22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 191/7 
3.4. The Committee feels that it would be very useful and the list of Community and non-Community 
to have a map indicating the area coverage intended, countries involved. 
Done at Brussels, 29 May 1991. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) establishing a financial instrument 
for the environment (LIFE) i1) 
(91/C 191/04) 
On 19 February 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 130S of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 
17 May 1991. The Rapporteur was Mr Roseingrave. 
At its 287th plenary session (meeting of 29 May 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. Outline of proposal 
1.1. The LIFE proposal is designed in effect to add 
a financial instrument to the regulatory approach which 
has heretofore dominated the Community's policy 
armoury in the fields of environment. It is being created 
in part to help fund environmental conservation which 
is of Community interest but is not supportable by the 
Structural Funds or other funding mechanisms. 
1.2. LIFE is proposed as a means in helping the 
Community meet the target of a 'high level of protec­
tion' specified in the Treaty via the Single European 
Act, to achieve environmental as well as economic and 
social cohesion amongst regions, and to fulfil inter­
national obligations. Specifically, the new financial 
instrument will have the objectives of helping: 
— strengthen and increase the effectiveness of adminis­
trative structures and services, 
(J) OJ No C 44, 20. 2. 1991, p. 4. — reduce and control pollution, mainly via the encour­
agement of prevention, and the use of appropriate 
technology, 
— protect sensitive areas and maintain biogenetic 
diversity, 
— provide technical and financial support in third 
countries. 
1.3. The seriousness of the environmental problems 
to be addressed, the extent to which they are of particu­
lar Community importance and interest, and the 
capacity of the country or region to contribute will be 
amongst the criteria guiding allocations from LIFE. 
1.4. Funding can take the form of part financing, 
interest and/or reimbursable subsidies, and support for 
technical assistance and studies. It can amount to 30 % 
and 50% respectively for private and public invest­
ments, but a maximum of 75 % is allowable in the case 
of biotopes or habitats of Community interest, while 
measures designed to acquire necessary information 
and provide technical assistance can (exceptionally) 
attract 100% financing. 
No C 191/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 91 
1.5. It is envisaged that the funds will support mainly 
multi-year programmes rather than individual projects, 
in a partnership framework. 
1.6. Although applications shall be prepared by the 
competent authority designated by the Member State, 
the Commission may, on its own initiative ask any legal 
or natural persons established in the Community, to 
submit applications for assistance in respect of measures 
of particular interest to the Community. 
1.7. An environment committee composed of rep­
resentatives of the Member States will advise the Com­
mission on the measures to be taken, and there is 
provision for monitoring and evaluation. 
2. Comments 
2.1. Overall 
2.1.1. The Economic and Social Committee wel­
comes the establishment of LIFE. The Committee is of 
the view that this fund will provide an important stimu­
lus for the effective implementation of policy, but only 
if it is appropriately funded. LIFE is soudly based both 
empirically and theoretically; the proposal follows an 
extensive review of existing funding sources, and 
focusses attention on dimensions of policy which need 
reinforcement, and the support of which should be 
generally consistent with the principles of subsidiarity 
and the polluter pays. Though the Committee welcomes 
the emphasis on the implementation of existing Com­
munity policy (poor implementation has been the achill-
es heel of Community environmental policies for many 
years), it considers the LIFE should be the financial 
instrument of a coherent long-term Community strat­
egy in the environmental field and therefore it rec­
ommends that the 5th action programme should be 
linked to it. 
2.1.2. It is innovative in the variety of funding mech­
anisms provided, and in the discretion allowed to the 
Commission to encourage the taking of action if such 
is not forthcoming from the authorities designated by 
the Member States. 
2.2. Funding 
2.2.1. With the exception of Envireg (regional action 
programme concerning the environment), the financial 
instruments directed at environmental activity have 
been so parsimoniously funded that they were confined 
to demonstration projects rather than supporting direct 
investment. LIFE is directed in part at correcting this 
deficiency. 2.2.2. It is proposed in 1991 and 1992 to provide 
ECU 30 million and 35 million respectively. The level 
of funding which will be provided after 1992 has not 
been specified, but the European Parliament has indi­
cated that, in the new funding arrangements, LIFE 
should be given a very high priority, achieving an 
annual budget in the order of ECU 500 million by 1995. 
2.2.3. The Committee is strongly of the view that 
the achievement of the fund's objectives requires this 
level of funding. If LIFE is to contribute substantively 
to the implementation of Community environmental 
policies, it must have the financial resources needed for 
the task. 
2.2.4. Funding initially at least should be provided 
from the Community budget, rather than form the 
proceeds of an eco-tax, such as a tax on carbon dioxide 
('greenhouse' gases). 
2.3. Priorities in fund allocation 
2.3.1. The Fund is to be expended supporting four 
objectives: strengthen administrative structures; reduce 
pollution (via improved technology etc.), protect sensi­
tive areas and biogenetic diversity; support third 
countries. Priorities and criteria will be suggested to 
an environment committee by the Commission. It is 
envisaged that priorities etc. will be specified by 30 
September; proposals will be submitted between then 
and the following March. National Committees should 
include the social partners. 
2.3.2. The Committee supports flexibility consistant 
with the principle of social and economic cohesion in 
the setting of priorities, but is of the view that little will 
be achieved if these change significantly from year to 
year. Several years of support applied in a consistent 
manner will be required to achieve lasting results. A 
programmed approach should be followed, wherein 
strategic objectives are specified, and resources are then 
applied to their attainment over a number of years, 
having regard both to the principle of subsidiarity and 
the polluter pays-principle. 
2.3.3. With regard to the attainment of objective 
number two (reduce pollution), the Committee rec­
ommends that the LIFE be allowed to finance infra­
structure which reduces pollution, and not be confined 
to the support of demonstration projects or technol­
ogies. 
2.4. Integration of ACE, Mespa, Norspa, Acnat 
2.4.1. ACE and Mespa are already in operation, and 
the other two are pending. In the medium term it is 
proposed to integrate these into a single fund, with a 
single management structure and environment com­
mittee. 
22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 191/9 
2.4.2. The Committee is of the view that, in the 
formulation and implementation of environmental pol­
icy in general, terrestrial concerns, tend to dominate 
over those of the marine. It is anxious to ensure that, 
vis-a-vis the LIFE Fund, the protection of coastal 
resources—addressed in Norspa—do not get ignored, 
and are accorded due priority in the allocations. 
2.5. Partnership and management 
2.5.1. Under Article 7, there is a commitment to 
conceive and implement the operations financed under 
LIFE in 'close consultation between the Commission, 
the Member State concerned represented by the com­
petent national, regional or local authorities designated 
by it, and the economic and social partners concerned'. 
2.5.2. Under Article 13, it is stated that 'the Com­
mission shall be assisted by an environment committee 
of an advisory nature composed of the representatives 
of the Member States and chaired by the representative 
of the Commission. A draft of measures to be under­
taken will be submitted by the Commission to the 
Committee, the Committee shall deliver its Opinion of 
the draft, and the Commission shall 'take the utmost 
account of the Opinion delivered by the Committee'. 
2.5.3. The Economic and Social Committee is con­
cerned that the commitment enshrined in Article 7 to 
consult the economic and social partners is not reflected 
operationally in Article 13. To make the process more 
transparent, the ESC recommends the organization of 
partnerships at national level in order to identify and 
recommend priorities in the allocation of funds and in 
order to follow the implementation of the programmes 
at Community level and cover sectoral and transfrontier 
problems. 
2.5.4. The Economic and Social Committee supports 
the concept of an advisory committee and recommends 
that: 
a) the environment committee should not consider the 
draft measure proposed by the Commission before 
publication of the proposal(s) in the Official 
journal; 
Done at Brussels, 29 May 1991. b) to ensure maximum transparency, the text of the 
decision of the Commission shall be published in 
the Official Journal forthwith. 
2.6. Financing 
If in the future the Community implements a Com­
munity-wide charge on pollution-related emissions, 
some of the funds generated thereby should be applied 
to support LIFE. 
2.7. Monitoring and evaluation 
2.7.1. The LIFE document makes the point that poor 
implementation of Community environmental policies 
provides an important raison d'etre for the creation 
of a fund, and will comprise a priority for support 
therefrom. 
2.7.2. The Committee recognizes that, with the 
establishment of LIFE and the European Environment 
Agency (EEA), the portfolio of Community environ­
mental policy instruments now available for the first 
time provides a basis for coherent and effective policy 
implementation and analysis. It recommends that the 
EEA—approved but not yet geographically located— 
be given a central role in assessing progress in the 
achievement of LIFE's objectives, and that the period­
ically published State of the European environment 
report have an important role in this regard. 
2.8. Studies 
The Committee is of the view that in some cases study 
will be necessary to establish priorities, to allow the 
allocation of funds to achieve maximum effect. In 
Annex I (types of measures which LIFE may support) 
it is recommended that the following be added: 'Studies 
designed to improve the quality of the decisions vis-a­
vis the allocation of funds may be commissioned as 
appropriate.' 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN