibility of these solutions.  
 
Illustration: finding cost-effective solu tions for emerging environmental policy 
PAMELA : Based on the results of the PAMELA project (Process fo r Advanced Management of End of Life Aircraft), 
Airbus set up sustainable proccess for ai rcraft dismantling and recovery applicab le across the sector and recommended the 
development of EU legisla tion for this waste stream. TARMAC  (Tarbes Advanced Recycli ng and Maintenance Aircraft 
Company) was established in 2007 to provide parking and disman tling services for some of the 6,000 aircrafts that will retire 
during the next 20 years. TARMAC has already started work on  dismantling aircraft and Airbus sees the TARMAC site at 
Tarbes as the first of a network, all of wh ich will apply the lessons learned from PAMELA. 
RECYSHIP: The main expected results of this ongoing project are optimised processes for decontamination and dismantling 
of end-of-life ships, the definition of suitable areas for possible installation (based on capacity and ecological criteria) an d the 
development of a good environmental manageme nt system for European ships. The project also intends to provide support to 
future EU legislation for ship dismantling. 
BIOAGRO project: Support for methods to reduce Greenhouse gas output in the agricultural sector leading to the setting up 
of a complete facility for producing a carbon neutral biomass pe llet fuel. This project was ta rgeted towards developing and 
implementing an innovative method to reduce greenhouse gas out put from the agricultural sector. The project involved the 
seed industry, combustion tec hnology industry and academia.  
 
 85 
2.5. Increased effectiveness and efficiency of EU level intervention: creating critical 
mass 
 
Changing behaviours is one of the most chal lenging aspects of EU environmental policy. 
LIFE has created partnerships between different Member States' authorities and specialists in 
communication to develop campaigns that rais e awareness among author ities, citizens and the 
private sector on the need to adopt more  sustainable practices. Without LIFE, the 
geographical impact of such campaigns  would have been much more limited. 
  
Illustration: Changing behavi ours by EU joined action 
European day 'In town, without my car?'  (subsequently becoming the European  Mobility Week): In 2002, the campaign 
succeeded in establishing a truly European  initiative with 320 cities from 21 countries taking part in European Mobility 
Week. A second event held in September 2003 consisted of a week-long series of awarene ss-raising events focusing on 
various aspects of sustainable mobility. Mobility Week succesfu lly continues taking place in Europe and is now spreading to 
the rest of the world via grassroots networks. 
The European Week of Waste Reduction. The LIFE project EWWR  aims to reduce the amount of  waste generated in the 
EU by mobilising all relevant actors in a EU-wide awaren ess-raising campaign and changi ng behaviours of different 
stakeholders in their waste generation. 4 Member States have joined to develop a common strategy as well as tools to carry 
out awareness-raising activities on recyc ling around the EU over one week every ye ar. In 2009, 2,672 initiatives were carried 
out, in 2010 there were 4,346 in 24 countries reflecting the su ccess of the event. In 2011 expectations are even higher. 
 
 
 86ANNEX  7:  A SSESSMENT OF THE LIFE+  REGULATION : DATA USED TO CALCULATE THE 
IMPACTS OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO  
1 The LIFE+ Regulation (2007-2013) 
For the assessment of the LIFE+ Regulation, assumptions have been the following:  
• the basic objectives and stru cture of the instrument remain the same (and that the 
completion of the 6EAP in 2012 is followe d by a replacement statement that continues 
to define the strategic policy objectiv es for the next programme period); 
• the current allocation of €2.2 billion over 7 years (€300m per year) remains the same 
in real terms; 
• the emerging policy needs, in so far as they differ from the current period, are 
reflected in the strategic policy statem ent and hence in th e different delivery 
mechanisms; 
• the priority recommendations adopted from  the mid-term evaluation (MTE) of the 
regulation are implemented. They aim to improve the policy focus and multiplier 
value of the instrument and al so to allow funding of activi ties in third countries where 
it delivers EU added value. 
The impact assessment has focused on the use of action grants given thei r significance in the 
overall instrument, but also in cludes consideration of the impac ts of the operating grants to 
NGOs. The scale and type of public procurement expenditure is the same for all options and 
is therefore not included in the impact assessm ent. The assessment of action grants is based 
on a survey of project beneficiar ies contracted under the first three years of the programme. 
The table below provides a summary of the resp onses received. These response rates provide 
the basis of grossing-up survey responses. Based on the first three years, the annual 
investment cost of the programme (including  Member State investment) is: Nature and 
Biodiversity (NAT): €199m; Environmental Po licy & Governance (EPG):  €223m; nformation 
& Communications (INF): €17m; Total: €438m. 
Table 1.1 Summary of the LIFE+ Action Grant projects contracted (2007-2009) and survey responses 
 PROJECTS 
(Number) FUNDING – Total Investment 
(€ million)  
 Total Sample Response 
Rate Total Sample Response 
Rate 
NAT*  215 37 17% 563 63 11% 
EPG 288 90 31% 668 238 36% 
INF 39 13 33% 50 14 29% 
Total 549 147 27% 1,318 348 26% 
Source: EC LIFE+ monitoring records and GHK survey returns 
*Excludes 7 projects and €33m of funding for marine projects 
In the context of a proposal for a specific in strument for environment and climate action, 
activities that address climate change are in cluded. In the case of na ture projects, these 
contribute directly to climate adaptation th rough contributing to eco-system resilience and 
explicit climate adaptati on functions, such as flood management. In the case of EPG, climate 
change is an explicit policy theme and has been recognised as a priority theme in calls for proposals. In the first three ye ars of the current programme 28%  of contracted EPG funding 
was provided to projects classified under the climate change theme. The assessment of action 
 
 87grants has covered the three sub-compone nts of Nature and Biodiversity (NAT); 
Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG);  and Information & Communications (INF). 
Given the early stages of proj ects and the emphasis in some pr ojects on results that only 
indirectly influence environmental impacts, the assessment focuses on projects funded under 
NAT and EPG.  
1.1. Impact assessment of action grants  for Nature & Biodiversity (NAT) and 
Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG) 
The impact of the NAT and EPG projects ha s been assessed in terms of the physical 
environmental impacts, the economic value of these benefits in so far as relevant external costs have been identified, and any related ec onomic and social imp acts identified by the 
projects. It is important to recognise that  the projects, especially those only recently 
contracted, have yet to be completed. The assessment is therefore based on the best 
assessments of project managers as to th e likely future impact of the projects.
41 Projects were 
asked to anticipate the impact th ree years after the end of the project, recognising a period of 
elapsed time would be required before the full impacts of the projects  could be realised. 
1.1.1. Environmental Impacts 
The environmental impact has been examined by re ference to a series of indicators selected to 
reflect the nature of the projects, and withth e aim to maintain some consistency with the 
indicators previously used in the ex-post assessment of the LIFE III programme (see in section 2 the list of indicators used in the assess ment). The relevant estimates of the value of 
the environmental impacts have been sourced from the literature.   
(a) Nature & Biodiversity 
In the case of NAT projects, the assessment ha s examined the impacts by broad habitat type. 
The reported impacts for selected indicat ors are shown in the Table 1.2. below. 
Table 1.2  Reported impacts on ha bitats: Expected impacts of LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity projects on 
selected indicators 42 
 Survey Response Applied to All Projects* 
Selected Indicators No of 
Habitats/A
reas/ 
Species Area (Ha) No of 
Habitats/Areas 
/ Species Area (Ha) 
Habitats that will be created or re-created 25 684 200 6,100 
Habitats that will be re stored 1,221 242,518 10,800 2,154,100 
Habitats that will be brought under 
sympathetic management 2,172 114,733 19,300 1,019,100 
Priority areas protected from invasive species  20 9,666 200 85,900 
Species and area of habitats that will benefit 
from local biodiversity action 108 163,060 1,000 1,448,300 
*Grossed up results based on the share of total project investment reported.  
                                                 
41 See also the Ex Post Evaluation of Projects and Activities Financed under the LIFE Programme. Available 
from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/p ublications/lifepublications/evaluation/. 
42 These figures relate to impacts that are expected to be  seen after three years of th e project ending. The figures 
therefore relate to expected not achieved results – no  projects under the current programme have finished.  
 
 88The total area benefitting from projects is of around 4.7m hectares of land. This represents 
some 6% of the total area of the designated Natura 2000 terrestrial sites. Although a number 
of responses were received fr om marine based projects, thes e are not include d in the above 
results, which are based only on terrestria l projects, including coastal projects.  
The reported environmental impacts have been converted into an estimated economic value 
using published externality values  for eco-system services associ ated with different types of 
habitat. These are applied to estimates of the environmental impacts by habitat type as 
reported by projects.  Given the lack of detailed knowle dge of the individual projects (e.g. the 
level of quality of the ecosystems within these projects) and the related eco-system benefits, the following estimate (Table 1.3) should be taken as providing only a very approximate 
estimate of the economic value of the environmental benefits . The externality values are 
based on case studies of the economic value of eco-system services. These cases include the 
impacts of substantial cha nges in eco-system services. 
Table 1.3 Indicative annual economic value of the environmental benefits  provided by Nature 
projects (€m) 
Indicator Total value Low estimate  
(@ 5%) Medium estimate 
(@10%) Higher estimate 
(@15%) 
Habitats that will be created or re-created 53 3 5 8 
Habitats that will be restored 6,280 314 628 942 
Habitats that will be brought under sympathetic manage ment 1,943 97 194 291 
Total 8,276 414 828 1,241 
*Grossed up results based on the share of total projects reporting.  
Three habitat types are responsible  for most of the benefits calcu lated above as they are often 
the main focus of valuation studies: freshwater habitats (accounting for ha lf of the benefits), 
and coastal habitats and forests each accounting for around 20% of benefits.  
The estimated value of benefits takes a cons ervative approach, assuming the benefits are 
between 5% and 15% of the published externality values to provide an indicative estimate 
only. This indicates an annua l benefit of between €400m a nd €1,200m. It is extremely 
unlikely that the benefits are less than this, but likely that benefits in fact exceed this range. 
On an annual basis, taking the low estimate, the benefits represent twice the total investment cost of the projects (of €199 m). Using the higher estimate, benefits are six times the 
investment cost. This excludes an y economic or social impacts, described below. The benefits 
are also expected to last fo r many years (although management costs will be required). Taking 
the low estimate and assuming the benefits last  for 10 years, the discounted (at 4%) present 
value would be €3.2 billion, almost six times  the total investment cost (€562m). 
See section 4 for a detailed anal ysis of habitat improvement. 
(b) Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG) 
The analysis of Environment Policy & Governance (EPG) projects has focused on those 
projects anticipating physical environmental outcomes. 33 of the 68 projects that responded 
provided estimates. These are summarised in  Table 1.4. Significant imp acts are reported in 
terms of expected reductions in CO
2 emissions, the area and people likely to benefit from 
improved air quality, the area of soil erosi on prevented, and the reductions in non-hazardous 
solid waste generation. 
 
 89Table 1.4 Reported environmenta l impacts (selected indicators) 
Theme Indicator  Unit Survey 
Response Grossed 
Response* 
Climate Change Expected reduction in emissions of CO2 or 
other greenhouse gases Tons/year 152,467 933,000** 
Water Area of rivers/lakes that will have improved 
quality Ha 507,850 1,604,000 
Water Likely improvement in areas meeting national 
quality standards/ targets Ha 495,800 1,566,000 
Water Area with likely improved groundwater quality Ha 5,931 19,000 
Air  Likely improvement of  air quality Km2 10,410 30,000 
Air  Likely improvement of air quality No of people 
(m) 4 12 
Air  Likely increase in area with ambient air quality 
meeting EU air quality standards Km2 5,400 16,000 
Air  Likely reduction in em issions of noxious gasses 
(e.g. SO2, NOx, NMVOC an NH3) Tons/year 1,700 5,000** 
Air  Expected decrease in  CO2 emissions through 
use of private cars  Tons/year 50,400 147,000** 
Soil Expected reduction of soil  erosion Ha (000) 2,000 7,000** 
Urban environment  Expected reduction in CO2 emissions through 
increase in bicycle traffic Tons/year 4,803 20,000** 
Urban environment  Expected reduction in CO2 emissions through 
reduction in car traffic  Tons/year 6,301 27,000** 
Env& Health People that will be be tter protected from air 
pollution by particles No of people 
(m) 1 1 
Natural resources & 
waste  Likely reduction in energy  consumption KwH/Year 3 35 
Natural resources 
and waste  Likely reduction in use of limited or non-
renewable natural resource Tons/year 10,105 119,000 
Natural resources 
and waste  Likely reduction in non-hazardous solid waste 
generation Tons/year 27,080 318,000** 
Natural resources 
and waste  Likely increase in recycling of waste Tons/year 82,435 968,000** 
Forests Forest Area that will be better protected Ha (000) 2,000 33,000 
*Grossed up results based on the share of total project investment reported by theme. 
** Used to estimate the economic  value of environmental impacts. 
Indicators were chosen based on indicators used  in the ex-post assess ment of LIFE. Project 
beneficiaries (2007-2009) were then  asked to attribute an expected impact to each indicator. 
The economic value of these environmental benefits has been calculated based on the application of published extern ality estimates. It is difficu lt without knowing the specific 
details and context of the project to be confiden t that the application of externality values is 
justified. However, in the case of estimates of reductions in emissions or wastes (rather than 
changes in environmental quality), externali ties can be applied with more confidence to 
provide a conservative assessment. This means that indicators of changes in air and water 
quality are not included. 
 
 90The externality values relevant to each indicato r are taken from the literature (see Annex 5). It 
should however be emphasised that, the transfer of externality estimates does lead to some 
uncertainty, which has been minimised by exclud ing indicators of environmental quality, and 
has not therefore been reflected in the calcula tion of a range – whilst the benefit estimates 
should only be taken as being indi cative, because of the exclusi ons they can be taken as the 
minimum or a ‘low’ estimate. On this basis, th e economic value of the environmental benefits 
provided by Environment projects could be in the order of €200 million per year (Table 1.5). 
This represents the minimum level of benef it. Substantial economic benefits are also 
potentially associated with health benefits (i mproved air quality and reduced particulates and 
improved forest protection). 
Table 1.5  Indicative annual economic value of the environmental benefits provided by Environment 
projects (€m) 
Indicator  Unit Estimated 
Impact Externality 
Value (€)* Economic 
Value (€m) % of 
Total 
Expected reduction in emissions of CO2 or 
other greenhouse gases Tons/year 933,000 120 112 58% 
Likely reduction in emissions of noxious 
gasses (e.g. SO2, NOx, NMVOC an NH3) Tons/year 5,000 1,308 6 3% 
Expected decrease in CO2 emissions 
through reduction in use of private cars  Tons/year 147,000 120 18 9% 
Expected reduction of  soil erosion Ha (000) 7,000 5 38 20% 
Expected reduction in CO2 emissions 
through increase in bicycle traffic Tons/year 20,000 120 2 1% 
Expected reduction in CO2 emissions 
through reduction in car traffic  Tons/year 27,000 120 3 2% 
Likely reduction in non-hazardous solid 
waste generation Tons/year 318,000 11 3 2% 
Likely increase in recycling of waste Tons/year 968,000 11 11 5% 
Total annual economic value    194 100% 
*Externality value relates to the selected indicator unit, e.g. tons of CO2 per year. 
Note that the different indicators relating to CO2 emissions  reflect activities under different themes and does not 
reflect any double-counting. 
On an annual basis, taking the minimum benef it estimate of the 2007-09 projects, the benefits 
are around the same as the total investment co st of the projects (of €223m). This excludes 
significant environmental benefits  that cannot be monetised as well as economic and social 
benefits, described below, which are substantial. Environmental benefits are also expected to 
last for many years. Assuming the benefits last  for 10 years, the discounted (at 4%) present 
value would be €1.6 billion, two and a half times the total investment cost (€668m). 
To summarise , the environmental impacts of the LIFE+ Regulation are substantial. In 
addition to the quantified benefits of some €600m a year, which are based on conservative 
estimates, the instrument leads to the improve d conservation and restoration of some 4.7m 
hectares of land, representing some 6% of the total area of the designated Natura 2000 
terrestrial sites. It also supports a wide range of envi ronmental improvements including 
improvements in water quality over an ar ea of approximately 3 million hectares; 
improvements in air quality affecting some 12  million people; and reductions in waste of 
some 300,000 tonnes and the recycling of a further 1 million tonnes.   
 
 911.1.2. Economic and Social Impacts  of Nature and EPG Projects 
The economic and social impacts of the Ac tion Grants, as reporte d by Nature and EPG 
projects, are summarised in Table 1.6, for the in dicators selected for th e Impact Assessment. 
Key impacts include: 
• a total investment of some €600m is being made in technology outcomes by EPG projects. 
In addition Nature projects are investing €380 m in new approaches and techniques for 
nature conservation;  
• the additional sales generated by the developm ent of new products from EPG projects of 
€2.7billion, generating around €1.1 billion of GVA43;  
• substantial health impacts both from the inve stment in improved natural environments and 
from improvements in environmental quality affecting over 12 million people; 
• modest but positive employment impacts of some 2,000 jobs44 associated with the 
continuation of project activity  post LIFE funding and indir ect economic benefits of a 
further 18,000 jobs based on additional sales of new products45. 
                                                 
43GVA accounts for 40% of environmental technology sales, based on DG Environment, 2007, Table 4.4. Total 
sales of eco-industries was estimated to be €319  billion in 2008 (2008 prices), (Ecorys, 2009). 
44 In terms of social impacts, a recen t analysis on the economic benefits of  environmental policy concluded that 
the Natura 2000 network could be supportive of 122,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs in the regions where the 
sites are located, if adequately resourced and managed. If indirect and induced effects are taken into account, this 
could amount to 207,000 FTE jobs at the EU level. However, these job estimates must also be treated with some 
caution as it is not possible to control for negative or po sitive impacts in other sectors (Rayment et al (2009) 
within Kettunen et al (2011). 
45 €147k of environmental technology sales supports one job (including multiplier effets), based on DG 
Environment, 2007, Table 4.4.  
 
 92Table 1.6  Estimated economic and social impacts of LIFE Projects (for selected indicators) 
Impact Indicators NATURE & Biodiversity  Projects EPG Projects 
Additional 
technology 
outcomes 64% of the investment in projects  will lead to the demonstration 
or development of new methods, techniques or approaches for 
species or habitat creation. 
The total investment in techni cal outcomes is therefore €380m 
for NAT projects. 
e.g. new methods for marine monitoring such as remote 
sensing, new approach to wetland restoration, pilot techniques 
for conservation of amphibians 88% of the investment in projects will  result in new methods, new techniques 
and/or new approaches. 
The total investment in technology outcomes is therefore €590m for EPG 
projects. e.g. new innovative tools and methods fo r interactive and co-creative citizens, a 
new approach for creating a corridor cro ssing a city and conn ecting different 
elements of its environmental and cult ural heritage and es tablishing a set of 
certifying criteria  
Additional sales / 
GVA 11% of projects will include ne w commercially viable products 
(eg timber). (Project beneficiaries were unable to estimate the expected 
annual sales from these products) 44% of  projects will lead to new commercially viable products, collectively 
amounting to annual sales of €2.3bn  and  €1.1bn in GVA (assuming GVA constitutes 40% of sales)  
e.g. a new water box technology as a more  cost effective solution to irrigation Economic 
Impacts 
Net cost savings 27% of project investment (€160m) will lead to cost savings for 
the Competent Authorities. 
(Projects were unable to esti mate the annual cost savings)  57% of project investment (€380m) will lead to cost savings for Competent 
Authorities as a result of new methods, techniques or approaches 
(Projects were unable to estimate the level of annual cost savings) 
NGO contributions to policy 33% of total budget granted for 2007 and 2008 is allocated 
towards environmental policy de velopment and environmental 
policy implementation, some €5m  22% of total budget granted for 2007 and 2008 is allocated towards 
environmental policy development and environmental policy implementation, 
some €3.5m 
Improvement in human health 4.7m hectares of land (6% of total Natura 2000 designated area) 
will be protected, restored and improved, helping to improve 
human health. At least 1 million people will be better protected from particulate pollution and 
some 12 million people will be receive health benefits due to improvements in air 
quality Social 
Impacts 
Additional 
employment A total of 750 jobs are estimated to  be safeguarded as a result of 
the planned continuation of NAT projects post LIFE funding 
A total of 175 jobs will be crea ted as a result of the LIFE+ 
project (mainly from increased tourism) A total of 1,000 jobs are estimated to be  safeguarded as a result of the planned 
continuation of EPG projects post LIFE funding 
Projects were expected to continue for varying lengths of time, between 2 years 
and 5 years An estimated 18,000 jobs from additiona l sales of €2.7 bn of new products 
Source: Based on the survey response of project beneficiaries 
 
 93  1.2.  Impact assessment of Information and Communication 
The main driver behind the introduction of  the new Information and Communication 
component to the LIFE Programme was the polit ical perception that there was a need for 
greater communication of the LIFE+ Regulation to take place, and to “bring environmental 
policy closer to the citizens.”  The main aim of the component has been to actively promote 
EU environmental policies through informa tion, communication, awareness-raising and 
dialogue, helping to ‘empower’ individuals and groups in European civil society, as well as 
other stakeholders such as indus try and local authorities to pa rticipate in an informed and 
active manner in the protection of the environm ent and the sustainable use of resources. The 
aim is that, by enhancing their ownership of environmental policy, more effective 
implementation can be achieved. 
In the first three calls of LIFE+ (2007,2008 and 2009), 38 projects were selected for funding 
under the Information and Communications co mponent, accounting for just over €24 million 
in EC contributions (total sum of investment  was €49 million). 12 of these projects related to 
nature and biodiversity (with forest fires and climate change accounting for a further 11). 
Many of these projects aim to  raise awareness amongst the ge neral public (some with a 
particular focus on sub-groups such as schoolchil dren and consumers), visitors to Natura 2000 
sites, landowners/farmers and other stakeholders , of the importance of nature and biodiversity 
conservation, and to educate their targeted a udience on the effect that human activities can 
have on the local environment. Other projects ai m to raise awareness of a number of target 
groups of either broader topics (e.g. climate change and its impacts on the local community) 
or more specific issues that are aimed at a narrower target audience, such as improving the 
understanding of the olive oil i ndustry of the need to intro duce more sustainable production 
and consumption practices.  
However, as a result of the indirect influen ce the projects have on realising environmental 
benefits, it is not possible to quantify a specific impact.  
1.3. Impact assessment of operating grants 
A summary of the impacts of NGOs is presente d below, based on evidence collected during 
the MTE. In summary, the assessment indicates that the funding represents value for money.  
Progress of NGOs using out come indicator data 
An analysis of the operational funding of NGOs for 2007 and 2008 undertaken in the mid-term evaluation showed that a 
substantial proportion of the budget is used for policy development (27%), polic y implementation (28%), with external 
capacity building, awareness raising and enlargement a nd third countries being smaller fields of activity. 
An analysis of reported outcome indicators (based on the indi cators reported by the NGOs on the actual application of funds 
retrieved in the 2008 programme and data on estimated va lues for the 2009 programme) showed that the most common 
activities undertaken by the NGOs were press releases, pa rticipation in conferences and written submissions to the 
Commission. In contrast, attention to non co mpliance and infringement procedures app eared to be less of a priority for the 
EU-wide operating funded NGOs.  
Conclusions 
• A large number of NGOs have undertaken a broad range of  activities to contribute towards improved EU policy 
implementation and development.  For example, they have: 
o Served as hubs for a growing number of national and international environmental organisations.  
o Provided information about existing and upcoming policies 
o Informed EU decision makers about  the views and demands of their members and sought their support, 
as well as working in coalitions with other organi sations (including those outside the environmental 
movement) to have their views accepted 
 
 
 94  • Much of the success of NGOs is related to their ability to:  
o Defend or increase the ambitions of EU legislation,  and campaign for real implementation of legislation 
or policy priorities.  
o Assist in increasing transparency and public participation. 
o Contribute to integration of environmental concerns into other policies through the provision of specific 
expertise. 
o Help members better understand EU environmental polic ies, to better mobilise the public and decision 
makers to support a progressive role for the EU  on environment and sustainable development. 
However, it is relatively difficult to a ssess the progress NGOs have made with respect  to such objectives using quantitative 
outcome indicators such as those above. Data suggests that NGOs use a wide vari ety of activities and undertake different 
tasks to achieve their aims. The nature a nd level of activity va ries significantly between NGOs, re flecting in part the level o f 
specialisation of the particular NGO. 
1.4. Effects of the revisions made fo llowing the mid-term evaluation 
The programme has been revised in two main  ways following the mid-term evaluation. The 
first change was to address the recommendation that calls for proposals reflect a stronger link 
to EC policy needs. The second change, supported by legal opinion, was to allow funding of activity in third count ries where it provided EU added value. 
The impact assessment has briefly considered th e potential effects of these changes. In the 
former case, a review of the responses to th e first call to have a stronger priority focus 
(climate change) did not produce any major or obvious difference in the balance of themes 
reflected in the applicati ons to that in previous calls. In th e case of the second, there has been 
limited time for any cases to be identified.  
The MTE also emphasised the importance of increasing the multiplier effects from projects. 
However, this will need to be reflected in the assessment of bids and management of projects; 
and only demonstrated some time after. The propos ed use of Integrated Projects to assist in 
this process will not be available until the next period. It is therefore not possible to include 
any specific allowance for this in this assessment. 
Finally, the MTE also raised a concern over the use of the National Allocations and MS 
specified priorities, potentially leading to a reduced level of EU added value. A response to 
this conclusion cannot be implemented in  the context of the baseline scenario. 
Whilst there is recognition of the value of ke y changes, they are unlikely to have an 
immediate short-term impact. 
1.5. EU added value and subsidiarity 
In accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, the priorities of the Budget Review and the 
current LIFE Regulation, the findings of the MTE,  as well as views fr om stakeholders during 
the Impact Assessment, confirm the strong ra tionale and relevance of the instrument, 
operating at the EU level in s upport of the shared responsi bilities between the EU and 
Member States for environmental protection.  The findings also confirm the actual and 
potential scope to achieve EU a dded value. This added value is based on activity largely at the 
local level which suppor ts burden sharing and the engageme nt of civil society in EU policy 
making and contributes directly to meeting EU  environmental policy needs and priorities. 
The impacts presented above, would have been unlikely to have been generated without the 
programme and the associated EU spending; th e analysis in the zero option confirmed the 
small level of deadweight associated with  the programme. As noted the programme has 
 
 95  facilitated local action in support of EU policy n eeds, particularly where the collective lessons 
of groups of projects around particular policy themes provide a critical mass of evidence and 
lessons for wider replication; which would othe rwise not have been und ertaken, or if it had 
then at higher taxpayer expense.   
However, the inability to generate strong multip lier value, either thro ugh projects with the 
scale to create spillovers and knock-on effects, or by leveraging other financial instruments in 
pursuit of environmental objectives was also raised in the MTE. Subsequent instruments 
should therefore recognise a requirement for st ronger, but non-exclusive priorities, clearly 
reflecting EU needs, expressed through multi-annua l work programmes; the use of integrated 
projects to leverage wider fundi ng; and greater use of national as  well local projects to address 
institutional weaknesses.  
The MTE, and subsequently the report of the European Economic and Social Committee on 
the MTE,46also raised concerns over the current us e of national allocati ons to provide an 
affective basis for enabling the re quired levels of re sponsibility sharing. As noted above, the 
MTE raised the concern of a potential conflict over the quality of projects, where national allocations dictated the selection of projects, th at although judged to be eligible, provided less 
EU added value than projects that w ould otherwise have been selected.  
 
                                                
 
46 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council: Mid-term revi ew of the LIFE+ Regulation, COM(2010) 516 final, 
15/03/11. 
 
 96   
2 Indicators used for the assessment 
2.1 Environment, Policy and Governance - En vironmental Impact indicators by 
theme 
(Impacts expected to be seen 3 years after the project has ended) 
Theme Indicator Unit 
Expected reduction in  emissions of CO 2 or other 
greenhouse gases (expressed in CO equivalent) Tons/year Climate Change 
Expected reduction in emi ssions of Ozone Depleting 
Substances (ODS)  Tons/year 
Likely improvement of air quality Number of people that will be 
affected  
Area km2 
Likely increase in area with ambient air quality meeting EU air quality standards  Increase in area - km
2 
Expected population living in the area 
Likely reduction in emissi ons of noxious gasses (e.g. 
SO 2, NOx, NMVOC an NH3) Tons/year 
Likely reduction in use of private cars  Expected decrease in km 
travelled per year 
Expected Reduction in CO2 
emissions Tons/day Air   
Likely improvement of ecos ystem negatively affected 
by acidification Number of ecosystems that will 
be improved  
Area that will be protected against adverse effects of flooding Area km
2 
People that will be  protected against adverse effects 
of flooding Number of people that will be  
protected 
Area of rivers/lakes that will have improved quality (chemical, microbiol ogical or ecological) Area -  ha 
Likely improvement in area s meeting national quality 
standards/ targets Area – ha  
 
Area with likely improved groundwater quality Area – ha  
 
Area that will be protected against adverse effects of flooding Area – ha  
 
People that will be protected against adverse effects of flooding Number of people that will be  
protected  
Volume of urban wastewater that will meet EC Directive 91/271 requirements Volume - m
3/year 
Volume of urban waste water discharges that will be 
shifted from untreated to treated Volume - m3/year Water 
Volume of industrial waste water discharges that will 
have enhanced quality regarding hazardous chemical substances Volume - m
3 
Likely reduction in energy consumption  MJ/year 
Likely reduction in water consumption  Volume - m3/year Natural Resources 
and Waste  
Likely reduction in use of limited or non-renewable 
natural resources  Tons or m3/year 
 
 97  Likely reduction in non-hazardous solid waste 
generation  Tons/year 
Likely reduction in hazardous  waste generation  Tons/year 
Likely increase in recycling of waste  Tons/year 
Expected reduction in us e of hazardous chemical 
substances (e.g. CMR or PBT11)  Tons/year Chemicals 
Expected substitution of hazardous s ubstances  Number of substances 
Expected increase in size of urban recreational/ green 
areas  Area - ha 
Expected increase in pedestrian/ bicycle paths in 
cities Area - km 
Expected increase in bicycle traffic Km/year 
Expected reduction in CO2 
emissions Tons/day 
Expected reduction in car traffic  Km/year 
Expected reduction in CO2 
emissions Tons/day Sustainable Urban Development  
Expected success of recreational/green area  Number of users/year 
Will eco-friendly products be introduced State Yes/No 
Number of products 
Goods that will be purchased under green procurement system  Number of companies that will 
be involved 
Tourists expected to  be on sustainable travel 
arrangements Number of tourists  
House units that will be c onstructed in accordance 
with sustainable building principles Number of house units that will 
be constructed  Strategic Approaches  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 Please state any other expected impacts  
Expected area of improve d soil quality  Area – km2 
Expected extent of reduced soil erosion  Area – km2 Soil  
Please state any other expected impacts   
Expected reduction in envi ronmental noise caused by 
traffic  Decibels 
Reduction in environmental noise caused by 
industrial activities  Decibels 
Reduction in environmental noise caused by 
recreational activities Decibels Noise 
Please state any other expected impacts  
People that will be better protected from air pollution 
by particles   Number of people  
People that will be  better  protected from air pollution 
by ozone Number of people Environment and 
Health  
Please state any other expected impacts  
 
 
 98   
2.2 Nature & Biodiversity Environmental Impacts  
(Impacts expected to be seen 3 years after the project has ended)  
Indicator Unit 
Land Purchase  Area (ha)  
Habitats that will be created or re-created  Area - ha 
Number of habitats created/re-created 
Habitats that will be restored  Area - ha 
Number of habitats restored  
Habitats that will be brought under favourable  management.  
 Area - ha 
Number of habitats brought under 
sympathetic management  
Favourable conservation status that will be achieved for species /habitats  Number of species listed on directive 
annexes  
Number of  habitats achieving favourable status  
Number of  priority habitats achieving 
favourable status  Overall % change in conservation status 
from before the project to after  
Species that will be  re introduced  Number of individual species reintroduced  
Original population 
Invasive species that will be controlled  Area - ha 
Number of invasive species that will be 
controlled  Number of  priority habitats protected 
Demonstration of the wide r applicability of the 
technique(s) applied State Yes/No  
Type of audience   
Species and area of habitats that will benefit from local biodiversity action Area ha 
Number and type of species  
Please state any other impacts expected  
 
3 Activities, outputs and results of the LIFE+ Action Grants 
3.1 Analysis of the Nature and Biodiversity survey 
3.1.1 Administration costs 
(a) Costs of Bidding The cost to applicants of bidding for LIFE  Nature funding was €12,000 per project, taking 
into account the administration and technical staff time involve d. The main cost was the time 
required to write and submit the bid. Given an average project size of €2.2m, the bid cost 
represented 0.6% of project value.  
The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task 
during the bidding stage per project, divided be tween administrative and professional staff. 
This indicates that the cost of professi on staff accounts for 69% of the total cost. 
 
 99  Table 3.1.  LIFE+ Nature Projects – Averag e time and cost spent on the application 
process per project bid 
Bid tasks  Administrati
ve staff - 
hours Technical/ 
Professional - 
hours Administrative 
staff - cost € Technical/ 
Professional - 
cost € Total - cost € % 
Researching 
Funding options 19 21 447 554 1,002 8% 
Negotiating, conceiving and 
writing the 
proposal 80 162 1,896 4,245 6,141 51% 
Submitting the proposal to the competent 
authority 22 88 513 2,313 2,826 23% 
Answering Commission 
requests 24 24 564 635 1,199 10% 
Negotiating/ signing the contracts 12 26 294 677 971 8% 
Total 156 321 3,715 8,424 12,139 100% 
Source: GHK project survey (n= 44). 
Notes: Average cost  per hour based on: 
▪ Administrative staff time - €24/hour. 
▪ Technical & Professional staff time €26/hour. 
(b) Costs of Pr oject Management 
The cost to beneficiaries of the administra tion and management of the project including 
reporting, taking into account the administrati ve and technical staff time involved, was 
€25,500, 1.2% of project value. The largest item of cost is the pla nned expenditure on the 
preparation of the Final Report,  account for a third of costs. 
Figure 3.2. Stakeh older involvement 
23%39%41%41%43%59%82%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%Other Private companiesFarmersPolicy MakersUniversities and research organisationsNGOsPublic Authorities
 
Source: GHK LIFE Nat Survey, Base = 44 respondents.  More than one stakeholder could be involved in a 
project. 
The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task 
during the project management stage per pr oject, divided between administrative and 
technical staff time, and the subsequent average co st per project. This indi cates that the cost of 
profession staff accounts for 66% of the total cost. 
 
 100  Table 3.3 LIFE+ Nature Projects – Time and cost spent on the project management reporting and 
information obligations per project  
Project management 
tasks Administrative 
staff - hours Technical/ 
Professional - 
hours Administrative 
staff - cost € Technical/ 
Professional - 
cost € Total - 
cost € % 
Preparation of the 
inception report 39 85 925 2,232 3,158 12% 
Preparation of mid-
term report 89 91 2,106 2,387 4,493 18% 
Preparation of final 
report 97 195 2,310 5,113 7,423 29% 
Preparation of 
layman's report 12 55 284 1,449 1,732 7% 
Notification activities linked to changes to the grant agreement 
other than amendments 9 42 220 1,104 1,324 5% 
Amendments to the grant agreement 32 53 761 1,398 2,159 8% 
Visits of the 
monitoring team 33 61 779 1,590 2,369 9% 
Visits of the 
Commission 21 52 500 1,364 1,864 7% 
Other 36 4 855 112 967 4% 
Total 368 638 8,741 16,749 25,490 100% 
Source: GHK project survey (n= 44). 
Notes: Average cost  per hour based on: 
▪ Administrative staff time - €24/hour. 
▪ Technical & Professional staff time €26/hour. 
3.1.2 Activities and Outputs 
The majority of projects included activities related to Natura 2000 site restoration or 
improvement (59%). Natura 2000 management pl anning and site survey or research was 
common conservation actions ( undertaken by 48% and 39% resp ectively).  As shown in 
Figure 3.4, a further 50% included an element of visitor management and education which is 
in line with the objective of creating awar eness and knowledge sharing. Natura 2000 site 
creation or land purchase was ge nerally not an important elem ent of the project cohort who 
responded to the survey, whilst ex -situ conservation was not part of any project activity for 
those who replied. The most frequently undertak en preparatory actions were inventories and 
studies, which were conducted by 64% of project s. Whilst 62% of respondents stated that 
preparatory actions had not cha nged objectives and planned results , the remainder stated that 
preparatory actions had made objec tives clearer and more focused. 
 
 101  Figure 3.4. The conservation actions that  projects are designed to undertake 
0%10%14%14%16%18%23%25%32%39%48%50%59%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%Ex situ conservationNatura 2000 site creationSpecies ReintroductionOtherNatura 2000 land purchaseHabitat conservation measures outside Natura 2000 sitesSpecies conservation measures outside Natura 2000 sitesRemoval of alien species Biodiversity demonstration/innovation projectsNatura 2000 site survey or researchNatura 2000 management planningVisitor management/ educationNatura 2000 site restoration/improvement
 
Source: GHK LIFE Nat Survey, Base = 44 respondents. Respondents could choose all options that applied 
3.1.3 Management Results 
Over half of project beneficiaries (59%) felt that their activities had helped to improve the 
capacity of the area’s stakeholders, through the involvement of the local community via 
schools and public seminars. In addition, seminars  and information days engaged local people 
and demonstration days allowed a larger number of stakeholders, including at  the city level, to 
be engaged. Looking forward, the majority of re spondents stated that pa rtnerships would be 
established. For example, one project aime d to establish a private foundation who would 
manage restored sites and co mmunication actions aligned thr ough the Park Authority. Others 
stated more generic activity where local au thorities, NGOs and public services would 
continue to co-operate, incl uding through working groups.  Transnational co-operation is 
likely to be established in over half of projects (54%), with all stating that this would improve 
project results or help pr ojects to achieve results at least to some extent.  
The table below summarises the range of mana gement results planned to be produc ed by the 
projects. 
Figure 3.5. Management results by indicator 
Indicator of management results Number of projects Share of projects (%) 
Legislative/ policy/ planning documents to be politically approved as a 
result of your project 23 52% 
Management systems or plans to be introduced 29 66% 
Implementation of new monitori ng or assessment systems 23 52% 
Land use agreements to be establis hed or land purchase and land 
compensation measures conducted 24 55% 
Compensation to be provided to  landowners/land users affected by 
projects loss 8 18% 
Recreational facilities to be established in project area improving 
visitors' numbers/ awareness of area characteristics 34 77% 
Enlargement of the national Natura  2000 network as a result of the 
project 8 18% 
Improvement of the conservation status  of site(s) in the Natura 2000 30 68% 
 
 102  Indicator of management results Number of projects Share of projects (%) 
network 
Measurable change evident  in the extent or conditi on of particular 
priority habitats 25 57% 
Source: GHK LIFE Nat Survey, Base = 44 respondents. Respondents could choose all results that applied. 
47% of projects expected up to  three legislative, policy or  planning documents to be 
politically approved as a resu lt of their activity, with 26% expecting one document to be 
approved and 11% stating that five document s would be approved. The URBANBEES project 
states that it will develop and implement an action plan to conserve and enhance wild bee 
diversity in urban habitats. Th e plan will include guidance on changing conventional practices 
and the testing will lead to a validated action plan, which will be reproducible in other 
European cities. The project expects more than 5 legislative, policy or planning documents to 
be produced. In addition, for the 66% of projec ts that anticipated, new management systems 
or plans would be introduced, th e systems or plans were expected  to be realis ed at varying 
scales with 72% of projects introducing manageme nt systems at the local level, 55% at the 
regional level and 41% at the national level. Over half of the projects (52%) will include implementation of new monitoring or assessment sy stems at all levels, but particularly at the 
local scale (65%) and re gional scale (57%).  
A number of recreational faciliti es are to be established to im prove visitor numbers and/or the 
awareness of the project area’s characteristics. As  a result of this activ ity, several respondents 
were able to estimate an increase in visitor numbers. The average increase in visitor numbers 
was 64% (although these figures varied from 5% to 500%).  
3.1.4 Employment data 
Only 14 projects were able to estimate the increase  in employment they expected to occur as a 
result of the LIFE+ project (e.g. from increased tourism to the site). In total these 14 projects 
estimated that they would resu lt in an impact of 35 FTE. 
All projects have to draft an "After-LIFE conser vation plan". If projects can not demonstrate 
how results/activities will be continued afterwards, projects will not secure funding.  
Respondents were asked whether their projects would continue after the LIFE funding period 
as the means by which continuation could be secu red and 39% of respondents stated that they 
would. In the other cases, different arrangements are planned to continue the activities. When 
asked how many years the impacts of the proj ect would last,7% stated up to 5 years, 29% 
stated 5-10 years and 64% stated 10 years or more. 
When asked how many additional people the proj ect would employ answers ranged from no 
additional Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions to 10 additional FTE positions (where 1 full-
time post is equal to 2 part time posts). Some 30 additional positions are being created by the 
respondent projects – a total of 150 FTE jobs across all Nature and Biodiversi ty projects if the 
sample is fully representative.  
3.1.5 Demonstration and Innovation Results 
64% of projects include the de monstration or development of  new methods, techniques or 
approaches for species or habitat creation. When asked to elaborate on the kind of 
demonstration and development, answers included the development of new grazing 
techniques, the development of early warning syst ems, measures to control invasive or alien 
species not undertaken within  the country and restora tion of certain habitats. 
 
 103  The results of demonstration or development activity may lead to cost savings for the 
Competent Authorities in some case (27%). However these beneficiaries were unable to 
estimate the savings that could potentially be made. 70% of projects promote the sharing or 
upscaling of best practice through a variet y of methods includi ng the diffusion of 
demonstrative actions, media, best practice gu idance, and the production of recommendations 
or communication activity within local communities (including schools etc).  
3.1.6 Awareness and Replication 
To generate awareness project beneficiaries are requi red to develop a we bsite. Other methods 
are also being used (organisation of meeti ngs, workshops and conferences, production of 
publications, training sessions for local stakeholders etc.).   
Through awareness raising activities, most benefi ciaries anticipate that their projects will 
reach some 500 or more people (59%). When ques tioned further, projects suggested that the 
target audience could be up to 1 million people. For 20% of the projects it is expected that 
between 200 and 500 people will be reached. The majority of project results are designed to 
be replicated (64%) by, for inst ance, partners, local and regiona l authorities, NGOs, fisherman 
and farmers and over periods ranging from three years to ten years.  
The results of project activity are likely to be nefit a variety of user groups. For example, on 
average, 62 local aut horities, 5 national public authori ties, 19 businesses and 6150 community 
members will benefit from the results of each project. Other groups who will benefit include 
whole cities, farmers, landowners, NGOs, students and schools. The primary benefits to target 
users include increased awareness, improvement to environmental quality and habitats, enhanced technical knowledge, income from t ourism and increased visitor numbers. 59% of 
projects will include staff tr aining at the project site. 
3.1.7 Summary of EU Added Value 
Respondents were asked to consider the extent  to which the project would provide added 
value ranging from a very significant level to not at all. The most important strategic role of 
the projects was their demonstration of best pr actice. 89% of respondent s agreed their project 
provided significantly or very significantly. One in four projects  (26%) expected to 
demonstrate or pilot new methods, techniques or approaches to a very significant level. The 
least important strategic or catalytic role played by projects was leveraging additional 
investment (either public or private), only 16% e xpected to achieved an y significant or very 
significant impact. This is in addition to the co-financing already provided and that required 
to continue with activities after project closure.  
When asked to rate the co-ordinating and im plementation role of the project, the most 
significant action was building the capacity of stakeholders which will take place in 65% of 
projects to a significant or very significan t degree. Facilitating the implementation of 
European policy and legislation to  a significant or very signif icant degree will take place in 
59% of projects that responde d and improving the co-ordination, networking and working 
relationships between stakeholders will take place  to a significant level in 54% of projects.  
 
All projects will contribute to the disseminati on of information and good practice at least to 
some degree and 41% will disseminate good practi ce to a significant level. 57% of projects 
will significantly or very significantly c ontribute to increased knowledge base.  
 
 104   
3.2 Analysis of EPG Survey 
3.2.1. Administration costs  
(a) Costs of Bidding 
The cost to applicants of bidding for LIFE  EPG funding was €23,000 per project, taking into 
account the administration and technical staff tim e involved, almost double to cost for Nature 
projects. The main cost was the time required to write and submit the bid. Given an average 
project size of €2.6m, th e bid cost represented 0.9% of project value.  
The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task 
during the bidding stage per project, divided be tween administrative and professional staff. 
This indicates that the cost of professi on staff accounts for 83% of the total cost. 
Table 3.6: LIFE+ EPG Projects – Time and cost spent on the applicatio n process per project 
Bid tasks Administrative 
staff - hours Technical/ 
Professional - 
hours Administrative 
staff - cost € Technical/ 
Professional - 
cost € Total - 
cost € % 
Researching Funding 
options 16 25 438 831 1,270 5% 
Negotiating, conceiving 
and writing the proposal 76 322 2,059 10,591 12,649 55% 
Submitting the proposal 
to the competent authority 19 134 526 4,417 4,943 21% 
Answering Commission 
requests 22 65 592 2,147 2,739 12% 
Negotiating/ signing the contracts 13 36 360 1,171 1,531 7% 
Total 147 583 3,974 19,158 23,133 100% 
Source: GHK project survey (n= 90). 
 
Notes: Average cost  per hour based on: 
▪ Administrative staff time - €27/hour. 
▪ Technical & Professional staff time €33/hour. 
(b) Costs of Pr oject Management 
The cost to beneficiaries of the administra tion and management of the project including 
reporting, taking into account the administrative and technical staff time involved, was almost 
€28,000, 1.1% of project value. The largest ite ms of cost are the expenditure on the 
preparation of the Inception Report, account fo r 29% of costs and th e Final Report (27%). 
The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task 
during the project management stage per pr oject, divided between administrative and 
technical staff time, and the subsequent average co st per project. This indi cates that the cost of 
profession staff accounts for 65% of the total cost. 
 
 105  Table 3.7 LIFE+ EPG Projects – Time and cost spent on the project management reporting and 
information obligations per project  
Project management 
tasks Administrativ
e staff - hours Technical/ 
Professional 
- hours Administrativ
e staff - cost € Technical/ 
Professional 
- cost € Total - 
cost € % 
Preparation of the 
inception report 104 157 2,816 5,164 7,980 29% 
Preparation of mid-term 
report 58 114 1,559 3,752 5,311 19% 
Preparation of final report 
105 139 2,837 4,586 7,422 27% 
Preparation of layman's 
report 37 32 1,002 1,053 2,056 7% 
Notification activities 
linked to changes to the 
grant agreement other than amendments 9 21 239 706 945 3% 
Amendments to the grant agreement 13 22 363 723 1,086 4% 
Visits of the monitoring team 12 29 329 961 1,291 5% 
Visits of the Commission 9 17 254 557 812 3% 
Other 14 13 385 442 828 3% 
Total 362 546 9,786 17,944 27,730 100% 
Source: GHK project survey (n= 90). 
Notes: Average cost  per hour based on: 
▪ Administrative staff time - €27/hour. 
▪ Technical & Professional staff time €33/hour. 
3.2.2. Activities and Output 
Respondents were asked what core activitie s the project would undertake (Figure 3.8). 
Developing (62%) and/or demonstrating (51%) new technology and processes were the most 
frequent responses. Of different preparatory actio ns, preparatory studies were most frequently 
undertaken by respondents (78%), closely followed by technical planning (63%).  
Figure 3.8.  The core actions that projects are designed to undertake 
6%19%24%30%32%38%48%51%62%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%OtherInstalling environmental infrastructure (e.g. 
wastewater treatment plans; sustainable urban 
drainage systems (SUDS))Carrying out an inventory of the environment e.g. 
noise assessmentEstablishing monitoring systems Testing technology for environmental effectiveness 
and running costsProducing guidance on practices to reduce 
environmental impact  of activities Enhancing cooperation with municipalities/ Local 
authorities/ Industry/ Unions etc to facilitate 
knowledge transferDeveloping action plans to facilitate environmentally 
friendly behaviour / technologiesDeveloping and or demonstrating new technology 
and  processes 
 
Source: GHK LIFE EPG Survey, Base = 90 respondents. 
 
 106  3.2.3. Management Results 
When asked how many legislative, policy or planning documents were  to be politically 
approved as a result of their activity, answers rang ed from 0 to 7 with an average response of 
one per project. In addition, for 61% of projects it was antic ipated that new management 
systems or plans would be introduced. Projects expected these management systems to be 
realised at the local (49%), regional (41%), na tional (12%) and EU (18%) scales. Over half of 
projects (59%) will include im plementation of new monitoring or assessment systems. This 
will occur across all levels, particularly the local and regional scale (45% and 37% 
respectively). 72% of project be neficiaries felt that their pr oject activity would help to 
improve the capacity of the area’s stakehol ders, through training, awareness raising, 
knowledge sharing and the development of new processes and systems. Approximately two-
thirds of respondents stated that partnerships would be established. For example, one project 
was to establish a collaborative network among tec hnical staff to control performance in terms 
of reducing the environmental impact of the us e of chemicals. Transnational co-operation is 
likely to be established through just over half of  projects (54%), with all stating that this 
would improve project results or help projects to achieve results at least to some extent.  
The table below summarises the intended manage ment results of the projects. Key results 
include developing early warning systems an d monitoring systems for climate change 
management and introducing life-cycle anal ysis, waste management strategies and 
introduction of systems for sustainabl e management of limited resources. 
Figure 3.9.  Management  results by indicator 
Theme Management results Indicator Number of projects Share of projects (%) 
by theme 
Early warning climate strategy model that will be implemented  17 43% 
Emissions Trading Schemes that will be  
established 2 5% Climate Change 
Management 
Monitoring systems 20 50% 
Monitoring systems 5 50% Air Quality 
Management Early warning systems 2 20% 
River basin management plans/programme  9 38% 
Measures that will be developed for protection 
of the marine environment  1 4% Water Management  
Administrative staff to be trained in River 
Basin Management Planning 6 25% 
Introduction of system for sustainable 
management of limited or sensitive resources 12 36% 
Introduction of life-cycle analysis 
(sustainability-oriented method) as a basis of development of industr ial and/or consumer 
products 14 42% Natural Resources 
and Waste Management  
Waste management strategy 12 36% 
People to  receive training in safe management, 
handling and use of chemicals including 
pesticides 3 30% Chemicals 
Management 
Companies that will be informed about/trained 
in implementation of EC legislation on 
chemicals 3 30% 
 
 107  Theme Management results Indicator Number of projects Share of projects (%) 
by theme 
Strengthening of science-policy integration on chemicals issues 5 50% 
Guidelines for evaluation or classification of 
chemical hazard/ risks to be introduced  3 30% 
Chemical management guidelines to be 
introduced  2 20% 
Measures that will reduce risks related to 
handling or use of pesticides introduced? 3 30% 
Development of  urban environmental 
management plan (or sustainability plan) 4 
 25% Urban Environment  
Development of a cooperation between citizens 
and city council regarding urban environment 
issues 0 0% 
Environmental manageme nt system (EMAS or 
other)  1 6% 
Environmental assess ment system or 
procedures 4 24% 
Eco-labelling or other broad environmental 
labelling system 1 6% 
Green procurement system 1 6% 
Guideline for sustainable tourism 3 18% Strategic 
Approaches 
Management  
Guideline for sustainable building 1 6% 
Monitoring systems  5 71% 
A system  that will  provide   comprehensive 
information on forests to increase 
understanding in relatio n to climate change, 
biodiversity, forest fires, forest conditions and the protective functions of forests 4 57% Forest Management 
Development of a risk assessment framework 
concerning multiple stresses on forests over 
time and space. 2 29% 
Soil Management Soil management pl ans or monitoring systems 6 67% 
Noise Management  Environmenta l noise management plans or 
monitoring systems 2 50% 
Health management strategy 4 24% Environment and 
Health Management  Monitoring system 3 18% 
3.2.4. Employment Data 
Respondents were asked whether their projects we re likely to continue after the LIFE funding 
period and 59% of respondents st ated that they would. When  asked how many additional 
people the project would employ, answers ranged  from no additional Full Time Equivalent 
(FTE) positions to 150 additional FTE positions (where 1 full-time post is equal to 2 part time posts). The total of all FTE positions created of those who responded to the survey was 300 
FTE positions and the projects were expected to continue for varying lengths of time, between 
a year and a half and indefinitely. 
  
 
 108  3.2.5. Demonstration and Innovation Results 
When asked whether the project could be classifi ed as 'demonstrative' an d/ or ‘innovative’ (as 
per the Commission agreed definition) half of the respondents stated demonstrative, 17% 
stated innovative and 28% considered that their project was both demonstrative and 
innovative.  
When asked about the innovation activities of projects it was revealed that on average a 
projects would result in 2 new methods, 2 new techniques and 2 new approaches. For 
example, the GREECIT, Green citizens of Eur ope project, aims to develop innovative tools 
and methods for interactive and co -creative citizens. This project states that it will results in 
20 new methods, 10 new approach es and 10 new techniques.  
65% of the respondents stated that as a result  of the new methods, techniques or approaches, 
cost savings would be achieved  by the Competent Authority. When asked to estimate these 
annual cost savings responses varied from €35,000 to €10,000,000 per project. Other 
responses indicated cost savings in terms of savings per ton/ waste., and as a share of current 
costs. Just under half of respondents (48%) st ated that their projects would lead to new 
commercially viable products and when further probed for expected annu al sales, responses 
ranged from €100,000 to €335million. 
3.2.6. Awareness and Replication 
Through awareness raising activities, a significant  number of projects antic ipate that they will 
reach over 500 people (49%), with a target audience up to 100,000 people. A further 25% of 
projects aim to reach between 200 and 500 pe ople and 20% between 50 – 200 people. These 
results are fairly evenly split in the geogr aphic focus between loca l regional and national 
levels. 
The majority of project results are designed to be replicated (76%) by, for instance, partners, 
local and regional aut horities, farmers, NGOs, privat e businesses and other project 
organisations, over periods ranging from two years to ten years. The results of project activity 
are likely to benefit a variet y of user groups. For example respondents will collectively 
provide a benefit to 1,068 local authorities, 331 national public authorities, 3,098 businesses 
and 1,386,952 community members. In addition 71% of  projects will include  staff training at 
the project site. 
3.2.7. Summary of EU Added Value 
Respondents were asked to rate how well the proj ect would achieve a rang e of strategic roles. 
The most important strategic role of project s was the demonstration or piloting of new 
methods, techniques or approaches, for which 95% of respondents considered their project 
would have either a significant or very significant impact. 85%  also considered they would 
significantly contribute to the development of new methods, approaches or innovative 
solutions.  
When asked to rate the co-ordinating and im plementation role of the project, the most 
significant role was building the capacity of st akeholders (69%). Bene ficiaries also rated 
highly the degree to which their project woul d facilitate the implementation of European 
policy and legislation and improve the co-ord ination, networking and working relationships 
between stakeholders.  
 
 109  All projects will contribute to the disseminati on of information and good practice at least to 
some degree and 55% will disseminate good practi ce to a significant level. 76% of projects 
will help to increase the profile of environmen tal issues and raise awareness. In addition 65% 
of respondents will contribute to the knowledge  base for development and monitoring of 
environment policy and legislation to a ve ry significant or significant level.  
 
3.3. Analysis of LIFE- Informat ion and Communication Survey 
3.3.1. Administration costs 
(a) Costs of Bidding 
The cost to applicants of  bidding for LIFE funding was €10,600 per project, taking into 
account the administration and tech nical staff time involved, sim ilar to the cost for Nature 
projects. The main cost was the time required to write and submit the bid. Given an average 
project size of €1.1m, th e bid cost represented 1% of project value. 
The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task 
during the bidding stage per project, divided be tween administrative and professional staff. 
This indicates that the cost of professi on staff accounts for 59% of the total cost. 
Table 3.10:  LIFE+ INF Projects – Time and cost spent on the application process per project 
Bid tasks Administrative 
staff - hours Technical/ 
Professional - 
hours Administrative 
staff - cost € Technical/ 
Professional - 
cost € Total - cost € % 
Researching 
Funding options 20 24 379 583 962 9% 
Negotiating, conceiving and 
writing the 
proposal 144 166 2,769 4,116 6,885 65% 
Submitting the proposal to the competent 
authority 7 13 142 327 470 4% 
Answering Commission 
requests 28 37 548 920 1,467 14% 
Negotiating/ signing the contracts 29 12 566 293 859 8% 
Total 229 252 4,404 6,239 10,643 100% 
Source: GHK project survey (n= 13). 
 Notes: Average cost  per hour based on: 
▪ Administrative staff time - €19/hour. 
▪ Technical & Professional staff time €25/hour. 
(b) Costs of Pr oject Management 
The cost to beneficiaries of the administra tion and management of the project including 
reporting, taking into account the administrative and technical staff time involved, was almost 
€14,000, 1.3% of project value. The la rgest item of cost  is the expenditure on the preparation 
of the Mid-term Report, 31% of costs. 
 
 110  The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task 
during the project management stage per pr oject, divided between administrative and 
technical staff time, and the subsequent average co st per project. This indi cates that the cost of 
profession staff accounts for 48% of the total cost. 
Table 3.11:  LIFE+ INF Projects – Time and cost spent on the project management reporting and 
information obligations per project  
Project management 
tasks Administrative 
staff - hours Technical/ 
Professional 
- hours Administrative 
staff - cost € Technical/ 
Professional 
- cost € Total - 
cost € % 
Preparation of the 
inception report 91 73 1,750 1,801 3,551 25% 
Preparation of mid-term 
report 156 54 3,003 1,333 4,336 31% 
Preparation of final report 45 62 874 1,535 2,408 17% 
Preparation of layman's 
report 20 27 376 678 1,054 8% 
Notification activities linked to changes to the grant agreement other than 
amendments 8 11 158 265 423 3% 
Amendments to the grant agreement 27 15 524 379 903 6% 
Visits of the monitoring 
team 22 25 428 621 1,049 8% 
Visits of the Commission 6 4 124 110 235 2% 
Other 0 0 - - - 0% 
Total 376 272 7,238 6,721 13,959 100% 
Source: GHK project survey (n= 13) 
 
Notes: Average cost  per hour based on: 
▪ Administrative staff time - €19/hour. 
▪ Technical & Professional staff time €25/hour. 
3.3.2. Activities and Outputs 
Respondents were asked which core actions the pr oject was designed to undertake. Eleven out 
of the thirteen projects’ core activity was awareness raising campaigns  related to the 
implementation, updating and development of Europ ean environmental policy and legislation.  
Seven out of thirteen projects’ focus was information and communication actions  related to 
the implementation, updating and development of European environmental policy and 
legislation. 
Projects often undertake a number of  public events and excursions for those living in the area 
(on average 24 over the lifetime of  the project). Stakeholder even ts and meetings take place 
numerous times (an average of 41 times during the project lifetime, however this result is 
distorted by one project which states 210 stak eholders and events would take place). In 
addition, educational activ ities, media activities and particip atory activities take place often 
(on average 41, 21 and 17 times respectively  during the project lifetime). Activities 
comprising of site visits, publications, indivi dual meetings with public authorities and 
 
 111  activities aiming to facilitate user access and awareness take place less often but still on 
average between 9 and 16 times over the course  of the project. On average each project 
includes 7 presentations at technical conferences , 4 meetings between LI FE projects, 2 films 
or DVDs, and 1 final conference. 
Stakeholder consultation is part  of the project’s activities for seven of the projects with the 
number of consultations varying between 1 a nd 700. Preparatory studies were or will be 
included in six of projects – for the majority, one study has b een undertaken. Three projects 
included technical planning; for those who provided detail on the number of technical 
planning actions, responses varied between 2 and 10.  
3.3.3. Employment Data 
Respondents were also asked whether their project s were likely to continue after the LIFE 
funding period. Five of the 7 res pondents stated that the project  was likely to continue and 
when asked how many additional people the project would employ, one respondent said 2 additional Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions  and the others did not know. One respondent 
was able to state that the project would conti nue for three years or more, the others were 
unable to say. 
3.3.4. Awareness and Replication of Results 
The primary topics of awareness raising campa igns related to climate change and water 
sustainability with two further projects fo cusing on natural resources and waste. More 
specifically this included local impact and m itigation measures such as energy saving, the 
restoration of rivers and ratio nal use of water resources and the promotion of green products 
and reducing carbon emissions and the prevention of waste. Such activity was to be achieved 
through specific actions with numbers ranging from 2 actions to 4000 actions. The primary 
targets of awareness raising activity were the local population (7 project s), public authorities 
(6 projects) and private companies (6 projects) as illustrated in the figure below. In addition 5 
projects stated their ac tivity focused on local enterprises and a further four focused on policy 
makers. 
Figure 3.12  Target Audiences of Awareness raising activity 
76655432211
012345678Local populationPublic authorities Private companiesLocal enterprisesOtherPolicy makersFarmersInstitutionsUniversities/research organisationsLandownersForest managers
 
Source: GHK LIFE-Inf Survey, Base = 13 respondents. 
Eleven of thirteen projects i ndicated that they would expect to reach over 500 from their 
awareness raising activity. Four projects provide d further detail on the number of people who 
would be reached and answers ranged from 10, 000 to 25 million. Eleven projects also stated 
that new knowledge and skills would be imparted  to the target audiences following awareness 
 
 112  raising activities. Between 200 and 100,000 people would gain an increased awareness or 
knowledge of environmental issues, between  30 and 50,000 would receive specific training 
and between 300 and 50,000 would gain improved sk ills or competenci es to deal with 
environmental management issues.  
Eight projects stated that awar eness would be raised regionally  by their actions. Six projects 
stated the awareness would be raised at the nati onal level and a further si x projects stated that 
the impact would be local. Four projects felt that awareness would be improved at an EU 
level. Seven of the respondents stated that proj ect results were designed to be replicated 
through the distribution of web t ools, the promotion by authorities and associations and the 
creation of a national campaign. The target audience that respondent s anticipated would 
benefit on average from the projects included local public authorities (810), an average of 8 
national public authori ties, 20 business and 114 community members. 
Four projects said that they had evidence to s how the environmental impact of their activity – 
more specifically this included one project with a 10% decreas e in carbon emissions for all 
those engaged in the project and another which stated that a decrease in per capita water 
consumption would illustrate the project’s environmental impact.  
3.3.5. Summary of EU Added Value 
To ascertain the added value of the projects, respondents were aske d to the rate the extent to 
which their projects would lead to certain resu lts. The most significant impacts are related to 
best practice with seven res pondents stating that their proj ects would demonstrate best 
practice either to a significant or very significan t level and nine respondents stating the project 
will promote the sharing and up-scaling of be st practice through the planned dissemination 
activity. It is also expected that projects will lead to wider adoption of methods, approaches or 
innovative solutions, with 76% of respondents belie ving this would take place to some degree 
or to a significant or very significant level.  
There were mixed views as to whether projects would lead to  additional private or public 
sector investment or interest. There was little agreement that pr ojects would cont ribute to the 
development of new methods, approaches or in novative solutions, althou gh one-third felt this 
would take place to some degree. 
As to views on the project’s coordination an d implementation role, the most significant 
impact is expected to be the improvement  of co-ordination, networking and working 
relationships between stakeholders, with ten pr ojects stating it would occur to a significant or 
very significant level. Two-th irds of projects were expect ed to significantly or very 
significantly build up the capacity of stakeholde rs. The facilitation of European policy and 
legislation implementation is likely to be a si gnificant or very significant result for seven 
respondents.  
It was expected that the project would play a significant or very significant part in the 
dissemination of information a nd good practice, as would be expected from communications 
activity. A significant number of projects also an ticipated that the profile of environmental 
projects would be raised as a result of their pr oject activity.  Projects held mixed views as to 
whether they would shape more strategic e nvironmental thinking or whether they would 
contribute to the knowledge base for the deve lopment and monitoring of environmental policy 
or legislation. 
4 Detailed analysis of habitat improvement  
The estimated terrestrial area of expected habi tat improvement by habitat type for the current 
 
 113  programme was based on the response of LIFE pr ojects to the project survey. In some cases 
projects cover more than one habitat type, in which case the dominant habitat type was 
identified.  
The survey did not attempt to assess the scale of improvement  in environmental quality, based 
on e-survey responses; and would require site by site appraisal.  The survey responses have 
been grossed up for all terrestr ial projects based on the levels of project investment. Marine 
impacts have not been included. 
a. Habitats that will be created or re-created 
Habitat Type Number of  habitats 
created or re-created Area (ha) 
Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 30 650 
Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 40 590 
Freshwater Habitats 60 2,800 
Temperate Heath and Scrub 10 360 
Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 1 6 
Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 20 470 
Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 40 840 
Rocky Habitats and Caves 1 6 
Forests 20 360 
Total  220 6,100 
 
b. Habitats that will be restored 
Habitat Type Number of  habitats 
created or re-created Area (ha) 
Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 3,500 105,500 
Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 3,500 2,700 
Freshwater Habitats 3,500 1,238,000 
Temperate Heath and Scrub 10 360 
Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 2 60 
Natural and Semi-Natural Gr assland Formations 60 380,400 
Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 160 15,400 
Rocky Habitats and Caves 2 60 
Forests 60 411,900 
Total 10,800 2,154,000 
 
 
c. Habitats that will be brought under sympathetic management 
 
 114  Habitat Type Number of  habitats 
created or re-created Area (ha) 
Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 6,300 103,200 
Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 6,400 6,100 
Freshwater Habitats 6,300 5,000 
Temperate Heath and Scrub 10 360 
Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 3 3,300 
Natural and Semi-Natural Gr assland Formations 90 473,400 
Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 80 3,800 
Rocky Habitats and Caves 3 3,300 
Forests 60 420,500 
Total 19,300 1,019,000 
 
d. Favourable conservation status that will be achieved for species and habitats 
Habitat Type Number of 
species listed in 
the Annexes of 
the Birds and 
Habitats 
Directives Number of  
habitats 
achieving 
favourable 
status Number of  
priority 
habitats 
achieving 
favourable 
status Overall % 
change in 
conservation 
status from 
before the project 
to after 
Coastal and Halophytic 
Habitat 310 140 
50 1,700 
Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 50 40 
30 170 
Freshwater Habitats 120 50 20 2,000 
Temperate Heath and Scrub - 9 2 - 
Sclerophyllous Scrub 
(Matorral) 20 1 
- 20 
Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 120 40 30 1,600 
Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 240 90 70 380 
Rocky Habitats and Caves 20 1 - 20 
Forests 160 60 40 200 
Total: 1,040 430 240 6,100 
 
e.  Number of individual species reintroduced 
Habitat Type Number of individual 
species reintroduced Number of species in the 
population before the 
project began 
Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 160 - 
Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 150 - 
 
 115  Freshwater Habitats 5,500 1,800 
Temperate Heath and Scrub - - 
Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) - - 
Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland 
Formations 20 - 
Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens - - 
Rocky Habitats and Caves - - 
Forests 40 80 
Total: 5,900 1,900 
f. Invasive species that will be controlled 
Habitat Type Habitat Type Area (ha) Number of 
 priority 
habitats 
protected Number of 
invasive species 
that will be 
controlled 
Coastal and Halophytic 
Habitat 1,700 20 119,200 3,000 
Coastal Sand Dunes and 
Inland Dunes 1,900 20 119,200 3,000 
Freshwater Habitats 1,100 60 40 109,500 
Temperate Heath and Scrub 120 2 5 - 
Sclerophyllous Scrub 
(Matorral) 110 1 1 - 
Natural and Semi-Natural 
Grassland Formations 21,300 30 119,200 1,599,000 
Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 580 10 20 - 
Rocky Habitats and Caves 110 1 1 - 
Forests 59,000 40 70 302,000 
Total: 85,900 180 357,700 2,017,000 
 
g. Species and area of habitats that w ill benefit from local biodiversity action 
Habitat Type Area (ha) Number and 
type of species Area (ha) Number and type 
of species 
Coastal and Halophytic 
Habitat 3,600 - 31,700 - 
Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 3,100 - 27,200 - 
Freshwater Habitats 142,400 90 1,265,000 780 
Temperate Heath and Scrub - - - - 
Sclerophyllous Scrub 
(Matorral) 2,800 20 24,500 180 
Natural and Semi-Natural 
Grassland Formations - - - - 
Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 280 - 2,400 - 
 
 116  Habitat Type Area (ha) Number and 
type of species Area (ha) Number and type 
of species 
Rocky Habitats and Caves 2,800 - 24,500 - 
Forests 8,200 - 73,100 - 
Total: 163,200 110 1,448,000 960 
 
 
  
 
 117ANNEX  8: FULL ASSESSMENT OF THE ZERO OPTION AND OF THE EXPANDED OPTION  
1. Full assessment of the Zero option  
In this option, all Action Grant funding is undertaken through the main EU financial 
instruments (especially Common Agricultural Po licy (CAP) related funds and the Structural 
Funds). Public procurement continues. Op erating Grants for environmental NGOs is 
discontinued. The main EU financial instru ments are Cohesion Policy, CAP Pillar II and 
Common Fisheries Policy funds and Horizon 2020. These are assumed to operate as they do 
now.  
To the extent that LIFE+ activities can be f unded under other instruments, then the impacts 
can be assumed to continue under this option, s ubject to the level of funding. In the case of 
operating grants for environmental NGOs, it is assumed that no other instrument would be 
available to fund this activity. 
The MTE47 examined the level of project funding that would have been used in the absence of 
funding from the LIFE instrument. Projects were  asked whether they would otherwise have 
used other EU and MS programmes.  
The results (table below) indicate that some projects consider they c ould have secured funding 
from other EU instruments. In total, 12% of EC LIFE funding could have been derived from 
other EU funds; in the case of EPG projects, 13% of investment  could have been funded from 
other instruments. The main EU instruments c onsidered to provide a source of alternative 
funding to LIFE were, FP7 and Interreg. Intere stingly, the use of the Competitiveness and 
Innovation Programme (CIP) as an  alternative instrument was barely mentioned, reflecting 
the attempts to distinguish and target th e instruments on different activities.   
The results also suggest that the possibility  of securing alternative funding from Member 
States' (MS) programmes was very limited (3 % for the programme overall, 5% for EPG but 
zero for the other strands). 
Table 1.1  Share of EC project contribution by LIFE Strand that could have been funded  
                from other EU and MS financial instruments 
LIFE Programme by Strand Share of investment from 
other EU funds (%) Share of investment 
from MS funds (%) 
Nature & Biodiversity 6 0 
Environmental Policy & Governance 20 6 
Information & Communications 6 0 
Total Programme 13 3 
Source: Mid-Term Evaluation (GHK project survey) , n = 165 projects; total investment of €374m 
Examination of projects that suggested they w ould have used alternative instruments does not 
however indicate that other EU  instruments would clearly be capable of funding them; 
projects would of course need to be reconfigured  to suit the relevant eligibility criteria of the 
other instruments whilst essen tially undertaking the same activity – and be successful, to 
generate similar results and impacts. 
The possibility of other instruments funding activities funded by Action Grants is being 
reviewed by strand, and delivering similar t ypes and quality of re sults and impacts. 
                                                 
47 Mid-term Evaluation of the LIFE Regulation, European Commission, 2010 
 
 1181.1. Nature and Biodiversity 
Under LIFE III, funding for nature and biodiversity was limited to the implementation of the 
Birds and Habitats Directives, which establishe d the legal basis for th e Natura 2000 network. 
In 2007, LIFEIII was widened under LIFE+ to  include additional funding for a wider 
biodiversity component (unde r the “Biodiversity” strand), which focused on the 
implementation of the broader objectives laid  out in the Communication on “Halting the loss 
of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond”.48  
Given that much of LIFE’s natu re-related funding to date ha s been directed towards funding 
activities to support the implement ation of the Natura 2000 networ k, this is the area where the 
implications of having to rely only on other EC funds might be  expected to be greatest.  
1.1.1.  Support for the Natura 2000 network 
In this option, Natura 2000 related activity is included within several EU funding instruments 
aside from LIFE+, including the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD), European Fisheries Fund (EFF), St ructural Funds (i.e. the European Fund for 
Regional Development – ERDF and the European Social Fund – ESF and the Cohesion Fund) 
and the 7th European Framework Programme fo r Research and Development (FP7). Because 
of their scale, these other financial instrume nts might well be (and ev en arguably be better) 
suited to the needs of the ne twork (e.g. Structural and Co hesion Funds – €336 billion and 
EAFRD €151 billion over the period 2007 to 2013). EAFRD in particular is suited to 
providing annual payments to farmers and lando wners; these make up a significant proportion 
of the overall ongoing costs of managing the netw ork. This is set against the significantly 
smaller budget of LIFE (€2.2 billion over the 2007 to 2013 period of which 39% is to be allocated to grants for Nature and Biodiversity).  
Examining the possible use of other instruments to provide the same results and impacts as 
LIFE Nature, the alternative funding is most lik ely to come from EARFD, and the Structural 
Funds. These funds, combined with LIFE, ha ve made available around €3.8 billion for 
financing Natura 2000 through 2007 to 2013 (see 0) . Note that (from 0 above) beneficiaries 
considered their scope to access al ternative funds  was very limited – only 6% of beneficiaries 
thought they could have used ot her EU funding sources and none considered they could have 
used MS funding sources.  
Estimating the financial allocations for Natura  2000 from the current EU budget is difficult 
because the budgetary allocations under most of  the funds do not allow a distinction between 
Natura 2000 related expenditure and support to conservation of biodiversity and environment 
in a wider context. Due to these difficulties, th e exercise can easily lead to underestimates or 
overestimates of the contribu tion to the implementation and management of Natura 2000 of 
certain EU funding instruments. According to  a BirdLife report (Boccaccio et al. 2009)
49, if 
spending on agri-environment is considered in relation to its va lue purely for bi odiversity, in 
2007 in Austria less than 8 per cent of total budget was spent on sub-measures with ‘strong’ 
effects.  
In the case of the Structural Funds, payments allocated to Na tura 2000 and biodi versity that 
might directly benefit conservati on or restoration are difficult to define since they are covered 
by the broadly defined heading of category 51 an d the wide range of measures possible to be 
                                                 
48COM (2006) 216. 
49Boccaccio L, Brunner A, Powell A (2009 ). “Could do better.”BirdLife In ternational (May 2009); 1-45.  
 
 119supported within it.50 The following table attempts to provi de a very rough first order estimate 
of the potential contribu tions to Natura 2000 un der the three most im portant EU financial 
instruments assuming a proportion of the key me asures is applied for this purpose.   
Table 1.2  Approximate allocation  under some EU financial instruments which are dedicated to, or 
are most likely to benefit, Natura 2000 (€million, 2007-2013)51 
Funding instrument Estimated allocation  
(€million, 2007-2013)  
LIFE+ Nature & Biodiversity allocation 700 
EAFRD direct Natura 2000 payments +  agri-environment pa yments expected 
to likely contribute to Natura 2000 management (25 per cent of category 214 
on agri-environment)  600 - 5,400 
Structural funds  
(25 - 50 per cent of ERDF cat.51 for biodiversity and Natura 2000) 600 - 1,300 
Total 1,900 – 7,400 
300 – 1,100 per year 
Note: Other rural development measures are also used by Member States to finance Natura 2000, e.g. forest-
environment payments, non-productive investments in agriculture and forests 
The estimated spending is approximately between 300 – 1,100 million EUR / year, which 
represents only 5-20 per cent of the estimated  financing needs of 5.8 billion EUR / year. 
It also needs to be noted that the figures  refer to allocated funding and not to actual 
expenditure. Mid-term information available on  financing under EAFRD indicates a disparity 
between planned allocations and resources used, particularly in the context of the direct 
Natura 2000 payments (Kettunen et al. 2011). This suggests a sl ow uptake of the measure at 
the beginning of the financing period.  
Moreover, although there are a ra nge of funds available to support the network, a recent 
report52 found that there is a significant range of  activities that are not funded by the other 
instruments (Table 1.3). Ke y gaps identified include: 
• Pilot projects; 
• Consultation & networking; 
• Conservation management, especially wh ere projects are unable to demonstrate 
significant socio-economic benefits  (as required by other funds; 
• Gaps for particular habitats – particularly those that are not mana ged for agriculture or 
forestry – especially marine, coastal, wa ter and unfarmed terres trial habitats. The 
allocation and uptake of payments for forest measures under EAFRD is low compared to those for agricultural habitats;  
• Management planning; 
• Monitoring and risk management. 
                                                
 
50Kettunen, M., Baldock D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Tork ler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A.,Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, 
E., Rayment, M., Daly, E. & Pieterse, M. (2011). Assessment of the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of 
the EU financing instrument.A project for the European Commission – final report. Institute for European 
Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 138 pp + Annexes. 
51 Note figures must be treated with caution. See forthcoming Kettunen report (2011) for caveats linked to 
EAFRD figures.   
52 IEEP et al (2011, forthcoming): Assessment of the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU 
financing instrument. Final Report.  
 
 120The scale of the gap is also si gnificant; current EU funding is estimated at €0.5 to €1.1 billion 
annually compared to estimated annual costs of €5.8 billion53. To establish the approximate 
scale of funding relative to where the gaps are, Kettunen et al (2011) analysed the main costs 
of implementing the network provided by 11 Member States in the context of the Gantioler et 
al (2010) study. The results indi cated that around 15% of costs ar e in activities for which there 
are significant gaps in fina ncing opportunities, and 52% in activities for which there are 
moderate gaps in financing oppor tunities. To the extent that LIFE is the only instrument 
capable of meeting some of these gaps (as indi cated below) and is already doing so then there 
is little or no scope to us e alternative instruments.  
Table 1.3 Overview of the major and moderate gaps in financing key management measures within 
the current EU co-financing framework for Natura 2000 
Establishment of Natura 2000 Sites 
PILOT PROJECTS Moderate 
gaps In principle, possible in all budget lin es. However, restricted under EAFRD.  
The pilots must usually be in line w ith the funds general requirements (i.e. 
have links with rural / regional developm ent). Information if funds have been 
used for pilot projects  is not available. 
Management planning 
ESTABLISHMENT OF 
MANAGEMENT BODIES Significant 
gaps Some possibilities under ERDF but most probable only used indirectly in some 
transboundary projects. 
CONSULTATION AND NETWORKING – PUBLIC 
MEETINGS, 
NETWORKING, LIASON WITH LANDOWNERS Moderate 
gaps LIFE communication can provide dir ect project funding. ERDF provides 
several indirect options but the r eal uptake is only realised through 
transnational cooperation projects. 
RUNNING COSTS OF 
MANAGEMENT BODIES Significant 
gaps None of the funding lines provides funding for running costs. Some use might 
be possible under LIFE if be neficiaries "sell" their projects as innovative and 
new to cover ongoing costs. 
ONGOING STAFF COSTS Significant 
gaps  LIFE provides staff costs only during the project lifetime.  
Ongoing habitat manage ment and monitoring 
CONSERVATION 
MANAGEMENT – 
HABITATS, SPECIES Moderate 
gaps (e.g. 
marine) LIFE has a clear track record of projec ts in this field. Under EAFRD AEM and 
Natura payments can be linked to specific conservation (e.g. agricultural land 
and forests), although often not targ eted enough. EFF provides several 
opportunities but most lega l opportunities remain unclear with low or no 
uptake in the national programmes. FP7 provides indirect research possibilities 
with wider biodiversity context. ERDF provides good opportunities for 
transboundary activities and in sectoral programmes, although in 
competiveness objective regions possibiliti es are limited as nature projects 
must be investment related and show ec onomic effects. Spec ies conservation is 
more difficult under ERDF as funding has a clear territorial dimension and 
species projects need to be linked to concrete land based measures. 
                                                 
53Gantioler, S., Rayment, M., Bassi, S., Kettunen, M., Mc Conville, A., Landgrebe, R., Gerdes, H. and ten Brink, 
P. (2010) Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report prepare by 
the Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038 for the 
European Commission, DG Environment: Brussels.et al (2010). Costs and socio-econo mic benefits associated 
with the Natura 2000 network. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf.    
 
 
 121Establishment of Natura 2000 Sites 
IMPLEMENTATION OF 
MANAGEMENT SCHEMES 
AND AGREEMENTS Moderate 
gaps (e.g. 
non-rual 
areas) LIFE can provide project financing. Significant potential under AEM where a 
huge diversity of measures ex ists, can be difficult to ta rget measures on sites as 
the measures are voluntary. Some posit ive impacts might come from LFA and 
Natura 2000 payments but these payments are not targeted at specific 
outcomes. 
PROVISION OF SERVICES, 
COMPENSATION FOR 
RIGHTS FOREGONE AND LOSS OF INCOME Moderate 
gaps (e.g. 
non-rual areas) AEM and Natura payments allow for wide  coverage of payments but can lack 
clear targeting. Also, these payments only cover loss of income and additional 
cost for agriculture-relate d activities, not for urban development etc.. LIFE can 
also finance compensation payments.  
MONITORING AND 
SURVEYING, AND RISK 
MANAGEMENT  Moderate 
gaps (e.g. 
marine) LIFE projects can realise al l kind of measures in th is field. In principle 
measures could be included under LEADER activities but no information is 
available on the uptake. Under ERDF, monitoring and surveillance could be 
realised under the risk prevention sche mes but no information about uptake is 
available as most risk prevention pl ans are linked to industrial risks and 
hazardous materials.  
(ONGOING) SURVEILLANCE OF SITES Significant 
gaps None of the funds provides possibilities for ongoing surveillance. 
Source: Edited from Kettunen et al (2011)  
There are some activities (e.g. monitoring, surv eying, management of risks), which are not 
generally eligible for funding through other instruments. On ly LIFE provides opportunities 
for funding these important activiti es. These activities re late more to management activities of 
the network rather than one-off investments. Activiti es linked to the latter seem relatively well 
covered by the various financia l instruments. Some two thirds of the estimated costs of 
running the network relate to ma nagement activities (see 0), wh ich are largely ineligible for 
funding through other means.54Without LIFE therefore, entire aspects of the network would 
receive no funding from EC sources. 
Table 1.4  Summary of the main costs of  implementing the Natura 2000 network 
Cost category Costs for 25 Member States (€m) % 
One off costs (annualised)    
Management 255 5% 
Land purchase 398 8% 
Infrastructure 835 16% 
Sub-total 1,671 33% 
Recurrent costs (annual)    
Management planning55 703 14% 
Habitat management & monitoring 2,707 53% 
Subtotal 3,428 67% 
Total (25 MS)    
 5,099 100% 
                                                 
54Kettunen et al (2011)  , initial source Gantioler et al. 2010 .  
55Some management planning falls under one-off costs, some under recurrent costs. Recurrent costs mainly 
include the running of management bodies, and to a less extent public communication, and review of management plans.
 
 
 122Source: Edited from Kettunen et al (2011) op cit 
These funding gaps result from the different objectives, eligibility criteria and payment 
structures of these other instruments and aris e from the fact that none of them (with the 
exception of LIFE) were specifically designed to fund nature projects.  Even where it is 
possible to use other instruments as an alternative source to LIFE funding other funds have a 
specific socio-economic aim other than biodivers ity conservation. Therefore, while they can 
fund conservation actions, it is only when these actions ar e linked to releva nt sectors through 
socio-economic objectives, that these actions can be funded.56 LIFE therefore is the only fund 
which can fund conservation actions where the purpose is conservation alone. Without LIFE 
therefore, a subset of these act ivities would receive no funding.  
Moreover, while other funds provi de valuable finance for Natu ra 2000, it can be argued that 
the specialist expertise within DG Environment can be crucial in maximising the added value 
that its funding delivers for the network. Replacing this fu nding from other sources would 
therefore reduce the added value delivered to th e overall detriment of the network. At the 
same time, the LIFE programme combines Co mmission expertise in helping with the design 
of the programmes and the use of funds with technical expe rtise regarding the practical 
implementation at a national and regional level. 
The presence of these gaps in funding argues th at the baseline impact s cannot in general be 
provided by alternative instruments. This is  supported by the projects themselves; which 
considered that only 6% of LIFE funding for Nature could have been replaced by other 
instruments.  
Another consideration is whether the use of alte rnative instruments provides the same level of 
EU added value through contri butions to burden sharing in the protection of EU natural 
assets. Figure 1.5 below indicates the funds r eceived by MS under the EAFRD and Structural 
Funds that are most likely to benefit the Natu ra 2000 network, relative to the MS allocation 
under the National Allocation for th e LIFE programme, using this as a suitable proxy for the 
distribution of nature protection priorities.  
The variance from the national allocation indicat es where Member States  receive too much, or 
too little relative to their need s. The greater the variance, th e less the use of these funds 
contributes to burden sharing. In  the case of EAFRD for 7 MS th e funding is greater than 5% 
different to that implied by the national allocati on. In the case of the Structural Funds for 5 
MS, the funding is greater than 5% different to that implied by the national allocation and 
suggests that neither fund provides the sa me level of EU added value as LIFE.57 
                                                 
56 For instance, funding of conservation action under EAFRD is only possible for farmland and forestry, and 
does not include other types of Natura 2000 sites.   
57 Under proposals for the next MFF, cohesion policy in non-convergence regions will not fund environmental 
measures: “Transition regions and competitiveness regions would be required to focus the entire allocation of 
cohesion funding (except for the ESF) primarily on energy efficiency an d renewable energy; SME 
competitiveness and innovation. In these regions, investme nts in energy efficiency and renewable energy will be 
at least 20%.” - COM(2011) 500 final, page 25.  
 
 123Figure 1.5.  Burden sharing in the protection of  natural assets: The vari ance in the national 
distribution of EAFRD and Structural Funds  relative to the national allocations under 
the LIFE programme 
 
Source: GHK analysis, adapted from the information in IEEP et al (2011, forthcoming) 
Finally, it needs to be questioned to what exte nt national financing for nature conservation 
could replace resources from LIFE+.  The budget of  the instrument is small compared to other 
EU financing instruments, and if it is only considered by its size,  it could be argu ed that this 
could be easily replaced at the national level. However, as became evident from the stakeholder consultation and its mid-term evalua tion, LIFE+ plays an important catalytic role 
in leveraging MS funds, and without which less MS funds would be allo cated. An analysis of 
national funding available for Natu ra 2000 in six case study countries
58 showed that though 
the level of financing and the application of EU financing instrument s strongly vary across 
Member States, national level funding is generally inadequate and there is a lack of resources 
to compensate for the heavy reliance on EU financing instruments. 
1.1.2. Support for wider biodiversity goals 
Aside from the funding of the actual Natura 2000  network, the impact on broader biodiversity 
goals needs to be considered. Current baseline funding is modest  (some €20m in the first two 
calls).  However, the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE ) of the LIFE programme  found that this is 
not an expression of the lack of  a need for such activities. Instead, the broadening of the 
Nature component to include wider biodivers ity issues is seen by Member States and 
stakeholders as both useful and necessary, with the previously restricted focus being seen as 
too limiting given the need to pr otect species and ecosystems outsi de of the network as well 
as within.  
Rather, the limited activity under the Biodiversi ty strand was seen as an indication of 
“teething problems” in light of the theme’s infa ncy compared to the Nature theme, which has 
been operating since the beginning of the LIFE Programmes. The MTE analysis noted that it 
is likely that the Biodiversity theme would develop in  the same way as the Nature theme, and 
would attract a high number of good quality applications as the biodiversity ‘market’ matures. 
                                                 
58Kettunen et al (2011).  
 
 124The current impacts of the LIFE programme  are therefore likely to under-represent the 
impacts of the baseline option over the programme period.  
Biodiversity and ecosystem services are worth hundreds of billions of Euros per year and 
underpin EU growth, jobs and wellbeing. Once these services are lost or degraded, it can be very difficult or impossible to restore them or to  find substitutes. There is therefore a definite 
need for funding to maintain and restore bi odiversity and the functioning of ecosystem 
services.
59 
This need for funding is recognised in the deve lopment of the new EU biodiversity strategy 
towards 2020, released in May 201160.  
1.2. Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG) 
As indicated above, projects advise that the possibility of other EU instruments funding 
project activity is greatest for the EPG stra nd. The MTE identified the principal risk of 
overlap and potential for the use of other instruments to fund LI FE activity was in relation to 
eco-innovation projects. 
To assess the implications of this the segment of projects that might be classified as eco-
innovation projects has been identified, using the typology described in Table 1.6 below, itself 
based on a detailed review of project descriptions to understa nd the major focus of projects. 
The typology provides the basis of an indicative  analysis only, since projects are often multi-
faceted and tend to have elements  of each of the type s of activity described; the typology and 
related analysis therefore seeks only to  reflect the major focus of projects. 
Table 1.6. An indicative typology of EPG projects  
Main purpose of activity   Type of activity 
Environmental investigation / collecting data on the extent of a problem / 
barriers to implementation / better ways  of addressing environmental challenges A - Problem definition – measuring 
environmental impacts  
 Developing a new approach / tec hnique /process for monitoring of 
environmental impacts  within a municipality or sector  
Develop / demonstrate and introduce methods and action plans for reducing 
environmental impacts (approach / manage ment system/ process / plans) to 
reduce environmental impact, informing policy. Mainly at the level of 
municipality. Sometimes with other national / international partners 
Stimulate behaviour change throu gh new market based instruments 
Assistance in purchasing infrastructure / capital costs that reduces 
environmental impacts  B - Improvements in implementing 
environmental policy  
 
Set up public private partnerships (PPPs ) to show more effective ways of 
reducing environmental impacts  
Demonstrate good practice / produce instru ctions / tools / ki ts/ guidelines to 
industry on how to reduce environmental impacts  C - Improvements in the environmental 
management of economic activities, 
integrating enviro nmental objectives  Pro-actively engaging with stakeholde rs (industry involved) to change 
behaviour  
                                                 
59 Communication COM(2006)216 “Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond”. Available from: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=COM:2006:0216:FIN:EN:PDF. 
60European Commission (2011). Communication on our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity 
strategy to 2020 , COM(2011) 244 final.  
 
 125D - Developing eco-innovative solutions 
to environmental problems that 
improve implementation & compliance  Testing and demonstrating / developing a technology / technique / process / 
product that reduces en vironmental impacts  favouring implementation of and 
compliance with environmental legislat ion within a munici pality or sector 
Source: Adapted from GHK analysis of EPG activities. 
Table 1.7 indicates that the eco-innovation focuse d activity accounts for 42% of projects, but 
because they tend to be slightly larger projec ts, to account for 48% of the EC contribution to 
EPG projects. 
The likelihood of using other instruments for each of the different activities has been 
reviewed: 
▪ Environmental problems:  Overall assessment of replacing LIFE: Unlikely . Projects 
relate to measuring and monitoring envir onmental problems. Some projects might get 
funding from FP7 for research and monitoring activity. Future Cohesion Policy may have 
a stronger focus on monitori ng, although this is s till not likely to be an adequate 
replacement for LIFE. To the extent that these relate to municipality plans there may some 
very limited scope to combine with urban planning; 
▪ Environmental policy improvements:  Overall assessment of replacing LIFE: Unlikely  
Projects relate to improving environmental policies and plans, mainly at municipality level. Might conceivably be seen as an el ement in broader urban planning and cohesion 
policy, although projects tend to be well focu sed. Interreg funding was referenced by a 
small number of projects as a possible alternative; 
▪ Environmental integration:  Overall assessment of replacing LIFE:  Unlikely.  Projects 
demonstrate initiatives to integrate environmental objectives in sectoral activities could in principle be funded by others (e.g. CIP, ERDF), but any such  opportunities ar e not always 
clear given the different objectives of other in struments. Since such projects are expected 
to demonstrate the possibility of socio-ec onomic benefits, the demonstration projects 
might form the basis for ERDF funding; 
▪ Eco-innovation activity:  Overall assessment of replacing LIFE: Unlikely . Projects 
demonstrate innovative solutions to environmental problems, largely by private companies (two thirds of beneficiaries) to  assist in meeting compliance requirements 
directly or as a process to assist other co mpanies (in around a third of cases). In some 
cases could possibly be funded by FP7 even  though they are not always commercially 
orientated. There is some possible use of  CIP where commercial interest are being 
pursued. The possibility of so cio-economic benefits might suggest some use of ERDF / 
EAFRD. 
Table 1.7. An indicative br eakdown of EPG projects  
EPG Projects by 
Activity Share of EPG 
Projects by Activity Share of EPG EC 
Contribution by 
Activity Possible use of other instruments to 
provide the EC contribution (as % of 
EPG EC contribution) 
A. Environmental 
problems 14% 15% 15-25% 
B. Environmental 
policy improvement 26% 26% 0-5% 
C. Environmental 
integration 19% 11% 5-10% 
D. Eco-innovation 
activity  42% 48% 15-25% 
Total EPG 100% 100% 10-18% (weighted total) 
 
 126Source: GHK Project survey, n=86 project s, with total investment of €190m 
GHK own estimates of the use of other instruments based on review 
Translating this review into an estimate of the possible share of th e EC contribution that 
might have been funded from other instrument s suggests that overall 10 % to 18% of the EC 
contribution to EPG projects might have been  financed from other instruments. This 
compares with the 20% identifie d by projects from the MTE. 
  The EPG activity least capable of being funded by alternative instrument s is the preparation 
of new or revised management plans and capacity building for the improvement of 
environmental policies a nd also the development of new en vironmental policies. An example 
of an EPG project contributing to policy deve lopment is a project managed by Airbus which 
sought to develop an extended product and site -oriented environmental management system 
(EMS). Large-scale pilot experiments were used  to demonstrate a broadening of the scope of 
the EMS to integrate product-related activities and a life-cycle dimension. Guidelines were 
produced and used to further disseminate this approach both within the aerospace sector and 
to other industries. It is cons idered unlikely that this project  would have been eligible under 
alternative funding instruments.  
This has been identified as the biggest ‘gap’ left  by the other instruments, and sets LIFE apart 
as being an ‘initiator of change’ and a key mechanism fo r enhancing the capacity of 
competent authorities to develop sound planni ng and policy action. The importance of such 
plans is often underestimated – without them there is effectively no guidance for how to 
manage responses to environmental problems or  to guide environmental investment.     
The other notable gap addressed by  the specific instrument is facilitating the development of 
‘science for policy’ as opposed to funding for more commercially -driven ‘science for market.’ 
Some solutions are often developed with the so le purpose of addressing a particular problem 
which a local authority might have, for exampl e, although it may have no commercial value. 
Given the potential likelihood that the future Framework Programme for Research and 
Innovation (‘FP8’) may shift to being a more co mmercially-oriented instrument, this gap in 
funding ‘science for policy’ may, as noted above,  become more prominent, suggesting that 
LIFE would have a more important role to  play in financing such solutions.  
The first approximation of the impact of the zero option on EPG activities based on the 
possible use of alternative EU instruments is that between 10% and 18 % of baseline results 
and impacts would be retained through use of other funds. This  assumes that the different 
types of project funded by alternative instrument s make the same contributions to results and 
impacts. The analysis of types of projects i ndicates that over 56% of results are reported by 
policy improvement and integration projects  and 32% by eco-innovati on projects. 59% of 
reported impacts are from eco-innovation project s. The analysis is broadly in line with 
expectations, with policy improvement and inte gration projects focuse d more on testing and 
developing new policy approach es and proposals (which only have environmental impacts 
when implemented); whereas eco-innovation projects are focused on demonstrating 
environmental benefits as a re sult of innovative solutions.  
Table 1.8. An indicative breakdown of EPG proj ects by type of activity reporting results and 
impacts 
EPG Projects by Activity Share of EPG EC 
Contribution by 
Activity - Spend Share of EPG EC 
Contribution by 
Activity – Results Share of EPG EC 
Contribution by 
Activity – Impacts 
Environmental problems 15% 13% 10% 
 
 127Environmental policy improvement 26% 38% 23% 
Environmental integration 11% 18% 8% 
Eco-innovation activity  48% 32% 59% 
Total EPG 100% 100% 100% 
Source: GHK Project survey, 
Projects reporting results, n=31, with EC investment of €25m Projects reporting impacts, n=42 with total investment of €45m 
Based on the possible use of other funds by type  of project activity, (l ow and high estimate, 
Table 1.7) the share of results and impacts in the baseline that might be produced by other 
instruments can be calculated by multiplying the es timates in Table 1.8 by the shares in Table 
1.8. This suggests that between 8% and 15% of results and between 11% and 19% of impacts 
produced in the baseline could be ge nerated by other funding instruments. 
Based on the conservative impact of some €200m of environmental benefits each year under 
the current LIFE+ Regulation, then  perhaps in the order of €20m to €40m of benefits might be 
secured under the zero option from other funding instruments. If compared with the baseline, 
where overlaps have been elim inated and there is a signifi cant increase of climate action-
related projects, the zero option would imply a loss of €333 million of environmental benefits 
each year. 
1.3. Information & Communication (INFO) 
In reviewing the objectives of other EU financial instrument s which could be accessed to 
meet environmental goals, it is apparent that there is no other alternative EU instrument that has a specific component dedicated to ra ising awareness amongst a wide range of 
stakeholders of the importance of various aspects of environm ental policy, and the ways in 
which other policy areas can contribute to be tter implementation of EU environmental policy. 
Recent Eurobarometer surveys suggest that more could be done to provide European citizens 
with more information about the environment, as there is still a general lack of awareness of 
environmental problems amongst the general public. Roughly 38% of  citizens feel that more 
information about the environment would be useful . For instance, 47% of citizens feel that the 
labelling of environmentally-fri endly products is inadequate.
61 
Furthermore, unlike EC-wide communication activi ties that are run by DG ENV itself such as 
Green Week and the European Business Award s for the environment, projects funded under 
the Information and Communication component ar e distinctive because they often have a 
greater focus on a local area or  municipality, a spatial level at which coordinating action can 
often be more effective.  
Given the bottom-up nature of LIFE, it would therefore appear to be the case that no 
alternative EU instrument woul d fund projects which aim to raise awareness amongst a broad 
set of stakeholders specifically about environmental issues at a local and regional level, and to 
bridge the ‘communication gap’  between policymakers at the European level and citizens. 
The MTE also found that communications activiti es were often ranked low as a priority by 
most Member States, suggesting that the likelihood of LIFE IN F-type activities being funded 
by alternative MS instruments remains low. The actual contribution of th e strand to the results 
and impacts of the programme is difficult to judge  given the indirect natu re of its influence, 
and its relatively modest budget (5% of the Action Grants).   
                                                 
61 What Europeans think about the environment, Eurobarometer. 
 
 1281.4. Operating Grants fo r Environmental NGOs 
There are a number of ways in which NGOs contribute towards improvements in EU 
environmental policy development, implementa tion and enforcement. An analysis on data 
collected from the NGOs in the MTE revealed that the activit ies of NGOs that have been 
granted an operational fu nd are split up as follows: 
Table 1.9. An indicative breakdown of the type of activities undertaken by NGO Operating Grant 
recipients 
Kind of activity % of total budget granted for 
2007 and 2008 
A Environmental polic y development 27% 
B Environmental polic y implementation 28% 
C External capacity building of members and partners 17% 
D Environmental education and awareness raising 10% 
E Activities on enlargement and third countries 8% 
F Internal functioning and capacity building 10% 
Source: DG Environment and analysis from the Mid-Term Evaluation 
These six activities can be grouped into four elements: 
Covered by activity A and partly E and F: 
• Problem identification and de finition of policy options.  NGOs are systematically 
invited to participate in various working gr oups, scientific expe rt groups, advisory 
groups and preparatory and implementation committees by the Commission to support 
policy work. NGOs regularly provide input into various policy areas and act as 
important counterweights to other stakeholde rs with financial interests. There are 
numerous examples of environmental inve stigation and studies carried out by NGOs 
in relation to environmental policy, many of  which have contribu ted directly to the 
policy process.  For instance, an inves tigation by the Pesticides Action Network 
(PAN) Europe in 2008 of bottles of wine pur chased inside the EU found evidence that 
some wines contain residues of “a large number of pesticides”.62 
• Policy definition and political debate . Involving NGOs in consultations and policy 
debate contributes to a balanced and broa der stakeholder repres entation. The White 
Paper on European Governance63 stressed the importance of  involving civil society in 
the consultation processes, and the Europ ean Commission encourages civil society 
representation at the European level. Mo reover, the EU is party to the Aarhus 
Convention, which establishes the right fo r public participati on in environmental 
decision-making and requires that public auth orities enable the affected public and 
NGOs to comment on environmental decisions , and for these comments to be taken 
into account. In this, funded NGOs play an important role in coordinating the 
positions of their members, providing the Commission with a single interlocutor and giving a voice to a large numbe r of local organisations which would otherwise have 
difficulties reaching EU decision-makers. Ex amples of activities include preparation 
of coordinated press releases, position pa pers and memoranda to EU presidencies. 
NGOs also reply regularly to public c onsultations, providing useful input and 
                                                
 
62 PAN Europe (2008) European wines systematically c ontaminated with pesticide residues. Available from: 
http://www.pan-europe.info /Media/PR/080326.html. 
63COM(2001) 428 final.  
 
 129perspective to the policy process. Operation gr ants are considered a tool to protect the 
level playing field in th e public debate and the pol icy development between 
environmental NGOs and sector-federations or other organisations funded by industry. 
However only 31% of the NGOs in the MTE thought a level playing field is effectively being reached w ith the actual operational f unding. Of the 34 NGOs funded 
in 2007 and 2008, 13 specialised mainly in polic y development, another 12 focused on 
multiple activities including policy development. 
Covered by activity B, E and F: 
• Policy implementation . With their networks and sp ecific expertise, NGOs are 
effective in promoting implementation of  EU policy on the ground. They can for 
example draw attention to  cases of non-compliance and publishing black lists, 
scoreboards and reports. They also act as cen tres of expertise helping local authorities 
and economic actors to comply with lega l or policy requests, or setting up 
implementation initiatives themselves. 
Covered by activity C and D: 
• Raising awareness of environmen tal problems and policy issues.  In support of the 
above functions, NGOs carry out activities to  raise awareness of civil society and 
decision makers, reducing information failu re and improving the quality of policy 
debate and policy decisions. Activities in clude campaigns, events and awards, and 
environmental education (targeting variou s groups such as chil dren, officials and 
professionals). Genuine grass- root NGOs have a particular advantage of being ‘close 
to the ground’ and having high credibility  with the public, a nd therefore being 
effective in achieving outreach and increa sing awareness and knowledge. Specialised 
NGOs are often recognised as centres of  expertise on specific issues and gain 
credibility from it. NGOs also activ ely raise awareness and promote EU 
environmental policy beyond EU borders.  
Without funding from the programme through Op erating Grants, the be neficiary NGOs would 
need to substantially reduce their activities, wh ich include their contribu tions to the EU policy 
process, either because they lack the direct m eans for continuing their ac tivities (A to E) or 
because they lose their intern al supporting capacity (F).  
Some NGOs, for principal reasons or to avoi d any risk or allegation of non-independence, 
refuse all subvention from governmental source s and all private sponsoring. Only very large 
and international renowned NGOs can afford to limit their resources to membership contributions and its own merchandising. Most NGOs active in the field of EU policy do not 
possess these possibilities or cannot compet e on a free market of membership and 
merchandising, because they cover more technical or fo r the large public less visible topics.         
Demands on NGOs, their European structures a nd their offices in Brussels have grown 
considerably in recent times, including meeti ng demands from citizens and requests from the 
EU institutions for input and expertise. In this  context, financial reso urces for the operation of 
environmental NGOs remain hugely important a nd the removal of operating grants for NGO 
beneficiaries would severely hamper their ab ility to meet multiple responsibilities for 
contributing to policy development and implem entation, awareness raising and helping to 
identify problems and potential solutions  with regards to environmental policy. 
NGOs are not dependent on one single source of  income, but tend to apply for different 
grants, both operation based and project based. However, in the MTE about 81% declared that 
the operational funding cannot be  replaced by either the ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, 
 
 130EAFRD, CIP, EFF, 7th framework programme or LIFE+ p ublic procurement contracts. 34% 
thought that LIFE+ action grants could par tially replace operational funding. The balance 
between continuous, operation funded activiti es and discontinuous project based (and 
individually granted) acti vities is an issue, in that in the case of the fo rmer, an NGO is able to 
rely on continuous funding in th eir role as a stakeholder, wh ereas in the case of discreet 
projects, the contribution of an  NGO is confined to an indi vidual project where they cannot 
play a full role as a stakeholder. 
Regarding their dependency on LIFE+ opera tional funding NGOs receiving LIFE+ funding 
declared that they are:  
• Very dependent: survival is not possibl e without the actual LIFE+ funding: 16%; 
• Dependent: shifts in the actua l LIFE+ funding would lead to considerable shifts in the 
working programme: 65%; 
• Rather dependent: the NGO would lose effi ciency but could find other sources to 
continue realising it s programme: 16%; 
• Rather independent: the NGO is strong e nough to realise its primary mission, the 
funds only help to realise useful extra projects: 3%; 
• Independent: the NGO can easily swap between  possible sources of working means:  
0%. 
The degree of dependency from LIFE+ operatio nal funding can be expressed by the amount 
of operational funding received or by the % of  co-funding for operational expenditures. NGOs 
with a LIFE+ co-funding percentage of > 50 % or with an amount of > €500,000 can be 
considered as at risk if LIFE+ operational fundi ng were to be discontinued. This would affect 
19 different NGOs out of the 32 NGOs funded for 2010. 
The absence of NGO activity leads to major costs.  These costs can be linked to the drivers of 
environmental problems for which a supporting LIFE-like financial instrument could help 
remediation. Examples of such costs are the risk of unbalanced influence by interested parties, 
reduced effectiveness of polic y through lack of NGO participation in the process and 
increased costs of consultation as further described below. 
The following drivers are identified:  
▪ Variable and inadequate levels of environmen tal protection through weaknesses in policy 
implementation and development;  
 
1. Without the NGO intervention on polic y development there would be an increased 
risk of regulatory capture and reduced effectiveness of policy:  The removal of 
NGO funding would significantly reduce th e contributions made by NGOs to the 
development and implementation of priority  policy areas, and, in particular, since 
these areas are likely to be the subject of part icular lobbying and negotiation from 
affected parties, increasing the risk of unbalanced negotia tion and regulatory capture. 
Inadequate coordination, and inad equate integration of the environment into policy 
(including in 3rd countries);  
2. The role of NGOs in the field of coordina tion and integration is expressed in their 
policy development, implementation and awaren ess raising activities, especially when 
they integrate environmental issues in the larger frame of sustainability. NGOs that 
work across both environmental concerns a nd other sectoral areas play  important 
 
 131roles in addressing the inade quate integration of the envi ronment into policy. Without 
the NGO activities increased costs for coordination and integration  will occur. 
▪ Inadequate sharing of information and aw areness of EU environmental problems 
3. Increased costs of awareness raising and reduced effectiveness of policy: NGOs can 
be effective communicators with both civ il society and policy makers, disseminating 
information and  improving the quality of po licy debate; with subsequent benefits in 
terms of the quality of policy decisions  and hence its cost-effectiveness and 
acceptability. 
4. Increased costs of consultation: NGOs provi de a more cost-effective way of dealing 
with civil society, since in effect, a Eur opean environmental NGO represents the co-
ordinated views of all national member orga nisations, consolidating a large number of 
veiwpoints.(3) Decreased NGO independe ncy: LIFE+ operational funding allows 
NGOs to keep a higher level of independenc y compared to national funding, and other 
funding or resources. A lower de gree of independency would affect the quality of the 
policy input given by the NGOs.(4) Increased  costs for facilitating exchange of 
information between stakeholders or targ et groups: NGOs possess of a large network 
of members, sympathisers, contacts and inte rlocutors, often at grassroots level. NGOs 
use this network not only for disseminating downhill information or to collect 
information for uphill public consultation, but  also for mutual exchange between 
contacts in a target group. 
1.5. The assessment of the option 
The assessment of the option is summarised in the following assessment grids 
Table 1.10.Assessment of Zero option (relative to baseline) 
Specific objective to be 
achieved/ problem addressed Element Anticipated 
impact: effectiveness 
(rated from –5 
to +5) Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 
NAT -3 Adverse impact, especially biodi versity but main impact is on 
implementation 
EPG -1  Adverse impact but ma in impact is on implementation 
INF -1 No significant effect on policy sc ope but lack of awareness can 
effect policy development To improve the scope of EU environmental policy and legislation.  
NGO -4 -2 
Very significant impact by not addressing regulatory capture  
NAT -5 Very significant impact – little replac ement in other funds 
EPG -4 Very significant impact – some replacement in other funds 
INF -3 Adverse impact through loss of awareness To  improve the 
implementation of EU environmental policy 
and legislation, 
(including EU commitments to 
international 
agreements)  NGO -4 -4 
Very significant impact through lo ss of implementation activities 
led by NGOs.  
NAT -2 Adverse impact through loss of working with policy makers 
across policy areas 
EPG -2 Adverse impact from loss of ‘C’ Projects – but only small share 
of EPG To improve the effective contribution of other EU policies to 
environmental 
objectives 
INF -2 -2 
Adverse impact through loss of di ssemination with policy makers 
 
 132Specific objective to be 
achieved/ problem addressed Element Anticipated 
impact: effectiveness 
(rated from –5 
to +5) Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 
and economic actors in other sectors 
NGO -2 Adverse impact through loss of e ngagement with policy makers 
and the cross-policy networking capacity of NGOs. 
NAT -2 Adverse impact from lack of demonstration 
EPG -2 Significant impact from loss of ‘D’ projects  - some replacement 
INF -1 Adverse impact from lack of dissemination to potential applicants To develop solutions for 
subsequent 
mainstreaming in other EU financial 
instruments and MS 
practices NGO -2 -2 
Adverse impact from lack of NGO dissemination 
NAT -4 Very significant impact due to loss of investment 
EPG -3 Significant adverse impact  from lack of demonstration 
INF -2 Adverse impact from lack of awareness of issues – e.g. forest 
management and fore st fire protection To contribute to 
responsibility sharing  in the protection of EU 
natural assets 
NGO -3 -3 
Significant adverse impact from lack of expertise 
NAT -3 Significant adverse impact from loss of transboundary working 
EPG -4 Very significant adverse impact  from loss of transboundary 
working  
INF -2 Adverse impact from lack of targ eting of transboundary problems 
and related awareness of issues To contribute to 
responsibility sharing  in addressing 
transboundary problems 
affecting EU internal and external borders 
NGO -3 -3 
Significant adverse impact  from lack of expertise 
 
Table 1.11. Assessment of Zero opti on – Against impact indicators 
Specific objective to be achieved/ 
problem addressed Anticipated impact: 
effectiveness (rated 
from –5 to +5) Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy 
option necessary to achieve impact 
Changes in 
policies/management -3 No replacement of activity in other funds 
Changes in 
habitats/eco-systems -5 No replacement of activity in other funds Environmental 
impacts 
Changes in pollution / 
resource use -4 Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 
Technology outcomes -4 Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 
Additional sales / GVA -4 Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts Economic impacts 
Net cost savings -4 Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 
NGO contributions to policy -4 Only limited replacement of activity in other funds 
Improvements in 
human health -5 Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts Social impacts 
Additional employment -4 Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 
 
 133Table 1.12 Assessment of Z ero option – Other criteria 
Specific objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed Anticipated impact: effectiveness 
(rated from –5 to +5) Explanation of rating and aspects of 
the policy option necessary to achieve impact 
Impacts on different social and economic groups -3 Loss of environmental and social 
benefits will tend to have adverse 
effects on lower income groups 
Fundamental rights 0 No impact 
Risks   
Financial costs to the EU budget (direct staff 
costs, funding instruments) €57m  Public procurement costs per year – 
sometimes called the common pot – this is the same for all options 
Financial costs to Member States (e.g. administrative costs for applicants and 
management costs fo r beneficiaries) To the extent that MS can find 
replacement resources for LIFE there 
will be additional costs No member state activity, except for 
20% of EPG projects assumed to be 
funded under other instruments 
Summary of benefits and advantages of option  EC savings of €15m 
MS savings of €5m per year relative 
to baseline Some €30m-€40m of environmental 
benefits might be secured from other 
instruments for the LIFE+ Regulation. Nothing can be secured 
from alternative sources of funding 
for the Baseline.  EC savings of €5m staff cost and 
€10m TA 
MS savings of €3.4m in bid costs pa and €1.7m in admin costs pa 
Summary of disadvantages and risks of policy option (including negative economic and social costs in EU  and third countries) Loss of environmental benefits 
conservatively estimated to be €600m per year for LIFE+ regulation 
and between €750-1,000m per year 
for the Baseline Loss of economic and social benefits, 
worth at least €1 billion GVA 
Loss of burden sharing Loss of engagement of civil society 
in EU policy 
Long-term risks from failure to address growing problems  
Essential accompanying measures None  
Feasibility: Issues raised in stakeholder 
consultations  General concern of lack of action  
Feasibility: Issues raised by Member States General concern of lack of action  
 
1.6. Summary of the impact of the option 
The analysis has indicated that despite the opera tion of the main financial instruments, there 
are significant gaps in their cove rage, with the result that in th e absence of the instrument only 
a small level of activity would be otherwise be  funded from EU or MS  resources. The main 
area that might otherwise be funded relates to some eco-inn ovation activity under EPG that 
could potentially be funded, mainly under FP7 or sometimes CIP. However, in the case of 
FP7, it was acknowledged that LIFE projects a llowed beneficiaries to  go beyond research to 
identify and catalyse policy solutions that might otherwise be in eligible under FP7. 
The choice of this option would save the baseline programme cost of some €234m a year. It 
would however lead to the loss  of programme benefits conser vatively estimated, under the 
baseline scenario, of some €600m per year as assessed against th e baseline option. When 
applied to the Baseline, given that potential overlaps have been eliminated and the budget 
 
 134increase and without taking into account the pot ential impact of Integrated Projects, the 
savings would be of around €361 million (€348 million action grants and €13 million for operating grants) a year and €5 million on management costs and €10 million of TA. 
However, there would be a loss of environm ental benefits of some €750-1,000 million each 
year.  
The environmental impacts of the option would be significant. There would very likely be 
considerable deterioration in th e condition of habitats and ecosystems given the fact that there 
is no replacement of the activities funded under LIFE by other EU funds. There is also likely 
to be some negative impacts with regard to  pollution and resource use, although there are 
some limited possibilities for these activities to be funded by other means. In the absence of 
LIFE, there is also likely to be fewer opportunities or means by which policies or 
management systems can be changed, which w ould have potentially negative consequences 
for the environment.   
2. Full assessment of the expanded option 
2.1. Description of the option  
In the context of the Impact Assessment, an additional option was developed to reflect upon a 
more ambitious instrument. The main diffe rence as compared with the Baseline is: 
- the possibility for Integrated Projects in the main environmental sectors where 
programme-based approach will be more efficient (see section 2.2.2);  
- the possibility for allowing technical assistance projects to help Member States to 
prepare Integrated Projects during the first ye ars of the process as well as to providing 
enough margin of manoeuvre to fund enough trad itional projects as to  ensure critical 
mass in the main environmental sectors (see section 2.2.1).   
This has been assessed by GHK as the strong est option against the range of assessment 
criteria. This option scores highest on all crite ria, and the scope to improve EU added value 
compared to the current LIFE+ Regulation. It has been shown that the same activities and 
results cannot be obtained through other fi nancial instruments (the Zero option). 
The expanded option is detailed in Table 2.1. This option includes provision for adjustments 
depending on the outcomes of policy developments  (e.g. future Horizon 2020) especially with 
regard to eco-innovative projec ts. Since discussions about i nnovative financial instruments 
and support to eco-innovation have not been fina lised this expanded option is flexible enough 
to adjust to these future decisions. 
Table 2.1.Description of the Expanded Option  
Dimensions of 
Instrument Options Comment 
Stage 1: Objective Definition: Definiti on of policy needs and objectives taking account of alternative instruments 
Scope : Thematic and 
territorial focus of the option including 
reference to the need 
for action outside the EU The thematic focus  of the option would reflect the genera l objective of deve loping, updating and 
implementing EU environmental pol icy. Thus it would seek to address emerging problems of EU 
scale and the whole of the environmental acquis .  
 
The option would continue to focus, given the limited funds compared to the scale of the 
environmental problem, on institutional weakness es by awareness raisi ng, support for innovation 
 
 135Dimensions of 
Instrument Options Comment 
and demonstration, learning and knowledge exchange, linked to the identification of 
opportunities and solutions for th e improvement and the use of go od practice in the development 
of EU environmental polic y and its implementation at MS level.  As in the case of the Baseline, 
EPG projects are refocused towards implementa tion and integration of the environment into 
other policies (type B and C projects).  
Given the Treaty requirements for internationa l action, as well as th e importance of global 
environmental and European ne ighbourhood problems an explicit role in co-operation with DG 
RELEX and DG DEV would be included, together with direct interventions with third countries 
where it provided EU added value (i.e., third coun tries can participate as associated beneficiaries 
in EU funded LIFE projects)  
Budget: considerable scaling up would be possible an d would deliver improved cost-
effectiveness 
Processes : 
consideration of role of the option given 
alternative instruments The intended programme of results of the option is not capable of being funded by other 
financial instruments.  The option takes a pro-active approach to co-operation and the 
development of synergy with other funding instru ments, by introducing integrated projects and 
looking to support project pipelines.  
 A clear focus on piloting and demonstration of ac tivities to support future project pipelines, and 
subsequent roll-out through the other funding instruments, especially  through CP and CAP. 
 The majority of EC funding in response to environmental problems and especially the 
investment needs of the existing acquis will continue to be met by Cohesion Policy. 
 The importance of ensuring envi ronmental policy integration re sults in actual environmental 
improvements on the ground is also recognised , as endorsed by the Cardiff process. 
Stage 2: Design of the intervention taking a ccount of target actors, and desired outcomes  
Approaches : Top-
down programming vs. 
bottom-up project funding The requirements for activities is defined in the EU strategic statement of objectives for the 
programme period, and more fully reflected in the multi- annual work plans. The work plans will 
reflect in part the Directive by Directive deci sions made with MS through comitology. The work 
plans will also specify the desired use of the alternative delivery mechanisms and the expected 
outcomes 
• Public procurement – ac tivities are defined and planned through DG Annual 
Management Plans (AMPs) 
• Operating Grants – EU level activity by NGOs 
• Action Grants comprising: 
o Top-down projects, especially designe d for information and dissemination 
campaigns or to distribute re sults of a series of projects for a particular sector 
as well as specific needs (e.g., fo r developing or update legislation) 
o Local and regional project activity in MS  
o Integrated Projects 
o Technical Assistance – (based on the JASPERS instrument) 
Levels of intervention : 
target beneficiaries, intervention rates, 
funding levels 
  
 
 The target beneficiaries are the Commission (through funding for public procurement), EU 
environmental NGOs (through use of Operating Gr ants), MS through ‘top-down’ projects, and 
MS actors (competent authorities, universities/ research institutes, businesses, NGOs), through 
‘bottom-up’ project activity 
 Public procurement (100%) of go ods & services includes inform ation and communication, and  
the preparation, implementation, monitoring, checking and evaluation of projects, policies, 
programmes and legislation    
Operating Grants with a maximum  intervention rate of 70%, to strengthen the participation of  
EU environmental NGOs in the dialogue process in environmental policy-making and in its 
implementation; and in the Euro pean standardisation process 
 
Action grant projects as the basis of the full range of outputs, comprising 
- Top-down projects with an intervention rate of 70% 
- Bottom-up projects with an intervention rate of 50% 
 
 136Dimensions of 
Instrument Options Comment 
- Integrated projects with an intervention rate of 75% 
- Technical Assistance (with an interventi on rate of 100%) to support the design and 
submission of integrated projects. 
Stage 3: Operation: Detailed specificati on of the operation of the instrument 
Interventions : use of 
different types of Grants / funding • Public procurement – ac tivities are defined and planned through DG Annual 
Management Plans (AMPs), combining thos e of DG ENV and DG CLIMA and subject 
to standard public procurement rules 
• Operating Grants – allocate d via calls launched and a ppraised by DG ENV, supported 
by appointed National Contact Points (NCPs) in MS to di sseminate details of the call 
and to assist applicants 
• Action Grants: 
o Traditional projects to range between €1 to €1.5 million of EU co-financing 
(at 2011 prices) 
o Integrated projects of about €10 EU co-financing 
o Technical Assistance for Integrated Multi-funded Projects (minimum size of 
say €5m)  – allocated  via annual pre-application ca ll for proposals, launched 
and appraised by DG ENV, supported by NCPs 
Implementing 
methods : centralised 
within the EC, Agency, decentralised within 
MS Similar to the Baseline. 
2.2. Project activity and programme budget 
2.2.1. Project activity 
A. Project type and scale for Action Grants  
Four types of projects are proposed: 
• Integrated projects (EU contribution €10m) – large sc ale activity designed to 
address a major challenge and involving the need to integrate a range of 
economic, social and environmental objectives, supported by other funding 
instruments; 
• Top-down projects (EU contribution €1m) – designed to formally recognise the 
need for cross MS participation in mutual  or peer to peer learning in compliance 
and enforcement and specific disseminati on and information sharing projects; 
• Bottom-up projects (EU contribution €1.5m)  – representing the ‘classic’ project 
as contracted under the baseline sc enario, although slightly larger;  
• Technical assistance (TA)  projects (EU contribu tion €0.25m) – designed to 
support the costs of preparing the Integrated projects.  
B. New features as compared to the Baseline  
Technical Assistance as a tool for Capacity Building 
LIFE is being extensively used as a capac ity building tool for nature protection and 
environmental policy and governance. However, further support for capacity building is a key 
requirement for the future, in light of the fact th at a lack of capacity is a significant part of the 
reason for Natura 2000 sites be ing ineffectively managed and/or protected and for the 
continuing infringements of EU legislation by Member States.  
 
 137A recent report64 identified the lack of stakeholder capaci ty as one of the major constraints for 
a more successful uptake of EU funding for Natura 2000. Improving stakeholders’ capacity to 
access and effectively utilise different EU  funding opportunities w ould also enhance 
stakeholders’ ability to seek new, more i nnovative sources for funding, thus increasing the 
overall resources available and securing the financing of Natura 2000 in the long term. 
Capacity building at the level of relevant gove rnment officials in va rious ministries would 
also help to improve integrati on of nature protection and other policy needs into relevant EU 
funds at the national level, and, potentiall y, improve coordination and cooperation between 
relevant administrative bodies.  
Integrated Projects as well as projects funde d under the Governance strand will be essential 
tools for achieving this objective.  
This option also includes provision for the use of  more targeted technical assistance in support 
of integrated projects, but also perhaps in  support of specific capac ity building through the 
funding of networks of projec ts. Such examples include ELENA – European Local Energy 
Assistance scheme and JASPERS – Joint Assistan ce to Support projects in European Regions 
(see Box below). 
Possible Examples of Support  for Technical Assistance 
ELENA - European Local Energy Assistance Scheme 
ELENA was set up by the European Commission and European Investment Bank (EIB) and managed by the EIB via 
the Intelligent Energy Europe programme. ELENA helps to prepare cities and regions’ sustainable energy projects to 
be ‘ready for EIB funding’ by covering a share of the cost of  technical support needed to prepare, implement, finance 
investment programmes e.g. feasibility, market studies; bus iness plans; energy audits; preparing tender documents. 
This enhances the capacity of cities and regions in EU  to implement projects and investment programmes e.g. 
retrofitting of public/private buildings, sustainable buildi ng, energy-efficient district heating and cooling networks, 
environmentally-friendly trans port, and LIFE could consider a similar ty pe of assistance to local and regional 
authorities. 
Source: http://www.eib.org/products/techni cal_assistance/elena/index.htm  
JASPERS - Joint Assistance to Suppor t projects in European Regions   
JASPERS is a technical support facility for the twelve EU Me mber States which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. It 
is designed to help them to better prepare projects which will be supported by EU funds. Through this joint initiative, 
the European Commission (DG Regional Policy), the Europe an Investment Bank, in cooperation with the European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBR D) andKreditanstaltfürWiederaufbau (KfW), )share their 
professional experience with the beneficiary Member States in order to help them to us e EU Structural Funds more 
effectively. 
Source: http://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/jaspers_brochure_2006_en.pdf  
2.2.2  Achieving critical mass 
The introduction of the large Integrated Project s has the potential, by reducing the number, to 
undermine the critical mass and the related multiplier effects of the smaller projects, 
especially for EPG, given the breadth of the acquis . 
Given their potential, 15 Integrat ed Projects per year would onl y cover three priority sectors 
(nature, water and waste); however, one could question whether this is  enough to adequately 
                                                 
64Kettunen et al (2011) 
 
 138address the range in the scale and number of challenges, which goes be yond the three priority 
sectors of the Baseline. 
As a result the preferred option has the risk , of ‘falling between two stools’ – neither 
introducing enough Integrated Projects to make  a difference nor funding enough of the more 
‘traditional’ projects to maintain current levels  of activity. This suggests that the option will 
not be effective without a larger budget and that the programme does not achieve critical 
mass. 
Instead of starting with the budget, the fundi ng requirement can be considered from the 
perspective of ‘what w ill it take’ to produce a step change in the impact of the programme. 
Integrated Projects 
The number of projects required relates to the relevant territorial ‘units’ for each 
environmental theme as the basis of establishing  an adequate number of projects. Statistical 
relevance of between 15-25% has been used as criterion to determine critical mass.  
Nature  – The relevant unit is the NUTS 2 region, in which to ensure adequate nature 
protection and biodiversity measur es. This also has the merit of  linking directly to possible 
regional funding. There are 271 NUTS regions. Assuming that the minimum level of action is 
required, in the form of one Inte grated Project for nature conservation, in 25% of regions over 
a 7 year programme period, the requir ed number of projects would be 10.65 
EPG  – The relevant unit depends on the environmental theme. Priority areas for activity 
would include: 
• Waste management  – the appropriate unit is also  probably the NUTS 2 region, given 
the nature of regional waste management plans. Perhaps 15% Integrated Projects 
activity over the programme woul d provide a minimum level of catalytic effect – say a 
minimum of 6-10 projects a year; 
• Water management  – the appropriate unit is the river basin district of  which there are 
110. Given the important issues associated with transposition a nd implementation of 
the Water Framework Directive (WFD) then  a greater share of ‘units’ should be 
covered – say 25%. This would require a minimum of say 3-4 projects a year; 
• Air quality management  – activity in large cities to combat urban air pollution (e.g. 
particulates, low level ozone and nitrogen di oxide) would also benefit from the use of 
Integrated Projects. Building on the 2013 Eu ropean ‘Year of Air’, 3 Integrated 
Projects a year would allow action in 20 of the most polluted EU cities.  
• Marine environment: probably 1-2 Integrated project per sea basin (3-5 projects per 
year).    
EPG would require a minimum of 13 -15 projects a year if the us e of Integrated Projects was 
to really tackle the institu tional weaknesses that underpin the lack of adequate policy 
implementation and effective policy integration. 
Top-down projects- under Governance strand 
The purpose of the top-down projects is to enab le greater national and cross-MS working on 
common policy issues, especially  of compliance promotion and enforcement at the national 
                                                 
65 25% of 271, divided by 7 (assuming a 7 year programme period). 
 
 139level, together with some specific awareness raising activity and dissemination actions (e.g., 
specific projects disseminating best practices de veloped by LIFE projects  in a given sectors). 
The indicative range of 18 proj ects a year (6 Nature and 12 focusing on other environmental 
sectors) in the constant budget programme is probably of an appropriate scale. Over the 
programme each MS may on average have been  involved in between 4 and 5 projects.  
Traditional projects 
The traditional LIFE projects require a substantial scale of activity across projects in order to 
generate scope for synthesis and replication and the generation of multiplier effects.  
Nature  – The current programme has about 90 projec ts a year, mainly relating to the Natura 
2000 network. Whilst the introduction of the Integrated Projects reduces the need for the same 
number of projects; the minimu m requirement would be to ma intain half of the current 
traditional activity, 45 projects per year. 
EPG  - The current programme has about 90 proj ects over 10 environm ental sectors, an 
average 9 per sector per year. This would a ppear to be, based on the MTE, the minimum 
number required in order to facilitate the cr eation of lessons and replication. Under the 
baseline, the number of sectors has been reduced to 6 to generate a stronger focus.66 At the 
same time the intention is to increase the av erage size of projects and to secure stronger 
networking of project activity. Taking the number per sector required as the basis of a strong 
multiplier effect as no less than 10 projects per sector, with 6 sectors, a minimum of 60 projects would be required.     
Taking the minimum requirements above, this tr anslates into a budget requirement for action 
grants of €456m per year (Table 2.2).
67 The final envelop for the Programme would be €3,957 
million (a 23% increase compared to the baseline). 
Table 2.2. Indicative outline of the minimum annual number, size an d types of projects funded by 
Action Grants with the preferred option to achieve a ‘step change’ (2011 prices) 
 Type of project  
 Integrated Top-down Traditional TA Totals 
Nature (No of projects) 10 6 45 10 71 
EPG (No of projects) 13 12 50 13 88 
CLIMA (No of projects)   40  40 
Total Projects 23 18 135 23 199 
Average EU contribution 
(€m) 10 1 1.5 0.25  
Total EU Spend (€m/y) 230 18 202.5 5.75 456.25 
Source: Adapted from GHK's  proposals 
                                                 
66 Environmental sectors (excluding nature, biodiversity & soil) could be grouped into Air & Emissions, Climate 
Action (which is a sub-programme with earmarked resources), Gree n economy & Resource efficiency, 
Chemicals, Environment & Health (including noise), Water, Waste. Innovation and Strategic focus have been eliminated as independent themes. 
67 NGOs operating grants, Technical assistance and public  procurement remain constant at €765 million for the 
whole programming period (€57 million a year for TA and public procurement for DG ENV, €39 million a year 
for TA and public procurement for DG CLIMA, and €13 million a year for operating grants for NGOs).   
 
 140However, if 50% of the resources of the E nvironment sub-programme should go to address 
nature and biodiversity needs, as  in the baseline, an  increase in the Nature budget as presented 
in Table 2.2 above would be required. The fi nal budget required each year would be €500m a 
year (see Table 2.3 below). The final envel op for the Programme w ould be €4,265 million (a 
33% increase compared to the baseline).  
Table 2.3. Indicative outline of  the minimum annual number, size and types of projects funded by 
Action Grants with the preferred option to achieve a ‘step change’ (2011 prices) 
 Type of project  
 Integrated Top-down Traditional TA Totals 
Nature (No of projects) 11 12 63 10 97 
EPG (No of projects) 13 12 50 13 88 
CLIMA (No of projects)   40  40 
Total Projects 24 24 153 24 225 
Average EU contribution 
(€m) 10 1 1.5 0.25 4 
Total EU Spend (€m/y 240 24 229.5 6 499.5 
Source: Adapted from GHK's proposals 
 
2.2.4. Summary of the impact of the option 
 
The impact of the option is supposed to increas e proportionally to the increase in the budget. 
If climate action budget was to rema in constant, the increase will mostly affect the nature and 
environment part. The impacts on climate action would remain constant. Under the option of 
an annual budget of €456 million, environmenta l benefits between €898 and €1,369 million a 
year are expected.  Under th e option of annual budget of €500 m illion, environmental benefits 
of €1,030 and €1,500 million a year are expected.  However, these estimates do not take into account the benefits derived from increased focus (about 20% increase in benefits) or the benefits  of using Integrated Projects in two additional 
sectors, in particular air and ma rine environment. The use of In tegrated Projects for air could 
have large health benefits.  
 
 141ANNEX  9 - CALCULATION  OF EXTERNALISATION  COSTS 
 
This annex analyses the different management  options for the LIFE Programme taking into 
account the conditions laid down in the M FF Communication. In the Communication of 29 
June 2011 (MFF Communication), the Commissi on announced that the LIFE Programme 
should remain centrally managed, but that management tasks coul d be largely delegated to an 
Executive Agency. Whilst some aspects of this delegation were fixed in the MFF Communication – in particular, th at it should be an existing Ex ecutive Agency - other details 
on the extent, conditions and terms of the delegati on were left open and ar e dealt with in this 
Impact Assessment.   It should be noted that at the time of any de legation the Commission will publish a fuller cost 
benefit analysis going into fu rther detail, and informed by negotiations with the Executive 
Agency. Therefore, the estimation of resources  for both the Agency and the Commission, the 
cumulative impacts across the entire programme period as well as the impacts of the transitional arrangements will need to be a caref ully developed, reviewed and validated at the 
time of preparing the deta iled cost/benefit analysis. 
 
1. Initial considerations 
 
It is difficult to compare the costs of direct centralised ma nagement by the Commission with 
the costs of management by an Executive Agen cy (hereafter, called 'Agency'). Doing so 
requires assumptions to be ma de, in particular, on the performance by any Agency and on 
'efficiency gains'. Many of these assumptions will be tested when negotiating a contract with an Executive Agency, but even the benefits of  any improved performan ce will not be seen 
until later.   The Court of Auditors has already highlighted so me of the problems with past analyses of an 
Agency option: 
• Emphasis is placed mainly on savings from the use of cheaper contract staff rather than 
permanent staff but aspects of improved perf ormance and efficiency gains are rarely 
considered;  
• Costs of additional staff needed in the Commission to supervise agencies and at the 
agencies for horizontal functions, are not accurately included or not included at all; 
• Comparison is often made usi ng the single average unit cost for the various categories of 
contract staff but in practice they vary in grade and therefore cost. Analysis shows the 
composition of the Commission consists largely of lower grades compared to specialised personnel so this would lead to an overe stimation of Commission costs in cost 
comparisons. 
In this analysis the cost of additional staff to supervise agencies has been estimated, but 
potential performance and efficiency gains ha ve only been partially considered, which may 
leave the Agency option in  a less favourable light.  
 
2. Assessment of the baseline management option (direct centralised management) 
 
The current LIFE+ programme is entirely mana ged by the Commission, with the support of 
contracted technical assistance.    
 
 142For the analysis, the following baseline data is used: 
 
Average programme spend per year (EC contribution): €234m 
Approximate number of project s commissioned per year: 200-230 
Average length of time of a project: 4 years 
Approximate number of projects operating per year: 600 (with a peak of over 700) 
Average total project size: €2.4m 
Average intervention rate: 50% with a po ssibility of up to 70% for NGOs operati ng grants and 75% for Nature projects 
focusing on priority habitats and species.  
 
The staff requirements  are 44 full-time equivalent (fte) pos ts, which represents the two LIFE 
Units of DG Environment. The posts cover th e following specific functions: Management 
group (4 fte), LIFE Units’ Te chnical Desk Officers (TDOs) ( 19 fte), LIFE Unit's Financial 
Desk Officers (FDO) (11 fte), LIFE Unit Admi nistration (8 fte) and LIFE Unit Financial 
Administration (2 fte).   
- Each TDO is responsible fo r approximately 40 projects.
68 This includes following 
project progress (evaluation of mid-term and final reports, correspondence, answering 
queries), project visits, handling amendments and extensions and 
communication/dissemination activities.  
 
- Each FDO typically manages approximately 70 projects.  
 
- The TDOs and FDOs are organised in country desks. Each TDO and FDO is 
responsible for the project portfolio  within one or more countries. 
 
The 44 posts  consist currently of 36 permanent and 8 contract staff. Based on DG BUDG 
figures for staff costs (ave rage cost of DG staff in  2010 is €127,000 and €64,000 for 
permanent and contract staff respectively), this equates to €5.1m in staff costs  (excluding 
overheads) per annum.   
 
In addition, the LIFE Units are assisted by external contractors  providing technical 
assistance with an average cost over  the programme period of approximately €10m per 
annum (including wages, mission, training mate rials, communication activities etc .). This 
covers around 80 fte posts, doing the following work  under the supervision of the LIFE Units:  
• Project Selection : a total of 55, mainly pa rt-time, experts worki ng on all stages of the 
evaluation and selection procedure, except eligibility;  
• Project Monitoring : approximately 60 people monitoring the projects funded:  
• Communication : 15 environment and communications experts responsible, for example, 
for the production and circulation of thematic and best practice publications, the 
development and maintenance of the LIFE  website, maintaining the LIFE project 
database, and organising seminars and events. 
• Information workshops : implementing information workshops on preparing and managing 
LIFE+ project proposals in collabor ation with the Member States. 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
68 COWI (2009) Ex-Post Evaluation of Projects and Activities Financed under the LIFE Programme. 
 
 143Table 1: Annual management cost s for the current LIFE+ programme 
 
Staff69 No cost per fte total cost 
Officials 36 127.000 4.572.000  
Contract staff 8 64.000 512.000  
Total Staff 44   5.084.000  
TA  80  125.000 10.000.000 
TOTAL COST     15.084.000  
 
The number of full-time equivalent posts to mana ge all aspects of the programme is therefore 
approximately 125 full-time equivalent  posts. The total administrative cost is the sum of staff 
costs (excluding office overheads) and the cost  of outsourcing (techni cal assistance). The 
current management costs (excluding overheads) amount to just over €15 million 
(€15,084,000)  per annum, representing 6.2%  of the total an nual programme budget.70  
 
3. Assessment of the option of full ex ternalisation to an existing agency 
 
Two possibilities are envisaged: either contracted  technical assistance will be maintained, to 
support the Agency in its work, or technical assistan ce will be discontinue d as Agency staff 
take over the corresponding tasks.  
3.1. Without replacing technical assistance 
The following assumptions are made: 
- Based on the experience gained with the exte rnalisation of the eco-innovation part of 
the CIP programme, the same number of staff currently managing the LIFE+ Programme within the Commission ( 44 posts ) could be needed in the Agency (of 
whom 9 would be officials seconded from the parent DG to the Agency).
71  
- Around 8 posts  would be needed for coordination a nd control tasks in the parent DGs 
(for governance, supervision and monitoring of the programme, including establishing 
links between the parent DGs and the Agency).  
- There would be an additional staff requirement related to supplying additional 
administrative services (human resources et c.) to the Agency new staff of 44 posts.  
Applying a ratio of 1 administration job for every 5 new posts adds a further 9 posts . 
This makes for a total staff requirement of 61  (44+8+9) fulltime equivalent posts, at an 
annual cost of €5.0m. Additional overhead costs (e.g., office costs) would be associated with 
the 17 (8+9) additional posts. Assuming an over head cost of €25,000 per post, this would add 
a further €0.4m, making a total staff related cost of €5.4m .  
 
 
                                                 
69 Overview of average cost updated on 4/10/2010. Official= €127.000 (including administrative support); 
Temporary Agent= €127.000; Seconded National Expert= €73.000; Contract Agent= €64.000. Source DG 
BUDG http://www .cec/budg/pre/legalbasis/pre- 040-020_prepara tion_en.html. 
70 Estimated to be €244 million (annual EC contribution to action grants and expenditure on technical assistance) 
71 Based on experience and conversations with EACI, a mini mum of 6 staff need to be seconded to the Agency 
when transfer occurs. According to figures for existing agencies like EACI, the perc entage used for seconded 
staff is 24% of the staff used in the parent DG. A 20% level is used here since it is expected that the number of 
projects financed will decrease as well as overall Commission staff (5% target).    
 
 144Staff related costs under the Agency management option (without replacing technical 
assistance) would be €5.4m per year. Together with a technical assistance cost of €10m 
per year , Agency management costs would represents €15.4m per annum, or 6.3% of the 
programme budget.72. This is slightly more than t he centralised management option.   
 
Table 2: Annual management costs for full externalisation to an Agency 
 
Staff No cost per 
job total cost  
Officials (min 9 seconded) 9 127.000 1.143.000   
Contract staff - wages 35 64.000 2.240.000   
DG ENV – programme 
governance 8 127.000 1.016.000   
Admin staff @20% 9 64.000 563.200   
Total Staff cost 61  4.962.200   
Additional staff o'head - TA 17 25.000 420.000   
Total Cost   5.382.200   
TA     10.000.000   
TOTAL COST     15.382.200  6,3% 
 
3.2. Replacing technical assistance 
If the existing technical assistance provided by external contractors under the centralised 
option is replaced, it would requ ire a broad range of geographica l and thematic expertise, as 
well as full coverage of the EU language s. Although hiring new Agency employees to 
undertake this work entails some  costs, it is likely that th ese employees could be found.  
 Assuming that such candidates could do the wo rk of the technical assistance external 
contractors at the same level of  effectiveness and efficiency, th en at an annual staff cost of 
€64,000, the additional 80 fulltime equivalent contract posts would cost €5.1m. There is also a 
requirement for additional administrative posts. Assuming the same ratio of one 
administrative post to five new posts would add a further 16 posts. The total staff cost would 
be €6.1m. In addition, there would be overhead  costs of €25,000 for the additional 96 posts, 
adding a further €2.4m. Since the staff would be based in Br ussels, there would be the 
additional mission costs currently avoided by us ing contractor staff based in the Member 
States. These costs are estimated to be in th e order of €0.7m based on 700 trips per year at a 
rate of €1,000 a trip. The costs of replaci ng the technical assist ance activity by Agency 
activity would on this basis cost be €9.2m , a saving of €0.8m per year. 
 The estimated costs do not take account of the high mobility of staff in the Agency (2.5 year 
length of service on average)73 and the consequent need to re-invest in recruiting/training of new staff as well as the efficiency loss due to  the non-productive months resulting from the 
turn-over of new staff. Based on a contract st aff requirement of 115 (35+80) posts, the staff 
turnover over a 7 year programme, would requi re the recruitment and training of the 
workforce twice over (230 posts). Based on a co st of recruitment and training of say €10,000 
a post, the staff turnover would cost €330,000 a year  or some €2.3m  over the programme 
period. 
                                                
 
72 Applied to current programme budget  assuming that for some years the  transitional costs will be standing still. 
73 Draft Impact Assessmen t of EACI, CSES, 2011.  
 
 145On the other hand, there would also be cost savi ngs if the work is brought in-house rather than 
the parent DG (or Agency) having to manage and supervise the contracting and undertaking 
of this technical a ssistance externally.  
With staff related costs of €5.4m per year, cost s of replacing technical  assistance of €9.2m 
and a staff turn over costs of €2.3m, the tota l management cost by the Agency, with the 
replacement of external assistance, would amou nt to €15m per year, representing 6.1% of the 
programme budget.  
The cost saving estimated above excludes ot her costs that are difficult to quantify: 
• kick off costs necessary to transfer the activities and start the new business in the 
agency; 
• costs associated with establishing a team of  experts with the expertise that has been 
developed for the current programme; 
• costs associated with devel oping any associated programme  support (e.g. database and 
related reporting systems, such as a pot ential replacement for BUTLER, training and 
recruitment costs within the Commission for comparison; 
• Potential productivity and efficiency gains within the Agency fr om managing a large 
programme over 7 years. 
3.3. Summary of the cost comparison 
The various cost estimates for the three optio ns are summarised in the Table 3 below. 
Table 3: Summary of the annual cost estima tes (€m) of the differe nt management options 
Management options 
Category of cost Centralised 
Management Agency (with 
Technical 
Assistance) Agency (without 
Technical 
Assistance) 
Staff costs (€m) 5.1 5.0 11.1 
Additional overhead costs (€m)  0.4 3.1 
Technical assistance (€m) 10.0 10.0  
Mission costs (€m)   0.7 
Total cost (€m) 15.1 15.4 15.0 
Total cost as % of programme 6.2% 6.3% 6.1% 
Total saving (€m) compared with 
Centralised Management option  -0.3 0.1 
Saving as % of Centralised 
Management option  -2.0% 0.9% 
 
It should be repeated that there are a number of uncertainties th at could affect the final costs 
of the different Agency options.   
 
 1464. Analysis on a per project basis  
 
As a form of sensitivity analysis, the calculations set out in section 3 can be tested to see if they change with the change in  number of projects that is lik ely to occur with the introduction 
of Integrated Projects. This is  done comparing central manageme nt with the Agency option of 
Agency where technical a ssistance is not replaced.  
 
4.1  Number of projects star ted in the average year 
 
The average number of projects being managed in any one year  under the baseline option is 
600 projects (between 200-230 proj ects are selected every year). However, this number will 
decline (under the preferred opt ion of the Impact Assessment ), as a consequence of the 
phasing-in of Integrated Projects, which are larger in size.  Table 4 summarises the number of 
projects to be financed annually under the future programme (Governance and Communication projects are embedd ed into the two strands, especially in the category "Top-
down").
74  
Table 4: Summary of number of projects per year 
 
Projects 
                      Strand  
Integrated  
Top-
down  
Traditional  
Total 
Nature 6 5 40 51 
EPG 9 5 35 49 
Climate action 0 0 40 40 
Total Projects 15 10 115 140 
 
Applying a complexity factor of "2" to Integrated Projects, it would mean that on average the 
equivalent of 155 traditional projects would start each year, and over time the equivalent 
of around 400 projects would be  running at any one time .  
 
4.2  Costs under different options  
 
The programme runs until 2024 as  projects finish, but for simplicity the costs are only 
examined during the 7 years of the programme (t his does not affect the result). To calculate 
the cost per project, the data  for the baseline are used.  
 
On average, the staff cost per projec t under direct central management are around €8,500  and 
for Agency is €9,000 . 
 
Table 5: Estimation of staff cost per project 
 
 EC Agency 
Avg no projects pa 600 600 
Current staff cost (€m) 5,1 5,4 
Current staff 44 61 
   
Current days pa 9680 1342075 
Cost per day (€) 527 402 
                                                 
74 These are traditional projects funded under the Governance strand. Because  these are expected to be smaller in 
size and clearly spelled out in the Call for prop osals they are referred to as "Top Down".  
75 Staff no multiplied by annual days (@220 days per year).  
 
 147 EC Agency 
Days per project 16 2276 
Staff cost per project 8500 9000 
 
A multiplier factor represents the length of th e projects and therefore the total number of 
projects being looked after on average each year (when the programme has matured). A 
multiplier factor of 3 is applied to standard projects (since these last between 2-4 years) and 5 to Integrated Projects assuming th eir average life is longer.     
 
Table 6: Comparative calculation of cost (per project calculation base) 
 
EC Integrated Top-down Traditional  
Staff 8500 cost per project  
Complexity factor 2 1 1  
Number started in a year 15 10 115  
Total 255.000 85.000 977.500 1.317.500 
Average length of 
projects (multiplier) 5 3 3  
Total Staff cost 1.275.000 255.000 2.932.500 4.462.500 
TA  16.667 cost per project 3 
Total TA cost 2.500.000 500.000 5.750.000 8.750.000 
TOTAL COST    13.212.500 
     
AGENCY Integrated Top-down Standard  
Staff 9000 cost per project  
Complexity factor 2 1 1  
Number started in a year 15 10 115  
Total 270.000 90.000 1.035.000 1.395.000 
Average no of projects pa 
(multiplier) 5 3 3  
Total Staff cost 1.350.000 270.000 3.105.000 4.725.000 
TA (cost per project) 15.333 cost per project 3 
Total TA cost 2.300.000 460.000 5.290.000 8.050.000 
TOTAL COST     12.775.000 
 
Using the above basis of calculation, the Agency will provide some cost savings of about €0.4 
million.   
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the Agency option: 
 
(a) The advantages of the Agency option 
• The majority of the staff in the Agency ( up to 75%) can be cont ract posts that are 
significantly cheaper. 
• The recruitment of such contract staff of a high quality and technical capability is not 
likely to be difficult given past evidence.
77 The Agency employees could therefore 
undertake the bulk of work that is current ly undertaken by the LIFE Unit staff and 
external contractors (under the optio n that includes tec hnical assistance): 
                                                 
76 Days divided by no. of projects. 
77 See Technopolis (2006), ‘Cost Benefit Analysis of th e externalisation of the cer tain tasks regarding the 
implementation of the Competitiveness and Innovatio n Framework Programme ( 2007-2013) through an 
executive Agency’.  
 
 148o Management tasks – specific tasks rela ting to programme management such as 
financial and administrative management e.g. payment processing (and finding 
ways to improve the processing)78; 
o Programme implementation e.g., ensuring reports processed within deadlines 
and selection of projects takes place on time; 
o Communication and dissemination activities; 
• The recruitment of staff with a specific technical profile could also increase the 
effectiveness of technical monitoring a nd improve the communication of lessons 
learned to the parent DGs (provided the organisational arrange ments are based on 
thematic expertise rather than ge ographical or a mixture of both). 
• The use of contract posts in the Agency  also ‘frees up’ the Commission’s human 
resources in terms of ‘savi ng’ permanent posts and allowing for the re-allocation of 
them to core policy tasks, which in itself reduces the need for contract posts. In fact, the Agency option could free up 19 posts;
79 of which two thirds  would be AST posts 
and one third AD posts. However, this would materialise only after a number of years 
and only if all ongoing projec ts would be transferred. 
(b) The disadvantages of the Agency option 
• Integrated Projects are to act as a catalyst  for effective mainstreaming into the other 
EU financial instruments. This will requi re careful design and cooperation with the 
policy units in the parent DGs and other DGs to ensure their success. 
 
• Integrated projects are also  to provide examples of how  integration is possible in 
practice. Therefore it  is important to know whether this approach works and to 
identify at an early stage problems and to react rapidly. Close monitoring by the Commission and contact with the beneficiaries is needed to ensure this early detection 
and quick solution finding.  
 
• If the level of the programme remains similar to current levels, or if the budget 
increase is associated with a similar or fe wer numbers of projects  but with a larger 
average size, and especially if technical as sistance is used because of the importance 
of maintaining the current networks, the Ag ency option becomes less attractive on cost 
saving grounds.  
• The preferred option for the programme is one which is based on a strategic 
programming approach, requiring enha nced cooperation and management to 
effectively contribute to policy design and implementation and high quality technical 
support to ensure replication of results is achieved. As a resu lt, there is a risk that the 
Agency option would decrease the ability of this option to deliver the expected added 
value. For example, Integrated Projects for Nature will test the development and implementation of the Prioritised Action fr amework (PAFs) required by the Habitats 
Directive. It is essential that the Commission closely follows how these new 
frameworks are developed in different Member  States and is able to quickly react to 
                                                
 
78 According to the European Court of Auditors Special Report No. 13, ‘Delegating implementing tasks to 
Executive Agencies: a successful op tion?’ (2009), the contracting time for the ‘Public health’ programme 
dropped from 345 days to 219 when managed by an Agen cy; payment period shortened from 503 to 91 days and 
approval time for technical/financial reports dropped from 90 to 42 days. 
79 36 post minus 9 seconded and less 8 staff used in parent DGs for governance.  
 
 149demands for advice. This is more effectiv ely done if the monitoring and management 
of the project remain within the Commission.  
 
• There is also a clear link between Inte grated Projects and implementation and 
compliance of some of the most demanding legislation (Water Framework Directive 
or the Waste Framework Directive). In the case of the Water Framework Directive, the 
projects will be implementing plans that are directly assessed by the Commission to 
determine whether a Member States is mee ting its obligations unde r the Directive. In 
addition, based on the experience with Nature projects, this  type of project provides 
technical information that can be used for in fringement cases or pilot cases. Therefore, 
strong policy link with technical units  during design and implementation of 
these projects is necessary, and could not  be done efficiently by an Agency.  
 
• There will be around 600 open projects at the end of the LIFE+ programme period, 
which will not be completed until 2017-2018. These will also need to be managed and 
provided with technical assistance [ by the parent DGs or by the Agency?]. 
Transitional arrangements could be compli cated for them (although they could also 
allow for a more constant workflow for the Agency if transferred. 
 
6. Hybrid solution  
Given the need to ensure that Integrated Projects feed back into policy design, provide more 
effective information for policy implementation and maximise their demonstration value, one 
option which would address these objectives would be to keep Integrated Projects under direct 
central management.    Table 7 shows the number of projects 'live' at any one time. Note that the assumption is that 
Integrated Projects are evenly spread ove r the programme, whereas they may be more 
weighted towards the second half as Member St ates will need time to develop proposals for 
this new concept.  
Table 7: Cumulative number of pr ojects over time and related costs 
 
Cumulative  Integrated Top-down Traditional Cost  
2014 15 10 115 3.805.000 4% 
2015 30 20 230 7.610.000 8% 
2016 45 30 345 11.415.000 13% 
2017 60 30 345 12.170.000 13% 
2018 75 30 345 12.925.000 14% 
2019 75 30 345 12.925.000 14% 
2020 75 30 345 12.925.000 14% 
2021 60 20 230 9.120.000 10% 
2022 45 10 115 5.315.000 6% 
2023 30 0 0 1.510.000 2% 
2024 15 0 0 755.000 1% 
Average annual open 
projects80 75 30 345 90.475.000 100% 
Total number over 
programme81 105 70 805   
                                                 
80 Total number of each project type over 7 years.  
81 Annual number of project type x 7.  
 
 150Cumulative  Integrated Top-down Traditional Cost  
      
Average Project Cost 50.333 25.167 24.333   
      
Total annual cost 3.775.000 755.000 8.395.000 12.925.000  
Total programme cost    90.475.000 7 
 
Table 8: Calculation of managemen t cost for the hybrid option 
 
EC Integrated Top-down Traditional  
Staff 8500 cost per project  
Complexity factor 2 1   
Total 255.000 85.000   
Average no of projects pa 
(multiplier) 5 3   
Total Staff cost 1.275.000 255.000   
TA  16.667 cost per project 3 
Total TA cost 2.500.000 500.000   
TOTAL 3.775.00 750.000  4.525.000 
AGENCY  Top-down Traditional  
Staff 9000 cost per project  
Complexity factor   1  
Total   1.035.000  
Average no of projects pa 
(multiplier)   3  
Total Staff cost   3.105.000  
TA (cost per project)  cost per project 3 
Total TA cost   5.290.000  
TOTAL   8.395.000 8.395.000 
    12.920.000 
 
The average annual cost of €12.9m is reached in 2018 (see Table 8 above). 
 
7. Conclusion 
Considering the arguments against a full extern alisation option, and the above calculations 
demonstrating a low cost decision factor, th e preferred option is a hybrid between full 
externalisation and full integration. 
The estimation of these resources for both the Agency and the Commission, the cumulative 
impacts across the entire programme period as  well as the impacts of the transitional 
arrangements will need to be a carefully developed, reviewed and validated at the time of preparing the detailed cost/benefit analysis for any transfer to an Agen cy. Similarly, the mid 
term evaluation of the new programme will need to revisit the analysis to assess whether 
Integrated Projects should be managed directly or by an Agency. 
 
 
 151ANNEX 10: OBJECTIVES AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK   
 
General Objective: Provide solutions in order to achi eve environmental objectives  by developing, updating and impl ementing EU environmental policy .-  
Specific and Operational  
Objectives Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators 
1. To improve the scope of EU environm ental and climate poli cy and legislation  
− To identify, test and 
develop policy proposals to current 
and emerging 
environmental and 
climate problems  
 Public procurement 
and technical studies defining and scaling 
problems and 
identifying possible policy options 
 
Public procurement / 
grant funding of the 
demonstration of the 
feasibility of policy options Challenges to the operation of 
existing approaches  
 
Expanded knowledge base, including for forests 
 
Demonstration of new/updated policy approaches 
 
Testing of new financial instruments No. of reports providing 
analysis/solutions, by theme, Directive, MS 
 
 No. of policy options/ 
instruments developed and 
tested, by theme, Directive, MS 
 Improved environmental 
monitoring and problem 
definition 
 
Policy proposals that 
improve the scope of EU 
policy to deal with 
environmental and climate problems 
 Expanded sets of 
environmental and 
climate indicators, 
periodicity & quality 
of data by theme, 
Directive, MS 
 
Increase in knowledge base of environmental 
problems e.g. number 
of new tools or users 
of tools or studies 
available. 
 
New policy proposals 
by theme, Directive, 
MS 
− To facilitate and 
improve  the 
contributions of 
environmental and 
climate NGOs and 
civil society in policy 
making and review 
 Funding of 
environmental  and 
climate NGOs Increased participation of NGOs and 
civil society in policy making and 
review No., size, type of NGOs (+ 
subset of indicators 
required for NGO 
outputs82) – n. of contributions, 
amendments to policy 
making; participation in public consultations; n. 
position papers.   Improved participation 
of citizens and NGOs in 
the decision-making 
process. 
 Uptake of NGOs and 
civil society proposals 
for amendments in the 
legislative acts. Attributable 
environmental 
improvements from improved targeting 
and/or design of policy 
instruments  
2. To  improve the implementation of EU environmental and clim ate policy and legislation, (incl uding EU commitments to internat ional agreements   
− To identify, test and 
develop policy Public procurement 
and technical studies Challenges to the operation of 
existing approaches No of reports providing 
analysis of existing Take-up of new or 
updated approaches and Expanded and 
improved capacity for Attributable 
environmental and 
                                                 
82 Additional work is required to fine-tune the NGO indicators to better reflect their ro le in helping to avoid regulatory captur e as well as promoting civil engagement 
 
 152Specific and Operational  
Objectives Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators 
approaches to 
improve MS and 
private sector 
capacity to transpose, 
implement monitor 
and enforce 
environment and 
climate legislation. 
− To facilitate 
knowledge sharing on successful 
environmental and 
climate pol icy and 
practice. 
− To improve support 
for international 
commitments and 
management of third 
country problems. 
− To increase 
effectiveness of MS 
and third countries 
activities to reduce 
environmental 
externalities 
adversely affecting 
the EU on transposition, 
implementation, monitoring and 
enforcement problems 
(including in the context of 
international 
commitments)  
Grant funding of the 
demonstration of updated and improved 
policy approaches 
 Grant funding of good 
practice demonstration 
for subsequent dissemination 
 
Grant funding of mutual and peer 
learning activities and 
networks  
Grant funding of 
targeted training initiatives  
Expanded instituti onal capacity to 
implement policy (new skills, 
expanded knowledge base, new and 
extended networks of competent authorities) 
 
Expanded knowledge base, including for forests 
 
Demonstration of updated policy approaches and of good practice 
policy implementation/enforcement 
 Dissemination of good practice 
(multiplier effects)  
  institutional weaknesses in 
relation to policy implementation, and 
related solutions by theme, 
Directive, MS  
Participation in peer 
learning networks and replication  activities (by 
MS, themes, number and 
type of actors)  
Participation in training 
activities (by MS, themes and actors) 
 
Dissemination activity of updated and good practice 
policy approaches, by type 
of activity (workshops, publications, etc,) and by 
theme and type and 
number of actors  
N. of projects/ measures 
or approaches replicated and transfer 
 
Third country involvement in research, demonstration 
and dissemination 
activities good practices that 
improve monitoring, 
implementation and 
enforcement of EU 
environmental and 
climate policy in MS 
 
Improved capacity to manage environmental 
and climate policies 
 
Sub-target
 
10% of RBD adequately managed (or 15% of 
national branches).  
 15% of Regions have 
adequate implementation 
of waste legislation  
At least 15% of N2000 
brought into adequate management 
 
25% projects/measures 
or approaches replicated 
and/or transferred 
 
Increased EU 
contribution to securing 
international 
commitments implementing EU 
environmental and 
climate policies at MS 
and regional/local 
levels (changes in No. 
& quality of relevant 
responsible authority 
staff) 
 
Reported changes and 
improvements in  
transposition and implementation 
procedures 
 
Reduced no. of 
reported infringements 
of EU legislation 
 
Improved quality of 
European Commission 
inputs to international 
working 
To improve 
the contributions of 
environmental NGOs 
and civil society to 
implementation, Grant funding of 
environmental and climate NGOs 
 
Grant funding of Increased awareness on 
environmental and climate problems  
Increased participation of NGOs and 
civil society on policy No., size, type of NGOs (+ 
subset of indicators required for NGO outputs) 
– n. of projects where 
NGOs participate Increased participation 
of citizens and NGOs in 
the decision-making 
process. 
  climate improvements 
from  
increased effectiveness 
of policy instruments, 
especially through 
improved levels of 
implementation 
(attributable 
reductions in env. and 
cliamte problems due 
to capacity 
improvements)  
- Increased 
resilience to 
climate change;  
- Improved 
resource 
efficiency;  
- Improved 
environmental 
quality;  
- Enhanced EU 
environmental 
assets 
- Improved 
conservation 
status 
 
Attributable and 
specified  climate 
improvements due to 
the improved quality of policy approach / 
 
 153Specific and Operational  
Objectives Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators 
policy making and 
review. 
 
To support 
and raise awareness, 
communication, and 
dissemination among 
civil society on 
environmental and 
climate aspects dissemination of 
project results and awareness raising 
campaigns 
 Public procurement of 
dissemination and 
awareness raising campaigns 
 
Enhanced dissemination 
obligations in grant 
funded projects implementation. 
 Increased dissemination of 
knowledge among different 
stakeholders  
 
  
N. of projects where civil society and private sector 
organisations participate 
 N. dissemination activities 
carried out, per sector, 
MS, n. of persons reached,, n. publications, 
media appearances etc 
 N. of complaints at 
national and EU level per 
sector and per MS from civil society and NGOs Increased awareness and 
communication on 
environmental and 
climate problems 
(compared to 
eurobarometre results) 
 
Increased empowerment 
of civil society 
 
 management and use 
of new approaches 
 
Attributable reductions 
in international env. 
and climate problems 
 
3. To improve the effective contribution of other EU policies to  environmental and climate objectives at implementation level  
− To identify and 
undertake  demonstration 
activities capable of 
informing 
opportunities for 
improved sectoral 
performance of 
environment and 
climate in achieving 
environmental and 
climate objectives 
and upholding the 
potential of the 
climate and 
environmental 
policies. 
 
− To raise awareness of Grant funding of 
demonstration and dissemination of new 
or updated approaches 
to improve environmental and 
climate performance 
of key sectors  
Enhanced 
dissemination obligations in grant 
funded projects 
 Dissemination of 
project results, 
including funding of specific projects, 
publications and 
conferences or Increased awareness of the need and 
scope for integration  
Expanded institutiona l capacity (new 
skills, expanded knowledge base, new and extended networks of 
responsible authorities, better 
coordination among authorities in a MS or region dealing  with different 
sectors to increase integration) 
 Demonstration of new or updated 
approaches to improve environmental 
and climate performance of key Grant funding of demonstration and 
dissemination of key sectors. 
 Dissemination within sectors of 
new/updated approaches to improve 
environmental or cl imate integration No. of reported policy 
proposals for improved integration of env. & 
climate objectives in 
sectoral activities, by sector and sub-sector 
 
No. of new and updated approaches demonstrated 
that improve integration 
and enable economic actors to improve env. & 
climate performance, by 
type of actor, sector and MS.  
No. of dissemination 
activities of updated and good practice approaches 
to integration, by type of 
activity (workshops, Take up of new or 
updated approaches that improve sectoral 
environmental and 
climate performance.   
Sub-target
: 
At least 25% of new or updated approaches 
taken up by the market 
and economic sectors and responsible 
authorities No. of updated 
approaches that have been used by 
economic actors to 
improve environmental and 
climate performance 
by actor, sector, MS and type and number 
of actors Attributable reductions 
in environmental and climate problems as a 
result of take-up of 
demonstrated successful approaches.  
 
 154Specific and Operational  
Objectives Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators 
policy makers and 
economic and social 
actors of the 
opportunities for 
better integration workshops targeting a 
specific sector   –multiplier effects  publications, etc.) by 
sector and type and number of actors.  
4. To develop solutions for subsequent mainstreaming in other EU  financial instruments and MS practices to support the multipli er effect   
− To identify, test and 
develop technical and 
policy solutions to 
environmental and climate problems 
suitable for 
mainstreaming 
through other EU / 
MS financial 
instruments Grant funding of 
innovative and demonstrative 
solutions to 
environment and climate problems 
capable of being 
mainstreamed  
Activities for 
dissemination as above.  Demonstration of new or updated 
approaches/ techniques to improve environmental and climate 
performance capable of being 
mainstreamed  
Applications for EU funding based on 
demonstration projects (multiplier effect) No. of reported technical 
and policy solutions capable of being 
mainstreamed, by theme, 
sector and MS  
Dissemination activity of 
project results potentially capable of being 
mainstreamed (workshops, 
publications, etc.) by theme, sector and type and 
number of actors. 
 Application submitted for 
mainstream funding based 
on demonstration results, by value, by theme and 
sector. 
 No. tested approaches 
incorporated in national 
and regional programmes linked to other EU 
instruments. Increased mainstream 
funding for environment and climate solutions 
 
Sub-targets
: 
At least 25% approaches 
incorporated into 
national/regional 
programmes.  
 
Increased uptake of other EU funds for 
environment and climate 
related by 50% No. of projects 
receiving mainstream funding (under 
EARDF, ERDF, CF, 
EFF) to roll-out and diffuse the take-up of 
demonstrated solutions 
under LIFER, by value, theme, sector 
 
No. of measures and projects receiving 
mainstream funding 
complementing integrated projects. 
 
No. of MS/Regions that replicate 
integrated project  
approaches.  Attributable reductions 
in environmental and climate problems as a 
result of subsequent 
application of solutions from 
mainstream funding  
       
5. To contribute to responsibility sharing in the protec tion of natural assets and to stop biodiversity loss Attributable and 
 
 155Specific and Operational  
Objectives Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators 
− To recognise the 
effort sharing of MS on the basis of the 
geographic 
distribution of 
environmental 
resources  
− To increase 
effectiveness of 
protection and 
management 
activities in MSs with 
unequal amounts of 
natural assets [EPV 
says I think this is feasible because of 
IP]  
Funding of best practice and 
demonstration 
activities in Natura2000 (N2K); 
 
Funding of best practice and 
demonstration 
protection of biodiversity and 
ecosystem services 
outside N2K, including species and 
habitats IUCN/EU Red 
Lists  
 Challenges to the operation of 
existing approaches  
New and expanded networks of 
stakeholders enabling conservation measures 
 
Expanded knowledge base of good practice conservation measures 
 
Expanded use of nature conservation measures within N2K sites and wider 
eco-system management 
 New and demonstrative approaches 
to nature and biodiversity 
conservation  No of sites, by area and 
type of habitat subject to restoration and/or 
improved management 
 No of approaches 
demonstrated 
 No species subject to 
conservation activities 
  
   Improved conservation 
status of and reduced degradation of EU 
significant 
environmental natural assets level of protection 
of EU significant 
environmental assets  
Contribute to reaching 
Biodiversity Strategy targets 
 
Sub-targets:
 
 
 At least 15% of N2000 
brought into adequate management 
 
25% of habitats targeted reached favourable 
conservation status 
 25% of species targeted 
achieved favourable 
conservation status Improved quality of 
management of N2K sites and networks (by 
area, habitat, and MS) 
 Quality of approaches 
to biodiversity and 
conservation demonstrated to be 
effective and efficient 
 No. of species and 
habitats that reach 
favourable conservation status 
 
No. of water bodies that reach good 
ecological status  specified  
environmental improvements due to 
the improved quality 
of management and use of new approaches  
6. To contribute to responsibility sharing in addressing transboundary problems aff ecting EU internal and external borders  
− To recognise the risk 
sharing principle for 
MS on the basis of 
transboundary 
problems 
experienced 
− To increase 
effectiveness of MS Funding of 
transboundary 
projects, including 
third country participation when 
required 
 Dissemination 
activities as above  Challenges to the operation of 
existing approaches 
 
Expanded knowledge base of cross-border problems 
 
Expanded instituti onal capacity to 
implement policy across internal and 
external EU borders 
 No of reports providing 
analysis of existing 
institutional weaknesses in 
relation to transboundary pollution, and related 
solutions, by theme and 
MS  
No. policy/ technical 
proposals and approaches Reduced significance of 
transboundary problems 
 
Increased cooperation across internal and 
external EU borders  No. and quality of 
updated approaches for 
dealing with 
transboundary problems 
demonstrated to be 
effective and efficient  
No. of approaches for 
dealing with Attributable and 
specified 
environmental 
improvements due to the improved quality 
of policy approach/ 
management and use of new approaches to 
transboundary 
problems.  
 
 156Specific and Operational  
Objectives Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators 
and third countries 
activities to reduce 
environmental 
externalities 
adversely affecting 
the EU.  Demonstration and dissemination of 
new or updated approaches to address transboundary problems.   for addressing 
transboundary problems tested and demonstrated 
by theme and MS 
 Third country involvement 
in research, demonstration 
and dissemination activities by theme 
 
No. of networks or cooperation mechanism 
created transboundary 
problems replicated in other EU and non-EU 
countries 
 No. of networks and 
cooperation 
mechanisms improved or consolidated  
7. To contribute to the efforts to mitigate climate change  
− To improve the 
knowledge base and building it into 
effective mitigation 
actions. 
− To mainstream 
mitigation efforts 
into local and 
regional structures. 
− To develop pilot 
mitigation projects Funding of projects 
concerning mitigation activities.  Expanded knowledge base of good 
practices for mitigation activities  
Demonstration of new approaches to 
climate mitigation No of projects addressing 
mitigation activities  
No of pilot projects on 
mitigation activities Reduced levels of 
greenhouse gas 
emissions. 
 
Improved levels of 
energy efficiency. 
Take-up of technologies 
that facilitate mitigation Tones of GHG 
reduced  
Renewable energy 
production by demonstrated 
technologies 
 Energy saved 
  
Attributable and 
specified  climate 
improvements due to the improved quality 
of policy approach / 
management and use of new approaches  
8. To support efforts leading to  adaptation to climate change  
− To build the 
knowledge base on 
adaptation to climate 
change. 
− To develop strategies Funding of projects 
concerning adaptation 
activities.  Expanded knowledge base of good 
practices for mitigation activities 
 
Demonstration of new approaches to climate adaptation 
 
Increased capacity in evaluating No of projects addressing 
adaptation activities 
 
No. of local and regional adaptation strategies 
 
No. of new approaches Improved resilience to 
climate change. 
 
Improved climate 
proofing of investments 
 
Innovative adaptation Increased adapted 
capacity Attributable and 
specified  climate 
improvements due to the improved quality 
of management and 
use of new approaches  
 
 157Specific and Operational  
Objectives Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators 
for mainstreaming 
adaptation into local 
and regional 
governance 
structures. 
− To strengthen climate 
"proofing" of 
investments.   
− To develop 
innovative adaptation 
pilot projects. impacts and planning adaptation developed to facilitate 
adaptation in specific fields 
 
Reduced vulnerability measures 
 
 
 
 
 158ANNEX 11:  I NTEGRATED PROJECTS  
 
1. Main lessons learned from current and previous Programming period 
 
The recent mid-term eval uation for the period 2007-200983 concludes that LIFE is an efficient 
successful financial instrument crucial to the need s of environmental polic y. It is a catalyst for 
the implementation of some of the most de manding Directives, preparing the ground for 
continued management through other funds. LIFE is  therefore considered as the reference EU 
instrument for environmental financing. 
 
However, one of the aspects highlighted  by the mid-term evaluation is that building 
synergies between LIFE and other EU funds has been a challenge . There are many 
examples of mainstreaming EU and domestic re sources towards strategic environmental goals 
at territorial level. However, the widely implementation of this approach based on positive complementarity remains a challenge in prac tice. This partially derives from the way 
prioritisation is made at national or regiona l level. Competing priorities for limited funding 
result in many cases in a lower prioritisation given to environmental funding, especially for 
nature conservation and biodiversity. Also, th ere seems to be underdeveloped capacity to 
manage funds available.  
 LIFE brought positive exceptions to the above. For example, many agri-environmental 
measures  were tested in LIFE and afterwards  incorporated into Rural Development 
Programmes. Other LIFE projects allowed development of water resources management 
policies , paving the way for investments in water in frastructure co-financed by the ERDF or 
the CF. Such constructive synergies allowed additional mobilisation of funds for environmental purposes. A more constructive approach to comp lementarity between different 
EU instruments based on these positive experien ces should therefore be promoted for the next 
programming period.   LIFE is a small instrument and cannot be used to solve all environmental problems. Domestic funds and other EU funds remain the core f unding instruments for environmental protection. 
However, LIFE has an enormous catalyst effect  and its individual projects traditionally have 
a disproportionately large impact. For that reason, a new tool is proposed in the MFF 
Communication, i.e., Integrated Projects which are meant to mobilise both national and EU 
funds to implement environmental action plans as part of wider development programmes. 
They also have the potential to mobilise funds from financial institutions and the private 
sector. Therefore, Integrated Projects should be used to demonstrate to regional and 
national authorities the benefits of investin g in the environmental sector and push them 
to develop strategic frameworks and method s to use different funds  in an integrated 
way.  This would help to make comple mentarity of EU funding a reality. 
 
2. Concept and characteristics of Integrated Projects 
Integrated Projects are demonstration proj ects for the sustainable implementation of 
environmental action plans. An Integrated Project is similar to a traditional LIFE project but it 
covers a larger portion of the territory or a region (it could also be national), where the 
applicant, namely the authority responsible for the environmental sector concerned, aims at implementing a sectoral environmental act ion plan by carrying out the necessary 
                                                
 
83 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/d ocuments/com2010_516midterm_eval.pdf. 
 
 159environmental measures required to achieve the environmental objective (as specified in the 
environmental action plan), generating the ne cessary capacity to manage the specific 
environmental sector at the most  appropriate territorial/administ rative level in a durable way. 
The characteristics (and pre-conditions) of a LIFE Integrated Project are: 
− A multi-annual environmental action plan for a specific sector should already be in place, 
such as Prioritised action framework under the Habitats Directiv e or a ri ver basin 
management plan under the Water Framework Directive; 
− The above plans identify the overall financia l needs and sources of finance, including 
LIFE, required to implement the plan and thus  to achieve the environmental objective; 
− The LIFE project supports a series of speci fic activities and meas ures included in the 
environmental action plan (these constitute the Integrated Project and are specified in the 
project proposal). These specific activitie s are individually cl early defined with a 
financing plan, timelines and expected out comes, as traditional LIFE projects;  
− When submitting the Integrated Project proposal , the applicant includes a financial plan, 
indicating how  the measures included in th e overall environmental action plan should be 
resourced, including LIFE Integrat ed Project funds but also ot her regional, national and/or 
EU funds; 
− The applicant must demonstrate that the Inte grated Project itself delivers environmental 
outcomes also as a self-standing part of the overall environmental act ion plan and that it 
contributes to the outcomes of the overall plan. 
− Priority will be given to Integrated Projec ts having a cross-border dimension related to 
environmental impacts and protection, or internal  market aspects e.g., in the area of waste 
and resources or ecosystem services, to economic and employment impact. 
 These projects will be inclusive: involvement of  all relevant stakeholders (public, private and 
civil society) in the particular s ector and their funds  will be required. 
 It is foreseen that Integrated Projects will require an indicative EU contribution of €10million per project (whereas traditional projects  are expected to require around €1.5m). 
 
Box 1: Two theoretical examples of  LIFE "Iintegrated Projects"  
1. Natura2000  
Region X has 10 Natura2000 sites under its jurisdiction so it de velops a Regional Programme for Natura2000 covering all the 
sites. Such program covers all aspects related to the management of the sites, and all the features needed to guarantee the 
connectivity and the functionality of the network thus coveri ng aspects like green infrastruct ures and ecosystem services. 
This programme identifies a range of management and conserva tion needs which are translated into different activities that 
require financial support.  
These activities include inter alia  restoring four sites (removal of alien species,  reforestation, creation of ponds etc), recurring 
management once the restoration is finalised, create corridors be tween the sites, stop agricultur e in one site, leasing hunting  
rights in another site, installing waste wa ter treatment systems for houses' discharg es affecting a river and ground waters 
connected to five sites, soil decontamination in three sites, conditioning two sites for visitors  (interpretative paths, visito rs 
centres, observation towers and spots, parking facilities), training  farmers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices i n 
three sites and buffers around, compensation payments etc.,  
Region X identifies the financial needs for the implementa tion of these activities and submits a proposal for a LIFE 
integrated project. This proj ect clearly specifies the activiti es or group of activities among those included in the programme 
that will be financed by LIFE (e.g. the restoration and c onnectivity activities, capacity building, awareness raising). In 
addition, it presents evidence on how it will use other funds (e.g. from EARD F, ERDF, private) to implement the 
complementary measures included in the pr ogramme (compensation payments, correction of power lines, infrastructure etc).  
 
 
 1602. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) at a transboundary scale  
A River Basin Competent Authority Y has a transboundary European  river basin under its responsibility. It develops a River 
Basin Management Plan according to the requirements of th e WFD. Such Plan covers all aspects related to water 
management in the river basin, aiming at ensuring "good status" for all waters in the river basin. The plan identifies more 
specific objectives (ecological status, quantitative status, chemical status, etc.) and identifies the range of measures that w ill 
be needed to achieve those objectives which are translated into different ac tivities requiring financial support.  
These measures include inter alia  reducing pollution from agriculture through promotion of environmentally sensitive 
farming practices (reduction of pesticides use, promotion of water saving, suspension of certain farming activities, etc); 
installing waster water treatment plants in  two agglomerations and gr een filters in specific areas to avoid percolation in 
ground waters; elimination of invasive alie n species and developing early  detection systems;  d econtamination of soil,  
developing biological monitoring methods and chemical monitori ng, prevention and limitation of input of pollutants to 
groundwater and surface water from industry, mining and quarrying activities and diffuse pollution; promotion of sustainable 
drainage schemes for flood risk, floods  vulnerability assessment and flood mappi ng and restoring floodplains etc.  
Competent Authority Y identifies, together with Competent Au thorities from other States bel onging to the same river basin 
district and other interested parties (eg.  representatives from hydropower industry, fa rmers' associations etc.) the financial 
needs for the implementation of these measures and activities an d submits, a proposal for a LIFE  integrated project. This 
project clearly specifies the measures/ activities or group of measur es/activities among those included in the River Basin 
Management Plan (and programme of meas ures) that will be financed by LIFE  (e.g. removal of obstacles for river 
connectivity to improve fish migration, development of moni toring methods, awareness raisi ng, partnerships etc.). In 
addition, it presents evidence on how it will use other av ailable funds (e.g. from ERDF , EARDF, public, private) to 
implement the complementary measures included in the programme (compensations payments, infrastructure etc).  
The potential contribution of Inte grated Projects to the practical  integration of environmental 
objectives can be exemplified by the experien ce of INTERREG projects,  since Integrated 
Projects share the same objective as some IN TERREG projects that seek to better integrate 
economic, social and environmental objectives . Some INTERREG project s therefore provide 
possible illustrations of the inte gration benefits that might follo w from Integrated Projects. It 
should be noted that INTERREG projects do not seek to combine different funding sources 
and therefore do not have the requirement and potential impact as Integrated Projects do. 
Below are summarised two examples of INTE RREG projects which have had a particular 
focus on integrating environmental objectives with wider economic development objectives. 
These projects illustrate the potential benefits from integrating economic, social and environmental objectives as the basis of co-ordinated action and learning. 
Box 2:  Successful  examples of Integrated Management from INTERREG 
TIDE (Tidal River Development)  
The TIDE project covers the estuaries of the Rivers Elbe (DE), Humber (UK), Scheldt (BE/NL) and Weser (DE) and 
brings together experts, scientists, po licy-makers and managers representing econ omic, social and environmental interests 
in the four estuaries. TIDE aims to  promote the economic obje ctives of port developmen t, alongside environmental 
protection and social benefits to the wi der population through the development and use of ecosystem services. TIDE seeks 
to integrate the physical needs for economic development with  ecological and environmental needs based on the definition 
of ecosystem services. In this  case study the ecosystem service approach is used and thought of as: defining benefits that 
estuary ecosystems can provide, defining services required to realise these be nefits and assessing what management 
techniques are needed to provide for these services.  
 
The project aims to realise its objectives through principles  of shared management and four work packages have been 
designed, one assigned to each partner. Work package integr ation is leading to shared experiences and promotion of 
knowledge transfer between sites and partne rs. All partners contribute to the diff erent work packages although one partner 
initiates each package by producing a guidance document and a central team co-ordinates the different partners. The 4 
work packages are designed to cover the following different themes: 
− Improve Knowledge on Estuary Functioning  
− Realise Integrated Management Planning / Governance  
− Mitigation and Compensation Measures  
− Transnational Exchange & Capacity Building. 
 
 
 161 
The integrated partnership model is ach ieved primarily through the work packag e integration and also through general 
cooperation and sharing of knowledge and solutions by  partners. The benefits of this method include:  
− Provision of a forum for issues to be discusse d between port authorities and conservation bodies. 
− Scope to learn lessons draw n from previous projects 
− Knowledge sharing between partners, breaking down previously polarised views 
− Identifying and establishing the strategic management themes for estuaries to be  assessed alongside estuary 
specific themes.  
 
Sources: TIDE, Tidal River development -  
http://www.northsearegion.eu/files/ repository/20091028105326_TIDE_Flyer_8s_K07_Druck.pdf ; TIDE Times, Issue 01 
2010, Hamburg Port Authority &s .Pro sustainable projects GmbH - http://tide-
project.eu/downloads/TIDE_Times_Issue_01.pdf ; Stakeholder interviews  
NATURESHIP 
The Natureship project is part of the Central Baltic Interr eg IVA Programme. The participating regions of the Programme 
are situated in Estonia, Finland (including Åland), Latvia and Sweden. The emphasis of the Natureship project is for a 
novel approach on planning and management of traditional rural landscapes and selected coast lines. The aim of the project 
is to create and restore an optimal ecosystem service network based on integrated sustainable coastal planning. The project 
builds on the earlier co-operation between partners on the In terreg IIIA project RUOKO (reed strategy in Finland and 
Estonia), in which an attempt was made to optimise ecosystem  services. This team was th en expanded to draw on other 
relevant knowledge such as the County Administrative C ouncil of Gotland who had mapped the Gotland coastal area, 
covering data relevant for ecosystem services. The different partners each took responsibility for different theme areas of 
the project including: 
− Integrated coastal planning 
− Landscape and habitat monitoring and evaluation with re trospective land cover and la nd use change detection 
using remote sensing and GIS 
− Management and species of traditional rural biotopes 
− City meadows  
− Conservation and management of  calcareous habitats in th e coastal cultural Landscape 
− Evaluation of ecosystem services as a tool for coastal zone  
− Management 
− Ecosystem services and mana gement of coastal lagoons. 
 
NATURSHIP highlighted a number of win-wi ns, reflecting the holistic and proactiv e objectives that can be funded under 
Interreg. The project has a strong focus on ecosystem se rvices, protecting natural re sources through planning and 
management whilst providing a safe and heal thy environment. In addition the project will also assess how to achieve cost-
effective planning and management of traditional rural biot opes in order to enhance public and biodiversity values. 
Sources: http://www.centralbaltic.eu/docum ents/doc_view/4-programme-docum ent-?tmpl=component&format=raw ; 
Evaluation of the Central Baltic Interreg IVA Programme 2007-2013, Final mid[term evaluation report, Deabaltika, 24 
November 2010; Stakeholder interviews .  
 
3.  Added value and impact of Integrated Projects  
The MFF Communication suggests that integrated  instruments could be used to maximise 
their leverage role by combining different f unding sources. LIFE, which is the specific 
instrument for the environment (as a contri butor funder) would guide the implementation 
process in an Integrated Proj ect by providing a specific environmental focus and expertise and 
by ensuring that the total funds mobilised have  the most positive environmental impact. The 
main benefits of Integrated Projects would therefore be: 
 
 162 
▪ Environmental priorities woul d become embedded into all the project activities as 
a requirement; 
▪ Administrative cost savings; because of a larger size and potential higher 
effectiveness of the projects84, replacing some smaller projects with associated 
reductions in the costs of applicat ions, and monitoring and evaluation; 
▪ As a result of their scale, Integrated Projects provide a greater ability to create 
employment opportunities linked to con tinuing environmental management both 
during the project lifetime and in the pos t-funding period work ensuring sustained 
results;  
▪ Because of their scale, Integrated Project s can establish a structured relationship 
with and develop project pipelines for th e relevant EU funds, thereby promoting 
the mobilisation of much larger resour ces to support environmental objectives. 
This should help to tackle the current under spending by the Structural Funds in 
the fields of biodivers ity and environment, 
▪ Opportunity to build capacity on a wi der scale with a wider spectrum of 
stakeholders; 
▪ Integrated Projects provide a major role  for regional and lo cal authorities as 
potential lead beneficiaries, which are also often the environmental competent 
authorities as well as being responsibl e for leading projects funded by Rural 
Development, the Operational Programmes for Structural Funds, and the future 
Natura 2000 Prioritised Action Frameworks.85 
The box below provides an early ill ustration of how an Integrated  Project might be used to 
support capacity building. 
Box 3: LIFE Integrated Project: E xample of use for capacity building 
NATURA 2000 in Slovenia - management models and info rmation system 
The Slovenian delegate to the Habitats Committee recently presented their national Manage ment Plan for Natura 2000. 
They are now considering the idea of an integrated project, building on a previous LIFE proj ect to exemplify the catalytic 
power of LIFE. 
A previous LIFE project led to a tran snational co-operation between different actors and different sectors (forestry, 
fisheries and water manageme nt). This capacity could now be used in an In tegrated Project. Slovenia is currently in the 
process of implementing legisl ation to ensure that integrated projects are feasible. 
Potential benefits: 
− Rural development funds could help in aspects of forest ry and agricultural, cohesion funds could be used to 
undertake sustainable tourism,  environmental protection and nature cons ervation activities, whilst LIFE funding 
would help with capacity building, awareness raising and training. 
− Combining these activities and funding is considered to provide a real opportunity to  bring together economic, 
social and environmental objectives leading to enhanced results. 
 
Practicalities: 
One single regulation and one set of guide lines would be required to cover admini strative and reporti ng aspects across all 
                                                 
84 The larger size of Integrated Project s responds to the call for larger projects made in the ex-post assessment of 
the LIFE III Programme. 
85Noted as a benefit of Integrated Projects by the Committee of the Regions (2011) DRAFT OPINION of the 
Commission for the Environment, Climate Change and Energy on THE EU LIFE PROGRAMME.THE WAY 
FORWARD.  
 
 163funding instruments. To ensure Integrated Pr ojects are feasible it  is essential that there is a strong project design phase wit h 
rigorous and detailed preparation which agree priorities across funding instruments.  
 
A further example describes LIFE projects th at could be considered as precursors of 
Integrated Projects. The case st udies below in Box 4 and 5 highl ight potential benefits of 
Integrated Projects, as outlined by the beneficiaries and also the challenges in developing and managing such projects. Integrated Project s have not been fully tested. Since the 
administrative capacity varies between MS and between projects, it w ill be important to 
encourage MS and regions to learn from each ot her and to develop mutual learning networks. 
 
Box 4: Projects that could have been a LIFE Integrated Project 
LIFE Integrated Projects: PM10 control in urban areas 
Four Austrian LIFE projects are interconn ected and all have PM10 control in urban areas as a main objective. Each project 
has been used as a further step in developing a more holistic  approach and contributing to a long term plan. The four 
projects could theoretically have been combined into a si ngle integrated project, which dr ew on several funding sources. 
Potential benefits 
− The larger project would have greater impacts; 
− The project would enable partners from different sectors to work together and allow a more effective; 
combination of different priorities such as climate change, health and air pollution;  
− Integrated projects would help to achieve economic  development alongside environmental protection; 
− Greater scope for innovation through the co-ordinatio n and synergy between environmental and economic 
objectives and activities. 
 
Practicalities 
 
An Integrated Project could follow-on from current LIFE proj ects, building on achievements to  date. In the case of PM10 
projects, they have created new knowledge and techniques wh ich an integrated project could develop over a larger 
geographical scale, combining LIFE funds which would fo cus on practical solutions with DG RTD funds to further 
scientific knowledge and structural funds to  invest in necessary infrastructure.  
 
In addition, to ensure the up-take of inte grated projects, it will be necessary to have just one application process in which 
you can apply for different combination of relevant funds an d one monitoring and evaluation process rather than separate 
processes for each fund. 
 
Furthermore clear clarification,  guidance, provision of releva nt definitions and frequently asked questions would help in 
the application process. The project suggested a two-step appl ication approach, the first step  establishing feasibility and 
eligibility, would be useful as applications  for integrated projects are likely to require significant resources. The two step 
approach ensures that the applicant is developing a suit able project before  submitting a completed application.  
 
The example below describes a LIFE project th at has successfully combined different funding 
sources.  
Box 5: LIFE Integrated Project: An example of multiple funding 
Protection and usage of aapa mires with a rich avifauna 
LIFE project actual costs: €2 .6m; ERDF project cost: €0.6m 
The aim of this project was to prepare conservation and mana gement plans for five areas within the central Lapland aapa 
mire zone, so that ecotourism and recreational use can be organised on a sustainable basis. 
 
The project was considered successful in combining the re sources gained from different EU sources (LIFE for planning 
and ERDF for construction of the tourism infrastructure ) and national funds (for construction of barns on the hay 
meadows). The funds were manage d efficiently. The EC paymen ts were made in time and did not cause any problems or 
delays in the implementation process.  
 
The project manager of this LIFE  project noted the following ( perscomm ): 
 
 164▪ Administratively the project was well set- up with clear roles and responsibilities fo r all parties. Objectives and results 
were separated for purposes of ef fective monitoring and evaluation; 
▪ It was not difficult to align the project to the different objectives of different funding sources as the various project 
objectives were clear. In addition differe nt project managers were required to cl early state their expectations in the 
preparation phase; 
▪ The use of various funding sources provi ded the opportunity to make environmental objectives more ambitious. The 
beneficiary also stated that integrated projects can crea te positive publicity and enhanc e the status of Natura 2000; 
▪ The combination of funds has not resulted in significant a dditional administrative costs.  If the project objectives are 
mutually supportive, the overall benefit is greater than any additional costs. 
 
By combining funds the projects can impl ement measures that the LIFE fund woul d have been unable to support such as 
service structures. Implementation of the service structure, in Lapland has increa sed interest in Natura 2000 areas and 
brought positive publicity to the project and to  the LIFE programme more generally.  
The success in combining funds has provided confidence in th e approach; and it will be used  in the future, with the 
expectation that this will allow greater integration of e nvironmental project activity in wider development activity, 
engaging more stakeholders and build ing capacity, improve th e end results and contribute to sustainability. 
 
The table below highlights potential risks based on the reflections of public authorities that 
have considered the use of Integrated Projects.  T h e y  w e r e  c o l l e c t e d  a s  p a r t  o f  t h e  I m p a c t  
Assessment, and provide possible soluti ons that could be further developed. 
Table 6: Summary of Reflections on Inte grated Projects from LIFE Beneficiaries 
Potential Challenge Possible Solution 
Structural funds have a decentralised 
management opposed to LIFE’s centralised 
management which could limit the ability to 
effectively manage Integrated Projects and transfer lessons. LIFE as a centrally managed progr amme based on annual calls, could 
approve ‘potential’ Integrated Proj ects, or ‘Hub Projects’ allowing the 
project to subsequently link with other partners and funds in the 
decentralised programmes.  The hub project would negotiate w ith the other programmes before 
application, and contract following approval from LIFE. The monitoring 
and evaluation requirements would be established and managed by LIFE. 
If the links fail to be made, the projec t continues as standalone LIFE project 
(albeit potentially larger than the average). 
Other instruments will need to revise their legal basis to recognise the use of Integrated 
Projects and to include them as an eligible activity under the main funding instruments Discussions between DGs have taken pl ace to discuss and develop the idea. 
It will be important to test the feasibility of any proposed model with 
beneficiaries and NCPs, perhaps through a workshop or seminar. 
There is a lack of capacity on the ground to put together proposals for Integrated Projects. Technical assistance funding could be  made available. Best practice 
examples will need to be developed and provided to prospective applicants. 
Different eligibility criteria of the different 
funding instrument may pose problems for 
potential beneficiaries Although the current LIFE programme is  addressing some of the gaps in 
the eligibility criteria, the Commission could streamline eligibility criteria 
further and make explicit what activiti es and which type of beneficiaries 
and activities can be funded through Inte grated Projects. Alternatively, it 
could, through adequate cross-refere nce in the statutory basis of the 
different instruments, allow the requirements of the Integrated Project to 
take precedence, allowing other eligibility criteria to be excluded. 
Different funding instruments may be 
working with different timetables and also 
different timing cycles (e.g. structural funds operate an n+2 cycle)  A robust planning stage with defined roles and responsibilities and detailed 
delivery plans will be required. The LIFE Unit could contribute to the 
planning of, for example, Operationa l Programmes for Structural Funds, 
commenting on draft Proposals. 
Since projects will be larger and longer, there is greater scope for some 
flexibility. An n+2 type rule would potentially prevent projects requiring 
structural funds being approved in the last three years of the MFF given an 
average life of say 5 years. Again direct involvement may be required by 
the LIFE Unit, or may require the suspension of such rules under the 
precedence granted to Integrated Projects 
 
 165Potential Challenge Possible Solution 
Multiple monitoring and evaluation 
requirements associated  with the different 
funds could make the administration complex and costly The LIFE monitoring, evaluation and reporting system could be extended 
in agreement with other instruments to include the completion and 
distribution of relevant monitoring and evaluation reports to national/local programme committees  
Source: Interviews with beneficiaries from five LIFE pr ojects and discussions with DG Environment officials  
Consultation responses from a survey carri ed out by the Committee of the Regions (CoR)86 
with local and regional authorities found that the majority considered that  Integrated Projects 
were both highly desirable and f easible.  85% of the respondents like the idea of ‘Integrated 
Projects’, contrary to only 10% who disagree with the concept; 5% of respondents did not 
express an opinion. About three quarters of the respondents consider Inte grated Projects quite 
feasible, while 21% finds those projects very fe asible; only 5% believe that such projects are 
not feasible. 
The box below summarises the main findings of the consultation with respect to Integrated 
Projects 
Box 7: Consultation views from local and region al authorities on Inte grated Projects (IPs) 
The main finding of the consultation, with local and regional authorities, in relation to Integrated Projects, is that they are  
both desirable and feasible. The main bene fits and problems are summarised below. 
The benefits foreseen from the use of Integrated Projects include: 
− addressing a wide variety of problems, notably in th e fields of ‘freshwater management’, ‘nature and 
biodiversity’ and ‘resource use and waste’ (except where a sole and specific focus on the environment is 
required); 
− enhancing coordination in environmental issues esp ecially when involving inte rnational cooperation;  
− promoting coordination between sectoral policies and between different territorial areas;  
− enabling the optimisation of resources and increased value for money; and 
− creating opportunities for the implementation of large-scale actions, bringing together both a large number of 
experts/technicians and adequate funds. 
 
Problems foreseen for the use of Integrated Projects include:  
− the lack of necessary staff capacity to suppor t Integrated Projects at the local level;  
− concerns that such projects are too complex and would fail to achieve hi gh quality standards; 
− concerns over the increased coordination requirements between the different agencies governing IPs, calling for 
consensus at a high governance level; 
− the need to simplify financial reporting procedures; and 
− the difficulties faced by public bodies lacking resources to co-finance IPs. 
 
Source: Committee of the Regions Consultation: LIFE Impact A ssessment: Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU 
Life+ instrument (Table 1) and text 
Survey replies received from 40 respondents from 12 MS 
 
4.  Critical mass evaluation 
 
Given the resources allocated to the Environm ent sub-programme of the future LIFE, an 
analysis of ‘what will it take’ to produce a st ep change in the impact of the programme has 
been made. The number of Integrated Projects  required relates to the relevant territorial 
‘units’ for each environmental theme. A statis tical relevance of 15-20% of the relevant 
territorial unit has been used to determine the number of projects required in a specific sector 
to have enough examples appli cable to different administrativ e and regional characteristics 
                                                 
86Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU Li fe+ instrument, Committee of the Regions, 2011. 
 
 166(including levels of capacity development) so that different  experiences can be widely 
disseminated among Member States and regions.  
Since Integrated Projects aim at implementing environmental action plan s, only those sectors 
where EU legislation require s some planning or program ming (i.e., programmed-base 
Directives) could be considered for Integrated Projects funding. Th is is the case for Prioritised 
Action Framework under the Habitats Directiv e, a River Basin Management Plan under the 
Water Framework Directive, waste minimisati on plan under the Waste Framework Directive, 
air pollution abatement plan to meet the air qual ity requirements of the CAFÉ legislation and 
the Programme of measures under the Marine Stra tegy Directive. It can also derive from EU 
recommendations such as sustainable urban pla n, integrated coastal zone management plans 
etc.). These sectors are also those that require a planned and large territorial scale action. This 
is the reason for selecting the sectors outline d below. Urban has been embedded into the Air 
sector and Integrated Coastal Zone Management  into the Water Framework Directive (which 
covers transitional waters) and the Marine Strate gy Directive (which covers Coastal waters). 
 Integrated Projects would gra dually be introduced in the Cl imate Action sub-programme in 
the area of mitigation and adaptation, in order to allow time build up capacity needed for such 
projects. 
 
Integrated Projects in Nature
 – The relevant unit is the NUTS 2 region, given than regions 
tend to be responsible for the management of Natura2000. This also has the merit of linking 
directly to possible regional funding. There are 271 NUTS 2 regions. Assuming the minimum 
level of action required, one In tegrated Project for nature c onservation, in say between 15-
25% of the regions over a 7-year programme pe riod would be needed. This means between 6 
and 10 Nature Integrated Projects per year.87 
Integrated Projects in Environment  – The relevant unit depends on the environmental theme.  
• Waste management – the appropriate unit is also probably the NUTS 2 region, given the 
nature of regional waste management plans.  15% Integrated Project activity over the 
programme would provide a minimum level of catalytic effect – sa y a minimum of 6-10 
projects a year; 
• Water management – the appropriate unit is th e river basin district of which there are 110 
river basin districts an d 176 national branches. Given the im portant issues a ssociated with 
transposition and implementa tion of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and the 
interest in ensuring cross-co mpliance with the WFD as a condition of regional funding, 
then a greater share of ‘units’ should be covered – 15-25%. This would require a 
minimum of say 3-4 projects a year; 
• Air quality management – activity in large cities to combat urban air pollution (e.g. 
particulates, low level ozone and nitrogen di oxide) would also benefit from the use of 
Integrated Projects. Building on the 2013 Europ ean ‘Year of Air’, 3 IP projects a year 
would allow action in 20 of the most pollute d EU cities. This could be combined with 
other urban elements 
• Marine environment – probably 1-2 Integrated  project per sea basin (3-5 projects per 
year).    
                                                 
87 25% of 271, divided by 7. 
 
 167The Environment strand would therefore require  a minimum of 13-15 Integrated Projects a 
year, if the use of these projects was to really  tackle the institutional weaknesses that underpin 
the lack of adequate policy implementation and effective policy integration in the entire acquis . 
Given that these projects are larger in si ze (EU contribution €10 million per project), this 
would imply that traditional projects could not be financed. These trad itional projects cannot 
be phased out since they address particular need s. Firstly, these projects  address the needs of 
stakeholders that are not necessa rily public authorities. In ma ny cases, environmental projects 
are aimed at demonstrating ways to achieve a mo re effective implementation of the legislation 
by the addressee of environmental legislation,  which could be a SME or another type of 
private operator. In addition, not all environm ental activities require a planned and large 
territorial scale action. For exampl e, some activities aiming at ha lting the loss of biodiversity, 
while being part of the EU Biodiversity strate gy, require small scale in terventions that can 
create projects 'blueprints' to be scaled up and continued through other funds. Finally, not all 
public authorities would be ready at the begi nning of the programmi ng period to submit an 
Integrated Project in some cas es due to lack of capacity.  
Based on the experience under LIFE+, between 8-10 traditional project per environmental 
sector would be required to achieve critical  mass and create multipliers. If environmental 
sectors are grouped in 6 sectors (biodiversity, water, natural resources and waste, environment 
health, which would include noi se and chemicals, emissions, which would include air and 
IPPC, and green economy) around 56 to 60 tradit ional projects per year are required in 
addition to information projects. 
Therefore, Integrated Projects would concentr ate on the sectors (1) where implementation and 
integration problems are more significant, (2 ) are more linked to achieving Europe 2020 
resources efficiency targets; and (3) have more  possibility to link to, and therefore mobilise, 
other EU funds.  
(1) Sectors where implementation or in tegration problems are more significant 
As to implementation problems, a good indicato r is infringement cases. Nature conservation, 
waste and water legislation accounts for 59% of the infringement case load for the environment sector, with the sectors "impact a ssessment" and air contri buting the bulk of the 
remainder (27%). Other sectors, such as Marine, are still in a development phase.
88  The last 
few years have seen a marked increase in cases in the air sector.  
Implementation problems often reflect integr ation problems. For example, the high 
percentage of cases concerning na ture protection legislation can be explained by the fact that 
many infrastructure developments proposed in Member States that lead to complaints are 
those affecting in some way Natura 2000 sites or  EU protected species. As shown above when 
analysing consistency with other EU funds and the Zero option, Nature conservation also has 
problem of absorption capacity in other EU pr ogrammes, partially because authorities do not 
always perceive the socio-economic benefit of nature conservation.  
The overall percentage share of waste and water cases reflects the fact that they have entered 
crucial implementation phases. The waste sector also has problems of absorption capacity in 
other EU programmes. As in the case of Na ture, the capacity to develop and prepare 
investments, and to channel large amounts of EU funding, is still lacking in some Member 
States. There is a risk that some funds from the 2007-2013 programming period will not be spent in time. 
                                                
 
88 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/statistics.htm. 
 
 168Nature, water and waste are entering crucial implementation phases. In the near future, the 
Habitats Directive will move from designati on to active management and restoration; 
similarly, under the Water Framework Directiv e (WFD), the river basin management plans 
will need implementation to achieve the ob jective of good environmental status. Air 
legislation will be revised in 2013, which implie s that in the period 2014-2020 will also enter 
its crucial implementation phase. The Marine legislation will enter as well the crucial implementation phase, since by 2020 Member States  should have achieved or maintain a good 
environmental status. 
Management and implementation costs for Na tura2000, water and waste are very high i.e., 
€5.8 billion per year for Natura2000, €30 billion per year for water, €7-12 billion per year for 
municipal waste compared to Air which requir es about €1 billion per year (see Annex 5).  
(2) Sectors that are more linked to achievi ng Europe 2020 resource efficiency targets and 
direct environmental benefits  
The Resource efficiency roadmap indentifies bi odiversity, water, waste, air and soil as the 
main environmental sectors that are essential to shift towards a more resource efficient 
economy. Of these, biodiversity, water, waste and air are suitable for Integrated Projects. 
As to direct environmental benefits, as show n in section 2.2.2(a) and Annex 7, Nature, water 
and waste are the sectors with more direct en vironmental benefits. In addition, air provides 
many socio-economic benefits linked to healt h. Not enough information about marine projects 
exists as to determine the envi ronmental benefits generated.  
(3) Sectors that have more possibility to link to, and therefore mobilise, other EU funds.  
Mainstreaming of nature, water and waste is much consolidated and has been improved under 
the MFF Communication proposals thereby providing more opportunities for providing 
examples for integrated funding to solve th e significant absorption capacity problems 
identified. Air has also improved mainstreaming due to its health imp acts, and many links 
with climate change (especially in urban area s). The new European Ma ritime and Fisheries 
policy has also improved the integration of Nature Directives and the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive.  
Additional criteria
: 
(4) The maturity of the sector  (i.e., the development of plan s and programmes is required by 
the legislation and they are already in place),  including the success of environmental sectors 
in LIFE. 
Nature, water and waste are probably the most mature environmental sectors in terms of 
planning and programming. Management plan s for Natura2000, River Basin Management 
Plans and Waste management plans have already been developed. The Habitats Directive will 
require a programme approach applied to th e network (and not only to a site) through 
Prioritised Action Frameworks. The Water Fram ework Directive’s River Basin Management 
Plans already foresees an integrated approach, and there is an increasi ng call for overreaching 
waste strategies.  
As to the consolidation of the sectors in LI FE, Nature, water and waste are the traditionally 
successful sectors: 50% of resources are allocated  to Nature, and water and waste applications 
amount to almost 70% of all LIFE Environmen t applications, with an average of 50-60 
applications for water and 80- 100 for waste compare with 12 a pplications for air. Marine 
applications tend to be done in the context of the Habitats Directive.  
 
 
 169(5) The stakeholders’ opinion co uld also be used to discri minate between one or another 
sector.  As seen in Box 9 above, nature, water and waste are the sectors signalled by 
stakeholders. Air is also men tioned but to a lesser extent 
 
5. Expected progression over the programmi ng period for the sub-programme for 
Environment 
 
A progressive decrease in the number of tradit ional Action grant LIFE projects financed (and 
a parallel decrease in the budget dedicated  to such projects) is e xpected during the Programme 
implementation . In parallel, an increase in the number of Integrated Projects is foreseen (see 
projections below).  For the nature component, the start wi ll be easier since the current LIFE+ 
Regulation is financing the ela boration of Prioritise d Action Framework that will serve as a 
basis for the Integrated Projects . For water and waste a slower start is expected i.e., fewer 
projects in the beginning of the programming period.   
Figure 5.1. Integrated Projects covered (water, waste, nature) 
 
Budget Progression 
LIFE Environment sub-programme
-100,00200,00300,00400,00500,00600,00700,00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year€ millionTraditional 
Integrated projects
Total LIFE ENV budget
TOTAL LIFE
Log. (Total LIFE ENV
budget)
 
 
Figure 5.2 Integrated Projects covered (wat er, waste, nature, air; targets reduced) 
Budget Progression 
LIFE Environment sub-programme
-100,00200,00300,00400,00500,00600,00700,00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year€ millionTraditional 
Integrated projects
Total LIFE ENV budget
TOTAL LIFE
Log. (Total LIFE ENV
budget)
 
 
 170 
The table below summarises foreseen evoluti on of the number and budget for Integrated 
Projects over the programming period, in orde r to reach the critical mass threshold. 
 
 
Table 5.1 Possible evolution scenarios for IP in th e Programming period (water, waste, Nature)- current 
prices 
 
Year NAT-IP Budget (€ 
million) ENV IP Budget (€million) 
2014 3 30 2 20 
2015 4 40 4 40 
2016 6 60 7 70 
2017 8 80 9 90 
2018 10 100 12 120 
2019 10 100 15 150 
2020 10 100 12 120 
  51 510 61 610 
(Benchmark) 49 56-63  
Critical mass  7/year  8-9/year   
budget   
 
Table 5.2. Possible evolution scenarios for IP in th e Programming period (water, waste, nature and air)- 
current prices) 
 
Year NAT-IP Budget (€ 
million) ENV IP Budget (€million) 
2014 3 30 5 42.5 
2015 4 40 7 62.5 
2016 6 60 10 92.5 
2017 8 80 12 112.5 
2018 10 100 13 127.5 
2019 10 100 15 150.0 
2020 10 100 15 142.5 
  51 510 77 730 
(Benchmark) 49 83-98  
Critical mass  7/year  12-14/year   
budget   
 
 
 171Figure 1 Programmatic approach and integrated  projects in practice: Natura 2000 example  

 
 172
Figure 2:  Programmatic approach and integr ated projects in practice: River Basin Man agement Plans (Water Framework Directive) 
 
 
 
 
 
 173ANNEX 12:  REFERENCES  
Sources of information used for the pres ent Impact assessment are the following: 
a. Official documents of the European Commission 
• DG JRC (2004) Promoting environmental tec hnologies: sector analyses, barriers and 
measures. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/e tap/pdfs/spc_finalreport_ipts.pdf 
• EC (2010). Report from the Commission. 27th Annual Report on Monitoring the 
Application of EU Law (2009). COM( 2010)538. European Commission. 1 October 
2010. Brussels. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/commun ity_law/infringements/infri ngements_annual_report_27_e
n.htm  
• EC (2010). The EU Budget Review (C OM(2010) 700 final). Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/library/com_2010_700_en.pdf  
• EC (2010). 2009 Environmental Policy Review: Part 2. SEC(2010)9745 final. 
Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/pdf/policy/EPR%202009_SEC_2010_0975_Part%20
2.pdf   
• EC (2010). Sustainable Deve lopment. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/  
• EC (2010). Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative: Innovation Union COM(2010) 546 Final. 
Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/re search/innovation-unio n/pdf/innovation-union-
communication_en.pdf  
• EC (2010). Eurostat. Available from: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/por tal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ 
• EC (2010). Environment – LIFE Progr amme: Raptors. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/envi ronment/life/themes/animalandplants/lists/raptors.htm 
• EC (2009). Part III: Annexes to Impact  Assessment Guidelines. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/gove rnance/impact/commission_gui delines/docs/iag_2009_annex_
en.pdf   
• EC (2009). PRO INNO Paper 7: The imp act of publicly funded research on 
innovation. Available from: www.proinno-
europe.eu/admin/upl oaded.../NBNA23100ENC.pdf   
• EC (2008). Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the European Union (2008/C 115/01). Available from:  
http://www.ecb.int/ecb/le gal/pdf/fxac08115enc_002.pdf 
 
 174• EC (2007) Mid term review of the 6th Environmental Action Programme, COM(2007) 
225 Final. Available from:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSer v.do?uri=COM:2007:0225:FIN:EN:PDF  
• EC (2007). Proposal for a Directive of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the Council on 
the protection of the environment thr ough criminal law. COM(2007)51. Brussels. 
9.2.2007. 
• EC (2007). Commission staff working doc ument - Accompanying document to the 
proposal for a Directive of the European Pa rliament and of the Council on industrial 
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast): Impact Assessment 
(COM(2007) 843 final). Ava ilable from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=462132:cs &lang=en&list=511 975:cs,516991:cs,508612:
cs,505133:cs,499125:cs,485132:cs,461932:cs,46 2133:cs,462132:cs,261603:cs,&pos=
9&page=1&nbl=16&pgs=10&hwords=& checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte 
• EC (2007). Proposal for a Directive of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the Council on 
the protection of the environment through criminal law. COM(2007)51.  
• EC (2006). Thematic Strategy on the Sust ainable Use of Pesticides: Impact 
Assessment. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/envi ronment/ppps/pdf/sec_2006_0894.pdf 
• EC (2005) The Communication on Thema tic Strategy on Air Pollution and The 
Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Clean er Air for Europe”: Impact Assessment. 
(COM(2005)446 final). Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archi ves/cafe/pdf/ia_report_en050921_final.pdf  
• EC (2004). Commission Working Docu ment, ‘Integrating environmental 
considerations into other policy areas – a stocktaking of the Cardiff process’. COM 
(2004) 394 final. 
• EC (2004) Co-ordination Group for Biodi versity and Nature (meeting 02/03/2010). 
Financing Natura 2000 – State of Play, Ag enda item 3.A, Doc.3.A and European 
Commission (2004). Financing Na tura 2000. (COM(2004)431 final) 
• EC(2004). Integrating environmental consid erations into other policy areas – a 
stocktaking of the Card iff process. COM(2004)394. 
• EC(2004). Financial Perspectives 2007 – 2013. COM(2004)487. 
• EC (1998). Commission Working Document, “Partnership for integration.  A Strategy 
for integrating environment into EU policies”. COM (1998) 333 final.    
    
 
 175b. Articles, books, other literature  
• ADB (2008). Effectiveness of ADB’s Capac ity Development Assistance. How to Get 
Institutions Right. 
• Allio, Lorenzo and Fandel, Marie-Hélène (2006). Making Europe work: improving the 
transposition, implementation and enforcemen t of EU legislation. EPC Working Paper 
No. 25. European Policy Centre. June. Brussels. Available at: www.epc.eu. 
• Antypas, A (2010) Environment and the Pu rposes of a Danube Area Macro-regional 
Strategy 
• BirdLife Europe et al. (2010). Changing Pe rspectives: How the EU budget can shape a 
sustainable future. Available from: http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=7819455B-
C145-9353-9D77F0192D2A9BD2&showMeta=0 
• Börzel, Tanja,  and Hofmann, Tobias (2007) . Why do member states infringe on EU 
law? A quantitative study on the interactive effects of capacity and power. Centre for 
European Studies Working Papers 148.  
• Christensen, J. H.; Hewitson, B.; Busuioc, A.; Chen, A.; Gao, X.; Held, I.; Jones, R.; 
Kolli, R. K.; Kwon, W.-T.; Laprise, R.; Maga ña Rueda, V.; Mearns, L.; Menéndez, C. 
G.; Räisänen, J.; Rinke, A.; Sarr, A.  and Whetton, P., 2007. Regional Climate 
Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The P hysical Science Basis. Contribution of 
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Re port of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change. Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manni ng, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, 
K. B.; Tignor, M. and Miller, H. L. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 
• Culture Action Europe (2010). The EU 2020 Strategy: Analysis and Perspectives. 
Available from: http://www.cultureactioneurope.org/lang-
en/component/content/article/41-general/ 597-the-eu-2020-strate gy-analysis-and-
perspectives  
• Demmke, Christoph (2004). Implementation of  environmental policies in the US and 
the EU. In: Vig, N. and Fauvre, M. (eds). Green Giants? Environmental Policies in the 
US and the EU. MIT Press.  
• EEA (2010). State of the Environment (SOER) Assessment. Available from: 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer 
• EEA (2010) Global and European Temperature CSI 012 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-ma ps/indicators/global-and-european-
temperature/global-and-europ ean-temperature-assessment-3 
• EEA (2008) Impacts of Europe’s Ch anging Climate – 2008 indicator based 
assessment. EEA Report 4/2008 
 
 176• EEA (2007) Air pollution in Eu rope 1990 – 2004. EEA Report 2/2007 
• EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook 2010 – Air Pollution 
• EEA (2009) Progress towards the European  2010 biodiversity target. EEA Report 
4/2009. 
• EEA (2010) Use of freshwater resources  – outlook from the EEA (Outlook 014) 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/i ndicators/use-of-freshwater-resources-
outlook/use-of-freshwa ter-resources-outlook 
• EEA (2007) Europe’s environment – the fourth  assessment.  State of the Environment 
Report 1/2007 
• EEA (2010) The European Environment Stat e and Outlook – Nature and Biodiversity 
• EEA (2010) Land Take (CSI 014) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/indicators/land-take/land-t ake-assessment-published-nov-2005 
• EEA (2010) Towards an early warning and information system for invasive alien 
species (IAS) threatening biodivers ity in Europe.   EEA Report 5/2010 
• EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook - Soil 
• EEA (2010) The European Environment Stat e and Outlook – Material Resources and 
Waste 
• EEA (2009) Diverting waste from landfill.  Effectiveness of waste-management 
policies in the European Union. EEA report 7/2009 
• Euractiv (2010) Greens unimpressed by dr aft 'Europe 2020' plan. Available from: 
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-envi ronment/eus-draft-2020-strategy-fails-
impress-environment-news-282980  
• Europa Press Release RAPID (2009) Comm ission launches consultation on EU 2020: 
a new strategy to make the EU a smarter, greener social market. Available from: 
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRel easesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1807 
• Farmer, Andrew (2007). Simplifying EU  Environmental Policy. Study for the 
European Parliament’s  Committee on Enviro nment, Public Health and Food Safety 
under contract IP/A/ENVI/FWC/2006-172/C1/SC4. 
• Gallagher, N. (2003). Fact sheet on LIFE project ‘Epicentre - The application of 
Environmental Performance Evaluation a nd EMS to achieve and report regional 
environmental improvement’ LIFE00 ENV/IRL/000756. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/projec t/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dsp
Page&n_proj_id=1884&docType=pdf 
 
 177• Gallup Organisation (2007). Survey of the Observatory of European SMEs. Available 
from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterp rise/policies/sme/files/an alysis/doc/2007/02_summary_en.pd
f 
• Garnaut, R., Howes, S., Jotzo, F., Sheehan, P., 2008, 'Emissions in the Platinum Age: 
the Implications of Rapid Development for Climate Change Mitigation', Oxford 
Review of Economic Policy 24 (2), 377-401 
• Geeraerts, Kristof, Bursens, Peter and Leroy, Pieter (2006). De omzetting van de 
kaderrichtlijn water in Vlaanderen. Succes- en  faalfactoren in de totstandkoming van 
het decreet integraal waterbelei d. Universiteit Antwerpen. Steunpunt 
Milieubeleidswetenschappen. December 2006. 
• Griffiths, N. (2010). Europe 2020: innovati on, green growth and jobs; Reshaping the 
EU's long-term strategy - take two. Available from: 
http://www.innovationeu.org/news/in novation-eu-vol2-1/0199-europe-2020-
innovation-green-growth-and-jobs.html 
• Hulme, P. E. (2007) Biological Invasions in Europe: Drivers, Pressures, States, 
Impacts and Responses. Biological Invasions, (25), 56–80 
• IEEP, Bio and Ecologic (2009) Study on Insp ection Requirements for Waste Shipment 
Inspections. Study for the European Co mmission under the Framework Contract 
G.4/FRA/2007/0067. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste /shipments/pdf/report_august09.pdf.  
• IPCC (2001) Special Report on Emissions Scen arios, in IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 
2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Work ing Groups I, II and III to the Fourth 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing 
Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. 
• Knill, Christoph and Lenschow, Andrea (2000). New concepts – old problems? The 
institutional constraints for the effective implementation of EU environmental policy. 
Paper presented at the Conference of the International Studies Association in Los 
Angeles, USA. March 2000. 
• Krämer, Ludwig (2004). Data on Environmental Judgements by the EC Court of 
Justice. Journal for European Enviro nmental & Planning Law. Vol 1. Issue 2. 
September 2004. pp. 127-135. 
• Milieu Ltd, AmbienDura and FFact ( 2009) Study on the feasibility of the 
establishment of a Waste Implementa tion Agency. Report for the European 
Commission, DG Environment under Study Contract DG ENV.G.4/ETU/2008/0080r. 
December 2009. 
 
 178• ODI (2006). Capacity Development for Policy Advocacy: Current Thinking and 
Approaches among Agencies Supporting Ci vil Society Organisations. Prepared by 
Blagescu, M. and Young, J. 
• OECD (2006). The Challenge of Capac ity Development: Working Towards Good 
Practice.  
• Persson (2004), Stockholm Environment Institute, “Environmental Policy Integration 
– An Introduction” 
• Rechtschaffen, C. (2007). Shining the s potlight on EU Compliance with the 
environment. 
• Rhodes, Edwardo Lao. 2003. Environmental Jus tice in America. Indiana University 
Press: Bloomington, IN 
• Richardson, Jeremy (ed.) (2001). Europ ean Union: Power and Policy-making. 
Routledge. 
• Siepcevic, Reinhard (2009). The judicial  enforcement of EU law through national 
courts: possibilities and limits . Journal of European Public Policy. Vol 16. Issue 3. pp 
378-394. 
• Stern, N. (2007): The Economics of Climate change: The Stern Review, Cambridge, 
available at: http://www .occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm 
• TEEB for National and International Po licy Makers (2009). Available from: 
http://www.teebweb.org/ForPolicymakers/tabid/1019/Default.aspx 
• Ten Brink, Patrick and Farmer, Andrew (2005). Funding Environmental Compliance: 
lessons learned from inte rnational practice. OECD, 
http://www.ieep.eu/publications/ pdfs/2005/fundingenvcompliance.pdf  
• UNEP FI/PRI and TruCost (2010). Univ ersal ownership. Why environmental 
externalities matter to institutional invest ors. UNEP FI. New York. Available from: 
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/ documents/universal_ownership.pdf 
• UNDP (2007). Capacity Assessment methodology: User’s Guide. 
• University of Southampton, Federation of Sm all Businesses et al (2008), Sustainable 
Waste Management: Implementing Sustainabl e Waste Management Within Micro and 
Small to Medium Sized Enterprises 
• Wennerås, Pal (2007). The enforcement of EC environmental law. Oxford University 
Press. pp 341. 
 
 179• Wilkinson, David (2007): ‘Environmental Polic y Integration at EU level – State-of-
the-Art Report’, EPIGOV Paper No. 4, Ecol ogic – Institute for International and 
European Environmental Policy: Berlin. 
c. Case studies 
1.3.1 Implementation of the French Bonus-Malus scheme 
• ACEA (2009) New passenger Car Registrations: 
www.acea.be/images/uploads/f iles/20091215_PRPC-FINAL-0911.pdf 
• Bredin E. (2010) Presentation held at IEA workshop in November 2010: French 
incentives supporting low emissions vehicl es: Focus on the Bonus/Malus scheme: 
www.iea.org/work/2010/tax/6_1_Bredin.pdf 
• CGDD (2010) Une évaluation du bonus malus automobile écologique, le point sur nr 
53, Mai 2010 : www.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/LPS53.pdf 
• Douaud A. (2010) CO2, Gaz a effet de serre,  Economie de carburant, Priorite n1 en 
Europe www.unep.org/transport/pcf v/PDF/Douaud_VehiculeBasCO2.pdf 
• EIS Analysis Briefing (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles have 
decreased 
• IEEP et al. (2005)  ‘Servi ce contract to carry out ec onomic analysis and business 
impact assessment of CO2 emissions reducti on measures in the automotive sector’. A 
report to DGENV by IEEP, TNO and CAIR.  Brussels. 
• IFEN - Institut Français de l’environnem ent (2006) Etat de l’environnement en 
France, Paris, France 
• IHS et al. (2010) EC study Assessment of th e Effectiveness of Scrapping Schemes for 
Vehicles, study prepared by IHS & Global Insights: http://ec.europa.eu/enterpri se/sectors/automotiv e/files/projects/report_scrapping_sche
mes_en.pdf  
• La Dépêche (2009) Bonus-malus : Sarkozy c onfirme le principe mais reporte son 
extension, September 19, 2009 : http:// www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/09/19/476584-
Bonus-malus-Sarkozy-confirme-le-prin cipe-mais-reporte-son-extension.html 
• Les Echos (2010) Victime de son succès, le bonus-malus auto sera encore durci en 
2011 et en 2012, 29/10/10: www.lesechos.fr/economie-
politique/france/actu/020895168295-victime- de-son-succes-le-bonus-malus-auto-sera-
encore-durci-en-2011-et-en-2012.htm 
• Les Echos (2009b) Il faut étendre le bonus malus, Les Echos, 10 Septembre 2009 : 
http://www.lesechos.fr/info/france/02 0129653296-il-faut-etendre-le-bonus-malus.htm 
 
 180• MEEDDM - French Ministry of Ecology, su stainable development, transport and 
housing (2010) Q&A on the bonus ecologique  (in French): www.developpement-
durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page= article&id_article=13044 
• Roussel F. (2009) Qualité de l’air en Fran ce : une amélioration lente et hétérogène, 
actu-environnement, 31 July 2009 : http://www.actu-
environnement.com/ae/news/b ilan_2008_qualite_air_france_8027.php4 
• TNO et al. (2006)  Review and Analysis of the Reduction Pote ntial and costs of 
Technological and other Measures to redu ce CO2 emissions from Passenger Cars.  
TNO, IEEP and LAT.  Brussels. October 2006. 
• ten Brink, P. (2010)  Mitigating CO 2 Emissions from Cars in the EU (Regulation (EC) 
No 443/2009)    Chapter 6 in Oberthuer S. and Pallemaerts M. (Eds) The New Climate 
Policies of the European Union, Brussels University Press, Brussels 
1.3.2 Implementation of the Hab itats and Birds Directives  in Belgium (Flanders)  
• Decleer, K. (2008). Ecological  Restoration in Flanders. Mededelingen van het 
Instituut voor Naturuur- en Bosonderz oek INBO M.2008.04, Brussel, Belgium, 160 
pp. 
• Department Leefmilieu, Natuur en Eneg ie (LNE), 2010. Economic Valuation of 
Ecosystem Services. 
• http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/milieu economie/engelse-brochure-economische-
waardering-van-esd  
• De Nocker L., Liekens I., Broekx S., Bulc kaen D., Smets S. and Gauderis J. (not 
dated) Natte Natuur in het Schelde-estu arium – Een verkenning van de kosten en 
baten. Using a cost-benefit analysis to sele ct the optimal flood protection measures.  
VITO 
• Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Ke ttunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R., 
Gerdes H., ten Brink P. (2010) Costs and So cio-Economic Benefits associated with the 
Natura 2000 Network. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on 
Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy / 
GHK / Ecologic, Brussels  
• INBO (2010) State of Nature in Flanders , Biodiversity Indicators 2010, Report of the 
Research Institute for Natura and Forest, INBO.M.2010.3 
http://www.inbo.be/files/ bibliotheek/40/213740.pdf  
• IEEP and Alterra (2010). Re flecting environmental land us e needs into EU policy: 
preserving and enhancing the environmental be nefits of “land serv ices”: soil sealing, 
biodiversity corridors, intens ification / marginalisation of land use and permanent 
grassland. Final report to the European  Commission, DG Environment on Contract 
ENV.B.1/ETU/2008/0030. Institute for Europe an Environmental Policy / Alterra 
Wageningen UR. 
 
 181• Jacobs (2004). Environment Group Research  Report: An Economic Assessment of the 
Costs and Benefits of Natura 2000 Sites in  Scotland, 2004 Final Report, The Scottish 
Government. http://www.scotla nd.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47251/0014580.pdf  
• Liekens I., Schaafsma M., Staes J., De Nocker L., Brouwer R. en P. Meire (2009) 
Economische waarderingsstudie van ecosy steemdiensten voor MKBA. Studie in 
opdracht van LNE, Afdeling Milieu-, Natuur- en Energiebeleid, VITO, 
2009/RMA/R308. 
1.3.3 Implementation of species specific  conservation measures (UK)  
• Dickie, I., Hughes, J. and Esteban, A. ( 2006) Watched like never before: the local 
economic benefits of spectacular bird species. A report by RSPB. 
https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/watchedlikeneverbefore_tcm9-133081.pdf   
• GHK (2006) UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Prepar ing Costings for Species and Habitat 
Action Plans Costings Summary Report. Revised Report to Defra and Partners. 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/f oodfarm/reports/documents/Biodiversit
y.pdf   
• JNCC (1995) A framework for Otte r conservation in the UK: 1995-2000. 
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/pubs99_Fra meworkforOtterConservation.pdf   
• Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffeilli,  D. and White, P. (2009) Evaluating the 
cost-effectiveness of conservation:  The UK Biodiversity Action Plan,  Biological 
Conservation , Vol. 142, 12, p3120-3127.  
• Maclean, N. (2010) Silent Summer: the st ate of wildlife in Britain and Ireland, 
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.  
• Molloy, D. and Rollie, C.J. (2010). The Galloway Kite Trail: Economic impacts 
within Dumfries & Galloway. RSPB Scotland, Edinburgh.  
• Rayment and Dickie (2001) Conservation Works. RSPB. Sandy. 
• http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/Economicdeve lopment/economics/local_economies/ind
ex.asp  
• Rayment, M., Pieterse, M., Grauga ard, J. and Buisson, R. (2010) The Costs of 
Implementing the UK BAP – 2010 Update . A final report submitted by GHK to Defra.  
• RSPB (2008) Case studies as an annex to  the Parliamentary Briefing on Scotland’s 
biodiversity 
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Biodiversity AnnexRSPBScotlandCaseStudies_tcm9-
181721.pdf  
• RSPB (2010). The State of our bird s. http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/sukb2010_tcm9-
262382.pdf  
• Wildlife Trust (2009)Th e Otters are back! Natural World , Summer 2009. . 
 
 1821.3.4 Forest Fires prevention (Portugal)  
• Autoridade Florestal Nacional, 2010. Relatório Provisório de Incêndios Florestais - 
Fases Alfa, Bravo, Charlie e Delta.  Lisboa // 1 de Janeir o a 15 de Outubro de 2010. 
RP10/2010 http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/porta l/dudf/relatorios/resource/fich eiros/2010/20101015-AFN-RP10.pdf  
• Autoridade Florestal Nacional, 2007. Incêndios florestais – Relatório de 2007 . 
Relatório DFCI (Versão provisó ria – fases Bravo e Charlie). 
• Bassi, S., Kettunen, M., Kampa, E. and Cavalieri, S. (2008) Forest Fires: Causes and 
Contributing Factors to Fore st Fire Events in Europe  Study for the European 
Parliament Committee on Environment, Public  Health and Food Safety under contract 
IP/A/ENVI/FWC/2006-172/LOT1/C1/SC10. 
• GHK, 2006. Strategic Evaluation on Envi ronment and Risk Prevention Under 
Structural and Cohesion Funds for the Pe riod 2007-2013 - National Evaluation Report 
for Portugal Main Report. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources /docgener/evaluation/ pdf/evalstrat_env/pt_
main.pdf  
• Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2004. Forest Fires in Europe 2003. 
http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/fire-reports  
• Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2010. Forest Fires in Europe 2009. 
http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/fire-reports  
• Mendes, A. M. S. C., Feliciano, D., Tavares, M. and Dias, R., 2004. The Portuguese 
Forest . Country level report delivered to the EFFE Project – Eval uating Financing in 
Forestry in Europe. 
• Ministerio da Agricultura, do Desenvolvi mento Rural e das Pescas (MADRP), 2010. 
Relatório Intercalar PRODER - 1º Semestre de 2010 
• http://www.proder.pt/PresentationLayer /conteudo.aspx?menuid=1693&exmenuid=15
35 
• Pereira, H.M, Domingos, T. and Vicente, L. (eds), 2004. Portugal Millennium 
Ecosystem Assessment: State of the Assessment Report . Centro de Biologia Ambiental, 
Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa. 
• Presidência Do Conselho De Ministros, 2006. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros 
n.o 65/2006 . Diário da República—I Série-B N.o 102—26 de Maio de 2006 (page 
3511-3559) 
• Santos, F.D., K. Forbes, and R. Moita (eds) (2002) Climate Change in Portugal, 
Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures  - SIAM Project. Gradiva, Lisboa. 
 
 1831.3.5 Implementation of the IPPC Directive  
• EC (2007): EC(2007)1679 – Impact Assessm ent: Accompanying document to the 
proposal for a Directive of the European Pa rliament and of the Council on industrial 
emissions COM(2007)843 fina l, Brussels, 21/12/2007 
• EC (2010): Industrial Emissions – Preventi on and control of I ndustrial Emissions, 
website of the DG Environment, last accessed 06/12/10. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air /pollutants/stationary/index.htm 
• ENTEC (2007):Assessment of options to str eamline legislation on industrial emissions 
and analysis of the intera ctions between the IPPC Di rective and possible emission 
trading schemes for NOx and SO2, report for the European Commission, buy ENTEC 
Ltd, July 2007 
• Defra (2007): Mid-term review of th e UK’s implementation of the Pollution 
Prevention and Control Regulations, UK Depa rtment for Environment, food and Rural 
Affairs, April 2007. 
• IEEP (2006): Data gathering a nd impact assessment for a pos sible review of the IPPC 
Directive, report for the European Co mmission by IEEP, BIO, VITO, December 2006 
1.3.6 Nanotechnologies 
• BauA & VCI (2006): Exposure to Nanomate rials in Germany: Results of the 
Corporate Survey of the Federal Institute fo r Occupational Health and Safety  (BauA) 
and the Chemical Industry Association (VCI) Available at:  
• EC (2010): Nanomaterials – summary pr ovided on the European Commission DG 
Environment website, last accessed 04/11/2010, http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/chemicals/nanotech/index.htm  
• EC (2010). Budget: Budget breakdown of th e Seventh Framework Programme of the 
European Community (EC) (2007-2013) and Euratom (2007-2011) (in EUR million). 
Available from: http://cordis. europa.eu/fp7/budget_en.html   
• EC (2009) Information from Industry on A pplied Nanomaterials and their Safety – 
Background paper on options for an EU-wide reporting scheme for nanomaterials on 
the market, prepared for the European Commission DG Environment by Milieu and RPA consultants, September 2009. Available at: http://www.nanomat erialsconf.eu/   
• EC (2008): Summary of legisl ation in relation to healt h, safety and environment 
aspects of nanomaterials, regulatory re search needs and related measures – 
SEC(2008)2036 accompanying document to COM(2008) 366 final: Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials. 
• EC (2008). Regulation on Classificati on, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) 
(1272/2008/EC) 
• EC (2006). Regulation on the Registration, Ev aluation, Authorisati on and Restriction 
of Chemicals (REACH) (1907/2006/EC)  
 
 184• EC (2006): Technical Assistance for RE ACH Impact Assessment Updates – 
ENTR/05/100, produced for the European Commission DG Enterprise by Risk & 
Policy Analysts (RPA) cons ultants, December 2006.  
• EC (2005): The impact of REACH on the environment and human health, by the 
Danish Technical Institute (DHI) for DG Environment, September 2005 
• Tillinghast (2003): Asbestos: Th e current situation in Europe, by Salvator, L., Santoni, 
A., and Michaels, M. For Tillinghur st – Towers Perrin, available at: 
• Salvatori, L., Santoni, A., Michaels, D. ( undated). Asbestos: The current situation in 
Europe. Available from:  
http://www.actuaries.org/AST IN/Colloquia/Berlin/Salvato ri_Santoni_Michaels.pdf  
• Poland, C.A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Ma ynard, A., Wallace, W.A.H., Seaton, A., 
Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W. And Donaldson K. (2008) Carbon nanotubes 
introduced into the abdominal cavity of mi ce show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a 
pilot study, Nature Nanotechnology Vol. 3 pg. 423-428. 
• UBA (2010): Nanoparticle emission of sel ected products during their life cycle – 
Summary, by Dr. T. Kulbusch &  C. Nickel  for the Federal Environment Agency (Germany). Available from: http://w ww.uba.de/uba-info-medien-e/4028.html  
 
1.3.7 Application of high prevention and recycl ing targets on bio-waste in Hungary 
  
• ARCADIS, Eunomia (2010): ‘Assessment of the options to improve the management 
of bio-waste in the European Union’ 
http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/waste/compost/developments.htm  
1.3.8 Development of windrow composting as a tool to obtain landfill diversion of 
biodegradable waste for the region of Pleven in Bulgaria  
• ARCADIS and partners, ‘Pre paration of solid waste management measures in 
Pazardjik, Pleven and Vidin regions-Bulga ria’, for the Bulgarian Ministry of 
Environment and Water. 
1.3.9 Air emission reduction measures for the Port of Rijeka in Croatia 
• ARCADIS (2009),”Technical assi stance on the development of cost-efficient emission 
reduction measures for the Port of Rijeka Croatia”, prepared for the Department of 
Foreign Affairs of the Flemish Government 
 
• ARCADIS (2009), “Real environment related health costs” for the Department LNE 
of the Flemish Government 
1.3.10  Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 
• Nera & Accent (2007): Report on the bene fits of Water Framework Directive 
programmes of measures in England a nd Wales, for the UK Department for 
Environment, Food and Rural affairs (Defra) 
 
 185• EC (2006), SEC(2006)947 Commis sion Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, 
Proposal for a Directive of the Europ ean Parliament and of the Council on 
environmental quality standards in the fi eld of water policy an d amending Directive 
2000/60/EC,   http://ec.europa .eu/environment/water/water-
dangersub/pdf/sec_2006_947_en.pdf