EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 12.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1541 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF 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) 1542 final} {SEC(2011) 1543 final} 
 
 
EN    EN Disclaimer : This executive summary commits only th e Commission's services involved in its 
preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the 
Commission. 
 
 2    This Impact Assessment (IA) assesses the options for managing a programme for the 
environment and climate action (LIFE) for the period 2014-2020 (suc cessor to the LIFE+ 
Programme).  
In its Communication of 29 June 2011 (the MFF Communication), th e Commission adopted 
its position, including for the LIFE Progr amme, for the next Multiannual Financial 
Framework (MFF) for 2014-2020. The main changes are:  
i)  the creation of a Climate Action sub-progr amme (€800 million over the period) with three 
priorities: mitigation, adaptation, governance and awareness;  
ii)  a better definition of the Environment sub-programme structure (€2.4 billion over the 
period): Biodiversity; Envi ronment; and Governance;  
iii)  the introduction of Integrated Projects (IP) as demonstration projects to achieve 
environmental objectives, in particular, th rough the mobilisation of other available 
national and/or EU funds. 
1. Procedural issues, consultation of int erested parties and op inion of the Impact 
Assessment Board (IAB) 
This IA has been prepared by DG Environment and DG Climate Action, with support of other 
DGs, and the European Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation. It is based on a extensive analysis and c onsultation, in particular: 
-  the LIFE programme Ex-post (1996- 2006) & Mid-term (2007-2009) evaluations;  
-  external consultants' studies:  "Combined impact assessment and ex-ante evaluation of the 
review of the LIFE+ Regulation" and "Climate Change in the future multiannual financial 
framework"; 
-  an open online consultation on 'Your Voice in Europe'; -  a consultation conducted by the Committee of  the Regions, a consultation of the LIFE 
Committee members and Member States' enviro nmental attachés, an ad-hoc stakeholder 
meeting, and two conferences.   
The overall view was that the LIFE Programme is generally performing well in environmental 
and value-added terms. There wa s vast support from all stake holders to continue LIFE and 
general support for Commission's proposals. 
The IA was submitted to the IAB on 29 July 2011. Following IAB's opinion of 13 September 
2011, the IA was modified accordingly.  
2. Current structure and performance of LIFE 
LIFE is one of the spearheads of EU environm ental funding and has financed 3,115 projects 
with a contribution of €2.7 billion.  
Under the current Regulation, thr ee types of interventions are possible: 1) action grants (78% 
of the budget) with three strands: LIFE Nature & Biodive rsity (NAT) covering at least 50% of 
the action grants budget, LIFE Environmen t Policy & Governance (ENV) and LIFE 
Information & Communication (IN F); 2) operating grants for NGOs (3% of the budget); 3) 
public procurement contracts for services an d studies (13% of the budget) and technical 
assistance to the selection, monitoring and ev aluation of LIFE projects and the Programme 
(6% of the budget). 
 
 3    The evaluations confirmed that LIFE is a succ essful instrument with  significant EU added 
value. In addition to quantified benefits esti mated at some €600 million a year, LIFE led to 
the improved conservation and restoration of so me 4.7 million hectares of land (or 6% of the 
total area of the designated Natura 2000 terrestr ial sites). LIFE also supported environmental 
improvements including for water quality over an area of approximately 3 million hectares, 
air quality affecting some 12 million people, waste reducti ons of some 300,000 tonnes and 
recycling of a further 1 million tonnes; and reduction of 1.13 million tonnes of CO 2 per year. 
LIFE has a significant role in increasing awareness, good governance and pub lic participation. 
Stakeholders consider that the Programme's flex ibility and management mode are the keys of 
its success.  
3. Problem definition and added value of EU action 
EU action is necessary as most environmental and climate problems have a crossborder nature 
and cannot be adequately solved by Member Stat es alone. Furthermore, environmental assets 
often have a public good nature and ar e unevenly distributed across the EU.  
The EU added value derives from LIFE's ability to act as a platform for exchange of practice 
and knowledge-sharing so that actors can lear n from each other's experience and address 
environmental problems more effectively. LIFE  also allows for a better distribution of 
responsibility and solid arity in preserving the EU envi ronmental common good. It acts as a 
catalyst, providing one-off investments, eliminat ing initial barriers to EU environmental and 
climate policy implementation and testing new approaches for scaling-up.  
Evaluations and consultations have also identified how to improve the design and 
functionning of the Programme, by tackling the following issues:  
- a lack of strategic approach and critical mass.  EU policy priorities are not fully reflected 
in the Programme, especially for the ENV and INF strands. If no programming changes 
are made, LIFE risks continuing funding very  good projects, but scattered across the 
acquis  with little possibility to draw lessons and disseminate them for replication in a 
particular sector and through other EU instruments; 
- the objectives for certain strands (ENV and INF) and the territorial scope need to be better 
defined. LIFE ENV should focus more on im plementation and creation of multipliers. 
Funding constraints for activities outside the EU have reduced the effectiveness of the 
Programme; 
- a need to improve complementarity a nd synergies with other EU Funds;  
- project results should be better utilised and know-how transfer improve d, especially at EU 
level.  
- a need to simplify the applicati on and selection procedures;   
- national allocations have not le d to a more balanced distribu tion of projects across the EU.  
 
4. Objectives of the future Programme 
LIFE provides solutions for achie ving environmental and climate policy specific objectives by 
contributing to policy implementation and deve lopment and promoting integration of these 
concerns into other policies.   
The general objectives of the new Programme are the following: i) to ensure a better link with 
EU policy priorities, including cl imate action, ii) to promote th e use of IP, iii) to develop 
synergies and complementarily wi th other EU Funds, iv) to pr omote the EU added value and 
solidarity/effort sharing and v) to simplify the Programme. 
 
 4    LIFE is closely linked to othe r EU funds such as Cohesion policy Funds (ESF, ERDF, CF), 
the Rural Development Fund (EAFRD) or th e European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
(EMFF). The complementarity and coherence of  LIFE with such Programmes have been 
reinforced in the MFF Communi cation. LIFE would not only c over identified gaps, but would 
also aim at establishing synergies and a structured cooperation with these funds.  
 
5. Policy options and analysis of impacts 
The budget increase decided in the MFF Communication should lead to a proportional 
increase in absolute terms of the environm ental and socio-economic impacts of LIFE to 
between €750 and €1,000 million. The most signifi cant increase regarding impacts can be 
expected on climate mitigation and adaptation, given th e increased a llocation of resources for 
climate action. The exclusion of market-rep lication eco-innovation from the Environment 
sub-programme could reduce the overall incr ease in socio-economic benefits, but these 
activities will be be tter undertaken thr ough other EU Funds.  
The options below address only those aspect s not decided by the MFF Communication.   
A. Options for strategic planni ng and allocation of resources:  
A1: Baseline- Bottom up approach for all types of projects.    
Thematic priorities would be set for th e entire programming period. Annual calls for 
proposals would continue indicating the prioriti es within those themes, but without being 
exhaustive. No limitation of the thematic areas for IP would be set. The problems identified 
under the current programming period as regard s lack of focus and difficulty to create 
critical mass in specific  sectors would remain.  
A2: Top-down approach for all types of projec ts (with more flexibl e top-down applied to 
traditional projects and a rigi d top-down applied to IP). 
The Commission would establish 2-3 year work  plans defining specific priorities, which 
would be non-exhaustive for traditional projects,  not to neglect any particular environmental 
sector, while IP would focus on priority areas.   
Assuming a 50% improvement in the least eff ective part of LIFE, and a 25% improvement 
in the second least effective quartile, this would represent an overall improvement of 19%, 
and therefore a yearly increase of €150 million of environmental benefits. 
A3: Top-down approach for IP and bottom-up approac h for all other types of interventions:  
The Commission would only appl y the top-down approach to IP in order to focus on 
specific priorities defined ex-ante for the whole programming peri od. Traditional projects 
could be submitted in all priority areas. The abse nce of a more focused approach to priority 
setting could lead to supporting projects w ith weak links to policy development and 
implementation. No adjustments during the programming period would be possible.   
 B. Options for thematic concentration of IP
 
B1: Baseline-no thematic concentration 
IP could be submitted in all priority areas where possible, namely nature, water, waste, air 
and marine, climate mitigation and adaptation.  This option would re plicate the current 
dilution problems. Traditional projects might not be financed, if LIFE is to achieve targets in all priority areas where IP are possible.  
 
 5    B2: Thematic concentration on specific sectors 
Given the limited resources of LIFE and the crit icism regarding lack of strategic focus, IP 
could concentrate on priority areas where they could work better. Two sub-options for the 
Environment sub-programme are possible: 
- Thematic concentration on 3 sect ors (nature, water and waste): it would focus the 
Programme and improve environmental benefits  (by 30-40% compared to the baseline), 
while allowing funding of traditi onal projects. Failure risks re main low since these sectors 
are the most successful under LIFE. Air and Ma rine could be partially covered by other 
sectors. 
- Thematic concentration on 4 secto rs (nature, water, waste and air): it would increase the 
link between political priorities and LIFE, a nd increase its overall so cio-economic benefits 
(up to 10% of EU's population could benefi t from improved air quality). Given limited 
resources, covering air may imply that the number of traditional projects go below the threshold or lowering targets for water and waste. For the Climate Action sub-programme, 
priorities would be sufficiently fo cused on mitigation and adaptation.  
C. Options for allocation of resour ces between different priority areas
 
C1: Baseline – the MFF Communication allocation  
Dedicated resources are one of the essentia l elements for increased focus and achieving 
critical mass in a particular area. Con centration on climate action may increase 
environmental benefits by 50% (from €135 m illion a year to €270 million). However, for 
the Environment sub-programme, if no pre-allo cation of resources is made, the NAT strand 
would lose the feature that has been partially respons ible of its success under LIFEII, III and 
LIFE+, diluting the direct environmenta l benefits provided by the strand.   
C2: The MFF Communication allocation and 50%  of the resources for Environment sub-
programme to Biodiversity  
Positive environmental impacts derived from the pre-allocation of resources to the Climate 
sub-programme will increase due to the pre- allocation of resources to Biodiversity. A 
minimum of additional €450-500 million envir onmental benefits could be expected. 
Additional benefits related to IP are difficult to quantify. This option is in line with 
stakeholders' views. 
D. Options for geographical distribu tional impacts (national allocations)  
D1: All projects selected on merit:  
All types of projects would be  selected according to merit. No geographical distribution key 
would be foreseen. The risk is that some c ountries would continue being over-represented. 
The fact that natural assets are unevenly di stributed among Member States would not be 
addressed. 
D2: All projects selected on merit bu t ensuring geographical balance for IP: 
Traditional projects would continue being sele cted on merit. For IP, a system to ensure 
geographical balance would be  established, as these pr ojects are more linked to 
development of regional or local strategies, implementation and capacity building. Member 
States which have an IP one year would be considered less favourably later on. The 
Commission would ensure the f unding of at least one IP per Member State in waste and 
nature sectors, one per transboundary river ba sin district (Danube, Rhine, etc) and two 
projects per bio-geographical region. Member States with lower administrative capacity, 
 
 6    important nature assets or hosting transbounda ry river basin distri cts would be favoured. 
The strategic programming (option A2) would a llow adjustments if one Member States has 
not received any IP.   
D3: Traditional projects selected on merit only and national allocations (specific amounts per 
MS) for IP for the whole programming period:  
Traditional projects would be se lected on merit only as in D1. For IP, a system of indicative 
national allocations would be established for each  Member State and per area. This option is 
the same as D2, but with indicative prior allocations based on environmental and climate 
needs agreed with Member States.  
E. Options on governance and awareness raising   
E1: Baseline - NGO funding, Commissi on communication activities and 
communication/dissemination obl igations for projects.  
NGO operational funding will continue as NGOs c ontribute to civil soci ety participation in 
policy development, promote implementation, and strengthen the knowledge base and awareness-raising. Project communication acti vities will be enha nced via a stronger 
strategic approach and promotion of networks of similar projects around priority themes.  
E2: NGO funding, Commission communication ac tivities, communica tion/dissemination 
obligations for projects and specific Comm unication campaigns financed through grants:  
In addition to the activities in E1, specifi c projects funded through action grants would 
support selective information pr iorities. Positive impacts of option E1 are expected to 
increase when complemented by specific information and comm unication projects.  
F. Options for simplification 
 
F1: Baseline- On-line tool s and larger projects  
A new IT tool called "eProposal" will be us ed from 2012 onwards for online applications. 
Simplifying the submission procedure could save around 20% of the bidding costs. 
Assuming an increased effectiveness of 50% fo r administrative staff and 10% for technical 
staff, e-Proposal could lead to 7 % savings. If  applying 50% gains for both, a 12% increase 
in savings could be expected. Moving to larger projects will imply a reduction in the total 
number of projects managed (f rom 230 projects selected per year to 100 by the end of the 
programming period), thereby reducing ove rheads and management costs for LIFE. 
F2: Baseline + Simplified selection proce dures and reporting: 2 stage procedure and 
simplified reporting for IP, multi-annual selection for NGOs  
A 2-step approach for the selection of IP could be introduced. Reporting and re-
programming would be based on a two years' cycle and the payment schedule adapted to 
ensure a more gradual cash flow to the pr oject. This simplificati on would reduce by 25% 
reporting costs, representing savings of  between €178.500 and €357.000 a year. As IP are 
around 5 times bigger than traditional projects, th e number of transactions could be reduced 
by 70%. A multi-annual selection for NGOs w ould reduce the admi nistrative burden of 
selection procedures by at least 50%.  
F3: Baseline + Outputs and results payments vs lu mp-sums, ineligibility of certain costs:  
More use of lump sums  (e.g. application of standard EU per-diems for travel costs, and 
standard staff costs) would simplify reporting costs. Limiting the eligibility of certain costs with difficult reporting and mon itoring (e.g. by only funding addi tional staff specifically 
 
 7    recruited for the project under pe rsonnel costs; by considerin g VAT as non-eligible) would 
simplify these procedures. This would imply a re duction in eligible costs of about 5-10% for 
VAT and 20-40% for personnel, which could di scourage potential applic ants. An increase in 
the co-financing rate could outweigh these negative impacts. 
G. Options for externalisation  
In the MFF Communication, the Commission consider ed that LIFE should  remain centrally 
managed, but management tasks could be dele gated to a large extent to an existing 
executive agency. Currently, the staff needed to manage LIFE, including external contractors and EU officials,  is approximately 125 full-time equivalent posts. The total 
administrative cost is just over €15 million. This represents 6.2% of the total annual 
Programme budget.  
G1.Full externalisation:  
The management tasks for project selecti on and monitoring, NGO operating grants, and 
communication activities would be transferred to an existing agency, for both traditional 
projects and IP. The governance,  supervision and ev aluation of LIFE would remain within 
the Commission. For technical assistance, th e two following sub-options are possible:  
- Externalisation without repl acing technical assistance: the total cost would be 6.3% of the 
Programme budget.   
- Externalisation replaci ng technical assistance: the total cost would be 6.0% of the 
Programme budget. 
G2. Hybrid solution: externalisation of traditional projects, while keeping IP within the 
Commission:  
The management of traditional projects and operating grants for NGOs would be 
externalised to an existing agency while maintaining IP for the Environment sub-programme and the Programme governance with in the Commission. The main reasons are 
to secure integration of project results into EU policy, to ensure IP are designed adequately 
and to maintain close monitoring and liaison with thematic units. The total cost is similar to option G1 (with or without re placing technical assistance). 
To summarise, the advantages of the agency op tion are: lower staff costs, same quality for 
programme implementation, communication a nd dissemination activiti es as under the 
current situation, and up to 19 pos ts freed in the Commission.  
However, there is a risk that the agency option would reduce the ability to deliver the 
desired EU added value. In particular, IP w ould require careful design in cooperation with 
the policy units of the parent DGs and close monitoring to ensure their success and the link 
with implementation, which would be weaker if  the Programme is managed by an agency.  
 
6. Comparing the options 
The options above were evaluated and compared on the basis of effectiveness, coherence and 
efficiency criteria. The preferred op tion would therefore be a Programme:  
- with thematic priorities for the entire programming period, a 2-3 year work plan with 
non exhaustive priorities, and a top-down approach for all projects (Option A2); 
- with IP focussing primarily on a limited num ber of areas (Options B2a or B2b); 
- with allocation of LIFE funds as distribut ed in the MFF Communi cation and 50% of the 
resources for the Environment sub-progr amme to biodiversity (Option C2); 
 
 8    - with a system to select "traditional" projec ts based on merit and a system to select IP 
that ensures geographica l balance (Option D2); 
- that enhances NGOs role in dissemination, a nd with enhanced appr oaches to governance 
and communication; (Option E1);   
- that introduces IT-tool mechanisms for s ubmitting proposals and a 2-step approach for 
IP with 2-year cycle reporting obligations; in creases the use of lump  sums and simplifies 
eligibility of costs by restricting the eligibil ity of some costs (a combination of Options 
F); 
- with externalisation of the management of traditional projects to an existing agency, 
while keeping the governance of the Programme as well as the management of IP of the 
Environment sub-programme w ithin the parent DGs. Based on a mid-term evaluation, 
the management of these projects could be  progressively externalised (Option G2). 
This would address the main recommendations of the LIFE Programme evaluations, i.e., 
better thematic prioritisation, simplification and good management. Synergies with other EU 
Funds would be significant, ensuring a better mu ltiplier effect. This option could generate 
around €900-1,210 million/year of environmental bene fits, and savings of  between 7-12% of 
bidding costs and 25% for reporting obligations.   
7. Monitoring and Evaluation 
The proposed monitoring framework is organi sed around two levels: the monitoring of 
outputs, results and impacts at project and Programme level; and ex penditure tracking at 
Programme level. 
Monitoring of outputs, results and impacts : 
Projects proposals will include expected outpu ts tables as a basis for monitoring progress. 
Thematic reports per area will serve as a basis for dissemination and feeding into policy. A mid-term and an ex-post evaluation of the LIFE Programme would be carried out.  
Tracking of expenditure at programme level:  
To provide evidence of the co-benefits that  both sub-programmes can bring to specific 
priorities such as climate action and biodiversity, and better illustrate the level of spending throughout LIFE for these priorities, the mo nitoring framework will also include the 
methodology for tracking climate and biodivers ity-related expenditure  as per the MFF 
Communication and derived from  the OECD "Rio markers".