30.3.2004 EN C 80/57 Official Journal of the European Union
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 concerning
the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE)’
(COM(2003) 667 final — 2003/0260 (COD))
(2004/C 80/16)
On 19 November 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 175(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal.
On 28 October 2003 the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Agriculture, Rural Development
and the Environment to prepare this opinion.
In view of the urgency of the matter, at its 404th plenary session held on 10 and 11 December 2003
(meeting of 10 December) the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Lutz Ribbe as
rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion by 82 votes in favour, with 1 abstention.
1. Introduction
1.1. In May 1992 Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 established
the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE). Its aim is
to contribute to the implementation and development of
Community environmental policy and legislation.
1.2. LIFE I ran from 1992 to 1995 and had a budget of
EUR 400 million (EUR 100 per annum). In the wake of its
success, Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 launched a second phase
(LIFE II) which ran from 1996 to 1999 with a total budget ofEUR 450 million (EUR 112,5 per annum). The present LIFE III
was established by Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 to run from
2000 to 2004 with a budget of EUR 640 million (EUR 128per annum).
1.3. As the relevant regulation was not adopted until
May 2000, LIFE III began more than six months late. Oneconsequence of this regrettable delay is that the recent interim
report (
1) was able to assess only partially completed measures
from LIFE III.
1.4. In the present draft regulation amending Regulation
(EC) No 1655/2000 the Commission is proposing:
— to continue LIFE III until 31.12.2006 and to provide a
total budget of EUR 317,2 million for 2005 and 2006(EUR 158,6 per annum);
(1) COM(2003) 668 final, 5.11.2003. The EESC was not asked by
the Commission for an opinion on this report but has nonethelessstudied it closely and taken its findings into account in its
comments.— to bring the regulation fully into line with the new
Financial Regulation;
— to revise the guidelines that define the priority areas for
LIFE-Environment to link them more closely to the sixth
Environment Action Programme;
— to bring out more clearly the complementarity with the
research programmes, the Structural Funds and the rural
development programmes;
— to increase the funding for accompanying measures from
5 to 6 % of the budget.
2. General comments
2.1. In its opinion on LIFE III (2) the EESC has already
underscored the importance of this instrument for the Com-
munity’s environmental policy. Both the recent interim report
and the special report of the European Court of Auditors (3)
basically support the EESC’s views.
2.2. The EESC would point out that some of the short-
comings in the administration of Community funds criticised
by the Court of Auditors cannot be laid at the door ofLIFE itself but the EU’s general finance regime. As long as the
Environment DG does not have information on which specific
projects are co-financed at Member State level with EU funds,e.g. under the Structural Fund operational programmes, therewill always be some risk of partial double financing.
(2) OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, pp. 14-19.
(3) Special report No 11/2003 on the Financial Instrument for the
Environment.
C 80/58 EN 30.3.2004 Official Journal of the European Union
2.3. EU environmental policy faces major challenges:
— Sustainable development is becoming ever more
important, including in connection with the Lisbonprocess.
— With the accession of ten new Member States, the EU and
the present and future Member States will have many
new tasks to accomplish.
— The implementation of international obligations (includ-
ing the Kyoto Protocol) requires innovative advances towhich LIFE has already made a highly positive contri-
bution, often in conjunction with businesses and organ-
ised civil society groups.
2.4. To be able to meet these challenges, it is important
that the EU should have its own — albeit relatively modest —environmental finance instrument so that it is able it to
push ahead with its efforts to develop and implement its
environmental policies.
2.5. Therefore everything possible must be done to avoid
any delay in continuing LIFE after its present phase expires at
the end of 2004. The delays of 2000 must not be repeated.
2.6. The upcoming elections to the European Parliament
and the appointment of a new European Commission at the
end of 2004 could, however, slow down the preparations for
LIFE IV next year. At the same time, the experience acquiredto date with LIFE III is insufficient for it to make a meaningfulcontribution to the revision of the programme. As a new
Community financing period starts after 2006, the EESC
endorses the Commission’s proposal to extend LIFE III until31.12.2006. In this way continuity can be ensured and 2005
used to draw up a revised blueprint for LIFE IV.
2.7. The EESC notes that the LIFE now fulfils a highly varied
and still growing number of functions. This is a clear indication
Brussels, 10 December 2003.
The President
of the European Economic and Social Committee
Roger BRIESCHthat Community environmental policy still has many short-
comings which LIFE can help to overcome. However, bearing
in mind the limited funding, the EESC considers it essential
that its tasks be concentrated.
2.8. When in due course the content of LIFE is revised,
some thought should be given to the length of future phases:
LIFE I and II ran for four years, LIFE III — with a delayed start
— for more than five years. The EESC thinks it worthconsidering aligning it on the running period of the environ-
ment action programmes which are intended to support the
environmental contribution to sustainable development.
2.9. The EESC is prepared to share its ideas on the future
shape of LIFE with the Commission. It considers that an
intensive consultation process with civil society would be
highly beneficial in the preparation of LIFE IV, so that thisexcellent and useful programme can be made even more
effective in future.
3. Specific comments
3.1. The EESC welcomes and supports the draft regulation.
Another delay in the LIFE instrument or even its abandonmentwould give out entirely the wrong signal for environment
policy.
3.2. In particular the EESC welcomes the increase in the
budget for accompanying measures from 5 to 6 %. LIFE hashad its shortcomings in the past and a failure to publicise its
successes was certainly one. In this respect the proposed
increase could be seen as a positive move.
3.3. In the EESC’S view the budget of EUR 317,2 million is
rather modest bearing in mind the many new tasks which LIFEwill be called upon to fulfil with enlargement. The Community
budgetary authorities should give a clear indication very soon
as to the size of the LIFE IV budget.